HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1976/02/24 Item 08
CITY OF CHUlA VISTA
COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT
8
ITEM NO.
3/2/76 ~1~41~6=
FOR MEETING OF: ?HINo&
ITEM TITLE: a. Ordinance 1667 - Amending Municipal Code Section 3.32.040 relating to
Residential Construction Tax SECOr'm r:Ei\Dr~,G AND t\DOPTlON
~ Ordinance 1668 - Adding new chapter 17.10 to the Municlpal Cod~, and
repealing Sections 17.08.440 through 17.08.490 thereof, relating to
SUBMITTED BY: Park Land Dedication and In Lieu Fee requirements
Di rector of P1 anni ng (lJ' S::::CO;;O ,.'C.:'".. ~ ^'
,,-. '"~",u I,.:J /\DOPTION
ITEM EXPLANATION:
: A. BACKGROUND
Pursuant to City Council instructions, staff prepared a report, dated July 29, 1975,
entitled "Parks and Recreation General Plan and Ordinances No. 1491 and No. 1492: Review
and Recommendat ions. " The report was cons idered and accepted by the Ci ty Counci 1 on
.~gust 5, 1975. At that time Council directed staff to meet with developers active in
the area. Noti ces of a meeti ng he1 d on September 26, 1975 were mail ed to 20 developers,
engineers and planning firms. Only two persons attended the meeting.
B. ANALYSIS
1. Under the proposed amendment to Municipal Code Section 3.32.040 - Residential
',Cons tructi on Tax - the taxes are increased by 25%. Thi s increase wou1 d counteract the
'past's inflationary impact upon Section 3.32.040. See Attachment "A".
2. The proposed new Chapter 17.10, relating to Park Land Dedication and In Lieu Fees,
,and containing Sections 17.10.010 through 17.10.130, would repeal Ordinance No. 1366
:Section II, Ordinance No. 1492, and Sections 17.08.440 through 17.08.490 of the Chu1a
'Vista Municipal Code. The proposed legislation would repeal Section 17.08.460's dated,
: inadequate fee schedule, and would require subdividers to dedicate and improve park lands
in accordance with new Sections 17.10.040, 17.10.060, and 17.10.070, or at the option of
the City of Chu1a Vista, pay the fair market value of the said lands and the value of
~ the required improvements thereto. The standard in lieu fee schedule, therefore, would
I
Environmental Document:
Attached
EXHIBITS ATTACHED (continued
Ordinance < =1' = 1 Plat
("~""1l'''''B'''')
Submitted on
on su 1ementa1 a e
'~"
Other =)(=
~ttQCWDent~=~C~=~=~Q~
Agreement
Resolution
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Place ordinances on first reading.
BOARD/ COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION:
COUNCIL ACTION:
Ord. No. 1667 - amended.
APPROVED
by the
Ci ty Council
of
Chula J~:/a/,,7f~n~4",..7(;
Jatedlf'oLA j'/ ./7..... ......'fA /... /
.~."'p. - 7.x/7~
~....rrn A-II::\ (REW ~-7~)
8
AGENDA ITEt1 NO. ~""'&
Supplemental Page No. 2
'be deleted in favor of an amount based upon the actual value of the land which would
. otherwise be dedicated, plus the cost of those park improvements required to be
, insta 11 ed. See Attachment "B".
3. The results of the Planning Department's survey of the residential construction
taxes and park dedication fees of the County of San Diego and its several cities are
'embodied and tabulated in attachments "c" and "0". This survey indicates that the City
of Chula Vista's proposed residential-construction tax would be lower than similar taxes
in Del Mar, but higher than that of other jurisdictions. Escondida charges both a
"development fee" (construction tax that applies to commercial and industrial uses in
'addition to residential uses) and a "Park and Recreation Fee" which together are higher
than fees charged by any other jurisdiction in the County.
4. With respect to park dedication and in lieu fees, the cities of Carlsbad,
Del Mar, Escondido, Oceanside, and Vista, and the County of San Diego have requirements
,which exceed those in the existing and proposed regulations of Chula Vista. Six cities
,'do not require park land dedications or impose in lieu fees.
, 5. The Planning Department feels that the comparatively high taxes, fees, and
'dedication requirements of the City of Chula Vista are predicated upon this municipality's
~ommitment to the provision of adequate parks; the preservation of environmental quality;
~nd, the promotion of sound urban planning.
ATTACHMENT liD"
Comparison of Park Land Dedication and In Lieu Fee Requirements as
applied to an example subdivision - San Diego County and Constituent Cities
Janual'y, 1976
'~ample subdivision: 20 acres; 100 three-bedroom, 1500 sq. ft., single family
dwelling units; R-l zone
.78 acres
In Lieu Fee for
Example Subdivision
Fair market value of land otherwise
required for dedication - assessed X 6
Dedication
Chul a Vi sta
Present and Proposed
.74 acres plus
improvements
$27,000 (Fair market value of land
otherwise required for ded'ication -
assessed X 4 - plus $13,000 improve-
ment fee)
No park land dedication/in lieu fees
3.6 acres
($37,500 RCT)
Fair market value of land otherwise
required for dedication - arranged
between City and subdivider
($37,500 RCT)
City
No park land dedication/in lieu fees
$30,000
No park 1 and dedication/in 1 ieu fees
No park land dedication/in 1 ieu fees
No park land dedication/in 1 ieu fees
Escond i do*
Beach
2.0 acres
$24,000
City*
No mandatory
dedication requirements
Diego County
1.75 acres
$10,000
($10,000 RCT)
$20,000
Marcos
No park land dedication/in lieu fees
1.30 acres
Fair market value of land otherwise
required for dedication - assessed
value X 4
Mar, Escondido and San Diego City require subdividers \'Iho have dedicated park
or paid fees in lieu thereof to also pay a residential construction tax at the
of building permit issuance,