The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About1979-07-03; City Council; 5779-5; Public Facilities Fees (Analysis). . . / . \ 1 - . . . ’ 1 * *CITY OF CARL&AD . AGENDA BILL NO: DATE: DEPARTMENT: 5779 -SUPPLEMENT NO.5. .July 3 I 1979 City Manager . Initial - Cty. Mgr. . SUBJECT: PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE ANALYSIS Statement of the Matter The final report of the committee to study the Public Facilities Fee has been submitted to the City Manager and is attached hereto. Because the 5 public facilities fee was approved by a majority rather than a 2/3 majority at the special election on June 5th, it is questionable whether or not the fee can now be applied to all future development. However, to stay con- sistent with the adopted Public Facilities Element the,City Council may wish to apply the fee as a condition-of-approval to all future discretion- ary actions of the City or on's per unit basis 'as a condition .of building . permits. Such a condition has already been applied to the Calavera Hills Master Plan (MP-149 (A)). EXHIBIT A.. Public Facilities Fee Analysis B. Excerpt from Calavera Hills Master Plan, MP-150(A), outlining * conditions. RECOMMENDATION . - 1. 2. . . . 3. . Accept the attached Staff Report by minute motion. If the Council intends to .implement a Public Facilities Fee per 'the condition in the Calavera Hills Master Plan to cover the deficiency between the expected revenues from the project and projected costs for all,necessary public services and facilities 'as required by the General Plan, Council should request staff to return with a specific analysis of revenue a'nd costs for Council consideration and action. If it is the Council's additional intent to use the attached report as a basis to collect a Public Facilities Fee on all future discretionary actions of the City,.instruct staff to prepare a report on such an action for futther Council considera- . tion, and action. e Council Action 6-19-79: Council continued this matter to July 3, 19794 -. . Council Action Continued on Page -2- : A. b _ I . .a h 1 F’ . Agenda Bill 5779 - Supplement July 3, 1979 Council Action 7-3-79: Council accepted the outlined on Page 1. staff recommendations as Council directed that a citizens' advisory committee be appointed to study the analysis and recommend to the Council am#ounts and whether or not the committee feels that the matter should be placed before the electorate again. . . *. . - A PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE FOR THE CITY OF CARLSBAD AN ANALYSIS. .PROJECT TEAM Dave Bradstreet - Parks and Recreation Director James Elliott - Assistant Finance Director Roger Greer - Director of Utilities &'Maintenance Michael Zander - Planning Associate I . . INDEX Study Parameters Engineering News Record - Index Population Projections Fire Requirements Paramedic General Govt., City Yard, Law Enforcement Library Parks and Recreation Traffic Signals Arterial Streets Ordinance 6059 1 - 6 Annex A Annex B Annex C Annex D Annex E Annex F Annex G Annex H Annex I Annex 3 . . .- . - PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE (PFF) . AN ANALYSIS Background The City Manager convened a study group consisting of: Roger Greer Director of.Utilities & Maintenance Dave Bradstreet Director of Parks & Recreation James El 1 iott Assistant Director of Finance Michael Zander Associate Planner to study the means by which, and the amount of, a Public Facilities Fee (PFF) could be implemented in the City of Carlsbad. Historically, public facilities had been provided by developers as a condition of development to serve that development, by general obligation bonds which provided the facility (often after need had been far exceeded), revenue bonds, joint power agreements or from geheral revenues. Proposition 13 has imposed serious restrictions upon the general fund and precluding general obliga- . . -tion bond funding by limiting property tax revenues. Proposition 13, although reducing current property tax revenues and limiting anticipated future property tax revenues, did not limit or restrict the public's need or eipectations for service, particularly those provided by local government. The existing infrastructure (facili- ties to support existing population) may be sufficient to support current .-- levels of service to the present population. We have assumed that reduced revenues provided under Proposition 13 must be allocated to provide funds for operations, maintenance and replacement of current facilities; however, new facilities to support the needs of new residents must be provided by them or by other revenue sources. Other revenue sources may include user fees, grants, gifts, assessments based on benefit, or perhaps innovative new revenue sources developed within the framework of Proposition 13. It is presumed that other revenue sources are at the whim or discretion of other political bodies and can not be relied upon with any degree of certainty. The dependability of such sources is most suspect and one has only to look at the revenue sharing, block grant programs and at the current State. Legislative maneuvers to-change sales tax distribution, to recognize that city governments can not project revenues to support their needed future facilities with any predictability. The alternative, then, is to require future facility costs required to support new residents to be provided by these new residents. It is this philosophy on which a Public Facilities Fee is based and will be equitable to all residents, both present and future, with,the level of accurac.y by which these facilities can be projected. The purpose of the Public Facility Fee is, quite simply, to provide future facilities needed by future residents and is not to generate revenues for any other purpose. 4pproac h * . The study group initially reviewed all policies', plans and other pertinent information. The General Plan projects the present population's philosophy of the size, form and quality of life that Carlsbad will be in the future. The General Plan provides the basis for projecting what facilities may be needed in the future. The General Plan is made more * - . , . . . : specific by var ious master plans and stud i es developed over the past few years. Facilities projected by these plans were costed by updating costs developed by the studies,by the construction cost index (Engineering News- Record Index, or ENRI - see Annex A), as of the date of the publication updated to July 1979, or by current market values. It became evident early in the considerations that many facilities could not be provided throughout the entire city area solely by City Council decisions, or were provided by other funding means, and these were excluded from consideration. These include: Water Systems Schools and Colleges Sewerage Systems Storm Drainage/Flood Control Parks (Regional and Special) Social Services Facilities (Low Income Housing, Child Care, etc.) Additiona lly, other facilities for providing city serv bility of the agency/contractor providing the service, excluded. These include: Hospitals Public Transit i- ices are the respons and they were Solid Waste Collection Cable TV Animal Control Street lighting is already provided by Assessment District proceeding and was not included. The remaining facilities were identified to be funded, either completely or on a pro-rata basis (current population vs. future population), from the Public Facilities Fee: Fire Paramedics Police Library Administration Maintenance Parks (Neighborhood and Community) Traffic Signals Arterial Streets Population Considerations The population load at saturation must be considered in determining facilities needs,as many city services directly correlate to population levels, whereas other services are not directly population dependent:(i.e., fire station locations are based on response time to locations within their areas of primary concern). It was necessary to make population projections based on the best available information currently at hand. Current density approvals were therefore applied to the General Plan land use designation rather than maximum/minimum density considerations. Thus, the medium-high density (lo-20 dwelling units/acre) were computed out on the basis of the current density approval history, which is about 15 *dwelling units per acre. Additionally, current family densities per dwelling unit were considered in arriving at a "saturation" population -2- . .-. + . - . . I ’ of approximately 200,000. Current population is estimated to be 30,000 - population.growth to build-out, then, is considered to be 170,000. Annex B provides a more comprehensive discussion of the population fore- cast rationale. The CPO series IVB population forecasts, if projected to build-out population, indicates that the population of 200,000 would be . approached in the 2037-2051 time frame. This analysis did not address phasing of construction of facilities nor did it attempt to develop a method to prioritize such construction, rather it is believed management of the present Capital Improvement Program provides the best means of providing facilities Gonsistent with need. The time frame of 2037-2051 for saturation to occur is provided only to establish a perspective for the reader, in order that they may appreciate the magnitude of the pro- gram. To further set the perspective of time and population, Carlsbad, at saturation, would be the approximate size of present-day Anaheim, Santa Ana or Fresno and somewhat larger than Riverside, Torrance or Huntington Beach. Discussion : Current public facilities and those that are funded, but not yet con- structed (swimming pool, La Costa Canyon Park, Carlsbad Boulevard widening/ -bike lanes, Paseo De1 Norte and Palomar Airport Road traffic signal, etc.) were considered to be adequate for or would be funded by the current population. Thus, additional facilities such as Fire Station #4, new arterials, Elm and El Camino Real traffic signal, were considered to be the,responsibility of new population and should be fully funded,by the PFF. c : ..Other facilities, notably Police, Administrative and Maintenance were judged to be inadequate for the current population, thus only 80% of build- out requirements were attributed to new growth and allocated to the PFF, . with the remaining 20% in place or to be constructed from other revenue sources. This reasoning was carried throughout the analysis in order to ensure "equity" as much as possible. The final PFF calculations are as Facility Fire Paramedic Government Facilities (Ad min., Police, Maint.) * libraries Parks (Neighborhood & Community) Traffic Signals Arterial Streets (Over Residential Requirements) 42,205;OOO f177,260,650 14,814,OOO 97,369,600 4,565,OOO 42,205,OOO $167,670,100 These categories are supported by Annexes C through I, . follows: Total Increase At Saturation $ 2,680,500 --~00,000 7,420,OOO 17,428,150 102,862,OOO 4,565,OOO PFF Allocation $ 2,680,500 100,000 5,936,OOO -3- -. Developing the Fee It became evident during discussions that a fee, simple to administer, was needed in order to not unduly complicate the collection process; yet one which was reflective of increased facilities costs. It is considered that the building permit valuation, although lower than market value, is up- dated frequently and thus generally reflects increased facility costs and consumer prices. A percentage of building permit valuations would be simple to administer and collectable at permit issuance. A "build-out value" of $4,921,600,000 for all new residential, commercial and industrial development was then developed at the average cost of current building permit valuation. Annex B provides this rationale. The percentage of building permit value to be generated by the PFF can be determined using the following formula: PFF Funds Required Total Build-Out Valuation = % of building permit valuation Substituting the values developed produces the following: $ 167,670,100 = 3 4j% $4,921,600,000 l It should be recognized that the 3.41% of building permit valuation determined by this report provides "full funding" of the selected facili- ties by new growth. It is recognized that new growth also produces "new revenue" to the City from increased gas tax returns, sales tax generation and revenues derived from "new business" that develop to serve this new growth, notably service type businesses that in and of themselves do not create a proportionate need for City services and thus these "new revenues" have funded capital facilities. This may be identified as a ' "secondary revenue generation factor". The Study Group was aware of this factor but was unable to develop a precise rationale to determine what this factor might be, nor were we able to find a satisfactory rationale in the literature reviewed. This factor was recognized in the economic analysis of the Calavera Hills Report by Levander and may be found in the discussion of "fixed and variable" costs; the various North-City West financial impact analyses; and was brought out in discussions with developers and representatives of the Building Contractors Association. Council, in their action of April 3, set the maximum limit of the PFF at 3% of the building permit valuation when setting the June 1979 special election. The secondary revenue generation factor, among other con- siderations, was weighed in setting the maximum at something less than the "full funding" factor developed by this analysis. It may be argued in a mathematical sense that the maximum set by Council provides only 88% of the cost of these facilities ($147,648,000) or a 12% shortfall ($20,020,000). However, the argument is only valid in the context of a "full funding" rationale. It also presumes a precision in the various assumptions and generalized cost factors used in the analysis that.may not be warranted. Suffice to say, the secondary revenue generation factor should be the subject of further analysis in order that its exact impact may be included in future considerations. . -4- Administration of the Fee The analysis "prices out" facilities to support the General Plan purpose of the fee is to provide funds for these facilities in The the historic means of funding. lieu of It is a "facilities-in-lieu" fee quite similar to the Present "park-in-lieu" fee collected under authority of the Quimby Act. The PFF, however, has a broader application than Quimby, which applies only to subdivided land, in that all new development will contribute to park development. Provisions for a credit to the PFF liability should be included (and have been in Ordinance 6059 - Annex J) for those contributions of land or fees under the provisions of Chapter 20.44 of the Subdivision Title of the City Code. The park-in-lieu ordinance is presently under revision and consideration that the PFF, if enacted, fully meets the Quimby authority may be appropriate. Additionally, a credit procedure for the construction and dedication of other facilities included in this analysis may be appropriate,if the PFF is implemented. Such a procedure is incorporated in the "Road Improvement Fee Policy" of the City of Thousand Oaks, whereby off-site improvements critical to a particular development off- set the improvement fees on a dollar-for-dollar basis (Western City - May 1979, page 8). Additional research and analysis will be required in order to incorporate such a credit procedure in future ordinances in order that the procedure be technically and legally viable. I Monitoring the Program The Capital Improvement Program process is considered adequate for establishing the priorities of construction of the facilities funded by the PFF. Funds generated by the PFF are to be established in a specific account and should be considered as a separate section of the C6Pl:iri order that segregation of funds can continue throughout the decision-making process. It is considered inappropriate to categorize the fund or set up separate funds for each category of the PFF since it is the responsi- bility of Council to establish priorities. Segregation of funds by Fund encourages "possessory interest" by affected departments and may work counter to the Council's decision-making responsibilities. It would be desirable to expand the existing Public Facilities Management Program in order to test, on a year-by-year basis, the progress of the PFF in pro- viding funds to meet the total facilities program. It is anticipated that "corrections" in both the facilities and the rate of revenue generation may be required as the City grows towards saturation. A Facility Management Program would also be useful for the total CIP and should be considered by Council in the near future. Conclusions 1. A Public Facilities Fee, based upon 3.41% of building permit valua- tions, will offset the full costs for selected facilities required by the present General Plan. General Plan updates or updated Elements of the General Plan must be correlated with this analysis in order to make any corrections to the facilities list. . 2. The 3% maximum set by ordinance includes considerations of the secondary revenue impact factor of new development, although this analysis was inadequate to fully quantify this factor. -5- 3.' Revi'sion of tt,. General Plan may result in a r Action in the number and types of facilities envisioned by this analysis and thus reduce the fundirlg required. Additionally, standards used by the analysis may be modified as the realities of developing a comprehensive long term capital improvement plan evolve. These impacts should be assessed as they occur in order that the concept preferred by this study remain valid. 4. Resolutions to implement this program should be developed in such a manner that credit for facilities constructed by developers can offset the full amount of fees required. A full agreement as to the appropriate offsets and facilities to be constructed can become a part of the discretionary process at the time of Final Map approval. These considerations can be included as conditions placed upon the Final Map. 5. A Public Facilities Management Program should be considered in the near future in order that revenues generated by the PFF can be tracked to match actual construction and costs of,facilities. This program will assist Council in establishing priorities for construc- tion of facilities. Recommendation Council, upon endorsement of the concept of a Public Facilities Fee by the electorate, should instruct staff to develop a comprehensive plan for integrating the results of this study with the Capital Improvement' Plan. This comprehensive plan should consider the means by which funds developed by the PFF are to be managed; establish priorities of which facilities should be constructed and their locations, consistant with developing growth patterns; and how changes to the plan may be incorporated as changing social attitudes and needs evolve. -6- ... -- ! j ._. ;-. . . . _/ -. i~j::.L,T.X.~. : :.x[.$I . . . ..-._- -.+ L__-.-.--_.--_e 7- --.. --- -_-.I l- . _- c . . . ..- :- -- - . . . . . 4 :-. f . ;- ,~ _-.. _ ~~ . . . .f.: -_ -...... _-_-_-- __ ,.__._._ -_- _ _ - +--- ..-. _--.- - ---L. ----. .-.- --.--i. -.-. -- ------:- -. - .- ..- j. - _ .-. ._ _ _ . _ i-- -- ‘- *. ..c- A---- .-..._- __._~___.._ .--.- ._,. -- .--._._ - ..-_ 4. ._ . ..~- _--_-.- ._. .._ _ ..- f . . .._ ., ._ -. -.._ _ f _ : . ..- ._ . . . . . ,-... _~_ _- _._.. -..r- . ..--_.. -, ;..-... . _ ..-. L : _..’ ,_. ..__.; r.- . -. . .- ._ ._ . . .,-.‘-f ._ . .--_ - _ ._ __ - -. - 7 _- _. -.-- . . . . . . - :- ._r- . . . _ - :-let _.._ ,_ .-_._-._. t--.--‘---.-.TTTT..f-‘ T -- .- -. ..-- A.. _ - __._ .-_ ._ L_- * ,____ --;v- -’ -- -- T ; - 7 -- ---;;~ Q1 _ ~. _ . . . - _ :- _ ~_ ~. --. I. _ - _ .-... . _ ___-_. , __. . - .-~ . 1.----- _ ---.- _ _ .i.- d---.-.-b- -f-.----..--*- ---. -..- - --..; - -- -..- - .- --; . . .._ -_.-_. --_ ._. -...+ -..--.-- ____ -.+-..-- -.-__. --+ . ..- - -- -- ---- ----I-- ----- .-- -..- r .--- - . . - _.- ._. .- ._._.. -- ._-- + _-... - __ _.__ -. ..-_ . _-.. _~ . . _ _ -..- _- .- ~..-T _..__ _ .: . .._____. _. . -.; ..- _-__-- :-- _-_- -_-_ _- -+-..--1..__ -_--_ -._ y--yx- --.r.w - -.-..-. r.‘-- - ---- _ --..-- ..-.A --_-- _.-._. ;--_--.-- -.. -.. .-.. -... .~. ..~._. _. i. .-;..-.-. _. -. . . . . . --~--_-.. - --=W ; * _.-- __---_ - i. .-.:.;-z::r:: T-E: --. .: --1 - -__. - ..-.- ._.. - -- ..__ ----.- -.-e:.--. - _._ \ .- -~. ..--- -1 --. -- -.._ -. . ._ --. . ---__- .._. ._ ___- .___... _--_ ----c.-. -. ..-.-_ - _. _ .- --. - .-- ---;- *-.. .----A . ..~. . . ..---- -_---__- ___-- ____..._.__.. --- . . . . . + -_-... -._ ---~-.--.-.‘-.~ -- f.- -_.- . -._ - . . ..- c.-_----.-. -_--___._- .._.. - - \ --FIEE.... .I. - .- -- -..- - . . . - & ..-_ --.---L--.. - _. _ ~_ .- -.._ -_ L.- ___. _-. --. --- -. _.. - .-_ .--... . -_. - -_-__-- .._.._ t _____ --.--_-_-._-__. .__._~_ 1 .- ._.. -*- .-.._.. _^L _.._.. _. ----_-_- ___ -_-_.--..- ..__ - -.._ -..-.--* -’ &--..-- _ --:-- .\ __--~- _.___ -_ ___-___ ---__ __. - _-..-__ -_- _._. L.-. _. ..- ._ _. y.L-m.. ; _. _ - . r -_._-- _ __ ._ ._. l~‘-..c~’ ~. _ _ _. . +- . - - --_--- .-L------ -~ .-_ 4 -.* - _.---._ - I-. I-- . L_ ,. . . . - -..-- _ _.I.. ,.._ _ _ _ .- . ..- . I-. . _ _ -.:..--.~ .~_... _.... -. .__~.___ \ . . _-... -. . : . - -- _ .’ ; -- ‘. . . . _ _ . . 7 _ _ -_~ _, ,r I---- -.2-~ -- ..-.. ---_-,.- __.._._ --.--.---c-. ?..- _ . ..~_ -.__-.- -_-_---- -_--_l_ \ CL-----. .-_. _ ~__!--. _ _..A._ .__.._- -_ k - _-_._ ._~~____ +-- .-’ h -.-- e-i.-----.i -_--_ ;p--.-.-.&+ ‘----*----- -------.+-P--L. __ -. * _~-.*.-._ -.. _--._ G- -.- - /- . . - _ . Q) : _ .r ._--- --- -- --.--_- . ..- _L__ . - ^ .- .___ -.-. .._...._ - _... --A- _ _ .__. _....--_ -.- . . *-T..-...w. _ ._- _.._ --~. A-- _ .._ -. ..-.-_ _ I. .~. ._. ~. .__- . . . - _- .-.. __ __._.__ -.- .___ +------- . ..~. ;..-----. -.-- -._ ..I -- --- _. . - _ t .~_._ .._. --_ ..-... .- .-?.--I--_-. . . ..* -.--7 - _-.- .-..--.-. .~. - ~_ _ . . - ~.~~-- ._ - Q, ( . _ _ .~. - i.- . ..-. . .._ :. _ . i .._ .-- __... E.. :..- ..-_ - __.._.-_ m-&. -- . .._. ~_._.._ _.__ -_ _-..- _.-. __ ._ ._- . ..-. --., -.- _~ _- .-.. f _.. _...._ . .- - -i--- ---_--_-.?_- , -- _.--- -- i -f~ +-.1-*- I_~ _ .r ----1.-+- _._f_...___ ~..-- L ..__ .-_ __._._ 2 ._.._.-. ..c.c- ..~.. ~. _ . _ - --_ -_r_ .- _..-_. L.-..-. -( -.- .-.. . . . . - .--. _ .___ 1.. .__--._-._ __.. -_ -r ___ ._* -___- - _ i -I_.:Ll- . . . .Wl’c --z- , - - i * . - . . -- *... .-.. _-. _ . .--i-- -. -. .___.__. - -_ r-~ . . . . + _ ._ . i . . -. _ ~ . . ._ 4. - -~. ..-._ _ * - . . , - . ..I . . ,. I. . . . _ 1 , ‘..: . * . ..__. __-___- . . .L..- .._. _ .-.. __ . . ..~..i ,.__ _-.*-.--_ -.... _. .- ..__.. .; . ..~... ..--. _ -! . . . . -.)p..---. . . _. . . . . . . . . .-. r ,:. .I._ -. ._. , ..~.. --.- _.__ *-_- -.- -- --.---.-.-“-f - _I... *. _--_.-. -4.. ..- 1 .._ --- .,-.- . * ._ _ . . . . . ._ .) . I _ . _. _, ., . , . , - 1 f . . . . _. *_ ,_ _.~. i-i .:::.:- :. .j .I.: I i - ‘-1 ‘.-.I ,-- ‘- * * *. .. i- . .A . ,_, I . - . , , , I -, , i i- . . , - , ., , .I , * v i , * . ,-a , .-. , ‘-r ,-. * , , . . .., .- . c . I . , ., : , . . . . . . <.:. ,...,,,,’ -.-..-..--+.A . . ..-._. i.... .._,. -+. _ --. A .+.. .-._. *+ -. + c :: I :..:: 1. _. . _ 1 .,. - _. * . . . i. . ‘ . . .-, . I- ---.- -- . . . .*’ . . _ . - t I , . ..~. -_ _ . , . _, _ _ , ” . _ : ..b -..,. ,_ . . . . . ..: . . . . _ i . . . L . -.. * . . . . -, .-. ..,.. _ . . . _, _ . i I..~. . . 1 ““. .,_.. ,,. . . . . . ANNEX: Population and Land Use- ' REFERENCES: Land Use Element of the General . Series IVB Population Forecasts . . Plan Plan was the Approach: The Land Use Element of the General . policy document used to determine ultimate land use and popula- tion. The Land Use Plan and text were updated to reflect January 1, 1979 status. Refer to the attached "Quantitative Breakdown of Land,Use Plan." Assumptions: The attached table represents a quantitative breakdown of the various land uses designated in the Land Use Element of the.Carlsbad General Plan; The General Plan repre- sents by law a policy guide for future growth in the City. The Land Use Plan is defined as an ultimate, or "saturation" plan, i.e., a description of the expected land uses in the City at some future period of time at total development. Computations: The quantitative breakdown includes a projected population range of 150,753 to 261,760 with a mid-range figure of 193,819. For the purposes of this study, the committee chose to use 200,000 as the projected ultimate population. Current popula- -tion was estimated at 30,000. Existing population, therefore, . accounted for 15% of the ultimate.population. Using 1975 Census data and interpolating that data for 1)1/79 figures produced the estimates of existing residential units. Then, using the quantitative breakdown, the committee projected the ultimate number of residential units. The ultimate'amount of commercial and office acreage was developed by simply adding all of the commercial and office categories in the quantitative breakdown. The ultimate amount of industrial acreage was estimated by adding the Planned Industrial and Non- Residential Reserve categories in the quantitative breakdown. Existing acreages in both of these categories was interpolated from data contained in the City's 1973 land use inventory. It was further estimated that 25% of the commercial and industrial acreage would be covered by buildings, Results: Population Existing Population = 30,000 Ultimate Population =200,000 . . * . . . * . . ANNEX B * . * _.-- _. .-. *. .’ . Residential Units Existing: l . . . Single Family Units = .5,300 Multiple Family Units = 5,300 Mobile Home Units = 700 Ultimate: . Single Family Units = 29,000 . Multiple Family Units = 48,000 * I Mobile Home Units = 1,000 Commercial/Office Ultimate Acreage =' . 1,044 Existing Acreage = 390 . Puture Acreage = 654 .25 . Percentage in buildings = 3uilding Acreage = 163.5 Building square footage =7,122,060 -3ndustrial Ultimate Acreage =. 2';846. . . Existing Acreage = 500 . Future Acreage = -- 2.,346 . . Percentage in buildings = .25 : : : : . Building acreage 586.5 Building Square Footage= 25,547,940 . : Build-Out Build- 1979 Aug. Value out Existing Diff. Value($).. (In 000,000) Single Family 29,000 5300 23,700 87,600 . Multiple Famiiy 48,000 5300 42,700 49,600 Commercial *&dustrial . 7,122,060 to Build-Out at $34/sq.ft. 25,547,940 to Bujld-Out ai ..$lg/sq.ft. . 2,076 2,118 242.2 ,485.4 $4,921.6 . * . . . . . 1 RESIDENTIAL AREAS ‘. I. ‘9 . . . .t 18.4 10384 (x7] 19223 I 28i40 I 14070 I 21105 (xi! /20-30 I 7743 ] 5162 )--??I- I 1 1006// 1 57982 1 74546 ‘I Maximum Population at 2.6 oeoplc/O.U. il t 261760 (150753 &3819 Average Density of Residential Areas’ Net Oensity of Res. Areas (Less 33%)’ , I ‘, 6.8 3.9 5.0 10.1 k3 ,' 2..4 7.5 Overall Ciiy Density’ 4.1 3.1 i ‘- , l DWELLING UNiTS PER AWE -8 . . . I 2 . . I i J b ! . . . I QUANTlTATiVE ETtEAKDOVli\l’OF LAM&USE PLAN NON-RESIDENTIAL - Acres %oF %of . . w TatJI TYPE TOYAL STUDY AREA 1 24386.7 -- NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS 1 9481.1 33.9 1 . Intensive Regional Retail 1 122.6 0.5 ) 1.3- Extensive Regional Retail 66.5 0.3 t 0.7 Regional Service 0..4 Community Commercial . Neighborhood Commercial 0.5 1.2 Travel Services 0.7 1.7 Central Business Oistrict I '75.3 -0.3 t 0.8. Recreational Commercial I 296.0 1.2 3.1 Professional Office * 34.7. I 0.1 Planned Industrial 836.7 ) K' Governmentd Facilities 405.8 4 ::; 413 Public Utilities . 187.4 0.8 2.0 Schools 454.7 7.9 4.8 Open Space 4543.4 18.6 47.9 1 Non-Residential Reserve 2009.4 , , 8.2 I 21.2 TOTAL 1 9481.1 1 1 100.0 Table - II .; . . . plus 82.0 acres in combinati,on district. . . '. . -. '. + l * . . I SJJORT-RANGEPOPULAl?OM PROJECTIONS 1. POPULATION . Table - 111 Source: 1975 Census and CPO'S Series TVB Population Forecasts Note: 'These figures are included for information purposes only, l Rev. 2]5/79 . . . . . . __--. . . _. *.. * . . \’ -- .I” -* . - .I II. \ . * * ,’ . . . ANNEX - FIRE . * Reference: Gage-Babcock Report December 1973 Memo to City Manager from Fire Chief dated January 9, 1979 , .Approach': The Gage-Babcock report projected requirements through popula- tion 100,000; however, the basis for station locations is based on response time to cover population centers not on density of population. Land,requirements, station requirements and costs (modified by the ENI) 'and equipment requirements as outlined on page IV-10 were used. Assumptions: 1. That the present stations (3) and equipment were adequate for the present population. 2.- That the facilities requirements as modified by the Fire Chief in his memo of January 9, 1979 (add Station 7 at La Costa Boulevard and Ranch0 Santa Fe Road) are adequate to meet the needs of population 200,000. Computations: Land' - 3/4 AC/Station X 4 = 3 Acres . Training Facility and Headquarters = 2 Acres . (co-located with Station 5) 5 x $50,000 $' '250,000 Land Improvements ($1,090,000 X $1.538) ' 1,665,500 . Training Facility 200,000 . Equipment - 4 'Pumpers 8 $110,000 = $440,000 ' 1 Aerial @ $125,000 = $125,000 565,000 . TOTAL $2,680,500 Results: The PFF should provide $2,680,500 for Fire facilities. * . . , * . . . . : . . . . ANNEX C . . . : . --. ,--- -, , ‘ . ,I ANNEX: PARAMEDICS . . ; . . . . ,Reference: Discussion with Chief Thompson . . . 'Approach: Current standards for paramedic service are set at one unit per 60,000 population, capable of responding within five minutes, Paramedics support .Firemen/EMTs who respond to first-aid calls and are capable . . providing life-saving services until the more skilled paramedics can of respond. Based on this criteria, two additional paramedic units would be required to support the saturation population. Paramedic units currently cost $50,000 per unit. . * Computation: . 1 . . : : 2 Units X $50,000 = $100,000 Results: . . . . The two additional paramedic units should be fuli'y funded from the PFF or $100,000. . . . . : . . . . . . . . . . l ANNEX..0 . . . . . . ” . . . . . . . - . . . .__. . * I’. ., ‘--+ . . . ANNEX - GENERAL GOVERNMENT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CITY YARD, LAW ENFORCEMENT Reference/Background: . In June of 1977 the City contracted with SUA, Inc., a management consulting firm, to perform a space utilization and needs study of the City Hall, City . Yard and Police Department. The results of this study, presented to the Council in January of 1978, were used as the basis for predicting space needs for these functional areas through population 200,000. . . Approach: The SUA report includes.data on the current utilization of space, the amount of space necessary to house the present City staff and projected needs through population 45,000, 60,000 and 100,000. The SUA data was used as the basis for a modified regression analysis* to project needs through population 200,000. Since the present City Hall and Yard (serving 15% of saturation population) represent 20% of the total space requirements at population 200,000, the remaining 80% of the projected needs (which will serve 85% of the maximum population) should be attributed to new growth. The types of space required were divided into three categories: office, storage and parking space. A cost per square-foot factor was assigned to each type based on information from the Building and Engineering Depart-. ments. This cost factor was then multiplied by 80% of the total space requirements of that type for-each functional area giving a cost for City facilities at build out to be provided by the public facilities fee. This' process is illustrated by the Computation Section below. * . . Assumptions: The following assumptions were used during this analysis:' 1. The SUA report is a correct reflection of present and future needs. 2, The SUA report does not reflect parking space requirements. 3. Construction costs for office space will be $50.00 per square foot excluding land. 4, Construction costs for storage space will be $5.00 per square foot excluding land. . 5, Construction costs for parkiig space will be $3.00 per square foot. 6. 10.09 acres of land at a cost of $50,000 per acre will be required for these facilities. 7. Community Development includes Engineering, Planning, Public Works, Building and Parks and Recreation. 8. General Government includes Mayor and Council,, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, Finance, Treasurer, Personnel, Purchasing, Switchboard/Receptionist and Housing Authority. . .ANNiX E * ._ 0’. . . . . .- . . *,’ . Present Cateqory Description Space Utilization Gen. Govt. Office ,6,037 Parkt'ng Space Needed" at Population 80% 'of Space Cost Per Total 200,000 Needed Sq. Ft. cost 37,600 30,080 $50 $l';504,000 78,500 62,800 3 188,400 .Comn. Dev. Office 4;500 ,22,800 * 18,240 50 912,000 . Parking 47,700 38,160 3 114,480 City Yard Office 7,300 20,800. 16,640 50 832,000 Storage 12,700 57,600 46,080 Parking 164,300 131,440 f 230,400 394,320 Ldw.Enf. Office - 3,400 '26,000 . 20,800 50 7,040,000 Parking 90,700 72,560 3 217,680 Approximately 10 acres for the above improvements 0 $50,000 per acre 502,220 Total Sq. Ft. Office 21,237 107,200. 85,760 . , II II 'I Storage 12,700 57,600 46,080 41 II " Parking 381,200 304,960 . * Total Space. 33,937 546,000 436,800 ', '$5;936,000 a . . . . 1 *A regression analysis is a statistical tool that allows historical data to be used to predict future conditions. This process takes into con- sideration the non linear relationships that may exist in the input --variables, -...--. _ _... . . . . . . . .- . * Ccc *L- ‘_ -\, . . . -* . . . ANNEX - LIBRARY I . Reference/Background: . I During the past six years, Mr. Raymond Holt has prepared'twd studies of 'the City of Carlsbad Library Master Plan. The second study prepared in August of 1978 was.used as the basis for calculating needs through the saturation population. This report indicates that one Central -Library and four Branch Libraries should be cfnstructed to serve the future City needs. Approach: The August 1978 report includes data on the square foot per capita requirements for library service and the number of volumes needed per library to serve the City needs. The report references two types of .library facilities: a Central Library requiring, 0.8 square feet per capita and the Branch Libraries requiring 0.6 square feet per capita. In addition, approximately 39,000 volumes per Branch Library are specified by the report. Assumptions: 1. The August 1978 Hqltreport is a correct reflection .of . the need for library services. 2, -The cost of construction of library facilities will be: a. $50 per square foot for‘building. b. $3 per square foot for parking. c. $8 per volume for books'. 3. The saturation population is 200,000. . . 4. That current library facilities adequately (not ' optimally) .'meet current population needs. . 5. .85% of all library costs should be supported by new '-development based on the assumption that 15% of the saturation population .already exists. . 6. That the additions to the Central Library book stock will be provided by other'revenue sources. The present book stock of the Central Library is considered as an existing "core" upon which the Central Library will continue to build. Computations: The Halt report suggested the following: 3. The City will require 0.8 square feet per capita for a Central Library facility. . b. The City will require 0.6 square feet per capita for Branch Library facilities. So, at saturation, the total square feet of library facilities may be . calculated: Xentral Library - 200,000 population X 0.8 sq.ft. per capita = 160,000 sq.ft. Branch Libraries- 200,060 population X 0.6.sq.ft; per capita = 120,000 sq.ft. In addition to the above facilities, parking space is required at a ratio of one space for every 250 square feet of building. (Each parking space, including landscaping, sidewalks, lighting, etc. occupies 400 square feet.) . ANNEX F , . , i- . - _. 0.. h. . . .* . . . - - (280,000 sq. ft. of building) ( 400 sq. ft. 250 sq. ft. ) ' per parking space = 4489000 sq* ft* The total square footage required to provide these facilities is 280,000 .sq. ft. of building plus 448,000 sq. ft. of parking or 728,000 sq. ft. - (16.7 acres). Books will be required to stock the Branch Libraries at a ratio of 1.3 books per square foot (the Central Library book stock was excluded from this calculation). l 120,000 sq. ft. of Branch Libraries X.1.3 books per sq. ftt = 156,000 volumes. The.cost of the land, building, parking and book stock was calculated as follows: Land approx. 16.72' Acres @ $50,000 per acre $ 836,150 Building Space 280,000 sq. ft. @ $50 per sq. ft. 14,000,000 Parking Space 448,000 sq. ft. @ $ 3 per sq. ft. 1,344,ooo Books 156,000 volumes 8 $ 8 per volume 1,248,OOO .Total Cost $17,428,150 By applying the 85% factor to the total cost: Total Cost $17,428.15 X .85 = $14,814,000 The total library cost to be supported by the Public Facilities Fee is $14,814,000. . ~ . . . . . . 'ANNEX: Parks & Recreation . REFERENCES: Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan Lampman Report . F The committee, in evaluating the Parks & Recreation needs or the City of Carlsbad, used the Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan prepared by Lampman & Associates and Ci.ty Staff, which set goals, policies , and guidelines relating to acquisition and development for a city-wide system of parks and recreation areas. The committee also analyzed and examined nationally accepted parks and recreation standards and proposed rea,listic guidelines for the City of Carlsbad as they related to population projections and other demographic and geographic factors. . -, ! ,.!’ ,& Assumptions: Standards for park and recreation facilities as noted In the Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan, recommends that an overall 30 acres per 1,090 people should be given consideration, of which half should be devoted to regional facilities and half, or *approximately 15 acres per 1,000 persons, devoted to local facilities. The local park standard includes a combination of local parks, riding and hiking trails, school play areas, that have been designed for public recreational use, and other public factlities which meet the general populous needs. Because.the actual allocation within the local park standard will vary with the needs and priorities of the City of Carlsbad, the Public Facility Fee Committee further broke down the local park facility standards. UtiTizing the National Park and Recreational Standards, it recommends that 2.5 acres per 1,000 persons . be dedicated to neighborhood and 2.5 acres to community parks, for a total of 5 acres per 1,000 people. Additionally, the City has sub- scribed to the need for a central or hub park, which is considered to be beyond these standards. The hub park, although including many of the community park aspects of active recreation facilities, meets total City needs rather than generally considered as community needs. A community park is about 20 acres and serves a smaller cluster of population than the hub. The committee, because of their inability to class,ify the hub park, included it as.an additional requirement under the community cetegory, thus the requirement 'will be stated as 592 acres (500 plus the hub) in all computations. Special use (equestrian, aquatic, etc.) and regional parks w&-e excluded from consideration in this analysis and .are identified as being funded from "other revenue sources". Computations: Using the aforementioned guidelines, the following goals for neighborhood and community parks standards were computed for an anticipated projected population of 200,000 persons: Neighborhood 2.5 acres/1000 persons = 592 acres Comiuni ty 2.5 acres/1000 persons = 500 acres GRANb TOTAL '; '1092 acres This computes to a ratio of 5.46 acres/lOOO. - . ANNEX G . Y+ I %’ . a... . -- - *. . . A /‘- . . *. - . . : The City of Carlsbad presently has 39.7xacres of neighborhood parks and 123.95 acres of community parks that are either developed or proposed for future development. ' Existinq Parks: Neig hborhood 39.7 Community (includes 92 acres of HUB Park) 123.95 GRAND TOTAL 163.65 --Subtracting existing acres of neighborhddd and community parks from the Public Facility Fee standards results in the following park area requirements for projected population of 200,000: *. ‘. -. *. ., ... ._ . . Neighborhood Proposed 500 acres Neighborhood Existing 39.7 acres Neighborhood Total Required 460.3 acres Community _ Proposed 592 acres Community Existing 123.95 acres .. Community Total Required 468.05 acres The acquisition and development cost for park areas were formulated by the following known data: ,. .' An analysis of land acquisition cost indicated that the average cost of land throughout the developed area of Carlsbad is approximately $50,000 per acre. Development cost ranged from $50,000 to $59,760 per acre depending on the degree of development between neighborhood and community parks. .The cost was verified by local park contractors and by using the 1974 Lampman Report average cost of park development per acre of $40,000 times the Engineering News Index percentage increase of 49.4, which equalled $59,760 rounded off to $59,700 per acre for community park development. Currently owned parks (including the hub) are considered to be'the responsibility of the present population and should be developed and funded from revenues other than the PFF. The present ratio is 5.4 acres per 1000. Results: . Neighborhood Park Cost' Acquisition (460.3 X. 50,000) $23,015,000 Development (460.3 X 50,000) 23,015,OOO $46,030,000 Community Park Cost * . Acquisition (468 X 50,000) ' $23;&0;000 Development (468 X 59,700) 27,939,600 . . $51,339,600 . . i l . . e.. . s * .’ /-- . -- . Neighborhood Park Total $46,030,000 Community Park Total 51,339,600 GRAND TOTAL $97,369,600 . . . ' It must be noted that periodic analysis of the. goals and objectives should be reviewed in order to meet the existing and future needs of the City,of Carlsbad's park and recreation facility needs and requirements. . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . ’ . : . . -39 . . . . . . . . . . .mi - . / l . 3 : 9 . - . i ANNEX - TRAFFIC SIGNALS , . . . Reference: Memo from City Engineer to City Manager dated October 6, 1978 "Proposed Ordinance For Traffic Installations” . Approach: Enclosure 2 of the proposed ordinance was a listing of probable future traffic signals based upon the Circulation Element of the General Plan. This listing, developed in 1976, was updated by deleting inter- secti0n.s that had been signalized to date and by applying the ENI to the . 1976 cost data. "Interconnects" were also deleted as being a responsi- bility of present population. The updated list of signalized intersections is attached. Assumptions: It was assumed that intersections currently constructed were necessitated by current population and. all future signals were necessitated by future growth. Additionally, it was assumed that the intersections identified would, in fact, require signalization and did not foresee the possibility/probability of new technology substitute for the signali,zation requirement. Additional intersections requiring signalization that serves only one project or facility were not included and, although the need was recognized, it was considered more appropriate that these signals be fully funded by the developer. Such an example might be the requirement for the -developer to fully fund a signal which accommodates access/egrqss from a shopping center or a manufacturing facility. - Computations: Summation of the costs of the attached list was $3,225,000. Applying the ENI increase of 19.85% results in $3,865,000 today cost. Additionally, 10 intersections identified as "probable" requirements were added at $70,00O/intersection. This results -in a total signalization requirement of $4,565,000. .Results: $4,565,000 to be fully funded from the PFF. All other inter- sections, not identified, would be funded from some other revenue source. * . . ANNEX H - . . . . . ._A . . / l . . . i * . . ANNEX - ARTERIAL STREETS . Reference: 'Circulation Element of the General Plan Current City Road Surveys and Standards . . Approach: The Circulation Element of the General Plan was analyzed to determine the existing and remaining mileage of arterials to be con- structed. Arterials Gere defined as Prime (106 ft. curb to curb); Major (80-82ft. curb to curb); and Secondary (64 ft. curb to curb). Residential streets or equivalent (half street improvement in arterials) would continue to be the requirement of the developer/owner. Assumptio;s; The present arterial system," with the exception of Tamarack wldened), is sufficient for current population. The Tamarack widening project is a responsibility of‘current population and, as such, would be funded from other than the PFF. .Present arterials which will require widening (3rd lane of El Camino Real, 2nd and 3rd lanes of Palomar Airport Road, etc.) are considered to be necessitated by future growth and would be funded by the PFF. Current cost of construction was assumed to be $3.00 per square foot on the average for all construction. Approach: Arterial distances were measured by planimeter from the circulation map of the General Plan and square'foot requirements: were computed. -- Assumptions: That the present policy of "half-street" improvements .. : would be required of fronting development (residential street require- ', ment). The additional width required was considered to be required of arterial users. No considerations were included due to non-city " resident's use of the arterial systems. Palomar Airport Road, from El Camino Real to Linda Vista, was considered to be "widening" although it is recognized that there is need for major realignment. -. Computations: . . Prime Arterial Major Arterial NEW 3.3 mi. PFF Fraction* ,623 Sq. Ft. 1,121,400 cost (P $3/sq.ft. $10,125,DoD . WIDENING Sq. Ft. 5,000,000 cost @ $3/sq.ft* $15,,000,000 Total Cost: $42,205,000 14 mi. ,512 .- 3,072,OOO $9,216,000 1 ,ooo,ooo $3,000,600 Secondary Arterial i6.9 mi. ~, .375 3,375,ooo $3,364,200 500,000 $1,500,000 : ANNEX I : . . e I, 6 : 1. * . . . . . ‘. . . . * PFF Fraction - The width factor of total wi.dth less residential width ' divided by total width; i.e. 106-40 = .623 106 a Results: $42,205,000 for Arterial System Construction or widening to bk . supported from the PFF. ., . . . . . . l . : . . . -> -.-_ ,( _- _I - . ,.. . ‘.. * . . . EX-"‘:IT A TO RESOLUTION NO. 5723 -. .-. 1 II ORDINANCE NO. 60'59 2 3 4 5 I * . ‘,AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA AMENDING TITLE 5 OF THE CARLSBAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY THE ADDITION OF CHAPTER 5.09 TO PROVIDE * FOR THE PAYMENT OF TAXES ON NEW CONSTRUCTION AND FOR THE USE OF SUCH TAXES FOR PUBLIC II FACILITIES. ._ 6 THE PEOPLE OF*THE CITY OF CARLSBAD DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: . . . 7 SECTION 1: That Title 5 of the Carl&ad Municipal Code is 8 amended by the .addition of Chapter .5.09 to read as follows: 9 "Chapter 5.09 . 10 ADDITIONAL LICENSE TAX ON.NEW CONSTRUCTION 11 Sections: . . . 2 12 5.09.010 Purpose'and intent. 5.09.020 Definitions. 8 co 2 8 13 5.09.030 Imposition of tax-.-amount. 'ii< 8 -0 5.09.040 Credit. . 'us 14 E&2$ 5.09.050 Time and place of-payment. $29 5.09.060 Refunds. 3 15 5.09.070 Disposition of proceeds: fund created. u:. 5a UJO guma IL6 5.09.080 Exceptions. I- > zW8d l 5.09.090 Exemptions. -q-$, 17 5.09.100 Construction prohibited. .. .' '. 5.09.110 Tax liability: enforcement. c u 5.09.120 Effective'date. 18 : G 5.09.010 Purpose and intent. The City Council hereby , 19 declares that the license taxes required to be paid hereby are assessed pursuant to Section 37101 of the Government Code 20 of the State of California and the taxing power of the City and solely for the purpose of producing revenue. This chapter-isnot, 23. adopted for regulatory purposes. The continued development of the City, with the consequent increase in population and in the 22 use of public facilities, has imposed increased requirements for such facilities, including'but not limited to parks, major streets, 23 traffic signals, storm drains, bridges and public buildings (such as fire stations, police facilities, maintenance facilities, 24 libraries .and general offices). The necessity for such facilities results directly from new construction and the need cannot be 25 met from ordinary City revenues. The most practical and equitable method of paying for such facilities is to impose a tax upon new 26 construction in the .City. 27 5.09.026 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter the following words and phrases shall have the meanings rcspcctive- 28 ly ascribed to them by this section. * .,- .._ 14.. :. - .~ . .-.... *’ 4 ..- _ -2 -. . .E I - 1 .- 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 9 19 20 21 l 22 23 24 . .- I * . . 4 1) building, 'in a "Mobilehome space" means each 'space, area or trailer park ormobilehome park or other place,. designed or intended as a place to accommodate any.mobilehome, trailer, van, bus, or other vehicle or mobile' structure, at a.time when the same is being used as living or sleeping-qua?ters for human beings. (2) "Person" includes every individual, firm, partner- ship, joint venture, association, trust, corporation or any other group engaging in construction activities itself or through the services of any employee, agent or independent contractor. 5.09.030 Imposition of tax--amount. (a) In addition to any other fee, license or tax required by this Code, every person constructing or causing to be constructed or erected any building or structure in the City of Carlsbad for which a building permit is required, shall pay a license tax in the amount of 3% percent of the valuation of the building or structure established pursuant to this Code for determining the building permit fee. (b) The developer of a mobilehome park shall pay a license tax fee of $1,750.00 for each mobilehome space. The license tax for mobilehome spaces shall be automatically increased or decreased on January 1 of each year by the same percentage as the percentage of increase or decrease in construction costs between December 1 of each of the two-immediately preceding years, for which purpose construction costs and the increase or decrease therein shall be based on the Engineering News-Record' Construction Cost Index. (c) For the alteration of Residential structures; or mobilehome parks the license tax shall be computed only on the square footage of additional dwelling.units or mobilehome spaces, if any, resulting from the alteration, and for the alteration of other buildings or structures, the license tax shall be'computed only upon the additional square footage, if,any, resulting from the alteration. 5.09..040 Credit. ‘A credit toward the license tax imposed by this chapter shall be given for land which has been dedicated for park purposes or for any fees paid in lieu thereof pursuant to Chapter 20.44 of this Code. The credit shall be applied to , the fee for a building permit for construction on a lot which was part of a subdivision which was subjected to satisfy the requirements of Chapter 20z44. If land was dedicated, the fees which would have been required in lieu of such land at the time it was dedicated shall be determined. Such amount or the actual amount of fees paid shall ten be apportioned to each of the lots in the subdivision. The part of such amount attributed to the lot in question shall be a credit against the fee imposed by this chapter. 25 5.09.050 Time,and place of payment. The license taxes 26 imposed pursuant to Section 5.09.030 shall be due and payable at the Office of the Building Director, City Hall, Carlsbad, , 27 H/ 28 /// ' 2. ~~ 1 . . e.. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 . -t - . . . . . California, upon issuance of the building permit. The tax for a mobilehome space shall be paid prior to the issuance of the first permit for the construction of‘such space or if such construction is performed without a permit, at the time when construction is commenced. No permit shall issue until the tax is paid. a 5.09.060. Refunds. If a permit for construction work expires or if such permit is revoked and if during the one hundred-twenty days following the expiration or revocation date of the permit the permittee files written application for a refund in the office of the City Clerk, there shall be a'refund of the entire tax paid. There shall be no refund if any construction work has been perform- ed nor shall there be any partial refund. In the event of a refund it shall be unlawful for any person to proceed in any way with further construction without first'applying for another building permit and paying the tax imposed by this chapter. If no refund is made and a permit expires after ;gork has been performed, a new building permit shall be requi,red and the tax imposed by this chapter shall be paid provided, however, a credit shall be given not to exceed the tax paid in connection with the expired II permit. . . . . 5.09.070 Disposition of proceeds; fund created. (a) All proceeds from the tax collected pursuant to this chapter shall be paid into a special capital outlay fund of the City entitled "Public Facilities Fund" which fund i_s hereby created. The fund shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and equipping public property, and public improvements and facilities including but not limited to the, following types of capital projects: Public buildings (such as fire stations, police facilities, maintenance and yard facilities,. libraries and general city offices) parks, major streets, traffic signals, storm drains, bridges and other similar projects as the Council may deem necessary and appropriate. : (53) Designation of expenditures'of funds available from the Public Facilities Fund shall be made by the City Council in the context of approval of the City's annual operating and capital improvements budget or at such other time as the Council may direct. At the discretion of the City Council, funds may be accumulated in unlimited amounts for expected future capital ' improvement costs. (c) The Citv Council may loan general funds or other funds to the Public Facilities Eand and use the proceeds from the tax imposed by this chapter to repay such loans. 5.09.080 Exceptions. There is excepted from the tax imposed by this chapter, the following: (1) The construction of a building or structure or mobilehome space which is a replacement for a building or space beinq removed from the same lot or,parc,el of land. The exception shall equal but not exceed the tax which would be payable here- under if the. building being replaced were being newly constructed. If the tax imposed on the new building exceeds the amount of this exception, such excess shall be paid. 28 . II n 3. . , I- * . s_ ‘. 1 2 3 '4 5 6 7 8 9 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2.7 -. . . . .- T.. . . -\ *_ . . . . ,- $2) Accessory buildings or structures in mobilehome parks, such as a club house, swimming pool, or laundry facilities. (3) Buildings or structures which 'are clearly accessory to an existing use such as fences, pools, patios and automobile garages. (4) The City Council may grant an exception for a low cost housing project where the City Council finds such project consistent with the Housing Element of the General Plan and that such exception is necessary.. In approving an exception for low cost housing' the City Council may attach conditions, including limitations on rent or income levels of tenants. If the City Council finds a project is not being operated as a low cost housing project in accordance with all applicable conditions, the tax, which would otherwise be imposed by this chapter, shall immediately become due and payable. . II 5.09.090 Exemptions. There is excluded from the tax imposed by this chapter: 1. Any person when imposition of such tax upon that person would be in violation of the Constitution and laws'of the United States or the State.of California. 2. The construction of any building by a nonprofit corporation exclusively for religious, .educational, hospital or charitable purposes. 3. The construction of any building by the City of Carlsbad, the United States or any department or agency thereof or by the State of California or any department, agency or - political subdivision thereof. , 5.09.100 Construction prohibited. -It shall .be unlawful for'any person to erect, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move, improve, make, put together or convert any buildi.nq or structure in the City, or attempt to,do so, or cause the same to be.done, without first paying the tax imposed by , this chapter. 5.09.110 Tax liability; enforcement. The taxes imposed by this chapter are due from the person by or on behalf of whom a residential, industrial or commercial building or mobilehome space is constructed, whether such person is the owner or a lessee of the land upon which the construction is to occur.* The Building Director shall collect the tax due hereunder. The full amount due under this chapter shall constitute a debt to the City of Carlsbad. An action for the collection thereof may be commenced in the .name of the City in any court having jurisdiction of the cause. The City Manager shall be responsible for the administration and enforcement of this chap&r. His.decisions may be appealed to the City Council whose .decision shall be final. /// . 4. .’ ‘ *’ * . ‘. ; (I.- .’ I . * 1 .- . - * I- . -I . , c 2 3 ‘4 5 6’ . . 7 '5.09.120 Effective date. The taxes imposed by this Chapter shall be applicable with respect to building permits for construction activities,' issued on or after April 1, 1979. Any person constructing one or more dwelling'units, or other- wise engaging in construction taxable hereunder, pursuant to a building permit applied for on or after said date, or applied for before said date but not actually issued until on or after said date, shall be liable for payment of said tax irrespective of whether said tax was collected at the time of building permit application or issuance. 'No occupancy permit shall be issued with respect to any completed structure or construction taxable hereunder, unless and until the proper tax due has been paid. 8 . 9 10 SECTION 2: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, ciause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason held*to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision 11 of a court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall 12 2 . . %g .ii :: 13 aa Q, -0 - UJQ .14 Bt;Z$ EGO Sk au- c?3;i! 1s b_>W” zwzsti 16 Lu 2 2 Q $3 8 55 it l7 E u 18 19 not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the ordinance. The City Council of the'City of Carlsbad hereby \ declares that it would have passed this ordinance, and each section, subsection, clause or.phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, clauses or phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. . SECTION 3: The City Council may amend this ordinance from time to time to add exceptions or adjust the rate or 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 '28 application of tax or make such other changes as they determine to be necessary provided, the rate of'the tax to be imposed by this ordinance shall not be increased and the purposes for which the funds can be expended shall not be changed. SECTION 4: This ordinance, being an.ordinance relating to taxes for usual and current expenses of the City, pursuant to Section 36937(d) of the Government. Code shall take effect immediately upon its passage. Before the expiration of . fifteen days after its passage, this ordinance shall be 5. ' '3 2 9 c .4 E E 'i E s .lC 11 12 . 1.2 14 15 1E 17 1E 19 2c 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 . -. , . . . -11 . - published once in the Carlsbad Journal, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of . earlsbad. . PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a meeting of the City Council of the City of Carlsbad heid on the 1979 by the following vote, to wit: ' day of AYES: NOES: ABSENT:. RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor ATTEST: ALETHA L. WXJTENRRANZ, City Clerk (SEAL) ' : . APPROVED AS TO FORM: ' ' VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR., City Attorney . . . 6. . . . . . /- * . , . . .- “: - . . c .- i * #.4 khibitB Excerpt fram Calavera Hills -iaster Plan MP-150(A) that the area will be serviced by the North County Transit Authority as is the entirety of of the City of Carlsbad. As noted earlier, the site development plan for Villages E-l, E-2 and K shall include provisions for transit stops to the satisfaction of the Planning Commission. 9. Flood Control Calavera Hills shall meet all requirements of the San Diego County Department of Sanitation and Flood Control and the City of Carlsbad as deter- mined by the City Engineer, in providing flood control facilities to neighborhoods as they are developed within this Master Plan. 10. Future Public Facilities Sites The need for additional police, fire and library facilities for Calavera Hills is a future possi- bility. The determination of timing and location of these facilities will involve a decision by the City of Carlsbad as to their need. A site of approximately one acre of land within Village E-2 shall be reserved for acquisition by the City for public facility purposes. ..The City Council shall determine the specific si'ze and location of the site as a part of their approval . * of development within Village E-2. The developer agrees to convey the site free of liens and encumbrances ,at any time upon receipt of written notice by the City. The price to be pa-id by the City shall be $25,000..00 per acre. If the site is not acquired by the City within ten years from the date of recordation of the subdivision map that includes the site, this condition shall be _ void and the area shall be allowed to develop privately. - 11. Public Facilities Fee Prior to the issuance of building permits within this Master Plan, the City shall establish a public facilities fee schedule in an amount sufficient to cover the deficiency between the expected revenues from this project and projected costs for all necessary public services and facili- ties as required by the General Plan. The fee shall be paid on a per unit basis by the developer as a condition of the issuance of building permits. If a citywide public facilities fee is adopted, this condition shall become null and void.. -41-