Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutcc min 1985/09/12" .... ' ' "" The City of Chula Vista Office of the C~y Clerk 691- 5041 .... ~ ~ :,.: .I;" NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL CONFERENCE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN THAT THE CITY COUNCIL OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA WILL HOLD A COUNCIL CONFERENCE ON THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 198S TO DISCUSS DEVELOPERS' SCHOOL FEES. THE MEETING WILL BEGIN AT 4:00 P.M. IN ]lIE COUNCIL CHAMBER, PUBLIC SERVICES BUILDING, 276 FOURTH AVENUE, CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA. Dated: September 4, 1985 ennle M.~ Fulasz, ~t%C~k 276 Fourfil Ave~u~ Clmla Vista ,Califor~ 92010 MINUTES OF AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, CALIFORNIA Thursday, September 12, 1985 Public Services Building 4:00 p.m. Council Chamber ROLL CALL PRESENT: Mayor Cox, Councilmembers Malcolm, McCandliss, Scott, Moore ABSENT: None STAFF PRESENT: City Manager Goss, City Attorney Harron, Assistant City Manager Asmus Mayor Cox stated the meeting was called to discuss the school fees, how they are used and how they are collected. The Mayor stated that as a member of the Task Force to study the school fees, Councilman Moore has been appointed Chairman of that Legislative Committee. This Task Force will submit its final report on November 14, 1985. Mayor Cox noted the background information given to the Council: a letter from City Attorney Harron dated September 6, a letter from Attorney Mike Cowett dated September 4, and the handout given by Councilman Moore on alternative revenue sources. Councilwoman McCandliss commented that in discussing the EastLake project, the Council talked about the necessary facilities being financed by the Mello Roos Financing Plan and asked if this included school facilities. Director of Planning Krempl responded it does that the developer has the responsibility to see that adequate school facilities are in place to serve the development. The consulting team is now starting to work out the details and they have 120 days to come back to the City on how they will implement the financing. In answer to Councilman Moore's query, Mr. Krempl stated there is an element in the general plan which addresses the educational needs of development projects. City Attorney Harron, in response to Council's questions, stated County Counsel William Taylor's position is that there is no violation of CEQA, and the procedure for collecting school development fees is valid and defensible. The position taken by County Counsel is that the charges for the school fees are a "contribution." It is not a fee nor a tax - it is a contract with the developers. Attorney Harron stated his personal opinion is that it is too late to challenge CEQA - the time limit has passed and the charges for the school fees are, in fact, valid. Attorney Harron referred to Government Code 65970 stating the schools must show that all reasonable methods of mitigating conditions of City Council Meeting -2- September 12, 1985 overcrowding have been evaluated and no feasible methods of reducing such conditions exist. Councilwoman McCandliss clarified the question of the fees; the school districts are using it for the long-range needs and interim needs. Councilman Malcolm indicated this was not true; the school districts have stated they use the money only for interim classrooms and equipment. Council discussion followed regarding the requirements of SB 201 and how the monies can be used and collected for interim facilities. Mr. John Linn, Business Manager, Chula Vista Elementary School District, stated the schools look to the police power in order to enable them to collect the "contributions." They utilize that police power because of the need for educational facilities for the children. Currently, they are charging a flat fee of $1,690 per unit. The Task Force is studying this amount and if it finds the fees are too high, the school district may consider returning the fees. Dr. Lewis Beal, Superintendent, Chula Vista Elementary School District, stated the Board of Education considered the equity factor and other alternatives. The Board felt the flat fee was the fairest way to go since it would cost some home buyers more money to go according to the high school district's schedule of fees. Mayor Cox noted the resolution submitted by the City of E1 Cajon to the League of California Cities which addresses long-range funding for the schools. Chula Vista introduced a similar resolution and will support E1 Cajon's resolution at the League Conference in October of this year. Mr. Ty Compton, Chairman of the Task Force gave a background of the formation of the committee. He stated there are now five subcommittees formed. (1) Growth and Statistics Projection Committee, (2) Existing Facilities Utilization, (3) Existing Inventory Committee, (4) Alternative Facilities Funding Committee, and (5) Legislative Committee. Mr. Compton remarked there are immediate problems - the short term problem which is the enrollment of students is increasing quite rapidly, especially in the elementary school district and this problem must be addressed. Council discussion followed during which Councilman Malcolm noted that to build an elementary school it would take fees from 3,000 new homes, and for a high school from 8,000 to 9,000 units. He added there is still the question as to how these new school facilities can be built with the only viable option being through the legislature. If legislature does not come along, Councilman Malcolm said he would be amenable to stopping issuing building permits. City Council Meeting -3- September 12, 1985 Councilman Scott noted the school districts have always had the option of sending a letter to the City Council stating it should not be issuing any more building permits as school facilities are not available. What he is hearing from the school representatives today is that the City Council should take over. He doesn't feel the Council should get involved in school business. It is the responsibility of the school districts, and it is the schools that should provide the moratorium and not the City Council. Councilman Scott added he has never heard, at any one time, that the schools cannot provide for the students, and they have never asked the Council not to issue any building permits. The fees that they are charging are not solving any problem and in the meantime, they are creating burdens on the new homeowners. All it does is postpone the problems. Mayor Cox noted that even the high school district is busing students to other areas. He added there are several projects in Chula Vista where a number of the older residents in the City are buying into the new subdivisions, such as the Tetra Nova project. They're moving out of their apartments and older homes. Once they get into the new homes, they are being charged these school fees; however, the people buying into the older homes are not being charged fees. Councilwoman McCandliss acknowledged this adding that in order to avoid a letter requesting the moratorium, the schools are consistently increasing their fees. She said the Council has the responsibility to provide some policy direction to the schools: how the fees are collected, how much the fees should be and the conditions of the police power. Councilman Moore declared the school districts need the assistance of the Council to get legislation and the public should get involved also. According to the 1-43 Policy, if a school district determines it will not be able to provide school facililties and services, it shall include an explanation of its reasons for that determination and a description of measures currently being undertaken or planned. If the basis for certification includes mandatory private contributions, no such contribution should be required to be paid prior to the issuance of building permits of the subject property. Mayor Cox referred to the scheduled increases which will go into effect on October 1 (Sweetwater Union High School District) and questioned whether it will be held in abeyance pending the report from the Task Force. Attorney Harron explained a developer does not have a vested right to proceed until he pulls a building permit and spends money in reliance of that permit. Chula Vista has always "grandfathered" these particular causes, but it does not necessarily have to do that and neither do the schools. City Council Meeting -4- September 12, 1985 Dr. Perry, representing the Sweetwater Union High School District, explained their fee schedule increase. The intent of the Board is to implement Phase I (July 1 through September 20) with the second phase beginning October 1 through December 31. The fees, however, will be reviewed in November 1985. At the end of their Phase increases, they should have enough money to build a school. Dr. Perry remarked it would cost $25 million to build a high school and $15 million to build a junior high school. The high school would take 40 acres and the junior high 25 acres. As to the "grandfathering" clause, Dr. Perry stated they have notified the developers that any construction started prior to July 1, 1986 would go with the lower fees. In essence, Dr. Perry added they are creating their own moratorium. Attorney Michael Cowett referred to his letter stating his intent was to deal with the procedure with which the fees were implemented. He is not suggesting that the school fees are illegal, nor that the Council should not accept the letter - just that the school fees were not established in accordance with current statutory court procedures. Attorney Cowerr stated the Council should consider whether or not it should, in fact, collect the fees for the schools. In his research, he has found that neither one of these school districts have followed the CEQA guidelines. They are, instead, trying to tailor the fees on the impact caused by the development. The elementary school district does not distinguish between the area where the children are living or where the children are not living. Attorney Cowett added: the schools are charging a tax, not a fee; there is a distinction between SB 201 and the police power; the City's ordinance is basically an SB 201 ordinance; in order to collect fees under SB 201 the schools must agree to a certain number of things nothing has taken place; school fees should not be charged by Chula Vista pending adoption of state statutes. Attorney Harron stated that long before SB 201 came on the scene, the schools had been collecting these fees. SB 201 is a separate alternate procedure. If the developer states he is not going to pay the fees for that letter and insists on getting his building permit, the schools can do one of two things: they can state they are overcrowded and use SB 201 to have him pay for the interim facilities, or they can challenge it on non-compliance to the general plan or CEQA. Attorney Don Lindberg, 4201 Bonita Road, Bonita stated he joins Attorney Cowett in his statements on the inadequacy of the school fees. The definition of these fees is "extortion," which the school districts have undertaken. There is no lack of imagination in collecting the fees but there is a total lack of imagination in setting the fees. SB 201 is a process to establish the fees from new homeowners - this is to be for temporary facilities to serve the present project; however, the school districts are collecting City Council Meeting -5- September 12, 1985 monies from everyone which is inequitable. Attorney Lindberg added the Council can tell the school districts: "these fees are absurd and they are rejected." This is the same procedure followed by the cities of E1 Cajon and Escondidoo The report on November 14 from the Task Force would be only the first step in a very long process the schools will still collect the fees. Attorney Lindberg stated he would like to have the Council take action in the interest of all citizens and not just penalize the new homeowners. Mayor Cox noted the schools are now on other programs such as year round schools, magnet schools, and busing children which does affect areas outside of just certain subdivisions. Mr. Kil Kenny, representing the Construction Industry stated the current procedure in Chula Vista is unusual and violates CEQA, SB 201 and Propostion 13. The rationale is not convincing and he strongly encouraged the Council to look at the procedures and to come up with one that the vast majority of the other cities have adopted. Mr. Jerry Volk, 758 Palm Avenue, Imperial Beach, said he started asking for these studies five years ago. There is a section in the Government Code whereby the school districts are required to make a report to the City Council every October on what monies they have taken in and how they have spent those monies in regard to school fees. Mr. Volk added that the EastLake EIR indicates the funds for the school facilities will be paid from the Mello Roos Financing Plan but questioned what would happen if this financing plan did not go through. Mayor Cox asked for the Council's comments for specific recommendations for Councilman Moore to take to the Task Force. Councilman Malcolm stated he would like to see the school districts give the City a letter guaranteeing that the fees that they are collecting will be spent for new facililties and its equipment in this City; he doesn't believe the schools should use the money wherever they see fit; he would like to slow down construction of apartments and condos as the schools have stated they have done; however, he feels it should come from the Council through zoning and not from the school districts; he has a problem with the elementary school charging a flat fee; he would like to see the Council come up with a firm date on which they would take some action on the school fees; he has a problem with the second phase fee scheduled increase of the Sweetwater Union High School District which will go into effect on October 1 - he had understood this would be held in abeyance until the first of the year; he is against raising any fees at this time, he would like to see nothing done on raising fees until the Supreme Court decision is forwarded. City Council Meeting -6- September 12, 1985 Councilwoman McCandliss stated she places a great deal of confidence in the work of the Task Force; she doesn't like the amount of fees; in the past, schools were funded as a community responsibility; she hopes some new legislation will come about; she is unclear as to how the Sweetwater Union High School District Phases I and II will be implemented; would like to see the committee recommend holding the Phase II implementation until everyone knows what direction this is going to be going to; the fees for the new homebuyers appear high but the Council has known for some time that the fees being charged by the schools in this community were low. Mr. Tony Trujillo, Superintendent, Sweetwater Union High School District commented he will be taking these comments back to his Board to discuss them. He noted there were no homeowners in the audience who are complaining about the fees. Attorney Lindberg responded that the homeowners are an unrepresentative group and not aware of the fees being assessed. Councilman Scott stated he would support a motion at the next meeting of not requiring a letter from the school districts if, in fact, they increase their fees. He would strongly recommend that the school districts not do it and to bring this matter to the Council prior to October 1. MSUC (Moore/Scott) to recommend to the City Manager the request of the high school district to hold the second part of Phase I fees in abeyance (increase in the fees) and to refer this matter to the City Manager to docket this item for consideration. ADJOURNMENT at 6:20 p.m. to the meeting scheduled for Tuesday, September 17 at 7:00 p.m. 0644C AK