HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 149-95 CalifHighlandInLieuRESOLUTION NO. 149 - 95
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN
ACCEPTING PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE FOR
TRACT 5926 CALIFORNIA HIGHLANDS
AND REJECTING PROTEST
WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 9.28 of the City of Dublin Municipal Code, each subdivider of
land classified by the City of Dublin Zoning Ordinance for residential use shall, as a Condition of Approval
for a Final Subdivision Map, dedicate or reserve lands, pay fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both,
for park and/or recreational purposes; and
WHEREAS, in its approval of the Tentative Map of the subject Tract, the City Council of the City
of Dublin did impose conditions in accordance with Chapter 9.28 of the aforesaid Municipal Code that a
fee in lieu of land dedication for park and recreational facilities is to be paid, said fee to be used for the
development of park and recreational facilities within a period of five years from the date of adoption of
this resolution to serve the residents of the subject Tract; and
WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works and the Planning Director have calculated the amount of
the In-Lieu Fee as set forth in Attachment "A"; and
WHEREAS, the City Engineer is in receipt of a remittance amount as prescribed in accordance
with Chapter 9.28 of the Municipal Code, furnished by the Tract Developer, and described as follows:
Tract:
Subdivider:
Amount:
Tentative Planned Use:
5926
Kaufman and Broad of Northern California
$665,531
Park and recreation facilities which benefit residents
of Tract 5926
WHEREAS, said remittance was accompanied by a protest (Letter of December 5, 1995); and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered said protest and finds that it has not been timely filed
pursuant to Government Code Section 66020 in that the protest was not made at the time of approval of
the Tentative Map or within 90 days of imposition of the In Lieu Fee; and
WHEREAS, the City Council further finds that the protest lacks merit for the reasons set forth in
Attachment "A";
Page 1
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the protest is denied and the aforesaid remittance is
hereby accepted as performance of said Subdivider's obligation under Chapter 9.28 of the aforesaid
Municipal Code.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 12th day of December, 1995.
AYES: Councilmembers Barnes, Burton, Howard, Moffatt and Mayor Houston
NOES: None
AB SENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
g:\deveop\donlan~respkded
K2/dec- 9 5/re spkded. doc
Page 2
ATTACHMENT "A" OF RESOLUTION
CALCULATION OF PARKLAND IN-LIEU FEE
TRACT 5926 CALIFORNIA HIGHLANDS
Formula: A x B x C
D
"A" = the park and recreation area required per dwelling, based on the type of dwelling units of the
proposed subdivision and the park area per one thousand people in the City. For attached single-family,
duplex, or multifamily dwelling units, "A" = 0,010 acres per unit.
"B" = the number of dwelling units in the proposed subdivision, in this case 246.
"C" = the current market value of the developable acreage of the area to be subdivided. In this case,
Kaufman and Broad is paying $4.5 million for the entire project, excluding the 0.90 acre land trade with
the City. Since the open space is not developable and has only economic value for grazing and as a buffer
for the residents, Staff has estimated that 90% of the purchase price is for the developable portion of the
land and 10% is for open space. The value of the developable land is .90 x $4,500,000, or $4,050,000.
Note that Kaufman and Broad, in their protest letter, has used $10,000 per acre as the value of the open
space. This represents 38% of the total purchase price of the project land. Staff feels that this open space
land has only minimal value as it is not buildable from a topography or General Plan/zoning standpoint. It
is being dedicated to the East Bay Regional Park District at no charge simply to serve the development as a
buffer to other development.
"D" = the developable acreage of the land to be subdivided. The area of the parcel encompassing the units
and streets is 14.97 acres, not including the 0.90 acre parcel traded with the City. Note that Kaufman and
Broad, in their protest letter, has included the graded 2:1 open space slopes and the water tank site and
tank access road in their calculation for developable land. The definition of"developable acreage" in
Section 9.04.060 of the Municipal Code "includes the areas lotted for residential uses including streets, but
does not include open space parcels such as creeks, ridgelines, and other areas not allowed to be built upon
by the General Plan or other City policies."
The 0.90 acre parcel traded from the City has not been included in the area nor in the value of this parcel,
as it was not part of the Tentative Map, and the transfer will not be made until the Final Map is recorded.
The calculation is therefore:
0.010 acres x 246 units x $4,050,000 = $665,531
14.97 acres
CREDIT FOR PRIVATE OPEN SPACE
Municipal Code Section 9.28.060A allows a credit if the developer provides park improvements to the
"dedicated land." No land is being dedicated; so this subsection is not applicable.
Page 3
Municipal Code Section 9.28.060B allows that, as determined by the advisory agency (the City Council in
approving the Tentative Map), planned developments shall be eligible to receive a credit for private open
space and recreational facilities in the subdivision not to exceed 25% of fees, provided that it meets the
following four criteria:
1. Private open space is at least one half(I/2) acre in area with its smallest dimension being at least
one hundred feet (100') clear excluding yards and setbacks normally required by zoning provisions;
,
Private open space and recreational facilities are owned and maintained by a homeowner's
association, are available to all residents of the subdivision without restriction, and are designated
for park and recreational purposes by recorded covenants which run with the land, and cannot be
defeated or eliminated without consent of the City Council;
3. Private open space and facilities are suitable for active park and recreation purposes, taking into
consideration such factors as shape, topography, access, and improvements proposed;
4. Are in accord with the principles and standards for local parks contained in the park and recreation
element of the City of Dublin General Plan.
In this case, the Council as the advisory agency in approving the Tentative Map did not approve credit for
private open space and recreation facilities. In addition, the only private recreation facility contains a small
pool which does not meet any of the four criteria required,
1. The parcel does not meet the minimum size required by the ordinance.
2. The proposed CC&R's do not include a covenant that gives the City Council the power to consent
to amendments regarding pool usage.
3. The pool area is too small to be considered suitable for active park and recreation purposes.
The City' s Parks and Open Space Element of the General Plan and the Parks and Recreation
Master Plan call for large pool complexes and do not provide for pools in neighborhood parks.
(See Parks and Recreation Master Plan, Guiding Policy 1.6, Action Program lg and pages 17
[adopted standard size for swimming pools], 22 [discussion re: aquatic facility], and 65 [Aquatic
Center Standards].
Based on the previous analysis, this subdivision is not entitled to parkland fee credit for its small pool
facility.
This calculation is based on Dublin Municipal Code Chapter 9.28 and Section 9.04.060 [Definition of
Developable Acreage]; and Government Code Section 66477.
Page 4