HomeMy WebLinkAbout1978-08-01; City Council; 5452-1; School Fee OrdinanceCITY OF CARLSBAD
Initial:
AQEN.DA BILL NQ. 5452, Supplement No. 1
Dept. Hd. .
DATE: August 1, 1978 /"
City Atty_
DEPARTMENT: Planning
City Mgr._
SUBJECT:
SB 201 - School Fee Ordinance
Case No. ZCA-99 (Public Hearing)
Statement of the Matter
At the direction of the City Council, the Planning'Commission on
June 27, 1978 reviewed a report and held a public hearing on draft
ordinance prepared by the City Attorney on the fees for school
facilities pursuant to SB 201.
The Planning Commission recommended that this proposed ordinance be
.adopted but they did have some concerns which are contained
in the attached memorandum.
The local school districts were sent copies of the ordinance and
informed of the Planning Commission meeting. No members of local
school districts attended the Planning Commission meeting, but
they forwarded letters which are attached for-your information.
*
Exhibits
Memorandum to Paul Bussey from James Hagaman dated July 18, 1978
Planning Commission Resolution No. 1.453 - with draft Ord. 9500
Staff Report dated June 28, 1978
Memo from the City Attorney dated May 3, 1978
Letters from Vista, Carlsbad, San Dieguito, Encinitas & San Marcos
school districts
Letter from La Costa Land Company dated June 21, 1978.
Recommendation
It is recommended that after resolving the four questions raised by
the Planning Commission the City Council direct the City Attorney to
prepare documents APPROVING. ZCA-99 as per Planning Commission
Resolution No. 1453.
(See Page 2 for Council action)
FORM PLANNING 73
AGENDA BILL NO. 5452, Supplement #1 -2- April 1, 1978
Council action
8-1-78 Following the public hearing the matter was referred to the
City Attorney for preparation of documents necessary for
approval of ZCA-99, subject to the changes agreed upon by
Council, and to the Planning Commission at the City Attorney's
di scretion.
.4
MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 18, 1978
TO: Paul Bussey, City Manager
FROM: James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
SUBJECT: AB 5452, SUPPLEMENT NO. 1 - SCHOOL FEE ORDINANCE
CASE NO: ZCA-99
The Planning Commission has recommended that the ordinance drafted by
the City Attorney be adopted, but they had concern about some issues.
Although they did not specifically suggest changes they have requested
that the City concil consider them and, if they agree, request the City
Attorney to incorporate them into any adopted ordinance. The concerns are
as follows:
1. The Ordinance as drafted is not clear if the City will collect fees
for single family homes on lots in existence prior to the adoption
of this ordinance. There are many lots in the older areas of Carlsbad
that have never paid school fees and there are no discretionary actions
necessary prior to requesting building permits. The Planning Commission
believes that school fees should not be required for these existing
lots. c-l v- -' ' . • ' / ' " - ; ;: • *
2. The Planning Commission noted that in Section 21.55.160, the
City has 30 days to notify the school district of the application for
a residential development and in Section 21.55.170 the school district >^
shall make a recommendation as to dedication of land or payment of ' , ,
fees. However, there is no time limit for the school district to /-/ ^ •
respond. Since State Law requires that all applications be processed
within a certain length of time, the Planning Commission felt that
it would be imperative that the school district also reply within a
fixed time period. The Planning Commission suggestd a 30 day period.
3. The Commission was concerned that it may be possible that some
applications for processing would come through more than one
discretionary action. For example the rezoning of a property to R-3
would require fees paid at time of development of the apartment, and
possibly at a later date the apartment may be converted to a condominium
and may again be required to pay fees at time of subdivision. The
Planning Commission wanted to make sure that the ordinance was clear
that double fees were not required and that adequate record keeping
be done to keep track of what fees have been paid for what properties.
4. The Planning Commission wished to exclude variances from school
fees where no new residential units are being constructed. They felt
that it would be unfair for a property owner to pay fees on an existing
structure if they wish a variance. For example, a property owner may
wish to add a patio to an existing home that would encroach into the
rear yard. A variance would be requested, which is a discretionary
action and this, by ordinance, would require school fees. The
Commission wished to exclude this type of process.
..,,
JCH:BP:ms
1
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
PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 1453
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TEE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, SETTING FORTH ITS FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FQK-AEPBQVAL..QF A ZONE CODE AMENDMENT
PROVIDING FOR INTERIM SCHOOL FACILITIES BY THE REQUIRE-
MENT OF LAND AND FEES.
CASE NO.:
APPLICANT:
ZCA-99
City of Carlsbad
WHEREAS, the Carlsbad City Council directed the Planning Commission to
conduct a public hearing to consider a Zone Code Amendment pertaining to the
provision for interim school facilities by the requirement of dedications of
land and fees; and •
WHEREAS, the Planning Corrmission did hold a duly noticed Public
Hearing as prescribed by law on June 28, 1978, to consider the subject
amendment; and
.. WHEREAS, as a result of said hearing, upon hearing and considering the
testimony and arguments, if any, of all persons who desired to be heard,
said Commission considered all factors relating to the Zone Code Amendment
and found the following facts and reasons to exist:
1. The project's main impacts will be administrative requirements
for governmental entities and economic burdens for developers.
2. The proposed project will not impose any signigicant direct
environmental effects..
3. The decision-making body is still required to find that their
approval of any development in conjunction with this ordinance is consistent
with the Carlsbad General Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of
the City of Carlsbad, that it does recommend approval to the City Council of
1
2
5
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
tan amendment to Title 21 of the Carlsbad Municipal Code as set forth in
Exhibit "A" attached hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED AND. ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Carlsbad
City Planning Commission held on July 12, 1978, by the following vote, to
vat:
AYES: .
NOES:
ABSTAIN:
•
ABSENT:
JERKY FQMBOTIS, Chairman
ATTEST:
JAMES C. HAGAMAN, Secretary
2
4
K
6
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
' 17
18
• 19
.20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
20
N v.
ORDINANCE NO. 9500 EXHIBIT "A"
. ' AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OP THE
. CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
' TITLE 21 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE
&Y 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
21.55
21.55
21.55
21.55
21-. 5 5
21.55
21.55
21.55
21.55
21.55
21.55.
21.55,
21.55,
21.55.
21.55,
21.55.
21.55,
21.55.
21.55.
21.55,
21.55.
21.55.
21.55.
21.55.
21.55.
21.55.
.010 Title. • . ' ' • *
.020 Authority -.conflict. '•; '
.030 Purpose and intent.
.040 Regulations. • . ~'
.050 Findings.
.060 General plan. \ •
.070 Definitions. .'• . " :
.080 Notice to school districts. . ' ,---
.090 School district findings.
.100 Requirements of notice of findings.
.110 Restriction on approval of residential
developments - City Council findings. ' -
120 Requirement of fees and/or dedications.
130 Payment of fees-in smaller subdivisions.
140 Standards for land dedication and fees.
150 Filing application for residential development.
160 Notification to school districts.
170 Decision factors. ...
180 School district schedule. ' •
190 Land dedication.- "
200 Fee payment. •
210 Fees held in trust.
220 Use of land and fees. •
230 Refunds. • •
240 Agreement for fee distribution. I
250 Fee fund records and reports.
260 Termination of dedication and fee requirements,
270 Operative date.
21.55.010 Title. This chapter shall be known as the
"School Facilities Dedication and Fee Ordinance".
.« .»•C-
2
4
5
6
7
8
.9
10
11
13
14
15
r 16
j 17
18
19
20
."22
23
.24
25
26
27
20
21.55.020 Authority-Conflict . This chapter'is adoptee! 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
iii 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 Cityr the funds for the construe-.
tion of new classroom facilities are not available when new
development occurs, resulting in the overcrowding of existing
schools 1- - • " •
(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 Plan. 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 Plan 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 ;sehool,
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, Plannxng
Commission or City Engineer..
(c) "Dwelling unit" moans, a building or a portion thereof,
or a mobilehomc, designed for residential occupation by one person
1
*
2
«3
4
5
6
7
" 9
10
11
12
15
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'24
25
26
27
20
(e)
C -'
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;
I (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.
"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
• f use or to a more intense residential use.
• ' • (8) A grading permit.
• (9) Any other discretionary permit for residential
use..
' 21.55.0SO Notice to School'Districts; '-The'City . = I : '
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
an elementary or highbody of the school district which operate!
school in the City of Carlsbad makes a finding supported by_clcar
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
5
4
5
6
7
9
•10
12
14
15
16
17
18
19
'20
21
22
23
25
26
27
20
r
(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. i
The notice of findings sent to the City shall specify the mitigation
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 21.55.07Q(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 conditioi
to the approval of a residential development, the dedication of
land, the payment of fees in lieu therco.f, 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
1
f * .2
3
• 4
5
6
7
* <>• -8* V
' j r v 9
^ V 10
M-'.. 3-1
12
13
< 14
15
k^ LU N-*
w 8 D 16
t -2 17
18
19
20
I COooCMcn
du. i»^
§S|I= t < ii:°0 ^-»
t
O
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-C-^ c
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 fee's 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 f indincjr-
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.
21.55.160 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 Sc.ction 21.55.ICO, the governing board
of the affected school district shall recommend whether a
c
4
•
7
8
9
10
11
i;
.1?
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
*•. •' *
£3
24
25
26
27
20
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 arid
will be limited to the needs of the community
for interim elementary, junior high school, or
ganior 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
4
K
. 8
-9
,10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
'20
21
23
24
25
26
27
20
c
2ll55.'l90 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.
J
;,
7
8
.. 9
10
11
14
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 , 197H
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) .
STAFF REPORT
i
DATE: .June 28, 1978
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: ' Planning Department
SUBJECT: Draft School Fee Ordinance Requiring the
Dedication of Land and/or Payment of Fees
for Interim School Facilities Pursuant to SB 201
BACKGROUND
On September 21, 1977, the legislature adopted SB 201 as
Chapter 955 of the Statutes of 1977. The bill adds a chapter
to the State Planning Act to provide a new procedure for requiring
the dedication of land or .the payment of fees as a condition of
approving residential development. In response to SB 201, the
City Attorney has prepared a draft school fee ordinance for
adoption by the City Council. The attorney has asked that the.
draft ordinance be set for public hearing before the Planning
Commission.
Environmental Review
Environmental review is not yet complete on this item. The
review must -be completed before the City Council can take action
.on the subject ordinance. Preliminary review indicates that a
negative- declaration will probably result.
Discussion
The subject ordinance is long and somewhat complex. Preceeding
the ordinance is a .lengthy discussion and explanation of the
ordinance and the issues involved written by the City Attorney
and directed to the Mayor and City Council. This memo thoroughly
covers the ordinance. As the memo explains, there are legal and
policy issues that are not answered. The subject ordinance was
distributed for review prior to setting it for public hearing.
Copies of the responses we've received are attached for your
information.
Recommendation ...__„.
It is recommended that the Planning Commission hold a public
hearing on the subject ordinance, consider all testimony,
and forward said ordinance to the City Council with a recom- -
mendation of approval. .
DLR:le
Attachments
MEMORANDUM
DATE: May 3, 1978 • . .
• ' • '
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: City Attorney
SUBJECT: DRAFT ORDINANCE REQUIRING THE DEDICATION OP 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
, 'S
f ' '
. 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 lav/suit will be necessary
to resolve them. The Council may recall a similar situation
existed in connection' v/ith 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
S.an 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 v/ould 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 bur .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-
crowding." 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
V- , . C
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, betv/een 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 handr
• 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.
VFB/mla
VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR.
City Attorney
/$, Unified School District '
' 'A 160 Escondido Avenue, Vista California 92083, Phone (714) 726-2170
June 21, 197S
Jame* C. Hagaman
Planning VlJiectox.
City ofa Cax.l*bad
1200 Elm Ave.
Ca*.l*bad, Ca. 92008
Veal Ml. Hagaman:
We havz. /teu-cewecf you^: p^opo-6ecf o^cUnance and k-ind Lt
compatible, with the. obje.c.tJ.ve.4 ofa th& Vltta (ln.-L^iQ.d School
VlAtilct policy 6000 {attached}. Alto, It l& ^Im-itafi In
all detail* to the. ordinance.* o& the. othe.1 political entitle*
teived by the Vltta Unified School
Thank you. vciy much &oJi advising u-i oi you*. Intention*.
Sincerely ,
A- < -ty r -" L^/A^^iRobert B. Ositon
Planning 6 Re*eaich
btt:
CITY OF CARLSBAD '
Planning Department
001 pine avenue corlsbadcalifornia 92000 729-9291
July 24, 1978
Mr. Paul D. Bussey
Carlsbad City Manager
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Bussey:
It has come to our attention that the City Council is studying an
ordinance that will implement provisions of last year's Senate Bill 201
relating to developers' contributions. The Carlsbad Unified School
District has not written a letter relative to SB 201 because it has
found the existing policy to be satisfactory for its needs.
Policy No. 17 adopted by the Carlsbad City Council on October 16,
1973 and dealing with the adequacy of public services in connection with
development proposals has been working satisfactorily for this district
and we would urge that the City Council continue with this policy.
At such time as this policy no longer meets the needs of the
Carlsbad Unified School District, a letter from the board will be
forthcoming.
Sincerely,
Robert A. Crawford
District Superintendent
RAC:aw
BOARD OF EDUCATION THOMAS L. CURTIN, M.D. W. ALLAN KELLY JOHNJ. MAMAUX RICHARD R. O'NEIL. M.D. MARY A. SCHERR
SAN DIEGUITO
UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
2151 NEWCASTLE, CARDIFF, CALIFORNIA 92007 714-753-6491
March 1, 1978
Mr. Paul Bussey, City Manager
City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue Avenue
Carlsbad, California 92008
Dear Mr. Bussey:
As indicated in a recent letter to your office, the San Dieguito Union High
School District's Board of Trustees has adopted a resolution identifying the
District schools that are considered to be overcrowded. Based on previous
correspondence from your office, this District has continued to enter into
agreements with developers pending the outcome of city action with regard to
an ordinance that would implement S.B. 201.
It would be this District's intent to continue the present arrangement.of
seeking agreements with developers that are satisfactory to the Board of Trustees
until the City of Carlsbad implements an ordinance on S.B 201 that calls for new
procedures. In the meantime, the District will honor all agreements with developers
that are approved by the Board of Trustees.
Sincerely,
c-
William A. Berrier
Superintendent
bfs
ccrJim Hagaman, Planning Director
Rod Phillips
197&
BOARD OF TRUSTEES:
ADMINISTRATION:
David H. Thompson
President
William F. Howall
Vice President
William A. Berrier.
Superintendent
Ann P. Sonslbaugh
Clerk
Robert A. Morton.
Assistant Superintendent
Don W. Mitchell R. Garry Shirts
John J. Dally,
Business Manager
TrafiY*LOUSCHULTZ
PRES1DENT
TY LEVIN
VICE PRESIDENT
SALVATOREF.LORELLO
CLERK
, ^OCTTA ,. O...-TLJLORETTAM. SMITH
DONALD E. LINDSTROM
SUPERINTENDENT 6 BOARD SECRETARY
J
&tf)00l
189 UNION STREET
ENCINITAS. CALIFORNIA 92024
TELEPHONE 753-1152
CAPRI SCHOOL
941 CAPRI ROAD
CENTRAL SCHOOL
185 UNION STREET
OCEAN KNOLL SCHOOL
910 MELBA ROAD
PACIFIC VIEW SCHOOL
608 THIRD STREET
PARK DALE LANE SCHOOL
2050 PARK DALE LANE
June 7, 1978
Mr. James C. Hagaman
Planning Director
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mr. Hagaman:
The administrators of the Encinitas Union School District have reviewed
the proposed ordinance under SB 201 and concur with most of the language
in the ordinance. We have some problems with the words attendance area
on page 6, line 19; page 7, line 27; page 8, line 3.
We have problems with the language that states the money will be used only
in the attendance area where application takes place. The State law says
that the School District will provide an education for all children and .
the State does not specify attendance areas.
The Encinitas Union School District does permit parents to enroll their
children in any school in the District provided there is space available.
If a school is overcrowded, we transport children from that area to another
less crowded school.
We are presently bussing children from the Carlsbad City area to Ocean
Knoll School which is not in the Carlsbad attendance area, therefore, we
feel that we must use fees to the best advantage of the children in our
District.
We feel that the language should be changed from attendance area to School
District. "'"'
Sincerely,
Warren Robert
Director of Planning
RECEIVED
JUIHJ.O 13/0.
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Planning Department
EXCELLENCE IS OUR GOAL
an marcos unified school district
270 san marcos boulevard
marcos, California 92069
phone (714) 744-4776
June 27, 1978
•'RECEIVED
JUN291978
.James C. Hagaman, Planning Director
City of Carlsbad CITY OF CARLSBAD
1200 Elm Avenue Planning DeoartmpntCarlsbad, California 92008 rwnmn0 uepartment
Dear Jim:
I have received the draft ordinance of the City of Carlsbad pertaining to
S.B. 201. The memorandum from the City Attorney is most interesting and I
think sheds some new light on some aspects of this whole problem. Sometime
in the not too distant future I would like to discuss with you the possibility
of our operating under the old City Ordinance provided my Board is willing,
rather than the provisions of S.B. 201 as a routine practice.
Regarding the Ordinance itself, it is very straight forward and for the most
part follows the content of S.B. 201 itself. There are a few areas that are of
some concern to me. The City Attorney has taken the view point that the city
has the entire responsibility for setting the fee. I think this is a matter
that has not been resolved as he outlined in his memo. Some other entities
-are giving the school district the greater responsibility and participation in
that fee setting process. I personally would prefer that the school district
have a greater hand in this in that they are the ones that must live with those
fees once collected, not the city.
The other concerns that I have in this ordinance occur in sections 21.55.190
through .220. All of these sections tend to place a greater responsibility and
-authority in the hands of the City Council as opposed to the school district.
The matter of requiring the City Council's approval for the sale of land which
is no longer needed or of use to the schools is, I think, placing an undue
responsibility on the City Council and an undue requirement on the schools that
is not necessary. I think it is quite appropriate that the use of the fees so
derived be limited to the purposes of S.B. 201 and that it be handled in line
-with Title 20 of the streets and public easements.
The holding of the fees in trust to be paid from time to time to the school
district, I think again is an unwarranted requirement on the city and an un-
warranted restriction on the school district. There is no indication when that
"time to time" might be but the city could feasably hold up these funds for a
long period of time and leave then unavailable to the school districts to meet
their needs. This has not been the history of the relationship between the City
of Carlsbad and the school district. It has been an excellent relationship and
they have been most helpful to the school district, but I fear setting up a
system that at some point down the road could cause considerable problems.
Likewise in Section 220, the holding in trust of the fees and land is of some
concern to me. I don't know quite what is implied here by "hold in trust",
Whether this is held in trust by the school district or by the city, and how
this would affect the operation. Obviously they are to be used only for purposes
of providing interim facilities but the addition of the term "shall be held in
trust" is causing some concern and confusion on my part. All of these sections
that I have listed above, I believe, place the City Council in the position of
being the responsible party rather than acting in a ministerial capacity on behalf
^of the school districts. I think this is a dangerous position for the city to
J>e placing themselves in and an unnessary limitation on the school districts in
the process.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. I will be most interested
.to learn the results.
Sincerely,
js C. Ketcherside
Assistant Superintendent
'-San Marcos Unified School District
June 21, 1978
LH CD.SCH JUN321978'
PLANNING COMMISSION CITY 0^ ^nn' <^"^
City of Carlsbad
Carlsbad, California 92008
Attention: Mr. Jim Hagaman
This is a response to a memorandum written'for you by the Planning Director requesting
written comments concerning the proposed ordinance to implement Senate Bill 201, the
new School Fee Law. We had previously reviewed SB 201 and have presently reviewed
the ordinance prepared by the Carlsbad City Attorney. We find that the proposed ordin-
ance is consistent v/ith the terms of SB 201. It appears that the attorney has done an
excellent job in drafting his proposal.
The problems of SB 201 and the associated ordinance will come when the City attempts
to carry out the terms of the ordinance. Our company and the purchasers of land within
the La Costa area will probably be more effected by the implementation of this law than
any other areas of Carlsbad,
SB 201 provides for interim financing for school facilities. It appears that the much publicly
discussed fees of the Encinitas and San Dieguito school district are to cover permanent school
facilities (not provided for in SB 201). In spite of that, the County.of San Diego, at least
temporarily, has accepted the fees established by those two districts as being consistent with
Senate Bill 201.
In a separate memorandum we will outline to you the very obvious inequities that will exist
if the San Dieguito and Encinitas school district proposals are accepted.
If the City of Carlsbad were to accept the Encinitas'and San Dieguito school district fees as
being appropriate, our company will seriously consider testing the matter in the courts.
It does appear that the fees presently being used by the Carlsbad Unified School District are
more closely related to the intent of SB 201. . ' .
Since the hearing on June 28th has to do with the ordinance and not with the implementation
of the ordinance, we make no further comments.
Sincerely,
LA COSTA LAND COMPANY >:-
rey, Vice Presiaerpt
FJM/eem
COSTA DEL MAR ROAD • CA.ni.SOAD, CALIFORNIA O2OOO • AREA CODE 7M • TELEPHO.N E -»3e - Bill
cc: Messrs. Bussey, Biondo, Roen, Roston, Zenoff