Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Packet 1998/01/20 M declara tinder penalty of perJu~ that I am employad by the City of Chula VIsta In the Office· of the City Clerk and that. I posted this Agenda/Notica on tha BulletIn B~rd at Tuesday, January 20, 1998 the Public er ices Building ~ì\1 ~;;. l;' q~ . Council Chambers 6:00 p.m. DATED SIGNED 0 '\ Pub"c Services BUlldlOg Rel!ular Meetmsz of the City of Chula Vista City Council CALL TO ORDER l. ROLL CALL: Council members Moot _, Padilla _, Rindone _' Salas _' and Mayor Horton _. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG. MOMENT OF SILENCE 3. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: December 16, 1997 and January 6, 1998. 4. SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY: a. Oath of Office: Deputy City Clerk/Records Manager - Charline Long. CONSENT CALENDAR (Items 5 through 17) The staff recommendations regarding the following items listed under the Consent Calendar will be enacted by the Council by one motion without discussion unless a Councilmember, a member of the public, or City staff requests that the item be pulled for discussion. If you wish to speak on one of these items, please fill out a "Request to Speak Form" availllble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Items pulled from the Consent Calendar will be discussed after Board and Commission Recommendations and Action Items. Items pulled by the public will be the first items of business. 5. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS: a. Letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on 1/13/98, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to he reported. It is recommended that the letter be received and filed. b. Letter from Joshua Pinpin requesting financial assistance to attend the Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge Youth Leadership Conference. It is recommended that this request be denied because, although Mr. Pin pin is a resident of Chula Vista, he attends school outside of the Chula Vista School District. 6. RESOLUTION 18863 CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998, AND REQUESTING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A MAYOR AND TWO MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL _ This resolution wiJI call the 6/2/98 General Municipal Election and will request the County Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters to conduct said election and consolidate it with the State-wide election to be held on the same day. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Clerk) Agenda -2- January 20, 1998 7. RESOLUTION 18864 AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A WILDLAND TYPE III FIRE APPARATUS FROM HAAKER FIRE EQUIPMENT THROUGH COOPERATIVE BID NUMBER 96297 WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE - The City's fiscal year 1997/98 Capital Improvement Program (PS-134) adopted in June of 1997 provides for the purchase of a Wildland Type III fire apparatus (brush fire fighting) to provide wildland fire protection for the City. The Municipal Code Section 2.56.270 and Resolution Number 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City has been invited to participate in a current County of Riverside bid from Haaker Fire Equipment which provides for substantial savings from 1997 quotes. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Fire Chief and Director of Finance) 8. RESOLUTION 18865 ACCEPTING FEDERAL LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY ACT GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,383 FOR THE PURCHASE OF LIBRARY MATERIALS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 BUDGET - The State Library has awarded the Chula Vista Library $22.383 in Major Urban Resource Library (MURL) grant funds. These funds are available to libraries serving cities with a population of 100,000 or more. The Chula Vista Public Library has qualified for and received MURL grant funds for the past eight years. Funds will be used to strengthen the Library's collection in the areas of resources for the undeserved, business and company data, materials to support literature assignments and electronic data bases in the fonn of CD/ROM products. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Library Director) 4/5th's vote required. 9. RESOLUTION 18866 APPROVING A REALLOCATION OF $8,318 IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS TO PROVIDE A MATCHING FUND CONTRIBUTION TO A COLD WEATHER SHELTER VOUCHER PROGRAM ORGANIZED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO - On 11112/97, the City received a request from the County of San Diego to support funding a Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program in the amount of $8,318. Six cities have agreed to participate in the program along with seven cities located in the Urban County. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Community Development) 10.A. RESOLUTION 18867 APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THIRD A VENUE BETWEEN "D" AND "G" STREETS ON SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1998 FOR THE CHULA VIST A DOWNTOWN HIGH SCHOOL BAND PAGEANT - The Chula Vista Downtown Business Association (DBA) requests the closure of Third Avenue for three 1998 promotional events: (I) Sweetwater Union High School District band pageant -request closure of Third Avenue from ND" Street to NG" Street between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Saturday. 4/25/98; (2) Chula Vista Third Avenue Lemon Festival scheduled for Sunday. 617/98 request closure of Third Avenue between "E" and "G" Streets from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.; (3) 36th annual Starlight Yule parade - request closure of Third Avenue between "DN and "1" Streets, "H" Street be closed between Second and Fourth Avenues and portions of intersecting streets be closed on Saturday, 12/5/98 from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Staff recommends approval of the resolutions. (Director of Community Development) ---~ - -_._-~~." - -~--,._''"- -~-----'~---'---_."'--'~-- Agenda -3- January 20, 1998 B. RESOLUTION 18868 APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRD A VENUE FROM "E" TO "G" STREETS FOR THE CHULA VISTA THIRD A VENUE LEMON FESTIV AL ON JUNE 7, 1998, WAIVING SIDEWALK SALES ORDINANCE, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIA TION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN EVENT C. RESOLUTION 18869 APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THIRD A VENUE BETWEEN "D" AND "I" STREETS, "H" STREET BETWEEN SECOND AND FOURTH A VENUES AND PORTIONS OF INTERSECTING STREETS ON SATURDAY, DECEMBER 5, 1998 FOR THE 36TH ANNUAL STARLIGHT YULE PARADE II. RESOLUTION 18870 APPROVING AN AGREEMENT WITH OTAY RANCH COMPANY, MCMILLIN COMPANIES AND PETER N. ROBERTSON FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR THE OTAY RANCH OPEN SPACE RESOURCE PRESERVE - The appraisal, in the not to exceed amount of $42,000, is necessary to determine an average per acre value for the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve in order to establish the in-Lieu fee. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Acting Director of Planning) 12. RESOLUTION 18871 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 BUDGET TO ADD 1.00 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) BUILDING INSPECTOR II POSITION AND VEHICLE; TOTAL ADDITION AL APPROPRIATION NOT TO EXCEED $42,400 THEREFORE FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE - During the adoption of the fiscal year 1997/98 budget, the Department of Building and Housing identified the possible need to unfreeze a Building Inspector II position in January 1998 in order to meet the projected workload. Counci] agreed to review unfreezing the position if the building permit revenues through the month of October projected at least $2.000,000 for the fiscal year. Staff recommends approval of the reso1ution. (Director of Building and Housing) 4/5th's vote required. 13. RESOLUTION 18872 APPROVING THE FILING OF TWO APPLICATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND DESIGNATING THE CITY ENGINEER AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS PROGRAM - In December of 1997. the Engineering Division received a letter from the Governor's Oftice of Emergency Services inviting the City to apply for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The Federal Emergency Management Agency has provided a one time opportunity to make uncommitted HMGP funds available. Staff submitted a "notice of interest" in filing an application for the Telegraph Canyon Channel Project to the Office of Emergency Services. The "notice of interest" was positively received and staff decided to submit a full application. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 14. RESOLUTION 18873 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF "TWIN OAKS A VENUE IMPROVEMENTS, FROM NAPLES STREET TO EMERSON STREET, IN THE CITY" (STL232)- On 4/15/97. Council accepted a petition, signed by 18 of the 20 property owners on Twin Oaks Avenue, for the formation of an assessment district (96-01) to construct street improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street. Council also authorized the appropriation of $180,000 from the unappropriated balance of Gas Tax funds into the Twin Oaks A venue project account. Staff recommends approval of the resolution awarding the contract to ABC Construction Company, Inc., San Diego. (Director of Public Works) ._..~.--~-~._---~~--- Agenda -4- January 20, 1998 15. RESOLUTION 18874 ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO LEKOS ELECTRIC, INCORPORATED, FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SAFETY UPGRADE PHASE III (TF240) TO MODIFY FOUR TRAFFIC SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (BONITA ROAD/WILLOW STREET, EAST "L" STREET/NACION A VENUE/TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, EAST ORANGE A VENUE/MELROSE A VENUE, AND AT THIRD A VENUE/NAPLES STREET) - The work to be done includes the installation of new or relocated traffic signal standards, loop detectors, Emergency Pre- Emption System, and other miscellaneous signal equipment necessary to make the system operational. The project will also include the removal of existing left turn indications from the center median at some locations where the signal standards have been repeatedly damaged in the past by traffic accidents. The new left turn indications will be mounted on traffic signal standards with longer mast arms. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 16. RESOLUTION 18875 APPROVING AGREEMENT WITH EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AND PACIFIC BAY HOMES TO PROVIDE FOR THE JOINT USE AND FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE TEMPORARY OTAY LAKES ROAD SEWAGE PUMP STATION AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SAID PUMP STATION - On 10/6/92, Council approved the Tentative Map for Tract 92-02, Salt Creek Ranch. It is required that the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station be upgraded to accommodate sewage flows from Salt Creek Ranch. Public Works staff has negotiated an agreement with Pacitic Bay Homes and EastLake Development to provide for the joint use and future expansion of the pump station and for its operation and maintenance on an equitable basis. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) 17. RESOLUTION 18876 AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 1997/98 BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR RECOMMENDED POSITION RECLASSIFICATION AND SPECIAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFORE During the adoption process for the current year's budget, the issue of several outstanding positions redassifications was addressed. At that time there were several remaining reclassification studies that had not been completed and there were other equity issues which needed to be resolved. Staff informed Council that these issues would be addressed so that a complete package could be presented to Council for consideration. These studies have been completed and it is recommended that the reclassifications be implemented effective the first pay period in February. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (City Manager) 4/5th's vote required. · · · END Of' CONSENT CAlÆNDAR · · . ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This is an opportunity for the general public to address the City Council on any subject matter within the Council's jurisdiction that is not an item on this age1UÚl for public discussion. (State lllw, however, generally prohibits the City Council from taking action on any issues not included on the posted agenda.) If you wish to address the Council on such a subject, please complete the "Request to Speak Under Oral Communications Form" availllble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. Those who wish to speak, please give your name and address for record purposes and follow up action. --_.._._~~-_._~--_._,,-,- Agenda -5- January 20. 1998 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND RELATED RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES The following items have been advertised and/or posted as public hearings as required by lllw. If you wish to speak to any item, please fill out the "Request to Speak Form" available in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 18. PUBLIC HEARING PCA-98-01; CONSIDERATION OF A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE ADOPTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF AN ENHANCED CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM - In response to Council referrals regarding the need for more effective code enforcement, staff is recommending the Municipal Code be revised. The proposed revisions are intended to expand the number of enforcement methods available to City departments responsible for enforcing the Municipal Code. and to create a standardized appeal procedure utilizing a hearing examiner in lieu of hearings before Council. Numerous existing sections of the Municipal Code are proposed for modification to reference these new enforcement methods and appeal procedures. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading. (Director of Building and Housing) Continued from the meeting of 121l6/97. ORDINANCE 2718 AMENDING, ADDING AND REPEALING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO IMPROVING CITY-WIDE CODE ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVENESS (first readin,,) 19. PUBLIC HEARING PCM-98-14; CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENTS TO THEEASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND EASTLAKE II PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICT PLAN - The EastLake Company has requested the following amendments to the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and EastLake II Planned Community District Regulations: (I) Change EastLake Greens Parcel R-lO Land Use District designation from RRP-8, Residential Planned Concept, to RC-10. Residential Condominium (no increase in the permitted number of dwelling units and density is proposed as part of this request); and (2) Establish a Guest House Land Use District Overlay (GH) and corresponding development standards (to allow Guest Houses as a permitted accessory use) for lots 01, 36-40, Tract 88-03 located within the EastLake Greens Parcel R-2. Staff recommends Council place the ordinance on first reading and approve the resolution. (Acting Director of Planning) ORDINANCE 2719 AMENDING SECTION II, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP OF THE EASTLAKE II PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS (first readin2) RESOLUTION 18877 APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND EASTLAKE II PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICT PLAN -""^ _.---~-",-~ Agenda -6- January 20, 1998 20. PUBLIC HEARING PCS-98-01; CONSIDERATlON OF A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISlON MAP KNOWN AS SALT CREEK RANCH NEIGHBORHOOD 5A, TRACT 98- 01, INVOLVING 61 SINGLE FAMILY AND 3 OPEN SPACE LOTS ON 9.42 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF LANE A VENUE JUST NORTH OF THE EASTLAKE BUSINESS CENTER - The applicant has submitted a tentative subdivision map known as Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood SA. Tract 98-01, in order to subdivide 9.42 acres into 61 single family and 3 open space lots. The residential lots minimum dimensions are 48' x 68' with an average lot size of 3,936 square feet. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Acting Director of Planning) RESOLUTION 18878 APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISlON MAP FOR SALT CREEK RANCH, NEIGHBORHOOD 5A, TRACT 98-01 21. PUBLIC HEARING ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY ON 2451 FAIVRE STREET, 1725 BROADWAY, 1689-1695 BROADWAY, AND 2681 MAIN STREET FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE "MAIN STREET WIDENING FROM INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD TO BROADWAY" PROJECT (ST- 961) - Portions of Main Street have been widened as development for redevelopment for parcels has occurred. This project will widen and reconstruct a segment of Main Street from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway to their ultimate width. The right-or-way acquisition consultant has made proper offers to the affected property owners of record. Negotiations to purchase the needed rights-of-way will continue. It is hoped that settlement will be reached with the owners without having to obtain a final order of condemnation from the court. Council is requested to initiate eminent domain proceedings now, in the event that negotiations with the property owners prove fruitless. Staff recommends approval of the resolution. (Director of Public Works) RESOLUTION 18879 ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IS96-03, DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE CERTAINRIGHTS-OF-WA YON 2451 FAIVRE STREET, 1725 BROADWAY, 1689-1695 BROADWAY, AND 2681 MAIN STREET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE "MAIN STREET WIDENING FROM INDUSTRIAL BOULEV ARD TO BROADWAY" PROJECT (ST -961) AND AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ACQUIRE SAID RIGHTS- OF-WAY 22. PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF SEVEN MAJOR AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT - Council previously had work sessions to discuss and develop City-wide priorities. On 9/11/97. Council completed a tinal review of the priorities and identified the seven major areas of improvement. Council received public comment and input on the proposed seven issues at a public hearing on 10/21197 and determined that additional public comment was necessary prior to tinal adoption. Prior to this meeting, Council members have madc: 13 talks to community groups and reached out to thc: community in general for input via phone, mail, fax, and the Intc:md. In addition, articles have appeared in the local paper and the Quarterly. Staff æcommends Council accept public testimony on the seven major areas of improvement and approve the resolution. (Budget Manager and Public Information Coordinator) Continued from the meeting of 1I13/98. RESOLUTION 18880 ADOPTING THE SEVEN MAJOR AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT "··.·u~___._,_._...__,..~ Agenda -7- January 20. 1998 23. PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING EXISTING AND PROPOSED RATES AND CHARGES FOR COX COMMUNICATIONS' BASIC SERVICE TIER AND ASSOCIATED EQUIPMENT AND CABLE PROGRAMMING SERVICES TIER, AS SUBMITTED BY COX COMMUNICATIONS TO THE CITY VIA FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION (FCC) FORMS 1235, 1240 AND 1205 - In December. Council considered four items from Cox Communications dealing with their Maximum Permitted Rates. One of these, reducing the Maximum Pennitted Rates for certain installations or equipment rentals, was approved by Council. The others were not approved, and the public hearing was continued. Staff recommends Council conduct the public hearing and take no further action to either endorse or deny Cox's proposed Maximum Permitted Rates, but rather preserve the opportunities to file complaints or rate orders in coming months as allowed by Federal law. (Principal Management Assistant Young) Continued from the meeting of 12/9/97. BOARD AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATIONS This is the time the City Council will consider items which have been forwarded to them for consideration by one of the City's Boards, Commissions, and/or Committees. None submi tted. ACTION ITEMS The items listed in this section of the agenda are expected to elicit substantial discussions and deliberations by the Council, staff, or members of the general public. The items will be considered individually by the Council and staffrecommendations may in certain cases be presented in the alternative. Those who wish to speak, please fill out a "Request to Speak" fom. availllble in the lobby and submit it to the City Clerk prior to the meeting. 24. REPORT USE OF THE MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982 TO FINANCE INFRASTRUCTURE - Recently. McMillin Otay Ranch and Otay Ranch Development requested the City to initiate proceedings for the establishment of Community Facilities Districts (CFDs), also known as Mello- RODS Districts, pursuant to the "Mello-RoDs Community Facilities Act of 1982, n to finance specific public improvements serving their proposed developments. Staff retained a consultant, Brown, Diven & Hentschke, based on their expertise and experience in working with the City and other agencies as bond counsel to prepare the report on the use of CFDs as a public financing mechanism with the City. The "Mello-Roos Act" requires that as a prerequisite for the use of CFDs. the City shall adopt a "statement of local goals and policies" concerning the use of the Act. Staff recommends Council accept the report and approve the resolution. (Director of Public Works) Continued from the meeting of 1I13/98. RESOLUTION 18860 ADOPTING THE CITY'S STATEMENT OF GOALS AND POLICIES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR This is the time the City Council will discuss items which have been removed from the Consent Calendar. Agenda items pulled at the request of the public will be considered prior to those pulled by Councilmembers. "- -- - - -. -,--"--_._~~_._-,...."-_.._-_..._- Agenda -8- January 20, 1998 OTHER BUSINESS 25. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT<S) a. Scheduling of meetings. 26. MAYOR'S REPORT<SI a. Ratification of appointment to the Cultural Arts Commission - Al Gore (to till vacancy created by Commissioner Pelayo, whose term expires June 30, 2001). 27. COUNCIL COMMENTS ADIOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn to (a closed session and thence to) a special joint meeting/worksession of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency on Thursday. January 22, 1998 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Conference Room, Administration Building, thence to a special joint meeting of the City Council/Sweetwater Union High School District Board of Trustees, on Thursday, February 5, 1998 at 7:00 p.m. at the Sweetwater Union High School District Office. 1130 Fifth Avenue. Rooms A & B, Chula Vista, thence to the regular City Council meeting on February 10. 1998 at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers. A joint meeting of the City Council/Redevelopment Agency will be held immediately following the City Council meeting. .- --- ~- -..---.---...-......- -------.--- - -- ------------------- , "\ declar. IInder penalty of perju~ t~at ~ am I d by the City of Chula Vista In t e Tuesday, January 20, 1998 amp :y~f tha City Clerk and that I posted Council Chambers 5:30 p.m. ~CAgende/Notice on the Bulletin B~rd at 011 Public Services Building the Publico rvi as Building aBì~? .. DATED / '/ SIGNED Citv of Chula Vista Citv Council CLOSED SESSION AGENDA Effective April 1, 1994, there have been new amendments to the Brown Act. Unless the City Attorney, the City Manager or the City Council states otherwise at this time, the Council will discuss and deliberate on the following items of business which are permitted by lllw to be the subject of a closed session discussion, and which the Council is advised should be discussed in closed session to best protect the interests of the City. The Council is required by law to return to open session, issue any reports of final action taken in closed session, and the votes taken. However, due to the typical length of time taken up by closed sessions, the videotaping will be terminated at this point in order to save costs so that the Council's return from closed session, reports of final action taken, and adjournment will not be videotaped. Nevertheless, the report of final action taken will be recorded in the minutes which will be available in the City Clerk's Office. I. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL REGARDING - Existing litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 · USA v. City of San Diego. · Wolfe v. City of Chula Vista. · Griffin v. City of Chula Vista. PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957 · City Manager CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 · Property: Approximately 8.4 acres of street frontage property located at Bonita Road, near Otay Lakes Road, adjacent to the Chula Vista Municipal Golf Course, Chula Vista. Negotiating parties: City of Chula Vista (Chris Salomone) and Deamond Development LLC; Pacitic Retail Tmst; Retail Properties Group, Ioe; and University Financial Corporation. Under negotiations: Price and terms for disposition. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATOR - Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957.6 · Agency negotiator: John Goss or designee for CVEA, WCE, POA, IAFF, Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. Employee organization: Chula Vista Employees Association (CVEA) and Western Council of Engineers (WCE), Police Officers Association (POA) and International Association of Fire Fighters (lAFF). Unrepresented employee: Executive Management, Mid-Management, and Unrepresented. 2. REPORT OF ACTIONS TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION .. __ __ __~_____m' .", .. __......_n__.__..______.._____ /' / '~/ NOt SCANNED January 15, 1998 TO: Tho Ho",,'¡", M.", '"" C'<y C""o" ~ FROM: John D. Goss, City Manager JG ~ SUBJECT: City Council Meeting ofJanuary 20, 19 8 ..4 This will transmit the agenda and related materials for the regular City Council meeting of Tuesday, January 20, 1998. Comments regarding the Written Communications are as follows: Sa. This is a letter from the City Attorney stating that to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in Closed Session on 1/13/98 in which the City Attorney participated, there were no actions taken which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT TIllS LETTER BE RECEIVED AND Fll..ED. 5b. This is a letter from Joshua Pinpin, a student at University of San Diego High School, requesting financial assistance to attend the 1998 Youth Freedom and Leadership Conference at Freedoms Foundation at Valley Forge. The Council has in the past, in connection with the criteria for funding established by Council Policy 159-02, approved the expenditure of funds for various Chula Vista students to attend this conference in exchange for presentations to City youth groups. Last year, due to the increased number of requests the City had been receiving, the amount of funding was cut from $100 to $50 per student. IT IS RECOMMENDED, HOWEVE~ THAT THIS REQUEST BE DENIED BECAUSE, ALTHOUGH MR. PINPIN IS A RESIDENT OF CHULA VISTA, HE ATTENDS SCHOOL OUTSIDE OF THE CHULA VISTA SCHOOL DISTRICT. JDT:dlt ^~,....._.- -- ---'~----- ...-- ~~~ =~~ ~~~--...: ~~~~ CllY Of CHUlA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY Date: January 14, 1998 // To: The Honorable Mayor and Cit;p:c c~ ,~~~/ From: John M. Kaheny, City Attorne ~ ~ Re: Report Regarding Actions Ta n in Closed Session for the Meeting of 1/13/98 The city Council met in Closed session on 1/13/98 to discuss City of Chula vista v. EastLake and Pacific Scene, Public Employee Appointment: city Manager and labor negotiations. The Redevelopment Agency met in Closed Session on 1/13/98 to discuss Conference with Real Property Negotiator: Price and terms for disposition-Zogob Enterprises, BFGW Group LLC and Four-Sher Dev. Inc. Price and terms for disposition-San Diego Padres Price and terms for acquisition/disposition-Pearl Development and San Diego Padres Price and terms for acquisition/disposition-Port District and San Diego Padres Price and terms for acquisition/disposition-Port District and San Diego Padres The City Attorney hereby reports to the best of his knowledge from observance of actions taken in the Closed Session in which the City Attorney participated, that there were no reportable actions which are required under the Brown Act to be reported. JMK: 19k C:\lt\clossess.no 5a--/ 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910 . (619) 691-5037 . FAX (619) 585-5612 rtb PoI.Qn¡ nerAeqdedP~ 955 Paseo Entrada Chula Vista, CA 91910 12/29/97 City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue ~ ~ ::0 Chula Vista,CA 91910 µ~ . '11 m('") (") ::Ox I '11 ~F 0- < Dear officials of Chula Vista, oJ> a '11 "T'I< - C "T'I- -V> i-:J "........ mr:.. 0 I am one of thirty-six high-school students that have been recently selected to participate in the 1998 Youth Leadership Conference at Freedom's Foundation at Valley Forge, Pennsyl,:,ania. Freedom's Foundation is dedicated to imbue within young Americans an understanding of and a commitment to our national heritage, fundamental values upon which America was constructed, the free enterprise system, and responsible citizenship. The conference at Valley Forge will involve meetings with prominent historians, educators, journalists, politicians, and economists. There will also be tours of Valley Forge National Park and historic Philadelphia. We will then travel to Washington D.C., to meet legislators and visit important national historic sites. I am a junior at University of San Diego High School. My school activities and hobbies include Pan Asian Cultural Club, Key Club, golf, and Academic League. I also participate in my church__ ~.",\ ¡;: Ir' IS. II i£ communi ty as a an altar server and a lector. I am currently -- --, æ'g;:~RlnEN COM~UNICATI~ Î.w); , ~/7~ 5Þ I enrolled in two Honor courses and one Advanced Placement course, and have a 4.1 GPA. The San Diego County Chapter of Freedoms Foundation AT Valley forge organizes, sponsors, and underwrites a substantial portion of the expenses of this trip. Students are asked to locate financial sponsors residing in our own community who are willing to support youth programs. I am required to raise a sum of $600 before the deadline of Wednesday, March 11, 1998. A donation of $50 would be very much appreciated, although any amount would be welcome. Your donation is completely tax-deductible, and any surplus over my $600 will go directly into Freedom Foundation itself. That surplus will be used to plan future events and excursions. Please call me at 482-0811 or, Marcellite Penhune at 459-7402 if you have any questions. Checks must be made to FFVF, San Diego Count::y Chapt::er and mailed to Mrs. Penhune at the address given below. Please include my name with it. Thank you so much for considering sponsoring me on this wonderful and exciting learning opportunity. Sincerely, Joshua Pinpin Marcellite Penhune ~~ Vice President, Youth Programs 6730 Muirlands Drive La Jolla, CA 92037 5b~2 _'_..._~~_._____.____.__._'___.____._..____..._' _.n__~__.~..___.__ __._ _ ___. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item & - Meeting Date 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION / 'irIšl3 CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDA Y, JUNE 2, 1998, AND REQUESTING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDA Y, JUNE 2, 1998, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A MAYOR AND TWO MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL SUBMITTED BY: Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk~o. The attached resolution will call the June 2, 1998 General Municipal Election and will request the County Board of Supervisors and Registrar of Voters to conduct said election and consolidate it with the State-wide election to be held on the same day. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the Resolution calling the June 2, 1998 municipal election. BOARDS AND COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: None applicable. DISCUSSION: The purpose for the June 2, 1998 election is to vote for a Mayor for a full term consisting of four years; and to vote for two Council members for Seat 1 and Seat 2 for full terms consisting of four years. Also included in the Resolution is the request to consolidate the election with the State-wide Election and request the services of the Registrar of Voters in conducting the election. FISCAL IMPACT: The Registrar of Voters has estimated that the election will cost approximately approximately $44,000. However, payment for this election has been deferred to the Fiscal Year 98/99 budget. attach: Resolution Iv ~ J RESOLUTION NO. ) ~!f¿' 3 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF THE HOLDING OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998, AND REQUESTING THE SAN DIEGO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS TO CONSOLIDATE THE GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION WITH THE STATEWIDE GENERAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, JUNE 2, 1998, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ELECTING A MAYOR AND TWO MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL WHEREAS, under the provisions of the laws relating to Charter cities in the State of California, a General Municipal Election shall be held on June 2, 1998 for the election of Municipal Officers. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE, DECLARE, DETERMINE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That pursuant to the requirements of the Charter, there is called and ordered to be held in the City of Chula Vista, California, on Tuesday, June 2, 1998, a General Municipal Election for the purpose of electing a Mayor for the full term of four years; and two Members of the City Council for Seat 1 and Seat 2 for the full term of four years. SECTION 2. The ballots to be used at the election shall be in form and content as required by law. SECTION 3. That the Registrar of Voters is authorized. instructed and directed to procure and furnish any and all official ballots, notices, printed matter and all supplies, equipment and paraphernalia that may be necessary in order to properly and lawfully conduct the election. SECTION 4. That the polls for the election shall be open at seven o'clock a.m. of the day of the election and shall remain open continuously from that time until eight o'clock p.m. of the same day when the polls shall be closed. SECTION 5. That in all particulars not recited in this Resolution, the election shall be held and conducted as provided by law for holding municipal elections. SECTION 6. That the San Diego County Registrar of Voters is authorized to canvass the returns of the General Municipal Election. SECTION 7. That the City of Chula Vista recognizes that costs will be incurred by the County by reason of this consolidation and agrees to reimburse the County for any costs. SECTION 8. That the City Clerk is hereby directed to file a copy of this Resolution with the San Diego County Board of Supervisors and the Registrar of Voters. SECTION 9. That the City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Resolution and enter it into the book of original Resolutions. ¿'~.:2. r If ~~ I .----------~-- Presented by: Approved as to form: Beverly A. Authelet City Clerk t~3 .-_.... -_._~-_...~,--_._-,._..._-~.-._- COUNCil AGENDA STATEMENT Item: 7 Meeting Date: 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: Resolution j Y8r ~ i Authorizing the purchase of a Wildland Type III fire apparatus from Haaker Fire Equipment through cooperative bid #96297 with the County of Riverside. SUBMITTED BY: Fire Chief ~ It:) m,e"", of F;oa"œ ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager J(1.:Q /? The City of Chula Vista FY 1997-98 Capita mprovement Program (PS-134) adopted in June of 1997, provides for the purchase of a Wildland Type III fire apparatus (brush fire fighting), to provide wildland fire protection for the City. City of Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 2.56.270 and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other government agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage. The City has been invited to participate in a current County of Riverside bid from Haaker Fire Equipment which provides for substantial savings from 1997 quotes. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the Resolution. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None DISCUSSION: Backaround The Chula Vista Fire Department does not have a Type III (Brush) engine, and the existing fleet of Type I structure protection engines are not designed, nor recommended, for off-road firefighting. In recent years, brush fires within the City limits have necessarily been fought using the City's Type I engines with some support as needed on an automatic aid basis from other neighboring jurisdictions. The City has been fortunate in that the fires which have started have been controlled quickly and have not progressed into major wildland incidents. In the event a brush fire does spread beyond the ability of the City's resources to control it, there is a standing agreement with the California Department of Forestry to provide assistance on a fee basis. With the recent annexation of the Otay Ranch, the wildland acreage within the City's boundary has increased significantly, and with that comes an inherent increase in the possibility of brush fires which are the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista to extinguish. The immediate availability of a Brush unit within the City's inventory will greatly assist in getting appropriate resources quickly to off-road locations which, in turn, will increase the likelihood of early control of a wildland fire. The Brush unit is proposed to be housed at Fire 7-/ , _._-.-----~----_.- Page 2. Item: Meeting Date: 1/20/98 Station #4 (Otay Lakes Road/Paseo Ranchero), and will be staffed by the crew of that fire station when needed for service. The City's FY 1997-98 Capital Improvement Program (PS-134) adopted in June of 1997, provides for the purchase of a Wildland Type III fire apparatus to provide wildland fire protection. $179,000 has been appropriated for this purchase. Pre-Bid Research/Criteria Establishment Since the Fire Department does not have a Type III engine in its fleet, extensive data was collected from other jurisdictions in the state which have had extensive experience with Type III engines. The information gathered, combined with the Central Garage and Fire Department historical experiences with purchasing, manufacturing and maintaining large operational vehicles. led City staff to focus and enumerate the City's needs in a number of areas: · It is important that the construction of the major components of the apparatus (chassis, body, pump) be coordinated by a single company while keeping the number of other subcontractors to an absolute minimum. Previous experiences in which major portions of a vehicle have been fabricated and installed by various manufacturers have presented significant coordination problems during the manufacturing process, and have also been problematic in the post-delivery (warranty) period . · It is important that the manufacturer have significant experience in designing and constructing brush apparatus, and that these types of units be part of a manufacturer's main product line rather than a design/build or special case order. Products which are manufactured regularly tend to be more refined and have greater design reliability and functionality. · It is important that the vehicle warranty maintenance and any repair/maintenance which is needed on the vehicle be available through a reputable facility in Southern California if not in the greater San Diego area. The operational difficulties associated with sending a front-line piece of fire apparatus out of the Southern California area for manufacturer-level maintenance or repair can be costly and highly disruptive. · It is important that the apparatus be compatible with other jurisdictions' brush units in order to facilitate field-level maintenance, if necessary, during strike team operations at incidents outside of Chula Vista. Should the Chula Vista unit break down while supporting the California Department of Forestry (CDF) at a fire in North County, for example, CDF mechanics would be equipped with parts and familiarity if the Chula Vista unit is compatible with CDF's own engines. The California Department of Forestry operates and maintains hundreds of Type III brush units, as they are the largest non-federal wildland firefighting agency in the Country. CDF maintains a research center in Davis , California which specializes in research and 7-;2. - -- - -----.-.-....-,'-.--.-..-- Page 3. Item: Meeting Date: 1/20/98 development of wildland firefighting equipment. Their "lessons learned" and perspective on brush engines and wildland firefighting were of significant help to Chula Vista staff in its research. Contact with CDF revealed that there are only two manufacturers in California which meet the state requirements for brush apparatus manufacture: one is located in the Sacramento area (Westmark), and the other manufacturer (Master Body Works) is located in South Gate (southern L.A. County). 5% of the state's inventory of brush apparatus have been manufactured by Westmark; 95% of the fleet is manufactured by Master Body Works. Westmark had the state's contract in 1995, and held it for 1 year. The most-current state bid was re-awarded to Master Body Works in 1996. Chula Vista staff talked extensively to other leading manufacturers of fire equipment which are located outside of California (Seagrave, Pierce, Boise, and E-1), as well as with Westmark and with Master Body Works. In comparing the manufacturers, some specifics of the manufacturing process and warranty/maintenance issues came to light: · While Seagrave, Pierce, E-1, and Boise can manufacture brush rigs, it is not their main focus. · Westmark manufactures a variety of fire suppression utility/support vehicles (tankers, water tenders, personnel carriers). While they do manufacture Type III engines, they do not have the capability in-house to fabricate and install the hydraulic pump and its associated hardware. Westmark subcontracts this work to another company and the pump, etc., is installed at another location. · Westmark's manufacturer-level maintenance would have to be done in Northern California, or they would have to contract with a company in Southern California to perform the work. Previous experience with this type of arrangement after the delivery of the Ladder Truck has been less than satisfactory. · Master Body Works' plant is located in South Gate, California and the manufacturer- level maintenance would be done at that location. · CDF would be able to assist with field-level repairs, if necessary, on either a Westmark engine or a Master Body Works engine. With the likelihood, however, that the Chula Vista engine would be assigned to duty in the southern half of the state, the CDF field stock of parts may not contain the full complement for a Westmark engine. Taking the results of the research done and evaluating the available options against the initial criteria established (minimization of the number of vendors involved in the process, main product line, repair facility/maintenance availability, and CDF compatibility), Master Body Works became the only manufacturer which could satisfy each of the points. Chula Vista Specifications Following the work done which identified Master Body Works as a possible manufacturer which could satisfy Chula Vista's basic criteria, staff then engaged in specific discussions 7,3 - --~- . _._-_.....~ Page 4. Item: Meeting Date: 1/20/98 with CDF and other Southern California agencies regarding specifications of Type III brush apparatus. The basic unit is taken from a specification which was initially written and approved by CDF as the basis for a sound, functional design, and which has since been incorporated into a bid for the County of Riverside. The bid is for a basic Type III engine with relatively few pieces of wildland firefighting equipment (shovels, nozzles, fittings, adapters, etc.) and few mechanical options on the engine itself. Riverside has an existing large fleet of brush apparatus and is able to outfit the engine with its tools from existing inventory. This situation allows for substantial cost savings from the overall comparative prices. Additionally, Riverside staff performed a lot of the work on the engines after delivery to mount hardware and ready the engine for operational use. Riverside has purchased six (6) wildland Type III fire engines against this bid (#96297). The Riverside cooperative bid has been available to other jurisdictions as well; the City of Brea, the City of Encinitis, Gold Ridge Fire Protection District, La Jolla Indian Reservation, Mesa Grande Indian Reservation, and the Pala Indian Reservation have taken advantage of this bid. Haaker Fire Equipment (the San Diego County dealer for Master Body Works) and Master Body Works have agreed to extend the Riverside bid price to Chula Vista. furnishing an engine in accordance with the bid specifications and accommodating Chula Vista's standardized fleet requirements. These requirements include the addition of strobe lighting, an automatic chassis lubrication system, and engine speed retarder system to conform to existing fleet apparatus; as well as various nozzles, appliances, adapters and tools which are not currently in Chula Vista's brush firefighting inventory. The complete list of additional items specified are listed in the attached table. By participating in this cooperative bid which has been extended to the City of Chula Vista until January 31, 1998, Chula Vista is able to purchase a brush unit conforming to state requirements at the December, 1996 bid price received by Riverside County. Other jurisdictions which have gone to bid separately for similar apparatus have experienced inflationary increases in both January '97 (3%), July '97 (2%), and January '98 (2.5%). Considering the total package proposed, this represents a savings to the City of over $13,300 by purchasing the unit at this time through this cooperative bid. The City of San Marcos recently purchased (7/97) a nearly identical engine from Haaker Fire Equipment/Master Body Works through the state's cooperative purchasing program. The San Marcos total price for the engine including tax and additional requirements was . $185,000. The Chula Vista modifications to the County of Riverside bid will provide Chula Vista with a "turnkey" Type III engine to be manufactured for $173,404.23 including tax. Although this is $5,509.77 less than the appropriation, a few items, such as the engine's 800 MHz radios and the intercom system will be purchasedlinstalled independently of the agreement with Haaker Fire Equipment. The final total will be less than the $179,000 originally appropriated for this project. 7-1 -_.,-"'._------,-_.~-- Page 5. Item: Meeting Date: 1/20/98 FISCAL IMPACT: The immediate fiscal impact of the recommended action is $173,404.23 which is within the available CIP Project # PS-134 fund balance of $178,914 for this unit. This apparatus is an addition to the City's fleet. The impact on the FY 1998/00 operating budget for both the Fire Department and the Public Works Department (Central Garage) is expected to be minimal, and can be absorbed after the unit is received next fiscal year. Funds to cover maintenance of the Brush unit for a full year will be budgeted for FY '99/00. Additionally, it is anticipated that the annual contributions to the Equipment Replacement Fund will need to be increased by $6,000 -$8,000 per year beginning in FY'99/00. ~ 7/};? --~~_._~..__._._---_._- g'y¿ LJ RESOLUTION NO. ) -/ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE OF A WILDLAND TYPE III FIRE APPARATUS FROM HAAKER FIRE EQUIPMENT THROUGH COOPERATIVE BID #96297 WITH THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE WHEREAS, the City of Chula vista FY 1997-98 capital Improvement Program (PS-l34) adopted in June of 1997, provides for the purchase of a Wildland Type III fire apparatus (brush fire fighting) to provide wildland fire protection for the City; and WHEREAS, Chula vista Municipal Code section 2.56.270 and Council Resolution No. 6132 authorize the Purchasing Agent to participate in cooperative bids with other governmental agencies for the purchase of materials of common usage; and WHEREAS, the City has been invited to participate in a current County of Riverside bid from Haaker Fire Equipment which provides for substantial savings from 1997 quotes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby authorize the purchase of a Wildland Type III fire apparatus from Haaker Fire Equipment through Cooperative Bid #96297 with the County of Riverside in the amount of $173,404.23. Presented by Approved as to form by James Hardiman, Fire Chief C:\rs\haaker.bid 7~6 m_.·. ____~_____._______ 1 PRICE/P ACKAGE DIFFERENCES FROM BASIC BID Basic Riverside Bid Price: $129,095.00 Items in addition to the basic bid price which are required due to changes in state or federal legislation since the bid was awarded, or as a result of Chula Vista-specific requirements, are listed below: DT 530 Package: $8389.00 This package offers: (1) an upgraded engine, ftom 230 HP to 275 HP and ftom 600 ft.lbs. of torque to 800 ft. Ibs. of torque. It has been the experience of fire jurisdictions in San Diego County that the added HP and torque are necessary for our terrain as compared to Riverside County which is much flatter; (2) Allison transmission retarder for additional braking assistance in the hilly terrain. This item is a standard of the Fire Departments current fleet of apparatus and an auxiliary braking device is mandated by NFPA 1901; (3) a larger alternator to power the light bar, VHF radios, 800 radios and future MCT; (4) an engine block heater which is also the standard of our fleet of apparatus for it keeps the engines at operating temperature while parked, which prolongs engine life; (5) the air conditioning is standard in Riverside; but with the upgraded engine, modifications are necessary in mounting for the Chula Vista unit. Whelen Strobe $3485.00 The standard of Chula Vista for its apparatus. It is much more visible in both day and night operations. Antilock Brakes $3492.00 A Federal requirement implemented since Riverside went to bid. Catalytic Converter $925.00 A Federal requirement implemented since Riverside went to bid. Vogel Chassis Lube $1000.00 Chula Vista apparatus standard. Proven to minimize mechanic's time and funds spent on suspension repairs. Mounting of Loose Equipment $1,600.00 Includes fabricating brackets and mounting loose equipment. To be done correctly, the mounting brackets should be welded and installed prior to painting. Riverside performed this work by their staff; and this cost was not included in their price for the engine. Chula Vista staff would not be able to perform this work for less cost than is offered by Master Body, and we can take advantage of their standardized fabrication of the mounting hardware. ?-? ,.....--.---....--.-.--- 2 Loose Equipment $5125.00 Chula Vista has no current brush units to transfer tools and equipment fÌom the old to the new. We must purchase all the needed tools and equipment for this unit. Map Box $350.00 A standard on all our apparatus. It will also provide mounting surfaces for radio microphones and portable radios. This work could not be done in-house at a lower cost. Two Tone Paint $375.00 A standard on all our apparatus. Hose Bed Divider $300.00 San Diego County brush rigs carry the floto pump, which can provide water fÌom any static source, pool, pond or lake, etc. This cost is for mounting the pump in the hose bed. Riverside units do not carry this pump. Compartment Door Ajar $720.00 A standard of all Chula Vista apparatus. This circuit warns the driver when any apparatus door is open. DriDeck Matting & Mounts $350.00 A standard of all our apparatus. Riverside does their own compartment protection measures after delivery. DriDeck protects the bottom of the compartment fÌom wear and tear and subsequent corrosion problems, and provides a mounting surface for the tools and equipment. In-house staff could not perform this work for a reduced cost. Extra Manuals $325.00 Bid includes one set of Master Body Works manuals. Chula Vista standards require 2 sets; one for the mechanic and one for the apparatus and its operators. Also included is a complete set of Navistar (International) manuals covering engine, transmission, chassis, wiring, etc. These, incidentally, will cover other City-owned International equipment serviced by the Central Garage. Extra 12V Receptacles $150.00 Would be used with the supplied (extra equipment) generator to power battery charger, lights or any other devices needed for emergency operations. Increased Crosslay (Hose) Size $375.00 Would increase the standard height of the hose bed to accommodate the arnount of hose needed by Chula Vista (standardized for all San Diego County brush fire apparatus). Also, 7-sY ..~-,..,--~-----"-"_.~" -- 3 with some of the hose bed space taken up by the pump, a modification had to be made in height to accommodate. FoamPro 2001 $1300.00 Model 200 1 is the newest model of foam proportioning available. It monitors foam use much the same way a gas gauge is needed in a car, and has been designed to be more user-mendly. It is new (up-graded) since Riverside went to bid. 1/4" Brake (lip) on all Shelves $250.00 This is a functional lip on the shelves which prevent items ftom sliding out of the compartment. This ulrimately prevents damage, especially in a bumpy, off-road environment. Right Side Lights $180.00 12V illumination for the operator when working the hose reel and controls at night on the right side of the apparatus. Door Logos $549.00 A standard on all our apparatus. Recent vehicles have used a new application process which is less-costly and lasts longer with less up-keep. Akron Valves for Main Pump $675.00 A standard on all our apparatus. Less maintenance, better performance, and much easier to work on when necessary. Chrome Bumper $478.00 A standard on all our apparatus. As an alternative to a painted bumper, a chrome bumper is more durable, less susceptible to scratching, and requires far-less maintenance than paint. Aluminum Wheels $1119.00 Since 1990, a standard on all our apparatus. Aluminum wheels are 2/3's lighter than steel wheels, they significantly lower the braking load necessary, and dissipate braking heat much more efficiently than steel wheels. Aluminum wheels have far-less corrosion problems, and require less maintenance. Vent Compartment $325.00 Needed to prevent gasoline vapor build-up in the compartment where gas and gas tools are stored (minimize risk of explosion and decay of robber mounts in the compartment). 7~C¡ --_._-_.._.,-.-.._-~--_....,_.,...__._-- MASTER BODY SALES & SERVICE, INC. SPECIALIZING IN CUSTOM TRUCK EQUIPMENT SINCE 1952 9824 Atlantic Avenue South Gate, CA 90280 Tel 213-564-6901 Fax 213-564-2462 MODEL #14/15 HYDROSTATIC kJOBILE ATTAC]( 7-/tJ . _._._._--~..__.._._.~--_._-_..._--,. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM f?' rnf t,S MEETING DATE 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: Resolution1iccepting federal Library Services and Technology Act grant funds in the amount of $22,383 for the purchase of library materials, appropriating funds and amending the FY 1997/98 budget SUBMITTED BY: Lib"" D;rectM0)Í' ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager J~ ~ /V (4/5ths Vote: Yes-1LNo_) The California State Library has awarded the Chula Vista Public Library $22,383 in Major Urban Resource Library (MURL) grant funds. This is the eighth consecutive year that the Library has received a MURL grant. Grant funds are available to libraries serving cities with a population of 100,000 or more and are calculated on a per-capita fonnula provided by the US Department of Education. Recipient libraries must also participate in the California Library Services Act (CLSA) database and statewide inter-library loan programs. RECOMMENDATION: That Council adopt the resolution, appropriate the funds and amend the FY 1997/98 budget. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: The Library Board, at its meeting of September 24, 1997 voted to support the Libraryls application for MURL grant funds. (ATTACHMENT A) DISCUSSION The California State Library awards these funds for the purpose of supporting and expanding library resources based on regional needs. As the Chula Vista Public Library is a city agency serving a resident population in excess of 100,000, and has met all other requirements, it has been designated a Major Urban Resource Library and is eligible to receive MURL funds. It is the Library's intent to purchase resources for the underserved, business and company data, materials to support literature assignments, and electronic data bases in the fonn of CD/ROM products. These areas were identified in a survey oflibraries in the San Diego Region and South Bay sub-region in 1996. FISCAL IMP ACT: Accepting this grant will provide $22,383 for the Chula Vista Public Library. These funds will be appropriated to account 260-2608. ~/) ATTACHMENT A Library Board of Trustees -2- September 24, 1997 C. Library Sales Tax Initiative The City Council will review the Resolution of Support of the quarter of a cent sales tax on October 7, 1997. Director Palmer suggested Trustees consider holding a town meeting to get public input as to the spending plan for the initiative. The Authority is planning to first meet on October, 16th. Soon after Thanksgiving, Municipalities will be asked to provide the Authority with their spending plans. Vice Chair Alexander suggested using the City's home page to advertise these public meetings. Instead of public meetings, it was suggested that a written survey be distributed at each facility asking patrons to list their preferences. D. Goals and Objectives Staff had expected to be able to hand out the 1997-98 Goals and Objectives, but unfortunately these are still being worked on. They will be available at the October meeting. III. NEW BUSINESS A. Higher Learning Center Director Palmer informed the Trustees that some preliminary discussion has occurred regarding a higher learning center in Chula Vista. City staff will be attending meetings on this subject and will report at the next Trustee's meeting. The City of San Jose is in the process of working with San Jose State to join the libraries of the City and the university on campus. B. MURL Grant MSUC (AlexanderNaldovinos) to support the Library's application for MURL grant funds. ~-cÀ ..-.. -...- _u. - -"--_._------ RESOLUTION NO. / J:r3'i5' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING FEDERAL LIBRARY SERVICES AND TECHNOLOGY ACT GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,383 FOR THE PURCHASE OF LIBRARY MATERIALS, APPROPRIATING FUNDS AND AMENDING THE FY 1997-98 BUDGET WHEREAS, for the eight consecutive yea~, the California State Library has approved the Chula vista Public Library's application for Major Urban Resource Library (MURL) funds; and WHEREAS, said funds are available to libraries serving cities having a population of 100,000 or more and are calculated on a per-capita formula provided by the united States Department of Education; and WHEREAS, recipient libraries must also participate in the California Library Services Act (CLSA) database and statewide inter-library loan programs; and WHEREAS, the Library Board, at its meeting of September 24, 1997, voted to support the Library's application for MURL grant funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the city Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby accept Federal Library Services and Technology Act grant funds in the amount of $22,383 for the purchase of library materials. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the FY 1997/98 budget is hereby amended by appropriating $22,383 to Fund 260-2608. Presented by Approved as to form by David Palmer, Library Director C:\rs\lIlUrl 5š~3 ... -_._--+~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 9 Meeting Date 1120198 ITEM TITLE: RESOLUTION ) ?l y¿ t APPROVING A REALLOCATION OF $8,318 IN COMMUNITY OEVElOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (COBG) FUNOS TO PROVIDE A MATCHING FUNO CONTRIBUTION TO A COLO WEATHER SHElTER VOUCHER PROGRAM ORGANIZED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN OIEGO SUBMITTED BY: C.mm.mty D....p~"t o;re~ <; , REVIEWED BY: C", M~.~, JG1 ~ _ 1415ths Vote: YesJl No~ BACKGROUND: On November 12, 1997 the County of San Oiego Board of Supervisors approved a funding program for a Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program for families with children, the disabled and the elderly, as an emergency response to the severe EI Niño weather expected this year. The program will require $300,000 to support shelter vouchers, case management, and outreach to these special needs populations. The County will contract with the Catholic Charities of San Diego to provide the services. While actual facility shelters will still be needed, this program will provide an additional resource to shelter homeless families from the entire region in available hotel/motel rooms on an emergency basis this winter. Also at the November 12, 1997 meeting, the Board authorized the Chief Administrative Office to request matching fund contributions from all Community Oevelopment Block Grant (COBG) entitlement cities in the region to participate in this program. This regional effort would increase the size and scope of the program and make it a truly regional partnership. Half of the funding required to meet this need, or $150,000, will be provided by the County Health Oepartment. The remaining $150,000 is predicted to come from "fair share" COBG contributions from the County COBG entitlement and the eleven other COBG entitlement cities within the County. The County's fair share will be an additional $26,647. The City of Chula Vista's share will be $8,318. This amount is calculated on the basis of the relationship of each agency's COBG entitlement to the grand total of all COBG entitlements within the County. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the resolution authorizing the expenditure of $8,318 in Community Oevelopment Block Grant (CDBG) funds for the Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program. BOARDSICOMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. 9-) .. ---'---""-'--'._~ Page 2. Item ~ Meeting Date 1/20/98 DISCUSSION: Because of developing EI Niño weather conditions, this winter is predicted to be colder and wetter than normal; more homeless than usual may require cold weather shelter. It is estimated that a budget of $300,000 could provide shelter for the winter season for about 100 families and/or individuals per night. The Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program will be administered through Catholic Charities. This organization has received funding support through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for 11 years and receives $130,000 in voucher funding on an annual basis. Catholic Charities has invited agencies from the South Bay to participate in the program, including South Bay Community Services, MAAC Project, Lutheran Social Services - Project Hand, and the Salvation Army. A training meeting has been scheduled for January 12, 1998 for the agencies to sign·up and receive literature on the program. The primary function of the Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program is for the local agencies, known as case management agencies, to refer homeless families to a participating hotel/motel. Depending upon the financial condition of the families, a hotel/motel stay can be arranged for up to two weeks. The hotel/motel owners will invoice Catholic Charities for reimbursement. Catholic Charities is encouraging the local agencies who will be participating in the program to establish a relationship with the local hotel/motel owners. The City of Chula Vista's share toward the program was estimated at $8,318. 'The funds are available from the 1996-97 program year in the amount of $6,000 from Episcopal Community Services Education Outreach program and $2,000 from the AIDS Foundation. Both programs ceased operations and did not expend any funds. In addition, $318 will be expended from the FY 1997/98 Happy Child Program. Happy Child was unable to secure additional funds for their program and declined receipt of CDBG funds. The following cities have agreed to participate in the Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program: ParticipatIng Jurisdiction Matching Contribution Carlsbad $2,480 Chula Vista $8,318 Encinitas $2,412 Escondida $6,861 National City $5,878 Oceanside $7,752 San Diego $74.942 Urban County: 2 $26.647 Coronado Del Mar Imperial Beach Lemon Grove Poway San Marcos Solana Beach EI Cajon La Mesa $0 Santee Vista 1 The requested contributions were calculated based on the entire COBS entitlement of $37.373.000 received throughout the cities and County of San Diego. Chula Vista's received a 1997·9B entitlement of $2.073.000 ($2.073.000 + $37.373.000 - 0.0554 x $2,073.000 - $B,318). 2 These cities receive their COBG entitlement through the County of San Diego since their population is below the threshold of 50,000 which is the qualifying population to become an entitlement community. ~ -" c2 .--,,- Page 3. Item L Meeting Date 1120/98 FISCAL IMPACT: The $8.318 contribution to the Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program is available from the 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant entitlement and will not impact the Public Service category expenditures for program year 1997-98. In addition. this contribution is on a one·time basis. (JFI H:\HOMElCOMMOEV\STAFF.REPIOl-20-98\VOUCHER.PGM [Janu.,,! 13. 1998 (4:50pmll 9~3 _'.__'m'__..._'._. RESOLUTION NO. 12"~th RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING A REALLOCATION OF $8,318 IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDS TO PROVIDE A MATCHING FUND CONTRIBUTION TO A COLD WEATHER SHELTER VOUCHER PROGRAM ORGANIZED BY THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO WHEREAS, ; and on November 12, 1997 the County Board of Supervisors approved funding a Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program for homeless families; and WHEREAS, the County of San Diego requested the City of Chula Vista to contribute a portion of CDBG funds in support of the Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program; and WHEREAS, funds in the amount of $8,318 have been identified to support the Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program from 1996-97 CDBG entitlement funds; and WHEREAS, the County shall be responsible for all CDBG reporting and compliance issues related to the program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, order, determine and resolve to approve: 1) reallocation of $8,318 in 1996-97 Community Development Block Grant funds to support a Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program to assist homeless families organized by the County of San Diego; and 2) payment of such funds directly to the County for such purpose. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ ~~- Chris Salomone Director of Community Development [(JF) M:\HOME\CQMMDEV\RESOS\VOUCHER.RES (January 13,1998 (4:44pm)] 1-1 -- "- ---~ .~ . . , ·Í"t . . QIouut~ 0'£ ~au ~í.eBO' 4'oj/ . ¡ /,9 LAWRENCE B. PRIOR III CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER (619) 531-6226 CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER FAX; (619) 557-4060 1600 PACIFIC HIGHWAY. SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92101-2472 November 12,1997 John Goss, City Manager City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Ave. Chula Vista, California 91910 Dear Mr. Goss: Today the Board of Supervisors approved a Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program for families with children, the disabled and the elderly, as an emergency response to the severe El Nino weather expected this year. With this action the County comnúts $176,647 to support shelter vouchers, case management, and outreach to these special needs populations. The County will amend an existing contract with Catholic Charities of San Diego to provide these selVices. While actual facility shelters will still be needed, this program will provide an additional resource to shelter homeless families ITOm the entire region in ayailable hotel/motel rooms on an emergency basis this winter. Also at the November 12 meeting, the Board authorized me to request matching fund contributions ITom all Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement cities in the region, to increase the size and scope of the program and make it a truly regional partnership. Half of the funding we believe is required to meet this need, or $150,000, will be provided by the County Health Department. We beliève the remaining $150,000 should corne from "fair share" CDBG contributions ITom the County CDBG entitlement and the eleyen other CDBG entitlement cities within the County. The County's fair share will be an additional $26,647. Your city's share will be $8,318. We calculated those shares on the basis of the relationship of each agency's CDBG entitlement to the grand total of all CDBG entitlements within the County (See Table 1 following the attached Board Letter), and applied the resulting percentages to the additional $150,000 needed. The County is seeking the support of all the cities in this effort, however modest the allocations may be. We invite your participation! The Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program will selVe those most in need of shelter ITom all the region's jurisdictions. The Board of Supervisors believes that the long term solution to meeting the region's emergency shelter needs is a coordinated approach and shared 9~~ û ......,,·'..1 ""'''~ ...'.-.1 p.'I"'~ ----< ~.,._.,-".._..~.- .- ---.- ) .> I 1 , John Goss, City Manager Page 2 November 12, 1997 . I financial Participation ITom all the region's agencies. We hope your City Council will consider this issue and contribute toward the solution of a regional problem. EncJosed is a copy of the November 12 Board Letter outlining the voucher program. Questions or comments may be addressed to the County Department of Housing and Community Development, Edward Baker, Director at (619) 694-4885 or Stan Coombs (619) 694-4818. Sincerely ~B t~w LAWRENCEB. PRIOR III Chief Administrative Officer " EncJosure "'F~-;"",,,,x->,,,,,~,::,,__,__, . ..................... .........~. ¡¡¡',:~¡nH4!§14¡¡¡¡iì.m:!Jji¡¡¡¡¡ì!Ri~'8.~, "," .', .' , , ! , I , , I r ! , 9~?' .... COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS GREG COX FirslDisttict CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE DIANNE JACOB Second District AGENDA ITEM ì PAM SLATER Third Distrìct RON ROBERTS Fourth Distrid BilL HORN FifthDistñct DATE: November 12,1997 TO: Board of Supervisors SUBJECT: Emergency Response to El Nino: Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program for Families with Children, Disabled, and Elderly. (policy A-128) (All Districls) SUMMARY: Overview Tills action will approve and partially fund a cold weather shelter voucher program to be administered by Catholic Charities of San Diego to provide temporary emergency shelter in hotels and motels for special needs groups during the 1997-98 winter season. Funding from cities within the County will also be sought. Recommendation CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER: 1. Authorize and approve the allocation of up to $150,000 from the Community Services Block Grant Program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families or General Relief Savings, to the extent eligible for a Voucher Program to be administered by Catholic Charities of San Diego for emergency housing for special needs populations during the 1997-98 winter season. 2. Approve and authorize the allocation of $26,647 from the Community Development Block Grant, Housing Development Fund, to the Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program. 3. Cancel appropriations and related revenue of$26, 647 from the Department of Housing and Community Development. 4. Establish appropriations and revenues of $26, 647 in the Health and Human Services Agency, Community Action Partnersillp Bureau for the Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program. 5. Authorize the Cillef Administrative Officer to request matching funds from all entitlement cities within the County and to execute any necessary contracls to utilize funds. 6. Authorize the Chief Administrative Officer (or his designee) to amend the existing contract with Catholic Charities, as required, to administer the Cold Weather Shelter Voucher program for the winter season, 1997-98. Fiscal Impact Health and Human S~rvices Agency: These funds are budgeted. If approved, this action will result in the expenditure of up to $150,000 from various Health and Human Services Agency funds and $26,647 from Housing and Community Development funds. This request will result in a one time expenditure with no annual costs, and no additional staff years. 9~? '-. SUBJECT: Emergency Response to EI Nino: Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program for Families with Children, Disabled, and Elderly. (Policy A-128) (All Districts) Fiscal Impact Statement (Continued) II Housing artd Community Development Department: These funds are budgeted. If approved, this action will transfer appropriations and revenues of $26, 647 from Housing and Community Development to Health and Human Services Agency, Community Action Partnership Bureau. BACKGROUND: Because of developing EI Nino weather conditions, the winter of 1997-98 is predicted to be colder and wetter than normal; more homeless than usual may require cold weather shelter. Board Policy A-128, the Comprehensive Homeless Policy, assigns the highest priority for available homeless assistance funds to the needs of vulnerable populations such as women and children, the disabled and the elderly. The program outlined here would provide vouchers in hotels and motels. The vouchers would be administered, and the clients case managed, by Catholic Charities of San Diego which will also do outreach to the homeless. It is estimated that a budget of $300,000 could proyide shelter for the winter season for about 100 families/individuals per night. Funds ayailable from the Community Services Block Grant Program, Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (to the extent eligible) or General Relief savings, will provide half of the needed funding. The second half of the funding could be obtained by small contributions from all the region's cities in proportion to their annual Community Development Block Grant allocation. Contributions would be as small as about $2,000 from the City of Santee and as large as about $75,000 from the City of San Diego. The County contribution of $26,647 from the Housing Development Fund of the Department of Housing I and Community Development would cover the allocation of the Urban County. (See Table I attached). Such a fair share contribution would make the cold weather shelter voucher program truly regional in nature and would allow all the cities to refer clients to this program. Emergency winter shelters meet vital needs during the winter season. However, the facilities and programs are often inadequate to meet the needs of women with children, the disabled or the elderly. For these populations, the individual vouchering system meets emergency needs in a safer environment. Emergency shelter plans to meet EI Nino conditions include North County shelters in Escondido and Vista with about 100 person capacity each. Those cities haye made contributions to those shelters (probably the local armory) and the County allocation of $60,000 from the California Department of Housing and Community Development will be split between those two shelters. Non profit operators have been chosen for each shelter, and the County will provide health and social services. (Board Letter of 11/4/97). The City of San Diego is completing plans for its 1997-98 shelter operations. A collaborative of community organizations will administer the program; the County will provide health and social services. There are no specific plans in South County or East County for emergency shelters although social service agencies in both subregions administer emergency housing programs within existing facilities. i 92--~ :ru.J.L.'--". t:mergency Kesponse to EI Nino: Cold Weather Shelter Voucher Program ,..., f-n'IIÌles "''Ilh Children, Disabled, and Elderly. (Policy A-128) (All Districts) ~¡- .j' SUPV. DIST.: All COUNTY COUNSEL APPROVAL: Form and Legality [ ]Yes I[X] N/A [ ] Standard Form [ ] Ordinance [ ] Resolution /I . CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER/AUDITOR REVIEW: [ ]N/A ?M~~-~7 4 VOTES: [ ] Yes [X] No CONTRACT REVIEW PANEL: [ ] Approved [X] N/A CONTRACT NUMBER(S): N/A PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: A-128 Comprehensive Homeless Policy, 4/8/97 (16) BOARD POLICIES APPLICABLE: N/A CONCURRENCE(S): ORIGINATING DEPARTMENTS: HeaIth and Human Services Agency and Department of Housing and Community Development CONTACT PERSON: Kathy Warburton 515 (s29) 6573 MS P501 Stan Coombs 694 (s55) 4818 MS 0231 ~ûß~t ~ November 12 ]997 DEPARTMENT AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES MEETING DATE I 9~1 ,~OUCHER PROGRAM ALLOCATION PROPORTIONATE TO BLOCK GRANT AWARD / " " JURISDICTION CDBG Percent Allocation \ Carls bad $618,000 0.0165 $2,480 _S [Æff 0.05541 " srkfP' Chula Vista $2,073,000 $8,318 EI Cajon $1,395,000 0.0373/ $5,597 AJ, Encinitas $601,000 0.01611 $2,412 ; Escondido $1,710,000 0.04571 $6,861 ~ La Mesa $607,000 0.01621 $2,436 ~, National City $1,465,000 0.03911 $5,878 ~ Oceanside $1,932,000 0.05161 $7.752 S San Diego $18,677.000 0.4996/ $74,942 S- Santee $474,000 0.01291 $1,942 ":¡e Vista $1,180,000 0.03151 $4,735 ~.. '.',,';.-.,. ,,,.\ " ,,\~ URBAN COUNTY: $6,641,000 0.177S[ $26,647 Coronado I Del Mar I Imperial Beach I Lemon Grove I Poway I San Marcos I Solana Beach I ~1'~«'-'-~~1f¡Ð1 .'-'~~'iItt _~'. 1: ~'<::': ~~" ,- f.~~.....;.:;.~ TOTALS $37,373,000 I $150,000 Û/'lI~ . / ~ ~W' i TABLE 1 9~/o "_,._.,.______..._.._n COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /v Meeting Date 01-20-98 ITEM TITLE: a) RESOLUTION / g¿r¿, ') APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRO AVENUE FROM "0" TO "G" STREETS FOR THE CHULA VISTA OOWNTOWN HIGH SCHOOL BANO PAGEANT ON APRIL 25, 1998 b) RESOLUTION / flfl ~ r APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRO AVENUE FROM "E" TO "G" STREETS FOR THE CHULA VISTA THIRO AVENUE LEMON FESTIVAL ON JUNE 7, 1998, WAIVING SIDEWALK SALES ORDINANCE, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN EVENT c) RESOLUTION /f58"'k c¡ APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN "D" AND "I" STREETS, "H" STREET BETWEEN SECOND AND FOURTH AVENUES AND PORTIONS OF INTERSECTING STREETS ON DECEMBER 5, 1998 FOR THE 36TH ANNUAL STARLIGHT YULE PARADE SUBMITTED BY: C.~..., D....."'.", D;~ S , REVIEWED BY: W, M..,,,, JCj ~ J (4/5ths Vote: Yes_ NoX) BACKGROUND: The Sweetwater Union High School District requests the closure of Third Avenue to conduct a band pageant and the Chula Vista Downtown Business Association (DBA) requests the closure of Third Avenue for two 1998 promotional events. The first event is the Sweetwater Union High School District's 1998 Band Pageant which will include at least 36 high school bands. It is requested that Third Avenue be closed from "D" Street to "G" Street between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 a.m. on Saturday, April 25, 1998. The second event is the Chula Vista Third Avenue Lemon Festival scheduled for Sunday, June 7, 1998. It is requested that Third Avenue be closed between "E" and "G" Streets from 6:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Festival activities will include live entertainment along with approximately 150 to 200 arts, crafts, and food booths. The third event is the 36th annual Starlight Yule parade. The DBA requests that Third Avenue be closed between "D" and "I" Streets, "H" Street be closed between Second and Fourth Avenues and portions of intersecting streets be closed on Saturday, December 5, 1998 from 3:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. to accommodate the parade. The street closures have been coordinated with staff from Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Transit, Engineering, and the Police and Fire Departments and the City's Risk Manager. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the resolutions: 1) approving the closure of Third Avenue from "D" to "G" Streets on April 25, 1998 for the Sweetwater Union High School District's 1998 /¿7-! Page 2, Item ~ Meeting Date 01-20-98 Band Pageant, subject to conditions listed in Exhibit A of the resolution; 2) approving the closure of Third Avenue from "E" to "G" Streets and adjacent side streets to the alleyway on June 7, 1998 for the 1998 Chula Vista Third Avenue lemon Festival, subject to conditions listed in Attachment I of the resolution, waiving the City's sidewalk sales ordinance, and, waiving business license taxes for the DBA and vendors taking part in the event; and 3) approving the closure of Third Avenue between "D" and "I" Streets, "H" Street between Second and Fourth Avenues, and other east·west streets that intersect Third Avenue between "D" and "I" Streets on Saturday, December 5, 1998 for the 36th annual Starlight Yule parade subject to conditions listed in Exhibit No. 1 of the resolution. BOARDSICOMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On December 2, 1997 the DBA Board voted to support the Sweetwater Union High School Band Pageant proposed to be held on Third Avenue April 25, 1998. DISCUSSION: ADril 25. 1998 . Chula Vista Downtown Hioh School Band Paaeant last year, the Sweetwater Union High School District initiated a band pageant for high school bands to qualify for major upcoming school band competitions throughout the region and state. The District would like to conduct the pageant annually and have selected Third Avenue in Downtown Chula Vista between E Street and the Memorial Bowl as the pageant site. Band entrants will meet and stage on Third Avenue from D and E Streets and the pageant will begin at 8:00 a.m. Depending on the number of participants, the activity should finish about 10 a.m. Currently, 36 bands have committed to this event. Since the pageant is a sanctioned band review, it will include a judges stand located on the route. The DBA Board voted to recommend that the pageant be held in the downtown. Families and friends of the participating band members attending the function will be exposed to the Downtown commercial district and the Chula Vista Community. June 7. 1998 . Chula Vista Third Avenue lemon Festival The DBA is requesting the following for the 1998 lemon Festival: · The closure of Third Avenue between "E" and "G" Streets on Sunday, June 7, 1998 from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m.; and, · A waiver of sidewalk sales ordinances; and, · A waiver of business license taxes for DBA and vendors taking part in the event. J ¿) .-- c2. Page 3. Item /() Meeting Date 01-20-98 The closure of Third Avenue will affect the flow of traffic in the downtown area. The DBA will be required to coordinate with the City's Traffic Engineer and prepare a traffic control plan to the Traffic Engineer's specifications. The City's transit system also will be affected. The Transit Coordinator's staff has agreed to the closure as long as "E" and "G" Streets remain passable for traffic. The DBA is aware of this stipulation and will abide by it. In order to control noise levels and avoid excessive noise, the DBA has agreed to limiting the hours of band performances and monitoring locations and noise levels of live entertainment (see Attachment I, Condition #4). The DBA has requested that the business license tax for promotional events be waived for the Festival. The taxes involved include a $5 assessment to the sponsoring organization (DBA) and a requirement that each vendor have a Chula Vista business license. (The cost would be $12.50 for any vendor without a current City business license.) In the past. the City has waived the business license tax for the DBA and vendors taking part in the one day event in order to encourage participation. The rationale for waiving the fee is that the Festival is expected to attract several thousand people to the Chula Vista Downtown area which will promote the downtown businesses. The resulting effect will be the generation of additional commercial activity and increased sales tax revenue to the City. Waiving the business license taxes will encourage vendor participation. Since having a large number of vendors will help ensure the success of the 1998 Festival, staff recommends the waiver. It is recommended that the City Council approve the street closure for the Chula Vista Third Avenue lemon Festival subject to conditions listed in Attachment I of the resolution. December 5. 1998 . Starliaht Yule Parade The DBA is requesting the closure of Third Avenue between "0" and "I" Streets and "H" Street between Second and Fourth Avenues. The parade route will be along Third Avenue between "E" and "H" Street between Second and Fourth Avenues. Third Avenue from "H" to "I" Streets will be used for pre·parade staging and Third Avenue north of "E" Street will be used for bus parking and parade debarkation. All other east·west streets that intersect Third Avenue between "0" and "I" Streets will be closed at the nearest point of detour to Third Avenue. Second and Fourth Avenue will remain open to traffic at all times during the event. Chula Vista and San Diego Transit buses will continue to run during the street closure, but, they will run on advertised detour routes. The parade is scheduled to begin at 5:30 p.m. and will end no later than 9:00 p.m. Street closures will be staggered and will begin around 3:00 p.m. when staging for the parade is planned to begin. /t?~3 _._-,~.......- Page 4. Item I () Meeting Date 01-20-98 The DBA will be required to send notices to all businesses and residences located along the street route. Other conditions of approval include provisions for insurance, a Hold Harmless Agreement, sanitary systems, and posting of no parking signs. It is recommended that the City Council approve the street closure for the Starlight Yule Parade subject to conditions listed in Exhibit No. 1 of the resolution. FISCAL IMPACT: The City will incur the administrative costs of processing this request. The Sweetwater Union High School District requests staff service assistance for the 1998 band pageant. The DBA has requested that the business license taxes be waived for the lemon Festival. The taxes involved are a fee of $5 to the sponsoring organization (DBA) and a $12.50 tax for each participating vendor that does not currently have a Chula Vista business license. By waiving these taxes, the City will forego approximately $900 in fees. On March 27, 1997, the City Council approved a budget to provide public services for the 1998 lemon Festival. The City Council will consider a request for public services for the parade during the 1998·99 budget sessions. City staff services for each event includes: Police services for crowd control and traffic control $3,100 Parks personnel trash clean·up 240 City portable stage, P A system, folding chairs, delivery set· up, removal 270 Public Works barricades, traffic control equipment, delivery & removal 1.400 TOTAL FOR ONE EVENT $5,010 GRAND TOTAL (3 events - staff service value) $15,030 (PBI H:\HOMEICOMMDEV\STAFF.REP\1/20/98\close3rd.ave ¡January 14. 1998 15:32pmU 1"'31 r :;øø ~~ /¿;J-Y RESOLUTION NO. /Y'YIø7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AND APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THIRD AVENUE BETWEEN "D" AND "G" STREETS ON SATURDAY, APRIL 25, 1998 FOR THE CHULA VISTA DOWNTOWN HIGH SCHOOL BAND PAGEANT WHEREAS, the Sweetwater Union High School District has requested the temporary closure of Third Avenue between "D" and "G" Streets to conduct the Chula Vista Downtown High School Band pageant on April 25, 1998, subject to conditions set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference; and WHEREAS, the City Council encourages public and quasi public activities that will be mutually beneficial to the Chula Vista Community and the Chula Vista Downtown. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the closure of Third Avenue between "D" and "G" Streets on Saturday, April 25, 1998, for the Chula Vista Downtown High School Band Pageant subject to conditions listed in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (j;: Approved as to form by ~, "- Chris Salomone Director of Community Development [(yg) H:\HOME\COMMDEV\RESOS\dthsband.pag(January 14, 1998 (4:45pm)] /d/J -¡ EXHIBIT A CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CHULA VISTA DOWNTOWN HIGH SCHOOL BAND PAGEANT I. The Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) shall provide for adequate traffic and crowd control, as determined by the City's Traffic Engineer and Police Department. 2. The SUHSD shall provide adequate litter control during and after the event. 3. The SUHSD shall notify all property owners and tenants (including businesses and residents) that will be affected by the street closure. The notification must be sent by first class mail at least seven days prior to the event date. 4. No band performance shall begin before 8 a.m. 5. The SUHSD must provide, 10 days prior to the band pageant, evidence of general liability insurance in the amount of $1 million, in the form of a certificate of insurance and policy endorsement satisfactory to the city, naming the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency as additional insured. 6. SUHSD shall submit proof of insurance for all participants in the event and in a form that meets approval of the City of Chula Vista Risk Manager. 7. The SUHSD must execute an agreement to hold the City and Redevelopment Agency harmless from any liability resulting from the subject Band Pageant activities. 8. The SUHSD shall provide and post "No Parking" signs in a form acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer, along the band pageant route. Posting must take place a minimum of forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the effective time. /¿J/1--2 HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT between CITY OF CHULA VISTA and SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT for 1998 CHULA VISTA DOWNTOWN BAND PAGEANT The Sweetwater Union High School District (SUHSD) shall defend, indemnify and hold hannless the City of Chula Vista (the City), its agents, elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including, without limitation, attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct of the SUHSD, or any agent, officer employee, subcontractor, or other person acting on behalf of the Downtown Business Association in connection with the 1998 CHULA VISTA DOWNTOWN BAND PAGEANT, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City or Redevelopment Agency, its agents, officers, or employees. The SUHSD indemnification shall include any and all costs incurred by the City or Redevelopment Agency, its agents, officers or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, the SUHSD at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City or Redevelopment Agency, defend any such suit or action brought against the City or Redevelopment Agency, its agents, officers, or employees. The SUHSD's indemnification of the City and Redevelopment Agency shall not be limited by any prior subsequent declaration by the SUHSD. Executed this day of 19_ in the City of Chula Vista, California. SWEETWATER UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT By: Barry Dragon, Chief Financial Officer APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney /ðl'7 ~3 RESOLUTION NO. /8''i!¿,¡ç' CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING CLOSURE OF THIRD A VENUE FROM "E" TO "G" STREETS FOR THE CHULA VISTA THIRD AVENUE LEMON FESTIVAL ON JUNE 7, 1998, WAIVING SIDEWALK SALES ORDINANCE, AND WAIVING BUSINESS LICENSE TAXES FOR DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND VENDORS PARTICIPATING IN EVENT WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista established a Business Improvement Area on Noyember 16, 1971 which created the Chula Vista Downtown Business Association ("DBA"); and WHEREAS, the DBA has requested to close Third Ayenue from "E" to "G" Streets including adjacent side streets to the alleyway in order to conduct the 1998 Chula Vista Third Avenue Lemon Festival on June 7, 1998; and WHEREAS, the DBA has requested a waiver of the City's Sidewalk Sales Ordinance so that the DBA can conduct the 1998 Chula Vista Third Avenue Lemon Festival; and WHEREAS, the DBA has also requested a waiver of the Business License Tax for promotional events for the DBA and vendors participating in the 1998 Chu1a Vista Third Avenue Lemon Festival. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby approve the closure of Third Avenue from "E" to "G" Streets on June 7, 1998 for the purpose of the DBA conducting the 1998 Chula Vista Third Avenue Lemon Festival subject to the conditions listed in Attachment I, attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approves the requested waiver of the City's Sidewalk Sales Ordinance so that the DBA can conduct the 1998 Chula Vista Third Avenue Lemon Festival on June 7, 1998. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista approves the requested waiyer of the City's Business License Tax for the Downtown Business Association and all vendors taking part in the 1998 Chula Vista Third Avenue Lemon Festiyal on June 7, 1998, which would otherwise be required to be paid in connection with that event. Presented by Approved as to form by ~ ~( ---- Chris Salomone Director of Community Development Ié/ß-/ -.-.--- A TT ACHMENT I CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR CHULA VISTA THIRD AVENUE LEMON FESTIVAL 1. The DBA shall provide adequate traffic and crowd control, as determined by the city's Traffic Engineer and Police Department. 2. The DBA shall provide adequate litter control during and after the vent, including professional street sweeping; 3. The DBA shall notify all property owners and tenants (including businesses and residents) that will be affected by the street closure. the notification must be undertaken seven days prior to the event date; 4. The DBA will be responsible for measures to insure that the noise generated by the event's activities does not reach an excessive level; the DBA will undertake the following measures in order to implement this condition; A) DBA shall continually monitor noise levels of performing bands, stereos, and other sound-emitting devices and will make adjustments as needed. B) A plan showing the location of the performing stages will be submitted for Community Development staff review and approval prior to the event. C) All band performances shall be limited to the hours of 10 a.m. and 6 p.m. 5. In order to meet the requirement of the Fire Marshall, the alleyways between "E" Street and "G" Street, east and west of Third Avenue, shall remain open and unobstructed for the purpose of fire apparatus access in the event of an emergency. the fire marshall has required that all food-cooking vendors have a 2AlOBC-type Fire Extinguisher readily available in their booths; 6. In order to meet the requirements of the Fire Marshall and the Transit Division, "E" and "G" Streels must remain open to traffic; 7. The Downtown Business Association must provide, 10 days prior to the Festival, evidence of general liability insurance in the amount of $1 million, in the form of a certificate of insurance and policy endorsement satisfactory to the City, naming the City of Chula Vista and the Chula Vista Redevelopment Agency as additional insured; and 8. The Downtown Business Association must execute an agreement to hold the City harmless from any liability stemming from Festiyal activities in the street. 1¿J¡J-c2- HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT between CITY OF CHULA VISTA and DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION for 1998 CHULA VISTA THIRD A VENUE LEMON FESTIVAL The Chula Vista Downtown Association (aka) the Downtown Business Association (DBA) shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City of Chula Vista (the City), its agents, elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including, without limitation, attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct of the DBA, or any agent, officer employee, subcontractor, or other person acting on behalf of the Downtown Business Association in connection with the 1998 CHULA VISTA THIRD A VENUE LEMON FESTIVAL, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers, or employees. The Downtown Business Association's indemnification shall include any and all costs incurred by the City, its agents, officers or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, the Downtown Business Association at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees. The Downtown Business Association's indemnification of the City shall not be limited by any prior subsequent declaration by the Downtown Business Association. Executed this day of 19_ in the City of Chula Vista, California. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION By: Sharon Dowdy, President By: Eddie Chapman, Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney [(YG) H:\HOME\COMMDEV\RESOS\DTLEMON.FES (January 7, 1998 (12:45pm)) J¿Jß- 3 RESOLUTION NO. /6'~t J RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE CLOSURE OF THIRD A VENUE BETWEEN "D" AND "I" STREETS, "H" STREET BETWEEN SECOND AND FOURTH AVENUES AND PORTIONS OF INTERSECTING STREETS ON SATURDAY DECEMBER 5, 1998 FOR THE 36TH ANNUAL STARLIGHT YULE PARADE WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista established a Business Improvement Area on November 16, 1971 which created the Chula Vista Downtown Business Association ("DBA"); and, WHEREAS, the DBA has requested the temporary closure of Third Avenue between "D" and "I" Streets, "H" Street between Second and fourth Avenues, and all other east- west streets that intersect Third Avenue between "D" and "I" Streets to the nearest point of detour to Third A venue to conduct the annual Starlight Yule Parade on Saturday, December 5, 1998; and, WHEREAS, the Starlight Yule Parade has been a Downtown and City tradition for 34 years and the City Council finds that the parade is a benefit to the Community. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby approve the temporary closure of Third Avenue between "D" and "I" Streets, "H" Street between Second and fourth Avenues, and all other east-west streets that intersect Third Avenue between "I" and "D" Streets to the nearest point of detour to Third Avenue to conduct the Annual Starlight Yule Parade on Saturday, December 5, 1998 subject to conditions set forth in Exhibit No. 1 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Presented by Approved as to fonn by ~~ ~~ Chris Salomone Director of Community Development I¿;C-! -----. EXHIBIT NO.1 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR 1998 STARLIGHT YULE PARADE STREET CLOSURE 1. At least 10 days before the street closure, the Downtown Business Association (DBA) shall submit to the City evidence of general liability insurance in the amount of $1 million, in the fonn of a certificate of insurance and policy endorsement, and naming the City of Chula Vista and the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Chula Vista as additional insured. 2. At least 10 days before the street closure, the DBA shall submit to the city a hold hannless agreement in a fonn acceptable to the City. 3. The DBA shall distribute written notification to all residences and businesses along the parade route and along other streets that will be closed to traffic, of the date(s) and duration of the event at least 10 days before street closure. 4. The DBA shall provide portable toilets along the parade route. 5. The DBA shall provide and post "No Parking" signs in a fonn acceptable to the City Traffic Engineer, along the parade route. Posting must take place a minimum of forty- eight (48) hours in advance of the effective time. /IYC --c2 . .-.--- HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT between CITY OF CHULA VISTA and DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION for 1998 STARLIGHT YULE PARADE The Chula Vista Downtown Association (aka) the Downtown Business Association (DBA) shall defend, indemnify and hold hannless the City of Chula Vista (the City), its agents, elected and appointed officers and employees, from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including, without limitation, attorney's fees) arising out of the conduct of the DBA, or any agent, officer employee, subcontractor, or other person acting on behalf of the Downtown Business Association in connection with the 1998 Starlight Yule Parade, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its agents, officers, or employees. The Downtown Business Association's indemnification shall include any and all costs incurred by the City, its agents, officers or employees in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, the Downtown Business Association at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its agents, officers, or employees. The Downtown Business Association's indemnification of the City shall not be limited by any prior subsequent declaration by the Downtown Business Association. Executed this day of 19_ in the City of Chula Vista, California. DOWNTOWN BUSINESS ASSOCIATION By: Dave Rossi, President By: Eddie Chapman, Vice President APPROVED AS TO FORM BY: John M. Kaheny, City Attorney /cYC-J COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ß Meeting Date 1/20/98 J8X?tJ ITEM TITLE: Resolution Approving an Agreement between the City of Chula Vista, McMillin Companies, the Ot y Ranch Company and Peter N. Robertson for appraisal services for Otay Ranch Open Space Resource Preserve. SUBMITTED BY: Acting Director of Plannin REVŒWED BY: C;ry M-'\JC1 ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX) The Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) was approved jointly by the City and the County in October 1993. Several documents were approved concurrently with the GDP/SRP, including the Resource Management Plan I (RMP I). The goal of the RMP I is the establishment of an open space system that will become a permanent management preserve dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the multiple resources present on Otay Ranch. The size (11,375 acres) and location of the Otay Ranch Resource Preserve was identified in the RMP I. These boundaries are further refined in the RMP II, which was approved concurrently with the Sectional Planning Area (SPA) One Plan for development of the first 1,000 acres located within Villages One and Five. The RMP II contains policies which require a total of 11,375 acres of private open space land to be conveyed for preservation based upon the approved GDP/SRP. The RMP II identified that 1.188 acres per each developable acre of land would be conveyed to the Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) at the final map stage. With the break up in ownership/control of the Otay Ranch, this simple land conveyance scheme became much more complex. Currently, there are twelve (12) property owners on Otay Ranch, some of whom own preserve land only, development land only or some combination of the two. In light of this problem, City and County staff were directed by the City Council and County Board of Supervisors to develop an In-Lieu Fee which would provide an alternative method to the actual conveyance of land to the POM as mitigation for environmental impacts. The appraisal of the Open Space Preserve will serve as the basis for establishment of the In-Lieu fee. This report discusses the consultant selection process and provides a recommendation for Council authorization to hire a consultant for appraisal services. Ij--/ ..·.m··...~·_,_..__._.__ Page 2, Item L Meeting Date 1/20/98 RECOMMENDATION: That the Council approve the Resolution and authorize the Mayor to execute said Agreement with the City of Chula Vista, Peter N. Robertson, Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies for appraisal services. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION: On November 17, 1997 the Planning Department, in conjunction with the County of San Diego Parks and Recreation and Real Property Divisions, issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) to obtain a qualified appraiser to provide consultant services for appraising the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve. Consultant SeJection Process Joint meetings were conducted with the Planning Department and the County of San Diego Parks and Recreation and Real Properties Divisions to develop a short list of qualified appraisers to which RFPs could be sent. The short list was developed from a list of qualified appraisers which was already on file with the Real Property Division of the County, the City's special consultant designated to conduct appraisals and input from each of the involved property owners. Additionally, this approach was discussed and confirmed with the Community Development Department, who often administers appraisals, and the City's Purchasing Agent. Ultimately, RFPs were sent out to seven (7) qualified firms. The City received proposals from three (3) firms. The four firms who chose not to respond declined because of the time constraints required for the date of delivery of the appraisal or conflicts of interest. To evaluate the proposals and select a consultant for Council recommendation, a selection committee was formed. Made up of fiye (5) members and comprised of representatives from the Planning Department, Engineering Department and the County's Real Property Division, the committee was charged with scoring each proposal and interviewing each firm. During the interview process, each of the firms were asked the same questions. To assist the selection committee in scoring each firm, a rating sheet was prepared for each of the three firms with the following specific criteria: 1. Capacity to Perform Work Max. 20 points 2. Personnel and Subconsultant Qualitications Max. 20 points 3. Past Record of Performance Max. 40 points 4. Proximity of Office Max. 10 points 5. Cost Max. 10 points The following are the scores of each firm: ))---c2 ,-.... . -~,_."----- ..,.,-.-..- Page 3, Item 1L- Meeting Date 1/20/98 Appraisal Firm Score Rank Peter N. Robertson 454 1 Lipman, Stevens, Marshall 399 2 & Thene, Inc. Dore, Curry & Marschall, 390 3 Inc. At the conclusion of the process, Peter Robertson was judged the most qualified and desirable finn. The committee was impressed with Mr. Robertson because of his extensive experience in open space appraisals and his thorough understanding of the necessity for the In-Lieu Fee. Cost of the Consultant Based on negotiation guidelines outlined in the Municipal Code (Chapter 2.56 - Purchasing System, 2.56.230 - Consultant Selection Process, Section B.4 - Negotiating a Price determined to be fair and reasonable), the total contract cost of $42,000 includes all the elements contained in the RFP. Bids of Other RFP ResDondents In order to compare the proposed contract price to the other firm's responses, the following is provided: FIRM FEE Lipman, Stevens, Marshall & Thene $45,000 Peter N. Robertson $42,000 Dore, Curry and Marschall $18,600 It should be noted that the selection committee did not select the firm with the lowest fee. In the opinion of the selection committee the firm with the lowest fee, although highly qualified regarding appraisals of a general nature, did not have the same extensive experience in open space appraisals as the selected consultant. The committee concluded that the low bidder was not as knowledgeable regarding the various aspects that would be required to be considered to establish an average value for the open space preserve. The committee concluded that the methodology that Dore, Curry and Marschall were proposing to use would not establish a fee that would be high enough to purchase the 11 ,375 acre preserve over time. ///3 ._----_..._.,."...._~-_.._- Page 4, Item l.!...- Meeting Date 1/20/98 The consultant selection process has been discussed with both Otay Ranch Company and McMillin Companies who are satisfied with the selection. Both developers have agreed to split the cost of appraisal services on a 2/3 and 1/3 basis respectively. FISCAL IMPACT: The cost of the contract for appraisal services is $42,000 which will be split between McMillin Companies and Otay Ranch Company. McMillin Companies will pay 1/3 of the total cost and Otay Ranch Company will pay 2/3 of the cost, based upon the proportional amount of land that each entity owns within the Otay Ranch SPA One. This ratio is consistent with other fees that are being shared by the two land owners. Attachment, / I. In-Lieu Fee Proposal 2. T1IItIi~ Party Agreement 3. Resolution NoTSC~D H:\HONElPLANNJNGœEV\JN-UBtNŒPQRTS\I2OCC.DOC )}/1 RESOLUTION NO. /81f?Cl RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, OTAY RANCH COMPANY, MCMILLIN COMPANIES AND PETER N. ROBERTSON FOR APPRAISAL SERVICES FOR THE OTAY RANCH OPEN SPACE RESOURCE PRESERVE WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP) was approved jointly by the City and the County in October 1993, concurrently with the Resource Management Plan (RMP) I; and WHEREAS, the RMP I established an 11,375-acre open space system dedicated to the protection and enhancement of the multiple resources present on the Otay Ranch; and WHEREAS, the RMP II further refined the boundaries of the preserve and identified that 1.188 acres of preserve land per each developable acre would be conveyed to the Preserve Owner/Manager; and WHEREAS, these plans were adopted at a time when one owner had control over all open space and developable land on Otay Ranch; and WHEREAS, currently there are 12 owners of land on the Otay Ranch making the originally envisioned conveyance scheme difficult to impJement; and WHEREAS, an In-Lieu Fee is being created to address the issue of open space conveyance for property owners who do not own appropriate mitigation land and musl be in place concurrent with the applicants' first final "B" Map; and WHEREAS, the In-Lieu Fee will be based upon the overall value of the open space preserve which will be determined by an appraisal; and WHEREAS, the project necessitates the hiring of a consultant, and in November, 1997 a short list of seven appraisal firms were sent Request for Proposals; and WHEREAS, the City received responses from three appraisal firms providing proposals of interest, and, in following Council Policy on the selection of a consultant, a Selection Committee was appointed by the City Manager to review each proposal, interview and provide a recommendation to Council of the most qualified firm; and WHEREAS, as a result of this selection process, Peter N. Robertson was determined to be the most qualified and most responsible firm to provide contractual services to appraise the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve; and ///5 -_....._,-~---.- .._-~----~-~--.._-_.,-~-- WHEREAS, Consultant warrants and represents that they are experienced and staffed in a manner such that they are and can prepare and deliver the services required of Consultant to City within the time frames herein provided all in accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City ofChula Vista does hereby approve an Agreement with PETER N. ROBERTSON for the professional services of appraising the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented by: Approved as to form by: Kenneth G. Lee ~¡r(\(;ÞJ-{gr:i~ Jo . aheny Acting Director of Planning City Attorney H:\HOME\PLANNING\MIDB\RESOS (January 13, 1998] ))/? --.----- - --~_._..----- -.--..--....----.--....---.----.-----.------, ffE/í II PROPOSAL FOR OTAY RANCH RMP CONVEY ANCE/IN-LIEU FEE AND CONSERV A nON BANKING PROGRAM I. INTRODUCTION The following proposal is intended to establish a land conveyance program for the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) which would allow the options of either conveying land, payment of an in-lieu fee or a combination of the two. The in-lieu fee component is to be used in circumstances where future developers do not own land within the planned Otay Ranch preserve, or where sensitiveJands need to be conveyed to assure consistency with the criteria set forth in the RMP I and II earlier in the land conveyance program. The Otay Ranch preserve is an open space system that is intended to mitigate for anticipated impacts associated with development of the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan (GDP/SRP), and which is considered to be an integral component of the South County Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP). II. CONVEYANCE PROGRAM The adopted Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, including RMP I and II, contain policies which require a total of 11,375 acres of private open space land to be conveyed for preservation based upon the approved plan. The Preserve Owner Manager (pOM) has been selected to administer an on-going system of land conveyance, maintenance and mOIútoIÍng. In establishing how and when land is conveyed to the POM for inclusion into the preserve, the City and County, with cooperation ITom property owners, have developed the following land conveyance program which is intended to be a fair and equitable solution to the establishment of tlús open space system. Developers within Otay Ranch may propose to convey land, pay fees, or make contribution in some combination ofland conveyance and fee payment, so long as any conveyance complies with the priorities for acquisition established in the Otay Ranch RMP I and II. The initial conveyance associated with SPA One, however, shall be consistent with the Conveyance Plan set forth in the RMP II, as depicted in Exhibits l4A and l4B on pages 72 and 73. A Basis for Conveyance /In-Lieu Fee/Conveyance Formula !)'Jote: Need to incOI:porate CEOA Findings of Fact into this section) The Otay Ranch GDP/SRP requires the establishment of an 11,375 acre Otay Ranch preserve in conjunction with development of9,575 acres on the Otay Ranch. Based on these developable acres, the RMP II (Page 60) requires the preservation of 1.188 acres of preserve land for every one acre of development within the entire Otay Ranch. (A developable acre, which provides for the deletion of Limited Development Areas, local parks, schools, arterials and SR 125 is discussed on Page 60 of the POMCONV.DOC I Oct. 29. 1997 J/-? , , , -.-..---.- -.-...".~-~_._--_...-. RMP II.) Any owner developing land located within Otay Ranch shall be required to comply with this conveyance formula. This proposal, however, modifies the conveyance formula established in the RMP II, while still ensuring that the entire 11,375 acre Preserve will be acquired in a timely manner. The current proposal translates the land conveyance requirement into a dollar amount which would be equivalent 10 the in-lieu fee. This approach is the most equitable since all developers would be paying the same amount into the fund, or conveying a parcel which would be equivalent to the fee required. The conveyance formula is as follows: TOTAL APPRAISED VALUE OF RESOURCE PRESERVE 11,375 ACRES = AVERAGE PER ACRE VALUE AVERAGE PER ACRE VALUE X 1.1 88 + ADMINISTRATIVE FEE L-%) + IMPROVEMENTS (see below) = CONVEYANCE OBLIGATION PER DEVELOP ABLE ACRE I. Average Jand value The conveyance fornrula will be based upon the average value of an acre of preserve land. This cost shall be determined through an initial appraisal of the entire preserve. The appraisal shall be updated annually, and if necessary the in-lieu fee shall also be updated concurrently to reflect any changes in the appraised value of the Preserve. The cost of the annual appraisal update will be included in the administrative cost of the fee. 2. Land cost plus improvements The conveyance formula should include a component for those physical improvements which are necessary for the annual maintenance of the preserve. Such improvements may include such facilities as trails, fire breaks and fences in locations detennined appropriate by the POM. The RMP II (p. 87) states that "it is the obligation of the Otay Ranch properties to construct fences necessary to protect the conveyed property" and that "after conveyance of the property, it is the obligation of the Preserve Owner/Manager to perrorm capital improvements and the obligation ofOtay Ranch properties to fund such improvements to the extent that there is a relationship between the improvements and the approved development. " B. In-Lieu Fee Option The POM shall advise the City or County to require developers to either pay the in-lieu fee or purchase land for conveyance to the POM or a combination of both. The fee shall be calculated as 1.188 times the POMCONV.DOC 2 oct. 29, 1997 j)--J? ~--- -......_~..__._- average cost per acre of preserve land. This fee would be paid to the POM for each one acre of development. In these instances the developer would be required to pay in-lieu fees to the POM, which would then use the collected fees to purchase preserve land. The actual in-lieu-fee program must be in place prior to the approval of the first Final "B" Map for the Otay Ranch for the City. The criteria to be used for the purchase ofland by the POM is discussed below in SectionD. The goal ofthePOM will be to expend the collected fees within a reasonable period of time in order to avoid increased land costs resulting ITom inflation. C. Land Conveyance Option Developers have the option to propose either conveyance ofland or payment of the in-lieu fee. Any land conveyance must be accompanied by an appraisal acceptable to the POM documenting that the value of the land conveyed is equa1 to the value of the fee-in-lieu payment, established by the conveyance fonnula. Under this scenario it is possible that a specific conveyance parcel may not actually equal 1.188 acres per developable acre. A particular conveyance parcel could either be more or less than 1.188 acres per developable acre, depending upon its actual value in relation to the average value of an acre of preserve land. For instance, if the actua1 value of a conveyance parcel is less than the average per acre value of the preserve, the POM would receive more than 1.188 acres per developable acre. Conversely, if the value of a certain conveyance parcel is more than the average per acre value of the preserve, the POM would receive less than 1.188 acres per developable acre. Staff believes that these two extreme situations will average out by the time the entire preserve is assembled and that the concept meets the intent of the RMP I and II and GDP/SRP. The parcel(s) ofland proposed to be conveyed must comply with the priorities for acquisition established in the Otay Ranch RMP Phases I and II, as determined by the POM. D. Guidelines for Acquisition The POM shall maintain the authority to determine which land is to be conveyed and/or purchased for inclusion in the preserve. The RMP I (page 97- 98 and 125) outlines guidelines that will implement the conveyance schedule. These guidelines are reiterated in the RMP II, Page 57-58 as follows: · First priority shall be given to conveyance of highest quality resources (such resources may include vernal pools on Otay Mesa, Diegan coastal sage scrub habitat in the Salt Creek area, gnatcatcher population areas in the western San Y sidro and central Proctor Valley areas, or potential wetlands restoration areas in the Otay Valley [depending upon the status of regional park plans and wetlands restoration plans at the time Otay Valley parcels are conveyed]). · First priority shall be given to conveyance of most vulnerable areas (i.e., those most subject to potential or ongoing disturbance); · Conveyance shall occur in an orderly manner beginning with an identified "keystone" parcel (e.g., vernal pool areas, Salt Creek area, Otay Valley, central Proctor Valley, western San Y sidro) and proceed to the next logical block ofland; POMCONV.DOC 3 Oct. 29. 1997 J)~7ì -_.~,._~~--- · Areas with restoration potential shall be conveyed early in order to begin long-term research and restoration activities early in the process (e.g., Otay Valley, vernal pool areas, potential Diegan coastal sage scrub/maritime succulent scrub restoration areas north and south of the Otay Valley); · Cumulative acreage conveyed sha11 be greater than or equal to the cumulative acreage of the proposed SP NSpecific Plan development; · General guidelines regarding in-kind mitigation and no net loss of wetlands shall be considered in the development of the conveyance schedule, particularly in the context of applicable State and Federal regulations (it is understood that in-kind mitigation may not always be the preferable approach to achieve the goal of establishing a functioning manageable Preserve); · Applicable State and Federal regulations regarding protection of sensitive habitat and species sha11 be followed in the development of the conveyance schedule; · The Preserve Owner( s) Manager( s) sha11 participate in preparation of the conveyance schedule. In cases where a developer owns land within the preserve, but prefers to pay the in-lieu fee, the POM shall have the authority to determine if actual land sha11 be conveyed or if the fee shall be paid. E. Reduction of Development Entitlement Area In light of the fact that the Wlidlife Agencies have been negotiating with property owners to reduce development entitlement areas within the Otay Ranch through modifications to the approved GDP/SRP and potential acquisition of said areas, issues with how this will impact the preserve conveyance and in- lieu fee formulas need to be addressed. The Agencies have indicated, however, that those areas purchased by them will include open space lands in combination with entitlement areas in rough proportion to the conveyance schedule. Another possible solution to a reduction in development entitlement land area could be to reduce the amount ofland anticipated in the total preserve, i.e., 1.188 acres for each development acre reduced ITom the approved project. This acreage could then be targeted for acquisition to mitigate for lands sold through a conservation bank; thereby, reducing the amount of mitigation land necessary to be acquired off-site. In any event, the combination of entitlement land and open space will remain in rough proportion to the conveyance schedule. The City and the County shall monitor these balance issues as necessary, and amend any appropriate documents as needed._ F. Vernal Pool Issue Conservation percentages assumed in the MSCP for vernal pools may be difficult to achieve if off site projects are allowed to mitigate their impacts on Otay Ranch. For instance, since the RMP assumes that 100% of the vernal pools within the Otay Ranch Preserve will be preserved, if off site developers purchase Otay Ranch vernal pools to mitigate their off-site impacts, then, this could potentially be a case of double-dipping. Each individual MSCP take authorization holder (i.e., jurisdiction) will still need to POMCONV.DOC 4 Oct. 29, 1997 )/----/Cl .----. -_."-_._~..~_._",.,- achieve vernal pool preservation goals consistent with their adopted Subarea PJans and/or signed Implementation Agreements. The attached table (Table A) reflects the acres of vernal pool habitat that currently exist within the Otay Ranch Preserve and each jurisdiction. Each jurisdiction would be responsible for meeting vernal pool preservation goals in their jurisdiction only. G. Eminent Domain The City and/or County, acting as the POM, will make a good faith effort to enter into agreements with all affected property owners to ensure that land can be purchased at fair market value in order to avoid any condemnation proceedings. ill. CONSERVATION BANKING PROGRAM A Purpose The use of one or more conservation banks within the Otay Ranch preseIVe may be an acceptable means of acquiring planned preserve land earlier than through anticipated development phasing of the entire Otay Ranch. Conservarion banking would permit property owners of planned preserve land on the Otay Ranch to sell their holdings to off-site developers that wish to purchase appropriate mitigation land for impacts within their developments. The conservation banking process must also be consistent with state, federal and local policies. B. Intent It is the intent of the POM to coordina1e conservation banking proposals, with respect to ownership, with the Wùdlife Agencies in order to avoid a mosaic of various owners/managers throughout the Preserve. All conservation banking proposals shall be in accordance with federal, state and local policies. Certain property owners have indicated a desire to sell individual parcels as mitigation. The Agencies have indicated that if property owners wish to propose this incremental sale of property for mitigation, then each proposed sale will be examined on a case by case basis. C. Endowment for Maintenance, Management and Monitoring If Otay Ranch Preserve land is sold to off site developers for mitigation of off-site impacts, then the payment of an endowment for the on-going maintenance, management and monitoring of the land to be sold will be required when the land is conveyed to the POM. The endowment shall also be sufficient to provide for construction offences, trails and/or fire breaks as determined necessary by the POM. The endowment shall be equivalent to the present value of the maintenance assessment established in the Preserve Maintenance District for Otay Ranch. D. Future Fee Calculation POMCONV.DOC 5 oct. 29. 1997 )/-)1 _m_·_~____.__H"'_....~_.__..____ Once the entire Otay Ranch Preserve is assembled (through a combination of land acquired through conveyance for development witlùn the Ranch, land acquired through purchase by the paM ii-om accumulated in-lieu fees and conservation bank land acquisitions) and in public or quasi-public ownership, the remaining Otay Ranch developers would continue to be required to fulfill their conveyance obligation through the payment of fees in-lieu. After the entire preserve is acquired the paM will continue to require developers of Otay Ranch land to contribute to the purchase ofland in areas outside of the Otay Ranch Preserve, but within the general MSCP area. Lands purchased for mitigation outside of the Otay Ranch should be economically and ecologically equivalent to the Otay Ranch Preserve. For instance, the Southern MSCP area could be targeted for these mitigation lands. The method for calculating the fee will be determined by the paM. This land acquisition will need to occur outside of the Otay Ranch preserve after completion of the preserve land assemblage. This will avoid a situation of "double-dipping" of mitigation. IV Joint Powers Agreement Amendment The Joint Powers Agreement (JP A) between the City and County should be amended to provide a clause regarding a process for conflict resolution. Draft language has been attached for review and comment. V. Initial Appraisal The process for initiating the first appraisal of the Preserve needs to be implemented as soon as possible. County and City staff have met to begin initial discussion of tills process. POMCONV.DOC 6 oct. 29, 1997 )///2 ^_'_.~."._._____~__. __n·__ TABLE A VERNAL POOLS WITHIN THE OTAY RANCH RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PRESERVE Otay Valley Parcel Vernal Pool Habitat Area Vernal Pool # Jurisdiction (Acres) J-23-24 County 102.84 J-25 County 16.72 J-29-30 County 61.56 Total 181.12 San Ysidro Parcel Vernal Pool Habitat Area Vernal Pool # Jurisdiction (Acres) K-5 County 0.06 Proctor Valley Parcel Vernal Pool Habitat Area Vernal Pool # Jurisdiction (Acres) R-1 County 0.18 (One pool in Otay Ranch restoration area) R-2 County 0.07 R-3 County 0.05 R-4 County 0.001 Total 0.301 Notes: 1. Additional acres of restorable vernal pools not listed above are located within the Otay Ranch Preserve. 2. The source of information for above figures is "Report on the Hydrology and Flora of the Otay Ranch Vernal Po 1990," prepared by Michael Srandman Associates. (H:lhamelplanning\duanelatayrnch\vemalp.wb1 ) 7 J/~j3 ........~-_._--~~--"-,..~.~.~--._-- , I 1 I I I \ , j CJ I J ~. I l:J i ....- I I I .0.> r/) ::.. . I <: .- c_ ..,........ " /T ,.....; CJ . -> C Otay ·::::0 ì//)f 0 I ~ Ranch :.::< Page 72 >::::... n ~VJ. --- - June 4, 1996 u ~.~ ¡ . , I i -r, i I I i i 0 À -- , ;1 ! ~ ! ,... ~ 0 U ¡:Q CJ -.::<r:/J \"""""! Q ,... Otay .... - ~/J3 .~ 0 Ranch .!:J .;:::< Page 73 ~~ June 4, 1996 X...... -- -- ~.'J.J - -- Three Party Agreement Between City of Chula Vista, Pete Robertson. Consultant, and Otav Ranch ComDany and McMillin-D.A. America Otav Ranch LLC, Applicant For Consulting Work to be Rendered with regard to Applicant's Project 1. Parties This Agreement is made as of the reference date set forth in Exhibit A, for the purposes of reference only, and effective as of the date last executed by the parties hereto, between the City of Chula Vista ("City") herein, a municipal corporation of the State of California, the person designated on the attached Exhibit A as "Consultant" Peter N. Robertson whose business form and address is indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and the person designated on the attached Exhibit A as Otav Ranch ComDanv and McMillin-D.A. America Otay Ranch LLC who are jointly sometimes referred to hereinafter as "Applicant" whose business form and address is indicated on the attached Exhibit A, and is made with reference to the following facts: 2. Recitals, Warranties and Representations. 2.1. Warranty of Ownership. Otay Ranch Company warrants that Otay Ranch Company, New Millennium Homes, Jewels of Charity, United Enterprises, Stephen and Mary Birch Foundation, Estate of Patrick, Marian Communities, Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Calmet Properties are owners of open space land to be appraised ("Property" ) commonly known as, or generally located as, described on Exhibit A, Paragraph 1, or has an option on said property. 2.2. Applicant is required to comply with an In-Lieu Fee program and desires to have the Property appraised as described 3ptyS.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 1 jJ-/? " -- . ---,..._~-------,. -,."'-,---..-.----.-....-.-....- on Exhibit A, Paragraph 2, so that said In-Lieu Fee program may be established. 2.3. In order for the City to process the In-Lieu Fee, Work of the general nature and type described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, ("Work") will need to be completed. 2.4. City does not presently have the "inhouse" staff or resources to process the application within the time frame requested for review by the Applicant. 2.5. This agreement proposes an arrangement by which Applicant shall retain, and be liable for the costs of retaining, Consultant, who shall perform the services required of Consultant by this Agreement solely to, and under the direction of, the City. 2.6. Additional facts and circumstances regarding the background for this agreement are set forth on Exhibit B; 3. Agreement. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS MUTUALLY AGREED TO AND BETWEEN THE CITY, CONSULTANT, AND APPLICANT AS FOLLOWS: 3.l. Emnlovrnent of Consultant bv Annlicant. Consultant is hereby engaged by the Applicant, not the City, and at Applicant's sole cost and expense, to perform to, and for the primary benefit of, City, and solely at City's direction, all of the services described on the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 4, entitled "General Nature of Consulting Services", ( "General Services") , and in the process of performing and delivering said General Services, Consultant shall also perform to and for the benefit of City all of the services described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 5, entitled "Detailed Scope of Work", ( "Detailed Services") , and all services reasonable necessary to accomplish said General Services and Detailed Scope of Work, and shall deliver such documents required ("Deliverables" ) herein, all within the time frames herein set forth, and in particular as set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 6, and if none are set forth, 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 2 ))/)7 ~ -~_...,_._-~_._------ within a reasonable period of time for the diligent execution of Consultant's duties hereunder. Time is of the essence of this covenant. The Consultant does hereby agree to perform said General and Detailed Services to and for the primary benefit of the City for the compensation herein fixed to be paid by Applicant. In delivering the General and Detailed Services hereunder, the Consultant shall do so in a good, professional manner consistent with that level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions and in similar locations, at its own cost and expense except for the compensation and/or reimbursement, if any, herein promised, and shall furnish all of the labor, technical, administrative, professional and other personnel, all supplies and materials, machinery, equipment, printing, vehicles, transportation, office space and facilities, calculations, and all other means whatsoever, except as herein otherwise expressly specified to be furnished by the City or Applicant, necessary or proper to perform and complete the work and provide the Services required of the Consultant. 3.2. ComDensation of Consultant. Applicant shall compensate Consultant for all services rendered by Consultant without regard to the conclusions reached by the Consultant, and according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C adjacent to the governing compensation relationship indicated by a "checkmark" next to the appropriate arrangement, by paying said amount to the City, within 15 days of Applicant's billing, or in accordance with the security deposit provisions of Paragraph 3.3 and Exhibit C, if checked, and upon receipt of such payment by the City, City shall promptly, not later than 15 days, or in accordance with the Bill Processing procedure in Exhibit C, if checked, pay said amount to the Consultant. City is merely acting in the capacity as a conduit for payment, and shall not be liable for the compensation unless it receives same from Applicant. Applicant shall not make any payments of compensation or otherwise directly to the Consultant. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 3 /J~)~ -. ".._._---~-._---~~. 3.2.1. Additional Work. If the Applicant, with the concurrence of City, determines that additional services ("Additional Services") are needed from Consultant of the type Consultant is qualified to render or reasonably related to the Services Consultant is otherwise required to provide by this Agreement, the Consultant agrees to provide such additional services on a time and materials basis paid for by Applicant at the rates set forth in Exhibit C, unless a separate fixed fee is otherwise agreed upon in writing for said Additional Work between the parties. 3.2.1.1. In the event that the City shall determine that additional work is required to be performed above and beyond the scope of work herein provided, City will consult with Applicant regarding the additional work, and if thereupon the Applicant fails or refuses to arrange and pay for said Additional Services, the City may, at its option, suspend any further processing of Applicant's Application until the Applicant shall deposit the City's estimate of the costs of the additional work which the City determines is or may be required. Applicant shall pay any and all additional costs for the additional work. 3.2.2. Reductions in Scope of Work. City may independently, or upon request from Consultant, from time to time reduce the Services to be performed by the Consultant under this Agreement. Upon doing so, City and Consultant agree to meet in good faith and confer for the purpose of negotiating a corresponding reduction in the compensation associated with said reduction. Upon failure to agree, the Fixed Fee may be unilaterally reduced by the City by the amount of time and materials budgeted by Consultant for the Services deleted. 3.3. Security for Payment of Com~ensation bv ADDlicant. 3.3.1. Deposit. As security for the payment of Consultant by Applicant, Applicant shall, upon execution of this Agreement, deposit the amount indicated on Exhibit C as "Deposit Amount" with the City, as trustee for Consultant, the conditions 3ptyS.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 4 J/~/r .._-~-_.. .__._.~_._,,------ of such trust being as indicated on Exhibit C and as hereinbelow set forth: 3.3.1.1 Other Terms of Deposit Trust. 3.3.1.1.1. City shall also be entitled to retain from said Deposit all costs incurred by City for which it is entitled to compensation by law or under the terms of this agreement. 3.3.1.1.2. All interest earned on the Deposit Amount, if any, shall accrue to the benefit of, and be used for, Trust purposes. City may, in lieu of deposit into a separate bank account, separately account for said deposit in one or more of its various bank accounts, and upon doing so, shall proportionately distribute to the Deposit Trust, the average interest earned during the period on its general fund. 3.3.1.1.3. Any unused balance of Deposit Amount, including any unused interest earned, shall be returned to Applicant not later than 30 days after the termination of this Agreement and any claims resulting therefrom. 3.3.1.1.4. Applicant shall be notified within 30 days after of the use of the Deposit in any manner. Nothing herein shall invalidate use of the Deposit in the manner herein authorized. 3.3.1.1.5. At such time as City shall reasonably determine that inadequate funds remain on Deposit to secure future compensation likely due Consultant or City, City may make demand of Applicant to supplement said Deposit Amount in such amount as City shall reasonably specify, and upon doing so, Applicant shall, within 30 days pays said amount ( "Supplemental Deposit Amount") to City. Said Supplement Deposit Amount or Amounts shall be governed by the same terms of trust governing the original Deposit. 3.3.2. Withholding of Processing. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 5 )j - .2C} In addition to use of the Deposit as security, in order to secure the duty of Applicant to pay Consultant for Services rendered under this agreement, City shall be entitled to withhold processing of Applicant's Application upon a breach of Applicant's duty to compensate Consultant. 4. Non-Service Related Duties of Consultant. 4.1. Insurance. Consultant represents that it and its agents, staff and subconsultants employed by it in connection with the Services required to be rendered, are protected against the risk of loss by the following insurance coverages, in the following categor- ies, and to the limits specified, policies of which are issued by Insurance Companies that have a Best's Rating of "A, Class V" or better, or shall meet with the approval of the City: 4.1.1. Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance and Employer's Liability Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in the attached Exhibit A, Paragraph 10. 4.1.2. Commercial General Liability Insurance including Business Automobile Insurance coverage in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, combined single limit applied separately to each project away from premises owned or rented by Consultant, which names City and Applicant as an Additional Insured, and which is primary to any policy which the City may otherwise carry ( "primary Coverage"), and which treats the employees of the City and Applicant in the same manner as members of the general public ("Cross-liability Coverage") . 4.1.3. Errors and Omissions insurance, in the amount set forth in Exhibit A, Paragraph 10, unless Errors and Omissions coverage is included in the General Liability policy. 4.2. Proof of Insurance Coveraoe. 4.2.1. Certificates of Insurance. Consultant shall demonstrate proof of coverage herein required, prior to the commencement of services required under this Agreement, by 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 6 ///,2/ -".---"..---"--..--------- delivery of Certificates of Insurance demonstrating same, and further indicating that the policies may not be canceled without at least thirty (30) days written notice to the Additional Insured. 4.2.2. Policy Endorsements Required. In order to demonstrate the Additional Insured Coverage, Primary Coverage and Cross-liability Coverage required under Consultant's Commercial General Liability Insurance Policy, Consultant shall deliver a policy endorsement to the City and Applicant demonstrating same. 4.3. Public Statements. All public statements and releases to the news media shall be the responsibility of the City and the Applicant. The Consultant shall not publish or release news items, articles or present lectures on the Project, either during the course of the study or after its completion, except on written concurrence of the City and Applicant. 4.4. Communication to ADDlicant. Consultant shall not communicate directly to the Applicant except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the express consent of City. The Consultant may request such meetings with the Applicant to ensure the adequacy of services performed by Consultant. 5. Non-ComDensation Duties of the AD9licant. 5.1. Documents Access. The Applicant shall provide to the Consultant, through the City, for the use by the Consultant and City, such documents, or copies of such documents requested by Applicant, within the possession of Applicant reasonably useful to the Consultant in performing the services herein required of Consultant, including but not limited to those described in Exhibit A, Paragraph 7. 5.2. ProDertv Access. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 199B Page 7 //~,);l. --_._---_.~,--_._-,-~- .. The Applicant hereby grants permission to the City and Consultant to enter and access the Property, to take any borings, make any tests, conduct any surveys or reconnaissance necessary to deliver the Services of Consultant, subject to the approval of the Applicant. Consultant shall promptly repair any damage to the subject property occasioned by such entry and shall indemnify, defend, and hold Applicant harmless from all loss, cost, damage, expenses, claims, and liabilities in connection with or arising from any such entry and access. 5.3. Communication to Consultant. Applicant shall not communicate directly to the Consultant except in the presence of the City, or by writing an exact copy of which is simultaneously provided to City, except with the express consent of City. The Applicant may request such meetings as they desire with the Consultant to ensure the adequacy of services performed by Consultant. 6. Administrative ReDresentatives. Each party designates the individuals ("Administrators" ) indicated in Exhibit A, paragraph 8, as said party's contract administrator who is authorized by said party to represent them in the routine administration of this agreement. 7 . Conflicts of Interest 7 .1. Consultant is DesiGnated as an FPPC Filer. If Consultant is designated on Exhibit A, Paragraph 9, as an "FPPC filer", Consultant is deemed to be a "Consultant" for the purposes of the Political Reform Act conflict of interest and disclosure provisions, and shall report his economic interests to the City Clerk on the required Statement of Economic Interests in such reporting categories as are specified in Paragraph 9 of Exhibit A, or if none are specified, then as determined by the City Attorney. 7.2. Decline to ParticiDate. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 8 ) / ~cJ3 ___.._.____..m'_··________· _.._..._--_.._..._--_.__._.._-_.__._.~_.._--- Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant shall not make, or participate in making or in any way attempt to use Consultant's position to influence a governmental decision in which Consultant knows or has reason to know Consultant has a financial interest other than the compensation promised by this Agreement. 7.3. Search to Determine Economic Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant warrants and represents that Consultant has diligently conducted a search and inventory of Consultant's economic interests, as the term is used in the regulations promulgated by the Fair Political Practices Commission, and has determined that Consultant does not, to the best of Consultant's knowledge, have an economic interest which would conflict with Consultant's duties under this agreement. 7.4. Promise Not to Acauire Conflictinq Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will not acquire, obtain, or assume an economic interest during the term of this Agreement which would constitute a conflict of interest as prohibited by the Fair political Practices Act. 7.5. Dutv to Advise of Conflictinq Interests. Regardless of whether Consultant is designated as an FPPC Filer, Consultant further warrants and represents that Consultant will immediately advise the City Attorney of City if Consultant learns of an economic interest of Consultant's which may result in a conflict of interest for the purpose of the Fair political Practices Act, and regulations promulgated thereunder. 7.6. SDecific Warranties Aqainst Economic Interests. Consultant warrants and represents that neither Consultant, nor Consultant's immediate family members, nor Consultant's employees or agents ("Consultant Associates") presently have any interest, directly or indirectly, whatsoever in the property 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 9 J//~Ý ---.---------..-.. which is the subject matter of the Project, or in any property within 10 radial miles from the exterior boundaries of the property which is the subject matter of the project, or ("Prohibited Interest"). Consultant further warrants and represents that no promise of future employment, remuneration, consideration, gratuity or other reward or gain has been made to Consultant or Consultant Associates by Applicant or by any other party as a result of Consultant's performance of this Agreement. Consultant promises to advise City of any such promise that may be made during the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months thereafter. Consultant agrees that Consultant Associates shall not acquire any such Prohibited Interest within the Term of this Agreement, or for 12 months after the expiration of this Agreement. Consultant may not conduct or solicit any business for any party to this Agreement, or for any third party which may be in conflict with Consultant's responsibilities under this Agreement. 8 . Default of the Consultant for Breach. This agreement may be terminated by the CITY for default if the Consultant breaches this agreement or if the Consultant refuses or fails to pursue the work under this agreement or any phase of the work with such diligence which would assure its completion within a reasonable period of time. Termination of this agreement because of a default of the Consultant shall not relieve the Consultant from liability of such default. 9. Citv's Riqht to Terminate Pavrnent for Convenience. Documents. 9.1. Notwithstanding any other section or provision of this agreement, the CITY shall have the absolute right at any time to terminate this agreement or any work to be performed pursuant to this agreement. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 10 ) ¡.~ cÀ~~ -....----.----... ~... --..-.-.,.. 9.2. In the event of termination of this agreement by the CITY in the absence of default of the Consultant, the City shall pay the Consultant for the reasonable value of the services actually performed by the Consultant up to the date of such termination, less the aggregate of all sums previously paid to the Consultant for services performed after execution of this agreement and prior to its termination. 9.3. The Consultant hereby expressly waives any and all claims for damage or compensation arising under this agreement, except as set forth herein, in the event of such termination. 9.4. In the event of termination of this agreement, and upon demand of the City, the Consultant shall deliver to the City, all field notes, surveys, studies, reports, plans, drawings and all other materials and documents prepared by the Consultant in performance of this agreement, and all such documents and materials shall be the property of the City; provided however, that the Consultant may retain copies for their own use and the City shall provide a copy, at Applicant's cost, of all such documents to the Applicant. 9.5. Applicant shall have no right to terminate Consultant, and shall not exercise any control or direction over Consultant's work. 10. Administrative Claims Reauirement and Procedures No suit shall be brought arising out of this agreement, against the City, unless a claim has first been presented in writing and filed with the City of Chula Vista and acted upon by the City of Chula Vista in accordance with the procedures set forth in Chapter 1.34 of the Chula vista Municipal Code, the provisions of which are incorporated by this reference as if set fully set forth herein. 11. Hold Harmless and Indemnification 11.1. Consultant to Indemnifv Citv and Auulicant re In;uries. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 11 ) I ~ ;2? "--...--.---..--.- ,"-- -....... "'.------.....,.--.-- Consultant shall defend, indemnify, protect and hold harmless the City, its elected and appointed officers and employees and Applicant from and against all claims for damages, liability, cost and expense (including without limitation attorneys' fees) arising out of the conduct of the Consultant, or any agent or employees, subcontractors, or others of City or Applicant in connection with the execution of the work covered by this Agreement, except only for those claims arising from the sole negligence or sole willful misconduct of the City, its officers, or employees, or Applicant, Consultant's indemnification shall include any and all costs, expenses, attorneys' fees and liability incurred by the City, its officers, agents, or employees or Applicant in defending against such claims, whether the same proceed to judgment or not. Further, Consultant at its own expense shall, upon written request by the City or Applicant, defend any such suit or action brought against the City, its officers, agents, or employees or Applicant. Consultants' indemnification of City and Applicant shall not be limited by any prior or subsequent declaration by the Consultant. 11.2. Auulicant to Indemnifv City re Compensation of Consultant. Applicant agrees to defend, indemnify and hold the City harmless against and from any and all claims, losses, damages, expenses or expenditures of City, including its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, or representatives of the City ("City Indemnitees"), in any way resulting from or arising out of the refusal to pay compensation as demanded by Consultant for the performance of services required by this Agreement. 12. Business Licenses Applicant agrees to obtain a business license from the City and to otherwise comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 5. Applicant further agrees to require Consultant to obtain such business license and to comply with Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 5. 13. Miscellaneous. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 199B Page 12 / I ~;L? - -----.-.......-.-.---- ...--~------------ 13 .1. Consultant not authorized to ReDresent Citv. Unless specifically authorized in writing by City, neither Consultant nor Applicant shall have authority to act as City's agent to bind City to any contractual agreements whatsoever. 13.2. Notices. All notices, demands or requests provided for or permitted to be given pursuant to this Agreement must be in writing. All notices, demands and requests to be sent to any party shall be deemed to have been properly given or served if personally served or deposited in the United States mail, addressed to such party, postage prepaid, registered or certified, with return receipt requested, at the addresses identified for the parties in Exhibit A. 13.3. Entitlement to Subseauent Notices. No notice to or demand on the parties for notice of an event not herein legally required to be given shall in itself create the right in the parties to any other or further notice or demand in the same, similar or other circumstances. 13.4. Entire Aqreement. This Agreement, together with any other written document referred to or contemplated herein, embody the entire Agreement and understanding between the parties relating to the subject matter hereof. Neither this Agreement nor any provision hereof may be amended, modified, waived or discharged except by an instrument in writing executed by the party against which enforcement of such amendment, waiver or discharge is sought. 13.5. CaDacitv of Parties. Each signatory and party hereto hereby warrants and represents to the other party that it has legal authority and capacity and direction from its principal to enter into this Agreement; that all resolutions or other actions have been taken so as to enable it to enter into this Agreement. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 13 II/cJ rr ..__._~.. -_._-----~_._,_.__.__..._"--- 13.6. GoverninG Law/Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. Any action arising under or relating to this Agreement shall be brought only in the federal or state courts located in San Diego County, State of California, and if applicable, the City of Chula Vista, or as close thereto as possible. Venue for this Agreement, and performance hereunder, shall be the City of Chula Vista. 13.7. Modification. No modification or waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless the same shall be in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and then shall be valid only in the specific instance and for the purpose for which given. 13.8. Counteruarts. This Agreement may be executed in more than one counterpart, each of which shall be deemed to be an original but all of which, when taken together shall constitute but one instrument. 13.9. Severability. In the event that any provision of this Agreement shall for any reason, be determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable in any respect, the parties hereto shall negotiate in good faith and agree to such amendments, modifications, or supplements to this Agreement or such other appropriate action as shall, to the maximum extent practicable in light of such determination, implement and give effect to the intentions of the parties as reflected herein. 13 .10. HeadinGs. The captions and headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not define or limit the provisions hereof. 13 .1l. Waiver. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 14 j//.,2c; -------_.._..-~....-.._._'""----,._"-_.~ No course of dealing or failure or delay, nor the single failure or delay, or the partial exercise of any right, power or privilege, on the part of the parties shall operate as a waiver of any rights herein contained. The making or the acceptance of a payment by either party with knowledge of the existence of a breach shall not operate or be construed to operate as a waiver of any such breach. 13.12. Remedies. The rights of the parties under this Agreement are cumulative and not exclusive of any rights or remedies which the parties might otherwise have unless this Agreement provides to the contrary. 13.13 . No Additional Beneficiaries. Despite the fact that the required performance under this agreement may have an affect upon persons not parties hereto, the parties specifically intend no benefit therefrom, and agree that no performance hereunder may be enforced by any person not a party to this agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this is a three party agreement and the City is an express third party beneficiary of the promises of Consultant to provide services paid for by Applicant. (End of Paqe. Next Page is Signature Page.) - 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 15 / /'.3 {} /11- 5"- .---.-.-..-- Signature Page Now therefore, the parties hereto, having read and understood the terms and conditions of this agreement, do hereby express their consent to the terms hereof by setting their hand hereto on the date set forth adjacent thereto. Dated: City of Chula Vista by: John Goss, City Manager Attest: Beverly Authelet City Clerk Approved as to Form: John M. Kaheny City Attorney Dated: Consultant: by: Peter N. Robertson Dated: Applicant: A California limited liability company By: Otay Project, LLC A Delaware limited liability company, Authorized Member by: Kim John Kilkenny, Vice President Dated: 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 16 /).- :1 I .._---~--_.."._"-"._"-_. Applicant: McMi11in-DA America Otay Ranch LLC A Delaware limited liability company By: McMillin Otay Ranch, Inc. A California corporation Its: Manager By: Title: By: Title: Dated: 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 17 / / ~ J;L ___~_.....___.u.________..__._____ Exhibit B Additional Recitals WHEREAS, Otay Ranch Company and McMillin-D.A. America Otay Ranch LLC are required to comply with the In-Lieu Fee to be adopted by the City Council for the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve prior to recordation of Final \\BfI Maps, and WHEREAS, the In-Lieu Fee shall be based on an average per acre value established for the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve which shall be determined by a fair and impartial appraisal of the entire Preserve, and WHEREAS, consultant services are required to conduct said appraisal, and WHEREAS, the City Manager appointed a selection committee which has in accordance with Section 2.56.230 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, recommended the above noted Consultant to perform the required services for the City, and WHEREAS, the Director of Planning has negotiated the details of this agreement in accordance with procedures set forth in Sections 2.56.220-224 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code and Sections 6.5.2 and 6.6 of the Environmental Review Procedures. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 1 ))/33 ..... -.-- . - ,._~. ... ...-.... ---..---------- Exhibit A Reference Date of Agreement: Effective Date of Agreement: City of Chula Vista, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910 Consultant: Peter N. Robertson, Certified General Appraiser, Business Form of Consultant: (X) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership ( ) Corporation Address: 7183 Navajo Road, Suite G San Diego, California 92119 619-466-4404 Co-Applicant: Otay Ranch Company, LLC, Business Form of Applicant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship (X) Partnership ( ) Corporation Address: 11975 El Camino Real, Suite 104 San Diego, CA 92130 619-259-2934 Co-Applicant: McMillin-D.A. America Otay Ranch LLC, Business Form of Applicant: ( ) Sole Proprietorship ( ) Partnership (X) Corporation Address: 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, CA 91950 619-477-4117 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 2 )) ~ 31 ,.-..-.-. - "'.-..-...------- 1. Property (Commonly known address or General Description) : The property to be appraised is generally identified as the Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve and consists of 11,375 acres. The land is identified in the Otay Ranch General Development Plan/Subregional Plan and the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan, Phase 1. 2. Project Description ( II proj ect ") : Appraisal of the 11,375 acre Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve. 3. Entitlements applied for: Not applicable. 4. General Nature of Consulting Services ("Services--General") : The Consultant shall undertake the preparation of a comprehensive appraisal of the 11,375 acre Otay Ranch Open Space Preserve in order to establish an In-Lieu Fee. 5. Detailed Scope-of-Work ("Detailed Services ") : The appraisal shall comply with all Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (US PAP. The appraisal of the Preserve will serve as the basis for establishment of the in-lieu fee. The appraisal shall identify the overall value of the Preserve. The entire 11,375 acre Preserve must be appraised and an average per acre value determined in order for the in-lieu fee to be implemented. In establishing this overall value, the appraiser should carefully consider supply and demand for the concluded highest and best use. Depending on the comparable data, the appraiser may consider the property by habitat types, topographical areas or other means as deemed appropriate in the appraiser's judgement and is consistent with USPAP. The appraisal shall be used to set an in-lieu fee for the mitigation of 9,575 acres of developable property. 6. Schedule, Milestone, Time-Limitations within which to Perform Services. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 3 )J~3~ ._.~_m"'_'._'_"__._ ..__ __ Date for Commencement of Consultant Services: (X) Same as Effective Date of Agreement Dates or Time Limits for Delivery of Deliverables: Deliverable No. 1: Four (4) copies of the full narrative appraisal report that conform so all US PAP reporting requirements by February 28, 1998. Dates for completion of all Consultant services: February 28, 1998 7. Documents to be provided by City to Consultant: (X) site plans ( ) grading plans ( ) architectural elevations (X) project description. (X) other: Otay Ranch GDP/SRP, Otay Ranch SPA One Plan, Final Program EIR for Otay Ranch (Vol. 1, Vol. 2 and Appendices),Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (One and Two) ,Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Draft Second Tier EIR (Technical Appendices) , Otay Ranch SPA One and Annexation Final Second Tier EIR and SPA One Biological Data Base, 1994/1995 (Dudek) . 8 . Contract Administrators. City: Kenneth Lee, Acting Planning Director Co-Applicants: Kim John Kilkenny, Vice President, Otay Ranch Company, LLC Craig Fukuyama, Vice President, McMillin-DA America Otay Ranch LLC Consultant: Peter N. Robertson, Certified General Appraiser 9. Statement of Economic Interests, Consultant Reporting Categories, per Conflict of Interest Code: 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 4 )/-- J? -~-,_.__._--~..----_.__. ---- -~._..._... . ..- _....- ( X) Not Applicable. Not an FPPC Filer. ( ) Category No. lo Investments and sources of income. ( ) Category No. 2. Interests in real property. ( ) Category No. 3. Investments, interest in real property and sources of income subject to the regulatory, permit or licensing authority of the department. ( ) Category No. 4. Investments in business entities and sources of income which engage in land development, construction or the acquisition or sale of real property. ( ) Category No. 5. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the City of Chula Vista (Redevelopment Agency) to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No. 6. Investments in business entities and sources of income of the type which, within the past two years, have contracted with the designated employee's department to provide services, supplies, materials, machinery or equipment. ( ) Category No. 7. Business positions. 10. Insurance Requirements: (X ) Statutory Worker's Compensation Insurance ( ) Employer's Liability Insurance coverage: $1,000,000. (X ) Commercial General Liability Insurance: $500,000. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 5 //-:1 ') - _.__._._--~_.._,.._---- (X ) Errors and Omissions insurance: None Required (included in Commercial General Liability coverage) . ( ) Errors and Omissions insurance: $250,000 (not included in Commercial General Liability coverage) . (X ) Professional Liability $1,000,000 . 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 6 //--J'6 ~...._...._m'._'.__._"..__..·_. -.....-.-.-.-.---- _.,- Exhibit C Compensation Schedule and Deposit: Terms and Conditions. (X ) Single Fixed Fee Arrangement. For performance of all of the General and Detailed Services of Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay a single fixed fee in the amounts and at the times or milestones set forth below: (X ) Single Fixed Fee Amount: $42,000.00 (not to exceed) The fee shall be split between Otay Ranch Company and McMillin DA America Otay Ranch LLC on a 2/3 and 1/3 basis,respectively. (Otay Ranch Company, $28,000 and McMillin Companies, $14,000) Milestone or Event Amount or Percent of Fixed Fee 1. Signing of this agreement by all parties and upon the request of the contractor. $$21,000 (aRC = $14,000) (McM = $ 7,000) 2. Upon completion of draft appraisal $$16,800 (aRC = $11,200) (McM = $ 5,600) 3. Upon completion of product $$4,200 (aRC = $2,800) (McM = $1,400) ( ) Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement. For the performance of each phase or portion of the General and Detailed Services of Consultant as are separately identified in Exhibit C, under the category labeled "Phased Fixed Fee Arrangement" , Applicant shall pay the fixed fee associated with 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 7 J/~37 '··___H_ . -"- ---.--------------.- ..... -'--'-'- each phase of Services, in the amounts and at the times or milestones set forth hereinbelow ("Phase Fixed Fee Arrangement") . Consultant shall not commence Services under any Phase, and shall not be entitled to the compensation for a Phase, unless Applicant shall have issued a notice to proceed to Consultant as to said Phase. Fee for Phase Said Phase 1. $ 2. $ 3 . $ 4. $ ( ) Time and Materials For performance of the General and Detailed Services of Consultant as herein required, Applicant shall pay Consultant for the productive hours of time and material spent by Consultant in the performance of said Services, at the rates or amounts set forth hereinbelow according to the following terms and conditions: ( )Not-to-Exceed Limitation on Time and Materials Arrangement Notwithstanding the expenditure by Consultant of time and materials in excess of said Maximum Compensation amount, Consultant agrees that Consultant will perform all of the General and Detailed Services herein required of Consultant for $ including all Materials, and other "reimburseables" ("Maximum Compensation") . 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 8 //~itJ ~._._- - ---.-... --..---- ( ) Limitation without Further Authorization on Time and Materials Arrangement At such time as Consultant shall have incurred time and materials equal to ( "Authorization Limit") , Consultant shall not be entitled to any additional compensation without further authorization issued in writing and approved by the City Council. Nothing herein shall preclude Consultant from providing additional Services at Consultant's own cost and expense. 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 9 ))~ 1)) -~....,,-----_._-_._._~-~_._._._...- Rate Schedule (For purposes of requiring additional work if necessary) Category of Employee Hourly of Consultant Name Rate Project Manager Peter N. Robertson $75.00 Appraiser Alan M. Wilson, MAI $75.00 Appraiser Mark W.Routh $75.00 Clerical Support $20.00 ( ) Hourly rates may increase by 6% for services rendered after June, 1992, if delay in providing services is caused by City or Applicant. Materials Separately Paid For by Applicant Cost or Rate ( ) Materials Actual Reports Copies ( ) Travel Actual ( ) printing Actual ( ) Postage Actual ( ) Delivery Actual ( ) Long Distance Telephone Charges Actual ( ) Other Actual Identifiable Direct Costs Actual 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 10 /J/Lj;L ~- ..~_. .--.-.-..-...-..--....,,---- , ----------------------------------- Deposit ( X ) Deposit Amount: $42,000.00 McMillin = $14,000 Otay Ranch Company = $28,000 ( X ) Use of Deposit to Pay Consultant. Notwithstanding the sole duty and liability of Applicant to pay Consultant, if this paragraph is "checked", upon City's receipt of billing by Consultant, and determination by City in good faith that Consultant's billing is proper, a judgment for which Applicant agrees to hold City harmless and waive any claim against City, City shall pay Consultant's billing from the amount of the Deposit. If Applicant shall protest the propriety of a billing to City in advance of payment, City shall consider Applicant's protest and any evidence submitted prior to the due date for the payment of said bill by Applicant in making its good faith determination of propriety. ( ) Use of Deposit as Security Only; Applicant to Make Billing Payments. Upon determination by City made in good faith that Consultant is entitled to compensation which shall remain unpaid by Applicant 30 days after billing, City may, at its option, use the Deposit to pay said billing. ---------------------------------- ( X ) Bill Processing: A. Consultant's Billing to be submitted for the following period of time: ( ) Monthly ( ) Quarterly ( X ) Other: As Der milestones noted above 3ptyS.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 11 J/~ 1/3 --~...- . --.-.-- .....~_.- -----,-------_._~---- B. Day of the Period for submission of Consultant's Billing: ( ) First of the Month ( ) 15th Day of each Month ( ) End of the Month ( ) Other: C. City's Account Number: to be determined 3pty5.wp Standard Form Three Party Agreement January 20, 1998 Page 12 J)~Y( "----_._~-_._.,...,--~ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: /..2. Meeting Date: _ 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: /7r?/ Resolution Amending the FY 1997-98 Budget to add 1.00 Full-time Equivalent (FTE) Building Inspector II Position and Vehicle; Total additional appropriation not to exceed $42,400 therefore from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund reserve. SUBMITTED BY: DI",ct'" ct ",'Id'og MdlJ;fJJ./tV REVIEWED BY: City Manage0G ~ .. (4/5ths Vote: Yes.lL No---1 During the adoption of the FY-98 Budget, the Department of Building and Housing identified the possible need to unfreeze a Building Inspector II position in January 1998 in order to meet the projected workload. Council agreed to review unfreezing the Building Inspector II position if the building permit revenues through the month of October projected to at least $2,000,000 for the fiscal year. Through the first quarter (July through October) permit revenues project to $2,590,000 for FY-98. Through the second quarter, these revenues project to $2,784,000 for the fiscal year. RECOMMENDATION: Unfreeze one Building and Housing Inspector II position and amend the FY 1997-98 budget to include 1.00 FTE Building and Housing Inspector II including salary and benefits, vehicle with radio, associated maintenance costs, training, minor office furniture, and related small tools in an amount not to exceed $42,400. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The City of Chula Vista is experiencing a significant increase in the volume of new construction. The value of construction activity has steadily increased in the previous three calendar years 1995, 1996 and 1997. The valuation for calendar year 1997 is $203,000,000, which represents a 14% increase in construction activity from 1996 levels. Such increases in construction activity impacts the Department of Building and Housing primarily in two areas, plan review and building inspections. The increased workload for plan review services is being addressed through an increased use of an outside professional plan review consultant. However, unlike plan review services, field inspection services encompassing full combination inspection services are not readily available from outside consultants. Hence, the need to unfreeze one Building Inspector position and hire a full-time employee exists. By way of general background information, this particular position was frozen in the FY-95 Budget due to retirement of the then Senior Building Inspector in August, 1994. In September, 1994, the Senior Building Inspector position was filled via a promotion of a Building/Housing Inspector II. At that time, the Department chose to not openly recruit for the position, opting rather to freeze the position until construction activity increased. /;2 -/ .---...-- Page 2 Item It. Meeting Date: 1/20/98 During the past twelve months (January through December, 1997), the Department issued 1,027 permits for single family dwelling structures. A review of the activity indicates that the majority of these permits were issued in the past six months. However, 665 of the 1,027 dwelling units permitted have yet to start construction. Consequently, with this inventory, coupled with the positive sales trend for new dwellings occurring, the Department will experience a significant number of requests for Building Inspection services for these 665 permits, as well as the high volume of permit activity scheduled to occur over the next several years. Information provided by major developers forecast a significant increase in construction activity, (approximately 2,000 single family dwellings in 1998), and continuing the next several years. In response to both the current workload and this anticipated long-term increase to perform mandatory inspection services, the Department of Building and Housing is requesting authorization to unfreeze an existing Building Inspector II position effective February 2, 1998. Continuing to freeze this position will result in delays in our delivery of service to the development sector and may potentially result in a reduction of the quality of inspection performed by our staff due to having to inspect more structures with limited time. Permit fees collected at time of building permit issuance offset the cost of Building/Housing Inspectors to perform mandatory inspection services in compliance with the State Building Standards as well as Municipal Code requirements. The Department has been able to respond to the increasing demands for services by a variety of means, inclusive of overtime, saturday inspections and the having the Senior Building Inspector performing routine building inspection tasks. The proposed Building Inspector II position will be a 'combination inspector', an individual skilled in the ability to perform all the required structural, electrical, plumbing, mechanical, energy and accessibility inspections for residential and commercial projects of varied complexities. The Department employs combination Building/Housing Inspectors as a method to streamline inspection services and minimize inspection costs. FISCAL IMPACT: $42,400 to unfreeze the Building Inspector II position for the remainder of FY-98 from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund reserve. The revenue to offset this amount has been, and will continue to be generated by the increase in construction activity which reflects increased revenues from fees collected at the time of building permit issuance. The funding request is comprised of the following; 1) salary and benefits for five months - $20,400; 2) vehicle, radio and maintenance - $21,000, and 3) furniture, training and small tools - $1,000. The fiscal impact of unfreezing the Building Inspector II Position on the proposed FY-99 Budget is $53,000 which includes salary, benefits, vehicle maintenance and training. """""'''' );2..--;2., (H~..t¡bId_hag\ll113b12,wpd) -.~..._._---- RESOLUTION NO. ) gg-7 / RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY 1997-98 BUDGET TO ADD 1. 00 FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE) BUILDING INSPECTOR II POSITION AND VEHICLE; TOTAL ADDITIONAL APPROPRIATION NOT TO EXCEED $42,400 THEREFORE FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE OF THE GENERAL FUND RESERVE WHEREAS, during the adoption of the FY 1997-98 budget, the Department of Building and Housing identified the possible need to reinstate a Building Inspector II position in January 1998 in order to meet the projected workload; and WHEREAS, Council agreed to review unfreezing the Building Inspector II position if the building permit revenues through the month of October projected to at least $2,000,000 for the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, through the first quarter (July through October) permit revenues projected to $2,590,000 for FY 1997-98 and through the second quarter, these revenues projected to $2,700,000; and WHEREAS, staff recommends unfreezing one Building and Housing II position and amending the budget to include said position including salary, benefits, vehicle with radio, associated maintenance costs, training, minor office furniture, and related small tools in an amount not to exceed $42,400. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby amend the FY 1997-98 budget to add 1.00 full-time equivalent (FTE) Building Inspector II position. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that an amount not to exceed $42,400 is hereby appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the General Fund for the following: 1. Salary and benefits for five months $20,400 2 . Vehicle, radio and maintenance 21,000 3 . Furniture, training & small tools 1.000 $42,400 Presented by Approved as to form by Kenneth Larsen, Director of Building & Housing C:\rs\codenf1.pos J:l --3 --------- "." --,-,---~ ----.- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 1.3 Meeting Date 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: Resolution ) ff 8"7.2APproving the filing of two applications for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funds with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services and designating the City Engineer as the authorized representative for this program SUBMITTED BY: Di=to, of """tic W~k~ v\M REVIEWED BY: City Manager JG ï ..., (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No?,) In December of 1997 the Engineering Division received a letter from the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) inviting the City to apply for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). The Federal Emergency Management Agency has provided a one time opportunity to make uncommitted HMGP funds available. Staff submitted a "notice of interest" in filing an application for the Telegraph Canyon Channel Project to the Office of Emergency Services. The "notice of interest" was positively received and staff decided to submit a full application. Staff is also filing a second application for a project involving the installation of four rip rap structures across the natural channel upstream of the Bonita Long Canyon Dam. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approves the resolution approving the filing of two applications for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funds with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services and designating the City Engineer as the authorized representative for this program. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: The first project proposed to be the subject ofthe application for HMGP funding is the Telegraph Canyon Channel Project (DR-l 18) between First and Third A venues. This area has historically been subjected to flood damage and severe erosion. In 1989, the Corps of Engineers and the City completed the construction of the flood control channel between Fourth Avenue and 1-5. In 1993, the City provided gunite protection at several critically eroded locations between First and Third A venues. This section of channel flows through the backyards of roughly 50 properties. Funds received from the HMGP will enable the City to fully implement all phases of the current capital improvement project. Phase 1 extending from "K" Street to 300 feet north of Sierra Way is currently in the final stages of design pending environmental clearances by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Department, Department of Fish and Game and the Army Corps of Engineers. Should this application be approved, the City will be able to proceed with the remaining phases as soon as the grant funds are released. This could take place sooner than scheduled. The second project proposed to be the subject of the application for HMGP funding is the Bonita Long Canyon project. The project involves the installation of four rip rap structures across the 13-/ _______________n.._.._"_ . "-..--.--- . Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 1/20/98 natural channel upstream of the Bonita Long Canyon Dam. The proposed project will reduce the flow of sediment and subsequent blockages of both the debris basin and its outlet structure. The HMGP requires applicants to provide a minimum matching ratio of 25% of the project costs. The approximate total cost of the Telegraph Canyon channel project is $7,000,000 of which 25% or $1,750,000 will be the City's share (75% or $5,250,000 will come from the HMGP if the application is approved). The approximate total cost of the Bonita Long Canyon channel project is $15,000 of which 25% or $3,750 will be the City's share (75% or $11,250 will come from the HMGP if the application is approved). FISCAL IMPACT: Potential total revenues to the City of $5,261,250. The actual amount is dependent upon the actual ranking of the City's projects by the Governor's Office of Emergency Services. The City's matching funds of$I,750,000 for the Telegraph Canyon channel project will be appropriated from the Telegraph Canyon DIF. Receipt of DIF funds is dependent upon development of the Telegraph Canyon Basin consisting ofOtay Ranch and portions of Eastlake and Rancho Del Rey. The receipt ofHMGP funds could ultimately reduce the Telegraph Canyon DIF fee and allow the project to be completed sooner. The City's matching funds of $3,750 for the Bonita Long Canyon channel project will be appropriated from the Storm Fee fund. Following approval of the grant application, staff will submit a report to the City Council outlining a financial plan to implement both projects. OES may require the City to front the grant money if the law requires them to issue payments on a reimbursement basis following construction completion. Also, OES may approve a smaller grant depending on the number of projects to be submitted statewide. The financial plan will discuss these issues and make proposals on borrowing the needed money. This resolution approves the filing of the applications only and does not obligate the City to accept the grant. Note: A complete copy of the grant applications is on file in the City Clerk's office for Council vlewmg. Attachment: Notice ofInterest ~~ Files: 0735-10-DRI18 .. 0735-10-DRI29 ~ H:IHOMEIENGINEERIAGENDAIHAZMGP.MC /3--.2 ~---.__._-~-_._-~-,-- - - - --^ RESOLUTION NO. /"6' ð"?;2 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE FILING OF TWO APPLICATIONS FOR HAZARD MITIGATION GRANT PROGRAM FUNDS WITH THE GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES AND DESIGNATING THE CITY ENGINEER AS THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THIS PROGRAM WHEREAS, in December of 1997, the Engineering Division received a letter from the Governor's Office of Emergency Services (OES) inviting the City to apply for funding under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) ; and WHEREAS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has provided a one time opportunity to make uncommitted HMGP funds available; and WHEREAS, staff submitted a "notice of interest" in filing an application for the Telegraph Canyon Channel Project to the Office of Emergency Services; and WHEREAS, the "notice of interest" was positively received and staff decided to submit a full application. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby approve the filing of two applications for Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Funds with the Governor's Office of Emergency Services. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the city Engineer is hereby designated as the authorized representative for this program. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works C:\rs\HMGP )3/3 ~_.~_.._,_..,_..._----------_.._--_..,.~ Governor's Office of Emergency Services Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 1. Project Title: Telegraph Canvon Channel Improvements 2. Project Type: Drainage improvements needed to eliminate flooding/erosion problems 3. Applicant Name: City of Chula Vista 4. Applicant Type: City-X- County _ State_ Non-Profit _ Special District_ Other - 5. Applicant Address: 276 Fourth Avenue City: Chula Vista State: SL Zip Code: 91910 County: San Diego Federal Employer Identification Number (EIN): Federal Information Processing Number (FIPS): 6. Applicant's Agent/Contact Name and Title: Dennis C. Davies, Civil Engineer Address (if different from applicant): City: State: Zip Code: Phone: (619)691-5173 Fax: (619)691-5171 Email: 7. Alternate Contact Name and Title: Silvester Evetovich. Assistant Civil Engineer Address (if different from applicant): City: State: Zip Code: Phone: (619)691-5227 Fax: (619)691-5171 Email: 8. Project Location From the west end of Hilltop Park, ;ust upstream of First Avenue and Millan Court. to approximatelv 400 feet east of Fourth Avenue, south of "L" Street. 9. Is this project being considered or funded by Public Assistance? Yes - No -1L DSR# 10. Total Project Cost Federal Requested Share: $5,250,000 (Maximum is 75% of the eligible project cost) Applicant Match: $1,750,000 (Minimum is 25% of the eligible project cost) Total Project Cost: $7,000.000 11. Legislative Districts Applicant Proiect Site State Assembly # 77 and 79 # NA State Senate # 40 # NA U.S. Congressional District # 50 # NA State of California Use Only ~ Place Date Stamp HMGP Reference II on right side only Assigned Reviewer ++++++ J3~1 """1....'1"....... "'f'I...t...·...:-t1 ... ....-~-~-~--~~.".__..._- 12. Brief Summary of the Problem: (Describe the problem you ate attempting to mitigate in the space provided below) The remaining unimproved portion of the Telegraph Canyon Creek downstream of Hilltop Drive has been historically subject to flood damage and severe erosion. In 1989, the Corp of Engineers (CO E) and the City finished the construction of the flood control channel from Fourth Avenue to the San Diego Bay at a cost of $9.9 million. Later, after severe flooding due to heavy storms in 1993, the City provided gunite protection at several critically eroded locations between First Avenue and "L" Street as an interim measure while a permanent solution was being devised. The remaining unimproved channel between Hilltop Drive and Fourth Avenue is 95% residential. This channel currently flows through the back yards of roughly 50 residents. Residents have been losing usable property in minor storms and are subject to flood damage in major events. Erosion has been severe in some cases, coming within a few feet of home foundations. This is the only reach of this channel which remains unimproved. 13. Brief Summary of the Proposed Solution: (Describe the proposed mitigation solution in the space provided below) The City of Chula Vista proposed a Capital Improvement Project (CIP Project No. DE-118) consisting of a concrete lined flood control channel. The proposed channel is approximately 5,500 feet long and will be designed to carry 3,300 d.s. The channel lies within the 100 year FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) Floodway Frequency Boundary. This project involves the improvement of a FEMA-mapped floodway to FEMA requirements and City of Chula Vista threshold standards. The project encompasses approximately 250,000 s. f. (5.75 acres) of improvements and requires 145,800 sJ. (3.35 acres) of drainage easements. Environmental permit processing is underway with State Fish and Game, Fish and Wildlife service and the COE. The City has limited funding that would cover our matching share, but needs the assistance of the grant to complete this important project. ~ /3~ -_.~~. .---~.,- .. "-.'. ......---..--....----..-.-----..-- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ) '-/ Meeting Date 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: Resolution J ~g-73 Accepting bids and awarding contract for the , construction of "Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements, from Naples Street to Emerson Street, in the City of Chula Vista, CA." (STL232) SUBMITrED BY, Direotoc of Pubtk Wocb ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager J6 ~ A (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX) At 2:00 p.m. on December 17, 1997 in Con rence Room 1, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids for the construction of "Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements, from Naples Street to Emerson Street, in the City of Chula Vista, CA." (STL232). The work to be done includes removal and disposal of existing improvements, excavation and grading, installation of asphalt concrete pavement, crushed aggregate base, cold planing, pedestrian ramps, curb and gutter, sidewalk, driveways, curb inlet, storm drain clean out, plastic pipes, reinforced concrete pipes, sewer laterals, street lighting, adjustment of sewer manholes, pavement striping and signing and other miscellaneous items of work as shown on the plans. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve resolution accepting bids and awarding contract to ABC Construction Company, Inc., San Diego, in the amount of $179,775.00. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On April 15, 1997 by Resolution No. 18630, Council accepted a petition, signed by 18 of the 20 property owners on Twin Oaks Avenue, for the formation of an assessment district (96-01) to construct street improvements, such as, curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street. That same day, by the approval of Resolution No. 18631, Council authorized the appropriation of $180,000 from the unappropriated balance of Gas Tax funds into the Twin Oaks Avenue project account. Staff, at that time, had estimated the total project costs at $340,000 with the construction costs at $216,000. About $115,000 of the estimated $216,000 cost of construction was to be reimbursed from the property owners upon successful formation of the assessment district. The project was then included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 1997/1998. Subsequently, on May 6, 1997 Council approved Resolution No. 18657 "Approving the boundary map showing the proposed boundaries for Assessment District 96-01 of properties to be assessed for /1/-// _ _ _____."._____.'n'·_.___'" Page 2, Item~ Meeting Date ] /20/98 street improvements" and Resolution No. 18568 "Ordering installation of improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street, ordering the Superintendent of Streets to give notice and order construction and setting public hearings on Resolution ofIntention to fonn Assessment District 96-0 I pursuant to the Block Act of 1911. " On July 15, 1997, Council held Public Hearings on the Resolution oflntention to fonn Assessment District 96-01, on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, and on July 22, 1997 Council held another Public Hearing on the same issue, pursuant to the Improvement Act of1911. That same day, Council also approved Resolution No. 18739 "Making findings at public hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911 ", and directed staffto proceed with the construction of the project. The project was advertised for a period of four weeks and plans were purchased by 16 contractors, and on the bid opening date we received nine bids, shown below: Contractor Bid Amount ABC Construction Co, Inc., San Diego $179,775.00 Heffler Company Inc, San Diego $185,637.00 C.W. McGrath, Inc., San Diego $186,753.00 Single Eagle, Inc., Poway $190,510.50 Star Paving Corporation, San Diego $191,430.00 L.R. Hubbard Constr. Co., Inc., San Diego $201,256.70 Frank and Son Paving, Chu1a Vista $207,494.90 Scheidel Contr. & Engrg., La Mesa $243,052.50 Weir Constr. Corp., San Diego * $623,621.40 (calc. error) The low bid by ABC Construction Company, Inc., is below the Engineer's estimate of $212,030.00 by $32,255.00 or by 15%. The Engineer's estimate was based on bids received for similar projects. It is our opinion that staff received excellent bids for the project. We have verified the contractor's license and other qualifications and detennined that they are in good order. The low bidder has satisfactorily met all the requirements. We, therefore, recommend awarding the contract to ABC Construction Company, Inc., San Diego. ) '-1-- .:2 --- ---~_.~_._-~--_._-----.------ Page 3, Itemil:.- Meeting Date 1/20/98 Disclosure Statement A copy of the contractor's Disclosure Statement is attached. PrevaiIin~ Wave Statement This project is primarily funded through Gas Tax Funds and Trunk Sewer Capital Reserves. Based on the current project funding guidelines, no prevailing wage requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents. Assessment District Issues During the course of fonning this assessment district, the property owners indicated that they had three major concerns that needed to be addressed before the assessment district could be fonned; setting a limit on the cost per lineal foot of improvement, providing alternative financing arrangements for people with financial hardships and retention of their existing mailboxes and services. The initial cost estimate that staff prepared for the petition, estimated the cost of the improyements to be about $94 per lineal foot of frontage. Although the low bid was significantly lower than the engineer's estimate for the whole project, the property owner's share is still about the same amount, because the unit prices bid for the reimbursable items of work was approximately the same as the engineer's estimate. The actual amount to be paid by each property owner would be detennined at the completion of the construction activity which is expected to be sometime in May 1998. The cost will not exceed the $100.00 per lineal foot cap established by the property owners. A few property owners also expressed a concern about the possibility of deferring assessment payments due to financial hardship. Staff will address each request for deferral of payments on an individual basis based on Council approved guidelines. These deferral requests will be brought to the Council for approval within the next few weeks. The last concern expressed by the property owners was the retention of their existing mailboxes. The U.S. Postal Service had design guidelines for modification of mailboxes and services within new construction areas that would have impacted the property owners on Twin Oaks Avenue. Due to the involvement of the area residents, the Chula Vista Postmaster decided that mailbox locations and services would remain unchanged, thus addressing their concern. The City has complied with the requirement of Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act", by mailing out ballots to all property owners subject to an increase in their property taxes and has counted the ballots returned and found that based on financial obligation, that 64.5% of the property owner's share, voted in favor of fonning the assessment district. /LJrJ ---------._------- Page 4, ItemL Meeting Date 1/20/98 All affected property owners have been notified of tonight's proposed Council action on this project. Environmental Status The City's Environmental Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and determined that the project is exempt under Section 15301(c), Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FISCAL IMPACT: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount $179,775.00 B. Contingencies (Approximately 21 %) $ 37,570.45 C. Sweetwater Authority (City Share of Water Facilities $25,000.00 Relocation Costs) D. Material Testing $3,654.55 E. Staff Cost (Inspection, Design, Surveying, Traffic and $ 24,000.00 Assessment District Formation) TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION $270,000.00 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Twin Oaks Ayenue Improyements (STL232)- Project Accounts $270,000.00 TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION $270,000.00 Funding for this project was budgeted in the FY 96-97 CIP budget. The project as budgeted ($340,000) will utilize Gas Tax Funds ($225,000) and Trunk Sewer Capital Reserves ($115,000). The funding from the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserves is a loan and will be used to fund the full amount of the costs estimated to be repaid by the property owners. The City will be reimbursed for about $115,000 over a period of 10 years at 7.00% interest, through the administration of Assessment District 96-01. The action requested tonight would allow staff to expend these funds for the construction work. Upon completion of the project, all funds not utilized will be reimbursed either to the Gas Tax Fund if it is not an item to be reimbursed by the property owner or to the Trunk Sewer Capital Reserve Fund if the savings is from reimbursable work that was not done. The project will require only routine City maintenance (mainly street sweeping) upon completion. Exhibit: A - ResolutiO~it. 18739 B· Reso' s. 18657 and 18658 C 'on Nos. 18630 and 18631 ~ ntractor's Disclosure Statement Pi e #0735-10-STL232 & 0725-IO-AD96-01 ) L/~7 - ------~_.._.,._^--_.--,----~._- RESOLUTION NO. /Zg73 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF "TWIN OAKS AVENUE IMPROVEMENTS, FROM NAPLES STREET TO EMERSON STREET, IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CA." (STL232) WHEREAS, at 2:00 p.m. on December 17, 1997 in Conference Room 1, the Director of Public Works received the following nine sealed bids for the construction of "Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements, from Naples Street to Emerson Street, in the City of Chula Vista, CA." (STL232) : Contractor Bid Amount ABC Construction Co, Inc., San Diego $179,775.00 Heffler Company Inc, San Diego $185,637.00 C.W. McGrath, Inc., San Diego $186,753.00 Single Eagle, Inc., Poway $190,510.50 Star Paving Corporation, San Diego $191,430.00 L.R. Hubbard Constr. Co., Inc., San Diego $201,256.70 Frank and Son Paving, Chula Vista $207,494.90 Scheidel ContI. & Engrg., La Mesa $243,052.50 Weir Constr. Corp., San Diego * $623,621.40 (calc. error) WHEREAS, the low bid by ABC Construction Company, Inc. , is below the Engineer's estimate of $212,030.00 by $32,255.00 or by 15%; and WHEREAS, staff has verified the contractor's license and other qualifications and determined that they are in good order, they have satisfactorily met all the requirements and, therefore, recommend awarding the contract to ABC Construction Company, Inc. , San Diego; and 1 /J//p - - - ---,---"-----_._--- ."..----. WHEREAS, this project is primarily funded through Gas Tax Funds and Trunk Sewer Capital Reserves and based on the current project funding guidelines, no prevailing wage requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents; and WHEREAS, on April 15, 1997 by Resolution No. 18630, council accepted a petition, signed by 18 of the 20 property owners on Twin Oaks Avenue, for the formation of an assessment district (96-01) to construct street improvements, such as, curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street; and WHEREAS, subsequently, on May 6, 1997 Council approved Resolution No. 18657 "Approving the boundary map showing the proposed boundaries for Assessment District 96-01 of properties to be assessed for street improvements" and Resolution No. 18568 "ordering installation of improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street, ordering the Superintendent of Streets to give notice and order construction and setting public hearings on Resolution of Intention to form Assessment District 96- 01 pursuant to the Block Act of 1911"; and WHEREAS, on July 15, 1997, Council held Public Hearings on the Resolution of Intention to form Assessment District 96-01, on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911, and on July 22, 1997 Council held another Public Hearing on the same issue, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 and approved Resolution No. 18739 "Making findings at public hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the Improvement Act of 1911", and directed staff to proceed with the construction of the project; and WHEREAS, the city's Environmental Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and determined that the project is exempt under section 15301(c), Class 1 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the city has complied with the requirement of Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote Act" by mailing out ballots to all property owners subject to an increase in their property taxes and has counted the ballots returned and found that based on financial obligation, that 64.5% of the property owner's share, voted in favor of forming the assessment district. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby accept the nine bids and awards the contract for the construction of "Twin Oaks Avenue Improvements, from Naples Street to Emerson street, in the City of Chula Vista, Ca." (STL232) to the lowest responsible bidder, ABC Construction Company, Inc. in the amount of $179,775.00. 2 /'-/~? ----_.~-----_.._.._._-. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract, in a form approved by the city Attorney, on behalf of the city of Chula vista, a copy of which shall be kept on file as Document No. . Presented by Approved as to form by (1. ~~ John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, city Atto ney Public Works C:\rs\twinoaks.bid 3 ) t)~? - --~~-------_.._-_.- 1/1.//1"'--- ff!j ,- . '_. le,_" COUNCIL AGENDA STÃ'Ì'EMENT cH\¡\.Jd ) t HerrE' '0' Meeting Date 7J~\ \o0r)!( ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on the Resolution ofIntention to fonn Assessment District 96-01, on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911. Resolution ¡g73cr Making findings at public hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911" SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works I r REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX) On May 6, 1997, Council adopted Resolution No. 18657 approving the boundary map for AD96-0 1. At the same meeting, Council also approved Resolution of Intention No. 18658 (see Exhibit A) ordering the installation of street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson Street pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (also known as the 1911 Block Act) and _ setting the public hearings for July 15 and 22, 1997. The public hearings are being held to receive public testimony on the proposed district improvements. The first public hearing was held on July \ 15, 1997. No property owners testified at the first public hearing. RECOMMEr'«"DATION: It is recommended that the Council: 1). Hold the public hearing; 2). Receive testimony; 3). Close the public hearing; 4). Approve the resolution making findings at public hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911" . BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDA nON: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On April 15, 1997 by Resolution # 18630, Council accepted a petition, signed by 18 of the 20 property owners, for the fonnation of an assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of street improvements, such as curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks A venue between Naples Street and Emerson Street. The Act is a fmancing mechanism which authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefitted property to finance the construction of public I --------~-"- -- Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 7/22/97 agencies to impose assessments on benefitted property to finance the construction of public . infrastructure facilities. The public improvements proposed to be financed through Assessment District (AD) 96-01 include widening the street ITom a paved width of24 feet to 36 feet, pedestrian ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways and miscellaneous appurtenant structures. Completion of the improvements is projected for the first quarter of 1998. In addition, on April 15, 1997, Council also approved Resolution # 18631 appropriating $180,000 ITom the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax fund into the Twin Oaks Avenue project account. Staffhas estimated the total project costs at $340,000 with the construction costs at $216,000. About $115,000 of the estimated $216,000 cost of construction is to be reimbursed ITOm the property owners upon su=ssfuI formation of the assessment district. The construction of the missing street improvements is included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 1997/1998. All owners of property within the proposed assessment district (see Exhibit B) were mailed notice of the two public hearings and the estimated assessment to their properties. The boundary map of AD96-01 was filed in the County Recorder's Office on Friday May 9th, 1997. Also, as required by the Act, the Resolution of Intention was published twice in the STAR NEWS newspaper on Saturday June 28th and on Saturday July 12th, 1997, with the first publication being at least ten (10) days prior to the Public Hearing date. In compliance with the Act, each property owner within the proposed district was also notified to construct the improvements ITontinglabutting their property. The notice also indicated that if construction is not CO=enced within sixty (60) days after the notice is given, the City shall proceed with the construction of the improvements and the cost of said construction shall then be assessed as a lien on the property. If the assessment is not paid upon confirmation, the City shall collect the unpaid balance of any assessment semiannually in conjunction with the collection of City taxes. In accordance with the Resolution of Intention, said balance shall be paid over a period of ten (10) years at an interest rate of7% per annum. The assessments are based on the amount of ITontage on Twin Oaks A venue and a portion of Naples Street. The assessments range ITom $4,700 to $ 13,066 (see Exhibit C). As of July 15, 1997, none of the property owners has applied for a construction pennit to instaII the improvements. All property owners were invited by mail to attend a meeting on Thursday May 29, 1997 at which details of the project were discussed. Only one of the property owners attended the meeting although staff did receive some telephone calls ITom other property owners. Staff was able to resolve those issues which were brought to their attention. Specifically, those issues centered on the widths and locations of driveways. The major issues discussed at the meeting were: I) assessment district proceedings; 2) project schedules; 3) project cost estimates and property owner's share of costs; 4) payment schedules; 5) financing alternatives 6) project design; 7) a question & answer session; and 8) upcoming public hearings. 2 -- Page 3, Item_ Meeting Date 7/22/97 In order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote on Taxes Act", which was passed by a majority of the state voters in a generally held election of November 5, 1996, staffhad to prepare ballots. Proposition 218 requires that a ballot be mailed to all property owners wlùch may be subject to an increase in their property taxes. When the ballots are returned, the majority of the votes for or against, based on fmancial obligation determines whether or not this district is formed. The results of the voting ballot returns as of June 18, 1997 show the following: 16 ballots of20 returned with 14 in favor ($74,166) and 2 against ($19,834) the formation of an assessment district Based on the property owner's total financial obligation of $114,858, the ballots returned represent 64.57% of the property owner's share of the financial obligation voting in favor. As of July 15, 1997, the other 4 property owners had not yet responded with their ballots, but they do have until the close of the second public hearing date ofJuly 22, 1997 to cast their vote (see attached ballot summary Exhibit D). Even if these final 4 property owners submit their ballots against the formation of this district, their sum financial obligation will not be enough to reverse the majority vote submitted. The property owners wlùch have already submitted their ballots, also have . wiûl the closure of the second public hearing date to change their vote, if desired. Estimated Assessments The estimated project cost is $340,000. The City will finance the construction of the improvements estimated at $216,000 and will be reimbursed by the property owner's their share of the cost of the improvements wlùch are estimated at $114,858. The City will collect these funds through the formation of AD96-01 and the collection of instaIlments with their property taxes. Design, inspection, district formation costs and contingencies, estimated at $124,000, will not be reimbursed and will be absorbed by the City in accordance with Council Policy #505-01 (Exhibit E). As mentioned above, the proposed total assessment amount is $114,858. The estimated amounts to be assessed to each of the parcels in the district is presented in Exhibit C. In order to address the Councills and property owner's concerns over financial hardslùp in meeting the payment obligations, staff has included an attachment (Exhibit F), wlùch describes alternative payment methods that Council bas adopted for other assessment districts. If there is a property owner wlùch has fmancial difficulties, they must have Council approval in order to utilize any of the reduced payment alternatives (Alternatives 2 & 3). Resolutions Tonight's action will continue the proceedings for the formation of AD 97-01 pursuant to the" 1911 Block Act". By approving the proposed resolution Council will make the following fmdings: I. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, bas instituted proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911 being Division 3 ----_._-~.-.-.,... _..~. ----.. · -- Page 4, Item_ Meeting Date 7/22/97 7 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of Califomia for the construction of certain authorized improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as Assessment District No. 96-01 (AD No.96-01); 2. Notice has been given in the manner and fonn as required by law and specifically Article II, Part 3, of Division 7 of the Streets and Highways Code, and a Certificate of Compliance is on file in the office of the City Clerk; 3. The City has complied with the requirement of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote On Taxes Act", by mailing out ballots to all property owners subject to an increase in their property taxes and has counted the ballots returned and found that based on financial obligation, that 64.5% of the property ownerls share, voted in favor of forming the assessment district; 4. A public hearing has been held and all testimony and evidence heard relating to the work of the improvement as proposed for the Assessment District if said construction is not commenced within sixty (60) days after notice is given to the property owner (by 7/05/97) cause the work to be done; 5. All protests of every nature are hereby ovenuled and denied; 6. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to proceed and cause the construction of the works and improvement in said Assessment District if said construction is not commenced within sixty (60) days after notice is given to the property owner (by 7/05/97) cause the work to be done; 7. The works of the improvement shall be done and carried through and financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 191 1 " and for all particulars as to these proceedings, reference is made to the Resolution ordering the installation of the public improvements and instructing the Superintendent of Streets to give notice; 8. The works of improvement and project shall be financed pursuant to the provisions of said Chapter 27, and the City shall collect each assessment remaining unpaid foIlowing the expiration of a 30 day cash coIlection period. Said balance shall be payable over a period of 10 years at an interest rate of 7% per annum. The City shall collect the unpaid balance of any assessment on the district properties semi-annually in conjunction with the coIlection of City taxes, excepting those properties for which a payment deferral has been approved. The coIlection of assessments on these properties shall be in accordance with the payment schedule stipulated in their deferral agreement. 1 -- Page 5, Item_ Meeting Date 7/22/97 Future Actions Bid results and award of the construction contract would be submitted to Council by September 1997. This item will include a public hearing where the property owners can review their assessments based on bids and, if they so desire, request Council to stop the district proceedings. Pursuant to the "1911 Block Act", confIrmation of the assessments will be brought before Council on or about April 1998, after the improvements are constructed. The construction is anticipated to be completed by late February, 1998. All property owners within this proposed assessment district of 20 parcels have been sent a copy of tonight's City Council agenda statement and attachments. FISCAL IMPACT: This project was originally approved in the FY96/97 budget as CIP project S1L232 - Twin Oaks A venue between Naples and Emerson Streets. The fInancing for this project (project total of$340,000) is being funded through Sewer Trunk funds ($115,000) and Gas Tax funds ($225,000). Assessment district proceedings will allow for the property owners within this district to participate in contributing $114,800 towards the costs of the construction, preliminarily estimated at $216,000. The estimated property owner's share will be reimbursed with 7% interest over a period of 10 years. Exhibits: A - Resolutions # 18657 & 18658 B - Boundary Map C - Estimated Assessments D - Ballot Summary E - Council Policy # 505-01 F - Description of Payment Alternatives Fn.E: 0725·]O-AD96-01 JuJ 16, 1997; 1:28pm H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA \AD961 PH2.FXR 5 -- -------,..-..--,.-------.-... - -.--- ~ -- RESOLUTION NO. J873'7 . RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA MAKING FINDINGS AT PUBLIC HEARING PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 27 OF THE "IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1911" TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01, ON TWIN OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN NAPLES STREET AND EMERSON STREET WHEREAS, the City Council approved Resolution of Intention No. 18658 ordering the installation of street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson Street pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911; and WHEREAS, all owners of property within the proposed assessment district were mailed notice of the public hearings and the estimated assessment to their property; and WHEREAS, the Resolution of Intention was published twice in the Star News on Saturday, June 28, 1997 and Saturday, July 12, 1997 with the first publication being at least ten days prior to the pUblic hearing date; and WHEREAS, each property owner within the proposed district was notified on May 5, 1997 to construct the improvements abutting their property within sixty (60) days after notice is given. - NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, ORDER AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findinqs: The city Council does hereby find as follows: A. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, . has instituted proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911 being Division 7 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California for the construction of certain authorized improvements in a special assessment district known and designated as Assessment District No. 96-01 (AD No. 96-01) . B. Notice has been given in the manner and form as required by law and specifically Article II, Part 3, of Division 7 of the Streets and Highway Code, and a Certificate of Compliance is on file in the office of the City Clerk. C. A public hearing has been held and all testimony and evidence heard relating to the work of improvement as proposed for the Assessment District, and the legislative body is desirous at this time to proceed. 1 0 -- Section 2. That all protests of every nature are hereby overruled and denied. section 3. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to proceed and cause the construction of the works and improvements in said Assessment District if said construction is not commenced within sixty (60) days after notice is given to the property owner (by 7/5/97) to cause the work to be done. section 4. The . works of the improvement shall be done and carried through and financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911" and for all particulars as to these proceedings, reference is made to the Resolution ordering the installation of the public improvements and instructing the Superintendent of Streets to give notice. section 5. The works of improvement and project shall be financed pursuant to the provisions of said Chapter 27, and the city shall collect each assessment remaining unpaid following the expiration of a 30 day cash collection period. Said balance shall be payable over a period of 10 years at an interest rate of 7% per annum. The city shall collect the unpaid balance of any assessment on the district properties semi-annually in conjunction with the collection of City taxes, excepting those properties for which a payment deferral has been approved. The collection of assessments on these properties shall be in accordance with the payment schedule stipulated in their deferral agreement. section 6. The Ci ty has complied with the requirement of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote On Taxes Act", by mailing out ballots to all property owners subject to an increase in their property taxes and has counted the ballots returned and found that based on financial obligation, that 64.5% of the property owner's share, voted in favor of forming the assessment district. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Public Works c: \rs\ad9601. fin 2 r¡ -- COUNCIL AGEl'DA STATEMEl'T Itemll Meeting Date 7/15/97 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing on the Resolution ofInrention to form Assessment District 96-01, on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street, pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works~ . . . . REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No..K.) On May 6, 1997, Council adopted Resolution No. 18657 approving the boundary map for AD96-0 1. At the same meeting, Council also approved Resolution of Intention No. 18658 (see Exhibit A) ordering the installation of street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue ftom Naples Street to Emerson Stre::tpursuantto the Improvement Act of19l1 (also known as the 1911 Block Act) and setting the public hearings for July 15 and 22,1997. The public hearings are being held to receive public testimony on the proposed district improvements. RECOMMENDATION: It is reco=ended that the Council: ;.. 1). Hold the public hearing;- 2). Receive testimony; 3). Close the public hearing; 4). Notify the public that a second public hearing will be held on July 22,1997 at 6:00 P.M. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On April 15, 1997 by Resolution # 18630, Council accepted a petition, signed by 18 of the 20 properties, for the formation of an assessment district (19 I 1 Block Act) for the construction of street improvements, such as curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks A venue between Naples Street and Emerson Street The Act is a financing mechanism which authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefitted property to finance the construction of public infrastructure facilities. The public improvements proposed to be financed thro1J~h Assessment District (AD) 96- 01 include wiàening the street fÌ'om a paved width of24 feet to 36 feet, pedestrian ramps, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways and miscellaneous appurtenant structures. Completion of the improvements is projected for the first quarter of 1998. ~--. X ,.,~.." . -- Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 7/15/97 In addition, on April 15, 1997, Council also approved Resolution # 18631 appropriating $180,000 ttom the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax fund into the Twin Oaks Avenue project account. Staffbas esrim:IT~d the total project costs at $340,000 with the cons1ruction costs at $216,000. About $115,000 of the estimated $216,000 cost of cOns1ruction is to be reimbursed ttom the property owners upon successfu1 formarion of the assessment district. The cons1ruction of the missing street improvements is included m the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fisca1 Year 1997/1998. . . . . . All owners of property within the proposed assessment district (see Exhibit B) were mailed notice of the two public hearings and the estimated assessment to their properties. The boundary map of AD96-01 was filed in the COlmty Recorder's Office on Friday May 9th, 1997. Also, as required by the Act, the Resolution of Intention was published twice in the STAR NEWS newspaper on Saturday June 28th and on Saturday July 12th, 1997, with the first publication being at least ten (10) days prior to the Public Hearing date. In compliance with the Act, each property owner within the proposed district was also notified to cons1ruct the improvements fronting/abutting their property. The notice also indicated that if construction is not commenced within sixty (60) days after the notice is given, the City shall proceed with the construction of the improvelnents and the cost of said construction shall then be assessed as a lien on the property. Ifthe assessment is not paid upon confirmation, the Citý shall collect the unpaid balance of any assessment semiannually in conjunction with the collection of City taxes. In accordance with the Resolution of Intention, said balance shall be paid over a period often (I 0) years at an interest rate of 7% per annum. The assessments are based on the amount of frontage on Twin Oaks Avenue and a portion of Naples Street The assessments range from $4,700 to $13,066 (see Exhibit C). A5 ofJune 18th, 1997, none of the property owners bas applied for a cons1ruction permit to install the improvements. All property owners were invited by mail to attend a meeting on Thursday May 29, 1997 at which details of the project were discussed. Only one of the property owners attended the meeting although staff did receive some telephone calls nom other property owners. Staff was able to resolve those issues which w= brought to their attention. Specifically, those issues centered on the widths and locations of àriveways. The major issues discussed at the meeting were: 1) assessment district procPPiiiTJgs; 2) project schedules; 3) project cost estimates and property owner's share of costs; 4) payment schedules; 5) financing alternatives 6) project design; 7) a question & answer session; and 8) upcoming public hearings. In order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote on Taxes Act", which was passed by a majority of the state voters m a generally held election of November 5, 1996, staffhad to prepare ballots. Proposition 218 requires that a ballot be mailed to all property owners which may be subject to an mcrease in their property taxes. When the ballots are returned, the majority of the votes for or <!gainst, based on fmancial obligation determines whether or not this 9 - _.._._~.-.._.. -- Page 3, Item_ Meeting Date 7/15/97 district is formed. The results of the voting ballot returns as of June 18, 1997 show the following: 16 ballots of20 returned with 14 in favor ($74,166) and 2 against ($19,834) the formation of an assessment district Based on the property owner's total financial obligation of$114,858, the ballots returned represent 64.57% of the property owner's share of the financial obligation voting in favor. Ai> of June 18, 1997, the other 4 property owners had not yet responded with their ballots, but they do have until the close of the second public hearing date of July 22, 1997 to cast their vote (see attached ballot summarý Exhibit D). Even if these final 4 property ow.ners submit their ballots against the fonna1Íon of this district, their sum financial obligation will not be enough to reverse the majority vote.submitted. The property owners which have already submitted their ballots, also have until the closure of the second public hearing date to change their vote, if desired. Estimated Ai>sessments The estimated project cost is $340,000. The City will finance the construction of the improvements estimated at $216,000 and will be reimbursed by the property owner's their share of the cost of the improvements which are estimated at $114,858. The City will collect these funds through the formation of AD96-01 and the collection of installments .with their property taxes. Design, - inspection, district formation costs and contingencies, estim~t..& aÌ$124,000, will-n~t be reimbursed - and will be absorbed by the'City in accordance with Council Policy #505-01 (Exhibit E). Ai> mentioned above, the proposed total assessment amount is $114,858. The estimated amounts to be assessed to each of the parcels in the district is presented in Exhibit C. In order to address the Council's and property owner's concerns over financial hardship in meeting the payment obligations, staff has included an attachment (Exhibit F), which describes alternative payment methods that Council has adopted for other assessment districts. If there is a property owner which has financial difficulties, they must have Council approval in order to utilize any of the reduced payment alternatives (Alternatives 2 & 3). Future Actions The second public hearing is scheduled for July 22,1997 at 6:00 PM. At that time, staffwill request Council approval of resolutions making certain findings on the district proceedings and directing the SuperintendeD! of Streets to proceed with the construction of the improvements. Bid results and award of the construction contract would be submitted to Council by late August, 1997 with construction co=encing in late September or early. October, 1997. Pursuant to the 1911 Block Act, the actual formation of the district and coIJfumation of the assessments will be brought before Council after the construction of the improvements is completed. The construction is anticipated to be completed by late February, 1998. /() -- Page 4, Item_ Meeting Date 7/15/97 All property owners within this proposed assessment district of20 parcels have been sent a copy of tonight's City Council agenda statement and attachments. flSCAL IMPACT: This project.was originally approved in the FY96/97 budget as CIP project S11.232 - Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples and Emerson Streets. The financing for this project (project total of $340,000) is being funded through Sewer Trunk funds ($115,000) and Gas Tax funds ($225,000). '. '. Assessment district proceedings will allow for the property owners within this district to participate in contributing $114,800 towards the costs of the construction, pre¡imin~riIy estimated at $216,000. The estimated property owner's share will be reimbursed with 7% interest over a period of 1 0 years. Exhibits: A - Resolutions # 18657 & 18658 B - Boundary Map C - Estimated Assessments D - Ballot Summary \ E - Council Policy # 505-01 __ F - Descriptiun of Payment Alternatives FUE: 0705- H'-AD96-01 Jam 24,1997; 3:04pm _ !l:IJ DMElENGlNEER'.AGENDA IAD961PHl.FXR 1/ EXHIBlï I \ -- RESOLUTION NO. 18657 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AP.PROVING THE BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01 OF PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED FOR ALLEY IMPROVEMENTS WHEREAS, on April 15, 1997 by Resolution 18630, Council accepted a petition for the formation of an assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of street improvements, such as cutb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street; and , , . WHEREAS, the City Environmental Review Coordinator studied the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project and has determined this project is categorically exempt from the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, has been ptesented and has received a map showing the general nature, location and extent of the proposed improvement work, and also designating. and describing the boundaries of the area proposed to be assessed in the assessment district under the provisions and authority of the "Improvement Act of 1911", ofthe Streets and Highway Code of the State of California; said assessment district designated as Assessment District 96-01 (hereinaher referted to as the Assessment District). .. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. That the map of the Assessment District showing the general nature, location and extent of the proposed public improvements and also showing the boundaries of the proposed Assessment District and lands and property to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses. of the proposed improvements' designated as "PROPOSED BOUNDARIES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01 1911 ACT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT" is herebys-ubmitted. and the same is hereby approved-and adopted. SECTION 3.. That the original map of ptoposed boundaries of the proposed Assessment District and one copy thereof is to be filed in the office of the City Engineer. SECTION 4. A Certificate shall be endorsed on the original and on at least one copy of the map of the Assessment District; evidencing the date and adoption of this Resolution. and within fiheen (15) days aher the adoption of the Resolution fixing the dates. times. and place of hearings on the'formation ·orextent sai¡;i Assessment District,. a copy of said map shall be filed with the correct endorsements thereon with the County Recorder, all in the manner and form provided for in Section 3111 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Presented by Apptoved as to form by .. !¿~ n P. Lippitt 12 hlic Works Director , Resolution 18657 -- Page 2 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, t~is 6th day of .May, 1997, 'by the fol/owing vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Mpot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Horton . NA YES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None . . Æ ./- ~~1 /~~. Shi . Y Horton, Mayor ATTEST: - ~ () . (l,¿Il-l-. .-- < Beverly. Authelet, City Clerk ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) I, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby cert'ify that the foregòing Resolution No. 18657 was duly passed, ~pproved, and adopted by the City .- . Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 6th day of May, 1997. Executed this 6th day of May, 1997. .- ~O'!J,-j-£q-, " Beverly AI Authelet, City Clerk. .- A -z /:3/ ~.._-,-"_.---'".._- ..'----'-""-. ~___.,..._ _._.~.__'_W._"_.M__·' - _n__ ~_._.~_ _~_ .-_.._ "'0-'- -.......--.-- A EXHIBIT__ -- ,-. RESOLUTION NO. 18658 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHUlA VISTA ORDERING INSTAllATION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON . TWIN OAKS A VENUE BETWEEN NAPLES STREET AND . EMERSON STREET, ORDEFjING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO. GIVE NOTICE AND ORDER CONSTRUCTION AND SmlNG PUBLIC HEARINGS ON RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01 PURSUANT TO THE BLOCK ACT OF 1911 .. . . - WHEREAS. the City Council of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, is desirous to institute proceedings pursuant to the provisions öf Cha'pter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911". of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California for construction of certain authorized improvements in an assessment· district known and designated as Assessment District96;Ol 1911 BLOCK ACT affecting properties fronting/abutting on Twin Oaks Avenue between. Naples Street and Emerson Street (hereinafter known and designated as the "Assessment District") and' WHEREAS. Sections 5875 and 5876 of said Streets and Highway Code authorize the legislative body. upon its own motion, to order the installation of authorized improvements in front of or abutting properties with the costs thereon to be asses~ed as set forth under provision of said Chapter 27. ; . - WHEREAS, Section 5131 requires a Resolution of Intention to form an asseSSment district to perform such work and Section .5132 requires public hearings to hear objections by those affected by the district formation NOW. THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: .-. SECTION 1. That the aboW! recital~,are true and correct. .- SECTION 2. That the public interest and convenience requires, and this legislative body hereby orders the construction and installation of certain street improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street in what is known as the Assessment District. SECTION 3. All of the above mentioned works of improvement shall be generally constructed at the grades, along the lines, between the points, and at the places and in the manner as shown on the plans for said work designated by the number and the name of the . .- Assessment District. which said plans are hereby approved and adopted. For all particulars as tcïthe alignment of the works and a full and detailed description, reference is hereby made to sa!d'plans-and specifications as on file in the Office of the City Engineer. . -. . SECTION 4. _ That the works of improvements, in the opinion of this legislative boú ,. will benefit the abutting and. fronting properties within said block, and this legislative body -' hereby makes the expenses of said improvement chargeable upon the property or properties' within the boundaries of the Assessment District, which District is declared to be the atea and' abutting properties benefitting by the work and improvements for a general description of the _.Assessment District and area of benefit, r;;fere~e ij~de to a map of said district previously . Resblution 18658 -- Page 2 - approved and s'aid map identified by n~mber of this Assessment District, and said mâp shall be kept on file with the transcript of these proceedings and open_to public inspection. SECTION 5_ Pursuant to the provisions of Section .5875 of the provi"iDn$ Gí C-lldjJü:r 27 of the "Improveñient Act of 1911"; it is hereby declared' to be the respònsibility of the owners of the Jots- or portiòns of lots froJ']ting/abutting on Twin Oaks Avenuebetween Naples Str'eet and Emerson where this legislative body, pursuant to said Section, by its own motion, orders the installatio.n of the improvements, and the property owners shall have the duty and responsibility of constructing or causing the construction of saiD impro¡,rements fronting\abutting their properties to commence within sixty (60) days upon notice so to do by the Supeñntendent of Streets. If the work is not commenced by the property owners within said period, the Superintendent of Streets shall proceed to cause said work to be completed. . . . - ~ -'. .- - , - SECTION 6. That all of the work and improvements herein proposed shall be done and carried through and. fina~ced pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of the Streets an'd-Highways Code of the State of California: For all particulars, reference is made to said" Act", and the provisions contained therein.' SECTION 7. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON TUESDAY, THE 15TH AND 22TH OF JULY 1997, A~THE HOUR OF 6:00 P.M., IN THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE I CITY COUNCIL; BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PUBLIC SER\(ICES BUILDING, 276 --- , FOURTH A VENUE, CHULA VISTA, CA., ANY AND ALLPERSONS HAVING ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS OR THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED HEREIN SHOULD APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY SAID WORK SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WiTH THIS RESOLUTION. SECTION 8. If the work is done by the City, and if the assessment cost is not paid upon confirmation of the assessment, the City shall collect payment of the assessments, annual installments, and interest in accordance with the provisions of Section' 5895 of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of the' Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The number of annual installments shall be 10 and the interest rate shall .- .. be 7 percent per annum. SECTION 9.. The'Superintendent 'of Streets is hereby directed to notify the owner or person in possession of the properties fr-6nting/abutting that portion of the street in the block where work is to be constructed and directing them to construct or cause to be constructed the improvements within sixty (60r days after notice is given, and to diligently and without interruption prosecute to 'completion said work. A.- Notice' shall be given by mailing' a letter, postage prepaid, to the property .- owners at their last known address as the same appears on the last equalized assessment roll used by the City for tax collection, or to the name and address of the person owning such property as shown on the records of the City Clerk. B. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of the proposed boundary:map to be filed in the Office of the County Recorder within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Resolution setting dates, time and place for the public hearings. A-Z{- It::) -----------------. --.-.-..- Resolution 18658 Pa,ge 3 -- r- C. ïhe City Clerk shall cause the Resolution of Intention to be published twi with the first publication occurring at least ten (10) days prior to the seCL public hearing. SECTlC)N 10.' 'The estimated cost to the City of the works of improvement as proposed under these proceedings, is estimated to be $340,000.00. SECTION 11. For any and all information relative to these proceedings, including the information relating to the protest procedure, your attention is directed to the person designated below: , . Frank Rivera, Civil Engineer City of Chula Vista P.O.Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91910 Telephone: (619) 691-5266 Presented by Approved as to form by V/~ . -. J¡6hn P. Lippitt _ Public Works Director - .- - ". A-S- -- /0 Re!;olution 18658 -- Page 4 - PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 6th day of May, 1997: by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Moot, Padilla, Rindone, Salas, and Horton NA YES: Councilmembers: None ABSENT: Councilmembers: None . ABSTAIN: Councilmembers: None ~1/~ Shir y Horton, Mayor ATTEST: - : ~ Beverly . Authelet, City Clerk STATE 0;:: CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ) ss. CITY OF CHULA VISTA ) - .- ·1, Beverly A. Authelet, City Clerk of the City of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No.1 8653 was duly passed, approved, and adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting of the Chula Vista City Council held on the 6th day of May, 1997. Executed this 6th day of May, 1997. '--fZ1r: r2 (l-¡/.ß~ Beverly.- Authelet, City Clerk , A-(p /1 - - ._~--_. --..~,-,._-,...- - --~_..,- .-.-.'''......- ~--- ----- -- - B 00 I EXHIBIT _ ,- 0 cb~ I J=.. s~;: I 13 ~6 ~f.¡ !u ........, 0 I J>d 9",--.0 -- r L....;- ô¡?¡ ¿;. ----------¡,lms'f{otlfm--------- ~~ ¡¡!¡., ~~ I _ 0 I:: I:: o~ ... ... " -' "'. " ~ ì u ::::: ;- - . . . ). . ~ 0_ ... ", '..', ... ", 1- Rt {.: . . ", "- ì..._ '.... .... ;::: '-' L 3: ". " ... . '\. -. z:: ~ . '. "j-.. '- '. ::.c: ð :s r I '" ® ,""-"'¡', '. . ~ - 0 ;= (', ' ... ',-"-...j'.... '- '" -:.~ w v -. .\ '-.", ','- I ~ ~ ~ -,.,."... I- !. <""¡"",y ! I~:; ~ ,......., ... " . '. , I V') ~ ....- ~ U ::: fo;\ i !''<.-, .~>-~ 5'J Q 115 ~ " 0-:- Iç),... "'l' ... ¡:¡j V I...... C "-' ',.." - L.r...Zz (..; - ~ - "'''''' -.J'-, ".'" ~ o~;",:: ç e:::: 0 ... "., -'.f"".. ". ". . >- ~ CJ" ë; "- ! ;" ",), ',", ! . . ;§ t3 ¡., ¿; ~ ~ '"' ~ . ® ~ :~~;j~~<; 8 . 8-8 § ~ ~ £:"'""'" V J ~,,, "'.J'- ,,'-. EI ~ ~ g¡ :;: '-' E (1"\ ~ " ~ f3 E-<. '....(-,t'-~, '" ~ ;=:§; ~ /:::: ~ V J '-"'" &.....I ~ i··'" ,-1,. y, ;@ VI c;= 8 - "" ~ W ~ "'" tã. © i "".\''-..'' ~ Q . l:;e ;;:55 ~ '" - ,........., Eo- ~ - '. , 'I."" ". I \::..J tn 0 r'\/ ~ -< ~ ' ", ",- ''1.'-;',' ~ ~ co L-1- E-4 "''''I,,'' =>2 _ <t ~ ~ ~ ~. ~~~¡\>~: . ~ E! . ~ 0z: ~ l.J.J 8 e ~. ® flJ; .0·~l·~·>-· ~, 0) . ;;~§ ~~ ~,.., f::3 ""'-< ~ ~"··bo.:i'- '" '. ~ 6:;¡ Ei 515 ---. \.I../. ~ Q ~::s EI _,,~il_ ". ~::;J,,- co"'~ ---' ..:: t=:l '. . "', . § tx ....J ~ ~ 6 o J I l.J.J Z i ".E:3t~.. Þ ~ § z1;3'" CO ~> ü'5 <~. @ ~ '~:~l0:~: e·.' I~i ~__ ~ O ~ t:r.i': ~"~i'-"'- -..,,,- !13,,-< o ~ E-< .' '- Sf, '- . '" =' ° '" 0...., . ~ ",. . ',' .;::; ù '" Ö !:2 æ:;¡ o . ,...", >- ~.," 10" ~ ~"- i3 :z: " II " Li.J &...{.. E-c ~ '."- " k ,<.... 8 ~ 0 §2 L.l..J e U) ~z Cl. š 0 t;. ê ~; '~::.:{I~-":"'" . ~~~ § I~ O ~ 0 _CIJ ~ "'-"" u ""'-< ~ 13 " "-, '-J,. ',,_, '. " 0.... ~~ = -'·.'1,','- I - .. ,."...... ~ -< ~ . - '. ...1,.'-,", ;' G O e--.. '< ~',,',."1....'.,,", : v::::J _ <: <: I- CIJ Z ,'.. "..,_. ~ ° _ _ =s - ! '. ~ , '. <.0 '" '" r'\/ > Z .....'... ..... I'\., ", '. ~ V) !:!::! :)- 2<: s: s: L...L.. " .J . . ~co ~O t:::I '.... " ... ,". ....<.. ~ u :s == :5 0.... U;:g ~ '5"!. '- ','j;"', , I; e 0 ~ ~ I ~!2 ~ UJ « >- 'ç) '-'-"'" "':z == I '-' '-' :=> - . "... ., '\. . ~ - ::S ::c E- :\ ','i. "''''' :' . g ~ 1..0... ~ ~ => ~ u ~ "'K' '" . 01::0- Õ UJ ~.,. , '\. ... I. ,,". ,¿J ::z::: = z ~ f: . r_ " '\. "-..!t " V) ~ U O· U ~ u - I!! ""-. ¡¡:oz I - ~ 0 !~ "'.....·1,",· 0'-'59 ",,- I:: ",,- N ' "'" ... '.. c:::: <.- u L..J 5 _ E5 r"_' - ...... © 'I .'.'..'1''-'' "-_ == ~ u ~ ........" ........ . .'\., .... .....J "', t.::I ~?= .- u w u ~,.., .~ t:....'..îS.·. i~ :; u 8 I ~ '" ~ \,J J. '-' J U " " '... f-... ", '. i::J ~ :5 ~ E5 I U 1..0... U U:2 ~ ;!I!¡ ':'~".J,.'..'. 13 ¡;;¡ 5 :: '" ,g ~ ê ' ". '-.J.:,.," s. L....,. c ~:z: :3 - '.' '\.., " 3 0 0 - 0 ....J. " ..', " ... ','. ® ' , ,......, - U r- < ' . -~ . - - :z ~ - ~ - '" ',', ", '. ...... - ~ ;2::: w:::> ?:: C') '·..·.....··..1'...........· _ ë:t32s::::::ië5;-:;- . :.. ~ ¡;;~&C;;t3 - _I i w~<~c:::: !:::! . -.- e:: V'):::> >- ¡:: I ¡::::tr;<8c I..r.. I .,....a:f=c:: _ 0 --- ____L_______ ~ ~ sg < ~ t3 ¡':f:fl£LS S:rIrIrN ~ ~ e : ---:. ~ ~ "'", - I 5w~g? ~?¿ u::;J'-'- [ ;=0. D ,...<,,-< I µ-( 8",,°2 [ ~- f5t=~a I c I C? ==,,-:5_,-- ;! /D _0(/)<0 ....... . -- EXHIBIT C BALLOT SUMMARY TWIN OAKS AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 96-01 Assmt Initial Cost Cumulative Cumulatiye No. Name Estimate Yes or No Dollar Amt Percent 1 Yeciz $6,768.00 - 2 Truman $4,700.00 - 3 ZeDeda $4,700.00 Yes $4,700.00 4.09% I 4 Simer $4,700.00 Yes $9,400.00 8.18% 5 Willard $4,700.00 Yes $14,100.00 '12.27% 6 Cook $4,700.00 Yes $18,800.00 16.37% 7 Petez' $4,700.00 Yes $23,500.00 20.46% 8 Barbaro $4,700.00 Yes $28,200.00 24.55% 9 Rasco $4,700.00 Yes $32,900.00 28.64% 10 Hatlev $13,066.00 No 11 GaDs $8,366.00 Yes $41,266.00 35.92% 12 Quinlan $4,700.00 Yes $45,966.00 40.02% 13 Marquez $7,050.00 Yes $53,016.00 46.15% 14 Brown $7,050.00 Yes $60,066.00 52.29% 15 DelDhenich $4,700.00 Yes $64,766.00 56.38% 16 Delohenich $4.700.00 Yes $69,466.00 ~itJi$;f& 17 Robles $4,700.00 - 18 Montova $4,700.00 Yes $74,166.00 64.57% " 19 Bishoo -. $4,700.00 - 20 Revnante $6,768.00 No Total $114,868.00 . Meets minimum 60% requirement of property owners in favor of forming assessment district. - Unknown, no ballot received from propetty owner as of 6/18/97. h;\home\engineer\landdev\ad961 bal.wq1 C -/ /1 - ---",.- ".---.-.--" Dl-lJ..JUiJ' .~ Ù...l;,W.~;Ui.[\' 1 EXHIBIT "D" -- ASSESSO~ ASSESSMENT BALLOT STREET PARCEL i NUMBER * ADDRESS NUMBER I CD Ut«NOWN I 1150 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE 619-122-16 (2) UI«NOWN I 1140 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-122-17 (}) r=.S I 1138 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-122-18 CD r~ I 1136 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-122-19 ® r~ I 11341W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-122-20 ® res I 11 JO 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-122-21 (J) m I 1120 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-122-22 ® reS I 1116 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-122-23 ~_.-.- ® .. I I reS 1112 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE 619-122-24 @ NO I 235 NAPLES STR£ET I 619-122-28 @ ítS I 1101 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-131-01 © reS I 1109 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-131-02 @ r~ I 1115 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-131-03 @ res 1127 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE 619-131-05 @ reS I 1131 1W1N OAKS AV-tNUE I 619-131-06 @ ítS I 1133 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-131-07 @ Ut«NOWN I 1135 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-131-08 @ reS I 1137 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE I 619-131-09 '.. ' @ I I , ., UNKNOWN 1143 1W1N OAKS A'ÆNUE 619-131-10 @ I NO I 230 EMERSON Sir@' I 619-131-11 . 0-( * ,5 OF 6/18/97 -""~» .,.X'. , CGI./?'JER FlE: C:\P.1J\c:;.u\SUPPDP.i\~"'?\..!.§1lTDS1.~ C::XHibll t:: /, I COUNCIL POLICY I I CITY OF CHULA. V1ST A I.. I / POLlCY EFFECTIVE , SUBJECT: P"-"TICrPAuON BY T.-='=: CrT!' O? CHULA VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACï P?OG?-'\M NUMBER DATE PAGE f PROCEEDINGS 505-01 08-30-83 1 OF, ! ADOP1ED BY: Rtso]ution No. 11373 I DATED: 08-30-83 _. BACKGROUND - . Tnere i!!'e properties withi11 the City Emits that do not haye full streeI improyements. In t.1)e pas!, Council h¡ cfuecred :he owners of criricaJ unimproved parcels IO ins-L2ll ¡heir missbg pub~ic improvements. Tne 191 Block Ar¡ Proceedings were uriIÍ2ed in mOSI iI'.sr2;:1ces. ".s ", emouragemem for proper!)' owner panicipario: '- the City bas comnlmIed' funds for the complerion of c=in iIems of work (i.~., grading, pivemer. inst2llaricn, eIc.). Also, the City consisIenrly h2S conmbured engineering inspecrion and adminismriv services at DO charge IO the propeny owner(s). However, mere is no Council adopted poEey regarding CiI. - pa.-riciprioD in 1911 Block ACI imprOyemenI consrrucrion proceedings. Tcis policy is designed ro encourage the insrallarion of missing improvemems aJong develoDed residenri2.1 10I! Jr specifiœJy sets City participarion goals for the improvemenI of comer, non-comer, ¡md double fronrag; residenri21 Jots. The poJicy reaffums City Council intenr to require the ins-.clJation of pubEc improvement: adjacenIIo undeveloDed propeny (residenriaJ, commercial, 2nd indusrriaJ) through the formarion of 1911 Ac AssessmenI DistrictS or through-me subdivi.sion and building permiI appro\'2l procedures. . ..-.... Tcis policy shall only appJy 10 areas Ï11corporared on or before this poJiey's efíecrive date. '. ~ . ). PURPOSE To esIablish a poEey for pa.-riciparion by Ihe City in the consrrumon of pubJic improvemems via the 1911 B]ock Act Proceedings (Chapter 27, StreeI and Highways Code of the Stare of California). POlJCY Tne City Colli,cil esrabEshes t.1)e folJowing poEcy for City parriciparion in 1911 Block ACI Prog¡<...'1J proceeài')gs: , - . 1. G~n~ï21 Parridp2tjon a. T!le City, aI no COSI 10 the prop"'-¡y owner(s) shall provide all engineeri,.,g, Ï11specrion and a¿:ninistrarive se..-vices necessa.-y 10 bsr2.11 missing i:nprovements via the 1911 Block Acr Prog¡<...'1J ?:-oc~edings. b. II shall be the Ciry's responsibility to relocate al] existing public i:nprovemenrs found to be in :~:-Jiict våt.Ì1 t})~ proposed street imp;ov~71en! cD~ùC!ion. Such i.¡11prove..,.-nents shall incluåe, but :l=>! be lL"DiI~d IO: street lights, iTa.ÍIïc signa} stanå2:ès, drainage st;'Ucrures, fire hyà:-ants! erc. c. ::ngi.,eeri..,g staff shall meeI i."idividu2.1Jy with eacb proper!)' owner prior 10 the program's pubEc h"L-ing to hand deliver iniria1 correspondence i?.,'1d 10 explain the pla..."s, proceedi:1gs ",d this poEcy. :;'-;aI engi"eerÏ:1g plans and projecr specificatio!'.s s::2.11 reflect as dose as p,",cIÏcable, L'le prope.-¡y J o;¡.71er(s) conce:ns p¡-ovided they rellecr s¡:and2rd e::gÏz1eering practice. II -~ I c;2. / C- , --.~---~._._--- - -~-_.._- ----- 1/ COUNCD- POLICY CITY OF CH1..JIA VISTA /,1 J' SUBJECT: PÞ.RTIO?ATION 3Y T:":~ CIn' OF C-IDL.. POLICY EFFECTIVE I VJSTA IN 1911 BLOC" ACï PR GP_'.M NUMBER DATE PAGE 1/ PROG:DINGS I 505-01 08-30-83 2 OF 6 ADOPTED BY: . Reso]ution No_ 11373 I DATED: 08-30-83 d. Prior .to L1¡~ ~-¡d of ead) fuca] year, th~ Cjry Engineer shall SUb;¡¡jI to the Ciry Council for approvaJ under t!is prognun, a reco:nmenåed list of projecIs for scheduling in the ~nsuing flSca] year. runåing for L':te progra,-n shaH be dermnined annua]Jy and sho,,'T1 in the Capital Improvement Pro~ . . , .' ~- Ciry parricipa::Ïon in this progT2m shall b~ limiIed ro deveJoped parcels thar Ca..'1nOI be splir inro lors or building sires. .. 2. Deve10Ded ResidentiaJ Lots 2- Non-Corner Lors It shall be the City's responsiliiliry to oyerJay or reconsrrucr the roadway !:CYe1way aåjacent to nonCcorner ]ors when th~ !:CYeJway is aJreaåy improved and needs an overlay or reconsrrucrion to 2ccommoà2.t~ d.~2ge or t"2ffic safelY require.,¡-nenrs. Tne City's responsiliiliry dcsc:lDed above is shown on Figure 1 (arrached). - =- f;---'" . - . b. Corner Lots For the pu.:poscs of t!is poJicy, the corner ]or Íront JOI ]ine sha]J be defmed IO be the shorrer of the TWo aåjacenr s;reet Jot Ji,-¡cs. in this case of a non-rectanguJar comer Jot, the front Jot Ji,-¡e shaH be t.ÏJe averag~ width of the Jor. (See Figure 2). ]t shall be the City's responsj'DjJiry ro: (1) Install C'.l,-D, guner. sidewalk and pavement (if non·exisIent) adjacent to J/2 the corner Jot's side screer Ž¡.ontzge. (2) Overlay or reconsrruCt the siåe and ÍTontage su'eet's rrayelway when needed !O accomrnoåare drainage or t::r.affic safery requirern~nts. (3) In Üle eVent thaI theJ'e 2:'e improvements alreaåy exisli,-¡g aJong the comer lor's side prope"}' ÍTontage ë1J'eady existbg, t.ÏJese improveme!'1!S shaH be credited to the Ciry if they need nor be removed to accoITl¡'T.lDd2.¡e me L-T1prOvemenrs to b~ insra}1ed.. '1:')e City's responsibiliry desa-oed above is depicred Dn Figure 3 (arracheå). 3. Düa] FrDnta!?'e Lo:s ]t shall be the Ci')'s responsilijJiry to: - E-r¿ ;;(;) I ~ COlJNCIL POLICY CITY OF.CHulA. V1STA SUBJECT: PARTICi?ATJON BY Tr.;: CIIT 0:: CHU!.A POLICY E1- r 1:.CTIVE , VJ5TA 1N 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM NUMBER DATE PAG PRor""T))NGS ~: 505-01 08-30--83 13 OF ADOP1EJJ BY:. Resolution No. 11373 I DATED: 08-30-83 - 2. II".stzll curb, pmer, sidewalk, and pavement (ii non-existent) adjacent to Lie enri:e lor's rear StT, frontage. b. Overlay or r~CDZ)srruC! the Jor's rear street üZveJw2Y when needed to accommodate årainage =ffic safety p1.Uposes. ' . '. , For pmposes. .of this policy, dual frontage lots shill be a lot ha;ing ITontage on two parallel approximately pa..-2.IleJ streets, one of which is an "alley". .' 4. D~eJoDed 1ndusrrial/Commercial Lots Tll~ City contribution towards the COnStTUCDOn of imprDveZi1en~s a cijace...'1t to deyel ope h'1å!lS!T:ÎaJ/commerciaJ lots shill be limited to: 2. Tne overlay or reconstrucrion of existing roadway tr2velway areas when ÍOlli'Jd to be required fe à.-ainage or traffic safe¡y pmposes. -- ; ,. 5. UnåeveJoDed Residential. Industrial and Commercia] LOIS ./. ¡,' ~ . Tnis policy shall re2ÍÏ1IlD rbe Ci¡y Council's intent to require rbe ins:alJanon of missbg improveme.'1L aåjacent to undeveloped lots roorb comer and nOD-comer wirb and Y,'irbout double SITeet frontages: ü.~Dt!gh: a. 1911 Act Assessment Disr:ict procedures. b. S"o.lbàivision reqciremen!S, and c.. building pennit approval requirements. There shall be no Ci¡y comriburion towards the consm.¡cnon of improvements adjacent to undevelopeè reside.'1rial, industrial and commercial Jots. In the event iliat an owner petitions Lie Ci¡y for inclusion of h:s{ner Imdeveloped parcel in a 1911 Block Act Prog¡<.m, all expemes shall be borne by said owner. 6. ADD]i~abi]jrv - Tr..!s policy shall b~ 2?pHcêb~ to 2re2s'wirhin the Ch1..!12 Visra Ciry lL-ni:s on or b~Íor~ i:s errecDve å2te. J - F-3 ;<3 ---- --- / . ; ( . COUNCIL POLlCY /r CITY OF CHl)L\ Ÿ1STA /'J SUBJECT: PAH.TICI?ATION 3Y T:-::: C.ITY 0:' C-iULt, I POLICY I EFñCTTVE I / VJSTA IN 1911 3LODC ACT PROG?_tJ.-1 . NUI1BER DATE PAGE PRO(2)INGS 505-01 08-30-83 4 OF 6 ADOÌ'Hill BY: Resolution No. 11373 I DATED: 08-30-83 " J - >, ~ ~ u . 1 - ".... 11 - - ~ '" ¡I -" "" E - = ::J ~ . . ~ >. I [I I;:) 1 gl u '" I =:.. '" J I ~~ ~ ~ .."" '" I' - -- 1) \)~ ~ ,,~ >, '" ~ >,- .- I )/ I!>~ ~ - '" >( u - '" 1 1/ ~~.~ '" > "-- .~ - " 0 I ~"\:). ~ ·0 . [I . ~ ~ >- ".. I >- jI/ It - I ...J ::0 I /1 '" - i!,lJ , VI )1 ~ I '" I . g '" VI J 1/ 1 i '" E ~ I ~ I "" .... -t1') 1 1/ '" - - .... ~ - -._-'" .... õ '" '" I 11 .... ..... .. ~ :¡; .... .....;:¡: - '" >0;: r- - - '" I . o=: ¡,; I - .. .... 0 :::::e> J ~ . -" - ~ =-0 I ::! ~ L_l - ~ '" -- ~ u ~ ~- 1 '< \) '" '" -=:.. !....::.~-_..J " " .. ........ .. ~ - uo I. ~ 0 " 0;:-, , '" .... 0- I _ '" '" ""::::: I , I~ .>0< ~ .. u..... 11 - ~ 0:::: [ I ! '" .>0< ...J::::: 11 . ): "" .. J '" ~ 00 ~ "-- u I - , 11 - " -:::: '" "-- 0>0 I .... ::, 0 -:::: i~t .. ~ - I '" c: - ~ õ '" E " '" . .. ::; ~~ I - '" -.... ~ .... )I 1.\ ~ '-Sf 1{' /I ~~ " ~~ "''' "" ~;; -=", i::'" ~> I )I :::~ - ,,~ 00 , "" "'~ '.. I '- >- -::, ~~ " '" >( -E u ::..:" "'- I /I II . . I I - N ,., r:: VI....:::.............. LI...:::::::O:::i-<~w .':) E-u ;;;, I t J COUNCIL POLICY CITY OF-CHULA. V1STA ." " ·r SUBÆCT: PJ..RTIO?ATION 3Y ¡¡..;:: CJTY 0:' CHULA. POLICY EJ:- Ì' j:.cTIVE VJSTA iN 1911 3LOCK ACT PiWG~.A.1v1 NUM:BER DATE PAC ! PRo..=-niNGS 505-01 08-30-83 501 , . ADO}' Uill BY: Reso]ution No. 11373 I DATED: 08-30-83 ! 0 9 ill . . . II 1-2 II ~i '2_ I OJ +(\.1 ~ I 11 !!.: ¡ I, .- >- c5 II I 'I I- Ù , - I, -' J - : ! => - I .... V> z - '" ~ " ~ V> t ~ z 0 .q .. I-~- Z OI- I ..... ~...J< " ::¡; z .J :5 . . ~5:;: - 0:::2 CJ :; .c:::::::.:.J c.. 01- :::-- -= :¿:uw - D T . " . ='" f-<1.;.I -~ U-l2: I T -= C::::>- , " :> ""-' ~'- ""~ -4J '- uC::~ '" 0.....0 -:> -'U-, :< =>w ,,~ =:..... ...J ~ -'z .. " -zo ..o.J.=. 0'\0:::: rJ =~ -Zl.õ.. :> -- '-..... - "-:> ..-J --- - d , \ ù ) E-s-' ()S- - --.- -'---'--~---" l ilr COUNCIL POLIÇy /IL CITY OF CHUlA VlSTA cl SlJBJECT: PARTIŒ?ATION BY TI-'~ DiY OF O1UL... POLICY EFFECTIVE I \lISTAL101191lBLOCKACTPROGR.AJI1 NUMBER DATE PAGE PROCEDINGS . 505-01 08-30-83 I 6 OF 6 I ADO.P 1l:J.) BY: ResoJuÛon No. 11373 I DA1ED: 08-30-83 '" ., ::J fiJ ~ ):. 00 ~ ..... o ~ ~~ ~ ....... 00 """"'0 IoU ~ "" ;; =- '- g~ :- T:) tJJ ==. E 0.. r- - \.. DO::..., cC.l =r::I - - -< -u-' CJ~ =011'I -J -. 10. :>.,..., U ... > _ 0 u .... "" -.J...... t:)'U' . _ U U ;; ..: ~ - g t:';;; _ ~ 1::_ - D -. 1- 0 VI 11'I U '- V') V'I r" -"u-aJ -e_ :::0'- ~ ...,:) 1.0") U ,.... '" - 1':3 ~ . _ _ ... -...II . . o '"" t: ~_ ~ ... _ -:;, -< U'I 0:"-. ........u ",-..""""" V) a ..... 1'\. U::J'- VI:"__ W -~ ~ 5? r ='= I':) 09(-0 - -= ...... r1- ~ - Q Q :.. ...:::.. u .c: '-- 'V 1...: "" ~>-' 1- CJQJQ.I . . )- - ~ I) 1:.1 t:3 C, ~ - 1- > :7'1 Z .g E 'I L... J..... - t.. :;..., -'-==. rtJ ~ W '-}..: ~ II. :..., 0 ..u -' 01 _ C. _ ::: <.i,J. ~:;J :;, _ 0 w ,:: 0 11)\11 I.u ~ '" c '" "'.::'::J '" !:':- ¡; ~.... u "::::;:: _",- ",'::-5 = g,'" ~ II 'Ill P? ,. "'.:: -'" I: 01 ~ ... ::.. -- ;;; v I r... Q - I':) 1... :;) = :.. '" C) :¿:< .ü!2 . ..., >x::... =__ CJ__ -= -=:; 1/!;J Oc,.", u"'_ >><'" a :; I ^; 1¡¡ 001-;, i--o . II¡;... "'" u= ::: 0 ~ II "Q . . """'- I U êì) - - Ñ ~§ . II / ./ L...., _ -' . i., - . ,. r11) :::>~ ~ IIf ",'" ~-;:: ¡: .=: ~.-- -z: ....i()I __ OJ = "-'_5 OJ _ -r:::; . !' _ -.J U I':) ::: ~ u _ 0\0 r-____-, \D .::¿ ~ ..J.J 1:.1 t:.I C, ~ -u I ~ 1..- ""-'"" E'-=:I:'" V)";-:;: J I ~ Cl1 _ U _ QJ_ I ~ I t!r ,,- -0 r oJ -- ;;>"".:: ~ "'1: _",~.:: ';»Þ-,. J < ~ I 9 ~ ~I:O" ~ 2 -5 g -5 -;:¡ .3 "" '" G ~ ->< .3 '-'~ ....;::, ~ . !..." .....'- - - '" 0 01 _ ";;> u . 0,> 1 ~ C) ~- -' (j:: r...... = ~ - f:; ~ := ~,g p':: "" 1......=tJ .I¿ ~. ....,:) ~~ 0:::>:'" ~;_ -oE J ~ I ~:"),.1 ::: ¿:- -'_"; .u::.."" BB-; ; J ""U J ~ ''''- ...,..... Cot CJ ... > 0 -_ r:.J_CJ CJ~",,:::> t:J1-g L__-1 ~ - ::::) 1.. .... _;:, :: 0 :... k"" VI.e Ia_ _...,)- t::I_ ~C13:J ..l."'~~d po< ~ ....j C.I -:J '- -::~ -. _ ~ _ 1-.;¡,¡:, '><' -, = - ,. <=> - - to. ,. / :: ~ ~'" 0\ 0 _ . c:n "':=tJ .-. >< :"- 1.. ~ _VI .:: -= ~ '" ..0 en =-:: ...,) g ~ - -r-- . ~ ........ C.I:t" - _ ~ r= 101"I I:: _ c:: ..... .,.. .x:.x~ - .......'";:;f:.:;'õ~ ~2-=l:i:~~c:: =-- ~;o;;.... ........ cŠ ViUt:I':lIoI"I ,.. "'t;I~ .......Ot:) T - ...........::- 1.. '= 0.._ 101"I = 1.. ~ Vi E ~~"\ - "" '" - '" ... >< = ~ -~ _ -- ~ OJ I - -D~t!J~~"""'" ~; "",:: Ei OJ ë; 0 ,. ~ .::: ë ~ ~ ¡;; ~ ,. ....,., o,~!- "'---o,...!- t:J ..... Ji( I- ::- 0. ....... '=..... U . t: __ ~ '~I ~ :::I § ~I.... ~. E -' ~ E'- ~ 0 - E í" 0 0-. ___ ~VI_CJ -1.._ .... J :r... - r=..... 1:.1 0\_ CJ 1:.1 ..... _ . ~ - .... '00::......-0\ )(_.... -t....=' ¡,; h""lT::t 7~-iD7 ,.1rrc2'.:;I .:0- OJ C ... - =- I: - OJ 'i ~ _ =:; go "" ........ . -....= 0_ ~ I CJ = 0_ '" - ......... -... Q. C.I VI :r... =::-=' CJ Cl1 Vi ~... - - 3 ' B "'- > 1:- '" ::. 0_ I: > __ '" .....~ -- ~ --':1___, U =_ r; ,..,...::__ ~i) .1.==2'.1.5 ?E>f7.1.rr:::,?'.:;I , to._ '" E ""_ '" E ".. '. :.?i:': - N,.., _ N <"'). ..~ '<:, i¡¡, I V'H-C:::WI.;JI- I V')1-::::WWi- L;..::::o::::I-<::OI.¡,J V')_~~ } ~ -:-/.., :;/ -- " '0 . >-- o OJ) ~z ~ - '" ~ ~ ~ ~ <= "" 0) ~ ..Q 0) 0) C. 0) O),è >-. >-o'ã> ...!: .- ~ 05 -- x o C. '1:1 ~rc ~.- o ::J l.U - ,...- Q)' ct1 ~ <= '1:10' o 0) ~...!: '1:1- 0-0 <= 0-= O)'C: 0)..; .~- " E'- 0) ~ 0) 0 .2 -z It.... ~ .- -=~ c.e QjQ)~ -'" '" ~ '" 0 c....!: e ::J .... .- - 0) ~ u 0)- ~ra- E u >~ '" ::J 0 o 0 .... .... ::J e .... ~'" 0) 0 E <= 0) E 0) ð E '" > . . ::J~ .... '" .... 0) e 0) ~ 0) .... Q)..c . e...!: ~ - 0) c..S! >- e .... e ",- ::J '" :;: ~...cÕ .... e e 0) 0 e :;: '" 0)'- e>- " 0) w c._ > "gu rn 0 c.o ....... ",o.....r:;: ¡:: .... .- e "'0)- e e 0) .- t;;~-= -< " ::J 0. Q) ..è Q) Q).- - 0 ..c: o- W iii ~ "'u -- ~ 'ü;>- ~_ C'tI -e e o::J .= ~"'2 w 1::..0 " '1:1 0' I- '1:1-0) -' 0) - e 0) '" E -< -'1:1 '" 0) . C 0) ........- Q) l- .- > >--'t;:; '" >- 0) '1:10 -"'.... ::;-"- Z C .- E~OJ) C .... 0:2 "- w "" C. c.'" ~ _ D.. '" '" ::Jo~ '" '" V; Co ::; U __ , ;>- .9- 0) - WtnU U C. .... -< w-- u '" 0) u- "1J~èJ c.. C ::J -~o .- '1:1 ~ - c: "Z ""û U. .... 0) .= c: "'- '" '" 0 c.~ - Q) Q) . - 0) ~u ",E>':= '" E 0 Z ~V')""C - V) w-- 0..- ....... 0 C _ 0) ~U')...r::U .- ....... c: O)O)U u .- 0) e ~ r- 1.1').- Q) CO).... ¡:: E 0)'3 ~ U":I....c: r- ~-< :;:-= ï:::...c Q) c.. >-Eo- S-:c ë2 "" >- 0) ,....,- ..!: c.",~ - ra ..._ -"'0) U _ a..~ ....... ""C .- e~- -00):;: '" '" "" I- .... Q) 0 :9 w ::JO)- :J-It....- E E E Q c.!: c: r-_OJC C - 0) ;::n3'-QJ >-.... cp.!!! E -C."'E '" 0) '" 9._ c 0._ k; .- 0) .- u rc: OJ E·!!! ~ ¡::C::ZOJ 0) .... e -.- "'- C '" :;: Q)...c c.o 0).... OJ) U') I- '" v)O-.~ctI o ~ 0 ~ N "" L.:.J L.:.J L.:.J > > > 1- 1- 1- < < -< Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ L.:.J L.:.J L.:.J 1- 1- ....J ....J ....J < < -< F-( 27 .."",'. fxh: YJ¡t r f? -- - ";~~'COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item~ Meeting Date 5/06/97 ITEM TITLE: a). Resolution ¡g 0'S: 7 Approving the boundary map showing the proposed boundaries for Assessment District 96-01 of properties to be assessed for street improvements, b). Resolution 19b ~ð Ordering installation of improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street, ordering the Superintendent of Streets to give nof;ice and order construction and setting public hearings on Resolution of Intention to form Assessment District 96-01 pursuant to the Block Act of 1911. SUB1\1J.ITI!;D BY: Director of Public Works; ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-XJ AI; a prelimin"ry step in the assessment district proceedings it is necessary to request that the Council pass resolutions approving the proposed map boundary, ordering the installation of the improvements and setting public hearings on the resolution of intention to form the assessment district. RECOMM:EI"mATION: It is reco=ended that the Council: 1). Approve a resolution approving the boundary map for AI;sessment District 96-0 I for construction of missing street improvements under the 1911 Block Act procedure; - . . 2). Approve a resolution ordering installation of certain public improvements at the location shown on the boundary map, instructing the Superintendent of Streets to give notice and to order the construction of said improvements, and setting public hearings for July 8 and July 15, 1997 at 6:00 P.M. on the resolution of intention to form AI;sessment District 96-01. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMM:ENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Background: On April 15, 1997 by Resolution # 18630, Council accepted a petition for the formation of an assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of street improvements, such as curb, gutter sidewalk: and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street. In addition, Council also approved Resolution # 18631 appropriating $180,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax fund into the Twin Oaks Avenue project account. Staff has estimated the total project costs at $340,000 with the c2tf .----,~..__.,.._-_.._- . __..__Um _'..._._m.. -- -=-..-- "./::.":,~~ : Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 5/06/97 construction costs at $216,000. Approximately $115,000 of the estimated $216,000 cost of construction is to be reimbursed from the property owners upon successful formation of the assessment district. The construction of the missing street improvements is included in the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for Fiscal Year 1997/1998. Subsequent to this action, staff is in the process of fmish.iJig the construction plans, specifications and costs estimates for the project and has met with the owners of the properties proposed for inclusion in the assessment district. Those property owners who were unable to meet with staff were notified by mail. The City Environmental Review Coordinator studied the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project and has determined this project is categorically exempt from the requirement of an Environmental Impact Report. Costs: City participation in the construction costs have been determined pursuant to Council Policy 505-01. Funds for these improvements have been budgeted from the Trunk Sewer fund (for the share of the costs to be reimbursed with interest from the property owners) and Gas Tax. The fInancing totals of $340,000 are made up of $115,000 Trunk Sewer and $225,000 from Gas Tax funds. Design, inspection and district formation costs estimated at $86,000 will be contributed by the City. The improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue extend from Naples Street to Emerson Street including some work within those two intersections. The work would consist of grading, excavation, asphalt paving, pedestrian ramps, sidewalks, driveways together with appurtenaIlces and appurtenant work to serve and to benefit properties located within the boundaries of the proposed assessment district. It is estimated that the following costs will be incurred for the improvement of Oxford Street: Recommended Property Costs Obli!!'ation of City Owner's Cost Construction ($94.00/LF) $216,000.00 $101,200.00 $114,800.00 DesigDlInspection $ 71,000.00 $ 71,000.00 $ 0.00 Assessment District Formation $ 15,000.00 $ 15,000.00 $ 0.00 Contingencies $ 38.000.00 $ 38.000.00 $ 0.00 Total $340,000.00 $225,200.00 $114,800.00 Staff reco=ends that the City pay all costs of design and inspection as well as the assessment district formation, estimated at $86,000 (direct costs), which is consistent with past practices and Council Policy 505-01. The construction cost share of $114,800 will be the responsibility of the property owners, based upon this policy. This Assessment District (# 96-01) will be formed by the 1911 Block Act to obtain reimbursement for the improvement and other 2() -.......} -- --".. Page 3, Hem_ p .....":...~ . .~ ,.- '.' Meeting Date 5/06/97 . .. miscellaneous costs. in accordance with Council policy. The 1911 Act is a fmancing mechanism which authorizes local agencies to impose assessments on benefiting properties to fund the construction of public improvements. To construct the project through assessment dis1rict fmancing, the Cll' budget detail shows $115,00 from the Trunk Sewer fund and $225,000 from Gas Tax funds. Alternatively, the City could sell bonds in the amount of the construction costs. However, for a project of this size, it is not economically feasible to do so, consequently, the City typically advances funds for cost effectiveness. Based on the staff recommendation, the assessments for each parcel would range from a low of $4,700.00 to a high of $13,066.00, with 14 of the 20 assessments at $4,700.00. Action: The proposed assessment district will be formed pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 of the California Streets and Highways Code. The Code requires that the Council approve the dis1rict boundary map prior to adoption of a resolution ordering installation of the improvements. The resolution ordering the improvements, the cornerstone of Chapter 27 of the 1911 Act process, describes the details of the Assessment District including: 1) description of the work to be done; 2) description of the properties proposed for inclusion in the assessment district; and 3) time and date for public hearings on the proposed improvements and the 1911 Act procedure. The Resolutions before Council, if adopted, will approve the assessment district boundary and order installation of the improvements and schedule the required public hearings. Public Hearings: The public hearings are proposed for July 8 and July 15, 1997, and will be noticed pursuant to the Brown Act. After the second public hearing, Council may adopt a resolution to proceed with the 1911 Block Act.- . A schedule for this proj ect is attached for Council informatioD- The property owners will have the opportunity to address Council during the public hearings in July. Future Actions: 1. Although there is no statutory requirement to do so, staff will meet with all property owners again to discuss the project status, improvements and its fmancing. 2. Two Public Hearings, as required by law, will be held, on July 8th and 15th, 1997. Therefore, tonight's action by the City Council is not binding on the property owners in the event the bids come in higher than the estimated $340,000. After the bids are opened, the project comes back to the Council for award, the actions will include notice to the property owners of a public hearing with an opportunity to review their proposed charges. At that time, the property owners could request the Council to eliminate the district because of the higher than anticipated costs. After construction is complete, and the fmal costs are known, there will be another public hearing to review, levy or protest the actual assessments. 3/ , -- .--... Page 4, Item_ ...~:r.."":..;.~ . . Meeting Date 5/06/97 Deferral of Assessments: The City Council may at their discretion determine by Resolution, to allow property owners to defer payment of their assessments per section 10700 of the Streets and Highwavs Code. A subsequent section in the Code allows Council to determine the criteria that property owners must meet to qualify for deferral, and Council may also determine the procedures to ensure that the criteria are satisfied. Lastly, Section 10706 states that the amount of any deferred assessments, including interest, shall be due and payable whenever the parcel of property upon which the assessment was levied is transferred, or at other times as determined by the legislative body. On May 25, 1995, Council approved Resolution # 17980, for the Elm Alley Assessment District. This resolution established criteria for deferrals and the delegation authority to defer. The following alternative payment option (Alternative #2) was adopted by Council: Semi-annual payments (interest only) and payment of the principal at the end of a 10- year term or at the time the property is transferred, whichever occurs first. At the end of the 10 years Council may grant, on a case-by-case basis, a time extension to fulfIll the payment obligations. Another payment option available (Alternative #3) involves deferring all payments for 10 years, or at the time the property is transferred. At the end of the 10 years or when the property is transferred, one payment, which includes principal and accumulated interest is due. At the end of the 10 years Council may grant, on a case-by-case basis, a time extension to fulfill the payment obligations. .- . - Both of these alternatives, Alternatives #2 & 3, will require a resolution by Council at the time of the Public Hearings, scheduled for July 8 and 15, 1997. Staff will incorporate similar guidelines used for the previous assessment district which required that interested landowners qualify under the HUD Low Moderate Income standards as contained in the City's Master Fee Schedule or have a demonstrated fmancial hardship approved by Council. For example, qualifying fmancial hardship can include, being a retired senior citizen living on a fixed income, retired, and unable to pay the assessment for other legitimate reasons. Qualifying property owners that elect alternatives #2 or 3, must enter into a deferral agreement with the City and their request for deferral must be approved by Council Resolution. The HUD Low Moderate Income Standards allow for a maximum family gross income for eligibility of $15,350 for one person in the household and incremental increases at approximately $2,000 intervals for each additional member in the family for up to 8 members ($28,950). An additional $1,000 annual income is allowed per each additional person in the household in excess of eight (see Attachment E). ProDertv Value Enhancement: At the Council meeting of April 15, 1997, there was discussion by Council if staff had any information· regarding the increase in property value once an 32- -- .":~~:./ : Page 5, Item_ Meeting Date 5/06/97 improvement project has been completed. . Staff has not completed any studies on this matter but staff did speak: to three real estate appraisers, one of which is locally based, to ask their opinion on how much value a property would gain with the addition of street improvements. One appraiser stated that generally curb, gutter, driveway and sidewalk improvements enhance property values. The increase would be added to the value of the land if the improvements are required by the City. If the property owner is required to pay for these improvements, then . the cost of the improvements could be considered as the increase in property value. A second appraiser· mentioned that at the very least, the cost of the improvements would be the increase in property value, but he would also have to consider similar recent sales of properties within and outside of the improvement area to compare and arrive at a fair value. The last appraiser contacted stated that at the very least, using the cost approach and the recent sales within the area, the owner could recoup the costs of the improvement investment out of the property at the time of sale. Since this appraiser is familiar with the Castle Park area, he felt that the typical land value of the lot is worth approximately $60,000 without street improvements and about $75,000 to $80,000 with the improvements. The lots are typically larger than average but values could vary by 10 to 20%. A comparative analysis, which he recommended, would provide for a more exact property value. With regards to a comer property, the appraiser felt that it is more difficult for this property owner to recover their costs over and above the midblock properties. All property owners within this proposed assessment district of 20 parcels have been sent a copy of tonight's City Council agenda statement and attachments. FISCAL IMPACT: This project was__originally approved in the FY96/97 budget a!>_CIP project STL232 - Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples and Emerson Streets. The fmancing for this project (project total of $340,000) is being funded through Sewer Trunk funds ($115,000) and Gas Tax funds ($225,000). Assessment district proceedings. will allow for the property owners within this district to participate in contributing $114,800 towards the costs of the construction, preliminarily estimated at $216,000. The estimated property owner's share will be reimbursed with 7% interest over a period of 10 years. Attachments: A - Resolutions # 18630 & 18631 B - CIP Program Detail C - Boundary Map D - Schedule of Proceedings E - HUD Low Moderate Income Standards FILE: 072S-10-AD96-(11 Apr 25, 1991; 9:27am H:\HOMElENGJNEERIAG2IDA 1AD961MAP.fXR 33 ExH IB.iTA RESOLUTION NO;- I 15(-7?{) ~ . . ., ". &.~,,:.~'.. - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULAVISTA ACCEPTING PETITION FOR FORMATION OF A SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT #AD96-01 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF STREET IMPROVEMENTS ON TWIN OAKS AVENUE FROM NAPLES STREET TO EMERSON STREET WHEREAS, the city Engineer has received a petition from property owners in the 1100 to 1150 block of Twin Oaks Avenue, south .of Naples Street to north of Emerson Street, requesting that special assessment proceedings be commenced in accordance with the Improvement Act of 1911 for the construction of missing street improvements such as curb; gutter and sidewalks; and WHEREAS, in accordance. with the requirements of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote On Taxes Act", a ballot has been mailed to the affected property owners and 65.57% of the property owners are in favor of the district; and WHEREAS, upon. acceptance by the Council, the petition . will be filed in the city Clerk's office; and WHEREAS, approval of this resolution will permit staff to begin assessment district formation proceedings and award the contract for the improvements within Fiscal Year 97/98; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby accept the petition for formation of a special Assessment District #AD96-01 for the construction of street improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson street and direct --staff .to proceed with the assess:uent proceedings as required by the Improvement Act of 1911 and Proposition 218. Presented by Approved as to form by r~~~ John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, city Attorney Public Works -;;LL -::::;;-r ..~______.._______~_._ EXt-III3IT A _ RESOLUTION NO. tõb3 I· .. .:.-':...;~ : RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROPRIATING $180,000 FROM THE UNAPPROPRIATED BALANCE· OF THE GAS TAX FUND . INTO ACCOUNT STL-232 WHEREAS, the T'win Oaks Avenue street improvements identified in the Petition Requesting Formation of an Assessment District, adopted by Resolution 18630, ("Project") has been identified in the 96/97 CIP Budget; and WHEREAS, staff intends to utiliz.e the $45, 000 already appropriated from the Gas Tax Fund for this' Project; and WHEREAS, staff is recommending that $180,000 be funded as an additional city obligation from the Gas Tax Fund; and wnEREAS, City Council has already authorized a loan from the Sewer Service Fund to fund the non-gas tax portion of the Project. _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the city Council of the city of Chula Vista does hereby appropriate $180,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax Fund (No. 250) into CIP Project Account STL-232. Presented by Approved as to form by (; /'-- 71/L~~ {~ John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Public Works C:\I"S\ad9601 ~- ::55 .,.--,..-.--".----.--,.,-. EXHIBIT B .. 0 .. 0 N .. .. 9 - :-.1,,' ;; .....,. . 0 no ì:: II ¡ ~o,j ~... N I·' ,.. ""1 ¡ ! EU.4' ,"". '" u. "'t~~ ~ J' ''II' t H . . :: I . . I g .. 0 ... 0 -..., . I ,I ... ~ ~ "'! .. .. I' .' 1"'.' ~ ... ~ ~'" 9 , I J i j. ... ... z Z! " ~1Io ~ >c " co:! ~ Q YI c_ ae " "12'> .2 N ;;20 :ë . . t ·3 !¡ ! ~ I ~.. E ~~f~~ ~~ . 1 !,'! t.. ...;! -lŠ ~. I Q ¡ t;!;¡r Q '" ; ! j' . w , '" 0 0 ~ ¡;: .: '" '" , ~ .'. ! " '" 0 l - 111111 III II ""..1 I '" .... '" .",. ",,~ E '" .... '" ~ -'" .... 1'; ¡ ¡ :";': " " .. ,.. , ¡: QJ u. ;. I I j i.... ,,- ...... " > :.: i i /.: I " .. r,:"' . . 1 h. -Q ,', : M.4R- I IINr - ~.!! ... 0 ... 0 . "W" .. ... :.ij;'¡ W~F! .; f e~¡ '" 1 .. <¡> I'" '.._ ~Q,.C .. .... -. ¡ ; r- ~ ~ . '" I' II' I' ~ : f '" ~ ..< :j I' I' r" ~ ! ;¡ t '" I. !.... ¡ 0 ..J ii. ~ W W ..J C) W ::> < 0 0 0 Q c ··z 0 0 ô 0 Ô wl-~ .. 0 0 8 "'z .. 0 0 8 0 sm§.8'E MC:2b;TI].9. ::E '" or; or; or; 0 w ~ or; ci =.- 0 mmctl_c:"'C-cë3' «~ u:;:1- - - "'I-U a- - ;;; '" ;;; .. cn~=.9': '"E"S'IO:Jcmï::::: a- N - .~'-Q) 6.. "'-U)Q)::OQ)OIU)' 1-" ..Jo:w ~ ~ .. :=mc.C:::J C:U)=~()E.c:'- ~o «-, ,.. =a..m·2'J ·-.CDCU ra"C -0.0 (.) U)Q"CII) C..:E..c::_ >c:r: t:wo::: U. ~~"'CQ)O Q)cn~oraouc ~CQ. -mOO ..ctU-xcpo IV :5~ CD en.2: sri U) cu cu CO >. CD CD E ~ðQ)~..- =~"C~_'-~U) _." :JI- "'I- 0 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 8 8 c: UQ)..- ~ -cnU)U)Q)cn ~ :J:Z 0 "0 0 0 0 8 ... .- Q) Q) Q) fRo ctI Ü :J n:J CD'- U IV r---. Zz 0 0 " 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ..c:: .= .= >. ü) ,CD ~ C> ...J :::: :; ~ OW Qw or; ci .,; or; ci or; or; or; ci -c-¡::U)_ "CDO .0ttl u.::E ...J~~a: ... - ... ... N N a- N N -c¡::CDCD2 a.....-E .¡::U) ~ N N N on --E£:'ttI a.CDOcnttl CD oS;; ~o:::>ù'i ... .., ... æ:5 1::: - E a:: 11) 11) ... õ 0 C)£:. -- 11)._ -Z.e':--.:-.5- çO Oa.u>- ë 3: ~> X CD- cn-cü)--c.e 1-0", CDU)CDee .eõ-2--~¡::0) _c:r: 0:0: E = 0 a. c.. :: _" g _~ "'C N .2 5 en oc. .!!! o.~ ::E 0.- I1>CDU)E~ oU):.õ's..Õ~Q)'" _ " <'" - - > CD ~.- 0 ttI -,... J:: VJ - " ttI.......o .cn():30 -0=- 0 ..J - c.ëi)O_-.:. m=VJQ."I"""¡::-CQ) U ~ ¡¡; "_3:õ'E o"~mC.'r"::I¡::.Q Q) " 0 8 8 8 0 8 0 0 0 0 ~U()CD(1) C)(1):5cuc:.u.cu= U ä: 0 8 0 ... 0 8 8 cu CD '- E > ..... ._ ¡:: !! I- 0 0 0 0 3::.õ'~e .ClJoC)~ Bê'3: ("CI « U..J or; ci co; ci ci "6 or; or; ci (1) =,::1 c.fg~:5 m.5 3: §·~.ºëñ ãi " w< ... ~ ... '" N ... N ;:¡; 0 E "l- N '" ;;; N :Eøa..ü:;¡::õ£:.~_ mmQ) _ W 00 ... ... CDQ)m« 11> -...u>' _... ¡:: '" 0:1- ..r:.£:. -EEQ).Ec...I1>.!:?VJ:s..æ 'Cü "- ... - ~ >. C E 0- .... E " I... Q)r- "U'-alOC) ...0(1)0.= " 3 .~.2 ~ Q.cn.S- c.a.. ~:s.~ Q) .. O)~CJ)ctlÕÕalñicD~TI~g.r::.. g " õ. '" '" .Q..Q)..........·~·~~·g.E-!:: X£:.-C " -' -' .... ~ "":Of""".ëi) ü;' 11>.2=Õ::l cu ro:::: Q) Z ~ ~ ::1- 0)'---::1"1:: 0cu-:t'" " UCI) >......-C-o!:: to VJou'- VJ "'0 ° ° - to - (1) '-0 > _ _ m o !:: ~ to !:: 'E > c.:5 0 ...."'0 ~ C ::I " l- I- o Q)C1>Q)«C _(1) IV 0 ~ C) c~c-EE ·-roac.~(þE u .8 ~ gQ)O~U)U)~~_~Q)c:5>' Õ ,,; u ~ E -=-:£ ~ ~ cu ü;' g tA- ro .2 0 [ .~ Z ~ w a.. 0 :g U) 0 IV -oëõ .c a> - e e > <: 1I)-Ca::-cuIl)Cm....!::VJ.Qa> ~ <¡:. Z .= C ~,?;o 0 to.~ "E c...2 _II) .E -6 ¡ ._ .. " ¡¡: Q)tO ·__ttl -._U)::::>. -0 Q) N~E EU - -~ _ _ _ .eU) Õ>_IV.c"'O=u"'O~.Q ~ MOO ;~~~~~oro;tOU·~B. ~ ~ N '" ~-="E (1)~O)-.Qcuë~U)CQ)e::lN rn 2 '" ;0 0 ~ >z20);:)Q.Q)(1)o«..c::c.."CN (1) i "'I-:;: '" .Q Õ ~.5cneECg. =(1)eN z " ~ ~ãic~õ(þ(1)3::s.~O:5(þ~ ~ ~ " ~ " ;;; =(1)_2tt15~~O Ec_.c"C ~ _ " ~ '1' in ê o~mU)xo"">-.£..!EoO!::c: g 0: ¡¡: 'Ë CD-N....ttI-c..'t: .Q-(1)ttI~~_ < .¡¡ " w " ·~(1)=Q)J-cE(1)~orouo-c:._ ~ i':' '5 -Q 'C U g .....cttlC ttI-c.cu....-c-_~w ~ Z '" 0 0- Ü <: 0: c..Q)3~~oQ)2øc..BttlU)~CJ)_ f :5 w ¡¡ u ~ " '" w ê Q)~ -.co.. Q)---;::'- CD '" :. <: " :;; ° U " ..c::C~>-"ttlJ-Q)"'CC)~~=g.>- ~ 0. ~ C> ;;; 5 g 0- '" ;;; " '" I-~~" _~,,~ -Uu.~ .~ ~ " " " c:: ~~ 'g g¡..;; ~ ë = ã..E - 51 0 _ ~.¡¡ m 0 " ¡:: ä: " 0 u (,? C) w 0: Z -' ~ Z ~ gU)oo>-0).Ero5~ttI=~Q)c :2 '" '" g Ü -~.cs..::::~_..c::~~c"'O~:t 2 .: :::) W 0: - .... U--ra- _ d) Q)=C :> 0..:;: I- z ~ w ttl°a "CU-c..tOONd)W~_ _ Z5:e '" ~O~N~5~~~=_~_ _~ _ '" ... <: '" C1) º==O ° ~ ~ ON I"'" 1 ê ,=< ° OJN ·1 1(5 Q O'>~ I...." W 01- 1 EXHIBIT . 18 ~¡S;§(,I') I 11.-1 c::::;-o i-- wC:: o~ 'Z ~--'----------':;T-¡;;'------'-------:--- ~ ?:: ~ '-'- Lt') . .. ._".;- r'rqo,rrs· 1rO(TU'q-r¡;l 0.. z '" ° :::::~ ~.. . . oIn:!da.u [Iti ¡)ad.tL. ¡ <: '5 ~ ~ 030 ,." 1<-> ~;: ~ <",>i'~<' I ~ § § ~ . & " ~~~~." ',' 1~ s ~ .~ .. ®¡i ~~.~<' Þ 8 8t3c::oz S . ..' I .. -.' ~... ". C:::I[:::: V> " 0 '" """ ',' ~ ~ ~ . fU" " ,', , ;;;;°5 . " ~', '"... r--: k!:! g: I ·.~0'K:''\. ',,' ~;:: l3 ;;J . ", '.i ',' -.2: w ,.., V'I , , I - - ,~ .[', ", " ~ ~ êS ,.,..,.,. I- ! "'\:' I'· '" " ~ - § ,....., ...." . 'k "-. ". tñ 8 VI ~ U ::5 . @'" ~ .'\.-"",'k''';· ~;: 8 I ¡s is 6 z ffi "','., - u , ' '¡', ' '. u.. z "5 - p::: s ....', '1 . -', a I..U ~ ,...., e:::: O· " '... "'. r, '.... " þ >- ~ c:;: - ',. , ! <:V>~ == -.:'-,<'. !'.'.... " 0 b=: 0, ü 1-...... , ",';-,.>.', , l!;Qc w ~ ,,, C3 ® ~i .~<~-..:'. i 8 8§ 1135 E ~ V I ~ '\. Ï'. '\..' ~< !¿2 8 E5 r '" - ~ E-< '\.~',' '-. w i=K' w 5 U) '-" 0 0 ~ ì '''-~\''>'' iQ ~ ~ 8 ~ ¡: >- ~ W~, ~ ~ ~ i "'<4~> ~ e ~e E::'l3l3 ~ <..> 1"'\/ . ~. . <: ~ 'd, I '~'~',;'" ~ è 9:: ~ L...I- I- e-. .. " "i'" '," 5 3: ::;) <t: :z tf.) ~ z ,",~!<, ", 8 ¡j ¡¿ r-.. ~ . - Þ 0 Ii '~I ,'\., R w'-' '" L-..J 0 tr.) ", ...., ." ...... :E vi __ -, I. I ö ¡:'::' ® .0:I'oòI.,,~, G . ;::O-¡j t;~~ :z: 00 ¡,.,¡,.¡ r::¡ Z r::¡ ".::,;;!,,,,, \J :;?§5:! c::æ~3 - - ' I,'·' ~ L.o.IV'J2E .......V;5::::E ~OIIIIIIII::: Q ~ ~ ~,' -"::I'~"""" ~ ""!:3 --' §¡ 1S:::O$: --J ÞO--t ......:; - '~' -'. <: V> <: ::> V> ° Z ., ".' e :::::¡;;(./')~ :z:L.o....tnc::::: .... ''''.. .... <:: 0 OL.o.Jo... o ~ W <: <Q @ Ii" ~'"'' I e ÌS",,:;: z-~:!i CO >tf.) z .,., . "QI "'. OJ ~ z "" w:'E u.. -' -< - I "j'''~'' ~ð~ ~c..80 O·~r,.. ""-1"'-"":' ~u.. V><V><: . '-'.l~ '~" V')::Jo r....J OW . 0 ~ ~ , , , _ V> -0.. c:: o < ~ ','Ef'," - w <S ~ ë:i !;Q gg if W ~ ~ ~ O~ 0 ~i ~~~' ~8 ~~~ ~èªì~ (/) Z ¡",¡.. §; tf.) . 'd IT! "~'Î<'" ~ c:: V> "" ::J o ~ u Z~ §,,'-.'.!--.."" " 0.... ~ ......- .' ,1,", I - - 1"'\ .-... '\, .... '\. '\. ". a - <: - ..·'-.l.."..··. ¡ I e; o ~ ~ ;;2."~.!,>'.'. .' ò ~ :ó .::Sl-- "~,, '" V> V> a:: :> Z !§ ''\. ,..,~','.~... V')!=: __ =< :> 5 '.,1"" .. !:=!ct:c :5<::S 0.... r", ~. ~ ~ © !;~'l~~S: i¡ e §~ ~ J ~ ~ ~ ...,~ -... - E-< ~:::-;,. ~ @o~_ 0::> ° 00 u 55' ..~" J>-\" 8~ ~; ~ 5 1; ~ i ," " 1 ....,'.,. V> 15 §i! ° ., u ~ u ~ ,....'.... ~u=>o - - ~ 0 fN\ ~ .:\: ,.f.....,.,"' '" -8 d' ¡;¡ ~ ¡;¡ "d ;;I .,,-"{,'.',: c.....~ = I ~ u ~ ~ ~ ¡¡J " ...... '.{', .... t..:) ~ ~ t.....: u w u 00 ~ t:: IS '.""- !' " "'. ~~ ;;;; ¡:; 8 I c ¡: c \wtI J U .. ..>, '<1"0,',<'''' I' '®_ ~ :š ~ f5 I a L..... U e ... '. 1 ' .,.... v=; 2 - = ci 0 r:n ~ ~! ", .": ·1' "', "" ~;; ¡:; >- - z ¡;¡ ~ '- ".' " 1.... c::. '-='...... w ê ¡;¡¡ ,,"'1""""1 ~ ° "" ES ê ¡j ~ < "'~ ".{...., Zc~w::> ~~ '¡::I ", " I'. " " == - 0 ::E -l ...... _ '. " ~ -, ", - u g: ~ 0_ , §: ¡....: a... c;; L.o.J L...J I i u_d:::?<~e::: = I i ~t;; ~ 8?5 :: I I _ë5~C:::. 01 -Ì- "" -<~ ---------- ------- ¡:: ~ ~ ~ t3 1 ¡':WUS S:rIáYN ?; ~ ê ~ --:. ~ l3 -V'>-- f51..o.J:=:J V") l....J ~ ~~::~ ::°1 Ow 0::;> == w_ _ c: - L.LJ..... 0 127 ~::s~~ ;;: J _0(.1")<0 ""'- .' --,...-...-------....-----" -- - .:;.'"::..;.... Exhibit D April 22, 1997 File: 0725-1O-AD96-01 0735-1O-STL-232 S1REET IMPROVEMENTS TWIN OAKS AVENUE FROM NAPLES S1REET TO EMERSON S1REET SCHEDULE ACTION DATE 1. Mail out ballots to residents to comply with Prop. 218" M2i2497 Ballots due back to Engineering Dept. on F3/07/97 2. City Council Meeting at 6:00 P.M. T4!15Sl Adopt Resolution Accepting Petition to Install Street Improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street 3.- City Council Meeting at 6:00 P.M. 15,{)59? a). Adopt Proposed District Map Boundaries b). Adopt Resolution Ordering Installation of Improvements (60 days) c). Set Public hearing on Resolution of Intention d). CEQA 4. File Proposed Boundary Map -:: F5mSl a). City Clerk b). County Recorder c). Mail Notice per GC 54954.6, publish notice (5194) 5. City Staff Meeting with Property Owners at 6:00 P.M. InMiy* 6. Plans and specifications signed F5!?1.JB7 7. City Council Meetings at 6:00 P.M. 17/08/97 & 17/15/97 a). Public Hearings on Improvements and Proceedings b). Adopt Resolution of Intention and Making Findings at Public Hearing pursuant to Chapter 27 c). Obtain Letters of Permission 8. Notice of Improvement Ends (5132) &fl/J5/J7 3ó" -- TWIN OAKS A VENUEt~CHEDULE -2- A.D.# 96-01 ACTION DATE 9. **. Advertise for Construction Bids Wf'Wl 10. ** Receive Bids VV8íffJl 11. ** City Council Meeting at 6:00 P.M. T&'19Ð7 a). Adopt Resolution Accepting Bids and Awarding Contract 12. ** Execution of Contract F9!í15Ð7 13. ** Begin Construction (90 working days) 1fi!l2!Jl 14. ** End of Construction M2{]?f.;8 15. ** City Council Meeting at 6:00 P.M. T2JI7F.J3 a). Adopt Resolution Accepting Contract Work -- 16. ** City Council Meeting at 6:00 P.M. 13/lQS'8 a). Accept fIling of Engineer's Report b). Set Public hearing on Engineer's Report 17. ** Notice of Public Hearing to Property Owners 'Ib3Il2Æ 18. ** City Council Meeting at 6:00 P.M. T4/14æ a). Public Hearing on Engineer's Report b). Adopt Resolution: ConfIrming Engineer's Report - c). Adopt Resolution for Notice of Lien 19. ** File Assessment Diagram W4'J5~ . a). City Clerk b). County Recorder 20. ** Notice of Assessment & Begin 30 day pre-payment period W4'15œ 21. ** End 30 day Pre-payment period 6/15198 22. ** Due Date of First Billing (On Property Tax Bill) ThI2/1O/98 * Meeting Date will be scheduled and property owners notifIed. ** Dates shown are tentative, and only listed to show Assessment District procedures. (R:\BOME\ENG1NEERIUNDDEYlAD961$CH.FXR) 31 ...-..--"....--......----, ~- , cxHI131 T e . BUD LOW M8P:ERATE rnCOME STANDARDS No. in Household Muimwn Annual Family InCXIme (Gross ... (or E1i~bi1ity 1 $15,350 2 17,650 3 19,760 4 21,950 6 23,700 6 25,450 7 27,200 r 8 28,950 Plus $1,000 annual income allowed for each additional person in the household in excess of eight. ! .. , ,... :: ~.~ ~ - < .. . or 'oS 'ft'PC:F:\HOIo!E\OEMl.DY\ 111>..2 ~~ RESOLUTION NO. /-se,.-S-7 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING THE BOUNDARY MAP SHOWING THE PROPOSED BOUNDARIES FOR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01 OF PROPERTIES TO BE ASSESSED FOR~ IMPROVEMENTS ~1f'-E:é.1 WHEREAS, on April 15, 1997 by Resolution 18630, Council accepted a petition for the formation of an assessment district (1911 Block Act) for the construction of street improvements, such as curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street; and WHEREAS, the city Environmental Review Coordinator studied the potential environmental impacts associated with the implementation of the project and has determined this project is categorically exempt from the requirement for an Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, has been presented and has received a map showing the general nature, location and extent of the proposed improvement work, and also designating and describing the boundaries of the area proposed to be assessed in the assessment district under the provisions and authority of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California; said assessment district designated as Assessment District 96-01 (hereinafter referred to as the Assessment District). NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. That the map of the Assessment District showing the general nature, location and extent of the proposed public improvements and also showing the boundaries of the proposed Assessment District and lands and property to be assessed to pay the costs and expenses of the proposed improvements designated as "PROPOSED BOUNDARIES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01 1911 ACT IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT" is hereby submitted, and the same is hereby approved and adopted. SECTION 3. That the original map of proposed boundaries of the proposed Assessment District and one copy thereof is to be filed in the office of the City Engineer. SECTION 4. A certificate shall be endorsed on the original and on at least one copy of the map of the Assessment District, evidencing the date and adoption of this Resolution, and within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of the Resolution fixing the dates, times and place of hearings on the formation or 4/ --. ~_._.._._.._-,-------_._----,. -- extent said Assessment District, a copy of said map shall be filed with the correct endorsements thereon with the County Recorder, all in the manner and form provided for in Section 3111 of. the streets and Highways Code of the State of California. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works t: \rS\AD96·' ¢z 7=-/L , I RESOLUTION NO. \ '?b')'? RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ORDERING INSTALLATION OF IMPROVEMENTS ON TWIN OAKS AVENUE BETWEEN NAPLES STREET AND EMERSON STREET, ORDERING THE SUPERINTENDENT OF STREETS TO GIVE NOTICE AND ORDER CONSTRUCTION AND SETTING PUBLIC HEARINGS ON RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO FORM ASSESSMENT DISTRICT 96-01 PURSUANT TO THE BLOCK ACT OF 1911 WHEREAS, the City Council of the CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, is desirous to institute proceedings pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California for construction of certain authorized improvements in an assessment district known and designated as Assessment District 96-01 1911 BLOCK ACT affecting properties fronting/abutting on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street (hereinafter known and designated as the "Assessment District") and WHEREAS, sections 5875 and 5876 of said Streets and Highway Code authorize the legislative body, upon its own motion, to order the installation of authorized improvements in front of or abutting properties with the costs thereon to be assessed as set forth under the provision of said Chapter 27. WHEREAS, Section 5131 requires a resolution of intention to form an assessment district to perform such work and Section 5132 requires public hearings to hear objections by those affected by the district formation ._ NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the above recitals are true and correct. SECTION 2. That the public interest and convenience requires, and this legislative body hereby orders the construction and installation of certain street improvements such as curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson Street in what is known as the Assessment District. SECTION 3. All of the above mentioned works of improvement shall be generally constructed at the grades, along the lines, between the points, and at the places and in the manner as shown on the plans for said work designated by the number and the name of the Assessment District, which said plans are hereby approved and adopted. For all particulars as to the alignment of the works and a full and detailed description, reference is hereby made to said plans and specifications as on file in the Office of the City Engineer. 1f3 ___0_._' ____~___._._ -- SECTION 4. That the works of improvements, in the opinion of this legislative body, will benefit the abutting and fronting properties within said block, and this legislative body hereby makes the expenses of said improvement chargeable upon the property or properties wi thin the boundaries of the Assessment District, which District is declared to be the area and abutting properties benefitting by the work and improvements for a general description of the Assessment District and area of benefit, reference is made to a map of said district previously approved and said map identified by number of this Assessment District, and said map shall be kept on file with the transcript of these proceedings and open to public inspection. SECTION 5. Pursuant to the provisions of Section 5875 of the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", it is hereby declared to be the responsibility of the owners of the lots or portions of lots fronting/abutting on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street and Emerson where this legislative body, pursuant to said Section, by its own motion, orders the installation of the improvements, and the property owners shall have the duty and responsibility of constructing or causing the construction of said improvements fronting\abutting their properties to commence within sixty (60) days upon notice so to do by the Superintendent of Streets. If the work is not commenced by the property owners within said period, the Superintendent of Streets shall proceed to cause said work to be completed. SECTION 6. That all of the work and improvements herein proposed shall be done and carried through and financed pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. For all particulars, reference is made to said "Act", and the provisions contained therein.- 2~~ECTION 7. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT ON TUESDAY, THE /<) fTH AND :¡..5:m OF JULY 1997, AT THE HOUR OF 6:00 P.M., IN THE REGULAR MEETING PLACE OF THE CITY COUNCIL, BEING THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS, PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING, 276 FOURTH AVENUE, CHULA VISTA, CA., ANY AND ALL PERSONS HAVING ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE PROPOSED WORK OR IMPROVEMENTS OR THE PROCEDURE ESTABLISHED HEREIN SHOULD APPEAR AND SHOW CAUSE WHY SAID WORK SHOULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS RESOLUTION. SECTION 8. If the work is done by the City, and if the assessment cost is not paid upon confirmation of the assessment, the city shall collect payment of the assessments, annual installments, and interest in accordance with the provisions of Section 5895 of Chapter 27 of the "Improvement Act of 1911", of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California. The number of annual installments shall be 10 and the interest rate shall be 7 percent per annum. SECTION 9. The Superintendent of Streets is hereby directed to notify the owner or person in possession of the If/! -- properties fronting/abutting that portion of the street in the block where work is to be constructed and directing them to construct or cause to be constructed the improvements within sixty (60) days after notice is given, and to diligently and without interruption prosecute to completion said work. A. Notice shall be given by mailing a letter, postage prepaid, to the property owners at their last known address as the same appears on the last equalized assessment roll used by the City for tax collection, or to the name and address of the person owning such property as shown on the records of the City Clerk. B. The City Clerk shall cause a copy of the proposed boundary map to be filed in the Office of the County Recorder within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this Resolution setting dates, time and place for the public hearings. C. The city Clerk shall cause the Resolution of Intention to be published twice, with the first publication occurring at least ten (10) days prior to the second public hearing. SECTION 10. The estimated cost to the City of the works of improvement as proposed under these proceedings, is estimated to be $340,000.00. SECTION 1l. For any and all information relative to these proceedings, including the information relating to the protest procedure, your attention is directed to the person designated below: - Frank Rivera, civil Engineer city of Chula Vista P.O.Box 1087 Chula Vista, CA 91910 Telephone: (619) 691-5266 Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works C:\r-s\.ad96-1 /!-5 ~, : txh bit l.- -- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item1L- Meeting Date 4/15/97 ITEM TITLE: Resolution / Ó ~ 30 Accepting petition for formation of a special Assessment District #AD96-01 for the construction of street improvemenrs on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson Street. Resolution I ~ fa 31 Appropriating $180,000 from the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax Fund into account STL-232 SUBM1n~D BY: Director of Public worksØ' REVIEWED BY: City Manager (4/5ths Vote: YesXNo~ The City Engineer has received a petition from property owners in the 1100 to 1150 block of Twin Oaks Ayenue, south of Naples Street to north of Emerson Street, requesting that special assessment proceedings be commenced for construction of missing street improvemenrs such as curb, gutter and sidewalks. Upon acceptance by the Council, the petition will be fIled in the City Clerk's office. Approval of this resolution will pennit staff to begin assessment district formation proceedings and with the objective of awarding the contract for the improvemenrs within Fiscal Year 97/98. It is necessary to appropriate $180,000 from the Gas Tax Fund as in-kind contribution from the City for a portion of the construction work within the existing roadway. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the resolution a=pting the petition for formation of a special assessment district for the construction of missing street improvemenrs on Twin Oaks Avenue between Naples Street to Emerson Street. Approve the resolution appropriating $180,000 from the unappropriated balance of the gas Tax Fund into account STL-232. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not Applicable DISCUSSION: On May 7, 1996, Mr. Norman Quinlan, a resident of 1109 Twin Oaks Avenue, Chula Vista, submitted a petition (Exhibit A) requesting that the City fonn a special assessment district to construct the missing street improvemenrs on Twin Oaks Avenue from Naples Street to Emerson Street. Sections 2804(a)(3) and 5871(a) of the Street and Highways Code require that such petitions be signed by owners of more than 60% of the area, unless otherwise approved, and be signed by owners of more than 60% of the frontage footage. The signatories of the petition owned 88.2 % of the area of the property in the proposed district (18 of 20 properties) and, they ~ · -- Page 2, Item Meeting Date 4/15/97 were 89.5% of the owners of that property (17 of 19 owners) having footage fronting Twin Oaks Avenue thus complying with the Code. In order to comply with the requirements of Proposition 218, the "Right To Vote On Taxes Act", which was passed by a majority of the state voters in a generally held election of November 5, 1996, staff had to prepare ballots. Proposition 218 requires that a ballot be mailed to all property owners which may be subject to an increase in their property taxes. The results of the voting ballot returns as of April 9th show the following: 14 in favor ($74,166) and 2 against ($19,834) the formation of an assessment district, representing 78.9% of the returned ballots fInancial obligation voting in favor. The other 4 property owners had not yet responded with their ballots (see attached ballot summary Exhibit H). Based on the property owner's total financial obligation of $114,858, a total of $74,166 (64.57%) of the property owner's submitted ballots in favor of the district. There is a majority to form the assessment district at this time, even if the fInal four ballots are returned with a "NO" vote. Staff has prepared this report to co=ence the Assessment District 96-01 via the hnprovement Act of 1911. This hnprovement Act has been used for other similar assessment districts and provides for the construction of street improvements. The proposed district boundaries are shown as Exhibit B. The 1911 Improvement Act Process The procedure which will be followed consists of the following sequence: 1. The legislative body orders plans and specifIcations. This project was adopted by the 1996/97 CIP budget. - 2. The legislative body accepts the petition to install street improvements. 3. A Resolution of Intent is passed and a public hearing is held. If there is not a majority protest, then the legislative body proceeds with the work by ordering the construction of the improvements. 4. If the contractor's bid is satisfactory, a construction contract is awarded and the contractor co=ences work. If the Contractor's bid is unsatisfactory, then the Council and the residents may decide to change the scope of the project or the amount of fmancial participation. If there is no resolution on the matter, the proceedings must be abandoned for at least one year. , 5. After the construction work is complete, there is another public hearing to me the assessment and confIrm the assessment on the properties within the district. 47 __._,._ . ..___,__u,_._ __.____..-u__._...._ ___..._ __ _u____ __...__....__ _,.""".___uw,,____,_,___, --.-.----.--.--.- . -- Page 3, Item Meeting Date 4/15/97 6. The property owners then have 30 days to payoff any or all of the assessment on their property without interest or penalty. 7. The unpaid portion of the assessment, which is subject to an interest rate, is then placed on the property tax bills due in April and December of each year for 10 years. The Improvement Act of 1911 provides that the assessment shall become a lien upon being recorded in the office of the County Recorder. Properties are subject to foreclosure in cases where there is an unpaid lien. Property Owner's Conditions of Approval The property owners in favor of fonning the assessment district agreed to the following terms: A. That the improvement costs will be charged to the property which benefits from the project as outlined on the payment schedule (Exhibit C), including their land; B. That the cost of legal and other incidental expenses will be included in the project cost; C. That each property owner may pay his/her assessment either in cash without interest or in installments with 7% interest over a period of ten years; D. The property owner's as~essment is estimated at $114,868 (Exhibit C) and the estimated total of the improvements is budgeted at $340,000 (Exhibit D); E. That property owner's have expressed an unwillingness to continue thfs project if their share exceeds $100 per lineal foot of property frontage; F. That property with an assessment lien is subject to foreclosure in cases of delinquency and non-payment; G. That they consented to the formation of the Assessment District in accordance with Section 2804 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California and waiyed any rights to protest against the formation of said assessment district; H. That they agreed to dedicate all required rights-of-way or easements necessary for the works of improvement, all dedications to be accomplished before the ordering of improvements; !/f -- Page 4, Item Meeting Date 4/15/97 Those not signing the petition either opposed spending money on the street improvements which include pavement, curb, gutters, driveway aprons and sidewalks or had some other fmancial hardship and felt that it was entirely the City's responsibility to improve the street. Improvements and Costs Improvements on Twin Oaks Avenue, extending from Naples Street to Emerson Street would consist of grading, excavation, Portland cement concrete, asphalt, pedestrian ramps together with appurtenances and appurtenant work, to serve and to benefit properties located within the boundaries of the assessment district. Although the existing street is paved and varies in width, but is typically about 22' in width, there are no paved parking areas (shoulder), curbs, gutters, driveway aprons and sidewalks (Exhibit E). When it rains, water ponds along the edge of the roadway and localized flooding on some of the properties occurs. This proposed project will address these issues and minimi7e the amount of water runoff from the street onto private properties. Wooden utility poles will be relocated closer to the property line so that they are not within the future curb and gutter area. The relocation of these utility poles will be done at the expense of San Diego Gas & Electric Company and therefore will not be included in the project costs . Although staff has completed a more current project cost estimate of $302,000 (Exhibit F), the CIP Program Detail and budget should remain at $340,000 (Exhibit D) to account for any unforeseen issues and the possibility that construction bids may come in higher than expected. It is estimated that the following costs will be incurred for the improvement of Twin Oaks Avenue: c_ Costs CONSTRUCTION City's Share $101,200 Property Owner's Share $114,800 DESIGN & INSPECTION/SURVEYING City's Share $ 71,000 Property Owner's Share $ 0 ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FORMATION City's Share $ 15,000 Property Owner's Share $ 0 $302,000 Staff recommends that the City pay the estimated $86,000 costs of: design ($45,000); inspection and surveying ($26,000); as well as the assessment district formation ($15,000). With the City /9 ._~-,._..._-,,_..__.__........ -- -- Page 5, Item Meeting Date 4/15/97 paying these direct costs, it is consistent with past practices and Chula Vista Policy 505-01 (Exhibit G). llis policy allows the City and benefiting property owners to participate in the construction of the DÙSSing street improvements and share in the funding. Based upon tJùs policy, staff induded only the actual construction cost in the petition. Per Exhibit E, the property owner I s share of the construction cost represents that amount of work which is between the existing edge of pavement and their property line. A 53 % portion ($114,800) of the $216,000 construction costs will therefore be the responsibility of the property owners. The City's construction cost share represents the cost of the work within the existing paved portion of the roadway. To construct the project through the assessment district financing, $180,000 would need to be appropriated from the unappropriated balance of the Gas Tax Fund so that only the residentls share of $114,800 is funded as a loan from the Trunk Sewer Fund which will be repaid with 7% interest over a period of 10 years. The FY97/98 CIP Program Detail sheet (Exhibit D) shows that the financing total is estimated at $340,000 of which $115,000 is being loaned from the Trunk Sewer Fund and $180,000 is appropriated from the Gas Tax Fund. Staff intends to utilize the $45,000 already appropriated from the Gas Tax Fund. Based on the staff recommendation and an initial cost estimate of $94 to $100 per lineal foot of frontage, the assessments for each parcel would range from a low of $5,000 to a high of $13,900, with 14 of the 20 (70%) assessments at $5000. The properties have not previously been considered for inclusion in the Block Act for the following reasons: - 1. Twin Oaks Avenue is a two-way local residential street with comparatively low traffic volumes when compared to other unimproved streets within the City limits; 2. Previously, sixty percent or more of the owners have not requested that the street improvements be done; 3. Before January 1, 1986, this area, known as Castle Park, which was part of the Montgomery Annexation was not within the city limits of Chula Vista, but rather the County of San Diego. Staff recommends that tJùs street improvement project be approved for staff to begin assessment district fonnation proceedings. The City will participate in the financing by funding the design, inspection and project administration costs per City Council Policy # 505-01. The property owners will be allowed to finance the improvements over a ten year period with the 7 % interest charges included in their annual property tax bills. The annual assessments would be included on their property tax bills and payable in seDÙannual payments. 50 -- Page 6, Item Meeting Date 4/15/97 Future Actions 1. Staff will return to Council with the Resolution of Intention declaring the City's intent to form a district. 2. Staff will continue to meet with all of the property owners to discuss the improyement project and its fInancing. 3. Two public hearings, as required by law, will be held. Therefore, tonight's action by the City Council is not binding on the property owners in the event the bids come in higher than the estimated $302,000. After the bids are opened, the project comes back to the Council for award, the actions will include notice to the property of a public hearing with an opportunity to review their proposed charges: At that time, the property owners will be able to request the Council to eliminate the district because of the costs. After construction is complete, and the fInal costs are known, there will be another public hearing to consider the actual assessments . All of the property owners and residents which are within the proposed assessment district boundaries to receive these improvements and would be assessed have been notifIed of this meeting and sent a copy of staff's report with attachments. Exhibits B, C, E and F are available on transparencies for Council viewing and discussions FISCAL IMP ACT: Approval of the resolutions authorizes staff to proceed with this project. The city will absorb approximately $41,000 for: inspection and surveying ($26,000); and assessment district formation ($15,000);- if the project goes to construction. The estimated $115,000 from the Trunk Sewer Fund will be reimbursed with 7% interest, the terms of which may be amended prior to a future public hearing. Attachments: A - Petition B - Proposed Twin Oaks A venue Assessment District Boundary C - Payment Schedule D - CIP Detail & Proposed 5 Year Plan E - Cross-section for Twin Oaks A yenue dated 06/28/96 F - Preliminary Cost Estimate For Total Costs & Shares G - Policy #505-01 H - Ballot Summary April 10, 1997 (11:41am) (H:\HOME\ENGINEERIAGENDA IAD961 RPT. FXR) 51 - -- - -- -~ ----~- '---" \1 vi I /ï ~ RE;CEIVE:D / 'J 3 S_os ,-l:~YI( CITY OF CHULA VISTA I ENGINEERING DE p.r. -.- . 95 HAY -7 All I): 09 '-.. Property Owners On Twin Oaks Ave. (Naples To Emerson) Chula Vista, CA . 91911 5/3/1996 Cliff Swanson Deputy Public Works Director/ City Engineer The property owners are requesting the city to initiate a a 1911 Block ACT project for installation of SIDEWALK, CURB, and GUTTER for the improvement and beautification of TWIN OAKS A VENUE between Naples and Emerson. SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE Q~'faJ ~a~) __win Oaks Ave. S'- ~-9C, &\~ in Oaks Ave. S- 3-9' ~ n Oaks Ave 5 - 5 -? Oaks Ave. 5· - -'n Oaks Ave. ..6- 3- f ¿, s- ~- f 1. Ó-c - {, }L- S-3-C¡& 5- - 1< / J - (, ,-9 ~ t-f¡c&~ a(JO --'ner House S~~-C¡G ' 0 5Z - -- ._-_._._--.~_._----~--- ... --..- E:x H-I 'iJIT A- SIGNATURE ADDRESS DATE -- C~Æ!J J '^AA~/1~_ -,n Oaks Ave. S/3/9? I Oaks Ave. 513 ~j;4#d.-¡r Jj- _3- q,h Co-1.rrJ V- (ì~ \ .....in Oaks Ave. 6' 8 - cr6 n~"~~_noakSAve. ~;;'~ R nr~---f Æ-h",,~ _Oaks Ave. S Ò.9b 1-)~-æ;fJ~ _in Oaks Ave. ~fh/?h ~¡""-t"" ,,-,,~ 'W~T~ Thank You! Sincerely . Norman Quinlm ~~tú(. 4 r~a-... - Project Coordinator Norman Quinïn 1109 Twin Oaks Ave. Chula Vista. CA. 91911 (619) 420-8568 ATT:C1iff Swanson THE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE REQUESTING INDIVIDUAL CONTRACTS PRIOR TO THE ACTIVATION OF THE TWIN OAKS PROJECT FROM THE CHULA VISTA CITY SPECIFICALY INDICATING THE ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND COST PER FOOTAGE VIA THE 1911 BLOCK ACT PROJECT. "--. --"- 53 -- .-..-- - .-----.------- ". . -"'- - _·0 ---------".._- ·------·-____T'___ I~.J' ( j / S) - {)::,- - J::. Y - I () c: n£~~;jl~~ f; IT Y 0 F çj'!·IJ:Lt. ':r~$ u ex:: I-H BIT -- ~J~GIN=:EÑIN~ D~" A -- 56 JUtI .2 .Iff 11= 11 . . Property OWners On Twin Oaks Ave (Naples to Emerson) Chula Vista, CA. 91911 6-12-96 Cliff Swanson Deputy Public Works Director/City Engiheer As per your request the signatures of all property owners showing there approval of initiating the 1911 Block Act Project for the Twin Oaks Project (between Naples and Emerson) , - was turned in to your office on 5-8-96. PlEa5e~r~sP9na.-~s to the status of the 1911 Block Act Project for thê installation of Sidewalk, Curb, & Gutter. - Enclosed is a copy of signatures requested and a retur~ envelope. THANK YOU ?;1~ffµ-r 4 ?~+L- NORMAN G, QUINLAN ,- . - Project Coordinator Norman ~~ ~uinlan 1109 Twin Oaka Ave Chula Vista, Ca. 91911 (619)420-8568 . - 5( c:.xrTlt:¡/ 0 '., ~ - , I I . - -- r ____ I ------r----_ o ~ -.- ï - - - T - : I t I I I I I -¡ -, . I I J NAPLES: I: ST. . ;.JII."II .........UII. ~ ; ,. , 235-:+ 1101: ~ . _-I ~ I . . ¡..J.( - - - - : .1109: II-!( .1".."1 _. ê : 1112 1115 : : 1116 _ :: 1120 1127 :: ..,., - 3 - 00 AJ : 1130 11 1 : ~ :: 1134 1133 :: (j - :: 1136 1135 :: 0 ¡ :: 1138 1137 :: :: 1140 1143 :: - - - ....~ rr1 :.....,.. , ~.. . I I I , : T:: 1150 -:-230 I I.- _ I I III1IIII IIII III' I I ,_ I 1 ! I I I . > > i ~ ~ . ~ <; ----- rrJ ~ ~ j/~ jljJ ;; BOill'l'DARY OF PROPOSED DISTRlCT: 11I1111I1111I' J ~ DRAWN BY: A. STEVENS PROPOSED TWIN OAKS AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT DATE: 07/02/96 ~55 . - -- - - .._._...._,_.__._._~,-_.- --.... "" - ~ - ... - = .- = - 0> _ ,., ~ 0 " U c:¡.... _ ~ :ë 'ª '<r\O\.OI..OI.:)\.O\O\01..08~\O~~\01..O .- M œ - c 1:""'1 ~ ~ "1::1" -.::r -o::r -.::r -.::r -.::r r-- '<2'" -.::r 00 CCI -.::r -.::r ...c: IU ;::!.... f""Î N~ C"!., C"\I~ N~ NR N~ NR ~ .,.,~ v3 NR f""Î 1")' N. C"l >< > C~..CII: - 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ N _ 0\ _ _ 0\ 0\ !..LI - -[- ~.., o..q. .., .., ~ ~ .., .., ~ "" .., "'" "" .., .., " c ¡¡ "CI -- _ CU -= C - "'...!. = ë -< ·>E~>. ~J;;<== - -= = .. .!! ...!. :: E . , . , . , I . . . . , " I . .-:::E-c"'" 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ó 0 ~ = cu = " I . , , , I . I , I . I " v' _oo<~_ .., .., .., ~ .., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., .., "".., ~ - ~ "" - :J ~-= ~ .- « = =' ¡:¡ õ ~ « ~~~ c o '" - \0 N N V\ VI :c M- = 0,0000000,0 NOOOCO 0 IV =ë;E V"I 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ N N 0\ 0\ 0\ g 0\ ._ ~ ;E-..... - ~ ~ 0-... ~ ~ 0\.. 0\.. ~ Ñ "1::1"'" ~ _ _ 0\ ~ rtI .~ =0= r-- r-- t-- r-- r-- r-- r- r- N r-- r-: t-- > êQ - fool ¡:. ..,..,..,..,..,..,..,..,.., "" .., .., .., .., "" .., /'tI ~ = '" 01 ¡¡ "0 __ ...c I _ CI.I = = \C) ::: .~·.!.=E "S: 0\ ...... >E=;>-,. > . tI:I AI 101 C III ""C Or:;:¡ c:"'<'" :ë Z...:¡ _ _ § E-4;J _ cC _ U~ .!·.!.=E r--V')V")v")v)V'lV'lOOV'lr--"""IIir--r-- If"! U fÎJ .:::E§>. M\O\O\O\O\O\O\OI.OV':IO\\O-V-.::r:2\O ::I ~ CCI.I = N - - - _ 'o::r N N N _ _ .... þ:I:',j - en -< ¡:. ..,..,..,..,..,..,.., "" .., .., "" "'" "" .., ..,.., 't;; ~U § ~tI) "CI - U ~ G.I = C - ~~ .'¡õjE 0 Z ~õ~ -0 ~ ~ c: ¡.. '" '" Z ~ r:;:¡ .~ ~> ë \ONNNNNNNN8-N~~ N ~2 Cf.:I-< - =-E M 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ 0\ \0 0\ 0\ 0 0 ~ 0\ ;:;>ra .....- Q) ::.5.... ~ ~ I,,:)~ ~ ~ ~ I,,:)~ \D~ ~ OÔ _ ~ 6 6 \,Q~ ~ .....E rJ:I ~ >.- Q = 0\ \D \D \D \0 \0 \0 \0 \D _ _ \D _ _ \,Q \0 C ._ ~ - .5E--=. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ""7 ""7 ""7 ""7 ~ ~ ""7 ""7 ......, e~ rJ:I C':I '- ...... rJ') E 'õ "'C ....... Q) "::I -.... OJ ......... - u == õV) :;;: .~"..!.¡;E 0"::;: tE=.... '-~ ~~<~ rä '" . cO:> .- '" - -¡ ~ ::: 0'\ = t = E OJ ~ "-"Ë= N V'¡ II"'¡ II"'¡ II"'¡ V"o II"'¡ V"o VI 0 \D V"o N N ..,., V"o a.. ~u=~ ~~~~~~~~::::~~~~~::::~ "5 _CI)<=" wq.wq.~~~~~wq.9o't~~...,...,........~ ~~...J ~:¿ ~ t:=- 0= -< Q C'I: .......... 0 ~U"= ô§.b ~ u U '" "-Ñ.:" CO ¡¡:¡ C I.. .. "'C ~ ::> ~~e::. ~ 0 -< '" c D - E~ z = U \0 ..=:;c LU Q.I - 1;1II 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 \0 \0 0 0 0 0 0 '" ~ 0 E.!.... E te 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 g 0 ~ ~ ~ VI 0 g Q)~:s "I _In._" ~t"'--t"'--t"'--r--r--r--r--r-- M ~ ~ ~0r-: ~ CU'J c.::: "I ï: Q Wi \0 ~~ ~ ~~ ~ -:r'~ ~~ "(1"K "<t"~ _ 00 "(1" r-- r-: "<t" ~ 0 0 LU ~ _u~ ""...,..., ~ ~ ..., ..., ..., 9o't ~ ~ ..., ..., .... _ ..., U LUz ~ ~- -< OJ t'tI G ü -5 ~.s z !: c ""C 0 C ~ _·ë t:::::Iu.. LY oQ) N=f':¡..¡" a>. ==cua) (ú Eo- E ï5.E"E u=~~-e8~~EE'"?;"E."'ã. ¿ ..: u2~.§>o~~¡g=O::=-êe~~ 0 ~ > ~ N ~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ - 0 0 ~ ~ ~ 0 I * <: .. * I - E ~~ - N M ~ V"o \D r-- 00 ~ ~ = ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -< 5¿, ." - ~ c .~ œ S ;> - >. ~ " .. U :::::E-¡::.. -- ~ :<3 .. '" '" '" '" :.a '" ~~E ... ... '" M ~ N N N ..; >< ;> .- Q ..... '" '" '" ..Q -= ':¡.....l: "" "" "" .... C ... ." - - .E .. .. '" :( U'J..!. = S .;; ë = >. u ~ C a: "'en..:... .. '" -¡..!. = E .. " :';5:;» 9 9 9 9 '" .sðJ<:E_ "" "" "" "" '" ~ ." - -;;; ~ '" ::J .~ c¡ E 00 ::J ;> - >. -< ~ " .. "'¡...... c 0 ~ -= M -D N :!-¡ë <=> <=> <=> 0 '" '" '" '" "., .. =õ~ '" '" '" - '" ~ ...: t-" ...: > .5t-c,Q.¡ .... .... .... .... '" '" '" .... <:> ¡: -D 0 .E ." - - .. '" \:> :( ]...!. = E .~ Q\ >5=» . (I) G.J '" C « :2 Of:;::1 "'en":", -D Zs c - - 0 .. '" E-<CI -;..!. = c "., "., "., t- Ü ~S3 ::5=;:' '" '" '" M ::J ë GJ = 1:1; N b _tf.:I<Q., .... "" .... .... ~ c E-<U 0 r'3 t:I'J ." ë u ~ c ¡E-< .~ -¡ E 0 Z > - >. .. " .. " E-<f:;::1 "'¡...... '" Z ~ f:;::1 ~. '" -D ~.... ë N N N '" a! '" - 00- ~~ .s c; E '" '" '" M '" '" .. '" '" '" '" - E .?: ==ë~ .¿ "," .¿ '" c ._ f:;::1 .5r-Q., 0- '§ .... .... "" "" ~ ~ (I) - '" ¡r.¡ ¡: - -" -< .E ." - - o '" .. '" - ~ < ~...!. = E o .- o > .:; E C ..... - '" G.J IIU C = _tr: C::rn<c.. '" '" . ceo - - .- '" .. '" -;:'" -;..!. = E "., "., "., N "'~ ::5=>, M M M 00 Cl..J:: ë IU C 11II M M M ... ... i:! _UJ<c.. "" .... "" .... ~ '" '" to ~::i: I- -~ 0= .( ~.. "'0 ð.=- - - '" ~ c ,;, ~ v o ::J '" .!!! ';j c .. u c 0 > ='¡: .. -0 :: { W._ .Q.¡ ~ "'...~ 0 '" c 0 - E"" z ¡¡ ~ 00 .- c w .. <=> <=> <=> 00 '" -;;; ::J LJ ~ ~.ê.. 0 <=> <=> '" 00 '" ~ :S ;;; t- t- t- t- V C -;;; .; .; .; .¿ '" ~ :Sð~ - 0 0 w .. ¡;; ~ .... "" .... "" -0 u w ., Z -< ",- ~ '" LJ '; .. " r:I .S Z >. '" u.. w ë .. ~ 0 "- ;; (Ú ¡... 5 " ë g :¿ ;¡; >. " 0 " ;;; ~ 0 z: 0,; ¿ ë; 0,; ~ . . . I - ;;;:u; t- oo '" 0 .. - - - N Õ ., ¡... ..: 57 -------~-,--_._.__._-----..~ -----.-------. . -- u '0 . >.- 00() C ~z V> ~ no ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C « :;: no no ClJ ~ .£:J ClJ ClJ 0. ClJ ClJ.,è 0 ..c >. . >"oC¡) ...r: .- ...; C X 05 00..-0 .::~ 0-'" LoU ~.- o :::> o C ~ ~ ClJ no ::: :::> ~ C -00 o ClJ ~ ..c no V> -o~ O~O C ClJ'- oE ClJë ClJ...; c= ClJ ~ .- no .~- -0 E'- ::0. ClJ 0 .9:::: '- -5'= ClJ'ü o.c ~ ClJ ClJ ClJ ~ ~ V> o.c no 0 c....r: c no ~ o .~ :::> ~ .- - ClJ ~ U oc... ClJ~ C'tIr:a...... E u >2 V> :::> 0 ..,¡~ o 0 ~ ~ :::> C ~ 0">-:;; V> ClJ 0 E ""'0 ~ClJ 15 E C ClJ ~u Eo:: no > :::> ~ V> ~ ClJ 0_ ~ ClJ ~ ClJ ~ ClJ..c . ClJ no ë..c E ~ ClJ c..>:! >. - C no~ :::> ~ C ....c.':::: no·- ~ C C no :;: ?ft.~U EL.L. '" ClJ'- C ~ 0 .- -0 L.U 0._ " ClJ -:;; ClJ no ,- .....-c.....c: OJ .~ > ~ (J 00() ¡:: ~ ~ C noClJ~ ~ > ~ C ClJ .- t;;t:-5 V> ClJ -< " :::> o..aJ.,è 00:: ~ 0 ..r: ._ W Q).- U Z noU ~- Qj 'tñ ~ ClJ . c.:: ::J?_ ro: ~c~ ~ ~ -:;;>. o 0 :::> .!: ~ c: - no L.U " -0 0 ~- I- ~.£:J ~ ClJ Co -' .8-0 ~ C -ov>E 0-0 -< C ClJ no ClJ . 2·- OJ -0 ClJ l- .- > >-...... in no >. ClJ ClJ- Z -00 -no~ ~.....'- V> 0 C ~ C .- EWO() no..c L.U no 0. o~- 0. no .£:J:;: ::E _ 0. no V> ~Oro no no tï 0. :s u ~ ~ ClJ ~ . ;>- .9- ClJ ClJ V> U ~ C. w· -SV'lu -< u- w-- U -oOJ'Q:j -c E:.~ Q,. C :::> -~o ClJ no 0 L.L. .- -0 c~ c£-c ..cClJ~ ~ ClJ ._ C '- no no uCo. 0 o.~ - Q) Q) . V> 0 '" ~- v>E>.è _ClJ u no E 0 ~~ClJ Z ~tJ')""O - VI Q).- 0...- ...... c~ ~ e c ~ ClJ CV'I...!:U .-..... c ClJ~ ClJ ClJ ClJ U U .- E°o.. ClJ c ~ E "'.- ClJ C ClJ ~ ¡:: E ClJ':J "'..c..c .~ £ Q) >. -0 E >.Ec- ;;--<:;: ~ no ClJ Q,. a....... 'E 0. -0 0 Q2 no >. ClJ 0.- ..c- '::'raQ) c u o.no~ no ,~ U _ c...~ _ Õ -0 .~ c~~ -o:::>~ '" r.; ro ¡..... ~ Q) 0 :g ~o.9 L.U :::>ClJ~ ::::;¡-'-..... E E E -- l... U 0 c..cC C_Q)C > C no c~ClJ c rQ' -- QJ >-.~ ~Q)z '1'.~ E o."'E no ClJ '" ClJ ClJ C tp._ c 0...... Qj .- ClJ .- U ctf Q) ~.£:J 0 E.~ e: Ec:zCJ ClJ ~ c -::::Q)U ClJ..c 0() .- ~ c no :;: ~>- ClJ~ 0() '" V) I- no V') c.. .~ ra o ~ 0 c ctI "Z x ~...r: c "' ClJ V> :::> 0 ~ ClJ ClJ 0:> 0.2 E '" 0 ~ ra__ :S - >- < E ~ '" 0 :J~:ë z ~ ~ N M 00:: <.J LoU LoU LoU U-ono ~ > > > ~ ~ l- I- ¡::: z « « « 5 Z Z Z z '" '" 0:: 0:: 0:: L.U ~ LoU L.U L.U I- ~ l- I- l- e 0 ...J ...J ...J ~ « < -< Z - 5'3 ¡;::;'AIII'--'f I V 0 ~ ~ - ~ tJ' N 9 8 " t - ~ .. ~ .. - i " ~ ~ .. ~ .. .~ I ~. ~ ii t -0 ~ _:!' .! .. ~ .. I~æ .. - . .. 1...0 .. .. .. ~ -J ii. ~. ~ ~ w :> ~ ~ 0 ~ 8 8 § ~ 8 8 cëcc.81: c?ê:.æ c Quz 0 wffi< .. Ò g on '" ò g 0..2 0 S¡CIJ.!!! ::¡; :: ::E .. '" 0> .. en~;'!:::o.; E> ~~t; ,.:. - æ N M - N .!!! '- 1) - 0." ..... gr.!! «~ g: .. .. .'t:: ea Co c~" c: ãi 3~!!j - =!l. '" '" - 5: I-CJ t ~~'i~§ ]:aß eno t:11.0 5a: Zwa: IV en > . t/)!S! ea j~ _011. 0) ð 'as .J ~ ='> 32 § 0 '" ¡¡¡a:- .0_" § ~ § 0 0 ~ ~ 8 .¡; CIJ "''¡¡ ~ ° =>!ž "'... f!!.c'::,::,~ G,I'-~ Zz on on "C - e: UJ 0 :rw Qw .; 0 g '" ... '" e:G,lQ)$ a..'-- u::¡; .. - '" 'O'-E":~ a:a.a: I-a: C£ _ ID.... ~~ "J<a:~ CO:'~1::Q)._ z.z=ë;¡; .- <-:;, ...a: ~ 'E [>ð Q)::_ ~g 011.0 Q) ell IÞ e.... .z= 0 ~ "'0:;, E- CoCo - . a: a: _oEa. -1ii:c .¡:¡ un. .! ~t ~$~--< oO:J 0 :ë [-='-.2. .!!!~eII 0 : < t/) 0 _ -;:::. n::I ftj Q) Q) -J ~ 0 ~ ~-:r;~e: &.....c 0 ~ ¡¡; § ~ ~ 8 8 - ~ CIJ CIJ - " § § 8 co ._~ "is' E Q) > C) ctI C 0 0 3:.c.c.....Q) -.c0e: C ii: Ii ti"J I'i Ò on 0 ¡¡: ò on 16.0 1Þ:J:JQ.t/).Ð_Q)'> IV « ... æ ... ,.-- ~ ;<~ :Qt/)a..õ:5fiiõ£o E ~ woo( 14" M u · ...... t/) IV Q),!) '- ._ E 00 ':¡!:":<EE"'.¡;~ ~ W a:... Q) -~'as>'5C) .., ... '" "] [ ,,- =' . co .... ell'';::: _ ~ c "'''S¡m-_",[", " · · '" ~~ - _.g.g ~.- E 'i · '" ....I .... ~,...:- t;; t;; Q).Q'~ .... Q, ....I ~ ::Jli) m:S'_:;J"t::eII · ~ <.> >.- '0,,[.- 32 Z 0 - raca- Q).c :J c 0 ... oc:: cê:>c: ° ... cgc'sËQ)c:(·-co 0 : " .! z .g~O:~:a~~'i¡¡ ¡¡ · ü '" ." 5: '" 1;; ._ ..a Z =w-'- 5:0 CIJ'õ 0 .. ~ '¡¡¡,,&,g::¡::¡,,:Vã. <l: ""z ð .~- '" ¡¡: .- '" -. ,g.~ I- .; ~ OJ -:~ ~~E y ___ ~ ! H1~ ra cu "C 0 co IÞ 0> ,; 0", ~õ.D>£:ë'·æ_U)t/) ~ , .jcë .~ 2~EO):J5rIDÎii8. C1J l ... j 0 ° a...EØ.....Ei0ui z [ ",...::E go > C oX - C1I '- ;¡; ,¡;¡¡¡¡"g~>oa.E :; ~ '2 .., - .-"'- Eto'" <.> a ¡¡ is ~ ~!~I!! ,ga. -:ë.,.! '2 iJj '-ClJ.-ClJ~"E :::0",_ ~ a: ~ E ] Ë w o.c-~ s--w l < ~ .~ :a! 0 C.CD·~ 0 UI~ä; e (I) ~~i iJj " ~ a: i j 0 IT ~ Eæ~(B..¡!: ~i g>ì::'O ;¡; :t '! :> w c 0 ~ 11. ~ . 'C 0> ~ . '" ~ C1I tIS ell ..r:: õ..c ::::J 11. ;; C c ~m'·'='l ^- ~ ::¡; . ~ . 8 . C! 0: ~ ~ ö: 0 " z w § CI),g e.~~~~ e-c.s Z '" ü 1E ~ =-æ õ 0.015 ca= c.ftj'3-É ': ~ w Z o.co~r:::~o_·.;:::~ca 0"::E ... « '" '" ~ L:.N.c=,~S.s.æCCZI'" ~ z~::E '" r::: 0'1 - - .... W.r:. GI '" Z a: ~ iL.¡; E:2 ~ ~ '" .'Ø '[¿oj !!: 0 0 ::: >= ¡¡: f- !!. Uf-U U -' - - ~ ~ z ,g ['<.> ... ¡!: '0 0 5c¡ m EXf'-ffBIT ]) ¡ , . .. ~ .~ ; ~ [ ~ ~ ~ " ~ c c u , E ~ E "- J ~ ;, ~ c u C - '= 110 <10 00 00 OC c.<; ;.c. ~ 1J ~ g.. 0'\ 0. 0.. go. Q'o ~ '!:-"E.";... >- >- >- >- >- >- >- .~ ë ;::.:.. ... t.:.. _ _ L:.. _ _ ~ð::: ~ - u .5t..~:;: ~.~ ;;;. ~ ~ ~ · c ë;.- >- >- >- >- >- ;- >- : ::.":.:::.:.. L:.. u. t.:.. u.. /.I.., _ _ · 0 : .-: · ~ 0 c:: 0 0 c:: - !r c:: 0 c 2 0 0 0:> 0 '=' __ 0::_ : ~'? æs""'" VI ......., ~ ~...... VI VI êS ...,...,..... .... ..... VI VI :8~ g g g 8' : t Ë"'; or, :: :.: ....... ..... ..... VI · - .\. 8":1 xc.... - co - 20 C 02 c 0 c:: 0 c::: c:: .0 ". ~ :; VI ......, .......... ~ 2S..... ..... ..... <!S .......,..... VI..... ...... ..... /. ::;; g: E- ~f 8' ~. g .; 0>-.:.....: ...; v: ....: à? f5:':"=-':;:¡ ... :;:¡ :;:¡ 8", ::<",~ "0 ~ 0 00 !O ~o 0 os> 0 0 0 0 0 S> S> <0:....,2 -~;: ~........ VI ......... ð c..............ì!) ...,........, VI.... ?: 0 ;..,.c..ë:o;,: ~::;: o· ..... ç' 0 ...1 ¡,,,,, '" - - C ~ ~ 0 _ -....::::c:æs C>-:;.,., .... ..... _". ,.. >":":~ ;::"--C"; ;;; ;;; .,; ~ ~ , ~"''':''.-- ... -,;:. L:.. ~ ~;;j:;:;-:o =;0:; õ" ~~ "'''' ~ P¡""§ § ~ Š § § Š § .->2:=' o....~ 8- g" g' _- c·,.........; ""....; ..¿ <or" ':'9"'1 ::<::, ~, ~, ~ ::;::;:; :;:;; :; ¡;; ;:\ë:;C - :-'.. ... ~ _ -':Iw,........... ..... .... ..... r_V1$ .. - .o~ ,~~ § '" - ~ ~ ~ 8 ~~ § ~§ 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~::::c..o> :.:.:..... '.. !I?!:' ~ ~ ~ ;s; ~ ~ .......,.... ...,..... ..... .... ;,,)"0- ........., - __ 3_ '5__ t:.x~ Z'B.!. 'Æ.'g '.;-~. ~:'{j ,.., ~..g"':r;;';::¡ r:..c..L:.. . >- :: -...,............ N _ ,., r. ........ ... . .. .- .... .... VI................. ..., Ù .-- ":I C" C - - c -- _ c:: c .~ t;". ':"I _ '-' Coco _ <:- .= _ v..... _". v....., "'. ....,..... ..... """" ............... .......... ...... ...... ;;.:! 2 ~ _ c._~ r:£¡:;.- ~ .. ~ - " ..... ..... "'" ...., ~ ':! ~... X ;;::-': ~ :--: ~ . y. ,. ;.-: ;;: .- t ~ - '" "<:c: ~ ::::: _ :.¿ :..: .-.:: ... H .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 2 ~ ~ _" ~::; ~ xgxxx~~ -: - -: 3.",,; ~~.~.-:__ ..: - c.... v, ........, ::; ''', ...., U", U", .............. ...., .... '-'- ...'.............. ............ ................., ..: .k.:! ......,:.' _ ..... ..... c ~...... ...... " ~~ ~ , ! !i ¡ ¡ d I, ;;!! : ¡ ¡ j n, _ '" ;¿ 0. :; = -= _ ,¡ ~ z. <:/. " "_ _ "'. c.. - ;: Õ E ~ ~ /. .." ;;<: " "" .,; ~ - ~ fj !~ 1i - ~ H ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, '" '" - >, .., .... ~ oC,.... .... ~ 'It ~'j ~ ", ,:::¡ ,./ 1"''''' ~ ~j '-;: ¡: - - =..: ..:..: - ..: - N - ..' '.~. /...... ¡ ....r...:or. 'r c, - r.. r. <t/tl z z _... ,. . . ..~_ ______,. t::XH IBIT E -- I ··1 'n It) . . , f-I" ~ ~g N - . I t.J -< .~~ .. ;" , ~ ~ . n N ... I' O~ N r.fJ W ~ ~~ ~~ ... f: ·~·9~ Ww c > tt1 r.fJ ... o:e % tt1 Y o::W - Co> > ~~ :eO 0 _0:: 0:: Ott1 r; ::.:Co Co =~ ...¡:::æ :e ~B , ~ I ~ <; ;~ ... I ~o Ow ... ; ¡§ IJ. . IJ. :e ~~ I ~-C' >OW I E9 wr.fJ% 0::> , I r.fJ :eQõ <~ IZt , Ie < I % w% r.fJ =~ o""! __Øoc 0 ><~ ~u \þ ~ Øoc 0..:1 ~ ~ ~ffic frl.¿ Es Eo< ~~ª %~ , r.fJ ~ %g~ ~~ riI ... ... ~i ... Þ< t ~ §.g 0_ C t.J>< ~~ . - t.J ' . o::~ ''''¡w CD .... ... ."'!::>~ W"'¡IJ. ¡§II")U< Q<O fí~ ::> ::> ...¡ ...¡ t.J U % 2: !5 - ~ t; - 0 ...¡ I t.J - C , I E9 .~ - It) ~ . o~ 0:: % It) w 2 , ~ ·~o· % N - I U C. ~ ~ I:I .. I !j~ 0:: ~ It) uw . I w:::æ ~ \þ bo ~. \þ I I:I 01 %:1: - ..... U . CD ~ < N ..... .. \þ ~ .. 0 t¡ III i .. 0/ § __.,.u... ~.~...._.._ _ -----~-- C' -= 5c,;;¿,,:õ;;;Ñ(:¡õõ:5Õõ.oo ~ ~6Ii£I¡2:;i~ ~'~g:¡ EXH-IßJT F ::- _ Z c~ o~ "':. -~ 'V 'V~ '":. -: o~ 0. ::c~ ""l 0. ";. "':.. If'"~ ":. 0. _. 0_[_. ~ fo' <..... 0"'"1'>00 r-¡-=ONO'---r-r-r- "'='"0l......~...... N -Þ... ¿ - - ::;;: N - N ...... - - - r-. ...... _ '71"'1- 0 :M' ..... "'::;;1'; -....... 'f~~ ~ - 1 ,..., b ~ » ~. 00 r-oooooo__ol.ooo ""0""0 '< Q Q t; Ö :::::: ~ l"'! I""! :::::: ~ c: ~ ~ ~ ~ ::::~ c:: q g g : ~ ~::-;:¡ !""'.. - CO--O......NMO......OCo.nOOO ""'·ÒÑ.....· ;2~ '-'~:::o - 0 --000 .....-...,.1'" < U \.) I- 0.0_ 0_ "l"l"":. É:j= zOV"\ Mf"-..r"'"- F- fCi ~;:;N- '" ¡:; 8 >< c ,..¡ ..... ~!:: tr.tr.I u..:':":':"_t.:..«__<tf)rI) -< "'" ~ ..J..Jentn...JtI)....)VJt.:Jt.:J..J....Jt:J...J...J .... VJ ~ b f- ~ ~ ococ 0 '" - r-r- 00° 00 !- Cl(r;I)"'Q\O=""'O;!N~OONcncn ~ _...J - -"'Q" \0 0'\ ~ _ ...J..J ~ 15- NN \.0 f"'"I !- oOV"\ooooooooooo II") M OC~C" ~ ~ g~è5 ~~gg g~:¡:: ~;::; ~QF. '" ....... 0 -. - - .. .. - - .... .. .. .. QO, ....J """" - 0\000 -00 N 0'\ r-Nt- II") C\ v..;¡,:.... ~ ,~ ~ - - - - '" - ....". 0 """I < ..~ :::.. e ."¡::: <> ~ CL.""7:' 00 ~ ~ -~ "'--. ""'-I ~M .-......; t;. 0 - r- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 F- JJ ~ ONMOOOOOaooooo V) r- L :::: ~ 0-= 'OV;NMO~cci"'¡cicici 0 ~~ N r...... =: 0 0 000 u =....,. ~ r.. 0 0................. ~ ;it I- 0(' .. M-Ñr-.:' "'" c:.11 r_ :;.; Z ¡;; = _ -.J - ~ Z .:: 8 C > (..., ... ~ ~f...:.. 6>< .~:!: h U ¡... c.¡ < .., ~ ~ !:: V)t:._:.:..:.:.. t:.:.:.. «--<CenV) _ ~~ r...... ;:::: ==: Z ...J en en .....J :r. .....J tr.I L:J L:J .....J .....J L:J .....J .....J ~ UJ 00 -.I r-.;: ~ ~ 0 -.:--.;; ...... (-:¡ 0:.; - = 8 :::... < Ie -.:¡ C . ,..¡ è; C C"""'I ~ I:t:: E ~~ 00' 0 < ~ ~ ..... c...... V)NN \,OV_.O NV) ~ ~C::: t.oj t Z .....J M M 0 '" OO...J . -.:- ... S r.#\. t""oI < r- r-.:' :;'\ \,0 M 0 _ f.1 ~::.: -~ ~ ~ f- ¡;;-< ....:¡.... t.¡ ~ '" "" ~ "-' ~ ~ 000000000'0'0'00,0, 0 0,0'0,00 0' ~~ "-T-.\::) ~ ~ gg~M~~ ~;;:: g :: ~gggg ~ ..... <.... r '\ ~ E Ô"¿r-.:'Ö M _ _ or) iñ "')ÒV1~\Q~V) r-~ ~ CJ ""'-J """i .... N -N r-- --'o::rN- co ;;,.;,,~ ~ t3 < -;J r. < .... "" ¡... = -.,.... ~ ~"" oc-r--ooo,o,cco,ooc ......0'01'"0 '"'~ ~ C!: qqr'-!r"!~::::::~~~~~~~ ~g~~ t.., v ~ ~ r.., \.) = 0 0 0' V1 N M 0' V1 00 V1 0 0' 'OI'"~ Ö N~ .,.,- Û'J -=:... """i .. 00, - - 0 --00' ....-'OI'"N t.:;J Wj ¡... o~q o~ ""!.o~ 0 ... C t"'J z: C'¢ MV1 U ~ ... _ ~ N h ~ è i:: 1: >< '""'"'" ~ .....!:: tr.Itr.! t.:..t.:..:!.:.:..t:.«:,:,,:.:..<cncn -......,4 C,j < Q:: u ~ ...J...Jcncn...J:IJ...JcnL:JL:J.....J...JL:J...J.....J U ùj ,..¡ "'--. ~ "'''' :< ~ - V1V1 0 coo t"'" ~ tr.!tr.!\Q\,00c- 00 tr.!v,I 0 ~ g ...J...J'o::r~"'¡-'o::r\,o __.....J...J :- ~!3 0V1 cn - - Vi 0-. :::::: ñ)õ Vi- ~ ~ -u -.00 Z = ;> N M " ~ :>- ~!í~ Õ :;- r..,.., .... c 0 V1 or¡ >.. v _ ~ c..~ NV1 1:c..S:?~~S:? EOêi5 ~8ö~~~ ~ - :::;¡ No-. e :"' t:!.N ......:::,.Z ~ -oõ= ::5 V ~ =...::::.""'" 0 ~ ;> ~ V1 i3 .=! t::::-> ¡::: Q... cn-<t¡ VI oo'o::r g =:... =<c < - ... > U >~ ¿ .~= ë:i ._c:. .........O::>Z - - l:J -. c:. =.. - """ o c::; 5 e-< '- ~ fi t.:.. Q õ =0-g > ~ æ>" VI 0 V, .c:::::o i-:.:.. o .... - E - ::::: 1':1 -- 0 u '-- U t_ .- - r::. c.. ~ > _ -= - U U ¡- L:J ¡- ê:í '> = 0- ~ c ~ 5:! .2P.S! ~ = =.. U _"VI - _1':1;>- .....J -- z.....o cn- "':I -at-~ o:d~·.s·¡:su ~ o.Ë-;: ~~ .:;; c;;...- ~ ~ur:o-t.lV - CI'J:: - - r: .= ... " ~ U c u :; r- cn L:.. 0 _ Q'" .:OZ ¡:¡."§ ë:i ...8tij_u~ u:.t:~ .c::::: U L:Jo ZO :: ... x ... u -..- _ ~ -u < J; '-' - ..' = ... = '- '- '- ~ ~ ~ '- 0" _ z. ... :J - ~E~::::ooot.lc:o.t:c: ~ Zo (;ìZ ô . ":= :=u",_ =:J cc:I :- L:J_ Z _ :: - ="'::::::"'::::::=õ§O go cn Of- _::;¡;: :: ¡.... _ c.Q0 . . 2·=·=.=.=~.=.=u.ª z Z~zr.-v: ,... . >_v>UUUC:::C:I':IC:::Vil':lc:lu_ 0 f=:::;,os;:n _ C §:.5o'¿'¿u=~~~-=Õ~E~ ~ ZO'V5.c:::::B; :: ~ üE:__u~~:r:~_)(~:r:Ee OUL:J:;)V) ~ o ::::r.;¡OC",,"\'o=--=-=_-=N,"=,,_:-:" ~ U<OCI'J< ::s Ç:;2.. ::::::: - - N 1""'1 - V1 ... r--- 00 .... ~ 0 N 1""'1 V C .;.; Z "''''''' -- __ _ ¡.... ~ i:-A//IJ--'II , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ex:> ,. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 '" to ;;; . CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <Ó <Ó 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CO ex:> N '-- to 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to to 0 '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 to - ..¡ N "'Of> t-- t-- t-- t-- t--_ t--_ t--_ t--_ t--_ 0 0') t-- 0 a_ t--_ t-- t-- t-- t-- t--_ 0 0- to ..,c V V V V V V v ri -ai v r--: t-- v V v ..,c ..,c to ..... (J <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 ~ <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 <17 ..... Of> ~ IJJ (;) N ~- N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0'> 0'> 0 '" '" 0 0 0 0 0 N N :dS t-- '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" 0') co '" t-- t-- '" '" '" '" '" t-- N 0 ~ - It ..... .. N to ~ ~ 0') ~ 0'> ~ N 0'> ~ ~ ~ co ~ 0'> N N co ~ 0'> N 0'> 0'> 0 to . 0 <{ <{ <{ 0'> 0') <{ 0'> Ü ~ 0'> Ü ~ Ü Ü 0'> 0'> I- 'ûi' '" Ö g; <{ <{ '" <{ () ~ ûí ü ûí CI) ~ '" ü ü a:: :> Q) Q) ro" :> <I; CI)'C Õ Õ 5 5 IJJ'C '" .J:I '" I- I- t!:_ Q: ~ :; c c .¡: ::¡ :; .¡: CJ) Q:ê ..c '" '" 0 c ..c 0 Q 0 Ü tJ) tJ) CC Õ ü CC Ci) <C E C ~.~ (;) £! c"i - "':: ~ I- - c: '" Q) :::,. :::! " ..; ::¡ Z ¡::~ <C - 0 C ==~ Q) Q) W CI)~ 'C Q) > c :2: - '" <{ '" UJ,g âJ :!2 U> -' <I; CJ) UJ ~ a::UJ -" U> Q) t-- '" ¡;; CJ) C. Q v û5 Æo v 0 ....J C ... ~ U> 0 W E 0'> ex) Q) W - t-- ..c c ¡;; C 't:> :::, CI) 0 '" - x ~ CJ) CJ) U CI) x ~ - 0 CC ~ CJ) 0 0 0') (!)CI) CC - 0 '" CC z <t () '§ eo '" 0 ~ 0'> a.. 0 '" ;gf-, r- 0') ~ L. f-, r- 0.: '" ~ eo 0 0 a. v O'>CI) co ~ 0') w >-s a:: :::> - CI) en O:::Q) <0 <:( - a.. z '" UJ N -Q) '" ;;; Q) ..c o c ~~ UJ c U> u.. W N ~ C U Q) .E~ ¡¡; c :e ..!J1 N .¡: :ë Q) 0 > '" N C Q) Q) 0 'C E '" "0 0 0> ,.. <t _U " ~ m Q) 0 '5 ::¡ ..c a:: "'1:: ~ ,.. -¡¡; ::¡ (¡¡ u a CT c. - Q) '" - - U> ûí - ãi '" ûí c c. E 0 N I- '" Q) ~ a. '" g '" CJ) 1JJ:ø ï'i âJ E a:: ::¡ ü ~ 0 ..c U> ::¡ eo ...,J- -.J ~ a:i - u Q) ûí - - - ~ :0-' Q) :; ü5 Q) I- Q) -; -¡: - ~ I- _ c. >- UJ:g -.J 0 -.J Q) ::¡ <C 0 >- '" -.. ~ ~ - ,;: Q) c tJ) c Q) I- - ,.. Q) Q) <t O:::~ "'1; c '" '" '" '" ~ c:- o l- . c...c '" oð .J:I Q) :ë .¡;: ~ ë 'E I- 0 0 E "0 - Q) > -.. Q) '" oð ,.. 0- 0 w '" '" -" ..c m - ro '" oð ..c - ~ 0 0- a. " ..:: '" I ë3 0 ü oð u CC Q) ..; ~ -Ë '" I- .0 - ~ oð 't:> CC I 0 Ü 0 tJ) u.. v,.. ~ oð ~ oð 0 > (!) ...i oð '" en Ü Z -<: u.i oð Ü oð "0 ¡i -.. oð 0 0 Q) 0'>_ ~ Q) -.. -; u.. ë 0 EØ= x 0 Q) tJ) ø 0 c a:: c -.. c 1:: _.J:I ~ ~ 'ë U> N -.. c 0 "0 '" 0 1:: 1:: Q) "0 C. '" t) o ëñ I- '" Q) '" '" E -¡¡; c U> E "0 E Q) Q) .J:I -¡¡; 0 c :¡; E Q) - -" '" c. 'S: .J:I .J:I .¡;: ..c -c u U> '" U - 'õ ,.. c "0 - - - ,.. U> 0 e:. ::¡ 0 '" 0 ::¡ '" 0 0 '" 0 '" ",. 0 0 Q) Q) U> Q) 0 o c. W '" ë3 ü a:: 0 a:: (!) z 0 I a:: a:: I (!) ä5 a:: -.. -.. -.. -' Z u U> <t = IV [ J '" - ;¡; - IV IV Q) IV IV Q) IV IV IV IV IV IV IV Q) Q) Q) IV IV IV :r: IV..c en ~ > > ~ ~ > > > > ~ > > ~ > > > > > âJ >- U> CI) <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ âJ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ <{ IV I- o IV ~ CI) - C) c _ IJJ U> U> U> U> U> U> U> U> U> IV U> U> U> U> U> U> U> U> U> û5 '" '" 0 -" -" -" -" -" -" -" -" -" - -" -" -" -" -" -" -" -" -" Z z Q: '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" û5 '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" '" c::- Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c W o~ ~ Q U> 0 ...J "0- <C U> IV U> Z c c c:: c:: c c c c c:: Q) c c c c c c c c c - u> E :'5 ~ ~ ~ .~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c. ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ Q) ...J E '" Q) ¡;; l- I- '" l- I- <t ..0:::: 0- Z W > 0 0 eo to V 0 0 to N ~ 0'> '" r- ~ 0') '" t-- 0') I- Q) C 0 '" V 0') 0') 0') 0') N ~ ~ '" 0 0 ~ N 0') 0') 0') C') V 0 0 m.Q 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0') ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0') u>ü " ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ N I- - ::¡ w u> _ w 0- Z to r- eo 0'> 0 N 0') V eo ~ N 0') '" to t-- 00 0'> 0 ~ u u> (5 ~ _ c:: ~ ~ ~ ~ N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ ~ '" 0 z - N N N N N N N N N N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ::> u w '" N N N N N N N N N N 0') 0') 0') 0') 0') 0') 0') 0') 0') 0') ~ (l) ¡¡j Q, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >..c ::;: '" =u:: 0 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0'> 0> 0> 0> 0'> 0> 0> 0> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5.2 :;; to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to to :i . (/3 --.-.------ - £X -jIBJT c¡. CO U N C LL POLICY -,...".. , -p CI1Y OF Q-fULA VISTA - ~JBJECT POUCi EFFECTIVE PAG, NlMBER DATE PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN 505-01 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRN~ PROCEEDINGS _ 8-30-83 1 of . AroPTED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 Ilð. TED : 8-30-83 ßACKGROUtm There are properties within the City 1 i mi ts that do not have full street improvements. . In the past, Counc il has di r.ected the owners of critical unimproved parcel s to install their missing public improvements. The 1911 Block' Act Proceedi ngs were uti 1 i zed inmost instances. As an encouragement for property owner participation, the City has contributed funds for the completion of certain items of work (i. e., grading, pavement installation, etc.). Also, the City consistently has contri buted engi neeri ng i nspecti on and administrative services at no chal"£e to the property owner(s). Ho\~ever , there is no Council adopted policy regarding City participation in 1911 Block Act improvement construction proceedings. This policy is designed to encourage the installation of missing improvements ,F. along develope d resi denti a 1 lots. It specifically sets City parti cipati on g oa 1 s Tor the improvement of corner, non-corner, and double front resi denti al lots. The policy reaffinns City Council intent to require .....~ installation of public improvements adj acent to undevelooed property (residential, commercial, and industri al) through the tonnatlon of 1911 Act As sessment Di stri cts or through the subdi vi si on and buil di ng pennit approval procedures. , This policy shall only apply to areas incorporated on or before this policy's effective date. - PURPOSE To establish a policy for participation by the City in the construction of' pub 1 i c improvements vi a the 1911 Block Act Proceedi ngs (Chapter 27, Streets and Highways Code of the State of California). POLICY The City Council estahl ishes the foll owing policy for City participation in 1911 Block Act Program proceedings: I. General Participation A. The City, at no cost to the property O\~ner(s) shall ,provi de all engi neeri ng, inspection and ad;¡¡inistrative services necessary install missing improvements via the 1911 Block Act Prog¡ _.,j proceedi ngs. ~I/ ,; Form:CO"ODJ ,':N ¡::>I"",."Q' exHI81T q C 0 U N C r-L POL ICY -~. .... CIT( OF QiULA VISTA SlJBJECf POll C{ EFFECTIVE PAGE NLMBER DATE PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAI~ PROCEEDINGS 505-;,01 8-3D-83 2 of . AI:OPTED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-B3 B. It shall be the City's responsibility to relocate all existing public improvements found to be in conflict with the prDpDsed street imprDvement cDnstruction; Such improvements shall include, but not be limited tD: street lights, traffic signal standards, drainage structures, fire hydrants, etc. . C. Engineering staff shall meet individually with each prDperty owner prior tD the program's public hearing to hand deliver initial cDrrespondence and tD explain the plans, prDceedings and this pDlicy. Final engineering plans and prDject specificatiDns shall reflect as close as practicable, the prDperty owner(s} concerns prDvided they reflect standard engineering practice. D. Prior tD the end of each fiscal year, the City Engineer shall submit to the City CDuncil fDr approval under this prDgram, a recDmmended - - list Df prDjects fDr scheduling in the ensuing fiscal yeàr. Funding fDr the program shall be detenni ned annually and shown in the Capital Improvement PrDgram. E. City participatiDn in this prDgram shall be limited tD develDped parcels that cannot be split intD lDts or building sites. 11. Deve 1 Dped Re si denti a 1- LDts A. NDn-CDrner LDts .. It shall be the City's respDnsibility tD Dverlay Dr recDnstruct the rDadway traveh~ay adjacent tD nDn-CDrner lDts when the travel way is al ready imprDved and needs an Dverl ay Dr reconstructi Dn tD accDmmDdate drainage or traffic safety requirement~. The City's respDnsibility described abDve is shown Dn Figure 1 (attached). B. Corner LDts FDr the purposes Df this pDlicy, the corner lot frDnt lDt line shall be defi ned to be the shorter of the two adj acent street 1 at 1 i nes. In the case Df a non-rectangul ar CDrner lot, the frDnt 1 Dt 1 i ne sha 11 be the average wi dth of the 1 at. (See Fi gure 2). It shall be the City IS respDnsibility to: 1. Install curb, gutter, sidewalk and pavement (if nDn-existent) adj acent to 1/2 the coZ~ ot' s si de street frontage. ~ _. .....-.'..- ---.----......-....--.......... ----------..-----......--.,....,-.".- --.-,." ----.."'" 6)<HIBIT Cf COUNCI-L POLICY - -~ . . ..- CITY OF D-lULA VISTA - SlJRJECf POLICY EFFECTIVE PNõE NLMBER DATE PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAH PROCEEDHJGS 505-01 8-30-83 3 of 7 AroPrnJ BY RESOWTION NO, 11373 Ilð.TED: 8-30-83 2. Overlay or reconstruct the side and frontage street's travel way when needed to accommodate drainage or traffic safety requi rements. 3. In the event that there are improvements already existing along the corner lot's side property frontage already existing, these improvements shall be credited to the City if they need not be removed to accommodate the improvements to be installed. The City's responsi bi 1 ity descri bed above is depi cted on Fi gure 3 (attached) . C. Dual Frontage Lots It shall be the City's responsibility to: -~ 1. Install curb, gutter, sidewalk, and pavement {if non-existen.. adjacent to the entire lot's rear street frontage. 2. Overlay or reconstruct the lot's rear street travelway when needed to accommodate drainage or traffic safety purposes. For purposes of this'-policy, dual frontage lots shall be a lot having frontage on two parallel or approximately parallel streets, none of which is an "alley". _ III. Developed Industrial/Commercial Lots The City contributi on towards the constructi on of improvements adj acent to developed industrial/commercial lots shall be limited to: 1. The overlay or reconstruction of existing roadway travelway areas when found to be required for drainage or traffic safety purposes. IV. Undeveloped Residential, Industrial and Commercial Lots This policy shall reaffinn the City Council's intent to require the installation of missing improvements adjacent to undeveloped lots (both corner and non-corner with and without double street frontages) through: 1. 1911 Act Assessment District procedures. 2. subdivision requirements, and 6~ ,.. _ _ _.. ,.,,,.~, . . 0' . Exrt I ßIT c¡ COUNCI-L POLICY - -:. : , CIlY OF OiULA VISTA -~ SUBJECT POLICY EFFECTIVE P/í':; NLMBER DATE PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM PROCEEDINGS 505-01 8-30-83 4 of AJXJPTED BY RESOUJrION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-83 ~ - 3. building permit approval requirements. There shall be no City contri buti on towards the constructi on of improvements adjacent to undeveloped residential, industrial and commercial lots. I n the event that an owner petitions the City for inclusion of his/her undeveloped parcel in a 1911 Block Act Program, all expenses shall be borne by said owner. V. Appl icabil i ty This policy shall be applicable to areas within the Chula Vista City limits on or before its effective date. ~J WPC 0583E . ~- - . ~7 r n~_!....C.rLt:l1:L'-... __..Iìlt....L~_^""- ..-cz_______ ~- __ _~_.~,.u - ----_..__.._~ "" '_"~"'_"".._~'-"'--- ----...-----.-.-- c;.x rr I 1.5// - Cj COUNCIL POLICY :_ ì CI1Y OF Q-RJl.A VISTA . I SUBJECf roUcy EFFECTIVE r-E NLMBER I>!ITE PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN - 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM PROCEEDINGS - FIGURE 1 505-01 8-30-.83- 5 of ï AJXJPTED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-83 <:: 0 '- >, .u "'" U . '- "'..... . I " - '" <:: '- ..... '" I II .0 V'I E .- <:: '" V'I o > I II I . g I u '" ~ I "'- h. ~I '" I II '" 0> ~~ \¡j <:: I l ,¡ c::: ""- II ~ 0..... K >, V'I ..... >"- I II ~I-.. tt) '- '" >< ~~ wI - '" I II tu '" > ..... .~ ~ <.!l o 0 I II ~ 'Iv, ~ . 0,>- I 11/ 4j § i >- !-- I - I " ~ ...J - I - ') "" I II 0> - <:: VI II I I ~ z: I <:: V'I 0 0 V'I "- Ii . <:: .- VI I I ! ¡ '" E w 0> ..... 0:. I II i I '" '- - I ..... - f- <:: '" '" z: I II I 0 <:: "'" w bl '" '- V'I :<: ..... - <:: w:;¡: '- '" .- >c::: r- ~ - '" '" oc::: I ¡.: I- ,- '" "'" 0 c:::"" VI It! .0 '- <:: "'" "-0 I - ~ L-l .- .u '" :<:0:. I V'I <:: u "0 -"- f '< ~ <:: '" '" IU :¡: i 0 -", 0 '" f-f- L____...J c:. ..... '- wo V'I 0 '" <O;-J I ." ..... '" 0- I 0:. '" '" ::'<:0:. I /I I """ .u '" ww '" - ..... Oz: I I ." '" '" """ -JC::: /I I <:: 3: "" '" ""0 :;: '" 0 w I , 0 "0 ..... :;: - I /I '- 0 -z: I :>., V'I ..... 0>0 "'" a. 0 -z: i!\ I-.. '" "0 '- I '" <:: - V'I a. '" E 0 E '" . I '" 0 ""'''' "- '" '" ._ .u .u ..... <:: I II I!I~ ..... '" '" /I ~ ~ '" ..... .u "'E 0> <:: <:: -c:'" I ~~ "'''' ""'> 1/ !:?~ - E.u 00 .0 OJV'I .", I '" >'- - a. ~~ '" '" )( -E ¡ " u a.." ""- ) I 1/ . . . I - N M V)to- c::::: LLI LiJ I-- ....o:.oz:f-<O;C>w Form:C~89gJ PPtI &xJ-08 68" ex H I 151 I 'r - . " COUNCIL POLICY ::J CI1Y OF OiULA VI STA . -- - . I , SURJECT FûLICY I EFFECTIVE PAGE NLMB!:R D!<TE PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IN I 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM PROCEEDINGS - FIGURE 2 505-01 8-30-83 6. of . AroPTED BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-83 Ù b. .:J I ¡-Ill I: !I~ '27- I - O..J rr I II 1L' I " II , II >- l- t.> I II - -' , : I - c::> I - ...., '" - '" :z: 0) 0 :;0 0.. 0 '" s- w s- o:: z "' 0 ~ t:: 1-1-- ZOI- 0) ::.) w-'c:: .J :E: Z .... wo::_ >w::: cJ '" oZo:: .., o::c::w ....... "" 0.. 01- - ~u~ .1. 0) . - 0 t:: '" c:: .~ ...., I-C::w A "-'" u-'z OJ 0 c:::::>- ""s- t!J-, "- "'z '" UC::I- .~ 0 01-0 -- :;:: -'U-' 0)...., ow .J co 0:: I- "' 0) - I:Z: ""'..r;: -zo çJ "'...., 0'>0c:: 0 - Zu- --. s- "- - u- -0 ~ -- ------ ------ d \.\ () . , -. ) . For:n:c~ã9g¡ ppl'! ~oo·o~ (P7 - --.- ---.--.-- ___···__·...·...h·..... ------- - -----.--.-....- ex.H/BIT Cf COUNCIL POLICY .' CIlY OF OlULA VISTA I - S1.JBJECf roll C'{ EFFECTIVE 'I: N~ER DATE - PARTICIPATION BY THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA IH - 1911 BLOCK ACT PROGRAM PROCEEDINGS - FIGURE 3 505-01 8-30-83 7 of ; AroPTI:D BY RESOWTION NO. 11373 DATED: 8-30-33 µ ~ ~ µ ~ m ~ 3: ~J ..... -0 µ o """ 00""'0 I. s.......... == c:...- ~o s.. "< c:- QJ o :;~ >- ~ ~ 08>. E~ ¡; t- s:::: '" o..-u.µ aJ-C =0 - '<. ~ ""'UC,J >.... ou -...J .QJ ~ -+.-I Ute4- to V) -u - ..c ~ .....::1 t'=I C. "ro:- c:;::) .µ t"'\ .- s...OV'l V1 u" - ~ or-.µ.µ oð- :::JOt. V') V1 Q-2 ..0 V'I U ...- s..,.µ z: ~ 0:: '- cµ._ :;: ~ µ o ~ V'I Oc'- ..........u cn'µ. Co.. "'C -<: /'\, c: U OJ 4- V) s... c: = V1 w........ :"'I( a It=r::I I'C OQ.Jc 4J C:V'I ~ c.. Q)Qjs... ..c.. uS e:: .......u (} ,- U1 S->..w s... QJQJ', 4-c...... ...... QJ tC Q.)QJ": s->( I- ~ 0 "" II \." I c::: <.. c."" µ..c: µ ~ . Z ""Os.... :--.. I g" 0 .¡..)'µC1 S-c..; LW "+-}-.... :>" C'lCJ ::3 c: 0 ... :;: ~ (1)\.11 . ~ ::: >, '" to> "'-'I" ~ to>; W ·....0 "'U rc......ro: .- ~s::_ :> 3:..... ~ U.--.µ -0'1 ra.....~ o ~ "'" ~ 'uJ" ¡..: <.. ~.;: ..0 '" ~ ~ "'" c::: '" '<J II Q)..... r:I s... 0 = s... V'I ( c...~ 1'00) I 0) >xs... ::::I........... OJ..,..... Z<.µ_ rn OQJ-.::J Utör- >X, -g 5"'" II èi:( tlJ O~, . 1-0 <....... I .... Q . . - u c:::: lJ.. 0 II i"{ . ........ .-: .-c c:::c.. I v C/) t;¡; /I . , I..... ,- 0-' i <.. s... -' I CJ·.... QJ OC::: .µ -..,J c:: .. ,..J ~ C1_ t::....- os... c: r- -z c_ QJ.-- 'µ"-':J Q) r- -e::: ~ ~ u." ~.µ. U tC ~o r-------, s...- ..µ _Q)QJ ..µ -u J . ~ tJ' .¡..)V) ~"'".::Is... V'I'µV) I'OQJ-uc:: ClJ·.... -us;:: ~ I ,\.. ." c.~ >,c:::._ >~..c >,~.~ ,\U" ~ rtI ro 1- to '" .....\ú 19 >, "'''' 3:-"'0 o.~::> 3:-"'0 "6... I <::: 0) I µ -0 '" -0 U...., - U -0 U...., -I.,) ..... It .r-.r- ~o QJ...-- íS" I..........., ð .,.... ~r- 0""0 "'CQJQJ roa o I "Q ,..._..J r- So.. 0 Q) .,.... u"'" . ~ .- .., ...,.. Q)"""I ......µ.µ So- ~s...-¡; o~ I......"" IJ.J ..c OJo 00...... ro 00 1)( I Q .~ ~r- .u..u::s .µ Q..u-, .....,.u.; t¡¡ I .., '" C1' ~ ~ C1' I 0 \N'µ CJS-QJ CJQJ-a CJt..QJ L .J c.. -. c cas... '+-...c:::s cas... -- 1.0 0 rtI .,.... ..u ..- tC VI s.....-- 1.....::..:: ~t' u ..... .lGl ~o .l.NOè'd QJ -0 4- 0.. So. \,:) ~~ c: .-- ~ 1: c:::: C C') a ..... .: C') o. s... ttSVI c:.u;:t:VI ~C'I c.. c:.u-I/I - ··,....c.¡..) CVlE .....c>.u -... ~ ~ r- -...:,,¡: rc '+- c: ::t: 0·,.... (Q ~ ro 4- c: t ~ ........ CJ....., S-.u 0 QJ ...........--..c 1.. $.....µ 0 QJ - 0 VlUC::raVl E V'l1'C1- ttSVI E - 1- rc a..,.... v1 QJ 1- Q....... QJ I I.iì'" .. rc .u x: E > .._.,.... )( VI > . CO .D s...o..V'lE:CJCJO s....µ -1"0 EQJ~a \Q 1- ~ ..... a I .µ s... QJ c: -= ~ 0 I ..u 1- ~ ~ "'><<..",.-c. ""'''''''''U <"""~c. 0.. .u c:: QJ '+- 0 E 'µ.u C')..-- 4- 0 :::;; ?) I~ I 0 ~Ol "'<...- ::>~"'~ ",<...;= h.: ......r- C.u QJ C'I.,.... QJ QJ .u ...... '.... 1- ttSOC::\o-...c:C') x...--...c: c:",-QJ~ ~ ~rr37~.L07'.1IYOèld c....c- ~ '" ~.- ""'.'" ..c- 'i' ~ 3: £!._.s '" '" . ~ s..... t. - 0..... c: 0.,.... .... C:~QJCJ V'I 1-=c::-o QJQJ VI Q,'<- - 3...¡. :Jro'->Cr-V'I ::IO'r-c: >C:-V'I ~ U...--_ ro·,.....-- 'r-I U c: r- tC tC"' ...... ~::¡ _L:33è1.LS :¡;¡Ð17J./'YOð:d ' c.~ <tI E c.. E ~ \) '. . O')~ ....... N C"")...... Ñ M ...CI: ~~ '- tnI-O::LLJL.i.J1- VlI--O::Li.JLUI- u...o::ozt-cCt:)W V')_Cw Form:C~ã9gJ PPH1lJo-o<6 7ò " -- EXHIBIT H - BALLOT SUMMARY TWIN OAKS AVENUE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 96-01 Assmt Imtlal Cost Cumulative Cumulative No. Name Estimate Yes or No Dollar Amt Percent 1 yeplZ $6,768.00 2 Truman $4,700.00 - 3 Zepeda $4,700.00 Yes $4,700.00 4.09% 4 Simer $4,700.00 Yes $9,400.00 8.18% 5 Willard $4,700.00 Yes $14,100.00 12.27% 6 Cook $4,700.00 Yes $18,800.00 16.37% 7 Perez $4,700.00 Yes . $23,500.00 20.46% 8 Barbaro $4,700.00 Yes $28,200.00 24.55% 9 Rasco $4,700.00 Yes $32,900.00 28.64% 10 Hatlev $13,066.00 No 11 Gaps $8,366.00 Yes $41.266.00 35.92% 12 Quinlan $4,700.00 Yes $45,966.00 40.02% 13 Marauez $7,050.00 Yes $53,016.00 46.15% 14 Brown $7,050.00 Yes $60,066.00 52.29% 15 Delphenich $4,700.00 Yes $64.766.00 56.38% 16 Delohenich $4,700.00 Yes $69,466.00 17 Robles $4,700.00 - 18 Montoya $4,700.00 Yes $74,166.00 64.57% 19 Bishop $4,700.00 - 20 Reynante $6.768.00 No Total $114.868.00 . Meets minimum 60% requirement of property owners in favor of forming assessment district. - No ballot received from property owneras of 3/27/97. h:'I1omelengineerIJanddevlad961 bal.wq1 - 71 - -- ----.-- ..- ---....--.-.... -----~------_.~... ~ / I ~-:' d' .-.---. THE CITY OF CHù1..A \'1ST A DISCLOSURE STATEME!'.'T f"",___ }!"jr; 1/ V'I :you are required to f1!e a Statement of Disc10sure of cen.:in ownership or financial inlerests, payments, or campaign contribUlions, ~D all matters which wi11 require discretionary action on thc pan of the City Council. Planning Commission, and aU other official ¡dies. The following info:-mation must be disclosed: J. List the names of all persons ha\'ing a finuocial ¡merest in the propeny which is the subject of the applic<ltion or the Contract, e,g., owner. applicant. Contractor. subcontractor. materia] supplier. wo.'fY>'€. (' ~4\'€""o.ì , (re""d-e"" lÍ1ðb..."T ~ Z......\,...,."ClI , ¡I,¿-e fres.. ÌII a 1'\/ c.z."><-\'",,.,,,,,,-! S<?c..reTo. "Y I ~-e""."HT"- CU<.ben",-l,. "'reQ.~\.C..t'E.(' ) \Mú.~Cr.'t'f. r If any person" identified pursuant to (]) above is a corporation at partnership, list the names of all iDdividuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. L<)Ct'f'vl -€ I' 1:C Ù. ì,~ '''c>..T , li'resd"'''! A.ðbE''t''T c..ò!.'ù y,.er"YI""- T J V,C e 9r" s. \1c; '1 (l7U.\'f>~"CL I, 5ec..r-eTr>.{',/ 1I€)1-,¡~r\, C.:z.tJ.b""."a.T ~(..t."""Q.c¡-e.,. T",,'r:..~\.J.{,P(' I If any person" identified pursuant to (J) above is non-profit organization or a trust. list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profn organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. 'r<./¡4- I 4. Ha\'o you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions. Committees, and Council within ¡he past twelve month? Yes _ No J( If yes. please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees. consultants, or independent C0mraclOrs who you have assigned to rcprescnI you hefore ¡he City in this matter. - W().~'YI~ c.z. ù b<?,.",,,, T fit'" ~ loI~),J RC>berT r..", 1>·<~'vIa.1 vi I c.-€ ('r e C, I . W~"'I CZùb€V'''",-1 Secr-eìo.,,/ I , ~"",,,"l"\- Q "'I.<. bet"'" ï "Io."...' -'" ~ , lyteQ5~t4E:5 6. Have you and/or your offIcers or <lgents. in the aggregate, contributed more than 51,000 to a Council member Ìn the current or preceding ejection period? Yes _ .'\0 +- If yes. state which Council members(s): . ... II< (NOTE: Attacht:d addition Date: I ;J,.-II-¡ - 9 '7 1..0"-\),,,.... ~7'ù\,"'f'^O"\ Pf-e.~,d.."'1 Þrint or type name of Contractor/Applicanl . Person is defined as: "An.\' individual, firm, co-parrnership, joim venzure, association, social club, fraJernal organization corporation, eSlQ¡e, lmst, receiver. syndicate, lhis Qnd an)' other count)'. cit)' or coumr)', dry municipality, district. or other political subdivision, or an)' other group or cOlJlbil1O/ion Gering as a unit. 19 7;¿ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /7 Meeting Dati' 01/20/~ ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the FY 1997-98 budget to provide for recommended position reclassifications and special salary adjustments and appropriating funds therefore SUBMITTED BY: City Manager (4¡sths Vote: Yes X- No___> This report will be deliyered separately on Friday, January 16, 1998 to allow time to obtain additional data to complete the report. 1 )7~O ---'^.,~..,-,.......".._-- ....-_.._,- -~_...._. ---_..._-_... -......-.-,.....-.--.---.....- .....--. - - _...---,--.'_.-. ....~. .._-_...,.__..._.,.__._--_._---~_.- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item / ~ Meeting Date 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: Resolution /5š ¿( 7 ¥ Accepting bids and awarding contract to Lekos Electric, Incorporated, for the Traffic Signal Safety Upgrade Phase III (TF240) to modify four traffic signalized intersections (Bonita Road/Willow Street, East "L" Street/Nadon Avenue/Telegraph Canyon Road, East Orange Avenue/Melrose Avenue, and at Third Avenue/Naples Street). SUBMITTED BY: DUectoc of PubB, WOd"~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager J ~ ~ -... (4/5ths Vote: Yes_No-XJ On December 17, 1997, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids from three (3) electrical contractors for the modification of existing traffic signals at four (4) intersections as part of the Traffic Signal Safety Upgrade (Phase III) program. A low bid of $222,715 was received from Lekos Electric, Incorporated. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution accepting bids and awarding contract to Lekos Electric, Incorporated for the modification of existing traffic signals at four (4) intersections as part of the Traffic Signal Safety Upgrade (phase III) program in the amount of $222,715. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: On December 17, 1997, the Director of Public Works received sealed bids from three (3) electrical contractors for CIP No. TF240- Traffic Signal Safety Upgrade (Phase III), modification of four (4) existing signalized intersections. The intersections to be upgraded are as follows: Bonita Road and Willow Street East L Street/Nadon Avenue and Telegraph Canyon Road East Orange Avenue and Melrose Avenue Third Avenue and Naples Street The traffic signal upgrade project was approved and funded in the City's Capital Improvement Program. The work to be done includes the installation of new or relocated traffic signal standards, loop detectors, Emergency Pre-Emption (EVPE) System, minor sidewalk improvement and other miscellaneous signal equipment necessary to make the system operational. This project will also include the removal of existing left turn indications from the center median at some jp-j --~_.__.- -. ---,--,._-~_._--~~ Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 1/20/98 The bids received were as follows: Contractor Amount 1. Lekos Electric, Inc. - El Cajon $222,715 2. Select Electric, Inc. - Spring Valley $233,170 3. DBX Electric, Inc. - Temecula $240,734 Engineer's Estimate $220,165 The low bid of $222,715 for the project was received from Lekos Electric, Incorporated. The low bid is above the Engineer's total estimate of $220,165 by approximately 1.2%. The Engineer's estimate was based on bid prices from previously awarded City traffic signal projects. The low bid contractor, Lekos Electric, Incorporated, has completed several projects for the City in the past with favorable performance. Lekos Electric, Incorporated has met all City requirements for award of contract as set forth in the bid document. The total project cost is $272,386 which includes the $222,715 contract amount, $22,271 for contingencies and $27,400 in staff costs for design, inspection and contract administration. The approved CIP budget for this project is $274,000. There is sufficient funding for the project to proceed with construction. Environmental Status The City's Enviromnental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and determined that the project is exempt for CEQA both under CEQA Guidelines, Section 15061 (b) (3) and Section 15303, Class 3 (new construction or conversion of small structures). Disclosure Statement A copy of the Contractor's disclosure statement is attached as Exhibit A. Prevailin~ Walle Statement The source of funding for this project is the Traffic Signal Fund. Contractors bidding this project were not required to bid based on paying prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this contract. No special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents. Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various minority trade publications. Form of A~reement The contract will be let on the City's standard Public Works Contract form. The final form will be approved by the City Attorney. / ",,~r-';¿ . 'I Page 3, Item_ Meeting Date 1/20/98 FISCAL IMPACT: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount $222,715 B. Contingencies (Approximately 10%) $22,271 C. Inspection and Administration $14,484 TOTAL $259,470 FUNDS AVAILABLE FOR CONSTRUCTION Traffic Signal Fund - TF-240 $259,470 Total funds required for design does not include $12,916 in previously expended staff time for construction which will bring the project total cost to $272,386. There are no additional annual maintenance and energy costs associated with this project over what are currently being paid. The source of capital funding for this project is the Traffic Signal Fund and sufficient funds are available for construction. Completion of this work will very slightly lower future maintenance costs by removing signal head indications on median islands. Attachment: Exhibit A - Contractors Disclosure Statement NOT SCANNED File No: 0735-1O-TF240 H:\HOME\ENGINEER\AGENDA\TF240.RDJ / _c;'" 3 -,-_._---------~.~. RESOLUTION NO. /15%72/' RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDING CONTRACT TO LEKOS ELECTRIC, INCORPORATED, FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL SAFETY UPGRADE PHASE III (TF240) TO MODIFY FOUR TRAFFIC SIGNALIZED INTERSECTIONS (BONITA ROAD/WILLOW STREET, EAST "L" STREET/ NACION AVENUE/TELEGRAPH CANYON ROAD, EAST ORANGE AVENUE/MELROSE AVENUE, AND AT THIRD AVENUE/NAPLES STREET) WHEREAS, on December 17, 1997, the Director of Public Works received the following three sealed bids for the modification of existing traffic signals at four (4) intersections as part of the Traffic Signal Safety Upgrade (Phase III) program. A low bid of $222,715 was received from Lekos Electric, Incorporated: Contractor Amount 1. Lekos Electric, Inc. - El Cajon $222,715 2. Select Electric, Inc. - Spring Valley $233,170 3. DBX Electric, Inc. - Temecula $240,734 Engineer's Estimate $220,165 WHEREAS, the low bid of $222,715 for the project was received from Lekos Electric, Incorporated and is above the Engineer's total estimate of $220,165 by approximately 1.2%; and WHEREAS, the low bid contractor, Lekos Electric, Incorporated, has completed several projects for the city in the past with favorable performance and has met all city requirements for award of contract as set forth in the bid document; and WHEREAS, the city's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the work involved in this project and determined that the project is exempt for CEQA both under CEQA Guidelines, section 15061 (b) (3) and section 15303, Class 3 (new construction or conversion of small structures); and WHEREAS, the source of funding for this project is the Traffic signal Fund and contractors bidding this project were not required to bid based on paying prevailing wages to persons employed by them for the work under this contract; and 1 /5-r ~._ _.". ~_.__"_._..m.___·____ WHEREAS, no special minority or women owned business requirements were necessary as part of the bid documents but disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid through the sending of the Notice to Contractors to various minority trade publications. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City council of the City of Chula vista does hereby accept the three bids and award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder, Lekos Electric, Incorporated, in the amount of $222,715 for the traffic signal safety upgrade phase III to modify four traffic signalized intersections (Bonita Road/Willow Street, East IILII Street/Nacion Avenue/Telegraph Canyon Road, East Orange Avenue/Melrose Avenue and at Third Avenue/Naples Street. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the city of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said contract, in a form approved by the City Attorney, for and on behalf of the city of Chula Vista, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the City Clerk as Document No . Presented by Approved as to form by (~~~ John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Public Works C:\rs\lekos.bid 2 /5>3' .---....---- - .-. -" -.-.- --~ THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE STATEMENT Yoa are required to file a Statement of Disclosure of certain ownership or financial interests. payments, or campaign contributions. on all matters which will require discretionary action on the part of the City Council, Planning Commission, and al1 other official bodies. The following information must be disclosed: 1. List the names of all persons having a financial interest in the property which is the subject of the application or the Contract, e.g., owner, appJicant, Contractor, subcontractor. material supplier. U-/tPS f3t&IJc. (/"Iv In.f'~0Sfufi~ Ur-~so. e U/CPS VJIlt{!tUVl1VtLff'~ \5uF-fJð- Vt>hYi if Uf¿.P 5. 2. If any person'" identified pursuant to (J) above is a corporation or partnership, list the names of a11 individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership interest in the partnership. 1w~ (; Uk-P'?- IOD"fp t!WftÞ't- 3. If any person'" identified pursuant to (1) above is non-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non-profit organization or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the trust. y¡(¡;t. 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of business transacted with any member of the City staff. Boards, Commissions, Committees. and Council within the past twelve month? Yes _ No VIf yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultants, or independent Contractors who you have assigned to represent you before the City in this matter. tA1(Av 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents. in the}ggregate, contributed more than $1.000 to a Council member in the current or preceding election period? Yes _ No .::::. If yes. state which Council members(s): - - - (NOTE: Attached additio~ neces~- Date: 12/((, (¿;¡Î ~ ~ Signature of Contractor/ Applicant í8<"'S?t -8 Le'l:t9"'" Print or type name of Contractor/Applicant , Person is defined as: "Any individual. finn, co-partnership. joint venture, association, social club. fraternal organization, corporation, estate, trust, receiver, syndicate, this and any other county, city or country, city municipality, district, or other political subdivision, or any other group or combination acting as a unit, 18/ç~þ .-....," "--'-"--'~----'-----'---- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /~ Meeting Date 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: Resolution )g5f?3 Approving Agreement By and Between the City of Chula Vista, EastLake Development Company, and Pacific Bay Homes to Provide for the Joint Use and Future Expansion of the Temporary Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station and for the Maintenance and Operation O?PumP Station SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public Works¡)! REVIEWED BY: City Manager &r~)\,¡ (4/5ths Vote: Yes_NoX) At its October 6, 1992 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 16834 approving the Tentative Map for Chula Vista Tract 92-02, Salt Creek Ranch. Condition 30.b of the resolution required that the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station be upgraded to accommodate sewage flows from Salt Creek Ranch. Condition 31 of the resolution required that Salt Creek Ranch be incorporated into a Special Sewer Service Rate Area to provide for the maintenance of the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station. Special Sewer Service Rate Areas for maintenance and operation of sewage pump stations have since been dissolved by the City Council. Public Works staff has determined that an upgrade is not practical at this time and has negotiated an agreement with Pacific Bay Homes and EastLake Development Company to provide for the joint use and future expansion of the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station and for the operation and maintenance of said pump station on an equitable basis. Said agreement is now before Council for consideration. RECOMMENDATION: That Council approve the resolution and authorize the mayor to execute said agreement on behalf of the City. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: None. DISCUSSION: Condition Nos. 30.b and 31 of the resolution approving the tentative map for Salt Creek Ranch required the upgrade of the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station to accommodate sewage flows from Salt Creek Ranch and incorporation into the then existing Special Sewer Service Rate Area to provide for the maintenance of the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station, respectively. On September 23, 1997, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 18786 approving the Supplemental Subdivision Improvement Agreement for Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood 2, Units 1/;-/ ,-,.--.......- Page 2, Item /~ Meeting Date 1120/98 1 through 5 (Chula Vista Tract 92-02). In satisfaction of Conditions Nos. 30b and 31, Pacific Bay Homes agreed under Section 2 of said supplemental agreement to: (a) Enter into a three-party agreement with the City and EastLake Development Company (EastLake) to either upgrade the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station or to purchase sewer pumping capacity rights from EastLake to handle ultimate sewage flow generated by Salt Creek Ranch; (b) Deposit the sum of $ 409,842.42 with the City in an interest bearing account to guarantee compliance to either upgrade the pump station or purchase sewer pumping capacity rights; and, (c) Acknowledge that the City may withhold building permits should Pacific Bay Homes fail to comply with the terms of the supplemental agreement related to sewage pumping capacity. Currently, the pump station's capacity of 3,288 EDUs is greatly underutilized and the station operates very inefficiently due to the relatively low number of connected EDUs from the EastLake Greens and Olympic Training Center projects, which have not developed at the rate envisioned when the tentative map for Salt Creek Ranch was approved in 1992. Salt Creek Ranch's total pump station capacity need is approximately 1,174 EDUs, based upon the approyed tentative map. Public Works staff has determined that an upgrade in the pump station's capacity at this time would result in eyen greater inefficiencies and in increased operation and maintenance costs. In addition, upgrading the pump station's capacity now would result in an increase of sulfate within the pumping system, which would accelerate the deterioration of the pump station, appurtenant facilities, and sewer facilities in the Telegraph Canyon Gravity Basin. Therefore, upgrading the pump station at this time to accommodate Salt Creek Ranch sewage flows is not recommended. The Otay Lakes Road Pump was financed through Assessment District 90-3 (AD 90-3). AD 90-3 coyers EastLake Greens, the Olympic Training Center, EastLake Trails, EastLake Woods, EastLake Vistas, and EastLake Business Center II. The City Attorney's office and bond counsel have determined that in order to utilize existing pump station capacity, benefitted portions of the Salt Creek Ranch project would have to be annexed into AD 90-3 Ql: would have to purchase available capacity from undeyeloped, unmapped parcels within the assessment district. The proposed agreement provides for the sale of pump station capacity rights to Pacific Bay Homes from undeveloped and unmapped portions of the EastLake project north of Otay Lakes Road (i.e., EastLake Woods, Trails, Vistas, and Business Center II) within AD 90-3 in proportion to Salt Creek Ranch's needs with respect to the pump station capacity required to serve all of the EastLake projects. The pump station is currently constructed to accommodate flows from the EastLake Greens, Olympic Training Center, and EastLake Trails projects. The pump station is designed to accommodate additional flows from the EastLake Woods, EastLake Vistas, and EastLake Business Center II projects by simply upgrading the size of the station's pumps. The addition of Salt Creek Ranch flows to the pump station necessitates a more extensive upgrade. Pacific Bay Homes has deposited funds totaling $409,482.42 with the City in an interest bearing account for the purpose of guaranteeing Pump Station upgrade or the acquisition of capacity rights /¿.-/ c2 . - ~.._... ------- .-.__._--~- -------..--- Page 3, Item 16 Meeting Date 1/20/98 in the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station to serve the Salt Creek Ranch project at ultimate, buildout conditions. Within thirty (30) days of execution of the Agreement by the City, the City shall transfer $328,547 of said deposited funds to the City's Assessment District 90-3 account and the remainder, plus any interest accrued, shall be refunded to Pacific Bay Homes. The $328,547 will pay for (1) a prorata share of the original assessment bond debt for the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station and appurtenant facilities, bond interest, and bond premium and (2) a prorata share of the estimated future cost of upgrading the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station to its ultimate capacity. Monies transferred to the City's Assessment District 90-3 account shall be used by the City to retire Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station bond debt within EastLake Woods, EastLake Vistas, EastLake Trails (portion), and EastLake Business Center II, under Assessment District 90-3, when bonds are called in March 1998, as specified in Exhibit "B" of the proposed Agreement. The agreement commits EastLake to cover all costs of upgrading the pump station to its ultimate capacity if and when needed, assuming that Salt Creek Ranch will not require more than 1,174 EDUs of pump station capacity. Bond counsel and the City Attorney's office have indicated that this arrangement is acceptable. The proposed agreement also addresses the sharing of operation and maintenance costs among the City, EastLake Deyelopment Company, and Pacific Bay Homes. Condition No. 31 of Resolution No. 16834 approving the Tentative Map for Salt Creek Ranch required that Salt Creek be incorporated into the then existing Special Sewer Service Rate Area, as established by Ordinance No. 2461, for the maintenance of the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station. Ordinance No. 2461 provided for the operation and maintenance of three pump stations serving EastLake Greens and the Olympic Training Center. It should be noted that Ordinance No. 2461 was preceded by an agreement, approved by Resolution No. 15450, between the City and EastLake relating to maintenance and operation of sewage pump stations in EastLake Greens and the Olympic Training Center. Subsequently, on May 17, 1994, the City Council approved Resolution No. 17491 adopting City Council Policy No. 570-03, "Sewage Pump Station Financing Policy", relating to the use of sewage pump stations and providing for the financing of the operation and maintenance costs associated with pump stations. On August 2, 1994, pursuant to City Council Policy, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2596 amending Sections 13.14.100 and 13.14.150 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to sewage pump station charges and amended Ordinance No. 2461, thereby dissolving the Special Sewer Service Rate Area for EastLake Greens and the Olympic Training Center. Ordinance No. 2461, as amended, remains in effect because it includes proyisions in which EastLake Development Company pays a significant portion of the pump station's operation and maintenance costs. Specific criteria were established in Ordinance No. 2461 to release EastLake /?~3 ~.._,..--- . -..o"O'U m.m_~__'___~_·_ Page 4, Item jç" Meeting Date 1/20/98 Development Company from its obligation to share in these costs. Amended Ordinance No. 2461 also includes provisions by which the City contributes $1.00 per connected EDU per month (the former Special Sewer Service Rate Area assessment) towards the cost of operating and maintaining the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station. The proposed agreement among the City, EastLake Development Company, and Pacific Bay Homes is consistent with the existing agreement between the City and EastLake Development Company and with amended Ordinance No. 2461. The proposed agreement will be in effect for as long as the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station remains in operation or until (1) all needed upgrades have been accomplished and (2) the City's contribution for each connected EDU is sufficient to provide for the annual maintenance and operation cost or 75 % of the projected total sewage pumping capacity requirements of the EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch properties, as determined by the Director of Public Works, have been connected to the pump station. This is consistent with the existing agreement with EastLake Development Company. The pump station will no longer be needed and will be taken out of service when the Salt Creek trunk sewer is constructed. FISCAL IMPACT: All pump station upgrade/expansion costs will be borne by EastLake Development Company. Pump station operation and maintenance costs will be shared by the City and the developers in accordance with Ordinance No. 2461 until such time as the developers have been released from their obligations to share such costs. The estimated 1997/98 pump station total maintenance and operation cost is about $20,000 per year, with the City contributing approximately $2,500 of this cost from the Sewer Service Revenue Fund, based upon the number of EDUs connected as of June 30, 1997. The total maintenance and operation cost at buildout conditions (EastLake plus Salt Creek Ranch properties) is currently estimated at $40,000 to $50,000 per year. The City will bear all pump station maintenance and operation costs when (a) the City's contribution for each connected EDU ($12/EDU per year) is sufficient to provide for the annual maintenance and operation cost or (b) 75 % (approximately 4,475 EDUs) of the projected total number of units from the EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch properties requiring pump station capacity have been connected to the pump station. Ultimately, when the Salt Creek Trunk Sewer is constructed and this pump station is no longer in service, these maintenance and operation costs will go away. It should be noted that the City's Sewer Service Revenue from the EastLake and Salt Creek Ranch properties at buildout conditions will exceed $1,000,000 per year. The fiscal impact of the proposed agreement alone, with respect to ultimate operation and maintenance costs for the pump station with the addition of Salt Creek Ranch sewage flows, / ¿, rJj . --'.-.-..--~.."-"--..-_._-.--.-.- Page 5, Item /b Meeting Date 1/20/98 accounts for approximately 10% to 15% of the projected $40,000 to $50,000 annual costs stated above. This increase is due primarily to increased electricity use resulting from additional pumping cycles needed to accommodate Salt Creek Ranch flows. It should be noted that the City's Sewer Service Revenue from the Salt Creek Ranch property at ultimate buildout conditions will exceed $250,000 per year. Attachment: Agreement By and Between the City of Chula Vista, EastLake Development Company, and Pacific Bay Homes to Provide for the Joint Use and Future Expansion of the Temporary Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station and for the Maintenance and Operation of Said Pump Station SA:KPA/kpa [FILE NOS. 0600- 50-SCR28/0600- 50-SCRO 1 /0600-50-ELGO I] H:\HOMEIENGlNEERIAGENDAIOTA YPUMP.113 ../ / ¿, .:!:> . .. __ ....._~._ ___. ____.__.__~ .___.. ____.._....._._...__..,_.. --0-' _~___~,._,_._ . .____ __ ______ 0'_____ _.. ---'- RESOLUTION NO. )ðr¿r~ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, EASTLAKE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, AND PACIFIC BAY HOMES TO PROVIDE FOR THE JOINT USE AND FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE TEMPORARY OTAY LAKES ROAD SEWAGE PUMP STATION AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SAID PUMP STATION WHEREAS, at its October 6, 1992 meeting, the city Council adopted Resolution No. 16834 approving the Tentative Map for Chula vista Tract 92-02, Salt Creek Ranch; and WHEREAS, Condition 30.b of the resolution required that the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump station be upgraded to accommodate sewage flows from Salt Creek Ranch; and WHEREAS, Condition 31 of the resolution required that Salt Creek Ranch be incorporated into a Special Sewer Service Rate Area to provide for the maintenance of the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump station; and WHEREAS, Special Sewer Service Rate Areas for maintenance and operation of sewage pump stations have since been dissolved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, Public Works staff has determined that an upgrade is not practical at this time and has negotiated an agreement with Pacific Bay Homes and EastLake Development Company to provide for the joint use and future expansion of the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump station and for the operation and maintenance of said pump station on an equitable basis. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby approve an Agreement by and between the City of Chula Vista, EastLake Development Company, and Pacific Bay Homes to Provide for the Joint Use and Future Expansion of the Temporary Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump station and for the Maintenance and Operation of said Pump Station, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the office of the city Clerk as Document No. . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Mayor of the City of Chula vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Chula vista. Presented by Approved as to form by John P. Lippitt, Director of Public Works C:lrslotaypump ~ ~ /' ~ AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, THE EASTLAKE COMPANY, LLC, AND PACIFIC BAY HOMES TO PROVIDE FOR THE JOINT USE AND FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE TEMPORARY OTAY LAKES ROAD SEWAGE PUMP STATION AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SAID PUMP STATION This Agreement is made and entered into this of , 1998 by and between the City of Chula Vista ("City"), a municipal corporation, The EastLake Company, LLC ("EastLake"), a California limited liability company, and Pacific Bay Homes, ("Pacific") a California Corporation. RECITALS WHEREAS, the City provides sewer service within the City of Chula vista pursuant to the laws of the State of California (Health and Safety Code Section 5471), its ordinances and resolutions; and WHEREAS, Pacific owns real property located within the City of Chula Vista, as described by Chula Vista Tract 92-02, and more commonly known as "Salt Creek Ranch"; and WHEREAS, in approving Tract 92-02, the city required the Otay Lakes Road Sewage Pump Station and its appurtenant facilities ("Otay Pump Station") to be upgraded to accommodate sewage flows from Salt Creek Ranch (Condition 30(b)), and that Salt Creek Ranch be incorporated into a special sewer service rate area to provide for the future maintenance and operation of the Otay Pump station (Condition 31); and WHEREAS, EastLake owns or has developed real property located within the City of Chula Vista, described by Chula Vista Tract 88- 3, more commonly known as "EastLake Greens," and Parcel Map 16318, more commonly known as the "Olympic Training Center"; and WHEREAS, on January 9, 1990, the City and EastLake entered into an agreement, approved by Resolution No. 15450, in which EastLake agreed to pay for the maintenance and operation of three sewage pump stations (including the Otay Pump Station) that serve EastLake Greens and Olympic Training Center; and WHEREAS, on January 23, 1990, the City and EastLake entered into an agreement, approved by Resolution No. 15449, that permitted EastLake to discharge sewage from EastLake Greens and the Olympic Training Center to the Telegraph Canyon Basin, including non- tributary sewage flows from foreign basins; and 1 Jb-? ..,." .-, --- --- ....'"_..~_...,--_._.__..._.._-_..~..,--,_..,,_._._._,.----- WHEREAS, on June 11, 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2461 that established a special Sewer Service Rate Area, which included EastLake Greens and Olympic Training Center, to collect fees from properties served by the three sewage pump stations (including the Otay Pump Station) to pay for the operation and maintenance of the sewage pump stations; and WHEREAS, EastLake constructed the Otay Pump station to a design capacity of 3,288 EDUs to satisfy the sewage pumping requirements of EastLake Greens, the Olympic Training Center, and the future development project commonly known as "EastLake Trails;" and WHEREAS, EastLake "refinanced'! its costs for construction of the Otay Pump station via Assessment District 90-3, which utilized assessment bonds; and WHEREAS, the Otay Pump station costs were assessed to benefitted parcels within EastLake Greens, the Olympic Training Center, EastLake Trails, and other future development projects commonly known as "EastLake Woods, II "EastLake vistas, II and "EastLake Business Center II;" and WHEREAS, the sewage pumping capacity requirements of EastLake Greens, the Olympic Training Center, EastLake Trails, EastLake Woods, EastLake vistas, and EastLake Business Center II is approximately 4,795 EDUs at ultimate build-out conditions; and WHEREAS, based upon the approved map for Chula Vista Tract 92- 02, Pacific will require approximately 1,174 EDUs of capacity at the Otay Pump station to serve Salt Creek Ranch at build-out conditions; and WHEREAS, the addition of Salt Creek Ranch and other future development projects within the Otay Pump station's service area will require the Otay Pump station to have a combined capacity, at ultimate build-out conditions, for portions of the Salt Creek Basin tributary to the Otay Pump station of approximately 5,969 EDUs; and WHEREAS, the Otay Pump station's existing capacity is adequate to satisfy the combined sewage pumping capacity requirements of EastLake Greens, the Olympic Training Center, and Salt Creek Ranch at build-out conditions but approximately 2,680 EDUs of additional sewage pumping capacity will be required to satisfy the future sewage pumping capacity requirements of EastLake Trails, EastLake Woods, EastLake Vistas, EastLake Business Center II; and WHEREAS, on May 17, 1994, the City Council approved Resolution No. 17491 adopting City Council Policy No. 570-03, "Sewage Pump station Financing Policy," that related to the use of sewage pump 2 / ¿.-g- - ---"'-'~'-------'-'--~'-"'- stations and provided for the financing of the operation and maintenance costs associated with such pump stations; and WHEREAS, on August 2, 1994, pursuant to City Council Policy No. 570-03, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2596 that amended Municipal Code sections 13.14.100 and 13.14.150 relating to sewage pump station charges, amended Ordinance No. 2461, and repealed Ordinance Nos. 2181, 2286, and 2477 thereby dissolving special sewer service rate areas; and WHEREAS, In accordance with Ordinance No. 2596 and the January 23, 1990 agreement with the City and EastLake, as amended on June 4, 1991, the City shall contribute $1.00 per EDU per month for each EDU connected to the Otay Pump Station as of the preceding June 30, for the operation and maintenance cost of such facility; and WHEREAS, it is necessary for the City, EastLake and Pacific to enter into an agreement to provide for the joint use and future expansion of the Otay Pump station and for the operation and maintenance of this station. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, EASTLAKE, and PACIFIC do agree as follows: 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to provide for the joint use, future expansion and the maintenance of the Otay Pump station by EastLake and Pacific. 2. Term of Agreement and Areas to be Served. a. Term. This Agreement shall commence on the date this Agreement has been executed by the City and shall continue until such time as all of the provisions herein, are satisfied. b. Areas. The" Properties" to be served pursuant to this Agreement are defined by City of Chula vista Tentative Map No. 88-3 (EastLake Green) approved July 25, 1989 by Chula vista city Council Resolution No. 15200, Parcel No. 16318 (Olympic Training Center) and Tract 92-02 (Salt Creek Ranch) approved October 6, 1992, by Chula Vista City Council Resolution No. 16834, herein referred to collectively as "Properties." 3. Services, Rates, Fees, and Assessments a. Service. The City shall provide the Properties with full sewer service as long as the City is capable of providing such service and EastLake and Pacific is in compliance, as determined by the City, with the terms and provisions of this Agreement, the rules and regulations regularly imposed upon customers of the City, and the city's ordinances. 3 I?~t .. '.'-....--..- ......-- .'. ".,. ---- ..--....-..-- -".,._._~.-._."----_._------ b. Maintenance Costs. EastLake and Pacific shall pay for the maintenance and operation costs of the Otay Pump station in the amounts determined by the City in the following manner: 1. Subsequent to July 1 of each fiscal year, the Director of Public Works ("Director") shall determine the maintenance and operational costs of the otay Pump station and the amounts to be paid by EastLake and Pacific for the following fiscal year (each fiscal year shall be defined herein as commencing from July 1 to the following June 30th). 2. EastLake's and Pacific's share of said maintenance and operation costs for each fiscal year shall be proportional to each party's total capacity rights (2,114 for EastLake and 1,174 for Pacific) minus the respective cumulative number of EDUs each party has connected to the otay Pump station in all of the previous fiscal years divided by a number equal to both parties combined capacity rights (3,288) minus the total EDUs connected by both parties in all of the previous fiscal years. c. Release. EastLake and Pacific shall be released from their obligation to pay for the maintenance and operation costs of the Otay Pump station when the Director determines that the earlier to occur of: (1) the City's contribution of $1.00 for each connected EDU, (as set forth in Ordinance No. 2596 and the January 23, 1990 agreement with the city and EastLake, as amended June 4, 1991) is sufficient to provide for the annual maintenance and operation of the otay Pump Station, or (2) 75% of the projected total sewage pumping capacity requirements of the Properties have been connected to the otay Pump station (that is 75% of 3288 EDUs). d. Review status of Funds. The Director may, at his discretion, review the status of funds available for operating and maintaining the Otay Pump station at any time during the fiscal year. If, as a result of said review, the Director determines that there will be insufficient funds available to provide for said maintenance and operation and that the fund balance is likely to be depleted within 30 days, the Director shall notify EastLake and Pacific in writing of such situation and require EastLake and pacific, in the proportions in effect at the beginning of the fiscal year, to provide sufficient funds to provide for said maintenance and operation to June 30 of that fiscal year. EastLake and Pacific shall, within 30 days of receipt of said notification, deposit the required funds with the City's Director of Finance. Any excess funds deposited by EastLake and/or Pacific in a given fiscal year shall be carried over as a credit for the next fiscal year's operation and maintenance costs. Upon release of EastLake and Pacific from their obligations to pay maintenance and operations costs, excess funds contributed by EastLake and Pacific that have been carried over from the previous fiscal year shall be refunded. 4 / &. -/0 ___.~__"_._....._~ ___ _ _ _._.m.___'__,_. ___.,._.___..~._,.._.__..__._" 0"_ .. ____....._ _. ..___..__._ ..·_...··....._m· __ __... _ ._ ___, ._.,_ ___.,._,.____."_____,..__ ,_ e. EDU factors. The "EDU factor for all land uses served by the otay Pump station shall be as follows: Land Use Category "EDU Factor" Single Family Detached 1.0 Single Family Attached 0.75 Public Park (EDUs per Acre) 5.36 Elementary School- 800 Students 42.86 High School - 2400 Students 171.42 Churches (EDUs per Acre) 8.93 Commercial (EDUs per Acre) 8.93 Golf Course Club House 8.93 For any land uses not listed above, the EDU factor shall be determined based upon 1.0 EDU per 280 gallons of sewage generated per day. 4. Acquiring capacity Rights. The parties to this Agreement acknowledge and agree that the construction of the otay Pump station were funded through Assessment District 90-3. Pacific shall acquire capacity rights in said pump station by the payment of its proportionate share of the otay Pump Station, as provided below: a. Funds deposited. Pacific deposited funds totaling $409,482.42 with the City in an interest bearing account for the purpose of guaranteeing the acquisition of capacity rights in the otay Pump station to serve Salt Creek Ranch at ultimate, build-out conditions as shown on Tract 92-02. within thirty (30) days after the approval of this Agreement by the City, the city shall transfer $328,547 from the deposited funds to the Assessment District 90-3 account. The remainder of the deposit, plus any interest accrued, shall be refunded to Pacific. Pacific agrees that the $328,547 shall pay for the items, and in such amounts, shown on Exhibit "A." EastLake and Pacific understands and agrees that such deposited funds transferred to the City's Assessment District 90-3 account shall be used by City to retire a portion of the otay Pump station bond debt, equal to $328,547, within EastLake Woods, EastLake vistas, EastLake Trails (a portion therein) , and EastLake Business Center II, as specified in Exhibit "B". 5. Capacity Rights. EastLake shall have capacity rights to the otay Pump station of 2,114 EDUs. Pacific shall have capacity rights to the otay Pump station of 1,174 EDUs once the funds used 5 /t -// "----- -.. - "_.~_.._~--~..__. ------_.- - to retire the bond debt have been transferred to Assessment District 90-3. 6. Upgrade of Sewage Pump station. a. Future Projects. EastLake shall upgrade or expand the capacity of the otay Pump Station, as set forth below, for future tentative maps submitted by EastLake for EastLake Trails, EastLake Woods, EastLake Vistas, and EastLake Business Center II. Nothing herein shall prevent the City from requiring such improvements as a condition of tentative map approval for said development projects. b. upgrade to otay Pump station. EastLake shall commence construction of the upgrade and expansion of the otay Pump station when the total number of connected EDUs reach 3000 such units. Commencement of construction for purposes of paragraph 6, shall mean that the first inspection of said work has been completed by the city. The design parameters for such upgrade and expansion shall be in accordance with attached Exhibit "C·, and all such plans shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to commencement of construction. EastLake agrees to provide the City, in accordance with the City's ordinances and policies, with all the required bonds to guarantee the upgrade and expansion work prior to commencing said construction. EastLake shall complete construction of such upgrade and expansion within six (6) months after commencing said construction and all such work shall be completed to the satisfaction of the city Engineer. c. Dedication of Land and Permits. All land needed to expand and/or upgrade the otay Pump station shall be irrevocably dedicated in fee title to the City prior to completion of such expansion and/or upgrade. EastLake shall be responsible for obtaining all applicable permits for the expansion and upgrade of the otay Pump station. d. Withholding Permits. EastLake acknowledges and agrees that the City may withhold building permits from EastLake if any of the provisions of this paragraph 6 have not been complied with or the total connected EDUs exceeds 3000 such units and the construction of the otay Pump station has not commenced. 7. Right to withhold Permits. If either Pacific or EastLake is determined by the City not to be in compliance with the terms and/or obligations of this Agreement, the City has the absolute and unfettered right to withhold the issuance of any building permit for any residential development from the property owner not in compliance; provided however, the City shall not withhold building permits from the other party, if such party is found to be in compliance with the terms and/or obligations herein. 8. Successors - Assignment. 6 / ¿,~ /~ ". .' ---_.~-_..,-_._--_.._-_._---,- a. Benefit of successors. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors, assigns and interests of the parties as to any or all of the Properties until released by the mutual consent of the parties. b. Assignments. The obligations of EastLake and Pacific under this Agreement shall not be assigned in whole or apart, without the express written consent of the city. 9. Notices. Notices which may be required or permitted under the terms of this agreement shall be considered given upon receipt from the united Stated Postal Service of a "Return Receipt" showing acceptance by a representative of the "receiving" party of the notice which was posted "certified - Return Receipt Requested". Addresses for any such notice shall be: For the City of Chula vista: city Engineer city of Chula vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 For EastLake Development Company: President EastLake Development company 900 Lane Avenue, suite 100 Chula Vista, California 91913 For Pacific Bay Homes: President Pacific Bay Homes 2300 Boswell Road, suite 209 Chula vista, California 91914 10. Entire Agreement. This agreement contains the whole contract between the parties and integrates all the terms and conditions mentioned herein or incidental hereto and supersedes, unless otherwise stated, all negotiations and previous agreements between the parties pertaining to the same subject. 11. Amendments to Agreement. Any modifications of the terms of this Agreement must be made with the mutual consent of all parties by a subsequent written agreement. 12. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement, are hereby incorporated herein. [NEXT PAGE~~~IGNATURE PAGE] ~()'tS 7 It --/3 ~--~ ..---------.----..--- ---- _ _ _._ ..._M._..."___._·_·______·__···_·_·_····__·. -- - ------ . _._.._... '._ _"'m_ SIGNATURE PAGE TO AGREEMENT TO PROVIDE FOR THE JOINT USE AND FUTURE EXPANSION OF THE TEMPORARY OTAY LAKES ROAD SEWAGE PUMP STATION AND FOR THE MAINTENANCE AND OPERATION OF SAID PUMP STATION IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this agreement as of the day and year first written above. THE EASTLAKE COMPANY, LLC a California limited liability company By: Paul Nieto, President Date: By: Bruce N. Sloan Vice-President Date: PACIFIC BAY HOMES, a California Corporation By: Liz Jackson Senior Vice-President Date: CITY OF CHULA VISTA By: shirley Horton, Mayor Date: ATTEST city Clerk Approved as to form by City Attorney H:\home\attorney\otaypump.agr 8 /Þ~/7 ----_._,.~.~_._---_._" -, .-..~_..__. . ".-.--- "_"0 _ _.__....__._._.__.....,.__... .._m....______'.'_n_ __.___..,~__,_.__.__...._.._____._..___ COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 17 / 8"r?~ Meeting n..tp 01/201911 ITEM TITLE: Resolution Amending the FY 1997-98 budget to provide for recommended position reclassifications and special salary adjustments and appropriating funds therefore SUBMITTED BY: City Manager g (4/sths Vote: Yes X- No___) During the adoption process for the current year's budget, the issue of several outstanding positions reclassifications was addressed. At that time there were several remaining reclassification studies that had not been completed and there were other equity issues which needed to be resolved. Staff informed Council that these issues would be addressed so that a complete package could be presented to Council for consideration. These studies have been completed and it is recommended that the reclassifications be implemented effective the first pay period in February. RECOMMENDATION: That Council amend the FY 1997-98 budget to incorporate the recommended reclassifications and special salary adj ustments and amend appropriate funds therefore. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: One of the problems within the City organization, in addition to low morale because there was not a salary increase for four years, is the fact that there were over 50 positions that were deleted throughout the organization, with the result that duties for some of the remaining employees changed, many of which performing a higher leyel of duties than those employees previously performed. The result is that a number of people started working out of class, but were still being paid for lower level of duties performed. This argues for something that has been mentioned to you previously in Closed Session, and that is the need for a classification study Citywide. Otherwise, we will suffer from further morale issues as it relates to inequities within the salary and classification plan, and the potential loss of valuable employees since they are underpaid for the level of work they now perform. We also lost or came close to losing top management executives who have been key to the many successes Chula Vista has had in taking limited resources and providing high level 1 /7-/ -.---,.-.- - - ------.-- ~.._._~_._.__.- .-----.- ." ---, , ._____ ___n.._.___.u --~.,._.__.__._-_.- '4"__ -"'---""~-------'-------- services to this City. To accomplish this requires managers who can effectively manage money and personnel, get the most out of each, people who are creative, who can "do more with less." The compensation level for these managers also needs to be addressed. RE(,T A~~TFI(,A nON T~~TTF~ The City operating departments made several requests for reclassifications in connection with the 1997-98 budget based on employees performing "out of class." A detailed study of these classification issues was prepared May 21, 1997 by the Human Resources Department, which at that time was reviewed both with affected employee organizations as well as with management. The study is included as Attachment A. As a part of the initial review of this report, recommendations 8, 9, and 10, which seemed fairly clear cut, were recommended to be included, and were adopted by you in the 1997-98 budget. These recommendations involved employees in the Library. In connection with the recommendations and studies of the Planning Department positions (items 5, 6 and 7), the department withdrew their request in connection with 6 and 7 but still recommended that the Associate Planner (Item No.5) be reclassified to a Senior Planner and that issue will be addressed later in this report. In addition, the study looked at departmental requests to move the Fire Marshal into Executive Management, the Finance Department requested in Item No. 12 to change the title of Purchasing Agent to Purchasing Manager, place the position in Executive Management, and increase the salary by $7,850, and the Human Resources Department requested that Ihe Risk Manager also be placed in Executive Management, with an increase of $5,150. While these three requests have merit, they also have internal relationship issues as well, at least in one or possibly two cases, and there are organizational issues which, in my view, should be left for the next City Manager since there are potential overall City organization issues that would be implied by these requests which the next manager should have the flexibility to determine. Finally, the Human Resources Department had not, at the time their report was prepared, and still has not, developed additional studies on request items 14 thru 21, which will be completed in time for the review of the 1998-99 budget. The remainder of this part of the report will focus on the remaining reclass issues (Items 1 thru 5), as well as three internal salary adjustments which need to be addressed as a matter of equity. 2 )7-.1.. ,....- . -~,_. _._~.._._-'-- ____._..._._n_ ..-....- ----_."..,-'. -- Pump M3int..n3n".. M..",hanli: As outlined in Human Resources May 21 report, the Pump Maintenance Mechanics, whether they are a I or a II, perform the same level of duties and require comparable skill levels. It is indicated in the Human Resources report that". . .it is virtually impossible to differentiate between the level of duties and responsibility of the Is and lIs." Therefore, it is r<~"omm..nd..1I th3t th.. two ,,]3«... h.. "on.olid3t..1I into on.., ..ntitl..1I "Pump M3int..n3n".. M..",h3nk", and that the salary level of that classification be at the current II level, with the result that those that are currently Mechanic I's would receive a salary adjustment to that new level. This would mean that each of the two Mechanic I's would receive a salary increase from $30,296 to $32,499. The cost of this recommendation for 1997-98 would be $2,056, and the annual fiscal impact of this increase will be $5,176. There would be no impact on the General fund of this recommendation, since the source of funding for this increase would be from the Sewer Fund because the duties of the Pump Maintenance Mechanic are for the maintenance of the sewer pump stations of the City. Opf'n Sp3"" Tn"P..",tor Currently, the City has three Open Space Inspectors, two are compensated at the level of $34,896, and the third a newer employee receives $32.467. According to the May report from Human Resources, the duties of this classification have changed significantly since it was first established at the level of Senior Gardener, whose primary responsibility was to act as a lead worker in maintenance and gardening duties. Currently, however, the Open Space Inspectors do not perform maintenance work of any type, and the Inspectors now supervise Probation Crews, conduct pre-bid conferences, and interpret drawings, diagrams, specification blueprints on a regular basis, and to utilize a computer to provide effective water management of the City's Open Space Districts. These positions require graduation from high school supplemented by 30 semester hours of college course work in ornamental horticulture, landscape technology, and closely related experience. They must also possess math skills to calculate fertilizer application rates as well as the ability to formulate irrigation programs based upon evapotranspiration and precipitation rates. Initially, the Human Resources Department recommended that the Open Space Inspector salary be increased to the level of Parks Maintenance Supervisor (E Step - $45,615). After discussing this with the City Manager's Office, which raised a number of questions regarding the this comparative analysis, iLLs now recommended by Human Resources and r..",omm..nd...d to you, th3t th.. .313ry for thi. ,,]3« h.. P"-E:~f'1I 3t th.. .3m.. ]..V..¡ 3. Puhli" Work< Tn"P"",tor T (E step - $44,572). It is concluded that the Inspector positions are closely related in terms of the complexity and types of duties that are performed. Also, the educational requirements and the amount of supervision that is exercised in each classification is a closer match than any other classification in the City. 3 /7-3 _.~.,._. ..,.__.~_._._ '._--'0-_- _.._ ""'_ _._..._....._..._._.'" -.-',.,- _._---~--"._- The increase for two employees would be $5,414, (and $2,038 for the third), and would have a total cost this fiscal year of $7,452 and an annual cost of $17,886. As with the previous recommendation, no money from the General Fund would be required for these proposed increases since the total cost would come from Open Space assessment funds. Accmmt;::¡nt The May study by Human Resources agrees that the three Accountant positions within that class be increased by 10%. Basically, the Accountant class has been required over the years to operate at a higher level with more stringent requirements, and greater duties and responsibilities wherein the salary levels are not equitable, both within the context of comparable positions in the external market, as well as internal comparisons. It does not seem to be equitable to have this position with its current responsibilities being paid less than the Risk Analyst or a Community Development Specialist II. The increase for these three individuals would be from $ 44,867 to $49,353, and 10%. The total cost of this increase for the current fiscal year would be $6,606, and $15,855 on an annual basis. Current year costs would be $3,412 required from the General Fund for 1997-98, with $3,193 coming from other special funds. The annual cost would be $8,818 from the General Fund and $7,663 from other funds. Based on the departmental request, the Human Resources Department recommends, and itis rf'.commf'nÒf'Ò in this report, to increase the Senior Accountant from $54,369 to $57,087, or an increase of 5 %. The Senior Account has gradually assumed additional duties and is now responsible for cash management and investments, coordination and oversight of the City's daily banking activities, supervision of the Accounts Payable section, oversight of the general accounting system, coordination of the annual audit, and tracking and preparing the audit. While an increase as recommended seems appropriate as far as it goes, even with this increase there still would be internal relationship issues with this position. Its salary would still be below the salary paid to the Permit Engineer, Principal Management Assistant, Crime Lab Manager, and the Communication Operations Manager. A more equitable leyel of compensation would be at the Communications Operations Manager level ($59,743), a total increase of $5,375. The cost of this increase would come from a combination of the General Fund ($1,976) and other restricted funds ($659). ~p:nior PhmnPT Both the Planning and Human Resources Departments recommend that as minimum, one reclass be accomplished in the Planning Department this year, namely, the reclassification of an Associate to a Senior Planner. In the view of the Human Resources and Planning departments, the majority of this position's duties involve Senior Planner level work, such as managing the environmental aspects of major projects, which if not performed at the staff level, are usually handled by an outside consultant, at least at the senior or higher level. 4 /7---1 ---- -- --- - -- "--- - - --~,,~-_.~,,-~---_.- Major projects managed by this position include being the environmental project manager for San Miguel Ranch, managing the Sun bow mitigation monitoring program, and the Olympic Training Center Boathouse mitigation monitoring program. This position also supervises, in part, Negative Declarations performed by Interns or Assistant Planners. Thi~ rf'mmmendation would rf'da«ify th" po~ition to S"nior Plannf'r at a <alary of $';1, ';97, which will have a cost this fiscal year of $2,088. Of this amount, $1,775 would be covered by fees and $313 would require General Fund Support. This recommendation will place this position at the same leyel as the Environmental Project Manager in Community Development. While it is not argued that this position has duties at precisely the same level as the Community Development position, they are close enough to be considered the same for salary purposes. ENVIRONMENTAl. RE"OTJRC.E" MANA(;PRICONSERVATTON C.OORnTNATOR One of the problems management had in reviewing the request for reclassification from Associate to Senior Planner, even though justified, is that it placed this position at a level which is significantly above the Environmental Resources Manager, Barbara Bamberger, and Conservation Coordinator, Michael Meacham, both of which have a level or responsibility at least as great, if not greater than the Senior Planner and the Environmental Project Manager. Upon further examination, it was discovered that these two positions are compensated about the same level as positions with far less responsibility, such as Buyer and the Crime Analyst Manager. Further, they are considerably below other positions in the environmental arena such as Environmental Project Manager and Senior Planner (Environmental), Microcomputer Specialist, Permit Engineer, and Principal Analyst. These two environmental positions operate at a much higher level in terms of independence of judgment and management responsibility. Both positions seek, obtain, and administer significant grant funds for the City. They ensure that the funds conform with State and Federal requirements, all the way through audit. They actually formulate and administer contracts under the fund and supervise employees, whether it's at the Telecenter or through the City's recycling efforts in implementing these programs. A case could be made that they are clearly at a level higher than Senior Planner or the Environmental Project Manager, although a move to this level is not recommended at this time. These positions unfortunately were probably underpriced when they were added to the City organization, creating a significant inequity within the City's salary plan. Also, market data indicates that these positions are underpriced. Finally, the incumbents in these two positions produce exceptional performance for the City, and the recommendation in this report is an investment in their retention. Itis specifically rf'romm"nd"d that th"~,, two po~ition~ hI' rf'rla«ifif'n in a two ~tf'.p pro"..,« up to an E ~tf'.p l"vf'1 of $IíO, 714 (Principal Analyst level). However, it is recommended that for this first year that they be brought to the level of $56,756, an increase of $3,959 for each position (7.5%). This would have a combined cost for these two positions of $3,880 for the remainder of this fiscal year, and an annual cost of $9,316. Also, as generally mentioned 5 /7---5 _..._.__..__.~ , -"-~-- above, in reviewing comparable data for the position of Conservation Coordinator in cities in Orange and San Diego counties, the market supports a level of compensation that is recommended. It is further recommended that these two positions be evaluated more closely as part of an overall reclassification study for the City to determine if these positions, both in terms of market and internal equity, should be at a higher level. The cost of this increase will basically come from the General Fund, although $194 is available from non General fund sources to help pay for the recommendation. P"T<onn"l An~ly<t Finally, it is recommended by Human Resources that one of the Personnel Analyst positions be reclassified to Senior Personnel Analyst. In past years, the number of appeals and complaints heard by the Civil Service Commission has more than tripled and the amount of time deyoted to internal and external complaints, factfindings, discipline matters, sensitive employee issues and highly confidential matters has more than doubled. Each of these processes requires considerable staff time at the mid-management/executive management level; however, because of the heavy workload of the departmentls managers, many higher level duties have been assigned to a Personnel Analyst, a member of the Unrepresented Group, but not a Middle Manager. These duties require the use of independent judgment, initiative, advanced technical skills, problem solving and analytical ability, credibility, and the ability to work with staff in other offices on sensitive, confidential issues, with a minimum of supervision. It is not anticipated these priority workload demands will diminish in the future and the department does not feel comfortable in assigning investigations or factfindings to a position below the mid-management leyel. There is clearly a need for this reclassification so that these and other higher level duties can be delegated to this position by the Director and Assistant Director. The impact of not funding the higher level position would be delays in many of the aforementioned high priority projects. Ultimately the cost of such delays could far exceed the cost of the reclass. The cost of the increase from the current step as a Personnel Analyst to Senior Personnel Analyst is $4,887 for the first year. The cost for the remainder of the fiscal year is $2,509 which will be funding from the General Fund. 6 /7-¿' _._--~.... -------.-........-.-------- - - ~.+ .__._.~.,,-,.._.- .....-.--..-.. ---.-.-- ----.----.---- --- The table below summarizes the impact of the reclassifications recommended for approval. The first column represents the amount needed for funding for the remainder of this fiscal year. This is followed by the new revised annual salary and the funding split between the general fund and other funds. FY98 Revised Gen Fund Non-Gen F Actual Cost Ann Sal Cost Fund Cost Pump Maint Mechanic 1,078 32,499 1,078 Pump Maint Mechanic 1,078 32,499 1,078 Jpen Space inspectot 2,707 40,428 2,707 Jpen Space Inspector 2,707 40,428 2,707 Jpen Space Inspector 2,038 36,633 2,038 ,^ccountant 2,202 49,353 1,872 330 ,^ccountant 2,202 49,353 1,541 661 "ccountant 2,202 49,353 2,202 Sr. Accountant 2,634 59,744 1,976 659 Sr. Planner 2,088 53,597 313 1,775 :;onserv Coord 1,940 56,756 1,940 Envirn Res. Mgr 1,940 56,756 1,746 194 Sr. Pers Analyst 2,509 46,608 2,509 27,325 11,897 15,428 27,325 11,897 15,428 This report is cognizant of the City's limited ability to pay for salary improvements and only what is considered necessary to solve important issues as well as to retain employees that are extremely valuable to the City's operation and to keep them from being hired by other employers is being recommended at this time. The reclass recommendations involving positions represented by CVEA (pump Maintenance Mechanic, Open Space Coordinator, Accountant & Sr. Planner) are strongly supported by that employee organization. Citywide Reclassification Study As you can be sensed by reading this report so far, there is a need for an overall classification study within the City to equitably compensate employees for the fact that there are fewer people in most departments doing a greater workload, with the result that many positions are performing higher level duties than they were previously, requiring additional compensation as a result. In order to avoid a few reclassifications every year, if that's even possible, it is recommended that a reclassification study be performed that would evaluate the pay plan of the City in order that further inequities that have evolved over the past four or five vears can be corrected. It should also be acknowledged that there are no poor performers that are recommended for reclassification in this report. Everyone that is in a position recommended for reclassification is performing well for the City, and some are truly outstanding and exceptional employees. 7 /7~7 ---_..._--~._....,_. __....__,.....".._.,_ n"_ ~....__._...._."_._____..,_...__ _ u'__ "'_'__"^'_O' _..,_.._."'___.__n"__________ .-.-.-.. -_...._-.._-~ EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT SALARIES In addition to the reclassification issues discussed above, there is the issue of addressing executive management salaries. As was mentioned to you in my December 9 memo on this subject, although that memo specifically focused on rehiring Bob Leiter, there is a need to adjust our executive management salaries in order to retain and not lose solid performers who have supplied the City with leadership in their specialty areas and have enhanced the professional reputation of the City within the community, the County and the State. As you know, we temporarily lost Bob Leiter primarily due to money, and we came close to losing David Palmer and George Krempl for recruitments in which they were invited to participate. Five or six years ago we were competitive with the salaries we paid department heads, but because of the extensive period of time we had a wage treeze, we are no longer that competitive. At that meeting, funds were appropriated for salary increases due to implementation ofMOUs, you also approved a sum of$5,000 to be used at my discretion for increases based on performance for Executive Managers. After a more detailed review of those adjustments which I believe need to be made, I am requesting that an additional $7,141 to address all performance and management retention issues and implement these adjustments in a more equitable manner. FISCAL IMP ACT: The 1997-98 cost is $27,325 for the proposed reclassifications (with $11,897 required from the General Fund, $15,428 from non-General Fund sources), and $7,141 for executive management adjustments ($4,075 trom the General Fund and $3,066 from non-General Fund sources). Attachments: Attachment A: May 21,1997 memo trom Human Resources H:\HOMEIADMIN\COMPI.ISS 8 17-2"/ ---_._-~--- --_._~---- ---.---.-.---.--..---.--.----.-..- -.-- - --------- .·._·m·... --- Revised 1/20/98 RESOLUTION NO. 18876 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE FY 1997-98 BUDGET TO PROVIDE FOR RECOMMENDED POSITION RECLASSI- FICATIONS AND SPECIAL SALARY ADJUSTMENTS AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS THEREFOR WHEREAS, during the adoption process for the current year's budget, the issue of several outstanding reclassifications of positions was addressed; and WHEREAS, at that time, there were several remaining reclassification studies that had not yet been completed; and WHEREAS, there remained equity issues which needed to be resolved; and WHEREAS, staff has previously informed Council that these issues would be addressed so that a complete package could be presented to the Council for consideration; and WHEREAS, these reclassification studies have been completed and it is now recommended that the classifications be implemented effective the first pay period in February. WHEREAS, it is recommended that Pump Maintenance Mechanic I and Pump Maintenance Mechanic II be reclassified into one classification entitled "Pump Maintenance Mechanic"; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that a special salary adjustment be given for the class of Open Space Inspector bringing it to the same level as Public Works Inspector I (E Step - $44,572); and WHEREAS, it is recommended to increase the Senior Accountant classification from $54,369 to $59,743, an increase of 9.9%; and WHEREAS, it is recommended to increase the three Accountant positions from $44,867 to $49,353, an increase of 10%; and WHEREAS, it is recommended to reclassify the position of one Associate Planner position to a Senior Planner position at a salary of $53,597; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that both the position of Environmental Resources Manager and Conservation Coordinator be 1 11- q _____.. ___ _,_._"____," ____~__ ___.~________..._._ m_'....._,.., ,._._.___n. __,_...._ _____..._____m_._._....._______~__._ ¡ (n ,f ---/ " reclassified and adjusted in a two-step process up to an E step level of $60,714 over a period of two years; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that one Personnel Analyst position be reclassified as a Senior Personnel Analyst for a cost of $4,887 for the first year of which $2,509 will be funded from the General Fund for the remainder of the fiscal year; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that a reclassification study be performed that would evaluate the pay plan of the City in order that further inequities that have evolved over the past four or five years can be corrected; and WHEREAS, it is requested an additional $7,141 be appropriated to address all performance and management retention issues in order to implement these adjustments in a more equitable manner. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the city of Chula vista does hereby amend the FY 1997-98 budget to incorporate the above-recommended reclassifications ,and speciM salary--adju:3tn,€nt:s--and appropriates funds therefor in the following manner: $11,897 be allocated from the General Fund and $15,428 from non-General Fund sources for the proposed reclassifications $4,075 from the General Fund and $3,066 from Non-General Fund (for a total of $7,141) for executive management adjustments Presented by Approved as to form by John D. Goss, City Manager C:\rs\reclass 2 /1-10 ___._.__._ __ ____..._.____________ - ____.__.___ .'__^___'M' -.--.._- ... ."____uu~_._ .___________.~________ __._______ _ _____ _______________ __n____..._._..___._ ..____._ ATTACHMENT A MEMORANDUM DATE: May 21, 1997 TO: John D. Goss, City Manager FROM: Candy Emerson, Director of Human Resources0J.-- SUBJECT: CLASSIFICA nON STUDIES As part of the budget process each year, departments submit requests for classification reviews resulting ITom expansion of duties or anticipated changes in a position's primary job functions. Those requests are submitted in the form of a supplemental request and are assigned to a Personnel Analyst for review. Following are summaries of the studies that were conducted. The positions listed below have been evaluated and recommendations are included. The recommendations were developed only after a thorough review of the classification questionnaire, interviews with the department director, supervisors, and the incumbent and consideration of appropriate internal and/or external salary comparisons. Copies of the classification studies providing a more indepth analysis and supporting documentation are available. RECOMMENDA nONS 1. DEPARTMENT - PUBLIC WORKS/OPERA nONS POSITION - Pump Maintenance Mechanic I (2) and IT (2) RECOJ\1MENDATION -Change the title of Pump Maintenance Mechanic II to Pump Mechanic (no change in salary); reclassify the two Pump Maintenance Mechanics I to Pump Mechanic (represents a salary ;ncrease of 30.5%; E-Step salary, $38,250); change the title of Supervising Pump Maintenance Mechanic to Supervising Pump Mechanic (no change in salary). Analysis - Current staffing in the Pump Maintenance section of Public Works/OPS is one supervisor, 2 lIs and 2 Is. Out or' necessity, due to staffing constraints and comparable skill levels of incumbents, it is virtually impcssible to differentiate between the level of dUlies and responsibility of the Is and lIs. S.milarly, the level of supervision received and degree of /7 - ) / - - >-..--------.----.--- .-" -- ----,-- --.'. -..--.._-------- . -....- accountability are indiscernible. Specifically, Pump Maintenance Mechanics perform skilled operation, maintenance, repair and modification of equipment; troubleshoot equipment problems and respond to emergency situations - all with minimal supervision. This differs fi-om the original job functions which provided for lead assistance and more direct supervision by a "II" who functioned as a lead. The volume of work and staffing limitations have resulted in the need for all Pump Maintenance Mechanics to work either independently or with limited supervision. That limited supervision is provided by the Supervising Pump Maintenance Mechanic, not a "II". The impact of this situation is compounded by an inappropriately wide salary spread between the "I" and"II" classifications. Top step for Pump Maintenance Mechanic I is $29,311 and for Pump Maintenance Mechanic II is $38,250 - a spread of30.5%. An appropriate spread between an entry level class and a journey level class is between 5% and 15%, depending on a variety of factors. In our classification plan, for example, the spread between a Maintenance Worker I and II is 7.2%; between Administrative Analyst I and II is 15.7%; and between Librarian I and II is 4.6%. FISCAL IMPACT - The annual fiscal impact of this increase will be $20,278. 2. DEPARTMENT - PARKS AND RECREA TION/P ARKS DIVISION POSITION - Open Space Inspector (2) RECOMMENDATION - Increase salary to the level of Parks Supervisor; 30.7%; E-Step $44,152. ANALYSIS - Since its' creation, the classification of Open Space Inspector has undergone significant changes. When first used, it was placed in the salary plan at the same level as Senior Gardener - a class whose primary responsibility is to function as a lead worker in maintenance and gardening duties. Open Space Inspectors are now required to be computer literate and to utilize those skills in monitoring budgets, projects and water management. Inspectors independently supervise labor crews fi-om the Probation Department; conduct pre-bid conferences; and interpret drawings, diagrams, specifications and blueprints on a regular basis. The difference in level of classification is evident in the minimum requirements for the Sr. Gardener and the Open Space Inspector. Sr. Gardener requires equivalent to graduation from high school and 2 years of related experience. Open Space Inspector requires equivalent to graduation fi-om high school supplemented by 30 semester units of college coursework in ornamental horticulture, landscape technology or a related field and 2 years of experience in the supervision of landscape maintenance activities. The Open Space Inspector class also requires math skills and computer literacy. FISCAL IMP ACT - The annual fiscal impact of this increase will be $20,740. /7-).2- ,-.--, .--.~~- ,.._-~..~~-- 3. DEPARTMENT - FINANCE POSITION - Accountant (1) RECOMMENDATION - Increase salary 10% to an E-Step annual salary of $47,749. ANALYSIS - With the hiring of the current Finance Director, considerable attention has been paid to increase the accuracy of financial accounting and reporting in the City. This has resulted in the growth in responsibility for many of the positions in the Department. This, coupled with recent, more strict financial reporting requirements led to the requested evaluation of this position. Adding to the additional responsibility is the reassignment of tasks previously assigned to the Senior Accountant. With the assumption ofa greater supervisory role, many of the technical/professional accounting tasks are now perfonned by the accountant. A 10% salary increase will recognize these additions and result in comparability with the external municipal financial community. Comparing the Accountant classification to comparable professional classifications shows that Accountant (Estep salary $43,408) is paid less than the others. Assistant Engineer is compensated at $50,075; Associate Planner at $47,683; Community Development Specialist II at $45,753. An external salary comparison was difficult because most agencies did not have comparable classes. However, the cities of San Diego and Escondido did have comparable positions with salaries of $46,896 and $52,140, respectively. FISCAL IMPACT - The annual fiscal impact of this increase will be $15,185. 4. DEPARTMENT - FINANCE POSITION - Senior Accountant (1) RECOMMENDATION - Increase salary 5% to an E-Step annual salary of $55,232. ANALYSIS - As explained above, most positions in the Finance Department have experienced elevation in level of duties and responsibility. Over the last three years, the Senior Accountant has gradually assumed duties previously perfonned by the Assistant Director of Finance. The Senior is now responsible for cash management and investments, coordination and oversight of the City's daily banking activities; supervision of the Accounts Payable Section; oversight of the general accounting system, coordination of the annual audit and tracking and preparing the audit. This, in conjunction with the increase in complexity of reporting requirements and the added complexity that results ITom increases in she~r volume of accounts, necessitates the recommended adjustment. The 5% increase will also maintain an appropriate spread (15%) between the Senior Accountant and the subordinate Accountant classification. FISCAL IMPACT - The annual fiscal impact of this increase will be $3,021. /7-)3 -,..----_.~-,._.. -- ----""._._-~-----_.._"-_.- ------- "-"-,-- - ----- - -- ._-,_.-_.._-.--.--.--~----.~- 5. DEPARTMENT - PLANNING/ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW POSITION - Associate Planner (1) RECOMMENDATION - Reclassify to Senior Planner, E-Step annual salary of $58,741. This reclassification will result in movement of the position ITom CYEA to Mid-Management. ANALYSIS - As a result of downsizing, for the past two years this position has been functioning at the Senior Planner level in the majority of aspects of the job. The incumbent has been perfonning a wide range of higWy responsible duties in the review, interpretation and processing of environmental rules, regulations and policies. In so doing, the incumbent acts with limited supervision and interacts on a regular basis with Mid-Managers and Executives in Community Development, Engineering and the City Attorney's Office in relation to the aforementioned areas as well as compliance issues. The incumbent regularly assumes acting responsibility in the absence of the Environmental Review Coordinator. The analytical skills, knowledge of complex planning issues and the necessity for the incumbent to make decisions and exercise judgement support a reclassification to Senior Planner. FISCAL IMPACT - The annual fiscal impact will be $5,583. 6. DEPARTMENT - PLANNING POSITION - Associate Planner (3) RECOMMENDATION - ReclassifY to new classification of PLANNER ill, E-Step salary of $51,081. ANALYSIS - The reorganization/downsizing in the Planning Department has resulted in many changes in job duties. As employees retired/resigned, duties were reassigned to the most logical position. While this has enhanced efficiency in many ways, it has created classification issues such as inequity in compensation. The Associate Planner positions in the Department all have had job functions and responsibilities expanded of the last two years. Out of necessity, due to existing staffing constraints, incumbents have assumed project-lead roles requiring the use of independent judgement and discretion beyond that which is expected of an Associate Planner. In both the Current and Advance Planning Divisions, incumbents have a lead role in Capital Improvement Projects, Wireless Communications, major development projects, General Plan Amendments and providing staff assistance to the Planning Commission. As with most ofthe classifications recommended for upgrade, downsizing often results in expanded duties for those positions not eliminated. However, the end product in this case, as in most, is a more efficient, productive organization. FISCAL IMPACT - The annual fiscal impact of this increase will be $11,835. ) 7~)1 -.--_.~.-._.^'~".._.__._.._.._- -..-. -----..--.- -.---,.~-."_."--'"-'---'~---'----'--"- 7. DEPARTMENT - PLANNING/CURRENT PLANNING POSITION - Assistant Planner (2) RECOMMENDATION - Reclassify to new classification of Planner II, E-Step annual salary of $47,683. ANALYSIS - The aforementioned re-structuring resulting from downsizing, applies to the Assistant Planner positions as well as the Associates. Both positions in the Current Planning Division function at a level above Assistant Planner in terms of independence, complexity of issues, discretion and impact on the Department/City. They make presentations to the City Council and Planning Commission and represent the Planning Department in a variety of venues. The requisite interaction with developers and more sophisticated analysis though not at the level of the project managers (Associate Planners) is definitely above the Assistant Planner level. The creation of a Planner I, II, III series is an attempt to simplify titles and recognize the changes in structure of the classifications. FISCAL IMP ACT - The annual fiscal impact of this increase will be $4,822. 8. DEPARTMENT - LIBRARY POSITION - Training Coordinator RECOMMENDATION - Move the classification of Training Coordinator from the Unrepresented Group to the Mid-Management Group. ANALYSIS - When the classification of Training Coordinator (formerly OWLrrraining Coordinator) was created, it was placed in the Unrepresented Group. This group was selected because of it's neutrality - neither labor nor management biased. It was also anticipated that the incumbent would have access to confidential information and material relating to the labor relations process due to the location of her office - Personnel. The Unrepresented Group is considered the City's" confidential" unit, and as such, should only have in it positions dealing with labor relations issues, information and material. Since the Training Coordinator no longer fits in to this category, it is recommended that it be deleted from the Group. The recommendation to place it in the Mid-Management Group is based on two factors: first, the pay is at the same level as the Mid-Management classification of Sf. Management Assistant; and second, the duties and responsibilities are definitely above the CYEA level. FISCAL IMPACT - The fiscal impact of this change will be $165. Included in the FY1997/98 Proposed Budget. / ?-)~ - ~,-" . -.. _._---_._-~,--_._---_._. 9. DEPARTMENT - LmRARYILITERACY POSITION - Administrative Office Assistant II RECOMMENDATION - ReclassifY to Administrative Office Specialist, E-Step salary of $29,157; a 14.9% increase. A review of the description of job duties/responsibilities shows that the position meets the criteria for an Administrative Office Specialist based on the following: exercises independent judgement on a daily basis; provides the only office/administrative support for an organizational unit; performs all difficult and complex work for the unit; the position requires knowledge of the Literacy Program sufficient to deal effectively with learners, tutors, patrons and City staff; maintains all files, records, schedules, and computer reports. FISCAL IMPACT - The current year fiscal impact of this reclassification will be $2,778; ongoing annual fiscal impact will be $3,770. Included in the FY 1997/98 Proposed Budget. 10. DEPARTMENT - LmRARY POSITION - SHELVING SUPERVISOR RECOMMENDATION - ReclassifY position to Senior Circulation Assistant, E-Step salary of $29,157; an increase of2.5%. ANALYSIS - Because the Library no longer utilizes the classification of Shelver, it is inappropriate to retain the classification of Shelving Supervisor. A review of the duties now assigned to this position shows that the incumbent: acts in place of the Circulation Supervisor in her absence; performs general clerical library and public contact work; provides work direction and review for assigned staff; exercises judgement in applying Library policies but does not answer technical or reference questions. For these reasons, the most appropriate classification is Sr. Circulation Assistant. FISCAL IMPACT - The fiscal impact of this reclassification will be $843. Included in the FY 1997/98 Proposed Budget. ) 7 -)¿, ...--.-,.-., ~_.__...- _'__n______ --._--- - ___~____._ -.--------0 EXECUTIVE MANAGEMENT ISSUES The following three recommendations are to move the classifications from the Mid-Management Group to the Executive Group and providing increases in salary commensurate with the scope of responsibility. Each of these recommendations is strongly supported by the Fire Chief, Director of Finance and myself 11. DEPARTMENT - FIRE POSITION - Fire Marshal (1) RECOMMENDATION -Increase salary to $79,898; move classification to the Executive Management Group, Salary Band El. ANALYSIS - The Fire Chief relies on the Fire Marshal for the administrative support typically assigned to Assistant and Deputy Directors in other departments. As a result, the Fire Marshal has important organizational duties above and beyond those of the Battalion Chiefs. Additionally, the Fire Chief envisions this role expanding. The schedule worked by the Battalion Chiefs does not lend itself to efficient, effective, timely performance of the administrative/management functions of the Fire Department or other City departments. The addition of these high-level management responsibilities to the existing responsibility of the Fire Prevention Program of the City sets it apart ITom the classification of Battalion Chief FISCAL IMPACT - Annual fiscal impact will be $9,850. 12. DEPARTMENT - FINANCE POSITION - Purchasing Agent (1) RECOMMENDATION - Change the title to Purchasing Manager; increase the salary to $68,319; move the classification to the Executive Group, Salary Band El. ANALYSIS - The classification of Purchasing Agent has undergone several significant changes in the past 20 years. Until 1980, it was an Executive level position reporting to the City Manager. In 1980, the Purchasing function was assigned to the Finance Department. At that time the classification was moved to the Mid-Management Group, though the incumbent retained some Executive benefits. For a variety of reasons, there were few changes in the scope of the position until the hire of the current Purchasing Agent. With the most recent hire, the Division has seen significant growth in level of autonomy, accountability, resourcefulness, customer service, and ) 7/- )7 ____.w. --- . ----,-_...._-'"'_."'_..._,,--,.._,_.~,-,_..-.- ..H.._._._ morale. This position, although not an assistant department head, is very similar to the Budget Manager and fonner Revenue Manager classification in tenns of significant Citywide responsibility. The Purchasing Agent is responsible for millions of dollars of procurement affecting every City function ITom the Garage to the Library in Eastlake. Additionally, the Purchasing Agent participates in evaluating all major service contracts. FISCAL IMPACT - The annual fiscal impact of this change will be $7,850. 13. DEPARTMENT - HUMAN RESOURCES POSITIONS - Risk Manager (1) RECOMMENDATION - Increase the salary to $68,319; move the classification to the Executive Group, Salary Band El. ANALYSIS - The Human Resources Department divides naturally into two functional sections - Personnel Operations and Risk Management. Though the divisions work closely and there is overlap in many areas, each division requires expertise unique unto itself In general, Personnel Operations has responsibility for recruitment and testing, training, classification and salary review, labor relations, policy and procedure development and oversight. Risk Management handles Safety, Public Liability, Worker's Compensation, Benefits and Insurance. The Assistant Director supervises 4; the Risk Manager, 3. (If the Risk Analyst is added the number supervised by the Risk Manager would increase to 4.) In the course of duties, the Risk Manager has extensive daily contact with the City's Workers' Comp Administrators, Attorneys, Doctors and employees. Many of these contacts involve time-sensitive, confidential issues representing considerable liability to the City if not managed properly. This is all accomplished with the absolute minimum of supervision. Requiring the same level of accountability and perfonnance ITom the Assistant Director and the Risk Manager has been extremely awkward and clearly inequitable. FISCAL IMPACT - The annual fiscal impact of this change will be $5,150. ) 7- /g/ "--. ....._"_.._----~_.._.._---." -----..-...... -_..__._-~-_._.,.- -- --.--". -_._._-~.._-_....- __ _..___.__..____ n__._____ NO RECOMMENDATIONS AT THIS TIME The following positions were included in the initial list of reclassification requests. For a variety of reasons, they are not recommended for change at this time. 14. DEPARTMENT - POLICE POSITION - Data Entry Operator REQUESTED BY - Department STATUS - The Police Department is in the process of restructuring the Police Data Entry Section. A pending retirement will impact staffing, section responsibilities and ultimately individual job duties. Once necessary decisions have been made, the classification issues can be addressed. 15. DEPARTMENT - POLICE POSITION - Community SenoÌCe Officer (CSO) REQUESTED BY - CVEA STATUS - There are currently 10 CSO positions in 3 divisions of the Police Department. Completed classification forms were not received ITom incumbents until April 7, 1997. Due to the sheer volume of paperwork to review and analyze, it is reasonable to assume that a study of this size would take several months to complete. Additionally, a cursory review of the material provided leaves staff to believe that this is a salary rather than a classification issue. Additionally, the salary issue is related to external comparisons. Nonetheless, staff will proceed with this classification study as expeditiously as possible. 16. DEPARTMENT - POLICErrRAFFIC UNIT POSITION - Police Records Assistant II REQUESTED BY - CVEA / 7--)7 -'."-"""'--'-'~ .__u ,.~..__ ...,._ ..__..__._.._.~._._..._." ____. - - -- ---'--~------'-'---'-""-"-""~-"--~- STATUS - Police Records Assistant is a generic classification used in the Department at both the I and II level. While the majority of positions are in the Business Office, one exists in the Traffic Unit. At the time ofthis request, the Department was in the process of transferring the incumbent to the Business Office and another PRA to the Traffic Unit. This was done to provide crosstraining and job enrichment. Further analysis of the position by Department management has raised many questions about the duties perfonned in the past and the structure of the position in the future. This coupled with a change in Unit supervision has resulted in the need to revisit the classification questionnaire to ascertain accuracy of infonnation and meet with Department management to define the appropriate job duties. It is anticipated that this will take approximately 4 to 6 weeks to complete. 17. DEPARTMENT - POLICEIBUSINESS OFFICE POSITION - Police Records Assistant I (2 Positions) REQUESTED BY - CVEA And Department STATUS - RESOLVED This was both a budget and a classification issue. The budget portion of the issue was resolved in the current year budget, which allowed the classification portion of the issue to be dealt with quickly. No issue remains. NON-CLASSIFICATION ISSUES The following requests fell under the budget umbrella and as such had no real classification issues associated with them. 18. DEPARTMENT - PUBLIC WORKS/ENGINEERING REQUEST - Eliminate one Civil Engineer position and create one 3/4 time City Architect position. 19. DEPARTMENT - PUBLIC WORKS/OPERATIONS REQUEST - Eliminate the "999" part-time Construction Specialist I position and a one full-time Construction Specialist I position. /?- ;20 .'. .",_..__.._-~ ___,_.n_. __ ____"__..___._~___ ----.-- _...-- - --"-.- ,. .' .._.._,- .~~_._-,.._,--..._..._._---~.--._--_._._---- - ---------._-~_.~-- 20. DEPARTMENT - PUBLIC WORKS/OPERATIONS REQUEST - Reinstate the Maintenance Worker position in Traffic Signing and Painting Division. The position was originally budgeted at the "II" level and was deleted £i-om the 1996/97 budget. The request is to reinstate the position at the "I" level. 21. DEPARTMENT - LffiRARY REQUEST - Provide funding for 10 additional Librarian I hours per week. /7~;2-/ --~- -- -"- ---.-_.__._...._---_._-,~ -----...^"--....- -_._.~_..__.._- ---..---.,- - CV NATURE CENTER/BCT TEL:619-422-2~ n ATTACHMENT B CHULA VISTA NATURE CENTER ~ - Deœmber 1, 1997 ~ - BAYFRONT Dear Members of the City Coundl: CONSJ!RVANCYTRUST AB board members of the Bayfront Consexvancy Trust and the Chuls VIsta Nature BOARD OF Center we want to caD your attention to an urgent matter. Due to Jnadequate DIRl!crORS compensation and salary Increases the City of Chuls Vista Is on the verge of losing its talented Nature Center Director, Stephen Neudecker. 1000 Dr. Neudecker is one of the lowest paid department heads and has received no Gun~der compensation Incœases or performance reviews during the past five yearsl The one- oint Drive time 3% mise being discussed is unfair and Insuffident, forcing Dr. Nel1decw to begin a sesrclt for a new job that provides adequate compensations. Chula Vista California During his tenure as director during the past decade he has raised &3.000.000 In 91910-1201 contributiOI\S and grants for the Nature Center. He has single-handedly raised (619) 422-2481 $375,000 for the new Capper Rail Bxhibit. He has established an endowment, The EnrJÍronmental Legøcy Fund, that will establish a long tean revenue stream that does PAX not depend on åty support. TIlE FAILURE TO ADEQUATELY COMPENSATE DR. (619) 42.2-296' NEUDECKER IS FISCALLY IRRESPONSIBLE. For a few thousand dollllIS in compensation you will be retaining a Director that Is bringing in millions of dollsrs to Chula Vista. Dr. Neudecker and his commitment to the Sweetwater Maxsh has created a world- -Mayor Shirley Horton class organization that has brought tourists to Chula Vista. Negotiations are under way that could make the Nature Center the third park of the San Diego Zoological 0Wm\sn Sodety and bring Increased prestige and revenue to Chuls VIsta. Staff and volunteer - Dr. Peter Andersen morale Is at an aU-time high whlle the Center has reœlyed decreasing dty support. - Dr. Patrick Abbott Supervisor ~ Cox Money can always be found In dty budgets. Dr. Neudecker is only asking for 3% per - Susan -Deb01'8h Lee year over a rlV!!"year period. ThIs is a very reasonable request. the board Dean Rundle r' unanimously supports his request and respectfully request this matter receive your -Judy Sdwler1bexg urgent sttenü~n! Mayor Geo~ Waters Dan W ens Patty, Wolf Sincerely, Adnan Zakkout ~- '(J~ ;J. ~ QUftt v/ M- Gt- dí~ . / 501(c)(3) ~7?~ Nonprofit CDrponIion lD 1/33-0225466 \ ) 7 .;' '¿;z .-.-........... --~._-_._-,-_._. - -~-_.~---- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item No.: /g/ Meeting Date: 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing: PCA 98-01; Consideration of a series of amendments to the Chula Vista Municipal Code to allow the adoption and administration of an enhanced code enforcement program. Ordinance ::< 7) 3imending, adding and repealing various Chapters of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to improving Citywide code enforcement effectiveness. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Building and Ho REVIEWED BY: City ManagejG ~ /I (4/5ths Vote: Yes _ NO-XJ In response to Council concerns regarding the need for more effective code enforcement, staff is recommending numerous revisions to the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The proposed revisions are intended to expand the number of enforcement methods available to City departments responsible for enforcing the Municipal Code, and to create a standardized appeal procedure utilizing a Hearing Examiner in lieu of hearings before City Council. Numerous existing sections of the Municipal Code are proposed for modifications to reference these new enforcement methods and appeal procedures. RECOMMENDATION: THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE THE VARIOUS ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, REPEALED SECTIONS AND THE ADDITION OF NEW CHAPTERS 1.40 AND 1.41 BY PLACING THE ORDINANCE ON FIRST READING. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On November 5, 1997, the Planning Commission voted 5-0 (Ray and Aguilar absent) to approve Resolution No. PCA-98-01 recommending the City Council adopt an Ordinance to amend or repeal existing sections and to add new Chapters 1.40 and 1.41 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code in accordance with the draft Ordinance attached hereto. On November 10, 1997 the Board of Appeals and Advisors voted 3-1 (Kaya no; Harter, O'Neill and Fabrick absent) to recommend City Council adopt an Ordinance to amend or repeal existing sections and to add new Chapters 1.40 and 1.41 to the Chula Vista Municipal Code in accordance with the draft Ordinance attached hereto. However, Council is advised that at the regularly scheduled Board of Appeals and Advisors' Meeting on January 12, 1998, upon review of the Minutes of the November 10, 1997 Board Meeting, it was determined that a procedural error regarding the Board's approval of the Program occurred. The procedural error occurred in that the Board's action to approve the Program /ð~J -'---"."-"'--'~----_.~-'. Page 2 Item IS Meeting Date: 1120/98 occurred after the original main motion to approve failed by a 2-2 vote. In accordance with Roberts Rules of Order, since the original main motion failed, it was necessary to move for reconsideration, then if the reconsideration motion successfully passed, the original motion could be reintroduced. Since the motion for reconsideration did not occur, the action of the Board of Appeals and Advisors to approve the Program is technically unofficial. DISCUSSION: In response to various Council referrals expressing concerns regarding more effective code enforcement (referrals #2923, #2927 & #2993), the Department of Building and Housing investigated a variety of established programs currently utilized within Southern California in an effort to develop a more efficient and effective code enforcement program. After evaluating numerous programs, the Department selected the City of San Diego's code enforcement program as an appropriate model to use for purposes of building our program. The principal distinction between Chula Vista's code enforcement compliance methods and San Diego's is the enhanced options available to San Diego's enforcement personnel. Adoption of these recommended Ordinance changes will give designated City staff access to an Administrative Citation Program as well as other enforcement methods that will greatly improve the City's ability to effectively enforce the provisions of the Municipal Code. The proposed Ordinance modifications and additions not only enable Code Enforcement Officers within the Department of Building and Housing to use these tools, but other City employees designated by the City Manager will have access to the enhanced enforcement methods to enforce applicable sections of the CVMC. Other staff would include Fire Prevention Officers, Police Officers, Open Space Inspectors, Public Works Inspectors, Business License Inspectors and Community Service Officers. Adoption and implementation of these enhanced enforcement methods by the various Departments will also help solidify the interdepartmental cooperative efforts of the Community Oriented Policing and Problem Solving (COPPS) program. These proposed changes were developed as a cooperative effort among all the Departments having responsibility for enforcement of the Municipal Code. Those Departments included City Attorney, Planning, Fire, Police, Public Works, Finance and Parks & Recreation. Adoption of the proposed Ordinance changes will result in the following enforcement methods being added, amended or repealed with applicable CVMC reference. 1) Summary Abatement - authorizes City staff to take immediate actions to abate œnditions that are an imminent threat to life safety. The current method will be modified to streamline cost assessment appeal hearings. Current language requires a hearing before City Council, the proposed change designates a Hearing Examiner, appointed by the City Manager to conduct a hearing and render a decision. ACTION: Amendment to CVMC Section 1.30.030 2) Administrative Abatement - authorizes City staff to abate nuisances and assess œsts after an owner has been notified of violations and been given reasonable time to abate a nuisance. )'g/d, ,..'...._"__n....._...__....__..__ Page 3 Item /% Meeting Date: 1120/98 Current method is also being changed to designate a hearing examiner in lieu of the City Council as the appellate body for Notice and Orders and cost recovery assessments. ACTION: Amendments to CVMC Sections 1.30.070 through 1.30.180 3) Misdemeanor Citations - issued by designated Code Enforcement Otñcers for violations committed in their presence and requires cited person to appear in Municipal Court. This proposed method encourages timely compliance by expediting access to court system. Current method requires City Attorney Staff to prepare, file and appear at each hearing. Fines levied by Court are retained by the magistrate. ACTION: Amendments to CVMC Sections 1.04.010, 1.20.010 and 1.24.010 4) Administrative Citations - a notice that mandates corrective action and establishes a f"me as a penalty for prior non-compliance of a previous notice of violation. This proposed method is intended to encourage timely compliance and discourage repeat offenders. The amount of the fines escalates from $100 for first violation, to $200 for second, and $500 for third and subsequent violations. Fines are payable to the City of Chula Vista. ACTION: New CVMC Section 1.41.100 S) Notice of Violations - typically the f"Jrst fonnal enforcement step, notifies the responsible party(s) of a violation and affords them time (nonnaIly no less that ten days) to correct a violation prior to any additional enforcement actions being taken. This is an existing method that is being more clearly defined within the Ordinance. ACTION: New CVMC Section 1.41.030 6) Cease and Desist Orders - issued to persons who perfonn work in violation of a pennit or without a required pennit. Violation of the cease and desist order is a separate misdemeanor and/or may result in issuance of an administrative citation. This is an existing method that is being enhanced by the Ordinance change to clearly identify the consequences of violating the cease and desist order. ACTION: New CVMC Section 1.41.070 /~-3 ~~-,- Page 4 Item If? Meeting Date: 1/20/98 7) Recordin2 Notices of Violations - The City records a Notice of Violation against a property that is in violation of the Municipal Code as a means of ensuring the violation is corrected prior to, or upon transfer of the property. Development or improvement pennits may not be issued on the property until the Notice is cleared through compliance. This is an existing method that is being formalized by ensuring adequate due process appeal procedures are afforded property owners prior to recordation of violation notices. ACTION: New CVMC Section 1.41.040 8) Code Enforcement Liens - during the inspection, enforcement and nuisance abatement process, cost recovery amounts are levied for the services rendered. These costs are recorded as a lien against the property. This is an existing method that is being more clearly defined in the Code and includes comprehensive appeals procedures to ensure due process. ACTION: New CVMC Sections 1.41.140 through 1.41.170 9) Civil Penalties - may be assessed against a party who demonstrates a continuing disregard for the requirements of the Municipal Code. Penalties may be assessed at a daily rate not to exceed $1,000 per violation per day up to $100,000 per vacant assessor's parcel or per structure. This proposed method imposes severe financial penalties and is intended to be used in only the most flagrant cases when other methods are not successful in gaining compliance. ACTION: New CVMC Sections 1.41.110 10) Abandoned and llie2ally Parked Vehicles Abatement - authorizes removal of inoperable or wrecked vehicles and citing of vehicle owners who illegally park their vehicles on private property. These are existing methods that are being updated to provide consistency with minimum state vehicle code requirements and as a means of streamlining the appeal process. DUE PROCESS/APPEAL HEARINGS: Each of the proposed enforcement methods includes components to ensure that affected parties have every available opportunity to exercise their rights to appeal. This proposed Ordinance also represents an effort to streamline and consolidate a variety of different appeal procedures into a single appeal process that provides consistency and ensures due process. All employees authorized to utilize these enforcement methods will be thoroughly trained to ensure that individual's rights to dyProcess are recognized and afforded. / g-_ 1-: "-'- . .-- .. _.__...... "_,,,___,u ___...._____' . Page 5 Item /6' Meeting Date: 1/20/98 An example of the detailed procedures that enforcement staff will be directed to follow, the Policy and Procedures Manual for Administrative Citations, is included as Exhibit G and process flow charts are included as Exhibit H. While many of these proposed enforcement methods identify potential penalties for parties that violate the Code, the program's focus is not the generation of revenue. The purpose of these Ordinance changes is to develop methods that discourage parties from violating the Code and encourage parties to cure existing violations. Imposing financial penalties has traditionally proven effective as a means of gaining compliance. The various Departments utilizing these enforcement tools should anticipate additional expenditures in staff time in order to administer the appeal hearing process, however it is reasonable to assume that costs for hearings will be recovered in both the filing fees and, to some extent, the penalties collected. PROPOSED STAFFING REQUIREMENTS - FY -99 BUDGET: As part of the development of this Code Enforcement Enhancement Program, staff has made every effort to incorporate recommendations that came from the various City departments, members of the Planning Commission, Board of Appeals and Advisors and representatives of the Chamber of Commerce. Consistent among these recommendations was the concern and need to provide supervision and staff training for individuals that would be using these new code enforcement methods, especially the issuance of Administrative Citations. The Planning Commission and the Board of Appeals and Advisors expressed support for the need to reestablish the supervisor and clerical support positions formerly employed within the Code Enforcement Division of the Department of Building and Housing. Due to the added level of responsibility associated with the implementation of this significantly expanded program the Department will be recommending in the FY-99 Budget a Code Enforcement Manager at a mid-manager level position and a AOA III administrative support position. Fiscal impact of these two positions is estimated at approximately $132,000 annually, which closely reestablishes the staffing level of the Code Enforcement Division as it was in 1992 with a supervisor, three code enforcement officers and a clerical support position. The goal to be achieved by this program is for staff to be able to function with a more timely response and resolution of the more serious code violations that effect quality of life in our neighborhoods, dealing with aging and deteriorating commercial and residential structures and abatement of nuisances associated with the business community such as signs, business licenses, illegal garage sales, etc. By streamlining the code compliance process, staff will have greater opportunity to be available to coordinate reactivation of neighborhood based programs such as the very successful Neighborhood Community Appearance Program, in 1989-91. In conclusion regarding staffing, as mentioned the Department of Building and Housing will be proposing staffing increases to accommodate the enhanced measures in the FY -99 Budget. During the period after Council adoption of the Ordinance modifications, the Department will finalize completion of the Policy and Procedures Manual for Administrative Citations, completion of the Policy and Procedures Manual for Liens, Civil Penalties and Summary and Administrative Abatement. Staff will also be developing necessary external and internal transmittal documents, initiate training for the hearing officers and develop training programs on the enhanced code enforcement methods for City staff. The Department estimates that a minimum of four months ------ /~r~ Page 6 Item 1.5' Meeting Date: 1/20/98 to five months is necessary to accomplish this necessary level of preparation prior to implementing the full enhancement program. FISCAL IMPACT: No impact for FY-98. Training funds are available as are funds for developing necessary support supplies to initiate the Program' s preparation efforts. The proposed recommendations in the FY -99 Budget for a Code Enforcement Manager position and an Administrative Office Assistant III position with support equipment is estimated at $132,000 for personnel costs and $17,000 for a vehicle. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit A - Revisions to existing CVMC Sections 1.04.010, 1.04.060, 1.16.010, 1.20.010, 1.20.020, 1.24.010, 1.30.010, 1.30.030, 1.30.050 through 1.30.180, 2.26.030, 5.02.050 through 5.02.180, 5.02.230, 5.04.065, 5.14.030, 5.14.040, 5.14.090,5.14.100,5.18.020,5.18.090,5.18.100, 5.26.060, 5.26.070, 5.26.120, 5.26.230,5.26.290,5.26.300,5.32.060,5.35.123, 5.36.130, 5.36.240, 5.36.250 through 5.36.320 (repealed), 5.38.210, 5.38.220, 5.44.020, 5,48.010 through 5.48.120 (repealed), 5.54.120, 5.54.290, 5.58.090, 8.04.040, 8.08.140 through 8.08.300 (repealed), 8.32.020 through 8.32.040, 8.32.070, 9.12.210, 9.12.220 (repealed), 9.12.300, 9.13.090, 9.13.120 through 9.13.140, 9.18.050, 10.80.10, 10.80.020 (repealed), 10.80.030, 10.80.040 (repealed), 10.80.050 through 10.80.070, 1O.80.080(repealed), 10.80.90 through 10.80.120, 10.84.010, 10.84.35 through 10.84.36 (repealed), 15.04.305, 15.04.310, 15.04.325, #~~ 15.44.070, 17.28.050, 19.08.020, 19.08.030 and 19.08.200. ·cf . Exhibit B - New CVMC Chapter 1.40, Sections 1.40.010 through 1.40.060 0" Exhibit C - New CVMC Chapter 1.41, Sections 1.41.010 through 1.41.180 ~ Exhibit D - Proposed Ordinance No. Exhibit E - Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of November 5, 1997 and Resolution PCA-98-01 Exhibit F - Board of Appeals and Advisors Meeting Minutes of November 10, 1997 Exhibit G - Building and Housing's Policy and Procedures Manual for Administrative Citations Exhibit H - Building and Housing's Code Complaint Process Flow Charts KGLlBWR:bwr/yu /5~t (h:\shared\Þld-hsg\a113c1t9) --------.--- - - ORDINANCE NO. ;¿? ) r AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING, ADDING AND REPEALING VARIOUS CHAPTERS OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPROVING CITYWIDE CODE ENFORCEMENT EFFECTIVENESS The city council of the city of Chula vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I: That the following Chapters of the Chula vista Municipal Code are amended to read as follows: Chapter 1.04 - General provisions 1.04.010 Definitions and rules of construction. In the construction of this code and of all ordinances of the city, the following rules shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the city council or the context clearly requires otherwise: "Abatement" means an act or combination of actions desianed to correct a nuisance. Abatement includes. but is not limited to: removal. demolition or repair of structures: removal of weeds. rubbish and debris: reconstruction of structures to code: restoration of drainaae ways or courses. aradina or rearadina and fillina of illeaallv araded or developed land: reveaetation: vacatina of illeaal· or non-conformina structures: removina barriers improperl v blockina off public access: removal of encroachina structures onto public property: and other action which is reasonablY related to the correction or mitiaation of nuisances under this code or state law. "city" or "this city" means and shall be construed as if followed by the words "of Chula vista"; "city Manaaer" means an officer appointed bv the city Council as the city Manaaer. and includes those officers and employees he or she desianates to perform certain functions. The term "citv Manaaer" includes a director. as defined herein. except in those proceedinas where an appeal to the city Manaaer is taken from the order of a director. "Code" or "this code" means the Municipal Çcode of the City of Chula Vista, California; 1 )~/7 -..'".' _._.,----,~._._---- "Code Enforcement Officer" means a person. other than a police officer. desiqnated bv the Citv Manaqer or a Director. to enforce violations of the Municipal Code. A Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to issue notices of violation and administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 1.41. A Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to issue misdemeanor citations or to arrest a person without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed in his or her presence which is a violation of state law or an ordinance which the Code Enforcement Officer has a dutv to enforce. A Code Enforcement Officer mav exercise all powers of arrest pursuant to California Penal Code ~836.5. A Code Enforcement Officer is not a peace officer within the definition of Penal Code Sections 830 throuqh 832.8. "Computation of time." The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a legal holiday and then it is also excluded; "Council" whenever used in this code means the city council of the city; "County" or "this county" means the county of San Diego; "Day" means the period of time between any midnight and the midnight following; "Daytime" and "nighttime." "Daytime" means the period of time between sunrise and sunset. "Nighttime" means the period of time between sunset and sunrise; "Director" means the Chief of Police. Fire Chief. citv Enqineer. Plannina Director. Director of Buildina and Housina. Director of Finance. Director of Parks and Recreation. Director of Public Works. Director of Communitv Development and the emplovees desiqnated bv them. or assiqned bv ;ob function to perform code enforcement functions and duties. It also includes the Countv Health Officer or Director of Public Health for public health and sanitation. "Gender." The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter; "In the city" means and includes all territory over which the city now has, or shall hereafter acquire jurisdiction for the exercise of its police powers or other regulatory powers; "Joint authority." All words giving a joint authority to 2 /'ð'6 ..-..--."--"'.-----. three or more persons or officers shall be construed as giving such authority to a majority of such persons or officers; "Month" means a calendar month; "Notice" means a written document which informs a person of the time. date and place for a hearina. the nature of a penalty or corrective action reauired of that person. and the Municipal Code section(s) applicable to the proceedina. Service of notice is covered in section 1.40.030. "Nuisance" is as defined under California civil Code ~3480. and includes a condition upon or use of real property within Chula vista that violates the Municipal Code or state law. It may also include dilapidation or disrepair of structures; the maintenance of a structure in which illeaal drua. aamblina or prostitution activity occurs; or. a structure on private property which encroaches into public property. "Number." The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular; "Oath" means and includes an affirmation; "Officers, departments, etc." Officers, departments, boards, commissions and employees referred to in this code shall mean officers, departments, boards, commissions and employees of the city, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise; "Official time." Whenever certain hours are named in this code, they shall mean Pacific Standard Time or Daylight Saving Time, as may be in current use in the city; "Or," "and." "Or" may be read "and," and "and" may be read "or," if the sense requires it; "Owner," applied to a building or land, means and includes any part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, tenant in partnership, j oint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole or of a part of such building or land; "Person" means and includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation or company; "Personal property" means and includes every species of property, except real property, as def ined in this 3 / g-/( , -,-- . --. ---_.~-,---_..,---,._--- section; "preceding" and "following." The words "preceding" and "following" mean next before and next after, respectively; "Process" means and includes a writ or summons issued in the course of judicial proceedings of either a civil or criminal nature; "Property" means and includes real and personal property; "Real property" means and includes land, improvements and structures on land , tenements and hereditaments; "ResDonsible partv" means individuallv and collectivelv: the owner(s) of real DroDertv UDon which a violation of this code or state law exists: or. a tenant or OCCUDant in Dossession. licensee or anv other Derson who has caused. created. or continues to allow a condition to occur or exist UDon real DroDertv constitutina a violation of this code or state law. A "ResDonsible partv" can be a natural Derson or a cOrDoration. "Shall" and "may." "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive; "Signature or subscription by mark." "Signature" or "subscription" includes a mark when the signer or subscriber cannot write, such signer's or subscriber's name being written near the mark by a witness who writes his own name near the signer's or subscriber's name; but a signature or subscription by mark can be acknowledged or can serve as a signature or subscription to a sworn statement only when two witnesses so sign their own names thereto; "State" or "this state" shall be construed to mean the state of California; "Tenant or occupant," applied to a building or land, includes any person holding a written or an oral lease of, or who occupies the whole or a part of, such building or land, either alone or with others; "Tenses." The present tense includes the past and future tenses, and the future includes the present; "Week." A week consists of seven consecutive days; "Writing" means and includes any form of recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, statement or record is 4 /2' -j tJ -----_._--------~--~---- required or authorized by this code, it shall be made in writing in the English language, unless it is expressly provided otherwise; "Year" means a calendar year, except where otherwise provided. (Prior code §1.2). 1.04.060 Time limit for seeking review of administrative decisions. Pursuant to the pvilile:rs ':: .Laht""l to the Git,y uhJ...L California Code of civil Procedure section 1094.6, judicial review of any administrative decision of the city may be had pursuant to Code of civil Procedure Section 1094.5 only if the ª petition for writ of mandate is filed not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which the decision becomes final; excect that if the action imcoses an administrative fine or cenaltv. the cetition for review must be filed within twenty davs after the order is final cursuant to Government code Section 53069. (Ord 1870 §1, 1979). Chapter 1.16 - Right of Entry for Inspection 1.16.010 Applicability-Procedure required. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any o:rd';'uahc.. or .LesoluLioh State or Municical Code crovision, or whenever there is reasonable cause to believe there exists an o:rdihahce v:r :reovlutiou State or Municical Code violation in any building or upon any premises within the jurisdiction of the city, any authorized official of the city may, upon presentation of proper credentials, enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon him or her by ordinance; provided, that except in emergency situations or when consent of the owner and/or occupant to the inspection has been otherwise obtained, he or she shall give the owner and/or occupant, if they can be located after reasonable effort, at least twenty-four hours I written notice of the authorized official's intention to inspect. The notice transmitted to the owner and/or occupant shall state that the property owner and/or occucant has the right to refuse entry and that in the event such entry is refused, inspection may be made only upon issuance of a sea:rch gn inscection warrant by a duly authorized magistrate cursuant to Code of civil Procedure Section 1822.50. In the event the owner and/or occupant refuses entry after such request has been made, the official is hereby empowered to seek assistance from any court of competent jurisdiction in obtaining an inscection warrant for such entry. It is a misdemeanor to wilfullv refuse access after an inscection warrant has been dulv issued. (California Code of Civil Procedure Section 1822.57\. The above 24 hour notice reauirement shall not apply to any inspection where the authorized official conducts the observations and inscection while within the cublic 5 10» / ^___··__···___···___.~"____._.m riaht-of-wav or within the unobstructed walkwav between such riaht- of-wav and the front entrY of anv residence. nor shall it applv to abandoned or inoperative motor vehicles inspected on site in accordance with applicable state law. (Ord 1550 §l, 1974; prior code §l. 7) . Chapter 1.20 - General penalty 1.20.010 Designated-Applicability. A. Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of the ordinances of the city shall be guilty of au ';'l1[ra"L';'oh 0.. a misdemeanor. unless. at the sole option of the ci tv. the violation is cited and prosecuted as an infraction. B. An infraction is punishable by: To A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for a first violation; c. An infraction is not punishable by imprisonment. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to have the public defender or other counsel appointed at public expense to represent him unless he is arrested and not released on his written promise to appear, on his own recognizance, or upon a deposit of bail. D. A misdemeanor is punishable by: To Imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. E. Each such person described in A above shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of the ordinances of the city is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, and he shall be punished accordingly. F. Payment of a fine shall not excuse payment of any fee required by the Municipal Code. G. In addition to the foregoing, any violation of the provisions of the ordinances of the city is deemed to be a public nuisance. Such violations may be abated by civil action or pursuant to applicable administrative abatement procedures. (Ord 2474 §1, 1991; Ord 2284 §1, 1988; Ord 2213 §1, 1987; Ord 2077 §1, 1984; Ord 1765 §1, 1977; Ord 1551 §1, 1974; prior code §1.7A). 1.20.020 Infractions: Prosecutor's Discretion Defendant's Election to have Infraction Treated as Misdemeanor. 6 /8"-)2, .- -"---.------------ A. A violation of any Chula vista Municipal Code Section may, at the discretion of the prosecutor, if the violation is initially charged as a misdemeanor rather than an infraction, be prosecuted as an infraction, subject to the procedures described in sections 1.20.010(C) and 1.20.030 when: 1. The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction unless the defendant, at the time he is arraigned, after being informed of his rights, elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor or; 2. The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines that the offense is an infraction in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on a infraction complaint. (Ord 2284 §1, 1988; Ord 2265 §1, 1988; Ord 2253 §2, 1988; Ord 2213 §2, 1987). Chapter 1.24 - Arrest Procedures 1.24.010 Notice required-contents-Bail. A. If any person is arrested for a misdemeanor 11 ivlaL';'OI. of the p:rovisiol1s eoJ.ifi..J. ,;,.. Chapte:rs 5.02, 5.04, 5.08, 5.10, 5.16, 5.18, 5.22, 5.26, 5.34, 5.38 5.46, 5.50, 5.54, 5.60, 6.20 6.28 a..J. 8.16, and suel. pe:rSOh is not immediately taken before a magistrate as is more fully set forth in the Penal Code of the state, the arresting officer shall prepare in duplicate a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of such person, the offense charged, and the time and place where and when such person shall appear in court. B. The time specified in the notice to appear must be at least five ten days after such arrest. unless waived. C. The place specified in the notice to appear shall be as prescribed bv Penal Code section 853.6 eitl.e:r. 1. Befo:re a judge of a 1I,u..';'",';'pal cou:rt withil1 th.. ",vul1ty, if tI... vffel1se cha:rged is ðll..'::!..J. Lo l.ave beel1 cvi,a,,';'LL..d the:reil., al1d who has ju:ri"J.!.;)L';'v.. of the offel1se a..J. who is ¡,eaL..",t al.d l"OSt accessiLlê Iv!Lh :refe:rel1ce to Lhe ¡,>lace whe:re the a:r:rest is waJ.... v.t:: 2. UpOh del"al1J. of Ll... ¡,>e:rsol1 a:r:restEod, Lefvl... a mUI.icipal ",val. L j uJ.ye il1 the city, if such vff..l1se is alleg..J. Lv have Leel1 cOllkl"itteJ. with!.. the coul1ty. o:r Lefol... a judge iI. the judicial dist:rict !11 whi",h the offel1se is ðll..'::!..d to ha v e Leeh COI(l.",! L L..J. , 3. Be[o:re al1 officer autho:riz;ed Ly the city to L..cehe a 7 1'f!'---J3 .-..-. "_-_'~~.__..-.--_._,..'-'--"'- deposit. vf bail. D. The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person and the arrested person in order to secure release must give his written promise so to appear in court by signing the duplicate notice which shall be retained by the officer. Thereupon the arresting officer shall forthwith release the person arrested from custody. E. The officer shall, as soon as practicable, file the duplicate notice with the magistrate as specified therein. Thereupon the magistrate shall fix the amount of bail which in his judgment, in accordance with the provisions of section 1275 of the Penal Code of the state, will be reasonable and sufficient for the appearance of the defendant and shall endorse upon the notice a statement signed by him in the form set forth in section B15A of the Penal Code of the state. The defendant may, prior to the date upon which he promised to appear in court, deposit with the magistrate the amount of bail thus set. Thereafter, at the time when the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate, if the defendant shall not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited, and may in his discretion order that no further proceedings shall be had in such case. Upon the making of such order that no further proceedings be had, all sums deposited as bail shall forthwith be paid into the county treasury for distribution pursuant to section 1463 of the Penal Code of the State. F. No warrant shall issue on such charge for the arrest of a person who has given such written promise to appear in court, unless and until he has violated such promise or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial or judgment, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law. (Prior code §1.8). Chapter 1.30 - Abatement Procedures 1.30.010 Purpose. This chapter is enacted pursuant to civil Code section 3491 et seg. and Government Code section 38771 et seg., and is intended to be an alternative procedure for the abatement of any public nuisance declared to be a violation of any statute, regulation or ordinance enforced by the city. It is intended to provide a uniform procedure for notification, right of appeal and assessment of costs and collection thereof for the abatement of public nuisances. This chapter mav be used in coni unction with procedures established in Chapters 1.40 and 1.41. The procedure herein is supplemental to the general penalty provision found in Chapter 1.20, and is intended to provide due process for all those required to abate a public nuisance. Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987; Ord 1655 §1 (part), 1975). 8 ¡g//f --..-.".--.--- 1.30.030 summary abatement power. Whenever this code or any other provision of law authorizes the city manager or any other city officer to declare a pUblic nuisance, the nuisance may be summarily abated by any reasonable means and without notice or hearing when immediate action is necessary to preserve or protect the public health or safety because of the existence of a danaerous condition or imminent threat to life. safetv on cublic or crivate crocertv. Summary abatement actions shall not be subject to the notice and hearina requirements of this chapter and a city ð.L..te¡"euL code enforcement officer shall not be prohibited from summary abatement actions after initiation of proceedings pursuant to this chapter if immediate action at any time becomes necessary to preserve or protect the pUblic health or safety. Summarv abatement is to be limited to those actions which are reasonablv necessarv to immediatelv remove the threat. In the event a public nuisance is summarily abated, the city abatement officer may nevertheless keep an account of the cost of abatement and bill the property owner therefor. If the bill is not paid within fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing, the Abatement Officer may proceed to obtain a special assessment and lien against the owner's property in accordance with the procedures set forth in sections 1.30.130 through 1.30.170 of this chapter., except Lhat, ';'11 addition to a .Levielll vi th.. cost.. of aL..temeuL, th.. Git}' caul.........;.l 611all al¡:: ,o l.LèaL 411\.1 J.eteru.";'ue all.)' isòues ~el..Li~e Lo th.. uece....ity [vI: O~ ulahhèL ';'11 11I1..;.....1. th.. p~o¡"".LLy III.... d6<.1".Led Lv be a puLlic l1uisal1....e al1J ..,.L!(Iì"a.L ';'ly aL..t6d. (Ord 2187 §2 (part) , 1987; Ord 1655 §l (part), 1975). 1.30.050 Nuisance declared. A city code enforcement officer aL..te¡"ehL officer may declare a public nuisance for any reason specified in any city ordinance. Upon a public nuisance being declared, the city code enforcement abat6!"..ut officer shall may issue a Notice and Order to Abate substantially in the following form: NOTICE AND ORDER TO ABATE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT (scecifv the condition constitutina the nuisance) is in violation of section of the (Chula vista Municical Code. or other applicable code or ordinance). The violation has been declared a public nuisance by the (citv code enforcement abat6m611t officer) and must be abated immediately. The pub11C nuisance is on property located at (insert address or other leaal crocertv descriction) . YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO ABATE SAID PUBLIC NUISANCE wi thin ( insert 9 )g>;ç ..- --"--_._---_._-~,._-- a reasonable number of davs) ( ) rnot less than tenl consecutive calendar days from the issuance of this order. The issuance date is specified below. You may abate the nuisance by (insert desired action which. if taken. will adeauatelv remedv the situation) . If you fail to abate the public nuisance within the number of days specified, the city may order its abatement by public employees, private contractor, or other means, and the cost of said abatement may be levied and assessed against the property as a special assessment lien or billed directly to the property owner. YOU MAY APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER OF ABATEMENT but any such appeal must be brought prior to the expiration of the number of days specified above for completion of abatement. The appeal must be in writing; specify the reasons for the appeal; contain your name, address and telephone number; be accompanied by an appeal fee of dollars ($ ) ; and be submitted to the city cle~k manaqer at the following address: City Cle~k Manaqer 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 Tel. No. (619) 691-5i}tl 5031 One who is legally indigent. as determined bv quidelines prepared bv the citv manaqer and after consultation with the citv attornev. may obtain a waiver of the appeal fee. Upon timely receipt of the appeal and accompanying fee, or waiver, the city cle~k manaqer will cause the matter to be set for hearing befoLe th.. GÌLy co..."cil sitL';'ilg ð... the ....ity abat...ueilt "oa~ù and notify you of the date and location of the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may direct them to the city officer issuing this notice at the address or telephone number listed below. ISSUANCE DATE: Name, title, address and telephone number of the city abatement office issuing this notice) (Ord 2187 §2 (part) , 1987; Ord 1655 §1 (part), 1975) . 1.30.060 Service of notice and order to abate. The Notice and Order to Abate shall be served in the following manner. A. Bv personal service: or. !!..... By certified mail, addressed to the owner, or his or her 10 ) g----/ Þ -~---- - - -"-- ----""-~._._.-. .....--.-.--.- agent, at the address shown on the last equalized assessment roll or as otherwise known, and addressed to anyone known to the city abatement officer to be in possession of the property at the street address of the property being possessed. service shall be deemed to have been completed upon the deposit of said Notice and Order, postage pre-paid, in the united states mail; and, Bo By posting such Notice and Order to Abate conspicuously in front of the property on which, or in front of which, the nuisance exists, or if the property has no frontage, upon any street, highway, or road then upon the portion of the property nearest to a street, highway, or road, or most likely to give actual notice to the owner and any person known by the city abatement officer to be in possession of the property. (Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987; Ord 1655 §1 (part), 1975). 1.30.070 Appeal procedure. Any owner or other person in possession of the property may appeal any Notice and Order to abate issued aLat.".eht ploceedihq commehced pursuant to his chapter to the city couhci1 manaqer or desiqnee within the I,uniber of ten days as allowed in the Notice and Order to Abate. The appeal shall be submitted in writing, specify the grounds upon which the appeal is taken, contain the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant, be accompanied by the payment of an appeal fee as set forth in the Master Fee Schedule and be filed with the city clerk manaqer. Timely appeal shall stay any further abatement action until the hearing is concluded. The city cleL~ manaqer or desiqnee shall set the matter for hearing before a hearinq examiner the ,,';'Ly "vLlucil and notify the parties in writing of the date and location of the hearing, at least ten (10) days prior to said date. 1.30.080 Appeal fee: Determination of amount/waiver of payment/refund. At the time of filing an appeal, the appellant shall pay the Required Fee(s) as set forth in the citv's Master Fee Schedule. If the appellant claims an economic hardship in paying the appeal fee, he or she may submit an application for waiver of the appeal fee on forms provided by the city clerk manaqer for that purpose. The forms shall be substantially similar to those required of litigants initiating court proceedings in forma pauperis pursuant to section 68511.3 of the Government Code. The forms shall be executed under penalty of perjury and contain a declaration as to the truthfulness and correctness of the information contained therein. Upon submittal of the completed forms, the appeal fee shall be waived. if iustification is demonstrated. 11 / fÇr/ ? ----"-"-_._._----_.._-" Failure to submit the waiver forms or pay the appeal fee in a timely manner shall cause the appeal request to be automatically denied. Enforcement of the Order to Abate may then proceed as if no appeal request had been submitted. If the appeal fee is paid and the city couhcil hearina examiner finds there is no public nuisance, the appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant without the payment of any interest which could have accrued. (Ord 2506 §1 (part), 1992; Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987; Ord 1655 §1 (part), 1975). 1.30.090 Hearing procedure. The l"Hearingª before a hearina examiner aDDointed from a list of aualified Dersons aDDroved in writinq bv the city COl1m...a manaqer shall be conducted in accordance with the following procedures: A. Oral evidence shall be taken only on oath or affirmation. The ,,';'Ly cvul1cil hearinq examiner is authorized to issue subpoenas, administer oaths, and conduct the hearing. B. Each party shall have these rights: to be represented by legal counsel; to call and examine witnesses; to introduce exhibits; to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though the matter was not covered in the direct examination; to impeach any witness regardless of which party first called the witness; to testify in his or her own behalf. He or she may be called and examined as if under cross-examination. c. The hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection in civil actions. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any direct evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions and irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. D. The hearing shall be conducted in the English language. The proponent of any testimony to be offered by a witness who does not proficiently speak the English language shall provide an interpreter, approved by the city "vuhcil hearinq examiner conducting the proceeding as proficient in the English language and the language in which the witness will testify. The cost of the interpreter shall be paid by the party providing the interpreter. E. The hearing may be continued from time to time upon request of 12 J~//~ -- - .-.----.-,.....-.--.,.------- a party to the hearing and upon a showing of good cause therefor. ~ The administrative procedures of Chapter 1.40 mav be utilized to supplement the above. (Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987; Ord 1655 §1 (part), 1975). 1.30.100 Determination or the eiL} Council Hearina Examiner. At the cOl1clu..iol1 of the hear ';'11,=" The city coul1cil hearina examiner shall allow or overrule any or all objections, and reverse, modify or affirm the determinations of the city aLð.ten,el1t code enforcement officer and may direct the city abatemel,t code enforcement officer to proceed and perform the work of abatement if not performed by the owner or the person in possession of the property within the prescribed time. The decision of the hearina examiner shall be in writing, contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, and be filed with the city clerk within five (5) working days of the conclusion of the hearing. A copy of the decision shall be sent to each party appearing at the hearing, and if no appearance was made by the appellant, to him or her by mail, at the address specified in the appeal. The decision of the city coul1cil hearina examiner shall be final when filed with the city clerk and constitutes the exhaustion of administrative remedv. (Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987). 1.30.110 Time ror compliance. If the city cOul1c:.il hearina examiner decides that the Order to Abate should be enforced, the owner, his or her agent or person in possession of the property shall comply with the order within such period of time as may be therein prescribed, and in the absence of any prescribed time, within three (3) days from the date of final determination. (Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987). 1.30.120 Noncompliance with order to abate. Upon the failure, neglect or refusal to properly comply with the Order to Abate within the prescribed time period, the city abatement officer may cause to be done whatever work is necessary to abate the public nuisance. An account of the cost of abatement shall be kept for each separate assessor's parcel involved in the abatement. When the city has completed the work of abatement, or has paid for such work, the owner of the property shall pay the Required Fee(s) costs of abatement (See also section 1.41.140). To this amount shall be added the appeal fee, if it was previously waived. The combined amounts shall be included in a bill and sent by mail to the owner, or his or her agent for payment, if not paid prior thereto. The bill shall apprise the owner that failure to pay the 13 /21'/1 ..~.~......_._---.- bill within fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing may result in a lien or assessment beinq placed upon the property. (Ord 2506 §1 (part) , 1992; Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987). 1.30.130 Report and notice of hearing. If the bill is not paid within fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing, the city abat"',""'IlL code enforcement officer shall render an itemized report in writing to the city cl,::tk manaqer £or ..uL.u';'tlol to th,: city cOUl.....,;,l for hearing and confirmation. To the report shall be attached the names and addresses of all persons having any record interest in the property. At least ten (10) days prior to said hearing, the city cle:tk manaqer or desiqnee shall give notice, by certified mail, of said hearing to the record owner of each assessor's parcel involved in the abatement, the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust of record, and any other person known to have a legal interest in the property. Said notice shall describe the property by street number. leqal o:r ~V1UC otl.e:r description and tax assessor's parcel number sufficient to enable identification of the property and contain a statement of the amount of the proposed assessment. (Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987) . 1.30.140 Hearing on report. At the time fixed for receiving and considering the report, the city cOum..';'l manaqer shall hear the report "it or cause it to be heard bv a hearinq examiner and for the purpose of considerinq any objections of any of the owners liable to be assessed for the work of abatement or any other persons who may have a legal interest in the property. The city COUl1cil manaqer or hearinq examiner shall add to the proposed assessment an amount equal to the cost of conducting the assessment confirmation hearing. The Ceul1cil citv manaqer. or desiqnee. may also make such other modifications in the report as "it are deemed necessary, after which, Lj lesolutiol1, the report shall be confirmed. The :re..vluL';'ol1 àl1ù ¡"edified :repo"-L vf the city ãLate¡uel1t bOà:rd sholl .and be final and conclusive. (Ord 2187 §2 (part) , 1987) . 1.30.150 Cost as special assessment and lien. A certified copy of the :resoluLivl1 assessment shall be recorded by the city clerk in the Office of the County Recorder. The amounts and the costs of abatement mentioned in the report as confirmed shall constitute a special assessment against such property and are a lien on the property for the amount of the respective assessment. In addition to its rights to impose said special assessment, the city shall retain the alternative right to recover its costs by way of civil action against the owner and person in possession or control jointly and severally. (Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987). 1.30.170 Manner of collection-law applicable. 14 J'f)rc2o - --- ~ Thereafter, the amounts of the assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as city taxes are collected, and are subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary city taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of city taxes are applicable to such assessments, exc.cpt U".L If auy J:eal p:tOPé... Ly Lv which such lieh Ivv...ld attach hð... Leeh tJ:ahsfe:t:teJ vl ",vl1veyed to a bOha fiJe ..u",...mbJ:ahce:t fOl vð.lue has beeh c:teat..d ahd attaeh.cs the:teon Ì'...loJ: to the Jë>l.. vl1 which fiJ:st ihSLall¡"eht of such të>À.... would beco!"e Jelluqueht, theh the li..u whld! would Oth..l wl.... Le Ü"posed ..hð.ll uot attach to such l..al ~...opeJ:ty ahJ th.. cost of ë>LaL..weht ahd t!!e cv..L vf ehfoJ:cÜ.g aLaL..!"..ut was cOhfin"e:J, .....lating to sue!! plOpél Ly, shall be t:tð.hsf..l.....J Lo tl.Lè û.u~:::u::"",uL~d 1::011 fox: (,.ollll;.....L~vu. ~ As an alternative. the citv manaqer or hearinq examiner mav imDose an abatement lien UDon the DroDertv in accordance with section 1.41.160. (Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987). 1.30.180 Violations. It shall is unlawful for any person to interfere with the performance of the duties herein specified for the city aLaL..weht code enforcement officer or any authorized officer or employee thereof, or to refuse to allow any such officer or employee or approved private contractor, to enter upon any premises for the purpose of abating the pUblic nuisance or to interfere in any manner whatever with said officers or employees in the work of abatement. Paying a fine or serving a jail sentence shall not relieve any person from responsibility for correcting any condition which violates any provision of a code being enforced pursuant to this chapter. (Ord 2187 §2 (part), 1987). Chapter 2.26 - Board of Appeals and Advisors 2.26.030 Functions and Duties. The function and duties of the Board of Appeals and Advisors shall be as follows: A. Create a forum for city-wide discussions, research, and analysis of critical issues of building construction, including plumbing, mechanical and electrical installations. B. Where authorized by a Uniform Code adopted by the city to do so, investigate and advise as to the suitability of alternate materials, types of construction, and interpretation of said adopted Uniform Code. 15 I ~r ell --...---......------".-.-- C. Conduct public hearings and recommend to the city council, the passage of new legislation pertaining to the design and construction of buildings, D. Act as an alternative administrative appellate body. at the oction of the city manaqer. to hear appeals relating to determinations by the city manaqer. code enforcement officer, fire chief or director of building and housing, pursuant to city-adopted Uniform Codes, that conditions or circumstances are public nuisances and should be abated. Such codes include, but are not limited to the Uniform Building, Uniform Mechanical, Uniform Fire, Uniform Housing, Uniform Plumbing and National Electrical Codes as adopted from time to time by the city council. Hearings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in such Uniform Codes and particularly the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings or the crovisions of Chacters 1.30 and 1.40. The decision of the Board shall be final. (Ord 2439 §2 (part), 1991; Ord 1235 §1 (part), 1969; Ord 1002 §1 (part), 1966; prior code §2.91(b)). Chapter 5.02 - Business Licenses Generally 5.02.050 Issuance-Prerequisites and procedure generally. Upon application therefor as provided in this chapter, it shall be the duty of the director of finance office~ to prepare and issue a license pursuant to this chapter; provided however, that the director of finance officei shall not issue any such license until it has been noted on the application therefor that the location of the proposed business has been reviewed by both the fire department and the planning department and any other department deemed appropriate by the finance director, and has been approved in accordance with the provisions of the building code, the zoning ordinance and any other applicable code. The "dutv" of the director of finance and other city officers. as scecified above. shall not create a leqal obliqation. but merely means the City officer shall use reasonable efforts to ascertain that the issuance of the reauested license will not result in a business oceration which violates acclicable local laws. The acclicant for the license shall have the sole and continuinq resconsibilitv for assurinq that the business oceration comclies with the acclicable laws. includinq the crovisions of the buildinq and zoninq ordinances. Bv accrovinq and issuinq a business license. the city is not certifvinq that the crocosed business oceration will in fact comclv with acclicable laws. (Ord 2652A §1, 1996; Ord 2652 §1 (part), 1995; Ord 2537 §1 (part), 1992; Ord 2191 §1 (part), 1987; Ord 1293 §1 (part), 1970; prior code §l8.5). 16 ) g-r ;J c .u. "_"_ __~_.,.___,___.____ 5.02.060 Issuance-compliance with state and local requlations required. No license ",hall be issued 1l111es.. a filII ,:,ollipliau...", ,;,,,, had w';'LJ. all the laws of the city ah.1 ..tate, ahd wl.eJ:e laws of tl.e state J:equiJ:e a peJ:SOh to Le li':'éh",,,,.1 "U.1eL ahd by viJ:tue of its laws, the san.e shall be a cOh.1il';'vu pL",...edeht to the gJ:ahtil.g of a lÌ<:.élì",é Ll' LJ.", city, a¡.d if ah applical.t so J:eqllÜed to be licel1sed Ly th", ",lal", has [",11",.1 lv ...vmply with the laws of the state, hO li.....eucu:: ;:.lla.ll Lé 1",,,,,,,,,.1 Ll' Lhe city. No license issued under the provisions of this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the conduct or continuance of any illegal or unlawful business operated in contravention of any of the laws of the city or the state. An applicant for a business license shall have the responsibility for obtaininq any required state license. and the issuance of a license bv the city shall not relieve an applicant from obtaininq any and all other permits or licenses required bv state or local laws. (Ord 2652A §l, 1996; Ord 2652 §1 (part), 1995; Ord 2537 §1 (part), 1992; Ord 2191 §l (part), 1987; Ord 1293 §1 (part) , 1970; prior code §18.5). 5.02.080 Issuance-Void when. If any such city license has been issued through error, the same shall be void and of no force and effect. (Prior code §18.8). 5.02.090 Issuance-Approval of police chief required. Licenses applied for under section 5.02.040E shall be issued only upon written approval of the chief of police. (Ord 1801 §1 (part), 1978; prior code §18.9). 5.02.100 Denial of license-criteria-Notice required. The chief of police may deny the issuance of any license referred to in the preceding section to any applicant who in his reasonable discretion is not a fit and proper person to manage or conduct such business or occupation and/or if such business would be detrimental to the health, welfare or interest of the city. The director of finance officeJ: shall notify the applicant of the denial of the license by delivering a notice of such denial to the applicant. Delivery of such notice may be made personally or by placing such notice in an envelope, properly addressed to such applicant, with postage prepaid, sealed and deposited in the united states mail. (Prior code §18.10). 5.02.110 Denial of license-Appeal-Hearing-Notice required. Ah applicaht, IlpOh del1ial of such licehse, shall have tl.e J:ighl to 17 /8'/-2;; -.-.-.....- - ---_._---~---~-_._----- a",,,,eal to th.. ...ollllcil f:tol. "'.......1. dellial of tl.e cl.ief of 1>011..... \"'1' tl&é £~l";'ug of d lJ.oti,-c \..If appeal ð.hd stð.tihY tIn::: Y.LVL.ul\lo Llu:::.LcrvL. a....d. app",al ",l.all be fil",J will. Ll... city cle:tk withih flfL....u days afL..r lIotificatiuu of d",lIial of Ll... l.;......lIse. Tl.e G1Ly ...lerk shall :téf..... Ll... ",allle to the cOllllcil fo... h..a...';'u~, aud such appli':'àhL ",hall be lIotifiéJ iu w...';'tiI.g by the city .:.lé...l\. uf a tin,e, date allJ ",la...e of hea:tiI.g. U",uu good cause beiI.g S.huwll, the coullcil may at it", Jiscretioll set alloth..... Linte fo:t Sllch l.ea:t ÍI.y, allJ at Lhe tiJlle of 5u.:.h hea...';'ug, the coullcil ",hall hear alld detenllihe Lhe evidellce p:tesellLeJ aL "'.....:::1. appeal. The .:.u....u....;.l shall have the pOwe... aL such hea:t iI.g to Jelly Lhe ';'",suallce of such llceh",e 01: gl: allt tl.e ",am.., auJ 1 L", de.:::isioll sl.all \.".. f ';'ual. In cases where a business license or zonina permit is denied. the applicant shall have the riaht to appeal such denial of a license to the citv Manaaer. Such appeal shall be in writina and shall be delivered to the office of the citv Manaaer within ten davs of the notice of disqualification. The citv Manaaer or official desianee. shall hear and determine the appeal within sixtv davs after it is filed. The hearina shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.40. The determination of the citv Manaaer or official desianee shall be final. A fee as set forth in the Master Fee Schedule shall be imposed bv the citv Manaaer as a condition to filina anv appeal. The fee shall not be areater than the anticipated cost of processina and conductina the appeal. and if the appeal results in issuance of the license. the appeal fee shall be reimbursed to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.40. (Prior code §18.11). 5.02.180 Revocation-criteria. Every license issued under and by virtue of the provisions of this title and Section 8.20.020 shall be subject to revocation by the ,:;ollll.:.il director of finance , and such revocation shall be based upon a failure to comply with any term or terms of this code. Such revocation shall be subiect to a riaht to appeal to the citv Manaaer or desianee. usina the process set forth in section 5.02.110 above. Following such revocation, no new license shall be issued for one year from the effective date of revocation. If, subsequent to revocation, the director of finance finds that the basis for the revocation has been corrected or abated, the applicant may be granted a license if at least ninety (90) have elapsed since the effective date of the revocation. 5.02.230 Enforcement and inspection duly. All police officers, firefighters, fire marshals, business license enforcement officers, code enforcement officers, and designees of the director of finance of the city shall have and exercise the powe... auJ J....Ly to enter free of charge for inspection of licenses, at any time during regular business hours, any place of business 18 JJY/~i _._,. .. _. ..'m.'~ ~___,_..___ for which a license is required by this chapter, and to demand the exhibition of such license for the current term by any person engaged or employed in the transaction of such business, all in accord with the right-of-entry provisions at section 1.16.010 of this code and if such person shall then and there fail to exhibit such license, such person shall then be liable to the penalty provided for a violation of this chapter. All police officers, firefighters, and fire marshals shall have and exercise the power ahd .1uL.r to cause complaints to be filed in a court of competent jurisdiction against all persons violating any of the licensing provisions of this chapter. All pOlice off';'",eL", of thè ",';'L.r shall have aud exerc.i"e Lhe power ahd duty to wake arrest" fVL violatiou" vi this chapLeL. (Ord 2537 §l (part), 1992; Ord 2408 §l (part), 1990; prior code §18.38) . Chapter 5.04 - License Taxes Generally 5.04.065 Revocation of license-Hotice required-Hearing. The director of finance shall deliver a notice in writing either personally or by mail to the person or business holding such license, stating that he or she is recolLllLleh.1';'ug to the ....vllhCil proposina the revocation of h±s the license, and a brief summary of the reasons therefor. Such notice shall cOhtail. Lhe date, tilLle ahd place wheh èad. such rec.oill1ueudatioh sl.all J..,e ILlade to Lhe couhcil. At sucl. tLLle aJ1d plac.e a" "tated ih the uotice the l.;.....ehsee ILlay appear ahd J..,e heaLd by the c.ou.ucil. 111 the eveht that the licehsee à~pears ahd COl1te"L" the revoc.aLlvh, the couhcil way set a tiwe ahd ~la....e for hearihg vi such recoiLuLlehdatioh for "u.ch revocativu. At suc.h L';'.LIe ahd plac.e a" "et by the c.vu.ucil, hearil.~ shall be ha.1. TI.e couu.....;.l shall rule upvu such revocaL';'vu al1d ILlay reyvke the salLie ahd it" .1ecisioh shall conform to Chapter 1.40 reaardina the riaht to a hearina before the revocation mav be made final. (Ord 2537 §l (part), 1992; Ord 2408 §l (part), 1990; prior code §18.38). Chapter 5.14 - Art Figures studios 5.14.030 Permit-Required for operation-Fees-Taxes-Renewal. A. Each application for operating a studio shall be accompanied by the Required Fee(s) to defray the cost of an investigation. The fee is not refundable whether a permit is granted or denied. No person shall operate a studio without first paying a business license tax. as presehtly .1e,,';'ghated, VL as may ';'U the future J..,e alLleu.1e.1, ih tl.e Ma"LeL Tax 3c.hè.1u.le, 3e.:.livu 5.14.030. 19 ,.--- ) 5['" ;L.-S . - - -.-.-.-.,'..- -.----------...----'" -- .' ... -----... B. No person shall operate a studio without paying a renewal permit tax. as pl.e",e..LI)' desigllateJ., ox aô maY ill Ll,e f...L.....e J.,.: a1L,ellded, ill the Mastex Tax Sc.heJ.ule, S",,,Lioll 5.14.030. 5.14.040 Permit-Issuance prerequisites. A. No studio permit shall be issued except upon a finding by the chief of police. based ucon information crovided bv the acclicant. that the studio is proposed to be operated for the purpose of providing facilities for use by persons pursuing a course of study, including the artistic photographic portrayal of the nude human form, and by persons who engage in artistic photographic portrayal as a means of livelihood. B. No studio permit shall be issued to any person under eighteen years of age, nor to a corporation, any of whose officers are under eighteen years of age. c. A No studio permit shall be issu.:J. denied upon a finding that the applicant is not of good moral character. Anyone convicted of a morals offense shall be deemed not to be of good moral character for the purposes of this section. (Ord 1402 §1 (part), 1972; prior code §5.604). 5.14.090 Permit-Grounds tor suspension or revocation. The chief of police shall suspend or revoke a studio permit upon a finding of anyone of the following causes: A. That the studio is not being operated exclusivelv for the purpose of providing facilities for use by persons pursuing a course of study, including the artistic portrayal of the nude human form, and by persons who engage in artistic portrayal as a means of livelihood; B. That the permittee is not of good moral character. Anyone convicted of a morals offense shall be deemed not to be of good moral character for the purposes of this section; C. That payment is made by or charges or fees collected from any spectators or observers, who may be in attendance during modeling sessions, except that such payment or charges or fees shall not be deemed to include payments made by legitimate students of the operator of an art figure studio: D. That alcoholic beverages have been sold, consumed or permitted upon the premises of a studio with the knowledge of the permittee: E. That the permittee has employed a model or permitted a model to be employed in or about such studio, either with or without 20 J g><;¿~ ~.. -- ..-. _.__.~.._._-_._~- salary, without requiring such model to obtain a permit from the chief of pOlice authorizing such employment. (Ord 1402 §l (part), 1972; prior code §5.609). 5.14.100 permit-Appeal following suspension, revocation or denial. All denials, suspensions or revocations of studio permits and studio employee permits shall be subject to review by the city coul1cil manaqer. or the manaqer I s official desiqnee. who shall conduct a hearinq and render a decision based upon specific findinqs within 60 days after a written request for such hearinq is received. (Ord 1402 §1 (part), 1972; prior code §5.610). Chapter 5.18 -Billiards and Pool Halls 5.18.020 Pool and billiard halls-Lioense required-Tax. Every person conducting, managing, or carrying on the business of a pool hall or billiard hall, or maintaining any premises wherein pool or billiard tables or pinball machines are maintained for the amusement of the public, shall pay a license tax as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended, in the Master Tax Fee Schedule, sectiol1 ~.18.020.. Coin operated machines available for use in such business establishment shall be licensed in accordance with sections 5.60.010 and 5.61.010. (Ord 2408 §1 (part), 1990; Ord 1433 §1, 1972; prior code §18.66). 5.18.090 Pool and billiard halls-Lioense required. It is unlawful for any person to manage, operate or conduct any poolroom or billiard room in the city without first obtaining a license from the city couln...a manaqer or desiqnee authorizing such person to keep, maintain and conduct a poolroom or billiard room. (Prior code §24.8). 5.18.100 Pool and billiard halls-Petition for lioense required-Contents. Every applicant for a billiard room or poolroom license shall file a petition with the city coul1cil manaqer or desiqnee setting forth his name and place of residence, how long he has resided in the city, the building wherein he desires to conduct such billiard room or poolroom, and the number of pool or billiard tables, or both, which he desires to operate. (Prior code §24.9). Chapter 5.26 - Publio Danoes 5.26.060 Lioense-Fire hazard investigation required. The fire chief shall conduct or cause to be conducted an 21 J1f~;;¿7 _._...~_..-_._-"-_._.._.._-- investigation of the premises identified in the application for compliance with applicable fire code provisions, and report findings to the chief of police al'y fire hazards whl....h ",';'",hL cÙ ise if such applicatioh is grahted. Th", fl.d" chief shall subnlit I.is report as to whether ",ûd, !-,lellli",es cah safely be used without ahY l1ac.a.LJ. cu.":"1::Þ~uy Lc.....a.u.1::ÞC '-If £":'.1.11; Lo tIle cllief of police. 111 Lhc: eyeht that the fire chief's report ihdi..."L",,,, Ll,,,L Ll,é j,oren,ises may hot safely be uSêd for dahcihg bc'-'au.~c of the fire hazard, hO fulth",l. actioh shall be takêh uhtil the cOhdiL';'vu", cleatil,g the ha.z;aLJ. l.lave LCCll ,-,Ol.J:::é<:..teJ.. (Ord 1170 §l (part) , 1969; prior code §ll. 6) . 5.26.070 License-Issuance-Appeal and public hearing of disallowed license. The director of finance officer shall, after receipt of the recommendation of the chief of police, allow or disallow the license applied for, and if said recommendation is favorable, the director of finance officer shall forthwith issue the license upon the payment of the license fee hereinafter provided. In the event that the chief of police shall present an adverse recommendation for consideration by the director of finance officer, and said license shall be disallowed, the applicant may appeal said recommendation to the city couhcil manaqer or desiqnee within ten days of receipt of written notice by the director of finance officer that the application for said license has been disallowed. upon receipt of said appeal and paYment of fee as set forth in the Master Fee Schedule, the city ~lerk manaqer or desiqnee shall set the appeal for public hearing. At the hearinq. the citv manaqer or the manaqer's official desiqnee shall take testimonv and determine whether the applicant meets all the requirements of this Chapter. and qrant or denv the license on that basis. The decision shall be final. ih aCCOL.}"U"'''' with SeGtioh 6060 ",L "''''q. vf the Goverhmeht Code of Ll,,,, ",tate of Califorhia. (Ord 1170 §l (part) , 1969; prior code §ll. 7) . 5.26.120 License-suspension or revocation authorized when-Procedure. The chief of police of the city is hereby authorized temporarily to suspend any license issued under this chapter, in the event that any public dance licensed thereby is being conducted in violation of any law, or if there is such conduct being permitted therein which is offensive to morals or decency or which has a tendency to provoke a breach of the peace. within five days of such temporary suspension the chief of police shall file written charges with the city clerk manaqer. within twenty days of the filing of such charges, the city ...vl1hGil manaqer shall cause an investigation to be made thereof and shall thereupon have power to either revoke the suspension order or to suspend the license for such further period of time as it may deem proper, or to revoke and annul such license. For any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or for 22 J~/d-g-- any cause based on public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, the city ........"'Hcil manaaer may at any time suspend or revoke any license issued under the terms of this chapter. (Prior code §11.13). 5.26.230 Density requirement of premises location. In the interests of protecting the public and preserving the peace of the community, no permit shall be issued under the provisions of this chapter for any premises located within three hundred feet or less of premises for which a permit has been previously secured according to the provisions of this chapter; provided however, the city (..vuucil manaaer may, upon application and for good cause, waive said restriction. (Ord 1105 §2, 1968; prior code §11.27) 5.26.290 Youth dances-Taxes for permits-Refunds. The taxes for permits issued under this chapter shall be payable to the police department in advance, and for the several classes of permits provided in this chapter, the taxes shall be as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended~, ill Lhè Haste); Fcc Schedule, sectioh 5.26.290. In the event that the application is denied or the permit is revoked, no part of the applicable tax shall be refunded. (Ord 2408 §1 (part), 1990; Ord 1672 §2 (part), 1976). 5.26.300 Youth dances-Grounds for suspension or revocation of permit. Any permit may be revoked or suspended by the chief of police upon any of the following grounds: A. The misrepresentation of a material fact in the application for a permit by an applicant or by the holder of a permit; B. The violation of any provision of this chapter by the holder of a permit; c. When the continuance of a permit would. based upon facts and evidence presented to. or aathered bY. the chief of police be. contrary to the public health, safety, welfare, peace or morals. (Ord 1672 §2 (part), 1976). Chapter 5.32 - Garaqe Sales 5.32.060 Penal tv for violations. Anv violation of this chapter shall constitute an infraction. and the administrative citation provisions contained in chapter 1.41 of this code shall be applicable. 23 /g-~c2l " .. ------ ~~··_._u_·,,_ .- . -_._--------- Chapter 5.35 - Bathhouses 5.35.123 Denial, Suspension or Revocation of License. Any license issued pursuant to this chapter may be suspended or revoked by the police chief on proof of violation by the permittee of any provisions of state law, this chapter, city ordinances or any rule or regulation adopted and approved pursuant to Section 5.35.121, or in any case where the police chief, on the advice of the health officer, determines the bathhouse is being managed, conducted, or maintained without regard for the public health, or the health of patrons or customers, or without due regard to proper sanitation or hygiene. Where a license is denied or a license renewal is denied, or where a license is suspended or revoked by the police chief, such denial, suspension, or revocation may be appealed by the license applicant or licensee in accordance with the provisions of sectiol>oI 5.36.240 th:tougl, 5.36.326. II> the event Soll"l, ~.Lvv.i.",ioI>S a:te Iltil.i.",ed, the police chief .i.", autho:riz;eJ Lv take Lhe actiol>s the:r",.i... .Lequi:red o:r ð.llthvl..i.",ed of the city li,ahage:r ChaDter 1.40. (Ord 2408 §1 (part), 1990; Ord 2256 §1 (part), 1988). Chapter 5.36 - Massage Parlors 5.36.130 License or permit-Issuance prerequisites-Appeal of denial- Transferability. A. Any applicant for a permit pursuant to these provisions shall present to the police department the application containing the aforementioned and described information. The chief of police shall have a reasonable time in which to investigate the application and the background of the applicant. Based on such investigation, the chief of police, or his representative, shall render a recommendation as to the approval or denial of the permit to the city manager or desianee. B. The department of building and housing, the fire department and the county health officer shall inspect the premises proposed to be devoted to the massage establishment and shall make separate recommendations to the city manager or desianee concerning compliance with the foregoing provisions. C. The city manager, or his designee, after receiving the aforementioned and described recommendations, shall grant a permit to the establishment if all requirements for a massage establishment described herein are met, and shall issue a permit to all persons who have applied to perform massage services unless it appears that any such person has deliberately falsified the application or unless it appears that the record of any such person reveals a conviction of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude. The city manager Qr desianee may recommend to the city council that an individual 24 ),?"3Cl -------------- business establishment shall be sUbject to a public hearing and council approval, when in his judgment any such business establishment has an effect upon the public health, safety or welfare of the community. D. Any person denied a permit by the city manager or his designee pursuant to these provisions may shall be notified pursuant to Chapter 1. 4 0 reaardina an appeal L... the c;i ty w...ul1cil ill wJ:itil1g, statil1g LeaSOI1S why the permit should be granted. The c;it:y w...ul1c;il ¡lib)' YLal1t 01 .1'=11)' the peulliL al1d suel> decision pursuant to Chapter 1. 40 shall be final upon the applicant. Also, the city council may elect on its own motion to review any determination of the city manager granting or denying a permit. in which case. that decision shall then constitute the exhaustion of administrative remedv. E. All permits issued hereunder are nontransferable; provided however, a change of location of a massage establishment may be permitted pursuant to the provisions herein. 5.36.240 License or permit-suspension, revocation or denial-Public hearing requIred. Before denying, suspending or revoking a license or permit issued pursuant to this chapter, the city manager shall caÌÌ offer the applicant or permittee a hearing as provided in this chapter 1.40. (Ord 1312 §2 (part), 1970; prior code §9.53). Chapter 5.38 - Pawnbrokers, Secondhand and Junk store Dealers 5.38.210 License-Revocation or suspension when. In the event that any person holding a license authorizing him to engage in, conduct, manage or carryon the business of a pawnbroker or secondhand dealer, or any agent or employee of any such person violates or causes or permits to be violated any of the provisions of this chapter, or has been convicted of any crime involving stolen property, the chief of police shall, in addition to the other penalties provided by this chapter, forthwith suspend the business license or licenses and cause said business to be immediately closed. The chief of pOlice shall notify the license holder of the suspension of said license by delivering a notice of such suspension to the license holder or his agent or employee. Delivery of such notice may be made personally or by placing such notice in an envelope properly addressed to such license holder with postage prepaid, sealed and deposited in the united states mail. A licensee, upon suspension of such license, shall have the right to appeal to the city w...ul1cil manaaer from such order of suspension by the chief of police by the filing of a notice of appeal. pavina appropriate appeal fees as set forth in the Master 25 J!š- ;5 I .-- ....-..--..,....---- Fee Schedule and stating the grounds therefor. Such appeal shall be filed with the city '-1.....A. manaqer within fifL..ell ten days after notification of suspension. The citv manaqer shall utilize the provisions of Chapter 1.40 reqardinq notice. appeal and hearinq qoverninq the exhaustion of administrative remedy for the revocation or suspension of permits. (Ord 1931 §l (part), 1981: Ord 1761 §1 (part), 1977: Ord 1008 §2 (part), 1966: prior code §17.18(A)). 5.38.220 License-Public hearing on suspension/revocation. The city cleJ:k manaqer shall refer the notice of appeal to Lhe city ...uullcil for hearing in accordance with Chapter 1.40, and the licensee shall be notified in writing by the (,.iL~ cleJ:k of the time, place and date of hearing, which shall be not more less than ten days from the filing of the notice of appeal. UpOll good ...aUSe beÍ1.", Sl.OWh, Lhe cOull....;.l may at ';'L", discJ:eLiuu, set ð.uutheJ: tilu.. fOJ: su"h heaJ:illg 0... cOlltillu.. ",uch heaJ:il1y, aud at tl... LiI"e of ",uch heaJ: ill'" shall heaJ: elf ideln::e pJ:e",..uLed at sud. appeal. The coullcil shall havê Lhe POWê.l. aL such hêarÍ1.g to sU6",elld such licellsê fo... a J:easollaLle peJ:ioJ uf time OJ: .....vooke su"h l';'cellse. Th.. suspell",';'ul1 OJ: J:e~o(,.aL';'oll of su....!. licellse ",hall be solel~ withill tl... JiscJ:et';'uu of the \,ouuucil ailJ ",I.all be fii1ð.l. If the license or licenses of any person licensed by this chapter is so revoked, no license shall be granted to such person to conduct or carry on such business within six months after such revocation. During the period of suspension or revocation, the chief of police shall sequester any pledged or pawned goods and hold said goods at the police station in the city or other secured location, and shall post an appropriate notice at the place of business that such goods may be reclaimed at the police station. (Ord 1761 §1 (part), 1977: Ord 1008 §2 (part), 1966: prior code §17.18(B)). Chapter 5.44 - Race Tracks 5.44.020 Operation deemed nuisance-Abatement. Any violation of the provisions of section 5.44.010 is declared to be a public nuisance, and upon order of the city couilcil manaqer or official desiqnee, the city attorney ",hall mav immediately initiate proceedings necessary for the abatement or enjoinment of such violation in the manner provided by law. (Prior code §20.42). Amend Chapter 5.54 - Taxicabs - as follows: 5.54.120 Certificate-Grounds for suspension or revocation. A. Certificates may be suspended or revoked by the police chief: 26 )g--Jd- 1. The owner fails to operate the taxicab or taxicabs in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; 2. The taxicab or taxicabs are operated at a rate of fare other than that which the certified Operator shall have on file with the police chief. B. The city couhcil manaqer or police chief may suspend or revoke a certificate where it fi¡...h. the owner's past record involved violations of city, state or federal law or endangered the public safety. (Ord 2408 §l (part), 1990; Ord 2003 §2 (part), 1982) 5.54.290 Appeals to olly oounoil. Any actions taken by the police chief under this chapter are appealable to the city couh.:.il manaqer pursuant to Chapter 1. 40. An SUch appeal to the city Manaqer must shall be filed with the city cle~k manaqer and appropriate appeal fees paid within ten days of the action of the police chief. (Ord 2408 §l (part) , 1990; Ord 2003 §2 (part), 1982) . Chapter 5.58 -Tow Trucks 5.58.090 License suspension-Notice required-Appeal-Public hearing. In the event that a licensee under this section shall violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of this chapter, the police chief may suspend such license and shall notify the licensee of such suspension by written notice stating the cause and reason for such suspension. Appeal may be made by the a~~licaht to tl". city cvuh.:.ll, ahd thè .1"'....,;,..iOl. by tI.c couhcil, afte.L <1 ~ùblic hea.Ll"y, shall J..e f';'''<1l to the city Manaqer pursuant to Chapter 1. 40. (Ord 2408 §l (part), 1990; Ord 2003 §3 (part), 1982; Ord 1416 §l (part) , 1972; prior code §18.304(F)) Chapter 8.04 - Food Handling Generally 8.04.040 Violation deemed nuisance-Abatement authority. Any establishment or activity which is found by the health officer to be unsanitary or a menace to the public health or which is in violation of this chapter or of the California Restaurant Act is declared to be a public nuisance. The health officer is authorized and empowered to take such action as is necessary to preserve or protect the public health or safety; the health officer is authorized and empowered to summarily abate such nuisance; otherwise, the health officer shall request tl.e .:.iLy cvuhcil Lo ihst~uct the city attorney to seek a court order abating the nuisance. or reauest the city manaqer to abate pursuant to Chapter 1.30. Nothing contained in this code shall be deemed to limit the right and duty of the health officer to take immediate action in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare. 27 J?f/33 .-. -.--.----.--- The remedies authorized by this section are not exclusive, but are cumulative to other remedies provided by law. (Ord 855 §2 (part), 1963; prior code §15.4). Chapter 8.08 - Food Handlers' Permits 8.08.040 Appeal from denial or revocation. A person aggrieved by the denial to him of a permit or by the revocation of a permit pursuant to Section 8.08.050 may appeal from such denial to the city couhcil manaqer in the manner set forth in sectioh 8.ð8.260 Chapter 1.40. (Ord 855 §2 (part), 1963; prior code §l5.9). Chapter 8.32 - Weed Abatement 8.32.020 Weeds or rubbish-serving of notice to remove-Contents. The notice required by the preceding section shall be given by posting in a conspicuous place upon the property, land or lot located in the city upon which, or upon the street, parkway or sidewalk in front of which such weeds, rubbish or other material may be, a notice headed: "Notice to Clean Premises" in letters not less than one inch in lehgth heiqht, and which shall be in legible characters, and which directs the removal of the weeds, rubbish or other material, as the case may be, and refers to this chapter for further particulars. Personal service of a notice similar in substance upon the owner, occupant or agent in charge of such property, land or lot, shall dispense with the posting of the notice herein provided for. 8.32.030 Weeds or rubbish-Notice to remove-Appeal procedure. within five ten days from the date of posting of such notice, or in case of personal service of notice, within five ten days from the date of such personal service thereof, the owner of or any person interested in such property, land or lot affected by such notice may appeal to the \",0 v U,ll\..i';'1 city manaqer pursuant to Chapter 1.40 from the requirements thereof. S......h appeal shall Le ill w.Liti1.g al.,l shall Lc riled with tI.e city "I cd... At the hext 1:egûlar meetihg o[ the <:,oUl1cil, ';'L shall p1:oceeJ tv hca.L ahd pass UpOI1 "".......1. appeal, ahd the Jé,-iCÞlvH vf the coul1cil tlJ.c.L ,:::aA.J:oI0h sl.all Le r':"Hal ahd cOhclusi';/e. (Prior code §14.40). 8.32.040 Weeds or rubbish-OWner or occupant duty to remove-Time limi t. It shall be the duty of the owner, the agent of the owner or the person in possession of any lot in the city within ten days from 28 /2'-3{ -_..._--..'"-,-.. the date of posting of the notice provided for in section 8.32.010 or in case a personal notice is given, within ten days from the date of such personal service thereof, or in case of an appeal to the coull.:;il citv manaqer within ten days from the determination thereof, unless the same is sustained, to clean and remove therefrom and from the street, sidewalk or parkway in front of such property, all noxious weeds or vegetation, except such as are cultivated and grown by such owner, agent or person in possession of such property for ornamental purposes, or for food for man or beast, or for fuel, and all dead trees, tin cans, refuse and waste material of all kinds which may endanger or injure neighboring property, or be detrimental to the health and welfare of the residents of the vicinity, or such rubbish, weeds, noxious vegetation or any other material as may be deemed a fire hazard, and as such endanger the city, and the removal of all such weeds and vegetation, or other materials of all kinds hereinabove specified shall be completed within ten days after receiving such notice, as hereinabove provided for in this chapter, or in case of appeal to the couh,-~l citv manaqer, within ten days after the determination thereof, unless the same shall be sustained. (Prior code §14.4l). 8.32.070 Assessment of charges-Appeal of determination. The determination of such charges by the fire chief as to the amount so assessed may be appealed to the c..vuucil ci tv manaqer Dursuant to ChaDter 1.40. If, upon appeal, the requirements of the original notice are modified or the amount so assessed by the fire chief is modified, the fire chief, in removing, or causing to be removed such articles, rubbish, weeds, vegetation or other materials, or in making such assessment as hereinabove provided for, shall be governed by the determination of the coull<..il so made. (Ord 1588 §l (part), 1974; Ord 1509 §l (part Chapter 9.12 - Gambling 9.12.210 Bingo-Application denial, license suspension and/or revocation. A. The chief of police may deny an application for a bingo license, or suspend or revoke a license, if he finds the applicant or licensee or any agent or representative thereof has: 1- Knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of a material fact in the application or in any record or report required to be filed under this chapter, or 2. Violated any of the provisions of this chapter. B. If after investigation the chief of police determines that a 29 ------ J2f/33 ^'..m________ bingo license should be suspended or revoked, or an application for such license denied, he shall prepare a notice of suspension, revocation or denial of application, setting forth the reasons for such suspension, revocation or denial of application. Such notice shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant's last address provided in the application or shall be personally delivered. Any person who has had an application for a bingo license denied by the chief of police, or who has had a bingo license suspended or revoked by the chief of police, may appeal the chief of pOlice's decision in the manner provided in this chapter 1.40 to the citv manaqer. (Ord 1695 §2 (part), 1976). 9.12.300 Casino Parties-Denial or Revocation of License. If the license is denied or revoked, the chief of police shall prepare a notice setting forth the reasons for such denial or revocation. Such notice shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant's address provided in the application or be personally delivered. Any person who has had an application for a casino party license denied or revoked by the chief of police may appeal the decision of the chief of police to the city couhGil manaqer pursuant to Chapter 1.40. (Ord 2253 §1 (part), 1988). Chapter 9.13 - Live Entertainment Licensing and Regulations 9.13.090 Allowance or denial of application and appeal. A. The chief of police shall issue, conditionally issue, or deny the license for which application is made. The chief of police shall have the power to deny any application if it shall appear that the applicant, or the person to have direct management of the premises, is not a suitable or proper person to carry on the business for which the license is sought, or if the premises proposed to be used in the conduct of the business to be licensed shall be deemed not to be a suitable or proper place therefor, or if the health, welfare or public morals of the community warrant such denial. The chief of police may issue the license upon such conditions as he determines would eliminate the situations which would otherwise result in denial of the license. Otherwise, the chief of police shall issue the license. The applicant may appeal from the denial of license, or from the issuance of a license upon conditions, in the manner provided for herein. B. Any person aggrieved by the denial of a license or by the issuance of a license upon conditions may appeal to the city couhcil. Such appeal ",hall, witl.ih five days ail",.. hotiGe vf dehial of a licehse or issuahGe of a licehse UpOh c;ohditioh, 30 j2?'--3¿, - __u,____.._" ._. .>_._..___._.__..___ be filed with the Gity Gle1k, who shall set the matte1 for héa.L ":"119 ai:l' ;::oOOlJ. Qõ:t p:ta<..Ll."""al 411.\1. uvti£y L:r wal.l the ,-,1...':"1:::£ of' pol":""",,=, 41.1\.1 Ll...ê ap1-'ll.,-"aht V.L l";'celu:::n:::ç: vI' the Ll.w.c ahd 1Jla......c ~et f 01 ..aid 1...a1 iI.q manaqer pursuant to Chapter 1. 40. Any interested person may appear and present evidence at the public hearing. If the appeal is from the denial of a license or from the issuance of a license upon conditions, the city cOI:1I"....;.l manaqer or desiqnee may deny the issuance of the license, issue the license, or issue the license subject to specified conditions if it determines that by the imposition of such conditions reasonable objections of the chief of police would be eliminated. The action of the city GOI:H......;.l manaqer or desiqnee on such appeal shall be final. (Ord 2253 §l (part), 1988). 9.13.120 suspension or revocation. In addition to the causes for denial of a license as set forth herein, any license issued under this chapter may be revoked or suspended at any time after a hearing, notice of which has been given to the licensee more than ten days prior to said hearing, when the city c.'".........;.l manaqer or desiqnee finds: A. The conduct of the establishment is contrary to the public interest, or does not comport with the public welfare; or B. The establishment has been operated in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner; or C. Any person listed in the license application has violated, or permitted any violation, or has been convicted of a violation of law in the course, conduct or operation of such business. A conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction shall be sufficient to justify a finding under this section, excepting convictions for misdemeanor traffic violations. (Ord 1833 §l (part), 1978). 9.13.130 Convictions. Upon receipt of a certified copy of a judgment of conviction of a licensee under this chapter of any violation of any provision of this chapter, the chief of police may immediately suspend the license or licenses of such convicted licensee, remove such license or licenses from the premises and deliver the suspended license or licenses to the city cOUhGil manaqer for safekeeping pending a hearing pursuant to Chapter 1.40. If a hearinq is reauested. tThe couhGil citv manaqer or desiqnee shall immediately thereafter set a date for a puJ..,l';'c hearing no later than tw.."ty five ten days after the date of suspension. At said hearing it shall be determined whether the license or licenses should be suspended further, modified, conditioned or revoked. The COllhC.a citv manaqer or desiqnee shall notify the licensee in writing of the 31 /2-/:5 ? -_._._~~..._..__._--~, ---_..~_._.._- decision. which will then constitute the exhaustion of administrative remedv cause fo:t S...."'~eu"'.;.uu ab.l the dale au.l ~lð.ce of the lu!:ð.:t i1.g 110 less thall leu .lay'" Lefo:te the date ",el fo:t such hea:tillg. (Ord 1833 §l (part), 1978). 9.13.140 Noise abatement. Whenever after a hearing, notice of which must be given ten days prior thereto, it shall be determined that noise from any establishment licensed under this chapter interferes with the right of persons dwelling in the vicinity of such establishment to the peaceful and quiet use and enj oyment of their property, the cu....m..il citv manaqer may require that the premises be soundproofed in a manner that iu tl.e j udgluel.t of lhe coullcil will Le effective to eliminate the noise or reduce it to a reasonable level. In taking any action under this section, the co...........;.l citv manaqer must balance all of the interests of the respective parties, as well as the hardship which will result from any order. If the ""u....m...;.l citv manaqer finds that the noise complained of is of a minimum or inconsequential degree, no action shall be taken under this section. If a licensee fails within a reasonable time, and after having been ordered to do so pursuant to this section, to take such steps as were ordered to abate any noise, his license shall be suspended after a second hearing, ten days' notice of which must be given, until such time as he complies with the order. The provisions of Chapter 1.40 shall be utilized for the appeal. (Ord 1833 §l (part), 1978). Chapter 9.18 -Rental of Housing for Drug Activity 9.18.050 Declaration of Public Nuisance. In addition to any other enforcement action, the citv manaqer. or city attorney may declare an alleged violation of section 9.18.020 or the activities described therein to constitute a public nuisance and may commence abatement of the conditions giving rise thereto in accordance with Health and safety Code section 11570 or Chapter 1.30 of this Code. (Ord 2337 §l (part), 1989). Chapter 10.80- Abandoned Vehicles 10.80.010 Purpose and intent of provisions-vehicle declared nuisance when. The purpose and intent of the Council in adopting sections 10.80.010 through 10.80.120 is to establish procedures in ð.C,,"uL.lallce with lhe p:toltisiolls of pursuant to sectionª 22660 to 22664 of the California Vehicle Code for the abatement, removal and disluautli1.o; disposal. as public nuisances, of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or vehicle parts the:teof from private ~LUpe:tty or public property, not including highways, and the recovery of the cost of administration and removal thereof pursuant to the provisions of section 38773.5 of the Government 32 /%/3Y ..- -. ------_._-----,--- Code of the state of California. I1.1 additioh to à,hJ iu a'-',-"VLJ.a.U'-''= with tl.", .1",L",J:juihatioh ,,,0..1,,, a..d the auth01ity 91.anLe.1 L.r Ll.", "LaL", vf Calif 01..';'0. .....de1 sectiv.. 22660 of the Vehic:.le Cv.1", vf Ll.", "Lð.L", of Cal';'f01hia to l. t::luove abahdohe.1, wl",ck",.1, .1';'"Jual,tled 01 ihoþelat';'ve vehicles 01 pð.l.L" the1eof as public huisahc.",ô, Lhe ,,';' L.r lllakes th", fvllowihg fiI..1ih",,, 0....1 .1",,,la1atiohs. The a<..c....wulatioh ahd SlO.Layc of abahdohêd, w1eck",.1, dislnahtled 01 ihVi''''Latill'e vel.icles 01 palL" tl''''Leof Oh p1ivate V.L i'...Llic p10pe1ty hot ih(..luJ.~.uy highways is fOUhd to c1eaL.: 0. cOhditioh tehdiI.g to 1':.1..."", Ll.e value of lAlvaLe i'LOperty, to plOl"vL", LI';'",ht ahd dete1i01atioh, to l..v';'L", pluhde1iI.g, to <"ì..caLc r~.Le haza1ds, to cOhstitute à.. aLLLactive I1UiSahGe cleatiI.g a. 11a.~a..L d to tl.e health 0....1 "afety of ¡uih01 s, to cleate 0. haJ:boJ:age fo:t l.vJ.cuLo ahd ihsects ah.1 to L", lujuLlous to the heal tl., safety ah.1 géhc.L.a.l w",lfaJ:e. The:tefo:te, tl.e ~l. ';¡:;:n::U\".1; . vf a.lI abahdohêd, wlec:.k",.1, J. ~ CIIJ.UQ,ll LIed o:t lhope:tatlve vehic:..l", V.L paJ:ts theJ:eof, 01.1. p:tivate VOL public plOj,t.:l. L.r uot ihCludihg highways, ':À,,"'j,tL as exp:tessly lléJ::èiuafLc.L pern.i t ted, is declale.1 tv cOhstitute a puLlic:.. .....';'"0.,,,,'" which may be abated as such iI. ac:.c:.ol..1ð......'" w';'tl. the pJ:ovisiohs of sectiolls 10.80.010 thJ:ough 10.86.126. (Ord 2668 §1 (part), 1996; Ord 1338 §1 (part) , 1971; prior code §19.23(1). 10.80.030 Exemptions from applicability-Scope. The provisions of sections 10.80.010 through 10.80.120 shall not apply to: A. A vehicle, or parts thereof, which is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner, or otherwise stored in a lawful manner behind a solid fence, gate or wall not less than six feet in height, and where it is not readily visible from the street or other public or private property; or B. A vehicle, or parts thereof, which is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler, licensed vehicle dealer, a junkvard d",al"'L, or when such storage or parking is necessary to the operation of a lawfully conducted business or commercial enterprise. This exceDtion shall not. however. Nothihg ih this sectioh shall authorize the maintenance of a public or private nuisance as defined under the provisions of law and elsewhere in the Code Chapter 10 of Dill'isioh 11 of th", Vehicle Code of the state of Califo:thia, aud sectiohS 10.80.010 through 10.80.120. (Ord 2668 §1 (part), 1996; Ord 1338 §1 (part), 1971; prior code §19.23(3). 33 / ¿f'~ C; -_._~ -"....-...- ~~._. ._-,-~~_._._,~- ,..._, .-.-.---.------ 10.80.050 Enforcement authority-Right of entry tor examination. Exc..~L as oth"1:~i.... provided h..l...';'", the p:ro'lisiolì" vf sectiohs 10.80.010 tl.xough 10.80.120 sl.all be admini..L..red ahd ehfol......J Ll' the city aLðt...u.."L office:r. Ih the .."fv.L.....w..l.t of the sectivll.. ...';'Led abo'le, suc.h vff';'ce:r ahd his deputi.... .""'l' ehte:r UpOh p:rivðt.. v:r public p:rope:rty Lv exau,Ü.e a 'Iehicle 01. ~"'.L Ls the:reof, o:r obtaih ilÌfu.L."",tioh as to the iJ.."L';'Ll' vf a 'Iehicle (ðllJ Lv 1."wvv.. V.L cause the 1:.01"0\,,,,1 vf '" vEohicle o:r pa:rts th...L..vf) Jecla:rEod to Le à "u';'..",ilce pu:rsuaht to the .......L,;,OhS cited abo'le, ill "'......oId with :r ight vf .."L.Ll' p:rovisiohs set fol. th ,;,,, ..ectioh 1.16. 010 vf this code. provisions of this chapter shall be administered bv reqularlv salaried full-time emplovees of the citv except that the removal of vehicles from property may be bv any other dulY authorized person. Anv such authorized person may enter upon private property for the purposes specified in this section to examine a vehicle. and remove or cause to be removed the vehicle declared to be a nuisance pursuant to this chapter. (Ord 2668 §l, 1996; Ord 1338 §l (part), 1971; prior code §19.2305). 10.80.060 Abatement-Costs-Procedure generally - Rotices required - Form. Anv vehicle located on property other than a hiqhwav may be removed as a public nuisance and disposed of in accordance with the followinq procedures: A. ¡¡heh the ciLl' couhcil has cOht:racteJ IN';'LI. or g:rahted a f:rahchise to ahY f>e.L"v" V.L pe:rsohs, such pel...v" V.L ~erSOhS shall Le alltl.o.L,;,....J Lo ehte:r IlpOh p:rivaL.. ~:rope:rty o:r public. ~.Lv~".LLl', ih acco:rd with :right vf ..hL.Ll' p:ro'lisions ....to fU.LLI. Ü. sect';'v" 1.16.010 of this code, to l.emO'le o:r cause the :reI"oval of a vehic.l.. V.L ~"'.L L.. tl.e:reof dec.lal...J Lv Le a Iluisal..::e j,Ju1:su",,,l Lv ....ctiohs 10.80.010 th1.vuyl. 10.80.120. Not less than ten (10) days prior to any removal or disposal of a vehicle. a notice of intention to abate and remove the vehicle as a public nuisance shall be issued unless the property owner and the owner of the vehicle have siqned releases authorizinq removal and wavinq further interest in the vehicle. The notice shall contain a statement of the hearinq riqhts of the owner of the vehicle and of the owner of the property on which the vehicle is located. The statement shall include notice to the property owner that he may appear in person at a hearinq or may submit a sworn statement denvinq responsibility for the presence of the vehicle on the land. with his reason for such denial. in lieu of appearinq. The notice of intention to abate shall be mailed. bv reqistered or certified mail. to the owner of the land as shown on the last eaualized assessment roll and to the last reqistered and leqal 34 /6-r tf(} owners of record unless the vehicle is in such condition that identification numbers are not available to determine ownership. B. Th", .:oity cvuu"",ll shall, fJ:::Olu L~lLLC to L~ILLé, deLII;.&.wihé auJ. fix aU. cduOUht Lu Le ð.6Sc~i:>eJ. as aJ.:mihis LL Q ti v e Cu~ ts, ex",ludil1g th", actual ,""vðt of LC1LLoval uf allY v",l~icle O.L parts Lhereof, uhdcL tl~e se",tiohs ciL",..1 abov",. The cost of removal and disposal of anv vehicle and the administrative cost thereof mav be charqed aqainst the person who is determined to be responsible for the maintenance of the vehicle as a public nuisance. c. UpOh J.~o(,.otfe:t~.u'::t the cAistell\.õ1l; of a.ll abal1dou",..1, wr",...]..,....1, J.~dlLLð.llLlcJ., or ~uvperð.L~yc veh";'"",le., OL l'arts Lhereof, vll l'rivaL", l'rope.LLy or puLl:;'c prOl'",Lty wiLhil1 the ...ity, th", "ity aLate¡ueuL offi",,,,ì. shall have Lhe auLholity Lu caus", the aba t':luel1t ahd rc.moval Lh",reof ";'h al,.,;\.óvrJ.ð.hCe with tl~e pLV\.,.oeJ.U1::e¡;" !:'léSC,L';'LcJ. he1:c";'u. Vehicle mav be disposed of bv removal to a scrapvard. automobile dismantler's vard or anv suitable site for processinq as scrap. D. A t",u ..1ay l1ulice of li.tel1tiuH to aLàte al1d Le¡uOve tl~", vehicl"" vr pa.LL", ther",uf, as a publ';'", 11ui¡:,a.u~e shall be Iua';'le..1 by ...",rtifi",..1 luail Lv the vwuer of t.l~e lau..1 al1d tu the OWU"':!:: of the y cl...icle, 01111e5s Lhe \/'eh';'"le io ill su,-"lJ. cOhdiL';'oh that i..1el1t';'ficatiuu l1u¡uL",ì.s arc 110t àvailaLle to Jete:J:::ILLluc uWl1ersh';'p. Th", uotice", uf il1L",utiol1 ",hð.ll be ';'U sub5Lautially the [ollvw';'ug fOL1L10. "MOTICE 01' IIITEIITIOH TO ABATE ldft) REMOVE AH UldfOOHBD, WRECKED, DISIIlIHTf.ED, OR IMOPERA'fIVE VEHICLE, OR PARTS THEREOF, AS A PUBf.IC HUISAHCE TO: (Nð:m", al1d a..1..1less uf OWl1eJ: uf the lau..1) As voAueJ::: ol.LOWh V,Ll th", last ",~ualiz:ed a¡:,ÞessIUe.llL roll of th", lal1..1 locate..1 at (ad..1.L"'''s of l'.Lope.L Ly), you a.Le her",Lj 110tif';'",..1 that Lhe ul1d",.Lsigl1e..1, pursuaut to ...l~apter 1. 36 of Title 1 of th", Chula vista .uuuicipal \,;vJ.e ha;::, J.ete.Llullled Lha t th"'.Le ex';'",ts UpOh said laud ah (U.L pa.LL", of au) aLahdvlIcJ., wre",kè..1, ..1isluauLled O.L Ü.ope.LaLive v",hicle, .L"'yiste:red tu (l1an,,,, of OWh",.L of v",hicle), lice-h5e ulllube:r .......... , whid~ cOl1sL';'tutes ð. public uu:;'sal1ce 1'IlrsuauL to the l'ì.ovisiul1S of Chal'te:r 1. 36 of Title 1 of th", IIIUl1iCil'al code. You are he1:eby lIotified tu abate sài..1 lIuisallce 3S JY~¿// -~,_...._._~--- _ ______ _____._______"_...",,._______'._~.M..__ Ly tI,ê lêluoval of said v",h';'",lê (01 said l'CU LEo uf a vd,';'",l",) witl,il, 10 da}'", fLu,u Lllê datê of n.ailihg uf Lhis hotiGê, ahd uPOu YOllr failulê to do so, th", ",a,uê will Lê abate.1 ah.1 le¡u,:¡ved Ly thê city ahd the "u,;ts thêlêOf, tu"¡êthèl with a.1'uihistlative ",u",L", assêssed to ,}'vu àS OWhel of th", lauJ. vh which sa';'.1 v ",hi<-lê (01 said palts of a v",hi<-lê) is locaL",.1. As thê OWhèL uf Ll¡", lahd Oh wh';'"h ",aid vêhicle (ul said parts of a vehiGle) "L.¡:) located, you ale herab}' uotifiêd that yvu. lIIay, withih 10 .1a}'", aftêl the ¡uail ~.uy of this .uvLi.....è of ~utèhtioh, leque",L a public heaLil,g ahd if ,;uGh a lequesL ,;,,,, uut leceive.1 L}' the buildihg ufficial 01 l.is OL hêr dèsighee withih such 10 da}' l-êriod, tI,e ciL}' aLatem"'ht off';'",êl shall have the a...Lhulity to abaL", au.1 leluove ",a';'.1 vêh';'cle (Ol said l'aL ts of a v ehi"le) as a l-I:l:LliG huisahc", ahd asses", the Gosts a';' afol,;,sai.1 wiLl,ullt a publ';'", 1,,,,a1.il.g. Yo... ma}' OULJ.LL~t ð. SWOLll wLittéll statcuu::1.1L withill such 16 day peliu.1 .1ehyihg respuusibility fOL Lhê l'L",sehce of sai.1 vahiGle (Ol ",ai.1 parts of a v",hi<-le) Oh sai.1 lah.1, with YOUL L",aSOhS fOl del.ial, au.1 such stat",,,,,,,ht sl,all be "uu",Li lle.1 as a L",quest fOl h",a1.il.g at whi"h you:r . t ' p:rese...:.ê 1.S hO :re~......1.ê.1. You lua}' af)l-ea:r il. P"'L",uh at ahY heaL';'uy 1.equested b}' :luu Ol the OWhel uf t.l,ê val,icle OL, ';'h lieu tt,e:reof ¡uay t' ' p:teseh a. Ctwv:L.h wr~tteh i::tLaLcJ.uél.at as afVLccoaiJ. iu Li.uê fo:r GOhsid"'Latioh at sud. h",ar il.g MuLice Mailed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . "' . . . . . . "NOTICB OF IIITBII'fIOII TO ABATE ldIIÐ REMOVE ldII ABldIIOOIIBÐ, ftBCDÐ, ÐISMflNTLBÐ, OR INOPBRATIVB VEHICLE, OR PARTS THBREOF, AS A PUBLIC HUISldIICB TO: (Ma¡ue ahd a.1.1L"''''''' of last rey';'",Lêre.1 ahd/or leo;¡al OWheL uf reGord of v",hi<-le hOt ice shu...l.1 be giveh tu Loth if differeht) As last rey';'",Lé1.êd ( ahd/ UL lêgal) OWher of rC\..oVLJ. ~f (de"'''Liptioh of vêhi<-le luake, luu.1",l, 11.Gehse, ",t<-.), you ar", 1.",1. êLy hotif ied that. th", uhde:rsiyu",.1, pu:rsuahL to SêCtl.Ou 10. 86. 610, ha", .1êtallnihêd thaL ';'à';'.1 vehi<-le (o:r paL L,;, of a vahi"l",) ",..dsts as ah aLahdohed, ~Lê<-kê.1, disluaut.lê.1 or il.ope:rative vel.iGle at (describe locatioh 011 publiG or 36 /3'/1c2.- --.--..---.- ..-.----..-- ---- - -.---..-.---------..- -.-.----,----. p:r~vate p:rope:rt}<) ð,u.J. ,,-,vuþtiLu.t~þ a puLlic hLl.l.ii:tau"",,c ~uLÞua.J.lL to the p:tvV..LÞ..LVUCI v£ i:)òQl.¡J GvJc ii:tc.....Ll.vu. You a:re héleLy hvlif';'...l Lv ttLale sai.l huisahce by the :reluoval of said vehicle (o:r said pa...ls óf a. vcl~l......lc) wl.Ll...l.u 16 .J.a}'Þ [LV"''' Ll.L1I; J.aLe v! the luailihg of this hotice. A", .LCyl.CÞLCLCJ. (and/o... l..yal) VWUCL vf .LC\".oVLJ. of said vehicle (o:r said pa:rts of a vehicle), you are I,ereby hotified that yvu I"ay, wi LI,';'h 16 .lay", after tile mailih.; of this hOt ice of l.uLchLl.vuI LC':i"n::;:.L a l-'uLl.;.... hcaì..l.u':j auJ. ';'f ",u...h a .....y,û..",l i", nOl :r..ceivé.l Ly the Luildihg vrfl.,--,l.a.l UL hl.¡:, VL 11"::.1. J.cÞiyuCI; will...ih cH.h...ll 16 .lay pe:riod, the city abateluellt office:r shall have the authority to abaL.. a.uJ. .Lc,t.uvvc i::tal.J. vehicle (o:r said pa:rts of a ve.hicle) wl.Lhvut a hea:rihg. Nvli..... Mai1é.l " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Ord 2668 §1 (part), 1996; Ord 1338 §1 (part), 1971; prior code §19.2306). 10.80.070 Abatement-Public hearing required when-Not ice-Building official Manaaer or his or her designee authority. 1..- UpOh :requesL Ly LI,.. vwn..... vf LI,.. ".:hicle or the oWller of the lah.l :received by tl,e buildih.; official o:r his o:r her desighee witl,ih teh days afte:r tl,e mailÌl,g of the hotice of ihtehtioh to abate alld :reIuove, a publi,-, l1ccu.l..I.I'::t ",hall L.. 1...1.1 Ly LI,.. bu';'l.l';'ny v[rl.""l.a.l VL 1110 VL lu::l. desigllee 011 tI,e que..tioh of abatelueht ahd :reluoval vf LI,.. v..hi...le o:r parL", the:t...vf a", an aLah.lOh...l, w:recke.l, .lismahtled o:r ihope:rative vehicle, ahd tl,e a....ê6..,uellt of tl,e adluihist:rative costs ahd the cost of :reluoval of tl,e vehicle o:r pa:rts the:reof aya';'hSt tI,e p:rope... Ly v¡' which it is located. Upon reauest bv the owner of the vehicle or owner of the land on which the vehicle is located. a public hearina shall be held before the citv manaaer or desianee. This reauest shall be made to the manaaer or his desianee within ten (10) davs after the mailina of the notice of intention to abate and remove the vehicle. B. If the OWhe:r of the lahd submits a SWVLU wLl.tteu coLaLcweht dellY ihg re"'l-'vn",';'L';'liLy fvi Lhe p:resehce of the vel,icle Oh his lahd wl.Lhl.u þu......ll teh .lay þe:riod, said statelueht shall be COhstru...l a", a iêy,uest fo:r a hêa:rihg which does hot :requi:re 1111:1 l-':resellce. Notice of the IleaL ";'uy ",hall L.. wailed by ce:rtifi...l ,ua';'l, at least teh days befo:re the l,ea:rÌl,g to the OWhê:r of the lahd ah.l Lv LI,.. vwn..i of the lIehi"l.., ú.ulcì::Ii:J Lhe vehicle is ih such cOllditioll that idel.tificatioll I,ulllbe:rs a:re 37 J~~tf3 ..----- . ·"_"___.___.a~_.n _ 110t availaLle to dete.Lll,';'l1e oWlle.L..lIip. If sucl¡ a .Leque..L for hea.L ';'l1g is lIoL .Le....éived w';'Lhil1 sai.1 Léll da)'.. after ¡uò.ilih-,¡ vf Lhe 110tice of ';'ut.ehtioh Lv ò.bate au.1 remove, the ....,;,t.Y shall have the authority to abate ah.1 reIuvlle tl¡e vehicle or pa.LLe. Lhe.:teof as a ~I1Llic hui..al1ce withvut hol.1il.g a puLlic hea:tihg. The owner of the land on which the vehicle is located mav aDcear in Derson at the hearina. Instead of makina an aDDearanCe. he mav Dresent a sworn written statement. in time for consideration at the hearina. denvina resDonsibilitv for the Dresence of the vehicle on the land. with his reasons for his denial. This statement shall be construed as a reauest for a hearina which does not reauire the Dresence of the owner submittina the reauest. If it is determined at the hearina that the vehicle was Dlaced on the land without the consent of the landowner and that he has not subseauentlv acauiesced in its Dresence. then the costs of administration or removal of the vehicle shall not be assessed aaainst the DroDertv UDon which the vehicle is located or collected from the landowner. c. All hea:lihgS I.w.1er se....Liohs 10.80.010 th.Lvugh 10.80.120 shall Le held iüitially Lefore t.he buil.1il.g off';'"ial O.L his or her de;:.':"yhee, who shall hear all facts auJ. tesL":"!uohY l¡e .1e."'¡uS ~ertiheut. Sai.1 facts au.1 testiIllv 'Y may ir.clude Le..ti¡uOh)' vu the cOll.1';'Lioh of the vehicle V.L part.. thereof ahd the ....,;,.L"U¡ustaw:..es COh....eì.hihg iL.. 10cat';'vll Oh sa';'.1 private l-:loperty O:l puLlic pro~erty. The buil.1il.g official 0.1. his or 1.1eI: de6':"~Hee shall hOt be 1 ilui Le.1 by Lhe teclu.,;,....al rule.. of evideu....e. The vii/her of the lau.1 ruay ap~ear ih pel-SOh at Lhe hear il.-,¡ or pre..eht a i::JwOI:h wr ,;, Lt:êh staLe¡uellt ':"u tilue for COllSide.Latioh aL the heaJ::il.g, au.1 dellY .LeSpOhsiL';'lity fo.L Lhe ~.LesellCe vf the vehicle vu the lau.1, with his reasvue. for su....!¡ .1ellial. D. The bu';'l.1il.g offi"ial vi his V.L her de..ighee maY il,(pOSe ..uch cOh.1';'tiohS aud take ..l1ch OU¡é:!: act';'vu as he .1ee¡us ap~J::o¡:,riate uhde.L the ....i:l CU¡uS Lal1ces Lv GaLL,}' out LlIe purpv..é of ..ectioh.. 10.80.010 through 10.80.120. He ¡uay .1elay the Lilue for .Lemoval vf the vehicle or ¡:'a.Lts the.Levf if, ':".1.1. his Opiu';'vh, the clrcuIl,..tahces j ûstify ';'l. At the cOhclu..ioll of the ~uLlic hearih-,¡, the Lûi1dihg official or hi.. O:l her J.es':"~.uee luð.)' fihd Lhat a vehicle 0.1. parts Lhe.:teof ha.. Leeh aLahdohe.1, wrecÀ.é.1, di..11Lal.tled, O:l is ';'uoperative Oh privaté or ~uLlic l-rope.L Ly ahd vrder the salut::: remove.1 from the ~.LoperLy as a pu:Llic huisahce ahd dis~vsed of a.. hereiüafter ~.Lovide.1 ahd deLermihe Lhe admiuistraL';'ve cost.. ahd the ....vst of 1:cJ.uoval Lv be charged a-,¡aihSt Lhé OWhe.L vf the lau.1. The orde.L requi.L';'ug remvl/al sl¡a 11 ih....lu.1e a .1e..criptivu of tlu;! vehicle or pa.L t.. therevf ahd the corre....L ideht';'flcatioll uûniLer au.1 liceu..e hUI,iLer of Lhe lIehi....le, if available àt the ..';'Le. If ,;,t is .1etenuiue.1 at Lhe l¡eariu-,¡ tl¡at the vel¡icle "as placed Oh the lah.1 witl¡vut tl¡e ....vuseht vf the vwue.:l of the lð.hd ahd Lhat he l¡as uvt sub..e..,{uêhtly acquie..ced ih its preseuoe, the buildil.g official or hi.. or her desighee shò.ll hOt aSSe..S tl¡e 38 /?-'-I1 ----".----_..._----.-----.. costs of a\.hllil.L,.tlatiol1 01 l",wvvdl of th", vd.icle aya';'..ô.t tl.e plope...L}' U,.t-"""U wl.ic.h the v clJ.~\,.ool'l;: is Iv"",,a.Lc~ 01 V LI.LC.L wise att""llpL Lv ...vllect such ,",v",L", from such vwhel of th", lal..1. If Ll.", vWl1er of the lal1J sucbluits a swan. w...';'ttel1 staL""llel1t d"'l1yil1g respal1sibility for the presel..:;e or the \1el.icle 011 his la..J Lut does IIvL appeal, 01 ,;, f all iI.tel e", L",J pal ty 'lIak.es a wl:itteu l-I.LC¡::u:::utatioh to LIJ.c Lu.ilJihg uf'£~"",làl 01:: hiD V.L l:..er d",sigl1ee but does I1vt appeal, I.", ",hall be lIoL';'fieJ ill wriL,;,..g vf the decisioll. (0....1 2668 §1 (part), 1996, Ord 1338 §l (pa... L) , 1911; p:tiv.L <..oJe §l9. 2361 (A) ) . 10.80.090 Disposal of vehiole-Time requirements. Five days after adoption of the order declaring the vehicle or parts thereof to be a public nuisance, five days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision if such notice is required by sections 10.80.010 through 10.80.120, or fifteen days after such action of the yvvérl.aihg LvJy manaqer or desiqnee authorizing removal following appeal, the vehicle or parts thereof may be disposed of by removal to a scrapyard or automobile dismantler's yard. After a vehicle has been removed it shall not thereafter be reconstructed or made operable. (Ord 2668 §1 (part), 1996; Ord 1338 §1 (part) , 1971; prior code §19.2307(B) (2». 10.80.100 Notifioation and transfer of evidenoe required when. Within five days after the date of removal of the vehicle or parts thereof, notice shall be given to the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the vehicle or parts thereof removed. At the same time there shall be transmitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles any evidence of registration available, including registration certificates, certificates of title and license plates. Anv licensed dismantler or commercial entercrise acquirinq vehicles removed cursuant to this section shall be excused from the recortinq requirements of Section 11520 of the California Vehicle Code; and anv fees and cenalties which would otherwise be due the Decartment of Motor Vehicles. are herebv waived. crovided that a CODV of the resolution or order authorizinq discosition of the vehicle is retained in the dismantler's or commercial enterPrise's business records. (Ord 1338 §1 (part), 1971; prior code §19.2307(B) (3». 10.80.110 Costs-Assessment and oolleotion prooedures. If the administrative costs and the cost of removal which are charged against the owner of a parcel of land pursuant to section 38771 et seg. of the government code and chapter 1.30 of this code are not paid within thirty days of the date of the order, 39 /2'/15 -.....---.-,-.-- - ..".,----.---.---. or the final disposition of an appeal therefrom, such costs shall be assessed against the parcel of land pursuant to section 38773.5 of the government code and shall be transmitted to the tax collector for collection. Said assessment shall have the same priority as other city taxes. (Ord 1676 §l, 1976; Ord 1338 §l (part), 1971; prior code §19.2307(B) (4». 10.80.120 Removal of vehicles from streets authorized when. Any regularly employed and salaried officer of the police department may remove or cause to be removed: A. Any vehicle which is parked or left standing upon a street or highway for seventy-two or more consecutive hours; B. Any vehicle which is parked on a highway in violation of any provision of this title, the Vehicle Code or other law or ordinance forbidding standing or parking, when the use of such highway or a portion thereof is necessary for the cleaning, repair or construction of the highway or for the installation of underground utilities, and signs giving notice that such vehicle may be removed are erected and placed at least twenty-four hours prior to the removal; C. Any vehicle parked upon a highway which has been authorized by the councilor other competent authority for a purpose other than the normal flow of traffic, or for the movement of equipment, articles or structures of unusual size, and the parking of said vehicle would prohibit or interfere with such use or movement, providing that signs giving notice that such vehicle may be removed are erected or placed at least twenty-four hours prior to the removal of such vehicle; D. Any vehicle parked or left standing, when the city council by resolution or ordinance has prohibited such parking and has authorized the removal by ordinance. No vehicle may be removed unless signs are posted giving notice of the removal. (Ord 973 §1 (part), 1966; prior code §19.3.5). Chapter 10.84 -parking Restricted on Private Property 10.84.010 Purpose and intent of provisions-parked vehicles declared nuisance-When. The purpose and intent of the council in adopting sections 10.84.010 through 10.84.030 is to establish procedures for the notification, citation and removal of vehicles from private property in the front yard, unfenced exterior and parkway areas of the city. The wily cOllllcil Joes declare tl.e parkiI.g of SIlC!. vehicles to be a pûJ...lic lJuisallce alld alJY vel.icle so pa:tkëd ill the areas prohiJ....aeJ J...y this c!.aptër shall be deelued to be abAlldolleJ vel.icles sllbjecl lu l!.e Le'LLuval pLu...eJllre.. s.el fULL!. ill Chapte:t 40 ) 8' -'f/~ 16.86. (Ord 1676 §2 (part), 1976). Chapter 15.04 - Excavation Gradinq and Fills 15.04.305 Fees-To be doubled in certain caees-Effect of imposition. In the event that land development work is commenced without a land development permit, the city engineer shall cause such work to be stopped until a permit is obtained. The permit fee, in such instance, shall then be the normal Iv reauired permit fee. plus $500 dv..tLle thaL ",hieh wVollJ hO.LIually be .Lequi:red. The payment of such douLle the increased permit feeª shall not relieve any person from fully complying with the requirements of this chapter in the performance of the work. Such fee ",hall hvL Le co"",t:tued Lv Le a pe"alty, but shall Le COll",L.LueJ a", an addeJ fee :requi.:ted to defray the expense of enforcement of the provisions of this chapter in such cases. The Ìlupv",itiOll vf payment of such Jouble fee shall not prevent the imposition of any penalty prescribed or imposed by this chapter or Chapter 1.41. (Ord. 1797 §1 (part), 1978). 15.04.310 Violations-Declared unlawful and public nuisance-Abatement authority. Any land development commenced, or done. maintained or allowed contrary to the provisions of this chapter, shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be, unlawful and a public nuisance. upon order of the city council, or upon the determination of the city manaqer or the city attorneYL shall C01LuuehCe necessary proceedings for the abatement, removal and/or enjoinment of any such public nuisance shall be commenced in the manner provided by law. AlternativelY the procedures to abate under Chapter 1.30 may be used. Any failure, refusal, or neglect bY a responsible party to obtain a permit as required by this chapter shall be prima facie evidence of the fact that a public nuisance has been committed in connection with any land development commenced or done contrary to the provisions of this chapter. (Ord. 1797 §l (part), 1978). 15.04.325 Costs of abatement-Special assessment procedure-statutory authority. The costs of abating a dangerous condition within the meaning of this chapter shall be imposed as a special assessment against the land on which such abatement was done. p.Lvvided fu:tthe:r, Llle city ehgÌ1.ee:r s11all :repV.L tall ",uch co",Ls. to the city "Vol"cil ahd aL the hea.L';''',:! 01. t.he ,,';'t.y eh,:!';'"ee:r's .Lepo.LL, Costs and assessment procedures will be in accordance with Chapters 1.40 and 1.41. tïhe property owner may raise and the city couhcil manaqer shall consider, as a complete or partial defense to the imposition of the assessment, questions as to the necessity of the abatement and the 41 J,>J~1/ ~--"- ---- -.---" -,........----... means in which it was accomplished. Pursuant to Government Code §38773.5 abatement costs shall be transmitted to the tax collector for collection. This assessment shall have the same priority as other city taxes. (Ord. 1877 §3 (part), 1979). Chapter 15.44 - Movinq, aelocatinq and Demolishinq Buildinqs 15.44.070 Appeals. The applicant may appeal the findings and recommendations of the building and housing department to the ci tv manaqer boa1:d of app"al", a".1 à..1¥ h;ou.. The appeal shall be in writing. F01: all appeals, tJ." ["" ",J.all L" Ll,,, R,,<,\ah.e.1 Fee(s). The citv manaqer shall use the procedures in Chapter 1.40 to qovern the appeal. (Ord. 2506 §l (part), 1992; Ord. 1851 §1 (part), 1979). Chapter 17.28 - Unnecessary Liqhts 17.28.050 Complaints-Investiqation-Notice-Hearinq. Upon the written complaint setting forth the particulars concerning any offending lighting situation by the adjoining or neighboring residential property dwellers to tJ.e city atton.ey, it shall be the duty responsibilitv of the city atton.ey to investigate 01: ...au",,, Lo Le il1\1'estigated the basis of the complaint, and if there is found to be sufficient cause for said complaint which constitutes a nuisance to the adjoining or neighboring property owners, a written notice shall be sent..... to the owner or person controlling such lighting, directing that the lighting be modified, discontinued or abated within fifteen days of receipt of the notice. If the lighting situation has not been discontinued or abated as required in this section, the city atto1:l1ey manaqer shall issue a notice to the property owner pursuant to Chapter 1.40 to appear befo1:e tJ.e c';'Ly ...val1<.il to and show cause as to why the lighting should not be declared a public nuisance and abated by apP1:op1:iate legal a...t.ivl1 pursuant to Chapter 1.30. (Ord 1324 §1 (part), 1971; prior code §20.35.4(D)). Chapter 19.08 - zoninq Enforcement 19.08.020 Violations-Declared public nuisance-Actions for abatement authorized. AllY Luildil.g 01: st1:uctu1:e It is unlawful to cause or allow to occur the set up, erectioned, constructioned, alterationed, enlargementd, conversionted, movementd or maintainenanceed of anv buildinq or structure contrary to the provisions of this title, and any use of any land, building or premises established, conducted, operated or maintained contrary to the provisions of this title shall be, and the same is declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance; and the city attorney and citv manaqer. respectivelv. shall hlIuediately commence action or proceedings for the abatement and removal and enjoinment therein in the manner provided by law or Title 1 of this Code, and shall take such other steps and shall apply to such 42 ¡g'/-rY ......_.,·'___.m___..__~ courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate and remove such building or structure, and restrain and enjoin any person, firm or corporation from setting up, erecting, building, maintaining or using any such building or structure or using property contrary to the provisions of this title. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Any person who violates any provision of the certified Local Coastal Program adopted pursuant to Division 20 of the California Public Resources Code shall be subject to the penalties contained therein. (Res. 11903, 1985; Ord 1212 §l (part), 1969; prior code §33.1502). 19.08.030 Violations-Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent, employee or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this title shall be punishable pursuant to the provisions of 3e....L.;.uu 1. 20. 010. Chapters 1. 2 throuah 1. 41. (Ord 2483 §2, 1991; Ord 1212 §l (part), 1969; prior code §33.1503). Chapter 19.62.200 - Off-Street parking and Loading 19.62.200 Enforcement of this chapter. F01: pU1:pose" ur cuf01:Cemeht uf Lh';'" chapte1:, elUl-'luyces desighalcJ uuJC.L 3ectioh 10.54.03!> may issue .....;.LaL.;.OI1S to ~ehiclc" 01: p1:ope1:ty OWllC.L" as applOp.LlaLc, wheh ~iulaL';'uus or the "hal-'Ler OCCU1:S, p1:oviJcJ 1,owe~e1:, à wa.Luil1g sl,all f';'.L"t be iS61lcJ, allowihg sevellty-twQ houì." to c01:1:ect the matte1:. Thi" "ell'el1ty two hou1: pe1:iod shall al-'l-'ly to the fil."L lI'iolatiol1 Oh àuy sil.gle pie"c uf l-'.Lupë1:ty al.d hot Lu ""bsequëllt ihf.La...L';'OIlS Oh the "a."c l-'1:ope1:ty. The buildina and housina director. code enforcement officers and other emplovees desianated bv the buildina and housina director shall have the authoritv to enforce this chapter in accordance with the procedures as set forth in chapters 1. 40 and 1. 41. Anv violation of this chapter shall constitute an infraction. and the administrative citation provisions contained in chapter 1.41 of this code shall be applicable. (Ord. 2176 §7 (part), 1986) SECTION II: That the following sections of the Chula vista Municipal Code are repealed in their entirety: 5.02.070 Xssuance Effect of prior licensing by state. 5.36.250 Hearing-Notice required. 5.36.260 Hearing-procedure generally. 5.36.270 Hearing-Rules of evidence. 5.36.290 Effect of decision stayed when. 5.36.300 Hearing-Not required when-Effect. 5.36.310 Appeal-Petition required. 5.36.320 Appeal-Public hearing-Notice-Effect of decision. 5.48.010 Exemptions to applicability. 5.48.020 Closing-out sale defined. 43 18'--J// 5.48.030 License-Required. 5.48.040 License-Application-contents required. 5.48.050 Business license-Surrender required when. 5.48.060 License-Investiqation of applicant-Issuance-Fees and TaxeS-Aqreement required. 5.48.070 License-Conditions for issuance-Period of validity-Renewal. 5.48.080 License-scope of validity. 5.48.090 Records to be kept. 5.48.100 Business license-Restoration procedure. 5.48.110 Business license-Notice of disapproval of issuance-Hearinq. 5.48.120 Business license-Hearinq procedure. 8.08.140 suspension or revocation-Public hearinq required. 8.08.150 Public hearinq-Notice required-Form. 8.08.160 Public hearinq-Rules and procedure qenerally. 8.08.170 Public hearinq-Hearinq officer-Grounds for disqualification. 8.08.180 Public hearinq-Time. 8.08.190 Public hearinq-continuance. 8.08.200 Public hearinq-Transcripts. 8.08.210 Public hearinq-waiver of irreqularities-Exception. 8.08.220 Public hearinq-Findinqs. 8.08.230 Public hearinq-Decision and order. 8.08.240 Public hearinq-Petition for modification or rescission of order. 8.08.250 Public hearinq-probation procedure. 8.08.260 Appeal-Procedure qenerally. 8.08.270 Appeal-Rules and requlations qenerally. 8.08.280 Appeal-Effect of filinq. 8.08.290 Appeal-Hearinq by council. 8.08.300 Appeal-Applicable Procedures 9.12.220 Binqo-Appeal procedure. 10.84.036 Notice of violation. 10.80.020 Definitions. 10.80.040 Requlations not exclusive. 10.80.080 Appeal of decision-Public hearinq-Notice-Board of appeals and advisors authority. SECTION III: That Chapters 1.40 and 1.41 are added to the Chula vista Municipal Code to read as follows: CHAPTER 1. 40 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND PROCESS. sections: 1.40.010 PurDose and Intent. 1.40.020 Administrative Process. 44 );?r0C ---- -----,,-_......__.~-,- 1.40.030 Service of Notices. 1.40.035 Proof of service of Notices. 1.40.040 Reserved. 1.40.050 Administrative Hearinq Procedure. 1.40.060 Immediate Action Excusinq Prior Notice for purooses of Abatinq Danqerous Conditions or Imminent Threat to Life -Safety. 1.40.070 Consolidation of Proceedinqs 1.40.010 PurDose and Intent. It is the ouroose and intent of the citv Council to establish rules and orocedures for the conduct of administrative hearinqs required bv statute. this Municioal Code. or administrative requ1ation. in order to insure administrative due orocess is accorded to affected oarties. The requirements and orocedures of this Chaoter shall be aoolicable to administrative orocedures and hearinqs reqardinq the denial. susoension or revocation of a oermit. license or entitlement. and may be used to suoolement or substitute for any administrative hearinq or administrative orocedure orescribed elsewhere in this Municioal Code. The orocedures under Chaoter 1.40 may also be used in those situations where the Municioal Code authorizes a hearinq as a orecondition to the abatement of a nuisance. the imoosition of an administrative fine or oenaltv. or. as an administrative aooea1s orocedure. Sec. 1.40.020 Administrative Process. ~ Subiect to the orovisions of Section 1.40.060. the City Manaqer or desiqnee shall serve notice oursuant to Section 1.40.030 uoon a Darty whose oermit. license or entitlement has been denied. or is to be susoended or revoked. or aqainst whom administrative enforcement action is orooosed. that they shall be allowed ten calendar days (thirtv days for out-of-state residents oer Code of civil Procedures section 415.40) to request an administrative hearina to aooeal or contest that orooosed action before it will become final. The request for hearinq must be made no later than ten calendar days from the date of notification of the orooosed action. The orooosed action bv the city Manaqer shall become final and conclusive if not aooealed or contested. Exceot as orovided in section 1.40.060. the orooosed action shall be staved if orooer1v aooealed. and be made final followinq the issuance of a decision bv a hearinq officer oursuant to section 1.40.020G. ~ Uoon the filinq of a request for a hearinq or an aooea1 and oavment of the required fee. the City Manaqer shall aoooint a hearinq examiner who shall be neutral and unbiased as to the soecific factual matter in contention and exoerienced in the qenera1 subiect matter. The hearinq examiner may be aooointed 45 J g""_Ç' / either from within the city staff or outside sources. The city Manaqer may provide compensation to outside sourced hearinq examiners. ~ The fee to reauest a hearinq or an appeal of an administrative citation or civil penalty shall be eaual to the amount of the fine identified on the administrative citation or the amount of the civil Denalty. but not more than $1.000. If the hearinq officer determines that the issuance of the administrative citation or assessment of the civil penalty was not aDDroDriate based on the evidence Drovided then the appeal fee will be refunded to the party that reauested the appeal. If the appeal is denied. the fee shall be applied as paYment of. or toward. the administrative citation or civil Denalty. The fee to reauest a hearinq or an aDDeal of all other tYDeS of administrative orders. unless specified otherwise in the municipal code. shall be in the form of a deposit. the amount to be determined by the city manaqer based on the anticiDated staff cost to conduct the hearinq. If the cost of the hearinq or appeal exceeds the deposited amount. the reauestinq party shall be responsible for paYment of the additional costs incurred. If the hearinq officer determines that the administrative order is not supported bv the evidence. the entire deposited amount will be returned to the Darty that reauested the appeal. ~ The hearinq examiner shall notifY the appellant of the time and place for the hearinq in accordance with section 1.40.030. allowinq a minimum of ten calendar days from the date the notice is mailed before the hearinq is to be held. ~ The hearinq examiner shall conduct the administrative hearinq in accordance with section 1.40.050 and issue a written decision DromDtlY to all Darties UDon the conclusion of the hearinq. unless the aDDeal or reauest for hearinq is withdrawn bY the reauestinq Darty. The hearinq examiner may impose conditions and deadlines for corrective action and reduce. waive or conditional Iv susDend any fines or Denalties DrODosed. when the hearinq examiner concludes. based UDon the evidence. that such action is eauitable and more likelv to brinq about compliance with the DroDosed order. ~ The hearinq examiner's decision shall be based upon findinqs supported bY evidence. The standard of proof reauired to render the decision shall be that of a preponderance of the evidence. A DreDonderance of the evidence is established when the weiqht of the evidence sUDDortinq the existence of a fact in contention has the more convincinq force. when balanced aqainst that evidence refutinq the existence or applicability of the same fact in contention. ~ The hearinq may not be used as a substitute for discovery pursuant to the Code of civil Procedure. and any inauirv or discovery in violation of this section 1. 40. 020F is not 46 J8'~çcÅ -^"- ---" - ~_.._-_....._-~--- competent or admissible aaainst the party aaainst whom it is to be used upon appropriate motion or ob;ection of that party. H..... A final decision shall be issued bv the hearina examiner. The date of mailina of the final decision bv the hearina examiner to the party bv first class mail. with certificate of service attached. shall constitute the date of the exhaustion of administrative remedv. A party shall be advised bv the hearina examiner that it has ninety days pursuant to the California Code of civil Procedure section 1094.6 from that date in which to file for a writ of mandamus or other applicable ;udicial review. except that if the determination is made as to a decision imposina an administrative penal tv. fine or charae under section 1.41.100. the time to appeal to the Municipal Court is limited to twenty days pursuant to California Government Code section 53069.4. Failure to file for ;udicial review within the applicable time limit makes the final decision non-appealable and confirmed. until a timelY reauest for ;udicial review is filed. enforcement of the final decision may proceed in due course. ~ The city will use its best effort to tape record the hearina. but is not leaallv obliaated to do so. Anv recordina will be retained for not to exceed 2 years. The private party may also record the proceedinas. A party may reauest a transcript of the proceedinas. if prepared. or be provided a copy of any recordina. if made. upon pavrnent of the costs of preparation or duplication. Sec. 1.40.030 Service of Notices. ~ Except as provided in section 1.40.030D. whenever a notice is reauired to be aiven under the Municipal Code for the enforcement of a proposed order or for hearina or appeals purposes. the notice shall be served bv any of the followina methods. unless different provisions are otherwise specifically stated to applY: ill Personal service upon the responsible party: or ill certified mail. postaae prepaid. return receipt reauested. SimultaneouslY. a duplicate notice may be sent bv reaular mail. postaae prepaid. If a notice that is sent bv certified mail is returned unsianed. service shall be deemed effective pursuant to service of the duplicate notice bv reaular mail. provided that the duplicate notice sent bv reaular mail is not returned as undeliverable. Notice shall be mailed to the last address shown on the County Tax Assessor's records if the notice concerns real property. and to the last known address of any other party to the proceedina shown in official records of the city of Chula vista: 47 J 6",:S-3 ------...-- -.....,-.........-..-..- ._------" 111 postina the notice consDicuouslv on or in front of the DrODertv. .!h postina a notice or dUDlicate service bv reqular mail in the manner described above shall be deemed effective on the third day after mailina or Dostina. service bv certified mail shall be effective as of the date of sianed receiDt. Q... The service of an initial Notice of Violation may also be sent bv reqular mail. service of a Notice of Violation bv reaular mail is effective on the third day after mailina. .!l.. Service of Notice throuah which a lien will be Dlaced UDon real DrODertv will be in accordance with Code of civil Procedure sections 415.10. 415.20. 415.30. or Section 415.40 if the resDonsible Dartv resides out of state. ~ The failure of any Dartv or Derson with an interest in the DroDertv or the Droceedina to receive any notice which has been duly sent or Dosted in accordance with this section 1.40.030 shall not affect the va1iditv of any Droceedinas taken under this Code. Sec. 1.40.035 Proof of Service of Notices. Proof of service of any notice required bv this Code may be made bv certificate or affidavit of an officer or emDlovee of this City or bv affidavit of any Derson over the aae of eiahteen Years. The Droof of service shall show that service was done in conformity with this Code and any other Drovisions of law aDDlicable to the sub;ect matter concerned. Sec. 1.40.040 Reserved. Sec. 1.40.050 Administrative Hearina Procedure. The hearina before a hearina examiner shall be conducted in accordance with the followina Drocedures: ~ A hearina examiner is authorized to issue SubDoenas. administer oaths or affirmations. and conduct the hearina. SubDoenas shall be sianed bv the city Clerk. Oral evidence shall be taken onlY on oath or affirmation. .!h Each Dartv shall have the followina riahts: to be reDresented bv leaal counsel; to call and examine witnesses; to introduce evidence; to cross-examine oDDosina witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even thouah the matter was not covered in the direct examination; to imDeach any witness reaardless of which Dartv first called the witness; to testify in his or her own behalf. A Dartv may be called as a witness bv the other Dartv and be examined as if under cross-examination. Q... ADDeals of auantities of work Derformed in connection with a 48 /5f~S-Y .~_,._._._._ . _ __·_·____·'_·_·__.."n_.__'._______ violation of land aradina permits as estimated bv the Director shall include a report bv a licensed civil enaineer aualified to perform land surveys or a licensed land surveyor. The report shall be prepared at the sole cost of the appellant. Such reports shall include sufficient survev work to determine the actual amount of land aradina work done without a permit. ~ The hearina need not and should not be conducted accordina to the technical rules of procedure and the California Evidence Code relatina to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the sort of evidence upon which responsible persons are accustomed to relY in the conduct of serious affairs. reaardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which miaht make improper the admission of such evidence over obiection in civil actions. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementina or explainina any direct evidence but shall not be sufficient bv itself to support a findina unless it would also be admissible over obiection in ciyil actions. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. ~ The proponent of any testimony to be offered bY a witness who does not proficiently speak the Enalish lanauaae shall provide an interPreter. The interpreter shall be approved by the hearina examiner conductina the proceedina as proficient in the Enalish lanauaae and the lanauaae in which the witness will testifY. The cost of the interpreter is to be paid by the party providina the interPreter. ~ The proponent for the Director may introduce into evidence and relY upon an administrative record which clearlY demonstrates: a) The condition(s). act(s) or omission(s) upon which the proposed action is based: b) the reaulatory authority for the proposed action: c) technical or factual data supportina the proposed action: and. d) any other information or data relevant to the proposed action. An administrative record certified by the Director which meets the above criteria shall constitute prima facie evidence in support of the proposed action. The burden of aoina forward may then shift to the opposina party. who may then cross-examine on the basis of the administrative record and call witnesses appropriate to aid in its examination of the administrative record. The opposina party may call additional witnesses and introduce additional evidence appropriate for opposition. defense. excusal or mitiaation of the proposed action. ~ The hearina may. at the discretion of the hearina examiner. be continued from time to time upon reauest of a party to the hearina and upon a showina of aood cause therefor. 1.40.060 Immediate Action Excusina Prior Notice for Purposes of Abatina Danaerous Conditions or Imminent Threat to Life or Safety. 49 J%--SS- _._-~ - - --.-..-,- The provisions for prior notice and hearina mav be dispensed with when. in the opinion of the Director with the concurrence of the citv Manaaer. immediate action is necessary to summarilY abate a danaerous condition on public or private property or an imminent threat to life or safety on public or private nrO'Dertv. The Director shall take onlY such action as is reasonably necessary to summarilY abate the danaer. and shall thereafter expeditiouslY comply with Sections 1.40.020 throuah 1.40.050 reaardina notice and hearina. if reauested. to the responsible partvlies) reaardina the action taken bv the Director to summarily abate the condition. The pUrPose of the hearina will be to afford the responsible partvlies) the opportunity to contest their responsibility for the costs or scope of abatement. If further corrective action is necessary. the Director will complY with this Chapter 1.40. and such other sections of the Code as may be applicable reaardina further corrective action. 1.40.070 Consolidation of Proceedinas. A Director or the Hearina Examiner may consolidate one or more administrative processes and orders proposed under this chapter and Chapters 1.30 or 1.41. or both. into a sinale hearina. if consolidation would be more efficient and cost-effective. Chapter 1. 41 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES. sections 1.41.010 Purpose and Intent. 1.41.020 Overview of Process. 1. 41. 030 Notice of violation. 1. 41. 040 Recordation of Notice of Violation. 1.41.050 Non-Issuance of Permits. 1.41.060 Reinspection Fees. 1.41.070 Cease and Desist Orders. 1.41.080 Reserved. 1. 41. 090 Reserved. 1. 41.100 Administrative citations. 1. 41. 110 civil Penalties. 1.41.120 Abatement Action. 1. 41.130 Reserved. 1.41.140 Cost Recoverv. 1. 41.150 Confirmation of Costs. 1. 41.160 Enforcement. 1.41.170 satisfaction of Lien or Obliaation. 1.41.180 Revolvina Abatement Fund. Sec. 1.41.010 Purpose and Intent. SO J ð'____Ç;'? -",-..- A.... It is the DurDose and intent of the city Council to establish administrative Drocedures for obtainina DromDt comDliance in the correction of both maior and minor violations of the Chula Vista MuniciDal Code and state law. Conditions in violation of the MuniciDal Code or state law which affect conditions UDon or uses of real DrODertv within the city of Chula vista are herebY desianated nuisances. The Drocedures authorized or identified bv this ChaDter 1. 41 are the followina: notices of violation: administrative citations: administrative fines and Denalties: cease and desist orders: abatement of nuisances: recordation of notices of violation: authorization to charae reinsDection fees: cost recoverv for costs of enforcement: confirmation of costs: and recordation of liens and assessments for cost recovery. -ª-'- The Drocedures established in and throuah ChaDter 1. 41 may cross reference. consolidate or incorcorate bv reference. as aDDlicable. enforcement methods established elsewhere in this code. in order to create a uniform Drocess for DromDt code comDliance. administrative due Drocess and effective enforcement. -º..... The city Manaaer. any coanizant Director and the city Attornev are each authorized to utilize and initiate the Drocedures established in this chaDter and ChaDters 1.30 and 1.40. .!l... The Drocedures in Title 1 may be used as a SUDDlement to criminal or iudicial enforcement action. or both. or in lieu thereof. Selection of one method shall not Dreclude the use of any other method or combination of methods when aDDroDriate. K... The terms "Abatement". "citv Manaaer". "Code Enforcement Officer". "Director". "Nuisance". and "ResDonsible Partv" are as defined in section 1.04.010. Sec. 1. 41. 020 Overview of Process. A. violations of the MuniciDal Code affectina uses of or conditions UDon real DroDertv may be corrected throuah the issuance of a notice of violation Dursuant to section 1.41.030 to the ResDonsible Party reauirina certain actions to be taken to brina the DroDertv or structure into comDliance. The resDonsible Dartv will be allowed a reasonable Deriod of time in which to correct the violation. normal Iv not less than ten calendar days. Failure to comDlv within the time Drescribed can then result in the issuance of an administrative citation in accordance with Section 1.41.100 or any other method or combination of methods deemed aDDroDriate. -ª-'- An administrative citation is a notice to the resDonsible Dartv which mandates the corrective action and establishes a fine as a Denaltv for the Drior non-comDliance of the notice of violation. Subseauent administrative citations may be 51 /y~? -----_..--._-~_._.__..~- -- ._-_.._.._.__..._--~---- ---~..._---,,-,. issued with increased penalty. Corrective action that may be reauired of a responsible party includes. but is not limited to. the removal of encroachments into public property. the mitiqation or restoration of land or adioininq property for illeqal qradinq or development. the removal or modification of blockaaes of drainaae ways and the removal of structures to rectifY any code violation or cure any hazardous condition. It includes any other process necessary for abatement. In addition. throuqh the notice and hearinq procedures of Chapters 1. 30 and 1.40. the responsible party can be made subiect to an order of abatement throuqh which the corrective work will be undertaken bv the City and the cost will be imposed as a lien aqainst the property if the responsible party fails to respond. ~ Each day a violation exists on real property is a continuina and additional violation. and all remedies. penalties and assessments are cumulative. .!k. In addition to a notice of violation. a cease and desist order can be issued pursuant to Section 1. 41. 070 to one or more responsible parties or other persons who perform work in violation of a permit or without a recruired permit. Violation of the cease and desist order is a separate misdemeanor. A responsible party or any person on scene activelY conductinq the violation under the direction of a responsible party is subiect to arrest without a warrant for continuinq work in violation of the cease and desist order. as well as for the actions constitutinq the violation of this code. A responsible party can be recruired to obtain necessary permits. restore or reveqetate the property. or both. and correct or mitiqate the consecruences of the violation. Administrative citations can also be issued assessinq administrative fines for both the creation of and the continuance of the violation. 1h If the responsible party fails or refuses to correct the violation. proceedinqs may be undertaken to abate any existinq or resul tinq nuisance pursuant to Chapter 1.30. Abatement orders authorize a Director to enter upon property and correct the violation or condition or the removal of encroachment upon public propertv. Enforcement costs may be imposed aqainst the responsible party and non-complvina property. ~ Durinq the pendency of the violation and the enforcement process. a notice of violation may be recorded aqainst the property pursuant to section 1.41.040 describinq the particulars of the violation. to insure that the property is proper Iv abated prior to or upon transfer. The recorded notice of violation will be released upon issuance of a notice of compliance which shall be recorded bv the Director in due course within 15 days after recruest for such release bv the property owner. ~ Durinq the inspection and enforcement process. cost recovery S2 / ,8-r s-r can be imDosed for the cost of reinsDection (Section 1.41.060) and the costs of citv services to abate rChaDter 1. 30. and 1.41.140). These costs may be recorded as a lien aaainst the DrODerty followina the Drocedures under ChaDter 1. 41 or the waiver thereof by the resDonsible Darty. lh Various steDs or Drocedures under ChaDter 1.41 may reauire notice and a hearina Dursuant to ChaDter 1.40. When aDDroDriate. notice and hearina reauirements for seDarate administrative actions may be consolidated. Sec. 1.41.030 Notice of violation. &. A Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to serve a notice of violation UDon a resDonsible Darty for any violation of the MuniciDal Code. The notice of violation will describe the violation. the dates and location of the violation. the aDDlicable code section(s) . the corrective action reauired and a date for comDliance reinsDection. The resDonsible Darty will be advised that a reinsDection fee (Section 1. 41. 060) will be imDosed for a second and all subseauent reinsDection if comDliance is not voluntarilv obtained. and that an administrative citation may also be issued alona with civil Denalties Dursuant to sections 1.41.100 and 1.41.110 until the DrODerty is brouaht into comDliance. The resDonsible Darty will be allowed a minimum of ten calendar days to correct minor violations and no less than thirty calendar days for ma;or violations. A Code Enforcement Officer may extend the time for a reasonable Deriod beyond those limits if circumstances dictate. The notice of violation will inform the resDonsible Darty of the Dotential costs and conseauences that may ensue under this ChaDter 1.41 if voluntarilY comDliance is not obtained within the time Drescribed. If the violation is corrected in accordance with the terms of the notice of violation. no costs or charaes will be imDosed. !h Service of a notice of violation is effective UDon delivery or mailina Dursuant to section 1.40.030. Failure or refusal to sian does not invalidate the notice of violation and subseauent Droceedinas. Q... The DroDerty will be reinsDected once for comDliance. If the resDonsible Darty refuses to allow insDection. after a reasonable demand. the Code Enforcement Officer may obtain an insDection warrant Dursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1822.50. Failure of the resDonsible Darty to allow insDection or remedY the violation shall result in the issuance of an administrative citation. the charaina of reinsDection fees and may result in a seDarate criminal violation for the failure to allow insDection. (CCP section 1822.57) -º-'- If the violation also constitutes the Derformance of work without a reauired Dermit or in violation of an issued Dermit. the Code Enforcement Officer may issue a cease and desist 53 /JYrS; ___ _________<______4______. ,____... order Dursuant to section 1.41.070 to temporarily ~nd immediatelv en;oin the work and to take anv other act10n apDrODriate at that time. If the violation cr7at~s a hazardous condition which affects Dublic safe~y or an, 1~~nent threat to life. safety. summary abatement may be 1n1t1ated pursuant to Section 1.30.030. Sec. 1.41.040 Recordation of Notice of violation. A..... Whenever a violation on real proper~y remains uncorrected after a notice of violation has been issued. ,a copy ~f the notice of violation mav be recorded by the D1rector 1n the real DrQperty records of San Dieao Countv if the followinq prereqµisites are met: ~ A violation has remained uncorrected on the property for at least 30 calendar days followina service of the notice of violation: ~ The owner. if not the responsible partv. has been notified of the Drospective recordation and been offered the oDDortunity to correct the violation: .J..... The proper~y owner and all of the responsible parties shall be notified that development permits shall be withheld during the time the propertv remains in violat~on pursuant to section 1.41.040. except for those perm1ts that are necessary to bring the property into compliance. ~ The resDonsible par~y and the proDertv owner have been noticed and offered a hearing pursuant to Chapter 1.40 to contest the proposed corrective action and the proposed recordation. ~ The Director is authorized to record the notice of violation pursuant to this section UDon issuance of the final order. ~ Cancellation of Recordation. The,Director,shall ~ssue to ~he DroDer~y owner and other resDons1ble part1es a. s1gned not1ce of comDliance which states on its face that 1t cancels the notice of violation once all violations hav~ bee~ correct7d and anv administrative penalties. costs and f1nes 1nvolved 1n the enforcement Drocess have been paid. The notice of compliance shall be recorded by the Director if the notice of violation was recorded. Sec. 1.41.050 Non-Issuance of Permits. After a notice of violation has been,recorded against t~e property pursuant to section 1.41.050. the C1ty Manager shall w1thhold the issuance of anv Dermits for development as allowed bY law ~pon that propertv save for those Dermits necessary to correct the violation(s\. A party whose permits are to be withheld shall be noticed as part of the re.cordation process pursuant ,to S,:,ction 1.41.040 and offered a hear1ng pursuant to ChaDter 1.40 1n wh1ch to S4 /~.--¿,o , . n this dec1s10 . ...test . ectioo ..... . ...t. .... 41.060 Re1nsp . to recover C1ty btain code .... 1. re authomed oece..a~;O ~ m.thod to ReinspectioI? fe~~da effort becomae:e an approP:::;ibutable to ~ excessive t1m:einspectiondf;e:oportionatelY Uaoce. taT. '.. . ...... .to tho_ . 0""'.'. . . 0 ,. ~:;~r~it::ot T...OO.'bi... .... adml.,.t~~~t~~~~.~~l: . f violat10n or under respons1 ¡. 1;:~~~~~:i~~r'L';ff.::~;;~fj·~if:!: ':,~~t..iÙ:~=¡~¡ "';:', tbat PO'" · fees "eCess~':n fn 11~;~. th.. i d.~d Da,. ~ re1"'..ct~':, fi mt ;~'~i n~ DT D",~T '~D~D~. aha",.d;; ¡ uncorre?ted~f violation. C1;cement and W111otherwise. 1t W the not1ce cost of enfo corrected. ent. f the nor;nal, then proIIIPtly ts of enforcem o ndi.,= ,. f the co. art of t.h. th·;~~'Ud'A as .'Tt 0 . and "fD~Ced as.ftO ..... b. be =11._ ..i 0'" DO 1 .."",... f es ma,~ in co t 1 4. " t~ Reinspection e rocess ,or der this Chap erOf 'its liab111 '" ::;~i:;¡-::~~-::~.i v! .';.~e~~·~ïfl~~; ~':. .F.~~ 60 (B~t"i~::; I in the respons1b~ro~ fees unde;r seprocedures are e fOT ,.io···~.ti.. .n< ....,.0 taff serV1ce of . of actual s ChaDter 1.40. d on the bas1s the Master Fee '11 be charge based upon ReinsDect~on/~~~ ~~e inspec~i~n~~) the City Clerk. '" t;_ ntil un n. ;n the nff,e . dule on 1 . d to lssue ,"""- . t ..deT" . author"e .,. . d DeS1S ff'cer lS '1.40. U 1. ". ceas;....o '.fm:!>--"" o~¡¡~ce with ,ec;¿-.:'" v; 0 i.t! "'! a s.c. i="",. .. e~e '" ace 000 aov .~T '" ,. b.,,,,, .. ·e~SD"a11Y or to ; d..i.t o",eT ..."""" ""1"" ~'aHoo of .. ;;"ltt.~ ...:. th":! ><uo i eipa I .C,od:,,=; ~A. OT ':;.;; ..""''''''''~ ~~~;~:.::; :'~=t ~e~:';¿d' ~e~~~~ ;::f~, ~~r~r'~~ h . ued Derm1. iolat10ns 0 lated wor . nvironmen a :~~Topri.te :eO; T~'atioos ~. ""to"'"''''' ""~: 11 not stowed ater and se al proper:ty ntinue to oc ~n~~:~:;':m o~r ';,';,11 uti= w> 11 co .n< ...,.. ome, ;~ndiatelv. to ""om . .....t;nn. to ..Tfo~ or a"Y person served to con It is unlawful fally issued or of that order. ¡. b..n =Tsn~ f tho to"" cease and has. . ,.t,nn 0 to wh= . to .0.' ,. "0_ Te..ons;ble .a~tO.'I'O~ WO~~T,T in 1 for anv t cont1nu erform It ~s unlaw:~as been served to 0 continue to p -C...- des1st orde ermi t anothe~ that order. allow ,or Pf the terms 0 violatIon 0 Sj3'/0/ _.._m ~ ~ -º..... Prosecution under Sections 1. 41. 070B or 1. 41. 070C does not bar prosecution or administrative enforcement. or both. of the previous underlvinq violations for any or all days the violation had been in existence. or for the continuance of the underlvinq violation. ~ Anv Director or Code Enforcement Officer in whose presence a violation of section 1.41.070B or 1.41.070C occurs may arrest the violator without a warrant. and a police officer mav accept custody of that arrestee for criminal enforcement processinq. ~ The Director may initiate other administrative enforcement and compliance methods in accordance with this Chapter 1.41 and Chapters 1.30 and 1.40. as appropriate. Sec. 1.41.080 Reserved. Sec. 1.41.090 Reserved. Sec. 1.41.100 Administrative citations. A. The Council finds that there is a need for an alternative -- method of enforcement for minor violations of the Municipal Code and applicable state codes. The Council further finds that an appropriate method of enforcement for minor violations is an administrative citation proqram. The procedure established in this section shall be in addition to criminal. civil or any other leqal remedv established bv law which mav be pursued to address violations of the Municipal Code or applicable state code. 1L- An administrative citation can be issued to a responsible party for violation of a requlatorv provision of this code or state law. and the responsible party be reauired to pay an administrative fine. Administrative citations and penalties are particularlY appropriate in cases of structural. buildinq and zoninq violations that do not create an immediate danqer to health or safety if the responsible party has failed to correct the violation after the issuance of a notice of violation pursuant to section 1.41.030. Q... An administrative citation may be issued in lieu of the initiation of a criminal action for the same violation. However. in particu1ar1 v eqreqious cases. criminal enforcement may be appropriate for continuinq violations if the administrative citation is iqnored bv the responsible party. -º..... The amount of administrative fine that may be imposed for each separate violation of the same code section is as follows: 56 J%-~;L ~ $100 for a first violation: $200 for a second violation within the twelve calendar months of the first violation: $500 for each additional violation occurrina after the second violation and within 12 months of anv Drior violation. ~ Issuance of an administrative citation and Davment of the administrative fine does not excuse comDliance and corrective action reaardina the violations. Althouah continuina violations of the MuniciDal Code are seDarate offenses. the resDonsible Dartv shall be allowed a reasonable time of not more than thirtv davs in which to correct the violation before a second or subsequent administrative citation mav be issued. ~ A resDonsible Dartv mav request administrative review of an administrative citation Dursuant to ChaDter 1.40. ~ The administrative citation shall contain the followina information: ~ Date of the violation. ~ Address and location of violation. ~ DescriDtion of violation. ~ ADDlicable codes and statutorv sections violated. ~ Corrective action required. ~ An order to brina the violation into comDliance. ~ Notice of the fines to be imDosed. ~ A date. not less than twentv davs. bv which Davment of the fine must be made. ~ Location for Davment. 10. Notification that Davment does not excuse correction of the violation. 11. Notice of riaht to request review Dursuant to ChaDter 1.40 of the MuniciDal Code. ~ A Dartv filina a timelv request for review Dursuant to ChaDter 1.40 shall Dost a deDosit with the Director. Enforcement of the administrative fine shall be staved Dendina the decision of a hearina examiner if a hearina is requested. Procedures for review shall be in accordance with ChaDter 1. 40. The deDosit will be returned if the aDDeal is aranted. A final order is not subiect to iudicial review after twentv davs have elaDsed from the date of its issuance. unless the Dartv 57 )Y---¿J ___ u_.. ___.__.__"__.____ complies with Government Code section 53069.4. See section 1.40.020rG). A final order mav be enforced pursuant to Section 1.41.160. Sec. 1.41.110 civil Penalties. ~ The Council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of enforcement of the Chula vista Municipal Code and applicable state codes. The Council further finds that the assessment of civil penalties throuqh an administrative hearinq procedure for code violations is a necessary alternative method of code enforcement. The administrative assessment of civil penalties established in this section is in addition to any other administrative or iudicial remedY established bv law which may be pursued to address violations of the Municipal Code or applicable codes. ~ civil penalties may be assessed aqainst a responsible party for continued violations of the Municipal Code or applicable state codes. whether of the same section or any combination. that reflect a continuinq disreqard for the requirements of such laws. The Director mav issue a notice and order to the responsible party assessinq a civil penalty pursuant to section 1.41.110. The civil penalty may be enforced aqainst the responsible party as a lien pursuant to section 1.41.140. ~ Except for violations of land qradinq ordinances contained in Chapter 15.04: civil penalties may be assessed at a dailY rate not to exceed $1.000 per violation per day. and not to exceed a total of $100.000 per tax assessor's parcel number in the case of unimproved real propertv. or $100.000 per each structure aqainst which violations have existed on a sinqle tax assessor's parcel number for any related series of violations. ~ The civil penaltv for violations of land qradinq permits or land qradinq work done without the issuance of a permit shall be based on an estimate bv the Director of qradinq work performed. The rate of civil penalties shall be as follows: ~ Less than 250 cubic vards. but not meetinq the requirements for an exemption from qradinq permit under 15.04.150: $1.000 per violation ~ 251 to 500 cubic vards: $5.000 per violation ~ 501 to 1.000 cubic vards: $10.000 per violation ~ Over 1.001 cubic vards: $25.000 per violation ~ In the event anv individual. firm. companv. developer or propertv owner causes a second violation of the land qradinq permit ordinance. either on the same property or different propertv. and whether or not part of the same development. the rate of civil penalties shall be doubled. For third and subsequent violations the rate of civil penalties shall be multiplied bv a factor of four. 58 /ð'/t?r --"------ -.-- -,-_._.~.__......- .!L.. civil Denalties under this section 1.41.110 mav be accrued retroactive to the date the violations were first discovered as evidenced by the issuance of a notice of violation Dursuant to section 1.41.030. or any later date determined bv the Director. In determinina the amount to be imDosed on a dailY rate. the Director shall consider the followina factors: h Duration of the violation: ~ Freauency or occurrence of the violation: 1.... Freauencv or occurrence of other violations durina the Deriod of accrual: L. Seriousness of the violation in relation to its threat or imDact UDon Dublic health. welfare or safety: .2..... Historv of the violations: h Activity taken bY the resDonsible Darty to obstruct or interfere with correction of the problem: L- Good faith or bad faith efforts bY the responsible party to comply: !h The impact of the violation on the surroundina proDertv and community: .2.... The financial abilitv of the resDonsib1e party to have corrected the violation in a timelY fashion. E.. The Director shall complY with Chapter 1.40 concernina notice of the proDosed civil penalties and the riaht to a hearina to contest or confirm. Unless contested. the notice and order shall be final and be enforced pursuant to section 1.41.160. If contested. the hearina examiner shall limit the hearina to the followina issues: h Whether the responsible party maintained a use or condition on real property that violated the Municipal Code or state law on the dates specified: and ~ Whether the civil penalty assessed is consistent with the criteria eXDressed in section 1.41.110E. The hearina examiner may. however. exercise discretion pursuant to section 1.40.020E and increase or decrease the penalties assessed to a level determined to be sUDPorted bY the evidence meetina the criteria under section 1.41.110E. Q..... The Director shall issue a final order based on the 59 1?f-'?5 -",----" - - ---_._._-_._._--_.._~-_.__.- proceedinqs under section 1.41.110E. and establish a date for payment. followinq which date an enforcement lien shall be imposed upon the property. The imposition of an enforcement lien may be made a part of the proceedinqs and notice and order under the precedinq section 1.41.100 or this section 1.41.110. Sec. 1. 41.120 Abatement Action. Procedures for the abatement of nuisances. when reauired for corrective action. are contained in Chapter 1.30. Sec. 1. 41.130 Reserved. Sec. 1. 41.140 Cost Recoverv. Pursuant to Government Code section 38773. costs and penalties may be recovered and enforced aqainst responsible parties under this Chapter 1.41 include. but are not limited to. the followinq: & city's direct cost for abatement of nuisances. toqether with applicable overhead; 1h. Costs of salary and applicable overhead of those city employees and contract personnel involved in the investiqation. enforcement and remediation or abatement of a nuisance; ~ city costs for eauipment use or rental; !h. Attornev's fees; JL.. Court costs and witness fees; h Costs of qeotechnical. enqineerinq and other technical services and studies; Q.... Administrative fines and civil penalties imposed pursuant to this Chapter 1.41; !h Reinspection fees pursuant to section 1.41.060; .L.. Costs of monitorinq proqrams necessarY for correctinq. monitorinq. abatinq or mitiqatinq nuisances and violations; ~ Anv other fee. cost. or expense reasonably and rationally related to the city's enforcement efforts to abate a nuisance or correct a violation of this code or applicable state law; K... Treble damaqes recoverable pursuant to Government Code section 38773.7. (See section 1.41.160(C)). Sec. 1. 41.150 Confirmation of Costs. 60 /~/¡;.? --.--....---...- - _.._--_.._-~--_._-.._-_.__..~ Followina the conclusion of the city's remediation. abatement or corrective actions. the Director shall notifY the DrODertv owner and aDDroDriate resDonsible Darties of a DrODosed assessment of costs aaainst each individuallY and as a lien or assessment aaainst the real DrODerty that was the subiect of abatement or corrective action. Notice and an oDDortunitv to be heard and contest the basis for the assessment of costs or lien shall be Drovided to those parties in accordance with Chapter 1.40. Followina any hearina or waiver thereof. the city Manaaer may then issue a final order of confirmation of costs aaainst the respective responsible parties. Sec. 1.41.160 Enforcement. & In accordance with Government Code section 38773. the city Manaaer or a Director. or both as appropriate. may enforce the confirmation of costs as follows: .L. As a personal obliaation aaainst a responsible party; and. h Either: As a recorded lien with the Driority of a iudaement lien in the real property records of the County aaainst any real property which was the subiect of abatement or corrective action; or. As an assessment aaainst the property which was subiect to abatement or corrective action. to be collected in the same manner as municipal taxes. !h The city Manaaer. city Attorney or Director is authorized to obtain iudicial enforcement for the foreclosure of the lien. where appropriate. In addition. pursuant to Government Code section 38773.7. the city Manaaer may seek treble damaaes for the abatement costs where the corrective action arose out of or constituted a second or subseauent civil or criminal iudament within a two year period. as provided for in that section. Enactment of this section 1.41.160B constitutes the enactment of an ordinance authorizina the recovery of treble damaaes in accordance with Government Code section 38773.7. Sec. 1.41.170 satisfaction of Lien or Obliaation. Upon paYment in full bY one or more responsible parties for all costs of enforcement and the satisfactorY completion of all corrective action reauired. the city Manaaer or Director shall promptlY issue to all responsible parties a notice of compliance. The notice of compliance will be sianed and identifY the affected real property by address. leaal description and tax assessor's parcel number. and be recorded in the real property records of the County by the Director if a lien was recorded. Sec. 1. 41. 180 Abatement Fund. 61 J5/~ 7 The citv Manaaer shall budaet for estimated excenses for abatement and code enforcement purposes in the annual budaet crocess. Revenue received shall be decosited in a desianated account in the aeneral fund. All cenalties and fines collected under section 1.41.140 shall be decosited to the General Fund. SECTION IV: This Ordinance shall take effect and be in full force and effect on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Director ~~~ Kenneth Larsen, John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Building and Housing (H:\shared\bld-hsg\munic013) January 15, 1998 62 /ð/h ~ - _.__._.._.-._----~..._-~----_._--------_..- Exhibit A 1 of 54 ..1',- If SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM CHANGES TO EXISTING CVMC SECTIONS Amend Chapter 1.04 - General Provisions - as folloW's: 1.04.010 Definitions and rules of construction. In the construction of this code and of all ordinances of the city, the following rules shall be observed, unless such construction would be inconsistent with the manifest intent of the city council or the context clearly requires otherwise: 1. "Abatement" means an act or combination of actions designed to correct a nuisance. Abatement includes. but is not limited to: removal. demolition or repair of structures: removal of weeds. rubbish and debris: reconstruction of structures to code: restoration of drainage ways or courses. grading or regrading and filling of illeaally graded or developed land: revegetation: vacatina of illeaal or non-conformina structures: removing barriers imDroperly blocking off publ ic access: removal of encroaching structures onto public property: and other action which is reasonably . related to the correction or mitigation of nuisances \ under this code or state law. 2. "city" or "this city" means and shall be construed as if followed by the words "of Chula Vista"; 3. "citv Manager" means an officer appointed bv the city council as the City Manaaer. and includes those officers and e~lovees he or she designates to perform certain functions. The term "City Manager" includes a director. as defined herein. except in those Droceedinçrs where an appeal to the city Manager is taken from the order of a director. 4. "Code" or "this code" means the Municipal .ccode of the city of Chula Vista, California; 5. "Code Enforcement Officer" means a Derson. other than a Dolice officer. designated by the City Manager or a Director. to enforce violations of the Municipal Code. A Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to issue notices of violation and administrative citations pursuant to Chapter 1.41. A Code Enforcement Officer is authorized to issue misdemeanor citations or to arrest a person without a warrant for a misdemeanor committed in his or _/ 1 ----.- ..----_..~-_._.._.---------_._- Exhibit A . : 0', 54 ,--- . her presence which is a violation of state law o~ ~~ ordinance which the Code Enforceme~~ ~f~f~;~ ~i~.: u~~i to enforce. A Code Enforcement Offi e x l_e powers of arrest Dursuant to cali~orf~a ::~:i ;~~; &836.5. A Code Enforcement Offic~ . _ n ~ ~c~~~ officer within the definition of Pe~~l C;de Š;~tion through 832.8. 6. "Computation of time." The time in which any act provided by law is to be done is computed by excluding the first day and including the last, unless the last day is a legal holiday and then it is also excluded; 7. "Council" whenever used in this code means the city council of the city; 8. "County" or "this county" means the county of San Diego; 9. "Day" means the period of time between any midnight and the midnight following; 10. "Daytime" and "nighttime." "Daytime" means the period of time between sunrise and sunset. "Nighttime" means the period of time between sunset and sunrise; 11. "Director" means the Chief of Police. Fire chief. C;~~ ---) Enai~eer. ~lanning Direc;tor. Dir,:cto~ ~i ~;;iifii: :~~ Hous1ng: D1re~tor of F1nance.. DU:~;~~ 0D';e~;~~ Q~ RecreatIon. D1rector of Pub11c . 1 tor ~f Community Dev,:loDment an.d the e~D.l~~~~ d;sii~t;~ ~~ them. or ass laned bv ,ob func 10 _ DI'! ~ ~~~ enforcement functi.ons and d?ties. I; ~~~.I;;ifiit~ ~~e County Health Off}cer or DIrector 0 1 r public health and sanitation. 12. "Gender." The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter; 13. "In the city" means and includes all territory over which the city now has, or shall hereafter acquire jurisdiction for the exercise of its police powers or other regulatory powers; 14. "Joint authority." All words giving a joint authority to three or more persons or officers shall be construed as giving such authority to a majority of such persons or officers; 15. "Month" ml'!ans a calendar month; 16. "Notice".means a written document Wh~~~ ~nf~:s : ~~~s~~ of the t1me. date and place for a he n. n t ,..;.) 2 Exhibit A 3 of S4 a penalty or.c~rrective action reauired of that person. and the Mun1c1cal Code section(s) acplicable to the proceeding. service of notice is covered in section 1.40.030. 17. "Nuisance" is as defined under California civil Code &3480. and includes a condition neon or use of real procerty within Chula vista that violates the Municipal Code or state law. It may also include dilapidation or disrepair of structures: the maintenance of a structure in which illegal drug. aambling or crostitution activitv occurs: or. a structure on private croperty which encroaches into cublic propertv. 18. "Number." The singular number includes the plural and the plural the singular; 19. "Oath" means and includes an affirmation; 20. "Officers, departments, etc." Officers, departments, boards, commissions and employees referred to in this code shall mean officers, departments, boards, commissions and employees of the city, unless the context clearly indicates otherwise; 21. "Official time." Whenever certain hours are named in this code, they shall mean Pacific standard Time or Daylight saving Time, as may be in current use in the city; 22. nOr," "and." "Or" may be read "and," and "and" may be read "or," if the sense requires it; 23. "Owner," applied- to a building or land, means and includes any part owner, joint owner, tenant in common, tenant in partnership, joint tenant or tenant by the entirety of the whole or of a part of such building or land; 24. "Person" means and includes any person, firm, association, organization, partnership, business trust, corporation or company; 25. "Personal property" means and includes every species of property, except real property, as defined in this section; 26. "Preceding" and "following." The words "preceding" and "following" mean next before and next after, respectively; 27. "Process" means and includes a writ or swnmons issued in the course of jUdicial proceedings of either a civil or 3 ~._--_._~-_.__..._~._---- ------- Exhibit A 4 C' ~ 54 - criminal nature; 28. "Property" means and includes real and personal property; 29. "Real property" means and includes land, improvements and structures on land , tenements and hereditaments; 30. "Resnonsible Partv" means individu~l~~.~~d c~~~~~~f~~l~~ th7 owner(s) of real nron7rty up~ ~ ~;~ ~ .~;~~~~~~ ~t th1s code or state law eX1sts: 0 . a t a in possession. licensee .or any othe~ ner:~~d ~~~ h~~ caused. created. or cont1nues to all w a 1 n_ °7cur .or exist. upon real prope~~: c~ns~~~~~~~~ : v101at10n of th1s code or state i " . bJ Partv" can be a natural nerson or ~ ;;~rp;;'ati~~~ 31. "Shall" and "may." "Shall" is mandatory and "may" is permissive; 32. "Signature or subscription by mark." "Signature" or "subscription" includes a mark when the signer or subscriber cannot write, such signer's or subscriber's name being written near the mark by a witness who writes his own name near the signer's or subscriber's name; but a signature or subscription by mark can be acknowledged or can serve as a signature or subscription to a sworn statement only when two witnesses so sign their own names thereto; 33. "State" or "this state" shall be construed to mean the state of California; 34. "Tenant or occupant," applied to a building or land, includes any person holding a written or an oral lease of, or who occupies the whole or a part of, such building or land, either alone or with others; 35. "Tenses." The present tense includes the past and future tenses, and the future includes the present; 36. "Week." A week consists of seven consecutive days; 37. "Writing" means and includes any form of recorded message capable of comprehension by ordinary visual means. Whenever any notice, report, statement or record is required or authorized by this code, it shall be made in writing in the English language, unless it is expressly provided otherwise; 38. "Year" means a calendar year, except where otherwise provided. 4 Exhibit A 5 of 54 1.04.060 Time limit for seeking review of administrative decisions. Pursuant to the p.:.w\!:rs grb.ht~d to Ll.e city llhder California Code of civil Procedure section 1094.6, judicial review of any administrative decision of the city may be had pursuant to Code of civil Procedure section 1094.5 only if the a petition for writ of mandate is filed not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which the decision becomes final: exceut that if the action i~oses an administrative fine or penalty. the petition for review must be filed within twenty days after the order is final uursuant to Government code section 53069. Amend Chapter 1.16 - Right of Ent::z::y for Inspection - as follows: 1.16.010 Applicability-procedure required. Whenever necessary to make an inspection to enforce any or..1Ü.a.hGe or ¡;",""vl...livh state or Municipal Code provision, or whenever there is reasonable cause to believe there exists an O¡;..1':'ha.u...", V.L resoll:ltioh state or Municipal Code violation in any building or upon any premises within the jurisdiction of the city, any authorized official of the city may, upon presentation of proper credentials, enter such building or premises at all reasonable times to inspect the same or to perform any duty imposed upon him or her by ordinance; provided, that except in emergency situations or when consent of the owner and/or occupant to the inspection has ) been otherwise obtained, he or she shall give the owner and/or occupant, if they can be located after reasonable effort, at least twenty-four hours' written notice of the authorized official's intention to inspect. The notice transmitted to the owner and/or occupant shall state that the property owner and/or occuuant has the right to refuse entry and that in the event such entry is refused, inspection may be made- only upon issuance of ð. sèð.r...l. an inspection warrant by a duly authorized magistrate pursuant to Code of civil Procedure section 1822.50. In the event the owner ~nd/or occupant refuses entry after such request has been made, the official is hereby empowered to seek assistance from any court of competent jurisdiction in obtaining an inspection warrant for such entry. It is a misdemeanor to wilfullv refuse access after an insuection warrant has been duly issued. (California Code of civil Procedure section 1822.57). The above 24 hour notice reqµirement shall not auulv to anv inspection where the authorized official conducts the observations and inspection while within the public right-of-way or within the unobstructed walkwav between such riqht- of-way and the front entry of any residence. nor shall it apply to abandoned or inoperative motor vehicles insuected on site in accordance with applicable state law. Amend Chapter 1.20 - General Penalty - as follows: 1.20.010 Designated-Applicability. J - 5 -.-,.- -. --~_.__._._--_..._~- Exhibit A 6 of 54 A. Any person violating any of the provisions or failing to ~. comply with any of the mandatory requirements of the ordinances of the city shall be guilty of at. il.f...ac.L';'o" 01. a misdemeanor. unless. at the sole option of the City. the violation is cited and crosecuted as an infraction. B. An infraction is punishable by: To A fine not exceeding one hundred dollars for a first violation; C. An infraction is not punishable by imprisonment. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to a trial by jury. A person charged with an infraction shall not be entitled to have the public defender or other counsel appointed at public expense to represent him unless he is arrested and not released on his written promise to appear,-2n his own recognizance, or upon a deposit of bail. D. A misdemeanor is punishable by: To Imprisonment in the county jail not exceeding six months, or by fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both. E. Each such person described in A above shall be guilty of a separate offense for each and every day during any portion of which any violation of any provision of the ordinances of the city is committed, continued or permitted by any such person, and he shall be punished accordingly. F. Payment of a fine shall not excuse payment of any fee required by the Municipal Code. G. In addition to the foregoing, any violation of the provisions of the ordinances of the city is deemed to be a public nuisance. Such violations may be abated by civil action or pursuant to applicable administrative abatement procedures. 1.20.020 Infractions: Prosecutor's Discretion Defendant's Election to have Infraction Treated as Misdemeanor. A. A violation of any Chula Vista Municipal Code Section may, at the discretion of the prosecutor, if the violation is initially charged as a misdemeanor rather than an infraction, be prosecuted as an infraction, subject to the procedures described in Sections 1.20.010(C) and 1.20.030 when: 1. The prosecutor files a complaint charging the offense as an infraction unless the defendant, at the time he is arraigned, after being informed of his rights, elects to have the case proceed as a misdemeanor or; 6 E::hibit A 7 of 54 2. The court, with the consent of the defendant, determines that the offense is an infraction in which event the case shall proceed as if the defendant had been arraigned on a infraction complaint. Amend Chapter 1.24 - Arrest Procedures - as fo~~oYs: 1.24.010 Notice required-contents-Bai1. A. If any person is arrested for a misdemeanor v iol",L':'Ol. of LI.è ~1::oviò:Þ~o}"s ,-,oJifiç.J iI, CiJ.CI}:Itê:t:S 3.02, 3.64, :;.68, ::;.10, ::;.16, ::;.18, ::;.22, ::;.26, ::;.34, ::;.38 ::;.46, ::;.::;0, ::;.34, ::;.60, 6.20 6.28 auJ. 8.16, and ",....:.1. p",...;:;;Oh is not immediately taken before a magistrate as is more fully set forth in the Penal Code of the state, the arresting officer shall prepare in duplicate a written notice to appear in court, containing the name and address of such person, the offense charged, and the time and place where and when such person shall appear in court. B. The time specified in the notice to appear must be at least ~ ~ days after such arrest. unless waived. C. The place specified in the notice to appear shall be ä prescribed bv Penal Code section 853.6 èi tl.ëJ: . 1. Dee""....!; ð. j I.oLJge or 6 muu~~ipð.l ",,"vtJ::rt ~itlJ.ih Ll.Lé ,",Otl.1JLl', if tl.LÇo "",[[euõ:n:; (...l.La.L.": I.:=J is ullegçJ. to l.Lavç beéu (..o~iLL!;:::al UJ.ère":"u, 61&..1 ",1...0 IJ.Q;::Þ jt:tJ::":"i::ÞJ.":""tivu \"If tl.LÇo vffeh5ç al.LJ. who is hêð.:reò:ÞL ð.l.d ~05t Q("("ési:)~Lle ",":"Ll.L J::e[ç..Lêh{"é Lv the .t:Jla.(..é, -Wl.L1Wõ:"'é tl...1Wõ ð.rrei:Þt is lUàJ.é, VoL. 2. Upou J,é.:llið.ll\l \.If tl.L1Wõ peri:l>vu ð..L.L1Wõi:)teJ, Lç[vxe a .u.u..t.t.i"""":"1:IQ1 \"..OU.L L j I:lJgç iI, tl...1Wõ ,,-iLl', if ;:;tu.......l... Or[çuò:Þê is allege..] Lv lldy!::: Léèh ,-omluiLLeJ wiU.Lil1 LIJ.t::: COl:u..Ll" OJ.:: b~fo:ré' d j dJgé ~1... tl....e j~Jicial diö:lL.....i,,-t ~u wl.a.icl... tl.a.é vffel...Sé iö:l ð.llé~çJ. Lv I...A v e Lééh \.;v...L(ìui t t~J. , 3. Dé[vJ::é au o[fi\.;~l. ð.u.Ll.a.o1:i¿.~J. by Ll...~ city Lo J.::eC~~~é a. J.éposiL of ba~l. D. The officer shall deliver one copy of the notice to appear to the arrested person and the arrested person in order to secure release must give his written promise so to appear in court by signing the duplicate notice which shall be retained by the officer. Thereupon the arresting officer shall forthwith release the person arrested from custody. E. The officer shall, as soon as practicable, file the duplicate notice with the magistrate ä specified therein. Thereupon the magistrate shall fix the amount of bail which in his judgment, in accordance with the provisions of section 1275 of the Penal Code of the state, will be reasonable and sufficient for the appearance of the defendant and shall endorse upon the 7 .- -,-.----- ._._.-.._~-~-~-_._------_. Exhibit A 8 of 5.1. notice a statement signed by him in the form set forth in ~, Section 815A of the Penal Code of the state. The defendant may, prior to the date upon which he promised to appear in court, deposit with the magistrate the amount of bail thus set. Thereafter, at the time when the case is called for arraignment before the magistrate, if the defendant shall not appear, either in person or by counsel, the magistrate may declare the bail forfeited, and may in his discretion order that no further proceedings shall be had in such case. Upon the making of such order that no further proceedings be had, all sums deposited as bail shall forthwith be paid into the county treasury for distribution pursuant to Section 1463 of the Penal Code of the State. F. No warrant shall issue on such charge for the arrest of a person who has given such written promise to appear in court, unless and until he has violated such promise or has failed to deposit bail, to appear for arraignment, trial or judgment, or to comply with the terms and provisions of the judgment, as required by law. Amend Chapter 1.30 - Abatement Procedures - as folloW's: 1.30.010 Purpose. This chapter is enacted pursuant to Civil Code Section 3491 et seq. and Government Code Section 38771 et seq., and is intended to be an al ternative procedure for the abatement of any public nuisance declared to be a violation of any statute, regulation or ordinance enforced by the city. It is intended to provide a uniform procedure for notification, right of appeal and assessment of costs and collection thereof for the abatement of public nuisances. ~ chapter may be used in coniunction with procedures established in Chapters 1.40 and 1.41. The procedure herein is supplemental to the general penalty provision found in Chapter 1.20, and is intended to provide due process for all those required to abate a public nuisance. 1.30.030 Summary abatement power. Whenever this code or any other provision of law authorizes the city manager or any other city officer to declare a public nuisance, the nuisance may be summarily abated by any reasonable means and without notice or hearing when immediate action is necessary to preserve or protect the pUblic health or safety because of ,the existence of ~ d~~g;~~~: co::; t::;y or imminent threat to 11fe. safety on pub11C te p . Summary abatement actions shall not be subject to the notice and hearing requirements of this chapter and a city aLatc...èut code enforcement officer shall not be prohibited from summary abatement actions after initiation of proceedings pursuant to this chapter if immediate action at any time becomes necessary to preserve or i - 8 Exhibit A 9 of 54 protect the public health or safety. Summary abatement is to be limited to those actions which are reasonably necessary to immediately remove the threat. In the event a public nuisance is summarily abated, the city abatement officer may nevertheless keep an account of the cost of abatement and bill the property owner therefor. If the bill is not paid within fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing, the Abatement Officer may proceed to obtain a special assessment and lien against the owner's property in accordance with the procedures set forth in sections 1.30.130 through 1.30.170 of this chapter., .;xcç1"L U¿ð:t, il¡ ð.dJ.~tio.u to ð. ....ç~iéW vI th~ '-ost~ or abaLemèl¡L, tl¡é ,,",,~L1 c;.otlu,-il o;;tl.Lall ð.l~o l.Lécu.. ð-l.r.d Jçte.....Lu..:..uè ð.U.l issuçi:lO ì:èlð:til,1é to tl¡ç uéCéo;;to::ti.ty fv.t:· 0.... Ulð.hh~.L it. "1.1":",,,,1.1 tl¡'I; prv}'~::ú..ty va;::, J.é,-lð.xeJ. to Le ð. .t:"~li""" lÜliscUJ(..é duJ St~mmcu..il}' aLð.ted. 1.30.050 Nuisance declared. A city code enforcement officer aLåte¡¡.el,t officer may declare a public nuisance for any reason specified in any city ordinance. Upon a public nuisance being declared, the city code enforcement ",bat.e<rncut officer ",hall ~ issue a Notice and Order to Abate substantially in the following form: NOTICE AND ORDER TO ABATE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT (sDecify the condition constituting the nuisance) is in violation of section of the (Chula vista MuniciDal Code. or other applicable code or ordinance). The violation has been declared a public nuisance by the (city code enforcement ",Lò.te¡"cut officer) and must be abated immediately. The public nuisance is on property located-at (insert address or other legal proDerty descriDtion) . YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED TO ABATE SAID PUBLIC NUISANCE within (insert a reasonable number of days) ( ) [not less than ten] consecutive calendar days from the issuance of this order. The issuance date is specified below. You may abate the nuisance by (insert desired action which. if taken. will adequately remedv the situation) . If you fail to abate the public nuisance within the number of days specified, the city may order its abatement by public employees, private contractor, or other means, and the cost of said abatement may be levied and assessed against the property as a special assessment lien or billed directly to the property owner. YOU MAY APPEAL FROM THIS ORDER OF ABATEMENT but any such appeal must be brought prior to the expiration of the number of days specified above for completion of abatement. The appeal must be in writing; specify the reasons for the appeal; contain your name, address and telephone number; be accompanied by an appeal fee ofh 9 . ...._-,~. - -~ -"..----_._""_....- .-- Exhibit A 10 0(' 54 dollars ($ ); and be submitted ~. to the city Glc~k manaaer at the following address: City Clc~k Manaaer 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 92010 Tel. No. (619) 691-~ ~ g~\~~oct:y l:agn~~~ ~~~i~~~;~ ~~n~~i~:t~~dw~~h ~~~e~~~~s a~~~~~~~~ may obtain a waiver of the appeal fee. Upon timely receipt of the appeal and accompanying fee, or waiver, the city Glc~k manager will cause the matter to be set for hearing befo~e tl.e ....it} Gouuc.il siLL.:..l¿'::I u.g tL.è c':"L.l aba.L~çul Lvd.Ld and notify you of the date and location of the hearing. If you have any questions regarding this matter, you may direct them to the city officer issuing this notice at the address or telephone number listed below. ISSUANCE DATE: Name, title, address and telephone number of the city abatement office issuing this notice) 1.30.060 Service of notice and order to abate. The Notice and Order to Abate shall be served in the following manner. A. By personal service: or. .a.... By certified mail, addressed to the owner, or his pr her agent, at the address shown on the last equalized assessment roll or as otherwise known, and addressed to anyone known to the city abatement officer to be in possession of the property at the street address of the property being possessed. Service shall be deemed to have been completed upon the deposit of said Notice and Order, postage pre-paid, in the United States mail; and, Ð7 By posting such Notice and Order to Abate conspicuously in front of the property on which, or in front of which, the nuisance exists, or if the property has no frontage, upon any street, highway, or road then upon the portion of the property nearest to a street, highway, or road, or most likely to give actual notice to the owner and any person known by the city abatement officer to be in possession of the property. .~ 10 Exhibit A 11 of 54 1.30.070 Appeal procedure. Any owner or other person in possession of the property may appeal any Notice and Order to abate issued abat"::;.I.u..:;l.ít ,plvGééJ.':'u9 ,"v.uuuéII.CèJ pursuant to his chapter to the city cO:>lluc;il manager or designee within th~ J.t:l.uL.!<r vf ì&n days ä allowed in the Notice and Order to Abate. The appeal shall be submitted in writing, specify the grounds upon which the appeal is taken, contain the name, address, and telephone number of the appellant, be accompanied by the payment of an appeal fee as set forth in the Master Fee Schedule and be filed with the city ~l~rk manaaer. Timely appeal shall stay any further abatement action until the hearing is concluded. The city c;lêrk manaaer or designee shall set the matter for hearing before a hearing examiner tl,~ c;i t} ~vl1h"il and notify the parties in writing of the date and location of the hearing, at least ten (10) days prior to said date. 1.30.080 Appeal fee: Determination of amount/waiver of payment/refund. At the time of filing an appeal, the appellant shall pay the Required Fee(s) as set forth in the Citys Master Fee Schedule. If the appellant claims an economic hardship in paying the appeal fee, he or she may submit an application for waiver of the appeal fee on forms provided by the city ~l~rk manager for that purpose. The forms shall be substantially similar to those required of litigants initiating court proceedings in forma pauperis pursuant to Section 68511.3 of the Government Code. The forms shall be executed under penalty of perjury and contain a declaration as to the truthfulness and correctness of the information contained therein. Upon submittal of the completed forms, the appeal fee shall be waived. if justification is demonstrated. - - Failure to submit the waiver forms or pay the appeal fee in a timely manner shall cause the appeal request to be automatically denied. Enforcement of the Order to Abate may then proceed as if no appeal request had been submitted. If the appeal fee is paid and the city "v...uci1 hearing examiner finds there is no public nuisance, the appeal fee shall be refunded to the appellant without the payment of any interest which could have accrued. 1.30.090 Hearing procedure. 'i'l.ê I,Hearing.:¡ before a hearing examiner acpointed from a list of aua1ified persons acproved in writing by the city CO:> 111.(,.':' 1 manager shall be conducted in accordance with the following procedures: A. Oral evidence shall be taken only on oath or affirmation. The c;ity COl:1:1,,,.:.1 hearina examiner is authorized to issue subpoenas, administer oaths, and conduct the hearing. - 11 _ ___.._··'·'_n__..~_~.·n Exhibit A 12 of 54 B. Each party shall have these rights: to be represented by ~. legal counsel; to call and examine witnesses; to introduce exhibits; to cross-examine opposing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though the matter was not covered in the direct examination; to impeach any witness regardless of which party first called the witness; to testify in his or her own behalf. He or she may be called and examined as if under cross-examination. C. The hearing need not be conducted according to technical rules relating to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the sort of evidence on which responsible persons are accustomed to rely in the conduct of serious affairs, regardless of the existence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection in civil actions. Hearsay evidence may be used for the purpose of supplementing or explaining any direct evidence but shall not be sufficient in itself to support a finding unless it would be admissible over objection in civil actions and irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. D. The hearing shall be conducted in the English language. The proponent of any testimony to be offered by a witness who does not proficiently speak the English language shall provide an interpreter, approved by the c.it.l' c.ôo1uc;il hearina examiner conducting the proceeding as proficient in the English language and the language in which the witness will testify. The cost of the interpreter shall be paid by the party providing the interpreter. E. The hearing may be continued from time to time upon request of a party to the hearing and upon a showing of good cause therefor. ~ The administrative procedures of ChaDter 1.40 may be utilized to supplement the above. 1.30.100 Determination of the Cily Counc.l1 Hearina Examiner. At ll£1Wõ '-ol.a.....lu$~vu or LI.Lé l.iðð.:t: iu~, The city G\"Iu.l.Lc.~l hearing examiner shall allow or overrule any or all objections, and reverse, modify or affirm the determinations of the city ð.LalemcuL code enforcement officer and may direct the city ar.ð.tcwel1t code enforcement officer to proceed and perform the work of abatement if not performed by the owner or the person in possession of the property within the prescribed time. The decision of the hearina examiner shall be in writing, contain findings of fact and conclusions of law, and be filed with the city clerk within five (5) working days of the conclusion of the hearing. A copy of the decision shall be sent to each party appearing at the hearing, and if no appearance was made by the appellant, to him or her by mail, at the address 12 , Exhibit A 13 of 54 specified in the appeal. The decision of the ~ cO...u~il hearing examiner shall be final when filed with the city clerk and constitutes the exhaustion of administrative remedv. 1.30.110 Time for compliance. If the ",it:\, ",udhcil hearing examiner decides that the Order to Abate should be enforced, the owner, his or her agent or person in possession of the property shall comply with the order within such period of time as may be therein prescribed, and in the absence of any prescribed time, within three (3) days from the date of final determination. 1.30.120 Noncompliance with order to abate. Upon the failure, neglect or refusal to properly comply with the Order to Abate within the prescribed time period, the city abatement officer may cause to be done whatever work is necessary to abate the public nuisance. An account of the cost of abatement shall be kept for each separate assessor's parcel involved in the abatement. When the city has completed the work of abatement, or has paid for such work, the owner of the property shall pay the Réqtlire~ Fee(s) costs of abatement (See also section 1.41.140). To this amount shall be added the appeal fee, if it was previously waived. The combined amounts shall be included in a bill and sent by mail to the owner, or his or her agent for payment, if not paid prior thereto. The bill shall apprise the owner that failure to pay the bill within fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing may result in a lien or assessment being placed upon the property. 1.30.130 Report and notice of hearing. If the bill is not paid within fifteen (15) days from the date of mailing, the city abaLc:lueht code enforcement officer shall _render an itemized report in writing to the city ",lel.k manager Tor ~uLmiLLal to U,e: cit~ c0w,cil for hearing and confirmation. To the report shall be attached the names and addresses of all persons having any record interest in the property. At least ten (10) days prior to said hearing, the city ",lerk manaaer or designee shall give notice, by certified mail, of said hearing to the record owner of each assessor's parcel involved in the abatement, the holder of any mortgage or deed of trust of record, and any other person known to have a legal interest in the property. Said notice shall describe the property by street number. legal or ~0lue oU,er description and tax assessor's ~arcel number sufficient to enable identification of the property and contain a statement of the amount of the proposed assessment. 1.30.140 Hearing on report. At the time fixed for receiving and considering the report, the 13 , Exhibit A è4 of 54 _ ci ty c;;oUl.~';'1 manaaer shall hear the report ±t or cause it to be ? heard by a hearing examiner 8nd for the purpose of considering any objections of any of the owners liable to be assessed for the work of abatement or any other persons who may have a legal interest in the property. The city ~v~I..:.il manaaer or hearina examiner shall add to the proposed assessment an amount equal to the cost of conducting the assessment confirmation hearing. The COllw:;il çity manager. or designee, may also make such other modifications in the report as ±t .iU:fi\ deemed necessary, after which, L.I' I.cSOIIlL';'OI., the report shall be confirmed. Tl.Lê l.oc:::.:tolutivu ðl.LJ. ~oJ.if~éd ,L,=POl t vf tl.~ (,.';'ty al..atelucht Lva:rd ",hall ....and be final and conclusive. 1.30.150 Cost as special assessment and lien. A certified copy of the I.c",vll::IL';'vh assessment shall be recorded by the city clerk in the Office of the County Recorder. The amounts and the costs of abatement mentioned in the report as confirmed shall constitute a special assessment against such property and are a lien on the property for the amount of the respective assessment. In addition to its rights to impose said special assessment, the city shall retain the alternative right to recover its costs by way of civil action against the owner and person in possession or control jointly and severally. 1.30.170 Hanner of collection-law applicable. I ~ Thereafter, the amounts of the assessment shall be collected at the same time and in the same manner as city taxes are collected, and are subject to the same penalties and the same procedure and sale in case of delinquency as provided for ordinary city taxes. All laws applicable to the levy, collection and enforcement of city taxes are applicable to such assessments, èx,-~pl Llu~,t .;.r åi.al' t:èc.l p~v~è1:l.l tv ,,1.L i (..1.1. 5ucl... l~é.b INvu.lJ. a1:.1:.6.\';I.L 1.La.¡;;, Lèc;u t:t:a.bS[él:.L.éd VoL Cvuvè}'è:J tv a. bOl.l.ð. ridè II::::lJ.Cm.uL:rð.l.........c;r [V'L vAlu.ç L.a;:, béèu G:tèöLed Qud ð..lLaG.L.èõ:l> thé1.êvl... Ìo':....';'oJ::: Lv tln;:; J.ð.toc::: vIoL ~l...':"cl.L r":".Li:lt ':"hstQllm..::;;l.LL of ;:Ju,c..11 tð.Xèi::lO w0\11..1 bè(...v.Luè J,c;lil.L':iy'I:;ut, U.Lèh Ll.L~ 1':"1::1.. -wlJ.':"G.'h INvu.lJ. vtl...è.L wi¡:,e };ìè ":".Lut-"0boc:J. .!.1.La.ll huL ð-LLac..l... Lv stlG.l.L :t'èð.l p1:vt'è1::t) ð.l.LJ. U.Lè cO,s,L of a,LAtèh&elJt als:J LIJ.è ,-0.51:. vf él.a[vr"iu9 ð.Latéhn:;;ht was (..vurixJ.u'I;d, l'Çlð.tiu~ tö ;::Ju(..l... 1-"I:Oþé..... L.1, ;::JL.ð.11 L~ L..Lau~f'Ç..........éJ. Lo tl.Lé uu~I/!("\1""''Çd LvII fv..... "vllé(..l~vu. ~ As an alternative. the city manager or hearing examiner may imnose an abatement lien upon the nroperty in accordance with section 1.41.160. 1.30.180 Violations. It !ol.all ~ unlawful for any person to interfere with the performance of the duties herein specified for the city ð.LaLe¡ucut 14 Exhibit A 15 of 54 code enforcement officer or any authorized officer or employee thereof, or to refuse to allow any such officer or employee or approved private contractor, to enter upon any premises for the purpose of abating the public nuisance or to interfere in any manner whatever with said officers or employees in the work of abatement. Paying a fine or serving a jail sentence shall not relieve any person from responsibility for correcting any condition which violates any provision of a code being enforced pursuant to this chapter. Amend Chapter 2.26 - Board of Appeals and Advisors - as follows: 2.26.030 Functions and Duties. The function and duties of the Board of Appeals and Advisors shall be as follows: A. Create a forum for city-wide discussions, research, and analysis of critical issues of building construction, including plumbing, mechanical and electrical installations. B. Where authorized by a Uniform Code adopted by the city to do so, investigate and advise as to the suitability of alternate materials, types of construction, and interpretation of said adopted Uniform Code. C. Conduct public hearings and recommend to the city council, the passage of new legislation pertaining to the design and construction of buildings, D. Act as an alternative-administrative appellate body: at the option of the city manaaer. to hear appeals relating to determinations by the city manager. code enforcement o(ficer, fire chief or director of building and housing, pursuant to city-adopted Uniform Codes, that conditions or circumstances are public nuisances and should be abated. Such codes include, but are not limited to the Uniform Building, Uniform Mechanical, Uniform Fire, Uniform Housing, Uniform Plumbing and National Electrical Codes as adopted from time to time by the city council. Hearings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth in such Uniform Codes and particularly the Uniform Code for the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings or the provisions of Chauters 1.30 and ~. The decision of the Board shall be final. Amend Chapter 5.02 - Business Licenses Generally - as follows: 5.02.050 Issuance-prerequisites and procedure qenerally. Upon application therefor as provided in this chapter, it shall be 15 - - _.~-_......,_._._--~.-_._--- ._--. --.- , Exhibit A 16 of 54 the duty of the director of finance o[fl~e~ to prepare and issue a ~, license pursuant to this chapter; provided however, that the director of finance o[[~~~x shall not issue any such license until it has been noted on the application therefor that the location of the proposed business has been reviewed by both the fire department and the planning department and any other department deemed appropriate by the finance director, and has been approved in accordance with the provisions of the building code, the zoning ordinance and any other applicable code. The "dutv" of the director of finance and other City officers. as specified above. shall not create a leqal obliqation. but merely means the city officer shall use reasonable efforts to ascertain that the issuance of the reauested license will not result in a business operation which violates applicable local laws. The applicant for the license shall have the sole and continuinq responsibility for assurinq that the business operation complies with the applicable laws. includinq the provisions of the buildinq and zoninq ordinances. Bv approvinq and issuinq a business license. the city is not certifvinq that the proposed business operation will in fact comply with applicable laws. 5.02.060 Issuance-Compliance with state and local regulations required. ~~ 1~~:~6~ o.}'~':l 1;:= b6-:d. I"ul~o.o. à [ull "uwpEauG~ ;0. t':~ w;;~ i:: ;I,~ ~~~~ ~ ~~e ~~t~ ::':~ o.L~Lê, al~J ~1,êJ.e làw6 of ll, 0. e ~ ~~~: : ~~~6~~ ,:u ~':' ~h·€:u6~d uuJ~J. auJ Ly vhLu,,: of ..Lo. i:~:' ;1'1: 6~;: ~~~;l ~~ a 'fu~~,,~~~, ~::,:,~d~ut Lu ll,ê gJ.auL~u9 of a -Lb;I't;~..,~ ~~~ ~~~}-, ;~'~ ~f a~' "'}!t'li~~~,.L :":-' l.e'.tuiJ.êJ lu Lê E"~I,o.~J i ~~: :~:i~ ~:s ~:~~~J ;u ::Owp~! uLI. ll,ê laWo. u[ Ll,e o.tat~, u 1 (;~¡ be ~o.o.ueJ Ly LI,~ ~I.Ly. No l~cense issued under the prov~s~ons of this chapter shall be construed as authorizing the conduct or continuance of any illegal or unlawful business operated in contravention of any of the laws of the city or the state. An applicant for a business license shall have the responsibility for obtaininq any reauired state license. and the issuance of a license bv the City shall not relieve an applicant from obtaininq any and all other permits or licenses reauired bv state or local laws. ~.02.070 Ia~uÀnce-EffecL of ~rior licensing by aLAte. :~~~::~ t~ ~~P~~~!;:; ;u: ~ li~:=¡,o.~ Lo du Luo.~I'~;~ ~u l~± ~~;~ ~~ ~~G~:::~~ ~~ ~':' ~,:,s~~':"So. ,:,uJ~J:: Ll,ê laWo. uf Ll,,;, 0. ~, a '~ dv bu.~.u.n::::Sõ:» w...Lll..LU Ll.n= \...l.Ll' Qolla.ll uvL Le J.chl.eJ.. 5.02.080 Issuance-Void when. If any such City license has been issued through error, the same 16 Exhibit A 17 of 54 shall be void and of no force and effect. 5.02.090 Issuance-Approval of police chief required. Licenses applied for under section 5.02.040E shall be issued only upon written approval of the chief of police. 5.02.100 Denial of license-Criteria-Notice required. The chief of police may deny the issuance of any license referred to in the preceding section to any applicant who in his reasonable discretion is not a fit and proper person to manage or conduct such business or occupation and/or if such business would be detrimental to the health, welfare or interest of the city. The director of finance officê:r shall notify the applicant of the denial of the license by delivering a notice of such denial to the applicant. Delivery of such notice may be made personally or by placing such notice in an envelope, properly addressed to such applicant, with postage prepaid, sealed and deposited in the united states mail. 5.02.110 Denial of license-Appeal-Hearing-Notice required. Ai. alJlJliCauL, u.}-',",11 J:cu':'al vf 5uc..h licehse, e.l.all have Lhe "'';''jl.l to aplJeal to the "v....u",;,l f...v'~ Sllch del.ial of Lhe "hief vf 1'vli"e Lj the fili1.'j vf a uvtice of appeal al1d ",LaL';'u'j Ll.e 'j1.VûuJ." 1l.èl.efoJ:. Such appêal ,,1.all Le f';'leJ. wit.h tI.e city cle...}., w';'Ll.';'u f';'fLeeu .lay" afLe... uvL';'f';'''atiol. of del1ial vf Lhe l';'"eu"e. The ,,';'ly cle:rk shall refe1. Lhe "a1lle to the coul1cil fo:r hea...,;,u'j, auJ. such apl-'l~'-C1uL ;:,l.LClll Lc: hotiried ~u w.L~L~u':t Ll' L11c ,-~L'y ,-lc..Lk. vf a L';',,,e, .late al1d place of hea...';'u'j. U¡,.vu good cause bei1.g "hvwu, Ll.e "ouucil ¡uay aL ';'l" J.';'""...eLivh ",et al1oLl.e... Ll.LLU::: IvA. i:::I'u\...lI . lu::a.ì. iug , al,J. aL Lhe Llwc vf i:>u,,-1J. l.eèü i1.g , the Cuuu'-.:..1 ,,1.all lu:'a..L. QUJ. J.eteJ:::m':"uc the cV lJ.-=::u\..oc p.Lco=ocltLêJ. a.t ~\l(..h appea.l. Tl1c \..ruu.u,-ll ;:=.1.1.0.11 l.àve tl.e poweJ: at such hea...';'u'j Lv J.euy Ll.e i",,,,uahce of such l,i,cel1sE: v... 'jl.c\ht the ",alue, al1d its deci,,';'vu "hàll Le fil1al. In cases where a business license or zoninq permit is denied. the applicant shall have the riqht to appeal such denial of a license to the Citv Manaqer. Such appeal shall be in writinq and shall be delivered to the office of the city Manaqer within ten davs of the notice of disaualification. The citv Manaqer or official desiqnee. shall hear and determine the appeal within sixtv davs after it is filed. The hearinq shall be conducted in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.40. The determination of the city Manaqer or official desiqnee shall be final. A fee as set forth in the Master Fee Schedule shall be imposed by the citv Manaqer as a condition to filinq anv appeal. The fee shall not be qreater than the anticipated cost of processinq and conductinq the appeal. and if the appeal results in issuance of the license. the appeal fee sha 11 be reimbursed to the applicant in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.40. 17 ----~-- -"--~"----'-'-~-"- Exhibit A 18 of ~4 ~. Revocation-Criteria. 5.02.180 , Every license issued under and by virtue of the provisions of this title and Section 8.20.020 shall be subject to revocation by the GÔl.I.u,,":"l director of finance , and such revocation shall be based upon a failure to comply with any term or terms of this code. ~ ~:~~c:tion shal.l be sub;.ect to a :.i:hs~ t~ aD~~~~ t~ t~~ ~t~; Manager or des1.9nee. US1.n9 the p oc et h n c 5.02.110 above. Following such revocation, no new license shall be issued for one year from the effective date of revocation. If, subsequent to revocation, the director of finance finds that the basis for the revocation has been corrected or abated, the applicant may be granted a license if at least ninety (90) have elapsed since the effective date of the revocation. 5.02.230 Enforcement and inspection duty. All police officers, firefighters, fire marshals, business license enforcement officers, code enforcement officers, and designees of the director of finance of the city shall have and exercise the power ",1..1 ..1uL,}' to enter free of charge for inspection of licenses, at any time during regular business hours, any place of business for which a license is required by this chapter, and to demand the exhibition of such license for the current term by any person engaged or employed in the transaction of such business, all in - accord with the right-of-entry provisions at Section 1.16.010 of this code and if such person shall then and there fail to exhibit such license, such person shall then be liable to the penalty provided for a violation of this chapter. All police officers, firefighters, and fire marshals shall have and exercise the power 11.1...1 ..1",L,}' to cause complaints to be filed in a court of competent jurisdictioriagainst all persons violating any of the licensing provisions of this chapter. :~ ~'-~ v;~i':;C1;~, -:! U,: ,-';'t~ :;01",,11 I,,,,.c ",1...1 e~~~~~:c Lhc pOwel aJ...1 ..1",L,}' tv lu",J,.,e "'.L.LcsL!> fv.L . ivl",t';'ouo!. of U,';'", 1. Amend Chapter 5.04 - License Taxes Genera~~y - as fo~~oW's: 5.04.065 Revocation of license-Notice required-Hearing. The director of finance shall deliver a notice in writing either personally or by mail to the person or business holding such license, stating that he or she is I e'-vlJ.a.uèud":"l..':::f L..... LIJ.'IWõ ,-Ou.l¡"",il Dro9osin9 the revocation of h±s ~ license, and a brief summary of the reasons therefor. Such notice shall '-vuL",.L~ L~,c ~ð.~~, ~~;~ ~~..1 i~"'::~ ~.Iu;.: =-",,-1, :,,,,...!, .Lc':'v"'¡,,cJ...1ð.Liv.: ",1,,,,11 Lê .1"",..1", ;: it.: ~~~~"':~' :; ~...t~ ~~;;; h~~ ~l~~ :'''' ",t",tc~ 1.':' LI,c uOL1....ê LI ;;;e.li;~ ;;~ 61-t'ê",1. au..1 Lê hcð..Ld bj U,c ':'v",u.:.';'l. II. U,e ê.êut tI,aL L, . u 18 Exhibit A 19 of 54 a~pê~xs c;;íl.r.J '-\"Iht.çsL~ U.Lê ~èvvc.ð.L~o.u, U.Lè ,-~.u"i~ ~u.i ~~~ ~ ¡~~è ð.~~ plac~ fv~ 1"~~~':'.." vf ~.:1d" xe~V",u,,~..d~Liv.. fv~ ~u~l" ~~v:=,~~~':';-,n. A,t du.....l... L~ìLLê 6.1.1\1 plàCç ð.i::Þ .5~t Ll' LI...é ,-vtlh"",il, l.Lçu..L~.ug wl.L~ll ~~ IJ.~~. Tl,¡1I:;. ("Ou.hG~l ¡:,l.Lð.ll .Lalç tlpuh >:Ja....l... 1::êvCh...ativl" u.hJ muj :t:ç;;vok~ Ll.Lè. o::ìð.mê u.uJ ';"ts Jêc":"¡:)i",-,u 51.LC~11 conform to Chapter 1.40 re9ardinc¡ the riaht to a hearing before the revocation may be ~ final. Amend Chapter 5. 14 - Art Figures studios - as folloW's: 5.14.030 Permit-Required for operation-Fees-Taxes-Renewal. A. Each application for operating a studio shall be accompanied by the Required Fee(s) to defray the cost of an investigation. The fee is not refundable whether a permit is granted or denied. No person shall operate a studio without first paying a business license tax. ad 1:".L~wçl"Lly Jéw":"':t.uat~J., vi. a5 luð.,l ih tL,ç faLu..L.é bç Alu'l;õudçJ., ":"1... Ll...1I:;. Mu.ò:Jtt::;.,¡.. 'fó.X 3.....1J.!;du.lç, 3è"",L":"Ol.L ::;.14.636. B. No person shall operate a studio without paying a renewal permit tax. do ~J:::çséutli dçi::Þi~hð.Lè.d, O.L ð..;::t mai' iu tl.L1I:;. fu.turê bl!:;. à..LUlI:d...J.'i:al, il.L th,ç l.fai::Þ tç,L TaX 3<:..1.i'l;J......lè, 3é,-,tivu :;. 14 . 63 e. 5.14.040 Permit-Issuance prerequisites. A. No studio permit shall be issued except upon a finding by the chief of police, based u,pon information provided bv the applicant. that the studio is proposed to be operated for the purpose of providing facilities for use by persons pursuing a course of study, including the artistic photographic portrayal of the nude human form, and by persons who engage in artistic photographic portrayal- as 'a means of livelihood. B. No studio permit shall be issued to any person under eighteen years of age, nor to a corporation, any of whose officers are under eighteen years of age. c. A No studio permit shall be i~~~ed denied upon a finding that the applicant is not of good moral character. Anyone convicted of a morals offense shall be deemed not to be of good moral character for the purposes of this section. 5.14.090 Permit-Grounds for suspension or revocation. The chief of police shall suspend or revoke a studio permit upon a finding of anyone of the following causes: A. That the studio is not being operated exclusively for the purpose of providing facilities for use by persons pursuing a course of study, including the artistic portrayal of the nude 19 Exhibit A 20 of: 54 - human form, and by persons who engage in artistic portrayal as a means of livelihood; B. That the permittee is not of good moral character. Anyone convicted of a morals offense shall be deemed not to be of good moral character for the purposes of this section; c. That payment is made by or charges or fees collected from any spectators or observers, who may be in attendance during modeling sessions, except that such payment or charges or fees shall not be deemed to include payments made by legitimate students of the operator of an art figure studio; D. That alcoholic beverages have been sold, consumed or permitted upon the premises of a studio with the knowledge of the permittee; E. That the permittee has employed a model or permitted a model to be employed in or about such studio, either with or without salary, without requiring such model to obtain a permit from the chief of pOlice authorizing such employment. 5.14.100 Permit-Appeal following suspension, revocation or denial. All denials, suspensions or revocations of studio permits and ~. studio employee permits shall be subject to review by the city ì COil...:..:.! manager: or the manager: ~:~i~i~~ ~~~~~ne~p :h~ :~~~î conduct a heanna and render ~ ~ ~~ =n :~Î;~rt; findinas within 60 days after ~ ~itt;; ;eq;;~s s he' , received. Amend Chapter 5.18 -Bi1~iards and Poo~ Ha~~s - as fo~~oYs: 5.18.020 Pool and billiard hallS-License required-Tax. Every person conducting, managing, or carrying on the business of a pool hall or billiard hall, or maintaining any premises wherein pool or billiard tables or pinball machines are maintained for the amusement of the public, shall pay a license tax as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended, in the Master Tax ~ Schedule, ß",.:;t';'o.. 5.18.626.. Coin operated machines available for use in such business establishment shall be licensed in accordance with Sections 5.60.010 and 5.61.010. 5.18.090 Pool and billiard halls-License required. It is unlawful for any person to manage, operate or conduct any poolroom or billiard room in the city without first obtaining a license from the city co~..:;';'l manaaer or desianee authorizing such person to keep, maintain and conduct a poolroom or billiard room. 20 Exhibit A 21 of 54 -" 5.18.100 Pool and billiard halls-petition for license "¡ required-contents. Every applicant for a billiard room or poolroom license shall file a petition with the city ~o~.Gil manager or designee setting forth his name and place of residence, how long he has resided in the city, the building wherein he desires to conduct such billiard room or poolroom, and the number of pool or billiard tables, or both, which he desires to operate. Amend Chapter 5.26 - Public Dances - as follows: 5.26.060 License-Fire hazard investigation required. The fire chief shall conduct or cause to be conducted an investigation of the premises identified in the application for compliance with applicable fire code provisions, and report findings to the chief of police .,.h.l' ri.Lç l~Q.~a...J.s ~l.Li,-"l.L :m~':tl.LL 6xiõ:tê if 6\.1.cl... ð:Pt'li.....Qt~vb is ':trautéd. Tl...è fi....ç cl.Liéf slJ.Cl.ll ~\:lbU1~t l.Lis :t:ê!:"vrt as Lv wlJ.éLl.Lér sth....lJ. þ.,(émiõ:tés '-au su.fè1l' bç tlS~J w~thu~t ~~I~ l...a¿ð.:t:d ð.:t:~Qih'::t bç"6:IooL~é vf r~:t:e to t.hç cl.L~er or ~ol:""é. Iu t~~ èV1::Ùtt Ll...at U...t; fi.Lé "",l...içf-õ:) J::~uì:t il.aJ.icaLéõ:t that LIJ.e t'....en~:;::té;::t 1Uð.Y uoL sa[ê1.x Lé tlSêJ. [0... dullciug LèCCldSç o[ t~.e, [ire hð.~~l:J, ~~.o [d.L Ll.L1::d:: Q"t~Oh ¡:,L.u.ll Le Lakçu looLutil tl...é '-ul&d.Ltl.v....s ,-"réð.l~lJ.'::t tl.Le llð.Lu..LJ l.LQ~è Léèu cv£rç.....tèd. 5.26.070 License-Issuance-Appeal and public hearing of disallowed license. '\ ¡ The director of finance orfi"",er shall, after receipt of the recommendation of the chief of police, allow or disallow the license applied for, and if said recommendation is favorable, the director of finance u[[i~cr shall forthwith issue the license upon the payment of the license fee hereinafter provided. In the event that the chief of police shall'" present an adverse recommendation for consideration by the director of finance vrf:"",ér, and said license shall be disallowed, the applicant may appeal said recommendation to the city Gu...h.:;il manaaer or designee with-in ten days of receipt of written notice by the director of finance o[[~.:;er that the application for said license has. been disallowed. Upon receipt of said appeal and nayment of fee as set forth in the Master Fee Schedule, the city .:;lcl:k manager or desianee shall set the appeal for public hearing. At the hearing. the city manager or the manaaers official desianee shall take testimony and determine :~~t~:~~h:, ~Plii~:t ~eets all the reau~rements of .t~is Chapter. n r deny lIcense on that basl:s. The deCISIO~ ~hall b: final. ~l: Q\".o"~:J~l:é witI.. 3e"",ti",,:u 6666 eL se~. vI Ll..é Gov çL1.LIfiçl1t CoJe vI Lllé i::JtaLç 1Jf CQliroJ,..u~ð.. 5.26.120 License-Suspension or revocation authorized when-Procedure. The chief of police of the city is hereby authorized temporarily to 21 Exhibit A 22 of. 54 /"" suspend any license issued under this chapter, in the event that any public dance licensed thereby is being conducted in violation of any law, or if there is such conduct being permitted therein which is offensive to morals or decency or which has a tendency to provoke a breach of the peace. Within five days of such temporary suspension the chief of police shall file written charges with the city clca..À. manaQ'er. within twenty days of the filing of such charges, the city "'......."'il manager shall cause an investigation to be made thereof and shall thereupon have power to either revoke the suspension order or to suspend the license for such further period of time as it may deem proper, or to revoke and annul such license. For any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter or for any cause based on public health, safety, morals, or general welfare, the city com.cil manaaer may at any time suspend or revoke any license issued under the terms of this chapter. 5.26.230 Density requirement of premises location. In the interests of protecting the public and preserving the peace of the community, no permit shall be issued under the provisions of this chapter for any premises located within three hundred feet or less of premises for which a permit has been previously secured according to the provisions of this chapter; provided however, the ci ty '-v.....l¿'-il manaQ'er may, upon application and for good cause, waive said restriction. 5.26.290 Youth dances-Taxes for permits-Refunds. The taxes for permits issued under this chapter shall be payable to the police department in advance, and for the several classes of permits provided in this chapter, the taxes shall be as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended..., .:... Ll.", M",,,,l,,,l. Féé 3,-,1..èJ.ulé, 3ê\.ooL";'ou 3.26.296. - In the event that the application is denied or the permit is revoked, no part of the applicable tax shall be refunded. - 5.26.300 Youth dances-Grounds for suspension or revocation of permit. Any permit may be revoked or suspended by the chief of police upon any of the following grounds: A. The misrepresentation of a material fact in the application for a permit by an applicant or by the holder of a permit; B. The violation of any provision of this chapter by the holder of a permit; c. When the continuance of a permit would. based upon facts and evidence presented to, or gathered by. the chief of police be. contrary to the public health, safety, welfare, peace or .. , 22 ..---_.__._0- _______.-0_______.0___..____. Exhibit A 23 of 54 morals. Amend Chapter 5.32 - Garage Sales - as follows: 5.32.060 Penalty for violations. Any violation of this chapter shall constitute an infraction. and the administrative citation Drovisions contained in chaDter 1.41 of this code shall be applicable. Amend Chapter 5.35 - Bathhouses - as follows: 5.35.123 Denial, suspension or Revocation of License. Any license issued pursuant to this chapter may be suspended or revoked by the police chief on proof of violation by the permittee of any provisions of state law, this chapter, city ordinances or any rule or regulation adopted and approved pursuant to section 5.35.121, or in any case where the police chief, on the advice of the health officer, determines the bathhouse is being managed, conducted, or maintained without regard for the public health, or the health of patrons or customers, or without due regard to proper sanitation or hygiene. Where a license is denied or a license renewal is denied, or where a license is suspended or revoked by the police chief, such denial, suspension, or revocation may be appealed by the license applicant or licensee in accordance with the provisions of 3ectiohS ::;.36.246 tlú..vuylJ. ::;.36.326. I1& Ll¿ç; çyel.lt ~~'H.l(..lJ. provisioIJS ð.::tè \1t~li~çJ., tlJ.è policé ",lJ.ié[ ~Q autlJ.oriz;éJ. to tAkç LIJ.e cl.\....LiolJ.S tl.a.èXéilJ. ~éÇi(¡i:"'çd V.L ð:uthorizêd or UJ,'õ; "",it}' llLð.lu~.gêr ChaDter 1. 40. Amend Chapter 5.36 - Massage Parlors - as follows: 5.36.130 License or permit-xssuance prerequisites-Appeal of denial- Transferability. - A. Any applicant for a permit pursuant to these provisions shall present to the police department the application containing the aforementioned and described information. The chief of police shall have a reasonable time in which to investigate the application and the background of the applicant. Based on such investigation, the chief of police, or his representative, shall render a recommendation as to the approval or denial of the permit t·o the city manager QJ: desianee. B. The department of building and housing, the fire department and the county health officer shall inspect the premises proposed to be devoted to the massage establishment and shall make separate recommendations to the city manager or desi9nee concerning compliance with the foregoing provisions. 23 - .--.-----..---.--<--- Exhibit A 24 of _';4 C. The city manager, or his designee, after receiving the ~. aforementioned and described recommendations, shall grant a . permit to the establishment if all requirements for a massage establishment described herein are met, and shall issue a permit to all persons who have applied to perform massage services unless it appears that any such person has deliberately falsified the application or unless it appears that the record of any such person reveals a conviction of a felony or a crime of moral turpitude. The city manager ~ designee may recommend to the city council that an individual business establishment shall be subject to a public hearing and council approval, when in his judgment any such business establishment has an effect upon the public health, safety or welfare of the community. D. Any person denied a permit by the city manager or his designee pursuant to these provisions mðY shall be notified ~ursuant to ChaDter 1. 40 regarding an appeal to Ll,~ "it}' "odu"il it. wl.it.ihg, õ:tLðlil&9 ....ça¡;:u..lbõ:t why the permit should be granted. The ,"",~L.l (..otllAcil äldY 9:t:ð.ht 1J.L Jçuì tl¿é p~rm.it Al..d stich decision pursuant to Chapter 1. 40 shall be final upon the applicant. Also, the city council may elect on its own motion to review any determination of the city manager granting or denying a permit. in which case. that decision shall then constitute the exhaustion of administrative remedy. E. All permits issued hereunder are nontransferable; provided r-. however, a change of location of a massage establishment may . . be permitted pursuant to the provisions herein. 5.36.240 License or permit-suspension, revocation or denial-Public hearing required. Before denying, suspending or revoking a license or permit issued pursuant to this chapter, the city manager shall carr offer the applicant or permittee a hearing as provided in th±s chapter ~. S.36.ZS8 B6&ring HoL~'6 required. UpOh tl..e VCLllil.ag or sth...l... u. l:"éð.:t: iiJ9 I tl..ê '""'~ Ll' J.uð.l.l.à,9ér 51...a11 Cdu.¡:n:;; ð. w.L':"LLéh l.aotice of l.n:::CLLi.bg spêciryil.a~ Ll"ç Liluè ðhd place \..If l...ça:"'~hg ð.l"d Ll"1I; .Lça~Ol& for ;::Ju"""l.L ð. déhið.l, SI:lSPÇUi::t':"o:a... O~ J:::èvoc.ð.tioh to Lç sç.L~éd pé:t:SOha.11.l 0:'" Ly mail u!:-'vu Ll..e licéhSé OJ: pç.LJ.u':"L l..olJè:t:. 3u.'-1... !¡'èrvicç ;;:tl...a.ll be m.ð.de aL lça;::tt rive days befo.Lç Ll"ç In:~A~ilag. The day wfL1I;,L .l.uàilihg sl.La.ll Le Jéèlbéd tl..ð fi.Li:JL v[ tl.Le rive days [or dçLç.L.LLL":"hih9 tl.Lê fivç J.ð.} period. 5.36.168 H6Arinq FrOG6dur6 q6n6r&11y. At tl.Lè L':"~LLÇ QUJ. plAce wl.L":""",l.L i6 b.ppoil.ted [or tl~e l.Lça..L':"uy, Ll~ç "",':"l} 24 Exhibit A 25 of 54 lLlAl...ð.9êJ::: ;::)l...all l.leal: tl...e. pa.::t: tièà C;;U.LJ. Lg,À.ç çv ":"J.II:ÙJ,-,II;. ~.36.!78 H66z~n9 Rulaa of 6v14en'6. 'fl...e l...eàl.":"hg heed hot be cO.ll\h",vLçJ. u,,-,-,,,,rdil.Lg to tl...~ stð.tt1to~y 01:: (..OhattOl 1 ~ules o£ èviJ,èl&(..ç. Au}' ,¡,.çlçYQ,uL ÇV.LJ,çuce. l'hð.Y be. . Q" . . . t:t t: f c;.¡J.:wiLLçJ. QUJ. cOl¡side.:t:ed L} llJ.e ,-,Ill' ,WQ.UCI.':tI;.... ..Lf ..LL..L5 ...e. s<?1: 0 çy iJ.çu"-"lI; \JU ",1.1":",-1... re.spol.asible. pèl.~vl..o:» ð..L'I; CI.\"oo,-,u,;:JcLvw,çJ. Lv .1..11;11' 1.1& tILe (..\Jl...J.~"",L of sex ions ð..fíaiî:s. OLj'l;,-"Livh;;:. to çy....J.çu,-,= i:Jl.La,11 be. l...oted Al,.d a ~t:Llil.L":J g":"véH L}' LI.Le city lhð..hð.ger. S.36.!88 B66z~n9 Ð6ciaion of 4et6rmin&tion. At LI...ê c.olJ.clusiolJ. of tL.è l.Lêð..... ":"uy, Ll.Lt; .......:..Ll' 'wahagé.:t: 51...611 luakl::: a.u v....Jex. 311ch ordex C6.1&. A. Ðiò:thLii:J~ tl¿è (..lu;lLyç;:::tl D. 3(ld~élJ.J. 01:: xé.vokç Ll"'lI; l":"cèlJ.se '-'.L .t:'e......w...:..t, OJ::: c. Affix stl,-l¿ Otl~èl. ,-vuJ.":"L":"Ol.ðl aJ.d j:lkvLaL":"oJ.a.r:} Ordèi.Qò as 1hð} be Ì:JkV ç~ fo1. ll.è ÇufVkG~m~ht. of t.his Gl.apt.èì:. A '-V!:l:J of tJ..e dèCisiol. sþécif}ihg f":"lJJ":"u'::fõ::Þ vf fa<:..L ~uJ U¿ç .r:éason.~ fDi. Ll¿ç dèCisiol. sl.a11 be f~l.u":"õ::Þl.çd t.v Ll.ç 1.J..,-çuse or þe:t:m~t 1.vlJ.ç.L ~l 6l~è.11 Lç ":"..formed of l¿i~ 1: igL.t. to à~eal. }Ju.ki:tu.a..t to n.. . t t: 3e,-L":"vl.,s :.J6.31Ð àhd 3.36.326 vr ll¿.J..õ::Þ' ,-.a!:l Çk. 5.36.!98 Effe~t or ð6~~6~on 6tayed when. T! If L r J. Gisiol by tl¿è city h'aàlu~.ge1: Sl.àll Lé sÞLajlçJ. wl¿":"lç ¿ç ç ç,- v a c . .. :I: . I apþèð.l t.o cotlh,-i1 i~ PçuJ":"uy Vk u.uL~l Ll.ç L....ué for [1. 1.lag SU~ ¿ ~~Pèb.1 l.u..~ çX!:I":"l.çJ.. çA,-ç!",L as provided ih 3ectiola ::;.36.366 vf tl....& ,-1¿a!:l Lek . ~.36.388 HeAring Not required when Er!e~l. ¡Riéh, 11. tl.c vp":"..":"v.. vi the city mahager tl.è.té i~ 6,1. ih~èJ~Qtç tt.:IeaL to tl¿é pttblic l.eð.1tl¿, ~I::õlIð.J::~ o~ bàIcl.j, lie way delJ~, suspel.d or revokè. ð. 1i'-èh$ç Vk !:Içk.u...L l.õ::Þ'õ::ÞucJ.. l:-ru.kõ::Þu.aut to tl.1.5 '-1¿apter witl¿out c6.1111J.9 6. lJ.çai.~u'::f. 'fl.I::õ !",çi.õ::Þvu arrç,-LçJ. wa:J a.t:'.t:'e~l I J. 'SiOl pu..Lõ::Þ'uallt to 3ectiolJ.S :.36.31Ð ð.lJ.d :.36.326 vf LI¿...;:, ;:,u.,-¿ c'-... .I. d d . I ¡..L r 1'1 e effect of stlcl. dé,-isio1. sl¿ð.ll 1&ot be stðYé Ul.~l1g '- .a I::õ. ¿ J:.¡e!.LJ.é1.'-l' or ~~~I¿ a~.t:'ça1. ~.36.318 App..l P6l~L~on x6quired. AI'!'} pexsoh afreGt~d by ah act.io!. t.ð.ke!. or ptl.tpo~ted to Le tð.k7h UUJÇk au.l.l.v.L~Li vf Ll¿':'~ ,-l.a.t:'Lc.L, Vol. Li a fa;-lu...ç Lo. act 1.la '-ohfoì:mit.y witl. tl.is cl.ðpte.t, ~ð.Y àpþeð.l s~cl. ð.~t~ò1. òi. [a...ló'.LI::õ Lo ac.t by filil.g witl.ih tel. days of s~Gh act or. fa1.1uré, ð-l. ð.Pbrl::õllð.LI::õ petitio!. with. tl.ê. ~ity Glêrk 01& ð. [o.rm ftlrh1.s1¿ed by 1.é1:. ~ ' 25 ~_ _._._ ___ _.___ ____________~_.____________m___ Exhibit A 26 of 54 · __ ~.36.31ð App6&1 PubliG h6&Z~A9 BoL~~6 E££6~L of de~iðio~. Tl.L~ city ",leLk i:JI...all set tl.Lè appeal [",,1: 1-raLl~(.. l.Léð.rih9. Uoti,-__ tl...çi.çv[ sl.l.ð.ll Le p~l~Qòl.Led ill ð. l.lèwspapex or ~çuç.Lal ci:t:ctl.lð..tio}¡ ð.t lèAbL vuc.:e tell. dð:}'~ ~l.~V.L. Lv U.Le JaLe of the 1.Léð..J::ilJ9 wl.L~,-,l.L i::Il.u~.ll be wi tl.t";"h Ll..":".L L.l' dð.y s aftèl:: al-'l-'çllal...t files l.Lis appellaLç l:-'çL":" Lioh. At U.Lð ,-"vuclusi\)ll vI U.l.ð l.Lêarihg, ,"ottl...(..il bl.LAll L.r :resolutiol.1 gl.ð..uL vi. Jçu.l Ll...ç appêal. m.tçh the appellð.te pçt':"t':"vu is filed wi.ll:.. llu:::; ",itjl ,-Ie:...}." a.u,}' actio}, ~l.Li,"",l.L ':"ò:Þ LI.Le sttbject. of ll.Lç appeal 051.16.11 Lç · ò:Þ LQ.l çJ. ,...d"til cO~h(..':"l Jçcides tl.lé Appeöl, 1;A.'-'__l:-'t. as pl. 0 ~ ':"J.çJ ':"u 3__"-,,tivh :;. 36. 3Ð0 vf this clu~:ptéJ::. If \.ovu.hcil grð.l.Lts. LI.Lè Appeal, cotll¡(..il Qll.Lall dirè'-t. Ll.Le apprO¡n:iðté ð,-tivu vi the city .LIlu..hagèr. If ,-,,-,u,l.Lcil Jèu~1;;;:' the àþpèð.l I Ll.Le actio!. of tJ.L1; city ~ual!agér bèCO~1;Qo effectiv1; ~.LULI.Ledidtel} t:LJ:oIvu J1;u~al. Amend Chapter 5.38 - Pawnbrokers, Secondhand and Junk Store Dealers - as folloW's: 5.38.210 License-Revocation or suspension when. In the event that any person holding a license authorizing him to · engage in, conduct, manage or carry on the business of a pawnbroker or secondhand dealer, or any agent or employee of any such person violates or causes or permits to be violated any of the provisions of this chapter, or has been convicted of any crime involving stolen property, the chief of police shall, in addition to the other penalties provided by this chapter, forthwith suspend the business license or licenses and cause said business to be ! immediately closed. The chief of police shall notify the license holder of the suspension of said license by delivering a notice of such suspension to the license holder or his agent or employee. Delivery of such notice may be made personally or by placing such notice in an envelope properly addressed to such license holder · with postage prepaid, sealed and deposited in the united states mail. A licensee, upon suspension of such license, shall have the right to appeal to the city couhcil manaaer from such order of suspension by the chief of police by the filing of a notice of appeal. paying appropriate appeal fees as set forth in the-Master Fee Schedule and stating the grounds therefor. Such appeal shall be filed with the city ~le~~ manager within fifteeh ~ days after notification of suspension. The city manaaer shall utilize the crovisions of Chapter 1.40 regardina notice. acceal and hearina aoverning the exhaustion of administrative remedv for the revocation or suscension of permits. · 5.38.220 License-Public hearing on suspension/revocation. The city ~le..~ manager shall refer the notice of appeal to tl,e ",':'ty ~...",¡,,,,:i.l for hearing in accordance with Chapter 1.40, and the licensee shall be notified in writing L.l tl,e ~it.l clerk of the time, place and date of hearing, which shall be not more ~ than ten days from the filing of the notice of appeal. U¡,.....u goo..! ",a",,,,e Lèil!~ ;;:.l.Lvwl!I tl.Lé '-vu,u,-,~l :mA} aL ~L;::I J~5'-l:éL'::"vuI s,et auotl.Ler tih'1; 26 · Exhibit A 27 of 54 _ [\JJ- ;::Iou.,-I... l...çA.L.~l...'::t D:L: ,"ol..t.il.tlè btlG.l... l.u:=a....i.:a...9, tll.J 6,1:. tl...é t.i...ué \.If suel... heaxiJ'9 51.all 1.ear evidehce presèhted at such appeal. The c.ouhcil àl¿ðll l...dvé t.lJ.~ POWê:t: ð:t. stlG'l.L l.Léð.:t: ili9 to StlSþélnl 51.1.,-,1... liG.êl...õ:'é £01: A :t:é6S0l.að.blé þêriod of timê or révoké stl,-l... li(.éhsé. 'ftl,é i::IOI.1.i::IOpçh6iolJ O.L. 1I;v.....""'QL~vh of sk:l(.l.L licèl.asè Ql"1;I.11 L¡c:; ¡:)vlely wlLI...il... thê disc.t:étioh of U.è ...."''"'"c.il ahd shall be; fil.al. If the license or licenses of any person licensed by this chapter is so revoked, no license shall be granted to such person to conduct or carry on such business within six months after such revocation. During the period of suspension or revocation, the chief of police shall sequester any pledged or pawned goods and hold said goods at the police station in the city or other secured location, and shall post an appropriate notice at the place of business that such goods may be reclaimed at the police station. Amend Chapter 5.44 - Race Tracks - as follows: 5.44.020 operation deemed nuisance-Abatement. Any violation of the provisions of section 5.44.010 is declared to be a public nuisance, and upon order of the city ...."'Uh.....a manaaer or official designee, the city attorney shall ~ immediately initiate proceedings necessary for the abatement or enjoinment of such violation in the manner provided by law. Repeal Chapter 5.48 - Closing OUt Sales S.48.818 Exemptiona to .ppli'ability. Tl"'l; 'p.L\JýI~,¡:;:,lv.uQ \,.1'[ U.L~Q ,-1.LI;lt"'Lè..L ~l.LQ.ll 1.u,...L àWlj1 ~u Ll.l.":;; 'l..,.Q.>=t1; v[. A. 3alçi:) '-Ol.aJ.U(..t.éJ. b} 01:J.ê:t: òJ:: i-'l:O"è6S of ð. (,,01:1,)::1:. of (..~.I.L~ÇL.=Ù:..t :) \1:'" lõ:l>J.i.c tivl.a, 13. 3ales ....OI.du....Lcd by public officers sucl. as ¡aaxsl.ð.ls ð.hd sl...érirfs il¡ dGcorddl¡Gê with. tl¡êir pow~rs dl¡d dutiês, c. 3ãlê6 hidJè clbJêX ð.l¡ dðo::.ig¡(wé:ut fo,x thé Lébéfit. o,f <"'i.çJ~lvi.6 gél¡~:t:6.11}, pro", idéd, tl¡dt facts of such. té:t:luibð.tiol¡ dl¡d l~'i.u~Ja.L~vu Lç '-lça.....l.r o::.çL fv.... Ll... ~ú ll...ç p(d,l~,- a.uuVUU,-ç¡uçuL vf i::ÞI.I.,-I¡ i::Þa.lç. 5.48.626 closinq out sale defined. Wl¡çuç"'ç.... Ui::ÞçJ ~u Ll¡ii::Þ ,-1¡Qptç:t:, Ll...ç lçi.lu u<...loi::Þib9 vuL i::ÞQlçu i::Þl...ð.ll m-êdh a.h.r vffç.... tv i::Þçll Lv Ll...ç puLl~,-, VL o::.a.lç Lv Ll...ê public, of ~vôJ.å, Wt!:LXe-S or me-rGl¡ð.l¡dise- tlpOI¡ tl...~ ilL~liêd or e-XPlè6S,èJ rét'....é;;:n;;uLa.L~vu Ll¡a.L 6(4<...1... i::ÞAlç ':;',$ ih Ahticipð.tivh v£ Ll...'õ;. ......ço.Sih9, di.scvuL~uu.a.u,-ç v.... tç....luiuð.tiôh of d L~o::.il¡éi::Þ$, vi. tl...a.L o::.uGh. s6.1ê i.s -- 27 - - ---. "..._..~~---_._----~- Exhibit A 27 of 54 r01. ~I;¿,-l... 1"'1;61: ":""'.19 0.1. G.OJ.itilu.&è i:Þth...l.. l...ça.:t iug, aud at Lhé Litu1Wi Ó[ Sl.."",l... ,-..... l...èc;u.. .:'.1l.y $1",,",11 IJ.~ð.~ èv iJ.el¡(..1I; P.L1;;õ.!;çutèJ. At ;:,u.(..l... Al-'l-'èQ.l. 'f'1.,1I; (..\"11..1.1...,,,":"1 Sl.Lall l...ð.yç Lhé 1""0",=1: äL Su.Gh 1...eà.Lil.a9 to õ:Jt1i:J}"èln] Sln..l.L Ii,-'!;}...,!.,!;;; [0.1.. ð. rêð.S~l.Là~~ê ~1;:t:i,-,J. Or ti.au.ê \.1.1. l.èvoke i::ÞwG.l¿ li(..en;::tll;. 'fl.L1Wi àu.spcusivh 0.... .&..e~v("ð.L":"Oli vf 6u.G.i.L li(..çuSè sl¿all Le ò:tvlèly "'..:..tl.....:..u U...é J.ia'-.LèL":"OlJ vI Ll"'lI; (,.,..",...1...(..11 dnJ. slu;¡.ll be r":"I...",l. If the license or licenses of any person licensed by this chapter is so revoked, no license shall be granted to such person to conduct or carry on such business within six months after such revocation. During the period of suspension or revocation, the chief of pOlice shall sequester any pledged or pawned goods and hold said goods at the police station in the city or other secured location, and shall post an appropriate notice at the place of business that such goods may be reclaimed at the police station. Amend Chapter 5.44 - Race Tracks - as rolloys: 5.44.020 Operation deemed nuisance-Abatement. Any violation of the provisions of Section 5.44.010 is declared to be a public nuisance, and upon order of the city ,-vu.ln...il manager or official desianee, the city attorney sl,,:.ll ~ immediately initiate proceedings necessary for the abatement or enjoinment of such violation in the manner provided by law. Repeal Chapter 5.48 - Closing Out Sales ~.48.818 Exemption6 to &ppli~ab~liLJ. Tl"'1; Pl:vviS.":"Oh;:¡o of tl...":"s ,-l...b..,pLél. 51...all uot uÞt-'ly ":"1... U.u;; G.ð.ò:tê vf. A. ~ð:Ì7S ,:"O!'<;1acL/!oJ L:¡¡ Ol~er or .t'luGê$~ <Jf ð GOu..rL of '-vülp,=Lél.LL 'ur~5Ji Li 1 J \..0 V I, B. 3dl,=s \..oOll~w'" L,=d by p...L Ii c; vff":"c,=..LS ~w\..ol... as .lUA..L ~lu;l.ls dln1 .sh~r iff,$ ":'n d'-<....or~u.}¡\..o'= "'..:.. tl... LII,=ir .t'0w,=r;::t AbJ. ~ut":',=s, c. 3al,=s hLU.d1;;õ ullclèl au ð.~~i':lul':l,=ut fol. tl.....- Lehèfit of '-l.1õ:õdiLol.ò:t 9èu1õ:õXðlly, i-ørov":'deJ, Ll.lat fd'-L;::t of sW\..ol.L té..L.....Liuu.t..:.""'l... d¡"J. liql1":'~dL":'Oh Lé \..oleyl: l,}' 'seL fv!. U... iu tl.L'= }.¡uLl":'", al...hvwl...\..o~eht of sucl... ;::tAl,=. ~.48.8Z8 CloaiAg out &616 defiA64. ~n.n:~~...ev~:"" u~çd ":'1... Ll.Li;::t Glu....}.¡L1;;õr, tl.....- le1:lu ""10~":"}¡9 OL..L ;::tal,=" ~1.L6.1l ~~~~: yl...} ~ffél. tv sell to LI.Lè .t'tlLli\..o, V..L ;::talc tv tl...e ~...tLl":'"" or ~<?~~~, ~ð.~e~ ';': me.LClu;I.ud':"Sé· U}.¡"",h tl...,= ..:........t'liêJ. vr é,A,l-'leSSçd ~¡~1.:=;~-;::L':'Oh tl.d: ......:.1. ..",Ie ':'$ Ìl. ahL':'''':'t>dL':'o.. of Ll.e "e..si..g, dis':'v"t':'un..¡."", 01 t",...u,':'..dL':'Oh of a La..':'¡.",..S, 01 tJ...1:. ..u....h ..dIe .:.'" ) .~~ 27 Exhibit A 29 of 54 ~.48.838 Li~6na6 Required. ~, No ~e...~oh ~l.àll àJ~e1t.i~e 01. ...OI.JuCt. à cloàL.o, 1 OU~iSàle à~1 ~el~ ~~ rrè r lè Q.l(~' gooJo, Wg....e.~ OJ:: .ulè:t:(... U;U,¡ ~ç ,a. Q. V ... 'l.... J ~to be c.losill ouL sale w':'Ll.o\1L [Üst oLtalll.d.g a ~7Pt Sél. e a ~ 3: ' t b li....e;.~e Lo Cvhd\1...L bud. ...lobL.g vut ,bAle. . ~[ ~uch t.l'a e ...~, ~ I e (... d\1 LeJ at. puLli(... uU(...L':'Oh, Lheh l.h AJdl.t.l.vh t.v .e ~~o~:..~...o'[ oruLl.is ""hAtlL;¡;, Lhe ~...O~ ':'~~Oll~ of vLJ.el. a~pl':'""uble ~.tOy ...Sl.Oh~ 0 thi;:t coJe or oll¡ê! ,,":"ty ord~J.lah(,;çS sl.Lu,ll à1"'Ply. ~.48.848 ~iG6nð6 Appli'AL~on ConL6nta z6quiz6d. . t:' 0 £01: licèu~e. ..I..=':i..i~=J. Ly Ll.li~ ,"",l&ð.~L=r: ,sl.u;,ll L~ £~leJ ~itt"'~l:e \i'l.auce vHi(...e... bj' Ll.e ~eîsOh ""OhJu""e~il.~t. L[îeel.""l~f"'l.9' 3~~~ sð.l àL 1 Q,;:tL tèu dð..lQ þl.":"Oî: l"" t.l.= "",Ohau,..-uC LÇu .L ç . . . appi':'cat'';;. fv!: li""él.be Sl.All l"e Ìl. w.titL.g, ",':'gl.ed a;.d Y~Uf...e~ tll.d.,... Oat:h, L}' tol.e pe...SOI. who ':'ntel.J~ t.v ""OhJu:-L àLîc, ~A 1~~1w ~u9' ~ pli Li 051 11 QI1;t £,-,,1:: tl... u.l..d c;ohLQ...Lh ...é 'IJ .1..... 7à.,;:'" QJ:' ""'Q.....,U " 'Q. i......fol.¿uð.t'::"vu. A. Ðes'-l. '::"l-'Livu 61.1\1 sl....=et luCAL":"vu vi tl...ç. J:-'lA(..ç a.L nh.":",-"l... ;:",...(;..1.1. sale i¡: o Lo Le l.lçld, B. The HUt.u...e vf tl.e vcc.\11-au,"}, wl.e~.er L}' ~IwHe1:È~¿L?1. 11dt'; ~'[ ..5uL111:;ð.~ç ðJ."J ..::...r L.l 1éà;:::.ç \.JL sttL ça5ç, .l.ç II:; .....vç a téLwiuð.t~\.Ju of stl(..l... tél.l.àuG)', 1 C 1'1 éA.I.;:::' to Le; ç.I.U.t:-'loYçJ ~u !:'tlL1"::";::tl.l.il.l.9 uoli,-~ or ~tl,:-l... sA1ç, , . t~:eLl.e~ wit.l. tl.e ~101-v~ed ",ont.ehL~ of ~a(...l. ud1;le... Ll.~.l.ug, D Tl fð.(...Ls L. ...e'; a...J Lv Lhe ':'usOlyeucy, Lð.I.k....u~t.:..}' L .às~.:.o, .¡"eLIL, . .l.ç. él. 1 i~ or théJ.. Cð.(¿;::t~ fvr tl.1.ç di;::tso1r... ~Oh 0 Ie :t:e,-II:;...V ;:::. .I. v bu.!til"êSS, E A.. i:a e.l.l.l\.JJ::}' VL ~LQLêmçuL ;:::.çLLib':t .ro~ ll... ~1...ç q\:lð.uLity QhJ . J " i~l' 01 f 611 gOvJs tIIQLêS lluJ. lùèL'-hð.hJ.....Sé Lv be solJ Qt e~l'" àl~ . 'ill 9' ds ~ð.re~ ð.J.d luercl'<1Hdi~e liàLed u~;:)J. Ll.e sue..I.;::t. vv, . d I:: . i b i L iIHel.Lor} 01 àLat.~e¡.t ~hàll l..e Sv .Je,s(....l....¡ei tJ., leal. Ll \ Ll ~ :a:........l.uLéL, Ll.Qud UQ.l.Ue Qud vLh.ê!: aJdlt......vuA e A...... .!J..v .Lu, Lê iJeHt.iL} of ~u(...l. o, ooJ~ will. t.l.e l.lHeutor}' 1.l.~L...I.-:¡ ."àY Ll J.i1 J.ét i1 J. All ,-vllsigu.I.Ue1ít ':IooJ~ 1~6Led u.!-'Oh lé :t éQ Y II:;L.I.U .l.ç . . . n t: il to or Ldt.ekuel't. ~l.ull Le Su JeSl.~HdteJ. Nv ""Ol.~...g {.l e:i g~~J:~ ¡¡.~~ Le iHcl\1Jed il. U.e ~ule \1Hle,s& ~fch. ""tl·f;~I.~J t.i~O L; 1 e Leê11 "::".1..1. tl.l.lI:; ð.pÌJ1":"cb.l:.L I oS ~v;::t5es&.....oh :-'L ð. ~. .L d;;à tI.tiv... t.o Ll.e filil.~ of Lhe <1~tlli(...aLl.Oh as 1.eq\1l...ed L} tll':'s (..I.l.u,ptç.L, II U e è:a L tl...QL ðì.1,-l... ~a.lç will Lé ,-OlaJu.GteJ At .t:-'uL1i,- F. a~(...Ll~l., etl.~ HAI\.e vf Ll.e au""LiOl.ee1 wl.v Sl.all (...vud\1""L su""l. AUe. L":" 01.1. ;::tu,le. 29 ---_._~.-_..._---_.--~. Exhibit A 30 of 54 S.48.8Se Business liG6nSa Surrender r6qu~r6d when. --- , . f ð. closil.ag out ~Qlç l..L,-çui::»'I::, as AQ a '-~hditioh. to Ll.L~ ..Ld5tl~laG~1 ~s GL.ð.pté~ tl..è å1-'tl1':"Cð:ht sl.1.all . d i:1:Gé16è i. J.ç[.LUç l.h.L I . i' se ¡:;:U;I...L ..;;II L' f tl e. applicAht· s LUSl.Úç;:þ;::» ..L\.oo-=::.I.. """",.Ù.ai::u::;uL to tL.é :tévO'-a ..LV"'" ,0. .L of cL.6. tçi:g 3.82 ð.l¡d :;.04. If issued pUJ::suð.hl Lv Ll.e, pJ:ov ~s~OhiSSt1ed ~I e ð.þplic6.1.L· '" l..usil.ess thç ",10;;:11':"119 Otlt sale. l..L,-ç.ust! l.Sk J. ' LI e. expixAtiou of Ll...ç li'-èi Sè ol...ð.ll be. déél"éd ì:ç~\"I ç u,l-'':'u .. 1 ." ut. 661 l' ê or 6.1&)' èXtèlJõ:Þ1.0u LI.i'l;,L çof. C OS1.1..g 0 ç ..L'-...u.... .. f ii'~L %ððuanC6 F665 And ~.48.868 ~iG.na6 I~66L.qat~o~ 0 app Tax66 Agr6~6nt r6qa~r64. t' f tt t ief of vI ice of tl.c £,;.1 il.g TI.e fÌlu:u.,-c officeJ:: !o1.all "C,I ~ ¡. ;e Ci- e may ~ke v1. cause to l..e vi U.Lé appli("ð..t':"uu. u.ud th~ "'.Llot, ~ti~~ ~r ll"lI; ;:ÞLaL~Ihé:bt.Q l-'u.L rV.LLl.L lrt.adé, à'u çA.u.J.Ll1hat.~oh v.&. ..LUy~S ~9 J.1 . lId I i,à ffa.irs ih :I: . t' f t.l é APp -Ì.,-,ð.,u a J. J. a , il. SI:1.:.l. a¡..o¡..o ~Cð. ~o¡" V,L IV. . L Ie If tIie ,-l.ief of polic.c l:..::1atiolJ. to tlJ.é ~:a..vt-'vs~d '" oSl.u~ vu. õ:Þa. . . t tl At tlJ.é fit.J.", Ll.aL tl.~ stð.tc.ue~.ts t· f t~e ð.l'l'h':'t~-'-~· o~J:::ble"':¿il.ç . i1. ð.1.y · J. eJ::tisil.g t.:. l..c ",sðd ~s 1.0 ð. "'c, c'-c¡..o v . t:I Ie J::e Q Y t. d tl l Ll ð proposeJ lueLIJ.vJ.õ:Þ' of GOIJ.J.tJ.,,"L..L'u~ J.é.&a a ~.~~¡..o~~cÍ. ~1~, .;.:~ the' ol'i1~iv" vi the cl.ief of ¡..ovUc~, t~~e",l~l.~:~k v~ f:a..a~J. vî ~tsréP1.:õ:Þ:l~at101~1~~A1~t~J. ~~:JClt~J.~érf'~hal:~~ off~Gér slJ.all polJ..ce õ:Þ' J.A appr Y J.ç at-' I ð. SAl i ccorJ.ð..IJ.'-''':: witlJ. tlJ.ê ' :1:' to J. L StlC J. ..:: U u ~.sStlè U ..L,-,..::!J.Sð. '-'",",u 1,4'-' LI wi5ð th~ ",hief vf ,tJ'oli(..e õ:Þ'lJ.all l->,LVV ';'",i01.S L~f Lluii~~î..ð.,Pte1:' Ii~ ~~~1ic.ð.tio1. fv,L suc.I. lic.e"",c sl.ð.ll dise.ppJ::04c .c l..e.pp tl [r'" offic.e1: 1:l1.1e",,,, e.ccompahicJ. by ð. be a.c("épt.eJ. z ~e u~u,:"c ) P 0 ideJ. f",.&. LIJ.er, tlJ.uL hOh1::..::fu.uJ.abl~ Re':id..L.&.ed P1l11lg Pé1"::(õ:Þ'disé i; t.v Le sold at l-"uLlic ~lJ.,,::u7y~r the ':!vods, WtY.ét vf J.u7~~;~~J.y LIJ.eh ill. tlJ.At ..::yéht. tlJ.é atlct.~01£ ð.uJ. 105 a õ:Þ v'-' 0 j ':1: b lied Ly 6. LuA. · appli<..al';'vl. J::equÜcJ. ';'h thi~ d',al'lc; .i1.al:.. e :~,;vi1~atl.c f",tuJ::~ be ilJ. d1£ alLlvL..uL as pl::è~el...lll' éS1glid e 3~Gti ~õ:Þ':; 48 OGe At LIJ.c L~me ð..uc"ded, il. ti.c Masto!!<~ 'fð.X 3....~iJ....l!~el e v î ail ';i9h' ll.c fvllc,wil'9 vf delivtJ:::iLovi:~clî. l~~:~dcbY t~c f';',,~~c= ~[fi<..e1. vI: I.is del'dll" agree.llLCU u _ UTI e ð.L e licél...Sé ~õ:Þ' U'-''-'cl-''ted by tlJ.c l,4udeI:sigll~J. tl ~l tl Vy GOl...dit.iou LI...uL licel...sée a9.L:cc;::IÞ Lo COlL~ :r 1? tl'" ~~ d aLiJ. Ly 411 t.l...è J:.11.vY~õ:Þ":'OhS of ,-,1~ul-"LeI: w.:... .I.... c, 1:1: ....' te: :;.48' of LI..c Code of LIJ.c city of CJ.l.. u v~s , Califvrl...id. U · . f ~.48.878 ~~G6na6 Con4~L~ona for iaaUanG6 Per~o4 0 v&liðlLy Renew61. . d 1:: tl£ . SiOII.!; of tlJ.~õ:Þ' cJJ.dpte~ õ:ÞIJ.all i' e ~SàL.. J UI... e c t-'.&.VY..L d Auz ..L'-'clJ.S C J J L' il 9 of tl e type of õ:Þ'ale hð:lu~ a...Ll.c,:tiz;e tl.e ,-v"J.üct ð,1. I> VC,L, [~eJ II ei~ v"f01: a ¡..oeI:iod of hvL . d t :1:0"" L speC1 ~ I.C.&. ..., tl...éLc..Ll..., au ð. . u ..LVJ.i J. J. P ° iJ.éJ IJ.vwevey., llJ.uL Ll...ê tl fo~ l f..Lye Ga ell. ax. uzo::.. .&. Y . .IILV.&.c J.all. z Of' J li("'ð.t~oh Ll...erefor, l.çuew . ff' ceJ:: tù 'ì u. 01... a 'é~~..LC aJ;J,t' f~¡'a"'-c v ~ a, ¡..o. d t to ex.:.eeJ. f';'fleeu J.al''''' 3ud. bålJ licêl...àe fv.&. a per 10 uO 30 · Exhibit A 31 of 54 1 1 11 i (..lude ð. li;:,L~.u":t "",[ 5u(..1~ . . d 1:' L' ["",i. ~ehewc. i:t .La u . f tt v II;.Ll.[.l.é þé..L. ...........L.I. 16 J.~ é réluo.ihiu'::l ..LoU õ:tLv(..k 1;:Olu .Ie. \ . d J. wð.re.s "".... wç....\"oo.L U ,;;) 0:1:: :temð.~hç....':t....,...,~, J. l¡¡lot GeL '1 ð.h} good.." WC;U",II;Q . . 3::' to i 1 So tð. .L .u U..L J. . t:: "",I. .L":tlhð 11uèl.. .... u. ..1 . . ð.l ð. lic.Atlol.L If a ¡::n;...le ìS 0 hn:Ù......l...ð.hdiSè bot håmed 1h Llu:; °i.J..":t.l.~t. PP pð.1:ð.te· llCèl.ase.s .wu...,L Lç d t: d t: two 01: more. oed J..uu¡:Þ ;;:loll; t Lç '"'0:"'" u,,-,, II; Q . L l' 1 l.l e sð.le take.s pIg,,",,!;. T .Lé oLtAil.lèJ. [\oiL èå"l... lOCð.tl.Oh u. w 1..L......L tl .L . r li("èl Sé £OJ:: . b d é"-èJ. 1 t 'to oLe l.5Suu...n"..ç¡ V' Q ... COhditiohS þrêSCJ::l. ð dLi t'.L II; "01 ..litloI oS t.o bl!; ì::Þa.L~õ:Þr~çJ. for dl.L}/ ~l.Lé locat.iola .s1.Lall Lç .Iii; 6ð.1\Lè (.. .L tl ð. J. lo(..ð.tiol.... :sItocks uf . . SS\1.èJ. [or :more. J. U \,.lUll; . ð.l..J. all l..L(...çh;;:ÞlI;õ:Þ 1. t 1 '-ð.teJ. 01 tl e. }oI....ç.w~¡:tçì:.t ful: wlJ.l.c.h ct ð,n.dlsé 11 wu....eln.."...¡=u;.:t Hu u ..... t' s If .un:::L .. .. b l' téd on s ð.J:::ð.te ~1..vèl.. or~ê . lic~1..S6 is ':".:t.:Ju.èJ., Shðll e ~o5 d t J L'J:o'LI é wð.rèhOUSé 10caL':"uu, f t d:i:.5é is t.o be con tIC e a .. b o5Al~ u .w~.L""" ..au 11 b 0:... J. No peJ::sou wI...u Iu;a..:t uuL 1;1;U a .:te~a..LÅL~ liCèl..S~ Sl~a ð. bu:i~=i~.L f~1. . wI..icl.. SUC).. licêhse is sought ti..e OW1..~r or l.éCOJ:: 0 L ." t.loS 51 11· L~ ':il:ð.l..teJ. ð. li"",,~u.:te. f'or a pexiod uf aL leai:lO b~X IdOl.. .., .I.a 5.48.888 ~iGðnað SGOp6 or v.li4~Ly. o 0 01 S of' this """l...a.J:o'L~.L o5l"ð.ll bé Au.! l':'"",,~h~e issued ~hde.L Lf,,::- ot':"'uv.J..i:IO~.I. J.~,-til 9 of sale of Ll~é . 3:: f tt e ðd er ~s~1..9 au """""'U.l. , . 3: val~d ""'u ~ OJ:: .I. Y d :m.éJ::cI And' J.~i:IO""".L'::"L~J. i1.. th~ ""'.L.L":::ILua o 3: d Né!&J:::eS ð.1.. .. .L;::t~ t: tt pðl:t~CU ð..L ":::I""'''''' ~, . tl e LiCUla.L L':'lué, a.uJ. a .I.è a.~J:o'li'-åtio1.. Ll.l.~.L~f"",:..., a.uJ. titl:r~l..:=J .. J. t~.... LI ê ~ð.rt.ictIlar ð.ppliclu..t paJ::ticl:J.l~.L lO"""ð-tioh st.ated .I.êrêl~h ~~îmlel~t .. u:L~titl:1tioh "",f ~a",h d 1 J:::é}.. él..~ .. ""'.L i:IO Ll.l.éXèfOl., AI.. au.! .L~UÇ"Q.., 1 f' Li~ OJ:: place of' s~cll. ~oods, "a..L~i:IO "",1. .wèl:",hahJ.~Sê, JJ:: ti~~"":::I:t1c'í... s~l~~ ~l.l.ð.ll Le Uhlð:wft11 .:ta.lé, "",r chAnge of J:o'~.L~""'Ú '-Oh t1'''''''d .. E '-I al J. é éJ::Y .sale of ':i"",,,,,,J.i:IO, ð.hJ. ~I.1.all ì:~l..J.ér ~\1"''l.. l~ce.l...se tOtn~lud;d.l. iu .. LIol~ v origil..al ihvéntoX} 'WAXêS 0 .wç...."""hauJ..Li::I~ ð.à W'ð.S 1..0 0 t tet: t. 11 .... L 0 Lí1t à ~épaJ::dte offe1..Sê uhde.L LI.l.1.S '- .I.C~p . Sola C"",u;::t.L ~ ~.48.8J8 Re~or46 to he kapt. . i t:l:3:: bé kept. by li"",,~u;::tèê 6.l..d S1.1.d11 3\1':'t«Llé records of Ja.Lll' i:IOa- Li:IO t olLl '-I iéf of pol':'"",,~ V.L a.ÌJ~oil..ted L~ .wa.J.ê dvdilable 01.. J::eqtlei:lO f v 1 ~~.I. ÌJ il téd il..vestiyaL""'.L;;J . 0 t: 1ft è cl ief 0 po l.C~ V.L a.J:o' "'" .. - b l.1..vést~':ia V.L~. .I... to 1 J::ecoxds dhd .sl.l.all ç 3:3: t' s 1 A é acce-ss ;:.u.""" .I. . shall aL a. l.lue .. v 1 d' 01 ti lu~åes fOJ:: compa.L .L;:''''''U þermitteJ. Lo ~^ð..Lu':'U1; 611 :fuel:'- J.a1.. ~se .. .I.~ J:o'....~ witlJ. sl:l{..i.l. re."""""'.LJõ:t. ~.48.188 Buaineaa liGe~66 R66LorAtion prOGe4UZ6. o t bêéh J::~v"",k~J. þt1J::sl:1al..t to tl¡ê If å LtlsihèsS l~c~hsð "",I a J:'el.SOh dd5 . d ð l wi!.l es to obta.i!.. a ~~oviðiol..S of 3e"""L':'"",u ::;d48Le~e, .A~ åS:~ thê.L:::~ l""'~aLiol.. wl.l.ére !,Le b' 3::i'-èl se to COh 11""" u'i:IO.LU;;J o. t:1 ftel: Ui:IO.I.J"1;~õ:t 0" 1 At. a1..l' Li.we witl.1.~I.. .s~x muu ,,;;J ð. cOhJ.u"""Lçd lol.Lõ:t """loSe out SA1ê., LLl sðlé I is at't'l':'"""at':'uh Io~ ð. . t' of tl e c; ose v " t:t the t~.L.l.ul.uå l.Oh ol w.,' tt d b Ll f~l 6.1 ce officeJ:: to .I.~ Lu.i:IO':'uéSS 1~c.el..5~ .;;Jl.l.al1 Lè oS nL~ ~ A .1' rOv:l. 11,,: "",,':'Ll' """"",u.1.."",,':'1 nu!~Y "",,':'Lj (..om..c~l for .LL;::t ClJ:'J:".Luval ':'~ ~l.$ oW lic.elo5è if it. determil..es J.~i:IOðpprOvê. t.l..ê ':'~õ:tUal..'-e of sa~o US:h~i:IO~ ':;"OU5Îy obt.a.iI..êd by LIJ.~ Ll.l.at tl.l.ê """lo;::t':'u~ OU~ Sdl~. ll.ce!..s a. !:'.LbLV 1.1 èd witl.l. 1..0 s\1:bstdhtið.l a.t:JPlicA1..t. for Ll.l.~ L~S~I..ê.SS ~Cé1..Sê. W ;::t u a .. ! 31 .~. _._--,- -_.__.~-_.._--,_.._,----- Exhibit A . 32 of 54 ,.-... iuLç.ut or 9vita'::::ll .......tlL \.,.If Ltl~":"ln;;Sb. ~."8.118 ~~~ln~s~ ~ic6nðe Notice or d':'6~proV'a.l or 1aaU6n~6 H66r.Lq. ~~; ;:;~~~ :il,~..,:~ off';'~~: ~1,,~11 d~liver .. "olke i!. wriLL,g cill,~.L ~;~7'?'''Ü~! V.L Li u,ð.';'l tv ll,~ ð.j,'j,'l';'c"",t fvr .. LIl~i"es~ ~~~~~~~, , ~~ð.~i~,,~ .lhe;"<!ov,, t:l~..t the ."i~.r w..¡,,,.;.?- !!Ið..r J.ü."p1-rvv~ 1;1,~ ~:t":~le ~¡ ~~ L~~U'7s", ~~C.el:~e ...f ~l J.",t",.Lw",¡'~~ 1l,ð.L U,e C.10~ b~~ ~;~: H~=:';!.'" j,'r~v i.v~~~} vLl~L,eJ. Ly the "'pj,'li~ð."t fvr ~: ~..:~~''''~ ~;¡:::'':: w"':;' ,;,~L..ì:'7J. w~Ll, ,,0 !.t.LbLð...L~..l ...¡,Le¡,L vi ~v~i':l ~..; ~~ ~~~"-:~~. . 3a.i? "oL~~~ ~1,..1l c.v."t..il, ll,e J.ð.Le! l';'Jn~ ð.,. .....~t :~id :~~ "V!"l~"ð.L~v¡' w~l1 Le ~...dJw~LL~J. Lo Lh~ c....t.r c.vtJ.,~1. ;~ ~;~~ ~~~ ~u~ -r~u;,;~ ð..;;t :=:~ð.Lè~ ":"u. Ll~ç. l¡vti,-é U~ç. ðt"t-'li\,.ou.l¿L ~t-'t".L be 1~~Q.Ld by tl.l.~ ,-lL~ ,,"V'Glu\,.oll. ~."8.1Z8 B~6':'n6ðå li~6~a6 H6Azing proG64uz6. ;.~ ~~= evel'~ U,,,,.L Lh",. ð.j,'j,'l~.:....I,L ð.j,'j,'':''.L~ Lefv.L~ tl,é. "H.r c;c.",",,,~: ~~d ;:r:;e:;~ ¡:: he...L~ ",:"':1' ~l,,;, "Ü.r ,,0,,1..:....1 wð..r ~ét a t...w~ ð.±~ p~~~~ ±i:t :a';'~ :'~:~ ~"g. !'!- ~..iJ.. li!"é ..1,.1 1-lð.'-;é, ð.~ ~él. L}- lh~ c.';' ';".1 ~":,~'~c.;.~, : ~:.::~~:~ :;i,..l1 ~7 1:~J.. 'fl,,,, "...t.r ,,0..1,"...1 bl,a1; ~P.L±d; ±~ ~~~~~~~u~I;.~l&~_~t-'J:'l~~A~~'-'l& .ru--; ~ L~ð":"uèo;tS 1 i\o.o7usÇ , a Vy· d· S.......t..a.Ou 5. 48 .160, ul..J. ....L~ J....(....LS....""l.. ;;:tl..all L... r~.uul. Amend Chapter 5.54 - Taxicabs - as foll01l's: 5.54.120 Certificate-Grounds for suspension or revocation. A. Certificates may be suspended or revoked by the police chief: 1. The owner fails to operate the taxicab or taxicabs in accordance with the provisions of this chapter; 2. The taxicab or taxicabs are operated at a rate 'of fare other than that which the Certified Operator shall have on file with the police chief. - B. The city co",",,,il manager or police chief may suspend or revoke a certificate where il f';'¡.J.s the owner's past record involved violations of city, state or federal law or endangered the pUblic safety. 5.54.290 Appeals to c.iL} couAcil. Any actions taken by the police chief under this chapter are appealable to the city c.v..¡,,,il manaaer Dursuant to Chapter 1.40. An Sttch appeal to the City Manaaer must 51,,,,11 be filed with the city cl~Lk manaaer and aDDrODriate appeaJ fees paid within ten days of the action of the police chief. Amend Chapter 5.58 -To1l' Trucks - as foll01l's: 32 Exhibit A 33 of 54 -. 5.58.090 License suspension-Notice required-Appeal-Public hearing. In the event that a licensee under this section shall violate or cause or permit to be violated any of the provisions of this chapter, the police chief may suspend such license and shall notify the licensee of such suspension by written notice stating the cause and reason for such suspension. Appeal may be made Ly tl,¡ê aþpl iC.ð.l¡ t to the ",":"L,}' ("0I11.1,,-i1, ð.bd thê de"':'d.ioh L} the c.otlll\....:.l, ð.ft.er a ptlbl':"~ Ij,~a.J:: 1l.a9, sl..!lll b~ iil.al to the City Manager Dursuant to Chapter 1. 40. Amend Chapter 8. 04 - Food Hanciling Genera~~y - as fo~~oYs: 8.04.040 violation deemed nuisance-Abatement authority. Any establishment or activity which is found by the health officer to be unsanitary or a menace to the public health or which is in violation of this chapter or of the California Restaurant Act is declared to be a public nuisance. The health officer is authorized and empowered to take such action as is necessary to preserve or protect the public health or safety; the health officer is authorized and empowered to summarily abate such nuisance; otherwise, the health officer shall request lh,è ",it} ,",o\1u(..il tv .:...I.I>:tL.L.....c;t the city attorney to seek a court order abating the nuisance. or reqpest the city manager to abate pursuant to Chapter ~. Nothing contained in this code shall be deemed to limit the right and duty of the health officer to take immediate action in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare. The remedies authorized by this section are not exclusive, but are cumulative to other remedies provided by law. Amend Chapter 8.08 - Food Hancilers' Permits - as fo~~oYs: 8.08.040 Appeal from denial o~revocation. A person aggrieved by the denial to him of a permit or by the revocation of a permit pursuant to section 8.08.050 may appeaì from such denial to the city ~v~.~il manager in the manner set forth in 3ê"",L':"vu 8.8S.266 Chanter 1.40. 8.08.148 suspension or z6.o,.Lion Puhli, h6aring x.q~ir64. 1'1"'1;0 J.":".L1õ:i,-tOl. of pttblic. l.lêaltl.L ~lJ.a.ll Or:Jè.t that. ð. hçu.... ':"hy Lé l.lèlJ., wiLl.l l....:..lUi;:u:::lf, òd. hèð.xil.ag oîfi'-"t::.L, Lv Jçt~l:fuil.aê 1IIl.Lêt.l.Lê.... "".... .IlvL LL.è h1õ:iu.ltl.L j:oIêLlliit of aI, ê>:tLu.Ll':">:tI.LIUOI;ul àhonld be >:tw>:t!:,'CuJoc:;J. 0:'::: rèvokêd -fl&êJ:::évér it ð.þpêu..L':' Lv l:..i)6, Ly 1:66501, of .:;ithéJ:: c.iti~éh c.OltLl-'1a":"'uL V.I.. l¿èð.1tl¿ J.épð..I.. L.LU1WOnL ":",Uv1WOõ:ÞL":"gatiol.., tl..6. t Ll,¡1WO 1..v1J.èl: of suel... Pè.l..UL":"t 0.1.. 1.....:..õ:Þ ,,-u,~lv:ièé, SêrvAht 0.1.. a';:t"-'uL, o.r ð:l.(! þç;.I.. õ:Þvu a'- L":"l..g wi tl... l...is '-Ol..Sél.. t 0.1.. 1oL,UJ.çL l...is ð.tlthoJ:iL.1' , l,¡aõ:Þ 0:":: mðy hAvè v":"vla.L..-J. AI..} 1:-'.l..v4 ":"~iOI.. of this ,-"l¿a.1:-'Lé~ v~ AI..y :t:èlèvauL ¿.è'-i~il:èmèl..t êstablisl¿..-J. o¿. J:oI¿.uv":"J...-J. Ly 16:w. 31oL,-"I¿ l¿çaì: 1.l.a9 s S1¿611 L..- l...ç1J. il¿ tl...é couhGil ,-l¿ð.mLê::t: S 0 r Ll...ç ,-i t Y . 33 , Exhibit A 34 of·54 8.88.1~O :fut:>l':'G h.AX':'hg lfotiG6 J:':6qt1.1:r64 Form. - i""'-'\ 3èCtivh Upvu tl.Lê JêtéJ::lu~uQ.tiOl.L LhAt Q. l...èð.l ~u9 bé l.LèlJ }J\'u..sQ.Q,hL to. 8.08.146, tIu::;; héð.l tlr.. offi\..oê:t ~l.La.ll ~~w.lêdia. L.:;ly .:,.::::1: vè upOl.. thê p~xthilL...~ L}' !:'1I:;....;;;Jol..ð.l o::te:rvi("ê v:t: Lx ....egi!.L..........J lua.':"l aL 1-'ê:t:tuiLLêè I ~ bu.sil.lðSt:I \.I.... reslJ...uCê QJ.J.....ess u l.aOl'::",-1Wi of l...e6.1: ':"u\j , ",1.1.':"\,.,01... ;::tl...u.ll p.Lvv":"de StlLi::ÞLahtiö.11.l ð.~ follvws. "!fðTICH eF HBJdtIU8" 1\". (iJd.wê ð.l¡J. adJ,l:ç.::ts or ,perl"'::" L Lee) UOL":"Cè ":"05 IJ.êì.II:;Ly g..Lvêli U.l.aL 0.1£ . . . . . . . . . . Ll.Le Ði.LII:;Gtoì.. of PuLl":",- IleAl tl... vf 3ð..n Di...';;to C""',......J.t} aud tl.Lê city vr Cl.L~la. 7i¡;:,Lð., ox:J.....i.êd tl.a t u 1&",(;1.....":"1"9 Lé hêlJ. 01, ...(dð.lt::: u.l.a.d IJ.vu:t:) . . . At Lhê co Ilu,-":" 1 Cl"AM..,è1: t:I ""'£ tl.Lè ,-":"ty \oJ! Ch111u. Viiõ:tLa to. J...Le:rfu':',¡"e wl.Lçtl...é.L Ol. uot IIçu.l tl... Fe:t:ntit Nv... ..., i~.::Ju.êd Lv Y°l:l fvJ.. tl~è ðstaLlislÜu.êl.ll k.l.aO~u as. . . . . . . . . . . . . .::Jl.lotllJ. Lê Stlõ:l>t'él.lJèJ or rçvvkèJ.. ..'fl~ç a,-L":"vus o:r ..:...IJ.ð.c.tiv....õ:I> c.œu1rlailn:::J. of å.Lç as fvllowt::t. (,;;Jðt rv:t: t.l.l a,-L":"ol.l~ vI: il.lð,,-L":"Ol.lðo a.ud tl~1; dð.t.I;t::t vf sk""l..., àhJ. Ll.lé ""Odè ~êC. t":"vl.l!o, ò:ÞLUot.klI;S, 01: Ll;9tlla. L":"Ol.lS v ":"olatl;d) . uB... pl.l;t'a.rêd lv t'I:è;:tl;uL ê ~ ":"Jðl.l'-è a.ud wiluocssl;ò:Þ on }VU.L Ll;l.la.l f a.L this l~éð.r i1..~ if Yvu gO Jocò:Þire. YOtl .wU.l Lè .Lé:prè;;:ll;l.lt~J. Ly 11;~al Gotll.l;:tl;l. Yvur failu.Lê tv appèa.J.. will .....ot þJ..l;vè1..l Ll.lê 1.õ:I>;:tubl.a""1; or .~) 6.l.a orJ.l;.L vf 6tlò:Þt'él.l~iv.l" Ol. J..... v O(..a. L":"Ol.. ;::tl.lvu.ld ;:Juc.l~ V.LJ,ér a.t't'èAl. jtl;::tL..:..ril;J. L.l tl.ll; I;v":"deu""l; PXê.;:tl;uteJ. .. 8.88.168 Pub1i, h6Ariliq Rules &n4 procedure 96116rA11y. 1'l.1ç follow":"ug 1:~l...s ðl.lJ. .t't: O_'-'éJ.u1: è6 ò:Þçt fOl.Ll... i1.. S'C""tiOl.lS 8.68.170 tl...l:ôu~l... 8.68.2:;6 .::Jlu!a.ll 1:jove11.. 1~eðl:~u9S l.eld þUJ..s\:16,hL to Ll~is C.l...à.t'LI;l: . 8.88.178 ~ubli, h6a.ring Hea.ring offi'6r 8:r0111\45 for d~6quAllr~GAllo:n. Tl.e dil.l;ctoJ:: vf pttLl":""" l...eAl U~ 61~bll be Ll...ê l~eð..L ":".1..19 \)rf":"C.è1. UpÔl.l tr~ê di~\II,:lualiri""l;..Itiol.l of tl~... dir:ç(..Lor \)f publ":""" 1~è6.1Lh to a.c.t a.ò:Þ 1...ebJ....:..u9 off":"""êr, l;":"U...êl: vu l~i~ vwh lbOt":"vh 01 Ll...ð.t vf thè :t,JéXluilLçð à,(..""çJ.ed i.lt. by tl.lç dirè""Lvl::, Au,}' luèhcLer of llJ.é bOa..Ld of l...eð.ltl~ luAY ac.t å.i:Þ l...ðð.l:iu1:j v[[i""I;J... Ti"'1; ;::toll; ~.LOtll.lJ;:t fOl: J.":"ò:Þ":iuð.li[ic.ð.t":"vu 6.1::1; £ihðl.a",,":"1;..I1 iuLl;reðol, Li6,$ VJ.. pl::èjudic.è, .t':t:iol. k.....owlçdgê vf f6.,-l;::, ð.lvué do...~ l.lOt "-vl.lstit~LI; Lið.i:Þ 01: :t,JLçjudi(...... 8.88.180 :Fw,li, h6a.rin9 T':'me. 'f'lJ.e 1...ea.1":"l.l9 Jð.L... shall Le I.\) less Ll~a.l.l te....I a.hd l.lv .LU.orl; LIJ.6.1.l ll...i:t:ty days [vllowlu':f Ll~è Ja.Le 01.. wl...i'-h uOti'-è Lt~é1:ê\)r W6,i:Þ ò:Þêl.at Lv tl~ç perhaiLLêe. .-- .0 34 ' . _,·.·____·_··'r_ Exhibit A 3S of S4 ~ , 8.88.1'8 Pub1~ç h6Ar~A9 cOLtinu6A~6. Tl.Lé 1.Léð.¿.~u9 Orr~,-,~.L. ül.u.} O:...J.'II;.L ~",(..l¿ '"0.":' L":"uuah(..é VoL. '-'Ol..ti.l¡....a...LCe5 di:) 1.Lé. déélÀ~ 1.ié.CéSQa..L ~ ð.l.ld þlvl"'êr. 8.88.188 PabliG h6.r~Aq Tr.n6~r~pta. TI.Lç "",":"L.l iõ:J but .Lçqtl.i~èJ Lv £1::u:1J.icL. Q. Sh01:tL.c:;¡l.LJ. ....epol.l'l;.L or b.lJ.'1 v Ll.LéJ:: l(ìçLln..J. of t:é1:-'\.Iì..L":"ug thé l.n:;;~.L..:..¡,9, tl.L'I; l-'ermittéç ULð.Y [tu.u.":"¡:,IJ. b tH..lj. At l.lii:) Qolé 411J. bOl.LrêimL~.L Qu:Llé COStL uud eXp1:::.I.l.i:\Iê if 1.1"11; so desire;;». 8.88.118 Pabl~G heAring W6i~6r or irregu16xiLiða EX~6ption. Al.L} l-'ro(,..çJ.":;u..al vr é\1iJ.çuL":"u::t:} i~l.ç':tu.l~u. ":"L":"éà ,L,U. tl.Lè l.Léð.r iu':t cu..é déèmeJ. Lo be wð.ivçd uhlè6i:\1 vbjectiol.L ii:J Lð.kel.L Lhé:L. 'II; Lo 6.1n1 a 5pe(..ir~c 1:\:1111.19 ,Lçql:1ésteJ. Ll.Le:reOI.l. 8.88.110 Publ!, h.6ring Fin4~nga. 3pecir..:.."", r":"udill':j;::JI il£cl tlJ.ih':l a fil£dibg tl£QL th.e J? ui.li Co l£çQl tl£, safet:ll Qhd liIèlfQ.Lç c!lré 5t:lLjé"",L to c!l Cléð.:t:: Qud préàçúL dc!lh':1lçr, Iíu~Y Lç &uQde LtlL are hvL .Lçqui:t:eJ. If sþeciri,- f":"uJil£gS ð..Lç l£Ot J.l.LQde tl£ç l£éà.:t: ih':1l vff":"cèr gl",Qll J.l.ic!lké ð. ":1çuç.LQl f il£J.~u':J Ll...ð.t Lhç QctiOl£~ V.L ":"1£6.'" L":"vus "~lQ":"uçd of, 6.g ~çL [01: tl£ ih Ll£ç hoti"",ç v[ h.èð.i. ":".1..1.9, c!l1:è tll,¿è 01:: w,L.Ll,¿ê, c!ll£J U...QL stl"l... 6."",L":"vus 01: ihd"",L":"ObS Jo v. do l£Ot cOl£stiLl,¿te a '4 iv1QLiol£ of Ll£= "ol£di tiou o;te.t fOl.ll£ .....1£ 3 ç(..L":" vb 8.68.030. 8.88.138 ~uhl~, heAring Ð6'~A~ô~ An4 or4az. - ~ If Lhe l£éð.l: iug o[[i",c.L fihds Ll"'QL tl...e ð.ct';"vus OJ:: ';'uactiOhg "",v&Ut'laiheJ vr a1:e tlhll. u.ê l...e sl...6.11 vlJer tl...ð. t ll...e þ:t::OC=cJ":"l.gS Lè J.ig&u":"gged. If Ll...e l...éA:t::il...y vfricer r":"uJg Ll...at Ll...c actioug v1: ":"ua"",L":"vh5 GOk~la":"ued of Al:é L.Ll,¿é, ð.l...J. tl...6.L a violAl":"vu as ð.fol.çgQid l£Qg v"",,,,,,u:t:reJ, l...c gl...a11 OLJc.L êitI...e~ tI...ð. L Ll£ê þe1.&U":"L be stlgt'çuded. f01: a !-'erioJ. l...vL Lo eX"èeJ QI.....X mOlítl...6 V.L Lhat LItc þe:t::tu';"L l...e revvK.çJ. The Jé"",":"õ:Jioh ð.lJJ V.LJC.L of tile I£CQ.L':"l...g ofr':'"",ç:r sl...ð.11 Le f":"ual I:1h1ç~~ al... apþèQ1 .....~ Lakel... ~1,¿.LgI,¿Ql...t to 3é"",L":"vh 8.08.260. 8.88.148 Publ!, heAzIng Petition Cor mo4ifi'AL~on or r66'~Asion of or46Z. If tl...è. heQ1.":"ug o[[i"è.:L V.LJers tI£ð.L LI...e permit Lc õ:JI.&Sþè.bJèJ for ð. CC.L L!!lil... ~è.L':"vJ, th-è. þçl.lu':"LLçê may .s~~c':il.&ehtly þéL':"L":"ol... fOL Ll...e :LUvJ.':"f ica. tiOl... vi. .Léscissiol.. vf Ll...e Ordé1. vI ~u.5pehg.l.vu al...d tl..c 1: eil....à tg. Lc.wél..t of LI..c t'1I:::.L.wit. 'fl..c l...ea1: ih9 vII":"cer, .......... 1....:..s d':"õ:Jcletiob, ¡(¡à) ":1.LQut or JèbY -Ll....c þetitioh, V.L he bað.}I '::f.Lu.l...t tl...é petitioh gui,ject to LI...ç "",ol..ditioh vf Ll...é . . t:' of a l.hL!-,OSJ. 1.01... probð..tiol...a.L:L pe1:iod, \'hl.L":"u9 whi"l... .,è1.~vd al.a} v":"vlatiol.a L:L Ll,e ", 3S ~---~ -. ~-----,-,.- Exhibit A 34 of 54 . Exhibit A 36 of 54 þé:"'wittèc:: of U~ê cuuJitió.u Sêt [\J~LI~ i.l.l 3é(,..L~OI¿ 8.68.6:;6 ':"05 glvL41ids' ~, fo~ ~u.I.LUd6.X:X SUatlêl¡siou of tl.1'1Wõ þé:t:J.U":"t [vi. Ll...è L71uð.":".uJ.~r \"If tl",ç p~1::ioJ. 1WóstðLlisl...èJ. by tL.1I; orig":"l.u!ll o:...J.er \"If SUSPIl;US~OU, ð:.lJJ. .J..a ðl;:Þv y otllJds LV':t: ll.L1I; il,ðL":"Lutiuh of h'lWOW pr:o"",e.edill.';: Ia Iv.&. StlSi-rIl;US1.0U v1: . . . . 1:1 revocðtivu of Ll.Lè }J1I;.LDlit. Tl.Lé V.LJ.ex of Ll...e. IJ.-.::;a.r1.lJ'::t Orr1.,-êX ¡Q1. .L :respect to àl.L,-l.L þèLiLioh ..Li:II rill.al, ð-hJ. 1.t0 d~ilii;;:tL.Lð.t":"ve ð.p~ç:al ShAll lill; tl,LlI;.Lc[rolu. 8.88.Z~O ~ubl~G heAring PXob6l~on pxo,.4ur6. A. If tl...c: l.a.éð.J::":"u';:t Orr..:.......êJ::: vrdè:t:ðt' thAt LI.Lê þll;.L.mit La SIl;::t.t-'~ll.J.c:J. Ool. 1::évu1\.ç.d, l."ç m6..l, ilJ. Ll...è ":"uLêJ~'c:¡:tLs of jt1;;:tLicé ul&d çqt.1.iL.l1 [LoLL. LI...èL ""rdé.L tl...ð.l the. v....dé1:: vI Sl.Li::I~elI.6'::"\.Il. V.L :rè\1ocð.l':"vll be sta}lc:J. u.l"J. Ll...e J:.r~.l...w.itt~~ bè J:oIlacéJ. 01& }.irobål~ol, f~1:: a pé:t:~od l,Ot L~ ~x(,..1Wõed tl"'.l..è~ Ì'~Aî:S. 'fhé l...eåî:iug offieé.l.. ìuu~ g.l..ultt }.i.l..~båti~u 01& stlcl... cObd~Lio1&;;:t 6.S 1...~ déç;.w.S t~ L~ fail: ul,d :reð.s~uð.blé. If tl...e péJ...witté~ is J.~;;:tSð.l~sfiéJ. 'WiLh Lhé ~1::d~i.. o[ t'robð.L~on, ....,.l.. 'W~Ll... tl,~ eOlJ\l':'tiol,;;:t tl,è.l..éOr, l...é .wð:} .l..éj~et tl...~ O[[é1. of p..lobð.l":"~l, iI, ,,1...i'-I, ç;véhL tl...~ oî:d~.l.. of S\1~t'éh;;:t":"Ol, 01:: l.~v~eð.l":"o1& ;;:tl...ð.l1 bé,-u.we fiu6.1, if Ll...é J:oIéLwilLêé ":"s $aL~sfiéJ. wiLl... tl...é O:rJ.é.l.. of }I.l..~baL":"~I, l...e sl...all iudi,-6.t~ ;;:t\1,-l, à~;;:t~ut, aud l"'~;;:t ð.~.l..1WõémèhL to L~ bOuhJ. b~ tl:Lé l1Wõr:mÓ U...é.LéOf, L} åffix'::"ú'j l,iõ:t ~ighaLt1l.~ Ll,él.~Lo. Ð. 'OpOu U,é ,-l,urgè L~ U¡.ê hèu1tl... ....,frieè.l.. O[ Ll,é vl~låt~oh L~ tl,~ ~~.L.witl~é or a eOuJ.iti~u of t-'1::0Lð.l":"Ol" ð. h;e::ð..Libg ;;:tl¡.ð.ll bé l,ê1d P\1.L;;:tI,¿6.I,l Lo ll...":"s bè,-Lioh, limiled lu LI,e:: ":"SSkle:: ur wl,~tl,~.L Ol. l,Ot ;;:tl,¿'-h. '-uudil~vu 'Wa~ .....1& [a,-L Ll.e::ð.el¡.éJ.. If it ..Lõ:t fOl,¿ud tl,aL t):...é ,-~uJ.il~~l, 'Wa.;;:t b1::e::a,-I,ed U¡.e o.L~": Ii1&ð.l orJ.-=.l.. o[ s.l,¿spé,,~iob vt: :r:eyOeàt~....,1& õ::tl¡.ð.ll L~ ro~ LI"Nit.l¡. e},[v.Lced, ul,d }:o'.LOLàLio1& ":"u tl,~ Sð..w~ wð.ll~:r ð.l...ull hvL bé ~.Labte::d ð.9!a..L'h c. 'BPOl, Ll,-= t'~tlL":"o1& vf ll¡.e pé.L.witt~ç [V.L t~r:mibaLiol, o[ p.lvLa. Livu AbJ. .L eléð.;;:t~ [l.v.w tl...é ,-ol,J.~L":"Ob;;:t tl...é.L1WõO[, Lld~ .L 1,¿1éà abJ. ì-'.L~CéJu.1::éS ~stð.Llisl,éJ.. by 3~Gtivu e. ae. 248 l,é.L-=of ;;:thAII apply ~xeè}Jl thAl tl...é l,êð.1::iug O[[~Cé::l ~l...ð.ll éill...e1:: ": I.Lð.bt ox délij ;;:tu.(..h. J:oIétil":"Ol, ð.l,J. shð.ll bot ..LlL~Oõ:t1lWõ Ail,}' eOlJ\litivu Oh ~u,-l... 9 i.. ul, t v.. dé1,":"ul. - 8.88.168 AppeAl ~ro'6ður6 ganar&IIJ. hl,}- t-'éJ::.w~LLèé u991.ic;;v~J. L,}' tl,é J.~,-i;;:t":"o1& 0.1.. tl,é v.Ldéi.. of U...é l,~a:r: i1,": I of[i,-~.L OJ:: L,}' U...c;; dèb~ul of a.l, ð.pJ:-'li'-Al~v}, fv.. ð. lu;Alll, þéL.wit iLia,}', wiU,ib f~[té-=u dð.Yà of tl...~ dð.t~ o[ ll.Lé 'Wl.ittéh u1&I,vu.I,(..èìuébt vf t.l,e dé(..i~~01& aud O..lJ.é1:: V.L o[ Ll.Lé J.éu":"Al, uþþéa.l to Ll,é ,-it} ,-ouh,-":"1. 3",-1, ð.ì-'t-'c::ðl ;;:tl...u11 Le èf[c;;et~J. by Je::}JosiL":"ug ":"h tl...~ O[[":"Cé v[ lI,e:: ,-":"Ly ,-1éî:k "itI,":"u Sð.iJ [i[l~él, J.u~S ð. uoti,-~ of appe::ul wI,iel... ;;:tets [....,i.. Ll... ll.L'" l,vL":"(..ê ....,f l,~a..L ibg u},d ll¡.ç J~,-isivu åhJ Ol.J.e:r vf tl...ê 1...êAJ..~u9 vfri(......L. 'fI.L'" c1~J..k sl...a.11 pì:...;;:te1&l Ll...~ uoti,-... of uþp...al t...., the (..iL,}' c~u.uci1 ut ll¡.çir héÀt. x'C:'ju.lð.x lDéét":"hg, ut wI...iel... Limé tl,è (..~u.u,-il ;;:tl.Lu11 ;;:tét ll,1Wõ mALlçr fv.L 1.LèQ..l..~l.L9 at ll...ê ça..l..1i~;;:tt J.a.te. pos;;:tiLle. iI, ligl...L of ':'Ls t'ç~u.lð.:t Lt.l.si1.LçSS. 'fl,é Pé..lULitt1Wiê s.I,6.11 36 Exhibit A 37 of 54 """ ð-l.::)1,J r~l~ ð. ~tQt'=J.ù,=uL settih9 [VL Ll" tl...è. l:!;ð..::"",uõ:J ClUJ. gI:OWiJ.i:Þ wl...ereih ð,¡nl L.l wl...ic.h,' l.lê (..lQ~lu>:l> Lo Lê ð.g~J..L;:ved. 8.88.%78 AppaAl Ru16ð And xaqulAtionð 9anarAIIJ. Tl.Lè follvwihg rules à....J. .t"roG.èJl1ì...5 Sè.t f01::th ~h 3ectioh;;:t 8.68.280 tl...xo....gl... 8. as. 36e sl.u~ll gOVII;.LU ð.ppèð.l~ l-".....L~I:lð.lít. 'to Ll.L':"i::t cl...ð.pt,éï:. 8.88.188 App.61 Bff6Gt of l~l~nq~ UpOll. thè r~llug of the l.Lol~ce of ð,ppéð.l Ll...é Ordè1: of Llu:; l.Léð.I:ill.g office... i:Jl...ð.l1 be stð.}è.J. u.l...less tl...é l.Lca..L':"ug officél: 1...CJ.i:Þ fOl:J.lJd tl...ð.t tl...é l-'..d..,l i", l.L'ÇQl tl... I ~a.rety ð:l..d wçl£cu..c axe thJ::èð.tÇI,I'I:::J., il.a wJ¿i."'l... '-ð,õ:JII; tl...è J.':".L çctox of 1-"ttbli(,.. IJ.cal Ll.L !.11.C~11 lUQllc ;;:tu,-l.. O:t:dél:: vJ.. V.LJ.C.L~ as ðJ::è J....èCé56ð.X) to sbfoc:::qua.rd tl.l.è }luLl':"c healtl.LI ðð.fél.l ð.lld w..lfg.loc:::. If Ll...é pll;l:~ittéè ð.9.1..~~.s il.~ wr~t~uy Lo comply will.L .-;;twcl.L O.1..J.~ì. V.1.. O~J.~.1..S Pd1:ì.J.ihg tilé vwL"",v.w~ of' tl.Lé Qt"'t"'~Ql, Ll.Le. orJ.èl. vI Ll.Lé l.LéQ..1.. ~u~ vf'ric~l. ì::IOl.Là11 ib Lhat case. ð.l¡:¡ov L~ ¡:¡oLa}éd, otl.Lél.w~~f! it ¡:¡ol.Lall llot Lé .-;;ttð:l'éJ.. 8.88.1'8 Appeal Hearing by Gouncil. 'fl.Lè "",~L}' "",vw.l..Lci1 1UQ.l l.l.~a.I: ð.l..d (..vl...-;;t~J.~.1.. a.U.l ....élévdl.at èv~J.el.ac.é .:Lu C01.1.1.L'õ;"'" Lio1.. with S(lGI.L Q,i-'t"'êdl, bt1t Ll.LC "",v~uGi1 ma} þ1:éb(lhLê tl.l.at tl:"é decisivu vf LI.l.'õ; 1..ê61::il..g vfr':"Cé1:: was SUpp0l. LèJ. L.l ¡:¡ourfiGièut Q,.I...d stl:bðta.uL~Q,l év idél..C.é. 8.88.388 AppeAl Appli~&h16 ~roG64ur6a The t"'....VV.LO.Lv....O or 3éGllvuo 8.68.196 tl.l.:tow":fl.... 8.68.2::;6 ð.1'1-1} Lv h~u.....i1"9S cOhdu,-téJ. i-'~....owaltt to tl.1.~¡:¡O ¡:¡oè"",L':"Ol.., proviJ.~J., Ll.Lð.t i1.. tl.l.è l.Lèð.liu':jõ:t "",vuJ.~Gted p(lJ:::ðllQuL ~Lo tl.Lis sè'-tioü, Ll.l.ê Gity c.otluGi1 51.1.611 exercise tl..ê POWéì.¡::a ':j':"vêl.. to tl:"è l.l.'õ;a.....~u9 offic.ér L} ¡:¡oa.~d sectiol..S, al.ad ft1Lll.Lél. t"'ì.vvide.d tl..ð.t Ll.1..~ déCisiol.a ð.....J. v....J.~.1.. of tl..~ "",':"l.l cor.u..cil .61....6.11 L~ r':"1..a1 fOI: 6.11 t"'~....t"'o5es. - Amend Chapter 8.32 - Weed Abatement - as follows: 8.32.020 Weeds or rubbish-serving or notice to remove-Contents. The notice required by the preceding section shall be given by posting in a conspicuous place upon the property, land or lot located in the city upon which, or upon the street, parkway or sidewalk in front of which such weeds, rubbish or other material may be, a notice headed: "Notice to Clean Premises" in letters not less than one inch in l~a'; th height, and which shall be in legible characters, and which directs the removal of the weeds, rubbish or other material, as the case may be, and refers to this chapter for further particulars. Personal service of a notice similar in substance upon the owner, occupant or agent in charge of such property, land or lot, shall dispense with the posting of the J 37 .'. -----,.._~-_._-~-'---~-'-,-'- Exhibit A 38 of 54 ,---..,. notice herein provided for. 8.32.030 Weeds or rubbish-Notice to remove-Appeal procedure. Within f±ve ~ days from the date of posting of such notice, or in case of personal service of notice, within T±ve ~ days from the date of such personal service thereof, the owner of or any person interested in such property, land or lot affected by such notice may appeal to the cOu.ucil city manaaer pursuant to Chapter 1.40 from the requirements thereof. 31:1(..11. aPPéð.l sl¿ð.ll bè ~li wi..":"Lil¡g a.ud sl.Ldll Lç [ilç~ wiU¡ tl.Lc cil:r Clè....À. At tl.Lè l.LéXl règ~lð.:r lucêtil!'::t of thè ('ou.hcil, it ¡:)1.L~11 prv,"-"êêJ Lo l...èa.... ð,l.1J P!l6¡:) l:1pvl.a su......l.a. ð-Ì:J,pçð.l, ð.l,.d Lh~ Jé,-i~':"Ol.L vf ll.Lé (..vul.L(.il tl.Lé.L.cUPOu SI.Lall Lc [lulll à.hd COUClUii:J':"vé. 8.32.040 Weeds or rubbish-OWner or occupant duty to remove-Time limi t. It shall be the duty of the owner, the agent of the owner or the person in possession of any lot in the city within ten days from the date of posting of the notice provided for in Section 8.32.010 or in case a personal notice is given, within ten days from the date of such personal service thereof, or in case of an appeal to the cv....hcil citv manaaer within ten days from the determination thereof, unless the same is sustained, to clean and remove therefrom and from the· street, sidewalk or parkway in front of such property, all noxious weeds or vegetation, except such as are cultivated and grown by such owner, agent or person in possession of such property for ornamental purposes, or for food for man or beast, or for fuel, and all dead trees, tin cans, refuse and waste material of all kinds which may endanger or injure neighboring property, or be detrimental to the health and welfare of the residents of the vicinity_, or such rubbish, weeds, noxious vegetation or any other material as may be deemed a fire hazard, and as such endanger the city, and the removal of all such weeds and vegetation, or other materials of all kinds hereinabove specified shall be completed within ten days after receiving such notice, as hereinabove provided for in this chapter, or in case of. appeal to the cou!.a(..il city manaaer, within ten days after the determination thereof, unless the same shall be sustained. 8.32.070 Assessment of charges-Appeal of determination. The determination of such charges by the fire chief as to the amount so assessed may be appealed to the GOtlln....:..1 citv manager pursuant to Chapter 1.40. If, upon appeal, the requirements of the original notice are modified or the amount so assessed by the fire chief is modified, the fire chief, in removing, or causing to be removed such articles, rubbish, weeds, vegetation or other materials, or in making such assessment as hereinabove provided for, shall be governed by the determination of Ll.e .........¡'':'.a so made. 38 Exhibit A 39 of 54 ~, Amend Chapter 9.12 - Gambling - as follows: 9.12.210 Binqo-Application denial, license suspension and/or revocation. A. The chief of police may deny an application for a binqo license, or suspend or revoke a license, if he finds the applicant or licensee or any agent or representative thereof has: 1. Knowingly made any false, misleading or fraudulent statement of a material fact in the application or in any record or report required to be filed under this chapter, or 2. violated any of the provisions of this chapter. B. If after investigation the chief of police determines that a bingo license should be suspended or revoked, or an application for such license denied, he shall prepare a notice of suspension, revocation or denial of application, setting forth the reasons for such suspension, revocation or denial of application. Such notice shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant's last address provided in the application or shall be personally delivered. Any person who has had an i application for a bingo license denied by the chief of police, or who has had a bingo license suspended or revoked by the chief of police, may appeal the chief of police's decision in the manner provided in th±s chapter 1.40 to the city manager. J.l1.1!8 Blngo AppeAl pro~.4ur6. Ul&~1.aeyé:t: àu aPþéð.l ~s prôv":"J.êd fvJ.. iI, tlJ.":"~ cl...ð.þl~r, !o\:h...l.L a.þþéal i:l>lu;¡ll Lé r":"léd al.aJ cObJ.\:\(..Lçd å;:t J:-'J..'Çs'-~":"Lc:d ill. tl.L":"~ sé,-l":"uu. A. W":"tl&il¡ r..:..rtéèl.1 vdlél.a..1a.L da}'$ afLer ll&c: uotiri"",aLioh vf ð-h]'. dél...ið.l, SUSPél.a;;:a":"Oh, l.èvvGdtioi.L vr otl...c:.I.. Jecis":"vu of tl.LC: clJ.iêf vi t'oli,-c:, 61& åY':J.L":"evéJ. !:Icu. LJ' fuú}' u~pêð.l .:......,-1... ð.,-L":"vu by r":"lil&9 w';'U... ll...c: ,-it} ",lc:rk ð. wl.ILLeh 611.n::;ð.l L1::iéf1.l sétl":"u~ [01::UJ. Ll.Lê l:éå-:av1..LS 'N.h} 5\1,-1... J.c:uiAl, .:III""Spêh~iv.u, J::évv\,.oaLiOl.. V.I. Otl...é.L dèG.i.i::t.Lvl¡ ~$ hvL þl:O}.ié.l.. B. UpÔ.I.I xecéiJ:-'l v[ s~~lJ. wxitto¡:;;u aþþéàl, tl¿é "",":"L.l eléJ..k. sLð.ll rê.Iè:t: Ll¿è Sð.ha~ to tl¿~ vi ty vVl.LuGil Iv.... hèð.l":"ug, ð-lnl tl...è a}.1t'èllð.l...t.. ~hall L~ uotiI;'~d il¿ w....iL":"l¿g Ly Ll...é ell} elè~k vf tl...~ t.ilbé, Jð.t.è 6.bJ plð.("è vf hèð.l::il¿g. Upo:u gooJ "",aUSð L~":"ug o:.l...vwh, Ll...~ Got1.h",":"l .w.ð.}, à,L its J.":"o:."",....~tiol..., 5ðt 6.uvLl¿èr L":"...uè Iv.... st1(..l... l.Learihg, auJ. ð.t U...e tilliè vf o:.\.1el.L l.L~aril¿g Ll...ê. (..ol.Lu"",il sl...ð.ll l...~a1: àhJ. détéx~':"ue tl.Lè ~....vprièt) of tl.Lé aGtiouo;J of LI.Le (..l.L'::'ef of pòlic.e, bð.o;J~d upOh ê.vidél.a("ê t'rèséhL~d ð.t ~I.LGh at-'Pèð.l 39 --.....-.-..---...-"-..........--".---. Exhibit A 40 of 54 heð.l:~.u~ 1.élevð.bl to tl~ç déu":"a.l, Stl,=,!:-,'CIJ.siOl.L, l.évO'-AL":"Ol... VoL ,....--,..,,~ othé.L dè'-~;:tio}¡ v! tl...e (..lJ.~e[ \"If pOl":""",e;. Ti...é "",":"ty ,-vull.G.l.l .sl.Lðll :té,-eiyo¡;:; êviJ.êhGe Qud tl.LO¡;:; Ihð.}O:r I u!-'Ol... lL.ê ð.J.viC.è of LIle ",iL} attv.Luê}, Sl.Làll î:t..lç 011 Ll...é a...lwi~;::Io':"biliLl' or êviJ.êl...'-é 6.1",1 vII qt1o¡;;;~ti\J.uS vf 16". Tin:; fOl.¿ual ~ Goles vI èv ~J.êlJ."'-ç ði-'l-'liCaLle iu · ð. ,"",,,,,,U1. L of law o=tl.Ldll uot Cll:-'Ply to. st:l.,-l... l,¡o¡;:;u.r i:b':JI. c. At LI...e ,-oll.,-lusivu or U...è l"''lWõð.I: iuy, tl...'C {,;1 L.l (..\"Iu.,Ucil J.t'tA} upl...vlJ. tl.l.'C déu':"u.l, ~t1Spç.u.siOh, lévvGð.Livl... V.L otlu:;;:t: Jo¡;:;CiSt':"""I... vi tl.l.é c.i.l.':"ç[' of pol":",-e, VL tl&'Çl' lhð.:r l\11vw tlu~.L wl...":",-"l.L L.Q;::t be'!;l.. dçu':"ed, :téiustAtç tl...ål wlJ.i""l... l&ð.o::t be'Cu St1~.t-'o¡;:;l..dçJ. 01: .Lêvoked, VoL tuvdify O~ .l,.él3ç.Li:llé ð.lJ..l Otl.LCL d,=-,-":'sivu of LI...e """llief of pvli(..'C wI:..'::" \.01... i.-::t thê SuLjê",t vf U...ê At't'êð.1. 'flu:;; cOuuGi1 ..itl...lu fivê J.Q.}S 6ol...a11 îilð ~'::"Ll... ll...ç; \.0'::"1:)' G1è~k wl.'::"LLèh rihJ.il...ÇJ.-::t of fð.\.oL ð-l...d GO:L:"\"oolusioui:Þ or 1ð.~, 61n1 it.-::t J.ê",i.-::t'::"ol... i:Þhð.11 bé fi1u~1. · 9.12.300 Casino Parties-Denial or Revocation of License. If the license is denied or revoked, the chief of pOlice shall prepare a notice setting forth the reasons for such denial or revocation. Such notice shall be sent by certified mail to the applicant's address provided in the application or be personally delivered. Any person who has had an application for a casino party license denied or revoked by the chief of police may appeal the decision of the chief of police to the city ....v..¡,".a manager pursuant to Chapter 1.40. Amend Chapter 9.13 - Live Entertainment Licensing and Regulations _ · as follows: 9.13.090 Allowance or denial of application and appeal. A. The chief of police shall issue, conditionally issue, -or deny the license for which application is made. The chief of police shall have the power to deny any application if it shall appear that the applicant, or the person to have äirect management of the premises, is not a suitable or proper person to carry on the business for which the license is sought, or if the premises proposed to be used in the conduct of the business to be licensed shall be deemed not to be a suitable · or proper place therefor, or if the health, welfare or public morals of the community warrant such denial. The chief of pOlice may issue the license upon such conditions as he determines would eliminate the situations which would otherwise result in denial of the license. otherwise, the chief of police shall issue the license. The applicant may appeal from the denial of license, or from the issuance of a license upon conditions, in the manner provided for herein. B. Any person aggrieved by the denial of a license or by the issuance of a license upon conditions may appeal to the city · (.vu.u<;il. 3""",1... aþ~~ul .-::tl...al1, will...in fivè dð.:rs ð.fLél. l...OL'::"Cè of j -~ 40 Exhibit A 41 of 54 del¡ið.l or ð. licélJse at: is.sUð.lI.Cê of a l';'Cél¡Sê UpOh .....v.u..I~L..::..Oh, ~ ... Lé [.Ll~J. w.....Ll.L Lll.'Cõ ("ll} (..l~l:k, wlJ.o $11.6.11 s~t tl.Le matte:!:: f....,.... lu::::::.u..&. ~u~ QQ ~vv.u Q.~ .i='....u..'-L~'""'u.l u...uJ. uot.if) L:i btà.'::"l tl.L~ G.l.Lic[ of polic.e ð.hd til.e ð.þplicð:ltt 01:: licehsee v£ U.Le L":"w~ cu..ul t'la'-'Ci i::I'Cit r01. Qbl..l lu.a1.l.1.g manager pursuant to Chapter 1.40. Any interested person may appear and present evidence at the public hearing. If the appeal is from the denial of a license or from the issuance of a license upon conditions, the city cOlll1cil manaqer or desian~e may deny the issuance of the license, issue the license, or issue the license subject to specified conditions if it determines that by the imposition of such conditions reasonable obj ections of the chief of police would be eliminated. The action of the city "...l1l1cil manaaer or designee on such appeal shall be final. 9.13.120 Suspension or revocation. In addition to the causes for denial of a license as set forth herein, any license issued under this chapter may be revoked or suspended at any time after a hearing, notice of which has been given to .the licensee more than ten days prior to said hearing, when the city "...,...,,':'1 manager or designee finds: A. The conduct of the establishment is contrary to the public interest, or does not comport with the public welfare; or B. The establishment has been operated in an illegal, improper or disorderly manner; or C. Any person listed in the license application has violated, or permitted any violation, or has been convicted of a violation of law in the course, conduct or operation of such business. A conviction in any court of competent jurisdiction shall be sufficient to justify êLfinding under this section, excepting convictions for misdemeanor traffic violations. 9.13.130 Convictions. Upon receipt of a certified copy of a judgment of conviction of a licensee under this chapter of any violation of any provision of this chapter, the chief of police may immediately suspend the license or licenses of such convicted licensee, remove such license or licenses from the premises and deliver the suspended license or licenses to the city ".......",,1.1 manager for safekeeping pending a hearing pursuant to Chapter 1.40. If a hearing is reqµested. tThe cOl:1l1cil citv manager or designee shall immediately thereafter set a date for a public hearing no later than twe"L.l' f':'ve ~ days after the date of suspension. At said hearing it shall be determined whether the license or licenses should be suspended further, modified, conditioned or revoked. The ,"...(¡,,,,,':'l ~ manager or designee shall notify the licensee in writing of the decision. which will then consti tute the exhaustion of 41 - -----~._----_._--~._-~- Exhibit A 42 of 54 r-, administrative remedy c..bu.Sé for ~l:1spel¿.!.i",",lJ a..ud LL.è dð.tç ð.uJ. plaCê or tln;:;; 1.&é~u..":"1J.9 ......0 lo¡;;.So tl...u.u to¡;;.u dà.r;::a L=[ol.= 1:.11.1;:::;' da.Lè .=,..:;t for >=1>\.1.,-1... heð.l.":"hg. 9.13.140 Noise abatement. Whenever after a hearing, notice of which must be given ten days prior thereto, it shall be determined that noise from any establishment licensed under this chapter interferes with the right of persons dwelling in the vicinity of such establishment to the peaceful and quiet use and enj oyment of their property, the c.v~J.c..a city manager may require that the premises be soundproofed in a manner that ih 1:.1.1.= juJglu'l::a...t u:[ Ll.Lð \"oo"-'uI&\,....:..l will L= ér[e"L":"vo¡;;. Lo eliminate the noise or reduce it to a reasonable level. In taking any action under this section, the cO~Hcil city manager must balance all of the interests of the respective parties, as well as the hardship which will result from any order. If the co.....:..a ~ manager finds that the noise complained of is of a minimum or inconsequential degree, no action shall be taken under this section. If a licensee fails within a reasonable time, and after having been ordered to do so pursuant to this section, to take such steps as were ordered to abate any noise, his license shall be suspended after a second hearing, ten days' notice of which must be given, until such time as he complies with the order. ~ provisions of Chapter 1.40 shall be utilized for the aupeal. Amend Chapter 9.18 -Rental of Housing for Drug Activity - as follows: 9.18.050 Declaration of Public Nuisance. In addition to any other enforcement action, the citv manager. or city attorney may declare an alleged violation of Section 9.18.020 or the activities described~erein to constitute a public nuisance and may commence abatement of the conditions giving rise thereto in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11570 or Chauter 1.30 of this Code. _ Amend Chapter 10.80- Abandoned Vehicles - as follows: 10.80.010 Purpose and intent of provisions-Vehicle declared nuisance when. The purpose and intent of the Council in adopting sections 10.80.010 through 10.80.120 is to establish procedures in ð.GC.v.Ldu.h,-,é witl.L tl...= ÌJ,Lvv":";::tiOu5 or pursuant to Section~ 22660 .t.Q 22664 of the California Vehicle Code for the abatement, removal and J';'QlhaHLI';'H9 disposal. as pUblic nuisances, of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicles or vehicle parts the~~of from private p~v~e~L~ or public property, not including highways, and the recovery of the cost of administration and removal thereof pursuant to the provisions of section 38773.5 of the Government Code of the state of California. Iu ð.Jdil":"Oh Lo u.h...I ill. u(..\".oorJ.a.l.L'-'= 42 Exhibit A 43 of 54 witl.. Ll.l.~ J.et~:;,¡.."'LL~.uQLioh lLLð.J.é ginl LI.l.è ð.\:ltlu........:...L~ "; IL.QuLçd by ~~.Le õ:t~Q~C ---, or Cö.lifvt:hia \Xl.l.J.é:k::: õ::n:::\.,.rL":"'vu 22668 vi Ll.l.c ·v"e.l.Ll.cle. coJ.é.. of .LC 5 a ê of Cal.:...rvrl.l.ið. tv ,L1;wOvè abtü¡J,vucd, W're.ckeJ., J..L~.I.LLQlatlèd. ox il ope ti~ l' le.s o:t: 1-'a..LL~ U.l.ereo[ u.~ 1-'uLlic hl1.1~u.b'-'c;:t1 U.l.é. cJ..ty j ....Q. ... yO;;;;; .1..&...... . liìðkéi:t tl.l.c fol1owilJg r~1,dih9S 611\1 dêcla:t:at1.ous. 'fl...ê a.cC1:1'm.tll at':'" VJ..I. ð.l.ad btv.L.age of a.Lc:u.l.J.vue.d, w1::="",,1..::;"], disfuauLle.d 01: ii.aOJ:.ié:"'a.L~ve. vèl.Li....lc.s or p,a1::t6 ~lu=.Le.of ,?h 1. ivate. V.L ...d..,lic propel L.l hot il.l(,.luJ.J..l,g l.1.l.g1l1llð.Y;:t 1.5 ]:OlluJ. t:ö c;re~tð å ...vuJ.';'tiOh leuJ.';':,.;¡- to reJ.ll...e ~l,e v~lað of 1-'.....:...va,Le propexty, Lv j:J.Lvmote Ll'¿''.::flJ.L ~lad detél..L.v.Latl.Ol.l. to il1'1ite 1-'luuderilJ9, L... create [....oLl:: l.l.az.ð.:rdå, to cOl.l.stittlte ð-h ð-lL....c;;¡ctivè hu.':"'Sð.l.l.Cé (..:t:èal':"u':t a l...ð.~ð.~J Lv tl...e l...éð.Ith Al...d i:Þafoc;LJ of hL':"uv.L~, to ("~è~lê. a 1...arborå9°c; £01: X odehts ð..l...J .:,j,"'i:Þoc;,-Ls auJ. Lv be. ~l...j tl.L .....vu..:t to tl...oc; I ILl afety ð.l...J '::toc;u..X6.I w..Ifa.L~. Thé1:..fv.Lé, tl...e .....a ..., i:Þ , t::I: d l-r.Loc;Se.u,-oc; vf 6.1... aLauJ.",l...éJ., w.Loc;,-1.ed, d1.~:Wau. e. 01: .::.. L":"voc; vehi(..loc; "'.I... 1-'ð..rt6 ll",oc;.Loc;",f, 01... þl..LvaLe OX "''''''',1:-''';;.1... a . t: 1-'uLl":",- l-'.L"'l-'e.rty nol ':"uClI:1J~1...9 lu.':tI...=,ð.Ys, eA'-oc;þ ð.S e 1-'.L si:ÞIJ l...é1:é":"lu;a.fLc.L pe~hL1.LLt;J., ~s J.t;,-l~réd L", .A L'..:.. Lu.Le. A paLli,- uu."':"i:ÞauCé wl.."':",-l... JUaJ be ð..Lð. Loc;J. u.,s ~\:l(..1J. ...vuo 't:' le se ele i1... ac.(..oxJ.ð.l.l.'-'Wõ with tlJ.é p~vv .....SiOhS of 0..'- .LOl...S . . through. 18.86.128. 18.88.818 Ð6r~nition6. A SéJ. il Liol S 16 86.616 tl....Lo"""='I... 16.86.126, ll...oc; follo~il.1.':t i:Þ u. J. i:Þ~'- ... . t f tl t.él:hLi:Þ auJ. pl...r:ð.St;,$ i:Þlu;a,ll be il...t.è.L1-'.Let.ed Al...d ,"ol.l.i:ÞL....""t;d as Sé V.L'" l......Leil.l.. A. "1I191u4aJ·· me.ð.l.l.6 Q ~aJ V.L plA("é vf "l...at.evé~ l.l.ð.tu..L'Wõ, pt1Lli(..l) mð.il...t.ð.il...ê..} au..} ",..-éh t.o ll...oc; u.i:Þ~ or tl...é l-rLà...l.....'- for Ìo'(l.L,,-:-:i:Þe.s <?f vèl...i(..ö..la.L txavél. II':'':tl.(~a.l il...(..lö..Jt;i:Þ oLreet.. TI...ç: Lerm puLl1.,- . i d "t' t " þropéJ::t1·· J.ves 1...0t 1.1&.\,.0 -u. é.-- "'~9 ...Wal'. D. ··O"hèX of tl...oc; lahd" méa1...& LI...e OW1...ér o.f Ll..... lAl...d 01:' wl...ich tl...é el ic.lé 01. L t.l...erèvf "':"',5 10c.ð.teJ, ai:Þ i:Þl...OW'1... Ou Ll...è lAst v... , ..-a.L~ , eql:1ð.1i~éJ. Ai:Þ'O'õ;ii:Þi:Þ,l,Uèl.l.t. roll. c. ··OWl...eL vf LI...oc; ve.l...ic.lë" JU..a}¿s tl:'t; lai:ÞL .L'Cgii:ÞLél:èJ vwuç:r, A1...J. 1è':ta1 v"l...et: of l:è("v~...1. Ð. ..7él...i"-1.... .weal.l.S a J.év":",-.. L.l 11I1...1(..1... a.k.i.l' l-'e:t:soh 01: prol-r'C.LL.l ~ð.Y L.. J:o':t:opellèJ., :Wvvoc;J. v.... drð.w.k.i. u.J:o'vu ~ l...igl...WàJ', "A.,-~pt A J.è~7'-'c::: :w J. L Itlm.Al l-r -4'c:::.L v.... u..5éJ 'c:::À.,-lu.i:Þ..LV'c:::ly t1pOh i:ÞLaL.....vuCl..L.l :t:A1.16 vV'c::: :t'" ......, V.L L.LQ(..ks. E. "Ðu.":"lJ.il...g off1(..1a1" i:Þhall mea.l.1. LI...ç: dire.ctor of Lu.":"ldihg AbJ l...ou.sil..~ a....I....1/ or his 01: l...ë~ J.e..s~gl...éé. F. "City a.batèfuél.1.t. vff~\,.o'Cr·· shall L'c::: U...e city of[.~\,.o'C.L rèspol.l.siLl'C for él.l.fol("êlu'õ;uL of tl...é Ol.J.':'uð.l.l.c.êS Lè1h':t V..Lu;atéd ahJ ,,1,,0 ihlt':'allJ declð.Xéà salJ violAt.iol... t..., Lt; a puLl~(.. uu...LSdl...("é. 43 - ------ -.._.~_._--_.. Exhibit A 44 of 54 ,..-., 10.80.030 Exemptions from applicability-Scope. The provisions of sections 10.80.010 through 10.80.120 shall not apply to: A. A vehicle, or parts thereof, which is completely enclosed within a building in a lawful manner, or otherwise stored in a lawful manner behind a solid fence, gate or wall not less than six feet in height, and where it is not readily visible from the street or other public or private property; or B. A vehicle, or parts thereof, which is stored or parked in a lawful manner on private property in connection with the business of a licensed dismantler, licensed vehicle dealer, a jun~ Jcale~, V~ when such storage or parking is necessary to the operation of a lawfully conducted business or commercial enterprise. This exception shall not. however. NoLl",':"ug i:u tl.L':"s ~t!c;t':"\Jl.a ~lu~,ll authorize the maintenance of a public or private nuisance as defined under the provisions of law other than this section Chð.pLçr 16 \..If' f)~v~Qiv.u 11 vI ll...e "v"eL.i~lç CoJ,ç v[ tl...ç bLa.té ör CAl~r\"l..Lh~u., aud SéC.t'::"vuS lB.S6.ala tl.L.Lot:&~lJ. 16.86.120. ~ 18.88.848 R6gulðLiona not 6xGluai.ð. I The },.r.l,.Ovi.:t':"Ohb of ~ê"Lio11Õ=- l6.B6.6l6 llu.o~yl.L 16.80.120 aXè £.lot LI.LC ex(..l""si~c l.c':tu.laLivu vf abAhJ.Olu:=J. , wJ:::éGkcd, dio:..IUð.l.aLlèJ. 0..1.. il...Ob-rc....at..:..vé ~d.Li""'les witl...":"u U.l.e ,,-iLj. Tl.u:::.l shall t=J",,~plcüle11L Ail..] be 11.1 aJdit":"ul.l L",-, ll.n= oLl"él: .Lègl..lat.\Jx} ,-Odéi:lO, sla.tutes Qud o.Ldibal..c.ci:Þ l~...~~~~u~~~é or l.Lél.ca.£lc.L cudc..tcd Ll' ll.l.!; ",":"L}', Ll...ê 5tàL~, vr au}' úll£~¿, legAl êl£L~t} 01: a.géb"",l'_ l£a.vi~£':;t j\1.1..~sJ.lçtivu. 10.80.050 Enforcement authority-Right of entry for examinAtion. E)""",èpt ð.~ oLl£è¿,wiàç ~.I..Ov~J.èJ. l£ç¿,çib, ll£e }JI:vv..Là1.vuS or seGliOhS 10.86.016 lhr 011g1£ 10.86.126 .!alu.l.ll Lè U.duL~uià LeI: èJ. ð.l£J. èhrOl.(..çd Ll' tl...ç '-iLl' ð.Lð.lç£uèhL Orr:"è.l... Iu tl£e éu£Ol."",e.liJ.çuL v£ tl£ç ~~,;Li":,,u.s ~~LéJ. a.bôvç, .;;t'4cl... v££~Cè¿, ð.nJ. l...iSt dè~'4Liçi:) 1udl' èhtél. '4þou px:iva.Lç ....,r ~u.bli"", þLv}Jé¿,L:y lot.... ÇAClmihç à. veLi"",lé v1: }Ja.I:Li:) tLç.LèOf, ~I: <?~tð':u ihrOl..wa. Livh ð.;;t t"", t.l£ê iJ.el£t~ L:y "",f a. v çl...:clç (a.ud Lo :ç.w?\fê v.t "",a.uàç U£ç .L~,-,vð.l or a. vchiclç ox: }J~ü.L~ U...erévf) J.ecla..LèJ. to Lç ð. uui$a.ucç }Jtll.i:)'4ð.hL tv tl:"ç sè"",Lioui:) <:.iLeJ. a.bvve, ~h ð"",GOl.J. witl£ .Li':1l£t vf éhL.Ll' }J1:0v~Sivl£S i:)et f01:ll... iu sç"",Liou 1.15.616 vf tl.iQ ...oJc. Provisions of this chacter shall be adminis~~~~d ~~ regularly salaried full-time emclovees of the City excect t remova~ of vehicles from property ~ay be by any ~~~~: ~~~~ author1zed person. Any such author1zE!d cerson m;Y private propertv for the pu:r:poses specified in this sectiOl;- t~ examine a vehicle. and remove or cause to be removed the vehicle U . Exhibit A 45 of 54 declared to be a nuisance pursuant to this chauter. ,-.... 10.80.060 Abatement-Casts-Procedure generally - Notices required - Form. Anv vehicle located on propertv other than a highway may be removed as a uublic nuisance and disposed of in accordance with the following procedures: A. m~e,h tl¿~ "",~L1 cow¡cil IH~QI c..olít.ra"",Lç;J with OJ:: ':1.LahlèJ ð. [:rð.ln...l.l.:¡¡:'c to ill,,}' tlc.Lõ:Þvh vL þè:tSOl.a.o:a sncL. þC,L.;;:Jvu ox þèrsoh5 i:lll.all Lè ð.t1t.ho.L":"c,cJ. to èhtér t,,¡,l-'VU pJ:ivð.t.~ l:-'.Lvl-'è~ty or l-'uLlic pJ::op~.L.Ll" ":".1£ ðc.c.ord wiLl", "''':''':fl.l.t of l;uL.L.l f)J:ovisiou.:Þ ;;:Jct fOl.Ll.l. i1& sé"",L':"vu 1.16.616 vI ll",is coJ.c, to rêJJîOve \JL '-ð.tl&ê thè :r ê¿u\J y al or ð. v d.a.':"(..lè or þu,,L Lò:t tl.l.é~ êof J.c"",lAl: èd to Lc a. !oLaiSð.ln....c t-'G.~SI:!ð.ht Lv ò:u:a...tiOhS 16. 86. Ðle 1:1.1.1:01:1911. 16. Be .126. Not less than ten (10) days prior to any removal or disposal of a vehicle. a notice of intention to abate and remove the vehicle as a uublic nuisance shall be issued unless the property owner and the owner of the vehicle have sianed releases authorizing removal and waving further interest in the vehicle. The notice shall contain a statement of the hearina rights of the owner of the vehicle and of the owner of the uro~erty on which the vehicle is located. The statement shall include notice to the property owner that he may appear in uerson at a hearing or may submit a sworn statement denving responsibility for the presence of the vehicle on the land. with his reason for such denial. in lieu of aupearing. The notice of intention to abate shall be mailed. by reaistered or certified mail. to the owner of the land as shown on the last equalized assessment roll and to the last registered and legal owners of record unless the vehicle is in such condition that identification numbers are not available to determine ownership. _ ~ B. Tlu:;; ,-it} cotlu"",':"l ~hð.l1, f:tvUl L.::.J~e to timt:::, Jetè:rmihè tihJ. fix ð.h ð..:m.o....uL Lv Lè ð...5.5êö:tò::u:;J. å.i:J AdmilJ.':"õ:tL...éìtivè c.oo::tLõ:ÞI cx,-"ltlJihg tl...è ð,,,,,,lu.al '-Vi::Þt of rc.wvva.l of AlA.}' véll.i(..lé 0.... tla.....Li::Þ theI::eof, tll.aJ:eI:: tlu= i::ÞC'- tiOhS ""'~ LëJ. ð-Lo v é. The cost of removal and disposal of any vehicle and the administrative cost thereof may be charged against the person who is determined to be responsible for the maintenance of the vehicle as a public nuisance. c. UtlvJ.1. ..Ii!t(..Ové.....:..J.l~ tl:..e exi~Le::u(..e or au aLð.ll.dohé..I, w....è<..ked, ..IiSmð.htlé..I, vI:: ilJ.ope.LaL~ve vél...icle::, v~ pa....Lõ:t Ll...èXéO[, 01& p.L~vatè ~I::opé....L.}' v1: pttblic tI.l.vtle:::t'ty 'NiLl...~u tl...é ciLj', Ll...e:: city aLatemelJ.t vffi'-er sl...all I...avé the:: a\1tlJ.ority Lv '-atlse the 6.Làtém.é.uL a.h..I re::.wvval tlJ.éI::éOf ..I.J,J. ð.CCv......Iau'-e:: witI... Lll.e:: tI:",océJurei::Þ tlJ::~ðo""'.L":"be::..I II.e:::...ëih. Vehicle may be disposed of by removal to a scrapyard. automobile dismantler's yard or any 4S . _._....,..-~.._--_._------- Exhibit A 46 of 54 . removal to a scrapyard. automobile dismantler's yard or any r---. suitable site for processina as scran. D. ~ llWòll. ~a.y 1.4ol~",1;ò vf ..:.......tor;:;;l¡L..:..o...... tv ~alo¡:;; ul..J. .t.lI;ltlOvé U...o¡:;; v~.I"'''::''\.,.olç:, ~; ~~Ft: ~~~cOf, ~~ u J,o'aLli... !oyL:,ul....e !l1.ull l,e ~a.acJ. Ly ~~!. Lif~'7J.. ~ð.':'l Lv tl.e v"..e!. ~f tl'7 lð;..d ",!oJ. lv tl.~ ~.::l.c~ ~[ ~1:1;ò vê~.L....."'l'l;, ....1..10;:;;.5;:. Ll.&.è. '1o¡:;;l.L~\".olè ~ò::Þ ......1.1. ,;;tt..\".ol... G\Jud.....L.l. I.. 1... L . ~~ç~.IL~r~(,.g.L1:~... U~~~Q Ql.ç .Hot wl3a.ilu.Ll~ Lv J.èLéi.....uiué ~~~é~~l~~~. . ~u;; l~ut..:..~è,;;t vf ":"l..lll;ül":"ou õ::tL.ð.ll Lè ":"1... sltLðLð.l...Liall.l the fviivw.....ug rV~.I,Lli:). "H6TICB OJ" IIft'BIft'Ieø re HME 1dfÐ HH6VE _Mf l<BAHÐð1œ5, ftBC1Œ5, 5ISMldITfÆ5, eR IIf6PERfr'fIVE VEHICLE, eR FARrS ..~RBaF , AS A FUBf.IC lfUISldfCE re. (Nð..ne ð..I.d aJ.dx=s;::t "",f "",...l.a=1: '-If Lh.= lahd) ~~ ,",...1.1..-1:: õ::Þl.Lowu ""I.. Ll.Lé lu..!ÞL é,:!uð.li""lI;d a.S,;;téi:Jò::Þfuçl..l .Loll vr tl.Lt;;õ lð.l.d 1 ""G.a.t.çJ. a.L 1~J~xçs6 of Ìo'LO~or;:;;l. L.l)' .l0~ ul.= In:;1:=b} l.lvt..:..r":"éJ. ~ð.l U...ç u..udè.Li:)i~.uo¡:;;d, ì-'u.....$u.ð.l...L Lv \".ohaptow:t: 1. 36 ~~ T~L~e 1 of tl..è Clu....1u. V~slu. .uu.....u~~~pu.1 C...,J.é ~~.s J.éLè~.w.~.uéJ. LIJ.at t.IJ.ðxç ç.n..iQLo tl!-'ou oð..~d 1a1'"'-1 all. (v~ J:.-rAlo Lð, O[ aJ.J.) uLaIJ.J.vIJ.çd, W.lé,-ÀéJ., ~i.!t~ð.:lJ.t1çJ. 0:"" iuOt-'è.lul~Vç vçhi,-lç, ~è'::l~$Lé~éJ. "-~-~"\ to (taahaç vf vW.ué~ vf YèIJ.~'-lê), l~(..çl¡oè u~ç.t I . . . . . . . . . . , wIJ.~(..IJ. '-...,h$Lit.u.tçs u. j:JuLl~(.. ~U~~Au':.è .t-'~~åu.ð.hL lo UJ.ç }.1~OY":'S~...,ho v[ ,-IJ.a.t-' lel. 1. :3 0 vf 'f":' L1ç 1 0.[ llJ.~ hal..l¡i,-iÌJdl G.vdè. Y...,tl Aloe IJ.è:....éL:t :I¡ot~[~èJ. tv àLal~ ~ð.'::"d ul:1~Sð.I¡(..e ~i ~lJ.è :- ~.w.O v u1 of QaiJ. y çIJ.~,-1ç (...,1: Sa~J. pã:tlo ð. yçlJ.i,-lç) wili...iu :.1.6 J.ð.:r ,;:t [r...,.w. LIJ.ç J.atç v[ mð.~1iu~ o[ l.lJ.iQ l¡vt";"",1Wõ, u.ln1 ~'pOb }- ...,1:1:"" fu":'ltl.&.é to J.o ,;:to., llJ.è $a:m~ w~ll L1Wõ abð.LéJ. ð.uJ. I:ç!hvyçd ~y -:"'hè ,,~t:t al¡J. llJ.è (.....,~t~ LIJ.é:tévf, l""9çtlJ.éJ.. ~~LIJ. à.J..w.~uiot:....u.t.~y~ ,-vsl.o:t u.soç$oeJ. tv :tou. aQ ~~~¡:lo ~~ lI:LÇ lAhJ. vl¡ wIJ.";"",I" Qu.iJ. yel¡";"",1è (v1: sð..iJ. ÌJuLl.!t or ð. yçl"ic1~) ";"S 1vcaleJ.. Aõ:J UJ.è O'huè~ ...,f UJ.ç lu.hJ 01.1 'hlJ.i,-IJ. sà.iJ t çIJ.~,-1ç ~~~ ~ð.~J. ~a~L~ ...,f u. y elJ.i"'1e) i~ 1o,-u.lçd, }-vu ¡"1WõX1Wõb} .uot":'f~èJ. ll"al :lot.. hauy , wi llJ.iu 16 day~ u.[Lel. LIJ.ç ¡uA'::"li¡¡9 o[ LIJ.is h...,Li,-é vf ~~t=l¡Li...,u, l.=qu.~~L a .t-'uLli,- IJ.ea~iu9 ð.ud if ~~~~J. a ~1Wõqu.è::-~ ";"s uoL lo..-(..=":'v=d Ly 1:.IJ.è Ltl":'lJih9 cffi....:.al v,,- I.L" v,,- I.~!. dc~i'::t..cc wilhi.. oyd. 16 da:r j:Jélo":'OJ., Llu:;; ,-iL:t u.LaLè.w.é:l.l.L ""f[i,-él. $IJ.ð.11 rJ.å. y è LIJ.1Wõ atll.IJ.o~iL:t Lo. ð.LU.t1Wõ a,,¡d l.1Wõlli.VYÇ ou.iJ. ~~!"~7lc (0,1- ou.:i.J. !-,ð..&. L~ 0.[ '" vèlJ.":'"",le) a$ a pub!.....'" 1¡u.l.~ð.1.l.(,;~ u.1¡J. u.soe$.o:t LIJ.ð G."".!tl~ ð.Q af...,l.~SaiJ. W':' 1:.1¡otl L u j:JúL1i"", L~ð.~iu9· You .w.ð.:r 46 Exhibit A 47 of 54 /'"C' 5ublui. t a 5WO~.b. w.Littel.a ;;:tLa.tê:lué~¿L 'With~~i ;::"'........1.. 10 J.a..r !:-leI: ioJ. J.1;oU.r ihg L=;;:tJ:-'ol¿siL~l';"L:y [oJ:: Llu::: J:-'.L'/;SêhG.= "",f 5ð.iJ. v =l.L';"cl~ (1oJ.I.. i:IOð.iJ. t"c;;u. Ls of g v ,=:J.L~(..lè) uu saiJ lc;.¡.l&d, w~Ll& Y0\:1l. .L e-ð.SOl..;;:ao fv:t: dêl.aial, aIld 6th....l.. stð.t=fuêut sl...all bë ....Olistl dêd ð.à u. Xè':i.....çst fv.. l...êð.r':'u':t dt "l.l.':'c;.h .xu.....r pre~n::;u....e. is h""L :reqtl'::"l.=d. y...,( .auð.} ð.~1-'ç.ð.:t: ih pe.rsoh QL al.a} l.L'Ccu.. ':"1.9 l.c'-!l".LêsteJ. L.1 J au u.... th.e. OWllè:t: vf LIJ-è i1 èl.....:.....16 or, ':"1& liè"" Ll.Lê1:éOf, .aua} .i:-".L1WóSêht. a. ~worll. w.L':"LLêh õ:tLaL'W.LLIêl.at Qò:t u.rore~aid i}¡ tiw'Wi fat: ,"""l.ai:lO':"de1:: ð. ti~.u ð. t stH..l... l.Léar iug . !loti.....'/; Mail=J. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . "He'1'ICE aF IH'l'EH'l'Ialf Ta JdlATE ldm REMðVB MI 1dIJdiÐðHBÐ, WRBCDB I ÐI8Mldf'fld!lÐ, aR IHePERATIVE VEHICflE, all PHT8 THEBaF, ldI ]I¡. PUBflIC mJI8ldfCE Ta. (Uð..lulI; aud AJ.J.ì.1::i:IOi:IO of laò:tl .L=9istt::.L'I;d aud/v.L legAl vWJ.n:::r of L=,-oxd of '4,=:f".Li"l= hoti,-= .-:JhoulJ. Lç givèh Lo botl¿ ir J.irrc1:él¡L) As lQ.i:IOL 1:ègiàLc.Lcd (QuJ./V.L legAl) OW1¡cr of réCv.LJ. or (JcscJ::iÌo'L":"vh of ~ d¿":"c1é .w6.ke, Ihodel , 1':" ....çl ¡Sè , cL.....), YOIl ò.l.c l...èréL}- uotiricJ. tlu~ t tl¿è tll...dè1:~i~ued, ~u...Lo.....ð,l¡t to SéCt':"vl... 16.86.616, l¿à,o JetèrluiueJ. tl...ð, t i:IOaid v cl¿':"clè (V.L J:o"6.1:ts vr Y. v èl...iclc) èxisto a.s ð.h ð..LQ.udol...eJ. , ..:t:eckè..1, J.iamð.htle..1 or il¡vJ:o"erð.ti\j c ~çl...iclè u.L (déà<"ì..':"be locQ.L':"Oh Ol.a J:o"...d..lic vr p:rivQ.Lè p~~e.L Ly) ð.l...J. ....vhstitl...Lc's o!l ,púLlic huisð.l...cc J:o".....rsuð.hL Lo,-, tl...é . . vf saiJ. ~.LvvJ.SJ.Ol¡i:IO ÇOdè .sè....L':"Oh. Yva a:t:é l...é.L~.l hotir":"eJ. to aLa.Le ò:)Q.id là.....:..S6hCé L} U¿é l:eiuvvu.l or ~a":"J. vehicle (or saiJ. pð.J::ti:lO or ð. veh":"c1é) ~':"Ll¿ih 16 J.a.ro f:ron. Ll...e date vf tl"...e ttlð.il":"ug of tl¿ii:l uotice. As J::é'jii:lLeréd ( auJ./ ot: lego!ll) OWl¡ér vf 1:éCv.LJ. vr ~6iJ. vel...':"c1é (V.l. i:laid pð.l:ti:l vi a vel.....:......1é) , yv~ 61:e l...él.eL.l hotir':"cd tl...ð.t }v..... J.LLð.Y, w':"Lhih 16 J.a.li:lO aftel. Ll...e luð.iliu~ vr thi~ uvLicé vr luLeuLioll, .Lequest .!> ,p....Ll ic l...èa.l. ':"u9 ð.......J. ..:..r 6a,-l... u. reqd.ei:lL ':"05 hot J::e....c':"ved by LI...c builJ.':"ug oific':"ð.l VoL l¿is 01. l...cr desighec ..itl¿ih i:I.....cl... 16 Ja.l pe:rivJ., the cily aLate16él¡L vrficéJ:: 01...6.11 l...avé tl...c atltl...ol.iL.l Lo ð,Lð.lè al...d :réfuvve Sð.':"J vehiclé (0.1.. ò:)u.id pa:rl6 vi a vèl¿i.....le) witl¿vut ð. L.éð,:t: iug . Notic..e Mail""d . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47 ___m.__.__._.~_.."_.__ __ _ _____ Exhibit A 48 of 54 ~. 10.80.070 Abatement-Public hearinq required when-Notice Building offi,ial Manaaer or his or her desiqnee authority. :k. UpOl¡ .L~qL1.è<=tL by Ll¡,~ olìtru,=r of Lhé- yoc::::l...icle O~ the vw1..é:t: vI tl...ç lðl,d l...-cèived by Ll...e Lk':"ldilJ';1 o[ri",ial V.L 1,':";:, or lu;x J:esigl,ç:ê wl.LI.a.':"l, lçu dð.i,;;;t aft.ç.l" the ~ð.il":"l.l9 of t.I,e UOti,-1Wõ of ':"l...t.èhL':"Oh to aLate à'ud :t:e~uove, Q puLlic lu::::ð.rih<j shð.ll Loc:::: 14élJ. by LI,l.é Lu':"ldil.l.':;I o[ri"",':"al "".... l¿is or l.n=:r dé;:t':"9Uée 01... Ll...e "::Iu.éSt.':"v¡' of ALa,têhn:a....t ð-uJ. :t:éhtvvð.l vI t.l"e' vél.a.l""le 0.... pð.~Ls tlJ.II;1:eof as QU ð.L~ulJ.Olu;J., wl.è,-keJ., J.isrLLQuLleJ. v1: ih""J:'é:t:ð.-:"":"vè v'I::ILi(..lç, tÜ.lJ. tl...ç ð.~.:u=.ssnn::;.uL of the a..1wil.ai¡:,L....at':"yç (..oi:lOLs ð.hJ. tl¡1::: GO;:tl of .LeluOval of thç v~¡i,-le 01. l-'a.rti:Þ U.Lé1.oc::::of åYa.':"l¡ßl tIle J:'1:oþ'Ç.LLy vI" wl..':"c.h iL i~ lCCALðd. U~on reauest bv the owner of the vehicle or owner of the land on which the vehicle is located. a public hearina shall be held before the citv manager or designee. This request shall be made to the manager or his desianee within ten (10) days after the mailing of the notice of intention to abate and remove the vehicle. B. If thé vWl...é.L of LI.Le. làJ..Id suL.witõ:' ð.. ö:twv1:u w:tilLél.l QtàLe:lucut de11yib~ .Lès1-'\JusiL~lity fvr U.Lè )?l.ç.:tèl.a("c of LL.è vèl.Li",le vi.. l.L~s labJ. wi tl....:..h $....{,;1.1. Lçl... ..]à.l þçì. ':"od I ~ð.iJ. S La. témè'u L ò::'l.Ldll Lè (.."",,1....-::» LJ.. u-çJ. AS a :t:é':iu.êSt fv:t: Q. L.éA~ ":".1.19 ",1.1":"(,.1.1. J.OèQ uot .Lè":1u.i:t c L.i~ 1-'rèi::U:;l¡Gé. lioL":"Cé v£ tl...'I::: 1.Lécu....:..l.L9 ,sl.,.ð.ll Lc mð.":"léJ. Ly ...~-~) Cèl.L.~.[ièJ .wdil, At lçð.st tèll J.ays Le£o:"'t;;; tl..",::; IJ.éa..Lil¡':1 Lo LI...è .. OWbèI: """f tl...'I::: 1al..J. ð.l...J. to U...c o"'.uer of tl.LC v él...":"",-,1 e I u.l...lc5S LI.Lè yo¡:;;l...iclc ":"05 iu st1(..l.a. COlnl":"Liou tl.Lð.L ide.u.lir":"\.,oativu IJl.L.L~è~i:) ð.Le hot ð.vu.ilð.Lle to det'l:::.a..wilu;õ OWl.l'I::;.Lsl.Li~. If stK.l... ð. .LeqtLcst [or hèCL.LilJ9 ":"05 InJL 1::è\"oc":"veJ witl.L":"u .!.ð.id lèu. dð..ls ð.fLer wail":"ug of the l.lvLiG.c of ":"uté,bLioh L""" aLate c;u...d J:::Ç.u.IOVÇ, tln:: '-~L.l ò:l1~all l~ð.v~ the aut.l~vJ:::iLl' to aLð,t~ al&\l .L~mO~ê tl~~ vèl~':'GI~ 01:: 1-'ð,rt.i::t tl~è1:èvf ð.à u. p~li,- ~u....~ð.l~"",_~ wi.LI~otll l.LolJ':'ug a pt1LI~G 1~~ll1:~ug. The owner of the land on which the vehicle is located may at>pear in person at the hearing. Instead of making an appearance. he may t>resent a sworn written statement. i~ time for consideration at the hearing. denying responsibi]ity for the t>resence of the vehicle on the land. with his reasons for. his denial. This statement shall be construed as a request for a hearina which does not reqµire the t>resence of the owner submitting the request. If it is determined at the hearing that the vehicle was t>laced on the land without the consent ~f the landowner and that he has not subsequently acqµiesced in its presence. then the costs of administration or removal of the vehicle shall not be assessed aaainst the property ut>~n which the vehicle is located or collected from the landowner. c. All 1~~ll:t:il.L,=,;::t tll.LJeJ::: b~Gtiol.L;::t 16.86.616 tl.L.Lvtl91~ 10.86.120 wl.Lall be 1~~lJ il.L~L~ð.lll' bèrv.L~ tl...~ L\1~ldilJ":f off~,-ial 01:: l~ià OJ::: l...~r desì":fueè, who ;::t1.L6.1l l.Lèð.~ 6.11 fð.,-Li:J ð.l...J tei:J Lihivl...y l~e Jçèllii:J pèrt~uèljt. 3ð.iJ. fa"""Ls aud t~.stilLLulty lull} il...GlL..dè tç~l':'&LLolJl' on 48 Exhibit A 49 of 54 Ì:Jç.... Lihé.laL. 3Q~J [ð.ct~ u..ud t~6ti.w\J.u.r mð.} il.a""l....de testiruol,} Oì.J -, tl...~ ,"",,",uJ..";"L";"Oh of' Ll.l.lI; .01;.1...:"",,1= o:r .t-'u.... L=- tl.Lèì:é\Jf u...u.J. Ll...e. cil.'-.......u.QLAl..Cé.S (,,;vu'-=....uih9 iLi::I locð.t~,-,u 01... ðð.iJ .t:'L.';'vQ.L~ p:rop=rt.x or publ~,- p:tope:rty. Tl.l.è L(¿~ldilJ9 vrr':'cial OL 1...':'s OJ:: l.LeI. dèSi9l¡è~ i::Ihal1 hot Lð lilLL"::"Led by 1.1.11;::0 tecl...hi(..c.l :ttllè5 of çy':'J.=.uc~. TI...ç; uwue.r of Ll...è 161£..1 WQ..l appe.ð.:t" 1..1& .t-'=....~Oh ð-t Ll....::; l.1.=a.....":"u9 or Pl:èò:u:;;;uL ð. SWU.LU WJ::itteh ¡;:tLu.L~:mel...t. ":"u L":"m.ð for \.oovuo":"de.:tatioh ð-t ll.LÇi heð.l.i.u~, ðhd déhJ .L!;spohsibil":"Ly [OJ:: tl...è pre.àèl...(,;.= \"If Ll,¡1;õ ve.l...i",lç ""'u thé lQ.uJ., ...itl... l...ii::l .L-'::;Q¡:,OhS [o.l:: i::Id,-..l... de.l..ial. Ð. The LL..":"lJ.":"u':f orri",ið.l \.1.1. l.Lid 0.... l.LeX' desigin:::= .ulay iha.t,Jvi::Ic g....cl... ,""vuditiohS ð.lJd tg]..,1I; oõ:t....cl... uti...'!;.... actiOh ð,o:t 1.1.= ..Ie-e.m.s Q..t-'.t-':toprið-lç tll,dêr Ll.Lê ci::l'-LüU..:.L6lJcê.:. Lo Cð-:r}::y vu.L tl.Lè l-'tl:r~Obé vf 5e,-L~vu.:. 16.80.616 Ll.u.ongl.L 16.86.126. IIç w.U-.l Jèlu-) tl.Lè Liwê f01: :réluO~ð.l vf the ~çhiclé O~ l-'cu..Ls th.e}::çvf if, ilJ l.Li.:. OpilJiolJ, th.e ,-i.L'-LüU.stð:lJCç.:. ju.stify it. At the ,-vuclu.;;:.~oh of tl.Le public l.Leal.~u9, tl.Lç buildilJg vfficial 01. hi.:. 01: l.LèJ.. de&iglJéè ha6..l fil.ld tl.LðL u- 'él,iclt;; vr þA!::tb LI.Lt;;.Lçof ¡.IdS Lt;;çu . " c' . c ð:'Lð..I.IJvliéJ, w.LçCkéd, J..L':''wð.ltt1èJ., V.L .L5 ~hO~é.La .Lvé vh p:rl.va ç or pttLlic }o'.Lv!:,é:tty ð-hJ. ordè:r tI..t;; SAme l:éh1vved f.Lom tl.Le propel:ty ð.b u- l-'ublic htli.:.ð:liCé ð.hJ. J.iSpObéJ. vf 60S }..t;;.LêilJð.fte1. 1-'1.04iJ.çJ. auJ. dete:rmihç U.Lé a~~u~.:.L.Lð.t~vç ,-ooSts ð.hJ. Ll.lê cosL of 1::èl~Ov6.1 Lv Le cl.Lð.~':IçJ. agailJàt LI.Lç OW'he.L vf LI.Lç lAuJ.. 'I'1.Lé orde1:: .l:e'-l\.1il.~u':l removal ;;:.1.Ldl1 ili,-lu.J.e A J.è~H_:'(.~l-'L~OI¿ vf Ll.Lé vehicle or p6.1. L.:. U.lé:t:eof àuJ. tl.Lè co:r:rt;;,-,L idèhtific6.L~vlJ IJt:.m.bçL auJ. l~'-'t;;.u;;:.é IJ\.1.1Ld.,êl: vf LI..é 4eI.Li,-1t;;, if d~a~laL1ð at lI:"t;; ;;:.~tê. If it i.:. J.t;;termil¡êJ. ð-t U¡è héð..l:iu~ U...ð:t the ~el.L~,-,lé .65 ÌJ1a,-t;;d J vu LI¡é lal.ad tIIit.l.Lvu.L Ll.Le Cvu.:.t;;uL of tl.lé OWUç.L vf the lð.l.lJ. aud Ll¡aL I..t;; 1¡6S I.lOt. .:.u.L.:.t;;"J....élítl} a'-"J....~é.sCéd ~h ":'L.:. l-'.Lç.5él.lCç, LI¡t;; btli1dihg off~cial or I..~~ vr l¡e::t: JçS.i';:fuçê o5l..d11 l¡oL ao:J,;:téSS tile ("06t& or àdmilJistl:dtiou or renlovð-l vi the vel.Lic1t;; ugailJst tI¡e p!::opérty u.l-'vu ",,1.LicI.. LI¡ç vehiclè io:J 1v,-ated 01. vLI¡t;;.Lwisé atL~:;,Lul-'L Lo collé(..t .:.....'-I.L CO!lots f.LVw. ;;:.""çl.L OWl.aèl: of U¡Ç lahd. If ll.Lt;; VWUt;;J.. or ll.Lt;; lalld st1LmlL~ ð. o5worlJ w1.~LLelJ stð.teìûèhL delJyih9 J..t;;~polJoSibiliLi eOl: tIle ~J..t;;~chce of lb.ç vchicle 01J I¡~~ 1al.ad but Jvè.:. uvL appeð.J.., VJ.. if alJ iutè.Lt;;;;:.Léd paxL) w.ak,ç5 ð. W'ritLéh l-'.Lç;;:.éhtatioh Lv Lhe. btlilJ.~h';:f vffici6:l ,01:: I~~oS o~ I:~:t dèSiglJèè L~l .J.oas IJOt ð:ÌJ.f)ÇQJ.., I~è sI¡ð-11 Lt;; uot1f~èJ. lu wJ..1t~loig of tl:"è J.eC1S~OIJ. 18.88.888 AppeAl or 46'~6~on Publi, h6Aring l~ti'6 Board of app6A16 6n4 64.~sora author~tJ. Au.l ihté:téstèJ l-'aJ.. L.l 1~ð.Y u!:'!:'t;;al tl.Lð J.é(,.i.:.~vu vf tI.lè La~lJ.~ug vff~,-ið.l 01:: I¡i~ VJ.. l¡~l: dè&~'jue~ b} £i1i1£';:1 a writtéh uvL~ce of ð.~~èal witI.L tl¡è Lva.LJ. of ð.ppçal~ ð:hd ðdv~.:.vJ..,:, withilJ fi~t;; Jays aile!:: I.L~o:J Jç,-,isioh. 3~,-I¡ aPPèðl .$I¡6.11 Le l¡eð.rJ Li LI¡t;; boð.:tJ. of al-'l-'t;;a1s åloiJ. àd~i,:,vJ..¡:t wl.Li'-l.L ~ð.} aff~rm, AluèllJ. OJ.. .Leve1:Sé tI¡e vJ..Jer or tð.ké oLI.Lç.L aC.tiOli J.çèwçJ. approÌJì:iuLç. TI.L~ sè'-J..çLaJ..:f to tl.Lç bOð-l:J. vf al-'l-'ealo5 Mold ð-d4~;;:.vJ...s sl..ð.ll ~~vç wJ..~ttéh l.aoL~,-e of tI¡è t~¡UÇ ahd plð-'-è vf LI.lé lu~ðrilJg vf tl..e. ð.~i-'ç11auL 61¡J. LI¡v~e pèrSOh.:. specified ð.Lvvç. Ih cOhdtl'-l":"ug tI..e. I..èð.J::~la'j, the LvaJ..J. of ð.ÌJ~çð.l¡:t "- 49 _.~___..."___,__._ 0-._.._--... ~ Exhibit A 50 of 54 ...-.., e 4 '::"Jel,'-,,=. 10.80.090 Disposal of vehicle-Time requirements. Five days after adoption of the order declaring the vehicle or parts thereof to be a public nuisance, five days from the date of mailing of notice of the decision if such notice is required by sections 10.80.010 through 10.80.120, or fifteen days after such action of the go_en.......;! Locl,}' manager or designee authorizing removal following appeal, the vehicle or parts thereof may be disposed of by removal to a scrapyard or automobile dismantler's yard. After a vehicle has been removed it shall not thereafter be reconstructed or made operable. 10.80.100 Notification and transfer of evidence required when. Within five days after the date of removal of the vehicle or parts thereof, notice shall be given to the Department of Motor Vehicles identifying the vehicle or parts thereof removed. At the same time there shall be transmitted to the Department of Motor Vehicles any evidence of registration available, including registration certificates, certificates of title and license plates. Any licensed dismantler or commercial enterDrise aCQ;.Uiring vehicles removed Dursuant to this section shall be excused from the reporting reauirements of section 11520 of the California Vehicle Code: and any fees and penalties which would otherwise be due the Department of Motor Vehicles. are hereby waived. provided that a CODY of the resolution or order authorizing disposition of the vehicle is retained in the dismantler's or commercial enterprise's business records. 10.80.110 Costs-Assessmentand.collection procedures. If the administrative costs and the cost of removal which are charged against the owner of a parcel of land pursuant to section 38771 et seq. of the government code and chapter 1.30 of this code are not paid within thirty days of the date of the order, or the final disposition of an appeal therefrom, such costs shall be assessed against the parcel of land pursuant to section 38773.5 of the government code and shall be transmitted to the tax collector for collection. Said assessment shall have the same priority as other city taxes. 10.80.120 Removal of vehicles from streets authorized when. Any regularly employed and salaried officer of the pOlice department may remove or cause to be removed: A. Any vehicle which is parked or left standing upon a street or highway for seventy-two or more consecutive hours; 50 Exhibit A 51 of 54 _ highway for seventy-two or more consecutive hours; B. Any vehicle which is parked on a highway in violation of any provision of this title, the Vehicle Code or other law or ordinance forbidding standing or parking, when the use of such highway or a portion thereof is necessary for the cleaning, repair or construction of the highway or for the installation of underground utilities, and signs giving notice that such vehicle may be removed are erected and placed at least twenty-four hours prior to the removal; c. Any vehicle parked upon a highway which has been authorized by the councilor other competent authority for a purpose other than the normal flow of traffic, or for the movement of equipment, articles or structures of unusual size, and the parking of said vehicle would prohibit or interfere with such use or movement, providing that signs giving notice that such vehicle may be removed are erected or placed at least twenty-four hours prior to the removal of such vehicle; D. Any vehicle parked or left standing, when the city council by resolution or ordinance has prohibited such parking and has authorized the removal by ordinance. No vehicle may be removed unless signs are posted giving notice of the removal. Amend Chapter 10.84 -Parking Restricted on Private Property - as folloys: 10.84.010 Purpose and intent of provisions-Parked vehicles declared nuisance-When. The purpose and intent of the council in adopting sections 10.84.010 through 10.84.030 is to establish procedures for the notification, citation_and removal of vehicles from. private property in the front yard, unfenced exterior and parkway areas of the city. 'fl~ç c';"L~ cvuu,-il J.....,éS J,êclcl..I..ç Ll¡ç; pð..Lk~ìjg or such yçlJ.iclç& t.o Lç ð. !:-,dLli\..o Huioõ:tcu¡(..è ClUj. ð.u.l vél.L":""lé ,;;tv PA.Ll.çJ. iu LI...é aLéð.S ~tol...':'Litèd L} LIlls c11dptét shall be J.èèlhçJ. to Lç ð.b,u.lJ:ohed y~1...":"(.le5 o;taLje....L to tl...é .L,1;hìoval pro("èdu..Lt;S 5çt. fo....lh 1.u. Clu~pLér. 16.86. 18.84.835 Cit&Lion .uthor~ly. TIn:;; L~ilJ.':'h9 ClUj. l.l.v'-'L6ihy J.ire.....Lor, (..od..- él,[v.LCenh;ut Orr":"Cê.LQ bhd vLL.ê.L çfuplvl'=êS Jésiyuated Ly Ll&ê b\.oLildiu~ ð..uJ l.LOU;::t":"llg J.":"iê""L,,,,r õ:)1...6.11 l...ð.v= U...é dlooLtl.lO.L":"t:.y tv çJ¡[v.L.....é CIJ.Q.pte.Lõ:J 16.32, 16.84 QUJ. 19.62 vf tll.':::; CIJ.l:lla 7i~LQ Mu..uicipa.l CoJ~ L} iSSu.~u9 ".LitL~u úoL~,,-,,~ or tIle v L"""latiou. 18.84.836 Not~'6 or .iolAlion. Tilê. 1U~tl&O~ or ':j;'vill':j laoL;'"-,,è rv~ pt1.L~vSê.S or se"-,,tiola 10.84.03::; iQ b.S rvllo"Q. 51 ___.___.. __ __ ______~___w_._____~_~___··_·~ Exhibit A 52 of 54 -- 1. Ðu..L~}"g U...è Li~n;:; of tl,'I; vivlQt~vh, Q hvLi\.;1I; of v Ivlð.t~vu wl.Ldll be wl¡:::\....u.~ çl} ð. t.. LaG.l¿lI;d Lv Ll.Lð vèl.....:..c.:lç ~çLtiug [o:rll.l. LI...è , !i~~ð.l~O~ì. ":"l.1G.lud":"u9 l.ç[ê.LII;l.a("ê tv tl.11; sé.....LivH vf tl...è Muhi\..oip6.1 CvJ.é ~":"OlQtéJ., tl.l.ê l.ll"'l-':tvAiThuCè Lildç of violð.tivl.l.I tl.l.C lO,-utivla wI:..!;.... é. tl...é. v ivlð.l':"OlJ. O(,."",u.:t:1. çd, ahJ. t.h.ç l..:.......él...i::IOê uu.lLd..,e1:: al.ul ~~":":tàL':"Ol.l. J.ð.Lç, Ll...é '-'.....1"-'.... of Lb.'!; vel....:..(..lç, alnl .;..r 1-'osw':"bl..-, tl...ç } oc;;ð.:t: auJ .wð.kç ð.l.LJ. ìhvJ.él of Ll...è v êl.....:..clé. TI...é l.Lol':"Cé õ;)hð.ll spe(..ir~ u. l":"mè Al.aJ. pluGé [01. ðpÌJeð.~u.l,Cè by ll.....- l.egiwtè1.cd ""RUe.&.. 01. Ll...ç lç,¡:tSéç 01. :t:èlJ.Lé.l. ':"1& CL.uå~er to Ll...é. uot":"Cé. 2 . !!J.II; ~~,:"L~(..~ sl...~~l be atta\,;l..èJ. to tl.lé vèl.....:..clc Sv db to Lè 1::ð.sily ~~~ç:l~~d L.l ll...è 1-'él.wOh ill cl...ð..J..9é. of tIn::: tfçl...i"-,,lé u.þOu tl.lè per~vl. ~ léLul... Amend Chapter 15.04 - Excavation Grading and Fills - as folloW's: 15.04.305 Fees-To be 4~uble4 In ~erlAIn ~Aðe6 Effect of imposition. In the event that land development work is commenced without a land development permit, the city engineer shall cause such work to be stopped until a permit is obtained. The permit fee, in such instance, shall then be the normal Iv reauir~d Dermit fee. plus $500 Jv~lé U..AL ...1..":",-1. ...odld l.vru¿u.ll.l Lç :té':iu.il~. The payment of 'SttCh dottLle the increased permit fee~ shall not relieve any person from fully complying with the requirements of this chapter in the performance of the work. Such fee slu;I,ll uot bç GOust... u.éJ. Lv Lç ð. ~- , p~J.CI.lt.l' Lu,t shall be '-vuSL...u,éJ ð.~ AI. u.dJ.çd [éè :ré':iu'i~çd Lo defray I the expense of enforcement of the provisions of this chapter in such cases. The iw~o",';'tivJ. vi payment of such do..J...l", fee shall not prevent the imposition of any penalty prescribed or imposed by this chapter or Chapter 1.41. - 15.04.310 Violations-Declared unlawful and public nuisance-Abatement authority. - Any land development commenced, or done. maintained or allowed contrary to the provisions of this chapter, shall be, and the same is hereby declared to be, unlawful and a pUblic nuisance. Upon order of the city council, or upon the determination of the city manaaer or the city attorney~ sl""ll ....clluueh....e necessary proceedings for the abatement, removal and/or enjoinment of any such public nuisance shall be commenced in the manner provided by law. A1ternativelv the Drocedures to abate under Chapter 1. 30 may be used. Any failure, refusal, or neglect by a responsible party to obtain a permit as required by this chapter shall be prima facie evidence of the fact that a public nuisance has been committed in connection with any land development commenced or done contrary to the provisions of this chapter. 15.04.325 Costs of abatement-Special assessment procedure-statutory authority. 52 Exhibit A 53 of 54 .....-....., The costs of abating a dangerous condition within the meaning of , this chapter shall be imposed as a special assessment against the land on which such abatement was done. ~r 0 v iJçJ [L.U.. Ll.l.è~ , Ll.L'Ç ",i ty 'Ç.u~ll.aèér sl.LQ.ll :t'èpoJ.. L å.l1 ~(¿,"1.L co¡;,L.:. to Ll.l.ê citj' (..vtnlcil a.l.LJ. ðL tl.l.è In:;ð.r ihg 0...... thè ciL.r èl.lgil¿êè:t:· S .LèpO:rt, Costs and assessment procedures will be in accordance with Cha~ters 1.40 and 1.41. ~he property owner may raise and the city cOl:ll.cil manaçrêr shall consider, as a complete or partial defense to the imposition of the assessment, questions as to the necessity of the abatement and the means in which it was accomplished. Pursuant to Government Code §38773.5 abatement costs shall be transmitted to the tax collector for collection. This assessment shall have the same priority as other city taxes. Amend Chapter 15.44 - Moving, Relocating and Demolishing Buildings - as folloW's: 15.44.070 Appeals. The applicant may appeal the findings and recommendations of the building and housing department to the city manaaer bOaLJ. of a1-'1-"II;g,lSt ðhJ. öJ.visors. The appeal shall be in writing. För all ð,:a,.,pèð.ls, lbé fl;ç ;;:tl.l.ð.l1 Lç tl.l.é Rèq\.1.i...çJ. Fêè{S). The city manager shall use the procedures in ChaDter 1.40 to govern the appeal. Amend Chapter 17.28 - Unnecessary Lights - as folloW's: 17.28.050 complaints-Investiqation-Notice-Hearinq. Upon the written complaint setting forth the particulars concerning any offending lighting situation by the adjoining or neighboring residential property dwellers to U.~ ciL.l' ð:tt.:..Lue,y, it shall be the dtrty responsibilitv of the city ð:LLv.Lh~y to investigate or ....<:"lS~ to L", L..~",L';'~ð.t~d the basis of the complaint, and if there is found to be sufficient cause for said complaint which constitutes a nuisance to the adjoining or neighboring property owners, a written notice shall be sent~ to the owner or person controlling such lighting, directing that the lighting be modified, discontinued or abated within fifteen days of receipt of the notice. If the lighting situation has not been discontinued or abated as required in this section, the city ð:tto.....cy manager shall issue a notice to the property owner pursuant to ChaDter 1.40 to appear Le,for~ LI.l.è ciL.l' '-ot1l.i,-,~l to ßDd show cause as to why the lighting should not be declared a public nuisance and abated by Cl.1-'l-'ropriaLç lé~al a....L,;,oh pursuant to ChaDter 1.30. Amend Chapter 19.08 - Zoning Enforcement - as folloW's: 19.08.020 Violations-Declared public nuisance-Actions for abatement authorized. Al.y Lolildih~ 01 st.Lol....ture It is unlawful to cause or allow to occur ~ set up, erecti2Ded, constructi2Ded, alterationed, enlarge~d, conver~ted, move~d or mainta±nenanceed of any buildina or ) - 53 --. ---~.~------"----'--- Exhibit A 54 of ':4 ~-- structure contrary to the provisions of this title, and any use of . any land, building or premises established, conducted, operated or maintained contrary to the provisions of this title shall be, and the same is declared to be unlawful and a public nuisance; and the city attorney and citv manager. resDectively. shall iMllicdiaL~ly commence action or proceedings for the abatement and removal and enjoinment therein in the manner provided by law or Title 1 of this ~, and shall take such other steps and shall apply to such courts as may have jurisdiction to grant such relief as will abate and remove such building or structure, and restrain and enjoin any person, firm or corporation from setting up, erecting, building, maintaining or using any such building or structure or using property contrary to the provisions of this title. The remedies provided for herein shall be cumulative and not exclusive. Any person who violates any provision of the certified Local Coastal Program adopted pursuant to Division 20 of the California Public Resources Code shall be subject to the penalties contained therein. 19.08.030 Violations-Penalties. Any person, firm or corporation, whether as principal, agent, employee or otherwise, violating or causing the violation of any of the provisions of this title shall be punishable pursuant to the provisions of 3c",tivh 1.26.616. Chapters 1.2 through 1.41. Amend Chapter 19.62.200 - Off-Street Parking and Loading - as follows: 19.62.200 Enforcement of this chapter. :~"': ~'-i':1-'~~è~ o..f ê21rv~'-ê~èl,t ""[ Lhiõ::t cl.LCl.pL~.L. I ~~loj1;:;êo=t déQig.uAl~d ~~~:~ 31;;;~t~'""'U ~0.~4:6-LJ::; .may isõ::t.....7 \,.o':'t~L':'DuS Lv v~.Li,-lèQ 0.1.. þ1.uPé.LLy o.u~~.:: ~õ::t 6.l:"pì.vp~..d~.tç;., wL.èl.& v.l.vlaLl.Oll;::t vf Lh.è G.l.Laptçr'v(...(...uJ::¡:Ot ~:~:~~e,J I.v~~~~r, a wcu...Ü.'; ",I.all fh",L L~ ';'$",,,,~J., ..llv/d..g o5~v,;,h~.l ~w~, 1.0",,,05 Lo "'Ol."j!c.~ tl.~ .IILQttc.r. T:l.Ls o5~~ehL.l L,:o I. our ?è~l.O~ bl.l.~l~ AÌ:-'1-'ly to Lh~ [l....st v1.vlat.....ol.L 01, u.l¡i s.dlg1ê btXè,-"c vI Ì:-'.LO~,=;]~tj' Al.Ld tavt to õ::tUL;::têqu.êl,l.L illf.Lð.(..Livus vu Ll...è SA.Luê 1-':rô1-'e~Ll'. The building and housina director. code enforcement officers and other employees desi~nated bv the b~ilding :~d.f~~~~~ ~~~;~Ï~~ shall have the authontv to enforce thlS cha~t lÔ ~~d-~ï~'41 the procedures as set forth in chapters 1.4 . ~ . Any vio~at;ion o~ thi~ ch~pter sha!l. constitut7 a~ ~~fra~~,::, f.~: t~~ admlnlstratlve cltatlon DrOV1S10ns conta1n;;; ch t 1 this code shall be applicable. H:\shared\b1d-hsg\munico14 November 18, 1997 I 54 . Exhibit B 1 of 6 ,.--, SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO MUNICIPAL CODE TO IMPLEMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM NEW CHAPTER ESTABLISHING APPEAL PROCEDURES CHAPTE:R 1. 40 ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE AND PROCESS. sections: 1.40.010 Purpose and Intent. 1.40.020 Administrative Process. 1.40.030 Service of Notices. 1.40.035 Proof of Service of Notices. 1.40.040 Reserved. 1.40.050 Administrative Hearing Procedure. 1.40.060 Immediate Action Excusing Prior Notice for Purposes of Abatina Danaerous Conditions or Imminent Threat to Life -Safetv. 1.40.070 Consolidation of Proceedings ') 1.40.010 Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of the city Council to establish rules and procedures for the conduct of administrative hearings required by statute. this Municipal Code. or administrative regulation. in order to insure administrative due process is accorded to affected parties. The requirements and procedures of this Chapter shall be applicable to administrative Drocedures and hearings regarding the dènial. suspension or revocation of a Dermit. license or entitlement. and may be used to supplement or substitute for any· administrative hearing or administrative procedure prescribed elsewhere in this Municipal Code. The procedures under Chapter 1.40 may also be used in those situations where the MuniciDal Code authorizes a hearing as a precondition to the abatement of a nuisance. the imposition of an administrative fine or Denalty. or. as an administrative appeals procedure. Sec. 1.40.020 Administrative Process. A..... Subject to the provisions of section 1.40.060. the City Manager or designee shall serve notice Dursuant to section 1 - ~-_.._._. .-".-....-...- Exhibit B 2 of 6 . 't l' n e or entitlî~;~t ~~s 1.40.030 UDon a party whose perm] . ~l~:~~k d~ ~~ ~;~. ~ W m ,..--~ ~:~ n~:~~:~i v~r e~~o;~e~:n~u:~~~~~d i.~ P;~~~;:d ~o~haE:E~i :~:E be allowed ten calendar days (thlrf ~ 's,' ~ ~ ~~ residents per Code of Civil p,rocedure ~c~10nc ~~-;;,~~V ~h~t reauest an administrative hearlng to a~~~~ T~ ~~~~:~ ~~~ DroDosed action before it will beco~: f~~ï;~ ;u~ ;;u~;~~ ~~~ hearincr must be made no later than ;~~ ~~ti~~~~ ~: ~~~~ =~~ date of notification of the praDo ~~ ;--~~ï d'~ ~~~~~i~~ action by the City Manacrer shall ~:Ptm; f~~~;i~~d i~H~~~~~~n if not aDDealed or contested. Ex b: ~t;;;¿;d . f ;~~~~~~ 1 40 060 the proDosed action shall ;:;;; t¡:;;A~L ~~ ~~U~CU~ . . . . 1 f 11 . ssu~n~~ uf ~ açmeal ed. and be .made f;-na o;;;;'~~~"t -S~~ ti~~ . .020G decision bv a hearlng offlcer Dur 0 c ~ U n the filincr of a reauest for a hearincr 0; ~~ a~~~~~ ~n~ D~~ent of t~e reqpired fee. the ~~;~ M:~~~~~bi~:~~ :~u~~n~h: hearing examlner who shall be ne 1 ~~d ;~;;i:~ :~ i~ ~~; sDecific factual matter in conte~tion ;~i ;-~~~b~c~~n~in~~~ creneral sub;ect matter. The heanncr ~x ;;;;'~:i ;'~~ ~ ~ ~~ either from within the. City staff ~i ~-t-;d~ut~j~Zc:~ur~~~ ci tv Manager may provlde cOJQpensa 0 hearing examiners. ~ t hearinq or an q¡)Deal of ~ ~~;t~~e ~~~a~~~n t~r r~~~~ p:nal tv s?a~ 1 be ~~~~. ~~ i~~ ~;u~~~ ~~o~~~ ~, fine identified on the admlnlstrat~~; t~~;t~ši' ;;0. I~ ~~e \ of the civil Denal ty. b?t not :t - h;;_u, ;;~;:;;;;~ o~ ~~: hearin officer determlnes th ~-tl, l~i;ir~~ ~ ~ admini~trat~ve citation or asse~sme~~ ~; ;-i~ed:t~~n~~:'~D::~ ~~~ ~~~~0~:1~~~::::g. ~~ ;~: ;:~~~n~~~Y~:~;~i~~d ~~: ~~::!~ If the a¡2Deal 1S demed. the fee S~it; i~ ~; ~~.~~~;~~~~ of. or toward. the admini~trativ: ;~p~;ïn ;~a~~v~~h~;n~~~~ The fee to reqpest a heanncr or nsw __¡~ 0 ~.~~ .~ ~~: of administrative orders; unless e6\i~~ ~;'itU~t;=' ~~o~~t municiDal code shall be 1n the fO~ ~~ ~ -~~~th~' ~~i ~~~~~~ to be determin~d by the cit;y m~na~; f-~-: -¿~t~'~f ~~~'~~~~~~~ staff cost to conduct the heanng I ht ~ -~~ ~L ~ ~~~~~ or apDeal exceeds. the d~Dosited ~~o~~t. h~= a~~ui~e:o';..~nlu ~~~~~ shall be respons1ble for payme ~~t ~ tho ~~e incurred. If the hearincr officer b~-~h~' '~-=;. e~~':; ~~: administrati,;,e order is n,ot SUPD';;~~~:d' ~"th;V1~~~~~. t~~~ ~ntire deDos1ted amount w1ll be ret e t reauested the apDeal. .I2... The hearing examiner ~hal ~ notifv ~~: :~~l~:~;ioc;,f 1~~~. ~~~~ and pI ace for. t~e heanng 1n acco:,d:.;. d ;.; ~f;;;~~h~ ~at~ ~~e allowincr a mlmmum of ten cale .d .~at~ ¡;~ h ld notice is mailed before the hear]ncr 1 e . 2 é'"'., E..... ~he hearin Exhibit B 3 of 6 In accorda examiner s decision ance with hall conduc hearin promptly t section 1 t the admi ' b .' ¡¡n' 0 an ." 05 mstr t v the _... """ parH' __0 and ' a we h ' con ' ,"".""'" """,a 1. .. ""on th ,..... .!" n. _i .""m. .... ~. na~. r";P.qnMt 'or ~ ..~.''''!!t;n tten ve or c ,~'d"nes . bear< ~r,,,,, , ,.f "". ~05ed, "",:od,b=a11y 'or corre.t~a e=miner · "'~ ~v~dence, th~ the he"i~ sn~~d a. we ~cHon a~y ,"",ose ttn. .bout t sneb act' ....mer v 'me5 n d rednce ._'i ,.. ,_ ,....,''''. r Dena' ' · J<. The h . ..... .ith th e<Dnhb'e .. b,sed n bes e..' . p .nd P.. th .""" >oa exam' Toposed mar. lit e arted b !ner's d ' , ....,. .,y t. re~der the y e:VJ.dence. eCJ.sJ.on sh eVJ.dence. AdecJ.sion shal The stan;;~ be based u . ~e _i..t o:~o~ :: that Of· a 0' nrne' ";:: ','n.'... ~~a~~¡OII..Es ~~:O':r:~~f~·;tr::o:::;;::,~i~~ ~: e same 'act "POe ~'uHn ...,,,noW. f ~,.teoe~.l >heo ... The hea ' ,. ",,",,~H ~n the ..i...=e. vheo ...: hct r,no ' ., a ' ,"Ced p~rsnant t aay... b op"C¡¡ ¡!l1t .,..ove~ 0, the Code e n~e. " · y comDetent J.n violati of CJ.vil Pro substitute f to b or ad' 00 of """or or d' e U5e. """ -"",ib'e a;¡-' ""is sect~' and any-' 'sneve~ n a,¡2¡;! aJ.nst J.on 1 J.nw.¡i B..c A fi na l' TOpriat. ...' the narty .,~..., OF i ~ ., dat demsion ton = ""; .g....t vh " .ot . of " ""a1." p~bo om .. ' to the ::-' 1 "", 0' the ~ ....... b · .f that part' 5 athe..':'; rty h ÞY <1_ .~,on 1 "",C i 5 ~ 0""" -,!no e v. ..m" ' 5 a11 ass,· "" t ~in h ' ~ '"trat'" coonH tut ...,. ., th h~ beari ° _,>t, "" Oear"", e= ,.......,. e the dat cert,ficat · ....,." " if ' a,.., t . A. · .f t. e of ' date ~rs.. """" .f ha" it hi."~ sha11 b he _...;..~,"e , ,. vhi C,-"Il moet · .OV' on of :~o"."'. ;~:, ;0 tHe g.....,e l.~~ye PU~O;: by the <I made as to .,. , . r~i ev ' . ",It ,on ""., to the th:~ ';'i~'''''' ~~~~ s ~:~ i .;..,~~~:'.~a~f ifa~~"':.. '::m o~:; <:ill> f.rn' pol <ourt . b on 1 '" -,. i st t...,..t , ' '" G " ,. . · ,00 ,ot' ton ~r ,ndlc' -=..... C .,",too t . the H. .Y. peo." ;;",1 .eci~'¡o,:,i~ .,..1:: ¿ecHono 5~~~~ty da:' ~~..u ~; """,", , ,non-a. e aon' ' ' . · F' ....t t d~is' or ,udict 1 .p,..lab1e'''''· t' ~"n~ t ,0 '011 moy pr . ~i~' .!"...<I ,- hmlt 0 "'e oceed . J.S fJ.led TIned. U . makes th J.n due . enf ntJ.I· e L The . - neu,"e. o~p~nt of .. t,~e1y o ~,tv vin . he "=, ut ~s not Ie use J.ts best retaJ.ned f aally obI' effort t al or n t J.gated t 0 taJ'j! .1. "",,,to th: t. ...... ° do so. : recor. ... . ,. the ."=_, proceedina. 'y.ars. .."y reco..i. O"!,,n.. oo""n ' ""s." . A part e ori p .m b or d .p. ,f m . PW" . v =v . v.te p e --- up"cation a e. npon p red, '" O. P "'.""bOt a t ''''y may . ayment of the rovJ.ded a co ran script costs of py of any preparat' 3 J.~ .~ .--.--- -~ --- -~ Exhibit B 4 of 6 ~-. Sec. 1.40.030 Service of Notices. A... Except as provided in Section 1.40.030D. whenever a notice is required to be given under the Municina1 Code for the enforcement of a proposed order or for hearing or ';-~pe~ls purposes. the notice shall be served bv anv of the following methods. unless different nrovisions are oth;~i~; specifically stated to apnly: Lll Personal service upon the resnonsible nartv: or 121 Certified mail. postaae prepaid. return rece~t reqµested. Simultaneously. a duplicate notice may be sent by r~g;]~~ mail. nostaae prepaid. If a notice that is se~t ¡:;ÿ certified mail is returned unsianed. service sh~li ¡:;; deemed effective nursuant to service of the d~] i~ate notice by regular mail. provided that the duplicat; ~~ti~~ sent by reaular mail is not returned as undelive~~bi;~ Notice shall be mailed to the last address shown ~~ the County Tax Assessor's records if the notice concern~ r~~l nrqperty. and to the last known address of any other n~~y to the proceedina shown in official records of the Cit~ ~f Chula Vista: i1l Posting the notice conspicuous Iv on or in front of the ~ property. .B.-- Posting a notice or duplicate service by regular mail in the manner described above shall be deemed effective on the thi;d dav after mailina or nostina. service bv certified m~ii ~h;îl be effective as of the date of sianed receint. .c.... The service of an initial Notice of Violation may also' be sent by regular mail. Service of a Notice of Violatio~bŸ ;;g~i~; mail is effective on the third dav after mailing. .Il... Service of Notice through which a lien will be nlaced upon real property will be in accordance with Cod~ of c:¡;iï Procedure Sections 415.10. 415.20. 415.30. or Secti;~ 4Ï5:40 if the resnonsible partv resides out of state. £-- The failure of any party or person with an interest in the pronerty or the proceedina to receive anv notice whi~h h~s been dul v sent or posted in accordance wi th thi~ ~-;;;;ti~n 1. 40.030 shall not affect the validity of any nroc;~di~9~ taken under this Code. Sec. 1.40.035 Proof of Service of Notices. Proof of service of any notice reauired by this Code may be made by certificate or affidavit of an officer or employee of thi~ citŸ ~~ 4 Exhibit B 5 of 6 by affidavit of any person over the age of eiahtee~ years. :he ----- nroof of service shall show that service was done 1n conform1tv with this Code and any other provisions of law applicable to the subject matter concerned. Sec. 1. 40.040 Reserved. Sec. 1. 40.050 Administrative Hearing Procedure. The hearina before a hearing examiner shall be conducted in accordance with the following procedures: A... A hearing examiner is authorized to issue subnoenas. administer oaths or affirmations. and conduct the hearing. Subpoenas shall be signed by the City Clerk. Oral evidence shall be taken onlv on oath or affirmation. lL.. Each partv shall have the followin~ rig~ts: to be re?resented by legal counsel: to call and exam1ne w1tnesses: to 1ntroduce evidence: to cross-examine onnosing witnesses on any matter relevant to the issues even though the matter was not covered in the direct examination: to impeach any witness regardless of which nartv first called the witness: to test~fy in his or her own behalf. A nartv mav b~ called as a w1tn~ss ~y the other party and be examined as 1f under cross-exam1nat10n. .c..... Appeals of qµantities of work nerformed in connection ,with a j violation of land gradina nermits as estimated by the D1rector shall include a report by a licensed civil engineer qµalified to perform land surveys or a licensed land surveyor. The report shall be prepared at the sole cost of the appella~t. Such reports shall include sufficient survey w?rk to determ7ne the actual amount of land grading work done w1thout a.nerm1t. - .il.&- The hearina need not and should not be conducted according to the technical rules of nrocedure and the California Evidence Code relating to evidence and witnesses. Any relevant evidence shall be admitted if it is the sort of eviden~e upon which responsible persons are accustomed to. rely 1n the conduct of serious affairs. regardless of the eX1stence of any common law or statutory rule which might make improper the admission of such evidence over objection in civil actio~s. Hearsay evidence may be used for the pu~ose of supplem7n~1ng or explainina anv direct evidence but shall not be suff1c1ent by itself to support a findina unless it would also be admissible over objection in civil actions. Irrelevant and unduly repetitious evidence shall be excluded. E.... The proponent of anv testimony to be, offered by a witness ~ho does not proficiently speak the Eng11sh language shall prov1de an interpreter. The inte~reter shall be approved by the . . f" . t' hearina examiner conduct1ng the nroceed1na as nro 1C1en 1n 5 - . "' _.._"_..._--_._~._-,_.,-_.- Exhibit B 6 of 6 r"--, t~e Enali~h languaae and the l~nauaqe in w~~c~ t~: ~~¡~e~~ , w111 test]fv. The cost of the 1nternreter 1 0 the party providina the interpreter. .E..... The proponent for the Director may introduce into evidence and rely uPon an ~d~inistrative record whfch, clea~i~ ~~~~:~::t~i~ a) The cond1t10n(s). act(s\ or om1ss10n(s p 1 _ ~roposed act~on is based: ~) the regulato~ author~~~ f~; ~~: ~roposed act10n: c) techn1cal or factual data sup ~; - ~t~ proposed action: and. d\ any other informati;n __ d relevant to the pro~)Qsed action. An admini:t::~:Î.v~ r~~~~d certified by the Director which meets the ahov i er'a I con~titute prima facie ev~dence in support ~; ~~~ f~~~~~~~ act1on. The burden of g01ng forward may th f opposing party. who may then cross-examine on the basi~ ~f t~e administrative record and call witnesses ap~~~~~ia~; t~ ~~~ ~~ its examination of the administrative recor T.e p i pa:ty may call ad~itional witnes~e~ and intr~d~c~ ~~~~~;~~~ï eV1dence appropr]ate for OPpos1t]On. defe s . e r mitigation of the proposed action. G.... The ~earing may. ~t the di~cretion of the hea~i~g ~~~in:~. ~: cont~nued from t1me to. t1me upon reqp::t f; _ ~~. t hear1na and upon a show1na of aood cau t refo 1.40.060 Imme~iate Action EXcus~n? Prior Notice f~~ ::~~:e~.~; .?C-j Abat1na Danaerous Cond1t10ns or Imminent r 1 or Safety. The pr~visions ~o~ prior notic~ and hea;;~a ~:y ~~ ~::~~~=e~ w~~~ when. 1n the OP1n1on of the D1rector W1 t c c . = b; ~H~ city Manager. immediate action is necessa~ to ;~;;~;iï; ~i~: ~ dangerous co~dition on public or p~ivate p~~~:~~; ~~ ~~ ~:U"~H;~~ threat to l]fe or safety -.on ,publ]c or ;; P _p t ~~~ Direct~r shall take only such action as is re~~;;::fy ~~i~~~~~ 1; summar1lv abate the danaer. and shall therea e .. =u~~~ co~~y wi~h Sections 1.40.020 throuah.l.40~~50 ~f~;f~i;? ~~~l~~ ~~~ hea:1ng. 1f reqpested: to the respons1?le r~ th~-~ ~d~ti;~HY ~~: act10n taken bv the D1rector to summar1lv abat 0 _ . purpose of th~ hearina will be t~ afford ;~~,~~~~o~~~bï~ i;~~~~;~~ the opportun1ty to contest the1r respon 1 h ~ s<;:ope of ab~tement. If f~rther ?orrective actio; i~n~e~:~~~~: ~~~ Dne<;:tor w111 comply w1th th1s Ch~te:r ~i 4 ~ ;;~;. . ~~~H ~~~: sect10ns of the Code as may be ac,p11ca e e d1 fu r corrective action. 1.40.070 Consolidation of Proceedinas. A Director or the Hearina Examiner may consolidate one ~ m~~e administrative processes and orders pr~p~sed ~~~~~ ~~is ~~~~~;~ aid Cha~ters 1.30 or 1.41. or both. 1nto a g _ h f consolidation would be more efficient and cost-~¡iecti;;~ ) 6 .~ (H:\shared'bld_hsg,chap1406.rh) November 18, 1997 Exhibit C 1 of 13 -.. SUMMARY OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO MUNICIPAL CODE TO \ IMPLEMENT CODE ENFORCEMENT ENHANCEMENT PROGRAM NEW CHAPTER ESTABLISHING ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES Chapter 1.41 ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES. Sec. 1. 41. 010 Purpose and Intent. Sec. 1.41.020 Overview of Process. Sec. 1.41.030 Notice of Violation. Sec. 1.41.040 Recordation of Notice of Violation. Sec. 1.41.050 Non-Issuance of Permits. Sec. 1.41.060 Reinspection Fees. Sec. 1.41.070 Cease and Desist Orders. Sec. 1.41.080 Reserved. Sec. 1. 41. 090 Reserved. Sec. 1. 41.100 Administrative citations. Sec. 1. 41.110 civil Penalties. Sec. 1. 41.120 Abatement Action. Sec. 1. 41. 130 Reserved. ) Sec. 1. 41. 140 Cost Recovery. Sec. 1. 41.150 Confirmation of Costs. Sec. 1.41.160 Enforcement. Sec. 1.41.170 satisfaction of Lien or Obligation. Sec. 1.41.180 Revolving Abatement Fund. - Sec. 1.41.010 Purpose and Intent. A... It is the Durcose and intent of the citv Council to establish administrative procedures for obtaining prompt co~liance in the correction of both major and minor violations of the Chula vista Municipal Code and state law. Conditions in violation of the Municipal Code or state law which affect conditions upon or uses of real prQperty within the City of Chula vista are hereby designated nuisances. The procedures authorized or identified by this Chapter 1.41 are the following: notices of violation: administrative citations: administrative fines and penalties: cease and desist orders: abatement of nuisances: recordation of notices of violation: authorization to charge reinspection fees: cost recovery for costs of enforcement: confirmation of costs: and recordation of liens and assessments for cost recovery. ì -.. 1 .-.......-.-. . -- Exhibit C 2 of 13 "..--. 14- The procedures established in and through Chapter 1.41 may cross reference. consolidate or incorporate b~ ~~~~~~~~~t ~: applicable. enforcement methods established e1 e '. h' code. . in order tc;> ?reate. a uniform process f~;': ;~~~~i ~~~: co:rnpl 1 ance. adm1 n1strat1 ve due Drocess ~~d c enforcement. k The City Manaqer. any cognizant Director and the city ~;;~~;:; are ea~h au~hori~ed to utilize and initiate ~~~ ~~4Õ~ estab11shed 1n th1s cha~ter and Chapters 1.30 .Il... The procedures in Title 1 may be used as a s~~~~e~':,ni ;~ criminal or judicial enforcement action. or both . ~i thereof. Selection of one method.sha~l n~t p;;~i~~~ ~he ~:~ of any other method or comh1nat1on of d w a-ppropriate. E.... The terms "Abatement". "City Manaaer". "Cod.. Enforcem..nt Officer". "Director". "Nuisance". and "Respo;;ibie p;;:t;" ;~e as defined in Section 1.04.010. Sec. 1.41.020 Overview of Process. A.... Violations of the MuniciDal Code affectina uses :: ~r conditions upon real DroDerty may be corre~t~d throu _ t e issuance of a notice of violation pursuant ;~ ~~~;i~~ ~~4~~~3~ ~~. to the ResDonsible Party reqµirinq cert;i~ _t~;~l;~ ~~ ~a;~~ .'.) to brina the property or structure j;:;to c i .c_ responsible party will be allowed a reasonabl.. P~~i~d ~f ti~.. in which to correct the violation. normally ~~~ ~:;~ ;~~~ ~:~ calendar days. Failure to co:rnplv withi;:; th i r i ~an then result ~n the is~uance of an admini~t~;tiv; ~:~iii~~ 1n accordance w1th Sect10n 1.41.100 or any othe;': m combination of methods-deemed apDroDriate. 14- An administrative citation is a notice to the resDonsible Darty which mandates the corrective actio; ~~~ ~~:ti~~i~~:~ a fine as a penalty for the Drior non-co~~iia .~ ~~~ce c;>f viol~tio~. Subseauent administra~i;~ ;;iÏ~~j~~: :~: ~e· 1ssued w1th 1ncreased penal tv. Correct1ve a;t t. e reauired of a responsible Darty in~ludes. ~u~ i; ~;~ ~l~i~~d to. the removal of encroachments 1nt;; pu 11c..r r .. mitigation or restoration of land or adj~i~i;g ~p~;~ý f~; illegal grading or development. the remov;l ~; f;Od~E:J:~~ ~~ blockaaes of drainaae ways and the remo~~l ~ st_ 0 rec~ify any code violation or cure any ha;~d:~: ~:3:¿tio~. It 1ncludes any other process necessary fo __ t_ ~~. n add] tion. through the notice and h;;;ri;i. ~;~~~d~';;S ~~ ChaDters 1. 30 and 1. 40. the resDonsibl~ rt _ e ma subject to an order of abatement throuah whi~h th~i~r::~~i~: work will be undertaken by the City and the ~ s . 1 e 2 Exhibit C 3 of 13 imDosed as a lien against the property if the responsible \ party fails to respond. ~ Each day a violation exists on real prqpe~ty is a con~inuina and additional violation. and all remedJ.es. penal tJ.es and assessments are cumulative. ~ In addition to a notice of violation. a cease and desist order can be issued pursuant to section 1.41. 070 to one or mo:e responsible parties or other persons who pe:r::form ~ork. J.n violation of a permit or without. a reauired pe~J.t. VJ.olatJ.on of the cease and desist order J.S a separate.mJ.sdemeanor.. A responsible party or any person on scene actJ.ve~v conductJ.~g the violation under the direction of a respon~J.b~e party ~s subject to arrest without a w~rrant for contJ.nuJ.ng work J.n violation of the cease and desJ.st ?rder. as w?11 as for the actions constitutina the violatJ.on of thJ.s code. , A responsible Dartv can be reqµired to obtain necessa~ permJ.ts. restore or revegetate the proDerty~ or ~oth. and.c~rrect,or mitiaate the conseqµences of the vJ.olatJ.on: ,AdmJ.n~stra~J.ve citations can also be issued assessina admJ.nJ.strat~ve f:nes . for both the creation of and the continuance of the vJ.olatJ.on. E.... If the reSDonsible Darty fails or refuses to correc~ ~he violation. proceedings may be undertaken to abate any eXJ.stJ.ng or resultina nuisance pursuant to Chapter 1.30. Abatement orders authorize a Director to enter upon pro~erty and correct ) the violation or condition or the removal o~ encroachm7nt upon public pro~erty. Enforcement cos~s mav be J.mDosed aaaJ.nst the responsible party and non-complYJ.na Droperty. L During the pendency of the violation and the enf?rcement process. a notice of violation may be recorded ava~nst the proDerty pursuant t~ section 1.41.040 descrJ.bJ.hg t~e particulars of the violation. to insure that the pro'Ç)erty J.S ro erly abated Drior to or upon trans~er. The recor~ed ~otfce of violation will be released UDon J.ssuan~e of a ~otJ.ce of compliance which shall be recorded bv the DJ.rector J.n due course within 15 days after reqµest for such release by the propertv owner. ~ During the inspection and enforc?ment p~ocess. ~ost recovery can be imposed for the cost of reJ.nspectJ.on (SectJ.on 1.41.0601 and the costs of citv services to abate (Ch~pter 1:30. and 1.41.1401. These costs may be recorded as a IJ.en agaJ.nst the property following the proced~res under Chapter 1.41 or the waiver thereof bv the responsJ.ble party. ~ Various steDs or Drocedures under Chapter 1.41 may reqµire notice and a hearing pursuant to Chapter 1.40. When appropriate. notice and hearing re~irements for separate administrative actions mav be consolJ.dated. 3 Exhibit C '4 of 13 Sec. 1.41.030 Notice of Violation. ~ ÀL A Code Enforcement Office~ is authorized to ;;f;;~ :.~t~;e ~; vio~a~ion upon a respons1?le part,:, f~f:~ ill~~~~~~';;~ ~~: Mumc1Dal Code. The nobce of vio 1 -;:, ~~""; -;=~i:;::C ~~ violation. the dates and location ~i _h ,~~~;~~ ~~e aD\?licabl e code s~ction (s): the cC?rrecb;~ ~~~~;~ ~ =.uu ';; c~ ;~~ a date for ?ompl1ance re1~spect1~~~ ~~e ~;~ti~~1~~~ ~~~~r will be adv] sed that a re1ns'pect . f - ;r~. ~~;;:~~~~* will be i~posed ~or a second and.~lî s~~:~;;d:'~ ;=1..~~:~~~~~ if con¡pl1ance 1S not voluntanl~ ~ ;d~; ~~, ~''';. ~ administrative citation mav also be i;=~d- :i~n1~ w~~. ~1~~~ penalties Dursuant to Sections 1.41.100 l~~~--;o.¡~ï:~ ~~~ property is brought ~n~o compliance. ~~~ ;=~~o~,s:~-'-~ ~~~~i will be allowed a m1n1mum of ten ~ale r d:::;'d :;~ ~~~~~ minor violations and no less than thirty caï;;;;:~ ~~ ~~ major violations. A Code Enfo.rceme~'; ~:!iC:~ ~u:v ~~~~~~ t:~: time for a reasonable per10d v ;t~~~ i~~-'-i~ ;; circumstanc,es dictate. The noti~~ ~f ~~~~~~~~H ~~~~~:~~~ the res-pons1ble party of the. Dot~:~t: c;~~'i ~'i; c~~~~~~:~~~; that mav ensue under th1S Ch r - W ~ ~UIl~~rt;; c<;>mplia.nce ~s not obtaine~ within th~ t~~ _~~~~~~~%-;. :;: ~~: VJ.o~ abon 1.S co:r:rected ]n accord~~~~ ;;~ t~. ~ï= ~j';.;~~ ~ not1ce of v101at10n. no costs or a 11 be s d. .13.... Se:r;v~ce of a notice of vi?lation is ~~fe~~~v~ upo~r d:~::::~ ~~ ':--ì ma111ng pursuant ~o Se~t10n 1.40~03~t. ~--~fre i~ ~~i~~a' ~ sign does not 1nval]date the n 1C v I a d subsequent -proceedings. .c..-- The Droperty will be reinspected once fo~ ~~:~~~~~~e. ~~ the responsible party refuses to allow 1n =~~ ~-::i~ a reasonable demand. the Code Enforcement ?f.ii_~ ~~ ~~:~~.a~ ins-pection w~rrant Dursuant·~ to C<;>de 0; ~~1~ P~~l~~ur~ ;:~~~~~ 1822.50. Fa1lure of the resDons1ble a 0 -i~ ~~-'-~~ or remedv the violation shall resul t i~ ~ ~'i: ~r ~~ adntinistrat~ve citation. th,; ~ha;:qi~g Of'~~':'f~~-th~~f i~~; a~~ may re~ult 1n ,a Separate cnm~n~l ~~~~~~~ a e . allow 1nsDect10n. (CCP Sect10 1 .Il.... If the violation al so constitutes the D;f~~~~~= of ~~~~ without a required permit ?r in ~~lfi~~~ ~. ;;;: ~:..~~~ D~~~~t the Code Enforcement Off1ce~ m __ ~ -= ~ ~es~~~ order pursuant to Section 1. 41. Õ70 ~; ;;u,uo.[¡a:, _a~ ~:~ immediatelv en;oin the ,work and t~ ta;,:. :'t'i ~~h;: ~~~w~ apDropriate at that t1me. If th~ ~;~;~~-'-~ ~r=~ hazardous c0';1dition which affect~ p~ï.:.c ;;t=~~ U~ a".~~;;~~~ threat to 11fe. safetv. sumrna~ ~ atem y be 1 Dursuant to Section ].30.030. Sec. ].41.040 Recordation of Notice of Violation. - 4 - Exhibit C --., A..... Whenever a . 5 of 13 after a ."1olation notice not:ce of vi on. real pro real rOf v101ation ~;at10n has b~:rt,: remains u proro~i~~t" ..00rd. ~fbe record..nb'·..··· , o~o...o<.. 1 es are met: San Die90 C y the.Directo~ ~f the L. . ="'" " th '" the . no,"tion b e fnll~'ng at least 30 as remained un of violationC:lendar days f~~~:f;ed on ~he pro e 2... :rh g ,e~,ee of J, """ ,or e owner ' e not1ce notified of t~f not the res ' the opportunit;' D:~spective re~~~~1b~e party. h J.... correct th . at.oo 'D.. as beon The property e v10lation: een offered s1;tall be .0w;'-er and w1thheld not:f1ed that all of the res . violation dur1n9 the ti development D~on!;nble partie o . p,",,= t '0 th ",".to ' ernuts that n to secti e propert shall be complian are neces on 1.41.040 y remains . ce. sarv to b' . except f 1n ..... "PO the gr <bD'. The DrQ¡;!ert . n . ..,poo,1I>'. V .ptO ot1ced and party and contest the offered a hearinthe property own recordati proposed cor 9,pursuant to er have bee on. rect1 ve ' ChqDter n '" :rh. D. act mn and j; ¡ 1." to 1rector ' e ¡;!ro¡;! nnrs=nt to '~ autbnr' re.d . -. D'.. th1S section u to :ecord the . ~ Cancellation Don 1ssuance Ofnot1ce,of viola' P.,p.", 0 of Rocnrdat'o tbe f.o,' DDO <.00 of .... anò n. Tbe . or __ ,ooo'i,ooo . othor ro. ___.D...otD' .. . not1ce of v' wh1ch state pons1ble part' hall 1ssue t t and mlat. , 00 it ,e. a· 0 b. < anv admin' .tr m~ onr~ ... yC' f.'O. tnat i" ..od notion .,::e ~nforc..ont at"e ·~a 1ti o. ° lah on. havo ." 0000." the Yi"h~r~ sh,ll :,",0." bOY. ·Oo.t, 'D. fio.··~ OD""eeted olat10n wa e recorded been paid S 1nvolved ' S · ~cnrded. · the Direct· . Tbe nntio ,n .0. 1.".'" . D' H the nnt· e nf on-Issuanc _1ce of Aft e of P . er a not' erm1ts ¡;! 1ce of ' . ursuant t v1olat' , 0 Se t' 10n ha 1ssuance of c 10n 1.41.0 s been recor those erm' al'\Y permits f 50. the cit ded ac;rainst t Dermi<~ ,to neco.""ry to' ..........[ ",",ger shall ~~ P<DPe<tY ,,"OD'.'U";o to "" wit: corront tho v'i""" ""t propo"' bbD'. the boa."", 0 proe... ou he " ..au . nJah..,... A"'" "V. fnr pursuant to Cha ~suant to Sect ~ noticed as party whose ""c. 1.".,," . P "" 1." io whi~~\;·"·'" a::';;"Df tho Re1nSDecti contest this ~r~d a ..... B. nn FMS. deem on e'n..eet· . e ,10n fee xceSS1ve t' s are auth ' 1me and or1zed t effort become 0 recover cit s necessarY to y 0 cos~s when 5 bta1n code .------ ~ Exhibit C 6 of 13 comDliance. Reinspection fees are an aDDroDriat~ method to r-- recover costs that .are disp:-oportionatel v attr1butable to recalcitrant resDons1ble Dart1es. . 't t' . .!3....- After a notice of violation or an administrat1ve C1 ? 10n 1S i sued or an order is issued bv or under the author1ty ~f a D~rector which reqµires corre~tive act~on ?y a re~pons1ble party. that Dartv will be notif1ed that 1t w111 ?~ 11able ~or anv reinspect ion fees necessarv if the. cond1t1,on rema1ns uncorrected. The first inspection follow1~g the 7ssuance ~~ the notice of violation. citation or ord7r 1S cons1dered paii of the normal cost of enforcement and w111 not b7 cha:-ge~'ii the condition is then pro!IIPtly corrected. Otherw1se. 1t 1 be included as part of the costs of enforcement. ~ ReinsDection fees may be collected and ~nfo~ced as part o~ ~~: enforcement process or in comb1nat10n w1th ;id~ administrative proceedinas u~d7r t~1Ìs Chapter 1..41. ~r~i]i'¡::~ the responsible Dartv was not1f1ed.1n advance of 1ts 11;~~~i~: for reinsDection fees under Sect10n 1.41.060(B). ~ . service of notice and hearing Drocedures are establ1shed 1n Chapter 1.40. ll.. ReinsDection fees will be charged on the basis of actual ~t~~f time utilized for the im;pec~ion(s). bas~d \.\p0n the Maste e Schedule on file in the off1ce of the C1ty Clerk. Sec. 1.41.070 Cease and Desist Orders. '. A.-- A Director or Code Enforcement Officer ~s autho:-1zed to 1ssue personally or to serve in accordance w1th Sect10n ~.40'?~g a written cease and desist order UDon any P7rson v1o~at1 . a provision of the Municipal Code t~rouah wh;ch ~ork .1S b~1~~ performed without a Dermit. if reqµ1red. or 1n v1olat1?n o~ lY issued Dermit. Cease- and desist orde;-s are Dart1cul r aDproDriate for violations of land grad1ng. w~tercour;: ~~~ water and sewer regulations and related wor~ wh1ch ~lte ~ t~i condition of real propertv or throuah wh1ch .env1ro~~~~p~ degradation or Dollution will continue to occur 1f not d immediately. .!3....- It is unlawful for any person to whom a cease ~nd desis; ~~~~ has been personally issued or served to cont1nue to e work in violation of the terms of that order. ~ It is unlawful for anv responsible party to whom a ~~~s~ a~~ desist order has been served to cont~nue to perform w ~ kr i~ allow or permit another to cont1nue to perform w r violation of the terms of that order. ll.. Prosecution under Sections l.41.070B or 1.4l.070C does not bar Drosecution or administrative enforcement, or both. of the previous underlying violations for any or all days the 6 Eo:hibit C 7 of 13 ~ violation had been in existence. or for the continuance of the underlyina violation. ~ Any Director or Code Enforcement Officer in whose presence a violation of section 1.41.0708 or 1.41.070C occurs may arrest the violator without a warrant. and a Dolice officer may accept custodv of that arrestee for criminal enforcement processing. ~ The Director may initiate other administrative enforcement and compliance methods in accordance with this Chapter 1.41 and Chapters 1.30 and 1.40. as aDpropriate. Sec. 1.41.080 Reserved. Sec. 1.41.090 Reserved. Sec. 1.41.100 Administrative citations. A..... The Council finds that there is a need for an alternative method of enforcement for minor violations of the Municipal Code and applicable state codes. The Council further finds that an appro~riate method of enforcement for minor violations is an administrative citation program. The procedure established in this section shall be in addition to criminal. ) civil or anv other legal remedv established by law which may be pursued to address violations of the Municipal Code or applicable state code. :a.... An administrative citation can be issued to a resDonsible party for violation of a regulatory provision of this code or state law. and the reSJ;lon'sible party be required to' pay an administrative fine. Administrative citations and Denalties are particularlv ap~ropriate in cases of structural. building and zoning violations that do not create an immediate danger to health or safety if the responsible party has failed to correct the violation after the issuance of a notice of violation pursuant to section 1.41.030. .c..... An administrative citation may be issued in lieu of the initiation of a criminal action for the same violation. However. in particularly egregious cases. criminal enforcement may be aDDropriate for continuing violations if the administrative citation is ignored by the responsible party. ~ The amount of administrative fine that may be imposed for each se~arate violation of the same code section is as follows: -- 7 Exhibit C B of 13 ---.. L- $100 for a first violation: $200 for a second Vjolati~n within the twelve calendar mo~t?s of t~e fi~~i v~~~~~~f~: $500 for each add1t1?nal ~101at1o . i~ 1~ after the second v101at1on and w1th months of any Drior violation. .2...... Iss~a~ce of ~n adm.inistrative citatjon :nd ~~~~~ ~f ;~~ adm1n1strat1ve f1ne does not excus c c ~h corrective action regarding the violations. Alth~~t~ continuing violations o~the MuniciDal C~d~ :r~ ~~~~dY~~ offenses. the ree;pons1bl e partv shal b 1 . reasonable time, of n?t more than thirtv days i~~i~~ ~~ correct the v10lat10n before a sec~nd or u e administrative citation may be issued .3..... A resp~n~ible D~rty ~av :equest adminjst~~~~~: r~~¡~w of an adm1n1strat1ve c1tat10n Dursuant to r . E..... The administrative citation shall contain the following information: L- Date of the violation. .2...... Address and location of violation. .3..... Description of violation. L.. ADplicable codes and statutory sections violated. 5.... Corrective action required. .§..... An order to brina the violation into compliance. L... Notice of the fines to be imposed. .a...-- A date. not less than twenty davs. bv which payment of the fine must be made. .5L. Location for Dayment. .J&.. Notification that payment does not excuse correction of the violation. .ll.... Notice of riqht to reauest review pursuant to ChaDter 1.40 of the Municipal Code. 4 A Darty filing a timelv :equ7st for r~:~~~ Dursua~:, ;~ ;~~t~~ 1.40 shall DOSt a depos1t w1th the D1 or. E"t~:~~:~i~ ~ the admin~stratjv7 fin7 shall b7 st~~;~ ~~~~~¡ ~u; ~~~~~~~~ of a hear1ng exam1ner 1f a hear1na 1~ e . .r~cuu~~ for r?vie~ shall be in a<;:cordance with. ch;iI:: ~.4~ ,~~~ deDos1t w111 be returned 1f the appeal 1S ed f1 8 Exhibit C 9 of 13 -. order is not subject to judicial review after twentv days have elapsed from the date of its issuance. unless the party comDlies with Government Code section 53069.4. See section 1.40.020(G) . A final order may be enforced pursuant to section 1.41.160. Sec. 1. 41.110 civil Penalties. A.... The council finds that there is a need for alternative methods of enforcement of the Chula vista MuniciDal Code and applicable state codes. The Council further finds that the assessment of civil penalties through an administrative hearing procedure for code violations is a necessary alternative method of code enforcement. The administrative assessment of civil penalties established in this section is in addition to anv other administrative or judicial remed,y established by law which may be pursued to address violations of the Municipal Code or applicable codes. lL. civil penalties may be assessed against a responsible party for continued, violations of the Municipal Code or ap~licable state codes. whether of the same section or any combination. that reflect a continuing disregard for the reauirements of such laws. The Director may issue a notice and order to the responsible partv assessing a civil Denalty pursuant to section 1.41.110. The civil Denalty may be enforced aaainst the responsible party as a lien Dursuant to section 1.41.140. h Except for violations of land arading ordinances contained in Chapter 15.04: civil Denalties may be assessed at a daily rate not to exceed Sl.000 per violation Der day. and not to exceed a total of S100.000 per tax assessor's parcel number in the case of unimproved real property. or S100.000 per each structure against which violations have existed, on a single tax assessor's parcel number for any related series of violations. - D..... The civil penalty for violations of land arading permits or land gradina work done without the issuance of a permit shall be based on an estimate bv the Director. of aradina work performed. The rate of civil Denalties shall be as follows: L- Less than 250 cubic vards. but not meetina the reauirements for an exemDtion from grading permit under 15.04.150: Sl.000 per violation 2...- 251 to 500 cubic yards: S5.000 Der violation .l.... 501 to 1.000 cubic yards: S10.000 Der violation L. Over 1.001 cubic yards: S25.000 per violation .2-- In the event any individual. firm. company. developer or property owner causes a second violation of the land grading permit ordinance. either on the same property or different proDerty. and whether or not part of the ì 9 - - _...~-~..-~-_." Exhibit C 10 of 13 same development. the rate of civil ~ena~!~~: ~~:l~ ~e r--.; doubled. For third and subseqµe~t ~10la ~ f ~t~r-~fe of civil penalties shall be multlplled bv a four. E... Civi] penalties under this se~tion.1.41.;~~ ~~~ ~ed~~~~:~ed retroactive to the date the v10latl0n~ w ;i~~~ i~ as evidenced by the issuance of a notlce of ~ d~t=~' Dursuant to Section 1.41.03?.or anv l:~~~ d~~-b;-i~~~~~don by the Director. I~ determlnlng the ~ ~ ~ f~ï]~=i~; a daily rate. the Dlrector shall conslder h factors: .h Duration of the violation: 2.... Freqµency or occurrence of the violation: .h Freauency or occurrence of other violations during the period of accrual: h Seriousness of the violation in relation to ~~s threat or imDact upon public health, welfare or saf y: ~ History of the violations: .2.... Activitv taken by the resDonsible part~ ;0 obstruct or ,..--..,.... interfere with correction of the Drobl m. ) Good faith or bad faith efforts bv the resDonsible 2.-- Darty to comDly: l4 The impact of the violation on the surroundina DroDerty and community: - ~ The financial abilitv of the responsible.p~~ty to have corrected the violation in a timelv fashlo _ .L. The Director shal] comply with Chapter 1~~0 ~~n~~~~~nf . notice of the Droposed civ~l Denali~:: ~~~ ~;ted~~~~eL~o~ice hearing to contest 0: conflrm. Un d p~;;~;~t t~ s~~~i~n and order shall be flnal and be e~force i~~;-;h~ll li;i~ 1.41.160. If contested. ~he ~earln~ exam the hearina to the fol]owlng lssues. .h Whether the resDonsible party mai~tai~:~ ~ ~s:u~Ici al condition on real DroDerty that v10~a'ed ~ p Code or state law on the dates spec1f1 : nd 2.... Whether the civil pena]~y asse~sed is ~~~~~~te~~ewith the criteria , expressed ln Sectl0n 1'1;~ di;~retion hearing exam1ner may. however. exerc ·1 10 -. E"hibit C II of 13 t to section 1.40.020E and increa~e or decrease pursuan . level determ1ned to be --, ;~~n~~~:~t~~St~:s:~~~~n~~ :eeting the criteria under section 1.41.110E. . f'na1 order based on the !L.. The Director shall 1ss~e a ~1 110E and establish a date nroceedings under s7ct10~,lh d~te a; enforcement lien shall for nayment. fo11ow1na w 1C The im osition of an be imposed up~n the nrope~~~·a part o~ the proceedinas and enforcement 11en may be m d' Section 1.41.100 or notice and order under the nrece 1ng this section 1.41.110. Sec. 1. 41. 120 Abatement Action. , when re~ired for d f r the abatement of nU1sances. Proce ures 0 ., h t 1 30 corrective action. are conta1ned 1n C ap er . . Sec. 1.41.130 Reserved. Sec. 1.41.140 Cost Recovery. section 38773. costs and nena1ties Pursuant to Government Code 't res onsib1e parties under mav be recovered a~d enforced aga1ns t 1i~ited to. the following: this Chanter 1.41 1nc1ude, but are no City's direct cost for abatement of nuisances. together with '. A..- i applicable overhead: ß.... Costs of salary and an~licab1e ov7rhead Of,th~~e city t nne1 1nvo1ved 1n e emp10vees ~nd contrac ne~so d emediation or abatement of a investiaat10n. enforcemen an r nuisance: - Q... citv costs for equipment use or rental: - .Il... Attorney's fees: E.... Court costs and witness fees: :E.... Costs of geotechn~ca1. engineering and other technical services and stud1es: !L.. Administrative fines and civil penalties imnosed ?ursuant to this Chanter 1.41: ~ Reinspection fees ?ursuant to section 1.41.060: . , ecessa~ for correctina. L Costs of mon1tor:na proa:~~s ~'na nuisances and violations: monitorina, abat1ng or m1 1aa 1 11 .',. ..._-~,--_.__..__... Exhibit C 12 of 13 eXDense reasonably and rationally .:L.- Anv other fee. c~st; o~nforcement efforts to abate a. related to the Cltv s . 1 t' f this code or appllcable nuisance or correct a Vl0 a lon 0 state law: t to Government Code K... Treble damages recoverablet~Urs~a~l 160rC)). Section 38773.7. (See Sec lon . . Sec. 1.41.150 Confirmation of Costs. . , of the City's remediation. abatement ~r Fo1lowl~g thet~Onclu~~~nDirector shall notify the Dro~:~;: ~~fr correctlve ac 10ns. . f reposed ass n and apprODriate res~on~i~le part~~~ ~s : fien or asses;;~~t cos~s aaainst each lndlvld~~;~vwas the sub;ect of abate;;~t or agalnst,the r~~l pro~~~I~e and an opportunity to be ~e:~~ fn~ correctlve ac 10n. t of costs or lie 1 e contest the basis for ~he ~sses~~~~ance with ChaDter ]~40~ ~~~~~~~~9t~n~h~::r~~~t~~sw~~v:~f~~~~~~~ ~~ec~~~; =~~i~:~ ~~~ then issue a flnal order 0 ,con 1 resDective resDonsible partles. Sec. 1.41.160 Enforcement. . t C de Section 38773. the Ci~~ A.... In accordance ~lth Governm~~th ~s appropriate. may enf~~ Manager or a Dlrector. or . the confirmation of costs as follows. L- As a Dersonal obligation against a resDonsible party: ID1!i.- h Either: As a recorded lien with the ~rio~itYfO~h: . . th al DroDertv r cor s 0 judgement ~le~ ln r:a~eDrepertv which was the subject County agalns anv , '. of abatement or correctlve actl0n. or. As an assessment aaains~ the ~~oDer~~ ~~i~~1~:~t:~b1~ct to abatement or correc~l~e ac lon. the same manner as munlC1Dal taxes. lL.. . . er cit Attornev or Director is auth~~~z~~ ~o The Clt¥ M~n~g. y t f r the foreclosure of ~~~ ê~d~ obtain 'Ud]Cl~l enforcem~~'ti~n pursuant to Govern t h apDroDrlate. In a 1. 1 d ;~ge ~e~~~on 38773.7. the City Manager may se~~v~r:~t~o~a~~~;: for the abateme~t costs where the ~~~~:c ~nt civil or ou~ ~f or.constltut7~h~ s:c~~~ ~~ar Der~d. as provi~ed for crlmlnal Jud~ent Wl ln his section 1.41.160 in th~t sectl0n. En~ctm~n~fo~ntordinance authorizina the constltutes the enac men . ccordance with Government recoverY of treble damages ln a Code Section 38773.7. 12 Exhibit C 13 of 13 \ Sec. 1.41.170 satisfaction of Lien or Obliaation. Upon paYment in full bv one or more responsible parties for all costs of enforcement and the satisfactorY completion of all corrective action reauired. the city Manaaer or Director shall promptlv issue to all responsible parties a notice of compliance. The notice of compliance will be sianed and identifY the affected real property bv address. leaal description and tax assessor's parcel number. and be recorded in the real property records of the County bv the Director if a lien was recorded. Sec. 1.41.180 Abatement Fund. The city Manaaer shall budaet for estimated expenses for abatement and code enforcement purposes in the annual budaet process. Revenue received shall be deposited in a desianated account in the aeneral fund. All penalties and fines collected under section 1.41.140 shall be deposited to the General Fund. (H:\shared\b1d_hsg\chap1416.wpd) November 20, 1997 ~ 13 -..--"-.....-. - --,----..--.-..---'.--'-'.'--- ". Exhibit E 1 of 12 MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING "'"'\ OF THE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Council Chambers 7:04 p.m. Public Seryices Building Wednesday, Noyember 5,1997 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista ROLL CAll: Present: Chair Davis, Vice Chair Willett, Commissioners: Tarantino, Thomas, O'Neill Absent: Commissioners Aguilar, Ray Staff Present: Ken Lee, Acting Planning Director Patty Nevins, Acting Associate Planner Jeff Steichen, Assistant Planner Brad Remp, Assistant Director of Building and Housing Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney MOTION TO EXCUSE MSC (Willett/O'Neill) 5-0-0-2 to excuse Commissioner Ray and Aguilar. Motion carried. ") PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE/SILENT PRAYER INTRODUCTORY REMARKS: Read into the record by Chair Davis. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 13, 1997 - ~ MSC (WillettlThomas) 5-0-2 (Ray, Aguilar; excused) to approye the minutes of August 13, 1997 as submitted. - ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: None 1. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-04; Consideration of an amendment to Section 19.34.030 of the Municipal Code to allow driye-through fast-food restaurants in the C-N Neighborhood Commercial Zone, subject to approyal of a conditional use permit - Kelton Title Corporation. Background: Patty Nevins, reported that PCA-98-04 is an amendment to the zoning code to allow drive-through fast-food restaurants in the C-N Zone subject to the approval of the Conditional Use Permit. The purpose of the C-N Zone is to provide convenience, goods and services within residential neighborhoods in a manner which is complementary to, and compatible with the surrounding residential neighborhood. , .~ -- --------~ .-..-"---.-.--- Exhibit E 2 of ¡2 Planning Commission Minutes - 2- November 5, 1997 ---, Ms. Nevins further stated that although the zoning code does not specifically define drive- through restaurants, it does address drive-in restaurants, which are prohibited in the C-N Zone. Due to the similar automotive-oriented nature of the two, staff has consistently interpreted the prohibition on drive-in restaurants to apply to drive-through restaurants as well. After receiving the application, staff analyzed the nine C-N zone commercial centers located within the City. Staff's findings were that a number of these C-N zones appeared to be in transition due to external contributing factors, which seem to have changed the character of some of these zones, such as; large and intense uses nearby, major streets, circulation patterns and increased traffic. The result has been that not only are these zones serving the surrounding neighborhood, but are now also serving residents from other neighborhoods with the City. Ms. Nevins indicated that the use of the Conditional Use Permit process provides for more in- depth review, allows public input, and protection of neighborhood quality, when necessary, insures that proposals are evaluated on a case-by-case basis, allowsthe imposition of conditions and does not guarantee approval should a project prove to be inappropriate. Presently, drive-through car washes and service stations are conditionally permitted uses and staff finds that the allowance of drive-through restaurants would be consistent with those two uses that are already provided for in the C-N zone. ~'. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA-98-04, recommending that the City Council approve the amendment to allow the consideration of drive-through restaurants in the C-N zone through the conditional use permit process. Commission Discussion: - . Commissioner Thomas expressed concern with the Conditional Use Perm it process in that a business may be in non-compliance, however, unless a complaint is filed, there is no system in place to follows-through with enforcement in bringing it into compliance, therefore, the CUP roles over year after year. Ken Lee, Acting Planning Director, stated that one of the first steps in going through the Conditional Use Permit process is to determine whether or not the use is compatible with the adjacent uses, and if not, address the conditions that would make it compatible. Mr. Lee further stated that ideally, the CUP's should systematically be reviewed on a yearly or quarterly basis, with the conditions being reviewed and site visits being conducted to check to see if they are in compliance. However, understaffing precludes this from happening, therefore, the complaint process is what staff relies on. ~. Exhibit E 3 of 12 - Planning Commission Minutes - 3- November 5, 1997 Commissioner Thomas further stated that there are a number of CUP's that have a number of conditions required in order to bring it into compliance, however, some of these requirements would not necessarily generate a complaint; case in point, the swap meet located on L Street which had a parking lot pavement program as part of the conditions the City was requiring. Director Lee stated that those types of requirements are imposed by the City and followed-up by the City as well. Taking the stated example of the swap meet; the City is presently corresponding with the applicant with regards to the base material that is to be used for temporary paving of the parking lot. There is a dispute over the base material being an oil-mix vs. water base, and we are waiting for the City Engineer to render an opinion on a base material that would meet present standards and be acceptable to the City Engineer. . Commissioner Tarantino stated that through the public hearing notification process, the residents are given an opportunity to address the Commission and voice their concerns on a project during the Public Hearing. The applicant is then cognizant of what the potential problems and/or concerns of the neighborhood are, and is therefore, in most cases, willing to address those concerns prior to it developing into filing of a formal complaint in the future. . Commissioner Willett inquired if after a designated period of time has passed and there have been no complaints, could the land use allowed under the CUP be considered as an allowable use under the code. Assistant City Attorney Moore responded that CUP's run with the land and is tied to that piece of property. The underlying use remains the same except for that CUP, and does not change the characterization of the land. Public Hearing Opened 7:15 No public input. Public Hearing Closed MSC (WillettlThomas) 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Aguilar and Ray absent) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA-9S-04, recommending that the City Council approye the amendment to Section 19.34.030 of the Municipal Code to allow driye-through fast food restaurants in the C-N zone through the conditional use permit process. Motion carried. _...~ "-- - - _._----,- .~._-- Exhibit E 4 of l2 Planning Commission Minutes - 4- November 5, 1997 - 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-02; Consideration of amendment to Section 19.58.147 of the Municipal Code to revise standards for large family day care - City Initiated. Background: Jeff Steichen, Assistant Planner reported that this is a proposal to amend Section 19.58.147 of the Municipal Code which outlines required standards for granting of a large family day care permit. These standards are based upon the California Health and Safety Code Section 1597.46, which gives local jurisdictions the ability to impose standards, restrictions and requirements concerning spacing and concentration, traffic control, parking, and noise control related to such homes. Staff is proposing amending three standards; they are: 1 The distance separation requirement 2. The temporary parking requirement 3. The noticing radius distance Currently, the distance requirement is 1200 feet from another such facility on the same street. While reviewing an application, staff discovered that the applicant was within the 1200 foot, same street requirement, however, because of the street layout in the neighborhood, there could be three day cares within 300 feet and still be in compliance with current standards. Staff is recommending an additional requirement of 300 ft. separation distance from another such facility, which is not on the same street. It is staff's opinion that without this change, the neighborhood could be negatively impacted in terms of noise, traffic and congestion. Secondly, the temporary parking requirement is at least two vehicles for the safe loading and unloading of children. In most cases, the driveway in front of a tw<H:ar garage would satisfy this requirement. This standard does not prevent the owner from parking their own vehicles in the driveway during the day care hours of operation. Therefore, staff recommend£ requiring the owners to park their personal vehicles in their garage, and that the driveway area be free and clear for vehicles to drop off/pick up children during the day care hours of operation. Thirdly, current standards require noticing properties within 300 feet. Staff believes this can be reduced to a 100 foot radius, consistent with State Law. Public Hearing Opened 7:28 No public input Public Hearing Closed. Exhibit E . 5 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 5 - November 5, 1997 Commission Discussion: . Chair Dayis stated that she had a concern with some of the older neighborhoods not meeting the 19 foot length driveway requirement, and the older houses that do not have double-wide driveways. Assistant Planner Steichen noted that staff had checked the various neighborhoods cited by Chair Davis and found them in compliance with the 19 foot requirement. Ken Lee, Acting Planning Director stated that staff has considered the homes that have extra long single wide driveways allowing tandem parking of two vehicles, however, the concern is that the second vehicle would block the first. Most lots that have a single driveway have the width to widen the driveway. . Commissioner O'Neill expressed concern with shortening the notification radius. The fact remains that a family day-care facility is a business, which potentially could impact the neighborhood. In addition, Commissioner O'Neill stated that because this is a business with potential safety issues, he would support the double driveway requirement, and not the single, tandem parking driveway. Director lee stated that even though we can go through the CUP process, which would include noticing and a public hearing; if all of the standards are met, the State dictates that the application be approved. In addition, staff surveyed other jurisdictions in the County and found that they are in the process of streamlining the processing procedures by making ·them more ministerial, including the reduction or elimination of public noticing. MSC (O'NeillfThomas) (Commissioners Aguilar and Ray absent) to approye PCA-98-02 amending staff's recommendation to reduce the noticing radius from 300 feet to 100 feet, making it a 200 foot noticing radius. Discussion on the Motion: Commissioner Tarantino asked what the impact would be in terms of City staff time, raising the radius by an additional 1 00 feet. Director lee stated the impact would be inconsequential. The objective was to set it at 100 to be consistent with the State. Assistant City Attorney Moore stated that having different noticing requirements would not be problematic from a legal standpoint, as much as from a practical standpoint. Presently, the Coastal Act requires a 100 foot noticing. Normally, noticing requirements are either 100 or 300 feet; 200 feet would be somewhat different, and could create a practical problem. It is the Exhibit E 6 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 6- November 5, 1997 r Attorneys office recommendation that the noticing requirement be changed to 100 to be consistent with State law. Chair Davis stated that local government does have the right to be more restrictive in some ways than State government. We have the right to have the 200 foot notice, if that is what we decide to do, even though the State only requires the 100 feet. MSC (O'NeilllThomas) 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Aguilar and Ray absent) amending the motion to approve PCA-98-02 with the amendment of maintaining the current noticing of properties within 300 feet of a proposed large family day care. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCA-98-01 - Consideration of amendments to the Municipal Code to allow the adoption and administration of an enhanced code enforcement program including the use of administrative citations _ City Initiated. Background: Brad Remp, Assistant Director of Building and Housing reported that this is a follow-up item to the workshop that was held on October 1st. At that time, a number of items were identified and staff has incorporated them into the revised packet that is before the Commission tonight. ~-:-~ Mr. Remp further stated that a detailed handout, in the form of flow charts, has been provided, outlining procedural steps. Included in the package is an example of a Notice of Violation form, and an Administrative Citation. Staff recognizes that as the City moves closer toward full implementation, it will necessitate substantially greater detail of the procedural steps. Staff's intent in providing the handouts to the Commission is to demonstrate the various tools that will be used by staff and the public, tooacquaint them with the procedures that are being proposed. During the workshop session concern was raised regarding: 1) the need to insure viDlators are given appropriate notice and given the opportunity to appeal decisions made by code enforcement staff; 2) Emphasis was made as to the need to develop specific procedures for staff to follow; 3) the need to establish a Code Enforcement Manager position to supervise and oversee the day-to-day operations of the Code Enforcement Division; and 4) That the funds that may be recovered through code enforcement actions be available to further the code enforcement activities. Mr. Remp believes these immediate concerns have been addressed, and staff will continue to incorporate any future concerns that are raised by the Commission and City Council. In conclusion, Mr. Remp stated that this is a long-term program, which will require extensive review and fine-tuning between now and full implementation. It will take a consensus of all department heads to reach a level of confidence that both staff and public fully understand, have been trained, and are aware of all due process requirements incorporated in these procedures before we move forward with implementation. Exhibit E , 7 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 7- November 5, 1997 Public Hearing Opened 7:44 Rod Dayis, 233 Fourth Avenue, representing the Chamber of Commerce addressed some of the concerns the Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee had upon discussion of this item at their meeting earlier today. He stated that philosophically speaking, the Committee was concerned with any program where there is a perception that it is a self paying program. They were concerned with going from virtually no enforcement, to an over-regulated program. In addition, with so many violation throughout the City, who would make the decision which violations to target. The Chamber is also concerned with having proper representation and input from the public and that a 'user-friendly' procedural manual be made available for public review. Public Hearing Closed 7:50 Commission Discussion: · Commissioner Tarantino inquired if there is a way to address some of the concerns raised by Mr. Davis. Mr. Remp responded that there will definitely be an opportunity to have public input, and staff will take into account Mr. Davis' recommendations as to the make-up of the public review panel. Prior to this occurring, staff will be requiring all of the departments that will be involved in the program to establish a department procedures manual. In addition, staff will probably solicit input from various Boards and Commissions. Staff will make every effort to, essentially, take two volumes of the Municipal Code and condense it into a notebook-type, comprehensive document. Staff is also cognizant that therewill be revisions to the document after full implementation, and it is staff's intent to re-evaluate it within a year or so after full implementation. - · Commissioner Thomas stated that the intent of the program, and perception that the City should be striving for, is to implement a program that serves as a tool to assist those businesses that are in non-compliance to work towards bringing them into compliance. He also asked what is being done about having a condensed version, that is 'user- friendly', specifically by members of the public? Mr. Remp stated that staff recognized the need to have a condensed notebook-type version that includes the enforcement methods, which identifies in detail the step that need to be followed in order to execute that particular method, in addition to what are the typical types of violations that would be appropriate for that particular method. · Commissioner O'Neill clarified that we are not changing the codes or any ordinance; these tools are already in place, however, they are scattered throughout volumes of material. The intent is to streamline the enforcement tool, by way of the condensed, 'one-stop-shopping" version of the code enforcement program. This effort serves as a mechanism to abate existing violations that for too long have been overlooked, and to provide guidance in prevention of future violations. ,-,--",- ____ .._..___n_________ - Exhibit E 8 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 8 - November 5, 1997 -~ Mr. Remp stated that it was a major effort to consolidate, as an example, the appeal process. There were several appeal processes spread throughout the book and often they conflided. They have now been consolidated into one sedion so essentially, all the departments dealing with enforcement mechanisms will be following the same appeal process. In addition, Mr. Remp stated that staff is not changing any of the performance standards in the code, but only identifying new enforcement methods. . Chair Dayis commended staff for the work they have done in putting together this report. She noted that the revised packet addresses a lot of the concerns the Commission had raised and there has been significant change and positive improvements from the original packet. . Commissioner Willett stated he attended the Chamber of Commerce Executive Committee meeting earlier that day and commended Mr. Remp for a job well done on the presentation of the proposed program. Mr. Willett summarized an outline he presented to the commission listing areas of concern and general comments; they are: - excellent flow-chart handout , - suggest program be a computer-based support system to enable officer to access and show violator specific code while he is out in the field. - supports establishing a Policies and Procedures Manual - suggest hearing officer be a member of Attorney's office, not Building and Housing - suggest copy of specific code should be given at the time Notice of Violation is issued - suggest copy of any State Codes referenced in the Municipal Code should be made available - suggest using wording like "calendar work days" when specifying deadlines - concerned with redudion of the Boards of Appeals and Advisors' involvement in the appeals process. There-should be a civilian oversight committee. - concern with staff training - concern with recording liens against properties; should be used as a last!esort. Diredor Lee stated that both he and Mr. Remp would recommend that the program come back to the Planning Commission after a year of implementation with a report- card on how the program is working. Staff could also include input from the Chamber of Commerce and provide the Commission and the City Council with an update in an attempt to measure the program's success and what needs to be ironed out. . Chair Davis stated that the program will address the 10% of violators who don't comply when they are noticed and will ensure that compliance takes place sooner than the present 90-day compliance deadline. In addition, nothing in this program precludes staff or the City Manager from recommending that the Appeals & Advisory Board be the hearing examiner, which would then incorporate civilian input. . Commissioner Thomas stated he supports recording a lien against a property because although it is a harsh measure, it is a dired result when all other measures have been exhausted in trying to corred violations, to no avail. Exhibit E . . 9 of 12 --- Planning Commission Minutes - 9- November 5, 1997. ~ . Chair Davis stated that the reason for the lien on the property is not only as a last effort to bring someone into compliance, but is also for those circumstances where the owner does not have the means to correct the problem. The lien then serves as a flag to the purchaser that there is an existing problem with the property. MSC (ThomasIWillett) 5-0-0-2 (Commissioners Aguilar and Ray absent) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCA -98-01 recommending the City Council adopt an ordinance to amend or repeal various existing ordinance sections and to add new Chapters 1.40 and 1.41 to the Chula Vita Municipal Code. Motion carried. 4. UPDATE ON COUNCil ITEMS Ken Lee reported there were two items that went to Council; the first one involved the evaluation ofthe sign regulations with emphasis on freeway signs. Secondly, on October 14, Council approved certain changes to current policy relating to public noticing procedures for land use hearing matters. At that time, Council also requested that prior to implementation, fiscal information be provided and brought back regarding the translating of the public notices into Spanish. Council also requested that staff prepare a trial program for the posting of notices at project sites. Staff intends to utilize a standardized 11 "x 17" notice in a card stock paper. DlREOOR'S COMMENTS Director lee reviewed the schedule of meetings and stated that Rancho Del Rey was intending to have two items on the November 12th meeting, however, they are not ready, therefore, staff is recommending that it be canceled. Staff would like to have a workshop on November 19th for an update on major projects, with the time set for 6:00 p.m. COMMISSIONER COMMENTS - Chair Davis thanked staff for their hard work in putting together the Code Enforcement Program. In addition, on behalf of the Planning CommissiQn, she extended her congratulations to Ken larsen, Director of Building and Housing, for being recipient of the Public Official of the Year Award in Washington D.C. Chair Davis acknowledged and welcomed the class that was sitting in the audience tonight. Commissioner Thomas stated that he hears stories about disgruntled applicants who go to the Chamber of Commerce to vent their frustration with the City when an unfavorable decision is made on their application and they didn't get beyond the first step. Commissioner Thomas asked if it would be possible for staff to provide the Commission with a list of applications that the City receives which describe the type of project that is being proposed and the decision that is rendered on the application. Director Lee stated that applicants always have a right to go before the Planning Commission to appeal an unfavorable decision. In addition, an applicant is able to voice their concerns during Oral Communications, both before this body, and the City Council. .. '. ...---.--...--- .-._,_._--~ Exhibit E 10 of 12 Planning Commission Minutes - 10- November 5, 1997 r-- Commissioner Willett stated that periodically he requests from, Com. Dev., Building and Housing, and the Planning Department, a copy of a project tracking list that each department compiles which could serve Commissioner Thomas' request. ADJOURNMENT at 8:20 to the next regular Planning Commission meeting of December 10, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers. Diana Vargas, Secretary Planning Commission _. - Exhibit E 11 of 12 ~ RESOLUTION NO. PCA-98-01 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT AN ORDINANCE TO ADD TO AND AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW THE ADOPTION AND ADMINISTRATION OF AN ENHANCED CODE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM. WHEREAS, in response to Council's concerns, the City has been looking at ways to effectively enforce the provisions of the Municipal Code. WHEREAS, The Building & Housing Department recommends using the City of San Diego's Code Enforcement Program as a model to achieve enhanced enforcement options. WHEREAS, recommended enhanced enforcement options include the ability to issue Administrative Citations with accompanying fmes through the development of an Administrative Citation Program. WHEREAS, the City has initiated a request to amend various sections and add new Chapters to the Chula Vista Municipal code to allow for a new enforcement program to be enacted, and WHEREAS, a Planning Commission workshop was held on October 1, 1997 to provide an overview of the current and proposed code enforcement methods and solicit comments and questions, and - ~ WHEREAS, the Planning Commission set the time and place for a hearing on said amendment and notice of said hearing, together with its purpose, was given by its publiçation in a newspaper of general circulation in the city at least ten days prior to the hearing, and WHEREAS, the hearing was held at the time and place as adyertised, namely November 5, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers, 276 Fourth Avenue, before the Planning Commission and said hearing was thereafter closed, and WHEREAS, the Commission found that the proposal, as a procedural amendment, is exempt from environmental review and is not subject to CEQA. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT FROM THE FACTS PRESENTED AT THE HEARING, THE PLANNING COMMISSION recommends that the City Council approve the Code Enforcement Program and recommend relevant sections of the Municipal Code be added and amended in order to implement said Code Enforcement Program. - ---.--_....._----- Exhibit E 12 of 12 ,--. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be transmitted to the City Council. . PASSED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA, this 5th day of November by the following vote, to-wit: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: Patty Davis, Chairperson Diana Vargas, Secretary - - Exhibit F I of 3 ,.-, MmUffSOFAREGU~RMEffmG BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA November 10, 1997 Conference Room No. 1 5:15 p.m. MEMBERS PRESENT: Chairman Triplette, Vice-Chair Gingerich, Board Members Compton and Kaya MEMBERS ABSENT: Board Members Fabrick, Harter and O'Neill CITY STAFF PRESENT: Director of Building & Housing Larsen and Assistant Director of Building & Housing Remp CALL MEETING TO ORDER: Chairman Triplette called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. --- ROLL CALL: Members present constituted a quorum. 1. DECLARATION OF EXCUSED/UNEXCUSED ABSENTEEISM: MSC (4-0) to excuse the absences of Board Members Fabrick, Harter and O'Neill . - 2. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MSC Compton/Gingerich (4-0) to approve the minutes of October 20, 1997. 3. NEW BUSINESS: A. Code Enforcement Effectiveness Program: Director Larsen updated the Board on current the status of the Code Enforcement Effectiveness Program. Assistant Director Remp was introduced to advise the Board of the changes to the proposed Program recommended by the Planning Commission at the October 1, 1997 Commission Workshop Meeting and the regularly scheduled Planning Commission meeting of November 51 1997. -_._......._--~_._-- Exhibit F 2 of 3 r--.. Board of Appeals & Advisors -2- November 10, 1997 Board Member Compton questioned staff on existing policy regarding complaint procedures, inconjunction with enforcement policies. Mr. Compton voiced concerns regarding procedural steps contained in the proposed program which individuals may encumber in appearing before a hearing examiner. Staff advised on concerns with information depicting due process provisions and reference to procedural charts. Vice-Chair Gingerich inquired where the Board of Appeals and Advisors fit into the proposed program. Staff advised that the Board would continue to review matters pertaining to modifications, amendments and alternative construction methods and material appeals to the City's Building, Fire, Electrical, Mechanical, Plumbing, Housing and adopted construction codes and standards. Board Member Kaya inquired about the Uniform Code for Abatement of Dangerous Buildings. Staff advised Mr. Kaya that the City Council approved the adoption of the Abatement of Dangerous Buildings Code in the adoption schedule of the 1994 Editions of the Uniform Codes in 1995. :0\ Motion made and seconded (2-2) (Gingerich/Compton) to carry item over to the December 8, 1997 regularly scheduled meeting. Motion failed (Kaya,/Triplette opposed). Motion made and seconded (2-2) (Triplette/Gingerich) to approve proposed Code Enfor.cement Effectiveness Program. Motion failed (Compton/Kaya opposed). - Motion made and seconded (2-2) (Gingerich/Compton) to schedule a special meeting of the Board of Appeals and Advisors for December 1, . 1997 to continue discussion on proposed Code Enforcement Effectiveness Program. Motion failed (Kaya,/Triplette opposed). MSC (3-1) (Compton/Triplette) to approve the proposed Code Enforcement Effectiveness Program. (Kaya Opposed). 4. CHAIRMAN'S COMMENTS/REPORT: A. Chairman Triplette advised the Board members and staff that he had a scheduling conflict on the date of the regularly scheduled, December 8, 1997 Board of Appeals and Advisors meeting and would be unable to attend. ~ Exhibit F 3 of 3 Board of Appeals & Advisors -3- November 10,1997 ~ 5. DIRECTOR'S COMMENTS/REPORT: A. Swimming Pool Safety Standards - Update Report: Director Larsen advised the Board members that staff is in the process of drafting revisions to the CVMC Swimming Pool fencing standards and would be presenting the proposed modifications to the Board at the next regularly scheduled meeting. 6. COMMUNICATIONS (PUBLIC REMARKS/WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE): None 7. ADJOURNMENT: Chairman Triplette adjourned the meeting at 7:00 p.m. to the next regular meeting scheduled for December 8, 1997. ~6.~ - KENN G. LARSEN, C.B.O. DIRECTOR OF BUILDING AND HOUSING SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND ADVISORS - -- COMPUANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DlSABIUTIES ACT The City of Chula Vista, in complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), request individuals who require special accommodation to access, attend and/or participate in a City meeting, actiyity, or service, request such accommodation at least forty-eight (48) hours in advance for meetings and fiye (5) days for scheduled schedules and activities. Please contact Yeelin Uybungco, Administrative Secretary, for specific information at (619) 691-5007 or Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD) at (619) 585-5647. Califomia Relay Service is also ayailable for the hearing impaired. KGL-yu - (A:\WP51\1110g7M) Exhibit G I of 11 .~ ~~~ 2~~ ::;o.~~~ - - -- ........................~ CIlY OF CHULA VISfA POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL For ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS Department of Building and Housing - Department of Building and Housing Code Enforcement Division .,......... October 1997 (CITPMAN4) ___.._._ .~_. H ----- Exhibit G 2 of 11 .-- POLICY AND PROCEDURES MANUAL , FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS INDEX SECTION I Introduction ......................................... 1 SECTION II Violation Appropriate for Administrative Citations . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 , SECTION III To Whom A Citation Can Be Issued ................ _ . . . . . 1 SECTION IV Policies - Issuance/Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2-3 SECTION V Policies - Appeals ................................... 3-4 SECTION VI Issuance Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4~ SECTION VII The Appeal Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6-7 , ~'- SECTION VIII Hearing Procedures ................................. 7-8 SECTION IX Hearing Officer Authority . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _ _ . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 SECTION X Investigator/Supervisor Responsibility For Appeal ........... 8 - SECTION XI Follow Up .......................................... 9 - APPENDIX List of Violations Appropriate For Administrative Citation. . . . 10-? . Exhibit G 3 of 11 PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS These are Policy Guidelines only and do not create any legal rights or obligations. They are meant to provide general guidance to City staff but are not binding and are not legal requirements. SECTION I - INTRODUCTION Municipal Code, Section _._._ through _._._ provides the authority to issue administrative citations for minor violations of the Municipal Code. The Code provides for escalating fines for non-compliance. The purpose of this remedy is to induce compliance by applying a monetary penalty for non-compliance. It is not a cost recovery mechanism, but should be used in conjunction with cost recovery tools. SECTION II - VIOLATIONS APPROPRIATE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS Administrative citations will only be issued after the responsible party has been given a Notice of Violation and the opportunity to correct the violation. As a general rule, only minor violations should be addressed by administrative citations. For purposes of administrative citations, this means they should be clear-cut, relatively uncomplicated and easily correctable, generally within 20-30 days. If the compliance period needs to be more than 30 days, the case may not be a good candidate for citation and needs supervisorial approval. As with any enforcement remedy, the decision to use administrative citation should include assessment of how effective it is likely to be in gaining compliance and whether or not it is appropriate to the-situation. Specific violations appropriate for administrative citations are listed in Appendix 1. -Please note that Health and Safety Code Section 17920.3 should not be used. Additional violations appropriate for administrative citations may be identified in policy memos issued . by the Director of. Building and Housing. Violations not so identified and not on this list should not be subject to administrative citation. SECTION III - TO WHOM A CITATION CAN BE ISSUED A citation may be issued to the party responsible for the violation. In general, the responsible person as defined in Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section _._._ will be one or more of the following: 1. The person who caused the violation. 2. The owner of the property on which the violation exists. 1 Exhibit G 4 of 11 r'-, PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS 3. The owner of the business that is in violation. SECTION IV - POLICIES - ISSUANCEIIMPLEMENTATION · The maximum fine allowed by the Code will be charged, i.e., $100 for the first citation, (first level); $200 for the second citation, (second level); $500 for the third citation (third level). · A maximum of three citations for the same violation may be issued; if compliance has not been gained, another remedy should be selected. · An administrative citation will only be issued after a Notice of Violation has been issued. A citation may not be issued until the compliance date on the N.O.V. is past. · More than one party can be held responsible for a violation, but separate citations must be issued to each responsible person. ~ · In the case of more than one minor violation on a property, all violations may be included on the same citation or separate citations may be issued for each. If citations are issued by different inspectors or investigators, they should be coordinated to the greatest extent possible. · Additional citations should not be issued on the same violation if an appeal has been filed. New citations may be issued for new violations occurring or discovered subsequent to the filing of an appeal. (Inspectors! investigators will be notified by the Supervisor of appeals.) · Administrative citations may be used in the case of repeat violations, Le., a repeat of a violation which has previously been corrected, but has since become non-compliant. If such repeat violation occurs within one year or the date the prior violation was corrected, a higher level citation amount may be imposed or if the case previously went to the third level, the highest citation level may be repeated. · Administrative citations may be used for new or additional violations even if there is a current case at the property. · Once issued, an administrative citation cannot be retracted by field enforcement personnel; special requests for dismissal may be approved only by the Senior Code Enforcement Officer, the Assistant Director of Building 2 Exhibit G 5 of 11 ~ PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS and Housing or the Director of Building and Housing by use of a standard form indicating the reason for the dismissal. SECTION V - POLICIES - APPEALS · Appeals to Administrative Citations must be made in writing and submitted to and received by the Department of Building and Housing at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910, within ten (10) calendar days of issuance. The request for appeal must include payment of a fee equal to the amount of the citation. Appeals must be in written form and may be mailed or submitted in person; if mailed, the postmarked date shall be considered the receipt date. If the appeal is granted, the fee will be refunded to the applicant. If the appeal is not granted, the fee will be applied as payment of the administrative citation. · Appeal hearings will be rescheduled once, if requested by the appellant at least five (5) days prior to the hearing. Requests for rescheduling for good cause may be considered after this, but in no event within 40 hours of the scheduled date and time. If a rescheduling is denied, the appellant may send a representative to the hearing or may submit written documentation regarding his or her appeal. The appellant may also request a continuance from the hearing officer. · An appellant may send"8 representative to the hearing in his or her place, but the representative must have written authorization from the appellant and must be prepared to testify under oath that he or she is authorized to represent the appellant. · Notices of the appeal hearing will be sent both certified and regular mail, pursuant to the Municipal Code. Service requirements are considered met as long as both the regularly mailed notice is not returned as undeliverable and the certified mail is returned unaccepted. · A late charge will not be applied when an appeal has been properly filed. · Translators, if required, should be provided by the appellant at the appellant's sole cost. -. 3 - - - ---_.--_._,_...,-,~-----_.._-_.._------_._----- Exhíbit G 6 of 11 r--- PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS · Failure of the appellant to appear results in cancellation of the hearing and a waiver of the right to an appeal hearing, provided that proper notice has been given. This constitutes the exhaustion of administrative remedy. It also means that the citation issued is in effect as issued and that enforcement may proceed. The Hearing Officer shall sign an administrative enforcement order ordering.... · Appeals that are submitted after the deadline will not be accepted. · If more than one party has been cited for the same violation(s) and more than one party appeals, one appeal hearing will be scheduled. SECTION VI - ISSUANCE PROCEDURES A. Steps: ..r- 1. Identify the party responsible for the violation. If this is rental residential or commercial property, either the tenant or the property owner or both may be held responsible. If you are in doubt, cite both. 2. Attempt to locate the responsible party and issue an administrative citation to him or her directly. If only the manager or tenant is located, the administrative citation may be given to that person' with the responsible party named on the citation. A copy of the administrative citation must then be mailed to the responsible party as indicated in #6 below. 3. If the party responsible for the violation is located, obtain the signature of that person on the administrative citation. If that person refuses or fails to sign the administrative citation, this should be so noted on the citation. Failure or refusal to sign does not affect the validity of the citation and subsequent proceedings. No additional mailed notice is required when the responsible party is personally given the citation. 4. If you are unable to locate the party responsible for the violation or anyone else on the site with clear authority to accept the citation on behalf of the responsible party, the administrative citation must be mailed to the responsible party as indicated in #6 below AND shall be posted in a conspicuous place on the property. 4 Exhibit G 7 of II -, PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS 5. The administrative citation must contain the signature of the issuing City Enforcement Officer. 6. When mailing is required, it shall be done by certified mail, postage paid, return receipt requested, and by first-class mail postage prepaid. The failure of any person with an interest in the property to receive or accept such notice does not affect the validity of any proceedings taken under this section. Notice by certified mail in the manner described above becomes effective on the date of mailing. B. Issuance to Corporation or Partnership: When citing a corporation, the agent for service should be named. When citing a limited partnership, the general partner should be named. Be sure to consult your supervisor prior to issuing a citation if the owner is a corporation or limited partnership. Citing a corporation is difficult and requires additional steps. C. How to Complete a Citation Form: 1. Fill out the form completely. 2. Check box to indicate the level of the citation; Le., a first, second or third citation. - ~ 3. Assign a due date for correcting violation(s). Allow a reasonable amount of time to correct the violation(s), generally a minimum of 24 hours and a maximum of 30 days. 4. Fill in the name of the person cited, Le., the responsible party. 5. Identify the relationship of the person cited to the violation address; e.g., property owner, tenant or construction foreman. 6. List business name of cited party if applicable. 7. Include the specific Municipal Code Section(s) and description of the violation(s). 8. Write a complete description of the corrections required. 5 _____~"___.."_ .._~_._.~__·_M _. .......__ Exhibit G ,8 of 11 ~ PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS 9. Provide the responsible party with the information needed to make the necessary corrections. 10. SIGN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION. Remember, the case may be dismissed by a hearing officer if signature is missing. Write in the date the citation was issued, the time and date the violation was observed, and your phone number. 11. Attempt to get the citation signed by the responsible party or the manager/agent on the site. If the contact person or responsible representative refuses to sign, simply indicate in signature block, "Refused to sign". 12. Make sure you have documented in the file all procedures used to notify the responsible party of the administrative citation. (Take a picture of the posted citation; keep the receipt for certified mail in the case file.) ~--., 13. The cited party should be reminded that if the violation is not removed or corrected within the stated time limit, subsequent citations may be issued; that paying the fine does not excuse the violation nor does it bar further enforcement action; and that a late penalty will be charged if payment is not made by the due date. 14. Deliver citation as des'cribed in the previous section. 15. Deliver appropriate copy to the Finance Department for billing services. SECTION VII - APPEAL PROCEDURES NOTE: Appeal rights are explained on the reverse side of the citation form. 1. Any person receiving an administrative citation may appeal it within ten (10) calendar days from the date the citation was issued. The appeal, which must be in writing, must be postmarked or delivered by the 10th calendar day from issuance and must contain the mailing address to which notice of the scheduled hearing will be mailed to the appellant. 6 Exhibit G 9 of II '" PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS 2. Senior Code Enforcement Officer or designee is responsible for the processing of appeals. He/she will request the case file from the field staff and will specify the information needed for the hearing. 3. A hearing package containing standardized information will be prepared by the Department and mailed to the appellant and hearing officer. If the inspector has vacation or other scheduling considerations, it must be noted on the case file. Normally, hearings will be scheduled about three weeks from when requested. The Code Enforcement Division staff will schedule the hearing and inform the inspector as to date, time and place. Department staff is responsible for notifying the appellant by first class, prepaid mail to the address specified on the appeal form, of the date, time and place and sending the hearing package to the appellant and the hearing officer. If the appellant does not appear, the appeal is considered waived by the appellant and the citation is now administratively final. SECTION VIII - HEARING PROCEDURES 1. Code Enforcement staff arranges for the hearing, provides a hearing room, and ensures that a tape recorder is in place. 2. Whenever possible, an inspection should be made the day prior to the hearing so that the current status is known. 3. The Director of Building and Housing will assign staff to present the City's case and present relevant evidence to show that: a. The cited violation(s) are valid and where a Notice of Violation was issued, that the necessary correction(s) were not made within the time allowed. b. All required administrative procedures and notices were correctly executed. .~ 7 _____n____*___n_________._____ Exhibit G 10 of 11 r-", PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS 4. At the hearing, staff should listen carefully to the violator or representative's testimony, take notes and be prepared to correct any misstatements or discrepancies. For instance, if the violator states "The Enforcement Officer never told me what I needed to do to comply with the Ordinance. ", then the Department's representative should state the chronology of the case and what information was given to the violator regarding compliance. The representative should also have a signed copy of the notice of violation or a photo of the posted notice and the signed return receipt of the subsequently mailed copy of the notice. 5. The City is required to accommodate citizens with disabilities who need to attend an appeal hearing. Field staff should let Senior Code Enforcement Officer know if they believe such services are required. 6. The Department is not required to provide transcriptions of hearing, but shall make available tapes of the hearing for a fee. ~. SECTION IX - HEARING OFFICER AUTHORITY The Hearing Officer determines whether the conditions listed in any Notices violate the Municipal Code or applicable state codes. The Hearing Officer may reduce, waive or conditionally reduce the fines stated in the citation or any late fees assessed. Waiving or reducing the fine does not eliminate the need to correct the violations or prevent the City's use of other enforcement procedures:- The Hearing Officer may also impose Conditions and establish stipulations for correction of violations and payment of fines and may assess reasonable administrative costs. The Hearing Officer is a neutral third party- whose authority applies to the City as well as to the appellant. STAFF SHOULD NOT HAVE CONTACT WITH THE HEARING OFFICER OUTSIDE THE HEARING NOR SHOULD' THEY AT ANY TIME PROJECT AN ATTITUDE OF FAMILIARITY WITH THE HEARING OFFICER. SECTION X - INVESTIGATOR/SUPERVISOR RESPONSIBILITY FOR APPEAL Assigned staff is responsible for appearing at the appeal hearing and must be prepared to present all evidence and testimony concerning the violation. This includes the documentation submitted; how many contacts were made, when and with whom; a clear explanation of the violation; what actions are required to bring the property into compliance; and a copy of the administrative citation. Photographs may be attached to the report. S Exhibit G 11 of 11 ----..., PROCEDURES MANUAL FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS SECTION XI - FOLLOW UP The Hearing Officer's findings and order will generally include direction to comply by a specific date, if compliance is still an issue at the hearing. Code Enforcement staff will receive this document and forward to the Senior Code Enforcement Officer who is then responsible for following up after that deadline and deciding what to do if compliance has not been achieved. A copy will also be sent by Code Enforcement staff to the violator/appellant. Code Enforcement staff will follow up on payments and will assist the Finance Department in taking appropriate billing/collection actions, however the investigator or inspector must inform the Senior Code Enforcement Officer of status if fines are contingent on compliance actions. ~ 9 Exhibit H I of 10 , r-- , ~ " -, -" - W ~ ~ = " U 0 ~ Z ~ Ö .... g - "'" c.. (1]. ~ VJ ._ -1 _ ~ ~ .~ å ~ - cG "" O _¡--- "" = U" _" - - ~ - 0 = ---¡- 0 _ v ~ "U ~ 0 g c::J '--- r = >!:; -'E ~ 0 ¡; _ _ ".: - Õ 1-0 U] U c..._ 0 Co -< CJ 0 ......... L...o'- Q" - ::: = 0.-: ~"'O0 0 ::: ë; t:.....-., - eJ U._ c::s.... r:--' ";; ..... .... > 0 ¡) Z -"E T == c.. ·~~c a.g ~cc ~~ .~ .., 0- 0 0 ._ _ ._ ~ "" ¿U U rl'\ ~ 0 ~ ~~ - ~ rl'\ _ = g _ ~~ 0 <> 0 L ~ ~ '2 ;::'':: " ,-- < ~ 00 -c: .... -' :> .- - '- "" = U ëô-::::- 0:::0.... (,) -- >eJO C ;::: -00 ........= 0 __ O .... .- .- 0 .... 00"'" CIJ I 9 > ë .- ;::.- 0 ë V,;"",,- >:::(1] "'0 ~.... ~ ~ .~ 52·2 e 8..g.8 -< õ ¡..í.( :="= ;> 5 ~ '"";> 0 -= u:J ~ 0-'"" menD.... ;>..... U .- .,::.. 0 .- 0 '"" g .- .U- Q UJ "t;" ;> "'0 .3"> ë - Z õ ~ a 8. os: g E >. .::: g <: L.." ._> "'0 --- _ 0 ... (,) "'0 L--- .~ ._ _ I:"""'" U] _ 1..0._ ;> U _ ..... " Z ~ 0 >. tr.J 0.. "'0 .- a .= E -.¡ 0_=>. QU a v; 0... o 00 "'0 - 1-0 1-0 "'0 ._ ~ ¡....( CJ....co.. ';;_ « ::: .¿; < '':: .¡; I") E 'E g¡, '--'¡:; 0 D..... 1-0 0 ._ 0 .... õ Zc.oou ::- "'0. U ., -;;; I -. -i3,g _ < __ ~ -- <= '--- ~ - - .- , .... - _ 1-0 o .... = c.. ..... ~ -.::õ - =0 = _ u._ 0"'0 ¡." 10.00 ~ v..... .- 0 0 c.. _ Q..":: õ t:: :: c.. è3 ::: O en 0 0 0- - = ..... 0 .5,- 0.. Q ~ ''::: Q> ~> < = U .-: t....oo .= C Õ en 0 0 __ ..!. <> - .- ;>.¡ è;> .... 0 .-..... c:: 0...:: ~.s S 'õ o 0 0= .2 ,.,.; = <> ZZ > ~ '" ,,'-- I < VJ ~' ... ~ 'õ .:: >. Z ~ 00 - =- 1-0 - t£ 2; .= C) _..~ = P "'_ "" - -........ 0- '"" - ~-.... tfJ _= 0 Õ õ-1:: 0 ë:) - I:) ~ '" <> " L.o t.=. = -' t.=. U ::: 0 o 0.. -= fn .- (,) õ c:::: . . 'E 0.= ~ .....J >. 0 ~ "" C:: --""C "'C L.o U ""'" tI) 1S = -= L.o 0' ~ 0 = c. .;::: .:: -¡¡; . =- 0 ti.S _ ~ :> >. = 0.. r-g.-.::.:: -L. _<>... U""C ÕL.o=U cO ....0 ~~ uo..C)E t:>E I 6= _c:: -o""':;j- =UJ Z -0 .s :.; õ.:: § t <_ ''::: =-- -~ - 0" -;::.:: c:: Õ 0 è;':: >. E: ="-:;; t: ::: (,) ..... g. :: ~ § õ ~ ï::: ~ ~ = , Z u .= ut::~ ?;~f418 I , ---~--~'.............--- - - ..".. - -.--..-.--'. - .- . Exhibit H 2 of 10 ~\ft- -.- r ~ _~ 01Y OF ,~ CHULA VISfA , DEPARTMENT OF BUILDING AND HOUSING Code Enforcement Division 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Phone: (619) 691-5280 I Fax: (619) 585-5681 NOTICE OF VIOLATION Date: Zone: Location: Tenant: Address: Owner: ---. Address: YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED OF THE FOLLOWING VIOLATION(S) OF MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION(S): The violation(s) must be corrected by . The Department will schedule a reinspection after this date. If the inspection reveals the violation(s) has not been corrected, a reinspection fee will be assessed per CVMC Sec.1.41.060. Failure to pay the reinspection fee and correct the violation(s) will result in additional enforcement actions being taken that may include assessment of fines and penalities and/or issuance of misdemenaor citations. If you have any questions, please contact the City Code Enforcement Officer identified below. Notes: Issued by: (Code Enforcement Officer) Exhibit H 3 of 10 -, U '" .ò::iE 'E§> R 0 U ~ u to ~ -:S Q.~ () ~ .- .... . ._ 2) ..2 ~ 0 0 ~~~ U~~~ ::J - 0 R- ~~~ t3.9 V) .£8.. as 8 23~" ~ 5~- ueo::~ ens::> ~r....,¡J:J-:;:¡ g C 11 0 0 ",.", .5 C"0 ......~""Ô~-::i ""......., u i3 0 = rn s::: f'- - ..." - "8" ~ '-" """c..~ E (I) ~ ~ .9 '" g ,,-¡¡j "g I>. " . H~= ~õi:d..2Q. . ~ .!:: g 8" ,E - c :e .9 $ ,- 0;> C~Ou:lO . u:¡:= S §.5 E:-." " Q, "Q,:¡: . f ~ ~8'S~a::~ ~,-::= ..... 1"1. U 8..o.:'; " ""..0 " _ "...."1:1"1:1 ¡¡ Q,» Q," == > "1:1" "S o~o 0.. c; :õ~ .... g v .., c .... .- 0 U Q,"I:I - 0 0 0 '" '" c.. o' C rn s::; en " ,,0 '" ... " " 0 " rn ¡;;¡ ("I"'¡ 0 U 0 11) 0.. en U ._,....; 0 c..:.:: tn 0 rn >. t::::~(,) "'0 rn~u\O Om :?j 0" » ";::"",- Q, rn c.."'StI) ~ ~O¿¡......( w = ..... 0 ...... éij 0 0.;:> "d" 8 .9: C':I 0...., ~ ";:¡ U O,¡ .... e u ......; "'- ",,-o~'" 0"23 "1:1 -t:::iE " ,EQ, ~ <;:;¡ g _ -S ~ " "8 -= ã ¡g ..0 > :E "" I; 5 U o....~ 0 '" U t: 0 U ::J U .- 0 C c.. o C\) ('I') 0 .0 _ 0.0 CIJ ~ """.0 0 ..... >. o":srnC s::; 0';:::=1:""-- '-- 1 C..... en 0 _ "0 (I) rn ...... "¡:: 0...... c: 0 - _ "" § ~ >. rn to c.. 0 0.0'- . E \\) t:õ 8 c:s 1-0 0 CI:I V .- - 0 E:-." ,,;( e ~ .ò "0 8 8.t:: ".!:: :D >( '" ~ ~CI)C:>. al,f)l:::'-o.... ~ oos- Z O"'~-U ~_c;;;;;¡ 0 c.=¡o....:;>,B ÐCOt:::~ " ~ J:) = - .- .... ..,. ,,__::iE ..0 -'" _ 0 " " - " "0 > .- = " Q, OQ ~ C'.) 0 0 U ~'S: g ~ co.g g :?j "Oß"'~'" 0~""I:I"" ~ o CI) c: 0 0..- u Cd U "1:1 e. Q, ¡'3:E § .!:: ::iE ê ... § '" U''¡ r~' A 0:: »,E S .ò 'E 1J OÌ) _ I; >::iE ~~ ~ '- co = 0 .- 0 .- C ~ ~ E:-." - Q, u:¡ := U" ~.~ 0 " U ' L"'" ~og~¡..,- ~ tIJ~""""8. 0 ~ o.o.:1§~c·g ,.,.. ~" 00 0"1:1 _ . ::J ¡¡ § .¡;¡ " " < "9 U) ._ ._ tI) "'0 u ~ co en 0 0 .... u ::r:8~ß-8 ¡¡¡8 > "Oo~ .~~ " > ...- ...... -= g 0 co ~ " ~ "'u - " o CI:I ~ U) .... (.) c.. ë g.~ '3 & .g ~ 5 ~ 8 I; " " _ 0 0._ .... _oc -- O ãÞD=:.: 11> Lo. ~ 11> _ 11> " .,..oE ","Q, tl:I~'::i SoB B 0_ ~ 0=- ca ca..cca 0 "O-",c"'.D "o"u.... o";::JI1>-= ÞD-Q.,~· U '" " '" ~ .- - Q.,.G - ~ 0 ._ "':::{ tI) 11> «I > ... u '-0 ... 11> c..... Lo. 11> t.-c o .3 S .52 ~ "1:1 '2 " u 0 " 0 .... ::iE ... rl'\ U e .5 êâ t3 a Co) C 0 .~ ~ 0 > 0 \I..J. 00 0 Lo. Õ 0 ÞD;< e·- f'I"! a .- ~ U 0 ~ "is 0 .S: en 8 ~ :îJ ~ ~ - ;< i..3 t3 ~ =""C6V, ~o oo~!3~ ~Q.,""CQ.,o "'" ...._ "._'" "'" c '" "1:1 - - '" ". _.¡", "" 8:::: a .5...; ""'C '" " Õ. .5 2 ¡ä ~- '" >.c::::""c_= ~=-(,,)ca ....t.::::i.- ::::t;.;;¡ggc:rg ð$~e..c ~·.:B (J UOu~~~ ~uQ.,U ~g~~~ - - ---- - .--~-----~ ". -.-- Exhibit H 4 of 10 . ~ »§- 'Þ.j::::: OJ) iP ¡¡ ....:.õ r-..= E - . - t:: t::: '" - = " è' .~ " ~ ¡¡¡ d '" O.I:> "'".. --" 8" ~ =..».. :::::::>-,£!Q, -é '" ".I:> " _._ '" _ .. '" 8 "'g"O"'E -é.I:>0~~ =0 § "", "", c .. 0 0 0 "0 0 =._ ~ v; d _= Q,,,, _ . S'~. ~ ~ ~ ., . . . ., , " 8 "".. iiª'3~ ~¡8~ ~~ ~ ~! · 0'" ""'¡¡~-é =E:::::Q, d t::: .... ~ ~ ~ · · ~ 0 ~ ~ . g.~ 'g .. ".I:> .I:>.I:>.I:>.I:> 0.....= _ '" - '" .-.... '" '" ... " 0 '" '" " O "'........ 0 Q,<'::¡" 0 ".. §-¡¡¡,gij -g""ÞF u ::Co - Q,,,,,,,, ~~¡¡¡¡ - ijíS:=-=., o~Q,"'" ~ ~",.s"O · """ 0 · § rrI E:..... '':: U ~ L" '" "" 0 .... o,.c:::¡ v "". 0 0 t::: > . - - -- u - 'Õ' _ == "''E-... - d = » '" -8 =-= g.5 0 0 .s ...... 0 Õ.- OJ) 't= ::::: § is U ... '" 0 '" - '" '" - .- = "0 ¡¡¡ ._ '" o E ~ ~ \0 CO" C ...0 g, ¡¡ .¡j "'!! -§ "", -:: i¡ ¡¡ g Q, - 0 -= Q, "'" ,,- '" "~Q,'_ en 0 "0 '" "- Q, '::> _ '" " "0 0.!!1" _ '" _,~ ~ U c .- "0 S 0 Q,.- =" "0 _ ...... .I:> Q, "';>, u _ ~ d ~" "'! '" ~ 0 g¡ e -¡¡¡ ».I:> - .¡;; _ '" t: "" ~ 't= _ ~ C!) C1) (1) .~ - ~ ...... 0" 't= .s '" = 0 "''' "" _ ¡¡¡ ¡¡ .,3 ".:: = 0 " .£ .¡¡¡ 'ê Q, ¡¡¡ ij 5 0 = 8 Q, > "': "", S O.I:>-.¡g'" 'E",o"ª,,,,,,.::¡ ¡¡¡.'" ..eu_ ~'" " z<~"~ ~o,~"_ .'" ., ~~"" ~, ". · ..... -'. ~~ "··0 _. U ;j5ë"'C"'C~_§ '£!"O"Oi¡ "=Q,o ='" .- " 0 '" 'E "'».. ....8,... 0 '" '-' ¡g s ..,,, "0" =.I:> 0 .§ ,g ., ¡¡ _ Q, '" 02~Q,~"-8 &2-¡¡¡ã 000:'=0 ij" E:..... Q,"''''''O .»= "''''= ":.=",.., Q, L" "'.I:> » = 8 .s" ".I:>._ '" .~ .I:>.. _ . Z ~-<.§..<,::¡"'.. ~"'~¡¡¡ 00__ ~ :;;: .,!. - ~"u ~ ë ::50", B '¡::g;:s " =..." ... Q, 3 '" ¡.. "~~~ -'"6 .~ ]'~G , ~ 8 ¡ '" "0 0 2 -é .;;; 0 ¡¡ '" == .. .., ........ ..0 õ -;;:;- ã "0 ~ 0 ~ "'! S ~ t::: .!!1 ~ .5 ,.,., ,,~= 00- = "..;:1 d. "0 - 'ê "0 = " .. .- ... 1 - _ = 8"" ~ ¡¡¡ ... 0 0 8 "''' '" '" ¡¡¡ ~ ._ to:: -< ,,8 .~ ã .- .g .=~ 11 ::¿. _!!1 -¡¡¡ ~ 'õ 8 "0 to:: Õ _!!1 Õ ...... Q, 'E i¡ " 2 ~ "", '" r__" 0 c.;..¡ .- :3 Z "Q, '" . "0 Q, '" _ " é - U 0 > é ¡¡p,~ ... -éu 'E 5 "Ò 'E Q,.g :-; ::5 .!!1 > c - " _ '0" 0 '" '" ._ = dOOQ,U c"'§ -000_ ¡gé - .. " = é - '" ... ~"'~c "". ..,~~ &. ¡.. .€' Þ ~ .... . ., . ~ . ~ ~ u::c '" u - "i¡ .!!1 ., S "0 0 '" '" Q,"O" .I:>.3 0.. '" '" Q, .." -<... '" ..c .... « 0 eo=;¡ »" ~ iJ",'Þ.jc¡go 00 CI.O=c..c...... - ~ ~ 0 _8 Þ 0 "7 ..:; >0 ;ë .š '§ ... is ~ ~ ,.c::¡ tno_ 11)11.) U - - Z c -- ... _ Q, 0 -g ~ ¡¡ 0'::& .§oo'" .. -d~:S ~ ~lle~ J~t~ ~Ji1~ Q ..... 8¡¡ S""_ ã¡~..... o Q, "0 > ._ -é '" " .. ." -< ~ "'5 ã ,g 'õO ~ Æ 'Þ.j 'õ ~ ¡¡¡ ~ § È' :i - "O"OOOQ, Q,,, 00000 " t::: " " é '" 00 '" '" u S = "0 § .¡;; "0 d =::: '-" 8" é" .E "" '.. "0 ". ._ o 8 '" '" -- to:: - "" '" é '" ;;; g u .!!1 ... .I:> ¡ -.;:I "0 > ~ 0 ~ " "0 ~gau _0__ Exhibit H 5 of 10 b.D ",,-,0 ""-- .. '" " I: to.. 0) ~ "" 0) 0).,. 0) '" _ "" 0) .. '" .'" 8 ... ,!:J 0 _ ._ ¿ ::> '" .- t; 0 ¡¡ ~ 0)1: 8g:9'" -.... t:t:.b ¡.;.,2 ....C" Co) ~o ~~tI) po.t: ~!;!~B gg 888] ,.-..... éà:::: ~ a .... u,) ~ ".::I ..... en . - to.. 0 0 ~ 0) ¡¡¡ 0) "' .5 '" ~ 0 ... ... '--" .- to) c.. CI,) ù ~ ~ _ ~ CI,) 0 -, .£ ~ I: 0. "" '" 0) 0 '" ~ I: '" " .... ..... .- œ 0 ~ Co( ,) . ~ û a ø.. 6 0 u 0 'S ø.. go 8 {/} .g f,;;;j ..::: .> ,...-( c C ,) ..2 .- ..... .... :::: c ..... ..... c .::I >. OCe.. .DêGtI.O ....00 ~VJCI,)ca_ b/) .- - " 0)'= 0 0) .. '" ~ ~. c..._ Q., en._;;¡ (.) ~ co ._ ;::s .... ¡:;¡ C1)E U2 rn c:s C U Oct) t..:::I ::I _ :> C" B CI,) Boo 0 '= f;:;¡ 0 0 ~ CI,) C"! ~ 0 ~ ~.......... ~ ~ .6 0 t.) '> - .... .;;¡ co .... == ø: .¡;; s, U b/) .5 U ~ ~ o~CI,) =.... "ii.... cñ -c..- 0t9 rnu::J "'C Be ." '" '" .= .".- 0. '" 0 '" "" '" ... ... 1:3 5 .. ." .- ~ D~CI,) .-:::~ e:I_" "OB't) .",. .. å! <.> U .- ~ <.> ß g ã ¡¡ ã . U .;; to.. ã {j ~ ..s ~ .g .= >. t: '" Þ '-' ~ ~ ~ å!~ g. 1:3 B .~ ·u,'g ;; 8 -g ~ :g .- .- 0. t/:) 0 - ... rn 0 CI,) r~' I: '" 0. S I: 1:: 0) I: <.> '" 0. ~ .g&~ c£ð~ o·~8. ~~.g~ .ß]] ~ 5UJ;::S 0 ,.........0. CI,)~..s] '"'"0. .- CI.) ¡"",,¡.- ::s 0 _ ¡....¡ U ø: 8 Ô B to.. U '" '2 !3";: '"" .9 11 .~ U 0)._...." .. <.>:>; 00 >. 0) .- 0) 0) '" ." '" ." 0 ." t: .. Z '" e ... .. 0 8', ~ 0 co U ::: o 0 ~ ~ao ~ ~ '" 0._ 0) ... ~ ~ 0 d C 0 'E .9 ~ U .........°0-.: QJ -U) ~ 0) "" I: .- ~ .... 0 e." 8 >. 8o-êON ~-' a <..-... ~ 8 t) .g .-= ,...; ß .5 ß '" Q -g '-S¡ 1-0 e.~ U U'.I .s ~ c. ø.. ...... ¡.;., B ..s .- ::E I: ~ 1:: '" '" ..s 0 ... '" 0) 0 I: , ="0 0 0"0........0 C~_o r......., ~ ~ e '.:1 u ~ = B òÔ c .~ .!::P 8: VJ'~ _ - -'"<.>"" -O"'I:O~ "'0"'= Z .g ª 0. '" "" ",.= 0.:.;2 .= 0) 0) '" .- oc.o..¡o~> I"l:lcoSucoc., "'Cog,u ~ uos'..su 0'-=8'"'-='" 1:~0.1: ~ to..U .bU"" 0""'"0 o ." Z ." ~§ u"O o~ ~ ~ .~ 00 .5 _ """'I..c U') c=' - _ _ to """ .- c.;.;:¡.5 >. ca 1-.0 co.... ~ 1..0 r~' !.b '" '" ~ Õ. I: " 0 >. -:5 I: " 0 0 1! ,......; co Q - eo ¡....... rn tI) C1.) ._ 0 ....... tI') 0 n ~ co;:.¡.. ..c .... -.= ~ .- "'0 E ~ '.;::1 ~ .- ~ .... ~ ã>p¿J8 ~:ge~ å!BOO ~:ge~ ß~ r~' ::E 0 '" '" B .2 '" -13 g. ~ :;: .5 0) '" .8 g. 1:: .~ _ ~ c z p..¡ g .p i) ~ f,... CI:I ~ -. G "> ~ ~ CI:I 5 ~ 1S ~ CJ CJ .- .... rn >.. 0 .... ~ _ C ) rn ~ 0 (,) 0 c ~ s:: t> - êê °a .... C1J a- 0'- ~ .... Go) a... .... 00'- - c....c - 9 0 =' rn UJ rn U Cd >.. =' tfJ UJ -= c..._ u rFl 8 8 .~ .9 1:: .~ if "'g U .:;: 0 :. 8" if "'g U .:;: 3: ~ ....0 .......... ...o~o>o >........ 1-0_.... '""'....¡.;o.........ca ~ c.=(- _0.. L.. 0 IUCG> 0 orn ~ C en ~ ~ c.. 8. ê c L..o c.. 0 '> ::: c" ::: .... .£ ~ ¡'¡§~t:g ~·,g~8 ~'~!;!1:: <.,g~8'" .gt.::< 80) .s0s O'~"'5 'ò's0S= \. 0 g 1!.~ 0 .- <.;; 0 to.. U <2 <.> .- .- <.;; OJ¡ ~. u u ca .9 00 ~ u .S u u .:: _ ---.....-...._----- Exhibit H . 6 of 10 r--. UJ 0 oi> ...... U ...... -;§ UJ 0 o ;;:;... U 8 Z '" .§ § ~ Z ''-:: -< '" -........... -< 0 . .- "'1 .g...... ";?5;::'''' "'1 Z => ¡.......¡ 0 "" a c"'~ ......c ~ 0 ~ ~ .ò 8 .jg '" .9 ... ~ ¡¡:¡ g ~ ~ a -.= a ::r: .~ ~ :G ~ cd - 0 Q.,O >"'" u'" 0 0:'= . ",Z Ccoo _Q, ,...¡ U;§ëJ ..!Z~~~ U ~8 -* ~ 0 .. II) ~ .~ 0 '-I C Q., 0 ,9 ~ "- 0 u . 0 c.. ..... ...... ~. ,...¡ Q.,,,, 8..9 § ~ õ .= .g ~ 0 ~ ¡:':;c o>~u ~ ~ -g] '" U .11 ëJ J Cf.I - -- a... 0 s::::: ~ d .g = .5 8 ~ Ð c.. . as 8' ~ ,g a·9 l!l CI1 C t) ~ ª" ~ >. >- ~1S~5 ~~~~3 fI} ]~~ ~ U 0 ~!3 E §: :: ~ 0 § .§ ~ ~ =.ê u 880g "'co",,,,,, 't= ~ "'_ '-" .- c '- ~ 0 ... "" ~ .ò " .5 a -= - "'" ... - .- 0 - ~ a 8 -"" '" 0 Z ~ c 0 ~ c; ~ 'Vi .s c.. c.. ~ e (11 ,.c...cac...... c..ÕtnOrn C )O v~oe '" .- >, Q., - - - - 'E o :ë>~~5 :-9ëJ :-9"g","g ëJ """"I '¡g 'õ g ~ ~ § g, § 8 ¡; 8 g, - .' ~ 8. 8 - ~ .... c.. go fir.:; ~ :: go ~ < Jl ~ i § ] Jl g ~ .~ ~ § ~ ¡ f¿ ~ ... '" .. .- .", 't= '" O ¡:; " .~ - 0 - """"I - o..s'õ U ;;ê '- 5-e;u ~ ~ 8 -g " .~ '" 0-(.)- - "'000 F r~, ~ 8 ''-:: ;;ê ... .c 3 - 0...0 '" g~ ""'- O "".- '7 "'" "'...... '" .. '" '" . c"'O,.c...""" ~ o""",u Vla... ~ .... 0 8' 00:::J II) e ..:::: Ë .~ r~' " 8 15..3 .5 a -g .~ 0 8 ;:) ."" - '88"'..... a"g õ<t:0 E- '" U uo!5..s ~,.g-;!5. z-g:; ~ 1i §. m (I) ... ,., I > fI} ,.c... ~ "'0 o 1..0 II) ""0 0 U) t: """"I~ § ;¡ '" Q., ,2 g Q., .- t=: 8 ....cc- -"'''' '" c"" ,.c::;; 0.0'2 co a e ""0 .~ 0 ~ O ~ 'Vi a 8. .... = e õ u 0 .- " "Q., .. 0 .- '7 '" C Z U"'O CI) co ëô ''::: 1: ,c.... (.) .0 II.) = CI) ._ € ~õ"'O '0 0 0\ "'. -.:;> ã Z Q., \""I ~....~ Z .... ~ cê c.. '~ '" '" 1:: .. 8 ¡...( ~==co c ~ Q., 0 u ~ os > .£ ',ª .s ::Eo:-9-", "'" ..... tI) 0 ;>" c :z c 'S: co a '- ~ ...... ã ~ O °""'0......"'0 5°(,¡.,¡ =......"'ou 8 g, ~ 8 0 '8 ¡j 0 ,3 ,5 R -g U 8 0 " t:: M .. .- '" a a !S '" 5 6. ~ 8 5 r~ 1â .§ . r~ ~ .. ~ ~ "" c > -Q.,- , - c~ c '" .. 0'- .. "'" ..!!I 0 c ~ -.. c~ 0 0 '" § 'E -g.. .- t=: § .5 .g -g .§ ""''Ë:J_c a..-::,2 ac"'_ o 8 tI).- 1:> CI) 0 co CI) 8 .. '" u .~ ~ .CJ ::c c ""C ::r: C::O.2 Exhibit H 7 of 10 -, ~ c ;., " '" .>->.~ ~ 0 :g¡f';~..§ :a'" - 8'':::.5:,¡" "'" .~ ~" ~ .':! w g¡, 6 ",; .Èj - ..!! :~ ""'.> ~ ~ .5 J¡;: 5 :õ ,g o ,e .a ..2 ~:;;., 5 .g ;: ._ .~ - ¡g..... ""....1:1.0.0] w...'" §j - 8..... ¡;¡ s.! .~ = " ~ .B c Ii e. ~ c - 0 .- 0 _ ~ ~ ~;"2 oe.j'.:::tÊ:õ 8~e.o "..... · "g, tE e. '" "';., '" .= !> w .... ~ ~õ .~"';;; Oe.e. ~ CO:::c-<Ue." · ~ · 0 w ~ ~- ~~"~~ œ ._ _ 11) Q,) .~ .:!J 0 g, ~ '" = §!> 00. §!> 5 '" e. .", ¡;. ~ ¡z. ~ -g ·-=o..E~ œ;:s: Q.jOOO >,. 00 ......... >"w ~.... U .~ 1š .= "": ~ .g J¡ -g J!.5 § Ò ".5 8 "~ ~ u!>" - "'" w ~ '" ... "'._ :,¡ 5 ~ o. " > co ,,0 ¡;. '" -< " -= .~ e. t.::; 1J ~ ·Èjii ~~ :õ~~ š'õ g;g 8 ..!! ¡;'1j w" """'- '" ~ c .¡;¡ ã 0 '" _ '" '" ~ .0 e..o .g ¡¡¡ I"""" .b w.9 u = .. '" <.!. c '" 8 ... .¡;¡ _ '" Ow OD U "'oc;:E o¡:¡~o:>"'w" co;;; 5 'a 1š <> > e...::: ~ . 0 " 'E e. 0 c " _ ':,¡ -- ~ 'ã ~ u ~ ~ ~ g § tÊ " ê' ~ 8 ~ .13 ::1: 00. -< 8 g.5 co::: ~ ~ .... Z o ~ '" ~ ,,8 ~ 8...... -< .Èj en c .B ~ "" .~ ~ 0 "'U OD __ .__ '" ë .B .b :E 'g¡ ~ § ~ § 8 5 ¡;. ~ U "tj .!!'3 > "'C "ê Ð ._ c.. -.::: co::¡ a 0 Q., G) ~ 8",c w C;e. "'-;;:,,, ~5 ~ 8--;:u "e. -'" '~~"'en t.::; U w8.g¡; gp"... .Og ue.e.u " . J¡ .= -< e. c ¡¡¡ g, ~ " ._ ~ 3' 'E "" "'" .~ =~ - "'ODe. "'>c. ....."''''' "-_ r~" ¡¡¡!> ~ Õ :E .5 '" ë ''::: ¡¡¡ ~. ¡¡; > :õ ,g ~ " >! g,'~ '" :a :,¡ "',g'.b 1š .B u .¡;¡ '" """'- "81::3 ~:::: '~:J:!" !ih",1š j~ E~!> §ï= I"""" u 0 e. U U..c ... .j ~5 . J3 1J e. c. 'a ~ A ". = e." ~-a ~ ï ~-< ~ -< 8 ê'tÊ -< ~ l~OD ~ .~ ~ .5 .i- w r" t>. '" ~,g e. " " ~ <> \1..1. -.. eo = e ..... 0.. 0 u ~ ::!!¡¡;..c!>o ~OD g¡ en "'>;.,c:::<> w......5 ~ u Z ::E 0 ã ~ .B .Š ~':'¡ !>.. !1 :E ........ -Z""'o;., 8,," ~_ > ~ 5w..!!=~ "'~~ . ~ -gU ~ 8".o"'§ ""'0 :a~"w ~ 8 go.¡;;:§ 't: ¡¡¡ e. " " 1J ¡¡j "'. g, ~ wwC>o OD~= ¡¡¡ ~;., o c.. 0 -- c.. c U.::I ...n.!l .... co = "" e. <> 'r:: 0;:: - _ <> ~ 0 -< c "'13 ~ " go .. ..::: ~ .5:> 8 .¡;; ¡¡¡ "t::: " 0 = :,¡ ~ ._ ._ "t.::;CO:::05 :I:c", "==;;;8 ~=~<» -80.':!~ o 0 s::::: 0'- ....... U(.}=_OO Exhibit H 8 of 10 Department of Building and Housing Citation#: Code Enforcement Division 276 Fourth Avenue Control If: ~ Chula Vista. CA 91910 0lY OF ,..HUlA VISTA ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION Date: Time: am/pm (violation observed) [ ] 1 st Citation $100 [ ] 2nd Citation $250 [ ] 3rd Citation $500 Payment of $ is due on (see reverse side for payment instructions). Corrections indicated below are required by . If you fail to make the indicated corrections by this date, the next level citation may be issued. Other enforcement action may result if compliance is not achieved by the third citation. PERSON CITED: LAST ARST MIDDLE RELATION TO VIOlATION: MAILING ADDRESS: CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE BUSINESS NAME (It any) VIOlATION ADDRESS: PARCEL NUMBER MUNI. CODE SEC. VIOLATED: V1OLATJON DESCRIPTION: - Corrections Required: Signature of Issuing Officer Print Name of Issuing Officer - Telephone No. Issued Date '~'~ignature of Person Cited READ REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION This Information is available in alternative formats upon request MAIL COPY ......-."- . Exhibit H 9 of 10 Administrative Citations ~ City of Chula Vista Municipal Code, Section provides for the issuance of administrative citations for Municipal Code Violations. There are three levels of citations that can be issued progressively for a violation. The fines, as indicated on the front ofthe citation, are $100 for the First Citation, $250 for the Second Citation and $500 for the Third and subsequent Citations. These fines are cumulative. A waming if issued, does not incur a fine and, therefore, is not appealable. Rights of Appeal You have the right to appeal this administrative citation within 10 business days from the date the citation was issued. If the citation was mailed, the appeal must be made within 10 business days from the date the citation was mailed. An appeal must be made in writing to the address on the front of this citation and to the attention of 'Administrative Hearing Coordinator". An appeal will result in an administrative hearing. , Failure of any person to properly file a written appeal within 10 business days shall constitute a waiver of his or her right to an administrative hearing and adjudication of the administrative citation or any portion thereof and the total amount of the fine. How To Pay Fine The amount of the fine is indicated on the front of this administrative citation. Prior to receiving an invoice from the Finance Department, you may pay by mail or in person at 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91910. Payment should be made by personal check, cashier's check or money order, payable to the City of Chula Vista. Please write the citation or account number on your check or money order. If the citation is not paid or appealed within 10 business days, you will receive an invoice from the City's Finance Department. Please follow the instructions on the invoice to ensure proper processing of your payment. If you do not pay the fine by the indicated due date, there is a 10% penalty fee. Payment of the fine shall not excuse the failure to correct the violation nor shall it bar further enforcement by the City. Consequencea of Failure to Pay the Fine The failure of any person to pay the fine assessed by the administrative citation within the time specified on the citation or on the Finance Department's invoice maYcresult in a claim with the Small Claims Court or any legal remedy to collect such money. The City has the authority to collect all costs associated with the filing of such actions. - Consequencas of Failure to Correct Violations There are numerous enforcement options that can be used to encourage the correction of violations.. These options include, but are not limited to: civil penalties, abatement, criminal prosecution, civil litigation, recording the violation with the County Recorder and forfeiture of certain State tax benefits for substandard residential rental property. These options can empower the City to collect fines up to $100,000 to demolish structures or make necessary repairs at the owner's expense, and to incarcerate violators. Any of these options or others may be used if the administratiye citations do not achieve compliance. If you need further clarification about payment of the citation, please call 691-5051. If you need further information about the violations and/or how to comply, please call the Officer designated on the front. -- Exhibit H 10 of 10 " ~ 0. 'iI~~ ~ ~ ~ >, '" o "'.0 !:! =.0 = ...- ¡;. 0. fI) """ Õ''= ~o""'; 0. ..2G 8 <> 'iI 0 ~5~ ~ .0 - ",,'E¡¡z 0.:.= - .- ,. -- g ¡¡ ~ ° 0..5 ~£8 -- 0. <Id::-g .g~ '" 0 o.~ 8<>'" <> c.. Q.E:..r: §-U .0 - ¡;¡ ~ !'! .¡;: C!.).o 0 U'J .- ,. ... ...::E '" - 0:: 'õ :õ .g ~:..= 'E c.> = - ... = ~ .- Z aS~ k) o <> 0.2 · en c.. ="'0 <> ëu o.~ g~ &].9"50 6.9 """ '" .- ~ <> > .!:; <> -.:::r ..... êií Co) 0::: .¡¡ o-¡¡ ~ c..~ 2"'0 8 OJ) 0. 0.'- ,. ã .- = · = <> ~cctS"'O .=:õ v ~. -g 0 <> 00:':= .- '" · ::::ëQu ,. <> ~ E!i3::E Q,) rnõ> - 00. .- = u U'J 0 ò".::1 E ... ... 5 ~"'O - ~ § -8 11). 0 U ""ã~ ~ ~ ... o.!J .!!¡ 0 g 'iI-g 0 O-g= tC_'Õ'''-v>.] c C!.) ki ~ <Id ¡; Ë 0 o _ Q., co "'~"" c..:§=~o..- 8 ,. ... oÈ~~ 0.." -- co U'J 0 ""0 co maS -"'0 "" >,- .,g U'3 0 ._ c....¡ C UJ C = ~ ~ 0 g,~ Ë e >-.~ CI:I_ 0"'0 C""I::t ;a G·5 g Z "'" 0 . ""-c.....o U 0... _ o.,g500!:!§ _ ¡z".~ 0.,.= o .. ......... 0 """.- o C·_ -- :õ o..g § o. 'E '5 - <> -g " ~ or;; dd U'J ~ ~ Co)-8 ,g 0. ¡,,¡ S 8 iõ' "'0 """- ~:-= ~ 00 <> <> ,. 0.:::':: 5 ~ 0.__ "0 tI) 0 ~ to) c.. u..o· :lõo~o c.. ~ ~s 0 ~ aC!.)_ o::zc.c..~~ ær 0::: 0. !'! :I: o 0._ ~ s·..::! > 0'- oz ~ ë ~.5È .~ ~ <> '" ec..::1š ... <> ~ 8!lg¡gj, ~ æ.5 . "" <> ... '" <> ..... CCI._ 0'- --O"'OCJ:) 'E 0 ... '" ~ <> .. - '" <> <>au ~ ~ <> gj,- <>0 <Id<E ¡,,¡-gð~.š ._ B !3 "": <>- ~~::E '" , ~ 0õ ê;U ",...]- <> ,. ~> >, - <> <> ... .- <> .. > '8 <> "" = <> ~.~ 2 ~ 0. 8]U 0. ;i; - <>.!:; o 0. €' u a 0.0 <> ... 0. Z ,. fI} - ..ò ~ OJ) c... . <> .- Q.- CI:I :< ......c ... c." ,. U ã<><>u -g'B <> ,. = 0. ::E OJ)::-u ~ = "" <> ..2~ ã¡,,¡ .....~ c.. °8'õu .0 - 00. ,:;.'5 g,~ .- ,. Sb-g . '" = '" c(jC..::(_O = <> 00. ~ >. u .- 11,) C. =",,-g -=N o 0. U.c..u 8 ,. <> 0._ ~ g,.§ § <> ~o "'.- -:;;;a '" ::E "':: c.. ci <> > o.",~ o c.. t':S <o::t 0::: .¡¡ 00. 0·- "" > <ee z -< c.""; o fI2 c.. c 00. --8.!!"00u 11.) ..0 0 ª '"" -< :;,"].- '" <> "'..... ã '" = 0. =.- @ G tß 0 ]þ <> 0 ~ ::E ~ 0.80:::= . ._ t) 0 ~ § <> ~ <> !'! = 0 o. '" .. 0 0 CO""""'O uii u a... = ~ (:Q § ... N o 1-.0 "'0 C!.) i!: Q., 0 ...""u .... . C!.) 0 Eo¡¡¡-¡¡¡,.::u <>¡¡¡::E OÞi)ü]o... C1.) ..:J- > .5 > .5 = 2 6 ~ <> > -g ..... ._ 0 """ rn 0_ ~*u ~'g] ,ñ""; <@o,,=o...._ Z tfJ 0"0 0....; >("'0.... . ,,<> .¡¡ 8 ¡,,¡ Is'~ ~ a § "": ¡,,¡.....<>O ¡,,¡.c <> OJ) 0 0.0 bO~~"'Otr.) o c.. a "'0 ~ - C tfJ bON S<>@"'U ]o"'Ornt;)°o '[¡j <> = 0 . " 1s::E u'" """ co:.a ~ I\) '-'[¡j 0 ~-g"'-g> c.. o..c tf) <>;a<>.... :I: o..c""; :I:g6~u _._...__.._~.__.._.._-------_.. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item /1 Meeting Date 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-14; consideration of amendments to the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and EastIake II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District plan. Resolution / g g 7 7 Approving amendments to the EastIake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District plan. Ordinance d. 7/1 en ing Section II, Residential Districts, and Land Use Districts map of e stlake II Planned Community District Roglli.ti=. r(: SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning REVIEWED BY: City Manager JG. ~./"'f (4/5 Vote: Yes_No-X- The EastLake Company has requested the follow amendments to the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District plan: 1. Change Eastlake Greens Parcel R-IO Land Use District designation from RP-8, Residential Planned Concept to RC-I0, Residential Condominium. No increase in the permitted number of dwelling units and density is proposed as part of this request (see Exhibit B). 2. Establish a Guest House Land Use District Overlay (GH) and corresponding development standards (to allow Guest Houses as a permitted accessory use) for lots 01, 36-40, CV Tract 88-03 (1078, 1079, 1082, 1086, 1090, 1094 Augusta Place), located within the EastIake Greens Parcel R-2 (see Exhibit B). Section II, Residential Districts, of the Eastlake I Planned Community District Regulations, as proposed to be revised, has been provided for your consideration and approval (see Attach. 4). The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this project falls under the purview of previous environmental analysis conducted under FSEIR-86-04 (B), Eastlake Greens. Thus, no further environmental action is necessary. /9--/ Pag 2, Item ¡q Meeting ate 1/20/98 BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: On December 12, 1997, the Planning Commission considered the proposed SP amendment and had no major concerns regarding the change of land use designation for Parcel -10. However, the Commission expressed concerns about the Guest House Land Use District 0 erlay indicating that guest houses could potentially be rented as separate living quarters resulti g in an increase in traffic and overall density. Staff indicated that the land use overlay is limited 0 six lots in one of the most exclusive gated neighborhoods of the Eastlake Greens planned co uIÚty, where the house prices range from four hundred to six hundred thousand dollars. Thus, the otential of these uIÚts being rented separately and creating a negative commuIÚty impact s very remote. Nevertheless, the proposed property deyelopment standards for guest houses iriclude provisions , to prohibit the installation of kitchen facilities. In addition, the occupation of th¢ guest house by a guest is limited to a period not to exceed 90 days in anyone year. The Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the prop~sed amendments to The Eastlake Greens Sectional PlanIÚng Area (SPA) plan and Eastlake II Pla¡µ¡ed CommuIÚty District Regulations and Land Use District Map. RECOMMENDATION: Adopt attached Resolution and Ordinance approving amendments to the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and Eastlake II (Eastlake I Extension) Planned CommuIÚty District Regulations and Land Use District plan in accordance with the [mdings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION: 1. Existing Site Characteristics The EastLake Greens Planned CommuIÚty is located on the south side of Otay Lakes Road between Hunte Parkway and the future aligrunent of the SR-125 Freeway (see Locator). The proposed amendments involve the Eastlake Greens Parcels R-2 and R-lO (see Exhibit A). Parcel R-lO, which is located on the south side of South Greensview Drive, is a 34 acre level building pad graded as part of the Eastlake Greens mass grading program. The existing Land Use District designation is RP-8, Residential Planned Concept, which allows a wide range of housing products, including single family detached, duplexes and multifamily projects. The General Development Plan designation is Low Medium (3-6 du/ac/) and the SPA allows 246 dwelling uIÚts at a density of approximately 7.1 du/ac. The site is irregular in shape and limited to the east and west by single family detached residential neighborhoods, to the south by the future Olympic Parkway and to the north by South Greensview Drive. J5)-;¿ . __n__.___._,·,___ . m______.._·____,._ Page 3, Item ¡q Meeting Date 1/20/98 Parcel R-2 is a gated community located on the south side of North Greensview Drive and limited to the east and south by the Eastlake golf course, to the west by a residential neighborhood and golf course, and to the north by North Greensview Drive (see Locator). Parcel R-2 land use district designation is RS-5, Residential Estates and contains a total of 43 lots ranging in size from 7,000 to 12,000 sq. ft. 2. Proposed Amendments A.... Parcel R-IO Land Use District desi~nation Chan~e The applicant is requesting to change Parcel R-lO present land use designation from RP-8, Residential Planned Concept, to RC-lO, Residential Condominium. Both districts allow basically the same residential product (single family detached to multi-family), but the RC-IO District allows the introduction of special property development standards as part of the project's site plan and architectural reyiew approval. This added flexibility would allow the applicant the opportunity to develop two small lot neighborhoods for which the adopted Planned Community District Regulations do not have development standards. The Zoning Administrator will consider the development proposal, including the special property development standards for the project on January 28, 1998. The requested change in land use designation with the above mentioned small lot development proposal will result in a reduction of permitted dwelling units from 246 to 231 (-IS) and project density from 7.1 to 6.6 du/ac (-0.5 du/ac). Ii. Parcel R-2-Guest House Land Use Overlay The applicant is requesting the establishment of a land use district overlay, "Guest House Land Use District Overlay," to allow guest houses as a permitted accessory use on lots 01, 36-40, CV Tract 88-03, of the Eastlake Greens Parcel R-2 (see Exhibit B). Within the Planned Community Zone, this custom home, gated community is the equivalent of the City's Residential Estate Zone (Chapter 19.22 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code allows guest houses as permitted accessory use, subject to specific development standards prescribed in Section 19.58.020D of the Municipal Code. (see Attachment 5). The Proposed Guest House Land Use District Overlay would allow guest houses as a permitted accessory use for the above mentioned lots subject to special development standards outlined in the amended Section 1I.3.A-D of the Eastlake II Planned Community District Regulation (see Attachment 4). ) 1/3 - - --~.._,._- - - -.-.-- ----. ..._m....._____.......·__ Page 4, Item (q Meeting Date 1/20/98 The EastLake Greens Air Quality Improvement Plan, Water Conservation Plan, Public Facilities Financing Plan and other associated SPA documents are not affected by the proposed amendments and therefore not proposed to be modified. ANALYSIS The Eastiake Greens planned community has a variety of single family detached neighborhoods ranging from the residential estates (80' X 120') to small lot product (45' X 68'). However, the majority of the residential neighborhoods are 50' X 100'. Exhibit C illustrates the residential product on each of the Estiake Greens residential neighborhoods. Parcel R-lO with the existing Land Use District designation ofRP-8, Residential Planned Concept, could be developed with small lot single family detached product similar to the 50' X 60' lot product built in Parcels R-14, and R-20 (see Exhibit C). However, the property development standards flexibility featured in the RC-lO Land Use District would allow the introduction of a small lot product for which the existing planned community district regulations do not haye development standards. The added flexibility would allow the applicant to respond to present housing market demand by offering future home buyers a wider variety of housing products. Parcel R-I0 permitted number of dwelling units, target density and proposed residential product are not proposed to be changed and therefore remain consistent with the adopted SPA plan and the character envisioned for this area of the Greens. With regard to the Guest House Land Use District Overlay, the gated community was intended to house custom homes which are the equivalent of Estate housing outside the Planned Community zone. Thus, allowing guest houses as a permitted accessory use for six (6) lots in the RS-5, Residential Estate Land Use District is consistent with the City of Chula Vista Residential Estates zone district. Guest house structures will be subject to the lot coverage, floor area ratio and other regulations prescribed in Section II.3A, Property Development Standards, of the Planned Community District Regulations. CONCLUSION For the reasons noted aboye, staff recommends approyal of the proposed amendments in accordance with the attached Planning Commission Resolution. ) :;-.¡j!C¡-5 --.---- -.-...-.-,-,--.-.. Page 5, Item Meeting Date 1/20/98 FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid for cost associated with the processing of this application. Attachments: I. City Council Resolution 2. Exhibits 3. Planning Commissi Resolution and Minutes 4. Proposed ame , to Section n.3. A-D of the Eastlake I (Eastlake n Extension) Planned Community District R ns. 5. Chapt . and Section 19.58.020(0) of the Chula Vista Municipal Code 6. e Statement (H:\HOME\PLANNING\LUIS/PCM-9814.A13) J J?~-Š- -..---------- ------....--.----.--.-......--.-.- - .",-- ORDINANCE NO. :¿ 7) <; AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION II, RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND LAND USE DISTRICTS MAP OF THE EASTLAKE II PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS. I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the properties which the subject matter of this Resolution are diagrammatically represented in Exhibits A and B attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, identified as Lots 01, 36,37,38,39 and 40 of Parcel R-2, and Parcel R-1O of the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on October 16, 1997, The EastLake Company ("Developer") filed applications for an amendment to the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and Eastlake II (Eastlake I Expansion) Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District Map ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the SPA Plan, Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District plan consist of changing Parcel R-1O Land Use District designation from RP-8, Residential Planned Concept to RC-IO, Residential Condominium, and establishing a Guest House Land Use District Overlay (GH) and corresponding development standards for Jots 01, 36-40, Chula Vista Tract 88-03 (1078, 1079, 1082, 1086, 1090, 1094 Augusta PJace), within the Eastlake Greens Parcel R-2. ("Project"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of the following: (1) a General Development Plan, EastLake II (EastLake I Expansion) previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15198 ("GDP"); and (2) the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15199 both approved on July 18, 1989; and (3) an Air Quality Improvement Plan (EastLake Greens Air Quality Improvement Plan) and (4) a Water Conservation Plan (EastLake Greens Water Conservation Plan) and Public Facilities Financing Plan (Eastlake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan) both previously approved by the City Council on November 24, 1992, by Resolution No. 16898; and, 19~¡' -. ~-~---_._,_.__...._..~. _._,.~,_..- ------_._-,-~--_._,-'.--------_.-- --- _._-----~."._-,-_.^--- D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said Project on December 10, 1997, and voted to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, based upon the findings listed below; and, E. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on January 20, 1998 on the Project, received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to same. II NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Chula Vista does hereby find, determine and ordain as fo]Jows: A. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this Project fa]Js under the purview of previous environmental analysis conducted under FSEIR-86- 04 (B), EastIake Greens. Thus, no further environmental action is necessary. B. FINDINGS FOR P-C PLANNED COMMUNITY ZONE AMENDMENTS The City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendment to the EastLake II (EastLake I Expansion) Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use Districts Plan are consistent with the City of Chula Vista General Plan, and public necessity, convenience, the general welfare, and good zoning practice support the amendments. C. APPROV AL OF ZONE AMENDMENTS The City Council does hereby approve the amendments to the Planned Community District Regulation as shown on Attachment 4, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, and Land Use District Plan amendments as diagrammatically represented In Exhibit Band C, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. III. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Ordinance is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. 19-'/ -,-"---,.,..._--_.,._----~~- IV. EFFECTIVE DATE This ordinance shall take effect and be in full force on the thirtieth day from and after its adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Kenneth G. Lee Ûr--ð'JUcy.~ n ~ John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Director of Planning (H:\sbared\attorney\PCM-9!\ 14.CCO) 19~¿Y .. ---'-'--~~-'~'-'----_...' -_...._.__._---_.-.-._,._.-..~~-~---~... .,----.. RESOLUTION / g-~?/ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AMENDMENTS TO THE EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AND EASTLAKE II PLANNED COMMUNITY DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND LAND USE DISTRICT PLAN 1. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the properties which the subject matter of this Resolution are diagrammatically represented in Exhibits A and B attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, identified as Lots 01,36,37,38,39 and 40, Chula Vista Tract 88-03, of Parcel R-2 and Parcel R-IO of the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan ("Project Site"); and, B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on October 16, 1997 The EastLake Company ("Developer") filed applications for an amendment to the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and Eastlake II (Eastlake I Expansion) Planned Community District Regulations ("Project"); and, WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the SPA Plan, Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District plan consist of changing Parcel R-IO Land Use District designation from RP-8, Residential Planned Concept to RC-IO, Residential Condominium and establishing a Guest House Land Use District Overlay (GH) and corresponding development standards for lots ° I, 36-40, Chula Vista Tract 88-03 (1078, 1079, 1082, 1086, 1090, 1094 Augusta Place), within the Eastlake Greens Parcel R-2; and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site has been the subject matter of the following: (I) a General Development Plan, EastLake II (EastLake I Expansion) previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15198 ("GDP"); and (2) the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area Plan, previously adopted by City Council Resolution No. 15199 both approved on July 18, 1989; and (3) an Air Quality Improvement Plan (EastLake Greens Air Quality Improvement Plan) and; (4) a Water Conservation Plan (EastLake Greens Water Conservation Plan) and Public Facilities Financing Plan (Eastlake Greens Public Facilities Financing Plan) both previously approved by the City Council on November 24, 1992, by Resolution No. 16898; and, 19~~ D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said Project on December 10, 1997, and voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the Project, based upon the findings listed below; and, E. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on January 20, 1998 on the Project, received the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and heard public testimony with regard to same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this project held on December 10, 1997, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that this Project falls under the purview of previous environmental analysis conducted under FSEIR-86- 04 (B), Eastiake Greens. Thus, no further environmental action is necessary. IV. SPA FINDINGS A. THE SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN AS AMENDED IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE EASTLAKE II (EASTLAKE I EXPANSION) GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND THE CHULA VISTA GENERAL PLAN. The Project reflects land use, circulation system, and public facilities that are consistent with the EastLake II (EastLake I Expansion) General Development Plan and the Chula Vista General Plan. B. THE EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA PLAN, AS AMENDED, WILL PROMOTE THE ORDERLY SEQUENTIALIZED DEVELOPMENT OF THE INVOLVED SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA. The Project as amended is consistent with the amended phasing of internal and external infrastructure and consistent with the EastLake II (EastLake j 9"/c _.~....._---~-- -- ---...--....-..---.- .. -....,-..----- """_._"-'-'---"-'-~---- I Expansion) Public Facilities Financing Plan, Air Quality Improvement Plan, and Water Conservation Plan and will therefore, promote the orderly sequentialized development of the involved Sectional Planning Area. C. THE EASTLAKE GREENS SECTIONAL PLANNING AREA (SPA) PLAN AS AMENDED WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT ADJACENT LAND USE, RESIDENTIAL ENJOYMENT, CIRCULATION, OR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY. The land uses within the EastLake Greens SPA area represent the same uses approved by the EastLake II (EastLake I Expansion) General Development Plan and wi]) not adversely affect adjacent land use, residential enjoyment, circulation, or environmental quality. D. INTHE CASE OF PROPOSED INDUSTRIAL AND RESEARCH USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION, AND OVER-ALL DESIGN FOR THE PURPOSE INTENDED; THAT THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE SUCH AS TO CREATE A RESEARCH OR INDUSTRIAL ENVIRONMENT OF SUSTAINED DESIRABILITY AND STABILITY; AND, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL MEET PERFORMANCE STANDARDS ESTABLISHED BY THIS TITLE. The Project does not involve areas planned for industrial or research uses. E. IN THE CASE OF INSTITUTIONAL, RECREATIONAL, AND OTHER SIMILAR NONRESIDENTIAL USES, THAT SUCH DEVELOPMENT WILL BE APPROPRIATE IN AREA, LOCATION AND OVER-ALL PLANNING TO THE PURPOSE PROPOSED, AND THAT SURROUNDING AREAS ARE PROTECTED FROM ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS FORM SUCH DEVELOPMENT. The Project does not involve areas institutional or recreational facilities. F. THE STREET AND THOROUGHFARES PROPOSED ARE SUITABLE AND ADEQUATE TO CARRY THE ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC THEREON. The Project does not involve changes to the existing circulation system. G. ANY PROPOSED COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT CAN BE JUSTIFIED ECONOMICALLY AT THE LOCATION(S) PROPOSED AND WILL PROVIDE ADEQUATE COMMERCIAL FACILITIES OF THE TYPES NEEDED AT SUCH PROPOSED LOCATION(S). ¡ 9---// The Project does not involve areas planned for commercial uses. H. THE AREA SURROUNDING SAID DEVELOPMENT CAN BE PLANNED AND ZONED IN COORDINATION AND SUBSTANTIAL COMPATIBILITY WITH SAID DEVELOPMENT. The Project is consistent with the previously approved plans and regulations applicable to surrounding areas and therefore, said development can be planned and zoned in coordination and substantial compatibility with said development. V. ADOPTION OF SPA In light of the findings above, the EastLake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and the Planned Community District Regulations is hereby amended and adopted as shown respectively on Exhibit B and Attachment 4, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. VI. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term provision and conditions herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provisions or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shaH be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. Presented by Approved as to form by ~~ ~ Kenneth G. Lee John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Acting Director of Planning (H;\shared\attomey\PCM-9814.CCR) 19//~ -....._." - -._--. -_.._,----~._-_.- .~ ø:9 ~ EST A8L1SH GUEST HOUSE LAND USE DISTRICT OVERLAY RS5(GH) AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR LOTS 01.36,37, 38, 39 & 40 EASTLAKE C.v. Tract 88-03 HIGH SCHOOL ",. CHANGE LAND USE DISTRICT DESIGNATION FROM RP-8, RESIDENTIAL PLANNED COMMUNITY TO RC-1 0, RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM \ C HULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT The Eastlake Company PROJECT DESCRIPTION: ø APPLICANT: AMENDMENTS to EASTLAKE GREENS PROJECT EasUake Greens Request: Amendments to parcels R2, & RIO, ADDRESS: SCALE: FILE NUMBER: I NORTH No Scale PCM-98-14 Related Cases: Pes-98-03, DRC-98-19, h:\home'¡Jlanning\carlos~ocators'¡Jcm9814a.cdr 11/18/97 / '1 - 15 ~- ~ ...~- .. -....-.-.- .. --. .---- . --..-.. -~._-_.__. _____._ n__ _____~___...._,.,...._._.__,_.,. ._', '. '.___.. H_ .__. .......__._ SITE UTILIZATION PLAN R-1.t R·5 ~ I 5·, . os· . ;¡ R-25 OS.3....1- I: PROJECT SITES , . I~ 5·2 <= '" ñ·25 .. , , '. PQ·2 ; PO·' , , , ---- ~ EXHIBIT A ~ EASTLAKE 2. GREENS -' / 9 -( L( A Paned Comnuni!y in .n the City or ChJ\::I VlSto Proposed Amendment r~f'''---- :! Land Use \:--::.;J~'\ RS-5 jl~ . . /¿'~~~>/ÎI ~~:':::'::",;:.,: Districts ~---- - OS-v--~~ '- / ( RC-22 1.--- ., u__ __. .,,\~~S-(--, \ ~.3~' 15',-" \. L \ \ ~~ """0S-1\ r-- ( Y/ S-,,-""" ~ '" , /, \ '\ II ~,,\. ~ 25 (,^:, . '\ RE-3 J:=:!c- I RS-S '" \RM. v I _ _ _. __ -.-\ 1 /' ~ j,I/"~ RP-0 \ \- _:, , I :SìA9L1SH GU:Sì H3U>: LAND U>: \, \~\ / '~s-~~"-1~-4!:~~ \ '\ - BC-2 II Be·' i ! D,SìRICT OVERLAY RS5IGH) AND \ \J \ \ ,::>"'-},-:;;I ¡r' 'ì \ \ ~05.2 c;= ~rl i D:Ycl.O?M:NTSTANDA~DSFORLDTS \ '\.~-"'" ~. lJ! \ \ \ BC-2 II BC-2 l"e-, I ' 01.36.37.38.39 & ~D .,~5 J ~RP":f~~~\~J~\'.O~ \¡~'I ioS-2 ~.Y.i;a:1BB-D3 \ V ~"-f r~~-<---~e'~ /./;~V;éi L.. ..-----.. . ~ RC-22 I ,- \ F I "" \> OS-I Ç/ RP-8 ~'- ~} RP-8 \0S-3\ \ vc-, \¡¡j"~'\\j _ =;;;;,'", ..... IV OS-I ~ "'=j= ----1. \ \\ VC-2 '-' --;::-:::- RP-8 ""':-... "'1 ù \, ,! - ....-::;.~2__ -... ~ ~ I ',-// )............~~..... 54 ....,'~" ~~ -\/ i\ \ .......-, ((\'or;;./" /. v- -,05-4" ')"'Ý' "". '- II ..0-- I' I RP'¡¡ - š..I '-"1 )' ~ '"" -- ~k ) I /ý >:;;:.J / / 1/-""::; F-' " 05-2:;+ VC-3 / ~ RESIDENTIAL r. /' I, ,~ I lç A I Y,/ if VC-I-:::::-- RE-3 Residential Estate- 3 Dlstnet 0:' II ;-"--.../ f ,);f,;.-' RP-8/_," I / ':(Jì \--)(XC-~ - - __ . . -' / ; r-, . / , I I ;i) S-- RC . -- RS-5 ResIdential Estate 5 DJstnct I 1/ 1.RC-10!( " ,,)- I ¡RC-15.......... _ ~ C-- ' RS-7 Residential Single Family-7 Dlstnet ,/ ~ Ir--{I ',0š4~~"'ì : I I, J/ ----......" \ / 'I \ '\....,..-...... I I - \, RP-B Residential Planned Coneept-B Dlstnet I 05-4 \ÎP-,3\1 RS-7 I L... 1/ RP-B~, \ \ RC-10 Residential CondO,"'nlum -10 Dlstnct : 1;1 I~-,,_J- II /í/ , 05-311 \L_J~ OS-4 _~ 05-4 ~ : RP-13 ResldentialPlannedConcept-13Dlstnct 11 "-lr~~_ (' .-lI~- R~ RC-15 Residential Condominium· 15 Dlstnet , f'. IIRC-IOIt--.., ~""-;:(=Rs:7I \ RP-8 ..................' ~ ~ 05·2 '\ j' r--~ ..., \ ~: RC-22 Residential Condominium· 22 Dlstnct 1 {, '-X5-3 r--jIRP;8 I r' '~-". ~ /"-.. 0S-7 \ RM-25 Residential Multi-family· 25 Dlstnct ,\, II 05-4 II \ i RS-7 '....."S-7, '/ ~ / ---.! , \ : RM-44 Residential Multi-family - 44 District ,þ-25'<71-- r\\ \ 1__......', n' RP-8'\ RC-1S ,¡ R5-S I \ ' _ ~ VC-3 1 O~ .........\ \ \" \. II -7 I ~ I -RS-7 \ \ \ "" '\ '\ - ~, , VILLAGE CENTER I:L Vq.3 "'~" (RC-'5 "Y,Y""""'----, \ : : RS-;\ '-),7 ~ ~':'-... I i VC-1 VlllageCentet-West ='~--"I ~ -;;~RS-5 \ \ : I /0t~St, ~,) : VC-2 VillageCentet-East ~? V~5-4":~ \'J/-;/#, P~~\\ RS-7 _~- VC-3 Village Center· South 0S-3 /-^':~ \....,. _//,§ \ ,,--,;:?''' '\ R5-5 ""-~!!b-ý' :ø-~\ BUSINESS CENTER ">, í' - RP-B ¿ <,,/} ~Business Center· Manufacturing Park District RP-6\.~" I q:f/:d BC-2 Business Center - Manufactunng ServlceDlstnct RJ...... .. :::- ~ _ -- ...-- - =.::;:; -- CHANGE lAND US: D!STRI:r SPECIAL PURPOSE D:sJGNATlON FROM RP-<I OS-1 Open Space ~ 1 District R:sJD:NT1AL PLANNaJ COMMUNITY , OS-2 Open Space - 2 District TO RC-1 D, R:SID:NTIAL CONDOMINIUM I OS-3 Open Space - 3 District OS-4 Open Space - 4 District OS-5 Open Space - 5 District OS-6 Open Space - 6 District OS·7 Open Space - 7 District F-1 Future Urban District (GHI Guest House Land Use District OVArlav (Refer to Section If 3 D in PC Dist Reos _ ~cr.-.Io< """- ~ cr- _. _~c.--1:r.N ..4 E4STLAKE ŒJ~'-'~"~' 6 A=:æs -- .. A f'!..AN'oH) CCM'vUoIrTY Err EAST1.AJ<E ŒVE!.OPIÆNT CO 5' 7·1)-,.. ~~~ 8/30/1l~ 10/20197 EXHIBIT B ¡9-/S- 11/16197 I % R-14 C- S-1 R-1S VACAtff PROJECT 60X100 SITE LEGEND D RESIDENTIAL P;¡ODUCT FEATURED IN PARCEL CHUlA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT Eastlake Development PROJECT DESCRIPTION: C) APPUCANT: MISCELLANEOUS PROJECT EasUake Greens ADDRESS: Parcel R·10 SCALE: ALE NUMBER: 11 ') NORTH No Scale PCM·98·14 EXHIBIT C h:\home~lanning\carlos~ocators\elgsup.cdr 12103/97 19-(Ç;. . - __.___.__.__.....__n._ Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 10, 1997 MSC (Willett/Ray) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS-98-01 recommending approval of the T entatiye Subdiyision Map Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood SA, Chula Vista Tract 98-01, in accordance with the finding and subject to the conditions contained in the draft City Council Resolution. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-14 consideration of amendments to the Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and Eastlake II (Eastlake I Extension) Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District plan. Background: Luis Hernandez, Acting Senior Planner reported that the proposed SPA amendment involves two neighborhoods within the Eastlake Greens Planned Community (Parcel R-2 and R-10). Parcel R-2 is a gated community located on the south side of North Greensview Drive and is surrounded by the Eastlake Golf Course. The land use designation is RS-S which is single- family detached and contains 43 lots ranging from 7,000 to 12,000 sf, in which eight of the 43 lots have been developed. Parcel R-10 is a 34 acre site located on the south side of Greensview Dr. The adjacent land use is a single-family development to the east and west, the future Olympic Parkway to the south, and Greensview Dr. to the north. This parcel has been designated to allow 246 dwelling units at a density of approximately 7.1 du/ac. It could also allow a wide range of housing types, including single-family detached, attached duplexes, and multi-family projects. The proposed amendment to Parcel R-2 is the establishment of a land use district overlay, "Guest House Land Use District Overlay", to allow guest houses as a permitted accessory use as is permitted in the City's Residential Estate zone, which is the lowest density residential in our City code. Some of the specific requirements in our standard RE zone for guest houses are primarily that these structures be detached from the living quarters and have no kitchen or cooking facilities, and is intended for occasional use by guests and occupants for a period not to exceed 90-day occupancy within a one year period. In addition, renting or leasing these quarters is not permitted. The proposed Guest House Land Use District Overlay contains the same basic development regulations as those in the RE zone except for some minor deviations that the applicant is proposing, such as allowing the guest house to be used by the occupant of the residence. In addition, the building separation requirement is 10 feet, but a 6 foot separation could be allowed by approval by the Zoning Administrator. The proposed amendment to Parcel R-10 is to change the land use designation from RP-B, Residential Planned Concept, to RC-10, Residential Condominiums. Both districts allow the same basic residential products, however, the RC-10 will allow the introduction of special property development standards as part of the projects site plan and architectural review approval. This added flexibility will the applicant to develop the property with two small lot products for which the adopted Planned Community District Regulations do not have development standards. o/~ ..----- -- Planning Commission Minutes -8- December 10,1997 The requested change in land use designation with the above mentioned small lot development proposal will result in a reduction of permitted dwelling units from 246 to 231 (-15) and project density from 7.1 to 6.6 du/ac (-0.5 du/ac). Commission Discussion: . Commissioner Aguilar asked for clarification on how the proposal to reduce the lot sizes would create a decrease in density. Mr. Hernandez stated that the housing products under the two land use districts, the existing and the proposed, are identical. However, the applicant is proposing a small product for which the Planned Community District regulations do not have a specific development standard. Therefore, by changing the land use district to RC-l 0, property development standards may be developed during the site plan and architectural review. In order to develop this site with the product that the applicant is proposing, the flexibility offered by the RC-l 0 land use district is necessary. Public Hearing Opened 8:20 Allen Keil, 1475 Elmwood Ct., Chula Visla, CA expressed concern with this change allowing greater structural height as well as the effect of pricing of homes and dwelling units that are going to be in this area. Bill Ostrom, Eastlake Development Company, stated he was hesitant to quote any price on the value of the homes because it always depends on the market condition. Based on the similarity to another project, the best guesstimate he could offer would be that they would be within the price range of the Ventana project. In addition, the zoning allows the product to go up to 29 feet, however, the proposal is actually less than that. Mr. Hernandez indicated that the Zoning Administrator will be considering the specific development of this property in January and notices will be mailed to the area residents and will have the opportunity to review the actual product and how it fits within their neighborhood. Commissioner Willett asked if staff could provide a follow-up report to the Commission with the outcome of the Zoning Administrator's review of this project. Enrique Silva, 1447 Nolwood Place, Chula Visla, CA stated he lives adjacent to the proposed project and the value of the homes where he lives is $240,000 to $250,000 which he is concerned with the effect this project may have on the property values in the surrounding area. In addition, he is concerned with increasing traffic impacts around the elementary. Public Hearing Closed 8:30 Commissioner Ray asked what would preclude the guest houses from being rented. lC; .,---"..--..--. -~_._....._._-",._,--_.."---,,... Planning Commission Minutes -9- December 10,1997 Mr. Hernandez restated that one of the standards in the RE zone is that no guest or occupant may occupy the quarters for a period in excess of 90 day within a one year period. Furthermore, the likelihood that the owner would intend to use it as a rental is highly unlikely because of the price range of the homes in this area. MSC (ThomasIWillett) (7-0) to adopt Resolution PCM 98-14 recommending that the City Council approye the proposal in accordance with the draft City Council Resolution and Ordinance based on the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. Motion carried. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: 1) GPA 98-01 - Requesl for a General Plan Amendment to change the General Plan Designation from Open Space to Commercial Retail, the Rancho del Rey Specific Planning Area I Plan General Deyelopment Plan from Community Facility to Commercial and the Site Utilization Plan from Community Facility CF-1 to Commercial Center C-2 for the Property located at 820 Paseo Ranchero - Rancho del Rey Inyestors, lP 2) PCM-98-09 - Proposal to Amend Chapter IX-B; Commercial Center Dislrict of the Planned Community Regulations of the Rancho de Rey SPA I Plan by: A. Creating the C-2 Commercial Center District; B. Changing the land Use Designation for the 1.6 acres of land at 820 Paseo Ranchero to the Newly Created C-2 Commercial Center District from its current 05-3 Open Space District Designation C. Adding and Modifying the Permitted, Conditionally Permitted and Prohibited land Uses Applicable to the C-1 and C-2 Commercial Center Districts. Chair Dayis stepped down from the dais due to a conflict of interest. Background: Martin Miller, Acting Senior Planner, reported that the applicant, Rancho Del Rey Investors, LP, the owners of the Rancho Del Rey Information Center located at 820 Paseo Ranchero no longer have a need for the existing Information Center as most of Rancho Del Rey will be built out approximately over the next year. Because of the anticipated build o"ut, they would like to market this property now for future sale. The current allowable land uses under a Community Purpose designation are highly restrictive and, therefore, the property owners are requesting the above-listed changes in order to broaden the permitted and conditionally permitted land uses for this parcel. The proposal is to establish uses that will allow the existing Information Center to provide services and minor commercial support facilities to the local residential neighborhood. In order to accomplish this, several amendments must first be approved; they are: A. Amending the General Plan, the RdR GDP, the SUP, and the Land Use Districts Map. II ......----- Changes to EastLake PC District Regulations Text October 10,1997 Strikcout text to be deleted S1iãdCëi = text to be added ~" - Cinti La.nd Planning (10:19.'97) !~ 4 .-.._-_._-_....,-,._..._._~.._-"_._----~.,...~.._~_._'".---------.-.. SECTION II: RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS II. D Purp::>se I~ additio~ to the objectives outlined in Section 1.0 (Purpose and Scope) , the Residential Districts are included in the Planned Co~~unity District Regulations to achieve the following purposes: To reserve appropriately located areas for family living at a broad range of dwelling unit densities consistent with the General Plan and with sound standards of public health, safety and -welfare; To ensure adequate light, air, privacy and open space for each d..'elling; To ~inimize traffic congestion and avoid the overloading of public services and utilities by preventing construction of buildings of excessive bulk or number in relation to the land area around them; To protect residential properties from noise, illumination, unsightliness, odors, smoke and other objectionable influences; and - To facilitate the provision of utility services and other public facilities commensurate with anticipated population, dwelling unit densities and service requirements. II.~ Land Use District Grouping To facilitate the establishment of permitted use and development standards .hich are applicable to more tha~ one land use district, ' ¡ land use g-roups are herein established. The follo"wing land use groups are established and shall be identified by the designation indicated below: Land Use Land Use District Grou~ Desianation Tnc1 uàeà in Group RE P..E-3 RS RS-5 and RS-7 RP RP-B and RP-13 RC RC-IO, RC-15 and RC-22 ?~1>1 ?.M-25 and RM-44 II.2 Pe~itted Uses The follo-."ing uses shall be permitted where the sY1Jlbol "P" appears and shall be permitted subject to a Conditional Use Permit where the sYJDbol "C" appears. Uses where the s:y"!!1bol "A" appears shall be permitted subject to an Administrative Review. IV L'3 !AL9.2~L________ __T.T__:'1-, ----,-.--.-.-.-.-.-..--.-"..-.-------------- - ;,-.:! ~t~O !..-==.:ïd t1o:::Þ r,-"'"):J":) E:.S. pp pc- ~ - ~ ~ A. "qø<::.iÒp--~~' U.::;¡:.g 1. S~~~le family àwellin~s ? ? ? ? ? 2. J::;oley. dwellings ? ? P 3. G~es~ dwellings or accessory living ;:.:.arters A 4. ~~~ile homes on individual lots ~~i~h are certified under the !;:~ional Mobile home Const:-u:::tion and S~:ety Stanåaràs Act of 1974 ? ? ? ? ? 5. G=oup resièential, including but not limited to, boarding or rooming homes, d::=mitories, and retirement homes C A A 5. Y.::1tiple dwellings A ? P 7. "o~~house dwellings ? ? ? B. 2.:::::-....i cu'....:::-al Uses 1. ~ll ty?es of horticulture ? ? ? ? ? 2. ~;=icultural crops A A A A A 3. ~~~al raising or grazing A 4. Keeping of th=ee (3) dogs and/or three (3) cats (over the age of four months) ? ? ? ? ? C. ~ub';c =~~ OU2=;-nU~';c Uses 1- D=.y nurseries, day care schools and :::::=sery schools (over 12 chilèren)* C C C C C , 2. C=~valescent homes C C C C C 3. C::::rches, convents, monasteries and c~~er religious places of worship (s::~ject to requirements of Section 19.58.110 CVMC) C C C C C 4. Essential public services including but :1::~ limited to: schools, libraries, ~::seums, parks, public works facilities a~= other civic uses C C C C C 5. ?::=lic utility and public service s·.:.=s't:ë:'tions, reservoirs, pumping plants ~~~ similar installations C C C C C * Under 12 ch~~=ren subje=t"to City standards. (3/1/89) II-2 -- /'-) . .~- - ----_.__.~~--_.._------- - J:.71:! U<=;eo :"';::>;j~ l1=ø r:-':)"..):) ':n:: pp -:>r 'PI." ~..........:~~~ 5. ~~==eational :acilities including bu~ n~~ limited ~~: country clubs, tennis and swim clu~s, golf courses, racquetball a~d handball. (Sites for such facilities which are 2 acres Dr less in size shall be s:;,bject to hd.:ninistrative Review only.) c C C C C 7. ?ecreational courts, including but not limited to: tennis, basketball, and ~imilar uses A A A A A D. ~ame O::uD2tions 1. E~me occupations subject to the pro- visions of Section VI.l A A A A A E. Acce55~~v Usee 1. Accessory structures and uses located o~ the same site as a permitted use A A A A A 2. hccessory st=uctures and uses located 0:1 the same site as a conditional use A A A A A F. ~Ern~D-:~ Uso5 1. ~em?orary uses as prescribed in Section VI. D A A A A A 1I.3 Property Development Standards: Residential Districts A. The fDllowing Property Development Standards shall apply to all land and buildi~gs, other than accessory buildings, pe=mitted in their respective ~e5iàe:1'::ial land use districts. The use of the symbol "spn indicàtes that ~he 5t~~dard is est~lished by the approval of a Site Plan. Dimensions ànd s~anda=~s ~e minim~s. ~inor variations may ~e permitte~ subject to site ?lan 0= tract map approval providing that the ~inirnums specified herein are I~ maintai~ed as average minimums. Lot ~idths and depths are herein maintained as average minimums. Lot widths and depths are typical minimums but may vary slightly. with i=regularly shaped lots and site specific conditions. The parking standards for a planned Senior Citizen or "affordable" res£den~ial development may be redu=ed from those specified herein for the àistrict in which it is located by the Director of Planning. (3/1/89) II-3 /6, - -- --_._._---------~- REsidential ?=operty Development Standards Land TJse GrOUD ,p &S' P.? RC EN ~ 1. L:¡t area (in net ODD's square feet) 8 5 31 SP SP 2. Lot width (in feet) 70 50 38 SP SP (attached products in RP 6istrict) 25 3. Lot depth (in feet) 100 100 90 !F.r-B) SPSP SO¡;':P-D} 4. LQt coverage (percent) 40 50 SF SP SP 5. Front yard setback: a) to direct entry garage 20 20 SF SP SP :0) to side entry garage 20 15 SP SP SP (single story garage in RS district) 10 6. To main residence 20 20 SP SP SP 7. Side yard setback: a) to adjacent residential 15/5 10/5' SF SP SP lot (min. total/one side) b) to adjacent street 10 10 10 SP SP (corner lot) 8. Rear yard setback 20 15 SP SP SP 9. 3uilding height, maximum 28' 28' 28' 45 45 (2 1/2 story max. RE, RS &: RP districts) 10. ?~rking spaces per unit 2 2 2' 1.5 1.5 (gar. ) (gar. ) 1 bdrm.l bd...."'l1\. unit unit 2.0 2.0 2bdrm . 2 bdrm. unit unit 2.5 2.5 3bdrm. 3 bdrm. unit + unit + -------------- 1 May be rnoêified for attached units with Site Plan approval 2 25-5 Distri=t only; 13/3 in RS-7 District j May be incr:2sed to 35 feet with Site Plan approval ~ Two car garage for RP detached units; one car garage and one carport for RP attached u:Üts 5 Refer to.. paragraph. IL3. D forIJetaèhed Strucfüie Overlay Stándards: Cinti Land Planning (11/19/97) 11-4- IÎ - .-----..,.--.,.--....,....-. ~-- -. Grou~ ?~yr.i~o Sta~~ards for RC and ~1 Land Use Grouns The ;:.~=-t:.J..ng requ.i::-e;nents include 0.5 spaces for guest parking. This requi==~ent may be =educed to 0.3 space per ur.it by the Z~ning Admini5t~a- tor ~~:ch would result in a reduction of the standards set forth in the tab 1 e . If more than one space per dwelling unit is assigned to the dwellbg unit, then the required guest parking spaces shall be marked and clearly identified as guest parking. The guest parking spaces shall not be perrr,itted to be assigned to individual dwelling units. C. SDecia' Reauirements l. ?ront yard setbacks shall be measured from the right-of-way of the fronting street. The front yard setback may be reduced, subject to site plan approval, within the RP, RC and RM districts. If the :ront yard setback is reduced to less than twenty (20) feet, and the ~welling unit is located on a street, cul-de-sac, or court contain- ing more than twelve (12) dwell ing uni ts, then the garage shall be equipped with an automatic garage door opener. 2. The allowable building area for each lot shall be as permitted in the table below. The maximum building area for single family ~etached and attached products shall be the square footage listed or ~hat permitted by the percentage of lot area, whichever is greater. ?omeowner additions shall be allowed only where consistent with these standards. A 300 square foot open patio (covered but open on three sides) shall be permitted on each residential lot and shall be exempt from inclusion in this calculation. D. Detiiched" Struê1:urf~ üVëi"l'ãvrSfandãi-ds 1; T1iejGú.e~p;;Hõus';D)i;¡~ric~()\T.ã~íaYiiFþfŠ-trfê:t-·shãíl;ConlY appI~¡.,fò) those are~;èrêpi~£êdi:Öñ<,-tJi~:¡:b"!Âd:,1:I'sê5 D~§i):1:i£ts mäþ¿:aš~ RSc- 5 . (G ¡'5C¡*¡¡ÚícJ~ more speèifi.ªäll'iT ìcJent;.iffigIa;slEåšfkáJ<;e;Lgteë¡'s':"Tf~ç;J;;..!'!.äP. N9;.iª-~~;;",.\1ni t 2' l.roE;s'¡'1"'~âÏid~:3 6:::'4Ö¡[Màp'".Nõ~'i2 '12 s¿,!' I~-'.~... .. "_",,.. "ç,___. . n..__"",, .,.,."""". '~.' ,.0::...... ... ~..__,_..-(_. .",,' ,,. 2T uses,peniìlKtEõd;TKIGilfs.!=-{HoùSé"·äsCdèfi.'Dèd· in@ectfon' 1 0:047..~'Ö6;'èvMc'; excèp~_~\~~j,~µ,r~ri~r}. 9_e~iped~'à~~:-- fo], lè?ws'::,;,'~' "Gue'~b~~J:ì0tl~e_~, meãll#l~:c1~_t~ched liviiig:qilârters; òf; ij,].p.;rmänent, tÿþëi;of:, constructioÌÌ; withöûEF.kitchen or cooking fadli tiesâM; intended.':for use· byoccâsionaíj9û-ests and occupants.:of the,Iia.fIÌ,building';lU",e,bY occas~oIÌal.guests;;sh,,:ll not exc-eed.':{~~9:gÙdäYi;:~\:t:B_;-~~ài~Ÿi,~LÕ'~~;; gU'è'~,~t·oy~r a 0r!~,;:xe~,; per~_~d~~~À,~, 'guest house'~òr~lla~r::-:_- ~'?t~,;: -?~e-~~.~páréltelj:~~*:é:n.~_ed, 1,~,t:<;2:Lº'Ii~,:_1 ea~~c:t:~~,~h_e_ther comPen,~ª-.~~_C?þ'~:i~~p.~iéçÞfQ~liridirj~9_t::~: 3: Sifé~: _~ëý~1~,pi11~ñ1:7E$~[~q-~~4~',J0t:S~ª~jJ~,~éf:-' tnê',~;~~~_~âs:¿- fi?~~~~~:s-örY Stiúctû:ç;è~7.¥exè:eÞt'¥þh~áf;1;t¡:,:ei: fròii~yã,;d setJ:¡i\ç)èfmay. bea~::i"59'.J,èäted f or:', ·Síd~:~~.èiitiY¿ g:a;:~.åg~s~~dh:~hëj))µ~)~q:ï;iig'Tse~rªElº#Ztnåy b-~ll;!3.(.lttç~d, to 6' . wi th:Õ;i tePl;;ri.:,'à;¡;pJ:Qîal.\ Permitted Building Area :Jistrict Scruare Footacre Lot Area Percentaae IF1<R) RS-5 4,500 50% RS-7 3,900 50% RP-8 2,900 55% RP-13 2,000 55% All residential development north of Telegraph Canyon Road, within ~he EastLake I SPA, shall be exempt from this maximum building area s~andard. Cinti Land Planning (11'19/97) ¡¡-- ? If --. _.._---_.._._--~---------_."------.------- ?=iva~e, i~~ivid~~l 6a~elli~e Gish a~~enna6 a=e prDhi~i~ed. CDm~unity or 2SSD=i~:io~ o?e=a:e~ sa~elli~e =iE~ an~en~~s ~ay be allo~ed su~j8Ct to a Co~~i:~~~al Use ?e=~i~. 3. Regui=ed front a~d exterior siòe yards shall be landscaped and shall con- sist predominantly of trees, plant materials, groundcover and decorative =o~ks, ex~ept for necessary walks, drives and fen~es. All required land- scaping shall be pe=manently main~ained in a healthy and thriving ~ondi- tion, free from weeds, trash and debris. Landscaping requirement may be met by either installation by the builder or developer, or for single family development, requirements through CC&R's that individual homeowners install their fron~ yard lands~aping within one year of oc~upanC'y, or sooner if required by CC&R's. C. All utility connections shall be designed to ~oordinate with the arch i- tect!.:ral elemen~s of the site so as no~ ~o be exposed except where required by utility provider. Pad-mounted transformers and/or meter box locations shall be included in the si~e plan with any appropriate screen- ing ~reatment. Power lines and cables shall be installed underground. D. The ac~eptable ou~door noise exposure level, measured at the property line, for each residential district is provided in the table below. (See amended Chap~er 19.66 CVMC for definitions and additional details). Extø-;o- No;~e L~rn;ts* ~O~C\v;no Le~~ Use Dist~;~t 7 2.m. - 10 D.m. JO u.m. _ 7 a.m RE, RS, ?.? 55 dbA 45 dbA RC, ?.M 60 dbA 50 dbA *Environmental Noise - leq in any hour *Nuisance Noise - not ex:eed at any time E. The mexirnum permissible dwelling unit inte=ior noise levels are provided in the table below. !nte~;ð~ Nc;se L;m~ts T;mo T~~e~~' Anv ~~mo , m;n. in j ho~- 5 m~n. ;n 1 hour 7 a.m. - 10 p.m. 55 dbA 50 dbA 45 dbA ' i 10 p.m. - 7 a.m. 45 dbA 40 dbA 35 dbA F. Energy Conservation. Buildings shall be located on the site to provide adj acent buildings adequate sunlight for solar access when pra~tical. BuildL~;s should be èesigned to minimize ene~gy consumption requirements, including but not necessarily limited to, the following conservation conside~a.tions : - Co-generation¡ - S~uth facing ~indows¡ - Eave coverage =0= windows; - Double glazed ~indows¡ - Earth berming against exterior walls¡ - G=eenhouses¡ and, - De:iduous shade trees. (3/1/89) 11-6 I} J. -., '::-,a ?C a:)d ?_~ èi.strict.s, in=lu::ing 'the =:)~ve=s':":;¡:1 c! apart.rne::;~B tD =~~=~~~~~~~S where ?e=~mitt.ed, t.he :o22o~ing ~=~o=man=e £~andard8 .shall be rne~ : 1. ~.é.80nry walls or fences six (6) feet. in height, from the highest :inished grade, shall be required where needed for noise attenuation and/or privacy. 2. Where a lot fronts on more than one street, it shall be ~on6idered to have multiple frontages and shall be required to meet 6?e~ial side yard se~ba~ks. 3. W~en an RC and/or RM lot is adja~ent to any single family zone, a minimum of ~ifteen (15) feet of lands~aping shall be maintained on ~~e RC and/or p~ lot between su~h uses. 4. Lockable, enclosed storage shall be provided in the carport area; substitutions may be approved by the Director of Planning. 5. Conveniently located common laundry facilities shall be provided for units which do not have individual hook-ups. 6. Conveniently located and well screened trash enclosures shall be provided for all dwelling units. 7. Re~reation vehi~le (including campers, boats and trailers) parking ~eas shall be provided, fully screened from view or the development CC&R's shall prohibit all parking of recreation vehi~les. II.5 A=cessory St=uctures: Residential Districts A~=e5sory 3~ildings and Structures: Accessory buildings and structures, attached or deta~hed, used either wholly or in part for living purposes, shall meet all c: 'the re:r..:i=e:nsmts for lo:::ation of the ma.in structt.:.re as c:onst~cted or reauired by the Dišt:ict, whichever is less restrictive; except as herein provided. A. Enclosed accessory buildings or structures that are atta~hed to the main building shall not be allowed to encroach into the required rear yard setba=k. Open st=u:::tures may be allowed to encroach into the rear yard setba=k su~ject to approval by the Director of Planning. , ¡ 3. A àeta=~~d accesso~ structure shall meet the setback requirements of the main ~~ilding for the front and street side yard areas. C. A deta=~ed ac~essory stru~ture may be located ~ithin an interior side or rear y~d provided that such structure is lo~ated no ~loser than five (5) feet =0 an interior side or rear lot line and is at least six (6) feet from ~~e main structure and does not exceed one story in height~ D. Porches, steps, a.rchitectural features such as eaves, awnings, chimneys, balco~~es, stairways, wing walls or bay windows may project not more than four (~) :eet into a~y required front or rear yard area, and not into any reqc~==~ side yard more than one-half of said :equired side yard.' (3/1/89) II-7 - Zt! _ ~....._._---- -----.-.-----.. ..~--- ------------..-.-........-.-- I!. 6 Walls aDd Fe~ces: ReEide~tial DiÞ~ricts :~ ~~y =e~~:=~~ frDnt ~= E:òe yard a=ja=e~~ tD a E~=~et, a ~all, fence or hedge ~....~ î 1 no-:' er.::eed fD"~j'-~""::> (~2 ) inches ~n heig~~, ex cept as p=ovideà herein. A. A ""all, fence Dr hedge not more than six (5) feet in height may be main- taine~ along the interior side or rear lot line, provided that such wall, fence or hedge d::>es not extend into a required front or side yard adjacent to a street except for noise attenuation as required by the City and as herein provided. 3. A wall, fence or hedge adjacent to a driveway or street providing vehicu- lar access to an abutting lot Dr street shall not exceed forty-two (42) inches in height within the front or side yard setback area of the lot. Corner cut-offs ffiay be required to maintain a reduced height in special circ~~s~ance9 fo= safety and visi~ility. C. Fiberglass or b~~oe sheeting or ether s~.ilar temp~rary material shall not be permitted as a fencing ffiaterial on street frontages. II. 7 Signs: Residential Districts No sign or outèoor advertising structure shall be permitted in any residential dist~ict except as provided in Section VII. . ¡ (3/1/89) II-8 c:J-( --:áII/III5 - .'--.-.-.---------.-----. Chapter 19.22 ,.- R-E-RESlDENTIAL ESTATES ZONE Sections: 19.22.010 Purpose. 19.22.020 Permitted uses. 19.22.030 A<:cessory uses and buildings. 19.22.040 Conditional uses.. 19.22.050 Sign regulations. 19.22.060 Height regulations. 19.22.070 Area. lot width and yard requirements. 19.22.080 Minimum lot frontage. 19.22.090 Minimum lot area-Reduc:tion permitted when. 19.22.100 Floor area per unit-Minimum-Purpose and intenL 19.22.110 Floor area per unit-Minimum-Regulatory provisions. 19.22.120 Off-street parking. 19.22.130 Performance standards. 19.22.140 Fencing requirements. 19.22.150 Panhandle lots, flag lots or lots served by an easeInent- Requirements and conditions. 19.22.160 Floor area ratio. 19.22.170 Building additions and remodeling. 19.22.010 Purpose. The purpose of the R-E zone is to promote and preserve an open, rural environment on large parcels of land. The R·E zone is designed to accommodate suburban single-family homes and compatible agricultural uses with requirements for the community services and facilities appurtenant thereto. (Ord 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(A)). 19.22.020 Permitted uses. Principal permitted uses in the R-E zone include: A One single-family detached dwelling on each lot or parcel; B. Crop and tree farming. (Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(B)). 19.22.030 Accessory uses and buildings. Accessory uses and buildings customarily incidental to any of the aboye uses shall be permitted in the R-E zone subject to the regulations herein: A Guest houses (See Definitions Section 19.04.106 "guest house"), subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.020D, and not rented or otherwise conducted as a business; B. Customary incidental home occupations, subject to the provisions of Section 19.14.490; 2 ..: 1141 (R 12/91) . .--,.,.---. C. Private stables and corrals, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.310; D. Full·time foster homes and small family day care homes, as defmed in Sections 19.04.095 and 19.04.098; E. Temporary tract offices and tract signs subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.320 and Section 19.60.470. F. A Satellite dish antenna may be located in a residential district when it complies with the following conditions: I. It is ground mounted. 2. It is not located in a front yard or exterior side yard, said yard to be measured from any portion of the building to the front or exterior side property line. 3. It complies with setback requirements of the underlying zone for accessory structures. 4. It does not exceed twelve (12) feet in height above existing grade. 5. . It shall be located on lots where at least a 5-foot high solid wall or fence is installed between the dish antenna and adjacent properties. 6. It shall be adequately screened from any adjacent residential zone, right-of-way, ~r private street easements, at horizontal grade level to the satisfaction of the Zoning Administrator. 7. It shall not be located in the H - Hillside Modifying District. ~- 8. Only one satellite dish antenna shall be permitted per lor. 9. Satellite dish antennae with diameter measuring less than one (1) meter may be installed in a manner consistent with typical television antennae. 10. Satellite dish antennae shall be used for private, non-commercial purposes. 11. All satellite dish antennae, in any zone constructed and erected prior to the effectiye date of the ordinance codified herein, which do not conform to the requirements of the provisions of this title for the particular zones in which they are located, shall be accepted as non.conforming antennae for a period of three years to expire February 14, 1989. Thereafter, the satellite dish antennae shall be subject to immediate abatement via remoyal or through modification or relocation to comply with the standards of the ordinance. 12. A building permit shall be required. 13. Replacement of an existing non-conforming antenna with another satellite dish antenna, or removal of a non-confonning antenna for a period longer than 60 days, shall constitute abandonment of the non-conforming antenna, and is subject thereafter to the standards of this ordinance. (R 12/91) 1142 2'1 - ~ ._--_._~- G. Large family daycare homes subject to the provisions of Section 19.48.147. - COrd. 2269 §3, 1988; Ord. 2160 §1 (pan), 1986; Ord. 2145 §2 (pan), 1986; Ord. 2138 §1 (pan), 1986; Ord. 2124 §4, 1986; Ord. 2108 §1 (pan), 1985; Ord. 2111 §2, 1985; Ord. 1575 §1 (pan), 1975; Ord. 1356 §1 (Part), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(C». 19.22.040 Conditional uses. Site plól!1 óI!1d architectural approval as provided in Sections 19.14.420 through 19.14.480 shall be required for the following conditional uses in the R-E zone: A- Public óI!1d private non-commercial recreation areas and facilities, such as countIy clubs and swimming pools; (For additional provisions see Sections 19.58.100 and 19.58.270.) B. Electric substations and gas regulators, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.140; C. Unclassified uses, see Chapter 19.54; D. Dwelling groups, subject to the provisions of Section 19.58.130. (Ord. 2269 §4,1988; Ord. 2111 §3, 1985; Ord. 1356 §1 (pan), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (pan), 1969; prior code §33.502(D». 19.22.050 Sign regulations. See Section 19.20.050 for sign provisions for the R-E zone. (Ord. 1575 §1 (pan), 1974; Ord 1356 § (pan), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (pan), 1969; prior code §33.502(E». 19.22.060 Height regulations. Principal building may not exceed two and one·half stories or twenty-eight feet in height. However, an increase in building height may be allowed subject to approval of a conditional use permit. No accessory building shall exceed one and one-half stories or fifteen feet in height except as provided in Section 19.16.040. The height of a residential sttucture is measured from the highest point of the roof line to finished grade. (Ord. 2144 §2 (pan), 1986; Ord. 1212 §1 (pan), 1969; prior code §33.502(F». 19.22.070 Area, lot width and yard requirements. Area, lot width, and yard requirements in the R-E zone shall be as follows: (See Sections 19.16.020, 19.16.050, 19.16.060 and 19.16.080 for exceptions and modifications.) A- All buildings, including accessory buildings and sttuctures, in the residential estates zone shall not cover more than forty percent of the lot. B. The following minimum requirement shall be observed, except as modified for conditional uses. The minimum lot area required shall be designated on the zoning map: .~ ./" 2) 1143 (R 12/91) ...._-----.----._-. --. _._-_...~.__._-- --- ~- -- -~- -- Min. Min. "----... Lot Lot Setbaclcs in Feet Oassi- Areas Width Enerior One Both fication Sq.Ft. (Ft.) Front Side Yard Side Yard Side Yards Rear R-E4A 4 acres 200 25· 20· 15 30 25 R-32A 2 acres 200 25· 20· 15 30 25 R-E40 40,000 150 25* 20* 15 30 25 R-E 20,000 100 25* 15* 10 20 25 ·or not less than that specified on the building line map shall be provided and maintained. The setback requirements shown on the adopted building line map for Chula Vista shall take precedence over the setbaclcs required in the zoning district. (Ord. 1356 §1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(G». 19.22.080 Minimum lot frontage. Every lot in the R-E zone shall have a minimum frontage upon a dedicated street of one hundred feet, unless such lot fronts upon an approved easement or private road as provided in this chapter (see Section 19.22.150) or unless such lot has been approved by the planning commission or city council pursuant to the provisions of this code or any ordinance which may hereafter be enacted providing for the subdivision ofland or the dedication of public streets. COrd. 1868 §1 (part), 1979; Ord. 1356 §1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(H)(l)). ,-, Minimum lot area-Reduction pennitted when. ì 19.22.090 In the R-E zone, if the overall net density of lots per acre meets the requirements of the particular zone classification, the minimum lot size may be reduced to seventy·five percent of said minimum for not more than twenty-five percent of the lots within the area being subdivided. (Ord. 1356 §1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(H) (2». 19.22.100 Floor area per unit-Minimum-Purpose and intenL It is the intent of this section and Section 19.24.110 to establish minimum floor areas for dwelling units in the R-E and single-family zones. The purpose of establishing such minimum floor areas is to ensure adequate living space for residents in said zones consistent with the health, safety and general welfare of the public, and to encourage new construction which will be aesthetically pleasing and will constitute an enhancement of the economic value of the immediate neighborhood and the entire community. COrd. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(l)(1». 19.22.110 Floor area per unit-Minimum-R.eguiarory provisions. The minimum floor area per main dwelling unit in the R-E zone shall be as follows: A One thousand square feet for each dwelling unit containing one bedroom, two bedrooms, or one bedroom and den, family room or other such room designated for miscellaneous purposes; Zln ~ (R 12191) 1144 ---- -_...._.._-----_._-~_._._._- B. One thousand two hundred square feet for each dwelling unit containing three bedrooms or two .~ bedrooms and den, family room or any other such room designated for miscellaneous purposes; C. One thousand three hundred square feet for each dwelling containing four bedrooms or three bedrooms and den, family room or any other such room designated for miscellaneous purposes, or more. (Ord. 1500 §1, 1973; Ord. 1213 §1, 1969; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502G)(2». 19.22.120 Off-street parldng. The two-car garage requirement applies in the R-E zone: See Sections 19.62.170 through 19.62.190 for garage requirements and conversions. (Ord. 1356 §1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(J». 19.22.130 Performance standards. All uses in the R-E zone may be subject to initial and continuing compliance with the performance standards in Chapter 19.66. (Ord. 1356 §1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(K). 19.22.140 Fencing requirements. See Section 19.58.150 for fencing requirements in the R-E zone. COrd. 1356 §1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.502(L». 19.22.150 Panhandle lots, flag lots, or lots served by an easement-Requirements and conditions. A. Panhandle lots, flag lots or lots served by an easement proposed within a subdivision shall meet the criteria contained in this section. B. No lot may be created or developed under this provision which could otherwise be served by a public street unless approved by the director of planning and the city engineer. C. All development permitted under this provision shall be subject to the regulations and requirements of this title except as otherwise regulated in this section. D. The division of any property under this provision shall be subject to the regulations of the State Map Act and Subdivision Ordinance of the city. E. Not more than four lots served by a private road or easement shall be allowed under this provision unless this restriction is waived by the director of planning or city council. F. The responsibility for the maintenance and cost of maintenance of all common areas, roads or easements and guest parking areas shall be shared under contractual agreement by the property owner of each lot; this shall be accomplished through the formation of a homeowner's association. G. Development criteria: ;)ì 1145 (R 12;91) -_.._.,~-_.."._---_...._._.,---- ~ 1. Road and easement widths shall be as follows: one lot, fifteen feet; two twenty feet; four lots, ~~" twenty feet; five or more lots, twenty-four feet, in accordance with private street standards as outlined in City's Subdivision Manual. These widths may be increased if it is determined by the director of planning that a sidewalk is required. 2. All driveways, guest parking areas and roadways shall be paved with a minimum of five inches of portland concrete cement. 3. Each lot shall contain an area not less than the minimum lot size of the underlying zone exclusive of all private roads, common areas and guest parking areas. 4. All onsite utilities shall be undergrounded. 5. Each dwelling shall be connected to a gravity sewer unless otherwise approved by the city engineer. 6. An onsite fire hydrant may be required by the fire department when such is deemed necessary. 7. Guest parking shall be provided as follows: One lot, one space; two lots, three spaces; three lots, five spaces, four lots, six spaces. The individual driveways to the garage shall not be construed as meeting the guest parking requirement. 8. Accessory structures shall not be located closer than ten feet to any dwelling located on adjacent property. ~.. :) 9. The following setbacks shall be observed: a. Front Yard. Fifteen feet from any access drive and guest parking areas; b. Any garage facing an access drive shall be a minimum of twenty-two feet from the driye, c. Side Yard. Not less than that required by the underlying zone; d. Rear Yard. Not less than that required by the underlying zone upon initial construction. 10. A minimum five-foot-high fence shall be provided on each side of the private drive behind the front setback and on those property lines abutting adjoining properties. This requirement may be modified or waived by the director of planning if it is found that said fence is not necessary for the protection of the adjoining properties. 11. If the property is graded to create a building pad for each lot, the minimum level area (no slope over five percent) of each pad shall be not less than eighty percent of the minimum lot size of the underlying zone, but in no case shall the minimum area be less than five thousand square feet. Development proposed on existing natural topography, having an average natural slope of ten percent or greater, and with less than ten percent of the site to be graded, shall be subject to the approval of the director of planning, who shall consider whether such development will adversely affect adjacent properties or development. 12. Guest parking areas shall be adequately screened from onsite and adjacent residential properties. (R 12/91) 1146 db --.--- '·'···__···0_·...··.._···_____ ~ H. No garage conversions shall be permitted. 1. Development shall be subject to site plan and architectural approval of the director of planning. (Ord. 2399 §1, 1990; Ord. 1868 §2 (part), 1979). 19.22.160 Floor Area Ratio. Construction of dwellings or any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings shall have a floor area ratio (FAR) which limits the maximum building area to 45% of the lot area for single family dwellings on lots of 7,000 square feet or greater and 50% of the lot area or 3,150 square feet, whichever is less, for single family dwellings on lots of less than 7,000 square feet. The floor area ratio calculation shall also include the square footage of patios, garages and other accessory structures present on the lot, but excluding covered patios open on at least two sides and covered porches open on at least one side with a total combined area of 300 square feet or less. For these purposes, an accessory structure is defined as any structure which rises 4 or more feet above finished grade. (Ord. 2559 §3, 1993; Ord. 2144 §2 (part), 1986). 19.22.170 Building Additions and Remodeling. Any remodeling or additions to existing dwellings, which when added to the original building square footage equals 50% or greater than the original building permit allowed, shall require the building to comply with CUITent zoning ordinance standards. CUITent building setback standards shall, however, apply only to new additions to an existing dwelling. Original building square footage shall be determined by submittal of dimensioned floor and site plans by the applicant, which are subject to review by the Director of Planning ..~ for verification. (Ord. 2144 §2 (part), 1986). c~) ~ 1147 (R 9/93) .-...---------.--.....-.--- 19.58.400 Recreational vehicle storage yards. 19.58.410 ProIn1>ition of Flashing Lights. ^' 19_58.420 Water Distnl>ution facilities. 1958.010 Purpose of provisions. The purpose of these special provisions is to establish clear and definite terms and conditions governing the development of certain uses possessing unique characteristics or problems, which will enable diverse uses to be accommodated harmoniously within the city, and to provide uniform standards and guidelines for such development. (Ord. 1356 §1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.901(A)). 19.58.020 Accessory buildings. A An accessory building may be erected detached from the principal building, or, except when a stable, may be erected as an integral part of the principal building or it may be attached thereto by a breezeway or similar strucrure. B. Any accessory building attached to the main building shall be made structurally a part of the main building and shall comply in all respects with the requirements of this tide applicable to the main building. Unless attached, an accessory building in an R zone shall be at least six feet from any dwelling existing or under construction on the same lot or any adjacent lot. Except in the R-3-T zone, the following shall apply: 1. No building may occupy any portion of a required yard except that a detached garage or carport, .?¡ covered patio enclosed on not more than two sides, or other accessory one·story building, may disregard any rear or side yard requirements if located in the rear thirty percent of the lot, or back of the front seyenty feet of the lot; 2. An accessory building or covered patio located seventy feet or less from the front property line shall have the same side yard as that required for the main building, regardless of whether said accessory building is detached from the main building; 3. A covered patio, detached garage or carport, or other accessory one-story building may cover an area not to exceed thirty percent except as allowed for parking structures in multiple-family zones (See Section 19.28.100), of the area of any required rear yard, except that no accessory building in a rear yard shall be required to haye less than four hundred square feet. 4. A coyered patio or detached accessory building located in the rear thirty percent of the lot, or back of the front seventy feet of the lot, shall be located either on a property line or not less than three feet from such line. c. All accessory buildings shall be considered in the calculation of lot coyerage; garden shelters, greenhouses, storage shelters and covered patios shall be permitted as accessory buildings, provided that these uses are not equipped for use as living quarters. D. Guest house accessory buildings shall not be closer than ten feet to the nearest point of the main building. (Ord. 2145 §2 (part), 1986; Ord. 2124 §7, 1985; Ord. 1356 §1 (part), 1971; Ord. 1212 §1 (part), 1969; prior code §33.901(B)(1)). ! (R 3/93) 1268 '71 -- --"~-'- ...___.._._. .._.___~.___ w.._____._~__ _____..__.___....____---...,.,. r lOr:. '- LJr U....,,-,, Y ~ J A U¡::'<...LUSLir'..c. S J ::Mi:.~,J :J Yuu arc :~~ujrcd tr> r:¡~ a SlölCmCn¡ Dr Di,"'c o~utC of t:.CT:.é:lin pwncr.:.hi? C'r fin~.IOcii.J! i;;lcrc..q~. r~ymcnlS. or camp~il l:.on'trihu:io:1:'. on alJ m~:ltr~ which will rt:~uirc dí~crctionary ó:Jclion on ¡he pan of the Ci1Y Council. Pl~nnjnb Commission. ¿¡,r all other o[!i:;öJ bodi::;s. T:ìe [olJowing ¡::fOrïr.êJlion must he discJu!-ccJ: 1. Lis! lhe nurncs of ~J persons h¡¡·.'ing a financial ¡Dlcrest in ¡he propciiy \I.hich is I[IC suhjc.ct of the application or 1: contract, e.g., D·...·ncr, applic;¡nt, WnlractDr, subcDnlractDr..malcrial supplicr. Tk t==A:;+~k:..e.. Com pa.V'I.'i_ 2. Ifany person" identificd pur$uant 10 (I) above is a corporation or pannership.list the names of all individuals ownin more than 10% of the sharc$ in tbc corporation or owning any panner$hip interc.<t in the partnership. ß'~"IJ)e II fir Doe>'+Ù.~ I ::r~t:.... I í)..t -r;.l"'d~ t.o"" "I11\U 3. If any person" identified pUr$uant tD (I) above is nDn-profit organization or a trust, list the names of any persoJ serving as direclor of the non-profit organizalion or as trustee or beneficiary or trustor of the IrUSL 4. Have you had mDre than S250 wonh of busines$ transacted with any member of thc City staff, Boards, Commissions Commi!!ees, and Council within the past twelve months? Yes_ No"X". If yes, please indicate person(s): _ 5. Pl=e identify ea:h ånd every person, including any agenl5, employe~, consultants. ur independent contractors whc you have assigned 10 represent you before the Cily in this maHer. _ß'tl\ ÐW2.M Ga.",\ CI~-h' 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than S1.CXXJ to a Councilmember in the current or preceding election period? Y~_ No_ If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Date: ID/r3/'n . . . (NO~ Attach additional paµ~.~ . Sigiature of contractor/applicant ]\a. Gas-tt..a.k.e.. ~PAAI.{ 1,)1 Print or type name of contractor/applicant ?:.~\\' O~1v'~ . Person i.! ~fmcd cs: "An)' iJ¡ii¡'ÚiuaL j:"T'.. co·pQ.r:lI~;Iip. jow '·cuurc. etttocÎarirm.. srx:ial club, fral~1D.1 orgOJJUo.uol1. cnrporaliOl1. t:SUJle, J7W1, raeiva, syruiicalc., lhis QJ/d an)' ozhcr cou'U)'. cUy QJ;¿ COU1W)', ciry rnw1iÔpaiir); disrricl., or olher poliucaJ subdi¡'isio,l, or DlT:' oÙJa group or :ornbù.auotl Delinc QS Q wIlL." ~ ~L - CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ~ Meeting Date 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-98-01; Consideration of a Tentative Subdivision Map known as Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood 5A, Chula Vista Tract 98-01, involving 61 single family and 3 open space lots on 9.42 acres located on the east side of Lane Avenue just north of the Eastlake Business Center. Resolution /n?~o III and establishing conditions of the Tentative Subdivision Map for Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood 5A, Chula Vista Tract 98-01. SUBMITTED BY: Director of Planning REVIEWED BY, COIy M....., ~ ~. A (4ISY.,., Y"_N....L The applicant has submitted a tentative su 'vision map known as Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood 5A, Chula Vista Tract 98-01, in order to subdivide 9.42 acres into 61 single family and 3 open space lots (see Exhibit A). The project site is identified as Neighborhood 5A in the Salt Creek Ranch Development Phasing plan and targets the site for 119 dwelling units (see Exhibit B). The subdivision site, which is surrounded by vacant parcels, is located on the east side of Lane Avenue just north of the Eastlake Business Center (see Locator). The Planned Community is now known as Rolling Hills. However, the official name of the proposed subdivision and the planned community regulatory documents remains listed as Salt Creek Ranch. Thus, for the purpose of this report, the planned community would be referred to as Salt Creek Ranch rather than Rolling Hills. The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that the project falls under the purview of FEIR-86-03 and Addendum FSEIR-91-03 and that no further environmental review is necessary. BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION On December 10, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 7-0 to recommend that the City Council approve the Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood 5 Tentative Subdivision map, Chula Vista Tract 98-01, in accordance with Planning Commission Resolution PCS-98-01. . :Jfl-J Page 2, Item 210 Meeting Date 1/20/98 RECOMMENDATION Adopt attached City Council Resolution approving the Tentative Subdivision Map Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood SA, Chula Vista Tract 98-01, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained therein. DISCUSSION Backe:round The subject site is a 9.42 acre "Super Lot" (e.i., large parcel designed for further subdivision) created as part of the Salt Creek Ranch Master Tentative Subdivision map, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, and approved by City Council on October 6, 1997. The Salt Creek Ranch Master Tentative Subdivision map subdivided 1197 acres into residential lots accommodating approximately 2, 100 single family lots and two multifamily super lots to house approximately 506 multifamily units. Two elementary school sites, two parks, a fire station site and 482 acres of open space were also created as part of the Master Tentative Subdivision map. The overall project would be developed in three major phases starting with the area west of Hunte Parkway where 1,137 dwelling units would be built (see Exhibit B). Site Characteristics The project site is a level building pad created as part of the Salt Creek Ranch mass grading program. The finish building pad elevation drops approximately 20 ft. from north to south and there is approximately alOft. drop from east to west towards the project's main access point. The project site is limited to the north and east by Stone Canyon Road and vacant land designated for single family development which would be located approximately 16-20 ft above; to the south by an open space lot containing a segment of the Salt Creek Ranch community hiking trails and a vacant parcel of the EastIake Business Center located approximately 18 feet lower than the site. To the west the project is limited by Lane Avenue which also slopes from north to south approximately 23 ft. (see Tentative Subdivision Map blue prints). Zoning and Land Use Zoning Land Use Community District Zone District Designation Site PC (Planned Community) Residential, Vacant SFA, Single Family Attached North! east PC (Planned Community) Residential, Vacant SF3, Single Family Detached -20/ ;;L Page 3, Item '2.D Meeting Date IJ20/98 South PC (Planued Community) Industrial, Vacant BC-2-Eastlake Business Center West PC (Planned Community) Residential, Vacant SF4, Single Family Detached and MF, Multifamily Proposal The proposed tentative map consists of subdividing 9.42 acres into 61 single family and 3 open space lots. The subdivision design consists of a triangular shape loop road connected by a single access point to Lane Avenue. The majority of the residential lots are 46' X 68' except for those lots with frontages along a street knuckle and cul-de-sacs which are shown as 25-35 ft wide. Although not a part of the subdivision, the southerly open space corridor, which features a segment of the overall community hiking trail system, would be constructed in conjunction with the development of the property. A pedestrian walk will be provided through open space lot "cn allowing direct access from the proposed project to the Community hiking trail system (see Tentative Map blue prints). A decorative type perimeter wall will be provided along Lane Avenue and Stone Canyon Road to define the boundaries of this interior facing subdivision and complement the proposed open space landscaping treatment. The perimeter wall will be constructed within open space lots A and B and maintained, along with the landscaping, by a master home owners association that the developer is presently forming. to maintain all common open space lots, community hiking trail system, private parks and other community wide amenities. Compliance with Salt Creek Ranch General Development and SPA Plan The Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP), which establishes general pattern, intensity and character of development, designates the site LM, Residential Low Medium (3-6 du/ac) with a total of 119 dwelling units at density of 9 du/ac. The proposed 61 lot subdivision is well below the allowable density and permitted number of dwelling units, and therefore, as conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan. Compliance with Planned Community Re¡>:ulations The Salt Creek Ranch Zoning District Map designates the site SFA, Single Family Detached which provides for single family attached homes, patio homes, townhomes, zero lot line homes, duplexes and other single family products on small lots or in land held in common by association. To provide a high level of development flexibility, the Planned J(J~ ) 'th-::ln "'I'1I.....1n~lh.............r<~...~h""............ +...... 1\.............._ 'I'__.l._¿":___ "6_~ ~__..:I '~'I ., . . . Page 4, Item 20 Meeting Date 1/20/98 Community District Regulations allow the property development standards to be established by approval of the site plan or tentative subdivision map. The proposed subdivision development standards consists of 46' X 68' lots with an average size 48' X 82', and average lot area of 3,936 sq. ft. Cul-de-sac and knuckle lot frontage are 35 ft., except for some cul-de-sac lots that area shown at 25-28 ft. wide. However, these 25 ft. wide lot frontages meet the minimum lot width of 35 ft. when measured at the front building setback line. Exhibit C illustrates some of these narrow cul-de-sac lots as proposed to be developed. Property development standards for the construction of individual homes are required in conjunction with the projects' site design which is scheduled to be considered by the Zoning Administrator on January 21, 1998. Affordable Housinl! The Developer has entered into an agreement with the City to control the delivery of the low and moderate income housing units required by the Housing Element of the General Plan. The Housing Element requires the overall master planned community to provide five percent of the total project units as low income units and five percent moderate income housing units. Delivery of these units is proposed to be in two phases to correspond to the project's sequence of development. In addition, the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community offers a mix of housing types and lot sizes for single-family, townhomes, condominium and various apartment densities to provide a wide spectrum of housing prices for persons of various incomes. Analysis The proposed subdivision provides for a residential project with approximately 58 units less than originally prescribed in the Master Tentative Map, and with a residential product that complements the housing product composition envisioned in the SPA plan. The Following table illustrates the adopted residential product composition for phase I: 6,000- 7,000 sq. ft. lots = 20% of Phase I 5,000 sq. ft. lots = 29% 4,500 sq. ft. lots = 23% 4,000 sq. ft. lots = 13% Multifamily = 9% 3,800 sq.ft. lots = o .5% (proposed small lot subdivision) The introduction of the 3,800 sq. ft small lot product is intended to satisfy the present housing market demand and provide a wider variety of housing product within the planned :10- r 0--._" ----...--..-----------.'.-..,-.,. Page 5, Item ZO Meeting Date 1/20/98 community. The interior circulation system, which consists of a triangular loop road and short cul- de- sacs, has been designed per City Standards to accommodate public streets with pedestrian walks on both sides and emergency vehicles access. Overall, the Tentative Subdivision Map, as conditioned, is in substantial compliance with the applicable regulations and City policies. Conclusion For the reasons noted above, staff recommends approval of the proposed Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vista Tract 98-01 in accordance with the attached Draft City Council Resolution and subject to the conditions contained therein. FISCAL IMPACT The applicant has paid for cost associated with the processing of this application. Attachments 1. City Council Resolution 2. Pla~n~ng Commission Resolution and Minutes NOT SCANNED 3. Exhibits 4. Disclosure Statement NOT 8C.ANN'.ED (M\home\planning\luis\PCS.9801.A13) c1tl-- ~ -_._._~--- "--- ---".----..-...---- RESOLUTION NO. /5'~?~ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA APPROVING AND IMPOSING CONDITIONS OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FOR SALT CREEK RANCH, NEIGHBORHOOD 5A, CHULA VISTA TRACT NO 98-01 I. RECITALS A. Project Site WHEREAS, the area of land which is the subject matter of this resolution is diagrammatically represented in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, is commonly known as Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood 5A Tentative Subdivision Map, Chula Vita Tract 98- 01; and for purpose of general description herein consists of 9.42 acres located on the east side of Lane Avenue just north of the existing Eastlake Business Center within the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community ("Project site"). B. Project; Application for Discretionary Approval WHEREAS, on September 9, 1997 Pacific Bay Homes ("Developer") filed a tentative subdivision map application with the Planning Department of the City of Chula Vista and requested approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map for Neighborhood 5A, Chula Vista Tract 98-01 in order to subdivide the Project site into 61 single family residential Jots and 3 open space lots ("Project"); and, C. Prior Discretionary Approvals WHEREAS, the development of the Project Site is subject to the following: (1) a General Development Plan, previously approved by City Council Resolution No. 15875 on September 25, 1990 (GDP); (2) Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, previously adopted by City Council Resolution No. 16555 on March 24, 1992; and (3) a Tentative Subdivision Map, previously adopted by City Council Resolution No. 16834 (TSM), Chula Vista Tract 92-02 approved on October 6, 1992; and, D. Planning Commission Record on Application WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held an advertised public hearing on said Project on December 10, 1997 and voted 7-0) to recommend that 1 2cJ.~ ? ,-.-. .~...._---~._------_.- the City Council approve the Project based upon the findings and subject to the conditions listed below; and, E. City Council Record of Applications WHEREAS, a duly called and noticed public hearing on the Project was held before the City Council of the City of Chula Vista on January 20, 1998, on the Project and to receive the recommendations of the Planning Commission, and to hear public testimony with regard to same. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City council does hereby find, determine and resolve as follows: II. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORD The proceedings and all evidence introduced before the Planning Commission at their public hearing on this Project held on December 10, 1997, and the minutes and resolutions resulting therefrom, are hereby incorporated into the record of this proceeding. III. CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The Environmental Review Coordinator has determined that th~Oject ~ implements and falls under the pUlview of FEIR 89-03 and Addendum FSEIR 91-03 and that no further environmental review is necessary. IV. TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP FINDINGS A. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66473.5 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City Council finds that the Tentative Subdivision Map as conditioned herein for Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood 5A, Chula Vista Tract No. 98-01 is in conformance with the Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area Plan and the elements of the City's General Plan, based on the following: 1. Land Use The Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) designates the site LM, Residential Low Medium (3-6 du/ac) with a total of 119 dwelling units at density of 9 du/ac. The proposed 61 lot subdivision is well below the allowable density and permitted number of dweJling units. Therefore, as conditioned, the project is in substantial compliance with the City's General Plan, Salt Creek Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan. 2 c2ð"- ? --- - - -.-..-----"- _.-."....__....._.~._---,_._---_._~~--~--"._._. 2. Circulation All of the on-site and off-site public streets required to serve the subdivision will be constructed or DIF fees paid by the developer in accordance with the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan and Development Agreement. The pubJic streets within the Project wiJI be designed in accordance with the City design standards and/or requirements and provide for vehicular and pedestrian connections with adjacent streets and community pedestrian trails. 3. Housing Resolution No. 15751 adopted by the City Council on August 7, 1990, acknowledged that the requirement to provide ten percent of the total number of units allowed in the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community for low and moderate income households. In April 1997, the City Council approved a program and the applicant entered into an agreement for the provision of affordable Housing within the Salt Creek Ranch Planned Community. The program outlines the required number of low and moderate income units, the proposed location and the implementation schedule. 4. Conservation The Environmental Impact Report FEIR-89-03 and Addendum FSEIR 91- 03 addressed the goals and policies of the Conservation Element of the General Plan. The development of this site is consislent with these goals and policies. 5. Parks and Recreation, Open Space The Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan provides public and private parks, trails and open space consistent with City policies. 6. Seismic Safety The proposed subdivision is in conformance with the goals and policies of the Seismic Element of the General Plan for this site. 7. Safety The Fire Department and other emergency selvice agencies have reviewed the proposed subdivision for conformance with City safety policies and 3 c1c~ y- -_.-----_._._-,-----^._~. -- --_._".~~._-~----"._----_._...- have determined that the proposal meets the City Thresho]d Standards for emergency services. 8. Noise Noise mitigation measures included in the Environmenta] Impact Report EIR-89-03 and Addendum FSEIR-91-03 adequately address the noise policy of the Genera] Plan. The project has been conditioned to require that all dwelling units be designed to preclude interior noise levels over 45 dBA. and exterior noise exposure to 65 dBA which in accordance with the City's performance standards. 9. Scenic Highway The project is not adjacent to scenic highways. 10. Bicycle Routes When the street system in the Salt Creek Ranch was originally considered, appropriate bicycle lanes were included within the community. The private streets within the project are of adequate width to accommodate bicycle travel interior to the site. 11. Public Bui]dings No public buildings are proposed on the project site. The project is subject to RCT fees prior to issuance of building permits. B. Pursuant to Section 664]2.3 of the Subdivision Map Act, the Council certifies that it has considered the effect of this approval on the housing needs of the region and has balanced those needs against the public service needs of the residents of the City and the available fiscal and environmental resources. C. The configuration, orientation and topography of the site partially allows for the optimum sitting of lots for passive or natural heating and cooling opportunities as required by Government Code Section 66473.1. D. The site is physically suitable for residential development and the proposal conforms to all standards established by the City for such projects. E. The conditions herein imposed on the grant of permit or other entitlement herein contained is approximately proportional bolh in nature and extent to the impact created by the proposed development. 4 ='20 rJ --- --_.,_.__._~.~-~_._.- BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Council does hereby approve the Project subject to the general and special conditions set forth below. V. GENERAL CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL The approval of the foregoing Tentative Subdivision Map which is stated to be conditioned on "General Conditions" is hereby conditioned as follows: A. Project Site is Improyed with Project Developer, or their successors in interest, shall improve the Project Site with the Project as described in the Master Tentative Map, Tract No. 92- 02, Reso]ution No. 16834 and FEIR 89-03 and Addendum FSEIR 91-03 Mitigation Measures except as modified by this Resolution. B. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project. Developer shall diligently implement, or cause the implementation of, all mitigation measures pertaining to the Project identified in the Final Environmental Impact Report FEIR-89-03 and Addendum FSEIR-91-03. C. Implement previously adopted conditions of approval pertinent to project Unless othelWise conditioned, developer shall comply with all unfulfilled conditions of approval of the Salt Creek Ranch Master Tentative Map, Chnla Vista Tract 92-02, established by Resolution No. 16834 approved by Conncil on October 6, 1992, and shaH remain in compliance with and implement the terms, conditions, and provisions of the Salt Creek Ranch Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan, General Development Plan, Planned Community District Regulations, Salt Creek Ranch Water Conservation Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Air Quality Improvement Plan, Salt Creek Ranch Residential Design Guidelines and Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended and as are applicable to the property which is the subject matter of this tentative map, prior to approval of the final map for this project or shaH have entered into an agreement with the City, providing the City with such security (including recordation of covenants running with the land) and implementation procedures, as the City may require, assuring that after approval of this final map, the developer shall continue to comply with, remain in compliance with, and implement such plans. 5 ;2,0 --jC _...M'._.,_",_._~.___,___~_"_._~."__._____ _.__.,___..,__."_."_._.___~ D. Implement Public Facilities Financing Plan Developer shall install public facilities in accordance with the Salt Creek Ranch Public Facilities Financing Plan, as amended or as required by the City Engineer, to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. E. Design Approval The lots shall be developed in accordance with the applicable Salt Creek Ranch Development Regulations and Design Guidelines. The plans for the residential project shall be submitted for review and obtain approval under the City's design review process prior to submittal for building permits. F. Project Phasing If phasing is proposed within an individual map or through multiple final maps, the Developer shall submit and obtain approval for a development phasing plan by the City Engineer and Director of Planning prior to approval of any final map. The phasing plan shall include: 1. A site plan showing the lot lines and lot numbers, the phase lines and phase numbers and number of dwelling units in each phase. 2. A table showing the phase number, the lots included in the phase and the number of units included in each phase. Improvements, facilities and dedications to be provided with each phase or unit of development shall be as determined by the City Engineer and Director of Planning. The City reserves the right to conditionally approve each final map and require improvements, facilities and/or dedications as necessalY to provide adequate circulation and to meet the requirements of police and fire departments. The City Engineer and Planning Director may at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such revision(s). G. Tentatiye Subdivision Map Conditions Prior to approval of the final map unless othelwise indicated, the developer shall: 6 ;2 tJ-) I ..~--- -- -----.------_._---- GENERALIPRELlMINARY 1. Comply with any and all unfulfilled conditions of approval applicable to the Salt Creek Ranch, Chula Vista Tract 92-02, Tentative Map established by Resolution No. 16834 approved by Council on October 6, 1992. 2. Install public facilities in accordance with the Salt Creek Ranch, Public Facilities Financing Plan as amended or as required by the City Engineer to meet threshold standards adopted by the City of Chula Vista. The City Engineer and Planning Director may, at their discretion, modify the sequence of improvement construction should conditions change to warrant such a revision. STREETS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY AND PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS 3. Design and construct all street improvements in accordance with Chula Vista Design Standards, Chula Vista Street Standards, and the Chula Vista Subdivision Manual unless othelWise approved by the City Engineer. Submit for approval by the City Engineer improvement plans delailing horizontal and vertical alignment of said streets. Said improvements shall include, but not be limited to, asphalt concrete pavement, base, concrete curb, gutter and sidewalk, sewer and water utilities, drainage facilities, street Jights, signs, cuI de sacs, street knuckles and fire hydrants. 4. Guarantee prior to approval of the final map, the construction of public street improvements deemed necessalY to provide selVice to the subject subdivision in accordance with City standards. S. Submit and obtain preliminary approval for proposed street names from the Director of Planning and City Engineer. Final approval of street names shall be by the Planning Commission. Dedicate to public use, the right of way for all streets shown on the Tentative map within the subdivision. 6. Street light locations shall be approved by the City Engineer. 7. Construct five and one half foot (S '/z') sidewalks and construct pedestrian ramps on all walkways to meet or exceed the "Americans with Disabilities Act" standards. 7 d.o~ / ~ .. ---_.~ -....-... ---+ 8. Present written verification to the City Engineer from Otay Water District that the subdivision will be provided adequate water service and long term water storage facilities, and that the Tentative Map is in full compliance with all conditions specified in the Revised Otay Water District Subarea Master Plan For Salt Creek Ranch. 9. Connect proposed storm drain system to existing storm drain in Lane Avenue. Connect proposed sewer system to existing sewer in Lane Avenue. GRADING AND DRAINAGE 10. Submit hydrologic and hydraulic studies and calculations, including dry lane calculations for all public streets. 11. Provide improved access to all storm drain clean outs or as approved by the City Engineer. 12. Submit to and obtain approval from the City Engineer for an erosion and sedimentation control plan as part of grading plans. 13. Provide an updated soils report or an addendum to the original document prepared by a registered engineer, as required by the City Engineer. 14. Design the storm drains and other drainage facilities to include Best Management Practices to minimize non-point source pollution, satisfactory to the Cily Engineer. 15. The property owner shall submit "as built" improvement and storm drain plans as required by the City Subdivision Manual. Additionally, the property owner shall provide the City said plans in a digital DXF file format. 16. Lot lines shall be located at the top slopes except as approved by the City Engineer. Lots shall be so graded as to drain to the street or an approved drainage system. Drainage shaH not be permitted to flow over slopes. 17. All grading and pad elevations shall be within 2 feet of the grades and elevations shown on the approved tentative map or as otherwise approved by the City Engineer and Planning Director. 8 dtJ'~/5 18. Maximum slope within the street planting easements shall 5:1 in up and down conditions. AGREEMENTS 19. Agree that the City may withhold building permits for the subject subdivision if anyone of the following occur: a. Regional development threshold limits set by the East Chula Vista Transportation Phasing Plan have been reached. b. Traffic volumes, levels of service, public utilities and/or services exceed the adopted City threshold standards in the then effective Growth Management Ordinance. c. The required public facilities, as identified in the PFFP or as amended or othelwise conditioned have not been completed or constructed to satisfaction of the City. The developer may propose changes in the timing and sequencing of development and the construction of improvements affected. In such case, the PFFP may be amended as approved by the City Planning Director and Public Works Director. 20. Agree to defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers and employees, from any claim, action or proceeding against the City, or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul any approval by the City, including approval by its Planning Commission, City Councilor any approval by its agents, officers, or employees with regard to this subdivision pursuant to Section 66499.37 of the State Map Act provided the City promptly notifies the subdivider of any claim, action or proceeding and on the further condition that the City fully cooperates in the defense. 21. Agree to hold the City harmless from any liability for erosion, siltation or increase flow of drainage resulting from this project. 22. Agree to ensure that all franchised cable television companies ("Cable Company") are permitted equal opportunity to place conduit and provide cable television service to each lot within the subdivision. Restrict access to the conduit to only those franchised cab]e television companies who are, and remain in compliance with, all of the terms and conditions of the franchise and which are in further compliance with all other rules, regulations, ordinances and procedures regulating and affecting the operation of cab]e television 9 c2O-J7 _~ __________ .__·~_.·.._.w_.__ companies as same may have been, or may from time to time be issued by the City of Chula Vista. 23. Agree to maintain all open space areas in accordance with standards approved by the City, indemnify the City from any legal action resulting from said maintenance and to grant said open space lots in fee title, subject to the City's 100, to the applicable Home Owners Association. 24. Not protest formation or inclusion of the following: a. District for the maintenance of the Telegraph Canyon drainage channel. b. Sewer reimbursement district OPEN SPACE/ASSESSMENTS 25. Grant an Irrevocable Offer of Dedication (100) to the City, on the Final Map for all open Space Lots within the subdivision. The minimum width of each open space shall maintain a lO-foot wide landscaped buffer area behind the back of sidewalk. 26. Submit a list of all facilities located on open space. This list shall include a description, quantity and unit price per year for the perpetual maintenance of all facilities located on open space lots to include but not be limited to: walls, fences, water fountains, lighting structures, paths, access roads, drainage structures and landscaping. Only those items on an open space lot are eligible for open space maintenance. Each open space lot shall also be broken down by the number of acres of turf, irrigated, and non-irrigated open space to aid the estimation of a maintenance budget thereof. 27. Pay all costs associated with apportionment of assessments for all City assessment districts as a result of subdivision of lands within the boundary. Request apportionment and provide a deposit to the City estimated at $25/unit/district to cover costs. 28. Grade a level, clear area at least three feet wide, along the length of any wall abutting an open space district lot, as measured from face- of-wall to beginning of slope, said area as approved by the City Engineer and the Director of Parks and Recreation. 29. Indicate on the grading plans that all walls which are to be 10 c2tJ~/~ _"____n___________ ---... -- -_._.._.~.._~----_...- maintained by the Salt Creek Ranch Master Homeowners Association are constructed entirely within the open space lots. 30. The developer shall be responsible for street trees in accordance with Section 18.28.10 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The use of cones shall be included where necessary to reduce the impact of root systems disrupting adjacent sidewalks and rights-of-way. 31. A detailed maintenance program, including maintenance schedules of planting material, irrigation system and all facilities and improvements within open space areas shall be included in the master CC&Rs and approved by the City. 32. Prior to the approval of any final map, the developer shall submit and obtain approval of a master homeowners association CC&R's by the City Engineer and Directors of Planning and Parks and Recreation. 33. All utilities which selvice open space shall be located within the open space or within dedicated City right-of-way. 34. For walls which are located within the open space, owners of adjoining lots shall sign a statement when purchasing their homes that they are aware that the wall is on Open Space property and that they may not modify or supplement the wall or encroach onto Open Space property. These restrictions shall also be reflected in the CC&Rs for each lot. 35. Open space lots A, B, and C shall be granted to the Salt Creek Ranch Master Homeowners Association or the individual project's homeowners association in fee title subject to the City's Irrevocable Offer of Dedication. EASEMENTS 36. Grant to the City a 10' wide easement for general utility purposes along public street frontage of all open space lots offered for dedication to the City. 37. Grant on the final map a minimum 20' wide easement to the City of Chula Vista for construction and maintenance of sewer and storm drain facilities within Lots 35 and 36. 11 d-O~ / Þ ---- -_.._--..._--_.."-_.~._..._.- -~._~-_._--_.._---_.,-----"._- 38. Grant to the City a 5.5 foot wide street tree planting and maintenance easement along all public streets within the subdivision. MISCELLANEOUS 39. The Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions shall include provisions assuring maintenance of all open space lots. The City of Chu]a Vista shall be named as party to said Declaration authorizing the City to enforce the terms and conditions of the Declaration in the same manner as any owner within the subdivision. Shou ld the Developer decide not to establish a homeowners association to maintain the open space areas, the Deve]oper shall form a community facility district to the City's sa tisfaction. 40. Submit copies of Final Maps and improvement plans in a digital format such as (DXF) graphic file prior to approval of each Fina] Map. Provide computer aided Design (CAD) copy of the Final Map based on accurate coordinate geometry calcu]ations and submit the information in accordance with the City Guidelines for Digita] Submittal in duplicate on 5-114" HD or 3-112" disks prior to the approval of each Final Map. 41. Tie the boundary of the subdivision to the California System - Zone VI (1983). CODE REOUIREMENTS TO BE INCLUDED AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL: Code requirements to be included as Conditions of Approval: 42. Comply with all applicable sections of the Chula Vista Municipal Code. Preparation of the Final Map and all plans shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act and the City of Chula Vista Subdivision Ordinance and Subdivision Manual. 43. Underground all utilities within the subdivision in accordance with Municipal Code requirements. 44. Pay the following fees in accordance with the City Code and Council Policy: 12 c2éJ--- / 7 ---- _._-_.._-~-.- -,._----,~_.- --.-.------ " . --.--.----.-.-.---.----- a. The Transportation and Public Facilities Development Impact Fees. b. Signal Participation Fees. c. All applicable sewer fees, including but not limited to sewer con nection fees. d. SR-I25 impact fee. e. Telegraph Canyon Gravity Sewer Fee. f. Telegraph Canyon Drainage Basin Fee. 45. The developer shall comply with all relevant Federal, State, and Local regulations, including the Clean Water Act. The developer shall be responsible for providing all required testing and documentation to demonstration said compliance as required by the City Engineer. VI. CONSEQUENCE OF FAILURE OF CONDITIONS If any of the foregoing conditions fail to occur, or if they are, by their terms, to be implemented and maintained over time, if any of such conditions fail to be so implemented and maintained according to their terms, the City shall have the right to revoke or modify all approvals herein granted, deny, or further condition issuance of all future building permits, deny, revoke, or further condition all certificates of occupancy issued under the authority of approvals herein granted, institute and prosecute litigation to compel their compliance with said conditions or seek damages for their violation. No vested rights are gained by Developer or a successor in interest by the City's approval of this Resolution. VII. INVALIDITY; AUTOMATIC REVOCATION It is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Resolution is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term, provision and condition herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms, provision, or conditions are determined by a Court of competent jurisdiction top be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this resolution shall be deemed to be automatically revoked and of no further force and effect ab initio. H:\shared\attorney\9801RES. 13 ';¿Ó ,} ~ --. ~. __ _.,_._.... __'.._·"_m..._. u. __,~ ,,__~__.._~_ ._____,_,.__ _ _.m .,._.,,~__,..._.._._....____ _n _ _______".._._.____~ Presented by Approved as to form by Kenneth G. Lee (~~~~ John Kaheny Planning Director (Acting) City Attorney H:\shared\attorney\pcs-9801.ccr H:\shared\attorney\9a01REs. 14 ;20 --j 7 ,-...._..._"_.~--,- - .--. ~...~---~. ..-.-.-- ,...~-_._._....._----_..~...- -- I ---====== // PROJECT LOCATION FUTURE SITE OF LINK SO IMMIGRATION COM FREIGHT & MFR. NA1URALlZATION SERVICES BOSWELL RO ~ :::> WILLIG z VACANT VACANT ~ VACANT "" FREIGHT , ~ LINES \ 3 SCOBEE PARK VACANT VACANT NELLCOR INC. renON ST CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR PROJECT PACIFIC BAY HOMO...5 PRO,lEDT DESCRIPT10N: C) APPUCAJrn DESIGN REVIEW PROJECT Rolling Hi lis Ranch ~;:;~;z:,'::;;' ADDRESS: Neighborhood 5a SCALE: FILE NUMBER, NORTH No Scale DRC-9B-D3 h:\I1 orne \planning\carlos~ocators\d rc9903. cdr 7/30/97 / ____·_·__··____.__..____u___"._'. Planning Commission Minutes -6- December 10,1997 2. PUBLIC HEARING: PCS-98-01; Tentatiye Subdiyision Map for the Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood SA, Chula Vista Tract 98-01 inyolying 61 single family and three open space lots on 9.42 acres located on the east side of Lane Avenue just north of the Eastlake Business Center - Pacific Bay Homes. Background: Luis Hernandez, Acting Senior Planner, reported that this is a relatively new planned community that started about a year ago and is located north of the Eastlake Business Center. The proposed tentative map consists of subdividing 9.42 acres into 61 single family, and 3 open space lots. The lot sizes are 48' x 68' except for those lots with frontages along a street knuckle and cul-de-sacs, which are shown as 25-35 feet wide. Although not a part of the subdivision, the southerly open space corridor, which features a segment of the overall community hiking trail system, would be constructed in conjunction with the development of the property. A pedestrian walk would be provided through open space lot 'C' allowing direct access from the proposed project to the Community hiking trail system. This project is an interior facing subdivision with exterior walls along the entire perimeter of the site. Staff Recommendation: That the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS 98-01 recommending approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood SA, Chula Vista Tract 98-01, in accordance with the findings and subject to the conditions contained in the draft City Council Resolution. Public Hearing Opened 8:00 No public input. Public Hearing Closed 8:01 Commission Discussion: . Commissioner Ray asked where the funds are coming from for the development of the schools and parks. Liz Jackson, Pacific Bay Homes, stated that the money for the schools and parks has already been funded. Pacific Bay Homes made a cash payment of approximately 12.5 million dollars. Approximately 5 million went toward funding the parks, and the balance is to fund an elementary school. c1ó .~) --...- ----- _'-:'_~_L..__' _~........., Planning Commission Minutes -7- December 10, 1997 MSC (WilleWRay) (7-0) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution PCS-98-01 recommending approyal of the T entatiye Subdiyision Map Salt Creek Ranch Neighborhood SA, Chula Vista Tract 98-01, in accordance with the finding and subject to the conditions contained in the draft City Council Resolution. Motion carried. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: PCM-98-14 consideration of amendments to the Eastlake Greens Sectional Planning Area (SPA) plan and Eastlake II (Eastlake I Extension) Planned Community District Regulations and Land Use District plan. Background: Luis Hernandez, Acting Senior Planner reported that the proposed SPA amendment involves two neighborhoods within the Eastlake Greens Planned Community (Parcel R-2 and R-l0). Parcel R-2 is a gated community located on the south side of North Greensview Drive and is surrounded by the Eastlake Golf Course. The land use designation is RS-5 which is single- family detached and contains 43 lots ranging from 7,000 to 12,000 sf, in which eight of the 43 lots have been developed. Parcel R-l0 is a 34 acre site located on the south side of Greensview Dr. The adjacent land use is a single-family development to the east and west, the future Olympic Parkway to the south, and Greensview Dr. to the north. This parcel has been designated to allow 246 dwelling units at a density of approximately 7.1 du/ac. It could also allow a wide range of housing types, including single-family detached, attached duplexes, and multi-family projects. The proposed amendment to Parcel R-2 is the establishment of a land use district overlay, "Guest House Land Use District Overlay", to allow guest houses as a permitted accessory use as is permitted in the City's Residential Estate zone, which is the lowest density residential in our City code. Some of the specific requirements in our standard RE zone for guest houses are primarily that these structures be detached from the living quarters and have no kitchen or cooking facilities, and is intended for occasional use by guests and occupants for a period not to exceed 90-day occupancy within a one year period. In addition, renting or leasing these quarters is not permitted. The proposed Guest House Land Use District Overlay contains the same basic development regulations as those in the RE zone except for some minor deviations that the applicant is proposing, such as allowing the guest house to be used by the occupant of the residence. In addition, the building separation requirement is 10 feet, but a 6 foot separation could be allowed by approval by the Zoning Administrator. The proposed amendment to Parcel R-l0 is to change the land use designation from RP-8, Residential Planned Concept, to RC-l0, Residential Condominiums. Both districts allow the same basic residential products, however, the RC-l0 will allow the introduction of special property development standards as part of the projects site plan and architectural review approval. This added flexibility will the applicant to develop the property with two small lot products for which the adopted Planned Community District Regulations do not have development standards. c2o---- ~ d-.. --...---,.,. -------~--~------- ~1 -;~ I' I <;>- . : cv ';'i. "~Id '. t: I.J< ~ H,I ~~~2 Ii! ~ Ü~i Ii ~ .. ¡:; .- ~ ~ . ~ i; w ~.Õ ~~ I ~ b ~ ~ ~6 ~~ ~< ! i ...... I I ! ~ E-< ..... ~ ..... >< ~ ~ o . CO Ø):! z 1 ::c.cO II: OIOZ ~: ¡ , :I~ Z::¡ -.,0 __~ ~ ~ : ~.cQI-< -( I! I <a:OO (,) 1- -,¡ :2 Occ è ~I r I ~l ,1';1 DI' ël III ~:J: a: t; I rr\ ~ Ii 1·_ r Ii¡ ~. ;. W ~ tH~1- ,:; ~{i[j ~~ ~ / ~r .~--: i' " ir= ii' !Za:£DCCi~ ! ~I ! /I!Ï '1'1 '. 9 ~ IIIO::CI-,= ~;' II! I ,,': _ I- CJ C/) (,) ...--. '/ I-,,¡---- 1-__1 I ¡ '~, . " ...IW> ~ /:J!1L, .cz I -- ¡ :II~ ~\ u. - > /. ~ -I- ~ ...1(3 ;::), :J: o . II :il+ it :11 . ¡I" ! ì . , ¡ ,,! , ! "¡ , ,¡ 'j!!" ! I 11, .1' ¡ ¡ ! ¡., I¡ , ¡!P!!,¡1i ¡ n :.¡',¡; ¡ ; "I, ,1 ,¡In !I_, ¡I'! \' .'¡ .i! ¡!d¡li!!¡ t r.. '" ?~! ~ ~ ~!~ ~,.. ~ l. ~1! G ' ! """ ! ¡¡I.." I¡ I¡,,' ¡t,· .¡, ¡ ¡ ¡. ~ 'j' j' II . ..:.' i ~ Ii 'i~l! ~I ~ ~~: ï: r¡ II ~tl i ~~~ I ~:! ~ ~~ r1 Ë ~[~ ~~ ~I; _ r In~ . . i: n¡ !¡¡!i!H!!¡¡ !I ¡I! !! ~I¡i! !Ii II, ¡! II ¡Ii:! ¡! ~ ¡¡1M: ~¡ ,""; il 'I! - e ~ I· !I:I! P¡ ~ ö ¡II!!! '¡¡¡:":!'~ I Ii,' III,!¡ iii' i" I ~ II ~ 5;" ~ i! ~ " .: "¡ I 5 " i 'j Ii;' l'ld I, Ii I'! I¡'I 1,;1 'I j'¡ Ii :.: ¡ j¡: ¡ ¡! ~ ~ ql! ~, ~ ! : . !! ~ !~§ ~, ,t :: _ ~, =~ ::., ; III I~ l . / !l,t: ", ~!!i ~ ~ ;~! I If ~ 5 5 ~Ii -I!: 5 ,: . 4 ~ ~ ~ I!! .!! ¡! ¡!!I!;;;:! Id! 11: ¡I! I! I~I:¡¡ ¡¡: .!: I!. ¡¡¡ Iii ~ ¡ ¡ ~.! ~'~ ! I';, ~ II;,; I! ~ d !i i ¡ tj t. ~!I!i ~;! ~II;! ~¡!, 11 !i !! ~Ii !'i : ¡:;i :¡:!I:,!!:I ;1: ~ ~I ~;; i lil¡iil g !¡~ ~ !~J' u·, In!! niil d.éJ ~ ,;¿ ------- ---------~- ---------- --~- - m.__m______m___'u_.__.____ _ _...____'_ --------- --~ ____.___~_ ~_ .___.___...__.~___ _____.'.___'______" .-_____ ..___n -- -- -.--- --- [' 0 ,. r, . 1 . ¡; «> B ~ : ,¡ ¡¡ Q<~,,; ¡!¡ ¡: )1'1~ .¡;I /!í <. i:U <iß .. ,~ ".1.. < ~ 1010)' .... Õ ~~ ~ ... <, L ~, 0 ,~:;:I g" :;;.. v, ~ b .... <, ___ l-"~:)';~"til^:J cn·;S'loç~_;S"O>o'~ . :)1: liNn ~ : ._ ~ ~~~ i o/i311.:,?::S~Jf, ISn8 ... =--_ ~_ ;g; ~'_ ~.. ". ~J'fll~V3 ' "' ~ - _r_;---'-:,"~~ o:-~ð':: '<or _-- ---- ~~.~~'- ~ ~'~ ..... ..t :çz' " Ir -I .. - ...-~'<' ,'P' ~ ,.. 9l a elL " '" .....:.. .". ,-... 0" "0"'_ '" ,,\ I ~\ I --"10 ~... ,I- '" """ /' \ " .- I ~ & ?'t; aç \ h- /. /, . ,I J- I I I ," ... o . CO ' Ø) < . _ .Z ... <0 II: O'''''Z'O Z.... '!!: ...I II.<C.-< <a:OO'(.) :E O<ë ~~:c:a:1- "- _1.1.I.... CI) , 1-1.1.I-'-:> <....0 " .' ./ I ...... :c ... ,/ zOED<...I',,/ I ~:c:.- ª -_~'I '; ,,1)'$/.: II t-S22æ,~ _i' ,11, /~.'/~Ì'.,~,~~~. I ::;!1.I.I>o 'il'll' > I- ~.. .~~ <'~. -z - I" I, . / _____' ,.¿. / -""''''''-...........-......... (I) -'> ---' II ~ ! '-----I III -,.:"-. "-.':-:: ..... ' ' ___ ",,! ,I ..........~............... ....1- ,: '---- ' : '----- :~ ! I \', -- / ~~ -.... . II . -' _I I. :z:: , \, 0, . \. ..-----' , ~ \\.----- , ,~ i ~ ! -,.--- ----~-_._--- _~.._.._. __... .,. _._.. mm____·____·_ ---- ---.-.---.---.." -------. ---~ - --_..- .~---".-.~."._----, ~ . ; , - If.. I, (") Z '! t ~ i~. II: I c - I 'I":' ~'. l~ II: ~ ... , I hi ... ~v. , I C '~ ,.,,~ ,II I .. II z:cC'" ~ . f I ¡.J I : i I.. ~:: E-< II: Z ;, . [ i' ~ H o (.) It) - I'~ ¡: 5;, ,;., ..... II: Z !i i· i¡,I' I~¡ ~! ¡ Ii ~.. I ~'" ~ ;¡¡!CQII: frn 'I'h'¡ II : 111"'1'" III . :: ~ ..... ua: '" ,- I: I lð! , ,¡h!:1 ~ - co , ~ ~ c~ Z ... C , !!Ula:", , 'J ~ >UI ... ~ ¡ c a: lEI ¡¡ . .~ 5(.):c~ '~~ 'I.. I :c '" ul-_ :; ~. . ~ ......IUI'" -- ~. . --It- i/ I G 0CZ II: i" ! ¡ ... (I) Z ... ~ u co . '" co - -.... -. r--, I I I I . , !dðr-~5 I -.........--.. .------ --...----""----.- .--..,---.-,,---- .....__.._--_.~..._.~._--_._-- ¡:Q E-< H ¡:q H ::r:: :>< , ~ :a ~!S~ ~1:!i z"" ;:)~: :t<IJ: II!II 0:( - .. .. .. .. .. .I:: ·c c..N .. .... ¡:: 'tJ _ fit - § i ra ~ ,., ~~ Eif ~ ~ ~ m me ~ o'g'g ~.- 0 o :::J 0 to.. C ¡:( -EO.I:: c.o 0- C,) .8 CD 6 g¡~~N<,,) .ê~ ~ ü.c c: -c. .I:: -.I::::J........ .. E 01 .- 01 ........ '" ë¡¡ õ'.- _ ca ca ca: ca -¡;;, 0 Cd zn:~.3ififififæ.u ~ ã e~~o II I ~~~ , ~ ~ I Q) .5 . Q)~ i ~f [ U~ · 5 · ~ S ~. .......- 0. '" I ëa ~ z~~ .)0 /=<? t~ > ~ d r:rJ. ö iO i: :i: U .._.~... . ---....-. .-- .......--.... --..,. 0 f\J 0- - \ @~ -.\ 1;). 0 - " <i> 0- S· 9 \1 ®~ 1;). (J' » 0: 0- ,,'9\ S· 9 \ » 0: \~ - ,t '~1 " Ib4' -.0 ,.; \ 47' '" \ , 2'1 .... \ 49' ,.; \ -- - ~I ~ - - \ 1-.0 OJ \- - ~ , \(J> (J> -! ' - ,.; ,.; \- ~ ~ \J CHULA VISTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT LOCATOR u -..---. ----- PRD./ECT PACIAC BAY HOMES Œ) APPUCAHT: PRD./ECT Rolling Hills Ranch :2ß /~ ? ADDRESS: Neighborhood Sa SCALE: FILE NUMBER, _. EXHIBIT C NORTH No Scale \,¡' ., ' .- - h:\homelplanning\carlos\locators\drc9903.cdr 7130197 ---.--.~-.---.-.---.-.-~-'- TIlE C . Y OF CHULA VISTA DISCLOSURE 5'"1., rEMEr-, Yuu arc rc~uirc:d to file .a S[;JICmCnl or DI\closurc or œrtain o....ncr:;hip ur rinJn¡;I;"tI Inlcrests, payments. or campaign COnlrt~utlOns, on all mailers v.hH;h wlil tcqulre discretionary aCllon on Ihe part of !he CIIY Council. Planning Commission. and all other officIal ~odlcs. The following InfOtmallon muSt he di¡;closcd: I. U" the namcs of all per'ons hJvtng a financial InleteSt In Ihc propcny which is the suhjecI of the application or the contract, e.g., ov.ner, applicant, conlraclUr. subcontraclor, material supplier. PACIFIC BAY HOMES 4041 Mac Arthur Blvd. Suite 500 Rewport Beach. CA 92660 2. If any person' identified pursuant to (I) above is a eorporalion or partnership, list the names of all individuals owning more than 10% of the shares in the corporation or owning any partnership intercsl in the partnership. NfA 3. If any person· idenlified pursuant to (I) above is non.profit organization or a Irust, list the names of any person serving as director of the non.profit organization or as tru-,Ice or benclkiary or trustor of the trust. N/A 4. Have you had more than $250 worth of businc."s transacted with any member of the City staff, Boards, Commissions, Commiltees, and Council within the past twelve monlhs? Yes_ NoL If yes, please indicate person(s): 5. Please identify each and every person, including any agents, employees, consultanls, or independent contractors who you have assigned to represenl you before the City in this malter. Lundstrom & Assoicates 5965 Pacific Center Blvd. 11703 San Diego, CA 92121 6. Have you and/or your officers or agents, in the aggregate, contributed more than $1,000 to a Couneilmember in the current or preceding election period? Yes_ No....!.. If yes, state which Councilmember(s): Date: 9/B/9'=r · · . (Nom .."'" "d'",,'" ..... a :z:: 't. . Sigñature of contractor/applicant Guy Asaro - Asst. Pro;ect Manager »~cr26 Print or type name of contractor/applicant . Pt:rS(m is defined as: "AllY ;mJb·idual. {inn, cO'part1l~hip. juÙu IIC'tllllrC', ass1JCÙltÙ",.. sodal dub. fruu:ntul DrgQlIIl/JlÍOII, corporaliOlI. utOIl:, Ø'1.LØ, rectiva. syndicate, this alUi any other co""&.I)', city DtuJ COUtU'!', dry munwpDliry, district., (H' oúl(:r pol/tlcDI subdi,·isio,1. Of any QUia gmup or combilla,;o" OCt;'1& as a WliL" _.....-..,._~_.__._----_.__._._--,--_._----- COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item 2/ Meeting Date 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing Acquisition of certain rights-of-way on 2451 Faivre Street, 1725 Broadway, 1689-1695 Broadway, and 2681 Main Street for the construction of the "Main Street Widening ITom Industrial Boulevard to Broadway" project (ST-961). Resolution I Y¿J7 ~doPting Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-96-03; determining and declaring the public necessity to acquire certain rights-of- way on 2451 Faivre Street, 1725 Broadway, 1689-1695 Broadway, and 2681 Main Street for the construction of the "Main Street Widening ITom Industrial Boulevard to Broadway" project (ST -961); and authorizing the commencement of condemnation proceedings by outside counsel to acquire said rights-of-way SUBMIlTED BY' Di,",'"' ,fP.SIi, wm~ ~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager JG ~ /? (4/5thsVote:Yes~No_) Portions of Main Street have been widened a development or redevelopment of parcels has occurred. This project will widen and reconstruct segments of Main Street from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway to their ultimate width. The widening of Main Street from 1-805 to 1-5 is being phased over a five-year period. The first phase, which extends from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway was budgeted as follows: Design funding in FY 93-94 and FY 94-95; R.O.W. acquisition in FY 95-96 and FY 96-97; Construction is scheduled for FY 97-98 (drainage improvements) and FY 98-99 (street improvements). During the past few months we have attempted to acquire the needed rights-of-way to construct the project. However, the owners of the properties at 2451 Faivre Street (Assessor's Parcel No. 622-190-15), 1689-1695 Broadway (APN: 622-112-13 & 14), and 2681 Main Street (APN: 622-140-36), have indicated their unwillingness to accept the City's offer. The owner of the property at 1725 Broadway (APN: 629-010-04 & 10) Thrifty Oil Company, has received the City's offer documents and is processing approval through their legal department. The offer amount appears to be acceptable, all that is needed is clarification of the conditions in the agreement. (See locator map for location of the four parcels.) Our right-of-way acquisition consultant, Ryals & Associates, has made proper offers to the affected property owners of record. Negotiations to purchase the needed rights-of-way will continue as we hope that settlement will be reached with the owners without having to obtain a final order of condemnation from the court. The Council is requested to initiate eminent domain proceedings now, in the event negotiations with the property owners prove fruitless. RECOMMENDATION: 1) Hold the public hearing; 2) adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Main Street Reconstruction; and 3) approve the resolution of necessity to commence the eminent domain process. .2/-/ ----. ..--.- --------'.----..-"-----.- Page 2, Item '2-1 Meeting Date 1/20/98 BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: In order to acquire real property for public purposes, pursuant to Government Code Section 7267.2 the City must make an offer to purchase the property for an amount constituting "just compensation." If an agreement for the voluntary purchase of the property cannot be reached, the City may then duly notice and conduct a public hearing to consider whether to acquire the property by the exercise of its powers of eminent domain. At such a hearing, pursuant to Civil Procedure Code Section 1240.030 the City must find and determine that: A. The public interest and necessity require the project; B. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and least priyate injury; C. The properties sought to be acquired are necessary for the project. There are four properties subject of this public hearing, these are: Site 1. 2681 Main Street (APN: 622-140-36) Heriberto Gutierrez, owner. Site 2. 1689 & 1695 Broadway (APN: 622-112-13 & 14) Abode Deyelopment Corporation, owner. Site 3. 2451 Faivre Street (APN: 622-190-15) H.G. Fenton Material Company, owner. Site 4. 1725 Broadway (APN: 629-010-04 & 10) Thrifty Oil Company, owner. In the first three sites, the City presented each of the property owners with written offers to purchase the portions of their property required for widening of Main Street. The offers were based on appraisals and complied in all respects with the requirement of Government Code Section 7267.2. Subsequently, over the next few months, the City's acquisition consultant, Ryals & Associates, continued with negotiations, in effort to reach agreement on the terms for the purchase (Exhibit "A", letter from Ryals & Associates). Agreements could not be reached, and with the need to commence the construction of the project approaching, Staff recommends that Council authorize the use of the City's eminent domain powers. In the fourth site, a tentative agreement was reached some time ago, however the agreement documents have been under review by the owners legal department for a long time and have not been approved yet. Our right-of-way consultant, Ryals & Associates, recommends including this property in the Resolution of Necessity. By certified letter dated December 23, 1997, City staff notified all four interested parties of a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday, January 20, 1998, at which the City Council was to consider adopting a "resolution of necessity" for the acquisition of their property. The letter informed them of their right to appear and to speak to the City Council with regard to the City's .2;-A __.__.._ "__·"_"__"~'·__m__..._~.________..._·__·.~______._____,_____.___~ Page 3, Item ~ Meeting Date 1/20/98 right to acquire their property. The letter also noted, appropriately, that the amount to be paid for the property was !1Q1 the subject of the public hearing. Staff believes that the [mdings required for the adoption of the resolution of necessity can be made for the following reasons: A. The public interest and necessity require that Main Street be widened and upgraded in order to accommodate increased traffic flows in the area. B. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest public good and least private injury in that an existing road is being widened only so much as is necessary to allow for the completion of the road widening and related curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements. C. The properties sought to be acquired are necessary for the project because they are located directly in the path of the widened roadway, and in the storm drain system alignment. Site No. I, Mr. Gutierrez's property, as depicted on Exhibit "B", is necessary for the construction of the Main Street widening project. Access to the subject property is Main Street. Main Street has a 40-foot right-of-way from center line to the subject parcel, and is planned to be widened to 51 feet (102-foot total ROW), including concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Currently, there are no sidewalks adjacent to Mr. Gutierrez's property. Site No.2, Abode Development Corporation property, Exhibit "C", is necessary for the construction of the Main Street widening project. Access to the subject property is from Main Street and from Broadway. Main Street has a 35-foot right-of-way from center line to the subject parcel and is planned to be widened to 5 I feet (102-foot total ROW), including concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Currently, there are no sidewalks adjacent to the Abode Development Corp. property. Site No.3, H.G. Fenton Material Company property, Exhibit "D", is necessary for the dedication of a drainage easement that will be used for a 60-inch reinforced concrete pipe storm drain system. The selection of this storm drain alignment will cause the least private damage to the subject property because it is located at the easterly propery line and it is not partitioning the subject property. This is the project's one of two storm drain outfalls that will convey runoff from the subject project into the Otay River. An Initial Study was conducted pursuant to CEQA for the entire project, consisting of roadway and drainage improvements. The Initial Study concluded that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts, and, therefore, a Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-96-03) and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program was prepared and issued for the appropriate public review. No public comments were received as part of that public review. The recommended action included adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Both of these documents are included as attachments to this report. :¿J'3 _._~-----_._-- Page 4, Item 'Z-/ Meeting Date 1/20/98 Site No.4, Thrifty Oil Company property, Exhibit "E", is necessary for the construction of the Main Street widening project. Access to the subject property is ITom Main Street and ITom Broadway. Main Street has approximately a 40-foot right-of-way from center line to the subject parcel and is planned to be widened to 51 feet (l02-foot total ROW), including concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks. Currently, there are no sidewalks adjacent to the Thrifty Oil Co. property. The project will widen Main Street to a 102-foot wide right-of-way including concrete curb, gutters, sidewalks and driveways. Portions of the street to the west of the subject parcel property have already been widened. Main Street is a major east/west arterial with four lanes and a center turn lane. To the extent that any portion of the property includes property previously dedicated to public use, the taking by the City as to any such portion is either for a compatible public use consistent with and authorized by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.510, or for a more necessary public use consistent with and authorized by Code of Civil Procedure Section 1240.610. The adoption of the requested resolution of necessity will initiate the proceedings to acquire the necessary rights-of-way for public street purposes and appurtenances in conjunction with the subject project. The commencement of the eminent domain proceeding will require the filling of a complaint with the Superior Court. Our right-of-way acquisition consultant, Rick Ryals, is available at the Council meeting tonight, to answer any questions concerning the acquisition of this property. The City Attorney has reviewed the resolution of necessity and determined that the requested action is according to all applicable laws, City codes and ordinances. FISCAL IMP ACT: The total cost of acquisition of the rights-of-way is approximately $106,890 for the actual property value; $6,000 for severance damages for Mr. Gutierrez's loss of two parking spaces; an additional $5,000 to $30,000 for condemnation costs depending on whether or not the property owners legally challenge the City's right to acquire the property or the amount of compensation being offered. The amount of compensation is not a considering factor in the adoption of the resolution of necessity by the City Council. Sufficient funds are included in CIP project ST-961, Main Street Widening from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway, to cover the anticipated expenses. Exhibit A: Letter from Ryals & Associates NO'I'SC::ANNED Exhibits B through E: Right-of-Way Maps NOT Exhibit F: Mitigated Negative Declaration . . SCANNED Exhibit G: Mitigation Monitoring Program NOT SClL'lNEI; 1'H~\.,.. "c' .L'tI' 'lit '" -,_. H:IHOMEIENGINEERIDESIGNIST961 PH SOL V -~. jl;l'd'-.J~i;J' 23 December 1997 ' ~J-i ---- -'---_.__..,--_._------~- RESOLUTION NO. )%8'/1 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON IS-96-03; DETERMINING AND DECLARING THE PUBLIC NECESSITY TO ACQUIRE CERTAIN RIGHTS-OF-WAY AT 2451 FAIVRE STREET, 1725 BROADWAY, 1689-1695 BROADWAY, AND 2681 MAIN STREET FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE "MAIN STREET WIDENING FROM INDUSTRIAL BOULEVARD TO BROADWAY" PROJECT (ST-961); AND AUTHORIZING THE COMMENCEMENT OF CONDEMNATION PROCEEDINGS BY OUTSIDE COUNSEL XO ACQUIRE SAID RIGHT-OF- WAY WHEREAS, the City desires to widen Main Street from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway (Project No. ST-961) ("Project") in order to accommodate increased traffic flows and for other public health, safety and welfare purposes; and WHEREAS, in order to complete the Project, the City must acquire certain rights-of-way over property located at 2451 Faivre Street, 1725 Broadway, 1689-1695 Broadway and 2681 Main Street as more particularly described on Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference (collectively, the "Property"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 7267.2, the City made an offer to acquire the site at 2681 Main Street (APN: 622-140-36) to Mr. Heriberto Gutierrez; the site at 1689 and 1695 Broadway (APN: 622-112-13 and 14) to Abode Development Corporation; the site at 2451 Faivre Street (APN: 622- 190-15) to H. G. Fenton Material Company and the site at 1725 Broadway (APN: 629-010-04 and 10) to Thrifty oil Company; all such offers were based on appraisals and each such offer constitutes just compensation for the property to which each pertains; and WHEREAS, the City has been unable to reach terms for the voluntary acquisition of the Property in a timely fashion after good faith efforts to do so; and WHEREAS, in order to acquire the necessary interest in each of the properties which together comprise the Property, it is necessary that the City Council conduct a public hearing on the matter of adopting a resolution of necessity to commence the eminent domain process; and WHEREAS, pursuant to certified letters dated December 23, 1997, the owners of record of the affected Property were duly notified of the public hearing and their right to appear and be heard on the matter of the interest to adopt the resolution of necessity; and 1 ;2/ -Ç' ~- ---""'-~---'~'"'- - -_._-_._-~--_._,-- -- -_._~--~~~.- WHEREAS, the owners were also informed that the adoption of the resolution of necessity will authorize the acquisition of the necessary property rights through eminent domain; and WHEREAS, in accordance with California Code of civil Procedure section 1245.235 the City properly noticed, and on January 20, 1998, properly conducted a public hearing to consider the adoption of this Resolution; and WHEREAS, at such public hearing the City Council considered all of the evidence submitted including all relevant staff reports, and all evidence relating to the need for the project and the Property; and WHEREAS, the city of Chula vista possesses the right to acquire said Property by the use of the power of eminent domain in accordance with California Code of civil Procedure and section 1240.030 which provides that the power of eminent domain may be exercised to acquire property for a proposed project if the following conditions are established: A. The public interest and necessity require the project. B. The project is planned or located in a manner that will be the most compatible with the greatest pUblic good and least private injury; and C. The property sought to be acquired is necessary for the project. WHEREAS, the public interest and necessity require the proposed project in that public safety dictates that the City of Chula vista maintain a public road system, concrete curb and gutter, sidewalks and driveways, designed and constructed to accommodate traffic, health and safety demands; and WHEREAS, the proposed project is planned and located in the manner that will be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury in that an existing roadway is being widened and only the Property necessary for the widening is being acquired; and WHEREAS, the Property to be acquired as depicted on Exhibit A is necessary for the proposed Project in that no other property is available which affords the capability for the widening of Main Street to currently accepted traffic and engineering standards; and WHEREAS, an Initial Study was conducted pursuant to CEQA for the entire project, consisting of roadway and drainage improvements; and 2 ;¿ / -" ¡. .----------."..-........-- - -----.. .__..._-_..._-~_.__._-_._._.__._._------------~--_._------------ WHEREAS, the Initial Study concluded that the project would not result in significant environmental impacts, and, therefore, a Mitigated Negati ve Declaration (IS-96-03) and accompanying Mitigation Monitoring Program was prepared and issued for the appropriate public review; and WHEREAS, no public comments were received as part of that public review. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA DOES HEREBY FIND, RESOLVE AND DETERMINE, BY A VOTE OF NOT LESS THAN TWO-THIRDS OF ITS MEMBERS, AS FOLLOWS: 1. Proposed Use and Description of Property to be ACQuired. The Property, as more particularly described in the above recitals and on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, shall be used for the construction of a portion of the Main Street widening project (ST-961) and related appurtenances between Industrial Boulevard and Broadway (the "Project") in the City of Chula Vista. The interest in each of the properties comprising the Property is an easement. 2. Findinqs Related to Necessity and other Public Uses. A. Public Interest and Necessitv Require the Proiect. The public interest, convenience and necessity of the City of Chula Vista, and its residents, require the installation and maintenance of the Project to provide for safe and proper traffic flows through this section of Main street. Generally accepted traffic and engineering standards dictate that Main street be widened to a 102 foot wide right-of-way. B. Proiect Planned and Located for Greatest Public Good and Least Private Iniury. The Project has been planned and located to be most compatible with the greatest public good and the least private injury in that an existing roadway is being widened and only the property necessary for the widening (and related appurtenances) is being acquired. Any other feasible plan or location would cause even more significant impacts on private property. The selection of the storm drain alignment over the property located at 2451 Faivre street will cause the least private damage because it is located at the easterly property line and it is not partitioning that parcel. C. Property to be Acquired is Necessary for the Proiect. 3 c2) - ? - _..~_._~~.._-~---_.,_._.,-- n__ ~_ .. .____ -_.~,~.--. m .__.__._.___._._..___~~ The Property is necessary for the Project because it underlies the property over which the widened roadway, curb, gutter and sidewalk must be located. The property located at 2451 Faivre street is necessary for the Project because it underlies the property over which a drainage system needs to be installed to drain run-off from the Project into the Otay River. D. Public Use Property. To the extent that any portion of the Property includes property previously dedicated to public use, the taking by the City as to any such portion is either for a compatible public use consistent with and authorized by Code of civil Procedure section 1240.510, or for a more necessary public use consistent with and authorized by Code of civil Procedure Section 1240.610. E. Other Evidence Incorporated Herein. Any and all other evidence in support of the findings, above, presented in the written staff report or otherwise at the public hearing considering this Resolution is hereby incorporated herein by this reference. 3. Voluntarv Offer to Purchase the Propertv Made. As set forth in the recitals, above, offers to purchase the necessary easements in the properties comprising the Property for an amount constituting just compensation, as determined by an appraisal, have been made to the owners of record of such properties, respectively, in accordance with Government Code section 7267.2. 4. Authority to Proceed in Eminent Domain Granted. The City of Chula Vista, as the designated responsible lead agency for the Project, and all appropriate officers, representatives and attorneys, are hereby authorized and empowered, as provided by and in accordance with the applicable provisions of the Constitution of california, Government Code, Code of civil Procedure, the City Charter and Municipal Code related to eminent domain, to acquire the necessary easements to the Property by condemnation is the name of the City of Chula vista to be used for the municipal purpose of enhancing a transportation facility, and for Health and Safety purposes, as and to that end, it is authorized and directed to commence and to prosecute an action or actions in eminent domain for the purpose of acquiring easements to the Property. 5. Retention of Eminent Domain Counsel Authorized. The City Attorney for the City of Chula Vista, as General Counsel, and the law firm of Daley & Heft, special attorneys for 4 c:2J - ¿J' --. ,.___ __u_ _..._ ..____.__._,_,_.__,"_', City are hereby authorized to prepare and prosecute in the name of the City, such proceeding or proceedings in the proper court having jurisdiction thereof, as are necessary for such acquisition; and to prepare and file such pleadings, documents, briefs, and other instruments and to make such arguments and to take such actions as may be necessary in the opinion of said attorneys to acquire for said City the said real property. said attorneys are specifically authorized to take whatever steps and/or procedures are available to them under the Eminent Domain Law of the state of California including but not limited to Code of civil Procedure, Title 7, Chapters 1-12, sections 1230.010-1273.050). 6. Appropriation of Necessarv Proceeds. The proceeds required to fund the Project have previously been appropriated and can be used for purposes of acquiring the Property and paying Daley & Heft in connection therewith. 7. Issues of Urqency, Expediency, Desirability and Necessity. The acquisition of the Property is urgently needed to expediently complete the Project and is manifestly desirable and essential to the declared objects of the City. The City of Chula Vista has urgent need for the immediate possession of such Property, and the designated attorneys on behalf of the City are authorized and directed to secure an order of court authorizing the City of Chula Vista to take possession of said Property at the earliest possible date. 8. CEQA Compliance. The City Council hereby adopts Mitigated Negative Declaration IS-96-03 for the Project, and Monitoring Program prepared in connection therewith, as required by the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"). 9. Independent Judqment. The City hereby finds and determines that their approval of eminent domain proceedings, adoptions of this Resolution and related findings made in connection therewith, were the product of their exercise of their independent review and judgment. Presented by Approved as to form by ~VI ..~..¡;'r John P. Lippitt, Director of M. Kaheny, Public Works / H: \home\attorney\condernn.man _/ 5 ;J.) -77 ___.____~.__._._.~._._._______.__ . 0'_..- _ "_.. ___'."'_.._._',. ... ___~__.__.._,..______.__ ________. . _...... ._,_._..__._~____.~~_.___._._._____._.______ ___.__._.___~__,._.___, ~- I , NE COR MAP 10 I \ I NW COR MAP 598 ~ I \ CN1/16 COR SEC 22 \ ---1-~~~r'ß~r<w _-2'~S.R1W "":__4___8T. ----\---- , \ ~ 51' , 40' I \ ~ 11 , \ 7: , ---¡ I 1----- \ ~ " I \~ r R=25' ~___ I \ ~ 11' EASEMENT L=39.07' I t\ FOR Co. HIGHWAY DELTA=89-32-21 I PER FIlE/PG No. \ 80- 1 86861 , \ JUNE 1 " 1980. APN f-33' 622-140-36 ;". ~ ex:> , ,...: I ~ ..., '-7' if) EASEMENT FOR 150.00' dd ROAD PURPOSES PER DOC# 1 14333 Scole: 1"=50' OCT 4,1950 BK3807 [L(Q)lF ~ PG107-110. APN 622-140-12 R=319.62' ~~~ ~© L= 16.86' ::r:: DELTA=3-01 - 1 8 ~@~ (J~{J~ I E-< I r-- C\1 I ;n ~ ..... 0 I N '" I <0 N I l/') 0:: ~ w h 33' REFER. DEED TO SAN ¡::; DIEGO SOUTHERN RAILWAY b CO. REC'D DEC. 4, 1908 z: IN BK 452. P214. 2681 Main Street I AREA= 1 459.86SF (.034AC) EXHIBIT "A " PROJECT FILE #ST961 COWPJTER n..r c. 511)[0. DRAWN BY: JOHN YONTES DE DCA TITLE: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY: JACK GECHTER DATE: SHEET J RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION APPROVED BY: 6-24-96 OF J SHTS MAIN STREET .:2 - (/ CLI'IE J. HOI'l¥OOD -~. _~,-,,-,,,,,,,,",",_ ~_·,·~_'__",..·_u ,,-_.------------",-,--_. /- - ~ ;;;~ - G~ / ~0~' !;" THE FOLLOWING FLOATING EASEMENTS EXIST ilj .:2f '-éc\ ',L.. OVER ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 1- ...¡ LS6"~D ':-', -,22-112-13&14. NO EXACT LOCATION IS \ oJ. U _y I~.~' Ù . IYEN FOR THESE EASEMENTS~ BASIS OF BEARINGS,"1C ~.p S.~_ 00 * SDG&E MAY 6, ',::S 3Ç:.L:'?~-,:::' :'O:,e90818. RoS 15149 ~ ú'» ~..."< COX CABLE DEC 28, 1982 DOC# 82-396955. "I/"<; o<+- PACIFIC BELL APR 23,1986 DOC# 86-157245. OF CA~\~ t.f.~. WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 622-112-14, NO RECORDED DOC. COULD BE , N FOUND TO REFLECT ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE \ ,.C/- r INFO. SHOWN ON THE ASSESSORS PLAT. DEED .......... INFORMATION IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND HAS , \, [J' , BEEN SHOWN HEREON. ,;¡\).\J,/' 60.00' , ,/ 622-112-13,14 I , N.T.S. " I I I , , PARCEL I PARCEL I \ ",:>\~)/~ 1 I 2 ,,~ " , ~~ 1."''' : I N I \.",~,7/1: I ~ / '?\ ' I I ' ,,' [J \)\) ')\) Ii> ' I N /' -\\j .')~- : ~ . .... """" ~ I I ,;¡\)))\)/' <¡>.: t>"'''':> ~~?, :51 ~ , /' - \ \ ':l:: 0 I '~ v ,,~.~, ~I N I '\~: I N . ~ : PROPOSED I c.D '\0 'ROW I I ' tJ ¡ AQUISITION I , ~~ ~ ' 181.29' L ~"7 , '6,~ ;.L. - 2639':.--/ , -% L~ . : L '\ -, \ \ ~:- 51' ¡ MAIN \ _ 131'0' _ ': l... ~~ _ _ ...12.oßLl_ -'r n~L --- ~ ---1¡RS im)NS9'34'42 W -.// ' 7~~1~d \ (330'), RoS ~5W~ 35' ROW GRANTED TO I 333.19 S.D. COUNTY PER , (2640') DOC# 65-92631 \ 2665.55' MAY 6.1965. , , \ PARCEL 1- 1384.5SF ROW GRANTED TO THE STATE , PARCEL 2= 960 SF OF CALIF. FOR STATE HIGHWAY \ TOTAL PIQ= 2344.5SF RECORDED MAY 4. 1934 AS , .054AC DOC 26449 IN BK 295.PG87 \ 1689-95 Broadwa EXHIBIT " A " PROJECT FILE #ST961 """""" ru v STDED.tJwC DRAWN BY: JOHN MONTES DE DCA TITLE: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY: JAtK GECHTER DATE: SHEET 3 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION / APPROVED BY: CLM J. HOPII'DOO 9-10-96 OF 3 SHTS. MAIN STREET ;).}-- -- .-. - J _"t _......-,;",;. © .... v= rn @:b <I: ~ ~ ~ Of ~~~ U ~~ <I: f ...., '", 1D .., ~ N89'06'Z7"W STREET .., ---~------------i----~-- N'LY 16 FEET OF LOT 7, MAP 10 ' GRANTED TO THE CITY OF CHULA 15' VISTA FOR STREET PURPOSES PER PROPOSED OOC #1991-0664667, DEC 23,1991. DRAINAGE ESM'T - , 'w " I ú') AN EASEMENT FOR A LINE OF POLES WITH WIRES ' ú') -' - - .... GRANTED TO SDG&E. RECORDED APRIL 29,1914 IN _---- N b BK 608, PG221 OF DEEDS EXISTS ALONG THE :z WEST LINE OF LOT 6. NO WIDTH OF EASEMENT DEFINED. '" ...., ~ IL(Q)il ~ ëo IL(Q)il 7/ 0 N 1.D .,..; ~ ..,. ~ 1I.iOfIr 622-190-21 622-190-15 cID N BASIS ~ OF BEARINGS RoS 15149 622-190-18 622-190-16 N.T.S. / N89'17'OZ"W ©~l\B~ W~~U ~ 667.89' -.,., 660' ~ ~~~ [Q)~~@© AN EASEMENT FOR RAILROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY EXISTS ON A PORTION OF LOT 7 MAP 10. RESERVED BY JOHN W. AUSTIN, RECORDED AUGUST 30.1935 IN BK 426,PG 306 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. 2451 Faivre Street AREA TO BE ACQUIRED= 9020.85 SF 0.207 AC EXHIBIT " A " PROJECT FILE #ST961 COWPUTER F1..E 'H:\Home\En;ineer\Sl.ney\PIotJ\STCCD.OWG DRAWN BY: JOHN MONTES DE DCA TITLE: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY: JACK GECHTER DATE: ) SHEET 1 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION APPROVED BY: PETER EHLERT 11-10-9 OF 1 SHTS. MAIN STREET c:2 -' ~ --- ill , BASIS OF BEARINGS ~ RoS 15149 N S'LY ROW ÞS ESTABlISHE S'LY ROW ÞS ESTABlISHEO BY ~ BY RSl723. STATE HWY MAP XI-S0-2-F, RS1511& CURTIS BROWN WO-5974 40' ROW PER MAP 598 1" = 50' ( RS 1723) MAR 1, 1889 132.19' MAIN _-.L_ ST. (132.53') ~ N89'347,¡tW -£ - \ - \1 I 7 \ I 101.61' \ , C1 \ I) I \ \ , 1 I \ I '" . I 1 I \ 1 I o '" I u- '" : , '\:j:)!; J I \1 PARCELl 2 : "'..... . 1 >-W'" . Za....... 1 .. ' 1 I \ I: w 0 1 .1,/ 1 1 1\629-010r10: I :::E~' w '" ~-~I I\b, 1\ I: I !Q:I:CO q \ 1 ,?-cS·\ a....a 1 \ I i I WO"'" o UU - 0 I ,I '? ¡>: <:ì....a I \ I I 0 \ .... r¡.: 1 \ I I ~ '0 D 1 \ I \ V' \ I l8J .. 'Q I I \ I .. O. ~ I 1 ~______l___ _ I "Þ \ ~ \ I \ I 1 ,,,, I I ~ '~'. I ,,'1' I: - .~ I'.J 1 .... 1 . "" -:D I \ I ,/' I 15' EASEMENT PER wfficó z: '" C:J 7 I.. ",'( I DOC# 76-071190 ::Jr--.,..IJ"') ~1-9t I 0.1 \ .....I.. : .. ",,' I I REC MARCH 11,1976. w9:::::E I £1 , I I I' ) . I 1 ':J\) I I I I 1 ':JQ' I M~IP I 5~(8j 1 I I I 1 I 1 I 1 I I I 2 ~ ~ 5 6 7 ROW GRANTED TO THE AREAS: CURVE DATA: C 1 STATE OF CAL. FOR STATE @ = 527.18SF R=50.00' HWY REC. JUNE 4.1934 ® =1031.56SF DEL TA= 114-15-03 AS DOC 30356 IN BK303,P157. © = 899.86SF T = 77.36' L=99.70' 1725 Broadway @ =1348.92SF EXHIBIT " A " PROJECT FILE #5T961 t:OWPJ1tR ru 1:: S!1XD.... DRAWN BY: JOHN ~DH1IS DE OCA TITLE: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY: Jl£K G[CHTER DATE: 9-11-96 SHEET J RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION APPROVED BY: MAIN STREET d.-/.... / Cl.II£ J. HOP'!OOO OF J SHTS. t~H'ß\'" .. ":i-J RYALS & ASSOCIATES ð ) REAL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS December 10, 1997 Mr. Roberto Saucedo CITY OF CHULA VISTA Department of Public Works Engineering Division 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 SUBJECT: Main Street Improvement Project, Acquisition Status of Unresolved Parcels Dear Mr. Saucedo: The following is an account of the remaining parcels to be acquired for the subject project and their current status. GUTIERREZ (APN 622-140-36) Our original offer to Mr. Gutierrez was in the amount of $20,600.00. This amount included $6,000.00 for severance damages which the appraiser attributed to a loss of 2 parking spaces ($3,OOO/per space). During negotiations with Mr. Gutierrez and upon inspection of his site it was determined the actual space loss could be three. Because this was debatable we offered him an additional $3,000.00 as an incentive to settle and we agreed to look at the 1ayout of his current parking to see if it could be better organized. The amount of $23,600 has not been enough to reach a settlement with Mr. Gutierrez His original counter offer was $40,000 and has since been reduced to $28,000. It would appear that settlement below that amount is not feasible at this time and condemnation may be necessary. ABODE DEVELOPMENT CORP. (APN. 622-112-13 & 14) Our original offer to Abode was in the amount of$20,540. This offer is based upon an amount of $8.00 per square foot plus improvements. Mr. Sephri, who is a principal of Abode initially counter offered at $11.00 per square foot which equates to $25,571. Upon your direction I indicated to Mr. Sephri that the City would be willing to approach $25,000 to reach a settlement and avoid litigation expenses. Mr. Sephri then rose his counter offer to $12.00 per foot which equates to $29,916. In support of his claim he has submitted a listing ofa property for sale down the street. This listing is for $12.00/ per DEC "^' L'''/ I \.' ~~ ~.""é"'r~ ., .. p , 4167 AVENIDA DE LA PLATA, SUITE 115, OCEANSIDE. CA 92056 [619) 724-9794 FAX [619) 732-1 367 _______.____m____....__,.·_,··._ December 10, 1997 Main Street Status Page 2 square foot but directly acknowledges in the brokers analysis the probable need for a 5.00 foot dedication along Silvas Street and Anita Street before the property can be developed to its highest and best use. Despite this being explained to Mr. Sephri he has refused to move from $12.00/s.f. and has requested a new appraisal and an eminent domain action. I have included a copy of his letter and the listing for your reference. H.G. FENTON MATERIAL (APN 622-190-15) Our original offer to Fenton was in the amount of$6,200.00. This offer is based upon 25% of the fee valuation. Mr. Alan Jones of Fen ton has indicated that he feels that 100% offee is more appropriate (see attached correspondence). This acquisition may be resolved with additional negotiation, however, in order to maintain your construction schedule you may need to initiate condemnation proceedings at this time. ARCO PRODUCTSrrHRIFTY OIL (629-101-04 AND 629-101-10) Tentative agreement was reached on this acquisition some time ago, however the documents have been under review by the oil company for a long time and have still not been approved. Additionally no one can seem to say when they will be approved. As with Fenton Material it might be prudent to proceed with a Resolution of Necessity hearing at this time to maintain our schedule. It may also provide an incentive for the owners to expedite their processing. Please advise us as to how you wish to proceed on these parcels. Should you have any questions or require further infonnation, please do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, Richard A. Ryals, S RAR:rar Enclosures 2 - , TWIN PALMS TRAILER PARK ,. 1.689 Broadway ChulaVista, CA 91911 November 14, 1997 Richard A. Ryals, SR/WA Citÿ of Chula Vista Dep't. of Public Works, Engr'g Div. 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 92010 Re: Right-of-Way Acquisition for Main Street Improvements, City of Chula Vista Assessors' Parcel No. 622-112-13, 14. Dear Mr. Ryals: Please refer to our letter dated 7/22/97 in which we requested 12.00 per square foot for that corner portion of property at corner of Main and Broadway. Please see information attached for available property in that area. As you can see it is zoned Industrial, not prime location and asking approximately 12.00 psf. Ours is zoned.Commercial and prime location. Our offer for 12.00 psf will be valid until 11/30/97. At that time we will request a new appraisal. Please call me if you have any questions. Sincerely, , .-.:--:~~~---- <. ~ Sam Sepehri SS:jg Enclosure. -- z,.V}'?......?O\ ':;, """"'> .:::;;; ~._.- ------_....,_...-- - -..---.----............--.... ---~...__._---_.._--------- ~ H,G, FENTON ~TER1AL COMPANY December 12, 1997 Mr. RoBin R. Lojeske Contract Acquisition Agent City ofChula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 920 I 0 Re: Faivre Street DrainagelMain Street Improvements, City of Chula Vista. Revised Offer to Acquire: San Diego County Assessors Parcel No. 622-190-15 Dear Mr. Lojeske. Thank you for you letter of November 25, 1997, in which the City ofChula Vista offers to pay $6,200 for an easement across a parcel owned by the H.G. Fenton Material Company. Fenton has reviewed the offer and has concluded that we cannot accept it since j¡ is clearly an unreasonable offer The appraiser assumed that the easement would represent a 25% reduction in the value of the property WJderJying the proposed easement An accurate figure would reflect a 100% reduction. The l-L zoning for this property does not require an interior side yard setback. Thus, the area underlying the proposed easement could be used for constJ\lction of a building. The City has expressed, and has required in past permitting actions, that Fenton not take access into the parcel on its eastem side (in order to minimize disturbance to homes situated to the north along Jacqua Street) Access has instead been required by the City to be established along the westem end of the parcel, at the cul-de-sac. In order to obtain reasonable use of the property it wìll be necessary for Fenton to develop the parcel by taking access ITom the west, requiring siting of a building as far eastward as possible (that is, up to the eastern property line). Thus, the 25% reduction in value assumed by the appraiser cannot be justified Fenton will be pleased to comider a revised offer which reflects the true value of tþe area proposed to be taken. Please give me a caJl at 536-7562 if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, Allen M. J~es Vice Presþlent 1220 TMD£ STREET. SUIT! '00. roST OFFIC! aox O~. SAN DIRGO. CALIPORNIA 9)" ¡. (019¡ '06-)000. FAX (6 9) SóP. 3 m 1 'd L/ WtiS2 : IT ¿5, S1 J30 bK'~' 'T ~ ß" f I I NE COR MAP 10 I \ I NW COR MAP 598~1 \ CN1/16 COR SEC 22 _--1--':'A~'i;-N-8~r~W _---'~S.R2W "":_-4___8T. ____~\~-- 51' , 40' I \ ~ 11 I \ 7. I ---'1 I r----- \ ~ II I \~ r 11' EASEMENT R=25' -t:::___ I \ ~ L=39.07' I ~ FOR Co. HIGHWAY DELTA=89-32-21 I PER FILE/PG No. \ 80-186861 , \ JUNE 11, 1980. APN 1-33' 622-140-36 ;.,. ~ co , r..: I ~ "" .......7'[fJ EASEMENT FOR 150.00' dd ROAD PURPOSES I PER DOCH 1 14333 Scale: 1"=50' I I OCT 4,1950 BK3807 ~©1 ~ PG107-110. APN I I 622-140-12 I R-319.62' [K.'lJb\~ ~@ I L=16.86· I ::r: DELTA=3-01-18 [ffi@~ {jíBJ{j~ I I ~ I r-- I C\l I I Û'> ~ I ..... 0 I N '" I I <0 N I I VI a:: ~ L.U 'h 33' REFER. DEED TO SAN ~ DIEGO SOUTHERN RAILWAY ~ CO. REC'D DEC. 4, 1908 :z IN BK 452, P214. I AREA= 1459.86SF (.034AC) EXHIBIT "A " PROJECT FILE #ST961 ,1'UTER FU c: S1OCD.DWC DRAWN BY: JOHN YONITS DE DCA TITLE: CITY OF CHUIß. VISTA PREPARED BY: .lICK CECHlER DATE: SHEET 3 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION APPROVED BY: 6-24-96 OF 3 SHTS MAIN STREET CLIVE J. HDPItOOD 5 -- ---"-----.,. .'.>-".-. £'#.M.\ß' ì ~ C. al .<~ - G;o 1~0v ~r, :;,. THE FOLLOWING FLOATING EASWENTS EXIST It:! {:;<V oJ' - '-r-¡:~\ '.L OVER ASSESSORS PARC,EL NUMBERS 1- -J LS6~""' ':-', -, 22-112-13&14. NO eXACT LOCATION IS ,-J U _ ~~,~ 0). IVEN FOR THESE EASEMENTS. BASIS OF BEARINGS" * c.xp 9/._00 * SDG&E M.AY 6, ',~:~ 3'~:.L:,~'~·,~)J:¡'g0818. RoS 15149 ~ ú' ..,. COX CABLE DEC 28, 1982 DOC# 82-396955. /;,¡¡- '<-~' PACIFIC BELL APR 23,1986 DOC# 86-157245. c OF CA~\~C c:.. :r Jl.g.~ . WITH RESPECT TO ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER ., vr<'-" 622-112-14, NO RECORDED DOC. COULD BE , - N FOUND TO REFLECT ANYTHING CLOSE TO THE \ 't>S-/ ~ INFO. SHOWN ON THE ASSESSORS PLAT. DEED .' //-- INFORMATION IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND HAS \ \)\J _/ BEEN SHOWN HEREDN. , , ,;¡\)./- 60.00 , / - N.T.S. 622-112-13,14 I " I I I , , PARCEL I PARCEL I \ "'.J\~)/' 1 1 2 ~.!fV .... , s'\" '/."// I N I ,,,'11'_//1 1 ~ -)/ . ?\ I I , /-/ \:i\:iI:)C\~~)C\ ¡Þ I N · í:i / - <p\ b~) , - 1 ~ I ,,-\)'0// ",,\:i . ~':) 81 ~ '0/ \00' \\~. . . I -::...-\ \f" "-~.~']; ~I N I \)-I ,\"" I N . ~ PROPOSED I t.O , \0 ROW I I ' ~ AOUISITION I , ~ \ ~ 181.29' L ~-' 'Y , '6:"- ~- 20 ,g'~ , .¡é. \ L" u·O : L \ \ -, \ r---I_ 51' \ \ V, · , ~: I 35.0' .1___ Mþ:IN .' -:. _ 13f.40' _ _~~~_ _--1£oßLt__L I" h 1RS 1723) N89''''42 W 7 ' \\L- 7ã~\~d --.// \ (330'), RoS 15149 35' ROW GRANTED TO --.I , I 333.19 S.D. COUNTY PER I (2640') DOC# 65-92631 \ 2665.55' MAY 6,1965. , , \ PARCEL 1 - 1384.5SF · ROW GRANTED TO THE STATE, PARCEL 2= 960 SF OF CAliF. FOR STATE HIGHWAY \ TOT AL PIQ= 2344.5SF RECORDED MAY 4, 1934 AS \ .054AC DOC 26449 IN BK 295,PG87 \ " " EX H I BIT A PROJECT FILE #ST961 C()IPIJT!JIn..E .. STOCÐ.tJIWC DRAWN BY: JOHN ~ONTES DE DCA TITLE: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY: JACK GECHfER DATE' SHEET 3 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION ""PROVED BY: ClIVE J HDf>II'OOD . 9-10-96 OF 3 SHTS. MAIN STREET . · © E-< v= C/) @, <>: ~ :::> ~ Q' U¥ù~~ U <>: ~~~ ..... _F:.AIVRJ2~_ -", '", ..., ~ N89"OS'27"W STREET -i- ..., -----0------------ ---~-- N N'LY 16 FEET OF LOT 7, MAP 10 ' GRANTED TO THE CITY OF CHULA 15' VISTA FOR STREET PURPOSES PER PROPOSED DOC # 1 99 1 -0664667, DEC 23,1991. DRAINAGE ESM'T - , 'w " ,'''' AN EASEMENT FOR A LINE OF POLES WITH WIRES ' "" ,'" - .... GRANTED TO SDG&E. RECORDED APRIL 29,1914 IN ,," N b BK 608, PG221 OF DEEDS EXISTS ALONG THE .' :z: WEST LINE OF LOT 6. NO WIDTH OF EASEMENT DEFINED. 0'> '" ~ ~ ILCOfIr ~ -co IL(Q)1r 7/ 0 N <D .,..; ~ .... <D IL\O)1f ~ 622-190-21 622-190-15 cID N BASIS ~ OF BEARINGS RoS 15149 622-190-1 B 622-190-16 N.T.S. ) N89"17'02"W ©[H]Qj)~ W~~U Ik 667.89' ;" 660' N ~1k[N] [þ)~~@© AN EASEMENT FOR RAILROAD RIGHT -OF -WAY EXISTS ON A PORTION OF LOT 7 MAP 10, RESERVED BY JOHN W. AUSTIN, RECORDED AUGUST 30,1935 IN BK 426,PG 306 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS. AREA TO BE ACQUIRED= 9020.85 SF 0.207 AC EXHIBIT " B " PROJECT FILE #5T961 "\ITtR FU 'H:\IbTIt\£n9jIllll'\SYMy\Plab\STtIED.DWC AWN BY: JOHN ~ONTES OE DCA TITLE: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPAREO BY: JACK GECHTER DATE: 11-10-97 SHEET 1 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION APPROVED BY: PffiR EHLERT MAIN STREET OF 1 SHTS. 1 ------'" .-.---. -'----._--- ---.-------- - --"- - " --.-----.--,--- ~ .'_.,------'-,- ---...--....-..-....-----..---------. E~'ß'T ~ E" BASIS OF BEARINGS ~ RoS 15149 . N S'LY ROW AS ESTABlISHE S'LY ROW AS ESTABLISHED BY ~ BY RSl723. STATE HWY MAP Xl-SD-2-F, RS1511& CURTIS BROWN WD-5974 40' ROW PER MAP 598 1" = 50' ) MAR 1, 1889 ( RS 1723 132.19' I . (132.53·) MAIN , ST. '1. N89'34-;;¡tW - - - £ - \_____ C! ..,., _.~. ---"~ '112'1' - ,,\1:.), , \ t ',"' I ' 7 \ , 101.61' \ , C1 I) I \ I I I I \ I a:: . I I I \ I I 12 2 ,J I \1 PARCELl 2 >-5[;; I " ' I I \ I i'5"-¡; I ~/ I I 1\629-010r10 'G5~.J., ~-\\ I I \ /¡, 1\ I ' U'):I:OO ..,.J.., ~ \ I ",c~\a.....a I \ I ~3g \...J.ì . I ?þ:<?J.....CI 1 \ I 1-'" B' '. 'Ó c.'].: I I \ I \ V' V \ I o '. 'Q I I \ ~ \ v. ~ I 1 ),______1-__ _ 't- \ ~ \ I \ I I ..... I I ~, '~ . \ I ,,'1' I: _ "". *..z.. :'. J I .... I ':5 ~ ~ I '-. I ...... I 15' EASEMENT PER ~ ": ~ ~ V' I.. ,,"r I DDCN 76-071190 ~".,., 0,1 \ -.-I.. : \ ..... I I REC MARCH 11.1976. ¡;:;g~ £J , I I ") 'JIS I I I: 'JG' I M~!P I 5~i8\ 1 I I I I I I I I I 2 ~ l;:, (5 {) 7 ROW GRANTED TO THE AREAS: CURVE DATA: C 1 STATE OF CAL. FOR STATE ® = 527.18SF R=5D.DD' HWY REC. JUNE 4,1934 Œ> = 1 031.56SF DELTA= 1,14-15-03 AS DOC 30356 IN BK303,P157. © = 899.86SF [:~~:~~, @ =1348.92SF """"~, ru C STOCDDoO E X H I BIT ' , A ' , PROJECT FILE #ST961 DRAWN BY: JOHN YDNTES DE DCA TITLE: CITY OF CHULA VISTA PREPARED BY: JACK GED/TER DAlE: SHEET 3 RIGHT -OF -WAY ACQUISITION APPROVED BY: 9-11-96 OF J SHTS MAIN STREET CLM J. HIJPJtOO() 'Jli'tigated Negative Declaratio çXI1I13rr \IF= PROJECT NA.l\1E: Main Street Reconstruction PROJECT LOCATION: Main Street from Industrial Boulevard to Broadway and Broadway, from Main Street to the southerly city limits. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.: See attached PROJECT APPLICANT: City of Chula Vista Engineering Department CASE NO: IS-96-03 DATE: February 6, 1996 A. Proiect Setting The project consists of approximately I mile of roa.dway reconstruction and widening and is located in the Montgomery Community and the Southwest Redevelopment Area. There are two locations on-site that will be impacted by project implementation. "Location I" extends approximately ten feet east of and under the San Diego Trolley Tracks, 25 feet east of Hollister Road. Immediately north of the site is a dirt drainage channel, east is Southern Willow Scrub habitat and the Otay River Channél is approximately 75 feet to the south. "Location 2" is approximately 1,025 feet east of "Location 1". Adjacent land uses include a truck yard to the north, the Otay River Channel and a mining operation to the south and . Southern Willow Scrub habitat to the west and east. Approximately three-fourths of a mile on Main Street will be graded to accommodate various types of street improvements. These improvements will range from new curb and gutter constru~on and stonn drain construction to traffic signal upgrades and water line relocation. Current surrounding land uses include: light industrial, commercial, single-family residential and a mobile home park. B. Proiect Description The project involves the widening of Main Street and Broadway to their ultimate widths. Improvements will include approximately 450,000 square feet of road and paved surfaces to include: new curb, gutter, sidewalks, driveways and raised medians at intersections. These improvements will bring streets to General Plan standards. The City will need to obtain rights-of-way from approximately 15 parcels in ord~r to complete the construction of the project. This will include the outright purchase of the right-of-way which includes the bar "Angie's Place". This project would require the submission of a "1601 Streambed Alteration Permit" v.ith the California Department of Fish and Game. A water quality waiver or certification, pursuant to Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, will be required ITom the Regional W¡¡ter Quality Control Board. Also, Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act requires that a standard individual pennit application fonn (Form ENG 4345) and relevant ~{f? \l -.- ._--..;: ~"'n,.,~.n:-bT A"r..:!n,'r.\.r~xn::r.T)FrM~'R\ city 01 chula vista planning department Pa~ OF enYironmental review section. CHULA VlsrA 7 ~.- .-....--...-- docwnents (including Biological Report, Wetland Delineation and Biological Assessment) be submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE). · C. Compatibilitv with Zonin~ and Plans On-site zoning includes: CCP, CTP and ILP. The current surrounding General Plan designations are Retail Commercial, Research and Limited Manufacturing and Thoroughfare Commercial. The project will conform to these General Plan designations and the Circulation Element of the General Plan. The proposed curb, gutter, median and sidewalk improvements will bring all roads to conformance v.ith four-lane major standards. The discretionary action for this project is the granting of the construction contract. · D. Identification of Environmental Effects An initial study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist Form) determined that the proposed project will not have a significant environmental effect, and the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. However, an NPDES General Permit For Storm Water Discharges will be required since five or more acres of soil disturbance will occur. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the State CEQA Guidelines. E. Mitigation Necessarv to Avoid SÜmificant Impacts · On-site mitigation for "Location 2" is required. Specific project mitigation measures are required to reduce potentially significant environmental impacts identified in the initial study . for this project to a level below significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design and have been made conditions of project approval, as well as requirements of the attached Mitigation Monitoring Program. The following impacts are those that were determined to be potentially significant and are required to be mitigated to a level below significant. A discussion of each of these potentially · significant but mitigatable impacts from the proposed project follows. Plant Species Revegetation of impacted areas with native wetland species at a ratio of 2: I is required. A revegetation mitigation plan should be prepared by, or in consultation with, a qualified restoration or native revegetation specialist prior to brushing or grading. A revegetation mitigation plan will include location, timing, site preparation, plant materials to be used, maintenance, performance standards and monitoring. Based on the2:l ratio stated above, 0.08 acres (3,620 ft2) of temporary construction area at location 2 will be restored to · Southern Willow/Mulefat Scrub. The area to be revegetated should be in closest proximity possible to existing wetland habitat. Due to the close proximity of Vireo habitat, it is recommended that all revegetation should take place shortly after construction window to take advantage of the rainy season. (M''ROMElPLANNING\KEI1H\NEGDEC.MSR) Page 2 la · Final grading of the wetland area to be restored should be slightly lower than surrounding soils 10 encourage ponding. Animal Species Heavy construction v.itllln the study area will not occur during the breeding season of the Least Bell's Vireo (between March 15 and September 30). Additional Miti~ation Plans shall be reviewed by a qualified individual identified by the Planning Department prior to final plan approval to ensure revisions have not occUlTed which may cause further impacls. Additional Recommendations Wetland areas sUlTounding the project limits should be designated as ESA's (Environmentally Sensitive Areas) and delineated with snow fencing to ensure impacts do not occur oulside the project limits. Impacls to mature (taller than 12 feet) native vegetation within the project area should be avoided, if feasible. Disturbance of canopy or root system of existing native trees will be avoided, and branch trimming instead of tree removal will occur where possible. In areas where Giant Reed will be removed, Rodeo or a similar produce designated for use in aquatic systems should be brushed or sprayed on any remaining stalk within 45 seconds of cutting. During the winter months (October to February), prior to brushing or grading, willow . cuttings should be taken from trees and shrubs deemed impossible to avoid, for use in future revegetation of the area. Storage areas for materials and machinery are to be confmed to existing non-vegetated areas north of the outlets, a minimum of 100 feet from the riverbed. F. Consultation 1. Individuals and Or!:!anizations City of Chula Vista: Keith Barr, Planning Barbara Reid, Planning Roger Daoust, Engineering Cliff Swanson, Engineering Steve Thomas, Engineering Gary Williams, Planning Ken Larsen, Director of Building & Housing Emmett Horsfall, Fire Marshal MaryJane Diosdada, Crime Prevention (M,\HOMElPLANNING\KEITH\NEGDEC.MSR) Page 3 1/ ...."...._~.__._._._------_..__.__.,_.__.._.._._~. Marty Schmidt, Parks & Recreation Dept. Ann Moore, Assistant City Attorney · Chula Vista City School District: Kate Shurson Sweetwater Union High School District: Tom Silva Applicant's Agent: Roger L. Daoust 2. Documents · Chula Vista General Plan (1989) and E1R (1989) Title 19, Chula Vista Municipal Code Biology Report-Main Street Drainage Project (Marquez & Associates, October 18,1995) Main Street Drainage Project-Biological Assessment (Marquez and Associates Biological Consultants, December 10,1995) · 3. Initial Study This environmental determination is based on the attached Initial Study, any comments received on the Initial Study and any comments received during the public review period for this Negative Declaration. The report reflects the independent judgement of the City of Chula Vista. Further information regarding the environmental review of this project is available from the Chula Vista Planning Department, 276 Fourth Avenue, Chula Vista, CA 91.910. · ~æ.J ENvIR ENTAL REVIEW COORDINATOR EN 6 (Rev. 5/93) · (M:\HOME'PLANNTNGIKEITII\NEGDEC.MSR) Page 4 /;.? Case No. 15-96-03 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM 1. Name of Proponent: City of Chula Vista 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: same as above 4. Name of Proposal: Main Street-1ndustrüJl Boulevard to Broadway 5. Date of Checklist: February 6, 1996 WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING'STORED\171S.94 /3 Page I .-.- - - ---~-- ..- _.~-_._-_.~_.- PøIeaJiøO] ~ Slpv-' Leuduø Sip;fi=u Uolaz Sipif-, N. 1_ Ardie_ l_ I_ · l. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designalion or 0 0 0 ~ zoning? b) Conflict with applicable environmental 0 0 0 ~ plans or policies adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project? c) Affect agricultural resources or 0 D· 0 ~ · operations (e.g., impacts to soils or fannlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? d) Disrupt or divide the physical 0 0 0 ~ arrangement of an established community (including a low-income or minority community)? Comments: The project wiU remain consistent with the current land use of the project area. · II. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or 0 0 0 ~ local population projections? b) Induce substantial growth in an area 0 0 0 ~ either directly or indirectly (e.g., through projects in an undeveloped area or · extension of major infrastructure)? c) Displace existing housing, especially 0 0 0 ~ affordable housing? Comments: The project does not propose any activity that will effect growth rate or location of existing populalion. m. GEOPHYSICAL. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Unstable earth conditions or changes in 0 0 0 ~ geologic substructures? b) Disruptions, displacements, compaction 0 0 ~ 0 or overcovering of the soil? \\'PC F:\HQME\PLANNINGISTORED\1718.94 /I,L Page 2 1'øIDdiøl1J ~ s;p;roaød lLutluuo - Uaúu SiglifJØØd N. lItpod M~ Impød Impød c) Change in topography or ground surface 0 0 0 181 relief fetúures? d) The destruction, covering or modification 0 0 0 181 of any unique geologic or physical fetúures? e) Any increase in wind or water erosion of 0 0 0 181 soils, either on or off the site? f) Changes in deposition or erosion of 0 0 0 181 beach sands, or changes in siltation, deposition or erosion which may modify the channel of a river or stream or the bed of the ocean or any bay inlet or lake? g) Exposure of people or property to 0 0 0 181 geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mud slides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Comments: The project is a roadway improvement and is intended to serve the needs of existing and future populations. Some excavations and fill operations will be required but since the project site is relatively level (average slope is 2%), only minor grading would be required and environmental impacts associated with such grading are considered less than significant. A site spec~ soils report has already been prepared for the project site. IV. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage 0 0 0 181 patterns, or the rate and amount of surface runoff? b) Exposure of people or property to water 0 0 0 181 reWed hazards such as flooding or tidal waves? c) Discharge into surface waters or other 0 0 181 0 alteration of surface water quality (e.g., tempertúure, dissolved oxygen or turbidity) ? d) Changes in the amount of surface water 0 0 0 181 in any water body? e) Changes in currents, or the course of 0 0 0 181 direction of water movements, in either marine or fresh waters? WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94 /S Page 3 "--.- ---.- --p_._.._.._.,._~.--- - _..~_..~-". ~ 1'Þ<ÐúMúlJ Slpy"""" La,_ SIp_ Uo/eu Sipy"""" N. I_ M''''''_ I_ I_ f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, 0 0 0 181 . either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? g) Altered direction or rate of flow of 0 0 0 181 groundwater? h) Impw:ts to groundwater quality? 0 0 0 181 i) Alierations to the course or flow of flood 0 0 0 181 waJers? . j) Substantial reduction in the amount of 0 0 0 181 water otherwise available for public water supplies? Comments: Portions of the project are within the IOO-year and SOO-year Floodway boundaries of the Otay River. The existing on-site drainage facilities, primarily sulface flow to the Otay River via Jaqua Street, Faivre Street via Broadway and inlets and underground storm drain systems near Industrial Boulevard are inadequate to serve the project. Drainage improvements thaJ will be constructed as part of the proposed project to collect and convey runoff to the Otay River via underground conduits and curb inlets will correct drainage deficiencies in the project vicinity. V. AIR QUAliTY. Would the proposal: a) Vwlate any air quality standard or 0 0 0 181 contribute to an existing or projected air quality violation? b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants? 0 0 0 181 c) Alier air movement, moisture, or 0 0 0 181 temperature, or cause any change in climate, either locally or regionally? d) CreaJe objectionable odors? 0 0 0 181 e) Create a substantÙll increase in stationary 0 0 0 181 or non-stationary sources of air emissions or the deterioration of ambient air quality? Comments: Deterioration of air quality would not result from the proposed roadway widening project. Vehicular emissions resulting from the project are not considered significant, either on an individual or cumulative basis. wPC F:\HOME\PLANNINGsrORED\1718.94 16 Page 4 1'øtDdi4IlJ ~ Slpifoaøt Leu_ S;p;fiaød U..- S_ N. 1_ MiJit:tdÞI I_ I_ VI. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal resul1 in: a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic 0 0 0 ~ congestion? b) Hazards to safety from design features 0 0 0 ~ (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., fann equipment)? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to 0 0 0 ~ nearby uses? d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or 0 0 0 ~ off-site? e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or 0 0 0 ~ bicyclists? f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting 0 0 0 ~ al1ernative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts? 0 0 0 ~ h) A "large project" under the Congestion 0 0 0 ~ Management Program? (An equivalent of 2400 or more average daily vehicle trips or 200 or more peak-hour vehicle trips.) Comments: The proposed project is a roadway improvement project and will not generate any additional automobile trips. VII. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. a) Endangered, sensitive species, species of 0 ~ 0 0 concern or species that are candidates for listing? b) Locally designated species (e.g., heritage 0 0 0 ~ trees)? c) Locally designated natural communities 0 0 0 ~ (e.g, oak forest, coastal habitat, etc.)? d) Wetland habitat (e.g., marsh, riparian and 0 0 0 ~ vernal pool)? e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 0 0 0 ~ v.'PC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94 /7 Page 5 - --_._._------~,..-.... ~ ~ Sipùf>aød La._ Sipifiø.J UO/= Sipifiaw N. 1_ M'diptat I_ I_ f) Affect regional habitat preservation 0 0 0 181 . planning efforts? Comments: The project site contains Least Bell's Vireo habitat. Site specific mitigation has been implemented into the project design to ensure that no major grading or building processes will be carried out during specific mating season months of the endangered species. VITI. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: . h) Conflict with adopted energy conservation 0 0 0 181 plans? i) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful 0 0 0 181 and inefficient manner? j) If the site is designated for mineral 0 0 0 181 resource protection, will this project impact this protection? Comments: The proposed roadway widening project will not have any impact on energy or fuel consumption. , IX. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: k) A risk of accidental explosion or release 0 0 0 181 of hazardous substances (including, but not linúted to: petroleum products, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? I) Possible interference with an emergency 0 0 0 181 response plan or emergency evacuation plan? m) The creation of any health hazard or 0 0 0 181 potential health hazard? n) Exposure of people to existing sources of 0 0 0 181 potential health hazards? 0) Increased fire hazard in areas with 0 0 0 181 flammable brush, grass, or trees? Comments: The proposed roadway improvemenls would not cause a risk of upset in the City. The project would not release toxic or hazardous material into the environment during upset conditions. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING'STORED\1718.94 If? Page 6 l'DIaIiøHJ l'DIaIiøHJ s~ La.tIuuo SipifIØØll UR1= Sipifu:œtl N. IIfl JOd MiJipuII lørpød lørpød x. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increases in existing noise levels? 0 0 0 181 b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 0 0 0 181 Comments: Increased traffic from the proposed project and activities on the site would increase noise levels in the project vicinity. However, no significant impacts to any sensitive receptors would result from project implementation, nor would the project violate the City's Noise Ordinance. XI. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? 0 0 0 181 b) Police protection? 0 0 0 181 c) Schools? 0 0 0 181 d) Maintenance of public facilities, including 0 0 0 181 roads? e) Other governmental services? 0 0 0 181 Comments: No new governmental services will be required to serve the project. XII. Thresholds. Will the proposal adversely 0 0 0 181 impact the City's Threshold Standards? As described below, the proposed project does not adversely impact any of the Threshold Standards. WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING'STORED\1718.94 Ie:¡ Page 7 · ~ ~ Sipif'","", ún tIuø S;pifiaat UoJeø Sipif'","", N. J_ MiÞpú4 I_ I_ a) Fire/EMS The Threshold Standards requires that fire and medical units must be able to respond to calls within 7 minutes or less in 85 % of the cases and within 5 minutes or less in 75% of the cases. The City of Chula Vista has indicated that this threshold standard will be met, since the nearest fire station is 1. 5 miles · away and would be associated with a 5 minute response time. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. b) Police 1he Threshold Standards require that police units must respond to 84% of Priority 1 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average response time to all Priority 1 calls of 4.5 minutes or less. Police units must respond to 62.10% of Priority 2 calls within 7 minutes or less and maintain an average · response time to all Priority 2 calls of 7 minutes or less. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. c) Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Intersections west of 1-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1987 LOS. · No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. d) Parks/Recreation The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres/l,OOO population. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. · xm. Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will proyide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. · WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\1718.94 ,.,.-. ; Page 8 0<'0 ,..,-, ,..,-, Sipif'''''' Len tIuøc S_ UokSI SipiflaDll N. Impød MiIipúil Impød Impød a) Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Planes) and City Engineering Standards. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. b) Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. The proposed project will comply with this Threshold Standard. XIV. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? 0 0 0 !81 b) Co=unications systems? 0 0 0 !81 c) Local or regional water treatment or 0 0 0 !81 distribution facilities? d) Sewer or septic tanks? 0 0 0 !81 e) Storm water drainage? 0 0 0 !81 1) Solid waste disposal? 0 0 0 !81 Comments: The proposed street improvements will not generate a need for new systems or alteration to the aforementioned utilities. XV. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: a) Obstruct any scenic vista or view open to 0 0 0 !81 the public or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to public view? WPC F:'JiOME\Pl.A.NND"GSTORED\1718.94 ~/ Page 9 PoIDUiøll] · PoIDUiøll] Sipifoaød Lø,_ S~ Uoku Sipifoaød N. bop'" Km,;.u4 I_ I_ b) Cause the destruction or modification of a 0 0 0 J:83 scenic route? c) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic 0 0 0 J:83 effect? d) Create added light or glare sources that 0 0 0 J:83 could increase the level of sky glow in an · area or cause this project to fail to comply with Section 19.66.100 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code, Title 19? e) Result in an additional amount of spill 0 0 J:83 0 light? Comments: There are no scenic highways in the vicinity of the site that will be affected by the roadway widening project. · XVI. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Will the proposal result in the alteration of 0 0 0 J:83 or the destruction or a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? b) Will the proposal result in adverse 0 0 0 J:83 physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? , c) Does the proposal have the potential to 0 0 0 J:83 cause a physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? d) Will the proposal restrict existing religious 0 0 0 J:83 or sacred uses within the potential impact area? e) Is the area identified on the City's General 0 0 0 J:83 Plan EIR as an area of high potential for archeological resources? Comments: There are no cultural resources within the right-of-way area. xvn. PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Will the proposal: 0 0 0 J:83 a) Result in the alteration of or the destruction of paleontological resources? WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING'srORED\1718.94 J2;;1 Page 10 ~ ~ SipifoaøJ 1=_ SipifoaøJ Oohu SipiF-' N. 1""" Køip1<4 1""'" 1""" Comments: There is no evidence of paleontological resources within the right-of-way of the project site. xvm. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or D D D I8I regional parks or other recreational facilities? b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? D D D I8I c) Interfere with recreation parks & D D D I8I recreation plans or programs? Comments: There are no recreational facilities that will be affected by the project. XIX. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE: See Negative Declaration for mandatory [mdings of significance. If an EIR is needed, this section should be completed. a) Does the project haye the potential to D D D I8I degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal co=unity, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods or California history or prehistory? Comments: None of the impacts associated with the project are considered significant and the project as a whole would not degrade the environment or substantially affect any biological habitats or cultural resources. a) Does the project have the potential to 0 0 0 I8I achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Comments: The scope and nature of the project would not result in the curtailment of any long term environmental goals. WPC F:\HOME\PLANND'GSTORED\17IB.94 c:<3 Page II - -..-..'.----".- -......-.., .---.--.... -.--....-.-..,..,.-.- Potentially PotentiaDy Si~lÙfic.Dt Lesstbiiln SignmclIIII: UlÙrElli SipirlClIIII: So . 1m"", Mit~.ttd 1m"", 1m"", b) Does the project have impacts that are 0 0 181 0 indiYidually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects.) . Comments: No cumulative effects would result from this project. a) Does the project have enyironmental effect 0 0 0 181 whìr;h will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: The project is not of sufficient size or scope to cause any such impacts. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated, ' as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. o Land Use and Planning o TransponationlCircnlation o Public Services o Popnlation and Housing . Biological Resources o Utilities and Service Systems o Geophysical o Energy and Mineral Resources o Aesthetics o Water o Hazards o Cultural Resources o Air Quality o Noise o Recreation o Mandatory Findings of Significance ;:;,¿¡ Page 12 . DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I fmd that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the 0 environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I fmd that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the . mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the 0 environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I fmd that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the 0 environment, but at least one effect: 1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and 2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impacts" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. Environmental RevIew Coordmator Date City of Chula Vista WPC F:\HOME\PLANNING\STORED\17IB.94 ~S' Page 13 _ _ _ ."____.__.~_._.._______no.,_+ EXIf rß/'fll~ /I · Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program IS-96-03 This Mitigation Monitoring Program is prepared for the Main Street Reconstruction project. CEQA requires public agencies to ensure that adequate mitigation measures are implemented and monitored on Mitigated Negative Declarations, such as IS-96-03. CEQA requires monitoring of potentially significant and/or significant envirornnental impacts. · The mitigation monitoring program for this project ensures adequate implementation of mitigation for the following potentially significant impact: plant and animal life. Due to the nature of the environmental issues identified, the Mitigation Compliance Coordinator (MCC), shall be the Environmental Review Coordinator (ERe) for the City of ChuJa Vista. It shall be the responsibility of the applicant to ensure that the conditions of the Mitigation Monitoring Program are met to the satisfaction of the ERC. Compliance with the mitigation measures specified in Mitigation Negative Declaration No. IS-96-03 shaH be provided to the ERC prior to the issuance of any permits by the City of Chula Vista. The ERC will thus provide the ultimate verification that the mitigation measures have been accomplished. · · · H:\HOME\COMMDEV\MONACO\MAIN·MMP · :2? MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME: Main Street Reconstruction IS NO.: 96-03 Issue Area Plant and Animal Life Miti¡¡ation Measure see attached mitigation measures. To be implemented in accordance with any additional conditions established by permitting agencies. Proiect Phase (Proiect Desi¡¡n: Construction: Post Construction) A voidance of sensitive habitat to be conducted during project grading. Revegetation of disturbed areas to be conducted after construction is completed. . ReSDonsible PartY City of Chula Vista H:\HO/'lŒ\COMMDEV\.\fONACO\MAIN·MMP ;;;7 ._--.......... -----.----- ._.' ._,,_~__._.._....__..,._._.__.__+_m · MITIGA TION MEASURES The project as proposed would result in the temporary impacts to 0.03 acre of riparian habitat and permanent removal of 0.002 acre of willow habitat. Approximately 65 square feet of waters of the U.S. will also be permanently impacted. In addition, there would be 0.07 acre of temporary impacts to native alluvial scrub habitat. The following mitigation measures will serve to reduce the impacts to below a level of significance. 1. Earth-moving equipment shall be confined to the narrowest possible corridor during · construction. Maximum effort shall be utilized by earth-moving equipment operators to avoid unnecessary maneuvering in areas outside the immediate project area. The limits of gradìilg shall be fenced (with orange "snow fencing" or better) prior to construction. Fencing and subsequent grading shall be monitored to insure that grading does not exceed the designated impact area. Care shall be taken to eliminate deposition of waste dirt or rubble in the drainage channels or ravine banks. Best Management Practices shall be employed to eliminate the deposition of silt and earth in the stream channel. These practices shall include the following measures: , · Maintain perimeter vegetation to the greôtest extent feasible; · Install silt fences along the site perimeter; or · Utilize straw bale barriers along site perimeter; or · Utilize sandbags to create a barrier along site perimeter. 2. Impacts to willows and mulefat will be reduced by avoidance. Fencing shall be placed around the willow and mulefat stands near the edge of construction prior to brush clearing, grading, or trenching. 3. All ôreas where temporary disturbance to native and non-native habitats occur shall be revegetated using native species appropriate to the location. The conceptual revegetation plan incluåed within this report shall be followed for site restoration. 4. Due to the reported presence of the least Bell's vireo in the project vicinity, all construction activity in areas adjacent to the Otay River must take place between October 1 and March 15. Restricting construction activity to this period will eliminate potential disruptions to the breeding activities of the species. 5. All disturbed areas will be revegetated with native species. In Location 1, this will result in the conversion of 0.34 acre of ruderal habitat to native alluvial scrub habitat. In Location 2, the result will be the conversion of 0.18 acre of ruderal vegetation to native alluvial scrub habitat. An additional 0.046 acre of Arundo will be converted to mulefat scrub adjacent to the project site. The conversion of 0.358 acre of non-native ruderal vegetation to native habitat will result in an "out of kind" mitigation ratio of 179: 1 for the permanent impacts to 0.002 acre of willow habitat and 65 square feet of "waters of the U.S." The conversion of 0.046 acre Arundo to mulefat will result in an "in kind" mitigation ratio of 23: 1 for the permanent impacts to willow habitat and waters of the U.S. ~C · Anticipôted impacts and proposed mitigation measures for the Main Street Drainage Project are presented in the table below. Table 2 Impacts and Mitigation to Habitats and Main Street Drainage Project Hebitats..'····· Native Ruderal Additional Restored Restored Arundo to ïemporary Permanent Temporary Permanent wlNative w/Native Mulefat Alluvial I 0 0 0.07 0 0.07 0.018 0 Scrub Willowl I 0 0 0.03 0.002 0.03 0 0.046 Mul.fat Ruderall 0.34 0.002 0.018 0 0 0.34 0 Arundo Waters of I· 0.001 0 0 [0.046J the U.S. 0 0 0 [65ft.'] ;(7 , .._.,._."._--~.__.._--~ SECTION 5 REVEGETATION PLAN · This report details the Conceptual Revegetation Plan for impacts to natural habitats associated with the Main Street Drainage Improvement Project in the Cities of Chula Vista and San Diego. Revegetation on this site is required to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development project on the site and to obtain a Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game and a 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Puroose The purpose and goal of the revegetation/restoration plan is to establish naturally self- · sustaining native habitat where none currently exists and to replace disturbed native habitat following construction. This revegetation/restoration will serve to mitigate the temporary disturbance to native habitats on the project site. The available restoration areas are all within the construction footprint of the proposed project. Restoration of native habitat is proposed for 15,000 square feet (=0.34 acre) currently occupied by ruderal habitat at Location 1, and 0.064 acte of ruderal habitat at Location 2. At Location 2, there will also be 0.1 acre of native habitat disturbed that will be restored to conditions that approximate the pre-disturbance vegetation assemblage on the site. This area is comprised of 0.07 acre alluvial scrub, 0.03 acre of willow and mulefat scrub. · Alluvial scrub is a habitat type that is adapted to disturbance by natural occurrences, especially flooding, and will revegetate naturally. This is because most of the species found in the habitat readily colonize disturbed areas. Other species benefit from seed dispersal, scarification, and deposition by flood waters. In addition, several alluvial scrub species readily res prout from the root crOwn after the above ground portions of the plant have been removed or denuded by flood waters and debris. The restoration project has been divided into two basic treatment types that will be applied to the project site based on the existing conditions prior to restoration. These conditions · determine the land preparation and revegetation requirements for the area. In general, areas occupied by ruderal vegetation will be revegetated with alluvial scrub species and areas occupied by riparian species will be revegetated with riparian scrub species. General Conditions and Restoration Strateoies The soils in alluvial or floodplain habitats are comprised of many layers of alluvial deposits, each representing a storm event that resulted in surface water flow. Each event is actually indicated by at least two different layers, the lower layers representing higher water velocities are composed of coarser materials (larger sand grains) and the top layer of each event cycle is made up of fine silts and organic material that settles out of the water as flows slow or · stop. Because it appears that the fill slope of the trolley berm at Location 1 and the entire disturbance area at Location 2 are composed of alluvial deposits, no soil amendment is required for the restoration project. . The most important condition influencing the distribution of alluvial scrub on the site is the water cycle, including the flood regime and water table level. The flood and scour cycle is essential for development of the various successional stages of 30 alluvial scrub. The high terrace of Location 2 has not been subject to flooding and thus does not support a strictly alluvial vegetation assemblage. If the altered flood regime was the only unnatural condition, the area would be occupied by mature to senescent alluvial scrub habitat. However, protection from flood scour and disturbance related to human activities has resulted in the dominance of non-native weedy grasses and other annual herbaceous species in portions of Location 2 as well as in the entire disturbance area at Location 1. The location of these areas ten or more feet above the existing stream channel limits the ability of pioneer vegetation to recruit to these areas. Establishment is difficult for perennial plants because their root systems may not be able to reach the water table after one rainy season. In order to restore a self-sustaining habitat, two conditions must be met: . Competing non-native annual plants must be controlled or eliminated; and . Appropriate species must be re-introduced to the area. The control or elimination of the competing non-native invasive plant species could be accomplished two ways. The least preferred method is repeated treatment with herbicides and repeated manual removal. This method is not preferred for several reasons. It is not as successful, sometimes requiring several treatments for an acceptable reduction in invasive species, and it introduces chemicals that hinder plant growth into a plant restoration area and stream course. This method will be used at Location 1 because the preferred method of removing the topsoil occupied by ruderal species is not possible at this location. At location 2, this project will use the preferred method of removing the top six to eight inches of the soil from the habitat areas dominated by ruderal vegetation restoration area and using it as fill elsewhere on the project or disposed of in an off-site landfill. This method works completely on the first try by physically removing the undesirable plants and the seed bank present in the top soil horizon. Alluvial scrub species will be introduced to the site by hydroseeding. Riparian scrub species, primarily willow and mulefat, will be planted on the site as cuttings. Site Preoaration Location 1 presently supports a species assemblage heavily dominated by non-native ruderal species (Figure 2 in the Biological Resources Report). Prior to construction the entire construction area will be treated with a herbicide to eliminate the weedy species from the site. Following construction the site will be returned to its present topography and the soil surface will be roughened by "trackwalking" or a comparable tillage method. Alluvial scrub species will be hydroseeded on the site in a bonded fiber mulch matrix. The seed mix is specified in Table 3. Location 2 supports alluvial scrub, ruderal, and riparian habitats (Figure 3 in the Biological Resources Report). The areas presently occupied by either ruderal or alluvial scrub habitats will be restored to an alluvial scrub species assemblage. The areas presently occupied by willows and mulefat will be restored to willow and mulefat habitat. There is a 0.046 acre patch of Arundo adjacent to the southwest side of the project site that will be removed and replaces with mulefat cuttings. ~ - - 3/- - - ..... . . - --------.------ _0- __ _ ___ ___ ..___~_____~_.._.._____.._...._~__ · P~2ntina Following construction and restoration of site topography, the site will be hydroseeded. The hydroseed mix will include the designated seed mix and a light mulch. The hydroseed mix should be spread over the site to hide the seed from predators, protect it from wind and rain erosion, and help retain moisture. The mulch should be made of 93 percent wood cellulose/fiber matrix with 7 percent organic soil stabilizer. Seed Mix - The seed mix includes only species found on the site and that are naturally occurring components of alluvial scrub. This mix utilizes the most common plants found on · the site that are available commercially. The seeds for this mix are available at several native seed suppliers in California. Table 3 Alluvial Sage Scrub Seed Mix Caiifornia mugwort Artemisia doug/asiana 5 15/50 California sunflower Encelia ca/ifornica 5 40/60 · San Diego viguiera Viguiera /aciniata 6 40/50 golden yarrow Eriophyllum confertif/orum 6 40160 coastal goldenbush /socoma menziesii 6 30/60 broom baccharis (dominant) Baccharis sarathroides 8 5/40 desert fragrance (dominant) Hymenoc/ea monogyra 8 90/50 slender tarweed Hemizonia fascicu/ata 4 10/25 white Sage Sa/via apiana 4 70150 Deerweed Lotus scoparius 5 90/60 giant wild rye Leymus condensatus 5 70/80 Notes: P = % Purity, G = % Germination · Willow and Mulefat Cuttings - The riparian areas will be planted with willow and muJefat cuttings. Cuttings will be used because they are the most efficient way to quickly and successfully establish willow-riparian habitat. Cuttings will be planted on three-foot centers. The cuttings will conform to the following specifications. Willow and mulefat cuttings will be collected from the Otay River drainage within five miles of the project site. Cuttings shall be reasonably straight, six feet in length, and 3/4 to 1 Y. inches in diameter at the base of the cutting. The top of each cutting shall end in a naturally occurring bud or shall be cut square above a leaf bud. The bottom of the cutting shall be cut · at a 45 degree angle below a leaf bud. Cuttings shall have all leaves and branches cut off flush with the stem. Leaf and branch trimming will be done with care not to damage the stem. All trimming and pruning instruments shall be extremely sharp to avoid damaging the cuttings' vascular system. Willow and rnulefat cuttings shall be planted between 12 and 48 hours after cutting. Cuttings will be stored in 5-gallon buckets of water with rooting hoimone mixed according to the manufacturer's specifications. · 3~ Cuttings will be planted by driving a dowel into the ground at least 3 feet, removing the dowel, and placing the cutting into the resulting hole. The hole will be filled with water which will be allowed to soak into the surrounding ground. The hole will then be filled with dirt with special care taken to insure that there are no air pockets along the cutting stem. Monitorino Following the implementation of the revegetation program the site will require monitoring and maintenance for up to five years. A vital component of any revegetation program developed to mitigate habitat loss is documentation of the progress of the revegetation program until the plants are established. The monitoring will be performed in conjunction with a long term maintenance progtam. General observations will be important in documenting areas of poor growth or cover, dying plantings, weed invasion, and erosion problems. These areas can then be independently monitored and scheduled for more intensive maintenance activities. If necessary, the areas may be replanted or reseeded. The monitoring program will use a variety of qualitative and quantitative procedures to document the changes in plant growth of the target species and changes in the density and dominance of all plant and wildlife species within the sampled areas. One of the most important procedures will be standardized observations of the entire site, to provide a general tecord of trends on the mitigation site including plant growth. Potential coverage may include photo documentation from designated points, which would give a visual record of the changes in structure and cover of the sites over time. Quantitative studies would be conducted to obtain plant cover estimates, seedling counts, and monitor changes in plant diversity on-site. Immediately following installation, the site will be monitored twice monthly for three months to evaluate germination and the initial "success" of the revegetation effort. (If germination is unsuccessful or the seedlings do not survive, a change in scope may be required to determine the cause of failure). For the 3-12 month period following installation, the site will be checked once a month. After the first year, monitoring will be completed on a bi-monthly basis. In order to insure success of the revegetation program, any areas that require reinstallation of materials will have their monitoring program started over at the time of reinstallation. The revegetation areas will require regular maintenance, primarily consisting of inspection of the site for erosion problems, weed invasion, herbivory, unhealthy or dying plantings, removal of trash, and taking actions necessary to prevent off-road vehicle use and illegal dumping. If these disturbances occur, repairs will be made in a timely manner. These maintenance activities will be implemented throughout the monitoring/responsibility period. A detailed maintenance manual will be developed prior to the completion of the construction documents and specifications. A biologist experienced in horticultural practices and native plant communities will be the primary author of the maintenance manual. Annual reports will be submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game for review. .- 33 -_.__...._..._._-'_..__._-_._..._~ Recommended Maintenance Procedures · Weeding Weed species determined by the biological monitor to be inconsistent with the revegetation goals will be hand-removed by the revegetation contractor on a continuing basis for the five year maintenance period. In no case will weedy species exceed 12 inches in height. Weeds and their roots systems should be completely removed. Weeds should be cleared monthly during the first two years of maintenance and every two months thereafter, or as deemed necessary by the biological monitor, for the remainder of the minimum five year maintenance period. · Pruning and Leaf Litter No pruning or leaf litter removal will take place within the mitigation site since the mitigation goal is to create a naturally occurring habitat. Therefore, all dead branches will be left on the shrubs and trees and all leaf litter and fallen branches will not be cleared away from the plantings. Dead branches and leaf litter provide habitat for a variety of species. Pest Control Pest control will generally consist of horticultural and biological methods. Pesticide use will · be as recommended by an agricultural pest control advisor and authorized by the maintenance supervisor. However, if plantings are infected, pesticides may be spot sprayed. Rodent control will be restricted to methods recommended by the maintenance supervisor. Irrigation In general, irrigation is not desired because the young plants need to acclimate to natural watering regimes. If the revegetation plantings become dependent on irrigation they may develop shallow root systems that will not allow the plants to survive under natural conditions, after irrigation is discontinued. However, if during the revegetation program, natural drought · threatens the survival of the plantings, irrigation may be used to help insure the survival of new plantings. Any irrigation used should not be allowed into adjacent natural habitat areas as the plants there are acclimated to natural water availability. Irrigation, if necessary, will be accomplished by the use of water trucks. The project biologist will be presant to monitor initial irrigation efforts to insure that the spray from the water truck does not have excessive force, thus displacing seedlings, but is adequate to water the plants. Should any plants exhibit stress, the biological monitor shall determine if the stress is related to over watering or under watering, and corrective actions will be taken. It is important that the maintenance crew follows the biological monitor's recommendations on watering schedule. · If irrigation is necessary, the maintenance crew will keep a log of watering including the date and the amounts and person watering. A copy of this log will be given to the biological monitor during the site inspection following the watering. - 3£/ · Fertilization Chemical fertilization will not be used in the mitigation area. Since native plants have adapted to conditions of low nutrient availability, fertilization is generally not necessary. Also, the application of excess fertilizer tends to favor the establishment of weedy species. Protective Measures Against Herbivory Animal herbivory is a common problem in revegetation programs. Animals including gophers and rabbits forage on new planting's roots and leaves to the point where they can kill the plantings. Therefore, protective measures often need to be incorporated during the time of planting and during the replanting of lost plants. Trash Removal Trash will be removed from the mitigation site on a regular basis (at least once a month or as needed based on the rate of illegal dumping). Plant Health and Survival Maintenance crews will report any unhealthy or dying plants, or sprouting failure in any of the seeded areas. This will assist the biological monitor in developing immediate remedial measures such as implementing irrigation or replacing plant material to correct the problem. Replacement of Dead or Diseased Plant Materials Seeded areas will be quantitatively assessed for seedling success at 120 days after seeding and annually thereafter for a five year period. Seeded areas determined by the biological monitor not to have obtained 50 percent coverage or better are to be reseeded at the expense of the contractor at 120 days, and annually thereafter if needed. Timing of the seeding is subject to the discretion of the biological monitor. 35 -"------ ..-- -." -"- -- --- _.~------+~- · · THIS PAGE BLANK · · · 3t. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT Item ,;)...:L Meeting Date 01120/98 ITEM TITLE: Public Hearing To consider adoption of Seven Major Areas of Improvement Resolution) 8"8"2'dAdopting the Seven Major Areas of Improvement REVIEWED BY: City Manager& SUBMITTED BY: B"dg,'","",,~ ~ Public Information Coordinat (4/Sths Vote: Yes _ No.xJ The City Council previously had work sessions to discuss city-wide priorities and identify areas for improvement. On September 11, 1997, City Council completed a final review of the priorities and identified the seven major areas of improvement. The City Council received public comment and input on the proposed seven issues at a public hearing on October 21, 1997 and determined that an additional public comment was necessary prior to final adoption. Prior to this meeting council members will have made 14 talks to community groups, and reached out to the community in general for input via phone, mail, fax, and the Internet. In addition articles have appeared in local paper and the City's newsletter. A public hearing was held on January 13, 1998 which was continued to this meeting. The intent of this meeting is to allow for more public testimony and then to adopt the seven major areas of improvement. RECOMMENDATION: That Council accept public testimony and then adopt the seven major areas of improvement. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: All boards and commissions members were sent the listing of the seven major areas for improvement and the 63 priority projects for review and comment. Any comments received prior to distribution of this report will be included as an attachment, however, Boards and Commissions have been advised that they may want to make a presentation to Council at this meeting. DISCUSSION: The City Council had four work sessions to specifically discuss the development of city-wide priorities. They met for a total of 13 and one-half hours and narrowed a list of 226 staff priorities to a final list of approximately 63 goals and sub-goals that the City Council believed to be the highest priority for completion. At the final work session the Council selected their 7 areas of improvement. ;)J /( -'-'~'-"."----'- ... . . --------~_._~._--~-'_.~-_._---,..._._,------~_.,---_._- Page 2, Item 22- Meeting Date 01/20/98 The Council also held two special work sessions on two of the proposed priorities of the Bayfront and Town Centre 1. During the work session on the Bayfront the Council received input from the following groups: Yacht Harbor Coalition, Bayfront Conservancy Trust, Environmental Health Coalition, San Diego Audubon Society, Rohr, the Port District, Save Our Bay, SDG&E, and several citizens. At the work session on Town Centre I Project Area, which represents Third Avenue, the Council received further input from the Downtown Business Association, Chamber of Commerce, Southwestern College Small Business Development and International Trade Center, Economic Development Commission, Sweetwater Union High School District and several Third Avenue business owners. Through this process a total of six major goal areas were identified with sub-goals under each of these major headings. (See Attachment A) From this total list of approximately 63 different goals or projects, each Council member selected their top 8 priorities. By matching those selections Council identified 7 projects or goals which they agreed were the highest priority. The top seven (7) priorities identified are Bayfront, Downtown Revitalization, Broadway Revitalization, Otay Valley, Educational CenterlEnvironmental Institute, SR-125 and Revenue Enhancement. After completion of this process, Council determined that the term, "priorities" did not truly reflect the intent of the Council. This term was changed to, "The Seven Major areas of Improvement," as these projects represent important areas in the city that are in need of staff and resources to implement plans to improve them. A brief description of each of these follows: Bayfront Continue the redevelopment and replanning of the Bayfront Project Area to encourage and facilitate quality visitor-serving commercial, recreational and residential development for the undeveloped coastal related properties west of 1-5 between SR-54 and "L" Street. The redevelopment and replanning efforts are to include furthering the joint planning process with the San Diego Port Commission toward the collective goal of expanding the Bayfront Project Area boundaries to include the Port District properties adjacent to the Chula Vista Yacht Harbor, extending "H" Street westerly to Marina Parkway and establishing the Chula Vista Bayfront as a resort destination. Otay Valley Continue the redevelopment and replanning of the Otay Valley Road Project Area to encourage and facilitate quality commercial, entertainment, recreation and industrial development along the Otay Valley Road corridor between 1-805 and the eastern and southern City limits. The ~.J/d-- __ - ._ _'___._.u____...___ - ~- - -- ,-_._---,,-- ._-_._._--------~ Page 3, Item 22- Meeting Date 01/20/98 redevelopment and replanning efforts are to capitalize and expand on the opportunities created by the Auto Park, MCA Amphitheater and White Water Canyon projects toward the goal of improving the image and character of the area, and creating a commercial/recreational hub for the region. Third Avenue - Downtown Continue the revitalization of the Town Centre I Downtown District along Third A venue from "E" to "I" Street by encouraging and facilitating quality infill commercial and office development as well as attracting quality commercial tenants. The revitalization efforts are to include continued marketing, leasing, and image enhancement programs with the Downtown Business Association toward the goal of re-establishing the Downtown as the commercial-civic focus of the City. Broadway Revitalization Implement a focused revitalization effort along the Broadway commercial corridor to impede the proliferation of blighting influences and encourage quality commercial/retail development. The revitalization effort should include coordination with the Broadway Business Association and further the progress made with the Palomar Trolley Center, the auto dealership relocations, and the completed Broadway Street improvements, and could include a "pilot" area for focused revitalization. Higher Education CenterlEnvironmental Sciences Institute Continue to advance the planning for a "Higher Education Center and Environmental Sciences Institute" concept to involve the establishment of a single campus which would house academic programs from San Diego State University, University of California at San Diego, and Southwestern College with emphasis in the areas of high technology and biotechnology, as well as environmental research and commerce. The planning efforts should include further definition of organizational structure, academic and research focus, as well as siting and financial issues. SR-125 Continue to support the construction of a Freeway/Tollroad to serve the eastern area north south traffic movement. The facility will be a 6 to 10 lane divided and controlled access highway built to freeway standards beginning at 1-905 in Otay Mesa and traversing north to SR-54. The project has regional funding in the amount of $70 million (approx) to pay for the San Miguel Connector (between SR-54 and San Miguel Rd.) It is important to keep political interest and support for the funding with State, Federal, and local elected officials. c2:2 ~ 3 --. - ---- ---- - -- --~'---~--"'----'- -"'~~-"--'-"-'--"-'- Page 4, Item Z 2- Meeting Date 01120/98 Improve City Revenues Base Continue to focus on increasing the revenue base for basic City services, actively participate in lobbying efforts to "return" funds taken from the State, limit the use of one-time revenue sources, make progress toward the Council goal of an 8 % reserve, and generally ensure an improvement in the City's long term financial stability. PUBLIC NOTICE At the previous meeting Council approved the implementation of the following methods to encourage public input into this process: · Press Release: A press release was sent and media contacts made which resulted in articles published in the San Diego Union-Tribune, Chula Vista Star News, the Independent Community Post and the Chula Vista Eagle. (Attachment B) · Information Notice on Televised Council Meetings: An informational message was provided prior to the October meetings and before this meeting. · "Chula Vista Ouarterly": A story was included in the Cityls newsletter which was published in late December. This newsletter reaches virtually every household and business in the City. Approximately 26,000 are mailed to Laidlaw single-family household customers and another 31,000 are directJy mailed to multi-family dwelling units and businesses. (Attachment C) · Service Club Presentations: The Mayor and/or City Council members have given presentations to 14 different service organizations in Chula Vista. A listing of these meetings and some general comments are attached. (Attachment D) · Publicity in Other Newsletters: A press release was submitted to other community organizations for publication in their newsletters including the Rancho del Rey and EastLake developments, the Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Business Association, Broadway Business Association, Bonita Business and Professional Association and South County Economic Development Corporation. · City Web Site: Information about the priorities was placed on the city's web site which allowed for direct E-mail responses. There were 123 "web site hits" from November 6 through December 22. In Attachment E are four (4) E-mail responses as a result of the web site information. · Voice-Mail: The voice-mail box set up has received five (5) responses, which have been transcribed in Attachment F. c1.J ~ Y' ----------- .. - -------.-.---.--....-------..--.-......-..--.--, Page 5, Item 22 Meeting Date 01120/98 . Board and Commission Members: Each City board and commission member was sent a letter detailing the identified priorities and asking each group or individual to provide any input regarding these areas for improvement to the Council. In response to these letters, a presentation was made to the Board of Ethics, and two (2) letters from individuals were received along with a letter from the GMOC. (Attachment G) There may be presentations by some Boards and Commissions at tonight's public hearing. . Flyer: A flyer summarizing the Council's seven priorities was placed in the City's libraries, counters at City Hall and in other City facilities. This flyer included a section detailing ways the community could give input. (Attachment H) ONGOING PROCESS The process recently completed by the City Council has provided valuable direction to staff to establish a better plan for achieving these identified priorities. However, the areas for improvement are stated very generally and Council has not had sufficient time to provide further details. In order to assist Council with this process, staff is in the process of developing a draft action plan for each of the seven areas of improvement. A process to prepare this action plan is currently being developed. An Informational Memo will be provided to Council to provide details on this process and provide suggestions for further implementation. In order for Council to regularly evaluate priorities, it is recommended that a semi-annual review be incorporated into the budget process. Annual Priorities Workshop Since the Council has identified the need for one workshop per month, it would be recommended that the September workshop be set aside for an annual review of the Council's priorities. This would set the tone, clarify any changing priorities to work plans so that they can then be incorporated into the beginning phase of the budget process. By having Council's direction and input prior to the department's budget development, it will ensure that the budget is prepared with that input in mind rather than adjusted later as a result of Council feedback. Bude:et Review Work Sessions In addition to the annual workshop, it is critical that the priorities actually appear as part of the budget document. One way to do this, which fits well within the new budget format, is to incorporate these priorities into the "goals" of the City Council as listed with the Council's budget. Since "goals" are general in nature, these broad priorities would fit into the current structure very well. During the budget review work sessions in May, the Council may then take another look at the priorities and revise them as necessary. ....- ~ ,)<3 --- ...._-"..._--._~-'".- Page 6, Item 22- Meeting Date 01120/98 These two review periods will provide for semi-annual review of Council's priorities and incorporation of those priorities into the budget process. FISCAL IM.PACT: The semi-annual review of the City Council's priorities will not create additional direct costs. If the Council desires to implement any of the additional options for public input, those costs identified would need to be included in the budget. In order to accomplish these proposed priorities, it may be necessary to reduce the prioritization of other projects or reallocate staff and other resources. Implementation plans and budgets to accomplish these priorities have yet to be developed by the impacted departments. Such items will be brought back to Council as appropriate, either within the current fiscal year or as part of the workshop process for the 1998-99 budget. 1 H:IHOMEIADMINICCPRIAJ.WPD c1.2~¡, .. _'~""~_~'_____"_'__'._ _'_.'__"M.______..______..~. RESOLUTION NO. J?!7¿;Yt/ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING THE SEVEN MAJOR AREAS OF IMPROVEMENT WHEREAS, the city Council previously had work sessions to discuss city-wide priorities and identify areas for improvement; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 1997, the City Council completed a final review of the priorities and identified the seven major areas of improvement and received public comment and input on the proposed seven issues at a public hearing on October 21, 1997 and determined that additional public comment was necessary prior to final adoption; and WHEREAS, Councilmembers have given 14 talks to community groups, and reached out to the community in general for input via phone, mail, fax, the Internet and, in addition, articles have appeared in the local paper and the City's newsletter; and WHEREAS, the City council set an additional public hearing for January 13, 1998, which hearing was continued to January 20, 1998, to allow for further testimony; and WHEREAS, it is recommended that the Seven Major Areas of Improvement be adopted. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula vista does hereby adopt the following Seven Major Areas of Improvement: Bavfront Continue the redevelopment and replanning of the Bayfront Project Area to encourage and facilitate quality visitor-serving commercial, recreational and residential development for the undeveloped coastal related properties west of 1-5 between SR-54 and ilL" Street. The redevelopment and replanning efforts are to include furthering the joint planning process with the San Diego Port Commission toward the collective goal of expanding the Bayfront Project Area boundaries to include the Port District properties adjacent to the Chula vista Yacht Harbor, extending "H" Street westerly to Marina Parkway and establishing the Chula Vista Bayfront as a resort destination. 1 d.2-? otav Vallev Continue the redevelopment and replanning of the otay Valley Road Project Area to encourage and facilitate quality commercial, entertainment, recreation and industrial development along the otay Valley Road corridor between 1-805 and the eastern and southern City limits. The redevelopment and replanning efforts are to capitalize and expand on the opportunities created by the Auto Park, MCA Amphitheater and White Water Canyon projects toward the goal of improving the image and character of the area. Third Avenue - Downtown continue the revitalization of the Town Centre I Downtown District along Third Avenue from "E" to "I" street by encouraging and facilitating quality infill commercial and office development as well as attracting quality commercial tenants. The revitalization efforts are to include continued marketing, leasing, and image enhancement programs with the Downtown Business Association toward the goal of re-establishing the Downtown as the commercial-civic focus of the City. Broadwav·Revitalization Implement a focused revitalization effort along the Broadway commercial corridor to impede the proliferation of blighting influences and encourage quality commercial/retail development. The revitalization effort should include coordination with the Broadway Business Association and further the progress made with the Palomar Trolley Center, the auto dealership relocations, and the completed Broadway street improvements. Hiqher Education Center/Environmental Sciences Institute Continue to advance the planning for a "Higher Education Center and Environmental Sciences Insti tute" concept to invol ve the establishment of a single campus which would house academic programs from San Diego state University, University of California at San Diego, and Southwestern College with emphasis in the areas of high technology and biotechnology, as well as environmental research and commerce. The planning efforts should include further definition of organizational structure, academic and research focus, as well as siting and financial issues. SR-125 continue to support the construction of a Freeway/Tollroad to serve the eastern area north south traffic movement. The facility will be a 6 to 10 lane divided and controlled access highway built to freeway standards beginning at 1-905 in otay Mesa and traversing north to SR-54. The project has regional funding in the amount of $70 million (approx) to pay for the San Miguel Connector (between 2 .J2-r - -~--~--~-~~--- n.·_......_... .....__........______._ __ ~..._._... __,__m.'.__ SR-54 and San Miguel Rd. ) It is important to keep political interest and support for the funding with state, Federal, and local elected officials. Improve citv Revenues Base Continue to focus on increasing the revenue base for basic City services, actively participate in lobbying efforts to "return" funds taken from the State, limit the use of one-time revenue sources, make progress toward the Council goal of an 8% reserve, and generally ensure an improvement in the City's long term financial stability. Presented by Approved as to form by Dawn Herring, Budget Manager y C:\rs\ccprior.7 3 (~:L --- 9 ^ -"--_..~ -.---_._---_._._._.._._-_._-"--~---------- AITACHMENT A ADDITIONAL COUNCIL PRIORITY GOALS: In order to be the best that the City of Chula Vista can be in preparation for the twenty-first century, the following goal areas are proposed: . Insure Long- Tenn Financial Stability 1. Balance budget by: · reducing expenditures · reducing reliance on one-time revenues · continue to bring Redevelopment Agency out of the red 2. Implement three-year financial plan · investment policy · potential revenue streams · examine future needs 3. Continue utilization of performance-based budgeting · establish measuresl standards · how do we know when we "get there"? . Promote Economic Development 1. Attain four-star quality hotelslresorts within city limits 2. Review all franchise and other agreements a. SDG&E b. Cox Cable c. Laidlaw d. Electric Utility Restructuring I L:2.2- /~:J _,,__...___ _n ___._ ~ ~ - .--.__..._.,--,--_.,-_._-"._-_.._._--_._-_..__.__..~-_._.._.._---_.._---~ 3. Promote individual economic development projects a. IDEC b. School administration building relocation c. WERE d. EastLake Business Park e. BEA 4. Joint corporate yard . Promote Quality of Life Indicators I. Air Quality - annual report required from Air Pollution Control District on impact of growth on air quality. 2. Fiscal - annual report required to evaluate impacts of growth on city operations, capital improvements, ana development impact fee revenues and expenaitures. 3. Police - respond to 84% of the Priori~ I emergency calls within 7 minutes and maintain avera~ responded time of 4. minutes. Respond to 62 % of Priority II urgent calls wit in 7 minutes and maintain average response time of 7.0 minutes. 4. Fire/EMS - respond to calls within 7 minutes in 85 % of the cases. 5. Schools - annual report required to evaluate school district's ability to accommodate new growth. 6. Librara; - provide 500 square feet of library space adequately equipped and staffed per 1, 00 population. 7. Parks and Recreation - maintain 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with :hpropriate facilities¡,er ~OOO residents east of Interstate 805, ana continue to ev uate the quality an con ition of the parks 8. Water - annual report from water service agencies on impact of growth and future water availability 9. Sewer - sewage flows and volumes shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Annual report from metropolitan Sewer Authority on impact of growth on sewer capacity. 10. Drainaf'e - storm flows and volume shall not exceed City Engineering Standards. Annua report reviewing performance of city's storm drain system. 2 ;2:2 .-- / / - _, ._...___._n_._____,__, 11. Traffic - maintain Level of Service (LOS) "c" or better as measured by observed average travel sßeed on all siÿ,nalized arterial streets, except, that during peak hours, an LOS" "can occur or no more than any two hours of the day. Those signalized intersections west of Interstate 805 that do not meet the above standard may continue to operate at their 1991 LOS, but shall not worsen. 12. Higher Education - (has not been officially adopted by the City Council) . Evaluate and Assess Land Use and Planning 1. Process land use plans effectively and efficiently while implementing and protecting the City's policy interests. 2. Review and update land use projects: A. Project Specific (1) Replanning Eastl.ake III (2) San Miguel Ranch - next phase (3) Salt Creek Ranch (a.k.a. Rolling Hills Ranch) (4) Otay Ranch SPA I (including West Coast land change of ownership) (5) University (6) Lower Sweetwater Area Plan (7) Sunbow B. Area wide (1) DlF Update (2) Prepare Master Plans for Fire, Parks, and Library (3) Restudy Development Phasing Plan (4) Finalize Agreement with County for Preserve Owner Manager 3 c:2.2~ J.2 _..,..._...+ ____ m ..____.__.+___ "._'..'__.. . Update Administratiye Policies and Procedures 1. Look at incorporating performance-based budgeting process for budget planning - to be completed prior to July 1, 1997 2. Examine the benefits of multi-rear or two-year budget process as an approach - to be completed prior to July I, 997 3. Examine a short-term Financial Plan as a possible benefit to the City - to be completed by January 1998 4. Staff review and recommend a policy-review cycle (3 year, 4 year, whatever) - within next 3-4 months 5. Staff to develop systematic way to prioritize individual land use requests 6. Staff work on developing a long-term strategic economic development plan. . Promote and Influence Regional Issues Maintain a presence and/or achieve a role at meetin~ involving regional issues which have fo\tential impact on Chula Vista (e.g. SANDAG, ater, Trash, Brown Field, NAFTA, obs Training, Regional Library Bond, Regional Work/Force and Employers Center, MSCP, Sewer-wastewater, 905, Regional Transit issues, Welfare Reform Impacts). H:\HOME\ADMIN\OAWN\GOALS.A13 4 d-d~O - -----~.. - ..--* ...-" ." -- - --_.~,_._._- - -- -- .._-,--,.._-~.__."..,---_..." ._, ~ 70ZÅ 279 Beech Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 January 13, 1998 Mayor Shirley Horton J(N 2 n City Hall 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Mayor Horton, I applaud the efforts of your administration in identifying areas of improvement. However, I believe that a top priority should be repairing streets and street signs. In particular, E, H, Main, and Palomar streets between the trolley tracks and Broadway are very rutted and have many potholes. Also many if not most of the illuminated overhead street signs are out. Perhaps this is caused by water or vapor entering the housings. I hope that you will take appropriate action on these matters. ~~ ichael Power -,._-.---. ..'----" _.._----.__._.._~-._.,-_..__.__._---- Author: Louie Vignapiano at CHULA_VISTA #~ -j:r c2 <+ Date: 1/12/1998 8:21 AM Priority: Normal TO: Dawn Herring Subject: priorities ------------------------------------ Message Contents ------------------------------------ Subject: Major areas for Improvement Date: Sun, 11 Jan 1998 16:54:59 -0800 From: Lorrain Martin <sandybear@home.com> Organization: @Home Network To: chulavis, Mayor@home.com, Horton@home.com, Councilmembers@home.com, Moot@home.com, Padilla@home.com, Salas@horne.com, and@home.com, Rindone@home.com As a resident of Chula Vista for over 28 years, we would like to give our input with regards to the City scrambling for biotechnology and/or biomedical research businesses in this City. We are concerned with the fact that the above businesses bring into this area what we don't want to see: Overuse of our water supply, toxic and contamination in the research phase, and abuse of our fellow earthlings, the animals. Please consider businesses other than biotechnology and biomedical research. They are funded by the pharmaceutical industry and suppliers of laboratory animals. NOT NECESSARY, we can project our City as a City of compassion just as we did when we did not allow the County to take over the shelter because of their selling animals to research facilities. We like living here and do not want to see another "LOS ANGELES" in the South County. Thank you. ..-.-- .-_...._._.__.__.~.._------>-- Author: Louie Vignapiano at CHULA_VISTA ¥;f;~ ð-;2 .;2 Date, 12/22/1997 8,33 AM Priority: Normal TO, Dawn Herring Subject: Priorities ------------------------------------ Message Contents ------------------------------------ Dear John GOBS, In response to your request for input on the City Council priority projects, I think more emphasis should be placed on the impact of development, especially traffic congestion caused by additional commercial ventures. Parking is already a problem in many areas of downtown. Broadway parking is mostly on the street and there is not enough street for expansion. Traffic on "H", 3rd, and Broadway is already high in volume. "LI! street is backed up during rush hour at the off ramp from 805 and around the shopping areas. East Chula Vista is putting a lot of strain on the roads as it is. I think this should be a higher priority. Sincerely, Michele Delehanty Human Relations Commission Member __.. "'_"'~n - - ..--...-..-....---....-. .. _.._._.__._~- .---.-------- Author: Louie Vignapiano at CHULA_VISTA ~ ¿r,;2 :). Date: 12/17/1997 7:48 AM Priority: Normal TO: Dawn Herring Subject: e-mail on priorities ------------------------------------ Message Contents ---------___________________________ Return-Path: JH333@aol. com From: JH333 <JH333@aol.com> Date: Mon, 15 Dec 1997 14:22:25 EST To: Ivignapiano@ci.chula-vista.ca.us Subject: Irnprovments Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) We hear about all the improvments you see in the future for all parts of the City. What about the Montgomery Area or are we just the people that were promised things and when you finally got our area you now want our tax base to spend in other MORE IMPORTANT areas???? Bill Mulesky ---..--.'" - ----- '_"_--~----,---_.,-- Author: Louie Vignapiano at CHULA_VISTA ~ ?;¿ ;) Date: 12/12/1997 8:41 AM Priority: Normal TO: Dawn Herring Subject: cc priorities ------------------------------------ Message Contents ------------------------------------ Return-Path: S15@prìmeg.swc.cc.ca.us From: SI5@primeg.swc.cc.ca.us Subject: Priority List To: Ivignapiano@ci.chula-vista.ca.us Date: 11 Dec 97 16:01:58 PST I am the Dean of Fine Arts, Humanities, and Communication at Southwestern College and I sit on the Cultural Arts Commission. After reviewing all of the information on the proposed priorities for the City of Chula Vista, I have a major reservation. It seems that all of the priorities are based on economic issues. I understand that the document is intended to focus on how to get more business and economic development activities operating in Chula Vista, but there seems to be a complete disregard for the quality of life issues that employers tell us are so important when they are choosing places to move. I think that if we only address the dollars and cents issues, we will lose sight of the big picture. If the City has a cultural arts commission, it must be interested in these matters...not in the sense of keeping people busy with projects, but interested to the point that a priority will be given to cultural and artistic development. Including such issues as cultural and artistic development should be rather easy and can even be presented in terms of economic development. Please review the priority issues and include elements of cultural and artistic nature. Please contact me if you have further questions. Barry A. Russell, Dean Division of Fine Arts, Humanities, and Communication Southwestern College - ~.._. . -- +~.- -~._--------_.. COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~3 Item Meeting Date 1/20/98 ITEM TITLE Public Hearing: Regarding existing and proposed rates and charges for Cox Communications' Basic Service Tier and associated equipment and Cable Programming Services Tier, as submitted by Cox Communications to the City via Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Forms 1235, 1240 and 1205. SUBMfITED BY, Prind""l ",",,_00' "'"~T~ REVIEWED BY: City Manager~ ~ (4/Sths Vote: Yes_ NoX) In December, Council considered four items om (;?x Communications dealing with their Maximum Permitted Rates. One of these, reducing the Maximum Permitted Rates for installations and equipment, was approved by Council. There was no other action and the public hearing was continued until tonight. Staff has since confirmed that 1) no action is required at this time, 2) taking no action at this time in no way constitutes an approval of Cox's proposed rates, and 3) the City's ability to file complaints or rate orders opposing those rates remains unaffected. Staff recommends taking no action at this time. As further actions are required or as new information is received, staff will forward additional reports to Council. RECOMMENDATION: That Council taking no further action at this time, either to endorse or to deny Cox's proposed Maximum Permitted Rates, but rather reserving the authority to file future complaints or rate orders as allowed by federal law. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: N/A DISCUSSION Cox's initial filing with the City, as discussed at the meeting of December 9, concerned Maximum Permitted Rates. Since that time, they have also issued customer notifications of planned changes in their actual rates. Contrary to the general, countywide rates of $13 for basic service and $30.95 for expanded "Cox Standard" service, Cox has proposed not to change their Chula Vista basic rates at this time (they would remain at $9.74). They have proposed to increase their Cox Standard (basic+expanded) rate by $1.90 (from $28.95 to $30.85). This increase would be partially within Cox's existing rate authority (their existing Maximum Permitted Rate is $30.40) and partially ($0.45 of the increase) within their proposed Maximum Permitted Rate for the year. This proposal, according to the City's consultant, appears to follow the FCC's formula for calculating such increases. Local agency authority to act on such rates is strictly limited by the FCC, which generally places only basic rates in the local regulatory sphere. On basic rates, the City may opt to issue a rate order approving a different rate than that proposed by the company. Such a rate order would need to be filed prior to the anniversary date :1.3 --- / - L/ , Item 23 , Page 2 Meeting Date 1/20/98 of the Maximum Permitted Rate filing (which would be 7/14/98). Since, at this point, Cox is not proposing to change basic rates as part of their February rate increase, this issue is somewhat moot. For now, staff recommends Council postpone action on the basic rate issue. Such a postponement would not imply an approval of the proposed maximum rates, and prior to any applicable deadlines for action, staff would bring back additional information on available options for the City Council and further developments in pending federal legislation, FCC regulations, or Cox's pending basic rate appeal of the City's rate increase denial in 1996. On expanded rates, Council's ability to act on an increase is limited to the filing of a complaint with the FCC. This may be done within 180 days after an actual increase in rates (February 1998) if during that time period the City receives a minimum of two subscriber complaints about the increase. A similar complaint was filed last year. Assuming that the first bills carrying the new charges would be dated February I, the deadline for filing such a complaint would be July 31, following 30 days notice to Cox to give them an opportunity to comment. Staff will track customer complaints received following the February rate increase and provide appropriate reports to Council. If further action is warranted, the subject will be re-agendized prior to applicable deadlines. FISCAL IMPACT Since taking no action at this time affects neither Cox's current rates nor Council's continuing ability to take action on those rates, there is no fiscal impact associated with staff s recommendation. :2:3 --cÀ ....------.....--.---....-..-...-.,-- ~~ ,/13 /'19" COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ----- Item£ .;:¿ ¿"j. '. -- Meeting~ate ifB/I):/..1..0/9§' ITEM TITLE: Report on the use of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 to fInance infrastructure. Resolution / g-ð'¿Óadopting the City of Chula Vista statement of goals and policies regarding the establishment of CommUlÚty Facilities Districrs SUBMITTED BY: Director of Public wory~ 6'¡l- REVIEWED BY: City Manager -(",]I; (4/Sths Vote: Yes_NoX) . Recently, McMillin Gtay Ranch and Gtay Ranch Development requested the City to initiate proceedings for the establishment of CommUlÚty Facilities Districrs (CFDs) also known as Mello- Roos Districrs, pursuant to the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982" ("Mello-Roos . , Act"), to fInance specifIc public improvemenrs serving their proposed developmenrs. Staff retained a consultant, Brown, Diven & Henrschke, based on their expertise and experience in working with the City and other agencies as bond counsel to prepare the enclosed report on the use of CFDs as a public financing mechanism within the City of Chula Vista. The "Mello-Roos .-~~. Act" requires that as a prerequisite for the use of CFDs, the City shall adopt a "statement of local goals and policies" concerning the use of the Act. That document was also prepared by the consultant and reviewed by staff and developers. The approval of the proposed resolution will ratify the USe of CFDs as a public financing mechanism for (1) the construction and/or acquisition of public infrastructure, and (2) the provision of authorized public services. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that Council: 1) accept the report on the use of the Mello-Roos CommUlÚty Facilities Act of 1982 to fInance infrastructure, and 2) approve the resolution adopting the City of Chula Vista statement of goals and policies regarding the establishment of CommUlÚty Facilities Districrs. BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: Not applicable. DISCUSSION: Back~ound Traditionally, deyelopers have fInanced the public facilities (streers, utilities, parks, etc.) within their projecrs and included those cosrs in the price of the homes. The City has used the "Municipal Improvement Act of 1913" ("1913 Act") to form Assessment Districrs (AD) to fInance the construction and/or acquisition of backbone public infrastructure serving the major deyelopments in Eastern Chula Vista. Under current Council policy the use of the 1913 Act is limited to fInancing major highways, utilities, and related facilities and not normal subdivision improvements. ~g-" / ~.J/-/ I --.....-- --.-- -_..._-_._-_._._-~-- ...~._-------._--,_.. __._._u_ .-.---.--.--,-..'---...-.-"". - ------~________.._r_- - -~-~ Page 2, Item_ Meeting Date 1/13/98 The recently enacted Proposition 218 places a number of restrictions on the use of "special benefit assessments" by local agencies to pay for the operation and maintenance of public improvements. These restrictions may not be applicable to CFDs, which levy a "special tax" and not an "assessment". On June 3, 1997, Council considered several alternatives ("1972 Landscaping & Lighting Act", CFDs, and Homeowner's Association) for funding the operation and maintenance of public landscaping improvements. In the past, "1972 Act" Assessment Districts had been fonned to provide that necessary funding. At that meeting, because of the impacts of Proposition 218 on the "1972 Act" districts, Council indicated a preference for homeowner associations to maintain open space landscaping, but directed staff to utilize CFDs for the on-going operation and maintenance of public landscaping improvements in new developments when a homeowner association is not fonned. The approval by Council of the proposed . resolution will expand that authority one step further to permit use of CFDs to fund infrastructure costs . Historically, there has been a negative connotation associated with the name "Mello-Roos District". Some developers have been typically against the imposition of CFDs because of that connotation. While some cities have not used CFD's in the past, the trend seems to be reversing since the apparent turnaround in the real estate market and the passage of Proposition 218, which imposed severe limitations on AD financing. The current perception of the development /---¡ community is that CFDs may be a better financial tool and adapt better to changes in deyelopment plans than ADs. The CFDs which currently exist within City's jurisdiction have been fonned by the School Districts to fund the construction of new schools. The following discussion will describe the issues in more detail as to how and where the various financing districts have been and might be used in Chula Vista. It should be noted that at the August 20, 1996 public hearing on the Development Agreement for Baldwin Builders, a number of residents from the Paloma Master Planned Community in the City of San Marcos raised several complaints regarding the CFD fonned to finance several public improvements for that development. These issues are discussed below in the section "Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment of Community Facilities District". Recently, McMillin requested the City initiate proceedings for the establishment of a Community Facilities Districts (CFD) to finance the construction and/or acquisition of public infrastructure necessary for the development of their property (approximately 1,031 acres) within the Otay Ranch. The facilities requested to be financed are grading, water mains, sewer trunk lines, reclaimed water mains, curb, guner, sidewalk, landscaping and pavement for selected arterials and collector streets. These roads include La Media Road, Birch Road, Eastlake Parkway, East Palomar Street and collector streets serving the project (see Attachment A). The bond sale has been estimated between $13 and $20 million. At the request of Otay Ranch Development, the City is currently conducting proceedings to fonn - Assessment District 97-02, pursuant to the "1913 Act". This district would fmance the £"-.;;... 0.2. ,¿j -02- --+-----..- _ ____________~._.___..._. _._._mm_'··_ Page 3, Item_ Meeting Date 1/13/98 ~. , acquisition of grading, water mains, sewer trunk lines, reclaimed water mains, curb, gutter, sidewalk, landscaping and pavement for selected arterials and collector streets serving Village One. These roads include Paseo Ranchero, East Palomar Street and Monarche Driye (see Attachment B). The bond sale has been estimated in approximately $14.5 million. The deyeloper desires to complete the current" 1913 Act" proceedings because of time constraints, but has also expressed the intention to use CFDs for financing future public improvements within the Otay Ranch. Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 Tþe "1913 Act" is a financing mechanism which allows the financing of public infrastructure t1n:_ough the issuance of bonds, the repayment of which is made from assessment installments . cQllected from the property owners with their property taxes. There is no direct cost to the City. The historical concept for the utilization of ADs has been limited to financing traditional public improvements, i.e., sanitary sewer, water, streets and drainage, where it can be clearly demonstrated that the property receives a special, local and direct benefit from the improvements. The ultimate security behind the bonds would be the propenies located within the district, DQt the City's General Fund or its ability to tax property within its jurisdiction. The approval of Proposition 218, "The Right To Vote On Taxes Act" impacts tlÌe formation of "1913 Act" Assessment Districts, since the City has the burden to show (1) that parcels to be assessed receive a "special benefit", (2) that the amount of any assessment be limited to the special benefit received by the assessed property, and (3) that all publicly owned parcels specially benefitting from the improvements are included in the assessment of the overall costs. At the core of the issue regarding assessment districts are the definitions of "General Benefit" and "Special Benefit". A "General Benefit" is something which is available to the public without regard to their property, such as public libraries, fire and police protection, to name a few. A "Special Benefit" is defmed as a particular and distinct benefit, over and above general benefits to the public at large, received from the improvements being funded by the district (e.g., a collector street providing the main access to a subdivision). It should be noted that detennining special benefit or distinguishing between general and special benefit to propenies is not an exact science. Additionally, there is no substantive judicial precedent which establishes a bright line test for distinguishing between general and special benefits. Proposition 218 only allows public agencies to assess for special benefits. Those special benefits are detennined by the Assessment Engineer and incorporated in the Engineer's Report, which is approved by Council prior to district formation. Benefitted public parcels, such as fire stations, libraries, parks and school sites are not exempt and may be assessed. Prior to the passage of Prop 218, in a lawsuit the challenging party had the burden of proof to show that the fees and assessments were not legal. Proposition 218 shifts the burden onto the local government to prove that the fees and assessment are legal. New" 1913 Act" districts would also be subject to the majority protest and notification requirements of Proposition 218. These ~3 -< J.j -..3 _.._------_..__.._"._-~._-- Page 4, Item_ Meeting Date 1/13/98 requirements should not pose any difficulty, since it is the landowner/developer who is requesting to subdivide the property. There would be no cost to the City for this additional processing needed to form a district because all formation costs are paid for by the developer/applicant. Staff considers that the "1913 Act" Assessment Districts may still be a viable financing alternatiye for those developments where the following circumstances exist: 1) it can be clearly demonstrated that the property to be assessed receives a special, local and direct benefit from the improvements, and 2) the developer agrees to contribute an amount equal to both, the assessment which would be levied on any public parcels (fire stations, libraries, parks, school, etc.) specially benefitting from the improyements and the amount which represents the general benefits derived from the improvements. An important consideration before approving future "1913 Act" districts would . be the implications of a potential legal challenge by future property owners (Proposition 218 provides that the burden to prove that the fees and assessment are legal is on the City). Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 This section of the staff report is only intended to discuss the main advantages/disadvantages of Community Facilities Districts as compared with "1913 Act" Assessment Districts. The "Report on the Use of the Mello-Roos Community Facility Act of 1982 to Finance Infrastructure" (Attachment C), prepared by Brown, Diven & Hentschke, presents a complete discussion on this ."') subject, and is summarized below. The "Mello-Roos Act" allows for the creation of Community Facilities Districts and the issuance of bonds to provide for financing the construction and for acq,uisition of public facilities needed for the development. In addition, a CFD may also finance a broad range of services, including fire, flood control maintenance, landscaping, library, open-space facilities, parks, parkways, recreational services and school facilities maintenance. Any public facilities which the City may own, operate or contribute money to and which have a useful life of five or more years are eligible to be fmanced through a CFD. Debt services on the bonds are met through the imposition of a Special Tax (explicitly not ad valorem) on properties solely within the CFD. The special tax is collected with the property taxes. The ultimate security behind the bonds would be the properties located within the district, IIQ1 the City's General Fund or its ability to tax property within its jurisdiction. Advantaies of a Community Facilities District. The main advantages of a Community Facilities District over an Assessment District may be the following: 1. Allocation of the special tax to properties within the CFD must be based on reasonable criteria, but does not specifically have to relate to the level of special benefit received by each property. Improvements providing general benefits may be fmanced by a CFD. ff~~-L/ -"- - ~._...._"._---"~~-_.__..__._~._._- Page S, Item_ Meeting Date 1/13/98 ~'- -- 2. The Mello-Roos Act (CFD) provides that publicly owned parcels existing at the time of fonnation of the CFD are exempt from the levy of special taxes. 3. CFDs can fInance a wider variety of public facilities and services. Assessment Districts have been limited to fInance traditional public improyements, i.e., sanitary sewer, water, streets and drainage. In addition to those improvements, CFDs may fInance any facility which the City is authorized to own, construct or maintain. 4. CFDs provide landowners with off-balance sheet fInancing, since a property's only lien under a CFD is the annual special tax, DQ1 the full amount of the bond principal. ~ . Disadvanta~es of a Community Facilities District. On the other hand, the main disadvantages may be : 1. Since a CFD levies a special tax, it requires 2/3rds vote approval, as opposed to a 50% majority needed with the "1913 Act". So far as fonnation of a district is concerned, the 2/3rds requirement may not be a problem since one or few developer(s) own(s) all the land. ,~, 2. Proposition 218 has a potential impact on CFDs, which still must be addressed in the California judicial system. This impact relates to the initiative power of the public to reduce or repeal an assessment, charge, fee or local tax that is used to pay debt service for outstanding bonds and also where the special tax is not collected for debt service. .- In the case of CFDs formed to finance services (as in landscaping maintenance districts), - the legal consultant, Brown, Diven & Hentschke has indicated that the initiative power - may be successful in reducing or repealing (with the approval of 2/3rds of the electorate) an existing special tax levied to fInance such services. The consultant has also indicated that CFDs formed to fInance the construction and/or aCQJlisition of infrastructure through the sale of bonds may be protected from the initiative power to reduce or repeal an existing special tax levied for that specifIc purpose under one or both of the following theories: First, that the repeal of the tax would violate the Contract Clause of the Constitution of the United States. Second, the levy of the special tax to pay debt service on the bonds is an exercise of an administrative function imposed upon the City by the Mello-Roos Act and not the exercise of the legislative power of the City. Inasmuch as the exercise of the initiative power is limited to legislative matters, it may not be used to curtail the exercise of a mandatory administrative duty. It should be mentioned that Assessment Districts are also subject to the same potential impacts of the initiative power of the public relative to fInancing services. 6,5 c::<~-5 -_.~ .-.. ------- -- --"-'~---"--- - -_._.----_._--~,...__._,_._-- ._. .._ '_-0 Page 6, Item_ Meeting Date 1/13/98 .~ .- Goals and Policies Re~ardin~ the Establishment of Community Facilities Districts. As a prerequisite to the initiation of the formal proceedings to form a Community Facilities District, the "Mello-Roos Act" requires a local agency to consider and adopt a statement of local goals and policies concerning the use of the Act. A proposed policy document (Appendix D of Attachment C) was prepared by the consultant Brown, Diven & Henschke, reviewed by City staff, and discussed with the major developers of Eastern Chula Vista. In addition to complying with all the requirements of the "MelIo-Roos Act", this document also incorporates all the current applicable City's policies and procedures for the use of Assessment District ftnancing in the City. The following discussion on the recommended goals and policies will focus on the most relevant issues regarding CFD's ftnancing, as follows: . 1. The document requires the submittal of an "Application", which would include all the necessary information (business plan, percent of ownership requesting the CFD, etc.) demonstrating the applicant's financial ability to carry the project, including the payment of special taxes, during buildout. The Application shall be reviewed by a committee composed of the City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, City Engineer, Planning Director, Finance Director and such consultants and additional persons as the City Manager may deem necessary. The committee shall prepare a report with [mdings /2) and recommendations, which shall be submitted to Council prior to initiating the formal proceedings for formation of a CFD. .c.-0 2. As a consequence of experiences during the recent recession, the "goals and policies" require a minimum 4:1 value-to-lien ratio. A ratio of less than 4:1, but equal to or greater than 3: 1, may be approved, in the sole discretion of Council, when it is determined that a ratio of less than 4: 1 is financially prudent under the circumstances of a particular CFD. It should be noted that current Assessment District policy only requires a ratio equal to or greater than 3: 1. 3. The document· establishes that the maximum annual CFD special taxes applicable to any newly developed residential property shall be no more than 1 % of the sale price of the house. In addition, the aggregate of all annual taxes and assessments is limited to 2 % of the sale price of the house, as in current City policy. 4. The proposed "goals and policies" would prohibit the escalation of the maximum special tax for a residential parcel after the ftseal year in which the building pennit for such parcel is issued. 5. The proposed maximum annual special tax would be set at 110% of the expected annual debt service. This guideline would provide added security for the special tax bonds. g~ <2~-6 ~._....._.,-"_...._-----.,. Page 7, Item_ Meeting Date ] /13/98 .~ '- 6. The document provides that all property not statutorily exempt from the levy of special taxes shall bear its appropriate share of the CFD' s aggregate special tax obligation. Undeveloped land may be taxed at different rates than those levied on developed property of the same land use designation, but the undeveloped land will still bear its appropriate share of the special tax based on the benefit received from the improvements being financed. 7. The document contains specific requirements regarding disclosure to buyers within a CFD. All the disclosure requirements of Section 5.46.020 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code - . (Attachment D) have also been incorporated. It should be mentioned that the Act requires that specific notice of the special tax obligation be provided to all purchasers including not . only the initial purchasers of dwelling units but to subsequent purchasers as well 7.;:.... 8. The proposed policy declares that it is the goal of the City Council to require the developer to pay a monetary compensation of 1 % of the bond authorization amount as consideration for the City's agreement to use the City's bonding capacity to provide the financing mechanism for the financing and/or acquisition of the authorized improvements. Payment would be required prior to the issuance of bonds and for a CFD with multiple bond series ,~. of bonds, the prorata portion of the payment would be due with each bond issue. The proposed policy also declares that such monetary compensation shall be born by the developer and shall not be financed out of the district bond proceeds. As mentioned before, at the August 20, 1996 public hearing on the Development Agreement for Baldwin Builders, a number of residents from the Paloma Master Planned Community in the City of. San Marcos raised several issues regarding the CFD formed to finance several public ÏIµprovements for that development. The main complaints were: 1) the annual tax exceeded 2% oLthe assessed value of the homes, 2) Mello-Roos taxes increased yearly, and 3) Baldwin became delinquent in paying their share of the taxes. Staff considers that the safeguards incorporated in the "statement of goals and policies" will ensure that the aforementioned issues # 1 and 2 will not occur in any CFD formed in Chula Vista. Regarding issue # 3, staff believes that the requirement to submit an "Application", which would include all the necessary information demonstrating the applicant's fmancial ability to carry the project, including the payment of special taxes during buildout, would provide a level of assurance that the project will be developed as planned. In addition, the requirement of a minimum 4:1 value-to-lien ratio would proYide . added protection in the event of default by the developer. Nevertheless, it should be mentioned that the use of CFDs for public financing, like many other financial decisions, involves a calculated risk and nothing can completely insulate the City from the possibility of future problems. Taxpayers may complain. Changes in the real estate market -- may happen and delinquencies occur. A developer may make the decision to walk away from a project because it is no longer economically feasible. Staff believes, however, that the adoption ff~7 d~-7 __. _~___~___·___'_~_.h ..._., ".,.~ Page 8, Item_ Meeting Date 1/13/98 of the proposed "goals and policies" would minimize the occurrence and consequences of these potential problems. Comments from Develo.pers On September 19, 1997, staff met with the following developers to discuss the proposed report and goals and policies: Ayres Land Company (Sunbow II), EastLake, McMillin, Otay Ranch Development, and San Miguel Ranch. Pacific Bay Homes (Salt Creek Ranch) was invited but did not attend the meeting. Minor changes and clarifications proposed by the developers, at the meeting, were incorporated into the document. In addition, McMillin presented their comments and requested several changes to the "goals and policies" in three letters dated October 2, 1997 (Attachment E), October 22, 1997 (Attachment F), and October 27 (Attachment H). Staff met . with McMillin representatives to clarify the intent of the policy document and discuss their concerns. The majority of McMillin's concerns were satisfactorily resolved, with the exception of the following policy issues: 1. Acqµisition of IInprovements. McMillin requested that the City approve the acquisition of discrete and/or useable reaches of improvements (Item 3 of Attachment E). The proposed policy for CFDs is consistent with the current policy for ADs, which requires that improvements be acquired on a "complete" project basis, such as a strèet with all the .....--... surface and underground improvements completed and accepted by the City. Staff ì believes that the proposed policy provides some flexibility by leaving the determination of "complete project" and the approval of any deviation of the project definition to the Director of Public W orles and recommends approval of the proposed policy. 2. Maintenance of Public Parks. McMillin requested that maintenance of public parks should be permitted as required to comply with applicable conditions of approval (Item 4 of Attachment E). The conditions of approval of Chula Vista Tract 97-02 (McMillin Otay Ranch) require that the "public" pedestrian park P-5 be maintained by the CFD which would be formed to maintain the landscape improvements within that deyelopment. Normally, the maintenance of public parks is funded by the City's General Fund. Staff believes that requiring the maintenance of public parks by a CFD should be generally discouraged, but may be considered by Council on a case-by-case basis under special circumstances. The proposed policy, although it does not explicitly include maintenance of public parks, covers this activity by approving the CFD financing for all services authorized by the Mello-Roos Act ( which include maintenance of public parks). Staff recommends approval of the proposed policy. 3. Ori~ination Charve. On October 9, 1990 Council approved Resolution 15897 establishing the payment of an origination charge of one percent (1 %) of the estimated bond sale for developer-initiated Assessment Districts. McMillin is requesting the elimination of the requirement to pay an origination charge (Items 8 and 19 of Attachment E & Item 3 of Attachment H) from the original version of the "CFDs goals and policies". McMillin's 2"'- g/ ~7'-8' -.,.-..--.......-...- ^ __._...___~_ _.. _ _ '._._ .·_.._m__'.."_______~~~._,_____ Page 9, Item_ Meeting Date 1/13/98 "---', ; position is that said charge fails any test for a permissible fee or tax under existing law and that the City does not have the legal authority to impose said charge. However, the City contends that the tenn "origination charge" does not reflect the actual intent of the required payment which is that certain monetary compensation may be required as consideration for the City's agreement to provide the financing mechanism for fmancing the public improvements serving the developer's project. The nature of the payment is actually a fonn of contractual consideration. The Goals and Policies declare that the appropriate compensation would be 1 % of the bond authorization. .;... Staff considers that the. developer is receiving a tangible benefit by using the City's .' . . bonding capacity to provide funds for developing his property. Use of public financing ::: districts historically has decreased the developer's cost of fmancing and has enhanced the developer's ability to fmance their projects. Typically, the developer advance the funds necessary to construct the improvements, and the City subsequently acquires the improvements and makes a payment or payments from bond proceeds to the developer upon. completion of the project. This enables the developer to recover the money advânced sooner than if these costs were incorporated into the selling price. of the homes. .--;-. In ~ddition, this is an important feature if a developer is near the ceiling of the h development loan and needs the capital to pursue other development requirements. This financing frees up construction loan money which in turn can be used to construct the next project. Another benefit is that in obtaining special district financing, the developer uses the City's name to obtain tax exempt rates creating a savings of thousands of dollars in interest costs not only for the future homeowners, but the developers as well. In a letter to McMillin dated October 27,1997, John P. Yeager of Hewitt & Mcguire, LLP states that "... the Origination Charge could result in increased interest rt11e on the bonds, which in turn, would reduce the amount of proceeds available to acquire public improvements. In the final analysis then, the 'ulti1TlfJte taxpayer - each homeowner within a cOTTU1l1Ulity facilities distriCt for example - will receive less for its special tax dollars... " (Attaclunent F, item C, second paragraph). In this respect, staff requested the opinion of Carl Kadie of Kadie- Jensen, Johnson & Bodnard, who have been the financial advisors for the majority of the assessment districts fonned in the City. The consultant has indicated that the City has successfully offered bonds to the market by public and negotiated sale with the origination charge in place. He also indicated that prior bonds have been extremely well received and that in his opinion the existence of the origination charge has not resulted in higher interest rates on the bonds. The major factors determining the interest rates are: value to lien htio, diversity of ownership, fmancial strength of the developer, and development profunna. "! ;~ ff/I d¿¡-9 -~._._--~. ._.~-~--,_._,,_._.__._.- Page 10, Item_ Meeting Date 1113/98 ,- >-. borrower pays points to get a lower loan interest rate. In public financing, staff considers reasonable that the developer pays consideration for the use of the City's bonding capacity, which would result in lower interest rates. In conclusion staff recommends approval of thè proposed policy that requires the developer to pay a monetary compensation of one (l %) percent of the bond sale amount as consideration for the financing and/or acquisition of the authorized improvements and eligible incidental expenses. Staff recommends that the requirement to pay such monetary consideration be incorporated in the AcquisitionIFinancing agreement, which sets outs the terms and conditions for the use of public financing to acquire the public improvements , financed by the proposed district. This agreement is approved by Council prior to the public hearing to consider the formation of the district. McMillin also requested that the 1 % monetary compensation be eligible for financing out of the district bond proceeds. The proposed Goals and Policies categorize said compensation as an ineli~ible incidental cost. Staff believes that such cost should be born by the developer and not included in the special taxes to be paid by the future property owners. This is consistent with the existing policy for assessment district financing. Staff recommends approval of the proposed policy of requiring a Consideration charge for ..) CFD's. 4. ReQuired Value-to-Lien Ratio. The developer is requesting (Item 9 of Attachment E & Item 1 of Attachment G) that this criteria be the same as currently required for AD's fInancing (minimum of 3:1). Staff recommends that, due to the experience during the recent recession, the City should adopt a more conservative approach and recommends approval of the proposed criteria requiring a minimum 4:1 value-to-lien ratio. However, the proposed policy adds certain flexibility to this criteria by providing that a ratio of less that 4:1 but equal to or greater than 3:1 may be approved, in the sole discretion of Council, when it is determined that a ratio of less than 4: 1 is financially prudent under the circumstances of a particular CFD. 5. Maximum A~vre~ate Taxes. McMillin objects to the provision requiring that compliance with the maximum aggregate tax criteria (2 % of the house price) for newly residential properties be demonstrated at the close of escrow (Item 10 of Attachment E & Item 2 of Attachment G). This procedure would ensure that the aggregate tax, to be paid by the purchaser of the house, meets the City's criteria. This requirement has been imposed on the formation of recent assessment districts in the City and was mandated by previous Council action in 1995. McMillin proposes that compliance with said criteria be conducted at the time of district formation and based on the weighted average sale prices of new homes or the assessed value of existing homes within the community facilities district. With this approach the ultimate taxpayer may end up paying a tax which is higher than the 2 % of the actual sale price. Staff considers that requiring compliance at the close 8"'- /¿/c2~-/ò -----...- ._--~_.,_..._,_...- Page 11, Item_ Meeting Date 1/13/98 ~ I '.' of escrow will ensure that the aggregate tax will meet the fmandal criteria and recommends approval of the proposed procedure. In summary, staff recommends that the City take a more conservaûve position in public financing issues rather than the somewhat more liberal approach proposed by McMillin. For example, McMillin's proposal for the ability to go less than the 3: 1 yalue-to-lien ratio and basing the maximum aggregate tax on the "weighted average" sales price of the new homes outlined above are more liberal than staffs proposals. The approval of the proposed "CFD's goals and policies" would provide the City with the essential tools to assure fairness in the applicaûon of special taxes to propt:rty owners, protect the City's credit rating and fmancial position, and ensure that the . Ci,ty's financial obligations with the bondholders are met in accordance with the Act. FISCAL IMPACT: None to the General Fund. McMillin and Otay Ranch Development have agreed to pay for all City staff and consultant cost incurred in the preparaûon of the subject report and the "statement of goals and policies". In future districts, the developers will front all necessary cost for the establishment of a proposed CFD and will be reimbursed once bonds are .-.1' sold. ~-,,-~ Attachments: A- Proposed CFD - McMillin B- Assessment District 97-2 - Otay Ranch Development C- Report on the use of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 to fmance infrastructure (Appendix D contains the "Statement of Goals and Policies"). D- Municipal Code Section 5.46.020 - Disclosure. E- Letter from Hewitt & Mcguire, LLP dated October 2, 1997 F- Letter from Hewitt & McGuire, LLP dated October 22, 1997 G- Letter from McMillin dated October 27, 1997 FILE: 072S-10.cFD00 08.1997; 12:53pm Jan 07,1998; 4:06pm H:\HOMElENGlNEERIAGENDA\CFDPOL3.LDT .... f5~/l d2.Lf-// /( .-- . -"..--- . - ~-- - ~-'---"--'--'--'--'''''-' RESOLUTION NO. / r¡{({'¿'O RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULð VISTA ADOPTING THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA STATEMENT OF GOALS AND POLICIES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS WHEREAS, McMillin Project Services and otay Ranch Development requested the city to initiate proceedings for the establishment of Community Facilities Districts (CFDs) also known as Mello-Roos Districts, pursuant to the "Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982" ("Mello-Roos Act"), to finance specific public improvements serving their proposed developments; and WHEREAS, staff retained a consultant, Brown, Diven & Hentschke, based on their expertise and experience in working with . the city and other agencies to prepare a report on the use of CFDs as a public financing mechanism within the city of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, the "Mello-Roos Act" requires that as a prerequisite for the use of CFDs, the City shall adopt a "statement of local goals and policies" concerning the use of the Act which was also prepared by the consultant and reviewed by staff and developers; and WHEREAS, the approval of this resolution will 'ratify the-~\ use of CFDs as a public financing mechanism for (1) the ¡ construction and/or acquisition of public infrastructure, and (2) the provision of authorized public services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt the City of Chula vista statement of goals and policies regarding the establishment of Community Facilities Districts as set forth in Attachment "C", Appendix B ("Policy"). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that it is the intention of the City Council that its adoption of this Policy is dependent upon the enforceability of each and every term and provision herein stated; and that in the event that anyone or more terms or provisions are determined by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, this Policy shall be deemed of no further force and effect in its entirety. Presented by Approved as to form by CL~ p~ John P. Lippitt, Director of John M. Kaheny, City Attorney Public Works c: \rs\cfds fr. /~ '::¿~-/2- . ~,,_.,.__.~._,,-_._-~--_._~- I .......".... U""<:: I ~c'"' I UUI~ ,,<- '-r.:.:.ana use Product Type McMillin/WCLF Property RESIDENTIAL , SFD 60K100 '00.3 - SFD SOx1 00 68.7 ~~~# J f - SFD 44K90 50.5 fJ-f-f¡U:--f-+- rtßt..rr 11,4 ,I '::~'.::. ;....':; SFD 55:1170 85.6 5'6 SF/Duplcx 32xes 59.8 503 Condo 12 cluJ..r: 26.7 :20 Condo - 16 du.lac 32.7 52' Apt. 1 . 20 du/ac '86 J'!2 MF . 3S du/ac 49 , 1750 Sub~lotal Residenlial 511.9 5105 NON ·RESIDENTlAL Commercial 40.6 Eastern Urban Clr. , '0.0 CPF 2'.6 Schools 30.3 Parks 73.6 '~.~:f¡tJf~ OS/Streets/Other 243.2 Sub-tolal Non-Residential 5'9.3 PROJECT TOTALS 1031.2 5105 ';) q¡ tP q¡ - '5 ~ CtJ -..J Cil1ri'" 0- : ..'1'1...· ~ ~ -.-..--. -.--.....-- - -----_._._._-~_._._-- ----.-----..--...--- -'~-- ---. H_'·__·_·.. ~. -- -..---..-..,,--- .. '_..---.. ---.-. - .... "-'--'-'.,". THIS PAGE BLANK Z s . ~ % 1 " ¡; I ¡¡¡ I --- ~ .,. .. t> YlQ)m Õ .,. ~ ·C :z:~ ~~ !i~ ;:2 ~i ;;~ \ ~5 ~~ ~~ ./m .' =< ~3 ~~ :z: ~ ~~ \\ ~~ ~~ ,.~ ."" ~- "3 . è;.l \\ 2~ ~iE !>o ~ .- . t:~ . ~æ \\ ~~ æ~ !~ ~'" . \~ ( ~ < .. ,. !U < ... V> ~ J vi < Pi z w ::> ; ~ ~ Ug '" ,.,.. . . § 5 n~ .. 1111I __:z:__ C' I " (¡) ."" .- O~ ZO . 1-'" 0 uC> a.. Z _:5 <t 0::= ~ 1-> CL If)' (/) « _:I: 0° W ~ z I- I-~ ..J (/) Z>- U We( W :::EI- <t If)~ lL. l- I If) I- ¡I -.J W w - If) w U If) a:: 3 Eâ <t I- « (/) l.&.. ~ '.. -. ~._._-_..."-.' ,. · 'e ¡ J I,.... ~ '-.- ;1-;- --r-,~ C 1-+ 1-1 ._ 1-1 BROWN DIVEN & HENTSCHKE 400 So. SIERRA AVENUE, SUITE 100 . SOlANA BEACH, CA 92075 . (619) 456-1915 . FAX' (619) 259-0292 REPORT TO THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA USE OF THE MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982 TO FINANCE INFRASTRUCTURE PREPARED BY: BROWN, DIVEN & HENTSCHKE OCTOBER 1997 5 Inland Empire (909) 421-1915"" Los Angeles County (213) 587-] 915"" Orange Count)' (7]4) 551-19]5 .". Central Coast (805) 653-1915 USE OF THE MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982 TO FINANCE INFRASTRUCTURE This report has been written by Brown, Diven & Hentschke to assist the City of Chula Vista (the "City") in considering the use of the tools provided in the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982,- as amended (Government Code Section 53311 and following) (the "Act"), to finance public infrastructure and certain services particularly within developing areas of the City. The report will trace the evolution of the use of the Act, describe the procedures required to be followed to use the Act, identify the concerns raised regarding the use of the Act in the late eighties and early nineties and the legislative responses to those problems and, finally, recommend goals and policies pertaining to the use of the Act for consideration by the City Council. It is the opinion of the authors of this report that the adoption and implementation of these goals and policies, together with recent amendments to the Act itself, will significantly mitigate the concerns raised regarding certain community facilities districts formed in the 1980's and early 1990's. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE ON INFRASTRUCTURE FINANCING Prior to 1978 local governments in California relied heavily on property tax revenue and federal funds to finance growth. As development decentralized in the sixties and seventies, property tax rates escalated to meet the increased demands for new services. Property tax rates increased from an average of 1.5% of full value in 1955-1956 to 2.81 percent in 1972-1973.' Finally, in 1978 the voters enacted Proposition 13 which severely restricted property tax revenues for local governments. At the same time that Proposition 13 was enacted, the federal government was significantly curtailing federal assistance in capital projects. As a result of the decline in both property tax and federal revenues, local governments were forced to look to alternative sources of revenue to finance the capital infrastructure needed to serve new development. The primary sources of such revenue were developer exactions, e.g., dedications, construction of public improvements at developer's expense and development impact fees, and special assessments. Each of these new funding sources had limitations. Developer fees provided only "pay-as-you-go" financing which meant that infrastructure was not in place when new development occurred but rather trailed such development until sufficient fees were collected to finance the needed capital infrastructure. Assessments were limited because of the requirement that only properties which received a special benefit from financed improvements could be assessed. Additionally, public improvements such as parks, schools, police and fire stations and civic centers could not be financed through the use of assessment district financing. 1 California Debt Advisory Commission, "Mello-Roos Financing In California," September 1991, page 3 1 0/3/97 1 (p The Act was enacted to provide an alternative form of financing public improvements particularly in newly developing areas. The Act provided greater flexibility than assessment financing in that a community facilities district may finance the purchase, construction, expansion, improvement, or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of five (5) years or more. Government Code Section 53313.5. Such property includes any governmental facilities which the legislative body creating the community facilities district is authorized by law to contribute money to, or construct, own or operate. Government Code Section 53313.5(h). The issuance of special tax bonds issued by community facilities districts to finance public infrastructure increased from a single $8.5 million issue in 1983 to a high of 73 issues in 1990 with a total principal amount of approximately $977 million.2 Prior to the onset of the real estate recession in the early nineties, the Act had been used to finance over $3.5 billion in public infrastructure. PROCEDURES FOR USE OF THE ACT The Act authorizes certain local agencies including cities to form community facilities district for the purpose of financing certain authorized public facilities or public services. Government Code Section 53311.5 As previously mentioned, the City may form a community facilities district to finance any public facility with a useful life of five (5) years or more to which it may contribute money to, or construct, own or operate. The City may also use a community facilities district to finance one or more of the public services specified in the Act or such additional services as the City may authorize under and pursuant to its charter powers. Proceedings to consider the formation of a community facilities district may be initiated under the Act in anyone of four ways: 1. A petition signed by not less than 10% of the registered voters residing in the territory proposed to be included in the community facilities district; 2. A petition signed by the owners of not less than 10% of the area of land proposed to be included in the community facilities district; 3. A written request for the establishment of a community facilities district signed by at least two members of the City Council; or 4. A resolution of the City Council initiating such proceedings on its own initiative. Government Code Section 53318 and 53319. 2 California Debt Advisory Commission, "Mello-Roos Financing in California," September 1991, page 20. 1 0/3/97 2 1 -,.. ,.,..-...--.-~.-.---._... ---~-- .~._..~-,----- --- - --------- ..-.-------.----.-,.- ----- -,...._--- "---_.._-_._-~.----_._.,.... ..---- Unlike assessment district proceedings in which the City Council has no obligation to act upon a petition, under the Act the City Council is required within 90 after receipt of a petition or written request requesting initiation of proceedings to establish a community facilities district to adopt a resolution of intention to establish such a district and to set the time and place of a public hearing to consider the establishment of the district. Government Code Section 53320. . The resolution of intention to establish a community facilities district shall do all of the following: 1. Describe the boundaries of the proposed community facilities district; 2. Describe the public facilities and services proposed to be financed by the community facilities district. The description of the facilities and services may be general in nature and may include alternatives but it must be sufficiently informative to allow a taxpayer within the proposed district to understand what types of facilities and services the funds of the district may be used to finance. 3. Specify the rate, method of apportionment, and manner of collection of the special tax in sufficient detail to allow each landowner or resident with the proposed district to estimate the maximum amount of special tax that he or she will have to pay. This description is commonly referred to as the "rate and method of apportionment of the special tax" or the "special tax formula." The Act provides that a tax imposed pursuant to the Act is a special tax and not a special assessment and that there is no requirement that the special tax be apportioned on the basis of benefit to any property. The special tax may nevertheless be on or based on benefit received by parcels of real property, the cost of making the facilities or authorized services available to each parcel, or other reasonable basis as determined by the City Council. Government Code Section 53325.3. 4. Fix a time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the proposed district. 5. Describe the proposed voting procedure (See the discussion below for a description of the alternate voting procedures.) If it is proposed that bonds secured by the special taxes be issued to finance public facilities, it is also necessary that a resolution declaring the necessity to incur such an indebtedness also be adopted. This resolution must set forth the following: 1. A declaration by the City Council of the necessity for the indebtedness. 2. The purpose for which the proposed debt is to be incurred. 3. The amount of the proposed debt. 10/3/97 3 g - H_ 4. The time and place for a hearing by the City Council on the proposed debt issue. Government Code Section 53345. The Act provides that notice of the hearings must be given by publication and further authorizes the City Council to give additional written notice by mail of such hearing to the registered voters residing within the proposed district and the owners of the land proposed to be included in the proposed district. Government Code Section 53322 and 53346. At the time of the adoption of the resolution of intention to establish the community facilities district, the City Council is required to direct each of its officers who is or will be responsible for providing one or more of the proposed types of public facilities or services to be financed to study the proposed district and file a report with the City Council. This report must contain a brief description of the public facilities and services by type which will in his or her estimate be required to adequately meet the needs of the proposed district and his or her estimate of the cost of providing those facilities and services. The cost estimate will typically include not only the cost of the acquisition or construction of the public facilities but incidental expenses related to the formation of the district and the issuance of the bonds for the district. The special tax formula, together with any provisions related to the prepayment of the special tax obligation related to the financing of any public facilities, will be included in the report. The report will typically be prepared by a special tax consultant retained by the. City to prepare the special tax formula. The role of the special tax consultant is closely akin to the role of the assessment engineer in assessment proceedings. Government Code Section 53321.5. At the public hearing, protests against the establishment of the district, the extent of the district, or the furnishing of specified types of public facilities or services may be made orally or in writing by any interested person or taxpayer. Government Code Section 53323. Additionally, any interested person, including the owners of property within the proposed district, may present matters material to the questions set forth in the resolution declaring the necessity to incur a bonded indebtedness. Government Code Section 53349. A majority protest against the establishment of a community facilities district may be made in one of two alternative ways. If 50% or more of the registered voters, or six (6) registered voters, whichever is more, residing within the proposed district file such written protests, a majority protest will be found to exist. Alternatively, if the owners of one-half or more of the area of land proposed to be included in the district and not exempt from the levy of the special tax file such written protests, a majority protest will be found to exist. When a majority protest against the establishment of a district is found to exist, the City is precluded from taking further proceedings to establish the specified district or to levy the specified special tax for a period of one (1) year from the date of the decision of the City Council. Government Code Section 53324. Unlike many assessment district proceedings, the City Council may not override a majority protest against the establishment of a community facilities district. 10/3/97 4 9 . .... ~_._,... - - - -' -- ----.__..._---~.-. -..--.,+--------. .. .._----~._~ -------'"----- -----._- "--- -...----.---- -.-..---- ._-,---.- ----.- If a majority protest is only against the furnishing of a specific type or types of public facilities or services or against the levying of a specific special tax, those types of facilities or services or the specified special tax shall be eliminated from the resolution of formation of the district. Government Code Section 53324. If no majority protest has been filed and the City Council determines to establish the district, it shall adopt a resolution of formation. Government Code Section 53325.1. If special tax bonds are proposed to be issued to finance all or a portion of the public facilities, the City Council shall also adopt a resolution declaring the necessity to incur such a bonded indebtedness. Government Code Section 53351. At the same time that the City Council adopts the resolutions described in the preceding paragraph, the City Council must also adopt a resolution to submit the levy of the special taxes and the issuance of the special tax bonds to the qualified electors of the district. If at least twelve (12) persons, who need not necessarily be the same twelve (12) persons, have been registered to vote in the district for each of the 90 days preceding the close of the public hearing regarding the establishment of the district, the vote shall be by the registered voters of the district. If less than the requisite number of registered voters have been registered to vote in the district for the requisite period of time, the vote shall be by the owners of land located within the district who were the owners of record of such land at the close of the public hearing. In such a case each landowner shall receive one (1) vote for each acre or portion of an acre of land that he or she owns within the district. Government Code Section 53326. The Act generally requires that the election be held no sooner than 90 nor later than 180 days following the adoption of the resolution of formation of the community facilities district. Government Code Section 53326. The time for conducting the election may be shortened and election requirements such as impartial analysis and arguments may be waived in the case of landowner elections with the unanimous consent of all of the landowners who are entitled to vote. Government Code Section 53327(b). Inasmuch as a special tax levied pursuant to the Act is a special tax within the meaning of Proposition 13, it is subject to a 2/3rds vote requirement. Consequently, in order to authorize the levy of a special tax, 2/3rds of the qualified electors actually voting must vote in favor of the levy of the special tax for any community facilities district. Following completion of the canvas of the votes, the City Council will be asked to adopt a resolution certifying the results of the election. If the necessary 2/3rds vote has been cast in favor of the levy of the special tax, the City Council will also be asked to enact an ordinance to provide for the levy of such tax. Government Code Section 53340. If the qualified electors of the district have also authorized the issuance of bonds secured by the levy of the special tax, such bonds may be issued following the thirty (30) day statute of limitations period commencing on the day following the election and within which any legal challenges to the levy of the special tax must be raised. Government Code Section 53359. 10/3/97 5 /0 ._-_._.~_._.~.._-_. AREAS OF CONCERN REGARDING THE USE OF MELLO-ROOS FINANCING Public Areas of Concern The use of the Act in the eighties to finance public infrastructure particularly for newly developing areas did raise concerns among taxpayers and the investment community. The issues raised included: .. Inadequate notice to subsequent property owners, particularly residential homeowners, of the existence of the special tax obligation. In certain community facilities districts formed in the early eighties. purchasers of homes within these community facilities districts and the lenders for such homeowners had no notice of the special tax obligation. Purchasers bought homes and lenders made loans on such homes without taking the special tax obligation into account in determining whether the purchasers could afford the monthly mortgage payment coupled with both the ad valorem and special tax payments. .. Concerns regarding the overall tax and assessment burden placed on properties within a community facilities district. Property owners raised concerns in communities where the aggregate tax and assessment burden was considered to be too high. This concern was more prevalent in community facilities districts where the aggregate tax and assessment burden exceeded 2% of the sales price of the homes and/or where the special tax was subject to an annual escalator which sometimes exceeded 2% per year. This concern was exacerbated for residential homeowners who purchased homes in those community facilities districts immediately before the onset of the real estate recession in the early nineties. Prior to the onset of the recession the real estate market did not differentiate between a home subject to a special tax and a home without a special tax. Consequently for those owners who bought at the height of the real estate market the recession proved to be a double hit. Home values declined from the recession itself and also from a recognition in the real estate market of the special tax burden. As home values fell. the aggregate tax and assessment burden as a percentage of the value of the home increased. .. Concerns regarding tax equity and fairness were raised by taxpayers in certain community facilities districts. These concerns took several forms. First, taxpayers in some community facilities districts complained that they werè not receiving any benefit from the facilities for which they were paying special taxes. This was particularly true in some school district community facilities districts where students residing in homes subject to the special tax were attending schools which had not been financed from the proceeds of such special taxes. Second. other taxpayers complained of subsidizing developers where the special tax levied against developed property was levied at a higher rate that the special tax levied against undeveloped property. This differential in special tax rates when used was often based upon the premise that the owners of developed properties received a greater benefit from the facilities than the owners of the undeveloped land because the 10/3/97 6 /1 ---- __ _ __.. _....__...,.., __n.._ __._ _~_~___.~." .. -----. - _u ~--------------- -- - --- -~~---~ - - - - -....-. -----..----,..- ---- homeowners had the immediate use and enjoyment of the public facilities. Additionally, the differential tax rates were used to provide a greater level of security for the special tax bonds. The bonds secured by special taxes levied on developed properties were believed to be more secure as a result of the diversity of ownership of such properties and the greatly increased value-to-debt ratio for developed properties in comparison to vacant land. .. Investors in special tax bonds also expressed concerns regarding what they perceived as a general lack of information regarding the status of development with community facilities districts, the balance of funds, particularly reserve funds, and the rate of delinquencies and the status of judicial foreclosure proceedings. The California Debt Advisory Committee Report and Guidelines As a result of public comment, the California Debt Advisory Commission ("CDAC"), the state agency responsible for the collection and dissemination of data on municipal bond issuance, undertook a comprehensive review of the use of Mello-Roos financing and on September 27, 1991 issued its report entitled "Mello-Roos Financing in California" (the "CDAC Report"). A copy of the CDAC Report is attached to this report as Appendix A. The CDAC Report contains guidelines for the use of Mello-Roos financing, many of which have been incorporated into the proposed policies accompanying this report. Included among the quidelines are the following community facilities district project evaluation goals: 1. Local agencies should establish project review teams to scrutinize and assess developer applications for new community facilities districts. The CDAC Report recommends that the project review team should conduct an independent review of each proposed community facilities district according to the criteria contained in the remaining CDAC guidelines. CDAC also recommends that the project review team select all of the professionals necessary for the proceedings, i.e., bond counsel, underwriter, financial advisor, appraiser, special tax consultant, market absorption economist and disclosure counsel if used. The proposed goals and policies do provide for the establishment of a project review team to provide for an early evaluation of applications for the formation of a community facilities district. Additionally, the proposed goals and policies specify that the selection of consultants to assist in the formation proceedings shall be the responsibility of the City. This is also consistent with current City policy regarding assessment district proceedings. 2. Local agencies should require that land within a community facilities district have a value-to-debt ratio of at least 3: 1. The CDAC Report reiterates that the ultimate security for the special tax bonds is the value of the land subject to the levy of the special tax, including the value of existing 10/3/97 7 /Z -----''".._.~---_._- improvements and any improvements to be financed through the bond issuance. The minimum value-to-debt ratio is recommended to protect the credit quality of the special tax bonds. This recommendation was made prior to the real estate recession of the nineties and did not take into account the significant devaluation of real estate prices particularly for vacant land experienced during the recession. As a result of the experience of the recession, the proposed goals and policies require a minimum 4: 1 value-to-debt ratio but provide that a community facilities district with a value-to-debt ratio of less than 4:1 but equal to or greater than 3:1 may be approved, in the sole discretion of the City Council, upon a determination by the City Manager, after consultation with the Finance Director, the bond counsel, the underwriter and the financial advisor, that approval of a community facilities district with a value-to-debt ratio of less than 4: 1 is financially prudent under the circumstances of the particular community facilities district. 3. Local governments should set maximum special tax rates for landowner approved community facilities districts at one percent (1 %). The CDAC Report recognizes that the City Council must decide the appropriate special tax limitation without the input of the ultimate taxpayers in landowner approved community facilities districts. Consequently,CDAC believes that it would be prudent not to overburden developing areas with special taxes. As some point in time, the aggregate tax and assessment burden may adversely affect the marketability of the properties which could ultimately contribute to slow market absorption and correspondingly slow diversity of ownership within the district. The proposed goals and policies limit the maximum annual special tax on newly developed residential properties to 1 % of the sale price of the residential properties subject to the levy of the proposed special tax. Additionally, the aggregate tax and assessment burden is limited to 2 % of the sale price of such properties. 4. Local governments should limit annual increases in the maximum special tax to two percent (2%). The CDAC Report states that special tax formulas should promote stable and predictable tax liabilities, particularly for residential properties, when such special taxes are used to pay for public facilities. Fluctuating special tax rates make it difficult for landowners to plan annual finances. The proposed goals and policies would prohibit the escalation of the maximum special tax for a residential parcel after the fiscal year in which the building permit for such parcel is issued. 5. Local agencies should set the maximum special tax at a minimum of 110% of expected annual debt service. This guideline is proposed to provide added security for the special tax bonds. The proposed goals and policies are consistent with this guideline. 6. Local agencies should establish capitalized interest accounts if it will improve the credit quality of the bonds and result in lowering borrowing costs. 10/3/97 8 /3 .. ~",,,.~__.,,____~__._..__ _ ___·___·__"·'_·_~·_"___T_" ---_.._._--..._--~- ---- -.:--."-----.. -'~- ----..------ -_._-~.- -.--.----.--...----..-..----"-- - The CDAC Report recommends that decisions to capitalize interest be made on a case-by-case basis. CDAC states that the decision rule should be that capitalized interest improve the credit quality of the bonds and result in lower borrowing costs benefiting all taxpayers in the community facilities district. The increased credit quality must be balanced against the fact that capitalized interest usually provides a source of subsidy for the developer because the debt service for the bonds in the early years of a bond issue would otherwise be the predominant responsibility of the developer. The proposed goals and guidelines state that capitalized interest shall be provided only so long as necessary to place the special tax installments on the assessment roll unless the City Council shall expressly authorizes the capitalization of additional interest which shall not exceed eighteen (18) months. Specific issues related to the credit quality of the bonds which may be considered by the City Council in making such a determination are set forth in the goals and policies. 7. Local governments should tax developed and undeveloped land at the same rate. CDAC recommends that special tax formulas promote an equitable distribution of the tax burden between developed and undeveloped land and that as a general rule undeveloped land should be taxed at rates equivalent to tax rates levied on developed properties of the same land use designation. The proposed goals and policies provide that all property not otherwise statutorily exempt from the levy of special taxes shall bear its appropriate share of the community facilities district's aggregate special tax obligation. 8. New home buyers within community facilities districts should be provided with information regarding how special tax rates are set. The proposed goals and guidelines do contains specific requirements regarding disclosure to buyers within a community facilities district. In addition, the Act itself has' been amended since the release of the guidelines and the Act itself requires specific notice of the special tax obligation be provided to all purchasers including not only the initial purchasers of dwellings but all subsequent purchasers as well. 9. Local governments should set the bond reserve fund at 10 percent (10%) of the principal amount of the bonds or the maximum allowed by law. The proposed goals and policies do specify the establishment of a ten percent (10%) reserve fund. 10. Local governments should adopt foreclosure covenants which provide maximum flexibility. CDAC suggests adopting a foreclosure covenant which takes into account: (a) the amount of the delinquency, (b) the duration of the delinquency and (c) the condition of the reserve fund. We believe actual foreclosure covenants are best determined on a case- by-case basis when the City and its financing team can evaluate the creditworthiness of 10/3/97 9 /f the individual bond issue. Consequently, the proposed goals and policies do not attempt to establish requirements for foreclosure covenants. The CDAC Public Hearing, Findings and Recommendation for Legislative Changes to the Act Subsequent to the release of the CDAC Report, CDAC conducted a public hearing on January 15, 1992 on Mello-Roos financing. The purpose of the hearing was to solicit testimony on how the Act had been implemented in community throughout California. Specifically, CDAC was interested in evaluating the creditworthiness of special tax bonds, in hearing from taxpayers regarding their concerns about the fairness of special taxes and in determining what future role the state and local government should play in ensuring the proper use of Mello-Roos financing.3· Following the public hearing, CDAC released MRecommended Changes to the Mello- Roos Act of 1982 - Report to the Legislature and Governor" in March of 1992 (the "Recommended Changes"). A copy of the Recommended Changes are attached hereto as Appendix B. The Recommended Changes contained certain findings of the CDAC staff as a result of the hearing and certain recommendations for legislative changes in the Act itself. The findings of the CDAC staff were: 1. Public policy should recognize the importance of Mello-Roos financing in post- Proposition 13 local government finance. 2. Improved information flows should lower yields on special tax bonds. 3. Improved disclosure to home buyers should permit the housing market to function in a more competitive manner. 4. The Mlandowner vote* is a necessary but imperfect form of democratic expression; additional taxpayer protections may be warranted. Among the recommended legislative changes which would apply to the consideration of the use of community facilities district financing and the establishment of local goals and policies were: Recommendation 1. Amend the notice of special tax requirements to improve disclosure to home buyers. The two main criticisms of the prior disclosure requirements were that (a) the disclosure occurs after the buyer has made the decision to purchase the property and (b) the buyer may not appreciate the financial implications of the disclosure given the volume 3 California Debt Advisory Commission, "Recommended Changes to the Mello- Roos Act of 1982," March 1992, Page 1. 1 0/3/97 10 ..- /? -.---"-- ----~.__..._,.._._.-. .. -=.....:::::.::_::....-.-~- --- -- - --~_._---_._-_.~--:-::====--_,:",,:,,---,-,,-"~-~-:::--- ------ - - - --:- -- - - - ___"__U"_ m_______ __ of paperwork which must be completed at the close of escrow. Consequently, CDAC recommended that the Act be amended to (1) advance the disclosure requirement to the time that the buyer bids on the property by signing the contract of purchase, and (2) disclose more information about the special tax and the projects it will fund. The Act was subsequently amended to require that sellers of real property subject to a special tax lien provide notice of the special tax in a format actually prescribed in the Act itself. Government Code Section 53340.2. This notice must be given not only to the initial buyer of a dwelling unit but to each subsequent buyer of that dwelling unit as well. A copy of the form of notice is attached as Appendix C to this report. It should be noted that the amendment to the Act places the burden on the local agency creating the community facilities district to provide certain information included in the notice at the request of any property owner desiring to sell his or her property and desiring to comply with the notice requirements. The local agency may charge a reasonable fee not to exceed $ 1 0 to provide this service. Recommendation 2. Establish annual reporting requirements for community facilities districts. CDAC cited a lack of available information regarding the current status of development within community facilities districts following the issuance of special tax bonds as a cause for concern in the municipal bond markets. This lack of information inhibited the liquidity, i.e., purchases and sales, of special tax bonds on the secondary market. This lack of liquidity of special tax bonds on the secondary market, in turn, may have tended to drive up yields on such bonds in the primary market because investors were wary that such would be difficult to sell later on. The Act was amended to require that for each issue of special tax bonds sold after January 1, 1993, that the issuer provide CDAC with the following information annually: ~ The principal amount of the bonds outstanding; ~ The balance in the bond reserve fund; ~ The balance in the capitalized interest fund, if any; ~ The number of parcels which are delinquent with respect to their special tax payments, the amount that each parcel is delinquent, the length of time that each has been delinquent, and when foreclosure was commenced for each delinquent parcel; and ~ The balance in any construction funds. Government Code Section 53359.5(b). In addition to the foregoing, an issuer of special tax bonds is required to notify CDAC within ten (10) days if any of the following events occur: 10/3/97 1 1 /6 .. The local agency or its trustee fails to pay principal and interest due on any scheduled payment date; and .. Funds are withdrawn form a reserve fund to pay principal and interest on the bonds beyond levels set by CDAC.Government Code Section 53359.5(cJ. In addition to the foregoing disclosure required by state law, since the release of the Recommended Changes the Securities and Exchange Commission has imposed continuing disclosure requirements on the issuers of municipal bonds including special tax bonds. Securities and Exchange Commission Rule 15c2-12.lssuers are now required to annually report information similar to that required by the state law to information repositories. Additionally, information regarding anyone of eleven specified events such as payment defaults on bonds or unscheduled draws on reserve funds reflecting financial difficultly must be reported as such events occur. This information is available to the secondary bond market and will hopefully provide the information which the market needs to allow informed transactions in this market. It should be noted that local agencies forming community facilities districts since the imposition of these disclosure requirements have incorporated the cost of such disclosure in the annual administrative costs of the community facilities district. This administrative costs are incorporated into the special tax formula to provide a revenue source to finance these expenditures. Such expenditures incurred prior to the receipt of special tax revenues are paid from bond proceeds. Recommendation 3. Limit the annual increase in the maximum special tax on residential properties to 2% for landowner approved financings. CDAC reported that many of the witnesses to the public hearing testified that the special tax is more acceptable to the community if it is not subject to large fluctuations. The Act has been amended to provide that the maximum special tax to be levied against any parcel used for private residential purposes may not be increased over time except that it may be increased by an amount not to exceed 2% per year. Government Code Section 53321 (cJ. REQUIREMENT FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT OF LOCAL GOALS AND POLICIES Subsequent to the release of the Recommended Changes, the Act was also amended to provide that a local agency may initiate proceedings to establish a community facilities district only if it has first considered and adopted local goals and policies concerning the use of the Act. Government Code Section 53312.7. This requirement forces the legislative bodies and staffs of local agencies to consider and reflect upon the issues which are most likely to affect the success of a financing before the local agency receives a petition requesting the formation of a community facilities district and must react to the petition. Attached to this report as Appendix D is the proposed Statement of 10/3/97 12 (-í __ _...~... .._'___._.__'~"._m Goals and Policies for the City of Chula Vista. The local goals and policies must include at least the following: 1. A statement of the priority that various kinds of public facilities shall have for financing through the use of the Act, including public facilities to be owned and operated by other public agencies. including school districts. This requirement was imposed because in some jurisdictions one local agency would form a community facilities district and establish a special tax which was so high as to effectively take up all of the taxing capacity within that community facilities district. This has not been a problem in Chula Vista in the EastLake and Rancho Del Reydevelopments where the City has used assessment district financing for infrastructure and the school districts have used community facilities district financing for schools. Nevertheless, the proposed goals and policies do contain address this issue briefly in the section entitled "PRIORITIZATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS." 2. A statement concerning the credit quality to be required of bond issues, including criteria to be used to in evaluating credit quality. This requirement is addressed in the establishment of value-to-debt requirements, requirement for special tax revenue coverage of 110% of debt service, requirement for the establishment of a reserve fund for each bond issue. requirement for the establishment of a backup tax or the prepayment of a portion of the special tax in the event of a change in the density of development which would adversely affect the generation of special tax revenues. 3. A statement concerning the steps to be taken to ensure that prospective property purchasers are fully informed about their taxpaying obligations imposed under the Act. The proposed local goals and policies address this requirement in the section entitled "DISCLOSURE TO PURCHASERS." The proposed disclosure requirements go significantly beyond that level of disclosure required under the Act itself. 4. A statement concerning the criteria for evaluating the equity of tax allocation formulas and concerning the desirable and maximum amounts of special tax to be levied against any parcel pursuant to the Act. The proposed local goals and policies address these requirements in the sections entitled "MAXIMUM AGGREGATE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS" and "SPECIAL TAX REQUIREMENTS." 5. A statement of definitions, standards and assumptions to be used in appraisals. The proposed local goals and policies address these requirements in the sections entitled "APPRAISAL REQUIREMENTS." CONCLUSION As CDAC found Mello-Roos financing is an important tool in financing public infrastructure in post-Proposition 218 local government finance. It has become a more important tool in post-Proposition 218 local government finance. Utilized on the right development project and subject to the requirements of the proposed local goals and 10/3/97 13 /6 ____._ u______......_,. __,__,'. __._~,___~~~ .__~n__.__ _ __~ ___~ ___ _'_n_.__ -------~."- __U~___ ~- . _n___ __ n______.__ _ ...__ policies, it may be a financing tool which the City would want to have in its public -- financing tool box. Nothing the City can do in electing to use Mello-Roos financing can completely insulate the City from the possibility of post issuance problems. Taxpayers will complain. Swings in the real estate market will occur and delinquencies will occur. A developer may make the decision to walk away from a development project because it is no longer economically feasible to develop. These problems can, however, be mitigated and the significant problems which occurred in some community facilities districts can be avoided. This mitigation requires: ~ A thorough evaluation of the credit quality of the proposed community facilities district starting with the evaluation of the applicant's financing plan for the development of the project and the applicant's financial ability to carry the project including the payment of the special taxes during build out. A professional appraisal of the land to be subject to the special tax levy accompanied by a market absorption study in certain cases is another critical component to the evaluation of the credit quality of a community facilities district. ~ Establishment of special tax formulas which place limits on the maximum special tax as a percentage of the value of the properties taxes and on the aggregate tax and assessment burden. The special tax formulas should also avoid fluctuations in tax rates on developed properties and should provide for an equitable distribution of the tax burden. ~ Full and complete disclosure to prospective property owners so that they will be able to make informed decisions to purchase knowing the full implications of the speciai tax obligation on the property they are purchasing. Such disclosure will also assist lenders in determining that prospective purchasers have the financial ability to meet both their mortgage and their tax commitments. ~ Thorough due diligence in the preparation of and disclosure in the offering documents for the special tax bonds. This will allow the municipal bond market to provide an independent analysis of the credit quality of the bonds and the financial ability of and incentive for the applicant to see the project through to completion. We would be pleased to answer any questions or further address any concerns which the City Councilor City staff may have regarding either this report or the proposed local goals and policies. 10/3/97 14 /7 ----- -------~----~-------~-- ---- --- _~.__ . .._.._...._~_ ··,w· _....... _ ._ _ _.____ __._ ____.__ - _____~___ _.. - ~_'.'~_"~_ _._.__ _~., _. '___'._" ;.n..,.-"- .- APPENDIX A - CALIFORNIA DEBT ADVISORY COMMISSION "MELLO-ROOS FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA" c~/ -~._._~~.._..._,--~--- ^" -~.~_.-.- - -_.._~..~.- . - --~_.__.._.,._..._._._._-----_...~.........._..__.......- .. . . -----......--.-----. ---~,.- . -----~...~-- - ---.--,~-__.__ ______._.~.c....._". ~ ---_-::=-::...-=--~__:- -:'.~._~_____ ___ ..__.::...-=:___ ..__ ___ _._. __~ '_ -~ -'--,- --'-"- --- MMISSION f ,--- , . . . " - . INÄNCING IN . ......,.<-:'- ." "...'>~< .....>;~ },.; ·.·i: ~ú~":êo:;5~~i~i~~~~~~(. .. ....' . "":;..~~. ' "~,J.r,"'''_ '.I::~. --""' -~~~ '~:r,;y!<"...~ '",':\~ -, e"" '>_-;.1". ~))'~"''''''J:'':ii~:ffi~'$111''~\i''t;-~.~~ .....f, - -_~. '.: '-~ .; '.~, ~~~~..~.-,:~~:':~:~~ ~~<~~:>~~~-~:!; ~;~ ~~ :.:~~~-',:,_"-.~ ~,~~?:-~:;::':~;~4(~:~:j:- :î~~V ~,";~'~~:;:4~i~~~~b¡~;~ç':~~f~~~~g, !~t~~(:~~:_'~: . ~ '-,: . . -..- .~" ~-.."- ~~ ...".A,:, ....."..- "'...7. /;;.. , .~. ,,~""~. '.< ,..:',1-.~\ '~.('~I,.;"'" ":~"":or' ;!. ';¡'j'~ ,,' "";'f';;:"...";'~'~ < ...;~%:.~ '1t~~~~~~~t!.~~r~~i."~·:: ''''f"V ,,/.._ .' -, - ~. ,;. ""& "''''''"<"~";;,~<~~;,,,(:~.,-,,,~: :"',..';~ ::~·...;t\>""1i.:¡\'o "t·,J..,.'.~;y;;";~;~,,ï·~,tT_:;tfi~S:,i:t::\. );¡r.~.~~~~~1.f~~þ~f. "$'s::.t'J+....~' . '~.~ . '".. ~ .'; ,,~..2.~:~~: ~ ';:;.rJ.;':'~;;.íf~·l,,\~;:~:~ <0. ;'i-,~, ,:f~ ~~::;;~../'."'~~;;{~~ 'i.-:: ""'~¿·'~:f:%~t:'.f{~.;"''t~1:?".:i,Þ'?c '~~/~ìJ::t:~~!f'1i '~<~'{ :¡~~ -' a ,~..,'" '!'::~\~:~:î<r~,,:,;~~r~:r~n~~~~~~~,;,~>~,~t~1~~~~;'~~f~·~~;,~i~;~~1~~~~~;~'~~~_ ' . '~~~~-t~~ ~~~:.'¡'{' ,,_'_ ~ ", ' '4i#r~- , .'.,' ~. .7',It~..;o."-"" -'''',.,~'. ;i~,'~''!;i~~ > .f~i" "'~"';/.h{~""~'I!=t¡f"'J"~"""'œ ,:,...,' ~~:r,t+t;:'~"""J,"'" - "".' r.; / ',.. _·t· ~,,,,,¡;:~,, I )i':"'V;}:.lf'.Io~~i,-,;',1t'~,~,.~. .:.,~1\' ..:,.'~ ... .~. :';;-J;':i.'''':';,).;",~. .....::,¿.;.%IOl'..!:'"¡,¡,\I\t 'r_ ''-'''''::¡fI''' ....... "1I'~v:....,.,\.., '" I " . V .'''~ ,~~ ..,~-~.~ ,..~:'" -"~"'" ,J.. '''...¡_ r'~"'{."t:~ -<:'~ ~\'.w.. . ~ '.. /i>io;¡'T,~. '.. -. ."', ..., ""''', ,,¡:j'~~ " [! -"~'.>." ·~:~..:~~$,;':",:~:;,1:·'~~,;,,;:¥l::1:ç'·;:::·-ì{~~;i~·žtl'~~~ffi~~~~,t8!t~~~~1íl£S(¿~~~~ ~~ " . ;ä~~pi~;tt~~?~:' ,. ,~,¡.~...< "",;}"~'~~<~,,,·;:..':".H-<~...::,'!.~...t>';"~'c<\~~"~·~:'fll..""_:¿,;·""~~""e'~ "W: ',\\.~""I~~.i.".~'(.¿p¥\'I-'~"i~~ ".,.~t'~''r.;:'.i;~~'1" .Jj.''i';''-; , I· .1...·,"":" "~,,¡",:'" '.Ÿ~~~'ho\:;;t;!..æ~.¡,:,~~· ~x~~(~.....,...:.<:";'fi:.~~1"~~J::;.w.~~,"-. "'1,'1:-\""'\\'''';':f~'~",.\~",,'\<"~Æ.'''dÞ'' --"--. , ,'" - 1t. ......."'1 '",' ~ .""'J¡t""'¡;'<-' ",' .~-.¡.r_\''''''' -::;'~"L'~/ ßr'ir,:_~". .-'~.>: ~......_j{E.. ;,,~ ~".." ~1~" '-?;?' ,,1'__'~\'N~'!"\' I ,' .~....»! .......~...- J' ~; '~(;<~~~~~:~;"f··::<~~~#lit$,~~';~]J~·J:'3.~f;,;:'::~;rit~~: ~"' "':~1~f·~";';~:::;,~~~'7·}:;: ~/~!t\;., If:. ~~I'}t.';~ ·~~·~~¡~·$.~~}{'!'-'~:4i.~~."~~~~fft~"ì~~i\:~~r>:~,,, " ... ,\-'.,j"'~.',",'_.." .....;.:\:1-"I;""..."...."'::.;¡ìI"""""::..,... "_.,~ ~ . '.'~ r~.~.. ¡XI "'i'C' ,~'''', . .~ ~l_.....··\·,.,.lt~h.....~·~_"'·.'""',"\·~,;;~, .._J;~'~-~_<"t~H-,.,,,.~~.W~"'"" I ":"...~-',,r.:ftj·~!-_c: .' , , r:,.~.~ .1,1 ":,_ ,. t<,·.r·"{;"~"'J._'h."~,'''' . ~,."'"It""r";i~_ .,f, !."'....' _~, '. , -.."""j., . ~ iii .. a~_ ,-~- -, .' ',~" ~H ~ ( '. . .~ '''' ~'~r" )~, '~~" ." .ri ,}~ .", " .,.'>. .,_,,¡,j,,,,r.:¡"" BBnIõiJllUll1I;T:i,-...·"., ".,-.....,. .'"~.¡',>.'. J,.;.... -'" .;>.r'.~'·'..r..; ~......,.......-,,~<, ,..,~_'~,',..'.( ~~_~~~~~~ ;i¥~~f;f::'~;~~!f;I;~~r~~~~f~t~¡~>',;. . .~;;< -,.- . ~--,,-~ - ._-.__._-----~ -'-'.". .-,.- MELLO-ROOS FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA September 1991 - CALIFORNIA DEBT ADVISORY COMMISSION 915 Capitol Mall, Room 400 P.O. Box 942809 Sacramento, CA 94209-0001 (916) 653-3269 c;z, '3 .. ---.---.....,.-,. --.-..--.-..---.-.----- _ _~_____.._..m_._..' --"'~-,' , -,,-- ._"~',._- . --. L_ _.. ..... ,".. '. ~ STATE OF CALIFORNIA CAUFORNIA DEBT ADVISORY COMMISSION MEMBERS 915 CAPITOl HALL, 100M 'DO ....... .... P.O. BOX 9l.2II09 """- SACRAIIEIITO, CA 9'Z09-ooo1 ""'.- TELEPHONE: (916)653-3269 - FAX: (916)6~-7'40 en, .... """- Steve Juarez. Executive Director -.., c. ....... """.-" a.,- -- .. .... -- September 27, 1991 - ...... """- ..... t. 1m -I2U.:õIftoW ~'fll_ ."t_ ~IJl.l."'" On behalf of the California Debt Adyisory Commission (CDAC), I am pleased to release Me/Jo-Roos Financing in California, a comprehensiye review of the Mello- Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. Over the past eight and one-half years, more than $3.2 billion in Mello-Roos special tax bonds haye been issued by local goyernments in California. These bonds haye financed the construction of needed public improyements such as schools, roads, freeway interchanges, sewage treatment plants, and a host of other public facilities. The growing reliance of California local governments on Mello-Roos bond financing reflects broader fiscal trends toward increased specialization and greater local responsibility. These trends came about as a result of the voter approyal of Proposition 13 in 1978 and declining federal assistance for local infrastructure. The Mello-Roos Act, howeyer, comes with its share of added responsibilities for local goyernment officials. The precarious nature of land-backed financing necessitates that public officials pay close attention to the credit structure of Mello-Roos bonds. In addition, local officials should be cognizant that excessiye oyerlapping tax rates and inequitable tax burdens may result from the implementation of the Mello-Roos special tax. To assist local officials in addressing their debt management responsibilities, the last chapter of this report includes specific planning and project evaluation guidelines for eyaluating Mello-Roos proposals. I commend these guidelines to the attention of all local officials. Sincerely, ~~ KATHLEEN BROWN California State Treasurer, Chair, California Debt Adyisory Commission r?¥ ---'-"--~'--";----' - . California Debt Advisory Commission The California Debt Adyisory Commission is the state's clearinghouse for public debt issuance information. The Commission was created by the California Legislature in 1981 to assist state and local goyernment agencies with the monitoring, issuance, and management of public debt. The California Debt Adyisory Commission members include: Katbleen Brown California State Treasurer and Chair Pete Wilson Goyernor Or Thomas W. Hayes Director, Department of Finance Gray Davis State Controller Robert Beverly State Senator Lucy KlIlea State Senator Jim Costa Assemblyman Patrick Nolan Assemblyman Donald W. Merz Treasurer-Tax Collector Sonoma County Mary E. Turner Treasurer City of Anaheim Additional information concerninE tbls report or the prOEram of tbe California Debt Advisory Commission may be obtained by contacllnE: Stne Juarez Executive Director California Debt Advisory Commission (916) 653-3269 ;<ç --- ----_._.~_. . ..... .._--_._~--- --_...._.,--_.._--.~,-_._-_.__..--,.. .-..--- ·-----.-------- ""---- - ~----- . . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This rcport was written by Stephen Shea and reviewed by Steve Juarez. Janae Davis and Berma Williams provided research assistance. Martha Riley, Mary Scharosch, Eileen Park, and Charmette Bonpua prepared the report for publication. Dan GangwiSh of PaineWcbber calculated the bond yiclds in Chaptcr IV. Seyeral people reyiewed earlier drafts of the report and proyided comments, including David Hartley of Stone & Youngberg, Larry Rolapp of Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates, John Murphy of Stradling, Yocca, Carlson & Rauth, Bob Kelling of Kelling, Northcross & Nobriga, Joe Evans of Empire Economics, John Knox of Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, Harry Clark of Muni Financial Services, Inc., Ken Hobbs, Assistant City Manager of Victorville, and Caroline Burns of the Statc Allocation Board. I ;;¿(p TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................... I Chapter I: FiDUciDI Growth: A Historical Perspecthe._...................................... I Financing Growth Prior to 1978.........._...................._................................................. 2 The Growing Burden of the Property Tax ........................................................ 3 Financing Growth After 197 8 ................................................................................................. 4 Declining Federal Assistance .................................................................................... 4 Local Responses to Proposi ti on 13.......................................................................... 6 Summary _...._.........__................._.................................._......_.................................... II Chapter II: Review of the Mello-Roos Act...__......_.............................................. 15 Proced ural Requirements ............_......................................_................................................. 16 Eligi ble F acili ties and Seryices _..........................._............................................ 16 Proceedings for Forming a CFD.............................................................................. 16 Special Tax Election ..............................._............................_............................... 18 Proceedings for Issuing Bonds........................................................_...................... 18 Data Analysis of Mello-Roos Special Tax Bond Issuance.........._............................ 19 Purpose of Issuance .........................._..........._..._..............._........_.................. 19 Geographic Distribution of Issuance..................................................................... 20 Issuance by Type of Issuer ................................._............................._................... 21 Summary __................_........................................................................................_................... 22 Chapter III: Public Policy lssues......................................_............_.......................... 23 Expenditure Issues ---.-.-..-..........-.....-.---- --.--.....-.... 24 Growth and Congestion_.. ....--. .......-... 24 Level of Seryice Standards ... --................ 25 Concurrency .....- .--- 27 Taxation Issues____.._._............._..........__.._. ...............-.. 28 Tax Equity . ..... 28 Tax Base Stability _................................._;..._....._ .-----......-..... 31 ;).7 ._. ._m_··_ _ ____~..~_.____~..._..~ -.-.. H -.......'"7-,..;-...'''.. ... --.... ..__.-' -..... ....- ... Othcr Pu blic Policy Issucs ......................................................................................................... 33 Housing Aff orda bili ty ............_..................................................................................... 33 Financing School Facili tics ........................................................................................ 38 Summary .........................................................................................,................................................... 40. Chapter IV: Credit. Analysis of Mello-Roos Special Tax Bonds........................... 42 Crcdit Analysis of Mcllo-Roos Spccial Tax Bonds Issucd in Undcvclopcd Arcas ................................................................................................... 43 Rcgulatory Risk __.............................................................._................................. 44 Construction Risk_.._.............................................................................................. 45 Markct A bsorption ..Risk............................................................................................. 46 Dcvclopcr Bankruptcy Risk ....................................................................................... 46 Crcdit Analysis of Mcllo-Roos Spccial Tax Bonds Iss u cd in Dcvcl opcd Arcas......................................................................................................... 47 Factors Influcncing Mcllo-Roos Bond Yiclds .._........................._............................... 48 Analysis of Mcllo-Roos Bond Yiclds............................................._................................... 50 Local Dcbt Managcmcnt Considcrations............................................................................. 50 Summary .....___....___...................................................._....................................... 52 Chapter V: Guidelines for Mello-Roos Financlnl......._............................................ 54 Planning Guidclines.._............._............................................................................................... 57 Establish Financing Policies in the General Plan _..................................... 57 Identify Service Standards in the General Plan ............................................. 58 Distribute Costs on a Project-by-Project Basis................................................. 58 Project Evaluation Guidelines ......._._............................................................................ 60 Esta blish a Project Review Committee ......................_._............_.............. 60 V alue-to-Debt Ratio_....._......................_............................................................. 61 Special Tax Limita tion.........._................................................................................. 61 Special Tax Inflators.............._.............._.........__..._................................... 62 Special Tax Coverage__ ------..... ... ... 62 Capitalized Interest Account..._._......_....._ ---....-.-.................. 62 Tax Rates on Developed and Undeyeloped Land...__._.._................. 62 Disclosure of Special Tax Lien ---.... 63 Bond Reserve Fund --.-.--....... 63 Treatment of DelinquenciC'. 64 Summary __ - .. -..... 65 Bibliography_..._. -----.-..-.---. --.-.-.--. 66 c2¿ ---.--- --. ------ --- - ".----- --" --.. --."- ._- EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the Act) proyides California local governments with an extremely flexible reyenue source for financing needed public facilities and seryices. To date, the special tax authorized by the Act has been used primarily to secure bonds issued to finance the installation of public infrastructure in deyeloping areas of the state. During the period of rapid population growth California experienced during the late 1980s, the yolume of Mello-Roos special tax bond issuance increased dramatically. The Act has been used much less extensiyely in developed areas of the state due to the difficulty of obtaining two-thirds voter approyal. The growth in Mello-Roos special tax bond issuance has inyited the scrutiny of inyestors, the media and public officials. There is a great deal of concern about the effect that the present slump in the California real estate market will haye on the security of outstanding Mello-Roos special tax bonds. There are Concerns about the public policy implications of authorizing public indebtedness through a yote of landowner/deyelopers, which is how the yast majority of outstanding special tax bonds in the state were authorized. In short, there is an appetite for information about the status of Mello-Roos financing in California. Accordingly, the California Debt Advisory Commission (CDAC) embarked on this review of the Mello-Roos Community Faeilities Aet of 1982, to shed some light on these and other issues, and to proyide local governments with direction in approving the formation of Mello-Roos Community Facilities Districts, levying the special tax, and issuing bonds secured by the special tax. This report begins with a discussion of the fiscal and political enyironment of the early 1980s which created the need for a more flexible financing tool to address the public facility demands of growth. The second chapter describes the procedural requirements for levying Mello-Roos special taxes and issuing bonds, and presents data on the use of Mello-Roos special tax bonds since 1983. The third chapter examines the public policy issues raised by the use of Mello-Roos financing. The fourth chapter focuses on credit quality issues surrounding the use of Mello-Roos special tax bonds. Finally, the last chapter of the report proyides guidelines for local goyernments on the use of Mello-Roos financing. A brief summary of each chapter of the report follows. CHAPTER I: FINANCING GROWTH: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE - In order to appreciate the role that Mello-Roos Act plays in financing growth, it is important to understand the relationship between growth and capital financing in California and how that relationship has evolved over time. For ," ¡') :-.; ::--:<.. I i ---.------~.._--_._-_... - -'~ · -.---.- --"------ --------- --- _."--- - "~---- ._~ -. -~ ,-..--- many years during California's post-World War II population boom, the federal and state goyernments heaYily subsidized the construction of public facilities, particularly those which produced statewide or regional benefits. At the local leyeI, the increased seryice demands caused by growth often oyerwhelmed existing goyernmental structures, leading to the establishment of new governmental entities. From a fiscal perspective, the demands for seryice translated into higher local property tax ra tes. The constitutional restrictions on taxation imposed by Proposition 13, coupled with declining leyels of federal assistance, required local governments to devise new strategies for financing capital projects. Cities and counties began to rely more on their legal authority to require developers to pay for infrastructure as a condition of development approval. Developer fees emerged as an important source of revenue for school facility needs, as well. Local governments also rediscoyered the special assessment acts, which had been used sparingly since the Great Depression. But these funding sources could only be used under restrictiye conditions. Special assessments could finance improvements which confer a special benefit to identifiable properties; but they could not be used to finance facilities which confer communitywide benefits, such as schools and police stations. Developer fees were constrained by the inherent limitations of a 'pay-as-you-go' revenue source. The need for a more flexible local revenue source led to the enactment of the Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982. CHAPTER II: REVIEW OF THE MELLO-ROOS ACT The special tax authorized by the MelIo-Roos Act may be used to finance the construction, expansion, rehabilitation, or acquisition of any real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of fiye years or more. The legislative body creating the CFD is permitted to finance any facility it is authorized by law to construct, own, or operate. The special tax may also finance a limited number of services such as police and fire protection services, as long as the special tax is not used to supplant services already provided. When fewer than 12 registered voters reside in the proposed Community Facilities District (CFD), the landowners arc the qualified electors with each landowner receiving one vote per acre or portion thereof. The fact that MelIo- Roos special tax debt can be authorized by landowners and used as a development tool is the primary reason for its explosive growth during the I 980s. The statewide volume of special tax bond issuance increased from $8.5 million in 1983 to $977 million in 1990. In the first six months of 1991, $458 million was issued, slightly behind last year's pace. OveralI, a total of $3.2 billion in special tax bonds has been issued since 1983. Of this total amount, cities accounted for nearly one-half of the total dollar volume (46 percent), folIowed by counties (23 percent), school - districts (20 percent), special districts (5 percent), public finance authorities (3 percent), and redevelopment agencies (3 percent). The bulk of the special tax bond issuance during this period was concentrated in the southern California counties of Riverside, Orange and San 30 H ----------- ~._- <-- -., .--- .--. -" -- -.-"'- ._~--- - .-------_. -------_.-..-. -----.. ---.- -------,,~-<~ - Bernardino, which is not surprising as these counties collectively represent the fastest growing region of the state. There was also extensiye issuance in the Central Valley where development activity has also been strong. In contrast, the more developed areas of Los Angeles County and the Bay Area have issued relatively small amounts of Mello-Roos debt. CHAPTER III: PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES In examining the public policy issues raised by the use of Mello-Roos financing, it is important to distinguish between landowner-approved and registered yoter-approved financings. Landowner-approved financing represents a significant change in the response of California communities to the infrastructure demands of growth. Howeyer. decisions reached in this manner arc made without the barometers of public support afforded by more conyentional forms of democratic expression. The pOlitical acceptance of landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing is assured only when the improyed properties within CFDs arc purchased, signifying the willingness of buyers to live with predetermined levels of service and tax burdens. By contrast, registered-yoter approved Mello-Roos financing is more similar to traditional mechanisms of public finance. While there are many public pOlicy issues, they can be broken down into a few general categories: expenditure issues, taxation issues, housing affordability issues, and school finance issues. Expenditure Issues. There arc three key expenditure issues related to the use of landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing: 0 Growth and Congestion. The prevalence of congested public facilities in California suggests that traditional political processes haye not been successful in developing pOlicies to address the impacts of growth on public seryice levels. The landowner yote permits local officials to make decisions, early in the development process, about the mix of taxes and service leyels to be proyided to deyeloping areas of their communities. 0 Level of Senice Standards. In order to effectiyely mitigate the impacts of growth on public service levels, some objective system is needed for measuring the likely impacts of individual development projects. The establishment of level of service (LOS) standards for individual program areas permits local officials to generate cost information that can be used for negotiating deyeloper exactions and/or sizing Mello-Roos bond issuances. 0 Concurrency. Landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing can help localities implement a policy of COnCurrenCY. which describes the requirement that - sufficient capacity be added to the public capital stock, at the time development occurs, to accomodate the additional demands of growth. In essence, landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing permits landowners to borrow against the value and tax capacity of their land through the tax- exempt market to pay for the infrastructure needed to serve development. 3/ iii .---.. ----.. -------~ ,_.._"...... -..-...., . -~.,. -. ---~. -, ..--";.;'., :c.-:;~'_~;'.__..: ~::_~'::"::'_.. -:;.::...;~-':""~, ,""".''':':',.~:;_:.~...~'':'..---'''.~_---':.. '...__no .w.·___.._.. ._. It is the only feasible method of raising a large sum of capital early in the development process to finance the construction of virtually any public facility, while isolating the cost of doing so on the deyeloping area. Taxation Issues. The Mello-Roos Act proYides little guidance regarding the apportionment of the special tax to indiyidual properties, other than to establish the general principle that all properties in the CFD must benefit from the proposed improvements. The Act lea yes the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to the discretion of the local agency approying the levy. The only constraint is that the special tax cannot be an ad yalorem property tax as prohibited by Article XIII A of the State Constitution (Proposition 13). A tension exists between the objectives of designing an equitable Or fair tax structure and designing a stable tax structure. Local officials must balance these competing objectives in the design of special tax formulas. 0 Tax Equity. The objectiye of tax equity is best served when indiYidual taxpayers pay only for the benefit that they receive from expenditures financed by the CFD. Applying the benefit principle to the design of CFD boundaries requires the identification of the geographic region that will benefit from the proposed improyements. For CFDs formed on undeveloped land, that area typically encompasses the properties slated for residential, commercial and industrial deyelopment. Applying the benefit principle to the design of special tax formulas requires that similar properties be treated as equally as possible. 0 Tax Base Stability. The objective of tax base stability is best served by a tax structure that generates a predictable and sufficient stream of revenues. A tax base formed on undeveloped land does not afford the stability of a tax base formed on developed land. The Mello-Roos Act proyides seyeral features to improve the security of the tax structure: the ability to capitalize up to two year's interest payments into the bond issuance; the ability to tax developed and undeveloped land at different rates; and the ability to generate debt service coyerage of greater than l.0. These features tend to shift the responsibility for tax payments to those who are most likely to pay; the homebuyer, for residential properties; or the businessperson, for commercial and industrial properties. Housing Affordability Issues. The housing affordability adyantages of Mello-Roos financing are difficult to surmise on a case-by-case basis. Under certain assumptions, Mello-Roos financing may result in lower housing prices, translating into a lower downpayment requirement for buyers. The annual savings wiII be influenced by the tax-exempt interest rate on the special tax bonds and the transaction costs associated with the bond sale. The strength of the housing market at the time properties are sold wiII determine the distribution of the special tax burden between the developer and the buyer. School Finance Issues. Landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing provides a pragmatic tool for school districts to meet the service demands generated by large- . 3~ iv o.._~<_~.·~ scalc deye!opment projects. Howeyer, the isolation of. school construction costs oyer an area the size of a typical CFD raises equity concerns. A broa-der participation in school facility finance may be justified by the benefits that accrue to society from an educated populace. Moreover, the disparate distribution of CFDs throughout the state might result in ineQuita.ble tax burdens and uneyen leyels of. school construction actiyity. The two-thirds yoter approyal requirement is a barrier to the widespread use of Mello-Roos financing f.or school districts in deyeloped areas of the sta te. CHAPTER IV: CREDIT ANALYSIS OF MELLO-ROOS SPECIAL TAX BONDS The real estate boom in California during the late 1980s fueled an explosiye growth in the issuance of Mello-Roos special tax bonds. Enthusiasm for Mello-Roos special tax bonds has been tempered, how eyer, by the downturn in the real estate industry which began in late 1989. This chapter explores the credit risks associa ted with Mello-Roos special tax bonds. The credit risk inherent in landowner-approyed Mello-Roos special tax bonds stems from the divergent dynamics of real estate development and municipal finance. The process of deyeloping real estate is fraught with uncertainties which can affect the timing of construction and the ultimate success or failure of individual projects. The structure of municipal securities, by contrast, is yery specific with respect to time; special taxes arc payable on certain dates each year and arc scheduled at the time of issuance for the term of the bonds--which may be 20 years or more. Much of the actiyity surrounding a Mello-Roos special tax bond --- transaction focuses on aligning the diyergent dynamics of real estate and .' municipal finance to the greatest extent possible. This chapter identifies the fOllowing credit risks of landowner-approved Mello-Roos special tax bonds: 0 Regulatory Risk. If bonds haye already been issued and subsequent regulatory decisions reduce the amount of special tax revenue generated by the deyelopment project, debt service payments may be threatened. Such decisions include zoning changes, CEQA considerations and building moratoria resulting from water shortages. 0 Construction Risk. Once all land use entitlements have been obtained, the developer must successfully manage construction activity. In some cases, delays caused by problems with subcontractors, suppliers, and labor could impair the deyeloper's cash flow position and threaten special tax payments. 0 Market Absorption Risk. If the rate at which properties arc developed and sold does not proceed as scheduled, the deyeloper may become financially oyerextended and delinquent on special tax payments. Although demand for newly developed real estate will primarily depend upon economic conditions, the rate of market absorption may turn on intangible factors '--:' ....-:? .:3-:;; v ---.. -_._._---._~.--- --,._"~--- ,-,"-'.-',--".~ -, "'-'--.'- ".--.,... --. ,------ .. --...-~, .....'- --...-.. such as the ability to produce a qualilY project that correctly targets a market niche. 0 Developer Baakruptcy Risk. Early in the development process, when the , special tax base is highly concentrated, the .bankruptcy of a major developer could overwhelm the security features of the special tax bonds and result in default. All of the credit factors listed above relate to the dynamics of the real estate deyelopment process. It follows that if the area is already deyeloped, none of these factors apply. Consequently, Mello-Roos special tax bonds issued in developed areas can be quite strong credits, as long as the CFD includes enough territory to provide for a diversified tax base. The key security feature of specical tax bonds issued in deyeloped areas is the ability to provide greater than 1.0 debt seryice coverage. The cushion between the rate at which the special tax is levied and the maximum rate might proyide adequate debt service coverage for all but the most pessimistic taxpayer delinquency scenarios. CHAPTER V: GUIDELINES FOR MELLO-ROOS FINANCING This chapter presents guidelines to assist local governments in taking adyantage of the benefits offercd by Mello-Roos financing while minimizing the associated credit risks and keeping tax burdens reasonable and equitable. The guidelines fall into two categories: planninl: I:uidelines and project evaluation guidelines. - ....~ PLANNING GUIDELINES The planning guidelines apply to cities and counties and discuss how decisions concerning Mello-Roos financing can be integrated into the land use entitlement process. Establish Finaacinl: Policies in the General Plan. In order to allocate available debt capacity on a priority basis, the general plan of the city or county should establish a comprehensive policy toward mitigating the ser,ice le'el impacts of growth. The policy should legitimize the funding requirements of all governmental units. including school districts. affected by city or county land use decisions. Identify Senice Standards in the General Plan. The general plan of the cily or county should include le'el of serrice standards to pro,ide the framework for mitigating the impacts of growth. Distribute Costs on a ProJect-by-ProJect Basis. It is impossible to determine ahead of time how the a,ailable debt capacity should be distributed among each local agency ser,ing the de,elopment project. Howe'er. the LOS standards 3f V~ --- -- --'--'=-- - ~--< should be maintained, and the special tax burden should be constrained according to the project evaluation guidelines below. PROJECT EV ALUA TION GUIDELINES The project eyaluation guidelines apply to all issuers and focus on minimizing the credit risk of MelIo-Roos special tax bonds and protecting taxpayers against excessiye or inequitable tax burdens. The project evaluation guidelines outline both a procedural approach toward evaluating requests for Mello-Roos financing and criteria for evaluating indiyidual proposals. Establish a Project Review Committee. Cilies and counties should establish Project Review Commiuees to review applications from developers for permission to use- tax-exempt bond financing for development projects. Value-to-Debt Ratio. To protect credit quality, local governments should require a minimum value-to-debt ratio of 3:1. Special Tax Limitation. The maximum special tax rate for landowner- approved financings should not exceed one percent (1%) of the anticipated fair market value of each improved parcel upon completion of all public and pri\'ate improvements. Special Tax Inflators. Special tax formulas should limil escalator rates allowing annual tax increases in the maximum special lax 10 two percenl (2%) annually. Special Tax Coveraie. The maximum special lax should generale alleast 110 percent of pr!!}ecled annual gross debt service on lhe bonds. Capitalized Interest Account. Capilalized interesl should be permiued ií il improves lhe credit quality oflhe special lax bonds and results in lower borrowing costs, benefiuing alllaxpayers in lhe CFD. Tax Rates on Developed and Undeveloped Land. Developed and undeveloped land should be laxed at lhe same rates. The special lax rales should correspond 10 lhe adopted land use designalions for each parcel. Undeveloped land should be laxed at rales equivalent 10 lax rates levied on developed properlies of lhe same land use designalion. Disclosure of Spec:lal Tax Lien. The homebuyer should be made aware of whelher or nOl lhe special lax will be levied al lhe same rale for developed and undeveloped properties. Bond Reserve Fund. The bond reserve fund should be sel al 10 percent of lhe principal amounl of lhe bonds or lhe maximum allowed by law. - Treatment of Delinquenc:les. The foreclosure covenant should be based on lhe amounl of lhe delinquency; lhe duralion of lhe delinquency and lhe condilion of lhe reserve fund. 35 vii u_ _______..._ ._ ._..................... ."--' ""..._.....'IIIIII.--...n "'''.:11''''''0'101 ......;1;.... ___...1~ · "...;..;.;-..~....;:;';"';;""~'~,-,-_.~'-';;"""'-.~:":'~~_"-'__"~___'.__..~-~:.~_~ :_.~ ~.;... ~~.;;....:.:_..:..:...; _ ..___-~.;...._.;:_~~:~.~:__'_:,..:.,;~_'_._.- _," _:;....;.; ,,:" _ ,u~:.. _.__._.....~_n...·_ _ _..~. .. CHAPTER I FINANCING GROWTH: A HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Bcginning in thc mid-1980s, a growing numbcr of public facilitics constructcd in dcvcloping arcas of California wcrc financcd undcr authority of the Mcllo-Roos Community Facilitics Act of 1982. Thc proccss by which thcsc bonds arc issued typically bcgins with a small group of dcvclopcrs pctitioning a local goycrnment for pcrmission to (I) form a community facilitics district, (2) approve thc Icvy of a spccial tax, and (3) authorizc thc salc of bonds sccurcd by thc special tax.l Thc procccds from thc bond salc arc uscd to construct schools, roads, frccway intcrchangcs, watcr and scwcr lincs, police and firc stations and othcr public facility rcquircmcnts of urban life. Thc Mcllo-Roos spccial tax is securcd by liens attachcd to indiyidual parccls in thc dcyclopmcnt. As homcs arc constructcd and sold, homcbuycrs assumc thc liens on thc propcrty and the spccial tax is included on thcir propcrty tax bills. Whilc thc Mcllo-Roos Act rcprcscnts a fairly rcccnt innoyation in local goyernmcnt financc, thc challcngc of mccting thc dcmands of growth is not ncw to local goycrnmcnts in California. Thc statc's population doublcd bctwccn 1945 and 1966, growing at an averagc annual ratc of 3.4 perccnt. Thc aycragc ratc of growth slowed to 1.6 pcrccnt annually bctwccn 1967 a;¡d 1979, but pickcd up again during thc 1980s, avcraging 2.4 pcrccnt annually oYcr thc dccadc. Morcoycr, these statcwidc aycragcs tcnd to mask thc cxplosivc growth which was cxpcricnccd in yarious subrcgions of thc statc. Rivcrsidc and San Bcrnardino Countics, for cxamplc, grcw at ratcs of bctwccn six and scvcn pcrccnt annually during thc latter part of the 1980s. In ordcr to fully apprcciatc thc rolc that thc Mcllo-Roos Act plays in financing growth, it is important to first undcrstand thc rclationship bctwccn growth and capital financing in California and how that rClationship has changcd oycr timc. Historically, local tax and spcnding policics in California hayc bccn hcavily influcnccd by dcyclopmcnts at othcr Icycls of govcrnmcnt. Thc fcdcral- state-local fiscal dynamic has bccn markcd by pcriodic shifts in funding rcsponsibility for infrastructurc programs. Examining how funding rcsponsibilitics havc cyolved oyer timc proyidcs a pcrspcctivc on thc cmcrgcncc of thc Mcllo-Roos Act as a significant tool of public financc, as wcll as an idca of what wc might cxpcct in thc futurc. Clcarly, 1978 was a watcrshcd ycar for public financc in California. It was thc ycar that thc votcrs approvcd Proposition 13, which profoundly affcctcd the ability of local govcrnmcnts to rcspond to growth-induccd capital facility nccds. In addition, 1978 was thc ycar that fcdcral grants to California bcgan to dcclinc 1 37 ---~.__._.._- - - -"---.-----.--...--- ..._----,--_._._..._-~----- ,---'---_. -~ ,--._.- ---'.--------. ------ - -.--,--_._.._----.-~--- ---._- - ----~ ..._ _. _._< ____H _ __ _. .__..... _.. .. _____.. _ -------- , after many years of steady growth. For these reasons, 1978 seryes as a useful point of demarcation for our reyiew. FINANCING GROWTH PRIOR TO 1978 The post-World War II population boom in California would not have been possible without major inyestments in infrastructure by the federal and state governments. The State of California largely built its systems of highways and universities during the 1950s and I 960s. Beginning in 1956, the federal goyernment began funding 90 percent of the construction costs of the Interstate Highway and Defense System, which helped to open up preyiously rural areas of the state to deyelopment. The federal Central Valley Project and the State Water Project provided the water needed for agricultural production, as well as a burgeoning residential population. Local goyernment finance during this time was greatly influenced by the physical pattern of deyelopment itself. Much of the deyelopment was shaped by the speculative purchases of land on the fringe of urban areas. Deyelopers sought and generally received the necessary subdiyision approyal and rezoning needed for development to occur. The resulting decentralized or leap frog pattern of deyelopment created seryice delivery problems, and it was not uncommon for the service demands of rapidly growing areas to exceed the financial or administratiye capabilities of existing local goyernments. In the unincorporated areas of counties, police protection was often limited to drive-Ihrough patrols by the county sheriffs office and county expenditures on road improvements and maintenance were often very low. In cases where seryice deliyery to outlying areas was feasible, local goyernments faced resistance from existing residents who were loath to subsidize seryice deliyery to deyeloping areas. City residents, for example, resented the fact tha t they paid both a city property tax, which financed their own municipal services, and a county property tax, which subsidized services in the unincorporated areas of the county. The most common response to the need for higher seryice leyels in developing areas was the formation of special districts. The number of special districts in California grew from 891 in 1950 to 3,293 in 1960, a 270 percent increase.: County Seryice Areas--dependent special districts which allow counties to isolate the costs of proyiding a higher leyel of seryice than otherwise proyided throughout the county--were the most common type of special districts established.s Residents of developing areas also formed independent special districts (with their own elected boards of directors) in cases where existing local governments were unresponsiye to service deficiencies or where a greater degree of political autonomy was desired. The unincorporated areas of counties had other options for addressing service deficiencies, as well. To the extent that an unincorporated area was lacking in basic utilities such as water deliyery or sewage treatment, it could annex to a nearby city which had excess capacity that might be easily extended. The 38' 2 - ~'.: ........_c:_·_·:.._., _._.;~~_.,_.___...__. .__..__..__._ ----.---.- ------- unincorporated area could also undertake a more radical approach and incorporate, although incorporation decisions were generally driven more by the desire for control oyer land use decisions than by seryice leyel concerns. Critics argued that the proliferation of. special districts resulted in fragmented seryice deliyery and duplicatiye administratiye oyerhead. Residen ts served by a number of special districts found it difficult to hold their public officials accountable. They Questioned whether elected officials resisted reorganization of local goyernment in order to protect their own turf. The problems of local government boundary wars and urban sprawl led to the enactment of legislation in 1963 which established Local Agency Formation Commissions (LAFCOs). In each county, LAFCOS were assigned regulatory power over the formation and dissolution of governmental boundaries. LAFCOs generally favored absorption of the urban fringe through annexation and discouraged competition between cities and special districts. In addition, LAFCOs were charged with conducting sphere of influence studies to determine the ultimate physical seryice boundaries of each local goyernment.4 The Growin¡ Burden of the Property Tax From a fiscal perspectiye, the hodgepodge expansion of local goyernments during this period resulted in upward pressure on property tax rates. Taxpayers paid separate property taxes to support city, county, school district, and special district functions. Each time a new goyernment was formed it generally leyied a property tax rate to support its actiyities. The new property tax rate overlapped the property tax rates leyied by the other local goyernments in its seryice area. Chart I displays the upward trend in 3yeragc prope~ty tax rates in California from 1955-56 until 1977-78, when Proposition I3 was adopted. As Chart I on page 4 illustrates, ayerage property tax rates increased from 1.5 percent in 1955-56, to a high of 2.81 percent in 1972-73, at which point rates more or less stabilized, until dipping slightly in 1977-78. The increasing burden of the property tax spawned a political movement to limit property taxes. In 1967, the Legislature enacted the Senior Citizens' Property Assistance Program, under which the state reimburses local goyernments for property tax relief extended to senior citizens. Senate Bill 8, signed into law a few weeks before the 1968 general election, established the homeowner and business in yen tory exemptions and eliminated household furnishings and personal effects from the assessment rolls.' In 1972, the Legislature enacted Senate Bill 90, which established a comprehensive system of local goyernment property tax rate limitations, implemented a state mandated reimbursement program for local governments, and reformed school finance to make it less dependent on local property tax reyenues. The property tax limitations imposed by SB 90 were, however, set at historically high 1972-73 tax rates and consequently did not provide much property tax relief, except for school districts. Though property tax rates were stabilized in the ensuing years, rapid housing price inflation produced dramatic increases in assessed yalues. This, in turn, increased the property tax burden, despite the enactment of additional property tax relief measures. Furthermore, the increased property tax collections indirectly contributed to the state's mounting budget 3 31 __ ___no. ____.._n...___...,,_."'".._n______. ,. ,.~".!:."-~.'~::"~~'-"-'~"~ ..'-~"'" c·.,._~, <-., . '--': -.,......~....-.._-.;. - ....-., ---- -- -.'-. I Chari 1 I AVERAGE PROPERTY TAX RATES IN CALIFORNIA I 1955/56 - 1977/76 , I I , 3 I I I · 2.5 .-----_. I · r · I · · , 2 --.------ -- -_..... · · · · 1.5 ..... . I · u I 1 ----------- I ....- .--~.. I v ! · I I I u 0.5 -.--,.. --... . , i · I 0 1855/511 1;110/111 IU5/1I11 1;70/71 1975/711 77/7a Sourca, CA Stal. Board 01 Equalization, Annual Aeport. (varloul y.ara) I surplus by reducing state contributions to school districts under the revenue limit formulas. All these factors came together to create an environment ripe for taxpayer revolt. As a result, the entire properry tax system was dramatically reformed by voter approval of Proposition 13 in 1978. FINANCING GROWTH AFTER 1975 Declinin¡¡ Federal Assistance Historically, the federal government had subsidized the capital expenditures needed to serve developins areas in two ways. First, the federal government funded generous matching grant programs-often at 90 percent of construction costs-which provided an incentive to construct oversized facilities. The excess capacity built into highways, sewage treatment plants and other public facilities allowed room for growth. Second, the federal government implemented general revenue sharing and block grants with so few restrictions that the funds could effectively be used for any purpose that the recipient government saw fit, including capital expenditures.1I 4 /f'o While these funding sources permitted local goyernments to cope with the service level impacts of growth, it is interesting to note that vcry fcw of thcsc programs wcrc cxplicitly dcsigncd for that purposc. Thc federal Intcrstatc Highway and Defcnsc Act of 1956 was motivated, as its namc suggcsts, by national defense concerns, though its salubrious effect on int-erstate commerce was recognized at the time. The EPA sewer construction grant program was enacted to finance the clean-up of the nation's waterways. The Gencral Reyenue Sharing Act of 1972 was enacted to offset a perceiyed imbalance in thc federal and statc tax structures, though an antirecessionary public works component was added in thc mid- I 970s. The expansion of federal grants to state and local governments during the 1970s was financed by a federal income tax not indexed to inflation and by cuts in defense spending resulting from the winding down of the Vietnam War. By 1978, federal aid constituted a significant amount of local government reyenues, particularly for cities. Federal aid as a percent of own-source reyenue of the nation's 47 largest cities, for example, increased from 2.6 percent in 1957 to 49.7 percent in 1978.7 Howeyer, in the late 1970s, Congress began cutting tax rates to address the bracket creep problem and simultaneously the peace dividend began to evaporate. At the same time, concern was growing oyer mounting federal budget deficits (at levels which seem quaint by today's standards). Consequently, grants to state and local goyernments were yulnerable to the new fiscal austerity emerging in Washington. The Reagan policies of tax cuts and defense spending hikes accelerated the deyolution of fiscal responsibilities to state and local goyernments. In 1982, the Reagan Administration consolidated 77 categorical grant programs into 7 new and 2 existing block grant programs, and reduced the oyerall funding leyel for the programs by 25 percent. In inflation-adjusted dollars, federal grants to California declined by 25 percent between 1980 and 1989. Beginning in the late 1970s, general revenue sharing was sharply cut back, and by J 987 the program had been completely eliminated. During the 1980s, grants supporting capital expenditures were particularly vulnerable in comparison to the income support and health care programs which constituted the bulk of federal grants to state and local governments. Chart 2 on page 6 traces the decline in selected federal grant programs that were most likely to haye supported local capital expenditures to California between 1977 and 1989. The selected programs include highway trust fund grants and sewer treatment plant construction grants, which directly supported capital expenditures; and general revenue sharing (GRS) and community deyelopment block grants (CDBGs), which indirectly supported capital outlay programs. Another way of looking at the data is to compare the grant levels for the selected programs to the overall leyel of grants received' by California. In 1977, the selected programs comprised 27.5 percent of total federal grants to California; by 1989, the selected programs comprised only 12 percent of total grants to California. Thus, as federal support to states and localities diminished during the 1980s (as measured in constant dollars), the rate of decline for federal programs providing capital assistance was even more precipitous. 5 1/ ---...--------..--"----. ---- - - - ~~- ._~-_._._-"---_._,--- -- """.""","'..1>' _.·_.n .. Chart 2 i FEDERAL GRANTS TO CALIFORNIA I SELECTED PROGRAMS , I ! 1977-1989 j I (Do"a.. AdJ.atad lor Inllall.on) I 1600 I I I I 1400 ! I , ; 1200 -------- ",- -- - .-- -....-..... I $ 1000 - - -- I '" j -0 1 , -- --_._..- - - _no _.._.___..____ ..__~ 9 . . 8 \..-- . 800- .-. .- --.---....-. -- --.-. I 2 . ',.... .... ~. ~.. _..~. ~_.... -., 400 , 200 I I 0 , 1977 1979 1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 I - Se_rs - CDSG - Trust --0-- GRS I Source: u.S. Dept. of Commerce. Bureau of the Cenlu.; Community Servlc.. Adm. Local Responses to Proposition 13 At the same time that the reduced flow of federal funds shifted more responsibility to state and local governments, local goyernments were forced to cope with dramatic reductions in property tax revenues. Proposition 13 limited the countywide ad valorem property tax rate to one percent of assessed value, plus any amount necessary to repay existing yoter-approved debt. In addition, Proposition 13 rolled back assessed values to 1975-76 levels, and limited increases to two percent annually. Reassessments to market value were permitted only when property changed ownership. These changes reduced local government property ta" rc:yenues in the 1978-79 fiscal year by 55.9 billion, or 5 I percent, from the previous year's level. Proposition 13 also imposed a two-thirds voter approval requirement for all new special taxes. The combined reductions in federal funds and property tax revenues more or less ended the practice of subsidizing capital facilities in developing areas with surplus revenues. Though the state goyernment assumed many program costs- mostly in education, health and welfare-the level of local reyenues available for . discretionary projects declined markedly. The use of new general obligation bonds for capital projects also ceased to be an option¡ as property taxes could only be raised to support existing voter-approved debt. 6 1-;:< -"'~._-- --.'-'-- ,---" - '--" "'" " - " .'...'- ' <---- --"~'-",--"--_ .~-__~-__._,__ '___ _·_____h___~u~ ______~______"'_'_" . _'__"___ __ ..~ _. __ .____ - Newly formed goyernmental units could no longer levy a property tax rate to support a higher level of service. as they had prior to Proposition 1-3. Legislation enacted subsequent to Proposition 13 spelled out procedures by which LAFCOs could reallocate property tax revenues on the basis of service responsibilities transferred from one local goyernme~t to another. But the formation and dissolution of governmental boundaries became a zero sum game with respect to the property tax. The new era of fiscal austerity did not. however, dampen demands for government spending. With lower levels of general purpose revenues available. the post-Proposition 13 fiscal environment came to be characterized by a greater degree of earmarking-the process of identifying a revenue stream to go with a specific spending proposal. Heretofore arcane distinctions between the terms taxes, fees, and assessments took on a practical significance, as resourceful local governments tested the limits of untapped funding sources. As a result, local tax and spending actions were often subject to legal challenge. The financing of public facilities in developing areas emerged as perhaps the most significant example of the increasing degree of specialization in public finance. As the state entered into a period of rapid growth during the 1980s. new funding sources were needed to replace the old system which relied heayily on local property taxes and federal funding. The principal methods which emerged were deyeloper fees and exactions (including school impact fees), special assessments, and ultimately, Mello-Roos bonds. Developer Exactions. In the aftermath of Proposition 13. cities and counties began to rely more on their legal authority to require developers to pay for infrastructure improvements as a condition of development approyal. The different options for requiring developers to pay for public facilities--the dedication of land to public use. the construction of public improvements. or the payment of developer fees-arc commonly lumped together under the term exactions. Though deyelopers traditionally had been required to dedicate rights-of- way for streets and to install sidewalks and storm drains. cities and counties began conditioning the approyal of è:ve!opment projects on the provision of a variety of public facilities which heretofore had been governmental responsibilitics: schools, freeway interchanges, libraries, parks, and so forth. Cities and counties derive their authority to regulate land use and impose exactions from their constitutional police power to protect the public welfare. as opposed to their corporate power to tax. The courts have held that if a local goyernment has the authority to deny a development project, it also has the authority to approve the project subject to conditions that mitigate the reason for denial. Following this line of reasoning, the adverse impact of deyelopment on public service leyels represents a threat to the public welfare and is grounds for denial of a deyelopment project. The payment of exactions mitigates the adyerse impact of the deyelopment project on service leyels, and represents a condition of approval. The exercise of police powers must occur within the city or county's territorial boundaries and is subordinate to state law. The state Subdivision Map Act regulates the diyision of land by cities and counties for purposes of / -, 7 -- I ....-..,;;. T -,"'.- - -----------~--_._--"-,.'"_.,,---~~-,-_.--- - _.-. "_-"'0-" _.. - . - - ,-- -. ..--.. '---- -.- ._-. - - .,~.", ,__._._ ._.__..._..__...._ - ,--..' _····..__·_,·__·_"··.nn____ _..--.-_.. _____ _.__._._. _ ___ ____ _. ..'_ __. - deyelopment and authorizes exactions for avariety of public facilities, including public transit, parks (Quimby Act), fire stations, low-income housing, and childcare facilities. The courts have held that cities and counties also have the right to impose exactions for program areas where the Subdivision'Map'Actis silent. In addition, cities and counties can adopt ordinances that lI)ake the granting of building permits a discretionary act contingent upon the payment of various developer fees. Most developer fees are imposed at the building permit stage. School Impact Fees. The imposition of developer impact fees for school facilities has been a contentious area of local government finance and the subject of much legislative attention in recent years. Because school districts are not granted police powers under the state constitution, they historically have had to rely on city and county governments--or on a delegation of authority from the state--to impose developer fees. Schools are also expensive to build, comprising a large chunk of the public facility costs of any major development project. Cities and counties, who control the development process, often perceive school districts as competing for limited reyenues or bonding capacity. Prior to 1986, school impact fees were primarily used for temporary school facilities under the provisions of SB 201, enacted in 1977. The School Facilities Act of 1986 (AB 2926) redefined the role of school impact fees in meeting the demands of growth. The Act gave school districts the direct authority to charge impact fees for permanent facilities without approval of the city or county goyernments, in return for accepting a cap of 51.50 per square foot on residential development and 25 cents per square foot on commercial deyelopment. At that time, it was recognized that the capped impact fees would not generate sufficient reyenues to meet the demands of growth; the remaining funds would be raised through state general obligation bond sales. Data from the Construction Industry Research Board indicate that on a statewide basis, the school impact fees authorized by the 1986 Act generated 5528 million in 1988 and 5531 million in 1989, before falling off to 5380 million in 1990 due to the slump in the construction industry. Despite these impressive figures, school population growth has exceeded the projections on which the 1986 agreement was based, and state funding has failed to keep pace. Faced with chronic oyercrowding, school districts are mounting legal challenges to the school impact fee caps specified in the 1986 agreement (which haye risen to 51.58 per square foot for residential and 26 cents for commercial dev:lopment due to inflation formulas). Three recent court cases indicate that th<, are having some success. In Mira Development Corp. v. City of San Diego, 205 Cat App. 3d 1201 (1988), th,. appellate court ruled that a city can deny a request for rezoning because of inac:quate school facilities. In William S. Hart Union High School District v. Regional Planning Commission, 226 Cal. App. 3d 1612 (1991), the appellate court ruled in favor of two school districts in the Santa Clarita Valley which sued L.A. County to oyerturn the approval of a 2,500-unit housing project, on the grounds that the county failed to address the school crowding impact of the project. And in Murriel/a Valley Unified School District v. County of Riverside, the court ruled in fayor of a school district which sued the county on the grounds that both its general plan and accompanying EIR failed to address school overcrowding in a fast-growing area in the southwestern part of the county. // .' Ú. -", 8 (f .. ~ -'. - -- --.-,--..-.- "--_...__.-, '- --- - In all three cases, the local governments argued that they were preempted by the 1986 School Facilities Act from addressing school capacity issues in their planning processes; and, in all three cases, the courts ruled that the 1986 Act does not preyent local governments from addressing school capacity issues in their planning processes, either by imposing higher fees or,taking other mitigation measures (such as establishing a Mello-Roos district). The California Supreme Court declined to review all three cases. Another recent case, Lincoln Property Co. v. Cucamonga School District, upheld a school district's authority to independently impose school impact fees without relying on the 1986 School Facilities Act. This case has recently been depublished by the court, meaning that it has no precedental value. Nonetheless, the reasoning applied in the case is worth mentioning. According to the appcllatc court dccision, thc school districts' authority to indcpcndcntly imposc impact fecs is dcrived from Article IX, Scction 14, of the California Constitution, which was cnactcd by initiatiyc in 1972. Articlc IX, Scction 14 permits school boards to ·...initiate and carryon any programs. activities, or to otherwise act in any manner which is not in conflict with the laws and purposes for which school districts are established.- Thc court ruled that this section grants school districts flcxibility in addressing school oycrcrowding causcd by deyclopmcnt, including thc imposition of impact fccs as a condition of thc issuancc of a building permit. Special Assessments. In addition to dcveloper cxactions, thc immcdiatc post- Proposition 13 cra saw a rcsurgcncc in thc usc of spccial asscssmcnts. Spccial asscssments arc charges imposcd on propcrty to pay for a public improycmcnt of dircct bcncfit to that propcrty. Spccial asscssmcnts diffcr from taxcs, in that taxcs do not havc to be ticd to a bcncfit rccciycd by thc taxpaycr. Unlikc taxcs, spccial asscssmcnts cannot cxcccd the cost of providing thc facility or scryicc. Thc spccial assessmcnt act3 h3d bccn us cd cxtcnsiyely in thc carly part of thc ccntury to financc public improycmcnts in rapidly growing citics and irrigation projccts in agricultural arcas. Howcvcr, a scrics of dcfaults during thc Grcat Dcprcssion caused thc assessment acts to fall out of favor with local goyernments. Thc principal asscssment acts datc from thc early part of thc century: ¡he Improyemcnt Act of 1911, which spccifics proccdurcs for cstablishing asscssmcnt districts, lcyying asscssmcnts and issuing bonds; thc Municipal Improvcmcnt Act of 1913, which spccifics a proccdurc for cstablishing asscssment districts and Icyying asscssmcnts, but not for issuing bonds; and thc Improycmcnt Bond Act of 1915, which authorizcs thc issuancc of bonds only. Othcr morc rcccnt acts, such as thc Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, arc also uscd cxtcnsiycly. Although therc arc a yaricty of asscssmcnt acts, thcy all basically follow thc samc proccdural framcwork. Thc goycrning board of thc local cntity passcs a rcsolution stating its intcntion to crcatc an asscssmcnt district for a spccificd purposc and to Icvy asscssmcnts on thc propcrty owncrs within thc district. Thc cnginccring staff thcn prcparcs a rcport dcscribing thc projcct and thc amount of thc asscssmcnt to bc Icyicd on cach parccl within thc district. A noticc of public hcaring is thcn publishcd. Special asscssmcnts do not rcquirc votcr approyal, although thcy arc subjcct to thc majority protcst proYisions containcd in thc Spccial Asscssmcnt Inycstigation, Limitation and Majority Protcst Act of 1931. If owncrs of a majority of thc propcrty in thc proposcd district protcst, the goycrning board must drop thc proposal for at Icast onc ycar, unlcss thc protcst is ovcrriddcn . i""-- . t .:_~ 9 if ....-1 ---.._----.---...._-------- ~______ _ ___._.M_____.__'"__"~··_·..__ ._ ..,~.._- --.. . .~-,.._. .,._. d._.._ ___-.-'-..,:.'C--'_ .0.._. - by a four-fifths vote of the board. If not,the goyerning board can go ahead and levy the assessment. Though the distinction between special assessments and taxes had been upheld by a series of court rulings dating from the early part of the century, Proposition 13 prompted a new series of cases which claimed that the growing usage of the assessment acts yiolated one or more of the constitutional restrictions imposed by Proposition 13. In County of Fresno v. Malmstrom, 94 Cal. App. 3d 974 (1979), the court ruled that special assessments levied 10 pay for the construction of streets in a subdivision are neither ad valorem property taxes nor special taxes. The court held that the special assessment is not really a tax at all, but rather a charge to real property to pay for benefits that the property has received from a local improyement. Therefore, special assessments are not subject to the one percent property tax limitation and the two-third yoter approval requirement for special taxes imposed by Proposition 13. In Solvang Municipal Improvement District v. Board of Supervisors of the County of Santa Barbara, 112 Cal. App. 3d 545 (1980), the court held that assessments leyied for a parking facility were not subject to the one percent property tax limitation, even though the assessments were partly based on assessed yalue. The court defined the concept of special benefit in the following manner: The rationale of special assessmen t is tha t the assessed property has receiyed a special benefit oyer and above that received by the general public. The general public should not be required to pay for special benefits for the few, and the few specially benefitted should not be subsidized by the general public. With the major legal issues settled, the assessment acts began to be used more as a tool for financing the infrastructure needed for new developments--as many of those responsibilities were shifted on to the development industry after 1978. Because landowners ultimately decide whether an assessment district will be formed, the assessment acts can be employed early in the development process, when developers are still the landowners in the proposed district. The developers can petition the city or county to form,,:. .1.ssessment district, levy assessments and issue bonds to finance the public facilities required in their deyelopment projects. As the homes are sold, homebuyers assume the assessment liens on the property. These features are similar to those found in Mello-Roos districts, a fact discussed in Chapter II. The use of the assessment acts as a deyelopment tool helps to explain the dramatic increase in assessment bond issuance after Proposition 13. Although reliable data is not available, the annual voil:me of assessment bonds issued in the years prior to Proposition 13 is estimated to nave been in the $20 to $50 million range. Data from the State Controller's Office indicate that the amount of outstanding assessment bonds statewide increased from $599.5 million in 1977-78 to $2.05 billion in 1984-85, a 243 percent increase over 7 years.g California Debt Adyisory Commission statistics on assessment bond issuances since calendar year 1985 are reflected in Chart 3 on page II. The 1egai distinctions drawn between special assessments and taxes payed the way for the increased usage of the assessment acts in the 1980s. These legal 10 1/& --."-. ,,_.. _.~.., -.-_, -.....--.-.-.. . ---..- .- - decisions, however, also confirmed the limi tztions of the assessmen t acts as a tool for financing infrastructure in new developments. The assessment acts. could only be used for projects where a special benefit could be demonstrated. Consequently, the special assessments could not be used to finance a range of public facilities which confer a general benefit, but which nonetheless must be constructed to keep pace with growth; such as police and fire stations. and most importantly, schools. This left a tremendous gap in the capital financing capabilities of local governments with respect to growth-a gap which would eyentually be filled by the enactment of the MelIo-Roos legislation. Chart 3 . SPECIAL ASSESSMENT BONDS 1985-1991 MIllion. I 1200 t , I I i 1000 -~--- - 1112 -- . , I I I ! i 800- ---- .- - 184 I I 600 171 ~- 177 182 400 ...- --- -- - --- 132 I I 200 - ~-- - ,....- -- ! 47 . i 0 , I 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 ! i Source, CDAC (Number. within box.. I repre..nt total number of I..ue.> I . Through June 30. 111111 I , SUMMARY Population growth requires inyestments in infrastructure -- the physical network of public facilities such highways, water systems, sewage treatment plants, schools, parks, and libraries. For many years during California's post World War II population boom, the federal and state goyernments subsidized the construction of these facilities, particularly those which produced a statewide or regional benefit. At the local level, the increased service demands caused by population growth 11 L/ '7 ...-------.-..---- ...~ · -~-"- -- ---,~..-.".._._..".,., - oftcn ovcrwhclmcd cxisting govcrnmcntal structurcs, Icading to thc cstablishmcnt of ncw govcrnmcntal cntitics. From a fiscal pcrspcctiyc, thcsc dcmands for scryicc translatcd into upward prcssurcs on local propcrty tax ratcs. Thc constitutional rcstrictions on taxation imposcd by Proposition 13, couplcd with dcclining Icvcls of fcdcral assistancc, 'rcquircd local govcrnmcnts to dcyisc ncw stratcgics for financing capital projccts. With fcwcr subsidics availablc, local govcrnmcnts bccamc adcpt at idcntifying prcviously obscurc rcycnuc sourccs which wcrc not rcstrictcd by Proposition 13. Consistcnt with this trcnd, dcyclopcr cxactions and spccial asscssmcnts cmcrgcd as important tools for financing thc public infrastructurc in dcvclopmcnt projccts. Bccausc ncithcr of thcsc funding sourccs Icgally arc Icgally arc taxcs, thcir usc was not rcstrictcd by Proposition 13. Howcycr, practical uscfulncss of dcyclopcr fccs was constrain cd by thc inhcrcnt limitations of a pay-as-you-go funding sourcc.10 Spccial asscssmcnts could only bc uscd for cxpcnditurcs mccting thc Icgal rcquirement of special benefit. Thcsc practical limitations Icd to thc cnactment of lcgislation, thc Mcllo- Roos Community Facilitics Act of 1982, which cstablished a more flcxiblc funding source for local goyernmcnts. --- 1.2 Ii · " _'·.·n . . . . .-"', _.~.. -- - - --,---~- ~'-;"'____.-~..__,.-'-'r- ___.~.;'~ .- _c.. ___._..-.......________ _~_¡_""".____.._.____._._._"...._.__...___._'"__."_ __.______.".__. ._ ____.__~______.___~_ '___U - CHAPTER I FOOTNOTES I The formation of the Mello-Roos district. the authorization of the bonds and the levying of the special tax also require approval of t~o·thirds of the qualified electors in the proposed district. The Mello-Roos Act defines landowners as qualified electors in the case where a Mello-Roos district is formed in an undeyelopcd arca with fcwcr than 12 registcrcd Yotcrs, with cach landowncr casting onc votc pcr acre or portion thereof. CDAC staff rcviewed thc Official Statcmcnts of 132 Mcllo-Roos bond issuanccs and found that all but fivc were authorizcd through landowncr yotes. The significance of thc landowner yote is discusscd in morc dctail in Chaptcr Ill. 2 Robcrt B. Hawkins. Jr. Self Government by District: Myth and Reality, pp. 16. 3'County Scrvicc Arcas arc by far thc most prcvalcnt form of special district in thc statc. Thc most rccent data from thc Statc Controllcr's Officc lists 874 County Scrvice Arcas in California. See Annual Report 1988-89: Financial Transactions Concerning Special Districts of California. 4 Thc Lcgislaturc furthcr strcngthcncd local land usc planning laws in 1971 by rcquiring that all zoning and dcvclopmcnt dccisions bc consistent with mandatory gcncral plans prcparcd by citics and countics. 5 The homcowncrs cxcmption. which rcquired constitutional authorization to bccomc opcrativc. was ratificd by Proposition 1A at thc gcncral clcction in 1968. SB 8 and Proposition IA succcssfully derailcd a constitutional amendmcnt sponsored by Los Angclcs County Asscssor Phil Watson to limit property taxcs to onc perccnt of thc markct valuc of thc propcrty within a taxing district. A second Watson initiatiyc--which would hayc imposed Icss rcstrictivc propcrty tax limits-- was defcatcd by thc voters in 1972. 6 Unlcss grant formulas includc stringent maintcnancc of effort requircmcnts. thc recipicnt goycrnmcnt can cash out thc grant by substituting grant funds for local rcycnucs which would hayc bccn spcnt on thc program anyway--that is, freeing up thc local rcvcnucs for othcr purposcs. Along this linc of reasoning. fedcral grants for sccmingly unrclatcd programs reduccd fiscal prcssurcs and madc it easicr for local goycrnmcnts to fund capital expcnditurcs out of current rcycnucs. 7 Own source rcycnucs includc tax reycnuc, uscr chargcs and miscellancous gencral rcvcnuc. Sec "Fcdcralism in Transition: 1959-1979" in Readings in Federalism: Perspectives on a Decade of Change, Advisory Commission on Intcrgovcrnmcntal Rclations. May 1989, pA. 8 Proposition 46. approycd by thc yotcrs in 1986. rcstorcd thc authority to Icyy an extraordinary propcrty tax rate for gcncral obligation bond mcasurcs.subject to two-thirds yotcr approyal. 9 State Controller's Annual Reports of Financial Transactions of Cities. Counties, and Special Districts. 1977-78 through 1984-85. Intcrcstingly. citics wcrc rcsponsiblc for almost all of thc increase in ·outstanding asscssments. counties actually declincd. 13 1./1 - . . .... ..--------------.-..----..-- ...~ u_ ·_n"_ -- --.- --._._~ - - ._-~--_..._._.,--".-._- "--'---"" ---."- ,--:_"-.__..---,,.~~,---_.,._--,_. -- -- --- -- -------"-_. -------- -------., -'-"~ - 10 In addition, thc courts bcgan to rcquirctbat local goycrnmcnts dcmonstratc a strict link, or rational nexus, bctwccn thc burdcn imposcd by dcyclopmcnt and thc financial conditions attachcd to dcyclopmcnt approval. Thc Lcgislaturc codificd this conccpt in Asscmbly Bill 1600 of 1986. . .-- .'\ r" .--. U 14 -..../ ~_...- . -,. <. "-- --;;.,;;-~-=--=- ---,,-_.~.'--'-- -<-.'--'- ...__u_.-_.. _."_, n... .. , ---..------- ----.-.--------.,-- .-- - - CHAPTER II REVIEW OF THE MELLO-ROOS ACT The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982 (the Act) authorizes cities, counties, school districts and special districts to form community facilities districts (CFDs) within their boundaries for the purpose of financing infrastructure and certain services. Local agencies are authorized through the CFD to levy special taxes and issue bonds approved by a two-thirds vote of the Qualified electors of the CFD. CFDs are formed for funding purposes only: once established, they are goyerned by the legislative body which approyed their formation. The Act restored a great deal of flexibility to the practice of local government finance in California. Unlike the legal restrictions on the use of special assessments, projects financed through Mello-Roos special taxes do not need to meet a special benefit test, because they are financed through a tax, rather than an assessment. And unlike the legal restrictions on the use of developer exactions, a rational nexus does not need to be demonstrated between projects financed through Mello-Roos special taxes and the burden imposed by deyelopment. Because the tax authorized by the Act is legally a special tax, it is subject to the two-thirds yoter approval requirement for special taxes imposed by Proposition 13. The Act, however, specifies that landowners are the qualified electors of the CFD in cases where fewer than 12 yoters reside in the CFD. The landowner yote provision, more than any other feature of the Act, is responsible for the rapid growth in Mello-Roos financings throughout the state. Mello-Roos financing has assumed many of the same programmatic functions as special assessments and developer exactions with respect to financing infrastructure in deyeloping areas. This chapter proyides a brief overvie..... of the most significant features of the Mello-Roos Act. First, the chapter reyiews the procedural requirements for establishing a CFD, leyying the special tax, and issuing bonds. The chapter then presents data on the use of Mello-Roos special tax bonds, including the geographic distribution of bond issuance by county. ~ 15 ::;/ . -- ---.----,,--------.--- -- - _.~._.~_.._.. - .' ,-- "",,,<,,~,,.,.,,,-~-^,,,.,... --,----";,:,.-. -____~_~_____n __ __ ~_____ ____ ____.__ __ _..___'__..--'___..______.,...-'-,___.'~_.,_ __,_._____ - -.---'-'-- --,'_. - PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS - EIIElble Facilities and Services The special tax authorized by the Mello-Roos Act may be used to finance the construction, expansion, rehabilitation, or acquisition of any real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of fiye years or more. The legislative body creating the CFD is permitted to finance any facility it is authorized by law to construct, own, or operate. In addition to the construction or acquisition of capital facilities, the fOllowing seryices may be financed under the Mello-Roos Act: (I) Police protection seryices, including but not limited to criminal justice seryices. Criminal justice seryices arc limited to seryices for jails, detention facilities and juyenile halls. (2) Fire protection and suppression, and ambulance and paramedic seryices. (3) Recreation program seryices, library services and all costs relating to the operation and maintenance of parks, parkways, open space, museums and cultural facilities. (4) Flood and storm protection seryices, including the operation and maintenance of storm drainage systems. (5) Remoyal or remedial action for the cleanup of any hazardous substance released or threatened to be released into the enyironment. The seryices aboye can only be proyided to the extent that they arc in addition to those provided in the CFD before the CFD was created; the Mello-Roos Act cannot be used to supplant existing seryices. ProceediDEs for FormiDE a CFD Institution of Proceedings. Proceedings to establish a community facilities district may be instituted in one of three ways: (I) The legislatiye body of a local agency may institute proceedings on its own initiatiye. (2) The legislatiye body of a local agency may institute proceedings by a petition signed by two of its members describing the boundaries of the proposed CFD and the type of facilities or services to be proyided within the CFD. (3) A petition requesting institution of proceedings signed by not less than 10 percent of the registered yoters residing within the territory, 16 .....----_-. -.J/ - - -.,,-,-'> " ~'--_.'--'- . -. -- ,.,..",.-. "_.----+.~ -~._,-_._-".... - or owners of not less than l!1percent of· the area of land proposed to be included in the CFD, may be filed with the clerk of the legislatiye body. The petition must include the same information as a legislatiye petition. In addition, a petition initiated by registered yoters or landowners must be accompaJ¡ied by a fee in an amount which the legislative body determines is sufficient to compensate for all costs incurred in conducting proceedings to create the CFD. Resolution of Intention to Establish a CFD. Within 90 days of receiving either form of request, the legislative body must adopt a resolution of intention to establish the CFD. The resolution of intention must: (I) State that a CFD is proposed to be established and describe its proposed boundaries. (2) State the name of the proposed CFD. (3) State the type or types of facilities and services to be provided. (4) Specify the rate and apportionment of the special tax in sufficient detail so that each resident or landowner within the proposed CFD can estimate the amount that he or she would haye to pay. (5) Make the finding that the proposed facilities or seryices are necessary to meet increased demands placed on the local agency as a result of new deyelopment or rehabilitation. (6) Fix a time and place for a public hearing on the establishment of the proposed CFD which must be not I~ss than 30 days, or more than 60 days after the adoption of the resolution. In addition, the resolution may specify conditions under which the obligation to pay the special tax may be prepaid. Report Preparation. At the time of the adoption of the resolution of intention, the legislatiYe body directs its staff to prepare a report describing the proposed facilities and services, including a cost estimate. Though the legal requirements are minimal, the report can be more detailed, setting forth the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax. Notice of Public Hearing. A notice of the public hearing must be published once in a newspaper of general circulation in the area of the proposed CFD at least seven days before the date of the hearing. The notice must include the text of the resolution of intention to establish the CFD, state the time and place of the hearing, and state that the testimony of all interested persons or taxpayers will be heard at the hearing. Notice may also be giyen by first class mail to each registered voter and landowner within the proposed CFD within 15 days prior to the hearing. The Public Hearing. At the public hearing, protests may be made orally or in writing against the establishment of the CFD, the extent of the boundaries of the CFD, or the furnishing of specified types of public facilities or seryices. If (1) ,....~- I""'. -,·~,o 17 ../' .::....-- - . -.-..----.---- .. -_.. ...--...-.-----....... . __..___._. _"·v·'__·_·_"_·_"··__· ._".._.__. ._..____....._.___. .-----.". ..._---.'_....--- .;~:,,,_._ _ .. ___, c. '-_.;__::.;;;';';'.~_._...._'..":__ __. ".,__;. ______ __ - 50 percent or more of the registered yoters residing within the proposed CFD, or six registered yoters, whichever is more, or (2) the owners of one-half ·or more of the area of land within the proposed CFD file written protest against the establishment of the CFD, the legislatiye body must abandon the proceedings. If the protests are directed only toward certain types of façilities or seryices, or against levying a specified special tax, those specific items may be eliminated from the resolution finally establishing the CFD. At the discretion of the legislatiye body, the hearing may be adjourned and continued at another time, as long as it is completed within 30 days. If the legislatiye body makes specified findings, the hearing may be continued for up to six months. At the conclusion of the hearing, the legislative bOdy may abandon the proposed establishment of the CFD or may proceed. Resolution of Formation. If the legislatiye bOdy determines to proceed, it must adopt a resolution of formation containing all of the information included in the resolution of intention. The resolution of formation must also make a determination as to the yalidity of all prior proceedings related to the CFD. Special Tax Election After forming the CFD, the legislatiye bOdy must submit the leyy of any special tax to the Qualified electors of the proposed CFD at the next general election, or at a special election to be held between 90 and I gO days fOllowing the close of the public hearing. Under the proyisions of the Act, if 12 or more registered yoters reside in the CFD, the registered voters are the qualified electors. If fewer than 12 voters reside in the CFD, the landowners are the qualified electors, with each landowner receiying one vote per acre or portion thereof. The Act provides for a vote by mail. The levy of the special tax requires two-thirds voter approval. After a successful election, a Notice of Special Tax Lien is recorded with the county recorder. In the case of a landowner yote, the time and conduct of the election may be waiyed upon consent of 100 percent of the landowners. Proceedinl:s for Issuinl: Bonds The proceedings to authorize. and incur bonded indebtedness parallel the proceedings fc· the formation of the CFD and the levying of the special tax; requiring a re~;;,, ution of intention, public hearing and election. The Act permits the proceedings to incur bonded indebtedness to be conducted concurrently with the proceedings to form the CFD and levy the special tax. Many Mello-Roos bond issuances haye been validated in Superior Court to determine that (I) the special tax is not an ad valorem property tax prohibited by Proposition 13 and (2) the landowner Vote does not violate the constitutional requirement of one-person, one-yote. A 3D-day statute of limitations applies to legal actions seeking to oyerturn the leyy of a Mello-Roos special tax. 18 5'1/ .'--'___~ .-_ .~~'._'-'""__ _-".~__,_,__ _.__~. _. ~__ .~_~_,__~·_____n__·__.·u__· _~___._._"_._.__~. ____..._._ ___ '~___"_____._'_~_"."._ . -- .---. ,,--.-----.... .,-.-- - For registered voter-approved CFDs where the one person, one vote requirement is not at issue, the current practice of many bond counsel js to advise their clients that validation is not needed. DATA ANALYSIS OF MELLO-ROOS SPECIAL TAX BOND ISSUANCE Purpose of Issuaace Chart 4 displays the yolume of Mello-Roos special tax bond issuance from J 983 through the first six months of J 991. The bars on the chart diyide the yolume of issuance into two categories: (I) capltallmproYemeats/publlc works--a very broad classification which coyers the physical network of roads, bridges, water supply, storm drains and other public facilities which arc a necessary condition of development-- and (2) education, which consists primarily of K-J2 school facilities. Chari 4 MELLO-RODS SPECIAL TAX BOND ISSUANCE 1983 THROUGH 1991 (FIRST 6 MONTHS OF 1991) "111I0". $1200 1000 - 70 800 II I 600 .. I .. I 400 I I 2001 11 10 . ! 1 . I I 0 , , , 1983 1984 ,985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 I CALIENDAR YIEAR I I o Cap Imp/Public Works D Education ! ¡ I , , Source: CDAC I As with most financing innovations, it took the Mello-Roos Act a few years to gain market acceptance, during which time seyeral pieces of clean-up legislation -' ,""""- <" . 19 OM, ::;; J .. -P -_._--_..~,,_. --..- -~.'_.'."-'--~-"-~_._--"-"'--'""._---~"'-~'--- ---.~_.< --~-_...__. n__', -~-""-'^"-'._"--<'-_.'-...____~,---'~__'_.._ø'---~ ,;,....__ ~.,,_.__._._.~._____. _...._. ._ _.""___~.._ ._____._ - wcrc cnactcd to address ambiguities in the Act whicÌ1 concerned issuers and municipal bond industry professionals. The first Mello-Roos special tax bond issuc in 1983 raised S8.5 million for K-12 school facilities in thc Mountain Vicw School District in San Bernardino County. By 1986. the volumc of statcwide bond issuance grew to SI47 million. consisting of nine separatc bond issues. The volumc doubled between 1987 and 1988, growing from $240 million (19 bond issues) to S570 million (46 bond issues). Aftcr climbing to $751 million in 1989 (58 bond issucs). the volume peaked at $977 million in 1990 (73 bond issues). The six-month total for 1991 of $458 million (36 bond issues) is slightly bchind last ycar's pacc. Geol:rapblc DlstrlbutioD of luuaDce Chart 5 prescnts Mcllo-Roos special tax bond issuances by county of origin for the entire eigbt and one half-ycar pcriod. As Chart 5 illustratcs. Mcllo-Roos spccial tax bond issuanccs haye bccn highly conccntrated in Riyerside. Orangc. and San Bcrnardino Counties. which havc been thc fastcst growing regions of thc statc during this timc. Issuers in Riycrsidc County raised $819 million (61 bond issucs); issucrs in Orangc County sold $728 million (52 bond issucs); and issucrs in San Bernardino County tallicd $310 million (31 bond issucs). Issucs in thcsc thrcc countics account for 57 pcrcent of thc total dollar volumc of Mcllo-Roos spccial tax bond issuancc statcwidc for thc cntirc cight and onc-half ycar pcriod. CharI 5 MELLO-ROOS SPECIAL TAX BOND ISSUANCE BY COUNTY OF ORIGIN 1983 THROUGH 1991 (Urat .Ix month. of 1GG1) RIVERSIDE 81 ORANGE 52 SAN BERNARDINO 31 PLACER g SAN DIEGO 13 LO~ I\NGELES la SAG.;AMENTO 12 SAN JOAQUIN 10 CONTRA COSTA 8 SOLANO 7 . I MARIN 5 i VENTURA 4 OTHER 125 , , , , 0 200 400 600 BOO 1:)00 MILLIONS SOURCE, CDAC , -- /) 20 '---j/ .-/ ' c.:....,;¡._._.'--'_,..~.c.-'-_"'"..-'-._._ .._,_. _-._.,_.___..__.,_.~.,-~__-___-_ -- - ,'''- -- - -.- . .- -'---' .--- _.............,........._~, ----- - - Chart S also indicates that the largest concentration of Mello-Roos actiyity has taken place in Southern California (including San Diego County). Communities in the Central and Northern Valley portions of the state, such as those in Placer, Sacramento and San Joaquin caunties', have also been actiye, with Bay Area jurisdictions placing a distant third. Again, the relatiyely limited use of the Mello-Roos Act in mature and developed parts of the state speaks to the fact that the preponderance of CFDs have been created by landowner votes in developing and emerging areas. CharI e MELLO-ROOS SPECIAL TAX BOND ISSUANCE BY TYPE OF ISSUER RDA ... I I COUr'lu.. .... i CIUu i .... i 1983 THROUGH JUNE 1991 Source; CDAC Issuance by Type of Issuer Finally, Chart 6 presents data on Mello-Roos special tax bond issuance by type of issuer. Between 1983 and June 1991, there were 2SS Mello-Roos special tax bond issues sold statewide, totalling $3.2 billion. As Chart 6 illustrates, cities account for nearly one-half of the total dollar yolume (46 percent). Counties account for nearly one-quarter of total dollar yolume (23 percent), followed by - 21 :"'-7 J : .----.." ----_._~-- .. -,.~.- -~'~:'~~';"";;";"'--:";'~~..o.--....o.,.;~~'--~_'._~_''':''~-",,~'_''__':''_''-'-"''~______~"''_'__________"~____. """".;": .,_"._,~.,_<,_"~_,,._~ -'_"_,-,-..- .----'.. .---,~..-_. - school districts (20 percent), special districts (5 percent), public finance authorities (3 percent), and redeyelopment agencies (3 percent). SUMMARY The Mello-Roos Act may be used to finance the construction or acquisition of yirtually any type of public facility, as well as a limited number of services. The formation of the CFD, the leyying of the special tax, and the issuance of bonds require two-thirds yoter approval and are subject to governmental approval. If fewer than 12 registered yoters reside in the proposed CFD, the landowners vote on a one-vote-per-acre (or portion thereof) basis. The vast majority of Mello-Roos special tax bonds issued to date were authorized by the landowner yote. The majority of Mello-Roos special tax bonds issued to date haye been concentrated in three counties: Riyerside, Orange, and San Bernardino. The concentration of actiYity in this part of southern California is not surprising, as this area experienced rapid growth in recent years. The majority of Mello-Roos bonds haye been issued for capital improvements and public works purposes with education facilities placing a distant second. Cities have accounted for the largest share of Mello-Roos issuance (46 percent), exceeding the combined dollar yolume of counties (23 percent) and school districts (20 percent) since 1983. 22 Ç;¡ -~-, - ,_._,.,-- -...--. ---.-. ._,-_..,,_. ~:.....;..:.-...;.._.....:.-.~_..-'----~-, ~- .---.-- - - CHAPTER III PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES Thc discussion of thc proccdural rcquircmcnts of thc Mcllo-Roos Act in thc prcvious chaptcr docs not shcd light on thc pOlicy considcrations and political rcalitics which ultimatcly shapc dccisions conccrning its usc. In cxamining thcsc issucs, it is important to distinguish bctwccn landowncr-approycd and rcgistcrcd yotcr-approvcd Mcllo-Roos financing. Landowncr-approvcd financing rcprcscnts a significant cvolution in thc rcsponsc of California communi tics to thc infrastructure dcmands of growth. Rcgistcrcd-votcr approvcd financing, by contrast, sharcs more in common with traditional mcchanisms of public financc. This chaptcr focuscs on landowncr-approvcd Mcllo-Roos financing, duc to its uniquc naturc and thc fact that it accounts for thc vast majority of outstanding Mcllo-Roos dcbt in thc state. Bccausc procccdings to form CFDs arc, for thc most part, initiatcd by dcyclopcrs working closcly with local goycrnment officials, it follows that decisions to usc landowncr-approvcd Mcllo-Roos financing arc a product of ncgotiations bctwccn thcsc two partics. From thc dcyclopcr's pcrspcctivc, landowncr-approyed Mcllo-Roos financing offcrs two main adyantagcs. First, it proyidcs a long-tcrm, fixcd-ratc sourcc of tax-cxcmpt financing. Second, the special tax formulas which support thc CFD's cxpcnditures can bc designcd to kccp thc holding costs on undcyclopcd propcrty low. From thc pcrspcctiye of local officials, landowncr-approycd Mcllo-Roos financing prcscnts an opportunity to raisc a largc sum of capital at oncc, pcrmitting necdcd public facilitics to bc installcd morc quickly than if construction wcrc to wait for a sufficicnt amount of dcyclopcr fccs and othcr rcycnuc to accumulatc. Installing public facilitics carly in thc dcvclopmcnt proccss rcduccs thc likclihood of futurc congcstion problcms and may cvcn rcsult in lowcr construction costs, to the cxtcnt that futurc rights-of-way disputcs and cmincnt domain procccdings are avoidcd. In thc final analysis, local officials may bc swaycd by thc dcsirc to ayoid costly, and oftcn unsucccssful, campaigns to sccurc two-thirds yotcr approval for futurc bond proposals. Whatcycr thcir rcspcctiyc motiyations, thc ncgotiations bctwccn dcyclopcrs and local officials arc likcly to focus on two kcy issues: (I) idcntifying thc public facilitics nccdcd to scrvc thc dcvclopmcnt projcct; and (2) dcciding who will pay for thcm. Thcsc two issucs arc rcally not uniquc to Mcllo-Roos ncgotiations--in somc form thcy arc at thc hcart of most mattcrs of public financc. What distinguishcs landowncr-approvcd Mcllo-Roos financing from morc traditional tools of public financc is thc political proccss by which tax and spcnding dccisions arc dctcrmined.l ....-... 23 ~I ---------- ...,.-.-.-----------.-----.-.,... ÿ',~-,,--,- . .-...-.. -",.._.-- .-~.,-_.....- - '-~- - - ,~-'._-_.~'-~_:._-'.'" '-',-',--""" ~--'--~- .,-.---..-,-----. .--,-, ---, ~""'--...'~ ,-'~.,.._- - Tax and spending decisions of local government traditionally are determined through conyentional democratic processes: either directly through referendum or indirectly through the budgetary actions of elected officials. For example. the yoter approval requirement for general obligation bond measures allows voters to decide whether the benefits that they will deriye from a proposed public works project outweigh the costs of the required tax leyy. It sho'uld be noted that the same dynamics apply to Mello-Roos financings approved by the registered yoters in deyeloped areas. In cases where public officials themselyes determine tax and spending pOlicy, they are accountable to their constituents, who will both benefit from and pay for their decisions. Both forms of democratic expression proyide some assurance that the resulting tax and spending policies will be supported by the electorate. By contrast, landowner-approyed Mello-Roos financing requires that public officials decide important questions of tax and spending pOlicy before the ultimate taxpayers (and beneficiaries) arrive in the community. The ultimate taxpayers are not able to influence the decision directly, by yoting, or indirectly, by making their preferences known to their elected representatives. Consequently. the political acceptance of the decision to use landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing does not occur until the improyed properties in the CFD are purchased.2 By purchasing the properties. buyers signify their willingness to liye with the predetermined level of seryice and tax burden. Or potential buyers may find the mix of taxes and seryice leyels be undesirable and moye elsewhere. If the deyeloper faces difficulties in marketing the improyed properties. the ability of the CFD to meet its debt seryice payments may be jeopardized.s The public policy issues surrounding the use of Mello-Roos financing are discussed below. EXPENDITURE ISSUES Though the ultimate residents may not influence the decision to use landowner-approyed Mello-Roos financing, the public officials responsible for the decision will be influenced by the residents of developed areas adjacent to the deyelopment project. After all, the existing residents are their constituents. And the existing residents are more likely to be concerned about the negatiye impacts of growth on their own service leyels-the familiar problem of congestion--than about the level of service proyided to newcomers. Growth aDd CODllestioD When public facilities such as schools. highways and parks become congested. the costs of growth are no longer limited to deyeloping areas. but are shared by the larger community. Simply stated. congestion occurs when public facilities are subject to use exceeding their capacity limitations. Beyond the point of capacity, each additional user lowers the leyel of consumption of eyeryone else. For example, an uncongested freeway can accommodate additional travelers at no inconyenience to existing trayelers; however. each additional trayeler on an already congested 24 60 .~-~_... -.--..-.--.--'- ----~._._.... ---------'--~~-- _...------------~ - freeway lengthens the commute time for every other trayeler. Similarly, each additional student in a crowded classroom raises the student/teacher ratio, diminishing the quality of educational services received by every other student. The costs of congcstion are not tangible budgctary costs, but they do affcct the intangible quality of lifc. Growth wiII lead to congestion unlcss the cxpansion of the public capital stock is recognized as a necessary. if expensiye, consequencc of a community's growth. Thc prevalence of congested public facilitics in California, however, suggcsts that traditional political processcs have not bcen successful at deycloping policics to addrcss thc impacts of growth on public scrvicc Icyels. Ccrtainly, the volatilc naturc of population growth and rcal estatc dcyclopment poscs challcngcs for cvcn the most proficicnt planning departments. It is difficult to develop traditional five-year or tcn-year capital improvement programs with any dcgrcc of ccrtainty when the dcmand for public facilitics is subject to dramatic shifts. To somc extcnt, thc evolution of funding sources which are ticd to development actiyity, such as devcloper fecs, has allowcd for the gradual expansion of public facilitics to accommodatc the in. zmental impacts of growth. The problem tends to be more pronounced for larger, morc regional public facilitics, such as highways, water supply systcms and scwagc trcatment plants, which must bc expanded in largc amounts and at discretc interyals duc to the economics of scalc in production. Thcse spending decisions present public officials and thcir constitucnts with Icss than dcsirablc choiccs: (I) build thc optimally sized facility for prcsent nceds at the lowest cost to cxisting residents--but face thc prospcct of futurc congcstion costs; or (2) build oycrsized public facilities to accommodate growth-oat an added expense to cxisting rcsidents.· Thcre are seycral factors working against the construction of oversizcd facilities. First, California's two-thirds yotcr approval requirement for most bond measurcs and budget acts prescnts a considcrablc obstacle for proponents of goyernment spending. It is difficult cnough to convince two-thirds of the voters to build an optimally-sized public facility to serye existing residcnts--much Icss an oycrsized onc for futurc uscrs. Sccond, votcrs arc gcncrally rcluctant to subsidizc the public costs of growth. (To somc extent, this conccrn can bc mitigatcd through bond financing, which spreads thc cost of the facility oycr its useful life). Finally, thc oycrsizing of public facilities may actually encouragc growth, which is thc anathema to rcsidcnts of many areas of thc statc. For many years prior to Proposition 13, the flow of funds from thc fcderal and state governments, along with surplus property tax reyenues at the local leyc'. obscurcd the relationship betwcen dcvelopment dccisions and public scrvicc leyels. Howcver, thc declinc in intcrgoy -nmental grants, along with thc enactment of constraints on local spcnding, has caused thc link bctwccn growth and public service lcyels to grow clear in the minds of public officials and voters alike. Mcllo-Roos financing reprcscnts onc mcthod of assigning ncw devclopment thc rcsponsibility of maintaining rcasonable public scrvicc Icyels. Level of Service Standards In ordcr to cffcctivcly mitigatc the impacts of growth on public scryicc leycls, some objcctiye systcm for mcasuring thosc impacts is necded. Otherwise, , I 25 , .,;/r" -- -..---.....-.-.. ------- -....--....--- --- ..- .. .. ,'" ,_ .... '""',~ -'''_ë_-_ .--~.-._.",_.."', - '-",-'''- --._,~ .'. .---_._,,_._._-,--~~,-_.~--- --'->"~--~--"'-'----'----"-'.'"',---",;"--'->.~."';'-,,.-"~"'~"'-"----- .~-~ "~" -~~--- ..-'''---. - public officials will have no way oflcnowíñg 'what additional public expenditures are necessary. The most practical apPIoacb .to this 'problem iSlDestablish level of service (LOS) standards for individual pnJgramareas..Levels of strvice are the outputs of government; whereas taxes, fees and assessments are the inputs to goyernments. LOS standards quantitatiyely represent th~ commwlity's desired seryice leyels for the full range of municipal services to be provided. A good example of an LOS standard is the classification of roadway conditions developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers. The classification system measures the number of vehicles traveling on a roadway against the roadway's capacity. The six levels of service range from .4, for the highest level of service, to F, for the lowest level of service. For example, a city might establish a peak hour LOS of D for arterial roads and interchanges and C for city streets. Other examples of LOS standards arc requirements that neighborhood parks be proyided within one-half mile of all dwelling units; defined maximum response times for fire stations; acceptable probabilities of flooding for storm drainage facilities; and established open space standards on an acreage per capita basis. In general, the establishment of LOS standards is an iteratiye process, as higher service levels must be balanced against financial reality and the aesthetic implications of constructing larger public facilities. Levels of service measure the relationship between the capacity of public facilities and the intensity of their utilization. Planning departments often conduct studies to estimate the demands that deyelopment projects and different land use densities place on the community's infrastructure. For example, single family households generate more vehicle trips per household on area roadways than households in multifamily apartment buildings, because of higher average family size and a higher incidence of yehicle ownership. Some more sophisticated planning departments further refine their estimates of demand through the use of computer software that actually simulates the impact of development projects on area traffic patterns, allowing the identification of likely bottlenecks. Generating information at this leyel of detail permits localities to identify the incremental impacts that individual development projects will place on the community infrastructure. Engineers can use this information to develop cost estimates for projects that are needed to add sufficient capacity to public facilities, so that LOS standards may be maintained. The cost estimates proyide a framework for negotiating developer exactions and/or sizing Mello-Roos bond issuances. If Mello-Roos financing is used, the special tax consultant can use the cost estimate, along with the more detailed data on the demands generated by different land uses, as the basis for apportioning the special tax to individual properties in the deyelopment project. Whateyer form of financing is used, some expenditures will be needed for entirely localized facilities, such as streets and sewer lines, which will serye only the deyelopment project. Other expenditures will be needed to add capacity to more regional facilities, such as highways and recreational facilities, so that communitywide seryice leyels can be maintained. The distinction between localized and regional facilities is not clear cut; it depends on the scale of the deyelopment project in question. Large deyelopment projects, for example, might generate enough students to fill entire schools. Smaller deyelopment projects might only require additional capacity at existing schools. In either case, LOS standards permit the IF'-' 26 . /' :.ç/P"- . -- n______·~~~._...~.__~..;c~,_·.....="__·.,....:.< ~.__ .-._.__ _. - ____.~ - - ~___ .-- - - - - - impact of thc dcvclopmcnt projcct to bc csîìmatcd and conscQucntly, mitigatcd. (LOS standards arc, in fact, a ncccssary componcnt of a Icgally dcfcnsiblc schcdulc of dcyclopcr fccs.) Concurrency Onc rcsponsc to thc problcm of growth and congcstion currcntly gaining popularity in planning circlcs is thc policy of concurrency. The term concurrency describcs the policy of requiring that sufficient capacity bc added to thc public capital stock to accommodate additional demands at the time development occurs. The policy of concurrency explicitly recognizes the time dimension to public cxpcnditurc decisions and, in cffect, states that growth will not be permittcd to congest public facilitics. A concurrency policy can apply to the entire range of municipal scrviccs: transportation, education, water, sewer, parks, libraries, and so on. Clearly, a policy that promises an end to the problcm of congestion has an undeniable political appeal. In fact, concurrency is one of thc central componcnts of the Statc of Florida's Growth Management Plan. Howeycr, concurrcncy raiscs significant implementation challengcs which must be addresscd if thc policy is to bc more than exhortative in naturc. Thesc challenges inyolyc (I) thc nccd to coordinate thc planning activities of diffcrcnt govcrnmental agcncies and (2) thc mattcr of paying for thc infrastructurc installed at the timc of devclopment. The main planning barricr to implcmcnting a concurrcncy policy occurs whcn dcyelopment projccts placc a burdcn on a rangc of public facilitics that arc thc rcsponsibility of diffcrcnt goycrnmcntal agcncics. Dcyclopmcnt projccts approvcd by thc city or county govcrnmcnt will ultimatcly bc scryiccd by school districts, transportation districts, watcr districts and othcr govcrnmcntal units--in addition to thc city or county itsclf. For thc most part, thc planning functions of all thc affcctcd govcrnmcntal units arc not coordinatcd to thc dcgrcc ncccssary to mitigatc thc scrvicc Icvcl impacts of growth! This topic is discusscd at morc Icngth in thc Planning Guidelines in Chaptcr V. Eycn if thc planning actiyitics of diffcrcnt goycrnmcntal agcncics arc coordinatcd, thc policy of concurrcncy has important implications for thc timing of public dccisions on tax and spcnding pOlicics for dcycloping arcas. In ordcr for concurrcncy to bc implcmcntcd (and LOS standards maintaincd), public facilitics must bc installcd concurrently with dcyclopmcnt--which mcans that dccisions concerning what to construct and how to pay for it must bc rcachcd bcforc thc ultimatc rcsidcnts of thc dcvclopmcnt projcct arriyc. Givcn thc gcncral rcluctancc of votcrs to subsidizc thc public costs of growth, local officials will try to isolatc costs on thc dcycloping arca, which Icads to a rcliancc on thc funding sourccs dcscribcd in Chaptcr I: dcyclopcr cxactions, spccial asscssmcnts, and Mcllo-Roos spccial taxcs. It is no longcr fcasiblc to proyidc broad-bascd subsidics for thc initial cndowmcnt of infrastructurc in most dcyclopmcnt projccts, as was common practicc prior to Proposition 13. In summary, thc policy of concurrcncy rCQuircs local officials to balancc somcwhat diycrgcnt goals. Thcir constitucnts want thc scryicc Icvcl impacts of growth to bc mitigatcd, but thcy do not want to subsidizc thc costs of doing so. Vicwcd in this light, thc adyantagcs of landowncr-approycd Mcllo-Roos financing I;' '/~ 27 i.v--' - +---..- ~--_._..~---_.__..._.,---~~-- ... ~.-----._~ - >'-,0",-, --..-.-.-.-" ."..~- - ·'___'··V"~'~___'._,_ - - come into sharper focus. Landowner-approyed Mello-Roos financing essentially permits landowners to borrow against the value and tax capacity of their land, through the tax-exempt market, to pay for the infrastructure needed to serye development. It is the only feasible method for raising a large sum of capital early in the deyelopment process to finance the construction of yirtually any public facility, while isolating the cost of doing so on th'e deyeloping area. TAXATION ISSUES For the reasons outlined above, Mello-Roos financing presents an attractive financing option for addressing infrastructure costs in deyeloping areas. However, the exhaustiye process of establishing LOS standards and identifying the service level impacts of indiyidual development projects may leaye local officials with little taste for the technical aspects of Mello-Roos financing--designing special tax apportionment formulas and structuring bond issuances. It is tempting to turn these matters oyer to the financial professionals. But these technical matters raise important public policy questions which are appropriately decided by public officials. While not denying the need for competent technical assistance, it is important to remember that the decisions reached at this juncture will shape the tax burdens of future residents for the next 20 to 30 years. At the outset of this chapter, we identified ·...who will pay: as one of the key issues to be decided in negotiations between developers and local officials. In a broad sense, Mello-Roos financing requires deyelopment to pay its own way, as the boundaries of CFDs are typically drawn around tracts of undeveloped or partially improved land slated for deyelopment. Yet, the special tax formulas applied within the CFD boundaries can shift the tax burden from deyelopers to the purchasers of the improved properties. The special tax formulas will also affect the distribution of the risk associated with the deyelopment process between landowners and inyestors, which in turn affects the price that the issuer receives for the bonds (the cost of capital). These are all important reyenue issues that deserve the attention of local officials. This section examines the issue of tax equity as it relates to Mello-Roos financing (i.e., the objectiye of designing a fair tax structure). The objective of equity, how eyer, sometimes conflicts with the need to structure a special tax flexible enough to accommodate the uncertainties of the deyelopment process, which is discussed later. Tax Equity All those affected by the deyelopment process--Iocal governments, developers, new homebuyers and existing residents--would agree that the public facilities required in deyeloping areas should be paid for in an equitable manner. Of course, unanimous opinion tends to break down when the merits of specific tax and spending proposals are debated. The goal of equity or fairness is easy to agree upon in principle, but difficult to agree upon in practice. 28 .~'I' . ----_. ~ "::....~----~- ~.~,_".~,___;,__..~~.."'c.,__.__"---__~. .~_.._,---~,,_._-~--------... ..'. -., _...'- .",,-'- - The Mello-Roos Act proyides little gÜìdance regarding the apportionment of the special tax to indiyidual properties, other than to establish the general principle that all properties in the CFD must benefit from the proposed improvements. The Act leaves the rate and method of apportionment of the special tax to the discretion of the legislative body of the local agency approving the levy. The only constraint is that the special tax cannot be an ad yalorem property tax as prohibited by Article XIII A of the Statc Constitution (Proposition 13). Consequently, local agcncies are responsible for ensuring thc design of equitable special tax formulas in the course of their ncgotiations with deyelopcrs. To the extent that attention is focused exclusively on the types of facilitics and the level of service to be provided, the equity of thc special tax formula may be ovcrlookcd. Thc acadcmic litcraturc identifies two basic principlcs of equity in taxation-- the ability-to-pay and the bencfit principlcs. Taxcs levied under the ability-to-pay approach arc Icyied, not surprisingly, according to some measure of the individual's ability-ta-pay, such as income or wealth. The rationale for ability-ta-pay taxation is that taxpaycrs should contribute to the funding rcquirements of government according to their financial abilities. Ability-to-pay taxes serve the redistributional objectiyes of government. The usefulness of the ability-to-pay approach as a tool of local tax policy is constrained by the mobility of taxpayers across local boundaries. To the extent that an indiyiduallocal government pursues such a policy, the group of taxpayers called on to subsidize governmental activities would be expected to migrate over time to friendlier territory. Ability-to-pay tax policies arc more effectiyely carried out by higher leyels of government--as the ability of taxpayers to ayoid paying redistributiye taxes naturally declines as the size of the taxing jurisdiction increases. It follows that most redistributional actiyities, such as public welfare and medical assistance programs, arc carried out, or at Icast financed, by higher Icyels of government. Under the benefit principle, taxes are leyied in proportion to the benefit received from public expenditures on goods and services. The fairness of a particular tax structure depends upon the nature of benefit conferred by the good or seryice being financed. In practice, the benefit approach allows tax and expenditure decisions to be resolyed simultaneously. Placing a bond measure on the ballot, for example, allows voters to decide whether the benefit of a proposed project is worth the cost of the required tax levy. The rationale for benefit taxation applies particularly well to those public expenditures which add yalue to property. Insofar as the construction of streets, lighting, sidewalks and sewers adds yalue to property, it seems fair to charge the benefitting property owners. For these reasons, the benefit principal is generally considered to be the operative model of equity for local govcrnment finance. While the logic behind the benefit principle is compelling, its usefulness in shaping tax policy depends upon the extent to which the benefits conferred by pùblic expenditures can be identified and imputed to indiyidual taxpayers. With respect to Mello-Roos financing, this inyolves drawing the CFD boundaries and apportioning the special tax. Drawing CFD Boundaries. Applying the benefit principle to the design of CFD boundaries requires that the taxing jurisdiction (the CFD) be coterminus with ". r -'j 29 ~ -/ . .. -------~,,- -- "'--".'''.-'---'- ....~~-- - _. __·______.,,__c._ ,-. ____.'__·m__.·___"_.__~.~..__,_ '---'--_:::::._"-_""'~"'--"O"''''--__''"'' _.___'_~'__''':"<'. ,.~ ..,;¡_...'_....,.--..-"""'_: __n_ : -~..~ ., .. . ... - ...---"- --- ..._____~____._~~____:.:___._.._~__. -'--.__~._,...__ ".n:"~C __.._____._......___. __"'_____._"" _ ,.~. ~-_.--, ~- the area benefitted by the public improvcments. In some cases< benefits conferred by public improyements arc highly localized. as with .ttrects, lighting, 'sewers and sidewalks. The benefitting properties arc typically adjacent to or abutting the improvement. Other public facilities confer benefits oycr broader areas, such as arterial roads, regional parks, and as sewage treatment plants. Though the benefits conferred by these regional facilities arc distributed more broadly, they arc subject to spatial limitations; in other words, the benefits decline precipitously or diminish altogether as you moye farther away from the facility. The challcnge is to correctly identify the geographic region of benefit.6 . The fact that most CFDs arc formed on undeyeloped land considerably simplifies the task of drawing equitable CFD boundaries. The landowners initiating the proceedings to form a CFD are typically the ones who stand to benefit from its formation. The properties slated for residential, commercial and industrial development form the boundaries of the CFD. Howeyer, eyen in these cases there may be benefit spmoyers. For example, in some instances, not all the beneficiaries may be included in the CFD; in other cases, the CFD may include properties that do not benefit from all of its expenditures. It is a more complicated undertaking to correctly identify the geographic region of benefit for CFDs formed in deyeloped areas. In the midst of an urban setting, exactly where do the benefits conferred by more regional facilities terminate? In addition, political considerations are likely to affect the design of the CFD, giyen the difficulty of obtaining two-thirds voter approval. The flexibility afforded by the Act in the design of boundaries can also be used to exclude uncooperatiye property owners, even though they might stand to benefit from the improvements ultimately financed by the CFD. The flexibility of the Mello-Roos Act also extends to adding future beneficiaries to the CFD and more narrowly assigning costs within a district. For instance, in the event that future deyelopment projects wish to benefit from the public improyements financed through the CFD, the Act specifics procedures for annexing property to a CFD. If the new deyelopment wishes to utilize only some of the public facilities financed through the CFD-school facilities, for example--the Act permits the deyelopers to negotiate with the CFD to pay fees in lieu of a special tax. The Act also provides for the establishment of improvement areas within CFDs for the purpose of financing public facilities which benefit only a portion of the CFD. The yoters in each imp,rovement area authorize debt separately from the larger CFD to finance these improvements. In effect, each improvement area operates as a CFD within a CFD. Improyement areas are useful for isolating the infrastructure costs of multi phased projects. By forming improvement areas, each phase of the development pays for its own infrastructure. The larger CFD can be used to pay for facilities that confer benefits throughout the CFD. Apportioning lhe Mello-Roos Special Tax. Once the boundaries of the CFD arc determined, the next step is to apportion the special tax to individual properties within the CFD. A strict application of the benefit principle would require that the special tax be apportioned to individual properties on the basis of the benefit- received from the expenditures finallced through the CFD. The fact that some public facilities confer general rather than special benefits does not diminish the 30 ú? __.~._'".~~____.~_~.,..-.....-______________.~.~_o__-.___c _____~_________~____~__""~.___. _ ·c_· -___ ._--,.-.~;_.._._~---_._- yalidity of the benefit principle as the basis for apportioning the special tax. As long as the distribution of general benefits throughout the CFD is more or less identifiable. a special tax formula can be deyeloped that treats similar properties as equally as possible. The benefit principle is grounded in economic theory and is not as rigid as the legal tests of special benefil wh~ch apply to the special assessment acts. The most common tax base used for Mello-Roos special tax formulas is real property. both land and structures. Insofar as the construction of public facilities adds value to propcrtics in thc CFD, rcal propcrty is a logical tax basc. Undcr the constraints imposcd by Proposition 13. the spccial tax cannot bc apportioncd on the basis of thc valuc of rcal propcrty. Rathcr. thc indiccs uscd to apportion Mcllo-Roos spccial taxcs tcnd to bc similar to thc indiccs uscd to apportion spccial asscssmcnts. Typically, thcsc indiccs arc bascd on thc physical dimcnsions of thc propcrty itsclf. For cxample, thc spccial tax may be lcyicd on thc basis of acrcagc or thc sQuarc footage of a dwclling. Thc physical dimcnsions of thc propcrty scrvc as a proxy for thc bcncfit confcrrcd by the public cxpcnditurcs financcd through thc CFD. Othcr spccial tax formulas arc bascd upon more dircct mcasurcmcnts of infrastructurc usagc, such as vchiclc trips gcncratcd pcr dwclling unit or gallons of watcr consumcd pcr dwclling unit. Such formulas approximatc thc rclationship bctwccn thc infrastructurc fundcd and usagc. and as such rcprcscnt an application of the benefit principlc. Tax Base Stability As outlincd abovc. tax cQuity is an important objcctiyc in thc dcsign of Mcllo-Roos spccial tax formulas. But it is oftcn not thc controlling objcctivc. Of no small conccrn to local officials and municipal bond invcstors is thc fact that a tax basc formcQ on undcyclopcd propcrty docs not offcr thc stability of a tax basc formcd on dcyclopcd propcrty. Thus, it is also important for local officials to pursuc thc objcctivc of gcncrating a sufficicnt and prcdictablc rcvcnuc strcam whcn dcsigning spccial tax formulas. During thc initial stagcs of dcyclopmcnt. thc spccial tax basc is typically conccntratcd in thc hands of a small group of landowncr/dcvclopcrs--fcwcr than 12 if thc CFD was formcd by a landowncr votc. Most dcvclopcrs financc thcir costs of land. labor and matcrials through short-tcrm construction loans from priyatc lcnding institutions. Dcyclopcrs may also financc thc costs of public infrastructurc in this manncr. if thc locality rclics on dcyclopcr cxactions rathcrthan tax-cxcmpt financing. ConscQucntly. most dcyclopcrs arc hcavily lcycragcd during thc construction phasc. Evcn if thc dcyclopcr has a considcrablc amount of cQuity ticd up in land and improycmcnlS. thc dcyclopcr's sourcc of incomc is dcrivcd from the salc of improvcd propcrtics. which naturally must wait until construction is complctcd-or longcr if markct conditions arc slow. Thcrcforc. many dcvclopcrs facc cash-flow difficultics during thc dcvclopmcnt proccss. cvcn though thcy may own or control millions of dollars in asscts. Convcrscly, propcrty-rclatcd taxcs, such as thc Mcllo-Roos spccial tax, usually rcprcscnt a small. though not insignificant. claim on thc incomc streams of the buyers of improved properties--the homcowner or landlord for residential propcrties 31 ,·7 '/ -.---------" . --- .. ----..-.. .....--...-...- --,----. ~--- ',~ --~~.. --~....-_._.-.'-. .._-~---_..._,-~---~---._-------".__.._- ----.- ~- -"- and the businessperson for commercial and industrial propertu:s To most residential buyers, their home represents their single la~gesl sov:rce ,,,f equ1t~ ,or savings, and they arc not likely to walk away from it to avoid paying their 1:ptcial tax bill, unless they haye no alternatiye. Deyelopers, by contrast, frequctrtly arc delinquent in their tax payments, because of thc cash flow difficulties described above. When business conditions sour, developer bankruptcies arc not uncommon. Investors understand these dynamics and consequently prefer to see a tax base that relics more on developed property, where possible. This is particularly true during the early stages of development, when the bankruptcy of a major deyeloper might jeopardize the security of the special tax bonds. The Mello-Roos Act includes several features for improving the security of the special tax during the initial phases of development: Capitalization of Interest. The Mello-Roos Act specifies that up to two years of interest payments may be ·capitalized· into the special tax bond issuance. In other words, the bond issuance can be sized to include the first two years of debt seryice payments, to reduce the tax liability of the landowner/developer during the construction period. By providing a secure source of debt service during the early stages of development, capitalized interest can improve the credit quality of the bonds. Of course, the taxpayers in the CFD will eventually have to pay for funds deposited in the capitalized interest account. Taxing Developed vs. Undeveloped Land. The special tax formula may further reduce the landowner/deyeloper's tax liability by taxing developed land within the CFD at higher rates than undeyeloped land. (Land is considered to be ·undeveloped" until a building permit is secured.) There arc limits to the amount that the special tax can be shifted between developed and undeyeloped land; in no case can the special tax on any parcel exceed the maximum rate approyed at the time of CFD formation. Many special tax formulas use undeveloped land as a ·shock absorber.· Developed land is taxed at its maximum rate, and to the extent that additional reyenue is needed to meet debt service payments, undeveloped land is taxed. If deyeloped land generates sufficient revenues to meet debt service payments, undeyeloped land is not taxed at all. Special Tax Coverage. Another characteristic of Mello-Roos special tax formulas is that the maximum tax can be set to proyide greater than 1.0 debt seryice coyerage (i.e. the annual tax revenue generated exceeds the required annual debt seryice). This permits the special tax on nondelinquent taxpayers to be raised, up to the maximum tax, to cover delinquencies. Once the delinquencies are paid in full, the special tax rates are subsequently lowered. Because of developer cash flow problems, a higher rate of delinquencies would be expected on the undeveloped properties, rather than developed properties. These security features strengthen the special tax structure by reducing the tax burden on undeveloped property during the early stages of development. To the extent that these security features make the special tax bonds issued more marketable, all of the taxpayers in the CFD will benefit from the lower interest costs. There may also be some justification for taxing the initial residents more heavily to pay for large infrastructure investments, such as water supply systems and sewage treatment plants, that require large initial investments. Because of the economies of scale in construction, these facilities must be installed in large 32 &6 - ----'- "". . ". -~,.",-_.,,--~.,,',~.- ,,:- ~_ ___~_~__.._" __, 'J'~, increments, with enough excess capacity to last for seyeral years. The excess capacity needs to be paid for when it is installed, not when it is needed. Thus, it might be justifiable to ask new residents to pay more for the immediate availability of seryice. But the security features of the Mello-Roos special tax bonds can also result in an inequitable distribution of the tax burden if early residents are forced to subsidize the costs of public facilities from which they will reccivc no rcal benefit. For example, the different tax treatment of deyeloped and undeveloped land may not give the developers of large projects the incentive to phase-in public improyements that can be installed incrementally, such as streets and water and sewer lines. Rather, it might be advantageous to the deyeloper to install all of these improvements at once, thereby shifting more of the tax burden to developed properties. If deyeloped and undeveloped land arc taxed at the same rate, the developer might haye the incentive to form improyement areas within the CFD and phase-in streets and water and sewer lines as needed to keep pace with construction activity. In other words, by forming improvement areas, the developer could keep the holding costs on undeyeloped property (outside the improyement area) lower. In summary, the deyelopment of special tax apportionment formulas involves a tension between the objectiye of tax equity and the objectiye of designing a stable or predictable revenue stream. To the extent that the security features incorporated into special tax formulas result in a lower cost of capital, all taxpayers in the CFD will benefit. If the end result of the tax structure is merely to subsidize deyelopers, the early residents of the CFD may be disadvantaged. The final chapter of this report offers guidelines for reconciling the objectives of tax equity and tax base stability. OTHER PUBLIC POLICY ISSUES HousiD& Afford.bility Public debates over the relatiye merits of different approaches to financing the infrastructure in development projects often focus on the issue of housing affordability. One argument frequently adyanced in fayor of Mello-Roos financing is that it results in more affordable housing than docs a reliance on deyeloper fees. In fact, many local governments require developers, when applying for permission to form a CFD, to estimate the amount by which the price of their finished units wiU be reduced if they arc granted permission to use Mello-Roos financing. The belief that Mello-Roos financing promotes greater housing affordability emanates from two arguments: I) Developer fees must be recouped through higher housing prices. Mello-Roos financing instead permits infrastructure costs to be financed through annual special tax payments, avoiding the need to raise housing prices. 2) By proyiding access to the tax-exempt market, Mello-Roos financing results in lower borrowing costs. If deyeloper fees arc included in housing prices, homebuyers finance these costs at higher mortgage interest rates. .~ I 7 33 // v . - -~--------- , -,----~---_._._..... - -.'-._-"- '~""-""'-~~";""~~"~' " ,.....".,.·_··'·,,".-,,·,.-r.=·..A·.._ _ --. ~--_. - '._,-.-_. --.-- - --.----..- Any examination of this topic .must 'be&in _by :d1:finlng hQusing affordabilit)'. The Question customarily posed on the CFD -application fm'ms .(?cuses on the price of finished housing. Defining affordability on the basis of housing price alone, howeyer, ignores the higher annual tax burden i~posed· on properties in CFDs. In fact, priyate lending institutions eyaluate the costs of taxes and insurance, in addition to housing prices, when Qualifying prospectiye home buyers for mortgage loans. A rule of thumb used by many lending institutions is that mortgage principal, interest, taxes and insurance costs should not exceed 30 percent of the applicant's annual household income. Using this broader definition of affordability, Table I and Table 2 on the fOllowing page present a comparison between the effects of Mello-Roos special tax financing and developer fee financing on housing costs. The figures in Table I compare two houses of equal Quality, except that one has $25,000 in developer fees added onto its price while the other has the same amount of infrastructure financed through annual special tax payments. Table I assumes that the special tax bonds would be financed over 30 years at a tax-exempt interest rate of six percent (6%). The figures in Table I illustrate that the primary affordability advantage of Mello- Roos financing, under these assumptions, is the lower down payment requirement, which is determined by the price of the home. In this case, the down payment requirement is $5,000 less under Mello-Roos financing. Table 2 maintains the same assumptions, except that the interest rate for the special tax bonds is the same as the mortgage interest rate, nine percent (9%). As a result of eliminating the interest rate differential, the annual costs are actually higher under Mello-Roos financing, because less of the infrastructure cost is paid for up front through the down payment. Moreoyer, because of the higher annual special tax payment, a slightly higher annual income would be needed to Qualify for the mortgage loan. The cost comparisons between Mello-Roos and deyeloper fee financing in Tables I and 2 are admittedly simplified. In reality, the transaction costs accompanying a special tax bond transaction would need to be taken into account, as these costs lÌIight eliminate any adyantage stemming from the tax-exempt interest rate differential. Incidence of lhe Mello-Roos Tax. The examples in Table I and Table 2 assume that the developer can simply tack on the cost of the developer fee to the price of the house without affecting its marketability. If that were the case, the deyeloper was not pricing the unit for maximum profit before the developer fee was imposed. In actuality, the developer might not be able to attract a bid sufficient to recoyer the entire $25,000. Or if the deyeloper was determined to do so, it might take longer to sell the property, adding to the holding costs on the property. In an economic sense, the Question of lax incidence comes into play. The term tax incidence is used to describe the shifting of tax burdens between buyers and sellers in a market transaction. There is a distinction between the legal incidence of a tax--who has to write the check to the government--and the economic incidence of a tax-who bears the burden of a tax in the form of reduced income. 34 "-;0 i -.--..--.---- __ _'..d____ .,..~.. ___.~ _..... _. .._ ___'_d'_' ._.._._-"'..~~.._-- ..' ~::,.. .--.....,...~ .. .,,':- .. ._-._-----~- ._...~..- .... -;---.-..--------.. ._-,,-- .~---_.__. '-'--'--'--- Table 1 HOUSXNG AFFORDABXLXTY COMPARXSON Alternative Methods of Financing $25,000 of Infrastructure Kello-Roos Kello-Roos DeveloDer Fee Savinqs House Price $180,000 $205,000 $25,000 Down Payment (20%) S36.000 S41. 000 S5.000 Amount of Kortgage $144,000 $164,000 $20,000 Annual Kortgage (30 yr. 9% Fixed) $13,904 $15,835 $1,931 property Tax (1%) $1,800 $2,050 $250 Insurance (.5%) $900 $1,025 $125 Special Tax (30 yr. 6% fixed) Sl.799 £Q -S1.799 Total Annual Costs $18,403 $18,910 $507 Kin. Xncome aeq. $61,343 $63,033 $1,690 Table 2 ALTERNATIVE SPECIAL TAX SCENARIO No Xnterest Rate Differential Special Tax $2,414 $0 -$2,414 (30 yr. 9% fixed) Total Annual Costs $19,018 $18,910 -$108 Kin. Xncome aeq. $63,393 $63,033 -$360 Note: The special tax payment is also deductable from the federal income tax. 7' 35 . ! -.- _._...,,----,,~~. . ..-"-.. ....._--------~--".._,._--~- "----.-- .,...-- -,,,- ..,-- ,-"'~._'-"- ---- . ~ More obliquely, Table I includes an assumption about the economic incidence of the Mello-Roos special tax: the buyer did not adjust his or her bid downward to account for the higher annual special tax payments associated with the property. The legal incidence of the special tax falls on the buyer, but to the extent the buyer is able to adjust his or her bid price down and still purchase; the property, some or all of the economic incidence of the special tax is passed back to the deyeloper, in terms of lower profit on the unit. Conversely, the legal incidence of the deyeloper fee falls on the developer, but the deyeloper may be able to shift the economic incidence to the buyer, as in Table I. To further refine the analysis, the legal incidence of the special tax on undeveloped land falls on the developer, rather than the buyer. Much like a deyeloper fee, the undeveloped land special tax is a cost of ¡rOduction, and the developer will try to recoup this cost through higher prices. Consequently, the approach of requiring the deyeloper to pay the entire Mello-Roos special tax lien at the time of sale-as is being experimented with in the City of Carlsbad--can be thought of in an economic sense as conyerting the special tax into a deyeloper fee. (Of course, the legal restrictions goyerning the use of deyeloper fees would not apply.) In the short term, the strength of demand for housing will determine how much of the developer fee can be shifted forward to the buyer, or how much of the special tax burden can be shifted back to the developer. In a market characterized by a strong demand for housing, more of the tax burden will fall on the buyer. In a weak market, more of the tax burden will fall on the developer. In the longer term, the real estate development industry will adjust to the imposition of development-related taxes. Anticipating the eventual imposition of these taxes, developers may bid less for the raw land needed for their projects, passing some of the tax burden back to the owners of raw land. If the developer were unable to pass these costs backward to the owners of raw land or forward to the buyers of improved property, profits would lag and dcvelopment activity would bc cut back. Employmcnt in the industry would decline. The capital previously in\'~sted in real estate development would be invested in other, morc promising in:. . ': tries. In turn, the smaller supply of dcveloped propertics would result in higner average prices, restoring profitability to :r . ndustry. In summary, thc housing affordability advantages of Mello-Roos financing are not clear cut. Under certain market scenarios, Mello-Roos financing may result in lower housing prices, translating into a lower downpayment requirement for buyers. The annual savings will be influcnced by the tax-exempt interest rate on the special tax bonds and the transaction costs associated with the bond sale. Thc strength of the housing market at the time the properties are sold will determine the distribution of thc special tax burden between the deyeloper and the buyer. The unpredictability of these yariables make it difficult to surmise in adyance what effcct Mello-Roos financing will haye on housing affordability. Local governments may ask for this information on application forms, but the responses may not reflcct market realities. 36 7;Z ~~_~..:.~_~~.;~~.:-.:...;-~:~.,-~..-~-.---._._-- '_~':""_..-C''''__ ._-__._".____...~'____~__.,,'~.__.~..._._,.__..__._._._____..___._..".__...._. ._~_>'_.__...............__~..,~___ Effect of Tax Differences Between Communities on Housing Prices. As a result of the various innovations in public finance in recent years, the modern California real estate market is characterized by a variety of tax differentials between communities--and even between neighborhoods within communities. Because of the broad fiscal trends outlined in Chapter I, the tax burdens tend to be higher in the rapidly growing areas of the state--the same areas which are responsible for most of the Mello-Roos special tax debt issued to date. To the extent that these tax differentials fall within the same regional markets, buyers of real estate would be expected to react to these differentials. A home in an established neighborhood with a lower tax burden should be worth more than a home in a new development with a higher tax burden, all other matters being equal. According to economist George Break: The less significant service differentials are...the more important will differences in local tax burdens be. In well-functioning urban residential markets, tax differences not matched by equally valuable differences in service levels--so-called onerous property tax burden differentials--will be fully capitalized into lower and higher housing values. P With respect to Mello-Roos special tax burdens, the key phrase in the above quotation is 'well- functioning urban residelllial markets.' Market participants will only react to tax differentials between properties if they are aware that such differentials exist. Despite clean-up legislation enacted in 1986 and 1988 to promote better disclosure of Mello-Roos special tax liens, CFD residents are often unpleasantly surprised by their property tax bills. As recently as May 19, 1991, a headline in the Orange County edition of the Los Angeles Times read: New Homeowners StuDE by Special Taxes Levies: Families in many new developments stagger under the cost of add- on charges for roads and other public facilities. What they had paid in older neighborhoods often quadruples upon moving. The article recounted several individual tales of woe, sprinkled with quotes such as, "When you're a new homeowner, you get caught up in all the excitement and the amount of money involved just doesn't hit you until/ater...it just doesn't sink in." 10 The quote echoes a familiar complaint. The volume of paperwork associated with the typical real estate transaction overwhelms the buyer. The financial consequences of the special tax lien are not fully appreciated until the tax payment becomes due. On the other hand, there is evidence the tax burden imposed by Mello-Roos special taxes has permeated the consciousness of some market participants. No Mello-Roos slogans are being sighted on billboards advertising the virtues of development projects which, presumably, do not have special tax liens attached to their properties. While we do not advocate the use of billboards, Chapter V of this report does include guidelines for enhancing the disclosure of Mello-Roos special tax liens. --?'A 37 (-2 . "^.._.._...---_..._~_. .. ·c·..·.··..,< ~~~.-.~- ..-. -,- ;,. ;::_~.~ "'.:.:..,"_.;,;.._---.~.,.....,.._;...,;- ;.......:.,-,:..-.-~"'-_._------,~ "^."'---~ . ",'".--,-'-' .,;.-....--,-..-.-- -'.'~ 0" It should be kept in mind that Proposition 13, rather than the Mello-Roos Act, is primarily responsible for the existence of property-related tax "differentials in California. The people who were the subjects of the newspaper article cited above most likely would have faced significantly higher property taxes even if they had moved to older neighborhoods without CFDs. .Under the acquisition-based assessment practices instituted by Proposition 13, property is reassessed to market value only when it changes hands. Consequently, people who have been living in the same home for a number of years are likely to pay substantially higher property taxes if they move anywhere else in California. And people who move into CFDs are hit with a double whammy: an ad valorem p,'operty tax that has just been assessed to market value, plus the special tax and any assessment liens attached to the parcel. This combination can lead to the quadrupling of property-related tax payments mentioned in the newspaper article above. Financing School Facilities As noted in Chapter II, twenty percent of the volume of Mello-Roos issuance to date has been issued by school districts, mostly for K-12 school facilities. During the period of rapid growth in the late 1980s, school districts found that landowner- approved Mello-Roos financing was well-suited to addressing the service demands generated by large scale development projects. Some districts, such as the Elk Grove Unified School District in Sacramento County, were able to receive the necessary two-thirds voter approval to form CFDs in developed areas. In addition, the restrictions imposed on school impact fees in 1986 made Mello-Roos financing that much more attractive. Mello-Roos Financing Only a Partial Solution. School facility funding does not fall neatly into the scheme of benefit taxation outlined earlier in this chapter. Certainly, students and their families benefit from education in the form of higher earnings potential and increased quality of life. In addition, home prices are affected by the quality of education provided by the local school district. Yet insofar as most of the benefits derived from school facilities accrue to students themselves, the benefits are not confined to a geographic region, as students often complete their education and move away. The geographic indeterminacy of educational benefits can be used as an argument for assigning at least some of the funding responsibility for school facilities to the state government. It is also true that some of the benefits of education are distributed broadly to society, in terms of economic productivity and increased participation in the democratic process. Isolating the costs of school construction over a tax base as narrow as the typical CFD does not account for the benefits accruing to society at large. An equally compelling argument for broader-based participation can be made on ability-to-pay grounds. There is no clear reason why school facility funding decisions should not be consistent with the Serrano paradigm that requires equalization of the operating side of school budgets. After all, school facilities are constructed to facilitate the teaching of students. Educational services require both a capital and operations component. If one applies the equity arguments of the Serrano case, the level of spending on school facilities should be independent of local wealth characteristics. While benefit taxation may work fine for more or less generic public facilities such as streets and sewers, school facility funding may warrant the broader participation of society. 38 -¡I/ .-".~,--'--_.~,";:-":"':'~"':"";'-" -. ,,~.-_-.-.-"~ -._'-'~- >--.'- Consequently, both the benefit and the ability-to-pay approaches point to some level of state funding. In fact, the state government has assumed at least nominal responsibility for school facility funding in California. However, the state construction program is severely underfundeq, and 'probably will be for quite some· time. Further, it is also questionable from an organizational perspective whether a large state bureaucracy will ever be able to quickly respond to the immediate demands of growth. In light of chronic state funding shortages, the choice facing school districts typically is not between state or local funding; it is between local funding now or state funding later. In many cases, the congestion costs incurred by waiting for state funding may be less desirable than the any inequities caused by isolating construction costs on a small group of taxpayers. To the extent that state funds are available, Mello-Roos special taxes can provide the local response to a state-local partnership in school facility finance, as is described below. Interaction With the State Lease-Purchase Program. The state Lease-Purchase Program for school construction is actually a grant program, as the requirement to repay the state was eliminated in response to Proposition 13 in 1978. However, a local match requirement for school districts participating in the program was added as part of the 1986 School Facilities Act. Unlike most government programs, the match requirement was not set at a specific ratio of construction cost. Rather, the match was set equal to the amount of revenue that a districtwide school impact fee, set at the limits prescribed by law, would generate between the time that the project is approved for state funding and the time that construction is completed. The amount actually contributed by the school district varies according to the rate of growth of the school district relative to the number of projects funded. When CFDs are formed for school construction purposes, the school impact fee is often waived, completely or partially, to avoid "double dipping." State law permits the local match to be contributed through the levy of a Mello-Roos special tax, rather than through school impact fees, as long as the same amount of revenue is contributed. In addition, legislation enacted in 1989 (SB 1528) permits the area within CFDs to be excluded from districtwide local match calculations, if certain conditions are met. The 1986 School Facilities Act also granted higher priority on state resources to those school districts which agree to contribute SO percent of construction costs. School districts participating in the "SO/SO" program are also permitted to project enrollment increases, or ADA, over two additional years for the purpose of qualifying for state assistance. This permits larger or additional projects to be eligible for funding earlier than under the regular lease-purchase program. In addition, by participating in the SO/SO program, school districts are deemed to have met their match requirement, relieving them from the paperwork required to demonstrate fulfillment of that requirement. School districts may raise the revenues needed to participate in the SO/SO program by any means at their disposal. The formation of CFDs and the issuance of Mello-Roos special tax bonds is a popular method of raising the local share. Under certain circumstances, school districts are eligible to be reimbursed for special tax bonds issued to finance school construction prior to receiving state funds. ..-¡ --- 39 /;.-, I ~/ ~^- ..-..-.. -.--^---..--...-.-...--- ·. --, -. . -'-- "~='-'-"-'~_";'''_''_;'::';;_"'~_____-~~_____..~._c..'~.''';-'''';;';';';'''-''_~';;~__-'-'~__=--.-_--'-= __ _ - -~-~--~.-'-.-,-=--,-~- ------~,."'-... --.-. - SUMMARY Landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing permìts locaJofficials to make decisions, early in the development process, about~be mÎ'X of taxes and service levels to be provided to developing areas of their communities. However, decisions reached at this juncture are made without the barometers of public support afforded by more conventional forms of democratic expression. The political acceptance of landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing is only ensured when the improved properties within CFDs are purchased, signifying the willingness of buyers to live with predetermined levels of service and tax burdens. The decision of local officials to authorize the formation of CFDs early in the development process may be motivated by the desire to avoid the traditional problems of growth and congestion. By permitting significant amounts of capital to be raised early in the development process, landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing can help localities respond to the demands of growth while maintaining communitywide service levels. Moreover, the public costs of growth can be isolated on developing areas, avoiding the need for subsidies from existing residents. In apportioning the special tax to individual properties, local officials must balance the competing goals of tax equity and tax base stability. The objective of equity is best served when individual taxpayers pay only for the benefit that they receive from expenditures financed by the CFD. But the desire for tax base stability may lead to the adoption of security features which tend to shift the responsibility for special tax payments from undeveloped land to developed land, which may subsidize developers at the expense of homeowners. If these features result in lower borrowing costs, all taxpayers in the CFD will benefit. But these features may also result in an inequitable distribution of the special tax burden. The housing affordability advantages of Mello-Roos financing are difficult to surmise on a case-by-case basis. Under certain assumptions, Mello-Roos financing may result in lower housing prices, translating into a lower downpayment requirement for buyers. The annual savings will be influenced by the tax-exempt interest rate on the special tax bonds and the transaction costs associated with the bond sale. The strength of the housing market at the time the properties are sold will determine the distribution of the special tax burden between the developer and the buyer. Landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing also provides a pragmatic tool for. school districts to meet the service demands generated by large-scale development projects. However, the isolation of school construction costs over an area the size of a typical CFD raises equity concerns. Such an approach does not account for the benefits that society receives from an educated populace. Furthermore, the uneven distribution of CFDs throughout the state may create inequitable tax burdens and disparate levels of school construction activity from one community to the next. In summary, the planning advantages offered by MeUo-Roos financing are more compelling than other arguments often advanced. Yet, even these advantages must be weighed against the element of speculative credit risk that Mello-Roos financing introduces to the practice of local government finance. The next chapter focuses on the credit risks of Mello-Roos special tax bonds. 40 -7(/ . ... -.. -- -. -....- -..-- -- . -.--- =----....--- ::::...:....--_.;.~-~,.;.....:: -.- ---".--- -.---'.---"- CHAPTER III FOOTNOTES 1 The analysis of the public decision-making process for landowner-approved Mello- Roos bonds also applies to raw land special assessment bonds. 2 The landowner vote signifies the political acceptance of the proposed Mello-Roos financing by the landowners, but they are not the ones who will be paying the special tax over the subsequent 20 to 30 years. 3 There are a number of reasons, other than an undesirable mix of service levels and taxes, which could cause a development project to fail. These factors are discussed more fully in Chapter IV. 4 It should be noted that various demand management strategies, such as ridesharing, peak load pricing, and year-round school calendars may be implemented to help reduce congestion. 5 The coordination problem becomes more pronounced when the impact of development decisions on infrastructure programs of state and federal responsibility is taken into account. Local governments cannot exert much influence over state and federal spending highways and major water supply projects, for example. In th e area of transportation, some counties take it upon themselves to upgrade stretches of state high wa ys. 6 The notion of drawing govcrnmental boundaries around benefit regions is not unique to Mello-Roos CFDs. Most special districts are designed according to the same principle: air quality management districts encompass the terrain of air basins; drainage districts follow topographical drainage patterns and mosquito abatement districts are drawn around mosquito "vectors: to cite a few examples. Special assessment districts, while more restrictive in their permitted uses, are similar to CFDs with respect to the design of district boundaries. In all of these examples, the boundaries are drawn to isolate the cost of service on the taxpayers who benefit from the governmental activity. 7 Although voters may be reluctant to subsidize growth, many of these facilities can be constructed with revenue bonds, which don't require voter approval. Public officials must balance anti growth sentiment against complaints about service deficiencies. 8 Insofar as the special tax formulas reclassify property as "developed land" at the time the building permit is issued, the legal incidence for the developed land special tax will also fall on the developer between the time of the building permit is issued and the time the property is sold. 9 George Break, Financing Government in a Federal System, p. 207. 10 Jeffrey Perlman, "New Homeowners Stung By Special Taxes" p. BI Los Angeles Times, Orange County Edition, May 19, 1991. .---1 -7 41 I ! , ' -"..- --- -,,---,,---- _ _ ~______._'m_ _ ·--~.._.. ----"._, " -- _ __·.._.._..u..____ --. .. . .-~~:~.,... --:---~~~:::.:.-.=~_:~_;:::::;~~.._7:::_,:::::_:_~~:;.:.:::_...~: .._,~:~.:.-=-_.__::.:.,::~_;~_. .:.:._~-o.-~:...;~_~-_:_"_:_:_:~-.---"-----''- ---.::..:......---_-:::-:_--:'"::::.:.. -<-::::-:-::-:-:":":-.-_-:-~:-~~-:- ~~.,. CHAPTER IV CREDIT ANALYSIS OF MELLO-ROOS S?ECIAL TAX BONDS The real estate boom in California during the late 1980s fueled an explosive growth in the issuance of Mello-Roos special tax bonds. Local governments were able to raise large sums of capital for immediate construction needs, rather than having to wait for sufficient amounts of developer fees and other revenue to accumulate. Developers benefitted from access to tax-exempt financing and the ability to keep holding costs on undeveloped land low. Finally, investors were enticed by higher yields and the knowledge that the special tax bonds were secured by valuable California real estate. Enthusiasm for Mello-Roos special tax bonds has been tempered, however, by the downturn in the real estate industry which began in late 1989. Economic indicators reflecting the industry's health have been decidedly down for the past 18 months: housing starts, construction industry employment, new home sales, sales of existing homes, and the average prices have stagnated throughout most of California. As inventories of developed properties have risen, the basic assumptions upon which individual Mello-Roos issues were structured are being called into question. The demand for many of these projects has not materialized as expected and the security features of the bonds are being tested. Investors are concerned about the possibility of foreclosure and are scrutinizing land values more closely. Yields for unrated special tax bonds are above pre-1990 levels. This chapter explores the credit risks associated with Mello-Roos special tax bo!!ds. The credit analysis distinguishes between Mello-Roos special tax bonds iss", ,; in undeveloped areas and Mello-Roos special tax bonds issued in developed at: Because landowners may authorize bonds that are not issued until a CFD is a: . ~t partially developed, the di$tinction between landowner and registered voter ap;·, 0val is not as important in this discussion. Rather, the characteristics of the tax base at the time the bonds are issued provides a better point of demarcation. This chapter also presents data on Mello-Roos bond yields over the past eight years, which reflects the financial market's perception of the risks associated with the special tax bonds. The chapter concludes by discussing the implications of Mello-Roos special tax bond financing for local debt management practices. 42 -/6 .. " . --- ''''--''-''''''-~:~-'-'C;;=-'-õ~"..- ._-. --'::'... ---- . ---~--_. ~---- . ~~-~-- ,,-..-,---...-------.---- .. ._._ ._.,.-______.--,:.c..'_.';'__ _ ._---'..-+.c--'......--._-'___ ___~_... _< _._.__._. _.p __.,"J_ ".._~.., _.... .._ .__"___ CREDIT ANALYSIS OF MELLO-ROOS SPECIAL TAX BONDS ISSUED IN UNDEVELOPED AREAS Special tax bonds issued in undevelope'd areas are, by definition, landowner- approved. Whatever the planning benefits afforded by these financings, deciding questions of public indebtedness in this manner introduces an element of speculative credit risk to the debt management practices of local governments. Unlike conventional voter approval requirements, the landowner vote is not a referendum on the community's ability and willingness to support capital expenditures or to payoff any debt incurred. At the time the special tax bonds are sold, there is no community to pledge its support; only uninhabited property in some stage of development. As a practical matter, the landowner vote can be considered as a procedural mechanism through which local governments extend tax-exempt borrowing authority to developers. The expression of community support comes from the sum total of individual decisions to purchase the improved parcels and assume responsibility for the special tax liens on the property. It follows that the credit risk inherent in landowner-approved Mello-Roos special tax bonds stems from the divergent dynamics of real estate development and municipal finance. The process of developing real estate is fraught with uncertainties which can affect the timing of construction and the ultimate success or failure of individual projects. The real estate development industry itself is highly cyclical, sensitive to changing employment levels and interest rates. In addition to economic factors, development projects are subject to substantial governmental regulation and often must contend with a highly charged political atmosphere. The municipal finance industry, by contrast, operates in an environment that is very specific with respect to time. For instance, the special taxes which provide the security for bond issuances are payable on certain dates each year. Debt service payments are scheduled at the time of issuance for the term of the bonds--which may be 20 years or more. Consequently, much of the activity surrounding a Mello-Roos bond transaction focuses on aligning the divergent dynamics of real estate and municipal finance to the greatest extent possible. The credit risk of landowner-approved Mello-Roos bonds is greatest during the initial stages of development, when the special tax base is concentrated and the value of land is low relative to its expected value at build-out. At the early stage~ of development, property ownership may be concentrated in one or a handful of developers. Credit quality will improve as properties are developed and sold, thereby diversifying the tax base and improving the value of properties relative to the amount of debt outstanding on the properties. The fOllowing sections discuss the various components of credit risk in more detail. The sections are arranged in chronological order, corresponding to when the risks are likely to occur in the development process. 43 -71 .__..._.""-_._----~_.... -~ - -- .,-- -- - "-- ,_. .-_-c- -- - .".._-.....~."~, -..- ..-.~'_"'._. ,..- C._ ...___ u'___ "'<;'-'''-..-_.':;'.,.':'..,,",,,-._ J ,~,-."..._.._.~_ .,,'__,,~'.__ ." ,___._ ..--,.,---_...-...., ~-, --.-. ReEulatory Risk Land Use Entitlements. It is not uncommon for Mello-Roos special tax bonds to be issued before all necessary land use entitlements are granted, though some local agencies require such approval as a precondition of issuance. Certainly, a city or county would not approve the formation o( a CFD and the issuance of bonds if it did not plan on granting the necessary land use entitlements. But new information or shifting pOlitical winds can cause the legislative body to alter the density or type of development, or even cause the abandonment of the project. If bonds have already been issued and subsequent regulatory decisions reduce the amount of special tax revenue generated by the project, debt service payments may be threatened. Moreover, Mello-Roos bonds can be issued by school districts and special districts who have no control over land use regulatory decisions. The right to develop is considered vested when it cannot be revoked by either the local government or the electorate. Historically in California, the courts have favored local governments over developers in disputes over vested development rights. The basic test applied by the courts is that the right to develop has been vested if a property owner obtains a valid building permit and performs substantial work, thereby incurring substantial financial liability in good faith reliance on the permit. (Avco Community Developers, Inc. v. South Coast Regional Commission, I7 Cal. 3d. 1976) In the course of developing real estate, developers frequently incur substantial costs prior to receiving a vested right to develop according to the legal test outlined above. To address the financial risks accompanying such expenditures, the Legislature enacted the Development Agreement Law in 1979, which permits cities and counties to extend vested development rights through formal agreements with developers carlyon in the development process. A development agreement is an entirely voluntary legislative act which exempts the development project from future changes in land use regulations, such as amendments to general and specific plans, changes in zoning or subdivision ordinances, or new building regulations. As an outcome of the negotiations, the developer may agree to dedicate land or contribute funds beyond what would otherwise be required by law. While development agreements substantially reduce the regulatory risks associated with Mello-Roos bonds, the legality of development agreements has not been fully tested in court. There is some concern that the courts could rule development agreements to be unenforceable in that they deprive future legislative bodies of the right to exercise their police powers. In 1984, the Legislature enacted an alternative method for obtaining vested development rights by amending the state Subdivision Map Act to permit developers to process vesting tentative subdivision maps. (As mentioned in Chapter I, the subdivision of land for the purposes of development and sale must comply with local subdivision ordinances enacted pursuant to the state Subdivision Map Act). Approval of a vesting tentative subdivision map confers the vested right to develop in compliance with the ordinances, policies and standards in effect at the time the map is recorded. The vested right to develop terminates if the final subdivision map is not recorded prior to the expiration of the vesting tentative map. Once the fmal map is recorded, the developer has either one or two years, depending on local ordinance, to apply for a building permit. 44 'DC) -_._.._~ - .._.~-. ----'---~~-'--~...__.. - -----. --- ~"^ _ _. _______ ____ __ __. _____._______m_ __._._,_."' ,~.~~.~____.~ ,_...w.__'~~~".~· ....- _..- ----._~---~_._,.;_..---~- _'-"""..---"_...--o'.,~_ _c.,,"_.~.__--,.___, .______,__ ._._ m___..__.._ ,____."__,._ --'-~_....'-'"~"__'___~~ ___ __._,_-. _ Growth Control Initiatives. Development projects can also be derailed by voter-approved growth control initiatives, which have been enacted by a numbcr of communities throughout the state. The exact nature of these controls vary. Common approaches include limiting the annual number of building permits issued, limiting annual population growth, and linking development to the availability of certain types of infrastructure. Likewise, the effcct of growth control measures on individual development varies depending on the nature of the growth control measure and whether or not a vested right to develop had been granted prior to the enactment of the initiative. The effect on individual projects can range from outright prohibition to a deceleration of the pace of development Three years ago, state legislation was enacted to protect bondholders from the impacts of growth control initiatives. The law provides that if a local agency finds that a growth control initiative is likely to lead to a bond default, the development project should be permitted to proceed, the growth control initiative notwithstanding. The statute has not been tested in court. Building Moratoria. Earlier this year, localities throughout the state considered imposing building moratoria in response to severe drought conditions. At the time, water supplies were not adequate to meet existing demand, much less to serve the needs of new development. The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, in fact, suspended water deliveries to construction sites for 60 days, causing a temporary halt to construction activity. Unanticipated delays in construction disrupt the efforts at matching debt service schedules to the timeline for the construction and sale of properties. Such delays, if continued indefinitely, could cause developers to become financially overextended. Though the March rains provided a respite from the most recent crisis, the availability of a secure water supply is clearly a variable to factor into the Mello-Roos equation. CEQA Considerations. At some point prior to construction, a development project of any consequence will be required to determine whether the project will pose a significant impact on the surrounding environment. Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), local agencies and developers must mitigate any impacts which are of a significant nature, unless the project will provide overriding public benefits which outweigh the impacts. The process of environmental review and mitigation can be lengthy and this time period does not take into account the many legal chalIenges which can occur under CEQA and forestalI development indefinitely. For example, endangered species may be found within the boundaries of the CFD, potentially jeopardizing the development of certain lands. Consequently, tbe timing associated with issuing MelIo-Roos bonds must be sensitive to potential delays which may come about as part of the CEQA review process. Construction Risk Once all land use entitlements have been obtained, the developer must successfulIy manage construction activity. In some cases, problems with subcontractors. suppliers, labor, inclement weather, or natural disaster can lead to temporary delays in construction. Any such delays can impair the developer's cash flow position and threaten special tax payments. ;?_. 45 i I ~.....' ..._."_....---_.,_..-..".._-------..--~-~--"- ·~~.- ------ ,~--< ,-------- '-,0- .;~;;'"_~_ __ ___..~ ._______ .... . _... .-...-". Moreover, construction activity can uncover problems with faulty soil conditions, hazardous waste and other impediments to orderly development. Such delays, while not necessarily regulatory in nature, have the same consequences for the timely payment of debt service as those outlined in the previous section. Market Absorption Risk The term market absorption refers to the rate at which properties are developed and sold. Estimates of the rate of market absorption are instrumental in structuring Mello-Roos special tax bond offerings and special tax apportionment formulas. The local government or developer typically commissions a market absorption study to determine a reasonable build-out schedule for the project. The build-out schedule, in turn, allows the appraiser to estimate the discounted cash- flow value of the land, which is instrumental in sizing bond issues and developing special tax apportionment formulas. The market absorption study breaks down the project into its residential, commercial, and industrial components and estimates . the demand for each type of land use. The projections of demand are derived from forecasts of employment and real estate activity in the general region of the proposed project. The market absorption study will help define the potential success of projects using Mello-Roos financing. For instance, the size and diversity of an area's employment base can be used to determine the demand for real estate, especially for housing. Likewise, the prevailing wage rates in a region will serve as a reasonable basis for determining the marketability of housing units priced at various levels. Finally, the rate of market absorption will be influenced by the level of competition posed by existing inventory or planned development which is similar to the project financed by Mello-Roos bonds. Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to precisely forecast business activity for a cyclical industry such as real estate development. In the course of preparing this study we did not systematically review the veracity of the absorption studies pr~··, ~ed for Mello-Roos bond issuances to oate. Yet of the handful of studies we w,d review, none anticipated the current downturn in real estate activity. Even if absorption studies could accurately predict regional economic activity, however, individual projects can defy broad trends. The rate of absorption may instead depend on intangible factors such as the ability to produce a quality project that correctly targets a market niche or on the location of a given project within a region. As a result, good projects can succeed in slow markets. Conversely, poorly designed projects can falter even in robust markets. Thus, it is important that absorption studies be just one means of evaluating the potential risk associated with individual Mello-Roos projects. DeYeloper Bankruptcy Risk Whatever the r=ason for slower-than-expected absorption, debt service payments must be met. The largest development companies in the state most likely have more than sufficient resources to continue uninterrupted debt service payments through a downturn in real estate activity. But other developers, ,'-: rj 46 '"' < ,', . _.-! .:j '-" -'- .. .- ---~ ,,' ---- c:..,___,"-_.., -- --.-------- .---..-.-- - particularly those who are highly leveraged, may not be able to bear the load. In the event of a shortfall of revenue from undeveloped property, Mello-Roos special tax formulas typically turn to the owners of developed property to pay a backup special tax, up to the amount of the maximum tax rate. After properties are taxed at their maximum rates, the reserve fund can be dra.wn down, which might cover one to two year's of debt service payments, depending on the level of the reserve and the amount of delinquencies. A bank letter of credit may provide additional security. But if necessary, the courts, upon request of the issuer, will foreclose on the special tax liens to cover delinquent special tax payments. The fact that the property itself provides the ultimate security for Mello-Roos bonds is the reason that a great deal of scrutiny is given to the value of the property relative to the amount of debt outstanding on the property (the value-to-debt ratio) during the structuring of a Mello-Roos offering. CREDIT ANALYSIS OF MELLO-ROOS SPECIAL TAX BONDS ISSUED IN DEVELOPED AREAS All of the credit factors listed in the analysis of Mello-Roos special tax bonds issued in undeveloped areas relate to the dynamics of the real estate development process. If the area is already developed, none of those factors apply. As long as the CFD includes enough territory to provide for a diversified tax base, Mello-Roos special tax bonds issued in developed areas can be quite strong credits. If development is only partially complete, some of the credit risks which apply to undeveloped special tax bonds may still be relevant. Generally, a bond issuance cannot receive a credit rating until property ownership becomes diversified and the value-to-debt ratios improve to the range of 8:1 to 12:1. The key security feature of special tax bonds issued in developed areas is the ability to provide greater than 1.0 debt service coverage. The cushion between the rate at which the special tax is levied and the maximum rate might provide enough debt service coverage for all but the most pessimistic scenarios of future taxpayer delinquencies. In that sense, the credit quality of a special tax bond is similar to that of a general obligation bond, though the special tax bond would still be of the limited tax obligation variety. Moreover, special tax bonds issued in developed areas can provide for an equitable distribution of the tax burden. When the property in the CFD is substantially developed, there is obviously less shifting of the tax burden between developed and undeveloped property. The special tax may be more closely apportioned on the basis of benefit received. Depending on the nature of the expenditures being financed and the size of the CFD, the resulting tax burden may be more equitably distributed under a special tax bond than under a general obligation bond. The tax burden under the general obligation bond financing will be distributed according to the acquisition-based assessment practices imposed by Proposition 13. The distribution of the tax burden on this basis invariably bears no reasonable relationship to the benefits conferred by the expenditure being financed, nor does it measure the taxpayer's ability-to-pay. 47 f~3 -' .. -------. -- -~.._---_._".._"._-,--"-",,._- -.--- .... -.- --'"-~-.- -...-- ---- -.--- -.-------- --.---- ,-'.. .. ..c...._,,__._ .:,..~-;..:.::~;~_,.__'.-.._ . ,_.'..... .'._ Moody's Investors Service, in issuing an A rating to a S17.6 million special tax bond issuance of the Elk Grove Unified School District in 1990, offered the fOllowing analysis: The substantial level of existing development within the district and the extent to which the special tax levied on ·that development can already provide adequate coverage of peak debt service are critical factors underlying the upper medium grade rating. The district contains an unusually large number of existing taxpayers for a Mello-Roos district and continues to experience significant population and tax base growth. 1 The Elk Grove Unified School District CFD demonstrates some of the advantages of Mello-Roos financing for developed areas. Of course, the Elk Grove Unified School District is the exception to the rule given that they received two- thirds voter approval in a developed area. In most cases, the two-thirds voter approval requirement limits the feasibility of special tax bond financing. FACTORS INFLUENCING MELLO-ROOS BOND YIELDS As with any investment, the price that investors are willing to pay for Mello-Roos special tax bonds reflects their perception of the degree of risk associated with the revenue stream supporting the debt service. A stream of payments dependent upon the uncertain prospects of real estate development will naturally carry more risk than a stream of payments derived from the tax base of an established community. Because many of the credit risks discussed above are not easily quantifiable or known in advance (even to real estate professionals), investors tend to focus on the following factors: Value-to-Debt Ratios. As mentioned above, ultimate security for Mello-Roos special tax bonds is the value of the land itself including improvements. A rule of thumb among investors is that the value of land, plus improvements being financed, should be at least three times as much as the value of all outstanding indebtedness on the property. According to a recent report issued by Standard & Poor's Corporation: In the current contraction, land-backed bonds that are heavily dependent on future development for payment of debt service are seriously exposed. The earliest and deepest declines in land value generally occur on undeveloped land, since it is most directly affected by any slowdown in development.2 In order to receive an investment grade credit rating, the rating agencies generally require value-to-debt ratios of at least 8:1, as well as partial build-out and multiple property owners. While a 3:1 value-to-debt ratio will not be sufficient to secure a credit rating, it does provide some assurance that foreclosure proceedings would produce enough revenue to pay investors, even if land values decline. As the project develops, the opportunity may emerge for the issuer to refund the issue at a ,.- 48 0.1 -_,_.__'-''''',.,_._.-...._.--o-r-.__ , ~--"__,.._"".._,~.-=.,...~. ,;..,;"._c.-_ ,..>c.. .....;.....,_____.__.._ "-.,,=~__-... .-..-,--- .-' ...._.__ _____-.,,-..._.. ',,-,-u _ ",.._ .__ _.. ~.-'~.'~=',",~~-" sa vings. At that point, jt may be possible to secure an investment grade credit > ra ting. Because most Mello-Roos bonds are not rated, the value-to-debt ratio often serves as a proxy for a credit rating. The m';lnicipal bond market will generally require a minimum value-to-debt ratio of 3:1. Up until recently, value-to-debt ratios of 5:1 were generally trading in the BBB investment grade range or better. Credit Enhancements. One way to improve the security and marketability of Mello-Roos bonds is to purchase a credit enhancement in the form of a bank letter of credit (LOC) or bond insurance. As with other types of securities, issuers mu,' weigh the added costs of purchasing the credit enhancement against the savings resulting from a higher credit rating. A report issued last year noted that issuers have faced difficulties in securing credit enhancements for nonrated bonds.s Even in cases where credit enhancement was an option for landowner-approved Mello-Roos special tax bonds, it did not reduce borrowing costs. At the time, LOC fees were ranging from ISO to 300 basis points annually, depending on the security of the issue. The yield between an AAA rated credit enhanced bond issue and an unrated issue ranged between SO and 100 basis points. Consequently, the use of credit enhancements did not make sense from a financial perspective. However, because yields on unrated issues ha··e risen in the past 18 months, as illustrated later in this chapter, credit enhancements for Mello-Roos issues may be more financially attractive in today's market. úne additional means of providing credit security is to require the developer to post a standby letter-of-credit. The standby letter-of-credit covers the developer's share of the special tax, rather than the entire special tax base. This provides investors with assurance that principal and interest will be paid during the development phase, particularly during the initial stages when the risk of nonpayment is the highest. Special Tax Coverage. As mentioned in Chapter III, Mello-Roos special taxes can be set to provide greater than 1.0 debt service coverage. Investors prefer to see that the maximum tax rate can produce revenues above the level needed to service the bonds. The final chapter of this report provides guidelines on incorporating debt service coverage into the special tax apportionment formulas. Reserve Funds. Given the uncertainty involved in real estate development, there is a greater chance that there will be a draw on the reserve fund of Mello- Roos special tax bonds than for most other types of municipal obligations. Accordingly, such bond reserve funds are a standard way of protecting investors against possible interruption of debt service payments. Again, the final chapter provides guidelines on establishing bond reserve funds for Mello-Roos special tax bonds. .~^ ..---'. 49 r<.":' ---' .-/ -'''--"'~-._._-----..- -.. ~--- -- -"----;.... --- - ----"'.- .",_._"",.~, "~~__ u,_-,~·.___.._" ...,......_ _.~_,."~_ ,'._ __,__~,_,N -_._-~~--. -',,-,'-', ._-- Developer's Reputation. Insofar as development quality and the financial resources of the developer are major sources of credit risk, investors look closely at the reputation of the development company involved in the Mello-Roos special tax bond transaction. Investors are likely to feel more comfortable with a developer with a proven track record for bringing quality projects on line according to schedule. The quality of the development is important because it helps to ensure high absorption and low vacancy rates. And the reputation of the development company is probably the best standard for predicting the quality of the ultimate development. ANAL YSIS OF MELLO-ROOS BOND YIELDS Chart 7 on the fOllowing page tracks the yields of 212 of the 255 Mello- Roos bonds issued between 1983 and June of 1991. As mentioned above, the yields reflect the market's perception of the risk associated with individual bond issues. Because investors require compensation for risk, they naturally require higher yields for riskier investments. Chart 7 deserves further explanation. The individual data points on the chart mark the interest rate at which Mello-Roos special tax bonds originally traded. The line on the chart is an index of 10 commonly traded revenue bonds, representing the interest rate at which the revenue bonds were available on the secondary market at the time of the Mello-Roos bond issuances. (The comparison is made between the interest rates for the original issuance of the Mello-Roos bonds and secondary market offerings for the revenue bonds.) The bars on the chart represent the interest rate spread (at a given point in time) between original Mello-Roos special tax bonds and bonds included in the revenue bond index. Relatively few Mello-Roos special tax bonds were issued during the first few years of the Act and the interest rate spread exhibited no clear pattern, reflecting an uncertain market response to the introduction of a new product. Beginning in 1988, the interest rate spread stabilized, averaging roughly a 40 basis points difference over an IS-month period. The warm reception which greeted new Mello-Roos special tax bond issuances at that time paralleled the state's real estate boom. As the real estate market began to sour in the second half of 1990, the spread began to rise. During the first half of 1991, many new Mello-Roos special tax bond issuances were trading at 100 to 200 basis points above the revenue bond index. LOCAL DEBT MANAGEMENT CONSIDER A TIONS On the surface, local governments would appear to have little to lose from authorizing the formation of Mello-Roos districts and approving the sale of bonds. Mello-Roos financing allows public facilities in developing areas to be installed quickly and limits the financial liability for the bonds to landowners. The fact that Mello-Roos bonds carry an element of risk is not a problem, per se, as long as investors are aware of the risk and are compensated accordingly. In that respect, ~Tl 50 Ô(Ç -,~..-- ----~--- .............;..;.;,;;;~·~_...,;;.;.,~~·.."'c .~-- --~--~_.,...;..,,;...-- ~ - -.---'~.-'~._.-> - -.----.."..-----".--...--...,---'>-...;;.." , I I, I : i' z 1 , 0 10 I I 10 10' : , C/') , .' 0 I , C\I ... .... 0 0 I .: " - - ... I, I. a: r/Z . . 0) I· -.' . , .A" . 0) I. ~ "C . . . , ... I c.: œ '. .~ ~ . Q t. cø ,'" I' CD I~ c% .. .. g ,g I. 0 ! .~ 0) I· I Ü I ... I' II ~ :: ~ ~ 0) II Z 1;11 ~ ~ , _ ..-d'" II) I , Ü ,II) , , . I _ ....!t a: .~ CD '. . ex) z ¡ I: Il. I"" ~ ~ I ir--W . ----J ~ ! ~~ - ~ I ' rY....J -J t-. t'CS ~ ! .:: C/') . ----I "" ! ::: ... ex)~ CD I IU~ ... ~- ~ - I I . ~ I i > I co ~ 1 , ;::a. ex) , I, W - 't:I I' I ...., )( CD! I' .' ... CD -' ! Z I " 't:I cø Ii ; I I c:"- :. I' _ I . " - 0 I , C/') ...J>I .) - 10 't:I C. I' Ø"" --- "- ,I _ I . .- ex) c: 0' II, 0 Q I >r' I 0) ~ () I I _ I... c: , . 0 CO. "" CD - '! ¡ a: . ::J "- I I a: c: CD I _ ~ CD ~ i I' I fI) ex) ~ ~ I O ~ 0) a: 3: Q ... I CD I ..J Ë (I) ~ ..J I ex) ~ W (I) C\I ... 0 '0) ex) t-. 0) ... ... ... ... ... CD I ~ J 51 ·'7 À I ',..,.i f ,---,,-- --. ----'------_._------~.. -., , .~,....-.~, ---.> C _.~ ._..,._...., . ~"-~_.._' Mello-Roos bonds are similar to other higher risk municipal securities, such as multifamily housing bonds or industrial development bonds. Unlike multifamily housing bonds and industrial development bonds, however, Mello-Roos special tax bonds represent tax-supported debt, rather than private obligations. Even though local governments bear no direct financial responsibility for Mello-Roos special tax debt, they are responsible for managing the levels of tax-supported debt within their boundaries, including the debt issued by CFDs. The debt capacity of developing areas--or established areas, for that mattera-is a finite resource. Municipal debt is, after all, serviced by tax revenues which are in turn paid from the incomes of taxpayers. At some point, the debt burden can reach excessive levels and taxpayers become unwilling or unable to pay. In the lexicon of the rating agencies, Mello-Roos special tax bonds are considered overlapping debt, because the debt issued by CFDs must necessarily overlap that issued by other local agencies. To the extent that an issuer's overlapping debt burden is viewed to be excessive, a downgrade could ensue--which would increase the costs of all future issuances, not just Mello-Roos special tax bonds. Even in the absence of a downgrade, prohibitive levels of overlapping debt could limit the issuer's flexibility in meeting future capital outlay needs. This loss of flexibility makes it important for each Mello-Roos special tax bond issuance to be weighed in the context of a jurisdiction's total infrastructure requirements. Of course, the fact that a jurisdiction prudently evaluates its future capital needs as part of a long-range planning effort does not guarantee that the planning and taxing decisions of overlapping agencies will be coordinated. The need to evaluate Mello-Roos special taxes in a broader context and to coordinate planning and taxation decisions of jurisdictions with overlapping boundaries is discussed more fully in Chapter V. Finally, the negative publicity surrounding default argues for maintaining strict issuance and underwriting standards for individual Mello-Roos bond issuances, apart from concerns over overlapping debt levels. For all of these reasons, local governments need to exercise caution in approving Mello-Roos debt. The final chapter of this report provides guidelines for keeping Mello-Roos debt within reasonable ievels and evaluating the credit quality of individual proposals. SUMMARY Landowner-approved Mello-Roos special tax bonds carry more risk than most municipal securities. The nature of the risk stems from the coupling of the uncertainties of the real estate development process with the strict financial requirements of municipal securities. The higher degree of risk is not itself problematic, as long as investors are compensat~:: through higher yields. Rather, the attention of local governments should focus on keeping the levels of tax- supported debt within their boundaries to reasonable levels and evaluating Mello- Roos special tax bond issuance within a broader planning context, issues which are discussed more fully in Chapter V. In addition, local governments have an interest in ensuring the credit quality of individual Mello-Roos special tax bond issuances because of the negative publicity that would surround a default and the impact such publicity would have on their future debt issuances. 52 é'"6- _._.."-.~ - ."~~' -""-""~' '~'-"'''-''~'-'' ---~.-.. -------.. - -'~--~' CHAPTER IV FOOTNOTES I Moody's Investors Service, Elk Grove Unificd School District Community Facilities District No. I, California, Moody's Muncipal Credit Report, November 29, 1990. 2 Standard & Poor's Corp., "Shakeout in Development District's Bonds," Credit Week, January 14, 1991, p. 39. 3 Paine Webber Inc., The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act Handbook: A Guide to Issuers and Developers. 1990, p. 57. ~ ,- 53 r "'7 ! -.---_..---~-----~,-----_.._- - -'^ . -"'._~... ~.'."-- ~----,~-- " ....- .0.. -_.,- .._--- '--'~--~-" -".. ..~" '-.- . --,- CHAPTER V GUIDELINES FOR MELLO-ROOS FINANCING The trend towards local responsibility for infrastructure finance in developing areas is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. Persistent budget deficits will inhibit new funding initiatives from the federal government, despite widespread concern over the condition of the nation's infrastructure. At the state level, concern is growing over the amount of state general obligation bonds authorized in recent years. As a result, the state Department of Finance's 1991 Capital Outlay and Infrastructure Report calls for the complete disengagement of state government from school facility finance in conjunction with a constitutional amendment permitting simple majority approval for local general obligation bonds. The Legislature is also considering bills which would place on the ballot the question of majority voter approval for both local general obligation and Mello- Roos special tax bonds. In addition to governmental factors, developers are facing a credit crunch as private lenders withdraw from development loans. All of these factors point towards a continuing demand for Mello-Roos financing. The use of Mello-Roos financing, however, should be guided by sound planning and project evaluation guidelines that go beyond the minimum requirements of state law. Accordingly, this report concludes by suggesting guidelines for local governments to consider as a framework for developing policies on the use of Mello-Roos financing. The plan Dine guidelines apply to cities 3 '1d counties and focus on the need to integrate decisions concerning the use of -Iello-Roos financing into the land use regulatory framework. The project evaluatioD guidelines apply to all issuers and focus on (I) minimizing credit risk, and (2) maintaining reasonable and equitable tax burdens. The policy objectives of these guidelines are briefly described below. Integrating Mello-Roos Financing Into the Land Use Regulatory Framework. From a planning perspective, Mello-Roos financing is attractive in that it can be used to a void two common pitfalls of the development process: the unintended congestion of existing facilities and the necessity for subsidies from existing residents. Because of the landowner vote, Mello-Roos financing allows pUblic facilities to be installed concurrently with development. The flexibility permitted in the design of CFD boundaries allows the public costs of development to be isolated on the developing area. And the tax-exempt interest rate may permit facilities to be constructed more cheaply than if the developer had arranged private financing. However, the planning advantages cited above apply to individual local government units addressing the infrastructure demands of growth. Mello-Roos financing also exposes an organizational weakness in the collective response of local ,- 54 I() __.._ ._ .._.'~-;::..._.. - _""__"·_"__~__"'''''O_.~__ ._~_"~.JA."_ --'-~-,- .., - '-'.--~"<~...--~,~..~,"-,-, ....=~~..-. '--"'--""-~"-"-"-~'--'<'-~"~.-. .' '-- ~_. ....-..-.-.-'--.- '". .._---_.~-----.._~.----.. -~_.- -._-~'~' ~~- governments serving developing areas; namely that there is often no coordination of the financial decisions of different local governments supported by the samc group of taxpa yers. In the absence of coordinated planning, taxpayers are vulnerable to onerous overlapping tax burdens. This is especially problematic givcn the ease with which CFDs can be formed. De.veloping areas are typically served by the city or county government, one or more school districts, and often one or more special districts. Each of these local government units has the authority to approve the formation of CFDs and to levy special taxes on the same group of taxpayers. Though each special tax may be imposed in good faith and dedicated to worthwhile projects, the cumulative burden of the special taxes might prove excessive to the taxpayers. And though the burden of overlapping tax rates may eventually exceed the taxpayers' ability to pay, the immediate risk is probably more political than financial in nature. Angry taxpayers might lash out in some unpredictable way that could further restrict the flexibility of local officials in managing their financial affairs. An appealing response to the problem of overlapping tax rates is the imposition of voluntary or mandatory limitations on the total amount of taxcs-- including Mello-Roos special taxes-which may be levied on developing areas. In fact, we recommend in the project evaluation guidelines to follow that the total tax burden in developing areas not exceed two percent of the appraised fair market value of the property upon completion of all public and private improvements. It should be recognized, however, that such limitations can produce an unhealthy competition between local governments for available debt capacity, as each local government may be tempted to grab some of the debt capacity while it is still available. Cities and counties, who control the land use entitlement process, will have a leg up in this competition. The danger is that available debt capacity will be squandered on lower priority facilities which can be phased-in later, leaving the developing area without the resources to address immediate needs. In certain respects, the problem of overlapping tax rates in developing areas is analogous to the pre-Proposition 13 system of property taxation discussed in Chapter I, in which each local government levied its own property tax rate. When Proposition 13 limited the countywide rate to one percent in 1978, a mechanism was needed to allocate the new, lower rate among the local government units which previously had set their own rates. The Legislature addressed this issue by enacting clean-up legislation (SB 154 in 1978 and AB 8 in 1979) to allocate the one percent countywide rate according to the proportionate share of total property tax revenues collected by each local government in the three years prior to Proposition 13. Since that time, the AB 8 property tax allocation formula has been a source of irritation to many local governments that feel wronged by an arbitrary formula that does not account for programmatic responsibilities. To the extent that local governments vOluntarily limit the tax burden in developing areas today, they do so without a formula for allocating the limited debt or tax capacity among the local governments in the service area. The absence of such a formula is desirable from a planning perspective, in that the facility and service needs for development projects wiII vary on a case-by-case basis. For example, some development projects might require that an expensive drainage problem be corrected before development can proceed. In other cases, school overcrowding might be the major impediment to development. In stilI other cases, the local government may have redevelopment funds or other revenue Sources that ~ I 55 /1 -""--...._._-_.~_._-_. ". _.~-"'-..,-"---- ,--~- .- '''-'> ~.".--._'.'- ,..~,..~-",'._--..~,--'. ---_.-, can be dedicated to economic development purposes or other policy objectives deemed to be in the community's interest. Even in cases where Mello~Roos special tax bond financing appears to be the appropriate option, specific proposals might not withstand the scrutiny of the project evaluation criteria adopted by the local government. Because of the disparate fiscal impacts of individual development projects, there is really no reasonable basis for making a determination ahead of time as to how available debt capacity should be allocated among local governments. However, the debt capacity is finite and should be viewed as a shared resource by all of the local governments serving the development area. Consequently, the process of balancing the funding requirements of all governmental entities should be an important part of land use approval decisions. To the extent that land use decisions are made without appreciation of the comprehensive fiscal impacts, the developing areas may have to live with (I) excessive overlapping tax burdens or (2) inadequate service levels. The planning guidelines to follow suggest specific policies for integrating Mello-Roos financing decisions into the land use regulatory framework. Minimizing Credit Risk. A key objective of the project evaluation guidelines is to minimize the credit risks associated with Mello-Roos special tax bonds. As discussed in Chapter IV, Mello-Roos special tax bond financing, along with other land-backed securities, introduces an element of speculative credit risk to the practice of local government finance. If construction and sales do not proceed as planned, the landowner may face difficulties in meeting scheduled debt service payments. The landowner vote, while desirable from a concurrency or timing perspective, does not offer the security of a conventional vote. It is not an expression of the community's ability and willingness to payoff the debt. As a practical matter, the landowner vote can be considered as a procedural mechanism by which local governments extend tax-exempt borrowing authority to developers. The expression of community support does not occur until people purchase the ::1:veloped parcels and assume responsibility for the tax liens on the property. Local governments need to be concerned about the credit quality of bonds issued by CFDs within their boundaries. Though financial liability for the bonds is hmited to landowners, the negative publicity surrounding a default could affect the price that investors would be willing to pay for future bond issuances of the local government, as well as the prices at which its outstanding debt obligations , tr"de on the secondary market. Maintli.'>"'g Reasonable and Equilable Tax Burdens. The objective of maintaining rca¡onable tax burdens in CFDs is best advanced by integrating financing decisions into the land use regulatory process, as described above. In acd ition, individual proposals for Mello-Roos financing will need to be evaluated to determine the tax burden that would result to residents of the CFD. The project evaluation guidelines provide objective criteria for making this determination. Another important objective of the project evaluation guidelines is to promote an equitable distribution of the tax burden within CFDs. The project ev:¡juation guidelines provide specific recommendations for devcloping equitable . sp:cial tax apportionment formulas, while recognizing the need for flexibility under certain conditions. 56 :.A"') 7C7'--.. -..---.----,.. -- ....--..-..--------- ""- -.' - - --'-"-"._--- __..'.c_~" .. ~..._. -"'-',- PLANNING GUIDELINES All development--residential, commercial and industrial--creates a burden on the community infrastructure. All development proposals must navigate a myriad of government regulations which are intended to minimize the adverse environmental impacts of development and to advance a variety of public pOlicy objectives. Our concerns are limited to the interaction between the land use entitlement process and public finance. The guidelines below suggest that decisions concerning Mello-Roos special tax bond financing should be guided by the notion that the available debt capacity is a shared resource among the local governments serving developing areas. Establish FiDaDclnE Policies in the GeDeral Plan Cities and counties should establish comprehensive financing policies in their general plans to mitigate the service level impacts of growth, including the impact on schools. The general plan of the city or county should outline the community's approach towards the financing of infrastructure for existing areas and new development. In most cases, the benefit principle will serve as the operative model: existing residents will pay for infrastructure that benefits existing areas, and new residents will pay for the infrastructure required in developing areas. The entire community will pay for infrastructure that benefits the entire community. Within these broad categories, costs can be further allocated in proportion to the service demand generated by different land uses. The financing pOlicies should also establish that it is the intention of the city or county to mitigate the service impacts of development: development approval will be subject to adequate service capacity. The most difficult aspect to the implementation of such a mitigation policy, however, is defining the scope of a community's service capacity. Should the general plan of the city or county address the service capacities of the other local government units serving development projects, most significantly school districts? In our view, a comprehensive policy toward mitigating the service impacts of growth is the best way to foster cooperation in allocating available debt capacity. Establishing a comprehensive policy legitimizes the funding requirements of all governmental units serving the development project. While the public costs of individual development projects will vary on a case-by-case basis, there is a greater chance of allocating available debt capacity on a priority basis if the total costs are recognized early in the land use entitlement process. Conversely, it becomes unlikely that available debt capacity will be allocated on a priority basis when local financial planners ignore substantial capital expenditure requirements because they are the responsibility of other agencies. In addition, the Mira and Hart decisions offer a compelling case for addressing school capacity issues in the general plan. As a result of these decisions, cities and counties that continue to maintain that the 1986 School Facilities Act preempts their authority to address school capacity issues in their planning documents are vulnerable to legal challenge. By establishing the policy ,-~ 57 ~Î3 -.--------.----.----..--..-------- ... -, ----.- - -. --c----=--_c---~..,==_____=_-- "--·-.-_--;0..-,-0;·- -- _-,co-- -. ._--_._~ ,~ .---..-.......--.:--;.-......- -";-, -......"..'-- that development approval is subject to adequate school capacity, cities and counties are forced to recognize the full fiscal impact of their land use decisions. Identify Service Standards In the General Plan Cities and counties should include level of service (LOS) standards in their general plans for individual program areas. After establishing the policies outlined above, the next step is to adopt level of service (LOS) standards for the individual program areas, as discussed in Chapter III. LOS standards permit local planners to estimate the service impact of development projects and to demonstrate that any fees or exactions imposed meet the nexus requirements specified in AB 1600. The operative standards for school facilities should be the cost and area standards promulgated by tne State Allocation Board (SA B). Before the city or county adopts a policy of mitigating the school capacity impacts of growth, the school district itself should adopt a facility master plan consistent with the local general plan and the SAB facility standards. A mutual agreement on the SAB standards can help to avoid arguments over the gold plating of school facilities which sometimes plague intergovernmental relations. Placing the standards in the general plan demonstrates the commitment to mitigating the service impacts of growth according to specified criteria. Distribute Costs on a Projec:t-by-Projec:t Basis Cities and counties should distribute growth-induced infrastructure costs on a project-by-project basis. The financing policies establish the community's general approach towards who will pay for public facilities in developing areas, and the LOS standards provide the basis for measuring the service level impact of development proposals. But the public costs of individual development projects must ultimately be distributed on a project-by-project basis. Though we cannot offer a definitive approach to the question of wh., Mello-Roos financing should be used, it is possibl. to outline an approach to" .. _ j developing the financing plan f( ¡' individual development projects which fOi," ..S from the discussion above. Once again, the infrastructure costs of development will vary on a case-by-case basis. For some projects, a generic application of developer exactions and/or MelIo-Roos financing will generate sufficient reven ues. In other cases, the infrastructure costs will exceed the normal parameters. However, if one accepts the premise that LOS standards should be maintained in the face of development pressures and that debt capacity is a finite resource, that leaves only two sources available for addressing any residual costs of growth: the developers themselves and the broader community. Whether such costs are distributed narrowly or broadly will depend upon the community's application of the financing policies adopted in its general plan to the situation at hand. For some types of facilities, the community will decide that the needed infrastructure will not produce communitywide benefits and, therefore, the costs should be isolated on the development. Though development fees are 58 --7lJ , - limited by local ordinances and statc statutes, additional fees can bc imposed when individual development decisions result in unmitigated service impacts. Under authority of CEQA, unmitigated service level impacts can be identified as adverse environmental effects in the draft or final EIR which must be avoided (by denying or redesigning the project) or mitigated (through the payment of a fee). As noted previously, the Mira and Hart decisions open the way for cities and counties to impose school impact fees above those authorized under the 1986 School Facilities Act. The feasibility of broader community participation in financing capital improvements is limited by the two-thirds approval requirement for local general obligation bonds. If a simple majority approval requirement for local general obligation bonds is ultimately approved on the statewide ballot, funding decisions for facilities of communitywide benefit would likely be put to referendum more frequently. Paradoxically, school facilities-which are the subject of such controversy in the area of developer fees-might prove to be the most likely candidate for local general obligation bond financing because of the unique nature of educational benefits (as discussed in Chapter III). Relying more on local general obligation bonds to address the school capacity demands of growth would represent a policy compromise between state funding (which may be equitable but has proven to be impractical) and entirely localized funding through developer fee and landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing (which is practical, but may be inequitable). To the extent that a simple majority voter approval requirement for local general obligation bonds would result in broader participation by the general community in financing school facilities, more debt capacity in developing areas would be freed up for other purposes. Realistically, local general obligation bond proposals would probably fare better with the voters in cases where growth is diffused throughout the school district, as opposed to cases where the demand is caused by one or two large scale development projects. Under the acquisition-based assessment practices instituted by Proposition 13, however, the expanded use of local general obligation bond financing would place a disproportionate share of the tax burden on more recent homebuyers, by any objective measure of tax equity. A more equitable distribution of the tax burden might result from a simple majority voter approval requirement for Mello- Roos special tax bonds, which is also being considered by the Legislature. Insofar as the Mello-Roos Act does not specify how the special tax should be apportioned, the matter of equity would be left to the discretion of the local agency forming the CFD. A simple majority approval requirement for Mello-Roos special tax bonds would permit public facilities to be phased-in more easily in developing areas after a certain amount of development has occurred. Whether the costs of those facilities would be distributed narrowly or broadly would, of course, depend upon the boundaries of the CFD. In ti!e example of the Elk Grove Unified School District, the CFD was designed to be coterminus with the school district's boundaries, which resulted in a broader distribution costs than if the CFD had been isolated on developing areas only. But a simple majority approval for Mello- Roos special tax bonds would not necessarily result in the broader distribution of tax burdens. ,.../' 7/ ---., 59 -/ ,__ ________n._____ __ ______ ___, ___,____. -- -., -~-- ---.-..- -----..- -- ~ -- "-"--'. -.,..-...-,....-..- In the present fiscal environment, however, local governments may face development pressures to relax LOS standards or to overextend the debt capacity of developing areas. To help avoid such problems, the fOllowing section offers guidelines for evaluating proposals for Mello-Roos financing. PROJECT EVALUATION GUIDELINES The project evaluation guidelines outline both a procedural approach toward evaluating requests for Mello-Roos financing and criteria for evaluating individual proposals. The guidelines are based upon our research conducted in preparation of this report, which includes a review of several Mello-Roos policies adopted by local governments throughout the state. Some of the individual policies we reviewed contained more restrictive guidelines than are recommended here. On the other hand, we are aware that many local governments throughout the state have not adopted any guidelines. Consequently, we attempted to take a middle ground approach which would be of value to those communities with well- established project evaluation policies as well as to those areas which may be considering policies for the first time. Establish a Project Review Committee Local agencies should establish project review teams to scrutinize and assess developer applications for new Mello-Roos CFDs. Cities and counties should establish a Project Review Committee to review developers' applications for permission to use tax-exempt bond financing for development projects (the necessity for school districts and special districts to establish such committees will depend upon the degree to which such requests ar~ received by these districts). Membership in this Review Committee should be determined by the local governing board, depending on the experience and willingness of available staff, but likely candidates should include representatives from the Public Works Department, the Planning Department, the Assessor's Office, the Auditor/Controller's Office or Finance Department, the County Administrator or City Manager's Office, the City Attorney or County Counsel, and the Treasurer- Tax Collector. The Review Committee should conduct an independent review of each public financing proposal according to the criteria outlined below. In addition, the Review Committee should select all of the professionals necessary to conduct the transaction (bond counsel, underwriter, financial advisor, appraiser, special tax consultant or assessment engineer, and absorption study consultant). The committee should consider requests from the applicant regarding the selection of professionals, but the consent of the applicant should not be required. Due to the degree of risk associated with Melio-Roos special tax bond financings, the selection of competent, ethical professionals is imperative. The credit risk associated with individual Mello-Roos financing proposals cannot necessarily be ascertained in a cookbook fashion, the guidelines listed below notwithstanding. The judgement of experienced professionals will be needed to assess the risk of individual proposals and to develop appropriate responses. - ,.' 60 (...7 fr;· ,../ Value-to-Debt Ratio Local agencies should require thai lalld ~ithin a CFD have a value-to· debt ratio of at least 3:1. The ultimate security for Mello-Roos special tax and special assessment improvement bonds is the value of the land itself, including the value of existing improvements and any improvements to be financed through the bond issuance. In the event of a default, foreclosure proceedings will commence and the property will eventually be sold to payoff the outstanding delinquent tax lien. The ratio between the value of the land and improvements to the amount of outstanding debt on the property is called the value-to-debt ratio (this ratio is also referred to as the value-to-lien ratio). To protect credit quality, local governments should require a minimum value-to-debt ratio of 3:1. The valuation should be based on a bulk sale evaluation conducted by an MAl appraiser. The bulk sale evaluation assumes the immediate sale of all properties under common ownership, which would bc the situation under judicial foreclosure proceedings. The debt total should include any prior or pending special tax or improvement liens. Special Tax LimitatIon Local governments shoula set maximum special tax rates for landowner- approved financings at one percent (1'1b). Establishing tax rate limitations can be an exercise in wishful thinking. People want low taxes and high service levels. At the heart of the debate over taxes is a trade-offs between public and private consumption. In a democratic society, those trade-off are decided through the political processes described in Chapter III. Yet, decisions to use landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing represent something of a twist on the traditional mechanisms of public choice, as local officials must decide questions of tax and spending policy for developing arcas without the input of the ultimate residents of those areas. Given the degree of risk associated with such decisions, it would seem prudent not to overburden developing areas with landowner-approved Mello-Roos special taxes. At some point, the tax burden may affect the marketability of the properties, which could, in turn, cause problems for investors, landowners and local governments alike. If the buyers of properties in these development projects move in and decide to tax themselves at higher rates, so be ;:. Consequently, the maximum special tax rate for landowner-approved financings should not exceed one percent (10/0) of the anticipated fair market value, or assessed value, of each improved parcel upon completion of all public and private improvements. The special tax should not cause the total tax burden on residential property to exceed two percent (2%) of the anticipated fair market value of each improved parcel upon the completion of all public and private improvements. The total tax burden calculation should include projected ad valorem taxes and any overlapping assessments and special taxes. 61 :::; 'Í .. "- ~..__...~--_._-._-_..~ ----- ~---- - -.-- -- - ------- -.. ---~-_.- ';:''::---'~''- -'~.-'.-.---~- - - - - ~- -' ~--. Special Tax IDflators Local governments should limit annual increases in the maximum special tax to two percent (2%) Special tax formulas should also promote siable and predictable tax liabilities, particularly for residential properties. Fluctuating special tax rates make it difficult for homeowners to plan their finances. Special tax formulas should limit escalator rates allowing annual tax increases in the maximum special tax to two perceot (2%) aDoually. In the event that special tax payments are supporting the provision of services, rather than capital cxpenditures, ongoing costs will be affected by the rate of inflation. Consequently, a higher inflator, such as the state and local deflator for goods and services, is appropriate. Special Tax Conraee Local agencies should set the maximum special tax at a minimum of J 10 percent of expected annual debt service. To provide addcd security to the bonds, the maximum special tax should generate at least 110 percent of projected annual gross debt service on the bonds. The actual coverage required will depend on the number of landowners and their financial strength. The exact coverage should be determined through consultation with the professionals working on the transaction. Capitalized IDterest Accouot Local agencies should establish capitalized interest accounts if it will improve the credit quality of the bonds and result in lower borrowing costs. Decisions to capitalize up to two years of interest into the bond issuance should be made on a case-by-case basis. The decision rule should be that a capitalized interest account will improve the credit quality of the special tax bonds and result in lower borrowing costs, benefitting all taxpayers in the CFD. From a negotiating perspective, local government should recognize that the capitalized intcrest account provides a source of subsidy to developers because the debt service being covered by such an account in the early stages of construction would otherwise be the responsibility of the developer. Tax Rates 00 Denloped and Uodenloped Land Local governments should tax de,eloped and undeveloped land at the same rates. The special tax formulas should promote an equitable distribution of the tax burden between developed and undeveloped land. The practice of taxing undeveloped land at lower rates than developed land can transfer some of the business risk associated with the development process from developers to home ..- ./ 62 -. )' "~.._,.,.~. ----- -------- ----~---- - -------~~._--~--. - - - _, '·C -- . buyers. To the extent that properties are not developed as quickly as anticipated at the time of bond issuance, more of the tax burden may be shifted to the early home buycrs in the development project. Moreover, the existence of a differential between developcd and undeveloped land special tax rates may not provide developers with an adequate financial incenti,ve to form improvement areas and phase-in the construction of public facilities when possible. It does not sccm equitable to require early home buyers in a development project to subsidize the construction of public facilitics from which they will derive no real benefit. If local officials believe such a subsidy to be necessary, it may be more appropriate to pay for it through a broader-based tax than a special tax levied on developed property within a CFD. As a general policy, developed and undeveloped land should be taxed at the same rates. The special tax ratcs should correspond to the adopted land use designations for each parcel. Undeveloped land should be taxed at rates equivalent to tax rates levied on developed properties of the same land use designation. As discussed in Chapter III, there may be a justification for taxing developed land at higher rates to pay for the early installation of large infrastructure items, such as water supply systems and sewage treatment plants that must be installed with significant excess capacity because of the economies of scale in construction. Local officials may surmise that it is equitable to charge early residents more for the immediate availability of service. While the practice of taxing undeveloped land at lower rates may improve the credit quality of the special tax bonds in some cases, it should be recognized that the Mello-Roos Act provides other security features which, in effect, already provide a subsidy to the owners of undcveloped land. In addition, local officials have the option of requiring credit enhancements to secure the special tax payments from large property owners. Disclosure of Special Tax LieD New home buyers within CFD's should be provided information regarding how special tax rates are set. In addition to disclosing the annual amount of the maximum special tax, as required by law, basic information concerning the special tax formula should be disclosed to the homebuyer. Specifically, the homebuyer should be made aware of whether or not the special tax wiII be levied at the same rates for developed and undeveloped properties. The local government approving formation of the CFD may wish to develop its own form for this purpose, to be signed by the homebuyer prior to the close of escrow. Bond Reserve FUDd Local governments should set the bond reserve fund at 10 percent of the principal amount of the bonds or the maximum allowed by law. In the event that any portion of the special tax becomes delinquent, it wiII be necessary to draw from a reserve fund established from proceeds of the bond sale. The reserve fund should be set at 10 percent of the principal amount of the bonds or the maximum allowed by law. (A lower reserve fund of 5 percent is ....., :./-. ,;""" 63 / - ~.-....._.._--- ..- --------_._~- - --- _____. .____ __ '_n -'. ~ -- ~^~. ,,-.' " -- - ---- , appropriate for localities participating in the Teeter Plan, under which the county assumes the responsibility for tax payments in return for all interest and penalties on delinquent payments.) Again, the exact amount should be determined in consultation with the professionals working on the transaction. Treatment of DelinqueDcies Local governments should adopt foreclosure covenants which provide maximum flexibility. In developing a policy on the treatment of delinquencies, local officials again must balance the objectives of tax equity and credit quality. As mentioned in Chapter III, many special tax formulas allow delinquencies to be added into the revenue requirement for the subsequent year, raising the tax burden for taxpayers who pay their special taxes on time. When the delinquencies are finally paid in full, with penalty, the revenue requirement for the following year is lowered, thereby lowering the special tax rates for all taxpayers--even those that were delinquent. The amount by which the special tax rates are reduced once delinquencies are paid in full may not be sufficient to compensate nondelinquent taxpayers for the lime-value of the money they had to put up to cover the delinquencies. The most equitable response to this problem would be to vigorously pursue foreclosure proceedings on all delinquencies and to draw on the reserve fund to make up any deficiencies. Therefore, special tax rates would not have to be raised for current taxpayers in order to cover delinquencies, unless the balance in the reserve fund was insufficient. Adopting such a policy, however, could create credit problems, in so far as investors view the ability to raise special tax rates (up to the maximum permitted rate), before tapping the reserve fund, to be an important credit feature of Mello-Roos special tax bonds. In the future, the issuer may wish to purchase bond insurance or request a credit rating once the development project becomes partially built out, to save on interest costs. Restrictive foreclosure covenants in the bond documents may preclude the issuer from this course of action. Moreover, foreclosing special tax liens on widows and orphans may create public relations problems that far outweigh the benefits of a strict foreclosure pOlicy. More specifically, if a residential property delinquency of small dollar amount and short duration does not materially affect the credit quality of the bonds, why immediately pursue foreclosure? A good middle ground is to develop a foreclosure covenant which takes into account (I) the amount of the delinquency; (2) the duration of the delinquency; and (3) the condition of the reserve fund. The specific details of the covenant will depend upon the size and duration of the bond issue along with the concentration of the special tax base at the time of bond issuance. The purpose of the pOlicy is to foreclose when necessary to protect the credit quality of the bonds and to be flexible otherwise. Finally, another· practice which can help to avoid tax rate fluctuations on residential properties is to specify that the interest earnings from the bond reserve fund be used to cover delinquencies. This reduces the need to both raise special tax rates to cover delinquencies and initiate foreclosure proceedings. /-' '\ 'V 64 ¡' .J' '_" f _..~~- ----_.~-_. .------..... ------- . ..__ .... _·______·______u·_" --- --, SUMMARY The Mello-Roos Act provides local governments with a powerful financing tool which allows public facilities to be installed concurrently with development, while isolating the costs of doing so on the developing area. But local governments need to exercisc caution in their use of Mello-Roos financing, as land-backed securities are inherently risky and may pose an excessive burden on taxpayers when coupled with other taxes and assessments. These guidelines are intended to assist local officials in taking advantage of the benefits of Mello-Roos financing while minimizing the associated risks. The planning guidelines outlined in this chapter apply to cities and counties and suggest how decisions concerning Mello- Roos financing can be integrated into the land use entitlement process. Specifically, these guidelines recommend that cities and counties establish financing policies and identify service standards in their general plans. The policies and standards should be comprehensive, covering all of the local governmcnts units scrving the development arca, including school districts. These guidelines should also discuss an approach to distributing the infrastructure costs of individual development proposals among the various financing options available. These guidelines recommend that all local governments adopt policies specifying the conditions under which they will extend the option of Mello-Roos special tax financing to developers. The project evaluation guidelines outlined above provide a reasonable framework for developing local policies. The goal of the project evaluation guidelines is to minimize credit risk and to protect taxpayers from excessive or inequitable tax burdens. Because of the inherent risk of land- backed securities, the only way to effectively preclude such risk would be to not issue landowner-approved special tax bonds at all. But the usefulness of Mello- Roos financing in addressing planning objectives makes it an attractive option, if the risks can be kept within reason. ,/~. / 65 ,. ;' .; . v· .. "'---.----,,-..-. ,.. .-,....---..-..---------- -.--.--- -. --..., . ..,-.,,- BIBLIOGRAPHY Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental R~lations. Readings in Federalism: Perspectives on a Decade of Change. Report SR-II. Washington D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office, 1989. Break, George, F. Financing Government in a Federal System. Studies of Government Finance. Washington D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1980. Bureau of the Census, U.S. Dept. of Commerce. Federal Expenditures by State (1981- 1989). Washington D.C.: U.S. Govt. Printing Office. California Debt Advisory Commission. Annual Report (various years) Sacramento. Coalition for Adequate School Housing. Testimony to the Assembly Commillee on Education on School Construction Issues. Sacramento, March 6, 1991. Community Services Administration. Geographic Distribution of Federal Funds in California (1977-1980). Washington D.C.: Federal Information Exchange. Curtin, Daniel J. California Land-Use and Planning Law. Eleventh Edition. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books, 1991. Subdivision Map Act Manual. Seventh Edition. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books, 1991. DeGrove, John M, "The Pay As You Grow Challenge: Financial Management in a Growth Environment: in Financing Growth: Who Benefits? Who Pays? And How Much? Robinson, Susan G. ed. Chicago: Government Finance Officers Association, 1990. Goldbach, John., Boundary Change in California: The Local Agency Formation Commissions. Davis: Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of California, 1970. Eells, John Martin., LAFCO Spheres of Influence: Effective Planning for the Urban Fringe? Working Paper 77-3. Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, 1977. Fulton, William. Guide to California Planning. Point Arena, CA: Solano Press Books, 1991. ed. California Planning and Development Report. (various issues). Ventura, CA: Torf Fulton Associates. //~ -, 66 "./ ~~ " ... - - ---- ~-^--- ..--"-"- ---.---_. Gramlich, Edward M, "Reforming U.S. Fiscal Fedcralism Arrangements" in American Domestic Priorities: An Economic Appraisal, Quigley, John M and Rubinfcld, Daniel L., eds. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Hawkins, Robert B. Jr., Self Government by District: Myth and Reality. Stanford: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University, 1976. Longtin, James., Longtin's California Land Use. Malibu: Local Government publications, 1987. McWatters, Ann Robertson., Financing Capital Formation for Local Governments. Research Report 79-3, Berkeley: Institute of Governmental Studies, University of California, March 1979. Misczynski, Dean J., "The FiscaJization of Land Use: in California Policy Choices. Volume Three. Sacramento: School of Public Administration, University of Southern California, 1986. Moak, Lennox L. Municipal Bonds: Planning, Sale, and Administration. Chicago: Municipal Finance Officers Association, 1982. Musgrave, Richard A. and Peggy B., Public Finance in Theory and Practice. Third Edition. New York: McGraw-Hili, 1980. Oates, Wallace E. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1972. Office of Planning and Research, State of California. Paying the Piper: New Ways to Pay for Infrastructure in California. Sacramento, Decembcr 1982. Office oi Planning and Research, State of California. A Planner's Guide to Financing Public Improvements. North Highlands, CA: General Services Publications Section, January 1990. Senate Committee on Local Government, California Legislature. The Use of Benefit Assessments Since Proposition 13. Sacramento: Joint Publications, October 1986. Snyder, Thomas P., and Stegman, Michael A., Paying for Growth: Using Development Fees to Finance Infrastructure. Washingtion D.C.: Urban Land Institute, 1986. Sokolow, Alvin D., Hanford, Priscilla L., and Hogan, Joan Q., Choices for the Unincorporated Community: A Guide to Local Government Alternatives in California. Institute of Governmental Affairs, University of California, Davis, September 1978. Standard &. Poor's Corp. "Shakeout in Development Districts' Bonds: in CreditWeek. January 14, 1991. 67 /03 ,~..._- -----~-----.---- ." ,..·_.___________n_'.__ ~-- - -- .--- ~ ---- - -,_.._..------ ____ ___ _·.._m____ - ,--- -'."' ------. ------- THIS PAGE BLANK loJ( .- - - - "''' ._-----.- --" . ....- APPENDIX B - CALIFORNIA DEBT ADVISORY COMMISSION "RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE MEllO-ROOS ACT OF 1982" I ,-- /OJ _____.u____ _.-____._.___~_'_.. __. .____._____·_·_'·.r_n__ .---------- .- -.--- - , RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE MEllO-ROOS ACT OF 1982 Report to the legislature and Governor March 1992 CALIFORNIA DEBT ADVISORY COMMISSION 915 Capitol Mall, Room 400 P.O. Box 942809 Sacramento, CA 94209-000 J (916) 653·3269 /- " / ,.' , '__/ íQ -,--'-"".--- . - _.._,- _h_.."__ __ ,~ California Debt Advisory Commission The California Debt Advisory Commission is the state's clearinghouse for public debt issuance information. The Commission was created by the California Legislature in J981 to assist state and local government agencies with the monitoring, issuance, and management of public debt. The California Debt Advisory Commission members include: Kathleen Brown California State Treasurer and Chair Pete Wilson Governor or Thomas W. Hayes Director, Department of Finance Gray Davis State Controller Robert Beverly State Senator Lucy KilIea State Senator Jim Costa Assemblyman Patrick Nolan Assemblyman Donald W. Merz Treasurer-Tax Collector Sonoma County Mary E. Turner Treasurer City of Anaheim - Additional information concerning this report or the program of the CaliforDia Debt Advisory Commission may be obtained by contacting: Steve Juarez Executive Director California Debt Advisory Commission (916) 653-3269 /01 --,.... .- - ----~_._-~-_.._."----,---",,. ----- -_... -. --. - . -. ---- TABLE OF CONTENTS Summary and Findings In t rod u ct i on ........_._............................................................................................................................. 1 Ba c k g ro u n d ......................................................................................................................................... I Summary of the MclJo-Roos Hearing...................................................................................... 3 Findings of the Commission Staff ............................................................................................ 5 Finding #1 Public Policy Should Recognize the Importance of Mcllo-Roos Financing in Post-Proposition J 3 Local Government Finance ..................................................... 5 Finding #2 Improved Information Flows Should Lowcr Yields on Mello-Roos Bonds ..... 6 Finding #3 Improved Disclosure to Homebuyers Should Permit the Housing Market to Function in a More Compctitive Manner ................................................................... 7 Finding #4 The "Landowner Vote" is a Necessary but Imperfect Form of Democratic Expression; Additional Taxpayer Protections May be Warranted ....................... 7 Recommended Changes to the Mello-Roos Act Recommendation #1 Amend the Notice of Special Tax Requiremcnt to Improve Disclosure to Home bu yers ............................................................................................................................... 9 Recommendation #2 Establish an Annual Reporting Requirement for Mello-Roos CFDs ................. 10 Recommendation #3 Limit the Annual Increase in the Maximum Special Tax on Residential Properties to Two Percent (2%) for Landowner-approved Financings ............. 12 Recommendation #4 Require Timely Joint Financing Agreements Which Ensure Greater Involvemcnt of Responsible Agencies ............................................................................... 13 Recommendation #5 Require that Substantial Redirection of Funds be Subject to Majority Pro t es t Pro v is i ons ......................................................................................................................... 14 , - (5 (../ ) - ------ --_.._.~.- Recommendation #6 Require that School District Attendance Policies Give Priority Consideration to CFD Rcsidcnts .......................................................................................... 16 Other Issues for Legislative Consideration Issue # I The Subsidization of Developers by Homeowners in Mello-Roos CFDs .......... 18 A. Tax Differcntials on Developed and Undeveloped Land............................ 18 B. The Cross-ColIateralization of Propcrty in CFDs............................................ 21 C. Th e Ca pita I iza t ion 0 fin teres t.................................................................................... 22 Issue #2 Limiting the Maximum Special Tax Rate ....................................................................... 22 Issue #3 The Need for Uniform and Independent Land Appraisals .................................... 24 .. .."~ J> j~·1 >.........- : ___..__... '-._A._ft.. .......roo.." ^" T..... T"'C'T,mnnv I nl"' 'liò:r"'r.nnII [1"'11 (II 1111:0. It:UUI L Ulll..1~ .-...---... ,-"--. _.----.::__·.c..___ ... ---- --.- S ~ary and Findings .- . .. .. ,-, ,. I/O , ._------_..---_._~- ------ -~_.- ---~----~- .- ....--- " ·--·---------0-·- ~...--,---- ."_.,--- ---- - ...--- -~---- ~-- SUMMARY AND FINDINGS INTRODUCTION On January 15, 1992, the California Dcbt Advisory Commission (CDAC) conducted a public hearing on the topic of Mello-Roos financing at the Orange County Civic Center in Santa Ana, California. CDAC's Chairperson, State Treasurer Kathleen Brown, presided over the hearing. Othcr CDAC members attcnding the hearing included Sonoma County Treasurer-Tax Collector Don Merz, Anaheim Treasurer Mary Turner, and Deputy Director of Finance Susanne Burton (representing the Governor and the State Department of Finance). In addition, State Senator Marian Bergeson accepted an invitation to sit with the commissioners and listen to testimony. The purpose of the hearing was to solicit testimony on how the Mello-Roos Act has been implemented in communities throughout California. Specifically, the Commissioners werc interested in evaluating the creditworthiness of Mello-Roos bonds, given the persistent slump in real estate activity. In addition, the commissioners wanted to provide taxpayers with a public forum to voice their concerns about the fairness of Mello-Roos taxes implemented in their communities. Finally, the commissioners wanted to determine what, if any, future role the state and local governments should play in ensuring the proper use of Mello-Roos financing. The commissioners heard from a diverse group of 25 witnesses, including taxpayer groups, local government officials, developers, and municipal finance professionals. The first part of this report provides background on CDAC's involvement with the issue of Mello-Roos financing, reviews the testimony presented at the hearing, and presents findings based on the testimony. The second part of this report offers recommendations to the Legislature and Governor on improving the Mello-Roos Act. Appendix A provides a complete transcript of the hearing. Appcndix B consists of written testimony presented to CDAC. BACKGROUND The California Debt Advisory Commission (CDAC) is the state agency responsible for the collection and dissemination of data on municipal bond issuance. In this capacity, CDAC staff was in a good position to note the fairly dramatic increase in Mello-Roos bond issuance by California local governments during the late 1980s. As recently as 1987, the annual volume of Mello-Roos bond issuance statewide was less than S2S0 million annually. The statewide volume of issuance grew annually to ncarly Sl billion by 1990, before falling off slightly to S82l million in 1991. The growth in Mello-Roos bond issuance during the late 1980s helped fuel the real estate development boom experienced in the state at that time. Local governments found it advantageous to raise a large sum of capital early in the development process through Mello-Roos financing, rather than delaying construction until developer fees accumulated in a sufficient amount. From the perspective of the development community, Mello-Roos financing provided access to a source of tax- I/I , .. ._-------_._-,-~ - "'-. ';.-.---,-~ --. ."-- " ..,-'"" __--=~_~='_ ~~_'= ,--c~_",c.,c_:,_ _._." ,---_....,:',-,-.:.:",,"'0=. ._,-.=:,,=~=~ exempt financing, which facilitatcd the installation of the infrastructure needed to serve development projects. Given that Mello-Roos bonds had bccomc an important financing vehicle for addressing the infrastructure costs of growth, it was a logical research topic for CDAC staff. This interest in the topic was heightened by the downturn in the economy which began in 1990. Because Mello-Roos bonds are secured by real estate, the decline in real estate values caused by thc recession has weakened the security of outstanding Mello-Roos bonds. CDAC staff began research on the topic in the spring of 1991 and released the report, "Mello-RoDS Financing in California" (hereafter referred to as "the CDAC report") in September 1991. Tbe CDAC Report Background. The first part of the CDAC report reviews the reasons why the Mello- Roos Act was enacted by the Legislature in 1982. The Act was largely a response to the restrictions on property taxation imposed by Proposition 13 in 1978, which had the effect of reducing the amount of property tax revenues available to subsidize the infrastructure costs of growth. At the same time that local governments faced dramatically reduced levels of property tax revenues, the federal government began to cut back its grants to state and local governments for infrastructure-shifting more responsibility for these programs to lower levels of government. Consequently, local governments were forced to cope simultaneously with new spending demands and reduced revenue Sources. In response, local governments began to rely more on their legal authority to require developers to pay exactions and fees as conditions of development approval. In order to provide a more flexible funding Source to local governments, the Legislature enacted the Mello-Roos Act in 1982. The Mello-Roos Act permits landowners, upon receiving approval from a local government agency, to form a community facilities district (CFD), to levy a special tax, and to authorize bonds secured by the special tax. As the properties in the CFD (or Mello-Roos district) are developed and sold, new homebuyers assume the responsibility for paying the Mello-Roos special tax, which is included on their property tax bilIs. The Mello- Roos Act has proven to be very popular with local governments and has been used to finance over $3.5 bilIion worth of infrastructure in California communities to date. It has become one of the primary funding sources for constructing the schools, roads, sewer and water systems, and other public facilities which are needed to serve development projects throughout tbe state. Public Policy Issues. In addition to providing a historical context and technical treatment of Mello-Roos financing, the report covers the public policy issues associated with using this form of financing. The report found that the "landowner vote" permits local officials to make decisions, early in the development process, about the mix of taxes and service levels to be provided to developing areas of their communities. In essence, landowner-approved Mello-Roos financing permits landowners to borrow against the value and tax capacity of their land through the tax-exempt market to pay for the infrastructure needed to serve development. The CDAC report found that the structuring of Mcllo-Roos bond issues involves a / J ,.-¡ tension between the goals of credit quality and tax equity. The Act permits the use II C?<. of security features that tend to increase the credit quality of Mello-Roos bonds by n . shifting more of the tax burden to developed propertics. To the extent that thc adoption of these security fcatures results in a lowcr cost of capital, howevcr, all taxpayers in the CFD may benefit. Credit Analysis of Mello-Roos Bonds. In analyzing the creditworthincss of Mello. Roos bonds, the CDAC report drew a distinction between Mello-Roos bonds issued in undeveloped and developed areas. The debt service supporting Mello-Roos bonds issued in undeveloped areas is dependcnt upon the successful development of real estate; consequently, these bonds are vulnerable to several development-related risks. In the event of slow market absorption, for instance, developers have to hold newly developed properties for longer than anticipated. To the extent that developers become financially overextended, the payment of debt service on outstanding Mello-Roos bonds may be threatened. CDAC Guidelines. The CDAC report concludes by identifying guidelines to assist local governments in taking advantage of the benefits offered by Mello-Roos financing, while minimizing the associated credit risks and keeping tax burdens reasonable and equitable. These guidelines focus on proper planning, greater project evaluation, and adherence to prudent debt management practices. SUMMARY OF THE MELLO-ROOS HEARING At the January IS, 1992 hearing, State Treasurer Kathleen Brown stated in her opening remarks that the purpose of the public hearing was to "separate fact from fiction" regarding the use of Mello-Roos financing by local governments throughout the state. Specifically, Treasurer Brown stated, "The lion's share of all Mello-Roos bonds issued over the last decade remain success stories for taxpayers, for investors, and local governments alike. Without them, dozens of California communities, complete with schools. roads, sewers and water systems would not be in existence today." Nonetheless, Treasurer Brown pointed out that some of the publicized problems might serve as an "early warning system" indicating that some reforms are needed to protect the credit quality of the bonds and taxpayers from possible abuses. Tax Equity Concerns. The initial testimony was provided by three Mello-Roos taxpayers: Walter Hueck from Palmia, John Beckley from Aliso Viejo, and Robert Beaulieu from Tracy. The primary complaint of these taxpayers was that their Mello-Roos taxes are being used to finance public facilities of broad regional benefit. Mr. Hueck succinctly articulated the concerns of these taxpayers, stating "Our concerns are more with the fairness of the burden to the ultimate property owner than with the financial security of the bonds." Because their Mello-Roos tax payments are financing the construction of public facilities that will confer broad regional benefits, such as the San Joaquin Tollway Project in Orange County, these taxpayers feel that they are being required to pay more than their fair share of public improvements. Ironically, the legitimacy of requiring taxpayers in Mello-Roos CFDs to finance regional facilities was also questioned by the development community, as represented by David Booher speaking on behalf of the California Council for Environmental and Economic Balance. Commenting on the relative merits of Mello-Roos versus developer fee financing, Mr Booher said "The major thing here is //3 - __u__ __,_"__.__________.___-._ -.__".._.._ .. ---- ------ ---- -.~--".-'---------<---- -_:..'~:-::.-~--- ';,<," ---- -." -- d -- ~--_.- --"------- .._---_._.__.---~.- ~~ - - ------ --- -.-, ._--- ~_n___... .. ";_U'~_'__'''_"____ _.,.. _.n_ . ~,,,.,,,,,."". -",.",-~,.. ,.-...,.~ ..._--_.~._.~--_.-.- ,'-- not the cost of financing, it is the extent to which the local gOl'ernment requires the proponents of a development to finance broader-based commlll/ity facilities for the entire community." By requiring development to finance regional facilities, new homebuyers pay more because they are required to bear the financial responsibility for public facilities which are not directly reI a ted to the burden imposed by development. Disclosure of the Special Tax Lien to Homebuyers. In addition to the question of tax equity, many speakers commented on the inadequacy of the provisions of the Act requiring notification of the special tax lien to prospective home buyers. Several speakers related the common complaint that in cases where the notification requirement is buried in the Department of Real Estate ·White Report: home buyers may not be fully aware of the financial consequences of the special tax. David Doomey of the Capistrano Unified School District reported that his district has developed a form which must be signed by the initial home buyer in the CFD. But he expressed concern that disclosure to secondary home buyers may be inadequa te. "I think it would be helpful if secondary buyers also had some vehicle in which the special tax was specifically identified for them: he said. Ongoing Disclosure for Investors. Perhaps the issue which attracted the greatest amount of attention was the need for ongoing information ùn the status of Mello- Roos districts. Because of the dynamics of real estate development, the credit worthiness of individual CFDs can change rather dramatically over the course of a year. Yet it is very difficult for potential investors in Mello-Roos bonds to obtain the information needed to make informed decisions on a case-by-case basis. Greg Harrington of the Franklin Fund told of some of the information-gathering difficulties faced by Franklin, the largest single purchaser of Mello-Roos bonds,. "We call and we can't even find out what the fund balances are in most cases." He expressed support for an annual reporting requirement covering current assessed valuations, delinquency reporting and foreclosure actions, as well as fund balances. Steve Zimmerman of Standard & Poor's Corp. echoed Mr. Harrington's concerns, "If we at S&P have difficulty gelling information on the issues we rate, you can imagine the difficulty {faced by} the individual investor: Mr. Zimmerman pointed out that an ongoing stream of disclosure would counteract the negative effects of groundless rumors. "Rumors in this industry are to no one's benefit. And I think to the extent that there is more information available, it limits the amount of damage done by idle rumor." Mello-Roos Shopping. David Ambler of Moody's Investors Service brought the problem of Mello-Roos shopping to the attention of Commission members. This term is used to describe the practice of developers approaching different governmental entities to secure the most favorable terms for a Mello-Roos transaction. "Through my discussions with school districts and overlapping entities, it is not uncommon to find that they were not the first approached entity." Zane Mann, editor of the California Municipal Bond Advisor expressed the opinion that "Mello-Roos shopping" should be outlawed. "It has always been our impression that school bonds are the safest, most secure of all bonds. But this cannot be said if the school district is in the real estate development business: Mann concluded. Possible Legislative Action. Dean Mysczinski of the California Research Bureau reported that Senator Henry Mello has asked him to draft a clean-up bill for the current legislative session. The legislation is likely to reflect the concerns I / i../ ~. ---- -.-.- _.~_._--_."_._----- --.. ----_.~- - - - ----. "_ __. ,.....__ u._ ._ _. _ _... .._ ".. .'"'. _. -..-". ____.--::-:___-.----~--,___::-.__c:--- -- ...-.--- -.,--.----- , "~"'---'-------~""-"~~~-- ~""''''"~''''' "-..~~~,. _..- ...---'.~ -.." ~.. .~- -'. ~-.- - ..- expressed at the CDAC hcaring, focusing on disclosurc to home buyers and ongoing disclosure for investors. The legislation might also include statutory caps on Mcllo- Roos tax rates and annual escalators as well as a minimum vaJue-to-licn requirement. FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSION STAFF Generally, the Commission staff found the mood of the people who testified to be quite supportive of what has been accomplished under the Mello-Roos Act, even from critics who feci that major changes are needed. The predominant sentiment was that the Mello-Roos Act is an integral tool of local government finance, and a tremendous void would be created if this tool was either eliminated or severely curtailed. Ncvertheless, the Commission staff found that some arcas of the Act do require some attention and possible correction by the Lcgislature. This section discusses the findings of the Commission staff, which are based on upon the tcstimony received at the hearing as well as the staff's own research on the topic. These findings serves as the basis for the recommended changes to the Mello-Roos Act included in the second part of this report. FINDING #1 Public Policy Should Recognize the Importance of Mello-Roos Financing in Post- Proposition 13 Local Government FiDance. In the aftermath of Proposition 13, fewer public subsidies were available to address the infrastructure costs of growth. Increasingly, the infrastructure costs of development projects had to be isolated on the development itsclf. For that reason, California experienced a dramatic incrcase in special assessment bond issuance (primarily under the authority of the ]915 Act) in the initial years following Proposition 13 (before the enactment of the Mello-Roos legislation). Assessment bonds had long been used for development purposes, but on a more limited scale. The growth in Mello-Roos bond issuance which occurred during the late 1980s can be considered a continuation of this trend. Land-backed securitics serve a vital role in post-Proposition 13 local finance because they provide the means to address infrastructure costs without subsidy from the broader community. Moreover, land-backed securities are advantageous from a land-use planning perspective, because they facilitate the early installation of infrastructure, which helps to mitigate the congestion problcms traditionally associated with growth. Finally, land-backed securities serve economic development goals, insofar as many development projects could not occur without the public financing provided through land-backed securities. The Mello-Roos Act has emerged as California's most important type of land- backcd financing mechanism because it offers greater flexibility than the assessment acts. The State and its local governments should recognize the importance of the Mello-Roos Act in modern local government finance, and their policies should work toward eliminating the rcal or perceived shortcomings associated with this form of financing. //S- .. . - ., -..-.-.----...-.....-.....-.- --- -'--'---.__.._-_.--~._...- ---_. -------" . - '------ , - H'___ ...:;". .:--._. -.__. .c__._ _,________' ..- -..----.--....--... ~--. - -..-... -.., -- ;.;~- ' --..._- .-----".- ----"'. - ---,,-~--- ----------.~--..----- _ ______n_ __. ,_ _,.......__~""".,..i,--'-.._'_'._.="_______=",-,,~-.-... "---'--"- :;.,;:.=.-_;:-_-,--~~",-. c: --~..-. FINDING fII2 Impro¥ed Information Flows Should Lower Yields on Mello-Roos Bonds. Notwithstanding the importance of Mello-Roos financing in supporting local infrastructure, California local governments can only rely on Mello-Roos financing to the extent that investors are willing to buy Mello-Roos bonds. Evidence presented at the hearing suggests that yields on Mello-Roos bonds today overcompensate investors for the degree of credit risk associated with these bonds. Certainly some risk premium is justified, insofar as land-backed securities are linked to the real estate development process and carry more risk than most types of municipal securities. Yet most Mello-Roos bonds contain important security provisions designed to ensure uninterrupted debt service through a prolonged real estate downturn, such as California is presently experiencing. Nonetheless, recent press reports questioning the creditworthiness of Mello-Roos bonds have caused repercussions throughout the bond market, causing yields in the primary and secondary markets to rise. Given that there are presently 228 Mello- Roos districts in the state, it is not inconceivable that some individual districts will experience problems during the current recession. Yet the bond market does not have ready access to the information that would allow it to distinguish between strong and weak Mello-Roos districts. In fact, one of the major reasons why the market overreacts to press reports is that there is a limited amount of relevant financial information available on individual districts. In the absence of the information needed to discern weak and strong credits, the negative publicity focusing on the problems of individual districts may continue to tarnish the overall market for Mello-Roos bonds, thus raising the cost of capital for MelIo-Roos issuers. There are two basic pOlicy options available to address this problem. One oPtion is to upgrade the credit quality of the entire market by establishing stricter issuance standards, such as minimum value-to-lien ratios, letter-of -credit requirements, or other measures. Eliminating the weaker issues would reduce the likelihood of defaults and restore investor confidence in the market. Yet this policy oPtion requires greater state regulation and would result in diminished local flexibility. The other pOlicy option is to facilitate the ability of the market to distinguish between weak and strong credits by improving the flow of information pertaining to individual Mello-Roos districts. To the extent that an improved flow of information would (I) permit investors to discern credit quality I variations between Mello-Roos bond issues, and (2) reduce the impact of unsubstantiated rumors, all Mello-Roos issuers would likely benefit (in the form of lower capital costs). In our view, the latter option offers the best course of action for California at this time. Because the problems experienced in individual districts to date are not representative of the entire market, we do not see the advantage of taking actions that would curtail issuance volume. The pOlicy objective should be to make the primary and secondary market for Mello-Roos bonds operate more efficiently and to accurately reflect the degree of risk associated with these securities. This objective may be served best by establishing a reporting requirement for Mello- Roos districts. Though such a requirement would undoubtedly impose costs on /If;:; ¡ '-::-'-'---" .------. .._----------- -- - issuers, these costs may be infinitesimal when compared to the savings resulting from the improved functioning of the bond market. Of course, information is only useful if it is accurate and reflects some standardization between districts. In this regard, there appears to be a problem with land value appraisals conducted for MeJlo-Roos bond issues according to different standards. Given the importance of land values in determining the creditworthiness of Mello-Roos bonds, there may be ~ statewide interest in establishing uniform appraisal standards for Mello-Roos bond issues. It is not enough to collect information; the information must be accurate. FINDING _3 Improved Disclosure to Homebuyers Should Permit the Housing Market to Function in a More Competitive Manner. Proposition 13 has effectively reduced the property tax burden in established areas of the state, but it also has necessitated the use of Mello-Roos financing and other financing tools in developing areas of the state. As a consequence, the modern California real estate market is characterized by disparities in tax rates between communities--and even between neighborhoods within communities. In a competitive real estate market, tax differentials not matchcd by equally valuable service differentials should be capitalized into lower and higher housing values. Homebuyers need to be aware of these tax disparities in order to make informed purchasing decisions. A consensus is emerging that the current law requiring disclosure of the special tax lien to prospective homebuyers is inadequate. First, the disclosure occurs after the homebuycr has already decided to purchase the home at a specified price. Second, the buyer might not appreciate the financial implications of disclosure, given the volume of paperwork which must be processed at the close of escrow. Consequently, there would appear to be a public interest in amending the disclosure requirement to make it more effective. In order for the housing market to operate in a competitive manner, homebuyers need to be fully aware of the financial consequences of purchasing a home in a Mello-Roos district. FINDING _4 The "Landowner Vote" is a Necessary But Imperfect Form of Democratic Expression; Additional Taxpayer Protections May Be Warranted. The vast majority of Mello-Roos bond issues are authorized through a vote of landowners, who receive one vote per acre or portion thereof. The necessity of the landowner vote stems from the simple fact that real estate development requires significant infrastructure investments before improved properties can be markcted and sold. The purchasers of the improved properties esscntially ·vote with their 117 - ".-..----.., - --,~_._--_.__.- n -.--. -_..- ---- -,----- -:-:-~- --- - -.~~-: -"-c---c-- -=----=:::::-:...-_ =:-_~- _~;;-------'-- -- --- ,_._- --~ ~-;~~~~-=--~~:~~~~ -:-::-.. -~~"-'--- -,:;~,._-~,-,--~--- .=-- - ::::~-~~.._-~, - ~- ----- -- - .--,. feet" by making the decision to move into the Mello-Roos district and assume the responsibility for the tax payments. While the landowner vote may be necessary for the early installation of infrastructure, it is often used to authorize bond issues extending decades into the future. It is true that prospective home buyers are not forced to acquiesce to the terms and conditions established through the landowner vote; they are free to move elsewhere. Yet it is also true that even improved disclosure to home buyers may not effectively convey all of the pertinent information that the homebuyer should know, such as how the tax formulas will operate, or that the projects scheduled for funding may be subject to change. Consequently, it may make sense to restrict the Scope of agreemcnts whieh may be reached between local governments and developers through the landowner vote. There may be Opportunities to give CFD resident a greater voice in the tax and spending decisions of their communities. 1/ ¿f - -.-------..---... ---,,--- ....";,.. ._ ----=-,.-.;:;:...-'-;....c.c-'.=-=--==-'-:.;:::".~,_"'_____"____.....:..~"_'_'_=~,-:·;;o,"__'_"___=__-=___:___;=__=_"_"·=__'·___' . -.-.____'__'-____'=,,~:--.-_ _"-___'-",_-_-'.:=0"·__·' -- ,--".'---'--'.-~.'-------'------':'----- ~__ _-,__~'." ._,'~ - _---" C'.. - ____.._....__.-________.__,_,___.__....._.".. -~..._- ~........----~.~..-._----.~--.------.." - ~-- _._-- - ---~---_-.- ---. --.--,,---. Í1J~f~'~;:"'~ '~"',"¡;':-:-" , ,~",;.. }jV-'; ".";- .. i:~~?,~:'}':' ' . ... R com men de hanges Mello-Roos ct .;' //1 ., , f'- . . . ...~ --..--....---,_.~._--_.,-_.-" · .-~---~ -- ~- -'-...",_.__.~. - ----.. --.,,- .-.....--- . [ I I RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THE MELLO-ROOS ACT I The following recommendations are intcndcd to provide the Legislature and Governor with advice and counsel on ways to improve (J) the fairness of thc spccial tax, (2) the administration of community facilities districts, and (3) marketability of Mello-Roos bonds. This rcport is not intended to imply support or opposition for any particular bill which may come under consideration by the Legisla ture. RECOMMENDA nON .1 Amend the Notice of Special Tax Requirement to Improve Disclosure to Homebuyers. Several of the witnesses at the hearing commented on the inadequacy of currcnt law regarding the disclosure of the special tax lien to the home buyer. Under current law, the disclosure of the special tax lien is included in the Department of Real Estate Preliminary Title Report, or "White Report: which is required for most subdivisions and is given to the home buyer at the close of escrow (Business & Profcssions Code Section 11010). If a White Report is not required, the purchaser must sign a "Notice of Special Tax" at the close of escrow which discloses: (I) that the property being purchased is, or will be, subject to a special tax; (2) the maximum annual amount of the special tax and the number of years for which it will be levied; and (3) the types of facilities or services to be paid for with the proceeds of the special tax (Government Code Section 53341.5). Two main criticisms of the current disclosure requirement are that (J) the disclosure occurs after the buyer has made the decision to purchase the property, and (2) the buyer may not appreciate the financial implications of the disclosure, given the volume of paperwork that must be completed at the close of escrow. The Department of Real Estate White Report is a lengthy document that includes lcgal documentation concerning the title of the property, soils conditions and other information. Few people actually read the entire document; thcrefore, its usefulness as a disclosure mechanism is questionable. These criticisms are important because the efficient operation of the housing market, like other markets, depends upon the timely flow of information. Ordinarily, the imposition of the special tax on a property should cause a buyer to reduce his or her bid for the property, unless the property will receive higher service levels than comparable properties outside the CFD (see CDAC Report, pages 37-38). In a competitive housing market, the buyer should discount his or her bid price for the property by the present value of the future stream of special tax payments associated with the property. In that manner, the higher annual special tax payments are offset by lower annual mortgage payments, due to the lower purchase price. However, a buyer unaware of the existence of the special tax, or a buyer who has negotiated the purchase price prior to being notified of the existence of the special tax, will not be in a position to discount his or her bid for the property. Consequently, we recommend that the Notice of Special Tax provisions be amended to ( J) advance the disclosure requirement to the time that the buyer bids on the property by signing the contract of purchase, and (2) disclose more information about the special ¡:zo -~'--'--'--------- " --~---_._-.-- .-----....-".-- -- -.. ~ ---- -------. ,--~._------ _.. -~---._--._- ."" - --,,~--~.--------,-~. "----- ....,-, tax and the projects that it will fund. The same disclosure requirement would apply to both the initial sale of homes in new CFDs and subsequent sale of homes in CFDs. It is envisioned that the Notice of Special Tax would remain unchanged for subsequent purchases of homes within a CFD. Specifically. we recommend that the Notice of Special Tax form include the following information: (I) A statement that the property is subject to the special tax, which is in addition to the regular property taxes and any ('ther charges, fees, and special assessments on the parcel. (2) The amount of the maximum special tax which may be levied on the properly, the duration of the special tax, and where applicable, information as to how the special tax may be prepaid. (3) Where applicable, a statement that developed and undeveloped properly will be taxed at different rates and that more information on the special tax formulas may be obtained from the issuing agency. (4) A description of the facilities and services which will be paid for by the special tax, along with the cost estimate prepared for each facility and service. (5) In cases where the CFD will finance school facilities, a statement indicating whether school al/endance policies may limit students within the CFD from aI/ending schools constructed with special tax proceeds. (6) A statement indicating that the information in the Notice of Special Tax dates from the original sale of property and that current information may be obtained from the issuing agency. (7) A requirement that the prospective buyer sign and date the Notice of Special Tax form prior to entering into the contract of purchase. This notification requirement would apply prospectively to all home sales in CFDs occurring after the effective date of the authorizing legislation. RECOMMEND A nON _2 Establish an Annual ReportinE Requirement for Mello-Roos CFDs. Another cause for concern cited by many witnesses at the hearing is the lack of ongoing information on the status of individual CFDs. While information concerning the status of development and the amount of indebtedness is providcd in the Official Statcment for each bond sale, this information becomes dated rather quickly, due primarily to the dynamics of the real estate development process. Investors considering the purchase of Mello-Roos bonds on the secondary market face the time-consuming task of gathering current information on the J;2! ---.....-...- ---------~_..._-~----- n"" _ . ~:~~'.~"''''-; -,,,' . "·:.O·~'_""..--'. _ ' . - .' . -:.~~:;.;~:~.'~~,.=,'::?~~"':'- :::...- ~:':~'~~=-:'-"~- ~:=-2..::::~_-':~,~:~_::;-=-;:;.~;:;=-,~,:~_~~;~~ --- -----~"-=.::::,'~~---=::.- . ~--:::-~-=~. _---=_~~.:.::.~~~~:.:~:-:- :'_n_' ,.~. . --- _...~ - "~",~';;'".c:-----"':";.-'-'";;,,,""__~_. ._.--~--::--- ..~_.- --'., .-..- ._~,~---- .._. -" -- ----. -~-- --- -- -- .- -- - - ---~.~--- ~----- ---~ - --_.~ status of these districts. In turn, these information barriers inhibit the liquidity of the secondary market for Mcllo-Roos bonds. An illiquid secondary market may actually drive up yields in the primary market-. to the extent that investors are wary of buying bonds that will be difficult to unload later on. In the absence of timely information, the bond market is morc likcly to react to press reports which mayor may not be accurate. Morcover, concerned taxpayers have no source of information on the status of the CFDs where they presently live or where they may choose to relocate. For these reasons, we believe that investors, taxpayers, home buyers, and local governments would benefit from a better flow of information concerning the status of Mello-Roos CFDs. (In fact, the California Public Securities Association has already begun a data collection effort aimed at evaluating the financial condition of Mello-Roos CFDs.) Of course, the establishment of an annual reporting requirement for Mello-Roos CFDs would undoubtedly impose costs on local governments. The policy question for legislative consideration is whether the benefits of such a requirement would outweigh the costs. In our view, issuers would benefit from a reporting requirement, to the extent that an improved flow of information would permit investors to make more accurate evaluations of the risks associated with individual Mello-Roos bond issues--resulting in lower yields. It is true that individual investors and bonds funds can independently seek the information needed to make such evaluations. But it seems justifiable to ask the issuer to collect this information and place it in the public domain, instead of requiring this cffort to be duplicated countless times by different investors. In addition, the stream of data generated by a reporting requirement would permit state pOlicymakers to evaluate the financial condition of CFDs on an ongoing basis. Such information would provide an objective basis for determining whether additional changes to the Mello-Roos Act are warranted in the future. Consequently, we recommend that an annual reporting requirement be established for Mello-Roos CFDs. Specifically, we recommend that the governing board of each CFD be required to report the following information to CDAC at the conclusion of each calendar year: Develooment Status J. Number of residential properties developed in the prior year. 2. Square footage of commercial and industrial properties developed in the prior year. 3. Current assessed valuation of developed and undeveloped pròperties. If. Number and sales prices of properties sold in the prior year. Ca oital Pro ¡eclS Status J. A progress report on construction activity (status of individual projects included in the Notice of Special Tax) /;;( ;;¿ ---- - - ....- -~- .-.---.- ------------ ---- -_.~---.-- ---- ,~ _.- - .._,._~- ~----~--- ---..--. ---- - - -. -.---- -.-.- --_.. --~ -- -.-- -- ---_..~-_. --- - - -. .__ u_ 2. Fund balances in CFD construction accounts CFD Financial Status 1. Reserve fund balance. 2. Capitalized interest fund balance. 3. Tax delinquency rates. 4. Foreclosure actions initiated by the CFD to remedy special tax delinquencies (number of actions and dollar amount .of delinquencies). 5. Outstanding principal and interest amounts. 6. Debt autharization levels. In addition to the annual reporting requirement. we recommend that the governing board of CFDs be required to submit an addendum to the annual report if, at any time during the year, one .of the following events takes place: (1) a scheduled debt service payment is missed; (2) funds are withdrawn from the reserve fund to meet a scheduled debt service payment; or (3) an owner of 10% or more .of the property within the CFD declares bankruptcy. This reporting requirement would apply to all existing CFDs. Local agencies wauld be permitted to charge a fee ta .offset the administrative costs of collecting this information. Local agencies would no longer be required to comply with the reporting requirement once the value-ta-debt ratio .of the CFD can be demanstrated ta be at least 10:1 (in accordance with the appraisal standards expected to be promulgated pursuant la SB 1464). Unless inaccurate infarmation has knawingly been reported, neither the reporting local agency .or CDAC shall be liable for reporting inaccuracies. CDAC would be required annually to publish and make available all annual reports submitted by CFDs. RECOMMEND A nON tfl'3 Limit the Aooual IDcrease In the Maximum Special Tax 00 Residential Properties to Two Perceot (2'1'0) for LaDdowDer-approved FloaDciDl:s. Many of the witnesses testified that the Mello-Roos special tax is more acceptable to the commuoity if it is not subject to large fluctuations. A common method employed by the development industry to safeguard against large fluctuations is to limit the annual increase in the maximum special tax to two percent (2%). Although there does not appear to be a problem with local agencies exceeding .this /;:<3 ,......,------ ..---- ----- .. '.-- threshold, the enactment of this standard into law would provide add~d protection to taxpayers. Consequently, we recommend Ihat the annual increase in Ihe maximum special lax on residential properties be limited to two percent (2%) for landowner-approved financings. This limit would apply to all speciallaxes aulhorized after the effective date of the bill and would apply only to developed properties after occupancy. In cases where special tax paymenls supporl the provision of services, rather than capital facilities, ongoing costs will be affected by the rale of inflation. Consequently, the appropriate inflalor in Ihese cases is the state and local deflator for goods and services, which typically is higher than 2 percent. These limits would apply to maximum tax rates, not the tax ratcs actually levied by CFDs. Consequently, it is possible that special tax bills could increase by more than 2 percent annually. These limits would not apply to registered voter-approved financings. CDAC believes that the electorate within a voter-approved CFD should be allowed to determine the level of annual special tax increases that best suits local situations and preferences. RECOMMENDA TION #4 Require Timely JOiDt Financing Agreements Which Ensure Greater Involvement of Responsible Agencies. Several witncsses commented on the practice of developers approaching different governmcnt agencies in the same area for the purpose of securing the most favorable terms for a Mello-Roos transaction. This practice, known as "Mello-Roos shopping: can result in one agency issuing a large share of bonds for purposes outside the general responsibilitics of that agcncy. While it might seem advisable merely to outlaw this practice, substantial written testimony received by CDAC advocated the need for this type of flexibility. For instance, in some cases larger agencies with experiencc in Mello-Roos formation can assist smaller entities by issuing on their behalf. Moreover, there may be a need for coordinating multijurisdictional facilities construction which is best handled through the creation of one CFD. Finally, several agencies may choose to come together in order to rcalize economies of scale with regard to bond issuance costs. Nevertheless, there can be potential fallout from the practice of Mello-Roos shopping. For example, it can undermine the efforts of responsible local agencies to dictate to developers the permissible terms and conditions of Mello-Roos financings. It can also result in developers and their consultants overwhelming less sophisticated agencies which do not have experience with the Mello-Roos Act and lack the staff resources to thoroughly review developer proposals. Finally, it can lead to situations where the legislative body of a CFD has little expertise or / ;;2 'I ---- - --~- -,..::::-..~~-'""- - -c_ - " _-,_-".-..=-'~ ------ .....-- .--- . .. -.--"........ - intercst over thc improvements being financed, thercby rcducing the level of scrutiny and proper management which might be applied to these transactions. In order to maintain the bcnefits providcd through cooperative CFD financial arrangements, yct curb some of the problems associated with Mello-Roos shopping, CDAC believes that greater attention must be paid to the joint exercise of power agreements and joint community facilities agrecmcnts which govern thcse cooperative efforts. These agreemcnts can be strengthened in at least three ways. Currently, the Mcllo-Roos Act permits agencies to enter into these agreements in cascs whcrc benefits can be demonstrated. While such agrccments are routinely entered into in cases where a number of jurisdictions will be responsible for CFD improvements, there is no statutory provision to require it. Enacting such a requirement would cnsure that all responsible public agencies have been properly noticed and involved in the creation of the CFD. Second, agreements can be cntered into any time prior to the formation of the district. Consequently, agreements may come after a public hcaring has been conducted on formation of the district, thereby reducing potential scrutiny and attention which might help strengthen such agrcements. Due to the nature of the landowner vote, the public hearing process is one of few safeguards which ensures that all relevant financial matters have been addressed. To the extcnt that the public hearing results in changes which affect financing agreements betwcen agencies, there would be sufficient time to amend such agrcements prior to the formation of the district. . Finally, the current provisions of the Mello-Roos Act provide no guarantee that agencies which will benefit significantly from thc improvements bcing financed will playa significant role in monitoring or administering the construction of such improvements. As a result, a school district might end up overseeing sewer improvements, even though the school district has no specific expertise over such affairs. This problem can be exacerbated when an agency other than the one which issued the bonds ultimately becomes responsible for maintaining such improvemen ts. Accordingly, we recommend that the Mello-Roos Act be amended to require that (1) joint exercise of power agreements or joint community facilities agreements be entered into when the CFD improvements being financed extend to more than one agency. (2) such agreements be subject to the public hearing process which occurs prior to the adoption of the resolution of formation, and (3) joint financing agreements spell out the terms and conditions governing the construction. inspection, and acceptance of improvements subject to the agreement, including which agencies shall be responsible for overseeing and inspecting such improvements. RECOMMENDATION *S Require that Substantial Redirection of Funds be Subject to Majority Protest Provisions. Under current law, the types of facilities and services to be funded through the i CFD must be specified in the resolution of intcntion to establish the CFD , . ...,,,.- I ,;;/,.:;. .- ....m'm___·__~·_ ----- .- -"- - . (Government Code Section 53321). The governing board may subsequently eliminate facilities or services from this list at its discretion, but it may not fund facilities or services which were not identified in the resolution of formation (Government Code Section 53330.7). The governing board is required to develop cost estimates for the facilities and services to be funded through the CFD (Government Code Section 53321.5), but the governing board retains complete discretion to change the amount of funds devoted to the projects identified in the resolution of intention. The flexibility retained by local officials to re-allocate funds between different projects was a source of contention for certain Mello-Roos taxpayers who testified at the hearing (see testimony of John Beckley and Donald Swift). These taxpayers were particularly concerned by decisions made by their local officials to divert funds away from projects which would confer direct benefits to residents of the CFD towards projects that provide a more regional benefit to be enjoyed equally by residents outside of the CFD. Many local officials and industry professionals maintain that CFDs should not be bound to the cost estimates prepared at the time of the resolution of intention. They argue that the long time horizons involved with multiphased CFDs make it difficult not only to estimate project costs, but even to identify which projects will need to be funded through the CFD. Because of this uncertainty, the projects identified in the resolution of intention often reflect a "laundry list" of projects which may ultimately be financed through the CFD. The size of the bond authorization is determined by underlying land values and tax capacity, rather than by a meaningful capital expenditure plan. These local officials and industry professionals argue that requiring voter consent for fund redirections could inhibit their ability to fulfill the various mitigation measures imposed as a condition of development approval. At a minimum, the flexibility granted to local officials to make substantial re- allocations of funds presents a disclosure problem. Homebuyers in CFDs ha ve no assurance that their special tax payments will be used to fund the projects disclosed at the time they purchased their homes. To the extent that funds subsequently are diverted away from neighborhood projects toward more regional projects, for example, taxpayers justifiably may feel that they have been subjected to a game of "bait and switch." If local governments are not required to (I) identify precisely the projects that will be funded through the CFD or (2) adhere to specific cost estimates, the value of including this information in the initial resolution is severely undermined. If the public interest is served by granting public officials such broad latitude, it would make more sense merely to authorize a blanket tax levy to be used at the discretion of the local agency, without maintaining the veil of capital budgeting and planning. We do not believe that such latitude is either necessary or reasonable. In our view, the taxpayer protections in the Mello-Roos Act could be strengthened by granting CFD residents the right to review any substantial re-allocations of CFD funds between projects. There is no reason to believe that voters would object to perfectly legitimate fund redirections, necessitated by the preliminary nature· of the original cost estimates or the subsequent availability of unanticipated revenue sources for certain projects. However, voters might object to any proposed redirection of funds which fundamentally alters the arrangements disclosed at the time they purchased their homes. In such instances, we believe that there should be a mechanism to provide voters with a voice in these matters. / ~;< (¿, , " -----~.- ....----. --7"n·.-- ,_,.____ - ---_.--_._----~-~~.._------.... .....- --,--.--..- _ _________C'---'-'___. __ __ ___.~"'_ -------..,- --.-------. ".-- -..---------.-.--- ----- .-..- ____.n~ ___..._.._,.__....__. ,. .. -----_._-~._--_._-._-_.. '-_C'- --~._..---,~. ,-""':--' ,-- ~'"--~..'--.._--'._, ---- --, - Consequently, we recommend that a noticed public hearing be required if a proposed re-allocation of CFD funds would result in a deviation of more than 20 percent from the original cost estimate prepared for any project identified in the resolution of intention. The public hearing shall provide for a majority protest (i.e.. at least 50 percent of the electorate objecting) terminating the redirection of funds. This requirement would apply prospectively to all CFD fund redirections occurring after the effective date of the authorizing legislation. RECOMMENDATION #6 Require that School District AtteDdanc:e Policies Give Priority Consideration to CFD Residents. One great advantage of the Mello-Roos Act is that it can be used to finance public facilities which provide a general benefit to the community. Schools, police stations, and other public facilities which confer "general" benefits may be financed through Mello-Roos special taxes. By contrast, special assessments may be used only to finance improvements which confer "special" benefits to the assessed property. However, testimony offered at the Mello-Roos hearing in Orange County indicated that this flexibility was being abused by local officials in at least one instance (see testimony of Robert Beaulieu). In the City of Tracy, Mello-Roos CFD taxpayers are financing the construction of new schools, yet not all of these taxpayers are permitted to send their children to these schools. Instead, their children are transported to other schools within the school district, while children residing outside the CFD are assigned to schools financed through Mello-Roos special taxcs. City and school district officials contend that Mello-Roos CFD taxpayers are "buying capacity in the system: not necessarily acquiring the right to send their children a specific school--even if that school is within close proximity and funded through their Mello-Roos tax dollars (see written testimony of Dan Bort and Deborah Bailey). Commenting on the policy of guaranteeing Mello-Roos taxpayers access to Mello-Roos schools, Mr. Bort asserts "the [Tracy] School Board believes this would create a divisive first and second class student distinction which it prefers to avoid". Defenders of this pOlicy have noted that homeowners within CFDs understood "the deal" when they purchased their homes. Yet the taxpayers who testified at the hearing contend that they were not informed of the controversial school attendance policy when they purchased their homes. In fact, these Mello-Roos taxpayers indicate that they would not have purchased their homes had they been informed that they would wind up paying for schools which their own children would not be permitted to attend. Thus, at a minimum, it appears that greater disclosure is needed regarding policies which limit the access of Mello-Roos taxpayers to facilities financed through their tax payments. (This issue is addressed under Recommendation #1.) J;2Î - .--~-. ___n.._____ --.---.--.-..--, -. - ~.- _._,-- ..- "--..:-- '..-. -,-~- .-.>..-... -- ,-~- -, ..-..., While thc use of Mello-Roos financing should not dictate school attcndancc policies, it must be recognized that Mello-Roos financing might not be the appropriate financing vehicle in cases where the pursuit of broader societal goals severs the link between taxes paid and benefits-received. Taxpayers within Mello- Roos CFDs are already burdened with significantly higher tax payments than . residents of other areas of the state; it is questionable public pOlicy to require them to pay for facilities from which they will not derive a direct benefit. Nonethcless, several school officials have pointed out to the Commission many of the complexities involved in the annual process of establishing school attendance policies. Because annual enrollment growth cannot be accurately predicted, it may not be possible to guarantee all CFD residents space in CFD-funded schools. Moreover, school attendance decisions often must be subordinated to broader desegregation and diversity policy goals. Consequently, the goal of providing a direct benefit to CFD taxpayers may come into conflict with other concerns which must be balanced by school officials. While Mello-Roos financing may not be the ideal financing option in cases where school districts cannot ensure a direct benefit to CFD taxpayers, it realistically may be the only option available. Thus, it is likely that school districts will continue to find themselves faced with the conflict between taxpaycr considerations and other cducational goals. In order to resolve this conflict in a manner that is fair to CFD taxpayers, school officials should make every attempt to place students residing within a CFD in those schools paid exclusively or primarily with Mello-Roos special taxes. Accordingly. we recommend that school officials be required to adopt school al/endance policies which give priority consideration to Mello-Roos students who wish to aI/end Mello-Roos schools. Unless school officials can cite and document overriding reasons for denying such access, any student living within a CF D would be allowed the option of aI/ending a school constructed with Mello-Roos special taxes. /~8 .." .... ----,-- . ,,' ...'. "- - ---.,-....--..-....--..-.-.,--.--.....- - - -----..----.-.-.-.-,----..--.-- " ---- - -- -- --- -- ~:;,:::-~:T':?'::,:;~;:~:·?-:·.:' . :.;:";',:' .\~,,' ."~ .' . ~":~-'" "....,., .. Other I ues for Leg lative Consideration ;?-1 -,~...- _'_n _ _ ___...._.__________.. , -.-0 ,_,_~. -.--..- - ------~-- . m____ ___ ". -- , OTHER ISSUES FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION Although the January 15th hearing was extremely productive, it did not reach a consensus on all of the important issues surrounding the Mello-Roos Act. One issue that deserves the attention of the Legislature concerns the level of subsidy provided to developers by the Mcllo-Roos Act. Another issue involves establishing maximum Mello-Roos special tax rates. A third issue concerns the need for uniform appraisal standards for determining land value in Mello-Roos CFDs. While the Commission believes that it would be premature to offer specific recommendations on these topics at this time, it does seem reasonable to forward these issues to the Legislature for further deliberation and discussion. These issues are discussed below. ISSUE #1 The Subsidization of Developers by Hornebuyers in Mello-Roos CFDs The Commission heard conflicting testimony on the whether the implementation of the Mello-Roos Act results in homebuyers subsidizing developers. Specifically, three provisions of the Act give rise to this concern: (A) the taxation of developed properties at higher rates than undeveloped properties within CFDs; (B) the cross- collateralizalioll of properties in CFDs, which refers to the practice of raising taxes on nondelinquent properties (up to the maximum rate) to cover tax delinquencies on other properties; and (C) the capitalization of up to two years of debt service payments into Mello-Roos bond issuances. The public policy of subsidizing development is not something unique to the Mello- Roos Act; as discussed in the CDAC report, public subsidies have traditionally played a major role in the development of California (see CDAC report, Chapter I). What distinguishes the Mello-Roos Act from more traditional public subsidies is that Mello-Roos subsidies are paid from a very narrow tax base (developed property within a CFD), as opposed to the broad-based subsidies which existed prior to the passage of Proposition 13. While the issue of subsidies to developers warrants close legislative attention, it must be noted that the three aforementioned security features of the Mello-Roos Act clearly strengthen the credit quality of Mello-Roos bonds. Therefore, any reforms intended to diminish these subsidies could affect how investors perceive the creditworthiness of Mello-Roos bonds in the future. In addition, the subsidies may help to ensure that certain development proposals are financially viable. The elimination of these subsidies could result in a lower level of development activity, thereby restricting the new supply of homes and leading to higher average housing prices. A. Tax Differentials on Denloped and Undeveloped Land The Mello-Roos Act contains perhaps the most permissive set of tax provisions in California law, insofar as the tax rate and method of apportionment is left to the discretion of the local agency imposing the tax. In practice, most Mello-Roos special lax formulas tax undeveloped properties at lower rates than developed /30 . -----, . ~_..._------ -----.- ----------.---.-, ... - .- - - ...--- --- -- .- -_.~---- ..,_. ---- - .----_. ~._-------_._- .-"- .-.------ properties. Thc point in the dcvclopment process where property is reclassificd as "developed" is also left to the discretion of the local agency, but generally the reclassification occurs whcn the building permit is drawn. At the CDAC hearing, Carla Stalling, speaking on behalf of Harry Clark of Muni Financial Services, suggested that the tax differcntial between dcveloped and undeveloped propcrtics results in a subsidy to develop7rs. Ms. Stalling noted that developers favor Mello-Roos districts over assessment districts because the Mello- Roos Act permits the tax burdcn to be shifted to dcvcloped land. Con verscl y, developed and undeveloped properties are taxed at the same rate under the special assessment acts. She reported that her firm has experience with CFDs where the undeveloped land never carries a tax burden because the initial year's debt service is covered through capitalized interest, and in subsequent years the tax formulas shift the entire tax burden to developed propcrty. A similar argument was advanced by Donald Swift, a taxpayer from the Aliso Viejo CFD 88-1. Mr. Swift statcd that in Orange County it is not uncommon for developers to put 30 homes on an acrc·of land, cach with an avcrage Mello-Roos tax rate of $1,000 per year. Consequently, the developed land gencrates about $30,000 per acre, while the undeveloped tax burdcn typically ranges between $600 to $1,000 per acre; although the maximum tax rate might be as high as $12,000 per undeveloped acre. He reported that one bond consultant estimates that the landowner/developer will pay less than 3% of the total debt service of CFD 88-1. This example illustrates the magnitude of the subsidy by comparing the relative tax burdens according to a common unit of measuremelll--the amount of tax revenue gcnera ted per acre. In the CDAC report, we recommended that the Mello-Roos special tax be apportioned to individual propcrties on the basis of benefit-received from the expenditures financed through the CFD (see pages 28-3 I of the report). In other words, Mello-Roos special tax formulas should attempt to treat similar properties as equally as possible. Because the concept of benefit-received is not directly measurable, we noted that special tax formulas typically use the physical dimensions of the property, such as square footage and acreage, as a proxy for benefit-received; similar to the manner in which special assessments are apportioned to individual properties. To promote the goal of tax equity, we recommend in the CDAC report that developed and undeveloped land' be taxed at the same rates, as a general pOlicy (see CDAC report, pages 62-63). We recognize, however, that there may be a justification for taxing developed land at higher rates to pay for the early installation of certain large infrastructure items, such as water supply systems and sewage treatment plants, which must be installed with significant excess capacity because of economies of scale in construction. Nevertheless, the evidence presented at the hearing suggests that the disparities in developed and undeveloped tax rates serve more often to subsidize undeveloped properties, rather than to reflect differences in benefits-received by different properties in the CFD. .Conflict Between Equal Tax Rates and Residelltial Rate Tax Stability in Multi-phased CFDs. One argument presented against taxing developed and undeveloped land at the same rates concerns the impact of such a policy on residential tax rates for multi-phased CFDs. The problem, simply stated, is that if developed and undevelopcd land is taxed at the same rate, subsequent bond issuances would require sharp increases in residential tax rates above the maximum acceptable rate 1'3/ . -_........__._..__...._--~_..._.- -- -- - ----.-------- ---"- ._~- ----- .-.._-- "- _'___n__ incrcase of 2 percent annually. Conversely, if undeveloped land is taxed at a lower rate, the undeveloped land "absorbs" the additional debt service rcquircmcnts of subsequent bond issuances when it is reclassified as "developed" land (and is subject to higher tax rates). In our view, while this argument is correct mathematically, it does not prcsent a persuasive case for maintaining the status quo. The broader qucstion tha t needs to be asked is whether the design of special tax formulas should be subordinated to the goal of accommodating serial bond issuances cxtcnding many years into the future. Many CFDs are formed with cnough bonding capacity to addrcss service levels for decades into the future, conceivably because of the difficulties faced by issuers in obtaining taxing authority through conventional means. Don Swift reported that the Aliso Viejo CFD 88-1 is authorized to issue bonds exceeding a quarter of a billion dollars. to be supported by special tax payments of CFD residents extending well into the next century (see written testimony of Donald Swift). In such cases, local officials appear to be relying on the landowner vote to lock-in long-term public financing for CFDs. While the landowner vote is necessary for the carly installation of public facilities in developing areas, it is not clear that it should be used to authorize serial bond issuances extcnding decades into the future. For the areas outside of CFDs, local officials traditionally go to the voters to address long-term public financing needs. Despite the difficulties presented by current two-thirds voter-approval requirements, it might not be unreasonable to give CFD residents the same voice on tax and service levcl decisions as rcsidents outside of CFDs., once development proceeds beyond its initial stages. However, the desire to avoid two-thirds voters approval requirements is not the only reason that many Mello-Roos CFDs lock-in long term public financing for decades into the future. The other reason for doing so is that development projects typically are approved subject to various service level mitigation measures (i.e., adequate school, freeway, and sewage treatment capacity). The inevitable service level impacts of development cannot be deemed as mitigated if the financing needcd to construct additional facilities is subject to voter approval at some point in thc future. By locking-in long term public financing through a large initial bond authorization, local officials gain some assurance that needed public facilities will ultimately be constructed. Accommodating Multi-phased CFDs. Consequently, we recognize that some devclopments may require multi-phased CFDs and that Mello-Roos tax policy should be flexible enough to accommodate these instances. As mentioned above, we recommend that "benefit-received" serve as the guiding principle of tax equity. To avoid sharp increases in residential tax rates while applying the benefit principle to multi-phased CFDs, we recommend that the CFD be divided into improvement areas whenever possible (see CDAC report, page 30). By forming improvement areas, each phase of the development pays for its own infrastructure, which permits the debt service costs of serial bond issues to be isolated on the benefitting areas. In cascs where serial bond issues arc needed for facilities that will benefit the ell/ire CFD, it is possible to accelerate special tax collections during the earlier stages of the debt service schedule to maintain level tax rates over time. The surplus revenue can be used to downsize future bond issues. Even with the institution of improvement areas, we recognize that requiring a minimum tax on undeveloped property, coupled with the 2% annual cap on 1'-:'> '-7 :;. -- .,-_. - .---- ---~.- ,,--------, -- , -- ~'_'_______=__=~_._c_..~·_=---'õ -,. ___ --C'.o; _.~~-. ":.-'--_::'-'-_ _ .__,::___ - ~==--::;"'"-_-:::"'---C"-";;'-;."~.;,-,:,,,::,:,= --_"~,--~ ",",c --'-_- ,~.-~___=-- - ---- ------ ~----_.---_._- -- - - -" "..----.--.-------- . . residential tax rate increases (Recommcndation #3), could inhibit the implementation of some multi-phased CFDs. In such cases, the CFD governing board would have to seek voter approval for future bond issues, thereby promoting the goal of giving CFD taxpayers a voicc in futurc tax and spcnding decisions. In cases where public agencies want to rctain thc flexibility to implement a multi- phased CFD through the landowncr vote while cnsuring that undeveloped land carry some of the tax burden, a reasonable compromise might be to set the minimum undeveloped land tax at one-half the rate levied on developed land. Setting the minimum tax at that level, coupled with the 2 percent annual cap on residential tax rate increases, would leave room for serial bond issues, while simultaneously restricting the authorization of decades worth of bonds through the landowner vote. B. The Cross-Colla teraliza tion of Property in CFDs Most Mello-Roos tax structures provide greater than 1.0 debt service coverage; that is to say the maximum tax rates typically generate J 10% or more of the revenue needed to meet debt service requirements. In the event of higher-than-expected tax delinquencies, the tax rates on nondelinquent properties can be raised to cover tax delinquencies on other properties. This "cross-collateralization" of properties in CFDs provides added assurance to investors that debt service will not be interrupted by low to moderate tax delinquency rates. But the cross-collateralization of property can also cause equity problems if the nondelinquent taxpayers are not eventually compensated for their subsidization of delinquent taxpayers. Anecdotal evidence suggests that local debt management practices vary in this regard: in some cases, delinquent tax payments and penalties are used to lower residential tax rates in subsequent years; in other cases, delinquent tax payments and penalties are used to replenish the bond reserve fund and the nondelinquent taxpayers are never compensated for the subsidies that they paid to cover tax delinquencies. As noted in the CDAC report, developer cash-flow difficulties often lead to a higher ra te of tax delinquencies on undeveloped properties. In such cases, the buyers of homes in a new development may be forced to subsidize the developer by paying higher taxes. One proposal that has been suggested to simplify the tax structure and eliminate this source of subsidy is to require that residential properties be taxed at fixed dollar amounts, similar to assessment districts, rather than through complicated tax formulas. By taxing residential properties at fixed dollar amounts, residential tax rates could not be increased to offset the tax delinquencies of developers and other taxpa yers. In evaluating this proposal, we would remind the Legislature that the bulk of the subsidy to developers stems from the tax differential between developed and undeveloped properties, not from the cross-collateralization of property. The cross- collateralization of property provides a limited source of subsidy to developers. Requiring that residential properties be taxed at a fixed rate would eliminate this source of subsidy, but it would not prohibit issuers from setting the fixed . residential tax rate at levels much higher than the tax rates levied on undeveloped property. In addition, issuers may respond to the elimination of cross- collateralization by requiring higher debt service coverage ratios--in excess of 110 percent. High debt service coverage ratios might be the only way to safeguard against higher-than-expected delinquency rates. 13¿ -~'- --,---"._--,- _.____m.__"'.__......_ _.._-,_.._-,--_.._--~.--_.- ·"~__""'~.=c~,.·'___:;. - - ~ .-. - ,. .__._,--.-- '.- ..---- ____, __ "_,, _._ ,._u_ ---- ~-- .."..."',.....~--""';.""._. - -_... - ___u::::.-= ___ _,___-:::;:~ ~__~ .__~ _.=_; _ -------="-='-=-_ -o_"",,"_~._:--:--o- - ----.------.---- - - ---. .. ---.. ..-- _..__._____u__ .-.--..- -'---'-,_.--'-----------'--.- --~--- While the establishment of fixed residcntial tax rates would achieve the goal of simplifying Mello-Roos tax formulas, it could weakcn the credit quality of Mello- Roos bonds, by eliminating the ability to cross-collateralize properties. The establishment of fixed residential tax ratcs would not itself result in a major reduction in the level of subsidies flowing from homebuyers to developcrs, unless the fixed residential tax rate was coupled with a minimum tax rate on undeveloped property, as discussed a bovc. C. The Capitalization of Interest Finally, the Mello-Roos Act permits up to two years of interest payments to be "capitalized" into the bond issuance. In other words, the bond issuance can be sized to include the first two years of debt service payments, to reduce the tax liability of the landowner/developer during the construction period. While capitalized interest clearly can improve the credit quality of Mello-Roos bonds, the extra funds borrowed will eventually have to be paid back, with interest, over the remaining maturity schedule of the bonds. Consequently, capitalized interest can amount to a significant subsidy from homebuyers within a CFD to the developer. Some of the testimony questioned whether two years of capitalized interest provides an excessive subsidy to developers. Some amount of capitalized interest is needed to cover debt service during the time that the county assessor is adding the special tax to the tax rolls on a parcel-by-parcel basis. However, a period of one year should be adequate for this purpose. Beyond that point, the public pOlicy question becomes whether the added security to investors afforded by the capitalized interest results in a lower price for the bonds, offsetting the subsidy from CFD homebuyers to developers. ISSUE #2 LimIting the Maximum Special Tax Rate. The Mello-Roos Act does not limit the maximum tax rate that may be levied on individual parcels. Given that overlapping government entities can each form Mello-Roos CFDs over the same area, there is a danger that overlapping tax rates could become onerous. Many residents of developing areas of the state, in fact, live in multiple CFDs. In the CDAC report, we recommended that local governments adopt guidelines to limit the total Mello-Roos tax on each parcel to one percent of assessed value and to limit the total property tax burden on each parcel to two percent of assessed value. These limits are commonly accepted as industry standards, though there may be individual cases where the tax burdens exceed these levels. Although there does not appear to be a problem with Mello-Roos special taxes exceeding the thresholds above, there are two reasons why the Legislature may want to consider enacting these .limits into law for landowner-approved financings. First, the "landowner vote," through which most Mello-Roos bonds are authorized, is at best an imperfect tool of democratic expression. Even if the Legislature were /3r- -.. - u .. - ~ -, _._. .._m_. ____n___ __ ,___~~_ _ __ ____.._~~___ -- ---'-'-- -"--" - - , to cnact legislation to improve the disclosure of the special tax to homebuyers, there may continue to be reports of home buyers who were unaware of the financial conscqucnccs of their decision 10 purchase a homc in a Mcllo-Roos CFD. For that reason alonc, it may make sense 10 limit the level of taxation which may be imposed on a parcel through the landowner VOle. Second, the tax burden in Mello-Roos CFDs could become a detriment to the marketing and salc of thc improved propcrties if [he maximum tax rates are permitted to exceed the levels specified above. If developers are unable to unload thcse properties. the security of the bonds may be threatened. Again, the enactment of statutory tax rate limitations on landowner-approved financing could avoid this problem. Undesirable Consequences of Tax Rate Limitations. In considering statutory tax rate limitations on landowner-approved financings, the Legislature needs to be aware that such limitations can produce an unhealthy competition between overlapping governmental entities for available debt capacity. Each local government serving the developing arcas might be templed to approve the formation of a CFD and issue bonds bcfore the available taxing Or bonding authority is fUlly utilized. The danger is that available debt capacity will be squandered on lower priority facilities that could be phased-in later, leaving the developing area without the resources to address immcdiate needs. For this reason, we continue to recommend that local governments adopt the Planning Guidelines outlined in the CDAC Report (see pages 57-59). Essentially, these guidelines require cities and counties to view the available tax capacity of developing areas as a shared resource to be used to mitigate the negative service level impacts of growth. In our view, the incentive for overlapping local agencies to compete for available debt capacity is diminished if each agency can be assured that either their service level nceds will be addrcssed or thc development will not be permitted to proceed. The Planning Guidelines provide a rational framework for overlapping agencies to coordinate their planning activities and allocate the available debt capacity on a priority basis. In conclusion, the Legislature may want to consider the issue of Mello-Roos tax rate limitations within the broader framework of growth management policy. It may make more sense to first define the financial responsibilities of local agencies for mitigating the service level impacts of growth before considering the issue of Mello-Roos tax rate limits. Otherwise, the unhealthy competition for tax capacity described above might result. Given that presently there does not appear to be a problem with local agencies excecding the I percent tax rate threshold, it might not be necessary to codify this limit at this time. . , /33 - -.~,...._._. . - --,,- --_.._."._---~-"--- _____n____ , ..-~ -"--" --..-- -- ---- ISSUE #3 The Need for Uniform and Independent Land Appraisals Much of the discussion at the hearing focused on the credit quality of Mello-Roos bonds. Scvcral witnesses pointed out that Mello-Roos bonds arc ultimately secured by thc value of the land in the CFD. The Mello-Roos Act provides for rapid foreclosure proccedings to remedy tax delinquencies. Under such action, delinqucnt parcels are sold to payoff the tax delinquencies. Consequently, credit analysts typically focus their attention on the vallle·to-debt ratio, or value-to-lien ratio. A rule of thumb among investors is that the value of land plus improvemcnts should be at Icast three times as high as the value of all outstanding indebtedness on the property. The 3:1 value-to-debt ratio provides some assurance that foreclosure proceedings would generate sufficient revenues to pay investors. even if land values decline. The CDAC guidelines recommend that local issuers adopt the 3:1 value-to-debt ratio as a minimum issuance standard, and at least one witness suggested that the Legislature may want to enact this requiremcnt into law (see testimony of Dean Mysczinski): Uniform Appraisals. However, one problem with relying on the value-to-debt ratio as a measure of credit quality is that no industry standard exists for appraising the value of land. Among professional rcal estate investors. property values typically are estimated by developing a discounted cash flow analysis of the property. The rental value of the propcrty over time is discounted by the rate of return available on alternative investments. To develop a discounted cash flow analysis, the appraiser needs to make assumptions about (J) the buildout of the devclopment, and (2) the value of the properties at buildout. The problem is that these assumptions are essentially subjective, despite the technical nature of appraisals. Until some consensus can be reached as to how property values should be determined, enacting a minimum value-to-debt requirement into law might not translate into a meaningful standard of creditworthiness. A more meaningful mcasure might be to establish standards for the appraisal of property within CFDs. thereby assuring the bond market that a ·reliable and somewhat objective standard exists. The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice could serve as one model for this purpose. Otherwise, value-to-debt ratio comparisons between bond issues may continue to be a questionable exercise. Independent Appraisals. A related issue raised at CDAC's hearing on the Mello- Roos Act concerns the use of appraisers hired by the developer to determine the value of prcperty within the CFDs. Testimony offered at the hearing focused on the ethical dilemma that is created when an appraiser, paid directly by the developer, must render a judgement which will have a direct impact on the size of the bond issue. Thus, the concern centers on whethcr an appraisal might be inflated in order to permit a largcr bond sale which benefits the developer. ....~.. ¿ ",,".:' ,." " ~'\..,¡,/ _?¿¡ - ------- ---~ m - While CDAC docs not possess any documented evidence which indicates that this has occurred, the Legislature may nevertheless want to review whether it makes sense to require that all appraisers involved in Mello-Roos transactions bc the agcnt of the sponsoring public agency, rather than the agent of the developer. This policy might also be extended to the hiring of other professionals involved in the transaction (e.g. financial advisors, absorption study specialists, and tax consultants). I ! ":;)., ..--,~? .,/ , -.....-. .- ~...."-~-"..~- .... "~'-~--'-----'- ,".--'" ,. -- _____' -- ----,..-.---- -- --.-,,-- ....- -.--- -- . - _~ ". ._·;.C"·_·_' ~_. _._."._ __ _______ _"__._ APPENDIX C - NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX / 7í>' / _0 ~-_.- - NOTICE OF SPECIAL TAX COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. COUNTY OF , CALIFORNIA TO: THE PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OF THE REAL PROPERTY KNOWN AS: THIS IS A NOTIFICATION TO YOU PRIOR TO YOUR PURCHASING THIS PROPERTY. (1) This property is subject to a special tax, which is in addition to the regular property taxes and any other charges and benefit assessments on the parcel. This special tax may not be imposed on all parcels within the city or county where the property is located. If you fail to pay this tax when due each year, the property may be foreclosed upon and sold. The tax is used to provide public facilities or services that are likely to particularly benefit the property. YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS TAX AND THE BENEFITS FROM THE PUBLIC FACILITIES AND SERVICES FOR WHICH IT PAYS INTO ACCOUNT IN DECIDING WHETHER TO BUY THIS PROPERTY. (2) The maximum special tax which may be levied against this parcel to pay for public facilities is $ during the tax year. This amount will increase by percent per year after that (if applicable). The special tax will be levied each year until all of the authorized facilities are built and all special tax bonds are repaid, but in any case not after the tax year. An additional special tax will be used to pay for ongoing services, if applicable. The maximum amount of this tax is dollars ($ ) during the _-_ tax year. This amount may increase by , if applicable, and may be levied until the _ tax year (or forever, as applicable). (3) The authorized facilities which are being paid for by the special taxes, and by the money received from the sale of bonds which are being repaid by the special taxes, are: These facilities may not yet have all been constructed or acquired and it is possible that some may never be constructed or acquired. In addition, the special taxes may be used to pay for costs of the following services: YOU MAY OBTAIN A COpy OF THE RESOLUTION OF FORMATION WHICH AUTHORIZED CREATION OF THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT, AND WHICH SPECIFIES MORE PRECISELY HOW THE SPECIAL TAX IS APPORTIONED AND HOW THE PROCEEDS OF 1 / ~~:3--? ~- . . THE TAX WILL BE USED. FROM THE (name of jurisdiction) BY CALLING (telephone number). THERE MAY BE A CHARGE FOR THIS DOCUMENT NOT TO EXCEED THE ESTIMATED REASONABLE COST OF PROVIDING THE DOCUMENT. I (WE) ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I (WE) HAVE RECEIVED A COPY OF THIS NOTICE. I (WE) UNDERSTAND THAT I (WE) MAY TERMINATE THE CONTRACT TO PURCHASE OR DEPOSIT RECEIPT AFTER RECEIVING THIS NOTICE FROM THE OWNER OR AGENT SELLING THE PROPERTY. THE CONTRACT MAYBE TERMINATED WITHIN THREE DAYS IF THE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED IN PERSON OR WITHIN FIVE DAYS AFTER IT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE MAIL BY GIVING WRITTEN NOTICE OF THAT TERMINATION TO THE OWNER OR AGENT SELLING THE PROPERTY. DATE: 2 Ii () / ------ .....--.."~.._--_. -.-.-- APPENDIX D - STATEMENT OF GOALS AND POLICIES Ii I -~---- ---.-..,_.._---------_._~ ----.- CITY OF CHULA VISTA STATEMENT OF GOALS AND POLICIES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS PURPOSE AND SCOPE The City Council df the City of Chula Vista (hereafter the "City Council") hereby establishes and states its goals and policies concerning the use of Chapter 2.5 of Part I of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (hereafter the "Act") in providing adequate public infrastructure improvements and public services for the City of Chula Vista (the "City"). The following goals and policies shall apply to all community facilities districts hereafter formed or proposed to be formed by the City. Any policy or goal stated herein may be supplemented or amended by resolution of the City Council. The purpose of this Statement of Goals and Policies is to provide the City staff, the residents of the City and the owners and developers of property located within the City with guidance in the application for and consideration of the establishment of community facilities distficts within the City for the purpose of financing or assisting in financing the acquisition or construction of public infrastructure or the provision of authorized public services to benefit and serve either existing or new development or a combination thereof. The underlying principals behind this policy are the protection of the public interest, a~suring fairness in the application of special taxes to current and future property owners, assuring full disclosure of the existence of any special tax liens, insuring the creditworthiness of any community facilities district special tax bonds, protecting the City's credit rating and financial position and assuring that applicants for all community facilities district proceedings other than City initiated proceedings pay all costs associated with the formation of any community facilities · district. , The scope of this policy is limited to the proposed formation of community facilities districts for the limited purpose of financing or assisting in financing the acquisition or construction of pubHc infrastructure and/or the provision of authorized public services. .' INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT The City will consider applications initiated by owners or developers of vacant · property proposed to bè developed, owners of property within existing developed areas or registered voters residing in existing developed areas or the City itself for the establishment of community facilities districts to finance authorized public 12/9/97 1 /1<>2 · ·-.--- . .. - ~" -.. _. --- '--' ..' - . improvements or to provide authorized public services which benefit or serve existing or new development or a combination thereof. A community facilities district or an improvement area within a community facilities district proposed to be established to finance public improvements or authorized services to serve new development may be referred to as a "Development Related CFD." Each application for the establishment of a community facilities district must comply with the applicable goals and policies contained herein unless the City Council expressly grants an exception to such policy or policies as they apply to a specific application. FINDING OF PUBLIC INTEREST OR BENEFIT The City Council may authorize the initiation of proceedings to form a community facilities district to finance authorized public improvements or to provide authorized public services if the City Council determines that the public improvements to be financed or public .services to be provided or, in the case of a Development Related CFD, the attributes of the new development will provide, in the opinion of the City Council, a public benefit to the community at large as well as the benefit to be derived by the properties within the community facilities district. Examples of public benefit to the community at large may include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Construction of a major public facility which meets a community need including, but not limited to, a major arterial which will provide a vital roadway facility to alleviate congestion, water storage facilities which will remedy inadequate fire flow, and storm drainage facilities which are a part of the storm drainage master plan. 2. Provision oft public infrastructure sooner than would otherwise be required for a particular development project. 3. Construction of public infrastructure to serve commercial or industrial projects which will expand the City's employment and/or sales tax base. I 4. Provision of maintenance or other authorized public services such as landscaping, lighting, storm drain, flood control or open space maintenance necessary to promote or maintain quality of life and public safety within existing or developing areas of the City. , 12/9/97 2 //3 ..,~ "' "-------"'- -_._-----~---- ".----- AUTHORIZED PUBLIC FACILITIES Improvements proposed to be financed through a community facilities district must be public improvements which will be owned, operated or maintained by the City or another public agency or public utility or to which the City is authorized to contribute revenue. The types of improvements eligible to be financed must serve a whole neighborhood area or greater. Such improvements include: A. Streets and highways satisfying one or more of the following criteria: (1 ) identified in the Circulation Element of the City as collectors or arterials; (2) no direct access by abutting properties; or (3) minimum daily traffic volume of 3,500 ADT. B. Sewer lines or other sewer facilities serving a minimum of 500 single family dwellings or equÍ\(alent dwelling units or such other community as the Director of Public Works may determine to otherwise be consistent with the intent of these goals and policies to be located within authorized streets and highways or within other public rights-of-way shown on the master plan of sewer facilities. C. Water mains with a minimum diameter of 10· or other water facilities to be located within authorized streets and highways or within other public rights-of-way shown on the master plan of water facilities. D. Drainage facilities serving a minimum of 100 acres or such other community as the Director of Public Works may determine to otherwise be consistent with the intent of these goals and policies or draining an eligible street. E. landscaping and irrigation facilities meeting one of the following criteria: (1 ) located within the right-of-way of a street or highway shown on the CJrculation Element of the City's General Plan; ¡ (2) loca~ed adjacent to an adopted scenic route; or (3) located within dedicated open space. F. Reclaimed water facilities serving an area which benefits the proposed community facilities district. , 12/9/97 3 / 1/ 1/ ", - ___'-.m ';0...-. .._~"---'-- , , G. Dry utilities serving a minimum of 500 single family dwelling units or equivalent dwelling units or such other community as the Director of Public Works may determine to otherwise be consistent with the intent of these goals and policies; provided, however, the amount of special tax bond proceeds allocable to such dry utilities may not exceed that amount permitted under Federal tax law and regulations to ensure the tax exempt status of interest on the applicable special tax bonds. H. Grading for eligible public streets; provided, however, grading for a Development Related CFD must meet one of the following criteria: (1 ) Grading within the vertical planes of the right-of-way; (2) Slopes to City-owned open space or open space easement areas; or (3) Offsite roadway grading. , I If the cut and fill within (1) and (2) do not balance, the cost of excavating, hauling and compacting fill in the street is authorized to be financed. If there is excess material in the street right-of-way, only the cost of excavating and hauling to private property within the development project is eligible to be financed. The determination of balance will be made on a total eligible street grading basis, not on an individual street basis. I. Such other improvements as may be authorized by law and which the City Council determines. are consistent with the policies herein. The City Council shall have the final determination as to the eligibility of any improvement for financing, as well as the prioritization of financing of such improvements. Generally, "in-tract" (e.g., local streets or utilities) improvements which serve residential develop,ment will not be considered eligible to be financed through a community facilities district unless requested by the owners or registered voters of an existing residential development to remedy a threat, found to exist by the City Council, to the public health or safety resulting from an existing deficiency in public improvements to serve such existing development. Any public improvements proposed to be financed through a community facilities district must meet all design and construction requirements and standards as may be established by the City. Any public improvement, the construction of which is completed following the adoption of the resolution of formation of a community facilities district, proposed to be acquired by the City from the owner or developer of property within a Development Related CFD must be constructed as if such improvements had been constructed under the direction and supervision, or under the ~ 12/9/97 4 , .'- /:'-1::;;; .- -- --.------_.._-- -- - ------._,.---- .., -_..........._-_._-_._-~"_. - __ ______ ___n__.___ ___ ----.--- -------- -- ----- -- - - -- --- --.- -~---...,. ~._-~'..._.__._.~"'.- ,-,--.." -~. ---- -~---'~~'- -- ~ ""-~ -'''- authority of, the City. Public improvements proposed to be acquired from the proceeds of special tax bonds or special taxes shall not be acquired until all improvements for a particular project are completed and accepted by the City and the Director of Public Works or his or her designee has certified the final cost of such improvements. For purposes of this paragri;lph, a project shall be defined as all improvements within a particular street or ease.ment including street improvements, sewer, drainage, and utilities. The Director of Public Works shall have the authority and discretion to establish one or more separate projects consistent with the definition thereof for any community facilities dist(ict. Each project established by the Director of Public Works for any community facili~ies district and all improvements included within each such project must be described in the acquisition and financing agreement for such community facilities district. If the Director of Public Works has established more than one (1) project for any community facilities district, the Director of Public Works may authorize the partial release of funds to pay for the acquisition of each project when such project is completed and accepted by the City. Any deviation of the project definition shall be approved by the Director of Public Works. PRIORITIZATION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS It is the policy o,f the City to give first priority to the provision of public improvements benefiting the City in any community facilities district established by the City. It is secondarily t\1e policy of the City, in any community facilities district established by the City, to assist in the provision of other public improvements to be owned, operated or maintained by other public agencies or public utilities. , ; AUTHORIZED PUBLIC SERVICES Public services proposed to be financed through a community facilities district may include: A. Maintenance of parkways, medians and open space, including but not limited to, maintenance of walls, fences, trail systems, pedestrian access systems and other facilities within such open space, maintenance and preservation of habitat within such open space, and biota and other forms of monitoring of plants, wildlife, use of wildlife corridors and habitat Quality as a part of any such open space maintenance program. , B. Maintenanc;e of naturalized drainage and flood control facilities including, but not limited to, channels and detention and desiltation basins. C. Such other services as may be authorized by the Act or by ordinance of the City adopted pursuant to the charter authority of the City and which the City Council determines are consistent with the goals and policies 12/9/97 5 . Z' /-;. V ---- <_"~'~~_'_H ':'-h_"_._, C__-_.. _,..-,.__,~..._., ~,_ ¡ herein and are in the best interest of the City and the residents and property owners within the community facilities district. ) INCIDENTAL COSTS Eligible Incidental Costs Eligible incidental ~osts which may be financed from the proceeds of special tax bonds issued for a Development Related CFD or the special tax levied within a Development Related CFD shall be limited to those incidental costs directly related to the improvements financed from the proceeds of such special tax bonds or special tax revenues and may include: 1. Usual and customary design and engineering costs not to exceed the following percentages:, , a. Civil engineering - 7.5% of the cost of the improvements for which the engineering was performed. b. Soils engineering - 15% of the cost of the applicable grading. c. Landscape architecture - 10% of the cost of the applicable landscaping and irrigation. .. d. Surveying and construction staking - 2% of the combined cost of the civil engineering improvements and grading for the applicable street and wet utilities. e. Utility engineering/coordination - 3% of the cost of the applicable dry utilities. 2. Construction administration and supervision not to exceed, in aggregate, 1.75% of the total construction cost of the applicable public improvements. 3. Special engineering studies related to "collector" or "transmission" facilities. Eligibility of such studies must be reviewed and approved by the Public Works Director. 4. Plan check:and inspection fees (less any refunds). 5. Capacity or connection fees related solely to the public improvements being acquired or constructed as permitted under the Act. 12/9/97 6 /j11 ... -- .--------- .--,~..--..~.._._- " ---.,-- ----~---,._~ · ".~ '., '-.,'" .- . '-~'''', ',--" ---- .~ 6. Capitalized interest on any community facilities district special tax bonds as authorized by the City Council pursuant to these goals and policies. 7. Costs of acquisition of off-site rights-of-way and/or easements including the following: a. Appraisal costs, including title reports. b. Costs of preparing acquisition plats. c. Appraised value or actual cost of right-of-way or easement, whichever is less. d. Legal fees and cost related to eminent domain proceedings approved by the City Attorney. 8. Reimbursement of funds advanced by the applicant to pay for (i) preformation costs and/or (iil costs of issuance incurred by or on behalf of the City. 9. Costs of environmental review, permitting and mitigation limited to the specific public improvements proposed to be financed through the community facilities district. Unless specified otherwise above, the City Manager, or his designee, shall review all incidental costs to insure that such costs are customary and reasonable. Ineligible Incidental Costs The following costs are not eligible to be financed from the proceeds of community facilities district special tax bonds: , 1. Development impact fees; provided, however, the City Council may, in its sole discretion, grant credit in an amount not to exceed the obligation for the payment of such fees if improvements which would otherwise be financed from the proceeds of such fees are financed from the proceeds of community facilities district special tax bonds. 2. Administrative or overhead expenses, financial or legal fees incurred by an applicant for the formation of a community facilities district. This limitation does not apply to amounts advanced by the applicant to the City pursuant to the provisions of this policy to pay for preformation costs incurred by the City. (See "Preformation Cost Deposits and Reimbursements· below.) '. 12/9/97 7 'r. /i/6 - 3. Land use planning and subdivision costs and environmental review costs related to such land use planning and subdivision. 4. Planning studies unless off-site. 5. Environmental impact reports unless off-site. 6. Construction loan interest. 7. Subdivision financial analysis. 8. Attorneys' fees related to the land use entitlement or subdivision process unless off-site. 9. On site right-of-way and easements. 10. Any compensation payable to the Cityas consideration for the City's agreement to provide the financing mechanism for the financing of the authorized improvements and eligible incidental expenses and to acquire the authorized improvements pursuant to the terms and conditions of an agreement with the City and L the property owner or developer as appropriate. , 11. Other overhead expenses incurred by the applicant. REQUIRED VALUE-TO-DEBT RATIO It is the policy of the City that the value-to-debt ratio, i.e., the full cash value of the properties subject to the levy of special taxes, including the value of the improvements to be financed from the proceeds of the issue or series of special tax bonds for which the value-to-debt ratio is being computed, compared to the aggregate amount of the special tax lien proposed to be created plus any prior fixed assessment liens and/or special tax liens, for a community facilities district must be at least 4: 1.The required value-to-debt ratio shall be determined with respect to all taxable property within the community facilities district in the aggregate and with respect to each development area for which no finals subdivision map has been filed. A community facilities district with a value-to-debt ratio of less than 4:1 but equal to or greater than 3:1 may beÎapproved, in the sole discretion of the City Council, upon a determination by the City Manager, after consultation with the Finance Director, the bond counsel, the underwriter and the financial advisor, that a value-to-debt ratio of less than 4: 1 is financially prudent under the circumstances of the particular community facilities district. In addition, the City Council may, in its sole discretion, accept a form or forms of credit enhancement such as a letter of credit, bond insurance or the escrow of bond proceeds to offset a deficiency in the required value- . \ 12/9/97 8 IJf7 .. . _____.__".~.. ..________-,u_.____ ---, _,_, .'_',,_, ~'__A_~_ _ __,___ _. ----. to-debt ratio as it applies to the taxable property within the community facilities district in the aggregate or with respect to any development area. The value-to-debt ratio shall be determined based upon the full cash value of the properties subject to the levy of the special tax as shown on the ad valorem assessment roll or upon an appraisal of the properties proposed to be assessed; provided, however, the City Manager may require that the value-to-debt ratio be determined by an appraisal if, in his judgement, the assessed values of the properties proposed to be assessed do not reflect the current full cash value of such properties. The appraisal shall be coordinated by, done under the direction of, and addressed to the City. The appraisal shall be undertaken by a state certified real estate appraiser, as defined in Business and Professions Code Section 11340. The appraiser shall be selected and retained by the City or the City's financial advisor. The costs associated with the preparation of the appraisal report shall be paid by the applicant for the community facilities district, but shall be subject to possible reimbursement as provided for herein. The appraisal shall be conducted in accordance with assumptions and criteria established by the City, based upon generally accepted appraisal standards or state recommended standards for similar appraisals conducted for the same purpose. The City reserves the right to require a market absorption study for any community facilities district proposed to include new development. In any such case the City shall retain, at the applicant's sole expense but subject to reimbursement as provided for herein, a consultant to prepare a report to verify or establish the projected market absorption for and the projected sales prices of the properties proposed to be included within the community facilities district. If a market absorption study is conducted, the appraiser shall utilize the conclusions of the market absorption study in conducting the appraisal of the properties within the proposed community facilities district or shall justify, to the satisfaction of the City Manager, why such conclusions were not utilized in conducting such appraisal. ; CRITERIA FOR APPRAISALS . Definition of Appraisal For purposes of these goals and policies, an appraisal shall mean a written statement independently and impartially prepared by a qualified appraiser setting forth an opinion of defined value of an adequately described property as of a specific date, supported by the presentation and analysis of relevant market information. Contents of the Appraisal An appraisal should reflect nationally recognized appraisal standards, including, to the extent appropriate, the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. 12/9/97 'I 9 - . I::;; 0 - -- - ';'.- -,"---' - - "-~' ...-_.. ,- --.~...-~~.--- ---------,-_._._~.".~~- 1 An appraisal must contain sufficient documentation, including valuation data and the appraiser's analysis of such data, to support the appraiser's opinion of value. At a minimum, the appraisal shall contain the following: 1. PurDose of the aDDraisal. This should include the reason for the appraisal, a definition of all values required and the property rights being appraised. "I 2. Area. City and Neiahborhood Data. These date should include such information as directly affects the appraised property together with the appraiser's conclusions as to significant trends. 3. PrODertv Data. This should include a detailed physical description of the property, its size, shape, soil conditions, topography, improvements, and other physical characteristics which affect the property being appraised. The availability, capacity of, and proximity to, utilities and other infrastructure should also be discussed. 4. Title Condition. The condition of title to the property appraised should be discussed based upon the appraiser's examination of a title report of the property appraised. The appraiser should analyze and discuss those title issues which are concluded to impact the value of the property being appraised. , 5. ImDrovement Condition. ; a. The appraiser shall value the property within the community facilities district on an "as-is· basis taking into consideration the value associated with the public improvements to be funded from the proceeds of the issue of bonds for which the appraisal is being undertaken. The property in the community facilities district shall be valued as if it were free and clear of any special taxes and assessments, if any, so that a proper comparison of value-to-debt can be determined. In determining his or her conclusion of value, the appraiser may consider the value of the property in the community facilities district under different market conditions. This may consist of valuing the property as if it were sold to a single purchaser in bulk or sold to several purchasers in portions or pieces. b. Land parcels which have been developed with residences and subsequently sold should at a minimum indicate land parcel size, number of lots, den,sity, number of plans, square footage, room counts, year construction was initiated, year of completion, and when sales were initiated. c. Land parcels with residential product under construction or with standing inventory should be described as in a. above and include a summary of 12/9/97 10 /5'1 -- --"- -----_._.~~- _. , the stage <;1f development regarding the number of units completed, number of models, status of units under construction, finished lots and mass-graded or raw lots. In addition, a comment on the marketability of the units (architecture, size, etc.) is appropriate. , d. land parcels which have been developed with income-producing (or owner-occupied) commercial, industrial, apartments, offices, etc., should be described as follows: , (j) Commercial-Retail - land parcel size; basic construction type; typical tenant improvements (and who is responsible for their construction); leasable area, when construction was initiated; and date of completion. (ii) Industrial - land parcel size; basic construction type, whether singh:, or multi tenant; typical office build-out as percentage of total j area, when construction was initiated; and date of completion. (m) Apar;t:ments - land parcel size; basic construction type; number of stories; number of units; unit mix; size; total rentable area, when construction was initiated; and date of completion. (iv) Office - land parcel size; basic construction type; typical tenant improvements/allowance; net rentable area, when construction was initiated; and date of completion. 6. General Plan Classification. Describe the General Plan classification of the subject and comparable properties. 7. Zonina. Describe the zoning for the subject and comparable properties. Note any discrepancy between General Plan classification and zoning. If rezoning is imminent, discuss furth~r under Item 8 below. , 8. Analvsis of Hiahest and Best Use. The report should state and support the highest and best use tQ. which a property can be put and recognize that land is appraised as though vac~nt and available for development to its highest and best use, and the improvements are based on their actual contribution to the site. 9. Statement of Value. The appraiser's opinion of the value of the specified property rights, prepared according to all relevant and reliable approaches to value consistent with commonly accepted professional appraisal practices. If a discounted cash flow analysis is used, it should be supported by at least one other valuation method such as sales comparison approach utilizing sales of properties that are in the 12/9/97 11 /5~ -_...-._._~----_. ....~..- - -.-----...- - - ~ - .- ---- - -- - '.' . - .----.-- --- ,-- -- -,._-~.,- ---- ::.~;~~~;;:~~.~;:_:__=;:;=-;=;:, -.~~::- =~ _ ~.:;::-...;:;~ .~~ .~---_::___:::_'~- -~--=-:_ =__7~:;,:~·<=__-.::-.:.:~:-::.7O". . - ".---- , same stage of development. If more than one valuation approach is used, the appraiser shall include an analysis and reconciliation of such approaches to support the appraiser's opinion of value. 10. Certification. Certification of appraiser and permission to reproduce and use the appraisal report as required for bond issuance. MAXIMUM AGGREGATE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS It is the policy of~ the City that the maximum annual special tax installment applicable to any parcel' used for residential purposes shall not exceed one percent (1 %) of the sale price of newly developed properties subject to the levy of the special tax (the "Newly DeveloRed Properties") as of the date of the close of escrow of the initial sale of any residential dwelling unit to such residential home owner. As a distinct and separate requirement, the total of the following taxes, assessments and special taxes appearing on the property tax bill, shall not exceed two (2%) of such initial sales price of Newly Developed Properties: ; 1. Ad valorem property taxes. 2. Voter approved ad valorem property taxes in excess of one percent (1 %) of the assessed value of the subject properties. 3. The maximum annual special taxes levied by the community facilities district under consideration and any other community facilities district or other public agency. 4. The annual assessment installments, including any administrative surcharge, for any existiQg assessment district whether such assessment installments are utilized to pay debt s~rvice on bonds issued for such assessment district or to pay for maintenance or services. The applicant for ~he establishment of any Development Related CFD shall be required to enter into an. agreement with the City or the community facilities district requiring the prepayment by the applicant of that portion of the special tax obligation applicable to any parcel used for residential purposes in order to reduce the annual maximum special tax obligation so that the maximum annual special tax installment shall not exceed 1 % of the sales price for such parcel and the total taxes, assessments and special taxes does not exceed 2% of such sales price. " 12/9/97 i 12 , /'"" ....-;, I ~;.::::;; " : . .- -- ----------. --- ~---~---.--._-------.._----------._------_._----"_., --- - ----,~ SPECIAL TAX REQUIREMENTS The rate and method of apportionment of the special tax for any community facilities district shall adhere to the following requirements: 1. The maxil1lum special tax shall be adequate to include an amount necessary to pay for the ,expenses incurred by such community facilities district in the levy and collection of the special tax and the administration of the special tax bonds and the community facilities district. 2. The maximum projected annual special tax revenues must equal 110% of the projected annual 'gross debt service on any bonds of the community facilities district. 3. A backup special tax shall be required for any Development Related CFD to protect against changes in density resulting in the generation of insufficient special tax revenues to pay annual debt service and administrative expenses. The City Council may additionally or alternatively require that as a condition of approval of the downsizing of the development in a Development Related CFD at the request of the applicant or the applicant's successor-in-interest, the applicant or the applicant's successor-In-interest, as applicable, may be required to prepay such portion of the special tax obligation as ,may be necessary in the determination of the City to ensure that adequate debt service coverage exists with respect to any outstanding bonds or otherwise provides security in a form and amount deemed necessary by the City Council to provide for the payment of debt service on the bonds. 4. All developed and undeveloped property within any community facilities district which is not otherwise statutorily exempt from the levy of special taxes shall bear its appropriate share of the community facilities district's aggregate special tax obligation from the date of formation of the community facilities district consistent with the other goals and policies set forth herein. 5. A partial and/or total prepayment option shall be included in any rate and method of apportionment of special taxes to pay for public facilities. No prepayment shall be permitted of I,a special tax levied to finance authorized services or maintenance. .I 6. The maximum special tax to pay for public facilities shall be levied against any parcel used for private residential purposes in the first fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the building permit for the construction of a residential dwelling unit on such parcel is issued and such maximum special tax may not escalate after the first fiscal year in which such special tax is so levied. , 12/9/97 13 15f -.--.---.-.. --.¡ ---...,---- .. --~,,-~~ . -....-...--.^ ." -~.._- r 7. The rate and method of apportionment of a special tax to pay for public facilities shall specify a fiscal year beyond which the special tax may not be levied on any parcel used for prh-:ate residential purposes. A special tax to pay for public services or maintenance shall have no termination date unless established by the City Council. TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SPECIAL TAX BONDS All terms and conditions of any special tax bonds issued by the City for any community facilities district, including, without limitation, the sizing, timing, term, interest rates, discount, redemption features, flow of funds, investment provisions and foreclosure covenants, shall be established by the City. Each special tax bond issue shall be structured to adequately protect bond owners and to avoid negatively impacting the bonding capacity or credit worthiness of the City. Unless otherwise approved by the City Council, the following shall serve as minimum bond requirements: , ~ \ a. A reserve fund shall be established for each bond issue to be funded out of the bond proceeds in a(1 amount equal to 10% of the original proceeds of the bonds or such lessor amount as may be required by federal tax law. b. Interest shàll be capitalized for a bond issue only so long as necessary to place the special tax installments on the assessment roll; provided, however, interest may be capitalized for a term to be established in the sole discretion of the City Council on a case-by-case basis, not to exceed an aggregate of 18 months, taking into consideration the value-to-debt ratio, the expected timing of initial residential occupancies, ,expected absorption and build out of the project, the expected construction and completion schedule for the public improvements to be funded from the proceeds of the bpnd issue in question, the size of the bond issue, the development pro forma ,,!nd the equity position of the applicant and such other factors as the City Council may deem relevant. . c. In instances where multiple series of bonds are to be issued, the City shall determine what improvements shall be financed from the proceeds of each series of bonds. , d. Neither the. faith, credit or taxing power of the City shall be pledged to the payment of the bonds. The sole source of revenue for the payment of the bonds shall be the special taxes, capitalized interest, if any, and moneys on deposit in the reserve fund established for such bonds. , 12/9/97 14 /G!3 ~. ---------.".--- - ...,,--.--.-----.., _u. .. -.--.., ,...--- -..._~ DISCHARGE OF SPECIAL TAX OBLIGATION It is the policy of the City that the special tax obligation related to the financing of the acquisition or construction of public improvements may be prepaid and discharged in whole or .in part at any time. The applicant for the formation of a Development Related CFD must provide notice and opportunity for the purchasers of property within such community facilities district to prepay the special tax obligation applicable to such property at the time of the close of escrow. The applicant for the formation of a Development Related CFD must prepare and present a plan. satisfactory to the City Council. prior to the public hearing to consider the formation of such community facilities district describing how the prospective purchaser will be notified of the existence of the special tax lien and the options which the prospective purchaser has regarding the prepayment and discharge of the special tax obligation. DISCLOSURE TO PROPERTY PURCHASERS IN DEVELOPMENT RELATED CFD'S The applicant for the formation of a Development Related CFD will be required to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Manager (when the term City Manager is used herein it shall mf-an the City Manager or his designee) that there will be full disclosure of the special tax obligation for such community facilities district and of any and all other special taxes or assessments on individual parcels to prospective purchasers or lessees of property within such community facilities district, including interim purchasers, merchant builders. residential homeowners and commercial or industrial purchasers or lessees. ,. Such notice must include all of the following in addition to such other provisions as may be required by ttle Act, the Municipal Code of the City or the applicant may deem necessary: . a. Provide for full disclosure of the existence of the special tax lien and any other assessment or special tax obligation applicable to the properties within the community facilities district (whether imposed by the City or any other public agency). including the principal amount of the special tax obligation and any other applicable assessment or special tax obligation. term of each of the assessment or special tax liens and the amount"of the expected payments of the special taxes and the maximum authorized spècial tax. " ¡ b. Disclose the option to prepay the special tax to pay for public facilities or allow the special tax to pay for public facilities to be passed through to the purchaser of such proper;ty and the adjustment, if any, in the sales price of the homes or other property which \/)IiII apply if the special tax lien is passed through. Provide the ability for the prospective purchaser to elect to exercise the option either to prepay the 12/9/97 , 15 /56 ~'''-';'''_''"--~ < ; special tax obligation for facilities at the close of escrow or to have the special taxes included in the propertY,taxes for the property. Such disclosure shall be placed in all sales brochures, all oth~r on-site advertising and all purchase documents. c. Specify in all disclosure documents the name, title, telephone number and address of a representative of the City as provided to the applicant who may be contacted by any prospective purchaser of property within the community facilities district for further infor,mation regarding the community facilities district and the special tax liens. The applicant mu~t agree to provide an original copy of all applicable disclosure documents to the City prior to initiating property sales. PREFORMATION COST DEPOSITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS J Except for those applications for community facilities districts where the City is the applicant, all City and consultant costs incurred in the evaluation of applications and the proceedings to form a community facilities district and issue special tax bonds therefor will be paid by,the applicant by advance deposit with the City of moneys sufficient to pay all such costs. Each application for the formation of a community facilities district shall be accompanied by an initial deposit in an amount to be determined by the City Manager to be adequate to fund the evaluation of the application and undertake the proceedings to form the community facilities district and issue the special tax bonds therefor. The City Manager may, in his or her sole discretion, permit an applicant to make periodic deposits to cover such expenses rather than a single lump sum deposit; provided, however, no preformation costs shall be incurred by the City in excess of the amount then on deposit for such purposes. If additional funds are required to pay required preformation cqsts, the City Manager may make written demand upon the applicant for such additional funds and the applicant shall deposit such additional funds with the City within five (5) working days of the date of receipt of such demand. Upon the depletion of the funds deposited by applicant for preformation costs, all proceedings shall be suspended until receipt by the City of such additional funds as the City Manager may demand. The deposits shall be used by the City to pay for costs and expenses incurred by the City incident to the evaluation of the application and the proceedings for the formation of the community facilities district and the issuance of the special tax bonds therefor, including, but not limited to, legal, special tax consultant, engineering, appraisal, market absorption, financial advisor, administrative and staff costs and expenses, required notifications, printing and publication costs. () I 12/9/97 16 -- , /S7 -- ---"--" - ---..,..,,--.----......-----.. ".. ...._'u_____·__~._____ ---_.. -._.-,---_. _._. .-.-,,-- - -- -- The City shall refund any unexpended portion of the deposits upon the occurrence of one of the following events: I a. The formation of the community facilities district or the issuance of the special tax bonds; , b. The formation of the community facilities district or the issuance of the special tax bonds is disapproved by the City Council; c. The proceedings for the formation of the community facilities district and the issuance of the special tax bonds are abandoned at the written request of the applicant; or d. The special tax bonds may not be issued and sold. Except as otherwise provided herein, the applicant shall be entitled, at the option of the applicant, to reimbursement of or credit against special taxes for all amounts deposited with4 the City to pay for costs incident to the evaluation of the application and the proceedings for the formation of the community facilities district and the issuance of the special tax bonds therefor upon the formation of the community facilities district and the successful issuance and sale of the special tax bonds for the community facilities district. Any such reimbursement shall be payable solely from the proceed~ of the special tax bonds. The City shall not accrue or pay interest on any moneys deposited with the City. I SELECTION OF CONSULTANTS The City shall select and retain all consultants necessary for the evaluation of any application and the proceedings for the formation of a community facilities district and the issuance of the special tax bonds therefor, including, but not limited to, special tax consultant, bond counsel, financial advisor, underwriter, appraiser, and market absorption analyst after consultation with the applicant. , '. LAND USE APPROVALS Properties proposj!d to be included in a Development Related CFD must have received such discretionary land use approvals as may, in the determination of the City, be necessary to enable the City to adequately evaluate the community facilities district including the properties to be included and the improvements proposed to be financed. The City will issue bonds secured by the levy of special taxes within a Development Related CFD when (i) the properties included within such community facilities district have received those applicable discretionary land use approvals which 12/9/97 17 / ::;-g- ;) -------.._~---- ,"--, , ,. , would permit the development of such properties consistent with the assumptions utilized in the development of the rate and method of apportionment of the special taxes for such community facilities district and (HI applicable environmental review has been completed. ; It is the policy of the City Council in granting approval for development such as zoning, specific plan or subdivision approval to grant such approval as a part of the City's ongoing planning and land use approval process. In granting such approval, the City reserves such rights as may be permitted by law to modify such approvals in the future as the City Council determines the public health, safety, welfare and interest may require. Such approval when granted is subject to a condition that the construction of any part of the development does not, standing alone, grant any rights to complete the development of the remainder of such development. Construction of public improvements to serve undeveloped land financed through a community facilities district shall not vest any rights to the then existing land use approvals for the property assessed for such improvements or to any particular level, type or intensity of development or use. Applicants for a Development Related CFD must include an express acknowledgment of this policy and shall expressly waive on their behalf and on behalf of ~heir successors and assigns any cause of action at law or in equity including, but not limited to, taking or damaging of property, for reassessment of property or denial of any right protected by USC Section 1983 which might be applicable to the properties to be assessed. APPLICATION PROCEDURE FOR DEVELOPMENT RELATED CFD'S Any application for the establishment of a community facilities district shall contain such information and be submitted in such form as the City Manager may require. In addition to such information as the City Manager may require, each application must contain: 1. Proof of authorization to submit the application on behalf of the owner of the property for which the application is submitted if the applicant is not the owner of such property. 2. Evidence satisfactory to the City Manager that the applicant represents or has the consent of the owners of not less than 67%, by area, of the property proposed to be subject to the levy of the special tax. 3. For any Development Related CFD proposed to finance improvements to benefit new development, a business plan for the development of the property within the proposed community facilities distriGt and such additional financial information as the City Manager may deem necessary to adequately review the financial feasibility of the community facilities district. For Development Related CFD's proposed to finance improvements to benefit new development, the applicant must demonstrate 12/9/97 18 , , />'1 .... --_...---,,-- ---.----" ----......------------ - . - _4.·_,__._ _w".._ ., ,--- to the satisfaction of the City Manager the ability of the owner of the property proposed to be developed to pay the special tax installments for the community facilities district and any other assessments, special taxes and ad valorem taxes on such property until full build out of the property. It is the intention òf the City Council that applicants for a community facilities district have an early opportunity to have the application reviewed by City staff for compliance with this policy. In that regard, the City Council hereby directs the City Manager to create a community facilities district application review committee composed ofthe City Manager, City Attorney, Director of Public Works, City Engineer, Planning Director, Finance Director and such additional persons as the City Manager may deem necessary. The committee shall meet on request with the applicant for a community facilities district for the purpose of reviewing an application to form a community facilities district following the determination by the City Manager that the information contained inthe application for such community facilities district complies with the requirements of this policy. Following the review of such an application, the committee shall prepare and submit a report to the City Council containing the findings and recommendations of the committee regarding the application. I Following completion of the committee report, the City Manager shall place the application on the City Council agenda for review. After review of the application and consideration of the committee report, the City Council shall determine whether or not to approve the initiation of proceedings to form the community facilities district. The decision of the City Council pertaining to the application shall be final. The ability of a property owner or developer to obtain financing of public improvements from the proceeds of tax-exempt bonds provides substantial economic benefits to such owner or developer not the least of which may be the financing of such improvements at interest rates substantially lower than conventional financing interest rates, if such conventional financing is available, and/or the ability to obtain financing without providing equity compensation to the lender. In providing such financing for a Development Related CFD the City Council believes that the City is providing valuable consideration to the property owner or developer and should be receive consideration in éxchange. It is the goal of the City to insure that the City and the remainder of its resid~nts, property owners and taxpayers are compensated for the consideration provided to the property owner or developer of a Development Related CFD and that such compensation should be one percent (1 %) of the total authorized bonded indebtedness for such a community facilities district. Prior to the issuance of special tax bonds for any·Development Related CFD, the applicant shall pay to the City the pro rata amount of any compensation payable to the City as consideration for the City's agreement to provide the financing mechanism for the financing of the authorized improvement~ and eligible incidental expenses and to acquire the authorized improvements pursuant to the terms and conditions of an agreement between the City and the property owner or developer as appropriate. For example, if the compensation 12/9/97 19 /(,0 .~ ¡ _n_ ____.~c payable to the City for such consideration is $100,000 for a Development Related CFD where the total authorized bonded indebtedness is $10,000,000 and the series of special tax bonds to be ,initially issued is $5,000,000, the compensation payable to the City prior to the issuance of the intial series of bonds will be the principal amount of the initial bond issue ($5,000,000) divided by the total amount of the authorized bonded indebtedness ($10,000,000) multiplied by the total compensation for such Development Related CFD ($100,000). In this example, the compensation payable prior to the issuance of the first series of bonds would be: $5.000.000 $10,000,000 ,. X $100,000 = $50,000. " , r , ., 12/9/97 20 lie I -,~ - -----~--_._. -"----_.__.._.._--~.._. --..-, -.----...,- - -~ ------~ --....-..... - Chapter 5.46 , REAL ESTATE SALESPERSONS» Sections: 5.46.010 License tu required. 5.46.020 Disclosure of Me1Io-Roos Districts, Ass-'<IDmt Districts and Open Space Districts. 5.46.010 License tu required. Every person conducting, managing, carrying on or engaged in business hereinafter enumerated in this section, shall pay a license tax as presently designated, or as may in the future be amended, in the Master Tax Schedule, Section 5.46.010. Real estate salespersons. (Ord. 2537 §1 (part), 1992; Ord. 1801 §11, 1978; prior code §18.59). 5.46.020 Disclosure of Me1Io-Roos Districts, Ass-=mt Districts and Open Space Districts. Upon the sale of a new home, which is subject to a Mello-Roos District, an assessment district or an open space disnict, any person engaged in the business of real estate sales shall disclose the costs of the district to the buyer and the existence of any alternative to payoff those costs at the time of the purchase of the property. This disclosure shall take place before any binding commitment is made either by the se" to sell the property to a specific buyer or by the buyer to purchase the property. The disclosure shalI m, in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 'I' and incorporated herein by reference as if set forth in full, (Ord. 2275 §1, 1988). I/. r¡ 395 I CP ç.?'., (R 3/93) .. --'.~---.'-- --, - EXHIBIT I NOTICE OP SPECAL TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS 3bf'-t ~pc.. BUILDER ì""- 'e.d PlNi SQ FEET COMMUNITY FACIlJTIES SPECIAL ASSESSMENT DISJ'RJcrs DlSTRIcrs OPEN SPACE TOTAL SPECIAL SWEE1WATER Oi ELEMENTARY MAlNTENANÇE TAXES AND YEAR UNION HIS SCII DISJ'RJCT DlST. NO(S) DIST. NO(S) DISTRICT ASSESSMENTS 1 2 3 4 S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 2S NOTE: The unit you are purchasing is located within boundaries of community facilities districts and special assessment districts. The special taxes and assessments shown above are in addition to the base property taxes on the property. The open space maintenance district is administered by the City of Chula Vista and the assessment has not been determined at this time. It is currently estimated, however, that the assessment, which is subject to annual adjustment as determined by the City of Chula Vista, will not exceed $_ in year 1. The schedule above is an estimate of the Special Taxes and Assessments to be collected on your annual property tax bill. This amount will be increased consistent with the engineer's news record construction index for the Los Angeles area. IIII! - (R 3/93) 396 (&3 ---.,---.-- ----.------ -,_._---~----~._---- .- -,,"-...- . -~-, ,,-- ~._- , ATTACHMENT "E" I COUNCIL POLICY :1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: POLICY EFFECTIVE EARLY LlENING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER DATE PAGE AND ORIGINATION CHARGE POLICY 1 of 3 ADOPTED BY: I DATED: BACKGROUND The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2397 ("Chula Vista Version of the 1913 Act") which modified the State version of the 1913 Act to pennit the City to lien assessments against subject property prior to the completion of the infrastructure improvements ("Early Liening Procedure"). On October 9, 1990, the City Council, at a public hearing, authorized the imposition of a 1-112 Origination Charge imposed on all assessment district proceedings in which the City engages. PURPOSE It is necessary to establish a policy to guide staff in implementing said Ordinance No. 2397, and the use of the Early Liening Procedure pennitted therein. It is necessary to establish a policy to guide staff in imposing said Origination Charge recognizin, that the origination charge is an acknowledgement of the City allowing the use of its bonding capability . POLICY RE: Use ofChula Vista Version of the 1913 Act. 1. Assessment districts financing should only be used to finance the cost of "backbone" infrastructure. "Backbone" infrastructure, shall, for the purposes of this policy, mean infrastructure improvements that are of a general, overall benefit to the entire properties which are, or will be, the subject matter of the entire district. By way of example, such items shall include: A. Arterial and collector streets B. Transmission-type utility facilities It shall not include local property access roads within residential subdivisions, and shall not include distribution utility facilities such as water and sewer laterals and local distribution mains. 2. Denosit to cover estimate of staff costs. .. j c:; t/ -..... -.--- ------ ------- ---'-"-'- I COUNCIL POLICY I CITY OF CHULA VISTA SUBJECT: POLICY EFFECTIVE EARLY LIENING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER DATE PAGE AND ORIGINATION CHARGE POLICY 2 of 3 ADOPTED BY: I DATED: In any developer-initiated assessment district proceeding, the developer shall deposit with the City a sum of money ("Processing Deposit") which the Director of Public Works shall reasonably detennine represents the approximate cost to which the City will be put, including all staff time, out-of-pocket expenses, overhead, consultant expenses, in processing the developer's application for special assessment district financing. RE' Use of the Early Lienin~ Procedure. 1. When Early Liening Procedure is to be Used. Special Assessment District financing shall pennit the use of the Early Liening Procedure in those cases where the backbone infrastructure would not otherwise be completed without such procedure prior to the time that the houses will be initially marketed. The purpose of this policy is to give full disclosure of all fmancing costs to the initial home buyer prior to purchase of the property . 2. Contingency Permitted to be Financed. Since the assessments to benefitted land would be levied prior to the completion of construction, a contingency amount, not to exceed ten percent (10%) of the estimated costs of the unconstructed improvements may be allowed to be fmanced and made a part of the assessed amount. 3. Developer Agreement to Absord Excess Costs. The developer must enter into an agreement which provides that, if the costs of the subject infrastructure improvements exceed the amount of the fmancing made available by the sale of bonds (including such contingency as may be pennitted by this Policy), the Developer shall be responsible for, and shall, absord the excess costs. 4. Assessments to be Adjusted to Reflect Cost Savings. If the fmal project costs are less than the estimated cost plus contingency, the assessments shall be adjusted downward. The costs associated with adjusting assessments shall be borne bv the Develouer and he shall enter into an a"reement to this effect. Ie; ç;- -"-, - -'-~' ------ - "..-...,...-. . . --- - - ---.--- I COUNCIL POLICY ;1 CITY OF CHULA VISTA . SUBJECT: POLICY EFFECTIVE EARLY LIENING ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE NUMBER DATE PAGE AND ORIGINATION CHARGE POLICY of 3 3 ADOPTED BY: I DATED: 5. Payment for Improvements. Regardless of the use of the Early Liening Procedure, payment for improvements under an Acquisition and Financing Agreement shall not be made until all improvements for a particular project, as determined by the Director of Public Works, are completed and accepted by the City, and the assessment engineer has certified the final cost thereof. RE: ImJ)osition of 1 % Ori~ination Charie. 1. The Origination Charge imposed by Resolution No. 15897 should be charged in special assessment districts',ffQfiiie¿¡¡¡~ìiìffltötIìi!iMUfiicï-aJ1iIruP-YêmefitwÆ~!II9il!!3'i1!i"fii! ",,*,=,,,,,,,.. 0h.H'''''''='''',""",,,.,,,,,.<;;-_,-'-'''''/''''''_k''hd'''''''_' P'-''''~{>W:- ..--.. ·.:J&g¡'¿"~^""",-"-",",,-,,.jG¡;;j¡;;id ¡~¡ ~""i¿i¡¡¡j:'Jt¡¡;;';;;:;¡tIT eòïrinììíf¡ifý¡UiFacilifiesUÐWic'ij!fófiii'êdf ·üt1¡ì1åñI¡roitlîê'MêlimLROõS:€o~1iiEìâcwÿ§ ¡~ "cui';;;,;,..."""';;"'"'"""'".. *G"'¡"1m~"'~~Wdi:Jl.i",,,;,;,,,,;,;¡",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,_*l~!!!L'-""'U.-d.'hH¡j~'-"""=%Á'#.;~¡w.¡¡ >11¡¡i~",_ . ·-_ú .,,!Bímk%~"i4 . ...-... þ¡" - ,- §1~2§~~~ f61'ffieå at the request of private developers for development consisting of more than 4 lots. 2. Said Origination Charge shall be paid not later than the date set for the public hearing on the decision to form the special assessment district 2~L§2!!!ID1!iÿty1!1(~~g~!!1!· If the special district is not formed through no fault of the developer/applicant, that portion of the Origination Charge and Processing Deposit beyond unreimbursed costs to the City incurred in connection with the proceedings shall be returned. 3. The Origination Charge shall not be financed out of the proceeds of any assessment district öt,lCöîïUñumtý¡¡l!Faèilitiê1¡'Dis[ficf bonds subsequently issued for the public facilities. The """""",.,_;......,",""'''''''''_,_...;,;.-,'_...:..,,''''~;.;,..,,~¡_~..'';,''"""''---;''..''-',-"..01..'''1.-;;.;'''---' charge paid to the City shall not be included in the 1133E33meftt district costs. 4. The proceeds from all Origination Charges shall be deposited into the General Fund of the City. ORIGINAL RESOLUTION ADOPTING THIS POLICY WAS: 15897 APPROVED 10-09-90. SECOND RESOLUTION: 16367 APPROVED 10-08-91. engineer\admin\policy. fp J/~ CP I/~ -- ---------...----"--.-.-.---,------ - ---~---_. ._-...___ .. ___ __n _~ -~..._-----_..--...,.__._---_..__.- ~- -- -...- - ~-- - " -- -- - --.- --'-" -- ----- .----- --'-..~------_..--.."_. -.., '---.." -..__..~- -- - ---'-_"..--""-'~"-_."""-,-.....,,,--- THIS PAGE BLANK )&1 --~..- "-"-~~"--~-'--'" :"-~:-.-- ~~~_~~_:_~ -c-~~~:~".:o. ~~~~=:".:f::-=~-~~~,,;:=~~!~:~I;~~-~~._>,--- '-~~~=-.,~~~~~~~~:.:z_: ----- -- :e,; uu.;. ----,--- - -- "¡::;- ~ ----~-.--;--., -".- .11 .-r-l-f1 C4- 17 ~-, HEWI'IT & McGUIRE, LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAw DEAN DUNN-1W<1i:»I 19900 M.<.o\nhur Boulevard. Suil<: 1050 MARX R. MeGum;¡¡ CHARtS S. ExaM Irvine. California 92612 _ D. O'NaL Wll.l..1..uf: E. HA.U.E (114) 79&.<1500 . 1114) 798-0511 (f.u) l~y F. PALamtOFF ANDREW K. IlAJm:al. P"U1. A. Ro'n HUGH HEWITT WIUWoI L -rw"""", JOHN" D. HUDSON' JOHN r. YEAGER. October 2, 1997 Ann Moore City Attorney City of Chula Vista 276 4th Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: McMillin Communities - Comments on Draft Statement of Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment of Community Facilities Districts Dear Ms. Moore: , Attached to this letter are my comments, on behalf of McMillin Communities, on the proposed draft "Statement of Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment Community Facilities Districts." 'Thc comments arc in the fonn of handwrinen revisions to the draft dated 9/24/97 and several typed inserts. As you know, adoption of such policies are a prerequisite to the City's consideration of establishment of any CFDs. CFDs have been utilized throughout the State I successfully to fín~nce public: infrastructure. With the passage of Prop. 218 last November, I CFDs will see increased use and. in many situations, will be the only means to finance necessary public infrastructure in developing communities such as Chula Vista. . We have limited our comments to those items mat will ensure that (i) all parties to a CFD -- the landowner, the fumre residents, the City Iind the bondholders __ are adequately protected and (ii) the CFD provides facilities ancll or services in the most efficient and secure ,. means possible. The folloWÌ1lg sets forth our specific: cOJtlIIlCnrs and a brief discussion of the rationale for the proposed revision: L Page 2. - Revise the last sentence of the nrst paragraph to read as . follows: 09'30-97 S;\DOC\172\CORR\9709001S.LTR /06 - - lßJ UUJ_ ----, Ann Moore OctobeX" 2. 1997 Page 2 itA community faåIities district or imnrovement area of a communitv facilities district proposed to be established to f'mance public improvements or authorized services to serve new development may be referred to as a "Development Related CFD." Pursuant to Govt. Code § 53350, the City may designate areas within a co=unity facilities district which, for most purposes, such as the issuance of bonds and special taxes, may operate lilœ a separate CFD. For this reason the term "Development Related CFD" should inc:lude any improvement areas designated within a CFD. 2. Pages 3-4 - Revise paragraphs B, D and H to describe as public facilities authorized to be financed through a CFD, drainage facilities, sewer facilities and dry utilities serving more than one neighborhood. For reasons of efficiency and bondholder security, the City may choose to establish multiple CFDs oX" improvement ;ueas within a single master planned development. In that case, X"cquiIing that sewer facilities oX" dry utilities serve a minimum of 500 single family dwcllings or equivalent dwelIing units and drainage facilities serve a minimwn of 100 ac¿es in order to be eligible improvements imposes an arbitrary limit that may be unrelated to the development process or a prudent public financing. For example, in Otay Ranch, many of the drainage basÎ1lS are less than 100 acres and yet will include one or more neighborhoods. For these reasons, we are proposing as an eligibility threshold that such facilities serve one or more neighborhood. It should be noted that this is consistent with the intI"oductory paragraph to the "AU11IORIZED PUBliC FACILITIES" section where it is already stated that "the types of improvements to be financed must serve a whole neighborhood area or greater." 3. Page 5 - Revise the last three sentences of the f'lI'st paragraph to read , as follows: I '. "Public Improvements proposed to be acquired from the proceeds of special tax bonds or special taxes shall not be acquired until all improvements for a particular project, as detennined by the Director of Public Works, are completed and accepted by the City and the Director of Public Works or his or her designee has certified the final costs of such improvements. For purposes of this paragraph, a p.ro,LC j: shall be defined as all improvements within a particular street or easement including street improvements, sewer, drainage, and utilities and/or discret"è and useabIe reaches of such imnrovements. as described in the Fûnains;! and ÅccwsitioD ~eement for the communities facilities district. If more· than one (1) project is being f'manœd by one community facilities district, as defmed and approved by the Director of Public Words, then partial release of _funds to pay for the 09·30·97 S:\DOC\172\CDRR\97D9001S.lTO _ ,f"L /07 -. -- - --------------,- ---- .. -~...- -- -_.._--~. ------ - -----_..~_.._.__._-_.~-- .- -:-- .....~.,..... _. -'--.'..._- - . -- -. ,> -'.-. "'-'.- ----- Ann Moore October 2, 1997 Page 3 acquisition of each project as it is completed shall be Demútted. Any deviation of the project deÏmition shall be approved by the Director of Public Works," The additional language we have proposed acknowledges that horizontal rcach¡:s of streets and other improvements to be financed by a CFD may be useable and appropriate for acquisirion prior to completion of the entire street or system. In some cases, the enrire strcct may not be an obligation of the planned development for which the commUIrity facilities district has been established. We have funher proposed that the detennination of whether discrere and usable reaches would be acquired would be made in the funding and acquisition agreement to be entered into with respect to the panicular commuIÙty facilities district. -, 4. Page 5 - Add "parks and recreation facilities" to paragraph A_ Maintenance of any public park should be permitted as required to comply with applicable conditions of approval. For example, tbc conditions of approval for Otay Ranch require that maintenance of local Eublic parks be financed through Some mechanism other than the City's General Fund. The only. such mechanisms available are landscape and lighting maintenance districts or CFDs. 5. Page 6 - Revise paragraph 2 under "Incidental Costs" to read as follows: "Construction adminio:tration and supervision nDt to exceed, in the aggregate, .1.75% of the total cOnstruction costs of the applicable public improvemênts. " The City's assessment district policy allows as an eligible incidental cost construction administration and supervision costs not to exceed l. 75 %. We believe that that percentage is low and that actual construction administration and supervision for any public works project is in the range of.3-4% of total construction costs. Therefore, we do not see any valid reason to allow such costs up to 1.75 % for assessment districts and only 1 % for CFDs and I ask that the policies be consistent in this regard. I 6. Page 7 - Add the folIowing language as a new paragraph 8: "8. Costs associated with the creation of the community facilities V district, issuance of bonds, deternùnation of the amount of special tax, . collection and payment of special taxes, induding, without limitation, the costs of consultants to the applicant for work deemed by the City Manager 09- 3D'97 S:\DDC\17<\CORR\9709D018.LTR /70 --. -- --~-_. AIm Moore October 2, 1997 Page 4 to have been rendered in furtherance of, or of benefit to, the COIDInunity facilities district.' Costs associated with !be issuance of bonds and administration of the CFD should be 1isred as allowable incidental costs. These costs may include the underwriter's discount. fmandal advisor fees, if applicable, bond counsel fees. any origination charge levied by the ClIY in accordance with applicable law and any coSts of consultants to the applic:ant for a CFD in furthernnce of, or of benefit to, the community facilitics district, including preparation of special tax pro formas, preparation of a funding and acquisition agreement and review of the proceedings to ensure that !be mutual intent of the applicant and the City are carried out. 7. Page 7 - Revise paragraph 8 to read as follows: "9_ Reimbursement of funds advanced by the applicant ill for the formation of a community facilities district to pay for preformation costs , incurred by or on behalf of the City and (ii) re1atiru!' to the issuance of bonds." The City =y require deposits from the applicant for some of the costs relating to the issuance of bonds such as City staff costs and appraiser's fees. This languag,- .:Jla1ccs it dear that any such advances may be reimbursed as an eJi~ble incidenti.1 cost. . 8. Page 8 - Delete paragraph 10. As we have previously indicated to you, we do not believe that the City has the legal authority to impose an origiIJation charge in connection with the cstaOtishmcnt of a community facilities district or the issuance of bonds. Such a charge fails any test for a permissible fee under AB 1600 or the State Constitution. H the charge is to be chancterized as a general tax, as opposed to a fee, it also fails undI:T Propositions 62 and 218 unless authorized by a majority vote of the electorate. Finally, if such a charge were to be levied and paid, it would have to be disclosed in connection with the issuance of bonds of the CFD as a material maner going to the objectivity of the CiLy Council in estabJishing the community facilities district and issuing the bonds. 9. Page 8-9 - Revise the first paragraph under "REQUIRED V ALUE- TO-DE~T RATIO" to require a value-to-debt ratio of at least 3:1, rather than 4:F,'·or-less-~ '. .than 3:1)fthe City Council determines that a value-to-debt ratio of less than 3:1 would be . -finantiálIy prudent and that sufficient credit enhancement has been provided_ As described in the Rc:pon to Council regarding co=unity facilities districtS, one of the legislative reforms to the Community Facilities District Act adopted in 1993 requires a 09·30-97 S:\DCO\172\OOOR\9709C01S.lTR 171 - - - --~--- -------.-_._---- --.,.,----------, ... H ,c.'·~' - ... ccc=,. -,.. 141006 - --=¿·:lQLc~~T¡¡U 13: 5!!.~MJ!J~~Ø;~~Z~"," _.'... .._._.--~ __ m_.__. _"..m ._ __ _. ...__ _, ~..____.___ ____ __n._.__. ........ ____. n__"_. _______ ___." n"'__m_ '.' ___,. .____.._ _____. -. '.:-' -- ,---,--...--;...:...-'-------"'--- :."~'-- ._c,,_,__~__._ '__.~_-'-'<_."_,~ ._'-'_.:'_'___ _~,,-_ .,_ .-e_-"_--,-- ',,:'--"__ .,..,_ _" Ann Moore October 2, 1997 Page 5 value-to-debt rntio of at least 3: 1 unless a specific finding is made that a lower rntio wou1d be financially prudent. In addition, the City's assessment district policy requires a value-to-cll::bt ratio of 3; 1 and not 4: 1. Such a requirement, therefore, is excessive, contrary to current practices and lllUlecessary. Moreover, a 4:1 value-to-debt n:.tio could serve as a signiflca.nr impediment to the use of community facilities disrricts in the City of Chula Vista. 10. Pages U-13 - Delete the paragraph preceding "SPECIAL TAX REQlJIREMEN1'S" 00 page 13, and revise the rlI'st paragraph under "MAXIMUM AGGREGATE TAXES AND ASSESSMENTS" on page 12 to read as foUows: "It is the policy of the City that, upon creation of a community facilities district, the maximum annual special tax applicable to parcels used for residential purposes shall not exceed 1% of the estimated weighted average sales price of new homes or the assessed value of existing homes within the community facilities district. As a distinct and separate requirement, the total of the following taxes, assessments and special taxes in existence as of the time of formation of the commuQity facilities district and appearing on the properly tax bill shall Dot exceed 2% of such sales prices of new homes or the assessed value of existing homes within the community facilities district: " We agree that as a guideline, a 1 % limitarion on special taxes and 2 % limitation on aggregare taxes, assessments and special taxes is appropriate and desirable. We also believe that by not pemritting special tax escalators, the City of Chula Vista will avoid a sitn.ation where special tax rates outpace land values. In order to provide adequate bondholder security and certainty in the development fInancing of a master planned community, however. maximUIll special tax rates must be set at the time of fonnation of a conununity facilities district and not subject to fluctuation based upon subsequent fluctuations in the real estate marlœt. As c:urn:ntly written, the proposed policy on maximum aggregate taxes and assessments suggests that each homeowner is guaranteed that its taxes will never exceed 2 % of the assessed value of their home at any pomt in time. This may be contrary to covenants that the cornml1n;ty facilities district may make to its bondholders. The requirements also begin to make the special taxes of a CFD look and function like ~_'!.alorem taxes which is not pemritted under the Act. In addition, the requirement that the City become· embroiled in eVery single escrow for the sales of each home within a community facilities district in order to ensure thar the taxes and assessments do not excced 2 % of the sales prke imposes an unnecessary burden on City staff and is in our experience unprecedented in the State of California. Every reasonable effort should be made to ensure that the maximum special taX rates established at the time of fonnation of a commlln;ty facilities disrrict will not unreasonably burden each homeowner within the community facilities district. 09-30-97 S:\00C\172\CORR\97090018.LTR /7'-' I ".¿..... - -~._-- _n_ -- --- Ann Moore October 2. 1997 Page 6 II. Page 13 - Revise paragraph 2 to read as follows: "The m:nñruum projected annual sp,ecial tax revenues must equal 110% of the projected annual gross debt service on any bonds of. the community . facilities district. II We arc proposing to delete language suggesting that the Ïnuùnum annual special . taxes must equal 110% of the total of gross debt service on the bonds and ..cimiT1i.lrative expenses of the CFD - Such a requirement is unusual and will result in a higher than neœssaI)' maximum special tax to be paid by the homeowners within each community facilities dÏS1rict. II should be nored that each community facilities district that issues bonds will have a 10% bond rcserve fund in addition to the excess coverage provided by Ihe ammal special tax reVenlles. In contrast, Ihere is no enhanced debt service coverage for assessment districts. A maxùnum special tax that provides 11 0 % coverage will ensure sufficient revenue to also fund all arlm;T1;.tralÍve expenses. '-' 12. Page 14 - Delete the remaining language at the top of page 14, which . was inadvertently retained from the prior draft, 13. Page 14 - Revise paragraph 4 to read as follows: , "All developed and undeveloped property within any community facilities district which is not otherwise exempt from the levy of special taxes shall bear its appropriate share of the community facilities district's aggregate special tax obligation from the date of formation of the community facilities district consistent with the other I!'oals and Dolicies set forth herein. Our understanding is that Ihe concern thaI may have generated this policy relates only to community facilities districts issuing more than one series of bonds and it does not apply to a single bond issue commnT1;ty facilities district The language we have added is intended to clarifY thaI this policy does not supersede other policies such as, for example, the policy set forth in paragraph 6 of this section. That policy requires that the maY;TT1Um special tax to pay for public facilities shall be levied against any parcel used for private residential purposes in the first fiscal year following the fiscal year in which the building permit for the construction of a residential dwelling until is issued and shaIl remain fixed thereafter. 14. Page 15 - Revise paragraph b. to read as follows: . ~,- \ . . , Interest shall be capitalized for a term to be reviewed. considered and . aDD roved on a case-by-case basis.' ·not to exceed 18 month.~. akinI!' into account value-ta-lien ratio, the rimin!!' of initial re.~ideDtiaI occupancies. 09-30-97 S:\OC"\17Z\CORa\97D9001B.LTR 173 ----------"-, -~......--._,.,_..._.._------- .- .. ... -.' - ...-.." w."'", ~ .~ m. .n~>ß uu~ . . ___c- --- . --.--.--.. Ann Moore October 2, 1997 Page 7 product absorption. and buiIdout of the develonment. the construction and comoletion schedule for the public improvements to be funded out of the proceeds of the bonds. and the size of the financinl! and ecJuitv commitment of the annlicant. I believe that the language proposed by staff in this section was inadvertently retained from an earlier draft. The Report on community facilities districts to the City Council points out that CDAC recommended that the term of capitalized interest be decided on a case-by~ case basis. We agree with that recommendation_ We also agree with the IÏInitation of 18 months, which is less than the two years of capitalized interest pennittcd by statUte. 15. Page 17 - Within the third full paragraph, add the following: lIa.. The formation of the community facilities district or issuance of the special tax bonds;" This additional language is intended to cover the situation in which there remains an Ullf:xpended portion of an applicant's deposit after formation of a CFD or thc issuance of special tax bonds. 16_ Page 18 -- Revise the second sentence in the first paragraph under "LAND USE APPROV ALS" to read as follows: "The City will issue bonds secured by the levy of special taxes within a Development-Related CFD when (i) the properties included within such Development-Related cm have received SPAplan-auDrOYal which would permit the development ·of such properties consistent with the assumptiODS utilized in the development of the rate and method of apportionment of the special taxes for such Development-Related CFD and (ii) an applicable environmental review has been completed. Under the City's planning regimc, SPA plan approval for a parcel of property establishes in substantial detail the land use entitlements of the property subjcct to the plan. Therefore, SF A pIan approval should be a prerequisite to the issuance of bonds within any CFD_ Staff has proposed a prerequisite of "all discretionary land use approvals. n which could be interpreted as requiring as much as the issuance of all building permits within the c:nmml111ity facilities district and, therefore, would delay the issuanc~ of bonds in many cÌ1:t:umstances until well after homes have been occupied by thc initial homeowner. 17. Pages 18-19 - Delete the last sentence of the second para,.øraph under "LAND USE APPROVALS". 09-30·97 S:\OOC\172\OORR\97090018.lTR ¡-J'¡-' /< , - - --- - -. .- - --. - ~~~~::. ;'-·'~:__:·'~"""·.;'-i.~-'-"",,,~::;',~ -,--~.'-,-"'-~ ..._-~--_._...- -_. Ann Moore October 2, 1997 Page 8 The deleted language purports to require the impennissible and unenforceable waiver of each property owner's constiOltional ami staOltol)' rights within a community facilities district. It is unfair, unncccssaxy and overreaching. 18. Page 19 - Add the word "Mana¡:er" after the word "City" in the last sentence. .. 19. Page 20 - Revise the last paragraph to read as follows: "Prior to the issuance of each series of bonds of any Development-Related CFD, the applicant shall pay to the City the origination charge rpIMinø to the bond issue, if any, then in effect and applicable to the proposed community facilities district." - As indicated earlier, we believe the City lacks the authority to levy an origination charge for use of the City's bonding capability. TIús langUage. as modified, is acceptable because it does not necessarily require the payment of an origination charge. If such iUl origination charge were peI1IlissibJ~~d imposed by the City, however, it should be payable at the time of issuam:e of C2ch series of bonds if in fact it is a legitimate charge for use of the City's bonding capability. ,.---,-~<_---..._._,.~ I apologize for the length of this letter. We felt it necessary, however, to fully document our concerns ami suggested revisions to the proposed policies before they are presented to the City Council in order to facilitate your revjew of our specific comments. I look forward to working with you and other City staff, as well as Waxren Diven, to resolve these remaimng issues. Very ttüly yours, lOOn It-! JPY Isml c:c: Warren Diven Kimberly Elliott John Lippett Cliff Swanson Robert Powell George Krempl 09-30-97 ...- S:\DOC\172\tcRR\97090018.lTR /7::;; - - ... J.' <os..u. 'lid u ~-, - -,. ~. ..~~'::< - "'~-'~'" ........... . "----- .~,,-- -,,- , INSERTS IN DRAFT CITY OF CHULA VISTA STATEMENT OF GOALS AND POUCIES REGARDING THE ESTABUSHMENT OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICTS I Insert A. D. 7 8. Costs associated with the creation of me community facilities district, issuance of bonds, detemriDation of me amount of special tax, collection and payment of special taxes. including, without limitation, me costs of consultants to the applicant for work d....Ill!.:d by the City Manager to have been rendered in furtherance of, or of benefit to, the community facilities district. Insert B. D. 12 It is the policy of the City that, upon formation of a community facilities district, the maximum annual special tax applicable to parcels used for residential pUIposes shall not exceed one percent (l %) of the estimated weighted average sales prices of new homes or the as5cSSed value of existing homes within the community facilities district. As a distinct and separate rcquircmc:nt, the total of the following taxes. assessments and special taxes in existence at the time of formation of the community facilities district and appearing on the property taX bill shall not exceed two percent (2 %) of such sales prices of new homes or the assessed value of existing homes within the community facilities district: Insert C. D. 15 for a term to be reviewed, considered and approved on a case-by-case basis. not to exceed eighteen (18) months, taking into account value-ta-lien ratio, the timing of initial residential occupancies, product absorption and buildout of the development.. the construction and completion schedule for the pubJic improvements to be funded out of the proceeds of the bonds, the size of the financing and equity commi1ment of the applicant. ; 09-30-97 I S,\COe\'72\9709CO'7.INS /'70 , I - ---"--~--------_.. ,--....-.....------ - ------.----_._~----~_. --'-'7_,.. _ _'_-<,__..00",-, -~ ':'~-~ÎZ7"R D15¿~1--:'t..~~-~D-;-~~;'<~;c::-::-::-;~~·:-=--==--==----,:-::~- - - - __5-c-:: =-=-=:'--=~::..-~,--;~-~"~..:-;:~' :"'-:;::'2'-'",~-- --. - - - ~ -- - ~------,-.-----_..-- r~~~!ona¡ CIty, (/... S: ~SD '£:9) .c.77-l1~ 17 \ " " r-J-rr/tc...{-I Hþ,Jï G Å\. McMillin wmpanie5 Octob~r 27. 1997 Mr. George Krempl CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 4TH Avcn~ ChuJa Vista, CA 91910 Re: Statement of Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment of Community Facilities Districts Dear Geor2c. Thank yoU for the opportunity to comment on the draft "Statement of Goals and PoIicie£ Regarding the Establishment of Community Facilities Districts.· Based on our conference call last week and our review of the latest draft of the policy. we believe there are three areas of the policy where we respectfully disagree with the language proposed by staff. We have previously proposed specific language for each of these issues in our letter to Ann Moore dated October 2, 1997 from John Yeager. The following is a more gc:nc:raI discussion of our position on each of these issues: 1. Value-ta-Debt Ratio The draft policy requires a minimum va)ue-to-debt ratio of 4: I for each bond Issue. A val~-tn-debt ratio of less than 4: 1 but equal to or greater than 3: 1 may be permitted in the sole discretion of tk City Council. One of the legislative reforms to the Community Facilities District Act adopted in 1993 requires a value-to-debt ratio of at least 3: 1 unless a specific finding is made that a lower ratio would be fmsncially prudent. McMillin proposes that the City's policy be consistent with the Act in this area. A value-to-debt ratio higher than 3: I is overly restrictive and could be a significant impediment to the use of CFDs. Bonds are typically sold in the early stages of development or prior to the commencement of development of a master planned co=unity and values increase significantly early on as improvements are made to the project. Requiring 4: I value- to-debt ratio at this stage could impede the progress of master planned communities or severely re&:trict the w:e of this type of financing. The City's current assessment disnict policy only requires a IIÙIriIl1um 3: 1 valuc-to-dcbt ratio. A CFD is more secure than an assessment district because of the 10% debt service coverage requirement and the backup special tax provisions. These and other requirements of the drl>Íl CFD policy adequately protect the City, future residents within the CFD. and the bondholders. /77 .. .-... .. ,.._--"---------- --.-..-----.---...-......--..- H .'_. . ~." -":'¡-_.",-ü, 'r;. -',,"-. --,---_..._,..~ - "'~ IdI010 -------.- ...-. '__r" , T~EJ_~;:-_p-~\J4rTa 'C. FS4g..- , - - 2. Mandatorv Prep3vment of Special Taxes (2% maximum tax) Th:: draft poli::y requires a dev<:}opcr to enter into an agreement with the Ci1y requiring the partial prepayment of the special tax obligation if the special taxes exceed I % of the sales pric:e of a home: and tbe: total ~xcs, assessments ODd special tax,,£ exceed 2 % of the sales price. McMillin agrees That the 1 % maximum CFD tax and 2 % total taX is a prudent guideline. Howe:ver we be:lieve [bat it is ==ssary to require prepayment at the time of escrow closing in order for the City to..;:' guarantee~ ~ ratesi(onC pDinnn tiri:íc:-ui the retail buyer. McMillin proposes that the test be conducted aUhe time:ofdistridformation which is a consistent practice of ~encies throughout the state. We strongly disagree: with rhis practice for The following reasons: · A mandatory pay-off could result in different taX rates for the same house. · The City's required disclosures provide clear information and protection to the home buyer and the City. · Monitoring and administering the mandatory prcpayment imposes an unnecessary administrarive burden on the Ci1y. · The master developer and fInancial communi1y require certainty as to tax rates and the front end costs of a Dew ho!IlC through escrow closing. · The CFD policy prohibits the escalation of special !axes after issuance of a building permit. which gives the homeowner sllfficient certainry as to its taX rates. · The master developer should not be required to prepay the special taXes because public _/ agencies other than the City of Chula Vista have imposed new taxes after formation of the Ci1y's CFD. · We know of no other agency which has such a requirement and are uncertain who benefits from such a requirement. We are unclear why the City would want to insert itself in The home sale 1rl!IlSaction process. 3. Orirination Charee In the current draft of the policy the Ci1y Council may choose to impose an "origination charge" on any developer who requests the c:stabIisbm.eDt of a CFD. The origination charge would be payable prior to establislunent of the CFD and would not be included as an incidental cost of the CFD. It is our understanding that staff believes the origination charge is legal and justified because "the developer is receiving a .tangiQle b=fit by using the City's fmancing authority to provide funds for developing his property, and that in return the City is entitled to 2 /71 -- _..~----- --' -- --- -~.- -----~..._.., -'---. ".--.. .... ---_._---~_._-----.- , ..... -' ----,,--...,.,..-.... - '.___"_.. d,.___._-.. recejve cenaiD monetary consideration" and mat the origination charge" is similar to me points paid OD a loan obl2.ined through a bank. .. Mc!Villlin beJieves !bat the origination charge is improper, serves no Jegitimate public purpose and should not be charge:d for the folJowing reasons: · The Cicy already recov~s all of ilS costs of forming and administering the CFD, without the origination charge, · The origination charge serves no legitimate public pmpose - it provides no benefits to the future resicL"I1!S within the CFD. · The Cicy is not a private bank, and CFD funds are not a loan from the City to a developer for the funding of private improvements, · The City should decide to establish the CFD base:d on rile public benefits of each planned community and the public improvements to be financed, not because it will make money for the general fund through the imposition of an origination charge. · The origination charge is a cost that is passed on to future horne buyers which makes housing more costly. - .. < :.-,.- , .. ;.( · CFD financing is used to pay for public, not private improvements for whicl:the City should not be rewarded when developers construct public improvements. -. · In addition to the above reasons we do not believe that the City has the legal authority to impose an origination charge in connection with the establishment of a community facilities district or the issuance of bonds. We have requested a legal analysis of this issue from our attorney John Yeager and have attached it for your review. Thank: you again for the opportunity to comment on the draft CFD policy. Please call me if you have any questions. Sin=ely, Kimberly K. Elliott Vice President cc: Cliff Swanson Arm Moore 3 //~ "_. _._.~_.__..._____.___~...._.____.___ ,,_.. m ___.~__~__~__ ---.'-'- ~ --- --'--.>--- --------- ~ , THIS PAGE BLANK · · · /80 "", -- ~ ~ - ¥" ,¥..--. -,,- ,: ,,;\.. ~.;; ,-:.,;:; r,'.,''..i' '" :-=,,,;; fl--H Pr c.. Arn""'-t r= . HEWiTT & McGUIRE, LLP AnDI:. 'iEYS AT LAw D~ DI..7'NN-iUJiK1N .19900 Ma.r;Art.~ur Boulevard, Suite 1D5D M~ R. McGutkF. C~LJU.Z S. ExON Irvine, C2.lifnmi2 92612 DENh'S D. O·SE.H,. WtWAM E. HAlLE (714) 798'¡¡SOO " (714) 798.()SJ 1 (fax) JAY F. PALCllII:OFF MOREW K. HuTZELl. PAUL Á. ROWE HUGH HEWJjT WIWAM L. TwOMEY JOHN D. HUCSDN JOliN P. Y&'CiER. October 22, 1997 Kimberly K. Elliott McMillin Communities 2727 Hoover Avenue National City, California 91950 Ro' Validirv of Cirv of Chula Vim Origination Char>!e ~. Dear Kim: Tlle City of Chula Vista currently levies an "origination charge" in connection with the formation of special assessment disrricts. You have asked me to analyze th:: legal validity of the origination chargc as levied in cOlUJection with th:: formation of an assessment district or community facilities district. In short, r believe the origination chJ!rge is illegal and cannot be levied by the City with respect to either an assessment district or community facilities district. The basis of this conclusion is set fom in the remainder of this leuer. FACTUALBACKGRO~~ On October 9, 1990, the Chula Vista City Coundl authorized the imposition of a "1 % origination charge on all assessmenr district proceedings in which the City engages" (the "Origination Char>!e"). In adopting a policy with respect to the Origination Charge, the City Council stated that: "It is nc::cessary to establish a policy to guide staff in imposing said OriginAtion Ch~~ge recognizing that the Qri,Ún.ation Charo:e is an acknowledo:ement of thf: Citv allowinl! the: use of its bondin!1 capabilitv." The City Council policy established the following requirements : "I. The Origination ChJ!rge imposed by Resolution No. 15897 should be charged in Gpecial UGe¡;sment districts formed at ~ request of priva~ Developers for development consisting of more than four lots. 2. Said Originarion Charge shall be paid not latcr than the date set for the public hearing on the decision to form the special assessment district. If the special assessment district does not form rhrough no fault of the 10'16-97 9009-00003 S,\OO:\~7Z\C~RR\;7'OOOO1.L;2 - --."----.--- --"--- ------- -- ,.---,-.--------.--.., ~~ . ~- ~ Ki':1berly K. EllioIT October 22, 1997 Page 2 develo~r/applic:ant. that portion of the Origination Charge and Processing Deposit beyond unreimbursed costs to the City incurred in connection with the procceding shall be returned. 3. The Origination Chargl: shall not be finanCl:d out of the proceeds of any asSl:ss=nt district bonds subs=qul:ntly issuo::d for thl: public facilitics. The [Origination) Charge paid w thl: City shall not be included in the assessment district cost>. 4. The proceeds from all Origination Charges shall be deposited into thl: General Fund of the City. " R::cently the Cj¡y entl:ro::d into an AcquisitionlFinam:ing Agreement with Village Development LLC with respect to the proposo::d establishment of a special assessment district witilln Otay Ranch. That Ag==nt provides for the payment of an Origination Charge "as a pre::ondirion W me obllgations of thl: City" undl:r thl: Agrc..~ent upon conelusion of thc public hearing and confirmation of assessments. The Origination Charge is to be 1 %, or such other percentage adopœd by thl: City Council and in effect at the time of the public hearing, of the Assessment Engineer's estimate of the casU: of the improvements, all incidental cost>, costs of issuanc:: and other financing costs. Tbe Origination Charge will not be reimbursed out of the pro^~~ds of rœ bonds, but shall be returned if the assessment district bonds are not sold. Most reccntly, the City has suggested that although the Origination Charge does '"TIO! qualify as a fee or tax, "it may be required by the City on the basis that the developer is -receiving a t2ngible benefit by using the City's financing authority to provide funds for developing his property, and t.l¡at in rerum the City is I:ntitled to receive certain monetary consideration ... . The origination charge that tre City chargl:s is similar to the points paid on a loan obtained through a b2!'.k." For purposes of this letter, I will assume that the City IIUlY s=k to impose an Origination Charge with respect to the establishment of one or more commuIÙty facilities district> within McMillin's Oray Ranch property on the samc·basis and subject to the same tel1IlS as an Origimtion Charge for assessment districts as describ~ in the Village Development AcquisiLionlFi=ing Agreement. iO-'6-ÿJ 9D:¡;~oaoo:s s:\c=:\172\CG~R\;7'OOcûi.Lï2 ~--.__._'-----~_. --_. ~~o "~ " Ki.¡nb~rly K. Eilion October 22. 1997 P2g~ 3 ANALYSIS A. The Ori!!ination Char~e is Not a Valid Fee Dr Charee. The Origination Charge must stand or fall as a valid fee or tax. and it is neither. It is well senIed that fees may not be 1c::vic:d for general revenue purpose::s. Pc::nne::1I v. City of San Jose, 42 Ca1. 3d, 365, 375 (1986). In addition, a valid fee must bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the user's burde::ns or benefits from the service or activity for which the fee:: is being paid. S= San Diello Ga. and EI=tric:: Co. v. San Die"o Conntv Air Pol1ution Control Dist., 203 Cat App. 3d, 1132, 1146 (1988); See a1so Beaumont Investors v. Beaumont-Cherrv Vallev Water Dist., 165 Ca!. App. 3d 227 (1985). The OrigÍDation Charge is not levie::d to cover the City's costs associated with forming an assessment or community facilities disnict or issuing bonds - the City separately requires that th:: applicant cover those costs. In addition, the Origination Charges are not ~armarked for any speciñc purpDse, but instc::ad arc dc:positc::d in the:: General Fund, Although the City's pDlicy suggests that the OriginatiDn Charge "is an acknDwledgement Df the City allowing the use of its bDnding capability," tD my knDwle::dge the City has prDvided nD analysis as to the relatioru:hip of the amDunt of the OriginatiDn Charge to the burdens Dr benefits Df such use. In fact, the issuance Df bDnds of a community facilities disrrict, which is a separate legal entity, does not even involve the use:: of thc City's bonåing capacity and in nD way reduce::s the City's bonding capacity or debt limitation" The OriginatiDn Charge is clearly levied fDr revenue raising purposes and bears no relationship, much less a fair am! reasonable relationship, tD any b<:nc::flts or bur&ns Df th<: City in the issuance of special tax bonds" The Origination Charge alSD fail5 the test Df PropositiDn 218 for a valid fe::e:: or charge. The City comends that the OrigÍDation Charge is justified because "the developer is receiving a ængible benefit by using the City's financing authority tt> prDvide funds for developing his property." That is a fallac:iow; justifIcation. It suggests (as does the City's aDalDgy of the Origination Charge and loan pDints charged by a private bank) that City funds are being provided for private 6evelDpment, Bonds Df a community facilities or assessment åismct are issuc:d tD fund public streets and Dther public improvements, not private ùevdDDlnent. ND existing City funds are IDaœd and no City funds are pledged to repay the bonds. The new development and City residents served by the public imprDvements pay for them through special taxes or assessments. Assuming for argument sake that the City's characterization of the Origination Charge is correct -- that th:: Origination Charge is for a service provided by the City relating to and benefitting private land development - then PrDposition 218 r<:quir<:s, among other things, that revenues derived from the OrigÍDatiDD Charge (1) not exceed the funds required to provide the service and (2) not be used for any purpos<: other than that for which it was imposed. Cal. 'O~16-97 9DC-i·ODO:ß S:\OO:\172\CORR\;710~C01.LT2 ." --- ---_.~ --- -' ..__.,-'-~--_.._--_.. - ~ - ~ -~. . ~~" "" Kimberly K. Elliot[ October 22, 1997 Page 4 Canst. Art. XllID, §§ 6(b)(1) and (2). Thc Origination Charge clearly fai1s on both counts. As mentioned earlier, the proceeds are deposited in the City's General Fund without any restriction on their use and the amount of the Origination Charge exceeds the City's cost of providing the ¡ervice. FinalJy, if the Ciry is correct and the Origination Charge is justified as paymcnt for a benefit bestowed on a land developer, then the City is required to impose the Origination Charge. The logical extension of the City's position is that without an Origination Charge, allowing a developer to "use the City's bonding capability" would constitute an unconstitutional gift of public funds. That would certainly come as a surprise to the hundreds of local jurisdictions that have authorized the issuance of billions of dollars of assessment or community facilities district bonds over the last 80 years and not collected an origination charge. Of course, no court has ever held that t.!¡e establishment of an assessment or community facilities district encompassing ~w development bestows a gift of public funds. B. The Ori~natlon Cbare-e 15 an Invalid Genera] Tax. If not a valid fee or charge. the Originarion Charge can only bc justified by the City as a valid taX. Proposition 218 provid~ that: "AII taXe¡ imposed by any local government shall be d=::m::d to be either ge~ra1 taxes or special taxes. n CaJ. Canst, art. XIIID, §2(a). A general tax is defmed as "any tax imposed for ge~ral gove=ent.al purposes" (Ca1. Canst., art. XillD, §l(a», and a "special tax" is defined as "any tax imposed for specific purposes, including taxes imposed for specific purposes which are placed into a generai fund" (CaL Const., art. XIIID, §l(d). Special taxes require approval of two-thirds of the electorate and ge!Jf:ral taxes require the approval of a majority of the electorate. Because the: pro=ds of the Origination Charge are not earmarked for a specific usc, it most closely resembles a "general tax" and not a "spc;:ial tax" as that term is used in Proposition 13 and interpreted by the CourtS. See, ~, Santa Clara County Local TransPortation Authoritv v. Guardino, 11 Cal. 4th 220, 231-232 (1995); see also, County of Plac:er v. Corin, 113 Cal. App. 3d 443, 451 (1980) [regulatory licenses, user charges or user fees. the proceeds of which "exceed the costs reasonably borne by such entity in providing the regulation, proèuct or service ... arc but taxes for the raising of general revenue for the entity. "]. Either as a general or special tax, the Origination Charge fails because it has not received voter approval of any kind and, therefore, cannot be levied on the applicant for a co=unity facilities district. Tne City may auempt to assert that, as a charter city, it has the unconstrained power to tax for local purposes. For exampl.e, in Centex Real Estate Cort>. v. City of Vallejo, 19 Cal. App. 4th 1358 (1993), an excise tax imposed by the City of Vallejo, a charter ciry, was upheld as a valid tax authorized by its charter and not in conflict with any state statute or 10'1~-97 9009':J003 S:\CO:\172\:ORR\971CCC01.LT2 - --------_.~,._.. ,_..,..." -~~~- - - ------_._,._._-~- ~~, -- . _ . ~ ,~ . J I . ....... "~'" '- J.. ,\ ........: h;\' ~ '"' -ð.:.j (.,;:;/1,1 r --;:l. ~ Kim':>erly K. Elliott Oc:ober 22, 1997 P~ge 5 statutory scheme. Centex was decided prior to Proposition 218, however, and if an excise tax such as Vallejo's were impos~ today without voter approval. it would faiL As stated earlier, all taxes of any local agencies, post-Proposition 218, including those of charær cities, must be clatsified as either a ge:ne:ral tax or special tax and approved pursuant to the: procedural requirements of Proposition 218, C. The Ori!rination Char!!e Serves No Le!ritimate Public PurpOse. S::paxate and apart from the le ¡"al argume:nts against the: Origination Charge, the Origination Charge would ap¡r..ar to conflict with important publie: policy considerations in the City of Chula Vista. It should be: rc:mcmbered that the: facilities to be f=ed by any assessment or c:ommuDÍty facilities district are public improvements. Espec:ially in the case of a community facilities district, these public improvements may not only benefit the landowners and residents financing the improvements through 1Í1f; payment of special taxes, but m~y also be:n:ñt and serve residents an:! landowners, induding the City and other public agencies, not required to pay for them. The pubic be:ncfits an:: inh=nt in any such finan<=Íng, In contrast, in a true conduit financing, such as hospital reve!llle: bonds, a municipality pennits the use of its bonding powers for the f"¡nancing of private improvemenrs, such as private hospital facilities, aOO often receives a fee or otherwise funds unre]ated City facilities out of the proceeds as compensation. In the present case, onlv public improvements to be owned, operated or maintained by t.!¡e City will be financed through a community facilities district. Moreove:r, all actual costs associated with a community facilities distrie:t financing will be recovered by the City through the requirement of a deposit by the applicant and through the levy of annual special tax~. In its current form. therefore:, the Originarion Charge only serves as a money-making enterprise that i:J:reases the cost of providing public improvemenrs and, ultimately, the cost of home ownership within the City. FinaUy, the Origination Charge could result in an increased interest rate on the bonds whic:h, i:l turn, will reduce the .amount of proc:e~ available Ie acquire public improvements . In the fInal a.!¡¡¡!ysis then, the ultimate taxpaye:r -- each homeowner wiEÌlin a community faci\Jt!es district for example - will receive 1c:ss for its special tax dollar. Thc fact that the City is.ree:eiving payment in exchange for establishing an a.ssessment or community facilities district and issuing bonds is a potential material matter that would havc to be disc:1osed in any official statement on such bonds. Because such a payment is rughly unusual and could be ÌDterpn::te:d as compromising the City's objectivity and diligence in issuing the bonds, it is fores:::able thaI !he bondbuying market would demand a higher int=st rate for thc:sc bonds than it would for bonds of otherwise identical credit quality but without the unusual Origination Charge feature. The Origination Charge lacks legal support and appears inconsistent with legitimate public polic:y. I would hope that if the City was made aware of these c:oneerr.s it 10,'6·,7 9!JOŸ-OOOO3 S:\OO:\172\COKK\,7'OOOO'.L,2 ,,~ ,- - -. .-- ,,~~' ;,I',i/;,,' , ~.. ~ Kimb::rly K. Elliott Ocwb::r 22, 1997 Page 6 would seriously r~onsider imposing the Origination Charge. As always, please fed free to call me if you have aDY further qu::stions. Very truly yours, fv John P. Yeager IPY /srnl -' 10·16'97 900;-00003 S,\DO:\172\CORR\97100001.Lï2 ---"'---~"----- 4I;¿;j MEMORANDUM January 9, 1998 File No. 01l0-1O-LY020 To: Shirley Horton, Mayor Via: John Goss, City Manage& From: John Lippitt, Director of Public Works# '2;0 ? Subject: January K 1998 Agenda, Item No.l- Report on the Use of MelIo-Roos Community Facilities Act ~ 'I- Agenda Item Number 8 on the January 13 agenda concerns the adoption of a statement of goals and policies regarding the establishment of Community Facilities Districts (CFD' s) for financing of infrastructure in new developments. While it is on the Consent calendar, it is possible that one or more of the developers will pull the item and it will need to be discussed in detail by the Council. Warren Diven, the City's consulting attorney for this and all other CFD issues, has a conflict in meetings. Mr. Diven can be at the Chula Vista City Council at 6:00, but has a previous hearing scheduled with the San Diego City Council at 7:30 p.m. Because of the importance of Mr. Diven's input if certain questions come up from the developers, it is necessary to discuss the item while Mr. Diven can be present. We discussed postponing the item to the next City Council meeting on January 20, but that meeting already has several public hearings which may take some time and staff was reluctant to put it on that meeting's agenda. The next meeting after January 20 will not be until February 13 and the adoption of the CFD policy is becoming critical to the continued processing of their improvements. Therefore, it is staff request that, if the item is pulled from the Consent Calendar, discussion of the item be taken inunediately after the Consent Calendar is voted upon. Also, attached is the letter from Hewitt & Mcguire dated October 22, 1997, referred to on page 8-8 of the agenda statement, which was inadvertently left out of the Council packet. Attachment H:IHOMEIENGADMINIITEM#8.CLS - -.-...._---"_._----,._.._--"--"--~..._---_..- I THE OTAY RANCH~ COMPANY :P ,21 ,I January 13, 1998 The Honorable Shirley Horton Mayor Members of the Chula Vista City Council CITY OF CHULA VISTA 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, California 91910 Re: Staff Recommendation Concerning Statement 01 Goals and Policies Regarding the Establishment 01 Community Facilities Districts (Agenda Ite¡p-81 -ZA Dear Mayor Horton and Councilmembers: The Otay Ranch Company supports the staff recommendation concerning the Statement of Goals and Policies regarding the establishment of Community Facilities Districts. We are currently in the process of developing a Community Facility District (CFD) for portions of VilIage One. As part of this process, we are seriously considering financing part or all of the SPA One local parks through a Community Facility District This is consistent with state law and the proposed goals and policies, However, city staff has expressed reluctance to include the parks. .--~--- -~ ---'---'~---'--"-- ~---- ._--------"------.~ Because of the time and expense necessary to perform the preliminary work leading to thè creation of a CFD, The Otay Ranch Company seeks to use this agenda item to inform the Council of our proposal and to solicit the Council's support for our current direction. Permitting parks to be funded throughout a CFD provides the following benefits: . Provides larf!er neif!hborhood lJQT'ks earlier: The use of a CFD will enable The Otay Ranch Company to build all of our initial 11 acre park very early in the development , of SPA One. Without CFD funding, the park would be phased over several years. Specifically, under the standard PLDO/turn-key approach, the park would not have to be completed until over 1,800 homes were constructed. . Assures timelv fundinf! of Communitv Parks: The use of a CFD will ensure that funding is assured for the construction of community parks. Otay Ranch's community parks are larger than community parks required in other master planned communities (Le., 25 acres verses 15 acres). The first Otay Ranch Community Park , is outside of SPA One (in Village 2). These considerations have created some 11975 EI úmJno Real, Suite 104 . San Dlero, CA 92130 Tel. 619-259-2934 . Fax. 619·259-4364 E·mall. aharlin@otay.com The Honorable Shirley rton Mayor Members of the City Council CITY OF CHULA VISTA January 13, 1998 Page 2 concerns as to how to best assure the City that future community parks will be developed as needed. CFD funding solves this problem. . Solves Droblems with dual ownershiD of the Villafle Five Dark site: The initial Village Five neighborhood park is owned by both the McMillin Companies and the Otay Ranch Company. This creates coordination problems to ensure the park is built by both parties, when needed. Use of a CFD solves this problem. In response to the benefits offered by our proposal, and in light of our practical need to receive an early indication ITom the Council about our proposal, The Otav Ranch Company reauests that your Council adopt the recommended oolicies and indicate your supoor! for the use of CFD financinl! for local parks. consistent with City Policv and state laws. Sincerely, l1Œ OTA Y RANCH COMPANY Ken A en Executive Vice President KA/mdm C:\MoralKim\Lct1m1City Council 1-13-91 .. '"m·________ t I z ; .... < , ...J : ~ P.. P.. ¡¡ < r:.; h w ¡-.. 'F IJ) , < ~ ::E ~ >- r:.; < z - ~r ~ '~ r:.; < p.. . r ~ , 3 t ~L ---- ·.---- I· ,I , "" 51 1739 Elmhurst Street ! Chula Vista, CA 91913-2614 (,Il" " --"-_ _A VISTA, CA 619421-7337 December 26, 1997 Mayor Shirley Horton City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 Dear Madam Mayor, I attcndcd thc December Meeting of the Cultural Arts Commission and we could not approve the minutes of the August meeting for lack of a quorum. This is the fourth consecutive month that this has happened. We are four short of our complement of nine members. I appreciate your prompt attention to this matter Sincerely ~CAllister Commissioner Cultural Arts P. S. I have tried several times to e-mail you with no luck I can't get the proper e-mail address. Great work on the Padres proposal. ,if 1/\/1:' ~ 1 ~ïfð / ~ 1 . \ t\ ,;, . ~V;:'<'l~ / h~Vy~ ¡~ ~ r¡; ø \p- , . .J ~ é¿ - ;2., __-'_m_ ..-.-.--....---.- -.._,. -~-~-"_.. --.-._-----