Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04/04/1995, A-1 - APPOINTMENT RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
p�9III II ?ip6 �11�IUI�N��l�lllll! III` MEETIN D/EJ/ 8--is til VIII city o� san tins os�spo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER / FROM: Mayor Allen Se tle-and Council Member Kathy Smith Council Liaison Subcommittee to the Planning Commission PREPARED BY: Sherry Stendahl, Council Secretary SUBJECT: Appointment Recommendation to the Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: By motion, appoint Paul Ready to a three year appointment to expire 3/31/98. BACKGROUND: One vacancy remains on the Planning Commission. After reviewing all applications on file and interviewing applicants, the Subcommittee is pleased to recommend Paul Ready for three year term. Mr. Ready's application is attached. All others are available from the Council Secretary. ATTACHMENT: Paul Ready Application FROM PAN PACIFIC - OASIS 1 .27. 19° 16:34 p 2 �'/t. cirp7 SO:ie I1TlOe ". . r� 9LG CZ?S S1Y.. ApAL3CATION FOR.( APPOINTMENT{]AEAPPQI': NTMENT A TO CIT�r ADVISOR1C BODY ai1 F > ad' ... Pa - NAME:OF'APPUCANT- Advlso Bpa A Ited For, •. �.99.8 ..'Sa:n; L:ii:ia. 'D:r.. 7::::S.a't1,.Lu : :.-:... ;s .Obaspo Planniil. ' 'Commiss.ioxi.:.: ,.:,.'' AESiDEN S ET'ADDRESS 1) .. -. _. .. ,carr 54 11626. ;541 ; . ... :......:.. , .. - . ..'. ::� .:.....:::;•.::..:_.'..:' �..'.•: =:605:5':..::•..:'::::::::: . •..:. DAY P i� NONE':. . ..........,.'... .. •....:,.; .:. ....,.; WG PHO -.:......:::.' ';fINTERYlE1N$;�: E� - 9 stared voteroh:the c __::;; �Q :n�.•�:.-::::::. . ..:.. .. YE3 NO 'lAItf1� ^' .�97 ; r.>=:: Howaonp have you 1Ned:(n the.chy? . Since X9.5,6..... . CITY.coutcp: := ::. Piesent Occupation Em fo .'.;:`A:�:t" ne :. : . .. .SAS t�1J��LSPO;�f�A p yar y F:armer.; end .Ready,r'' A:..::T.ar 'Corpora't:ion :, ,:. :.. Education: 'H...g`.:;::. :San.,.Lu.ia -l h ..1974-: 77 : g >#...5. > u.sxness Ac7m ni,stration...Ca'kxf.orhia:. - PalYec Ie nluersi. y L7 D. McGeorge.U, O Membership in Organlzatlons s L:O.'Rotary p� Torosa, $tate Bar Assoc , :.5 L C. Couht�r, Piease:expialn why You would Itke It').: 'Serve (use reverseside for.addhionai information); I am a native San Lugs Obispo resldent.•havi.ng been:. born, raised , and educa.ted:;aier:e`..:.in ti e:. .c.i:t ',. .: Y I, am:::.an.: ataorney.�:: ;a =bi%ai.� ea.s :otang: :':. h.d.::`. ;::;. a.. a homeowner and have remained here ba&ed upon an ealiy 'dec> sion tSt stay . . and raise- a .familyin the pedal: environment the.;cit 'pro Vicl�s ^'`I believe sery.ing uponthe planningcommission' offers an opp >ty to playa part in. protecting ' and preserving the vid.lit our: city.:. Previous service on SLO.advisory bodies (names/dafea): S.1 .o. Creel:. Ordinance `Commitee, '199 0' pace dvisory CQmzFlataee, 1,99 .. :..::. ... .. :. .. .:•: . .. :. .:..-....... .r.. :. P1;EASENOTE:1tappolnted to ff e Planning Commission,ArchlteGural;Revfew.:0ommisslon,or the°Gry Housing Authority,..': you:are required by.Sfate law, to file a Statement'dZebriomId I"eresi d(scioslag'VFYep6dible..in'terests heid'by you atthe.. time of:appoi... : A COPY ot;this_form is dvaAatile frbrtihe:C "' _,..:. . ny Appi(cations are eecApted year rqund,however;9 you are_apptying fora cdrre it vacancy,your appilcatlon mtist:be returned to:the Chy.Clerkby be;considered.ior.the::current-round:.bf intervlewa: -,.":=::::";:; .::: :_.-. .'..:: . to. OFFICS.-USE::ONLY--= SCREEMwG: •'INTERVI r�_ 4 EYV ,•. - CD M �Arr'f ENJ' DTOK.... 'APPOINTMENT":%:'--•::::;'.'LEB ANTE •/ SCREENING ::. :: : ..::-:'.::::::•..;::_.::.::::':'' RECOMMEND T ERM:g :.. -:. ... _..N9 . TERM ENDS . ,;'......::. ....'... . -..x-:.,..,.:..,'':::... . ' UND�p ADDnlC* t:coMMErrrS ' ,.., d:advt>od.app �III� WII�III�I�II�III MY Of SAn LUIS OBI SPO MEETING DATE: WiS COUNCIL AGENDA R ORT rrEM NUMBER: FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance Prepared by: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager fY4071/ SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution establishing transportation impact fee amounts effective June 5, 1995. DISCUSSION Background After three years of study and intensive review by a broad range of community groups and Council advisory bodies, the Council adopted transportation impact fees in March of 1994. However, the Council deferred actually setting fee amounts pending adoption of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which was under consideration at that time and is the primary source for determining projects to.be funded through transportation impact fees. Now that the Circulation Element has been adopted, it is time for the Council to set transportation impact fee amounts. The following provides a brief chronology of events leading to the proposed adoption of fees at this time: ■ Introduced in the Comprehensive Financial Management Plan 1989 - 2000 5/89 ■ Recommended by the Citizens Advisory Committee 2/91 ■ Proposed in the 1993-95 Financial Plan 7/91 ■ Developed with consultant assistance, analyzed by staff, and thru reviewed by industry groups 3/93 ■ Presented to Council for adoption; deferred to 6/93 4/93 ■ Referred to Economic Strategy Task Force (ESTF) 6/93 ■ Reviewed by the ESTF and recommendations prepared 11/93 ■ Presented to Council for adoption; discussed and deferred for additional comments 2/94 ■ Adopted by Council; setting of fee amounts deferred pending adoption of the Circulation Element 3/94 ■ Presented to Council to set fee amounts 4/95 In summary, based on previous Council action in adopting transportation impact fees in accordance with General Plan policies, the issue before the Council at this time is not whether we should have transportation impact fees, but how much they should be. Why should we implement transportation impact fees? There are two compelling reasons for implementing transportation impact fees by setting fee amounts at this time: 1111011111111101 city of San tins OBISpo aiis COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ■ General Plan policy. It is adopted City policy that new development should pay its fair share of the cost of constructing• facilities necessary to serve it. Transportation impact fees are one of the key financing tools available to the City in implementing this policy. ■ Resource limits. If we do not implement transportation impact fees, one of two things will happen: either we will not make necessary improvements to our transportation system, and all residents and businesses - current and new - will see service levels decline as a result; or we will make these improvements, but at the expense of other important community services that do not have alternative revenue sources available to them. How were these recommended fees developed? The transportation impact fees recommended for adoption by the Council were calculated under the strict State requirements (AB 1600) that establish the criteria that must be used in determining all types of development impact fees. This includes ensuring a "reasonable relationship" exists between the need and cost of a public facility and the development on which the fee is imposed. As noted above, the adopted Circulation Element is the primary source for identifying projects to be funded through transportation impact fees. Only two changes affecting fee calculations have been made since impact fees were last presented to the Council in March of 1994, which have resulted in a modest increase in the fees recommended at that time (about 4.5%). ■ Prado Road Interchange Previously, no part of this project was recommended for finding through transportation impact fees. However, a small portion of this project is now included in the fee calculations. Based on projected traffic volumes, 87% of this $10 million project should be funded directly by new development in the Dalidio, Prado Road, and the Margarita Expansion areas. The remaining 13% of project costs is apportioned between existing (69.4%) and future development's share (30.6%) of additional traffic. (The percentages are provided in the Transportation Impact Fee Study completed by David M. Griffith & Associates, March 15, 1993.) Accordingly, the impact fee share for this project was set at 3.9% of project costs, or $390,000. ■ Bishop Street Extension. In re-evaluating the apportionment of costs for extending Bishop Street over the railroad tracks and connecting it with South Street, it was determined that future development's share should be consistent with the percentages provided in the impact fee study when projects benefit both existing and new development. As such, the ratio assigned to new development was increased from 20% to 30.6%. At an estimated project cost of $4,250,000, this resulted in an increased allocation of$450,400 in the portion of this project to be funded through transportation impact fees. As noted above, these two adjustments have had a minimal overall affect on proposed transportation impact fee amounts. 1 - 1 ���� ►INIII�IIP���� �II city of san Luis oBispo It COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT How will these fees affect total development costs? As outlined in the "transportation impact fee fact sheet" provided in Exhibit 1, proposed fees are competitive with those charged by comparable agencies. However, in addition to considering the cost of any one specific fee, it is appropriate to consider the cumulative costs of various development review and impact fees. In February of 1995, the Building Industry Association of the Central Coast (BIACO) prepared a survey of development review and impact fees charged by various agencies in Santa Barbara and San Luis Obispo Counties. Provided in Exhibit 2 is a summary of the results of this survey along with a discussion of its applicability to the City of San Luis Obispo. As summarized in this exhibit, the development review and impact fee costs surveyed by the BIACO result in total fees of about $15,000.(excluding park in-lieu fees) in San Luis Obispo for a single family residence, including proposed transportation impact fees. This results in fees that are about 8% of median home prices. These ratios ranged from about 5% to 12% for the other agencies in San Luis Obispo County surveyed by the BIACO. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Prior to transportation impact fees being adopted by the Council in March of 1994, extensive reviews were performed by a broad range of community groups and Council advisory bodies. -Additionally, on February 8, 1995, staff mailed a notice regarding the setting of transportation impact fees to fifteen groups/individuals who have previously requested that they be notified of any fee changes. This notice scheduled a briefing to discuss the proposed fees on February 23, 1995 and offered to meet with any individuals or groups at their convenience. At the Chamber of Commerce's request, a briefing with representatives from the Chamber was held February 21, 1995. No one attended the evening briefing on February 23, 1995. FISCAL IMPACT In accordance with General Plan policies, transportation impact fees are one way of financing transportation system improvements that ensures new development pays its fair share of the cost of building the facilities necessary to serve it. The total impact fee share is $19.3 million, which is reduced to approximately $15 million in actual funding by the 50% credit for retail and hotel-motel development. While the fees provide for average annual revenues of$500,000 (using a 30 year timeframe for build-out of projects), current trends suggest significantly less annual revenue during the 1995-97 Financial Plan period. SUMMARY The Council adopted transportation impact fees in March of 1994, but deferred actually setting the fee amounts pending adoption of the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Now that this element has been adopted, adoption of transportation impact fee amounts are being brought forward for Council consideration. i �iIINNINH����Il�u�pNNl��ll City of Sa n LUIS OBisp0 COUNCIL,AGENDA REPOR ATTACHMENT - - - — - I . Resolution establishing amounts for transportation impact fees EDITS 1. Transportation .impact_fee fact sheet 2. Memorandum dated February 21; 1995 discusging the results of the BIACO Survey of development review and impact fees 3. Council agenda report dated March 8, 1994 recommending adoption of transportation impact fees 4. Council Agenda Report dated February 1, 1994 recommending adoption of transportation impact fees 5. Transportation impact fee study dated March 15, 1993 prepared by David M. Griffith & Associates - i I i I i I i RESOLUTION NO. (1995 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SETTING THE AMOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, Chapter 4.56.10 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 City of San Luis Obispo has prepared studies to determine the need for transportation facilities and improvements to serve new development; and WHEREAS, a study entitled City of San Luis Obispo Transportation Impact Fee Study, dated March 15, 1993, by David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. (hereinafter called "Impact Fee Study"), which is incorporated herein by reference, has analyzed the relationship between future development and the cost of needed transportation facilities and improvements; and WHEREAS, community groups and Council advisory bodies have extensively reviewed transportation impact fees over the past four years to determine if the basic concept of the fees is appropriate, and if so, to make recommendations regarding the implementation of the fees. NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finds and resolves that: FINDINGS 1. The purpose of transportation impact fees is to provide adequate street improvements, transit improvements, and bicycle facilities to satisfy the needs of new development and to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's transportation facilities. 2. The transportation impact fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used only to pay for street, transit, and bikeway facilities and improvements and shall not be in lieu of any other fee or tax. 3. There is a reasonable relationship between the types of development on which the fees are imposed and (a) the use of the fees and (b) the need for the facilities and improvements. 4. 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 transportation fees is shown in the Impact Fee Study, as subsequently modified in Appendices A and B attached hereto. Those costs have been allocated to new development on the basis of dwelling unit type (residential) or type of development and size of development (non-residential), which are reasonably related to traffic generated by the development project. COST ESTIMATE REVISIONS 5. At any time that the actual or estimated costs of facilities identified in Appendix A significantly changes, the Finance Director shall review transportation impact fees and determine whether the change significantly affects the amount,of the fees. If the fees are significantly affected, the Finance Director shall, within thirty (30) days, recommend to the Council a revised fee. AMOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES 6. The amount of transportation impact fees is set forth in Appendix C attached hereto. Unless otherwise acted upon by the Council, the amount of the fees will automatically be adjusted on July 1, 1996 and on July 1 of each subsequent year by the percentage change in the U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), all-cities average for the prior calendar year. TIME OF PAYMENT 7. - Transportation impact fees for any development project or portion thereof shall be payable prior to issuance of the building permit. 8. 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 application is proceeding through valid processing as per the Uniform Administrative Code. DETERMINATION OF LAND USE CATEGORY 9. All determinations regarding the appropriate classification of the development by land use category shall be made by the Community Development Director. SEPARATE ACCOUNTS 10. The Finance Director shall deposit fees collected under this resolution in a separate transportation impact fee fund as required by Government Code Section 66006. Within sixty (60) days of the close of each fiscal year, the Finance Director shall make available to the public an accounting of the fund, and the Council shall review that information at its next regular public meeting. EFFECTIVE DATE 11. The fees set forth in Appendix C of this resolution shall become effective June 5, 1995. �— 7 Upon motion of seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of , 1995. Mayor Allen Settle ATTEST: City Clerk, Diane Gladwell APPROVED AS TO FORM: 11/6'r#senfity ttorney � - 7 APPENDIX A IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO!11 LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE II.C.2 Hwy 101/Los Osos Widen Bridge/ $3,000,000 100.0% $3,000,000 Valley Rd Modify ramps II.B.1 Higuera St/ High St to Marsh St-- Widen (west side) $2,000,000 100.0% $2,000,000 II.B.5 Higuera St/ Widen $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 Madonna Rd to City Limit II.D.2 Orcutt Rd/SPRR Grade separation $4,000,000 20.0% [2) $800,000 II.B.4 Prado Rd Bridge/ Widen bridge $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 Hwy 101 II.A.6 Bishop Street Extend to connect $4,250,000 30.6% [31 $1,300,500 w/South Street II.C.1 Prado Road Interchange Build full interchange $10,000,000 3.9% [4) $390,000 at Hwy. 101 Various locations 20 traffic signals $2,000,000 100.0% $2,000,000 Madonna Sd/ Hwy 101 Widen/101 bridge $2,300,000 30.6% [5] $703,800 Higuera St/ Madonna Rd to High St Widen $775,000 30.6% [5) $237,150 Various Congestion mgmt $2,000,000 100.0% 161 $2,000,000 projects Subtotal Street Improvements $32325,000 44.6% $14,431,450 Notes: [1) Project numbers refer to the Circulation ElementAdopted November29, 1994. [2) Assumes 60%funding from Public Utility Commission as railroad safetyproject Project required to serve new development [3] Project cost apportioned according to future development share of total traffic. [41 Assumes 67%of project funded by new development of the Dalidio Property, Prado Road Area, and the Margarita Expansion Area:based on projected traffic volumes and proportional benefit;the remaining balance(13%)is apportioned to account for future development's share of additional traffic(30.6%). 151 Project cost apportioned according to future development share of total traffic. Impact fees will be used to recoup funds advanced by the City. 161 The Circulation Element sets a standard of LOS°D"for arterial streets and highways outside the downtown area, and LOS OF°for downtown streets. A-1 f� �• APPENDIX A IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO. LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE Mobile Fleet expansion $1,500,000 50.00/a [8j $750,000 171 (5 buses) Various locations Bus Stop Amenities $175,000 30.6% $53,550 Downtown Transfer Center $2,740,000 15.3% [9j $41.9,220 Subtotal Transit Improvements $4,415,000 27.7% $1,222,770 Notes. [7]Fleet expansion based on 43.3%increase in Gavel demand as represented by trip generation. [81 Assumes that 50%of acquisition cost will be funded bygrants. [81 Assumes drat 50%of transit center cost will be funded by grants, with the balance shared by existing and future development in proportion to share of total traffic, BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO.ifl LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE I.C. SPRR Right of Way New bikeway 1101 $8,000,000 30.6% $2,448,000 I.B. Various Bikeway imprvmts, $4,000,000 30.6% $1,224,000 bicycle facilities Subtotal Bicycle Facilities $12,000,000 30.6% $3,672,000 Notes: [1] Project numbers refer to the Circulation Element adopted November 29, 1994. [10] As adopted in the Bicycle Transportation Program 3.13 in the Circulation Element adopted November 29, 1994. GRAND TOTAL $48,740,000 39.7% $19,326,220 jp O O O O O O O O d N 00 m Y T T T O W T 0 r u1 (D ci c0 O O O co O co O y Q O m LL a0 O Of O r O n 0 �. .<.::. O K V O N r O 0 r j EL c 7 OY n a a a H 0 N O N O It O d r O N r .` 'C C a CD O r O O O O d m u1 01 :n .r a- C .`.. CL Y O M r O N r N r n fO0 r N,04 O .�.. C n r iH tl► . m `p O i L o1 Z' E No d o (0 0 cc m M C4 (D e.41w .m o O Os'_ O r O O O O O N W to r 7 CL y 3 01 O (n C) u) (0 O r r r N N O N0 CL= l0 w- r E1 Y r m (0 (0 co r Of% � C « H O U o E m _ CD C4 0 aE Q m t W u1 u1 O O co O 01 co .' y 'O O C1 N 0 M 0 r r r N 0 C m O a Eqt co co �� C T T T (g ZZ a rn W O O O O O O N O N N n �% V m 1Cp E m C W c0 O m O W N a t0 O O1 co L la R m O d C r O N O LO O N n N r .r: d 7 y m V J CL J Y d d (H d! n =0-m E 7 0 O 7 07 L- CL T rag or � V o d O w O N 0 0 O 0 N N �r 7 E C N m C Q. Z W jp 7 LL cD N O (0 N N u1 n 01 CD C73 W .m E = d 9 C O Q O m Y M r O N O n co N 0 � 'O L = •O- C M co .+ � � W w � .. E .O.. -0 U r E CL m a� WQ' W� C �.O+ V CL m 7 C' E r _ N O O O N O r O N N O Z 01 O 01 O q � 111 (+1 O V' Is U. CL S C1 W D1 N O N O r LO cq 0) O (OO m 3 3 E H O 'O O > Y R Q.R m � W � 5 r N r r v3tR :: mo � a� 3 O y O O O V V O ac ° E .. � co � c c Y O c7 O rd ((0D rO Or N O . Amm O� m C. (DNOO W in O ccLmO 0O O N Lq 0Lq N ON Q > 7C� c`f Oc NRO 0f n N 0 Q • M NC N n 01 b Cl) H! m m d 0N O C fA a (n En � « > to 0 0 0v vlo"Q t N c7 O r O O O n O N O l`0 R p, M - m r l`E y 01 O O N et I� LO (O O co N O 01 y01 ••• .� C O L O > R U. d n c M 0 r u1 r w of.o. a Q,.. ... m i 0 r T CO T. r r �r G lC U Q m T C O` 0 >: � Z L 7 � t N O 0 d 0 O N (0 � N�.d' Of y p E N� Z m�C (1 y N O c7 O (0 O (0 0 Qf:�W m R H a1 O LL a o r 0 n r n O),N i0. aZLL d3 CZ W cc A La a aye CC " O � W d y a ¢OYCL IL Cr W . 0 O a p Q F a Iruj LU :C 3 O U. m a � O c LL�I a O w W w W tLL, � _ �F Z I-� (D Lu Q 2 Q w 0 a Z 5 wmW w= w LUL 3 Z Q O ' Q ac. _ = Z = - O O O O W OF a 0 d � tWL I- lb 1!1 O O 0 O O O N O O N N N C 44 my Q p ° 'o E > — t0 O O O (O O t0 O O r: 0 o o 0 o r ci c a a � w Q Q d °- C N o o a n r o T o o y (a ° a C O r r f7 O l7 O R � � � °, C C G O O ch r (q C m m0 O t ` r C O V tO) Z` D. e' R y O 'm CL d N t o coil o cm o co cl g M °N;.'v c ° � `o R N O r O O r (D O Cl) (Op r. m >. y E U O o CO T r a y T !c• �`. ui E co C co 3 r co co 0 to O It O 4 O O .O O).°. CL E L c N r O a d r -it `m c > y m yam Z N N R (' d Cc C ° Oim R d •m WO.Y m � t�E C%l�(ZZ N0OO0N a 'O U ro is U. OW W ( w 1� rOi . .. a O U y0 . N O.N (, = N 7 4 O N 0 _ m N N m O m m m O'o� (a Cc W C CL li o ro Iy�. Ea .. Rm � r CL CD W 0 y a O n O N O N 0 N ONi 'r as m b C « C n.O 0 c 0-::,- 0; .-- aW0 � WY n.. o N o 0 o rn ec mnw � tmm ("a � EQ ° mE � l W C r N r ° fi t () C D C O .0- E 7 C N ti CL Co Z m N It m ° 0 oma ` m U ca LO of O tD O LO O) N (D r (D a i6 a m m > O.w W m o Y n r N O T T (D tR v O) y ... m m Q U V x o ° m cy ° cmc = .. m >. m E It o It a w 0 o N co No N yO R o ma 0 S 2Lm N O O (O O (O O O O N Ry0Eo co O Tco pO. C •R�°+ r>Cmam m cLO ((o N = m O cfA m m d Y O00= m Em O to m " 0 " .0mf D . to ° m O a W CL OO m O O O O O O O O N N t7 U a c R « Uj C .t O (O O O O O N CDyR° c S Y r f9 to m O CM O. L�+ R m > y .Rcm N tD O m 0 (O °. O. O N Le) m (D fl 0 > m7 a Co C13 C c. •- a vi d 1 0 L O o(Di o n o n ton o co rn � n 0-a � m .mm. 'o m ° p w .f o r o 0 o N v c0 0; -0 ul a' a •-y o Z " N to M a to o:N R m a a o E N r d! r: a O Z 1 L a Z Q N y to A r H N f7 y LU <vW r 20 Ir w �* O) a o !e w O O o. 0 Q � a � W CL a m x u1 x Q � m o LU oC O 0 Q F- U a a, W u. �a3 p m LOU (aL w ° = 0 LU Z 5 iia m o m `� w W `--' D - liJ m w w w m U W 3 0 0 Z 0 Q y 0 ' Q as _ = Z = F N y O F w w O� a a LL U. APPENDIX C TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Land Use Category Impact Fee per Unit of Develooment Single Family Residential $ 1,234/DU Multi-Family Residential $ 1,095/DU Retail* $ 1,946/KSF* Office $ 2,474/KSF Service Commercial $ 1,342/KSF Industrial $ 715/KSF Hospital - $ 2,216/KSF Motel/Hotel* $ 573/Room* Service Station (includes 1,000 square feet)** $ 1,061/Pump Other $ 115/Trip * Fees for retail and hotel/motel are set at 50% of the adjusted study costs in recognition of the fiscal benefits these developments bring to the City. ** Square footage above this amount will be charged at the service commercial rate, excluding structures that are specifically built to cover pump areas. DU = Dwelling Unit KSF = 1,000 Square Feet Exhibit City of San Luis Obispo TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE FACT SHEET 2121/95 What are transportation impact fees? In accordance with General Plan policies, transportation impact fees are a way of financing transportation system improvements that ensures that new development pays its fair share of the cost of building the facilities necessary to serve it. Are these fees in place at this time? Yes. After three years of study and intensive review by a broad range of community groups and Council advisory bodies, the Council adopted transportation impact fees in March of 1994. However, the Council deferred actually setting fee amounts pending adoption of the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which was under consideration at that time. Now that the Circulation Elemeiit has been adopted, it is time for the Council to set fee amounts, which is currently scheduled for April 4, 1995. If adopted at that time, fees will become effective June 5, 1995. How much are the proposed fees? Land Use Category Fee Basis Proposed Fees Single family residential per dwelling unit $1,234 Multi-family residential per dwelling unit 1,095 Retail* per 1,000 square feet 1,946 Office per 1,000 square feet 2,474 Service commercial per 1,000 square feet 1,342 �dustrial per 1,000 square feet 715 Hospital per 1,000 square feet 2,216 Motel/hotel• per room 573 Service station per pump 11061 Atha --tper trip 115 * As discussed below,fees for retail and motel/hotel uses are recommended at 50% of costs How were these recommended fees developed? These fees were calculated under strict State requirements (AB 1600) that establish the criteria that must be used in determining all types of development impact fees. This includes ensuring that a "reasonable relationship" exists between the need and cost of a public facility and the development on which the fee is imposed. Are there specific projects that this fee will assist in funding? Yes. Fees have been developed based on specific projects set forth in the adopted Circulation Element and Short Range Transit Plan. But don't these projects benefit existing residents as well? Some of them do, but the impact fee has been calculated based solely on the portion attributable to new development. How is the benefit determined? The primary factor used in apportioning benefits is average daily trips (ADT). Current and projected ADT's were developed based on the adopted Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan as calculated by the City's automated traffic model. Those ADT's were then allocated by type of development. I-1.� Are any subsidies appropr,ace? As a part of the City's econoi.__. development program, it is recommended that retail and hotel/motel developments receive a 50% reduction in the fees identified in the impact fee study. This reduced fee will create a shortfall in revenues needed to construct transportation projects on which the fee is based. However, the shortfall can be subsidized using other sources of revenue such as sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenues produced by these types of developments. These reduced fee amounts are reflected in the fee schedule above. How do the fees compare with other cities? The following summarizes transportation impact fees for twelve other California cities that we commonly use for comparison purposes. As reflected in this summary, proposed fees are within the mid-range of those charged by these comparable cities. City Single Family Residential Commerclal Per 1,000 Square Feel Camarillo $4,240 $3,220 Davis Included in total impact fee which varies in 7 different plan areas Monterey None None Napa 1,853 5,530 Palm Springs 810 10,000 Petaluma 2,900 2,400 San Juan Capistrano 1% of building value 1% of building value Santa Barbara None None Santa Cruz None None Santa Maria None None Vena 5,245 4,130 Visalia 853 6,716 When are fees calculated and paid? Fees are "assessed" at the time that a completed application is submitted for building permits. They must be paid before the building permit can be issued. Under this approach, fees will not change while building plans are being reviewed. How will this new fee affect projects currently in the development review process? It depends on what stage they are in: ■ Projects which have submitted completed applications for building permits by the effective date will not be required to pay these fees. ■ Projects which have vesting tentative tract maps approved by the effective date will not have to pay these fees unless there was a condition to pay transportation fees at a later date. ■ Any other projects that have not submitted completed building permit applications by the effective date will be required to pay the new fees. What happens if fees are not implemented? One of two things will happen: either we will not make necessary improvements to our transportation system, and all residents - current and new - will ' see service levels decline as a result; or we will make these improvements, but at the expense of other important community services that do not have alternative revenue sources available to them Ex IW MEMORANDUM February 21, 1995 TO: Ken Hampian,Assistant CAO FROM: Bill Statler, Director of Finance SUBJECT: BIACO SURVEY OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND IMPACT FEES Attached for your information and review is a comparision of City development review and impact fees with those recently compiled in a survey issued by the Building Industry Association of the Central Coast (BIACO)dated February 1995. As reflected in this comparison, they were off by$3,439 in their analyis of fees for a hypothetical 1,500 square foot home and by$146,054 for a hypothetical 50,000 square foot commercial shell, summarized as follows: Reported by the BIACO Actual Variance 1,500 square foot home 21,795 18,356 3,439 50,000 s uare foot commercial shell 266,662 120,608 146,054 To the extent possible, I used the same assumptions as those used by the BIACO in preparing the fee estimates. In doing so, one area that comes out higher in the attached summary than would otherwise be the case — especially in comparing our fees with those of other agencies — is park in—lieu fees. As noted in the comparison, the City requires parkland dedications in approving residential subdivisions, as do most cities in California under the Quimby Act In rare cases, an in—lieu fee may be paid rather than dedicating land. As such, it is probably fairer when comparing development fees to exclude park in—lieu fees, since all cities have comparable dedication requirements. The following is a summary of City fees compared with those in the other surveyed SLO County agencies excluding this fee category- SinrJe Familv Residential — 1,500 Square Foot Home Fee Median Fee as % of Total Home Price Home Price Paso Robles 17,160.00 146,176 11.7% SLO County 14,74750 170,326 8.7% San Luis Obispo 15,17632 183,194 8.3% Grover Beach 11,112.00 161,423 6.9% Arroyo Grande 9,915.46 161,441 6.1% Pismo Beach 11,795.00 197,620 6.0% Atascadero 1 7,053.021 153,4321 4.6% Of course, if someone was building on an already subdivided lot, the fees would be even less, since no water impact fee ($5,916)would be required. In this case, total fees (for this example) would be$9,260. Please give me call if you have any questions concerning the attached. City of San Luis Obispo SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND IMPACT FEES 2/21/95 In February of 1995,the Building Industry Association of the Central Coast(BIACC) issued a survey of various development review and impact fees for agencies in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties. Based on the City of San Luis Obispo's experience in preparing similar surveys,it is very difficult to accurately compile an"apples to apples"comparison because each agency tends to have a unique set of fees and fee structures. So,regardless of the accuracy of the outcome of such a survey,it is a noble effort just to try to do one. Without any attempt to verify the accuracy of fees for other agencies - or determine what their plans may be to increase or add fees- the following is a summary of the fees reported in this survey for the City of San Luis Obispo with those that would actually be paid under the same assumptions(hopefully)used by the BIACC: Single Family Residential - 1,500 Square Foot Home Reported by the BIACC Actual Variance _. 328232 _.:.70.99 f'levelo meat Review/Service Fees 3,3533 1 Budding permit 942.25 830.00 112.25 Mechanical,electrical and plumbing permits 376.80 332.00 44.80 State energy and accessibility surcharges 142.93 191.73 (48.80 Fire safety surcharge 224.95 145.25 79.70 Plan check @ 65%of permit fees 85738 97434 (116.96 ARC review 672.00 672.00 0.00 Meter set one inch meter 137.00 137.00 0.00 Tm`act:Fees 18'192.08 : 12 824.00 > 3 68A8. Water(see note 1) 3,769.08 5,916.00 (2,146.92 Sewer 2,344.00 2,344.00 0.00 Transportation(see note 2) 2,230.00 1,234.00 996.00 Housing(see note 3) 4,500.00 0.00 4,500.00 New dwelling construction tax 150.00 150.00 0.00 Park in-lieu fees(see note 4) 3,184.00 3,180.00 4.00 Other impact fees 15.00 0.00 15.00 Total Ci Develo meat Review m act'Fees <:19 4539 16106.32 " 3`439A7. School fees $150 per square foot 250.000.00 TOTAL r 2i 79539 18` 5632 3 43907. Comparison with Other Surve ed SLO County Altericies Fee Medina Fee as % of Total Home Price Home Price Paso Robles 17,669.00 146,176 12.1% San Luis Obispo 18,3S632 183,194 10.0% SLO County 15,39750 170„326 9.0% Grover Beach 13,653.00 161,423 8.5% Pismo Beach 14,278.00 197,620 72% Arroyo Grande 11,278.46 161,441 7.0% A ascadero 7,053.021 153,4321 4.6% Notes: 1. Retrofits are required,but this cost is credited against the impact fee,so the cost is the adopted fee of$5,916. 2. Transportation impact fees have not yet been set,and the soonest they could be in place is June 5, 1995. The fee amount above is based on proposed fees at this time,which are similar to those proposed in March of 1994. 3. The adopted Housing Element does have inclusionary housing requirements,and calls for a 5%in-lieu fee if it cannot be met by the development;however,no such fee has even been drafted for Council approval. 4. As do most cities is California under the Quimby Act,the City requires parkland dedications with residential subdivisions. In-lieu fees are a rarely used option,but are reflected above rather than argue the point. A REVIEW OF FEES FOR A COMMERCIAL PR OJECT IS PROVIDED ON THE REVERSE SIDE l-1� City of San Luis Obispo SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND IMPACT FEES 50,000 Square Foot Commercial Shell Reported by the BIACC Actual Variance 'Deiielo meat Review/Service Fees: 21073 23 . ' <24 302.13 3 890 Building permit 7,201.25 7,705.00 (503.75 Mechanical,electrical and plumbing permits 2,879.79 3,082.00 (202.21 State energy and accessibility surcharges 1,38526 1,779.86 (394.60 Fire safety surcharge _ 1,712.25 1,34838 363.88 Plan check @ 65%of permit fees 6,552.68 9,044.90 (2,49222 ARC review 672.00 672.00 0.00 Environmental review 533.00 533.00 0.00 Meter set one inch meter 137.00 137.00 0.00 act Fees ; 233 089 27 : <`.83,806.00 149j28317 Water(see note 1) 7,500.00 11,832.00 (4,332.00 Sewer 4,874.00 4,874.00 0.00 Transportation(see note 2) 120,000.00 67,100.00 52,900.00 Housing(see note 3) 100,000.00 0.00 100,000.00 Accessibility surcharge 655.27 0.00 655.27 Other impact fees 60.00 0.00 60.00 Tbtal.Ci " Develo meat Review iiact.Fees "; 25.4'16250. .'7:...108'108.13 146,05437 School Fees @ 50.25 per square foot 12,500.001 12,500.001 0.00 1.TOTAL' 266 66250 ;:::;120 608 13 146 05437: Comparison-with Other Surveyed SLO County Agencies Fee Total SLO County 217,278.13 Arroyo Grande 208,01250 Pismo Beach 153,829.00 Atascadero 147,077.72 San Luis Obispo 120,608.13 Grover Beach 71,306.00 Paso Robles 69 406.00 Notes: 1. Retrofits are required,but this cost is credited against the impact fee,so the cost is the adopted fee of$11,832 for a one inch meter. 2. Transportation impact fees have not yet been set,and the soonest they could be in place is June 5,1995.The fee amount above is based on proposed fees at this time,which are similar to those proposed in March of 1994. As noted in the BIACC survey,proposed fees would be higher for retail(fee:$97,300)and office uses(fee: $123,700)but significantly less for industrial(fee:$35,750). - 3. The adopted Housing Element does have inclusionary housing requirements,and calls for a 5%in-lieu fee if it cannot be met by the development;however,no such fee has even been drafted for Council approval. r Exh ibi MEETING DATE: �u � lel ill l city o� San is OBISp0 —e— COtwoU AGENDA R ;; ITEM NUMBER: FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance Prepared by: Linda Asprion, RevenueanagebWl SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES CAO RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to print establishing transportation development impact fees and adopt a resolution establishing fee amounts to be effective July 1, 1994. DISCUSSION The implementation of transportation impact fees has been under serious consideration for over three years. Following extensive analysis of this concept by the staff as well as an independent consultant specializing in these kinds of fees - and after presenting and discussing the findings of this analysis in detail with affected industry representatives - adoption of transportation impact fees was formally presented to Council in June of 1993. The Council referred this item to the Economic Strategy Task Force (ESTF) for their consideration and advice. Specifically, the ESTF was requested to consider two basic questions: should impact fees be adopted at all, and if so, at what levels? Following review by the ESTF, consideration of these fees was scheduled for Council consideration on February 1, 1994. The Council Agenda Report providing a detailed discussion of the ESTF's recommendations, the staff's responses, and extensive documents regarding-the history and basis for the fees was concurrently distributed to the Council and each member of ESTF as well as the Chamber of Commerce, Business Improvement Association, Building Industry Association of the Central Coast, SLO Property Owners Association, Builders Exchange, Manufacturing and Processing Association, Business Coalition, and Sierra Club. After the distribution of this report, the City received several requests to continue this item. Given the amount of time previously devoted to considering this important matter and the concerns surrounding its adoption, this item was continued to March 8, 1994. Notification of this extended review period and an offer to meet with interested parties was provided to all ESTF members and the organizations listed above. This notice and offer was also provided to the Environmental Quality Task Force, ECOSLO, League of Women Voters, Citizens Planning Alliance, Residents for Quality Neighborhoods, San Luis Drive Neighbors, and Foothill Neighborhood Association. Two of these organizations requested that staff meet with them to further discuss this issue: the Chamber of Commerce and the Manufacturing and Processing Association. The following two suggestions/concerns were introduced by the Chamber regarding the administration of the fees. ■ How will square footage be used in calculating the fee for service stations? - ■ Can developers be allowed the option of providing a letter of credit to secure the transportation impact fee payment until occupancy rather than requiring payment of the fees at the time the building permit is issued? H9 01111,111 city O� sarf-WAS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Both of these suggestions are discussed below along with staff recommendations. Calculating Fees for Service Stations The question raised by the Chamber regarding what will be included in the square footage calculation for service stations is excellent. The previous recommendation for the transportation impact fee for service stations was based on sqv' footage, which is consistent with other land use types. The concern is that some stations provide additional services along with selling gasoline and as such would pay more based on square footage than a service station with a small cashier booth and numerous gasoline pumps. Additionally, covered gasoline pumps count as square footage under the Building Code whereas uncovered pump areas do not. Accordingly, a large service station with numerous pumps could pay very little if the only square footage was a small cashier booth and uncovered gasoline pumps. Clearly, this is not the intent of the transportation impact fees. After reviewing the question and administration of implementing the fee based on square footage staff believes that charging transportation impact fees on a per pump basis rather than on square footage would be a better approach. Accordingly, the resolution fee schedule has been modified to reflect a per pump fee of$1,015.00 rather than a fee based on square footage. It should be noted that the per pump fee includes 1,000 square feet of structural space. -Letter of Credit Option Rather than collecting full payment at building permit issuance as currently recommended, it was suggested that we implement an option for developers to provide a letter of credit securing the amount of the transportation impact fees to be held by the City until such time as the building is released for occupancy. At that time, the developer will pay the transportation impact fees or the City will collect on the letter of credit. Included in this approach is the option for multiple releases as occupancy occurs at various stages. The suggestion for the letter of credit option emanates from the concern that a developer will be required to pay the transportation impact fee from the original construction loan and will pay interest on that amount during the building process and occupancy - which can be lengthy. Staff has carefully reviewed.the on-going administration involved with this option and does not recommend it. Currently, letters of credit are used for unusual circumstances such as unique performance requirements or code enforcement issues, but not for securing routine requirements or processing fees. Past staff experience with the administration of letters of credit has proven to be extremely time intensive and necessitates a more "hands on" level of involvement - both of which are costly to the City. Additionally, staff is concerned that by providing the letter of credit option_for securing transportation impact fees we may be opening the door for developers to request that other basic fees be included in the amount secured by the letter of credit. �� � ►�KIII�j city of San tdlS OBISp0 mom. wo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY Staff contacted a variety of organizations offering to share information regarding the proposed transportation impact fees and to consider suggestions addressing specific concerns. Two administrative suggestions emanated from these organizations and have been reviewed.by staff. Changing the basis of the transportation impact fee for service stations from square footage to a per pump charge is recommended and is reflected in the attached resolution. Allowing a developer the option of providing a letter of credit to secure the amount of the transportation impact fees and delaying the actual payment of those fees until occupancy is not recommended due to the difficulties associated with this process. ATTACHMENTS ■ Ordinance implementing transportation impact fees ■ Resolution setting the amounts of transportation impact fees DOCUMENTS PREVIOUSLY DISTRIBUTED The Council Agenda Report prepared for the February 1, 1994 meeting provides a comprehensive discussion of the issues surrounding the adoption of transportation impact fees, including: ■ Background-and purpose ■ Discussion of ESTF recommendations and staff responses ■ Draft ordinance and resolution establishing transportation impact fees and setting fee amounts ■ Appendices A. Improvements and estimated costs for transportation impact fees B. - Future development and weighted trip generation ■ Exhibits 1. Council agenda report.from June 1, 1993 meeting which comprehensively discusses the purpose of the fees and basis for calculating them 2. Transportation impact fee study prepared by David M. Griffith & Associates 3. Recommendations regarding transportation impact fees from the ESTF Due to the size of this report, it has not been reprinted with this agenda packet. Accordingly, Council members are requested to bring this material with them to this meeting. Additional copies are available upon request. ORDINANCE NO. (1994 SERIES) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ADDING CHAPTER 4.56 IMPLEMENTING TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES FOR ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO WHEREAS, the City Council has held a public hearing to consider proposed fees to mitigate the impacts of new development on transportation facilities in the City of San Luis Obispo; and, WHEREAS, the impact fees are to be used to implement the goals and objectives, policies,programs, and standards of the San Luis Obispo General Plan, Short Range Transit Plan, and Bikeway Element of the County Regional Transportation Plan, and are consistent therewith; and, WHEREAS, the Community Development Director has determined that this ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Article 18, Sections 15061 (a) and 15273 (a) (4) of the California Environmental -Quality Act Procedures and Guidelines; and, WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance promotes the public health safety and general welfare; WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance complies with the provisions of Government Code Section 66000, et seq; NOW THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. A new Chapter 4.56 is hereby added to read as follows: Chapter 4.56 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES A. Purpose. In order to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan, the 1991 Short Range Transit Plan, and the Bikeway Element of the 1990 San Luis Obispo - County Regional Transportation Plan, and to provide adequate transportation facilities to /r� I serve new development in the City of San Luis Obispo and to mitigate the impacts of that new development, certain public facilities and improvements must be, or had to be, constructed or purchased. The City Council has determined that transportation impact fees are needed in order to finance these facilities and improvements and to pay for new development's fair share of the construction or purchase costs of these facilities and improvements. In establishing the fee described in the following sections, the City Council has found the fee to be consistent with the City's General Plan, and pursuant to Government Code Section 65913.2, has considered the effects of the fee with respect to the City's housing needs as established in the Housing Element of the said General Plan. B. Transportation Impact Fees. 1. Transportation impact fees are hereby established as a condition of any new development for which any of the following approvals or permits is required: (a) Approvals of land divisions pursuant to Title 16 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,including approval of lot line adjustments,certificates of compliance,parcel maps, tract maps and condominium conversions; (b) Land use approvals pursuant to Title 17 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,including rezonings or the approval of development plans,site plans,minor use permits,variances, but excepting approval of San Luis Obispo General Plan/Land Use Ordinance amendments; (c) For the issuance of any occupancy permit or final building inspection, and (d) All other approvals of real property development,which approvals are subject to the jurisdiction of the City of San Luis Obispo and which approvals are subject to the exercise of the discretion of the City Council, Planning Commission, or Community Development Director. For purposes of this chapter,new development includes any change of use or occupancy which increases the traffic service requirements of a development. 2. The said-transportation impact fees are established in order to pay for needed facilities and improvements reasonably related to new development within the City. From time to time, the City Council shall, by resolution, set forth the specific amount of the impact fees, the specific public improvements to be financed and their estimated cost, describe the reasonable relationship. between the fees and the various types of new 1-ate developments, and set forth the time of payment of the fees. Said resolution shall provide for a method of adjusting the amount of the impact fees on an annual basis to account for changes in the cost of construction or other considerations affecting the reasonable relationship between the fees and the cost of facilities and improvements on which the fees are based. (a) For any development other than residential, the resolution shall provide for payment of fees at the time of building permit issuance. (b) For residential development, the resolution shall provide for the payment of fees at the time of building permit issuance, except where the provisions of Section 66007 of the California Government Code require the collection of fees to be delayed until the time of final inspection or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. 3. The City Council shall, at least once every five years, review the basis for transportation impact fees to determine whether said fee is still reasonably related to the impacts of development, and whether the facilities and improvements for which the fees are charged are still needed. C. Exemptions.- The fees imposed under this ordinance shall not apply to the following: 1. Other government agencies. 2. That portion of a structure which existed before the addition of dwelling units or the enlargement of floor area in a non-residential structure. If a structure is destroyed or demolished, and replaced within two years from the date of demolition, the impact fees shall be based on the service requirements of the new development less the service requirements of the development which it replaced. D. Applicant Construction of Facilities or Improvements. If the applicant for approval of any development project is required by the City, as a condition of approval, to construct . facilities whose cost has been used in the calculation of impact fees which apply to that project, the applicant shall receive a credit for that portion of the total fees otherwise payable that are attributable to those facilities. If the credit exceeds the amount of the transportation impact fee due on the development, a reimbursement agreement with the applicant shall be offered. The reimbursement amount shall not include the portion of the improvement needed to provide services or mitigate the need for the facility or the burdens created by the.development. l E. Limited Use Of Fees. The revenues raised by payment of the transportation impact fees shall be placed in a separate account along with any interest earnings on that account, and shall be used solely to: 1. Pay for the design and construction, including construction management, of transportation improvements described in resolutions adopted pursuant to Section B, or to reimburse the City for funds advanced from other sources to pay for said design and construction. 2. Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install portions of said facilities or improvements pursuant to Section D, hereof. F. Fee Adjustments. 1. Each development is independent and no reductions to impact fees will be transferrable to another development nor will an excess be refunded. 2. Any person whose new development is subject to impact fees may request a refund, of up to 50% percent of the street portion of the fee paid, if the sustained average vehicle ridership (AVR) is in excess of 1.6 AVR. A sustained period is considered to be ..one year. The percentage of refund will be the same as the percentage in excess of the 1.6 AVR standard. 3. Any person whose new development is subject to impact fees may appeal to the City Council for a reduction or adjustment of those fees, or a waiver of those fees,based on the absence of any reasonable relationship between the impacts of that new development and either the amount of the fees or the type of facilities or improvements funded by the fees. The appeal shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk, together with any required appeal fee,within ten (10) days following notification that the fee is to be imposed. The appeal shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver, reduction or adjustment. The City Council shall consider the appeal at an appeal hearing to be held within sixty (60) days after the filing of the appeal. The hearing may be continued from time to time. The decision of the City Council on the appeal shall be final. If a reduction, adjustment or waiver is granted, any change in the permitted type or intensity of land use within the approved development project shall invalidate the reduction,adjustment or waiver of the fee. G. Unexpended Transportation Impact Fee Revenues. 1. Notwithstanding Section B.3., whenever any impact fee, or portion of an impact fee, remains unexpended or uncommitted five (5) or more years after payment of the fee, the City Council shall make findings once each fiscal year with respect to the unexpended amount. The City Council shall identify the purpose for which the fee is to be used, and demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. The findings required by this section need be made only for monies in the possession of the City, and need not be made with respect to any letters of credit, bonds or other items given to secure payment of the fee at a future date. 2. The City shall refund to the then-current owner or owners of the new development project or projects, on a prorated basis the- unexpended or uncommitted portion of the impact fees for which.need cannot be demonstrated pursuant to this section. The City may refund the .unexpended or uncommitted revenue by direct payment, by providing a temporary suspension of impact fees or by any other means consistent with the intent of this section. The determination of the means by which those fees are to be refunded is a legislative act. 3. _ If the City Council determines that the administrative costs of refunding unexpended or uncommitted impact fees pursuant to this section exceed the amount to be refunded, the City Council, after a public hearing, notice of which has been published pursuant to Section 6061 of the California Government Code and posted in three prominent places within the area of the new development project, may determine that the said fees shall be allocated for some other purpose for which impact fees are collected and which serves the new development project on which the fees were originally imposed. SECTION 2. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Councilmembers voting for and against, shall be published once in full, at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in the City. Pursuant to Government Code 66017, the ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of sixty (60) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo at its meeting held on the day of . 1994, on motion of and seconded by . and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ._ Mayor Peg Pinard ATTEST: City Clerk, Diane Gladwell APPROVED: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney RESOLUTION NO. (1994 SERIES) RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO SETTING THE AMOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has prepared studies to determine the need for transportation facilities and improvements to serve new development; and, WHEREASLa study entitled City of San Luis Obispo Transportation Impact Fee. Study, dated March 15, 1993, by David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. (hereinafter called "Impact Fee Study"),which is incorporated herein by reference,has analyzed the relationship between future development and the cost of needed- transportation facilities and improvements; and, WHEREAS, the Economic Strategy Task Force (ESTF) has reviewed the transportation impact fees to determine if the basic concept of the fees is appropriate and if so, to make recommendations regarding the implementation of the fees. WHEREAS,.that study was made available for public inspection and review ten (10) -days prior_to a public hearing held on this matter on March 8, 1994; and public notice was provided ten (10) days prior to the public hearing; and NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finds and resolves that: 1. FAndings, A. The purpose of the transportation impact fees is to provide adequate street improvements, transit improvements, and bicycle facilities to satisfy the needs of new development and to mitigate the impacts of new development on the City's transportation facilities. B. The transportation fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used only to pay for street, transit, and bikeway facilities and improvements and shall not be in lieu of any other fee or tax. C. There is a reasonable relationship between the types of development on which the fees are imposed and (1) the use of the fees and (2) the need for the facilities and _ improvements. - �-a7 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 transportation fees is shown in the Impact Fee Study as subsequently modified and provided in Appendices A and B attached hereto. Those costs have been allocated to new development on the basis of dwelling unit type (residential) or type of development.and !ize of development (non-residential), which are reasonably related to traffic generation by the development project. 2. Cost Estimates. At any time that the actual or estimated costs of facilities identified in Appendix A significantly changes, the Finance Director shall review the transportation fees and determine whether the change significantly affects the amount of the fees. If the fees are significantly affected, the Finance Director shall, within thirty (30) days, recommend to the City Council a revised fee. 3. Amount of Transportation Fees. The amount of the transportation impact fees is set forth in Table l .attached hereto. Unless otherwise acted upon by the City Council, the amount of the fees will automatically be adjusted on July 1 of each subsequent year by the percentage change in the U. S.Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index for all urban consumers (CPI-U), all-cities average for the prior calendar year. 4. Time of Payment. A. Transportation impact fees for any development project or portion thereof shall be payable prior to issuance of the building permit. 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 application is proceeding through valid processing as per ttie Uniform Administrative Code. 5. Separate Accounts. The Finance Director shall deposit fees collected under this resolution in a separate transportation impact fee fund as required by Government Code Section 66006. Within sixty (60) days of the close of each fiscal year, the Finance Director shall make available to .the public an accounting of the fund, and the City Council shall review that information at its next regular public meeting. 6. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective July 1, 1994. Upon motion of . seconded by and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of . 1994. Mayor Peg Pinard ATTEST: City Clerk, Diane Gladwell APPROVED: Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney TABLE 1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES Land Use Category Impact Fee per Unit of Develo mp ent Single Family Residential $ 1,180/DU Multi-Family Residential $ 19047/DU Retail' $ 1,861/KSF' Office $ 2,367/KSF Service Commercial $ 10284/KSF Industrial $ 684/KSF Hospital $ 29120/KSF Motel/Hotel° $ 548/Room° Service Station (includes 1,000 square feet)" $ 1,015/Pump Other $ 110/Trip ' Fees for retail and hotel/motel are set at 50010 of the adjusted study costs in recognition of the fiscal benefits these developments bring to the City. " Square footage above this amount will be charged at the service commercial rate, excluding structures that are specifically built to cover pump areas. DU = Dwelling Unit KSF = 1,000 Square Feet . 1 APPENDIXA IMPR 0 VEMENTSAND ESTIMATED COSTS TRANSPORTATiON/MPACT FEE STUDY STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO(51 LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE II.C.2 Hwy 101/1-os Osos Widen Bridge/ $3,000,000 100.0% $3,000,000 Valley Rd Modify ramps II.B.2 Higuera St/ High St to Marsh St Widen (west side) $2,000,000 100.0% $2,000,000 11.6.7 Higuera St/ Widen $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000. Madonna Rd to City I Imit II.D.1 Orcutt Rd/SPRR Grade separation $4,000,000 20.0% 111 $800,000 II.B.6 Prado Rd Bridge/ Widen bridge 51,000,000 100.095 $1,000,000 Hwy 101 II.A.7 South St Extend to connect $4,250,000 20.0% 121 $850,000 w/Bishop St Various locations 20 traffic signals $2,000,000 100.0%. $2,000,000 Madonna Rd/ Hwy 101 Widen1101 bridge $2,300,000 30.6% (31 $703,800 Higuera St/ Madonna Rd to High St Widen $775,000 30.6% 131 $237,150 Various Congestion mgmt $2,000,000 100.0% (41 $2,000,000 projects _ Subtotal Street Improvements $22,325,000 60.9% $13,590,950 Notes. 111 Assumes 80% funding from Public Utility Commission as ra&oad safety project. Project required to serve new development 121 Assumes 80% benefit to existing development 131 Project cost apportioned according to future development share of total traffic (See Table 1-1). Impact fees will be used to recoup funds advanced by the City. improvements as a condition of approval fora shopping centerproject 141. The Circulation Element sets a standard of LOS 'D'for artertal streets and highways outside the doftlown area, and LOS'E'for downtown streets. 451. Project numbers refer to the 5/92 Drab Circulation Element(See Appendix C). A-1 - .. . T APPENDIX A IMPROVEMENTSAND ESTIMATED COSTS TRANSPORTATiONIMPACT FEE STUDY TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS PROD IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO. LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE Mobile Fleet expansion $1,500,000 50.0% 181 $750,000 171 (5 buses) = Various locations Bus Stop Amenities $175,000 30.6% $53,550 Downtown Transfer Center $2,740,000 15.3% 191 $419,220 Subtotal Transit Improvements $4,415,000 27.7% $1,222,770 Notes: 171 Fleet expansion based on 43.3%Increase in travel demand as represented by trip generation. 181 Assumes that 50%of acquisition cost will be funded by grants 191 Assumes that 50%of transit center cost will be funded by grants, with the balance shared by existing and future development In proportion to travel demand. BICYCLEFACILITIES PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT N0.[51 LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE I.C. SPRR Right of Way New bikeway 1101 $8,000,000 .30.6% $2,448,000 I.B. Various Bikeway impNrnts, $4,000,000 30.6% $1,224,000 bicycle facilities Subtotal Bicycle Facilities $12,000,000 30.6% . $3,672,000 Notes: (5] Project numbers refer to the 5192 Draft Circulation Element (See Appendix C). ]10] Assumes adoption of Bicycle Transportation Program 3.13 In the Draft Circulation Element as indicated in Figure 4: Transportation Capital Projects(attached). GRAND TOTAL $38,740,000 47.7% $18,485,720 A-2 I r�V o .. LL C• r cr) T N c\3 . b Q Q Qco cq U. V Q; Oco O O V) T T OA Cc; .y` ` W N OOY CL CL o cNi g r 8 o g o a LO CO m y Q 5 w L a O M. CO r C r v C6 r c0 V; r 69 {jt N CO m m O • • rn ccr\ljoc2. ,roO O 8 � � L LL r Q40D o �y O � Y N r 69 EA d ? � C U Q 7U 7 y 2' T C 809 ' 'L ILq2 # S � O p N r OCD O r r r N cD r 'zg;. &.0. O.W co 11 W m O p co yy 'N CO N r r >• V @ E 'f3 b C m 2 .3 �, LL Q O CO 8 f0 �i C c0 00 r`. a c0 0. G 7 'O kOLU 2� N N nV IT 609604n QO E 7 O V O �. r.. C CO O c' 7 9 � ELL v o n m � c\l Eas cv- te r: vai LL- f- o o `� g �' ,,, 0 t� N C C r c7 C r •C Q O O r Q O N r cJ 1� P (7 c7 to aa Q O Y r m N 69 69 cz m 'p U r a U o Y _ RCL E o gi 8 � a LQ m N ;.: oo �jELcc ro m � Z c ro :r>.: CC* 3: pppl c� L LL 0 fV O CO C a N 0 ;<? 01 cA .� @ •0 m r p N (9 L* C m 3 tt p rcacQ. cax 'a O O m O C V •-• O p �p C� Q C m O 8 Q 4 `�8, O W 2 `+r �;i2 N O ro 0 O � C L 7 y LL 01 N N O h O G7 0 N �0�pp :: �6 7 m K E y 0 r 7 O y 0 N ti m Ul) N � 69 ::,; 2r 5 0 0 0 2 m m C V m3L `oa6 .00 cm oymg � Z' IlJ lA c0y C _p I Q 9 10 LO �' Gt N N S O co g c0 Q j LL r � W r cJ P r 1� 0r S0. 0ZLL Q. � Cz r r T w Q y r .... rr.. OJ Q � > 0p, w o O a O a¢ � a 7 �� O C a U a °, H Du- c c°- � m m1 m LL m o o aw w w w a F o o ~ 2 cn mc7 0 c7 w m p� LLJmLLI LLI z g¢ 1 O= LU _ = Z = O ¢ N cr O wW h- a a F- U. u. � N rr a. 0 8 8 88 � g g. H CL !L cd 0 0 o 6 *= vi O CL ¢ a CL ,o L oNi S V r T (7 V coV O rQr R O O O C9 r f7 O ago 0 d o o h rn 0 c LL. to 0) 0 co gg c�* .g co 8 c Bei ° •`. `� 3 m d .o 3 E C ACV O O r r 0 O O (OD O .� O CL L 2 ¢ ca r 64 3 Z B E t U C 3 O -6 $ 8 8 3 8 4 F o N - ro t, V � ci r O C tT r V ; 7 � 2 Vl •0 N t!> 75 CO t - u. �3 8 8 r 8 n F3 i 8N � o aLu 7a— `0 c0 � aiH N i 'C O r r r CQ f0 r u 3 �0/J m IM O V W N k 0 = a Y eh eo to w o- ai 3 eo 3 °' 10 T uj CL ZLLIti tQ -a 8 ti 8 � 8 N 8 8o compo m �� � CL fl-0 0 ++ a ui -aY ti O N O O r O C7 604 C L C� Um tII p 7 Q N O ++ N Lu P. C "' r r 64>: o mca cc �r t G1 E c o a roca m t ..., Q -3 y r In O r r r Cf O tO !A ,,". C f� C C•3 6 R X •0 `b .cd lL lLl p S Y r 64 Q,N, o m ° ° 5 °a � e ii C N 'C C C O C •C m H c0 p a p o N ' r p 10 8 (OQ 8 w O O o d E y 0 r 3 > N V y v CO O CN7 r N to cO7 N "rte 6Of m O 2 y 0) d 0 O C p � Y r etJrAy� ppb ` > :� 3 . uo N p o p� m M 0 0 070 C32 d d V Q O X00, O O 8 O N N 8 N .u�'.; � � C= p � LO � Td 01 N V` N r to O O r D7 fD ID a`. Q C, 7 y0 Tl .•' j 01 7 p 0 = y r N O m O r r ID lA ;� 5 'r3 •O C c7 'O f) N .o "0 N 9 .2 U LL o n8i m � � 3 � � a � oo � a . m � Y LO Cf N O � N � a � zUC. •° CL CL w r _ qc T A # iC W LIJ W Q Amo o ¢ y CLUp 16 g i1' 13LL a � o i o LL ��i, 0 LU ui CL _ to o O � Wza ED coca m z 2 Q o .� aN ¢ Qy OW= z = °W- W H a D a - �u���l���l� � city of San 3 OBISpo - Maine COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITEM NUMBER FROM: William C. Statler, Director of Finance UIQ Prepared by: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager ` ' SUBJECT: TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT/FEES CAO RECOMMENDATION Introduce an ordinance to print establishing transportation development impact fees and adopt a resolution establishing fee amounts to be effective May 2, 1994. REPORT-IN-BRIEF In June, 1993, Council referred transportation development impact fees to the Economic Strategy Task Force (ESTF) to determine if impact fees should be implemented, and if so, at what levels. The ESTF has completed their review and is recommending transportation impact fees be implemented in an amount adequate to mitigate regional, long-term cumulative traffic impacts. Additionally, the ESTF is providing some recommended principles on which the fees should be based. In general, staff is supportive of the recommendations made by the ESTE, and they have been incorporated into the proposed ordinance and resolution. A detailed summary of the ESTF recommendations and staff's response is provided later in this report. Based on the ESTF recommendations,the fees provided in the attached proposed resolution have been reduced approximately by half from those previously recommended. to the Council. For example, proposed fees for a single family residence have been reduced from $2,152 to $1,180. This is due to two key factors: exclusion of two projects (widening of highway 101 and Monterey Street) and the decreased cost of one project (railroad bikeway). Appendix A provides the complete listing of improvements and estimated costs on which the revised fee is based, with Appendix B providing calculations of the fee for the various land use types. The stringent requirements under AB 1600 regarding the procedural requirements related to the calculation,adoption,administration and enforcement of impact fees remain valid as provided in the Impact Fee Study developed by David M. Griffith & Associates. DISCUSSION Overview The implementation of .transportation development impact fees ensures that new development pays for itself, which will prevent existing residents and businesses from - subsidizing new developments. The need to address the implementation of development impact fees has been under serious discussion since 1987 when the City's long-term financial health was identified as a major objective during the 1987-89 Financial Plan process. As such, there are two compelling reasons for adopting transportation impact fees. �u��i►►��� ► �� City Of San UAIS OBISPO COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ■ It is adopted City policy that new development should pay its fair share of the cost of constructing the community facilities that are necessary to serve it, and impact fees are one of the key ways of implementing this policy. 11 If we do not adopt transportation impact fees, one of two outcomes will result: We will not construct the transportation facilities necessary to accommodate our General plan and all residents will see circulation service levels decline as a result. i We will construct the facilities, but at the expense of other important community services - police, fire, recreation, parks, cultural, and social services - that do not have alternative revenue sources available to them. These factors were important in 1987, when impact fees were first discussed as necessary for the City's long-term health. Given our current fiscal situation, they are even more important today insuring our long-term ability to deliver important services to our community. Background -Implementing transportation development impact fees has been the subject of in-depth discussion over the past five years. In June, 1993 this item was agendized for Council consideration. Attached for Council's convenience is Exhibit 1, the complete Council Agenda Report presented in June, 1993,and Exhibit 2, the Transportation Impact Fee Study prepared by David M. Griffith & Associates. In June, 1993, Council discussed concerns about fairness, appropriateness, and the timing of the fees; impacts on industry and the economy; and the need to provide revenues to build infrastructure. Council then referred this issue to the ESTF to explore the following: ■ Is the basic concept of transportation impact fees appropriate? ■ If'so, how much should the fee be? The ESTF has completed their review of transportation impact fees and has provided the Council with their recommendations (Exhibit 3). The following summarizes the ESTF recommendations regarding transportation impact fees along with staff comments on these recommendations. Recommendations from the Economic Strategy Task Force On November 29, 1993,the ESTF adopted their recommendations regarding transportation impact fees (Exhibit 3). The ESTF concurs that there should be a transportation impact fee and that it should be in an amount adequate for mitigation of regional, long-term cumulative traffic impacts. The principles on which the ESTF recommends the fees be based are discussed below along with staff comments. �11�'i�U city of San AWS OBISPO 801174 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT General Concepts ■ ESTF Recommendation: The City should look to alternatives to the single occupant vehicle to meet its transportation needs between now and build-out. Staff Comment: Staff concurs. This goal is already set forth in the draft Circulation Element. ■ ESTF Recommendation: The use of"peak hour" congestion as a criterion in traffic planning tends to encourage the City to spend too much of our limited resources on solving short-term problems. The City should be careful about using p.m. peak as the criterion for road problems. Some congestion is necessary if we want to change peoples' car-dependent behavior. The City should accept Level of Service (LOS) "E" under some peak conditions. Staff Comment: Staff generally concurs. The downtown is already experiencing LOS "E" and other areas are very close if not already at LOS "E". Currently the Circulation Element suggests LOS "D" as a standard for arterial streets outside the downtown and LOS "E" within the downtown. This standard can be changed to accept LOS "E" for all arterial streets within the urban reserve if the community is willing to live with higher congestion levels. ■ ES IF Recommendation: The transportation impact fee program should not emphasize road projects, except those necessary for public safety. Staff Comment: The Circulation Element is the City's policy document concerning road development. Transportation impact fees are the mechanism for implementing the Circulation Element by requiring growth to pay for its impacts on the regional street network and to pay for alternative transportation. This concern should be addressed at the time projects are reviewed for inclusion in the Circulation Element. Subsidies and Exceptions ■ ESTF Recommendation: The City should offer reductions in the transportation impact fees charged to new development if such development has an effective Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) or similar program that will reduce or redistribute trips by automobiles, or if the nature of the business is such that it generates fewer trips per square foot than other projects in the same zoning category. Staff Comment: Staff concurs with this concept. The transportation impact fees are _ based on average vehicle ridership of 1.6 as recommended in the Circulation Element and prescribed by the Air Pollution Control District for trip reduction plans. Therefore, if average vehicle ridership (AVR) is sustained at a higher level, up to a 50% credit should be provided on the streets portion of the transportation fee. The credit would not include any portion of the fee paid for transit or bicycle facilities. city of San �u�s oB�spo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT The process for receiving this credit, consisting of providing documentation of a sustained higher AVR than is used in the fee calculation, is included in the proposed ordinance. ■ ESTF Recommendation: The transportation impact fee program should offer reductions for projects that improve the transient occupant tax and sales tax. Staff Comment: Staff concurs. A 50% reduction in the fee for retail and hotel/motel developments is included in the recommended transportation impact fee program. ■ ESTF Recommendation: Low and very low income housing should be exempt from the transportation impact fee; other below market rate housing projects should be granted reductions or exemption from transportation impact fees; this may involve a sliding scale tying the amount of the reduction to the cost of housing. Staff Comment: Staff does not concur with this recommendation. Consistent with our policy on water and sewer impact fees, which recognizes that production of affordable housing requires the same infrastructure support as other development, the transportation impact fee recognizes the effect of new development on the City's transportation system. However, low income housing is offered the same incentives as discussed above for sustained reduction in average vehicle ridership. Specific Projects That Should Be Included in the Transportation Impact Fee S ESTF Recommendation: Bike and transit projects should be included in the transportation impact fees. Staff Comment: Staff concurs. Bike and transit projects are included in the fees. ■ ESTF Recommendation: The Railroad Bike Path project should be included in the transportation impact fee, but the transportation impact fee should not pay for more than $2.4 million of its cost. Staff Comment: Staff concurs. Based upon an updated estimated cost figure for the railroad bike path, which is decreased from $12 million to $8 million, and applying the percentage for new development of 30.6% brings the impact fee share to $29448,000. Specific Projects That Should Not Be Included in the Transportation Impact Fee ■ ESTF Recommendation: The transportation impact fee should not include widening of the freeway to six lanes nor used for Monterey Street right-of-way acquisition or widening. � ►►�Ipl �l city of San LuiS OBISPO COUNCIL. AGENDA REPORT Staff Comment: Staff. concurs. The transportation impact fees pioposed for adoption do not include these two projects. However, if these two projects are ultimately included in the Circulation Element, they should be included in the transportation impact fees. In this case, staff will return to Council with a recommendation amending transportation fees to include the cost of these projects. Implementation and Administration ■ ESTF Recommendation: The fee ordinance should consider phased implementation and payment of the fee at occupancy (as opposed to issuance of building permits) and/or over time. Staff Comment: Staff does not concur with either of'these recommendations. A phase-in period means the City would subsidize or advance the funding for projects approved during that period. Additionally,these fees have been under discussion for over three years, which in itself represents .a "phase - in" of these fees. For Administrative consistency with the City's other impact fees, it is recommended that transportation impact fees be collected at the time the building permit is issued. Further, there is normally tremendous pressure placed on staff as a project nears completion to allow occupancy. If a difficulty arises at this stage in the development process relative to fee payment (such as a lack of funds or dispute regarding the amount due), the pressure to occupy could undermine the City's ability to favorably resolve the matter. Other Funding Sources for Transportation Systems Improvements ■ ESTF Recommendation: The City Council should endorse proposals to increase the gas tax and to earmark such funding for alternative transportation. Staff Comment: Staff concurs. In summary, the proposed transportation impact fee program reflects all of the recommendations of the ESTF with three exceptions: ■ Limiting fees for road projects to only those required for public safety - this determination should be made through adoption of the Circulation Element, not the transportation impact fee programa ■ Exempting low and very low income housing from the fee. ■ Phasing implementation of the fees and collecting them at occupancy rather than _ building permit issuance. I-3cl 1101IF111 city of san tins osispo COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT FISCAL IMPACT As previously mentioned, the proposed fees for adoption have been reduced by removing two projects - highway 101 and Monterey Street widening - and decreasing the cost of the railroad bikeway, all recommendations of the ESTF. With the removal/reduction of these projects, the proposed transportation impact fees are approximately half of those previously reviewed by Council in June, 1993. A complete listing of these fees is attached as Table 1 to the resolution. Adjusting the total impact fee share of $18,485,720 by the 50% credit for retail and hotel/motel development reduces the expected funding from the fees to $14,326,400. Assuming a 30 year timeframe for build-out of these projects provides for an average annual collection of$477,500 in transportation impact fees. Based on current trends, significantly less revenue will be generated on an annual basis in the near term (next 2 - 3 years). However, this provides a reasonable estimate of the long-term financial resources that will be generated from this fee. SUMMARY The ESTF has completed their review of the transportation impact fees and concurs that fees should be implemented to mitigate regional, long-term cumulative traffic impacts. Transportation impact fees will generate funding that will assist in meeting the City's financial requirements for future transportation facilities. As such, it is recommended that the Council adopt an ordinance implementing the transportation impact fees and adopt a resolution establishing feel levels effective May 2, 1994. IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIill� 011,11,11111111111111lPet �r>�ftah i TTACHN ENTS oe SOW t s ■ Ordinance implementing transportation impact feesg�q� ■ Resolution establishing amounts for transportation impact fees P&Y APPENDICES A. Improvements and estimated costs for transportation impact fee B. F re development weighted trip generation Raw / EXHIBITSmo/o — F� Now 1. Council agenda report from June 1, 1993 meeting on transportation development - impact fees Trans ort ion im act fe study pr are vid . G 'frith & o 'a s woo n p Ion impa a ro a co c trategy Task Force Exhibi� . RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE ESTF REGARDING A TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE There should be a Transportation Impact Fee (TM. It should be considered adequate mitigation for regional, long-term cumulative traffic impacts for purposes of CEQA and should be based on the-principles listed below: . General Concepts L The City shiould look to alternatives to the single occupant vehicle to meet its transportation needs between now and build-out. 2.' The use of "peak hour' congestion as a criterion in. traffic planning tends to. encourage the City to spend too much of our limited resources on solving short-term problems. The City should be careful about using p.m peak as the criterion for road problems. Some congestion is necessary if we want to change peoples' car-dependent behavior. The City should accept Level of Service (LOS) ."E" under some peak conditions. 3.. The TIF program should not emphasize road projects, except those necessary for public safety. Subsidies and Exceptions 4. The.City should offer reductions in the TIF charged to new development if such. development has an'effective Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM) or similar program that will reduce or redistribute trips by automobiles, or if the nature of. the 'business is such that it generates fewer trips. per square foot than other projects in the same zoning category. 5. The TIF program should offer'reductions for projects that improve the TOT and sales tax. 6. Low and very low income housing should be.exempt from the TIF; other below market rate housing projects should be granted reductions or exemption from TIF; . this may involve a sliding scale tying the amount of the reduction to the cost of housing. Specific Projects That Should Be Included in the TIF 7. Bike and transit projects should be included in the TIF. & The Railroad Bike Path project should be included in the TIF: but the TIF should not pay for more than $2.4 million of its cost. s Page 2 ESTF Recommendations on TIF Specific Projects'That Should Not Be Included in the TIF' 9. Ile TEF should not include widening of the freeway to six lanes. 10. 'Ile TIF shotiTd not be used for Monterey Street right-of-way acgiuisition or widening. Implementation and Administration 11. The fee ordinance should consider phased implementation and payment of the fee at occupancy (as opposed to issuance of.building permits) and/or over time. Other Funding Sources for Transportation System Improvements 12 The City Council should endorse proposals to increase the gas tax and to earmark such funding for alternative transportation. Exhibit CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY MARCH 15, 1993 I i . _ l m David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. 5715 Marconi Avenue, Suite A Carmichael, CA 94608 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO Project Coordinator: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager Administration Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrator Community Development Department Terry Sanville, Principal Transportation Planner Paul Barker, Computer Graphics Technician F'mance Department Bill Statler, Director of Finance Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager Public Works Department Wayne Peterson, City Engineer Jerry Kenny, Supervising Civil Engineer DAVID M GRIFFITH & ASSOCIATES. LTD. Joe Colgan, Project Manager March IS, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary 1 Section 1 - Introduction 3 Requirements of AB 1600 3 Purpose of the Fees 4 Use of the Fees 4 Reasonable Relationship Requirement 5 Impact Relationship 5 Benefit Relationship 6 Proportionality Relationship 6 Section 2 - Street Improvements 8 Service Area 9 Level of Service 9 Trip Generation 9 Impact Fee Calculation - Street Improvements 9 Section 3 - Transit Improvements 11 Service Area 11 Level of Service 11 Cost Allocation 12 Impact Fee Calculation - Transit Improvements 13 i Section 4 - Bicycle Facilities 14 Service Area 14 Level of Service 14 Cost Allocation 15 Impact Fee Calculation - Bicycle Facilities 15 March IS, 1993 Daa M. Griffuh &Associates, Lrd Page U CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section 5 - Implementation 17 Summary of Impact Fees 17 Impact Fees by Land Use Type 17 PotetNial Impact Fee Revenue 18 Adoption 19 Cost Escalation 19 Administration 20 Subsidies 22 Training 22 Appendix A A-1 Appendix B B-1 Appendix C C-1 March IS, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page iii 1-� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report analyzes proposed transportation improvement projects to determine what costs should be imposed on future development projects in the form of impact fees. Facilities covered by this analysis are: • street improvement projects • transit improvement projects • bicycle facilities Sections 66000, et seq. of the California Government Code (also known as AB 1600) require certain findings to support the establishment, increase or imposition of fees which are required as a condition of approval for development projects. The primary purpose of this study is to determine how the costs of capital improvements should be allocated to future users, and to document that there is a "reasonable relationship" between the amount of the fees and the cost of facilities, or portions of facilities needed to serve future developments. This analysis allocates the costs of transportation facilities according to the travel demand requirements of various types of development. Travel demand is represented in this study by vehicle trip generation rates for each development type. Obviously those rates do not relate directly to travel by transit or bicycle. However, the best available information on travel demand is in the form of vehicle trip generation studies, and since transit and bicycle transportation provide an alternative to travel by private motor vehicle, it is reasonable to assume that the distribution of demand is similar. March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Lid. Page I CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY Impact fees have been computed in this study for a fairly large number of distinct land use types. The share of improvements attributable to future development has been determined using the forecast of future development contained in the Draft Land Use and Circulation Elements of the General Plan (herinafter called "General Plan"). The costs were allocated using weighted trip generation rates for-each type of development. The weighting factors were based on average trip lengths by trip purpose as estimated by the City's traffic model. Adjustments were made in trip-generation rates for commercial uses to account for "pass-by" trips which are diversions of trips made for other purposes. Those adjustments were based on case studies of pass-by trips documented in Trip Generation, a manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). Table FS-1, below, is reproduced from Section 5 of this report. TABLE ES-1 IMPACT FEES BY LAND USE CATEGORY Land Use Impact Fee per Category Unit of Development Single Family Residential $2,1521DU Multi-Family Residential $1,910/DU Retail $6,786/KSF Office $4,315/KSF Service Station $22,261/KSF Service Commercial $27340/KSF Industrial $1,246/KSF Hospital $3,865/KSF Motel $1,997/Room Other $2011Trip Notes: DU = Dwelling Unit. KSF = 1,000 Square Feet. March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associaies, Lid. Page-2 l-� CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION REQLMEMENTS-OF AB 1600 AB 1600 (California Government Code, Sections 66000, et seq.)establishes certain requirements that must be met by any local agency establishing, increasing or imposing fees which are im- posed as a condition of development project approval. Those requirements that relate to the amount and types of fees are pertinent to this study. .To satisfy those requirements the City must: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and I . Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and. C. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Each of those points is addressed below. In addition, the law establishes certain requirements for collection, accounting, reporting and refunding of fees. Those requirements should be addressed in the adoption and implementation of these impact fees. March 15, 1993 David M. GrifM & Associates, Ltd Page 3 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY PURPOSE OF THE FEES Development impact fees are imposed under the police power delegated to local governments by the State of California. As with any police power regulation, their purpose must be to further some aspect of the public health, safety and general welfare. It is the responsibility of the local governing body to`decide what regulations are required to protect public health, safety and welfare. The imposition of development impact fees as a means of providing adequate public facilities to support orderly development has been upheld as a legitimate exercise of police power in a number of court cases. The fees addressed in this study will be used to pay for street, transit and bikeway improvements identified in the City's General Plan and various facility master plans. The City has determined that those facilities are essential to promote orderly development and insure that traffic associated with future growth does not produce unacceptable impacts on all residents of the City. USE OF THE FEES AB 1600 provides that if the use of a fee subject to its requirements is to finance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. The specific facilities to be funded by the proposed fees, and the estimated cost of each, are listed in Appendix A. In general they include: • Certain street improvements proposed in the May, 1992 Draft Circulation Element of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (EIR Hearing draft). • Transit improvements proposed in the SLO Transit September, 1991 Short Range Transit Plan. • Bicycle facilities proposed in the Bikeway Element of the 1990 San Luis Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan, and the May, 1992, EIR Hearing Draft Circulation Element. :llarch 15, 1993 David dl. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 4 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY It should be noted that, in addition to paying impact fees for these improvements, developers would also be responsible for any transportation improvements needed primarily to serve their projects. That is a continuation of past policy. REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP REQUIREMENT AB 1600 requires that a reasonable relationship be demonstrated between: [1] the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed (herein referred to as "benefit"); [2] the need for a facility and the type of development on which the fee for that facility is imposed (herein referred to as "impact"); and [3] the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the project on which the fee is imposed (herein referred to as "proportionality"). All new development creates impacts on some or all public facilities and services provided by local government, by increasing the demand for those facilities or services. If the supply of services is not increased to meet that new demand, the quality of service declines for the existing community. When the City provides facilities or services to satisfy the demand created by new development, it is producing a benefit corresponding to the impact. The other dimension of this relationship, proportionality, depends on the fees being calculated in a way that fairly apportions costs according to the relative impacts of various types of development. IldPACT RELATIONSHIP The apportionment of improvement costs between existing and future development is based on transportation planning and traffic modeling by the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development and Public Works Departments. The allocation of costs among land use types is based on travel demand as represented by trip generation rates weighted to account for trip lengths by purpose and adjusted to account for pass-by trips related to commercial development. The improvements to be funded by impact fees are required to mitigate the impacts of development proposed in the Land Use Element of the General Plan. March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 5 1��1 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP A reasonable benefit relationship is present as long as the facilities for which fees are collected and spent are available to serve new development.. In this case, the facilities and equipment - addressed in this study would provide the necessary benefit by accommodating the transportation needs-of new devel6pment. PROPORTIONALITY RELATIONSHIP A reasonable proportionality relationship must be established through the procedures used in calculating impact fees for various type of development. The first step is to identify the facility costs attributable to future development. The second step is to allocate those costs in proportion to the demands created by future development projects. The improvements included in this study have been evaluated by the City to apportion costs for each project based on the share of need attributable to future development. The apportionment of costs for each project is shown in Appendix A. Costs are split between existing and future development, based on relative shares of overall travel demand. The best available measure of travel demand is vehicle trip generation, and this analysis will use trip generation figures prepared by the City's Community Development Department in its traffic modelling program. The. shares of total traffic attributable to existing and future development are summarized in Table 1-1. Marrh 15, 1993 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 6 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY TABLE 1-1 SHARES OF TRAFFIC AT BUILDOUT Component Trips Percentage Existing Development 5769757 ADT 69.4% Future Development 254,274 ADT 30.6% TOTAL 8319031 ADT 100.0% Note: ADT = average daily traffic. March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Lid. Page 7 /"5,5 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY SECTION 2 STREET IlVIPROVENIENTS The Community Development and Public Works Department have developed a list of street improvement projects which are required, at least in part to serve new development anticipated in the General Plan. That list is based on the May, 1992, Draft Circulation Element, and is presented in Appendix A. The costs for each project have been apportioned to reflect the share of cost attributable to future development. Figure#4 from the Draft Circulation Element, which lists the transportation capital projects recommended in the Circulation Element, is included in Appendix C. In cases where a street project is needed entirely because of planned future development, the City's entire cost will be included in the impact fee calculations. Where funding from other sources, such as Caltrans, is expected to be available, only the City's anticipated share of the cost is included. Some projects contained in the Draft Circulation Element have not been included in the impact fee program because it is assumed that they will be constructed as a condition of approval for specific development projects. Prado Road is one example.. A listing of all Draft Circulation Element projects is provided in Appendix C. Each project included in the traffic impact fee calculation is identified in that list. For projects which are needed to serve both existing and future traffic, the costs have been apportioned according to shares of total traffic as shown in Table 1-1. Where other considerations have resulted in a different cost sharing approach, the allocation of costs, and the reasons for that allocation are noted in Appendix A. The total estimated cost of the street improvement projects included in the impact fee program is $44,325,000. The share of these street improvement costs to be paid by future development through impact fees is $27,590,950, or 62.2% of the total. March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 8 —sof C17Y OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY SERVICE AREA The area served by the street improvements included in this study is the area encompassed by the City San Luis Obispo General Plan. Impact fees calculated in this section of the report will apply to all future development in that area. LEVEL OF SERVICE The Circulation Element establishes level of service "D" as the standard for all arterial streets in the City except for the downtown San Luis Obispo where level of service "E" is the standard. The projects included in this analysis are needed to maintain that level of service while accommodating the traffic generated by future development anticipated in the General Plan. TRIP GENERATION The.trip generation and land use data used by the Community Development Department in pro- jecting the traffic impacts of future development are shown in Appendix B. Trip generation rates are broken down by trip purpose and are weighted by average trip length for each trip purpose category. Trip generation and trip length data were derived from the City of San Luis Obispo traffic model. Adjustments were made in trip generation rates for commercial uses to account for "pass-by" trips which are diversions of trips made for other purposes. Those adjustments were based on case studies of pass-by trips documented in Trip Generation, a manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The improvement costs are allocated to development using a weighted trip generation index for which we will use the term average daily trip-miles (ADTM). IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - STREET IMPROVEMENTS The determination of impact fee rates in this situation is done by dividing the allocated cost of street improvements by the total ADTM to be generated by all future development. The fee for a particular type of development is determined by multiplying the impact fee rate per .ADTM March 15, 1993 David,W. Griffith & Associates, Ltd Page 9 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY times the number of ADTM generated by the appropriate unit of development such as a dwelling unit, a motel room, or 1,000 square feet of commercial building area. Table 2-1 shows the calculation of a per-trip impact fee rate for street improvements. r. TABLE 2-1 IMPACT FEE CALCULATION - STREET IMPROVEMENTS Future Development Future Development Impact Fee Cost Share ADTM Share Rate $27,590,950 276,437 ADTM $99.81/ADTM The impact fee rate from Table 2-1, along with fee rates for transit and bikeway improvements will be combined into an overall impact fee rate for transportation improvements. That combined-impact fee rate is used in Appendix B to calculate impact fees per unit of development for various land use types. ,►larch 15, 1993 David M. Grijfuh & Associates, Ltd. Page 10 / "5( CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY SECTION 3 TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS One key goal of the City's Circulation Element is to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation as a way of reducing motor vehicle traffic. That reduction would have environmental benefits and would also minimize the need for additional street improvements. Public transit is an important element of a balanced transportation system and convenient transit service is essential to reducing dependence on automobile transportation. The City of San Luis Obispo is served by a City-owned transit system called SLO Transit. SLO Transit has developed a short range transit plan which identifies capital facilities and equipment needed to expand service and increase the availability and convenience of transit in San Luis Obispo. The City intends to fund certain of those improvements by charging impact fees to future development. SERVICE AREA The area served by the transit improvements included in this study is the area encompassed by the City San Luis Obispo General Plan. Impact fees calculated in this section of the report will apply to all future development in that area. LEVEL OF SERVICE Two important considerations in defining the level of service provided by a transit system are its geographic coverage and the frequency of service. According to the September 1991 Short Range Transit Plan prepared by Nelson/Nygaard, more than 90% of San Luis Obispo residents currently live within 1/4 mile of a transit route. The system is made up of four bus routes with service approximately once per hour. Weekday service is offered generally from 6:30 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., with the exception of one route which operates until 10:30. Weekend service is offered on two routes from 9:00 A.M. to 6:00 P.M. .March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page 11 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY The purchase of additional buses, as proposed in the Short Range Transit Plan is intended to bring the existing level of transit service up to an acceptable standard. The cost of those buses will not be included in the cost basis for impact fees. However, the cost of additional buses needed to maintain the same ratio of buses to average daily traffic as the City grows is attributable to new development and the City's share of that cost will be allocated to future new development in the impact fee calculations. The cost of other facilities, such as bus stop shelters and a larger downtown transit center will be split between existing and new development in proportion to shares of ADT. COST ALLOCATION As discussed previously, traffic generation will be used in this report as a measure of total travel demand. It will be assumed that the impact of new development on the transit system will be proportional to total travel demand. Using that approach, the total cost of transit improvements, will be apportioned between existing and future development in proportion to the shares of traffic generated by each. We will assume that 50% of the cost of additional buses and the transit center will be funded by grants. The local share of cost for expanding the bus fleet in response to growth is being allocated entirely to future development. The entire cost of bus stop amenities and the local share of transit center costs is being split between existing and future development in proportion to shares of total trip generation as shown in Table 1-1. Future development, then, is responsible for 30.6% of those costs. The amount allocated to future development is shown in Table 3-1. Appendix A shows the allocation of costs for each type of transit improvement. March IS, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 12 j-5S CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY UVIPACT FEE CALCULATION - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS The determination of impact fee rates in this situation is done by dividing the allocated cost of transit improvements by the total ADTM to be generated by all future development. As explained in Section 2, ADTM is a weighted trip-mile index which is being used to measure the impact of various types of development on the transportation system. The fee for a particular type of development is determined by multiplying the impact fee rate per ADTM times the ADTM generated by the appropriate unit of development such as a dwelling unit, a motel room, or 1,000 square feet of commercial building area: Table 3-1 shows the calculation of a per-trip impact fee rate for transit improvements. TABLE 3-1 MPACT FEE CALCULATION - TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS Future Development Future Development Impact Fee Cost.Share ADTM Share Rate $1,222,770 276,437 ADTM $4.42/ADTM The impact fee rate from Table 3-1, along with impact fee rates for street improvements and bicycle facilities will be combined into an overall impact fee rate for transportation improve- ments. That combined impact fee rate is used in Appendix B to calculate impact fees per unit of development for various land use types. March 13, 1993 David M. Crijfuh & Associates, Ltd. Page 13 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY SECTION 4 BICYCLE FACILITIES As discussed in the previous section on transit, a key goal of the City's Draft Circulation Element is to encourage the use of alternative modes of transportation as a way of reducing motor-vehicle traffic. Accommodating bicycle travel is another aspect of that strategy. The City's planned bikeway improvements are part of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan, and are intended to complete a comprehensive bikeway system serving the entire City. The specific improvements to be addressed in this analysis include the development of a bikeway on a portion of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way, and various other bikeway improvements and related amenities. SERVICE AREA The area served by the bicycle facilities included in this study is the area encompassed by the City San Luis Obispo General Plan. Impact fees calculated in this section of the report will apply to all future development in that.area. LEVEL OF SERVICE The level of service for the City's bikeway system cannot be characterized as neatly as was the case for streets and transit. Existing bikeways do not form a complete system. That situation forces cyclists to use unsafe and inconvenient routes in certain areas, which hinders cycling generally, but particularly discourages the use of bicycles for transportation. The proposed improvements will maximize the safety and convenience of bicycle travel throughout the City and will do a great deal to improve the useability of bicycles for transportation. Since the proposed expenditures for bicycle facilities will increase the level of service for all users of the system, costs must be shared between existing and future development. :March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 14 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY COST ALLOCATION As discussed previously, traffic generation will be used in this report as a measure of total travel demand. It will be assumed that the impact of new development on bicycle facilities will be proportional to total travel demand. Using that approach, the total cost of the bicycle facility improvements will be apportioned between existing and future development in proportion to the shares of traffic generated by each. The cost of proposed bicycle facilities and bikeway improvements is being split between existing and future development in proportion to shares of trip generation shown in Table 1-1. Future development is responsible for 30.6% of those costs. Appendix A shows the allocation of costs for specific bicycle facilities. UWPACT FEE CALCULATION - BICYCLE FACILITIES The determination of impact fee rates in this situation is done by dividing the allocated cost of bicycle system improvements by the total ADTM to be generated by all future development. As explained in Section 2, ADTM is a weighted trip-mile index which is being used to measure the impact of various types of development on the transportation system. The fee for a particular type of development is determined by multiplying the impact fee rate per ADTM times the ADTM generated by the appropriate unit of development such as a dwelling unit, a motel room, or 1,000 square feet of commercial building area. Table 4-1 shows the calculation of a per-trip impact fee rate for transit improvements. TABLE 4-1 IWACT FEE CALCULATION - BICYCLE IlVIPROVEMENTS Future Development Future Development Impact Fee Cost Share ADTM Share Rate $4,8969000 276,437 ADTM $17.71/ADTM March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith &Associales, Ltd. Page 15 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY The impact fee rate from Table 4-1, along with impact fee rates for streets and transit improvements will be combined into an overall impact fee rate for transportation improvements. That combined impact fee rate is used in Appendix B to calculate impact fees per unit of development for various land use types. March 15, 1993 David M. Grijfth & Associates, Ltd. Page 16 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY SECTION*5 IMPLEMENTATION This section contains recommendations for the adoption and administration of an impact fee program. Impact fees are imposed on development projects as a condition of approval in connection with discretionary action by the City. SUMMARY OF IMPACT FEES In the foregoing sections of this report, impact fee rates were calculated for three types of transportation improvements: streets, transit and bicycle facilities. Rates for all three components were calculated and the overall transportation impact fee rate will be the sum of those three components, as shown in Table 5-1. TABLE 5-1 TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE RATE SUNMARY Component Impact Fee Rate Street Improvements $99.81/ADTM Transit Improvements $4.42/ADTM Bicycle Facilities $17.71/ADTM TOTAL $121.94/ADTM TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES BY LAND USE TYPE Improvement costs attributable to new development are allocated using a weighted trip generation index which we will refer to as average daily trip-miles (ADTK. In order to determine the amount of the transportation impact fee to be applied to a particular development project, it is necessary to multiply the impact fee rate per ADTM from Table 5-1 by the ADTM March 15, 1993 David.V. Crifph & Associates, Ltd. Page 17 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY generated by a unit of development for each land use category. The calculation of impact fees per unit of development for various land use types are calculated in Appendix B and summarized in Table 5-2. TABLE 5-2 IlVIPACT FEES BY LAND USE CATEGORY Land Use Impact Fee per Category Unit of Development Single Family Residential $22152/DU = Multi-Family Residential $1,910/DU Retail $6,786/KSF Office $4,315/KSF Service Station $22,261/KSF Service Commercial $2,340/KSF Industrial $1,246/KSF Hospital $3,865/KSF Motel $1,997[Room Other $201/Trip Notes: DU = DweIIing Unit KSF = 1,000 Square Feet POTENTIAL DAPACT FEE REVENUE The impact fee rates calculated in previous sections of this report are intended to cover the entire share of improvement costs which is attributable to future development. Therefore, if development occurs as planned, the potential total impact fee revenue will be approximately equal to the total of those costs. It should be noted that all improvement costs are stated in 1992 dollars. In order to maintain the relationship between fee rates and improvement costs, it will be necessary to adjust fee annually to account for changes in construction cost levels. March 15, 1993 David M. Grijfuh & Associates, Ltd. Page 18 C177 OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY ADOPTION Impact fees may be adopted by ordinance or resolution. In many cases, the fee program is established by ordinance and the actual fee amounts are adopted and updated by resolution. We recommend this procedure. The California League of Cities has drafted a model ordinance and resolution which may be useful in the establishment of a fee program. It is very important under AB 1600 to include appropriate findings in ordinances and resolutions establishing fees. Those findings must address the purpose and use of the fees, as well as the reasonable relationship between the fees and the developments paying them. Those requirements are discussed in detail in Section 1 of this report. Any ordinance or resolution establishing an impact fee program should provide for annual adjustments in the fees to keep pace.with inflation. The fee rates recommended in previous sections of this report are stated in terms of traffic generated by various types of development. In this form, they are applied by determining the number of trips generated by a particular development project, and multiplying that number by the impact fee rate shown in Table 5-1. In some cases it may be useful to restate these trip- based fees in terms of standard units of development as shown in Table 5-2. COST ESCALATION The fees recommended in this report are stated in current dollars and the fees should be adjusted annually to account for price changes. For projects to be contracted in the future, the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index is recommended as the basis for those adjustments. For debt-financed projects which have been previously contracted or constructed, the Consumer Price Index may be more appropriate. If project cost estimates change significantly, the fees should be recalculated to reflect those changes. March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 19 1 _�s. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY ADMINISTRATION Several requirements of AB 1600 address the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code. r. Collection of Fees. Section 66007, provides that a local agency shall not require payment fees for-residential development prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases, upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed. An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to reimburse the agency for expenditures previously made, or spent for improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and money appropriated. The agency must also have adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement to qualify for this exception. In any case, utility service fees may be collected at the time an application for service is received. These restrictions do not apply to non-residential development. Procedures for collection of fees should be reviewed with the City Attorney to insure compliance with these restrictions. Accountability. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited "with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected." Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be place in the capital account and used for the same purpose. The law does not specify any requirement to segregate funds for individual projects. A common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues Harch 15, 1993 David M. Criffuh & Associates, Lid. Page 20 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY collected for each type of facility but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach. However, the City Attorney should review the structure of capital accounts used for impact fees. Expenditure Time Limits and Refunds. Section 66001 requires, for any fee revenue remaining unexpended five yegrs after it is collected, that the local agency make findings once each fiscal year to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, and to demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. This requirement applies only to money in the possession of the local agency, and not to letters of credit, bonds, or similar instruments. Any unexpended funds for which.a continued need cannot be demonstrated must be refunded, to the then current owners of lots or units in.the development from which it was collected. The procedures for such refunds are provided in Section 66001. Reporting. Section-66006 requires that once each year, within 60 days of the close of the fiscal year, the focal agency must make available to the public an income and expenditure statement for each separate account established to receive fee revenues. The governing body is required to review those statements at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after the statements are made public. Annual Update of Capital Improvement Plan., Section 66002 provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is not included in the fees themselves. Those costs should be included in user chargesand should properly be reflected in the fees chargedfor processing applications. March I5, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 11 /'o CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY SUBSIDIES As part of its strategy for economic development, the City may choose to reduce the impact fees for certain types of development, specifically retail and motel uses, because.the fees for those types of development may discourage projects which the City considers highly desirable. If the City chooses to implement reduced fees for certain types of development the result will be a shortfall of revenue needed to construct transportation projects on which the fees are based. The proportionality requirement of AB 1600 does not allow that shortfall to be made up by increasing fees for other types of development. However, the City may, we believe, cover the shortfall using other sources of revenue such as sales tax and transient occupancy tax revenues produced by the development paying reduced fees. TRAINING Adopting and administering an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. 'This is particularly true in cases where fees may vary by geographic area. In the beginning-, even the agency staff may find the program confusing. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. We recommend that one employee be designated as the coordinator for the impact fee program, and be made responsible for training all staff who are responsible for fee-related activities. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to give close attention to informational handouts which provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees such as application and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of the fee should be made clear. March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 22 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY Finally, everyone who is responsible for capital budgeting and project management be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recommended in this report are tied to specific projects and specific cost estimates. Fees must be allocated accordingly. AB 1600 limits an agency's flexibility to reprogram fee proceeds without revising the-fees and malting necessary accounting adjustments. March 15, 1993 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 23 ISLOTRAFFIAPPENDXA APPENDIX A IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO I61 LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE II.C.2 Hwy 101/Los Osos Widen Bridge/ 53,000,000 100.0% $3,000,000 Valley Rd Modify ramps II.B.2 Higuera Stl High St to Marsh St Widen (west side) $2,000,000 100.0% $2,000,000 11.8.7 Higuera St/ Widen $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 Madonna Rd to City Limit II.B.1 Monterey St/ Widen $6,000,000 100.0% $6,000,000 Santa Rosa to Grand Av II.D.1 Orcutt Rd/SPRR Grade separation $4,000,000 20.0%(1) $800,000 II.B.6 Prado Rd Bridge/ Widen bridge $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 Hwy 101 II.A.7 South St Extend to connect $4,250,000 20.0%121 $850,000 w/ Bishop St Various locations 20 traffic signals $2,000,000 100.0/0 $2,000,000 Madonna Rd/ Hwy 101 Widen/101 bridge. $2,300,000 30.6%I31 $703,800 Higuera St/ Madonna Rd to High St Widen $775,000 30.6%[3j $237,150 II.B.9 Hwy 101/ Widen $16,000,000 50.0%(4) $8,000,000 Through City Various Congestion mgmt $2,000,000 100.0%(5) $2,000,000 projects Subtotal Street Improvements $44,325,000 62.296 $27,590,950 Notes. Ill Assumes 8046 funding from Public Utility Commission as railroad safety project. Project required to serve new development. I21 Assumes 80%benefit to existing development. 131 Project cost apportioned according to future development share of total traffic (See Table t-1). Impact fees will be used to recoup funds advanced by the City. improvements as a condition of approval for a shopping center project. - I41 Project required entirely to serve future development and regional traffic. Funding assumes 5096 funding by Caltrans to cover regional share. (5) The Circulation Element sets a standard of LOS 'D'for arterial streets and highways outside the downtown area, and LOS 'E'for downtown streets. I61 Project numbers refer to the 5/92 Draft Circulation Element(See Appendix C). A-1 3/15/93 ISL07RAFFVPPENDX4 APPENDIX A IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO. LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE Mobile Fleet expansion $1,500,000 50.0% (81 $750,000 /7/ (5 buses) Various locations Bus Stop Amenities $175,000 30.6% $53,550 Downtown Transfer Center $2,740,000 15.3% /9/ $419,220 Subtotal Transit Improvements $4,415,000 27.7% $1,222,770 Notes. (71 Fleet expansion based on 43.3% increase in travel demand as represented by trip generation. 18/Assumes that 50% of acquisition cost will be funded by grants. 191 Assumes that 50% of transit center cost will be funded by grants, with the balance shared by exi and future development in proportion to travel demand. BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO. [6/ LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE I.C. SPRR Right of Way New bikeway [10 $12,000,000 30.60/0 $3,672,000 I.B. Various Bikeway imprvmts, $4,000,000 30.6% $1,224,000 bicycle facilities Subtotal Bicycle Facilities $16,000,000 30.6% $4,896,000 Notes: 161 Project numbers refer to the 5192 Draft Circulation Element(See Appendix C). 1101 Assumes adoption of Bicycle Transportation Program 3.13 in the Draft Circulation Element as indicated in Figure 4: Transportation Capital Projects(attached). GRAND TOTAL $64,740,000 52.1% $33,709,720 P, 7/ A-2 3/15193 z U) T 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o c ao m C 0 0 0 M o c T cD 0 U.to r r r O tmO r cO0 Lo O N10 v m coOO 0 0) O n O O O tp yo X O V OCA r LL li (d r Oc") r C7 a C 7 co OC7Y a CL CL O. H N O (\I O q:r O e r O y r in = r O O O O qt N 0 Cl) r r0 O: L CLIT C ` a Y O N r O N T N n r � � O " m O m yyp U L M .�V O IT O O O O O cO O p. O N m O m E CA O r O O O O O N Do v L 7 N ?� m U. N < O `p CO m r cO7 O (rD r crD m r- N n C O. - O co O b p E m Z 0 O v O a O a r Df v N G y .N. 7 � u7 C? O Q O V O O Cif N_ y O =Y r 7 Qrl 0 O r m N O N N c O. m II Z Q O r r r t j C ` C `p W � co CL ° m' S W © O O O m O N q N 7 O >. CI c9 E ca m C m O cD N C !O 00 Cn Q d O a a- 7 V 'O m W p y LL r O N O O O N N N M m O O N m m m 0 k � C.5 QJY Q � �• �m E R v m Ru um � L ` � 2 m O N c0 a O O v cO 0 7 a c�G C w C O. N O c0 N N u) P CAO C. E ;. 2 m c0 M 7 LL C'f. f� CV C Q� C r C7 r r f0 n ... O. m Vl U N Q n � 0 r Co � N n c� co Nm f0 m � �. C .? a H C � WQ CC r N toe EL � m5 — Eo, pm U'JC 7 O r r l0 N p r O V O.m C 0 E 1 Q _ 0 o 0 o 0 w g 0 M Ma � 3 arc E �� MSI Q r _yLy, CA O cV C7 m O rLo C%j W O NO m m •m m � m > W m = Y O r N r r r r C .O. 3 O.; 3 j m O. m E9 cA 0 -4 C C C) 5 X O m m O C .� O 3 C O co O N a O W p 7 a C N G O C C C CD N O O Q Q r r 0 m u) raD c� m E E y ° cc �p LL W cV N O T O n cOp N N O H > d 7 m C m jN r cD h O t0 C7 rn m ms C y = m E � O m c � � s m Qom v n c� ctOD o o N o fl,o a c `p r �' m m -° O aD10'C O C R V �, 7 m m y V m L N O CA cA O N tD Q IN V E O.� U m p N N O C7 O cD O CD CA O Cn cc NLL .O. � v W r c7 T *" T NCL0 LL ° D_ �i aZ Lr r r+ C C7 N f7 R :O C co ^ r W {�J N � `? W F_ y ,� Q c } cc T r m 4. a CL s Y = UJ = .- O ~ 1— CL CC W o ? �? p ~0 ¢ N f- V a. a oLL o Q o a z �Wao LOU w w �" a o i . c7o - �CL tWA Q Q C7 ¢ ��u O 8 it aLL 5 } m m o m W } Z W 3 � aC M cc W m LU w Z 3. m O W _I W a S S Z S ' 3 0 0 0 0Co .0 � a y D a � LLa ci T C'7 Of O (O O lA O h O O v �f y v O N O t0 O 0 O Q1cv p N t O O O O r r r C r N m Q 69;:;, yyQ x O 0 O O O t0 O 0 OO j mC - N c 6 6 0 0 �i r of o a a � w a ¢ a O O v P r O r O O 0 fl' y O O r r M O W O rmr .�. i C C O O O C7 C9 r W O m m p 3 y U 0 o © 0 0 o co o 0 0 N V•'^ moo,° R 3 m v O M O co O m O m cl O A m y (Ni O C7 O O r CO N r r 01 m a /,t/�{1 C U 2 ¢ r r r m r r.r O. 7 I V 7 y O y co v LO O C O V O O �? M0 ca Q E 11 C ca Cc CL Q W : O .4W E °N O m 0 O O O M v » M R a— No 0 O O N GO — 10 mm Z R ' O U WN R VO N m m �O = N N m N C m y m c0 N V WWWcc .43 ACL RM E O , v O m O N O N m a v . E ��' C ami y ca r N Z W I v O n O N O N M to O Q, m 0 C O_ t0 m W^ Q 710 LL n O N O O r O n N r:N ccc m jj d O U C I W Q Y r r N r r T c cm m m O.� a E �LLJ 7 O. N E m E 2 -S a I Z .m v O 0 O O O O 0 O y0) m N O N O 0 QN 1 O O L >m 4 Cm LL CC - mv1r 7 3 V O. m ILL. ON OO N D �p. O'. V X 'c J 64 .� O m C O y 0. E � � c C m m v O v O ttO O ra w O V. O "p "� 7 y O' m C 7 E m LO C7 O 0 O !0 O 0 W CO .v� y cu Q N v 7 LL CA V' Ca C N r N C)! r r C7 c� y 7 m E E y O cc 7 m m y r co C7 O O N cl N. 5- 5 m 0 s C y an d y � Y r y r+r m � m � > 1o � — E m G ca 0 m p 'O a.Q m O O O O O O O O N v GO R 'O y S 4 m v O CO O O O O N v W N U L6 eq r ui O O1 r O CG v r CC CL O.. C O L.. v m m c0 •� = Y r N LO m CO r r Ta „C+ y O C ?.C c0 'O m O ' U U O O v O O v c0 O m Q '.r L l n d m m U L U m m C 01 O (- O � N N v O M (0 01 y 0 C'O ._ w y ` V O L. V' O r 0 (O 0 N v co r N m 0 H E m > j .m 0 0 . (/� 1O 0 v 00 N � O. Z CL � 0. _;� a Z N r r rNf7 Qtf) c01� c9 A W w r N O N IL F'w ._ r v 1y : ¢ `r0 ¢ j CO a > x W Mmm = w = ¢ ~ ¢ W ¢ C O z lFCX 0 Q m o a a _a p ° LL w 0 °ao w m w `L w _ ° _ Z CL w a S g =tea m o m � ° � z LL. c7 m w w LL wmw w =i w m v ¢ w 3 O O O O ¢ m 0 nLu ¢ as O = = Z = 1— rA � O H w W W a o a � LL L N 7 L a � N n N C N N O j 5 Q •r' 1 �` c�J V O > J I` v •N v 3 a __ _ zo qb cot J r cc /1 co , N •V N v w'1 J 7 7 .� a _ v1 a •, � V C J T G w r - zt2 = _� a '' o Z. J o e7 C' - 4 - ` - > > i > U r 7 � � •° � � � C C � J C L ca r.7 Z U C a �, = - ya = U U � J U J _ u U r O G N 3 vs — a u m 3 7va to o 93 = _ o y N _ 973 L ^ C. a Z N a a a ' _ u u 1 OBO— a L L C C c Zvri y O i L J N f'1 T h i� 7L - � - 2 a O § J g § 5 / k j u S S ku kk k k2 3 k k § _ j A4u © . _ 2 @ / - 3 ] S 3 S S d 3 u d C4 2 ■ 2 \ � § ' mea ; � 2 � } ■ \ ) ]§ 2 & _ / - = f �\ § - � § _ _ _ = � ƒ53 k . — 2 - / 2 3 a ■ > . = 1 § . B ƒ 7 / 6 , ] � \ = 2 k = 2 \ ( ] ) $ 23 ) _Cl d £ ate■ 26 I� \k ) � B � \ rl _ _ � \ n . \ :0 \ /��� __ - Cd § Fg \ \- �� S\ � \ �a 2} / a2 Q ± u ;} \ �;i c �;i u u u u j. . � ■ � }2 ' - � Z � § j - _ \ . : ) 2 § £22 O O4 22 ) k -71 \ - - ! - � ] �' 7C ISLOTRAFFIAPPENDXA APPENDIX A IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY STREET IMPROVEMENTS PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO. [61 LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE II.C.2 Hwy 101/1-os Osos Widen Bridge/ $3,000,000 100.0% $3,000,000 Valley Rd Modify ramps 11.8.2 Higuera Stl High St to Marsh St Widen (west side) $2,000,000 100.0% $2,000,000 II.B.7 Higuera St/ Widen $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000,000 Madonna Rd to City Limit 11.8.1 Monterey Stl Widen $6,000,000 100.0% $6,000,000 Santa Rosa to Grand Av II.D.1 Orcutt Rd/SPRR Grade separation $4,000,000 20.0%111 $800,000 11.8.6 Prada Rd Bridge/ Widen bridge $1,000,000 100.0% $1,000.000 Hwy 101 II.A.7 South St Extend to connect $4,250,000 20.0%121 $850,000 W/ Bishop St Various locations 20 traffic signals $2,000,000 100.0% $2,000,000 Madonna Rd/ Hwy 101 Widen/101 bridge $2,300,000 30.6%131 $703,800 Higuera St/ Madonna Rd to High St Widen $775,000 30.6%[31 $237,150 II.B.9 Hwy 101/ Widen $16,000,000 50.0%[41 $8,000,000 Through City Various Congestion mgmt $2,000,000 100.0%[51 $2,000,000 projects Subtotal Street Improvements $44,325,000 62296 $27,590,950 Notes. [11 Assumes 80% funding from Public Utility Commission as railroad safety project. Project required to serve new development. 121 Assumes 8096 benefit to existing development. 131 Project cost apportioned according to future development share of total traffic (See Table 1-1). Impact fees will be used to recoup funds advanced by the City. improvements as a condition of approval for a shopping center project - [41 Project required entirely to serve future development and regional traffic. Funding assumes 50% funding by Caltrans to cover regional share. [51 The Circulation Element sets a standard of LOS 'D"for arterial streets and highways outside the downtown area, and LOS "E"for downtown streets. 161 Project numbers refer to the 5/92 Draft Circulation Element(See Appendix C). /,77 A-1 3115/93 ISLOTRAFFIAPPENDXA APPENDIX A IMPROVEMENTS AND ESTIMATED COSTS TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE STUDY TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO. LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE Mobile Fleet expansion $1,500,000 50.0% 181 $750,000 171 (5 buses) Various locations Bus Stop Amenities $175,000 30.6% $53,550 Downtown Transfer Center $2,740,000 15.3% 191 $419,220 Subtotal Transit Improvements $4,415,000 27.7% $1,222,770 Notes. [71 Fleet expansion based on 43.3% increase in travel demand as represented by trip generation. [81 Assumes that 50% of acquisition cost will be funded by grants. 191 Assumes that 50% of transit center cost will be funded by grants, with the balance shared by exi and future development in proportion to travel demand. BICYCLE FACILITIES PROJ IMPROVEMENT IMPROVEMENT ESTIMATED % FOR IMPACT NO [61 LOCATION DESCRIPTION COST NEW DEV FEE SHARE I.C. SPRR Right of Way New bikeway [10 $12,000,000 30.6% $3,672,000 I.B. Various Bikeway imprvmts, $4,000,000 30.6% $1,224,000 bicycle facilities Subtotal Bicycle Facilities $16,000,000 30.6% $4,896,000 Notes: 161 Project numbers refer to the 5192 Draft Circulation Element(See Appendix C). [10) Assumes adoption of Bicycle Transportation Program 3.13 in the Draft Circulation Element as indicated in Figure 4: Transportation Capital Projects(attached). GRAND TOTAL $64,740,000 52.19b $33,709,720 A_2 3115193 ce) P, N T 777 O v O W O 0 O 0 � t0 Of rn O5 Y r r r O cr r w N to CY v ¢ G co O OO a7 O m O C.) LL 0; o m o n o � E O YI r O T crj O M0 L7 C 7 OOY Q �. CL y N O N O v O v r O y r in C y ¢ C CD "' LL Of O T; O O O O � r O1 N '`7 L C C cA O N r O N r N r t� M N .. ` C CD OaY r T v 6% z mNs r � � ® E CY 0 IT o 0 0 co o to :' t c H m O 7 LL v 7 C. 3 o m Y O r m o coTr N C4 PZ 1 y O r1 CD $ Nrn m ° ui CD IT In UO O v O N O Cf Ty Co 'O LO i U N r Rci O aro r aro N N COO G E V1 t-C9 O = Y r r T E3 CcC �` > t!j m V) ZLU � C>a O � `0. C CMO W _ c9 O O O m 0 N co N 7 c0 >• U a CO_Cc4 C LL O O m O O v W O MCO L to m v o o T o tm t� o T 'o o = o.`o d kOY. r N N N �� ;' CO E fn O U m m T :::: ... CD "a 0 7 p j Cf O CO v CO CO 7 _CL�a C y ` C 2 W ELL w � N O O w N N n N Cc E ` to CD of u W ~ ': N n O N o 1� tm7 M N m a) O. C O. to f V7 r CL p p Q cD Y T N N � «A .� co '0 a t5 a 0. Q 4) 4 � � � cZmmo.DE � aE N O O N O r N N v T O = U 5 a p m o m s ao u) v, in co C) N :: m E t 14 m G1 LL Qf N o N O v ONE O N N d C21 C313 O` y Ca m > � W Y. r N r r gib :: moaa� i7Rc''o t9 C O 0 X 3 y C to a) O a- .. E .. � .oyc It o co o N IT co O o IT a c y a c 0 5 c _ CO In O O IT 7 W r r C7 co O al m (9 LL O N N G t� O CO N r I 7 $a7 E E C 7 CO In Co to CN r cli O - m Q 4 C y d m d CD ca E L N � 0 co co O COO N to CCD if Or E 12 O_W • m R > lQ CD 75 m t� O c7 r r t7 co T � Qn a! . ,� C >, t4 - U a7 L �_ m CD y m m U U L U (D L N O O N 10 O N t0 I N 0 H U E A g m Q U y N O co O CC O CO 01 c0 0) to d y O 0 E O LL2m v W T t'J T r T m N :T" 3a� ozlm ° a3 �z y m ° N O "I N c7 Q In co n ao A LLI W T H a H W T y v o_ �OY w ° O a a � W O ono p a cA ¢ V a a LL O ¢ O z a3 co ° LL > O CL g =tea m ° °CL 0 wz a o w } z w - 3 LL c�� �" � Wcc mLU g zLU m O W 3 L0.U LU 0 = z z = 0 a d twi uW . m m T c7 0 O m O to O N O O � y Q m 1n O t0 O CO O Q1'p U3 mCL O O O C r r r O r N N c`7 Or Si!d m Q cA y X p 0 O O O ANG O 0 O 0 7 > �i o o c of r ni o a a c E W a en = ui Q a r a 5 > r O O r r 0 O 0 O O � ca � z C °y C C 0 O C l7 C'l r 07 o m y 0 L V1 .0 $. c H m O v o 0 chi o o ci "r CM L a 0 m 3 m o- a- 'O m .O. q N C @7 C e0 r m N T r O m >, m E U E. r r r m r r' a 7 V 7 y E 2 H c m o m $ v o m O o�a s E 11 c Oe o v v .n v, o eo .. y O C N ,r O O Q T < C >` > Vl m y 7 O L W � NN �. � CDCa .2 cm c CLW N o m o 0 o O c7 r a :N m co c `—° E 19 Z I o m m o N o r. N N CD to c .. a 5 m C eA W LL N R V, C r r r N r cc m "' 7 0 O U m kO � . 0 C,4 :. N m M T acc CUB CD m ZW I Q o CO o N o N to ovi..vv m o °'S = sego - y W Q 7 W LL n O CV O O r C n N r ,N W m tS .`+ a a 0 m C CL �4 CL E v� r T rn c7 N:r L m ea o f C � � � Y r r r CM O m L m E C D 2 C N .- a I+ Ut COi v Lo an 0 U) O 0 M N en 0 d a-a m � � � > W m J Y r N O r r 0 O CM 0 r 6c 01 O a m 0 0 v V ^ m - c m m E v o v o m m vin y cc4 CL 0c � m w 0 0 o o m o m o m CD m co N ci Q a7 O ej m r CF) N O N c� '� m m S C H m m m m m Y r rlfT EH 64 a) m f9 7 N � m 8 ea `o m 'D a� e0 v O e00. O 0 O 0 cQi 7 = N ca CL= 0) W m m Cc LL cV T In o ni r ni co r CO ' a a= = = o > 'm 5 Z Y r N to m m r r cm � � -0 G Com... ea *0 0 N = b9 64 �� $C L L 'p N d m U m e of°i o IT o n veoi Q o ovi � a� rn E CA_ cm 0 O O LL O r O m O N er m r N y a) a0 r O N � � � 3aaorti � IL az W 0 rNc7'TW M Ic9 A W rW W T F- N WN r � in CL Lu O — W o O a cc F- v d Q p twn ¢2 0 H Q N Fes- 0 n a H O LL z F'a ?� o m 0 LL Cc � W 0 0a. z LL�I a w 0 w LU I 0 = a_ p p F=- � ~ g = Na m O m C o CID µ$' z LU LU ui Wm W W I W m D U �+ 2 W Q 3 2 2 z M Q O LU Q da _ = z = m O F- W W t LU a a Cr LLLL -go