Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutNB 11 FEE WAIVER REQ 04-21-80DATE e NEW BUSINESS No. 11 4-21-80 Itonorabie '.{a-,Tor and City Council Communit~ Develoement~ Department, Mike FEE ~'~'~=n ~wU~_~ '- QUAIL PLACE ~--~ area of condomini'~m conversions, some -'~,rr_mer~z ~rsjecTs face : :.~2ntiai of ~'~{~ ~ second · suiit ant~,~ adoption ef %ne triginal Crdi; }'~.c~ ,h2. _55'D), 10/16/72; }.:ecif~c~ill,~ Ordinance ~'~ (7 i/74), w~cb ..... ,~'..~ fee~ ~o cc<~oersions. ~ .... attached memorandum from Dr. R. ![ehneth Fleagle to r~' i;l}rad!in, ef the City Attorney's Office, out!~Res the chronolo2y oro!na!!ce .{nd how ="- 6 ~ ~ '~ to appzy such roes to n ~-~,-~: ~ . ~o.~,~ .... ~o~.s was rlade It also ~ ~iicat.2~ facts with r.: ~:zu-~ to thc. :5:oerific project' in ~Juestion aha eh~ .... {y~tions to tile ol~ Lnal buiider~ who was aware ~l!a~ this situat{.on .:auld arise. 3s an apartment project an original fee of $30,400.00 was paid. No',~, ~{ }~[nc ~-~ ~ondominiums, a new fee of $39,87~ is resuired by code. ia r: ~x,.~ no provision for "waiver", "credit" or "adjustment" of - '' ~ ~ . _ ~..at ,as the desired , ~,i .~rol~c to ~r F!eagte ' s reoort, .~ius. The applicant requests to pay only the difference between hie eld and new fee, of $9,400.00. If the Council were to agree with the proponent of fee reduction, it would be appropriate to direct that an ordinance providing for such occurances be prepared. Then the Council could grant the request based on such ordinance preparation. If the Council believes the ori<~inal provisions of the code are an accurate reflection of what is !2sired, the request should be denied and the full fee payment rcduired. NECOM:{ENDATION: Pleasure of the City Council Attachment 1980 ~qR. D.~,i; ;PRt:nLi~';, L, LPu' ..... ~"~ CITY ATTORNEY - ':, . : .... ' Ie-~° f,::r the purpc=-. ~ .. Cc~jnc(i :._.L .;ed Orc',:~nan.:_ ~;o z~,.: c.. ,, ,r. ¢ ..... , ' the ~" . ' ~" ' ,nci? ;,,'as a,a~-e chat the property ;:axes . (,s 4,}'~uact-' to pay s,'ovid~ng residential serv~ces~ a'~:~ <; the ;: >.,~ht~nn grew, costs oF cc,ern;;ent increased at a higher' ,',_5!c. The ,.Oqstrac%iOis tax v;as thus a tax "~i's off-set the costs of mc,is:nO :',',_;nir:f;}~,i services to the res'idents City. At the City Council meeting of Jult 1, 1974, the Ciw Administrator reported 7~ ~'~ r-, in- ~ an increase of 3.7~; in expenditures over the 19 ~-,~..-~.~v~ and that it would be necessary to sell th° old city hall ...... 4 . ~ p op~, ~y ;n om,er to have a contingency reserve of 3117,435. The City A'~torney had been previously 'instructed by the City Council to prepare an amendment to Ordinan[3 ;:o. 550 that would impose a tax upon units that were converteJ from apartments Co condominium status, for the purpose of providing off-setting revenues for s,unicipal services. It was noted ghat there are additional City servi~e costs resulting from the permanent character ~f condomimium occupancy as compared to apartment house ccfupancy. Adire~tcost is for refuse servlc~ which is paid by general fund c6iigation for individual services. An gpart~ent house owner contracts with tke refuse hauler for i~is servic=.. A condominium owner may receive curb-side can service at no direct charge, ,4hich is equivalemt to $30.00 per year ~iabi- i:,gy to the general fund per u=~it. Other costs in~iu~e the increased de~and for City services !il/ 7ermanent residents vs. transitory apartment occupants. This includes participation in recreation programs, park use, demands for higher Mr. Dan Spradlin April 8, 1950 P:~ge 2 Building Excise Tax !:,,el maintena,',.:~ service, election participation, ,~ ~ individual propert'/ ,.~ also note<i by the City ~ounc.1 c~iJuiy 1 i~'- Oral,fence No. ..- ~,'as unarlifii(,.~sl.¥ introdu.ced that L! J_~ conversion ,]:= az( ;' s=: ]; -.:c co; c- :-~i_ss was now governed by the State Sub:iivis'ior~ ~.i_~, .Ac;, ,~r..14h spec;fi';aii/ , ;,', ,~d, . ~i,~. ,~ reai~'irement for ~rkiap~ ........ cedi(:a~i:~:; :~ ~-:~' pursuant to the .~,. '~ ....... _?' ~.- '.he time of acioFSin, n of Ordinance No. 6~4, wi~ict~ ?o-~,~,' .... , ~.~ymen. ef .' fee f=,r~ ,i..,=.~ con,,ersion of apartments to c-n= .... . ~'. s~ ~ne ~" Council . ~ ~',.~are ?;at :--:~i:;,_,~,~ ~ts pay ~. L af m~r'.ici~:~i ser./ices, ihe measure was ~hus :: be used fo~' ~..ny lawful m'.;: [:-;-,~._. :..:r)os~ . un~,, character if occupant7 evr:~l : ~ ,- L, se, so long as the de,.,e!op~ent; or cham'~e ~ceh ;~l:~.;~ r ~';~r '~-.-.;]~r, 1971 ':-he developer .~ ti~e Vandenber~ ' st~cced as ~,,. ..... n~u~:,~ and :: ~,~t so~e one ~]se,,'o~= ~ 3irce the City determined .,'eli iP, advacte cf ?; d'=;? :f the~e unit addicional revenue would be reqLiired bY the C~.ty there appears te be no justification for requesting relief from a prior ::;' .- cable ordinance, especially since the original builder had him and the present owner purchased the property sur~.]?:':': tc the ordinan~. % ~f the Ci:y then in effect. , c~,,s~,uct~on fees is even more defensi~ The justification fo~' conversion and s~_;bsequent to Proposition 13 because of the costs of munici~.~l ~ ....... ~dinn p~operty tax revenue. R. !<enneth Fleasle, D.P.A. Community Development Consultant i-iKF/h I r :c-- :able Members of the i : Council '~- ' of T,J. st4~ 3n iontennial %'ay 3'3~ ~ln, CA 92'380 April 11, 1980 R E: Prooosai for PayRe :t of Rcdu: , ' Fees i ,'.i:.~ l z ..... l~ ~Plv ~ :-P~"~"E~lh _~°r_~.z .... On Oeh?.if of Ozail Place Dove~ ~" ..... :- ' ~o~_,;.,..,,,~ Cori,:~:atzon, request : abv made that the City Council of Tustin co ~ ..... Z at its 21, 1980 mJeting, th? fo!low'[ng proposal: Quail Place proposes to pay the sum of $9,400.00 in full satksfaction of the development fee required by Tustin's City Code Section 2603, as amended by Ordinance No. 772. Said amount represents the difference between what was paid when the Fuller Gardens Apartment Complex was originally constructed and what would be required if the Complex was being constructed toda'/. Qua[! Place requasts that consideration of this proposal be c!aced on the agenda of the April 21, 1980 meeting of the City Council of Tustin and that time be hi!Pried to present argument in favor of passage of this proposal. {---'N'Verv trul ~vours, /,, k JO[~:; C. GA?IBLE JCG: dlb: 14 cc. Mr. Donald Berman Hr. Dan Blankenship