Agenda packet — Apple Valley City Council, March 8, 2022 (part 3 of 3)

F. Direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board.

BACKGROUND
On February 2, 2022, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended that the Town Council approve the proposed Amendments. In discussions with various property owners affected by the General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes, Items 5B-5D, as described below, were initiated to resolve constraints endured by multiple properties. In three of the four Amendments, the properties are either zoned Multi-Family Residential (R-M) or Mixed Use (MU), but do not have necessary sewer to construct multi-family residential developments and/or are surrounded by existing single-family residences. In updating the Housing Element, it was determined that such vacant sites no longer are required to be zoned for Multi-Family Residential or Mixed Use by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) in the upcoming Housing Cycle 2021-2029. In light of these lessening restrictions, the Amendments would allow single-family residences to be constructed on properties previously set aside for multifamily or mixed use developments.

Item 5A involves reverting to R-M Zoning since the three of the properties already contain existing muti-family developments. The remaining vacant properties appear to be viable for new multi-family developments being that the properties are near to sewer and surrounded by existing multi-family developments.

ANALYSIS
Maps are provided for the Amendments as part of the Ordinance and Resolution.

Item 5A. GPA. 2022-002 & ZC 2022-001 from Office Professional (O-P) to MultiFamily Residential (R-M) located immediately north of Quantico Road along both sides of Apple Valley Road. (APNs: 0473-152-11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 and 0473-153-11, 12, 13 & 14)
In the 2009 General Plan Update, a total of nine parcels were designated and zoned Office Professional (O-P) on the General Plan Land Use Map and Zone Map. It was brought to the Town’s attention that three properties that were affected by the OP zoning contained existing multi-family developments. Dr. Joseph Eiswert owns two parcels, one of which contains an existing multi-family development, and one of which is vacant. Dr. Eiswert requested that the Town revert the zoning back to Multi-Family Residential (R-M) as originally intended prior to the 2009 General Plan Update. After reviewing the request, Town staff agreed that a General Plan Amendment and a Zone Change would be initiated to R-M upon adoption of the 2021 Housing Element Update, since sewer is readily available and surrounded by similar developments.

Page 285 of 339 ends

Item 5B. GPA 2022-003 & ZC 2022-002 from Mixed Use (M-U) to Estate Residential (R-E) located on the west side of Itoya Vista Street between Sequoia Road and Laurel Lane. (APNs: 0434-042-16, 17, 18 & 19) These four parcels are currently designated and zoned Mixed Use (MU).

Three of the four parcels contain existing single-family residences. The new owner of one of the properties, known as APN: 0434-042-18, would like to construct a single-family residence consistent with the adjacent properties to the north and west. The General Plan states that “residential development (in the M-U District) must occur at a density of 4 to 30 units per acre.” A General Plan Amendment and Zone Change is being initiated from M-U to Estate Residential (R-E) covering the four properties to allow the remaining parcel to construct a single-family residence. The Amendments would bring three remaining properties with existing residences into conformance with the zone, as the minimum lot size in the R-E zone is 1 acre and the parcels in question range in size from 1.12 to 1.23 acres.

Item 5C. GPA 2022-004 & ZC 2022-003 from Multi-Family Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the south side of Outer Highway 18 and east of Tenaya Road (APNs: 0439-314-07 thru 11) These five parcels are zoned Multi-Family Residential (R-M). Sewer is located 1,800 to 2,400 feet to the west on Central Road and Highway 18 making multi-family development on these properties infeasible. The Housing Element Update does not identify the properties as necessary for future multifamily developments to meet the State’s housing mandates. Re-zoning of these properties to R-SF will make the property ready for development and new construction of single-family homes will be consistent with development patterns to the south.

Item 5D. GPA 2022-005 & ZC 2022-004 Multi-Family Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the northeast corner of Mohawk and Laguna Road (APN: 0434-371-14)
Even though the property is currently zoned R-M, a multi-family development is not possible unless a sewer extension is made from 3,200 feet to the east or 4,000 feet to the west. The property owner requested that the property be rezoned to R-SF to be able to construct a single-family residence. The zoning would be consistent with properties to the south. It is not feasible to expand the rezone over the parcels to the east and west because they are already developed with existing apartments.

NOTICING:

GPA 2022-002 & ZC 2022-001; GPA 2022-003 & ZC 2022-002; GPA 2022-004 & ZC 2022-003; and GPA 2022-005 & ZC 2022-004 were advertised as a Town Council public hearing in the Apple Valley News newspaper on February 25, 2022.

Page 286 of 339 ends

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:

Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the State Guidelines to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is exempt from environmental review because the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects that have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question, the proposed Specific Plan Amendment, may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA.

REQUIRED FINDINGS:

In considering any General Plan Amendment or Zone Change, the Council is required by the Municipal Code to make special Findings. The following are the Findings for a General Plan Amendment required under Section 9.2.050.H.3 of the Development Code, with a comment to address each. If the Council wishes to modify the offered comments, after considering input and public testimony at the public hearing, modifications to the Findings and Code Amendment text can be included in the formal motion.

1. The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the goals, policies and standards of all elements of the General Plan and will further these goals, policies and standards;
Comment: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies because in three of the four Amendments, the Town finds it necessary and beneficial to lessen the density to allow single family residential development to meet the septic tank requirements. The remaining Amendment, which reverts the area back to RM zoning, will allow future development to benefit from the availability of sewer and will match existence of multifamily developments within, and surrounding, the subject area.

2. The General Plan, as amended, will comprise an integrated, and internally consistent and compatible statement of policies for the Town;
Comment: The General Plan Amendment will be consistent with Land Use Policies 2.A., 2.B and Program 2.A.1 of the General Plan in that the Town assessed its existing land use inventory and determined that all Amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with surrounding developments and considered the availability of infrastructure.

3. The General Plan Amendment furthers the public interest and promotes the general welfare of the Town by providing for logical pattern of land uses and clarifying various land use policies for the Town.

Page 287 of 339 ends

Comment: The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with the General Plan goals and policies because allowing new development to match surrounding development and satisfy sewage standards.

The following are the Findings for an amendment to the Development Code as required under Section 9.06.060 and a comment to address each:

1. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the General Plan; and Comment: The General Plan is the blueprint for the community’s future growth.

Specific Goals and Objectives are provided within each of the adopted General Plan’s State mandated elements. The proposed amendment would be consistent with Land Use Policies 2.A., 2.B and Program 2.A.1 of the General Plan in that the Town assessed its existing land use inventory and determined that all Amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with surrounding
developments and considers the availability of infrastructure.

2. The proposed Amendment will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the Town or its residents.

Comment: The proposed Amendment will allow new development to match surrounding development and satisfy sewage standards.

FISCAL IMPACT
Not Applicable

ATTACHMENTS

1. Resolution No. 2022-08

2. Ordinance No. ___

3. Aerial Photos

4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-002

Page 288 of 339 ends

Resolution No. 2022-08
RESOLUTION NO. 2022- 08

A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE

VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
MAP APPROVING GPA 2022-002 FROM OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O-P)

TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-M) LOCATED IMMEDIATELY

NORTH OF QUANTICO ROAD ALONG BOTH SIDES OF APPLE VALLEY ROAD. (APNS: 0473-152-11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 AND 0473-153-11, 12,13 & 14); GPA 2022-003 FROM MIXED USE (M-U) TO ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (R-E) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ITOYA VISTA STREET
BETWEEN SEQUOIA ROAD AND LAUREL LANE. (APNS: 0434-042-16, 17, 18 & 19); GPA 2022-004 FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-M)

TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-SF) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUTER HIGHWAY 18 AND EAST OF TENAYA ROAD (APNS:
0439-314-07 THRU 11); AND GPA 2022-005 FROM MULTI-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL (R-M) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-SF)

LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MOHAWK AND LAGUNA
ROAD (APN: 0434-371-14)
WHEREAS, The General Plan of the Town of Apple Valley was adopted by the Town Council on August 11, 2009; and
WHEREAS, The General Plan of the Town of Apple Valley has been previously modified by the Town Council on the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Nos. GPA 2022-002; GPA 2022-003; GPA 2022-004; & GPA 2022-005 are consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley;
WHEREAS, Specific changes are proposed to the Land Use Element of the adopted General Plan and Zone Map of the Town of Apple Valley by approving GPA No. 2022-002 & ZC No. 2022-001 from Office Professional (O-P) to Multi-Family Residential (R-M) located immediately north of Quantico Road along both sides of Apple Valley Road. (APNs: 0473-152-11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 and 0473-153-11, 12,13 & 14); GPA No. 2022-003 & ZC No. 2022-002 from Mixed Use (M-U) to Estate Residential (R-E) located on the west side of Itoya Vista Street between Sequoia Road and Laurel Lane. (APNs: 0434-042- 16, 17, 18 & 19); GPA No. 2022-004 & No. ZC 2022-003 from Multi-Family Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the south side of Outer Highway 18 and east of Tenaya Road (APNs: 0439-314-07 thru 11); and GPA No. 2022-005 & ZC No. 2022-004 Multi-Family Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the northeast corner of Mohawk and Laguna Road (APN: 0434-371-14); and WHEREAS, On February 25, 2022, General Plan Amendment Nos. GPA 2022-002; GPA 2022-003; GPA 2022-004; & GPA 2022-005 were duly noticed in the Apple Valley News, a newspaper of general circulation within the Town of Apple Valley; and

Page 289 of 339 ends

Resolution No. 2022-08
WHEREAS, on February 2, 2022, the Planning Commission of the Town of Apple Valley conducted a duly noticed public hearing on General Plan Amendment Nos. GPA 2022-002; GPA 2022-003; GPA 2022-004; & GPA 2022-005, receiving testimony from the public and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-001 forwarding a recommendation to the Council; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2022, the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley conducted a duly noticed public hearing on General Plan Amendment Nos. GPA 2022- 002; GPA 2022-003; GPA 2022-004; & GPA 2022-005, receiving testimony from the public; and
WHEREAS, Pursuant to the State Guidelines to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA [Section 15061(b)(3)]; and WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment Nos. GPA 2022-002; GPA 2022-003; GPA 2022-004; & GPA 2022-005 are consistent with the Land Use Element goals and policies of the Town’s General Plan and shall promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Apple Valley. These General Plan Amendments are consistent with Land Use Policies 2.A., 2.B and Program 2.A.1 of the General Plan in that the Town assessed its existing land use inventory and determined that all Amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with surrounding developments and considers the availability of infrastructure. In three of the four Amendments, the Town finds it necessary and beneficial to lessen the density to allow single family residential development to meet the septic tank requirements. The remaining Amendment, which reverts the area back to RM zoning, will allow future development to benefit from the availability of sewer and will match existence of multifamily developments within, and surrounding, the subject area.

Amending the General Plan to allow new development to match surrounding development and for the purpose of satisfying sewage standards is found to be beneficial to public health, safety, and welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and for the reasons discussed by the Commissioners at said hearing, the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley, California, finds and determines as follows and recommends that the Town Council make the following findings and take the following actions:

Section 1. Find that the changes proposed by General Plan Amendment Nos.

GPA 2022-002; GPA 2022-003; GPA 2022-004; & GPA 2022-005 is consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Town of Apple Valley adopted General Plan. These General Plan Amendments are consistent with Land Use Policies 2.A., 2.B and Program 2.A.1 of the General Plan in that the Town assessed its existing land use inventory and determined that all Amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with surrounding developments and considers the availability of infrastructure. In three of the four Amendments, the Town finds it necessary and beneficial to lessen the density to allow single family residential development to meet the septic tank requirements. The

Page 290 of 339 ends

Resolution No. 2022-08
remaining Amendment, which reverts the area back to RM zoning, will allow future development to benefit from the availability of sewer and will match existence of multifamily developments within, and surrounding, the subject area. Amending the General Plan and Zoning to allow new development to match surrounding development and for the purpose of satisfying sewage standards is found to be beneficial to public health, safety, and welfare.

APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 8th day of March 2022.
______________________
Kari Leon, Mayor
Attest:
___________________________
La Vonda M-Pearson, Town Clerk

Page 291 of 339 ends

Resolution No. 2022-08

Page 292 of 339 ends

Resolution No. 2022-08

Page 293 of 339 ends

Ordinance No. 553
ORDINANCE NO. 553

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY,

CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING DISTRICTS
MAP IN TITLE 9 “DEVELOPMENT CODE” OF THE TOWN OF
APPLE VALLEY APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NOS. ZC 2022-001

FROM OFFICE PROFESSIONAL (O-P) TO MULTI-FAMILY

RESIDENTIAL (R-M) LOCATED IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF

QUANTICO ROAD ALONG BOTH SIDES OF APPLE VALLEY
ROAD. (APNS: 0473-152-11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 AND 0473-153-11, 12,13 & 14); ZC 2022-002 FROM MIXED USE (M-U) TO ESTATE

RESIDENTIAL (R-E) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ITOYA
VISTA STREET BETWEEN SEQUOIA ROAD AND LAUREL LANE.
(APNS: 0434-042-16, 17, 18 & 19); ZC 2022-003 FROM MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-M) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-SF) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUTER HIGHWAY 18
AND EAST OF TENAYA ROAD (APNS: 0439-314-07 THRU 11);
AND ZC 2022-004 FROM MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-M) TO

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-SF) LOCATED ON THE
NORTHEAST CORNER OF MOHAWK AND LAGUNA ROAD (APN:
0434-371-14)
WHEREAS, Title 9 “Development Code” of the Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley was adopted by the Town Council on April 27, 2010; and WHEREAS, Title 9 “Development Code” of the Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley has been previously modified by the Town Council on the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, Zone Change Nos. ZC 2022-001; ZC 2022-002; ZC 2022-003; & ZC 2022-004 are consistent with the Town's General Plan and Title 9 "Development Code" of the Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley and shall promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Apple Valley; and WHEREAS, Title 9 “Development Code” of the Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley has been previously modified by the Town Council on the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, Zone Change Nos. ZC 2022-001; ZC 2022-002; ZC 2022-003; & ZC 2022-004 are consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley;
WHEREAS, Specific changes are proposed to the Land Use Element of the adopted General Plan and Zone Map of the Town of Apple Valley by approving ZC 2022- 001 from Office Professional (O-P) to Multi-Family Residential (R-M) located immediately north of Quantico Road along both sides of Apple Valley Road. (APNs: 0473-152-11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 and 0473-153-11, 12,13 & 14); ZC 2022-002 from Mixed Use (M-U) to Estate Residential (R-E) located on the west side of Itoya Vista Street between Sequoia Road and Laurel Lane. (APNs: 0434-042-16, 17, 18 & 19); ZC 2022-003 from Multi-Family

Page 294 of 339 ends

Ordinance No. 553
Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the south side of Outer Highway 18 and east of Tenaya Road (APNs: 0439-314-07 thru 11); and ZC 2022-004 Multi-Family Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the WHEREAS, on February 2, 2022, the Planning Commission of the Town of Apple Valley conducted a duly noticed public hearing on ZC 2022-001; ZC 2022-002; ZC 2022-003; & ZC 2022-004, receiving testimony from the public and adopting Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-001 forwarding a recommendation to the Council; and
WHEREAS, on March 8, 2022, the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley conducted a duly noticed public hearing on ZC 2022-001; ZC 2022-002; ZC 2022-003; & ZC 2022-004, receiving testimony from the public; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the State Guidelines to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA [Section 15061(b)(3)]; and WHEREAS, Zone Change No. ZC 2022-001; ZC 2022-002; ZC 2022-003; & ZC 2022-004 are consistent with the Land Use Element goals and policies of the Town’s General Plan and Title 9 “Development Code” of the Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley and shall promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Apple Valley. These Zone Changes are consistent with Land Use Policies 2.A.,

2.B and Program 2.A.1 of the General Plan in that the Town assessed its existing land use inventory and determined that all Amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with surrounding developments and considers the availability of infrastructure. In three of the four Amendments, the Town finds it necessary and beneficial to lessen the density to allow single family residential development to meet the septic tank requirements. The remaining Amendment, which reverts the area back to RM zoning, will allow future development to benefit from the availability of sewer and will match existence of multifamily developments within, and surrounding, the subject area.

Amending the Zoning to allow new development to match surrounding development and for the purpose of satisfying sewage standards is found to be beneficial to public health, safety, and welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley, State of California, does ordain as follows:

Section 1. Find that the changes proposed by Zone Change Nos. ZC 2022-001; ZC 2022-002; ZC 2022-003; & ZC 2022-004 are consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Town of Apple Valley adopted General Plan. These Zone Changes are consistent with Land Use Policies 2.A., 2.B and Program 2.A.1 of the General Plan in that the Town assessed its existing land use inventory and determined that all Amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with surrounding developments and considers the availability of infrastructure. In three of the four Amendments, the Town finds it necessary and beneficial to lessen the density to allow single family residential development to meet

Page 295 of 339 ends

Ordinance No. 553
the septic tank requirements. The remaining Amendment, which reverts the area back to RM zoning, will allow future development to benefit from the availability of sewer and will match existence of multifamily developments within, and surrounding, the subject area.

Amending the Zoning to allow new development to match surrounding development and for the purpose of satisfying sewage standards is found to be beneficial to public health, safety, and welfare.

Section 4. Notice of Adoption. The Town Clerk of the Town of Apple Valley shall certify to the adoption of this ordinance and cause publication to occur in a newspaper of general circulation and published and circulated in the Town in a manner permitted under Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.

Section 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days after the date of its adoption.

Section 6. Severability. If any provision of this Ordinance, or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications and, to this end, the provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable.

Adopted by the Town Council and signed by the Mayor and attested to by the Town Clerk this 8th day of March 2022.

Curt Emick, Mayor
ATTEST:

Ms. La Vonda M. Pearson, Town Clerk
Approved as to form: Approved as to content:

Mr. Thomas Rice, Town Attorney Mr. Douglas B. Robertson, Town Manager

Page 296 of 339 ends

Ordinance No. 553

Page 297 of 339 ends

Ordinance No. 553

Page 298 of 339 ends

GPA. 2022-002 & ZC 2022-001 from Office Professional (O-P) to Multi- Family Residential (R-M) located immediately north of Quantico Road along both sides of Apple Valley Road. (APNs: 0473-152-11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 and 0473-153-11, 12, 13 & 14)

Page 299 of 339 ends

GPA 2022-003 & ZC 2022-002 from Mixed Use (M-U) to Estate Residential (R-E) located on the west side of Itoya Vista Street between Sequoia Road and Laurel Lane. (APNs: 0434-042-16, 17, 18 & 19) Page 300 of 339 GPA 2022-004 & ZC 2022-003 from Multi- Family Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the south side of Outer Highway 18 and east of Tenaya Road (APNs: 0439-314-07 thru 11)

Page 301 of 339 ends

GPA 2022-005 & ZC 2022-004 Multi-Family Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the northeast corner of Mohawk and Laguna Road (APN: 0434-371-14)

Page 302 of 339 ends

5-1

PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-002

A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF

APPLE VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THAT THE TOWN
COUNCIL APPROVE GPA 2022-002 & ZC 2022-001 FROM OFFICE

PROFESSIONAL (O-P) TO MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-M) LOCATED

IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF QUANTICO ROAD ALONG BOTH SIDES OF
APPLE VALLEY ROAD. (APNS: 0473-152-11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 AND 0473- 153-11, 12,13 & 14); GPA 2022-003 & ZC 2022-002 FROM MIXED USE (MU) TO ESTATE RESIDENTIAL (R-E) LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ITOYA VISTA STREET BETWEEN SEQUOIA ROAD AND LAUREL LANE. (APNS: 0434-042-16, 17, 18 & 19); GPA 2022-004 & ZC 2022-003 FROM

MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-M) TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-SF) LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OUTER HIGHWAY 18 AND EAST OF TENAYA ROAD (APNS: 0439-314-07 THRU 11); AND GPA 2022- 005 & ZC 2022-004 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-M) TO SINGLE

FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (R-SF) LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MOHAWK AND LAGUNA ROAD (APN: 0434-371-14)
WHEREAS, The General Plan of the Town of Apple Valley was adopted by the Town Council on August 11, 2009; and
WHEREAS, Title 9 “Development Code” of the Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley was adopted by the Town Council on April 27, 2010; and WHEREAS, Title 9 “Development Code” of the Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley has been previously modified by the Town Council on the recommendation of the Planning Commission; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2022-002 & Zone Change No. ZC 2022-001; GPA 2022-003 & ZC 2022-002; GPA 2022-004 & ZC 2022-003; & GPA 2022- 005 & ZC 2022-004 are consistent with the General Plan and Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley;
WHEREAS, Specific changes are proposed to the Land Use Element of the adopted General Plan and Zone Map of the Town of Apple Valley by approving GPA No. 2022-002 & ZC No. 2022-001 from Office Professional (O-P) to Multi-Family Residential (R-M) located immediately north of Quantico Road along both sides of Apple Valley Road. (APNs: 0473-152-11, 12, 15, 16 & 17 and 0473-153-11, 12,13 & 14); GPA No. 2022-003 & ZC No. 2022-002 from Mixed Use (M-U) to Estate Residential (R-E) located on the west side of Itoya Vista Street between Sequoia Road and Laurel Lane. (APNs: 0434-042-16, 17, 18 & 19); GPA No. 2022-004 & No. ZC 2022-003 from Multi-Family Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the south side of Outer Highway 18 and east of Tenaya Road (APNs: 0439-314-07 thru 11); and GPA No. 2022-005 & ZC No. 2022-004 Multi-Family Residential (R-M) to Single Family Residential (R-SF) located on the northeast corner of Mohawk and Laguna Road (APN: 0434-371-14); and

Page 303 of 339 ends

General Plan Amendments/Zone Changes
February 2, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting
5-2
WHEREAS, On January 21, 2022, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2022-002 & Zone Change No. ZC 2022-001; GPA 2022-003 & ZC 2022-002; GPA 2022-004 & ZC 2022- 003; & GPA 2022-005 & ZC 2022-004 were duly noticed in the Apple Valley News, a newspaper of general circulation within the Town of Apple Valley; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the State Guidelines to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA [Section 15061(b)(3)]; and WHEREAS, On February 2, 2022, the Planning Commission of the Town of Apple Valley conducted a duly noticed and advertised public hearing General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2022-002 & Zone Change No. ZC 2022-001; GPA 2022-003 & ZC 2022-002; GPA 2022-004 & ZC 2022-003; & GPA 2022-005 & ZC 2022-004, receiving testimony from the public and adopted Planning Commission Resolution No. 2022-002 recommending adoption of this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2022-002 & Zone Change No. ZC 2022- 001; GPA 2022-003 & ZC 2022-002; GPA 2022-004 & ZC 2022-003; & GPA 2022-005 & ZC 2022-004 are consistent with the Land Use Element goals and policies of the Town’s General Plan and Title 9 “Development Code” of the Municipal Code of the Town of Apple Valley and shall promote the health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of the Town of Apple Valley. These General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are consistent with Land Use Policies 2.A., 2.B and Program 2.A.1 of the General Plan in that the Town assessed its existing land use inventory and determined that all Amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with surrounding developments and considers the availability of infrastructure. In three of the four Amendments, the Town finds it necessary and beneficial to lessen the density to allow single family residential development to meet the septic tank requirements. The remaining Amendment, which reverts the area back to RM zoning, will allow future development to benefit from the availability of sewer and will match existence of multifamily developments within, and surrounding, the subject area.

Amending the General Plan and Zoning to allow new development to match surrounding development and for the purpose of satisfying sewage standards is found to be beneficial to public health, safety, and welfare.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that in consideration of the evidence presented at the public hearing, and for the reasons discussed by the Commissioners at said hearing, the Planning Commission of the Town of Apple Valley, California, finds and determines as follows and recommends that the Town Council make the following findings and take the following actions:

Section 1. Find that the changes proposed by General Plan Amendment No. GPA 2022-002 & Zone Change No. ZC 2022-001; GPA 2022-003 & ZC 2022-002; GPA 2022- 004 & ZC 2022-003; & GPA 2022-005 & ZC 2022-004 are consistent with the Goals and Policies of the Town of Apple Valley adopted General Plan. These General Plan Amendments and Zone Changes are consistent with Land Use Policies 2.A., 2.B and Program 2.A.1 of the General Plan in that the Town assessed its existing land use inventory

Page 304 of 339 ends

General Plan Amendments/Zone Changes
February 2, 2022 Planning Commission Meeting
5-3
and determined that all Amendments are necessary to maintain consistency with surrounding developments and considers the availability of infrastructure. In three of the four Amendments, the Town finds it necessary and beneficial to lessen the density to allow single family residential development to meet the septic tank requirements. The remaining Amendment, which reverts the area back to RM zoning, will allow future development to benefit from the availability of sewer and will match existence of multifamily developments within, and surrounding, the subject area. Amending the General Plan and Zoning to allow new development to match surrounding development and for the purpose of satisfying sewage standards is found to be beneficial to public health, safety, and welfare.

Section 2. Pursuant to the State Guidelines to Implement the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA [Section 15061(b)(3)]; and Section 3. Amend General Plan Land Use Map of the adopted General Plan as shown on Exhibits A, C, E, & G; and
Section 4. Amend the Zone Map of the Town of Apple Valley as shown on Exhibits B, D, F, & H; and
Approved and Adopted by the Planning Commission of the Town of Apple Valley this 2nd day of February 2022
Chairman Joel Harrison
ATTEST:

I, _______________, Secretary to the Planning Commission of the Town of Apple Valley, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing resolution was duly and regularly adopted by the Planning Commission at a regular meeting thereof, held on the 2nd day of February 2022 by the following vote, to-wit:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

Planning Commission Secretary

Page 305 of 339 ends

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 MID-YEAR BUDGET REVIEW

From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Sydnie Harris, Director of Finance
Finance
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. That the Town Council receive and file the Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Mid-Year Budget Review Report.

B. Approve Budget Amendment Number 2022-10 incorporating revenue and expenditure changes and carry forwards as proposed herein.

SUMMARY:

Town Council adopted the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget, effective July 1, 2021, with resolution number 2021-19 on June 22, 2021. The mid-year budget review is an opportunity for staff to use actual operating results of that budget through the first half of the fiscal year, as of December 31, 2021, in order to recommend adjustments of the budgeted forecasts to accommodate changes in revenue and expenditure estimates.

The primary purpose of this report is to provide a summarized update on the status of the Town’s budget, highlighting the changes, issues and opportunities that may need to be addressed through the halfway point of the fiscal year. The report also briefly reflects any changes in economic conditions that may have impacted the Town’s budget along with challenges the Town may need to address during the upcoming preparation of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Operating and Capital Improvement Budget.

BACKGROUND:

The Town Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Operating and Capital Improvement budget on June 22, 2021. The Adopted Operating and Capital Improvement budget is the Town’s one- year spending plan for FY 2021-22. It serves as a planning guide for the ensuing fiscal year and demonstrates progress towards the implementation of the Town Council’s longPage 306 of 339 term goals as outlined in the Vision 2020 plan. The adopted budget also demonstrates how established short- term goals and objectives will be implemented over the next year. It demonstrates how available resources are matched against the Town’s service priorities to provide essential services to the community. It underscores the Town’s continued commitment to provide more efficient services to residents and maintains adequate resources for unforeseen emergencies.

After adoption, financial events occur throughout the course of the year that impact upon the budget and the implementation of spending priorities outlined therein. These events necessitate adjusting the budget projections from time to time during the course of the fiscal year to keep thespending plan up-to-date based on current financial conditions.

In total, adjustments to the estimated revenue projections in the FY 2021-22 General Fund adopted budget amount to an increase of $8,123,222 with an expenditure increase of $2,449,068 including already approved budget adjustments. On an “all other funds” basis, total revenues areproposed to increase by $218,771 and total expenditures are proposed to increase by
$1,621,312 again including previously approved budget adjustments. These mid-year adjustments to the FY 2021-22 General Fund adopted budget will be considered by Council at its March 8th Town Council meeting and are summarized in Budget Adjustment number 2022- 10 and Exhibit A attached hereto.

The below charts and summaries will reflect appropriation adjustments proposed by staff based on the year-to-date actuals as of December 31, 2021, departmental experience and/or historical data. These appropriation adjustments are in addition to any the Council has already made throughout this fiscal year, which typically come up on an “as-needed” basis.

The focus of the mid-year budget review presentation is primarily the Town’s General Operating Fund revenues and expenditures. Most of the Town’s operating expenditures are accounted for within this fund. Other special revenue fund budgets do not usually require major adjustments at mid-year due to the specific nature of the resource allocations and/or program requirements. Adjustments that are requested within these funds are typically due to increased costs in services which were unknown at the time of the original budget. When revenues for these special revenue funds are not fully expended during the year, balances are carried forward for re-appropriation in the subsequent years’ budget process.

The total adopted General Fund expenditure budget for FY 2021-22 was $37.1 million. All Town departments have provided feedback to the Finance department regarding the status oftheir current year’s expenditures and budgetary performance as projected through the end of the fiscal year. The table below is a summary of the total resources and resource requirements for the adopted FY 2021-22 General Fund budget by department:

Page 307 of 339 ends

TABLE 1
Based on staff’s analysis of the current year’s operating revenues and expenditures and based upon information and input provided by all departments, staff recommends the following adjustments to the FY 2021-22 budget highlighted below and as outlined in the attached Budget Adjustment Number 2022-10 (Only significant General Fund changes have been highlighted):

Revenues:

Sales Tax: Since March of 2020, the Town of Apple Valley has closely monitored budget estimates that were impacted by the global pandemic. With the closures of restaurants, bars, andgyms and the postponement of largely populated events, the Town carefully produced estimatesbased on unknown factors that could create a potential decline in sales tax revenue.

Staff also partners with HdL Companies, a leader in tax revenue forecasts since 1983, in order to have a professional opinion on the outlook of individualized industries in the upcoming months and their revenue generating ability. The HdL Companies, based on their ongoing quarterly analysis, has projected an increase of $1.4 million in Sales and Use Tax revenues.

The increase to the revenues can be attributed to the full implementation of the South Dakota v. Wayfair Supreme Court Judgment that mandates online businesses to collect out of state sales tax based on the end user’s location. The online shopping combined with the opening of businesses is currently having a positive impact to the revenues. Increased building and inspection activity which also has outpaced expected revenues at the time of this review is another positive impact to the General Fund revenues. Current projections have the total expected General Fund Revenues to now be estimated at $35,857,984 not including the recognition of ARPA funds (see below).

General Fund FY22 Budget Revenue FY22 Budget Expenditures Mid-Year Revenue Mid-Year Est. Expense Town Council 1010 255,072.00 261,989.66
Town Attorney 1020 320,000.00 320,000.00
Town Manager 1030 626,104.00 637,191.00
Finance Department 1050 1,217,172.00 1,221,633.50
Town Clerk 1060 562,100.00 569,153.50
Public Information 1070 468,447.00 426,700.50
Human Resources 1080 185,925.00 201,430.50
IT 1090 1,339,279.00 2,352,846.50
General Government 1200 32,710,368.00 5,858,708.00 34,925,840.00 5,448,506.00 Public Facilities 1400 700,639.00 1,891,676.00
Public Safety 2010 17,388,733.00 17,391,533.00
Emergency Preparedness 2020 25,600.00 25,600.00
Animal Control/Services 2120/2130 2,192,606.00 2,258,607.00 Code Enforcement 3110 537,582.00 526,747.50
Building and Safety 4010 676,214.00 703,122.50
Planning 4610 821,031.00 890,897.00
Economic Development 4310 263,577.00 248,018.00
Engineering 4410 737,600.00 764,508.50
Grounds 6190 1,573,035.00 1,671,550.50
Aquatic Programs 6640 255,525.00 647,524.00 211,925.00 675,499.00 Park & Rec Programs 6670/6820 763,605.00 1,244,377.00 720,219.00 1,603,183.06 ARPA 5,994,736.00
Total 33,729,498.00 37,641,325.00 41,852,720.00 40,090,393.22

Page 308 of 339 ends

Reimbursements: On March 11, 2021 President Joe Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act, known as ARPA, to provide an unprecedent economic stimulus package to Americans as well as local governments who have been impacted due to the Coronavirus Pandemic. Among its many purposes, ARPA provided funds directly to theTown to support pandemic related issues and economic relief. The disbursements of these funds are scheduled to be received over two fiscal years with the first half being received by the Town in FY 2020- 21 and second half being received FY 2021-22. The initial disbursement has been received by the Town in the amount of $7,441,989 and of those resources, $1,447,252 has already been dedicated to previously approved eligible items from the prior fiscal year. The balance of $5,994,736 will be used to offset future eligible items and is now recognized as revenues.

Expenditures:

Programs: Due to the global pandemic and the state mandates for closures and shutdowns, theTown of Apple Valley is still unable to provide several programs to the public as would occur traditionally year after year. As a result, the Town was able to reduce some of its expenditure budget accordingly.

Additional overall costs are from previously approved items such as the increase of services by the San Bernardino County Sheriff as well as the update to the employee compensation table.

Information Technology department has recognized the benefit of a new enterprise resource planning (ERP) system, which will be an eligible use of ARPA funding and reflects the increased budget for such system implementation.

Including all adjustments to revenues and appropriations, the General Fund budget for FY 2021-22 is estimated to be approximately $41.8 million. The following table is a summary of the totalresources and resource requirements for the adopted FY 2021-22 General Fund budget including the adjustments as proposed:

Page 309 of 339 ends

TABLE 2
General Fund Summary
Estimated Revenues $ 33,729,498
Proposed Rev. Adjustments $2,128,486
ARPA $5,994,736
Appropriation from Fund Bal. $0
Total Resources $41,852,720
Amended Budget $37,641,325
Prop. Appropriation Adjustments $2,449,068
Total Adj. Appropriations $40,090,393
Surplus/(Deficit) $1,762,326

SUMMARY
The FY 2021-22 budget was adopted with a $3.3 million planned appropriation from General Fund available fund balance. Following the adoption of the budget, Council approved additional appropriations for various programs and services. As of December 31, 2021, net revenue adjustments increased total available resources in the General Fund by $8,123,222.

Additionally, net appropriation increases in the General Fund amounted to $2,449,068 which include the previously approved additional appropriations. These net adjustments eliminated the need for appropriations from General Fund balance. These proposed revenue and expenditure adjustments are outlined in Attachment B.

ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED
No alternatives were considered.

FISCAL REVIEW
Attachment A summarizes the adopted adjustments in revenue estimates and appropriations (expenditures) to the current year’s adopted operating and capital improvement budget reviewedherein. The attached budget adjustment, 2022-10, summarizes the adopted increases in revenueestimates and appropriation adjustments.

Attachment B summarizes the changes in revenue estimates and budgetary performance for all departments and all funds reflective of all budget amendments previously approved by Council through December 31, 2021.

CONCLUSION
The attached budget adjustment (BA# 2022-10) proposed to Council for consideration at its

Page 310 of 339 ends

March 8, 2022 Council Meeting summarizes proposed changes in the adopted FY 2021-22 Operating Budget. Staff is committed to ensuring that the Town continues its conservative fiscal practices; adopts sound, responsible, financial plans; and maintains its high- level of service delivery to the community in the most cost-effective and efficient manner possible.

ATTACHMENTS:

A. Budget Adjustment 2022-10
B. Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Summary by Fund/Department/Division

Page 311 of 339 ends

Attachment A FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Adustment 2022-10 R/E Account Number and Description Amount Increase/(Decrease) R 1001-0000-4055-0000 Sales and Use Tax 1,481,000.00
R 1001-0000-4095-0000 Transient Occupancy Tax 7,000.00
R 1001-0000-4112-0000 Administration Overhead 2,484,900.00 R 1001-0000-4145-0000 Debris Recycling Revenue 6,000.00 R 1001-0000-4450-5000 Impound/ACO pickup (County) 3,600.00 R 1001-0000-4460-5000 Boarding (County) 2,872.00
R 1001-0000-6108-0000 Building Permits 100,000.00
R 1001-0000-6120-0000 Electrical 215,000.00
R 1001-0000-6152-0000 Miscellaneous Revenue-Building & Safety 65,000.00 R 1001-0000-6158-0000 Plan Checks - Building and Safely 165,000.00 R 1001-0000-6160-0000 Plan Checks - Engineering 70,000.00 R 1001-0000-6178-0000 Specific Plan 100,000.00
R 1001-0000-6550-0000 Solid Waste Franchise Fee 1,250,000.00 R 1001-0000-6999-5010 Transfer In - 5010 (748,400.00)
R 1001-0000-6999-5510 Transfer In - 5510 (2,040,000.00) R 1001-0000-6999-5810 Administrative Overhead AVCE (946,500.00) R 1001-6640-5140-0000 Evening Lap Swim 200.00
R 1001-6640-5160-0000 Morning Lap Swim (2,700.00)
R 1001-6640-5170-0000 Open Rec Swim (12,700.00)
R 1001-6640-5190-0000 Swim Lessons (25,000.00)
R 1001-6640-5195-0000 Water Aerobics (3,400.00)
R 1001-6670-5050-0000 Open Gym 5,000.00
R 1001-6670-5060-0000 Softball (2,100.00)
R 1001-6670-5210-0000 After School Program (15,200.00)
R 1001-6670-5255-0000 Day Camp (10,000.00)
R 1001-6670-5320-0000 Arts & Crafts (8,700.00)
R 1001-6670-5325-0000 Ballet & Tap 1,000.00
R 1001-6670-5330-0000 Baton Twirling (300.00)
R 1001-6670-5345-0000 Cheer-Tumbling (4,000.00)
R 1001-6670-5380-0000 Guitar Lessons (3,700.00)
R 1001-6670-5405-0000 Low Impact Aerobics (400.00)
R 1001-6670-5475-0000 Tae Kwon Do (3,500.00)
R 1001-6670-5480-0000 Tai Chi (2,500.00)
R 1001-6670-5485-0000 Tennis 3,000.00
R 1001-6670-5498-0000 Yoga (2,000.00)
R 1001-6670-5670-0000 Teen Events 658.00
R 1001-6670-5680-0000 Turkey 5K Run (551.00)
R 1001-6670-5870-0000 Pee Wee/Hot Shots Basketball 1,282.00 R 1001-6670-5890-0000 Youth Basketball 2,090.00
R 1001-6670-5901-0000 Instructor Class Admin Fee (2,475.00) R 1001-6670-5902-0000 Instructor Class Insurance (990.00) GF Revenue Total Appropriation Changes 2,128,486.00
E 1001-1050-7265-0000 Office Supplies/Exp 500.00
E 1001-1050-7277-0000 Printing 500.00
E 1001-1050-7330-0000 Hardware/Software Supplies/Exp (1,000.00) E 1001-1090-7265-0000 Office Supplies/Exp 7,500.00

Page 312 of 339 ends

Attachment A FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Adustment 2022-10 E 1001-1090-7295-0109 Utilities: Phone, Internet, Cell Phones 23,000.00 E 1001-1090-7330-0000 Hardware/Software Supplies/Exp 5,000.00 E 1001-1090-9300-1803 Munis ERP Implementation Project 950,000.00 E 1001-1090-9010-0000 Vehicle Maintenance 2,000.00
E 1001-1090-9052-0000 Gasoline, Diesel, Oil 500.00
E 1001-1200-7160-0000 PERS 1,088,798.00
E 1001-1200-7384-0000 Damage Claims 1,000.00
E 1001-1200-8912-0000 Administration 470,000.00
E 1001-1200-8941-0000 Acquisition (1,500,000.00)
E 1001-1200-9999-5710 Transfer Out - 5710 (470,000.00)
E 1001-1400-7180-0000 Uniform Expenses 850.00
E 1001-1400-7295-0847 Utilities: Electricity Usage 25,000.00 E 1001-1400-7383-0000 Vandalism Repairs 3,500.00
E 1001-1400-7655-0000 Building Maintenance 25,000.00
E 1001-1400-9052-0000 Gasoline, Diesel, Oil 16,500.00
E 1001-1400-9091-0000 Vehicle Maintenance 2,000.00
E 1001-1400-9840-0000 Principal 815,000.00
E 1001-1400-9860-0000 Interest 191,378.00
E 1001-2010-7271-0000 Postage 2,000.00
E 1001-2010-7277-0000 Printing 800.00
E 1001-2010-7295-0109 Utilities: Phones, Internet, Cell Phone (3,000.00) E 1001-3110-7165-0000 Auto Allowance 1,100.00
E 1001-4610-8940-0000 Contract Services 100,000.00
E 1001-6190-7180-0000 Uniform Expenses 3,000.00
E 1001-6190-7223-0000 Disposal Services 9,000.00
E 1001-6190-7259-0000 Miscellaneous Costs 200.00
E 1001-6190-7295-0847 Utilities: Electricity Usage 75,000.00 E 1001-6190-7295-0849 Utilities: Water Usage (75,000.00) E 1001-6190-7360-0000 Safety & Security 500.00
E 1001-6190-7655-0000 Building Maintenance 6,000.00
E 1001-6190-7970-0000 Small Tools 2,500.00
E 1001-6670-7223-0000 Disposal Services 2,000.00
E 1001-6670-7370-0000 Special Dept Supplies/Exp 3,338.08 E 1001-6670-8050-0000 Open Gym 562.00
E 1001-6670-8062-0000 Softball (2,200.00)
E 1001-6670-8250-0000 After School Program (1,000.00)
E 1001-6670-8450-0000 Day Camp (13,500.00)
E 1001-6670-8508-0000 Arts and Crafts (4,100.00)
E 1001-6670-8520-0000 Cheer-Tumbling (3,100.00)
E 1001-6670-8541-0000 Guitar Lessons (2,600.00)
E 1001-6670-8555-0000 Low Impact Aerobics (150.00)
E 1001-6670-8579-0000 Tae Kwon Do (1,500.00)
E 1001-6670-8581-0000 Tai Chi (1,250.00)
E 1001-6670-8583-0000 Tennis 2,700.00
E 1001-6670-8591-0000 Yoga (1,000.00)
E 1001-6670-8600-0000 Parking Fee 7,000.00
E 1001-6670-8766-0000 Teen Events (500.00)
E 1001-6670-8903-0000 Recreation Events 1,000.00
E 1001-6820-7180-0000 Uniform Expenses 700.00
E 1001-6820-7229-0000 Education & Training (5,000.00)
E 1001-6820-7330-0000 Hardware/Software Supplies/Exp (1,000.00) E 1001-6820-7370-0000 Special Dept Supplies/Exp 1,000.00 GF Expenditure Total Appropriation Changes 1,760,526.08

Page 313 of 339 ends

Attachment A FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Adustment 2022-10 E 2010-5010-7160-0000 PERS 111,000.00
E 2010-5010-7180-0000 Uniform Expenses 3,000.00
R 2120-0000-6816-1703 Coronavirus Relief Grant 161,787.91 R 2120-0000-6820-0022 21/22 Allocation 8,984.00
E 2120-4210-7110-0000 Cafeteria and other Benefits 15,400.00 E 2120-4210-7140-0000 Retirement Health Savings (RHS) 350.00 E 2120-4210-7150-0000 Medicare 1,050.00
E 2120-4210-7160-0000 PERS 46,368.00
E 2810-3310-7935-0000 Right-of-Way Maintenance 350,000.00 R 4910-4830-6816-0000 AV Desert Water Reuse (CNRA) 48,000.00 E 4910-4829-8988-0000 Spay/Neuter Program 11,000.00
E 5010-4210-7160-0000 PERS 130,000.00
E 5010-4210-7180-0000 Uniform Expenses 3,000.00
E 5010-4210-7295-0849 Utilities: Water Usage 292,000.00 E 5010-4210-7312-0000 Bad Debt 102,000.00
E 5010-4210-9078-0000 Safety Equipment 1,000.00
E 5510-7510-7160-0000 PERS 135,000.00
E 5510-7510-7165-0000 Auto Allowance (1,400.00)
E 5510-7510-7166-0000 Phone Allowance 1,400.00
E 5510-7510-7312-0000 Bad Debt 332,000.00
E 5710-7716-7160-0000 PERS 2,400.00
E 5710-7700-7265-0000 Office Supplies/Exp 1,000.00
E 5710-7700-7655-0000 Building Maintenance 21,500.00
E 5710-7714-7655-0000 Building Maintenance (1,500.00)
E 5710-7716-7655-0000 Building Maintenance (15,000.00)
E 5710-7722-7655-0000 Building Maintenance (5,000.00)
E 5810-0000-7160-0000 PERS 10,000.00
Other Fund Revenue Appropriation Total 218,771.91
Other Fund Expenditure Appropriation Total 1,546,568.00

Page 314 of 339 ends

Exhibit B FY 2021-22 General Fund Mid-Year
General Fund FY22 Budget Revenue FY22 Budget Expenditures Mid-Year Revenue Mid-Year Est. Expense Town Council 1010 255,072.00 261,989.66
Town Attorney 1020 320,000.00 320,000.00
Town Manager 1030 626,104.00 637,191.00
Finance Department 1050 1,217,172.00 1,221,633.50
Town Clerk 1060 562,100.00 569,153.50
Public Information 1070 468,447.00 426,700.50
Human Resources 1080 185,925.00 201,430.50
IT 1090 1,339,279.00 2,352,846.50
General Government 1200 32,710,368.00 5,858,708.00 34,925,840.00 5,448,506.00 Public Facilities 1400 700,639.00 1,891,676.00
Public Safety 2010 17,388,733.00 17,391,533.00
Emergency Preparedness 2020 25,600.00 25,600.00
Animal Control/Services 2120/2130 2,192,606.00 2,258,607.00 Code Enforcement 3110 537,582.00 526,747.50
Building and Safety 4010 676,214.00 703,122.50
Planning 4610 821,031.00 890,897.00
Economic Development 4310 263,577.00 248,018.00
Engineering 4410 737,600.00 764,508.50
Grounds 6190 1,573,035.00 1,671,550.50
Aquatic Programs 6640 255,525.00 647,524.00 211,925.00 675,499.00 Park & Rec Programs 6670/6820 763,605.00 1,244,377.00 720,219.00 1,603,183.06 ARPA 5,994,736.00
Total 33,729,498.00 37,641,325.00 41,852,720.00 40,090,393.22 Note: General Government Revenues also include revenues from Building and Safety, Planning, Animal Control, Code Enforcement and Engineering

Page 315 of 339 ends

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: THIRD PUBLIC HEARING FOR REDISTRICTING

From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Thomas Rice, Town Attorney
La Vonda M-Pearson, Director of Government Services
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. Receive a report from staff and the Town’s redistricting consultant on the redistricting process and the draft maps; and
B. Receive input from the public on the draft maps; and C. Provide direction to the Town’s redistricting consultant relating to the drawing of new district maps.

BACKGROUND
In 2019, in response to a threat of litigation under the California Voting Rights Act and like many jurisdictions throughout the state, the Town transitioned from an at-large to a five member by-district election system. The Town did so after a lengthy public outreach process, which included holding five public hearings and a workshop. The Town is presently divided into five districts, which were based on the following factors:
• Geography
o Use major roadways as dividing lines
o Consider future growth areas
• Communities of Interest
o Attempt to keep distinct communities together
o Attempt to place some commercial property in every district o Attempt to place some parks or open space in every district o Attempt to split the North Apple Valley Industrial Specific Plan (NAVISP) so a single council member is not responsible for the entire area • Cohesiveness, Contiguity, Integrity, and Compactness of Territory

Page 316 of 339 ends

o Accept that it will be natural for their to be a wide variation in district size due to lack of density in various parts of Town
o Do not prioritize trying to make districts the same size in area terms In November 2020, the Town held its first by-district elections. Districts 1 and 2 were the subject of the election.

On January 11, 2022, the Town Attorney provided an update on the redistricting process.

At that meeting, the Town Council requested the Town Attorney provide the Town Council with an opportunity to consider a transition to a “4+1” system with an at large Mayor. On January 24, 2022, the Town entered into a contract with National Demographics Corporation (NDC) to perform redistricting services, including the drawing of maps.

On February 8, 2022, the Town Council held its first redistricting hearing and received a presentation from NDC on the appropriate criteria for consideration. The Town Council discussed and deliberated on a proposed ordinance to transition to a “4+1” system with an at large Mayor. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Town Council chose to introduce two ordinances in order to facilitate further public input on the possible transition. One ordinance would leave the Town Council with five districts; the other would transition to a “4+1” system with an at large Mayor. Both ordinances would have permitted the Town Council to adopt new maps by resolution.

On February 22, 2022, the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 549(A) transitioning the Town from a system with five single member council districts to a “4+1” system with an at large Mayor elected every two years.

Following the decision on February 22, the Town’s redistricting consultant prepared three draft maps dividing the Town into four districts. Those maps were posted by the Town on March 1.

DISCUSSION:

Redistricting
Every ten years, cities with by-district election systems must use new census data to review and, if needed, redraw district lines to reflect how local populations have changed.

This process, called redistricting, ensures all districts have a nearly equal population. The redistricting process for the Town of Apple Valley must be completed by April 17, 2022.

The Town’s districts must now be redrawn using the 2020 census data and in compliance with the FAIR MAPS Act, which was adopted by the California legislature as AB 849 and took effect January 1, 2020. Under the Act, the Town Council shall draw and adopt boundaries using the following criteria in the listed order of priority (Elections Code 21621(c)):

1. Comply with the federal requirements of equal population and the Voting Rights Act;

2. Be geographically contiguous;

3. Undivided neighborhoods and “communities of interest” (socio-economic geographic areas that should be kept together);

4. Display easily identifiable boundaries;

5. Be compact (do not bypass one group of people to get to a more distant group of people); and

Page 317 of 339 ends

6. Shall not favor or discriminate against a political party.

Once the prioritized criteria are met, other traditional districting principles can be considered, such as:

1. Minimize the number of voters delayed from voting in 2022 to 2024;

2. Respect voters’ choices/continuity in office; and

3. Future population growth.

By law, the Town must hold at least four public hearings that enable community members to provide input on the drawing of district maps:
 At least one hearing must occur before the agency draws draft maps;  At least two hearings must happen after the drawing of draft maps (the fourth hearing can happen either before or after the drawing of draft maps); and  Agency staff or consultants may hold a public workshop instead of one of the required public redistricting hearings.

To increase the accessibility of these hearings, the Town must take the following steps:
 At least one hearing must occur on a Saturday, Sunday, or after 6:00 p.m. on a weekday;
 If a redistricting hearing is consolidated with another local government meeting, the redistricting hearing must begin at a pre-designated time; and  Local public redistricting hearings must be made accessible with people with disabilities.

Town Schedule
The Town has set the following schedule for the redistricting process:

February 8, 2022 First Public Hearing - Hearing begins at 7:30 p.m.

February 22, 2022 Second Public Hearing – Hearing begins at 7:30 p.m.

March 1, 2022 Draft Maps Released; Mapping Tool Released to Public
March 8, 2022 Third Public Hearing - Consideration and input on proposed draft maps
March 15, 2022 New Maps released - if any
March 22, 2022 Fourth Public Hearing; Selection of Map
April 12, 2022 Formal Adoption of Map by Resolution
This Hearing
The purpose of this public hearing is to solicit input from the public and the Town Council on the draft maps prepared by the Town’s redistricting consultant, NDC. This is the first

Page 318 of 339 ends

of two required “post-map” public hearings. The Town Council can discuss the proposed maps submitted by the demographer and may recommend changes or may suggest which map or maps the Council would like to hear additional public comment on – for example, the Council may choose to eliminate one of the draft maps from consideration.

If the Council suggests changes to one of the draft maps, the Town must publish the amended map at least 7 days prior to the next public hearing (by March 15, 2022 for a March 22, 2022 fourth public hearing). If changes to the map are requested by the Council, staff and the demographer will ensure proper publication/posting is done within the appropriate timeframe.

FISCAL IMPACT
The redistricting process should cost the Town approximately $50,000 depending on the number of public meetings the consultant attends. However, the Town must incur this cost in order to comply with applicable law.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Current District Map

2. Draft Maps (and Demographic Data) Prepared by Town’s Consultant, NDC a. Orange Map
b. Tan Map
c. Green Map

Page 319 of 339 ends

2 4
3 5
1 15
15 Apple Valley Arprt
18 18
Bear Valley Cutoff
Apple Valley Rd
Falchion Rd
Rincon Rd
Kiowa Rd
Nisqually Rd
N
a
v
ajo
R
d
Thunderbird Rd
D
ale
E
v
a
ns P
kw
y
Otoe Rd
Johnson Rd
Tussing Ranch Rd
B
u
e
n
a
Vista
St
Ce
ntr
al Rd
Ramona Ave
Papago Rd
Lafayette St
Colusa Rd
National Demographics Corporation, June 3, 2019
Map layers
Districts
Water Area
Streets
Landmark Point
Pipeline/Power Line
Railroad
River
Voting District Map
Adopted July 23, 2019

Page 320 of 339 ends

2 4
3 1
15 State Rt 18
A
p
ple
V
alle
y
R
d
Navajo Rd
Johnson Rd
Bear Valley Rd
Ottawa Rd
Esaws Ave
Ramona Ave
Cahuilla Rd
Navajo Rd
Sandia Rd
Corwin Rd
Deep Creek Rd
Kio
w
a
R
d
M
o
h
a
w
k
R
d
P
aum
a
St
Standing Rock Ave Lakota Rd
Rincon Rd
Seneca Rd
Papago Rd
Thunderbird Rd
Morro Rd
Central
R
d
Fairfield
A
v
e
D
ale
E
vans Pk
y

Page 321 of 339 ends

Orange
District 1
Total Pop 18,905
Deviation from ideal -111
% Deviation -0.58%
% Hisp 41.1%
% NH White 40%
% NH Black 11%
% Asian-American 3%
Total 11,547
% Hisp 32%
% NH White 54%
% NH Black 10%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 2%
Total 9,855
% Latino est. 29%
% Spanish-Surnamed 27%
% Asian-Surnamed 1%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 56%
% NH Black 12%
Total 7,054
% Latino est. 27%
% Spanish-Surnamed 25%
% Asian-Surnamed 1%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 58%
% NH Black 11%
Total 4,705
% Latino est. 20%
% Spanish-Surnamed 19%
% Asian-Surnamed 1%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 64%
% NH Black est. 10%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 17,167
age0-19 32%
age20-60 51%
age60plus 18%
immigrants 11%
naturalized 60%
english 79%
spanish 18%
asian-lang 1%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 5%
hs-grad 59%
bachelor 8%
graduatedegree 8%
Child in Household child-under18 43%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 58%
income 0-25k 22%
income 25-50k 31%
income 50-75k 14%
income 75-200k 29%
income 200k-plus 4%
single family 72%
multi-family 28%
rented 45%
owned 55%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

2.59%
37%
46%
8%
4%
12,813
28%
57%
9%
3%
11,739
25%
23%
1%
1%
64%
9%
9,324
22%
21%
1%
1%
66%
8%
6,370
16%
16%
1%
1%
71%
8%
18,910
31%
44%
24%
7%
60%
82%
15%
2%
1%
5%
53%
14%
7%
37%
54%
10%
27%
17%
40%
7%
85%
15%
28%
72%
3 18,314
-702
-3.69%
45%
40%
8%
3%
11,549
33%
52%
11%
3%
9,415
31%
29%
1%
1%
57%
10%
6,810
28%
27%
1%
1%
60%
9%
4,192
22%
22%
1%
0%
64%
9%
18,625
34%
48%
18%
11%
47%
78%
20%
1%
1%
8%
65%
7%
3%
46%
54%
24%
32%
20%
24%
1%
82%
18%
42%
58%
4 19,336
320

1.68%
30%
53%
8%
6%
13,440
21%
63%
11%
4%
12,987
21%
19%
2%
1%
67%
9%
10,760
18%
17%
2%
1%
68%
9%
7,732
14%
14%
2%
1%
72%
9%
17,954
24%
43%
34%
11%
64%
85%
10%
3%
2%
6%
58%
14%
10%
25%
48%
18%
20%
20%
36%
7%
93%
7%
24%
76%
Total
76,063
1,194

6.28%
38%
45%
9%
4%
49,349
29%
57%
10%
3%
43,996
26%
24%
2%
1%
62%
10%
33,948
23%
22%
2%
1%
64%
9%
22,999
17%
17%
1%
1%
69%
9%
72,655
30%
46%
23%
10%
58%
81%
16%
2%
2%
6%
58%
11%
7%
37%
53%
18%
27%
18%
32%
5%
83%
17%
34%
66%
03/01/2022 16:08 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

Page 322 of 339 ends

4 2
3 1
15 State Rt 18
A
p
ple
V
alle
y
R
d
N
a
v
ajo
R
d
Johnson Rd
Bear Valley Rd
Sitting Bull Rd
Ottawa Rd
Esaws Ave
Ramona Ave
Cahuilla Rd
Navajo Rd
Wren St
Del Oro Rd
Sandia Rd
Corwin Rd
Deep Creek Rd
Kiowa Rd
Mohawk Rd
P
aum
a
St
Standing Rock Ave Lakota Rd
Rincon Rd
Papago Rd
Thunderbird Rd
Morro Rd
Central
R
d
Fairfield
A
v
e
D
ale
E
vans Pky

Page 323 of 339 ends

Tan
District 1
Total Pop 19,565
Deviation from ideal 549
% Deviation 2.89%
% Hisp 37.8%
% NH White 43%
% NH Black 11%
% Asian-American 4%
Total 12,668
% Hisp 30%
% NH White 56%
% NH Black 9%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 2%
Total 10,772
% Latino est. 26%
% Spanish-Surnamed 24%
% Asian-Surnamed 1%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 60%
% NH Black 11%
Total 8,094
% Latino est. 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 22%
% Asian-Surnamed 1%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 63%
% NH Black 9%
Total 5,486
% Latino est. 18%
% Spanish-Surnamed 17%
% Asian-Surnamed 1%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 68%
% NH Black est. 9%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 18,746
age0-19 32%
age20-60 49%
age60plus 20%
immigrants 10%
naturalized 57%
english 76%
spanish 21%
asian-lang 2%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 5%
hs-grad 54%
bachelor 11%
graduatedegree 8%
Child in Household child-under18 39%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 57%
income 0-25k 19%
income 25-50k 30%
income 50-75k 14%
income 75-200k 32%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 71%
multi-family 29%
rented 42%
owned 58%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

1.56%
27%
54%
8%
6%
14,161
23%
61%
11%
5%
13,410
19%
18%
2%
1%
68%
9%
11,356
17%
16%
2%
1%
69%
9%
8,289
13%
13%
2%
1%
73%
9%
18,545
23%
41%
36%
9%
73%
87%
7%
3%
3%
5%
57%
15%
10%
25%
49%
14%
21%
17%
39%
8%
91%
9%
21%
79%
3 18,885
-131
-0.69%
43%
41%
9%
3%
11,112
29%
56%
10%
3%
9,946
30%
28%
1%
1%
59%
10%
7,265
27%
25%
1%
1%
61%
9%
4,715
19%
19%
1%
1%
66%
9%
17,430
34%
48%
18%
11%
56%
84%
14%
2%
1%
6%
60%
9%
5%
42%
51%
22%
29%
17%
27%
4%
87%
13%
34%
66%
4 18,300
-716
-3.77%
45%
41%
7%
3%
11,408
34%
53%
11%
2%
9,868
32%
29%
1%
1%
57%
10%
7,233
29%
27%
1%
1%
60%
9%
4,509
23%
22%
1%
1%
64%
9%
17,935
33%
47%
19%
11%
46%
77%
22%
1%
1%
7%
63%
8%
4%
46%
56%
19%
29%
21%
29%
2%
84%
16%
41%
59%
Total
76,063
1,265

6.65%
38%
45%
9%
4%
49,349
29%
57%
10%
3%
43,996
26%
24%
2%
1%
62%
10%
33,948
23%
22%
2%
1%
64%
9%
22,999
17%
17%
1%
1%
69%
9%
72,655
30%
46%
23%
10%
58%
81%
16%
2%
2%
6%
58%
11%
7%
37%
53%
18%
27%
18%
32%
5%
83%
17%
34%
66%
03/01/2022 16:32 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

Page 324 of 339 ends

4 2 3
1 15
State Rt 18
A
p
ple
V
alle
y
R
d
Navajo Rd
Johnson Rd
Bear Valley Rd
Sitting Bull Rd
Ottawa Rd
Esaws Ave
Ramona Ave
Cahuilla Rd
Navajo Rd
Sandia Rd
Corwin Rd
Deep Creek Rd
Kio
w
a
R
d
M
o
h
a
w
k
R
d
P
a
u
m
a
St
Standing Rock Ave
L
a
k
ota
R
d
Rincon Rd
Seneca Rd
Papago Rd
Thunderbird Rd
Morro Rd
Central
R
d
Fairfield
A
v
e
D
ale
E
vans Pk
y

Page 325 of 339 ends

Green
District 1
Total Pop 18,913
Deviation from ideal -103
% Deviation -0.54%
% Hisp 38.2%
% NH White 42%
% NH Black 12%
% Asian-American 4%
Total 12,450
% Hisp 31%
% NH White 53%
% NH Black 11%
% Asian/Pac.Isl. 2%
Total 10,164
% Latino est. 26%
% Spanish-Surnamed 24%
% Asian-Surnamed 1%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 58%
% NH Black 12%
Total 7,589
% Latino est. 24%
% Spanish-Surnamed 23%
% Asian-Surnamed 1%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 61%
% NH Black 11%
Total 5,164
% Latino est. 18%
% Spanish-Surnamed 17%
% Asian-Surnamed 1%
% Filipino-Surnamed 1%
% NH White est. 66%
% NH Black est. 11%
ACS Pop. Est. Total 18,423
age0-19 32%
age20-60 48%
age60plus 20%
immigrants 10%
naturalized 60%
english 77%
spanish 19%
asian-lang 1%
other lang 2%
Language Fluency Speaks Eng. "Less than Very Well" 5%
hs-grad 54%
bachelor 12%
graduatedegree 8%
Child in Household child-under18 39%
Pct of Pop. Age 16+ employed 58%
income 0-25k 19%
income 25-50k 31%
income 50-75k 14%
income 75-200k 31%
income 200k-plus 5%
single family 68%
multi-family 32%
rented 44%
owned 56%
Total population data from the 2020 Decennial Census.

Surname-based Voter Registration and Turnout data from the California Statewide Database.

Latino voter registration and turnout data are Spanish-surname counts adjusted using Census Population Department undercount estimates. NH White and NH Black registration and turnout counts estimated by NDC. Citizen Voting Age Pop., Age, Immigration, and other demographics from the 2015-2019 American Community Survey and Special Tabulation 5-year data.
2 19,046
30 0.16%
26%
56%
7%
6%
14,033
21%
64%
10%
5%
13,466
18%
17%
2%
1%
69%
9%
11,461
17%
16%
2%
1%
70%
8%
8,369
13%
12%
2%
1%
74%
8%
18,253
22%
42%
36%
9%
73%
86%
7%
3%
3%
5%
57%
15%
11%
24%
48%
14%
20%
18%
40%
8%
93%
7%
19%
81%
3 18,950
-66
-0.35%
43%
41%
8%
3%
11,004
29%
58%
9%
3%
10,130
29%
27%
1%
1%
60%
8%
7,398
27%
25%
1%
1%
62%
8%
4,773
19%
19%
1%
1%
68%
8%
17,336
34%
48%
19%
11%
54%
83%
15%
2%
1%
6%
61%
8%
4%
43%
51%
22%
30%
18%
27%
3%
87%
13%
34%
66%
4 19,154
138

0.73%
45%
41%
7%
3%
11,863
34%
52%
12%
2%
10,236
32%
30%
1%
1%
57%
10%
7,500
29%
27%
1%
1%
59%
10%
4,693
23%
22%
1%
1%
64%
10%
18,643
34%
47%
19%
11%
47%
77%
21%
1%
1%
8%
63%
8%
4%
45%
56%
19%
28%
21%
30%
2%
84%
16%
41%
59%
Total
76,063
241

1.27%
38%
45%
9%
4%
49,349
29%
57%
10%
3%
43,996
26%
24%
2%
1%
62%
10%
33,948
23%
22%
2%
1%
64%
9%
22,999
17%
17%
1%
1%
69%
9%
72,655
30%
46%
23%
10%
58%
81%
16%
2%
2%
6%
58%
11%
7%
37%
53%
18%
27%
18%
32%
5%
83%
17%
34%
66%
03/01/2022 15:52 Page 1 of 1
Total Pop
Citizen Voting Age Pop
Voter Registration
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2020)
Voter Turnout
(Nov 2018)
Age
Immigration
Language spoken at home
Education
(among those age 25+)
Household Income
Housing Stats

Page 326 of 339 ends

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: INTRODUCE ORDINANCE NO. 554 - AN ORDINANCE OF THE

TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY ADDING
SECTION 2.04.160 TO THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY MUNICIPAL

CODE ESTABLISHING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION LIMITATIONS
UNDER ASSEMBLY BILL 571

From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Kiel Mangerino, Deputy Town Clerk
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A

RECOMMENDED ACTION
A. Move to waive reading of Ordinance No. 554 and read by title only.

B. Introduce Ordinance No. 554.

BACKGROUND
The Political Reform Act (Gov. Code, § 81000 et seq.) includes regulations regulating campaign finance, lobbying activity, and conflicts of interest. State law, specifically Government Code section 81013, also permits the Town to impose its own campaign finance regulations, including campaign contribution limits.

SUMMARY
On January 1, 2021, Assembly Bill (AB) 571 went into effect. AB 571 set default contribution limits for elective county, city and town offices aligning with the contribution limits set for elected officers of the state Assembly and Senate. Under AB 571, the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC) will have administration and enforcement authority regarding the default contribution limits for cities, towns, and counties without their own local contribution limits, and makes violations of default contribution limits within the FPPC’s purview punishable as a misdemeanor. These contribution limits may be

Page 327 of 339 ends

adjusted by the FPPC in January of odd-numbered years to reflect increases or decreases in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). AB 571 also extends contribution restrictions for elective county, city, or town offices regarding personal loans and for committees created to oppose recall measures.

Under the new law, cities and towns were permitted to adopt local campaign ordinances that contain additional restrictions and requirements that are more precisely tailored to the needs of their communities.

The FPPC has published a fact sheet on how it will implement AB571 and regulate those cities and towns in California that choose not to adopt their own campaign contribution limits. According to the FPPC, “[a]long with the new campaign contribution limit, there are also other related provisions that formerly applied only to state level candidates that will now apply to city and county candidates. Please note that none of the provisions of AB 571 discussed in this fact sheet apply to candidates in cities or counties for which the city or county has enacted campaign contribution limits.” A copy of the fact sheet is attached to this report. One of these new provisions is a requirement that a candidate establish a new separate committee and bank account for each election. Candidates may no longer simply re-designate a committee for one election for another election.

Staff has drafted the proposed Ordinance to both inform the Town Council of the new AB571 provisions and to provide the Town Council with the option to retain the campaign contribution default limit at the AB571 amount, while at the same time ensuring that the other provisions do not apply in the Town. The proposed ordinance simply adopts the same default limit, presently set at $4,900 and will allow for updated biennial inflation increases just as AB571 allows for them. By adopting the proposed ordinance, the Town does not change its prior policy position - the same limits apply. If the Town Council wants to defer to the AB571 campaign contribution default limits and avoid application of the provisions described above, it should adopt the proposed ordinance. This could reduce bureaucratic hurdles for candidates for elective office in the Town, while simultaneously maintaining per-election limits on campaign contributions.

FISCAL IMPACT
N/A

ATTACHMENTS
A. Ordinance No. 554
B. AB 571 Fact Sheet

Page 328 of 339 ends

Ordinance No. 554
ORDINANCE NO. 554

AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN

OF APPLE VALLEY, CALIFORNIA, ADDING SECTION

2.04.160 TO THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY MUNICIPAL

CODE ESTABLISHING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTION
LIMITATIONS UNDER ASSEMBLY BILL 571
WHEREAS, the California State Legislature in 2019 passed Assembly Bill 571 (“AB 571”) which creates campaign contribution limits, identical to those imposed on State Assembly and Senate candidates, for all levels of government; and WHEREAS, under existing law, cities, towns, and counties are empowered to impose their own contribution limits for elective officers; and WHEREAS, while AB 571 sets forth default statewide limits on contributions, AB 571 also permits cities, towns and counties to impose contribution limits that differ from the default limits and that are more in tune with their own communities: and WHEREAS, if a city, town, or county fails to impose its own contribution limits by January 1, 2020, then the default levels set by AB 571 will be imposed; and WHEREAS, in addition to imposing contribution limits, AB 571 imposes a number of bureaucratic hurdles for candidates for elective office; and WHEREAS, while the Town Council is comfortable with the State’s campaign contribution limits, it does not want to impose additional hurdles on candidates for elective office; and
WHEREAS, these bureaucratic hurdles may deter potential candidates from running for office, particularly those who do not have access to expensive campaign consultants; and
WHEREAS, therefore, the Town Council would like to adopt its own mandatory campaign contribution limits, which mirror the State’s limits, but eliminate the need for compliance with the additional bureaucratic rules imposed by AB 571; and WHEREAS, with the beginning of the 2022 election cycle there is now a need to take action to prevent candidates unnecessarily having to take additional steps in order to run for office within the Town.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF APPLE VALLEY DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein.

SECTION 2. Addition of Section 2.04.160. Section 2.04.160 is hereby added to the Town of Apple Valley Municipal Code to read in its entirety as follows:

Page 329 of 339 ends

Ordinance No. 554
“2.04.160 – Campaign Contribution Limits for Town Elective Office Candidates.

A. A person shall not make to a candidate for elective town office, and a candidate for elective town office shall not accept from a person, a contribution totaling more than $4,900.

B. On January 1, 2023, and every odd-numbered year thereafter, the limit set forth in subsection A shall be adjusted to reflect any increase or decrease in the Consumer Price Index in the same manner as the Fair Political Practices Commission adjusts the limits under Government Code section 85301(d) or any successor provision.

C. Nothing in this section shall be deemed to exempt any person from complying with applicable provisions of any other laws of this state.” SECTION 3. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, or clause or phrase in this Ordinance or any part thereof is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, invalid or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity or effectiveness of the remaining portions of this Ordinance or any part thereof. The Town Council hereby declares that it would have adopted each section irrespective of the fact that any one or more subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, or phrases are declared unconstitutional, invalid, or ineffective.

SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective 30 days upon adoption.

SECTION 5. Notice of Adoption. The Town Clerk of the Town of Apple Valley shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause publication to occur in a newspaper of general circulation and published and circulated in the Town in a manner permitted under section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California.

Page 330 of 339 ends

Ordinance No. 554
APPROVED and ADOPTED by the Town Council of the Town of Apple Valley this 22nd day of March, 2022.
____________________________
Kari Leon, Mayor
Attest:
____________________________
La Vonda M-Pearson, Town Clerk.

Approval as to Form: Approval as to Content:
__________________________ ____________________________ Thomas Rice, Town Attorney Douglas Robertson, Town Manager

Page 331 of 339 ends

www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC advice: [email protected] 1.866.275.3772
FPPC Ed. Pro. 086-07-2021 Page 1 of 7
Fair Political Practices Commission
Contribution Limits: City and County Candidates1
Introduction
Pursuant to Assembly Bill 571 (Stats. 2019, Ch. 556, AB 571 Mullin), beginning January 1, 2021 a state campaign contribution limit will by default apply to city and county candidates when the city or county has not already enacted a contribution limit on such candidates. Along with the new campaign contribution limit, there are also other related provisions that formerly applied only to state level candidates that will now apply to city and county candidates. Please note that none of the provisions of AB 571 discussed in this fact sheet apply to candidates in cities or counties for which the city or county has enacted campaign contribution limits.

Current State Contribution Limit
The contribution limit that will now apply to city and county candidates pursuant to AB 571 is updated biennially for inflation. Contribution limits can be found in Regulation 18545(a)2 and on the FPPC website’s FPPC Regulations page. The default limit for contributions to city and county candidates subject to AB 571 for 2021-2022 is set at $4,900 per election.

Other Provisions Affecting City and County Candidates
Several other provisions will now apply to city and county candidates in jurisdictions that have not enacted campaign contribution limits, including the following:
• A candidate may not make a contribution over the AB 571 limit to another candidate in jurisdictions subject to the AB 571 limit with limited exceptions related to recall elections, legal defense funds and candidatecontrolled ballot measure committees. (See Regulation 18535 for more information.)
• A candidate that has qualified as a committee must establish a separate controlled committee and campaign bank account for each specific office. Candidates may not redesignate a committee for one election for another election.
• Candidates may transfer non-surplus campaign funds from one candidatecontrolled committee to another committee controlled by the same candidate for a different office if the committee receiving the transfer is for an elective state, county or city office. However, contributions transferred must be attributed and transferred using the “last in, firstout” or “first in, first out” accounting method and

Page 332 of 339 ends

www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC advice: [email protected] 1.866.275.3772
FPPC Ed. Pro. 086-07-2021 Page 2 of 7
shall not exceed the applicable contribution limit per contributor. If a candidate is seeking to transfer campaign funds from one controlled committee to another for the same office a candidate may carry over non-surplus campaign funds raised in connection with one election to pay for campaign expenditures incurred in connection with a subsequent election for the same office without attributing or using the “last in, first out” or “first in, first out” accounting method. (See Regulation 18536 for more information on the transfer and attribution of contributions and See Regulation 18537.1 for more information on carryover of contributions.)1 • Candidates may not personally loan to a candidate’s campaign an amount for which the outstanding balance exceeds $100,000. “Campaign” includes both the primary and general, or special and special runoff, elections. However, a candidate may loan each committee for a different office or term of office up to $100,000. A candidate may not charge interest on any such loan the candidate made to the candidate’s campaign. (See Regulation 18530.8 for more information.)
• Candidates may establish a committee to oppose the qualification of a recall measure and the recall election when the candidate receives a notice of intent to recall. Campaign funds raised to oppose the qualification of a recall measure and/or the recall election would not be subject to any campaign contribution limit under the Act. (See Regulation 18531.5 for more information.) • A candidate for local office may open a candidate-controlled general purpose ballot measure committee to oppose or support a measure being voted on. The committee must identify on its campaign statements and reports each measure for which an expenditure of $100 or more is made. (See Regulations 18421.8 and 18521.5 for more information.)
• Contributions after the date of the election may be accepted to the extent contributions do not exceed net debts outstanding from the election, and contributions do not otherwise exceed applicable contribution limits for that election. (See Regulation 18531.64 for more information.) 1 This fact sheet is informational only and contains only highlights of selected provisions of the law. It does not carry the weight of the law. For further information, consult the Political Reform Act and its corresponding regulations, advice letters, and opinions. 2 The Political Reform Act is contained in Government Code Sections 81000 through 91014. All statutory references are to the Government Code, unless otherwise indicated. The regulations of the Fair Political Practices Commission are contained in Sections 18110 through 18997 of Title 2 of the California Code of Regulations. All regulatory references are to Title 2, Division 6 of the California Code of Regulations, unless otherwise indicated.1

Page 333 of 339 ends

www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC advice: [email protected] 1.866.275.3772
FPPC Ed. Pro. 086-07-2021 Page 3 of 7
• Candidates are permitted to raise contributions for a general election before the primary election and may establish separate campaign contribution accounts for the primary and general so long as candidates set aside contributions and use them for the general or special general election as raised. If the candidate is defeated in the primary election or otherwise withdraws from the generalelection, the general election funds must be refunded to contributors on a pro rata basis less any expenses associated with the raising and administration of the general election contributions. (See Regulation 18531.2 for more information.) • Candidates that are currently in office that are running for reelection to the same seat in an election after January 1, 2021 may carry over campaign funds without attribution as mentioned above. Candidates running for a different office also do not need to do LIFO FIFO or attribution for the election immediately subsequent to the election prior to 2021 for which the money was raised. • Candidates must disclose cumulative totals of contributions received or made for each election on campaign statements. (See Regulation 18421.4 for more information.)
FAQs
A. If a city or county does not currently have contribution limits set within their ordinance would the state contribution limit be the default? Yes. The state contribution limit stated above would be the default contribution limit if the city or county ordinance is silent on whether there are contribution limits within that jurisdiction or if there is no city or county ordinance in place.

B. Is there a way for a city or county to adopt “no” contribution limits for city or county elective city and county offices?
Yes. A city or county may elect to have “no” contribution limits. To do so, it must explicitly state in the city or county ordinance that there are no limits on contributions. If it is explicit that the city or county has implemented “no” contribution limits, the state contribution limit will not apply as a default for that jurisdiction.

C. Can a city or county ordinance be less restrictive than the AB 571 limit (e.g., the city or county limit is set higher than the state limit)? Yes. A city or county can set contribution limits higher than the default state limit.

Page 334 of 339 ends

www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC advice: [email protected] 1.866.275.3772
FPPC Ed. Pro. 086-07-2021 Page 4 of 7
D. If a city or county imposes contribution limits, is the Commissionresponsible for enforcing those limits?
No. The Commission will not regulate the administration or enforcement of the penalties. Cities or counties with existing limits or that adopt their own limits are not subject to the state limit and may impose their own penalties for violations.

E. If a city or county has voluntary contribution limits, but no mandatory contribution limits will the state limit be applicable? Yes. A city or county must enact mandatory contribution limits to avoid the state limit applying to elective city and county offices.

F. Does the default contribution limit also include judicial candidates? No. Elective city and county offices do not include judicial offices.

G. If a city or county has imposed contribution limits for particular city or county offices (e.g., Board of Supervisors), do those limits also apply to other positions such as the District Attorney or would the default state limit apply if a particular position is not specifically addressed by the city or county? The default state limit would apply to other positions for which the city or county has not set contribution limits. A city or county ordinance must explicitly state the city or county contribution limits and for which elective offices those limits will apply. A city or county may adopt a general provision implementing a contribution limit for all elective city and county offices in that jurisdiction. As noted above, a city or county may also adopt an ordinance that states the city or county is adopting no contribution limits for any offices to avoid the default state limit applying.

H. Does AB 571 apply to special district or school district elections? No. AB 571 applies only to city and county elections for offices that a city or county has not implemented its own contribution limit.

I. Can candidates that are subject to the AB 571 contribution limit open an officeholder committee?
No. Officeholder committees are not permitted for candidates subject to the AB 571 contribution limit. However, a candidate may use a committee for the officeholder’s future election for officeholder expenses. A candidate may also use existing funds in the election committee for current office for officeholder expenses.

Page 335 of 339 ends

www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC advice: [email protected] 1.866.275.3772
FPPC Ed. Pro. 086-07-2021 Page 5 of 7
J. Does the AB 571 contribution limit apply to debt retirement for the 2020 election?
No. For purposes of retiring debt, the contribution limit is the one that was applicable to that election. The Act did not impose a contribution limit on city and county candidates in 2020.

K. If a contribution was received for an election occurring after January 1, 2021, PRIOR to January 1, 2021, does this contribution count towards the new AB 571 contribution limit after January 1, 2021?
No. The Commission adopted a formal opinion on April 15, 2021 that states contributions made prior to the effective date of AB 571 are not aggregated with contributions made on or after the effective date of AB 571 for purposes of the new contribution limit. Therefore, if someone contributed up to or above the current limit to an AB 571 committee prior to January 1, 2021 the same person can give additional contributions to the same committee up to the AB 571 contribution limit on or after January 1, 2021.

L. If a contributor gave $10,000 in 2020 (prior to the AB 571 limit going into effect) to a committee for a 2022 primary election, what happens? The AB 571 contribution limit does not apply to contributions made prior to January 1, 2021 so a contribution of this amount is permissible.

M. Does the AB 571 contribution limit apply to political party committees and small contributor committees making contributions to candidates subject to the AB 571 limit?
Yes. Political parties and small contributor committees are only permitted to give contributions to candidates subject to the AB 571 in amounts up to the applicable AB 571 contribution limit for that candidate.

N. Does the AB 571 limit apply to county central committee candidates? No. AB 571 imposes a contribution limit on city and county elective offices when a local jurisdiction has not already done so. Local jurisdictions are prohibited from placing contribution limits on county central committee candidates; therefore, AB 571 is not applicable to those offices.

Page 336 of 339 ends

www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC advice: [email protected] 1.866.275.3772
FPPC Ed. Pro. 086-07-2021 Page 6 of 7
O. If an election was held in November 2020, but resulted in the need for a run-off election to be held in February 2021, how would the contributions be treated under AB 571?
The run-off election is considered a new election. If a contributor gave any amount to an AB 571 candidate for the November 2020 election, the same contributor would still be permitted to contribute up to $4,900 (the AB 571 limit) to the same candidate for the February 2021 run-off election.

P. An AB 571 candidate for city council would like to send out a request for contributions to their constituents. Do they need to include anything specific in the request?
Yes. A candidate that is subject to AB 571 must have the following information in the solicitation: the name of the controlled committee soliciting contributions, and the specific office for which those contributions will be used.

Q. If an AB 571 candidate is the subject of a recall, is their committee to oppose the recall subject to contribution limits?
No. There are no contribution limits for a committee controlled by a candidate that is the subject of a recall that is formed to oppose the recall.

R. An AB 571 candidate has debts for an election held after January 1, 2021, may the candidate terminate their committee?
No. If a candidate-controlled committee has outstanding debts for an election held after January 1, 2021, they may not terminate without resolving or paying off the debt.

When the committee has no net debts outstanding, the committee must be terminated within 24 months after the earliest of the date the candidate is defeated, leaves office, or the term of office for which the committee was formed ends, or, for withdrawn candidates no later than 24 months after the election from which the candidate withdrew. Please see Regulation 18404.1 for more on termination requirements for committees subject to AB 571.

S. If a local jurisdiction, which is subject to AB 571, passes a local campaign contribution ordinance, are the candidates still subject to AB 571? No. They would no longer be subject to AB 571.

Page 337 of 339 ends

www.fppc.ca.gov
FPPC advice: [email protected] 1.866.275.3772
FPPC Ed. Pro. 086-07-2021 Page 7 of 7
Index of Regulations and Government Codes:

FPPC Regulations:
18404.1
18421.4
18421.8
18521
18521.5
18523.1
18530.2
18530.8
18531.2
18531.5
18531.61
18531.63
18531.64
18535
18536
18537.1
18545
18951
Government Code(s):
85301
85303
85304.5
85305
85306
85307
85315
85316
85317
85318
85702.5

Page 338 of 339 ends

Town Council Agenda Report
Date: March 8, 2022
To: Honorable Mayor and Town Council
Subject: CLOSED SESSION

From: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Submitted by: Douglas Robertson, Town Manager
Town Manager
Budgeted Item: Yes No N/A
A. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: one or more potential cases.

B. Conference with Legal Counsel – Anticipated Litigation – Initiation of litigation pursuant to Paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9: one or more potential cases.

C. Conference with Real Property Negotiators – Pursuant to Government Code.

Section 54956.8. Property: Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company (now Liberty Utilities (Apple Valley Ranchos Water) Corp.); Authority Negotiator: Town Manager; Negotiating Parties: Liberty Utilities Co., Liberty WWH, Inc., Algonquin Power & Utilities Corp., Park Water Company, Western Water Holdings LLC, Tony Penna, General Manager, Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company; Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment.

D. Conference with Legal Counsel – Existing Litigation – Pursuant to Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9, Case No.:

CIVDS1600180 – Town of Apple Valley vs. Apple Valley Ranchos Water Company Et Al.

Page 339 of 339 ends

Apple Valley City CouncilMarch 8, 2022

Apple Valley City Council
March 8, 2022