Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 05211996 - D15 c �--$E _L :O,.ei IlJ :2 • � •' - 'i �''� ontra .;. •' Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS o'' "'''''�"=� County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON �;os = - •c3~ DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ra"coiiK DATE: May 21, 1996 SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CHRIS MOULIS FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON MARCH 20, 1996, RELATIVE TO SCHOOL IMPACT FEES FOR 2987-RZ, DP 3008-92 AND SD 7689, IN THE OAKLEY AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Deny the appeal and uphold the Administrative Decision of the County Zoning Administrator to require the Developer to comply with the Conditions of 2987-RZ, DP 3008-92 and SD 7689 in regards to school impacts. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In 1995 concern rose over the meaning and requirements of the "Will Serve" Conditions imposed on developments relative to school impact fee requirements for projects in the East County area. The concern involved projects approved after the Board had adopted the School Facility Amendment to the General Plan in late 1992 . The concern involved the level of fees that should be imposed on developments that involved approval of a legislative act (rezoning) after 1992. In November 1995, the Board received a report from the ,GMEDA Director requiring the determination of fees to be paid to schools consistent with the "Will Serve" Conditions intentions. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: x— YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMIT EE APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON May 21, 1996 APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED OTHER X SEE ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: 1,4,5,2 NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: - MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:ART BERESFORD 335-1212 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 21, 1996 cc: Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Chris Moulis THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Bellecci & Associates AN COUNVII, ADMI `RATOR East CC School Financing Authority Liberty Union High School Dist. BY � , DEPUTY Oakley Elementary School Dist. Byron Union School Dist. County Counsel AB/df bo3 : 2987rz.bo Page Two On November 28, 1995 the Board accepted the report and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to determine whether the involved projects were exempted from the "Will Serve" Condition under criteria specified in the GMEDA Director's report. The criteria were as follows: Exclusions: 1) Project is designated for senior housing, very low-income housing, as designated by the Contra Costa County Housing Element, or studio and one bedroom apartments. 2) An agreement has been reached previously between the developer and school district to satisfy impact. 3) Need for school facilities was not provided at the time of project review and approval. 4) There was no mitigation required at the time of approval. 5) No relationship was established between project impact and project mitigation. On February 28, 1996, March 6, 1996 and March 20, 1996 the Zoning Administrator held meetings with the developers, their representatives and the representatives of the East County School Financing Authority to try and reach agreements and to determine the level of school fees that were to be applied to particular developments. In the case of 2987-RZ, DP 3008-92 and SD 7689 (a 225 lot development at the east end of Malicoat, Douglas and Hill Avenues, in the Oakley area) , the Zoning Administrator made a finding that the Conditions of Approval for this project in regards to school mitigation required the developer and the school districts (Oakley Elementary and Liberty High School Districts) to work out an agreement on the level of fees required to satisfy the "Will Serve" conditions for this project's requirements. Thus, the Zoning Administrator found that the project was not exempt from the condition. The Zoning Administrator's decision was made on March 20, 1996. On April 18, 1996, Chris Moulis appealed the Zoning Administrator's decision. His letter of appeal is attached. Mr. Moulis is requesting that the fee be limited to $3, 256 be applied to his project as it has to several other projects in the area. During the Zoning Administrator review process, the school district's attorney sent a letter outlining a compromise fee amount for the projects that were approved within the time frame between 1993 and 1995. The suggested fee amounts were: 1) For those projects approved in 1993 , 25% of the current Agreement mitigation amount. Presently, the mitigation amount for both high school and elementary school districts is $13 , 024 per unit. 25% of the mitigation amount would be $3, 256. 2) For those projects approved in 1994, 60% of the current Agreement mitigation amount ($7,814 per unit) . 3 . For those projects approved in 1995, 80% of the current Agreement mitigation amount ($10,419 per unit) . The P-1 Rezoning and Final Development Plan for the project was approved on January 24, 1995 and the Subdivision on March 6, 1995 by the East County Regional Planning Commission. Since this project was approved in 1995, under the compromise offered by the school district the fee per unit would be about $10,419 per unit. .r Page Three The "Will Serve" Condition applied to this project reads as follows: Accommodation must be made of the additional enrollment of students that may be added to the Liberty Union High School District and the Oakley Union Elementary School District due to the changes that would be allowed by the site rezoning. This can be accomplished by several arrangements or combinations thereof, such as payment of school impact fees plus -other contributions from the developer, provision of new facilities or formation of a funding mechanism such as a Mello-Roos District. Payment of school impact fees alone would not reduce this impact to a less than significant level because such fees are not sufficient to cover the cost of constructing new facilities. The contribution from the developer could take the form of portable classrooms, construction of facilities. or an additional fee, as is satisfactory to the Liberty Union High School DISTRICT and the Oakley Union Elementary School District that has been agreed upon with the development community. This shall be accomplished prior to recording the final map for the project or any phase of the project. The particular wording of the Condition was done by the Board in approving 2987-RZ and DP 3008-92 in January, 1995. Based upon the administrative record and the wording of the "Will Serve" Condition, the Zoning Administrator found that additional school mitigation was required for the project and found that it was not exempt under criteria adopted by the Board. Staff recommends that the Board 'uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and require the application to reach a fee agreement with the school districts, or otherwise fulfill the provisions of the condition as written. It should be noted that no Final Maps are currently proposed for approval for filing. It is at that point that the condition must be shown to have been met. Attachments: 1. Letter of Appeal 2 . January 16, 1996 School District letter. 3 . Letters received in 1992 and 1994 from School District representative regarding project. The public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the issues . Supervisor Torlakson advised that he wanted to take another look at the Moulis appeal and put it over for one week but as to the other appeals the exclusions that are mentioned here by staff apply, and he moved approval of the other exclusions and putting off the Moulis appeal for one week. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. Supervisor Smith clarified that the motion and second were to deny the appeals except for 2987-RZ which would be continued for one week and 2985-RZ and 3017-RZ which were both withdrawn by the appellant . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the Administrative Appeal by Chris Moulis from the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding exemptions of Subdivision 7869, 2987-RZ and DP 3008-91 from the Will Serve Condition of Approval related to mitigation of potential impacts on schools in the Oakley area is CONTINUED to June 4, 1996, at 2 P.M. in the Board Chambers . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE BOARD that the appeal by the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority is DENIED and the decision of the Zoning Administrator finding that the projects involved with 2970-RZ, 2991-RZ and 2998-RZ are exempt from imposition of additional school mitigation fees under criteria adopted by the Board is UPHELD; and the withdrawal of the appeals by the appellant on 2985-RZ and 3017-RZ is ACCEPTED. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 15 ' MAY 21, 1996 This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the administrative appeal by Chris Moulis from the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding exemptions of Subdivision 7869, 2987-RZ and DP 3008-92 from the Will Serve condition of approval related to mitigation of potential impacts on schools, Oakley area; and hearing on the Administrative Appeal by the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority from the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding exemptions of certain development applications (2970-RZ, 2985-RZ, 2998-RZ and 3017-RZ) from the Will Serve condition of approval related to mitigation of potential impacts on schools, East Contra Costa County area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeals and noted that the appeal by Mr. Moulis differed from the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority' s appeals because of the detail included in that condition of approval which was placed at the time that the project was approved by the Board. The Board determined to hear all of the appeals simultaneously. The following persons presented testimony: Chris Moulis, appellant, requested that the Board reconsider and go back to the intent of the approval of the project to be on an equal playing field with all the other projects; Greg Lyall, 601 University Avenue #265, Sacramento, representing the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority, spoke in support of the appeal and that the additional mitigation for the five projects is warranted; Lee Kaufthen, 1820 Galindo, Concord, representing 3C' s DEVCO, Subdivision 2991-RZ, advised that they will pay the statutory fees and that applying the 1995 standards to a project that started in 1987 is not fair; Daniel Curtin, McCutchen Law Firm, representing SEECON on 2998-RZ, urged that the Board uphold the Zoning Administrator' s findings; Steven Garrett, 1855 Gateway Boulevard, Concord, representing Centex Homes, spoke on 2985 and 3017, advised that they have met the condition and will pay the Stirling fees; Subsequently, the Board was advised of the withdrawal of the appeals on 2985-RZ and 3017-RZ . '� " • Contra •' = Costa TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS '� County FROM: HARVEY E. BRAGDON '•" j. = v` DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT e�SrA coiiK -� DATE: May 21, 1996 SUBJECT: APPEAL BY THE EAST CONTRA COSTA SCHOOL FINANCING AUTHORITY FROM THE ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION OF THE ZONING ADMINISTRATOR ON MARCH 20, 1996, RELATIVE TO SCHOOL IMPACT FEES FOR 2970-RZ, 2985-RZ, 2991-RZ, 2998-RZ AND 3017-RZ, EAST CONTRA COSTA AREA. SPECIFIC REQUEST(S) ,OR RECOMMENDATIONS) & BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDATIONS Deny the appeal and uphold the Administrative Decision of the County Zoning Administrator finding that the projects involved with 2970-RZ, 2985-RZ, 2991-RZ, 2998-RZ AND 3017-RZ are exempt from imposition of additional school mitigation fees under criteria adopted by the Board. FISCAL IMPACT None. BACKGROUNDIREASONS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS In 1995 concern arose over the meaning and requirements of the "Will Serve" Conditions imposed on developments relative to school impact fee requirements for projects in the East County area. The concern involved projects approved after the( Board had adopted the School Facility Amendment to the General Plan in late 1992. The concern involved the level of fees that should be imposed on developments that involved approval of a legislative act (rezoning) after 1992. In November 199511 the Board received a report from the GMEDA Director requiring the determination of fees to be paid to schools consistent with the "Will Serve" Conditions intentions. CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: X YES SIGNATURE RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITT E APPROVE OTHER SIGNATURE(S) : ACTION OF BOARD ON may APPROVED AS RECOMMENDED x OTHER x SEE ADDENDUM FOR BOARD ACTION VOTE OF SUPERVISORS I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A UNANIMOUS (ABSENT TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN AYES: 1,4,5,2 NOES: ACTION TAKEN AND ENTERED ON THE ABSENT: ABSTAIN: MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. Contact:ART BERESFORD 335-1212 Orig: Community Development Department ATTESTED May 21, 1996 Cc: Public Works-Attn: Mitch Avalon PHIL BATCHELOR, CLERK OF Pinnell & Kingsley THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS Bellecci & Associates AND OU ADM STRATOR East CC School Financing Authority a Liberty Union High School Dist. BY , DEPUTY Oakley Elementary School Dist. Byron Union School Dist. County Counsel AB/df bo3:2987rz.bo 2 On November 28, 1995 -the Board accepted the report and referred the matter to the Zoning Administrator to determine whether the involved projects were exempted from the "Will Serve" Condition under criteria specified in the GMEDA Director's report. The criteria were as follows: Exclusions: 1) Project is designated for senior housing, very low-income housing, as designated by the Contra Costa County Housing Element, or studio and one bedroom apartments. 2) An agreement has been reached previously between the developer and school district to satisfy impact. 3) Need for school facilities was not provided at the time of project review and approval. 4) There was no mitigation required at the time of approval. 5) No relationship was established between project impact and project mitigation. On February 28, 1996, March 6, 1996 and March 20, 1996 the Zoning Administrator held meetings with the developers, their representatives and the representatives of the East County School Financing Authority to try and reach agreements and to determine the level of school fees that were to be imposed on particular developments. On March 20, 1996 the Zoning Administrator made decisions on the 10 projects before him on whether or not the "Will Serve" Conditions required additional mitigation fees or that they were exempt from additional fees based on one or more of the criteria developed by the Board when they review the report by the GMEDA Director in November 1995. On April 19, 1996 the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority filed an appeal regarding several of the projects that the Zoning Administrator exempted on March 20, 1996 from additional fees under the "Will Serve" criteria adopted by the Board in November 1995. The projects appealed are: Size Project Files Lots) Area Rezoning Approval Date 2970-RZ, 3003-91 39 Oakley January 24, 1994 SD7681 2985-RZ, 3005-92 288 Byron, October 23 , 1993 SD7679 Discovery Bay 2991-RZ, 3011--92 114 Oakley July 13 , 1993 SD7797 2998-RZ, 3024-92 248 Oakley December 14, 1993 SD7662 3017-RZ, 3020-93 97 Byron, December 13, 1993 SD7881 Discovery Bay The East Contra Costa School Financing Authority's letter of appeal is attached. 3 The "Will Serve" Conditions that were applied to the various projects are as follow: For 2970-RZ, DP 3003-91, SUB 7681 and 2998-RZ, DP 3024-92, SUB 7662 : Prior to recording the final map of this subdivision, will serve letters from the Oakley School District and the Liberty Unition High School District shall be submitted. For 2985-RZ, DP 3005-92, SUB 7679 (Two conditions) : Prior to recording the final map for this development, a "will serve" letter from the Liberty Union High School District shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. In the alternative, submit evidence satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator that the applicant has complied with all legally established school facilities funding requirements. Prior to recording the final map for this development, a "will serve" letter from the Byron Elementary School District shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. In the alternative, submit evidence satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator that the applicant has complied with all legally established school facilities funding requirements. For 2991-RZ, DP 3011-92, SUB 7797 : The applicant shall receive a "will serve" letter from the Liberty Union High School District prior to the filing of the final map. For 3017-RZ, DP 3020-93, SUB 7881 (Two conditions) : Prior to recording the final map for this development, a "will serve" letter from the Liberty Union High School District shall be submitted to the Zoning Administrator. In the alternative, submit evidence satisfactory to the Zoning Administrator that the applicant has complied with all legally established school facilities funding requirements. Prior to issuance of the building permit for each residential unit, applicant shall pay to Byron Union School District a fee of $2 . 75 per square foot of assessable space within the residential unit. The fee would be full satisfaction of the applicant's obligation to the school district pursuant to Sections 66995et seq of the Government Code for that unit. As mentioned above, on March 20, 1996, the Zoning Administrator found that the above projects were exempt from additional mitigation fees in excess of that required by State law. For 2970-RZ and 2991-RZ: The criteria that the Zoning Administrator used to determine that the following projects were exempt are as follows: 2970-RZ and 2991-RZ: Criteria #4: there was no mitigation required at the time of project approval; and #5: No relationship was established between project impact and project mitigation. The Zoning Administrator, upon review of the administrative record of these projects and the review of verbal and written comments received at the various meeting held in February and March 1996 found that he could not make an administrative decision that additional school mitigation fees would be required. 4 The school letters received on 2970-RZ from the Liberty Union School District called for a "Will Serve" letter requirement for the Conditions of Approval (attached) . No letters were received from the Oakley School District. In the case of 2991-RZ, a letter was received from the Liberty Union School District and a letter with general, non-specific requirements was received (attached) . No letters were received from the Oakey School District. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator and exempt the projects from additional fees. As an alternative, the Board could find that a compromise fee is acceptable, perhaps the a mitigation fee, outlined in the letter of appeal of the School Financing Authority. In the case of #2970-RZ, staff recommends the 1993 fee, in light of the fact that the project was under process in 1993 , the subdivision was approved in 1993 and the rezoning approval was in very early (January) 1994. No development has taken place in these two projects. 2985-RZ (Centex I1 In the case of 2985-RZ (Centex I) , the Zoning Administrator made a finding that agreements had been reached between the school districts (Byron Elementary School District and Liberty Union School District) (Criteria #2) and the fact that the high school condition set a maximum amount. The East contra Costa School Financing Authority is appealing the portion of the decision effecting Liberty Unition School District only as the developer has reached agreement on required mitigation measures for the Byron School District During the hearing process the Conditions of Approval were modified to those shown above with the addition of the second sentence that limits fees to the legally established school fees. The letter from the Liberty Union School District's consultant received by staff during processing is attached. The letter is general in nature. The Zoning Administrator decision on this matter reached on March 20, 1996 should be upheld and the project be exempt from additional fees. The project was approved under 2985-RZ (October 1993) and is presently under construction and final maps have been recorded for three of four phases. 2998-RZ (Stonewood) : In the case of the project approved under 2998-RZ, the Zoning Administrator made a finding that it was exempt under criteria #3: The need for school facilities was not provided at the time of project review and approval; #4 : There was no mitigation required at the time of project approval; and #5: No relationship was established between project impact and project mitigation. Upon review of the Administrative record the Zoning Administrator made a finding that this project was exempt from imposition of additional school fees. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the decision of the Zoning Administrator in this matter and deny the appeal. The project was approved in December 1993. To date, no development has taken place. 5 As an alternative, the Board could impose additional fees, perhaps the 25% mitigation fee ($3,256 per unit) requested by the School Financing Authority. 3017-RZ (Centex II) : In the case of the project approved under 3017-RZ the Zoning Administrator found that the project was exempt from the imposition of additional fees under Criteria #2: An agreement was reached between the developer and the school district which satisfied the impact; and #3: The need for school facilities was not provided at the time of project review and approval. In this case the appellant is only appealing the "Will Serve" condition is so far as it applies to the fees requested by the Liberty Union School District. This project is part of the larger Centex I development approved under 2985-RZ. The "will serve" conditions are largely the same as those for 2985-RZ. Based upon the testimony given and the administrative record in the file, the Zoning Administrator found that this project was exempt from the imposition of additional school mitigation fees about that required by State law. Staff recommends that the Board uphold the Zoning Administrator decision and deny the appeal of the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority. The project was approved on December 13, 1994 . To date no development activity has occurred. Attachments: 1. Letter of Appeal 2 . Letters received on the various projects from the School District's during processing. ADDENDUM TO ITEM D. 15 MAY 21, 1996 This is the time noticed by the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors for hearing on the administrative appeal by Chris Moulis from the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding exemptions of Subdivision 7869, 2987-RZ and DP 3008-92 from the Will Serve condition of approval related to mitigation of potential impacts on schools, Oakley area; and hearing on the Administrative Appeal by the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority from the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding exemptions of certain development applications (2970-RZ, 2985-RZ, 2998-RZ and 3017-RZ) from the Will Serve condition of approval related to mitigation of potential impacts on schools, East Contra Costa County area. Dennis Barry, Community Development Department, presented the staff report on the appeals and noted that the appeal by Mr. Moulis differed from the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority' s appeals because of the detail included in that condition of approval which was placed at the time that the project was approved by the Board. The Board determined to hear all of the appeals simultaneously. The following persons presented testimony: Chris Moulis, appellant, requested that the Board reconsider and go back to the intent of the approval of the project to be on an equal playing field with all the other projects; Greg Lyall, 601 University Avenue #265, Sacramento, representing the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority, spoke in support of the appeal and that the additional mitigation for the five projects is warranted; Lee Kaufthen, 1820 Galindo, Concord, representing 3C' s DEVCO, Subdivision 2991-RZ, advised that they will pay the statutory fees and that applying the 1995 standards to a project that started in 1987 is not fair; Daniel Curtin, McCutchen Law Firm, representing SEECON on 2998-RZ, urged that the Board uphold the Zoning Administrator' s findings; Steven Garrett, 1855 Gateway Boulevard, Concord, representing Centex Homes, spoke on 2985 and 3017, advised that they have met the condition and will pay the Stirling fees; Subsequently, the Board was advised of the withdrawal of the appeals on 2985-RZ and 3017-RZ . i�il✓ The public hearing was closed. The Board discussed the issues . Supervisor Torlakson advised that he wanted to take another look at the Moulis appeal and put it over for one week but as to the other appeals the exclusions that are mentioned here by staff apply, and he moved approval of the other exclusions and putting off the Moulis appeal for one week. Supervisor Rogers seconded the motion. Supervisor Smith clarified that the motion and second were to deny the appeals except for 2987-RZ which would be continued for one week and 2985-RZ and 3017-RZ which were both withdrawn by the appellant . IT IS BY THE BOARD ORDERED that the hearing on the Administrative Appeal by Chris Moulis from the decision of the Zoning Administrator regarding exemptions of Subdivision 7869, 2987-RZ and DP 3008-91 from the Will Serve Condition of Approval related to mitigation of potential impacts on schools in the Oakley area is CONTINUED to June 4 , 1996, at 2 P.M. in the Board Chambers . IT IS FURTHER ORDERED BY THE BOARD that the appeal by the East Contra Costa School Financing Authority is DENIED and the decision of the Zoning Administrator finding that the projects involved with 2970-RZ, 2991-RZ and 2998-RZ are exempt from imposition of additional school mitigation fees under criteria adopted by the Board is UPHELD; and the withdrawal of the appeals by the appellant on 2985-RZ and 3017-RZ is ACCEPTED.