Addendum1pWN OF
!ps GAS S
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
DATE: SEPTEMBER 14, 2015
MEETING DATE: 09/15/15
ITEM NO: 5
ADDENDUM
TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL P
FROM: ROBERT SCHULTZ, TOWN ATTORNEY V,
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION ON SCHOOL FACILITIES FEES
A. CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE OF THE
TOWN OF LOS GATOS ADDING SECTION 25.60 TO THE LOS
GATOS TOWN CODE RELATING TO THE ADOPTION OF
MITIGATION FEES PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65970 TO RELIEVE CONDITIONS OF
OVERCROWDING IN THE LOS GATOS UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT; AND
B. CONSIDERATION OF A REQUEST BY THE LOS GATOS UNION
SCHOOL DISTRICT TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN
COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS CONCURRING
WITH THE FINDINGS OF OVERCROWDING MADE BY THE
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LOS GATOS UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT AND DENYING THE SETTING OF AN INTERIM
SCHOOL FACILITIES FEE
REMARKS:
After the Staff Report was distributed on September 10, 2015 the attached communication
(Attachment 6) was received.
In addition, after further legal analysis, the Resolution has been revised (Attachment 7). The
revised Resolution clarifies that the Town supports the School's District concerns of
overcrowding but is not concurring with the School District's Findings. These revisions are
necessary to make certain that the Resolution is not interpreted to be a concurrence with the
School District Findings pursuant to Government Code Section 65971- 65972. Such an
interpretation could mean that Town could not approve any permit for residential use unless the
Town made specific overriding fiscal, economic, social, or environmental findings which justify
the approval of a residential development. The revisions to the Resolution make certain that the
Town will not need to make the overriding findings but still supports the School District concerns
of overcrowding.
Reviewed by: i_Town Manager /otlssistant Town Manager N/A Finance
K:AMGRVAdminWorkFiles\2015 Council Reports \Sept 15\9 15 15 School Facilities Fees Addendumdoc Updated:
11/2013
PAGE
MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL
SUBJECT:
(INSERT DATE)
Attachments 1 -5 (Previously received with Staff Report September 10, 2015):
1. Ordinance
2. LGUSD Letter and Findings dated April 17, 2015
3. CBIA/BIA Letter dated September 1, 2015
4. LGUSD Letter dated September 9, 2105
5. Resolution
Attachment 6 received with Addendum:
6. Public comment received from 11:01 a.m. Thursday, September 10, 2015 through 11:00 a.m.
Monday, September 14, 2015
7. Revised Resolution
From: Jtnslk(&aol.com [Jtnslk @aol.com]
Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 1:52 PM
To: BSpector
Subject: (no subject)
Dear Vice Mayor
Spector,
September 11, 2015
With regards to the proposal of LGUSD to address the overcrowding of our
schools by setting an interim school facilities fee, I strongly support this
initiative. Having resided in the Los Gatos Unified School District since 1972 and
having both of our children complete their elementary and high school
educations in the Los Gatos school system, we feel it essential to address the
overcrowding that is already happening . As recently reported in the SJ Mercury
News, Los Gatos schools enjoy higher than most ratings in both English and
Math, at least partially the result of maintaining a manageable student class
size, that affords the students greater abilities to interact, participate and learn.
Please consider that one reason families move to Los Gatos is its highly rated
schools; this interim school facility fee will assure this for years to come. Please
adopt the addition of section 25.60 to the ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos
Respectfully,
John Kuntzmann,
LGUSD, CBOC Chairman
ATTACHMENT 6
Los Gatos Union School District
17010 Roberts Road
Los Gatos, CA 95032
(408) 335 -2000 Phone
(408) 395 -6481 Fax
»,ww.12�011_2. ca_.Us
Dr. Diana G. Abbate, Superintendent
VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL
September 14, 2015
Town of Los Gatos
Honorable Mayor Marcia Jensen
c/o Laurel Prevetti, Town Manager
110 E. Main Street
Los Gatos, CA 95031
Re: Los Gatos Union School District Findings of Overcrowding
Dear Honorable Mayor Jensen, Council Members and Town Staff:
c
I am writing on behalf of the Los Gatos Union School District Board of Trustees to provide clarifying
comments regarding the Findings of Overcrowding.
At the September 1, 2015 Town Council Meeting, Council sought direction from the Town Attorney to
determine (pursuant to Government Code 65970 et seq. and Senate Bill 50) what legal limitations are
permissible as authorized by state statues for seeking appropriate mitigation to prevent further overcrowding
in the Los Gatos Union School District attendance area.
The questions raised by Council have been debated in the courts on numerous occasions, and for your own
clarity, the District requested a legal opinion from Dannis Woliver and Kelly ( "DWK "). Their conclusions
are provided for your reference.
Analysis
1. Limitations on Authoritv to Mitiaate School Imnact
Government Code section 65995 authorizes two exclusive methods for considering and mitigating impacts
on school facilities within the province of school districts as follows:
(1) Education Code section 17620 et seq. authorizes the imposition of statutory development fees,
charges and dedications by school districts (reference Senate Bill 50); and
(2) Government Code 65970 et seq., which requires a study and findings of overcrowding by a
school district to support additional developer exactions for interim school facilities, which must
be approved by the District with concurrence of the local agency.
Without the District conducting a study and adopting specific findings of overcrowding (which we have
done and submitted as of April 17, 2015), the only funding available for school construction (albeit interim
or new) is limited to: (1) a local bond measure, and (2) the statutory fee. At this time, no state funding is
available and the District does not qualify for Level II or Level III developer fees under SB 50. The legal
opinion from DWK indicates that the School Facilities Act is still active and permissible under Government
Code 65970 et seq.
Board of Trustees • Mani Farhwdi • Emi Eto • Leigh -Anne Marcellin • Alex Potts • Peter Noymer
Page 2 – September 14, 2015
LGUSD – Notice of Findings of Overcrowding
Recommendation: The District has provided the Town with our Findings
of Overcrowding and therefore requests the proposed "Resolution of the is'
Town Council of the Town ofLos Gatos Concurring with the Findings of
Overcrowding Made by the Board of Trustees of the Los Gatos Union
School District And Denying the Setting of an Interim School Facilities Fee" be amended by creating two
distinct resolutions as follows:
(1) Proposed Resolution No. 1 of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos Concurring with the
Findings of Overcrowding Made by the Board of Trustees of the Los Gatos Union School District
a. Include Sections I – 6
b. Amend Section 6 to read: "The Town Cound I of the Town of Los Gatos shall work with the
School District to seek additional mitigation from developers to prevent further
overcrowding. In implementing, this provision the Town of Los Gatos shall comply with the
provisions of Government Code sections 65995 (SB 50), 65970 and any other applicable
provisions of the law.
(2) If necessary by statute and Government Codes, adopt Resolution No. 2 of the Town Council of the
Town of Los Gatos Denying the Setting of an Interim School Facilities Fee.
a. Include Sections 7 – 11
2. Response to Council's question: Do you know of any town or city that has adopted an Ordinance
since SB SO?
Yes, there are towns and cities that have adopted an ordinance since SB 50.
The following city and county ordinances: (1) acknowledge a school district's ability to determine
overcrowding, and (2) require developer mitigation (see attachment: City /County Ordinances). The entities
are: Suisun City, Dublin, Fairfield, Placentia, Carlsbad, Salinas, Fresno, Tracy, Sonoma County, Livermore,
St. Helena, Monterey County, Vacaville, Bakersfield, Modesto, and Stockton.
In a similar manner, the city of Morgan Hill has adopted ordinances in 2006 and 2004, both well after SB 50
was passed in 1998. (See City of Morgan Hill Ord. 1816 N.S. § 3 (part), 2006; Ord. 1665 N.S. § 3 (part),
2004; Ord. 1010 N.S. § 2 (D), 1990 [Municipal Code 18.78.050 – "Emergency situations — Restrictions on
development. No residential development shall be permitted during a period of emergency or severe
impaction ofpublic facilities, as declared by the city council pursuant to provisions of this code. The
declaration ofan emergency or severe impaction situation may be based on determinations of mandatory
water rationing, sewage system operating at ninety -five percent capacity, or other endangerment to the
public health, safety or welfare. In the event of overcrowding in any public school serving Morgan Hill, the
city council shall work with the school district pursuant to Government Code Section 65970 et seq. to seek
appropriate mitigation and prevent further overcrowding, including, as authorized by state statute,
prohibiting residential development within the overcrowded school attendance area. The council shall, in
implementing this provision, comply with the provisions of Government Code sections 65858, 65996 and any
other applicable provisions of law. "].)
Board of Trustees • Mani Farhardi - Emi Eto • Leigh -Anne Marcellin - Alex Potts • Peter Noymer
Page 3 — September 14, 2015
LGUSD — Notice of Findings of Overcrowding
Recommendation: The District strongly urges the Council to adopt an
ordinance of the Town of Los Gatos adding section 25.60 to the Los Gatos
Town code relating to the adoption of mitigation fees pursuant to
Government Code sections 65970 et seq. to relieve conditions of
overcrowding in the Los Gatos Union School District.
3. Response to Council's question: Is any Town or Cary currently implementing Interim Facilities Fees?
Fee setting mitigation practices vary widely by fee type and region. For example, school mitigation fees are
more frequently collected by Central Valley and Sacramento area jurisdictions. While we could not find a
town or city implementing interim facilities fees, there are many cases whereby a city or town works very
closely with the school district to mitigate overcrowding of schools. The City of Roseville and Roseville
Joint Union High School District excel in this respect. Roseville's consolidated fee schedule includes school
mitigation fees (see attachment: Schedule of Developer Fee Agreements).
In a similar manner, the cities of Dublin, Fremont and Pleasanton all actively work with developers and local
school districts to mitigate as many of the impacts resulting from development as possible. For example,
Dublin often requires developers to dedicate portions of major developments to the school district for
construction of needed school facilities. The City of Fremont directly participates in encouraging developers
to enter into mitigation agreements with the school district to offset the impacts of residential development
on school facilities. These are just a few examples of the way in which cities participate in ensuring that
developers mitigate impacts to schools.
Recommendation: Again, the District strongly urges the Council to adopt an ordinance of the Town of Los
Gatos adding section 25.60 to the Los Gatos Town code relating to the adoption of mitigation fees pursuant
to Government Code section 65970 to relieve conditions of overcrowding in the Los Gatos Union School
District. The adoption of this municipal ordinance is a valid exercise since it employs two requirements of
the local agency: (1) there is a permissible government objective behind the ordinance; and (2) the ordinance
is reasonable.
While the Town and District disagree on the use of additional developer fees, the District still believes the
fees represent a true and accurate cost to mitigate a fair portion of school facility needs as in -fill development
continues to contribute to the overcrowding of our schools.
In closing, we appreciate your consideration of the District's position and recommendations on these issues
with the hope that we can continue to work together to provide adequate school facilities for the I.os Gatos
community.
Very truly
}(yours,
Diana G. Abbati, Ed.D.
Superintendent
cc: Los Gatos Union School District Board of Trustees
Town of Los Gatos Council Members
Martin Fregoso, Assistant Superintendent- Business Services /CBO
Enclosures (1) Grosvenor Land Ownership Plan dated August 2013
(2) Schedule of Developer Fee Agreements
Board of Trustees w�w,., • Mani Farhardi • Lmi Fto mm - Leigh -Anne Marcelhn Alex Potts Peter Noymer
� - .. � .. • a . n + - r a i. . _ � . '.
EivTITY
POLICYIPRACTICE
SOURCE
YEAR
City may concur in
City Code Chapter
Originally
school district findings
15.16
implemented pre -
Suisun City
of overcrowding; fee or
1998, but still in
dedication of land from
place post SB 50.
developer.
School Site Dedication
Municipal Code
Originally
- as a condition for
Chapter 17,28,
implemented pre -
approval of final
Article II
1998, but still in
subdivision map,
place post SB 50.
Morgan Hill
developer must
Ord. 635 N. S. § A
dedicate to school
district lands sufficient
for adequate
elementary school
service.
School Facilities
City Municipal
Originally
Dedication - enacted
Code Chapter
implemented pre -
pursuant to Gov't Code
9.36
1998, but still in
§ 65970 et seq.
place post SB 50.
Dublin
Ord. 1 -91 § 1 (8-
City may concur in
9.0))
school district findings
of overcrowding; fee or
dedication of land from
developer.
Community facilities
Municipal Code
Unknown
(including schools)
Chapter 25, Art.
"shall be provided for
III., Div. 1, §§
in the subdivision
25.121, 25.122
process."
"The developer shall
Municipal Code
grant without cost to
Chapter 25, Art.
the city all required
III., Div. 7, §
dedications,
25.166.26
easements, and rights_
Fairfield
of -way necessary to
serve the proprety
[sic] of the developer
and for the installation
of streets, utilities and
public facilities."
(Emphasis added.)
Specifically, developer
Municipal Code
is required to dedicate
Chapter 25, Art.
land sufficient for
III., Div. 7, §
adequate elementary
25.166.45
school service.
ENTITY
POLICY %PRACTICE
SOURCE
1(EAR
Developer must
Municipal Code
Unknown
dedicate to school
Title 22, Ch.
district lands sufficient
22.55, §
for adequate
122.55.010
elementary school
service.
Placentia
City may make a
declaration of impact
Municipal Code
(finding overcrowding)
Title 22, Ch.
and require dedication
22.55, §
of land, payment of
22.55.060
fees, or appropriate
combination for the
benefit of the school
district.
City may concur in
Municipal Code
Originally
school district findings
Title 21, Chapter
implemented pre -
Carlsbad
of overcrowding; fee or
55, §§ 100, 110,
1998, but still in
dedication of land from
120, 130
place post SB 50.
developer.
City may concur in
Municipal Code
Originally
school district findings
Chapter 9, Art. V-
implemented pre -
Salinas
of overcrowding; fee or
A
1998, but still in
dedication of land from
place post SB 50.
developer.
Ord. No. 1954
NCS 1
City may concur in
Municipal Code
Unknown
school district findings
Chapter 12, Art.
Fresno
of overcrowding; fee or
8, §§ 801 et seq.
dedication of land from
developer.
City may concur in
Municipal Code
Unknown
school district findings
Title 10, Chapter
Tracy
of overcrowding; fee or
16
dedication of land from
developer.
City may concur in
Municipal Code
Unknown, likely pre
school district findings
Chapter 25C
1998, but still in
Sonoma County
of overcrowding; fee or
place post SB 50.
dedication of land from
developer.
ENTITY
POLICY/PRACTICE
SOURCE
YEAR
City may concur in
Municipal Code
Implemented pre-
school district findings
Title 18, Division
1998, and new
of overcrowding; fee or
IV, Chapter 18.78
ordinances
dedication of land from
implemented post
Morgan Hill
developer.
Ord. 1816 N.S. §
1998.
3 (part) 2006;
Ord. 1665 N.S. §
3 (part), 2004;
Ord. 1010 § 3 (F),
1990
City may concur in
Municipal Code
Implemented pre-
school district findings
Title 3, Chapter
1998, but still in
Livermore
of overcrowding; fee or
3.24, §§ 030,
place post SB 50.
dedication of land from
040, 050
developer.
City may require
Municipal Code,
Unknown.
developer to dedicate
Title 16, Chapter
St. Helena
land or pay fees to
28, § 120.
alleviate overcrowding,
per Gov't Code §§
65970 through 65980.
City may concur in
Municipal Code,
Unknown.
school district findings
Title 19, Chapter
Monterey County
of overcrowding; fee or
12, §§ 15 et seq.
dedication of land from
developer.
School impact fees
Municipal Code,
Implemented pre -
may be assessed to
Title 3, Chapter
1998, but still in
alleviate overcrowding,
28
place post SB 50.
which is in accordance
with the city's general
plan, which has the
policy that new
developments shall
Vacaville
bear the "fair share"
cost of providing public
facilities. Fees are
requested by the
school district, and
information
substantiating
overcrowding is
provided by school
district.
City may concur in
Municipal Code,
Implemented pre-
school district findings
Title 15, Chapter
1998, but still in
Bakersfield
of overcrowding; fee or
70, §§ 10, et seq.
place post SB 50.
dedication of land from
developer.
ENTITY
POLICY/ PRACTICE
SOURCE
i YEAR
City has school site
Municipal Code,
Implemented pre -
facilities impact fees
Title 8, Chapter 1,
1998, but still in
Modesto
for all new dwelling
Article 2, §§ 9-
place post SB 50.
units and mobile home
1.201 et seq.
spaces.
City may concur in
Municipal Code,
Unknown.
school district findings
Title 3, Chapter
Stockton
of overcrowding; fee or
36, §§ 10 et seq.
dedication of land from
develo er.
ROSEVILLE JOINT ANION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Schedule of Developer Fee Agreements
Effective July 1, 2014 for Mitigation Agreements Only
Effective July 13, 2014 for Residential and Commercial Statutory Fees
MUTUAL BENEFIT AGREEMENTS SET MINIMUM RESIDENTIAL FEES WHICH WILL APPLY IF
THEY ARE HIGHER THAN THE STATUTORY FEE FOR ANY GIVEN DWELLING UNIT PER
PARAGRAPH 3 OF THE MUTUAL BENEFIT AGREEMENT.
Condo; Duplex;
Single Townhome;
Family and HalfRiex Apartment
Statutory Fees:
Commercial Buildings /Centers $0.22 /sf
Retirement Centers /Homes $0.22/sf
Residential No Agreement - Level 1 $ 1.34 /sf $ 1.34 /sf $ 1.34 /sf
PLACER COUNTY - Agreements
Granite Bay Community Plan
Abdul Hafeez - Douglas Blvd PM 75735
William Silva, Jr. - Sheba Investments/
Granite Bay Investments
Gerry Hargis - 7185 Barton Rd.
Terence Collins - 7227 Barton Rd
Alexandria Estates $ 5,493 /DU $ 4,087 /DU $ 1,035 /DU
Elliott Homes
Granite Hills - Barton Rd. $ 5,290 /DU
&T Developers - Oak Creek Place /Barton Rd
Hudson Trust - 6555 Lou Place
Robert Ket - Seven Cedars Place $ 5,371 /DU
The Lakes @ Granite Bay (Bella Terra)
Sycamore Ventures / Granite Bay Estates $ 5,224 /DU
Seymour Ranch / The Collections
8357 Barton Road / 8140 Barton Road
Gross Parcel - 6482 Eureka Rd. $ 5,908 /DU
Gene Edwards - Barton Rd. (next to Hargis) $ 5,647 /DU
8445 Barton Rd: Kelly & Kristen Mann
Granite Meadows $ 5,647 /DU
Pueblo Court - Lymath Parcel
5878 Gibson Place - Lyle Ethington $ 5,836 /DU
5915 Macargo Road $ 6,017 /DU
3555 Old Auburn Rd - Pumnut Parcel
Granite Bay Deep Blue LLC - 8440 Berg St
Clearwater Ventures LLC
Greyhawk ii
Revised 10/15/2014
$5,451 IDU $4,057 /DU $1,027 /DU
ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Schedule of Developer Fee Agreements
Effective July I, 2014 for Mitigation Agreements Only
Effective July 13, 2014 for Residential and Commercial Statutory Fees
Woodbridge Estates 11 3605 Old Auburn $ 8,280 /DU
Martelle Lane
Joseph Bergh PM 76096 7950 Barton $ 4,942 /DU
Chelshire Downs North
$ 5,404
Condo; Duplex;
(aka Chelshire Estates)
Single
Townhome;
Calton - Oak Creek Place
Family
and Halfplex Apartment
Douglas Ranch / Iver Osterander
Fees paid at time of sale.
HRNSP - Highland Reserve North
James Kairn - Olive Ranch Rd. PM 75565
Phase[ (Parcels 5,6,7,8,9A,9B,10,20)
Slavich / Kurimai Quail Oaks Unit III
$ 5,460 /DU
Phase II (1A,1 B,2,3A,3B,4)
4937 Olive Ranch Road - William Kesti
$ 7,618 /DU
Multi- family Residential (Parcels 30 & 31)
Olive Ranch/ Carlisle Woods
$ 5,466
/DU
Woodbridge Estates 11 3605 Old Auburn $ 8,280 /DU
Martelle Lane
Joseph Bergh PM 76096 7950 Barton $ 4,942 /DU
Chelshire Downs North
$ 5,404
/DU $ 4,022 /DU $ 1,019 /DU
(aka Chelshire Estates)
$ 5,461
/DU $ 4,063 /DU $ 1,029 /DU
Calton - Oak Creek Place
$ 7,725
/DU
Ezequiel Rodriguez- PM 75747
Fees paid at time of sale.
HRNSP - Highland Reserve North
(Barton Rd / Oak Creek Place)
Phase[ (Parcels 5,6,7,8,9A,9B,10,20)
Thaler Brothers - Douglas /Quail Oaks Unit 2
/DU
Phase II (1A,1 B,2,3A,3B,4)
Rick Thompson
/DU
Multi- family Residential (Parcels 30 & 31)
(Rosedale Ranchos #2, Macargo Ct)
$ 5,466
/DU
- =- William Jacques - Macargo Rd.
liliiam Jacques - Olive Ranch Rd.
$ 5,471
/DU
Oak Creek Place - Michael Haag
$ 5,451
/DU
Oak Creek Place - Tom Savoca
Rosedale Colony #2, Olive Ranch Rd.
Treeline Court - Theodore Lodde
Chelshire Downs LLC
$ 5,451
/DU $ 4,057 /DU $ 1,027 /DU
William & Rebecca Harris - PM 75828 $ 5,056 /DU
Waterford I & II (aka The Grove)
$ 5,404
/DU $ 4,022 /DU $ 1,019 /DU
Nicholas / RAN Land 9530 Sierra College
$ 8,083
/DU
Rancho Del Oro Estates
$ 7,725
/DU
Shelboume
Fees paid at time of sale.
HRNSP - Highland Reserve North
Phase[ (Parcels 5,6,7,8,9A,9B,10,20)
$ 4,786
/DU
Phase II (1A,1 B,2,3A,3B,4)
$ 5,041
/DU
Multi- family Residential (Parcels 30 & 31)
$ 1,121 /DU
Revised 10/15/2014 2
ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Schedule of Developer Fee Agreements
Effective July f, 2014 for Mitigation Agreements Only
Effective July 13, 2014 for Residential and Commercial Statutory Fees
NERSP - North Central Roseville $ 4,325 /DU $ 4,325 /DU $ 970 /DU
;iighland Reserve - Promitory Point II $ 5,041 /DU
Viilemont aka Highland 18C
$ 3,849 /DU
Parcel 44 $ 8,082 /DU $ 3,637 /DU $ 3,637 /DU
$ 649 /DU Age Restricted
NERSP - Northeast Roseville
Stone Point $ 8,082 /DU $ 3,637 /DU $ 3,637 /DU
$ 649 /DU Age Restricted
Westin 9500 Sierra College $ 8,083 /DU $ 3,638 /DU $ 3,638 /DU
$ 650 /DU Age Restricted
NIPA- North Industrial
Longmeadow (residential)
Woodcreek East aka Diamond Woods
Woodlake Village aka Fiddyment 44
$ 5,625 /DU Equal or less than 1,100 sf $ 3,114 /DU
$ 6,918 /DU More than 1,100 at
$ 556 /DU Age Restricted
$ 4,092 /DU Equal or less 1,800 sf
$ 4,436 /DU More than 1,800 at
$ 6,046 /DU Equal or less 1,100 sf
$ 7,436 /DU More than 1,100 at
$ 597 /DU Age Restricted Equal or less 1,071
$ 3,954 /DU $ 3,347 /DU
Revised 10115/2014 3
Condo; Duplex;
Single
Townhome;
Family
and Hall tax
Apartment
CITY INFILL
Church Street Station
$ 4,688
/DU
Cirby Hills Town -Homes Unit #2
Harding Condominiums
$ 3,849 /DU
Hidden Creek
$ 4,994
/DU
Livob Ave - Leonard Teague
206 Whyte Ave
$ 4,995
/DU
310 Whyte Ave
$ 8,082
/DU
$ 3,849 /DU
$ 3,637 /DU
$ 649
/DU Ago Restricted
Livoti Ave - Bill Stone
$ 5,830
502 -508
Vintage Oaks
$ 4,768
/DU
$ 3,545 /DU
$ 900 /DU
West Colonial Estates
$ 4,988
/DU
$ 3,709 /DU
$ 942 /DU
NERSP - North Central Roseville $ 4,325 /DU $ 4,325 /DU $ 970 /DU
;iighland Reserve - Promitory Point II $ 5,041 /DU
Viilemont aka Highland 18C
$ 3,849 /DU
Parcel 44 $ 8,082 /DU $ 3,637 /DU $ 3,637 /DU
$ 649 /DU Age Restricted
NERSP - Northeast Roseville
Stone Point $ 8,082 /DU $ 3,637 /DU $ 3,637 /DU
$ 649 /DU Age Restricted
Westin 9500 Sierra College $ 8,083 /DU $ 3,638 /DU $ 3,638 /DU
$ 650 /DU Age Restricted
NIPA- North Industrial
Longmeadow (residential)
Woodcreek East aka Diamond Woods
Woodlake Village aka Fiddyment 44
$ 5,625 /DU Equal or less than 1,100 sf $ 3,114 /DU
$ 6,918 /DU More than 1,100 at
$ 556 /DU Age Restricted
$ 4,092 /DU Equal or less 1,800 sf
$ 4,436 /DU More than 1,800 at
$ 6,046 /DU Equal or less 1,100 sf
$ 7,436 /DU More than 1,100 at
$ 597 /DU Age Restricted Equal or less 1,071
$ 3,954 /DU $ 3,347 /DU
Revised 10115/2014 3
ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Schedule of Developer Fee Agreements
Effective July 1, 2014 for Mitigation Agreements Only
Effective July 13, 2014 for Residential and Commercial Statutory Fees
Condo; Duplex;
Single Townhome;
Family and Halfplex Apartment
NRSP - North Roseville
Crocker Ranch N. 1,2,3,5,6 & PTN 7 $ 4,080 /DU Equal or less 1,800 sf
aka Doctor's Ranch $ 4,423 /DU More than 1,800 sf
Crocker Ranch North Lot 4
$ 4,972
/DU
$ 7,207
$ 0.22
/DU Age Restricted
Crocker Ranch N. 8,9 & S. 1,2,3
$ 4,088
/DU Equal or less 2,800 sf S 910 /DU
and Woodcreek West
$ 4,431
/DU More than 2,800 sf
Diamond Creek 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 & 32
/DU
More than 1,100 SF
Mouder Homes (JMC)
/DU
Age Restricted $ 3,114 /DU
Woodcreek North
$ 5,041
/DU $ 1,121 /DU
Diamond Creek 31
$ 6,046
/DU Equal or less 1,100 sf
$ 7,436
/DU More than 1,100 sf
$ 597
/DU Age Restricted
$3,954 $ 3,347 /DU
Paseo Del Norte - PCL WW-41
$ 5,860
/DU Equal or less 1,100 sf
$ 7,207
/DU More than 1,100 sf
$ 580
/DU Age Restricted
$ 3,849 /DU $ 3,243 /DU
NWRSP - Northwest Roseville
Elliott
Tim Lewis Comm. (Rosepark aka Altessa) $ 4,401 /DU $ 3,270 /DU $ 827 /DU
Dunmore Junction $ 5,860
/DU
Equal or less than 1,100 SF
$ 7,207
/DU
More than 1,100 SF
$ 579
/DU
Age Restricted $ 3,244 /DU
Legacy $ 5,625
/DU
Equal or toss than 1,100 SF
$ 6,918
/DU
More than 1,100 SF
$ 556
/DU
Age Restricted $ 3,114 /DU
SERSP - Southeast Roseville
Treelake Partners / Enclave
Treelake Village 2c aka Villas at G.B
Treelake Unit #12
Baldaramos - 9865 Sierra College Blvd
(Legacy Land)
Woo - 9845 Sierra College Bid
(Legacy Land)
$ 5,174 /DU $ 3,847 /DU $ 975 /DU
$ 5,466 /DU $ 4,069 /DU $ 1,030 /DU
$ 8,130 /DU
$ 8,083 /DU
$ 8,083 /DU $ 3,534 /DU $ 3,534 /DU
$ 594 /DU Age Restricted
Revised 10/15/2014 4
ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Schedule of Developer Fee Agreements
Effective July 1, 2014 for Mitigation Agreements Only
Effective July 13, 2014 for Residential and Commercial Statutory Fees
Morgan Creek (Chammix) (Waterstone) $ 5,026 /DU
Morgan Creek Village
Sun Valley Oaks
Morgan Greens aka Riolo Greens
W iliow Park
Morgan Ranch - Whisper Creek
Hidden Crossing I Silver Creek
Morgan Downs
WRSP - West Roseville
Roseville Fiddyment Land Venture, LLC
1600 Placer Investors, LP
Fiddyment Ranch Phase 1 & 2
Wastpark Village W- 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 7
$ 5,026 /DU
$ 5,056 /DU
$ 5,462 /DU
$ 7,637 /DU
$ 7,725 /DU
$ 3,741 /DU $ 1,115 /DU
$ 4,066 /DU $ 1,030 /DU
$ 7,788 /DU $ 3,505 /DU
$ 626 /DU Age Restricted
Revised 10/15/2014 5
Condo; Duplex;
Single Townhome;
Family
_!j Half
Apartmenf
SRSP - Stoneridge
Stoneridge East Village 5 & 6 and
Vista Oaks (16 & 17)
$ 5,060 /DU
Stoneridge East Village 1,2,3,4,7,8,9 & 10
11, 12, 13
Stoneridge East Phase 4A & 4B
Stoneridge West Village 1,2,3,4,5 & 6
(aka Stone Canyon or Whispering Canyon)
also Stoneridge Parcel 13
Vista Ridge aka Stoneridge 58
also Olympus Pointe, Stoneridge,
Chelsea
$ 4,961 /DU
$ 1,104 /DU
Phoenician LLC
$ 3,849 /DU
SVSP - Sierra Vista
Sierra Vista / South 4688
$ 7,637 /DU
$ 3,437 /DU
Frederico / JMC
$ 614 /DU Age Restricted
Westbrook / North 468A
Phase I Supplement
$ 7,788 /DU $ 3,505 /DU
$ 3,505 /DU
$ 626 /DU Age Restricted
Phase 2
TBD
Phase 3
TBD
WPCP - West Placer (DCCP)
American Vineyard Village
$ 8,082 /DU $ 3,849 /DU
$ 3,637 /DU
$ 649 /DU Age Restricted
Morgan Creek (Chammix) (Waterstone) $ 5,026 /DU
Morgan Creek Village
Sun Valley Oaks
Morgan Greens aka Riolo Greens
W iliow Park
Morgan Ranch - Whisper Creek
Hidden Crossing I Silver Creek
Morgan Downs
WRSP - West Roseville
Roseville Fiddyment Land Venture, LLC
1600 Placer Investors, LP
Fiddyment Ranch Phase 1 & 2
Wastpark Village W- 1,2,3,4,5,6 & 7
$ 5,026 /DU
$ 5,056 /DU
$ 5,462 /DU
$ 7,637 /DU
$ 7,725 /DU
$ 3,741 /DU $ 1,115 /DU
$ 4,066 /DU $ 1,030 /DU
$ 7,788 /DU $ 3,505 /DU
$ 626 /DU Age Restricted
Revised 10/15/2014 5
ROSEVILLE JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT
Schedule of Developer Fee Agreements
Effective July 1, 2014 for Mitigation Agreements Only
Effective July 13, 2014 for Residential and Commercial Statutory Fees
Single
Family
SACRAMENTO COUNTY
Antelope Manor $ 2.64 /sf
Barret Ranch - Units: 1A, 10, 2, 3A, 3B
$
2.39
/sf
Carriage Oaks 4, 5, 6
Highland Hills 4
$
2.51
East Antelope Legends
East Antelope Woods
Highland Greens III
$
2.45
/sf
Kimball Hill Homes
Antelope Trails Unit #1
$
2.51
/sf
Antelope Trails Unit #3
$
2.41
/sf
Condo; Duplex;
Townhome;
and Halfplex Apartment
$ 2.64 /sf $ 1.13 /sf
$ 3,633 /DU Condo
S 2.39 /sf
$ 2.51 /sf $ 1.15 /sf
$ 2.45 /sf $ 112 /sf
Revised 10/15/2014 6
RESOLUTION NO
A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
SUPPORTING THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE LOS GATOS UNION SCHOOL
DISTRICT CONCERNS OF OVERCROWDING IN ITS SCHOOLS AND DENYING THE
SETTING OF AN INTERIM SCHOOL FACILITIES FEE
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California enacted Government Code Sections
65970 -65981 in 1977 (SB 201), in order to provide a means to alleviate overcrowding in public
schools caused by new residential development; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California enacted Government Code Sections
65995 -65996 in 1986 and amended thru SB 50, provides that the payment or fees imposed in the amount
specified in Section 65995 are deemed to be fiill and complete mitigation of the impacts on adequate
school facilities; and
WHEREAS, the Los Gatos Union School District (hereinafter the "School District ") has
made and presented to the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, a Resolution containing
findings that conditions of overcrowding exist in the attendance area of the School District within
the Town of Los Gatos which will impair the normal functioning of educational programs
including the reasons for such conditions existing and requesting the Town of Los Gatos to enact
an Interim School Facilities Fee of $9.57; and
WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos held a public hearing on
September 1 and September 15, 2015 on the finding of overcrowding of the School District and
the request to enact an Interim School Facilities Fee of $9.57 per sq. ft.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos does find and resolve
as follows:
SECTION 1:
The School District provides a high quality public school education to students who live in
the Town of Los Gatos and quality schools are a critical resource for local communities and
employers.
SECTION 2:
Improvements to school facilities are needed in the School District in order to provide the
students with adequate, proper, and safe educational facilities.
1
ATTACHMENT 7
SECTION 3:
The School District asserts that it is experiencing an increase in enrollment that has led to
overcrowding at schools and enrollment projections call for continued increases in enrollment,
resulting in more overcrowding.
SECTION 4:
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos strongly supports the School District's
concerns to relieve overcrowding and make improvements to school facilities and relies upon the
School District in its expertise, methodology and determination of overcrowding in schools.
SECTION 5:
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos strongly encourages developers to
collaborate with the School Districts to address school needs and work closely with the School
District's to project enrollment growth and address overcrowding by assisting with identifying
strategies for providing needed school facilities and associated sources of funding.
SECTION 6:
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos shall work with the School District to seek
additional mitigation from developers to prevent further overcrowding. In implementing this
provision, the Town of Los Gatos shall comply with the provisions of SB 50.
SECTION 7:
SB 50 created a comprehensive school facilities financing and mitigation regime. The
effect of these SB 50 provisions is to limit the school fees that can be charged to new
development and to remove the ability of the Town of Los Gatos to make land use decisions
based on the inadequacy of school facilities or school overcrowding.
SECTION 8:
SB 50 expressly provides that the amount of any fees, charges, dedications, or other
requirements authorized under SB 201 may not exceed the Level I, II, and III maximum fee
amounts and the School District request to set an Interim School Facilities Fee at $9.57 per sq. ft.
is over the maximum fee allowed. Therefore, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos denies
the School District request to set an Interim School Facilities Fee at $ 9.57 per sq. ft.
SECTION 9:
SB 201 is limited to funding temporary /interim school facilities and the School District's
findings fail to limit the fee expenditures to the authorized interim school facilities. Therefore,
the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos denies the School District request to set an Interim
School Facilities Fee at $ 9.57 per sq. ft.
SECTION 10:
The Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos cannot make the finding requirements of SB
201 that the specified land and interim facilities are consistent with the jurisdiction's General
Plan since the School District has failed to identify the interim facilities with sufficient
specificity. Therefore, the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos denies the School District
request to set an Interim School Facilities Fee at $ 9.57 per sq. ft.
SECTION 11:
SB 201 establishes that the value of the land to be dedicated or the amount of fees to be
paid shall not exceed the amount necessary to pay five annual lease payments for the interim
facilities. There is no evidence that the proposed fee of $9.57 per sq. ft. is limited to the amount
necessary to pay five annual lease payments for interim facilities. Therefore, the Town Council
of the Town of Los Gatos denies the School District request to set an Interim School Facilities
Fee at $ 9.57 per sq. ft.
SECTION 12:
The support of the Town Council of the Town Of Los Gatos to the School District's
concerns to relieve overcrowding shall not be deemed to concur with the School District
Findings pursuant to Government Code Section 65971 -65972 since all reasonable methods of
mitigating conditions of overcrowding have not been evaluated and the School District has failed
to comply with SB 50 and SB 201 as set forth above.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Town Council, Town of Los Gatos at a regular
meeting thereof held on the 156' day of September 2015 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Marcia Jensen, Mayor
ATTEST:
Shelley Neis, Clerk Administrator
3