HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991/04/23 Item 21
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
b)
Public Hearing: Proposed increase in Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) fees
Reso 1 ut i on 1(,,1 tH, Amendi ng the Master Fee Schedul e
related to Parkl and Acqui sit i on Fees and Parkland Development
Fees for Neighborhood Park and ~mmunity Park Requirements
Director of Parks and Recreatio~
City Manage~ (4/5ths Vote: Yes___No~)
ITEM TITLE: a)
SUBMITTED BY:
REVIEWED BY:
The Subdivision Map Act, which is part of the Government Code Section 66477,
allows cities, by ordinance, to require dedication of land or payment of fees
in lieu of dedication or require a combination of the two, for local/
neighborhood and/or community park purposes, as a condition of approval of a
tentative subdivision or parcel map for just residential development. The
in-lieu fees, known as Park Acquisition and Development (PAD) fees, were last
increased by the City Council in December 1987. Since that time, costs for
acquiring and developing parks have risen substantially.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council:
a. Conduct the public hearing.
b. Adopt the resol ut i on amendi ng the Master Fee Schedul e related to park
fees, as shown in Attachment A, to take effect 60 days after adoption.
c. Direct staff to prepare changes to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance with
regard to private park PAD fee credit and a senior housing component for
park area to be dedicated.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission, at
its January 17, 1991 meeting, approved fee increases as recommended by staff.
DISCUSSION:
PAD fees are based on the park dedi cat i on standard of 3 acres/l,OOO people,
density per dwelling unit type, the land dedication requirements, park
development standards and the per acre cost of acquiring land and developing a
park. Attachment A is a copy of the City's Parkl and Dedi cat ion Ordi nance
(Chapter 17,10 of the City Code) which outlines the park standards and
requi red improvements, that form the basi s for the fee assessment. It is
expected that PAD fees will refl ect current costs for park acqui sit i on and
development and that sufficient fees will be collected annually to pay for
needed park improvements or development. However, four issues have been
identified regarding assessment and use of these funds.
2.1-1
Page 2, Item 2L
Meeting Date 4/23/91
The first issue concerns the actual fees charged to developers. As stated
previ ously, the fees were 1 ast increased three years ago. Si nce that time,
land values and park development costs have increased. This issue can be
addressed by adjusting the fees accordingly to reflect current costs.
Attachment B 1 i sts the current PAD fees and proposed new PAD fees. As shown
in this attachment, PAD fees are comprised of a park acquisition portion and a
park development port i on, whi ch is further di vi ded into a nei ghborhood park
component and a community park component.
For the park development portion of the fee, staff is recommending an increase
of approximately $1,000 per dwelling unit for single family residences from
$1,290/du to $2, 260/du, and proport i onately small er doll ar amounts for other
types of dwelling units. These development fees are based on actual costs of
installing park improvements, as outlined in the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance. Attachment C gives a cost breakdown on a per acre basis of these
various park improvements, such as irrigation, landscaping and play equipment,
for a basic local/neighborhood park. The cost for a basic local/neighborhood
park has increased from $82,500/acre to $155,gOO/acre. Attachment D shows the
costs and proposed fees for the community park improvements, as defined in the
dedication ordinance. These basic park amenities and community facilities are
ones typically required by this department.
The current land acquisition portion of the fee is based on a raw land value
of $40, OOO/acre. Pl anni ng Department staff estimated the average per acre
cost of land to be $200,000/acre. The Parks and Recreation Commission
approved park acquisition fees based on this cost. However, since the
Commission meeting, staff has investigated further and reviewed recent
apprai sa 1 reports throughout the Ci ty. It appears that the average cost of
land in areas where parks could conceivably be located, is $5/sq. ft. or
$217,800/acre. Staff, therefore, recommends using the $217,800/acre figure in
calculating the acquisition fees. Per Attachment A, then, acquisition costs
for single family residences will increase from $390 per dwell ing unit to
$2,115 per dwelling unit, and proportionately lesser dollar amounts for other
dwelling unit types.
In the future, it wi 11 be the Parks and Recreation Department's goal to look
at these fees on an annual basis and adjust them accordingly. Attachment E is
a 1 i st of park fees charged by other ci ties in the County. These fees range
from SO to S3,258/du for single family dwellings.
The second issue regardi ng PAD fees has to do with how these PAD fees are
spent. In an earl ier rel ated Council report regarding the recommendations of
the Growth Management Overs i ght Committee (GMOC), the GMOC rai sed concerns
regarding use of PAD fees for making improvements to existing local/
neighborhood and community parks rather than for acquiring and developing new
parks. This committee was especially concerned about the lack of parkland in
western Chula Vista.
ZI..2..
Page 3, Item~
Meeting Date 4/23/91
As stated in this earlier GMOC Council report, staff recommends that PAD fees
continue to be used for park improvements as well as for new park
development. Unfortunately, not enough PAD fees are collected annually to
make major land purchases for new park development, since these fees are
restricted to residential development as part of a subdivision or parcel map.
In addition, PAD fees are generally waived for major developments such as
Rancho Del Rey and EastLake in return for dedication and construction of City
local/neighborhood and community parks. At the same time, upgrades and
improvements to existing parks are continually needed to keep the facilities
safe and desirable to use. Attachment F is a 1 ist of park projects funded
with PAD fees, for the last five years.
Staff is therefore looking at the feasibil ity of implementing a "park benefit
fee" which could be assessed for non-PAD fee-required developments, such as
commercial and industrial projects. These fees potentially could be used for
improving and developing parks in western Chula Vista, including the
Montgomery area.
Staff is also considering implementation of a Park Development Impact Fee
(Park DIF) to fund major facilities, such as a Cultural Arts Center and
Greenbelt improvements. Recommendations regarding establishment of these fees
will be sent to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council for
consideration within the next six months.
The GMOC al so identified concerns with the types of 1 and accepted for parks
and recommended making changes to the ordinance to include definitions of net
usable acres.
The third issue concerns where PAD fees are currently spent. As discussed in
the GMOC Council report, staff is concerned about fi ndi ng the nexus between
co 11 ect i on of PAD fees and use of these fees to benefit the areas from where
these fees are co 11 ected, as defi ned inSect ion 17.10. OBO of the City Code.
At one time, the City was divided into park districts for the purposes of
determining adequacy of parkland within a certain radius and to collect and
spend PAD fees according to these district boundaries. Staff will be studying
this park district concept further to determine the feasibility and need to
reinstitute this concept, for the distribution of PAD fees and, possibly "park
benefit fees", and wi 11 return with a report to Council.
The fourth issue concerns the impact of the proposed fees on the development
community. The Parks and Recreat i on Department conducted a workshop for the
developers on April 15, 1991 to review the proposed increases and note any
concerns. In general, the developers felt the proposed fees accurately
refl ected the current costs of devel opi ng parks. The major developers are
generally providi ng turnkey parks and havi ng PAD fees waived, and thus will
not be impacted by the fee increase at this time. By providing the land and
building these turnkey parks, developers are actually paying the proposed park
acqui sit i on and development costs. Staff's percept i on, then, is that these
costs are already being accounted for in the housing prices. Staff is
concerned, however, about the overall amount of fees charged per dwelling unit
and will provide an analysis of this potential impact during the next year.
2/..,3
Page 4, Item ~.l
Meeting Date 4/23/91
Three concerns were raised by developers, which will be addressed by staff in
the near future. The first concern dealt with fees to be assessed on
special ized housing types, such as a senior retirement community. Currently,
this type of project would be assessed fees or dedicate land based on the
"attached unit" density type which is 2.8 persons per unit. Since a
retirement community is for seniors only, each unit would have only one or two
persons. Therefore, the density would probably be less than 2.8 and closer to
a figure below 2. It is therefore recommended that staff determine densities
of senior housing projects in the City and those of other retirement
communities in the County and bring back for Council consideration an
amendment to the Parkland Dedication Ordinance to add a senior housing
component, with appropriate densities and corresponding park area to be
dedicated.
The second concern had to do with provision of private park amenities in
developments and the amount of park dedication credit to be given. Currently,
the ordinance states that planned developments are eligible to receive credit
for private recreational facilities and that credit will be given on a
case-by-case basis. The developers expressed a desire to have more specific
guidel ines for giving credit stated in the ordinance. There is a feel ing
that, at present, the giving of credit for private park amenities is somewhat
subjective, since no clear-cut standards exist for provision of full or
partial park credit. It is recommended that staff consider adding standards
to the ordinance to identify what is acceptable for credit consideration in
private parks and bring back recommendations for Council review.
The third concern dealt with the density per dwelling unit type listed in the
ordinance, with reference to park area to be dedicated or fees to be paid.
The density figures provided by the State Department of Finance, as of January
1, 1990, are very close to the figures listed in the ordinance. The City has
not yet recei ved the new fi gures for 1991, whi ch wi 11 be based on the 1990
census. It is recommended that no adjustments be made at this time until the
new dens ity fi gures are avail abl e. Staff wi 11 then determi ne if any changes
will be necessary, and will bring any proposed changes to Council for
cons iderat i on. Any changes coul d affect the amount of 1 and to be dedi cated
per dwelling unit and the in-lieu fee per unit.
Therefore, within the next six months, the Department will be bringing forward
to the Parks and Recreation Commission and City Council recommendations
regarding park benefit fees, Park DIF, park districts, and recommended changes
to the Dedi cat i on Ordi nance rel ated to cri teri a for accepting 1 and for parks
and specific standards for various park improvements, a senior housing
component, private park standards, and possibly new density figures.
FISCAL IMPACT: If the PAD fees are increased as proposed, additional
revenues to the City will be realized. If 100 dwelling units were constructed
next year and subject to payment of PAD fees, as estimated, the amount
collected in park fees would increase from approximately $120,000 to
approximately $330,000.
WPC 1625R
2/-V
RESOLUTION NO.~
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CHULA VISTA AMENDING THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
RELATED TO PARKLAND ACQUISITION FEES AND
PARKLAND DEVELOPMENT FEES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD
PARK AND COMMUNITY PARK REQUIREMENTS
The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby
resolve as follows:
WHEREAS, the Subdivision Map Act, which is part of the
Government Code Section 66477, allows cities, by ordinance, to
require dedication of land or payment of fees in lieu of
dedication or require a combination of the two, for neighborhood
and/or community park purposes, as a condition of approval of a
tentative subdivision or parcel map for just residential
development; and
WHEREAS, the in-lieu fees, known as Park Acquisition and
Development (PAD) fees, were last increased by the City Council
in December 1987 and since that time, costs for acquiring and
developing parks have risen substantially.
WHEREAS,
January 17,1991
by staff; and
the Parks and Recreation Commission, at its
meeting, approved fee increases as recommended
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing to
consider the proposed increase in PAD fees at its April 2, 1991
meeting.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of
the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend the Master Fee Schedule
related to Parkland Acquisition Fees and Parkland Development
Fees for Neighborhood Park and Community Park Requirements to
adopt the following:
Park Acquisition Fees
single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi-family
Mobilehome
Residential hotel
$2,115/du
$1,830/du
!1,625/dU
1,440/du
1,070/du
$ 980/du
~I ,S-
-1-
Park Development Fees
Neighborhood
Park
Community
Park
TOTAL
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi-family
Mobilehome
Residential & transient
motel/hotel
Il,SlO/dU
l,3l0/du
l,l60/du
l,030/du
$770/du
$700/du
7S0/du
670/du
580/du
520/du
390/du
350/du
2,260/du
l,980/du
l,740/du
l,550/du
l,l60/du
l,050/du
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that said fees will take effect
(sixty) 60 days after the adoption of this resolution.
Presented by
iO f<m :1
Bruce M. Boogaard ity Attorney
Jess Valenzuela, Director of
Parks and Recreation
8692a
J/,,(P
-2-
Minutes of a
Regular Meeting of the
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
Thursday 6:00 p.m.
January 17, 1991
**REVlSED**
Parks and Recreation
Conference Room
*******************
CALL MEETING TO ORDER
ROLL CALL
MEMBERS PRESENT:
MEMBER LATE:
MEMBER ABSENT:
Commissioners Lind, Roland, Willett
Chair Sandoval-Fernandez (6:15)
Commissioner Hall
1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion to approve the minutes of the meeting of December 13, 1990 as
distributed.
MSC LIND/ROLAND 3-0 (Sandoval-Fernandez out)
2. PUBLIC HEARINGS OR REMARKS
NONE
3. UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Criteria for Membershio in EastLake Golf Course
Item continued until February meeting.
4. NEW BUSINESS
a. Golf Course Fee Increase
Director Valenzuela gave a brief overview of American Gol~'s proposal
for a fee increase. He stated that staff's reV1ew of the
request revealed that the proposed fees were below one third of all golf
courses in San Diego County. This proposal has also been endorsed by
the Men's Club. Johnny Gonzales and Bert Geisendorf were present to
represent American Golf.
The Commissioners discussed the potential stage IV water alert and the
impact that this would have on the Golf Course. Mr. Geisendorf stated
that if necessary the golf course could go back to using well water for
irrigation, even though it is not considered desirable due to high
,.
2/.1
salinity.
Mr. Bill Anderson, a resident of Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to the
proposed fee increase. Mr. Anderson is not pleased with the current
physical condition of the golf course and he feels that he has been
treated in a rude manner by some American Golf employees, because of
this, he opposes the currently proposed rate increase.
Mr. George Laury, a resident of Chula Vista, spoke in opposition to the
fee increase. Mr. Laury stated that while he has always been treated
with respect at the golf course, he has found some things in disrepair
such as the drinking fountain in the pro shop and some of the greens and
doesn't feel that there should be an increase in fees until these items
are handled.
Mr. Douglas HaWkins, a resident of Bonita, compared the rates of other
golf courses in the area: Balboa and Torrey Pines. He would like to see
a special rate for Chula Vista residents a monthly rate, and a rate for
seniors. He feels that a one year span is too short for another rate
increase. Mr. Hawkins stated that he could play EastLake cheaper than
he could play his own city-owned golf course.
Mr. Tom O'Connor, a resident of Chula Vista, finds the American Golf
employees to be extremely courteous and helpful. In addition, he feels
that American Golf has done a very good job in maintaining the golf
course. He has compared the green fees with other golf courses in the
area and finds them to be lower even though conditions at the Chula
Vista golf course are better maintained than the other courses.
Park Superintendent Foncerrada stated that the proposed fee increase is
in line with rates at other comparable courses in the area. He further
stated that American Golf has complied with all of the terms and
conditions of their contract. He has not received any complaints from
citizens or golf course patrons about conditions at the golf course.
It is his opinion that the golf course is in the best condition it has
ever been in. Mr. Foncerrada pointed out to the Commission that
American Golf has completed a number of capital improvement projects
that are above and beyond what the initial contract called for.
Chair Sandoval-Fernandez stated that, based on the input received, she
feels that is too soon for the Commission to make a decision. She would
like to see an example of a tiered fee schedule, with one fee for Chula
Vista residents and a different fee for non-residents, and also a
specification on timelines as to when some of the improvement items are
to be done.
Commissioner Willett requested that staff verify some of the rates that
have been quoted by some of the members of the pUblic. He also noted
that some clubs are trying to hold the amount of their rate increases
to the CPI this year, and stated that the rate increase currently
proposed by American Golf exceeds the CPl.
Motion to table this issue until February, have American Golf come back
with a two-tiered proposal or three-tiered proposal, have staff analyze
~/,i
this proposal and have staff check on current rate structures at
comparable facilities in San Diego County and clarify the timelines on
issues related to the contract.
MSC SANDOVAL-FERNANDEZ/ /LIND 4-0
b. CV2000 ReDorts
At the request of the Chair, Director Valenzuela briefed the Commission
on the report highlighting those recommendations which he considered
most significant, and gave a status report on those CV2000
recommendations which were currently being acted upon.
Commissioner Roland doesn't think it is a good idea for the City to buy
land in the immediate vicinity of a school because if the school needs
to expand with the growth of the City, the land will be needed by the
school.
Commissioner Willett feels that the City should acquire the property
under redevelopment so if you do need to increase the school or the park
the land will already be in the public domain.
Chair Sandoval-Fernandez referred to Page 6 and the statement about
multi-cultural and ethnic changes taking place in the community, and
cautioned staff not to frame that in a negative context. She feels that
the statement, while phrased very delicately, could be interpreted in
a manner that is derogatory to the Hispanic population.
Motion to approve in content the recommendations that are set forth in
the CV2000 report.
MSC WILLETT/LIND 4-0
c. GMOC ReDort - Park Issues
Director Valenzuela recapped the concerns expressed by the GMOC, and
staff's response to these concerns.
One of the main concerns of the GMOC is that PAD fees be used
appropriately. Director Valenzuela stated that no PAD fees would be
used for park upgrades unless a nexus could be drawn.
Motion to approve the recommendations.
MSC ROLAND/WILLETT 4-0
d. PAD Fee Increase
Director Valenzuela introduced Principal Management Assistant stokes who
gave the Commission a recap of the process and criteria used to arrive
at the proposed PAD fee increase.
Commissioner Willett stated that based on recent research he has done
,-,..q
in this area, it is his opinion that the figures proposed by staff are
appropriate.
Motion to accept the report and send it forward to Council with the
Commission's recommendation.
MSC WILLETT/SANDOVAL-FERNANDEZ 4-0
e. EastLake Park Tour
Director Valenzuela stated Commissioner Hall had called him requesting
that the Commission accept Mr. Bob Santos invitation to go on a tour of
the EastLake Park site, and discuss the existing condition and future
plans for the area.
Commissioner Willett recommended that the Commission have an updated map
before the tour.
Chair Sandoval-Fernandez suggested that Commissioner Hall should be
consulted before setting a date for the tour as he had specifically
expressed an interest in attending. She further suggested that if
Commissioner Hall's schedule could accommodate it, a lunch time tour
would be appropriate.
Commissioner Willett will be out of town through January 31, 1991.
f. 4th and Oranae Avenue Park Site
Director Valenzuela stated that based on actions taken at the joint
meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Library Board,
the concept park plan has been tabled. It is hoped that deferring this
plan to the library will facilitate their acquisition of an $8 million
grant to build a library on the site.
Per the Commission's request at that meeting, a letter has been drafted
to Council, reminding them that there still is a park plan for, and
interest in having a park at, that site. Director Valenzuela drew the
Commission's attention to the draft of that letter which was included
in their packets and asked for comments.
It was the consensus of the Commissioners that the letter, with minor
revision by Chair Sandoval-Fernandez, be signed and sent to Council.
g. Tennis Center Aareement
Acting Recreation Superintendent Gates gave an overview of Council's
recommendation on the Tennis Center agreement, in particular, the GPA
requirement.
Commissioner Willett has done a detailed study of the situation, and
found that there has never been a student dismissed from the program
because of the scholastic requirement. He sees it as an incentive for
the students to keep their grades up.
~I-I()
Director Valenzuela pointed out that the California Interscholastic
Federation's standard is 2.0, and he felt that Council was trying to
make this program consistent with this standard.
commissioner Lind stated that in his opinion, the scholastic requirement
was not a big issue either way, because the type of youth involved in
the program would be getting good grades anyway.
Motion to support Council's recommendation and send the agreement back
to Council.
MSUC WILLETT/LIND 3-1 (Sandoval-Fernandez opposed)
h. Goals
Director Valenzuela presented the Commission with the Department's goals
for the upcoming year.
Commissioner willett commended the Director on the goals statement.
Motion to accept the departmental goals.
MSC WILLETT/ROLAND 4-0
** Motion to add Terra Nova Park Improvement plan revisions to the agenda
as an emergency item.
MSC WILLETT/ROLAND 4-0
i. Terra Nova Park ImDrovement Plan Revisions
Director Valenzuela introduced Nick DeLorenzo of Gillespie/ DeLorenzo
who presented the revisions and refinements to the Terra Nova Park
Improvement Plan. He did a comparison of the former and current plan
and discussed the reasons why the changes were made.
In response to Commissioner willett's questions Mr. DeLorenzo assured
the Commission that the soccer field still meets AYSO standards.
Motion to accept the revised concept plan.
MSC WILLETT/ROLAND 4-0
5. COMMUNICATIONS
a. Written CorresDondence
NONE
b. Commissioner's Comments
WILLETT
Commended Director Valenzuela on his presentation of
21-11
Department goals, and stated that he is going to present them to the
Chula vista 21 Committee as a guideline.
Commissioner Willett would like the Commission to be notified of all
public hearings involving parks.
LIND - Requested that the Youth sports Council be advised when playing
fields are going to be taken out of service.
Asked if the water restrictions will have an effect on ballfields.
The Director confirmed that all parks, open space and ballfields will
be affected by the water restrictions.
ROLAND - Expressed his concerns about placing parks under power lines.
6. MONTHLY REPORT OF DEPARTMENT ACTIVITY AND COUNCIL ACTION
Director Valenzuela announced the appointment of Sunny Shy to the
position of Recreation Director for the Department.
ADJOURNMENT to the regularly scheduled meeting of February 21, 1991.
Respectively submitted,
Ca~/1f#,
1.1,11..
()
(
l
"
At tachment A
Chapter 17.10
PARKLANDS AND PUBLIC FACILITIES
Sections:
17.10.010
17.10.020
17.10.030
17.10.040
17.10.050
17 .10.060
17 .10.070
17.10.080
17.10.090
17.10.100
17.10.110
Dedication of land and development of improvements for park
and recreational purposes.
Determination of park and recreational requirements benefiting
regulated subdivisions.
Application
Area to be dedicated-Required when-Amounts for certain uses.
Park development improvements-Specifications.
Criteria for area to be dedicated.
In lieu fees for land dedication and/or park development
improvements.
Limitations on use of land and/or fees.
Commencement of park development.
Collection and distribution of fees.
Periodic review and amendment authorized.
17.10.010 Dedication of land and development of improvements for park and
recreational purposes.
Pursuant to the authority granted by Section 66477 of the Government Code
of the state, every subdivider shall, for the purpose of providing
neighborhood and community park and recreational facilities directly
benefiting and serving the residents of the regulated subdivision, dedicate a
porti on of the 1 and and develop improvements thereon or in 1 ieu thereof pay
fees for each dwelling unit in the subdivision or do a combination thereof, as
required by the City in accordance with this chapter. The dedication,
improvement, or payment of fees in lieu thereof or combination thereof shall
be applicable to all residential subdivisions of any type allowed under the
various and several residential zones of the city and shall be in addition to
any residential construction tax required to be paid pursuant to Chapter 3.32
of this code. lOrd. 2243 ~ 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1806 ~ 1 (part), 1978: Ord.
1668 ~ 1 (part), 1976.)
17.10.020 Determination of park and recreational requirements benefiting
regulated subdivisions.
The park and recreational facilities for which dedication of land and
improvements thereon and/or payment of a fee is required by this chapter shall
be those facilities as generally set forth in the park and recreational
.e1ement of the general plan of the city adopted by Resolution No. 3519 on the
22nd day of September, 1964, and as thereafter amended. (Ord. 2243 ~ 1 (part)
1987: Ord. 1668 ~ 1 (part), 1976.)
. .
627
(R 3/88)
~/..13
I.
()
17.10.030 Application.
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to all subdivisions and
divisions created by parcel maps excepting therefrom industrial and completely
commercial subdivisions and those subdivisions or divisions of land for which
tentative subdivision 'or 'parcel maps have been filed within thirty days after
the effective date of this chapter. (Ord. 1858 ~ 1, 1979: Ord. 1806 ~ 1
(part), 1978: Ord. 1668 S 1 (part), 1976.)
(
17.10.040 Area to be dedicated-Required when-Amounts for certain uses.
The amount of parkland dedication required, in accordance with Sections
17.10.010 through 17.10.130, is based on a standard of 3 acres per 1000 people
and shall be offered at the time of filing of the final map. The area to be
dedicated shall be as follows:
A. Single-family dwelling units, 3.22 persons per dwelling unit, four hundred
twenty-three square feet per unit, or one acre per one hundred three units;
B. Attached, cluster housing or planned unit developments under either
condominium or subdivided ownership, 2.80 persons per dwelling unit, three
hundred si xty-si x square feet per uni t, or one acre per one hundred
ni neteen uni ts;
C. Duplexes, 2.48 persons per dwelling unit, three hundred twentY-five square
feet per unit, or one acre per one hundred thirty-four units;
O. Multiple family dwelling units, 2.21 persons per dwelling unit, two
hundred eighty-eight square feet per unit, or one acre per one hunrlred
fi fty- one uni ts;
E. Mobile homes, 1.64 persons per dwelling unit, two hundred fifteen square
feet per unit, or one acre per two hundred three units.
F. Residenti al and transi ent motel s/hotel s, 1. 50 persons per dwell i ng unit,
one hundred ninety-six square feet per unit, or one acre per two hundred
twenty-two units.
(Ord. 2243 S 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1806 S 1 (part), 1978: Ord. 1668 S 1 (part),
1976. )
,
17.10.050 Park development improvements-Specifications.
In addition to the dedication of land as required in Section 17.10.040, it
shall be the responsibility of the subdivider to develop all or a portion of
such land for neighborhood or community park purposes to the satisfactions of
the Director of Parks and Recreation and the Parks and Recreation Commission
in accordance with the following criteria"
A. Parklands are to be graded in accordance with a plan which shall be
subject to the approval of the director of parks and recreation.
B. All street improvements shall be installed.
C. All utilities shall be extended to the property line.
D. An automatic irrigation system shall be installed.
E. Turf shall be installed.
F. Landscaping, including trees, shrubs and other plant material, shall be
planted in accordance with the City's Landscape Manual.
L
'-
628
(R 3/88)
tl,IY
()
(
l
.
( .
G. A concrete walkway system shall be installed.
H.. Park fixtures, such as signage, tables, benches, trash receptacles,
drinking fountains and bike racks, shall be installed.
I. .Adrainage system shall be installed, if necessary.
J. Play areas, with play equipment for pre-schoolers and primary school-age
. Children shall be installed.
K.. Security lighting fixtures shall be provided.
l;. One picnic shelter shall be provided for every 1,000 people.
M. One tennis court shall be provided for eve~ 2,000 people.
N. One baseball/softball field shall be installed for every 5,000 people.
O. One mUlti-purpose court for basketball, volleyball, and badminton shall be
installed for eve~ 5,000 people.
P. One Soccer field shall be constructed for every 10,000 people.
In addition to those items listed above, the following facilities shall be
required in a community park:
Q. One 50 meter swimming pool with related facilities, such as dressing
rooms, will be constructed for every 20,000 people.
R. One community center and gymnasium will be constructed for eve~ 24,000
people.
S. One lighted softball field shall be developed for every 5,000 people.
T. A restroom facility shall be constructed in eve~ community park and may.
be constructed in neighborhood parks. (Ord. 2243 ~ 1 (part) 1987: Ord.
1668 ~ (part) 1976)
17.10.060 Criteria for area to be dedicated.
Acceptance of land for parkland is at the City Council's discretion and in
exerci si ng its di screti on, Counci 1 may consider the foll owi ng cri teri a, in
addition to any other the Council considers relevant:
A. Topography, soils, soil stability, drainage location of land in
subdivision available for dedication.
B. Size and shape of the subdivision and land available for dedication.
C. Physical relationship of the site to the surrounding neighborhood.
O. Location of the site with regard to accessibility to the residents of the
neighborhood and its contribution to neighborhood security.
E. The amount, usability, and location of publicly oW'led property available
for combination with dedicated lands in the formation of public park and
recreation facilities.
F. Recommendation of the Parks and Recreation Commission. An offer of
dedication may be accepted or rejected by the City Council (Ord. 2243 ~ 1
(part) 1987: Ord. 1961 ~ 1 (part), 1982: Ord. 1668 ~ 1 (part), 1976.)
17.10.070 In lieu fees for land dedication and/or park development
improvements.
A. In lieu fees for land dedication: If, in the Judgment of the city,
suitable land does not exist within the subdivision, or for subdivisions
containing 50 lots or less, the .payment of fees in lieu of land shall be
required. In such cases, the amount of the fee shall be the amount
established by the city council in the master fee schedule by resolution
and based on the area to be dedi cated as set forth in Secti on 17.10.040.
'-
~I }2J.s
(R 3/88)
.,' .
()
However, when a condominium project, stock cooperative or community
apartment .project exceeds 50 dwelling units, dedication of land may be
required notwithstanding that the number of parcels may be less than 50.
Where the city deems that a combination of declication and payment, as
provided in this chapter, would better serve the public and the park and
recreation needs of the .future residents of a particular subdivision, it
may require such combination. Provided, however, the city council may, by
resolution waive all' or any portion of said dedication or in lieu fee
requirements in the interests of stimUlating the construction of hOUSing
for low and moderate income families.
Residential motel s and hotels and transient motel s and hotel s shall be
required to deposit fees in lieu of dedication of land required in Section
17.10.050 pursuant to the fees in the master fee schedule.
B.
In lieu fees for park development improvements: If, in the jUdgment of
the city, suitable land does not exist within the subdivision, or for
subdivisions containing 50 lots or less, the payment of fees in lieu of
developing improvements shall be required. In such cases, the amount of
the fee shall be the amount established by the city council in the master
fee schedule by. resolution and based on the improvements required in
Section 17.10.050. However, when a condominium project, stock cooperative
or community apartment project exceeds 50 dwelling units, improvements may
be required notwithstanding that the number of parcels may be less than 50.
Where the city deems that a combination of improvements and payment, as
provided in this chapter, would better serve the pUblic and the park and
recreation needs of the future residents of a particular subdivision, it
may require such combination; provided, however, the city council may, by
resolution waive all or any portion of said improvements or in lieu fee
requirements in the interests of stimul ati ng the constructi on of housi nq
for low and moderate income families.
(
In the event the city determines that the improvement of the parkl and
shall be delayed for a substantial period of time after the parkland 'has been
dedicated, the subdivider shall not be required to install such improvements,
but instead shall pay the fee as set forth in the master fee schedule for the
value of improvements required in Section 17.10.050.
Residential motels and hotels and transient motels and hotels shall be
required to deposit fees in lieu of park development improvements required in
Section 17.10.050 pursuant to the fees in the master fee schedule. (Ord. 2243
51 (part) 1987: Ord. 1668 51 (part) 1976).
<-
17.10.080 limitation on use of land and/or fees.
The amount of 1 and, improvements or in 1 i eu fees or combination thereof
received under this chapter shall be used for the purpose of providing
neighborhood and community park and recreational facilities to serve the
subdivision for which received. The amount and location of the land or in
lieu fees or combination thereof shall bear a reasonable relationship to the
use of the park and recreational facilities by the future inhabitants of the
subdivision. (Ord. 2243 ~ 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1668 ~ 1 (part), 1976.)
, -
629-1
(R 3/88)
:L1,lb
()
(
c...
I. '
17.10.090 Commencement of park development.
The' city will acquire land for park purposes within as soon as sufficient
funds'areavailable. Any fees collected under this chapter shall be committed
within five years after the payment of such fees or the issuance of building
permits on one-half of the lots created by this subdivision, whichever Occurs
later~(Ord. 2243 S 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1668 S 1 (part), 1976.)
17.10.100 Collection and distribution of fees.
A. Prior to the acceptance of a final subdivision map or approval of a parcel
map, any required fees shall have been paid to the city. Any land to be
contributed for the purposes outlined in this chapter shall be dedicated
to the city and shown on the final subdivision or parcel map. The
director of finance shall be responsible for the collection and
distribution of fees as set forth in this chapter. Fees collected for
neighborhood and community parks shall be kept in separate funds.
However, the City shall have the ability to shift fee amounts between the
neighborhood and community park funds when necessary.
B. Planned developments shall be eligible to receive a credit as determined
by the City Council, against the amount of land required to be dedicated,
or the amount of the fee impose, for the value of private open space
within the development which is usable for active recreational uses. Such
credit, if given, shall be determined on a case by case basis. (Ord. 2243
S 1 (part) 1987: Ord. 1668 S 1 (part), 1976.)
17.10.110 Periodic review and amendment authorized.
Costs, population density, and local conditions change over the years, and
the specified formula for the payment of fees for acquisition of park sites as
stated in this chapter is SUbject to periodic review and amendment by the city
counc i 1. (0 rd. 1 668 S 1 ( pa rt ), 1976.)
Sections:
17.11.010
17.11.020
17 .11.030
17 .11.040
17 .11.050
17 . 11.060
17.11.070
17.11.080
17.11.090
17.11.100
'-
Chapter 17.11
SCHOOL FACILITIES LAND DEDICATION AND FEES
Purpose and intent.
Dedication of land and payment of fees for school facilities.
Findings and declarations.
Definitions.
General plan.
Notification to school districts.
Overcrowded attendance areas-School district findings.
Requirements of notice of findings.
Approval of residential developments-City Council findings.
Requirement of fees and/or dedications.
630
(R 3/88)
"'../7
Attachment B
PARK ACOUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT FEES
CURRENT
Park Acouisition Fees
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi -family
Mobilehome
Residential hotel
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi -family
Mobilehome
Residential and transient
motel/hotel
Park Deyelooment Fees
Neighborhood
Park
$ 800/du
$1,155/du
$1,025/du
$910/du
$680/du
$620/du
PROPOSED
Park Acouisition Fees
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi-family
Mobilehome
Residential hotel
Single family
Attached
Duplex
Multi-family
Mobilehome
Residential and transient
motel/hotel
WPC 1628R
Park Deyelooment Fees
Neighborhood
Park
$1,510/du
$1,310/du
$1,160/du
$1,030/du
$770/du
$700/du
~/..rr
$390/du
$335/du
$300/du
$265/du
$200/du
$180/du
Community Park
$490/du
$430/du
$370/du
$340/du
$250/du
$230/du
$2, 115/du
$1,830/du
$1,625/du
$1,440/du
$1,070/du
$ 980/du
Community Park
$750/du
$670/du
$580/du
$520/du
$390/du
$350/du
TOTAL
$1,290/du
$1,125/du
$ 985/du
$ 885/du
$ 655/du
$ 600/du
TOTAL
$2,260/du
$1,980/ du
$1,740/du
$1 , 550/ du
$1,160/du
$1,050/du
Attachment C
Cost of Basic Neiahborhood Park Imorovements Per Acre
Estimated Cost Per Acre
Item
1. Fine grade, site prep, clearing and grubbing
2. Utilities
3. Drainage (allowance)
4. Concrete - paving, mowstrip, play curb,
picnic table and bench pads
5. Play areas - sand, equipment
6. Site furnishings - trash receptacles, drinking
fountains, tables and benches, bicycle
racks, signage, trash enclosures
7. Irrigation
8. Landscape - lawn, trees, shrubs, 1 yr. maintenance
9. Picnic shelter
10. Lighted tennis court
11. Softball field with soccer field overlay
12. Multi-purpose court
13. Security lighting
14. Design cost (approx. 10% of construction)
TOTAL
WPC 1597R
:tJ -14
$4,300
2,200
5,500
10,000
10,000
6,000
25,000
48,500
3,000
4,400
10,000
4,500
9,500
13.000
$155,900
Attachment D
COMMUNITY PARK FACILITIES
PORTION OF FACILITY NEEDED PER DWELLING UNIT
PROPOSED PARK DEVELOPMENT FEE PER DWELLING UNIT
Type of d.u. S.F. ATTACHED DUPLEX MULTI-FAM. MOBILE HOTEL
Persons per
dwell ing unit 3.22 2.80 2.48 2.21 1.64 1.50
Comm. Center .00013 .00012 .00010 .00009 .00007 .00006
(1/24,000 people)
$1,500,000 $195 $180 $150 $135 $105 $90
50 M pool .00016 .00014 .00012 .000 II .00008 .000075
(1/20,000)
$2,250,000 $360 $315 $270 $248 $180 $169
Restroom .0004 .00037 .00032 .00029 .00021 .0002
(1/7500)
$125,000 $50 $46 $40 $36 $26 $25
Lighted softball .00064 .00056 .00050 .00044 .00033 .0003
(1/5,000)
$230,000 $147 $129 $1l5 $101 $76 $69
Total Park $752 $670 $575 $520 $387 $353
Development Fee
Per D.U. for
Community
Facil ities
Rounded to $750 $670 $580 $520 $390 $350
Nearest Ten
The standards for the number of facil ities per various populations were
developed by the National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA).
WPC 1597R
!tl'~(.)
Area
San Diego County
Coronado
San Marcos
Carlsbad
Nat i ona 1 City
Imperi a 1 Beach
La Mesa
Poway
Lemon Grove
Santee
El Cajon
Escondido
Oceanside
Del Mar
Vista
San Diego
Attachment E
Park Dedication Fees for SinQle Family
DwellinQ Units in San DieQo County
Fees Per Du
$400, $800, $1,000
o
o
$786, $9B3
$75
$800/du + $100/bedroom
$420 - 1 bedroom
$550 - 2 bedroom +
$2,500
$200
$3,258
o
$2,289
$956
o
$1,253
$100. A variable special
park fee is assessed in lieu
of $100 in 6 areas.
Solana Beach $600
Encinitas
WPC 1627R
$1,526; $1,840; $2,321;
$1 ,686, $2,000
7-1..tl
Comments
County divided into 3
areas.
Park fees included in
public facilities
development fee.
City divided into four
quadrants
Construction license tax
(includes parks)
$2,200 is proposed
Plus payment of urban
impact fees - park
portion ranges from
$200-$2,427
Depending on community
ATTACHMENT F
PARK CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS FUNDED WITH PARK
ACQUISITIDN AND DEVELOPMENT FEES (FOR LAST 5 YEARS)
1985-86 Replacement of Park Security Lighting - Various Parks
Parkway Gym Re-roofing
Lorna Verde Pool Deck Renovation
Ballfield Renovation - Eucalyptus Park
Sunridge Park - Design and Construction
1987-88 Renovation - Rohr Manor
Master Plan - Rohr Manor
1988-89 Park Construction - Harborside School
Park Improvements - Rohr Park
Floor and Bleacher Repairs - Parkway Gym
Refinish Tennis Courts - 3 locations
Interior Improvements - Lauderbach Center
Park Renovations - 3 locations (Halecrest, Palomar, Connolley)
Park Parking Lot Asphalt Overlays - 4 locations
Replaster Pool Surface - Parkway Pool
Relighting Tennis Courts - Two High Schools
1990-91 Repainting - Parkway Gym, Center & Pool
Renovation - Norman Park Senior Center
Path Improvements - El Rancho del Rey Park
Proposed
1991-92 Refinish Tennis Courts - Two Parks
Memorial Bowl Seating Improvements
Replaster Pool Surface - Lorna Verde Center
WPC 1646R
~~
~
~
~o/
orS4,v0!EG.
"-:;J ~
~;
ASSOCIATED BUILDING INDUSTRY ENGINEERI~jG AND
GENERAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS
OF AMERICA SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSOCIATION
OOI'STRUOTIOI' II'DUSTRY rEDERATION
6336 GREENWICH DRIVE, SUITE F, SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA 92122 (619) 587-0292 FAX (619)455-1113
April 23, 1991
Honorable Mayor and Councilmembers
City of Chula Vista
276 4th Avenue
Chula Vista, CA 92010
RE: Proposed Increases to Park Acquisition and Development Fees
Dear Mayor Moore and Councilmembers:
The Construction Industry Federation appreciates this opportunity to comment on the
proposed increases to the PAD fees. CIF also thanks City Staff for hosting a workshop
last week on the proposed increases.
The Federation supports the use of land dedications and impact fees to provide public
facilities needed to serve new development. In this regard, CIF generally supports
much of the analysis contained in the staff report.
The PAD fees were last increased in December, 1987. This evening, staff proposes a
160% increase from $1,680 to $4,375 per single-family home. With this increase,
Chula Vista will have the highest park fee in San Diego County. Parks Fees in San
Marcos and Santee are $3,414 and $3,258 respectively - $961 and $1,117 lower than
Chula Vista's fees.
CIF supports annual review and adjustment of impact fees to avert unforeseen huge
increases as is being proposed tonight.
While the Federation can support a sizable park fee increase, we have concerns.
Estimated Costs
Although the estimated costs of basic and community park improvements are provided
in the report, little to no verification / justification on the actual costs of these
improvements are provided for public review. There appears to be insufficient data to
substantiate these very significant proposed increases.
CIF would have preferred the opportunity to give serious examination of actual data of
park improvement costs justifying the sizable increases prior to the public hearing.
Expenditure of PAD Fees
The GMOC has expressed concerns regarding the use of PAD fees for making
improvements to existing local/neighborhood and community parks rather than for
acquiring and developing new parks. The GMOC is also concerned about the amount
of parkland in western Chula Vista.
~/-~3
CIF has some of the same concerns. Neighborhood and community parks in the
eastern areas are well within City and State standards. However, neighborhood and
community parks in the western areas are below today's standards.
State law clearly permits expenditures of park fees for the purpose of developing new
or rehabilitating existing neighborhood or community park or recreational facilities to
serve the subdivision from which the fees were collected.
Concern has been expressed that PAD fees being collected in the eastern areas are
being spent in western areas. In some cases, this may be a legitimate use of those
funds -- in others cases, it may not. To address this issue, CIF would ask that specific
data be made part of the public record for review demonstrating where PAD fees are
spent and demonstrating the required legal nexus of those expenditures.
Proposed "Park Benefit Fees" and "Park Development Impact Fees"
CIF is concerned with Staff's statement that not enough PAD fees are collected
annually to make major land purchases for new park development, since these fees
are restricted to residential development. The question is not whether enough impact
fees are being collected to make major land purchases for new park development, but
rather the question is -- are existing residents in the western communities committed to
funding the acquisition and construction of new parks?
Developers in the eastern areas are dedicating land to the City and building all
necessary park improvements to serve the newly developing communities. PAD fees
normally account for a small portion of Park & Recreation Department expenditures.
Even if PAD fees were increased and new fees were applied to non-residential
development, major land purchases for new park development in the western areas
would still be unrealistic. New public monies or increased public revenues would have
to be enhanced significantly in order to develop new parks.
Fees Assessed on Specialized Housing Types
CIF supports staff's recommendation to review densities of senior housing projects and
other housing types to add a senior housing component to the Parkland Dedication
Ordinance
Park DedIcation Credit
CIF supports staff's recommendation to consider adding standards to identify what is
acceptable park credit for private recreational facilities and parks.
Density Per Dwelling Unit Type
CIF supports staff's recommendation to review and make possible adjustments based
on updated State Department of Finance figures.
CIF appreciates your consideration of these comments.
qt.-
;)I-~'I
Chula Vista Park Improvement Costs
Neighborhood Parks
1987 1991 jump % jump
Site Prep $1,500 $4,300 $2,800 187%
Utilities $1,500 $2,200 $700 47%
Drainage $3,500 $5,500 $2,000 57%
Concrete $4,000 $10,000 $6,000 150%
Sand/equip $7,500 $10,000 $2,500 33%
Furnishiings $4,000 $6,000 $2,000 50%
Irrigation $20,000 $25,000 $5,000 25%
Landscape $18,000 $48,500 $30,500 169%
Picnic Shelter $2,000 $3,000 $1,000 50%
Tennis Court $2,750 $4,400 $1,650 60%
Softball Field $6,500 $10,000 $3,500 54%
Multi-purp. crt. $750 $4,500 $3,750 500%
Security Lights $6,000 $9,500 $3,500 58%
Design Cost $4,500 $13,000 $8,500 189%
TOTAL $82,500 $155,900 $73,400 89%
Community Parks
Corom. Cntr. $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $500,000 50%
Pool $1,500,000 $2,250,000 $750,000 50%
Restroom $55,000 $125,000 $70,000 127%
Softball $150,000 $230,000 $80,000 53%
TOTAL $2,705,000 $4,105,000 $1,400,000 52%
fife: CV PARKcosts.exl printed: 4/23/91 @ 5:27 PM
~ 1- ~.s
<I> <I> <I> <I>
'" OJ ....
0 0 0 0
<I> 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0
Carlsbad
Chula Vista
Chula Vista prop.
Enclnltas
Escondldo
Imperial Beach
~
- National City
I
\oJ Oceanside
~
Poway
San Diego County
San Marcos
Santee
Solana Beach
Vista
COUNrnMDEAVERAGE
CHULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
AN
INVESTMENT IN
THE FUTURE
April 23, 1991
j'"'f', B'ddie
Mayor Pro Tern Len Moore and
City Council Members
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula VIsta, CA 91910
BOARD OF OIRECTORS
Pr esident
President Elect
Mike Green
Dear Mayor,
Vice Presidents:
lruman Broof-,.s
Pat Cavanau~:'l
Naiiette Myer::
Chuc\( Peter
The Chula VIsta Chamber of Commerce Economic Development Committee reviewed
the request for proposals (RFP) for the development of the city's 3-acre site adjacent to
the Chula Vista Municipal Gllf Course in the 4400 block of Bonita Road.
The four proposals reviewed are:
Members:
Russ Bullen
Hod DaVIS
Sara!"', Even
1) Mr. Richard Pena, park development
2) Joelen Enterprises, 200 - room hotel
3) Odmark and Tbelan, 96 senior apartments
4) ADMA Company, 80 for-lease condominiums_
DICine Flint
The committee asked the city staff to review each project with them and then decided to
hear only the proposals which they thought had economic benefit to the city_
Mif\e Masiak
Scott McMiilil
--"::1 ~...1'cheili
[.-:E:';; nichard~ 1
~"C:';-;i Richins
SCinZGne
HC.i5 'Speiljin'
~v:.Jry /\nne St' )
Srlaron Terri!!
,.IC:h;1 Vugnn
The committee, after reviewing the facts of each proposal, recommended to the
Chamber Board of Directors to endorse the Joelen hotel concept, if it were part of a
package to link with the Chula Vista Municipal Gllf Course as proposed by the current
operator_
The committee wanted the project to provide for the Bonita Historical exhibit and have
space available for hiking/jogging, as feasible.
Past President
_..a.rry Cunningilam
The Chula Vista Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors at our April 10, 1991
meeting supported the committee recommendation and would encourage the Chula
Vista City Council to also support the Hotel and Gllf proposal.
C:hief Exec:Jtlve
Officer
Dnnala R. ReEd
We believe the time has arrived for a Hotel/Gllf resort for our community.
Thank you for your time and talents given to our city_
Sincerely,
HULA VISTA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
~/-~r
~. j :1 r OJ R T H A V I: N U E . CHI! L A V I S 1 A, C A L I f- 0 R N I A 9 1 9 1 0 . TEl
(619) 420-660]