HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 21, 1992 (56)OF
`
i%
CITY OF LODI @@YN@IL �i���i ATS �
@® � OE
r
AGENDA TITLE: Development Impact Mitigation Fees at 225 North Guild Avenue
(APN 049-040-61)
MEETING DATE: October 21, 1992
PREPARED BY: Public Works Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That no action be taken, i.e., no change in existing ordinance.
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: The City received the attached letter (Exhibit A) from
Mr. Cecil Dillon representing the property owner,
Mr. John Teresi. Mr. Dillon asked to be placed on the
Council agenda to discuss increased Development Impact
Mitigation fees on the vacant 5 -acre parcel located at the southwest corner of
Victor Road (Highway 12) and Guild Avenue (see attached map, Exhibit B). Staff
previously discussed with Mr. Dillon the fee issues involved with this parcel and
indicated that Council action would be needed to accommodate his request. In Short,
he feels this parcel should not be subject to the impact Fees adopted In 1991.
Therefore, staff has prepared the following background material on this parcel and
its relationship to the Development impact Mitigation fees.
The subject parcel is one of the remaining portions of the Teresi property
originally subdivided with a parcel map in 1985 as part of the development of the
Dart Container project, Two subsequent parcel maps for the west side of
Guild Avenue were filed in 1985 and 1991. The most recent map created the subject
parcel. A I I were signed by John and Varene Teresi as owners. Public improvements
were installed in two phases with r)roperty owner, developer, and CitY participation
The latest map, filed on September 26, 1991, contained the note:
"Requirements of the Lodi Municipal Code for the dedication of easements,
payment of fees and installation of off-site improvements, utilities and
well and septic tank abandonments per San Joaquin County permits have not
been met at this time and must be met prior to development or issuance of
a building permit or when requested by the City."
Prior to that time, the City had confirmed, in a letter to Dillon Engineering
(Exhibit C), that storm drain fees could be deferred until issuance of a building
permit. It has been common practice for industrial and commercial parcel maps to
defer fees and improvements until the time of actual development.
During this time frame, as part of the General Plan update, the City discussed and
adopted a new fee schedule for development impact mitigation. The schedule updated
the commercial and industrial storm drainage fee from $5,700 per acre to $10,520 per
APPROVED _ _ "� -�
`i THOMAS A. PETERSON
recycled papa:
CDIM225G/TXTW.02M (CO. COM) October 13, 1992
Development Impact Mitigation Fees at 225 North Guild Avenue (AP"49-040-61)
October 21, 1992
Page 2
acre and added an additional 519,300 per acre in Water, Sewer, Street, Police, Fire,
Parks and Recreation, and General City Facilities Impact Mitigation fees for heavy
industrial projects.
At the time of adoption in late 1991, the fee ordinance applied the fees to any
parcel which had not obtained a building permit. Prior to the effective date of the
ordinance, additional Council meetings and hearings were held regarding application
of the fees to parcels which had started the development process but had not taken
out a building permit.
At the special Council meeting held October 3, 1991, staff presented four alternate
policies on Impact fees and existing parcels. (The minutes are attached as
Exhibit D.) After mxh discussion, the Council adopted Alternate 3, This alternate
exempted parcels from additional Impact fees provided they have development
approvals (short of a building permit) and have paid current Development Impact
Mitigation fees (which was the storm drainage fee).
Since the owner had requested and received approval for deferral of fees, staff
could not approve Mr. Dillon's request to apply the old fees to this parcel should
the owner wish to pay them now. I-&. Dillon noted that the owner would havepaid the
fees prior to the my fee ordinance had he been aware of the increase. Staff
responded that Mr. Teresi had been sent a letter regarding the project on his parcel
immediately south of the subject parcel (Exhibit E). Apparently the responsibility
for payment was in dispute, The City Attorney was contacted by the developers and
another letter (Exhibit F) was sent to them and Me Teresi which noted the
November 5, 1991 deadline. The developers of the property paid them for the south
parcel before the November 5 deadline in order to avoid the increase. The point is,
Mr. Teresi was made aware of the fee increase prior to the effective date.
Accommodating Mr. Teresi's request mv would require a change in the fee ordinance.
It appears there are only two alternative actions for the Council to take:
1. Confirm the existing ordinance which means the sohject 5 -acre parce
should pay the Impact Fees upon development, or
2. Give staff policy direction on how Council wants ordinance changed.
FUNDING: To be determined.
6ack Ronsko
Works Director
Prepared by Richard C. Prima, Jr., Assistant Citv Engineer
JLR/RCP/1m
Attachments
cc: IVIG John Teresi
Me Cecil Di 1 ion
CDIM225G/TXTW.02M (C0. COM) October 13, 199?
DILLON & MURPHY
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
11MW. Kettleman tone, Suite E. Lodi, California 95242
.. P O Box 2180. Lodi. Catrfornra 95241
(209) 3346613 9 Fax (209)334-0723
September 30, 1992
Mrs. Alice Reimche
City Clerk
city of Lodi
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Alice:
I
Exhibit A a
On behalf of Mr. John Teresi, I wish to appear at a formal
City Council meeting and discuss the increased development
impact mitigation fees for APN 049-040-61. This is a five
acre vacant parcel located at the southwest corner of Victor
Road and Guild Avenue in the Teresi Industrial park.
1 would appreciate being placed on the earliest possible City
Council agenda. Thank you.
Sinc ely,
Cec it -Dillon
CD:db
cc: Mr. John Teresi
VICTOR RD
Ri
(H'vVY 12)
Subject
',Parcel,
[Exhibit B
Scale: 1"=300'
ST
C1 IV (.()UNd(.))'AN1
JOHN R (Ra, Mayor
DAVIDN4 MAlayor F'P(,
E V11.YN M 4)1 SON
)AM1S W NNK,ERTON, Jr
I R11) Ni Rt It)
Dillon Engineering
P.O. Box 2180
Lodi, CA 95241-2180
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL. 221 X1'1 Si PINE St R( 1: T
(:ALL BOX 3006
LOW. CAL11ORNIA 9W41-1910
(209) A54-.5#04
111ECOPt1R ta01t1 1111,741
October 25, 1990
SUBJECT: Teresi Industrial Park Street Improvements
Exhibit C
11'1OMAS A PE I[RSC)N
Cety Manager
nt tCt nt R1 MiCtt1
C rty C Jerk
(1011 M(NATT
C s!v Altomev
RECEi VED
our 2:'' 1991)
D1LLW 1
. ... •r. rR1��rr
The City has approved deferral of the storm drainage fee shown on Invoice
#E-913 until the building permits are issued. The property owner will be
billed the storm drainage fee in effect at the time the permit is issued.
r
Richard C. Prim r-.
Assistant City Engineer
RCP/SB/mt
cc: Teresi Trucking
Tel bio 1 f i no
Finance Department
LDILLON/TXTW.02M
i
A
f�`
k
SPECIAL MEETING
LODI CITY COUNCIL
CARNEGIE FORUM
305 WEST PINE STREET
LODI, CALIFORNIA
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 3, 1991
7: 00 A.M.
REVIEW DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEE APPLICATION
[Exhibit D
CC -6 Pursuant to State statute the following notice was mailed
CC -46 under Declaration of Mailing to the following persons at.
CC -56 least 24 hours in advance -of the subject meeting.
NOTICE OF SPECIAL MEETING
OF THE LODI CITY XINCIL
M THE MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF LODI, CALIFORNIA:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a Special Meeting of the City Council of the City
of Lodi, California is hereby called to be held at approximately 7:00 am. or
as soon thereafter as is possible on Thursday, October 3, 1991 in the Carnegie
Forum, 305 West Pine Street, Lodi.
Said Special Meeting shall be for the following purpose:
1. Review development impact fee application
Dated: September 30, 1991
avid M. Nin man
Mayor
&W e) -h--
Alice
.Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
1
A.
Continued Cctober :., 991
NOTICE OF SPECIAL COUNCIL MEETING
MAILING LIST
Phillip A. Pennino
1502 Keagle Way
Lodi, CA 95242
John R. Snider
2328 Brittany Lane
Lodi, CA 95240
David M. Hinchman
1131 South Pleasant Avenue
Lodi, CA 95240
James W. Pinkerton
916 West Turner Road
todi, CA 95240
Jack A. Sieglock
1702 Timberlake Circle
Lodi, CA 95242
KCVK Radio
P. 0. Box 600
Lodi, CA 95241
KSTN Radio
3171 Ralph Avenue
Stockton, CA 95?C
C4ty Clerk,
c, Lodi
Community Development Director
City of Lodi
EXHIBIT
TanTia Adamek
Lodi ' � Sentinel
P.O. Box 1360
Lodi, CA 95240
King Videocable
Attn: Ms. Deanna Enright
1521 South Stockton Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Stockton Record
Attention: Sarah Williams
101 West Locust Street
Suite 4
Lodi, CA 95240
Lodi Magazine
P. 0. Box 648
Lodi, CA 95241
City Manager
City of todi
Assistant City Manager
City of Lodi
City Attorney
t% r i
Public Works Director
City of Lodi
The meeting was called to order by Mayor David M. Hinchman
at 7:00 a.m.
Roll was recorded by the City Clerk as follows:
Present: Council Members - Pennino, Pinkerton, Sieglock
and Hinchman (Mayor) (Mayor
Hinchman was briefly absent
during the course of the
meeti ng) .
Absent: Counci 1 Members - Snider
2
Continued October ( 1991
Also Present: City Manager Peterson, Community Development
Director Schroeder, Public Woks Director
Ronsko, Assistant City Engineer Prima, City
Attorney McNa t t , and City Clerk Reimche
The topic of discussion, "Rev i e Development Impact
Mitigation Fee Application" was introduced by Assistant
City Engineer Richard Prima who advised the City Council
that since the adoption of the Development Impact
Mitigation Fee Ordinance on September 4 (which wi 11 go i n t o
effect November 4), there have been some questions raised
as to its applicability to vacant lots within the City.
Ps it pertains to this issue, the ordinance states:
15.64.020 - finitions
"D. "Development" or "Project" means any of the
fr,llowing:
1. For water,
sewer and storm drainage
impact fees:
any my connection to the
City System
or increase in service
demand
2. For streets
impact fees: any project
that increases traffic.
3. For police,
fire, parks and recreation
and general
City facilities impact
fees: any
project generating my or
increased service
demand "
15.64.040 Pavment of Fees
"A. The property owner of any development
project causing impacts to public facilities
shall pay the appropriate Development
Mitigation Fee as provided in this Chapter
"a.
If a final subdivision map has been issued
before the effective date of this Ordinance,
then the fees shall be paid before the
issuance of a building permit or grading
permit, whichever comes first."
(In the draft ordinance, subsection "D" was
lettered "C"; the change was due to the
Counci 1's request to spl i t payment for
subdivision projects a t final map and
acceptance of improvements.)
Continued October 1991
"SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance takes
effect 60 days after its adoption. For purposes of this
Chapter, buiiding permit applications accepted and deemed
completed prior to the effective date shall not be subject
to the Ordinance."
The language is clear that vacant or partially vacant.
property in the City will be subject to the fees, whether
it has frontage improvements, a map or other approval short
of a completed building permit application.
Concerns have been raised about charging property already
within the City limits. This property can be separated
into many categories of development stage(s) including any
combination of the following:
1. vacant (no building permit)
2. partially vacant (building permit on a
portion of the parcel)
3. with or without frontage improvements
4. created with a final subdivision map cr not
5. storm drain .fees (previous impact fee) paid
or not
6. nonconforming uses
7. conforming uses subject to obtaining a use
permit
a. proposed uses requiring a rezoning
9. proposed project requiring a subdivision map
10. proposed project requiring some public
impro-ement
Thus, without including all, it is more difficult to write
and explain an ordinance that differentiates among them.
If Council wishes to do so, staff will need additional
direction. Also, the City has three recent annexations
done prior to completion of the General Plan for which the
property owners have signed agreeme:its stating they will
pay the fees. Staff assumes any development definition or
new policy will require these parcels to pay the new fees.
i; Due to the Council's concern over this issue, staff has
prepared an outline of the basic concepts and guiding
policies of the adopted ordinance as it pertains to the fee
i' calculations on Exhibit A shown below.
4
Continued October ( .991
CITY OF LODI DEVELOPMENT IIPACT "tITIGATION FEES
Basic Concebts & Guiding Policies of Adopted Grdinance
1.
If there is new service demand (impact), the
project pays its fair share (fee).
2.
Payment at Final Flap vs. at Building Permit
or other time i s a matter of when the fee is
paid, not that it is owed.
3.
Costs would be spread equally throughout the
City wherever reasonable.
4.
The new fees are not payi g for normal
frontage improvements; whether they are in
place or not does change the impact on the
services for which the fees are being
charged.
5.
Just because capacity improvements are built
and paid for doesn't mean that subsequent
buildings (service demand which uses that
capacity) should not pay the fee; they still
need to pay their fair share.
6.
Existing service demands and levels of
service were based on present population
and occupancies.
7.
All projects reasonably attributable to
growth (increased service ' demand) are
included.
Pro
Present ordinance and policies adequate.
Treats all property equally.
Consistent with past implementation of new development fees
(Storm Drainage, Sewer Connection).
Con
Changes the "rules" on projects previously approved but not
completed prior to the ordinance. [.Although the "rules"
have been years in the making).
Exhibits a, C, D and E (shown below) describe four
alternate policies that address the concerns raised.
However, some have serious implications for the entire
program. The adopted ordinance will need minor to major
revisions depending on Council direction and the fees may
5
Continued October
1991
need to be recalculated. These will be reviewed in more
deta 1 at the Council meeting.
ALTERNATE POLICY I
For all land within the C ty that is zoned for development,
the City is responsible for the service impacts of that
development.
Pro
Fewer projects on which to calculate fees. (Fee would only
apply to projects needing rezoning and not necessarily to
lot splits or other approvals.)
Will promote "infill". (Those owners of property inside
the City limits will have a financial advantage over newly
annexed property. )
Con
�ianiffcant impact on fee calculations. (Acreage involved
is approx, 7% of total)
Serious problem with equity of rev fee program if not
redone (fee could go up, down, or stay the same due to
level of service definition and "existing deficiency"
calculations}, or City could pay the fee for those projects.
Contrary to past practices. (Sewer connection fee for
example)
Would exempt vacant parcels within the City from existing
Storm Drain Fee, also contrary to past practice.
Will be difficult to explain "who pays" and "who doesn't"
to builders. (Project with proper zoning but filing a map
doesn't pay, but one needing a rezoning pays.)
ALTERNATE POLICY 2
Service impacts of project utilizing developed "infill"
land are the responsibility of the City. For purposes of
this Policy, developed means the parcel:
O has been legally subdivided or created, and;
has off-site improvements normally required
as part of development, and;
all the necessary approvals and permits to
build except a building permit, lot line
adjustment or parcel merger.
6
Continued October( .991 �
t
(definition will need "fine tuning"
Pro
Fewer projects on which to calculate fees, although more
than Alternate Policy 1. (Fee would apply to projects
needing rezoning, lot splits or other approvals. Some
question on use permits, will need additional discussion).
Will promote "infill". (Those owners of developed property
inside the City limits will have a financial advantage over
newly developed property.)
Con
Less impact on fee calculations than Alternate Policy 1.
(Acreage involved is between 4-1/2 and 7% of total-)
Possible problem with equity of new fee program if not
redone (fee could go up, down, or stay the same due to
level of service definition and "existing deficiency"
calculations), or City could pay the fee for those projects.
Contrary to past practices. (Sewer connection fee for
example)
Would exempt some vacant parcels within the City from
existing Storm Drain Fee, also contrary to past practice.
May be difficult tc explain "who pays" and "who doesn't" to
builders. (Who pays depends on definition of "developed".)
ALTERNATE POLICY 3
Previous development projects that have received the
appropriate approvals prior to obtaining a building permit
as evidenced by payment of the then current development
impact mitigation fee (Master Storm Drainage Fee) have the
right to develop as approved without the imposition of new
development impact mitigation fees.
Pro
Less impact on fee calculations than Alternate Policies 1 .;
or 2. (Acreage involved is approx. 4-1125 of total)
Will promote "infill". (Those owners of property inside
the City limits which have paid SD fees will have a
financial advantage over property that has not paid).
7
Continued October 991 k
Con
Equity concern, possible l ega challenge. (What does
previous payment of Storm Drain Fee have to do with impact
on Water, Police, e`--?)
ALTERNATE POLICY 4
The most protection provided by State law (outside of a
special development agreement) that a project can have from
subsequent changes in zoning, development requirements or
imposition of new fees is a "vesting" tentative map.
That protection lasts for two years after map filing.
Therefore parcels which have filed a final subdivision or
parcel map and have received the appropriate approvals
prior to obtaining a building permit as evidenced by
payment of the then current development impact mitigation
fee (Master Storm Drainage Fee) have the right to develop
as approved without the imposition of new development
impact mitigation fees for a period of two years. (In
effect this grants "vesting" map status to these projects
even though they did not ask for it.)
Pro
Negligible impact on fee calculations.
Could be implemented with minor change in ordinance,
immediately if made an urgency ordinance,
Con
Some additional administrative effort to determine various
dates .
Same equity concern as Alternate Policy 3 but to a much
lesser extent.
Alternate Policy 3 describes the protection provided mw
development by a "vesting" map. This type of map was added
to the City Code in 1986 as required by state law,
Normally, and as was the case in Lodi, projects with an
approved tentative map were protected from changes in
development policies until tho final map was filed. The
vesting statutes fix and extend this protection for two
years following final map filing. To obtain these rights,
the developer must add the word "vesting" to the tentative
map. Very few have done so.
Staff recommended that the ordinance be left as adopted.
The following persons addressed the City Council regarding
the matter and indicated that they would prefer Alternate 3.
a
Continued October . 1991
a} Steve Pechin, 323 West Elm Street, Lodi,
California;
b) John Tetz, 815 West Tilden Drive, Lodi,
California;
c) John Giannoni, Jr., 1420 South Mills Avenue,
Lodi, California; and
d) Ben Schaffer, 207 River Oaks Drive, todi,
California.
Following additional discussion with questionsbeingg
directed to staff and those giving testimony, on motion of
Mayor Hinchman, Pennino. second, the City Council set a
public hearing for October 16, 1991 at 1:30 p.m, to
consider adopting as an urgency ordinance an amendment to
Lodi's Development Fee Ordinance to modify the definition
of projects subject to new development fees.
There being no other business to come before the City
Council, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 8:45
p.m.
Attest:
"W)
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
U
CITY COUNCIL
DAVID M MINCtMIA1- Mawr
IAME S W PINKI RTON. Ir
flavor Pro T empore
PHILLIP A PtNNINO
(ACK A SltCtOCK
JOHN R (Randv) SNIDER
Mr John Teresi
P.O. Box 1270
Lodi, CA 95241
CITY OF LODI
CITY HALL. 221 WEST PINE STREEI
P 0 BOX 3006
LODI, CAI IFORNIA 95241-1910
(209) 334-5634
1 AX 1:091 I? 1 6745
October 14, 1991
Subject: Construction Application #3980
111 N. Guild Avenue, todi, California
Exhibit E
THOMAS A PETERSON
Ctty Manager
At ICE M RE IMCHI
C av Clerk
E10I1 ha.NATT
CGty Atternev
At the request of M Jim Verseput of Schaffer, Suess and Boyd Realtors, vie
are enclosing Bill #E-1003 covering the storm drain fees for the above
parcel, This bill is valid until November 4, 1991. If not paid by that
date, the storm drain fees will be subject to revision to reflect the
amount recently adopted as part of the City's Development Impact Mitigation
Fees.
In addition, the storm drain fees must be paid prior to the issuance of a
building permit for this project.
Should you have any questions, contact Sharon Welch, Assistant Civil
Engineer, or rm
f°'"Richard C. Prima Jr.
Assistant City Engineer
RCP/SAW/lw
Enclosure
cc: Building Division
Lodi Shield Partnership
LTERESI/TXTW.01L
CITY COUNCIL
DAVID M 14INt:IMIAN. Mayor
IAMFS W PINKIRTON. If
Mavot Pro Tempore
PIJILI IP A PF NNINO
LACK A SII GICX'K
10I4N R (Randv) SNIDI R
October 22, 1991
Exhibit. F
A
PETERSON
Cit M
► anaRel
CITY OF L O D I At ICF M RF INICHI
City Clerk . : .
CITY HALF. 221 WFST PILAF STREET 110HMtN.ATI
PO BOX 1(X)6 ."-.' ;c_ City AtA.mev
10131. CAI IF'ORNIn 95241.1910 :rte
(209) .3345634
1 AX 12!!41 14 1-6794
le igwn andsl i� ett, Inc,
7510 Shoreline Drive, Suite Al
Stockton, CA 95219
Subject: Construction Application 3980 (111 N. Guild Avenue, Lodi)
Dear Mr, Alva:
As we discussed in our telephone conversation of October 22, 1991, this
letter is a follow up on Sharon Welch's communication of October 14, 1991.
Apparently, there is a dispute among the principals on the above -captioned
project over who is responsible for payment of the storm drain fees. The
City takes no position as to who may be obligated for such fees, and sent
the bill to Mr. Teresi only because we understood that was the developers'
desire,
However, no building permits can be issued until these fees are paid. 1
should also remind you that effective November 5, 1991, the City's new fee
structure will be in place, and the cost of these permits mW substantially
increase.
Sincerely yours,
BOB U. MGNATT
City Attorney
BM:vc
cc: Assistant City Engineer
Assistant Civil Engineer—"—
Lodi Shield Partnership, c/o Schaffer, Suess & Boyd Realtors
P. 0. Box 667, Lodi
Mr. John Teresi
MONSTR/TXTA.01V
DILLON & MURPHY
CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS
r 4820 W Kettleman tone, Suite E. Lodi, California 95242
P O Box 2180, Lodi. California 95241
(209) 334-6613 • Fax (209) 334-0723
September 30, 1992
N5m Alice Reimche
City Clerk
City of Lodi
221 West Pine Street
Lodi, CA 95240
Dear Alice:
On behalf of Mr: John Teresi, I wish to appear at a formal
City Council meeting and discuss the increased development
impact mitigation fees for APN 049-040-61. This is a five
acre vacant parcel located at the southwest comer of Victor
Road and Guild Avenue in the Teresi Industrial Park.
I would appreciate being placed on the earliest possible City
Council agenda. Thank you.
Sinc ely ,
r
Cecil -Dillon
CD: ib
cc: Mr. .Tebm Teresi