appropriate methodology to compare the difference between the financial performance of a fully market-rate development project and one that provides the required number of below- market rate (BMR) units while also receiving any available density bonus and other allowed incentives; and
WHEREAS, the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis finds that a 20% inclusionary requirement for for-sale and rental residential projects, consisting of roughly equal proportions of very-low-, low- and moderate-income unit, is financially feasible if the City of Hollister provides additional incentives to the developer as defined in the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis; and
WHEREAS, based on policy direction for the 2040 General Plan Update from the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC), Planning Commission, City Council, and the results of the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis, Staff has prepared Draft Chapter
17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, which requires a 20 percent affordability component for all residential developments over 10 units and includes additional incentives, as recommended in the Inclusionary Housing Program Financial Feasibility Analysis, to ensure financial feasibility of the inclusionary requirement; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on March 23, 2023 to review the new Chapter 17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, during which all interested parties were heard; and
WHEREAS, the draft Chapter 17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, is included as Exhibit A to this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, the proposed Zoning Ordinance amendment is exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines because the proposed amendments will not result in any direct physical change to the City and any future development projects will be subject to the requirements of CEQA and therefore the proposed amendments are not a project under CEQA and are exempt from further review (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15378); and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission of the City of Hollister does hereby recommend that the City Council approve the amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to include Chapter 17.36, Inclusionary Housing Program, included as Exhibit A.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, at a regular meeting of the City of Hollister Planning Commission held on this 23rd day of March 2023, by the following vote:
AYES: Huboi, Corona, Belong, Lenoir
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
E.1.b
Packet Pg. 307
PC Resolution 2023-10
ZOA 2023-4/ Inclusionary Housing
ABSENT: Henderson
Chairperson of the Planning Commission
of the City of Hollister
ATTEST:
Christine Hopper, Secretary
E.1.b
Packet Pg. 308
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM
City of Hollister Planning Commission,March 23,2023
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 309
GREG GOODFELLOW
PLACEWORKS
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 310
HOLLISTER GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
FINANCIAL
ANALYSIS
PROGRAM
ADOPTION
INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
FEEDBACK
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND
POTENTIAL POLICY OPTIONS
BENEFITS AND CONSIDERATIONSCOMMISSION FEEDBACK
INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
INTRODUCTION & 2022 CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
FEEDBACK
FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS
PLANNING COMMISSION DIALOGUE AND DIRECTION FEEDBACKDRAFT ORDINANCE DRAFT ORDINANCE E.1.c
Packet Pg. 311
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUNDINCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
Set of policies that establish requirements for inclusion of affordable housing in new development projects Establishes percentage of new market-rate developments to be allocated to affordable units Tailored to local market conditions
Proposed by GPAC and moved forward by City Council through the GP policy-setting process E.1.c
Packet Pg. 312
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUNDINCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
Benefits of Inclusionary Housing
Increased housing equity
Increased options for lower-income households
More mixed neighborhoods
Affordable housing distributed throughout the city
Progress toward City’s efforts to fulfill State -mandated housing targets E.1.c
Packet Pg. 313
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUNDINCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
Topics Generally Covered
Development types (single and/or multi-family)
Project size
Tenure (for sale and/or rental)
Percentage of affordable units
Income ranges
Alternative compliance methods
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 314
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUNDINCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
Program Preparation Process
1.Financial Feasibility Analysis
Pro-forma modeling to determine how IH requirements would affect market-rate housing development costs & profits
2.Draft Inclusionary Housing Program
3.Planning Commission and Council Review
4.Final IHP and Adoption
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 315
INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUNDINCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
Assembly Bill 1505 and HCD Review
HCD may request review of Feasibility Analysis for “unduly constraining” housing if any of the following are true:
The IH program includes more than 15% affordable requirement for rental housing City failed to meet 75% RHNA over 5-year period
City failed to submit Housing Element for 2+ years
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 316
IH AND DENSITY BONUS INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
2020 CA Density Bonus Law (Gov. Code §65915 –65918)
Cities to provide up to 80% density increase based on % of affordable units. Inclusionary units qualify as affordable units for purposes of state bonus. “…nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a city…from granting a density bonus greater than what is described..” 2011 Hollister Density Bonus (HMC Chapter 17.04, Article II) Mostly consistent with State Base
20% bonus for 5% VLI
20% bonus for 10% LI
5% bonus for 10% M
Increases with additional units
Max bonus is 35%
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 317
2022 CITY COUNCIL DIRECTIONINCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
Council Direction to staff: January 18, 2022
Development Type: SF and MF
Project Size: No direction
Tenure: For-sale and rental
Geography: Citywide
Inclusionary Requirement: 20 percent affordability across tenure & type Alternative Compliance: None desired
Draft General Plan Action L3.1:
Adopt an inclusionary housing ordinance that requires new residential developments to include 20 percent of the units as affordable housing. Proposed HH affordability spread: 7% VLI, 7% LI, 6% Moderate E.1.c
Packet Pg. 318
ONGOING CITY COORDINATION INCLUSIONARY
HOUSING
November 1, 2021: City Council approves IH Ordinance preparation/approach January 18, 2022: City Council hears IH background presentation February –April 2022: Staff input, review and approval of development scenarios April -August 2022: Staff input, review and approval of pro formas December 2022: Staff review of feasibility analysis and ordinance February 2023:City attorney review of feasibility analysis and ordinance February 21, 2023: Affordable housing presentation to City Council March 23, 2023: Planning Commission presentation
Upcoming, 2023: City Council adoption hearing
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 319
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
Compares financial performance of market-rate project to same project that fulfills inclusionary requirements. Provides evidence that proposed IH Program:
1.Does not constrain production of housing.
2.Does not deprive developers of fair and reasonable returns on their investments.
3.Balances private interests with public benefits of affordable units.
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 320
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
Incudes financial pro formas of prototypical development projects under 3 scenarios:
1.Market Rate Scenario: Fully market-rate development project
2.Inclusionary Scenario: Project with 20% inclusionary requirement and maximum state density bonus
3.Local Bonus Scenario: Inclusionary scenario and additional local density bonus required for financial feasibility E.1.c
Packet Pg. 321
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
Metrics and Thresholds
For-Sale Projects:
Internal Rate of Return (IRR)
Measure of return based on annual net cash flow during planning, construction, and sale Most accurate and industry standard
Threshold: 15%
Rental Projects:
Cash-on-Cash Yield
Measures net revenue relative to developer’s investment for the first full year of occupancy Most accurate and industry standard
Threshold: 6%
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 322
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
Development Prototypes
For-Sale
1.220-unit SF detached subdivision; 4 DU/acre.
2.220-unit SF detached subdivision; 10 DU/acre.
3.4-story condominium with 12 units over parking; 40 DU/acre.
Rental
4.3-story apartment building with 30 units; 20 DU/acre.
5.4-story apartment building with 120 units; 30 DU/acre.
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 323
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
For-Sale Results: Low Density SF
Development Prototype 1: 220 Detached For-Sale Units, 4 DU/acre Fully Market-Rate Scenario Inclusionary Housing Scenario Local Bonus Scenario SF Market-Rate Units 220 174 174
SF BMR Units 0 46 46
State Density Bonus 0 25% = 55 MR 25% = 55 MR
Local Density Bonus 0 0 38.1% = 86 MR
Total Units 220 275 361
Feasibility (IRR)17.4%-18.6%15.2%
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 324
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
For-Sale Results: Mid Density SF
Development Prototype 2: 220 Detached For-Sale Units, 10 DU/acre Fully Market-Rate Scenario Inclusionary Housing Scenario Local Bonus Scenario SF Market-Rate Units 220 174 174
SF BMR Units 0 46 46
State Density Bonus 0 25% = 55 25% = 55 MR
Local Density Bonus 0 0 6.8% = 15 MR
Total Units 220 275 290, including 70 townhouse
Feasibility (IRR)47.3%6.3%15.3%
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 325
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
For-Sale Results: High Density Condo
Development Prototype 3: 12-Unit Condo, 48 DU/acre
Fully Market-Rate Scenario Inclusionary Housing Scenario Local Bonus Scenario SF Market-Rate Units 12 9 9
SF BMR Units 0 3 3
State Density Bonus 0 27.5% = 3 27.5% = 3 MR
Local Density Bonus 0 0 55.8% = 7 MR
Total Units 12 15 22
Feasibility (IRR)46.5%-19.4%17.3%
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 326
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
Rental Results: 30 Unit Building
30-unit, 3-story apartment building; 20 DU/acre
Fully Market-Rate Scenario Inclusionary Housing Scenario Local Bonus Scenario SF Market-Rate Units 30 22 22
SF BMR Units 0 8 8
State Density Bonus 0 25% = 8 MR 25% = 8 MR
Local Density Bonus 0 0 14.0% = 5 MR
Total Units 30 38 43
Feasibility (COC
Yield)
6.0%5.7%6.0%
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 327
FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
Rental Results: 120 Unit Building
120-unit, 4-story apartment building; 30 DU/acre
Fully Market-Rate Scenario Inclusionary Housing Scenario Local Bonus Scenario SF Market-Rate Units 120 94 94
SF BMR Units 0 26 26
State Density Bonus 0 25% = 30 MR 25% = 30 MR
Local Density Bonus 0 0 15.0% = 17 MR
Total Units 120 150 167
Feasibility (COC
Yield)
6.4%5.9%6.0%
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 328
DRAFT IH PROGRAM: HMC 17.17 ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
For-Sale Development, 10+ Units
At least 7% VLI
At least 7% VLI or LI
At least 6 % VLI, LI or M
Fractional Units:
=>0.5: Round up
0.5: Round up
<0.5: Round up or fractional fee
Full in-lieu fee
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 329
DRAFT IH PROGRAM: HMC 17.17 ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
§17.17.050.D
Inclusionary units may be used to quality for state density bonus program §17.17.070.A
Local Density Bonus Allowance
For-Sale: 56 percent
Rental: 15 percent
Density Bonus
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 330
DRAFT IH PROGRAM: HMC 17.17 ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
Rental development only
Cost-Based Fee:
To fund affordable units at the same rate as required under the inclusionary requirement. Set by council resolution
Adjusted annually
Included in master fee schedule
§17.17.060 In-Lieu Fees
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 331
DRAFT IH PROGRAM: HMC 17.17 ANALYSIS AND
DRAFT
Similar size, proportion, distribution, interiors and finishes as MR Units Same access to common and open spaces
§17.17.080 Inclusionary Units Standards
Buyer/renter eligibility screening
Ongoing affordability requirements
Documentation requirements
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 332
Planning Commission
Dialogue and Direction
FEEDBACK
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 333
INCLUSIONARY HOUSING PROGRAM
City of Hollister Planning Commission, March 23, 2023
E.1.c
Packet Pg. 334
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2023
SUBMITTED: April 5, 2023
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Fire
Bob Martin Del Campo, Fire
Chief
SPONSOR(S): Burns
TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-75, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DECLARING THE CONDITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO
CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF WEEDS
THEREON, AND CONDUCTING A HEARING FOR THE RECEIPT OF OBJECTION TO THE
PROPOSED ABATEMENT
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: This public hearing is to hear objections to the proposed abatement of weeds and other flammable materials existing on said properties; (Exhibit “A”) and written notice of the proposed abatement and hearing date was mailed to all affected property owners in the manner and form required by law.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution declaring the condition of certain properties to constitute a public nuisance, ordering the abatement of weeds ther eon, and noticing a public hearing for the receipt of objections to the proposed abatement.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: Annually, the City has a weed abatement program to reduce the fire hazard and other noxious and dangerous aspects of weeds growing on public and private property. The action proposed is adopt the Resolution declaring certain properties to constitute a public nuisance, ordering the abatement thereon, setting a public hearing and ordering notices to be sent to affected property owners. All costs associated with the program shall be assessed as liens filed on the property on which abatement is performed.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Estimated costs $10,000 - recovered from property owners.
CEQA: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Exhibit A - 2023 Weed Abatement List
2. Attachment A - Notice to Destroy Weeds
THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
David Mirrione, Interim City Manager
E.2
Packet Pg. 335
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DECLARING THE
CONDITION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND
ORDERING THE ABATEMENT OF WEEDS THEREON, AND CONDUCTING A HEARING
FOR THE RECEIPT OF OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED ABATEMENT
WHEREAS, at the City Council Meeting on March 20, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution 2023-36 declaring weeds to be a nuisance; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was scheduled for May 1, 2023, in the City Hall council chambers to hear objections to the proposed abatement of weeds and other flammable materials existing on said properties; and
WHEREAS, written notice of the abatement date of May 1, 2023, and public hearing date of May 1, 2023, was mailed to all affected property owners in the manner and form required by law; and
WHEREAS, on May 1, 2023 at the public hearing, the City Council received and considered all reports, recommendations, and testimony relating to the proposed abatement of identified properties.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED:
1. The Fire Chief, and/or his representative or agent, is hereby authorized to abate weeds and other flammable materials existing or maintained on those properties identified in the attached Exhibit “A”.
2. The Fire Chief, and/or his representative or agent, shall keep an itemized accounting of costs relating to each such abatement, including administrative costs, and after confirmation by the City Council, said costs shall constitute a lien against the subject property, and a personal obligation of the property owner.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 1st day of May, 2023, by the following vote:
Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law
Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney
E.2
Packet Pg. 336
I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-75, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of May, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of May, 2023.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister
E.2
Packet Pg. 337
2023
Weed Abatement
Official List
Exhibit "A"
1 Parcel No.Owner/Caretaker Mailing Address Mailing Address1 City State Zip Physical Location 019-130-026-000 COMMUNITY HOUSING IMPROVEMENT SYSTEMS & PLANNING 259 Main Street STE. 100 Salinas CA 93901 0 North Street, PTN PCL 2 019-310-002-000 ROSATI - HOLLISTER LP 23975 PARK SORRENTO STE 220 CALABASAS CA 91302 0 Santa Ana Road 020-460-037-000 COUNTY OF SAN BENITO 481 4TH STREET Hollister CA 95023 HILLCREST ROAD 051-020-017-000 PONTO GARY C-VICKI L FAM TR P.O. Box 3595 Los Altos CA 94024 0 San Felipe Rd 051-020-019-000 PONTO GARY C-VICKI L FAM TR P.O. Box 3596 Los Altos CA 94024 50 Santa Ana Road 051-090-019-000 UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE 850 Cherry Ave San Bruno CA 94066 100 Maple Street - Open Lot Behind Post Office 051-100-018-000 HARO MAUREEN & DAVID 871 Chappell Road Hollister CA 95023 871 Chappell Road 051-100-028-000 RODRIQUEZ RAMIRO JR-AZUCENA 740 Paullus Dr Hollister CA 95023 0 Chappell Rd 051-100-034-000 TONACIA 2005 REVOCABLE TRUST PO Box 1432 Hollister CA 95024 0 Chappell Rd. 051-100-035-000 TONACIA 2005 REVOCABLE TRUST PO Box 1432 Hollister CA 95024 0 Chappell Rd 051-100-036-000 TONACIA 2005 REVOCABLE TRUST PO Box 1432 Hollister CA 95024 0 Chappell Rd 051-100-042-000 COUNTY OF SAN BENITO 481 4TH STREET Hollister CA 95023 860 Chappell Road 051-100-043-000 DE LA PENA JIM-NANCY LIVING ET AL TRUST 1133 Boxelder Cr.Folsom CA 95630 0 Chappell Rd 051-100-046-000 FELIPE NINE LLC A CALIF LTD LIAB CO 10 Harris Court, B-1 Monterey CA 93940 0 San Felipe Rd 051-100-047-000 CENTRAL COAST LEASSING LLC PO BOX 1697 Capitola CA 95010 773 San Felipe Rd 051-110-033-000 TTM VENTURES LLC A CALIF LTD LIAB CO PO Box 308 S San Francisco CA 94083 0 San Felipe Rd 051-110-037-000 H & G3 PROPERTIES LLC A CA LTD LIAB CO 512 Metz Rd King City CA 93930 0 McCloskey Rd 051-120-018-000 HOLLISTER SELF STORAGE LLC 1205 FREEDOM BLVD. STE. 2 WATSONVILLE CA 95076 0 Fallon Rd 051-120-022-000 PRIDE CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS 9200 WATSON ROAD STE. 200 ST. LOUIS MO 63126 1700 Shelton Dr 051-120-028-000 SOLUTIONS NUTRIEN AG INC ADEL CORP 3005 ROCK MOUNTAIN AVENUE LOVELAND CO 800538 0 Shelton Dr 051-120-032-000 MENDES RICHARD JORGE-DIANE REBEIRO 2008 REV TRUST 1615 Alegria Place Hollister CA 95023 451 Fallon Dr E.2.a
Packet Pg. 338
2023
Weed Abatement
Official List
Exhibit "A"
2 051-120-033-000 MARTIN ROMALDO V-JANICE 1192 Fallon Road Hollister CA 95023 0 Fallon Rd 051-120-040-000 FERNMAR 042 LP A CALIF LTD PARTNERSHIP 1600 El Camino Real C/O RALPH-FERNE CALACTERRA.Belmont CA 94002 191 Fallon Rd. 051-120-043-000 DAVIS THOMAS E LLC 2290 Bert Drive Hollister CA 95023 0 Fallon Rd 051-120-044-000 BERNS BERTRAM M TRUST P.O. Box 8469 San Jose CA 95155 0 Fallon Rd 051-120-045-000 BERNS BERTRAM M TRUST P.O. Box 8469 San Jose CA 95155 0 Fallon Rd 051-120-047-000 MARICH CONFECTIONERY ASSOCIATES 2101 Bert Drive Hollister CA 95023 2101 Bert Dr 051-120-063-000 CALIF SOIL AMENDMENTS & SOLUTIONS 5400 Monterey Road Gilroy CA 95020 0 Fallon Rd 051-130-002-000 FILICE AG LANDS LLC 4400 Fairview Rd Hollister CA 95023 1531 & 1561 San Felipe Rd 051-130-003-000 SAN FELIPE STORAGE LLC A CA LTD LIAB CO 1571 SAN FELIPE ROAD Hollister CA 95023 1571 SAN FELIPE ROAD 051-140-012-000 GIMELLI KEN-JILL PO Box 1630 Hollister CA 95024 0 Technology Pr 051-140-015-000 HANAGAN MICHAEL W-BEVERLY J 2360 Technology Pkwy Hollister CA 95023 2360 Technology Pkwy- Open Lot 051-140-021-000 GIMELLI KEN-JILL PO Box 1630 Hollister CA 95024 Bert Drive PCL 3 051-151-001-000 NICHOLAS MARIA LETICIA & JOHN MARK 1456 WILDROSE COURT HOLLISTER CA 95023 0 Bert Dr 051-152-002-000 EVANS JAMES & YAP PEYLING 24 ROBERT PLACE MILBRAE CA 94030 2300 Bert Drive 051-152-008-000 KMG ELECTRONIC CHEMICALS INC A TX CORP 9555 W Sam Houston Pkwy S #600 Houston TX 77099 0 Bert Drive Lot 19 051-152-010-000 GIMELLI KEN-JILL PO Box 1630 Hollister CA 95024 0 Bert Drive PCL 2 051-161-010-000 CEZAR REV LIVING TRUST PO Box 1113 Tres Pinos CA 95075 0 Shelton Dr 051-161-011-000 CEZAR MICHAEL LORNE-JEANNIE ANN REV LIV TRUST PO Box 1113 Tres Pinos CA 95075 1520 Shelton Drive 051-161-015-000 WILTON JOHN-MARY BETH 1470 Vallejo Drive Hollister CA 95023 0 Lana Way 051-162-001-000 CALCATERRA FAMILY TRUST 1600 El Camino Real C/O FERNMAR MANAGEMENT Belmont CA 94002 0 Lana Lane 051-162-002-000 PACK DENNIS & HEIDI 2956 San Juan Canyon Road San Juan Bautista CA 95045 0 Lana Way 051-162-003-000 SUBURBAN PROPANE LP A DELAWARE LTD PART 240 Route 10 West Whippany NJ 07981 1801 Lana #100 & #200 E.2.a
Packet Pg. 339
2023
Weed Abatement
Official List
Exhibit "A"
3 051-162-004-000 BRYAN FAMILY TRUST 765 Seventh St.Hollister CA 95023 1701 Lana Lane 051-162-008-000 PRIDE CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS 9200 WATSON ROAD STE. 200 ST. LOUIS MO 63126 1590 SHELTON DRIVE 051-163-003-000 JAG REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC PO Box 2602 Monterey CA 93942 0 Henrietta Ct 051-163-004-000 MARTIN ROMALDO-JANICE 1192 Fallon Road Hollister CA 95023 0 Henrietta Ct 051-163-007-000 MARTIN ROMALDO-JANICE 1192 Fallon Road Hollister CA 95023 0 Shelton Dr 051-163-009-000 MARTIN ROMALDO-JANICE 1192 Fallon Road Hollister CA 95023 0 Hamilton Court 051-163-010-000 MARTIN ROMALDO-JANICE 1192 Fallon Road Hollister CA 95023 0 Hamilton Ct 051-163-011-000 MARTIN ROMALDO-JANICE 1192 Fallon Road Hollister CA 95023 0 Hamilton Ct 051-163-013-000 MARTIN ROMALDO-JANICE 1192 Fallon Road Hollister CA 95023 0 Shelton Dr 051-163-019-000 JAG REAL ESTATE HOLDINGS LLC A LTD LIAB CO PO Box 2602 Monterey CA 93942 0 Shelton Dr #B 051-170-004-000 CONRAD FAMILY TRUST (JAMES R-SALLY J)11 Ring Lane Carmel Valley CA 93924 0 Apollo Way 051-170-009-000 GIMELLI KEN-JILL P.O. Box 1630 Hollister CA 95024 0 Apollo Way 052-040-020-000 HESTER CHAD REV TRUST 16111 Escobar Ave Los Gatos CA 95032 0 Fourth St 052-070-007-000 WORLD CLASS PROPERTIES LLC 1522 CONSTITUTION BLVD # 309 SALINAS CA 93905 0 FOURTH STREET 052-070-012-000 DABO CATHERINE M R REV TRUST 893 RIDGEMARK DRIVE MITCH DABO Hollister CA 95023 0 Fourth Street 052-090-008-000 SANCHEZ FRANK LIVING TRUST 10377 Bret Ave.DAVID & AMBER SANCHEZ Cupertino CA 94014-3520 1550 San Juan Rd. 052-090-045-000 RAJKOVICHINVESTEMENT S COMPANY LP P.O. Box 189 Hollister CA 95024 Lot 28 Westside Village No. 1 052-090-046-000 RAJKOVICH INVESTEMENT S COMPANY LP P.O. Box 189 Hollister CA 95024 Westside Village Unit No. 1 052-180-005-000 HESTER CHAD REV TRUST 16111 Escobar Ave Los Gatos CA 95032 0 Fourth St 052-360-001-000 SAN JUAN CROSSINGS LLC 15700 WINCHESTER BLVD LOS GATOS CA 95030 0 Graf Road PCL 1 052-360-002-000 SAN JUAN CROSSINGS LLC 15700 WINCHESTER BLVD LOS GATOS CA 95030 Graf Road / Fourth Street PCL 2 052-360-003-000 SAN JUAN CROSSINGS LLC 15700 WINCHESTER BLVD LOS GATOS CA 95030 0 Fourth Street PCL 3 E.2.a
Packet Pg. 340
2023
Weed Abatement
Official List
Exhibit "A"
4 052-360-004-000 SAN JUAN CROSSINGS LLC 15700 WINCHESTER BLVD LOS GATOS CA 95030 0 Fourth Street PCL 5 052-360-005-000 SAN JUAN CROSSINGS LLC 15700 WINCHESTER BLVD LOS GATOS CA 95030 0 Fourth Street PCL 4 053-292-015-000 BERNIER DAVID A-NINA 111 Locust Avenue Hollister CA 95023 115 Locust (Rear) Ave 053-310-003-000 DUBOIS TOD PO Box 502 Chicago Park CA 95712 Park Hill PCL 2 053-330-003-000 BARMINSKI ROBERT & CAROLINE 605 North Street Hollister CA 95023 0 Park Hill 053-380-006-000 LOBUE TONY ET AL PO Box 283 Hollister CA 95023 0 Bolsa Rd 053-380-007-000 MORAR PRANAV KANJI 1639 Foxtail Court Hollister CA 95023 0 San Felipe Rd. 053-380-016-000 LOBUE TONY ET AL PO Box 283 Hollister CA 95023 0 Bolsa Road 053-410-002-000 DUNN MICHAEL E & ALOSI ALBERT 3111 Meadow Lane Hollister CA 95023 430 Gateway Drive 053-410-006-000 CHONG ANDY ET AL 1860 Dobbin Drive San Jose CA 95133 Gateway Dr. Lot 6 053-410-009-000 CHONG ANDY ET AL 1860 Dobbin Drive San Jose CA 95133 Gateway Dr. Lot 9 053-420-003-000 AIRPARK ASSOC LLC P.O. Box 721 Aptos CA 95001 Bolsa Rd. PCL B 053-420-006-000 2018 ENZ REV TRUST P.O. Box 1342 Tres Pinos CA 95075 1951 Airway Drive lot 30 053-420-007-000 2018 ENZ REV TRUST P.O. Box 1342 Tres Pinos CA 95075 1941 Airway Drive Lot 31 053-420-008-000 2018 ENZ REV TRUST P.O. Box 1342 Tres Pinos CA 95075 1931 Airway Drive Lot 32 053-420-009-000 2018 ENZ REV TRUST P.O. Box 1342 Tres Pinos CA 95075 Aerostar Drive, Airway Drive Lot 33 053-420-013-000 CLINK ROBERT E & LIGIA 515 Lonetree Road Hollister CA 95023 1810 Airway Dr Lot 5 053-420-014-000 AIRPARK ASSOC. LLC P.O. Box 2656 Hollister CA 95024 1791 Airway Dr Lot 4 053-420-015-000 AIRPARK ASSOC. LLC P.O. Box 2656 Hollister CA 95024 1751 Airway Dr Lot 3 053-420-016-000 AIRPARK ASSOC. LLC P.O. Box 2656 Hollister CA 95024 1710 Airway Dr Lot 2 053-420-017-000 AIRPARK ASSOC. LLC P.O. Box 2656 Hollister CA 95024 Airway Drive/Flynn Rd Lot 1 E.2.a
Packet Pg. 341
2023
Weed Abatement
Official List
Exhibit "A"
5 053-420-018-000 BRADFORD WAY LLC 14573 Big Basin Way Saratoga CA 95070 1700 Airway Drive/Flynn Rd Lot 13 053-420-023-000 ENZ 2018 REV TRUST P.O. Box 1342 Tres Pinos CA 95075 1890 Aerostar Drive/Airway DR Lot 9 053-420-025-000 HANSEN FAMILY TRUST P.O. Box 203 Watsonville CA 95077 Aerostar Dr Lot 16 053-420-026-000 HANSEN FAMILY TRUST P.O. Box 203 Watsonville CA 95077 Aerostar Dr/Flynn Rd Lot 15 053-420-027-000 PLANCK PROPERTIES LLC 556 DIAMOND BAR BLVD STE. 101 DIAMOND BAR CA 91765 1910 Aerostar Drive/Airway Dr Lot 18 053-420-029-000 STALEY FAMILY TRUST 73 La Cima Lane Watsonville CA 95076 1930 Airway Dr Lot 20 053-420-030-000 KNH LLC A CALIF LTD LIAB CO 630 Tevis Trail Hollister CA 95023 1940 Airway Dr Lot 21 053-420-032-000 2018 ENZ REV TRUST P.O. Box 1342 Tres Pinos CA 95075 1960 Airway Dr Lot 23 053-420-033-000 2018 ENZ REV TRUST P.O. Box 1342 Tres Pinos CA 95075 1970 Airway Dr Lot 24 053-420-034-000 AIRPARK ASSOC LLC P.O. Box 2656 Hollister CA 95024 0 Airway Dr Lot 25 053-420-035-000 ENZ 2018 REV TRUST P.O. Box 1342 Tres Pinos CA 95075 1950 Airway Dr PCL A 053-420-036-000 ENZ 2018 REV TRUST P.O. Box 1342 Tres Pinos CA 95075 Airway Dr PCL B 053-420-038-000 AEROSTAR PROPERTIES LLC P.O. Box 2656 Hollister CA 95024 1871 Airway Dr lot 7 053-420-039-000 BRADFORD WAY LLC 14573 Big Basin Way Saratoga CA 95070 0 Flynn Rd Lot 1 053-420-040-000 BRADFORD WAY LLC 14573 Big Basin Way Saratoga CA 95070 1750 Airway Drive, Lot 2 053-420-041-000 GILLIAN JANE ENZ 2017 REV TRUST P.O. Box 805 Hollister CA 95024 1800 Airway Drive, Lot 3 053-420-042-000 HANSEN FAMILY TRUST P.O. Box 203 Watsonville CA 95077 0 Aerostar Dr PCL 2 053-420-043-000 HANSEN FAMILY TRUST P.O. Box 203 Watsonville CA 95077 1850 Airway Drive PCL 1 054-120-007-000 ACE SOLUTIONS LLC 9707 BICKLEY DR HUNTINGTON BEAC CA 92646 435 SAN BENITO STREET 054-070-010-000 RIDGEFIELD STORAGE INC 1701 W. 16TH STREET Vancouver WA 98660 544, 640 McCray Street - Hollister CA 054-600-001-000 GUERRA ALBERT F ET AL P.O. Box 1117 Hollister CA 95024 410 Hillcrest Road 054-600-002-000 GUERRA ALBERT F ET AL P.O. Box 1117 Hollister CA 95024 0 Meridian Street E.2.a
Packet Pg. 342
2023
Weed Abatement
Official List
Exhibit "A"
6 054-600-005-000 FAHMY LIVING TRUST 331 Santa Rosa Drive Los Gatos CA 95032 0 Hillcrest Road 054-600-006-000 GUERRA ALBERT F ET AL P.O. Box 1117 Hollister CA 95024 0 Hillcrest Road 055-030-026-000 SOUTH STREET LLC A CALIF LTD LIAB CO PO Box 6150 San Jose CA 95150 0 South St 055-150-026-000 BERLANGA FRANCISCO & CHERUB 216 3RD STREET Hollister CA 95023 1150 Suiter - Open Lot 055-180-053-000 BISHOPE E & R FAMILY TRUST 845 Lanini Drive Hollister CA 95023 1120 Homestead - 2 Open Lots 055-190-035-000 GRIMSLEY DAVID P 1055 Nash Road Hollister CA 95023 1045 Nash Rd 055-190-039-000 GRIMSLEY DAVID 1055 Nash Road Hollister CA 95023 1025 Nash Rd 055-220-038-000 NATMAR LPA CA LTD PART 12860 Star Ridge Court NATMAR A CA LIMITED PART Saratoga CA 95070 0 Glenmore Dr 055-220-039-000 NATMAR LPA CA LTD PART 12860 Star Ridge Court Saratoga CA 95070 0 Homestead Ave 056-050-012-000 SOLVENCIA PROPERTIES 835 Prospect Ave Hollister CA 95023 835#A #D#H Prospect Ave. 056-102-011-000 RODRIGUES RONALD-DIANA 1998 TR ET AL 2255 UNION RD HOLLISTER CA 95023 0 HAWKINS (REAR) STREET 056-110-001-000 CRUZ JOSEPH V - JANE DABO LIV TRUST 1295 SAN BENITO ST HOLLISTER CA 95023 45 HAWKINS STREET 057-070-064-000 PAGANO SURVIVOR'S TR ETAL 711 Calais Hollister CA 95023 0 Sunnyslope Rd/Versailles Dr 057-250-008-000 VANDERVOOT 1998 LIVING TRUST 1571 Valley View Rd Hollister CA 95023 1573 thru 1575 A,B,C, Valley View Rd 057-440-001-000 VANDERVOOT LIVING TRUST 120 Magladry Road Hollister CA 95023 0 Valley View Rd 057-440-002-000 PARRA EDMUNDO G & KATHERINE J ET AL 1701 Valley View Road Hollister CA 95023 1701 Valley View Rd 057-770-040-000 ANNOTTI LANDING LLC 51 OLD RANCH ROAD HOLLISTER CA 95023 2001 Memorial Drive 059-020-005-000 QUAIL RUN HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION 755 Nash Road Hollister CA 95023 755 Nash Rd "Open Space" E.2.a
Packet Pg. 343
E.2.b
Packet Pg. 344
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2023
SUBMITTED: April 26, 2023
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Engineering
Glen March, City Engineer
TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-74, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DECLARING THE INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 93-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023/2024 AND GIVING NOTICE OF AND SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE
FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON THE LEVY OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Consideration of declaring the intention of the City Council to levy and collect the annual assessment for Landscape & Lighting District 93-1; setting the time and place of, and giving notice for a public hearing by the City Council on the levy of the proposed assessment pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution declaring the intention of the City Council to levy and collect assessments for Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1 for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 and giving notice of and setting the time and place for a public hearing by the City Council on the levy of the proposed assessment pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: On April 17, 2023, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2023-63, which initiated proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments within Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1 for Fiscal Year 2023/2024.
The City Council adopted (a) Resolution No. 2012-80 for Annexation No. 6, Walnut Park 13; (b) Resolution No. 2012-81 for Annexation No. 7, Hillview 1; and (c) Resolution No. 2012-176 for Annexation No. 8, Hillview 2, and subdivisions to the Landscape and Lighting District No. 93-1. Annexations 6, 7, & 8 are included in the boundary diagram, budget, and collection roll contain in the draft Engineer’s Report.
There is no proposed increase in the assessment this fiscal year, however, the Landscaping and Lighting District Act of 1972 require a public hearing even if there are no changes to the assessment. In addition, the Act requires a Resolution of Intention to be published in a local newspaper at least 10 days prior to the date of the hearing and declaring the City’s intent to levy and collect assessments.
Staff will schedule publishing the Resolution of Intention in a local newspaper for the public hearing on June 5, 2023.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Resolution of Intent for Fiscal Year 2023/2024 budget analysis estimates $223,669.25 in revenue. This budget reflects a zero carry over of unexpended funds from FY 2022/2023.
The assessments were established for the costs of operation, maintenance, and service of landscaping and lighting, street trees, park, parkways, detention pond, sound wall F.1
Packet Pg. 345
perimeter landscaping and appurtenant facilities in the District No. 93-1.
CEQA: Exempt
THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
David Mirrione, Interim City Manager
F.1
Packet Pg. 346
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-74
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER DECLARING THE
INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 93-1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2023/2024 AND GIVING NOTICE OF
AND SETTING THE TIME AND PLACE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL
ON THE LEVY OF THE PROPOSED ASSESSMENT PURSUANT TO THE LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ACT OF 1972
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Hollister adopted Resolution No. 2023-63 initiating proceedings for the levy and collection of annual assessments for Landscape and Lighting District 93-1 (“District”) pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code, commencing with Section 22500 (“Act”) for the Improvements, Operation, Maintenance, and Services for street trees, parkways, perimeter sound wall, landscaping, hardscape, lighting and all appurtenant facilities and operations related thereto; and
WHEREAS, by said resolution, the City Council ordered the City Engineer to prepare and file the Report with the City Clerk in accordance with the Act; and
WHEREAS, said Report has been filed with the City Clerk and has been presented to the City Council; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED THAT, the City Council of the City of Hollister, does hereby resolve as follows:
1. Intention - Improvements: Pursuant to the Act, the City Council hereby declares that it is its intention to order and levy and collection of annual assessments upon all affected land within the District to pay the costs of operation, maintenance, and service of the following: landscaping and lighting, street trees, park, parkways, detention pond, sound wall perimeter landscaping and appurtenant facilities.
2. Boundary and Description: Reference is made to the boundaries of District 93-1 on file with the City Clerk.
3. Report: Reference is made to the Report of the City Engineer, on file with the City Clerk, for a full and detailed description of the work, the boundaries of the District, and the proposed levy upon the affected lots and/or parcels of land within the District for the Fiscal Year 2023/2024.
4. Assessment: The proposed assessment for Zones A, B, & C do not represent an increase from Fiscal Year 2022/2023.
5. Hearing: The City Council will conduct a hearing on the levy of the proposed assessment on June 5, 2023, at 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, in the City Hall Council Chambers, 375 Fifth Street, Hollister, California.
6. Publication: Notice of the hearing shall be published in accordance with Streets and Highways Code section 22626(a).
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 1st day of May, 2023, by the following vote:
F.1
Packet Pg. 347
Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law
Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney
F.1
Packet Pg. 348
I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-74, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of May, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of May, 2023.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister
F.1
Packet Pg. 349
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2023
SUBMITTED: April 19, 2023
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
City Attorney
Mary Lerner, City Attorney
TITLE OF ITEM: ORDINANCE NO. 2034 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER ADDING CHAPTER 7 TO TITLE 3 OF THE HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE
CONTRACTING PROCEDURES UNDER THE UNIFORM PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION COST ACCOUNTING ACT.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: Introduction of an ordinance to codify the public project contracting procedures required under the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act.
RECOMMENDATION: Introduce an ordinance adding Chapter 7 to Title 3 of the Hollister Municipal Code to provide contracting procedures under the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: Pursuant to the Public Contract Code, public projects costing more than five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) must be awarded to the lowest responsible bidder following publication of two notices inviting bids. The Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act, adopted in 1983, and which can be found at Public Contract Code, § 22000 et seq. (the “Act”), established alternative informal procedures for bidding and contracting for public projects and increased the limits when formal bidding is required. The City may elect to become subject to the Act by passing a resolution so stating and adopting an ordinance providing for the Act’s informal bidding procedures.
Under the Act, public projects under sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) may be performed by the City’s own employees,’ negotiated contract, or purchase order. Public projects under two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) may be contracted by informal bidding procedures which require the City to maintain a list of qualified contractors by category of work and provide notice to contractors on that list (as well as specified trade journals) inviting bids at least ten (10) days before bids are due. Upon completion of the informal bidding process, the City would award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Alternatively, the City may reject all bids and use the City’s own employees if it can demonstrate that doing so will be more economical; however, the stringent accounting procedures under the Act may make this option less feasible.
For public projects over two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00), the City would be required, with minor exceptions, to undertake formal bidding procedures in accordance with the Act and other applicable provisions of the Public Contract Code. These would include notice inviting formal bids published in a newspaper of general circulation at least fourteen (14) days before the date of opening the bids and electronic notice inviting formal bids sent to specified trade journals at least fifteen (15) days before the opening of bids. At the conclusion of the formal bidding process, the City would award the contract to the lowest responsible bidder.
F.2
Packet Pg. 350
The City should adopt the Act because the informal bidding process allowed by the Act will be simpler, faster, and likely result in less cost to the City.
An additional benefit of the informal bidding procedures under the Act is that the dollar amount thresholds for informal and formal bidding are adjusted every five years by the State Controller’s Office. As a result, these bidding thresholds will likely increase over time.
It is important to note that the Act only applies to public projects, not the purchase of goods or services.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact
CEQA: N/A
THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
David Mirrione, Interim City Manager
F.2
Packet Pg. 351
ORDINANCE NO. 2034
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER ADDING CHAPTER 7 TO TITLE 3 OF THE
HOLLISTER MUNICIPAL CODE TO PROVIDE CONTRACTING PROCEDURES UNDER THE UNIFORM PUBLIC CONSTRUCTION COST ACCOUNTING ACT.
SECTION 1. Findings.
A. The City of Hollister is currently required to advertise, bid, and award “public projects” (as defined in Section 20161 of the California Public Contract Code) in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) in accordance with formal bidding procedures set forth in the Public Contract Code.
B. The City Council desires to enable the City of Hollister to use more efficient and less cumbersome bidding procedures for public projects as allowed by the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (“Act”).
C. The City Council has approved Resolution [NUMBER] in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22030, and thereby elected to become subject to the uniform construction cost accounting procedures set forth in the Act and promulgated by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission.
D. Upon electing to become subject to the Act, Public Contract Code Section 22034 requires the City Council to enact an informal bidding ordinance to govern the selection of contractors to perform public projects pursuant to subdivision (b) of Public Contract Code Section 22032 (currently set as those projects with expenditures between sixty thousand dollars and one cent ($60,000.01) and two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00), but which amount is subject to change every five years by the State Controller upon recommendation by the Commission.)
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Hollister does ordain as follows:
SECTION 2. Chapter 7 of Title 3 of the Hollister Municipal Code is hereby added in its entirety to read as follows:
3.07 – Public Works Projects (Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act) Sections:
3.07.000 Purpose and Authority
3.07.010 Definitions
3.07.020 Contracting Procedures
3.07.030 Contractor List
3.07.000 Purpose and Authority
The purpose of this chapter is to adopt and implement the provisions of the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act hereinafter referred to as the “Act” (Section 22000 et seq. of the Public Contract Code). The City Manager shall be authorized to implement administrative policies and procedures consistent with the Act and this chapter.
3.07.010 Definitions
F.2
Packet Pg. 352
For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows:
1. "Contractors list" shall mean a list of qualified contractors, identified according to categories of work. The minimum criteria for the development and maintenance of the list shall be determined by the California Construction Cost Accounting Commission.
2. "Facility" is as defined in Section 22002 of the Public Contract Code, and means any plant, building, structure, ground facility, real property, streets and highways, or other public work improvement.
3. "Maintenance work" includes all of the following:
a. Routine, recurring, and usual work for the preservation or protection of any publicly owned or publicly operated facility;
b. Minor repainting;
c. Resurfacing of streets and highways at less than one inch;
d. Landscape maintenance, including mowing, watering, trimming, pruning, planting, replacement of plants, and servicing of irrigation and sprinkler systems; and
e. Work performed to keep, operate, and maintain publicly owned water, power, or waste disposal systems.
2. "Public project" is as defined in Section 22002 of the Public Contract Code, and means any of the following, but does not include maintenance work:
a. Construction, reconstruction, erection, alteration, renovation, improvement, demolition, and repair work involving any publicly owned, leased, or operated facility;
F.2
Packet Pg. 353
b. Painting or repainting of any publicly owned, leased, or operated facility; and
c. In the case of a publicly owned utility system, “public project” shall include only the construction, erection, improvement, or repair of dams, reservoirs, powerplants, and electrical transmission lines of 230,000 volts and higher.
3.07.020 Contracting procedures.
The dollar amount thresholds provided in this chapter shall automatically adjust to the dollar amount thresholds provided under Public Contract Code Section 22032 upon the effectiveness of any adjustment notification by the State Controller in accordance with Public Contract Code Section 22020, without the necessity of amending this chapter or any section or subsection herein to reflect any such adjustment.
1. Public projects of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) or less may be performed by city employees by force account, by negotiated contract, or by purchase order. Notwithstanding any provision in the Hollister Municipal Code to the contrary, and provided the expenditure is within the budget limitation, the city manager is authorized to approve the use of city employees for public projects, and may approve and sign any contract or purchase order for public projects not exceeding sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00).
2. Except as provided in subsection (2)(c) of this section, public projects of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) or less may be let to contract by informal bidding procedures as follows:
a. Informal Bid Procedures: Public projects, in accordance with the limits listed in section 22032 of the Public Contract Code, may be let to contract by informal procedures as set forth in Section 22032 et seq. of the Public Contract Code.
b. Notice Inviting Informal Bids: A notice inviting informal bids shall be prepared, which notice shall describe the project in general terms, describe how to obtain more detailed information about the project, and state the time and place for the submission of bids. The notice shall be mailed, not less than ten (10) calendar days before bids are due, to either all contractors on the contractors list for the category of work to be bid, or to all construction trade journals as specified by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission in accordance with F.2
Packet Pg. 354
Section 22036 of the Public Contract Code. Additional contractors and/or construction trade journals may be notified at the discretion of the department soliciting bids, provided, however:
(1) If there is no contractors list maintained by the city for the particular category of work to be performed, the notice shall be sent only to the construction trade journals specified by the commission.
(2) If the product or service is proprietary in nature such that it can be obtained only from a certain contractor or contractors, the notice may be sent exclusively to such contractor or
contractors.
c. Award of Contracts: Contracts for public projects in excess of sixty thousand dollars ($60,000.00) shall be awarded by the city council. If all bids received are in excess of two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00), the city council may, by adoption of a resolution by four- fifths vote, award the contract, at two hundred twelve thousand five hundred dollars ($212,500.00) or less, to the lowest responsible bidder, if it determines the project cost estimate was reasonable.
3. Public projects of more than two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) shall, except as otherwise provided in this section, be let to contract by formal bidding procedure in accordance with applicable provisions of the Public Contract Code, including, but not limited to, Public Contract Code Section 22037.
3.07.030 Contractor List.
A list of qualified contractors shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the provisions of Section 22034 of the Public Contract Code and criteria promulgated from time to time by the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission.
INTRODUCED at a regular City Council meeting on the 1st day of May, 2023.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 1st day of May, 2023, by the following vote:
Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk
F.2
Packet Pg. 355
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law
Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney
F.2
Packet Pg. 356
I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Ordinance No. 2034 is an original Ordinance, or true and correct copy of a City Ordinance, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of May, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of May, 2023.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister
F.2
Packet Pg. 357
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2023
SUBMITTED: April 19, 2023
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
City Clerk
Jennifer Woodworth, City Clerk
TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-76, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF HOLLISTER TO ADOPT A POLICY REGARDING COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND INFORMATION
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: At the January 17, 2023 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to draft a policy outlining the process for the Councilmembers to add items to a future Council meeting agenda and to request information from staff. At the April 17, 2023 City Council meeting, the Council directed staff to return with a policy and provided direction to be included in the policy.
RECOMMENDATION: Discuss and adopt a resolution approving the City Council policy entitled: “Council Requests for Future Agenda Items and Information”.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: At the January 17, 2023 City Council meeting, the City Council directed staff to draft a policy outlining the process for the Councilmembers to add items to a future Council meeting agenda and to request information from staff. In response to this request, staff drafted the attached policy, which outlines a process as directed by City Council.
The Ralph M. Brown Act governs the noticing of and business conducted at meetings of the City Council and City of Hollister advisory bodies. Because the Brown Act requires legislative discussion and deliberation of items to be properly noticed in advance of the meeting, it largely prohibits the legislative body from acting on or discussing items not included in a posted meeting agenda (California Government Code Section 54954.2(a)(2)). As a result, for items not included in the posted agenda, members may only:
Briefly respond to public statements or questions,
Ask a question for clarification,
Make a brief announcement,
Make a brief report on his or her activities,
Provide a reference to staff or other sources for factual information, or Request staff to report back to the legislative body in a subsequent meeting. The legislative body may direct staff to place the matter on a future agenda.
The proposed policy outlines a process for Councilmembers to request items to be added to a future Council meeting agenda and for City staff to respond to Councilmember questions or requests for information. This process will help confirm items added to a future Council meeting agenda are within the purview of the City, support informed decisions by Councilmembers, ensure prudent use of taxpayer funds and other City resources, and support transparency and open government processes. The suggested timeline of bringing an item back to Council in no less than 30 days after receiving Council direction will also allow for staff to properly analyze an issue and any potential impacts to City resources.
Currently the City Council may add items to a future Council meeting agenda with consensus from a majority of the City Council. The proposed policy preserves that requirement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
F.3
Packet Pg. 358
CEQA: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Council Requests for Items and Information_20230419
THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
David Mirrione, Interim City Manager
F.3
Packet Pg. 359
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-76
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER TO ADOPT A
POLICY REGARDING COUNCIL REQUESTS FOR FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS AND
INFORMATION
WHEREAS, the City Council seeks to bring forward agenda items that are important and relevant to the City and its community; and
WHEREAS, in order to remain informed on City projects and business separate from agenda items requiring Council action, the City Council requests periodic updates on projects and staff analysis of topics of interest; and
WHEREAS, the Ralph M. Brown Act governs the actions allowed by a legislative body, including restricting discussion of items not included in a publicly noticed meeting; and
WHEREAS, majority support of the City Council is required to direct staff; and
WHEREAS, to make judicious use of limited City staff time and resources, a policy outlining the process for members of the City Council to request future agenda items and request informational updates was drafted; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, the City Council of the City of Hollister does hereby adopt a City Council policy entitled, “Council Requests for Future Agenda Items and Information”.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 1st day of May, 2023, by the following vote:
Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law
Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney
F.3
Packet Pg. 360
I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-76, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of May, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of May, 2023.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister
F.3
Packet Pg. 361
Attachment A
Purpose:
The purpose of this policy is to provide transparency into requests by individual City Councilmembers that result in the use of staff time. The policy applies to all members of City Council equally and allows the full City Council to determine how to use limited city resources.
For this procedure, a “City Councilmember request” is defined as a request to use city resources in a manner that exceeds the City Council approved budget, priorities, or work plan. This includes requests directed to the City Manager, City Attorney, and all City staff members. This procedure also applies to City Council appointed commissions and committees.
Items for a Future Council Meeting
Councilmembers wishing to place a matter on a future agenda, which require staff research, analysis, and/or commits City resources, shall first bring the matter to Council to determine if there is majority support to further discuss the item. The process for agendizing Council requests shall be as follows:
1. Any Councilmember requesting an item to be considered by the full City Council shall provide to staff a brief memo which includes additional information needed for staff to prepare a future agenda item on the topic (Attachment A). Additional information should include why the matter is recommended for Council consideration and what action, if any, the Council is being asked to take.
Councilmembers may also provide additional background information and include any attachments that they believe will be helpful to a presentation and with gaining support for their recommended action.
2. Submitted Councilmember memos will be considered under the “Council Initiated Items” section of each regular meeting agenda, with one memo allowed per member of Council per meeting. The Council will discuss and consider any memos for future action, and support from a majority of the Councilmembers present is required to support adding an item to a future Council meeting agenda.
Discussion on this request should be limited to whether the item should be heard at a future meeting.
3. Staff will endeavor to bring the items to Council for consideration as soon as possible but not less than 30 days to allow for adequate analysis of the topic and potential impacts to City resources.
As items are considered for inclusion on Council agendas, the City Manager and relevant staff may inform the Council of the potential impacts, if any, that the
CITY OF HOLLISTER POLICY NUMBER
Date
COUNCIL POLICY Authority: City Council
SUBJECT: Council Requests for Future Agenda Items and Information
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 362
Attachment A
Councilmember request will have on established priorities or staff workload and suggest reasonable timeframes for brining items forward.
Councilmember Inquiries and Requests for Information
A. General
Council communications with City staff should be limited to normal City business hours unless the circumstances warrant otherwise. Responses to Councilmember questions posed outside of normal business hours should be expected no earlier than the next business day. A request for information, records, written work or analysis by City staff with support work of up to one hour will be provided. Requests over one hour must be approved by the Council at a future Council meeting.
The City Manager can authorize a deviation from this policy if he/she determines that the request needs to be filled before the Council next meets.
Councilmembers and management will endeavor not to surprise each other with important information.
Any Councilmember will advise the City Manager when he/she feels staff is attempting to direct or set Council policy.
B. Routine Requests for Information and Inquiries.
According to Hollister Municipal Code (HMC) Section 2.08.060, “the city council and its members shall deal with the administrative services of the city only through the city manager, except for the purpose of inquiry, and neither the city council nor any member thereof shall give orders to any subordinates of the city manager. The city manager shall take his or her orders and instructions from the city council only when in a duly held meeting of the city council and no individual city councilmember shall give any orders or instructions to the city manager.”
As allowed by HMC Section 2.08.060, Councilmembers may contact staff directly for information made readily available to the general public on a regular basis by City staff (e.g., “What is a specific park’s hours of operation?” or “How does one request a public assembly permit?”). Under these circumstances staff shall treat the Council member no differently than they would the general public, and the Councilmember shall not use their elected status to secure preferential treatment. The City Manager generally does not need to be advised of such contacts.
C. Questions Regarding Council Reports.
Where possible, Councilmembers should forward any questions regarding staff reports to the City Manager and City Clerk at least 36 hours in advance of the Council meeting for which that item is agendized. Questions should be F.3.a
Packet Pg. 363
Attachment A
limited to those needed for the Councilmember to make a decision on the recommendation(s) in the staff report. All responses shall be provided to all Councilmembers, City Attorney, and members of the public. Questions received less than 36 hours prior to a Council meeting may be responded to at the Council meeting. During Council meetings, any questions from Councilmembers having to do with non-agenda items shall be directed to the City Manager for follow-up.
D. Meeting Requests.
Any Councilmember request for a meeting with staff must be directed to the Council’s appointees, the City Manager and City Attorney as appropriate.
When in doubt about the appropriateness of a communication with staff, Councilmembers shall ask the City Manager for advice.
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 364
Attachment A
CITY OF HOLLISTER
375 FIFTH ● HOLLISTER, CA 95023-3876
To: City of Hollister City Council
From: Sponsor Councilmember’s name and up to one additional sponsoring Councilmember
CC: David Mirrione, Interim City Manager
Date: Date of preferred Council meeting for discussion
Re: Title of Agenda Item to be Discussed
Topic to be discussed:
Recommended City Council action:
Background Information, such as reasoning for recommended Council action, how the topic fits within the City of Hollister’s and City Council’s purview, etc:
F.3.a
Packet Pg. 365
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2023
SUBMITTED: April 24, 2023
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
City Manager
David Mirrione, Acting City
Manager
TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2023-73, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO NOMINATE THE CITY’S 2022
CITY WIDE SLURRY SEAL PROJECT TO THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION FOR RECEIPT OF LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FORMULAIC (LPP-F) FUNDS TOTALING $600,000 AND APPROVE AN AGREEMENT EXCHANGING $600,000 OF THE CITY’S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT (STBG) FUNDS FOR $600,000
LPP-F FUNDS, AND SUB-ALLOCATE THE SBGT FUNDS TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS USING THE COG’S ADOPTED FORMULA.
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The Council of San Benito County Governments (COG) is eligible to receive funds through the Local Partnership Program - Formulaic (LPP-F) program as taxing authority for Measure G, which was approved by San Benito voters in 2018, with revenues dedicated solely to transportation. COG staff coordinated with the City of San Juan Bautista, City of Hollister, and County of San Benito to identify an eligible project to receive LPP-F funds.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Approve agreement with the Council of San Benito Governments to receive Local Partnership Program Formulaic (LPP-F) Funds totaling $600,000; and
2. Approve agreement with the Council of San Benito Governments to exchange Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Funds for LPP-F Funds, and sub- allocate STBG Funds to local jurisdictions; and
3. Authorize City Manager to execute the LPP-F and STBG agreements with the Council of San Benito Governments.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was signed into law in 2017. As a funding program under SB1, Local Partnership Program Formulaic (LPP-F) funds provide support to agencies with voter approved taxes, tolls, or traffic impact fees dedicated solely to transportation improvements. COG has a voter approved transportation tax measure (Measure G) and developer traffic impact fee program – making it eligible to receive LPP-F funds. Cycle 3 of the LPP-F Program includes three years of funding, totaling $600,000. COG can nominate a project(s) in cooperation with its member agencies.
At COG’s April 6, 2023 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, the committee passed a motion of support to nominate the City of Hollister’s 2022 City Wide Slurry Seal Project as the recipient of the LPP-F funds. The second motion was to recommend that the City of Hollis ter provide a one-time allocation of $600,000 of its STBG funds to COG in exchange for the $600,000 in LLP-F funds. As the Regional Transportation Planning Agency for San Benito County, COG distributes STBG to local agencies on an annual basis. The $600,000 of City of Hollister STBG funds will be sub-allocated, by COG, to the City of Hollister, City of San Juan Bautista, and County of San Benito using the following COG pre -adopted STBG distribution formula.
F.4
Packet Pg. 366
60 percent ($360,000) – City of Hollister
30 percent ($180,000) – County of San Benito
10 percent ($60,000) – City of San Juan Bautista
To formalize the exchange of funds, the City of Hollister City Council is being asked to consider the approval of two agreements with the COG. The first action would approve an agreement for the City of Hollister to nominate the City’s 2022 City Wide Slurry Seal Project to the California Transportation Commission for receipt of Local Partnership Program Formulaic (LPP-F) funds totaling $600,000 (Attachment 1). The second agreement would approve an exchange of $600,000 of the City’s Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds for $600,000 LPP-F funds, and sub-allocate the SBGT funds to the local jurisdictions using the COG above- mentioned adopted formula (Attachment 2). The actions requested of the City Council have been presented and approved by the COG at their April 20, 2023 meeting.
Upon approval of the agreements, COG would then submit a project nomination and allocation request to Caltrans for consideration by the California Transportation Commission (CTC) at their June 2023 meeting.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Grant award of $600,000
CEQA: N/A
ATTACHMENTS:
1. COG Agreement 1
2. COG Agreement 2
THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
David Mirrione, Interim City Manager
F.4
Packet Pg. 367
RESOLUTION NO. 2023-73
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROVING AN AGREEMENT TO NOMINATE THE CITY’S 2022 CITY WIDE SLURRY SEAL PROJECT TO
THE CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION FOR RECEIPT OF LOCAL PARTNERSHIP PROGRAM FORMULAIC (LPP-F) FUNDS TOTALING $600,000 AND APPROVE AN AGREEMENT EXCHANGING $600,000 OF THE CITY’S SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BLOCK GRANT (STBG) FUNDS FOR $600,000 LPP-F FUNDS, AND SUB-ALLOCATE THE SBGT FUNDS TO THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS USING THE COG’S ADOPTED FORMULA.
WHEREAS, Senate Bill 1 (SB 1), the Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, was signed into law in 2017; and
WHEREAS, as a funding program under SB1, Local Partnership Program Formulaic (LPP-F) funds provide support to agencies with voter approved taxes, tolls, or traffic impact fees dedicated solely to transportation improvements; and
WHEREAS, San Benito Council of Governments (COG) has a voter approved transportation tax measure (Measure G) and developer traffic impact fee program which makes it eligible to receive LPP-F funds and
WHEREAS, at COG’s April 6, 2023 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, the committee passed a motion of support to nominate the City of Hollister’s 2022 City Wide Slurry Seal Project as the recipient of the LPP-F funds; and
WHEREAS, at COG’s April 6, 2023 Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) meeting, they passed a motion to recommend that the City of Hollister provide a one-time allocation of $600,000 of its STBG funds to COG in exchange for the $600,000 in LLP-F funds; and
WHEREAS, at COG’s April 20, 2023 meeting, the COG affirmed the recommendations of the TAC via a 5-0 vote.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Hollister approves an agreement for the City of Hollister to nominate the City’s 2022 City Wide Slurry Seal Project to the California Transportation Commission for receipt of Local Partnership Program Formulaic (LPP-F) funds totaling $600,000.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Hollister approves an exchange of $600,000 of the City’s Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) funds for $600,000 LPP-F funds, and sub-allocate the SBGT funds to the local jurisdictions using the COG’s adopted formula.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 1st day of May, 2023, by the following vote:
Mia Casey, Mayor
ATTEST:
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC, City Clerk
F.4
Packet Pg. 368
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Lozano Smith Attorneys at Law
Mary F. Lerner, City Attorney
F.4
Packet Pg. 369
I, JENNIFER WOODWORTH, MMC, City Clerk of the City of Hollister, do hereby certify that the attached Resolution No. 2023-73, is an original Resolution, or true and correct copy of a City Resolution, duly adopted by the Council of the City of Hollister at a regular meeting of said Council held on the 1st day of May, 2023, at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of the City of Hollister this City Council day of May, 2023.
Jennifer Woodworth, MMC
City Clerk of the City of Hollister
F.4
Packet Pg. 370
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 371
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 372
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 373
F.4.a
Packet Pg. 374
F.4.b
Packet Pg. 375
F.4.b
Packet Pg. 376
F.4.b
Packet Pg. 377
F.4.b
Packet Pg. 378
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2023
SUBMITTED: April 24, 2023
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Engineering
Glen March, City Engineer
TITLE OF ITEM: PRESENTATION REGARDING IMPACT FEES FOR THE TWIN OAKS
SUBDIVISION
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: A presentation regarding Impact Fees for the Twin Oaks Subdivision will be provided as requested by the City of Hollister City Council.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the presentation and possibly discuss and provide direction regarding Impact Fees for the Twin Oaks Subdivision.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Request for Fee Reduction Letter
2. Presentation
3. Final Impact Fee Reduction Report
4. Exhibit 1
5. Exhibit 2
6. Exhibit 3
7. Exhibit 4
8. Exhibit 5 Resolution 2019-113
9. Exhibit 6 Hollister 2022 Impact Fee Schedule
10. Exhibit 7 2019 Nexus Study
THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE INTERIM CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
David Mirrione, Interim City Manager
G.1
Packet Pg. 379
Twin Oaks is asking the City Council to consider a fee reduction for 4 Impact Fees:
•Park
•Storm Drain
•Library
•Sewer Reimbursement
Our justification is based on the following:
1.State Law and Proposition 218 clearly state that Cities are not permitted to recover more than their costs of service. Proposition 218 further states that property related fees cannot be used to pay for non property-related expenses.
2.There is no mention of the 4 fees under consideration in the Twin Oaks Performance Agreement. Fees the 2008 Council did reduce are specifically addressed in the Performance Agreement. However, the Fees under consideration now are not addressed at all in the Performance Agreement. The impact fees under consideration now were either not in existence at the time of the performance agreement or they were fees that the 2008 Council was not using the household density methodology to calculate. Now that those fees are in existence and being calculated using a household density methodology, we should have the benefit of the occupancy density assigned in the performance agreement. Otherwise, the purpose of using household density methodology to obtain a reasonable nexus would fail.
Consequently, the Performance Agreement does not apply to the 4 Impact Fees under consideration. In fact, 2 of the Fees, Library and Sewer Reimbursement, were not even in existence when the Performance Agreement was consummated. If the Fees are not covered by the Performance Agreement, then they must be determined by the currently adopted Council rules and methodology. The current process was approved by the Council in Resolution 2019-113 for several Fees including Park, Library, Storm Drain; and is based on the methodology presented in the 2019 Development Impact Fee Study written by Willdan Financial Services. That Study states the following:
“Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.”
“Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot) are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most Impact Fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.” See Exhibit 1.
The Study provides for 3 separate residential land use types and occupancy densities:
Single Family 3.53 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Multifamily (2+Bedrooms) 3.13 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less) 1.51 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 380
Per the attachment, Twin Oaks Occupancy Density based on the first 84 homes sold is
1.63. The land use type that most closely represents the probable occupancy density of the development is Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less) at 1.51 Residents per Dwelling Unit.
Dividing 1.51/3.53 = 42.78% of the Single Family Fee. We are currently being charged the full Single Family Fee when, per the argument presented here, the fair and proper Fee should be 42.78% of the Single Family Fee.
With respect to the Park Fee, we would make the further argument that because Twin Oaks spent $4,000,000 on the construction of a Community Center with park like amenities and much more, the likely actual usage of the City’s Parks by Twin Oaks residents will be even less than 42.78%. However, since this is a subjective determination, we ask the City to decide if a further fee reduction is justified and if so how much that reduction would be.
In summary, because the 4 Impact Fees under consideration are not discussed in the Performance Agreement, they must be determined by the Council’s currently adopted methodology for determining Impact Fees. Resolution 2019-113 is the most current update for Park, Library, and Storm Drain. Sewer Impact Fees are included in the Performance Agreement. Therefore, Sewer Reimbursement, the fourth Impact Fee under consideration, should also be based on Household Density. A letter from the Law Firm of Gagen McCoy included as an exhibit argues that because all our approvals pre-date the City’s Sewer Reimbursement Agreement, the Sewer Reimbursement Impact Fee does not even apply to Twin Oaks. See Exhibit 2.
As of January 19, 2021, Twin Oaks had sold a total of 10 homes. At the January 19, 2021 Council hearing, Staff argued that just because the household density of those 10 homes was only 1.53 did not mean that future sales cannot bring the household density up to
3.53. On the basis of Staff’s argument, Council denied our request.
At the 2008 hearing in which the Performance Agreement was approved, 2000 Census data was presented in support of our position that household density for senior households is on average 1.67 occupants per dwelling unit. The 2008 Council agreed and memorialized it in the Performance Agreement.
The Twin Oaks Occupancy data in Exhibit 3, supports an actual household density of 1.63 with 84 units sold, half the total units in the project. For twin Oaks average occupancy density to rise to 3.53 by the end of the project would require each of the remaining 84 two bedroom homes at Twin Oaks to have 7 occupants per dwelling unit.
If the City agrees with our analysis that Twin oaks has been overcharged, we ask that a fee adjustment take place immediately for all future home closings. Additionally, we ask that the City reimburse Twin Oaks for the overcharges to date.
However, recognizing that a full and immediate reimbursement might be financially challenging to the City, as an alternative, we would accept a credit from the City for the total overcharges to be used toward the payment of all future Impact Fees and Building Permit Fees.
G.1.a
Packet Pg. 381
HOLLISTER, CA
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 382
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 383
Calculation for Average Number of People Per Senior Household For the Airline Highway Senior Housing Project
This calculation of the average number of people per household in the proposed senior housing project on Airline Highway is based on the Population Distribution by Age Group Table from the 2000 Census, and the 2005 American Housing Survey done by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The American Housing Survey provides tabulated numbers for seniors that are 65 and older. However the numbers for the 55 – 64 age group are aggregated with all the other age groups. Therefore the calculation in this report is a best efforts estimate based on the following assumption:
1.The senior housing market in Hollister is similar to the housing market in the US at large with respect to the number of people per household.
2.Senior households in the 55-64 age group consist almost entirely of couples.
Table 7-9 on page 440 of the American Housing Survey shows the household composition of units occupied by one or more elderly householders. Elderly is defined as over age 65. Lines 17 – 19 show the tabulations for households consisting solely of elderly occupants. From the “owner” column of this table:
One person households = 10540
Two person households = 7278
Total households = 17818
1 occupant = 10540
2 occupants = 14556
Total = 25096
25096/ 17818 = 1.41 people per household for elderly households To estimate the household number for the 55 – 64 age group, I assumed that 95% of the households in this group would consist of couples and 5% would be single individual households. The result of this assumption is:
1.95 people per household for homeowners in the 55 – 64 age group.
The next step is to apply these national statistics to the Hollister market. The population distribution in San Benito County by age group taken from the 2000 Census is:
3680 people age 55 –64
4315 people age 65 and older
7995 Total
From this information a calculated estimate of the number of occupants per senior household is obtained:
3680 x 1.95 = 6992
4315 x 1.41 = 6084
Total = 13076
13076/ 7995 = 1.66 occupants per senior household in the proposed Airline Highway senior housing project.
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 384
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
12 Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units , nonresidential building square feet or lodging units. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for Hollister from the 2016 U.S. CeQVXV¶ APeULcaQ CRPPXQLW\ Survey. The one bedroom or less multifamily assumption is based on data from the Institute of TUaffLc EQgLQeeU¶V TULS GeQeUaWLRQ MaQXaO aQd LV cRQVLVWeQW ZLWK aVVXPSWLRQV LQ WKe CLW\¶V TUaffLc Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) program.
The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by The Natelson Company. Though not specific to San Benito County, the Natelson study covered employment density over a wide array of land use and development types, making it reasonable to apply these factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for developing suburban areas, as defined by the Natelson study.
Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family 3.53 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms)3.13 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less) 1.51 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.39 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition; The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, October 31, 2001, SCAG region data; Willdan Financial Services.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 385
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 386
4.A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the Development Impact Fees and the cost of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the Fees are imposed as indicated by the Nexus Study. The method of allocation of the respective Fees to a particular development project bears a fair UeOaWLRQVKLS, aQd LV URXJKO\ SURSRUWLRQaO WR, WKe deYeORSPeQW SURMecW¶V bXUdeQ RQ, and benefits from, public facilities to be funded by the Development Impact Fees.
5.The Development Impact Fees collected shall be placed in an individual interest bearing account, or multiple accounts, established for the purpose of tracking the fee revenue and expenses separately.
6.Use of Fees. The Development Impact Fees shall be solely used for (i) the purposes described in the Nexus Study; (ii) reimbursing the City for a deYeORSPeQW SURMecW¶V IaLU VKaUe RI WKRVe SXbOLc IacLOLWLeV LdeQWLILed LQ WKe Ne[XV Study and constructed by the City; or (iii) reimbursing development for construction of public facilities identified in the Nexus Study.
7.Adoption of Study. The City Council hereby adopts the City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Update Study Final May 1, 2019 prepared by Willdan Financial Services and sections Chapters 4 and 9 of the San Benito County Development Impact Fee Study Final October 3, 2017 prepared by Willdan Financial Services.
8.Schedule of Maximum Supportable Impact Fees. The City Council hereby approves and adopted the update for certain public facilities as set forth in the following Tables. The amount of the Fees shall be modified annually each July 1 based on the cKaQJe LQ WKe EQJLQeeULQJ NeZV RecRUd¶V cRQVWUXcWLRQ cRVW LQde[ as reported for the twelve month period ending in April of each year.
Residential Fee Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Multifamily
(2+ Bedrooms)
Multifamily
(=/> 1 Bedroom)
City Yard/City Hall $ 525 $ 466 $ 224
Detention (Jail/Juvenile Hall)$2,614 $2,395 $2,395
Library $1,290 $1,182 $1,182
Park Construction $13,510 $11,979 $5,779
Storm Drainage $1,897 $1,765 $ 607
Water *$4,756 $4,233 $2,045
Non-Residential Fee Per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial Office Industrial
City Yard/City Hall $ 356 $ 465 $ 172
Detention (Jail/Juvenile Hall)$ 0.50 $ 0.38 $ 0.23
Storm Drainage $ 285 $ 285 $ 589
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 387
LIFESTYLE PROGRAMMING
LIFESTYLE PROGRAMMING
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 388
RESORT
CLUBHOUSE
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 389
AERIAL VIEW
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 390
LOBBY & COVERED LOGGIA G.1.b
Packet Pg. 391
KITCHEN - LOUNGE - GAMING AREAG.1.b
Packet Pg. 392
FITNESS G.1.b
Packet Pg. 393
MOVEMENT ROOM & ART STUDIO G.1.b
Packet Pg. 394
KITCHEN G.1.b
Packet Pg. 395
LIVE MUSIC & DANCING G.1.b
Packet Pg. 396
POOL PARTY G.1.b
Packet Pg. 397
AQUA AEROBICS G.1.b
Packet Pg. 398
BOCCE BALL G.1.b
Packet Pg. 399
STARGAZING G.1.b
Packet Pg. 400
ZUMBA G.1.b
Packet Pg. 401
BBQ G.1.b
Packet Pg. 402
BBQ G.1.b
Packet Pg. 403
PICKLEBALL G.1.b
Packet Pg. 404
HOLLISTER, CA
G.1.b
Packet Pg. 405
Twin Oaks Justification for Impact Fee Reduction
May 1, 2023
Summary
Twin Oaks is asking the City Council to direct staff to make an administrative adjustment to place the Twin Oaks project in the density category of 1.51 residents per unit for following 5 Impact Fees:
* Park
* Storm Drain
*Library
*Jail/Juvenile Hall
* Sewer Reimbursement
Our Performance Agreement was written in 2008 (Exhibit 1). At that time, I used nationwide data from the 2005 American Housing Survey to demonstrate that the average occupant density of a senior household was 1.66 (Exhibit 2); and that because there are fewer people in a home occupied by people 55 and older, the impact on City services would be proportionally less. The 2008 Council agreed and lowered some but not all of our Impact Fees accordingly.
The 2019 and 2017 Impact Fee Update Studies, commissioned by the Council, present a methodology based on land use types and occupant density calculations to form the basis of a Nexus between development services provided and impact fees charged (Exhibit 3).
With 86 homes either sold or in escrow, our current occupant density is 1.64, amazingly close to the nationwide density calculated in 2008. (Exhibit 4). The Council adopted the findings of the WillDan Study in 2019 with the approval of Resolution 2019-113.(Exhibit 5).
In January 2021, by assuming that Twin Oaks is equivalent to a traditional single family development, staff misapplied the findings of the Study. Besides the national statistics and Twin Oaks actual current occupant density, the difference in occupant densities should be intuitive. Couples of child rearing age choose single family homes in suburban neighborhoods because it has long been the preferred environment for raising children.
The average number of children per household in the US is 2. Consequently, the average occupant density of a traditional single family home should be between 3 and 4, and in fact it is. Twin Oaks is a 55+ community. No children are permitted to live there. Consequently, the average occupant density should be between 1 and 2, and in fact it is.
The 5 impact fees under consideration now (Park, Storm Drain, Library, Jail/Juvenile Hall, and Sewer Reimbursement) were either not in existence at the time of the Performance Agreement or they were fees that the 2008 Council was not using the household density methodology to calculate. Now that those fees are in existence and being calculated using a household density methodology defined by the WillDan Financial Services Nexus Study and adopted in Council Resolution 2019-113, the occupant density assigned to G.1.c
Packet Pg. 406
these 5 Impact Fees is most appropriately 1.51 residents per dwelling unit. Otherwise, the purpose of using household density methodology to obtain a reasonable nexus would fail.
Twin Oaks is a unique land use project based on the special needs of seniors with different characteristics than a traditional single family development. That fact is indisputable. We are requesting a simple administrative adjustment in order to conform to the standards set forth in the Study and for the City Council to direct staff to make an administrative adjustment to place the Twin Oaks project in the density category of 1.51 residents per unit for 5 Impact Fees: Park, Storm Drain, Library, Jail/ Juvenile Hall, and Sewer Reimbursement.
Supporting Documentation
We applied for tentative map approval in 2008 for our 168 unit 55+ active adult community and entered into a Performance Agreement with the City.
Because our project is a deed restricted special needs project, for residents 55+, Impact Fees in the Performance Agreement are set consistent with the level of service expected for a community of this type. We had a traffic study completed that showed traffic impacts for our project are expected to be 39% of that for an average Hollister single family, detached home. Using data from the 2005 American Housing Survey compiled by the Census Bureau (Exhibit 2), we demonstrated that occupant density was likely to be about
1.66 people per senior household versus 3.53 people for the average single family detached home in Hollister (Exhibit 3). With 86 homes sold, Twin Oaks Occupant Density is currently 1.64 occupants per dwelling unit which validates the accuracy of the National Statistics we used in 2008 (Exhibit 4). The 5 fees under discussion ( Park, Storm Drain, Library, Jail/Juvenile Hall, and Sewer Reimbursement) were not included in the Performance Agreement and are to be set under the applicable standards in the regulatory fee structure.
In 2017, and again in 2019 the City commissioned an Impact Fee Update Study which confirmed that occupancy density was the most appropriate measure on which to base impact fees (Exhibit 5). The complete 2019 Study is presented in Exhibit 7. Hollister’s 2022 impact fee schedule (Exhibit 6) is indeed based on occupancy density for Park Fees, Storm Drain Fees Jail/Juvenile Hall, and Library Fees. Both Library and Sewer Reimbursement Fees were added after 2008.
Twin Oaks is a senior special needs project as defined by state law. What follows is a brief overview of our thoughts on the appropriate impact fees for the project based on the 2019 Development Impact Fee Update Study.
Resolution 2019-113 unanimously approved the most current update to the Public Facility Impact Fees for Jail & Juvenile Hall, Library, Park Construction, Storm Drainage, Water Facilities and City Hall/City Yard (Exhibit 5). The approval is based on the methodology presented in the 2019 Development Impact Fee Update Study and the 2017 G.1.c
Packet Pg. 407
Development Impact Fee Update Study written by Willdan Financial Services. While Sewer Reimbursement is not mentioned in Resolution 2019-113 or the Willdan Study, the Twin Oaks Performance Agreement already stipulates that sewer impact fees will be charged based on household density.
The methodology in these two reports was designed to establish a Nexus between the fee amounts and the services provided. Per Paragraphs 1 & 2, Page 12 of the 2019 Update Study, all fees are calculated based on dwelling units and occupancy density assumptions to ensure “a reasonable relationship between the size of the development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.”
The report methodology begins with a cost per person and multiplies that cost by the estimated density of the dwelling unit for each separate land use type. The report provides the calculations for 3 separate residential land use types and occupant densities:
1. Single Family 3.53 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
2. Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms) 3.13 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
3. Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less) 1.51 Residents Per Dwelling Unit The report further indicates that for developments that do not neatly fit one of these 3 land use types, “the fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupancy density of the development.” (Exhibit 5) Twin Oaks occupancy density is 1.67 as defined in the February 2008 Performance Agreement between the City and the development project. In calculating impact fees for Twin Oaks in 2020, staff charged Twin Oaks the Single Family fee rate which is based on an occupancy density of 3.53. However, the land use type that most closely represents the occupancy of the project is Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less) with an occupancy density of 1.51 per Table 2.2 (Exhibit 3).
Consequently, for the specific facility services addressed in the Performance Agreement, the occupant density for Twin Oaks will remain at 1.67. For those services not specifically addressed in the Performance Agreement (Park Storm Drain, Library, Jail/Juvenile Hall, and Sewer Reimbursement), we request that the occupant density be adjusted to 1.51 per the Willdan Study recommendation.
G.1.c
Packet Pg. 408
G.1.d
Packet Pg. 409
Calculation for Average Number of People Per Senior Household For the Airline Highway Senior Housing Project
This calculation of the average number of people per household in the proposed senior housing project on Airline Highway is based on the Population Distribution by Age Group Table from the 2000 Census, and the 2005 American Housing Survey done by the U.S. Census Bureau.
The American Housing Survey provides tabulated numbers for seniors that are 65 and older. However the numbers for the 55 – 64 age group are aggregated with all the other age groups. Therefore the calculation in this report is a best efforts estimate based on the following assumption:
1.The senior housing market in Hollister is similar to the housing market in the US at large with respect to the number of people per household.
2.Senior households in the 55-64 age group consist almost entirely of couples.
Table 7-9 on page 440 of the American Housing Survey shows the household composition of units occupied by one or more elderly householders. Elderly is defined as over age 65. Lines 17 – 19 show the tabulations for households consisting solely of elderly occupants. From the “owner” column of this table:
One person households = 10540
Two person households = 7278
Total households = 17818
1 occupant = 10540
2 occupants = 14556
Total = 25096
25096/ 17818 = 1.41 people per household for elderly households To estimate the household number for the 55 – 64 age group, I assumed that 95% of the households in this group would consist of couples and 5% would be single individual households. The result of this assumption is:
1.95 people per household for homeowners in the 55 – 64 age group.
The next step is to apply these national statistics to the Hollister market. The population distribution in San Benito County by age group taken from the 2000 Census is:
3680 people age 55 –64
4315 people age 65 and older
7995 Total
From this information a calculated estimate of the number of occupants per senior household is obtained:
3680 x 1.95 = 6992
4315 x 1.41 = 6084
Total = 13076
13076/ 7995 = 1.66 occupants per senior household in the proposed Airline Highway senior housing project.
G.1.e
Packet Pg. 410
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
12 Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units , nonresidential building square feet or lodging units. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for Hollister from the 2016 U.S. CeQVXV¶ APeULcaQ CRPPXQLW\ Survey. The one bedroom or less multifamily assumption is based on data from the Institute of TUaffLc EQgLQeeU¶V TULS GeQeUaWLRQ MaQXaO aQd LV cRQVLVWeQW ZLWK aVVXPSWLRQV LQ WKe CLW\¶V TUaffLc Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) program.
The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by The Natelson Company. Though not specific to San Benito County, the Natelson study covered employment density over a wide array of land us e and development types, making it reasonable to apply these factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for developing suburban areas, as defined by the Natelson study.
Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family 3.53 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms)3.13 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less) 1.51 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.39 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition; The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, October 31, 2001, SCAG region data; Willdan Financial Services.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.f
Packet Pg. 411
G.1.g
Packet Pg. 412
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: MAY 20, 2019
SUBMITTED: May 9, 2019 AGENDA ITEM: Public Hearings
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Development Services
Bryan Swanson, Development
Services Director
CONTACT: Mary Paxton, Program Manager
831-636-4360
SPONSOR(S): Velazquez
TITLE OF ITEM: RESOLUTION NO. 2019-113, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER APPROVING AN UPDATE TO THE
PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACT FEES FOR DETENTION (JAIL/JUVENILE HALL),
LIBRARY, PARK CONSTRUCTION, STORM DRAINAGE AND WATER FACILITIES
AND NEW FEES FOR CITY HALL/CITY YARD,
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: The City Council will hold a Public Hearing to consider adoption of a resolution approving an update to the Public Facilities Impact Fees for Detention (Jail/Juvenile Hall), Library, Park Construction, Storm Drainage and Water and a new fee for City Hall/City Yard.
RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council do the following: 1) Open the public hearing; 2) Close the public hearing and co nsider public comments; 3) Adopt the Resolution approving an Update to the Public Facility Impact Fees for Detention (Jail/Juvenile Hall), Library, Park Construction, Storm Drainage and Water Facilities and New Fees for City Hall/City Yard.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: The City Council received reports on a Draft Public Facility Impact Fee Study at Special meetings on February 25, 2019 and March 25, 2019. Staff was directed to return with a resolution adopting the draft impact fees after the Park Facility Master Plan is adopted. A public hearing for the approval of the Park Facility Master Plan precedes this agenda item. If the Park Facility Master Plan is approved, staff recommends that the City Council approve the attached resolution approving an update to public facility impact fees for detention facilities, library, park construction, storm drainage and water and new fees for city hall/city yard.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: The impact fees will help recover the costs for purchase of equipment and pay for the capacity of facilities to accommodate new development.
CEQA: Statutorily Exempt §15273
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Hollister - Development Impact Fee Update - Final - 5-1-19 City Hall City Yard, Parks, Storm Drainage and Water
2. ATTACHMENT B Selected Sections San Benito County Development Impact Fee Study 10 3 2017
THIS REPORT WAS REVIEWED BY THE CITY MANAGER WHO CONCURS WITH
THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION
G.1.h
Packet Pg. 413
William B. Avera, City Manager
G.1.h
Packet Pg. 414
RESOLUTION No. 2019-113
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HOLLISTER
APPROVING AN UPDATE TO THE PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACT FEES FOR
DETENTION (JAIL/JUVENILE HALL), LIBRARY, PARK CONSTRUCTION, STORM
DRAINAGE AND WATER FACILITIES AND NEW FEES FOR CITY HALL/CITY YARD,
WHEREAS, the City Council determined it was necessary and desirable to conduct a comprehensive review of the City’s development impact fees to determine whether those fees are adequate to defray the cost of public facilities necessary to accommodate new and future development within the City; and
WHERES, the City contracted with Willdan Financial Services for a comprehensive evaluation of the City’s existing development impact fees for City Hall/City Yard, Park Construction, Storm Drainage and Water; and
WHEREAS, a report entitled “City of Hollister Development Impact Fees Update Study” has been prepared that establishes the nexus between the imposition of an updated development impact fee program (“Development Impact fees,” or “Fees’) and the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services and contracting the public facilities for which the Fees will be charged for City Hall/City Yard, Park Construction, Storm Drainage and Water; and
WHEREAS, Sections 4 and 9 of a report entitled “San Benito County Development Impact Fee Study, October 3, 2017 have been prepared that establish the nexus between the imposition of an updated development impact fee program (“Development Impact fees,” or “Fees’) and the estimated reasonable cost of providing the services and contracting the public facilities for which the Fees will be charged for Detention Facilities (Jail/Juvenile Hall) and Library; the studies for the basis for adoption of the fees are current; and
WHEREAS, the City Council received a report examining the Public Facility Impact Fee studies in relation to the California Department of Housing and Community Development “Building Blocks” Constraints – Fees and Exactions and it was determined that the new fees would be close to 11% of the average cost of a single family residence; the City uses a variety of strategies to leverage funding for capital improvements and equipment purchase for new growth to keep fees lower; there will not be a significant increase in fees compared to the past ten years; the studies for the basis for adoption of the fees are current; and
WHEREAS, as part of the California Department of Housing and Community Development “Building Blocks” Constraints – Fees and Exactions and it was noted that the traffic impact fees are disproportionately higher than neighboring communities due to the fact that the City is a bedroom community within a bedroom county with requirements from Caltrans to fund improvements to widen sections of Highways 25 G.1.h
Packet Pg. 415
and 156 linking to Highway 101 as well as local commuter corridors while neighboring communities do not have a similar financial burden; and
WHEREAS, it is the City’s policy that new development should contribute its fair share to public facilities through the imposition of development impact fees which will be used to finance, defray or reimburse the City for the appr opriate portion of the cost of public facilities which serve such development; and
WHEREAS, prior to the hearing on the matters set forth herein, notice of the public hearing was published two times in a newspaper of general circulation, and a copy of the Study was made available for public review in accordance with the requirements of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Study has been made available for public review on the City of Hollister home page, at City Hollister and a copy is on file in the City Clerk’s office; and
WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed the Nexus Study at public meetings on February 25, 2019 and March 25, 2019 and at a Public Hearing on May 20, 2019, in accordance with applicable public notice, to review and consider the Nexus Study a nd the potential implementation of updated and increased Fees; and
WHEREAS, the City of Hollister desires to adopt and impose the development impact fees in accordance with the nexus calculations and recommendation in the Studies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, in accordance with the provisions of Government Code Section 66000 Et. Seq. the City Council, after review of the record and consideration of all testimony and evidence present at the public hearing, hereby finds, declares, and resolves as follows:
1. The City Council, using its independent judgement, has reviewed and hereby approves and adopts the Nexus Studies as Attachments “A” and “B” incorporated by this reference. The Nexus Studies identify the purpose of the uses of the Development Impact Fees.
2. A reasonable relationship exists between the need for City public facilities and the type of development project on which the Development Impact Fees are imposed as indicated by the Nexus Study. Development Impact Fees collected from each new development will generate revenue which is necessary to offset each development’s impacts to the city’s facilities.
3. A reasonable relationship exists between the use of Development Impact Fees and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed as indicated by the Nexus Study. Development Impact Fees collected will be used for the acquisition, installation and construction of the public facilities identified in the Nexus Study and for existing oversize facilities identified in the Nexus Study.
G.1.h
Packet Pg. 416
4. A reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the Development Impact Fees and the cost of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the Fees are imposed as indicated by the Nexus Study. The method of allocation of the respective Fees to a particular development project bears a fair relationship, and is roughly proportional to, the development project’s burden on, and benefits from, public facilities to be funded by the Development Impact Fees.
5. The Development Impact Fees collected shall be placed in an individual interest bearing account, or multiple accounts, established for the purpose of tracking the fee revenue and expenses separately.
6. Use of Fees. The Development Impact Fees shall be solely used for (i) the purposes described in the Nexus Study; (ii) reimbursing the City for a development project’s fair share of those public facilities identified in the Nexus Study and constructed by the City; or (iii) reimbursing development for construction of public facilities identified in the Nexus Study.
7. Adoption of Study. The City Council hereby adopts the City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Update Study Final May 1, 2019 prepared by Willdan Financial Services and sections Chapters 4 and 9 of the San Benito County Development Impact Fee Study Final October 3, 2017 prepared by Willdan Financial Services.
8. Schedule of Maximum Supportable Impact Fees. The City Council hereby approves and adopted the update for certain public facilities as set forth in the following Tables. The amount of the Fees shall be modified annually each July 1 based on the change in the Engineering News Record’s construction cost index as reported for the twelve month period ending in April of each year.
Residential Fee Per Dwelling Unit
Single Family Multifamily
(2+ Bedrooms)
Multifamily
(=/> 1 Bedroom)
City Yard/City Hall $ 525 $ 466 $ 224
Detention (Jail/Juvenile Hall) $2,614 $2,395 $2,395
Library $1,290 $1,182 $1,182
Park Construction $13,510 $11,979 $5,779
Storm Drainage $1,897 $1,765 $ 607
Water * $4,756 $4,233 $2,045
Non- Residential Fee Per 1,000 Square Feet
Commercial Office Industrial
City Yard/City Hall $ 356 $ 465 $ 172
Detention (Jail/Juvenile Hall) $ 0.50 $ 0.38 $ 0.23
Storm Drainage $ 285 $ 285 $ 589
G.1.h
Packet Pg. 417
Water * $ 286 $ 286 $ 143
Does not include fees for installation of water meter.
9. Payment of Fee. A development impact fee shall be imposed upon the issuance of any development permit and shall be paid at the earliest time authorized by law as set forth in Government Code section 66007, and no later than the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. A “development permit” means any permit or approval from the City including but not limited to, subdivision map, building permit or other permit for construction or expansion of commercial, office or industrial buildings. The fees set forth in this Resolution shall apply to all new or pending development in the City for which a building permit has not yet issued.
10. CEQA Finding: The adoption of this resolution is statutorily exempt, pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080(b)(8) and the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) and the CEQA Guidelines under Section 15273(a).
11. Effective date of fees. The development impact fees specified in the Tables in this resolution shall become effective sixty (60) days following the adoption of this Resolution by the City Council.
12. Prior Resolutions and Ordinances Superseded. This Resolution shall supersede previously adopted resolutions or ordinances that set the amounts of development impact fees for Detention (Jail/Juvenile Hall), Library, Park Construction, Storm Drainage and Water.
13. Severability. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution or the imposition of a development impact fee for any project described in the Studies or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution or other fees levied by this Resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application of fees.
PASSED AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of the City of Hollister at a Regular Meeting held this 20th day of May, 2019, by the following vote:
Ignacio Velazquez, Mayor
ATTEST:
Christine Black, MMC, City Clerk
G.1.h
Packet Pg. 418
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Prentice, Long & Epperson, Attorneys at Law
Jason S. Epperson, City Attorney
G.1.h
Packet Pg. 419
0(025$1'80
'$7(
-XQH
72 '(9(/230(176(59,&(6',5(&725
)520
(1*,1((5,1*',9,6,21
68%-(&7
6LQJOH
)DPLO\
0XOWLIDPLO\
EHGURRPV
0XOWLIDPLO\
ш
EHGURRP
6WXGLR
6HZHU7UHDWPHQW
0RELOH+RPH
SHUGZHOOLQJXQLW
(DVW$UHD6WRUP
6LQJOH)DPLO\
SHUGZHOOLQJXQLW
0XOWLIDPLO\
SHUVTXDUHIRRWRIQHWORWDUHD
)LVFDO1HXWUDOLW\IHH 3HUGZHOOLQJXQLW
6FKRRO,PSDFW)HH
$'-867(')((6$1'&+$5*(6$6$'237('$1'(67$%/,6+('%<5(62/87 ,216
3XEOLF)DFLOLW\,PSDFW)HHV
:DWHU0HWHU
´PHWHU
:DWHU
7UDIILF
7KLVPHPRVXSHUVHGHVRXUPHPRGDWHG-XO\RQWKHVDPHVXEMHFW7KHIROORZLQJIHHVDQG FKDUJHVVKDOOEHLQHIIHFWVWDUWLQJ-XO\DQGHQGLQJ-XQH
)LVFDO1HXWUDOLW\$QQH[DWLRQ)HHV
)LVFDO1HXWUDOLW\IHHVDSSO\SXUVXDQWWR7D[6KDULQJ$JUHHPHQWVDSSURYHGEHWZHHQWKH&LW\RI +ROOLVWHUDQG6DQ%HQLWR&RXQW\RQORWVWKDWZHUHDQQH[HGWRWKH&LW\RI+ROOLVWHUVWDUWLQJ
7KH+ROOLVWHU(OHPHQWDU\6FKRRO'LVWULFWDQGWKH6DQ%HQLWR+LJK6FKRRO'LVWULFWERWKFROOHFWVFKRRO LPSDFWIHHV
7$%/(5(6,'(17,$/,03$&7)((6$1':$7(50(7(5)((
3ROLFH
)LUH
3DUN
/LEUDU\)DFLOLWLHV
'HWHQWLRQ
-DLO-XYHQLOH+DOO
&LW\+DOO&LW\<DUG
7RWDO)HHV
6HZHU7UHDWPHQW
6HZHU&ROOHFWLRQ
6WRUP'UDLQDJH
$'',7,21$/5(6,'(17,$/,03$&7)((6
G.1.i
Packet Pg. 420
CITY OF HOLLISTER
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE UPDATE
STUDY
FINAL
MAY 1, 2019
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
1939 Harrison Street 27368 Via Industria Aurora, CO
Suite 430 Suite 200 Orlando, FL
Oakland, CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-6864 Plano, TX
Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (888) 326-6864 Washington, DC
www.willdan.com
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 421
This page intentionally left blank.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 422
i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................... 3 Background and Study Objectives 3
Facility Standards and Costs 3
Use of Fee Revenues 4
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 4
Other Funding Needed 5
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................ 6 Public Facilities Financing in California 6
Study Objectives 6
Fee Program Maintenance 7
Study Methodology 7
Types of Facility Standards 7
New Development Facility Needs and Costs 8
Organization of the Report 9
2. GROWTH FORECASTS .................................................................... 10 Land Use Types 10
Existing and Future Development 10
Occupant Densities 12
3. CITY HALL/CITY YARD FACILITIES ................................................... 13 Service Population 13
Facility Inventories and Standards 13
Existing Inventory 13
Planned Facilities 14
Cost Allocation 14
Revenue Projection 15
Fee Schedule 15
4. STORM DRAIN FACILITIES FEE ......................................................... 17 Storm Drain Demand 17
Equivalent Dwelling Unit Growth 17
Planned Facilities 18
Allocation of Facilities to New Development 19
Non-Fee Funding Required 20
Fee Schedule 20
5. PARK AND RECREATION FACILITIES ................................................. 22 Service Population 22
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory 22
Special Use Facility Inventory 23
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs 24
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 423
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
ii
Improved Parkland Equivalent 24
Park Facility Standards 25
City of Hollister Park Facilities Standards 25
Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development 26
Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita 27
Use of Fee Revenue 27
Fee Schedule 27
6. WATER FACILITIES......................................................................... 29 Water Demand 29
EDU Generation by New Development 30
Facility Needs and Costs 30
Allocation of Facilities Costs to New Development 32
Non-Fee Funding Required 33
Fee Schedule 33
7. IMPLEMENTATION .......................................................................... 34 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 34
Inflation Adjustment 34
Reporting Requirements 34
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 34
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ...................................................... 35 Purpose of Fee 35
Use of Fee Revenues 35
Benefit Relationship 35
Burden Relationship 36
Proportionality 36
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 424
3 Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees needed to support future development in the City of Hollister through 2040. It is the City’s intent that the costs representing future development’s share of public facilities and capital improvements be imposed on that development in the form of a development impact fee, also known as a public facilities fee. The public facilities and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categ ories listed below:
▪ City Hall/City Yard Facilities
▪ Drainage Facilities
▪ Parks and Recreation Facilities
▪ Water Facilities
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Although growth also imposes operating costs, there is not a similar system to generate revenue from new development for services. The primary purpose of this report is to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities, as new development creates increases in service demands.
The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.
The City programs development impact fee-funded capital projects through its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP allows the City to identify and direct its fee revenue to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Facility Standards and Costs
There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act requirements.
The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City’s existing level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facili ty deficiencies attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long -range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City’s annual CIP and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the City Hall/City Yard facilities fees in this report.
The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified, or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a water line extension to a
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 425
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
4 previously undeveloped area. This approach is used for the storm drain and water facilities fees in this report.
The system plan approach is based on a master facility plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development’s fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development’s fair share of planned facilities. This approach is used to calculate the park and recreation facilities fees in this report.
Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expansion of current facilities to serve new development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital fac ilities to serve new development, including but not limited to: land acquisition, construction of buildings, construction of infrastructure, the acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, software licenses and equipment.
In that the City cannot predict with certainty how and when development within the City will occur during the planning horizon assumed in this study, the City may need to update and revise the project lists funded by the fees documented in this study. Any substitute proj ects should be funded within the same facility category, and the substitute projects must still benefit and have a relationship to new development. The City could identify any changes to the projects funded by the impact fees when it updates it’s CIP. The impact fees could also be updated if significant changes to the projects funded by the fees are anticipated.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the development impact fees that meet the City’s identified needs and comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
Table E.1: Maximum Justified Impact Fee Summary
Land Use
City Hall/City
Yard Facilities
Strom Drain
Facilities
Parks and
Recreation
Facilities
Water
Facilities Total
Residential - Fee per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 525$ 1,897$ 13,510$ 4,756$ 20,688$ Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms)466 1,765 11,979 4,233 18,443 Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less)224 607 5,779 2,045 8,655 Nonresidential - Fee per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 356$ 285$ -$ 286$ 927$ Office 465 285 - 286 1,036 Industrial 172 589 - 143 904 Sources: Tables 3.6, 4.5, 5.9 and 6.5.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 426
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
5 Other Funding Needed
Impact fees may only fund the share of public facilities related to new development in Hollister.
They may not be used to fund the share of facility needs generated by existing development or by development outside of the City. As shown in Table E.2, approximately $111.9 million in additional funding will be needed to complete the facility projects the City currently plans to develop. The “Additional Funding Required” column shows non-impact fee funding required to fund a share of the improvements partially funded by impact fees. Non-fee funding is needed because these facilities will serve both existing and new development.
The City will need to develop alternative funding sources to fund e xisting development’s share of the planned facilities. Potential sources of revenue include but are not limited to: existing or new general fund revenues, existing or new taxes, special assessments, and grants.
Table E.2: Non-Impact Fee Funding Required
Fee Category
Net Project
Cost
Projected
Impact Fee
Revenue
Additional
Funding
Required
City Hall/City Yard Facilities 500,000$ 1,577,000$ -$ Storm Drain Facilities 31,780,265 5,417,994 26,362,271 Parks and Recreation Facilities 68,248,880 31,629,360 36,619,520 Water Facilities 59,999,865 11,088,636 48,911,229 Total 160,529,010$ 49,712,989$ 111,893,021$
Sources: Tables 3.5, 4.3, 5.7 and 6.3.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 427
6 1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new development in the City of Hollister. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the study approach under the following sections:
▪ Public Facilities Financing in California;
▪ Study Objectives;
▪ Fee Program Maintenance;
▪ Study Methodology; and
▪ Organization of the Report.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 40 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out:
▪ The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in 1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996; ▪ Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next generation of residents and businesses; and
▪ Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of “growth pays its own way.” This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction-wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. Policy CSF1.2 of the Community Services and Facilities Element of the General Plan states, “Require new development applications to identify the impacts that the proposed development would have on the provision of public services, and approve those applications that can mitigate impacts or contribute a proportional fair share so that local public services can be maintained at an acceptable level.” The primary purpose of this report is to update the City’s impact fees based on the most current available facility plans and growth projections. The proposed fees will enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases in service demands. This report supports the General Plan policy stated above as it will provide a funding source from new development to mitigate its impacts on various city facilities and consequently the services needed to support that development.
The City collects public facilities fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee sc hedules presented in this report.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 428
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
7 Hollister is forecast to see considerable growth through this study’s planning horizon of 2040.
This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the facilities required to deliver them. Given the revenue challenges described above, Hollister has decided to continue to use a development impact fee program to ensure that new development funds its share of facility costs associated with growth. This report makes use of the most cur rent available growth forecasts and facility plans to update the City’s existing fee program to ensure that the fee program accurately represents the facility needs resulting from new development.
Fee Program Maintenance
Once a fee program has been adopted it must be properly maintained to ensure that the revenue collected adequately funds the facilities needed by new development. To avoid collecting inadequate revenue, the inventories of existing facilities and costs for planned facilities must be updated periodically for inflation, and the fees recalculated to reflect the higher costs. The use of established indices for each facility included in the inventories (land, building s, and equipment), such as the Engineering News-Record, is necessary to accurately adjust the impact fees. For a list of recommended indices, see Chapter 7.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for annual or periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, it is recommended to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available. For further detail on fee program implementation, see Chapter 7.
Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The six steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new and expanded facilities;
3. Determine facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount of planned facilities, and identify the share required to accommodate new development;
4. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the total amount and the share of the cost of planned facilities required to accommodate new development;
5. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
6. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non-fee funding is required to complete projects.
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
Types of Facility Standards
There are three separate components of facility standards:
▪ Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth, for example, park acres per thousand residents, square feet of library space
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 429
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
8 per capita, or gallons of water per day. Demand standards may also reflect a level of service such as the vehicle volume-to-capacity (V/C) ratio used in traffic planning. ▪ Design standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected demand, for example, park improvement requirements and technology infrastructure for City office space. Design standards are typically not explicitly evaluated as part of an impact fee analysis but can have a significant impact on the cost of facilities. Our approach incorporates the cost of planned facilities built to satisfy the City’s facility design standards.
▪ Cost standards are an alternate method for determining the amount of facilities required to accommodate growth based on facility costs per unit of demand. Cost standards are useful when demand standards were not explicitly developed for the facility planning process. Cost standards also enable different types of facilities to be analyzed based on a single measure (cost or value) and are useful when different facilities are funded by a single fee program. Examples include facility costs per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon of water per day.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new developmen t.
This is often a two-step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development’s fair share of planned facilities costs: the system plan method, the planned facilities method, and the existing inventory method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is summarized below:
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long - range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual CIP and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. This approach is to calculate the City Hall/City Yard facilities fees in this report.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of the former is a water line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An example of the latter is expansion of an existing library building and book collection, which will be needed only if new = $/unit of demand
= $/unit of demand
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 430
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
9 development occurs, but which, if built, will in part benefit existing development, as well. Under this method new development will fund the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning documents. This approach is used for the storm drain and water facilities fees in this report.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities Existing + New Development Demand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire station solely to new development when that station will operate as par t of an integrated system of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in Ge neral Plans are higher than the existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required to bring existing development up to the policy-based standard. The local agency must secure non-fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee . This approach is used to calculate the park and recreation facilities fees in this report.
Organization of the Report
The determination of a public facilities fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used throughout the analysis of different facility categories and are summarized in Chapter 2.
Chapters 3 through 6 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
▪ City Hall/City Yard Facilities
▪ Drainage Facilities
▪ Parks and Recreation Facilities
▪ Water Facilities
Chapter 7 details the procedures that the City must follow when implementing a development impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 8. = $/unit of demand
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 431
10 2. Growth Forecasts
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the growth projections used in this study based on a 2018 base year and a planning horizon of 2040.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used throughout this report. These estimates are used as follows:
▪ The estimate of existing development in 2018 is used as an indicator of existing facility demand and to determine existing facility standards. ▪ The estimate of total development at the 2040 planning horizon is used as an indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommoda te growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any. ▪ Estimates of growth from 2018 through 2040 are used to (1) allocate facility costs between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee revenues.
The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. The land use types for which impact fees have been calculated for are defined below. ▪ Single family: Detached and attached one-unit dwellings (Includes single family homes and townhomes)
▪ Multifamily (Two Bedrooms or More): Dwelling units in attached multifamily buildings including duplexes and condominiums that have two or more bedrooms ▪ Multifamily (One Bedroom or Less): Dwelling units in attached multifamily buildings including duplexes and condominiums that have one bedroom or less ▪ Commercial: All commercial, retail, educational, institutional and service development
▪ Office: All general, professional, and medical office development ▪ Industrial: All business park, light manufacturing and other industrial development Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multifamily and commercial uses. In those cases, the facilities fee would be calculated separately for each land use type.
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development project’s characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use . If a project results in the intensification of use, at its discretion, the City can charge the project the difference in fees between the existing low intensity use and the future high intensity use.
Existing and Future Development
Table 2.1 shows the estimated number of residents, dwelling units, employees, and building square feet in Hollister, both in 2018 and in 2040. The base year estimates of household residents and dwelling units comes from the California Department of Finance. Estimates of
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 432
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
11 residents and housing units in 2040 are consistent with Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG) Draft 2018 Regional Growth Forecast.
Base year employees were estimated based on the latest data from the US Census’ OnTheMap application and exclude 321 local government employees. Estimates of workers in 2040 are based on the AMBAG’s Regional Growth Forecast, allocated to the land use categories based on the current proportion of workers.
2018 2040 Increase
Residents1 36,463 46,222 9,759
Dwelling Units 2
Single Family 8,660 10,401 1,741
Multifamily 2,599 3,121 522
Total 11,259 13,522 2,263
Building Square Feet (000s)3
Commercial 2,189 2,774 585
Office 1,107 1,404 296
Industrial 3,512 4,451 939
Total 6,809 8,629 1,820
Employment4
Commercial 5,232 6,631 1,399
Office 3,455 4,379 924
Industrial 4,074 5,163 1,089
Total 12,761 16,172 3,411
Note: Figures have been rounded to the hundreds.
Table 2.1: Demographic Assumptions
4 Total, less local government (public administration) workers from AMBAG's Draft 2018 Regional Growth Forecast, allocated based on current proportions identified by the U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application,
http://onthemap.ces.census.gov for 2015, the latest data available. Total projected workers in 2040 identified by AMBAG allocated to land use categories using current proportions.
Sources: California Department of Finance (DOF), Table E-5, 2018; AMBAG DRAFT 2018 Regional Growth Forecast, Tables 7, 8 and 9. U.S. Census Bureau, OnTheMap Application, http://onthemap.ces.census.gov; Willdan Financial Services.
3 Equivalent building square footage estimated by dividing employees by occupancy density factors.
1 Current population from California Department of Finance (DOF). Projection total for 2040 from AMBAG's Draft 2018 Regional Growth Forecast. 2 Current values from DOF. Total units projection AMBAG's Draft 2018 Regional Growth Forecast, allocated based on current proportions.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 433
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
12 Occupant Densities
All fees in this report are calculated based on dwelling units , nonresidential building square feet or lodging units. Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the size of a development project, the increase in service population associated with the project, and the amount of the fee.
Occupant densities (residents per dwelling unit or workers per building square foot are the most appropriate characteristics to use for most impact fees. The fee imposed should be based on the land use type that most closely represents the probable occupant density of the development.
The average occupant density factors used in this report are shown in Table 2.2. The residential density factors are based on data for Hollister from the 2016 U.S. Census’ American Community Survey. The one bedroom or less multifamily assumption is based on data from the Institute of Traffic Engineer’s Trip Generation Manual and is consistent with assumptions in the City’s Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee (TIMF) program.
The nonresidential occupancy factors are based on occupancy factors found in the Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments by The Natelson Company. Though not specific to San Benito County, the Natelson study covered employment density over a wide array of land us e and development types, making it reasonable to apply these factors to other areas. The specific factors used in this report are for developing suburban areas, as defined by the Natelson study.
Table 2.2: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family 3.53 Residents Per Dwelling Unit
Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms)3.13 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less) 1.51 Residents Per Dwelling Unit Nonresidential
Commercial 2.39 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office 3.12 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial 1.16 Employees per 1,000 square feet
Sources: U.S. Census Bureau, 2012-2016 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates, Tables B25024 and B25033; Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition; The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments, October 31, 2001, SCAG region data; Willdan Financial Services.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 434
13 3. City Hall/City Yard Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to ensure that new development funds its fair share of City Hall and City Yard facilities. City facilities are generally defined as the administrative and public works facilities needed by the City to operate as a municipality. A fee schedule is presented based on the existing facilities standard of general government facilities in the City of Hollister to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Service Population
City facilities serve both residents and businesses. T herefore, demand for services and associated facilities are based on the City’s service population including residents and workers.
Table 3.1 shows the existing and future projected service population for City Hall/City Yard facilities. While specific data is not available to estimate the actual ratio of demand per resident to demand by businesses (per worker) for this service, it is reasonable to assume that demand for these services is less for one employee compared to one resident, because nonresidentia l buildings are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units. The 0.31 -weighting factor for workers is based on a 40-hour workweek divided by the total number of non-work hours in a week (128) and reflects the degree to which nonresidential deve lopment yields a lesser demand for City Hall/City Yard facilities.
Table 3.1: City Hall/City Yard Facilities Service Population A B C = A + (B x 0.31)
Residents Workers
Service
Population
Existing (2018)36,463 12,761 40,400 New Development (2018-2040)9,759 3,411 10,800 Total (2040)46,222 16,172 51,200
Weighting factor1 1.00 0.31
Source: Table 2.1; Willdan Financial Services.
1 Workers are weighted at 0.31 of residents based on a 40 hour work week out of a possible 128 non-work hours in a week (40/128 = 0.31)
Facility Inventories and Standards
This section describes the City’s public facility inventory and facility standards.
Existing Inventory
The City Hall/City Yard facilities inventory is comprised of various facilities including a City Hall, Old City Hall, Public Works Yard and various administrative offices . The estimated value of land was determined by evaluating the City’s recent land transactions. The replacement value for buildings is conservatively estimated at $250 per square foot. In total the City owns approximately $5.9 million worth of City Hall/City Yard facilities.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 435
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
14 Table 3.2: Existing City Hall/City Yard Facilities Inventory Inventory Units Unit Cost Value
Land (acres)
City Hall - 375 Fifth Street 0.27 acres 336,000$ 90,720$ Old City Hall (City Fffices) - 339 Fifth Street 0.18 acres 336,000 60,480 Finance Department Office - 327 Fifth Street 0.09 acres 336,000 30,240 Briggs Building Offices and Parking structure 0.55 acres 336,000 184,800 Public Works Operation & Maintenance Dept. - 1321 South Street 7.00 acres 336,000 2,352,000 Utility Department Modular Fffice - 1321 South Street - acres 336,000 - Maintenance Buildings - 1331 South Street - acres 336,000 - Subtotal 8.09 2,718,240$
Buildings (square feet)
City Hall - 375 Fifth Street 4,130 Sq. Ft.250$ 1,032,500$ Old City Hall (City Fffices) - 339 Fifth Street 3,181 Sq. Ft.250 795,250 Finance Department Office - 327 Fifth Street - Sq. Ft.250 - Briggs Building Offices and Parking structure 2,180 Sq. Ft.250 545,000 Public Works Operation & Maintenance Dept. - 1321 South Street 1,750 Sq. Ft.250 437,500 Utility Department Modular Fffice - 1321 South Street 1,440 Sq. Ft.250 360,000 Maintenance Buildings - 1331 South Street - Sq. Ft.250 - Subtotal 12,681 Sq. Ft.3,170,250$
Total Value of Existing Facilities 5,888,490$
Sources: City of Hollister; Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
Table 3.3 summarizes the planned City Hall/City Yard facilities needed to serve the City through 2040, as identified in the City’s CIP. The City plans to install fiber optic cable throughout its offices. The City will also need to identify other facilities to maintain its facility standards through 2040. Future facilities will be identified in its CIP and other master facilities plans .
Project Name
Total Project
Cost
Fiber Optic Cable 500,000$
Total Cost of Planned Facilities 500,000$
Sources: City of Hollister; Willdan Financial Services.
Table 3.3: Planned City Hall/City Yard Facilities
Cost Allocation
Table 3.4 calculates the existing cost per capita facility standard by dividing the value of the existing facilities inventory by the existing service population. The resulting cost per capita is the basis of the impact fee. Funding facilities at this level will ensure that as development occurs, new development will contribute to facilities at the same standard that existing development has
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 436
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
15 funded thus far. By definition, using the existing standard methodology does not result in existing deficiencies.
Value of Existing Facilities 5,888,490$
Existing Service Population 40,400
Cost per Capita 146$
Facility Standard per Resident 146$
Facility Standard per Worker 1 45
1 Based on a weighing factor of 0.31.
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.2, Willdan Financial Services.
Table 3.4: Planned City Hall/City Yard Facilities
Existing Standard
Revenue Projection
The City Hall/City Yard facilities fee revenue exceeds the cost of the planned facilities. The City will have to identify additional facilities through 2040 to maintain its existing facility standard.
Table 3.5 projects City Hall/City Yard fee revenue through 2040 based on the cost per capita from Table 3.4, and the service population growth projections in Table 3.1.
Table 3.5: Revenue Projection - Existing Standard
Cost per Capita 146$
Growth in Service Population (2018- 2040)10,800
Fee Revenue 1,577,000$
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 500,000
Non-Fee Revenue to Be Identified 1,077,000$
Sources: Tables 3.1 and 3.4.
Fee Schedule
Table 3.6 shows the maximum justified City Hall/City Yard facilities fee schedule. The City can adopt any fee up to this amount. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space). The total fee includes a two- percent (2.0%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: a standard overhead charge
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 437
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
16 applied to City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and administrativ e support, and fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting and mandated public reporting.
In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
Table 3.6: City Hall/City Yard Facilities Fee - Existing Standard A B C = A x B D = C x 2.0%E = C + D F = E / 1,000
Cost Per Admin Fee per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee 1 Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1 Sq. Ft.
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 146$ 3.53 515$ 10$ 525$ Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms)146 3.13 457 9 466 Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less)146 1.51 220 4 224 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 146$ 2.39 349$ 7$ 356$ 0.36$ Office 146 3.12 456 9 465 0.47 Industrial 146 1.16 169 3 172 0.17 1 Fee per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 3.4; Willdan Financial Services 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 438
17 4. Storm Drain Facilities Fee
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for storm drain facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Hollister. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a storm drain facilities fee to fund storm drain facilities that serve new development.
Storm Drain Demand
Most new development generates storm water runoff. This runoff must be controlled through storm drain facilities. Storm drain demand is measured by impervious surface. The more impervious surface a land use creates, the more demand for storm drain facilities it creates.
Table 4.1 shows the calculation of equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) demand factors for storm drain facilities based on impervious surface area by land use category. Dwelling unit and thousand square feet per acre assumptions are from the City’s General Plan. The area percent impervious factors are derived from the City’s 2011 Storm Drain Master Plan.
Table 4.1: Strom Drain Equivalent Dwelling Units
DU or
KSF per
acre 1
Average
Percent
Impervious2
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)3
Residential
Single Family 8.00 0.50 1.00
Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms)12.00 0.70 0.93 Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less) 35.00 0.70 0.32 Nonresidential
Commercial 87.12 0.80 0.15
Office 87.12 0.80 0.15
Industrial 43.56 0.85 0.31
2 Percent impervious from Storm Drain Master Plan.
Sources: City of Hollister General Plan; Hollister Storm Drain Master Plan, Table 5-3; Willdan Financial Services.
3 EDUs per dwelling unit for residential development and per thousand square feet for nonresidential development.
1 Dwelling units for residential and per thousand building square feet for non-residential.
Density based on estimated development and acreage for each land use type in the City's land use element. Nonresidential densities are based on maximum floor-area-ratios of 2.0 for commercial, 2.0 for office and 1.0 industrial.
Equivalent Dwelling Unit Growth
Table 4.2 calculates the existing and projected equivalent dwelling units (EDU) based on each land use’s demand factors displayed in Table 4.1. An equivalent dwelling unit represents the demand of all other land uses equivalent to one single family unit. Also displayed is the total existing and future EDUs for storm drain facilities by land use.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 439
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
18 Table 4.2: Storm Drain Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Residential
Single Family 1.00 8,660 1,741 8,660 1,741 10,401 Multifamily 0.93 2,599 522 2,417 485 2,903 Subtotal 11,259 2,263 11,077 2,226 13,304 Nonresidential
Commercial 0.15 5,232 1,399 785 210 995 Office 0.15 3,455 924 518 139 657 Industrial 0.31 4,074 1,089 1,263 338 1,601 Subtotal 12,761 3,412 2,566 687 3,253 Total 13,643 2,913 16,557
Percent of Total 82.4%17.6%100.0%
1 Per dwelling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 4.1, Willdan Financial Services.
Planned Facilities
The City of Hollister’s 2011 Storm Drain Master Plan identified storm drain projects. It also identified which projects were needed to partially meet future demand. Table 4.3 shows the storm drain capital improvement plan and allocates costs to new development. Projects that were not identified to meet future demand are not allocated to the impact fee. For those projects that were identified to meet future demand, a share of the project responsibility is allocated to new development through this impact fee based on new development’s share of storm drain demand identified in Table 4.2. Project costs were escalated from 2011 to 2018 using the Engineering News Record’s Construction Cost Index (CCI).
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 440
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
19 Table 4.3: Storm Drain Facilities Allocation to New Development No. Name Description
Upgrade to
Meet Future
Needs
Total Cost
(2018)1
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost Allocated
to New
Development
Second Priority Projects
1 Rustic Basin Study Yes 28,998$ 17.6%5,102$
2 Suiter Street Pipe Upgrade No 712,492 0.0%-
3 Powell Street New Detention/RetentionYes 1,481,943 17.6%260,730 4 South to IWWTP Pipe Upgrade Yes 4,689,050 17.6%824,981 5 San Felipe Pipe Upgrade Yes 3,372,581 17.6%593,364 6 South Street Pipe Upgrade No 1,023,066 0.0%-
7 Memorial Drive Pipe Upgrade No 1,712,721 0.0%-
8 Line Street Pipe Upgrade No 615,057 0.0%-
9 Third & East New Diversion No 513,901 0.0%-
10 Clearview Drive Pipe Upgrade No 726,701 0.0%- 11 Sunnyslope Road Pipe Upgrade No 2,963,642 0.0%-
12 Hawkins Street Pipe Upgrade No 1,231,468 0.0%-
13 Central Avenue Pipe Upgrade No 1,013,254 0.0%-
14 Hillcrest Road Pipe Upgrade No 602,878 0.0%-
15 Felice Drive Pipe Upgrade No 388,386 0.0%-
16 Citation Way Study Yes 21,749 17.6%3,826
17 Knight Lane Pipe Upgrade No 278,264 0.0%-
18 Clearview Drive at Hillcrest Pipe Upgrade No 1,319,430 0.0%- 19 Nash Road Pipe Upgrade/New DiversionNo 1,573,335 0.0%- Subtotal 24,268,916$ 1,688,002$
Third Priority Projects
1 Meridian Street Pipe Upgrade Yes 2,080,639$ 17.6%366,063$ 2 Westside Blvd Pipe Upgrade Yes 298,394 17.6%52,499 3 Apollo Way Pipe Upgrade Yes 1,160,422 17.6%204,162 4 Nash Road Pipe Upgrade Yes 2,969,732 17.6%522,488 5 Airway Pond Study Yes 28,998 17.6%5,102
6 "A" Street Pipe Upgrade Yes 711,308 17.6%125,146 7 Miller Road Pipe Upgrade Yes 261,856 17.6%46,070 Subtotal 7,511,349$ 1,321,529$
Contech Continuous Deflection Separators (CDS) - Citywide 13,689,290$ 17.6%2,408,462 Total 31,780,265$ 5,417,994$
1 Costs escalated from 2011 to 2018 using the Engineering News Record 's Construction Cost Index.
Source: City of Hollister, 2010 Sewer System Master Plan; Willdan Financial Services.
Allocation of Facilities to New Development
Table 4.4 allocates new development’s share of storm drain facilities to new development. New development’s share of the costs is equal to the total cost of the projects ne t of the existing fund balances. The facility standard, in this case a planned facilities standard, is calculated by dividing new development’s share of planned facilities by the growth in EDUs.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 441
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
20 Table 4.4: Cost per EDU
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 5,417,994$
Growth in EDUs 2,913
Cost per EDU 1,860$
Sources: Tables 4.2 and 4.3.
Non-Fee Funding Required
The City will use existing revenue sources or develop new sources to fund future facilities not required to accommodate growth, or to fund existing development’s fair share of facilities. The City must raise $26.4 million needed to fund the storm drainage facilities representing exist ing development’s existing deficiencies identified in Table 4.3 with non-fee revenue sources. Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general fund revenues or existing or new taxes. Any new special tax would require two -thirds voter approval. Any new assessments or property-related charges would require majority property owner approval.
Fee Schedule
The impact fee for storm drain facilities is shown in Table 4.5. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based o n the EDU factors shown in Table 4.1. The total fee includes a two percent (2%) administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two percent of the base fee adequ ately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 442
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
21 Table 4.5: Storm Drain Facilities Impact Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 1,860$ 1.00 1,860$ 37$ 1,897$ Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms)1,860 0.93 1,730 35 1,765 Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less)1,860 0.32 595 12 607 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 1,860$ 0.15 279$ 6$ 285$ 0.29$ Office 1,860 0.15 279 6 285 0.29 Industrial 1,860 0.31 577 12 589 0.59 1 Persons per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential.
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.4; Willdan Financial Services. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 443
22 5. Park and Recreation Facilities
The purpose of the parkland and park facilities impact fee is to fund the park facilities needed to serve new development. The maximum justified impact fee is presented based on a policy standard of 5.0 acres of park and recreation facilities per capita.
Service Population
As residents are assumed to be the primary users of parks in the City of Hollister, demand for parks and associated facilities is based on the City’s resid ential population, rather than a combined resident-worker service population. Table 5.1 provides estimates of the City’s current resident population and a projection for the year 2040.
Residents
Existing (2018)36,463
Growth (2018 - 2040)9,759
Total (2040)46,222
Source: Table 2.1.
Table 5.1: Park and Recreation
Facilities Service Population
Existing Park and Recreation Facilities Inventory
The City of Hollister maintains several park and recreation facilities throughout the city. Table 5.2 summarizes the City’s existing parkland inventory in 2018. All facilities are located within the City limits. The inventory distinguishes between improved and unimproved parkland. In total, the inventory includes a total of 147.86 acres of unimproved and improved parkland.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 444
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
23 Table 5.2: Park Land Inventory
Name Improved Acres
Unimproved
Acres Total Acres
Allendale Park 6.25 - 6.25 Apricot Park 2.04 - 2.04 Calaveras School Park 5.00 - 5.00 Cerra Vista School Park 7.36 - 7.36 Dunne Park 4.76 - 4.76
Fitness Park 1.98 - 1.98 Frank Klauer Memorial Park 4.73 - 4.73 Hollister Community Center 1.02 - 1.02 Jerry Gabe Memorial Park Softball Fields 1.91 - 1.91 John Z. Hernandez Memorial Park 0.21 - 0.21 Ladd Lane Elementary School 4.33 - 4.33 Las Brisas Park 1.00 - 1.00 Marguerite Maze Sports Complex 11.00 - 11.00 McCarthy Park 1.50 - 1.50 Mirabella Park 0.36 - 0.36 Nora Drive Park 0.12 - 0.12 R. O. Hardin School 6.26 - 6.26 Rancho San Justo Sports Complex 9.16 - 9.16 San Benito High School Tennis Courts 0.75 - 0.75 San Benito Linear Park trail1 1.97 - 1.97 Santa Ana Park 3.00 - 3.00 Tony Aguirre Memorial Park 1.00 - 1.00 Valley View Park 2.65 - 2.65 Vet's Building Plaze 0.78 - 0.78 Vista Hill Park 5.00 14.00 19.00 Water Reclamation Recreational Facility 49.72 - 49.72 Total - Parkland 133.86 14.00 147.86 1 The City is in the process of constructing this improvement with proceeds from a CDBG grant.
Source: Appendix B, Hollister Park Facility Master Plan.
Special Use Facility Inventory
Table 5.3 displays the City’s inventory of special use recreation facilities, including the Community Center, clubhouse and Veterans Memorial Building. The replacement value per square foot for these buildings was conservatively assumed to be $150 per square foot. The total replacement cost of these facilities is divided by the total improved park acreages to determine the special use facilities cost per acre.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 445
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
24 Table 5.3: Special Use Facilities Inventory
Quantity Units Unit Cost Total Value
Hollister Community Center 1,120 Sq. Ft.150$ 168,000$ Dunne Park Clubhouse 6,029 Sq. Ft.150 904,350 Veterans Memorial Buildling 5,697 Sq. Ft.150 854,550 Total 12,846 1,926,900$
Total Improved Parkland Acres 133.86
Special Use Facilities Cost per Acre 14,400$
Source: City of Hollister; Willdan Financial Services.
Parkland and Park Facilities Unit Costs
Table 5.4 displays the unit costs necessary to develop parkland in Hollister. Land acquisition is estimated at $336,000 based on an analysis of the City’s recent land transactions. A conservative estimate of $400,000 per acre for standard parkland improvements was used based on Willdan’s experience with other clients. The special use facilities cost per acre calculated in Table 5.3 is also included. In total, it costs $750,400 to acquire and improve an acre of parkland in Hollister.
Table 5.4: Park Facilities Unit Costs
Cost
Per Acre
Share of
Total Costs
Special Use Facilities 14,400$
Standard Park Improvements 400,000
Subtotal - Improvements 414,400$ 55%
Land Acquisition 336,000$ 45%
Total Cost per Acre 750,400$ 45%
Sources: City of Hollister; Willdan Financial Services.
Improved Parkland Equivalent
Before calculating the existing parkland standard, unimproved parkland owned by the City must be converted to an equivalent amount of improved parkland. Table 5.5 details this conversion.
The conversion is based on the ratio of the cost of an improved acre of land (including land and improvements) relative to an acre of unimproved parkland (only land). The estimate of the value of unimproved park and the cost of park improvements are detailed above in Table 5.4.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 446
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
25 Table 5.5: Improved Parkland Equivalent
Type
Cost per
Acre Acres
Land Acquisition Cost per Acre 336,000$
Improved Parkland 750,400
Unimproved Parkland Land Costs as a 45%
Relative Percentage of Parkland Costs
Unimproved Parkland 14.00
x 0.45
Equivalent Improved Acres 6.30
Note: Figures have been rounded.
Sources: Tables 5.2 and 5.4.
Park Facility Standards
Park facility standards establish a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for expanded park facilities. Information regarding the City’s existing inventor y of existing parks facilities was obtained from City staff.
The most common measure in calculating new development’s demand for parks is the ratio of park acres per resident. In general, facility standards may be based on a jurisdiction’s existing inventory of park facilities, or an adopted policy standard contained in a master facility plan or general plan. Facility standards may also be based on a land dedication standard established by the Quimby Act.1
City of Hollister Park Facilities Standards
To calculate new development’s need for new parks, municipalities commonly use a ratio expressed in terms of developed park acres per 1,000 residents. Table 5.6 documents the City’s existing parkland standard. The total improved parkland equivalent is compared to the current service population to determine the existing parkland standard per 1,000 residents. In this case, the City currently has an existing parkland standard of 3.84 acres per 1,000 residents.
As a policy goal, the City would like to achieve a stan dard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. This standard will be the basis of the park and recreation facilities impact fee. However, since the 5.0 acre per 1,000 resident standard is greater than the City’s existing 3.84 acre standard, the City must fund existing development’s share of the higher standard with non-impact fee funding sources by the planning horizon, or new development will have paid too high a fee.
1 California Government Code §66477.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 447
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
26 Facilities Needed to Accommodate New Development
Table 5.7 shows the park facilities needed to accommodate new development at the policy standard of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. To achieve the standard by the planning horizon, new development must fund the acquisition and improvement of 48.80 parkland acres, at a total cost of approximately $36.6 million. The City must fund existing development’s share of the higher parkland standard with non-impact fee funding sources by the planning horizon. This share is equal to 42.15 parkland acres at an estimated cost of $31.6 million.
Land Improvements Total
Facility Needs
Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita)A 5.00 5.00 5.00 Service Population 2040 B 46,222 46,222 46,222 Facility Needs (acres)C =(B/1,000) x A 231.11 231.11 231.11 Existing Park Acres D 140.16 140.16 140.16 Net Facility Needs To Achieve Standard E = C - D 90.95 90.95 90.95 Facility Standard (acres/1,000 capita)A 5.00 5.00 5.00 Service Population Growth (2018-2040)F 9,759 9,759 9,759 New Development Facility Needs G =(F/1,000) x A 48.80 48.80 48.80 Existing Development Facility Needs H = E - G 42.15 42.15 42.15 Cost Assumptions
Average Unit Cost (per acre)I 336,000$ 414,400$ 750,400$ New Development Cost of Facilities J = G x I 16,396,800$ 20,222,720$ 36,619,520$ Existing Development Cost of Facilities K = H x I 14,162,400 17,466,960 31,629,360 Total L = J + J 30,559,200$ 37,689,680$ 68,248,880$
Note: Totals have been rounded to the thousands.
Sources: Tables 5.1, 5.4, and 5.6; Willdan Financial Services.
Table 5.7: Park Facilities to Accommodate New Development @ 5 acres/1,000 residents
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 448
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
27 Parks and Recreation Facilities Cost per Capita
Table 5.8 shows the cost per capita of providing new parkland and park facilities at the 5.0 acres per 1,000 resident standard. The cost per capita is shown separately for land and improvements.
First, the per acre unit costs are multiplied by the acreage standards to determine the total amount of costs needed to serve 1,000 residents for land and improvements. Then, those costs are divided by 1,000 to determine the cost needed to serve one resident.
Table 5.8: Park Facilities Investment Per Capita
Land Improvements Total
Parkland Investment (per acre)336,000$ 414,400$ 750,400$ Facility Standard (acres per 1,000 capita) 5.00 5.00 5.00 Total Investment Per 1,000 capita 1,680,000$ 2,072,000$ 3,752,000$ 1,000 1,000 1,000
Investment Per Capita 1,680$ 2,072$ 3,752$ Sources: Tables 5.4, and 5.6.
Use of Fee Revenue
The City plans to use park and recreation facilities fee revenue to purchase parkland or construct improvements to add to the system of park facilities that serves new development. The City may only use impact fee revenue to provide facilities and intensify usage of existing facilities needed to serve new development, and cannot fund existing development’s share of the planned facilities with impact fee revenue
Fee Schedule
To calculate fees by land use type, the investment in park facilities is determined on a per resident basis for both land acquisition and improvement. This investment factor (shown in Table
5.8) is the investment per capita based on the unit cost estimates and facility standards.
Table 5.9 shows the maximum justified park and recreation fac ilities fee based on the policy standard of 5.0 acres per capita. The investment per capita is converted to a fee per dwelling unit using the occupancy density factors from Table 2.2. The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
In Willdan’s experience with impact fee programs, two-percent of the base fee adequately covers the cost of fee program administration. The administrative charge should be reviewed and adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee program.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 449
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
28 Table 5.9: Park and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee A B C = A x B D = C x 2.0%E = C + D
Cost Per Base Admin
Land Use Capita Density Fee 1 Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 3,752$ 3.53 13,245$ 265$ 13,510$ Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms)3,752 3.13 11,744 235 11,979 Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less)3,752 1.51 5,666 113 5,779 1 Fee per dwelling unit.
2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 5.8.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 450
29 6. Water Facilities
This chapter details an analysis of the need for water system facilities to accommodate growth within the City of Hollister. It documents a reasonable relationship between new development and a water fee to fund water facilities that serve new development.
Water Demand
Estimates of new development and its consequent increased water demand provide the basis for calculating the water facilities fee. The need for water facilities improvements is based on the water demand placed on the system by development. A typical measure of demand is a flow generation rate, expressed as the number of gallons per day generated by a specific type of l and use. Flow generation rates are a reasonable measure of demand on the City’s system of water improvements because they represent the average rate of demand that will be placed on the system per land use designation.
Table 6.1 shows the calculation of EDU demand factors based on flow generation by land use category. The flow generation estimates were derived based on data from the City’s 2018 Water Distribution System Master Plan. EDU factors express demand for water facilities in terms of the demand created by a single-family dwelling unit.
Table 6.1: Water Demand by Land Use
Land Use Type
Flow
Generation
(GDPC/A)1 Density2
Average
Flow
Generation/
DU & KSF
Equivalent
Dwelling
Unit (EDU)
Residential
Single Family 76 3.53 268.28 1.00
Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms)76 3.13 237.88 0.89 Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less)76 1.51 114.76 0.43 Nonresidential
Commercial 1,455 87.12 16.70 0.06
Office 1,455 87.12 16.70 0.06
Industrial 369 43.56 8.47 0.03
1 Gallons per day per capita for residential, Gallons per acre 2 Residents per dwelling unit for residential, thousand square feet per acre for nonresidential.
Nonresidential densities are based on maximum floor-area-ratios of 2.0 for commercial, 2.0 for office and 1.0 industrial.
Sources: City of Hollister, Water Distribution System Master Plan, August 2018; Hollister General Plan; Willdan Financial Services.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 451
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
30 EDU Generation by New Development
Table 6.2 shows the estimated EDU generation from new development through 2040. New development will generate 2,378 new EDUs inside the current city limits, accounting for approximately 17-percent of water demand in 2040.
Table 6.2: Water Facilities Equivalent Dwelling Units
EDU
Factor1
Existing
(DU/KSF)
Projected
Growth
(DU/KSF)
Existing
EDUs
Growth in
EDUs Total
Residential
Single Family 1.00 8,660 1,741 8,660 1,741 10,401 Multifamily 0.89 2,599 522 2,313 465 2,778 Subtotal 11,259 2,263 10,973 2,206 13,179 Nonresidential
Commercial 0.06 5,232 1,399 314 84 398 Office 0.06 3,455 924 207 55 262 Industrial 0.03 4,074 1,089 122 33 155 Subtotal 12,761 3,412 643 172 815 Total 11,617 2,378 13,994
Percent of Total 83.0%17.0%100.0%
1 Per dwelling unit (residential) or thousand building square feet (nonresidential).
Sources: Tables 2.1 and 6.1, Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Needs and Costs
Tables 6.3 identifies the planned water facilities to be funded by the fee. Some projects benefit both existing and new development, and others only benefit existing development. Projects that do not benefit new development are not allocated to the impact fee. All other project costs are allocated to the impact fee based on new development’s proportional share of demand in 2040.
Table 6.4 identifies the cost to expand the West Hills Water Treatment Plant. The City is responsible for 50-percent of the cost of the improvements, though the total cost of the improvements is shown in Table 6.4 and is used to calculate the cost of capacity to serve new development. The upgrades will provide 5.3 million gallons per day of capacity. The total cost of the upgrades is divided by the increase in capacity to determine the cost per gallon per day of capacity. This figure is then multiplied by the average flow generation per day per single family unit to determine the cost of capacity to serve one EDU.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 452
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
31 Table 6.3: Water Facilities Costs to Serve New Development Project
No.Description
Proposed
Size/
Diameter
Total CIP Cost
Estimate
Allocation to
New
Development
Cost
Allocated to
New
Development
First Priority Projects
1-1 Park Hill Boosted Zone 12 980,000$ 17.0%166,531$ 1-3
Middle Zone Boundary
Modification --35,000 17.0%5,948
1-4 East St.8 210,700 17.0%35,804
1-5 Walnut Lane 8 255,850 17.0%43,477
1-6
Park Hill Tanks Operations &
Maintenance 42,000 0.0%-
Subtotal 1,523,550$ 251,760$
Second Priority Projects
2-1 Airport-Industrial East 8 1,014,370$ 17.0%172,372$ 2-2 Suiter St.8 87,290 17.0%14,833
2-3 South St.8 313,040 17.0%53,195
2-4 Monterey St.8 376,250 17.0%63,936
2-5 Powell St.8 201,670 17.0%34,270
2-6 Hazel St.8 612,535 17.0%104,088
2-7 North Airport-Industrial 8 1,783,600 17.0%303,087 Subtotal 4,388,755$ 745,781$
Third Priority Projects
3-1 West St 8 361,200$ 17.0%61,379$
3-2 Park Street 8 114,380 17.0%19,437
3-3 Locust Avenue 8 264,880 17.0%45,011
3-4 Hamilton Court 10 188,160 17.0%31,974
3-5 Quail Run 8 216,720 17.0%36,827
3-6 Ball Court 8 153,510 17.0%26,086
3-7 Brandy Court 8 66,220 17.0%11,253
3-8 Replace all 4-8" Cast Iron 8 18,210,500 17.0%3,094,510 3-9 Replace all 10" and 12"12 6,820,800 17.0%1,159,058 3-10 Replace all 16" Cast Iron 16 474,320 17.0%80,601 3-11 Replace all 4" PVC with 8" PVC 8 1,766,870 17.0%300,244 Subtotal 28,637,560$ 4,866,380$
North County Groundwater Supply 1
Phase I
Well(s) and Pipeline 3,600,000$ 17.0%611,748$
Booster Pump Station and Storage Tank 2,300,000 17.0%390,839 Phase II 5,300,000 17.0%900,629
Phase Ill 1,550,000 17.0%263,391
Subtotal 12,750,000$ 2,166,607$
Total 47,299,865$ 8,030,528$
Source: City of Hollister, Adopted Water Distribution System Master Plan, August 2018; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Project costs shown are equal to 50% of total project costs based on existing agreements (50% to City and 50% to SSCWD), with the exception of the booster pump station and storage tank project where the City is 100% responsible.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 453
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
32 West Hills Water Treatment Plant
Provision for Expansion and Reserve for
Short Term Growth in Initial Plant 13,900,000$
Expansion to 6.75 MGD 8,500,000
Expansion to 9.0 MGD 3,000,000
Subtotal 25,400,000$
Capacity Provided by Improvements (MGD)1 5.3
Cost per Gallon per Day 4.79$
Gallons per Day per EDU 268.28
Cost per EDU 1,286$
Table 6.4: West Hills Water Treatment Plant
Capacity Costs
Sources: San Benito County Water District; Willdan Financial 1 Existing plant has 0.8 MGD in remaining capacity. Future improvements will increase capacity by 4.5 MGD.
Allocation of Facilities Costs to New Development
Table 6.5 calculates the cost per EDU for new development to fund its fair share of the identified facilities. First, the net cost of planned facilities from Table 6.3 is divided by the growth in EDUs identified in Table 6.2 to identify the cost per EDU of the planned facilities. This figure is added to the cost per EDU for the West Hills Water Treatment Plant capacity from Table 6.4 to determ ine the total cost per EDU for all facilities.
Table 6.5: Total Cost per EDU
Net Cost of Planned Facilities 8,030,528$
Growth in EDUs 2,378
Cost per EDU 3,377$
West Hills Treatment Plant Capacity Upgrades
Cost per EDU 1,286$
Total Cost per EDU 4,663$
Sources: Tables 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 454
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
33 Non-Fee Funding Required
The City will use existing revenue sources or develop new sources to fund future facilities not required to accommodate growth, or to fund existing development’s fair share of facilities. The City must raise $48.9 million needed to fund the water facilities representing existing development’s existing deficiencies identified in Table 6.3, and the balance of the City’s share of the West Hills Water Treatment Plant with non-fee revenue sources.2 Likely potential sources of revenue include existing or new general fund revenues or existing or new taxes. Any new special tax would require two-thirds voter approval. Any new assessments or property-related charges would require majority property owner approval.
Fee Schedule
The maximum justified fee for water facilities is shown in Table 6.6. The cost per EDU is converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the EDU factors shown in Table 6.1.
The total fee includes an administrative charge to fund costs that include: (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the share of projects funded by the facilities fee, and (3) fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
Table 6.6: Water Facilities Impact Fee
A B C = A x B D = C x 0.02 E = C + D E / 1,000
Cost Per
EDU
EDU
Factor
Base
Fee 1
Admin
Charge 1, 2 Total Fee 1
Fee per
Sq. Ft.
Residential - per Dwelling Unit
Single Family 4,663$ 1.00 4,663$ 93$ 4,756$ Multifamily (2+ Bedrooms) 4,663 0.89 4,150 83 4,233 Multifamily (1 Bedroom or less) 4,663 0.43 2,005 40 2,045 Nonresidential - per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
Commercial 4,663$ 0.06 280$ 6$ 286$ 0.29$ Office 4,663 0.06 280 6 286 0.29 Industrial 4,663 0.03 140 3 143 0.14 Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6.5; Willdan Financial Services. 1 Persons per dwelling unit or per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent for (1) legal, accounting, and other administrative support and (2) impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses.
2 The City is responsible for 50-percent of the West Hills Water Treatment Plant costs.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 455
34 7. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section 66016. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City’s legal counsel should be consulted for any other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60-day waiting period before the fees go into effect.
Inflation Adjustment
The City should keep its impact fee program up to date by periodically adjusting the fees for inflation. Such adjustments should be completed regularly to ensure that new development will fully fund its share of needed facilities. We recommend that the following indices be used for adjusting fees for inflation:
Buildings – Engineering News-Record’s Construction Cost Index (CCI) The indices recommended can be found for local jurisdictions (state, region), and for the nation.
With the exception of land, we recommend that the national indices be used to adjust for inflation, as the national indices are not subject to frequent dramatic fluctuations that t he localized indices are subject to.
Due to the highly variable nature of land costs, there is no particular index that captures fluctuations in land values. We recommend that the City adjust land values based on recent land purchases, sales or appraisals at the time of the update.
While fee updates using inflationary indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City will also need to conduct more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculation (such as this study) when significant new data on growth forecasts and/or facility plans become available.
Reporting Requirements
The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of public fees and other revenues, identification of the source and amount of these non-fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.
The CIP identifies costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in t his manner documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as long as those new projects continue to represent an expa nsion of the City’s facilities. If the total cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider revising the fees accordingly.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 456
35 8. Mitigation Fee Act Findings
Public facilities fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee progr ams.
The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
▪ Identify the purpose of the fee (§66001(a)(1) of the Act).
Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The purpose of the fees proposed by this report is to provide a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide public facilities to new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
▪ Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by re ference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged (§66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City’s sphere of influence. Fees addressed in this report have been identified by the City to be restricted to funding the following facility categories: City Hall/City Yard facilities, storm drainage facilities, parks and recreation facilities and water facilities.
Benefit Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(3) of the Act).
The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities , infrastructure and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development.
Under the Act, fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development residential and non-residential use classifications that will pay the fees.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 457
City of Hollister Development Impact Fee Study Update
36 Burden Relationship
▪ Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of development on which the fees are imposed (§66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationsh ip to the type of development. For some facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with non-residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and non-residential development.
The standards used to identify growth needs are also used to determine if pla nned facilities will partially serve the existing service population by correcting existing deficiencies. This approach ensures that new development will only be responsible for its fair share of planned facilities, and that the fees will not unfairly burden new development with the cost of facilities associated with serving the existing service population.
Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
▪ Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fees amount and the cost of the facilities or portion of the facilities attributable to the development on whic h the fee is imposed (§66001(b) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project’s size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees.
ATTACHMENT A
G.1.j
Packet Pg. 458
STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING AGENDA
MEETING DATE: MAY 1, 2023
SUBMITTED: April 25, 2023
DEPARTMENT:
DEPARTMENT HEAD:
City Manager
David Mirrione, Acting City
Manager
TITLE OF ITEM: UPDATED CITY COUNCIL PROJECTS
BRIEF DESCRIPTION: City Council requested a list of agenda items, work items, and updates requested by the City Council to staff to be created and placed on each agenda under Unfinished Business.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and hold a discussion, if desired.
DEPARTMENT SUMMARY: On February 22, 2022, The City Council provided direction for staff to compile a list of all requests from Council that have been given to s taff, back to January 18, 2022. The request is for this list to be added to, and placed under “Unfinished Business” on each agenda.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. 20230501 - Agenda Item and Update Request log
H.1
Packet Pg. 459
2022 Council Agenda Item Requests 4/26/2023
\\coh-homesvr\CityClerkPublic\Geri\My Documents\City Council Request Form\NEW - Agenda Item and Update Request log - Excel 1 Velazquez 1/18/2022 &
5/2/2022 Discussion on parking/parking garage fees Development Services (Planning/Engineering)5/15/2023
Parking fee study has been
finalized and will be brought
forward to Council for discussion
and possible action.
2 Velazquez 5/2/2022
Add language in City Code to fine developers
who block the alleys, streets, public right of
way for longer than 2 days with dumpsters or
equipment
Development Services
(Planning)TBD Included in Zoning and Municipal
Code Update project.
3 Burns, Morales 2/22/2022
Discuss the appeal process for developers
appealing Planning Commission decision,
analysis on what other cities are doing
Development Services
(Planning)TBD Included in Zoning and Municipal
Code Update project.
4 Morales 3/21/2022 Outdoor Night Market Development Services (Planning)TBD Included in Zoning and Municipal
Code Update project.
5 Burns, Morales, Perez 4/4/2022 Food Truck Ordinance Review Development Services TBD Item being developed and will be
brought to Planning Commission
on 4/27/2023.
6 Burns, Morales, Perez 4/18/2022
Review Hollister Municipal Code that speaks
about security for events, fees, and permit
fees associated with them.
Administrative Services 6/1/2023 Willdan completed scope and has begun the study.
Meeting DateDepartment#Council Member(s)Date
Requested Item Description Status
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 460
2022 Council Agenda Item Requests 4/26/2023
\\coh-homesvr\CityClerkPublic\Geri\My Documents\City Council Request Form\NEW - Agenda Item and Update Request log - Excel Meeting DateDepartment#Council Member(s)Date
Requested Item Description Status
7 Council Member(s)5/2/2022
Strategic Plan and Study for Vista Park Hill
improvements, quotes for creating a dog park
at Park Hill to be included in next budget cycle
Parks & Recreation TBD
Topo survey has been contracted
with Kelly Engineering and survey
should be ready by 10/31/22. Dog
park at Vista Park will to be
included in 2023-24 budget for
Council consideration. Topo survey
has been received. Staff working to
issue an RFP for a Vista Park Hill
Master Plan.
UPDATE: Staff to request funding
in FY23-24 budget
8 Burns 5/16/2022
Adopt a policy for staff to return calls and
emails within 24 hours, and if out of office
place notification on their email
Administrative Services (HR)Jun-23 Working on finding a good customer service training.
9 Burns 5/16/2022
Hire full time employees for building
Department Building Official and Building
Inspector
Administrative Services (HR)TBD
Applications were screened. Staff
is working on updating job
descriptions.
10 Burns/Perez 9/6/2022 Develop cooling and warming center policy City Manager TBD Partnering with County OES to
develop policy. Cooling policy is
complete and OES working with
City Manager's office to complete
Warming Center policy. Delayed
due to 2023 floods
11 Morales 9/6/2022 Future park to be developed in District 3 Parks & Recreation TBD Federal appropriation request submitted
12 Burns 10/3/2022 Special Meeting to Discuss the Library City Manager TBD Staff working to prepare meeting H.1.a
Packet Pg. 461
2022 Council Agenda Item Requests 4/26/2023
\\coh-homesvr\CityClerkPublic\Geri\My Documents\City Council Request Form\NEW - Agenda Item and Update Request log - Excel Meeting DateDepartment#Council Member(s)Date
Requested Item Description Status
13 Burns 1/17/2023 Reconsideration of City's development impact fees Administrative Services TBD Fee Study being completed for all city fees
14 Morales 1/17/2023
Procurement Policy to express City's
preference for a skilled and trained workforce
instead of just the lowest responsive bidder,
such as preference for local hires and working
with veterans
Administrative Services TBD Staff is working with legal team to develop policy.
15 Burns 2/6/2023
City to take on cost for internet service for
computers installed by LULAC at Community
Center
Information Technology 6/5/2023 Developing cost estimates for FY 2023-24 budget
16 Resendiz 2/6/2023 Art development fees Parks & Recreation TBD Arts and Cultural Commission
considered on 2/7/23 and 4/11/23.
Bringing to Council at future date.
17 Resendiz 2/21/2023 Policy on use of Council travel funds Administrative Services TBD Policy under development 18 Perez 2/21/2023 Program to support beautification of Downtown business and empty lots Development Services TBD Staff working to develop options for Council discussion
19 Resendiz 2/21/2023
Consideration of an amendment to HMC
regarding adoption of tentative maps by the
City Council
Development Services 5/15/2023 Staff preparing agenda item 20 Burns 3/6/2023
4/3/2023
Clarification regarding Council discretionary
funds. Consider raising budget to $100K Administrative Services 3/24/2023 Staff is researching the 2022-23
budget hearings and will be
providing an update.
21 Perez 3/6/2023 Tree Replacement Program Community Services TBD Program will be discussed at Goal Setting Meeting
22 Casey 3/6/2023 Speed Cushion Policy Engineering 6/5/2023 Staff developing policy. Council
adopted a resolution pausing
traffic calming measures until
policy is approved.
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 462
2022 Council Agenda Item Requests 4/26/2023
\\coh-homesvr\CityClerkPublic\Geri\My Documents\City Council Request Form\NEW - Agenda Item and Update Request log - Excel Meeting DateDepartment#Council Member(s)Date
Requested Item Description Status
23 Burns 3/20/2023 Create litter abatement and graffiti abatement team Community Services TBD Developing cost estimates for FY 2023-24 budget
24 Burns 3/20/2023
Consider placing the raising the Transient
Occupancy Tax on the ballot for the next
general election
City Clerk TBD
Will reach out to BBK to provide
election consulting services and
include in FY 2023-24 budget
25 Perez 3/20/2023 Install electric vehicle charging systems throughout the City Community Services TBD Developing cost estimates for FY 2023-24 budget
26 Casey 3/20/2023 Provide an ADA accessible update for Summer Park Drive Parks & Recreation TBD Developing cost estimates for FY 2023-24 budget
27 Council 4/3/2023 Information on chemical pesticide use by the City and policy on use of chemical pesticides Community Services TBD Staff to draft memo on topic 28 Council 4/3/2023 Letter of opposition re: Taxpayer Protection and Government Accountability Act initiative City Attorney 5/15/2023 Letter being prepared for 5/15/23 meeting
29 Casey 4/3/2023 Ordinance re: Vacant commercial buildings Development Services TBD Working with City Attorney to
discuss options to present to
Council
30 Morales 4/17/2023 Use of Council discretionary funds for beautification projects Development Services TBD Discretionary funds policy being drafted as part of 2023-24 budget
31 Morales, Perez 4/17/2023 Campaign finance City Attorney TBD City attorney drafting report for future council meeting
32 Casey 4/17/2023 Review Council Code of Conduct City Attorney TBD City attorney drafting report for future council meeting
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 463
2022 Completed Agenda Items 4/26/2023
1 Burns 1/18/2022
Victor Gomez's project (2021-147)
be placed on a future special
meeting agenda
City Clerk 4/2/2022 Special Meeting with
presentations by Victor 4/2/2022
2 Resendiz 1/18/2022
Presentation from the high school
on the need for another high
school and impact fees for funding
City Manager 4/2/2022 Special Meeting (ran out of
time at the 3/7 Meeting)4/2/2022
3 Velazquez 1/22/2022
City Manager and City Attorney to
negotiate a Rally contract with
Roadshows, that includes a fair
reimbursement to the promoter if
the City cancels, and to add that it
may be canceled due to COVID or
public safety staffing shortage.
Requested that the contract come
back by March 7 for Council to
review
City Manager 3/21/2022 Rally was canceled via Council
consensus 3/21/2022
4 Burns 2/7/2022 Consider cancelling Bird Scooter
program City Manager 3/21/2022 Direction given to staff re: Bird Contract 3/21/2022
5 Burns 2/22/2022 Closed session item to discuss
Safer Grant funding for firefighters City Manager 3/7/2022 3/7/2022 6 Morales 2/22/2022 Discussion on Gavilan College -
special meeting City Manager 4/2/2022 Special Meeting with presentation 4/2/2022
7 Perez 3/7/2022 Library AdHoc City Clerk 3/21/2022 created ad hoc, appointed 2 Council Members 3/21/2022
8 Perez 3/7/2022 Recreation Community Center Ad
Hoc City Clerk 3/21/2022 made this a subcommittee of
the Library Ad Hoc 3/21/2022
9 Velazquez 3/7/2022 Purchase or more speed cushions
placed on a future agenda City Manager 3/21/2022 done via Resolution 3/21/2022 10 Council
Member(s)3/21/2022 150th Celebration Proclamation City Clerk 4/4/2022 4/4/2022 11 Burns 2/7/2022 Discussion on hazard pay first
meeting of April City Manager 4/4/2022
MOU's re: Hazard Pay for
Employees approved
5/2/2022
5/2/2022
Notes Completed#Council
Member(s)Date Requested Item Description Department Meeting Date H.1.a
Packet Pg. 464
2022 Completed Agenda Items 4/26/2023
Notes Completed#Council
Member(s)Date Requested Item Description Department Meeting Date 12 Council
Member(s)3/21/2022 "Welcome to Hollister" sign arch
over downtown, cost and design City Manager Approved at Special meeting 4/25/22 4/25/2022
13 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Appropriation for $20,000 to
Bulldog Boxing City Manager 4/4/2022 Approved $30,000 at 5/2/222 Meeting 5/2/2022
14 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022 Special Council Meeting for Sign
Contract City Manager 4/25/2022 Completed 4/25/22 4/25/2022 15 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022
Research cost to have fiber to
Brigantino Park and Treatment
Plant and Fire Station 2
IT Completed 4/27/2022
16 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022 Special Council Meeting to discuss
Rally and Fire District City Clerk Scheduled Special meeting for 5/14/22 5/14/2022
17 Burns 3/21/2022 Police Department Ad Hoc
Committee City Clerk 4/18/2022 Created PD Communications AdHoc on 12/20/2021 4/18/2022
18 Morales 2/22/2022 Discussion on the Ordinance
regarding Council Code of Conduct City Clerk 4/18/2022 Provided update on 4/18/2022 CCM.4/18/2022
19 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Committee for Rally and Festivals City Clerk 4/18/2022 Council Members Morales and
Perez were appointed on April
18, 2022.
4/18/2022
20 Morales 1/18/2022 Create a way for Council to submit memos for the agenda City Clerk 4/18/2022
Clarified Council Member
wants to submit items to City
Clerk for posting to COH Social
media sites.
4/18/2022
21 Perez 1/18/2022
Discuss changing/increasing
Council salaries-City Clerk provided
Council & CM with current
Ordinances 978 & 1080
City Manager 3/7/2022
First Reading of Ordinance to
amend City Code set for May
16, 2022. Item did not pass.
5/16/2022
22 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022
Presentation of substandard
Housing with statistics for past
substandard housing that are
significant
Code Enforcement 4/4/2022 On May 16, Council Meeting
Agenda 5/16/2022
23 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Council Salary Ordinance City Manager
First Reading of Ordinance to
amend City Code set for May
16, 2022-Did not pass
5/16/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 465
2022 Completed Agenda Items 4/26/2023
Notes Completed#Council
Member(s)Date Requested Item Description Department Meeting Date 24 Burns 5/2/2022 Update on substandard housing
Housing,
Development
Services
Presentation on May 16, 2022 5/16/2022
25 Council
Member(s)5/2/2022
Presentation on the RDA, bring
back the annual report for
acceptance (Jamila)
Housing,
Development
Services
Presentation on May 16, 2022 5/16/2022
26 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022
Code of Conduct Ordinance
Review to make sure it is not
unconstitutional
City Clerk 4/4/2022
Memorandum will be
provided to Council by outside
attorney. Memo provided on
5/25/2022 on Regulating
Speech and removing
disruptive speakers
5/25/2022
27 Burns 2/22/2022
Discussion on Charter City, Term
Limits, and placing these items on
the ballot.
Ad Hoc 4/18/2022
Consultant is working on
Term Limits. Council
Direction for Charter City to
be brought back for
discussion in February of
2023. Council Term limit on
agenda for 6/6/2022 for
approval
6/6/2022
28 Burns 2/22/2022
Discussion on vacant lot downtown
San Benito Street at 7th St across
from the Memorial Building as a
park for green space
City Manager Inquiring with realtors, owner
doesn't want to sell.6/30/2022
29 Burns 2/22/2022
Discussion on acquiring
commercial vacant parcel on
Sunnyslope east of Airline Hwy and
South of Memorial, on South side
of road (6 acres) for a community
park.
City Manager
Developer working on a
project for site and the land is
in escrow.
6/30/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 466
2022 Completed Agenda Items 4/26/2023
Notes Completed#Council
Member(s)Date Requested Item Description Department Meeting Date 30 Velazquez 3/21/2022 Discussion or Study Session on
creating a Fire District City Clerk 4/18/2022
Request to LAFCo on the
process & working with
Elections Consultant. Special
Meeting to be held on May
14, 2022. LAFCO provided the
process to Council. May be
ready for Election in 2024 if
process is started in time.
Considered
complete
5/14/2022
31 Burns 3/21/2022 Discussion of putting the Rally on
the ballot City Clerk 4/18/2022
Special Meeting to be held in
May 14. Consultant is working
on Advisory Measure. On
June 6 Agenda for Council
Approval.
6/6/2022
32 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022
Identify which sidewalks need
repairs and determine from that
how much money is needed
City Manager
Direction given to staff to
allocate $500,000 from ARPA
Funds, divide amongst 5
Council Members - Council to
send locations
Waiting on
individual Council
Members
33 Council
Member(s)5/2/2022 Presentation on grants, low
income housing
Housing,
Development
Services
Agenda item in June 2022 6/6/2022
34 Burns 5/16/2022 Look again at non permitted
vendors in city jurisdiction Code Enforcement Code patrolling on weekends 6/30/2022 35 Burns 5/16/2022
Report on Fire Inspection
Resources & how prevention may
have helped prevent fires
downtown
Fire Department Fire Presented in June 2022 6/21/2022
36 Burns 5/16/2022 Creation of Fire Bureau &
Resources necessary
Fire Department &
City Manager
Approved as part of the
Budget 6/27/2022
37 Burns 5/16/2022
Report on Budget for Fire
Department being Over Budget
and Under budgeted
Fire Department &
City Manager Presentation on June 6, 2022 6/21/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 467
2022 Completed Agenda Items 4/26/2023
Notes Completed#Council
Member(s)Date Requested Item Description Department Meeting Date 38 Burns 5/16/2022 Fire Department Liaison
Appointment on next agenda City Clerk 6/6/2022 Placed on June 6, 2022 Agenda 6/6/2022
39 Resendiz 5/16/2022 Speed Cushion update City Manager emailed Council 6/30/2022 6/30/2022 40 Burns 3/21/2022 Renaming Union Road to "Cesar
Chavez Way"City Manager 8/1/2022
Engineering bringing to August
2022 Meeting. If approved
working on ribbon cutting
8/1/2022
41 Burns 3/21/2022 RFP for Communications Center
feasibility study Police PD to bring agenda item on
9/6.9/6/2022
42 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022 Review policies for Noise
Ordinance to include other animals
Police (Animal
Control)/ City
Attorney
This matter has been handled
via Ordinance brought to
Council on September 6, 2022.
9/14/2022
43 Burns/Perez/Mora
les 9/6/2022
Proclamation declaring October as
Breast Cancer Awareness month.
Fly Breast Cancer flag in October at
City Hall.
City Manager 9/19/2022 Proclamation on 9/19 agenda.9/19/2022 44 Burns 9/19/2022 Closed Session item on the Airport
Tenant Eviction City Manager
City Manager provided Council
Member Burns with necessary
information so item does not
need to be put on closed
session.
9/19/2022
45 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Shopping Cart Ordinance Review
City Attorney /
Police (Code
Enforcement)
10/3/2022
Second reading of ordinance
will be brought to Council on
10/3/22.
10/3/2022
46 Morales 9/6/2022 Council pay increase City Attorney Update provided to council.10/3/2022 47 Perez 10/3/2022 Developer Meeting City Manager 10/10/2022 City Manager will work on scheduling a Special Meeting 10/10/2022
48 Perez 10/3/2022 Building maintenance program Community Services 10/17/2022 Department working on RFQ
for Facility Assessment Survey.
Will bring to the 10/17/22 City
Council Meeting
10/17/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 468
2022 Completed Agenda Items 4/26/2023
Notes Completed#Council
Member(s)Date Requested Item Description Department Meeting Date 49 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022 Building maintenance program Community Services 10/17/2022 Department working on RFQ for Facility Assessment Survey.10/17/2022
50 Morales 9/6/2022 Water Conservation Presentation City Manager 11/7/2022 Will contact SBCWD to
schedule date for
presentation.
11/7/2022
51 Resendiz/Morales/
Perez 9/6/2022
Letter to Board of Supervisors
regarding fentanyl crisis in San
Benito County
City Manager 11/7/2022
Behavioral Health has
requested to present at
11/7/22 council meeting. Will
evaluate need for letter post
presentation.
11/7/2022
52 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022 Analysis of Swope Alley City Manager 11/7/2022 Bid documents for the Wentz-
Browns-Swope Alley
Pavement and Drainage
Project are being presented to
the Council for approval on
11/7/22.
11/7/2022
53 Burns 11/21/2022
Municipal Code Section 1010-1050
(Parking of RV& Boats in Private
Property)
Police (Code
Enforcement)12/5/2022 Discussion scheduled for 12/5
Council meeting 12/5/2022
54 Burns 11/21/2022 Discussion on Rally City Manager 12/19/2022 Discussion scheduled for 12/19 Council meeting 12/19/2022
55 Resendiz 11/21/2022
Process for Police Department to
Wear LGBTQ+ Pride Awareness
Flag on Patch
Police City attorney reviewing 1/17/2023
56 Casey 2/6/2023
Creation of an ad hoc committee
for the animal shelter and invite
county representatives
Police (Animal
Control)/ City
Attorney
Casey and Resendiz to serve
on committee 2/6/2023
57 Resendiz 9/6/2022
Review Animal Control Ordinance
to ensure that "puppy mills" are
not inadvertently permissible in
city.
Police (Animal
Control)/ City
Attorney
Will be discussed at the
Animal Control Ad Hoc
Committee meeting
2/14/2023
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 469
2022 Completed Agenda Items 4/26/2023
Notes Completed#Council
Member(s)Date Requested Item Description Department Meeting Date 58 Burns 2/6/2023
Proclamation honoring LULAC for
35 years of service to the
community
City Manager 2/21/2023 Item scheduled for 2/21/23 2/21/2023 59 Burns 2/6/2023 Closed session on 2/21/23 to
discuss City Manager City Attorney 2/21/2023
City Manager contract
discussion scheduled for
Closed Session
2/21/2023
60 Casey 2/21/2023
Options to address feral cat
population including two
additional spay/neuter clinics in
March
Police/Animal
Control 3/6/2023 Agenda item scheduled for
3/6/23 3/6/2023
61 Casey 2/6/2023 Special meeting to discuss traffic
calming measures and city streets Community Services 3/6/2023 Agenda item scheduled for 3/6/23 3/6/2023
62 Resendiz 3/6/2023
Options for recognizing June as
LGBTQ+ month, such as flag
raising, progressive stickers, email
logos, inclusivity training, unisex
restroom signs
City Manager 3/20/2023 Item on the 3/20/23 agenda 3/20/2023 63 Burns 3/6/2023
Proclamation recognizing the
Hollister High School girl's soccer
team on their state championship
City Clerk 3/20/2023 Presented on 3/20/23 3/20/2023
64 Casey 3/6/2023 Study session on traffic calming
projects Engineering 3/27/2023
Council directed staff to draft
a speed cushion/traffic
calming measure policy
3/27/2023
65 Perez 3/20/2023 Raise the Christian Flag at City Hall on April 2 City Clerk 3/27/2023
Council approved resolution
on 3/27/23 authorizing the
raising of the Christian flag on
4/2/23
3/27/2023
66 Morales 2/21/2023 Presentation on new laws
impacting city operations City Attorney 4/3/2023 Presented to Council on 4/3/23 4/3/2023
67 Burns 2/21/2023 Policy regarding proclamations City Clerk 4/3/2023 Approved by Council on 4/3/23 4/3/2023
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 470
2022 Completed Agenda Items 4/26/2023
Notes Completed#Council
Member(s)Date Requested Item Description Department Meeting Date 68 Burns 3/6/2023
Update HMC 1.18.060 to reflect
location of Code Enforcement
office
City Attorney 4/3/2023
Second reading of ordinance
will be brought to Council on
4/17/23
4/17/2023
69 Casey 3/6/2023
3/20/2023
Neighborhood/Community
Meeting to discuss Ladd Lane
traffic calming measures
Engineering 4/17/2023 Council approved public
outreach project 4/17/23 4/17/2023
70 Burns 4/3/2023
Proclamation for Cole Seymour
and Eliana Salcedo for their recent
wins at Razorback Wrestling
competition
City Clerk 4/17/2023 Presented on 4/17/23 4/17/2023
71 Perez 2/21/2023 Discussion of Council Pay (HMC
2.04.320)City Attorney 4/17/2023 Council direction provided 4/17/23. 4/17/2023
72 Burns 2/21/2023 Presentation on Flock Cameras Police 4/17/2023 Presented 4/17/23 4/17/2023 73 Burns 2/6/2023 Rename Community Center for
Pauline Valdivia
Parks & Recreation
(Tina)4/17/2023 Approved 4/17/23 4/17/2023
74 Casey 1/17/2023 Policy on how items are added to
the City Council agenda City Clerk 4/17/2023 Council direction provided 4/17/23. On 5/1/23 agenda 4/17/2023
75 Burns 1/17/2023
Request update to municipal code
related to Administrative Hearing
Officer requirements
City Attorney 4/17/2023 Council direction provided
4/17/23. 4/17/2023
76 Resendiz 3/20/2023
Refer to the Arts & Cultural
Advisory Commission the design of
the Hollister logo to incorporate
the LGBTQ+ Progress Pride flag
Parks & Recreation 4/11/2023 a logo considered at the ACC meeting on 4/11/23 4/11/2023
77 Burns 3/21/2022 Discuss a Historical Officer position at budget time City Manager 3/27/2023 Will bring item back to goal setting meeting.3/27/2023
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 471
2022 Completed Agenda Items 4/26/2023
Notes Completed#Council
Member(s)Date Requested Item Description Department Meeting Date 78 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022
As part of budget process, reports
from each dept on year to date
accomplishments, 3 year fiscal
analysis or forecast for anticipated
equipment , projects,
expenditures, performance
measures, task performance
measures, and employee
satisfaction rate
City Manager 3/27/2023 Will be included as part of
2023-24 Budget Hearings 3/27/23 - 6/30/23
79 Burns 3/6/2023
Fly the Deferred Action for
Childhood Arrivals flag at City Hall
for a month
City Clerk 5/1/2023
Resolution to Raise DACA flag
5/4/23-5/7/23 on 5/1/23
agenda
5/1/2023
80 Burns 2/21/2023
Proclamation recognizing Bill's
Bullpen for 35 years of business in
Hollister
City Clerk 5/1/2023 Scheduled to coincide with
start of Comic Book Week 5/1/2023
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 472
2022 Update Requests from Council
(non-agenda items)
4/26/2023
\\coh-homesvr\CityClerkPublic\Geri\My Documents\City Council Request Form\NEW - Agenda Item and Update Request log - Excel #
1 Morales 1/22/2022
Development Services to create a
checklist of steps for new businesses to
get started to help streamline the process
Development Services Working to include in EDC MOU 7/31/2023 2 Velazquez 2/7/2022 Update on lighting on 6th street and solar lights
Development Services
(Engineering)
Supplies have been received by contractor. Installation will begin in early May of 2023 4/25/2023
3 Council 5/2/2022
Upgrade or replace the lights downtown
and the first block of the side streets with
APRA funds
Community Services An RFP is currently out, and will close on 4/25/23, to add lights to side streets. 6/30/2023 if not before
4 Velazquez 5/2/2022 Discussion on dark sky Ordinance to prevent light pollution at night.
Development Services
(Planning and
Engineering)
Included in Zoning and Municipal Code Update project.TBD 5 Burns 9/6/2022 Shade structure at Valley View Park Parks & Recreation Quotes have been received. Staff working with vendor to schedule installation.6/30/2023
6 Burns 9/6/2022
Union Rd signs need to be replaced with
Avenida Cesar Chavez signs at Fairview
and Hwy 25 intersections
Community Services
Encroachment permit submitted to Caltrans and sign is
being printed. Caltrans estimates 3-4 months
timeframe for encroachment permit approval.
8/31/2023
7 Resendiz 9/6/2022 Develop toddler activity area at Dunne Park Parks & Recreation Recreation researching costs to add feature to Dunne Park 6/30/2023
8 Burns 1/17/2023
Suggested potential changes to the
process regarding City Council's review of
initiating a general plan amendment to
potentially lower the threshold for the
required Council vote to approve the
initiation.
City Attorney Referred to City Attorney TBD
9 Burns 2/6/2023
Mountain lion shooting incident from
2022 - Requested independent
investigation of the incident and the body
camera footage to be released and
presented at regular city council meeting
City Attorney/Police Referred to City Attorney TBD
Completed DateCouncil Member Meeting Date Update Requested Department Status Estimated Date of Completion
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 473
2022 Update Requests from Council
(non-agenda items)
4/26/2023
\\coh-homesvr\CityClerkPublic\Geri\My Documents\City Council Request Form\NEW - Agenda Item and Update Request log - Excel #Completed DateCouncil Member Meeting Date Update Requested Department Status Estimated Date of Completion
10 Resendiz 2/21/2023 Training for peace officers and
dispatchers as required by AB2504 City Attorney/Police Staff researching.TBD 11 Resendiz 3/6/2023 Update on Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance Development Services Planning Commission reviewed ordinance on 2/23/23 and staff will bring to Council on 5/1/23 5/1/2023
12 Burns 3/6/2023 Update on Hillcrest east of Memorial to El Toro Engineering Project is still not complete. Final slurry seal and striping work will be completed in April and May.5/31/2023 13 Burns 3/6/2023
3/20/2023
Update on hiring of maintenance worker
to repaint sound walls citywide Community Services Current opening is awaiting interviews from a list of applicants.
5/31/2023
Depending on interviews,
backgound checks,
onboarding, etc.
14 Burns 3/20/2023
Update on previous concerns by
members of the public regarding parklets
that would harm their business
Development Services
Development services staff have been working with
Parklet applicant and neighboring business throughout
process.
TBD
15 Burns 3/20/2023 Update on collection of fees from
litigation City has won Administrative Services Staff are gathering information and will report back to Council at a future date TBD
16 Morales 3/20/2023
Update on the status of City's
involvement in regional efforts regarding
broadband installation
City Manager Staff working on developing a report for council TBD 17 Morales 3/20/2023 Update on when Council will discuss the fee for Accessory Dwelling Units Development Services Staff is researching and will bring back to Council on 5/15/23 5/15/2023
18 Resendiz 4/3/2023
Transcribe LGBTQ+ Manual for Public
Officials and provide to employees and
other jurisdictions.
City Manager Manual being reviewed by Esperanza Center team.5/1/2023 19 Burns 4/3/2023 Comprehensive training report City Manager City Manager developing report format TBD 20 Burns, Morales 4/3/2023 Employee Recognition Program Human Resources Staff looking at options to bring back pre-COVID events TBD 21 Morales 4/17/2023 Weeds at San Benito Street and Promise Community Services Crew dispatched to address concern 5/1/2023 H.1.a
Packet Pg. 474
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#
1 Burns 1/8/2022 Set a hard stop date for map submission City Clerk 1/8/2022 2 Perez 1/8/2022
Requested the number of hits to the redistricting
website and emails received re: submitting maps
be emailed to council prior to the next meeting
Information Systems
& Technology 1/8/2022
3 Velazquez 1/18/2022
Request any communications sent to Council
Members re: redistricting be sent to the City
Clerk and shared with all of Council
City Clerk 2/7/2022
4 Burns 1/18/2022 Report on the Bird Scooter pilot program-- revenue, issues, etc.City Manager 3/21/2022
5 Burns 1/18/2022 Update on the process of adding roofs to the parklets downtown City Manager 1/28/2022
6 Burns 1/18/2022 Update on the Executive recruitment process for various positions City Manager 1/22/2022
7 Burns 1/18/2022 Update on the American Rescue Plan (ARPA), plans for recognition or payment to staff City Manager 1/22/2022 8 Morales 1/18/2022
Council to submit information to be distributed
to the Community by Social Media or any other
ways from their committees
City Clerk 4/18/2022
9 Morales 1/18/2022
Update on all of the grants she mentioned the
City could apply for in December-Received an
email from CM on 4/12/2022 with an attached
excel sheet.
City Manager 4/12/2022
10 Perez 1/18/2022 Update on the Central Ave traffic calming project if it is complete DS-Engineering 3/16/2022
11 Morales 1/18/2022 Report on other City Council salaries and benefits City Manager 3/7/2022
Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested H.1.a
Packet Pg. 475
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 12 Morales 1/18/2022 Update on the Broadband for the City Information Systems & Technology 4/27/2022
13 Burns 1/22/2022 Analysis on how other cities are spending ARPA funds City Manager 4/4/2022
14 Burns 1/22/2022
Department Heads go through the list of City
staff and put them into categories, such as front
line staff, public safety, office workers, consider
tiers of hazard pay by April 1
City Manager 2/23/2022
15 Burns 1/22/2022
Have Council come up with ways to recognize
other groups of essential workers outside of City
Staff, such as teachers, grocery clerks, gas
station attendants, come up with plan to give
hazard pay or gift cards, by April 1
City Manager 4/4/2022
16 Burns 2/7/2022 Update on Executive position recruitment City Manager 3/15/2022 17 Morales 2/7/2022 Spreadsheet of all actions items requested by Council City Clerk 3/21/2022
18 Morales 2/7/2022 Update on 150th Celebration City Manager 3/21/2022 19 Morales 2/7/2022 Submit applications for grants due by Feb. 24th Fire 2/22/2022 20 Morales 2/7/2022 List of all projects utilizing Measure G funds, status, amount spent, etc.City Manager 2/23/2022
21 Resendiz 2/22/2022 Find out if other cities have a Veterans preference in hiring for all depts., not just PD
Administrative
Services
Finance/Human
Resources
4/4/2022
22 Burns 2/22/2022
How many HPD officers are veterans? How
many City staff members throughout the city are
veterans?
Administrative
Services
Finance/Human
Resources
4/4/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 476
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 23 Burns 2/22/2022
Consider adding to the Assistant City Manager
position job description to be a liaison to
Council.
City Manager 2/22/2022
24 Resendiz 2/22/2022 Consider adding to the Assistant City Manager position job description to work on PRA requests City Manager 2/22/2022 25 Burns 2/22/2022
Evaluate K-rails blocking union road are a
hindrance to Fire and Police response in an
emergency
DS-Engineering 2/25/2022
26 Burns 2/22/2022
Consider an item to purchase 400-500
"grabbers" for picking up trash, and have Council
give these away at park openings so public can
help keep parks clean.
Recreation 3/5/2022
27 Morales 2/22/2022 Update on 2021 goals and accomplishments, and what is our road map for 2022 goals City Manager 2/24/2022 28 Morales 2/22/2022
Requested a report on what percent of our
budget is from grants and what the grants are
for (separate from entitlement grants)
City Manager 2/22/2022
29 Morales 2/22/2022 Update on the 311 application Information Systems & Technology 2/7/2022
30 Council 2/22/2022 Update on the total number of PRA requests the City Clerk's Office receives per year City Clerk 4/4/2022 31 Morales 2/22/2022 Report on all of the IT projects to help with streamlining
Information Systems
& Technology 2/25/2022
32 Morales 3/7/2022 4th of July Fireworks bring back location of event Recreation 3/21/2022 H.1.a
Packet Pg. 477
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 33 Burns 3/7/2022 Staff look at other cities using Accela and talk with IT, Planning, and Building
Information Systems
& Technology 4/27/2022
34 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Assistant City Manager update City Manager 4/4/2022 35 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Update on Deputy City Clerk recruitment-CC is Waiting for HR City Manager HR posted Deputy City Clerk position online 5/2/2022
36 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Social Media posts-votes of previous night Council Mtgs City Clerk Waiting for additional Deputy City Clerk 3/31/2023
37 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Naming of park by Fire Station 2: Cesar Chavez Park Parks & Recreation
Received Prop 68 grant for park
construction. Will include the
name in all public outreach efforts
as required by the grant.
3/31/2024
38 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022
Provide training at the County's Fentanyl and
Opioid Training in June to have video available
to be able to administer NARCAN
PD
Presentation given on 5/2/2022,
with Narcan training for public
offered on 6/11/2022
5/2/2022
39 Morales 3/7/2022
Assistant City Manager Recruitment be
completed in ideally 3 months, no later than 6
months
City Manager
Approved contract with Peckham
& McKenney for recruitment
services
5/2/2022
40 Perez 3/21/2022 Dog Park Grass - Update. Recreation-Report to be provided at May 2, 2022 Council Meeting.
Community Services
Parks/Streets/Utilitie
s/Fleet
5/2/2022
41 Velazquez 1/22/2022
Move ARPA funds to general fund by March,
earmarking funds for business revitalization,
tourism, "Welcome to Hollister" sign, develop
loan or grant program for businesses to apply for
City Manager 4/25/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 478
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 42 Burns 2/22/2022
Report on the City's intentions and ideas on
what to do with Park Hill. Recreation-Report to
be provided at May 2, 2022 Council Meeting
Recreation Recreation gave a presentation on
5/2/2022 5/2/2022
43 Burns 3/21/2022 Promoting the 150th Celebration City Manager Update given by Ad Hoc (Morales) during meeting 5/2/2022
44 Perez
Morales
3/7/2022
4/4/2022
Report on speed cushions, current locations,
future locations and remaining amount,
provided an update on 3/21/2022 Council
requested another update on 4/4/2022
DS-Engineering 4/18/2022
45 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022 Update on Youth Art and Cultural Commissioner applications City Clerk Two applicants for appointment
on 5/16/2022 5/16/2022
46 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022
Information on City of Hollister plans for Office
Professionals Day and recognition events that
have to do with our staffing.
City Manager
Recognized Office Professionals
Day. Working on other staff
morale ideas
4/27/2022
47 Perez 5/2/2022 Requested a 5 minute timer for all presentations City Clerk Completed 5/16/2022 48 Morales 1/18/2022 Traffic study on San Benito Road near 7-11 DS-Engineering Study in process-Speed humps not warranted 4/30/2022
49 Velazquez 1/22/2022 See if other nearby cities want to purchase speed cushions so we may order in bulk
Community Services
Parks/Streets/Utilitie
s/Fleet
Invite was given to CAO & City
Manager of SJB 3/30/2022
50 Velazquez 2/7/2022 Monthly or bi-Monthly meetings with the Fire Committee Fire Fire Committee created 5/26/2022
51 Burns 2/22/2022
Asked if City Attorney can confirm if we can
close/stop public comment, requested his legal
opinion on the matter
City Attorney Requested from Consultant as a
separate memo 5/26/2022
52 Morales 2/22/2022 Update on traffic study for speed cushions on San Benito Street by 7-11 DS-Engineering Study in process-Speed humps not warranted 4/30/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 479
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 53 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022 Dunne Park Community Center update City Manager Recreation Services Manager Garza provided presentation 5/2/2022
54 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022 Add to second evaluation of Ord. 1202 for constitutionality City Clerk Requested from Consultant as a separate memo on 4/19.5/25/2022
55 Council 5/2/2022
Divide the APRA $500K for sidewalks between
the 5 council members to allocate for use in
their respective districts.
City Manager 5/2/2022
56 Resendiz 5/2/2022
Requests staff consider putting spikes on top of
the streetlights on Piane Crati Court (in D2) due
to complaints of bird waste on cars
Public Works Purchasing Bird Spikes 5/13/2022
57 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Outstanding Building Permits over 6 months with status Building Council given monthly 6/30/2022
58 Resendiz 5/2/2022 Update on Dollar General's weed and graffiti abatement Code Enforcement Weeds removed 5/25/2022
59 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/18/2022 memo clarification on using titles, city issued equipment, and our platform for campaigning City Clerk
Requested from Consultant as a
separate memo on 4/19.
Requested clarification from
consultant on using city logo shirts
and posting videos
5/20/2022
60 Morales 3/7/2022 Process for requesting speed cushions be placed on website for the public to access DS-Engineering
Council wanted to keep it simple
so the process is that a request is
made to a council member who
relays it to the City Manager who
relays it to Engineering for study.
A more detailed process was
brought to Council, but rejected.
6/6/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 480
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 61 Morales 2/7/2022
Revisit Council Committee assignments, updates
on committees that do not meet, and create
committee assignments for Finance and Public
Works
City Clerk
Staff requested clarification on
which committees updates are
being requested from.
Department Liaisons for Finance is
Council Member Resendiz and
Community Services Liaison is
Mayor Velazquez.
6/21/2022
62 Perez 2/22/2022 Consider changes to City's Parking Ordinance, regarding parking across from the Library.Police Department PD working on removing parking
restrictions on 5th St. On
6/6/2022 Agenda
6/6/2022
63 Morales 2/22/2022 Discussion on Planning Department projects that are delayed and what the problems are DS-Planning Spreadsheet provided to Council on 6/24/2022 6/24/2022
64 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Safe Zones Police Dept PD working on testing site before press release.6/21/2022
65 Perez 5/2/2022 Consider making a temporary loading zone area in front of Gunnagle Funeral Home for Hearses
Planning,
Engineering?
A work order has been issued to
Public Works to create a loading
zone out of two of the parking
spaces in front of the funeral
home.
7/22/2022
66 Resendiz 5/16/2022 May we look to see what may be done about accidents at Alvarado & Santa Ana.PD Staff provided status on 7/21/2022 7/21/2022
67 Burns 1/18/2022 Look into Central Coast 3CE Grant City Manager Staff is working with 3CE staff and the new grant writer 7/25/2022
68 Morales 1/18/2022
Discuss changing the time of Council meetings so
they are earlier, so they do not go late into the
night
City Clerk/ City
Attorney
Will request as part of HMC 2.04
changes. Requested start time is
9:00 am. Was not changed as part
of the revisions.
5/16/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 481
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 69 Morales 1/18/2022 Proposal for electric vehicles, to utilize grants for electric vehicles
Community Services
Parks/Streets/Utilitie
s/Fleet
Staff given direction to look at
available electric vehicles. Have
not found any. Staff will need to
put a refundable deposit down
and order them.
7/22/2022
70 Morales 2/7/2022
Finance to provide more details on the budget
totals, percent paid vs. actual with the warrant
registers for approval
Administrative
Services
Finance/Human
Resources
Will begin 8/1/2022. Item is part
of the warrant registers.8/1/2022
71 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Renaming of Union Road and new park by FS2 to Cesar Chavez Way and Cesar Chavez Park City Manager Engineering is in process. Will be on 8/1 Council agenda.8/1/2022
72 Morales 1/22/2022 Analysis on the speeding complaints in the City by neighborhood Police Department
PD confirmed that they do not
track complaints at the
neighborhood level.
9/1/2022
73 Morales 1/22/2022 Add Community Development position to help businesses get started go through the processes City Manager Will be done by Asst. City Manager 9/1/2022
74 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Intelligence on PD Issues and Trends in the community Police Dept Annual report with statistics is
posted on PD website.9/1/2022
75 Burns, Morales,
Perez 4/4/2022 Cameras up at all access and have PD work with IT work on and add a privacy aspect PD & IT Policy determined to be adequate by City Attorney 9/1/2022
76 Morales 5/2/2022
List of resources for the community with links on
the City's webpage, such as local non profits,
food assistance, housing assistance, etc. Link to
see what district residents live in.
City Manager
Resources added to existing site
and will be included on new city
website.
9/7/2022
77 Morales, Burns 5/2/2022
Add the Council updates and request
spreadsheets to the City's webpage for public
transparency
City Manager
Reports add under "Transparency"
tab on existing site. Reports will
be included on new city website.
9/30/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 482
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 78 Resendiz 9/6/2022 Ensure that Mexican music is played during Summer Concert Series Recreation Mariachi groups will play on September 16th. 9/16/2022
79 Council 5/2/2022
Install sod grass at Jerry Gabe dog park, one side
at a time, to keep one side open at all times
while laying sod on the other side. Block off side
of park with fence to keep dogs/people out
Community Services
/ Parks & Recreation
Staff has tried to fence off areas of
the dog park in the past. This did
not contain the small dogs nor
stopped visitors from entering the
other sides
9/14/2022
80 Resendiz 9/6/2022
Inquiries from Hollister School District for
Planning: Rosati project, parking lot and
walkway, CFDs, increasing development fees,
and shared facility use agreements
Development
Services (Planning)
Staff has not received any inquires
from HSD. Staff has had
discussions with HSD recently
regarding approved housing
developments.
9/14/2022
81 Morales 5/2/2022
Study session on Code Enforcement problem
solving, communications training, dispute
resolution
Police (Code
Enforcement)
PD has met with Councilmember
Morales and addressed her
concerns.
8/31/2022
82 Morales 2/22/2022 Receipts of budget vs actuals Administrative Services
Reports will start with new
budget. Included with standing
warrant agenda item.
8/1/2022
83 Resendiz 5/2/2022
Have staff to remove the fenced area at Klauer
park so it is not used as a dog park, and come up
with an alternative solution for the area
Parks & Recreation /
Community Services
Received quote from contractor to
remove fence. Scheduled to be
removed by 9/23/22
9/26/2022
84 Perez 9/6/2022 Provide speed hump installation schedule Community Services Dept provided schedule to City Manager's Office for review 9/20/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 483
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 85 Perez 9/6/2022 Parks ADA Schedule Parks & Recreation Staff is working to prepare
schedule. Will be provided at
Parks and Recreation Commission
meeting and to council.
9/27/2022
86 Morales 9/6/2022 Provide update on status of salary study Administrative Services
Update will be provided on 9/19
council meeting 9/19/2022
87 Morales 9/6/2022 PIO Plan City Manager Assistant City Manager developing plan.9/8/2022
88 Resendiz 9/6/2022 200 Zinc Plates available for donation.Parks & Recreation Referred to Art & Cultural Commission 10/5/2022
89 Morales 9/6/2022 Business Loan Program update City Manager Update program to make more
businesses are eligible to receive
loan.
10/3/2022
90 Resendiz 9/6/2022 Need speed cushions at intersection of Alvarado and Santa Ana
Community Services
/ Development
Services
(Engineering)
Will be installed the week of
September 26th.9/30/2022
91 Morales 2/7/2022
Grant chart, showing what grants are available,
which are applied for, status, etc. Will provide a
template
City Manager
On 6/6/2022 Agenda to request
grant writer. Grant writer
approved.
9/30/2022
92 Resendiz, Burns 5/2/2022
Earmark funds from ARPA to help businesses
transition to going green (after other ARPA
funding priorities are met)
City Manager
City will assist businesses as
requested. City Manager will
provide update at 10/3 Council
meeting.
10/3/2022
93 Morales 5/2/2022 An Ordinance to ensure that business are not fined for stolen shopping carts
Police (Code
Enforcement) / City
Attorney
Second reading of ordinance will
be brought to Council on 10/3/22.10/3/2022
94 Burns 9/6/2022 Organizational Charts for City and Departments (include vacant positions)City Manager
Departments submitting org
charts to City Managers Office for
review.
10/17/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 484
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 95 Burns 9/6/2022 Update on downtown sign
City Manager /
Development
Services
(Engineering)
Engineering is currently reviewing
plans for sign. Structural review
will be completed on 9/16/22.
9/30/2022
96 Perez 1/18/2022 Update on the tree program Community Services Dept has received a list of all trees
trimmed or removed in Fiscal Year
2021-22. Report under review and
will be distributed to council.
10/5/2022
97 Burns/Velazquez 9/19/2022 Crosswalk on Ladd Lane City Manager Staff installed temporary
crosswalk markings while
contractor works to permanently
correct Ladd Lane.
10/3/2022
98 Burns 10/3/2022 Prune Street Pavement Community Services Prune St construction is scheduled
for August 2023. Potholes on
Prune St are scheduled to be
refilled by 10/31/22.
10/10/2022
99 Morales 10/3/2022 San Benito and Hawkins Street Traffic Study Engineering Study on intersection was
completed in 2022. All ways stops
were not warranted.
10/3/2022
100 Burns/Velazquez 9/6/2022
Confirm that judgement is due to city from Irma
Gonzalez and Elia Salinas and begin collection
process if applicable.
City Attorney
City's Risk Management firm has
confirmed that they are beginning
the collection process. Confirmed
that there are no other
outstanding legal judgements.
10/14/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 485
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 101 Resendiz 10/17/2022
Forward email from Gavilan College
President/Superintendent to the local press and
to City Clerk for submission into the official
record
City Manager Email was forwarded as requested 10/18/2022 102 Resendiz 5/2/2022 Update on whether the City can be more restrictive regarding use of plastic bags
Community Services
/ City Attorney
City cannot pass a more restrictive
ordinance than the state.10/20/2022
103 Resendiz, Perez 10/17/2022 Provide letter from Gavilan College on Presentation done by Sunnyslope Water District
City Manager/City
Clerk Letter was provided as requested 10/18/2022
104 Perez 11/7/2022 Financials for 150th Celebration City Manager Follow up meeting held with
Councilmember Perez and City
Manager.
11/14/2022
105 Perez/Morales 9/6/2022 Provide streets/sidewalks/alleys schedule Community Services City Manager's office is sending
out project schedules as
confirmed. Schedules will be
posted on social media as well.
11/21/2022
106 Morales 9/6/2022 Timeline for Council Projects City Manager Assistant City Manager working
with Department Heads to
develop timelines for projects.
11/30/2022
107 Morales 11/7/2022
Follow up with Planning Department regarding
customer service concerns brought up at San
Benito Chamber of Commerce Business
Advocacy Committee
City Manager Confirming follow up meeting.
Will provide an update to Council.11/30/2022
108 Burns 11/21/2022 Status Update on General Plan Development Services (Planning)
Timeline emailed to Council on
11/30/2022 11/30/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 486
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 109 Resendiz 9/6/2022 General Plan Action Committee (GPAC) Update Development Services (Planning)
Timeline emailed to Council on
11/30/2022 11/30/2022
110 Burns 11/21/2022
Status on hiring an Development Services
Director, Airport Manager, Chief Building
Official, and Building Inspector
City Manager
Recruitment update provided to
Council. Interviews for
Administrative Services Director
will take place on the week of
December 5th. City Engineer
interviews scheduled for week of
December 12th.
11/30/2022
111 Perez 11/7/2022 Cienega Road Survey Engineering Draft report received 11/18. Final report expected on 12/15/22 12/12/2022
112 Burns 12/5/2022 Financials for the 150th Year Celebration City Manager City Manager developing final
financial report to send to City
Council.
12/19/2022
113 Burns 12/5/2022 Status Report on Shot Spotter Program Update Police PD working with vendor to provide a presentation to Council.1/17/2023
114 Burns 11/21/2022 Next Steps to Implement Term Limits City Clerk Clerk will provide a memo to City Council 1/30/2023
115 Burns 2/22/2022 Requested additional cameras be installed in the Sunnyslope area due to stolen car items Police
Equipment has been delivered.
Staff is waiting for the weather to
clear prior to install them.
1/31/2023
116 Burns 11/21/2022 Status on Gateway Monument Sign City Manager Installation is underway.2/10/2023 H.1.a
Packet Pg. 487
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 117 Burns 12/5/2022 Status on Gateway Monument Sign City Manager Installation is underway.2/10/2022 118 Morales 2/6/2023 Copies of City's contracts with 4LEAF City Manager Contracts sent to Council.2/9/2023 119 Morales 2/6/2023 Status of money raised by the Community Foundation to assist flood-impacted residents City Manager Update provided to Council 2/15/2023 120 Burns 2/21/2023 Options for fencing the Downtown area for the motorcycle rally and charging an entrance fee Police Update will be provided at 3/6/2023 City Council meeting 3/6/2023
121 Burns 3/6/2023 Update on Police Communications Center Police Update sent to Council 3/15/2023 122 Burns 3/6/2023 Update on parklet request for 300 block of Monterey
Development
Services
Application incomplete, business
owner and neighbor 3/12/2023
123 Morales 3/6/2023 HPD to follow up on incident reported by Mr.
Rojas Police Police report taken 3/12/2023
124 Burns 3/6/2023 Status of the downtown monument sign Development Services
Update provided to council on
3/16/23 3/16/2023
125 Resendiz 9/6/2022 Need speed cushions near Calaveras School on Central Avenue
Community Services
/ Development
Services
(Engineering)
Post speed study completed.
Councilmember can request to
add speed hump using their
district allocation
2/20/2023
126 Velazquez 2/7/2022 Update from Beautification ad hoc committee in March Ad Hoc Committee Waiting on Ad Hoc Committee to
meet TBD
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 488
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 127 Burns 12/5/2022 Update on Cameras at the skate park Police Camera purchase request being
considered at 3/20/2023 council
meeting
3/20/2023
128 Burns 11/21/2022 Lighting on side streets Community Services Need to issue an RFP as estimate
is $150k. RFP boilerplate is
currently under review with City
Attorney. RFP released on March
15, 2023.
6/30/2023
129 Casey 4/3/2023 Post city vacancies on website Human Resources All active recruitments are
currently published on the City’s
website and other websites,
including GovernmentJobs.com,
as well as industry-specific bulletin
boards based on Department
needs.
Updated on a
rolling basis
130 Burns 4/3/2023 Certificate of Recognition for former Parks & Recreation Commissioner Alliyah Gomez City Clerk To be signed by Mayor on 4/17/23 and provided to Alliyah Gomez 5/15/2023
131 Morales 4/3/2023 Certificate of Recognition for Sarah Nordwick with the SBC Food Bank City Clerk To be signed by Mayor on 4/17/23 and provided to Sarah Nordwick 5/1/2023
132 Burns 4/17/2023 Use of Council discretionary funds to repair sidewalks Community Services List provided to Council 4/23/2023 133 Casey 3/20/2023
Update on participation in the San Benito
County Economic Development Committee by
the City
City Manager City Manager to attend 3/30
committee meeting 3/30/2023
134 Burns 2/21/2023 Update on the Senior Council and if City has contributed for past two years Parks and Recreation FY 2021-22 and 2022-23 Invoices were requested for payment 3/31/2023
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 489
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 135 Perez 2/6/2023 Update on condor statue to be installed at Graf and 4th Street Community Services Condor statue is at contractor's yard and is 90% complete.3/31/2023
136 Burns, Velazquez 5/2/2022 Staff research drought resistant ideas for Jerry Gabe Dog Park and all future dog parks
Parks & Recreation
(Tina)
Staff met with landscapers to
assess sprinklers. Staff is
contacting other cities to learn
what materials they are using.
Landscapers will be seeding the
park on October.
4/25/2023
137 Resendiz 3/20/2023 Work with San Benito County to coordinate on any Pride Month events Parks & Recreation City manager to discuss with County CAO 4/26/2023
138 Morales 3/20/2023 Join committee to support bringing First Five community center Parks & Recreation Referred to Parks Department 4/23/2023 139 Burns 2/22/2022
Requested discussion with the Parks Manager
about ideas for Skate Park, and City investing in
park cleanup.
Community Services
/ Parks & Recreation
The graffiti truck is operational
and Community Services is
responsible for abatement. We
are adding a maintenance position
to deal with graffiti on a regular
basis and will develop regular
routes to deal with graffiti before
it is reported.
3/31/2023
140 Resendiz 1/18/2022
Discuss creating a Homelessness committee with
representatives from different entities to tackle
homeless problem, to discuss this on a future
agenda
City Attorney
JPA summary prepared by City
Attorney and sent to
Council.Homeless JPA being
discussed at Intergovernmental
Committee.
4/12/2023
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 490
2022 Completed Update Requests 4/26/2023
#Meeting DateCouncil Member Completed DateStatusDepartmentUpdate Requested 141 Resendiz 5/2/2022 Update on the Homelessness JPA City Attorney JPA summary prepared by City
Attorney and sent to
Council.Homeless JPA being
discussed at Intergovernmental
Committee.
4/12/2023
142 Velazquez 2/7/2022 Update on alleys
Development
Services
(Engineering)
On 6/6/2022 Agenda. Alley survey
is underway - working on schedule
with surveyor. Topo survey work
began in late July of 2022. Topo
Surveys were completed in
September.
9/30/2022
H.1.a
Packet Pg. 491