HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda Report - October 3, 1991 PHram
01
OF
CITY OF LCA D I @@WN@1L Wk1MUN1GATI0N
AGENDA TITLE: Review Development Impact M t i g a t i o n Fee Application
Ng"IlVG DATE: October 3, 1991
PREPARED BY: Public Woks Director
RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council review the staff report on the intent of
the recently adopted Development Impact Mitigation Fees and
take no action.
BACKGROUND P4q3RNIAIM Since the adoption of the Development Impact Mitigation
Fee Ordinance on September 4 (which will go into effect
November 4), there have been some questions raised as to
its applicability to vacant lots within the City.
r°s it pertains to this issue, the ordinance states:
15.64.020 Definitions
I'D, "Development or "Project" means any of the following:
1. For water, sewer and storm drainage impact fees: any MV connection to
the City System or increase in service demand.
2. For streets impact fees: any project that increases traffic.
3. For police, fire, park; and recreation and general City facilities
impact fees: any project generating new or increased service demand."
15'.64.040 Payment 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 . ..'
"D. 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
du! to the Council's request to split payment for subdivision projects at
f i nal map and acceptance o f improvements. )
r
APPROVED. __
THOMAS A PETERSON
retycie6 paper
Review Development Impact Mitigation Fee Application
October 3, 1991
?age 2
"SECTION 4. Effective Date. This ordinance takes effect 60 days after its
adoption. For purposes of this Chapter, building permit applications accepted
and deemed conplete 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, wether it has frontage improvements, a map or other approval
short of a completed bijilding permit application.
Concerns have been raked 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 vacwt (building permit on a
portion of the parcel)
3)
with or withovt frontage improvements
4)
created with a final subdivision map or
not
5)
storm drain fa --s (previous impact fee)
paid or not
6)
nonconforming rises
7)
conforming uses subject to obtaining a
use permit
8)
proposed uses requiring a rezoning
9)
proposed project requiring a subdivision
map
10)
propcsed project requiring some public
improvement
Thus, without incling all, it is more difficult to write and explain an ordinance
that differentiates among them. If Council wishes to do so, staff w i I I need
additional directicm. Also, the City has three recent annexations done prior to
completion of the feral Plan for which the property owners have signed agreements
stating they will pay the fees. Staff assumes any development definition or new
policy will require these parcels to pay the new fees.
Due to the Council's concern over this issue, staff has prepared an outline of the
basic concepts and guiding pol ;cies of the adpoted ordinance as it pertains to the
fee calculations (Exhibit A). Exhibits B, C, D and E describe four alternate
policies that address the concerns raised. However, some have serious implications
for the entire program- The adopted ordinance w i I I need minor to major revision
depending on Council direction and the fees may need to be recalculated. These will
be reviewed i n more detail a t the Council meeting.
Exhibit D describes the protection provided new 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 i n Lodi, projects with an approved tentative map were
protected from chaffs i n development policies until the 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.
CDEVIMPI/TXTW,02M ,.10 -COM) October 1, 1991
Review Development Impact 1Vltigation Fee Application
October 3, 1991
Page 3
Staff recommends that the ordinance be left as adopted.
FUNDING: Not applicable.
fly
APuJ
k L. Ronsko
lic Works Director
Prepared by Richard C. Prima Jr., Assistant City Engineer
JLR/RCP/lm
Attachments
cc: City Attorney
CDEVIMPI/TXTW.C2M (CO.CGM) October 1, 1991
Exhibit A
City of Lodi
Development Impact AUtigation Fees
Basic Concepts & Guiding Policies of Adopted Ordinance
1) If there is new service demand (impact), the project pays its fair share (fee).
2) Payment at Final Map vs. at Building Permit or other time is 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 paying for rxmml frontage improvements; whether they are in
place or not does not 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 cf service were based on present population
and occupancies.
7) All pxrjects reasonably attributable to growth (increasedservice demand) are
included.
Pro
Present ordinance and policies adequate.
Treats all property equally.
Consistent 4h past implementation of new development fees (Storm Drainage, Sewer
Connection).
Con
Changes the "rules" on projects previously approved but not completed prior to the
car&nanc e. (Although the "rules " hair been years in the md*xj)
al
Alternate Policy 1
Exhibit B
For all land within the City that is zoned for development, the City is responsible for
the service of that development.
IM
Fewer projects on which tri calculate fees. (FbeRvuld onlyapply toprojectsneeding
rezoning and not necessarily to lot splits or other apvvais. )
Will promote "infill". (Those owners ofpropertybWde the Citylimits will have a
financial advantage over newly annexed property.)
Con
Significant impact cn fee c lalartims. (Acreage involved is approx 7016oftotal)
Serious problem with equity of new fee program if not redone (fee could go up, down,
or stay the sane due to level ofservice definition and "existing deficiency"
calculations), or City could pay the fee for those projects.
Contrary to past practices. (Seaer connection fee for example)
Would exempt vacant parcels within the City from existing Sbomn Drain Fee, also
contrary ID 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 nee*W a rezoning pays.)
Exhibit C
Alternate Policy 2
Service iqaCts of pxojects utilizing developed "infill" land are the responsibility of the
City. For purposes of this Policy, developed nears the parcel:
o) has been legally subdivided cr created, and;
o) has off-siteimprovements normally required as part of development, and;
o) all the necessary approvals and permits tD build except a building permit, lot
line adjustment or parcel merger.
(definition well need "fine tuning)
Pro
Fewer pxojerft 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 usepwdts, wiff need additional discussion.)
TMM promote "infill". (7hose owners ofdamloped property inside the 01),limits will
ha ve a financial advantage over newly developed property.)
Con
Less impact on fee calculations U1E Alternate R:giq 1. (Acreage involved is between
40 and 7% oftotal)
Possible problem with equity of new fee program if not redone (fee cou.d go up, down,
or stay the sate due to level cfservice definition and "edstingdeficiency"
calculations), or City could pay the fee for inose projects.
Contrary ID past practices. (Sewer connection fee for example)
Would exempt some vacant parcels within the City fmn existing Storm Drain Elie, also
omtrary io past practice.
May be difficult to explain "who pays" and "who doesn't" ID builders. (Who pays
depends on definition of "developed ". )
Exhibit D
Alternate Policy 3
Previous development projects that have received the appropriate approvals pow iD
obtaining a budding permit as evidenced by payment of the that 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 cala ]atims d= Alternate Policies I or 2. (Acreage involved is
approx. 40% aftotal)
VM promote "infill". (?hose owners ofproperty inside the City limits which hawpaid
SD fees will ha ve a fwancial advantage over property that has notpaid.)
Con
Equity concern, possible legal challenge. (What dans previous payment of&orm Drain
Fee have to do with impact on %ter, Police, etc?)
ExA t E
Alternate Policy 4
The most protection provided by State law (aofa special development
agreement) tib a project can have ficrn subsequent changes in zoning,
development requirements cr imposition of new fees is a "vesting" tentative map.
That protection lasts for two gears afier map Sting. Therefore parcels which have
fi]ed 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 (Abster Storm Drainage Fee) have the right to
develop as approved without the imposition cf new development impact mitigation
fees for a period of My 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 vith n&rr change in ordinance, immediately if made an
urgency ordinance.
Con
Some additional administrative effrrctto determine various dates.
Same equity concern as Alternate R24 3 but ID a much lesser extent.
� of
CITY 0 D I PICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
L
Date: October 16, 1991
CARNEGIE FORUM
305 West Pine Street, Lodi Time: 7:30 p.m.
For information regarding this Public Hearing
Please Contact:
Alice M. Reimche
City Clerk
Telephone: 333-6702
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
October 16, 1991
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Wednesday, at the hour of 7:30 p.m., or as
soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, the City Council will conduct a
public hearing to consider the following matter:
a) to consider adopting as an urgency ordinance an amendment to
Lodi's Development Fee Ordinance to modify the definition of
projects subject to my development fees.
All interested persons are invited to present their views and comments on this
matter, Written statements may be filed with the City Clerk at any time prior
to the hearing scheduled herein, and oral statements may be made at said
hearing.
If you challenge the subject matter in court, you may be limitedto raising only
those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing described in
this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the City Clerk, 221 West
Pine Street, at or prior to the Public Hearing.
By Order Of the Lodi City Council:
Alice M. Reimc e
City Clerk
Dated: October 3, 1991
Ap roved as o form:
Bobby W. McNatt
City Attorney