3. A change of more than 10 percent of an annual grant amount.
C. Changes that are less than substantial represent less than the amounts listed in section XIV(B), and do not have a significant impact on the project's purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries. If an activity is not funded in th e current year, but is the same or similar to an activity funded in another program year, and the addition is less than amounts above, and there is no significant change in the project (pur pose, scope, location, or beneficiaries), it is not considered a substantial change. The author ized City official with the corresponding approval amounts may approve changes that are less than substantial. Funds that are changed by ten percent must be presented in the Annual Action Plan (or Annual Action Plan amendment) staff agenda report and pre-approved by City Council.
D. Reallocation of funding among program years is not considered a substantial change, if considered less than substantial as described in the amounts above.
E. Program income will be allocated with the Annual Action Plan and with HUD requirements.
If program income received is greater or less than the projected amount, it will be adjusted and used accordingly, and reported in both the year’s CAPER and the subsequent Annual Action Plan as to how it was used or the planned use for the following year.
F. The City must submit a copy of each amendment to HUD. HUD allows amendments as they occur or at the end of the program year. Lett ers transmitting copies of amendments must be signed by the official representative of the City authorized to take such action.
G. Substantial amendments of the Consolidated Plan or Annual Action Plan will require a Public Hearing and City Council approval . Notice of public hearing will be posted on the City's Housing Department, Grants Management Divisi on webpage and noticed in a newspaper of general circulation a minimum of 30 days prio r to implementation. A public hearing will be held to obtain citizens' comments on the pr oposed substantial amendment and to present the substantial amendment to the City Co uncil for adoption. Le ss than substantial amendments will be adjusted by city management according to their funding approval levels and may not be presented to City Council, as they are considered administrative adjustments that do not meet the fiscal threshold that requires Council approval.
XV. Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Report (CAPER)
A. The City will prepare the CAPER as required at the close of the grant year which shall be made available for public comment for a minimum of 15 days prior to submission to HUD.
B. Public comments will be accepted and responded to, as appropriate, with a summary of the comments attached to the CAPER for submittal to HUD.
144
XVI. Availability of Documents
A. The Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, substantial amendments, CAPER and the Citizen Participation Plan will be available to the public, including the availability of materials in a form accessible to persons with disabilities, upon request.
B. The Consolidated Plan, Annual Action Plans, CA PER, the Citizen Participation Plan and the Uniform Relocation and Real Property Acquisiti on Policies Act of 1970 as amended, will be available for review at the City of Oxnard Housing Department, 435 South D Street, Oxnard, CA during working hours.
XVII. Citizen Participation Coordinator
A. The Citizen Participation Coordinator shall be a member of Grants Management Division staff in the Housing Department of the City of Oxnard.
B. The Citizen Participation Coordinator shall make past and present programmatic and funding information available to citizens during all phases of the HUD Community Planning and Development Program cycle, upon request.
XVIII. Comments and Complaints
A. The City shall consider all verbal or written co mments or views of citizens received at the public hearings in preparing the final Consolid ated Plan, Annual Action Plans, amendments to these plans, Section 108 Loan applications, CAPER or the Citizen Participation Plan.
B. A summary of these comments or views shall be attached to the final Consolidated Plan, amendment to the Plan, CAPER or Citizen Participation Plan and submitted to HUD as appropriate.
C. The City shall respond in a timely manner, wi thin 15 days where practical, to all written complaints, grievances and requests for information about the Consolidated Plan.
D. Written comments, complaints and/or grievances can be submitted to the Housing Director, City of Oxnard Housing Department, 435 South D Street, Oxnard, CA 93030.
XIX. Contingency Plan in the Event of an Emergency/Disaster
A. In the event of an emergency or disaster that presents a serious and immediate threat to the health and welfare of the citizens of the City, the noticing requirements for public hearings shall be reduced to the number of calendar days provided by the most stringent requirement within the local, state or federal statute provided during the time of the event. 145
B. Reprogramming of funds in the event of such an emergency will require approval by the highest official, per City policies as descri bed in the Code of Ordinances, Section 6, Emergency Organization and Functions, and Unfair Pricing. When emergency decisions require Council approval, the proposed reprogram of funds will be presented when Council is in session, or ratification of the reallocation when the City of Council is in recess. If an accelerated emergency occurs, the most string ent approval requirement within the local, state, or federal statute will be followed.
146
CITY OF OXNARD
CITIZEN PARTICIPATION PLAN – Addendum
FOR THE 2020 CARES ACT FUNDS, FLEXIBILITIES AND WAIVERS
A. POLICY STATEMENT
1. This Citizen Participation Plan Addendum specifically addresses the special policies and guidelines in support of addressing the impacts of COVID-19 through the use of Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), and HOME Investment Partnerships Act (HOME) programs, and the 2020 CARES Act Funds, termed CDBG-CV and ESG-CV.
2. All policies and processes described in the City of Oxnard (hereinafter referred to as “City”) Citizen Participation Plan, amended on July 10, 2018, is applicable to all CDBG, ESG and HOME funding sources unless specified in this Addendum.
3. All policies and processes specified in this Addendum are applicable through the adoption date of this Addendum and will expire upon the date specified for the CARES Act of 2020 funding and waivers, by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) department.
B. DEFINITIONS
1. CARES Act Flexibilities and Waivers – HUD Secretary issued statutory and regulatory waivers/alternative requirements for CDBG-CV, ESG-CV and some CDBG, HOME and ESG funds when necessary to expedite or facilitate the use of grant funds to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. Prohibits waivers/alternative requirements related to fair housing, nondiscrimination, labor standards, and the environment. (see Appendix A: CARES ACT HUD Waivers Applicable to Citizen Participation Plan)
2. CDBG-CV – Community Development Block Grant funding specifically allocated for the impacts related to COVID-19
3. ESG-CV – Emergency Solutions Grant funding specifically allocated for the impacts related to COVID-19
C. PLANNING PROCESS FOR CONSOLIDATED PLAN DOCUMENTS
1. Public Review and Comment – Documents (Plans) created for the CARES Act of 2020 funds and waivers will be made available to the public for no less than 5 calendar days. Written comments will be accepted during the public comment period. Summaries of comments will be attached to documents requiring public reviews and input.
D. MEETINGS AND HEARINGS
1. During locally, state, or federally declared Stay-At-Home orders, public meetings may occur virtually and will publicly post meeting dates, times, and instructions in advance of the meetings.
147
Citizen Participation Plan (CPP) Procedural History
1. Originally adopted CPP by City Council on October 18, 1994
2. Modifications to CPP adopted by City Council on July 25, 2000
3. Amended CPP adopted by City Council on July 10, 2018
4. CARES Act Addendum approved by City Council on October 6, 2020
5. Amended CPP adopted by City Council on May 16, 2023
148
Appendix A
CARES ACT
HUD Waivers
Applicable to Citizen Participation
Plan
149
CARES ACT HUD Waivers Applicable to Citizen Participation Plan
CONSOLIDATED PLAN REQUIREMENTS
1. Citizen Participation Public Comment Period for Consolidated Plan Amendment Requirement: 30-day Public Comment Period.
Citations: 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 24 CFR 91.115(c)(2) and (i) and 24 CFR 91.401
Explanation: A CPD grantee may amend an approved consolidated plan in accordance with 24 CFR 91.505. Substantial amendments to the consolidated plan are subject to the citizen participation process in the grantee’s citizen participation plan. The citizen participation plan must provide citizens with 30 days to comment on substantial amendments.
Justification: Given the need to expedite ac tions to respond to COVID-19, HUD waives 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 91.115(c)(2) and (i) as specified below, in order to balance the need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID-19 with the statutory requirement to provide reasonable notice and opportunity for citizens to comment on substantial amendments concerning the proposed uses of CDBG, HOME, HTF, HOPWA or ESG funds.
Applicability: This 30-day minimum for the re quired public comment period is waived for substantial amendments, provided that no less than 5 days are provided for public comments on each substantial amendment. The waiver is available through the end of the recipient’s 2020 program year. Any recipient wishing to undertake further amendments to prior year plans following the 2020 program year can do so during the development of its FY 2021 Annual Action Plan.
2. Citizen Participation Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment Requirement: Reasonable Notice and Opportunity to Comment.
Citations: 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 24 CFR 91.115(c)(2) and (i) and 24 CFR 91.401
Explanation: As noted above, the regulations at 24 CFR 91.105 (for local governments) and 91.115 (for States) set forth the citizen participation plan requirements for recipients. For substantial 150
amendments to the consolidated plan, the regulations require the recipient to follow its citizen participation plan to provide citizens with reasonable notice and opportunity to comment. The citizen participation plan must state how reasonable notice and opportunity to comment will be given.
Justification: HUD recognizes the efforts to cont ain COVID-19 require limiting public gatherings, such as those often used to obtain citizen participation, and that there is a need to respond quickly to the growing spread and effects of COVID-19. Therefore, HUD waives 24 CFR 91.105(c)(2) and (k), 24 CFR 91.115(c)(2) and (i) and 24 CFR 91.401 as specified below to allow these grantees to determine what constitutes reasonable notice and opportunity to comment given their circumstances.
Applicability: This authority is in effect th rough the end of the 2020 program year. 151
Emilio Ramirez, Director
Housing Department
City Council
April 2, 2024
2020 Annual Action Plan Amendment
Community Development Block Grant
CARES Act
152
DISCUSSION
1. In October of 2020, the City Council accepted Community Development Block Grant-CARES Act (CDBG-CV) funds to
prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus in the amount of $3,088,367.
2. The City currently has an unallocated balance of $1,070,671.65 remaining.
3. Activities identified for CDBG-CV Funding:
• $300,000 - United Way of Ventura County – for rental
assistance, rental and utility deposits, and moving
expenses for low-income residents
2 153
That the City Council:
1. Conduct a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development public hearing regarding the fiscal year 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan Amendment- CARES Act;
2. Approve the fiscal year 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan Amendment CARES Act;
3. Authorize the City Manager, and his designees, to incorporate the amended grant allocations into the 2020-2021 Annual Action Plan Amendment CARES Act and authorize the budget appropriations to fund the administration and projects;
4. Authorize the City Manager and his designees, to execute the required documents to submit the 2020-2021 Amended Annual Action Plan CARES Act to the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development; and,
5. Authorize the City Manager, and his designees, to execute all the agreements necessary for the implementation of the Annual Action Plan Amendment CARES Act.
RECOMMENDATIONS 3
154
155
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. K.1
DATE: April 2, 2024
TO: City Council
FROM: Jeff Pengilley, Community Development Director, (805) 385-8208, [email protected]
SUBJECT: Study Session to Provide Direction on Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Regulations Authorized Under California Assembly Bill 1033. (10 minutes)
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council:
1. Receive and file the information provided in this staff report; and
2. Determine that the City of Oxnard should not implement Assembly Bill 1033.
(The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing & Development Committee approved 3-0 on March 12, 2024.)
Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/GVjG74Mbwbk
BACKGROUND
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
At the November 7, 2023 City Council meeting, a request was made that staff provide information regarding the implications associated with implementing Assembly Bill (AB) 1033 (“bill”). The intent of the legislation is to create opportunities for homeownership by allowing property owners to create an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) as condominiums. This would allow an ADU to be sold, along with the land upon which the ADU is located.
In summary, AB 1033 authorizes a local agency to adopt a local ordinance to allow the separate conveyance of the primary dwelling unit and ADU(s) as condominiums. This is a change from the prior law (AB587) in that the separate conveyance of an ADU was prohibited except in limited instances. Under the new bill, local governments need to “opt in” to the ADU-as-condominium approach for it to be an option in their cities.
There are advantages, disadvantages, as well as unknowns that should be considered in evaluating this matter. The main concern being that “opting in” would result in potential delays to the work plans and priorities established by the adopted Housing Element, without evidence that AB1033 will increase housing production. At this time, there is no compelling need for this option as a means of incentivizing ADU development given the significant increase in the number of ADUs constructed and under construction in Oxnard. Further, Housing Element compliance with affordability projections could be negatively compromised; therefore, staff recommends that the potential downsides outweigh the potentially minor benefits of implementing this bill. Based on staff’s analysis, staff’s recommendation is to not opt in or implement an AB 1033 program.
BACKGROUND
156
Under AB 1033, local governments need to opt in to the ADU-as-condominium approach for it to be an option in their city. If a city opts in and creates an AB 1033 program, an ADU (along with the land upon which the ADU is located) can be sold if the owner follows the same rules that apply to condominiums. As already established, through a subdivision of land, the principal residence and the new lot/ADU would both be considered condominiums.
Since January of 2017, Oxnard has been subject to State Laws establishing the ADU as an allowed “by right” use, which generally apply to residentially-zoned parcels with one existing “primary” dwelling unit. Since 2017, the State Legislature has adopted approximately thirteen additional bills providing further clarification or expanding upon ADU laws in California. In 2023, the State Legislature passed three additional bills: AB 1033 permitting condo sales; AB 976 permanently banning owner occupancy requirements; and AB 434 which requires ministerial approvals for two unit residential projects. Of the three bills, only AB 1033 is voluntary; the other two new requirements must be followed by the local jurisdiction.
The City of Oxnard has processed a series of Zone Text Amendments (“Amendments”) in 2016, 2019, 2020, and 2023 to facilitate construction of ADU’s consistent with State law. As a result of these changes, permitting activity for ADUs has significantly increased due to a streamlined process, reduced fees and parking requirements, allowing Junior ADU’s (JADU) and ADUs on a residential parcel/lot and converting existing permitted space (e.g., in a garage or detached accessory structure) into an ADU. The number of ADUs permitted by Oxnard in 2020 was 129, which is more than double the number of permits issued in 2019, which was only 50. In 2023, 167 were submitted for construction plan review, 191 were issued a building permit and 73 units were constructed and occupied.
ANALYSIS
Prior to adoption of an ordinance implementing AB 1033, the City should consider the implications of implementing AB 1033, which are further discussed below.
Potential Advantages-The potential advantages, in no particular order, are:
a. Increase in more moderate income units. Whether an ADU is rented out or independently sold, does not change how it is counted under Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Therefore, allowing the subdivision of ADUs for separate conveyance would not alter the City’s compliance under RHNA from an overall housing unit production standpoint. The ADU converted to ownership through a subdivision could be reassigned as a moderate income unit and counted towards meeting the City’s moderate income housing requirement. This deficiency in income type is typically referred to as “missing-middle” -referring to middle-income housing units (see Attachment 1).
ADU’s can also be less expensive to develop than new standalone housing types, such as new single family dwellings or condominiums, as they often rely upon existing development such as a garage or division of the main house, or infrastructure such as heating, ventilation, water service and sewer delivery. These savings in initial property development can be reflected in a lower sales cost to the eventual buyer. Certainly, the availability of smaller homes at less cost could provide an attractive opportunity for homebuyers who are either currently priced out of the housing market, or other buyers such as seniors, who are seeking to downsize from larger properties. These smaller homes could address a housing need which has been challenging to meet. However, this provision will potentially result in a loss of existing low income units. (see “Potential Disadvantages” section of this report).
b. Increase in the availability of homeownership opportunities for smaller homes. This is because the subdivision of property would generate two condominium opportunities for each residential site. This would result in more moderate income units, addressing a housing need which has been challenging for the City to meet.
c. Increase in availability of medium or larger sized homes. There is the potential for an increased availability of medium and larger sized homes, as the small homes created through the subdivision of the ADUs, would provide options for those hoping to downsize their residence (as opposed to aging in place) into smaller units where they could still enjoy the benefits of homeownership. This may be particularly attractive for seniors downsizing, young households and lower income households. Demographers anticipate a “silver wave” as baby boomers downsize into smaller homes, with retirees' preference to move funds into equity rather than renting.
d. Incentivize property owners to build an ADU. AB 1033 requires that the ADU be completed prior to the recordation 157
of the final map associated with the condoization. AB 1033 allows existing ADUs to be sold separately from the primary residence as a condominium pursuant to legislative requirements. This is very similar to converting existing apartments into condominiums. This does not increase the housing stock, it just changes the type of housing. AB1033 will convert rental units to ownership units. That said, AB 1033 could incentivize some property owners that were previously not interested in building an ADU for rent to develop an ADU with the intent of selling it.
e. Increase property tax revenue in the City. The primary residence and new ownership ADU would have separate property tax assessments. It is expected that the remaining single family converted property would likely be reassessed to reflect a smaller lot size and therefore, property tax assessment associated with that property would likely be less.
However, the newly created ADU property would have a separate property tax assessment, which may result in an increase in assessed value and thus an increase in property tax revenue. However, it is unknown if this would result in a nominal increase in municipal property taxes.
Potential Disadvantages-The potential disadvantages, in no particular order, are:
a. Workload Impacts. The 2021-2029 Housing Element establishes a series of Housing Programs to be implemented by staff through the end of the 2021-2029 housing cycle. These programs were adopted with the Housing Element as they implement the established goals and policies of the 2030 General Plan. As this law was not contemplated in the Housing Element or General Plan, there would be a need for the reshuffling of workloads to prioritize this effort. This would result in potential delays to the work plans and priorities established by the adopted Housing Element, without proof that AB1033 will increase housing units. This is similar to SB9, where the intent was to increase housing units, yet to date Oxnard has not received an application under the SB 9 provisions (see further discussion below). As such, staff recommends that based on this alone, Council should not opt-in now. However, in the future if other cities are seeing success and an increase in ADU production due to this bill staff will bring this item back to City Council for reconsideration.
b. Parking. Under existing ADU requirements, parking is often not required for the construction of new ADUs. It can be reasonably anticipated that, due to the potential sales price of an ADU being above the low income range associated with a rental ADU, a higher number of occupants would be associated with the purchase of an ADU as opposed to the same ADU being rented. Therefore, additional parking demands could reasonably be associated with a for sale ADU. Even with the potential subdivision and separate conveyance of the ADU, no additional parking can be required; therefore, AB 1033 has the potential to further exacerbate parking issues in some Oxnard neighborhoods where someone would be allowed to purchase an ADU dwelling unit that does not include any off-street parking.
c. Loss of housing to investors. Under current state law (AB 976), cities are prohibited from requiring the owner of the primary residence to reside in either the primary residence or any ADUs; meaning investment ownership is allowed now.
However, AB1033 is a potentially more profitable option to investors. This potential is based on the assumption that a subdivided property is more valuable than an undivided property so the return on investment would be higher. This investment-driven competition could further drive up existing home prices.
d. Lack of Affordability Restrictions. HCD considers ADUs to be affordable by design, however AB 1033 doesn’t include an affordability restriction. This law effectively skirts around another existing bill (AB 587 Friedman, 2019) that prohibited conveyance of ADUs separately from the primary residence, but included a narrow exception if the ADUs are built by a nonprofit, held in a tenancy in common agreement and are restricted as affordable to lower income households for 45 years.
e. Impacts to Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. ADUs added to residential projects are not subject to the City’s inclusionary housing requirement, therefore opting-in to AB 1033 creates a means for market rate developers to circumvent the City’s inclusionary housing program. For example, a 9-unit detached housing development would not be subject to inclusionary housing and could include a second unit in the yard of each home. Under AB 1033, the developer could sell the development as 18 condominium units, with none of the units restricted as affordable housing.
f. Loss of Units Typically Affordable to Lower Income Households. AB 1033 could impact the affordability projections in the Housing Element. The City’s Housing Element identifies that the City should construct lower-income housing units (comprising very low (1,840 units) and low income (1,071 units)) during the upcoming RHNA cycle. The Housing Element projects the development of 283 ADUs during the 2021-2029 Housing Element Cycle. According to the 158
State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD), rental ADUs are affordable to lower- income households by design, and based on this, the Housing Element projected approximately 90% of the new ADUs (254 units) to be affordable to lower-income households. The construction of ADU’s over and above what is stipulated in our Housing Element in the lower-income category helps the City fulfill the lower income housing category which is typically a difficult income level to satisfy. Opting into AB1033 would be at the expense of construction of rental housing for persons of lower-income.
Other Considerations/Unknowns/Complexities that may deter applications for AB 1033:
These complexities are likely to stall interest in an AB 1033 program, resulting in very few properties utilizing the program.
a. Mortgage lenders. Mortgage lenders typically lend differently for single family residences than condominiums.
Condominium mortgages tend to have a slightly higher interest rate compared to a loan for a single-family home because lenders need to compensate for the additional risk of financing property in an association. Typically, a higher down payment is also required due to the homeowner’s fees for the condominium collaborative. It is unclear how this bill would impact lending and mortgage practices as many residences are not owned outright, are financed through a mortgage company and therefore, may not be able to secure approval from their lender to subdivide to create a new for sale ADU and thereby create two condominium units. Converting an existing single family home to a condominium development for the purpose of selling a portion of the property would likely trigger mortgage lenders to request a full payoff and reconveyance of the loan. This requirement alone could stall the potential use of an AB 1033 process as the financing costs, availability of condominium property lenders, and the current high mortgage interest rates all present financial hurdles.
b. Complexities of the Subdivision Map Act Process. These complexities include the need to hire a licensed surveyor to prepare the subdivision documents as well as a real estate attorney or consultant to assist in the preparation of documents necessary to form a homeowners association and associated CC&Rs. CC&Rs are necessary to assess dues to cover the cost of maintenance of the property’s common spaces. There is also the potential complexity of managing shared utilities between the subdivided units through the CC&Rs, or the alternative construction costs to separate any shared utilities.
c. Homeowners Association. Pursuant to the bill, a Homeowners Association will be required for each of the new condominium units. If the property is within an existing condominium development with an existing association, then prior to the creation of a new condominium subdivision, the owner must obtain express written authorization from the existing association.
d. Consent of Lien Holders. No subdivision shall be recorded without the consent of any lien holders. If the lien holder refuses consent, then the ADU may not be subdivided and separately conveyed. Given these financial hurdles, staff believes it is unlikely that the average homeowner will take advantage of an ordinance implementing AB 1033. As noted above, these inherent hurdles mean that it is more likely that developers and/or investors would take advantage of these new regulations.
SB9 Compared to AB 1033
On September 16, 2021, Governor Newsom signed into law Senate Bill No. 9 (SB 9), which was referred to as the “California Home Act.” Essentially, SB 9 facilitates the creation of up to four housing units in the lot area typically used for one single-family home. Many saw this as the end of single family zoning, as the law required all local agencies to ministerially approve either:
1. A one-time, two-lot subdivision and subsequent development of up to two (2) units per resulting lot; or
2. The development of up to four (4) units on a lot that is not subdivided. However, the proposed subdivision or development project is required to meet certain qualifying location and development criteria.
While there are some differences in the specific standards, similar to AB1033, SB 9 allows for the subdivision of existing single family residential lots. Some of these differences include that SB 9 is not applicable to parcels located in multifamily residential, commercial, agricultural, mixed-use zones, etc., even if they allow single-family residential uses as a permitted use. Also, while SB 9 applications must be ministerially processed, the law includes development requirements that address some of the concerns identified as a result of AB 1033 (summarized above). Some of these 159
requirements include:
1. Parking: A requirement of off-street parking of up to one space per unit, except that a local agency shall not impose parking requirements in either of the following instances:
a. The parcel is located within one-half mile walking distance of either a high-quality transit corridor, or a major transit stop.
b. There is a car-shared vehicle located within one block of the parcel.
2. Owner Occupied: A requirement that an applicant for an urban lot split to sign an affidavit stating that the applicant intends to occupy one of the housing units as their principal residence for a minimum of three years from the date of the approval of the urban lot split.
3. Rental Terms: A requirement that the rental of any unit created pursuant to this law be for a term longer than 30 days.
With the SB9 requirements in place, many of the potential concerns associated with AB 1033 are addressed. While there are still some exceptions to the parking requirement, the threshold for not providing any parking is higher and therefore, will minimize the possibility of further parking impacts on existing neighborhoods from the additional units. Also, by requiring owner occupancy of one of the two properties created by an urban lot split and by prohibiting short-term rentals, developers are prevented from taking advantage of SB 9. Without owner occupancy requirements, investors could be incentivized to buy up and subdivide larger lots. As SB 9 is intended to create opportunities for homeowners rather than real estate investors, the owner occupancy requirement helps reinforce this goal. While the City has not processed any SB9 applications to date, due to the technical complexities associated with the subdivision process, the option is available for residents looking to process a small lot subdivision. Based on the City’s experience with SB9 and the lack of interest in it, it can be reasonably assumed that there would be a similar lack of interest in AB1033, due to the same technical difficulties.
Conclusion
In conclusion, for the reasons articulated in this staff report, staff recommends that the City not opt into implementing AB1033. At this time, there is no compelling need for this option as a means of incentivizing ADU development given the significant increase in the number of ADUs constructed and under construction in Oxnard. Further, Housing Element compliance with affordability projections could be negatively compromised; therefore, staff recommends that the potential downsides outweigh the potentially minor benefits of implementing this bill.
Staff will continue to evaluate housing unit production, inclusive of ADUs, at all income levels with the intent of achieving production in all income groups. This information is reported to HCD annually. Staff will also monitor how and if this bill is being implemented in other communities. Given the ever-changing environment of housing policy, there may be a time that voluntarily opting into AB 1033 may be beneficial for Oxnard, at which time staff would return to City Council with additional information and recommendations.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
This agenda item supports the Organizational Effectiveness strategy. The purpose of the Organizational Effectiveness strategy is to reinforce, stabilize, improve, and strengthen the organizational foundation of the City in order to build a modern, high-functioning City government that effectively and efficiently supports the operating departments in providing high-quality services and programs for our residents and businesses.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no financial impact associated with this item as recommended. However, should the City “opt-in,” a significant amount of staff time and resources will be necessary, including analysis and development of a comprehensive ordinance to address the implications of the bill implementation. Opting in, may lead to an increase in property tax revenue if the City chooses to implement the bill.
COMMITTEE OUTCOME
160
The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing & Development Committee approved staff’s recommended action 3-0 on March 12, 2024.
Prepared by: Kathleen Mallory, Planning & Sustainability Manager, Joe Pearson II, AICP, Planning & Environmental Services Manager
ATTACHMENTS
1. 6th Cycle Housing Element Unit Production Requirements
2. Presentation
161
Attachment 1
City of Oxnard Certified Housing Element (2021-2029)
RHNA Allocation by Income Cateogry
162
Study session to Provide Direction on
Advancing Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU)
Regulations Authorized Under California
Assembly Bills 1033
Jeff Pengilley, Community Development Director
Kathleen Mallory, Planning & Sustainability Manager
Joe Pearson II, Planning & Environmental Services Manager Community Development Department
City Council
April 2, 2024
163
Background 2
• Government Code Section 65852.2 effective on January 1, 2017 established an ADU as an allowed by right use generally on residentially-zoned parcels.
• Under AB 1033, property owners in participating cities will be able to construct an ADU on their land and sell it separately; following the same rules that apply to condominiums.
• This changed prior law in that, the separate conveyance of an ADU was prohibited except in certain cases as allowed under AB 587.
• The intent of the new bill would create more homeownership opportunities for lower-income and first-time homebuyers. 164
Analysis
Prior to adoption of an ordinance implementing AB 1033, the City should consider the implications of implementing AB 1033.
There are advantages, disadvantages, as well as unknowns that should be considered in evaluating this matter.
Lastly, for homeowners looking to potentially subdivide their property there is a existing option under another mandatory state law (SB 9).
3 165
Potential Advantages
1. Increase in more moderate income units.
2. Increase in the availability of homeownership opportunities for smaller homes.
3. Increase in availability of medium or larger sized homes.
4. Incentivize property owners to build an ADU.
5. Increase property tax revenue in the City.
4 166
Potential Disadvantages
1. Workload Impacts.
2. Parking.
3. Loss of housing to investors.
4. Lack of Affordability Restrictions.
5. Impacts to Inclusionary Housing Ordinance.
6. Loss of Units Typically Affordable to Lower Income
Households.
5 167
Other Considerations/Unknowns/Complexities
1. Mortgage lenders.
2. Complexities of the Subdivision Map Act Process.
3. Homeowners Association.
4. Consent of Lien Holders.
6 168
SB9
SB9 Law required all local agencies to ministerially approve either:
• A one-time, two-lot subdivision and subsequent development of up to two (2) units per resulting lot; or
• The development of up to four (4) units on a lot that is not subdivided. However, the proposed subdivision or development project is required to meet certain qualifying location and development criteria.
While SB 9 applications must be ministerially processed, the law includes development requirements which address some of the concerns identified under AB 1033
• A requirement of off-street parking of up to one space per unit. • Three year owner occupancy requirement.
• A requirement that the rental of any unit created pursuant to this law be for a term longer than 30 days.
7 169
Financial Impact
• There is no financial impact associated with this item at this time.
• Should the City opt to implement the bill, implementation will result in a significant amount of staff time and
resources, including analysis and development of a
comprehensive ordinance to address the implication of bill execution.
• Potential for an increase in property tax revenue.
8 170
Conclusion
• For the reasons articulated in this staff report, it is recommended that the City not opt into implementing
AB1033, at this time.
• At this time there is no compelling need for this option, as a means of incentivizing housing development given the
significant number of ADUs constructed and under
construction.
• Given the current ever changing environment of housing policy, there may be a time that voluntarily opting into AB 1033 may make sense.
9 171
Committee Outcome
The Community Services, Public Safety, Housing &
Development Committee approved 3-0 on March 12, 2024 to approve the staff recommendation and to forward the item for City Council determination.
10 172
Recommendation
That the City Council:
1. Receive and file the information provided in this staff report; and
2. Determine that the City of Oxnard should not implement Assembly Bill 1033.
11 173
End of Presentation
174
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
REPORTS
AGENDA ITEM NO. K.2
DATE: April 2, 2024
TO: City Council
FROM: Michael Wolfe, Public Works Director, (805) 385-8055, [email protected]
SUBJECT: Citywide Pavement Management Program Overview. (20 minutes)
RECOMMENDATION
That the City Council receive and file a report on the Citywide Pavement Management Program Overview.
(Public Works & Transportation Committee approved 3-0 on March 12, 2024.)
Please click the following link to view the required Measure M pre-recorded presentation video: https://youtu.be/gJqiE9RCOlg
BACKGROUND
Oxnard’s streets and alleyways are among its most valuable assets, with a present replacement value of approximately $988.9M. Because of this high value, combined with the need to address continuous pavement wear and degradation, it is imperative to perform corrective and preventive maintenance via a strategic multi-year, multi-phase plan. This plan is implemented through individual construction projects utilizing a “toolbox” of paving methods. Such treatments generally include removal and replacement (R&R), cold milling with asphalt concrete (A/C) overlays, portland cement concrete (PCC) patching and reconstruction, and sealing (crack, slurry, cape, and micro-surfacing). Seals are typically seen as preventive maintenance (also commonly termed pavement preservation) techniques, as they do not add structural capacity to the existing pavement.
The City currently owns and maintains approximately 440.5 total centerline miles across all functional street classifications, as follows:
• Arterial and Collector – 128.6 centerline miles
• Residential – 246.8 lane miles centerline miles
• Alley – 65.1 centerline miles
This equates to a total of 95,450,658 square feet of pavement in the City’s network, as calculated by the City’s pavement management software, StreetSaver. This application, sourced from and managed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), is a planning tool used to monitor, analyze, and forecast Oxnard’s overall Pavement Management Program (PMP) and is critical to establishing a proper, phased multi-year paving cycle. Projections and computations regarding change in pavement condition versus annual funding investment are typically made over a 10-year span; for budget planning and capital project programming purposes, staff develops a phased paving project plan based on a rolling 5-year horizon, termed the Citywide Pavement Management Program.
It should be noted that the current lawsuit against the City filed by Aaron Starr and his political corporation “Moving Oxnard Forward” precludes the use of lease revenue bonds for funding pavement projects. Such bonding, commonly used for high-cost projects like street paving, is a financing mechanism traditionally used by all American cities, counties, 175
and states, that provide for funding consistency and predictability necessary for the development of a strategic, multi-year paving program. A funding source like this allows for both corrective and preventive paving work to be planned and executed predictably, with the goal of stretching the limited available funding as far as possible.
DISCUSSION
The key pavement health metric used by Oxnard is the Pavement Condition Index (PCI), which provides a snapshot of the pavement health of a road through a surface condition-based visual analysis algorithm. It is reported on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 being worst, 100 best). Oxnard’s PCI assessments are made yearly by a contracted pavement engineering consultant. According to the most recent PMP report (utilizing inspections from 2023), the average PCI of the City’s entire road network is 67; broken into roadway functional classifications, this equates to PCIs of 73 for Arterials, 69 for Collectors, 68 for Residential, and 29 for Alleys.
The Citywide Pavement Management Program is a planning and project programming roadmap for Oxnard’s paving needs over a rolling multi-year horizon, and is further broken down into project phases. Each phase is a collection of street locations that is determined by prioritization (explained below), anticipated budget, grouping of locations for construction efficiency, and other technical factors. The phases are implemented mainly through three discrete projects within the present Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Projects are separated into alleys, residential streets, and arterial streets as discussed in more detail below.
Planning over a multi-year horizon is critical for budgeting resources – both staff and financial. Adopting a capital pavement program allows Engineering staff to schedule projects according to anticipated revenues and staff workload capacity. This also makes the Council’s priorities clear to staff as grant opportunities arise that may be applicable to the planned projects.
Being a multi-year funding roadmap, there is flexibility such that new projects or street segments could be added as unforeseen year-to-year circumstances arise such as funding amounts, materials costs, accelerated pavement degradation, etc.
Prioritization
Since there are more needs than funding or staff resources to meet those needs, projects must be prioritized. A further consideration for prioritization is moving the overall pavement condition forward toward “good” (generally considered a PCI value of at least 70) and, once there, maintaining at least that level over time. City staff has developed a methodology for prioritizing and programming paving projects to meet these constraints. Generally, projects are divided into three subcategories, namely residential streets, arterial streets, and alleyways; these generally correspond with the three named paving projects in the CIP. Each subcategory has somewhat different prioritization parameters, as follows:
Project priorities for residential streets are determined by:
The average PCI and the number of lane miles are calculated for each neighborhood (Only for poor-condition streets, i.e. PCI<55). High priority is given to neighborhoods with low average Pavement Condition Index (PCI), a high number of lane miles, and a high concentration of pothole repair work.
Project priorities for arterial streets are determined by,
Average PCI and Average Daily Traffic (ADT), representing the number of vehicles using the street each day are calculated for each arterial project. High priority is given to arterial streets with low PCI, high ADT, and high number of pothole repairs.
Project priorities for alleys are determined by:
Low PCI, high population density, schools, parks, businesses, and the number of potholes repaired.
A high priority is given to alleys with low PCI, high pothole repair count, high population density, and close proximity to schools, parks, and businesses.
176
A special case exists for the above prioritization system, namely locations where there are aging, buried cast iron pipes that are historically troublesome and prone to failure. These tend to be located in alleyways, and in these places the pipe ideally should be removed and replaced before the paving work occurs. For the present multi-phase paving plan, a number of the project locations (see attachments) for the first two phases recommend the replacement of cast iron pipe ahead of the paving work. To accomplish this, funding will need to be identified and programmed separately for the CIP project titled “Water Distribution: Neighborhood Street Cast Iron Pipe Replacement”.
A high degree of weight will be placed on locations requiring a significant amount of pothole repair work. The City’s pothole repair team is the same staff that does sidewalk repair, curb/gutter repair, street sign maintenance and repair, street striping, right-of-way clean-up, etc. Pothole repair work is temporary, costly, and requires dedicated resources (i.e. staffing and equipment) for little long-term benefit. As such, the more street segments with a high pothole repair need that can be addressed with long-term corrective/preventive paving work, the better the Public Works team can leverage its limited resources. As mentioned above, there are a range of pavement treatments available, and a “mix of fixes” is usually the ideal way to proceed with a given year’s paving project. Staff has determined that, for this present multi- phase plan, the most effective paving budget split will be approximately 80% for rehabilitation (A/C mill-and-overlays, PCC concrete) and 20% for preventive maintenance (also called pavement preservation, such as slurry seals, cape seals, and micro-surfacing). Over time, as the City’s overall PCI goes up, this split will change to reflect less of a “worst first” approach that prioritizes rehabilitation, to one of “keeping good pavements good” that emphasizes maintenance and preservation.
The concept of “mix of fixes” is important to elaborate on since at first glance it may seem counter-intuitive. It is easy to think that the best way to address paving work is to fix the worst street segments (that is, streets with the lowest PCI) first. However, that approach is flawed for two general reasons. First, the degradation of asphalt concrete is not linear. As PCI scores approach around 70-65 or less, asphalt concrete degrades exponentially. Second, the cost to do corrective work such as R&R and mill-and-overlay (generally used when the PCI is less than 65-70) is 6-10 times more than the cost to do preventive/preservation work such as seals and microsurfacing (normally used where the PCI is greater than 70). Said another way, if the worst streets are the only ones done in each phase, then the streets with higher PCIs will continue to degrade untreated down past a PCI of 70, and cost 6-10 times more to fix in the future. Therefore, it’s imperative to maximize the use of pavement preservation techniques in every phase; this approach results in the least-cost per square foot, and stretches the limited amount of funding for maximum benefit. This is why Public Works staff will make recommendations to conduct paving work on several street segments in each phase with higher PCIs than other streets that have lower PCIs.
Pavement Maintenance Program Phasing
A traditional pavement management program (PMP) is separated by fiscal years to include the identification of the total amount of paving work (e.g. street segments) that can be done in each fiscal year with the known or required funding amount. However, with the Aaron Starr lawsuit, bonding is not currently available to Oxnard. The City prevailed in the lawsuit at the trial court level, but Aaron Starr immediately filed an appeal. The appeal process could take a year for the case to be briefed and argued, and for the court to issue a ruling. As such, planning for street paving work must be modified until such time the lawsuit process is complete.
The City’s 2023 pavement management report indicates that $19.4M dollars (hard construction costs) should be spent each fiscal year to maintain the current PCI. When adding in the soft costs (design, inspection, material testing, etc) the estimated total amount per year is $23.3M dollars. However, with bond funding unavailable, the long-term planning for pavement rehabilitation and maintenance is hampered. The amount of new annual Gas Tax for CIP paving projects, in addition to the anticipated Measure O funding for alley work, amounts to $6.25M for next Fiscal Year instead of the $23.3M per year to maintain the current PCI. Therefore, Public Works has organized the PMP into phases rather than fiscal years. Using a phased approach allows for the flexibility to adjust funding amounts (higher or lower) to avoid unrealistic expectations from the public about when streets will be paved. It should be noted that any funds remaining once current paving construction projects are completed will be carried over to next fiscal year and can be used for Phase 1 work.
STRATEGIC PRIORITIES
177
This agenda item supports the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy. The purpose of the Infrastructure and Natural Resources strategy is to preserve and improve our roads, utilities, parks, trees, water supply and natural resources through effective planning, prioritization, and an equitable and efficient use of available funding.
FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no direct financial impact to receive and file this report and provide input. Depending on input and direction from the City Council during the annual Operating and CIP budget process, there are several issues to address. Presently, due to the City’s current inability to bond for projects resulting from the Aaron Starr lawsuit, the new funding specifically available for street paving for next Fiscal Year is solely from gas tax and anticipated Measure O revenue in the amount of approximately $6.25M. With this amount, the City can pave only one residential street project and a few alleyways identified in Phase 1. Should there be an opportunity to provide more funding, additional streets from Phase 1 may be included in this year’s project scope.
COMMITTEE OUTCOME
The Public Works and Transportation Committee approved 3-0 on March 12, 2024 to approve the staff recommendation and to forward the item to the City Council as a receive and file report.
Prepared by: Morgan Kessler, City Engineer
ATTACHMENTS
1. Proposed Arterial Street Construction Projects Phase I & Phase II
2. Proposed Arterial Street Construction Projects Phase III, Phase IV and Phase V
3. Proposed Alley Construction Projects Phase I and Phase II
4. Proposed Alley Construction Projects Phase III, Phase IV and Phase V
5. Proposed Residential Street Construction Projects Phase I & Phase II
6. Proposed Residential Street Construction Projects Phase III, Phase IV and Phase V
7. Presentation
178
FREMONT
NORTH CARRIAGE
SQUARE
EAST VILLAGE
ROSE PARK
SEA VIEW
ESTATES
VIA MARINA
REDWOOD
BRYCE
CANYON
NORTH
BLACKSTOCK
NORTH
COLLEGE
ESTATES
BLACKSTOCK
SOUTH BRYCE
CANYON
SOUTH
TERRACE
ESTATES PLEASANT
VALLEY
ESTATES
SILVER
STRAND
PLEASANT
VALLEY
VILLAGE
SOUTHWINDS
GOLF COURSE
VICTORIA
ESTATES
WINDSOR NORTH
RIVER RIDGE SIERRA LINDA
ORCHARD
CABRILLO
TEAL CLUB
FREMONT
SOUTH WILSON
FIVE POINTS
NORTHEAST
SEA AIR
HOBSON
PARK WEST HOBSON
PARK EAST
MARINA WEST BARTOLO
SQUARE
NORTH
CAL-GISLER
BARTOLO
SQUARE
SOUTH
CYPRESS
RIVERPARK
EL RIO
WEST
SOUTH BANK
WAGON WHEEL
OXNARD
SHORES
HOLLYWOOD
BY THE SEA
CHANNEL
ISLANDS
OXNARD
DUNES
VILLA
CAPRI
SOUTHSHORE
ORMOND BEACH
COMMERCIAL AREA
EL RIO
RIO LINDO
AUTO CENTER
NYELAND ACRES
RICE AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA
LEMONWOOD
EASTMONT
PACIFIC AVENUE
COMMERCIAL
AREA
TIERRA VISTA
MAR VISTA
COLLEGE PARK
OXNARD
PACIFIC
DIAMOND BAR
WEST VILLAGE
LA COLONIA
KAMALA PARK
Proposed Arterial Street Construction Projects Phase I & Phase II Phase I
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Phase II
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Oxnard Neighborhoods
.
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
179
FREMONT
NORTH CARRIAGE
SQUARE
EAST VILLAGE
ROSE PARK
SEA VIEW
ESTATES
VIA MARINA
REDWOOD
BRYCE
CANYON
NORTH
BLACKSTOCK
NORTH
COLLEGE
ESTATES
BLACKSTOCK
SOUTH BRYCE
CANYON
SOUTH
TERRACE
ESTATES PLEASANT
VALLEY
ESTATES
SILVER
STRAND PLEASANT
VALLEY
VILLAGE
SOUTHWINDS
GOLF COURSE
VICTORIA
ESTATES
WINDSOR NORTH
RIVER RIDGE SIERRA LINDA
ORCHARD
CABRILLO
TEAL CLUB
FREMONT
SOUTH WILSON
FIVE POINTS
NORTHEAST
SEA AIR
HOBSON
PARK WEST HOBSON
PARK EAST
MARINA WEST BARTOLO
SQUARE
NORTH
CAL-GISLER
BARTOLO
SQUARE
SOUTH
CYPRESS
RIVERPARK
EL RIO
WEST
SOUTH BANK
WAGON WHEEL
OXNARD
SHORES
HOLLYWOOD
BY THE SEA
CHANNEL
ISLANDS
OXNARD
DUNES
VILLA
CAPRI
SOUTHSHORE
ORMOND BEACH
COMMERCIAL AREA
EL RIO
RIO LINDO
AUTO CENTER
NYELAND ACRES
RICE AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA
LEMONWOOD
EASTMONT
PACIFIC AVENUE
COMMERCIAL
AREA
TIERRA VISTA
MAR VISTA
COLLEGE PARK
OXNARD
PACIFIC
DIAMOND BAR
WEST VILLAGE
LA COLONIA
KAMALA PARK
Proposed Arterial Street Construction Projects Phase III, Phase IV & Phase V Phase III
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Phase IV
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Phase V
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Oxnard Neighborhoods
.
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
180
FREMONT
NORTH CARRIAGE
SQUARE
EAST VILLAGE
ROSE PARK
SEA VIEW
ESTATES
VIA MARINA
REDWOOD
BRYCE
CANYON
NORTH
BLACKSTOCK
NORTH
COLLEGE
ESTATES
BLACKSTOCK
SOUTH
BRYCE
CANYON
SOUTH
TERRACE
ESTATES PLEASANT
VALLEY
ESTATES
SILVER
STRAND PLEASANT
VALLEY
VILLAGE
SOUTHWINDS
GOLF COURSE
VICTORIA
ESTATES WINDSOR NORTH
RIVER RIDGE SIERRA LINDA
ORCHARD
CABRILLO
TEAL CLUB
FREMONT
SOUTH WILSON
FIVE POINTS
NORTHEAST
SEA AIR
HOBSON
PARK WEST HOBSON
PARK EAST
MARINA WEST BARTOLO
SQUARE
NORTH
CAL-GISLER BARTOLO
SQUARE
SOUTH
CYPRESS
RIVERPARK
EL RIO
WEST
SOUTH BANK
WAGON
WHEEL
OXNARD
SHORES
HOLLYWOOD
BY THE SEA
CHANNEL
ISLANDS
OXNARD
DUNES
VILLA CAPRI
SOUTHSHORE
ORMOND BEACH
COMMERCIAL AREA
EL RIO
RIO LINDO
AUTO CENTER
NYELAND ACRES
RICE AVENUE
COMMERCIAL
AREA
LEMONWOOD
EASTMONT
PACIFIC AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA
TIERRA VISTA
MAR VISTA
COLLEGE PARK OXNARD
PACIFIC
DIAMOND BAR
WEST VILLAGE
LA COLONIA
KAMALA PARK
Phase I
No Cast Iron Water Main
Phase II
No Cast Iron Water Main
Oxnard Neighborhoods
.
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Proposed Alley Construction Projects Phase I & Phase II 181
FREMONT
NORTH CARRIAGE
SQUARE
EAST VILLAGE
ROSE PARK
SEA VIEW
ESTATES
VIA MARINA
REDWOOD
BRYCE
CANYON
NORTH
BLACKSTOCK
NORTH
COLLEGE
ESTATES
BLACKSTOCK
SOUTH
BRYCE
CANYON
SOUTH
TERRACE
ESTATES PLEASANT
VALLEY
ESTATES
SILVER
STRAND PLEASANT
VALLEY
VILLAGE
SOUTHWINDS
GOLF COURSE
VICTORIA
ESTATES WINDSOR NORTH
RIVER RIDGE SIERRA LINDA
ORCHARD
CABRILLO
TEAL CLUB
FREMONT
SOUTH WILSON
FIVE POINTS
NORTHEAST
SEA AIR
HOBSON
PARK WEST HOBSON
PARK EAST
MARINA WEST BARTOLO
SQUARE
NORTH
CAL-GISLER BARTOLO
SQUARE
SOUTH
CYPRESS
RIVERPARK
EL RIO
WEST
SOUTH BANK
WAGON
WHEEL
OXNARD
SHORES
HOLLYWOOD
BY THE SEA
CHANNEL
ISLANDS
OXNARD
DUNES
VILLA CAPRI
SOUTHSHORE
ORMOND BEACH
COMMERCIAL AREA
EL RIO
RIO LINDO
AUTO CENTER
NYELAND ACRES
RICE AVENUE
COMMERCIAL
AREA
LEMONWOOD
EASTMONT
PACIFIC AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA
TIERRA VISTA
MAR VISTA
COLLEGE PARK OXNARD
PACIFIC
DIAMOND BAR
WEST VILLAGE
LA COLONIA
KAMALA PARK
Phase III
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Phase IV
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Phase V
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Oxnard Neighborhoods
.
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Proposed Alley Construction Projects Phase III, Phase IV & Phase V 182
FREMONT
NORTH CARRIAGE
SQUARE
EAST VILLAGE
ROSE PARK
SEA VIEW
ESTATES
VIA MARINA
REDWOOD
BRYCE
CANYON
NORTH
BLACKSTOCK
NORTH
COLLEGE
ESTATES
BLACKSTOCK
SOUTH BRYCE
CANYON
SOUTH
TERRACE
ESTATES PLEASANT
VALLEY
ESTATES
SILVER
STRAND PLEASANT
VALLEY
VILLAGE
SOUTHWINDS
GOLF COURSE
VICTORIA
ESTATES WINDSOR NORTH
RIVER RIDGE SIERRA LINDA
ORCHARD
CABRILLO
TEAL CLUB
FREMONT
SOUTH WILSON
FIVE POINTS
NORTHEAST
SEA AIR HOBSON
PARK WEST HOBSON
PARK EAST
MARINA WEST BARTOLO
SQUARE
NORTH
CAL-GISLER BARTOLO
SQUARE
SOUTH
CYPRESS
RIVERPARK
EL RIO
WEST
SOUTH BANK
WAGON
WHEEL
OXNARD
SHORES
HOLLYWOOD
BY THE SEA
CHANNEL
ISLANDS
OXNARD
DUNES
VILLA CAPRI
SOUTHSHORE
ORMOND BEACH
COMMERCIAL AREA
EL RIO
RIO LINDO
AUTO CENTER
NYELAND ACRES
RICE AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA
LEMONWOOD
EASTMONT
PACIFIC AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA
TIERRA VISTA
MAR VISTA
COLLEGE PARK OXNARD
PACIFIC
DIAMOND BAR
WEST VILLAGE
LA COLONIA
KAMALA PARK
Phase I
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Neighborhoods
Phase II
No Cast Iron Water Main
Cast Iron Water Main
Neighborhoods
.
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Proposed Residential Street Construction Projects Phase I & Phase II 183
FREMONT
NORTH CARRIAGE
SQUARE
EAST VILLAGE
ROSE PARK
SEA VIEW
ESTATES
VIA MARINA
REDWOOD
BRYCE
CANYON
NORTH
BLACKSTOCK
NORTH
COLLEGE
ESTATES
BLACKSTOCK
SOUTH BRYCE
CANYON
SOUTH
TERRACE
ESTATES PLEASANT
VALLEY
ESTATES
SILVER
STRAND PLEASANT
VALLEY
VILLAGE
SOUTHWINDS
GOLF COURSE
VICTORIA
ESTATES WINDSOR NORTH
RIVER RIDGE SIERRA LINDA
ORCHARD
CABRILLO
TEAL CLUB
FREMONT
SOUTH WILSON
FIVE POINTS
NORTHEAST
SEA AIR HOBSON
PARK WEST HOBSON
PARK EAST
MARINA WEST BARTOLO
SQUARE
NORTH
CAL-GISLER BARTOLO
SQUARE
SOUTH
CYPRESS
RIVERPARK
EL RIO
WEST
SOUTH BANK
WAGON
WHEEL
OXNARD
SHORES
HOLLYWOOD
BY THE SEA
CHANNEL
ISLANDS
OXNARD
DUNES
VILLA CAPRI
SOUTHSHORE
ORMOND BEACH
COMMERCIAL AREA
EL RIO
RIO LINDO
AUTO CENTER
NYELAND ACRES
RICE AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA
LEMONWOOD
EASTMONT
PACIFIC AVENUE
COMMERCIAL AREA
TIERRA VISTA
MAR VISTA
COLLEGE PARK OXNARD
PACIFIC
DIAMOND BAR
WEST VILLAGE
LA COLONIA
KAMALA PARK
Phase III
Neighborhoods
Phase IV
Neighborhoods
Phase V
Neighborhoods
.
0 0.5 10.25 Miles
Proposed Residential Street Construction Projects Phase III, Phase IV & Phase V 184
CITYWIDE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM OVERVIEW
Public Works and Transportation Committee, March 12, 2024 City Council, April 2, 2024
Morgan Kessler
City Engineer
185
RECOMMENDATION
FOR PUBLIC WORKS AND TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE:
That the Public Works and Transportation Committee provide comments and recommend that the City Council receive and file a report on the Citywide Pavement Management Program Overview
2 186
RECOMMENDATION
FOR CITY COUNCIL:
That the City Council receive and file a report on the Citywide Pavement Management Program Overview
3 187
BACKGROUND
• For budget planning and capital project programming purposes, staff developed a phased paving project plan, termed the Citywide Pavement Management Program.
• Pavement is valuable: Oxnard’s streets and alleyways are have a present replacement value of approximately $988.9 M.
• Oxnard currently owns and maintains approximately 440.5 total centerline miles (including both streets and alleys)
• This plan uses a “toolbox” of paving methods which generally include removal and replacement (R&R), cold milling with asphalt concrete (A/C) overlays, portland cement concrete (PCC) repair, and sealing (crack, slurry, cape, and micro-surfacing)
4 188
BACKGROUND
Bonding to Pay for Paving Projects
• Bonding is commonly used for high-cost projects like street paving, and is used by all American cities, counties, and states. • Such bonding allows for both corrective and preventive paving work to be planned and executed predictably.
• The City of Oxnard is unable to bond for paving projects, due to the current lawsuit against the City filed by Aaron Starr and his political corporation “Moving Oxnard Forward”.
5 189
DISCUSSION
Pavement Health and Assessment
• The key pavement health metric used by Oxnard is the Pavement Condition Index (PCI)
• PCI is reported on a scale of 0 to 100 (0 being worst, 100 best) • As of the most recent report, the average PCI of the City’s entire road network is 67. This is a 1-point increase from last year. 6 190
DISCUSSION
Prioritization
• To meet staffing and funding constraints, projects must be prioritized • Oxnard paving projects are divided into three subcategories:
residential streets, arterial streets, and alleys
• Prioritization is determined by analyzing:
• Average Daily Traffic (ADT), Low PCI, high population density, schools, parks, businesses, and the number of potholes repaired.
• Staff recommends the replacement of troublesome, aging buried utilities, including cast iron pipe, ahead of paving work, where needed
7 191
DISCUSSION
Work Approach and “Mix of Fixes”
• Asphalt pavement degrades exponentially (see Figure 1, below) • Fixing only the worst street segments first is not the best way to conduct pavement management
• This is because corrective work is 6-10 times more expensive than preventive/preservation work (see Figure 2, below)
• The idea is to keep “good roads good” by using a “mix of fixes” • For the present recommended phase of work, the most effective paving budget split will be approximately 80% for corrective work and 20% for preservation work.
8 192
DISCUSSION
• Figure 1) This graphic shows how asphalt pavement exponentially degrades over time without preservation intervention
9 193
DISCUSSION
• Figure 2) This graphic shows how “keeping good pavements good” is much less expensive over time
10 194
DISCUSSION
Project Phasing
• A traditional pavement management program (PMP) is separated by fiscal years to include specific work areas per FY
• Because of the Aaron Starr lawsuit, paving planning must be modified into phases until such time the lawsuit process is complete. • The City’s latest pavement report indicates that $23.3M dollars should be spent each fiscal year to maintain the current PCI • Without bonding ability, for next fiscal year the only paving funding available is Gas Tax and anticipated Measure O funding amounting to $6.25 M
• A phased approach allows for flexibility to adjust funding amounts (higher or lower) to avoid unrealistic expectations from the public about when streets will be paved
11 195
FINANCIAL IMPACT
• There is no direct financial impact to receive and file this report and provide input
•
• Because of the Aaron Starr lawsuit and resulting inability to bond, funding specifically available next fiscal year for street paving is solely from gas tax and anticipated Measure O revenue in the amount of approximately $6.25M
•
• With this amount, the City can pave only one residential street project and a few alleyways identified in Phase 1
•
• Staff intends to request additional funding to supplement gas tax and Measure O funds (for alleys) for next year’s budget. •
• Should there be an opportunity to provide more funding, additional streets from Phase 1 may be included in next year’s project scope.
12 196
QUESTIONS?
197