Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMODIFICATION TO CITY OF OROVILLE AIRPORT LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PLAN ZONE BOUNDARIESI E I 11 BUTTE COUN* AIRPORT LAND.USACOMMISSION 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-77.35 MEMORANDUM TO: ALUC Members and Interested Agencies & Entities FROM: Carl Durling, Associate Planner, Development Services DATE: December 15, 2004 SUBJECT: Modification to City of Oroville Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan zone boundaries Summary In a letter to the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) dated October 15, 2004, (Exhibit A with attachments), the City of Oroville proposes to .change the zone boundaries of the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) by reverting back to the boundaries originally proposed in the Final Draft of the 2000 ALUCP. This proposal, shown in Pink color, would affect three unincorporated area parcels south of Grand Avenue by changing them from the "C" zone to the more restrictive `B-2". zone, and affect approximately 141 unincorporated area parcels north and northeast of the airport by changing them from the "D" zone to the more restrictive "C" zone. The areas shown in Green would be changed from more restrictive to less restrictive. Analysis Attached, as Exhibit "B," is a map prepared by the City of Oroville. This map reflects, in Pink color, the proposed changes of increased restriction, and in Green color areas of decreased restriction. The chart below shows the land use requirements for the three zones. Zone Residential Density du/ac Other Uses (people/ac) Req'd Open Land Prohibited Uses Other Development Conditions Hazards to flight Airspace review (Physical —Height, for objects >100 D No Limit No Limit No Requirement visual, electronic feet tall interference, attraction of birds) 5 acre minimum Maximum of 10% Children schools, Deed notice parcel size, or 100 people day care centers, required. minimum of 4 units on site, 300 libraries, Airspace review C per acre per acre hospitals, required for maximum. nursing homes, objects >I00 feet hazards to flight. tall Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of December 15, 2004 Page 1 of 3 BUTTE COUN* AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 Extracted from Table 2A of the 2000 ALUCP The year 2000 Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) prepared by Shutt Moen Associates showed curvilinear zone boundary lines. In a letter to the ALUC, the City requested that these boundary lines be modified for the Oroville Airport by matching the boundary lines to existing property lines where possible. This request was granted, and reflected in the final adopted ALUCP. All of the studies and analysis prepared and conducted by Shutt Moen Associates were reflected in and by the curvilinear zone boundary lines. The City is now requesting that the zone boundary lines be reverted back from the property line based boundaries to the originally proposed curvilinear line based boundaries, as reflected in Exhibit `B." The purpose of the request is to change several parcels within the corporate limits of 7.he City of Oroville back to lesser restrictive ALUCP zones. These parcels are shown in green in Exhibit B. This would then allow the City to rezone these properties to a higher density than would be permitted under the current ALUCP zones. On November 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Oroville adopted a motion of intent to approve zone changes on one or more of these parcels. This was done to save time if the ALUC adopts the zone boundary changes as requested. In addition to the changes within the corporate limits of the City of Oroville, a considerable number of parcels in the unincorporated area are affected. These parcels (in Green and Pirk) are those outside of the City Limit boundary shown on the map as a black dashed line. All of the property owners affected by an increase in restriction (Pink) were notified. Environmental Determination On December 20, 2000, the ALUC approved the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and determined that "there is no substantial evidence that the proposed plan will have a significant effect on the environment;" and adopted a Negative Declaration. Under Section 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act a project is exempt from CEQA analysis, such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration, if the local jurisdiction can determine. that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. After reviewing the City of Oroville proposal to change the ALUCP zone boundaries, it was determined that the proposed change is covered by this general rule Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of December 15, 2004 Page 2 of 3 5 acre minimum Maximum of 20% Children schools, Deed notice average parcel size. 50 people on day care centers, required. site, 100 per libraries, Airspace review acre hospitals, required for B- maximum. nursing homes, objects >100 feet 2 high noise- tall sensitive uses (e.g. outdoor h theaters), and hazards to flight. Extracted from Table 2A of the 2000 ALUCP The year 2000 Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (ALUCP) prepared by Shutt Moen Associates showed curvilinear zone boundary lines. In a letter to the ALUC, the City requested that these boundary lines be modified for the Oroville Airport by matching the boundary lines to existing property lines where possible. This request was granted, and reflected in the final adopted ALUCP. All of the studies and analysis prepared and conducted by Shutt Moen Associates were reflected in and by the curvilinear zone boundary lines. The City is now requesting that the zone boundary lines be reverted back from the property line based boundaries to the originally proposed curvilinear line based boundaries, as reflected in Exhibit `B." The purpose of the request is to change several parcels within the corporate limits of 7.he City of Oroville back to lesser restrictive ALUCP zones. These parcels are shown in green in Exhibit B. This would then allow the City to rezone these properties to a higher density than would be permitted under the current ALUCP zones. On November 16, 2004, the City Council of the City of Oroville adopted a motion of intent to approve zone changes on one or more of these parcels. This was done to save time if the ALUC adopts the zone boundary changes as requested. In addition to the changes within the corporate limits of the City of Oroville, a considerable number of parcels in the unincorporated area are affected. These parcels (in Green and Pirk) are those outside of the City Limit boundary shown on the map as a black dashed line. All of the property owners affected by an increase in restriction (Pink) were notified. Environmental Determination On December 20, 2000, the ALUC approved the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan and determined that "there is no substantial evidence that the proposed plan will have a significant effect on the environment;" and adopted a Negative Declaration. Under Section 15061 (b) (3) of the California Environmental Quality Act a project is exempt from CEQA analysis, such as a Mitigated Negative Declaration, if the local jurisdiction can determine. that the project will have no significant effect on the environment. After reviewing the City of Oroville proposal to change the ALUCP zone boundaries, it was determined that the proposed change is covered by this general rule Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of December 15, 2004 Page 2 of 3 BUTTE COUNIVY AIRPORT LAND USE CONIlMI S S ION 7 County Center Drive, Oroville, CA 95965 (530) 538-7601 FAX (530) 538-7785 because the change would not have an affect on the environment. The proposed airport boundary zone change does not in and of itself increase or decrease the density or intensity of land uses. Further environmental review will be required by local jurisdictions within these areas in order to grant any entitlements to land use or uses. Recommendation Staff recommends that the Butte County Airport Land Use Commission move to adopt the following: 1. Find that the proposal is exempt from CEQA review under Section 15061 (b) (3) in that the proposal has no possibility of having a significant impact on the environment. 2. Find that the changes in the ALUCP zone boundaries as reflected in Exhibit B, from property line based boundaries to curvilinear based boundaries, are consistent with and based on the studies upon which the current ALUCP is founded. 3. Find that the proposal is consistent with Butte County zoning and the General Plan. 4. Approve the ALUCP zone boundary changes as reflected in Exhibit B attached. 5. Instruct staff to prepare a revised Compatibility Map for the Oroville Airport. \\Ds-svr-14\Documents\Planning\ALUC\CLUP\2004-2005.update\Oroville Airport\MEMO 15 December 2004 Mtg.FRM.doc Butte County Airport Land Use Commission Meeting of December 15, 2004 Page 3 of 3 i ILL DISCOVER GOLD ..."DISCOVER OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROVILLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897, r ; , - - PLANNING DEPARTMENT "6RATEO q�b ` - - ' r - (530) 538-2430 , • October 15, 2004 • BUTTE Butte County Airport Land Use'Commission COUNTY 7 County Center Drive OCT 1 9 2004 Oroville, CA -95965 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RE: GPA 04-081 ZC 04=11 (City of Oroville) -' proposal'to amend City. Code , requirements and General Plan stand6rd0or'the-Airport Influence Area Overlay zoning 'district. Dear Commissioners: The City of Oroville asks the Commission to amend the Butte County A.rport'Land Use Compatibility Plan (CLUP) to formally adopt (in actuality, "revert to") the original boundaries proposed by Shutt Moen Associates, the consultants who p� epared the ; adopted CLUP. The reasons for this request are'described in this letter. Those of you who served on the Commission during the CLUP, adoption process in 2000 May remember that the boundaries the adopted CLUP establishes for the 'B-1, " "B-2, and "C" compatibility zones for the Oroville Municipal Airport are not the original J: boundaries proposed by Shutt Moen Associates. At the request of the City of Oroville,- the Commission modified the original boundaries to make them follow p� operty lines. , Attached to this letter is the following information documenting the change: ; 1. A copy of the Compatibility Factors Map for the Oroville Municipal Airport (Exhibit 5H); prepared by Shutt Moen Associates and dated March, 2000: that is included in the draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan that is also dated March, 2000. { 2. A copy of a letter dated May 18, 2000, from Interim City Administrator Fred Davis to the Commission, asking that the preliminary Compatibility Zone Map boundaries be amended to follow recognizable existing property boundaries. 3. An illustration of the compatibility boundaries, requested by the City of Oroville (but modified by the Commission). , There was a'major transition in City of Oroville staff at the time the CLUP was adopted, ' with the result that the effects of the requested boundary changes were not fully understood. It has since become apparent to the City that resulting development _ restrictions are severe for several properties artificially placed within the "B-1" and the GPA 04-081 ZC 04-11 (Oroville Municipal Airport) October 15, 2004 Page 2 "B-2" zones. Those restrictions are not supported by the studies conducted by Shutt Moen Associates (as reflected in the preliminary map attached to this letter), which leads to the conclusion that they are not critical to the operation of the Oroville Municipal Airport as that operation is described in the CLUP. The City of Oroville would like to remove those artificial restrictions by adopting the originally -proposed compatibility zone boundary lines. Also enclosed with this letter are the following two additional illustrations that provide information about the original and the adopted compatibility zone boundary lines: A. The relative location of the original and the adopted compatibility zone boundaries. The location of the original boundaries was carefully transferred to this illustration by City staff, by copying the location at which the various boundaries depicted on Shutt Moen Associates preliminary Compatibility Map intersect property lines. B. Properties affected by the difference between the original and the adopted compatibility zone boundaries. The City recognizes the importance of maintaining consistency between the CLUP and the City's land use regulations. Accordingly, City Council will not take any formal action to amend the City's Airport Area of Influence boundaries to the originally -proposed locations until you, the Commission, have considered and approved a similar amendment to the CLUP. However, the City has initiated the land use amendment process as proposed General Plan Amendment No. 04-08 and Zoning Change No. 04- 11, and the City will conduct the multiple public hearings required.prior to adopting formal amendments. To that end, a public hearing has been scheduled before the Oroville Planning Commission for 7:30 P.M. on Wednesday, October 27 at Oroville City Hall. An additional hearing will be scheduled before Oroville City Council for 7:00 P.M. on Tuesday, November 16, at Oroville City Hall. If you have questions about this request, or about information included with this letter, please don't I}gsita!p.to contact me or Jo Sherman. Steely, Eric Teitelman, Director Director of Community Development and Public Works enc GPA 04-08 / ZC 04-11 (Oroville Municipal Airport) October 15, 2004 Page 3 cc: Yvonne Christopher, Director, Butte County Community Development Services Sharon Atteberry, City Administrator Oroville City Council Oroville Planning Commission May 18, 2000 DISCOVER GOLD... DISCOVER OROVILLE 1735 MONTGOMERY STREET OROV'LLE, CALIFORNIA 95965-4897 Butte County Airport Land Use Commission 7 County Center Drive Oroville, CA 95965 OFFICE OF THE CITY ADMINISTRATOR (530) 538=2407 Dear Commissioners: The Oroville City Council, at the May 16, 2000 regular meeting, voted unanimously to forward the following comments on the March 2000 Draft Butte County Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan: • The City Council of Oroville supports the development of appropriate pclicies and land use measures to protect the airport. • With some reservations, the Council supports the density and intensity criteria for the Compatibility Zones included in the Draft Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan. . • The Council requests that the Compatibility Zone Map boundaries for the Oroville Municipal Airport follow recognizable existing boundaries such as property lines and roadways on the north and east sides of the Airport as illustrated on the attachment to this letter. • The Council does not support the expansion of Compatibility Zones "B-1" and "B-2" on the North side of the Oroville Airport, and does not support the 5 acre minimum residential density or a reduction in the persons per acre in Compatibility Zone "C". • The Council does not support additional project review by the ALUC after the General Plan has been made consistent or if the Council chooses to override the ALUC with appropriate findings. The City respectfully requests these comments be incorporated into the Draft Pla-i, and the City be given sufficient time for review of any Draft Plan modifications. Since ely, Fred Davis Interim City Administrator /®� 1 1 X1111111 ug =ee ■uno niMEN 1111111111:8 011111.I0. : 5.11 ■IIIIIIrllli: IIIN'll 1� 1®1111'0" :44.. 1111®—� ® ®®®.Io® au.Ig- imme F 444444.4 - uu ale Oso 4 � 1111■IB oIf f k /®� 1 1 X1111111 ug =ee ■uno niMEN 1111111111:8 011111.I0. : 5.11 ■IIIIIIrllli: IIIN'll 1� 1®1111'0" :44.. 1111®—� ® ®®®.Io® au.Ig- imme IS ����e� i 5 m �. G 31.r i✓'fix �.. -y . XV PlOia W- EN c. Ill t �� Es �EZZ PAM_ 'e it i. y E t'iSF - -i ...' M �q I `i ta x��' •L p�a`44``"�U��s ..s v 'x � ii 'I �"{' +° FS'� a i I, e ° ; Y,, . � 3 I r v £3 NOR— HN OR—N ky _ f ...... E r 444444.4 - uu ale Oso s � 1111■IB IS ����e� i 5 m �. G 31.r i✓'fix �.. -y . XV PlOia W- EN c. Ill t �� Es �EZZ PAM_ 'e it i. y E t'iSF - -i ...' M �q I `i ta x��' •L p�a`44``"�U��s ..s v 'x � ii 'I �"{' +° FS'� a i I, e ° ; Y,, . � 3 I r v £3 NOR— HN OR—N ky _ f ...... E r Durling, Carl From: Durling, Carl Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:56 PM To: 'SASPlanning@sbcglobal.net' Subject: RE: Modification to Oroville Airport Land Use Compatibility Play Stephen: I have inserted my responses into your text below: Carl -----Original Message ----- From: Stephen A. Streeter[mailto:sasplanning@sbcglobal.net] Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 12:46 PM To: Durling, Carl Cc: Streeter,,Stephen Subject: Modification to Oroville Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan Carl - Since I'm still have trouble opening attachments received from you for some reason, I'm sending you a summary from the printed version that you provided me. Summary/last sentence: rephrase; it is not clear was is meant by "reverse order" will do The memo makes reference to colored exhibits that the commissioners will have for review. Will those sameexhibits be available to interested agencies, entities & members of the public who received the notice mailed out? Do these reports go on tse County website? Check with Pat about scanning the colored exhibits if need be for broader access. Colored maps will be provided to each Commissioner as part of the report. I sent a colored map to each of the 141 property owners we Noticed. Our reports.do not go on our Web Site as far as I know. Has Jo Sherman reviewed this draft memo by now? What are her commments? She has been on Vacation, so no, she hasn't seen the report. However, I did meet with her and Eric twice and outlined the jist of what I was going to prepare. They had no problems. Environmental Determination: The use of the general rule that CEQA does not apply is acceptable. It would strengthen our case to include both sentences of Sec. 15061 (b) (3), i.e. '.'A project is exempt from CEQA if: (3) The activity is covered by the general rule .. followed by your commentary. Please use "signficant effect" vs. "no impact". Will do. Recommendation 4: Instruct staff to arrange preparation of a revised Compatibility Map for the Oroville Airport via Shutt Moen Associates with costs for the revised map to be borne by the City of Oroville. I was going go this route, but Yvonnes says we are responsible for the preparation and cost. She said our GIS would prepare adequate maps. [check w/ Steve B. & Jim A. to see if GIS maps of comparable quality to the SMA maps can be produced in-house. ALUC had a discussion of this same topic for the Chico Airport on 11/17.] When you have made the changes, please send me the revised version for one more look. If I have trouble with the attachment, I'll have you send it as text w/in the e-mail. Steve 9 9 �� !� ® .. �- vun � ■you p- lu Edll�... �Lw nueu 'v r II �: '■t�lllll �I '— . NI ®_ ;o\ 'nuu - ,11•llllll 511 ;: re � ea 1 _ uu ql W111•w 'ffiffi® MENS ®'moi ® _ WER - - -- .-- 111111] allill •• ' ' II n�ud18 011 lamI 05.28.02 Quimby Act 101: An Abbreviated Overview Laura"-Westrup, Planning Division California Department of Parks and Recreation Local governments in- California provide a critical role in the effort to set aside parkland and open space for recreational purposes. Cities and counties have been authorized since the passage of the 1975 Quimby Act (California Government Code §66477) -:o pass ordinances requiring that developers. set aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees for park improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimoy Act cannot be used for the operation and maintenance of park facilities. The goal of the .Quimby.Act was to require developers to help mitigate -the impacts of property improvements. The Act gives authority for passage of land dedication ordinances only to cities and counties. Special districts must work with cities, and/or counties to receive parkland dedication and/or in -lieu fees. The fees must be paid and land conveyed directly to the local public agencies that provide park and recreation servic=s community- wide. When California voters approved the local property tax relief initiative, Proposition 13 in 1978, property taxes were essentially frozen thus frustrating local governments' financing options further. In addition, Federal and state mandates without reimbursements also put pressure on already. stretched recreation and park agency budgets. Local agencies needed to become more resourceful in locating funding options, and turned to Quimby, Mello - Roos, development impact fees, developer agreements. f I t This brief article is meant to assist park and recreation staff members in refamiliarizing themselves with the Quimby Act' and with its intended function. A sample resolution and policy are provided for the reader, but are intended as examples only. (in orma agreemen s requiring additional exactions) fee concession operations, facility leases, non -profits, commercialization, and ccjmpetitive grants to sustain their budgets. Local agencies have found that the Quimby Act provides a consistent means of providing parks for many California communities and helps to supplement strained age, -Icy budgets: While the Quimby Act is not an end-all in being able to provide sufficient dollars for land acquisition and park development, many agencies agree that it's a'good start. Originally, the Act was designed to ensure "adequate" open space acreage in jurisdictions adopting Quimby Act standards (i.e., 3-5 acres per 1,000 residents). In some California communities the acreage fee can get very high where the property values are high, and many local governments do not differentiate on their Quimby fees between infi I projects and green belt developments. Amendments to Quimby: In 1982, the Act was substantially amended. The amendments further defined acceptable uses of or restrictions on Quimby funds, provided acreage/population standards and formulas for determining the exactior, and indicated that the exactions must be closely tied (nexus) to a project's impacts as 'identified through traffic studies required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CECA). Exaction abuses coupled with economic recession and political changes — stronger "private property" rights advocacy — brought about a builders' backlash Cf perceived loopholes prompting California legislation AB 1600 (California GovernmEnt Code §66025). Exaction is the process of shifting forward to new development the cost of infrastructure for which is generated the need is generated by the new residents. Parkland and or. development of recreation facilities can be exacted from the developer as land, cash -in - lieu of land and/or impact fee as a condition of subdivision map approval.. The 1982 amendment.to Quimby was designed to hold local governments accountable for imposing park development fees; hence the 1982 amendment to Quimby. AB 1600 requires agencies to clearly show a reasonable relationship between the public need for the recreation facility or.park land and the type of development project'upon which the fee is imposed. Cities and counties were required to be more accountable'and to show again, a strong direct relationship or nexus between the park fee exactions and tnie proposed project. Local ordinances must now include definite standards for determing the proportion of the subdivision to be dedicated and the amount of the fee to be paid. Pressure to further revise the Quimby Act has come from a variety of sources, including governmental officials, the building industry, homeowners, and environmental groups. In recent months, AB 2936 has been introduced authorizing Quimby funds to be used for the planning of new parks and for community master planning purposes. The subject of park fees and the possibility of an ordinance revision can quickly polarize local policy makers and community leaders. Community involvement is On-cial to any suggestion of Quimby revision. Reliable data on costs of acquisition, development and values of competing communities is essential to keep the debate as objecti-le as possible. Formal public hearings conducted by the decision making body must be head before approval of the ordinance with staff members keeping everyone appraised of developments throughout the process. How Quimby Works: Typically, the City/County Planning staff develops Quimby Act ordinances with the assistance from the City/County Attorney. Implementation of a Quimby ordinance begins once a developer files an application fora development project with a tentative subdivision parcel', map . The tentative map goes to a review, committee that makes recommendations on the proposed map. Comments are sent to the planning department that will provide information for a public hearing that result in a recommendation action for the city council or county board of supervisors. li denied, the tentative map,would be sent back to the developer for revision. r The final map would be reviewed by all the appropriate agencies for conformance'with conditions before going to a final public hearing and approval, or disapproval, by the city council/county board of supervisors at which time fees are paid. If approved, the final map is filed with the county recorder. Whether you use the Quimby Act and/or other authorizations, the development of the ordinance must be done with the help of legal counsel. (Please note that the sample resolution below is for illustration only). Each community should refine.the model ordinance by taking into account its own unique circumstances and conditions. Sample City/County Resolution Modifying the Quimby Ordinance: City/County of XYZ California Resolution No. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL/COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF. THE CITY/COUNTY OF XYZ. MODIFYING THE PARK IN -LIEU FEE WHEREAS, the XYZ Agency (District) is the Government entity responsible for providing park facilities within the City/County of XYZ, and WHEREAS, the. City/County has established a Park.Land in -lieu fee based upon the. provisions contained in the California Government Code §66477 and this fee is based upon the standard of developing x# acres of parkland per 1,000 residents which is a standard currently existing and maintained with the City/County and is the policy established by the XYZ General Plan, and WHEREAS, section #x establishes the Park Land.in-lieu fee and provides that the amount of the. fee shall be established by resolution of the City Council/County Board of Supervisors,'and WHEREAS, the Agency has requested that the City/County increase the fee to reflect the changes to the actual cost of acquiring and developing park lands since the fee was last established in (year), and WHEREAS, the cost estimates for the City/County has carefully evaluated parkland acquisition and.development and a duly noticed public hearing held on the fee adjustment. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL/COUNTY BOARD OF .SUPERVISORS OF THE CITY/COUNTY OF XYZ that the Park Land In -Lieu fee amount shall be $ per residential parcel established by subdivision map recorded after this date. This fee shall not apply to parcels on which residential development is prohibited or to commercial or industrial subdivisions where not residential parcels are established. The specific rules and procedures for administering the fee that will be followed by the Agency and the City/County are attached as Exhibit "A" to this Resolution. , .i Sample City/County Quimby Policy CITY/COUNTY OF XYZ QUIMBY DEVELOPMENT FEES This policy•is enacted, pursuant to the authority granted by Section §66477 of the Government' Code of the State of California. The park and recreation facilities for which dedication of land and/or payment of a fee required by the City/County of.XYZ's Recreation and Park Agency is in accordance with the general plan of the City/County XYZ. A. Requirements: Prior to the approval of the tentative map or parcel map, the XYZ Recreation and Park Agency shall meet with the subdivider and determine the land required for dedication and/or in lieu fee payment. As a condition of approval of a final subdivision map or parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay a fee in -lieu thereof, or both at the option of the Agency for neighborhood and community park or recreational purposes. B. General Standard: it is found and determined that the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety require that "spelled out number" (#) acres of property for each 1,000 persons residing within the Agency be devoted to neighborhood and a community park and recreational purposes. C. Formula for Dedication of Land: The formula for determining acreage to be dedicated . shall be as follows: Average, number of persons/units _ 1,000 population = minimum acreage park acreage standard dedication EXAMPLE: 2:6 =1.000 = 0.013 acres per dwelling unit 5 Formula for Fee In -Lieu of Land Dedication: The formula for calculating park Fees in -lieu of { land is as follows: Average number of persons/household x required acreage + conversion_ factor x park land' development cost per acre in the XYZ area = required park fee EXAMPLE: 2.6 x'5 1,000 x $x = $x,xxx D. Fees in Lieu of Land, x# of parcels or less: If the proposed subdivision contains x# parcels or less;the subdivider shall pay the in -lieu fee. However, nothing in this section .shall prohibit the dedication and acceptance of land for park and recreation purposes in ; !, subdivision of x# parcels or less, where the subdivider proposes such dedication voluntarily and the land is acceptable to the Agency's Board of Directors.. E. Use of Money: The money collected shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring necessary land and developing •new neighborhood and community park or recreation facilities reasonably related to serving the subdivision. F. Land Access: All land offered for dedication shall have access to at least one existing ' or proposed public street. The Agency's Board of Directors may waive this requirement if the Board determines public street access is unnecessary. G. Special Waiver— Affordable Housing Projects: The Agency will waive the Quimby provisions of land dedication or in lieu fees for projects that result in the creation of residential units with a long term dedication to affordability as defined as affordable to - moderate income or lower income households. These parcels however will be required to pay the fees for the Agency's AB 1600 -mitigation program. H. Waiver of AB 1600 Impact Fees: All -parcels, which have paid a Quimby Fee, are exempt from paying the Agency's AB 1600 impact fee. A record of all.parcels paying a ; Quimby Fee is available at the Agency's offices. I. Special Provision - Condominium and Townhouse Projects: Since concominium and . 'townhouse projects submit their building plans prior to the recordation of the subdivision map <this may not apply to your city/agency>, they will be required to pay the Agency's AB 1600_ impact fee and at the time the subdivider files their subdivision y map act for their project, they will be required to pay the balance of the Quimby fee less the amount previously paid for the AB 1600 fee'. J. Request for Waiver of a portion of the In -Lieu Fee or Land Dedication: A waiver not to exceed x% shall be given against the requirement of land dedication or payment of fees in -lieu there of if the Agency's Board of Directors finds that it is in the public *interest to do so., No credit will be give for open space. In order for the proposed facilities- in the subdivision to be eligible for a waiver, they must fit the current needs of the community.