HomeMy WebLinkAbout1982-01-19; City Council; 6873; Revision of Park-In-lieu feeCIPw OF CARLSBAD - AGENDA BILL
46#(9g73 TITLE
HTG.1/19/82-
Revision of Park-In-Lieu Fee
DEPT.-
OEPT- HD=OJP CITY ATTY
CITY MOR. a
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1.
2.
Adopt Resolution No. L7Gf reducing the number of park districts
from 7 to 4.
Direct staff to prepare the necessary documents and resolutions to:
A. Adopt a Standard Fee for the computation of the Park-in-Lieu
Fee as presented in the attached report.
B. Require private developers to pay both the Park-In-Lieu and Public Facilities fees. Credit will not be granted towards either fee.
dedicate land; developments of approximately 200 acres or less will be required to pay fees unless determined otherwise by City Council.
private open space.
C. Require developments of approximately 200 acres or more to
D. Eliminate the 25% credit granted to developers for providing
E. Instruct staff to evaluate land values on an annual basis.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
On November 24, 1981 during the City Council meeting, staff made the
following recommendations:
1. Adopt the Standard Fee calculation.
2. Reduce the Park Districts from seven to four.
Council approved the reduction of the park districts. A resolution
reducing the number of districts from seven to four is attached. However, staff was directed to research and substantiate the proposed value of land indicated in the Standard Fee, Park-In-Lieu computation.
On January 5, 1982, City representatives met with land developers from the K-Mar and Woodward Companys. The experts agreed that $2.00 per square foot in District 1, 2, 3 and $2.50 in District 4 were reason- able estimates of land value.
The City has also received correspondence on November 23, 1981 from the
Construction Industry Federation. The Federation is in agreement with
Staff's proposal.
FISCAL IMPACT:
If City were to receive the fee only, the following is projected at build-out (year unknown) . Fee -
A: Existing Formula
B. Proposed fee
$23,632,080 $28,020,480
EXHIBITS :
A. Letter from the Construction Industry Federation dated Nov. 23,1981.
B. Agenda Bill No. 6820 dated November 24, 1981.
C. Resolution No. 4768 i
.. - _- A
ASSOFATED SAN DIEGO ENGINEERING GENERAL CONTRACTORS BUILDING CONTRACTORS AND GENERAL OF AMERICA ASSOCIATION CONTRACTORS ASS"
438 CAMINO DEL RIO SOUTH. SUITE 206. SAN DIEGO, CA 92108 (714) 299-5363
November 23, 1981
Mr. Frank Aleshire
City Manager
City of Carlsbad 1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, Ca 92008
Dear Frank:
We have had the opportunity to review the
Park-in-Lieu Fee memorandum dated October
Revision of the
21, 1981.
We agree that the formula method of computing fees is complicated, and time consuming to both staff and the builder.
Most of =ha larger cities use the standard fee. In addition to the obvious advantages such as simplicity, it materially assists in long range planning for parks since it is easy to determine the revenues that will be available. The same applies to the builder in that he quickly determines his fee.
The recommended fees are slightly higher than the City of
San Diego, but within the average Statewide.
- We believe the City should consider additional options or items such as credit for deduction of land for park and open space purposes, and, provide the builder the option of building
the park for the City in lieu of paying fees. The latter has
worked very well in the City of San Diego.
Accordingly, CIF would recommend you adopt the "Standard Fee",
and reduce the park district areas from seven (7) to four (4)-
Again, thank you for inviting our comments.
further service, please let me know.
If we can be of
Legislative Director * --sa- EXHIBIT A
CIT-OF CARLSBAD - AGENC" BILL
,e#- TITLE:
IEPT. P R
Revision of Park-in-Lieu Fee
~TG. 11-24-81
DEPT. HD.~
CITY MGR~
CITY ATW-
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Staff prepare the necessary reports and resolutions to:
1. Adopt Alternative I, the Standard Fee.
2. Reduce the Park-in-Lieu Districts from 7 to 4.
Authorize the City Attorney to prepare the appropriate documents
to :
1. Amend Municipal Code 20.44.070 and 20.44.080, the Park-in-Lieu
Fee Computation.
ITEM EXPLANATION
Staff has been directed to revise the computation that determines
the Park-in-Lieu Fee. This will amend Municipal Code 20.44.070
and 20.44.080.
The existing formula is inequitable, cumbersome, time-consuming and
outdated.
Two alternatives have been proposed by staff to simplify the procedure for computing the fees.
Alternative I
Standard Fee - (Used by most cities in California) See Exhibit A.
Alternative I1
Percentage Fee - (Revision of the existing formula) See Exhibit A.
PARKS AXD XECREATION COMMISSION
The Parks and Recreation Commission at their meeting on November
16, 1981, voted 4 to 1 to approve staff's recommendation of
Alternative I, the Standard Fee.
During the discussion, due to the varying land cost throughout the City, it was suggested that instead of a flat fee, that each developep at the final map process be responsible for providing an approved appraisal that would provide the current market value of the property.
Standard Fee Computation. The fee would then be calculated as per the Alternative I
This approach is feasible, but was felt not practical for the follow- ing :
1. City may be criticized for the additional cost of the appraisals that may be passed on to the ccnsumer.
EXHIBIT B J/
11-24-81
2. Appraisal costs could be more than the Park-in-Lieu Fee
collected.
3. The appraisal could be time consuming and cumbersome and
may cause delay of the project.
4. There is a possibility of manipulation of the appraisers.
5. Inequities in appraisal may occur.
6. The need for a park is the same, therefore, the charge should
be constant for all developments.
7. A small development must pay a higher percentage of revenue for an .appraiser compared to a larger development.
FISCAL IMPACT -
Staff projected the estimated revenue acquired from the Park-in-
Lieu Fee at build-out (year unknown).
A. Existing forumla (Exhibit 2 1
Fee
$23,632,080
--
I B. Proposed fee (:<::hibit 3 1 34,249,392
EXHIBITS
1. Memorandum dated November 10, 1981 to the City Manager.
2. Park-in-Lieu Computation at Build-Out for the Existing Fee.
3. The Park-in-Lieu Computation at Build-Out for the Proposed Fee.
M E M 0 R A N 3 U M
x
TO : Frank Aleshire, City Manager FROM: David Bradstreet, Parks and Recreation Director
DATE: November 10, 1981
SUBJ: Revision of the Park-in-Lieu Fee
Background
Staff has been directed to revise the computation of the park-in-lieu fee, Chapter 20.44 of the Municipal Code. The
existing formula is inequitable, cumbersome, time consuming
and outdated.
Problems
Numerous problems have been associated with the existing fee
schedule, which are:
1. 'Unreasonably low fees because of the Proposition 13 tax
rollback.
2. Unreasonably high fees due to the current land values multi-
plied by six (61, necessitating the applicant to appeal to the City Council.
3. Numerous developers complaints about the fee.
4. The complicated computation process that takes a considerable
amount of staff time.
It is also suggested for flexibility of fund disbursement that
the park districts be reduced from seven (7) to four (4).
(See Attachment I).
A1 t e rnat i ve s
Two alT2rnative methods of computing the ?ark-in-lieu fees were
analyzed:
1. Standard fee (used by most ciiies in California).
2. Percentage fee (a revision of the existing computation).
Re commendations
Instruct staff to prepare the necessary documents to implement:
1. Alternative I, the Standard Fee calculation.
A. A new private developer must pay both the Public
Facilities Fee and the Park-in-Lieu Fee. Credit will not -
be granted towards either fee.
to the City for a community park. Developments with
approximately 200 acres that are located in the vicinity
or a community park site shall be required to provide
land or fees according to the discretion of Council. Residential units less than 200 acres will provide park-
in-lieu fees instead of land.
B. Residential units larger than 200 acres will dedicate land
C. The City shall no longer accept crei3i.t for private
open-space foc park 'and remeational purposes.
2. Reduce the park district areas from seven (7) to four (417
A. Districts 1, 2, and 3 will be based on identical land
values. District 4 will be established with a different
land value.
Discussion
The City has been utilizing the Quimby Act since October 21, 1966;
it has been a useful tool in providing land and fees for park
and recreation areas and facilities. However, primarily due to
Proposition 13, and errors found in the density and the fee schedule, staff finds it neczssary to revise the system. The following two alternatives are explored that will correct the inequities and simplify the present fee formula.
Alternative 1 - The Standard Fee
Recent surveys indicate that most park-in-lieu fees in California
are based on a standard fee. The City of Vista just recently
adopted a Standard Fee type of calculation. The Carlsbad Board
of Real?ors in a letter dated 1-13-81 recomnended that the City
axend t?!? existing ardinance 2'0 provide for a standard type fee
for each new residential unit or bedroom thereof. (See attach- ment 11).
--
The Standard Fee advantages are as follows:
1. Does not involve a complex formula; would require less
staff time for computation. It is also easy to understand and compute.
2. The fee structure would not be based on assessed land value.
Present fees based on assessed valuation often create unequal
payments because the assessed valuation is determined by the latest sale value.
-2-
3. Additional costs for real estate appraisers may not be required.
4. There would be an equal payment for all developers which rmuil
make it easier in calculating their development costs.
5. Revenues will be increased which will be in line with today's acquisition and development costs.
The Standard Fee is based on the following criteria:
1. Land value to be $87,000 per acre for districts 1, 2, and 3, and $109,000 for district 4. A square foot of land is valued at $2.00 (Districts 1, 2;and 31 and $2.50 (district 4).
These-figures were ssfablished according to the "market value" of property in Carlsbad.
2. Park land to be dedicated shall consist of 2.5 acres per
1000 residents, based on the recent Parks and Recreation
element revision, 2.0 acres of community parks and -5 acres
special use areas.
3. Population Density: (Based on 1975 special census for the Carlsbad area)
a. Single Family Dwelling (SFD) units = 3.23 persons
per unit
b. Multiple Family Dwelling (MFD) units = 2.13 persons
per unit
c. Mobile Homes (MH)
per unit = 1.86 persons
4. One (1) resident = .0025 acres or 108.9 square feet.
Based on the above, the following land and fee requirements can
be calculated.
Land (?cpulation density x square feet 2zr person = land requirement)
1. Single Family Dwelling = 352 Sq. Ft. per unit
2. Multiple Family Dwelling = 232 Sq. Ft. per unit
3. Mobile Home = 203 Sq. Ft. per unit
Fee (Land cost x square feet per unit = fee requirement)
1. Single Family Dwelling = $704 per unit $880 per unit
2. Multiple Family Dwelling = $Q64 per unit $580 per unit
- Dist. 1, 2, E 3 Dist. 4
3. Mobile home = Sq06 per unit $508 per unit
7
The Standard Fee should be adjusTed annually. If the subdivider objects to the calculated fee he xiy, at his expsnse, obtain an
appraisal of the subject property by a qualified real estate
appraiser approved by the City. The appraisal may be accepted by
the City Council if found reasonable.
A recent survey received in June 1981 conducted by the Construction
Industry Research Board (see Attachment 111) indicated that the
fees proposed under the Standard Fee formula are consistent with
other surveyed cities.
Alternative I1
This process is based on a percentage of the development's acreage.
The formula is an updated version of the existing park-in-lieu
computation. The new calculation, which was developed by the Parks and Recreation Element consultants differs from the present
process. The major difference is that percentage charts are used
for each types of housing and by breaking down the requirements
for each density level instead of density ranges. (Refer to pages 7, 8, E 9).
It requires a percentage of land for each density based on 2.5 acres per 1000 persons instead of 4.5 acres per 1000 persons at low density development,: and 1.6 acres per 1000 persons at high
density, and land being based on assessed valuation x 6.
In staff's opinion , Alternative Ii is very difficult to calculate,
explain and is time consuming.
Comp ari son
Staff has computed the land and fee requirements for one iidivldual
unit. A comparison has been done to show the differences between Alteraative I, Alternative 11, ths City of Vista, and the Quimby Act Park Fees Survey. (See page 6 1.
Fiscal Impact
Alternative I will provide a slightly higher percentage of land
and fee than Alternative 11.
Summary
The
req Cit
present code procedure for determining the park-in-lieu
Fee computation formula, and revise the park-in-lieu districts
from seven (7) to four (4).
uirernent is inequitable and curnbersome.
y accept staff recommendation of Alternativz I, the Standard
It is proposed that the
-.-
At tachnents
1. Resolution No. &30e tablishing 4 park dis nic IS.
2. Letter dated January 13, 1981 from Richard L. Chicks from Realty World.
3. Construction Industry Research Board's survey of the
Quimby Act fees e
-5-
N
0 w
v, r v) TI
u, c 0
0,
v) r
i/, CJl
0
03
cn a,
v, r
P 4 0
a
0,
v, I I v) r
iY in
cr, w c 0
. -.
1
N
w N 15
I J
i
l
G- .v). w VI I W a
h) h) i
I
i I
i
G- u, I
#.A
I ilt I
N
0,
a I
I I
I 'I
w 0-l 1: 1
Q
Z U
c, 0
TI 0
xj
0 z M
CITY OF CARLSBAD
Park Land Dedication Percentages and Square Footages
for Single Family Detached Hones (3.23 persons per unit)
(Chart based on 2.5 acres/1000 persons)
Density Units/Acre
Percentage of Gross Area Square footage of
of Subdivision Required Park Land Required
whe Park Land is Dedicated Per Gross Ac/Sub.
1 du/ac
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.0068
.0137
.0206
.0274
.0343
.0412
e 0480
.os49
.Os18
.0686
,0755
,0824
296
597
897
1193
1494
1795
2090
2391
2692
2988
3289
3589
“(Figure) is acres./l,OOQ people - using the formula below:
--------- ----_I_--c__- x 10-00 = 2.5 ac/lQQC) Total Gross Acres x Gross ’% Required
Net Sites acres x Net Density x Persons/Unit
-7-
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PARK LAND DEDICATION PERCENTAGES
AND REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGES FOR
MULTIPLE FAMILY HOMES
2.13 Persons Per Unit
(Chart based on 2.5 acres/1000 persons)
Density % of the Gross Area of Sq. Feet of Park Lanc! Unit s/Acre Subdiv. Required When Dedicated Req. Per Gross Acre/S.
1 du/ac .0045 196
2 .0090 392
------- -
3 .0135 5a8
4 .0181 788
5 .0226 984
6 .0271 1180
7 ,0316 1376
8 .0362 1577
9 .0407 1773
10 .0452 1969
11 .0497 2165
12 .0543 2365
13 .0588 2561
14 .0633 2757
15 .0678 2953 16 .0724 3154
17 .0769 3350 ia .0814 3546
19 ,0859 3742
20 .0905 3942
21 .0950 4138
22 .0995 4334 23 .lo41 4535
24 .lo86 4731 25 .1131 4927
26 .1176 5123
27 .1222 5323
28 .1267 5519
29 -1312 5715
30 -1357 5911
$(Figure) is acres/1,000 people, using the formula below:
x 1000 = 2.5 acres/1000 TOTAL GROSS ACRES x GROSS % REQUIRED
NET SITE ACRES x NET DENSITY x PERSONS/UNIT
----^_- I--. -_.-
-8-
Density
Units/Acre
CITY OF CARLSBAD
PARK LAND DEDICATION PERCENTAGES
AND REQUIRED SQUARE FOOTAGES FOR
.I MOBILE HOME UNITS
-1.86 PERSONS PER UNIT
(Chart based on 2.5 acres/1000 persons)
Percentage of the Gross Area of Subdivision Re- Square Feet of Park quired when Park Land is Land Required per Gross
Dedicated Acre of Subdivision
1 du/ac
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 i 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
.0039
.0079
-0118
.0158
.0198
.0237
.0276
.0316
.0355
-0395
.0434
.0474
.0514
.0553
.1593
.0632
.0672
.0711
.0750
.0791
170
344
514
688
862
1032
1202
1376 ‘
1546
1720
1890
2066
2239
2409
2583
2753
2927
3097
3267
3445
“(Figure) is acres/1,000 people - using the formula
below:
TOTAL GROSS ACRES x GROSS % REQUIRED
NET SITES ACRES x NET DENSITY x PERSONS/UNIT
- x 1000 = 2.5 ac/10Ut - -.- -- -
13
-9-
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
a
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 6730
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CARLSBAD ESTABLISHING FOUR PARK DISTRICTS.
The City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California does
hereby resolve as follows:
1. The Carlsbad Municipal Code, Chapter 20.44 establishes
certain requirements for dedication of land, paynent of fees, or
both for purposes of providing park and recreational facilities
to serve the residents of Carlsbad.
2. This resolution is designed to implement the administra-
tion of said ordinance by establishing various PARK DISTRICTS
within the Carlsbad General Plan area.
3. Whenever a person proposes to divide land and is requir-
ed by the provisions of the Carlsbad Municipal Code to dedicate
land or pay a fee or both, the land dedicated shall be within the
specific PARK DISTRICT hereby established, and the fee paid shall
be maintained in a separate account identified with the PARK
DISTRICT established hereby, and may be used only for development
within the PARK DISTRICT.
and being located in any of the four PARK DISTRICTS hereby estab-
lished, shall have their funds deposited in the appropriate dis-
trict account corresponding with the boundaries of the new dis-
trict.
Any districts previously established
4. The PARK DISTRICTS established herein may be modified
by future resolution of the City Council.
5. There are hereby established as PARK DISTRICTS those
certain numbered areas shown on Exhibit "A", attached hereto, and
tii ATTACHMENT I -113-
."
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
E
9
1c
11
12
12
14
1E
1E
17
If
1s
2c
21
22
22
24
22
26
27
28
by this reference incorporated herein. Verbal descriptions of
said PARK DISTRICTS are as follows:
PARK DISTRICT 1
PARK DISTRICT 2
PARK DISTRICT 3
PARK DISTRICT 4
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the day of , 1980, by
the following vote, to wit:
AYES :
NOES :
ABSENT :
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST :
ALETKA L. RAUTENKFUNZ, City Clerk
(SEAL)
-11-
REALTY WORLD@- Richard J. Chick, REALTORSd
640-G Grand Avenue, Carlsbad, California 92008 Telephone: (71 4) 434-1021
' REALTYWORLD,
January -13, 1981
Honorable Mayor and City Council City of Carlsbad
1200 Elm Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
Dear Mayor and Council Members:
It is our understanding that your Honorable Body will shortly consider
a revision to the existing City Park Fee Ordinance which proposes to assess fees based upon the current "market value" of developing proper- ties. Members of the Carlsbad Board of Realtors have had an opportun- ity to review a draft of the proposed revision and to discuss its purpose and intent with members of the City staff. It is our considerel opinion that the change as proposed would be unworkable and result in even greater inequities than presently exist in the system of deter-
mining "market value" by multiplying the assessed value by a'factor of six.
In our judgement, the 'Ifair market value! of a piece of property can
only be-determined through a detailed market appraisal which in many instances is accurate only at the time the appraisal is made. As you
know, there are many factors which determine the worth of a given parcel of land and that are site specific to any particular parcel.
Any "broad brush" approach to estimating -property "market values" with- in each of the City's four park districts could only be based upon subjective judgement, and as we indicated- above, result in many inequi- ties.
Both the present and the proposed method of assessing park fees pose serious problems with respect. to equity, and until a property owner
proceeds to develop his property, .there exists a degree of uncertainty
with respect to what he will be-required to pay in fees.
We respectfully recommend that you consider amending the ordinance to provide for a flat fee of a pre-determined amount per each new residen-
tial unit, or bedroom therof. We believe such a system to be more
'X WORLD of Difference'; -
Each olhce independenfly owned and oseraied , ,
OCEANSIDE
/
PACIFIC
PROPOSED FOUR DTSXCl'S
. ,. . . ._ ,. ., . .." ,_,.,.
I ,
*
equitable and more related to the need for, and use of, park facilities. Those developing their property would also know with certainty the amount of fees they will be required to pay. We thank you for the opportunity of commenting on this issue and will be most happy to work with your staff in
ordinance.
vY&YeL;d
I Richard J. Chick Chairman, Local Government Carlsbad Board of Realtors
I
RJC/lc
CC: CAty Uanager
--- the development of a more workable
Relations Committee
Director of Parks and Recreation
I.
-14-
Construction Irldustry Research Board -_-- II
1625 W. OLYMPIC BLVD. SUITE 802 LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6544 (800) 252-8109 j/
Survey Sumnary
Quimby Act Park Fees
June 1981
Following is a scarmary of the results of a survey of California cities
and counties regarding the assesSment of fees under the Quimbr Act
(Business and Proffessicms Code Section 11546).
cities and counties to pass ordinances requiring the dedication of
land, paymmt of in-lieu fees or a combination of both for park and
recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a finalsubdivision
map. The primary purpose of this survey is to assess the extent these
fees are utilized.
The my Act permits
A copy of the survey questionaire used to collect the followingdata is
included following this surrmary.
I. SAMPLE DESCRIPTION
A. Sample Definition:
B. Saqle Size:
C. Respanse:
All counties plus cities 10,000 or mre population.
58 counties + 258 cities = - 316 -
bspcmses 260
NRespcOlse - 56
316 - -
% Response = - 82% -
D. 1980 New Housing hits:
In Sample:
tiesponses
No Responses
Not in Sample
Total State Production
Z of State Units Prochzctim
116,605 80.5%
22,534 15.6%
139,139 96.1%
5,692 3.92
144,831 100.0%
f TTACHMEMT I11 -15-
.. . ,.
11. SURVEY RESULTS
For those responding :
A. Quimbr Ordinance Wer
Jurisdictions with Quimbr Ordinance 143
117 Jurisdictions without ordinance
260
-
NLnnber of
B. Housi@ Production (New Units) Units
Jurisdictions with ordinance 85,859
Jurisdictions without ordinance 30,746
Total Respondmg in Susvey 116,605
28,226
Total Statewide Production 144,831
Not responding or not in survey
I
2
55.0%
45.0%
100.0%.
%
73.6%
26.4%
100.0% ---
---
C. For those responding with Quimby Ordinance:
143 1) Total with ordinance -
Z which permit credit for
Z which do not pennit credit
private open space 56%
44%
X revising their ordinance 15% - ----
D. For those responding without Quimby Ordinance:
117 1) Total without ordinance -
2) % developing an ordinance 14%
E. Fees Charged:
Avera.qe Fee Per DweLling Unit
Single Family Multi-Family Pbbile HOIIES
Measures
Weighted Average* $607 $786 $223
Median $450 $374 $213
Third Quartile (25% above this munt) $908 $644 $440
Simple Average $855 $683 $595
First Quartile (25% below this munt) $240 $150 $125
* Weighted according to the nuher of new housing units produced in 1980.
-16- ,/
Survey Results (Cont'd.)
G. Park Standard Used .
The National Park and Recreation Open Space Standard
is 5 acres per 1,000 population.
Survey Findings:
Number at National Standard
Number QVCZ National Standard
Number mder Nationdl Standard
Subtotal
Nunher not indicated or no ordinance provided
Total with Quinby Ordinance
-17-
%
32
5
53
35 -5%
5.6%
58.9%
90
53 -
143
100.0%
c
CTRBII I Construction Industry Research Board
1625 W. OLYMPIC BLVD. * SUITE 804 LOS ANCELES. CALIFORNIA 90015 (213) 381-6544
(800) 252-8109
The Quimby Act (Bus. and Prof. Code Section 11546) permits cities and counties
to pass ordinances requiring the dedication of land, payment: of in-lieu fees or a combination of both for park and recreational purposes as a condition to
the approval of a final subdivision map. We are surveying California cities and counties to assess the extent these fees are utilized.
Please complete this form and return it to us in the attached self-addressed
stqed envelope. Indicate below if you wish a copy of the survey results.
Thank you for your cooperation. - _-
Assisht Melissa Ziady, &se&
h-iKM4A-/ +c-gty/ &W Ben Bartolotto, Pesearch Director ‘J
Your Narne Telephone Hmber
Agency and Jurisdiction
1. Does your jurisdiction have an ordinance requiring dedication of park land
or fees in lieu of dedication as a condition to subdivision approval? Yes p?o -
- A. If yes, is the ordinance being revised? Yes No
B. If you have no such ordinance, is one being developed? Yes No -
2. If your jurisdiction uses fees in lieu of dedication, judging from your
experience, what is the estimated average fee charged when the -- fee alone -- is used (i.e., when credit for private open space and land aedication are not involved) -
For Typical : Average Fee Charged
Sir@ Fmily detached housing
Single Family attached housing Md t i-Fdly housing %bile Horns $ Der space
$- per unit
$- per unit
$- per mit
-* Other
3.
4.
5.
6. Do you wish a copy of thc results of this survey? Ycs No
Does your ordinance permit granting credit for private open space in subdivisions? Yes No
Please describe the way your in-lieu fees are cquted (use the reverse side of this page).
Please send us a copy of- your ordinance with this form. stamped envelope is enclosed for your convenience.
A self-addressed,
-18- n
3/31/81 22
A. 60,000 acres
B. 69,354
C. 11,178 acres
D. 6.2
E. 1532 Sq. Ft.
F. 3.4%
G 4.8691368 x lo8
H. -
I. $1.38
J. 380.052
- -
PARK-IN-LIEU CO31PUTATION
AT BUILD-OUT
E XI S TI N G F 0 3MU LA
(1981 Dollars)
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
J.
K. 17,124,696 Sq. Ft. K.
1. $23,632,080 L.
Total: $23,632,080
Assessed Land Value
Dwelling Units
Acres in Parcel
Dwelling Units Per Acre (B + C)
Sq. Ft. Per Aere Required
(From Page 4 of Ordinance)
Percent Park Land Required Per
Gross Acre of Subdivision
(From pg. 3 of Ordinance)
Square Feet in Parcel (C x 43,560)
Square Feet Assessed Land Value
(A i G)
Square Foot Market Value (H x A)
Acres Required for Park Dedication
(C x F?,
Square Feet Required for Park Dedication (E x GI
Fee in Lieu of Dedication (K x I)
Data based on the General P1m and Series V.
EXHIBIT 2 a3
2,
PAKK-IN- LIEU COMPUTATION PROJECTED INCOME AT BUILD-OUT PROPOSED FORMULA
(1982 Dollars)
Data based on the General Plan and Series V. There will be
49,000 new dwelling units. This figure was derived from the
projected units of 64,000 at build-out.
The following is a breakdown of residential units by type and the fees collected.
Cost Per
Fee
I_
Units Unit
A. Single Family 18,500 (Detached Units)
B. Multi-Family 30,500
(2 or more units)
per lot including
attzched units)
C. PIokLle Homes 2,080
- 20 -
$704 $13,Q24,000
$464 $14,152,000
$406 $ 844,480
Total $28,020,480
EXHIBIT 3 2I-I
RESOLUTION NO. 6768
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
CARLSBAD, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING FOUR PARK
AREAS FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF CHAPTER 20.44 OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE WHICH PROVIDES FOR LAND
DEDICATIONS OR THE PAYMENT OF FEES IN LIEU
THEREOF FOR PARK PURPOSES AS A CONDITION OF THE
SUBDIVISION OF LAND IN THE CITY. ,.
WHEREAS, the City of Carlsbad, in Chapter 20.44 of the
Municipal Code, has established certain requirements for
dedication of land, payment of fees, or both, for purposes of
providing park and recreational facilities; and
WHEREAS, said requirments are levied on all subdivisions
in the City; and
WHEREAS, Municipal Code Section 20.44.090 provides that
the land and fees received by the City pursuant to these
requirements must be used to serve the residents of the
development which produced theiir; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to ensure that parks
developed under Chapter 20.44 bear a reasonable relation to the
present and future needs of the residents of the development
which produced the facilities and that they are coordinated with
other City parks and with the recreational element of the General
Plan.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of
the City of Carlsbad, as follows:
1. Four park areas within the Carlsbad General Plan
area are hereby established. It is anticipated that the City
will develop a park facility within each park area in
conformance with the Park and Recreation element of the Carlsbad
General Plan.
2. . Whenever a person proposes to divide land and is
required by the provisions of Chapter 20.44 to dedicate land,
the land dedicated shall be within the park area in which the
development is located. When a fee is paid it shall be
maintained in a separate account identified for the park area in
which the development that generated the fee is located, and may
..
e.
be used only for development of the City parks within that park
area .
3. The park areas established herein may be modified
by future resolution of the City Council.
4. The four areas shown on Exhibit "A" , attached
hereto and made a part hereof, are established as official park
areas for the City of Carlsbad.
5. The park areas established by Resolution No. 3061
are rescinded.
6. Funds accumulated before the date of this
resolution for the old park areas shall be placed in accounts
for the new park areas established herein as follows:
(a) Where an old park area is wholly located
within a new park area, the funds shall be
placed in the account for the new area.
(b) Where an old park area falls within more than
one new area, the funds shall be apportioned
between the accounts of the new park area on
the basis of area.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Carlsbad, California, held on
, 2,
19th day of ,- Januaq , 1982, by the following vote,
to wit:
AYES: Council Mahers Packard, Casler, hear, Lewis and Kulchin
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RONALD C. PACKARD, Mayor
ATTEST:
(SEAL)
3. ??
EXHIBIT A TO CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 6768