Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBackground ReportATTACHMENT 1 BACKGROUND REPORT Amortization Overview: Amortization is setting a period of time for a land use to cease on a certain specific piece of real estate. Uniform, objective criteria are applied to each separate land use and property and then an amortization schedule is individually prepared in consultation with owner/operator of said land use. There is no financial compensation from the City for amortization of a land use however the amount of investment in a land use is a key consideration in setting the schedule. The intent is to achieve compliance with the approved zoning for sites while allowing business investments to achieve a reasonable rate of return. Amortization Ranking: Amortization Ranking does not establish a schedule for amortization. Rather, ranking places businesses in an order by an objective, uniform weighting of criteria approved for the process. The City's proposed ranking process numbers 100 — highest to 1 lowest. However, if a business is ranked #100 as a result of ranking, that does not indicate that business will have the shortest amortization schedule. Nor does being ranked #1 mean a business would have the longest. As stated above, an amortization schedule is individually tailored for each business and property. This individual schedule would be created after the businesses are ranked based on criteria. Ranking closer to #100 would designate those land uses/business locations that staff intends to work with first for purposes of developing an amortization schedule. Staff proposes to work with two to three businesses for the initial amortization. The attached report describes in easy -to -understand language the criteria that are used for ranking, the weighting of each criteria as against the others, and how the ranking is determined. Staff encourages all those interested to read this report (available at www.nationalcityca.qov, community development, redevelopment or by request). The criteria themselves are based on City Council Ordinance 2006-2286 and staff input. Weighting for the criteria and direction for the decision making process using the criteria were considered in light of staff input, stakeholder interviews conducted on September 27 and 28th, 2010, were reviewed in individual briefings with the Mayor and Council Members on January 25, 2011, and reviewed and discussed with representatives of the business community on January 26, 2011. Community stakeholders interviewed in September, 2010 included: Environmental Health Coalition staff and volunteers, resident and business owner Robert "Dukie" Valderrama, resident Ted Godshalk, CDC Executive Director Brad Raulston, St. Anthony's parish/San Diego Organizing Project representatives, Westside Infill Transit Oriented Development developers, and Sonia Ruan, Principal of Kimball Elementary School. These interviews assisted staff and the contractors to understand the relative weights for criteria in the process. Business stakeholders participating in an interactive presentation and discussion at the Chamber of Commerce in January, 2011 included Jacqueline Reynoso — Chamber of Commerce, J.D. Beauchamp — ABB Management, Dante Aguilar — Dante's Modular Performance, Dixon Le Gros — Westflex, and Dan Greenwald — Greenwald's Autobody and Frameworks. During January Mayor and City Council Member briefings, staff was directed to ensure that business representative comments on the process were considered and reported on. Business stakeholder input and its impact on the ranking procedure is addressed on Page 7 and 8 of the Sustainability Partnership report attached. Certain factors and processes within the ranking procedure were revised based on business input. Recent community outreach: Based on City Council direction received on April 19, 2011, additional discussions requested by the Environmental Health Coalition ("EHC") have been held including: • April 21 — meeting between City staff and EHC staff • April 21 — presentation and discussion at the Old Town Neighborhood Council • April 27 — meeting/conference call with EPA consultants, City staff and EHC staff • May 2 — conference call with City staff and EHC staff No changes to the published criteria and weightings have been made as a result of these discussions; the report presented for consideration is identical to that revised per the business stakeholder discussion in January and posted to the City's website on April 17. However, it has been clarified that air emissions violations are entered into the spreadsheet that calculates the rankings in two categories, resulting in a heavier weighting on air quality violations than other types of violations. The category "Compliance Violations" includes all types of health and safety violations within the past five years, which are weighted equally. A mitigating factor for a violation is whether it was corrected. (No violation receives 0 points, corrected violations receive 50 points and uncorrected violations receive 100 points.) Air emission violations would be entered into the Compliance Violations category and also into the "Discharge Violations" category. Discharge Violations include air emissions violations and storm water run-off violations, weighted equally. It has also been clarified that proximity to Kimball School is weighted as the most significant "sensitive area" for the ranking process, exceeding proximity to homes, community centers or Paradise Creek. EHC staff requested City staff change the way violation data is entered and weighted in the amortization spreadsheet — they opined that more emphasis should be placed on certain types of violations than other types and that the number of violations should be considered. City staff deferred this discussion to the City Council in an open meeting believing that the most transparent approach was to present the criteria and weighting as represented to the business stakeholders and public previously and for any further changes to be made in a public meeting where all interested parties could participate. Requested City Council actions: 1. Confirm the procedure, criteria and weights to be used for the ranking process by accepting and filing this report; 2. Provide direction on next steps: The next step will be to implement the ranking process and staff is requesting direction regarding the options below: ✓ Rank non -conforming uses within a three -block radius of Kimball School; or ✓ Rank all non -conforming uses within the Westside Specific Plan area — this option was requested during the January, 2011 meeting. Staff anticipates that it will take approximately three - four months to complete the ranking, after which the amortization process will commence.