Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4.C 12/19/2011 Agenda/IteAty#4.0 ,S A L UfLr w rassji DATE: December 19, 2011 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager FROM: Scott Duiven, Senior Planner SUBJECT: Discussion and Possible Action Regarding Updates to the City's Development Related Fees RECOMMENDATION I ,. e It is recommended that the City Council provide feedback and adopt the attached resolution directing the preparation of revised development fee and capacity fee studies as a basis for updates to the City's development related fees. BACKGROUND For a discussion of the City's development and capacity fees; how they were set and why; their relationship to the General Plan 2025 and EIR; and how Petaluma's fees compare to other fees within the region, please seethe attached September 12, 2011. staff report. DISCUSSION At the September 12'x' City Council meeting, staff presented several proposals aimed at reducing development fees and water capacity fees. A summary of the status of those efforts follows: Review of Cost Estimates: Public Works staff reviewed the cost estimates for several of the larger public facility and roadway improvement projects to determine if based on new information, the estimated construction costs have changed. Staff found that the cost estimate .were still;consistent with today's project costs and recommended no changes: At this point no savings can be anticipated from this proposal. Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Studies: The Department of Water Resources and Conservation has contracted with Bartle Wells Associates to review and update the Water and Wastewater Capacity Fees. This update will review the need for the recycled water distribution system and modifications to the planned improvement schedule in the context of the recently completed 2010 Urban Water Management Plan and the recently completed Financial Plan and Utility Rate Study. The update will also allow for the removal of already completed and funded projects from the long-term project improvement lists, such as the C Street Pump Station and completed Tenth Street water and sewer reconstruction. Agenda Review: City Attorney Finance Director City Manager Open Space Acquisition Fee Review: Staff has reviewed the lands located within the River Plan Corridor and identified acreage that can be removed.frotn the Open Space Acquisition fee program and lands that could be acquired through other revenue sources. Removing this acreage will reduce the acreage that must be acquired with fee proceeds and permit a reduction of the fee. Staff recommends that this analysis and the accompanying fee update be conducted as part of the comprehensive fee update discussed further below in this memo. Traffic Impact Fee: The City Council provided direction for staff to look at the feasibility of removing the Copeland Street Extension and the Caltrans Preferred Alternative Supplement from the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program. Staff has not had an opportunity to initiate this proposal and given its complexity recommends that this be conducted as part of a comprehensive traffic mitigation fee program update that may evaluate other fee reduction opportunities including the removal of already completed and funded projects. Review annual adjustment mechanism: Each of the individual fee resolutions allow for annual fee adjustments to reflect changes due to inflation and construction costs. The index and time of year on which these adjustments are based can have an effect on the rate at which fees adjust. For example, the water and wastewater capacity fees increased 4.1% this year while the other development related fees increased by 2.8%. Staff recommends that as part of the fee updates outlined below that the annual adjustment mechanism be reviewed and revised to provide consistency across all fees and to utilize an index and time that typically results in a lower rate of increase in an effort to keep the fees lower while still allowing for adjustment to reflect changes in project costs. Staff recommends updating the Mitigation Fee Report prepared by Sinclair & Associates in May 2008. Staff recommends that this effort include consolidation of the facility fees that lend themselves to consolidation, either because of the nature of the facilities, or of the fee calculation, or both. Staff recommends consolidating the following fees into a combined "public facilities" fee: • Aquatic Center Facilities Impact Fee • Community Center Facilities Impact Fee • Fire Suppression Facilities Impact Fee • Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee • Library Facilities Impact Fee • Public Facilities Impact Fee Combining these fees has the benefit of aggregating a greater amount of fee proceeds in a single restricted account, potentially resulting in the City's ability to fund and construct particular improvement projects sooner than otherwise could occur. Consolidation will also facilitate review of the need for particular improvements and facilities currently included in the individual fees. .For example, several of the facility fees include vehicles and equipment based on future increases in City employees. Given that the City has decreased staff, some of these acquisitions may no longer be necessary, or no longer be necessary in the same quantities. Removing or 2 reducing some of these planned acquisitions under the fee program would result in fee reductions. An update of the Mitigation Fee Report would also permit review of the Park Acquisition, Park Development, and Open Space Acquisition Fees with an eye toward fee reductions. Staff estimates that the recommended fee study updates will cost approximately $30,000 and be completed in March 2012. Prepare Revised/Updated Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Staff recommends updating the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program study prepared by Fehr & Peers in May 2008. In particular, staff recommends evaluating removal of certain improvements currently included in the Traffic Impact Fee program, such as the Copeland Street Extension, Rainier Caltrans Preferred Alternative Supplement, and any improvements already completed and funded since preparation of the previous Traffic Mitigation Fee Program study. Staff estimates the recommended fee study update will cost approximately $20,000 and be completed in March 2012. Prepare Revised/Updated Water Capacity Fee Study Based on direction from the September 12th City Council meeting, staff has already initiated an update of the Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study prepared by Bartle Wells Associates in May 2008. This effort is estimated to be completed around April 2012 at a cost of approximately $5,000. FINANCIAL IMPACTS The above recommendations will require staff, legal, and consultant time for preparation of updated fee studies and drafting of implementing legislation if the Council directs updates to the City's fees based on the studies. These costs, if approved, would be borne by the development fee funds themselves as part of the ongoing administration of the fee program. Staff estimates total consultant costs for all of the recommended fee study updates would amount to approximately $55,000. As noted in the September It staff report, the potential reduction in the development fee program based on the above recommendations could be somewhere between 10-15% for residential uses and 15-20% for non-residential uses. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution 2. September 12, 2011 Staff Report 3 Attachment 1 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENTS TO PREPARE UPDATED DEVELOPMENT AND CAPACITY FEE STUDY REPORTS AS A BASIS FOR RESTRUCTURING AND REDUCING SPECIFIED DEVELOPMENT RELATED FEES WHEREAS, on May 19, 2008, pursuant to its General Plan 2025 and applicable State and local law, the City of Petaluma ("City") updated certain fees and charges applicable to new development in the City, including 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 Impact Fee, Parkland Acquisition Fee for Non-Quimby Act Development Projects, Parkland Acquisition Fee for Quimby .Act Development Projects, Parkland Development Impact Fee, Public Facilities Impact Fee, Traffic Impact Fee, Water Capacity Fee, and Wastewater Capacity Fee; and WHEREAS, the Resolutions for the above fees provide that the City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the fees should be revised and when additional information is available, the City Council may review the fees to determine that the fee amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Petaluma; and WHEREAS, the City Council during its 2011 goal setting session expressed interest in reviewing the current development fee program to determine whether and how current fees could be reduced without jeopardizing implementation of the General Plan 2025, while ensuring that future development will pay its fair share to mitigate its impacts on the community; and WHEREAS, the City Council on September 12, 2011 discussed and provided feedback and direction to staff regarding fee reduction proposals; and WHEREAS, City staff has reviewed those proposals and based on that review recommends that the City prepare updates to the 'Mitigation Fee Report, Traffic Mitigation Fee Program, and Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study as a basis for possible later City Council action to restructure and reduce certain development related fees; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that: 1) The City Manager is authorized and directed to execute professional services agreements for the preparation of revised development and capacity fee studies for the City's open space acquisition fee, traffic impact fee, public facilities impact fee, park related fee and water and wastewater capacity y-fee programs. 2) The City Manager is authorized and directed to return to the City Council with updated development fee studies and proposed implementing legislation so that the City Council may consider and adopt the studies, and adopt-updated development fee legislation based on the studies to accomplish fee reductions without jeopardizing implementation of the General Plan, 2025 while ensuring that future development will pay its fair share to mitigate the impacts of new development on the community. 4 nI #.gget1 `SALU`ri : • The public faeilities,must be!identified lit a capital itnprovement'plan; the General Plan, an applicable specific plan or other public),documents: The.feernay not be used to pay for existing deficiencies in public,facilities. In May 2005 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 tees 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 Fee,.Park Land Acquisition Fee (Non-Quimby Act Projects), Park (,and Development Impact Fee, Public Facilities,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 tees and charges 10 be assessed upon new development. to ensure that new development pays';its proportionate'fair share for the future infrastructure needs of the community created by, such new development as,identified in the General Plan 2025 and its EAR. For more information,see the following reportsavailable online): • City of Petaluma MitigationTeeReport, Sinclair& Associates, May;2008. • City of Petaluma Water and Wastewater Capacity .Fec Study,. Bartle Wells Associates; May 2008. • Traffic Mitigation Fee.Prograrn Update, Fehr Rc Pcers, May 2008'. The 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,,timcline, the fees rela ted to{its`,implementation were not revised at the time the General Plan 2025 was adopted.,Theln-Lieu Housing and Commercial Linkage fees 'serve to implement the goals, policies and programs of the General Plan's'Housing Element to achieve an adequate ,supply,of housing'units and prograin`sifor all income groups. The current Housing Element was adopted' in 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 Impact Fee,was last:updated inlp8,6.and was 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 Sttormwater Program Funding;Evaluation Study and direction from the City Council, Staff • can initiate the•analysis needed to update the Storm Drain''Impact Fee along with consideration of a separate funding meehanisrrt tot existing development and the long-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 arts'"foster economic development, revitalize urban areas and 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 ell adoption the General Plan 2025 and development fees in May, 2008. • • I • . -• " " • •• ' .. . • • . . . . , . , . . . . • ' ' • • • - . " othef develOpmentfee'S not,included. in thiS Menlo riOtaddteSs-ed in 2008;ate the CPSP Specific „ . - . . , .. -. Plan Fee and the Incremental Fee which vary by project and for which staff is not currently recommending'changes as part of this effort. , . Table-1 summarizes the City's'development fees in the font of fee scenarios for a single-family residential unit, a 50,000 smiare foot use, and a 50;060'Square,foorOffiee use. Table 1: Petaluma Residential-.and Non-Residential Fee Scenarios'as of hily 1, 2011 , Development Fee,: ' •Single-,Familyr' '56K Retail 50K Office Aquatic Center FatilitieS liitpact F:ee • $ 356 $ 3,400 $ 3,250 Ccitnnieteial Linkage Fee- : N:A) .$' 179,500 $ 107,500 ' . . COmmunity Centet,Facilitieslibtladttea. . :$I 14,250 $ 13,550 Fif,e,SUppression Fadilitibs ImpactlFee: • $ .829. • $- - 7,850 $ 7,550 ' . Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee , $ '1252 • ,$ 1:1,800 $ 11,350 . . 4 ... . Library Facilities Impact lee , „ $ 635 $ . 6,050 $ 5,750 Open Space Acquisition fee ' . $ 3875 ' 36,700 $ 35,100 r . . . Park Land Acquisition Fee $ 2,089 $ .19,800 $ 18,950 1 , . Park Land Developmpnt Impact Feel. . • $ 55.32 ...S.• 52,400 $ 50,100 Public Art Fee 40,000 $ 40,000 . Public Facilities Impact Fee 1,426 : ,$ - 13,500 $ 12,900 Traffic Impact Fee (Caltrans,Preferred). $ 20;516" $ .956,150 $ , 984,900 Wastewater Capacity lee, : . . $. :8;765,1 $. , 105,585 $ 105,585 Water Ca pacity•Fee .. • $ 12321 $., 50,084 $ 50,084 Storm Drain Impact'Fee.(typiCal SF0)! , $ 56S $ 27;000 $ 27,000 TOTAL - 50;801i “$ 1;524,069 $ 1,473,569 . . 1. In Lieu Housing Fee(major subdivisions on(y). $: 9;og • N.A. N.A. . - $ 68,823, . . The Relationship Of Fee Structure to the General plia and Genera/Plan FIR I 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 mitigation :measures Identified in the General Plan's EIR. Modifications to the,curremaevelopnient.feeP.rograni should be considered , , , in terthS of the role of the development fee program in impiementirig, General Plan EIR : • -mitigations: Ideally; any changes+to the program will avoid negative impacts on implementation .. . Of Mitigation measures needed for the General Plan EIR and/Or projects relying on the General Plan Mitigation measures for thitigatibn;qfprojeet impacts i•Modification of the development fee . . 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 partietilat projects. . . . . . . TherefOre, proposed flittite fee reductionS:ShOuld.be,eValttaied,fOr.General Plattconsistency and i . potential CEQA impacts, If development fee reductions prevent future projects from relying on mitigation.measures'.ithplementitig:the General'Plan:EIR:4 that could'increase the cost of CEQA . : . - . • . . . . . . . , • . . , . . ' • ' • 1 • , review and mitigation for future projects and impede '_future project;approvals, impacting the Council's goal of streamlining.the City's development approval process: How Petaluma'c 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 fonnas 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 residential 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 are informal and anecdotal, there may be some merit to these claims in the context of the current economic environment. 'file majority of residential projects that are currently under construction received their entitlements priorto th'e'latest fee updates taking effect. Table 2: Comparison of Develo pment Impact Fees for Single-Family Dwelling Units Jurisdiction Facilities Water Sewer Total Petaluma $ , 38,575 $ 12,521 $ 8,705 $ 59,801 Novato $ '28,463 $ 23;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 4214 $ 14,421 $ 38,267 San Rafael $ 13,392 $ 14;147 $ 6,200 $ 33;734 • Average ,$ 25,418 $ 10,717 $ 10,061 $ 46,196 *Note: In order to provide as direct:a comparison as•possible, housing and school impact tees have not been included in this table. • A direct comparison of Sees is challenging given the variety of approaches for assessing and calculating development fees and tlfe"types of tees collected:,Also,the system improvements and infrastructure needs of.each local government vary, Making comparisons of individual fee components difficult:'fable 2 aggregates fees such as traffic, parks, and public facilities into a single `facilities category while keeping water and sewer/.wastewater capacity fees separate to allow a direct comparison between,Jurisdictions. In an'effort to provide as direct a'comparison.to other communities,and surveys as possible, housing rn-lieu fees, typically only assigned to major subdivisions and :not individual units, .and school, irripact fees, which are not subject to city control, have been ex-eluded for each jurisdiction. The firm Duncan Associates conducts: a national impact fee survey, most recently: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:coini While a;comparison to the national average may not be applicable, as markets in other parts of the e"ountd vary;diramatically from California, it is indicative of the importance of,and reliance on impact'fees to fund.local infrastructure needs-in California. • • DISCUSSION i" g 0`,ll goal setting session, staff In response to interest expressed.by the City Council dorm rts 2 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`thatfuture development will pay its fair share to initigate: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. Allifees 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.appl ieable to non-tesid'ential-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 iChamber"s;suggestions. Thia'repott indicates where staff s recommendations arc 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 (IMF) 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 FIR analysis 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 bail'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 result in increasing traffic congestion ' throughout the City, and that future„development should,fund•the General Plan transportation - improvements required th5 serve such new development Table 3 outlines the,estimated:.costs of the needed traffic improvement projects identified in the:Gerietal 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 hew 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, of these cross=town connectors, both existing Petaluma River, and/or US 1'01.: With the addition: and future traffic .is redistributed as the new improvements ;create new capacity and change current shortest-path route selections.;Because the improvetiients.benefit new development City- I. •• - wide; and in keeping with the!:May, 2008 traffic study, the analyses conducted for this update focuses on a uniform citywide impact fee: .. . It should be noted that in addition to.paying the uniform .citywide impact fee, development projects, such as those adjacent'to;major new roadway ,connections (like • Rainier Avenue; Caulfield Lane, and Copeland Street), maybe required to``fund and/or construct additional, project specific,traffic improvementsa such as by dedicating;right of`way or improving portions , of public roadways that traverse and/or are adjacent to the.site to mitigate projectrispecitic traffic i me . impacts notiaddresseih.6ytfie improvements to!befiunded°an"d built pursuant the 'f MB. I Table 3:Estimated'Tcaffic Mitigation;Fee Program Costs:• . • New • Develop= ' % of . I Net City men Potential Fee Program ■ Improvement - Project Cost , Cost , Share Contribution Cost Rainier Avenue Extension and - . `Interchange 75,000;000 48;100,000' , 100:0% 48;100,000 28.2% Caltrans Preferred Alternative; ' , , , -, - . . -, - '.. .. - .. . , r 34 Supplement ,062,000 31;362 00,0. c 100;0 0. 31,362,000 18.4% I • Caulfield Lane Extension ` ' ' 60,65.6;606 ' 54,398,000 ' •1'00,0% 54,398;000 31.9% Copeland Street,Extension 15 825,000. . 8;706,000 100:0% ;8,706,000 5.1% . . old.8edwood Highway . Interchange:Improvements'. 28,475,000. 8,475;000 ';100:0% 8,475,000. '5.0% ' Caulfield Lane/PayranStreet. ' Intersection Improvements . '500;000. 500,000 100.0% 500,000 0.3% Petaluma Boulevard/Magnolia , Avenue- PayranStreei.• ' Intersection • : ' ,500;000' 500,000 100:0% 500;000 0.3%' Construction of New • IntersectionsThroughout,the . • . • City 3,900000. 3;900,000 - 100:0% 3,900;000 2.3% Traffic Signal lUpgrades ` Throughout he City 1,885,000. 1;885,000 ;100:0% 1,885;000 1.1% Pedestrian/Bicycle . . . ._ . , Improvements Throughputthe. ,. - ' City _ '25,523,000 25;523,000 21:2%. 5,412;000' 3.2%. ''Transit Improvements Throughout the City ;11471,000 11,471,000' 21:2-% 2,432;000 ', 1.4%' . Administrative Costs . .• 4;986;000 2.9% .- Subtotal with Locally Preferred ' Rainier Avenue Alternative ' 223,735,000 163;458;000 : 139,294,000 . Total with Caltrans(Preferred.. ., , • • Alternative Supplement • . 257,797;000 194,820;000 170;656;000 100:0% , . . �1, . ' Copeland:Street.Ezterision • • • • . As noted:by the'Chamber of`Commerce in Its:.letter, the.Copeland,Street Extension as currently planned conflicts with the recent construction of the,spur.lineserving'Dairyman's Feed, and may • be considered for,removal if it cannot be,implemented in•the:foreseeable future. However,prior . 'toiemoving'this•improvement'from'the program it will be necessary to conduct some level-of ' traffic and ':CEQA analysie.-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 $10,000 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 Fee program would result in a. 5% reduction in the TMF 'program. , Caulfield Lane:Extension (Southern Crossing) It has been suggested by some, including the Chamber of Commerce, that the Caulfield Lane . "Extension (Southern:Crossing.)component of the traffic iitpaet fee.program should be removed or deferred until'.implementation of'tlie next genern1 plan_. The Southern Crossing project is critical to development of the Lower :Reach of:the Central Petaluma Specific Plan, and for reducing impacts'on East:Washington and East D Streets.:As such, staff does not recommend removing'the project from tee calculations: Should the City Council, wish to investigate this • option the estimated:eosttto:analyie'the'traffic impacts of its removal is estimated at $25',000 or more depending on the 'scope,of analysis and will take approximately.2-3 ,months to complete . from the time a contract is in place: Removal of the.Southern .Crossing will almost certainly require a General Plan Amendment, lsignificant Cf QA analysis and• affect.pending projects reliant upon the General' Plan 2025 and E1R. Staff could investigate the feasibility of iniplementinga modified fee schedule that addresses '.improvements such as the. Southern ' Crossing by developing a zone of benefit which: apportions .!a "higher .proportion of the •infrastructure improvement-costs to those,properties that without the:improvement have limited or no additional development. potential This approach would "require similar traffic modeling costs and time associated with updating:the I raflic Mitigation Fee program Rainier Avenue Extensionand.tnteichan*, ' - significant 'Change could' be: to stop, collecting the Caltrans Preferred Alternative, ., : Supplement fore,the Rainier .Avenue:Interchange. the. Council has divided the full Rainier ' . PP .'Interchange project into two•phases-.an overpass/cross-town connector,and an,interchange:The . design and environmental. analysis -.both assume a future interchange. Updating the. TMF improvements list Pto 'substitute the City's `preferred. alternative for the Caltcans "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 from Caltrans. Substituting,theCity's preferred alternative would result.in an approximate 20%::reduction.in the TMF program. The Caltrans Preferred Alternative is a split interchange'w'ith a,parallel 'street system. "I'he proposed.design.requires converting the existing loop ramp:;configuration on the east side of US 101 to,a tight diamond configuration.Iwo-one-way ramp extensions that parallel US 101, one in f Me northbound directrom arid..one in the southbound direction Would. .be constructed, In the northbound' direction, traffic. destined for Rainier Avenu e would take the off-ramp from northbound. US' 1'01 and proceed,to the East Washington Street ramp intersection, cross the intersection, and enter the on-ramp,.opposite of the off ramp, to connect to the Rainier Avenue Interchange A similar type Of movement'would occur in 'the southbound direction as well Southb'ound US 101 traffic 2lestined for East Washington Street; would take the off ramp from US 101 and proceed to the•R'ainier-Avenue ramp intersection, cross the intersection, and enter the on-ramp, opposite:ofthe 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 beginaconstruction in2011-2012. The current East Washington Street Interchange Project will construct a%new northbound diagonal on-ramp, and realign the existing northbound loop on-ramp and -northbound off-ramp. The split interchange alternative' would require demolition of the northbound loop on-ramp and realignment of the northbound%off ramp, The proposed freeway entrance area to the northbound • diagonal on-ramp -would need, to be modified to fit .into the proposed split :interchange configuration. This configuration would :requite,.right-Of-Way dedication And demolition of the soon to be constructed East 4Vashingtori improvements. Cost Estimates • • Staff also recommends reviewing the cost estimates for each 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"-costs. 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 acquisition fee is adjusted annually on July'lsI•l y 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 purchase's from the•top of'the. market fell out of the average, coupled with' fewer property sales and lower values'`in recent years (see attached,Calculation). The latest adjustment 'reduced the: parkland acquisition fee by 32%,, and was. handled administratively, as no, City, Council action i"s required. Staff not recommend any fiuther modifications to the:Parkland, Acquisition'Fee:at*this tine. - Open Space Acquisition Fee: As with the Parkland' Acquisition Fee, the Open Space Acquisition 'Fee declined 32% effective July I, 2011 This,reduction was handled administratively as-well. The Open"Space Acquisition Fee is intended.to fund acquisition of those portions.of propettieScvithih the River Plan Corridor overlay and r tributaries as,depicted on the General Plan 2025 Land Use Map (Figure 1-1). This overlay major d'efi'nes the areas;reguircd for implementation ofslte,'adopted Petaluma River Access andrEnhancement Plan and to provide.for future floodplain management projects;Historically, open space lands:needed to implement the River Access and Enhancement Plan have been • • la' acquired through exactiOns/dedicauoris associated with particular development,projects, or'with ' grant funding. Given,the Citys`successful track record of acquiring open._space through means other than impactfees, a further reduction of this fee may be considered by the City Council to . . the extent.acquisition ofproperty needed for the plan can,be financed through means other than development fees: A recent example is"a grant of$850,000!from the State Department of Water Resources— River ParkWayarPrograiti to:purchase three properties along Industrial Avenue. The City had previously purchased four properties between Industrial Avenue and the Petaluma River for,an earlier IMO.tcrracingproject. In several instances the area+subject to the River Plan Coiridor overlay is part of a larger parcel with future development potentiahr.which through the 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 is 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 ' g.reduction is hopeful that dedications acquired with fee proceeds and'.permuhn reduction of the,fee Staff related to particular development:prOjectsic the Plan Corridor wilkallow further reduction of the . Open Space Acquisition feer Staff has done a preliminary analysis ofthe acreage of River Plan Corridor on properties with uure develo p nsent-potential. and 2einoved that acreage from the Open Space Acquisition Fee. Staff estimates this'could result:Ulan additional 50-60%reduction in the Open Space Acquisition:Fee. Legislative action would be required to update the Open Space Acquisition fee resolution and.attachments.. , Water Capacity Fee: p j lemeits a `buy-in' whereby new water The Water Capactty,.Fee is com used of two rna or e utility customers contribute their fair share for existing,water capital assets and distribution facilities necessary to serve. anew .customers, and a component :to fund future capital improvements.to provide increased capacity needed to serve stitch new utility customers. These ' capital improvements'include the recycled water system, which'wa's designed and. intended to offset potable demand.(and;essentially produce the effect of creating'new,potable supply).for the ' planning period of the General, Plan.2025. The cost of implementing'the City's Conservation Program.isalso included in the water capacity fee; because someof.the "new",water supply needed to serve"new d'evel'opment anticipated for General Plan buildout is ,obtained 'from . ' 'conservation program savings,an water consumption "the capacity fee'does not;'include.rio'rtnal maintenance of existing capitalrassets necessary to serve,existing water_utility customers, as, they are a.component,of:the monthly water billing. (commodity) ,rates. The water capacity fee and . water commodity charge programs 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 taseduct 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 iii are'duction of water demand volurtres to the point where analysis undertaken, for t:Ii eoinpletion.of the 2010 Urban•Water{'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 waterin volumes significantly higher than 1 the volume`, currently distributed through the agricultural;irrigation program. For example, elimination of permitted seasonal'discharge will add approximately 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.'compr'ising the recycled system'`spine' to.be phased over a longer time frame. The early phases'(Phases 2A 'and 2B) of the recycled system will.permit expansion of the system to serve paying;,customers, thereby establishing,needed capital facilities for the potable offset program and creating a.revenuc 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. These discussions, to date, assume customer participationiin the cost of the,rceycled'water distribution system. Review.of the water capacity fee structure will allow the'City' to reconsider the long terra 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 resycled water available for'sale is:not heeded to offset long,-terra potable dernand. Staff agrees with the Chamber that the findings in the 2010 Urban Water Management plan warrant a review of the need for'thee 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'the western 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 the major transmission/distribution y. improvements p, the ongoing; P g important again stem im rovements needed to serve new develo meat and achieve im IementaUOn of the Water Conservation Program. It lm ortantto a anrnote that the 2008. , .. Watenand 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. • • 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 th&signiticant improvements to the system lift stations and a portion of the recently completed Ellis Creek Water Recycling Facility(PCWRF), 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 wastewatei infrastructure needed to serve new 'utility customers cannot be assessed to existing ratepayers: 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,ptocess:of retaining:Bartle Wells Associates to update the 2008 Water and Wastewater Capacity Fee Study at a cost of approximately 48000. 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 utility capacity fees structure by the end of this calendar year Updating the fees will also allow the removal of completed projects from the long-tern project improvement lists, such as the major rehabilitation currentlyi-wrapping up on the C Street Pump Station and the completed_Tenth Street water'and sewer reconstruction. Commercial Linkage Fee: The Commercial'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 2011 tto limit its applicability to;:new;: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 to 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 snake 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:direva'iling wage requirements. In that case, the savings from fee deferrals . . 16 r, ..a A.. . may be exceeded by increased project,costs due: to prevailing wage liability. Based on City Council priorities for affordableAthousin'g, staff does not recommend further changes to the Commercial Linkage Fee atthis;time: Public Art Fee: ' When the City Council,adopted the .Public Art Ordinance;in 2005 it included the following provision: "The City Council shall review:they provisions of this ordinance and the effectiveness of the''Public Art program"following a period of time deemed appropriate by the City Council, 1 but not to exceed five years 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 implementation. These are undergoing staff review, but will be l presented to,the:Council iii the-near future. . The fee itself is set at 1% o_f'the estimated construction cost of projects subject to the,fee and can be satisfied with-contribution'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$54;2'03 has been collected in fees by those who have chosen the fee option, Approximately $10,0,00•of this funding has been used to support the cost of.Master Planning, S40,536 remains for public art projects to be installed consistent With-the Ivlaster..Plan. 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 1.0,% of the cost of new i construction to 0.5%. Staff has-:not heard from the development community that the Public Art "Fee is onerous on projects, and':in may 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 • pp that p ublic art adds to the Community, staff`does not recommend changing th'e of the value p° y .. amount or a libatioh'of this fee. ' 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: e , Aquatic Center.Facilities,Impact Fee a , Community Center:F"acitities.Impact:Fee e .Fire Suppression Facilities Impact,Fee • Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee• • • I ibrary`.Facilities'ImpactFee • Parkland Development I mpactFee o Public Facilities impact-fee 1 In aggregate;the above lees make up $!11,532 of the total impact fees for a single-family unit: Consequently a 1:0%reduction in costs could result in meaningful savings. . .r . . .: . I - . Potential Ovetall Fee Progratit Reduction: ff the development fee 'program were modified based .upon the above_recommendations, the potential reductiotis 'could,be somewhere between 10-15% for residential uses and 15-20% for non-residential fuses.• 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:; q. in cost estimates. • • A uahcCenter Facilitics:.Assume.l0'La reduction • Commercial Linkage: No Change. . In Lieu Housing: No Change , . • • Community Center Eacilities Assume 10% reduction ui cost estimates • Fire Suppression Facilities: Assume 10% reduction in cost..estimates. • Law Enforcement Facilities Assume 10% reduction'in cost,estimates. • Library Facilities Assume 10% reduction in cost estimates:. • Open Space Acquisition Annual Adjustment and assume 50% reduction I'br grants,etc. • Park Land Acquisition:.Annual Adjustment, no additional changes, o, Park Land,Development: Assume 10%,reduction in cost!estimates. . • Public Art: No-Change. - " • Public Facilities. Assume.10%,reduction in cost estimates. • Traffic Impact: Assume'Locally`Preferred Rainier and elimination.of Copeland,Bridge, ' • Wastewater: No Change; ' . • Water Capacity: Assume 44% reduction based on elimination of Areas E and G. • Storm Drain: No Change: Table 4: Potential Futüre;Jnipact Fee Scenario Development Impact Fee: : 1 Single-Family • 501(!Retail 50K Office Aquatic Center Facilities Impact Fee: $ • 320 $,' :3;060 $ 2,925 Commercial Linkage.Fee: .. . N.A. $' 179;500 $ 107,500 Community Center,F,acihues Impact Fee $ 1;349 $' • 12,825 $ 12,195 Fire Suppression FacilitiesdmpacUFee - $ '745 $- 7,065 $ 6,795 Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fee $ 1,127 $• 10,620 $ 10,215 Library FacilitiesImpactFee $ 574 $ 5,445 $ 5,175 Open Space Acquisition Fee, $ 1,938 '.$. 18,350 $ 18,350 . . Park Land Acquisition,:Fee $ 2;089 $ 19;800 $ . 18,950 ' Park Land:'pevelopmeiit Impact.Fee $ 4,957 $- 4•M60 $ 45;059 ' Public Art Fee ' N.A. $ 40,000 $ 40,000 PublicFacilities Impact,Fee, $ 1,283 $, - 12,150.. $ 11;610 Traffic Impact Fee(Locally=Preferred) $ 15,056 $ ,701,814 $ 722,917 • Wastewater•Fee " • $ 8,705 $ 105,585 $ -105,585 • Water Capacity Fee $ 7,012 $ 28;047 $ 28,047 Storm Drain tmpacf Fee • $ 563 ' ;$- 27,000 $ 27,000, ' $ 45 7741 $. 1,218,421 $ 1,162,354 In Lieu.Hous hg,Fee(major'subdivisions only) '$ 9,022 $ 54,763 . , 1 • • Process for Revising fee's' 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 Council. 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 1.2°',the time necessary to bring a package, of updated fee resolutionsto the City, Council for adoption could result in legislative action to update the fees commencing at-one of the two meetings in'December. FINANCIAL.IMPACTS 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 piogram. 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 CounciLadirection. 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 FacilitiesilmpactFee $ 15;294 Commercial Linkage Fee $ 398;038 Community Center Facilities Impact_Fee $ 1,056,755 Fire 5Uppression Facilities Impact?Fee $ 189,745 In Lieu Housing Fee $ 1,750,269. Law Enforcement Facilities'Impact Fee $ 236,747 Library Facilities Impact Fee: $ '114;896 . - .. Open,Space Acquisition Fee. $ - Parkland.AcquisitionlFee, • , $ - _ Park LandC evelopnient Impact Fee $ ' Park Land.Acquisition/Development" Impact Fee (p're'7QQ8%fe& tructure).- $ 1,625;228. Public Art Fee $ 40,536 Public Facilities Impact Fee. $ 60,459 Traffic Impact Fee.(CaltMriS Preferred) $ 1,741,85,0. Wastewater Fee Water Capacity'Fee Storni Drain Impact Pee (typicatSFD) $ 3,769,079 TOTAL $ 10,998,896 11, 1. • A . TTACI3,MFNTS, • 1. FY 1 l/12 Development Impact Free Schedule ' 2: Letter from Petaluma-Chamber'of Commerce, 3. Calculation of Open'Space and.Park 1,and Acquisiti'bn.Lees • • • • . . .: .. . . t . • FY 11/12.DEVEL:OPME'NT4MPAC,T FEES.CHEOULE,(itev.,8/Il/I I) . PEP,TYPE LAND USE TYPE •FEE• UNIT'OF MEASUREMENT Aquatic Center • ,Facilities Impact Fee Singe;Famlly Residential $356 , Um it Mult'ifatiuly Residential $240 ,Thrill, i • Accessory Dwelling $122 Unit. Commercial" $68, 1;009 sq`ftofbuildingspace Office. $65 1,000 sq ft of building space i 'Indu'strial $4,1 ` 1,000,sq ft of building'space �J �,,( yy1�}�/� jj 1. A Y,ik +«-,g` {"b ..,, ((r 3 Sett}- '^w y 5, -M tf r �' Y• i . 4 L .'Mf+F. ' . ,,'•1`.114}t1..ai' t "Ik....4Yt:;t. )}e4 it l.8�n ii+i S.�rti �F t-,., tiR 'i.�ia'< •Commercial Linkage (") Commercial 52.08 .. Square Foot Retail' $3.59 •-•. Square;Foot �*,i .. • ,q"•Industrial. . '�' pyg�� ggy,pq j$�-2 k5' •,{�:Stqu�a�rye.F.bot C< .'141 21 t `gyp v.:-.—. 52 r :1 YiS s,Kl ciLl. Im'p. 1 ro a y,11{FSs�MA4+SS:LLB. •�.`P4 .IF.}- . Community Center Facilities Impact Fee Single Faintly Residential ;$1,499 ',Unit Multifamily Residential $1.4'01l Unit• ; . Accessory Dwelling, $514 `Unit Commercial $285 ._ I,000'sgft,ofbuilding'space ti Office $2,71 " 1,000 sq ft of building space Industrials $1;0 .�yd �e p ��y+� { 1,0003�sg ft of building space ritYly si t, .t., ":ta9 tr_gzvt Ficz Hitt '-rip h t*i S t'f' yxa',..%:t' 54,',e.a. 't-.,,,,,. ..,14.:-:!k' ' Fire Suppression Facilitics7mpaet Fee single.Famity Residential $829: •Unit Multifamily Residential $558• ,Unit . Accessory Dwelling $285 Unit • Mobile:Home .$829 -,,Unit :Senior I-lousing • $558 _ . ...Unit . Assisted LivingU.nits $558 I Unit Commercial Lodging $558. ,Unit Commercial $,157 1,000 tsq'ft of building space _ Retail Uses $157 1,000`sg'ftofbiildingspace Office Uses. $1$1 ' t' 1,000•sq''ft of building space �y�,•�q� Industrial Uses'- $96 IIb,000;sq ft of build iing gsspace .ld .�f+L°r ^�i'd1t 'II34iiC r0 "."•~92ViS,' 1A`:1l y.tlY•Y�W.,,i.Y' i•t lN.h R•th°''i • +LnwiEnforcement. • Facilities'Imp9et Fee, Single,Family Residential., • $1,252 Unit , . Multifamily Residential' . . $843 Unit ,Accessory.Dwelling 5430 ' Unit Mobile`Iloine $1,252 Unit' Senior Housing $843' • Unit . • Assisted Living $843^ Unit Gommerclal Lodging .$843' „Unit (n), 1fproperty,is*withinthe Redevelopment!area,.fees-are-50%of the stated fees. H;\Misc..Planning\IinpuctFee Review\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX',Revisedou *doc. •� • . , i - '• FEE TYPE s ;LAN))US:TYPE ,FEE! a. UNIT OF MEASUREMENT Law.Enforcement Jed. t). Retail $236 1,000.sq ft of building space Commercial $236 ' ' ,'I,900.s4 ft of building space Office• $2.7 I',000 sq ft of building space '.Industrial. y $$,1144' • I,000'.sq•°ft:o�ifbuilding.spacee i i.;3,°a,.1 ii° may\." R, ga µ `«M,%,:riX-F'Ea'!RV ,3 t.r S"i , .i.YAF midi a4,7 }t'kU n f-Library',Facilities nfi 3w - I mpact Fee Single'Family Residential $638 _: ,I Unit_ Single Family n.attached $638 Unit , Multifamily Residential $431 Unit ; Accessory Dwelling _ $21,9 ' '`Unit ' Mobile Home $638. Unit Commercial` $b2'1 ' 1,000sgft ofbuildiiig'space Office $T;15, I;000.s•;ft ofbuildin. srace Industrial $74• , 1000sq,ftofbuildingspace +g.,,,{d,„.1�yy'�("tr dh A-4' d g�Tyg 7,y.a't yi"v..ii- �' '�� y�f y 1�u 5` r alg a$/AitiS i "4214:.. WTI kikti..4:,, :! 'kxL4 ri 'aa'4gYr,- r'ruTh 3W ,Vii 'i^l Open'Space Acquisition Fee Single family Residential $3,875 Unit Mliltifainily•Re 'id'ential ' $2,609 Uiiii• ' • Accessory-Dwelling. $1,329 " Unit Commercial $734 11,000'sq:ftofbuildingspace Office $702' . 1,000 sq'ft of building space Industrial i $447' . i` 1,000 sq'.ft of building space _ . A. 4e.lEu .: i€t4e ° ::i h5i"# SS-'C'3 :,x '`C 3 rs 8§ t 4u k.ri,r I+Ga.A ar "d Park Land Acquisition Fee(Non- - • . • 1Quimby'Act Projects) Single_".Family,Residential • $2,089 'Unit ' ' Multifamily Residential' $1415:' Ulit_ Accessory Dwelling $717 ° 1 ' Unit." Commercial:, $396. . . . , I,000:.sq.ft of-building•space . Offce $3799 , 1;000 sq.ft pf building space �q Industrial $241 . 1 000 sq ft of budding space i #'l ?[ !'f _!A $,.3 2 - '3'�.a. M .a.� xt� t A...x�4s....t•�'g,'�' 7�, F g ice, ' �... 1t� a�r 'xx . °+t 'Wz '£.l.c..�:..s .4C _ , e�.f,`:' arS.�. -. ,1.... .� � �aT 5?+Sv �Ll.��k- , ' Park Land' ".`' i " :-.F_Acqu_isitinn Fee q J )Act ,, ,Pro ects I'^ Single Family Residential, $2,089 • Unit _ Multifamily Residential $1,411 5 Unit ' . 'n' .. . . ' • Accessory Dwelling $717 Unit "" - .- • Commercial $396- 1,000`sq''ft of buildingspace ... 'Office $379 1,000 sq`ft ofbuildiig'space 'Industrial $241- I,000 sq+ft of building space 11" The.,Quimby Act:applies only,•.to�fees'and/or dedications imposed on certain`,,, subdivisions subject to the:Subdivision.Mari Act to fund land".acquisition costs for • par ,,or recreational purposes. I 1 , , : ,H'.\Miss.,Planning\Impact Fee Rview\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX.Reviied081.1.doc • • • • • ;•.FEE'TYPE LAND'USE TYPE • FEE; UNIT OF MEASUREMENT Park Land Devel'opm ent:Im pact .Fee Single_Famdy Residential. $5,532: Unit Single:Family=attached $5,532 Unit Multifamilyu'esidential $3;724 Unit Accessory Dwelling $1;898 Unit Manufactured It bine $5,532 Unit • Commercal, $1;04.8 1,000 sq ft ofbuilding space Office $1;002 1,000 sq ft of building space Industrial'„ $638 I,000 Wan :LeITIVitiOnVeiv"iiFairaw&hrd?killaWeratiSSMgd Public Facilities. Impact Fee Singl'e:Fattiily-Residential $1,426 I Unit _ Multifamily'Residential $960 Unit Accessory Dwelling $489 Unit Coininercial. $270 "1;000 sg ft of building space Office: $258 1,000 sq•ft of building space Industrial $164 1,000 sq:R of building space rhF ,.-iwSN'-:".0iatii:4 , r,' 13gAtk 'ate t4 .` traffic Impact Fee tct ,Single(Family.Residential $20,516- `Unit (Caltrans Preferred) Multifamily Residential $12,514' Unit _ Accessory,IDwelling $5344 Unit- . Senior'Hoilsing: $5;335: Unit Office $0,698 1,000 sq'ft of building space Hotel/Motel $14,157. Room _ Commercial/Shopping $19,123 1,000.sq ft of building space _ Industrial/Warehous •• $12,309 1,000 sq ft of building space Education $ 3,078 Student ry Institution '$ 8;821 I,000 sq ft of'building space rvt..a�C'tia'�4.�,'�4„°'§d�r"$s�'; 4,L-t r.33 <.°.,i�'•°j3�.&549ti��.? b�i�b:°•?wv is xa ThS'=i&1�°a"C'ar�nd+iv'64g4, Traffic,lmpact`Fcc!�I Single-Family Residential $16,746 Unit (Locally Preferred) Multifamily Residential . $10,2,15_ 'Unit, Accessory Dwelling $4,689' Unit Senior Housing.. . 54;354 Unit Office : $16,076 1000 sq ft or building space I lotel/.Motel: $1.1;555 Room . . • Commercial/Shopping $15;574 •'1,000 sq It of building space _ Industrial/Warehouse $10,048: 1,000 sq ft of building space Lducation $2,5.12 Student. ' ' . $7,201 1,000 sq'.ft of building space k Vtaatie .'s.... C.4.a`Fruy�,"..°`ge,` : rEal �`.v�..:t `Y i.Ss�. u ✓� f" :.y�bi 3_i (C)The 2aclopted traffic impact fees reflect:the cost;differential''between two design alternatives for the proposed-tRairiier Avenue:Crosstown CM-meet-Or and IttighWay 101. Interchange ("Caltrans Preferred", "Locally:Preferred"). Until.afinal determination is made on a design alternative, the City will collect'the higher (the "Caltrans Preferred") of the.2,traffic impact 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 theiincremental difference between'.the:two fees to those projects that had already paid.the "Caltrans.Preferred" traffic impact fee. II:\Misr.Planning\i i,pac4Fee:Review\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX Revised0811.doc • .• • • FEE'TYPE • • LAND USE^TYPE FEE UNIT OF MEASUREMENT ' Wastewater('"' ' Single Family Residential $8,705' "Unit Multifamily Residen lial $5,804 " Uiiit Accessory'DWelling $3,394 'Unit • Minilttum`Fee; • $8;705 Non R"esidential:Customers:. Per gallon dailyalowi $ 25)97 Perdaily pound of 130D; $1-2.;5-76)33, Per,daily ound:ofTSS: $2,954.19:, Non-ressiid�erntial!p"•! X 6C L r.+'.;.'uFt �i.F?1•at'9>a Y;:fete tilRk f.. a+.is (}114%,C.81 11 aT.re Sr 'r �gmw4s' ^ iffiRv "^» � Water Capacity METERiSIZE . , FEE (per meter size), - 5L8 $1.2;521 3/4 $12,521, 1"(residential) $112;521 1"(non-rttesidential) $20,034`. • $25,042 2" $50,084" • 3 $75,126 5100;168 6" $250,420 >6 Case.by • Case basis I"iThe wastewater '.Capacity; '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 Resohrces and Ciiii erVatlen at 778-4546-for a quote:. • • HAM ise..Planning\Impact-F,eejRcview\DEVELc)I MENI.FEES MATRIX Revised08 LI doc • • • STORM'1)ltAIN IMPACT flit • Calculation•ofFee, • Runoff computation: The increase.in•r.unoff created'by.agiven project is calculated for a 100-year storm:utilizing:runoff coefficients'tiased.upon the portion of vegetated area to impervious surfaces, and expressed in acre-feet. Rugoff coefficients are based upon the type of use, slope of the land, and percent of'vegetati on coverage. Commercial/ ndustrial Projects pay a fee of$30,000 per acre`.foot of additional runoff.. The amount of incremental runoff created is directly,linked to the amount of landscaping'provided. "fhe maximum fee possible is $9,000'pea acre of land. This would apply to a'project with 20% or less landscaping. A project with 25% landscaping can expect;a.fee of$6,750 per acre,`30% would pay $6,300 per acre, and so on. Residential: Projects pay a-fee of $15,000 per acre foot of additional runoff. Incremental runoff is dependent upon the density of a;-protect and the amount of landscaping,and open space provided. A high density project with 20%n or less area in landscaping could expect to pay.$4,500 per acre. A type detached single-Tam ily subdivision would pay approximately$J„500 per acre.. If you have any questions on how to calculate:this fee please contact Curt Bates at: 707-778-4474. • H:\M isc.Planning\linpact.Fee-Review\UEV EL OPMEN]'FEES.MA t RiX Revised08 i i.doc • • • . • SIN LI:EUHOUSINC FEES(5lunits or mote `based on square•1'ootage).see-Tables below;. Sy Ft:, ; 'Fee Sq F4, ,F,ee Sg: Ft, Fee S.y.:Ft. Fee • Sq_Ft .Fce 640, $2400 1660 $4224 1480 • $6246 .1,900 . $8465 1, 2320- $10.881•$24411 1070 " $4270 • ' 1,490 $6296' 1910 $8520 2330 1 $1.0941 r.6604 " $2482 18080 I $4346 1500 " .$6347 1,920" $8576 •, 2340" - $011001 '6r70 .&''I $2524 4090 '$'43'62 151'0' $6398 • 1930 $8631 ; 2350:' $1•1062 680 $2565 .1110W•''''44408. ".1520 '1 $6449 3940' '' ':$868'7 • •2360':' 3.11.122 690 •52607 .41'10 . $4454 •1530 . : $6'500 1.950 $8742 2770 : '$11,182 700x : 1 '$2649 1120 ..,1;$4501 1'540 $6551 146 •:, . 38798 it 2380', $1-1243 ;7d0 $2690 1130 . ;$4547 455,0_,... $6602 . 19,70 , $8854 239Q, . $I 1303 '720 $2732 9.1,40. , -$4594 .A560 .$6653 ':1980 -_;$8910 2400. $11364 1730 $2774 1'150 $4641 '1570, , $6705 •_1990 ;$8966 _2410 $11425 740''. $28.16 1160' $4688 ' '1580 ' $6756 • 6756 2000' "$9022 2420 $1 1486 750 $2859 1170 "$4735 1,590). ' `$6808 205,0 $9079 ;2430': $11547 760+ ' r, $2901 1180: $4782 '4600 $68• 0 • 2020' $913$ 2440 " $11608 770 '.'• $2944 1'190 $4829 I,6d°0,,; . e $6912 •! 2030 1' "' • $9192 p245 •' 511670 '730' ; $2986 :1200'7. ;$4876. 1,620 $6964 2040, $9249 ; :2'460' q, $11731 790 2. $3029 1210._,;$4924 1630 $7016 2050 `,$9305 .,2470 $11792 800 „ : $3072 , 1220 54971 '1'640 -. $7068 • ,206.0 $9362 :13004,', $11854 • 810.. $3115 1230 . $5019 '1650, • $7120 20700., ;. $9419 ;2490)-` $1.1916 _820 - $3158 `I240' ,$5066 1560'' $7173 • ;20-80 159476 2500. $11978 $3201 12501 " .$5114 1670 $7225 :2090 $9534 ;25_10 $12040 840' $3244 -1'260 !$5162 •"-1,580 ` $7278' .;2'1`00: . $9591 2520' $12102 $3287 71270 • $5210 ' 169.0 $7331 :,2110 ' $9649 ' ;2530. " $12.164 „860 11. $3331 -1280°.' "$5259 1700:+': $7384 2120 .' $9706. 2540 . $12226 870 ,- $3374 1290 , - $5307 1'710 I • $7437 3.1'30 1. $9764 2550 $12289 $3418 1300„ 5$4$$,, 1'3%20:. •• $7490 2:140,,, . $9822 25601,,; $12351 .890; $3462 ,1310 $5404 „1730 . $7543 .. ;21'50'. • $9880 2570ry-; $12414 900 $35506 '1320 ,$5452 £146S, , $7596. _:21,60:_ ,. $9938 '2580 $12476 '910 • $3550 ,'1330 $5501 .1750 , $7650 • 3170 .,59996 2590' $.12539: 920' " '••' $3594 1340 $5550 1760' . $7703 . ,'2180 $'10054 /2'6001'11 $12602 $3638 `;1350 $51$99• 1770 ' ' $7757 " ;21:90 ' $4.01.P2 ..'26`10 $1'2665 940.' dS $3683 1360 " `$5648 4. •80r• $7811 ;2200 '• $'10171 =2620,°, $12729 :950'..., .' $3727 :113FM:34 $5697 . . 1'.790:.,: $7865 ' .`2210 ;,;i $1,0229 ., 2630 $12792 :19.60:1•;.;".; $3772 _ ,,1380 1, , $5747- :1'800 $7919 2220 .61:0288 •,2640 $12855 .':970 .$3817 r.1'39,0 .$5796 j810 $7973 •, ,2230' $10347 2650 • $12919 1;980 .„,,,,$3861 x:1400, . . $5846 1820' ,, $8027 2240 . ,$10406--,_26_60 $12982. !990 - ., $3906 I l0 ` $5895 1'830 $8081 2250 $19465 2670 ' 513'046 1'000`" ($395.1 °,1.420"" $5945 b.821-o•-.. ','($8836 22"6,0' $10524 ' ;2680• TO-'1113:7- 53997 1430 $5995'' 1850 $81'90 • 12270 ' $10583 '2'690 543174,' • .1020;Y ' !$4042• • 11440 $6045 1,8601 $8245 . '''2280' a $10643 2,7.00 . $13238 1'1030" - $4`087 11.10460 0.10 $6095 •1;8)0. ' $8300 • 2290: a '$10702 -2g-ear., $1'3302 •11040;;,}: $4133 rS1460 • +• $614"5 1;880 • $8355• 123100.,.; $$10762 ,..-2320. $13367. 1117110,‘,."1 '$ ,'1050 - $4178 6195! 58440 `:27.10'- $10822 . 2730 $13431 ,- • • • O'Wisc.Planningllow.c.ace.Revicw\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX Revised03I duc rat �5�...• . - .. - .P, 9 •2740, $13496 3180 $1:6;6446'_ ;3;620_ `$'119613 S Ft; Fee. S Fee Sq. 1't Fee Sq Fh Fee S Ft Fes q. Sq.. • 2750 $13560 ' `. --3490? $1116515 '13670 , $'19687 '"•27604 • $13625 ?"3200' $116585 ""13640' • $19762 • 2770 41: $13690 ' • 210.• $:16655 .316501 " $1i9837 ¢2780': $13755 :•3220i;1:. $66725 : 1.3660' . $4499112 • . .: 211.90 $13820 .3230'.: •:$16295, •••,:36.7,0: . $19986 ` +'410044 '$.13885 ,.3240, $6:6863 I.400;„ $20062 •;. 2810: ; ,,$13950 -.3254; $416935 , 3690 r $20137 2820 $14016 4 3260 :$117006 3700 . $20212 11. 28+30 : 114081_ 4_3270 -,$;170,76 , -37191 $20287 2840 • $14147 '13280; 317147 3720 $20363 $14213 3290" -3117217 '3730 $20438. • 12'2860 ! .$14279 •3300 ' "$47288 ,'°37'40' 4 $20514 -.42870-41 $14345 1-'3314 ' -;$47359 .-`3730 t' $20590 � . , .. - .• '.c 2880 rl $144;1 I, ' 3320 '-'<$',1,7430 • 3760" $20666, • • -. :'3330;: $17501 2890, $1:4477 ., •3770.: . $20742 . ., • . • 29,00,` $14543 3340 , ,$4,7572 3,780) $2081.8 L . 29110•.: $146E0 3350 ,,:$17644' ; 3790 $20895 x.2920. .$14676 . .3360 ,_ -1$1.77-15, ,-. 3800' 4 $20971 • 29.30. $14743 ..23370 . 1.17787 3810 $21.047 2940•'• $14810 ' 3380 " ;$1;7859 '"7b30. ` $21124: 1'2950 $14877 "'3390° ' ''$17930 :"3830° , $21201 " . ' 222,.2.06-0; $14944 -$,3400.'" 'S 1 8002 !'• 3840 •` $21878: 2970 $15011 '.x34+10'4 x$18074 '. 38'50. $21355. 2980; . $15078 41:3420.x:: :$18146 3860 .I $21432 •+2290,; $15145 ,3430 i $.18219- ,3870,4 3211509 • .. .. 3000 _ $15213 ;,7440 .j.'$18291 3880,• $21586 3010., • $15280 34'5.0 :$1.8364 _3890 $21664 • 3020. ` 1' $15348 3460 $18436 3900, $21741 • 3030' ' $15416 s.;3470 $18509 3910 $21819 1:• • 3040.1: $15484 " '3480:°1; 118582 3920 $211896 'k "'1050. $15552 : 43490' ' $18655 :39341'1 $21974 ^ .r1:3S50*.,• $15620 ...,3500; . ,$18728 39,90. $22052 ,%30,70:;,• •$15688 ,:351,0 ; +;$:1880,1 _ 5950 ..: • $221-30 ,.. ▪ 3080" $15756 ;3320 ; -$'18874 , 390 . $22209. 3090. $15825 '3530 . .$18947' 3970' ; $22287 3100. $15893 ;;\3540';' $190211 3980 $22366 31.10;°j $15962 " 3550' • $19095 "3990' $22444 " 1.1.•• ' • +' 3120 :'4• $16031 - x'"13560 :$,1+91,68 • •44000'- $22500 , ,! 3;I 0; : .$161.00. ..'3570., ..$1'9242: •, •. ti: : : 3140 $,16169:.'.,-;3580,.: 511346'. --. • 3150,, $16238', 3590 ,$19390. • 3160,, $16307_'.'3600 $19464 3170:"' $16376 '=3610 '' '$1;9539. - " ' • • H:\Mist.Planningllinpael,f6e Ijci�iew\DEVELOPMENT FEES MATRIX Revised081 Ldoc • • • PUBLIC ART IN LIEU FEES CaleulatiOn•of Fee The,following fee Will be required:-for-all new [icon residential] development, of the rehabilitation, renovation,.remodeling or,impro.vement of an existing building„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.'buildingpermit application. Those projects subject to the ordinance twist either provide proof of a written contractual agreement to commission public art for the'project site or pay an in-lieu fee equal to 1%d of the construction cost. CENTRAL PETALUMA.SPECIFIC PLAN FEES • This fee will he chargeftto.alt applications requiring governmental approvals subject to the provisions of the Central Petaluma Specific Planand 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 $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.;luly I of each year. Consideration in setting this fee schedule shall include (but not be limited to) the incremental cost to add additional parking spaces in the area 'surrounding the site. • • • • • H-.\Mise.Plmming\linpacITee Rcview\DEVLLOPMENT FEES MATRIX Revised081 l.doc • . a� '. S 8x RECEIVED E6VE� '4. FETALC�MA A.R. APR `liy. :- .__�- . • l�Pf 1 201} "� t: Ci1AM1iER OF. COMMPKC t R �' 0u, CITY MANAGER: '" T April 15, 2011 3- - Petalii is City Council 0 cO x 11 English Street- r6 Petaluma CA 94952 - ' 1. t - ,. � _' Re: -Develomnent Impact Fees • tka 1 Dear Mayor Glass and Councilmembers: t ' tja The Chamber wwscpleas'ed to-hear that the City Council expressed.a willingness,to ii try e .: examine whether tliere.are opporfunities to revisit and fevise certain specific• sy- components of Petaltuna''s,developmentimpact fees in out-view,the,current impact fees—which are byfar the highest of any cit} 'in Sonoma County—serve to * fl cla#P? discourage the development our community has determined that it wants to . ' encourage in,its„General Plan. We fully.support the concept#hat new development fs should ifs fair share and fully mitigate its impacts on the comnfmtity. Within vs#44ingitbiel,5"-W that framework- ho_wever, there are significant opportunities"to revise the current :impact fees. • Regarding impact,fees that ace not tied to the.General Plan-ERR,the Chamber supports the fol lo Wing ing actions: • • 1. The Chamber!suipports the proposal to reduce the johs-housing linkage fee and to- make that fee depend on the-number of low wagejobs,that anew development will actually create. • � - fi , 2. The Chamber-supports reducing the required contribution,for public art from � c , 1.0%of the cost of-new constriction to 0.5%. 3 a 4! G x Regarding impactft.&that are tied to-the General Plan, we 1.yould suggest that , , developmentsisihce the General Plan was adopted indicate that several impact'fees • 9 ` can be reduced because of changed circumstances.' �aS q� 4* First it is appears thel Copeland Street;Extensron? is not going lobe built, and there '5.7144'- 2- is notustification to collect money,or set aside money, for this t6 5 million project. e4 ;." -'1 We•already know that two involved agencies will not-permit rt. One hundred percent O b* ' jir of the $6,5 million cost of this projectis currently embedded;in impact fees, and this * ,- fee component.should be dropped. sea ; .n Nex',t, the `Caulfield lane Intension”component of the traffic impactfees is a$54.4 .._ ,k 'I: milli in project;•1100%o€which is embedded in.traffic impact fees. Although we . ,f •.:acknowledge that this project would create a modest •reduction •in congestion on East qq • .l! Al kq i§' �, r'v e . t � w e dY ti, o-' "s ' w• - s • z . p e r , w P.'' D Street, early activit}.on;this project is,unrealistic. We believe that it be deferred k�.a a wild implementation ofthenext general plan so that.higher•priority traffic _� ���� mitigation, specifically the Rainier project, can heiinplemented. wwvetalosi',4 to 1 ri` t ,{ Oaken together,:the Copeland and Cariifield extensions contribute a total of$60.9 a F ¢ a million of the$165.7million of projects included-in the�traffic impact fees. Ajar 'Deleting Co eland iatid deferring Caulfield+until.im lementation of the next general . �,„� ,���,� a �t�� ' p b p g r ji.k plan-.will create a 3.6 8:% percent reductionlm the traffic mitigation impact fees f.11.141,,,,,,Jain without coniprontisrng the most important projects that will create traffic relief. r a,_ � , * Our current configuration of traffic impact tees serve primarily to discourage that t wF development that'mould finance these projects meaning that if We don't act soon, 'Oyu k $' ,e , there may never be.siknihcant traffic'-mitigation relief m Petaluma. •j { - I .�'- Regarding the Water Capacity Impact Fees, we note that 100%of the City's • -' ,�� �� proposed $44 l,anillion tertiary recycled wastewater distribution system is allocated . w " „4 �y' to impact fees• The rationale supporting this allocation was' that new development e �a• should:pay to ,create space jn the.constrainedPetaluma Aqueduu_ We assert that a,� .042, 5 " , two profound changes demand that this program'be reexamined First,the SCWA's wa '. ability to meet its,;contractual.commt men to Petaluma no longer appeals`to be t constrained by the:capacity of the Petaluma Aqueduct Second and more important, r-;-- • the old water demand projections are wildly higher roan con eat projections, due to ��ei - � , increased consumer,conservation,calling into question whether the tertimy recycled , �r x I wastewater distribution system still needs to be rolled out iii%the tuneframe originally t t� `$ envisioned. Accordingly the Chamber'suggests that the impact fees.he modified to t 7 ; only include the midst cost effective early stages of the program, while removing the � st -' less cost elfectiye later stages and either deferring them until,later or identifying a • a ` sx - different frmdmgsource. This deferral represents x$26 2 million, or 59%. of the,total � < ;, S $44.1 million cost of the recycled wastewater distribution system., € fi f '� 6 ,� 6.0( t We also note that the Parkland Acquisition and Open Space Acquisition components ��r� � - of the impact tees'are Updated annually based on ative year rolling average of. r "kit.. property sales Based on current trends, both of these fees can be expected to be, , °, ' reduced about 20%when they are-revised after June 30. �ov 'r4 W: � �� . T hank you for dour attention to these »tatters 'f-he Chamber is prepared to work x ' with,the City to facilitate this much-needed review of iiftpact$:'r n 7: .t-' s y p. } air" ��� '� . TAli' I M . - • Sincerely !—`1 • . �*,r i a vasx ^tom / c Or t 'r �jni'� Omta,Pellegrrm CEO t Petaluma Area Chamber of Commerce " cjtT -.r � • -4 Lei �Y M i2e kJ d'r �.� S ' h3 , .a. . ' .. • . { ; City of •Peta6'urra- '2"{ TION FEE • 0. GITRIG UPDATE ~:,, , yS`+. rk w s sr- '. "` `Y v`9�eittlti.N t' Y"j o-� j' ''3-x k"tt(c1 1 F • 14-4V9-:-'.%s "1v `7 'xs.{ a' y! 'r+1 >~'n' h w,Ft" ?„1411 A Z. t� g. i 3 'y,!# g R > ".nom.. S t 1 r s Tc. vIx -- ��> �t re+a ystop T!,, nC ,4" K t g. r ,.+,„.0 T f R 0t4t. ,, -1. a'.c .'S�t.� J 5 4' N Fi ear< ali,°�,s '�k�i -,Yo-nw .ice' ^ Y x rr 0�"` ' 1j -;17,- ;"-.F.'“,-,A '.1ti e. v GY`a V- ' x,. eSIS 1 ' & �, ti [ .” '' ' rt'- £3�i fin,"h vrs )If T /4",a. F- fly& 'W S ew"�'s=i}„i" „ IV T 171 dF, ithihi j ,,11 (v a I Yi'id 4V 3QI ! .. :uli gt $P • Ste' ,tinod' r,T'. pil t ? : N is ait,_ --- 's ii�ifi 3 k r„�: zi ,,ryi, ,p "`,u'x i rs- u�.. ° j' !F I r Rpt a /''' ^a 'g.�4 getti{ }�+ IrI tll id '^�t,�i - 3a' • `Fs"- � 4'. �� S �r :r r + k `f "}l1-i 1 fi{ill Dar 4x ka t "4., `' t x.iX1 r3 : r�.. . i s. F -'� {r 4 ` i Mist l }11� ) s 5 apt, 1 ,2 a fa 4;. s Y ; ..ms's. £;s{ 5 !!' 6 !F `t zF�4; kit l; + f.",II , # �' F 4r ',{-P,a r. "" 'S h. , . ,,,.,' 1 rG ' ., .,3 1'6-T S i i ,l '4 F, . ,'c''', c vF i r 12 to f 'µ C x '' . '.L•ys! 3x r I 1 'k-S 3 w. 't i m Ir w's 3^',-.N * 5 . $ TS Cxy a i E:le.,X } i7fr t %f3` .'�I x W .>a' t -i x r' i`s"z.^ a ail- t ry x �r t ry>:-:,0 �i s,,..-.,.4r4:. '� , .v d: ` t Yo ,, ,.h a st x3 t '-2 �.l. s -F f '"' t ' I T v�, i s'rr sir $��vl '`� Idi w �'dr4'71;4�re lnrf �,� �,f^• w ,}. �yttjs +* awl ka°km ucF > w' *„ 4! 'k'. MFR. s "` �+ i� ,,F,,gg� � � '� i ,▪ " 63' _f 4 , r "' irp3.-3S`#' *x ,,,f. • ° +, ei V. i �J ( -,45..;-P4Z, n 1 ` S`' -:',.%)A '.y N i t (l�1�3s °r • + Sej ,f-R E ii Rw T Y 41/2.24,. . F 1 Vim 1 C{y a.„4 T! ' 4Nl'dis+ � 34 2 .+` fl �9 'Y $ ,...:4:44.;t (`tizeli�.R .. "Fr wp tb.I�>si g 6 r� a f x is��f + � .t3 's{ � � � � k 0 y .: f • £! I Y ,23t�. th11, Y -' ie,,, 4 ;: C �FT}, , i 1 `i.. irT � L '£' Y cy ��., k.�, , 1.. a , Fla ' ry I1 FG r» i iax r-. ai xk,,r•-, 4 r . s '�. ri-•»'a " `47 e " Is �i r34, . ;-F'ad"' r.i it'l 1 ,r' i M.f ! .fli gyp{ pi� '.: ° '',1 '' .la v �. 01 L r *' � ..r` „„ i. Al fi` r` i F� '� :.$„;',"47...1.4...',1".-3 f E. 4.4;„4 f s +,c,R 4,-4 '2 1 'i5'I ..jJ r....77,tx, �:- f+'f 1'r e '� 4 `N z"t 'J gY j3SL ¢F sr S?r 1k f iFS IF'' V d rtg �ra.rc „'=. 3 F.R�tl�, ,71:2$14., NZ"-. f l - y i ,„ a„F fit^ ra5 ,Ot c?r✓E T°' . 11 f,�lUr e"iATliuill 't.:( .b..•' t ss $v..T.---t.f :+a. = r Lemke �kTs.;'A *rf u...A`. RF - w"=ic ttI Jly f x �R a,7ay.*.� ' , r�i 4''W £ iyf"r J Her 1 - Prepared by r , n ■ 1 :v idw3�1'M t - i4 k „ i E � xFi & PEERS l TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS •i:,R, 332 Pine Street 4th Floor F t San Francisco, CA i _ ) - SF06.0282 , -5 rJ May 2008 • h;8s P 4`r' R i A k f P '4 h r Ly$fitt", 1^ fxs t s' lint K f f`h µ _ rl . 5,7 s t411 sW: rellailrm718i 1419*Itfaain.06f1JNd21 ,; s + V t ale ar x • *lige.90061 1 tW;1F q n v 1 ,ViCtSei ir 7g it a S1 1 .rC I f COSV "'i l ` c aa` Fm 1 ✓ 3 €3' r S ..t 2q 4'a+ fk :v»ra s ' . �?}? '- N.Yr V; 44;1 S { hEo� r:v }l :li r':::: b .r•k.74 sn . r .4.' a fM "2) ,`h= ;{ ,,Seif . • I TABLES • CITY OF PETALUMA*CIRCULATION IMPROVEMENTS FEE:CONTRIBUTIONS . Estimated Costs . Improvement. Net City New Percentage Potential Fee . Development of Program Contribution. Cost•. Cost ...Share • • RainierAvenueiExtension and Interchange locally.,preferred alternative $48;100,000,. 100.00% :$48,100,000 28.4%. Caltrans preferred alternativesupplement. $31,362 000 ' 100.00% $31 362;000 18:5%- ' _. . . Caulfieldlane F�tens om $54,3g8,000. 109.00% ' $54,398,000' 32.2% ' Copeland Street Extension i$8,"547-,000 300.00% • $6,547,000 3.9°/ Old Redwood Highway Interchangee!mprbvements I 58;475,000 100,00% . -$8475;000 5.0% Caulfield.Lane/Payran Street Intersection Improvements $500,000 10000.% 3500,000, 0.3% Petaluma BOulevardiMagnolia Avenue—Payran.Street Intersection $500,000 100.00% $500,000- 0.3%• • Construction of New Intersections Throughout'the City , _ $3;900 000 100 00% S3,900,000 ' 2:3% Traffic Signal Upgrades'Throughout the'Cily _ $1,885,000 100'00% • $1885,000 1.1% ; Pedestrian/BI ycI Impr m_ 1 'Thra gho p the City $251523 000 2fi 20°G' $5 e12,nna • 3 5%- Transit Improvements Throughout,the City.. 311,471,00p 21:20,.(' $2,432;000 1,6% ! ' Administration Costs2 - '$0• - _ $4,986_,000 .2.9:% Subtotal with locall d.R referreamifer Ave.altern`ative 163;458 000•` ' $139 294,000, .11:5"%. 1 • • Total with Calkr;s P•rererred'Altemaiiy&supplement $197;820;000• $170;656,000 160% • Projected Growth in DUEs 9,06283' Fee.per DUE with„localiy''preferred Rainier Avenue alternative.. $15;370 Fee per DUE with Caltrans preferred alternative suppleme-rit 1 $18,838 Source:City of Petaluma 2008. I See Table 7 ' - 'Assumes 3%of"Net City Cost"with.Caltrans Alternative Supplement otrRainierAveL interchange • STEP..6-.FEE.AMOUNTS' - . The'total costito be•contributed by new developnient(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 10. The new"potentialifee'ambentssrepresent,a change from:the':current fee.sctledule, for a variety of reasons, including: • the inclusion dfiadditionalicapital.improvements . • increases in thecost'ot construction and.right-of-way acquisition . I • -- 20 Ftiii EN. PH ii. - i City of Petaluma Water and, Wastewater Capacity Fee Study FINAL May 2008 33 2 BARTJ1E TttISA8S,0f1A:1P-.S 1 in vi Airs Pv111.1(:1 1NA\GE5 TM' Eba6 1889 Alcatraz Avenue Berkeley CA 94703-2714' Tel '510/653;3399 Fax 510/653-3769 - II ttp://wn n.lia rl leis ells.coin • .,.� 1• . Table3 City'of Petaluma . . Water Capital Improvement.Program-Water Supply '' Benefit ` �i Recycled Water Projects Edstinq., • Future Total cost Area.A . .. Land 0% 100% . $105,000 Reservoirs 0% 100% 5,040,000 Pipes and valves 0%, 100% 371,000 Pipes and.valves 0% • 100% 3,188,000 • -. 0 Area C 0 Tertiary expansidn_ 9% ' 100% 2,072,000 Tertiarypump station. . 0% 100% •. 560,000 Pipes and valves- 0%'. 100% :6,633,000 0 Area 0 Tertiaryexpansion '. 0%. 100% 2,07Z000 ' Pipes and valves. ; 0%. 100% 23,702;000 0 Area G - 0 Area&pump station 0% 100% •0 Pipes and valves 0% ' 100% 392.000 .,'Subtotal re ycled water projects , ':i$0 $44,135 000 $44 135 000 Water Conservation Protects(1). - Total capital program:cost. " 0/ 100% $7,126L000 ;Subtotal wafer conservation prolecls -i (!SO $7 128 000 $7 126 OOO i Ekistinq• ' : - "Future Total ._ Total water supply projectcosts » _» :-''-$0 $51267000 $,51,2610001 (1)80'year presenttworth cost of recommended water conservation:program Source Water Demand and iSupply.Analysis-:Report-and WaterlConservation Program • , .Analysis,... • . Toodetemmeja fair andrequitablemethod for apportioning;the existing,and future'capital assets of AC water systein, BWA first developed an analysisioffthe,number of existing ,.eonnections;to`the'water;system,'Table 4 details the current meter•inventoly.in service Ii) the City It also calculatess the number of`:3/4"-meter;egjuvalents using AWWA ;ti'pproved.rtieter ratios: One rnetcr equivaleot is assumed to be-a 5/$":'3/4 or 1" - . `(resldenfialoiily)meter: - . • • , 6 . . , >«n swow k3, I o w. a o ? F 4 j rli v . , ac N , aaw �i I �r 0 0`> agw • 1. K r ! w .1 "4 A .. z . l q'"�"na < is F , a . �i � i C/Q� r ^ } .q1--4,:-.),2P s ] z ,� 73 4� ;" �sy ( W. 'e . a r ii, gl G y ' t (z r y p r l i, 'ir,r c g€'✓Si J rHY ® ®. M ( l-, qli S �A d rl ! (� �(I V e > Y. ryxy i �, n -S �' R�t ilw:q.y�P I F � '4T �`' . I' f j 0 f ! E1s } . $s • r i r II , ` l . P. ti m 4 .-..;•,!,.,„.,,..i kr Y1'.4`,..,.14,1:: £ 7 r l W I y : z, ; . € to s . . 6 z € A i V • • Calculation of Open Space:and.Park Land.Acquisition Fees1rev:;8/10'/11) • These fees are adjusted annually by'the.pereentage.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-in'appraisal company: Staff reviews the list and identifies those lots'located`within the Urban Growth Boundary that meet the following criteria: • Vacant • Greater than 1=acre'in size • No substantial sitelrnprovements or recent prdjectentitlenlents • These properties are added to the spreadsheet prepared the prior.year'to calculate the average purchase price of vacant residential•and commercial land. The oldest.year in.the spreadsheet is removed and a new five year+average purchase price per acre is calculated. The new price is compared to the prior year's average purchase price and the correspondingrate of change is applied to the Open Space and Park Land acquisition fees.; Petaluma Land Sales • 7/1/06-6/30/11 i Parcel Purchase Number SitusAddress Date. Acres Purchase,Prite 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;000 757,576 007-431-003 4902 aid,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 .20;000 7,194 048-141.029 240 Jessie.Lane 7/20/2010, 3.99, • 1301;723 75,620 18.62 3;821723 205,248 • previous 5 year average 57.45 -17,252;500 300;305 change -31:65% In 2010the'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 nitarkets,has caused the rate of change to vary considerably from year to year. • •