HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/12/08 Item
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
Item
Meeting Date 12/8/87
ITEM TITLE: a)
b)
Ordinance Revisions to Municipal
17.10 Park1ands and Public Facilities
Neighborhood Park and Community Park Requirements
Reso1ution/-33 77 Amending the Master Fee Schedule
related to Park1an~Acquisition Fees and Parkland Development
Fees for Neighborhood Park and Community Park Facilities
Director Of~KS and Recreation
Code Chapter
related to
SUBMITTED BY:
REV I EWED BY:
City Manager
(4/5ths Vote: Yes No X )
At a budget meeting for FY 1986-87, the City Council requested that staff
review the existing City ordinance on parkland acquisition and development
(PAD) fees and consider increasing these fees to reflect current costs. Staff
has reviewed the current fees, as defined in the City's Master Fee Schedule,
and has also studied Chapter 17.10 of the Municipal Code, which outlines the
amount of parkland to be dedicated and the development responsibilities of
subdividers. This item was continued fromthe Council meeting of November 24,
1987.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council place the revisions to the ordinance
governing Parklands and Public Facilities on its first reading; adopt a
resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule related to PAD fees, to take
effect 60 days after the second reading of the ordinance revisions; and direct
staff to develop park fees for industrial and commercial developments for
Council consideration.
BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: The Parks and Recreation Commission, at
its August 20, 1987 meeti ng, approved the Munic i pa 1 Code changes and fee
increases proposed by staff.
DISCUSSION:
Section 66477 of the Government Code, which is part of the Subdivision Map
Act, allows cities, by ordinance, to require dedication of land or impose a
payment of fees in lieu of dedication or a combination of the two, for
neighborhood or community park purposes, as a condition of approval of a
tentative subdivision or parcel map. The original ordinance establishinq
procedures for the acquisition and development of parkland was passed by the
City Council in October of 1971. The ordinance has been amended several times
over the last 16 years. Attached to this report as Attachment "A" is a copy
of the current ordi nance on Parkl ands and Pub 1 i c Facil iti es, whi ch out1 i nes
who is affected by the ordinance, the conditions under which land must be
dedicated or fees paid or a combination thereof, the determination of the land
to be dedicated, what improvements must be made on the dedicated land before
turnover to the City, and the fee collection and land dedication procedures.
=:. :;;, .~7.7
I ../ __j .' /'
Page 2, Item
Meeting Date 12/S/Sf
The amount of land to be dedicated is based upon the City's parkland standard,
the residential density from the approved map and the average number of
persons per household. The average household size is that size as determined
by the most recent available federal census. The parkland standard is the
number of acres of parkland per 1,000 population. According to the
Subdivision ~lap Act, a city can establish a standard of 3 acres per 1,000
persons, unless the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area
exceeds that 1 imi t, in whi ch case the city can adopt that cal cul ated amount.
However, in any case, the standard cannot exceed 5 acres per 1,000 peopl e.
The current City standard is 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 people and the
actual parkland/population ratio is 2.3 acres/l,OOO. Because of the concern
for having more open space and parkland, and since the Code allows for a
higher standard, staff recommends adoption of the 3 acres/l ,000 people.
Section 17.10.040 of the chapter lists the area to be dedicated for each
dwelling unit type, based on the given household size for each unit and the
City parkland standard of 2 acres/l,OOO people. Housing densities have
changed and should be incorporated in the ordinance to reflect the 1 atest
census information. Attachment B is a copy of the proposed ordinance, which
incorporates the higher standard and new densities. Attachment C shows the
current area to be dedicated, based on the outdated household densities and 2
acre/l,OOO standard and the proposed areas, based on the updated densities and
higher park standard. As an example of the difference between the two, for a
development of 300 single family dwelling units, 2.22 acres of parkland would
have to be dedicated under the current code a.nd 2.91 acres under the proposed
revision.
Oftentimes, when land is dedicated to the City for parkland, the land is
hi lly, under SDG&E easement, or is unsuitable for other reasons. The Parks
and Recreation Commission has requested that language be added to the
ordinance listing criteria to determine whether or not a piece of property
offered for a park site is acceptabl e. Secti on 17.10.060 of the revi sed
ordinance lists criteria for considering the acceptability of land dedication,
which includes topography, surroundings and shape.
In addition to dedication of land, a developer is also required to make basic
improvements. Section 17.10.070 of the current ordinance outlines these
improvements, which are also listed below:
1. Parklands are to be graded in accordance with a plan which shall be
subject to the approval of the Director of Parks and Recreation.
2. All street improvements shall be installed.
3. All utilities shall be extended to the property line.
4. An automatic irrigation system shall be installed.
5. Turf shall be installed.
6. One tree per thousand square feet of land area shall be planted.
j:- i
, i
Page 3, Item
Meeting Date 12/8/87
When the Parks and Recreation Department builds a neighborhood park or when a
developer builds such a facility for the City, improvements in addition to
those stated above are normally installed. In the department's view, a basic
park also includes such items as walkways, drainage system, play areas,
shrubs, lighting, sports areas (ballfields, tennis courts) and fixtures such
as trash cans, drinking fountains and signs. These items should definitely be
the responsibility of the developer of a park to install, since they are
typi cally found in parks and will benefit the immedi ate resi dents of the
subdivision.
The National Recreation and Park Association (NRPA) lists standards for sports
facilities needed for so many number of persons. Attachment D is a listing of
these items and standards. The department feel s these standards, along with
local community standards, should be incorporated in the ordinance as a
developer responsi bil i ty to act as a gui del i ne for determi ni ng need for new
facilities. Section 17.10.050 of the proposed ordinance lists the recommended
development improvements.
Adoption of the NRPA standards and department's suggestions for basic park
development certainly affects the park development fee, which should reflect
what these items cost to install. Attachment E lists the current park
development fees and the proposed ones. The proposed fees are based on a
development cost of $82,500/acre, while the current ones are based on a cost
of approximately $21,OOO/acre. Attachment F shows a cost breakdown of the
items to arrive at a figure of $82,500. The fee for single family units, for
example, would increase from $175/du to $SOO/du.
These park development costs, however, only cover the development of
neighborhood parks. To date, no fee has been assessed against developers for
the cost of community park facilities. The City has not developed a new
community park or center in several years. No mechani sm currently exists in
the ordinance to have developers pay a proportionate share of the cost of new
facilities, and yet, the addition of each new dwelling unit incrementally
increases the need for facilities and places an additional burden on existing
facilities.
The department understands that Council will consider the adoption of a
development impact fee to pay for major community facilities such as fire
stations, libraries, roads and community parks. The department recommends
that Council incorporate a fee for development of community park facilities in
the PAD fee as an interim measure until the development impact fee is
adopted. Once the development impact fee is in pl ace, the community park
portion will be deleted from the PAD fee. Attachment G lists the proposed
park development fee per dwell ing unit for community facil ities and gives a
breakdown of how that fee was determined, based on household size, estimated
cost of facility and portion of facility needed per dwelling unit. The
department proposes to charge developers proportionate costs of the following
community facilities: community center/gymnasium, swimming pool, restroom and
lighted softball fields. The proposed cost per single family dwelling unit,
for instance, is $490. Attachment G also lists the total park development
fees, adding both the proposed neighborhood park and community park
development fees. The total development fee per single family dwelling unit
is $1,290.
- -
,
Page 4, Item
Meeting Date 12/8/87
In lieu of dedicating land and making improvements, a developer may pay the
park acquisition fee. The current amount paid, as shown in Attachment H, is
$125/10t, regardless of the type of dwelling unit. The department recommends
that the City base acquisition costs on the type of dwelling unit, to be
consistent with the land dedication requirement. The department also
recommends that this fee be adjusted, so as to be based more closely on
current 1 and values. Staff recommends usi ng a fi gure of $40 ,OOO/ac re, based
on raw land values. Attachment H lists the proposed acquisition costs for
parkland, which range from $390/du for single family units to $180/du for
residential hotels.
Attachment I 1 i sts the fees cha rged by other citi es in San Di ego County and
the County for informational purposes. Also attached as Attachment J is a
partial list of other cities in California with a comparable population to
Chu1a Vista and the fees charged for park development from a survey conducted
by the City of Burbank Park and Recreation Department. Attachment K is a copy
of the entire survey.
Some of the cities in the County and around the State use a mechanism similar
to the Residential Construction Tax (RCT) , which is imposed at the building
permit stage in Chu1a Vista, to fund park improvements. Attached as
Attachment L is a copy of the City's current RCT ordinance. All developers of
residential units constructed in the City are subject to payment RCT and may
also be obligated to dedicate parkland or pay fees in lieu thereof. However,
the Council can waive all or a portion of these requirements. The ordinance
states that RCT is assessed solely for the purpose of raising revenue and may
be used for capital improvement projects, which conceivably could include park
proj ects.
However, when the original ordinance adding RCT was passed in October of 1971,
payment of RCT was applicable only if the developer had not dedicated parkland
or paid fees in lieu thereof:-It was clearly stated in the code that RCT
would be used "to provide a more equitable distribution of the burden of
financing parks, open spaces and public facilities and other capital
improvements, the need for which is created by the increasing population of
the City." The ordinance governing RCT was revised in June of 1978 to allow
the imposition of both RCT and the Parkland Dedication requirements.
Attachment M shows the amount of RCT and PAD fees collected since FY 1979-80
and the amount of RCT spent on park and recreation projects. RCT fees have
supp1 emented PAD fees for fundi ng park improvement projects, especi ally in
recent years. The amount collected in PAD fees, therefore, was not sufficient
to pay for needed improvements. Developers who have dedicated parkl and and
made improvements requested by the Parks and Recreation Department have asked
for and been granted RCT waivers since the value of the improvements was so
great compared to the park development fees that would have been collected had
only the land been dedicated. The City would have had to supplement the
collected development fees to fund the cost of improving the dedicated land.
If PAD fees were increased, as recommended by the Department, RCT wou1 d not
have to be used to such an extent to fund park capital improvement projects.
j -
Page 5, Item
Meeting Date 12/8/8/
The 1 ast two pages of the Park Facil i ti es Development Fee Survey (Attachment
Kl list the cities and the park fees that charge industrial and commercial
developments. This City could also impose similar fees and/or require
parkland dedication from developers of these types of projects. It is
recommended that Council di rect staff to come back with a report recommendi ng
such fees.
Attachment N is a copy of the letter that was submitted by the Construction
Federation (CIF) to the Council at the November 24 meeting. CIF expressed
concern regarding the imposition of the community facility development fee in
addition to the park acquisition fee and park development fee for neighborhood
parks. The Federation was questioning whether state law, under the
Subdivision Map Act, would permit the magnitude of the fees proposed or
whether the proposed fees woul d exceed the "proportionate amount necessary to
provide three acres of park area per 1,000 persons."
Staff discussed these concerns with CIF's legislative counsel. Under the
proposed ordinance, the City is requiring developers to pay their
proportionate share of park facilities, which includes neighborhood park
amenities and community park facil ities. Instead of having developers buil d
small community facilities to serve their subdivisions within their
neighborhood parks, the City is requiring them to pay for their share of the
costs and have the City buil d 1 arge communi ty facil i ti es in one of the
developer's parks to serve a larger population. Staff, therefore, believes
the proposed ordinance is in compliance with the Map Act.
The CIF legislative counsel Questioned the reasonableness of the fee and at
the same time.. Questioned whether the fees were sufficient to cover costs of
devel opi ng parks. He further stated that developers' costs for devel opi ng
parks were averagi ng $l,500-$l,800/du or $180,OOO/acre. In 1 i ght of these
figures, the City's proposed fees are certainly comparable.
The proposed changes to the 1 and dedi cati on requi rements, subdi vi der pa rk
development responsibility, park acquisition fees, and park development fees
for neighborhood and community facilities will ensure that adequate-siLed
parkS are built, needed neighborhood park improvements constructed and
additional community facilities to serve the City's growing population are
p rovi ded.
FISCAL IMPACT: An increase in the amount of PAD fees woul d be seen if the
proposed increases are approved. More RCT funds would be freed to fund other
capital improvement projects si nce more PAD fees woul d be coll ected and 1 ess
RCT \~ould be waived for developers. For single family dwelling units, the
amount collected in PAD fees would increase from $175/du for park development
and $125/du for park acquisition, or a total of $300/du, to $800/du for
neighborhood park development, $490/du for community park development and
$390/du for park acquisition, or a total of $l,680/du. If 1,000 single family
dwelling units were constructed next year, for instance, the amount collected
for PAD fees would increase from $300,000 to $1,680,000.
WPC 0873R
_.- """-
~
~
~
ATTACHMENT N
BUILDING INDUSTRY ENGINEERING AND
ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS
SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSOCIATION
GUNSTBDOTION INDUSTRY FIDBRATION
6336 GREENWICH DRIVE. SUITE F, SAN DIEGO. CALIFORNIA 92122 (619) 587-0292
November 24, 1987
Mayor Cox, and Members of the Council
Chula Vista City Council
City of Chula Vista
276 Fourth Avenue
Chula Vista, California 92012
t
Dear Mayor Cox and Members of the Council:
The Construction Industry Federation appreciates the opportunity to review the
Council Agenda Statement concerning Agenda Items 11 a and 11 b relating to
park fees.
The Federation supports the use of dedications and impact fees to provide
public facilities needed to serve new development. In this regard the
Federation supports much of the analysis contained in the staff report. In fact
the staff analysis is far better than the quality of analysis that CIF usually
encounters concerning development fee increases.
While the Federation can support a sizable park fee increase, we are
compelled to question if state law permits the magnitude of the fee proposed.
Be advised that state law limits the amount of park fee that a jurisdiction can
impose, as follows:
"...the dedication of land, or the payment of fees, or both, shall not
exceed the proportionate amount necessary to provide three
acres of park area per 1 ,000 persons residing within the
subdivision subject to this section, ..." Government Code Section
66477.
According to your staff report it has been estimated that one acre of developed
local park cost $122,872.67 ($40,372.67 for acquisition plus $82,500.00 for
improvements). However, the staff report proposes a park fee for a single family
detached home of $1,710. This fee amount calculates out to a per acre cost of
$177,018.63, far in excess of what the report documents (See Column A
below). The proper fee for a single family detached home based on
$122,872.67 per finished park acre should be about $1,186.95 (See Column B
below). -
,
,
."
Column A
Proposed Fee
Calculations
(SFD)
Column 8
Proper Fee
Calculations
(SFD)
Persons/SFD
Ac/1000 Persons
Cost Per Acre
Proposed Fee
3.22
3
$177,018.63
$1,710.00
Persons/SFD
Ac/1000 Persons
Cost Per Acre
Proposed Fee
3.22
3
$122,872.67
$1,186.95
If the cost per developed acre is $122,872.76 then the appropriate fee for all
the uses contained in the existing ordinance should be adjusted as follows:
Alternative Fee Schedulel
Use
Persons
Per Unit
Fee
Single Family Detached
Attached
Duplex
Multi-family
Mobile Home
Hotel
3.22
2.80
2.48
2.21
1.64
1.50
$1,186.95
$1,032.13
$914.17
$814.65
$604.53
$552.93
Not surprisingly, enactment of the alternative fee schedule suggested above
would place Chula Vista's park fees within the range of fees adopted by other
entities, albeit at the high end of that range. Conversely, the fee proposed in
the staff report is clearly outside the fee range used by most other similar cities.
Your consideration of these comments is appreciated.
IFee - ([Cost Per Acre x 3 Acres] /1000) x Persons Per Unit
/?;~)'/