Ordinance 2021-09 Historic Building Code for Napa Valley Ruins and Gardens Urgency Ordinance
CITY COUNCIL SEPTEMBER 21, 2021
Resolution 2021-75 Lot 10 Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map (PL21-0013) PLANNNING COMMISSION AUGUST 26, 2021
Resolution 2021-17 Lot 10 Tentative Subdivision Map (PL21-0013) Resolution 2021-18 Lot 10 Design Permit (PL21-0014)
CITY COUNCIL JULY 20, 2021
Resolution 2021-50 Partial Assignment Agreement McGrath Properties and Napa Valley Ruins & Gardens, LL
PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 27, 2021
Resolution 2021-13 Lemos Pointe Apartments Design Permit (PL21-0004) CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 16, 2020
Resolution 2020-R110 Partial Assignment Agreement with Lennar Corporation Resolution 2020-R109 Partial Assignment Agreement with Pacific West CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 15, 2020
Resolution 2020-106 Watson Ranch Master Conditions of Approval Resolution 2020-107 Watson Ranch Lot 14/15 Subdivision PL20-0033 PLANNING COMMISSION NOVEMBER 19, 2020
Resolution 2020-10 Watson Ranch Lot Master Conditions of Approval Resolution 2020-11 Watson Ranch Lot 14/15 Subdivision (PL20-0033) Resolution 2020-12 Watson Ranch 14/15 Design Permit (PL20-0032) CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 11, 2020 (Special Meeting)
Resolution 2020-13 Infill Infrastructure Grant
CITY COUNCIL DECEMBER 17, 2019
Resolution 2019- R102 Watson Ranch Final Map
Resolution 2019- R103 Watson Ranch Park Dedication
CITY COUNCIL JUNE 18, 2019
Resolution 2019-50 Watson Ranch Large Lot Vesting Tentative Map for Finance and Conveyance Purposes
Ordinance 2019-05 Watson Ranch Specific Plan Amendments Ordinance 2019-06 AC-1 Development Agreement.
CITY COUNCIL JUNE 4, 2019
Resolution 2019-40 Watson Ranch General Plan Amendments CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 6, 2018
Ordinance 2018-08 Watson Ranch Specific Plan
CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 16, 2018
Resolution 2018-112
Resolution 2018-113
Resolution 2018-114
Watson Ranch Specific Plan EIR
Watson Ranch MMRP
Watson Ranch General Plan Amendment
CITY COUNCIL MARCH 1, 2016
Resolution 2016-23 Watson Ranch Specific Plan Water Supply Assessment CITY COUNCIL JULY 15, 2014
Resolution 2014-57
Resolution 2014-58
Watson Ranch EIR contract with ESA
Negotiate nonbinding MOU between City, AC1, LLC and
Newell Family
LAFCO SEPTEMBER 20, 2011
LAFCO Resolution 10-21 Watson Ranch Annexation Certification CITY COUNCIL NOVEMBER 16, 2010
Resolution 2010-118 Watson Ranch Preannexation Agreement Resolution 2010-109 Resolution to succeed Williamson Act properties in the Town Center
CITY COUNCIL OCTOBER 5, 2010
Resolution 2010-96
Resolution 2010-97
Napa County GP EIR Addendum for Watson Ranch
Annexation
Watson Ranch Preannexation Agreement Authorization
CITY COUNCIL JUNE 1, 2010
Resolution 2010-57 Watson Ranch Property Tax Sharing Agreement 501
M-20 | Mobility Element | May 2025
MOB-Figure 8:General Plan Mobility System Map
502
May 7th, 2025
RE: Watson Ranch Specific Plan Mitigation - Conservation Easement Recording Dear Sir or Madam:
The Watson Ranch Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (the “FEIR”) included Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h. The enclosed Conservation Easement Deed was recorded on a 321.2 acre portion of property known as APNs 059-020-054 and 055 (the “Jaeger Open Space Preserve”). The Jaeger Open Space Preserve was specifically identified in the FEIR as the recommended site for mitigation under Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h.[1] The Conservation Easement Deed was approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service and recorded as document number 2025-0006278 in the Official Records of Napa County on May 7, 2025. A copy of the recorded Conservation Easement Deed is enclosed. Through recordation of the Conservation Easement Deed, Mitigation Measure 4.3-1h has been satisfied.
Respectfully,
Nate Heydorff
Managing Member
JamCan, LLC
[1] Watson Ranch Specific Plan DEIR, pages 4.3-49 to 4.3-50.
JamCan LLC
2180 Oak Knoll Avenue
Napa, California - 94555
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
3 CONSERVATION AND MITIGATION
BANKING GUIDELINES
State of California
Natural Resources Agency
Department of Fish and Wildlife
Finalized August
2014
Cultural Resources Section Updated
July 2019
Legislation Section Updated and Guidance on
Wildlife Connectivity Actions Section Added
May 2024
529
California Department of Fish and Wildlife ii Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Table of Contents
Table of Contents..........................................................................................................ii Chapter 1: Conservation and Mitigation Banking Statute of 2013................................ 1 Introduction............................................................................................................... 1 Purpose.................................................................................................................... 2 Legislation ................................................................................................................ 2 Definitions................................................................................................................. 3 Chapter 2: Interagency Guidance Documents ............................................................. 5 Interagency Guidance for Preparing Bank Proposals............................................... 5 Bank Proposal Review Checklists ............................................................................ 5 Bank Enabling Instrument ........................................................................................ 5 Conservation Bank Enabling Instrument .................................................................. 6 Conservation Easement ........................................................................................... 6 Property Assessment and Warranty......................................................................... 6 Long-Term Management Plan.................................................................................. 6 Chapter 3: CDFW Bank Review Process..................................................................... 8 Bank Applications..................................................................................................... 8 Fees ......................................................................................................................... 9 Review Timelines ................................................................................................... 10 Bank Database....................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 4: CDFW Guidance and Templates.............................................................. 13 Instructions for Bank Sponsors............................................................................... 13 Review Process Flowchart and Description ........................................................... 13 Bank Submittal Form.............................................................................................. 13 Guidance on Lands Appropriate for Banking.......................................................... 14 530
California Department of Fish and Wildlife iii Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Guidance on Wildlife Connectivity Actions ............................................................. 14 Guidance on Cultural, Historical, Archeological, and Native American Resources (“cultural resources”) .............................................................................................. 15 Letter of Credit Template........................................................................................ 15 Bank Amendment Process Flowchart and Description........................................... 16 Notifications to Bank Sponsors............................................................................... 16 Chapter 5: Additional Guidance ................................................................................. 17 Clarification of Fees................................................................................................ 17 Considerations for Determining Acceptability ......................................................... 18 Annual Fee Adjustments ........................................................................................ 19 Banks Previously Approved by Other Agencies ..................................................... 20 Voluntary Time Extensions..................................................................................... 20 Guidance for CEQA Banks..................................................................................... 21 Siting Banks to Contribute to CDFW Conservation Objectives............................... 21 Common Banking Acronyms.................................................................................. 25 531
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Chapter 1: Conservation and Mitigation Banking Statute of 2013 Introduction
Since the mid-1980s, the State of California has actively sought alternatives to the small, fragmented habitat reserves that can result from project-by-project mitigation. One approach has been the creation of conservation and mitigation banks. These banks are generally large, connected areas of preserved, restored, enhanced, or constructed habitats (for example, wetlands) that are set aside for the express purpose of providing mitigation for project impacts to wetlands, threatened and endangered species, and other sensitive resources.
The terms "conservation bank" and "mitigation bank" are defined in Fish and Game Code section (§)1797.5. Broadly speaking, a bank is privately, or publicly owned land managed for its natural resource values. In exchange for permanently protecting the land and resources, and managing them according to a written agreement with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), the bank sponsor is issued credits that it may sell to project proponents who need to satisfy legal requirements for mitigating the environmental impacts of projects, or that it may use for its own project mitigation needs. A privately owned conservation or mitigation bank is a free-market enterprise that offers landowners economic incentives to protect natural resources, and that can save time and money for parties with mitigation responsibilities by simplifying the state regulatory compliance process. A publicly owned conservation or mitigation bank offers the sponsoring public agency advance mitigation for larger or multiple projects and/or operations and maintenance that spans longer term project planning horizons.
Conservation banks generally protect threatened or endangered species habitat or other sensitive resources, while mitigation banks conserve existing, restored, enhanced, or created wetland habitats that may also provide habitat for listed species. CDFW has actively supported banking to provide an incentive to conserve lands, consolidate mitigation into larger, more ecologically viable properties, and assist CDFW in meeting its conservation goals. Conservation and mitigation banking is important to the state because banks provide regulatory efficiencies, environmental benefits, and economic advantages.
Banking has been an ongoing activity since the early 1990's, and in 1995 a state policy on conservation banks was established jointly by the Natural Resources Agency and the California Environmental Protection Agency. Bank proposals have increased each year with more than 60 requests submitted in 2011–12. CDFW staff is involved in all facets of bank review and approval, yet until 2013 there was no dedicated funding source to carry out these activities. Due to state agency reductions in 2011 including loss of CDFW positions and funding, CDFW did not have the financial means to continue to provide bank services without cost recovery, and it suspended bank review in early 2012. The CDFW banking program resumed in January 2013, when legislation with standards for bank applications, timelines for CDFW review and response, and associated fees for cost recovery became effective.
532
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 2 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Purpose
CDFW is providing these Guidelines and criteria to implement Chapter 7.9 of Division 2 (beginning with §1797) of the Fish and Game Code (FGC). These Guidelines incorporate all relevant documents and program guidance as of the date of these Guidelines, as contemplated by FGC §1799.1(c). These Guidelines are intended to clarify the bank review and approval process as defined in the FGC in order to assist bank sponsors, partner agencies, the public, and CDFW staff. CDFW intends that these Guidelines will be a "living document" available on the CDFW Conservation and Mitigation Banking webpage. CDFW, in coordination with interested parties, will update these Guidelines as additional relevant documents or program guidance become available.
Legislation
Senate Bill (SB) 1148 (Pavley), Ch. 565, Statutes of 2012, effective January 1, 20131 established a process for CDFW review and approval of mitigation and conservation bank applications and new fees for program services, administration, and oversight by CDFW. Through legislative findings and declarations, this new statute reinforced the values and importance of conservation and mitigation banks in providing for the conservation of important habitats and habitat linkages, taking advantage of economies of scale that are often not available to individual mitigation projects, and simplifying the state regulatory compliance process while achieving conservation goals. Among other things, the legislation also acknowledged a desire for greater transparency to ensure mitigation requirements are fully met when employing banks, and that the monitoring of banks to ensure long-term conservation of species and habitats is scientifically valid.
Finding that banks and the entities to which bank credits are sold should fully fund the administrative and regulatory costs incurred by CDFW in providing banking program services, administration and oversight, SB 1148 also imposed new fees to cover these costs.
In FGC §1797(h), the Legislature finds and declares its intent that banking and all other forms of mitigation for wildlife species should:
• comply with regulatory requirements
• be based on the best available scientific information • be capable of being implemented successfully
• have adequate funding to achieve mitigation measures
• be monitored for compliance and effectiveness
The Legislature also recognized in §1797(h) that mitigation and conservation banking is 1 Fish and Game Code, Chapter 7.9 (beginning with §1797), Division 2. 533
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 3 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines an important conservation mechanism in California because banks provide regulatory efficiencies, environmental benefits, and economic advantages. Properly developed and monitored banks have demonstrated their value and efficacy and are important tools in mitigating impacts to resources and in conserving a wide range of habitat lands.
Additionally, Senate Bill 790 (SB 790), effective January 1, 2022 as Fish and Game Code section 1955 et seq., titled “Wildlife Connectivity Actions,” gives CDFW the ability to create credits for a wildlife connectivity action through its banking or Regional Conservation Investment Strategies (RCIS) programs. Credits created in accordance with SB 790 could satisfy project mitigation requirements (e.g., CEQA, CESA, LSA Agreements).
Pursuant to Fish and Game Code section 1958, CDFW developed Wildlife Connectivity Advance Mitigation Guidelines intended to provide information and assist project sponsors, public agencies, private entities, the public, and CDFW staff when a wildlife connectivity action is proposed within the banking or RCIS programs. Additionally, they are meant to supplement the banking and RCIS program guidelines.
Definitions
Some terms used in the enacted legislation were not defined. CDFW has provided definitions for these terms and others used in bank review and approval to provide clearer direction and guidance to bank sponsors. In addition to the terms defined in FGC §1797.5, the terms below are used in these Guidelines and defined as follows:
• "Amendment" means any addition, change or other modification to a CDFWapproved bank that requires approval from CDFW. There are two types of amendments:
"Simple amendment" means any amendment that relates to the organization or administration of the bank including, but not limited to, changes in bank name, ownership, address, bank sponsor, property owner, endowment holder, a decrease in the number of credits, or reduction in the bank service area. • "Complex amendment" means any amendment that relates to the operation, management, or other material element of the bank including, but not limited to, conservation easement transfer, increase in service area, change in service area configuration (excluding a service area reduction), increase in the number(s) or type(s) of credits, change in the types(s) of credits, increase in the size of the bank property, or substantial variation from the recommended standard templates.
• "Approved bank" means a bank CDFW has determined to be acceptable and for which the bank agreement has been signed by CDFW.
• "Bank agreement" or "bank agreement package" means the bank enabling instrument including all of its exhibits and attachments as required by the interagency checklists. • "CDFW modification" means any addition, change or other modification proposed to 534
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 4 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines a CDFW- approved bank by CDFW staff, alone or with one or more other signatory agencies.
• "Clerical change" means any alteration to a CDFW-approved bank agreement such as corrections of typos or other minor errors, and any minor information change that CDFW determines has no substantive impact on the bank, its organization or administration.
• "Established" bank (or "establishment" of a bank) means the bank agreement has been signed, any security provided, and the land has been protected by recording a conservation easement or transferring fee title.
• "Interagency review team" or "IRT" means the group of federal, tribal, state, or local regulatory or resource agencies with authorities and/or mandates directly affecting, or affected by the establishment, operation, or use of a mitigation or conservation bank. The members of the IRT vary depending on the resources conserved by the bank and the location of the bank in the state. The IRT is sometimes referred to as the Mitigation Bank Review Team (MBRT) or Conservation Bank Review Team (CBRT), depending on the agencies involved.
• "Unsolicited change" is defined in FGC §1798.5(f) and §1798.6(f). An unsolicited change includes only those changes requested by the bank sponsor, property owner, or any other party associated with the bank, and does not include changes requested by CDFW or other IRT agencies acting on their own initiative. 535
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 5 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Chapter 2: Interagency Guidance Documents
Interagency Guidance for Preparing Bank Proposals
In a statewide team effort in 2006, CDFW and other state and federal agencies entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (M O U) (updated and renewed in 2011) to guide how the parties would work together to develop and use combined or coordinated approaches to mitigation and conservation banking, such as standardized banking program documents and guidance. The agencies represented in this effort include: the California Natural Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, US Army Corps of Engineers, US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, US Department of Agriculture - Natural Resources Conservation Service, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - National Marine Fisheries Service, and State Water Resources Control Board.
The interagency Project Delivery Team (PDT), established by the M O U, created the first joint bank document templates in 2006 (published in 2008). Since then, the templates and instructions have been updated periodically to reflect changing policies and new bank implementation experience, with input from bank sponsors and staff from the interagency review team (IRT) agencies. When templates are updated, the public is given an opportunity to provide comments in response to a US Army Corps of Engineers public notice, and at a public meeting hosted by the IRT agencies. The current versions of the bank document templates and instructions, including bank proposal review checklists, bank enabling instrument, conservation easement, and long-term management plan are available at CDFW's Conservation and Mitigation Banking webpage. The IRT agencies recommend that bank sponsors use these templates without modifying them. Significant changes to standard template language may cause the bank review and evaluation process to take considerably longer than if the template is used.
Bank Proposal Review Checklists
The PDT created bank proposal review checklists to assist bank sponsors in providing information about their bank proposal to the IRT agencies that is sufficient to meet the agencies' requirements. A complete bank package helps the agencies provide meaningful feedback at early stages of the evaluation process, and facilitates timely review. To assist bank sponsors in preparing complete bank proposals, the PDT created checklists for the draft prospectus, prospectus, and draft bank enabling instrument. The instructions that accompany the checklists provide additional guidance to bank sponsors on the process of creating a bank. For certain steps or components in the checklist the bank sponsor may benefit from obtaining professional assistance for the financial, legal and environmental aspects of the proposed bank.
Bank Enabling Instrument
A Bank Enabling Instrument (B E I) is an agreement between a mitigation bank sponsor, bank property owner, and the signatory agencies that have jurisdiction over the wetland resources to be conserved and managed by the mitigation bank and for which credits will be established. The B E I identifies the conditions and criteria under which the bank will 536
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 6 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines be established, managed, and operated. The B E I, including its required exhibits, describes the location of the bank site, the bank service area, the numbers and types of credits to be established and how they will be released, and how the bank will be managed and conserved in perpetuity. It describes allowable activities and access and identifies requirements such as environmental site assessments and appropriate monitoring programs. The B E I, once completed and finalized, must be signed by CDFW to be approved. For a complete understanding of the B E I, please refer to the current template at CDFW Instructions and Templates webpage.
Conservation Bank Enabling Instrument
The Conservation Bank Enabling Instrument (CBEI) is an agreement between a conservation bank sponsor, bank property owner, and the signatory agencies that have jurisdiction over the threatened or endangered species habitat or other sensitive resources to be conserved and managed by the conservation bank and for which credits will be established. Currently, until a CBEI template is finalized, a CBEI is derived from the standard template B E I, and contains essentially the same provisions and exhibits as the B E I. As the starting point for creating a CBEI, the B E I template is modified to focus on issues pertinent to the conservation bank. For the purposes of these Guidelines, references to the B E I apply to the CBEI as well.
Conservation Easement
The biological resources protected by a conservation or mitigation bank must be conserved in perpetuity, typically by granting a conservation easement to an eligible Federal or State resource agency or non-profit conservation organization. A conservation easement, established according to California Civil Code section 815, et seq., preserves land and resources in perpetuity while allowing property owners to retain many private property rights. It constitutes an interest in the land that is binding on future owners. The conservation easement prohibits activities on and uses of the bank property that might otherwise interfere with the functioning of the bank. The PDT has created a conservation easement template for banks.
Property Assessment and Warranty
The Property Assessment and Warranty requires the landowner to provide a narrative explaining each recorded or unrecorded lien, encumbrance, or other exception to the title of the bank property. It describes the impact any matter affecting title may have on a conservation easement or fee title held by a conservation entity and is accompanied by a preliminary title report. The IRT agencies rely on the Property Assessment and Warranty to identify any constraints on the bank property that could prohibit or interfere with permanent conservation of the bank's resources.
Long-Term Management Plan
Management of the bank property is essential to assure a bank continues to provide high quality habitat and is key to the success of a mitigation or conservation bank. The purpose of the Long-Term Management Plan is to ensure the bank property is managed, monitored, and maintained in perpetuity for its natural resource values. The long-term management plan establishes objectives, priorities, tasks, and reporting requirements. 537
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 7 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Management actions are tailored to achieve desired outcomes for the covered species and habitat and must be designed to adapt to changing environmental factors (adaptive management).
538
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 8 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Chapter 3: CDFW Bank Review Process
Bank applications are received by and reviewed at CDFW Regional Offices. Regional Bank Coordinators serve as the primary contact for bank sponsors and participate as members of the IRTs. Regional Bank Coordinators have the expertise to review bank proposals and work with bank sponsors and other IRT agencies to finalize the terms of the bank and all the necessary bank documents. Bank agreement and amendment packages that make significant changes to standard template language may also be subject to review by the CDFW Office of General Counsel (OGC). Acceptable bank agreement and bank amendment packages are approved in writing and signed by the Regional Manager. Where either a conservation easement interest in or fee title to the bank property is proposed to be granted to CDFW, relevant documents are reviewed by the Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, may be reviewed by OGC, and, after internal CDFW processing is complete, are then forwarded to the Wildlife Conservation Board for acceptance and recording. Conservation easements that are to be granted to an approved non-profit organization will be processed by the bank sponsor or landowner and the grantee of the conservation easement.
Bank Applications
Bank applications fall into four main categories or document types: draft prospectus (optional), prospectus, bank agreement package, and amendment package.
Any person or entity seeking CDFW approval to establish a bank will need to submit a series of application documents during the bank review process. This phased approach allows CDFW to consider bank concepts and initial proposals before the bank sponsor invests the time and resources to prepare a full bank agreement package. For example, a bank sponsor may begin the process by submitting a draft prospectus (optional), then prospectus, and finally, if the prospectus is acceptable, a bank agreement package.
However, a bank sponsor may also choose to begin the process with a prospectus, skipping the draft prospectus stage. After bank approval, the bank sponsor may request amendments.
Except for banks where CDFW is the only agency with jurisdiction, bank applications are typically jointly reviewed by the IRT agencies according to the interagency templates, checklists, and processes agreed to by the IRT/PDT agencies (see Chapter 2).
Draft Prospectus (optional)
A draft prospectus is a brief, concept level proposal that is optional but recommended when a bank sponsor is scoping the concept for a bank or contemplating a specific mitigation or conservation bank idea, or for those new to the banking process. This step is intended to identify potential obstacles early so that the bank sponsor may rectify the issues, revise the proposal, or decide not to pursue the bank prior to investing in the full requirements of formal prospectus review. The bank sponsor may elect to submit an optional draft prospectus to CDFW for comment and consultation. CDFW may request a site visit to the proposed bank location. See the Checklist for Draft Prospectus for a complete list of the information required.
539
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 9 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Prospectus
The bank sponsor must submit a prospectus to CDFW. It is a written summary of the proposed bank. FGC §1797.5(h) requires that it contains "a sufficient level of detail to support informed department review and comment." The prospectus allows CDFW to determine if the bank proposal is adequate to support development of a full bank agreement package. The prospectus review process allows for early collaboration among CDFW and the bank sponsor to clarify the intent for the proposal and to identify potential benefits and issues. See the Checklist for Prospectus for a complete list of the information required. CDFW will visit the site of the proposed bank. The prospectus will be reviewed and evaluated by CDFW to determine if it is acceptable (see Chapter 5 for Considerations for Determining Acceptability), and whether the bank sponsor may submit a draft bank agreement package.
Bank Agreement Package
The bank agreement package is defined in Chapter 1. The PDT agencies have created templates for many of the required bank agreement components, including the B E I, conservation easement, and long-term management plan. The bank sponsor may submit a draft bank agreement package to CDFW after it determines the prospectus to be acceptable. See the Checklist for Draft B E I for a complete list of the information required. CDFW will review and evaluate the draft bank agreement package.
Amendments
Amendment is defined in Chapter 1. A bank sponsor seeking to amend a CDFWapproved bank must submit a complete bank amendment package (as defined in FGC §1798.6(a)) to CDFW. See the Checklist for Draft B E I for a complete list of the information required. CDFW will review and evaluate the bank amendment package.
Fees
FGC §§1798, 1798.5, 1798.6, and 1799 established the initial fees for the various bank application phases described above, as well as an implementation and compliance fee for approved banks. These fees are deposited in a separate dedicated account and expended for the purposes of funding the CDFW banking program as provided in FGC §1797(f) and §1799.1.
FGC §1799.1 directs CDFW to adjust the fees annually pursuant to FGC §713. Fee adjustments are determined using the Implicit Price Deflator (IPD) for State and Local Government Purchases of Goods and Services, as published by the United States Department of Commerce. The rate of change for the annual fee adjustment is determined by comparing the March 31 quarter end IPD index of the current year to the March 31 quarter end IPD index of the prior year. Each current banking fee is multiplied by the relative amount of change in the IPD index. The product is added to the fee for the current year and then rounded to the nearest $0.25 increment (as required by FGC §713). The resulting amounts are the adjusted fees for the new calendar year, beginning January 1.
The following table shows the initial statutory fee amounts and the adjusted fees for 540
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 10 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines 2014:
Bank Document
Name/Phase
Initial Review Fees
through 1/31/14
Review Fees 2/1/14 -
12/31/14
Draft Prospectus (optional) $1,500 $1,507.75
Prospectus $10,000 (or $8,500 if
optional
Draft Prospectus was
evaluated)
$10,052.25 (or $8,544.50 if
optional Draft Prospectus
was evaluated)
Bank Agreement Package $25,000 $25,130.50
Unsolicited change $10,000 $10,052.25
Bank Amendment Package
(initial/simple)
$7,500 $7,539.25
Bank Amendment Package
(complex)
$25,000 (or $17,500 if
initial Bank Amendment
Package fee was paid)
$25,130.50 (or $17,539.50
if initial Bank Amendment
Package fee was paid)
Implementation $60,000 $60,313.50
Each fall, CDFW will determine the fee change for the next year, notify the public via the fee webpage, and update the Bank Submittal Form. The fee change will become effective on January 1st of each year. Bank sponsors submitting bank documents to CDFW that are received with the incorrect fees will receive a letter giving notice of the applicable fee and that the proposal review timeline will not begin until CDFW has received the appropriate fee. Chapter 5 describes some situations where fees will not be required.
Review Timelines
FGC §§1798, 1798.5, and 1798.6 established timelines for CDFW review and evaluation of the various bank applications. To assist applicants, CDFW has created a graphical representation or flowchart of the process of submittal and review of a draft prospectus, prospectus, and bank agreement package. The review periods are summarized in the table below. The minimum allowed review period for any bank proposal is 240 days.
CDFW must receive the appropriate review fee and bank package for the statutory review timeline to begin. Please refer to FGC §§1798-1798.6 for detailed information about CDFW review timelines.
541
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 11 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Bank Document
Name/Phase
Action/Decision Review Timeline
Draft Prospectus (optional) Initial evaluation 30 days
Prospectus Complete? 30 days
Prospectus Acceptable? 90 days
Bank Agreement Package
Bank Agreement Package
(continued)
Complete? 30 days
Bank Agreement Package
Bank Agreement Package
(continued)
Acceptable? 90 days
Bank Agreement Package
Bank Agreement Package
(continued)
CDFW Requests
Supplemental Information
+90 days
Bank Agreement Package
Bank Agreement Package
(continued)
Unsolicited change +90 days
Bank Agreement Package
Bank Agreement Package
(continued)
FGC §1798.5(g) Extension +60 days
Bank Amendment Package Complete? 30 days
Bank Amendment Package Acceptable? 90 days
Bank Amendment Package CDFW Requests
Supplemental Information
-
Bank Database
FGC §1799(c) requires CDFW to establish and maintain a database that allows bank sponsors to share information about their banks, and to make the information available via the CDFW internet website. The information available for each bank will include, but is not limited to, bank name, location, contact information, total number of each type of bank credit, number and types of credits sold or obligated, number of credits applied, balance of each type of credit remaining, status of the species and habitat at the bank, a link to the bank's long-term management plan, and links to the complete annual 542
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 12 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines monitoring reports. In addition, CDFW will track bank documents submitted, fees paid, and review timelines.
Planning for the database began in mid-2013, with full implementation expected mid2015. Bank sponsors with a CDFW-approved bank will be able to submit updates about their bank to the Regional Bank Coordinator who will upload the information to the database. The database will be searchable by the public. Until the new database is functional, CDFW lists established banks on its bank webpage. 543
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 13 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Chapter 4: CDFW Guidance and Templates
In addition to the multi-agency templates described in Chapter 2, CDFW has prepared a variety of guidance documents to assist potential bank sponsors who are interested in establishing a mitigation or conservation bank. These documents include instructions, general guidance, templates, flow charts to assist bank sponsors in understanding the CDFW bank application review process, and instructions describing how to submit the appropriate fees as established in FGC §§1797-1799.1. The following guidance documents are discussed in this chapter:
• Instructions for bank sponsors
• Review process flowchart and description
• Bank submittal forms
• Guidance on lands appropriate for banking
• Letter of credit template
• Bank amendment process flowchart and description
Current versions of these CDFW guidance documents and templates are on the CDFW Conservation and Mitigation Banking webpage. These aids are for general information only and do not change the requirements of FGC §1797, et seq.
Instructions for Bank Sponsors
FGC §§1797-1799.1 created new steps in the CDFW process for authorizing and amending banks and mandated fees to fund CDFW's services. The Instructions for Bank Sponsors explains where to obtain templates, describes how to contact a CDFW Regional Bank Coordinator, identifies required forms, and cites the appropriate fee to be submitted with each bank application document.
Review Process Flowchart and Description
FGC §§1798-1798.5 created specific requirements in the CDFW review process, including timelines and procedures for requesting more information, handling proposed changes, and resubmitting bank applications. To assist bank sponsors, CDFW created a graphical representation or flowchart of the process of submittal to and review by CDFW of a draft prospectus (optional), prospectus, and bank agreement package. Footnotes in the flowchart provide clarification and references to the applicable FGC sections. In addition, CDFW created a step-by-step description of the review steps and fees for bank prospectuses and bank agreement packages. This outline is complementary to the flowchart and is intended to walk bank sponsors through the basic process for bank review and associated fees.
Bank Submittal Form
In order for CDFW to accurately track bank applications and fee payments, bank 544
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 14 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines sponsors must use the Bank Submittal Form when submitting bank documents to CDFW. Key pieces of information needed for accurate tracking are the bank name and CDFW-assigned tracking number, bank sponsor name and other contact information, as well as the type of bank document and its corresponding fee. The Instructions for Bank Sponsors explains how a bank sponsor may obtain a CDFW tracking number that is necessary for completing and submitting this form. The Bank Submittal Form provides instructions for payment of fees, which must be made by check or through wire transfer.
Guidance on Lands Appropriate for Banking
Bank sponsors should carefully select proposed bank sites to assure they provide conservation value for the sensitive species, habitats, and/or wetlands for which credits are sought. CDFW encourages bank sponsors to consider siting prospective banks where they will conserve significant high value resources, contribute to regional conservation strategies, and create a bank of ecologically sustainable size near other conserved lands. The CDFW Regional Bank Coordinators are available as a resource to bank sponsors considering locations for prospective banks. For additional guidance, see Siting Banks to Contribute to CDFW Conservation Objectives.
Some locations may not be appropriate for banking. Lands may be unsuitable to become mitigation or conservation banks if they have been used to mitigate impacts of previous projects, were acquired or conserved using public funding sources, or are subject to incompatible uses that could preclude an ecologically functional and sustainable bank. Lands that do not support significant biological resources or are not biologically viable or would not meet obligations of permits or authorizations that require mitigation, may also not be appropriate for a bank. The CDFW website offers additional direction on what lands are appropriate for banking.
Guidance on Wildlife Connectivity Actions
Bank sponsors can propose credits for a wildlife connectivity action. A wildlife connectivity action is an action that measurably improves aquatic or terrestrial habitat connectivity, or wildlife migration, recolonization, and breeding opportunities inhibited by built infrastructure or habitat fragmentation. A wildlife connectivity action may include, but is not limited to, a road overpass or underpass solely for use by wildlife (Fish & G.
Code section 1956, subsection (d)).
A few examples of wildlife connectivity actions addressing linear infrastructure barriers are:
• Restoring chinook salmon migration to upstream waters by replacing a culvert under a county road with a full-span bridge, so the location is passable by all life stages of chinook salmon as well as providing passing during flood events. This would facilitate movement of chinook salmon, steelhead, other aquatic species, and some terrestrial species (e.g., mountain lions).
• Restoring the linkage between upland breeding habitat and ponds to allow populations of California tiger salamander to expand their habitat and population by 545
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 15 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines installing an elevated roadway with openings and associated directional fencing.
This could also allow crossings for Alameda whipsnake.
• Building an overpass across a state freeway with directional fencing to allow movement of desert bighorn sheep, Mohave ground squirrel, and desert kit fox to expand into protected habitat.
When a bank sponsor proposes a bank with a wildlife connectivity action, the bank sponsor must include additional information regarding the wildlife connectivity action.
The Wildlife Connectivity Advance Mitigation Guidelines provides the crediting considerations for bank sponsors to use when proposing credit amounts for the wildlife connectivity action and lists information or documentation required for the credit proposal.
Guidance on Cultural, Historical, Archeological, and Native American Resources (“cultural resources”)
To facilitate compliance with CDFW’s Tribal Communication and Consultation Policy2, CDFW will seek in good faith to consult with tribes whenever CDFW actions may significantly impact Tribal Interests. To help facilitate this process in a timely manner, CDFW may request bank sponsors to perform a cultural resources records search on all proposed conservation and mitigation bank sites.
Based on the records search results, CDFW will evaluate whether bank approval and the ensuing bank establishment and management activities may have an impact on Tribal Interests. If CDFW determines that such activities may have an impact on Tribal Interests, CDFW will follow the procedures in CDFW’s Tribal Communication and Consultation Policy before approving the bank.
Letter of Credit Template
The bank sponsor is responsible for providing financial security for the successful completion of habitat construction, management, monitoring, and remedial actions in accordance with the B E I. Financial security is typically required for activities not completed or fully funded by the time the bank is established.
The bank sponsor may choose to provide financial security in the form of either a cashier's check payable to the appropriate IRT agency or an irrevocable standby letter of credit (LOC). A LOC is a common instrument issued by a financial institution to guarantee payment or performance of an obligation. If a LOC is provided as security, it must name one of the IRT agencies as the beneficiary. A LOC must be issued for no less than one year and provide an expiration date that will be automatically extended 2 Department of Fish and Wildlife Bulletin: Tribal Communication and Consultation Policy
546
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 16 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines annually until the beneficiary releases the LOC based on completion of measures described in the BEI and LOC. Details on the requirements for performance security and letters of credit are available in the B E I.
CDFW has created a template letter of credit for use by bank sponsors where CDFW is the named beneficiary. LOCs must be approved by CDFW before they are issued to secure obligations related to a conservation or mitigation bank.
Bank Amendment Process Flowchart and Description
The process for amending banks mirrors the process described above for authorizing a bank agreement package. To assist bank sponsors, CDFW created a graphical representation or flowchart of the bank amendment submittal and review process.
Footnotes in the flowchart provide clarification and references to the applicable FGC sections. In addition, CDFW created a step-by-step description of the fees and review steps for proposed bank amendments. The outline is complementary to the flowchart and is intended to walk bank sponsors through the basic process for amendment review and associated fees.
Notifications to Bank Sponsors
FGC §§1798-1798.6 require CDFW to provide notice to bank sponsors of determinations related to whether applications are complete or not complete and acceptable or not acceptable. CDFW has established a process to provide such notifications. In the case of notifications of not complete or not acceptable, CDFW's written notification will state the reasons for the determination as it relates to requirements of the banking statute and/or interagency templates, checklists, and processes agreed to by the IRT agencies (see Chapter 2) 547
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 17 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Chapter 5: Additional Guidance
CDFW banking staff throughout the State met regularly during 2013 to share experiences and discuss program questions related to implementation of FGC §§1797-1799.1. With input from the community of banking stakeholders, the following new or clarified program practices were created to improve the application and review process for all interested parties.
Clarification of Fees
Implementation of FGC §§1797-1799.1 has revealed some situations where guidance regarding application of the statutory fee requirements would be beneficial. Guidance regarding fees for unsolicited changes to draft bank agreements/amendments and other changes to CDFW-approved banks is provided below.
Unsolicited Changes During CDFW's 90-Day Review Period
FGC §§1798.5(f) and 1798.6(f) require CDFW to charge a fee if a bank sponsor proposes changes to a draft bank agreement or amendment package that have not been solicited by CDFW during its 90-day review period, if CDFW identifies the change as one that will require additional CDFW staff review time. This fee is referred to in these Guidelines as an unsolicited change fee. One reason for instituting an unsolicited change fee was to encourage bank sponsors to submit well thought-out, thorough, complete, and viable bank or amendment proposals. CDFW can best advance the goals of the banking program by investing its resources in proposed banks that provide high quality resources for which credits are sought, are aligned with CDFW's regional conservation goals, provide appropriate mitigation for project impacts, and meet the requirements of FGC §§1797-1799 and the interagency guidance provided by the IRT agencies. When CDFW receives the fee for an unsolicited change and all required documents, a new 90-day review period begins.
The law requires CDFW to assess a one-time fee for an unsolicited change to cover the reasonable cost of CDFW's services in reviewing a change that it determines will require additional CDFW staff time. CDFW review of an unsolicited change can be anticipated to include a reasonable amount of back-and-forth discussion and adjustments on the subject of the proposed change, interagency coordination, document revisions, and associated review.
All of these activities would be covered under the one-time change fee. However, if later in the CDFW review process the bank sponsor proposes another change on a different topic than the change addressed previously, CDFW will again determine if additional CDFW staff time is needed and, if so, assess an unsolicited change fee to cover the reasonable cost of CDFW's services in reviewing the new change. Upon receipt of this fee and all required documents a new 90-day review period will begin.
Sometimes changes will be proposed by another IRT agency on its own initiative during CDFW's 90-day review period. These changes are not subject to FGC §§1798.5(f) or 1798.6(f). CDFW will not assess an unsolicited change fee if the bank sponsor demonstrates to the reasonable satisfaction of CDFW that another signatory agency has initiated the change on its own behalf, and not at the request of the bank sponsor, property owner, or any other party associated with the bank. A new 90-day review period will begin 548
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 18 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines once the proposed changes have been received by CDFW.
No unsolicited change fee is required if CDFW identifies the change as one that will not require additional review time by CDFW staff.
Changes to CDFW-Approved Banks
Two types of changes to CDFW-approved banks not defined in the statute are defined in Chapter 1 of these Guidelines. These types of changes are not amendments, and, therefore, are not subject to amendment fees.
• Clerical change - This type of modification is very minor and does not require any significant CDFW staff review. A clerical change is not an amendment and is therefore not subject to amendment fees pursuant to FGC §1798.6.
• CDFW modification - CDFW, alone or with one or more other signatory agencies, may request changes to a CDFW-approved bank for a variety of reasons. These changes, which generally are intended to benefit a bank's covered species and habitats or to address administrative issues, may be simple or complex. For example, some older banks may need adjustments to management strategies or service areas to better meet the conservation objectives for the species/habitats. CDFW modifications may be steps necessary to keep the bank viable, sustainable, and able to continue selling or using credits. All CDFW modification requests would be discussed with the bank sponsor, property owner, or other appropriate party associated with the bank, and the other IRT agencies, and implemented only if the bank sponsor, property owner, or other appropriate party associated with the bank, and other IRT agencies voluntarily agree to the CDFW modification. A CDFW modification is not an amendment and is therefore not subject to amendment fees pursuant to FGC §1798.6.
However, if the bank sponsor wishes to add any change beyond what CDFW is requesting, then the change is not a CDFW modification and the amendment fee requirements of FGC §1798.6 will apply.
When CDFW concurs with a change suggested by another IRT agency on its own initiative, it will be considered a CDFW modification, as described above. If CDFW and another IRT agency are not in agreement about a proposed amendment, it is likely CDFW will need to invest significant staff time to resolve the issues. In this scenario, the amendment fee requirements will apply to the bank sponsor.
Considerations for Determining Acceptability
FGC §§1798(d), 1798.5(c) and 1798.6(b) require CDFW to determine if complete prospectuses, bank agreement packages, and bank amendment packages are acceptable.
CDFW considers many factors including CDFW policy, and the bank's natural resources, financial assurances, and land protection measures during its review of the bank and bank amendment proposals. CDFW will rely on the most recent checklists, templates, CDFW data and guidance, experience, and scientific literature to evaluate the acceptability of bank proposals.
549
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 19 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines CDFW staff considers the following information, at a minimum, when determining if a bank proposal is acceptable:
• Does the proposed bank site provide high quality habitat for the species or biological resources for which bank credits are sought;
• Is the proposed bank site appropriate for banking (see CDFW policy on what lands are appropriate for banking);
• For a conservation bank, does the bank proposal document species use of the proposed bank site for the type of species habitat credit sought (foraging, aestivating, breeding, etc.);
• Does the bank proposal identify a service area based upon sound ecological principles, geographic appropriateness for the species for which bank credits are sought, and CDFW's regional conservation goals;
• Is the bank proposal consistent with CDFW's local and regional conservation objectives;
• Does the proposal contain all the information required in the prospectus checklist or the B E I checklist, and FGC §1798(b)(2)(A)-(N) or §1798.5(a)(2)(A)-(H); and • Does the proposal identify and reconcile potential incompatible uses or encumbrances on the proposed bank site?
CDFW staff considers the following additional information, at a minimum, when determining if a bank agreement package or bank amendment package is acceptable:
• Does the proposal provide sufficient certainty that the habitat protection, enhancement, restoration, or creation will be successful and that it will provide mitigation as intended;
• Does the long-term management plan contain sufficient certainty that the perpetual management of the bank site will adaptively provide for the target species/resource needs over time; and
• Does the proposal include sufficient financial assurances to carry out any enhancement, restoration, or creation, and interim and long-term management? Annual Fee Adjustments
FGC §1799.1(a) requires CDFW to annually adjust the banking program fees pursuant to FGC §713.
CDFW provides information on its internet website to inform the public of the current fee schedule. The process and timing for annual fee adjustments is described in Chapter 3 of these Guidelines.
Processing of some banks may carry over from one year to the next. The applicable statutes 550
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 20 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines make no exception to fee changes for these banks. For any document that requires submission of a fee to CDFW, the appropriate fee will be charged according to the fee schedule that is in place at the time a document is received by CDFW.
Regarding payment of the implementation fee as required by FGC §1799(e), the total implementation fee will be set at the time the bank agreement is approved based on the fee schedule in place at the time. The total implementation fee for the bank will stay the same, and installments paid associated with credit releases will not reflect any increase in the fee.
Banks Previously Approved by Other Agencies
Some conservation and mitigation banks have been approved by other agencies without CDFW as a signatory. These include banks that cover species only listed under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), banks that only address impacts to waters of the United States under US Army Corps of Engineers' jurisdiction, and banks established to provide credits to satisfy mitigation requirements for impacts identified in the CEQA review process such as sensitive habitats and habitat for non-listed species of special concern (for more information, see Guidance for CEQA Banks below). Due to the changing status of a species or increasing demand for CDFW-approved credits, bank sponsors may request to have their bank subsequently approved by CDFW.
Any person seeking to establish a bank with CDFW must submit a prospectus and bank agreement and provide the appropriate review fees (FGC §1798-1799). The statute does not allow for any exceptions to these steps or fees. In the case where a bank was previously approved by another agency but not by CDFW, CDFW will consider a formal application for CDFW approval. Such a request will be considered a new bank proposal and will require a full review by CDFW. The proposal will be subject to the requirements of FGC §1797- 1799.1, as implemented by these Guidelines, including payment of all appropriate fees to cover the costs of CDFW's review services. The bank sponsor may choose to begin the CDFW review process with either a draft prospectus, which is optional, or a prospectus. In addition, the B E I from an existing, non-CDFW approved bank, will need to be updated to be consistent with the most current B E I template.
Based on varying statutory requirements or new information, CDFW may require new or different conservation actions for banks subsequently proposed for CDFW approval than were previously agreed to by other parties. CDFW will coordinate with other signatory agencies during the review of existing, non-CDFW approved banks. CDFW will rely on recent guidance, experience, and scientific input to ensure that conservation strategies necessary to provide appropriate mitigation will be implemented at the proposed bank.
Voluntary Time Extensions
The participating state and federal agencies work closely through the IRT to review and respond to bank proposals. The agencies coordinate with one another on all facets of the process in an effort to align their comments and avoid conflicting responses to bank sponsors. This practice makes for a more streamlined process for all parties, during which issues can be resolved and bank application review can proceed smoothly. 551
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 21 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines CDFW is mandated by FGC §§1797-1799.1 to review and respond to document submissions in a specified number of days (see the summary of review timelines, above).
However, the other IRT agencies are not subject to the same review timelines. In practice, when CDFW staff is ready to respond within the timelines mandated by the FGC but the other IRT members need more time to complete their review, or the bank sponsor and CDFW have some remaining issues to resolve, the bank sponsor and CDFW may agree to a voluntary time extension. This mutually agreeable extension of the review time may allow the parties to resolve issues, align the agencies' responses, and potentially avoid a "not acceptable" determination by CDFW that would require a bank sponsor to pay additional fees if further consideration is desired. CDFW or the bank sponsor may suggest a voluntary time extension at various stages of the bank review process. Any changes or additions to the bank agreement package proposed by the bank sponsor would be subject to the process described above under Unsolicited Changes During CDFW's 90-Day Review Period.
Guidance for CEQA Banks
FGC §§1797.5 (d)(3) and (f)(2) recognize banks established to mitigate significant effects on the environment pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines. These banks conserve resources such as sensitive habitats, foraging habitat for listed species, wetlands not subject to the lake and streambed alteration requirements of FGC§1600 et seq., and habitat for species of special concern (CEQA resources). CDFW has historically invested time to ensure that banks with CEQA resources provide appropriate mitigation and conservation, even where CDFW is not a signatory to the bank agreement.
CDFW encourages all new banks, including those that only provide credits representative of CEQA resources, to seek CDFW approval.
Obtaining CDFW approval of a CEQA resources bank will assure that CDFW can support use of the bank's credits to meet appropriate mitigation obligations imposed by lead agencies under CEQA. Many CEQA lead agencies rely on CDFW as a trustee agency to suggest appropriate mitigation for projects in their jurisdiction.
Bank sponsors contemplating creation of a CEQA resources bank should consult with the appropriate lead agency to help determine the need for credits and the likelihood that project proponents could use the bank to satisfy CEQA mitigation obligations. In addition, the local lead agency could be invited to become signatory to the bank agreement to assure its support for the bank.
Siting Banks to Contribute to CDFW Conservation Objectives CDFW encourages bank sponsors to consider multiple factors when selecting a site for a new bank, including ecological value of wildlife habitat and landscape considerations, adjacent land uses, and management factors such as threats, conflicting uses, encumbrances, and major restoration needs.
Bank sponsors should consider what resources are likely to be impacted in the area in the future and existing credits that may already be available to mitigate impacts to those resources. A critical element required to create a new bank is a location that will provide high conservation value and sustainable mitigation for impacts to wetlands, threatened or 552
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 22 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines endangered species, or other sensitive resources.
Bank sites that make a valuable contribution to the habitat protection objectives of CDFW by contributing to a regional conservation strategy and are connected to other conserved lands are encouraged by CDFW.
CDFW has prepared many strategic conservation initiatives (independently and in cooperation with others) to identify the habitat areas and linkages in California that are essential for conservation of sensitive resources. The information and sources are available to the public and should be used by bank sponsors when considering sites for new banks.
The Considerations for Determining Acceptability section earlier in this chapter provides additional guidance for siting banks.
Important sources of CDFW information that can inform the selection of a bank location are listed below:
• The CDFW Regional Bank Coordinators are available as a resource to bank sponsors considering locations for prospective banks. The Regional Bank Coordinator will be familiar with the location of high-quality resources that have been targeted for conservation by Regional staff. They will be a wealth of knowledge about species and habitats and may have additional information that will be helpful to bank sponsors.
• Bank Site Selection Considerations: This one page list offers guidance on important ecological values, factors, attributes, and management needs to consider when evaluating a property as a prospective bank site.
• Reserve areas and habitat connections are identified by regional NCCPs and HCPs.
These areas are identified as the highest priority conservation areas within the NCCP plan area. Plan implementers will assemble the reserve network over time through project mitigation and conservation acquisitions. Any bank that is established in NCCP or HCP should be located in the identified reserve areas or habitat connections to support the plan conservation strategy. The link above leads to the CDFW NCCP webpage where further links to local agency conservation plan websites are available. Additionally, the CDFW banking webpage offers information about siting banks in NCCP/HCPs .
• California State Wildlife Action Plan: The State Wildlife Action Plan examines the status of wildlife and prescribes actions to conserve wildlife and vital habitat before they become rarer and more costly to protect. This plan identifies specific conservation projects and actions to secure sensitive habitats and habitat linkages. • California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project This project identifies large remaining blocks of intact habitat and modeled linkages between them that need to be maintained, particularly as corridors for wildlife. This collaborative project offers a GIS habitat connectivity map, an assessment of the biological value of the identified connectivity areas, and guidance for implementing local and regional connectivity plans.
• California Areas of Conservation Emphasis (ACE) II: This mapping model compiles 553
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 23 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines and analyzes spatial information on California's species diversity, rarity, and sensitive habitats. ACE II provides a summary of biological richness and biodiversity "hot spot" analysis and is a tool for conservation decision making. • CDFW Lands Viewer: The Lands Viewer provides geospatial data about CDFW lands and facilities, including more than 1 million acres of Ecological Reserves and Wildlife Areas. Additional information for some of these lands may be found at the CDFW lands program webpage.
• Biogeographic Information and Observation System (BIOS): BIOS is a system designed to enable the management, visualization, and analysis of biogeographic data collected by CDFW and its partner organizations. Specifically of benefit to bank sponsors are two data sets:
o California Protected Areas Database (CPAD): CPAD is a G I S inventory of all fee-protected open space in California. It includes lands permanently protected by almost 1,000 agencies or nongovernmental organizations for open space purposes ranging from small neighborhood parks to large wilderness areas.
Conservation easement data are also available. Additional information is available at www.calands.org. o Wildlife Conservation Board (WCB) Approved Projects:
This dataset is a comprehensive list of WCB projects from Board inception in 1949 to present. It includes conservation easements, fee title properties, land exchanges, and restoration and enhancement projects.
• Atlas of the Biodiversity of California: The Atlas is a guide to California's biodiversity, the variety of plants and animals found throughout the state. This published book is a collection of maps, photographs, artistic illustrations, and short essays about the state's biological resources, pressures affecting them, and activities to sustain them.
Although the Atlas is a worthwhile information source, the data available through ACE II described above are more current.
Information from other sources:
• California Gap Analysis Report: The term "gap analysis" refers to a G I S evaluation of the conservation status of plant communities, vertebrate species, and the number of different species on existing biological reserves. The report identifies landscapes that contain large numbers of potentially unprotected vegetation types and vertebrate species. Such areas can then be studied in more detail as candidates for additional management and conservation efforts to fill gaps in the reserve network. • EcoAtlas Wetland and Aquatic Resources: EcoAtlas provides maps and tools to create a complete picture of aquatic resources in California, including stream and wetland maps, restoration information, and monitoring results with land use, transportation, and other information important to the state's wetlands. • Federally-listed Endangered Species Recovery Plans (US Fish and Wildlife Service - USFWS). The USFWS creates recovery plans for federally-listed threatened and endangered species that include significant information about the steps needed to achieve recovery. A recovery plan identifies critical habitat essential for the recovery of the species which is mapped in detail in the recovery plan and is typically available 554
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 24 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines to the public. The USFWS website allows searches for recovery plans by state and species name.
• Science and Collaboration for Connected Wildlands Regional Connectivity Analyses:
As an extension of the California Essential Habitat Connectivity Project described above, South Coast Wildlands is working to create local and regional connectivity analyses that are at a finer scale. This tool may be helpful for bank sponsors looking to create banks in the San Francisco bay area, California desert, south coast, or Carrizo Plain.
For questions regarding these Guidelines or banking in general, please contact the CDFW Habitat Conservation Planning Branch, Conservation and Mitigation Banking Program, at (916) 653-4875 or [email protected].
555
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 25 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines Common Banking Acronyms
§ Section
1600 Fish and Game Code Section 1600 for Lake and Streambed Alteration (see LSA)
BAMT Banking Agencies Management Team: management level of banking agencies representing U S A C E, U S F W S, NMFS, CDFW, U S E P A, SWRCB, and NRCS (see PDT)
BEI Bank Enabling Instrument: an agreement that documents agency and bank sponsor concurrence on the objectives and administration of banks that mitigate impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, and the physical and legal characteristics of the bank. For these Guidelines, the term B E I includes reference to a CBEI
CBEI Conservation Bank Enabling Instrument: an agreement that documents agency and bank sponsor concurrence on the objectives and administration of banks containing natural resource values that are conserved and managed in perpetuity and used to offset impacts to specified listed or sensitive species or habitats
CBRT Conservation Bank Review Team (aka IRT)
CE Conservation Easement: an interest in real property conveyed to a conservation entity and managed in perpetuity for specific goals for which the land was protected; it extinguishes the development rights
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FGC Fish and Game Code
GIS Geographic Information System
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan (pursuant to FESA)
IPD Implicit Price Deflator: standard for determining annual banking fee increases IRT Interagency Review Team (aka MBRT or CBRT)
LSA Lake and Streambed Alteration (pursuant to FGC §1600) LOC Letter of Credit
LTMP Long-Term Management Plan: plan to ensure the bank is managed and maintained in perpetuity consistent with the goals of the bank MBRT Mitigation Bank Review Team (aka IRT)
MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NCCP Natural Community Conservation Plan (pursuant to FGC §2800) NMFS (NOAA) National Marine Fisheries Service
NRCS (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
556
California Department of Fish and Wildlife 26 Conservation and Mitigation Banking Guidelines PAR Property Analysis Record: a computerized database methodology used to estimate annual costs for conservation property management PDT Project Delivery Team: staff from the agencies signatory to the M O U who work on the B E I template, other templates, and other guidance products PLFAF Proposed Lands For Acquisition Form: a summary and initial intent form RBC Regional Bank Coordinator
USACE US Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS US Fish and Wildlife Service
WCB Wildlife Conservation Board
557
0 RBC Capital Markets
Statewide Community Infrastructure Program
A Program of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority 558
SCIP Introduction and Overview
Section I
559
2 RBC Capital Markets
What is the Statewide Community Infrastructure Program? The Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (“SCIP”) is a financing program offered through the California Statewide Communities Development Authority ("CSCDA") which can be used to finance public infrastructure, facilities and impact fees that are required to develop property through an assessment district or community facilities district. Any City/County/Special District can participate in SCIP to which provides local agencies the means to offer competitive financing to all developers (large and small) as a turn-key solution, minimizing local agency staff time. Each SCIP project can finance infrastructure, facilities and impact fees for multiple local agencies at once. SCIP provides two programs:
‒ The SCIP Pooled Revenue Bond Program which issues bonds 3 times/year (Spring, Fall & End of Year). o Once a local agency has joined, developers may submit applications on-line. o Through the Pooled Revenue Bond Program, CSCDA forms either an assessment district or community facilities district for each development project and issues local obligations payable from assessments or special taxes, as applicable.
o CSCDA then issues revenue bonds payable from the several local obligations which form the pool. ‒ A SCIP program for standalone projects which can be either Assessment Districts or Community Facilities Districts. o Used for larger projects in the range of $10 million to $30 million or higher o Can also include provisions for operations and maintenance special taxes. SCIP has 134 Local Agency members, and it is actively growing. Since, 2003, CSCDA has issued over $1.211 billion in bonds through SCIP for 418 projects across California — the CSCDA is the most active issuer of non-rated California land secured bonds by both par volume and number of transactions since 2017. 560
3 RBC Capital Markets
Program Benefits
SCIP provides Local Agencies a means of offering competitive financing to all developers as a turnkey solution which minimizes local agency staff time.
SCIP has financed projects which range in size from $500,000 to up and over $35,000,000.
Developers and Local Agencies can select between assessment districts or CFDs depending on the project.
Developers use SCIP for a variety of reasons:
Can be part of the capital mix of debt, equity, public financing
Provides off balance sheet/land secured non recourse debt Can provide competitive advantages with respect to
residential marketing
SCIP provides diversity to investors and economies of scale to its participants which ultimately translates to competitive interest rates and lower costs
Local Agencies Save Time & Effort
Resources Can be Used Elsewhere
Developers Gain Access to Capital
Project Economics are Improved
SCIP Can Now Finance School
Fees
561
4 RBC Capital Markets
Who Uses SCIP?
134 Participating Local Agencies across California with a Growing List of Recurring Developer Clients Participating Local Agencies
134 Total
Members with
418 Projects
Financed
• Alameda, City of
• American Canyon
• Anaheim
• Angels Camp
• Antioch
• Bakersfield
• Banning
• Bayshore Sanitary District
• Blythe
• Brentwood
• Butte County
• Calistoga
• Cathedral City
• Chico
• Chula Vista
• Citrus Heights
• Clovis
• Coachella Valley Water Dt.
• Corona
• Cosumnes CSD
• Cotati
• Daly City
• Dana Point
• Davis
• Desert Hot Springs
• Diablo Water Dt.
• Dublin
• Dublin San Ramon Svcs. Dt.
• East Contra Costa RFFA
• East Palo Alto
• Eastern Muni. Water Dt.
• El Dorado, County of
• El Dorado Irrigation District
• El Monte
• Elk Grove
• Fairfield
• Folsom
• Fontana
• Fremont
• Fresno
• Galt
• Gardena
• Grass Valley
• Healdsburg
• Hercules
• Hesperia
• Hollister
• Huntington Beach
• Imperial, County of
• Indian Wells
• Indio
• Ironhouse Sanitary Dt.
• Lancaster
• Lathrop
• Lincoln
• Linda Co. Water Dt.
• Live Oak
• Livermore
• Lodi
• Madera, City of
• Manteca
• Martinez
• Menifee
• Merced, City of
• Millbrae
• Mission Springs Water Dt.
• Morgan Hill
• Morro Bay
• Murrieta
• Napa, City of
• Napa, County of
• Newport Beach
• Norco
• Oakley
• Oxnard
• Palm Springs
• Patterson
• Petaluma
• Placer, County of
• Rainbow Muni Water Dt.
• Rancho Cordova
• Redding
• Rialto
• Richmond
• Rio Vista
• Riverside, County of
• Rocklin
• Roseville
• Sac. Area Sewer Dt.
• Sac. Co. Water Agency
• Sac. MUD
• Sac. Regl. Co. Sanitation Dt.
• Sacramento, City of
• Sacramento, County of
• San Diego, City of
• San Diego, County of
• San Juan Bautista
• San Juan Capistrano
• San Luis Obispo, City of
• San Luis Obispo, County of
• San Marcos
• San Mateo, County of
• Santa Ana
• Santa Rosa
• Santee
• Sonoma, County of
• South Placer MUD
• South Placer RTA
• South Placer Wastewater Authority
• Stockton
• Suisun City
• Sweetwater Authority
• Thousand Oaks
• Tracy
• Truckee Donner PUD
• Tuolumne, County of
• Ukiah
• Vacaville
• Vallejo
• Victorville
• West Sacramento
• Western Municipal Water District
• Wheatland
• Woodland
• Yuba City
• Yuba, County of
• Yucaipa
• Yucaipa Valley Water Dt.
562
5 RBC Capital Markets
Top Land Secured Negotiated Bond Issuers (since 2017)
Rank Issuer
Par Amount
($MM)
Mkt Share
(%) # of Issues
1 California Statewide Communities Development Authority 1,032.16 8.4% 54 2 City & County of San Francisco 966.57 7.8% 16
3 River Islands Public Financing Authority 878.23 7.1% 12 4 City of Irvine 714.84 5.8% 5
5 Irvine Unified School District 430.51 3.5% 5
6 County of Orange 342.62 2.8% 6
7 City of Roseville 322.69 2.6% 25
8 California Municipal Finance Authority 247.53 2.0% 18 9 City of Ontario 206.80 1.7% 21
10 Menifee Union School District 179.52 1.5% 20
Total: Top 10 $5,321.46 43.2% 182
Industry Total $12,314.55 100.0% 719
From January 1, 2017, through December 19, 2023, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (“CSCDA”) was the #1 issuer of negotiated land secured/special assessment bonds in California, bringing to market over $1 billion in total par amount and capturing 8.4% market share.
o CSCDA was the most active issuer of negotiated land secured/special assessment bonds in California, with 54 transactions successfully brought to market over this period.
o RBC Capital Markets served as lead bond underwriter on 52 of these bond financings, totaling $856.2 million.
Source: Bloomberg
California Rankings: Issuer of Land Secured/Special Assessment Bond Financings (Negotiated; 2017 - 2022) 563
6 RBC Capital Markets
$78.8
$72.2
$62.3
$43.4
$40.3
$37.4
$33.8
$28.6
$25.5
$20.8
TRI Pointe
Homes, Inc.
Lennar
Corporation
DMB
Development
KB Home Brookfield
Properties
Elliott Homes JEN Partners Meritage Homes D.R. Horton DeNova Homes Top Land Developer Partners (January 2017 – 4Q 2023)
Data in $ millions
92 Total Land Developer Partners
$797.25 MM of Total Par Amount Issued since 2017
245 Projects Funded with 32,110 residential units constructed or expected to be constructed
Nearly $350.4 million of Impact Fees and $349.5 million of Public Improvements funded
Participation from various agencies located in 20 different counties across California
564
7 RBC Capital Markets
1st
2nd
3rd
4th
5th
6th
7th
8th
9th
10th
Top Local Agency Partners (January 2017 – 4Q 2023)
City of San Diego
$75.76MM (9.5%)
City of Manteca
$49.077MM (6.2%)
City of Rohnert Park
$35.1MM (4.4%)
City of Banning
$32.76MM (4.1%)
San Diego County
$29.716MM (3.7%)
City of Sacramento
$27.247MM (3.4%)
Sacramento County
Regional Sanitation District
$27.12MM (3.4%)
Diablo Water District
$26.326MM (3.3%)
Sacramento County
Water Agency
$26.237MM (3.3%)
Sacramento County
$24.694MM (3.1%)
Nearly $700 Million of Impact
Fees and Public Improvements
Financed
Nearly $350.4 million of Impact
Fees and $349.5 million of
Public Improvements funded
Participation from 82 Local
Agencies across 245 projects
Once fully built these projects
are expected to result in 32,110
additional housing units for the
California residential market
565
8 RBC Capital Markets
$171,630
$156,500
$108,420
$81,630
$81,150
$76,220
$60,370
$60,085
$43,570
$23,150
T. Rowe Price
Franklin
Nuveen
Goldman Sachs
Blackrock
INVESCO
Vanguard
Mackay Shields
Principal Capital Income Investors
First Trust
SCIP Pooled Program: Top Institutional Investors (Total Orders since April 2019) Over $1 Billion of
Orders Generated
since the sale of the
SCIP Series 2019B Bonds
Approximately $982 million of
orders were generated from 24
different institutional investors
Nearly $34 million of orders
were received from individual
retail investors
Total orders generated was
over 3x times available
allotments
566
9 RBC Capital Markets
SCIP Core Finance Team
RBC Capital Markets
(Underwriter)
Bob Williams
Managing Director
San Francisco
Steve So
Vice President
San Francisco
Michelle Nimo
San Francisco
California Statewide Communities Development Authority (Issuer) James Hamill
Managing Director
Walnut Creek
Jon Penkower
Managing Director
Walnut Creek
Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe LLC
(Bond/Disclosure Counsel)
Patricia Eichar
Partner
Sacramento
Nina Brox
Attorney
Sacramento
Brendan LaFountain
Senior Associate
Sacramento
BLX Group LLC
(Program Administrator)
Vo Nguyen
Managing Director
Los Angeles
Wilmington Trust, N.A.
(Trustee)
John Delaray
Vice President
Costa Mesa
Jeanie Mar
Vice President
Costa Mesa
Nancy Chen
Assistant Vice President
Costa Mesa
Integra Realty Resources
(Appraiser)
Eric Segal
Managing Director
Rocklin
David Taussig & Associates
(Assessment Engineer/Special Tax Consultant)
Kuda Wekwete
Managing Director
San Jose
Shayne Morgan
Managing Director
San Jose
Kyle Martinez
Manager
San Jose
567
SCIP Programs and
Requirements
Section II
568
11 RBC Capital Markets
SCIP Financing Programs for New Development
There are a number of ways for Developers and Local Agencies to use SCIP to assist is financing impact fee, public improvements and facilities for new residential, commercial and industrial projects. There is the SCIP Pool meant to accommodate smaller single phase projects ($500,000 to $5,000,000). SCIP can also be used to finance larger projects on a stand alone basis (greater than $5,000,000).
Financing of Impact Fees and Improvements/Facilities
Financing of Impact Fees is a popular option for developers starting to pull building permits and/or construct models.
SCIP can also be used to finance public improvements and facilities for any work that is completes and will be dedicated for public use.
CSCDA manages the SCIP bond issuance process from district formation through the issuance of bonds and post sale administration which includes:
Holding the public hearing and overseeing the issuance of bonds. Managing post sale administration which includes preparing the tax rolls, continuing disclosure, disbursement of funds and rebate.
SCIP can accommodate any development by mixing and matching its programs to fit the needs of a specific project to promote development and meet Local Agency goals.
Formation Issuance Post-Sale
Admin
569
12 RBC Capital Markets
SCIP Tasks and Responsibility Schedule
Admin. includes:
Tax Roll
Lot Splits
Rebate
Continuing
Disclosure
Foreclosure
Developers and
Local Agencies
Local Agencies
Pass SCIP
Resolution &
Approve
Applications
Conduct the
proceedings
Issue Bonds
Administering
the District
Entitlements
Payment of
Fees or
Completion of
Improvements
Disbursement
of Funds
Developers and
Local Agencies
Developers
570
13 RBC Capital Markets
Program Mechanics
Program Type Description
Impact Fee Reimbursement
Program
Impact Fee Pre-Funding
Program
Funding of Public
Improvements
Pooled
Assessment/Community Facilities District Issuance
Reimburses property owners for Impact Fees paid at Building Permit but prior to the Issuance of the SCIP bonds. (Note:
Application must be submitted no more than 60 days before the fees are paid)
Pre-pays impact fees which would normally be due at building permit and for which the developer will receive a fee credit when otherwise due
Public improvements can be finance on an acquisition basis when complete pursuant to an acquisition agreement between the developer and the local agency. Prevailing wage applies to the improvements being funded
Combined Funding Program Reimbursement, Pre-Funding Programs and Acquisition Funding can be combined
Stand-Alone
AD/CFD Issuance
Assessment Districts /
Community Facilities
Districts (CFDs)
ADs/CFDs can be created and funded through SCIP and CSCDA on a stand alone or pooled basis. The Local Agency will request formation of the AD/CFD and adopt a joint facilities agreement (JCFA) specifying which facilities are eligible, or the option may be included in the updated SCIP resolution. (Note: May include Operations and Maintenance Fees).
571
14 RBC Capital Markets
CSCDA is available to form CFDs and issue bonds for Stand Alone projects Local Agency will adopt a Resolution requesting CSCDA form a CFD including a Joint Community Facilities Agreement (JCFA)
Will attach a boundary map of the project
A list of facilities and fees to be financed
May include and O&M component in addition to facilities Can include more than one Local Agency in the CFD (with approval) CSCDA credit requirements(1):
At Least a 4x value to lien ratio (including overlapping debt) Combined tax burden cannot exceed 2% of the estimated home value Debt service may escalate at up to 2% per year
Project must have received its discretionary entitlements The CFD Program can finance stand-alone projects which range in size from $5 million to $30 million, or higher − Local Agencies direct CFD policies but assume no liability for bond issuance and administration; and − Prioritize which facilities and maintenance costs are to be funded Community Facilities Districts (Stand-Alone)
(1) If a Local Agency has more stringent requirements those will apply 1 2
3 4
572
15 RBC Capital Markets
Community Facilities Districts (Pooled Revenue Bond Program) SCIP has created a Local Obligation Structure that allows for CFDs to be included as part of the Pooled Revenue Bond Program.
In 2020, SCIP created its CFD Local Obligation Program, which allows for the use of CFD’s in the SCIP pooled revenue bond program mentioned above.
‒ Adding the CFD Local Obligation as an option for the SCIP pool will allow for financing of a broader range of fees, including school fees.
‒ Multiple Local Agencies may participate as long as they have approved the updated SCIP resolution. ‒ Local Agency’s Goal and Policies will apply as applicable. The first SCIP pooled revenue bond to include a CFD was SCIP 2020B for the City of Fontana.
The Local Agency Requirements Are:
Must be a member of CSCDA (no cost to join; there are over 500 members statewide). Adopt the Updated SCIP Resolution which now provides for both and Assessment District and CFD funding Option for the pool.
The Resolution includes the form of Acquisition Agreement for funding facilities. The Local Agency must approve each application which can be submitted on-line by developers. Each Local Agency is required to Execute a Closing Certificate regarding IRS rules on expenditures of proceeds.
The SCIP pool can finance projects from $500,000 up to $10,000,000 in size. 573
16 RBC Capital Markets
SCIP Innovations
Because SCIP issues tax exempt bonds, there are certain IRS rules which each Local Agency must comply with, among them the 3 year expenditure test.
For Local Agencies which cannot meet this requirement SCIP can issue taxable bonds. The taxable bond rate will be roughly 25% - 50% higher than the corresponding tax exempt rate although the taxable bonds can be layered in and paid off sooner.
Pooled Debt Service Reserve Fund
Taxable Bonds
Flexibility / Accessibility
Marketability
Credit Quality
Interest Costs
Perceived Risks
Since the SCIP 2017B pooled issuance, SCIP has issued bonds with a common cash funded reserve. The current balance of the reserve fund is approximately $30.18 million and it secures 205 SCIP Districts. Given the size of the cash reserve fund, investors no longer focus on the smallest weak link project of the pool, but rather on the size of the reserve fund and diversity of the pool. The pooled reserve fund has become a positive credit feature for investors and has resulted in a broader institutional sponsorship of SCIP and very competitive interest rates. At some point in the future, SCIP will see rated bonds. We are presently seeking ratings on three series of bonds, which are part of the pooled reserve fund program. 574
17 RBC Capital Markets
SCIP Land Development Credit Evaluation
HIGH RISK MODERATE RISK LOW RISK
Land
Development
Stage
Raw Acreage Raw Acreage Partially
Entitled Acreage
Entitled Acreage
With Grading
Underway
Improved Land
with In-Tracts
Underway
Finished
Lots
Finished
Homes
Entitlements No Approved
Plans
General Plan
Approved and
Zone
Development
Agreement
Approved
Tentative Map
Approved,
Grading Permit
Final
Subdivision
Map
Building
Permits
Certificate of
Occupancy
SCIP
Financing
Program
Does Not
Qualify
Does Not
Qualify
Does Not
Qualify
Public
Improvement
Funding
Pre-Funding
Impact Fees
Pre-Funding /
Reimbursing
Impact Fees
Impact Fee
Reimbursement
Total Amount
Developer $
Invested per Lot
$50,000
(Land Costs) $62,500 $75,000 $100,000
(Off-Sites)
$150,000
(In-Tracts)
$250,000
(Building
Permit)
$500,000
(Finished
Home)
Lien-to-Value
Coverage Ratio
($25,000/Lot
Lien)
2 : 1 2.5 : 1 3 : 1 4 : 1 6 : 1 10 : 1 20 : 1
575
SCIP 2024 Schedule and
Transaction History
Section III
576
19 RBC Capital Markets
CSCDA SCIP Comprehensive Transaction History – Pooled
Series Description Par Amount Project Local Agency Developer(s) Use of
Proceeds
Series 2003A SCIP Pooled Revenue $6,270,000 5 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2004A SCIP Pooled Revenue $3,590,000 10 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2005A SCIP Pooled Revenue $10,645,000 10 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2006A SCIP Pooled Revenue $19,015,000 11 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2007A SCIP Pooled Revenue $25,545,000 11 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2007B SCIP Pooled Revenue $10,460,000 8 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2008A SCIP Pooled Revenue $21,805,000 9 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2010A SCIP Pooled Revenue $6,180,000 6 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2011A SCIP Pooled Revenue $9,190,000 4 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2013 SCIP Pooled Revenue Refunding $14,444,827 15 Projects Various Various Refunding Series 2014A SCIP Pooled Revenue $4,680,000 3 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2014B SCIP Pooled Revenue $10,605,000 5 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2015R1 SCIP Pooled Revenue Refunding $29,195,000 23 Projects Various Various Refunding Series 2015A SCIP Pooled Revenue $5,320,000 4 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2016A SCIP Pooled Revenue $10,090,000 6 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2016B SCIP Pooled Revenue $11,040,000 6 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2017R1 SCIP Pooled Revenue Refunding $35,953,593 20 Projects Various Various Refunding Series 2017A SCIP Pooled Revenue $11,715,000 7 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2017B SCIP Pooled Revenue $19,915,000 8 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2017C SCIP Pooled Revenue $10,470,000 6 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2018A SCIP Pooled Revenue $23,960,000 17 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2018B SCIP Pooled Revenue $31,940,000 10 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2018C SCIP Pooled Revenue $20,820,000 8 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2019A SCIP Pooled Revenue $26,415,000 14 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2019B SCIP Pooled Revenue $34,245,000 15 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2019C SCIP Pooled Revenue $18,325,000 10 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2020A SCIP Pooled Revenue $22,815,000 9 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2020B SCIP Pooled Revenue (CFD/AD) $10,450,000 6 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2020C SCIP Pooled Revenue $18,790,000 9 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2021A SCIP Pooled Revenue $36,345,000 17 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2021B SCIP Pooled Revenue $21,255,000 12 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2021C SCIP Pooled Revenue $28,680,000 13 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2022A SCIP Pooled Revenue $21,595,000 15 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2022B SCIP Pooled Revenue $12,445,000 9 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2022C SCIP Pooled Revenue (CFD/AD) $17,255,000 10 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2023AB SCIP Pooled Special Tax (CFD) $18,665,000 3 Projects City of Woodland Lennar New Money Series 2023C SCIP Pooled Revenue (CFD/AD) $16,910,000 7 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2023D SCIP Pooled Revenue (CFD/AD) $21,455,000 10 Projects Various Various New Money Series 2023F SCIP Pooled Revenue (CFD/AD) $21,030,000 9 Projects Various Various New Money 39 Transactions $699,523,420
577
20 RBC Capital Markets
CSCDA SCIP Comprehensive Transaction History – Standalone Series Description Par Amount Project Local Agency Developer(s) Use of
Proceeds
Series 2007A Stand Alone CFD (Orinda Wilder) $37,500,000 Orinda Wilder Orinda, City of Farallon Capital Mgmt New Money Series 2012 Reassessment Refunding $21,030,000 Reassessment District Bakersfield, City of Castle & Cooke Refunding Series 2013A Stand Alone CFD (Manteca) $6,245,000 Manteca Lifestyle Center Manteca, City of Poag & McEwen Lifestyle Centers New Money
Series 2014 Stand Alone AD (Yucaipa VWR) $11,015,000 Potable Water Reservoir Yucaipa Valley Water District
CA Residential Holdings, LLC
PVCO Land Holdings, LLC
Oak Valley Partners, LP
SK E&C Betek Corp.
Northlight Trust 1
New Money
Series 2015 Stand Alone CFD Refunding (Orinda Wilder) $33,015,000 Orinda Wilder Orinda, City of Farallon Capital Mgmt Refunding Series 2015A Stand Alone CFD (Rio Bravo) $11,125,000 Rio Bravo Bakersfield, City of East Niles CSD G.L. Bruno & Associates New Money
Series 2015 Stand Alone Assessment District (Emerson Ranch) $15,305,000 Emerson Ranch Oakley, City of
Ironhouse Sanitary District
Diablo Water District
Brookfield Properties New Money
Series 2016A Stand Alone CFD (University District) $11,275,000 University District Rohnert Park, City of Brookfield Properties New Money Series 2016A Stand Alone CFD (Delta Coves) $11,155,000 Delta Coves Bethel Island MID
East Contra Costa FPD
Diablo Water District
Ironhouse Sanitary District
DMB Development New Money
Series 2017A Stand Alone CFD (Napa Pipe Redevelopment Project) $20,830,000 Napa Pipe Redevelopment Napa, City of Farallon Capital Mgmt New Money Series 2017 Stand Alone CFD (University District) $14,505,000 University District Rohnert Park, City of Brookfield Properties New Money Series 2018 Stand Alone CFD (Horse Creek Ridge) $19,305,000 Horse Creek Ridge San Diego, County of D.R. Horton New Money Series 2019 Stand Alone CFD (Uptown Newport) $8,300,000 Uptown Newport Newport Beach, City of Shopoff Development New Money Series 2019
(PHR)
Stand Alone AD (Pacific Highlands Ranch Units 8A-8D
& (A) $18,800,000 Pacific Highlands Ranch San Diego, City of Tri Pointe Homes, Inc. New Money Series 2019 Stand Alone CFD (Delta Coves Project) $11,115,000 Delta Coves Bethel Island MID
Diablo Water District
Ironhouse Sanitary District
DMB Development New Money
Series 2020 Stand Alone CFD (McSweeny Farms Project) $8,510,000 McSweeny Farms Hemet, City of Paulson Group/Raintree New Money Series 2020 Stand Alone CFD (Wagon Wheel Project) $15,725,000 Wagon Wheel Oxnard, City of Oakwood Communities New Money Series 2020 Stand Alone CFD (Delta Coves) $13,540,000 Delta Coves Bethel Island MID
Diablo Water District
Ironhouse Sanitary District
DMB Development New Money
Series 2020 Stand Alone CFD (University District IA-1) $3,725,000 University District Rohnert Park, City of Brookfield Properties New Money Series 2020 Stand Alone CFD (University District IA-2) $7,460,000 University District Rohnert Park, City of Brookfield Properties New Money Series 2020 Stand Alone CFD (333 North Prairie) $4,590,000 333 North Prairie Inglewood, City of Shopoff Development/Harridge New Money Series 2021 Stand Alone CFD (Sand Creek) $9,265,000 Sand Creek Antioch, City of Century Communities New Money Series 2021 Stand Alone CFD (Atwell IA-1) $18,790,000 Atwell Banning, City of Tri Pointe Homes, Inc. New Money Series 2021 Stand Alone CFD (Meadowlands) $8,860,000 Meadowlands Lincoln, City of Taylor Builders New Money 24 Transactions $340,985,000
578
21 RBC Capital Markets
CSCDA SCIP Comprehensive Transaction History – Standalone (cont’d) Series Description Par Amount Project Local Agency Developer(s) Use of
Proceeds
Series 2022 Stand Alone AD (3 Roots) $21,570,000 3 Roots San Diego, City of Lennar
Shea Homes
CalWest
New Money
Series 2022 Stand Alone CFD (Delta Coves) $21,820,000 Delta Coves Bethel Island MID DMB Development New Money Series 2022 Stand Alone AD (Tapestry) $8,345,000 Silverwood Hesperia, City of DMB Development New Money Series 2022 Stand Alone CFD (Atwell IA-2) $13,970,000 Atwell Banning, City of Tri Pointe Homes, Inc. New Money Series 2022 Stand Alone CFD (Citro) $23,060,000 Citro San Diego, County of Tri Pointe Homes, Inc. New Money Series 2022 Stand Alone CFD (University District IA-3) $9,410,000 University District Rohnert Park, City of Brookfield Properties New Money Series 2023 Stand Alone CFD (Watson Ranch IA-1) $6,595,000 Watson Ranch American Canyon, City of McGrath Properties New Money Series 2023 Stand Alone CFD (McSweeny) $7,905,000 McSweeny Farms Hemet, City of Paulson Group/Raintree New Money Series 2023 Stand Alone CFD (Sheldon Farms) $11,795,000 Sheldon Farms Elk Grove, City of JEN California 18, LLC (Taylor Builders) New Money
Series 2023 Stand Alone CFD (Tirador) $5,995,000 Tirador San Juan Capistrano, City of Landsea Homes New Money
Series 2023 Stand Alone CFD (Citro) $15,780,000 Citro San Diego, County of Tri Pointe Homes, Inc. New Money Series 2023 Stand Alone CFD (Promenade at Sand Creek) $7,730,000 Promenade at Sand Creek Antioch, City of Tri Pointe Homes, Inc. New Money Series 2023E Stand Alone AD (3 Roots) $9,935,000 3 Roots San Diego, City of Lennar
Shea Homes
CalWest
New Money
Series 2023 Standalone CFD (Silverwood) $7,495,000 Silverwood Hesperia, City DMB Development New Money 13 Transactions $171,405,000
Grand Total (34 Transactions) $512,390,000
579
Community Development
October 21, 2025
City Council
Code Enforcement Management Update
580
Photo Credit: Robin Craig
Promote and Maintain American Canyon as a Safe and Desirable Community Code Enforcement
581
Vehicle Parked on Commercial Storage
Lawn
Rubbish/Household
Items in Street View
An Average Day in Code Enforcement
582
• Property owner is contacted
• Two Courtesy Letters with no fine (each has a completion date) • Four Citations possible (progressive fines)
• City Attorney Misdemeanor
• Unsafe to occupy building or site may warrant a “Red Tag” • Appeal process
• Code Enforcement provides reasonable timeframe based on individual circumstance and severity
Process
583
5 Reporting Violations
See Click Fix Phone App Open Gov City Website
584
• Unpermitted building construction is coordinated with the Building Official/Building Division:
• Research on the violation and possible solutions
• Property Owner communication
• Compliance deadlines
• Permit submittals, permit expiration, inspections
• Unsafe to occupy building coordination with Fire District following an emergency.
• Coordinate with Utility Billing on Water Shutoff enforcement. • Established protocols with Finance Department on Business License violations
• Currently refining City Attorney referral procedures/criteria.
Internal Coordination Procedures
585
Closed Cases by Fiscal Year
0 50
100
150
200
250
FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 Average
# Closed Cases
Average 180 Cases
Closed/Year
185
161
202
172
180
Average 15 Cases
Closed/Month
586
0 50
100
150
200
250
FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 Average
# Open Cases
Open Cases by Fiscal Year
Average 193
Cases/Year Opened
On Average 19 More
Cases Opened than
Closed Each Year
146
183
239
206
193
Average 180
Cases/Year Closed
587
Fiscal Year 23/24 – 173 Cases Closed
Neighborhood
Preservation 43%
Other 5%
Unpermitted
Building 22%
Zoning
Violations
15%
Water Shutoff 15%
Every Case has its Own Unique Story
588
Top 5 Issues – 73% of all Closed Cases
Overgrown Water Shutoff 15%
Vegetation 10%
Rubbish in View
12%
Residential Parking
13% Unpermitted
Building 23%
589
#1 - Unpermitted Construction – 41 Cases
Retaining Wall Commercial Kitchen Commercial Storage
Top 5 Categories 73% of all Closed Cases
590
#2 – Unpaid Water Shutoff – 26 Cases
Code Enforcement becomes involved only after all remedies in the Utility Billing Water Shutoff Policy remedies have been exhausted (Resolution 2020-12). 591
#3 Residential Parking Violations – 23 Cases
Car/Vehicle Parked on Lawn
Unpermitted Access to Street
Inoperable Vehicle 592
#4 Rubbish/Discarded Items in Street View – 21 Cases
593
#5 Overgrown Vegetation – 18 Cases
594
Average Days to Resolve
Neighborhood
Preservation Neighborhood
Preservation Neighborhood
Preservation Neighborhood
Preservation Neighborhood
Preservation
Unpermitted
Building
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Unpermitted
Building
Residential
Parking
Water Shutoff Overgrown
Vegetation
Rubbish in View
614
102 89
47 43
595
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 Unpermitted
Building
Water Shutoff Overgrown
Vegetation
Rubbish in View Residential
Parking
Average Chronology Entries Per Case
Unpermitted
Building
12 9
6 6
5 596
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Unpermitted
Building
Residential
Parking
Water Shutoff Overgrown
Vegetation
Rubbish in
View
# Days Outreach
Compliance Time versus Effort (Blue is Time, Green is Effort) Unpermitted
Building
597
• Our Code Enforcement Officer resolves many cases each year through hard work and attention.
• In most years, more Code Enforcement cases are started than finished. • Unpermitted Building construction is more effort than all other Code Enforcement cases.
• Case Numbers, Resolution Time, and Effort are all concerns, but they are different issues.
• Time management by prioritizing most serious health and safety issues. • Continue to focus on improving time and effort with outreach, coordination, procedure improvements, and internal efficiencies.
19 Key Takeaways
598
Community Development Department
Code Enforcement Management Update
October 21, 2025
Thank You!
599
CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Council
Meeting
Date:
10/21/2025 Submitted
by: *
Vice Mayor Mark Joseph
Event
Date:
15/10/2025 Event Type Committee Report
Event Title: Napa Valley Transportation Authority (NVTA) Event Report: Attended the September board meeting.
Highlights included updates to several planning efforts; Approved funding for SR29/12/Airport Drive alternative analyses (to hopefully reduce construction costs); and
Changed the agenda format to streamline the meetings (basically, moved more routine items to Consent).
On the NVTA-TA meeting, we heard a report on Measure U revenues--we still generated around $25 million countywide, but the rate of increase has plateaued.
Attended the October board meeting
Heard the results of the Michelin Mobility Intelligence traffic study. This study used "near miss" data, such as hard braking and hard acceleration that many vehicles now generate. This allows us to compare near misses with actual collisions. No major surprises, but we did recognize that we should use the data to help us address safety concerns around our public schools. The data could also be used in the future (if grant funding is available) to analyze the impact of traffic safety program implementations.
Reviewed the draft Community Based Transportation Plan, which is focused on transportation issues in selected "Equity Priority Communities." There are two types of EPC's, the official MTC standard (in which only Calistoga and parts of Napa City qualify), and the more Napa County-centric, Local EPC's, which includes parts of St. Helena, Yountville and the Southeast area of American Canyon. With this expanded perspective, there will be recommendations to address concerns in American Canyon. The Board approved soliciting public comments of the draft plan.
Discussed the need for a Mobility Manager. This is something MTC would like each County to have, but they currently are not providing any funding. NVTA and other community-based organizations already provide some of the duties that a Mobility Manager would do, but a dedicated full-time person would do a better job. Current effort is to secure funding for the position and refine what a specific job description would look like.
We discussed the issues surrounding low/no fares for youth on our transit buses. The consensus was to continue exploring various strategies, such as working with Napa Valley College and NVUSD to increase ridership, before seeking the $200K or more each year to subsidize the cost.
Had a robust discussion regarding changes to the JPA. We went from talking about the composition of the board to its broader policy roles in land use planning, economic development and environmental services.
At the end, a divided Board approved an ad hoc committee to discuss the issues in more detail. An important point made was that any changes must be approved by all the jurisdictions.
We also approved a new contract with CFM, a Federal Lobbying firm. They will help us not only in analyzing pending legislation (and potentially developing bills that would benefit our region), but they also have a very impressive track record in securing federal grants. In response to my question regarding the Newell Extension, they felt there were multiple funding sources that could be considered. I will follow up after they are settled in!
600
Event
Date:
26/09/2025 Event Type Committee Report
Event Title: Climate Action Committee
Event Report: Council member Lamattina and I attended the September meeting.
The main topic was reviewing the feedback received to date regarding the Regional Climate Action and Adaptation Plan (RCAAP). In particular, the Realtors were concerned about the challenges of retro-fitting the 50,000 older homes to improve energy efficiency or add solar. It was noted that the plan did not mandate immediate retrofitting (rather, as older systems fail and need to be replaced, they should be upgraded to more energy efficient, electricity-based systems), and that the reason the cost was so large was because we were looking at incentives and rebates to assist with the transition. A point I made was that we should look at those areas that have a high yield, low cost and that we have more direct control over, such as Wastewater Treatment Plants and Solid Waste Landfills. For a little over $20 million, we could reduce methane from our local wastewater treatment plants and increase solid waste diversions. These two programs could see a 15-20% reduction in GHG. Compare this to the roughly $450 million cost to retrofit existing buildings.
We also heard a presentation regarding the new Napa Recycling Municipal Diversion Facility, and in particular, its use of a Global Heat Reduction perspective. The point of this study was to focus on heatproducing activities, rather than just GHG. The recommendation from this approach is we should look at ways to reduce heat generating activities, which may provide greater benefits to the planet in the shortterm.
Event
Date:
29/09/2025 Event Type Committee Report
Event Title: North Bay Water Reuse Authority (NBWRA)
Event Report: Attended the meeting online. Highlights include:
Mostly, we reviewed the status of the various programs and projects currently underway.
It was noted that Federal funding is more uncertain, so the shift will be to State funding opportunities.
We also discussed the need to establish funding requirements for the participating jurisdictions well before each jurisdiction's budget process begins.
The next meeting is likely to be in person.
As suggested by staff, the Council should have a discussion regarding the costs and benefits of participating in this organization. The first phase was very beneficial, but funding for a second phase has been very unreliable, reflecting the preferences of the incumbent President, which can change every four years.
Event
Date:
Event Type Community Event
Event Title: Various Community Events and Activities
Event Report: Kiwanis: Helped with the monthly food distribution, and attended the Installation Dinner at La Strada's.
I'm proud to announce I am the Immediate Past President! Arts Foundation: Attended the Board Retreat (we focused on master planning our 2026 Calendar of Events), and received four proposals for a painted mural between our two offices (now we need to secure grant funding). We also hosted our fifth annual Pumpkin Path event at the Wetlands--we had over 150 pumpkins painted.
Chamber: Helped with the review of prospective Chamber Board members--all four were excellent candidates! Also attended their 10-year Welcome Center Celebration.
Welcomed the new Citizen's Academy students, and almost blew the class work project! Attended the monthly Napa County Democratic Central Committee, in which we heard Katie Porter, candidate for Governor.
Attended the orientation meeting for The Wall That Heals. A very impressive exhibit, and very moving. 601
602
CITY COUNCILMEMBER REPORT
Council
Meeting
Date:
10/21/2025 Submitted
by: *
Mayor Pierre Washington
Event
Date:
08/10/2025 Event Type Other
Event Title: Meeting with Farmers Bureau CEO Peter Rumble Event Report: I have the opportunity to meet with the Napa Valley Farmers Bureau CEO, Peter Rumble in an effort to strengthen my knowledge of local agriculture needs. I wanted to learn more about how local policies can support local farmers, things like zoning laws, water usage regulations and land conservation efforts, based on insight from the Napa Valley Farmers Bureau.
We discussed items like Food Security and Sustainability, Emergency Preparedness (droughts, floods, or wildfires impacts).
We spoke about outdated rural zoning policies that are negatively impacting small farmers. Peter offered me a future opportunity to actually meet with the local farmers. 603
Event
Date:
07/10/2025 Event Type Other
Event Title: Mandatory Harassment Training for Council and City Staff Event Report: Report Out: Mandatory Harassment Training Attendance I attended a 2-hour mandatory Harassment Prevention Training (SB 1343 Prevention Workplace Harassment) for managers & supervisors alongside Councilmembers Brando Cruz, Melissa Lamattine and Vice Mayor Mark Joseph. The session was led by Teresa Highsmith, our American Canyon City Attorney, and provided valuable insights into maintaining a respectful and inclusive workplace.
Also, in attendance were:
Jason Holley, City Manager
Juan Gomez, Assistant City Manager
Allie Ikeda, Deputy City Manager
Erica Ahmann-Smithies, Public Works Director
Norman Woods, Assistant Public Works Director
Jem Cruz, Finance Director
Event
Date:
09/10/2025 Event Type Community Event
Event Title: Monthly Lunch with the Mayors of Benicia & Vallejo Event Report: Continuing to value a strong partnership with the two cities outside of Napa County that impact the quality of life of our residents in American Canyon. Benicia, Mayor Steve Young and Vallejo, Mayor Andrea Sorce. I feel that us working together allows us to share best practices and ideas, tackle challenges and creates opportunities that benefits all three cities and our residents.
I appreciate Mayor Sorce and Mayor Young for their leadership and friendship, I look forward to continuing our collaboration over great conversation. This month we dined at La Strada in American Canyon. Next stop lunch in Vallejo.
Event
Date:
14/10/2025 Event Type Committee Report
604
Event Title: Flood Control & Water Conservation District meeting Event Report: This was a brief meeting to get updates on storm water wall status for local residents that homes/properties were identified as risk to the community.
Event
Date:
14/10/2025 Event Type Community Event
Event Title: Wall that Heals "Welcome Home Parade" escorts Event Report: This powerful traveling memorial, bearing the names of more than 58,000 men and women who gave their lives in service during the Vietnan War, stands as a solemn reminder of courage, sacrifice, and love for our country.
I want to give a huge thank you to the team that escorted this memorial safely into American Canyon, our local veterans, first responders, community volunteers and everyone who joined along the route.
A very special shout out to Allie Ikeda and her amazing team, for coordinating this event and thank you City Manager Jason Holley for your leadership and support for this memorial. 605
606
607
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS OF NOTE
October 23, 2025, Planning Comm. 6:30 p.m.
Meeting Cancelled
November 4, 2025, City Council 6:30p
Proc: Veterans Day
Update from Supervisor Belia Ramos
Entertainment Zone Overlay First Reading
2025 Building Code Update First Reading
Green Island Road Pavement Project
November 5, 2025, OSATS Meeting. 6:30 p.m.
NVTA Active Transportation Plan
General Plan Sustainability Initiatives
November 6, 2025, Finance Subcommittee.
1:00 p.m.
Fiscal Policies Discussion
November 13, 2025, PCS Meeting 6:30 p.m.
Evaluate Potential Revenue Measure
November 18, 2025, City Council 6:30p
Pres: AC Community Cats
High Strength Waste Project
Fiscal Policies Discussion
AI Policy and Data Policy
November 20, 2025, Planning Comm. 6:30 p.m.
Crawford Way Tentative Subdivision Map
December 2, 2025, City Council Meeting 6:30p
Sites Reservoir Project Update
General Plan Sustainability Initiatives
December 3, 2025, TBID Meeting. 11:00 a.m.
Selection of 2026 Chair and Vice Chair
Review Donation Requests
Updates from: Visit Napa Valley, AC Hotels,
Chamber/Welcome Center, City of AC,
Developers
December 3, 2025, OSATS Meeting. 6:30 p.m.
Complete Streets Approach for CIP Projects
BCDC's SB272 Sea Level Rise Report
December 11, 2025, PCS Meeting. 6:30 p.m.
Potential Revenue Measure for Parks
Recommend Community Grants
December 16, 2025, City Council 6:30p
Crawford Way Tentative Subdivision Map
Annual Comprehensive Financial Report
Open Gov Presentation
Award Community Grants
December 18, 2025, Planning Comm. 6:30 p.m.
TBD
Unscheduled Council Directed Items Councilmember
Date of Council
Vote Notes
All Electric Reach Code Joseph 11/7/2023
On hold pending RCAAP and Berkeley
litigation.
Food Ware Ordinance Joseph 9/17/2024 On hold, pending RCAAP Purple Heart Designation Washington 10/15/2024 In progress, council date TBD A.I. Policy Oro 12/3/2024 Scheduled for 11/18/2025
608