HomeMy WebLinkAbout1983-04-05; City Council; 7340; Prop H Committee recommended guidelines. I.
I. ,
-
CIT 3F CARLSBAD - AGENDA 31LL
DEPT. HD.&
SfG 3F_B yG. 7,34 1 TITLE
1EPT.R A Grou
CITY ATP/
CITY MGR.
PROPOSITION H COMMITTEE RECOMJIENDED 4/5/83
GUIDELINES
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Proposition H Committee recommends City Council adoption of the
attached guidelines.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
After the passage of Proposition H, the City Council appointed the Proposition H Committee to recommend guidelines to assist in imple- menting the ordinance.
The Committee has, through numerous meetings, worked through the
ordinance and developed points of clarification for selected portions.
These points of clarification apply to sections of the ordinance which
the Comnittee ccnsiders unclear. Extensive discussion and debate
contributed to the guidelines.
There are five major topics in the guidelines. The first four deal with clarification of specific sections of the ordinance.
1. 1.24.030 Governmental Bodies
2. 1.24.020(d) Funding Sources
3. 1.24.060 Exempt i ons
4. 1.24.030 Vote Required (Phasing)
The Committee considers specific interpretation of these sections
necessary for logical ordinance administration.
Guideline number 5 - Limitation Period, is recommended by the
Committee as an important general addition to the ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT :
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT :
None.
EXHIBITS :
1. Draft Guidelines.
.--
DRAFT MARCH 23. 1983.
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSITION H
1.
2.
Governmental Bodies.
Section 1.24.030 shall be interpreted in the following manner:
"The City of Carlsbad" means the City of
Carlsbad, a California Municipal Corporation,
and not any other separate legal entities.
For example, the ordinance would not apply
to the:
A. Parking Authority
B. Building Authority
C. Housing & Redevelopment Commission
Funding Sources.
Section 1.24.020(d) shall be interpreted in
the following manner:
"City funds" shall mean City of Carlsbad general fund monies; federal general revenue
sharing monies and all other monies similar to those funds.
In essence, "City Funds" are TAX MONIES, collec- ted City-wide, which are subject to the limita- tions of Proposition 13 and the Gann Initiative.
In general, fees which are received from new
development to provide additional facilities,
should be exempt. For example, the following
fees would not be subject to the ordinance:
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Planned local drainage fees
Park-in-lieu fees
Public facilities fees
Gifts to the City (Gifts for non-
specific purposes would be considered
"City funds. 'I)
Sewer construction funds Water funds (to the extent to which water funds are collected from new develop- ment and expended for capital facilities to
serve that new development, those funds
should be exempt, and not subject to the
ordinance)
c.
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSITION H.../2
3. Exemptions.
Section 1.24.060 shall be interpreted in the
f ol lowing manner :
The operative portion of the section is the
last paragraph, which states:
whether or not a vested right has been obtained in a particular case is a question of fact to be deter-
mined on a case-by-case basis by
the City Council, following notice
and public hearing.
The three criteria established by a, b and c in
code section 1.24.060 should be used by the Council in this determination. However, they are not all inclusive. Vesting may also be found
on other appropriate grounds as the City Council may determine. An example of "other appropriate
grounds" would be a pre-existing contractual agree- ment involving the City.
4. Vote Required (Phasing).
Section 1.24.030 provides that a project may not be separated into phases "...to avoid the effects of this ordinance." The section speaks to a determi-
nation of subjective intent. There are a number of
objective reasons for separating a project into
phases including available funding, environmental
factors, construction considerations, topographical
features, coordination with surrounding developments,
market conditions, the need to match project phasing
with population increases or citizen demand. Unless
it is reasonably apparent that a project is being
"split" to avoid a vote, legitimate phasing of a
project should be allowed. Before approving part of a project which may cost more than $l-million in City funds, the City Council shall determine whether or not
it is subject to Secticn 1.24.030. After a duly not-
iced public hearing the City Council shall make its
decision by resolution which includes specific find-
ings on why the project is being phased and whether
or not a vote is required.
\
..
DRAFT
GUIDELINES FOR PROPOSITION H.../3
5. Limitation Period
Any legal challenge to the determinations of
the City Council made in regard to the appli-
cation of the ordinance or the guidelines, or their decision to undertake a particular pro- ject be brought within thirty days. Failure
to institute a suit within thirty days would
bar any challenge after that time.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
CHAPTER 1.24 IMPLEMENTATION GUIDELINES
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the City Council of the City of Carlsbad will hold a public hearing at the City Council Chambers, 1200 Elm Avenue,
Carlsbad, California, at 6:OO P.M., on Tuesday, April 5, 1983, to consider the adoption of guidelines to be used for implementation of the one
million dollar spending limitation contained in Chapter 1.24 of the
Carlsbad Municipal Code.
in the City Clerk's Office.
A copy of the proposed guidelines is available
PUBLISH: March 26, 1983 CARLSBAD CITY COUNCIL