The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutAGENDA REPORT 1990 0530 CC SPC JNT PC ITEM 04PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M. PEREZ Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk KOM FROM: DATE: MOORPARK M E M O R A N D U M The Honorable City Council The Planning Commission Cl +,� C % e-rk STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer Patrick J. Richards, Director of Community May 25, 1990 Development Till SUBJECT: THIRD GENERAL PLAN UPDATE WORKSHOP SCHEDULED FOR MAY 30, 1990, AT 7:30 P.M. Attached is an agenda, the land use alternative summary tables, and traffic analysis informational reports for the May 30th workshop. I suggest that if you have detailed comments on any of these materials, it would be better to submit them in writing to PBR, since we may not have time at the workshop to fully discuss all of your concerns. The focus of the May 30th workshop will be to discuss three preliminary alternative land use plans that have been developed by PBR. Large scale maps illustrating these plans will be available for review at the workshop. These plans were developed based on the City's original Request for Proposals, which was incorporated into the contract with PBR. Staff is not recommending selection of any of the three preliminary plans. The final preferred planning alternative is expected to include components from the three separate alternatives studied. The discussion at the workshop should focus on the positive and negative aspects of each alternative and any other recommendations the Council and Commission might have in regard to a preferred land use plan. For your information, we had originally requested that PBR and Austin -Foust provide all of the workshop materials to us in draft form two and one -half weeks prior to the workshop and in final form one week prior to the workshop. We received the draft land use information for review one week ago (May 17) and the traffic analysis report on Monday (May 21). We received the final workshop materials today. The Traffic Model Description Report has not been reviewed by my staff or the City Traffic Engineer. 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 (805) 529 -6864 Honorable City Council /Planning Commission May 25, 1990 Page 2 Attachments: Agenda Demographic Forecast Land Use Alternative Comparison Chart Statistical Summary of Land Use Alternatives General Plan Traffic Analysis Report Traffic Model Description Report PJR /DST cc: Steven Kueny, City Manager John Knipe, City Engineer PAUL W. LAWRASON, Jr. Mayor SCOTT MONTGOMERY Mayor Pro Tern ELOISE BROWN Councilmember CLINT HARPER, Ph.D. Councilmember BERNARDO M.PEREZ Councilmember LILLIAN KELLERMAN City Clerk MOORPARK STEVEN KUENY City Manager CHERYL J.KANE City Attorney PATRICK RICHARDS, A.I.C.P. Director of Community Development R. DENNIS DELZEIT City Engineer JOHN V. GILLESPIE Chief of Police RICHARD T. HARE City Treasurer CITY OF MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN LAND USE AND CIRCULATION ELEMENT UPDATE COMMUNITY WORKSHOP NO. 3 Wednesday, May 30, 1990 7:30 p.m. City Council Chambers AGENDA I. Introduction and Receipt of Materials (City Staff /PBR) II. General Plan Land Use Alternatives (PBR) III. General Plan Traffic Analysis (AFA) IV. Question and Answers - City Council /Planning Commission V. Break VI. Questions and Answers - General Public VII. Adjournment 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, Califomfa 93021 (805) 529 -6864 R MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN UPDATE DEMOGRAPHIC FORECAST Dwelling Units Estimates Population Estimates Existing Land 7,484 Use General Plan Build Out (2010) Land Use Alt. 1 (2010) Land Use Alt. 2 (2010) Land Use Alt. 3 (2010) 7,682) 24,900 V 17,561 11,015 (13,610 max.) 13,095 (16,407 max.) 11,233 (14,268 max.) 13,846 (17,609 max.) 23,770 24,508 47,940 32,054 (40,807 max.) 38,105 (41,127 max.) 32,689 40,292 5/30/90 Jobs /Housing Ratios Ventura 1986 County Ventura Ventura Dept. of County County Finance6 Forecasts PBR Estimates 4,604 .62 4,604 .60 7,484 7,682 5,939 .34 5,9397 .53 17,561 11,015 )3L.. 7,569 .57 13,095 5,320 .47 11,233 7,179 .51 13,846 1 County dwelling unit forecasts based on year 2000 General Plan buildout and straight line projections to year 2010. 1989 1989 1986 State 1986 Dept. of Ventura Popul. Ventura Finance County Research County Survey Forecast PBRZ Unit Forecast PBR3'� Existing Land 7,484 Use General Plan Build Out (2010) Land Use Alt. 1 (2010) Land Use Alt. 2 (2010) Land Use Alt. 3 (2010) 7,682) 24,900 V 17,561 11,015 (13,610 max.) 13,095 (16,407 max.) 11,233 (14,268 max.) 13,846 (17,609 max.) 23,770 24,508 47,940 32,054 (40,807 max.) 38,105 (41,127 max.) 32,689 40,292 5/30/90 Jobs /Housing Ratios Ventura 1986 County Ventura Ventura Dept. of County County Finance6 Forecasts PBR Estimates 4,604 .62 4,604 .60 7,484 7,682 5,939 .34 5,9397 .53 17,561 11,015 )3L.. 7,569 .57 13,095 5,320 .47 11,233 7,179 .51 13,846 1 County dwelling unit forecasts based on year 2000 General Plan buildout and straight line projections to year 2010. MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN UPDATE STATISTICAL SUMMARY OF SUGGESTED LAND USE ALTERNATIVES Workshop #3 - May 30, 1990 Existing General Plan Population at full buildout: 32,054 Dwelling units: 11,015 RL 355 DU RH 394 DU L 1,045 DU ML 2,347 DU M 4,710 DU H 772 DU VH 1,392 DU Neighborhood Commercial: 51,183 SF (4.7 acres at 25 percent building coverage) General Commercial: 1,984,702 SF (182.25 acres at 25 percent building coverage) Commercial Industrial Mix: 141,896 SF (13.03 acres at 25 percent building coverage) Light Industrial 3,746,440 SF (165.92 acres at 38 percent building coverage) Medium Industrial: 5,894,862 SF (352.5 acres at 38 percent building coverage) Agricultural: 395 acres Agl 395.2 Ag2 N/A Open Space: 936 acres OS1 375.9 OS2 560.2 OS3 N/A OS4 N/A OSLF N/A _ Institutional: School 305.2 acres Park 51.5 acres FWY R/W 190.0 acres' ' Freeway right -of -way acreage is assumed constant for each alternative. 547 acres Alternative 1 Population at full buildout: 38,105 Dwelling units: 13,095 RL 320 DU RH 400 DU L 1,328 DU ML 2,255 DU M 5,334 DU H 1,554 DU VH 1,904 DU Neighborhood Commercial: 128,502 SF (11.8 acres at 25 percent building coverage) General Commercial: 2,026,738 SF (186.11 acres at 25 percent building coverage) Commercial Industrial Mix: 141,896 SF (13.03 acres at 25 percent building coverage) Light Industrial 3,241,369 SF (195.82 acres at 38 percent building coverage) Medium Industrial: 5,338,278 SF (322.5 acres at 38 percent building coverage) Agricultural: 86.5 acres Agl 86.5 Ag2 N/A Open Space: 764 acres OS1 375.9 OS2 388.5 OS3 N/A OS4 N/A OSLF N/A Institutional: 608 acres School 288.8 Park 126.1 FWY R/W 190.0 Quasi Public 4.1 Alternative 2 Population at full buildout: Dwelling units: RL 110 DU RH 377 DU L 639 DU ML 1,480 DU M 5,172 DU H 2,122 DU VH 1,334 DU Neighborhood Commercial: (37.5 acres at 25 percent building coverage) General Commercial: (118 acres at 25 percent building coverage) Light Industrial (167.6 acres at 38 percent building coverage) Medium Industrial: (191.2 acres at 38 percent building coverage) Agricultural: Agl 57.6 acres Ag2 N/A Open Space: OS1 56.8 acres OS2 421.6 acres OS3 1,325.5 acres OS4 379.4 acres OSLF 686.1 acres Institutional: School 279 acres Park 205 acres FWY R/W 190.0 acres Quasi Public 4.1 acres 32,689 11,234 408,375 SF 11285,020 SF 2,786,228 SF 3,164,895 SF 57.6 acres 2,869 acres 487 acres Alternative 3 Population at full buildout: Dwelling units: RL 3 DU RH 1,431 DU L 2,271 DU ML 841 DU M 3,860 DU H 3,005 DU VH 2,436 DU Neighborhood Commercial: (27.3 acres at 25 percent building coverage) General Commercial: (233.9 acres at 25 percent building coverage) Commercial Industrial Mix: (0 acres at 25 percent building coverage) Light Industrial (133.3 acres at 38 percent building coverage) Medium Industrial: (318.1 acres at 38 percent building coverage) Agricultural: Agl N/A Ag2 N/A Open Space: OS1 N/A OS2 204.6 acres OS3 422.9 acres OS4 318.1 acres OSLF 686.1 acres Institutional: School 284.6 acres Park 137.4 acres FWY R/W 190.0 acres Quasi Public 1.1 acres DU = dwelling unit SF = square feet 40,292 13,847 297,297 SF 2,547,171 SF .71 2,206,488 SF 5,265,445 SF n 1,631 acres 422 acres COUNCIL MINUTE NOTES ITEM NO. FILE NO. �x Le�u�.�ruE� ,c.vl a�.la�J MOVED- SECONDED AYES NOES ABSTAIN ABSENT "BROWN 4uliARPER M aNT6 0.4VR PE FIE 4 ,c.vl a�.la�J MOVED- SECONDED 114.3r9 June 1, 1990 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council City of Moorpark 799 Moorpark Avenue Moorpark, California 93021 Subject: City of Moorpark General Plan Update - Land Use Alternatives Dear Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council: Enclosed for your review, please find color reduction copies of the three land use alternatives presented at our May 30th 1990 General Plan Update Workshop. We have also included reduced copies of the Existing Land Use and Existing General Plan graphics for ease of reference and comparison purposes. A brief summary of consideration items accompanies each alternative. Also attached for your information, is a memo prepared by PBR relating to annexation fees. As we discussed at our May 30th meeting, please note that this memo was prepared several years ago for a specific project in San Clemente California and may not reflect the current status of state laws and annexation fee applicability. The memo is intended to serve as an information item only and should be reviewed by your city attorney. We hope the attached information is helpful to you in considering appropriate land use designations for the City's Land Use Element Update and we look forward to discussing the alternatives with you at our next workshop. Sincerely, R enneth0J. Ryan Director cc: Steve Kueny, City Manager Pat Richards, Community Development Director PLANNING • URBAN DESIGN • ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION • MARKET & FINANCIAL ANALYSIS • ENTITLEMENT 18012 SKY PARK CIR. • IRVINE. CA 92714 • 714/261 -8820 FAX: 714/261 -2128 • IRVINE • SAN DIEGO • SAN FRANCISCO lk r' MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ALTERNATIVE 1 This alternative is comprised of the current general plan land use designations with the addition of 10 GPA* requests and the current Carlsberg Specific Plan land use requests. Alternative 1 summary: Dwelling units increase by approximately 2000 units. Industrial and commercial acreages increase slightly by approximately 30 and 20 acres respectively. Decrease in overall agriculture by approximately 300 acres and in open space acreage by approximately 170 acres. Overall park acreage to population ratio improves (3.3 acres per 1,000 population). Population increases by approximately 6,000. Employees increase by approximately 2,000. Based on the County average of 1 job per 1,437 sq. ft., jobs /housing ratio improves slightly toward optimal regional balance ratio (.57 Alternative 1 vs. .53 current General Plan). A more realistic employee per sq. ft. ratio would result in an improved jobs /housing balance ratio. Average daily traffic increases by approximately 33,000 trips. Traffic generated by Alternative 1 can be accommodated through baseline circulation system improvements (ie. local traffic network improvements and development of northern access roads), and the implementation of one of the combined SR -118 and SR -23 bypass scenarios. See attached 11 x 17 graphic for general GPA request locations. ** All summary items are based on a comparison to existing general plan at buildout. General Plan Amendments MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN .. EXHIBIT 8 MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ALTERNATIVE 2 This alternative is the least intense of the general plan alternatives and is comprised of current general plan land use designations, the 10 general plan requests at a reduced intensity level, and incorporates additional open space designations for hillside density, natural features and viewshed areas. The additional open space categories are described as follows: OS -3 - areas of 20% slope or greater; 1 du /40 acres. OS -LF - primary horizon lines within city (limited development); 1 du /40 acres. OS-4 - natural feature areas oaks and arroyo areas; (restricted development). Alternative 2 summary:* Approximately 200 more dwelling units than current general plan. Industrial acreage is reduced by approximately 150 acres. Commercial acreage slightly reduced (approximately 40 acres). Open Space increases by nearly 2,000 acres. Agriculture acreage is reduced by approximately 300 acres. Park acreage to population ratio increases significantly (6.2 acres per 1,000 population). Population increases slightly (approximately 600 persons). Employment is reduced by approximately 600 jobs. Based on the County average of 1 job per 1,437 sq. ft., jobs /housing ratio declines slightly from current General Plan buildout ratio (.47 Alternative 2 vs. .53 current General Plan). A more realistic employee per sq. ft. ratio would result in an improved jobs /housing balance ratio. Average daily traffic is reduced by approximately 55,000 trips. All summary items are based on a comparison to existing general plan at buildout. \y Traffic generated by Alterative 2 can be accommodated with baseline circulation system improvements (ie. local roadway improvements and development of northern access roads). Specific Alternative 2 land use changes: Current residential area (Avenida Colonia) and I -2 designations north and northeast of SR -118 terminus change to OS -4. Parcel located immediately west of Gabbert Road currently designated I -2 and occupied by Southern California Edison facilities changes to medium residential designation. Parcel located immediately west of Southern California Edison facilities, currently designated I -2 and occupied by agricultural uses becomes AG -1 designation (currently represents the only active agricultural area within the city). Parcels immediately south of High Street currently zoned C -I is redesigned C -2 and 2.7 acre park (per the downtown study recommendations). Carlsberg Specific Plan area reflects OS -3 20% slope designation resulting an overall reduction in density. Area south of Los Angeles Avenue and west of Moorpark Avenue is designated medium residential rather than C -2. Known projects including Urban West, Peach Hill, southeast corner of Spring and High Streets, northeast corner of Los Angeles Avenue and Shasta Avenue are included in this alternative. Residential densities and commercial areas are reduced for areas south of Poindexter, west of Moorpark and east of Shasta Avenue. GPA request 89 -1 -(H) includes park use as requested by the city. I r MOORPARK GENERAL PLAN UPDATE ALTERNATIVE 3 This alternative represents the most intense development alternative and consists of existing general plan, the Carlsberg Specific Plan requests, as well as increased densities for the open space categories developed for Alternative 2 and increased densities elsewhere in the community. Specifically, the open space categories are modified as follows: the density for hillside areas with 20% slope or greater is increased to 1 dwelling unit per 1 acre (rural high); density for the OSLF, landform designation, is increased to 1 du /10- 40 acres; the OS-4, natural features designation acreage is reduced by approximately 48 acres. Alternative 3 summary:* Dwelling units increase by approximately 2,800 units (highest of the three alternatives) Industrial acreage and commercial acreage increase above current general plan by 40 and 60 acres respectively (highest of the three alternatives). Agriculture acreage within the city is reduced to 0. Open space increases by approximately 700 acres. Park acreage to population ratio is increased over general plan buildout (3.4 per 1,000 population). Population increases by approximately 8,000 persons (highest of the three alternatives). Employment is increased by approximately 1,200 persons. Based on the County average of 1 job per 1,437 sq. ft., jobs /housing ratio declines slightly below current general plan buildout ratio (.51 Alternative 3 vs. .53 current General Plan). A more realistic employee per sq. ft. ratio would result in an improved jobs /housing balance ratio. Average daily trips are increased by approximately 28,500 trips. All summary items are based on a comparison to existing general plan at buildout. 1 6 Alternative 3 traffic can be accommodated through the same traffic improvements recommended for alternative 1 (ie. baseline circulation system improvements and implementation of one of the combined SR -118 and SR -23 bypass scenarios). Specific Alternative 3 land use changes: Parcels located west of Gabbert currently designated I -2 are redesignated I -1. Residential densities generally increase in the downtown area north of High Street. Residential densities for areas south of New Los Angeles Avenue and west of Moorpark increase. Residential densities for areas north of New Los Angeles Avenue and south of High Street increase. Residential area (Avenida Colonia) northeast of SR -118 terminus currently designated medium residential becomes I -1. Currently designated I -2 areas immediately north of SR -118 terminus are designated I -1. Portions of the rural high designated area located immediately north of the above described area also change to I -1. L k PHILLPS BRANDY REDDICK MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Phillips FROM: Karen Gulley DATE: July 9, 1987 SUBJECT: Update on City of San Clemente's Annexation Fee The attached memo provides detailed background information on the assumptions and components of the City of San Clemente's annexation fee. Dated June, 1985, this memo was prepared by PBR with assistance from the City Attorney, City staff and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The issues surrounding the annexation fee, as discussed in the memo, are still timely and relevant for our purposes. The calculation of the annexation fee .�'or Talega has been updated below. A comparison of fees charged in other jr :isdictions is also provided for your information. 1. The City's annexation fee is $1,:''.)�-, /acre. Adjustments to the annexation fee are provided for in Chapter of the Municipal Code. Applying the same reasoning as used in the o c3inal memo, the total annexation fee can be adjusted as follows: Talega Valley County Portion 1906 acres @ $1700 /ac Less proportion of fee charged ft): water and sewer services which w4'11 be provided by Santa Margarita W er District (less 57.3% of total fe,: or $1,856,245) Less acreage devoted to permaner" open space which will not requi) City services (less 77% of Coun- acreage $1,065,346) = $3,240,200 $1,383,566 = $ 318,220 Adjusted Annexa- tion Fee Total PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE • IRVINE, CA 92714 • (714) 261 -8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII s t L k PHILLPS BRANDY REDDICK MEMORANDUM TO: Bill Phillips FROM: Karen Gulley DATE: July 9, 1987 SUBJECT: Update on City of San Clemente's Annexation Fee The attached memo provides detailed background information on the assumptions and components of the City of San Clemente's annexation fee. Dated June, 1985, this memo was prepared by PBR with assistance from the City Attorney, City staff and Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher. The issues surrounding the annexation fee, as discussed in the memo, are still timely and relevant for our purposes. The calculation of the annexation fee .�'or Talega has been updated below. A comparison of fees charged in other jr :isdictions is also provided for your information. 1. The City's annexation fee is $1,:''.)�-, /acre. Adjustments to the annexation fee are provided for in Chapter of the Municipal Code. Applying the same reasoning as used in the o c3inal memo, the total annexation fee can be adjusted as follows: Talega Valley County Portion 1906 acres @ $1700 /ac Less proportion of fee charged ft): water and sewer services which w4'11 be provided by Santa Margarita W er District (less 57.3% of total fe,: or $1,856,245) Less acreage devoted to permaner" open space which will not requi) City services (less 77% of Coun- acreage $1,065,346) = $3,240,200 $1,383,566 = $ 318,220 Adjusted Annexa- tion Fee Total PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE • LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE • IRVINE, CA 92714 • (714) 261 -8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII 2. A survey conducted in 1985 to determine annexation fees in twelve Orange County cities revealed that ten of the twelve cities did not impose any fees. Two cities, Irvine and La Habra, charged processing fees only. An update of this survey shows very little change. City 1985 Annex. Fee 1987 Annex. Fee Anaheim None $100 -300 (processing) Brea None $750 (processing) Irvine 0 -50 acres $1,100 0 -50 acres $1,100 51 -200 ac. $3,500 51 -200 ac. $3,500 200+ acres $5,000 200+ acres $5,000 Laguna Beach None None La Habra $480 (processing) $480 (processing) Newport Beach None None Orange None None Placentia None None San Juan None None Capistrano Tustin None None Villa park None None Yorba Linda None None Three cities outside Orange County were referenc e by San Clemente when the annexation fee was first established. The fees o! these cities have been up- dated as well. City Santa Barbara Beverly hills Los Angeles 1985 Annex. Fee 54,448 /acre 53,034 /ace None 1987 Annex. Fee 54,960 /acre 53,266 /acre None Please let me know if you need further information or clarification. Thanks. cc: John Jamison Gary Cook Bruce Tester Cheri Phelps JoAnn Sullivan Ken Ryan Wyk . f PHILLIPS BR ANDT RE KX M E M O R A N D U M June 12, 1985 jUty ` 3 uJ TO: Richard Reese• FROM: Jim FergusJW SUBJECT: City of San Clemente Annexation Fee Introduction Uraft We have concluded preliminary research regarding the city annexation fee. Our investigations included review of current city statutes, research covering the original ordinance and city memoranda, interviews with city staff and city attorney, research conducted by Gibson Dunn Crutcher, and an RBF survey of annexation fees imposed by other Orange County cities. Summary The city assesses a $1,700 per acre fee for annexations of land into its corporate boundaries, according to provisions contained in Chapter 33 of the city Municipal Code. The annexation fee is intended as a form of repayment to the city for expenses associated with capital improvements and debt service for major public facilities (identified as water, sewer, golf and general assets). Beach acquisition costs which were incurred in the mid -1960s are included in calculations of the assessment, but are a very minor aspect of the fee schedule. The annexation fee appears to include payments for capital expenses and debt service associated with water and sewer purposes; our understanding is that such fees are typi- cally included in connection fees the city imposes upon new development. PLANNING • ARCHITECTURE - LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTURE • ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH 18012 SKY PARK CIRCLE • IRVINE, CA 92714 - (714) 261 -8820 CALIFORNIA COLORADO HAWAII An understanding of the legal aspects of the annexation fee would most likely focus on the reasonableness of the fee; the purpose of the fee, given an array of other fees and the purpose of each; the services actually provided by the city and the relationship of the fee to any annex- ation in question; and, the actual existing level of debt for city ser- vices at the time of annexation, and the degree of benefit realized by the project. There are provisions in Chapter 33 which permit City Council adjustments to the fee, and provisions for scheduling of payments.. Authority for Fee The annexation fee is authorized by Chapter 33 of the city of San Clemente Municipal Code. The annexation fee was originally adopted, by Ordinance No. 466, in 1966. The fee at that time was $6UO /acre. The fee has been amended twice: 1978, Ord. No. 726, to $1,535 /acre and 1980, Ord. No. 722, to $1,700 /acre. The total amount in question for the Talega Valley annexa- tion area, using the $1,700 /acre fee and 1,905.6 acres to be annexed is $3,239,520. Fee Assumptions The basis of the fee is to pay for municipal improvements which have already been paid for by city taxpayers. In determining the $1,700 /acre amount, city staff in a December 11, 1979 memorandum identified a total cost of $19,467,458 for municipal costs. These costs are shown in four funds: general (city hall, beach acquisition, etc.), water, sewer and golf, and as summarized below: Fund Total % Total General $7,552,433 38.8% Water 5,375,379 27.6 Sewer 5,771,346 29.7 Golf 768,300 3.9 $19,467,458 100.0% 2 Dean Porter, city Director of Finance indicates that the city presently owes very little for principal or debt service payments associated with these. The exact amount remaining to be paid is not clear at this time. He has further indicated a lack of understanding as to how the above amounts were derived. We have not yet investigated background documents which would support the $19 million. The December 11, 1979 memorandum also indicates that the costs in question excluded improvements funded by federal and state grants, subventures, con- tributions and developer fees. Beach Acquisition Fund The annexation fee schedule has little if any relationship to beach acqui- sition costs. Beach areas were purchased for $1,238,720 in 1964 (April 6, 1967 memorandum) . $955,000 was funded by a general obligation bond, due to be retired in 1989. The balanced was funded by the State Land and Water Conservation Fund. Purchases were made subsequent to this date but appear to be relatively minor. It also appears that additional conserva- tion funds may have been received by the city and were later applied to the beach acquisition program. The remaining amount to be paid is includ- ed in the "general" fund indicated above. A schedule of payments is included as an attachment to this memorandum. Adjustments to Annexation Fee Chapter 33 of the Municipal Code provides for adjustments to annexation fees as follows: a. Section 33 -5, in addition to providing for adjustments, further provides that, "the city council may consider perty and improvements thereon posed for annexation which is for dedication for public streets), and may reduce such ment therefor." 3 the amount of pro - within the area pro - dedicated or offered usage (other than amount as an adjust- 0 b. Section 33 -7, in recognizing the potential for duplication of ser- vices and districts provides for the following: "If the city council determines and finds after con- sideration of the matter including, but not limited to, such factors as taxation by another agency, and district services and charges provided by another entity, it may waive taxation and payment for all or any part of such indebtedness or liability of the city contracted prior to or existing at the time of annexation." The City Council, based upon the above two sections, has ample justifica- tion to waive, at a minimum,. substantial amounts of the annexation fee. Regarding Section 33 -7 above and as noted, the latest city documentation of the derivation of the $1,700 /acre fee (staff memorandum dated 12- 11 -79) indicates the following: Fund Total % Total General $7,552,433 38.8% Water 5,375,379 27.6 Sewer 5,771,346 29.7 Golf 768,300 3.9 $19,467,458 100.0% Water and sewer funds, which account for 57.3 percent of total city costs, may be adjusted to zero because Talega Valley is entirely within the Santa Margarita Water District, which is another servicing and taxing 'entity. With a 57.3 percent reduction the annexation fee in question is $1,415,670.20. City Council may further adjust the remaining amount due to large portions of the area in question being within permanent open space, areas of which will be traversed and viewed from public trails. Additionally, such open space area will require little or no city services as they are undevel- oped. Of the 1,905.6 acres in question, approximately 1,154 acres (60.6 percent) are proposed for development purposes and 751.6 acres (39.4 percent) are proposed for open space. This further adjustment to the annexation fee would result in an adjusted annexation fee of $857,896.14. 4 Section 33 -5 appears, also, to provide for the opportunity, in effect, to apply annexation fees to public parkland and improvements. This is consis- tent with SMC intentions to dedicate and improve the community park. Payment Schedule Payment of the annexation is understood by the city to be due upon annexa- tion, although there is no specific statement to this effect in the code. Section 33 -6 provides for a deferred payment schedule and states: "When there has been a favorable vote by the elec- tors residing in any annexing territory, �the p�ro - ert therein shall be taxed in not to exceed ten substantially equal annual installments to pay the amount or adjusted amount of money ixe o repre- sent t e va ue to t e territor o munici al improve- ments already paid for by city taxpayers. The city council shall adopt a resolution not later than the day upon which it adopts the resolution of intention to call a special election within the sub- ject territory, setting forth such amount, the num- ber of annual installments in which such amount shall be paid and the procedure for the collection thereof with respect to each particular annexation." (underline added) While this applies to populated areas, it would appear that the circum- stances and need for deferred payments would be the same for the unpopula- ted Talega Valley as it would for any populated annexation area. City Council should, therefore, have the ability, if so desired, to establish such a payment schedule for Talega Valley if it proved necessary. Survey of Other Jurisdictions RBF conducted a survey of twelve cities in Orange County to determine annexation fees (February 28, 1985 memorandum). Ten cities do not impose fees. Two others, Irvine and La Habra, impose processing fees only (La Habra - $480; Irvine - $1,000 - $5,000 processing deposit). We. contacted three cities identified in a December 29, 1965 city staff memorandum used as background when the San Clemente fee was first estab- lished; results are as follows: 61 City 1965 Fee 1985 Fee Santa Barbara $1,000 /ac. $4,448/ac. Beverly Hills $2,000 /ac. $3,034/ac. + investigation fee ($232.60 - $361.55) Los Angeles $ 850 /ac. No longer assessing fee Los Angeles city staff indicated generally that their annexation fees were dropped on the premise that both the city and property owner benefited from an annexation. Additional Considerations of the Annexation Fee While the City Council was first considering the establishment of an annex- ation fee in 1965, the City 'Manager, in a memorandum dated January 18, 1965, presented a list of reasons supporting the propriety of such a fee. The reasons were as follows: 39 of 110 surveyed California cities impose an annexation charge. (Note that only 12 cities impose a direct charge. The other cities charge for bonded indebtedness, processing costs, utility extensions or a combination.) Annexation is not an inherent right but rather an extended privi- lege. Annexation provides rights to municipal services which are often more expensive by other means. Annexation considerably enhances property values. Cities experience both operating and capital demands upon limited resources. Therefore, the city should not be required to admit a large outside territory to both tangible and intangible municipal benefits finances through taxes previously paid by citizens. 6 Ordinance 466, the enabling ordinance, justifies the imposition of fees by stating that annexation confers untold benefits upon the territory. Advan- tages are provided such as fire, water, police, health, building and safe- ty, traffic, and many educational, recreational, sports, parks and cul- tural assets. Depreciated Value of City Improvements Aside from the fact that the above points could be contested, imposition of $1,700 fee, which is based upon total costs of city services /facilities divided by the total amount of existing city acreage, alternatively could be restructured to reflect the following factors: Municipal improvements previously purchased by taxpayers have been used for years by the taxpayers; new territories should not have to pay for past benefit to the city: The value of municipal improvements depreciates with time; a depreciated capital cost should be utilized rather than a replace- ment capital cost. Assumption of a proportion of current operating costs rather than purchased capital costs seems more equitable. To calculate more properly the value to each acre within the city of municipal improvements, the annexing territory acreage should be added to existing city acreage, and assessed against current capital costs (principal and debt service), not the past debts of the city. Legal Opinion Gibson Dunn Crutcher conducted initial research into applicable law to identify precedent which may be of value in clarifying the annexation fee. Statutes, cases and articles were reviewed. No specific, directly appli- cable references were identified. This initial investigation does not, however, diminish an understanding of the constitutionality of the annexa- tion fee. Annexation fees must rely upon a general theory of reasonable- ness. That is, the fees in question must reasonably relate to services 7 rendered to the property, and there must be a rational relationship of the fee to the kind of service being performed by the city. Fees should, at a minimum, reflect consideration of the following basic criteria: Fees should be fair and -not excessive; excessive in this case must be considered in light of other fees and the purposes of those fees (perhaps duplicative) such as connection fees for water and sewer. Fees should be for services actually provided, and must account for those fees of any districts actually provide service. Fees should be for the current costs (principal and debt service) and not for those costs paid by the city in the past which are no longer applicable. Conclusion City Council has a good deal of discretionary authority in establish an annexation fee and adjusting such fees to the specific circumstances of each application. There appears to be ample justification for a downward adjustment in the case of Talega Valley for the reasons discussed previous- ly in this memorandum, if the City Council is so inclined. Additionally, when considering the benefits of this project, including provisions for open space and the community park, there can be good support for "applica- tion" of any adjusted fee to the public park dedications and improvements proposed to be made by SMC. Such a proposal could result in a mutually agreeable solution to the fee, where both the city and SMC benefit. cc: Bruce Tester Jay Palchikoff Mike Burke Mindy Vest 0