HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/02/2006, PH1 - TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE counci L Maung Da
. 5.2.06
ac En da Report PR i
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B IS P0.
FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance&Information Technology
Carolyn Dominguez, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution updating transportation impact fees.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On March 21, 2006, the Council held a study session to review the results of a comprehensive
update to the City's transportation impact fees (Attachment 1). Along with the general findings
of this report, the Council considered two key policy issues at that time:
1. Should we continue the 50% subsidy for retail and hotel uses?
2. Given their cost and past Council policy direction, should we exclude the Bishop Street
extension and the railroad grade separation (overpass) at Orcutt Road from the cost base in
calculating fees?
Based on Council and public comment at the study session as well as further internal review, we
recommend that the Council continue the 50% subsidy for retail/hotel uses and exclude the
Bishop Street extension and Orcutt railroad grade crossing from the cost base in calculating fees.
DISCUSSION
Background
The City's current transportation impact fee program was originally established in 1995. The
attached report, which was prepared with the assistance of MuniFinancial (who specializes in
preparing these types of studies), is the first comprehensive update to this program in over ten
years.
Fee Purpose. Its purpose is to help fund the transportation improvements required to
accommodate new development within the City. It is the City's policy to ensure that new
development pays for its fair share of the cost of transportation improvements, and the
transportation impact fee program is one of the City's key strategies for doing so.
Methodology. The State has established comprehensive requirements for the preparation and
administration of impact fees (commonly referred to as AB 1600), which are discussed in the
attached report. This update has been prepared in accordance with these rigorous requirements.
Transportation Impact Fee Update Page 2
Summary of Key Policy Issues and Recommendations
Key Policy Issues. The table below summarizes four fee change options compared with current
fees based on the following key policy issues:
1. Reduced project base. The current project cost base (which is a key driver in determining
fee amounts), includes the extension of Bishop Street ($10 million) and railroad grade
separation (overpass) at Orcutt Road ($12 million).. The total cost for these two projects is
$22 million, of which $5.9 million would be funded from transportation impact fees
(accounting for 7% of the "full cost recovery" fee option), with the balance of$16.1 million
from "other sources.." While these two projects are included in the City's General Plan, it is
uncertain where the "other sources" would come from; and the Council has taken several
actions in the past indicating that pursing these projects is a low priority at best.
Policy issue: Should the City exclude these two projects in the cost base?
2. 50% retail/hotel subsidy. In adopting fees in 1995, the Council set transportation impact
fees (TIF) for retail and hotel/motel uses at 50% of their allocated costs in recognition of the
General Fund fiscal benefits of these types of uses.
Policy issue: Should the City continue this subsidy?
Findings and Recommendation. As summarized below, we recommend "Option 4," which
excludes the Bishop Street extension and Orcutt railroad grade crossing from the cost base in
calculating fees and continues the 50% subsidy for retail/hotel uses..
Current Fee Compared with Four New Fee Options
Fees
options
Full Cost Recovery 50%Hotel/RetaiLCredit
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
All Reduced All Reduced
Land Use Category Basis Current Projects Project Base Projects Project Base
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit $1,569 $3,160 $2,930 $3,160 $2,930
Multi Family Residential Dwelling Unit 1,392 2,804 .2,600 2,804 2,600
Retail 1,000 Sq Ft 2,477 13,306 12,344 6,653 6,172
Office 1,000 Sq Ft 3,150 6,336 5,875 6,336 5,875
Service Commercial 1,000 Sq Ft 1,708 3,436 3,186 3,436 3,186
Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 908 1,830 1,697 1,830 1,697
Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 2,819 5,370 4,980 5,370 4,980
Motel/Hotel Room 728 2,932 2,719 1,466 1,360
Service Station/Pump Pump 1,348 7,483 6,927 7,483 6,927
Other ADT 147 296 274 296 274
Sq Ft:Square Feet ADT:Average Daily Trip
As reflected above, significant increases are proposed under all of the options. As detailed in the
report, there are three primary reasons for this:
Transportation Impact Fee Update Page 3
1. Higher Project Costs In virtually all cases, estimated project costs are much higher than the
1995 study, even with the inflation cost adjustments that have been made since then. Total
project costs (excluding financing costs)have increased by$86.1 million, from $48.7 million
in 1995 to $134.8 million in 2006. This three-fold increase in project cost assumptions is the
single largest reason for the increase in proposed fees.
2. Financing Costs. No debt financing costs were included in the 1995 study. However;based
on subsequent funding plans developed since then, it is likely that the TIF portion of the
Prado Road and Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchanges and the Prado Road bridge
widening will be debt financed, and as such, $24.6 million for financing costs have been
included in the fee analysis.
3. Revisions in Outside Funding. Based on updated information, in several cases we have
reduced outside funding sources.
In short, other than updating project costs and funding sources,this update is based on the same
projects and the same fee methodology as the 1995 study.
Comparison with Other Cities .
Provided in Table 4 of the report (page 15) is a survey of transportation impact fees in
comparable California cities as well as cities in the County.
Residential Uses The table shows that all of the fee options for residential uses are well within
range compared to these cities. For example, the recommended fee for single family residential
for San Luis Obispo is $2,930 compared to:
$5,132 in Atascadeo $6,940 in Santa Maria
$4,643 in Davis $5,245 in Ventura
$4,520 in Paso Robles $4,059 in Visalia
$5,424 in Petaluma $2,930 in San Luis Obispo (Proposed Fee)
In fact, of the ten surveyed cities with adopted transportation impact fees, only three (Grover
Beach, Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande) have lower fees for residential than any of the options
presented in this report.
Non Residential Uses Fees for non-residential uses are also generally within the range of other
cities, with the notable exception of retail uses, where City fees will be at the high end of the
range if the 50% subsidy is continued; and will be much higher than any other surveyed city if it
is not.
Impact on Development Costs
Provided in Table 5 of the report (page 17) is a summary of the impact of the proposed fee
options on "typical" developments in the City. As reflected in this table, the proposed fees under
all options will have a very modest impact on residential development costs: about 4%.
1�3
i
Transportation Impact Fee Update Page 4
However, the impacts on non-residential projects are much more significant, especially for retail
uses: other than retail, non-residential uses will see increases ranging from 12% to 20%under the
proposed fees, depending on the type of use; and retail uses will see even larger increases,
ranging from 39% to 55% under the proposed fees, depending on type of use. (Without the
proposed subsidy, this would be even greater: 105%to 148%).
Sub-Area Fee Adjustments
As reflected in the resolution (Attachment 2), adjustments to the "base" community-wide fee
need to be made for new development in the Los Osos Valley Road (LOUR) and Prado Road
interchange sub-areas to avoid "double-counting" for the same project costs. New development
projects in these sub-areas are already charged for their benefit from these interchange projects
via "add-on" sub-area fees. Accordingly, the community-wide fees in these sub-areas are
reduced proportionately by the amount that is attributable to these interchange projects in the
base fee. The basis for these adjustments is provided in Table 3 of the report.
In short, new development in the sub-areas must pay community-wide transportation impact fees
like other new development in the City in addition to sub-area fees. However, in their case, the
community-wide fee should be adjusted to reflect their direct contribution to these interchange
projects via sub-area fees.
The following summarizes the proposed"base" fees as well as those proposed in the sub-areas.
Interchange
Current Improvement Sub Areas
Land Use Category Basis Base Fee Base LOUR Prado Road
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit $1;569 $2,930 $2,400 $2,136
Multi Family Residential Dwelling Unit 1,392 2,600 2,130 1,895
Retail 1,000 Square Feet 2,477 6,172 5,051 4,487
Office 1,000 Square Feet 3,150 5,875 4,813 4,282
Service Commercial 1,000 Square Feet 1,708 3,186 2,610 2,322
Industrial 1,000 Square Feet 908 1,697 1,390 1,237
Hospital 1,000 Square Feet 2,819 4,980 4,080 3,630
Motel/Hotel Room 728 1,360 1,114 991
Service Station Pump 1,348 6,927 5,676 5,049
Other I Average Daily Trip 147 274 224 200
As reflected above, making appropriate adjustments for interchange projects that are included in
both.the "base" and sub-area fees result in a reduced community-wide fee of 18% in the LOVR
sub-area and 27% in the Prado Road sub-area. However, it is important to note these
adjustments are only made to avoid"double-counting" for the same costs in calculating fees; they
represent a relatively small reduction compared with the cost of sub-area fees.
For example, under the recommended fees, a 10,000 square foot retail use in the LOVR sub-area
will have community-wide transportation impact fees of$50,500 (and total development impact
fees of$130,900, as shown in Table 5 of the attached report). However, in addition to this, it
will have sub-area transportation impact fees of another $127,500, which is about equal to all
�-y
C ?
Transportation Impact Fee Update Page 5
other development review and impact fees combined. In summary, while the "base" impact fee
will be 18%less in the LOVR sub-area, total transportation impact fees will be much higher.
Proposed Financing Program for LOUR Sub Area Fees Under Preparation. The adoption of
the proposed community-wide fees is un-related to the setting of sub-area fees, which are based
on detailed analyses approved by the Council in October 2003 and updated in September 2005.
However, as noted above, these LOVR sub-area "add-on" fees are significant, and can be equal
to the amount of all other City development review and impact fees combined. For example, the
total fees for a proposed auto dealership with 38,000 square feet of building space in the LOVR
sub-area (including water, sewer, transportation, public art and affordable housing) are about
$800,000. Of this amount, about 50% ($396,000)is the estimated sub-area add-on fee alone.
While necessary to fund needed LOVR interchange improvements, this sub-area fee poses a
major economic challenge for new development in this area, given "base" development impact
fees and open space dedication requirements. For this reason, we plan to return to the Council in
the near future with a proposed financing program to assist with funding LOVR sub-area fees.
We are still working on the details; however, key principles that will underlie any proposed
program include:
1. The financing program would only be extended to auto dealerships, in light of the fiscal
benefits of this type of development and the City's General Plan policy of encouraging auto
dealers to locate in this area.
2. Only LOVR sub-area fees should be eligible for financing under this program: all other City
fees should be payable in the full amount due and at the time as set forth in the City's
standard polices and procedures for assessing and collecting development impact fees.
3. Sub-area fees should be payable in the full amount due under the City's standard policies and
procedures for assessing development impact fees. We will not propose any waivers or
deferrals of fee amounts, or any"net revenue"reimbursements.
In summary, any future consideration of a financing program for LOVR sub-areas fees would be
separate and distinct from setting community-wide transportation impact fees at this time.
However, we want to give the Council an early heads-up that a financing program is under
preparation, and the update of community-wide transportation impact fees provides an excellent
context for doing so.
Stakeholder Notification
March 2006 Study Session. We notified 55 groups and interested individuals about the March
21, 2006 study session (and the likelihood of significant fee increases in the near future),
representing a wide range of community interests, such as the Chamber of Commerce, Building
Industry Association, Property Owners Association, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, Sierra
Club and ECOSLO.
�� 5
Transportation Impact Fee Update Page 6
May 2006 Public Hearing for Fee Adoption. On April 12, 2006, we notified the same groups
and interested individuals about the public hearing for fee adoption scheduled for May 2, 2006,
including our fee recommendations and how to receive added information about the fee update.
Based on this most recent notice, we have responded to several inquiries about the proposed fees,
but we have not received any written comments at this time. However, we expect attendance
from many of these groups and interested individuals at the public hearing on May 2, 2006.
Implementation
Effective Date In accordance with AB 1600, which requires at least 60 days between adoption
of increased fees and their effective date,we recommend an effective date of July 2, 2006.
Annual Fee Adjustments. Consistent with current policy, we recommend annual increases in
the fees to keep-up with cost increases until the next comprehensive update, which should be
completed within the next five years. MuniFinancial also concurs with this approach, and
recommends either using the Consumer Price Index, as we have in the past; or the Construction
Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record, which is a reliable, widely-acknowledged
independent source for this type of information. For now, we recommend continuing to use the
Consumer Price Index. However, we will evaluate using the Construction Cost Index, and return
with a change if warranted for all of our development impact fees.
CONCURRENCES
The Department of Public Works concurs with this recommendation.
FISCAL IMPACT
This depends on the options implemented by the Council. However, all of the options will
significantly improve our ability to fund the cost of improvements needed to serve new
development. Without the higher cost recovery clearly documented and supported in the
attached report, there will be one of two outcomes:
1. The General Fund will need to make-up the difference, which will be very difficult to do
given the fiscal challenges currently facing the General Fund; or
2. Needed improvements will not be made, adversely impacting both existing and new residents
and businesses.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Transportation Impact Fee Update Report
2. Resolution adopting updated transportation impact fees
G:Financerltansportation Impact Fec/2006 Revision/Council Agenda Report 5-2-06 Fee Adoption /_
1
Attachment 1
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE UPDATE
city of San LENS omspo
5�LU�D
_1$56 5a :2lPtYG
Q.
MARCH 2006
MuniFinancial
Oakland Office Corporate Office Other Regional Offices
1700 Broadway 27368 Via Industria Lancaster,CA
Sixth Floor Suite 110 Pensacola, FL
Oakland,CA 94612 Temecula, CA 92590 Phoenix, AZ
Tel: (510) 832-0899 Tel: (800) 755-MUNI(6864) Seattle,WA
Fax: (510) 832-0898 Fax: (909)587-3510
www.muni.com
Attachment 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1. Introduction.........................................................................................1
Summaryof Findings ..............................................................................................1
KeyPolicy Issues.....................................................................................................2
Policy Background.......................
...........................................................................:
2. Mitigation Fee Act Findings...............................................................4
Purposeof Fee.................................................:.............................................:.........4
Use of Fee Revenues ...............................................................................................4
BenefitRelationship ................................................................................................5
BurdenRelationship ................................................................................................5
Proportionality.........................................................................................................6
3. Transportation Improvements & Costs............................................7
Transportation Impact Fee Funding Sources...........................................................9
Other Funding Sources......................................................................................:...10
4. Fee Calculation & Schedule.............................................................11
Transportation Impact Fee Survey.........................................................................14
Impacton Development Costs...............................................................................16
5. Implementation.................:......::.:..................................::.:................18
M� z
Attachment 1
1. INTRODUCTION
This report presents an update of the City's transportation impact fee program, which was
originally established in 1995 based on the Transportation Impact Fee Study prepared for the
City by David M. Griffith &Associates.
The purpose of the fee is to fund the transportation improvements required to accommodate new
development within the City. As further discussed below, it is the City's policy to ensure that
new development pay for its share of transportation improvements, and the transportation impact
fee is one of the key strategies for doing so. .
Sunimary of
Table 1 below summarizes four fee change options compared with current fees based on the
following key policy issues:
1. Reduced Project Base The current project cost base (which is a key driver in determining
fee amounts), includes the extension of Bishop Street ($10 million) and railroad grade
separation (overpass) at Orcutt Road ($12 million). The total cost for these two projects is
$22 million, of which $5.9 million would be funded from transportation impact fees
(accounting for 7% of the "full cost recovery" fee option), with the balance of$16.1 million
from "other sources." While these two projects are included in the City's General Plan, it is
uncertain where the "other sources" would come from; and the Council has taken several
actions in the past indicating that pursing these projects is a low priority at best. As such,
should the City continue to include these two projects in the cost base?
2. 50% RetaiUHotel Subsidy. In adopting fees in 1995, the Council set transportation impact
fees (TIF) for retail and hotel/motel uses at 50% of their allocated costs in recognition of the
General Fund fiscal benefits of these types of uses. Should the City continue this subsidy?
Table 1. Current Fee Com 3ared with Four New Fee Options
Fees
New Fee Options
Full Cost Recovery 50%Hotel/Retail Credit
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 Option 4
All Reduced All Reduced
Land Use Category Basis Current Projects Project Base Projects Project Base
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit $1,569 $3,160 $2,930 $3,160 $2,930
Multi Family Residential Dwelling Unit 1,392 2,804 2,600 2,804 2,600
Retail 1,000 Sq Ft 2,477 13,306 12,344 6,653 6,172
Office 1,000 Sq Ft 3,150 6,336 5,875 6,336 5,875
Service Commercial 1,000 Sq Ft 1,708 3,436 3,186 3,436 3,186
Industrial 1,000 Sq Ft 908 1,830 1,697 1,830 1,697
Hospital 1,000 Sq Ft 2,819 5,370 4,980 5,370 4,980
Motel/Hotel Room 728 2,932 2,719 1,466 1,360
Service Station Pump 1,348 7,483 6,927 7,483 6,927
Other ADT 147 296 274 296 274
Sq Ft:Square Feet ADT:Average Daily Trip
As discussed above, fees for retail and hotel/motel uses are currently set at 50% of the 1995 study costs in
recognition of the General Fund fiscal benefits these developments bring to the City. /
MuniFirrnnal 1
1
Attachment 1
As reflected above, significant increases are proposed under all of the options. As detailed in
Table 2 on page 8, there are three primary reasons for this:
1. Higher Project Costs In virtually all cases, estimated project costs are much higher than the
1995 study, even with the inflation cost adjustments that have been made since then. Total
project costs (excluding financing costs) have increased by$86.1 million, from $48.7 million
in 1995 to $134.8 million in 2006. This three-fold increase in project cost assumptions is the
single largest reason for the increase in proposed fees.
2. Financing Costs. No debt financing costs were included in the 1995 study. However, based
on subsequent funding plans developed since then, it is likely that the TIF portion of the
Prado Road and Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchanges and the Prado Road bridge
widening will be debt financed, and as such, $24.6 million for financing costs have been
included in the fee analysis.
3. Revisions in Outside Funding. Based on updated information,in several cases we have
reduced outside funding sources.
In short, other than updating project costs and funding sources, this update is based on the same
projects and the same fee methodology as the 1995 study.
As highlighted, there are two key policy issues facing the City with this update:
1. Should we exclude the Bishop Street extension and railroad grade separation (overpass) at
Orcutt Road from the cost base in calculating fees?
Reasons to include them. These two projects are included in the City's General Plan
Circulation Element, and this argues for including in them in the cost base. Additionally, if
the City does not include funds for them now in the TIF program, then it will be$5.9 million
short in funding these projects if they do go forward.
Reasons not to. These two projects account for a significant portion of the TIF program
(about 7% of the proposed fee), and past Council actions would indicate that these are low
priority projects at best. For example, when recently presented with the option of funding
further study of the Orcutt grade separation that would be fully funded by grant revenues, the
Council chose not to do so after receiving a initial presentation on what such an overpass
might look like. Moreover, in addition to revenues from the TIF program, the City will need
to find another$16.1 million from "other sources." It is uncertain where the "other sources"
would come from. In short, it may be inappropriate to collect funds for projects that have a
high likelihood of not being built,
2. Should we continue the 50% subsidy for retail and hotel uses?
Reasons to continue the subsidy. As noted above, the Council has set transportation impact
fees (TIF) for retail and hotel/motel uses at 50% of their allocated costs in recognition of the
MwzFvwxz l 2
Attachment 1
General Fund fiscal benefits of these types of uses, and the concern that assessing the full fee
would significantly discourage them. As reflected in Table 1, this concern is even larger in
2006: even if we continue the subsidy, retail and hotel uses will see major increases; and they
will be even greater if we discontinue the subsidy. (The impact of these changes is further
demonstrated in Table 5 on page 17, which summarizes the affect of the four options on
"typical" development projects.)
Reasons not to. If the subsidy continues, there will be a shortfall in revenues to support.
Circulation Element projects of$12.4 million. Given the City's current fiscal situation, it is
uncertain as best where these funds will come from; and without adequate funding, this
means that key improvements will not be made, adversely impacting both existing and new
residents and businesses.
The transportation impact fee is based on City policy contained in its General Plan adopted in
1994. The Land Use Element states that:
The cost of public facilities and services needed for new development shall be borne by
the new development...The City will adopt a development impact fee program...so that
new development pays its share of the costs of new services and facilities needed to serve
it.
Implementation policies in the Circulation Element include a policy stating that:
Development projects should bear the costs of new transportation facilities or upgrading
existing facilities needed to serve them.2
The Circulation Element (CE) goes on to list programs to support these implementation policies,
including adoption of a transportation impact fee ordinance to mitigate citywide development
impacts.3
Current Fee Program
The City's transportation impact fee was originally established in 1995 at a level of$1,234 per
single family residential dwelling unit, with separate fees for other major land uses. The fee was
based on the Transportation Impact Fee Study prepared for the City by David M. Griffith &
Associates. As set forth in the adopting resolution, from 1995 to 2006 the City has increased the
transportation impact fee each year to account for changes in construction costs based on
changes in the U.S. Consumer Price Index. The current fee of$1,569 reflects an increase of 23%
since 1995 based on these changes.
I City of San Luis Obispo,General Plan Land Use Element,policy LU 1.14.
22 City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan Circulation Element, policy CI 15.7,p.40.
3 Ibid.,policy CI 15.13,p.41.
MunzFirunakl 3
Attachment 1
2. NDTIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS
Development impact fees, also referred to as public facility fees, are one-time fees typically paid
when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies
responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of
public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act) with
Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in California
Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for
the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document
five findings when adopting a fee.
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities fees
documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the report that
follows. All statutory references are to the Act.
t Purpose of
For the first finding the City must:
Identify the purpose of the fee. (§66001(a)(1))
The policy of the City of San Luis Obispo is that new development will not burden existing
development with the cost.of public facilities, including transportation improvements, required to
accommodate growth. The purpose of the transportation impact fee is to implement this policy
by providing a funding source from new development for transportation improvements to serve
that development.
z Use of Fee Revenues
For the second finding the City must:
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the
facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference
to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in
applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public
documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (§66001(a)(2))
The transportation impact fee will fund new or expanded facilities to serve new development.
All planned facilities will be located within the City, based on the adopted Urban Reserve line.
These facilities included in the findings presented here include:
1. Roadway widening
2. Interchange construction
3. Intersection signalization and improvements
4. Other roadway, transit and bikeway improvements in the City
mWiFmVid i 4
8
Attachment 1
Planned transportation improvements are identified in this report. This report provides the cost
estimate for each planned facility. More detailed descriptions of certain planned facilities,
including their specific location, are included in various facility master plans and other City
planning documents. The City may change the list of planned transportation improvements to
meet changing circumstances and needs, as it deems necessary. The fee program should be
updated if these changes result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new
development.
Planned facilities to be funded by the fee are described in the Transportation Improvements and
Costs
G)J.PJE MMM&MQhs
For the third finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(a)(3))
The City will restrict fee revenues to the acquisition of land and construction of transportation
improvements that serve new development. Improvements funded by the fee will provide a
Citywide network of transportation facilities accessible to the additional residents and employees
associated with new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of
fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that will pay the
fee.
Planned facilities to be funded by the fee are described in the Transportation Improvements and
Costs chapter.
For the fourth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility
and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(a)(4))
Dwelling units and building square footage and the associated generation of trips are an indicator
of the demand for transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. The amount of
the fee allocated to new development is based on engineering reports prepared by Fehr & Peers
and the City that quantify the expected transportation impacts of new development. For
transportation impact fee projects not fully attributable to new development and where other
funding sources, such as grants, are not anticipated, the City's traffic model is used to calculate
the cost percentage that should be passed on to the TIF program. In this case, the cost of those
projects that benefit both existing and new development, costs are allocated based on the ratio of
base-year trips versus trips at build-out. This results in a ratio of costs attributable to new
development of 35%, which is slightly higher than the percentage used in the existing TIF
program (30%)due to changes in the urban reserve since 1994.
/-/3
Mu?iFirarrial 5
Attachment 1
5 ' eee e
For the fifth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development
on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(b))
This reasonable relationship between the transportation impact fee for a specific development
project and the cost of the improvements attributable to that project is based on the estimated
trips the project will add to public roadways. The fee schedule converts the estimated
development into a fee based on the number of trips. Larger projects of a certain land use type
will have a higher trip generation and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use
type. Thus, the fee schedule ensures a reasonable relationship between the transportation impact
fee for a specific development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project.
MwriFvwxid 6
8
Attachment 1
3. TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS & COSTS
Table 2 provides a list of the transportation improvements and the associated costs for the
transportation impact fee. It identifies costs related to improvements for:
1. Street and highway projects
2. Transit projects
3. Bikeway projects
The table compares the cost from the previous 1995 study to the updated 2006 cost estimates
completed by City staff and allocates the amount attributable to new development based on trip
generation factors. The 2006 estimates have been tabulated using the most recent cost estimates
for each project, summarized as follows.
Total project costs, excluding financing costs, have increased by $86.1 million, from $48.7
million in 1995 to $134.8 million in 2006.
The TIF portion of project costs have correspondingly increased by $32.2 million, from $19.3
million to $51.5 million. This excludes financing costs of$24.6 million for funding the Prado
Road and Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchanges and the Prado Road bridge widening.
Including these financing costs, the full cost recovery fee increases from $19.3 million to $76.1
million.
Table 2 also identifies the Citywide and subarea costs associated with the Prado Road and Los
Osos Valley Road interchanges, based on previous cost analyses and fee programs approved by
the Council.
MwvF Vnd 7
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S 0 0 O S 0 0 O O O O O O OM
p p O O O O O O O O O O O O vt op O O M M1
r y 0 0 0 'tel O O N 00 O O O O T M1 O O t' y.�
O r O O� r O = r+i O O O lO O IM1 — M_ M1
r � N O M O T O� O O M O T O F Q• OO F �O M1
s
w Q O OSOSS o
Cl
�i O N 7 00 O M O O op O O F O a\ O a0
O
� O
O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O F
O O
— W
S O O O O S
0 b N DO N
C p CD
C
CD
CD
y N
� ppO
O O O O O O O S
cE N eoo v N opo �
•� M —
C2;,
O O
N
C
O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o e o e e e
e
pO O O O O O O O pO O O pO pO O pO O po pO O O
O_ 0 0 0 0 0 0 eD O O h 0 0 0O O O O O en
H p O o0 O � O O N O O M1 O � O 0 0 �O ,O O F
�l
N
O
0 0 0 O O O
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
F p pp
O O m � O vi F O O M1
eti N om ? C O N N N — N o0 � OD
Q
N
z
:A
W
O
w t v
m m p Q
d G U C
mc d o E 9 m eo m2 E
CL
E G ,e a c 3
as cce
G E � v `° cnv •�
4+ � 3 � a> �" aCi o P: ..� c m u °• °� "' > � ouao 0
2 V
OD` it
C9667 F 3 g o o.E u h Y u m R > Li, re
p v 2 C
V] y�. a p H p ye •� m >
� � � o n._. � � v LL] s
N 53300A- ca > T2UGors. C� F- me —_
tV q,
U CJ O] fd �, p m < U = = o
F - - - - - - � — eD v, F �"
Attachment 1
'Franspo 'Impact
Notes to Table 2
1. Highway 101/LOVR Interchange Improvements. Subarea fees have been previously
established for this project that allocate 63.7% of the project cost directly to properties in this
area, with the balance (36.3%) allocated to other new development in the rest of the City.
The subarea fee analysis also assumes that $13.4 million of the $27 million project cost
(about 50%) will be funded from grant sources and other reimbursements; resulting in a net
allocation of project costs to the TIF program of 18.2%($4.9 million).
2. South Higuera Street Widening. The City has applied for and received preliminary
approval for grant sources that will pay for about 25% of the project cost.
3. Orcutt/UPRR Grade Separation. Project funding sources assume that 80% of project cost
will be paid by grants dedicated by the State for railroad grade crossings.
4. Orcutt/UPRR at Grade Improvements. This project reflects a phased approach to
improvements at this railroad crossing for the acquisition of needed properties and at-grade
improvements. Based on grants approved to-date that fund about 31.6% of project costs,
68.4% of project costs are allocated to the TIF program.
5. Allocation of Project Costs Between Existing and New Development. For TIF-related
projects not fully attributable to new development and where other funding sources, such as
grants, are not anticipated, the City's traffic model is used to calculate the cost percentage
that should be passed on to the TIF program. In this case, the cost of those projects that
benefit both existing and new development, costs are allocated based on the ratio of base-
year trips versus trips at build-out. This results in a ratio of costs attributable to new
development of 35%., which is slightly higher than the percentage used in the existing TIF
program (30%) due to changes in the urban reserve area since 1994.
6. Highway 101/Prado Road Interchange. Based on prior detailed funding analyses, 70.1%
of this project cost has been allocated directly to new development in the Dalidio, Prado and
Margarita areas, with the balance (29.9%) allocated to new development in other areas of the
City.
7. Santa Barbara Street Widening. Project funding sources assume that 70% of project costs
will be funded by grants and other reimbursements.
8. Transit Grant. Funded Projects. In accordance with current federal guidelines, assumes
that 80%of these project cost will be funded grants.
9. Financing Costs. No debt financing costs were included in the 1995 study. However, based
on subsequent funding plans developed since then, it is likely that the TIF portion of the
Prado Road and Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) interchanges and the Prado Road bridge
widening will be debt financed, and as such, $24.6 million for financing costs have been
included in the fee analysis. This is based on a 30-year term and an "all-in true interest cost"
1-17
MwiF=Md 9
O
Attachment 1
of 6.25%, net of costs related to the reserve fund (these will be used to make the final year
debt-service payment), including estimated interest earnings on the reserve.
Other Funding Sources
The City anticipates using existing revenue sources or developing new sources to fund the non-
fee share of planned facility costs. As discussed above, "subarea" fees are major funding source
for the Prado Road and LOUR interchanges. Other likely potential sources of revenue include
existing or new_general fund revenues and grants.
/s
MwiFwxzl 10
Attachment 1
4. FEE CALCULATION & SCHEDULE
Table 3 presents the transportation impact fee calculation and schedule based on full cost
recovery for all projects. The fee is calculated by summing the capital costs related to following
three components shown in Table 3:
1. All projects listed in Table 2 except the Prado Road and Los Osos Valley Road
interchanges
2. Prado Road interchange
3. Los Osos Valley Road interchange
Fehr& Peers provided trip rates by land use type. Total trips were multiplied by a pass-by factor
to determine the discounted trip rate. Pass-by trips are related to stops at points midway between
the origin and destination of a trip so these trips do not represent additional demand on the
transportation system.
The impact fee for each land use category was calculated in the following manner. For each of
the three capital cost components, the cost per trip is calculated based on the project costs
including financing costs in Table 2 and the land use and total trips shown in Table 3. Next,total
capital costs are allocated to each land use category by multiplying the cost per trip by the total
trips for each land use. Finally, the fee per unit of development for each component is calculated
by dividing the share of total costs for each land use by the amount of projected development for
that land use. The retail fee per unit of development for each component is weighted to obtain a
single fee for retail land uses based on the four retail categories.
Fees for all categories are provided in Table 3 except for service stations, which are determined
based on 25.28 average daily trips (ADT) per pump, using the "other trips" fee of$296 per trip
(or$7,483 per pump).
City of San Luis Obispo staff provided the development assumptions. This included estimates of
total citywide development and within the Prado Road and Los Osos Valley Road subareas.
separately.
The total transportation impact fee shown at the bottom of Table 3 sums the three components of
the fee. Development within the Prado Road interchange subarea and the Los Osos Valley Road
interchange subarea will separately finance their fair share of interchange facilities. For this
reason, the two subareas receive a credit against the total fee.
/�41
MmuFwanad 11
r � 1
Q ti
r o00 m o0o OOfn Q
++ O Q Q Of
E 0 zzzzlz zlz oaom Q z mrn zz
t Q Q
V
R r9 en v) fn rn Vi
Y
Of O m HCl O u7 � u'i N O u•1 m Q
Q Qm �q t0 O m cD � n O tD Qn
C C C ci
fA H; E9!9
m Om om mMQR oo nm u� r
Q O M O M N m O
m fV fi tC 1- QC m u7 r r .- C6 Q n
O C6 N r
fA f9 Hi t9
O
S
fA to fA
D
C
M Vi f9(A
m V m N N
MOf Q OOi O O cl m N 1 clD C t0 N fD � O rr O> ' LeiN
CO) fV
��pp M V3 Q Q f9 69
N N amp M O M O O D m m Q O m v OMi
m O r ui r Ip O m ( nj ( I b
fl M M Ifl^ m M CJ
0 vi
di eH Ni IH
mm 0 w m O M M R n
n O n N
O N ,(O O N C7 N ' M t7 r
J �
fA fA tl9 f9
QOm N m0 ONQN nN ifJ m .
m u] N m u7 N Vl 0 O Of O� M N Q O n
b m IT� Q m Q ^ C Q N M
O M N M M
V1 di P9 fA to!9
N O O N O n m m m
arnOorn m invow w 6 n QQ
(6 cliN t0 OD cq
m
Old °' m � , N O � N r N N N
S K
fA f9 to f9
om N Qm Mn m n u� ni
co w v n Qm
m > ^ M M LLn] f00 N
N M O mO Q
O m O Q Q 6f N O M m O LL7
m C N N fh Q
m O
M LD N M
L � N
f9 M � f9 69
m
N O m Q m O 47 d C O Q m � M O N m O Q
N O M O m O m m m O M M O n m Q Of
m6
LL m N Q cn co N
U
m m G O
U E4 ea tN esi
O $ C, a
m p a
cc
E _ U m Em
V ¢ v dLL ny v: ny
iosa s m0 ° a
p 'c :? rn .� y m v c N O n m
cLi � Q O aci � •�I- MLL " `° Ir m ~ pmLL .
WyL n a n,v_ aH � a 'm $ y y m m a d o 'm
a e 0. v
LL N Nm N N N � . O (") y � m � v N LM 0
U Nva LL =S
of - m m o m � ti c c �.1 � a'3 m o Co a E V o
C 'C m _ d N a t • c 2.p Z o
oco
000 � HL Ev° o $ 3m � m vmo .� i° ma ` a' mmm
f6 xmz = m0 ¢ m � H ._ O mLL. � a cH ma Z .c t1Z yli �
F a tra Uri Q- o LL .
o
E
CD
Z
Z
(� di fA IA
r
q O O O •V .
Q m � MO N N�"N N��
N
L
O fA di fA fli 69 fA (A
Gm0 110� 11
V = M m M m � m �C
yN O GD G] Q D) M W Q Q
p m M N C4 N N N
_' l7
fH IA fAi (A M f9
I i
_ O M Co O O�ON Olv%
O
ci ui
O MQ
— � � o iri»ca vi u> w w
pp € 1
0 tD C O M M O t0+1 N
CO� m COM In
W Q r
C
C
fA M fA iA fA N1 bq
m ' O ' N M O < Q i 0 Q.ID GOO
V
N R N M N M N
m
y
' w fs vi fA Hi 69
M Q o N m m M m Q
to �D LL] Y1 M O M M Q M I�
m n N R O O M MIW t't M N
Q N
fA b9 fA (q fApC tl9
O M f0 fD )D fp i to
' A M coo M M W MiN O
J m lif
K
fA f9 fA w (A fA in
iD0 ON C0Omm pOp O Lo O m
N O
� M
f9 1A EA (A fA f9 fA 19
MS N M V; lh M O f`7 N r
f9 fA f9 fA M fA fH
M A
Om co OWN O M
— C ' cii MN m NN O
.. W t7
m �
� 0
w to f9 t9 f9 fA 1A
o Q oo Q Q� lm v In
' 14! tOv m m o mQ
LL m N m N N N fV N
2 q M g7 m
m W f9 fA f9� IA fAf9 LL
1 co
3 9 i
N co t0+1 Lo 1p t0 O @
a+ LL W N O M M N C fV
U dJ K W Q
v
C co72
vi rn�w lo
w
Y Q m j N n D
J Gm 'O Ca m C V m
a pwp m U o a. C W m LL W D LLQ (D c
V m U Wa -amm J mem mUm V!
i min O � Oa a W °' m � Wa2W' � D
L a c m � > J m O . LL W a m LL�
V)O12
J a
tmQ5 Uo p OU6:C >J
mam V
uo> a
m> pOO a °LLpo �BJzFJz LL 0 m
cd
- Attachment 1
Transportation
Table 4 presents a survey of transportation impact fees of comparable California cities as well as
cities in the County.
Residential Uses. The table indicates that all of the fee options for residential uses are well
within range compared to these cities. For example, the "full cost recovery, all projects" fee
(Option 1) for single family residential for San Luis Obispo is $3,160 compared to:
$5,132 in Atascadeo
$4,643 in Davis
$4,520 in Paso Robles
$5,424 in Petaluma
$6,940 in Santa Maria
$5,245 in Ventura
$4,059 in Visalia
53,160 in San Luis Obispo (Option 1)
In fact, of the ten surveyed cities with adopted transportation impact fees, only three (Grover
Beach, Pismo Beach and Arroyo Grande) have lower fees for residential than any of the options
presented in this report.
Non Residential Uses. Fees for non-residential uses are also generally within the range of other
cities, with the notable exception of retail uses, where City fees will be at the high end of the
range if the 50% subsidy is continued; and will be much higher than any other surveyed city if it
is not.
MwvFirnnod 14
1
Y.
c
m
E
L
U
R
M
Q
a
m
`m
u
a
e
m
y
m
r
O
y
y
m
'c
W
e
m
a
y
O
O) M q nNQ � ' m n naOOO
Of IC .- f'1 �O " M , t , N 0 T cid m vi3O O: f7 O1N
Z c0 M c0 N N c7 r A �- LL]c0 Q V N Q y q cV fV O O N�- Q cO
e T A A N .O f9 C m m M
Q O O v m W ^ z a a a
C N M M O .� M O C m
m O•
'm y
Yoi YoiQoA M0 m m � � qw
onion m mn ono m
p�pp o p m s S 3
Q p m m
�QcOO �O ppQ ppppff (pp(pp Cpp py yom � y
N V Q N N M L Q
Cc,
00 Q m 0 m co w W A f� m N O E
MVVQ VN cl;cl m 0 Nsm N�NfV iO CM1QCV O EO
O 0 m Y
m Q N O a nv'
a � Oza g m E 0
IL m o z
p � .o
Q m O O n M O Q O O c0 co cOD O cJ tM') Q O M Q (V C C w N
Q 0 n O cNFD m
A r � N � W � N M _ � CD M D) m O T
E m m iO h N C N Q < N N li 9 fV M f0 M r 1f1 N n
7 0
o
as m • n 'S
IL o O a` Q
m O a b c4
Z `
Q nco co M M M N O1 C W N n O O O T OD n a C O
O cO A t N r m ccpp O n c0 O O � N Q C {p 6
tMpy O0 O M Y tw wc0 OM co V
N n m
� A •
1 fV M� N U0 m J
YQ > m
LL
mmmrnCIS
`m y
U O Q N V N a m g m
aC y O O m
G c C T E
m C m
O a m E c a E c m 0
O
M m e d ~ me mo
a ~ • m 'c � ~ w W a
E om m � � E om � E am
mE CEg2i CE� L> maUm
m0
0O /1 V7 U
• W LL O o
4
EL
F J v1COu15Su70 J fA � � Ov�i 2S2f1703 U1 � � inE = in N
1
Attachment 1
Table 5 summarizes the impact of the proposed fee options on "typical' developments in the
City. As reflected in this.table, the proposed fees under all options will have a very modest
impact on residential development costs: about 4%. However, the impacts on non-residential
projects are much more significant, especially for retail uses: other than retail, most non-
residential uses will see increases ranging from 13% to 38%, depending on the type of use and
fee option; and retail uses will see even larger increases, ranging from 39% to 162% depending
on the size and fee option.
MwiFimmid 16
r m `m 0000 LO I- LO 0 L 0 L 0 0 0 0
'c p LO N W I-- N M P, r I� r CD r M r
m oo LONfl. N r 0 Nto CN co Oj f� 0n
E c o N n M co o cTZ o M N M N T r T r
R
w
Q
m 0 N O O O O N cc cc o 0 0 0
TCCo 0 CD MLD co co rte' T
m m C R r r M t` 0a 0 I!') lO CA CO W Co
y EC L) � M C7 V7 CDDOOco f'7N cnN r r rr
O N Cf) r
U
t� v `m W W O 0ON V LO 11, LO o 0 0 0
FiOp 0070000 � 00 mn CAn MLn MLA
O 0 O N
co M co co N N 0 Co co co M N M N
Cfl r N 0 T r r T
m cO0a DODO NO NO o 0 0 0
p 0OO 00 lq' CO LOO COO ON ON
poo OD0Oo T N MN ON MOo MOD
Cm" 0 C7 O CO N ar t- r P M N MN
LOrO N r 0 OGD 0 c
c `vi OI R LCI LO N CO UO LO O tO 0 0 0 0
MOOo NMO CM co f` ON LO co
o M r M M O r T M co � N .
m o N M N 4:6 L rN Op M M
(D r T
O N T r
m � r
m m 0 V• O OOM 00 00 o 0 0 0
�p MOGo 0 CD Go � O V CD cc IT
J o M T P T I% O L`7 COM N I� N 0
o NMO 0 N M 0r NiI` CO V 0O
0Na N * M TCO ODr TT
r CA Cl) C OI LO M LO LO
T r
E y Co 00 O LOQ OO 00 O O O O
p LO N r LO 0 M n T co LO 0 M It 0
- v o co N M O CD CD co 0 N co M O oI N
m m o OD Il: a r Oo VZ d•:CO LO O LO et LO LO
m N n 0 r N O N r T T
C cn 69 N M N r r
m `m co 00 0 t 00 00 0 0 0 0
E c 0 N � LO CO W CD n CD LO N O of M
U oo LO N h 0 LO Of N CO h O 0 0 6
o N ^ N 007 N CD O M 19tM M
T O
to r
co I,- CA LO CD LCI _T �- r r o o e e
E N0 CD O r CO O co O CD CO O CD 0
m m -CT Nr 0 n a LO LO M LO M a M rt M
LL .0 Ni Nr V r
y 69 r M
Co
G
y
O
U
c
EU)
CL c y y O N N
O ° m m" CL m m
A)CL o �0 or o
a.
m � ad4 ` LL (L .
LL VV VvV
0) CD v vCD vmmo om o V mo U . 0
MitpnaC (L a =p
CL m ° � x my, � Q1X � � Qa' = ;Fc it
E LL co N m 'p ,rrN LpMq C ZTN
N. C U U cc (off O O y o o V CL 0 O, O y 0 0
.
CL
a Co m w L`G 9 o c+ 300o00 ® 300x00
rJ � cn � CL 0- LL Lq n. a Ul) ��� �
Attachment 1
5. IMPLEMENTATION
This section identifies tasks that the City should complete when implementing the fee programs.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the Capital Improvement Plan
The City should update its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) to program fee revenues to specific
projects. Use of the CIP in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between new
development and the use of fee revenues.
The City may alter the scope of the planned projects, or substitute new projects as long as the
project continues to represent an expansion of the City's transportation facility capabilities. If the
total cost of all planned projects varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fee, the City
should revise the fee accordingly.
For the four-year planning period of the CIP, the City should allocate all existing fund balances
and projected fee revenue to specific projects. The City can hold funds in a project account for
longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient funds to complete a project.
Identify Non-Fee Revenue Sources
The City must identify non-fee revenue sources to fully fund the planned facilities and justify the
maximum impact fee. The City should take any actions necessary to secure those funds.
Inflation Adjustment
The City should identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and adopt an
automatic inflation adjustment to the fee annually. The City should use separate indexes for land
and construction costs. Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser
every several years. The construction cost index can be based on the City's recent capital project
experience or taken from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record or U.S.
Consumer Price Index. To calculate the fee increases, each index should be weighted by the
share of total planned facility costs represented by land or construction, as appropriate.
Reporting Requirements
The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government
Code 66000 et seq. For facilities to be funded with a combination of impact fees and other
revenues, the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must
also identify when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project.
MwiFi wxial 18'
Attachment.2
RESOLUTION NO. (2006 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
UPDATING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
WHEREAS, Chapter 4.56 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code establishes
transportation impact fees and provides for the setting of fee amounts and other matters by
resolution of the Council; and
WHEREAS, the Council has reviewed the report prepared with the assistance of
MuniFinancial entitled Transportation Impact Fee Update (Impact Fee Report) dated March
2006, which meets the requirements of Government Code Section 66000 (commonly known as
AB 1600) for setting development impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the Council held an in-depth study session regarding these fees on March
21, 2006 and a public hearing on May 2, 2006, and provided extensive notification regarding
these fees prior to their adoption.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. FINDINGS
a. The purpose of transportation impact fees is to provide adequate transportation
facilities based on the City's General Plan policies, including the Circulation Element, that are
needed to satisfy the needs of new development and to mitigate the impacts of new development
on the City's transportation infrastructure.
b. The fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used only to pay for
facilities and improvements identified in the impact fee analysis and shall not be in lieu of any
other fee or tax as may be required.
C. There is a reasonable relationship between the types of development on which the
impact fees are imposed and the use of the impact fees and the need for the facilities and
improvements.
d. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of
the facilities and improvements attributable to the developments on which the fees are imposed.
The estimated costs of facilities and improvements, including financing costs, to be paid for by
connection fees are shown in the impact fee analysis. The costs have been allocated to new
development based on trip generation by land use type, using dwelling unit type for residential
uses and square feet,rooms, pumps or trips for non-residential uses, which are reasonably related
to the transportation improvements needed by a development project.
Attachment 2
Resolution No. (2006 Series)
Page 2
SECTION 2. COST ESTIMATES
At any time that the actual or estimated costs of facilities identified in the impact fee
analysis changes, the Director of Finance & Information .Technology (Director) shall review the
impact fees and determine whether the change affects the amount of the impact fees. If the
impact fees are significantly affected, the Director will recommend to the Council a revised fee
for its consideration.
SECTION 3. FEE ADJUSTMENTS
Project costs and related fees set forth in the Impact Fee Report shall be adjusted as
follows in accordance with"Option 4" as described in that report:
a. Reduced Project Base. Due to uncertainty about where significant outside
funding sources would come from and their relatively low priority, costs for the extension of
Bishop Street and the railroad grade separation (overpass) at Orcutt Road shall be excluded from .
the cost base used in setting transportation impact fees.
b. Continued 50% Retail/Hotel Subsidy. Given the General Fund fiscal benefits
of these types of uses, the 50% subsidy of retail and hotel/motel uses approved by the Council
when transportation impact fees were initially adopted in 1995 shall be continued..
SECTION 4. AMOUNT OF IMPACT FEES
Effective July 2, 2006, transportation impact fees shall be in the amounts set forth in
Exhibit A attached hereto. Unless otherwise acted upon by the Council, the amount of the fees
will automatically be adjusted on July 1 of each subsequent year by the annual percentage change
in the U.S. Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers (or comparable successor index, if
applicable) for the prior calendar year..
SECTION 5. TIME OF PAYMENT
a. Impact fees for any development project or portion thereof shall be payable prior
to issuance of building permits required for that development, and shall be collected by the
Building Official.
b. For any development project or portion thereof, impact fees shall be assessed at
the time of application and remain valid for as long as the processing time period allowed by the
Uniform Administrative Code as adopted by the Council.
( J Attachment 2
Resolution No. (2006 Series)
Page 3
SECTION 6. DETERMINATION OF LAND USE CATEGORIES
All determinations regarding the appropriate classification of development type by land
use category shall be made by the Community Development Director.
SECTION 7. SEPARATE ACCOUNTS
The Director shall deposit fees collected under this resolution in a separate transportation
impact fee fund as required by Government Code Section 66006. Within one hundred and eighty
(180) days of the close of each fiscal year, the Director shall make available to the public an
accounting of these fees, and the Council shall review that information at its next regular public
meeting.
Upon motion of , seconded by ,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted on May 2, 2006.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
J well, City Attorney
J Attachment 2
Resolution No. (2006 Series)
Page 4
Exhibit A
TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS
Effective July 2, 2006
Interchange
Im rovement.Sub Areas
Land Use Category Basis Base* LOVR Prado Road
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit $2,930 $2,400 $2,136
Multi Family Residential Dwelling Unit 2,600 2,130 1,895
Retail 1,000 Square Feet 6,172 5,051 4,487
Office 1,000 Square Feet 5,875 4,813 4,282
Service Commercial 1,000 Square Feet 3,186 2,610 2,322
Industrial 1,000 Square Feet 1,697 1,390 1,237
Hospital 1,000 Square Feet 4,980 4,080 3,630
Motel/Hotel Room 1;360 1,114 991
Service Station Pump 6,927 5,676 5,049
Other Average Daily Trip 274 224 200
*Base fees are applicable to all areas in the City except for the Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR)and Prado Road interchange sub-areas. Community-wide fees in these sub-areas
are reduced by the proportionate share of base fees attributable to the cost of these
interchange improvements,for which projects in these sub-areas are directly charged via
sub-area fees that are in addition to community-wide fees.