HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-05-16; City Council; 5452; School Fee Ordinance>*" ,
CITY OF CARLSBAD
AGENDA BILL NO.
DATE: 'May 16, 1978
DEPARTMENT:City Attorney
Initial:
Dept.Hd._
C. Atty.X^
C. Mgr.
Subject:
SCHOOL FEE ORDINANCE
Statement of the Matter
As instructed by the City Council a draft ordinance has been
prepared requiring the dedication of land and/or the payment
of fees for school facilities pursuant to SB 201. Attached
is a memorandum, dated May 3, 1978, which discusses some of
the matters the Council may want to include in their consider-
ation of the ordinance.
Exhibits
Memorandum from City Attorney, dated May 3, 1978.
Ordinance No .
Recommendation
If the City Council concurs, direct the City Manager to set
the ordinance to hearing before the Planning Commission or
take action in regards to the ordinance as the Council
considers appropriate.
Council action
5-16-78 Staff was directed to send .copies of the ordinance to
persons who would be involved, and that the ordinance
for hearing before the Planning Commission.
those
be set
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 3, 1978
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: DRAFT ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE DEDICATION OF LAND
AND/OR PAYMENT OF FEES FOR INTERIM SCHOOL FACILITIES
PURSUANT TO SB 201
The City Council has taken action, pursuant to SB 201 (California
Government Code Section 65970 et seq.), to concur in the findings
of overcrowded conditions made by the San Diequito, Encinitas,
Vista and San Marcos School Districts. SB 201 prohibits the
approval of a residential development within those areas unless
the City Council either adopts a school fee ordinance or makes
overriding findings. In accordance with the Council's direction,
we have prepared a draft of a school fee ordinance.
When the Council is satisfied with the ordinance, it is recom-
mended that it be adopted as a zoning measure. The effect of
the ordinance cuts across both the subdivision and the planning
process; however, its primary effect is to impose a significant
limitation on the development of land which is a zoning concern.
More importantly, SB 201 places the school fee chapter in the
State Planning Act, which indicates the ordinance should be a
zoning measure. It would be appropriate if the Council concurs,
and is satisfied with the draft ordinance, to instruct the
City Manager to set it to hearing before the Planning Commission.
The ordinance should be subjected to CEQA review. It probably
will not entail any significant environmental effects so a
negative declaration would be indicated. Nevertheless, based
on a recent Attorney General's opinion, it is my recommendation
that we subject it to the provisions of the Environmental
Protection Ordinance.
Because of the state law the ordinance has an unusual operative
date. The ordinance can only be operative for purposes of lift-
ing the SB 201 moratorium thirty days after the ordinance is
effective. As the Council knows, it normally takes a first and
second reading and then thirty days before an ordinance can be
Mayor and City Council -2- May 3, 1978
effective. This ordinance will not be fully operative until
the expiration of an additional thirty day period.
Government Code Section 65974(a) provides for the location of
public schools. Furthermore, in requiring the dedication of
land or payment of fees for any particular development, the
decision-making body is required to find that such action is
consistent with the General Plan. We have assumed, in preparing
this ordinance, that the currently adopted General Plan meets
the Section 65974(a) requirements and that the necessary find-
ings can be made.
My memorandum to the Council of March 27, 1978 in regards to
SB 201 identified at least sixteen unanswered questions arising
from the new law. Most of those questions remain unanswered.
It is my estimation that a significant lawsuit will be necessary
to resolve them. The Council may recall a similar situation
existed in connection with the Quimby Act, which required the
dedication of land and the payment of fees for park purposes.
It took a fifty page opinion from the California Supreme Court
to fully establish the legality of the park fees. We expect a
repeat performance for SB 201, but hope it will not arise from
a dispute in Carlsbad. The ordinance incorporates the provisions
of state law and generally follows the form of ordinances
already adopted, or under consideration, by the counties of
San Diego and Contra Costa and the cities of Chula Vista and
Oceanside. It, in most cases, does not attempt to predict how
the courts will resolve the many open questions in SB 201.
In order to complete preparation of the ordinance, it is necessary
to resolve a series of policy questions and to determine the
interrelationship between the ordinance and the public facilities
element of the General Plan. This memorandum will now review
some of these questions.
One of the most important portions of the ordinance, in terms of
Council policy judgments, is Section 21.55.070(e): the definition
of "residential development." SB 201 is a little less than clear
on the proper scope of the term "residential development." It
is defined as, a "project containing one or more residential
dwellings." Section 65972, the provision that imposes the
moratorium, prohibits the Council from approving a "discretionary
permit for a residential use." The listing of approvals included
in the ordinance are all clearly within the definition of
residential development and are discretionary. The uncertainty
Mayor and City Council -3- May 3, 1978
is whether or not an individual building permit is "discretionary"
and if it should be subject to the ordinance. San Diego County
has applied the ordinance and the land fee requirements to
individual building permits with exceptions for remodelings,
reconstructions and condominium conversions. The City of
Oceanside's draft ordinance does not reach individual building
permits which are not connected with some other discretionary
approvals. The County Counsel has prepared a short memorandum
on the issues of the law involved in this question. There is
some authority for the position taken by the County. However,
it appears that the weight of authority in California indicates
that under our ordinances the approvals necessary for issuance
of individual building permits are ministerial and not discretion-
ary and, therefore, beyond the reach of SB 201. The matter is
open to question. The resolution of this question will have a
significant impact on the amount of assistance made available to
school districts, the burdens to be assumed by the City in
administering the ordinance and on the costs imposed upon those
seeking to construct residential housing. The extent of the fee
obligation is a policy matter for the Council to resolve.
Another question that must be resolved is the status of developer
agreements with school districts which were entered into prior
to the effective date of the ordinance. The draft provides
authority for the decision-making body to consider those agreements
as overriding factors (Section 21.55.170(b)). We have indications
from several of the school districts that they will honor some
of the agreements but not all, since some were entered into
several years ago at substantially less fees than those which
the districts now contemplate. One approach to this problem
would be to leave the resolution of the matter to the developers
and the school districts and simply require the new fees. Another
approach would be to exempt any development with such an agree-
ment from the provisions of the ordinance. The draft presupposes
a middle approach. It would allow the Council, in an appropriate
case, to find that an agreement is an overriding factor but not
require it. Guidelines for determining if an agreement will be
considered an overriding factor could be included in the Council
resolution which the ordinance allows (Section 21.55.040) or,
more appropriately, in the fee schedules which the Council will
be adopting. Those schedules could provide that the developer
would receive credit against the fee obligation for any pre-
existing agreements. An alternative approach would be to provide
for such a credit in the ordinance itself and to eliminate pre-
existing agreements as an overriding factor. The matter is one
of policy to be resolved by the Council.
Mayor and City Council -4- May 3, 1978
The new state law is quite clear that the City Council is
responsible for determining the amount of land or fees to be
levied by the ordinance. The County has adopted an approach
which specifies that the fees will be "established" by the
school district subject to the "concurrence" of the Board of
Supervisors. The draft ordinance takes a little different
approach to make clear that the districts' role is limited to
making recommendations in that regard. We have received
indications from the districts already that their idea of an
appropriate fee constitutes a substantial increase over any-
thing previously collected. If the Council approves the
ordinance, we would anticipate asking the districts, who have
not already done so, to submit their fee recommendations,
including the facts upon which they are based. The City Council
will then need to consider those recommendations and make its
judgment as to the appropriate fee to be charged in each attend-
ance area. Setting the fees will, of necessity, it seems to me,
be resolved as a policy matter by the Council after considering
the views of the districts and the limitations in SB 201 in
regards to fees. The policy questions involved in that judgment
do not directly involve the wording of the ordinance unless the
Council wishes to formally require the further involvement
of the school districts in the fee-setting process.
The Council will have to determine the basis for and use of the
fees generated by SB 201. We have indications that at least one
of our districts view it as a blanket grant of authority to charge
the full costs of new permanent school facilities to residential
development. The bill itself speaks only to securing financing
for "interim school facilities to meet conditions for over-
croxvding. " There is no case authority on the question yet.
The legislative council has prepared an analyses showing why
the word "interim," in the new law, really means "permanent."
I find the rationale for the opinion less than convincing. What
is clear is that the land or fees must bear a reasonable
relationship to and be limited to the need for schools caused
by the particular development. It is not unreasonable to expect
that developers will challenge the blanket approach being taken
by some school districts. In that event, it would be my advice
that the defense of such an action be tendered to the school
district involved since they are the real parties in interest.
Resolution of this issue is not necessary at this time but
will be presented when the districts and the City set the fee.
SB 201 imposes some significant obligations on the school districts.
They are required to submit a schedule to the Council specifying
how they will use the land or the fees to solve the conditions of
Mayor and City Council -5- May 3, 1978
overcrowding. This schedule must include the particular school
sites to be used, the facilities to be made available and the
times when they will be available. If the districts can't
meet the schedules they must submit modifications to the Council
with the reasons for the changes. It is also incumbent on the
districts, which have overlapping responsibilities, to reach
agreement with the City as to how the land or fees will be divided.
As the Council knows, that situation pertains to the southern
section of our City, between the Encinitas and San Diequito
districts. The districts are required to maintain separate
accounts for any monies received and they must file a report
with the Council on the balances in those funds, if a facility
is leased, purchased or constructed and. on other actions taken
during the previous year. If the Council approves the draft
ordinance, my office will take the steps necessary to bring all
of these and the other requirements imposed by SB 201 on the
districts to the attention of our four affected school districts.
The ordinance also imposes some new administrative burdens on
the City. The Planning Department will be required to notify
the districts of any proposed development in order for the
district to advise us whether or not they want the dedication
of land in such development. Those recommendations will then
have to be considered by the decision-making body as a part of
their deliberations on the development itself. There are also
a number of administrative tasks in regards to the collection of
the fees, the creation of special trust funds, the transfer of
the fees to the districts, and the receiving of the districts'
annual reports. If the ordinance is approved, these matters
will be discussed further with the City Manager and the Council.
The Council may wish to consider soliciting input on the draft
ordinance before setting it to public hearing. It might be
submitted, for instance, to the affected school districts for
their comment, as well as to appropriate representatives of
persons involved in residential development. On the other hand,
the Council might be satisfied that the Planning Commission and
City Council public hearings on the ordinance would afford
adequate opportunity for public comment.
It is important to understand that this ordinance is separate,
apart, and in addition to the public facilities element of the
General Plan. The General Plan requires the City Council to
find that all necessary public facilities will be available
concurrent with need before approving the development. Public
Mayor and City Council -6- May 3, 1978
facilities include schools. Notwithstanding the adoption of
the ordinance, the Council will still be required to find that
the element is satisfied before approving a development. For
the Carlsbad Unified School District, which has not as yet
implemented SB 201, we will anticipate the continuation of the
current administrative policy in regards to the public facilities
element. That is, the City Council would require evidence of
schools, which would usually come in the form of a school letter,
before approving a development. Such a letter could continue to
be required for the other districts. It would also be possible
for the Council by policy to determine that developments subject
to the ordinance would be deemed to have satisfied the public
facilities element without the necessity for further evidence.
It would also be possible for the Council to amend the element
to remove schools entirely or to indicate that the element would
not apply to those developments subject to the ordinance. Again,
the matter is one which would require additional discussion and
Council policy direction. This discussion of the Council's
options regarding the SB 201 - public facilities element inter-
relationship, will be supplemented orally at your meeting of
May 16, 1978.
CONCLUSION
In my opinion, the draft ordinance is consistent with the require-
ments of SB 201. The Council may wish to consider changes based
on their resolution of the above-discussed policy questions. The
Council should also determine whether to solicit public input
in addition to and in advance of that which could be expected
at the public hearings. Finally, the Council should keep in
mind that due to the large number of open questions in SB 201,
we can expect the the need to amend this ordinance. Chula
Vista has already made one set of extensive amendments. In
view of the SB 201 moratorium, and the extra period before the
ordinance can be effective, it is my recommendation we adopt
an ordinance as soon as possible consistent with adequate
Council deliberation and amend as necessary in light of
experience or new developments as the need arises.
/ VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR.
City Attorney
VFB/mla
•
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 § 13
• OC {*g
3"s| 14
O O 5!r
•2 » LU J-t
|t<t 15
"-• • §5
£ g 8 tf 16IU Z CM <;
0 5 " <B2O COIt s! 17
>- o
§ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(jTrU'T"
ORDINANCE NO. 9500
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 21.55 RELAT-
ING TO THE PROVISION OF INTERIM SCHOOL
FACILITIES BY REQUIRING DEDICATIONS OF
LAND AND FEES.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, does
ordain as follows :
SECTION 1: That Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code
is amended by the addition of Chapter 21.55 to read as follows:
"Chapter 21.55
DEDICATION OF LAND AND FEES FOR SCHOOL FACILITIES
SECTIONS :
21.55.010 Title.
21.55.020 Authority - conflict.
21.55.030 Purpose and intent.
21.55.040 Regulations.
21.55.050 Findings.
21.55.060 General plan.
21.55.070 Definitions.
21.55.080 Notice to school districts.
21.55.090 School district findings.
21.55.100 Requirements of notice of findings.
21.55.110 Restriction on approval of residential
developments - City Council findings.
21.55.120 Requirement of fees and/or dedications.
21.55.130 Payment of fees in smaller subdivisions.
21.55.140 Standards for land dedication and fees.
21.55.150 Filing application for residential development
21.55.160 Notification to school districts.
21.55.170 Decision factors.
21.55.180 School district schedule.
21.55.190 Land dedication.
21.55.200 Fee payment.
21.55.210 Fees held in trust.
21.55.220 Use of land and fees.
21.55.230 Refunds.
21.55.240 Agreement for fee distribution.
21.55.250 Fee fund records and reports.
21.55.260 Termination of dedication and fee requirements
21.55.270 Operative date.
21.55.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the
"School Facilities Dedication and Fee Ordinance".
COtn
0)• c
"8 <ou. s|
9° ig
1^2"°5i
x u, O
z"! 80Si^clIE "> (- cc< <
u
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.55.020 Authority-Conflict . This chapter'is adopted pursuant to
the provisions of Chapter 4.7^Commencing with Section 65970)
of Division 1 of Title 7 of the California Government Code. In
the case of any conflict between the provisions of this chapter,
and those of Chapter 4.7, the latter shall prevail.
21.55.030 Purpose and intent. This chapter is intended to
implement the school facilities dedication and fees legislation
in the City of Carlsbad and to provide authority whereby the City,
affected school districts, and applicants for land development
approvals may undertake such reasonable steps as the City Council
determines to be necessary to alleviate overcrowding of school
facilities.
21.55.040 Regulations. The City Council may from time-to-
time, by resolution, issue regulations to establish procedures,
interpretations and policy directions for the administration of
this chapter.
21.55.050 Findings. The City Council of the City of
Carlsbad finds and declares as follows: (a) Adequate school
facilities should be available for children residing in new
residential developments.
(b) Public and private residential developments may
require the expansion of existing public schools or the construc-
tion of new school facilities.
(c) In many areas of the City, the funds for the construc-
tion of new classroom facilities are not available when new
development occurs, resulting in the overcrowding of existing
schools.
(d) New housing developments frequently cause conditions
of overcrowding in existing school facilities which cannot be
alleviated under existing law within a reasonable period of time.
(e) That, for these reasons, new and improved methods
of financing for interim school facilities necessitated by new
development are needed in the City of Carlsbad.
21.55.060 General Elan. The General Elan of the City of
Carlsbad provides for the location of public schools. Those
interim school facilities to be constructed from fees paid or
those lands to be dedicated for school facilities as required by
this chapter shall be consistent with the General Elan of the
City of Carlsbad.
21.55.070 Definitions. Whenever the following words are
used in this chapter, unless otherwise defined, they shall have
the meaning ascribed to them in this section: (a) "Conditions
of overcrowding" means that the total enrollment of a school,
including enrollment from proposed development, exceeds the
capacity of such school as determined by the governing body of
the district.
(b) "Decision-making body" means the City Council, Flanning
Commission or City Engineer.
(c) "Dwelling unit" means a building or a portion thereof,
or a mobilehome, designed for residential occupation by one person
2.
COv>
o>
o
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
f*il 14
IgS§ 15u.-°3<
ilis 16
11 ij 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
or a group of two or more persons living together as a domestic
unit.
(d) "Reasonable methods for mitigating conditions of over-
crowding" shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(1) Agreements between a subdivider and the affected
school district whereby temporary-use buildings
will be leased to the school district;
(2) The use of temporary-use buildings owned by the
school district;
(3) The use of temporary portable classrooms, student
bussing, classroom double sessions, year-round use
of school facilities, school boundary realignments,
and elimination of low priority school facility
uses;
(4) The use of available annual tax rate bond revenues
or state loan revenues, to the extent authorized
by law;
(5) The use of funds which could be available from the
sales of surplus school district real property
and funds available from any other sources.
(e) "Residential development" means a project containing
residential dwellings, including mobilehomes, of one or more units
or a subdivision of land for the purpose of constructing one or
more residential dwelling units. Residential development includes,
but is not limited to:
(1) A tentative or final subdivision map or parcel
map or a time extension or amendment to such a
map.
(2) A conditional use permit.
(3) A site development plan.
(4) A variance.
(5) A privately proposed specific plan or amendment
thereto which would allow an increase in authorized
residential density.
(6) A privately proposed amendment to the City General
Plan which would allow an increase in authorized
residential density.
(7) An ordinance rezoning property to a residential
use or to a more intense residential use.
(8) A grading permit.
(9) Any other discretionary permit for residential
use,
21.55.080 Notice to School Districts. 'The City :
shall notify all potentially affected school districts of an
application for any residential developments proposed for location
within their boundaries.
21.55.090 School district findings. If the governing
body of the school district which operates an elementary or high
school in the City of Carlsbad makes a finding supported by clear
and convincing evidence that: (a) Conditions of overcrowding
exist in one or more attendance areas within the district which
will impair the normal functioning of educational programs
including the reason for such conditions existing; and
3.
o<CO 00
CJ
£o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
gas! 14
Z v_ W br
ig|| 15
"- ' si o
£ I 8 d 16B| = 2
l| I 17< <
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
(b) That all reasonable methods of mitigating conditions
of overcrowding have been evaluated and no feasible method for
reducing such conditions exist, the governing body of the school
district shall notify the City Council of the City of Carlsbad.
The notice of findings sent to the City shall specify the mitigatio
measures considered by the school district. After the receipt of
any notice of findings complying with .this section, the City
Council shall determine whether it concurs in such school district
findings. The City Council may schedule and hold a public hearing
on the matter of its proposed concurrence prior to making its
determination. If the City Council concurs in such findings, the
provisions of Section 21.55.110 shall be applicable to actions
taken on residential development by a decision-making body.
. 21.55.100 Requirements of notice of findings. Any notice
of findings sent by a school district to the City Council shall
specify: (a) The findings listed in Section 21.55.090.
(b) The mitigation measures and methods, including those
listed in Section 21.55.070(d) considered by the school district
and any determination made concerning them by the district.
(c) The precise geographic boundaries of the overcrowded
attendance area or areas.
(d) Such other information as may be required by the City
Council.
21.55.110 Restriction on approval of residential develop-
ments — City Council findings. Within the attendance area where
it has been determined pursuant to Section 21.55.090 that condition
of overcrowding exist, no decision-making body shall approve an
application for a residential development within such area, unless
such decision-making body makes one of the following findings:
(a) That action will be taken pursuant to this chapter
to provide dedications of land and/or fees to mitigate conditions
of overcrowding, or
(b) That there are specific overriding fiscal, economic,
social or environmental factors which in the judgment of the
decision-making body would benefit the City, thereby justifying
the approval of a residential development otherwise subject to
the provisions of this chapter. An agreement between the applicant
for a residential development and the school district to mitigate
conditions of overcrowding within that attendance area may be
considered by a decision-making body as such an overriding factor.
21.55.120 Requirement of fees and/or dedications. For the
purpose of establishing an interim method of providing classroom
facilities where overcrowding conditions exist as determined
pursuant to Section 21.55.090, the City may require, as a condition
to the approval of a residential development, the dedication of
land, the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of
both, as determined by a decision-making body during the hearings
and other proceedings on specific residential development appli-
cations falling within its jurisdiction. Prior to imposition of
the fees and/or dedications of land, it shall be necessary for a
decision-making body acting- on the application to make the
following findings: (a) The City General Plan provides for the
4.
It %> i- oc
E S
o
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
. 8
9
10
11
12
I 13
O)
I 14
§ 15
o- 16
in 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
location of public schools.
(b) The land or fees, or both, transferred to a school
district shall be used only for the purpose of providing interim
elementary, junior high or high school classroom and related
facilities.
(c) The location and amount of land to be dedicated or
the amount of fees to be paid, or both, shall bear a reasonable
relationship and will be limited to the needs of the community
for interim elementary, junior high or high school facilities
and shall be reasonably related and limited to the need for
schools caused by the development.
(d) The facilities to be constructed, purchased, leased,
or rented from such fees or the land to be dedicated or both
is consistent with the City General Plan.
21.55.130 Payment of fees in smaller subdivisions. Only
the payment of fees shall be required in subdivisions containing
fifty (50) lots or less.
21.55.140 Standards for land dedication and fees. The
standards for the amount of dedicated land or fees to be required
shall be determined by the City Council and set by resolution.
The governing board of each school district where a determination
has been made pursuant to Section 21.55.090 that conditions of
overcrowding exist, shall recommend standards for their attendance
areas to the City Council. Such standards and the facts
supporting them shall be transmitted to the City Council. If
the City Council concurs in such recommended standards, they shall,
until revised, be used by decision-making bodies in situations
where dedications of land and/or fees are required as a condition
to the approval of a residential development. Nothing herein
shall prevent the City Council from using standards other than
those recommended by the school district in the event the City
Council is unable to concur in those transmitted by the district.
21.55.150 Filing application for residential development.
At the time of filing an application for approval of a residential
development located within an attendance area where the findings
required by Section 21.55.090 have been made, the applicant shall,
as part of such filing, indicate whether it prefers to dedicate
land for school facilities, to pay a fee in lieu thereof, or do a
combination of these. If the applicant prefers to dedicate land,
it shall suggest the specific land.
2^1.55.160 Notification to school districts. Upon receipt
of an application for a residential development within an
attendance area where the findings required by Section 21.55.090
have been made, the Planning Director shall notify the affected
school districts thereof. Said notification shall be made no
later than thirty (30) days prior to consideration of the
application by a decision-making body.
21.55.170 Decision factors. (a) Upon receipt of the
notification required by Se.ction 21.55.160, the governing board
of the affected school district shall recommend whether a
5.
CO<n
NRT F.Y - CI0 ELM, CALI(J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
sjS 8
o-"sl I4
o O 2 2
z
2^12 15CD TT * -. J-3
16
i 17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
dedication of land within the development, payment of a fee in
lieu thereof, or a combination of both, should be required. The
school district shall then transmit the determination to the
Planning Director for submission to the appropriate decision-
making body for concurrence. If the decision-making body concurs
in such recommendation, it may, at the time of its consideration
of a residential development application, impose such requirements
In their respective actions regarding this determination, the
school district and the decision-making body shall consider the
following factors:
(1) Whether lands offered for dedication will be.
consistent with the City General Plan.
(2) Whether the lands offered for dedication meet
the criteria established at Education Code
Section 39000, et seq.
(3) The topography, soils, soil stability, drainage,
access, location and general utility of land
in the development available for dedication.
(4) Whether the location and amount of lands proposed
to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be paid,
or both,will bear a reasonable relationship and
will be limited to the needs of the community
for interim elementary, junior high school, or
Senior high school facilities and will be reason-
ably related and limited to the need for schools
caused by the development.
(5) If only a subdivision is proposed, whether it
will contain fifty (50) parcels or less.
Nothing herein shall prevent a decision-making body from imposing
requirements other than those recommended by the school district
in the event that a decision-making body is unable to concur in
the district's recommendation hereunder.
(b) If the school district has entered into an agreement
with the applicant for the residential development to mitigate
conditions of overcrowding within the attendance area covered
by the application, the governing board shall upon receipt of
the notification required by Section 21.55.160 so advise the
Planning Director and transmit a copy thereof for submission to
the appropriate decision-making body for consideration as an
overriding factor under Section 21.55.110.
21.55.180 School district schedule. Following the action
by a decision-making body to require the dedication of land or
the payment of fees, or both, the Planning Director shall notify
each school district affected thereby. The governing body of
the school district shall then submit a schedule specifying how
it will use the land or fees, or both, to solve the conditions
of overcrowding. The schedule shall include the school sites to
be used, the classroom facilities to be made available, and the
times when such facilities will be available. In the event the
governing body of the school district cannot meet the schedule,
it shall submit modifications to the City Council and the reasons
for the modifications.
6.
2
£ | 8 dm z CM rf0 £ - mM I
"
1
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
13
BC <
14
15
16
"
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
21.55.190 Land dedication. When land is to be dedicated,
it shall be offered for dedication to the affected school district
in substantially the same manner as prescribed in
Title 20 regarding streets and public easements for subdivisions.
Dedicated land which subsequently is determined by the school
district to be unsuitable for school purposes may be sold with
the approval of the City Council. The funds derived therefrom
must be used in accordance with this chapter.
21.55.200 Fee payment. If the payment of a fee is required,
such payment or the pro rata amount thereof shall be made at
the time a building permit within the residential development
is approved and issued.
21.55.210 Fees held in trust. Fees paid under this chapter
shall be held in trust by the City. Such fees, plus accrued
interest, less a reasonable service and handling charge of no
more than the accrued interest, shall be transferred to the school
districts operating schools within the attendance area from which
the fees were collected from time-to-time as the City Council
may determine.
21.55.220 Use of land and fees. All land or fees, or both,
collected pursuant to this chapter and transferred to a school
district, shall be held-in trust and shall be used only by the
district for the purpose of providing interim elementary, junior
high or high school classroom and related facilities in the
attendance area from which the land or fees were collected.
21.55.230 Refunds. If a residential development approval is
vacated or voided, and if the affected school district has not
made use of the land and/or fees collected therefor, and if the
applicant so requests, the governing board of the school district
shall order the land and/or fees returned to the applicant.
21.55.240 Agreement for fee distribution. If two separate
school districts operate schools in an attendance area where
the City Council has concurred that overcrowding conditions
exist for both school districts, the City Council will enter into
an agreement with the governing body of each school district
for the purpose of determining the distribution of revenues from
the fees levied pursuant to this chapter. In the event the school
districts do not agree, the City shall retain all fees until an
agreement is secured.
21.55.250 Fee fund records and reports. Any school district
receiving funds pursuant to this chapter shall maintain a separate
account for any fees paid and shall file a report with the City
Council on the balance in the account at the end of the previous
fiscal year and the facilities leased, purchased, or constructed
during the previous fiscal year. In addition, the report shall
specify which attendance areas will continue to be overcrowded
when the fall term begins and where conditions of overcrowding
will no longer exist. Such report shall be filed by August 1 of
each year and shall be filed more frequently at the request of
7.
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR.CITY ATTORNEY - CITY OF CARLSBAD1200 EUM AVENUECARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA 920081
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the City Council.
21.55.260 Termination of dedication and fee requirements.
When it is determined by the City Council that conditions of
overcrowding no longer exist in an attendance area, decision-
making bodies shall cease levying any fee or requiring the
dedication of any land for that area pursuant to this chapter.
Action under this section shall not affect the validity of
conditions already imposed for levy of fees and dedications of
land and such conditions shall remain binding.
21.55.270 Operative date. This chapter shall become oper-
ative thirty (30) days after its effective date."
EFFECTIVE DATE: This ordinance shall be effective thirty
days after its adoption, and the City Clerk shall certify to the
adoption of this ordinance and cause it to be published at least
once in the Carlsbad Journal within fifteen days after its
adoption.
INTRODUCED AND FIRST READ at a regular meeting of the
Carlsbad City Council held on the day of ,1978
and thereafter
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of said City Council
held on the day of , 1978 by the following
vote, to wit:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT :
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST :
MARGARET E. ADAMS, City Clerk
(SEAL)
8.