Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Resolution 2007-202 N.C.S. 12/03/2007
Resolution No. 2007-202 N.C.S. of the City of Petaluma, California RESOLUTION OF INTENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF PETALUMA TO AMEND THE CITY OF PETALUMA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE, FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES IMPACT FEE, LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES IMPACT FEE, AQUATIC CENTER FACILITIES IMPACT FEE, LIBRARY FACILITIES IMPACT FEE, COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES IMPACT FEE AND THE QUIMBY ACT PARK DEDICATION AND IN- LIEU FEE; TO AMEND THE EXISTING PARK IMPACT FEE TO PROVIDE FOR A SEPARATE PARK LAND ACQUISITION (NON-QUIMBY ACT) FEE, OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION FEE AND PARK LAND DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND TO APPLY THE PARK LAND ACQUISITION, OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION AND PARK LAND DEVELOPMENT FEES TO RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT WHEREAS, the City currently imposes a Traffic Impact Fee to pay for certain public facilities and associated municipal improvements to off-set certain impacts of new development, pursuant to Petaluma Municipal Code chapter 11.80 and as most recently adopted by Resolution 2003-206 N.C.S. on October 27, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the City currently imposes a Public Facilities Impact Fee to pay for certain public facilities and associated municipal improvements to off-set certain impacts of new development, pursuant to Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter 17.14, and as most recently adopted by Resolution 2003-209 N.C.S. on October 27, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the City currently imposes a Fire Suppression Facilities Impact Fee to pay for certain public facilities and associated municipal improvements to off-set certain impacts of new development, pursuant to Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter 17.14, and as most recently adopted by Resolution 2003-207 N.C.S. on October 27, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the City currently imposes a Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee to pay for certain public facilities and associated municipal improvements to off-set certain impacts of new development, pursuant to Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter 17.14, and as .most recently adopted by Resolution 2003-210 N.C.S. on October 27, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the City currently imposes an Aquatic Center Facilities Impact Fee to pay for certain public facilities and associated municipal improvements to off-set certain impacts of Resolution No. 2007-202 N.C.S. Page 1 new development, pursuant to Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter 17.14, and as most recently adopted by Resolution 2003-213 N.C.S. on October 27, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the City currently imposes a Library Facilities Impact Fee to pay for certain public facilities and associated municipal improvements to off-set certain impacts of new development, pursuant to Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter 17.14, and as most recently adopted by Resolution 2003-211 N.C.S. on October 27, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the City currently imposes a Community Center Facilities Impact Fee to pay for certain public meeting facilities and associated municipal improvements to off-set certain impacts of new development, pursuant to Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter 17.14, and as most recently adopted by Resolution 2003-208 N.C.S. on October 27, 2003; and, WHEREAS, the City currently imposes on new residential subdivision development in the City a Parkland Dedication requirement pursuant to Government Code section 66424 and Petaluma Municipal Code Chapter 20.34, as amended by Ordinance 2166 N.C.S., adopted January 15, 2004; and, WHEREAS, the City currently imposes on new development in the City a Park Land Acquisition and Park Development Impact Fee for the acquisition of park land and open space and for the development of park improvements to offset certain impacts of new development, as most recently adopted by Resolution 2003-212 N.C.S. on October 27, 2003, and, WHEREAS, the City is currently preparing an update of its General Plan ("General Plan 2025") that outlines future land uses and development potential through the 2025 General Plan build-out horizon; and, WHEREAS, General Plan 2025 identifies an open space standard of 10 acres of open space per 1,000 residents, including a combination of open space and urban separator lands; and, WHEREAS, General Plan 2025 identifies a park land standard of 5 acres of park land per 1,000 residents; and, Resolution No. 2007-202 N.C.S. Page 2 WHEREAS, the City intends to amend the present Park Impact Fee to adopt as separate fees a Park Land Acquisition (Non-Quimby Act) Fee, an Open Space Acquisition Impact Fee and a Park Land Development Impact Fee; and, WHEREAS', the City intends to apply the Open Space Acquisition Impact Fee and the Park Land Development Impact Fee to all residential and non-residential development in the City, and to apply the Park Land Acquisition (Non-Quimby Act) Fee to residential development not subject to the Quimby Act and to non-residential development in the City; and, WHEREAS, the City anticipates certifying environmental documentation for its General Plan and adopting a revised General Plan ("General Plan 2025") in 2008; and, WHEREAS, the City has retained Sinclair & Associates and Fehr & .Peers as its consultants to examine certain existing development impact fees, the levels of development and policies outlined in General Plan 2025, the cost of future public facilities to serve future development projects and the mitigation fees described herein, which are necessary to finance those portions of the identified public facilities attributable to new development projects; and, WHEREAS, Sinclair & Associates has produced the "City of Petaluma Mitigation Fee Report" dated October 30, 2007, on file in the office of the City Clerk and attached hereto as Exhibit A (Exhibits A and B are collectively referred to hereafter as the "Cost Reports") which analyzes certain City facilities, existing development impact fees, levels of development permitted under General Plan 2025 policies and. programs, the cost of facilities needed to serve future development and the relationship between those costs and certain of the City's development impact fees; and, WHEREAS, Fehr & Peers has produced the City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Program Fee Update dated October, 2007, on file in the office of the City Clerk and attached hereto as part of Exhibit B (Exhibits A and B are collectively referred to hereafter as the "Cost Reports") which analyzes certain City facilities, existing development impact fees, levels of development permitted under General Plan 2025 policies and programs, the cost of facilities needed to serve future development and the relationship between those costs and certain of the City's development impact fees; and, Resolution No. 2007-202 N.C.S. Page 3 WHEREAS, the Cost Reports recommend increasing certain of the City's development impact fees as referenced herein, but the City does not intend to do so until General Plan 2025 becomes effective; and, WIEIEREAS, the City Council believes that should General Plan 2025 be adopted, the development impact fees referenced herein should be adjusted as shown in the Cost Reports to ensure that revenues from those fees are sufficient to pay the City's costs of new public facilities identified and necessary to accommodate growth under General Plan 2025 and changing State and federal regulations; and, WHEREAS, City's professional staff has advised the City Council that in future years, changes in the costs of providing the public facilities and improvements paid for by the development impact fees referenced herein are expected to be strongly correlated to changes in the costs of construction, inflation and the costs of land and/or rights-of--way and should be adjusted accordingly; and, WHEREAS, the Engineering News Record annually publishes an index of changes in the cost of the construction for the San Francisco Bay Area (the "Construction Cost Index" or "CCI"); and, WHEREAS, the actions contemplated in this resolution consist of the creation and/or adjustment of government funding mechanisms or other government fiscal activities which do not involve any commitment to specific projects which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. The actions contemplated by this resolution therefore do not constitute a "project" under the California Environmental Quality Act, pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21065 and 14 California Code of Regulations section 15378(b). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1. The findings stated above are true and correct and are adopted as the findings of the City Council of the City of Petaluma. Resolution No. 2007-202 N.C.S. Page 4 2. The City intends to amend the following development impact fees to reflect the facilities, infrastructure and expanded programs necessary to serve development under build-out of General Plan 2025: Traffic Impact Fee Public Facilities Impact Fee Fire Suppression Facilities Impact Fee Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee Aquatic Center Facilities Impact Fee Library Facilities Impact Fee Community Center Facilities Impact Fee Quimby Act Park Dedication and In-Lieu Fee Park Land Acquisition (Non-Quimby Act) Fee Open Space Acquisition Fee Park Land Development. Fee The amount of the amended development impact fees is anticipated to be no more than. the fee amounts set forth in the Cost Reports on file in the office of the City Clerk, attached hereto as Exhibits A and B, collectively, and incorporated herein by reference. The recommended fee amounts reflect the projects, improvements and programs analyzed in the Cost Reports. 3. The City intends to amend the present Park Impact Fee to adopt as separate fees a Park Land Acquisition (Non-Quimby Act) Fee, an Open Space Acquisition Impact Fee and a Park Land Development Impact Fee. 4. The City intends to apply the Open Space Acquisition Impact Fee and the Park Land Development Impact Fee to all residential and non-residential development in the City, and to apply the Park Land Acquisition (Non-Quimby Act) Fee to residential development not subject to the Quimby Act and to non-residential development in the City 5. The City also intends to include provisions in each development impact fee amendment for automatic inflationary adjustments to appropriate components of the charges, such as changes reflected in the Construction Cost Index for the San Francisco Bay Area published by the Engineering News Record, or other appropriate measure, of increases or decreases in the costs of construction and/or land acquisition. Resolution No. 2007-202 N.C.S. Page 5 6. The City also .intends to review and adjust the development impact fee amounts periodically to account for any significant changes to capital project costs, land use projections and/or program and administration costs. 7. This resolution shall become effective immediately. 8. All portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent jurisdiction, then the remaining resolution portions shall be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those resolution portions that have been adjudge invalid. The City Council of the City of Petaluma hereby declares that it would have adopted this resolution and each section, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional. Under the power and authority conferred upon this Council by the Charter of said City. REFERENCE: I hereby certify the foregoing Resolution was introduced and adopted by the ved s to Council of the City of Petaluma at a Regular meeting on the 3`d day of December, 2007, by the following vote: City Atto ey AYES: Barrett, Harris, Rabbitt, Mayor Torliatt NOES: Vice MayorNau, O'Brien ABSENT: Freitas ABSTAIN: None % r ~'aTTEST: / eputy City Clerk M yor Resolution No. 2007-202 N.C.S. Page 6 " ~ ~ City ~ et~lu ~ ~ , ' r f~ II ~t , 1 ~ ~~I IC of ` I ~ `Y. Lr{~ f{ ~ ~ -,i ~ i"'~ ~S'~ i' i 4 r ~ y l tit v ~ 1 1~ t ~ r~ri ~ ~a'~-r~ ,),~,`,4~It l _ _i.:t. L4 e ~ ~r`ti~f 11 ~ f.Ar-. l~ i ~ `.tea„ i i !`t~~~ tom,, . , , •~~~~~{'j tF' ~~'~1 t„~ t'~J]l~r`~*f)(~~ ~,`~t },4 ~2 f' 114J'ti.~~hT~j~' -y ~.~.y _ .~{i+~7~1~~4~G11~" 1T7 `p/ 14`t'y w1 1~~~~`~yY e •h ffir ~}~;fL~~a+~~ ~ ~ ^~x~~Yi (~(F~~ ~~~1 ~t •'r , . ~ -r,r-. c ~ - ,i'.Yt..- z.. ~'ii ~ { 1. j' i - ~ ~ rQ'.: ~ t ( T •r r Y ~ ~ ~ a~~, t~ J ~ ~ F L ~ l ~ ~ l11 '~rL g1 ~ /a.....r. ' ~ ~~!,x. ~ ~~~;~r ~r1 `s~ ~'Tr ~ 5 ~ •'~t~~~j~r~~" ry~j- 3~'~~_~' ^ 1r'F~~ t7 ~~~~`k r ~ ,y 1 ~ ~x .1.-~. r ~ Prepared by ,1 .f ti ~ FEHR ~ PEERS { TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS i ~ _j ~ 332 Pine Street 4th Floor, f J San Francisco, CA f. i . ~ .:•r`R.,, SF06-0282 :j - I October 2007 I - "1~ .;.w? r••r~rt t:? f s h~Y 4 s~ i 41~ zL - +r c'~ ~~a i ,t: y~ D ~ r +o o ro D ee - ~ ro•~ S r? 1 y} L~ ~ ~ ri r. ti t0 00_ 00 `=~.1+ y s t.Ca ~..r, s~I~~ `.t i. 1 ~ ~ t S i TABLE OF CONTENTS 1, Introduction ......................................................................:..........:.....................................:.:.............:.....:...:......1 Background 1 Purpose 1 Study Area;, 2 Fee'Program Design 2 Study Process 2 2. Methodology 4 Proposed. Program 4 Signifigance Criteria 4 Technical Analysis .......:,..................................................................6 3.. Analysis.Results ...........................................:...........................,.....:.........................................................:....:...9 Ste- 1 -Capacity Needs to Accommodate Future Growth 9 p Step 2 -Needed Improvement Projects and Costs .........:9 Step 3:-Existing Deficiencies on Local Network 11 Sfep 4 -Amount of New`Development Expected in the Petaluma Planning.Area 11 Sfep.5:- Project Costs Attributable to New Development. 14 Step 6 -Fee Amounts 15 4. Program Summary ......................:::.:._..:...,.........................:.....:......:.:........................:.:...................................17 Appendix A: Land Use Definitions Appendix. B: Proposed New Development , ~ i . . h~ri{r£~~;Pirrs _ o - ~ o - D o ~ D r~~yyc • e ~ e o < s j~ w ~ ~„i 31; . _ .~,Y LIST'OF FIGURES Figure 1 Fee-,Program Study Area 3 Figure 2 Circulation Improvement Project Locatioris.....::: - .........................:..:.10 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 City of Petaluma Existing Traffic Mitigation Fee. Program :,.......,...............:..:...1 Table 2 Signalized Intersection LOS Criteria 5 Table 3 lJisigrialized Intersection LOS Criteria ...:..,:.......................5 Table 4 City of'Petal_uma Circulation.Improvements ...............................................................:................................11 Table 5 City of Petaluma Travel Demand Model Land use Projections - . ..:.:..:..._.,..::12 Table 6 City of Petaluma'DUE~Conversiori,Factors..... , ..µ.:..................................13 Table 7 City of Petaluma Growth in DUES ..........................................14 ' Table 8 City of Petaluma Circulation Improvements Fee Contributions :,:.,......:..,..........................15 Table 9 City of Petaluma Proposed Fee Program_ ..........................................16 ~ , ;`'1• F " IdiNSMC~SF1t0N:(DV S~!tl~~~l ~I ~ r`~=~a7~ ~ 1" ,]f]r ~'``7J _D o a o o• B _ o a e e ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ' t f- j , 3 ~ R' t. k~ q ~ ' - - 1. IIlDTRO®UC1`ION BACKGROUND The City of !Petaluma. first established a Traffic Mitigation Fee Program through the adoption of Ordinance No: 1837 ~N.G:S. in 1991.T.he City administers the current fees under the authority of Chapter 11.80 of the Petaluma Municipal Code. These fees "were based on the City of Petaluma General Plan (1987), which identified new• circulation improvements to accommodate proposed development, within the. Petaluma. Planning Area: The City completed the most re~ent.update of'.thefee program in 2003 (Resolution 2003-206 N.C.S), as shown in.Table 1. ~ ~ TABLE 1 - CITY OF PETALUMA EXISTING TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM Land Use Type Unit Fee 5°/d Administration Charge Total charge ,Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit $5,166 $258 $5,424 Multiple Family :Residential .Dwelling Unit $3,399 $170 $3,569. Mobile Home Dwelling Unit $2,606 $130 $2,236 . Senior Housing Dwelling Unit $1,363 $68 $1,431 Assisted Living Units .Dwelling Unit $1,168 $58 $1.,226 Commercial Lodging Dwelling Unif $2,650 $132.5 $2',782!5 Retail Uses Square Foot $9.305 '$0.465 .$9.'770 Office lJses Square Foot $5.275 $0.264 $5'.539 Industrial Uses Square Foot $5.254 $0.263 $5:517 ' Source: Special Development Fees, City of'Petaluma, 2006.. Since. the release. of the last fee program,. the City of Petaluma has updated the City of Petaluma. General.Plan .2025, vyhich 'is expected. to be adopted in, 2008. •The City of Pefaluma General Plan 2025 Draft Environmental . ,Impact Report°,(DEIR)"identifies new°future developmenf and: circulation improvements that were not contained in flue ezisti.ng fee program. As such, the :fee program.: needs to be updated to account for the .additional development and improvements. . PURPOSE The purpose ofthis study is to~provide the technical basis:for updating the City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF) Program: The focus of the updated program is to support the local transportation system in the City of Petaluma and unincorporated areas within.. the Petaluma, Plannin, g Area that would serve the expected future 7 i=~t `t-~4a' C _ t' r e rigs 14in-S;P~iAitOr [0~1Uttµ tS - , o - D0 0 0 0~ D e~ oo ~~~-~i'~+,iF ~~F~~1 'k ~'*?.{~~i' ~Y 1~ r 0 e ~ c 0 0 ~ `1 ~ {y~ t ~ - 's~ 'y3b ~1p ~ ~~Z e a ° 1 ? iY PICT. Fri . ~ s [~S ~r ~ f ~ s . ~ f' l~ demand: This report documents. the analytical approach for determining the nexus, or link, between the fees_ and the traffic impacts created by anticipated development. STUDY AREA The~study~area:forthe fee program update includes the Petaluma~Planning Area, which consisfs of land within the ' City of Petaluma I"units and' portions of unincorporafed ~Sorioma County within the City's "sphere. of influence, as shown on Figure 1. FEE PROGRAM' DESIGN ~ g use of different models a Jurisdictions develop traffic mitigation fee programs thestabl ssumptions, and fee units. The basis of the programs, however; ;Is similar they ish a .nexus: o_r logical connection between expected future traffic. demand and circulation system'tmprovements: ,Assembly Bill. (AB)' 160Q,; the California Mitigation Fee Act, was adopted' in 1987 and estatili"shed• a `statewide procedure'for exacting certain fees from development projects: AB 1600 requires that,mitigation fee. programs. mush accomplish. certain basic requirements; including: o Identify'the purpose•gf the fee o Jdentify°hovu the fee will be used andahe facilities to be'funded through the. fee ~ 1 • Determne~a,[easonable relatibnsh'ip between the fee's use and the type'of development on which the fee is imposed ® Determine a reasonable relationship.. between. the.need for the public facility and'the type of development on which the fee is imposed , ' o Determine a',reasonatle relationship •b'etween the amount of the fee-and the cost of the public facility (or portion of facility) attributable o new development In order o establish a nexus that''will pass tfie above-test, ttii`s update maintains the basie;methodology utilized by Petaluma's: existing; TMF program: Thee current program, estimates fair share contnbutons based on anticipated PM peak hour impacts. Assumptions as to the amount of development to occur~within each Traffic,Analysis-Zone (TAZ) are based on the .City of.Petaluma General Plan build-out (2025) larid use information. provided by the City of Petaluma. staff. Intersection. operations information is directly from the same as those in-the City of Petaluma General Plan DEIR. , STUDY PROCE3$ .City of Petaluma General Plan Admmisfrati'on~staff guided this study based on future development and circulation ;improvements identified in the City of Petaluma General Plan 2Q25 DEIR: After the results of the fee program ~ , update are provided to the City.Council, the City Council will.be asked to adopt;a..new resolution and revised fees. . 2 F i i i a~ h t r;.r;s i u c ;roe : er c Ox to rf utta k s 3 ~ i ~1 1 _ ' 1 i - _ ' ' _ I ~~qY ' ~ LEGEND ' ~ - ~ \a _ % P•••-••-~ Project Boundary U. / ~ _ N - - NOT TO SCALE City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee.Program Update F~HR ~&r PeeRS FEE PROGRAM:STUDYAREA Gaone~zom ~ ~ FIGURE 7 - SF06028218G4\Graphim10282-1 ' ~I 0 - D 0 0 0 D 0 ©~`0~11AL 0 0 1 ti ~ -lA ~r I ~ 4~ L v ~ t r~ ~ .f.7.r~ ~ ir,J ~ ~~}*1., S .`3 r- 7. ^x.,IV~ :fti s.1- r .1 f( . A . ~ r ~~wt ls~'r Y I~ I.. This chapter describes the methodology used to determine the nexus between the fees and the traffic impacts that would be, created by anticipated development in the Petaluma Planning Area. The focus of the fee program is on developing a local transportation system that will accommodate the expected future traffic demand. PROPOSED PROGRAM Based upon the execution of the City of Petaluma Travel Demand Model, updated in 2007, it is possible to . determine the amount of PM peak :hour traffic that would be generated by development in .Petaluma.: For each land use. type,:.the fee rate will be based on a "per unit" basis for PM peak hour conditions utilizing standard ~ industry trip generation rates and data from the City of Petaluma Travel Demand Model. The Petaluma' Travel Demand Model .includes TAZs representing the -City of Petaluma and a portion of unincorporated Sonoma County and external stations representing destinations within Sonoma County and the Bay Area. Traffic traveling between 'the external stations (through trips) was excluded from the fee calculations, since. it is not possible for the. City ofi:Petaluma to charge fees for traffic that does not have an origin or destination within the City. If any of the identified projects addressed. an existing deficiency, then the cost was divided between new developmenfand existing development. The cost attributable fo new development was calci.ilated and included in - the fee program. For other city-wide-improvernents all of the project' cost was included in the fee program. SIGftIIFIGANCE CRITERIA "Level. of Service" (LOS) is the primary measure used to assess •the traffic operations at intersections.' L05 is a qualifatiVe measure of congestion. It takes into account several factors, including speed, travel time, traffic ' interrpptions, freedom fo maneuver, afety, driving comfort',: and .convenience. It is generally measured quantitatively in terms ofvehicalar delay and described using a scale that ranges from. LOS A to F, with LOS A representing essentially free-flow conditions and LOS F indicating over-capacity conditions with substantial congestion and delay. These delay estimates are considered meaningful indicators of driver discomfort and frustration, fuel s~ nalmption, and lost travel time. Tables 2 and 3 present the relationship between LOS and control delay for 'g zed and unsignalized (stop-controlled) intersections, respectively. Typically, analysis of study intersections is conducted using methods described by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) in the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM). For intersectiohs, LOS is based on "control delay.'` Cohtrol delay is defined as the delay directly associated with the traffic control device (i.e., a stop sign or a traffic signal) and specifically includes initial - deceleration delay, queue move-up time, stopped delay, and final acceleration delay. 4 fr<<fz~C:~l'~ rrt~s ' ' fAigsl61 rA1;nn CalrSl tiiNiS ~C9IieY/ a - D • o - a • • D • a e o, `~~\t ~ ry ~ * , '4~~~ } w gat SO o•-0 00 _ , r~~,~^",']~w••' :~rt ~ '~a `~,k ~ ~i r'k~;{ ~nL 0„~1 ~ _ 'fig r+)1: ~~jw~ '~y ~~PFL! .~~i-#_, ~ ~ • f'~r~.Y.~y K ~ .~l[: - - . -.i - , ti r TABLE 7 . SIGNALIZED INTERSECTION. LOS CRITERIA. Average Control • LOS Delay Description (Seconds/vehicle) ~ Operations vJith_ very -slight delay; :with no approach A 10.0 hase.full utilized. B 10.1 - 20.0 Operationswith slight delay, and' an occasional approach phase is fully utiliied. ~ - C ;20.1 35.0 Operations with average delay. Ihdividual cycle failures begin to appear. D 35.1 - 55.0 Operations with tolerable delay:. Many vehicles;stop and individual cycle failures.are'noticeable: E 55:1 - 80.0 Op"e~ations .with high delay, up to several signal. cycles. ` Long queues farm i]Pstream of intersection: F > 80.0 Operation with excessive, and unacceptable. delays. Volumes vary widely depending on, downstream queue Source; Transportation Research Boa~d,;2000. , , TABCE~3 UNSIGNALIZED INTERSECTION LOS CRITERIA Average Control LOS .Delay Description ~s (Seconds/vehicle) A < 10.0 ~ Minimal delay for stop-controlled approaches. . Very. light congestion; short delays. ,~~1 B 10.1 - 15.0 C 15.1 - 25.0 Light congestion; aderage~delays, Significant congestbn on critical approaches, D 25:1 - 35.0 but intersection is functional,. Moderate to lengthy - delays: E 35.1. - 50.0 Severe congestion with some longstanding queues on critical approaches. Extremely lengthy delays. j, F > 50.0 Extreme congestion; with very high delays and lengthy queues unacceptable to most drivers. Source: Transportation Research Board,,~2000. The City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 bE1R'identifies the following LOS standards to determine when. traffic demand exceeds capacity of roadway facilities: r 5 Frwr,fiu° rlirRS. u'wwsrm•Uaon tawSUtn w~f J D o o , o a•e D = o e e o i i~; t 1 t 1 ~ c 4 .~y, .:'{l r ~ Jf {'~f'1~{ 1. F~.~ t~ ~''l' h t~.~ „fl'.~~: 3f~;} ~ rti 2' ~ ' ~ , } +~~y rt _ r XP. _ { iT °v..7~ c ° x ~ t ~ J _ ~v tif.= 1 ;~j- s_ ~t y. _y ! I. L ti. , i ~c ` ~ . ~ ~ti" o Operations (LOS) at a signalized intersection to deteriorate from an acceptable level (LOS D or better) under conditions without-the project to an unacceptable level (LOS E or F) • For signalized intersections that operate at LOS E under conditions°without the project, the project causes LOS~'fo deteriorate to the next lowest.level , a Forsi ~ nalzed intersectionso eratin at LOS F without the ~ ro'ect the ro~ect adds an additional vehicle g p 9 p 1 p 1 Y trips to.the intersection .g ~ For unsihnalized mteueesl LOS Aerating acceptably (LOS D or better) under conditions without. the `protect, t e p ojec ca s to deteriorate to unacceptable (LOS E, or F) conditions AND- the Traffic • volumes at the intersection would satisfy the Caltrans peak-hour volume warrant criteria fortraffic signal installation o 'For unsignalized intersections operating, at unacceptable levels (LOS E or F). under conditions without the project, average .delay' increases by five or more seconds with the project AND `the. traffic volumes at the. intersection would satisfy the Caltrans peak-hour volume warrant criteria for traffic signal installation TECHNICAL ANALYSIS Thetechnical analysis for this study was completed through a series of six steps: 4 . ;Determine capacity needs to' accommodate future growth 2. Identify needed improvement projects and costs 3. ,Identify existing deficiencies on the local network 4. Summarize the amount of new development expected in the Petaluma Planning Area 5. Calculate project costs attributableto new development 6. Determine fee amounts Each is listed below, along with a brief description. The next chapter describes how these steps were applied to the Petaluma Planning Area and'-the results,of the fee.calculations. Step :1-Determine Capacity Needs to Accommodate Future Growth At `the time this study was conducted, the City of Petaluma Travel Demand 'Model, updated in 2007, was the primary fransporfation analysis tool available for local planning studies in and around the :Petaluma 'Planning Area:, T.he City of Petaluma Travel Demand .Model uses future development land .use and transportation network information to produce ,estimates: of future travel demand and usage of roadway facilities.. For this fee program _ ~ work,.model, runs .were conducted to estimate future (2025) traffic demand `in the Petaluma Planning.Area based. on official land:. use' foreca"sts (preferred Land Use plan identified by the Petalum'a'City Council within the Draft General.. Plan 2025 document):: Step 2 -Identify Needed Improvement Projects and Costs: In order'to: achieve the future transportation capacity identified in Step 1, a series of specifc improvements were developed in the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 DEIR for the Petaluma Planning Area. The improvements were selected based on their ability to provide the needed capacity identified! #hrough the analysis described above. The City of Petaluma staff has prepared cost estimates for each improvement. 6 f" is ii ~C I' i. r. ~s Itn NSYOttAt [9x CQaSUt tnn'i3 r • ~•D o o o~ D =oe Leo '~~'i~`y,' R''~~1~}i ~4~y~~T~r t-~..~~t 'f~ too e._e 9D [+7, r2~ ~~+~Yt[y~ ~ tl.. a .'~F'"ti.~yr-~T h ~'d , 3/ ~t_, I tti ~~,~a_ t`,ric'{~'!j+~;l t' s~~'!\-'~t- i,- {~`r z` , •S~Y ~ 1 t~ ~':..'?4. ~,''~~~ktiv~==~*LC Y's~'~ ~h` ~tr+ . r - Step,3 = Identify Existing.peficiencies o"n Local Network By definition, a fee program charges fees to new. development in order to fund transportation improvements necessary-to seine ;the demand and impacts generated by than new .developmenfi, The: `City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 DEIR,~was reviewed to determine the sta ments identified 'in Ste 2. If t y a General Plan indicated that a facility dent f din Step 12 was not :currently. meeting its applicab e Cit of Petalurn ~ le LOS significance cntena, then that facility. was flagged, as ~an existing deficiency. .Both new ..and existing - - developmeht shares the cost of correcting these defciences. This calculation:-occurstin; Step' 5. Step 4 -Summarize the Amount of New Development in the Petaluma Planning,Area The City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 DEIR include."d a forecast of land uses for 2025 -in the Petaluma Planning .Area. Both residential and non-residential uses were estimated in terms of .dwelling units and square. feet,. respectively. 'The riuriber ,of future PM 'peak hour vehicle trips. attributable fo the `future developments was estimated using stanpdard industry trip generation rates, :as: utilized' in the Cty'of :Petaluma Travel Demand Model;, These eak hour 'tri 'estimates -were then summarized by land use type,. based on ,dwelling unit equivalents (DUEs). i~~. The concept. of DUEs is: commonly used in fee: studies to account for the fact that differert .development types generate traffic with different characteristics and with different levels of impact on the City's transportation system. For purposes of this TMF update, DUE conversion ~factors~were based.on trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers ,and San Diego Association of ,Governments (SANDAL),. These. factors account for peak hour ttip rates; percent of;new trips associated with-each~of the developmehf types, and the effects~of pass- by/diverted linked trips associated with retail land' uses. The SANDAL data which represents :typical suburban r travel characteristics, 'was used because ABAG does not have similar information for -the San Francisco B_ ay Area. The DUE conversion process. accounts for these differerices'in' impact on the transportation system. All DUES are then normalized to the. single-family.residential rate. ' Step 5 -Calculate Project Gosts Attributable to New`Development ~ ; For improvement projects on facilities that were not subject fo ah existing deficiency (defined in Step 3), the need for the, improved facility was generated exclusively by new development rather than by existing transportation problems. Therefore,.. all ofthe estimated project costs were included:in the fee program. For projects on facilities identified.as experiencing existing: deficiencies, the cost of the improvement was divided between existing development and .new developm`enf. The cosf share attributable~to.new development, and therefore included.;n the fee program, was calculated as follows: - 1. Quantify the existing deficiency by determining the current traffic volumes that exceed the available capacity. For example if a facility with a.theoretical capacity of 2,000 vehicles is currently carrying 2,200 vehicles, the existin deficienc vvoald.be calculated as 2,200 - 2,000 =-200. 9 Y 2. Determine. the future;fraffic growth by subtracting the current traffic volumes from the forecasted future traffic volumes. For example, if the future demand on that facility is projected to be 2,500 vehicles, the future traffic growth would be calculated as 2,500 -.2,200 - 300. 3. Define. the overall benefit of the project)as the correctiori'of the existing deficiency (from number 1 above) . ~-t plus the accommodation. of 'futurre growth (from' :number'2);. In~ our example, the. overal( benefit of improving the road would be to correcf the existing deficiency of 200 vehicles and to accommodate the , future growth of 300 vehicles, for a total benefit of 50,0. 4. Calculate new developrnenfs share of the :benefitsas the ,result of number 2 divided, bynumber 3, In this case; the share of the benefit to new development would be 60%, or 300. divided by 500. Therefore, 60% 7 µ i i~ fi~ C r l~_rs IRt ~;tOttntlPn;,C0v5UttR6t5 i --'~I' ,~r~~~%,j,~3 ° ..V~{_R-A•A 1/ D r o o ~ e D o o a o f 1 r 1~ f C w f • .'r S ~ r • _ r . • ~ • 1 t ~ ~`x...,~~.Rl -iii -Y i t~~ f~tit r~' z.. ; c.~. ~s~ Ii ~ T T •j 1. zr~ _ \ 1 " b .rA. N .t.. i' , N • of the project cost would be included in the fee •program. The remaining 40% of the project cost would need to be funded through other sources. . For this analysis, the amount,of currerit traffic that exceeds the available•capacity was determined by decreasing the volume at intersection critical movements until the intersection operated adequately. The number of vehicles removed was considered the existing deficiency volume. For safety; pedestrian, bicycle, and transit improvements, the cost attributable to new development was calculated, differently. Since no level'of service significance thresholds exist for safety, pedestrian., bicycle; oc transit, .there is no way to evaluate any existing deficiency. Additionally, all users of the improvements, both .existing and future, would realize ariy benefit,produced by the. improvements and should pay proportionally. For these reasons; the cost attributable to new development for safety, pedestrian, bicycle, grid transit improvements was. calculated on a fair-share basis {the new development percentage of the total future.development,~ ihcluding existing development). Step 6 -Determine Fee Amounts The total, cost to be contributed by view development (Step 5) was then divided by the total nurriber of new DUEs .(Step 4) to determine the appropriate fee amount for each land use type. . • 8 ,ga.soo«,.uo.:'aawsuu•wts. 1~ ~ ~ r. ~ • T~ ~ti"r.~- ~:a 2 f~, ~r rt''~•I'~Tl .rte ~rl '~}1 ~ o : =B ~ • o e o• D eo ee .~j .I,ya 1; y 2"- ftt ?tti lF~.'~ ~ :a O o•-~ 00 ~ p i{t^p i t r-'' 3 ~ 4~~~~'"~'~y~ ~''.5 ~a ;'lit 1*~ ,y st,~ ~ r .~.r ~,e "a f r ~1, ' S ! •f:....l ~:3' r, Y' , t '±y'M a r k _ - - • 3.. ANALYSIS RESULTS . This chapter summarizes the results of"the nexus analysis steps outlined in` Chapter 2. STEP 1 -CAPACITY NEEDS TO ACCOMMODATE FUTURE GROWTH The City of Petaluma:.General Plan 2025 .DEIR presents the ,results of .the General. Plan build-out (2025) model runs. Based on the results of these model runs, LOS analysis was prepared fo summarize expected future' traffic demand 'at intersections and along corridors that. serve local travel in the Petaluma Planning:.Area,..specifically focusing on downtown Petaluma and the. US 101 corridor. This analysis provides the basis'to, determine needed circulation. improvements to accommodate the expected.future demand. STEP 2 -NEEDED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND COSTS The City of Petaluma General Plan .2025 DEIR identifies .appropriate improvement projects. to accommodate the i projected demand, as shown on Figure 2~and describetl below.. Future Eas# Washington Street Interchange Improvements. Upgrade and realignfreeway'[amps and provide sound walls. The future;improvements will be in, addition to.currently funded ramp realignments. Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange.. ,Extend Rainier Avenue to' connect with a riew freeway interchange on U.S. 101 between Washington Street and Corona Road and provide another cross-town travel route. r , Caulfield Lane Extension. Provide, a new"`Southern Crossing" of the Petaluma .River parallel to the b Street and Washington Street corridors to connect Lakeville Street to Petaluma Boulevard .South. Copeland Street .Extension. Extend Copeland Street across. the Petaluma River to ;connect with Petaluma Boulevard North' in. the vicinity 'of Oak Lane:; Construct. a minor grid street. system. between the Boulevard, Lakeville, East Washington and the River to improve localized traffic movements. r Caulfield Lane/Pa}rran Street Intersection Improvements. Install a westbound :right-turn lane on Caulfield Lane. Petaluma .Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue - Payran Street Inter section. Add, right-turn Lanes on Petaluma Boulevards in both the .northbound and. southbound .directions. In .order #o reduce impacts to pedestrians resulting from increased crossing dstarices; install a median refuge. (at least five feet wide) for pedestrians crossing Petaluma Boulevard. In addition to projects identified. in the City of Petaluma .General Plan 2025 DEIR; the City developed four additional projects, .described below. a~_ Construction of 'New Intersections `Throughout the City. Construct new traffic sigrials or roundabouts at seven locations within the City. Traffic Signal Upgrades Throughout the City.. Upgrade. traffic signals at twenty-nine intersections within the City. Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements Throughout the City:- Pedestrian. and bicycle improvements including the , construction of 43:55 miles of Class I and 62.63 miles-of Glass II bicycle facilities. 9 IRanSPOCtAt(OxCOif Utta MFS - - - ~1 ~r r~ ~ ~ , ;mil': . ~ ~ r' 'r I t a , j •r ~ r' ~ - , ~ • - t~ " "p~ - , _ _ _ _ s to ,d ~ • ~ I I _ \ ~ _ _ . 1 , I J ~ - , _ ~ ~ i I Upgrade and reallgn.freeway ramps ? ~e I r r/.- ~ ~ _ ~ n~ I and provide-soundwalls - r I t ' ~ f _ 'e i : ~I L Z --J' V - _ fie, d ' s'r Exte ~ ~Cau fie to Pe _ luma BNd ~ l Cross:',town connector ~ , ~ - _ _ C~ ~ Interiban lehway 101 r ~ e py _ . y , . Y` yf 9 \ .t .'t t Extension oT lndustFlal - ~ _ ! Avenue and new river ~ ~ - e Y crossings _ ~ .Extend to Petaluma ~ , ~ ~ - ' ` ~ - Blvd. N at OaklSt. _ _ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ / Not to s ale r~ Cky of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update Fe oarT&rf PEERS ~ CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENT PROJECT LOCATIONS SF06-02821BG4\graphks\0282-2 FIC]U RE 2 ;4 ~;d.,~,,~"s':~ ~yl, _ Lrtcy: -rr>ri rte;~ .t rte r , ..yN r s t 1 ~ t .~a Z- - D e e 0 00 ~ c o0 00 i r. r `.-t'~ 14 '~M1 L - "0 0 ~_^f 00 ~F. tt ~ x~t -K'tl 'r t~'t i "j l i oS '1v ~ _.`s * , ~ ~ ,..rT~ ~ ''a r tr *~tits k~'+'~`t }a ~ k. ~i<. ~ Ott` ,'.r'~ a• "i -A ~?4a.. ~.Z ~f _ 1'.Y~,r- i', i y .qty • y. . - 1 Transit. Improvements Throughout the City. Public transit system improvements including bus stop enhancements, real time transitinformation, and transif mall improvements. _ Table, '4 provides estimated costs., provided by .the City of Petaluma. The total estimated project cost of these - improvements is $226,236;500, while he met'City costs are;-$182,530,500. • ' TABLE 4 • CITY OF PETALUMA CIRCULATION. IMPROVEMENTS Estimated Costs Improvement Total Project ~ OtherFunding NetCity Cost Future East Washington Street Interchange Improvements $20,000,000 $4;000,000 $16,000,000 RamierAvenue,Eztensiori and Intercharig~. $50,000,000 $10,000,000 $40,000;000 • _T Caulfield Lane Extension - $48,000;000 $0 $48,000;000 Copel,ahd Stree4~Extension $23,000;000 $0 $23,OOQ,000 Caulfield,"Lane/PayrarrStreet lnfersection Improvements $ 50Q,000 $0 $500000 Petaluma Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue -•Payran Street Intersection $500,000 $0 $50Q;000 Construction of New Intersections Throughout the'City $2,7,00,000' $0 '$2;700,000 rafficSgnal Upgrades Throughout the.City $1,885;000 $0 $1.,885,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle ImprovementsThroughouf he;City $38;925,500 $0 $38;925;500 Transit Im rovemerits Throu hout the Cif 40 725^000 $29 705 000 $11 020 000 p 9 Y $ _ Total $226236,500 $43,705000 $482,530;500 Source: Gity.of Petaluma; 2007. ' ,STEP 3 -EXISTING DEFICIENCIES.ON LOCAL NETWORK - As described m Chapter 2, the existing conditions analysis from The City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 DEIR • determined the- status of the facilities identified in Step 2 as needing improvemenf. According #o the Cify of Petaluma General Plan 2025 DEIR,. signalized intersections are acceptable if they operate :at .LOS' D or better. Based. on the .existing .level of service analysis, all intersections operate at LOS D or better, therefore no facilities have..exsting deficiencies. STEP 4,=AMOUNT OR NEW DEVELOPMENT EXPECTED IN THE PETALUMA PLANNING' AREA The City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 DEIR included forecast land uses'for 2025 in the Petaluma _Planriing Area. Both residential and non-residential uses were estimated in° terms of dwelling units and square feef, respectively. Table 5 shows the model-.wide "residential and. non-residential uses for both 2007 and 2025. - Appendix A contains the City's land use definitions and Appendix B contains a detailed list of the proposed new _ developments. • 71 i M1~NYPtlS t~~:aN.GOKSUtta•Ki5' • n .,h'.. f. 4k < ~ i 4..•. tit.. ~r ^r.i,e rk, ~ c -Kt t - o : D e a : o e~o D : o a o e - ~ ~ f /q. ~ st'a~ ~ b~ F t~ 0 e e _ ~ a 0 1,,., r~#- ~ i 1 y~f. [s r'~.e l,.c~ ~f ~is1 f'~r ~ I F: ~ ,1~ ~s,`~ 't}i-~A..r~L y~ N ~ai , ~ ~ , ' ~ ,...W r r, TABLE ;5 ,CITY OF PETALUMA TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL;LAND USE PROJECTIONS. - Land Use Category Unit 2007 2025 Total:Growth" Growth ' Single-Family Dwelling Uriit Dwelling Unite 1$,251 .20,830. 2,579 14% i Multi-Family Dwell,ing Uriit Dwelling' Unit 2,558. 6',371 3,81'3 149% Senior Housing Dwelling'UniY 1,554 1,653 99 6% Office - KS1= 5,820.22 8,040:81 2,220.59 38% `Hotel/Motel: Room 682. 847' 165 24%° Strip Commercial KSF 2,481..25: 3,039:65 558:39 23% Heavy. Commercial KSF ' ~ 176:35 157:22 -1.9:13 -1~1% Shopping Center ~ ~KSF 1~,763:7~7 2,94:1.93: 1,178'.'1:6 ~67% Light Industrial KSF 3,553'..12 3;781:92 228;80 6% Heavylndustrial KSF 1,070".'28 1,291..95 221..66' 21% arehouse KSF 880:42 850.55 -29:87 -3% Education Sfudert 18;036 • 5;200 29%° Institution KSF 1",431.79 23,236 1;517:79 86.00 6°/a Source° CityofRetaluma, 2007. As described in Chapter 2, the land use forecasts, were .converted to DUEs to-account 'for. the fact that different .development types generate,fraff c with different characteristics an'd levels of impact on :the City's fransportation system. Table; 6 presents; the conversion factors used'to calculate. DUEs in this study, based on trip generation information from the 'Institute of Transportation Engineers (IT.E) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SAIVDAG). These 'factors are different from those used: in previous fee studies, reflecting differences in trip generation rates and -other elements of the calculation. The results of thi= DUE conversion are presented in Table 7. - N ~ 12 ,,.„,.eR,.,~en.~e~s~~~.~,s - ~D a a o pa D_ o0 oe~ ~ s ~ J~ ~iEi ~ T.v~ %4 . a -Yo p o . e o ~ ,p x'. ~,r~ ~ ~ ~ , y .f. ti ,.*.Y .}~:i~^~l~~r~i~}te`~.}~~~~i~;.r`r ,r~ f'a.._i. ~ Y'._+ t t~ t.:~~;-n•+5 - Yi '4 ~ y : ~ ~ a , t - _ TABLE 6 CITY OF PETALUMA DUE CONVERSION FACTORS Peak Hour °/p New . %Pass-6y/Diverted VMT' DUE, Land lJse Category Unit Trip Rate Trips2 Linked Trips' perUnit perUnit Single-Family Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit. 1.01 1'00% 1'00% 1.01 1:00 Multi'-Family Dwelling Unit Dwelling .Unit. 0.62 1..00% 100% 0:62 0.61 SehiorHousing Dwelling Uriit~ 0.26 100% '100% 0.26 0.26 Office KSF 1.49 65% 100% 0.97 0.96 Hotel/Motel. Room 0.70 100% 100% 0:70 0.69 Strip Commercial4 KSF 3:75 50% 50% 0:94 0.93 Heavy Commercial4 KSF 3.75 50.% 50% .0:94 0.93 Shopping Center4 KSF 3.75 50% 50% 0.94 0.93 Light Industrials KSF 0.76 80% 100% 0:61 0.60 Heavy Indust~al5 KSF 0.76 80% 100% 0.61 0:60 Warehouses KSF 0:76 80% 100% 0.61 0.60 Educations Studeht N/A N/A N/A N/A O:QO Institutions KSF N/A N/A N/A N/A 0.00 Notes: 1'.• ITE Trip'Generation, 7°i Edition, 2003, 2. 'SANDAL Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, July 4998. 3. ITE Trip. Generation Handbook; 2003: 4. ITE General Retail rate used for all commercial uses. 5. ITE Generaf Industrial rate used for all industrial uses. 6. DUE not calculated for public land use categories. Sources' Fehr & Peers, 2007. 1~ . - . . 1 73 Iri~~. ~.l'er~,s II~NSPpltAtfpM'tpMSUttASiS • ? ~r.. 1 a _r +Sr~r i r~ ,`~~E~~ Zvi r~ ~~S~r: a : - D o 0 0 0 o D : : o a - a o - ~ ~+^f ~ ~ s=. r+l~ ~ t'1 ,r' ~f}y ..'f ~ ~iy ~ ~~i~~~'. ~~tq4 ^{'F~V.~/~~P', <y ~F y..... y~.~'~ a'.. ~r 'y ~;j ~4 7 thy' I~f - . 7 tr'r L, y ,,y~ - 'Rr A, may,; _J ~ ,t-.. ~~1~~4~Te?V J .r, _ :~t TABLE 7 CITY OF PETALUMA' G_ ROVIITH I_N DUES .Land Use Category • Unit Total Growth DUE per'Unit G~owtli.Con"vented to DUEs Single-Family'Dwelling,l7nit '.Dwelling Uhit 2,579 ~ 1.00 ,2,579:00 Multi-Family Dwelling Unit Dwellin ~ Unit 3,81.3 0.61 2,325:93- 9 Senior Housing Dwelling'U'nit 99° D.26 :25.74: Office KSF 2,220 59 . 0.96 2;131.76 . Hotel/Motel Room ' 165 „ 0.69 113:85 Strip. Commercial I<SF 55839 0.93 519.31. ' Heavy°Corrimercal. KSF -19:13 0.93 (17.79) Shopping Center I<SF 1,178:16. 0.93 1,';095.69 Light Industrial ~ KSF .228.80. '0.60 137.28 Heavy Industrial I<SF 221.66 '0.60 1'33.00 Warehouse KSF -29;87 0.60 (17.92) Education. ~ Student ,5,200 0:00 0:00 Institution I<SF 8600 0.00 0.00 fVew Development DUEs ~ 9,025.85 Total Build Out DUEs 42,713:42 Percentage of'Total Build Out DUEs 21.13% Source: Fehr & Peers, 2007; ~ STEP 5 -PROJECT COSTS ATTRIBUTABLE TO NEW DEVELOPMENT _ As described in Chapter 2, if a facility was not subject to an existing deficiency., then ahe need for improvement was "generated by new development rather than existing transportation problems;, so all of the estimated improvement costs were included in the fee .program. As noted in Step 3, none of'the circulation improvement projects. improve currently deficient facilities; rather they "address projected deficiencies associated with. new development. Therefore; new development is responsible for the full cost of the General Plan ,and intersection improvements. As noted in Chapter 2, for safety, pedestrian, bicycle; and transit improvements, the` cost attributable> to view develo ment.are calculated ~ p differently. Since both. existing and' new development will benefit from improvements from safety, pedestrian, bicycle, and Transit improvements, the fee program covers a, percenta9e of the cost equal to the expected growth in` overall development. In this case, °traffic due to new development was expected to constitute 21.1:3% of, the total DUES under General Plan; buildout conditions, as shown in Table 7; therefore 21.13% of the cost of safety,.. pedestrian, bicycle,. and "transit improvements were included in the fee 'program. Table 8 shows the resulting amounts that are included m the fee `program. 14 ETriir ~C'' P~.r25 ~ - ,n..s~ocs.rrox.tnwtiu~r.xta k•. ~.`-r _ ~ 1 irk., ,+e ~T~~~ jf~yA~ D e e a o o D - o! o o j~ r r .A,} 4 .t 0 or. DO j.. ._''Y +{y ~ t F ~L, :r 7i~ tt'Y * f ,.j~ ~ cJ , ~ , . , `.,.i - - TABLE 8 CITY OF PETALl1MA CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS FEE CONTRIBUTIONS Estimated Costs Improvement New Percentage Net City Potential Fee Cost Development of Program Contribution Cost Share Future East Washington Street Interchange Improvements $16,OOQ,000' 100.00% $16,000;000 11.2% Rainier Avenue Extension and Inferch"ange $40,00,000 100.00% $40,000;000 27.9% Caulfield Lane Extension $48;000,000 100.00% $48,000,000 33.5% Copeland Street Extension $23,000,000 100.00% $23,000,000 1.6:1% Gaulfield~Lane/Payran Street Intersection,lmprovements $500;000 100.00% $500;000 0.3% Petaluma Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue -Payran Street Intersection $500,000 100.00% $500;000 0.3% Construction of New Intersections Throughout the City $2,700,000 100.00% $2;7Q)J;000 1.9% J raffic;Signall7pgradesThroughoutthe:City $1,885,000 100.00% $1,885,000 1.3% Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements Throughqut,the City $38;925,500 21.13% $8,225;416 b:7°/d otal it Improvements;Throughout the City $11;020,000 21.13% $2,328,656 1.6% $182,530;500 78.42% $143,139;072 100.°/u Projected Growth in DUEs 9;025.85• ;N/A Fee per DUE $15,859 N/A 'Source: City of Petaluma, 2007. ' STEP°6 -FEE AMOUNTS Thee total" cost to be contributed by new development (Step 5) was then divided by the total number of new DUEs (Step 4), to determine the appropriate total fee amount to be generated by each DUE, as shown in Table 9. The new potential fee amounts represent a change from the current fee schedtale, for a variety of reasons, including: m The?inclusion of additional capital improvements j Increases in the.cost of construction and right-of-wayacquisition 15 ' a : : - ( c o a o o B - o ~ - e o ~ ~'t F ~ ?"."S' r~ +l~z ~ a , h ~ ~,T t ,T ~ ' 0 a ~ : 0 0 ~ s `?4 i ry ,4 "yy~ I Y~ ~a~, p,,~~~Ly~ F. p Y,X ~ 1' * ,N +s ^,-,K ~~~f"_,~ 1 :.~1~;v,.`l.; S~ ~xy r: `~..T. "y ',~.t wr~._~.'?~Pk,'S~ s ~".`~.i.. ,4~:-~~r~' - 'Zb - n". _ ' TABLE 9 CITY OF';PETALUMA' PROPOSED'FEE PRpGRAM , 1 Land Use Type Unit Proposed Fee Single-Family_Dwelling Unit; Dwelling Unit. $1.5,859 Multi-Family'Dwelli'ng Unit Dwelling Unit $9;674. . Senior Housing. Dvvelling Unit $4,,123 Office KSF $15;224 Hotel/Motel Room $10,943 Strip Commercial KSF $14;749 Heavy Commercial KSF $14,`;749 • Shopping Cehter KSF $14;749 Light Industrial- KSF $9;515 Heavy'IndaStral KSF $9,515 Warehouse. KSF $9,515. Education Student $0 Institution .KSF $0 Source:.Fehr& Peers, 2007. The analytical tools and'techniques used to develop the fee calculations have also'changed. This update-makes . _ use of the u -dated Cit p - y of Petaluma Travel Demarid Model, which was: ealibrafed grid "validafed in the summer of 2007 and incorporates recent General Plan land use forecasts from City staff. to 'addition, this fee update uses several analytical procedures, such as the methods to .account for existing deficiencies and to convert land use forecasts into DUEs,, acid reflects'the most_ recent information'from the transportation planning industry's reference sources. All of these elements are different from those used' in the previous study, and account for the differences in the fee' levels presented above. The above fees are intend'ed' to support the local transportation system ~ in the City of Petaluma and , unincorporated .areas witfiiri the. Petaluma, Planning Area that would serve the expected future demand. Specific developments. may still be responsible for adjacency improvements and/or fair-share. portions of :infrastructure mitigations needed to offset project-related transportation impacts, based on transportation impact analysis or environmental review fihdings. 16 . ~~'i t t t: ~~c~ P.i r~ii~s I~ANSi OIiAi [ON;[04)V LIIri4 -mot ~ r f~.~. Y _ r )'~,+1 L,~ 4 v - ~~`Ili1/p~/ 0~ ~ I 0 0 0 0 ~ (~r_` 0 I I• ~ A^Y , ;'~~,r. r ] `1 i ~ _ r,,. 0' ~0~~0'90V~ 6YV~~a9i"'~~ This report provides. a detailed discussion of the elements of the proposed City of Petaluma TMF program and explainsthe analytical techniques used.to develop this nexus study. The report addresses all of'the fee program elements required by AB 1600, as described below. Identify the purpose of the fee The purpose of the TMF program is to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development within the City, consistent. with the land :use and transportation .policies of the General Plan, by developing an overall transportation system that will accommodate the City's expected future traffic demand.. - Identify how the fee will be used and'the facilities to be funded through the fee The #ee will be used to help fund circulation improvement projects necessary to accommodate future traffic demand in Petaluma. Table 4 describes the projects to be funded through the fee. Determine a reasonable relationship, between the fee's use and the type of development on which the fee r is imposed i~ As described in the. report, different types of development generate traffic with different characteristics. The calculations.. presented in Tables 5, 6'~and 7 account for these different characteristics by applying different per- unit fee factors to each type of development. These considerations account for the differential impacts on 'the . local transportation system generated by different development types. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the. public facility and the .type of development on which fhe fee is imposed The need for the facilities listed in Table 4 has been established through the development~of the. City of Petaluma General' Plan 2025 DEIf?, as described `in Chapter 3. This report indicates there are no existing deficiencies on I~ :any of~the facilities fo be included in fhis TMF program, indicating that all of the need for improvements is going to be generated. by new development. Determine a reasonable relationship~between the amount otthe fee and the cost of the public facility(or - portion. of facility) attributable to new development T.he nexus analysis presented in this report accounts:for existing deficiencies, even though there are none, in the local transportation system and does not include the costs 'of°rectfying'those deficiencies in the~fee program. The - costs attributable to raffic demand generated outside the .City of .Petaluma are similarly removed from the program. Thus; th'e TMF program is targeted toward the; costs of public improvements attributable to new developmentwithin Petaluma; Table 8 provides~detailed.information on these calculations. Adolitional consideration -interaction with: regional-improvementfce programs The nexus analysis' presented in this report. was designed. to' address the local transportation system, within the City of ..Petaluma„ and does not .include the costs .associated with regional improvements that are currently v proposed by the Sonoma County Transpiration Authority (SCTA) .Distribution of the SCTA improvement costs would be addressed 'in a separate,,, regional' nexus;analysis by SCTA. Any fees associated with the SCTA nexus analysis would be in addition to the fees presented in this>sfady and would be administered by SCTA. 17 ~`riir.~~~ I'~'r;r.'s 111Nf~n~YAl tone Ghllil~~i:} ~.c .-W ~ .r. ~ > ? ~7 ~4 ~•fr >t;.r i + i X10,-. l ~ ~ - ~ ~l_'If ~!L•U~.?i D o o a o,o D o ? o o 1~ ~:id r ~`_,,ltr ! a Sr ~ f+~r 7 0 0 > _ B O i~ Y 1.~ ~ r t ~ ,'L `r i ~e ~ 'L''4;. ~ x ` # yi ~l t'~ , r 5 ! ~ X11 f .~y , ~ ~ r t ' i i , - L .w r i~ ~ ra~~~~11 ..l;.t .t ~(,~*,k}.ra #tl'~ ~y+ _ i y t - L, Y r APPENDIX A: LAND USE DEFiNITIORIS - 18 1fl1M5P096AlIGN <O eLliit-~~i1 CITY OF PETALUMA LAND USE CATEGrJRIES Land Use Code lJnit Definition Examples A dwelling unit occupied'or intended for Typical single-family Single-Family SF DU Dwelling occupation by only one family. Includes both homes on individual lots as Dwelling Unit - Unit attached and detached single-family dwelling well as attached homes: units. Multi-.Family - Dwelling A building legally accommodating more than one Round Walk~Village; Capri MF DU family.. Creek Apartments; Dwelling Unit Unit Lakeville Apartments. Senior - Dwelling Housing units designed to meet 4he needs of Vintage Chateau, mobile SR DU persons 62 years of age and older; and restricted home parks, PEP"projects. Housing Unit to occupancy by them. Includes primarily general business offices and Redwood Business Park, Office OFF_KSF KSF medical and professional offices. Lynch Creek Way, and Professional Drive: Hotel/Motel HOTEL ROOM Room Facilities that provide transient;occupancy. Best Western, Motel 6, - Quality Inn, etc: Facilities that provide citywide and regional Fast-food restaurants, gas Strip services that rely on customers making. trips by stations, converiience Commercial STRIP_KSF KSF car'and do not necessarily benefit from being stores.. located in high-volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers and downtown. Heavy HVY CM KSF KSF Similar to strip commercial but.including in Landscape supply Commercial - - addition a heavy amount of truck traffic. businesses, lumberyards. Sho in - Includes shopping centers with off-street parking, Golden Eagle, Plaza North PI? g SHOP KSF KSF or a cluster of street-front stores that serve the and South;,Arroyo Center. Center immediate neighborhood. Light - - Land use characterized by lessntehsive Light,manufacfuring, Industrial LT IND KSF KSF ,research and development, .small vyarehousing, offices will small _ and limited manufacturing activities. warehouse component. Land use characterized bya high,degree of Trucking companies, UPS, Heavy - - noise, truck traffic, and outdoor storage typically USPS, Pomeroy: Industrial HV IND KSF KSF associated with general business services and extractive, manufacturing, processing, repairing, or packaging activities. Warehouse WARE_KSF KSF Properties primarily used .for covered storage. Pablic storage facilities. Educational facilities including both public and Public and private•schools,, Education EDU STUD Student private schools, junior colleges, kindergartens, junior colleges,,and larg" e' and large day care facilities. day care :facilities, .Includes public utility substations, governmental, Churches, public facilities, Institution IN$T KSF KSF- and community services uses:and lands. This assisted living,•cemeteries, - designation also includes hospitals, convalescent meeting .halls,. police.& fire, hospitals, and nursing homes. city hall. Source: Fehr~& Peers;,;2007: Determination:of land use type is,at the sole discretion of City staff. ;:-t_1~r7~~.D '°/dD1A,.,(~~ ~oA~ D ~ o e : ~ o o ~w~-t K ~ti ~ ~l ~ i~ ' ~ + ~~s~ ~ tits' -f~,~~!..~ r: ;zf• t ±,j- ~ ~rt~ ti,' + - - APPENDIX B: PROPOSED NEVI/ DEVELOPMENT ~ 19 (~rtirt~}CI'i i as tI AMSID1tA1(DX,EQ b}lj ctANtS ~ err ~ ~ ;air ~ ~r r ~ ~ . - ~ ~ ~ ~ ~r , z~° - _ 363 'y ~ l \p \ \ r - 1 ~ \ / _ t . ; v ~ \ r ~ \ ! ~ ~ ~ _ ti. ~ i ~ i - . i ~ V' -i / j~ l 'v v / i~ ~ / - r ~ - ~ y \ r \ \~N~ 4Y ~ i . ~ _ _ _ _ _LLti_;~j_ _ r - ~ LEGEND i _ :1}- ~ ~.._.._j Project Boundary 4 _ . \ _ ~ - 1 i_ ' N { - ~ ~ NOT TO SCALE City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation.Fee Program Uptlate r I+ CITY OF PETALUMA.TRAVEL DEMAND MODEL F.E H R& P ~ ~ Rs TRAFFIC ANALYSIS ZONES oaoter 2W7 ~ FIGURE Al aF060292\BG4\Grapliice~A282-Ai ' ~2007aLend Use Data _ TAZ: SFDU MF DU SR DU. OFF KSF. HOTEL ROOM STRIP KSF HVY CM-KSF SHOPKSF, LT'IND~KSF_ HV IND KSF. WARE KSF EDUSTUD INST KSF REC ACRE 1 14.00 ~ - ' 2. _ - - ..3.00 - - 3 - _ - - 58.00. 4 ~ = - 134.00. - - _ - _ - _ - ~ - - 5 - _ 'i68.5t~:. `173.00 .3774' - - - - - ~ - - - ' -6 - - - _ 283.57: ' - 121:00 - - - 89:82 ' - ~ 53.02- - -96.98 - - -'8 81.00 - - - - - - - 9 79.00 - - - - - - - 7',000.00 - 10 97.00. '100.00 - - - 11 -15.25 - - - - 20.00 12 _ - - - ~ - 166.50. _ - 13 - - - 205.05 189.23`. - - ' 14 73.00 - - 15 164.00' - - - - - - - - - - - 2.00 i6 67.00 - 77 32.00 - - 16 185.00. 7.00 19 _ _ _ _ _ - _ 100.00 . 20 - - 10.82 21.78 - - 27 8.00 - - _ - 7:09 - - 12.74`. 22 244.00 - - - - - 23 71.00 ?A 175.00 - - - - 25 107.36 20.00' 3110 - - 26.. - - - - _ - - _ - _ _ _ 13.26' - - 27 238.00 - 102.00. - - - - .90.53' 28 238.00' - '13.271. z9 4e.ao, 30 1241: - 12.29. 24.59. - - - - - 31 179.00 - - - 32 24.00 224.00' - 436.00. 5.00 ' 33. 133.00' _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - _ 34 147.00 ~ - - - - - - - - - -35 ' 105.00 - - - 5.29 36 206.00 - - - - 173.00 ' '37 82.00 - 8.00 - - 43.00 - 38 113.00 - - - 39 64.00 5.00. - - - - 40 : 71.00 ~ ~ - - 41 78.00 - - - - - - - - - 42 79.00 26.92 - - 43 .;23.00: ab z7,DO, fi.00, -45 '42.00: '3.6d.. _ - - '46 _ .78.00.. _ _ - - _ _ _ _ _ _ 20.88' - '47 ' 6.00 - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 394:00:.. _ _ 48' 158.00 - -.5:00' 1:98 1:55 7.24 .5.00' '49 111:00' 50 .110.00 - - 51 3.00 3.09 4.02 .72.96'. _ 5Y - - '15.88'.. - ~57 215.00 ' 5a 777.DO - a.oo . .'S5 56:11 53.17' - 56 5100 - - 2.45 - - - - - 57 46.00, - - - - - - - 58 107.00' 241.00 74.79 100 59 63.00. 4.00 60 3.00 - - - 26.43 6t .59.00- 5.53 - _ 62 . 233.95 - - 63 254.61 22.77 10.98'. 46.30' 223.40 64 2fi.26 .84.40' _ _ _ 65 - - 249.98 66 50.00 ' 67 20:00 10.00. - 35:70 - -54.36'. - 4.29 , fib - 62.36. 71.71 24:78. ' 69 16.00' - _ - 5.98' - 70 10.00 - 71 30.00. .72 23.00. 2.50 120.00 73 ~ 17.36. 10.02 - - - - _ 74 -9.00 5.07 2.89.'. - - _ 75 - '1.81-. - 2778 76 - 34.00 - - - - - - n 7z.7a - - - - - 78 _ 4:87 '156:71. 12.47. 5.17 18.25 79 '16.00. 15.00 42.97 - - 2007 Larid Use Data TAZ' SF DU MF DU. SR DU OFF KSF HOTEL ROOM STRIP KSF HVY CM KSF SHOP KSF LT INDKSF HV IND KSF WARE KSF EDU STUD INST KSF REC ACRE 80. :12.00 - et ; 14.00' - - - - 82 14.00 - - - 83 11:00 _ _ _ - _ _ 84 86.00. - - - - 200 85 .18.00 _ ~ 5.60 86 76.00 - 5:13 43.52' 87. - :7.00 - - - - - - - 862.00 88 30.00 - - 89 fi.00 .32.87 - -90 62.00 - 8.80 91 10.00 _ 13.00 - - ' 92 32.00' - - - - 36.00 - - 939.00 '6.00 - - 19.26 '278.00 94 ' _ _ 71:00 7.00- - - - - - - 95 29.00' _ ~ _ _ _ _ _ 28.00. _ - 9fi 30.00 9.79 - 97 37:03- _ 1.62. - - ' 98 14.00 _ - - i '6.60 99 209.81 2753'- - - - .700 - - - '40.08 - _ 107 ' 60.93 - 26:67 '102' _ - - _ 18726 - _ - - - _ _ -103 4:00 - 201.00 - 104 _ _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ '105 95.00 - - - - - - - X106 95.00 - - - - - - - - 107'.. 9,00 - - - - - - - - - - '~t08' 72.00 - - - 13.00..- - 109 - '4:00 9.59. '110 _ _ _ _ - - - 32.75.' - - _ _ _ - 711 369.85 10,84 :599.68 23.87 4.80. - 172 - 3.00' _ - - 81;41 - - - .17J _ - 101 00 24;12 ~ - 12.65 - -174 ' 56.13 S2:1B', 37 20. - - -115 4A0 66.02 - _ .:6.24 - - - - •1:9fi 716 ' 265:00 - 200 -777 50:00 - - '~96.00:~ ' .:778 29.00. - - - - " 779.. 34.00' - - - - - - - 120 87.00'. " - - - - - - - 121 - 6.02' 5.32. - 48.02 - - '722 123:00 - _ _ _ ~ _ - _ - - _ 12J 171!00 - - - 724 20.00.. - - - - - - - - 125 38.00. - - - - '364.00. - -126: 21'.00. - - - - - - - - ' 127 70.09 - - - - 128 77:00' 11,00 - - - 20.87 ' ' 129 25.00 18.19 - - - - '-130 ' - _ - _ _ 8:72' 737 50.00 - 88.17 732. 12.00. - - 6.00 133 17:00. 37.52 10.75 - - - ' 134 ' .11-.00. ' 6.52 :23.00. 63.50 19.97 -135 28A0 - - - - - - - '136 14.00 84:00 61:22 = - - - - 54.00 - '737 :14.00', 4:13 - 3.11.. - - - - 1!95. 138 12.00, _ :13.00 _ - - - ' .139 : 23.00 - - - - _ - 140. ..23:00. - - - - - - •.141 17.00 - _ _ _ ~ ...i - - 142 39.00 - - 143 65.00 3100 25.33. - - - - - - - 77.64 - 144 20.00 _ - _ - - ~ _ - _ ' _ : _ ~ _ 145 54.00.. _ - _ _ _ - . - 146 48.00 _ - - - - - '-'10.62' - 147 - - _ 2.68 73.46 ' ' - - 148 37.00 - - - - - - 149 41-.00 ~ :8.00 - - - - - 150 32.00 6.00 - - 751 28.00 - 25.00 - 752 '2.00 - - - - 47.14 157 8.00 5.00 - - - - - - - - .154 - 3.00 '6.00'. 56.55 26.03 IB 34 155 22.00 11.00 26.92 22.90 - - - - 52.43 '756 23.64 52.43 9.74 - - '757 3.00 4.00 .6.67 10.73 20.00' ' 158 17:00 30.93 - - - 2007~Lantl Use Data - - TAZ SF DU' MF DU SR DU OFF KSF. --_HOTELROOM STRIP KSF HVY CM KSF SHOP KSF LT TND HSF HV IND'KSF WARE KSF EDU+STUD INST KSF REC ACRE_ 159 - 33.40 _ .6.00 - 16.88 8.00 - t60 10.00'. 4.00;' 19.95 10.27 - - - 181 B.OD 1:49 - - - - 19.11 '17:74. , 162 - - - - '1:00 163 6.00 1.72 35:18'. 164 ..,900. - - 4:00 _ 2.28. - _ _ _ - - - 7:44. 165 _ .76.00 - - 28:76 - - _ _ _ _ _ 186 .23.00 21.00: - - 10.56' - -.'100.00 8.62 ~ ~ _ - _ - _ - ~ - - " 187 27.00 8.00' - - - - 168 39.00 - - - - - 169. _ - - - - - - .1,471'00. 170 78.00. - t71 60.00 26.00. - 2.02. - - 43.70 5.07. -172 -35.00 .77:00, 2300 - - _ - - - - '28:33' 173 23.00 5.00. - - 3.68. - 174 42.00. :21'.00 2.93 - - - 175 26.00 18.00' - 5.07 2.30 3.03 300.00 176 39.00 m za.oD - - - - - 178 _ .21.00 9.00 3.61 3.65 - - 179 29.00 - - - - - - - t80 13.00 181 16.00. - - - - - 182 - .12.00 - - - - - - 163 as.oD - - - - - 184 _ z2.oo' - - - - - - 185 8.00 - - - - 186 37.00' - - 2.84 - ' 187 13.00' 10.00 - - - ~ - - ' 788 26.00 .5.00'. - - - 189 .':12.00 190. 14.00 - - - - - - - 191 3.00 .29.00. _ 192 64.00. ' 193 52.00 8.00, 194 ' 35.00 - - - - - 195 19.00 23.00 196 39.00' 17.00 - - - - - 19T 29.00 12.00. - - - 198 16.00 199 7.00 20.15' ' 12.55 200 22.00' - - - - 201 8.00 9.00~~ :11.66 ' 202 20.00' - - - - 203 28.00 204 zo.ao s.oo- - - - - .205 ;197.. 558- 12.78 - 206 81 00~. .21.98. - 22.07 _ 3.98 - - 207:_ - - _ 20.86, 60:59. 7141 ' 208 ~ 19.30. - - - 209 1' 00 17.90 3.01 - 210 1:00 - - 50.58. 87.49. 13.89 - 211__ •18.86 153:73-. - - - 212 - 16.51' 93:85. - - 117.62'. 213 ' 43 00 34:37. 74.70. 2.20' 214: 16.00'. - - - - 215 16.00 218 29.00' - - - - - - ' 217 ' 56.00' - - - - - 100 218 15.00 35000 219 94.00 220 _ 7.00- 10.00: 164.24 28.00 1.36 102 7fi 221 704.00. 4.00 3.48' - - - - 222 24.00. 2.59 - 3.38 223 28.00' 85.00 52.18 21.93' 16.63: 143.00 24.66 - 224 27.00' "3.00 36.46 23.53 225 722.00 13.00 24.00 - 75.37 - - - - 226 t 0.00. - 3.89: :1.93 - - - - 227 59.00 - - - - - - - - .228 118.00 - - - - - - ' 229 18.00: - - - - - ' 230. 21.00 - - - - - 231 27.00. 5.00 .232 31:00 - - - - 237 27.00 _ - - - - T34 :11.00 17.00 5:42 2.70 _ - - - - - 235 - :9.00 13.91 - - - - - 236 - - - - - - - - X200:. 237 .23.00 - - - - - 2ooz Lena use Data TAZ SF'DU MF-DU SR DU. OFF KSF HOTEL ROOM STRIP KSF HVY GM KSF SHOP KSF IT IND KSF NV IND KSF WARE KSF EDU STUD INST KSF REC ACRE 23B 15:00 8.00. 3.38 - 22.69 2.73' - 5.87 - .239 .43.00 5.00 - - - - 240 .49:00.'.: 14.00:. _ _ _ _ _ 1.74. - - 241. ._27.00.'. 27.00. 6.00 - - - - ':242 - 18.83 - 243 : '183.00 ~ ~ - - - - 1.00 2q4 44.76 - 25.00 - ' :245 _ 7.38 -89.66: - - - - 246 _ _ 47:12 20.83 ' 247 - 92.00 _ - 74.24 - 7.20. , 248 - '6,800.00 - 249 274.00 - - ~ - 3.00 250 '205.00 - - - - - - ' 6.00 X257 194.00. - '252': 210.00' - - - - 253 ~ _ 262.00. - - - - _ - _ - _ _ ~ _ - _ _ _ _ 256 _ - 53.28 ~ _ _ _ - - - _ - 153.30 - . 255 ' 202.00- - - - 438.00 35.21- '256 146.00 57.00: - - .34.63 257 - - _ - - _ _ _ - - ~ - - :258 - 233.99. '32.81 - - 194.81 - - 121.41' 259 _ - - - _ 280. - - 102.96. - - ' _ .261 - - 269.00 - - - - - '262 - - '79.00 - - - - 305.00 ' '263 i 51.00 - - - 264 37.00: 23.00 - - 285 _ 2.00.. - _ 44.80: - - - , :266.. 160.00 - 267 ; - :1'.00.. 37.91 21.38. ' -268 '114.00 78.00 - - - - ~ " 269 4.00. 11.54. 62.631.45:72' _ - '270. _ _r. ~ - ~ 8:52, _ - - - .64:99. - .:277 12.00-.. - 29.83'. - - 6:19. - 11:15 - .272 _ 19.00'. - - 273 - 17.00: ' - - - - - - - 400 00 - 274 113.00 113.00. - - 52:721 '.22.37 14:47.. , - - - - .iB.00~ , ,275 ,41'.00 38.00 - - 16.81;, - _2.77 - - - - " ~ - ~ - 19.39 - . '276' 15.00 277 .20.00 ~ 7.00. 7 40 - 3.72: ' - - 48.00' :278 12.00. - - - _ , - .279..- - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ - 3.72 ' '280 - _5.00 4.83: - 19.58 _ 100'. 5.98.. - 287 - 100.00 282 6.00 10.98'. -24'59 - - - 28J 91.00 - - - - ~ - - - ~ '284.. _98.00. ' - 74.00 - - - - _ 285 - .206.00:.: - - - - -186 :363.00.. - 395.00 4.00 - .287 -120.00' - - - - - - T88 ^112.00 96.00. - - - 37:19 3.00 _ 289 : '142.00 - - - - 290 .69.00. - - - - - - 297 . 76.00' 18 00 - - - - - 292 129.00 - - - - - 293 " - - 178.00 - - - - - ~294' '.23.00'. - - - - - - -37.00 295 240.00; 4.00: - 386.66. - - - 29fi ' 159.00 i - - - - - - - - - - - . :297 - 205:00 - -75.00' 2.50' - - - - ~ " :298. _ 5059 _ - 5.44! 217:761 - - 299 44.00. 92.00.. ' 6.69 - - 4.07 - 127.32. - - - - _ '300 _ 2.00: - 1!19 - 9.10'. _ - _ _ - ; -,301. - - .8:88. - 3.77 - - _ _ 302 36.OD~ `16:00- - - - - 303 36.00 8:43..: 5.92. _ - - - ' '304 '113.00 - - 305 . 138.00.E _ - - 18.69 - ~306 _ '175.00' : - - - - 19:84 3.00. - '307 .'131;00:.' ~ _ _ _ _ _ '424.00: - _ `:308 _ - - - - - - _ - 3pg _ - - 114.00 :'310 321-00 - - 25.00 3tt _ 59.00.: - - - - - 3t2.--.- 2.00'.,. ~ - - - 16.00. - - - 373 - - - - '314 ' 6.00: - - - - - 31542.00 492.00' - - - - - - - 316 620.14 273.77 165:00 - , r ~ r ~ ~ - r. ~ r. ~ ~ ~ ~r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ rr • ~~r a~ ..ter ~ ~ r ~ r~ ~ ® r • 2007 Land Use Data TAZ SF W. MF. DU SR DU OFF KSF HOTEL ROOM STRIP KSF .HVY LM KSF SHOP KSF LTIND KSF HV IND 'KSF WARE KSF EDU STUD. INST KSF REC ACRE 377 .24.00 - - - - - 1,704.00 318 .261.00 - _ - - - - - 3t9 142.00 - - _ - - 320 ..79.00' - 3.00 321 199.00 - - - - - - 322 221.00 - - - - - - 323 - - - - '-76.00 324 - _ - _ _ _ 11:40. - - - _ - 325 - - 20.65 _ - 23.95 -6.61 - 326 - - - - - - 327 240.00 15.00' ~ 163.05; 71.49 - 22.00 ' 328 44.00 2:78 34:32. - - - 329 158.00. ~ - 730 8000 331 179.80 184.00' 332 151:94.. .47.14 16.63. 130.46 - 333 .2.00.. 172.00 77.00 5.20 8.35 500.00 3.00 734 9 23. 335 35.0D. 338 160.00. 337 151.00 - - _ - - _ ' - 338 _ 605.00 372.24" - - 62:78. - 18.51 339 332.25. '32.55 - 340 .33.00 ' 341 - 72.39' - - 342 ' 125.00' - - _ - _ _ _ 743 '6.0D.. _ ~ 73.00. - - 344 _ _ _ _ - - - - = - 25.00.. .62.00 ' 345 203.00' - - - - ~ - - - _ - - 6.61' 8.00. 346 '85:00' . - 347 123.00 - - 348 '50.00 _ _ _ _ _ 1.00 349 125.00' ~ ~ ' _ 350 210.00 - - 351 120.00. - - ~ - - - 352 157.00 - - 353 199.00 - - - - - 446.00 3.96 3.00 354 306.00 6.00.. 4.25 355 126.00 - - - - - - - 356 230.00 - - - - - _ - 757 136.00 -.22.00 _ 14:13.. 356 56.00. 100 359 205.00 - - - - - 3.00 360 60.00' - - - - - - - - - 361 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 362 2.00. 363 14.00 - 384 500.22 - - - 365 - 20.12' ~ - - - - - ' 366 _ _ _ 50.00.• ' 387 75.00. - - - - _ - 368 210.14 5 56 369 11.00' 447.00 370 371 349.63 535.26. 69.54. 372 .14.00 - - ~ - - 37J - 38.00 9.00 374 51.00 375 3 74 5.59. 376 - - - - 86.76. - - 377 378 379 360 387 _ - - - - - - - 382 1.00. _ - - - 38J - 18.37 - - 18,257.00 .2,558.00 t,55d.00 5,820.22. - .68200 2,481.25 176.35 7 763.77 7,557.12. 1,070.28 880.42' 18,036.00 1 431.79. 794.20 SF DU. MF..DU SR DU OFF KSF -.HOTEL ROOM STRIP KSF HVY CM KSF SHOP KSF LT IND KSF HV-IND KSF' WARE KSF EDU. STUD INST KSF REC ACRE - r t o N m K U Q U Y m - ~ m rv f Z_ O & 00 O ~ O - J ~ 'I Ul W y W Q O N Y J ~ 2 2 o onooot~o~mooboo~~nnoin <nv~oom~g~ ~~~~N~ooo o~ N ~r Y Z J N~ O Ot~O N y O x N Y U 0 0 0 o O N O o n m o 0 m o m N~ o o N P~ o o rn o 0 0 0 o m~ o^ m o 0 0 0 0$ o N~ N v N m o o O m O o a~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Y 0 0 N ~ N o ~ O o o O~ o W i Y O Qo oho K LL ~ m°O.~-non rvv"'immmo~ve~ Rri ~ m~v°'i NNa ~n n orn tD 0 u ~ NI Q ~ Q N u~ h i 1 oooa~o~ooooooo;ooooaooooo0000000 U Q ~ H yp! N~i~ o~ o • Z_ S 00 H 7 o~o Q 1 Y 3 ~ N. m y 7 0 Z S N o ~ o Z Y J ~ ~ o N Y N o ~ o Y E U 1 ~~iN o~o N y S N 1. E O O C O x ° nomo 00ooooomnoo om~m orvnv~o~oo ooo~m ~nvoa onomo nm vim n$oo om min ~o go°rv~n°o°rn°o°n moo Y O ~ o o rn ~ O _ N 7 ~ me ~ rn~V V M lrir P~i~ ~tyiN J O _ N wi din Bohm mO~Nn Onfp l~¢lN0 ~NrlO nip t~ r00~0.-NMOn ~pFgOl TOp ~Hm Ov~ro l~~ mv~ihN~u~~u~i NN m O i. w~ ~ - 1 a U N o o Y N N Z D G F N J 3 0 ~ O ' Z N y S Y 2 1 Y F 0 x a ~ 00000000000000000 000000000000000000000000 0 000000000000000000 00000 000000000 _ - ~ N Y 'U I~rno O $o Y H _ a - 000000000000000000 oooooAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOo 000 0000000000 ooa oooooo00 °o a w o i x ooooao ooaomoooo~ oooa ,oo oooaooooom oao oaoo oonooooo00000000 o0000000ooooomo _ 00 N Y O 7 O K - N ~ 000 ' N O o 0 o O w m w~ o O~ w m a< O N o 0 0 0 N O o m O N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 b O O o 0 0 o N o 0 0 ~ o 0 o p o a N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S_ ~ - J C` Pt~<f~V ~ ~~Vm n~V N m~r o~rv J LL b rvMe m o ON~o 1`mmo W N may o~N b n n 1~ n r I~ n N m m 0 m m m ~D V un mm N Nm N h rvN NHN Nn1~ Q rvNC~i ~1N giNN N'~ N N N N NNN ~ ~ r. i~ w~ - a U Y O ~ o O~ m ~ rv . F N 2 ~ o o g o 1~q p N~~ y ~m Y K 3 'nO NNuNi '"~o ~ N a Y J v ~ c ~ 2 rv oNN om~ N Y ' O 2 H o N ~ N Y O S o~o N Y in o o in o 0 0 0 o rv n m m o n r N o o m m m rv n o o n o o n~ ~ m ~ w UU e v io m nm~imnommorvo~ mm~ m'^~mm o~ mu~t~~oo oN' Y r 6 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 o a o 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' O O K o~n oomoooooc~n mr~mom ~ovom m ry o ~~moe N g om ~ m o0 oon ~ mooooooo~oo~ooo_~e~Omoo o n ~~~~e om LL ~ m ~ e n~ o ~~~o~ ~ m Y ~ O =o_ o~o o~o N J p ' ~ v~a~~i~ b~~ rv~~~~~ ~~m ,N O N N n~Oh~'nN hu~ V~1 Y~iNN N~'~1 ~Y t~lumrobbtiNnn rnrrr rm ~Nm 0 W ~Nm ~maHd W NN N~V N N~MnM~i ~iM Merin nnnnn nn r ry Woo ^W Q U Q U U Ya v~~v LL i .~-Y, N ~ Z_ Z O ~ o ~ o m ~ ~ ~ J N ~ N ~ ] ~ p W' YP my Q 3 I 3 - ~ o N~~ !i Y rv y ' ~ ~ ~ O ? ? 2 _ I ~ ~n ~n~ nm ~-oooo m~nooe o ooot~v~ o ooom~ 000000 oppp aoooa o 0000 o~n ~o 0000000000 Y ~ - ~ m n y O ~ Z Z H F Y P N Y x ~ x N a o ' Y f Y E ' YV ~~i~~ir.~--~~ V~i~o~ootn btu Aoui o ~S Y~ w~ ~i °N m y a a a ~ , N _ E o ~ O m ~ O p ~ O w O O x N o0 oo~no oao 0 ~i 0000 NoNm~v Sono a ~~a 000 _ _ _ _ 000000 aoaooo ooaoaoo . _ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' y min o oN rr ~i vfOi~ vi ~ Y e N m Y LL LL LL O O o 0 0 o H o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D O N o 0 0 0 D O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ' 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O ' 00000 t~ b ~ ~ O ' _ r ~ Q ~ ry LL • ~ ' ~ t~ vnmo NNVmrn M W m~-N~o ~-NNV1 M~N~rv O N ~ O N VI IV n ne~n~~i ~r~~~i Si ~i e~'1 vii ~i tNn v~Di rtiN F- GeneralPlen Growth Land Use Deta TAZ. SF DU MF DU SR DU OFF KSF HOTEL•ROOM 'STRIP KSF HVY CM KSF - SHOP~KSF LT IND KSF HV INDKSF WARE-KSF' EDU STUD INST KSF REC ACRE 1 88.00 2.57' 38.00. 2 38.00 - 18.00 - 3 .6.42: - - - ' 58.00 _ 4 734.00 -.7.77 - _ a - - _ _ 5 17.00 - .1163.32 (173.00) : 31.74 - - - = - " ` ~ ' ' fi 24.00.' - 734.00 _ 1fi6.69 121 A0 - -6.03 38.78 49.69 96.98 - - - - - ' 7 47:00.. - _ _ - - 4.50'. 6.00' _ _ _ 8 61.00 929.29 - 34.28 '139.81: 447.00 55.00' 9 24:00 153.06' :259.00 '38.70' 166:50 19.38' .96.98 3.00" 10 (10.00) (100.00) _ 215.68 35:00 3.38! 146.04 - , 11 6.00 75.25 - - 20.00 12 6.00 - - - 166 50) -6.76. ' - - .t3 - 10.00 - - - - _ - - - - 205.05 - 189.23 - - - - - 14 1:00 23.90 ~ - " 15 12:00 100.00' 3.22. 31'01 64:13' 72,000.00. 6.00 16 71:00 75.00 75.99 12.00 17 3.00 70.84 2.48 - 18 ~ 14:00 74.00. 15.97 13.66' 139.67. 30.26 7.00 t9 2.00 - 700.00 20 .2.00 - - - - 5.00 27.78 - - 27'~ 57.00 98.22 74.24 de.21'~ 151:88 12.74 2.50 ' 22 38.00 17.00 132.73. 61.45' '129.62- '11.89 83.65 23 13.00 63:78 49.60. 24 131.00 159.06 - - - 55.72. 4.80 _ 4 00 -25 25:00 - 107.36 20.00 - - 31.70 , 26 5.00 - _ - - - - - ~ 13.26 27 29.00 12.00.. 102.00 176.02 30.00.': - -147.98. - - -11:98. - -819.00 ' - - 90.53 - - -.205' 28 22.00 7.00 101.00 112.46 140.06 - 11:55: 0.56 3.00' 29 7.00 6.51'- 30 8.00 12:41 12.29 24.59) 2:11 - 31 5.00 _ 1:45 - - 19.84 4.00. 32 31.00. 224.00 1.32. 436.00 5.00 33 2.00 311.00 .97.35 - 4.35 32.00 34 8.00 10.93 3.26 2.00 35 4.00 19.63, 2.69. 5.29 1.00 ' 36 70.00 12.00 99.00 5.59 3275. 153.00 , 37 160.00 9.00 63.00 13.00 0.75 38 (6.00) 3.08. 39 1.00 5.00 76.00 - qO - - 12.50 - - - 47 2.00' 6.24 - - - - 42 3.00 '78.00' - 26.92 43 4.00. - - - ' 44 2.00 6.00 43.28' - - 1.96 ' 45 5.00 178.00 3 64 46 9.00 30.66. 94.79 20.88 '47 .1:00' - 7.42 394:00 ' - 2.00' "48 " " 32.00 - 1.00 - 30.24. 11.77 - - - 7:24 55.88'. 5.00 49 13.00 129.00 59.57 11.83 46.30 83.71 25.00 50 15.00 0.68 6.00 51 5:00 3.00 3.09 4:02 12.96 - a 52 4.00 15.88 , 53 - 1.00 ~ 215.00 - " 54 17.00 69,00 24.39.. 9.59. - 4.00 55 7.00 S6.t 1) 53.17 - - 56 21.00 2.45 - - - 57 5.00 - - - - - 44.99 58 4.00 74.26 22.77 13.90 37.00 14.79 59 6.00 4.00 73.95 - 60 3.00. 26.43 61 (13.00) (5.53) 62 4.00 233.95 63 31.00, 254.61 (22.77 10.98 46.30) - 223.48 ' 64 11.00 26.26 84.40) 65 1.00. 160.00. 249.98 66 18:00) 12.96` - - 67 3.00.. 10.00 - - 35.70 54.36 4.29 68 _ _ 17.00 ' 62 36 ~ 71 71 24.78 69 2.00 - - - 29.91- 5.98 - 70 144.17 - - - - ' 71 1.00 ~ - - - 72 5.00 2.50 -20.09 120.00 ' 73 5.00 17.36 10.02 74 4:00. 5.07 2.89 75 ~ 4:00'. 1.81 ~ 27.78 - - 78 10.00 5.55 9:79 - 43:77 - - - 77 1.00 - - - 72.74 :78 43.00 4.87 - 156.71 1247 5.17 18.25 ' - 79 6.00 ' 15.00 - - 42.97 11.66 36,61 - - General Plan Growth Land Use Data TAZ. SF DU. MF DU. SR DU OFF KSF HOTEL ROOM STRIP KSF HVY CM KSF SHOP KSF LT IND KSF HV IND KSF WARE KSF EDU STUD INST KSF REC ACRE 80 .1.00 et 2.00 s.6o az too - - ea z.oD 84 6.00 3.00 29.11. 9.43.. -13.15 72.14 125.74 10.00 - 85 .5.00 102.00 15.60 0.38 _34.63'. - - 86 2.00 57.00 - 5.18: 7:15 .4.32' 30.31 6:00 87 1'.00 - - 14;37 862.00 ' 88 - 6.00 5.01" 0.81 12.84. 438.00 - 89 (1.00 - - .39.17 - - - - _ - - - - ' _ - 9D 4:00 18,24 0.80 -150.00 5.34 ' 91 53.00 3:00 - ,15.00':- 4.00' 0.38 92 fi7.00' d:00 19.00. 9.00'. - '0.38. 93 2.00 ' 6.00. 19.26 ' 6.32 278.00) 94 118.00 (7.00) 39.71' '6.32 37.00 95 - 29.00 - - - 28.00. _ 96 5.00 1.89 4.41 - ' 97 7.00 .37.03 1.62) 98 4.00 - 6.60 ' 99 13.00. - - 209.81 27.53 - - - 100 6.00 40.08 - ~ 101 - - 2.00-' - 60.93 26.67) - 702 - 7:00 187.26 - 103 '212.00 - - - 7.00 - 104 .3.00 - - - ' 105. 7:00 - 2.21 -:3.21 33.29' 7 32 - - 106 9.00".: 231:83. 10.00' 1.00 153.38 107 - t08 13:00. - - ~ 13.00 - 0.38 - t09 - - 1:20 9.59. 110 5.00'. - 32.75 - - 111 79.00 : 355.03 .10.84. 587 19 .23.87 1.18 112 1:00:. 1.85 81:41) '113 4.00'. ' 101'00 - 24:12) - 12.65 ttd - 30.00 50.57 47:35 - 37:20 115 6.00 1.63. .66.02 _ 6.24 _ 196 tt6 8.00 5.00 82.61. 25.00... 250.00 19.58! 33.00' 117 12:00 ~ .29.30 - - - 196.00) 1':00 , 118 .22.00'.:3.00' ' 119 79.00:" - - - - - - - ' 120 20.00. '656 00 240.00 - - - - t27 '79.00 (6.02 5.32 :48.02 - _ 122 48.00' 9,63. - - - - 3.72. 123 21.00 30.00 = 9.60 ~ - - - - - - - 4.00 124 _ _ 2.00 ~ - - 125.. 5.00- 21:7d' 230.00 .364.00) 126. 16.00-B:t4: - - - - t27.' 13:00 4.99:. 3.34 27.50.. - _ - '128 2.00' 3.00 5.96 2.57 - - 20.87 - - 129 3.00 24.00 :6.28: - 130 200: ~ _ 8.72 ' 131. 7.00. . 50.00 88.17 ..132 4.00 16.00 - 11:01 - - 6200 133 _ 5:00 37:52 10.15 10.00' 734 14':00' 4.99 23 00 63.50 21.76 .19.97 - - 135 13.00 - 211. - 136 1.00 84.00 - 58.18 - - - - 54.00 137 1.00 - 4:13 - 3:11 - - 1 95 138 2.00 13.00. 3.10 - - ~ ' 139. :4.00 - - - - - - - - - - 140 '.(4:00) : - 8.00 9.81' - - 141 1.00', - :16.00 .2.34: - - - - 142 4'.00' 16.00 0.72: 5:44 : - 143 .19.00 15.00 - , 25.33 ~ - _ - _ - - 344.60. - - - ~ _ = - - '77.64 - - 144 4.00 .8:00 - - - - 145 .17:00) , - - _ _ : - 401.. - - - - - 7466.00 84.005.00 10.62 147 6:00: _ ' 2.68 13:46. - - ~ ' 148 - - 6.00 '.5.44 - ~ t 9.00' ' 149 ' 9.00 - - - - _ '3.82. . - - - - 150 (9,00) ~ 2.00 - - - - - 151 9.00 8.00. 25.00 7.80 - 152. - - - - - :(47.14 - 153. 2.00 ~ 5.00 - - 7.50 - - 154 15.00' 200 56.55 26.03 18.34 155 12.00 11':00 28.92 22.90 - - 25.00 33.33 156 21•.00 8.00 23.64 52.43 - 9.74 _ 157 8.00 4.00 6.67 10.13 - 20.00 758 1'.00 - - 30.93 - - - - ~ ~ ~ ~ a ® ~ ~ ~ ~ r General Plen Growth Land Use Data TAZ SF:OU MF DU SR DU -OFF KSF .HOTEL ROOM..- STRIP KSF HVY CM KSF .SHOP KSF- LTIND KSF HVIND KSF .WARE KSF EDU STUD INST KSF REC ACRE 759 11.00. A00 _ 33.40 _ ~ 6.00 - 16.88 - _ - - - - 8.00 760 4'.00 19.95) - - 6.27 5.00: - - 161 1.00 - 1:49 - (19:11 17:74 162 1.00: - 7.00 ' '163 5.00 (772) - - 35:78) 2.00 164 2.00 4.00 2:28 7.44 185 5.00. B:00 28.16 ~ - 7 50' _ _ _ - 166 3.00 13.00 10.56. ~ 100.00 3.62 - - - - - 767 6.00 _ _ ~ - .5:00.. - , - 168 4.00. - 164.00 - - - - - - - 5.00 169 4:00 - - - - 1,477.00 " 170 12.00 15.12 3.50, - .436.00 - 771 15.00 8.00 10.00 ~ 37.98 - 43.70 - 5.01 172 9.00 ~ 69.00 23.00 - - - 17.18 173 (9.00) 3.00 - - ~ 3.86 174 9.00 21.00 293 10.00 - - 175 1!00 14.00 4.07 0.20 3.03 300.00 - 17fi 9.00 36.00" - - - 177 2.00 2.00 0.75 2.50. 6.67 - 178 3.00 :9.00 ~ 3.67 3.65 ' 179 6.00 _ 18.48. 180 1.00 13.60 181 ' 4:00 - t82 1:00 5.00 1.50 - 5.00. tea ' 3.00 75.00 2.50 184 - _ 185 8.00 5.00 186 12.00 2.84 - 187 10.00 16.00 _ - - - 188 4:00 5:00 - - - ~ - - 189 7.00 - - - - - - -790 ' 2.00 - - - 7.33 191 5.00 (29.00) - - - - 192 1.00 - - - - - - 193 7.00 8.00 ' 194 6.00 - - - 195 1.00 1200 3.00 12.50 - - - _ ' 196 17:00 - - - - 197 7.00 12.00 - - - 798 8.00 199 6.00 20.15 12.55 200. 4.00 7.00 201 2.00, :19.00). (71:66) _ _ .5.98 - - - - 202 4.00 - - 406.00 203 5.00 204 8.00 5.00 25.00` - _ 205 6.00 1 97 5.58. 12.78 206 9.00 81 00 27.98 22.07 3.98 207 22.00 - 6.00 19.16. 56.09. 77.41 - .208 7.00' _ _ 19.30 - - ' 209 4.00. 17.90 3:07 - - - - 210 B:00' 50.58 81.49 - 13:89 211 25:00'. 18.86 753.73 212 17:00' 16.51 93.85 717.fi2 273 11:00 43.00 34.37 74:70 - - - 2.20 214 - - 215 1.00 216 1.00 - - - - - - - - - 217 4.00 1200' 7.00 - 79.39 1.00 278 2.00. 350:00 , - - - - z6o 219 (1.00) - - - 220 16.00. 10.00 i6d.24) 28 00 1.36 102.76 - - - ' 221 6.00 7.00' 3.40 3.96 222 5.00. 259 3.38 223. 10.00 85.00 - .52.18 21.93 16.63 143.00 2466 224 15.00 . 3.00) (36:46). (23.53 - - 225 7:00 31:00. 24.00 15:37 4.50 226 3.89 7.93 - - - - - - 227 3.00 50.00. ' 228 2.00 '15.00' 4.50. 229 (1.00) - - - - - - 230 8.00 - - _ - - 237 72.00 5.00 ' 232 - 13.00. a33 7:oD '1sD.DD~ zso.oD: 234. :7.00 7:00 7.58 715 - 235 2.00 13.91 - - 236 1.00: - - - - - - 2.00 237. .4.00 General Plan Grovrth Land Use Deta ' TAZ SF DU, MF DU SR DU OFF KSF HOTEL ROOM STRIP KSF HVY CM KSF SHOP.KSF LT •IND KSF HV IND KSF WARE KSF EDU STUD IN ST KSF REC ACRE 238 ' 12.00:. 8.00 3.38 18.19 2.73) 5.87 239 12.00 5.00 - 240 14:00 6.00 8.27 3:53. - - - , 241 _ 8.00 27.00 - 6.00 _ _ 242 _ 5.00.- _ 18.83 - - - - 243. _ 19:00 _ .._203.00" . - .:39.07. - 52.08 - - - - - '241.00 292 68' 1.00 - -244 - 2.00'. 44:75) 25.00 .245 6.00'. 7.38 - 89.66 - - • 246' .41:00. 22.00 47.12 - 20.83 400.00. 247 7.00 20.00 - - 74.24 - -4:71 (7.20 - 248. •1:00. _ - - - - 6,800.00 _249, -.7.00:' 134.00 21.27- 26.27 - - - '2,009.00 17.00 - 250 ' 4.00 35.00 `16.74: 16.74 - - - '251 .24.00. ' 39.00 5.70' 5.70 - -14.79 6.00 ' 252 (3.00) 19.00 - 10:70. .12.90 - ;48.00.. 253 55.00 83.00 - 14.46: 32.27. - _ 4:25 250 42.00' : 53.28 _ - - ~ - - - 153.38 - .255 -;27.00 . 33.00 - 1fi 00 20:88 20.88, - - - - - 438.00 - :35.21 256 3.00. - 30.00.._ 57.00 12.83: - - 10.99 - - - 54.36 34.63 •2.00' 257 2.00 - 258 - 34.00. - •608.00 ~ 223:72 22.54 194.81 121:41 259 3.00 ~ - - - _ - ,2fi0 .30.00' 9.00 96.90 : 6.07. - .261 184.00: - .27:00:... 17.72'. 49.33 72.74 28.40 9.00 - - ' "262 7.00 9.00 5.85'. - - 5:85 305.00 .263 9.00 ~ - - 7:00 ' 23.00' 4.49: 4.49'. - - - - - 264 3.00 16.00 23.00 8.60 21.02 4.00. .265 6.00 - 44.80 ~ - - 266 5.00 15.00 3.29! - 9.87 - -267 _ 5.00:' 4:00.: 239 35.52 21:38 ,.268 - .7.00 49.00 8.96' 13.00: 30.75' - 5.98 -;269 - 16.00' 11.54 62.63 12:47 45:72 :270 8.00; .18.52) (64.99) - - - :271 7.661 3.00. 1:82 28,01 - 6:19 ' 11.15 - 272 2.00 5.00 ~ 1:30 5.30 - - - :273. 2.00. _ 8:00.: '4.7,1 - '4.71. ~ 280.00 - - 274 - 10.00'.. 89:00 20.241 - 23.85 2237 11 47 ~ 21.75 7:42. 10.00 - 275 2.00! (14.00 ' -7.31 - .19.51 (2:77) 19.39 ' "276 8.00 - - ~ ' 277 ' 1:00 ~ 68.00' 7:40 16.28 I 48.00 `278 ' 3.00 5.00 '3.07 -3:07 - - - - :279 6.00 - - - - _ 3.72 : - ;280 7.00-~ (5.00): (4:83) - - 19.58) - .(1.00) - - 5.98 2e1 : 14.00 24.00 10.60: s.oz s.o2 ' ~ zroo z6.0o - ;282 2.00'. _ 8.95 ' 24:59 - - - ' .283 -12.00'. 24.00 - ' 45.00 6.74. 6:74' 71 71 45.67 - -284 52.00 6.94. 6.94 17:67 - ' 285 '6.00`. 38.00 46.00 -9.93 25:13' _ _ 42 75 _ 2.50.. 6.68- - x286 16.00 139.00 .93.32. 18.88. 19.62 38.31 22.86" 29.65 252.00 - 1.00 ..287 _ 4.00 9.00 : =2.30 55.57. ' 23.00 15.52' 3.98 26:70 .288 2.00'. 249.00..- _ 96.00 53.87 33.211 26.97 - 37.19 3.00 '289 - 14.00' 9.00. - 8:07 52.38 59.68 0.32 5.95 - 5.00 290 2.00. 69.00 - - - 291 .6.00' 76.00 18.00) :292 1.00. 129.00 - - - - - ..:z93 . z.D6. na.oo - - - '294 - - - - 4.66: ~ - - - - - 37.00 .295 _ .B 00'. : 240.00 - - 4:00 386.66 - '296 : 3.00'. 286.00 10.56: 25.00. .t 1:50 18:64 -5:87 ',297 2.00 181:00' 56.07' 75.00 -48.37 13.00 20:93' 2.73 7.24 - - V298 `15.00' - (50.59) 5:44 _ (217.761' ~ - - ~ - ' :299 618.00: 73.00 23.61 _ _ 19.60.. - 16:43 - - :300 -.6.00! - - ~ 1:19 - . ; 9.10 _ _ - - - - - _ . _.:301 .6.00.. _ 8.88 _ , .3:77 _ _ - - 302 .2.00 _ 4.00. 16.00 - .8.00 ' .303 '7:00: 5.00. 24:44 (5.92) 500.00' ' '304 ' 5.00 ~50.00~ 1:46. 80.00 18.48 -:200.00 2.00 - '305 22.00 '39.00: 24.55 100.00 141.93 - :16.66 2 18 20.39.,- - - " - 18.69 1.00.' 308 14.00 '28.00 77.00 24.66 236.92 17.69.. 20.00 _ - - - - t= - - 19.84 3:00 ':307 : 1'.00 _ .240.00 76.91 73.98. - . 5:44 8:90 ~ : 124.00 ' '308. - - - :309 ' - - - - - - 22:43 98.00 '310 35.00 91:00 210.24, 40204' 88.41 '309.33 '165.29-' 34:13 394.00 133.72 25.00 311 138.00 954.00 538.97' 108.00 238.20 395.00 100.09 28:73 89.31 36.75 ' '312 17.00 29.90 2.00: - 2.00 :313 ' 1.00 - - - - - - -314 ~ 4.00 9.00. ;7.13: 3:85 - - 315. 71.00 467.00 676.61 17.66 8.27 31.43 1 00 :316 27.00 - '2200 553.93 - 5:17 273.77 10.00 15.44: ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ a ~ ~ General Plan Grow[h LanA Use Data TAZ SF DU MF DU SR'DU OFF KSF HOTELROOM. STRIP KSF HW.CM'KSF SHOP KSF LT'IND".KSF HV IND KSF .WARE KSF EDUSTUD INST KSF REC ACRE .317 10.00 19:00. .18.06.. 4.70 47:14 - - _ 47.07 62:78- 41.15 842.00 ' 318 55.00 256.00 579.10.190.00 '.58.06 - -408.59 189:43 - 130.48 22.00 '319 13.00 .48.00 393.22: 25.94. 123.05 6.39 28.30 :320 7.00' 11.00 161.75 ` ..6.86' 41'.16 17.08 16.13' 3.00 321 - 23.00 21.00 797.91 X5.17- - - 105.52' 3.00, ' 322 2.00 168.00 23:00 54:51 -25.12..98.11 38.56 •1471.00 _ ..16.00.. 323 1.00 _ - - 16.00 .324 4.00. - - - 11.40 - - 325 14.00, 2.00 1 OS - 19.60 23.95 .6.61 326 3.00 - 327 19.00 238.00 1 OS 1.05 15.00 125.30 71.49 ' 22.00 328 1d:00 29.00 ~ 18.3fi. - 15.58 34.32 .45:00 - 329 1.00 54.00 113.97. 22.1154.00 330 3.00. 80.00 331 17:00. 24.00 (172.30) (184.00) 7:50 43.00 332 10.00 21'.00 138:71 13.24 47.14 16.63 130.46 333 11.00 170.00 77.00 3.91) 7.06 (500.00 3.00) 334 7.00 9.23 ' 335 28.00 24:00 5.96 5.96 336 7.00 13.00 86.56 22 22' 28.33. - 337 4.00. 16.00 63.46 1.34 - 55.00 182.78 338 14.00. 605.00 372.24 62:78 18.51 339 8.00: 332.25) - 3255) - - - 340 .283.00 8.00 .25.00' 2.00 341 15.00' - - 72.39 J42 16.00 23.00 - - - 76.63: 12.74 - J43 8.00 - - - - ~ - - 344 36.00 52.60: - - 25.00) .62.00 345 22.00. 254 15.50 6.61 6.00 346 29.00. - - - - .20.87' - 347 4.00 - - - - 96.00 ~ :2.00 348 2.00 - - - - - 2200 - 1:00 349 (5.00) _ 4.50 '364.00 2.00 350 1:00 25.50 - ' 351 4.00 47.50 352 16.00 4200 21:36 27.00 37.51 • 353 X9.04 25.00 446.00 15.77 77:00 35d (14.00) (4.00) '14.62 16.00 350.00 16.16 200 J55 1.00 - - 356 24.00 2.00 357 34:00 22.00). - - - - - 14.13 174.00 358 - - - - - 1.00 ' 359 24.00 - - - - 4.00 360 3.00 361 3.00 - - - - - - - - ~ .362 7.00 17.00. 29.90 200 .2.00 - 363 74:00 - - ' 364 9.00'. 500.22 - - - - - 365 1:00 i - 20:12 -366 2.00. 7.00 ' 367 t`.Op 0.50 368 5.00 210.14 ;5.56 - - - - - 769 - - - - - - 447.00 370 - 100 ' 371 35.00 349.63 535.26 69.54 172 2.00 - - - - - - 773 13.00 9.00 374 14:00 - - - J75 6.00 3,74 5.59 J76 3.00 56.76) 377 1.00 - - - - - - - - ' 778 3.00 - - - - - - - - - - 379 1:00 - - - - - - - - - - 380 2.00 381 2.00 - - - - 382 3.00 383 5.00 - 16.37 2,579.00 3 813.00 99.00 ;2,220.59' 165.00 558.39 19,13 1;178.16 .226,80 221.66 29.07 5,200.00 86.00 4,00. SF DU MF DU SR DU OFF KSFHOTEL ROOM STRIP KSF HVY CM KSF SHOP KSF LT IND KSF HV IND KSF WARE KSF EDU STUD INST KSF REC ACRE ~i . City of Petaluma ,Mitigation Fee Report . ~ . 1 1~ . , 't~' Prepared by: Snclar:& Associates . Local Government Consulting Services P.O.;Box4,882. Auburn, CA'95'604-4882. (-536)'8:7,8-91~~00 October 30, ~2Q07 . !~1 CITY OF PETALUIVIA ' MITIGATION E.EE REPORT ~ ~ TABL°,E OF CONTENTS PAGE. I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS 5 III. PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 8 IV. FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES IMPACT FEE l2 V. LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 17 VL AQUATIC CENTER FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 22 -VII. QUIMBY.ACT PARK LAND ACQUISITION IN-LIEU FEE 26 VIII. ~ PARK LAND ACQUISITION FEE (NON-QUIIVIBY ACT) 29 D DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE 33 IX. PARK LAN X: OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION FEE 37 XI. LIBRARY FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 41 . . ` XII. COMMUNITY CENTER FACILITIES IMPACT FEE 45~ XIIL ANNUAL FEE ADJUSTMENT 50 XIV. COMPONENTS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE ~ 51 Appendix A Public Facilities Project List 55 ' Appendix.B Fire Suppression Faci hies Project List 56 Appendix C Law Enforcement Facilities Project List 57 Appendix.D Aquatic Center Facilities Project List 58 Appendix E Park Land Acquisition Costs 59 Appendix F Park Land Development Project Li-st 60 ~ . Appendix G Open' Space Acquisition Costs 61 Appendix H Library Facilities Impact.Eee Program 62. Appendix I Community Center Facilities Impact. Fee Program 63 Appendix ~J Proposed Development Impact Fee Summary 64 Appendix K 'Changes to April 24, 20:07 Draft Mitigation Fee Report 65 . i. . Z. 1 " CITY OF''PETALUMA ' MITIGATION FEE'~REPORT r~•, I. INTRODUCTION j~' The City of Petaluma General Pla~i (adopted in 1987) states that the City will support residential. development only in those areas where adequate: City facilities are available or will be ;~1 provided by new development (Land Use and Growth Management Element Policy 28). The General Plan also includes a policy to maintain development impact fees at a level sufficient to finance 'the infrastructure required to serve new development projects (Land Use and Growth Mana ement Element Policy 29). g • The City of Petaluma Draft General Plan 2025 includes policies (l) to ensure that the pace of growth does not create spikes that unduly strain City services, (2) to ensure that new ' _ development provides the necessary ;public facilities to support development and (3) to collect~the- r proportionate fair share oflong term infrastructure costs as entitlements are granted. The City of Petaluma has implemented a development impact fee program, most recently revised in 2003. The fees that were adopted in 2003 have not been subsequently revised.. Because infrastructure costs,, public facility construction costs and land. costs have increased since ii the adoption of the. fee program in 2003, the City is considering revisions to the existing fee ro ram. B wa of exam le, the En ineerin News Record-Construction Cost Index (an index p .g y Y P g- g of changes in labor and material costs for construction projects) has increased by 20% since 2003. Sinclair & Associates prepared a draft report dated April 24, 2007, providing , recommendations to update certain fees in the existing program and implementing the policies in the=existing and proposed City of Petaluma General Plans. The draft. report was presented to the Petaluma-City Council on May 21, 2007. The City Council provided direction, to City staff and: ' Sinclair & Associates to modify certain. projects and :assumptions in the report,,, which modifications have been included in this final report (see Appendix K). The City Council also = adopted the 2007=08 Capital Improvement' Program (CI'P) in June, 2007, and t15is final report has ' been updated for consistency with. the adopted CIP. City staff also requested that the report be expanded 'to include revisions to the Library Facilities Impact Fee and the 'Community Center Facilities Impact Fee, in addition to the fees proposed to be revised in the April" 24, 2007 draft report. - r This final report recommends modifications to the ,Public Facilities Impact Fee, the Fire Suppression Facilities Impact Fee, the Law Enforcement. Facilities Impact Fee,. the Aquatic ~ Center Facilities Impact.Fee, the Quimby Act Park Dedication/In-Lieu Fee (Parkland Acquisition fee), "the .Parkland .Development Fee, the. Open Space .Acquisition Fee, the: Library Facilities Impact Fee and the Community Center Facilities `Impact Fee. The City has also adopted separate impact fee programs and connection fe"es for other ' public facilities, which are not the "subject of this 'report. These separate fee programs were 1~k determined by they City to not require modification, or will be studied ~anii proposed to be modified by others.. They include the following. fee programs: Sewer Connection Fee, Water Connection Fee; Storrn Drainage Impact Fee, Traffic Impact Fee, Affordable Housing In-Lieu Fee, Central Petaluma Specific Plan Fee, CPSP In-Lieu: Parking Fee, Commercial Linkage Fee and Public Art Fee. This report. identif es the cost of future public facilities required fo maintain existing service levels and to serve future development projects. The. report calculates the mitigation fees ~1 that will be required to finance the portion of future public facilities attributable to view development projects. THE MITIGATION. FEE ACT ' This report has :been prepared pursuant fo fhe ;State of California's. enabling'Iegislaton for development 'impact. mitigation fees. The authority for establishing, development. impact 1~~. mitigation fees for residential and non-residential development projects is found. in the Mitigation Fee Act, also known as AB ~I`600, as codified in the California Government Code beginning with Section 66000: ~ 'The Mitigation Fee Act permits,local agencies to establish and collect a :fee as a condition t of approval of a development project .for the purpose of defraying- the cost' of public facilities. Public. facilities are defined in the statute as public improvements, public services and community . ~ amenities. The fee may include .costs attributable to increased demand ,for public fasilities'by future development. The fee may also include the cost of refurbishing existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or to achieve an adopted level of service' that is consistent with;the General Plan. The. public facilities must be identified in a capital improvement plan, the General Plan, an applica>jle specific plan or other pulilic documents. The fee may not be used to pay for existing deficiencies in public facilities. 2 Under the; Mitigation Fee Act, a local agency .considering an ,action establishing, increasing or imposing afee as a condition of approval of'a development project. must do all of the following: _ f J 1'. Identify the purpose of the fee. 2. Identify the use tb which the fee is to be p.ut. Determine thatahere is ~a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of %~j ;development project upon which the fee is imposed. : ~ 4. Determine that there is a 'reasonable relationship between the need. for the public facility and the: type of development project. upon wheh'the fee is imposed. 5. D.etennine that there 'is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and: C , the cost of the .public facility or portion- of the public facility attributable to the. development upon which the fee is imposed. 1 ' This report provides the: analysis required by the Mitigation Fee Act. Each individual ' .chapter includes a section addressing the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act. and provides the basis for'the five findings required.to adopt and implement the fee referenced in that chapter. 'rl. THE QUIMBY ACT , b Park land dedication requirements for residential subdivisions are authorized: by the Quimby Aet, as codified in the California Government Code beginning with Section 66477. The ~ . Quimby Act authorizes an agency to require the dedication -of a minimum of three acres of land. per thousand residents in proposed residential subdivisions; or the payment of an in-lieu fee.. If h' ' m n f• xi tin ark land exceeds a ratio of three acres. er thousand residents the. a enc t ea ou to e. s gp p g y may require the" dedication of the .ratio of existing park land per thousand residents; up to a maximum of five acres per one: thousand future residents.. The City of.Petaluma has an existing inventory of parkland that exceeds fve• acres per .thou"sand residents: Therefore, this report ~r calculates the pafk dedication in-lieu fee at five, acres;per thousand population. _ ~If a proposed- residential subdivision is 1'essatlan =f fty `parcels, the agency can only require the payment of~an in-lieu fee (and`not the dedication of land). , . The land and' ..fees may only be used: for .developing -new parks or rehabilitating existing ~i neighborhood parks, community parks or recreational. facilities. The agency must devel"op a ' schedule specifying how, when- and where rt. will use the: land or fees to develop park or recreational facilities. ~i 3 The Quimby Act requirements apply only' to the Park Dedication _and In-Lieu Fee discussed in Chapter VII. a p p p q p p r future In Cha ter VIII- a se arate fee for ark land ac uisition is' " ro os.ed fo development proj;ects`tfiat are not subject°to the°Quimby Act. , - ~ /4~~. ~ ~ 1~ i • ~ 4 ~ i, II:. POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT ANALYSIS ~I' Development impact fees may be imposed on future residential and non-residential ~i ~ development projects to pay a proportionate amount of the cost of public facilities, based on the ' ' . increased demand for those public facilities resulting from those future development projects. l ~ To determine the proportionate amount of the future public facility costs that are attributable to the increased demand by future development; mitigation fee studies compare the . demand, for services and facilities by the existing residential and non-residential development to th'e-demand for services by future'residential and non-residential development, through build-out of the General Plan. Demand for services by residential development is typically measured. by r~ population statistics. Demand for services by non-residential. development is typically measured } ~ bythe number. of employeesper 1,000. square feet ofnon-residential development. In measuring the demand for services by non-residential., developments, employees tend to" have a lesser impact on public facilities than residents. This: analysis and report utilizes the ` 1~ ~ number of hours a fulltime employee is present in the City- of Petal"uma (40 hours) divided by the nuiiber of hours in a week (168 hours)' as the ratio of the impact one employee may have on ' ~ public facilities, as compared to one .resident. Thus, for purposes of this analysis, one employee is c.oisidered to have the impact of .24 residents (40/168). This is known as an '"employee resident equivalent." 1 ~ The analysis uses the existing population of 57,085 persons, and the build-out population of 72,707 persons as the: basis for allocating the cost of public facilities that serve existing and ~i futurexesidential development:. The analysis uses the existing number of employees of 33,160; and the build-out number of employees of 46,540 as the 'basis for allocating the cost of public facilities that serve existing and:fu_turevon-residential development. Table II-I presents the combined existing and future population and "ernployee:resi'dent: equivalents''. It is used for the allocation ofthe proportionate share of the cost of~future~public facilities that will serve both the existing ,population 'and ~ future development. For the public- facilities that are attributable ~to both the. existing population .and future development, 77:5% of the cost sassgned to existing population and 22.5.% is-assigned to future development. ' J I~! 5 . Table I'I-1: Po ulation, em to ,ees: and xesdent e uivalents. Existing Future Build-out develo went 2025 Residents . 5T;085 1,5,622- 72,707 "Employ"ee resident equivalents" (33,1.:60 x .24) (13,380 x .24,) (4'6,540 x .24) em to ees multi' 'lied b :.24 ~ ~ 7,958 3,211 1.1,170 Total "resident e uivalents" 65,043 ' 18,'833' 83,877 :Percent "resident 'e_ uivalenfs" 77.5°l0 ~ 22.5% 100% Source:. City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 Draft Environmental Impact Report; J ' Some. public facilities included in this .report have been determined to be wholly attributable, to future residential and non-"residential developments. .For :these public. facilities, , I00% of the. cost is assigned ;to future development. These. facilities are identified in subsequent ' chapters:and inthe:appendices to this report. - r LAND USE AND:FEE:CATEGORIES The. Mitigation Fee Act requires the City ;to determine -that there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public~:facil~ty :and the type of development project upon _ which the fee is imposed. The need `for public facilities is generated by the number of,residents F and the number of employees (or "resident equiualents") in each land use, category.' Fees, are based. on the number of residents per household for residential developments, and the number~of employees per :1,000 square.feet for non-residential developments, ~ The types of.development are defned'6y the-G'eneral.Plan. General P..lan data::is available ' for the future development of single family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, office and industrial land uses in Petaluma. Therefore, fees. are proposed for each of these land ` use categories. Sub-categories of these land uses may be defined in resolutions adopting tfie fees. Table II-2 presents the number of residents, employees and. employee resident equivalents for these ° land: use categories. This information is used in. calculating fees in subsequent chapters in this report. 1~. ' 1 r~ 4 6 I . 4 I 1 ~ Table ll-2: Persons er househol'd.anii resident,~e. uivalents er~ 1.,000 ~s uare feet Persons per' Employees,/ Resident eguivalerits/ household 1,000 s" uare feet -1;000 s . ft, (em to ,ees':x .24 z Sin ~lefam~il residential '.2.9]5 Multfamil residential 1.963 Commercial 2.3 :5.52 Office 2.2 .528 ~l Industrial 1.4 :336 " '~f Source: City of Petaluma The projects, estimated project costs, amount attributable to the development impact fee program and the fees for all. land use categories are presented in the following sections of this report. Proposed findings pursuant to the Mitigation.Fee Act are also provided. ~~f • ~ ~ . ~I • " " ~I `~r .III. PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FEE:. I~; The City .has identified seven public facility projects that .are necessary to maintain the 1 current level of service and to pro~;ide "services to future :development projects. Tle projects include: ¦ Relocate: and construct City Hall . t ¦ Construct'corporation yard ` ¦ Install VOID and Wi-Fi communication systems ' Additional administrative pool vehicles~to maintain,"existing service levels ¦ Additional Public Works general mantenance~vehicles to.rnaintain existing_service ~~levels ¦ Additional Parks general maintenance vehicles to maintain existing service levels ¦ Additional`technology (computers) to maintain existing ervice levelsc The first three projects benefit existing and future- populations; accordingl"y;.based on the , data .in Table II-l 22'.5% of those ro'ects' :costs are assi ned to the ~develo meet im -act fee P J g P P o program. The last four projects are to maintain existing service levels, and include only the costs that are solely attributable to future development projects;: accordingly, I00% of those projects' , costs are assigned to the development impact fee program. In addition to project costs, •the City -will. incur ;costs to administer the mitigation fee ~ program and `to prepare the annual reports and the five-year compliance analyses 'and reports required by the 1Vltigat~on,Fee Act. The comp.li'arice requirements are identified in .Chapter XIV of this report. The• City has estimated that.. theadministrative and compliance costs will be approximately five percent of the program costs. This percentage is -included in. the total fee program costs; In total; $.11,299,226 is attributable 'to future development and the Public: Facilities Impact Fee. Details on these projects and costs.are identified in Appendix A ofthis report. CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENT EQUIVALENT The total cost of public facility improvements apportioned to future development projects is $1 ],299,226. The total number gf future' "resident equivalents," (residents plus employee ~ ` resident equivalents) was, determined "to~ be 18,833 (Table II-l). Di~yiding the total cost'by the total resident equivalents results in a cost per resident equivalent of`$600; as presented in Table III- ] . . r~, 8 - Tab1e~III-1: Publiofacili cost er°resi~dent e uivalent Future develo merit ~~I . 'j' Amount a ortoned to future develo merit A $11,299,226 . Resident;e= uivalents.from--future :develo merit B 18;833 Amount er resident e uivalent..A divided b B $ 600 ' ~ Source:. City of Petaluma ~ . ^CALCULATION OF THE FEE•:PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT ' ~r ~ The mitigation fee wll'be'imposed on each residential unit. To calculate the fee per unit,.. the cost- per'resident equivalent ($600) is multiplied by the average number of residents per unit. The City'-s existing impact fee program established an average of 2.915_residents per single. family unit in ,Petaluma, and- an,'average of 1.963 residents,~pe'r .multifamily unit. Table III=2 calculates the fee per residential unit by multiplying the residents per unit (from'Table II-2) by the ~ cost per=residerit equivalent ($600). Table IIh2: Public facili fee er residential unit ' Y Cost per' Reside_nts er unit resident e uivalent Fee er unit Sin le famil unit 2.915 x$600 $1,749 .Multi-famil unit 1.963 $600 $'1,178' Source: City of Petaluma CALCULATION OF THE.FEE PER 1-,000 SQUAREFEET OF BUILDING SPACE ' ~ _ Table III-3 calculates the fee per ],000 square .feet for future commercial, office and industrial developments by multiplying the number of resident equivalents per 1,000 square feet I of buildngapace (from Table II=2).by the cost per resident equivalent ($600). Table III-3:: Publre facili . fee' er 1,000~s uare.feet Res~dent•e uivalents/:1,000 Cost: er.resident Fee° er1,000square q P P s uare fe_ et; ~ e uivalent feet Commercial .552'' $600 $33.1 Office .528 $600 $317 Industrial - ~ 336 $600 $202 Source: City of Petaluma ' 9 I~ . AB 1600 NEXUS. The Mitigation :Fee :Act (AB 1"600)' requires a local agency sonsrdermg an action establishin increaSin or im osin a fee to address the ~followin rocedurat re uirements. g, g P g g P q 1.. Identify the:,purpose of the fee. ~ - The purpose of the public facility fee; is :to provide funding to achieve ~•th'e City's goal of ~ , :maintaining exsting;service levels and to provide': adequate public facilities to meet 'the broad range of'needs of Petaluma re§iderits.and employees, as established in the City of Petaluma General Plan. , . ,r. 2. Ident fy the: user to which the fee is ~to lie: put: , Th e .proceeds, from the fees will be~ used to 'construct community and. public service :facility improvements as specifed in this report (A:ppendix A) arid. in other documents. ~ referenced' b this re ort, includin the Ci of Petaluma General Plan. and the Cit of Y p g tY _ _ Y Petaluma Capital Improvement Program. The public -facility improvements to be constructed are':a:City Hall, ~a corporation yard'and communications' systems: In addition, the proceeds will be used to, purchase vehicles and equipment. directly related to maintaining existing levels of service to future development projects. 3. The'relatonship. between the fee's use and the type, of development project on which the fee is imposed. ' ~ The fee `will be applied to residential, commercial, office a~id.:ndustral development J~,~ projects; Residential, commercial, off ce "and'nd`ustrial developments v~%ill generate new demands for public; facilities and services. The- public facility improvements` constructed 1 i and. the vehicle"s .and equipment purchased with the proceeds of'the fee -will address and mitigate the additional. impacts -and demands created by 'these residential and non- residential. developmerit,projects. ~ 4. The relationship belaveen the. need for the community facility and the type of development ~ ~ project on which the fee is imposed. The fee will be applied to.single~family residential, multifamily residential; commercial, office and industrial development projects. These types of development projects generate ' new residents and' new~'employees in the community. The'City Hall' will House the City staff .members who provide direct City services to residents sand employees. The 10 . corporation yard will house Public Works department. staff members who, maintain City streets, drainage systems, and other public faclities~that erve developmeilt:projects. The ntar ar for the trans ortation and services rovided b Ci vehicles and egmpme e necess y p p y ty staff to development projects. The proceeds from the fee will be used to address these . i public facility needs ofthe new residents and.employees. 5: The relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the community facility or r portion of the community facility attributable to the development on which the fee is ~ imposed. The .fee has been calculated by apportioning the. average cost of public facility iinprovements to the number of residents generated by each type of new residential unit, and to the resident equivalent of each employee generated. by commercial, office and industrial development projects land uses. For projects that serve existing and future development projects, the cost has been allocated' proportionately. COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEES . The proposed fees are based on the currently identified public facilities required to serve ' fufure.de`velopment projects, updated cost estimates, updated General Plan build-out statistics and . the methodology described iil, this report. These factors will- differ from the 2003 fee study, resulting in differences in the fees. Table III-4 presents the existing fees (based on the 2003 study) and the proposed fees. Table III-4c Existm and ro osed ublic facih fees Existing fee Unit of 2003 Pro osed fee Measurement Sin ]e famil residential $543 $1,749 Unit Mult~fami~L residential $543 .$1,178 Unit ti~. Corriinerc'allod in $ 64 n/a Unit Business uses $259 n/a 1,0:00 s uare feet ~1 Commercial Business use fee $ 331 1,000 s uare feet Office Business use fee $ 317 1,000 s uare feet Industrial Business use fee $.202 1,000 s uare feet Source City of Petaluma 11 ! IV. FIRE SiTPPRESSION FACILITIES.-IMPACT _FEE ~ The City has identified five fire suppression facility projects that are necessary to maintain the current- level of service and to provide services to future development projects. The r projects:include: ~ ¦ Relocate and construct Station #1 ¦ Refur-bish Station #2 and Station #3 ¦ Laddertruck, ¦ ALS ambulance ¦ Additional firefighter protective equipment to maintain existing service levels The first"four projects benefit existing. and future populations; accordingly; based on the data in Table II-1, 22.5% of those projects' costs; are assigned to the development: impact fee program. The last:project is to maintain the existing service level and includes only the costs that are solely attributable to future development projects; accordingly, 100%~ of that project's cost is assigned to the. development impact fee. program. In :addition to project costs, the City will incur costs to administer the mitigation ,fee program arid to prepare the annual reports and the five-year compliance analyses and reports required by the 'Mitigati'on Fee Act. The compliance requirements are identifed in. Ghapter:XIV , of this .report. The City has estimated that the administrative and compliance costs will be approximately five percent of the program. costs: This percentage is included in the total fee ro ram costs. P g , In total, $4;358,676 is attributable to future development and the Fire Suppression i Facilities Impact Fee. Details on these projects and .costs are identifed in Appendix B of this report. 1 1 CALCULATION OF THE FEE.PER RESIDENT,EOLJIVALENT 'The total cost of fire suppression facility improvements ,apportioned to future development projects is $4,358,676. The total number of future "resident equivalents" (residents. lus em to ee resident e uivalents was determined to b p p y q ) e 18,833 "(Table II-1). Dividing.. the total cost by the total resident equivalents results m a cost per resident equivalent of $231, as presented in Table IV-1. 12 1 Table IV-1: Fire. su ression facili cost er resident e uivalent Future develo 'menf L~, Amount a ortroned to future develo ment A $4,358,676 Resident e uivalents from,future'develo ment B 18,833 .Amount er~resident e uivalent. A divided b B $ 231 'Source: City ofPetaluma CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT . The mitigation fee will be imposed on each residential unit. To calculate the fee per unit, the cost per resident equivalent ($23:1) is multiplied by the average number of residents per unit. 'The City's existing impact fee program established an average' of 2.91 S residents per, single 'family unit in Petaluma, and an average of 1.963 residents per multifamily. unit. Table IV=2 y calculates the fee per residential unit by multiplying the residents per unit (from Table Il-2) by the cost er resident e uivalent $231 . P q ) Table IV-2: Fire su ression facilit fee er residential unit Cost-per Residents er unit resident e uivalent Fee er unit_ Sin le fami'1. unit 2.9]5 $231 $673 Multi-famil unit 1.963 $231 _$453 Source: City of Petaluma CALCULATION OF THE F.EE PER 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING SPACE ~ Table IV-3 calculates the fee per 1,000 square feet for future commercial, office. and industrial developments by multiplying the number of resident equivalents per 1,000 square feet ~ of building space (from Table II-2) by the cost per resident equivalent ($231). ~ Table IV-3: Fire su ressionfacili fee _er, 1,000 s uare feet Resident equivalents/1,000 Cost per resident Fee ,per 1,000 square s uare feet - e uivalent feet Commercial :552 $231 $128 Office :528 $231 $122 ' .Industrial .336 $23] $ 78 Source:. City of Petaluma 13 AB 1600 NEXUS The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) requires a local agency considering an action F ~ . establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to addressthe following procedural,requireinents. ' 1. Identify the purpose of the fee. The purpose ofthe fire suppression facility fee is to provide funding to achieve the City's goal of maintaining service levels, and to, provide adequate emergency service facilities and equipmentao meet the broad range of needs of Petaluma residents:and employees, as established in the City of Petaluma General Plan. 2. Identafy-the- use to which`the fee is to be..put. ' The proceeds from the fees will be used to construct fire. suppression facility improvements as specified in this. report {Appendix B) and in other documents referenced " ' by this report, including the City of Petaluma General Plan ,and the City of Petaluma Capital Improvement Program. A new fire station will be constructed, and' two existing fire station"s~ will be refurbished. In addition; the °proceeds will be used fo purchase a ~.1. ladder truck, an ALS ambulance and' frefighter protective equipment, all of which .are directly related to the provision of services and. maintenance of existing service. levels to '~s future development. projects. - ~ . 3. The relationship between the fee's use .and the type of development project on which the - fee is'imposed. The fee. 'will be applied to residential, commercial, office and industrial .development: - projects. Residential development and commercial, office and industrial developments will generate new demands for fire suppression and emergency services. The fire .facility improvements constructed and the vehicles acid equipment purchased with the proceeds ofthe fee will address and mitigate the additional impacts and demands created by these residential and non-residential development projects. - 4. .The relationship between the need for the community_facility and the type of°development ' project on which the fee is imposed. ~i The fee will be applied to single family residential, multifamily residential; commercial, office and industrial development projects. These types of development. projects generate .new residents and n'ew employees in the community. The fire station construction and 14 "renovation projects will provide. facilities to.house fre emergency service personnel who provide direct City services to residents and employees. The vehicles and equipment are necessa for the transportation and services :provided 6y emergency responders, and to ry maintain the General- Plan standard of ]firefighter/1,000 additional. residents. The proceeds from the fee: will be: used to address the~fire suppression and emergency cervices demands ofthe new residents and employees., 5. .The relationship between the amount of the fee aril the cost of the- community facility or portion of the community facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee has been calculated'by apportioning the average cost of fire suppression facility improvements to the number of residents generated by:each type of new residential unit, and to the "resident equivalent" of each employee generated by commercial, office and ~ industrial develo ment ro'ects ]and uses. For ro'ects .that serve existing and future P p J P J development projects, the cost has been allocated proportionately. COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND'PROPOSED FEES The proposed fees are based on the currently identified fire suppression facilities required. l:'s to aerve 'future development projects; updated cost estimates, updated General ,Plan build-out . ~r statistics and .the methodology described in this report. These, factors will differ from. the. 2003 fee study,.. resulting in differences in the fees. Table IV-4 presents the existing fees (based on the 2003 study.) and the proposed fees. k~, . :~f - 15 ' f. T 1 ab e 1V-4: Existm .and ro osed fire su ress~on.facih fees :Existing fee Unit of r-3 ' -2003 Pro osed fee Measurement Sin le famil residentia_1 $ 349 ~ $673 Unit Multifamil''°re"sidential ~ $ 538 $453., Unit ' S'ngle family Mobile home $ ' 349 residential fe.'e. ~ Unit Multifamily Senior housin" $ 594 residential, fee Unit .Multifamily residential: fee Unit Assisted livin"" $l',139 ~ 'Multifamily' Commercial lod in $ 528 residential fee ~ Unit Retail $ 152 'Commercial. fee ],0.00's uare feet Commercial Refail,fee ~ $`128' -1.,000' s uare feet r- , Office 27 $122` 1,000 s uare feet -4 Industrial $ 51 $ 78 1,000 s uare feet Source: City of Petal"uma ~ f ' j. . _ . e • ~1 ~~i 1~ . i~, V. LAW ENFORCEMENT' FACILITIES IMPAG:T FEE 1 The City has identifed four law enforcement facility projects that are necessary to maintain the current level of service and to provide services to future development projects. The projects include: • Construct a new Police Station ~ ~ Construct two communication towers Additional officer equipment to maintain existing service levels Additional police vehicles to maintain existing ser-vice levels ~ The first two ro'ects benefit existin and future populations; accordingly, based on the P J g data, m Table IL-1, 22.5% of those projects' costs are assigned to the development impact fee program. The last two projects are to maintain existing service levels and include only the costs that are solely attributable to future populations; accordingly, I00% of those projects' cost is assigned ao the development impact fee program. In addition to project .costs, the City will incur costs to administer the mitigation fee ~ program and to prepare the annual reports and the five year compliance analyses and reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The compliance requirements are identified in Chapter XIV " of this report. The City has estimated that the administrative and compliance costs will be approximately five percent of the program costs. 'This percentage is included in the total. fee program costs. ' In total, $7,873,325 is attributable to future development and the Law .Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee. Details on these projects and costs are identified in Appendix C of this report. .CALCULATION OF THE-FEE PER RESIDENT EQUIVALENT The total. cost of law enforcement. facility improvements apportioned to future development projects is $7,873;325.., The total number of'fiifure "resident equivalents" (residents plus empl'gyee resident equivalents) was determined to be-18;833 (Table II-1). Dividing the-total cost by the total resident equivalents results in a cost per- resident equivalent of $418, as presented -1 . m Table V 17 ' . Table V-1:Law enforcement facilit cost er resident e uvaleri't. Future develo ment Amount a ortioned to.future develo meet A $7;873,325 Resident e uivalents from future develo ment B 18,833 Amount er residence uivalent A divided b B $ 4a 8 Source: City of Petaluma CALCULATION OF'TI IE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT _ The mitigation fee will be imposed on each residential unit. To calculate the fee per unit, - the cost per resident equivalent ($418) is .multiplied. by the average number of residents per unit. ` The City's existing impact fee program established an average of 2.915 residents per single family unit in Petaluma, and an average of 1.963 residents per multifamily uriit. Table V-2 calculates the fee per residential unitby multiplyingthe°"residents per unit (from Table II 2) by the coscper resident equivalent'.($418). r~' Table V-2: Law enforcement facih fee er residential' unit.. Cost. per Residents er unit., resident~e uivalent Fee er unit Sin le faml uni"t_ - - 2915 $418 ~ $1,21~8~ Multi-famil unit 1.96.3 $418 ~ $ 821 Source: City of Petaluma CALCULATION.. OF THE FEE PER 1,00.0 SQLJARE:FEET OF BUILDING SPACE 'Table V-3 calculates the fee .per 1,000 square :feet for future coinmereial, office and industrial developments by multiplying the number of resident equivalents per 1;_000 square feet of building space (from Table II-2) by 'the cost°per resident equivalent ($4.I~8). Table V-3: Law enforcement facilit fee er 1,000 s uare feet Resident equivalents/.1,600 Cost per resident Fee per 1_.;000 square s uare feet e uivalent ~ feet Commercial .552 $41:'8 $231 Offce .528 $4l 8 $221 ' Industrial .336 $418 $140 Source: City of Petaluma l8 + v AB 1600 NEXUS The Mitigation, Fee Act (AB 1600:)' requires a local agency ~ cons~denng an action establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to ad'dress'the following procedural requirements. 1. Identi -the ur ose o the ee. .fY P p .f f The purpose of the .law .enforcement facility fee is to provide funding to achieve the ~ City's goal of mairifaining service .levels and to provide: adequate emergency service ' facilities and equipment. to meet the broad range of needs of Petaluma residents and employees, as established in t11e City of Petaluma General Plan. 2. Idenf~ the use to which the fee is to be put. The proceeds from the fees will be used to construct police. facility improvements as specified in this report (Appendix C) and in other' documents referenced by this report,. ~ includin the Ci of Petaluma General Plan and the Ci of Petaluma Caital g h' P lrriprovement Program.. A new police station .and two communications towers will be constructed. In addition„ the proceeds will be used to purchase equipment and vehicles for new off cers, ~to maintain the existing level of service: ~1 . 3. The relationship :between the fee's use and the type of development project on which ..the fee is imposed. The fee will be applied to residential, commercial, office and industrial development projects. Residential development and commercial, office and industrial developments will generate ,new demands for police and .emergency services. The police fac~lrty improvements constructed and the vehicles and equipment purchased with the proceeds of he fee will address .and mitigate the additional impacts and demands created.. by these residential and non-residential development projects: 4. The relationship between The need for the .community facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The ;fee will be applied to single family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, office and industrial development pro~eets. These types. of development projects generate. new residents and new employees m the'community. The police station construction will provide a facility for law enforcement personnel. who provide direct City services to residents and em ' loyees. The vehicles and' e ui ment are necessary for the P q P - 1~ transportation. and services provided by emergency responders :required tomeet the General:Plan standard of 1.4 officers/1,000 population. The proceeds:from the fee will be used to address the olice and.,emer enc services demands of the new :residents and P g Y employees. - I~, 5. The relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the community facility or portion of the -community facility ,attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.. . ~ . The fee ,has been calculated by apportioning ,the average cost of law enforcement facility improvements to the number of residents ;generated by each type• of'new residential unit, ' , ' and to the "resident equivalent" of each employee generated by commercial, office and industrial development projects 'land .uses.. For projects that serve existing and. future development projects, the cost has been, allocated proportionately.. COMPARISON OF EXISTING.AND PROPOSED FEES .The proposed fees are based, on the currently identified law enforcement :facilities required to serve future. development projects, updated cost estimates; updated General. Plan _ r- build'-out-statistics and~the methodology described. in this report. These: factors will differ fro"m r~,, the ~~2003 fee study, resulting in differences in the fees. _ Table V-4 presents. the existing fees (based on'fhe 2003 study) and the proposed fees. ~ . ' . 20 . ~ ' _ Table V-4': Existin and ro osedaaw enforcement-~faclit fees Existing fee Unit of 2003 Pro osed _fee Measurement `.Sin 'le'famil ;`,residential $296 $1,218 Unit M~ult~farriil residential ~ $431 . ~ 821 Unit Single family Mob~ile~h~ome . ~ $l37 ~ residential fee ~ Unit 1Vlultifamily .Senior housi~n ~ ~ $43.1 residential fee Unit. _ _ _ Multifamily Assisted-livin $ 4& ~ residential fee Unit _ Multifamily Commercial lod in $302 ~ residential fee Unit _ ' Retail`. $719 Commercial fee 1,000 s uare feet ' ,r' - ~Comtnercial~ ~ Retail fee $231 1,000 s uare feet Office. $ 36 $221 1,0.00 s uare feet Industri`al . $ 50 $1:40 1,Q,00 "s uare feet Source City: of Petaluma , t, _ - 21 '~R ~I. VL AQUATIC CENTER FACILITIES IMPACT'FEE, The City has identified a single aquatic project 'that is necessary to, maintain the current ~1. level,'of service~arid to provide services°to future,odevelopment projects T11e~:project:s an aquatic ' complex with a'S0 me_.ter 1'ap pool and a 4;500 square footxecreation pool The: aquatic project will benefit:exist[ng-and future populations; accordingly,; based on the . • -~-x data.'in Table II-1;.22.5%,of the project.'s-cost i"s,assign_ed;to the. development impact fee program. In addition to project costs, the City ~ will incur costs to administer the'- mitigation :fee program' arid to prepare, the annual .rep.orts and the 'five-year compliance analyses and; reports required by the :Mitigation Fee Act. The`` compliance. requirements are identified in Chapter XIV of this report:. The City has estimated that: 'the administrative and compliance costs "will be approximately -fve percent of :the program costs. This percentage is 'included in "the total fee i program costs. In total, :$2,232;799 is attributable to fufure~ development and the Aquatic Center Facilities Impact Fee. : -Details on this project and: the project costs are identified in Appendix D _ of this report. ~ . CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENT EQUIVALENT The total. cost ;of the aquatic center. facility improvements. apportioned to future. , p p ~ ' The total number of future "resident;-equivalents" (residents develo ment ro'ects ~s $2 232 799. plus employee resident equivalents) was determined tp be 18;833 (Table II-r), Dividing the total cost by the=total-resident equivalents results irra cost per resident equivalentof $11'9;, as presented in Table VI-1. T -l : A uatic center facilities cost er resident e, uvalent . ~ • able V•I Future: develo rnent .Amount a ortioned to future develo ment A $2,232;799 • Resident e `uvalents from future develo ment B 18;833' ' Amount er resident. e uivalerit (A divided b B' 1 ]9• ,~1 Source: City of P-etaluma CALCULATION OF THE FEE'PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT The mitigation fee: will be imposed on each .:residential unit. To calculate :the, fee per unit, _ the cost per resident_ equivalent ($119) is multiplied by the average number ofresidents per unit. The City's existing impact fee program establishes and utilizes an average of`-2.915 residents per 22 ~_r single family unit in Petaluma, and an average of 1':963 residents per multifamily unit. Table VI-2 ealculatess~tle~ fee per residential unit by multiplying,the residents per unit (from Table II-2) by the cosf per resident equivalent ($11.9). Table VI-2: A uatic center facilities_fee° ~ er residential unit ~ Cost,per Residents er unit resident e uivalent. Fee er unit- Sin 1'e famil unit 2.915 $119 $347 Multi=famil unit 1.963 $119 $234 Source: 'City of Petaluma CALCiJLATION OF THE FEE. PER1,000 SQUARE FEET OF BUILDING SPACE Table VI-3 calculates the fee per 1,000 square feet for future commercial, office and industrial developments by multiplying the number of resident equivalents per 1,000 square feet ofbuilding space (from Table II-2) by the cost per resident equivalent ($119). r' Table VI-3:,A uatic center facilities fee er .1,000 s uare feet Resident equivalents/1,000 Cost per resident Fee per 1,000 square s uare feet e uivalent feet :Commercial .552 $119 $66 Office. .52$ $119 $63 ~ Industrial .336 $.119 $40 Source: Gity of Petaluma AB 7 600 NEXUS The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) requires a local agency considering an action establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to address the following procedural requirements.. ~ `1 Ideriti the "ur' ose o the ee. ' . .>`1' P P .f f The purpose of the aquatc'facilities~feeis fo provide funding to achieve the: City's goal of mainfaii~ing service levels and to provide adequate recreational services for Petaluma residents and .employees, as established in the .City `of Petaluma General `Plan. 2.: Ident~ the use to which the fee. is to be put: The proceeds from the fees will be used to construct aquatic center facilities as specified h cumerits r ~ renced b -this re ort includin m this report (Appendix D) and m of er do efe y p _ g . 23 i` 1 the City ~of Petaluma General Plan an'd the City of Petaluma Capital ,Improvement Program.. , 3. The relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The fee:.will be applied to residential,. commercial, office and industrial development ~y projects. New residents :in residential developments will place an additional demand on recreational and aquatic center facilities. Employees in new commercial,.. office and ;industrial: developments will :also generate new demands for recreational_ and aquatic center facilities at, lunchtime and' before and after work. The aquatic center facility improvements constructed with the proceeds' of the fee will address and': mitigate the j additional impacts 'and demands created by these. residential and non-residential development: projects. 4. The relationship between the need for the community facility and the: type of development I projeetotz which the fee is imposed.. The fee will be .applied to singl"e family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, • office and industrial development projects. These.types of development'projects generate new ,residents, and new employees in the community. The aquatic center facilities will serve fhe needs' of new residents andemployees in new non-residential development - projects. 5. The relationshi p between the amount of the, fee and the cost of the community facility or portion of the .community facility ath<ibutable to the development on which the fee is I i imposed. The fee has been calculated by :apportioning the average cost of aquatic center facilities improvements to the number of residents generated by each type. of;new residential unit, and to the "resident equivalent" of each employee generated' by commercial, office and industrial development;projects land uses. Since the project will -serve existing,and future development projects,the-cost has been allocated proportionately. ' 24 ' COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEES The proposed fees are based 'on the currently identified aquatics facility required to serve future development projects, updated cost estimates, updated General Plan build-out statistics and the methodology described iri this report. These factors will differ from the 2003 .fee study, .resulting in differences in the fees. Table VI-4 presents the existing fees (based on the 2003. study) and the proposed fees. ~1~ Table VI-4: Exstin and ro osed a uatic facilities fees ' Existing fee Unit of 2003 Pro `osed fee Measurement ' Sin le famil residential $]54 $ 347 Unit Single family Sin le;famil -.attached $131 residential fee Unit Multifamil residential $7 04 234 Unit Single family 1Vtobile;home $ 84 residential fee ~ Unit Sin le-occu anc unit $ 53 n/a Unit Commercial n/a $ ~66 1,000 s ware feet. Y Office n/a $ 63 1,000 s uare feet. Industrial n/a $ 40 1,000 s uare feet .Source: City of Petaluma 25 I~ i VII. QUIIVIBY ACT PARK LAND ACQUISITION IN-LIEU FEE ~V The Quimby Act authorizes the ;dedication of land or a payment of ari in=lieu fee for five acres of park land per one thousand residents, if the public ,agency has an existing inventory of at least $~e acres of park land. The City of Petaluma has an existing inventory m„excess of S acres of parkland. per thousand. residents (source: Draft General Plari 2025, July 2006). This chapter . , - calculates the park dedication in-lieu fee based on f ve acres per thousand;residents.. ~ CALCULATION .OF THE ACREA'GE'. REQUIRED PER RESIDENTIAL. iJNIT The City's. standard of five acres per thousand residents is equal to _005 acres ,per resident (five acres divided by 1,000-residents). The acreage required per residential unit is calculated by multiplying .the .005 acres per ' resident by the: number of residents per unit. The City',s existing impact fee program established an average of 2.915. residents per single family unit in Petaluma, and an .average of 1.963 residents per multifamily unit.., Table VII-1 calculates the :amount of acreage required for single ` family units and multifamily .units under the .five-acre standard by multiplying the acres per resident by the residents per unit for each type, of residential unit. . . Table VII-1;: Acrea e re uired for each, e of residential unit Acres er resident Residents er unit Acres.re wired er unit Sin le famil, unit 0.005. 2.915 0.0146 Multi-faml unit 0.005 1.963 0.0098 Source: City of Petalura i CALCULATION OF THE EEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT The fee is based on the.;amount of land required to meet the applicable park land standard .and the cost of acquiring suitable, park land.. The average cost of'land suitable: forpark purposes in the City of Petaluma is, estimated at $395,889 per acre (Appendix E). This estimate is, based on twenty=five vacant property land,sales during the past two calendar'years. In addition to the land cost, the City will incur costs to adrimirister :the fee program and to _ prepare the compliance analyses and reports required by the Quimby ,Act. The compliance 'requirements are identified 'in Chapter XIV of this report. The City has estimated that the: administration and compliance costs will. be approximately five percent of the, program costs. The total cost per acre„ including the administrative cost, is $41.5;683. ~26° , - , - ~ ~ Table VII-2` calculates the fee per residential unit ~by ~niultiplying the ~required,~ acres -per unit (from Table VII-1) by $415;6:83 per acre. ' Table VII-2: Park land ac uisition fee er residential unit: Required acres per unit Cost er acre -Fee erresidenti'al unit Sin le famil unit .0:0146 $415,683 $6,069 ~F Multi-famil unit 0.0098_ $415,683 $4,074 (Source: City of Petaluma; ndcdata.com Sinclair & Associates). ~UIIVIBY ACT REQUIREMENTS The Quimby Act ..requires a local agency to address the ~ following procedural requirements:. 1 Adopt a general ,plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and ~ recreation facilities The City of Petaluma Draft:. General Plan 2025 establishes a standard of five acres of park l'and' for each one thousand. residents. 2. Adopf an ordinance req,uirng the dedication of land or the imposition of a requirement . for the payment of a fee' in 'lieu of the dedication' of land,, or'a combination, of both.:The ordinance must include definite standards for determining: the proportion of a subdivision to ;be dedicated and the amount of the in-lieu fee. The amount of land to be dedicated and the fee must be based upon the density of each residential type. It will be necessary for the City to revise its ena6ling::Quimby Act ordinance to establish th_e five acre standard (currently at 3.64 acres/1,000. population) for land dedications, and in-lieu fees. 3_ The amount :and location of 'land to be dedicated' or the fees to be paid -must bear a reasonable relationship to the 'use of the park arid'recreational facilities by he future r _ .f The CiQnof Petaluma has established-a;standard;le~el of service of'five acres of ark land ty - - _ p for ea_ ch one thousand residents. Thi's standard is based upon the existing park land I~~. available to and accessed. 6y Petaluma residents.. The in-lieu fee is also calculated to maintainthis standard for future residents.. ' I . 27 . The Quimby .Act~:'in-lieu .fee will be applied to. residential subdivisions of Tess than ;f fty parcels or units: The Quimby Act land dedication requirements may be applied :only to ` subdivisions of fi. or more arcels. fty P . COMPARISON _OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEES The proposed fees are based „on the five. acre/:1,000 population ,standard, the current. estimate of land. values; and the methodology described in this report. These factors will differ _ from ahe 2003 .fee study,,, resulting in differences in the fees. .Table VII-3' presents. the existing fees (based oii the 2003 study) and the proposed'fees. Table VII-3: Existn -and ro. "'osed ark' ac ~uisiton,fees Existing fee Unit of 2003 Pro osed fee 1Vleasurement Sin .le famil residential $3,39~7~ ~ _ ~ $6,069 ~ ~ Unit :Single family' Sin le famT -detached $2;90`1 residential fee ~ ~ Unit " `~1Vlultifamil.. residential $2•,288- $4,074 ' - Unit 1Vlanufactured Home l' $1,84'8 n/a Unit ` Sin 1e occu anc units, l $"1, 66 n/a Unit Source: City of:Petaluma Notes: (1) Manufactured .homes and. -single occupancy units may not ,meet the threshold subdivision requirement under the Quimby Act, . . ~ ' • 28 . VIII. PARK LAND ACQUISITION .FEE '(NON-QUIMBY ACT DEVELOPMENT' PROJECTS) Q imby Act land dedication and in-lieu fee ,requirements apply to parcels created by a u major residential subdivision (five or .more parcels). They also apply to parcels created by a ..minor residential subdivision.. (four parcels or less), but only if a building permit is requested within fouryears of the approval of the parcel map. The Quimby Act requirements do not apply to 'existing residential lots, minor subdivisions that do not seek building permits within four- years ofreceivirigparcel map approval, or commercial projects. Residents who will occupy future residential units that are not subject to the Quimby Act `will: nonetheless create demand for park facilities. Similarly, but to a lesser extent, employees wl1o work in future commercial projects will also impact pack facilities (lunch time activity and picric areas,, before and after work activities, sports leagues and other recreational' activities). To address this demand ublic a envies t icall ado t a ark land ac uisition fee under the p g YP Y P P q authority of`the 1vlitigation Fee Act, to collect a proportionate: fee from development projects that are: not subject to the Quimby Act. The: park land acquisition fee for residential development projects that are not subject to the Quirriby Act is proposed to be based on the City's five acre. per thousand residents standard 4_ . . _ for residential units (.005 acres per person). For commercial development projects, the fee is proposed to be based on the "employee-.resident equivalent"; where one employee has. the wine impact as 24 residents. ' CALCULATION OF THE ACREAGE REQUIRED PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT The City's standard of five acres per'thousand residents is equal to .005 acres. per resident (~fveacres divided by 1,000 residents). Thee acreage required per residential unit is calculated by multiplying the .005 acres. per resident by the number of residents per unit: The City`s existing impact fee program established, an average of 2-.9:15 residents per single. family unit in Petaluma, and an average of 1.963 residents per multifamily unit. Table V1-II-1 calculates the amount of acreage. required. for single family units and. multifamily units under the ;fve-acre standard by multiplying the acres per resident by the residents per type of residential unit. ~i'' - 29 Table VIII-1: Acrea ere uired for'eaeh t " e of residential unit Acres er resident Residents er unit. Acres; re uired er unit Sin le famil ~ unit 0.005 ~ 2.91'5 0.0146 Multi-faml unit 0.005 1:963 0.0098 Source: City of Petaluma .CALCULATION .OF THE' FEE' PER RESIDENTIAL-UNIT - The fee is based on the amount of land required to meet the applicable park land standard and the cost of acquiririgsurtable park land: The average cost of land suitable for park .purposes in the. City of Petaluma is estimated at $395;8:89 per acre. (Appendix E). This estimate: i's. based on ' _ he past two calendar years. twen five vacant roe land sales~durm ~ n'- P P _ g In, addition to the land cost, ~th~e Ci- ' will incur costs to administer th~e~ _rnitigation fee ro ram and to re are the annual re ort and the f ve- ear com Nance anal ses .and re orts P g P P P Y P~ Y P required by the .Mitigation Fee Aet. The compliance requirements. are identified in `Chapter XIV of this report. The City has estimated that the administrative and compliance costs will. be approximately five percent of the- program. costs: The total cost per .acre, :including the administrative cost, is $415,683. _ Table VIII'-2 calculates the fee per residential unit'by multiplying the required acres' per unit (from Table VIII-1). by $415,683 per acre.- Table'VIII-2: Park land ac' uisition.fee' er residential unit Required acres per unit Cost er acre Fee er residential unit Sin le Tamil. unit 0.0146' $415.,683 $6,069 Multi-fam'il unit 0.009& ~ $415,683. $4,074 Source: Ci of Petaluma;, ndcdata.com; Sinclair.& Associates ( tY ) CALCULATION OF THE EEE':PER 1':000 SOUARE FEET OF BUILDING SPACE -Table VIII-2 calculated the single family residential unit fee of $6,069:. This is based on 2.9 L5 persons per single family unit. Per person, or per resident equivalent;, the :fee is $2,082 A ($6;069 divided by 22.915 persons per unit). Table VIII-3 calculates bhe fee. per 1.;000 square feet for future commercial, office, and industrial developments by multiplying .the `number of resident equivalents per 1,000 square feet of building space (from Table II-2) :by the cost per resident equivalent ($2,082). . . 30 ' • Table VITI~,3.: Park lapel ac usrtion~~fee. er~1,000 s ware feet Resident equvalents71,0,00 Cost;per resident. Fee per 1,000 square s uare feet ~ e uvalent feet Commercial .552 $2,082 $1,,149 Off ce .528 $2,082 $1,099 Iridustrial .336 $2,082 $ 700 Source: City of Petaluma .4B 1600 NEXUS • The Mitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) requires a local agency considering an action establishing; increasing or imposing a fee to address the following procedural requirements. l . Identify the purpose of the fee. The purpose of the park land acquisition fee is toprovide funding to achieve the City's .goal of maintaining service levels and to provide adequate recreational services for Petaluma residents `and employees, as established in the City of Petaluma General Plan. 2: Ident~ the use to which the,fee is to be put. The proceeds from the fees will be used to acquire .five acres of park land per one thousand :residents and employee- resident equivalents as specified in this report (Appendix E) and °in other documents referenced by this report, including the City of Petaluma General Plan. 3. The relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the .fee is imposed. The fee will be applied to residential, commercial, office and industrial development projects. New residents in residential developments will place an additional demand.on park. and :recreational facilities. Employees in new commercial, office and industrial. developments will also generate new demands for park and recreational facilities at lunchtime and before and after work. The park- land acquired with the proceeds of the fee will address and mitigate-the additional' impacts and demands created by these residential arid:non-resid'ential' development projects. I'~ ~ 31~~ • 4. The relationship between the need for the community facility ands the. type of development project on.which'the fee is imposed: • The fee •will be~ a lied to sin le famil residential, multifamil_ residential, commercial, ~ pP g Y Y . office and industrial development projects.., These•types of development projects generate. new residents and new employees :in "the community.. The park land wll'serve the needs of new"residents and employees in new norr=residential development projects. -,1 5. The relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the community facility or poi°tion of ,tlie community facility attributable ~to the developriient on avhich- the fee is ' imposed: , The fee has been calculated by apportioning the average cost of park land :acquisition to the number of residents generated by each type of new residential unit,., and to the "resident equivalent" of each employee generated by commercial; :office: and industrial development projects-land uses. COMPARISON OF.EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEES" The. City currently imposes a `"dwelling construction fee" of up to $240 "for detached sin le-famil dwellin sand du lexes-that are not otherwise'subject to park impact fees. The"City g ~Y g P doesnotcurrentl im ose'the Park Land Ac uisifion Fee on commercial develo merit ro'ects. Y p q p- p J ' • r 32 I7X. PARK LAND:DEVELOPMENT IMPACT'EEE , City of Petaluma park land development goalsinclude the development of three acres of community parks and two acres of neighborhood parks for each one thousand residents. While. the Quimby Act/In-Lieu Fee and the Park Land Acquisition Fee provide for the acquisition of park land,. the Park Land Development Impact Fee provides for the park improvements one the. communityand"neighborhood parklands. The cost of developing three acres of community parks and two acres of neighborhood parks. for each one thousand residents is identified in Appendix F. . In addition to project :costs, the City will incur costs to administer the mitigation fee program and" to prepare the ;annual report and the five-year compliance analyses and reports ' _ required by the Mitigation Fee.Act. The compliance requirements are identified in Chapter XIV of ,this, report. The City has estimated that the administrafior and compliance costs will be approximately five percent of the program costs. This percentage is included in the total fee program costs.. I_n ,total, $37,458,218 is attributable to future development and the Park Land Development Impact Fee. CALCULATION OF THE FEE'RER RESIDENT EQUIVALENT The total park development cost. attributable to future development. projects is $37;458;218: The total number of future "resident equivalents" (residents plus employee resident equwalents) was determined to lie 18,833 (Table II-1). Dividing the total cost by the total resident equivalents results in a cost per resident equivalent.of $.1,989, as presented in Table 1X-:1. Table IX-1: Park. develo ment cost er resident e uivalent Future develo inert Amounts ortioned to future develo _ment A $37,458;218 ~ . Resident e uivalents from future develo merit ._B ~ 1.8,833 Amount er resident e uivalent:" A divided b,~ .B; _ $ 1,989. Source , Gty'of Petaluma CALCULATION OF THE FEE..P~ER RESIDENTIAL UN:I-T' The. mitigation fee will be imposed on each,res'denfial unit: To calculate the fee per unit; 1~' the cost.per resident equivalent ($1,989) is multiplied by th'e'average number'of residents per unit. , 33 " The City's "existing, impact fee ;program estab"lished, an".,average of 2;915 residents per single famil unit in Petaluma and an y n 1 average of 1..963 residents per multifamily unit. Table IX-2 calculates the fee per reside tia unit by,multiplying the: residents" per unit~(fnoin "Table. lI-2) by the cost per resident equivalent."($1;9,89).- " ~ Table IX-2: Park~develo ~ment=fee'_er residential unit, " Cost per Residents er unit re"silent e trivalent Fee er unit n 'Sin le famil unit ~2.9"1'S '$1;989 $5,798 Multi=fain~l unit 1963 .$1,989, ~ ~ $3,904 Source: City of Petaluma. " ' CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER 1,000 SQUARE` FEET OF BUILDING SPACE Table, IX 3 .calculates. the fee>~per 1,0.00. square; feet for future.; commercaf~, office and industrial developments by multiplying the number of resident "equivalents per 1;000 square feet. ofbutlding°space (from Table I'I-2) by the cost per resident equivalent{$1;989)'. " ~ "~F Table'IX-~: Park~develo ment fee er 7,000. s uare~feet Resident equivalents/1;OOQ Cost per resident: Fee per 1,000 square s uare•feet e trivalent, _ feet Commercial... .552 ~ $7,989' $1,098 Office .528• " $._1,989. $.1,050 Industrial .336 $1;989 $ 668 Source: City of~Pefaluma ~ AB 1600 NEXUS Thee Mitigation.. Fee Act (AB 1.600) requires a local .agency considering an action establishing; increasing orimposing a fee,to address the following~procedural requirements. 1: Identafythe purpose"of~the fee. The "purpose of :the parkland development fee is to provide funding to achieve the City's goal of maintaining service levels and to provide adequate- recreational services for Petaluma residents and employees, as established in the"City, of Petaluma General Plan. r '~i 34 - ~ 2. Ident~ th'e use to which the feeisao be.put. 'The proceeds from the fees will' be used` to construct improvements on three acres of communit ark land. and two acres of neighborhood- park land for each additional one- Yp thousand residents and employee resident equivalents, as specified in this report (Appendix F) and in other documents referenced by this report, including the City of Petaluma General Plan and the City of Petaluma Capital Improvement Program. 3. The .relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. The fee will be applied to residential, commercial, office and industrial development projects. New residents in residential developments will place an additional demand on park and recreational facilities. Employees in new commercial, office and industrial developments will also generate new demands for park and recreational facilities at lunchtime and before and .after work. The parks developed with the proceeds of the fee . . will~address and mitigate the additional impacts and demands created by these residential and non-residential development projects. . 4. The relationship between the need for the community facility and the type of development project on' ~~hich the fee is imposed. The fee will be applied to single family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, office and industrial development projects. These types. of development projects generate new residents and new employees in the community. The parks will serve the needs of n-r sidential develo ment ro'ects. new residents and employees m new no e p p ~ S. The relationship between the amount of the fee and. the -cost of the community facility or portion of the community. facility attributable- to the 'development on which the fee is imposed. The fee has been calculated by apportioning the average cost of park development to the number of residents generated by each type of new .residential unit, and to the "resident equivalent" of each employee generated by commercial; office -and industrial . development projects land uses. ' 35 COMPARISON. OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED FEES The proposed fees are. based on the currently identif ed-park .land. standards, updated park develo merit costs- u dated General Plan build=out statistics and .the methodolo described in p _p gy this report.. These .factors will differ from he 2003 fee study, resulting in differences in the fees. " Table IX-4 presents the existingfees (based.on the 2003 study) and the proposed fees: Table IX-4; ExiStiri",;and ro osed arkland develo merit fees , Existing -fee ~ Unit of 2003 Pro osed fee 1Vleasuremerit Siri le famil "residential $1,886 $5;79& Unit Single: family " Sin le famil -attached $1,611 residential fee. Unit Multifamil. residential $'1,271 .$3,904 Unit Single family Manufactured home $ 1,026 residential fee Unit Sin le :occu anc unit $ 647 n/a _ Unit Commercial n/a $1;098 ' 1,000"s uare feet Office n/a; ~ $1,050 1,000 s "uare ,feet _ Industtal n!a $ 668 1,000 s uare. feet Sourcer City of:Petaluma .I~' 36 . ~ X: OPEN SPACE ACQUISITION FE'E'. .The City has established a standard of,:acquiring and maintaining ten acres, of open space for each one=thousand residents, The fee willbe based on the. amount of land required to meet the applicable open space standard and the cost: of acquiring... suitable open space land. The average cost of land suitable for open space: purposes in the City of. Petaluma is estimated at $332,549. per acre (Appendix G): This estimate is based on atwenty-one vacant residential property land sales during the past two calendar years: ~ . In addition to the land cost, the City will incur costs to administer the mitigation fee - program and. to prepare .the .annual report and the ,five-year compliance analyses and reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The compliance requirements .are identified in Chapter XIV - of this report. The City has estimated that the administrative and compliance costs will be approximately five percent of the program costs. This percentage ,is included in total cost per acre and the total fee program costs. The total cost per .acre, including the administrative cost, is $349;176. In total, $54,548,345 is attributable to the future acquisition of open space land (Appendix'G). CALCULATION OF THE FEE.PER RESIDENT EQUIVALENT The total cost of tfie open space acquisition is $54;548,345, all of which is attributed to - _ future development projects. The total number of future "resident equivalents" (residents plus employee resident equivalents) was determined to be 18,833 (Table II-1). Dividing the total cost by the total resident equivalents results in a cost per resident equivalent of $2,896, as presented in Table X=1. i Table X-1: O ens ace. ac uisition cost er resident e uivalent Future develo ment Amount:a ortioned to future develo ment A $54,548,345 Resident e uiyalents.from futuredevelo ment< B 1.8,833, Amount` er resident e uivalent ~ A divided b .B, $ 2,896 Source: City of Petaluma - CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT The mitigation fee will be imposed on each residential unit. To calculate the fee per unit, the cost per resident equivalent ($2,896)'s multiplied by the:average number of residents per unit. 37 The City's existing impact fee program established an average of 2.9'15 residents per single family unit in .Petaluma,. and an average of 19.63 residents per multifamily unit. Table X-2 calculates the fee er residential unit b multi 1 in the-residents er unrt .from Table II-2 b the P Y PY g p ( ) Y cost per resident equivalent{$2',89'6). ~ ~ Table X-2: O en:,s ace ac uisition.fee er residential' unit - Cost,per Residents er unit resident e. uivalent Fee er unit Sri le famil unit 2.915 ~ $2,896 $8,4'42 _ - Multi-famil unit .1.963 ~ $2,896 ~ $5,685 Source: City ofPetaluma CALCULATION QF THE_FEE PER 1;000 SQUARE.FEETOF BlJ,ILDING~SP.-ACE Table X-3 calculates the fee; per ],000 square 'feet for future commercial,, office and industrial developments ~by multiplying'the number of .resident equivalents `per 1;000 square feet. of buildirg space (from Table II-2) by the cost per~resident equivalent~($2,896). . Table X-3: O en e ace ac uisiton:-fee er 1,000 s uare;feet Resident .equivalents / Cost per.resident Fe.e per 1..,000 square , - . 1,000 s ware feet a uivalent "feet Commercial .552" $2,896 $1,599 Office .528 $2,896 $1,529 Industrial. _ .336 $2,896 $ 973 Source: City of Petaluma. AB 1600 NEXUS. The Mitigation Fee .Act (AB 1600) requires a local agency :considering an action establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to address the following procedural' requirements. 1. Ident ~ the purpose 'of the fee. . The purpose of the open space acquisition fee is to provide funding;.to achieve the City's goal of maintaining service levels and providing adequate ..open. s"pace amenities for Petaluma residents and employees, as established in the. City of.Petaluma;GereralPlan. j~ 38 \f ~ . 2. Ident~ the use to which the fee is to be put. _ The proceeds from the fees will be used to purchase open space land as specified in this re ort A endix G and in other documents referenced by this report, ipcludirig the City p .PP ) of Petaluma General Plan and the City of Petaluma Capital Improvement Program. 3, The° relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the. . fee: is imposed. ' The fee will be applied to residential, commercial, office and industrial development .projects. New residents: in residential developments will require. the City to acquire open space to preserve the character and urban limit boundaries of the community. Employees ~ in ne_w commercial;. office and industrial developments will also generate additional requirements to preserve open space perimeters. The open .space land acquired with the ,proceeds of the fee will address and mitigate ,the additional impacts and demands created by these residential andnon-residential development. projects. 4: The relationship between the. need for the community facility and the type of development p~•ojeet on which the fee is imposed. The fee. will be applied to single family residential, multifamily residential, commercial, offce an,d industrial development projects. These types of development projects generate . ;new .residents and. new employees in the community. Thee acquisition of open. space will benefit new residents:and employees in future development projects. 5. The relationshi between the. amount of the fee and the cost of the community facility or P 1' portioiz of the community facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. - The fee. has been calculated byapportioning the average cost of.acquiring open space; • land'.~to~the number of residents ..generated by.each type of new residential unit; and'to the ."resident' equivalent" of'each employeegenerated by commercial,. office.^and industrial. development projects land uses. ~ ~ . ~ 39' . . COMPARISON'OF.EXISTING AND PROPOSED.-FEES The proposed :fees are based on the ten acre/1,OQ0 population standard, the current estimatc'~ of'land values, and :the methodology described in this; report. These, factors will differ from the 2003 fee study; resulting in differences irr the fees.. `Table X-4 p "resents the existing fees ' ( y.) and the proposed fees.: based on the 2003 stud ` Table X-4: Existin and ro osed o ens ace:-,land ac u_ isition fees Existing fee Uriit of 2003 P,ro osed.fee Measurement Sin le famil residential $1;834 $8,4.42 Unit Single family Sin le famil attached $1,362 residential `fee Unit Multifaml' residential., $1,232 $5,685 Uriit Single family Manufactured home 99'5' residential fee Unit Siri 1e occu anc ~uriit ~ :627 ~ n/a ~ ~ Unit _ IVlultifamily' Commercial 1'od in $ '338 residential fee Rental unit ,Commercial $ 5:9:6 $L,599 1,000., s uare feet r,. Office • 349 $1,529 1,000 s. uare feet Industrial. $ 737 $ 973 1;000~s uare feet ' .Source: City ofPetaluma • ~ ~ . 4~0 . XL .LIBRARY FACILITIES"IMPACT FEE The Ci of Petaluma has established a Library Facilities Impact Fee to provide funding ty for additional library capital facilities to serve future 'development projects. The. Sonoma County Library provides library operations-and services to Petaluma residents. Library services are currently provided aT the 25',900 square foot Petaluma Regional Library. Based on the current population of 57,085, the current standard for library facilities is .45 `square feet per capita. The proposed fee is based on this standard. To maintain this standard through General Plan build-out, an additional 7,030 square feet ' of library facilities -will be required (15,622 future residents at .45 square feet per resident): The cost of constructing 7,030 square feet of library facilities, including soft costs, fuifure, f xtures and collection materials is identified mAppendtx H. The cost of additional land is not included in the proposed .fee, as the Sonoma County Library Facilities Master Plan indcates~that the current library site may be suitable for expansion. In addition to project costs, the City will incur .costs to administer the mitigation fee . program and to prepare the annual report and the five-year compliance analyses and reports required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The compliance requirements are identified in Chapter XIV of this report: The City has. estimated that the administration and compliance costs will be approximately five percent of the program costs. This percentage is included in the total fee program costs. In total, $3,862,315 is attributable to future development and the Library Facilities Impact Fee. CALCULATION OF THE FEE PER RESIDENT EQUIVALENT Theaotal library facilities cost attributable to future development projects is $3,862;315. The, total. number of future "resident equivalents" (residents plus employee resident equivalents) was. determined' to be T8,833 (Table II-l`.):. Dividing the_ total .cost by the total resident equivalents results in a,cost per resident equivalent of $205, as presented in Table XI-l . 41 TableXI 1: Librar facilities cost er resident e uivalent, Future: develo rrient i Amount.a ortioned to future develo" merit A $3,862,3.15 Resident e uivalerits .from future develo merit B 18833 Amount: er resident e uivalent A liwided 6 B $ 205 Source:. City of Petaluma CALGULATION;OF THE FEE PER RESIDENTIAL JNIT The: mitigation fee will be imposed on each residential unit. To calculate the fee: per unit, the cost-per re"silent equivalent ($205) is multiplied by the average number of resdeents.per unit. The City's existing impact fee program establi§hed an average of 2.91.5 residents per single family unit.:in Petaluma, and an average of 1.963 residents per multifamily unit:. Talile XI-2 calculates the fee: per residential unit:by multiplying'the,residents per unit (from Table II-2) by the cost per residentequivalent ($205): Table XI-2: Libra 'facilities fee er'residential u_ nit Cost per 'Residents er unit. resident.e uivalent Fee er unit Sin le famil unit 2915 $205. .$598' Multi-famil unit 1:963 $205 $402 Source: City of Petaluma. CALCULATION OF'THE.FEE PER 1;000`SOUARE,FEET OF BUILDING SPACE Table XI-3 calculates the fee per 1,000 square feet for future commercial, office and industrial developments by multiplying. the number of resident equivalents per 1,000 square feet of building space (from Table II-2) by the cost per resident equivalent ($205). - . Table XI-3:Librar. facilities fee er 1,000_s ware feet Resident equivalents/I,000 Cost per resident Fee per 1,000 square s ware feet e uivalent ,feet Corrimercial .552 $205, ~ 13 Office .528 $205' $108 Industrial .336: $20'5 $ 69 Source: City of Petaluma. 42 . AB 1..600 NEXUS The 1Vlitigation Fee Act (AB 1600) requires a local agency considering an action establishing, increasing or imposing a fee to address the=following procedural requirements. ' 1,. Identify the purpose of the.fee. The .purpose of the library facilities fee is to provide funding to achieve the City's. goal of maintaining service levels and providing adequate. library services for Petaluma residents :and employees, as established in the City of Petaluma General Plan and the .Sonoma County Library Facilities Master Plan. 2.; Identify.the•use to which he.fee is to be put. .The proceeds from ihe~ fees will be used. to expand library facilities and to purchase ~ materials to serve new ,residents and employee resident equivalents, as specified in this report (Appendix H)!and in' other documents referenced by this report, including the City of Petaluma General Plan and the .Sonoma County Library Facilities Master Plan. 3:.. The relationship between the fee's use and the type. of development project on which the fee is imposed. The fee will be applied: to .residential, commercial, office and industrial. development .projects. 'New residents in,residential developments will place an additional demand~on' library facilities and services. Employees in riew commercial, office and industrial ~ ~ developrrients willalso generate new demands for library facilities and services, for business purposes; at `lunchtime and before and'. after work.. The library facilities developed~~with the proceeds of the fee will address and nitigate the additional iinpacts~~ and demands created:by these residential.and.non-residential development projects. 4. The relationship between the need for,the community facility and the type bf development ~ ~ project on which the fee is.imposed. The fee will be applied~to single fanily'residential, multifamily residential, commercial, office and industrial development projects. These types of development projects generate new residents and new employees in the community. The library facilities will serve the needs of new residents and employees in new n_ on-residential development projects. 43 I~ ' . 5. The relationship between the amount of the. fee and the cost of the' community facility or portion of the community facility attributable: to the development on which the fee is imposed:, The. fee has been calculated by apportioning the average cost of library facilities to the number of residents generated liy each type of'riew residential unit; and to,the "resident equivalent" of each employee generated by commercial, . office and industrial developmeritprojects land uses: COMPARISON. OF EXISTING, AND PROPOSED FEES ' Tlie proposed fees are. based on the current library facility standard; updated library . construction and materials costs updated General Plan build-out statistics and the;:methodology described mthis report:. These factors will differ•from the 2003 fee study, resulting m differences in the fees. Tab1e,.XI-4' presents the existing. fees {based on'the 2003 study) and- the proposed fees:. ~ Table XI-4, Existiri ,and ro osed Libra facilities.fees Existing fee Unit of 20;03 Pro osed. fee Measurement Sin le fam_ it -residential $254 $5,98 Unit Single family Sin le farriil -attached $206 residential fee Unit Mult~famil~ residential $_171 $402 ' Unit , .Single famly° Mobile Home $13'8 residential fee Unit , Sin le Occu anc Unit $ 87 n/a . _ _ _ - Commercial n/a •$,113 1,000 s uare feet Office nLa $1 Q8 1;000 s uare feet Industrial nYa $ 69 1,000 s uare feet , . Source: City'bf Petaluma: ' 44 ' XII. COMMUNITY:CENTER FACILITIES IMPACT FEE . . The City of Petaluma has constructed and. .purchased. several community center and public use facilities to provide a variety of services to :residents and employees. The. purpose. of the .Community Center Facilities Fee,is to provide funding for additional facilities to serve future development projects. The City 'currently provides services at the facilities listed'in'Table XII-1.~ Table XII-1: Existin Communit Center facilities Facility Square Feet? Jack Cavanaugh Recreation Center 13,028 Polly Klass Performing. Arts Center 7,440 Kenilworth Teen Center 4,560 ' Pe_ talumai Museum ~ 8,000. Petaluma Community Center 33,000 ' :Petaluma Senior Center 6,300 Total Square Feet 72,328 • Source: City of Petaluma The combined size of the' existing facilities is 72,328 square feet. Based on the current population of 57,085, the current ,standard for these facilities is 1.27 square feet per capita. The p"roposed fee.is based on this standard. ' To maintain this standaard• through General Plan"build-out, an additional 19,840 square feet:'of facilities will be required (15,622 future residents at 1..27 square feet per resident). The cosh of constructing 1.9,840 square feet of community center facilities, including soft costs,... furniture and fixtures is identified in,Appendix G. The cost of additiona'T land is not.included. ' In addition to project costs; the City will incur costs to administer the ;mitigation` fee program an_d 'to prepare the annual report and the five-year compliance analyses and reports' required by the,Mitgation Fee Act.; The compliance requirements are identified in Chapter XIV ~ • of this; report. The City .has estimated ,that the administration and ,compliance costs will be approximately five percent of the program .costs.., This percentage is included. in the total fee . program costs.. In total, :$9,374,372 is attributable to future development and the Community Center Facilities. Impact Fee. 45. CALCULATION OF THE FEE P.ER RESIDENT EQUIVALENT The total communrt .center facilities co"st attributable to future develo merit ro ects T . y , ' P 1 p J . ~s $9,374;372. he total number of future resident. equivalents (residents plus emp ogee resident equivalents) was determined to be 18,833 (Table II-1). Dividing the; total cost' by' the total. resident equivalents results ~in a cost per resident' equivalent of'$205, as presented in~ Table X-I=~1~. ~ ~ 'Table XII-2~: Communi ~ ,Center'facil~ities cost erresi'd'ent:e uival'ent ~ Future develo merit Amounta ortionedto future develo- ment, A ~ $9,374,372 . Resident e;-uivaTents from future develo fnerit B 1.8,83.3. Amount er~resident.e uval`ent A divided b B $ 498'; Source: City ofPetaluma .CALCULATION OF THE FEE,PER RESIDENTIAL UNIT Tlae mitigaton:feewill be imposed.on:,each residential unit. To calculate th'e?fee per unit, the cost per resident, equivalent ($498j is multiplied. by the average number of residents -per unit. The :City's .existing `impact fee program established an .average of: 2:915 residents 'per single famil unit in Petaluma and 'an average of 1:963 residents per multifamily urit:~ Table XII-3 ' y calculates the fee per residen'tial'unit by multiplying the~~~residents per• unit (from Table I1-2) by the cost per resident equivalent (-$498). Table XII-3 a Communit Center facilities~fee ~ er residential. unit' Cost° per Residents e unit resident e uivalent Fee _er unit- Sin le famil 'unit. 2.915 $498 $1,452 Multi-fa_mil -unit 1.963_ $498 $ 978 Source: Cityof`Petaluma - GALCU-LATION:OF THE FEE PER' 1;000 SOUARE FEET OF BUILDINCrSPACE Table XII-4 calculates the fee per 1,000 square feet for future' commercial; office and industrial.,.development"s by multiplying the number of resident equivalents per 1~,000'square feet of building space (from Table II-2) by the cost per resident equivalent ($.498).. ~ - 46 . - ' r Table XLI=4':,Libra .facilities fee er 1:;OQ0 s ware feet Resident equivalents/1,;000, Cost:per resident Fee per 1.,000 square s uare~feet; e uivalent feet Commercial :552 $498 $275 Office .528 $498 $263 Industrial .336 $498 $167 Source: City of Petaluma AB 1600 NEXUS The Mitigation Fee Aet (AB 1600) requires a local.. ,agency considering an ~ action establishing, increasing or impo5ing:a fee to address tlae following procedural requirements. 1,. Identify the purpose of the fee. J The purpose of the. Community center Facilities fee is to provide funding to achieve the City's goal of mainfairing service levels and providing. adequate recreation services, performing arts, teen services, museums, senior services and other public services and facilities fbr Petaluma residents and employees, as established in the City of Petaluma General Plan.. 2~. Ident~ the use to which the fee is to be put. . . Thee proceeds from the fees will be used to expand Community Center facilities to serve. new residents and employee resident equivalents, as specified. in this report (Appendix I) , and in other documents referenced by this report, including the City of Petaluma General. . Plan. 3., The relationship between the fee's use and. the type of development project on which the ' ' fee is imposed.. . ' The fee will be applied, to residential,, commercial, office and industrial d'eveloprnent projects. New residents in residential developments will place an additional demand on recreation services, perforrning3 ,arts; teen services, museums, senior services and other p Employees in new commercial, office and industrial . ublic services and facilities.. developments will also generate:; new demands for recreation services, performing arts, teen services, museums, senior services: and other public services and. facilities, for business purposes, at lunchtime and before. and after work. The facilities developed with 47 . the proceeds of the fee will address and mitigate the additional. impacts and, demands created by'these residential and non-residential:developmenYprojects. 4. The relationship between. the need for the comTriunty facility and.tlie type of development project,on which the fee is~ imposed. ~ ~ r~~ The fee, will `be applied to single; family ;residential, multifamily ~resderitial, commercial, office and industrial development projects. These types of development'projeets.generate new residents and new employees in the community. The facilities will serve the needs of new residents and employees in new non-residential development projects. 5. The relationship between the amount of the; fee and'the cost of the community facility or portion of the community facility attributable fo the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee has been calculated by apportioning :the average cost of community center and public facilities. to the number of residents generated by each type of new residential ,unit, and to the '"resident e uivalent" of each em lo, :ee. ~ enerated b commercial office and 9 P :Y . g Y - . industrial development projects land, uses. COMPARISON OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED. FEES The, proposed fees are based on the current Community Center facility standard, updated construction and materials costs, updated .General Plan.build-out statistics:and' the ~rnethodology described in this report. These factors will differ from he~.20Q3 fee study; resulting; in differences in the .fees.- Table XII-S resents the existin fees :based orr the 2003 stud. and the ro osed P g ~ Y,) P P fees. 1 , . ~ . 1 . 48 . . Table XII-5: Existin and ro osed~Corrimuni .Center Facilities fees Existrig~fee Unit of 2003 Pro: osed fee Measurement S'in' le faml residential $653 $1,452 Unit Single. family Sin 1e.famil -attached ~ $558 residential fee Unit Ivliiltifam} residential $440 $978 Unit _ _ Single family Mobile Home $355 residential fee Unit Sin `le Occu anc Unit $224 n/a Commercial n/a $275 1,000 s uare feet Office n/a $263 1,000 s uare feet Industrial n/a $167 1,000 s uare feet Source; City of Petaluma . 49 . ~ XIIL ANNUALFEE ADJUSTMENT One of the challenges in administering a mitigation fee program is that the cost of land and the cost of construction. may °continue to increase. (or decrease) over tune;, while the fees remain static, unless.reviewed annual.lyby the public agency. Many public agencies address this issue by including an annual adjustment yin the- resolution .adopting the .fees. The annual adjustment typically occurs during each of"the four years immediately following the adoption of the fee. Tn the fifth year, a comprehensive analysis is conducted to adjust'the fee for land costs, land uses or other facto"rs. LAND VALUE ADJUSTMENT Several different methods can be used, fo adj ust park and open space land, values. Some agencies conduct an annual land appraisal. Others conduct an Assessor's Office records research for recent land sales. Still .others ,use publicized indices, such as a consumer price- index. The City may choose anyone of these measures, or an alternate measure. CONSTRUCTION COST ADJUSTMENT Several different methods can be.. used to adjust: construction costs; however, most agencies use the Engineering News Record -Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI) to adjust fees. on an annual basis.. The ENR-CCI is a twenty-city average of labor and materials costs. It is similar to a consumer price index, but one tliat:is designed to reflect changing construction costs. . ~ ~ ~ 50 `1. . ~ . XIV. COMPONENTS'OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE The~City of Petaluma, incorporates a five percent administrative fee on all mitigation fees to recover;the costof compliance. with applicable law. ~i . THE MITIGA'T'ION FEE ACT The Mitigation Fee_Act imposes certain administrative requirements on local agencies. Pursuant to Government Code, Section 66005(x) of the Act,: a City is authorized to recover'the full cost `of providing services that: are funded by the mitigation. fees. This. includes recovery of administrative fees. incurred in compliance with tlae Act. The procedural and administrative requirements include the following:. , 1. Analysis required to ~enact.or~rriodify a-fee: . In any action establishing, increasing, or imposing ~a fee. as a condition of approval of a development.project, the City" sliall .cause a report to be prepared and make findings as follows: ¦ Id.entify the purpose of the fee. • ° Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. ¦ Determine how there is. a reasonable relationship between the fee's use: and the type of i~ development projecton which the fee is imposed. ¦ Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between theneed for the public facility ,;and the; e of develo ment ro'ect on which th'e fee is imposed. typ P P J Determine how there is a;reasonable relationship ,between the amount of the. fee' and the cost',ofthelpublic'facility'or°portion of the public'facilityattributable to the development on which the fee is,mposed, - ,2. Notice~and conduct a publie:hearin~: . Prior to :adopting an ordinance, resolution, or other Ieg'slative enactment adopting a new r appro~mg`an increase in an-,existing fee,, the',City shall hold a public hearing,, at which,time fee o oral or wrrtten presentations can .be made; as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of the ` time and place of the meeting, mcludmg, a general explanation of the matter to be considered, shall `be published. ' - 51 3. Accounting requirements The City shall deposit' the fees. 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 City and ex end those P -fees solely for the purpose for which tfie fee 'is collected, Any interest, income "earned by money in the capital facilities account or fund shall also be deposited inthataccount or°fund and shall be expended only for the purpose for which the fee was originally collected. 4: Annual reporting regizirementsC. public hearing For each separate account or fund 'established; the City shall, within 1'80': "days after the last:day. of each fscal year, make'available•:to the public the following information for the fiscal year: A brief description of the type of.fee in the account or fund. ¦ The-amount.of the fee. ~ ' ¦ The beginning. and ending .balance :of the account or fund; the 'amount of the fees collected' and the interest earned' ¦ An identification of each public improvement on which fees' were expended and the amount. of the expenditures on each. improvement, including the total. percentage of the cosh of`the' public mprovement`that was'funded with.fees. ¦ An 'identification of an approximate. date by which. the construci°on of the public improvement will commence f`t is determined tliatsufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public: improvement. ¦ A description of`each'inferfund transfer or loan made from the accounYor fund, including the public improvement. on which the transferred. or loaned fees will he~expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan,. the date on which the loan will b"e repaid, 'and the rate of interest that the. account or fund will receive on the loan. ¦ The amount of refunds made. The City shall review this information at the next regularly sehedul:ed public meeting not .less than 15 days after "this information is made available to .the`" public.: Notice of the time and _ place of the meeting, :including. the address where this information ..may "be, reviewed,. shall be mailed, ,at .feast ~~1~5 days prior to the meeting, to~ any interested party who. files a. ~ucitten'request with.the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting. 52 • 5. Five year reporting requirements; publi'c,hearin~' ' For the fifth fiscal year following the first receipt of fees, and every five-years thereafter, the City shall make all of the following findings with respect to that portion of the account or fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted: ¦ Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put. ¦ Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged. ¦ Identify all sources aril amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing for incomplete improvements. ' Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to above is expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. ¦ For purposes of these findings, the City shall hold' a public hearing, at which oral or written presentations can be -made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of the' time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, shall be published. THE OUIIVIBY ACT In addition to the analysis, notice, hearing, accounting and reporting requirements of the 1Vlitigation Fee Act, the Quimby Act (as codified in the California Government Code, beginning . with Section 66477) adds additional requirements that must be addressed by the City. The City must adopt an ordinance meeting the following requirements: ¦ The ordinance must be in effect for 30 days, prior to the filing of a tentative map for a subdivision subjecfto the dedication or in-lieu fee requirement. The ordinance must include definite standards for determining the proportion of a subdivision to be dedicated .and the amount of the in-lieu fee. The amount of land to be ' dedicated and the fee must be based upon the density of each residential type. ~ The. park area per one thousand population .must be derived from the 'ratio that the existing amount of park area bears to the existing population. The City must, also assure that the following conditions are met: ¦ The. dedicated land, and the fees, may only be used for developing new parks or rehabilitating existing parks. ¦ The City must have an adopted general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards, and the park and recreational facilities must be in accordance with definite .principles and,standards. 53 ¦ . The amount and .location of land to .be dedicated and the .fees to be paid must bear a reasonable 'relationship to. the use of the park .and recreational faclitie's 'for the future ~ inhabitants of the~subdivision. ¦ A schedule must be developed specifying how, when, and where the City will use the land or fees: to develop park and recreational facilities ¦ Fees collected must be committed within fve years-of;payment, or the issuance of one- hal'f ofthe lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. ¦ If the fees are not committed within the :applicable time frames, they must be distributed to the then owners of record: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING The City may adopt a capital 'improvement plan, which shall indicate the approximate . ' location, size, time of availability, and estimates of cost'for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees. The capital improvement plan shall be adopted by; and shall be: ,annually updated by a resolution of the City Council adopted at a noticed public :hearing. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, shall be published. In addition,. mailed notice shall be given to any city or county which may be , significantly affected by the capital improvement plan: PERIODIC REVIEW OF_ THE ADMINISTRATIVE FEE The City shall. conduct a periodic review of the costs associated with administering the mitigation fee prograrri and the requirements under°the Quimby Act. The City may revise the fee periodically-to reflect'the fuii cost of administer-ingthe program. ' ' ' 54 City of Petaluma Appendix,A October 30, 2007 ~Pii6lic Facilities Impact Fee Program ProjecYList - _ • Project Source Cost estimate Percent,attributable to fee program (7) Cost,attributable to ,fee program. - PF=1 Relocate arid const[uct Cit ,Hall 1, PW De artment $ 31,000;000 ~ 22:5% $ 6,975;000 PF-2 Cohstruct Cor oration Yard PW. De artment 12,000,000 22;'5% $ - 2,700,000 ' PF-3 Telecommunications°`s stems OIP'& Wi-Fi Finance~De artment $ 1.;380,000 ~ - 22:5% $ - 310;500 PF-4, AdministYative' ool'vehicles 2 • Finance De artmeht $ 114,938 100:0% $ 114,938 PF-S Public Works eneral mainteharice vehicles 3 Finance De artment $ 495,966 100:0% $ 4:15,966 PF-6 Parks; eheral.maihtenarice 6ehicles 4 Firiarice De artment $ 191,563 100.0% 191;563: PF-7 Technolo ' 5 Finahce De artment $ 53,20Q. 100.0% $ 53,200' Miti ation Fee.Act administration and. sfatuto com Hance 6 $ 538,058 Total $ 11.,299,226 Notes: 1 Co§t estimate based on 60;000 s ua[e feet $300/s . ft.,'15% coritin enc , 35%soft costs and$4 million for urchase of land • (2) Based on _37 vehicles/1;000 population. at $20;000 each; a11'vehicles required to maintain existin - standards tb serve'future develo ment (3) Based'on :67 vehiclesl1000 po ulation at $40;000 each; all vehicles required to maintain existin standards to serve future develo merit 4 Based on .49 vehicles/1,000 o ulationat $25;000 eachi all vehicles re uired to maintain existin standards#o serve future develo merit - (5) Based on 1.7 emplo eesll-,000 population = 26x6 additional emplo ees;;equipmerit cost is $2,0007em 7o ee; all re uired to maintain existin standards to serve future developmerit 6 Estimated cost of Miti ation Fee Act` ro ram administration and compliance with the arinual and five- ear re ortin re uiremenfs 5%) ' 7 Based on o ulation and em to merit rowth estimated in'draft General Plan DEIR, Se tember2006 55 Sinclair and' Associates City of Petaluma Appendix B October 30, 2007 Fire Suppression Facilities Impact Fee Program ProjecCCisf Project. Source .Cost estimate Percent attcibutable,to fee program (4) Cost attributable to fee, program FD=1 Relocate and:const[uct.Statiorr#1 1 Fire De artmeht' $ 12;046,000, 22.5%, 2,710;350 FD-2 Refurbish Station #2,arid #3 ~ Fire De artment. $ 4,788',0.00- 22:5% $ 1.,077,300 FD-3 Ladder truck Fire:De artment $ 1;000;000'. 22.5% $ ~ 225,000 F.D-4 ALS ambulance Fire,De artment. _ $ 150 000 22:5% $ 33,750. FD-5 Additional firefi"hter ~otective.e ui merit 2 Fire De artment 104,720, 100.0% $ ~ 104,720 Miti ation Fee Actiadministration and statuto com liarice, 3 $ 207`556 Total $ 4 358;676. Notes; 1 Cost estimate based;on three story building; land costs not~included 2 Assumes 16 additioiial fire,pe~sohnel, based on 1 firefighter/1,000'additional residents`to maintainsezistingstandards to serve future development; $6;545/firefighter for rofective equipmehf 3 Estimated cost of'Miti ation Fee Act ro ram administratiornand com liance with the annual and five-year re ortin re uiremenfs 5% 4 'Based on'' o ulation:and em to menu rowth estimated'in draft;General Plan DEIR, 5e tember 2006 Sinclairand Associates 56 ® ~+~r ~n ~ ® ;rte r i~ ® rr ® r~ • ~r~~ ~ •i~r City~of Petaluma Appe_ridix C ~ O_ ctotier'30, 20.07 Law Enforcement;Facilities.Impact FeeProgram - ~ _ .Project Lisf Project, ' Source; Cost,estimate_ Fercent'attributable to fee program_(5)_ Cost attributable. to'fee program _ PD=1 Construct~Police,Statioh ] ~ PW De `aitmenf 30;:1'46;000 22:5% $ `6,782;850 PD-2 Constructawo communication tovvers ,Police De'artment $ 4:00;000' 22;5% $ 22;500 PD~:3 Addtionabofficere °ui'ment 2 _ _ Police De arfinent $ 101,750. ~ 100.0% $ 1;OT;750 PD,4• Additional atrol vefiicles_ 3 _ Police De artment 591;305 100:0% $ 591,305 Miti ation Fee Act admiriistFation:andstafuto~ <cdm IiarSce 4 $ 374;920 Totaf _ - $ 7,873;325 Notes: 1) Cost estimate.doe's not include land cost (2) Assumes 22 additional sworn officers::=at $4;625 each based on 1.4 officers/1,000 population rowth, to maintain existin standards to serve future develo ment (3) Assumes 11 additional patrol vehicles at $53,755.each; based one patrofvehicle/2 additional officers, to,maintain existin standards to serve future development (4);Estimated coskof Miti ation.Fee~Act;pro ram administration and com liance with the annual and;;five- earreportin requirements (5%0' 5 'Based on o ulation and em to men(, rowth estimated in draft`General Plan DEIR, Se (ember 2006 Sinclair and Associates 57 - - City of Petaluma Appendix D ~ October 30, 2007 :Aquatic Center Facilities Impact Fee Program Projecf'List _ ~ Project - Source Cost estimate;(3) Percerit attributable to fee program (4) Cost attributable to fee -p.~ogram AQ-1 Construct a vatic facilities 1 NTD Stichler/Cit $ 9;451,,000 22.5% .2,126;47,5 1Jliti' afion Fee Acf adminstra[iorrand statuto com liance 2 1Q6,324 Total - $ 2,232,799 Notes: _ - 1 Based on'S0 meter" ool and 4;500s ua~e foot recreation ool (2) Estimated cost bfMiti ation Fee Act ro 7am administration and compliance Nnth~the annual~and,five- ear' reportin requirements (5%) (3) Based.on Janua `2005 NTD Stickler estimate updated 6 "increase in ENR-CCI includes 1'S% contin enc and'35%soft costs - 4 Based oh o elation and em to inept rowth estimated in daft Gene~al'Plan DEIR°;. Se tember2006 r Sinclaii and Associates - 58 ~ ~ ~ r ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~r r ~ - - City of Petaluma Appendix E October 30, 2007 Rark'.Land Acquisition Program Acquisition Costs ~ - PFo'ect Source ,Land cost er acre Mit' atiorr~Fee Ac4+and Quimb Act.administration and com liance 2 Tofal cost er acre PLA=1 Parkland ac uisition 1 Sinclair,&,Associates $ 3953889 . $ 19,794. $ 41.5;683 Notes: (1 j Quimby Act in-lieu fee and Park Land Acquisition fee based on:& acres/1.;000 population at~$395,889 per acre 2 Estimated cost of Miti ation Fee Act.and Quimti Act ro ram administration and com liahce with the annual and five- ear re ortin re uirements 5% Sinclair and Associates 59 City of "Petaluma Appendix F October 30, 2007 Park Land Development Fee Program Project List. _ Acres/1;000 future Population. Percentattributable to fee. CosYattributable to fee " Poject Source o ulation rowth, Acrea a Cost estimate ro ram ro ram P&R-1 Community park and~development(1) Parks Departmeht 3 15;622- 46.87 $ 28,644;593 Q00% $ 28,644,593 P&R-2 Neighborhood ark lahd:developmeht (2) Parks De artment 2 15;622 31.24 $ 7,029,900- 100%, 2,029,900 " Mitigation Fee Actadmihistration and statuto com liance 3 " $ 1,783;725 Total. $ 37,458',2,18 Notes: (1)' 3 acres/1,000 population at $407,468/acre, 1;5% contingency and'35% soft costs (2) 2 acres/1;000 population at $150;000/acre, 15% contingency and.35% soft"costs 3 Estimated cost of'Miti-atiori Fee Act Yo ram administration and com liance with the annual and five- ear re ortin re uirements 5% Sinclair and Associates 60 City of Petaluma Appendix G Octobe~'30, 2007 Open Space,Acquisition Program Acquisition Costs Mitigation Fee+Act administration Cost attributable P.ro'ect Source Land costlacre and com liance. 2 Total cost: eracre Acresl1,000 o alatidn Po ulation rowth Acrea ere wired to fee `[o ram ` OS;1' O en s ace land ac uisition 1 Ci of,Petaluma $ •332,549- $ 16;627 349;1J6' 10 15,622 156:22 $ 54;548,345 Notes: (1)'Open'space acquisilidn"fees base'd:on 10 acres/1,000 populatidnat $332,549 peg acre 2 Estimated cost of'Miti anon Fee Act ro ~a'm administration and oom liance witft;the arinual and five- ear re ortiri re uiremenfs 5 a• Sinclair and Associates 61 City of Petaluma Appendix H October 30, 2007 Library Facilities Impact Fee Program Population Expansion Percent attributable Cost attributable Pro'ect Source Sq. ft:/resident growth area Cost estimate (1) to fee program to fee program LIB=1 Ex and Libra- Facilif , CA Office of Librar Construction 0:45 15;622 7;030 $ 3;678;395 100% $ 3,678,395 Miti ation Fee Act:administration and statuto com fiance, 2 $ 183"920 Total $ 3,862315 Notes: (1) Based on 7,030 square feet at $455! square foot hard and soft cost,. FF&E.arid o ening day collection; 15% contingency 2 Estimated cost ofMiti ation Fee--Act., ro ram adminisfratiori and com fiance with the annual.,and five- ear re ortin re uirements 5% Sinclair and Associates 62 - . - Gity~of, Petaluma, Appendix;) October 30, 2QQ7. Community Genter`Facilities'Impac_t-Fee Program. , Project Lisf . Population. Expansion - Percent attributable Cost:attributable Pro'ect ~ Sou[ce_ _ - _ Sq. fit./resident growth area Cost estimate,(1) to fee program to.fee program ` CC.-1. Ex ahd Corrimuni "Ceriter',Facilities P.W'De`artment 1'.27 15;622, 19,840_ $ 8,927;973 100% $ - ~ '8;927,973 Miti ation;Fee'Actadministration.andstatuto. com liance 2 ~ $ x446,399 Total ~ $ 9;374,372' Notes: . 1 Cost estimate based on 19,840 square feet $300/s . ft., 15% cohtingency', 35% soft costs 2 Estimated cost of Miti atioh Fee Act ro ram administration and com liance with the annual and five- ear re ortin re uiremerits 5% Sinclair and Associates ~ 63 City of Petaluma Appendix J October30, 2007 Proposed Development Impact Fees • Quimby Act Park:Land • Public Fire Law. ~ Aquatic Park Land Acquisition Park Land Open Space Library Community ' Facilities Suppression: Enforcement Center Acquisition In- Fee:~non- Development Acquisition Facilities Center. Land:Use :Fee Basis lm act Fee ,Facilities Fee .Facilities Fee ,Facilities Fee Lieu Fee . Quimb Act .Fee Fee. Im act Fee Facilities Fee • Single family residential Unit ~ $ 1-,749 673 1,218 $ 347 $ 6,069 6;069 5`-,798 $ 8;442 $ 598 '1,452 Multi`-family'residential, Unit $ 1,178 453 $ 821 $ 234 4,074. $ _4,07.4; $ 3;904 $ 5,685' $ -402 978 Commercial 1.;000 square feet $ 331 A28 $ 231 $ 66, $ 1,149 $ 1;098 $ 1;599 $ 113 $ 275 Office 1,000Sgiiare"feet $ - 317 122 $ 221 ' $ 63' $ 1,099 $ 1,050_ 1;529 $ 108 263' Industrial 1,000,s uare feet $ 202 $ 78' 140 $ 40 $ 700; $ 668 $ 973' 69 467' 64 Sinclair and Associates Appendix K Implementation of changes to the April 24, 2007 Draft Mifgaton.Fee Report based on May 21, 2007 Petaluma City Council Public: Hearing and adoption of the 2007-08 City Capital Improvemerit~~Program , Background: ' On May 21, .2007, the Petaluma City Council received a report prepared by Sinclair & Associates, ' proposing modifications to the City of Petaluma Mitigation Fees and Quimby Act to-.lieu Fees: The "report recommended. modifications to seven fees that are imposed on new development projects, to provide funding to maintain City standards for facilities required"to serve those development projects. The City Council inquired about several topics in the report and directed staff and the consultant to conduct additional research '.and provide recommendations on the topics and modify the report where appropriate; while retaining consistency with the .Mitigation 'Fee' Act and. the Quimby Act. 'The September 21, 2007 has been. modifed as a result: of the City Council input and direction. This appendix provides a summary of the changes incorporated in the:revised report. In addition; the City Council has adopted the 2007-08 Capital Improvement Program. The Draft i~~ Mi't'igation Fee report has been updated for consistencywith the City Gapifal Improvement Program. Chapter II: Population and Employment Analysis City Council. inquiry: - The' analysis and report .assumes that the proposed. facility costs will be spread. among ali - development, to build-out of the General Plan. Should the' facility costs be spread among a lower 1' level of development; for example, at 80% build-out of the General. Plan? R'ecommendation/Report modification: The Mitigation. Fee Act requires that the City find that there is a reasonable :relationship: between the facilities and ;the fees, and the development projects upon which the fees are imposed. The facilities proposed in the report reflect those that.. are required through build-out of the General Plan. The'use of a reduced development scenario 'would require the facilities to be similarly down-sized., For ' example', the. Park Land- Development Impact Fee. is based on'the construction of five acres of parks for the. projected population at build-out of the General Plan. tf a reduced population is used in the analyss,~the acreage ofparks would similarly have to be reduced. Accordingly, we recommend that the analysis and report retain the General Plan build=out scenario as the potential development projects among .which the facility costs are spread, and retain the project list that. is required to maintain City standards at build-out. The facilities and fees must be proportional to the development they are intended to serve. ' Chapter III: Public Facilities Fee ' City Council. inq_uiry: The revenue from the sale of the existing City Hall' property should be attributed to the existing population, rathef`than to both the existing and future populations. RecommendationLReport.modification: The -proceeds from the sale of the, existing. City Hall. property have been deleted from the analysis, thereby attributing the revenue to the existing;populaton: . Chapter ,IV Fire Suppression Facilities Fee City Council inquiry: The revenue from the sale of Fire Station #1 property should be attributed to the existing population, rather-than to both the existing and future populations. 65 Recommendation/R'eport IVlodification~: The proceeds from 'the sale of Fire Station #1 have been-deleted from the analysis; thereby attributing the revenue`to the:existing population. Chapter VILand' Chapter VIII: Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In-lieu Fee and Park Land Acquisition Fee (Non-Quimby Act,Developments) City .Council inquiry: , The land valuation should include; sales of properties ..zoned for commercial .and mixed. use purposes in 'addition to residentially zoned properties, because commercial and mixed' use -vacantparcels may . be acquired for parks in the future. Recommendation/12eport modification:. At they City Council meeting, it was observed that.. including corninercial_ and' mixed uses sales in the land valuation data would be appropriate for the Park.,Land Acquisition Fee :(Non-Quimby Act Developments) because, this fee' applies to commercial 'development projects. as well as' residential development projects; however, additional ,research °would be necessary to determine if it is appropriate. for the Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition In-lieu Fee. The Quimby Act is silent on the type of land that should be included. for the purpose of calculating the in-.lieu, fees. It' is clear that the land 'that i~s purchased, with -the Quimby :Act °in=.lieu fees does not have to be within ahe subdivision: (Associated Homebuilders lnc. v_ City of"Walnut Creek); which would allow the City to acquire either residentially-zoned or commercially-zoned property outside of the residential subdivision for park land to serye'the subdivision., -Also;. since: the Quimby Act applies to condominium projects,- stock cooperatives and community apartments, which may be among mixed use projects,. it is reasonable to assume that land zoned for commercial and/or mixed use ~j projects may be acquired and used. for park purposes. to serve these types of developments, and therefore should be .included. in the ]and valuation calculation. Finally;. because the City- may indeed acquire some properties .that are zoned for commercial andYor :mixed use purposes; ;if would be appropriate: to include such similarly zoned properties in the land valuation. .Accordingly, .four ..recent vacant. commercial property sales have~.been included .in the calculation of park land .acquisition costs'. This has increased the average park land cost used in' the analysis from $332;549 per acre to $395,889 per acre. Chapter IX: Park .Land DevelopmenYImpact Fee City'GouncLinqu~r~ _ The report uses $407,468 per acre as the cost of developing community parks (plus 35% soft costs and 15% contingency): Does this cost per acre reflect an accurate curnent cost? Recommendation/Report: modi'ficati ori. City staff believes that this cost. reflects: current costs, particularly with the 35% soft-costs and 15% contingency. It is recommended that the fee be based on thin cost. Chapter X:. Open. Space Acquisition Fee. City Council inquiry: The land valuation should be based on the<average per acre .land value for:al'1 recent vacant residential. ,land sales; rather`th'at the single parcel appraisal"uSed'in the report., Recommendation/Report modification:. ,The :calculation of the Open Space Acquisition Fee has .been revised to reflect the: average per acre land value for all recent vacant residential. ales, rather .than the single parcel: appraisal used in the 66 report. This has increased thee. average open space: land. ,cost used in the analysis from $270,945 per acre fo $332;549 per acre. ~1 Ca ita[ Im rovement' Pro ram :Modifications:. P P g The 2007-08 Capital hnprovement;Program includes the following project cost modifications; which have now been included in the Mitigation Fee Report: The cost of constructing the Police Station has been updated to $30,-146,000. The cost of constructing Fire Station#1 has been updated to $12,046,000. . , . ~ . w 1 67