Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1979-08-21; City Council; 5779-6; Public Facilities Fees. _ i C --. -.~_ -. “ C-J-yf OF CARLSBxL’ ;-q ,; ‘. /’ .c A 7.; 7); * SILL NC, 5779- .,---- P" /cLtpf2ulb DATE : August 21, 1979- -----7.Y C-I D~pA~<y~EIqT: ._-- Initial: Dept.Hd. -. C. Atty.yr-. c. Mgr. l!@j I--_ -.I_- ---- --I__ PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE --- Statement oJT the ?4akter - -I_-- The City Council at their regular meeting of July 3, 1979 directed staff to report on the application of public facilities fees to all future developmental discretionary approvals. The City Attorney has provided a memorandum (Exhibit B) .which provides his advice on how such a fee can be applied. I have developed a Council Policy which you may wish to consider at this time. The basis for this policy is the report received at your meeting of July 3, 1979 and the ordinance which was before the people at the last election. The Council may wish to consider the alternative discussed in the City Attorney's memorandum or defer action on the policy until the Council Committee has finished its review of the matter. In either case, your action would be to return this to staff for a further report. Exhibits A. Memorandum from City Manager to City Council of August 14, 1979. B. Memorandum from City Attorney to City Manager of August 2, 1979. c. Public Facilities Fee Report of July 3, 1979. D. Proposed Council Policy. . Recommendation If Council concurs with the proposed Policy, adopt by minute motion and direct staff to prepare the necessary implementing resolutions and agreements. Council Action: 8-21-79 Council continued the'matter to August 29, 1979. , _,” . . - .’ AGE_NDA:B‘ILL 'ND. i779 - Supplement 86 / Page 2 Council Action: 8-29-79 Council adopted the proposed policy changing the percentage to 2% and the mobilehome fee to $1,167, and directed staff to prepare the necessary implementing resolutions and agreements. MEMORANDUM DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: ThS August 2, 1979 City Manager City Attorney IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE City Council, at their July 3, 1979 meeting, expressed their intent to use the staff report entitled "A Public Facilities Fee for the City of Carlsbad -- An Analysis" as the basis for collection of a public facilities fee on all future discretionary actions and instructed the preparation of a report on how that might be accomplished. This memoran- dum is to provide the legal input necessary to assist you in preparing that report. The ability of a city to impose a business license'tax on all new construction to be used for capital facilities is well established. The constraints of Proposition 13 as:they apply to such a tax are not so clear. As you know, we advised the City Council that the prudent course of action was to submit the question of whether or not to impose such a tax to the voters. Arguments can be made that a vote is not required. The Council could simply adopt an ordinance requiring all new development to pay the fee. A majority of Carlsbad's citizens are on record as supporting that action. The ordinance would have the advantage of applying to all new construction. It could be utilized in combination with a fee imposed as a condition of discretionary approvals and a Council policy which, together, would place the City in a stronger position to sustain the validity of the fee. It seems to me that the arguments for not proceeding with an ordinance would also apply to proceeding with the fee or policy. The best course of action from a legal point of view is to defer imposing a fee until the two-thirds vote contemplated by Proposition 13 can be obtained. Assuming a decision has been made to proceed at this time, the option of adopting the ordinance should not be discounted. There is some question as to the City's legal ability to collect a public facilities fee as a condition of development. There is a problem of equity presented by the fact that the fee would not apply to building permits. The City would then be faced with funding the public facilities necessary to serve that portion of new growth out of general revenues. In addition, many of the problems emanating from Proposition 13, s,< !m * *,: ‘. . r ” ,’ _ 4 City ianager -2- that place our ability to adopt the ordinance also apply to imposing it as a fee. Assuming judgment has been made to attempt to impose a advice that we use an approach similar to the in question, the policy fee, it is our one used in the past for school fees, which would be based upon the public facilities element of the general plan and an implementing Council policy. August 2, 1979 Before discussing a public facilities fee it is useful to briefly review the school fee. The City never became directly involved in the collection of a fee for schools. The public facilities element required that, "evidence satisfactory to the City Council" be presented that school facilities would be available concurrent with need for the development. It was always possible that a developer, for instance one whose project was located across the street from a school that was not operating to capacity, could have presented his situation directly to the City Council with a request for a finding that facilities were available. With one exception, that situation never presented itself. As a matter of choice the developers elected to meet the general plan requirement by presenting a letter from the school district indicating that facilities were available. The letter was certainly not conclusive. It was always 1 possible that in spite of a letter from the school board concerned citizens could still present evidence to the Council that facilities were not available. We have been fortunate that to date the Council has not been faced with resolving that kind of conflict. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, the Council, without exception, accepted the school district's letter as constituting sufficient evidence to allow the Council to make the "availability of the facilities" finding required by the general plan in regards to schools. As a practical matter we know that the school districts would not issue a letter until the developer had entered into an agreement with the district to contribute to the provision of facilities. With one exception, which was resolved through a compromise of litigation, the City never became directly involved in the fee arrangements between the district and the developer. For a number of years that system functioned in a satis- factory manner primarily, in my opinion, because of the willingness on part of the school districts, developers and City to compromise. Applying the public facilities element to facilities or services which are the responsibility of the City is considerably more complicated. The legally preferred approach would be to individually evaluate a project in regard to all services provided by the City with a staff analysis as to whether or not each is available. For instance, a project i , /_\ * a :-, , . , .l 1% ~ .-- City Manager ,, -3- August 2, 1979 proposed for a vacant lot next door to the Elm Avenue Fire Station can make a good case that it ought to be treated differently in regards to availability of fire services from a new subdivision proposed for land east of El Camino Real. Such an analysis would require a substantial amount of staff resources, resulting in a varying fee for each project and involving the staff and the Council--a series of difficult negotiations. A less desirable alternative to a project-by-project analysis is to do one in general terms for the City. To support a fee it will be necessary for staff to evaluate all existing services and facilities in light of our current population and make judgments as to the ability of those facilities and services to serve additional development. Assuming the analysis would show that public facilities are not available, the Council could incorporate the report as part of a Council Policy on public facilities. If adequate facts can be developed to support the conclusion that facilities are not or will not be available, it will then be necessary to determine a financ-ing plan and a fee which, if imposed, would put the City in a position of being able to provide those facilities. That determination should be a part of the staff report and the Council policy. I. The following matters should also be considered in making the determination to proceed with a public facilities fee:' 1. The fee would only apply to discretionary approval and a development requiring only a building permit would not have to pay. 2. The City would have to become actively involved in the collection of the fee, requiring new administrative procedures. 3. There is no mechanism under the element to require payment of the fee at the building permit stage. Arrange- ments for payment of the school fee had to be made before the Council considered approving the project. Similar arrangements would have to be made here. It would be necessary to develop an agreement between the City and the developer obligating the developer to make the payment. That agree- ment would be accomplished as a part of the preparation of the staff report on the development. The staff report, in dealing with public facilities, would continue to require letters of availability for services to be provided by other agencies. For services to be provided by the City, the staff would simply reflect that based on the Council policy, buttressed by the facts in the staff report previously I II : z ;. . ?‘. y I ‘7 , City Manager -4- August 2, 1979 discussed, public facilities are not available and can not be made available for the development unless the develop- ment contributes to their construction and that the developer has entered into an agreement to pay his fair share of the public facilities costs necessary to serve his project therefore the staff is able to conclude that facilities will be available concurrent with need. 4. In processing agreements it's suggested that the Council adopt a resolution approving the basic form of the agreement and the amount of the fee and authorizing the City Manager to execute them on behalf of the City. 5. Agreements of this type carry the potential for involving the City in a series of problems which are now confronting the school districts, including: A. Old agreements executed at the one fee level which have been outpaced by events. B. Agreements to provide facilities which because of unforeseen events can not be provided. C. Problems with the agreements arising out of changes in the attitudes of elected officials regarding development. D. Agreements imposing obligations on the City to provide certain facilities which could significantly affect Council's ability to set priorities in the future. To summarize, assuming Council accepts the risks, we can attempt to use the public facilities element to impose and collect a public facilities fee, provided arrangements are made to guarantee the payment of the fee before developmental approvals are given. If the Council determines to proceed, rLy office can assist in preparing the form of the necessary agreement, which can be submitted to the Council with an agenda bill, and a resolution approving it, and authorizinq you to execute it on behalf of the City. We should also develop a draft Council policy reflecting the judgments that facilities can not be provided and that a fee of "X" amount is required including the factual basis for such judgments. If arrangements satisfactory to the City are made prior to approval of discretionary actions to pay the fee, then the Council will be able to find that facilities are available. For developments, which have been and will be approved, in the interim before that policy can be adopted and imple- mented, we can provide for the execution of the agreement to pay the fee prior to approval of the final map or the issuance of building permits. VFB/mla VINCENT F. BIONDO, JR. City Attorney \ 1 - A -’ \ ’ . ’ . 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 July 3, 1979 - . . I . ‘. . .d I I \ . L - . I . . . I INDEX Study Parameters Engineering News Record - Index . Poptilation 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 J 1 ‘. . * . Background The City Manager convened a study group consisting of: Roger Greer Director of Utilities & Maintenance Dave Bradstreet Director of Parks & Recreation James Elliott 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 general revenues. Proposition 13 has imposed serious restrictions upon the general fund and precluding general obliga- tion bond funding by 1 imiting 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 expectations for service, particularly those provided by local government. The existing infrastructure (facil-i- 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 ttiat 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 1,evel of accuracy 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. Approach 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 / . ” . L. / s‘pecific by irarious master plans and studies developed over the past feti . '1 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) 3ocial Services Facilities (Low Income Hospitals Public Transit Housing, Child Care, etc.) Additionally, other facilities for providing city services are the responsi- bility of the agency/contractor providing the service, and they were . excluded. These include: 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 ptipulatio?'), 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 densi'ty 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- . < .’ . m . 1 ‘, , * elf .approximately 200,000. Current population is estimated to be 30,000 - f 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 Consistent 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 si,ze 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 kr4, 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. Other facilities, notably Police, Administratjve and Maintenance were judged to be inadequate for the current population, thus only 80% of build- out requirements \vere 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 follows: Facility Total Increase At Saturation Fire $ 2,680,500 Paramedic 100,000 Government Facilities 7,420,OOO (Ad min., Police, Maint.) a Libraries 17,428,150 Parks (Neighborhood & Community) 102,862,OOO Traffic Signals 4,565,OOO Arterial Streets 42,205,OOO (Over Residential Requirements) $177,260,65@ PFF Allocation $ 2,680,500 100,000 5,936,OOO 14,814,OOO 97,369,600 4,565,OOO 42,205,OOO $167,670,100 These categories are supported by Annexes C through I. . -3- . . / .’ - ‘. a ,, I . . ,. ’ . ‘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 t.at 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: I 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 . 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 valustion 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" . / ‘, > ~’ z .a , i 1 ; ‘ * .1 a @ministration of the Fee The analysis "prices out" facilities to supportthe 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,d.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. . 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 C6P~:in 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 cdrrections 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. --9-i - -5- . . . . y3. - 1 Revision of t General Plan may result in a '1-uction in the number ~ and types of facilities envisioned by this analysis and thus reduce '. the funding required. Additionally, standards used by the analysis '8 may be modified as the rmlities of developing a comprehensive long- . ‘( term capital improvement plan evolve. These impacts should be assessed as they occur in order that the concept proferred 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 ; anb how changes to the plan may be incorporated as changing social attitudes and needs evolve. . NOTE: Attached to this report are Annexes, A through I which are made a part hereof. . This report and the annexes reference a number of studies and reports which are'incorporated by reference herein. -6- :‘- ‘. ..’ - .- _ .~. ..+.. ._ ! . - . I- i r .~ .,.... - ---.-. -.- .._ *_.__ . ..- .-.- -...-.-_- .---. _-----~- ---- .--_-.“...-_- _ . - .- ‘-. : _. j. . -_ ., . . _ . . . .- .~ : ~ : . ,- _ .I.: .._^ ._. .-.-_-- ,........ _-~ _-_._-... - ___ L ..- -_.- - ..-. -... ..__,- _ , . , -.. .- . .._ _ .~ . . r .’ :’ ;- 1.. -... Ii281 ;+ :- .: : L: .L .I :: : _ _. . . - _ ..~. -. ._. _ _ * _._.-.. -... .-_ _ a... .^ _._ - .______ _ ._.__,,__.^ --_.-.. -_.. . ^-_.- 8-t _- -. _ .._._._- . _. - .-- . :-.----- .- . .._.. ._-... __ .~ __ _ ii? _. _ _. - .._ ~_ _.. _ - .- _ __ _ ._ . . _- 0-O-i. _ . . ~. _ _ -... ._ _~..~~_ ~_ -_ _ ----E . ._ . - z . I _ .: --I ‘---‘.. y1i-i-y-~7 -. . h.. , . ..__ ..:.: . ._.~_.. _ - , _ . . * h _.._. r -.._ __-_i_ .-. --. 1 .__ * . ..___ ..__.~ _.-._ -_.- ._..._._,. --_ .g 8 , c . . ;_. . . . _ . 2 :-. : . . _ _ ~_ -. ._._ _ . - .-. . .~,~. _ io .“I .- -. E.-.. _. .___.. ._ .._ ._..... -.:::: -.s ~. _ _~ : - -.- -. .-,.-.. : _. .- :- -. .J .’ m ~‘- . . . . . . . _.-__... - .--... --. _. . . -. / --ii? .~ .._ ._ . - . _ Q) - s. .s .- ..-.-- 0 _, c, _ . . -.. ..l.. _ .’ .-t, 2 K.. . :-.. - :.k g w ..A ., -3 aL ..I. w . _ s-c, E 1 LJ .z L ” -..~‘- -.L g . . . z ::.. : .._ :g. E - .~. 2L In ,. ,w L .- . L .r _-- _-~r-,.-_-.~-..__.__-___-__ --- ____._ ____.-_ ,_._^___ __.__ ._ I_ -_-__ ,.I_ . . _ ._. ._-. ......... “. ... -_ .. ..- .. .-, ... ~_ _ ..... ~- --1- ‘- _ _ ., _ ... ..-. ....... . ... ..... _ -. .. _ _. _ - _ .. ....... . . .., ..- -. ._ ! _., ._ . - . m _ ._ ..-.-., _ . ,~. : _ . . . ._ . - . . . . . ; . . -.- _-,-..- . . . . . . . ; ,. -. . ..-. _ - .06N =j ‘V SC . . L . . ..2.i M ’ :g 3 .I h... - _.- u .-... 32 .^ ,M” ,I .; :A z 9 .w::::,- h - .d -. . . . . )Y ..;. . , , : ” .’ r I ,- ,.. : . . _ , , . . . . .,i _ _.....- _: _ . ., . _ .~ _ _-_____-_ _I --.- --__.-- I__.. ..-_-. 2.e.------ ------ -. .( - .~... _ . . : _, -. . -. - ~18‘[ ‘TT~j _. ) ._ ..- _ . * _ _._ _ _,~ . . . , . . _ . f , -.._ -. L_ ._ I .~.. . .., : ._ i. . . i ! ; .......... _ .... _ : ........ _ .. .. ; ......... o. ...... .. o ... ... , .... _ .... -. .... / _ .............. . .a.. .... .o ...... ....... : ....... _ ; ...... _ ...... k .... FL: : 52 ., ........ i .. .- .-- .. , ... ......... t ........... * )._, .. , ....... . ! I. ,..1,... : : : _~ . I ., .._. I., A&t’& A . . . ..i .- . . -\ . 1 . “S. ( r : ‘I j.. ’ . . >. . . -; *. . . . . ” 6 . . < . . . . ANNEX: Population and Land Use . . REFERENCES: Land Use Element of the General Plan . . Series IVB Population Forecasts . . Approach: The Land Use Element of the General Plan was the . poiicy document used to determine tion. The Land Use Plan and text January 1, 1979 status. Refer to Breakdown of Land Use Plan." Ir ultimate land use and popula- were updated to reflect the attached "Quantitative 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 breakdofW..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.popul&tion. Using ,1975 Census data and interpolating that data for l/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 - ^. p-s.,.--a-uE 1---.-- . . . ,,\ ‘.\ * . . -,. , . .s ’ * . . ‘, . ‘. L * .1 . I Residential Units . Existing: . . 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 .Mobile Home Units = 1,000 Commercial/Office Ultimate Acreage =' ' 1,044 Existing Acreage = 390 'Future Acreage = 654 Percentage in buildings = .25 -Building Acreage = 163.5 Building square footage =7,122,060 . . Industrial Ultimate Acreage = 2',846 Existing Acreage = 500 Future Acreage = * 2,346 Percentage in buildings = .25 . Building acreage .586.5 . Building Square Fdotage= 25,547,940 Build-Out Build- '1979 Aug. Value : out Existing Diff. ValueM. (In 000,000~ Single Family 29,000 5300 23,700 87,600 2,076 I Multiple Fami'ly 48,000 5300 42,700 49,600 2,118 Commercial 7,122,060 to Build-Out at .$34/sq.ft. 242.2 . ljndustrial 25,547,940 to Build-&t at . $lg/sq.ft. ,485.4 $4,921.6 . I ., . , .h . ‘I * , . I. * * :j. .’ . . :. -- . . . QUADJTlTAl-IVE BREAI~I~UWIN OF LANl).USE PLAN -----‘7--- . nESIDErJTIAl. I_-- I % of’ \ . TOTAL STUOY AREA ._A r-__.- - ---.e-e RESIDENTIAL AREAS Lo~w Densi I y -_ Low-Medium Density Medium Density J-746.2 ' 11.3 .18 *-- 4 4-10 1407.0 258.1 1.1 1.7 20-30 T4905.6 '100.0 . r Medium-High Density Hiqlt Density TOTAL Maximum Population at 2.6 pcople/O.U. 261760 1150753 193819 Averaye Density of Residential Areas’ . Net Density of Res. Arcas (Less 33%) l Overall Ciiy Density’ . . _ l DWELLING u~irs PER ACIIE . . TaIh. I *b .” QUANTITATIVE GREAKDOWirl‘OF LAI\!il-USE PLAN NON-RESIDENTIAL e --- - S~IORT-RANG~PUPIJI.ATION PRO.IEC1:IOFJS TOTAL $I-UDY AREA NON-RESIDENTIAL AREAS Intensive Regional Retail 1973 lj,741 1075 19,391 .,< 1980 , -9 ._ ; 5 Extensivk Regional Retail 66.5 0.3 0.L Reyional Service 35.1 0.1 0.4 Comrnunity Commercial 132 I 05 I 4 Neiyhborhood Commercidl 1 116:9 0:5 1:2 Travel Services 'i164.0 0.7 1.7 Central Business District '75.8 0.3 0.8 Recreational Commercial 296.0 1.2 3.1 Professional Office * 34.7' 0.1 0.4 Planned Industrial Governmental Facilities Table - II . -rath? - 111 Source: . 1975 Census and LPO*'s Series IVB Population Forecasts -I : _, i gures are iniluded i on purposes only, L . Note : 'These f for informat ' Rev. 2/5/79 . ‘. : ’ \ *a 31~s 82.0 acr.es in combination district.' . . . . . . * - ‘. . . ._ ---. : _. . . -. + - -4 *. ” I *. ‘_ ,, ,’ -1 . . . . * FIRE . . . Reference: ' Gage-Babcock Report December 1973 " Memo to City Manager from Fire Chief dated.&nuary 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 @ $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. Y . . . . . ANNEX C ----- --7 -- .’ . ,’ ’ A * ‘. . I. I . . I. ANNEX: PARAMEDICS ;. .'I ,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‘.Firenien/EMTs who respond to first-aid calls and are capable of' providing life-saving services until the more skilled paramedics can 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: , ' . . 2 Units X $50,000 = $100,000 Results: . .' The two additional paramedic units should be fully funded from the PFF or $100,000. : . ANNEX:D . . . . *. i _. .( ,-. .,‘, ‘1 . ,, ” * . * . ANNEX - GENERAL GOVERNMENT, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, CITY'YARD, LAW ENFORCEMENT . * Reference/Background: . . In Sune 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 f'or.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 parking 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. . ANNEX E ‘-. Category Gen. Govt. Con-m. Dev. City Yard Law Enf. . Present Description Space Utilization Office .6,037 Parking Office Parking 4,500 Office 7,300 Storage 12,700 Parking Office - 3,400 Parking . Space Needed' at Population 80%'of Space 200,000 Needed 37,600 30,080 78,500 62,800 22,800 - 18,240 47,700 38,160 20,800. 16,640 57,60.0 46,080 164;300 131,440 26,000 20,800 -90,700 72,560 Cost Per Total sq. Ft. cost $50 . $1.;504;ooc 3 188,4OC 50 912,OOC 3 114,4ac 50 G32,OOC i 230,4OC 394,32c 50 1,040,00C 3 217,68C Approximately 10 acres for the above improvements 9 $50,000 per acre 502,22C Total Sq. Ft. Office 21,237 107,200 85,760 I II II ' Storage 12,700 57,600 46,080 II II 'I Parking 381,200 304,960 Total Space, 33,937 546,000 436,800 '$5;936, OOC .I . 1 *A regression analysis i's 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. 6 - -. :,, .I. +’ . . ’ - . \’ ’ ANhEX - 'LIBRARY Reference/Background: * . During the past six years, Mr. Raymond Holt has prepared twd studies. of tie 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 constructed to serve the future City needs. l . 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 'r'eport 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 pe,r,'Branch Library are specified by the report. Assumptions: 1. The August 1978 HqlJ ,report is a correct reflectid; .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 popuJation 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: a. The City will require 0.8 sqyare 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: Central Library - 200,OOP population X 0.8 sq.ft. per capita = 160,000 sq.ft. Branch Libraries- 200,060 population X 0.6 sq.f't. per capita = 120,000 sq.ft. In addition to the above facilities, parki& 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 / .a ‘* ‘, . . 1, . _. . - .’ - - . . ’ ‘, -4 (28&,000 'sq. ft. of building) J- 4oo 'q* ft* 250 sq. ft. ) ' per parking space ..: 448 000 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. l (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. ft, = 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. Q $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 per volume 1,248,OOO .Total Cost $17,428,150 . By applying the 85% factor to the tota,l cost: Total Cost $17,428.15 X .85 = $14,814,00~ The total library cost to be supported by the Public Facilities' Fee is $14,814,000. * . . Y -2- . . . e.. /~, 1,’ ;I, ( - * . . . : . . AtiEX: Parks & Recreation -. *. . :.. . . REFERENCES: Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan . Lampman Report . Anproach: -- The committee, in evaluating the Parks & Recreatjon needs for the City of Carlsbad, used the Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan prepared by Lampman & Associates and City Staff, which set goa.ls, 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 reaT.-istic 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 81 Recreation Element of the General Plan, recommends that . . an overall 30 acres per 1,OQO 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 facilities which meet the general populous needs. Because,the actual allocation within the .' local park standard will vary w.ith the needs and priorities of the City of Carlsbad, the Public Facility Fee Committee further broke down the local park facility standards. Utilizing 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 were excluded from consideration in this analysis and are-identified as being -i 'so.urces". ,. ,,,r . . .I.’ Computations: Using the aforementioned gu goals for niighborhood and comniunity parks an anticipated projected population of 200 unded from "other revenue delines, the following standards were computed for 000 persons: Neighborhood 2.5 acres/1000 persons = 592 acres Community 2.5 acres/1000 persons = 500 acres GRAND TOTAi ;:I092 acres This computes.to a ratio of 5.46 acrcs/lOOO. + ANNEX G Y---- .. _. CLL . .^4 4’ , 'The‘City of Carlsbad presently has 39.7aacres of.neighborhood parks . and 123.95 acres of community parks that are either developed or proposed for future development. ' Existing Parks: . . . Neighborhood 39.7 Community (includes 92 acres of HUB Park) 123..95 . GRAND TOTAL 163.65 * Subtracting existing acres of neighborhdod 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 .I 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: . m 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 1934 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) Development (468 X 59,700) . * . * 823;400,000 27,939,600 . $51,339,600 -2- , ./ . w.- ‘.v* - _.) .- * \ /, .‘a ‘ ’ ./ * %\ / kL . < - Neighborhood Park Total $+6,030,000 , . .- 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. . . . ; . -3- . - - . ,.: .. i’ ,. . . ,,ANi+EX - '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- sections 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/egress from a shopping center or a manufacturing facility. e 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 . . . . .+----‘,. “, . . ,- - -. .* (. I ‘< , ! . . Jo ;,A!iNEX -'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 widened), 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. @roach: 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- s 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 NEW 3.3 mi. PFF Fraction* ,.623 Sq. Ft. 1,121,400 - cost @ $3/sq.ft. $10,125,000 WIDENING sq., Ft., 5,000,000 cost @ $3/sq.ft, $15.,000,000 Total Cost: $42,205,000 Major Arterial Sec0ndar.y Arterial 14 mi. . i6.9 mi. .512 .375 3,072,OOO 3,375,ooo $9,216,000 $3,364,200 1,000,000 -' 500,000 $3,000,000 $1,500,000 ANNEX I . ., L’. _- . . ‘, _ - The width factor of total width.less residential width divided by total width; i.e. .106-40 = .623 106 Results: $42,205,000 for Arterial System Construction or widening to bk - . supported from the PFF. . . I . . . . . . . . ’ . : . -29 -“.I__ ---I _ -’ ‘_ .--- I A . Page 1 of 4 L - 1^ LTY OF CARLSBAD Policy No. 17 . a’ 'COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued General Subject: Requirements Necessary to satisfy the Public Specific Subject: Facilities Element of the General Plan Supersedes No.17 issued copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Iieads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File BACKGROUND: The Public Facilities Element of the General Plan requires that before giving approval to zoning, rezoning, development or redevelopment proposals, the public health and safety and the general welfare of the community and all its citizens require that the proponent of any such actions shall present evidence satisfactory to the City Council that all necessary services and facilities will be available concurrent with need. For those services and facilities provided by another entity, the Council has and will continue to be guided by a letter of availability from such entity. For those services provided by the ,City, the Council has previously.,relied on a report of availability from the City Staff. On July 3, 1979 the City Manager reported that in the future such services and facilities could not be made available to new development from the City's resources. PURPOSE: -- 1. To establish a policy ,regarding the requirements which must be met before the City Council will find that the Public Facilities -Element has been satisfied. 2, To establish a policy that will allow development to proceed in an orderly manner while insuring that the requirements of the Public Facilities Element will be satisfied by establishing a fee to fund the cost of City-provided facilities, including but not limited to: Parksl major streets, traffic signals, storm drains, bridges and public buildings such as fire stations, police facilities, maintenance yardsI libraries and general offices which will insure they will be available concurrent with need. POLICY: 1 In determining whether or not service provided by another entity will b;? available concurrent with need in connection with a development, the Council, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, shall be guided by a letter of availability from that entity, provided, hbwever, developments which are required to dedicate land or pay fees for school facilities pursuant to Chapter 21.55 of the Carlsbad blunicipal Code, shall be deemed to have satisfied the Public Facilities Element in regard to schools for that development without the necessity for an availability letter. -.., I . .- 1 - -i Page 3 of 4 I .- - *. * ITY OF CAELSBAD Policy No.17 ,' --' 'COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT Date Issued General Subject: Requirements Necessary Effective Date Specific Subject: to satisfy the Public Facilities Element of the General Plan Cancellation Date des No.17 issued Copies to: City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, Department and Division Heads, Employee Bulletin Boards, Press, File traffic signals, storm drains, bridges and other-similar projects as the Council may deem necessary and appropriate. Designation of expenditures of funds available from the 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. 6. The following exceptions from payment of the fee shall apply: (a) The construction of a building or structure or mobilehome space which is a replacement for a building or space being removed from the same lot or parcel of land. The exception shall equal but not exceed the tax which would be payable hereunder 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, .: (b) Accessory buildings or structures in mobilehome parks, such as a 'club house, swimming pool, or laundry facilities. (c) Buildings 0.1 structures which are clearly accessory to an existing use such as fences, pools, patios and automobile garages. (d) 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. 7. There is excluded from the fee imposed by this policy: (a) Any person when imposition of such fee upon that person would be in violation of the Constitution and laws of the United States or the State of California. (b) The construction of any building by a nonprofit corporation exclusively for religious, educational, hospital or charitable purposes. ,-. -’ L. _., .--_ . , L is > I :. - . . ^ :, ROBERT S. WALWICK STEPHEN M. L’HEUREUX Jim Hagaman Planning Director City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 I $..) _ ,*’ .r t /TJ’ i *‘, ,‘, (“i/ : i’ ; LAW OFFICES ROBERT S. WALWICK 322 NORTH NEVADA PHONE 722.4221 AREA CODE 714 AUG 24 19-19 POST OFFICE BOX 701 OCEANSIDE, CALIFORNIA 92054 August 23, 1979 planning i3eparinienL Re: Citizens Public Facilities Review Dear Jim: As requested by the Commission, I have prepared a letter to the Council concerning the Commissioners availability to serve on the Public Facilities Review Committee. I would appreciate it if you would distri- bute a copy of this letter to all members of the Council and,.tomembcrs of the Commission in their packet. Very truly yours, SML-:mw , { @z- STEPHEN M. L'HEUREUX . 1 . _. -_-I - . . - -., . . . , .’ . I .- . . .I,. . / . - j ,% i L * 1 i ROBERT 5. WALWICK t STEPHEN M. L’HEUREUX r LAW OFFICES ‘ilOBE~T 3. WALWICK 3.22 NORTH NEVADA POST OFFICE aox 701 OCEA>uS;lDE, CALlFOq~iA 92CS$ August 23, 1979 Honorable Ronald C. Packard, Mayor City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad, California 92008 Dear Mayor Packard: AREA CODE 71-S TELEPHONE 722-4221 The members of the Planning Commission are gravely concerned and deeply interested in the current problem facing the City con- cerning the lack of public facilities, and its resulting impact upon development. To that end, they have requested that I convey ta you and the Council their willingness to serve on the Citizens Public Facilities Review Committee now being formed. In view of . the very pressing need to resolve this issue as quickly as possible, the members of the Commission feel that.their expertise in having grappled with these problems during the last several years could help expedite the resolution of this matter in an expeditious manner, and be of true benefit to the Council and to the City at large. It is the Commission's sincere belief that the issues to be decided by . . . the Citizens 3ublic Facil;ties Review p LomirGttee are of far. reach- ing consequences to the City, its future growth and development. Accordingly, your commissioner's, both individually and as a body, stand ready to assist you in any manner possible. Very truly yours, STEPHEN M. L'HEUREUX Chairman, Carlsbad Planning Commission SML:mw cc: Members of City Council Members of Carlsbad Planning Commission _ : . . I i .j r-r- CL-r*. .? ‘% . August 25,1979 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City council, City of Carlsbad, 1200 Elm Avenue Carlsbad,Ca.92008 Honorable Sirs: I have read with interest the City Attorney's 14emorandum to the City Manager dated August 2, 1979, and the City 14anager's 14emorandum to the City Council dated August 13, 1979, relative to certain proposals to effect a Public Facilities Fee. I also note that you have scheduled a ??orkshop" type discussion of these matters by the Council for Wednesday evening, August 24th. As I understand the gist of the plan under discussion, it would provide a means whereby City Council would, by adopted policy, reject any proposal for discretionary development for which the staff had not certified that facilities were available, said certification being contingent upon payment or promise of payment of a Public Facilities Fee. My sole reason for presumin- a to submit any input to your '&eliber- ations at this point is that I have strongly felt that my earlier effort, whether or not effectivei in o~pnsitinn to the City Council's well intentioned submission of the issue to Public vote occurred at the wron g end of the deliberat:ivc process. Therefore, solely as a private concerned citizen, 1 humbly submit the following observations. I believe that were you to decide to go ahead with some form of the proposed plan: 1. 2. 3. h strong political objection could and would be made to an apparent by-pass of Proposition 13. The temptation to re-assess and increase the amounts of fees against discretionary developments in order to replace fees not collected from construction under building permit would be strong --- and inequitable. Competitive considerations would increasingly deter discretionary development. - (Continued on Page 2) e./ , t- - . #F de .,a ‘ -, 1 . f. -I’ , ., - * d I’ . * a‘ L ’ 4 f’ ’ I August 25, 1979 The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Page 2. 4. Discriminatory application against different types of new construction would inevitably be challenged at great expense to all concerned. 0n the other hand, it is rn9 personal belief that a more compre- hensive analysis of the sources and amounts of increased income that will become available with Carlsbad's growth, coupled with a more modest proiection of Public Facilities needs over the forseeable futbre; might well lead to a more acceptable proposal as to the rate of fee to be imposed. This, plus the removal of some of the alleged discriminations inherent-in the rejected ordinance, could well earn the favorable vote of many of those who opposed the original proposal. 7104 Santa Barbara Carlsbad, Ca. 92008 - h DATE: AUGUST 13, 1979 TO: CITY COUNCIL FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE Attached is a Council Policy which may be used to implement a Public Facilities Fee for development which will require City discretionary approval. The City Attorney in his memo dated August 2, 1979, discusses the implication of such a fee being imposed by ordinance to all development or only being applied under the General Plan Public Facilities Element. If the Council,in discussing this issue, determines that they will apply it to all development, the matter should be returned to the staff for preparation of the necessary documents rather than utilizing this policy. In the City Attorney's memo he also briefly discusses applying a general fee to development versus evaluating development on a project by project basis. The policy as prepared, applies the general fee in the same manner as the previously proposed ordinance. It is my view that each new development impacts public facilities on an incremental basis which is more or less equal, and therefore, applying the same fee to all affected development is most equitable. My primary concern in considering a case by case evaluation of development is,that without proper standards, the decision of when and what facilities are required would require many subjective judgments. While it may be possible to develop standards, it would take a significant amount of additional staff work, possibly many months. Eventual work on a long term Growth Management Plan may provide a basis for this. Even then I believe that it may be shown that the general fee is as, or in fact, more equitable. If during Council discussion you have questions which are not answered, the issue can be referred back to the staff for further work. PAUL D. BUSSEY City Manager PDB:ldg Att.