HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 09/12/2011 5.EAgetwla/lte4m#5 E..
I86'$
DATE: September 12,1011
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the CityCouncil through City,Manager
FROM: Scott Duiven,. Senior Planner
SUBJECT:. Review of Development Impact Fees
RtECOMMENDATION
It ,is recomme ' and„ direction regarding the following
nded, that the City, Council provide feedback
fee reduction proposals, including any additional analyses which may be necessary, and
implementing legislation. as:appropr`iate.
BACKGROUND
The Cit of Petaluma has had deyelo ment fees in effect for a number of
City p years to ensure that
future development, pays its .fair share in imeeting the. future ;needs of the community created .by
such' ,development as 'identified in the' City"'s Generaf Tlari. The. City collects development foes -
for acquisition and -development of ,,park and open space lands;, development and expansion 'of
community facilities such as:,,cominunity centers,, police and fire stations, libraries, and ;aquatic
facilities; to fund future traffic; water; and wastewater ilifrasiructure; to, meet affordable housing
needs"-, and to romote ublic'
p" p � art.'The. current devel'opmerit'feeschedule is attached to this report.
How Our Fees, were Set and. Why.
The authority for establishing development, fees for 'residential' and -non-residential development
projects is ,found primarily in the 'Mitigation„.Fee Act '(the Act), also known as: A' 1600; as
codified in the, California Government .Code beginning with Section 66000.. Additional authority
for development fees exists in the Subdivision Map ,Act, as codified 'in California Government
Code section.664l and following, and:in other provisions'of law.
The Act permits. local :agencies :to establish and, collect i a _fee as a 'condition of approval of a
development project for the purpose of defraying- the: proportional cost of public facilities needed
to serve new developni'ent. 'Public facilities are defin - ed `in the statute as public improvements, j
public ±seruic' es and community amenities -The fee may include costs attributable ;to :increased
demand for .publeLfacilities by future development:_ The fee may also include the :cost of
improving, existing facilities `to maintain the existing level ' of `service or to achieve an. adopted
level of service that .i"s consistent with the General Plan for new, residents and workers in the City.
Agenda Review:
City Attorney Finance Direct I-eity Manager
The ,public facilities must be identified in a capital` 'improvemen. t plan, the General Plan, an
applicable specific, plan or other publ c.,documents'. The:.fee: may not. be used to pay for existing
deficiencies in public: facilities.
In May 2008 'the City Council adopted '12 individual resolutions to revise and increase the City's.
development impact fees and water and wastewater,capacity.,fees. The,updated fees included, the
Aquatic Center Facilities Impact'Fee; Community Center -Facilities Impact Fee, Fire -,.Suppression
Facilities Impact Fee, Law. Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee, Library Facilities Impact Fee,
,Open Space Acquisition Ee' e,Park Land-Acquisitibp Fee (Non -Quimby Act Projects), Park Land
Development Impact Fee, Public Facnlities:Impact Fee, Traffic Impact Fee, Wastewater Capacity
Fee, and Water Capacity Fee. The Quimby Act fee for park land acquisition for residential
subdivision projects was also updated. The fees were based on nexus studies prepared to
determine the appropriate and applicable fees and charges,m,bel assessed. upon new development,
to ensure that new development pays ' its proportionate• fair. share forthe .future infrastructure
needs of .the community created by such new dev"e'lopinent as 'id'entified in the General Plan 2025
and its FIR. For more information„,see the fo'Ilowing reports (available online):
® City of Petaluma Mitigation4'Fee Report, Sinclair & Associates, May, 2008.
® City of Petaluma Water and' Wastewater Capacity ,Fee Study, Bartle Wells Associates,
May 2008.
®. Traffic Mitigation Fee -Program Update, Fehr &.Peers, May 2008'.
Thee current In -Lieu Housing Fee and -the 'Commercial Linkage Fee were adopted. in 2003. to
implement the previous Housing,°Element, adopted in 2002: Because the Housing Element is
updated on a state' -mandated ,timeline,, the fees related to,i its implementation were not revised at
the time the General Plan 2025- was adopted. The In -Lieu Housing and Commercial Linkage fees
`serve to implement the 'goals; policies acid'programs""of,the General Plan's Housing Element to
achieve an adequate supply of`housing units and p`rogr'ams""for all income groups. The current
Housing Element was ;adoptedin ,2009: ,and the In -Lieu. Housing Fee and Commercial Linkage
Fee were both felt to, be adequate,at; that`time and, not in need of revision.
The Storm Drain Impactlee, was bast updated in 1986 andwas established to address the impacts
of runoff from new development projects that drain into the Petaluma. River and its tributaries. It
was not updated concurrently, with the adoption of the. General .Plan 2025 because a regional
solution to surface water management had. not yet been ;identified. Following .the'completion- of
the Stormwater Program Fundiiig,''Evaluation Study, and direction from the :City C'ounci'l, Staff
can initiate the analysis needed .to, update the Storm Drain Impact Fee, along with consideration
of a separate, funding mechanism for existing development and the Tong -term capital
improvement needs of addressing the 'City',s surface water assets- and to'' meet water quality
regulatory requirements.
The Public Art Fee was adopted in ;2'005 to :ensure that public art is present throughout the
community in the belief °that" the
' y economic development, revitalize urban areas and
arts' foster
improve the overall business climate., ,The Public Art Fee is not a mitigation measure in the
General' Plan EIR,, though it .implements' .General Plan policy. No •changes were made to ,the
Public Art Fee. as part of adoption'of the General Plan 2025 and development fees in May, 2008.
fe ddtessed in 2
Other development es riot ,included in this memo not a 11 008 are the CPSP Specific
Plan Fee and the Incremental Fee which vary by project .and for which staff is not currently
recommending change , ,' , part of thi:sl effort:
Table 1 ,summarizes the-City'.s development .fees in the ,form of .fee scenarios for a single-family
residential unit, a'50,000 square foot retail use; and a 50`000' square -foot office use.
Table 1: Petaluma, Residential and Non -,,Residential Fee Scenarios as of July 1, 2011
Development�Fee,: Sin'g'le -Family` 50K,Retail 5015, Office
Aquatic Center Facilities Impact.Fee $ 356 $ 3,400 $ 3,250
Commercial Linkage Fee N:A! $' 179,500 $ 107,500
Community Center Facilities Impact Fee, $. 1,49-9,„ -$; 1„4,250 $ 13,550
Fire Suppression Facilities Impact"Fee,$ 829 $ 7,850 $ 7,550
Law Enforcement Facil t'ies'Impa' t Fee $ 1,2-5.2 $ 1.1,800 $ 11,350
Library Facilities Impact Fee $ .638 , $ 6;05.0 $ 5,750
Qpen Space.Acquisition Fee $ 3;875 $ 36,700 $ 35,100
Park Land Acquisition Fee. $ 2,089 $ 19,800 $ 18,950 j.
Park Land Development Impact Fee. $ 5,532' $ 52,400 $ 50,100
Public Art Fee N.A. $. 40,000 $ 40,000 I
Public Facilities Impact Fee $ 1,426, . $ - 13;500 $ 12,900
Traffic Impact Fee ('Caltr:ans Preferred). $ 20,516" $ 956,150. $ 984,900
Wastewater Capacity Fee $ 8;705; $. 1051585 $ 105,585
Water Capacity Fee $ 12;521. $ 50,084 $ 50,084
Storm. Drain Impact Fee, (typical SFD), $ 563' $ 271'0.00 $ 27,;000
TOTAL $ .59;801” "$ 1,524,069 $ 1,473,569
In Lieu Housing Fee ('major sub divisIio -S onl`y)'$ 9,022,
N.A. N.A.
$ 68;823
The Relationship of,the Pee Structure, to the General Pltrn 'dnd Generirl.Plan EIR
The development fee program, and, in particular, the needed improvements listed in 'the
development fee legislation that the program is -intended to fund; and the fee proceeds required to
Help finance the improvements needed' to implement the `rrdtigatibn measures identified in the
General Plan's EIR. Modificationsto the.current,deve_1'oprrient.fee program should be considBred
in terms ,of the role of the development, fee program in ,implementing, General Plan EIR
mitigations: 'Ideally; any changes?.to the program, wilt avoid negative impacts, on' implementation
of mitigation measures needed for th'e' General' Plan EIR and/or projects relying on the General
Plan mitigation measures for mitigation of;roJ' ect impacts. 'Modification of the development= fee
'p
program may require CEQA analysis to ensure that changes• to the program do not make
infeasible any mitigation measures required for the General: Plan or particular projects.
Therefore, proposed future -fee reductions should' be,,evaluated for General Plan consistency and
potential CEQA impacts: If development fee: reductions prevent,. future projects from relying 'on
mitigation. measures 'implem6nting' the General' Plan EIR, that 'could increase the cost of CEQA
3
i
review and mitigation, for future projects and impede. future; project approvals, impacting the
Council's goal of `streamtining the City's development approval process.
How Petaluma's Fees Currently Compare to Other Cities in the Region
Petaluma's ,development impact fees _are higher than other. jurisdictions in the region (See Table
2). Given the recent economic downturn this may have the, effect of making development pro
.formas difficult to balance as: well as putting Petaluma at a competitive disadvantage with' other
jurisdictions in the region in attracting future residential and employment growth. The planning
division has had prospective applicants turn away from projects: when the discussion. turned to
development fees, particularly those involving single-family homes. The recent economy' has not
brought forward many new non xesi'dential projects, but staff has heard from some applicants
that the current fee schedule is, one of the factors affecting 'a project's viability. While these
comments ate informal' and. anecdotal, there may be some merit'to these claims in the context of
the current economic. environment. The majority of residential. projects that are currently under
construction received their entitlements prior to the latest fee updates taking effect.
Table 2: Comparison of Development Impact Fees for Single -Family Dwelling Units
Jurisdiction
Facilities
Water
. Sewer
Total
Petaluma
$
38,575
$
12,521
$
8,705
$ 59,801
Novato
$
28,463
$
231'275
$
7,390
$ 59,128
Windsor
$
25,933
$
6,78,5
$
14,195
$ 46,913
Santa Rosa
$
22;627
$
5,856
$
9,795
$ 38,278
Rohnert Park
$
21,632
$
2,214
$
14,421
$ 38,267
San Rafael
$
13;392
$
14;142
$
6,200
$ 33,734
Average
$
25,418
$
14,717
$
10,061
$ 46,196
*Note: In order to provide as
direct; a comparison
as possible, housing
and school, impact fees have not been
included in this
table.
A direct comparison of fees is challenging given the variety of approaches for assessing and
calculating development fees and the "types of fees collected: Also., the system improvements and
infrastructure needs of peach local government vary,. making comparisons of individual fee
components difficult. Table 2 aggregates fees such as traffic; parks, and public facilities into a
single `facilities,7 category while. keeping water and sewer/wastewater capacity fees separate to
allow a direct comparison bet
m° , n,iurisdi,ct ons. In an effort to provide as direct a comparison.to
wee
other communities and surveys as possible, housing in -lieu ,fees, typically only assigned to major
subdivisions and not, individual units, ,and school, impact, fees,, which are not subject to city
control, have been'- excluded ,for each jurisdiction. 'The. 'firm ' Duncan Associates conducts. a
national impact' fee 'survey, most..receritly for'2010., The national average per single-family unit is
$11,796. For the 37 cities surveyed in ',California the, average: for a single-family dwelling is
$29,308. This survey data also omits, housing and °school .fees; The complete survey can be
accessed on-line at www.impactfees corn: While a comparison to ;the national average may not
be applicable, as markets in other parts of the country vary dramatically from California, it is
indicative of the importance. of and reliance on impact fees to fund local infrastructure needs 'in
California.
ld
DISCUSSION
I"n. response to "interest :expressed by the City Council during its2011 goal setting session, staff
reviewed,, the, current development impact fee program .to determine whether and how current
fees could be reduced without jeopardizing implementation,of the, General Plan 2025, and while
ensuring that future development will -pay its, fair share to mitigate its impacts on the community.
This report summarizes where.staff believe the most appropriate fee reductions can be made, the
rationale supporting those conclusions and related policy considerations, and the process(es)
required to adjust the fee categories 'involved, including an ;estimate of some of the resources
needed and the time required -to make the changes. All'fees Have been examined, but emphasis
was placed on those 'fees that, have the greatest impact on development projects. For example the
Traffic Impact Fee accounts for,,approximately 30% of.the development fees applicable to a
single-family unit and 60% of the fees, applicable to non_residential°-projects.
Separate of the work done by City staff, the Chamber of" Commerce (Chamber) has provided
suggestions for modifying the City's ;development fee program in its letter dated April 4, 2011
(attached). Staff has reviewed the Chamber's suggestions. This report indicates where staff s
recommendations are consistent with those of the Chamber, and "where the recommendations
differ.
Traffic Impact'Fee:
The Traffic Mitigation Fee Program_' Update (May 2008), provides the technical basis for
updating the City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee (TMF) Program. The TMF program is
intended to fund transportation 'improvements needed as a result of growth in the City. As such,
the fee, program uses the City of Petaluma General Plan ETRanalysis of future transportation
deficiencies and identifies those that -are attributable to future development. The conclusion of
the City of Petaluma General Plan EIR is that. existing, traffic conditions are generally acceptable
with the exception of ,a few intersections that experience peak period congestion. With the
addition of the traffic projected with buildout of the General- Plan, overall traffic conditions
throughout the City will degrade. Even with the addition of the- ,_needed improvements identified
in the General Plan, overall traffic conditions, particularly on cross-town connectors, will be
worse with General Plan `buil'dout"than current conditions. As, a result, in 2008 when the City
Council established the current ,fee; the Council- concluded that traffic growth resulting from new
development anticipated in the General Plan, would .in turn yesult, in increasing traffic congestion
throughout the City, and that . future ,development should:, fund the General Plan transportation
improvements required 'to serve `such `new development:' Table 3 outlines the .estimated costs of
the needed traffic improvement projects identified. in the=General Plan (and the TMF program
legislation).
The four improvements with the highest costs, the` :Rainier interchange, Caulfield crossing,
Copeland crossing, and Old' Redwood ;Highway interchange, improve cross-town capacity by
adding new crossings or improving the capacity of existing cross-town transportation facilities.
Each of these facilities crosses of one 'or" more of .the -Northwest Pacific/SMART Railroad,
Petaluma River, and/or US 1011: With'the addition'of these cross-town connectors, both existing
and future traffic is redistributed as the new improvements create new capacity and change
current shortest -path route selections. Because the -improvements benefit new development' City -
5
wide, and, in keeping with the,,M4y5. 2008 traffic study, the analyses conducted for this update
focusos,on a, u nfifolrrn citywide ,irrioact fee:
It should be, noted that in addition to paying the unif6rm citywide impact fee., development
projects, such, as those adj acent "to maj or new roadway connections (likes Rainier Avenue;
Caulfield, Lane, and 'Copeland, Street)', maybe required, to "'fund, and/or construct additional:
proj'ect specific;,traffic improvemeiits
such as by clpclic4iing right f-,yay or improving portions
of public roadways that traverse and/or 'are adjacent to the,site to mitigate, project -specific traffic
impacts n6t,addressed"by'the improvements to, be fundediand built pursuant to the TMF.
Table 3: Estimated Traffic Mitig'ationFee Program Costs.,
Develop-
% of
Net City
mint
Potential Fee
Program
Improvement
Project:Co'�t
Cost
Share
Contribution
Cost
Rainier Avenue Extension ;and
Interchange
75,000,000
48,10 1 0;jOOG
1'00:0%
4& 100,000
28.2%
Caltrans Preferred,,Alterna'tive:
Supplement
33'4,062;0003'4,062;00031
362,000,
3,00.,09,o,,
.31,362',000
18.4%
[CdolfieldlanelExtensidh
60,656;000',
0
54;398,;000
.100.0%
54,398,000
31.9%
Cop'ela'qd, Stree'LE1xtehsid - n
15.,82,5)i600
. 8/706,0,00
1VO
1,00.0%
8,7061-000
5.1%
OId,,'Rqdwood1 Highway
Interchange Improvements'.
28,475M0,
8,475:000'
100.0%
8,475.000"
'5.0%
Caulfield Lane/Payra'n Sfr6et.
Intersection li�nprpvemehts
500,000.
500,000
'100,0%
500,000
Petaluma Boulevard/Magnolia
Avenue - Payran,Stree't.i
Intersection
5001:000'
500,000
100.0%
500,000
0.3%,
Construction of New,
Intersections Throughout,,the
City
3,900: , 000,'
3i900,000
100:0%
3,900,000
2.3%
Traffic Signal' Upgr,6des
Throughout'the Of_Y
1;885;000
1,885,000
:1'00.0
1;885;000
1.1%,
Pedestrian/Bicycle
Improvements Throughput,th-e
City
25,523,000
25;523,000,
212%,
51412,000
3.2%
Transit Improvem6ntS
Th-(ou'g4q ut the City
;11,47111000
11,4.71,000'
21.2-516.
2,432,000
1.4%
Aorrd nistrative.Cbsts I
4,986;000
2.9%
-Subtotal With Locally Preferred;,
Rain le- e Ave n ue, Alie,64-tivei
223;.735,000
163,458,000
139,294,000
Total with Ca'Itrans Preferredl,
Alternative Supplement
257,797,000
194,820000
170i656,000
100.0%
Copeland Street Extension
' n of the spur manas currently
A's 'noted by the "Chamber .of''Comme'rce in 'its letter,'the .Copeland'S'tree't Extension
p . . ,. P
lanned conflicts; with the ,recent construction , .line serving' Dairy s Feed, and may
be. ;considered -for_ removal if it cannot, be implemented„in the foreseeable ,future. However, prior.
to, removing "this `improvement' from the program- it will be, necessary, to. conduct some level -of
traffic and CEQA analysis ' to determine the potential' impacts of :its removal on nearby
intersections to make sure that, removal does not result in an adverse negative impact on those
intersections or on traffic :circulation in the long term. The: traffic analysis is estimated to ;cost
approximately $1.0,000 and require a month from the time a -contract is in place. Depending on
the results -of the traffic analysis ,and _direction from the City Council',' additional costs may be
necessary for any subsequent general plan :amendment and' CEQA analysis. Removal :of this
project from the Traffic Impact, Yee; program would result .in a. 5% reduction in the TMF
program.
Cau'lfield''Lane Extension (So.uthern Crossink)
It has been suggested by some, including the Chamber, of Commerce, that the Caulfield Lane
Extension (Southern :Crossing) component of the traffic. irnpact fee .program should be removed
or deferred until” implementati'onof ,the next general plan. The Southern Crossing project is
.ma Specific. Plan, and_ for
critical to development 'of, the Lower :Reach; of 'the Central Petaluma
reducing impacts on East Washington and East D Streets:. As such, staff does not recommend
removing the project from, fee calculations: Should the City Council wish to 'investigate this
option the estimated cost 'to analyze the traffic impacts of`i'ts removalis estimated'at $25,000 or
time a contract is in race l Removal of the Southern .0
more depending on the scope,, of „ and will take approximately.2-3 months to complete
from the p rossing will almost certainly
require a General Plan Amendm_ ent: ysignificant CEQA analysis and affect .pending projects
reliant upon the General Plan' 202'5 and EIR. Staff could. 'investigate the feasibility of
implementing a m., d 'fee s
zonehofubenefit whi hs a ort on ements such as the: Southern
ifie
Crossing by developing pp s a .higher ,proportion of the
infrastructure improvement, -costs to those properties that withoutthe improvement have limited
or no additional :developipent potential This approach'wauld. require similar traffic modeling
costs and time, associated with updating the Traffic IVlitigation Eee program.
Rainier Avenue Extension and.Interchatiae_
Another significant change could be to .stop, collecting the Caltrans Preferred Alternative:
Supplement for the Rainier, Avenue 'Interchange. The Council has divided the full Rainier
11 Interchange project into two ;phases -. an overpass/cross-town confiect6f ,and aii interchange: 'The
design and environmental analysis both assume a future, interchange. Updating the. TMF
improvements list to 'substitute the City's ' preferred alternative for the Caltrans Preferred
Alternative maintains 'consistency with 'the, General Plan 2025 and its EIR by continuing funding
for the interchange ,,(the locally preferred 'configuration), `but, assumes that the City will succeed
in receiving a design exception iftom Caltrans. Substituting the City's preferred alternative would
result in an approximate :20%:reduction in the TMF program.
The Caltrans Preferred Al'ternati've .is a split interchange with a parallel 'street system., The
proposed design requires. converting the existing loop ramp,,confwuration on the east side of US
101 to a tight diamond configuration. Two one-way ramp extensions that parallel US 101, one in
7
the northbound direction andone in 'the southbound direction„ would, be constructed. In the
northbound' ,dire'cti'on; .traffic rdestned for Rainier Avenue, would take the off -ramp from
northbound US' 101 and ;proceed, to the East Washington Street ramp, intersection, cross the
A similar type of movepmenttewouldeo curamp, the Rainier Avenue
mtersecti'on, and enter the to connect to
Interchange 'the southbound .direction as well.
Southbqund US 101 traffic destined 'for East Washington. Street,, would take the off=ramp from
US 1-01 sand proceed to the Rainier. Avenue ramp intersection, cross the intersection, and enter
the on-ramp; :opposite of the off 'ramp; to connect to the east Washington Street Interchange.
The split, interchange alternative, would ,change the scope of the current East Washington Street
Interchange Project,, which is expected,; to bid and begiriVconstruction in. 2011-2012. The current
East Washington Street Interchange' Project will construct anew northbound diagonal on-ramp,
and realign the existing -northbound loop on=ramp and northbound off --ramp. The split
interchange alternative would , re u
realignment of the northbound off ramp..T proposed ntranc nd loop; on-ramp, and
g q , . demolition of the northbound
The ro osed freeway e e area to the, northbound
diagonal .on-ramp would need to be, modified to fit into the, ' proposed split .:interchange
configuration. This configuration would :f,egttire' right=of--way dedication and' demolition of the
soon to be constructed East Washington :improvements.
'Cost Estimates
Staff also recommends reviewing the cost estimates for ea& of the roadway improvement
projects to determine if, based'' .on new information, the estimated" costs :have changed. The
current project cost,estimates,were, developed in a high -bid environment;,and' may in the context
of today's competitive ,bidding environment have lower co`sfs. However; the current bidding
environment may, not continue through later stages of General Plan buildout or apply to later
stage projects, The cost estimates are currently being reviewed by Public Works staff for most
projects.
Parkland Acquisition Fee ° ' '
The parkland acquisitiori''fee is adjusted annually on July'°1sc by the percentage change in the five-
year average purchase price ,per; acre of vacant residential and commercial land acreage within
the Urban' Growth Boundary. A significant reduction. in .this fee occurred this year as the 2005
property purchases from "the - top of the market 'fel'l out, `of, the average, coupled with",fewer
property sales and, lower values in recent years (see attached Calculation). The latest adjustment
reducedthe parkland acquisition fee by 32%; and was,,haridled administratively, as no City'
Council anctiois re d. Staff does not recommend d any further modifications to. the Parkland
Acquisition Fee at,this .time.
Open Space Acquisition Fee:
As with the Parkland' Acquisition, Fee; the Open Space Acquisition Fee declined 32% effective
July 1, 2011. This reduction was handled administratively as well. The, Open Space Acquisition
Fee is intended to fund acquisition of diose portions of properties'wifhin the River Plan Corridor
overlay and major tributaries as depicted on the General.Plan'2025 Land Use- Map (Figure 1-1).
This overlay,.,d'efines` the areas required for implementation- of the„'adopted Petaluma River Access
and -Enhancement. Plan and to provide for future floodplain management projects. Historically,
open space lands` needed to implement the River Access arid Enhancement Plan have been
acquired through exactions/dedications associated with, particular development projects, or with
grant' funding. Given"'the City's'' successful track record .of acquiring ,open space through means
other than impact, fees, a fufther reduction .of this fee, may be considered by. the City Council to
the .extent acquisition of'propgrty needed for the plan can be., financed through means other than
development fees. A recent example -is .a grant of $850;0.00, from the State Department of Water
Resources —River Parkes y g p p p .. Industrial Avenue. The
a s Pro rain to urcliase three ro ernes along
City had previously purchased four,properties between Industrial Avenue and the Petaluma River
for,an earlier flood terracing„project.
In several instances -the arewsubject to the River Plan Corridor overlay is part of a larger parcel
with future 'development potential, 'which throughthe entitlement process could lead to
dedication of the land' necessary, to., implement ,the surface water 'management improvements
identified in the River Access and Enhancement Plan without relying on development fee
proceeds and permitting, reduction of the Open Space Acquisition, Fee.:, In other instances future
development potential I's unlikely .and acquisition would require ,grant, funding or revenues from
the Open Space Acquisition Fee: Staff has identified_ funds from non -development fee sources
that may be used to acquire River 'Plan 'Corridor', land, thus .reducing the acreage that must be
acquired with, fee proceeds and permitting: reduction of the fee: Staff is hopeful that dedications
related to particular, development.pro'ects inthe,^Plan Corridorwill,::allow further reduction'ofthe
Open Space Acquisition fee., Staff has done, a preliminary analysis of the acreage of River Plan
Corridor on properties with, future' development potential and. removed .that acreage from the
Open, Space Acquisition Fee. Staff'estimates this could resultiii`an additional 50-60% reduction
in the Open Space Acquisition Fee. Legislative action, would: live, required to update the Open
Space Acquisition fee resolution and attachments.
Water Capacity Fee:
The Water Capacity F' rased of two major e
Fee is,,comp ' j lemerits:;a: `b"uy-in' whereby new water
utility customers contribute their fair share 'for, existing„ water. capital assets and distribution
facilities necessary to serye new—.customers, and, a component, to fund future capital
improvements -to provideincreased' capacity needed tc serve 'such new lutility customers. These
capital improv_ ements' include -the recycled water system; which was designed and intended to
offset potable. demand (and:;essentially produce the. effect of creatin. g. new potable supply), for the
planning :period of the General ;Plan2025. The cost of implementing the City's Conservation
Program ° is also 'included in .the water capacity fee; because; `some of the ".new" , water, supply
needed #o serve "new development - anticipated for General Plan buildout is obtained "'from
conservation program ;savings:,in water consumption. The .capacity fee does not include normal
area p g' ' pital.sWaterebilling (commodity) tract s. a The water capa ers, as'tand
maintenance, of existin ca er utility
com onent,of the monthlycity fee and
water commodity charge. programsi together ensure that all ratepayers, new -.and existing, share in
proportion 'to 'their demand `in the ' cost of maintaining and 'expanding the water system's capital
assets.
The General Plan, 2025 :;identified the use of recycled ,water„ as . an offset for meeting potable
demand for future' development .and to allow the community to reduce the use of potable water
for non -potable demands such,as irrigation of golf courses,",open space, and parklands. There are
many factors that have 'resulted "in a reduction of water demand volumes to the point where
E
analysis undertaken:'for the completion of the 2010 Urbah'Waterl Management Plan (UWMP)
indicates that the full General "Plan 2025 recycled water system is not required to meet potable
water demands., through the current General Plan .planning "Horizon.. However, other factors,
including the -anticipated reduction or elimination of permitted discharge of treated effluent into
the Petaluma River through the City's NPDES permit, maintain the longer-term need for a
recycled water. distribution system. Changes to the City's existing discharge permit, specifically
to, disallow seasonal discharge; will, require expansion of the recycled water distribution system
to ,provide year-round storage, and%or, reuse of recycled .water in°vo'lumes significantly higher than
the volume:, currently distributed through the agricultural, 'irrigation program. For example,
elimination of permitted seasonal discharge will add approxiniately 7,230 acre feet of surplus
recycled water annually: This 'in '�turn will require the City to' increase storage significantly, or
expand dispersal.
The changes to the anticipated . need and schedule for recycled water distribution allow the
funding of the improvements'. comprising the recycled ;system' `spine' to be phased over a longer
time frame. The early phases ('Phases 2A 'and 213.) of 'the recycled. system will permit expansion
of the system to serve paying:, customers, thereby establ'ishing.-heeded capital ' facilities for the
potable offset program ,and creating! a ,revenue stream to fund .water system improvements and/or
provide matching funds for grants'. Water Resources and Conservation (WR&C) staff members
are currently discussing potential'recycled water service use' with several large property owners
just beyond the southeast edge of the community. Thcse dis.cussi'ons, to date, assume customer
participation ,in the cost of the recycled water distribution system. Review,of the water capacity
fee structure will allow the City to reconsider the long-term need for extending the recycled
water distribution system throughout. the, City. Opportunities may exist for potential of sale of
recycled water to agricultural customers in addition to Those currently served, to the extent
recycled water available for sale is not needed to offset long; -term potable. demand.
Staff agrees with the Chamber that the findings in the 20'10Urban Water Management plan
warrant a review of the need for "the; recycled water distribution system. Modifications to the
planned improvement schedule included 'in the existing fee structure; eliminating either all or a
portion of the recycled system 'improvements equates to a capacity fee reduction of 44%
(eliminates Areas E and G in'thewestern half of -the community) to 74% (eliminates all planned
recycled system improvements including those to serve new paying customers). Elimination of
these portions of the recycled. water system only preserves themajor transmission/distribution
system improvements needed to serve new development and achieve 'the ongoing
implementation of the. Water Conservation Program. It is: important to again note that the 20.0`8
Water and Wastewater Capacity ,Study did not include- in'the calculation of the capacity fees the
increased maintenance costs related to recycled water :distribution or the costs related to
expansion of -the ^production well .system to meet the, restructured agreement local supply
production goal of 40% 'average day demand, or the cost of rehabilitating and maintaining the
existing wells ,in increased production. WR&C staff is currently assembling data and associated
costs of increased;, maintenance work that would need to be taken into account along with
potential reductions in the water capacity fee as a result of reduction or elimination of recycled
water improvements.
10
Wastewater Capacity Fee
The Wastewater Capacity ,Fee is also comprised of two components: a `buy -in' whereby new
water utility , customers contribute their .fair share for existing wastewater capital assets and
distribution facilities needed to serve such new customers, . ;and a component to fund new
development's portion of the significant improvements. to the system lift stations and a portion of
the. recently completed Ellis_ Creek Water Recycling Facility (ECWRF), which facilities provide
increased.capacity needed to serve new customers: There is no, discretion to reduce these costs at
this time as the capacity fee proceeds are needed to meet the long-term debt covenants applicable
to the financing agreements; for the _ECWRF construction costs. Also, Proposition 218 limits
costs charged' to wastewater rate payers to the cost of services provided to those ratepayers. The
cost of expanded wastewater' infrastructure needed to serve new utility customers cannot be
assessed to existing rate; payers.
As with water, the wastewater, capacity fee does not include normal maintenance of existing
capital assets, as they are; a .component of the monthly wastewater billing rates. This ensures that
all ratepayers share equally; in proportion to their demand, in the cost of maintaining the
wastewater system's capital• assets .(consisting mainly of collection lines).. As with water, some
maintenance work continues to be -'deferred to preserve existing rate structures, subject to existing
debt covenants.
WR&C staff is in the process of retaining Bartle Wells Associates to update the 2008 Water and
Wastewater Capacity Fee Study, at a, cost of approximately, ,$80;00. Updating the report is
estimated to require 3 months: and will result in a revised study that will be available as a basis
for modifying the current• 'util'ity capacity fees structure by the end of this, calendar year.
Updating the fees will also allow the. removal of completed: projects from the long-term project
improvement lists, such,as the major rehabilitation currently'.wrapping up on the C Street Pump
Station and the completed Tenth Street water'and sewer reconstruction.
Commercial Linkage Fee:
The Commerciat'Linkage' Fee was' originally adopted in 2003 to increase funding for workforce
housing through a fee linked to the creation of jobs. The, Commercial Linkage Fee was amended
by the City Council in May, 20:11 io limit its applicability ,to:rnew, nonresidential square footage
in an effort to help incentivize re -tenanting of existing buildings, while continuing to provide a
moderate, amount of 'revenue for future workforce housing. The Chamber suggests reducing, the,
jobs -housing linkage fee and toa make the fee dependent. on the .number of low wage jobs „that a
new development will', actually create. As discussed in May, staff does not recommend tying the
commercial linkage fee to actual jobs and/or wages as that would.make administration of the fee.
Other ,opportunities may exist,, such as reducing the fee or modifying the payment schedule to
permit the fee to be paid over a period of time, or some combination thereof. However, deferral
of fee collection adds, risk„ and/or transaction costs,, for the City. Secured deferral entails
additional cost from review of security agreements, verification of security, etc. Deferral without
security risks recovery of the fees where the project developer's finances worsen or developer
compliance With deferral" terms otherwise fails to occur. 'Financial incentives provided by the
City, such as loans" to."'finance fees where repayment is contingent; or discounted fees; typically
subject projects to: prevailing wage requirements. In that case, the savings from fee deferrals
y by increased. pro�eet costs due to prevailn
ma be exceeded g wage liability. Based on City
61
Council priorities for ;affordable, housing, staff does not .-recommend further changes to the
Commercial Linkage Fee' at this time.
11 1
Public Art.Fee:
When the City Council adopted.. the Public Art Ordinance „in, 2005 it included the following
provision: "The City Council.shall, review the provisions of this :ordinance and the effectiveness
of the 'Public Art program following, a period of time deemed appropriate by the City Council,
but not to',exceed five year"§• after, the effective date of this ordinance:" The Public Art committee
recently completed a draft Master Plan and recommended amendments to the enabling ordinance
with respect., to process;,and irnplerrientation. These are undergoing. staff review, but will be
presented to the Council in the near future.
The fee itself is set -at 1% of the estimated construction cost of projects subject to the fee -and can
be" satisfied with contribt ti`o
n of "public'art, subject to defined criteria, or by paying the fee, at an
applicant's election. A review of city records shows that a. total, of $59;203 has been collected in
fees by those who have ,chosen, the fee option. Approximately $4 0,0.00 of this funding hasl been
used. to,,support the cost of „Master Planning, $40,53.6 remains for public art projects to be
installed consistent with the MasterPlan.
The City Council has the discretion to revise the Public Art. Fee: Doing, so would require
amending Chapter 18 of the ,Implementing Zoning Ordinance., The Chamber of Commerce
proposes reducing the required contribution for public art from t.O% o of the cost of new
construction to 0:5%. Staff has' not heard from the development ,community that the Public Art
Fee, is onerous on projects, and in many instances it has been viewed, as a project benefit. As, the
Public Art Fee :is a relatively' minor component of the. overall impact fee structure, and because
of the' value'that public ,art 'adds to the community,' staff does not recommend changing the
amount or application of this Tfee. ,'
Other Impact Fees: .
Similar to the ,approach .for reviewing the cost estimates for each of the, roadway improvement
projects to determine if based' on new information, the 'estimated construction costs or fee
components 'have changed; the following impact, fees are being analyzed in more detail by Public
Works staff.
® • Aquatic,Cenier.-Facilities Impact Fee
• Community Center„Faciliti'es Impact Fee
® Fire Suppression Facilities Impact Fee
® Law Enforcementfacilities Impact Fee'
® Library' Facilities Impact Fee
® Parkland. Development Impact'Fee
o Public Facilities Impact Fee
In aggregate;! the above” fees make up $111,532 of the total impact fees for a single-family unit.
Consequently a 1:0016 reduction in costs could result in meaningful savings.
12
41 1
. 1
I'
men efeq r gram. were modified based.
Potential Overs eogr m Redaction:
If the develop p o upon the above. recommendations, the
potential reductions 'could be somewhere between 10-15% for residential uses and 15-201/Q for
non-residential uses. This' would. put Petaluma in the middle of the, larger North Bay
communities, The''potential reductions are only estimates at this time and include the following
assumptions:.
• Aqu, atic.Center Facilities: Assume 10% reduction in cost estimates.
• Commercial Linkage: No. Change.
• In Lieu Housing: No Change
• Communi.ty,Center Facilities:, Assume 1'0% reductiorn in cost estimates.
• Fire Suppression Facilities:,Assume t0% reduction in cost estimates.
• Law Enforcement,Facilities; Assume 10% reduction'in cost: estimates.
• Library Facilities: Assume 1'0% reduction in cost estimates:
• Open'Space Acquisition: A'nhu ' Adjustment and ass`i[me 50% reduction for grants, etc
• Park Land Acquisition: Annual Adjiistment, no additional changes.
L.
• Park Land Development: Assume' lb% reduction, in cost estimates.
• Public Art: Na Change.
• Public Facilities: Assume 1'0%,reduction in cost estimates.
• Traffic Impact -Locally Preferred Rainier and eliniination.of Copeland Bridge'.
• Wastewater: No Change.
• Water Capacity: Assume 44% reduction based on elimi`nation,of Areas E and G.
• Storm Drain: No .Chd'nge'
Table 4: Potential Future,;lmpact, Fee Scenario
Development lmpact'Fee:^ "I
Single -Family
Aquatic Center Facilities Impact Fee
$
320
Commercial Linkage,Fee„
$
N.A.
Community Cerite r,FaciIitieslmpact Fee
$
1,349
Fire Suppression. FacilitieselmpactFee
$
'746.
Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee
$
1,127
Library Facilities, lmpact`Fee
$
574
Open Space Acquisition'Fee'
$
1,938
Park Land Acquisition Tee
$
2;089
Park Land Development Impact Fee
$
4,957
Public Art Fee
$
N.A.
Public Facilitie& Impact,,,Fee
$
1,283
Traffic Impact'Tee ('Locally,iPreferred)
$
15,056
Wastewater'°Fee
$
8,705
Water Capacity Fee
$
7.,012
Storm Drain Impact Fee
$
563
$ 1;218,421
$
45,741
In Lieu Housing Fee (major subdivisions only)
$
9,022
$
54,763
50KAPtail
50K Office
$' 3;060
$
2,925
179,500
$
107,500
$ 12,825
$
12,195
$' 7;065
$
6,795
$ 10,620
$
10,215
$' 5,445
$
5,175
$ 18,350
$
18,350
$ 10,800
$
18,950
$ 47;160
$
45,059
$ 40,000
$
40,000
$, 12,150
$°
11,610
$ 701,1814
$
722,917
$ 105,585
$
105,585
$ 28,047
$
28,047
$ 27,000
$
27,000,
$ 1;218,421
$
1,162,354
13
Process for Revising Fees
As noted above,, .the adjustments to the Parkland ' and, Open. Space Acquisition Fees were
accomplished "administratively, in accordance with'the fee legislation. The remaining proposals
will require' additional staff ,time, potential consultant time, legal review, and , updated fee
resolutions and legislative. action, by the City Councit'The amount of"time varies from a week or
two of staff 'time to a couple months of consultant time to conduct the, necessary analyses
depending on City Council direction. Some of the analyses may require additional direction from
Counsel and require additional costs and time associated with 'any general plan amendments and
CEQA analysis. In addition to the analyses is the time associated with preparing staff reports and
legislation which typically requires a few weeks of staff time in preparation and a few weeks for
routing reports for review. Ideally„ any revisions would be presented to the Council as a package.
Assuming direction from the: City Council on September 12`", the time necessary to bring a
package of updated fee resolutions to the City Council .for adoption could result in legislative
action to update 'the fees commencing at one of the two meetings in December.
FINANCIAL IMPAC'T'S
Most of the recommendations above'will require staff and legal staff time in preparing legislation
as well as potential costs associated with consultants for some of the technical analyses required
in support of the fee adjustments. These .costs can ,be borne by the development fee funds
themselves as part of ongoing,,administration of the fee program., Staff estimates consultant costs
ranging between $8,000 and $43,;000 or more and related expenditure of staff time and legal
service costs depending on City Council,;direction. Table 5 contains the current balance for each
impact fee account.
Table 5:'Current Development Fee.Account Balances
Development Fee Account
Balance
as of 6/30/11
Aquatic Center FacilitiesImpact Fee
$
15,2.94
Commercial Linkage Fee
$
398;038
Community Center Facilities Impact Fee
$
1,056,755
Fire Suppression Facilities Impac'Fee,
$
189,745
In Lieu Housing Fee
$
1,750,269.
Law Enforcement Facilities;lmpact Fee
$
236,747
Library Facilities Impact Fee
$
114;896
O;pen!Space Acquisition Fee
$
-
Park Land Acquisition'Fe&,
$
-
Park Land Development Impact Fee
$
-
Park Land Acq',uisition/Development
Impact Fee (pre '2008 fee,structure),.
$
1,6251228
Public Art Fee
$
40,536
Public Facilities Impact Fee,
$
60,459
Traffic Impact fee (Caltrans Prefe(r6d)i
$
1,741,8501
Wastewater Fee
Water Capacity Fee'
Storm Drain Impact, Fee (ty,pica,I SFD)
$
3,769,0.79
TOTAL
$
10,998,896
14
ATTACHMENTS
1. FY 11/1'2 Development Impact Fee Schedule, "
2. Letter from Petaluma°Chamber'of Commerce
3. Calculation of Opeft"Space and -Park Land.Acquisition Fees
15
FY 11/12 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE"S.C-HED.ULE#ev. 8/1 1/1.1,)
(A) If property',iswithin'the Redevelopment,area, fees are 50% of the stated fees.
H:\Misc. Planning\Impact Fee Review\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRiX_Revised08l hdoc.
0
FEE TYPE
_LAND USE TYPE
FEE
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
IAquatic Center
„
, Facilities Impact Fee
Single Fainily,IZesidential
$356
Unit -
Multifamily Residential
$240
'Una..
Accessory Dwelling
$1722
Unit
�'
Comiiercial
$68
1.;000, sq`'ft.of:building space
Office
$65
1',000 sq ft of building space
Industrial'
$43
1,g0Q sq .ftof building space
t'C`�iy44 r"'.#...,R., 't^t,�`"'4 �,a�'. s°'I :..t�'C`bFgaa"rt4#•.5^
I` e. % �°'a� .. ...., . -� ,
.._c':a�,- .es:.. .y^. °": $'.i.•. e.. ^. �T �:,j!',�t,o.^'w «\. ?`tt a�,Y er pF q�';9$'0"pg
y . �' < _.-�« a •>. .. .��6's �sj... >..t <. • 'f:;z-^. �, i� , '� r t' f aga_s ^�''! �$ ... X31 ,.;"�a
Commercial Linkage
A)
Comriiercial
$2•.08
1 Square Foot
" Retail
$3.59 "
:Square Foot
Industrial
1 $2.15'
1 :Square, Foot
q§,"!�:';`=i.<. .'�':�,:.�ye�,:� 5� ?p'�s,�,,=�.a��,�.
.`�.. `.1 _°+�5.' F'�."�:. ::rT2�"l.ft.r y:'�?. '.I,�9i
-;�r '�w � ° '=^�'•"'_�J.},�'°� .�: "����C�. x�.�
„...tv§.«�iby' aA..:�i^AsFt <"".-. . rG.{4ia _ S�
.,s �=�.�$n„ °r°r ��c... ,. "°�'�:'�:;;, r: ��'s - �,.g��'• :�.."a:y y,'�'�.�:�",, "�
ly�j'i, 9.J'.."v �? a.,'KI�. n.'_ti¢R�:°d�'>'t-G4iW�k��:X%�!n'.'��,•':. F�,t"w5 '�' "°�8?"�,Ea'h�'".'......I
Community Center'
I.
Facilities Impact Fee
Single Family Residential
.$11,499
Unit
Iblultifainily Residential _
$'1,,01.1 ,
Unit
Accessory Dwelling
$5:14
Unit
Commercial
$_285 .,
1,000. sqft,.. wilding space
'Office
$271
1,000'`sq "ft,of'building space
Indus' trial;
$173
'1`1,006 sq ft of building,space.
'.8at ''<'A "Y'1s.. ^
:.. ixr u . 6 e ,';A .. ......
:�: "°S. ^� A''>'+...I�"
< . •`"A � ` •. i..... 'g"• 3...
5 �S',.' °,
to � . 'i.��' `k'<!.!""<'S�ki;F..; L :' .. e("Y .c'.: t a4�� � h,•'�<'..
I` •'.3. ";>St` "E.<Yi
Fire Suppression
Facilities Impact Fee
' Single Family Residential
$829.'
Unit
Multifai- ily;Residential -
1 $558
Unit
Accessory Dwelling
1 $285,
_ �; Unit
Mobile'. Home
$829
�,, Unit
using
1 .Seliior Housing'
$55.8
„nit
[.Unit
1', Assisted Units
$55,8„
Unit,
''Commercial Lodging
$558,
1,. Unit
;Cofin- iiiefcial
$;157
1.,000",sq,ft4 building^space
Retail Uses
$ l_5T
-1#001§q ft- of building space
Office Uses
$151
1,000 sq ft.of building space
1 .Indust_rial,'Uses
$96
1,000 sq ft' of build i�gspace
1<,_ �,�;; - �' " „ �• - �.�.
"�a 'S` 1' �. R. �'�� t<.<.
3' .:.... .:."'N:;e�.. ar_ .. . ^ <h. y +'�R.
^� .e:<: - ' `
�. 'rxp�s:. F'al..", 3.• 'Li"i.' R"a' ...:"4.`",
�Y• !'. a �. H$ 1 .pi`s:: ".g.. .., :4,,. ,Y,'S j 9>.,p�, q'ak t �5:
Law;;Enforcement
Facilities Impaeffee,
Single Family Residential,,,
$1';252
Unit ,
„Mult'ifamly Residential'
$843
Unit,
Accessory .Dwelling
$430
Unit
9Viobiie Home
.$1;252
Unit"
Senior Housing _
1 $843°°
I"Unit
"Assisted Living
$843'"
Unit
kCommerc,ial Lodging
1 ,$843'
Unit
(A) If property',iswithin'the Redevelopment,area, fees are 50% of the stated fees.
H:\Misc. Planning\Impact Fee Review\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRiX_Revised08l hdoc.
0
FEE TYPE LAND USE. TYPE
FEE
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
Law Enforcement
" Retail
$236
„1,000 sq ft of building space
Conimercial
$23,6 '
.1,000 sq ft of-building'space
O'ffice
$227
1,000 sq ft of U;uilding space
.Industrial'
1 $144
1,0a6sq ftofbuild-ing•space
I
Library, Facilities'
I_mpact Fee Singlp, ..arnily. Residential
$638
Unit-,
Single Fa>_nily :-,attached
$638
Unit
Mulfifarrily Re'sid'ential
$431
Univ
Accessory Dwelling
$219
I Unit
Mobile Home
$6318
Unit-
'° "Cornjnercial''
$-1121
1' '1,090''sq' ft of building° space
Office
$115..
1,000 sq; ft of building space
Industrial
1 $74 11; ;i 000, sq, ft of building space
I",a °4'4_' �,wq �. .9T .�,�a�_- `^s4r�k'". �'Y' `i, «�8 +k" ,'�k .�S'."t .
....
t^a,i . »ai>.9a ,. ,... .. .. LAiI.^°e.,- .,°�t.<z" ... .3.*, � *:St �'I. .tied:., ,, vz i<t..i
'" 5: �' �� �'.a.'.z:tiraA;d' -• i'�..`
r'' ,.. `:�w,'., .a�='zz��,�'i°F'�."'",�'it. `.9^�Y ?�
I.F w
Open Space
Acquisition Fee „Sin' ie Family Residential
$3,875
Unit
Multifain'il'y`Resid"ential
$2';609 '
` Unit
Accessory Dwelling.
$1;329
Unit
Coininetva-1
$734
I{ f ;00.0 sq ft of building space
Office_
.$702'
1,000 sq,t of building space
,Industrial
1:$447;
1,000 sq ft of building space
Park Land
Acquisition Fee (Non-
'Ouimby Act'.Projects)
$ingle .Fa>- ' Residential
$2,089
'Unit,
M.ultifarnily. Residential.
$1,415,
„I' Unit
`Accessory pwelling
$717
Unit,'
Commercial:,
$396
1''0000"sq ft of building•space
Office
$3,79 .,
1.;000 sq ft of building space
I I Industrial
- -
1 $241.,
1 1,000 sq ft of building space
k- ;, �.. m
«� J ,�_• a£';. K i :4 ;,^�� ?k..�.' •,$ � �' '.`.s ' a '6 <.
E: iA•W-.� . ... .. ., +a";9�' .x' a Ett"e +C < : :'t <Y"i
a ° , t §., : Ez ^ i.:+ ',.+9.', �� ..v„`4�. V A "g,__ .. `'�
Park Land'
”AI Ac q. . uisition Fee
E(Qu imby Act
;, Projects)cBl ;Single Family Residential
$2,Q89
Unit
Multifamily, Residential
$1,4.15
Unit
„
Accessory Dwelling -'
$717
Unit
`
Commercial
$396
1;000'sq"ft 'of bu'ildingspace
"O'ffi'ce.
$379
11;0.00 sq" ft of-$uilding space
Industrial
$241
I 1,000 sq.ft'of building space
IBI The Quimby.Act applies only°to:fees and/or dedications imposed on certain
subdivisions,,subject to,the S'6bdivision
Map Act'.to.fu_nd I:and,acquisition costs for
park -or recreational purposes.
KNisc.,Planningumpact.Fee Review\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX
Revised081 I.doc
FEE° TYPE LAND USE"TYPE FEE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
Park Land
Development -Impact
Fee Single Family Residential
$57532.
Unit
Single. Family — attached
I $5,532
Unit
Multifamily residential
I $3,724
Unit
Accessory Dwelling
$1,898
Unit
Manufacture d.Hoine
$5,532
Unit
Commercial
$1,048
1,000 sq ft of'building-space
Office
I $1,002
1,0,00 sq ft of building space
Industrial,
I $638
1,000
C.°'w'h: °A?Pb.�"FM'•'4 Y'
., 4 <ix k6a?'iY'r x'✓ ..:^.yt'�?".n'"�°�>'`fP' '\w'.E y_A.:'+,`iu°,:;i xY �St.k '1,.� t°S'.:'•,:!
_
' Public Facilities
Impact Fee
Single Family Residential
$9,426
Unit
Multifamily"Resid'ential
I $960
I Unit
Accessory Dwelling
$489
Unit
Corriinercial.
$270
1,000.sq ft of building space
Office:
$258
13000 sg ft°of building space
Ind'ust'rial
I $164;
I. 1_,0001SgTft of building space
Ic.,,a' . r .,; =K,ru bfl''g,,, ;�"c 'A 'a 'a• "s:" ;n.a.;:"a•:+<'ti'
}�,,,���t 'SR : �..i.:4<.§.ga .�. '. , d. .�.,�,.,.:1r: ,.Tit. �"°:g .� A, 3.y.\- •.{,3°.ek 5s
"R'i'i.Hr'7i.:.':-I 'X..
wJ^
Traffic Impact'Fee'cl I Single!Fam'ily Residential
I '$20,516
Umt
(Caltrans Preferred) I Multifamily Residential
I $1.2,514
I Unit
Accessory.IDwelling
I $5;744
I Unit,
I Senior Housing
I $5,335
I Unit
Office
$19,698
11.,000 sq ft of building space
Hotel/Motel
$114,157..
Room
Commercial/Shopping
$19,123
1,000 sq ft of building space
Industrial/Warehouse
$4`2,3.09
1;000 sq ft of building space
Education
$ 3,078
'S'tudent
Institution
I 1-82,1
-1,000_sg ft of,building space
:,�., `��m� nds" •dr "� I� �axi,�: � �, s - K . _n� ._ �_-. � a
,�,�I . � °,: &.M�o:,I"• ¢r.,
Traffic..Impact FeelSing,l'e-Family Residential
I $1;6,746
I VUnit
(Locally Preferred) i Multifamily Residential
I $10,21.5
I "Unit.
Accessory Dwelling
I $4,689
Unit
Senior Housing
$4,354
,Unit
Office -
$16,076
1;0.00, sq ft of building space
Hotel/Motel
H tel
$11,555
Room I
1 Commercial/Shopping
I $15,574
Al 000 sq ft of building space
Industrial%Warehouse
I $10,048
11,000 sq ft of building space
Education
I $2,512
I Student
Institution.
I $7,20:1
11,000 sq ft of building space
.. �n }v : n,"§, F � R' �, '.a.,$ . "��. � � - .. yy�'.�, , a,an'°F.' - `.8 e ;; " „" a* .: L. " d,.-'„f'•.k"
Ndifferential'be1ween
�.�q."� ^ a . b. pet's: -�e "'�, ^':`^< .M. a - ^��» ra r .u,
..
«l The 2 adopted traffic impact fees reflect the cost two design alternatives for
the proposed Rainier A.venue� Cross-town Connector and Highway 101. Interchange ("Caltrans
Preferred"; "Locally, Preferred")., Until a final determination is made on a design alternative, the
City will collect'the higher (the "Caltrans Preferred")'of
the 2
traffic.im,pact fees on all projects
subject to that fee. Should the "Locally Preferred", design alternative ultimately be selected, the
City will then -charge the "'Locally Preferred" traffic impact fee,amount and refund the incremental
difference between .the' two fees to those projects that had already
paid the "Caltrans Preferred"
traffic impact fee.
H:\Misc. PlanningAmpact Fee. Review\DEV ELOPM ENT FEES MATRIX Revised081 l.doc
1�
FEE: TYPE LAND USYTYPE
FEE
UNIT OF MEASUREMENT
ential
W-Sifi�lc, Parnil, y Residential
'astewater"' Unit
Mulfififfnily, Residential
unit
Access 6ry'Dwelling
$3,394
Unit
Minitnuin"Fee
$8,705
Non- Residential Customers:
Per gallon daily flow:
$ 25,.97
Perd'aily pound of BOD:
V2,57633
PeKdaily pound- 4f TSS
$ 2,954.19,,
No.n.-res.idenfildO,)
W,
Water Capacity METER SIZE
FEE
(per meter size).
5/8
$12,521..
3/4
$12,521,
17 (residential)
1" (non-'residenti I al)
$20,03' .4
1,
1115,042 1
r"
1550,084"' 1
3"
$75,126
1.491
M00J69'
1 V
181509426 1
)6
by
Iease
Case basis
(D)The wastewater capacity apac - ity "fee, for non-residential
users. is based
on the daily, flow, biological
oxygen demand and the total" suspended solids of the
wastewater' being. discharged. Please contact
Water Resources and Conservation at 778-4546 for
a jubte.,
HAMisc. PlanningUinpact F.ee, Review\DEVELOPM ENT FEES MATRIX Revised684 I.doc
STORM'DRAIN IMPACT'FEE
Calculation,of Fee
Runoff :computation: The increase in,,runoff created by agiven project is calculated for a 100 -year
storm utilizing runoff coefficieiits based, upon the portion Of'veggtated area to impervious surfaces, and
expressed -in acre-feet. Runoff coefficients are based upon the 'type of use, slope of the land, and percent
of vegetation ,coverage.
Commercia,lUIndustrial: Projects„pay' a fee of $30,000 per acre foot of additional runoff. The amount of
incremental 'runoff created is direc'tt'y linked to the amount of landscapiiig.'provided. The maximum fee
possible is $9;000` per acre of land: This would apply to a "'project. with 20% or less landscaping. A
project with 25% landscaping can, expecta,fee of'$6,750 per acre; 3'0% would pay $6,30.0 per acre, and so
011.
Residential: Projects pay a fee �of $15,000 per acre foot of,addit'ional runoff. Incremental runoff is
dependent upon the density of a project and the amount of landscaping and open space
provided. A high density project, with ,2,0% or less area in landscaping, could expect to pay„$4,500 per
acre. A type detached single family subdivision would pay approximately $1,500 per acre.
If you have any questions on how to calculate this fee please contact Curt 'Bates at:
707-778-4474.
t
H'\Misc. PlanningAinpact.FeerReview\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX ReViscd081 Ldoc
1"A, ,
4N, LIEU HOUSING FEES (5 units,or more —'based on squar;,e,f6otage),, see Table's below.:
.Sq. Ft;
`Fee
Sq. Ft
Fee
Sq: Ft;,
Fee
S.q Ft. ; � Fee_
Sq Ft � Fee
�6°40'4
$,2400
1'060
$4224.
1480'
$624'b
1900
$8465-
2320;
$',10.881
�
$244'1
'
,1070 $42 70'
149.0
$629:6
1.910
$8520.
..23s0'
$10941
1560
$2482
CP080.
', '$43.16
`1500 '
$6347
11.,02_,,0&'*,
$8576
@ 234!0 ; ,
$11001
1 670.,
n
�" ' $2524
�:1'090 '�� '''$43'62'
t ti ..
1510
-
$6398
1930
$9631
2350' "
$1'1062
$2565
1.1'00,
$4408.
1°520 "1
$6449
1940 °
$8687
2360' 11'
$11122
.690', ,,',$2607
11'1.0'.
:° $4454
1580
$6500.
1050
$8742.
_'' :1R0_ ; _
'$1 1 182
;700
$26491120
$450`1
fi540 °,
$655;1:
1960 f,�
'$8798'
24380
$11243
7,1.0:
$2690
11'30,
34547;
1550 ,
$6602
1970
,, $8854
"..2390
$11303
720. ",.
$2732
„I 140
$4594
jj56Q.
_ $6653
1 _:1980-,
-$8910.
2'4;
$11364
M'"
$2774
11,50'
$4;641
1570
$6705
1990_
$8966
2410
-2420
$11425
[730
140',
" $2816
11'66
$4688
"1580 `
$6756
2000 °
$9022
$11486
�' 75.0.;: •
'° ' $2859 �
11`.70 '
$',4735
1590 ''
$680.8
0'1,0
$9079
a. _ .
,2430.' .
$115,47
760" '`
$2901
1.1`;80•
w$4782
°-1600
$6860"
2020.'
$9135
$11608
-.,'1 $2944
1 1' 1.9.0-
1114829
161;0;
$6912'
2030'""" "
$9192
1 ,2-450
$11670
780.x,°':
$2986
;_1200' • 1,,$4876.
[1-620
1 $6964
2040._,x..1.
$9249
1, '24:6,0'°
$11731 1
790
$3029
1'210
',$4924
• F1630;
$7016
205' 1
,'$9305
1 2470m..l
s.1 1792
800
1 $3072
1220
:$4971
`1'640
$7068 -
{ 2060 �I
$9362
{ 24. .�
$11854
810 :.
$3115
1230
$5019
1'65.0
$7120
2070.
$9419
{ •;2490 '
$11916
820.
' $3158
12f40
$5066
1660 '
$7173
2080 ' +,
$9476
•2500
$11978
830 "''
"" $3201
1250
Y$5 l 14
1670" ' "
$7225
�' .2090
$9534
2510',
$1204.0
�' 840'''°'
° $3244,
1'260' ""
$5162
`•1ti680 ` •
$7278'
.:2''1"00 .'�
$9591""
•2520""
$12102
.,850'
1 $3287
1270 •'
.$521:0'
1'169,0
I $7331
I ;21 LO �.
$9649
$12164
1,. 860
$3331
1.280
j`,$5259-
4700 h•
" 1 $7384
, ,t
$9706,
{ 2540
$12226
1.870..,
1 $3374
1 1.290 ::
$53.07
171,0
$7437
2130 .1
$9764
{ 2515.0,
$12289
.8.80.; ,
$3418
1 1300.,. '
$5355•,
1'7y20, .
$7490
;2.1„40., ,'
$9822
„,, '2560,
$1235.1
.890';,
1 $3462
1,131Q w
” . 35404.
„173U %
. ,$7543
2150
$9880
,,,25.70;, �
$12414
.900 :__..,,�
$3506
�. 1320
$5452,
1'74'0
$7596,
2;1;60. ,.
$9938
"2580 `
$12476
'91.0.'""'
$3550
„`1'330 ,' "$5501
1750
$7650
211,'0
$999..6
�:" 2590!
$12539
920
$3594
1 13;40
$5550
1760
$7703'
2180 "
$1"0054
{ :"2600""'
$12602
930,
$3638
1,1350.
$5599-
177.0"
" $7757
2190
$,10.112
26:10 I
$12665
:9'40
$3683
1i+;1360' '
°� $5648'
p,1`780',
$781.1
=2200
$'10,171
'(2620e,
$12729
950', ...
$3727
.13:70 °,$5697
,. 1790-, .,
$7865
2210'
$10229
;2630^ "{
$12792
X960.`, ,
:; N; $3772
.1380 ,
, $574.77
,,1.800,
$791-9
.22Z0,,,-- -
;$ W288
,2640,,
$12855 '
1:'970 ,-
$38;17
„'1390 „
„$5796,
1.810
$7973.
„ .2230: „
:$10347
2650..,'1,
$129,19'
$584;6 ,
1'826'
�, $8027
�, 2240 , "
$1040.6
1.. 2600,.j �
$12982,
$3906
1°4000
I $5895
1830
$8081
X2250'`
$10465
2670 '�
$13046
]S395
11'142,0`7'$5945
t840-
$81'36
2606'
$10524
,2680 ,�
$1.311'0
1.010
{ $3997
„1430`
$5995
1,850 -'
$8190
2270:
$10583
�'' 2690 "'�
$'13174 {
1020
'a $4042
1440
$6045.
{ 1,860. "
;{ $8245'
I'' 2280" _"
$10643
2700.:
$1:3238 {
1'030
$4087
1450
$6095
1;8,76: ''
$8300
I ° 2290.
;$10702
2710
$13302
1C040';,
$4133
i'1460
° $6145
1,880,, :
$8355.
2300;„ 1
:$1.0762,
„2720.
$13367
LOSQ,
$4178
1470..u,
; 4$6195
1890 , .,
,,,� $8410
�, . 23.1'0`".
'$1.0822
`. 273,0 • ;`
$13431
H:\Misc. PlanningUmpact-Fee Review\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX Revised081 Ldoc
m
H:\Misc. Planning\hnpadFee Review\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX Revised081 l.doc
a�
Sq Ft
F
9
q• .
S Ft.. . Ft Fee
�... q. Fee Sq
2740
$'13`
496
31 Ot
$ 6446
_ ° 3;6201
$196,13
2750
$.1'356063.-
$�1651�5
".
363'-0
$19'687"
`1`12760'x'-'
3625'1;',"'4
3200' "1 $1'6585
l""°3640" '1
ST9.762
$13690
3.21'0" �' $1:6655
l" '3r650�' .,I
,$19837
2780',
'$13755
32�20r: ,..$.1'6725
�; 3660
$199-1;2 „
2790 .,
1 $:13820
1 .3230, 1 „$116795,
.,la 3670,., j
119986
�.. 20.0, °
'$13885
1. 3240 .� . $!1;6865
; ..:3'680 ,, .I
$20062 I"
�.., 28^10 _
$13950
3256. 1 $x16935
.1, .;3690,-
$201'37, 1
2826
$•14016
.. 3260 ,1 $17006
L. 3:709' , �
$20212
. 283,0•
1 :$.l 4081.
1 _ . 3270 ., :l . $,1x7076
,1.. 3'71"0.. 1
$20287--
�. 2840
$14147
1 "3280'" ;.$'1:71'47
�''' _ 3;22.0
$20.363
1 2850
$14213
I 3290 ' 1 °.$172,17 1
° 3730 °
$20438.
'2860 ''1.$14279
3300 $17288
3740'
$205;4
2870 �
$14345
3310, $17359
3:7$0 `
$20590
' 2880.. ''
' $14:411
'3320 ' -"'' $17430
i '`3:760"
$20666. r .... ,
",'-'2'890z :
$1.4.477
- .:'"3.33.0'°,.. .$1.7.5.01
3'77,0,.
$20742
$1.4543,
.3U i .$17572,
,.3-780
$2081'8
20,1'0 ,i ,',
$14610
33'SQ , , .$17644
3',,790 .1
$20895 1, „
2920.
$14676
�., 3,360 ., _ . x$1.77-15
,._ 3800
$20971
2930.
$1474370
�-. ;$177'87
�, k 38x1;0 ..�
$21047
2940'"
1 $14816
1'` 3380 ` 1 $17859.
F' 3820. '
$2'1.124 I'
",2950'-
$14877
1", 33190'` '1':$11930
1''." 383.0 " 1
$21201
.2960
$14944I,,
y 00.'` 1 $ 180021
$21278:
1,.' 2q,70—
$15011
341'0 ' 118074
[ ' 31850 I
$21355.
. 2980;:x, '
$15078
,;, ',3420 ; ] :$18146
1,, ' 3860_ _ ,1-
$21432
$151'45
1,, ,343.0 q1 $182;19
1, .3870,,, j
,$2';1509 1„
l ,, -3000` -1
$1,5213
1„ ” 3.4.40, .,.. S l .8,291
3'880.
$21586 ,
:30W,- :
$15280
, .345.0 $18364
3,890
$21664 "
$15348
34'60, . $1806
3;90Q
$2174,1
30.30`
$15416
' " $�18'S09
3470
391'.0' "
$21819 "
$15484
3480'',' "S185.82
390,'
$21' 896
$15552
,349°0;'' ,$1865--5
.
3930"aI
1974 1"
1;3,060
$'15620
„ $00, $18,728
i'39,40''
$22052
.,x3,0,70';_+$15688
,5. :35.1 Q, $.18801_�„
:3950, ,:
$2-2130
3080::, :1
$15756
1' „E3;520 J, $18874
�. ,3960`,,
$22209. 1 -
,:3090,...j
$15825
'3530. $1894.7
3970
$22287 I p
3`1;00
'$15893
;, '.354Q . '`� `$1902"l
' 3980 "
$22365"'
$-15962
�'' .355Q'".l $19095'
I- "j99,0,'
$22444
20
$16031
w '3`560` ', $1'91,68
,,:4600°
$22500
�n `31:3.0,'. _�
- $1>61.00
'1 . 3570• . $19242;
$161'69.
;35.80':,. $1'93'16
:, °31'5 Of
$1'623'8'
.,I, 3590 $1'9390.
$16307
J'606"'], $194°64
'.-31,70'' '1
$16376
._ ;36.10, :I $1'9539.
H:\Misc. Planning\hnpadFee Review\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX Revised081 l.doc
a�
PUBLIC ART IN LIEU FEES
Calculation of Fee
The, following fee will be required' for all "new [non-residential] development, or the rehabilitation,
renovation, remodeling or-improyement of an existing.build.ing, having a construction cost as defined...
of'$500,000.00 or more." Compliance with the provisions of,the ordinance will, be determined at the time
of'building permit application. Those projects subject to the ordinance must either provide proof of a
Written contractual agreement to commission public, artfor the project site, or pay an hi -lieu fee equal to
1% of the construction cost.
CENTRAL PETALUMA SPECIFIC PLAN FEES
This fee will be charged to all-,appi.ications requiring governmental approvals subject to the provisions of
the Central Petaluma Specific Plan'and the adopted land use and development regulations (the "Smart
Code'). The fee will be as follows:
Per Acre of Land $2,125.00
CPSP IN LIEU PARKING FEE
The parking. in -lieu fee shall .be set initially at $20,000 per,parking,space. Thereafter, the fee schedule for
the City's parking,in lieu fees"shall be reviewed and adjusted annually by the Director, with adjustments
to the fee schedule coming into' force on July 1 of each year. 'Consideration in setting this fee schedule
shall include (but not be Iimited,to) the incremental cost to add additional parking spaces in the area
surrounding the site.
K\Misc. Planning\hnpact'Fee,Review\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX Revised0811 doc
RECEIVED
PETALUM t, AF, -E-A
APR 18 20tJ
CHAMBER OF '-OMMFK�t,
CITY
_MANAGER
April 15, 2411
Tetaluma City. Council
H English Street
et
Petaluma,.CA-94952
Re: Develooment. Inivact Fees
Dear Mayor Glass and, Councilmembers:
The Chamber -iVase leas6d to hear that the Qi Co ' 60 ressed a willingness, to
p City un � - exp ,
.examine me whether there are opportunities to revisit and. -revise certain specific
:Compone,,nts of Petalunia'sAeVelopment impact fees. In' our view, the current impact
fees -- which,dre, by f6r' thellighest of any city In Sonoma
Counq, -- serve to
discourage th&,developmeni our; community has determined that it wants to
:encourap-e imitsiBeneral -Plan: We fully support the concept that,.new development
should pay its fAir shafe; and fully mitigate its impacts on"the conu-nunity. Within
that f*, ramework however. there are signifimnt,oppQrtuniti'es to revise the current
.impact -fees.
`Regarding irhpa&t feesthat are not tied to I the: Gen eral Plan EIR, the Chamber
s-appolit's the _Ifoifllbwiaga-C'U'OrIS:
1. The Charnber.supp6rts,the proposal to reduc
e the-Jobs=bousi4g linkage fee and to
D t,
make that fee depend on -the number of low waaejobs,'that anew development will
actually create.
2. The Chamber, supports reducing the required contri bution for public all fr
om
1.0% of the cost of-riew construction to 0.5%.
Regarding irnpLiet f66s that are tied.'to- the, General Plan.
we would suggest that
developments .since the General Plan was adopted! that several irnpactkes
ean be reduced because of 'changed "circum.siances.
�First, ivis'appears tfiqCopeland 8treet,Extension" is:nof goiiigto,be built, and -there
i
is no justification to collect money, or sefaiside r1i
oney, for this $6 "5 million. project.
We already:kiiow-,thattwo,iiivol'ved'agendes will not- " permit ft. 0 ne, hundred , percent
of the $6.5 million cost of ihi&-Proi e'ct is currently embedded. in, impact fees, and.this
'-
i* componerit.should be "dropped.
Nmtfie"Cau]fieJd,Lan`e Extension" component-,ofthe'traffic,imP4ct°fees�is a $54.4
million project; '100% of iuhich isernbedd&d in traffic'impact. fees. Although we
.acknowledge that this preiject,would create a modest reduction m. congestion on East
1) Street, early, activity.�on„tbis project is.,unrealistic. We believe that it be deferred
until implementation pf the rlext.general,plai? so that.highcr priority traffic
mitigation, specifically tl3e Rainier project, can be implemented.
"Taken together, the:'Copeland'and CatilfieUe-xtensions.:contribute a total of $60.9
inillion of the $:165,:7'million of projects -included in the traffic impact fees.
Deleting...Cop'el`and land ,deferring Cau'lfieffluntil implenaet tation of the next general
plan will, create.a 3;6.8%o percent reduction<in the traffic mitigation i1hpact fees
without compromising the most,importaint projects,that will create traffic relief.
Our current, coii'figuradon of traffic impact: fees serve primarily, to, discourage that
development tliat'vloi ld finance these projects; meaning -that: if we don't act soon,
there may never be gi'Lrii.f icant traffic ibitigatioin-r'eli'ef in Petalum' a.
Regarding the -Water Capacity Impact Fees, we note that 100% of the City's
proposed $44.,Il ,million tertiary recycled wastewater,Rdistribution system is allocated
to impact fees:: 1, 'The rationale suppofting, this, allocation. was that new development
should :pay to ” creates' spaee•,in the constrained) Petaluma Aqueduct. We assert that
two profound changes demand that this program'be reexamined. First, the SCWA's
ability to meet'its contractual,commitlnents to Petaluma no longer- appears to be
constrained by the; capacity of the Petaluma Aqueduct. Second and more important,
We old WatCT"delItand pr<°ijeciions are NA, iidiy higher than Current prUJCL1iUn5 due to
increased consumers conservation,call'ing:into''question whether the tertiary recycled
wastewater distribution, system still needs,to be rolled out iii the'timeframe originally
envisioned. , Accor`dingl'y„ the Chamber suggests that the impact fees be modified to
only include:the most.cost effective, early stagesbf-theprggram, while removing the
less cost effective Iater stages and either deferring them until later or identifying a
different fundinb source. This deferral represents $26-.2 million, or 59%, of tbe.total
$44.1 million cost of the recycled wastewater distribution system.
We also note that the Parkland Acquisition grid Open, Spacei Acquisition components
of theirr►pact-fees are updated annually based on a,five year rolling average of.,
property sales,. Based on current- trends, both. of ,these, fees can be, expected to be.
reduced,about 20%o when they aTe rev„.ised'after June M,
Thank you for -your attention to these matters. The Ohainbet is prepared to work
with,the City t6 facilitate this much-ncedea review of irrlpact ,fees:
Sincerely,
OnitaTell'egrini,; CEO
Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce
C i bt o etaluma
fp
I-RAIFfI%CMITt'ATI'^N FEE
PRO"" GRAM U.Pwo"""ATE'
u.
. ...... . �
g".
"M
Prepared by
FE -HR &- PEERS
TPAWSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
332 Pin6 Street 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA
SF06-0282
May 2008
x1p
W
Prepared by
FE -HR &- PEERS
TPAWSPORTATION CONSULTANTS
332 Pin6 Street 4th Floor
San Francisco, CA
SF06-0282
May 2008
x1p
TABLE 9
CITY OF PETALUMA°CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTSTEE,CONTRIBUTIONS
Ij
Estimated Costs
Improvement
NetCit ,
Y
New
Potential'Fee
Percentage
Cost
Development
Contribution
of Program
„
Share
Cost
Rainier,Avenue Extension and Interchange -,locally, preferred
alternative
$48,100,000,.
100,00%
$48,1'00,000
28.4%,
Calfrans preferred alternative -supplement
E $31",362,000
100.00%
$31,362,000
18:5%
Caulfield Lane Extension r
$54;398,000
100.00%
�' $54,398,000
32:2%
Copeland Street Extension
1$6;547,000
100.00%
I $6,547,000
3;9%
OIdlRedwoed Highway'Intetchaiige,improverrients
$8;475;000
100.00%
�. $8,475,000
5.0%
Lane/Payran Street Intersection Improvements
$500,000
100.00%
I $500,000
0.3%
Paulfield
etaluma Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue — Payran:Street Intersection
$500,000
100.00%
$500,000
0.3%
Construction of:New Intersections Throughout the City
$3,9Q0,000
100.00%
$3,900,000
2:3%
signal Upgrades'Throu Throughout -the
- -
" $1,885;000
100:00%
$1,
1rafc
1134-dpstrian!13;cy6le
Improit m,-ntc Thrniinhnirf fhp pityQ7�,i573
�:.
000
2,1 ?n°� -
i $5 a12 QQn
n , °
Transit Improvements Throughout the City •
$11,471,000
2120%
$2,432,000
1.6%
Administration Costs 2
$01
-
$4,986,000
2.9%
Subtotal witnlocaliy"preterred Rainier Ave. after .i tdve
$153;458,000'
T
$139,294,0 010
8,46%
Total with Cali'rans Preferred Alfernafive'Supplement
$197;$20;000' ,
$170,656,000
100%
Projected Growth in DUEs
f 9,062;83
-Fee per DUE, with,locallylpreferred Rainier Avenue alternative,
$15,370
Fee per,bUE with Caltrans- preferred alternative suppl6ment
$18;830,
Source:" City of Petaluma, 2008.
See Table 7
z Assumes 31/6 of'`Net City.Cost" w'sth.Caltrans Alternative Supplement
of Rainier_Ave: Interchange.
STEP 6 -.,FEE AMOUNTS
The total cost to bd,contributed'by:new development (Step 5) vuas'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 10. The
new" potential' fee` am ounts'represent a change from the current fee schedule, for a variety of reasons, including:
® The inclu'sion'of additionaFcapital improvements
® Increases„in the cost of construction and right-of-way acquisition
20
FINAL
May 200.8
1�;n�st+t:�u:G�'r PL'rit;tt: I=r�.��cc r1i7Ytsotc&
1889 Alcatraz Avenue
136'rkeleyCA 94703-2714
Tel. 5,10/653-,3399
Fax 5107653-3769
I�itp:/fw a�vv:i'�arl:).e�� e11.c.r:am
Recvcled Water Proiects'
Existing,
Future
Total cost
Area A
Land
0%
100%
. $105,000
Reservoirs
0%
100%
5,040,000
Pipes and valves
0%q
100%
371,000
Pipes and valves
0%
100%
3,188,000
0
Area C
0
Tertiary expansion
Q%
100%Q
2,072,000
Tertiary pump station
0%
1.00%
560,000
Pipes and valves
o%
100%
6,633,000
0
Area E
0
Tertiary expansion
0%,
100%
2,072,000
Pipes and valves
06la
100%
23,702;000
0.
Area G
0
Area G pump station
0%
100%
0
Pipes and valves
0%
100%
392.000
Subtotal recyc(ad water projects
$0
. ,t4400t}:
$44,135;U00'
Water Conservation Proje6ts'l1) .
Total capital program cost
0%0
100%
$7.126:000
Subtotal ti�ater'co'riseniati" s
onp�otec'. :..;.:
_.:'_$0;:.:,
$7;(126;000.=".,.:
;$7;126;00.0;
Existi n
`Future
Total
...;._,_,..,..........,_,...._...,..._.,._..:,.. _.....;'
Tota twater.su",..I: ,Y., protect`:cosfis;:'::;::,:.;�P'
PP
—_�
- ,-- .:......
Q
$5 1;261;000:';.'.,
_
5t;261gOp;
(1) 80"year present,worih:,cost,of, recommended water con'servation 'program
Source: Water Dem and.andiSupply.Analysis,Reportand Water.°,Conservation Program
Analysis „
ToAeteianine a�fair and,equitable,method for apportioning the existing -c d,future,capit:al
""assets: of thewate>` systein, B WA fast developed an analysiscof flue number ofexistirig
confections'to`thl;°water;system.. Table 4 detail's the current meter inventory in service in
i jjc Gity,: It A196.6alcfilates.the ,numbei of `.314" ineter equivalents' rasing AWWA
;approved meter'ratios. Onemeter e''qu valent.is assumed.to be"A' /8"; 3/4" or. 1"
(residential, only)'meter:
6
am
r
• � OP
Ir
a
'.J.:
-',: tl:,'.: _yl 1,J k' i�t�°� :_ .�I'i'' - i1, '�1.��• ��1 -y�,
-
7
l..
O.
4
•n
. - g
- - - -�•1"` - .�_ ;,i'[..�`' �r�� �"ter' i!1•.�Stpc' ;
no
l.
If
_ to _ •�B.' -
- s
!hy'L
t.-
..o
•
Hp
��•� fav-! � -
tf �
g .
., ay RG?•F L� III :" I w p b $ . j
Calculation of Open Space and,Park Land Acquisition Fees (rew,.8/10/11)
These fees are adjusted an nu aIly'byihe.percentage change in.the five-year average purchase price per
acre of vacant residential and commercial land acreage within the Urban Growth Boundary.
The list of property sales is'obtained; for a fee, from .a'n'appraisal company. -Staff reviews the list and
identifies those lots'located within the Urban Growth Bounda,-ythat meet the following criteria:
® Vacant
m Greater than 1 -acre' in size
o No substantial, site improvements or recent project-entitlerrients
These properties are added to the spreadsheet prepared the prior year to calculate the average
purchase price of vacant resid'enti'al -and commercial land. The oldest year in,the spreadsheet is
removed and a new fiveyear,'average'purchase price per acre is calculated. The, new price is compared
to the prior year's average purchase price and the corresponding rate of.change is applied to the Open
Space and Park Land acquisiti"on fees..,
Petaluma Land Sales
7/1/06-6/30/11
Parcel
Purchase
Number
Situs Address
Date
Acres
Purchase.Price
Price/acre
048-052-020
310 Fair Ave.
7%17/2006
'2
650;000
325,000
019-193-035
614 Sunnyslope Ave'
3/12/2007
2.06
500;000
242,718
048-105-041
2991 Brayton Ln
6/6/2007
2.7
475;000
175,926
008-490-027
Hayes Ln
7/1/2008
2.31
1,750;000
757,576
007-4317003
4902 Old Redwood Hwy,N
7/26/2008
2.78
125;000
44,964
007-431-003
4902 Old Redwood Hwy. N
2/7/2010
2.78
201'000
7,194
048-141-029
240 Jessie, Lane
7/20/2010,
3.99,
301;723
75,620
18.62
3;821,723
205,248
previous 5,year average
57.45
'17;2521-500
300;305
change
1-31.65%
In 2010 th'e'five-,year rate declined"by 4.73%. This year the rate of change is a further decline of 31.65%.
The use.of a five -,year average is meant to smooth out the calculated purchase"price per acre. The
dwindling number of,,vacant land sales in,recent years along with the. continuing distress in the real
estate and lending markets has caused the rate of change to vary considerably from year to year.