HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/06/1993, 4 - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES MEETING DATE:
011111�P,X � city of San LUIS OBI SPO MEM NUMBER:
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FROM: William C. Statler, Director of FinanceIqq
Prepared by: Linda Asprion, Revenue Manager�f"�
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, 1993.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
Implementing development impact fees has been the subject of in-depth discussion over the
past four years and is consistent with recommendations from various Council adopted policy
documents and community groups. The proposed fees have been calculated under the
stringent standards of AB 1600, which set forth requirements related to ,the calculation,
apportionment, administration, and enforcement of impact fees. The recommended
transportation development impact fee for a single family residence is $2,152, with fees for
non-residential projects varying based on their land use type and square footage.
It should be noted that the fees developed in the accompanying impact fee study are
recommended to be implemented at the levels identified in this comprehensive study with
the exception of fees for retail and motel/hotel developments. Implementation of the fees
for retail and hotel/motel are recommended to be 50% of the study costs in recognition of
the fiscal benefits these developments bring to the City.
OVERVIEW
Why should the City adopi transportation impact fees?
There are two compelling reasons for adopting transportation impact fees.
■ 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.
■ If we do not adopt trap portation impact fees, one of two outcomes will result:
• We will nor construct the transportation facilities necessary to accommodate
our General Plan and all residents will see circulation service levels decline
as a result.
• We will c(nstruct the facilities, but at the expense of other important
community services - police, fire, recreation, parks, cultural, and social
services - th:)t do not have alternative revenue sources available to them.
city o� san pais osispo
MORMs COUNCIL AGENDA RE ORT
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.
DISCUSSION
Background
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. In
response to this objective, a Comprehensive Financial Management Plan (CFMP) was
prepared in 1989 which addresses the City's financial needs through the year 2000.
Implementing development impact fees was identified in the CFMP as a key source of new
revenue to support the City's long-term financial health. Recent economic trends
underscore the need to develop resources outside of the General Fund to finance the
infrastructure costs of new development.
In January 1990, the Council identified the need for citizen participation and involvement
in developing programs to ensure the City's long-term financial health. The Citizens'
Advisory Committee (CAC)was assigned this task and completed their extensive review and
evaluation of the City's long-term financial needs. The CAC's report, which was submitted
to Council at their February 5, 1991 meeting, recommended that the City establish
development impact fees at sufficient levels to ensure that new development pays its fair
share of the cost of constructing necessary community facilities. This recommendation was
subsequently adopted in the City's 1991-93 Financial Plan (page B-5). In summary,
implementing the recommended transportation development impact fee is consistent with
findings from our previous long-term planning efforts and the 1991-93 Financial Plan
policies as well as with the existing Short Range Transit Plan, Council adopted revenue
programs, and the Draft Circulation Element.
Assembly Bill 1600
On January 1, 1989, the legislature enacted AB 1600 which addresses the development and
implementation of local impact fees. Although AB 1600 does not limit local governments'
ability to impose regulatory fees, it does impose substantive procedural requirements related
to the calculation, adoption, administration and enforcement of impact fee ordinances. AB
1600 requires that a "reasonable relationship" must exist between the need and the cost for
a public facility and the development on which the fee is imposed. This requires
documentation for capital improvements attributable to new growth, which must be
consistent with applicable general plans and adopted specific plans.
city or San Luis OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd. (DMG) was hired to prepare a comprehensive
analysis of specific transportation projects and their costs required to support future
development in the City as well as to perform a compliance review of the allocation policies
and "reasonable relationship" requirements as stipulated in AB 1600. This study has been
completed and accompanies this report.
Methodology for the Development Impact Fees
The transportation impact fee study prepared by DMG comprehensively details the analysis
performed to determine the amount of the fees to be charged, and the direct relationship
of the fees to the capital improvement projects, or portions thereof, required to support
future development. AB 1600 establishes certain requirements that must be met by any
local agency establishing, increasing, or imposing fees which are imposed as a condition of
development project approval.. To satisfy these requirements the City must:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee.
2. Identify the use of the fee.
3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between the:
a. Use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed.
b. Need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is
imposed.
C. Amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the project.
Each of these key requirements is specifically addressed in the accompanying impact fee
study. The development impact fee must be reviewed annually to account.for any changes
in the cost of the capital improvement projects or any other consideration affecting the
"reasonable relationship" between the fees and the cost of the improvements on which the
fees are based.
What projects are included in calculating transportation impact fees?
The Draft Circulation Element accepted by the Council in April of 1992 as the basis for
preparing the General Plan, EIR is the primary source for identifying projects to be funded
by transportation impact fees. Cost estimates for the following projects were used to
calculate impact fees. While the Draft Circulation Element is the primary source for
identifying projects, not all projects identified in that document are listed below: projects
that should be the direct responsibility of new development to design and construct have not
been included in the cost base. This distinction is discussed further in the cost study, and
projects which should be the direct responsibility of new development are identified.
�-3
��u��►�u►�►Illlll�u �ll1 city of san i"IS OBIspo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Street Projects
The following street improvements proposed in the Draft Circulation Element have been
included in calculating transportation impact fees.
■ Widen Bridge and Modify Ramps Highway 101/Los Osos Valley Road.
■ Widen West Side Higuera Street/High Street to Marsh Street
■ Widen Higuera Street/Madonna Road to City Limit
■ South Street extension to connect with Bishop Street
■ Widen Monterey Street/Santa Rosa to Grand Avenue
■ Grade Separation Orcutt Road/Southern Pacific Railroad
■ Widen Road and Bridge Prado Road/Highway 101 to Higuera
■ 20 Traffic Signals at Various Locations
■ Widen Bridge Madonna Road/Highway 101*
■ Widen Higuera Street/Madonna Road to High Street*
■ Widen Highway 101 through City
■ Various Congestion Management Projects
* These two projects have already been constructed. Since they were designed to serve
current and future traffic needs, a portion of their costs have been included in the
impact fee program consistent with AB 1600.
Transit Projects
The following transit improvements approved in the 1991 Short Range Transit Plan have
been included in calculating transportation impact fees.
■ Fleet Expansion of 5 Buses
■ Bus Stop Amenities at Various Locations
■ Downtown Multi-modal Transfer Center
Bikeway Projects
The following bicycle facilities proposed in the Bikeway Element of the 1990 San Luis
Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan and the Draft Circulation Element have been
included in calculating transportation impact fees.
■ New Bikeway in the Southern Pacific Railroad Right of Way
■ Bicycle Improvements and Facilities at Various Locations
As noted in the impact fee study, new development creates impacts on some or all public
facilities and services provided by the City 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. As such, a reasonable benefit relation 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 development. 44
�����►��►�hilVillllllll�l1p°1p9181U city Of san lois OBI SPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Don't some of these projects benefit eunent residents and businesses?
Yes, but the fees have been calculated with the improvement costs apportioned between
existing and future development. Only that portion attributable to new development has
been used in calculating the proposed fees. This apportionment is based on transportation
planning and traffic modeling by the City's Community Development and Public Works
Departments.
How are casts allocated between different types of land uses?
As detailed in the accompanying study, the impact fees are based upon average daily
trips/miles (ADTM's),with the per trip impact fee rate calculated at $201.00. The number
of ADTM's per land use type have been calculated based upon data used by the Community
Development Department.in projecting traffic impacts of future development based upon
traffic modeling which were used in preparing the Draft Circulation Element.
Who pays development impact fees? How will they affect affordable housing?
The?proposed development impact fees will be paid in a lump sum by the applicant when
,the building permit is issued. Companies and individuals building projects for resale include
the fees in calculating. the cost of the house/facility and apply their, profit margin
accordingly. In this sense, these fees may be passed on to the buyers of the new housing or
community development and reflected in the purchase price, but only to the degree that it
is profitable for the developer to do so. Because of the many factors that determine the
price of housing, it is very difficult to determine the effect of these impact fees on.affordable
housing. For example, there are many cities with high impact fees which have affordable
housing, and many cities with low impact fees and little or no affordable housing. However,
production of affordable housing, along with all other developments, requires sufficient
transportation infrastructure and facilities to support the new development, and that is the
ultimate purpose of these proposed fees.
Are there any special policy considerations?
As a part of the City's strategy for economic stability, it is recommended that retail and
hotel/motel developments receive a 50% reduction to the fee identified in the impact fee
study. By reducing fees for these developments, there may be a shortfall of revenue needed
to construct transportation projects on which the fees are based, and AB 1600 does not
allow that shortfall to be made up by increasing fees for other types of development.
However, the shortfall can be subsidized using other sources of revenue such as sales tax
and transient occupancy tax revenues produced by the developments. As such, in
recognition of the fiscal benefits that retail and hotel/motel developments bring to the City,
it is recommended that the reduced fees be implemented.
�����►�i���i�lillllli�I���ui►��IU city of San %AIS OBISpo
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Are my credits adfusdnent; or ewnphons avagabk?
The proposed ordinance provides for credits and exemptions under the following
circumstances:
■ Construction of facilities or improvements by applicant. 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 fees 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.
For example, let's assume an applicant is required to install an $80,000 traffic signal
as part of a development (which is an improvement identified in the calculation of
the impact fees) and the transportation impact fees payable by the applicant are
$100,000, the $80,000 will be credited against the fees, reducing the amount payable
to $20,000. Or, same scenario, but the applicant only owes$50,000 in transportation
impact fees. In this situation, a reimbursement agreement in the amount of$30,000
will be offered the applicant.
However, credits and reimbursements are not allowed for any improvement that is
a specific condition of development but was not included in calculating the impact
fee. For example, a road extension or widening may cost $300,000 in addition to the
$100,000 in impact fees. However, if the improvement is a condition of development,
and was not identified as part of the project base in calculating the.fees, no credit
would be applied.
■ Exemptions. The fees imposed under this ordinance shall not apply to the following:
• Other government agencies. The rationale for this exemption is first, cities
do not have authority to charge counties, school districts, the State of the
Federal Government any fees which are not sanctioned by these agencies; and
secondly, the need for expanding governmental facilities is driven by increased
demands for service resulting from new development, so it is appropriate that
this cost be included in the fee for private sector uses.
• 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.
4-6
City Of San 1"IS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
How do we compare with other ckies?
In October 1991, the State Department of Transportation released results of a survey they
performed to determine the extent of local traffic impact fee structures and transportation
funding sources presently in place by local agencies within District 5. The results of the
survey indicated that out of 31 cities and counties surveyed, a total of 17 imposed some form
of impact fee. While most of the jurisdictions imposing such fees negotiate the amount of
the fee with developers on a case by case basis, many cities throughout the State have
established fees using calculations based on either dwelling units,square footage,peak hour
trips (PHT), or average daily traffic (ADT).
The following chart summarizes impact fees charged by comparable cities for single family
residential (SFR) uses:
I
Single Family
City Residential Fee
Brentwood $6,922
Camarillo $4,240
Half Moon Bay $1,450
Livermore $2,240
Napa $1,853
Oxnard $3,826
Pismo Beach* $336 - $3042
San Clemente* $1,200 $6,100
Tracy* $4,586 - $8,047
Vacaville $5,812
Ventura $5,245
San Luis Obispo (Proposed) $2,152
* These cities are divided into zones with each zone having a different rate.
The chart shows that the proposed development impact fees for San Luis Obispo are
comparable with other cities.
How will these fees affect development costs?
The following summarizes the impact of the proposed fees on development by using some
recently completed projects to show what fees would have been paid.
`4 /
����n�►�►►iIViIIIIII�Ih�u►I���`I UW Or San LaIs OBIspO
= COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Fee Calculation Total Fee
The Crossroads Credit for 6 SFR units (demolished) $(12,912)
Six Multi-family Residential Units 11,460
Retail 17,528 square feet 59,473*
Service 5,125 square feet 11,993
Total $ 70,014
* Calculation based on recommended fee at 50% of the study costs in recognition
of the fiscal benefits these developments bring to the City.
O'Leary Building Office - 7,609 square feet $ 32,833
Service - 1,300 square feet 3.042
Total $ 35,875
Walters' Bros. Bldg Office - 43,269 square feet $186,706
Exhibit A provides a comparison of the proposed City impact fees on these projects and
some hypothetical projects, with the fees that other cities would charge for these same
projects.
When will the increase be implemented?
Pursuant to the Government Code, the Ordinance may go into effect 60 days after its final
passage. Within this context,it is recommended that the fees become effective on Thursday,
July 1, 1993 to simplify implementation.
How.wiff the fees be used?
AB 1600 requires the City to "earmark" the development impact fees by category of capital
improvement. The funds may be invested, with any interest earned added to the fees, and
can be expended only for the purpose for which the fee was collected. This has been
interpreted to mean that a specific capital project on which the fee was based can be
changed, but the funds must be used for the general stated purpose, i.e. transportation
improvements. The Director of Finance must annually report on the fees collected and
related expenditures. After five years, if the fee has not been expended or committed, and
the City cannot establish a reasonable relationship between the fee remaining and the
purpose for which it was charged, the unexpended or uncommitted fees (together with any
interest accrued) must be refunded to the current recorded owner of the property.
How will fees be adjusted over time?
Unless otherwise acted upon by Council, the amount of the fees will automatically be
adjusted on July 1st 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. l V
�����,►�u��illllliiip° iINIIi MY Of San L"I S OBI SPO
Maio COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
As discussed above, the Citizen's Advisory Committee has comprehensively reviewed the
City's long-term financial health, including the appropriate use of development impact fees.
In concluding their review, the CAC recommended the implementation of impact fees to
ensure that development pays its fair share of constructing community facilities and as a part
of the bigger picture, to help ensure the City's long-term financial health. Their
recommendation was approved by the Council and incorporated into the 1991-93 Financial
Plan.
On October 19, 1992, a meeting was held with the Chamber of Commerce and the Building
Industry Association of the Central Coast (BIACO) to introduce the proposed impact fees.
After the meeting, the Chamber coordinated correspondence between the BIACO and the
City addressing.specific questions and requesting additional information (Exhibits B & C).
A concluding meeting with the Chamber and BIACO was held on January 29, 1993, where
some concerns were expressed regarding two specific projects - one included and one
excluded - in the fee calculation. The discussion of these two projects was as follows:
N Prado Road. The BIACO expressed their concern that Prado Road interchange and
extension from South Mguera to Broad was not included in the impact fee
calculation. This project is identified in the Draft Circulation Element as being built
as a condition of development since the benefits of the project are so site specific.
Accordingly, this project is not included as part of the base for determining
transportation impact fees.
s SPRR Bike Path. The BIACO expressed particular concern regarding the inclusion
of the Southern Pacific Railroad right of way for the new bike path with an estimated
cost of $12,000,000 and an impact fee share of 30.6% ($3,672,000). This project is
included in the Bikeway Element of the 1990 San Luis Obispo County Regional
Transportation Plan and the Draft Circulation Element as a specific program, and
as such, it has been included as part of the fee base. The BIACO has requested this
project be deleted from the impact fee calculation. Deleting this project from the
fee calculation would reduce the bicycle improvement fee portion by $13.28 (from
$17.71 to $4.43 per average daily trip) and the total impact fee from $201 to $188 per
average daily trip. For example, this would reduce the proposed single family
residence fee from $2,152 to $2,139.
CONCURRENCES
The Community Development, Public Works, City Attorney, and Administration staffs have
reviewed the proposed fees, and they concur with the recommendation.
�-9
����v�►►iviiililllllP�' ��IIU city Of San UAI S OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
FISCAL IMPACT
Under the City's current residential growth management plan (1% annually), the following
revenues are projected to be generated annually from the proposed transportation impact
fee:
Residential $354,000
Non-Residential= $195,000 Non-residential fees have been calculated
based on the historic relationship between
Total $5499000 residential and non-residential
development
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.
ALTERNATIVES
There are seven basic alternatives available to the Council:
■ Approve fees which are less than recommended. The Council could approve fees -
that are less than those supported by the impact fee study. However, with the
"reasonable relationship" being established within the study and the costs directly
apportioned, this alternative would be inconsistent with adopted City policy, and as
such, it is not recommended.
■ Do not implement transportation impact fees. Based upon the City's long-term
financial needs and adopted Council policy regarding the responsibility for new
development to pay its fair share of constructing necessary public facilities, this
alternative is not recommended. Not adopting the fees would cause existing
residents and businesses to pay a greater share of future transportation improvements
. projects, or would result in fewer General Fund resources available to support other
City services such as police, fire, recreation, parks, and street maintenance.
■ Approve subsidy for retail and hotel/motel use that is different than the
recommended level. The Council could approve a subsidy for retail and hotel/motel
fees that is greater or .less than the 50% reduction recommendation. The
recommended level recognizes the trade-off on a 50/50 basis between the need for
new development to pay for itself and the fiscal benefits of these types of
development.
■ Approve subsidies for other uses. Although there may be fiscal benefits associated
with other types of projects, retail and motel/hotel uses clearly have significant
definable fiscal benefits that distinguish them from other types of development. In
the interest of straightforwardly communicating the strategic benefits of retail and
tourist-oriented developments - consistent with our adopted City Mission Stateme _IO
�u�i,�ibNNVIIIIIII�In IlUl�l City Of San'LLA S OBI SPO,
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT .
of promoting the City as a "regional trade, recreation, and tourist center" - no
expansion of this subsidy is recommended at this time. The City's economic
development strategies are currently under review. If, as part of this process, other
strategic business types are identified that should also receive a subsidy, the impact
fee resolution can be amended at that.time, with the recognition that the City will
produce less money to pay for future improvements.
■ Developer financing options. In lieu of direct subsidies, or in conjunction with them,
the City could assist developers in financing these fees (as well as other impact fees
such as water and sewer)by establishing community facility districts on a case-by-case
basis that would offer long-term, tax exempt financing of these fees.
■ Delete selected projects. The Council could delete any project from the improvement
listing. It should be noted, however, that these projects are based several key
transportation and - alternative transportation documents which serve as the
foundation for planning future transportation projects. Recalculating the fee based
on including or excluding specific projects is a very straight-forward and simple
process. If the Council has concerns with specific projects, those projects should be
discussed and retained or deleted, as adoption of some development impact fee is
preferable for the long-term benefit of the City over not having such a fee.
■ Timing. Although the BIACO does not support this fee, they have suggested that the
City consider deferring or phasing in the fees. Although it is recommended that the
fees be implemented in full on July 1, 1993, adopting the fees with a deferred or
phased schedule is recommended over not adopting the fees at all.
SUMMARY
Implementing transportation impact fees has been the subject of in-depth discussion over
the past several years. The proposed fees will be set at comparable levels with similar
communities while generating funds that will assist in meeting the City's financial
requirements for funding future transportation facilities. As such, it is recommended that
the Council adopt an ordinance implementing the transportation impact fees and adopt a
resolution establishing fee levels effective July 1, 1993.
ATTACHMENTS
ii Ordinance implementing transportation impact fees
0 Resolution establishing amounts for transportation impact fees
city Of San luIS OBISPO
COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
EXHIBITS
A. Transportation impact fee comparison with other cities
B. November 18, 1992 letter from Chamber of Commerce and Building Industry
Association of the Central Coast
C. December 14, 1992 letter responding to the Chamber of Commerce and Building
Industry Association of the Central Coast
ENCLOSURE (Council Only)
■ Transportation Impact Fee Study, David M. Griffith, March 15, 1993
(Copy available in City Clerk's Office for public review)
1
14
ORDINANCE NO. (1993 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 i!ew 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 Circulation Element
of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, the 1991 Short Range Transit Plan, and the
Bikeway Element of the 1990 San Luis Obispo County Regional Transportation Plan, and
T
to provide adequate transportation facilities to 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 659132,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 Land Use Element.
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,rezorsngs 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;he 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 improvemesits 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
. ' 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 build ing 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 Constn.ction 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 sh-ll 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
4-16
created by the development.
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 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
4-1(
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 owneror 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 art.
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 ordinanceshall go into effect at.the
expiration of sixty (60) days after its final passage.
4-17
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 1992, 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:
torn
4-18
RESOLUTION NO. (1993 SERIES)
RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
SETTING FORTH THE AMOUNT OF TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES,
PROVIDING FOR THE COLLECTION AND ADJUSTMENT OF
SAID IMPACT FEES,
IDENTIFYING THE TRANSPORTATION SERVICES
TO BE FUNDED BY THE FEES,
AND ESTABLISHING A REASONABLE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FEES
AND VARIOUS TYPES OF NEW DEVELOPMENT
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, that study was made available for public inspection and review ten (10)
days prior to a public hearing held on this matter on April 6, 1993; and public notice was
provided fourteen (14) days prior to the public hearing; and
WHEREAS, this Resolution shall become effective sixty (60) days from final passage
of Ordinance No.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo finds and
resolves that:
1. Findings.
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 transport.ition 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.
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. 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 generation by the development project.
2. Cost Estimates. At any time that the actual or estimated costs of facilities identified in
the Impact Fee Study 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 to be incorporated into this resolution.
3. Amount of Transportation Fees. The amount of the transportation impact fees for the
1992-93 fiscal year is set forth in Table 1 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 pe;centage 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 the 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.
i
I COO
Upon motion of seconded by
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this day of 1993.
Mayor Peg Pinard
ATTEST:
City Clerk, Diane Gladwell
APPROVED:
*tto
y
TABLE 1
'TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES
Land Use Category Impact Fee per Unit
of Development
Single Family Residential $ 2,152/DU
Multi-Family Residential $ 1,910/DU
Retail' $ 3,393/KSF'
Office $ 4,315/KSF
Service Station $22,261/KSF
Service Commercial $ 2,340/KSF
Industrial $ 1,246/KSF
Hospital $ 3,865/KSF
Motel/Hotel" $ 999/Room'
Other $ 201/Trip
s Fees for retail and i,otel/motel are set at.50% of the study costs in recognition of the
fiscal benefits these developments bring to the City.
DU Dwelling Unit
KSF = 1,000 Square Fea
a0 V) 0)1 Q�' V) cu la co 0 a -C, CY
LU co r- cr(" CO) N 0
Cl) Go co 11 qlT 0 OD
0 CD N C.) 16 C6 NExhl bites_m w 0) Go a) Go
iA w GO I N4
0
N CD
.. .......
(13*In
..... .....
J,
LU CU 0 C) 0 C41
Cl) C) C.) cc N 0) C%l O 0 0 1
0 v Go V) M W U) N co v co Go
f4 0 0) N U) La 06 %6
v (Wa f, 0) to GO
to (a to to Vi rs 'A to Go
.............
C, .......
C)
C4 cy'v col",
to
'W;'v
-69
>; 40 . - 49
49
to
M"
cv)
;W
cm 0 O'D 000
• P, C.) 0 C14 co OD 0 C� 0
47i a 0 co
cli 06 t to CIE Lq pt Ir Ot—
Z ul C6 0) 1, co Ln v 0 w W W 16
O z z , a Ln cm w m W )
69 69 0 (9 K 69 w Ir Go
Cl) LU I I I I 1 I
1 69 40 1 0
rj) 2 V r- 0) 0 0 tv) M CO I 1 0 0
ui W FD V) f, 0) cc Ul) C.) 0 0 U) cm
U) W r1l f% Nt Of lq� vi 0 0 w IZ
C6 to, r- A , CO t() w 'w Q GO
IL to W> cn 40 , (D
44 to Go Go U) C%l W 60
..........
CY ""CD.Lf)
0 "S",%. ''.' , ��*.i:s' �..I�'C'j
...
ftl* , 'g. I.I.-. . ci
cq
0) CD N
g�
Q. C.) co �44 0
FnUJ Lm 40 L'4 C, 69'
LU rn,4c
LL MAU ",40
0
wU) H Witt
. . ...... ...
0. F� to CD 0 0 0 tn CY co to —
CD N v C-i Cl) 0 0 0 cli U) ON 4)
Z OD M V C-) N C%l 0 to 0 cc U) w 31
<
X 17 6 C%i ci 06 42i Iz C6 (d t6 li C6 a?
69 M La cm to V) to 0 CD MN GO)
Z X 0 , V) 40 V) V)
U- 0 0 Go GO ID U)
0
:Co Co .. ........
O to 0) o U) 0. 0 2` COX)
im D V)
Cb 0 C'j 0
M C* r- co
Wfo v Cc too L6.
qT C's P� '�ZAA� 2
Z"' is
cc
a. co co CD N v 0 N 0 0 4c
la
0 V) N P% 11 0 0 0
U) v a) " LO mo N Go v C%j 0
Z 0; It; 06 C%i 46 (6 a 1: a C6 0; C%i
0 CD v CY to LO m m w
LLI W CY 49 4& cli rl C.) W
> 49 49 60 60 40
Co" Co 0 (D 0 0" CD
O M CY 0 W). 'o
o Q. *D at . 'W ' ' ""L ' :'o -%,. Q....
Cq' q.ro
3;1
(O W > C
LL FA fa 40 0
03 w
0 0
r
O 0 0 C.) Cl) 0 CD Lr) 0
N v 0 CD v co M to 0 0 to V 9
Ct It Lq Ci c! q 112� cq q Cli C%L 0
Q W 0 W CD -a -a co co F� co co I* N
�; Cc cm L9 N M Ln w w V�
co 49 V) 49 1 69 4%
co
0 to O
CD
0 0 P. C11 0) N r '1, 0
0
0 N . Lq Lq q 1� =I al 2! 8 .
U* 03* N
C) a 0 0 Cl) U.) CD C LO
v N CY
CM ON
X
W. UJ 49 c CD 0 (D
0 c
0
in cc
4) N
ifl 'W yr
ca
co to FL cm 0 >
C 0) a:
0 CL
CO r, �%
In 0
0 0
%— 0 o
M LO E Z
ul C4 ca) m
C.) 0 >
.�! 0 M '0
co 0 &� E
0 0 rl L6 >1 w rA LL
cc C; a
pz Go E LL
I ol ." 1 0
CL Z 0
ca I B 2
C a cm E
cc — (a
C a
'@ -5 _j > 0 #
co :2 2
B 3: = 0 U)
'CO cn b Ch 0 CY cm
Exhib
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce -
1039 Chorro Street • San Luis Obispo, California 93401-3278
(805) 781-2777 • FAX (805) 543-1255
David E. Garth, Executive Director
November 18, 1992
Mr. Bill Statler
Finance Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street Box 8100
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Dear Bill:
On behalf of the Chamber of Commerce, I want to thank Ken Hampian
and yourself for taking time to share your plans for the proposed
Transportation Impact Fees with us. Following your presentation
of October 19, we met again to review your materials. Noted
below are the questions we have pertaining to the conclusions in
the material.
1) Regarding the Street Improvements noted in Appendix A,
Exhibit 2, we have several questions.
-- Has the current level of service (LOS) been determined for
the various projects? we might suggest indicating those
levels, if they've been determined.
-- How were the specific improvements chosen to be included
in this study?
2) Regarding the Future Development/weighted Trip Generation
charts in Appendix B (B-11 B-2) , Exhibit 3b, we have one
question.
-- How was the Projected New Development [4] determined for
each Land Use Type?
ACCREDITED
CkAYBER09CO f ERCE
CNAYEIR Of COMM[RC[
Of
iw�f D 5f. f
a
Bill Statler/Transportation Impact. Fees
November 18, 1992
Page 2
3) Other general questions include:
-- The language of AB1600 requires that their be a direct
relationship between the projected cost of the improvement
and its use. Can this be justified in all the projects
noted?
-- What version of the General Plan was used in preparing
this report? (Is it the same version for which the EIR is
being prepared?)
-- What version of the Airport Area Specific Plan was used?
(Was it the Conceptual Plan approved by the City Council?)
-- Can you provide us with the projected fees (sewer, water,
parks, water meter, traffic, retrofit, housing) for a new
50, 000 sq. ft. commercial building in San Luis Obispo.
-- Can you explain the rationale behind exempting government
from sharing in these costs?
We look forward to meeting with you and Ken in the near future
to continue the discussions for these proposed fees. The
answers to the above questions will help us better understand
how you determined the fee structure. I will be happy to
distribute your answers to our Chamber group, as well as arrange
a future meeting.
Thank you for your help with this.
Sin erely,
Lan vans
Di ector, Governmental Affairs
cc Ken Hampian
4-a5
I�llll� Ilii city of sAn lolls OBISPO
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 a San Luis Obispo, CA 93403.8100
December 14, 1992
Mr. Lance Evans
Director, Governmental Affairs
San Luis Obispo Chamber of Commerce
1039 Chorro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear.Lance,
Thank you for your letter of November 18, 1992. We are pleased that the Chamber of
Commerce and the Building Industry Association are actively participating in reviewing the
proposed Transportation Impact Fees. For ease in continuity we have repeated your
questions in the same order as presented in your letter with our response directly following.
1. Regarding the Street Improvements noted in Appendix A, Exhibit 2,we have several
questions.
A. Has the current level of service (LOS) been determined for the various
projects? We might suggest indicating those levels, if they've been
determined.
B. How were the specific improvements chosen to be included in this study?
Response. The specific street improvements listed in Appendix A are included in the
:Hearing Draft of the General Plan Circulation Element. In May, 1992, the City
;,.Council accepted the draft element for purposes of starting the preparation of an
EIR.
The City has developed a computer traffic model that estimates existing Level of
Service (LOS) for City arterial streets and state highways. "LOS" is a measure of
traffic flow. Free flowing traffic is rated as LOS "A" or "B" while high levels of
congestion is rated as LOS "E" or 7'. Most City streets are currently at LOS "C" or
better.
The Circulation.Element sets a standard of LOS "D"for arterial streets and highways
outside the downtown, and LOS "E" for downtown streets. The street improvements
in Appendix A are needed to serve future growth and to maintain adequate traffic
flow (eg. traffic flow that meets the LOS standards included in the Circulation
Element). _.,\
_.\ While the intent of Appendix A in the Transportation Impact Fee Study is to simply
identify the projects and the percentage of the project cost associated with new
development for the basis of the proposed fee calculation, we will either provide
general LOS information as a footnote or reference the Circulation Element as a
source for specific street LOS standards.
2. Regarding the Future Development/Weighted Trip Generation charts in Appendix
B (B-11 B-2), Exhibit 3b, we have one question.
A. How was the Projected New Development [4] determined for each Land Use
Type?
Response. The Hearing Draft of the General Plan Land Use Element (February,
1992) was used to project future development. Projections were based on the
development of vacant land within the City (called "infill"), further development of
under used land or the replacement of old buildings with bigger buildings (called
"intensification") and the annexation-and development.ofaand at the.periphery of the
City (called "expansion"). These land use projections were used to develop a
computer model which provides forecasts of future traffic conditions. The
improvement costs were then allocated to different types of development using a
weighted trip generation index based on average trip lengths adjusted for "pass-by"
trips. Appendix B of the Transportation Impact Fee Study provides this calculation
�\ by land use type.
3. Other general questions:
A- The language of AB1600 requires that there be a direct relationship between
the projected cost of the improvement and its use. Can this be justified in all
the projects noted?
Response. Yes. AB1600 requires there to be a "reasonable relationship" between
the amount of the fees and the portion of the cost of the facilities needed to serve
future development. The primary purpose of.the Transportation Impact Fee Study
is to document this "reasonable relationship" and the updated Circulation Element
serves as a source document.
B. What version of the General Plan was used in preparing this report? (Is it
the same version for which the EIR is being prepared?)
Response. The Hearing Drafts of both the General Plan Land Use Element
(February, 1992) and the Circulation Element (May, 1992) were used to prepare this
report. The EIR currently being prepared uses these two documents to define the
"project"for which it is being prepared. (Note: Public Hearings to consider adoption
of the Land Use and Circulation Elements are slated for Winter quarter, 1993.)
4-07
C. What version of the Airport Area Specific Plan was used? (Was it the _
Conceptual Plan approved by the City Council?)
Response. The conceptual plan for the Airport Area Specific Plan was reflected in
the February, 1992 General Plan Land Use Element which has been accepted by the
Council for the purpose of preparing the EIR.
D. Can you provide us with the projected fees (sewer, water, parks, water meter,
traffic, retrofit, housing) for a new 50,000 sq. ft. commercial building in San
Luis Obispo.
Response. Currently, the City does not have, nor is there any work in progress to
develop impact fees for parks or housing. The retrofitting requirement is not a fee
paid to the City and as such it is not shown as an impact fee. However, the City is
exploring the possibility of providing credit toward water impact fees based upon the
cost of retrofitting. It is anticipated that this proposal to modify the calculation of
water and sewer impact fees based on retrofitting costs will go before Council at the
same time as Transportation Impact Fees.
Water and sewer impact fees are based upon meter size and type of tenants, which
of course depends on the anticipated use of the commercial facility. For this
example we have projected a 1 1/2" meter and retail only tenants.
Water S 10,510
Sewer S 8,870
Water Meter $ 370
Transportation $ 33 /6375
Total Estimated Impact Fees $ -52's-25 /8S/.S
These fees are exclusive of development review fees for planning, engineering, and
building permits. These fees vary significantly based on the types of discretionary
approvals necessary. For illustrative purposes only, the following is an outline of the
development review fees required based on the following assumptions:
No lot creation is required
Built on three acres; 100 foot frontage
Construction costs = $2,875,000
Public Improvement Costs = $112,500
Plannine Fees
Planned Development Permit $ 1,547.00
Environmental Review 516.00
Use Permit 670.00
Architectural Review 650.00
Total Planning $ 3,383.00
"f ��V
Building & Safety Fees
Grading Permit Fees $ 66.00
Plan Check Fees 6,818.00
Building Permit Fees 10.490.00
Total Building & Safety Fees $17,374.00
Eneineerine Fees
Improvement Plan Check $ 1,893.50
Construction Inspection 3,328.50
Total Engineering Fees $ 5,222.00
Total Development Review Fees $25,979.00
E. Can you explain the rationale behind exempting government from sharing in
these costs?
Response. First, cities do not have authority to charge counties, school districts, the
State, or the Federal Government any fees which are not sanctioned by these
agencies. Secondly, the need for expanding governmental facilities is driven by
increased demands for service resulting from new development, so it is appropriate
that this cost be included in the fee for private sector uses.
We hope that these responses assist in determining how the fee structure was determined.
We appreciate your handling the distribution of this response both to the Chamber and the
Business Industry Association. We anticipate taking the proposed Transportation Impact
Fees to the Council in early 1993. Your cooperation in distributing this information and
arranging a future meeting is greatly appreciated.
Thank you for your assistance.
Sincerely,
�,6l
William C. Statler
Director of Finance
CC: Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer
Terry Sanville, Principal Planner
h' TING AGENDA
�aff v+'t u/ovc�( DATE4t-k-93 ITEM it
--Garty�l Vineyard & Winery
6 April 1993
COPIES TO:
Mayor, City Council, City Manager, Ci't®� y arQ ftaf
City of San Luis Obispo ,�/
HL
990 Palm Street � '� 6G CDD DR.
San Luis Obispo, Ca 93403-8100 ❑ IZRELIiItF. -
II ATTORYEY ❑ nvDUL
Re: Parkside Research Centre(Orcutt CLEttxJ'a^uC. ❑ noL'CECR r,
MGMT.TE.%14 D %ECDI,. n'
CREAD P,Lz El UITLDIR
Ladies and Gentlemen: Ciry
pe_1Fjl. _ ❑ s�ia bus o ,� >>.ca
As you know, I have been attempting since 1988 to obtain approval
to develop a research project on the subject property. During this
process several salient occurrences have developed which should be
discussed due to their relative significance to us and the City.
Specifically, the City obtained the 22' from us at no charge and we
sold additional land below my cost in exchange for the specific
concession of not to be responsible for any costs for the Orcutt
Road widening or for any of the costs to construct the railroad
overpass. These were co-ordinated with Mike Multari, Community
Development Director and Dave Romero, who is obviously now a
- council member of the City Council.
In addition, through the specific efforts of the City Community
Development Department, I was directed to develop a detailed plan
of converting the project from industrial to residential, at
substantial personal cost, only to be rejected by the City Council
at a public .hearing.
We are now re-submitting our third design, a PD for a research park
at a time when the City requires a substantial increase in revenue
for it to conduct its business.
The purpose of this letter is to express my concern for these
potential fee increases since they can, as proposed, have a serious
impact on the overall development costs and, to ask for a reduction
or elimination of duplicate and triplicate fees that I have already
paid.
Regarding the latter repetitious fee payments, I have paid the
Planning Application fees and the Tract Map fees, I beleive each
time I have submitted the three different maps. Is this fair since
I should have only paid once?
Let me briefly discuss the probable impact on our community should
our project reach a completion by the year 2000. Property tax
revenue will exceed $250,000 a year; . payroll will exceed
$16,000,000. a year; gross sales of the projected computer software
and bio-tech companies will exceed $45,000,000. a year; assuming a
4330 Santa Fe.Road• P.O. Box 3459•Son Luis Obispo, CA 93403.3459(805)549-WINE(9463)•FAX(805)546-8031
City of San Luis Obispo 6 April 1993 page 2
3-to-1 multiplier effect, the economic support services will
generate $48,000,000! In other words, this can, if approved and
if successful, have a major financial impact on the City's revenue
for every future year!
On the assumption that our analysis is accurate and the City does
need this kind of "appropriate and clean" service related
industries, establishing a fee increase that will not generate an
immediate solution to the City, might be best not to be imposed.
For example, imposing an increase in traffic mitigation fees for
the Parkside Research Centre, if adopted as recommended, for an
overpass that will not be constructed until the year 2020 will
alone increase our costs beyond the marketability of the Park.
I also believe that the City should absorb some responsibility for
these delays. Our project should then be given credit for its past
contribution plus allow the project fees to be based upon the fee
structure in 1988-89.
I .hope that you review this letter in the fairness that it has been
presented. Since I am not a developer by trade., but a successful
business man who has brought some of these revenue accomplishments
to the County, I wish to emphasize that the ability to survive in
this highly competitive marketplace is only a result of being able
to offer a product that the market can absorb because it fills a
need and is positioned to provide an economic return to the tenant. -
Thank you for taking the time to evaluate this project in more
detail. I sincerely believe that it is in the ,City's best interest
to reach a realistic compromise on the matter of fees.
Very cerely,
orm n J. Beko
T e SLO Partners
cc: Mr. Stephen B. Barasch
`�J
,.IEETING AGENDA
DATE 4 ITEM #�
❑' ,ar:o!esA&-on ❑ FYI
California has
ie�ca (,��/(DDDIR � �
Central V(:AO M F.M.DIR 1�attt;saow t
March 31, 1993 P'AtAO ❑ F-7RECHIEF
RrATkG:.; . 13 FN DIR.COdSt
[1 POLICE C31
❑ i.•.•.G,'r.Tr•s�.i E1 ^EC DIB F�
Chapter Mayor Peg Pinard ❑ j
C"READ L7 UrLDIP, I R 'D 1��3
City of San Luis Obisp CITY CC
d
990 Palm Street SHIN 4U:S CF-!:;PC, CA
American San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401 j
Institute
of Architects Re: Proposed Traffic Mitigation Fees for City of San Luis Obispo
Dear Mayor Pinard:
Post Office Box 375
San Luis Obispo Our membership has expressed concern over the proposed traffic
California 93406 mitigation fees you will consider at your April 6 meeting. Increased
commercial construction costs will only accelerate the flight of
business from our city and the proposed fees for residential
construction fail to address affordable housing issues.
Other specific concerns our chapter has with the proposed traffic
= mitigation fees are as follows:
1. The assertion that transit and bicycle transportation provide
an alternative to travel by private motor vehicle is valid,
however, to assume that the distribution in demand is similar
is in error. How can that veritable bastion of the automobile,
the gasoline service station, be assessed fees based upon
driver's choices for transit and bicycle trips? Clearly, a nexus
for this scenario has not been addressed in the
Transportation Impact Fee Study. Also, please be aware of
the market forces generated by this fee. The fee is based on
the square footage of the building not on the pumps which
does not correlate to the trips generated. The message is
that all new gas stations will be of the kiosk type (100 sf or
less) to reduce the traffic mitigation fee.
2. The Transportation Impact Fee Study notes that the existing
level of transit service is not at an acceptable standard yet the
proposed fleet expansion is assumed to be provided by future
growth.
OFFICERS FOR 1990-1991:
Allan Cooper,President • Victor Montgomery,President Elect • Elbert Speldel,Secretary - Mary White,Treasurer
DIRECTORS FOR 1991:
Sake Reindersma,Legislation • George Stewart,Membership • Stan Stein&James Aiken,Public Relations - Mike
Echelmeler,Student Affiliate • Joanne Buchanan,Associates
Mayor Pinard
March 31, 1993
page 2 -J
California
Central
Coast
Chapter. 3. The proposed Orcutt Road/SPRR grade separation is noted
to be required by new development. This is incorrect, the
American project is required to provide emergency vehicles with an
alternate path to the Johnson Avenue area. Currently there
Institute are only two unobstructed crossings of the SPRR in the city.
of Architects Appendix A of the Transportation Impact Fee Study shows
_ .--•- - - - - ' th
T.=4t c::�/::Gr .iiv GG�a,Jrd� v �.Cjjria Cy ii�M: CebG' n rl
the remainder to come from the PUC. We feel that new
Post Office Box 375 development should be assessed the proportionate share of
San Luis Obispo 30.6% of the 20% or 6.12% of the cost of the grade
California 93406
separation project.
4. Although public sector uses are not expected to share in the
costs for the projects noted, their expected trip generation
should be included in the calcul tions. The report does not
appear to make allowances for increased traffic generation
based upon expansion of public sector usages. --
5. We feel that an exemption or reduction in fees for affordable
housing should be incorporated into the proposed ordinance.
These types of units have been shown to generate less trips
than standard residential uses.
6. The fee implementation is proposed to become effective on a
given date. We feel that this will be detrimental to the
business and construction community in the City of San Luis
- Obispo: We urge you to consider implementing these tees c,
an extended period of time (3 years for example). This will
cushion the effect of the proposed fees on the community.
7. We propose that a downtown benefit district be established to
promote businesses in the downtown core.
OFFICERS FOR 1990-1991:
Allan Cooper,President • Victor Montgomery,President Elect Elbert Speidel,Secretary • Mary White,Treasurer
DIRECTORS FOR 1991:
Sake Reindersma,Legislation • George Stewart,Membership Stan Stein&James Aiken,Public Relations • Mike
Echelmeier,Student Affiliate • Joanne Buchanan,Associates
ata
Mayor Pinard
March 31, 1993
�
California page 3
Central
Coast
Chapter
8. Finally, we question the fiscal responsibility of a $ 12,000,000
American bike path along the SPRR right of way. Clearly, there must be
better ways to promote bicycle usage in the city. Remember,
Institute $ 12,000,000 is enough to purchase a $ 300 bicycle for. each
Of Architects_ of the city's 40,000 residents which would promote bicycle
Usage liar more trian a new pathway.
Post Office Box.375 Thank you for your consideration of our concerns.
San Luis Obispo
California 93406
Sincerely,
AIA Cafforaa Central Coast Chapter
Jeffrey mric , A
Director of Legislative Affairs
OFFICERS FOR 1990-1991:
Allan Cooper,President • Victor Montgomery,President Elect Elbert Speidel,Secretary Mary White,Treasurer
DIRECTORS FOR 1991:
Sake Reindersma,Legislation • George Stewart,Membership • Stan Stein&James Aiken,Public Relations • Mike
Echelmeier,Student Affiliate • Joanne Buchanan,Associates
MEETING AGENDA
. , ATE ITEM #
�LW a .
TO: Mayor Peg- Pinard
FROM: Lynn Block, Administrator
DATE: April 2, 1993
RE: Transportation Impact Fee
The Board of Directors of the .Business improvement
Association would like to ask for a continuance on the April
6th City Council agenda item relating to the Transportation
Impact Fees.
I
The BIA is working with.the..Chamber of Commerce to evaluate
the proposed fees and will not be prepared with a
comprehensive report for the April 6th meeting.
The BIA and Chamber of Commerce are working to analyze all � .
aspects of the proposed fees and would appreciate your
consideration in allowing a continuance to complete this
evaluation.
Please feel free to contact me at 541-0286 should you have
Any questions.
cc: John Dunn, CAO
Bill Statler, Director of Finance
�I
COPIESTO:
❑•Dmotes Adson ❑ FY!
Council Q/CDD DUL
FIN.CAO FA.DIR i
ACAO ❑ FIREt-•i1ER
G� ATTORNEY ❑ FWDR
dCLERK/ORIC. ❑ POLICECH.
❑ mcmT.m%N4 LI FEC DIm
❑ C READ FILE, ❑ UTILDIIL
i
I
y I
1993
CITY COUI.ICIL
Sr—[ LUiS OE:S_P_o,CA
P.O.R=1401•San Luir Obispo•G•93406.80WW-0186