The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutFee In Lieu of Parkland Dedication - Zoning Text Amendment N a .�7t#�YY�7'1 "�� Council/Agency Meeting Held: 00 �)(J�N1 Q N�►1N� Deferred/Continued to: Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Den ie - Ity Cle 's Signature Council Meeting Date: June 19, 2000 Department ID Number: PL 00-36 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQU ST F)OR ACTION -i-5- [ �' ��v �� * c� . d� `�—� S�tiVly� fib' C SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator~ 7. r� , r. PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (FEE IN-L[EU bF PARKLAND DEDICATION)(Continued from the May 15, 2000 meeting). bj1 D . No.. 3'lcoap on GRD. W, - %bB jKate,:e:,:to:f Issue, Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 99-4, a request by the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method for determining fees in- lieu of parkland dedication. The item was continued from the May 15, 2000 Council meeting to allow a Council subcommittee to meet with representatives from the Building Industry Association (BIA) and Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce. A meeting was held on June 8, 2000 with members of the City Council, Planning Commission, BIA, Chamber and staff to discuss the proposed ordinance. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the ZTA with modifications (Recommended Action - A) in order to address issues raised by several developers and consultants. They recommend a two-phase approach: 1) the ZTA be approved establishing a method for fees based upon 50% of the average value per acre of citywide parkland; and 2) direct staff to complete a comprehensive study identifying costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements. Staff is recommending approval of the ZTA as directed by the City Council on November 1, 1999 which requires a site specific appraisal to be submitted to determine the exact park in- lieu fee (Recommended Action - B). r� LEGISLATIVE DRAFT H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to the fair market value an afxeunt for each acre of the project site which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D. whieh ameunt is taver-aggefair- share mzzLo* . al„o . of land ... :11 DT `eneA neighber-heed publie par4ES within the City if sueh landwer-e not used for-or-zoned figr-publie par4E cam+-- eatio ^1 par-poses. Fair market value of the land in D to Cit-y-shall be determined evei3 twe year-s by a qualified real estate appraiser hired by the City at the expense of the developer. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. The date of value of the property for purposes of the appraisal shall be within 60 days of payment of the fee as referenced in Section 254.08K. The forgoing mstrument is a correct copy of the original on Me in this office. Attest 200/ C41Y CClark and Ex-officio�erk of thecity CouncM of the City of Huntington Beach, By P y .:4:990rd i n ance:parkfees RLS 98-385 .ae �. - •>.,.... `tea ..�ai".aF€'.;a:,.-�, a��t,:.,:;� ,<a�':- tci,^��'f �.,.-`.'„�� ;�,, ?s,� ...tistRz• ,y ;^'a�{.i",:,,�;:�'�_"=='-;�:..;.��', �,,,9p ';N�u'M,: �.�, tx '-.�••<�:.�,,,,� .,,� _ y"-ems �F+u z= :,y -'�*. ,�..�; ;:�a.�: a '-: �`:�� .,�„ �C3� ` %` >:Jix+.�,.�.y -,-»,• '-.vs :.'-�ten.r.. "ey S. %;�.P t •Y^9� <�b.,, 4i'e`;.��ww,zr-rx '?k �}- .�•£.¢, :'ar�F, a„;�l 3};. �'k'$ Hx`�'?'_'„ w5y kSe�� , s��. 5� f:: y .� �a� �'�', � W ,�,�,:a .�� K.��-,;'"� ;a".�' k�. � `5.k;� :a,�'� �-,r v,a. �f ...�'' ate,� �...3'�^'�•a.�." MOM a°�.-" "F, -,d3 "F �;M�. -��5 ,&_q>:;';>,•.->>�.';:',..�. �u.:«-.y., ;�.. .'.-:;.1';�g-.<<-' 1:.,r' �`x"�^�,�i,F'•'` -Ufa:., r ATTACHMENT NO. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No.-99-4 amending Chapter 254.08 Hof the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance addressing methods to calculate required park land in-lieu fees for residential development is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire, improve, and rehabilitate park and recreation facilities throughout the City. 2. The change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The revised ordinance applies to residential development and the method to calculate the required parkland in-lieu fees for residential development. The amendment will be consistent with other provisions in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. I A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The current land value for park sites has been under assessed and not analyzed since 1990. The new method will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. 4. The adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The revised ordinance will result in the City's ability to provide sufficient recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors. (OOSR26)—3128/00 Attachment No.4.1 dA rk's; :;�,.. ^'n',',ia„'.,<A>£;+"" :°„>.r.;`"Cr" •e,3a':irt..[:.Sv;<^,",..2. "vtt „- ai:;� :fi��:.a.M_r,b.;�„��.e,;�>,�-3t�>�,k.„��`7,-•,''6^'�n>t.;,.,�.e,7;`G,r'.,ma<..:y,}.�;+`,F,.+,g;'n"i,'^.',�i=>`'a s �s.arw�<��*, +°AA,;f'^ 'Olt¢ ,� .��a? �'';'�2,>y.R v. .i3.#:sd�'£�'� *,•b �'d..E, r"ne„`.a�aD:,;.�,,,<.,v rs•.e ia..iN,•'z ' s;„,' �r;;'":K,,. �:� ax,°.�.-` Tip Y' r`'� .,',, f";�, ;^'� �" ;:�•.`� -'r: r. g »?�� `,;3w"sP�''.��t`,,�.. �� 'y�"L x.. �`;„e „� >�`• '�'; �z ,; � :��;' � fix;,. �; � zrtwa: i•"�'-,� �ai ,yi� x:'a�da `1,7' '�:, 'i`� :w ,•�"� � `v� .»',-,. e, '." %�` ,�°�,b� A:�,.-pia,u��;k, 'Y �;'r -,>:i aim, •.�:� 'e:a'se'.�" °ss es�?..�:- ;5�s, ti"'t','i.'�,.�. - s�>`�.>.>- �'"vs,G Y ��':: .w3d.a. A<�qg =�, 'tl ° 3.} '°,?'3�;s>��%. -'�`'-a'.. 'aS•:-;.�',� -��tay "d"•,�•��,'s.. ORDINANCE NO. 3468 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 254.08H THEREOF RELATING TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES WHEREAS,pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 ,which amends Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to park in- lieu fees; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D, which amount is sixty percent(60%) of the average fair market value per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used for or zoned for public park or recreational purposes. Fair market value of the land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of July , 2000. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: 15 City Clerk 7-12 ity Attorney C REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIA ED AND APPROVED: 1 City Adiffinistrator rector of Plw6tffig &4:990rdinance:parkfees#2 RLS 00-429 Ord. No. 3468 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, CONNIE BROCKWAY, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven;that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 19th'day of June, 2000, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 5th day of July,2000, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Julien,Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I,Connie Brockway CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Independent on ,2000 In accordance with the City Charter of said City City Clerk and ex-off cio Clerk Connie Brockway, City Clerk of the City Council of the City Deauty city clerk of Huntington Beach, California g./ordinanc1ordbkpg.doc 7/12/00 r� commends the City's recognition of the severe need for employee housing. However, a recent study conducted by the BIA of San Diego indicates that between 30 and 40%percent of the cost of a new house is due to fees imposed by local government. The National Association of Homebuilders states that for every $1,000 added to the price of a home, 500,000 people (nationally) are prevented from being able to qualify for a mortgage. Given these facts, BIA/OC supports the Planning Commission Subcommittee recommendations as identified in the March 14,2000 staff report, that the 1).park"fee be set at 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula ... and 2) that the City complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out, as well as identify funding methods." Adopting these recommendations will not increase fees further until such a time that the City completes a study that can validate that park fees should be increased. While BIA/OC has other concerns regarding the City local park inventory methodology and implementation process, we do not intend to raise those issues at the Planning Commission. BIA/OC requests that we be invited to participate in any study on park fees that the City undertakes. We look forward to further dialogue with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, Christine Diemer Iger, Esquire Chief Executive Officer Attachment: October 15, 1999Jer Cc: City Council Members Ray Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator BIA/OC Board of Directors Tom Morrison, BIA/SC General Counsel Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Stan Oftelie, Orange County Business Council October 15, 1999 BIR Mayor Peter Green and Councilmembers City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Ora�tge Couni�r Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Clurpter Building lndu.tn As,,oc iation Re: Huntington Beach Park "In-Lieu" Fee Increase ,,fI,ti;rn calm rn;a Dear Mayor Green and Councilmembers: 9 Exerldi,e Circle Juite 1t111 Irvine.CaliGn'nia 92014 On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, (49.. 53.9500 fax 949.5$3.950, Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC), we are writing to express our strongest opposition to the proposed "appraisal update" of the City's local park "in-lieu" fee. BIA/OC is a nonprofit trade association consisting of more than 1,000 member companies and 60,000 employees in the residential home building PRESIDENT Pg JEFF PROSTOR and light construction industry. BROOKFIELD HOMES 1ST VICE PRESIDENT Furthermore, we would reiterate our prior BIA position presented b our STEVE CAMERON P P P y FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES Deputy Director, Lynne Fishel, at your October 4, 1999 Council meeting that 2ND VICE PRESIDENT the City should undertake a reexamination of the appraisal and perform a DENIS CULLUMBER nexus study on the City's in-lieu park fees. This study should, in our opinion, LENNAR/GREVSTONE HOMES include the following information: TREASURER LJEDGCOMB JOHN LAING HOMES 1) An analysis of the validity of the City's formula for SECRETARY calculating the number of acres per 1,000 population GORDON CRAIG required to be dedicated (currently 5 acres per 1,000 MONARCH COMMUNITIES persons) on each residential subdivision or ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT LAER PEARCE corresponding payment per acre; LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES MEMBER-AT-LARGE 2) How park fees will be used to acquire and develop or DAVE COLGAN NOSSAMAN.GUTHNER rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community KNOX&ELLIOT LLP parks or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision MEMBER-AT-LARGE from which the fees are obtained, as required by GERALD GATES Government Code section 66477(C); BEAZER HOMES TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE VICE PRESIDENT 3) Development of"a schedule specifying how, when and THOMAS STEELE where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop HARDWOOD CREATIONS park or recreation facilities to serve residents of the IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT GREG CURRENS subdivisions" from which fees are obtained, as required AMHC CORP by Government Code section 66477(o. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHRISTINE DIEMER IGER,ESQ. In the absence of the City's compliance with our association's request for an appraisal reexamination and performance of a nexus study, we intend to prepare a legal challenge to the City's appraisal process and calculation of An Affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industr .Association existing inventory of"neighborhood and community parks" used to determine the City's overall park acreage ratio (currently the legal maximum of 5 acres per 1,000) pursuant to Government Code section 66477(b). We would also inform the Council that the City's recent appraisal is completely inconsistent with a recent park acreage valuation appraisal completed by Peter Finnerty, MAI, of Pacific Real Estate Consultants for the County of Orange, and would, in essence, put Huntington Beach residential acreage on a par with the Newport Coast area which is the highest appraised acreage in the County. And, as BIA previously stated at the October 4, 1999 City Council meeting, the resulting increase would put Huntington Beach's new park fee at more than double the current highest park "in-lieu" fee in the County. We look forward to working with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, Christine Diemer Iger, Esquire Chief Executive Officer cc: BIA/OC Board of Directors Past Presidents Co-Chairs Ray Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton, Esq., City Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Nick Cammarota, CBIA Au C ricil/Agency Mee Held: IC 010 J� t 0*44 Deferred/ ontinue to: 06— 00 Q Approved L1 Conditionally Approved LJ Denied DW. GhOel"gnature Council Meeting Date: May 15, 2000 7—Department ID Number: PL 00-28 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH C= REQUEST FOR ACTION < SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS co > SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator 424-1 PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning > SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (FEE IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION). 0\ZiD Na, 3,% A ok OPD NO- Age Statement of issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 99-4, a request by the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method for determining fees in- lieu of parkland dedication. The current method is based upon the average fair market value per acre of parkland in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks throughout the city. The proposed ZTA would establish the fee based upon a site specific land value appraisal of the project site. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the ZTA with modifications (Recommended Action - A) in order to address issues raised by several developers and consultants. They recommend a two-phase approach: 1) the ZTA be "approved establishing a method for fees based upon 50% of the average value per acre of citywide parkland; and 2) direct staff to complete a comprehensive study identifying costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements. Staff is recommending approval of the ZTA as directed by the City Council on November 1, 1999 which requires a site specific appraisal to be submitted to determine the exact park in- lieu fee (Recommended Action - B). Funding Source: The zoning text amendment will not result in a cost to the City to implement. REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with modifications with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) and adopt Ordinance No. 3`t68g (ATTACHMENT NO. 5)." Planning Commission Action on March 28, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4, WITH MODIFICATIONS AND FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SHOMAKER, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC, SPEAKER NOES: BIDDLE, KERINS, CHAPMAN ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE (MODIFICATION IS 50% OF THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE) MOTION PASSED B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Ordinance No. (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial' 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services Location: Residential Districts Citywide PL00-28 -2- 05/04/00 3:09 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 represents a request to amend Section 254.08 H. Amount of Fee In-Lieu of Park Land Dedication of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) pursuant to Section 247.02 of the ZSO. The draft ordinance would change the method for determining the dollar amount for each acre of land which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated for park purposes. Currently, the in-lieu fee is based upon the average fair market value per acre of parkland in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks. With the new ordinance, the developer/property owner would be required to submit a certified appraisal of their project site to establish value of land. This value would then be used to calculate the amount of fee in-lieu of parkland dedication required for their residential project. The appraisal would be completed at the expense of the subdivider and be submitted to the City for review and approval. The property's appraised value would only be valid for 60 days, during which time the park land in-lieu fee would be collected by the City. In the event the fee is not collected within the 60 day period, a new or updated appraisal shall be completed and submitted for City approval. The purpose of this zoning text amendment is to determine the appropriate land values equating to a fee in-lieu of parkland dedication. The formula for determining the amount of land to dedicate, and when fees are applicable are not part of this request. This has long been established in the City's Zoning Code. The zoning text amendment is necessary to ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees, and that there is equity between those developers/property owners required to dedicate land versus those paying in-lieu fees. In addition, it enables the City to continue acquiring and improving park and recreational facilities throughout the City in accord with the goals and policies of the General Plan. B. BACKGROUND: When residential projects are proposed, they are required to comply with the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance which is part of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (State Quimby Act). However, if the proposed development contains 50 parcels or less and has no park and recreational facility depicted in the General Plan, then the subdivider has the option to pay a fee. The fee shall be equal to the land value of the portion of the park or recreational facilities required to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed development. The City last revised the fee in 1990 when it established an approximate $182,000 per acre value for parkland. The parkland in-lieu fee is based on a citywide appraisal of neighborhood parks (Low Density Residential zoning without improvements). PL00-28 -3- 05/04/00 3:09 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held three public hearings, and a subcommittee meeting. On February 23, 2000, the Planning Commission held their first public hearing to discuss the proposed ordinance. Following testimony by three people opposed to the new method for calculating the park in-lieu fee, the commission continued their action in order to hold a Planning Commission subcommittee meeting with staff and the concerned parties. On February 28, 2000, the subcommittee met to discuss alternatives to the proposed method for calculating the park fees. The subcommittee, comprised of Commissioners Biddle and Shomaker, members from the Community Services Department, Planning Department, City Attorney's office, and local builders and consultants (Bob Corona, Dick Harlow, Mike Adams, and Bijan Sassounian), discussed the need for the City to determine costs associated with the master plan buildout of park improvements. The group felt the total cost approach would allow the city to impose a park fee on a more equitable basis. The developers explained how it was inappropriate for the city to use land values based on the location of the proposed development, contending that the City had no intention of acquiring land for park purposes on those properties. For example, there are no additional parks proposed in the built-out downtown area. They stated that with exception of a few instances, the fee should be based on improvement or rehabilitation costs rather than costs associated with acquiring parkland. They further stated that once the costs for completing park acquisition and improvements were determined, the formula for a park in-lieu fee would be more appropriate. At the March 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, they discussed the recommendation forwarded by the subcommittee. After further discussion, they requested staff forward a survey of other Orange County cities park in-lieu fees for their review. They continued their action to the next meeting. On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the county-wide survey (included in Attachment No. 10) and approved the Ordinance with a modification to 50% of the Citywide average. The Commission recommended the modified language finding that the 50% value more closely represents average land costs, and that the reduced value deducts costs associated with off-site improvements. The fee increase was recommended by the Planning Commission to be implemented in two phases. The initial phase would utilize the fixed fee of 50% of the Citywide average of parkland per acre into the existing formula. The new fee would be approximately $433,000 per acre which is 50% of the Citywide average of$866,627 per acre of land. PL00-28 -4- . 05/04/00 3:09 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 The second phase would be implemented following a comprehensive study of costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements. According to the Planning Commission, implementation of the first phase will allow staff the opportunity to complete a study on costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation. The Commission noted that the study should be completed within a year, and that the recommended ordinance be considered an interim ordinance until the findings of the study are reviewed by the City Council, and appropriate changes are made for the calculation of park fees. The Planning Commission also received letters from the Building Industry Association (BIA) and Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce (Attachment No. 9) in support of the Planning Commission subcommittee's two phase approach addressing the park fees. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Since the value of land has significantly increased over the last ten years and the parkland in-lieu fee has not, it is important to adopt an ordinance to reflect current land values. The Council's direction from November 1, 1999 will accomplish this. Staff recommends the site specific appraisal as it is the most equitable. It eliminates the inequity resulting from averaging the parkland value on a citywide basis. Last year, an independent appraisal firm performed a citywide neighborhood park appraisal. The per acre value for RL neighborhood parks ranged from $341,000 to $1,392,000 per acre depending upon the park's location. The average per acre value for all RL neighborhood parks is $866,627. This is a difference of approximately $684,000 from the present value of$182,000 per acre. By using the current code-required average, developers in certain areas of the city would be paying a fee that may be higher than the actual value of their property, while developers in other parts of the city would be paying a fee significantly less. In addition, if the City were to use the citywide average method instead of a site specific calculation, Huntington Beach parkland fees would be the highest in the county. PL00-28 -5- 05/04/00 3:09 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 The following table represents a comparison of the various recommendations before you and their translation to the cost per single family residential unit. In-Lieu Fee Formula Land Value Cost per Acre per SFR Unit Existing Fee Citywide average fair market $182,000 $3,121 value of all RL zoned parkland (when no zoning entitlement required) Citywide average fair market $516,500 $8,858 value of all RL zoned parkland (Zoning Entitlement Required) 1999 Appraisal Citywide average fair market $866,627 $14,862 value of all RL zoned parkland Site specific appraisal of $1,000,000* $17,150 property to be developed Planning 50% of Citywide average fair $433,000 $7,425 Commission market value of all RL zoned parkland City Council Site specific appraisal of Varies Varies downtown property to be developed Staff does not concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation of collecting only 50% of the required fees. Based on the fact that current land values have been identified, and because park in-lieu fees have been less than their actual land value amount for over 10 years, staff believes that the proposed ordinance should reflect actual land values in order to adequately fund future park acquisition and development. Staff does concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation for completing a comprehensive study to determine the total costs associated with the buildout of the master plan of park improvements. However, staff recommends that such study be completed and integrated into the future Citywide Strategic Plan. E. SUMMARY: Recommendation A: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 using the following two phase approach: 1. Require a fixed fee of 50% of the Citywide average of parkland per acre to be factored into the existing formula; until PL00-28 -6- 05/04/00 3:09 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 2. The findings of a comprehensive study identifying the total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City are implemented. Recommendation B: Staff recommends that each residential development be required to submit a site-specific appraisal to determine the exact cost of the parkland in-lieu fee and incorporate an analysis of future parkland buildout in the future Citywide Strategic Plan based upon the following: The revised ordinance will result in the City's ability to provide sufficient recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors. This method best meets the goal of the Park Acquisition and Development Fund, and is the fairest and most legally defensible. This method meets the goals and policies of the the General Plan. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number No. Description 1. Findings for Approval (Staff Recommendation) 2. Ordinance No. 43 6tc (Staff Recommendation) 3. Legislative Draft (Staff Recommendation) 4. Findings for Approval (PC Recommendation) 5. Ordinance No. 34AA (PC Recommendation) 6. Legislative Draft (PC Recommendation) 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 28, 2000, March 14, 2000 and February 23, 2000 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 28, 2000 (includes March 14, 2000 and February 23, 2000 staff reports) 9. Letters in Opposition and Support 10. Parkland In-lieu Fee Comparison Survey RCAP�uthor� \1) gy<ne:Carvalho PL00-28 -7- 05/04/00 3:09 PM i �i c{ yid.• ;atY � ,�:,�s ,., �� :��. �-'� ,\:,,�z'"'-�,,r',"s y%t'1i„- x , g. '"?ice-:-� .;.".,'# �z... .�,, .,;,.;;r'.�:.::�:..•�wv\\�at�awF;z•;,•.. " ( C ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 amending Chapter 254.08 H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance addressing methods to calculate required park land in-lieu fees for residential development is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire, improve, and rehabilitate park and recreation facilities throughout the City. 2. The change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The revised ordinance applies to residential development and the method to calculate the required parkland in-lieu fees for residential development. The amendment will be consistent with other provisions in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The current land value for park sites has been under assessed and not analyzed since 1990. The new method will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. 4. The adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The revised ordinance will result in the City's ability to provide sufficient recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors. (OOSR26)—3/28/00 Attachment No. 1.1 v' �� ': ..,. x i�y�ezj,.;,a.-. €...: s� -�� i� � ._f; „see a �r�g ,,. �, �..... _�,• „ :.,. ..,. �,, ,: ,, �� ..,.K� � �.; " m. ,�.: � ,..,. ,�:;, �. , . �. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 254.08H THEREOF RELATING TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. , which amends Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to park in- lieu fees; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to the fair market value for each acre of the project site which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D. Fair market value of the land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser hired by the City at the expense of the developer. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. The date of value of the property for purposes of the appraisal shall be within 60 days of payment of the fee as referenced in Section 254.08K. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 12000. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: IlVIT TED AND APPROVED: City Administrator l6ilector of ing &4:990rdinance:parkfees RLS 98-385 x. MIT 7211' LEGISLATIVE DRAFT H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to the fair market value an amount for each acre of the project site which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D. whieh ametint is the aver-age fair-s1 a fe ,.....,dEet aper-aer-ef land in all RL zoned neighbor-hood..,.blie,, a-ks within the City ifs,,e land wer-e of used for-or-zoned for-publie pff1 Fair market value of the land in s ieh neighbor-hood neighbor-hood„ark p pei4ies the City shall be determined evefy twe years by a qualified real estate appraiser hired by the City at the expense of the developer. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. The date of value of the property for purposes of the appraisal shall be within 60 days of payment of the fee as referenced in Section 254.08K. g:4:990rd i n an ce:parkfees RLS 98-385 AWN ATTACHMENT NO.+ SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 amending Chapter 254.08 H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance addressing methods to calculate required park land in-lieu fees for residential development is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire, improve, and rehabilitate park and recreation facilities throughout the City. 2. The change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The revised ordinance applies to residential development and the method to calculate the required parkland in-lieu fees for residential development. The amendment will be consistent with other provisions in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. I A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The current land value for park sites has been under assessed and not analyzed since 1990. The new method will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. 4. The adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The revised ordinance will result in the City's ability to provide sufficient recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors. (OOSR26)—3/28/00 Attachment No.4.1 r \l�u�.i..e.......��r•,2.,y'ro `iii".,-s4"�+""..rv^Rx 'l»iie ')vdhrn3.r„i;)��Nn-g_:K. 4')f „in`.:k, „.,,,:r.,vi•, '^"_.... .�'..� 3yp F;f '.)Pjy �.� _ � �� wl .''�a?�.'an`•3� ". .a� .rce�h^y ' t•• vK�Sp' �:.. ¢..xy� � �x�>r:L' M1^Et�.a s.Y.f»an •�Q:E tt\` :4.. ante. " ��. <,.'. ::.�;. �� e•. Sli. ,�; .r'fl vv :•<.W;+` ':Ka>:,;,,,. ,r€r* E yX,`n"d,�;;�_`--eii L .4]5fv`r,e.\ ei�•:yt.:Y•)JEi��r�rv)'^'��'"�'. ,,,ap/ ".-YP�;?�,.^ a ' v .try-,,:i' .a...: .;s_ r, e.. ,<%'�✓i' a ,r,•, .�. ..,,v ,y t;;t'. '„:';.d( °'� r:f�C'r��tt rr Mfg/, '✓:Y�'�', ',.�eE?e'r"��.N•e�e��"�",.,, e .:, .iir `fir r.� H:a..r .;,;.,vvvv:_^,trsrr'.:.: ,.�•r.r'•�iC��&.. sY✓iak.. ::`��e "r�:),n;`)Y`.).r eerl�a 5t�;.r La. •• i. .ree,e..Y' ......,vn •• _: ;.rr..er r:.•:aE'e'.'sN`,4�;xv a'r: ..n/y/.•,e:.ia/Nr.'l pt)�+"� '�.r/.rn• ••::"r. ..:r. ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 254.08H THEREOF RELATING TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. ,which amends Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to park in- lieu fees; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D, which amount is fifty percent (50%) of the average fair market value per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used for or zoned for public park or recreational purposes. Fair market value of the land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2000. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney g REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Administrator Di ector of Pl g &4:990rdinance:parkfees#2 RLS 00-429 4 lyv 6 n3 v...v. :a i nA .� .., v yr.. :'Sv:�r�wi✓iti5i.=�:';'�"�'i r Ali,..,, ,,. .r. �..,.,,r., - ,s,-.. Z\\Z`d. �� ;,f,, e;�si ^��':.'r�'•;.'��..4'/.j/.v�5�� ,�`•nnr n r S g?a �•.CtH• a'- :take-�.�a ��N�\��"�;i=�,�, �, LEGISLATIVE DRAFT H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D, which amount is fifty percent (50%) of the average fair market value per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used for or zoned for public park or recreational purposes. Fair market value of the landin sttehneighbor-hood padE" pei4ies in the City shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. g:4:990rdinance:parkfees#2 RLS 00-429 20 ................. MINUTES DRAFT HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION === - TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION - 5:15 PM (Room B-8) CUP # 99-63/CDP #99-13/VAR#99-11 (HASSAN 3RD STORY) -Jane James MEADOWLARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—Amy Wolfe ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (PARK & RECREATION FEES)— Wayne Carvalho AGENDA REVIEW—Herb Fauland PUBLIC COMMENTS—None REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Shomaker, Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle, Livengood, 'Speaker AGENDA APPROVAL Anyone"wishing'°to::'s"peak must fill"out"and submit a form'to speA— No action can be'ldken liy;tlie;Planning Cornmission on' this:date,'`unless tlie';item,Js agendized."Any=one wishing tdsp'e'ak on"items,not on=tonight's agenda or on non-public"hearmg items may`do so during.ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Speakers on items scheduled for PUBLIC HEARING will be"invited.:'. tos eak,;durin"g'th"epublic;hearin 4"MINUTES PER PERSON,NO=DQNATING OF TIME TO OTHERS „p g ( m�»��q;m: A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE B. . PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (PARK AND RECREATION FEES) (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 28,2000 MEETING APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 - Amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by mo+ing0UFT method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. --- • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting on March 14, 2000. - Staff to forward information on park and recreation fees from other cities. • Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting on February 28, 2000. Recommendation: - Amend ordinance to reflect a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula. Sixty percent of 866,600 per acre is 520,000 j. per acre. i - Recommend the City Council complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out, as well as identify appropriate funding methods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Recommendation-Approve Staff s Recommendation based upon: - Goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. The Commission discussed a letter received from Mr. William Vogt dated February 16, 2000 alleging that the City has illegally been collecting fees for homes built on existing subdivision tracts in the downtown area. Staff explained that this issue was previously addressed by the City Attorney's office in 1993. A similar inquiry was received from Mr. Vogt challenging the City's exaction of the park in-lieu fee upon issuance of building permits for new residential units in the downtown area. The legal opinion received by the City Attorney concluded that the Government Code (State Law) does not prohibit the city from imposing a parks and recreation dedication requirement(land or in-lieu fee) as a building permit condition. Therefore, it is the City's position that park in-lieu fees for new homes in the downtown/townlot area have been lawfully collected. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mike Adams, 19771 Sea Canyon, representing developers, stated that in the interim, the ordinance reflecting a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre should be approved. Mr. Adams also stated that the city should decide how they would spend the fees collected from projects to implement the General Plan goals. This will ensure the city will have enough money to do what is proposed. Bill Vogt, 19432 Pompano Lane, stated that the downtown lots should be exempt from the in- lieu fee. He believes this is true based on his letter dated February 16, 2000 distributed to the Planning Commission. Lynne Fishel, 9 Executive Circle, Irvine, representing BIA, spoke in opposition to the proposed "appraisal update" of the city's local park in-lieu fee. She stated that the fees should reflect the emphasis in the city's General Plan. The plan is to rehabilitate existing park sites not acquire new park sites. The BIA believes a nexus study should be done to validate the fees and identify how fees will be used. The high fees discourage the ability to provide affordable housing within the city. PC Minutes—3/28/00 2 (OOpcm328) � a Robert Corona, 324 19th Street, stated that the proposed park in-lieu fee is excessive. that there is no land in the downtown area to build new park(s) and very few existing r ^�. Because of this, the fee is not appropriate for this area. He stated the doubling the existing fee would be acceptable, but would continue to pose a hardship in some cases. Dick Harlow, 211 Main Street, stated that he supports the subcommittee's recommendation but encouraged a study to determine where the funds would be needed. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Planning Commission reviewed the countywide survey and discussed the Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission subcommittee with a modification to 50% instead of 60% of the citywide average. The fee increase would be implemented in two phases. The second phase would be implemented following a comprehensive study of costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements. Implementation of the first phase will allow staff the opportunity to complete a study on costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation. The Commission noted that the study should be completed within a year, and that the recommended ordinance be considered an interim ordinance until the findings of the study are reviewed by Council, and appropriate changes are made for the calculation of park fees. The Commission recommends the modified language finding that the 50% value more closely represents average land costs, and that the reduced value deducts costs associated with off-site improvements. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE AS MODIFIED (50% OF THE CITY WIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE) WITH FINDINGSPAND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED AN AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY CHAPMAN TO AMEND THE MODIFICATION TO 60% OF THE CITY WIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Chapman NOES: Shomaker, Mandic, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PC Minutes—3/28/00 3 (00p=328) A MOTION WAS MADE BY MANDIC, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBMITTEE AS MDOFIED (DESIGNATE DOWNTOWN AREA ONLY AS 40% OF THE CITY WIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY 60%) WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mandic, Biddle D NOES: Kerins, Chapman, Livegnood, SpeakerABSENT: None R ,.. �vFm"T ABSTAIN: None ~ --- - - --- MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY CHAPMAN, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 99-4 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Chapman NOES: Shomaker, Mandic, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE AS MODIFIED (50% OF THE CITY WIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE) WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mandic,Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 amending Chapter 254.08 H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance addressing methods to calculate required park land in-lieu fees for residential development is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire, improve, and rehabilitate park and recreation facilities throughout the City. PC Minutes—3/28/00 4 (00p=328) 2. The change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The revised ordinance applies to residential development and the method to calculate the required parkland in-lieu fees for residential development. The amendment will be consistent with other provisions in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The current land value for park sites has been under assessed and not analyzed since 1990. The new method will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. 4. The adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The revised ordinance will result in the City's ability to provide sufficient recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors. \AGREEMENT): LOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 88-1R(MEADOWLARK DEVELOPMENT CANT: John P. Erskine, Esq. Y TION: Meadowlark Specific Plan - --� Sp a Area(approximately 600 feet east and north of the Bolsa Chica Avenue intersection, south of Heil Avenue) PROJEC PLANNER: Amy Wolfe • Amended and Restat Development Agreement No. 88-1(R) request: - Substitute parties t eadowlark Development Agreement - Extend the term of th greement for an additional 3 year period - Update property descrip on and revise referenced exhibits and dates to reflect previously approved amendments to eadowlark Specific Plan(ZTA No. 97-4, ZMA No. 97-1, ND No. 97-21) and approva for the Meadowlark planned residential development (CUP No. 97-80, TTM No. 15469) • The applicant's request to amend the adowlark Development Agreement is based on the following: - Development Agreements are typically afted for 15-year terms. The Meadowlark Development Agreement term was 10 yea . - A three (3) year extension would allow time r the implementation of the Meadowlark planned residential development in accordance ith approvals previously granted by the City in 1999, and will allow for market absorptio of the project while the Development Agreement is in effect. STAFFS RECOMMENDATION: • Approve Development Agreement No. 88-1(R) based upon the lowing: - The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement will consistent with the General Plan. The Development Agreement will be modified to i lude references to the General Plan and revised Meadowlark Specific Plan. PC Minutes—3/28/00 5 (OOpcm328) FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 : 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project may have an impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood through adverse effects of traffic and noise and that the oject is an incompatible land use in the proposed location. i FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-3 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 for the establishment, mainten a and operation of the 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy (SRO) complex w' e detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicini r detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The O may be detrimental to surrounding commercial and residential properties beca e the 106 unit development is too intense, there are not enough controls to enforce con ' ions of approval, and the proposed location is inappropriate. 2. The conditional use permit will not be compat' e with surrounding uses because the SRO is too intense and will not be harmonious wit e existing Town& Country shopping center and adjacent residential uses. Insufficien arking is provided on-site for the potential residents and the proposed building is t an adequate buffer between the existing commercial center and the adjacent r idential fourplexes. 3. The granting of the conditional e permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the Land Us lenient designation of GC-F2-d (General Commercial- Maximum 0.5 FAR-special esign overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the follo g goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Eleme Ob'ective L 9.2: Provide for the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods. Polic 10.1.6: Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adeq ely protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of not/ light, vehicular traffic, visual character, and operational hazards. The project is found to be incompatible with the adjacent residential properties. B-2 . ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (PARK AND RECREATION FEES) (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 23,2000 MEETING APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho • Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 Amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. PC Minutes-3/14/00 5 (OOCPM314) • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting on February 23, 2000. Staff to meet with developers and a Planning Commission Subcommittee to review alternatives. • Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting on February 28, 2000. Recommendation: - Amend ordinance to reflect a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula. Sixty percent of 866,600 per acre is 520,000 per acre. - Recommend the City Council complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out, as well as identify appropriate funding methods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Approve Staffs Recommendation based upon: - Goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mike Adams, 19771 Sea Canyon;representing the development community in Huntington Beach, stated that he took part in the Committee that studied the proposed issues and stated that the fee should be based upon the needs of the community and the proposed fee is too excessive. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission stated that they were not yet ready to make a final decision on the proposed amendment. They requested staff to survey cities in Orange County(all beach communities)for their park fees. They also requested staff to report back on the amount of land the city was going to buy for park land and to make clear in the ordinance that this is an interim ordinance awaiting final evaluation. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO CONTINUE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 TO THE MARCH 28,2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes-3/14/00 6 (00CPM314) requirements. Treatment areas may require conformance to City Spe ' ation N.431, Gas Fired Appliances. (FD) gg. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured OX and homeowner hardware. (FD) hh. All project pool areas shall have a access installed on entry gates. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Dep ent at 714-536-5411. (FD) ii. Elevators shall be sized accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions shall be -8" wide by 4'-3" deep by 42" wide (min)right or left side opening. Cent e pening doors require a 54"depth. (FD) jj. Compli ce with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and ve ' d by the Planning Department. All building spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire,pipe, and other surplus or unusable material, shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. B-3 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (PARK AND RECREATION FEES): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach,Department of Community Services to amend Section 254.08 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. The new process would require developers submit a site-specific appraisal of the project site to determine the fair market value of land. The appraised value would then be inserted into the current formula to determine the fee. The appraisal would be prepared at the expense of the developer, and would require review and approval by the City. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff supports the request for the following reasons: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. The revised ordinance will update the fee assessed on new residential development, and will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. PC Minutes—2/23/00 27 (OOPCM223) • The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire and improve park and recreational facilities throughout the City in accordance with the goal of providing five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Commissioner Biddle voiced concern regarding the letter received from William Vogt which questioned the legality of collecting park in-lieu fees on properties subdivided prior to the City Ordinance in 1966. He asked if this has been challenged in court. Paul D'Alessandro, Deputy City Attorney,responded that park in-lieu fees had not been challenged in court. He stated that the intent of the Zoning Text Amendment was to clarify and update how the fee is calculated. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Robert Corona, Seacliff Development Company, said that the proposed formula does not make sense for the downtown developers who are building on small sites. He requested a continuance of the public hearing and also requested a meeting with staff and the Commissioners to discuss this issue. Mike Adams, Consultant, agreed with Mr. Corona. He said the formula for calculating the park in-lieu fee was wrong and recommended a continuance. Dick Harlow, 211 Main Street, requested a continuance of the public hearing. He said the in-lieu -- fees collected should have a direct correlation to the cost of the parkland not the site being developed. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner's Biddle,Mandic and Shomaker indicated that they would like to be included in the meeting with the developers to discuss this issue. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD ,SECONDED BY BIDDLE,TO CONTINUE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 THE MARCH 14,2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins,Mandic, Chapman,Biddle, Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Speaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes—2/23/00 28 (OOPCM223) i, ZFu i .o r `Ci of Huntin" tori`Beacl `.Plannin" "De artment. J� vs; ty. g STAFF REPOR HUNTINGfON BEACH .,S.s •`,Ti`k, ^,'g, .f TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner Wv DATE: March 28, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (Continued From March 14,2000 With Public Hearing Open -Park and Recreation In-Lieu Fees) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services,2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Residential Districts Citywide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 - Amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting on March 14, 2000. - Staff to forward information on park and recreation fees from other cities. Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting on February 28, 2000. Recommendation: - Amend ordinance to reflect a fixed fee of 60%of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula. Sixty percent of 866,600 per acre is 520,000 per acre. - Recommend the City Council complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development buildout, as well as identify appropriate funding methods. • Recommendation—Approve Staff s Recommendation based upon: Goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward to the City Council for adoption." PLANNING.COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 utilizing a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption;" and, 2. "Recommend to the City Council that the City complete a study on the total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development buildout, as well as identify appropriate funding methods, within one year from City Council adoption." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly." ANALYSIS: At the March 14, 2000 Planning.Commission meeting,the Commission reviewed the recommendations forwarded by staff and by the Planning Commission subcommittee. After some discussion, the Commission requested that information on fees and formulas used by other cities be transmitted to them for their review prior to taking action on the proposed zoning text amendment. The information is included in Attachment No. 6. Please note that the table's right(shaded) column identifies the adjusted park fee per unit. It is this adjusted fee that should be used for comparison purposes due to the different park dedication requirements (e.g. 3 acres/1000 persons) adopted by each city. The Commission also requested an estimated timetable for the completion of the comprehensive study proposed as the second phase of the subcommittee's recommendation. In addition, the Commission inquired about the total amount of land that was yet to be acquired by the City for park purposes. According to the Community Services Department,the comprehensive study would identify costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements, including the costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation and recommendations for other funding mechanisms. Staff estimates the study may take approximately nine months to complete. If the.City Council adopted the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission subcommittee and appropriates funding for the study, staff could forward the study's findings to the City Council in the form of a revised ordinance within three months of the completion of the study. The entire process would take approximately one year from the date the Planning Commission subcommittee's recommended action was adopted by City Council. Staff Report—3/28/00 2 (OOSR26) The Commission explained that the first phase of the fee increase was to be applied on an interim basis and that the comprehensive study should be completed as soon as possible to determine actual costs. The Commission inquired whether the ordinance should include a sunset clause. Staff recommends against creating an interim ordinance due to its uncertainty of the City Council's position. In addition,with the timelines identified above, the Commission could be assured that the findings of the study would be forwarded to the City Council within one year. A letter received from Mr. William Vogt dated February 16, 2000 (Attachment No. 8) alleges that the City has illegally been collecting fees for homes built on existing subdivision tracts in the downtown/townlot area. This issue was previously addressed-by the City Attorney's office in 1993 when a similar inquiry was received from Mr. Vogt challenging the City's exaction of the park in-lieu fee upon issuance of building permits for new residential units in the downtown area. The legal opinion(Attachment No. 7) received by the City Attorney concluded that the Government Code(State Law) does not prohibit the city from imposing a parks and recreation dedication requirement(land or in-lieu fee) as a building permit condition. Therefore, it is the City's position that park in-lieu fees for new homes in the downtown/townlot area have been lawfully collected. A letter received from the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce (Attachment No. 11) dated March 22, 2000 references support for the Planning Commission subcommittee's recommendation, also citing that a nexus study be conducted to determine costs associated with the completion of the existing Master Plan of parks. Staff maintains a recommendation to require a site-specific appraisal to determine the land value per acre as conceptually approved by the City Council for inclusion into the existing formula as identified in the Quimby Act. A complete analysis is included in the February 23,2000 and March 14, 2000 Planning Commission staff reports (Attachment Nos. 4 & 5). ATTACHMENTS: 1. Siaggested Findings for Arpro-val 2. 3. -'TnegisleAive' 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 14,2000 5. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 23,2000 6. 7. Legal Opinion on Park and Recreation Fees dated July 13, 1993 8. e 0 9. , 10 , 11. better in1 clip-_ +f Q9pC^y gp^�Tr+��re®•�(�iefl�}�' frnm (`hnrnbrj of('nmmarra d tvll *�---@ 7 s s,zmcvrr��, SH:WC:kjl Staff Report—3/28/00 3 (OOSR26) PE City of Huntington'Beach Plannhi` 0 " tment ig S O TAFF REP RT ..:...... .... .. wn TO: Planning Commission FROM: . Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planm*rjg BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner DATE: March 14, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (Continued From February 23, 2000 With Public Hearing Open-Park and Recreation In-Lieu Fees) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Residential Districts Citywide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 - Amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. • Continued Item Planning Commission meeting on February 23, 2000. Staff to meet with developers and-a Planning Commission Subcommittee to review alternatives. Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting on February 28, 2000. Recommendation: - Amend ordinance to reflect a fixed fee of 60%of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula. Sixty percent of 866,600 per acre is 520,000 per acre. - Recommend the City Council complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development buildout, as well as identify appropriate funding methods. • Recommendation—Approve Staff s Recommendation based upon: Goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings (Attachment No. 1)and forward to the City Council for adoption." ATTACHMENT NCB, • r y PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 utilizing a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption;" and, 2. "Recommend to the City Council that the City complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development buildout, as well as identify appropriate funding methods." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly." ANALYSIS: Planning Commission Subcommittee At the Planning Commission's direction, staff met with the subcommittee on February 28, 2000 to discuss alternatives to the proposed method for calculating parkland in-lieu fees. The subcommittee comprised of Commissioners Biddle and Shomaker, members from the Community Services Department, Planning Department, City Attorney's office, and local builders and consultants(Bob Corona, Dick Harlow, Mike Adams, and Bijan Sassounian) discussed the need for the City to determine costs associated with the master plan buildout of park improvements. The group felt that the total cost approach would allow the city to impose a park fee on a more equitable basis. The developers explained how it was inappropriate for the city to use land values based on the location of the proposed development, contending that the City has no intention of acquiring land for park purposes on those properties. They stated that with exception of a few instances,the fee should be based on improvement or rehabilitation costs rather than costs associated with acquiring parkland. They further stated that once the costs for completing park acquisition.and improvements were determined,the formula for a park in-lieu fee would be more appropriate. As a result,the subcommittee agreed to forward an alternative recommendation for Planning Commission consideration. The alternative recommendation would be implemented in two phases. The initial phase would be amend the ordinance now to utilize a fixed fee of 60% of the Citywide average of parkland per acre into the existing formula. The existing fee per acre is $182,000;the new fee would be approximately $520,000 per acre which is 60%of 866,627 per acre. The subcommittee justified utilizing a 60%value by deducting costs associated with off-site improvements and more closely represented average land costs. The subcommittee also discussed the need to specify the location of future park sites and the type of improvements proposed. Staff Report—3/14/00 2 (OOSR21) ATTACHMENT NO. CI The second phase would be implemented following a comprehensive study of costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements. Implementation of the first phase will allow staff the opportunity to complete a study on costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation. Staff anticipates that a study may take a year to complete and receive approval. Staff maintains a recommendation to require a site-specific appraisal to determine the land value per acre for inclusion into the existing formula as identified in the Quimby Act. A complete analysis is included in the February 23, 2000 Planning Commission staff report(Attachment No. 4). ATTACHMENTS: Sulgge prcroal _ Draft Ordinances e-. TOM i SH:WC:kjl Staff Report—3/14/00 3 (OOSR21) ATTACHMENT t4C.4% . ........... t '7-B H 4%WT�F; P. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Wayne*Carvalho, Associate Planner WLOj DATE: February 23, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (Park and Recreation*In-Lieu Fees) LOCATION: Residential Districts City-wide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services to amend Section 254.08 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. The new process would require developers submit a site-specific appraisal of the project site to determine the fair market value of land. The appraised value would then be inserted into the current formula to determine the fee. The appraisal would be prepared at the expense of the developer,and would require review and approval by the City. Staff supports the request for the following reasons: • The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. • The revised ordinance will update the fee assessed on new residential development, and will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. • The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire and improve park and recreational facilities throughout the City in accordance with the goal of providing five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with suggested findings for approval(Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly." .47A -M ANT NO. GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 _REQUEST: To amend Section 254.08 H. of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code (ZSO) addressing the method to calculate Parkland In-Lieu Fees for residential development. DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): January 3, 2000 Not applicable. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 represents a request to amend Section 254.08 H.Parkland Dedication of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance(ZSO)pursuant to Section 247.02 of the ZSO. _ The draft ordinance specifies that developers submit certified appraisals of project sites to determine. parkland in-lieu fees for all residential projects. The draft ordinance further stipulates that the appraisals be completed at the expense of the developer, and be submitted to the City for review and approval. The draft ordinance specifies that the property's appraised value be valid for 60 days, during which time the park land in-lieu fee shall be collected by the City. The in-lieu fees are usually paid upon recording of final maps, or where no map is required,prior to issuance of building permits. In the event the fee is not collected within the 60 day period, a new or updated appraisal shall be completed and submitted for City approval. Therefore, it would be to the developer's benefit to submit the appraisal soon after a tentative map is approved in order to avoid from having to update the appraisal. Similarly, developers should submit appraisals during the plan check review process when no map is required. The request is necessary to ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. This will enable the City to acquire and/or improve park and recreational facilities by continuing to provide five (5) acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance.- The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan,and the following goals, and objectives of the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements: A. Land Use Element Objective LU 14.1: Preserve and acquire open spaces for the City's existing and future residents that provide,maintain, and protect significant environmental resources, recreational opportunities,and visual relief from development of the City. Staff Report—2/23/00 2 `�''j' P /� (00sr10 A l l A(r;`H E N � N0. . �i- Policy LU 14.1.2: Permit the acquisition and/or dedication of lands for new open space purposes in any land use zone whir they complement and are compatible with adjacent land uses and development, contingent on City review and approval. Policy LU 14.1.4: Provide for the acquisition and development of the City's parks in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire and improve park and recreational facilities throughout the City. B. Recreation and Community Services Element Goal RCS 2: Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents, and to preserve natural resources within the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. Policy RCS 2.1.1: Maintain the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons,which includes the beach in the calculation. Policy RCS 8.1.L: Update, on a periodic basis,the park in-lieu fee assessed to all new development. The revised ordinance will update the fee assessed-on new residential development, and will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No..4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Coastal Status: An amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program implementing ordinances will be filed with the California Coastal Commission to incorporate the changes of this zoning text amendment following final action by the City Council. The proposed zoning text amendment will not take effect on properties in the Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Design Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Staff Report—2/23/00 3 (00srli AT TAO ENT NO. . 5 Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works,Fire,Police, and Building and Safety,have no concerns. The Community Services Department has worked closely with the Planning Department and City Attorney's office and recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on February 10, 2000, and notices were sent to individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), and interested parties. As of February 16, 1999,no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. ANALYSIS: At City Council direction, staff conducted a review of the current method for calculating parkland in-lieu fees. The current method involves applying the City-established value per acre to the following formula: Area =5.0(D.F. z D.U.) 1000 A = Area in acres required to be dedicated as a park site or to be appraised for fee payment of the residential subdivision 5.0 = Number of acres per one thousand persons. D.F. = Density Factor obtained from the ZSO Section 254.08 E as applicable to proposed subdivision D.U. = Number of dwelling units proposed in the subdivision. The City last revised the fee in 1990 when it established an approximate$182,000 per acre value for parkland. The parkland in-lieu fee is based on a citywide appraisal of neighborhood parks (Low Density . Residential zoning without improvements). The value per acre is used to determine the exact fee.amount. Last year, an independent appraisal firm performed a citywide neighborhood park appraisal which concluded that the average per acre value for RL neighborhood parks is$816,609. This is a difference of approximately$634,000 from the present value of$182,000 per acre. If the City were to use the$816,000 figure in its existing formula,Huntington Beach park fees would be the highest in the county. Another concern against using this figure is the possibility that the City may experience challenges in its ability to attain its affordable housing goals. Staff is concerned with the fairness of averaging the appraised parkland value on a citywide basis. For example,the independent study resulted in parkland values ranging from less than$500,000 per acre up to Staff Report—2/23/00 4 (00sr10) -111TTACHNENT NO.; S4 over$1,000,000 per acre. By using an average,developers in certain areas of the city would be paying a higher fee than the actual value,while developers in other parts of the city would be paying less. Three other methods were analyzed (Method Nos.2-4): 1. Current Method: Utilize the$816,609 per acre value in the existing formula. 2. Site-Specific Appraisal: Require a site-specific appraisal to determine the per acre value based on the subject site. 3. Two-Tiered Fee: Projects with more than 50 units would require a site-specific appraisal; fees for projects with 50 units or less would be based on cost of park development and rehabilitation(not land value). 4. Consultant Study: City would hire a consultant to do a nexus study of the•city's park acquisition,development and,rehabilitation costs, evaluate the city's park standard,and recommend a funding method for the future of the Park Acquisition and Development fund when buildout is attained. A site-specific appraisal(Method No. 2)would allow-the City to determine the exact value of the property to be developed. That value would be used in the existing formula. The two-tiered approach(Method No. 3)would require a site-specific appraisal for larger projects, and would only require fees associated with park development and rehabilitation for smaller projects of 50 units or less. This scenario would . result in developers of larger projects paying substantially more than developers of smaller projects. Finally,the option to hire a consultant(Method No. 4)was considered. However, issues with time and costs to conduct a comprehensive study were eventually removed. Therefore, staff recommends that each residential development be required to submit a site-specific appraisal to determine the exact cost of the park fee (Method No. 2). Staff has determined that this method best meets the goal of the Park Acquisition and Development Fund and is the fairest and most legally defensible'. SUM'VIARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 994 based on the following reasons: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. The revised ordinance will update the fee assessed on new residential development,and will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire and improve park and recreational facilities throughout the City in accordance with the goal of providing five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Staff Report—2/23/00 5 (00sr10) -;.RENT N0. t ATTACHMENTS: 1. al .2. P41ga or-dip 3. & SH:HF:WC:kjl Staff Report—2/23/00 6 (00sr10 ,ATTACHMENT NO.-5.4 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH TO: Mike Adams , Director of Community Development FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: July 13 , 1993 SUBJECT: Park and Recreation Fees RLS 93-405 BACKGROUND Mr. William Vogt, a local developer, seeks to build upon two previously subdivided lots in the downtown area (602 and 604 14th Street) . As a condition of the issuance of building permits, the city has imposed a parks and recreation in-lieu fee pursuant to Section 9961.2 of the city' s Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Vogt seeks a waiver of the fee on two separate grounds . First, that the Government prohibits the imposition of such a fee; second, that his property is being" double charged, " because the original subdivider dedicated park property at the time of the original subdivision map. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS 1. Does the Government Code prohibit the city from imposing a parks and recreation dedication requirement (land or in-lieu fee) as a building permit condition? Answer: No. The courts have long held that land use regulations do not effect a taking if they substantially advance a legitimate government interest and do not deny a property owner economically viable use of his land. (A ins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 225 (1988_) ; Nollan v. California Coastal Commin. , 487 U.S. 825 (1987) ) . In addition, the California courts have consistently held that the dedication of land or the payment of a fee as a condition precedent to develop is voluntary- in nature. Although the developer cannot legally develop without satisfying the condition precedent, the developer voluntarily decides whether to develop or not to develop. (Trent Meredith, Inc. v. City of Oxnard, 114 Cal .App.3d 317 (1981) ) . ATTACHMENT NO. 7 T Mike Adams July 13, 1993 Page 2 For many years, California law has permitted cities to require, for various public purposes , the dedication of land, or the payment of in-lieu fees, as a condition of subdivision map approval . Currently, the statutues authorizing these types of exactions are found in Government Code Section 66410 et seq. Parks and recreation has long been a valid public purpose for such exactions . (See Associated Home Builders v. City of Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal .3rd 633 , 4 Cal .Rptr . 630 . ) Parks and recreation is specifically identified by Government Code Section 66477 as a proper public purpose for the requirement of the dedication of land or payment of fees in return for subdivision map approval . Further, cities are not limited by the Map Act as the sole means of obtaining land, improvements, or fees for parks and recreational uses . To quote the Attorney General of California, " [O) f course, a city or county has other means by which it may obtain land, improvements, and fees for parks and recreational facilities . " (Citing Westfield-Palos Verdes Co. v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal .App. 486, 141 Cal .Rptr. 36 . ) In Rancho Palos Verdes, infra, the court upheld the validity of a special tax on new development, where the proceeds from the tax went into the city' s park and recreational fund. The court held that "Just because tax revenue is channeled to a special fund from which park and recreational land is to be financed does not raise the tax to a prohibited subdivision exaction under Section 66477 of the Government Code. The exercise of the city' s plenary tax power is just one way among many that revenue can be raised for the purchase of parklands and open space. " (Rancho Palos Verdes, 73 Cal.App.3d at 448, 141 Cal .Rptr. at 44 . ) Clearly, the imposition of this particular exaction as a building permit condition is "just one way among many that revenue can be raised for the purchase of parklands and open space. " It is also constitutional, because it substantially furthers a legitimate government interest (the acquisition, preservation, and maintenance of parks and recreational areas) and it does not deny the property owner economically viable use of his land. Therefore, we find that this particular exaction is legal and proper. 2 . Did the Huntington Beach Company dedicate parks as part of the original subdivision? Answer: Probably not . At the time the Huntington Beach Company was subdividing its original tracts, dedications for parks or other recreational uses were not generally required for map approval . Unfortunately, the photo copied .materials submitted with this Request for Legal Services were mostly unreadable. TTAC�{i�ENT No. 71 vim. �.��S�.•z. ..�w',•`,.r ?cu,� \ �x r, n` SEACLMFF DEVELOPIVIENT CO.,M P.O. BOX 269 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 (714) 536-2078 March 14,2000 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Commissioner Livengood: As a result of many discussions with several Huntington Beach developers In reference to zoning text amendment no. 99-4 (park and recreation fee) it is of general consensus that the park in-lieu fee of $8,858.00, as proposed by staff, is excessive. Since there is no land in the downtown any to build new park(s) and very few existing parks, the fee is not really appropriate for this area. Doubling the existing fee of$3,120.00 would be more acceptable and even at that it may pose to be a hardship in some cases. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and if you should have any questions or concerns in reference to the foregoing please do not hesitate to contact me. Si Robert L.Corona, President Seacliff Development Co., Inc. - r 93114/108d 14:1b i 4bbj13b1l DLH U4 r o March 14, 2000 h P Huntington Heac lannaag Commission B-11R Attention: Kim Langel City of Huntington Beach Departmenth of Community Services Chapter ter 2000 MV in Street wcpt Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Building Industry Association of soathem Gautomia VIA FACSI AME:,(714)374-1540 9 Executive.Circle. Suite 100 SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment NO.99-4—Park and Recreation Irvine,Califomia 92614 949.553.9500 In-Lieu Fees fax 949.553.9.507 ' httpJ/w�+w.biasc.org Dear Cbaumaa Chapman and Commissioners: FOFSIDENT'On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southem California, :EFF PROSTOR BRCGOKNELD HOME$ Orange County Chapter(BIAIOC),I would I*e to comment on Zoniag Text AmendmerA NO. 99 regarding Park and Recreation In-Lieu $T Fees. BIA/OC 'ST� mSQO Nr EvE CAMERON is a wri-profit trade association representing over 1,000 companies in the FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES residential and light construction industry. 2ND VICE PRESIDENT DENIS CLUUMiIR LENNAR/GREYSTONE HOMES BIA/OC provided'eomments to the City Council on October 15, 1999 me.asuREa (attached)regarding these fees,expressing concerns about the approach the LJ EDQCOMB City is taking in revising aid updating park in-lieu fees. We have continued JOHN LANG HOMES to monitor this issue and make the follwAing comme=in addition to our SECRI T.ARY L O*=ON CRAG previous comments: MONARCH COMMUMTIES ry�� ^ D,, 7„ Y, y,... p ASW.IATE VICE PRESIDENT "he City's G=rd Plan Recreation Elenwnt and Master Plan of - � LNER PEARCE Parks and Recreation Facilities does not identify or express intent to 6ACR?iHR:i a AsiQGIATFS acquire new park or recreational facilities.Rather the emphasis has Mo"VE c�AN E been on rehabilitation and development of existing park sites. To NOSWAAN:GUTHNEa base park irk-lieu*fees on appraisals of new residential property is not IMx&Eu,OT LLP equitable or appropriate given that the city has.Eno expressed plat,to MGERA D IWE8 i acquire new park facilities. BEAZER HOMES TRACE CONTRACTORSAL_IANCE VIDE PRE81DEN1 We again reiterate the ncod for the City to conduct a nexus study to � THOMAS STEELE not only validate it's fees,but to also identify how park fees will be 0 CREATION$ �Gli.,_w�t0 ac q ,develop and rehabilitate existing neighborhood or IMMWL0 I1.WkSI WWI&SIU601I GREG CURRENS oomiamunity parks to serve the subdfvi4-ion from which the fees aYe AMHC CORP, obLatned as required by Government Code section 66477(c). cr+>E=E cECunv"OFFICER I. CHiUTINE DIEMER IGER.ESQ. ➢ The City Council has expressed its desire to provide affordable ownership and rental housing in the community. The BIA/OC An Affiliate of the National A4,ioviatiun hf Home Builders and the r'li I Mia BuiI line Jndusir: Association REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-36 Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with modifications with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) and adopt Ordinance No. 0& (ATTACHMENT NO. 5)." Planninq Commission Action on March 28, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4, WITH MODIFICATIONS AND FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SHOMAKER, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC, SPEAKER NOES: BIDDLE, KERINS, CHAPMAN ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE (MODIFICATION IS 50% OF THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE) MOTION PASSED B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Ordinance No. 31► 95 (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial" 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: The June 8, 2000 meeting with the Council subcommittee gave representatives from BIA and Chamber of Commerce the opportunity to explain their opposition to the draft ordinance. The representatives stated that there was no nexus between the increase in fees and the master plan buildout for parks. Although the BIA and Chamber representatives agreed that the current fee was low in comparison with current land values, they felt that until the City's ultimate park needs were assessed, it was unfair that builders, developers, and new homeowners assume the costs for funding the City's park fund. They felt that a study PL00-36 -2- 06/08/00 5:06 PM REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-36 identifying the costs associated with buildout of the City's park master plan, as well as analyzing methods for funding the park fund after buildout of the residential districts in the City would help identify and justify costs imposed on new development. Staff maintains the recommendation to require a site specific appraisal for determining the park fee. The staff analysis is provided in the May 15, 2000 Council staff report (Attachment No. 7). Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment(s): City Clerk's Page Number . Description 1. Findings for Approval (Staff Recommendation) 2. Ordinance No. 3� z (Staff Recommendation) 3. Legislative Draft (Staff Recommendation) 4. Findings for Approval (PC Recommendation) 5. Ordinance No. 31& (PC Recommendation) 6. Legislative Draft (PC Recommendation) 7. City Council RCA Staff Report dated May 15, 2000 8. Letter from BIA dated May 15, 2000 PL00-36 -3- 06/08/00 5:06 PM 1 ' `p$ "�€' 4" .d�Hy Y x �.,:m;+a � � •dJ'" ,r � � yr � ?r .tee =s'� �, � t 4.a� "z �as �- a 3 � ? ' v��.a T..� ''��"' �� ,•'.`� i`kHz �+'� ✓°'.. �,� 2�i v�"�' x.�,,g� sF! �g ',�f ^zf K '. 4� bi T *� +w, %yg�- ��t. ATTACHMENT NO. 1 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4: 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 amending Chapter 254.08 H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance addressing methods to calculate required park land in-lieu fees for residential development is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire, improve, and rehabilitate park and recreation facilities throughout the City. 2. The change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The revised ordinance applies to residential development and the method to calculate the required parkland in-lieu fees for residential development. The amendment will be consistent with other provisions in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The current land value for park sites has been under assessed and not analyzed since 1990. The new method will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. 4. The adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The revised ordinance will result in the City's ability to provide sufficient recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors. (OOSR26)—3/28/00 Attachment No. 1.1 sS ° z�a 'Fik '�' ORDINANCE NO. 3 4 68 Q AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 254.08H THEREOF RELATING TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington P g g g Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. 9 I , which amends Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating/to park in- lieu fees; and ./ After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntingto Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to the fair market value for each acre of the project site which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D. Fair market value of the land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser hired by the City at the expense of the developer. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. The date of value of the property for purposes of the appraisal shall be within 60 days of payment of the fee as referenced in Section 254.08K. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days s after its adoption. p PASSED AND ADOP7.ED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2000. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT TED AND APPROVED: 1 City Ad mistrator 164ector of Efailning g A:990 rd i n an c e:parkfee s RLS 98-385 e •. .._t".s-�..r"sa `':�� :��.fit a - ma, �,.._,. . �d#rt,��°�. ��d�� a �.�.,;• '��'' `�.,,r_��.;,> :" LEGISLATIVE DRAFT H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to the fair market value an amount for each acre of the project site which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D. >n t, amount is taver-age share market:µlb r aer-e of land in all RL zoned— neighbor-hood Fair market value of the land in stieh neighbor-hood paA&PfepeI4ie-.s in. the Cit-y-shall be determined evei=y twe years by a qualified real estate appraiser hired by the City at the expense of the developer. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. The date of value of the property for purposes of the appraisal shall be within 60 days of payment of the fee as referenced in Section 254.08K. g:4:990rd inance:parkfees RLS 98-385 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D, which amount is Sixty percent (60%) of the average fair market value per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used for or zoned for public park or recreational purposes. Fair market value of the land in sueh neighbor-heed par4, " .,eAies in the City shall be determinedv o yeaf&-by a qualified real estate appraiser. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. &4:990rdinance:parkfees#2 RLS 00-429 ---1 11 .. ORDINANCE NO. ��6$ H AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 254.08H THEREOF RELATING TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and ZoningLaw, th�Huntin ton P g / g Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly 1r noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. —� / , which amends Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to park in- lieu fees; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: / SECTION 1. That Section 254.08H of the/Hjuntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D, which amount is fifty percent (50%) of the average fair market value per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used for 7 zoned for public park or recreational purposes. Fair market value of the land shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser. Such appraisal shall/exclude improvement. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED A ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting,,thereof held on the day of , 2000. Mayor ATT%EST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk A�City Attorney �� I REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: c2c City Adrehistrator Di ector of PlarATrng &4:990rdinance:parkfees#2 RLS 00-429 ' r ATTACHMENT NO. SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 SUGGESTED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4: l. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 amending Chapter 254.08 H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance addressing methods to calculate required park land in-lieu fees for residential development is consistent with the objectives,policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire, improve, and rehabilitate park and recreation facilities throughout the City. 2. The change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, an4 the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The revised ordinance applies to residential development and the method to calculate the required parkland in-lieu fees for residential development. The amendment will be consistent with other provisions in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The current land value for park sites has been under assessed and not analyzed since 1990. The new method will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. 4. The adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The revised ordinance will result in the City's ability to provide sufficient recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors. (OOSR26)—3/28/00 Attachment No.4.1 e�"A, PP a..�; s,�,�,• _",�. �a--'c� �>'�r.G� 's,; �».; eq�r� -ti .g. - - c�e its' �• 3�: � .�. a sal .x`-+r.,; ..x �;s�,a- :<tf �€,r `�'; a �� ;a? ';� °z-.ps; ;�ram'� -"�-i;;�'., �� f r,•.. ••,,«3,�.�„ _�."3 lt^r?• ;f �, -� c^'id cr -; a > trs.,`"t'.:.a , n � z;a;"ice b�";•.„ .x v :�;,x;•y;° °,*�>;?:� ��:;�,,.w>.,:^,:�;v:�'�a_�, ? ,;�- .ij �:-�. :a�.3$c�� ,"'��'a-4!-u",. .•e' x;�r;:r�t. :r-.s �;�`: „�?T':..' g�•�, ':a�in'�ti,'=°-a:+.rfi:x_«,q... �, —.��•• "i°��«°•,+,..".- �,� '•s.. �„q;i ,x�:x.»;,�€�.-. �: "i' 6�r:; ,:.i-;:�i�.�'>,.:>`°`.,;�:'a+.',:":s-YK:r, ":. ��.%ts,�'=F u:�F: ,,.:�= -•-.��-s .a .;�:f�. .ate- ..a '.,sar LEGISLATIVE DRAFT H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to an amount for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D, which amount is fifty percent (50%) Of the average fair market value per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used for or zoned for public park or recreational purposes. Fair market value of the land in shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. g:4:990rdinance:parkfees#2 RLS 00-429 1 •-:p°ih/e'?a" ''H.i�''.< �:'�,Sl�.-`,��-'!`�i,-, xx,.,. '�;31"`-- `.,�`-�,�.^xS`31,�x?yi�`'"€€�:1_ �Nea,'y;✓ �•,q��K�.��.r.,�-„,,;., ,ap„'-b,�a�� '°�'��„'e�:may, •.3�:. ',�,�'�' �'rz�,�z -°�`�'�.�s:��`� a'3" .a�° -� ,r.«��»�:�a�=,�-__..,, M..�'x"„�,,,^�::'��g� """'S t�� a:..�.�•�a�'°T�g yi,�'.. ,rz*�::y{::�i�. W��3� t ;��sM�. :may._+ �'��.-'?' i -ate'.. �, € '�:g•,3, �.�;r�� ;.-, „°�'.rK,�'r g., s...`'e,e`_ ^ri�Y, rjy.`,`XV.'x-� Y' :x•..:� ` �; �%5fro .,+.p ` rc,@4-.he?p}: ,. �:'"'.xl ya.�x<.�t -`;�y', nm�?t�'»"-•,i x�,,z_.\ ��n ;:i" 3 xw,, •�'r�> .;-s- "�i�.;a;' .°� �' n`�.3 *'.t;`. +�.•,� ��. �Y9� :"�hc. .h.,.,..,.,.;.a%„ fit= `::;� .sa3 �;'..s :>k"� ..�� .,..._ .�a''��.,. axr,��» :a _.i.. Sa,• �?3;..�"=^ -t d� N�t'. `4,;, �. ,,� ��,»t>:,n�->rC';�� ti`�`<':r --�%>��: 'hex "4 ;:��a, 's'<.;-,.�.' a. '�` R'�3"€�;�'-i�'?�i'� '�•�1� ;4$�:� -�.r.�±:e� --max.;, a�-.^�� ,�-arc;��s�r�.,xtF`�" M`s.�' ?'��x�-"��w^ �.s'��:r z �� .;.. - -.t ,az..rr.:e�� .t✓�:.at��`,:.:LS"�, ,»x";"�vr ��„s"''� Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: May 15, 2000 Department ID Number: PL 00-28 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator PREPARED BY: HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director of Planning//---� Z SUBJECT: APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (FEE IN-LIEU OF PARKLAND DEDICATION). Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Transmitted for your consideration is Zoning Text Amendment (ZTA) No. 99-4, a request by the City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services to amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method for determining fees in- lieu of parkland dedication. The current method is based upon the average fair market value per acre of parkland in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks throughout the city. The proposed ZTA would establish the fee based upon a site specific land value appraisal of the project site. The Planning Commission is recommending approval of the ZTA with modifications (Recommended Action - A) in order to address issues raised by several developers and consultants. They recommend a two-phase approach: 1) the ZTA be approved establishing a method for fees based upon 50% of the average value per acre of citywide parkland; and 2) direct staff to complete a comprehensive study identifying costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements. Staff is recommending approval of the ZTA as directed by the City Council on November 1, 1999 which requires a site specific appraisal to be submitted to determine the exact park in- lieu fee (Recommended Action - B). Funding Source: The zoning text amendment will not result in a cost to the City to implement. T REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 Recommended Action: A. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with modifications with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) and adopt Ordinance No. (ATTACHMENT NO. 5)." Planning Commission Action on March 28, 2000: THE MOTION MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY MANDIC, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4, WITH MODIFICATIONS AND FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL (ATTACHMENT NO. 4) CARRIED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: SHOMAKER, LIVENGOOD, MANDIC, SPEAKER NOES: BIDDLE, KERINS, CHAPMAN ABSENT: NONE ABSTAIN: NONE (MODIFICATION IS 50% OF THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE) MOTION PASSED B. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for approval (ATTACHMENT NO. 1) and adopt Ordinance No. (ATTACHMENT NO. 2)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motion(s): 1. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial" 2. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly." Analysis: A. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Applicant: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services Location: Residential Districts Citywide PL00-28 -2- 05/04/00 11:08 AM I REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 represents a request to amend Section 254.08 H. Amount of Fee In-Lieu of Park Land Dedication of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) pursuant to Section 247.02 of the ZSO. The draft ordinance would change the method for determining the dollar amount for each acre of land which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated for park purposes. Currently, the in-lieu fee is based upon the average fair market value per acre of parkland in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks. With the new ordinance, the developer/property owner would be required to submit a certified appraisal of their project site to establish value of land. This value would then be used to calculate the amount of fee in-lieu of parkland dedication required for their residential project. The appraisal would be completed at the expense of the subdivider and be submitted to the City for review and approval. The property's appraised value would only be valid for 60 days, during which time the park land in-lieu fee would be collected by the City. In the event the fee is not collected within the 60 day period, a new or updated appraisal shall be completed and submitted for City approval. The purpose of this zoning text amendment is to determine the appropriate land values equating to a fee in-lieu of parkland dedication. The formula for determining the amount of land to dedicate, and when fees are applicable are not part of this request. This has long been established in the City's Zoning Code. The zoning text amendment is necessary to ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees, and that there is equity between those developers/property owners required to dedicate land versus those paying in-lieu fees. In addition, it enables the City to continue acquiring and improving park and recreational facilities throughout the City in accord with the goals and policies of the General Plan. B. BACKGROUND: When residential projects are proposed, they are required to comply with the City's Parkland Dedication Ordinance which is part of the City's Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (State Quimby Act). However, if the proposed development contains 50 parcels or less and has no park and recreational facility depicted in the General Plan, then the subdivider has the option to pay a fee. The fee shall be equal to the land value of the portion of the park or recreational facilities required to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed development. The City last revised the fee in 1990 when it established an approximate $182,000 per acre value for parkland. The parkland in-lieu fee is based on a citywide appraisal of neighborhood parks (Low Density Residential zoning without improvements). PL00-28 -3- 05/04/00 11:08 AM T REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 C. PLANNING COMMISSION MEETINGS AND RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission held three public hearings, and a subcommittee meeting. On February 23, 2000, the Planning Commission held their first public hearing to discuss the proposed ordinance. Following testimony by three people opposed to the new method for calculating the park in-lieu fee, the commission continued their action in order to hold a Planning Commission subcommittee meeting with staff and the concerned parties. On February 28, 2000, the subcommittee met to discuss alternatives to the proposed method for calculating the park fees. The subcommittee comprised of Commissioners Biddle and Shomaker, members from the Community Services Department, Planning Department, City Attorney's office, and local builders and consultants (Bob Corona, Dick Harlow, Mike Adams, and Bijan Sassounian) discussed the need for the City to determine costs associated with the master plan buildout of park improvements. The group felt the total cost approach would allow the city to impose a park fee on a more equitable basis. The developers explained how it was inappropriate for the city to use land values based on the location of the proposed development, contending that the City had no intention of acquiring land for park purposes on those properties. For example, there are no additional parks proposed in the built-out downtown area. They stated that with exception of a few instances, the fee should be based on improvement or rehabilitation costs rather than costs associated with acquiring parkland. They further stated that once the costs for completing park acquisition and improvements were determined, the formula for a park in-lieu fee would be more appropriate. At the March 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting, they discussed the recommendation forwarded by the subcommittee. After further discussion, they requested staff forward a survey of other Orange County cities park in-lieu fees for their review. They continued their action to the next meeting. On March 28, 2000, the Planning Commission reviewed the county-wide survey (included in Attachment No. 10) and approved the Ordinance with a modification to 50% of the Citywide average. The Commission recommended the modified language finding that the 50% value more closely represents average land costs, and that the reduced value deducts costs associated with off-site improvements. The fee increase was recommended by the Planning Commission to be implemented in two phases. The initial phase would utilize the fixed fee of 50% of the Citywide average of parkland per acre into the existing formula. The new fee would be approximately $433,000 per acre which is 50% of the Citywide average of$866,627 per acre of land. PL00-28 -4- 05/04/00 11:08 AM 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 The second phase would be implemented following a comprehensive study of costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements. According to the Planning Commission, implementation of the first phase will allow staff the opportunity to complete a study on costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation. The Commission noted that the study should be completed within a year, and that the recommended ordinance be considered an interim ordinance until the findings of the study are reviewed by the City Council, and appropriate changes are made for the calculation of park fees. The Planning Commission also received letters from the Building Industry Association (BIA) and Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce (Attachment No. 13) in support of the Planning Commission subcommittee's two phase approach addressing the park fees. D. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: Since the value of land has significantly increased over the last ten years and the parkland in-lieu fee has not, it is important to adopt an ordinance to reflect current land values. The Council's direction from November 1, 1999 will accomplish this. Staff recommends the site specific appraisal as it is the most equitable. It eliminates the inequity resulting from averaging the parkland value on a citywide basis. Last year; an independent appraisal firm performed a citywide neighborhood park appraisal. The per acre value for RL neighborhood parks ranged from $341,000 to $1,392,000 per acre depending upon the park's location. The average per acre value for all RL neighborhood parks is $866,627. This is a difference of approximately $684,000 from the present value of$182,000 per acre. By using the current code-required average, developers in certain areas of the city would be paying a fee that may be higher than the actual value of their property, while developers in other parts of the city would be paying a fee significantly less. In addition, if the City were to use the citywide average method instead of a site specific calculation, Huntington Beach parkland fees would be the highest in the county. PL00-28 -5- 05/04/00 11:08 AM ' 1 REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 The following table represents a comparison of the various recommendations before you and their translation to the cost per single family residential unit. In-Lieu Fee Formula Land Value Cost per Acre per SFR Unit Existing Fee Citywide average fair market $182,000 $3,121 value of all RL zoned parkland (when no zoning entitlement required) Citywide average fair market $516,500 $8,858 value of all RL zoned parkland (Zoning Entitlement Required) 1999 Appraisal Citywide average fair market $866,627 $14,862 value of all RL zoned parkland Site specific appraisal of $1,000,000* $17,150 property to be developed Planning 50% of Citywide average fair $433,000 $7,425 Commission market value of all RL zoned parkland City Council Site specific appraisal of Varies Varies downtown property to be developed Staff does not concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation of collecting only 50% of the required fees. Based on the fact that current land values have been identified, and because park in-lieu fees have been less than their actual land value amount for over 10 years, staff believes that the proposed ordinance should reflect actual land values in order to adequately fund future park acquisition and development. Staff does concur with the Planning Commission's recommendation for completing a comprehensive study to determine the total costs associated with the buildout of the master plan of park improvements. However, staff recommends that such study be completed and integrated into the future Citywide Strategic Plan. E. SUMMARY: Recommendation A: The Planning Commission recommends the City Council approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 using the following two phase approach: 1. Require a fixed fee of 50% of the Citywide average of parkland per acre to be factored into the existing formula; until PL00-28 -6- 05/04/00 11:08 AM t REQUEST FOR ACTION MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 00-28 2. The findings of a comprehensive study identifying the total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City are implemented. Recommendation B: Staff recommends that each residential development be required to submit a site-specific appraisal to determine the exact cost of the parkland in-lieu fee and incorporate an analysis of future parkland buildout in the future Citywide Strategic Plan based upon the following: The revised ordinance will result in the City's ability to provide sufficient recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors. This method best meets the goal of the Park Acquisition and Development Fund, and is the fairest and most legally defensible. This method meets the goals and policies of the the General Plan. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Attachment(s1: City Clerk's Page Number No. Description all 7. Planning Commission Minutes dated March 28, 2000, March 14, 2000 and February 23, 2000 8. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 28, 2000 (includes March 14, 2000 and February 23, 2000 staff reports) 9. Letters in Opposition and Support 10. Parkland In-lieu Fee Comparison Survey w �, . :RCA,AuthorWayrte.Carvalho. , PL00-28 -7- 05/04/00 11:08 AM MINUTES �9, I-U- - -,, F HUNTINGTON BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION-- - --=-- TUESDAY, MARCH 28, 2000 Council Chambers - Civic Center 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California STUDY SESSION- 5:15 PM (Room B-8) CUP #99-63/CDP 999-13NAR#99-11 (HASSAN 3RD STOR) ) -Jane James MEADOWLARK DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT—Amy Wolfe ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (PARK& RECREATION FEES)— Wayne Carvalho AGENDA REVIEW—Herb Fauland PUBLIC COMMENTS—None REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 PM PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE P P P P P P P ROLL CALL: Shomaker, Kerins, Mandic, Chapman, Biddle, Livengood, Speaker AGENDA APPROVAL A"iryone wishing to speak:rnust fill_out andaubmit a form to speak `"No action.can-be`P n..by:the Planning;Comm ssion:on; this.;date,-unless the item is agendized. Any one wishing,to speak on"Items not on tonight s agenda"or`on.non-public hearing'' items may.doso during ORAL COMMUNICATIONS.:Spedkers;on items scheduled for PUBLIC°HEARING will be"invited - .. to speak during:the.pub)is hearing (4 MINUTES PER PERSON,NO DONATING OF TIME TO OTHERS). _. A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS NONE B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS B-1 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (PARK AND RECREATION FEES) (CONTINUED FROM THE MARCH 28, 2000 MEETING): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 - Amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modiyin method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. --- �A;- • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting on March 14, 2000. - Staff to forward information on park and recreation fees from other cities. • Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting on February 28, 2000. Recommendation: - Amend ordinance to reflect a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula. Sixty percent of 866,600 per acre is 520,000 per acre. - Recommend the City Council complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out, as well as identify appropriate funding methods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Recommendation—Approve Staff s Recommendation based upon: - Goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. The Commission discussed a letter received from Mr. William Vogt dated February 16, 2000 alleging that the City has illegally been collecting fees for homes built on existing subdivision tracts in the downtown area. Staff explained that this issue was previously addressed by the City Attorney's office in 1993. A similar inquiry was received from Mr. Vogt challenging the City's exaction of the park in-lieu fee upon issuance of building permits for new residential units in the downtown area. The legal opinion received by the City Attorney concluded that the Government Code (State Law) does not prohibit the city from imposing a parks and recreation dedication requirement (land or in-lieu fee) as a building permit condition. Therefore, it is the City's position that park in-lieu fees for new homes in the downtown/townlot area have been lawfully collected. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mike Adams, 19771 Sea Canyon, representing developers, stated that in the interim, the ordinance reflecting a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre should be approved. Mr. Adams also stated that the city should decide how they would spend the fees collected from projects to implement the General Plan goals. This will ensure the city will have enough money to do what is proposed. Bill Vogt, 19432 Pompano Lane, stated that the downtown lots should be exempt from the in- lieu fee. He believes this is true based on his letter dated February 16, 2000 distributed to the Planning Commission. Lynne Fishel, 9 Executive Circle, Irvine, representing BIA, spoke in opposition to the proposed "appraisal update" of the city's local park in-lieu fee. She stated that the fees should reflect the emphasis in the city's General Plan. The plan is to rehabilitate existing park sites not acquire new park sites. The BIA believes a nexus study should be done to validate the fees and identify how fees will be used. The high fees discourage the ability to provide affordable housing within the city. PC Minutes—3/28/00 2 (OOpcm328) Robert Corona, 324 19`" Street, stated that the proposed park in-lieu fee is excessive. x that there is no land in the downtown area to build new park(s) and very few exilstin Because of this, the fee is not appropriate for this area. He stated the doubling the existing fee would be acceptable, but would continue to pose a hardship in some cases. Dick Harlow, 211 Main Street, stated that he supports the subcommittee's recommendation but encouraged a study to determine where the funds would be needed. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Planning Commission reviewed the countywide survey and discussed the Ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission subcommittee with a modification to 50% instead of 60% of the citywide average. The fee increase would be implemented in two phases. The second phase would be implemented following a comprehensive study of costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements. Implementation of the first phase will allow staff the opportunity to complete a study on costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation. The Commission noted that the study should be completed within a year, and that the recommended ordinance be considered an interim ordinance until the findings of the study are reviewed by Council, and appropriate changes are made for the calculation of park fees. The Commission recommends the modified language finding that the 50%value more closely represents average land costs, and that the reduced value deducts costs associated with off-site improvements. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE AS MODIFIED (50% OF THE CITY WIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE) WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker,Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Mandic, Chapman,Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED AN AMENDMENT TO THE MAIN MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY CHAPMAN TO AMEND THE MODIFICATION TO 60% OF THE CITYWIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Chapman NOES: Shomaker,Mandic, Biddle,Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED PC Minutes—3/28/00 3 (00p=328) A MOTION WAS MADE BY MANDIC, SECONDED BY BIDDLE, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBMITTEE AS MDOFIED (DESIGNATE DOWNTOWN AREA ONLY AS 40% OF THE CITY WIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE AND THE REMAINDER OF THE CITY 60%) WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mandic,Biddle ; NOES: Kerins, Chapman, Liveggood, Speaker ABSENT: Nonea ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY KERINS, SECONDED BY CHAPMAN, TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT 99-4 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Kerins, Chapman NOES: Shomaker, Mandic, Biddle,Livengood, Speaker ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION FAILED A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY SHOMAKER,TO APPROVE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SUBCOMMITTEE AS MODIFIED (50% OF THE CITY WIDE AVERAGE VALUATION OF PARKLAND PER ACRE) WITH FINDINGS AND FORWARD TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ADOPTION,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Mandic,Livengood, Speaker NOES: Kerins, Chapman, Biddle ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL - ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4: 1 1. Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 amending Chapter 254.08 H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance addressing methods to calculate required park land in-lieu fees for residential development is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan and any applicable specific plan. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire, improve, and rehabilitate park and recreation facilities throughout the City. PC Minutes—3/28/00 4 (00p=328) r 2. The change proposed is compatible with the uses authorized in, and the standards prescribed for, the zoning district for which it is proposed. The revised ordinance applies to residential development and the method to calculate the required parkland in-lieu fees for residential development. The amendment will be consistent with other provisions in the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. 3. A community need is demonstrated for the change proposed. The current land value for park sites has been under assessed and not analyzed since 1990. The new method will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. 4. The adoption will be in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good zoning practice. The revised ordinance will result in the City's ability to provide sufficient recreational opportunities for its residents and visitors. \-2DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 88-1R(MEADOWLARK DEVELOPMENT EMENT): A.".]CANT: John P. Erskine, Esq. iTION: Meadowlark Specific Plan Area(approximately 600 feet east arid-north P ( pP Y i_i of the Bolsa Chica Avenue intersection, south of Heil Avenue) PROJEC PLANNER: Amy Wolfe • Amended and Restat Development Agreement No. 88-1(R) request: - Substitute parties t eadowlark Development Agreement Extend the term of th greement for an additional 3 year period - Update property descrip 'on and revise referenced exhibits and dates to reflect previously approved amendments to eadowlark Specific Plan(ZTA No. 97-4, ZMA No. 97-1, ND No. 97-21) and approva for the Meadowlark planned residential development (CUP No. 97-80, TTM No. 15469) • The applicant's request to amend the adowlark Development Agreement is based on the following: - Development Agreements are typically afted for 15-year terms. The Meadowlark Development Agreement term was 10 ye - A three (3) year extension would allow time r the implementation of the Meadowlark planned residential development in accordance ith approvals previously granted by the City in 1999, and will allow for market absorptio of the project while the Development Agreement is in effect. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION: Approve Development Agreement No. 88-1(R) based upon the lowing: - The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement will consistent with the General Plan. The Development Agreement will be modified to i lude references to the General Plan and revised Meadowlark Specific Plan. PC Minutes—3/28/00 5 (00p=328) r , FINDINGS FOR DENIAL -NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 99-11 : 1. The Planning Commission finds that the project may have an impact on the adjacent residential neighborhood through adverse effects of traffic and noise and that the oject is an incompatible land use in the proposed location. ` FINDINGS FOR DENIAL - CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 99-3 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 99-31 for the establishment, mainten e and operation of the 38,390 square foot Single Room Occupancy (SRO) complex e detrimental to the general welfare of persons working or residing in the vicini r detrimental to the value of the property and improvements in the neighborhood. The O may be detrimental to surrounding commercial and residential properties beca e the 106 unit development is too intense, there are not enough controls to enforce con ' ions of approval, and the proposed location is inappropriate. 2. The conditional use permit will not be compat' e with surrounding uses because the SRO is too intense and will not be harmonious wit a existing Town& Country shopping center and adjacent residential uses. Insufficien arking is provided on-site for the potential residents and the proposed.building is an adequate buffer between the existing commercial center and the adjacent r idential fourplexes. 3. The granting of the conditional e permit will adversely affect the General Plan. It is inconsistent with the Land Us lement designation of GC-F2-d (General Commercial- Maximum 0.5 FAR-special esign overlay) on the subject property. In addition, it is consistent with the follo g goals and policies of the General Plan: A. Land Use Eleme Ob'ective L 9.2: Provide for the preservation of existing residential neighborhoods. Policv 10.1.6: Require that commercial projects abutting residential properties adeq ely protect the residential use from the excessive or incompatible impacts of not light, vehicular traffic,visual character, and operational hazards. The project is found to be incompatible with the adjacent residential properties. B-2 , ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (PARK AND RECREATION FEES) (CONTINUED FROM THE FEBRUARY 23, 2000 MEETING): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho • Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 Amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. PC Minutes-3/14/00 5 (OOCPM314) • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting on February 23, 2000. Staff to meet with developers and a Planning Commission Subcommittee to review alternatives. • Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting on February 28, 2000. Recommendation: - Amend ordinance to reflect a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula. Sixty percent of 866,600 per acre is 520,000 per acre. - Recommend the City Council complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out, as well as identify appropriate funding methods. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: • Approve Staffs Recommendation based upon: Goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mike Adams, 19771 Sea Canyon, representing the development community in Huntington Beach, stated that he took part in the Committee that studied the proposed issues and stated that the fee should be based upon the needs of the community and the proposed fee is too excessive. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. The Commission stated that they were not yet ready to make a final decision on the proposed amendment. They requested staff to survey cities in Orange County(all beach communities)for their park fees. They also requested staff to report back on the amount of land the city was going to buy for park land and to make clear in the ordinance that this is an interim ordinance awaiting final evaluation. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD, SECONDED BY KERINS, TO CONTINUE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 TO THE MARCH 28,2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING, BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins,Mandic, Chapman, Biddle,Livengood, Speaker NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes-3/14/00 6 (00CPM314) requirements. Treatment areas may require conformance to City Spe ' ation N.431, Gas Fired Appliances. (FD) gg. Secondary emergency access gates must be secured OX and homeowner hardware. (FD) hh. All project pool areas shall have a access installed on entry gates. Please contact the Huntington Beach Fire Dep ent at 714-536-5411. (FD) ii. Elevators shall be sized accommodate an ambulance gurney. The minimum dimensions shall be -8" wide by 4'-3" deep by 42" wide (min)right or left side opening. Cente pening doors require a 54"depth. (FD) jj. Compli ce with all conditions of approval specified herein shall be accomplished and ve ' d by the Planning Department. . All�uil� ng spoils, such as unusable lumber, wire, pipe, and other surplus or unusable materia , shall be disposed of at an off-site facility equipped to handle them. B-3 ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (PARK AND RECREATION FEES): APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach LOCATION: Citywide PROJECT PLANNER: Wayne Carvalho Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach,Department of Community Services to amend Section 254.08 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. The new process would require developers submit a site-specific appraisal of the project site to determine the fair market value of land. The appraised value would then be inserted into the current formula to determine the fee. .The appraisal would be prepared at the expense of the developer, and would require review and approval by the City. STAFF RECOMN ENDATION: Staff supports the request for the following reasons: The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. The revised ordinance will update the fee assessed on new residential development, and will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. PC Minutes—2123/00 27 (OOPCM223) • The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire and improve park and recreational facilities throughout the City in accordance with the goal of providing five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Commissioner Biddle voiced concern regarding the letter received from William Vogt which questioned the legality of collecting park in-lieu fees on properties subdivided prior to the City Ordinance in 1966. He asked if this has been challenged in court. Paul D'Alessandro,Deputy City Attorney,responded that park in-lieu fees had not been challenged in court. He stated that the intent of the Zoning Text Amendment was to clarify and update how the fee is calculated. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Robert Corona, Seacliff Development Company, said that the proposed formula does not make sense for the downtown developers who are building on small sites. He requested a continuance of the public hearing and also requested a meeting with staff and the Commissioners to discuss this issue. Mike Adams, Consultant, agreed with Mr. Corona. He said the formula for calculating the park in-lieu fee was wrong and recommended a continuance. Dick Harlow, 211 Main Street,requested a continuance of the public hearing. He said the in-lieu fees collected should have a direct correlation to the cost of the parkland not the site being developed. THERE WERE NO OTHER PERSONS PRESENT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THE REQUEST AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Commissioner's Biddle,Mandic and Shomaker indicated that they would like to be included in the meeting with the developers to discuss this issue. A MOTION WAS MADE BY LIVENGOOD ,SECONDED BY BIDDLE,TO CONTINUE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO.99-4 THE MARCH 14,2000 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN,BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: Shomaker, Kerins,Mandic, Chapman,Biddle,Livengood NOES: None ABSENT: Speaker ABSTAIN: None MOTION PASSED PC Minutes—2/23/00 28 (OOPCM223) • of=�illltiII#'tonsBeacb PIarinin'' De arfnef:N-"-:, `w wg g' PE .roc kYr`" rf"'^ b +iln r� .a . to TAFFtt��REP R• �.:.• . NUNnHcron eua...�:•,;,:,.Ax;<;w`;, .;,..:.,:.� .�• "r ..�.._ 'e';a"� x. TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner Wv DATE: March 28, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (Continued From March 14, 2000 With Public Hearing Open -Park and Recreation In-Lieu Fees) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Residential Districts Citywide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 - Amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting on March 14, 2000. - Staff to forward information on park and recreation fees from other cities. Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting on February 28, 2000. Recommendation: - Amend ordinance to reflect a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula. Sixty percent of 866,600 per acre is 520,000 per acre. - Recommend the City Council complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development buildout, as well as identify appropriate funding methods. • Recommendation—Approve Staffs Recommendation based upon: Goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings (Attachment No. 1)and forward to the City Council for adoption." PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 utilizing a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption;" and, 2. "Recommend to the City Council that the City complete a study on the total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development buildout, as well as identify appropriate funding methods, within one year from City Council adoption." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly." ANALYSIS: At the March 14, 2000 Planning Commission meeting,the Commission reviewed the recommendations forwarded by staff and by the Planning Commission subcommittee. After some discussion, the Commission requested that information on fees and formulas used by other cities be transmitted to them for their review prior to taking action on the proposed zoning text amendment. The information is included in Attachment No. 6. Please note that the table's right(shaded) column identifies the adjusted park fee per unit. It is this adjusted fee that should be used for comparison purposes due to the different park dedication requirements (e.g. 3 acres/1000 persons) adopted by each city. The Commission also requested an estimated timetable for the completion of the comprehensive study proposed as the second phase of the subcommittee's recommendation. In addition,the Commission inquired about the total amount of land that was yet to be acquired by the City for park purposes. According to the Community Services Department,the comprehensive study would identify costs associated with build out of the master plan of park improvements, including the costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation and recommendations for other funding mechanisms. Staff estimates the study may take approximately nine months to complete. If the City Council adopted the ordinance as recommended by the Planning Commission subcommittee and appropriates funding for the study, staff could forward the study's findings to the City Council in the form of a revised ordinance within three months of the completion of the study. The entire process would take approximately one year from the date the Planning Commission subcommittee's recommended action was adopted by City Council. Staff Report—3/28/00 2 (OOSR26) The Commission explained that the first phase of the fee increase was to be applied on an interim basis and that the comprehensive study should be completed as soon as possible to determine actual costs. The Commission inquired whether the ordinance should include a sunset clause. Staff recommends against creating an interim ordinance due to its uncertainty of the City Council's position. In addition, with the timelines identified above, the Commission could be assured that the findings of the study would be forwarded to the City Council within one year. A letter received from Mr. William Vogt dated February 16, 2000 (Attachment No. 8) alleges that the City has illegally been collecting fees for homes built on existing subdivision tracts in the downtown/townlot area. This issue was previously addressed by the City Attorney's office in 1993 when a similar inquiry was received from Mr. Vogt challenging the City's exaction of the park in-lieu fee upon issuance of building permits for new residential units in the downtown area. The legal opinion(Attachment No. 7) received by the City Attorney concluded that the Government Code (State Law) does not prohibit the city from imposing a parks and recreation dedication requirement(land or in-lieu fee) as a building permit condition. Therefore, it is the City's position that park in-lieu fees for new homes in the downtown/townlot area have been lawfully collected. A letter received from the Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce (Attachment No. 11) dated March 22, 2000 references support for the Planning Commission subcommittee's recommendation, also citing that a nexus study be conducted to determine costs associated with the completion of the existing Master Plan of parks. Staff maintains a recommendation to require a site-specific appraisal to determine the land value per acre as conceptually approved by the City Council for inclusion into the existing formula as identified in the Quimby Act. A complete analysis is included in the February 23, 2000 and March 14, 2000 Planning Commission staff reports (Attachment Nos. 4 & 5). ATTACHMENTS: 1. 2. RwA.Gr 3. -1, islative Br 4. Planning Commission Staff Report dated March 14,2000 5.. Planning Commission Staff Report dated February 23, 2000 6. 7. Legal Opinion on Park and Recreation Fees dated July 13, 1993 8. ea F MY My t 6, 2000 Mrd Nfeach t 6, 2 0 9. , 10 11. T.�*+or in c,ZT^ rLf D v 6111a64i7iA �■�eA i'i�P!lfi R �frnm Cham (1n+,ad &._._L :) SH:WC:kjl Staff Report—3128/00 3 (OOSR26) • City of Huntin&gn`Beach Planning=Departmentm:;; O STAFF=:REPORT^t TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planniing BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner DATE: March 14, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (Continued From February 23, 2000 With Public Hearing Open -Park and Recreation In-Lieu Fees) APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, Department of Community Services, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 LOCATION: Residential Districts Citywide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: • Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 - Amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. • Continued Item - Planning Commission meeting on February 23, 2000. Staff to meet with developers and a Planning Commission Subcommittee to review alternatives. Planning Commission Subcommittee meeting on February 28, 2000. Recommendation: - Amend ordinance to reflect a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula. Sixty percent of 866,600 per acre is 520,000 per acre. - Recommend the City Council complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development buildout, as well as identify appropriate funding methods. • Recommendation—Approve Staffs Recommendation based upon: Goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings (Attachment No. 1) and forward to the City Council for adoption." PLANNING COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: 1. "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 utilizing a fixed fee of 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula with findings and forward to the City Council for adoption;" and, 2. "Recommend to the City Council that the City complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development buildout, as well as identify appropriate funding methods." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly." ANALYSIS: Planning Commission Subcommittee At the Planning Commission's direction, staff met with the subcommittee on February 28, 2000 to discuss alternatives to the proposed method for calculating parkland in-lieu fees. The subcommittee comprised of Commissioners Biddle and Shomaker,members from the Community Services Department,Planning Department, City Attorney's office,and local builders and consultants(Bob Corona,Dick Harlow,Mike Adams, and Bijan Sassounian) discussed the need for the City to determine costs associated with the master plan buildout of park improvements. The group felt that the total cost approach would allow the city to impose a park fee on a more equitable basis. The developers explained how it was inappropriate for the city to use land values based on the location of the proposed development, contending that the City has no intention of acquiring land for park purposes on those properties. They stated that with exception of a few instances,the fee should be based on improvement or rehabilitation costs rather than costs associated with acquiring parkland. They further stated that once the costs for completing park acquisition and improvements were determined,the formula for a park in-lieu fee would be more appropriate. As a result,the subcommittee agreed to forward an alternative recommendation for Planning Commission consideration. The alternative recommendation would be implemented in two phases. The initial phase would be amend the ordinance now to utilize a fixed fee of 60% of the Citywide average of parkland per acre into the existing formula. The existing fee per acre is $182,000;the new fee would be approximately $520,000 per acre which is 60% of 866,627 per acre. The subcommittee justified utilizing a 60% value by deducting costs associated with off-site improvements and more closely represented average land costs. The subcommittee also discussed the need to specify the location of future park sites and the type of improvements proposed. Staff Report—3/14/00 2 (OOSR21) The second phase would be implemented following a comprehensive study of costs associated with build. out of the master plan of park improvements. Implementation of the first phase will allow staff the opportunity to complete a study on costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation. Staff anticipates that a study may take a year to complete and receive approval. Staff maintains a recommendation to require a site-specific appraisal to determine the land value per acre for inclusion into the existing formula as identified in the Quimby Act. A complete analysis is included in the February 23, 2000 Planning Commission staff report(Attachment No. 4). ATTACHMENTS: �i4gpraval Draft Ordianci� 3. SH:WC:kjl Staff Report—3/14/00 3 Y (OOSR21) Hun ..g onz eac anning,pep.4_ n�en - tj do ..........N R,- PORT": -_4 TO: Planning Commission FROM: Howard Zelefsky, Director of Planning BY: Wayne Carvalho, Associate Planner DATE: February 23, 2000 SUBJECT: ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (Park and Recreation In-Lieu Fees) LOCATION: Residential Districts Citywide STATEMENT OF ISSUE: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 is a request by the City of Huntington Beach,Department of Community Services to amend Section 254.08 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance by modifying the method to calculate park in-lieu fees for residential development. The new process would require developers submit a site-specific appraisal of the project site to determine the fair market value of land. The appraised value would then be inserted into the current formula to determine the fee. The appraisal would be prepared at the expense of the developer, and would require review and approval by the City. Staff supports the request for the following reasons: • The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. • The revised ordinance will update the fee assessed on new residential development, and will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. • The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire and improve park and recreational facilities throughout the City in accordance with the goal of providing five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. RECOMMENDATION: Motion to: "Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with suggested findings for approval(Attachment No. 1)." ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Planning Commission may take alternative actions such as: A. "Deny Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 with findings for denial." B. "Continue Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 and direct staff accordingly." i GENERAL INFORMATION: APPLICANT: City of Huntington Beach, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 REQUEST: To amend Section 254.08 H. of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Code (ZSO) addressing the method to calculate Parkland In-Lieu Fees for residential development. DATE OF COMPLETE APPLICATION: MANDATORY PROCESSING DATE(S): January 3, 2000 Not applicable. PROJECT PROPOSAL: Zonins Text Amendment No. 99-4 represents a request to amend Section 254.08 H.Parkland Dedication of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) pursuant to Section 247.02 of the ZSO. The draft ordinance specifies that developers submit certified appraisals of project sites to determine. parkland in-lieu fees for all residential projects. The draft ordinance further stipulates that the appraisals be completed at the expense of the developer, and be submitted to the City for review and approval. The draft ordinance specifies that the property's appraised value be valid for 60 days, during which time the park land in-lieu fee shall be collected by the City. The in-lieu fees are usually paid upon recording of final maps, or where no map is required,prior to issuance of building permits. In the event the fee is not collected within the 60 day period, a new or updated appraisal shall be completed and submitted for City approval. Therefore,it would be to the developer's benefit to submit the appraisal soon after a tentative map is approved in order to avoid from having to update the appraisal. Similarly,developers should submit appraisals during the plan check review process when no map is required. The request is necessary to ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. This will enable the City to acquire and/or improve park and recreational facilities by continuing to provide five(5) acres of parkland for every 1,000 residents. ISSUES: General Plan Conformance: The proposed zoning text amendment is consistent with the City's General Plan,and the following goals, and objectives of the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements: A. Land Use Element Obiective LU 14.1: Preserve and acquire open spaces for the City's existing and firture residents that provide,maintain, and protect significant environmental resources,recreational opportunities, and visual relief from development of the City. Staff Report—2/23/00 2 _ _ i (00sr10; Policy LU 14.1.2: Permit the acquisition and/or dedication of lands for new open space purposes in any land use zone whir they complement and are compatible with adjacent land uses and development, contingent on City review and approval. Policy LU 14.1.4: Provide for the acquisition and development of the City's parks in accordance with the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire and improve park and recreational facilities throughout the City. B. Recreation and Community Services Element Goal RCS 2: Provide adequately sized and located active and passive parklands to meet the recreational needs of existing and future residents, and to preserve natural resources within,the City of Huntington Beach and its sphere of influence. Polia RCS 2:1.1: Maintain the current park per capita ratio of 5.0 acres per 1,000 persons,which includes the beach in the calculation. Policy RCS 8.1.5: Update, on a periodic basis,the park in-lieu fee assessed to all new development. The revised ordinance will update the fee assessedon new residential development,and will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. Environmental Status: The proposed project is categorically exempt pursuant to City Council Resolution No..4501, Class 20, which supplements the California Environmental Quality Act. Coastal Status: An amendment to the Huntington Beach Local Coastal Program implementing ordinances will be filed with the California Coastal Commission to incorporate the changes of this zoning text amendment following final action by the City Council. The proposed zoning text amendment will not take effect on properties in the Coastal Zone until approved by the California Coastal Commission. Redevelopment Status: Not applicable. Desi,-n Review Board: Not applicable. Subdivision Committee: Not applicable. Staff Report—2/23/00 3 (00sr10 ( r Other Departments Concerns: The Departments of Public Works,Fire,Police, and Building and Safety,have no concerns. The Community Services Department has worked closely with the Planning Department and City Attorney's office and recommends adoption of the proposed ordinance. Public Notification: Legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach/Fountain Valley Independent on February 10,2000, and notices were sent to individuals/organizations requesting notification(Planning Department's Notification Matrix), and interested parties. As of February 16, 1999, no communication supporting or opposing the request has been received. ANALYSIS: At City Council direction, staff conducted a review of the current method for calculating parkland mi lieu fees. The current method involves applying the City-established value per acre to the following formula: Area =5.0 (D.F. z D.U.) 1000 A = Area in acres required to be dedicated as a park site or to be appraised for fee payment of the residential subdivision 5.0 = Number of acres per one thousand persons. D.F. = Density Factor obtained from the ZSO Section 254.08 E as applicable to proposed subdivision D.U. = Number of dwelling units proposed in the subdivision. The City last revised the fee in 1990 when it established an approximate$182,000 per acre value for parkland. The parkland in-lieu fee is based on a citywide appraisal of neighborhood parks(Low Density Residential zoning without improvements). The value per acre is used to determine the exact fee_amount. Last year, an independent appraisal firm performed a citywide neighborhood park appraisal which concluded that the average per acre value for RL neighborhood parks is$816,609. This is a difference of approximately$634,000 from the present value of$182,000 per acre. If the City were to use the$816,000 figure in its existing formula,Huntington Beach park fees would be the highest in the county. Another concern against using this figure is the possibility that the City may experience challenges in its ability to attain its affordable housing goals. Staff is concerned with the fairness of averaging the appraised parkland value on a citywide basis. For example,the independent study resulted in parkland values ranging from less than$500,000 per acre up to Staff Report—2P23/00 4 (00sr10 t` over$1,000,000 per acre. By using an average, developers in certain areas of the city would be paying a higher fee than the actual value,while developers in other parts of the city would be paying less. Three other methods were analyzed(Method Nos. 2-4): 1. Current Method: Utilize the $816,609 per acre value in the existing formula. 2. Site-Specific Appraisal: Require a site-specific appraisal to determine the per acre value based on the subject site. 3. Two-Tiered Fee: Projects with more than 50 units would require a site-specific appraisal; fees for projects with 50 units or less would be based on cost of park development and rehabilitation(not land value). 4. Consultant'Study: City would hire a consultant to do a nexus study of the city's park acquisition, development and.rehabilitation costs, evaluate the city's park standard,and recommend a funding method for the future of the Park Acquisition and Development fund when buildout is attained. A site-specific appraisal(Method No.2)would allow.the City to determine the exact value of the property to be developed. That value would be used in the existing formula. The two-tiered approach(Method No. 3) would require a site-specific appraisal for larger projects, and would only require fees associated with park development and rehabilitation for smaller projects of 50 units or less. This scenario would . result in developers of larger projects paying substantially more than developers of smaller projects. Finally,the option to hire a consultant(Method No. 4)was considered. However,issues with time and costs to conduct a comprehensive study were eventually removed. Therefore, staff recommends that each residential development be required to submit a site-specific appraisal to determine the exact cost of the park fee(Method No. 2). Staff has determined that this method best meets the goal of the Park Acquisition and Development Fund and is the fairest and most legally defensible. SUMMARY: Staff recommends the Planning Commission approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 based on the following reasons: • The proposed amendment is consistent with the goals and policies specified in the Land Use and Recreation and Community Services Elements of the General Plan. • The revised ordinance will update the fee assessed on new residential development,and will ensure that current land values are utilized when calculating parkland in-lieu fees. • The revised ordinance will allow the City to collect fees necessary to acquire and improve park and recreational facilities throughout the City in accordance with the goal of providing five acres of parkland per 1,000 persons. Staff Report—2/23/00 5 _ _ __ _ ___ _ (00sr10' L ATTACHMENTS: 1. al 2. 3. SH:HF:WC:kjl Staff Report—2M/00 6 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION I HUNTINGTON BEACH y - TO: Mike Adams, Director of Community Development U FROM: Gail Hutton, City Attorney DATE: July 13 , 1993 SUBJECT: Park and Recreation Fees RLS 93-405 BACKGROUND Mr. William Vogt, a local developer, seeks to build upon two previously subdivided lots in the downtown area (602 and 604 14th Street) . As a condition of the issuance of building permits, the city has imposed a parks and recreation in-lieu fee pursuant to Section 9961.2 of the city' s Zoning Ordinance. Mr. Vogt seeks a waiver of the fee on two separate grounds. First, that the Government prohibits the imposition of such a fee; second, that his property is being" double charged, " because the original subdivider dedicated park property at the time of the original subdivision map. ISSUES AND ANALYSIS 1 . Does the Government Code prohibit the city from imposing a parks and recreation dedication requirement (land or in-lieu fee) as a building permit condition? Answer: No. The courts have long held that land use regulations do not effect a taking if they substantially advance a legitimate government interest and do not deny a property owner economically viable use of his land. (Agins v. City of Tiburon, 447 U.S. 225 (1988-) ; Nollan v. California Coastal Commin. , 487 U.S. 825 (1987) ) . In addition, the California courts have consistently held that the dedication of land or the payment of a fee as a condition precedent to develop is voluntary in nature. Although the developer cannot legally develop without satisfying the condition precedent, the developer voluntarily decides whether to develop or not to develop. (Trent Meredith, Inc. v. City of Oxnard, 114 Cal .App.3d 317 (1981) ) . y 7 Mike Adams July 13, 1993 Page 2 For many years, California law has permitted cities to require, for various public purposes, the dedication of land, or the payment of in-lieu fees, as a condition of subdivision map approval . Currently, the statutues authorizing these types of exactions are found in Government Code Section 66410 et seq. Parks and recreation has long been a valid public purpose for such exactions . (See Associated Home Builders v. City of Walnut Creek (1971) 4 Cal .3rd 633, 4 Cal .Rptr. 630 . ) Parks and recreation is specifically identified by Government Code Section 66477 as a proper public purpose for -the requirement of the dedication of land or payment of fees in return for subdivision map approval. Further, cities are not limited by the Map Act as the sole means of obtaining land, improvements, or fees for parks and recreational uses . To quote the Attorney General of California, " [O] f course, a city or county has other means by which it may obtain land, improvements, and fees for parks and recreational facilities . " (Citing Westfield-Palos Verdes Co. v. City of Rancho Palos Verdes (1977) 73 Cal .App. 486, 141 Cal .Rptr. 36 . ) In Rancho Palos Verdes, infra, the court upheld the validity of a special tax on new development, where the proceeds from the tax went into the city' s park and recreational fund. The court held that "Just because tax revenue is channeled to a special fund from which park and recreational land is to be financed does not raise the tax to a prohibited subdivision exaction under Section 66477 of the Government Code. The exercise of the city' s plenary tax power is just one way among many that revenue can be raised for the purchase of parklands and open space. " (Rancho Palos Verdes, 73 Cal.App.3d at 448, 141 Cal.Rptr.. at 44 . ) Clearly, the imposition of this particular exaction as a building permit condition is "just one way among many that revenue can be raised for the purchase of parklands and open space. " It is also constitutional, because it substantially furthers a legitimate government interest (the acquisition, preservation, and maintenance of parks and recreational areas) and it does not deny the property owner economically viable use of his land. Therefore, we find that this particular exaction is legal and proper. 2 . Did the Huntington Beach Company dedicate parks as part of the original subdivision? Answer: Probably not. At the time the Huntington Beach Company was subdividing its original tracts, dedications for parks or other recreational uses were not generally required for map approval . Unfortunately, the photo copied .materials submitted with this Request for Legal Services were mostly unreadable_.__ -- i SEACLFF CO-,M P.O. BOX 269 HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92648 (714) 536-2078 March 14,2000 City of Huntington Beach Planning Commission 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Commissioner Livengood: As a result of marry discussions with several Huntington Beach developers In reference to zoning text amendment no. 99-4 (park and recreation fee) it is of general consensus that the park in-lieu fee of $8,858.00, as proposed by staff, is excessive. Since there is no land in the downtown area to build new park(s) and very few existing parks, the fee is not really appropriate for this area. Doubling the existing fee of$3,120.00 would be more acceptable and even at that it may pose to be a hardship in some cases. Thank you for your consideration in this matter and if you should have any questions or concerns in reference to the foregoing please do not hesitate to contact me. S inZ Robert L Corona, President Seacliff Development Co., Inc. s 17J/141 .CU✓UEJ 14.GO March 14, 2000 h P Commission , Huntington Beach 18uzvng Attention: Kim Langel City of Huntington Beach OM49e- y Department of Community Servioes cimpter 2000 Mann Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Building Industry Association of Southecrz Uiform VIA FACSTNIILE:,(7l4)374-1540 9 Executive Circle Suite 100 SUBJECT: Zoning Text Ataendment NO.9%4—Park and Recreation inine,C&Uo a 92614 In-Lieu Fees fie 949.553.9s07 httpJ/wrw.biasc.org Dear Chairman Chapman and Commissioners: . P�SIDENT 'On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, :EIT PPOSTOR Orange County Chapter(BIAIOC),I would like to comment on Zoning Text I 6 tC41ffIELD HOMES ln Amendment NO. 99 regarding Park and Recreation In-Lieu Fees. BIA/OC ' %�E a EaoH .is it ikon-profit tradt association representing over 1,000 companies In the FIE-DsiONE COMMUNITIES residential and light construction industry. 2ND VICE PRESIDENT DENIS cuuum m LENNAR(GREYSTONE HOMES BIA/OC provided com=u s to the City Council on October 15, 1999 i(lE.4SURER (attached)regarding these fees,expressing concerns about the approach the U EDGCOMs City is taking in revl8mg and updating park in-lieu fees. We have continued joHN LANG HOMES to monitor this issue aiid make the fokkovving comments in addition to our SECRIFARY CP previous comm MGN ARCH COents: GORDON M AG � ARCMMUNI11E5 1 AS=AtE VICE PRESIDENT ➢ The City's General Plan Recreation Element and Master Plan of • V,ER PEARCE Parks and Recreation Facilities does not identify or express intent to i LAER atAR:c a asspclaT>;s acquire new park or recreational facilities. Rather the emphasis has "DAVE=GAN E been on rehabilitation and development of existing park sites, To NpSWAAN.'GUrr4NER base park in-lieu'fees on appraisals of new residential property is not I`JOx°`ELUor"P •equitable or ro to that the city has no P1. essed last to I naa EPALDAVAjie app. I1r1a gIVe�Q ty � P � 6E2eL09aTE8 acquire new park facilities. Bb42ER HOMES DACE CONTRACTGRS ql_'IAtiCE VICE aaESloervt 7 .We again reiterate the need for the City to conduct a nexus study to THOMA9 stEELE not only validate it's fees,but to also identify how park fees will be '"G°"O°D" "SONS used to acquire,develop and rehabilitate existing neighborhood or VAMhUU.I.VAW'MWILsweNt GREG CURRENS calm a tity parks to serve the subdivft—ion from which the,fees ere AMHC CORP obtained as required by Government Code section 66477(c). cr+>£=E reserve OFFICER CHRISTINE DIEMER IGER.E36. ➢ The City Cotmcil has expressed its desire to provide affordable ownersbip and rental housing in the community.The BIAIOC An Affiliate of the National Asynciati.zn Af Home Builders and+c ' r'a1;Iy�Qia$��iil]ine Iai ust;:Assn��iation ✓JJ(14/�JOL 14:Gb r ii77070ta. ..�.. __ commends the Cay's recognition of the severe need for employee housing. However, a recent study cabducted by the BIA of San Diego indicates that between 30 and 40%percent of the cost of a new house is due to fees imposed by local government. The National Association of Honiebuilders states that for every$1,000 added to the price of a home, 500,000 people(nationally)are prevented from being able to qualify for a mortgage. Given these facts,BIA/OC supports the Planning Commission Sabconrmlttee recommendations as identified in the March 14,2000 staff report, that the 1).park"fee be set.at 60% of the citywide-average vmluation of parkland per acre,into the existing formrlle ... and 2)that the City compicte a'study on total eosts for park acquisition,developmcnt, and rdiabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out;as well as identify finding methods." Adopting these recommendations will not increase fees further until such a time that the City-completes a study that can validate that park frees should be increased. While BIA/OC has other concerns regarding the City local park inventory methodology and implementation process,we do not intend to raise those issues at the Plamning Commission: BIA/OC requests that we be invited to participate in any,study on parr fees that the City undertakes.We look forward to further dialogue with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, Christine Diemer iger,Esquire Chief Executive Officer Attachment: October 15, 19991�er Cc: City Counial Members Ray Silver,Huntington Beach City Administrator . BLA10C Board of Directors Tom Morrison, BLAISC General Counsel Huuti wn Beach Chamber of Commerce Stan 08eBe,'Orange County Business Council 03/14i20ae 14:26 i"_4bz!J:4 12 151H w . x October 15, 1999 Mayor Peter Green and Counclilmembers City,of Huntington Beach OnvW'e County 2004 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92b4$ Chapter Re: Huntington Beach Park"In-Lieu" Fee Increase' J l uth 1na,alif Aiaociario� • �C�uuthrrn i:alif"min ' Dear'Mayor Green and Councilmembers: 9 Suit e1adve•Giri In c 100 Trine,California 92614 On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, 9-49.553.95030 fax 949.3b.3.9507 Otaage County Chapter(BLVOQ,we are writing to express our stZongest 11ttpJtwww.bim;c.org opposition to the proposed"appraisal update" of the CiWs local park"in lieu" fee. BIA/OC is a nonprofit trade association'consisting of more than 1,000 I PRESIDEtr1 mennber companies and 60,000 employees in the residential home building i o o► aR E3 and fight construction indus*.. 1 1ST VICS PUSICANT Furtherm ore,we would reiterate our prior BIA position presented by our " °A'`'MON +_ GlELP5TD!VE COMMUNITIES Deputy Director,Lynne Fished;at your October 4, 1999 Council meeting that .the'City should undertake a-reexamination of the appraisal and perform a �DENISCND PRESIDENT ,,y,'�y L,� r�,�,, D_Nt5 CULLUMB'eR on the City'$in lieu park fees. This Study should, 1n our opinion, IENNARIGRr&MNG HGMES ineWe the following information:. mWUPER U EDGCOMg JOHN LAING HOMES 1) An arWysis of the validity ofthe City's formula for SECRETARY calculating the number of acres per 1,000 population ( GORDON CR.VCI require4 to be'dedicated(currently 5 acres per 1,000 vonARON COMMUNITIES persons) on each residential subdivision or AScOCLUE VICE PRESCfiNT AER PEARCE cotrespotidilig payment per acre; I LAIR PEARCE a ASSOCwEs . � ME6186R•Ai.IARGE 2) How'park fees will be used to acquire and develop or i DAVE COLGAN '.17SAMAN.6URiNER sting rehabilitate exi neighborhood or community KNOX&ELLIOT LLP parks or recreation facilities to serve the subd"loa C EM6ER-AT L,�acE from which the fees are obtained,as required by GRALD GATES ^, GLA 7 BEAZERHOWS Crovernnient Code section 66477(C); i nqD-COYTRACTORSALLIANCE 'ICE PRENDEw 3) Development of"a schedule specOing how, when and ' THOMAS STEELE where it wilt use the tana or fees, or both, to develop .•rau,cea cnt.�ner�o 'park or recreation facilities to serve residents of the V-MtMATE PAsr PRESIDENT GRE0 C.URRENS re subdivisions"-from which fees a obtained,as required AMµc COR;r by Government Code section 664770). c:A!u ExrcunVE OFICER C�RIXMIE DIEMER IGER.CSC. In'the absence of the Chy's compliance with our association's request for an appraisal reexamination and performance of a nexus study,we intend to prepare a legal challenge to the CkVs appraisal process and calculation of An Affiliate of the National-1.3so6ation of Home Builders and the Cal±fcrnia Building adugjz Association existing inventory of"neigktbozhood and community parks" used to determine the Cit}�s overall park acreage ratio(currently the legal maxinram of S acres per 1,000)pursuant to . Government Code section 66477(b). —We would also inform the Council that the City's recent appraisal is completely inconsistent With a recent park acreage valuation appraisal completed by Peter Finnerty,MAZ, of Pacific Real.Estme Consultants for the County of Orange,and would,in essence,put Huntington Beach residential acreage on a per with the Newport Coast area which is the highest appraised acreage in the County.. And,as BLA previously stated at the October 4, 1999 City Council meeting,the resulting increase would put Huntington Beach`s new Park fee at.n3ore than double the current highest park"in-lieu"fee in the County. We look forward to working with you toward resolving this finportant issue. Sin")r, Chri-dw Diemer Iger,Esquire Chief Executive Officer cc: BZA/OC Board of Directors Past Presidents Co-Chairs Ray Silver,Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton, Esq.,City Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Nick Cam marota,CBIA William K. Vogt 19432 Pompano Lane#112 Huntington Beach, Phone(714)969-0255 Fax: (714)969-5699 FFB � bp. February 16,2000 j 000 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing to you regarding the zoning text amendment No. 99-4 (Park and Recreation fees)requested by the City Administrator to rewrite the method of calculating Park In-lieu fees for the purpose of increasing the fees. The amount presently being collected from all new construction, may in part be unlawfully collected where subdivisions existed prior to the enactment of the California Statute granting the cities the right to collect in-lieu fees for this purpose. Very simply put, the city has been collecting fees from downtown builders, who build homes on existing subdivided lots in existing subdivision tracts recorded prior to the enactment of the State of California Government Code Sections 66410 and 66477 in 1965. It was this legislative action which enabled cities and counties to develop a park in-lieu fee ordinance allowing the city to collect fees from developers of subdivision tracts in-lieu of receiving land for parks for recreational purposes in areas where adequate parks existed. Staff, based on Mrs. Hutton's directive has taken a position that this fee applies to all properties pulling building permits for new construction, eventhough, tracts such as the downtown tract should be exempt having been subdivided some 50 years prior to the passing of the State Subdivision Map Act of 1965. In fact, only the newly subdivided tracts recorded after the City ordinance, Article 998 and 974, were adopted on August 15, 1966, should be subject to the park in-lieu fee. This is simply notthe case being practiced by the city. Subdivisions grandfathered by either their date of subdivision recordation or their dedication of parks to the City are being forced to pay a park in-lieu fee just like the new subdivision tracts which are obligated to pay because they are not exempt from the State Statute. Your opportunity to correct this mistake being perpetuated to the detriment of downtown builders presents itself at this time. Up until now the city ordinance and the collection of this in-lieu fee from builders of downtown subdivision lots has gone unchallenged and therefore, untested in court. This does not make it right to continue the course, and ultimately cause the residents of Huntington Beach pay the price of the court test. i I petition you, as planning commissioners, to challenge the City Attorney and Staff. It will take only minimal effort on your part reviewing the State Statute to determine the intent of the Law and to verify the exemptions granted by the Law for existing tracts recorded prior to the 1965 Statute. The Law does grant the city the power to establish an in-lieu fee for parks, it simply does not apply to downtown tracts or any other recorded subdivision that can apply the law of ex post facto. Over the past 4 years the city has systematically raised builder fees by more than 100% The two fees that have hurt the builder the most are the water application fee for a 1 inch service which went from $60 to $4800 per residence, and the In-lieu fee for parks which for a downtown property is $3120 per residence. Most builders have accepted the in-lieu fee for parks, eventhough they feel it is an unfair charge. (If you remove a house in an existing tract to build anew one,you shouldn't be responsible for an in-lieu fee. The downtown tracts with their parks in place have existed for over 80 years and 50 years longer than the law granting the city's right to impose park in-lieu fees.) Additionally, the city staff has been instrumental in increasing the number of applications for Variance and Conditional Use Permit, both of which carry a hefty fee. When added to the increased demands made by the Fire Department and Public Works to have downtown builders correct infrastructure problems at their expense, it would seem poor timing for the city to follow a pay increase session with another builder fee increase. Especially. one of the magnitude, proposed by Staff, which would result from the passage of the new method of calculating the park in-lieu fee. I would be pleased to meet with any one of you prior to the meeting on this subject. I may be able provide some insight on the subject that you will probably not get from city staff regarding this in-lieu park fee. Unfortunately, I will be out of town the evening of the hearing and will not be able to participate. Sincerely ours, William K. Vo r r • Adjusted Fee to City CITY Single Family Residence (SFR) Park Standard Standard Park In Lieu Fee #Acres/1000 (per SFR) (appraisal information) Population 007M y5:aac es 0' _, 'y$3. 121 ',82;000 ` �12= 4:4 ase.� o = 7 2�=4bIA:•�`�;` -�r=- =$12044N@$;7'022; 5�'° $12,957iS ase $7k556CA� , . .k; ,?kA.��?k>,.r,�7C,+'..i:� , .++.':+." «..�`++t... vw 'wr,s:x. ,:�./.,<-;'-:;,•'...^� �:M 1. Anaheim $4 317/SFR 2 acres/1000 population ri 2. Brea $1,525/SFR 5 acres/1000 $1 525 � ° population 3. Buena Park $4 250/SFR 3 acres/1000 population 4. Costa Mesa $5 482/SFR 4.26 acres/1000 population 5. Cypress $3 200/SFR 4.5 acres/1000 population : »`. :.: (appraisal-4 regions) °. 6. Dana Point Information not available 3 acres/1000 R 2=917a fz•. : 7. Fountain Vly $1,750/SFR population 8. Fullerton $2,474/SFR 2 acres/1000 f$6;,185HU^rRy f-- f population ' 9. Garden $1 200/SFR Not based on Grove population 10. Irvine $7,189/SFR 5 acres/1000 �r$7189 population 11. La Habra $300/SFR 2.5 acres/1000 population 12. La Habra Hts No fees — City is built out. 13. La Palma $210/SFR 4 acres/1000 population 14. Laguna $8,343/SFR 5 acres/1000 »r$8343ah �4 Beacht population 15. Laguna Hills No fees — City is built out (appraisal-4 regions) 16. JLaguna $4,618 - $8,149/SFR * 3 acres/1000 $7697n=''$1385 Niguel (varies by area of city) population 17. Lake Forest No fees — City is built out 18. Los 125/SFR Alamitos $3 ' 4 acres/1000, population , , wt t t. Adjusted Fee to City CITY Single Family Residence (SIR) Park Standard Standard Park In Lieu Fee #Acres/1000 (per SFR) (appraisal information) Population Sion $7,200/SFR 5 acres/1000 w$?200 O (appraisal-site specific) population '^~ sport $6,984/SFR 5 acres/1000 $6 894' 'ZOMW . 3h population age $2,310/SFR 3 acres/1000 $3;850�` =�<�`� 2� ,: •. . Y= = population : -entia $4,978/SFR 10 acres/1000 $2489 '� t=== population {: . - ...� v-.ram.. _ Clemente $5,952/SFR 5 acres/1000 population Juan $4,840/SFR 5 acres/1000 .$4840,. istrano population � 5 to Ana $2 890/SFR ** 2 acres/1000 $7=225M }ti population � �� i Beach $10 000/SFR 5 acres/1000 `$1;0 000r. =M r s. _:• (appraisal-site s cific) population ::; iton $3 050/SFR 5 acres/1000 $30Q 'T ` �., x population ' tin $2,744/SFR *** 3 acres/1000 $45:Z3 "^ Neill (see information below) population a Park No fees- City is built out 3tminster 4 22 FR t $ 0/S 3 acres/1000 =$5 27Mol (appraisal-site specific population "' •ba Linda $1 345/SFR 4 acres/1000 $1=f81> " to Niguel assesses land value based on the particular area. Land values range from$481,056 to $848, acre. The park in-lieu fee based on a median value of$664,974 would be $6,192 for their park d of 3 acres per 1000 population. This extrapolates to $10,320 using Huntington Beach's park standard -es per 1000 population. a Ana assesses their fees based upon the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit. The figure above is bed room unit. In lieu fees for a 2 bedroom and 5 bedroom are$2,610/SFR and $3,215/SFR. igure of$282,000 was used to calculate Tustin's in lieu fee. This figure is skewed because it does not the Tustin Ranch area. The City only accepts land to satisfy Quimby requirements in that particular f Tustin Ranch were included,the land valuation would be significantly higher than$282,000. WILL USE SITE SPECIFIC APPRAISALS FOR TUSTIN RANCH AFTER IT GETS ALL OF THE LAND :DS IN TUSTIN RANCH FOR PARKS. • I •�- ?�$�i" �•'�� s�s ..®tea^�+°�� ' � 'd r �.�; ``.W��"� .:��,",•..."��'Z nk';F� ��i �, .�,'„�,�,.:: a�m'h!"� .'>aq�z^c �:�Y.. ,.e-y.�t.•,A��e. Riayi :y,� Y, _ N =,fie ,aw^t>axin,2.R�t •••• 1 May 15, 2000 BIR Mayor David Garofalo and Council members City of Huntington Beach Omnge Cowdy 2000 Main Street Cimpter Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Building Irnlu h� .\ i i,Iln u SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE. City Council Agenda Item of:mi wrII 1 •'1i'"'"'., D2 —Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-04 (Fee In-Lieu q 1'.XVCUIi\'r Circle Jui1P lull of Parkland Dedication) In inr.Califurni.i Q201-1 9 9.55:060 1) Dear Mayor Garofalo and Council members: raX 949.53:060 On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC), we are writing once again (see October 15,1999 letter PRESIDENT JEFFR ROST°� to Mayor Green included in Staff report) to express our strongest opposition to the BROO:FIE'D HOMES proposed "appraisal update" of the City's local park "in-lieu" fee. BIA/OC is a 1 S?VICE PRESIDENT nonprofit trade association, consisting of nearly 1,000 member companies and STEVE CAMERON 60,000 employees in the residential home building and light construction FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES industry. 2ND VICE PRESIDENT DENIS CULLUMBER LENNAR/GREYSTONE HOMES This issue is of great importance to our industry from; 1) an affordable housing TREASURER policy perspective and 2) the economic uncertainty to landowners and LJ EDGCOMB JOHN LAING HOMES homebuilders attempting to do business in your city. In that regard, the staff report for this item was not made available until late Friday morning ((Ma 12`Il SECRETARY P Y g (May )� GORDON CRAIG and our members have not had adequate time to review the materials and consult MONARCH COMMUNITIES with our legal counsel regarding the new, but ill-defined appraisal process ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT LAER PEARCE recommended by staff despite the Planning Commission's recommendation for LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES an interim 50% fee. We would therefore respectfully request a 30-day MEMBER-AT-LARGE continuance of this matter. Should the Council favorably consider our request DAVE COLGAN NOSSAMAN,GUTHNER for a 30-day continuance, it is our intent to attempt to resolve our issues with city .KNOX&ELLIOTT LLP staff over the next month. rather than pursuing litigation as a way to remedy our MEMBER-AT-LARGE concerns. GERALD GATES BEAZER HOMES We have submitted letters on October 15, 1999 and March 14, 2000. and have TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE VICE PRESIDENT appeared at three public hearings expressing our concerns and legal issues with THOMAS STEELE HARDWOOD CREATIONS the approach that the city is taking in reexamination of the appraisal criteria, lack of a nexus study on the City's in-lieu park fee, and lack of information with regard IMMEDIATE CURRNSIDENT to how park in-lie fees will be utilized to benefit the related development. None AMHC CORP of these issues have vet to be adequately addressed. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHRISTINE DIEMER IGER,ESQ. While the action before you focuses on the appraisals of land values relating to fees paid in-lieu of parkland dedication, all issues relating to the Quimby Act must be taken into account as they contribute to the overall formula by which these fees are levied-- and all the requirements of Section 66477 (a) (1) through �" �►li�i 'I~ „l ll'' (9) must be met. �utinn:rl 1�� " iutinn ul H nu liuilrlrr� and 11". (:alifu•ni�I Iiuillliu � Inrlu�in �"nriatiun I We supported the Playing Commission's action (Recommendation A) as a compromise measure in order to keep park in-lieu fees at a reasonable level until a nexus study can be undertaken. To reiterate our concerns, in our opinion, a nexus study should be conducted prior to any reexamination of fees and should include the following information: 1) An analysis of the validity of the City's formula for calculating the number of acres per 1,000 population required to be dedicated (currently 5 acres per 1,000 persons) on each residential subdivision or corresponding payment per acre. The City has included State beach acreage into its calculation,which is contrary to State law. The Quimby Act is very clear that the calculation of park inventory is-based on an inventory of neighborhood and community parks, not regional or state facilities; Government Code Section 66477(A) states as follows: "The park area per 1000 members of the population of the city, county, or local public agency shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bears to the total population... The amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shall be the actual acreage of existing neighborhood and community parks of the city, county, or local public agency as shown on its records, plans, recreational element, maps, or reports as of the date of the most recent available federal census." Any doubt that "neighborhood and community" park does not mean "State" park (or State beach!) is completely removed by reference to the City's own General Plan Recreational Element which defines "neighborhood park" as up to 5 acres and "community park" as up to 12 acres. 2) How park fees will be used to acquire and develop or rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community parks or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision from which the fees are obtained, as required by Government Code section 66477(C); 3) Development of"a schedule specifying how, when and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreation facilities to serve residents of the subdivisions" from which fees are obtained, as required by Government Code section 66477(f). As previously stated, in the absence of the City's compliance with our association's request for an appraisal reexamination and performance of a nexus study,we intend.to prepare a legal challenge to the City's appraisal process and calculation of existing 2 inventory of"neighborhood and community parks" used to determine the City's overall park acreage ratio (currently the legal maximum of 5 acres per 1,000) pursuant to Government Code section 66477(a)). We would also inform the Council that the City's recent appraisal is completely inconsistent with a recent park acreage valuation appraisal completed by Peter Finnerty, MAI, of Pacific Real Estate Consultants for the County of Orange;and would, in essence, put Huntington Beach residential acreage on a par with the Newport Coast area which is the highest appraised acreage in,-the County. And, as BIA previously stated at the October 4, 1999 City Council meeting, the resulting increase would put Huntington Beach's new park fee at more than double the current highest park "in-lieu" fee in the County. We look forward to working with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, Christine Diemer Iger, Esquire L Fishel Chief Executive Officer Deputy Director cc: BIVOC Board of Directors, Past Presidents, Committee Co-Chairs Ray Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton, Esq., City Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce David Smith, BIA/SC General Counsel March 14, 2000 Huntington Beach Planning Commission BIR Attention: Kim Langel City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Services Orange Coru�t�� Chapter 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Building Industn Association of Southern California VIA FACSIMILE: (714) 374-1540 9 EsecUti,c UI lr Suilr 100 SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment NO. 99-4—Park and Recreation Irvine.c:ahfOrnia 9'014 949.553.9500 1 In-Lieu Fees fax 949.553.950; httlr//�c�c�c.hiu.:�•. u'� Dear Chairman Chapman and Commissioners: PRESIDENT On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, JEFF PROSTOR Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC), I would like to comment on Zoning Text BROOKFIELD HOMES Amendment NO. 99 regarding Park and Recreation In-Lieu Fees. BIA/OC I ST VICE STEVE CAME PRESIDENT is a non-profit trade association representing over 1,000 companies in the FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES residential and light construction industry. 2.ND VICE PRESIDENT DENIS CULLUMBER LENNAR/GREYSTONE HOMES BIA/OC provided comments to the City Council on October 15, 1999 TREASURER (attached) regarding these fees, expressing concerns about the approach the LJ EDGCOMS City is taking in revising and updating park in-lieu fees. We have continued JOHN LAING HOMES to monitor this issue and make the following comments in addition to our SECRETARY GORDON previous comments: MONARCH COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT ➢ The City's General Plan Recreation Element and Master,Plan of LAER PEARCE Parks and Recreation Facilities does not identify or express intent to LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES new acquire ark or recreational facilities. Rather the emphasis has MEMBER-AT-LARGE q p p DAVE COLGAN been on rehabilitation and development of existing park sites. To NOSSAMAN.GUTHNER base park in-lieu fees on appraisals of new residential property is not KNOX&ELLIOT LLP equitable or appropriate iven that the city has no expressed plan to MEMBER-AT-LARGE qg �J •�Y Y GERALD GATES acquire new park facilities. BEAZER HOMES TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE VICE PRESIDENT ➢ We again reiterate the need for the City to conduct a nexus study to THOMAS STEELE not only validate it's fees, but to also identify how park fees will be HARDWOOD CREATIONS used to acquire, develop and rehabilitate existing neighborhood or IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT GREG CURRENS community parks to serve the subdivision from which the fees are AMHC CORP. obtained, as required by Government Code section 66477 (c). CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHRISTINE DIEMER IGER,ESQ ➢ The City Council has expressed its desire to provide affordable ownership and rental housing in the community. The BIA/OC An Affiliate of the National Association of Home Builders and the California Buildine Industn' .association r commends the City's recognition of the severe need for employee housing. However, a recent study conducted by the BIA of San Diego indicates that between 30 and 40% percent of the cost of a new house is due to fees imposed by local government. The National Association of Homebuilders states that for every $1,000 added to the price of a home, 500,000 people (nationally) are prevented from being able to qualify for a mortgage. Given these facts, BIA/OC supports the Planning Commission Subcommittee recommendations as identified in the March 14,2000 staff report, that the 1).park "fee be set at 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per acre into the existing formula ... and 2)that the City complete a study on total costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out, as well as identify funding methods." Adopting these recommendations will not increase fees further until such a time that the City completes a study that can validate that park fees should be increased. While BIA/OC has other concerns regarding the City.local park inventory methodology and implementation process, we do not intend to raise those issues at the Planning Commission. BIA/OC requests that we be invited to participate in any study on park fees that the City undertakes. We look forward to further dialogue with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, Christine Diemer Iger, Esquire Chief Executive Officer Attachment: October 15, 19991 er Cc: City Council Members Ray Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator BIA/OC Board of Directors Tom Morrison, BIA/SC General Counsel Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Stan Oftelie, Orange County Business Council October 15, 1999 BIR Mayor Peter Green and Councilmembers City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Orange County Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Clurpter Indu<tn :�<soc nation Building Re: Huntington Beach Park "In-Lieu" Fee Increase „f Builldig California O Eyt'CUtiNt'GIVIC Dear Mayor Green and Councilmembers: ;site 100 Irvine.California 92014 On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, 949.3.�3.9500 fJx y_49.553.e.5u: Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC), we are writing to express our strongest opposition to the proposed "appraisal update" of the City's local park "in-lieu" fee. ,BIA/OC is a nonprofit trade association consisting of more than 1,000 member companies and 60,000 employees in the residential home building JEFF PRESIDENT R and light construction industry. _ BROOKFIELD HOMES 1ST VICE PRESIDENT Furthermore, we would reiterate our prior BIA position presented by our STEVE CAMERON FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES Deputy Director, Lynne Fishel, at your October 4, 1999 Council meeting that 2NC VICE PRESIDENT the City should undertake a reexamination of the appraisal and perform a DENIS CULLUMBER nexus study on the City's in-lieu park fees. This study should, in our opinion, LENNAR/GREYSTONF HOMES include the following information: TREASURER LJEDGCOMB JOHN LAING HOMES 1) An analysis of the validity of the City's formula for SECRETARY calculating the number of acres per 1,000 population GORDON CRAIG required to be dedicated (currently 5 acres per 1,000 MONARCH COMMUNITIES persons) on each residential subdivision or ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT LAER PEARCE corresponding payment per acre; LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES MEMBER-AT-LARGE 2) How park fees will be used to acquire and develop or DAVE COLGAN NOSSAMAN.GUTHNER rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community KNOX&ELLIOT LLP parks or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision MEMBER-AT-LARGE from which the fees are obtained, as required by GERALD GATES Government Code section 66477(C); BEAZER HOMES TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE VICE PRESIDENT 3) Development of"a schedule specifying how, when and THOMAS STEELE where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop HARDWOOD CREATIONS park or recreation facilities to serve residents of the IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT GREG CURRENS subdivisions" from which fees are obtained, as required AMHC CORP by Government Code Section 66477(f). CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHRISTINE DIEMER IGER,ESQ In the absence of the City's compliance with our association's request for an appraisal reexamination and performance of a nexus study, we intend to prepare a legal challenge to the City's appraisal process and calculation of An affiliate of the National association of Home BUIdderS and the Califirrnia Buildin_ InduStn- .Association r existing inventory of"neighborhood and community parks" used to determine the City's overall park acreage ratio (currently the legal maximum of 5 acres per 1,000) pursuant to Government Code section 66477(b). We would also inform the Council that the City's recent appraisal is completely inconsistent with a recent park acreage valuation appraisal completed by Peter Finnerty, MAI, of Pacific Real Estate Consultants for the County of Orange, and would,in essence, put Huntington Beach residential acreage on a par with the Newport Coast area which is the highest appraised acreage in the County. And, as BIA previously stated at the October 4, 1999 City Council meeting, the resulting increase would put Huntington Beach's new park-fee at more than double the current highest park "in-lieu" fee in the County. We look forward to working with-you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, b• Christine Diemer Iger, Esquire Chief Executive Officer cc: BIA/OC Board of Directors Past Presidents Co-Chairs Ray Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton, Esq., City Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Nick Cammarota, CBIA RCA ROUTING SHEE D--- 1 INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: June 19, 2000 RCA,ATTA 3",, hVIE(VS STATU°S Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION;;,FOR MISSING ATTACHMENTS, REVI:EWED RE;; ;,U;RIVED FORWARDED Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( ) City Clerk ( ) EXPLANATION;?iFOR'?3,RETURN'OF ITEM: SpaceOnly) RCA Author: HZ:SH:WC:kjl JUN 19 100 16:36�HB CHAMBER OFxCOMM. 714 960-7654 P.2 1. 1 HUNTINGTON BEACH; _ j CHAMBERgg-- 1COMMERCE j RECEIVED FROM June 19,2000 AND MADE A PART OF TH R CO}�D T '- COUNCIL MEETING OF ,e j %AT H OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main.St. Huntington Beach,Calif. Dear Mayor Garofalo and Council Members: SUBJECT.Agenda Item DI The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce has been on record relative to the proposed Park Acquisition and Development in-lieu fee. This is to advise you that we continue to support our original recommendation which is consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation: 1.)Approve the Zoning Tent Amendment utilizing a fixed fee of 50%of the citywide average valuation of parkland:per acre into the existing formula,and 2)Direct that the City complete a(nexus)study on the total costs for park acquisition,development and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out,as well as identify appropriate funding methods,within one year from City Council adoption. We feet that this is a reasonable approach to the long debated issue and respectfully request that you support the Planning Commission's recommendation. Sincerely, c iddell,CCE esident 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 Huntington Beach. 92648 l' 1 ! 7141536-8888 M88 � � ` \A 0 1 N (FAX)714MO-7654 ,r^ JUN 19 '00 16:36 HB CHAMBER OFACOMM. 714 960-7654 P.2 iItk ,1i a N U N��' i�I6�1�1U�ERC N `ot June 19, 2000 Mayor Dave Garofalo and Members of the City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main St. Huntington Beach,,Calif Dear Mayor Garofalo and Council Members: SUBJECT: Agenda Item DI The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce has been on record relative to the proposed Park Acquisition and Development in-lieu fee. This is to advise you that we continue to support our original recommendation which is consistent with the Planning Commission's recommendation: 1.)Approve the Zoning Text Amendment utilizing a fixed fee of 50%of the citywide average valuation of parkland:per acre into the existing formula,and 2)Direct that the City complete a(nexus)study on the total costs for park acquisition, development and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out,as well as identify appropriate funding methods,within one year from City Council adoption. We feel that this is a reasonable approach to the long debated issue and respectfully request that you support the Planning Commission's recommendation. Sincerely, c rddell,CCE esident 2100 Huntington Main Street,Suite 200 0 / Hurnington Beach,GA 92648 ' J�\ 7141536-8868 (FAX)714/%0-7654 r H. B. INDEPENDENT PUBLISH DATE: 07-13-00 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH LEGAL NOTICE ORDINANCE NO. 3468 Adopted by the City Council on July 5, 2000 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 254.0811 THEREOF RELATING TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES Full Text: WHEREAS,pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law,the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. q n 4 which amends Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to park in- lieu fees; and . After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented,the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: H.Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication,such fee shall be equal to an amount for each , Acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D,which amount is sixty percent(60%)of the average fair market value per acre of land in all RL zoned neighborhood public parks within the City if such land were not used for or zoned for public park or recreational purposes. Fair market value of the land shall be detemuned by a qualified real_estate appraiser. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. Copies of this ordinance are available in the City Clerk's Office. ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting held July 5, 2000, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Julien, Harman, Garofalo, Green, Dettloff, Bauer NOES: Sullivan ABSENT: None This ordinance is effective 30 days from date of adoption. CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 2000 MAIN STREET HUNTINGTON BEACH, CA 92647 714-536-5227 CONNIE BROCKWAY, CITY CLERK n RE0E1VFD FROM r Pl AND MADE A PART OF TH CC C AT E COUNCIL MEETING OF OFFICE OF THE CITY CLIfRK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK PARK AND RECREATION IN-LIEU FEES Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 Project Description x Amend Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Chapter 254 x Modify method for determining parkland in-lieu fees for residential development 2 City Council x Continued action on May 15, 2000 x Request to schedule Council subcommittee meeting with BIA and Chamber representatives x Meeting held on June 8, 2000 to discuss ordinance 3 Background x Quimby Act - Authorizes City to require land dedication/fees for park and recreational purposes x City Council direction to amend ordinance requiring site-specific appraisal (Nov. 1999) x Option to pay fees for residential developments with 50 units or less 4 2 Background(2) x Fee shall be equal to land value required to . serve the proposed development (5 acres/1000 persons) x Current fee based on avg. fair market value per acre of parkland in RL neighborhood parks x City's last update in 1990 - $182,000/acre x City-wide appraisal of neighborhood parks completed (1999) - average land value $866,000/ac 5 Planning Commission xThree (3) public hearings x Planning Commission subcommittee meeting to discuss options with downtown developers and consultants x Compared other city's park fees •s,. _a4 y*YM.. (`W 6 3 Planning Commission Recommendation x 1) Utilize 50% of citywide average of parkland per acre (1999 appraisal) into the City's existing formula = $433,000/acre x 2) Complete comprehensive study of costs for build out of master plan of park improvements and implement findings Comparison x Existing fee x $182,000/ac - $3,120/unit (w/o entitlement) x $516,500/ac - $8,858/unit (w/ entitlement) x 1999 appraisal x $866,627/ac - $14,862/unit (City-wide avg.) x $871,200/ac - $14,940/unit (Downtown) x Planning Commission (50% of City-wide avg.) x $433,000/ac - $7,425/unit x City Council - Varies based on site-specific appraisal 8 4 Staff Recommendation x Require site specific appraisal to determine land value of subject property and incorporate into City's existing formula x Amount of fee will vary based on appraised value of subject property 9 Recommendation x Approve ZTA 99-4 as recommended by staff x Provides sufficient recreational opportunities for residents and visitors in conformance with General Plan x Provides revenue source. for acquisition, development and rehabilitation of parks (Park Acquisition and Development Fund) x Fairest and most legally defensible 10 5 A FOE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH INTER-DEPARTMENT COMMUNICATION HUNTINGTON BEACH To Mayor and City Council Via City Administrator From Ron Hagan, Director, Community Services C-, Date June 19, 2000 Subject Park-in-lieu Fees for Downtown Specific Plan 4AJ I have attached two documents for your information. The first is the forte, mula for the park-in-lieu fee for the Downtown Specific Plan. The Building y Industry Association has said that a developer would have to pay $50,000 or more per unit to rebuild a single residence in the downtown area. As noted on the attached formula, that statement is inaccurate. The actual cost is approximately$15,000 per unit. The Building Industry Association also has indicated that the city has no plan for acquisition, development and rehabilitation of its park system. Attached is the updated capital improvement program for the Park Ac- quisition and Development Fund. All proposed acquisition, development and rehabilitation projects are listed as well as the proposed funding sources. Please call me if you have any questions. RH:cr Attachments i Ulr�-, QDmm w I cAT_ )oN FORMULA FOR PARK-IN-LIEU FEE r DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN A = 5.0 (3.43 x 1) 1000 A = Amount of park property to be dedicated 5.0 = Five .acres per 1 ,000 requirement 3.43 = Current residential density factor 1 = Number of dwelling units per lot 1000 Population per five acres 5.0 (3.43X1 ) 1000 = .01715 X $871 ,200 = $14,941 .08 per unit PARR( ACQ. & DEN'. FUND - CAPITAL. IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM UPDATED JUNE 2000 TOTAL PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES t ESTIMATED PARK ACQ. ACQUISITION PROJECTS DESCRIPTION COST & DEV. FUND PROP 12 COP'S 1. Edison Right-of-Way Purchase park property $39,387,940 $39,387,940 currently leased from Edison $866,000/A x 35.09 Acres 2. Closed Schools Purchase 2 sites such as $20,784,000 $20,784,000 Lamb and Gisler 3. HCP Encyclopedia Lots Purchase lots in HCP $3,750,000 $3,750,000 39 lots x$12,500/lot 4. Ellis/Goldenwest Purchase lots at Site A $4,000,000 $4,000,000 Neighborhood Park include buyout, legal issues, etc. -Estimated Cost SUB TOTAL $67,921,940 $67,921,940 $0 $0 II. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS 1. Ellis/GW Neighood Park Develop Park $1,250,000 $1,250,000 5 Acres @$250,000/A 2. Bartlett Park Develop Park 30 Acres x 200,000/A $6,000,000 $5,485,000 $515,000 3. Huntington Central Park Develop Sports Complex on 45 acres $16,968,000 $16,968,000 Develop remaining 111 acres $27,750,000 $27,750,000 4. Irby Neighborhood Park Develop remaining 2 acres $500,000 $500,000 2A x$250,000 TOTAL PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED PARK ACQ. DESCRIPTION COST & DEV. FUND PROP 12 COP'S r 5. H.B. High School Pool Develop jointly with HBUHS $750,000 $169,000 $581,000 Estimated Cost-City's share 6. O.V. High School Pool Develop jointly w HBUHS $2,000,000 $2,000,000 Estimated Cost-City's share 7. Edison Park Reconfigure park for youth $1,972,050 $1,519,750 $452,300 Youth Sports Complex sports including skateboard 8. Murdy Park Reconfigure park for $2,876,960 $2,102,710 $774,250 Youth Sports Complex youth sports 9. Edison High School Expand existing youth sports $710,000 $710,000 Lights Ph. II lights 10. Seniors' Multipurpose Develop new Senior Citizen's $8,100,000 $7,000,000 $1,100,000 Center 11. Youth Sports Grants School Fields Grant Program $2,500,000 $1,900,000 $600,000 12. HCP Consessions Rebuild HCP Consessions $800,000 $800,000 13. Pier Buildings Remaining 2 buildings $500,000 $500,000 14. Bluff Top Park Complete Bluff Top Park $4,000,000 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 15. Edinger Dock New Dock for Harbor $700,000 $7,000,000 16. OVHS Lights Lights for Athletic fields $710,000 $710,000 17. Edison Skateboard Park 3rd. Skatepark $150,000 $150,000 18. Surfing Museum New site $400,000 $400,000 Sub Total $78,637,010 $67,476,460 $9,992,550 $17,468,000 TOTAL PROPOSED FUNDING SOURCES ESTIMATED PARK ACQ. DESCRIPTION COST & DEV. FUND PROP 12 COP'S III. RENOVATION PROJECTS 1. Renovate existing park syst( 577 Ac of renovation $28,850,000 $28,850,000 2. Replace tot lots Tot lot replacement program $1,050,000 $1,050,000 3. Renovate clubhouses Renovate 5 clubhouses $1,000,000 $1,000,000 4. Renovate Warner Dock Renovate or replace dock $350,000 $350,000 5. Renovate Picnic Shelters Citywide picnic shelter renovation $500,000 $500,000 6. Edison Community Center Revitalize community center $380,000 $380,000 HCP Lake Aeration system $750,000 $750,000 Sub Total $32,880,000 $30,700,000 $2,180,000 $0 TOTAL OF EACH FUNDING SOURCE $179,438,950 $156,098,400 $12,172,550 $17,468,000 I06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 BIA OC PAGE 02 C:(1 OF CA June 1 t5,2000 ju"d f 9 A I.- 3 q BI R Mayor David Garofalo and Council members City of HuntiDgtozi Beach •Grange .County 2000 Main Street Chapter . Hu.ntivagton Beach; CA. 92448 Building Industr% A.—ttt'io6m) SUBJECT• City Coulacid Agenda Item D1—Approve Zoning of�rn�tltrrn t::tiifilrniu • Text Amendment No.99-04 (Fee In-Lieu of 9 Executive Circle Porkland Dedication) suite 100 Irvine.California 92614 949 Z53.9500 Dear Mayor Garofalo and Council members: fax 949.5,5,3.9507 http-//wwu-.bi*tsc.org On'behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter(BIVOC), we are writing once again(see attached letters of PRESIDENT October 15,1999 March 14 .2000 May 1 S, 2000 to express our position JEFPIZEY PROSTOR a f Y p p BROOKFiELD HOMES proposed "appraisal update" of the City's local park in-lieu fee. BIA/OC is a. IStVICE PRESIDENT nonprofit trade.association;consisting of nearly 1.,000 member'companies, STE\/R CAMERON.. representing over C>0,000 einpl,oyees in the residential home building and light FIELOSTONE COMMUNITIES construction'industry. 2ND VICE PRESIDENT. LJ EDGCOMB JOHN LAING HOMES We first would like to thank.Mayor Garafalo for facilitating the meeting with TREASURER repr;sentatives of BIA/OC•and the Chamber of Commerce held on June 8, MC WtTTENBERG KAUFMAN&BROAD COASTAL,INC. 2000, which also'included Council members Harmon, and Bauer, Planning SECRETARY Commissioners,,and city staff, This meeting gave city staff,the Chamber and CORDON CRAIG 'BIA the opportunity to state our concerns and positions regarding the fee update MONARCH COMMUNMES before you for consideration; ASSOCIATE VICE MCSILSENT LAER PEARCE LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES This issue is of great"importance to our industry from: 1)an affordable housing MEMBER-AT-LARD; policy perspective 2)the economic (un)certainty perspective for landowners and DAVE COLGAN NgSSAMAN•6UTHNER homebuilders attempting to do business in your city and 3)an industry wide KNOx'&ELLIOTT LLP perspective with respect to the methodologies by which fee schedules are MEMBER-AT--LARGE developed. GERALD GATES BEAZER HOMES Based on the.discussion at.the June 8 h meeting,we continue to support the ' TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE PP VICE PRESIDENT recommendation of the Planning Commission to: MOMA5 STEELE HARDWOOD CREATIONS IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT 1).Approve the Zoning Text Amendment utilizing a oRE5 CURRENs fixed fee of SQ%,of the citywide average valuation of AMHC CORP. parkland per acre into the existing formula,and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER . 2)Direct that the City complete a(nexus)study on the CHRISTINE DIEMER I0ER.Es01 total costs for park acquisition,development and rebabititittion.in the City based upon residential development build out,as well as identify appropriate funding methods,within one year from City Council A, .anij_jWg.(trJ°1atimful adoption. A.oviatiuu of i-fumt,Run di-n . ,wd t1L•.Cidiforniti Building • IltdLiKl]3:.1�xnrialiun �� coM�►�N� 06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 BIA OC PAGE 03 We believe this approach is reasonable given that the City park in-lieu fees have not been adjusted for.over 1.0 years. Adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation-will also provide'the necessary information to adequately address the concerns,issues that 13WOC and the Chamber have raised in previous correspondence to the City,namely; 1).The methodology utilized to regturing 5 acres per-1,000 resident, and 2), how the fees accumulated will be used to serve the subdivision from.which the fees were obtained, as required by •the Government Code, If the Council should.support the Planning Commission recommendation,we believe it is critical that BIAlOC participate with the development of the nexus study and park acquisition report and arc willing to provide the resources necessary to meet with.staff on.a regular basis throughout the process. Thank you for.your consideration and we look forward to working with you on this important issue. Siixcerely, Christine Diemer Iger,Esquire L Fishel Chief Executive Officer Deputy Director Attachment. cc: BIA/OC Board of Directors, Past Presidents,Committee Co-Chairs Ray Silveri.."untington.Beach City Administrator Gail.Hutton,Esq.,City Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce David Smith; BIA/SC'General Counsel 2 06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 BIA OC PAGE 04 May 15,20.00 Bill ' Mayor David Garofalo'.and Council members City of Huntington Beach Dr unge County 2000 Main Street . Cimpter Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: &ME_sT,y R CaUiNUA , City Council,Agenda Item' +t +„Ir!„•r, r_,1;, r r,,, D2 —Approve'Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-04 (Fee In-Lieu o e,rr•tlt;;v(irI l+ of Parkland Dedication) �uitr ttJtl lninr_(:�lifur�,ia 0261•1 Dear Mayor Garofalo and Council members: On behalf of the Building Industry. Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter(13I,4JOC); we are writing once again(see October 15,1999 letter to Mayor Greets included in Staff report)to express our strongest opposition' to the Y P ) P g PP proposed "appraisal update" of the City's local park "in-lieu" fee. BIA/OC is a 5 v,es i=RtsIDEN nonprofit trade association. consisting of nearly 1,000 member companies and sTEv,CAMEROM1 C0;000 employees in the'residential home building and light construction F,ELDSTONE COMMuN1! industry. 2ND vIC:PRESrDNN' DINS CULLJMBE+• • • LENNAR/GREVSTONE hOME$ This issue is of great importance to-our industry from; 1) an affordable housing TREASURE;, policy perspective and 2).the economic uncertainty to landowners and JO JED N O B OMES hornebuilders attempting to do business in your city. In that regard, the staff RFTAPY report•for this item was not made available until late Friday morning (May 12" ), OoaDON CRAIG and our members have not had adequate time to review the materials and consult' MONARCH COMMUNITIES with our•legal counsel regarding the new. but ill-defined appraisal process ASSOCIATE VICE PRC$IDEN7 recommended by staff despite the Planning Commission's recommendation for LAER' .APEARCE C ASS &ASSOCIATES an interim 50% fee. We would.therefore respectfully request a 30-day MCMBEh-AT-LARGE continuance of this matter. Should the Council favorably consider our request DAVE COLGAN for a 30-day,continuance. it is our intent to attempt to resolve our issues with city' "KNOX&M«att«PR staff over the next nionth.rather than pursuing litigation as a way to remedy our w, MaeR-AT-waGF concet't]S. • GFRALD GATE$ REA2ER HOMES We have submitted letters on October 15. 1999 and March 14.2000. and have TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE VICE PRESIDENT appeared at three.public..heanngs expressing our concerns and legal issues with THOMASS?EeLE HARDWOOD CREATIONS the approach that the city is.taking in reexamination of the appraisal criteria, lack of a nexus study on the.City's' in-lieu park fee.and lack of information with regard IMMEGaE PAST PRESIDENT tohow.park in-lie,fees will be utilized to benefit the related development. 1�vne AMHCCORP of thgsq Mes have vet.te.be adea"te1_Y addressed. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHRISfINE DIEMER IGER.ESQ. While the action.before you-focuses on the appraisals of land values relating to fees paid in-lieu of parkland dedication, all issues relating to the Quimby Act must be taken into account as they,contribute to the overall formula by which these fees are levied--and all the requirements of Section 66477 (a) (1) through (9)must be met. �:ItL!jtfl! l•�IK ialinn ni' . 11++TtI•_+iuiillrr-utu+ !lu• . : � t:uljli,r•ni:I li�hliii. • 1tH}tt.tn• a.-ra•iatiu�J 06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 BIA OC PAGE 05 We supported the Planning Commission's action(Recommendation A)as a compromise measure.in order to keep park in-lieu fees at a reasonable level until a nexus study can be undertaken. To reiterate our concerns, in our opinion,a nexus study should be'conducted prior to any reexamination of fees and should include the following Infonnation: 1) An analysis of the validity of the City's formula for calculating the number of acres per 1,000 population required to be dedicated (currently 5 acres per 1,006. persons) on each residential subdivision or corresponding payment per acre. The City has included State beach acreage into its calculation,which is contrary to State lskvv, The Quimby Act is very clear that the calculation of park inventory is based on an inventory of neighborhood and community parks, not regional or state facilities; Government Code Section 66477(A)states as follows: "Tile park area per 1000 members of the populationof the city, county, or local public agency shall be derived from.the,ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bean to the total population... . The amount of neighborhood and community park acreage Shall be the actual acreage of existing neighborhood and community parks of the city, county,or local public agency as shown on its records.plans,recreational element, maps, or reports as of the date of the most recent available federal census." Any doubt that "neighborhood and community"park does not mean"State"park (or State beach!)is completely removed by reference to the City's own General Plan. Recreational dement which defines "neighborhood park" as up to 5 acres and "community park"as up to 12 acres. 2) How,park fees will be used to acquire and develop or rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community parks or recreation facilities to serve the supdivilLon froth which the fuss are obtained,as requiredby Government Code section 66477(C); 3) Development of"a schedule specifying how, when and where.it will use the land or fees. or both, to develop park or recreation facilities to serve residents of the subdivisions" from which fees are obtained,as required by Government Code section 66477(f). As previously stated,in the absence of the City's compliance with our association's: regnes,t for an appraisal reexamination and performance of a nexus study,we intend.to prepare a legal challenge,to the City's appraisal process and calculation of existing 2 06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 BIA OC PAGE 06.•-�• - - - inventory of"Aeighborbood:and community parks" used to determine the'City's overall park acreake ratio'(currently the legal maximum of 5 acres per 1,000)pursuant to Government.Code section'66477(a)). We would also inform the Council that the Chys recent appraisal is completely.inconsistent with a recent park acreage.valuation appraisal completed by Peter Finnerty, MAI,of Pacific Real Estate Consultants for the,County of Orange,and would, in essence,put Huntington Beach residential acreage on a par with the Newport Coast area which is the highest appraised acreage in•the County. And, as•BIA previously stated at the October 4, 1999 City Council mead , the resulting increase would put Huntington..Beach's new park fee at more than double the cunvnt highest park "in-lieu" fee in the County. We look forward to.working with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely,, Christine Diemer Iger;Esquire L Fishel Chief Executive Officer Deputy Director cc: BTA/OC'Board'of bisectors,Past Presidents, Coma ittee Co-Chairs Ray Silver,Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton.:Esq., City Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce David.Smith, BIA/SC General Counsel 06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 BIA CC .� PAGE 07 March 14, 2000 Huntington Beach Planting,Commission Bill . Attention:Kim Langer City of Huntington Beach Oro' COurtt's- Department of Community Services � 2000 Main Street Chapter -Huntington Beach, CA.'926'48 Building hn,ILlm„ a,,wriutill ' f�nttlh•I•t,l:ulifir'Ili;! VIA FACSIMILE: (714)374-1540 tl F1r Utitr{ttY'�r • tiuilr )IH! SUBJECT:' Zofing Teat Ameitd.ment NO. 99-4 —Park and Recreation Irvine,Califort)ij vine,aliforttia 92ol a Th-.Lieu.Fees la-,t4a.,,;;;,9,u- • hupait,.ti•,,.bi;ltir•.ur;r Dear Chain=-C*mmn and Commsioners; PRESiDNN" On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter.(BI,A/OC), I would like to comment on Zoning Text B"CO '`ELF iOME Amendment NO. 99 regarding Park and Recreation In-Lieu Fees. BIA/OC STEVE CAMERCN is anon-profit trade association representing over 1,00Q companies in the FIELDSTONE COMM MUS .residential.and light construction industry. s;D Zr*�;ci:PRE ENT _eN•'$^U,LuMBE: UNNA7iG2EYSTON,HOMES BIA/OC provided comments to the City Council on October 15,11 1999 i (attached re ardinp these fees expressing concerns about the approach the t Id E PG,COMB TREASORER City is taking in revising and updating park in-lieu fees. We have continued I .C-IN LAING m0mc5 to monitor this issue and make'the following comments in addition to our previous comments: �ORCON cRA c p i MONARCn COMMUNITIES . i ..455 ,ATE VICE PR;$iDE',;; > The City's General Plain Recreation Element and Master Plan of j AER P!ARCE Parks and Recreation Facilities does not identify or express intent to I LA!P Pe&ASSOCIATES acquire new park or recreational facilities. Rather the emphasis has J,E MBE R.AT•LARGE i DAVE COLGAN been on.rehabilitation and development of existing parr sites, To NOSSAMAN,GUT6AER KNOX&ELLIOT LLd base park in-lieu fees on appraisals of new residential property is not i equitable or appropriate given that the city has no expressed plan to MEMBER•AT•LARGE aERALD GATES acquire new park facilities. ! 8EA2ER HOMES TRADE CONTRACTOR$ALLIANCE A We again reiterate the need for the City to conduct a nexus study to I THOVIC AS STEW TNOM,AS STEENT W HARDWOOD C RSATIONS not only validate its flees, but toL,also � identify how park fees will be used to acquire, develop and rehabilitate existing neighborhood or IMMSDiA ti PAST PRESIDENT GREG CURRENS community parks to serve the subdivision f-om Which the-fees are i AMHC COPP, obtained as required by Goverment Code section 66477 (c), CHIEF.EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHRISTINE DI{;MED 11M.ESQ, A The City Council has expressed its desire to provide affordable ownership and rental housing in the community. The BIA/OC .fit .�ffilitll�nCthr {L,ttdl .Associ aliu of Humr h'tGi jr. rs dnd lhr Californili Builg* flu�ti.ln 4s;�{;j�tion 06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 BIA OC PAGE 08 commends the City's recognition of the severe need for employee housing. However, a recent study conducted by the BIA of San Diego indicates that between 30 and 40%percent of the cost of a new house is due to fees'imposed by local government. The National Association of Homebuilders states that for every$1,000 added to the price of a home,.500,000 people (nationally)are prevented from being able to qualify for a mortgage. Given these facts, BI4/0C ' supports the Planning Commission Subcommittee recommendations as identified in the March 144000 staff report, that the I).park 'fee beset at 60%of the citywide average valuation ofparkland.per acre into the existing formula ... and 2)that the City complete a study on total,costs for park acquisition, development, and rehabilitation in the.City based upon residential development build out, as well as identify funding methods." Adopting these recommendations will not increase fees further until,such a time that the City completes a study that can,validate that park fees should be increased. We BIA/41t has rather concerns regarding the City local park inventory methodology and•implementationi process,we do not intend to raise those issues at the Planting Commission. BIA/OC requests that we be invited to participate in any study on park fees that the City undertakes. We look forward to further dialogue with you toward resolving this important issue.. Sincerely, Christine Diemer Iger, Esquire ' Chief Executive.Officer . Attachment; October,15, 19991 er 'Cc: City Council Members Ray.Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator BIVOC Board of Directors Tom Morrison, BIA/SC Gcneral Counsel Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Stan Oftetie, Orange County Business Council 06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 BIA OC PAGE 09 October 15, 1999. Mayor Peter Green and Councilmembers BIR City of Huntington Beach 0 �� 2000.Main Street We �_ Huntington'Beach, CA 92648 , Chapter Re: ' Hunting too BeJac ark "In-Lieu" Fee"IncMase t3uildin¢,nclUKtn .irrl>,iatil,r of slothern t'ahl+nti;I Dear Mayer Green and Councilmembers: `'�: "`", Circle <uitr loll Irvine.t:�IiCnrnia<)3t,,J On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, -Oran a Coup Cha er(BIA/OC we are writitt toe Tess our strop est ,"'y;<'';:;`t''"' lrt t )a g opposition to the pioposed "appraisal update" of the City's local park "in-lieu" fee, BIA/QC is a nonprofit trade association:consisting of more than 1,000 I member companies and 60,000 employees,in the residential home building = :EC;P- �<CS';rA and light construction industry. ; 911:0 .I_ WO-MES !sr VICE a.E5:_Ek' Furthermore, we would reitetate our prior BIA position presented by our I STEVE CAME�,C% FIELDSTONE vQMM:'NTiES Deputy Director,Ly*FishO,*at your October 4, 1999 Council meeting tY>;at the City should undertake a,reexamination of the appraisal and perform a y. � CEY!S;'JL�U41oe: nexus study on the City's in Pees.park Pees. his study should, in our opinion,- _ENNA./G42 S'ON=,rihr.1E5 include the following eonniation: i TREASURER EnGCOMB JOHN LAIM:v ri01vi5L l} An analysis•of'the validity of the City's formula for ± SECRETAPv calculating the number of acres per 1,000 population . ' i &DRDON CRAIG required to be dedicated (currently 5 acres per 1,000 MONARC4+COMMUNITIfS persons) on each residential subdivision or A5:C=:ATE VICE CPFE51,ENT ;AEr.aEAacc corresponding payment per acre; �AER PEAjCE&A=CIATE5 MEMOMAT.LARGE 2) How-park-fees will be used to acquire and develop or DAVE COLGAN NOSSAMAN.GUTHNE rehabilitateexistingneighborhood orcommunity I KNOX&ELLICT LLP' parks or recreation facilities to serve the subdlivisiQn f'AEM9ER-AT•LARGE 'from which the fees are obtained, as required by r � 65RALD GATES Govornment Coyle section 66477(C); BEATER HOMES -TRADE C'JNTRACTORS ALLIANCE VICE PRESIDEN+ 3) Development of"a schedule specking how, when.and 1K)MASSTEELE where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop HARDWOOD CREATIONS park or recreation facilities to serve residents of the 1WED;AT'c PAST PRESIDENT GREG CURRENS subdivisions" from which fees Gare �lobtained, as required AMHC CORP by Government Code section 664 f I(fl• CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHQISMI NEMER IGER.ESQ. In the absence of the City's compliance with our association's request for an appraisal reexamination.and performance of a nexus study, we intend to prepare a legal ehailenge to the City's appraisal process and calculation of I fin_affiliate r,f tltr National ' x iatt�t,n^f Htlmr Uljildrrs and the • ��iforuitl ,yultlttt;; • • �,l�l�lu' .4,;;+n�j�titan • 06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 BIA OC PAGE 10 existing inventory of"neigbborhaod and community parks" used to determine the City. s overall park acreage ratio (currently the legal maximum of 5 acres per 1,000)pursuant to. Government Code section 66477(b). We would also,inform-the Council that the City's recent appraisal is completely inconsistent with.a recent park.acreage valuation appraisal completed by Peter Finnerty, MAI, of Pacific Real Estate Consultants for the County of(Orange, and would, in essence,put Huntington Beach residential acreage on a par with the Newport Coast area which-is the highest appraised acreage in the County. And, as BIA previously stated at the October 4, 1999 City Council meeting,.-the resulting increase would put Huntington Beach`s new park fee at mote than double the current highest park"in-lieu"fee in the County. We look forward to working with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, Christine Diezner 1ger,Esquire. Chief Executive Officer cc: BIA/OC Board.of Directors. Past Presidents' Co-Chairs Ray Silver,Huntington'Beach'City Administrator Gail Hutton, Esq., City'Attorney. Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Nick Camnwoia, CBIA, 06/19/2000 10:16 7145539512 SIA OC PAGE 01 AA ► BW0Jravgc County Upcoming.Events From'. 'Kori Herrera Orange County • �.. �:......• . CQ1I3tY unity Affairs Assistant kherrera a@biaoc.eom :Chapter July'12,2000. . New Member'Reception First American Title dude 19,2000 530 p.m.-: 9:00 pm. July'17,2000 - Gonerml.Mombership Meeting "Options" TO'. Ms.'Connie Brockway Fax: (714)53616233 Irvine Marriott 5:50 p.m.Social Hour 6:30 P.m.,Dinner - 7:00 p.m.Program pages to follow, 9 July i2,2000 - SpltballTournament A Harvard Park,Irvine Re: genda Item DI - 8:00 a-.m.—7:00 p.m. July 27,2000 .O Urgent 0 For review 13 Pismo Comment 0 Please Reply CDR Workshop Irvine Marriott . "Partners for Successftil Post Construction MaAa'90ment— Sustain the Value of Our Communities Together" 1:00 p.m.-5:00 P.M. August 23,2000.' Note: Can you please distribute for council meeting PASS Event Newport Dunes . tonight. Thank you. 4:00 p.m.—8:00 p.m. ,A!igust,28,2000 General Mexn6ership Meeting Home Tour. Crystal Cove 5:30 P.M.—8;00 p.m. F6r more infoi w.ntion call 949-553-9500 •� Reservation Line ;949-224-0321 .reservationsobiaoc.com Building Industry Association/Orange County Chapter' 9 Executive Circle, Suite 160 Irvine, California -92014 949.553.95W ext 128 949.553.9512 .&.x June 16, 2000 BIR Mayor David Garofalo and Council members City of Huntington Beach Orange County 2000 Main Street Chapter Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Building Industry Association SUBJECT: City Council Agenda Item D1 —Approve Zoning of Southern California Text Amendment No. 99-04 (Fee In-Lieu of 9 Executive Circle Suite 100 Parkland Dedication) Irvine,California 92614 949.553.9500 Dear Mayor Garofalo and Council members: fax 949.553.9507 http://www.biasc.org On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter(BIA/OC), we are writing once again (see attached letters of PRESIDENT October 15,1999, March 14, 2000, May 15, 2000 to express our position REFEREE PROSTOR ) I> I� BROOKFIELD HOMES proposed "appraisal update" of the City's local park in-lieu fee. BIA/OC is a 1ST VICE PRESIDENT nonprofit trade association, consisting of nearly 1,000 member companies, STEVE CAMERON representing over 60,000 employees in the residential home building and light FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES construction industry. 2ND VICE PRESIDENT LJEDGCOMB JOHN LAING HOMES We first would like to thank Mayor Garafalo for facilitating the meeting with TREASURER representatives of BIA/OC and the Chamber of Commerce held on June 8, ERIC WITTENBERG 2000, which also included Council members Harmon, and Bauer, Planning KAUFMAN&BROAD COASTAL INC. SECRETARY Commissioners, and city staff. This meeting gave city staff, the Chamber and GORDON CRAIG BIA the opportunity to state our concerns and positions regarding the fee update MONARCH COMMUNITIES before you for consideration. ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT LAER PEARCE LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES This issue is of great importance to our industry from: 1) an affordable housing MEMBER-AT-LARGE policy perspective 2)the economic (un)certainty perspective for landowners and DAVE COLGAN NOSSAMAN,GUTHNER homebuilders attempting to do-business in your city and 3) an industry wide KNOX&ELLIOTT LLP perspective with respect to the methodologies by which fee schedules are MEMBER-AT-LARGE developed. GERALD GATES BEAZER HOMES Based on the discussion at the June 8`" meeting,we continue to support the TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE PP VICE PRESIDENT recommendation of the Planning Commission to: THOMAS STEELE HARDWOOD CREATIONS IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT 1). Approve the Zoning Text Amendment utilizing a GREG CURRENS fixed fee of 50% of the citywide average valuation of AMHC CORP. parkland per acre into the existing formula, and CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER 2) Direct that the City complete a (nexus) study on the CHRISTINE DIEMER IGER,ES9. total costs for park acquisition, development and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out, as well as identify appropriate funding methods,within one year from City Council An Affiliate of the National adoption. Association of Home Builders and the California Building Industry Association We believe this approach is reasonable given that the City park in-lieu fees have not been adjusted for over 10 years. Adoption of the Planning Commission recommendation will also provide the necessary information to adequately address the concerns issues that BIA/OC and the Chamber have raised in previous correspondence to the City, namely; 1). The methodology utilized to requiring 5 acres per 1,000 resident, and 2). how the fees accumulated will be used to serve the subdivision from which the fees were obtained, as required by the Government Code. If the Council should support the Planning Commission recommendation, we believe it is critical that BIA/OC participate with the development of the nexus study and park acquisition report and are willing to provide the resources necessary to meet with staff on a regular basis throughout the process. Thank you for your consideration and we look forward to working with you on this important issue. Sincerely, b. +A, Christine Diemer Iger, Esquire Lyn Fishel Chief Executive Officer Deputy Director Attachment cc: BIA/OC Board of Directors, Past Presidents, Committee Co-Chairs Ray Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton, Esq., City Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce David Smith, BIA/SC General Counsel 2 May 15, 2000 BIR Mayor David Garofalo and Council members City of Huntington Beach Orange Comay 2000 Main Street Cimpter Huntington Beach, CA 92648 13u,l,lin� InJu-t,� 1 � i:u" n SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE. City Council Agenda Item D2 —Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-04 (Fee In-Lieu 9 Exr,•utke Circle Suite loo of Parkland Dedication) In i„e.c:,{;rur„i.,Q201 1 94Q35:06(11 1 Dear Mayor Garofalo and Council members: f*a\`' 9.' .-)3.(6i7 htth://��.hia �•.nre On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC), we are writing once again (see October 15,1999 letter PRESIDEN' to Mayor Green included in Staff report) to express our strongest opposition to the REFEREE LD HDI R Y P ) P g PP BRooKFr�D HOMES proposed "appraisal update" of the City's local park "in-lieu" fee. BIA/OC is a 1S?VICE PRESIDENT nonprofit trade association, consisting of nearly 1,000 member companies and STEVE CAMERON 60,000 employees in the residential home building and light construction FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES industry. 2ND VICE PRESIDENT DENIS CULLUMBER LENNAR/GREYSTONE HOMES This issue is of great importance to our industry from; 1) an affordable housing TREASURER policy perspective and 2) the economic uncertainty to landowners and LJ EDGCOMB JOHN LAING HOMES homebuilders attempting to do business in your city. In that regard, the staff report for this item was not made available until late Friday morning Ma 12`nGORDONSECRETARY P Y g (May )� GORDON CRAIG and our members have not had adequate time to review the materials and consult MONARCH COMMUNITIES with our legal counsel regarding the new, but ill-defined appraisal process ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT recommended b staff despite the Planning Commission's recommendation for. LAER PEARCE y p g LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES an interim 50% fee. We would therefore respectfully request a 30-day MEMBER-AT-LARGE continuance of this matter. Should the Council favorably consider our request DAVE COLGAN NOSSAMAN.GUTHNER for a 30-day continuance, it is our intent to attempt to resolve our issues with city KNOX&ELLIOTT LLP staff over the next month. rather than pursuing litigation as a way to remedy our MEMBER-AT-LARGE concerns. GERALD GATES BEAZER HOMES We have submitted letters on October 15, 1999 and March 14, 2000. and have TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE VICE PRESIDENT appeared at three public hearings expressing our concerns and legal issues with ?HOMES SRELE HARDWOOD CREATIONS the approach that the city is taking in reexamination of the appraisal criteria, lack of a nexus study on the City's in-lieu park fee, and lack of information with regard IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT to how park in-lie fees will be utilized to benefit the related development. None i AMHc CORP of these issues have vet to be adequately addressed. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHRISTINE DIEMER IGER.ESQ. While the action before you focuses on the appraisals of land values relating to fees paid in-lieu of parkland dedication, all issues relating to the Quimby Act must be taken into account as they contribute to the overall formula by which these fees are levied-- and all the requirements of Section 66477 (a) (1) through (9)must be met. ,ail„u,l V"ut ialiom of H--mw I1nil,lrr� and dw Califorillo liuilllin Inrluln �,�nriatiun r We supported the Planning Commission's action (Recommendation A) as a compromise measure in order to keep park in-lieu fees at a reasonable level until a nexus study can be undertaken. To reiterate our concerns, in our opinion, a nexus study should be conducted prior to any reexamination of fees and should include the following information: 1) An analysis of the validity of the City's formula for calculating the number of acres per 1,000 population required to be dedicated (currently 5 acres per 1,000 persons) on each residential subdivision or corresponding payment per acre. The City has included State beach acreage into its calculation, which is contrary to State law. The Quimby Act is very clear that the calculation of park inventory is based on an inventory of neighborhood and community parks, not regional or state facilities; Government Code Section 66477(A) states as follows: "The park area per 1000 members of the population of the city, county, or local public agency shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bears to the total population... The amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shall be the actual acreage of existing neighborhood and community parks of the city, county, or local public agency as shown on its records, plans, recreational element, maps, or reports as of the date of the most recent available federal census." Any doubt that "neighborhood and community" park does not mean "State" park (or State beach!) is completely removed by reference to the City's own General Plan Recreational Element which defines "neighborhood park" as up to 5 acres and "community park" as up to 12 acres. 2) How park fees will be used to acquire and develop or rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community parks or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision from which the fees are obtained, as required by Government Code section 66477(C); 3) Development of"a schedule specifying.how, when and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreation facilities to serve residents of the subdivisions" from which fees are obtained, as required by Government Code section 66477(f). As previously stated, in the absence of the City's compliance with our association's request for an appraisal reexamination and performance of a nexus study,we intend.to prepare a legal challenge to the City's appraisal process and calculation of existing 2 'R inventory of"neighborhood.and community parks" used to determine the City's overall park acreage ratio (currently the legal maximum of 5 acres per 1,000) pursuant to Government Code section 66477(a)). We would also inform the Council that the City's recent appraisal is completely inconsistent with a recent park acreage valuation appraisal completed by Peter Finnerty, MAI, of Pacific Real Estate Consultants for the County of Orange, and would, in essence, put Huntington Beach residential acreage on a par with the Newport Coast area which is the highest appraised acreage in-the County. And, as BIA previously stated at the October 4, 1999 City Council meeting, the resulting increase would put Huntington Beach's new park fee at more than double the current highest park "in-lieu" fee in the County. We look forward to working with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, Christine Diemer Iger, Esquire L Fishel Chief Executive Officer Deputy Director cc: BIA/OC Board of Directors, Past Presidents, Committee Co-Chairs Ray Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton, Esq., City Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce David Smith, BIA/SC General Counsel March 14, 2000 Huntington Beach Planning Commission BIR Attention: Kim Langel City of Huntington Beach Department of Community Services Orange Cour�tti- Chapter2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Building 1ndn.:ti. Asaoriation of Soutllrrn California VIA FACSIMILE: (714) 374-1540 ExeruIiNv Circle Juitr loll .SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment NO. 99-4—Park and Recreation mine.California 92014 949.553.9500 In-Lieu Fees - fax 949.553.9507 httlr//��c��.hiasi•.or;t Dear Chairman Chapman and Commissioners: PRESIDENT On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, JEFF PROSTOR Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC), I would like to comment on Zoning Text BRooKFIELD HOMES Amendment NO. 99 regarding Park and Recreation In-Lieu Fees. BIA/OC I 1ST VICE PRESIDENT g g STEVE CAMERON is a non-profit trade association representing over 1,000 companies in the FIELDSTONE COMMUNITIES residential and light construction industry. 2ND VICE PRESIDENT DENIS CULUUMBEF LENN.AR/GREYSTONE HOMES BIA/OC provided comments to the City Council on October 15, 1999 attached regarding these fees, expressing concerns about the approach the TREASURER (attached) g g P g PP LJ EDGcoMe City is taking in revising and updating park in-lieu fees. We have continued JOHN LAING HOMES to monitor this issue and make the following comments in addition to our SECRETARY GORDON previous comments: MONARCH COMMUNITIES ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT ➢ The City's General Plan Recreation Element and Master Plan of LAER FEARCE Parks and Recreation Facilities does not identify or express intent to LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES acquire new park or recreational facilities. Rather the emphasis has MEMBER-AT-LARGEDAVE COLGAN been on rehabilitation and development of existing park sites. To NOSSAMAN,GUTHNER base park in-lieu fees on appraisals of new residential property is not KNOX&ELLIOT LLP equitable or appropriate given that the city has no expressed plan to MERAL AT-LARGE GERALD GATES acquire new park facilities. BEAZER HOMES TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE VICE PRESIDENT We again reiterate the need for the City to conduct a nexus study to THOM.AS STEELE not only validate it's fees, but to also identify how park fees will be HARDWOOD CREATIONS used to acquire, develop and rehabilitate existing neighborhood or IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT GREG CURRENS community parks to serve the subdivision from which the fees are AMHC CORP. obtained, as required by Government Code section 66477 (c). CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHRISTINE DIEMER IGER,ESQ. ➢ The City Council has expressed its desire to provide affordable ownership and rental housing in the community. The BIA/OC An Affiliate of the National A.,sociatiun of Home Builders and the Callfornl� Ruil(llne Industry Association UJI1411�JJU 14:Lb r140.Ddy71z.: Din w commends the City's recognition of the severe need for employee housing. However, a recent study coiducted by the BIA of San Diego indicates that between 30 and 40%percent of the cost of a new house is due to fees imposed by local govermnerl. The National Association ofHomebuilders states that for every $1,000 added to the price of a home, 500,000 people(nationally)are prevented from being able to qualify for a,mortgage. Given these facts,BLVOC supports the Pl.snning Commission Subcommittee recommendations as identified in the Mare 14,2000 staff report, that the 1).park"free be set.at 60% of the citywide average valuation of parkland per am.mto the existing formula... and 2)that the City complete a study on total costs for park acquisition,developmem, and rehabilitation in the City based upon residential development build out,as well as identify fimding methods." Adopting these recommendations will not increase fees further until such a time that the City completes a study that can validate that park flees should be increased. While BIA/OC has other concerns regarding the City local park inventory methodology and implementation process,we do not intend to raise those issues at the Pkmuiag Commission: BIA/OC requests that we be invited to participate in any,study on park fees that the City undertakes. We look forward to further dialogue,with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, Christine Diemer Iger,Esquire Cbkf Executive Officer Attachment: October 15, 19991 er Cc: City Coum'U Members Ray Silver,Huntington Beach City Administrator . BWOC Board of Directors Tom Morrison, BIA,'SC General Counsel Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Stan Ofl&,Orange County Business Council 03/14/20@0 14:26 7145_3yb11 blA LJI: ��'� v� October 15, 1999 BIR Mayor Peter Green and Counc17members . . . CityofHuntington Beach 2000 Main Street ()ravage County Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Chapter Building Indwtry Asvciazion Re: Huntihp-ton Beach Park"In-Lieu" Fee Increase JSuuthem califomia Dear Mayor Green and Councilmembers: Suite e1000 .cirelC TTvine,California 0,2614 On behalf of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, 949.553.9500 fax 949.aM.9507 Orange County Chapter.{BIA/OC),we are writing to express our strongest ilttp:/�*ww.hiasamrg opposition to the proposed"appraisal'update"of the City's local park"m lieu' - fee. BIAIOC is a nonprofit trade association consisting of more than 1,000 member companies and 60,000 employees in the residential home building PRESIDETr7 JEFf nomg and light construction industry. eRoo� NOME3.. { 15T VICE PRSSIZ;NT Fire,we would reiterate our prior BIA position presented by our srsvE CAMMON F1LD=.%E COMMUNITIES Deputy Director,Lyme pisl4 at your October 4, 1999 Council meeting that ZND VICE PRESIDENT the'Cityy shyould the a reexamination of the appraisal and perform a DEMS cUtLumap nexus study on he City's In-lieu park fees. �study should,In our opinion, LENNARIGRM-MN.6 HGMES nuclide the follow*information.. TRFA9UPER Ll:DGCOhe JOHN WING HOMES 1) An arWysis of the validity of the Ciry's formula for SECRETARY calculating the number of acres per 1,000 population I GORDON CRAIG required to be'dedicated(cu>irently 5 acres per 1,000 +nGNARcuCOMMUNITIES persons)on each resideAW subdivision or as oc+AE VIDE PRESGENi corresponding payment r=e; LoRC Pe aRae aYt'PRM p y� �, I LASR?FARCE d ° tIATE5 ��`"''"'22''..`"' � MEl.18ER-AT•L4RGE 2) How'park fees will be used to acquire and develop or DAVE COUQAN rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community KNOX&I CT U.E1t KNOn 8clLL10T LLP parks or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision �ICMBEP,-ADLARGE from which the fees are obtained,as required by j GRAID 6=es Governriwnt Code section 66417(C),, _ BEAR HOMES TftgC:CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE 3) Development of"a schedule spec&ing how, when and VICE PRESIDENT � THQMAS STEEI E wirere it will use the land orlees, or both, to aevetop +.°row000 eaC.v+oNa park or recreation facilities to serve residents cf the NIMMATr PAST PRESIDENT GREsubdNisions"-from which fees are obtaineA as required AM cca Pu by Government Code section 664770). C%KEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CrQ,ST9*DIEMER IGER,ESQ. In the absence of the City's compliance with our association's request for an appraisal reexamination and performance of a nexus study,we intend to prepare a legal challenge to the CkVs appraisal process and calculation of An ABliate of th, National Association of �otne Builders and the ('ahkrnia Building bidiLgtZ Association existing inventory of"neighborhood and community parks" used to determine the City's overall park acreage ratio (currently the legal maxinram of 5 acres per 1,000)pursuant to Government Code section 66477(b). We would also inform,the Council that the City's recent appraisal is completely inconsistent with a recent park acreage valuation appraisal completed by Peter Finnerty,MAI of Pacific Real Estate Consultants for the Cour&y of Orange,and would, in essence,put Huntington Beach residential acreage on a per with the Newport Coast area which is the highest appraised acreage in the County. And,as BLA previously stated at the October 4, 1999 City Co'uncil meeting,the resulting increase would put Huntington Beach`s new park.fee at more than double the c:urretrt highest park"in-lieu"fee in the County. We look .forward to working with you toward resolving this izuportartt issue. Sincerely, . tl� Christine Di,emer Iger,Esquire Chief Executive Officer cc: BIA/OC Board of Directors Past Presidems Co-Chairs Ray Silver,Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton, Esq., City.Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce Nick Cammarota,CBIA William K. Vogt 19432 Pompano Lane#112 Fluntington Beach,CA 92648z- Phone(714)969-0255 Fax: (714)969-5699 b ,9r 7 February 16,2000 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am writing to you regarding the zoning text amendment No. 99-4 (Park and Recreation fees)requested by the City Administrator to rewrite the method of calculating Park In-lieu fees for the purpose of increasing the fees. The amount presently being collected from all new construction, may in part be unlawfully collected where subdivisions existed prior to the enactment of the California Statute granting the cities the right to collect in-lieu fees for this purpose. Very simply put, the city has been collecting fees from downtown builders, who build homes on existing subdivided lots in existing subdivision tracts recorded prior to the enactment of the State of California Government Code Sections 66410 and 66477 in 1965. It was this legislative action which enabled cities and counties to develop a park in-lieu fee ordinance allowing the city to collect fees from developers of subdivision tracts in-lieu of receiving land for parks for recreational purposes in areas where adequate parks existed. Staff, based on Mrs. Hutton's directive has taken a position that this fee applies to all properties pulling building permits for new construction, eventhough, tracts such as the downtown tract should be exempt having been subdivided some 50 years prior to the passing of the State Subdivision Map Act of 1965. In fact, only the newly subdivided tracts recorded after the City ordinance, Article 998 and 974, were adopted on August 15, 1966, should be subject to the park in-lieu fee. This is simply the case being practiced by the city. Subdivisions grandfathered by either their date of subdivision recordation.or their dedication of parks to the City are being forced to pay a park in-lieu fee just like the new subdivision tracts which are obligated to pay because they are not exempt from the State Statute. Your opportunity to correct this mistake being perpetuated to the detriment of downtown builders presents itself at this time. Up until now the city ordinance and the collection of this in-lieu fee from builders of downtown subdivision lots has gone unchallenged and therefore, untested in court. This does not make it right to continue the course, and ultimately cause the residents of Huntington Beach pay the price of the court test. I petition you, as planning commissioners, to challenge the City Attorney and Staff. It will take only minimal effort on your part reviewing the State Statute to determine the intent of the Law and to verify the exemptions granted by the Law for existing tracts recorded prior to the 1965 Statute. The Law does grant the city the power to establish an in-lieu fee for parks, it simply does not apply to downtown tracts or any other recorded subdivision that can apply the law of ex post facto. Over the past 4 years the city has systematically raised builder fees by more than 100% The two fees that have hurt the builder the most are the water application fee for a 1 inch service which went from $60 to $4800 per residence, and the In-lieu fee for parks which for a downtown property is $3120 per residence. Most builders have accepted the in-lieu fee for parks, eventhough they feel it is an unfair charge. (If you remove a house in an existing tract to build anew one,you shouldn't be responsible for an in-lieu fee. The downtown tracts with their parks in place have existed for over 80 years and 50 years loner than the law granting the city's right to impose park in-lieu fees.) Additionally, the city staff has been instrumental in increasing the number of applications for Variance and Conditional Use Permit, both of which carry a hefty fee. When added to the increased demands made by the Fire Department and Public Works to have downtown builders correct infrastructure problems at their expense, it would seem poor timing for the city to follow a pay increase session with another builder fee increase. Especially. one of the magnitude, proposed by Staff, which would result from the passage of the new method of calculating the park in-lieu fee. I would be pleased to meet with any one of you prior to the meeting on this subject. I may be able provide some insight on the subject that you will probably not get from city staff regarding this in-lieu park fee. Unfortunately, I will be out of town the evening of the hearing and will not be able to participate. Sincerely ours, William K. Vo ;," .. >..,.�, mil, •'��``� ry`.'� �;,, .';,/ „w.�,l/, /a�,� �KK�co .. :; '�, ,;, .. = ,y �as�)..., a%�,, `��`am'sn�;r�', e\�.o'�. ..... i%��,�,'.;.. .,...,;s�'a.•.,; 'ao,�.w/"�„5 aa�\tea. ••nu�.tia c�� a.Vw)o) NOTICE OF PROOF OF PUBLICATION PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE- CITY OF HUNTINGTON j STATE OF CALIFORNIA) NOTI BEACH , NOTICE IS HEREBY, GIVEN that on Monday, SS Mayin 15, 201, at 7:00 PM the Citt00yy0000Coun9I County of Orange ) Str et,rsHuntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: l am a Citizen of the United States and a 1. ZONING' TEXT AMENDMENT NO.99-4 (PARK AND RECREA- resi ent of the County aforesaid; i am LION AWLIEU FEES): Hunt- over the age of eighteen years, and not a Applicant:eachCit Reqof uest: ton_Beach, Re uest: To amend. Section party to or interested in the below 254.08'of the Huntington Beach Zoning and i entitled matter. I am a rinci al clerk of Subdivision Ordinance,. p p (ZSO) addressing the� the HUNTINGTON BEACH INDEPENDENT a method to calculate , parkland in-lieu fees for n sdential development. newspa er of general circulation, printed Location: Citywide) Project Planner. Wayne and pu lished in the City of Huntington Carvalho NOTICE•IS HEREBY! Beach, County of Orange State of GIVEN that'above_hemj is categorically exempt California and that attached Notice is a from the Provisions of � the California Environmental Quality true and- complete copy . as was printed Act. ' ON FILE:A copy of the and published in the Huntington Beach proposed request Is,on and Fountain Valley issues of said ,City the.Office of the City Clerk,Huntington Main Street,. Huntington newspaper to wit the issue(s) of: ,Beachspecton California �for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be avail- able to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (711.1 Talbert Avenue) after Ma 4 Z O O O May 11,2000. Y ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are Invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above.If you I declare, under penalty of perjury, that challengetheCityCoun- cil's action in court,you the foregoing is true and correct. may be limited to-raising onty those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing do- scribed in this notice,or Executed on re written cor• May . 4 � 2 0 0 0 respondence delivered to the City at,or prior to, at Costa Mesa, California. the pubic- hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and, refer to the.above item. Direct your written communica- tions to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street 2nd Floor' Signature Hunt ngton Beach California 927114)t364227 Published Huntington Beach-Fountain Valley Independent May 4, 2000 051-484 RCA ROUTING _-SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: Planning SUBJECT: Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 COUNCIL MEETING DATE: May 15, 2000 RCA AT TAC H M ENTS :,;3 r., y y, .�.�i?3 ij3i�,.,r.�i�. , gym,-- . ._ Ordinance (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Not Applicable Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) 1H Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement (Unbudget, over $5,000) Not Applicable Bonds (If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report (If applicable) Attached Commission, Board or Committee Report (If applicable) Attached Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Attached EXPLANATION F,OR'MISSIN;GATTACHIVI»ENT$,�3i'""'''''. ` 'REVIEWED; ,. '�RETURNEb' 'FORWARDED;; Administrative Staff ) Assistant City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ) City Administrator (Initial) ( ) ( oLrd )r City Clerk ( ) EXPL3ANATION FOR RETURN OF .ITEM Space112 Only) �rrl. RCA Author: HZ:SH:WC:kjl Adjusted Fee to City CITY Single Family Residence (SFR) Park Standard Standard Park In Lieu Fee #Acres/1000 (per SFR) (appraisal information) Population ® 82,' 0.0� Sacxes ,..$12'957 $7,SSw6 M 1. Anaheim $4 317/SFR 2 acres/1000 $1'.0792: <% .. populationle`` . 2. Brea $1 525/SFR 5 acres/1000 population -.:' , ::..:. rHr,- �' X . 3. Buena Park $4,250/SFR 3 acres/1000 $7083 =: population4. Costa Mesa $55,482/SFR 4.26 acres/1000 $:6 ,r f, population ., 5. Cypress $3 200/SFR 4.5 acres/1000 $3 (appraisal-4 regions) populationr£ Mg='T= ._%air'is6y, x$t:•'§gy'€`..'"-&'P,;9.s.", alb:*'� �n ,.,s= 6. Dana Point Information not available , _; 7. Fountain Vly $1,750/SFR 3 acres/1000 population 8. Fullerton $25474/SFR 2 acres/1000 $:61.85 '°- fk4 „ population .:...- - 9. Garden 1 200/SFR Not based onRO Grove population 10. Irvine $7,189/SFR 5 acres/1000 $'7;189 • population 11. La Habra $300/SFR 2.5 acres/1000 $60Q K population 12. La Habra Hts No fees— City is built out. 13. La Palma $210/SFR 4 acres/1000 $263 populations 14. Laguna $8 343/SFR 5 acres/1000 $8 'Put- Beach population iaYz' ; 15. Laguna Hills No fees — City is built out (appraisal-4 regions) 16. Laguna $4 618 - $8 149/SFR * 3 acres/1000 $7`697u g$13' $5 Niguel (varies by area of city) population 17. Lake Forest No fees — City is built out 18. Los Alamitos 3 125/SFR 4 acre 1 ' population :5a` Adjusted Fee to City CITY Single Family Residence (SFR) Park Standard Standard Park In Lieu Fee #Acres/1000 (per SIR) (appraisal information) Population 19. Mission $71200/SFR 5 acres/1000 $7200 "- . Viejo (appraisal-site specific) O ulation P P 20. Newport $6,984/SFR 5 acres/1000 :$6;$9__4 " Beach population 2. 21. Orange $2 310/SFR 3 acres/1000 >'$3"850"N ;.: .• tK M - . population ' ° 22. Placentia $4,978/SFR 10 acres/1000 $2489 ' population " 23. San Clemente $5,952/SFR 5 acres/1000 $5:952 i ° y population 24. San Juan $4 84 SCFR 5 acres/1000 4840 ,y Capistrano population 25. Santa Ana $2 890/SFR ** 2 acres/1000 population pea 26. Seal Beach $10 000/SFR 5 acres/1000 $l'0000 q 3 4 (appraisal-site specific) population 27. Stanton $3,050/SFR 5 acres/1000 $305.0 population 28. Tustin $21744/SFR *** 3 acres/1000 $4573-, ?. � (see information below) population . 29. Villa Park No fees— City is built out 30. Westminster 4 220/SFR 3 acres/1000 (appraisal-site specific) population ` ' 31. Yorba Linda $1 345/SFR 4 acres/1000 $1G81 ; *Laguna Niguel assesses land value based on the particular area. Land values range from$481,056 to $848, 891 per acre. The park in-lieu fee based on a median value of$664,974 would be$6,192 for their park standard of 3 acres per 1000 population. This extrapolates to $10,320 using Huntington Beach's park standard of 5 acres per 1000 population. **Santa Ana assesses their fees based upon the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit. The figure above is for a 4 bed room unit. In lieu fees for a 2 bed room and 5 bed room are $2,610/SFR and$3,215/SFR. ***A figure of$282,000 was used to calculate Tustin's in lieu fee. This figure is skewed because it does not include the Tustin Ranch area. The City only accepts land to satisfy Quimby requirements in that particular area. If Tustin Ranch were included, the land valuation would be significantly higher than $282,000. TUSTIN WILL USE SITE SPECIFIC APPRAISALS ,FOR TUSTIN RANCH AFTER IT GETS ALL OF THE LAND IT NEEDS IN TUSTIN RANCH-FOR PARKS. AT TACHiN ENT N a , 4—Ze-00 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, May 15, 2000, at 7:00 PM in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following item: ❑ ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 99-4 (PARK AND RECREATION IN-LIEU FEES): Applicant: City of Huntington Beach Request: To amend Section 254.08 of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance (ZSO) addressing the method to calculate parkland in-lieu fees for residential development. Location: Citywide Project Planner: Wayne Carvalho NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN the above item is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at City Hall or the Main City Library (7111 Talbert Avenue) after May 11, 2000. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to 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 at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call the Planning Department at 536-5271 and refer to the above item. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk. Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 (714) 536-5227 G:\LEGALS\COUNCIL\00\00cc0515.doc CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING REQUEST SUBJECT: ZyOJ j*o q"7- AA t5V1ID Jl/&) e-l9-4- (PAIM 1 2f�G F l DEPARTMENT: t N EF MEETING DATE: CONTACT: W L4 m C4WVAt11ft-? PHONE: -5,`75- N/A YES. .NO Is the notice attached? ' Do the Heading and Closing of Notice reflect City Council (and/or Redevelopment Agency)hearing? date,day and tima�of the public hearing correct? (✓f ( ) ( ) If an appeal, is the appellant's name included in the notice? If Coastal Development Permit,does the notice include appeal language? (L� Is there,an Environmental Status to be approved by Council? map attached for publication? ( ) ( ) (t Is a larger ad required? Size Is the verification statement attached indicating the source and accuracy of the mailing;list? (Illy 6Mf:Y PRJE' NC010 -- r1e- !nJ'WAt P ( ) ( ) ( Are the applicant's name and address part of the mailing labels? cAT)"r or 0.B . ( ) Are the appellant's name and address part of the mailing labels? If Coastal Development Permit,is the Coastal Commission part of the mailing labels? (VI ( ) (. ) y-If Coastal Development Permit, are the resident labels attached? Is;the Report 33433 attached? (Economic Development Dept, items only) Please complete the.following: 1. Minimum days:from.publication to hearing date 2. Number,oftimmto,be published 3. Number of days..between,publications N w 21 DEVELOPERS/ARCHITECTS 2/99 Dick and Kelly Kelter Duf Sfreddo Bob Corona 119-22"d Street Southridge Homes Seacliff Development Co. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 18281 Gothard Street, Suite 201 i P.O. Box 269 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Kaz Begovich Bill Vogt i Louie Hernandez Begovich& Haug Architects Vogt Development The Louie Group 3821 Long Beach Blvd. Suite 201 19432 Pompano Lane#112 20902 Brookhurst, Suite 201 Long Beach, CA 90807 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92646 Tim Roberts Mathew Tingler Dick Harlow TNR Development Corp. TNR Development Corp. Harlow&Associates 130 McCormick Avenue, Suite 104 130 McCormick Avenue, Suite 104 211 B Main Street Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Bijan Sassounian Kirk Evans Robert Ferguson Parkside Classics Centerstone Development Co. Sea Ridge Development 16373 Bolsa Chica Street 3500 B Westlake Center Drive P.O. Box B Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Santa Ana, CA 92704 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Mike Kaser Tom Zanic Robert Rann Kaser Construction New Urban West Communities Gray & Rann 5942 Edinger No. 1B 520 Broadway, Suite 100 5160 Birch Street, Suite 200 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Santa Monica, CA 90401 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Scott Minami Mike Adams Eric Zehnder Presley Companies PO Box 382 Zehnder Construction 19 Corporate Plaza, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 6776 Findley Circle Newport Beach, CA 92660 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Jonathan M. Jaffe Tom Redwitz Bill Holman Lennar Homes of California, Inc. Taylor Woodrow Homes, Ltd. PLC 24800 Chrisanta Dr. #200 24461 Ridge Route Dr. 23 Corporate Plaza, Suite 250 Mission Viejo, CA 92691-4819 Laguna Hills, CA 92653-1686 Newport Beach, CA 92660 i Tom Mitchell Buck Bennett Jeff Bergsma William Lyon Homes Sea Country Homes Team Design 4490 Von Karman Avenue 3 Corporate Plaza Drive Suite 100 215 Main Street, Suite A Newport Beach, CA 92660-2000 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Hal Woods Arthur F. Kent Ronald Metzler The Woods Group Kent Architects Shea Homes 3500-13 W. Lake Center Drive 325 A 2nd Street 655 Brea Canyon Road Santa Ana, CA 92704 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Walnut, CA 91788-0487 i 3:\c arvalh o\dtdev\labels i Mike Tekstra Zack Lindborg Tom Reilly 31 Echo Run 124 Promontory Drive East Reilly Homes Irvine, CA 92614 Newport Beach, CA 92660 23 Corporate Plaza Drive Suite 245 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Dave Oddo James D. Glenn Mark Jacobs 815 Main Street PO Box 2105 Heritage Communities Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 5620 E. Santiago Canyon Road Orange, CA 92869 Thom Jacobs j Dwayne Fuhrman Lenny Lindborg 201 Alabama Street Summerwood Homes 24 N. La Senda Huntington Beach, CA 92648 5200 Warner Avenue Laguna Beach, CA 92677 Huntington Beach, CA 92649 Rick Hauser Mike Taylor TNR Development Corp. -P.O. Box 618 130 McCormick Avenue, Suite 104 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Costa Mesa, CA 92626 John Thomas Phil Simon City Council (7) CB Commercial 3812 Sepulveda, Ste. 300 24422 Avenida Carlotta#120 Torrance, CA 90505 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 Melanie Fallon Robert Beardsley Planning Commissioners (7) Michael Dolder Daryl Smith Scott Hess Ray Silver Dave Webb Wayne Carvalho Paul D'Alessandro Khanh Nguyen Ross Cranmer Bob Eichblatt Rick Amadril Mike Strange Duane Olson I Howard Zelefsky -?>awt Deiaoe, Bill Grove �?�' j� 322- J:\carvalho\dtdev\labels r' PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAILING LABELS - January 13, 1999 . I i President 1 Huntington Harbo 10 + FANS 16 y H.B.Chamber of Commerce j P.O.B John Miles 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 S t Beach,CA 90742 194 astlewood Circle Huntington Beach,CA 92648 untington Beach,CA 92648 - -- - ; -- iI Judy Legan 2 William D.Holman 11 j Sue Johnson 16 Orange County Assoc.of Realtors PLC ' 19671 Quiet B 25552 La Paz Road i 23 Corporate Plaza,Suite 250 Hun' on Beach,CA 92648 Laguna Hills,CA 92653 I Newport Beach CA 92660-7912 President, 3 Mr.Tom Manic 12 Edna Littlebury 17• Amigos De Bols a New Urban West Gldn St Mob.Hm.Owners Leag. 16531 'ca Street,Suite 312 520 Broadway Ste. 100 11021 Magnolia Blvd. tington Beach,CA 92646 Santa Monica,CA 90401 Garden Grove,CA 92642 i _ I Sunset Beach Community Assoc. 4 Pres.,H.B.Hist Society 13 Pacific Coast Archaeolo ' 18 Pat Thies,President C/O Newland House Museum Society,Inc. PO Box 19820 Beach Blvd. P.O.Bo 6 S et Beach,CA 90742-0215 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 esa,CA 92627 Attn:Jane Gothold President 5 I Community Services Dept. 14 County of Orange/EMA 19 Huntington Beach Tomorrow i Chairperson Michael M.Ruane PO Box 865 Historical Resources Bd. P.O.Box Huntington Beach,CA 92648 San a,CA 92702-4048 i Julie Vandermost 6 Council on Aging 15 j County of Orange/E 19 BLA-OC �Huninn 6 Orange Av Thomas Mathe 9 Executive Circle#100 each,CA 92648 P. O.Bo 8 Irvine Ca 92714-6734 San a,CA 92702-4048 i i Richard�Spicer 7 i Jeff Metzel 16 Planning Departmen 19 SCAG Seacliff HOA Orange Co 818 , 2th Flooi j 19391 Sh arbor Circle P. O.B 48 s Angeles,CA 90017 ; H gton Beach,CA 92648 S Ana,CA 92702-4-48 E.T.I.C6rrj 100 8 John Roe 16 County of Orange/EMA 19 Mary Bell Seadiff�HOA Tim Miller20292 Eastavood Cir. 19382S P.O.Box Huntington Beach,CA 92646 H gton Beach,CA 92648 Santa a,CA 92702-4048 John Scandura 9 Lou Mannone 16 Planning Dir. 20 Environmental Board Chairman Seacliff HO City of Costa 17492 Valeworth Circle 1982 cean Bluff Circle P.O.B 00 Huntington Beach,CA 92649 H tington Beach CA 92648 Mesa,CA 92628-1200 h:langelThlbl PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION CHECKLIST "B" MAIMING LABELS -January 13, 1999 I i Planning Dir. 21 Dr.Duane Dishno 29 Country View Estate 37 City of Fountain V HB C;�, School Dist Carrie Tho 10200 Sl ve. PO B 6642 tter Drive F tain Valley,CA 92708 H h,CA 92626 untington Beach CA 92648 , j Pl5s:f= ig Director 22 Jerry Buchanan 29 Country View Es A 37 CiWes HB City Elemen hool Dist Gerald Ch an82stminster Blvd. 20451 Cr ' r ane G7 e Circle ester,CA 92683 I H gton Beach,CA 92648 Huntington Beach CA 92648 Planning Director 23 James Jones 30 HB Hampton HOA 37 City of Seal an View El tart' Keystone Pacifi p.Mangmt.Inc. 211 St School ct 16845 V an Avenue,Suite 200 Seal Beach,CA 90740 j 1 Pinehurst Lane I ,CA 92606 Huntington:Beach CA 92647 i California Coastal Commission 24 Barbara Winars 31 f Sally Graham 38 Theresa Henry Westminster Scho strict Meadowlark Area South Coast Area Office 14121 Ce od Avenue 5161 Gel ' ircle 200 Oceangate,10th Floor We ster CA 92683 tngton Beach,CA 92649 Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 I I i California Coastal Commission 24 Patricia Koch 32 ! Cheryle Brow ' 38 South Coast Area Office FIB Union Hi ool Disrict i Meadowl a 200 Oceangate,loth Floor j, 1025 town Avenue ! 1677 oosevelt Lane Long Beach,CA 92802-4302 untington Beach,CA 92646 tington Beach,CA 92649 . Robert Joseph 25 CSA 33 CA Coastal Communities,Inc. 39 Caltrans ct 12 730 El C ay#200 6 Executive Circle,Suite 250 3347 chelson Drive,Suite 100 Tu 92680 Irvine,CA 92614 e,CA 92612-0661 I I Director 26 Goldenwest College 34 I Bolsa Chica Land Trust 40 Local Solid Waste Enff,Aw. Attn:Fred Ow&ds ! Nancy Donovan O.C. �thCgency 15744 enw6st St 4831 Los PaP.O. H tington Beach CA 92647 Hua' on Beach,CA 92649 S , 2 New Growth Coondinab 27 OC County Harbor,B 35 Bolsa Chica Land Trust 40 Huntington B ost Office and Parks De Paul Horgan,Presi 6771 er Ave. P.O.B 48 207-21°t EtEtington Beach,CA 92647 S Ana,CA 92702-4048 Uiarr6nigton Beach,CA 92648 I Marc Ecker 28 Huntington Beach 36 iE� 41 Fountain Valle Attn:Pat - aude Elemen ool District 7 ger Ave. #300 jj 2646-8309 Oak Street . untington Beach CA 92647 Fountain Valley CA 92708 h:langel:phlbl 'i X\1 Connie Brockway, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach � \ Office of the City Clerk P.O. Box 190 Huntington Beach, CA92648 John Thomas x.*x. .4i Cti 527 CB Commercial 24422 Avenida Carlotta#120 Laguna Hills, CA 92653 IN6Tp', I' v CB--422 926531013 1499 08 05/08/00 FORWARD TIME EXP RTN TO SEND 3501 JAMBOREE RD STE 100 ! 9 ��.._s NEWPORT BEACH CA 92660-29 4 0 LEGAL NOTICE- PUBLIC HEARING 1i 05i1,5i00 16:34 NO.924 P02 May 15, 2000 1Qo0 MA Y 15 P 5: 31, BIR Mayor David Garofalo and Council members City of Huntington Beacb omw Courtly 2000 Main street Chester. Huntington Beach, CA 92648 SUBJECT: RBOUEST FOR CONTINUANCE. City Council Agenda Item o Building Industry Association of JuuLhrrn Cafiforuia D2 —Approve Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-04 (Fee In-Lieu 9 rzecutiv,Cin1, of Parkland 'Dedication) suite 100 Irvine.California 92614 Dear Mayor Garofalo and Council members: tax 941 .5.5.9 �' tax 949.553.9507 hupJ/www.hiasc.org On behalf of the wilding Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter(BL4/0C),we are writing once again(see October 15,1999 letter SIMNT to Mayor Green included in Staff report)to express our strongest opposition to the JEFFa Y P a TOR proposed "appraisal update"of the City's local park"in-lieu" fee. BIVOC is a BROOYFIELD HOMES nonprofit trade association,consisting of nearly 1,000 member companies and 1ST VICE PRESIDENT 60,000 employees in the residential home binding and light construction FIELDS O NCOMMUNITIES N industry. ZND VICE PRESIDENT DENIS CULLUMBER This issue is of great importance to our industry from; 1)an affordable housing LENNAR/GREYSTONE HOMES policy perspective and 2)the economic uncertainty to landowners and TREASURER u EoccoMe 1.lomebuilders attempting to do business in your city. In that regard, the staff JOHN LAING HOMES report for this item was not made available until late Friday morning(May 12`), SECROAR!' and our members have not had adequate time to review the materials and consult GORDON CRAG rl MONARCH COMMUNITIES with our legal counsel regarding the new,but ill-defined appraisal process recommended by staff despite the Planning Commission's recommendation for ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT LAER PEARCE an interim 50%fee.. We would therefore respectfully request a 30-day LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES continuance of this matter. Should the Council'favorably consider our request MEMBER-AT-LARGE GAVE COLGAN for a 30-day continuance,it is our intent to attempt to resolve our issues with city NOSSAMAN,GUTHNER staff over the next month, rather than pursuing litigation as a way to remedy our KNOX&ELLIOTT LLP GOI1CeerEIS. MEMP.ER-AT GERALD GATES BEAZER HOME5 We have submitted letters on October 15, 1999 and Marchl4, 2000,and have TRADE CONTRACTORS ALLIANCE appeared at three public hearings expressing our concerns and legal issues with VICE PRESIDENT the approach that the city is taking in reexamination of the appraisal criteria, lack HARbrHOwOODMAS STEELE CREATIONS of a nexus study on the City's in-lieu park fee, and lacy of information with regard IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT to how park in-Re fees will be utilized to benefit the related development. None GREG DENS of these issues have vet to be adequately addressed. - -- CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CHRISTINE DIEMER IGER,ESQ. While the action before you focuses on the appraisals of land values relating to fees paid in-lieu of parkland dedication, all issues relating to the Quimby Act must be taken into account as they contribute to the overall formula by which these fees are levied-- and all the requirements of Section 66477 (a) (1) through An Affiliate OCtbe (9)must be met. National ASaOC1AliAn of Home Builders and the c6luda3ld"din SATE- CDI " 'M V I cA�f i lndusw Asses rah 05i.15i00 16:34 N0.924 P03 We supported the Planning Cozrrfission's action(Recommendation A)as a compromise measure in order to keep park in-lieu fees at a reasonable level until a nexus study can be undertaken. To reiterate our concerns, in our opinion, a nexus study should be conducted prior to any reexamination of fees and should include the following information, 1) An analysis of the validity of the City's formula for calculating the number of acres per 1,000 population required to be dedicated(currently S acres per 1,000 persons)on each residential subdivision or corresponding payment per acre. The City has included State beach acreage into its calculation,which is contrary to State law. The Quimby Act is very clear that the calculation of park inventory is based on an inventory of neighborhood and community parks,not regional or state facilities; Government Code Section 66477(A)states as follows: "'The park area per 1000 members of the population of the city, county, or local public agency shall be derived from the ratio that the amount of neighborhood and community park acreage bears to the total population... The amount of neighborhood and community park acreage shall be the actual acreage of existing neighborhood and community parks of the city,county, or local public agency as shown on its records, plans,recreational element,maps, or reports as of the date of the most recent available federal census.91 Any doubt that`neighborhood and community"park does not mean"State"park(or State beach!) is completely removed by reference to the City's own General Plan Recreational Element which defines`neighborhood park" as up to 5 acres and"community park"as up to 12 acres. 2) How park fees will be used to acquire and develop or rehabilitate existing neighborhood or community parr or recreation facilities to serve the subdivision from which the fees are obtained, as required by Government Code section 66477(C); 3) Development of"a schedule specking how, when and where it wild use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreation facilities to serve residents of the subdivisions" from which fees are obtained,as required by Government Code section 66477(1). As previously stated, in the absence of the City's compliance with our association's request for an appraisal reexamination and performance of a nexus study,we intend to prepare a legal challenge to the City's appraisal process and calculation of existing 05/ 5i00 16:34 N0.924 PO4 inventory of"neighborhood and community parrs" used to determine the City's overall park acreage ratio(currently the legal maximum of 5 acres per 1,090) pursuant to Government Code section 66477(a)). We would also inform the Council that the City's recent appraisal is completely inconsistent with a recent park acreage valuation appraisal completed by Peter Finnerty,MAI,of Pacific Real Estate Consultants for the County of Orange, and would, in essence,put Huntington Beach residential acreage on a par with the Newport Coast area which is the highest appraised acreage in the County, And, as BIA previously stated at the October 4,? 1999 City Council meeting,the resulting increase would put Huntington Beach's new park fee at more than double the current highest park "in-lieu"fee in the County. We look forward to worldng with you toward resolving this important issue. Sincerely, 4jy�' �A - � Christine Diemer Iger,Esquire L Fishel Chief Executive Officer Deputy Director cc: BIA/OC Board of Directors,Past Presidents, Committee Co-Chairs Ray Silver, Huntington Beach City Administrator Gail Hutton, Esq., City Attorney Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce David Smith,BIA/SC General Counsel 05/15i00 16:34 NO.924 D01 L • L / From: Lynne Fishel BtAlOrange County Deputy Director Upcoming Events Ifshe!@biaoc.com 'Q ' °unt' Chapter g Buildin Iridu:�Y Association rrr..rrr..rrrrrrr�• of Southem Califomia 9 Executive Circle May 24,2000 late: May 15, 2000 ��te 100 PASS Lunch Min!Trade Show _ � �""�1�u,oTCalilemia 996t4 Irvine Marriott Hotel 949.553.9500 10:30 a.m.--2.30 p.m. To: Connie Brockmy FaxA1066111M fax 949.553.9507 - If!lr4ov Arw.lpi June 10,2000 Pages to follow: HomeAid's Rainbow of Hope Ball PRESIDENT Pour Seasons Hotel. Re: Toni l�ht A enda—Item D2 .I PRosTOR � BROO*1O�ffIEID HOMES 6:30 p.m.—Midnight 157 VICE PRESIDENT JTme 12,2000 ❑ Urgent O For Review 11 Please Commetn 4 Ab»41RON uNmEs General Membership Muting Comedy Night 2DENIS CULWMeER h vine Improv LENNAWGREYSTONE HOMES 5:50 p.m"Social How TREASURER 6:30 p.tn.Dinner * U EDGCOMI9 7:00 p.m.Program JOHN LAING HOMES NOTES: SECRETARY July 17,2m GORDON CRAIG MONARCH COMMUNITIES Genera.) Membership Meeting F .hf�yT EMT �`v TM� 7.�■ /� ��j"Optimssl FOR T L�IG.• T"S AGENDA 11111E fR PIEARCE SIDENT ITvine Marriott LAER PEARCE&ASSOCIATES S:SO P.M.Social,T-lAur 6:30 p.m.Dinner MEMe.ER-ATARGE 7:00 p.m.Program ITEMp_2 DAVE CO NOSSAMAN,GUrH GIJIHNER YNOx&ELLIOn LLP July 22,2000 Softball Tournament nnE G ERAR-AT--LARGE RAIP GATES Harvard.Park,Irvine BEAZR HOMES 8:00 am.—7:00 p.m. TRADE CONTRACTORS AUJANCE VICE PRESIDENT THOMAS STEELE HARDWOOD CREATIONS For more information call IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT 949x c-.r F %W GREG CURRENS AMHC CORP. Resemti0n line 949-224-0321 CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER CCeCrVAtlalt R�111aOFC0[A CHRISTINE DIEMER IGEk ESQ. Building Industry Association 1 Orange Coun Chapter of 9 th Executive Circle, Suite 100 Irvine, Calif i N 949�-553-9500 exL 112 949-553-951 � . it �(I �liforniA Buildine 1d)j,tU Association Z0'd 11J101 tvf`( , t.! C i` 01 F CpCAH .VUw i,iCT0?i 3EAC4, May 15, 2000 2QQQ 1 fAY 15 P : 41 MINBIMS, SUBSIDIARIES& Mayor Dave Garofalo and Councilmembers DIVI8I0NS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Cain tAI Pacific 14oldin; Imo`'"tk�a"�2000 Main Street mcroecr d Capq(tt Pxii, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huldingx.LLC CPH Reverts i.Lt.c Re: May 15,2000 City Council Agenda Item D2; RPM M*xiates.LLC Approval of ZTA No. 994 (Park Fee Increase) CPH Dana Paint,LLC Dear Mayor and Councilmembers: CCP Newpoa COWL Capital Pacii is Holdings,Inc. ("CPH")would like to register our concern regarding CPH MonarhBcach Item D-2,Zoning Text Amendment(ZTA)No. 99-4 which would establish new park CPH Dos Pueblos "in-lieu"fees based upon site specific land value appraisal of project sites, Amite;.u-C CPH Y,sla Palilmd" Based upon our cursory review of the proposed park fee increase as it would apply to L1.c the residential portion of our 31 acre property on Pacific Coast Highway and First AaantA Huntington Street,the"site specific appraisal"method of calculating the fee could result in a Bench.LI.0 park fee obligation that would have an extremely adverse econotnie effect on Capp,PaciRe Hanes, development plans for the site. Inc.(Ciliromia) Cephal Pacific Given the challenge issued to CPH,by both members of the City Council and City Ariuos,Iac.(Arizona) Capital Pacific Horm of Staff,to provide a high quality,mixed-use center that is architecturally exciting, Arizona,Inc.(ArizoW addresses important infrastructure needs and provides affordable housing,this major Capiul PuificHomess, park fee increase will impact our abiIity to meet this challenge. Inc.(Nevada) Capital Pacific Nome;of We would respectfully request that the City Council adopt the Planning Colorado,Inc.(Colorado Commission's recommendation(Recommended Action-A) as a more equitable Clark WILion Homes, method of assessing park in-lieu fees. We would also request that the City identify a In`.(T"`is) plan for improvement or rehabilitation of downtowns parks so that any fees collected Ne*port Design Center on downtown sites "serve the subdivision from which the fees are obtained,"as (CaltfomilJNcrads) required by state taw. creative Dmign& Media.ino.(Callromis) MOAPM Thank you for the opportunity to provide our input on this matter. Capital tea) I.M.Paens California. Best regards, Inc.(califamia) LK Peters Nevada,Inc. (Aievada) Paticland Bsalea WillU A.Funk Co"'pny,1i e. Senior Vice President (California) Commercial Development Co ,Inc. (Caliromw c: Ray Silver,City Administrator _ Howard Zelefsky,Director of Planning � CPH Corporate Blvdffice M N (i�To41001VtacArthtu$Ivd.,Suito 200 I—� V , �J Capital Pacific Holdings,Inc. P.O.Box 7150 lListcd on the American Stock Newport Bich,CA 92659-7130 Exchange AMEX/$ymboI-"CPH" (949)622-84W COMMERCIAL FAX:(949)622-8838 http://www.cph-inc.corn E01E0'd ETPT SL6 6b6 X[M N71H1Nnfl NHWHF;Rnm ).T :CT GMRP—CT.—AH1J PARK AND RECREATION IN-LIEU FEES = {f 4 Zoning Text Amendment No. 99-4 Project Description xAmend Huntington Beach Zoning & Subdivision Ordinance - Chapter 254 x Modify method for determining parkland in-lieu fees for residential development c� z LfTF,, c.,0MKAN1CPQN 1 Background x Quimby Act - Authorizes City to require land dedication/fees for park and recreational purposes x City Council direction to amend ordinance requiring site-specific appraisal (Nov. 1999) x Option to pay fees for residential developments with 50 units or less 3 Background(z) x Fee shall be equal to land value required to serve the proposed development (5 acres/1000 persons) x Current fee based on avg. fair market value per acre of parkland in RL neighborhood parks x City's last update in 1990 - $182,000/acre x City-wide appraisal of neighborhood parks completed (1999) - average land value $866,000/ac 4 2 Planning Commission x Three (3) public hearings x Planning Commission subcommittee meeting to discuss options with downtown developers and consultants x Compared other city's park fees Planning Commission Recommendation x 1) Utilize 50% of citywide average of parkland per acre (1999 appraisal) into the City's existing formula = $433,000/acre x 2) Complete comprehensive study of costs for build out of master plan of park improvements and implement findings 6 3 Comparison x Existing fee • $182,000/ac - $3,120/unit (w/o entitlement) • $516,500/ac - $8,858/unit (w/ entitlement) x 1999 appraisal • $866,627/ac - $14,862/unit (City-wide avg.) • $1,000,000/ac - $17,150/unit (Downtown) x Planning Commission (50% of City-wide avg.) • $433,000/ac - $7,425/unit x City Council - Varies based on site-specific appraisal Staff Recommendation • Require site specific appraisal to determine land value of subject property and incorporate into City's existing formula x Amount of fee will vary based on appraised value of subject property 8 4 Recommendation x Approve ZTA 99-4 as recommended by staff • Provides sufficient recreational opportunities for residents and visitors in conformance with General Plan x Provides revenue source for acquisition, development and rehabilitation of parks (Park Acquisition and Development Fund) x Fairest and most legally defensible 9 End of presentation 10 5 i4#6 -n c so `T zeLeFsky- Pugnnln6 D1rr, 31iy- �A.gg Council/Agency Meeting Held: a Defed/Continued to: (0-14-t) Approve Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: November 1, 1999 Department ID Number: CS99-036 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: . RAY SILVER, City Administrator's PREPARED BY: -RON HAGAN, Director, Community Services HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director, Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE PROCESS TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTION 254.08H RELATING.r_TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES > Statement of Issue,Funding Source;Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) Statement of Issue: Should the city amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to options for land and/or payment of a fee required in accordance with the policies, principles and standards for park and recreational facilities contained in the General Plan? Funding Source: Revenue to the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. Recommended Action: Motion to direct staff to process an amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 254.08H and related resolution modifying the city's park in-lieu fee to be determined by a site specific appraisal. T process will include no{�ced public hearin sat the Planning Commission and City Counci .arr/4&* M c a�prdv�c�, roC es� b e- oric. Where h e, a 1 ,s�lea the u�p,-r� sere, and_ e �Pp/�e a nts " "e 7&he a-ppppraiser. Al etnative Actidr5(s): Give staff direction on one of the options presented herein concerning the Park Acquisition and Development in-lieu fee. Analysis: At City Council direction, staff has reviewed the current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter and resolution pertaining to the city's park-in-lieu fees. The city last revised the fee in 1990. The current park-in-lieu fee is based on a citywide property appraisal of neighborhood parks. Neighborhood park property is appraised at R1 zoning without improvements. The average of the citywide appraisal is then used in the formula of five acres per one thousand persons to determine the park-in-lieu fee, i.e., A = 5.0 (D.F. x No. D.U.) 1000 / I REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 1, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS99-036 A = the area in acres required to be dedicated as a park site or to be appraised for fee payment for the subdivision. D.F. = density factor obtained from ZSO Section 254.08(E) as applicable to proposed subdivision. 5.0 = number of acres per one thousand persons. No. D.U. = number of dwelling units proposed in the subdivision. An independent appraisal firm has performed the citywide neighborhood park appraisal and the average per acre land value for R1 undeveloped neighborhood parks is $816,609. The current Council-adopted fee resolution is $182,000 per acre. This figure is used when no development agreement exists where a park-in-lieu fee has been negotiated. If Council were to use the $816,609 per acre appraisal fee, the park-in-lieu fee would be raised from $3,100 per single-family residence to $13,968, making it the highest fee of any city in Orange County. In addition to the issues that this increase may have on the city's ability to attain its affordable housing goals and the impact on the development community, staff is also con- cerned with the fairness of using a citywide average appraisal of neighborhood parks. When reviewing the actual appraisals, it is evident that certain sections of the city are appraised at less than $500,000 per acre and others at over $1 million per acre. By charging an average park-in-lieu fee, developers in some parts of the city would be paying a fee higher than their actual property value while developers in other parts of the city would be paying less. The city receives its authority to charge park-in-lieu fees from Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 254, Dedications and Reservations, Section 254.08, Parkland Dedication. If the city wishes to use a different method to calculate the park-in-lieu fees, it will require an amendment to this code section. It should be noted that in development projects under fifty units, the park-in-lieu fee is automatic, i.e., the city will not take land dedication. The developer pays a fee equal to the land value of the portion of the park or recreational facilities required to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed development. In development projects of fifty-one units or more, it is the city's choice to take either land dedication or park- in-lieu fees. Normally, in projects over fifty-one units, there is a development agreement stipulating the amount of land to be dedicated for park purposes, the amount of park-in-lieu fees, and the amount of credit given for development of the parkland dedicated. In these cases, the development agreement supersedes ZSO Chapter 254, thus making moot the fee resolution establishing the park-in-lieu fee. However, in projects without development agreements, primarily those under fifty units, the city relies on the fee resolution to determine the amount that will be paid to the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. Pursuant to the above history and description of issues, staff has reviewed four options to deal with changing the park-in-lieu fee. The options are as follows: Park in lieu fees -2- October 20, 1999 12:18 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 1, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS99-036 I. Current Method — This option would not require a change to ZSO Chapter 254. Council would amend the current fee resolution to increase the park-in-lieu fee from $182,000 per acre to $816,609 per acre. PRO CON ✓ Appraisal has been completed ✓ Creates inequity in amount of fees paid for development in different parts of the city. ✓ Park fees would equal average value of ✓ Raises the park-in-lieu fee to the highest in neighborhood parkland appraised at R1 Orange County zoning. ✓ Probably would encourage land dedication ✓ May impact the city's ability to attain its instead of park-in-lieu fees. affordable housing goals and/or redevelopment projects. II. Site Specific Appraisal —This.option would require an ordinance to change Chapter 254 to have the specific site where development is to occur appraised by an independent real estate appraiser paid by the developer. The site specific appraisal would be used as the park-in-lieu fee. PRO CON ✓ Equitable method of determining land value ✓ May have an impact on city's ability to obtain for park-in-lieu fee. affordable housing goals in areas where land values are high. ✓ Provides equitable treatment of all projects regardless of number of units. ✓ Requires no annual update of fee resolution to determine an average amount. III. Two-Tiered Fee — Under this option, fifty-one units and above would require a site specific appraisal to establish the park-in-lieu fee. For fifty units and under, the park- in-lieu fee would be based on the actual cost of park development and rehabilitation versus the value of land. PRO CON ✓ Provides site specific appraisal to use as ✓ Developer projects of fifty units would be park-in-lieu fee when city accepts in-lieu fees paying substantially more than developers instead of land. projects under fifty units, thus the larger development projects would be subsidizing the smaller ones. ✓ Since the city currently spends money it ✓ Under the Quimby Act, the city would have receives from park-in-lieu fees from projects to do a nexus study to determine the under fifty units on development and acquisition, development and rehabilitation rehabilitation, this option would relate the fee costs to use that fee instead of land value to that cost instead of the value of land on fee which is currently allowed under the the development site. Quimby Act. Park in lieu fees -3- October 20, 1999 12:18 PM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: November 1, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS99-036 IV. Consultant Study — Under this option, the city would hire a consultant to do a nexus study of the city's park acquisition, development and rehabilitation costs, evaluate the city's park standard, and recommend a funding method for the future of the Park Acquisition and Development fund when buildout is attained. PRO CON ✓ Would provide a strong legal backup if there ✓ Would probably cost between $30,000 and was a challenge to City Council's adoption of $50,000 to complete the study. new ark-in-lieu fees. ✓ Addresses the issue of the park-in-lieu fee ✓ Would probably take six to nine months to after buildout. complete, thus leaving the park-in-lieu fee unchanged in the interim. Upcoming projects that will be affected by Council action regarding the park-in-lieu fee include the 31-acre project, the Atlanta/Beach development project, the Pacific Coast Highway project between Golden West and Seapoint, and of course, all of the residential in- fill projects created by closed school sites. Of course, some, if not all, of these projects may have a development agreement where the fees are negotiated and, therefore, will not be affected by the current ZSO Chapter 254 or future changes to same. Staff is recommending Option II, Site Specific Appraisal, and has prepared the appropriate documents. In determining the preferred option, staff determined Option II best meets the goal of the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. While each option has its own advantages and disadvantages, staff feels that Option II is the fairest and most legally defensible. Environmental Status: N/A Attachment(s): NumberCity Clerk's Page Description .................................................. __ . ... .............................. ................. ................................. ................................................... 1 Ordinance Pa rk Appraisals UdateSumma A raisal ........................ . .......... RH:cr Park in lieu fees -4- October 20, 1999 12:21 PM ATTACHMENT # 1 ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY AMENDING SECTION 254.08H THEREOF RELATING TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES WHEREAS, pursuant to the California State Planning and Zoning Law, the Huntington Beach Planning Commission and Huntington Beach City Council have held separate, duly noticed public hearings to consider Zoning Text Amendment No. , which amends Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance relating to park in- lieu fees; and After due consideration of the findings and recommendations of the Planning Commission and all other evidence presented, the City Council finds that the aforesaid amendment is proper and consistent with the General Plan, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. That Section 254.08H of the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance is hereby amended to read as follows: H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to the fair market value for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D. Fair market value of the land shall be determined by a qualified real estate,appraiser hired by the City at the expense of the developer. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall take effect thirty days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 1999. Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Clerk fot City Attorney REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INIT TED AND APPROVED: �� City Adfiffitnistrator diVector of Planning 1 g:4:990rd i nan ce:parkfees RLS 98-385 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT H. Amount of Fee in Lieu of Park Land Dedication. Where a fee is required to be paid in lieu of park land dedication, such fee shall be equal to the fair market value an affieunt for each acre which would otherwise have been required to be dedicated by Section 254.08D. , whieh amount is the aver-age fair- share market value per-aer-e of land in all RL zoned neighbor-hoOd publie pafkswithin the City if such land wer-e not used for-or-zoned for publie pagEk Fair market value of the land in stiehneighbor-hood pafk" „ei4ites it the Qti -shall be determined by a qualified real estate appraiser hired by the City at the expense of the developer. Such appraisal shall exclude improvement. 2 g:4:990rd i nance:parkfees RLS 98-385 ATTACHMENT #2 Adjusted Fee to Citv CITY Single Family Residence (SFR) Park Standard Standard Park In Lieu Fee #Acres/1000 (per SFR) Population N' ' 7LW " ' TJ.!2S1 bd 6 ' 8 vt$= & iRM , ' ' Aa O fS4 S- i,�5,W00 /Apopai at fo 6±2 qYS", A , ' T22 VbAd-I Anaheim $4,317/SFR 2 acres/1000 population .......... q 2. Brea $1,525/SFR 5 acres/1000 4,50,$, population p, ' 3. Buena Park $4,250/SFR 3 acres/1000 population 4. Costa Mesa S5,482/SFR 4.26 acres/] 000 population 3 Cypress S-).200/SFP, i 4.5 acres/1000 $1*55 I)OINIlation 6. Dana Point Information not a\,allable 7. Fountain Vly S I ,750/SFR 3 acres/1000 $1,"9'T'T pol)LIlatioll Fullerton $2,474/SFR 2 acres/1000 "j),8 5- POPI-Ilati 11 9. Garden $1 ,200/SFR Not based ori Grove population 10. Irvine $7,189/SFR 5 acres/1000 $7%1,89"-,�� A population 11. La Habra $300/SFR 2.5 acres/1000 population 12. La Habra Hts No fees City is built out. 13. La Palma $21 O/S FR 4 acres/1000 population 14. Laguna $8,343/SFR 5 acres/1000 Beach POPLII-atioll— t 5. Laguna Hills No fees — City is built out 16. Laguna $4,618 - $8,149/SFR--` acres/10 $7,61971 $13�,852 Niguel (varies by area of city) I)OIRIlatioll I-Ae Forest No fees — City IS built OW Los 4 'Icl-cs/1000 $3,906 Adjusted Fee to City CITY Single Family Residence (SFR) Park Standard Standard Park In Lieu Fee #Acres/1000 (per SFR) Population Mission $7 200/SFR 5 acres/1000 Viejo population 20. Newport $6,984/SFR 5 acres/1000 $6 894 Beach " population sµ.; .......":.� � �z, .r , .5 a > . 21. Orange $2,310/SFR 3 acres/1000 $3;8<50<w ,"' „- N s . a population 22. Placentia $4 978/SFR 10 acres/1000 $2 489 "^,„�G" ��7.e�`4:^fix<.�°F<': t'>+�'TF1�%e.t�F„-::'s;�• population 23. San Clemente $5,952/SFR 5 acres/1000 $5952`` ' ~" ' ''` ' ':, : :, il � 42 Population : 24. San Juan $4 840/SFR 5 acres/1000 $4840 Capistrano population 25. Santa Ana $2,890/SFR Y 2 acres/1000 population 26. Seal Beach $10,000/SFR 5 acres/1000 $1'0.1O population �7 $3,050/. Stanton F S R 5 acres/1000 3050gd,, population Tustin $2 744/ FR 3 acres/1000 population � ;`��_ .> 29. Villa Park No fees — City is built out 30. Westminster 4 220/SFR '"$ 3 acres/1000 population 31. Yorba Linda $1,345/SFR 4 acres/1000 a,$1;6"814a'M= .. :": a: r; 2;P6'.:- y:--�.�`"v x ax'.<4is,. :'-4-•,v:eS^,'d.Si'm'sx. . *Laguna Niguel assesses land value based on the particular area. Land values range from $481,056 to $848, 891 per acre. The park in-lieu fee based on a median value of$664,974 would be $6,192 for their park standard of 3 acres per 1000 population. This extrapolates to $10,320 using Huntington Beach's park standard of 5 acres per 1000 population. **Santa Ana assesses their fees based upon the number of bedrooms in a dwelling unit. The figure above is for a 4 bed room unit. In lieu fees for a 2 bed room and 5 bed room are $2,610/SFR and $3,215/SFR. ***A figure of$282.000 was used to calculate Tustin's in lieu fee. This figure is skewed because it does not include the Tustin Ranch area. The City only accepts land to satisfy Quimby requirements in that particular =rea. If Tustin Rauch were included, the land valuation would be significantly higher than $282,000. City of Huntington Beach City Parks Page 1 SUMMARY OF PARK VALUATIONS CITY PARK ACRES PRICERSF TOTAL VALUE 1. Arevalos Park 3 $10 $ 1,307,000 2. Bartlett Park 30 $15 $19,602,000 3. Bolsa View Park 2.702 S22 S 2,589,500 4. Booster Park 0.7 S40 $ 1,220,000 5. Burke Park 2.503 $17 S 1,853,500 6. Bushard Park 1.973 S17 S 1,461,000 7. Chris Carr Park 11.18 S14 S 6,818,000 S. Circle View Park 2 $14 S 1,220,000 9. Clegg/Stacey Park 3 S17 S 2,221,500 10. College View Park 2.177 S17 S 1,612,000 11. Conrad Park 2.70 S85 S10,000,000 12. Drew Park 2.59 $17 S 1,918,000 13. Eader Park 2.6S S14 S 1,634,500 *14. Edison Com. Center l'ark 40.54 SI0 S17,660,000 15. Farquhar Park 3 S25 S 3,267,000 16. Franklin Park 2 SI4 S 1,220,000 1.7. French Park 0.32S S115 S 1,643,000 1-8. Gibbs Park 4.23 S17 S 3,132,500 19. Gisler Park 11.7 S17 S 8,664,000 20. Glen View Park 3 S14 S I,830,000 21. Golden View Park 2.399 $14 S 1,463,000 22. Greer Park 11.076 S17 S 8,202,000 23. Harbour View Park 3.43S S25 S 3,744,000 24. Haven View Park 3 S17 S 2,221,500 25. Hawes Park 2.74 S17 S 2,029,000 26. Helme Park 2 S17 S 1,481,000 27. Hope View Park, 3.73 S10 S 1,625,000 28. Irby Park Park 5 S14 S 3,050,000 29. Lake Park 4.35 $25 S 4,737,000 30. Lake View Park 3 $17 S 2,221,500 31. Lambert Park 3.475 $10 S 1,514,000 32. Langenbeck Park 17.004 $17 $12,592,000 33. Lark View Park 2.43 S17 S 1,800,000 34. Le Bard Park 5 S10 S 2,178,000 35. Manning Park 2.41 $20 S 2,1.00,000 *36. Marina Park 11.5 S17 S 8,516,000 37. Marine View Park 3 S17 S 2,221,500 38. McCallen Park 5.2 S18 S 4,077,000 39. Moffett Park 2.383 S17 S 1,765,000 City of Huntington Beach City Parks Page 2 SUMMARY OF PARK VALUATIONS CITY PARK ACRES PRICEIPSF TOTAL * 40. Murdy Park 16.5 $15 $10,781,000 41. Newland Park 3 $17 $ 2,221,500 42. Oak View Center Park 2.2 $14 $ 1,342,000 43. Perry Park 2.04 $17 S 1,511,000 44. Pleasant View Park 2 S16 S 1,394,000 45. Prince Park 0.22 $120 S 1,150,000 46. Robinwood Park 2 $17 S 1,481,000 47. Seabridge Park 3.818 $85 S14,136,500 48. Seacliff Park 91 0.5 $30 S 653,500 49. Seacliff Park 92 0.5 $30 S 653,500 50. Schroeder Park 2.48 S17 S 1,836,500 51. Seeley Park 3.372 S17 S 2,497,000 52. Sowers Park 2.35 S14 S 1,433,000 53. SunNliew Park 2.455 S16 S 1,711,000 54. Talbert Park 5.68 S14 S 3,464,000 55. Tarbox Park 0.5 S40 S 871,200 56. Terry Park 5.45 S15 S 3,561,000 57. Trinidad Beach Park 0.737 S76.86(Av.) S 2,467,500 58. Wardlow Park 2.3 S17 S 1,703,000 59. Wieder Park 4.82 S14 S 2,939,500 *60. Worthy Community Park 12 S20 S10,890,000 300 .06 A $227 , 108 ,700 r Total Neighborhood Parks 219.52 A $179,261,700 $816,609 per acre * Excluded Community Parks RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBJECT: ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HBZSO BY AMENDING SECTION 254.08 PERTAINING TO PARK IN- LIEU FEES COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 1, 1999 - - :::::::::: RCA:ATTAC H.M EI TS::::::::: ::::::: . . ............................... ......................................................................................... .......................................................................................................................................................... Ordinance w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement Unbud et, over $5,000 Not Applicable Bonds If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable <.>>> EXP:LANATION`F:OR MISSING ATTACHMENTS..:. . . ::::::: : : :: REVIEWED:<« .. ........ -: ::::.:.. .. .....: : ::::::::::RETURNED < ..... .:R. ARDED: ....................... Administrative Staff Assistant City Administrator Initial -97? City Administrator Initial City Clerk EXP ANATION:F: E ` . : ..:: > ..OR..R....TURI�L.OF ITEM.:::.:. _.....................<::::......:::.::.... ::::::::......::::::: Only)(Below Space For City Clerk's Use RCA Author: RH:cr Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: El Approved L3 Conditionally Approved 0 Denied City Clerk's Signaturcy Council Meeting Date: October 4, 1999-- Department ID Number: CS99-036 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS SUBMITTED BY: RAY SILVER, City Administrator PREPARED BY: RON HAGAN, Director, Community Services HOWARD ZELEFSKY, Director, Planning SUBJECT: APPROVE PROCESS TO AMEND THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTION 254.08H RELATING TO PARK IN-LIEU FEES Statement of Issue,Funding Source,Recommended Action,Alternative Action(s),Analysis,Environmental Status,Attachment(s) 11 Statement of Issue: Should the city amend the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to options for land and/or payment of a fee required in accordance with the policies, principles and standards for park and recreational facilities contained in the General Plan? Funding Source: Revenue to the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. Recommended Action: Motion to direct staff to process an amendment to the Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Section 254.08H and related resolution modifying the city's park in-lieu fee to be determined by a site specific appraisal. The process will include noticed public hearings at the Planning Commission and City Council. Alternative Action(s): Give staff direction on one of the options presented herein concerning the Park Acquisition and Development in-lieu fee. Analysis: At City Council direction, staff has reviewed the current Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter and resolution pertaining to the city's park-in-lieu fees. The city last revised the fee in 1990. The current park-in-lieu fee is based on a citywide- property appraisal of neighborhood parks. Neighborhood park property is appraised at R1 zoning without improvements. The average of the citywide appraisal is then used in the formula of five acres per one thousand persons to determine the park-in-lieu fee, i.e., A = 5.0 (D.F. x No. D.U.) 1000 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS99-036 A = the area in acres required to be dedicated as a park site or to be appraised for fee payment for the subdivision. D.F. = density factor obtained from ZSO Section 254.08(E) as applicable to proposed subdivision. 5.0 = number of acres per one thousand persons. No. D.U. = number of dwelling units proposed in the subdivision. An independent appraisal firm has performed the citywide neighborhood park appraisal and the average per acre land value for R1 undeveloped neighborhood parks is $816,609. The current Council-adopted fee resolution is $182,000 per acre. This figure is used when no development agreement exists where a park-in-lieu fee has been negotiated. If Council were to use the $816,609 per acre appraisal fee, the park-in-lieu fee would be raised from $3,100 per single-family residence to $13,968, making it the highest fee of any city in Orange County. In addition to the issues that this increase may have on the city's ability to attain its affordable housing goals and the impact on the development community, staff is also con- cerned with the fairness of using a citywide average appraisal of neighborhood parks. When reviewing the actual appraisals, it is evident that certain sections of the city are appraised at less than $500,000 per acre and others at over $1 million per acre. By charging an average park-in-lieu fee, developers in some parts of the city would be paying a fee higher than their actual property value while developers in other parts of the city would be paying less. The city receives its authority to charge park-in-lieu fees from Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 254, Dedications and Reservations, Section 254.08, Parkland Dedication. If the city wishes to use a different method to calculate the park-in-lieu fees, it will require an amendment to this code section. It should be noted that in development projects under fifty units, the park-in-lieu fee is automatic, i.e., the city will not take land dedication. The developer pays a fee equal to the-land value of the portion of the park or recreational facilities required to serve the needs of the residents of the proposed development. In development projects of fifty-one units or more, it is the city's choice to take either land dedication or park- in-lieu fees. Normally, in projects over fifty-one units, there is a development agreement stipulating the amount of land to be dedicated for park purposes, the amount of park-in-lieu fees, and the amount of credit given for development of the parkland dedicated. In these cases, the development agreement supersedes ZSO Chapter 254, thus making moot the fee resolution establishing .the park-in-lieu fee. However, in projects without development agreements, primarily those under fifty units, the city relies on the fee resolution to determine the amount that will be paid to the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. Pursuant to the above history and description of issues, staff has reviewed four options to deal with changing the park-in-lieu fee. The options are as follows: Park in lieu fees -2- September 17, 1999 9:53 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS99-036 I. Current Method — This option would not require a change to ZSO Chapter 254. Council would amend the current fee resolution to increase the park-in-lieu fee from $182,000 per acre to $816,609 per acre. PRO CON ✓ Appraisal has been completed ✓ Creates inequity in amount of fees paid for development in different parts of the city. ✓ Park fees would equal average value of ✓ Raises the park-in-lieu fee to the highest in neighborhood parkland appraised at R1 Orange County zoning. ✓ Probably would encourage land dedication ✓ May impact the city's ability to attain its instead of park-in-lieu fees. affordable housing goals and/or redevelopment projects. 11. Site Specific Appraisal —This.option would require an ordinance to change Chapter 254 to have the specific site where development is to occur appraised by an independent real estate appraiser paid by the developer. The site specific appraisal would be used as the park-in-lieu fee. PRO CON ✓ Equitable method of determining land value ✓ May have an impact on city's ability to obtain for park-in-lieu fee. affordable housing goals in areas where land values are high. ✓ Provides equitable treatment of all projects regardless of number of units. ✓ Requires no annual update of fee resolution to determine an average amount. III. Two-Tiered Fee — Under this option, fifty-one units and above would require a site specific appraisal -to.establish the park-in-lieu fee. For fifty units and under, the park- in-lieu fee would be based on the actual cost of park development and rehabilitation versus the value of land. PRO CON ✓ Provides site specific appraisal to use as ✓ Developer projects of fifty units would be park-in-lieu fee when city accepts in-lieu fees paying substantially more than developers instead of land. projects under fifty units, thus the larger development projects would be subsidizing the smaller ones. ✓ Since the city currently spends money it ✓ Under the Quimby Act, the city would have receives from park-in-lieu fees from projects to do a nexus study to determine the under fifty units on development and acquisition, development and rehabilitation rehabilitation, this option would relate the fee costs to use that fee instead of land value to that cost instead of the value of land on fee which is currently allowed under the the development site. Quimby Act. Park in lieu fees -3- September 17, 1999 9:53 AM REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: October 4, 1999 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: CS99-036 IV. Consultant Stud v — Under this option, the city would hire a consultant to do a nexus study of the city's park acquisition, development and rehabilitation costs, evaluate the city's park standard, and recommend a funding method for the future of the Park Acquisition and Development fund when buildout is attained. PRO CON ✓ Would provide a strong legal backup if there ✓ Would probably cost between $30,000 and was a challenge to City Council's adoption of $50,000 to complete the study. new ark-in-lieu fees. ✓ Addresses the issue of the park-in-lieu fee ✓ Would probably take six to nine months to after buildout. complete, thus leaving the park-in-lieu fee unchanged in the interim. Upcoming projects that will be affected by Council action regarding the park-in-lieu fee include the 31-acre project, the Atlanta/Beach development project, the Pacific Coast Highway project between Golden.West and Seapoint, and of course, all of the residential in- fill projects created by closed school sites. Of course, some, if not all, of these projects may have a development agreement where the fees are negotiated and, therefore, will not be affected by the current ZSO Chapter 254 or future changes to same. Staff is recommending Option II, Site Specific Appraisal; and has prepared the appropriate documents. In determining the preferred option, staff determined Option II best meets the goal of the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. While each option has its own advantages and disadvantages, staff feels that Option II is the fairest and most legally defensible. Environmental Status: N/A Attachment(s): Number,City Clerk's Page Description ............................................... 1 Ordinance 2 Res olution 3 Summary Appraisal—Park Ap praisals Update RH:cr Park in lieu fees -4- September 23, 1999 12:00 PM r :£'," _arx,n .s?<,xp.s' ';PT:<., ^w:y.'n.' *".`:Y3:'as•:>?r> ix•�$A`' ,t"�i .!'E .J,.:::"3,F:. 4.F ,q✓�'':;:':% �". as i { ley, �EExx >w}t>b .,..K�'if^y%":,.�".-:"�'.�,..v°i-' .,F x•'it:r•n a'.t s�: uie -£ Y , v. ^ era "'^n "1c `':�...44�� •;' J�-' x'#�� ,}.,'2,:. 9. :^g ,1°,'. :Rbrq i-: 7 AR x ,5 .'.S�•.+t � ;.fit.=.a yver .y .('. .ri {� ��}''i:<" r t; .w>.r ,zh _,d, ..l ,-?3 rd; ,r`°,= 'rn�`„.' <,`�.>«-;.:-'� •k� y_.. �ya€,:1„4Y, ti^" :: : •Y:'.# xi 4 `l"" ...axe::.,.. Yv 'S.k :z1 „Yt., brs p,s z £ `E%, RCA ROUTING SHEET INITIATING DEPARTMENT: COMMUNITY SERVICES SUBJECT: ADOPT ORDINANCE AMENDING THE HBZSO BY AMENDING SECTION 254.08 PERTAINING TO PARK IN- LIEU FEES COUNCIL MEETING DATE: October 4, 1999 : : : :: ::::; :..... RSA ATTAG :MENTS .................. ... ........................ . . ................... .. Ordinance w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Resolution (w/exhibits & legislative draft if applicable) Attached Tract Map, Location Map and/or other Exhibits Not Applicable Contract/Agreement (w/exhibits if applicable) (Signed in full by the City Attome Not Applicable Subleases, Third Party Agreements, etc. (Approved as to form by City Attorney) Not Applicable Certificates of Insurance (Approved by the City Attorney) Not Applicable Financial Impact Statement Unbudget, over $5,000 Not Applicable Bonds If applicable) Not Applicable Staff Report If applicable) Not Applicable Commission, Board or Committee Report If applicable) Not Applicable Findings/Conditions for Approval and/or Denial Not Applicable EXP LAMA I :::.:::::::.:: T ON FOR MI »> > >>>.. ::::::.::::::::::::::::::>:::::::.:::>::::: >:>: .. TACHMENTS......:::....:: ........................::. :: RET IJRNED :; ; FORWARDED:: Administrative Staff "'a r Assistant City Administrator Initial City Administrator Initial City Clerk EX:: PLAN A�'ION FOR RE TURNOF E aeAd-),- - (Below Space For City Clerk's Use Only) RCA Author: RH:cr 4v;te,,d Aow7 p��cP o��i�i L��•� \3 -'STATEMENT OF ISSUE SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE PARK IN-LIEU FEE ORDINANCE, AND IF SO, WHICH FEE OPTION SHOULD STAFF BE DIRECTED TO PROCESS THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE . PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL? CURRENT PARK ORDINANCE LAST REVISED IN 1990 BASED ON THE AVERAGE MARKET VALUE OF A CITYWIDE PROPERTY APPRAISAL OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AVERAGE APPRAISAL IS THEN MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED ACRES TO BE DEDICATED FOR PARK PURPOSES. THE FOLLOWING FORMULA DETERMINES THE AMOUNT OF PARK ACRES REQUIRED FOR LAND DEDICATION: ACRES= 5.0(DENSITY FACTOR X NUMBER OF DWELLING UNTTS)iL 1000 1 CURRENT PARK ORDINANCE CONTINUED EXAMPLE: A proposed residential project for 300 homes with a density factor of 2.6 persons per home would be required to dedicate 3.9 acres of parkland. S.0 (Z 6 x 300) =3.9 acres 1000 CURRENT PARK ORDINANCE CONTINUED PROJECTS OF 50 UNITS OR LESS AUTOMATICALLY PAY IN-LIEU FEE PROJECTS OF 51 OR MORE UNITS MUST DEDICATE LAND, UNLESS THE CITY CHOOSES TO ACCEPT IN-LIEU FEES CITY MAY ACCEPT PART LAND AND PART IN-LIEU FEE, OR GIVE CREDIT FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT, SO LONG AS TOTAL VALUE IS RECEIVED 2 CURRENT PARK ORDINANCE CONTINUED LAND DEDICATION �; a '` PARK IN-LIEU FEES AND PARK DEVELOPMENT CREDIT MAY BE NEGOTIATED IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD SUPERCEDE THE PARK IN-LIEU FEE ORDINANCE. AAA PARK IN-LIEU FEE OPTIONS OPHONI:CURRENTMETHOD MAKE NO CHANGES TO THE ORDINANCE,BUT AMEND THE PARK IN—LIEU FEE RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE FEE FROM THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF$182,000 PER ACRE TO THE NEWLY APPRAISED AMOUNT OF$816,609 PER ACRE. APPRAISAL HAS BEEN COMPLETED • IN-LIEU FEE WOULD EQUAL AVERAGE MARKET VALUE OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LAND 3 i ' PARK IN-LIEU FEE OPTIONS OPTIONII. SITE SPECIFICAPPRAISAL CHANGE PARK ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE A SITE SPECIFIC APPRAISAL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY. SET THE PARK IN-LIEU FEE PER ACRE AT THIS AMOUNT. • EQUITABLE METHOD OF DETERMINING LAND VALUE FOR PARK IN-LIEU FEE • NEEDS NO ANNUAL UPDATE • EQUITABLE FOR BOTH PROJECTS OVER 50 UNITS AND UNDER 50 UNITS PARK. IN-LIEU FEE OPTIONS OPTION III TWO-TIERED FEE CHANGE THE ORDINANCE SO THAT FOR PROJECTS OF 50 UNITS OR LESS,THE IN-LIEU FEE IS BASED UPON THE PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT UNFUNDED PROJECTS AMOUNT, AND FOR 50 UNITS OR MORE, REQUIRE A SITE SPECIFIC APPRAISAL. • FEE WOULD BE RELATED TO COST OF ACQUISITION,DEVELOPMENT AND REHABILITATION,INSTEAD OF VALUE OF LAND • WOULD REQUIRE A NEXUS STUDY AND LEGAL ANALYSIS AS TO THE QUIMBY ACT REQUIREMENTS 4 PARK IN-LIEU FEE OPTIONS OPTIONIV.• CONSULTANT STUDY DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING UNTIL THE CITY HIRES A CONSULTANT TO DO A NEXUS STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION. • WOULD COST BETWEEN$30,000-$50,000 • WOULD PROVIDE GOOD LEGAL BACKUP TO CHALLENGES • COULD BE USED TO ESTABLISH A PARK& RECREATION ASSESSMENT DISTRICT WHEN BUILDOUT IS ATTAINED IN ORDER TO CONTINUE REVENUE TO THE PARK FUND STAFF RECOMMENDATION OPTION Il: SITE SPECIFIC APPRAISAL • FAIREST WAY TO DETERMINE LAND VALUE • MEETS QUIMBY ACT REQUIREMENTS • MOST LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE 5 r ' MOTION TO: DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS AN AMENDMENT TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTION 254.08H AND RELATED RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE CITY'S PARK IN-LIEU FEE TO BE DETERMINED BY A SITE SPECIFIC APPRAISAL. THE PROCESS WILL INCLUDE REVIEW BY THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION AND NOTICED PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. 6 , , ECL Y': ki CITY CLERK � ' CITY O � �::•wT i r.d CA it N HUNTINGTON BEACH CHAMBER0, 1991 SEP 2q P !�: 5� COMMERCK September 29, 1999 Mayor Peter Green Members of the City Council City Hall Huntington Beach,Ca. 92648 Dear Mayor Green: The Chamber's Community Development Committee has had the opportunity to review the proposed Park Acquisition and Development in-lieu fee. The Chamber is proud of our fine community park system and we support the City in their effort to complete the existing Master Plan for Parks. However,the committee has also observed that the city is over 95%developed and that the proposed method of requiring dedication of parkland or payment of an in-lieu fee differs from the current formula,thereby,creating a significant inequity. As referenced in our letter dated December 1, 1989(attached),when the park ordinance was last changed, the Chamber requested that the City adopt an ordinance that provides for the completion of the existing Master Plan of parks without placing the entire burden of implementation on new residential development. Further,the Chamber continues to request that a nexus study be conducted.Many points brought out in the previous letter are still valid and our position has not changed since 1989. Therefore,the Chamber is requesting that the City Council adopt Option 4,which is most consistent with our previous position. Although we are not providing specific comments on the other three options,we wish to point out that staff recommended Option 2 creates an inequity by requiring higher fees to be paid by property developed in the coastal area and other high value areas without a quarantee that parks will be provided within their neighborhood. If the park in-lieu fees collected from a project in a high land value area are spent for acquisition of lower priced land or for the rehabilitation or construction of parks,(the cost of which does not relate to land value)the residents of the higher value area are paying a disproportionate fee. It is essential that dedication of land or payment of a fee be consistent with the Quimby Act, the City's Master Plan and that an implementation plan be in place that equitably addresses the park needs. We further note that we have not had an opportunity to review the appraisal used to determine the proposed park fee and request that such an appraisal be included in the study called under Option 4. 2100 Main Street,Suite 200 Huntington Beach,CA 92648 714/536-8888 A=....DOTED (FAX)714/960-7654 EM Page 2 The Board observed that it is also important to keep in perspective this proposed fee increase,along with current city fees and fees imposed by other agencies,when evaluating the ability to provide affordable housing. At our September 23 meeting,our Board of Directors supported the Community Development Committee's position. We would be happy to meet with staff/council at your convenience to discuss this issue.Thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this important issue. ely, Bob Traver Chairman Enc. CC: Silver Hagan Fallon Cr 1Y f..LEPIK CITY OF 11 Ur 4ir000000l 1q9j SEP '2 9 P 15 ON MDWH, CA //ua�� a 7 ea CI C"Ser of Ommeree December 1 , 1989 Mr. Tom Mays , Mayor and Members of City Council City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach , CA 92648 Subj : Park Acquisition and Development Fee Dear Mayor Mays : In May of 1989 , city staff proposed an increase in Park Acquisition and Development Fees from $2 , 395 per single family unit to $5 ,560 . Our Board of Directors expressed its opposition to this increase and has been working with City Staff over the past several months to resolve the matter Our concerns regarding the new proposed fee increase include : 1 . The Chamber of Commerce is proud of our fine community park system and we support many of the facilities on the list for Future Park Development . However , we object bo having only new residents bear the burden of upgrading our park system that benefits the entire community and in ,some cases the region . If these proposed projects satisfy a true community-wide need , then all residents should equally participate in financing regional facilities such as the Aquatic Complex , Recreation Center with Gymnasium, Group Camping etc . 2 . In addition , many items on the proposed Future Park list are related to other city projects including redevelopment , the proposed golf course and mobilehome relocation project and should not be included as "park fees" . 3 . The original intent of the park fee in 1980 was to provide funding to purchase park lands in our community . Today , the main use of Park Aquisition & Development Fees is to expand Central Park , install regional facilities in Central Park , and improve existing neighborhood parks . We recommend that a new ordinance be adopted to be in compliance with the intent of the Quimby Act and that it take into account ;} that the City is no longer purchasing neighborhood park land . The fee should relate to the cost of park improve- ments. 2213 Main Street Suite 32 Huntington Beach CA 92648 714636-6868 Page 2 4 . We would further recommend that a new ordinance be written which is in compliance with the recent Orange County Superior Court decision by Judge Woolley in Marblehead (Measure E ) vs . City of San Clemente which states that there must be a "nexus " or reasonable relationship between conditions and fees imposed on a development and the burden or impact the development will place on the community . Judge Woolley's opinion states that you cannot require property owners to mitigate conditions not only caused by their development (a proper goal ) but also to cure the inadequacies of those who developed their property before them. Although we do not agree that all of the proposed Future Park Development projects are a legitimate usage of park fees under the Quimby Act or Judge Woolley' s decision , our analysis indicates that the City of Huntington Beach could fund all legitimate projects as well as having funding for possible additional park- related projects if the fee remained at $2 , 395 . However , as a practical matter , we recognize that the current fee has been in place for quite some time and that there is an increased cost of maintaining and improving this system . Therefore , we do not object to amending the ordinance to include an annual inflationary adjustment if Article 996-B of the Ordinance Code is amended and rewritten as recommended by Staff. The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce commends the City of Huntington Beach for its dedication to an outstanding community park system. Once again, thank you for allowing us the opportunity to comment on this important issue . f RW:kb4 cc : Paul Cook , City Administrator „ . RECEIVED FROM �. w2�.0�¢d1 y� 4044 i AND MADE A PART OF TH�ICO AT THE COUNCIL MEETING OF `f OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CONNIE BROCKWAY,CITY CLERK ` STATEMENT OF ISSUE SHOULD THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE PARK IN-LIEU FEE ORDINANCE, AND IF SO, WHICH FEE OPTION SHOULD STAFF BE DIRECTED TO PROCESS THROUGH PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND '0104k ® f CITY COUNCIL? CURRENT PARK ORDINANCE • BASED ON THE AVERAGE MARKET VALUE OF A CITYWIDE PROPERTY APPRAISAL OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS • AVERAGE APPRAISAL IS THEN MULTIPLIED BY THE NUMBER OF REQUIRED ACRES TO BE DEDICATED FOR PARK PURPOSES. THE FOLLOWING FORMULA DETERMINES THE AMOUNT OF PARK ACRES REQUIRED FOR LAND DEDICATION: ACRES= 5.0(DENSITY FACTOR X NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS) 1000 1 CURRENT PARK ORDINANCE continued EXAMPLE: A proposed residential project for 300 homes with a density factor of 2.6 persons per home would be required to dedicate 3.9 acres of parkland. 5.0 (2.6 x 300) =3.9 acres 1000 lay— CURRENT PARK ORDINANCE, continued PROJECTS OF 50 UNITS OR LESS AUTOMATICALLY PAY IN-LIEU FEE PROJECTS OF 51 OR MORE UNITS MUST DEDICATE LAND, UNLESS THE CITY CHOOSES TO ACCEPT IN-LIEU FEES CITY MAY ACCEPT PART LAND AND PART IN-LIEU FEE, OR GIVE CREDIT FOR PARK DEVELOPMENT, SO LONG AS TOTAL VALUE RECEIVED IS EQUAL TO VALUE OF LAND A BE DEDICATED 2 IF CURRENT PARK ORDINANCE, continued LAND DEDICATION, PARK IN-LIEU FEES AND PARK DEVELOPMENT CREDIT MAY BE NEGOTIATED IN A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD SUPERCEDE THE PARK IN-LIEU FEE ORDINANCE. PARK IN-LIEU FEE OPTIONS OPTION I : CURRENT METHOD AMEND THE PARK IN-LIEU FEE RESOLUTION TO INCREASE THE FEE FROM THE CURRENT AMOUNT OF$182,000 PER ACRE TO THE NEWLY APPRAISED AMOUNT OF$816,609 PER ACRE. • APPRAISAL HAS BEEN COMPLETED • IN-LIEU FEE WOULD EQUAL AVERAGE MARKET VALUE OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARK LAND 3 IFI LAND VALUE COMPARISONS* NEWPORT BEACH $1,131,677 IRVIN E $1,018,457 COSTA MESA $905,236 NEW PORT COAST $843,360 LAGtJNA N IGtJEL & DANA POINT $848,891 HUNTINGTON BEACH $816,609 SUNSET BEACH $594,277 WESTMINISTER $565,573 *Information from County of Orange appraisals done in May 1999 COMPARSION OF PARK IN-LIEU FEES CITY ADJUSTED RATE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT Huntington Beach $3,121(Current) $12,957(Appralsal) Laguna Niguel $13,852 Seal Beach $10,000 Laguna Beach $8,343 Irvine $7,189 Newport Beach $6,894 Costa Mesa $6,434 Westminister $5,275 Fountain Valley $2,917 4 e PARK IN-LIEU FEE OPTIONS, continued OP.TIONIP SITE SPECIFIC APPRAISAL CHANGE PARK ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE A SITE SPECIFIC APPRAISAL OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY. SET THE PARK IN-LIEU FEE PER ACRE AT THIS AMOUNT. • EQUITABLE METHOD OF DETERMINING LAND VALUE FOR PARK IN-LIEU FEE • NEEDS NO ANNUAL UPDATE • EQUITABLE FOR BOTH PROJECTS OVER 50 UNITS AND UNDER 50 UNITS PARK IN-LIEU FEE OPTIONS, continued OPTION III: TWO-TIERED FEE CHANGE THE ORDINANCE SO THAT FOR PROJECTS OF 50 UNITS OR LESS,THE IN-LIEU FEE IS BASED UPON THE PARK ACQUISITION AND DEVELOPMENT UNFUNDED PROJECTS AMOUNT, AND FOR 50 UNITS OR MORE, REQUIRE A SITE SPECIFIC do APPRAISAL. • FEE WOULD BE RELATED TO COST OF ACQUISITION,DEVELOPMENT AND REHABILITATION,INSTEAD OF VALUE OF LAND VIEW • WOULD REQUIRE A NEXUS STUDY AND LEGAL ANALYSIS AS TO THE QUIMBY ACT REQUIREMENTS 5 F I PARK IN-LIEU FEE OPTIONS, continued OPTION I6'- CONSULTANT STUDY DO NOT CHANGE ANYTHING UNTIL THE CITY HIRES A CONSULTANT TO DO A NEXUS STUDY AND RECOMMENDATION. • WOULD COST BETWEEN$30,000-$50,000 • COULD BE USED TO ESTABLISH A PARK& RECREATION FACILITIES ASSESSMENT DISTRICT(HW)WHEN BUILDOUT IS ATTAINED IN ORDER TO CONTINUE REVENUE TO THE PARK FUND STAFF RECOMMENDATION OPTION II• SITE SPECIFICAPPRAISAL • FAIREST WAY TO DETERMINE LAND VALUE • MEETS QUIMBY ACT REQUIREMENTS Ao AL • LEGALLY DEFENSIBLE 6 I MOTION TO: DIRECT STAFF TO PROCESS AN AMENDMENT TO THE HUNTINGTON BEACH ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTION 254.08H AND RELATED RESOLUTION MODIFYING THE CITY'S PARK IN-LIEU FEE TO BE DETERMINED BY A SITE SPECIFIC APPRAISAL. THE PROCESS WILL INCLUDE REVIEW BY THE COMMUNITY SERVICES COMMISSION AND NOTICED PUBLIC HEARINGS AT THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. h