Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Statement 1987/12/08 Item 13a• COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT <~' Item Meeting Date 12/8/87 ITEM TITLE: a) Ordinance Revisions to Municipal Code Chapter 17.10 - Parklands and Public Facilities - related to Neighborhood Park and Community Park Requirements b) Resolution ~~3 7~ Amending the Master Fee Schedule related to Parklands Acquisition Fees and Parkland Development Fees for Neighborhood Park and Community Park Facilities SUBMITTED BY: Director of f~ar~Recreation REVIEWED 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 meeting, approved the Municipal 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 establishing 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 ordinance on Parklands and Public Facilities, which outlines 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. ~? "' ~"~ Page 2, Item Meeting Date-T~27$7$7 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 Map 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 limit, in which case the city can adopt that calculated amount. However, in any case, the standard cannot exceed 5 acres per 1,000 people. The current City standard is 2 acres of parkland per 1,000 people and the actual parkland/population ratio is 2.3 acres/1,000. 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/1,000 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/1,000 people. Housing densities have changed and should be incorporated in the ordinance to reflect the latest 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/1,000 standard and the proposed areas, based on the updated densities and igher 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 and 2.91 acres under the proposed revision. Oftentimes, when land is dedicated to the City for parkland, the land is hilly, 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 acceptable. Section 17.10.060 of the revised 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. • ,~ ' ~T • Page 3, Item Meeting Date-1~7~7$7 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 typically found in parks and will benefit the immediate residents 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 feels these standards, along with local community standards, should be incorporated in the ordinance as a developer responsibility to act as a guideline for determining 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 $21,000/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 $800/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 mechanism 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 place, the community park portion will be deleted from the PAD fee. Attachment G lists the proposed park development fee per dwelling unit for community facilities 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~f'F/$7$7 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/lot, 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 land values. Staff recommends using a figure of $40,000/acre, 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 lists the fees charged by other cities in San Diego 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 Chula 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 Chula 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 projects. 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 supplemented PAD fees for funding park improvement projects, especially in recent years. The amount collected in PAD fees, therefore, was not sufficient to pay for needed improvements. Developers who have dedicated parkland 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 would not have to be used to such an extent to fund park capital improvement projects. ~~ Page 5, Item Meeting Date-T~7$]~$7 The last two pages of the Park Facilities Development Fee Survey (Attachment K) 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 direct staff to come back with a report recommending 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 would 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 facilities. Instead of having developers build 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 build large community facilities 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 developing parks. He further stated that developers' costs for developing parks were averaging $1,500-$1,800/du or $180,000/acre. In light of these figures, the City's proposed fees are certainly comparable. The proposed changes to the land dedication requirements, subdivider park development responsibility, park acquisition fees, and park development fees for neighborhood and community facilities will ensure that adequate-sized parks are built, needed neighborhood park improvements constructed and additional community facilities to serve the City's growing population are provided. FISCAL IMPACT: An increase in the amount of PAD fees would be seen if the proposed increases are approved. More RCT funds would be freed to fund other capital improvement projects since more PAD fees would be collected and less RCT ~vould 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, fi490/du for community park development and $390/du for park acquisition, or a total of $1,680/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 _~ , ,..,, a Nn.~ ATTACHMENT N m J~~~ ~ , a, ~~. ASSOCIATED BUILDING INDUSTRY ENGINEERING AND GENERAL CONTRACTORS ASSOCIATION OF GENERAL CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA SAN DIEGO COUNTY ASSOCIATION ION 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 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 g Proposed Fee Calculations (SFD) Persons/SFD 3.22 Ac/1000 Persons 3 Cost Per Acre $177,018.63 Proposed Fee $1,710.00 Column B Proper Fee Calculations (SFD) Persons/SFD 3.22 Ac/1000 Persons 3 Cost Per Acre $122,872.67 Proposed Fee $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 Scheduler Persons Use Per Unlt Fee Single Family Detached 3.22 $1,186.95 Attached 2.80 $1,032.13 Duplex 2.48 $914.17 Multi-family 2.21 $814.65 Mobile Home 1.64 $604.53 Hotel 1.50 $552.93 • Not sur risin I "" p g y, 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. Sincerely, Kim h Ki enny Legislative Coun I • rFee ~ ([Cost Per Acre x 3 Acres) / 1000) x Persons Per Unit -"' ,'