Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1985-03-05; City Council; 5779-13; Public Facilities Fees (Recreational Projects)CIT’-JF CARLSBAD - AGENDl .-ILL lB## az77*#%3 pJJJ& HTG. 3/5/85 _ PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES FOR RECREATIONAL PROJECTS BEPT. CA 1 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Determine whether or not it is necessary to amend City Council DEPT. HD. - CITY Am&ii?& CITY lk4GR.a. Policy No. 17 to impose a Public Facilities Fee on recreational projects. ITEM EXPLANATION The Planning Commission in approving-CUP-228 for a nine-hole addition to the La Costa Golf Course imposed a condition that the applicant pay a public facilities fee as required by City Council Policy No. 17. Agreements securing that obligation were recorded against the property. La Costa is now in the process of acquiring the property under the golf course. They have asked the City to accept a new public facilities fee agreement in their name and release existing public facilities fee agreements that are encumbering the property. The request raised a question as to why the public facilities fee had not already been paid since the golf course was substantially complete. It is La Costa's understanding that the PFF obligation applies only to a snack bar to be constructed later, a relatively small partof the overall project, and not to the construction of the golf course. In reviewing Council Policy No. 17 we concluded that the policy only requires a fee for the structure and would not apply to a golf course or any other recreational project. If the City Council is satisfied with that your action is to file this agenda bill. However because there are other similar projects pending in the City the Council may want to consider a change in the policy for the future. Council Policy No. 17 applies to all projects requiring discretionary approval. It expressly recognizes one type of project, mobile home parks, where the project value does not bear any relationship to the building permit value, yet imposes substantial burdens on the City's public facilities system. In such cases the fee is not based on the building permit valuation but, rather, on the number of spaces in the park. ($1,150 per space). Recreational projects could be considered similar to mobile home parks. Examples would be a pitch and putt golf course, tennis complex, or regular golf course. These facilities can involve substantial construction expenses and draw large numbers of people impacting the City's public facilities. However, the building permit portion of these projects can be relatively small. It may be that the current policy results in developers of this type of project paying less than their fair share. If the Council so determined, the fee could be applied to this class of project based on a percentage of the overall construction costs or some other measure rather than limiting the fee to the building permit valuation. 4 . . . ;-;a5yi;;8;a Page 2 This is a policy matter. The potential fiscal impact and the considerations that would bear on whether or not to change existing policy are matters within the purview of the City Manager in terms of a recommendation and the City Council. CITY MANAGER COMMENTS: Council Policy 17 provides that applicant shall pay a '1 . ..public facilities fee in the amount of 2% of the building permit valuation of the buildings or structures..." Council Policy 17 also exempts accessory structures such as pools, patios, fences, garages and the like. The City Manager's interpretation is that the PFF does not apply to golf course grading or landscaping, but does apply to golf course club houses and other structures requiring a building permit. Policy 17 provides that the City Manager shall interpret the policy and that interpretation may be appealed to the City Council. The key issue here is whether or not to. charge a 2% fee for grading. We have not done so in the past.