HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 101-2005
RESOLUTION NO.1 01-2005
CITY COUNCIL, CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO 2005 EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
STUDY UPDATE AND REVISING THE CITY'S TRAFFIC
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FUTURE
DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EAST OF 101 AREA
RECITALS
WHEREAS, on October 13l' 1999, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco
adopted the South San Francisco General Plan ("General Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the General Plan, as adopted, applies to the East of 101 Area, which is a
Planning Area that includes the land. within the jurisdictional limits of the City; and
WHEREAS, the General Plan area is included on the Land Use Map contained in the
General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's adopted General Plan includes policies reqUITIng that new
development should be required to pay its fair share toward upgrades to existing transportation
facilities or construction of new transportation facilities as those upgrades and facilities are
necessitated by new development in the East of 101 Area (see Policies 4.2-G-7, 4.2-1-7 and 4.2-
1-6); that the potential impacts of new growth will be mitigated through development fees and
other exactions (see Policies 4.2-G-1and 4.2-1-8); that development of all urban uses shall be
coordinated with provision of essential community services or facilities, including but not
limited to law enforcement (see Policies 4.2-G-6 and 4.2-1-4); and that the location, timing and
extent of growth shall be guided through capital improvements programming and financing,
including through use of impact fees and developer contributions, to prevent increased
congestion and level of service deficiencies (see Policy 4.2-1-1) ; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") on October
13, 1999, the City Council of the South San Francisco approved and certified compliance with
CEQA requirements by the General Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Enviromnental Impact Report identified certain significant and
potentially significant environmental impacts which could be mitigated to a level of less than
significance, therefore mitigation findings are required pursuant to CEQA ~ 15091 upon a
project approval; and
WHEREAS, the City adoptc~d a specific program to track compliance with the mitigation
measures. One approach is to USl~ the yearly "state of the plan" report prepared for the city
council pursuant to Government Code Section 65400 (b) as the reporting program for a new
general plan; and
WHEREAS, CEQA section 21081.6 requires that where mitigation findings are made for
significant and potentially significant environmental impacts, a mitigation monitoring and
reporting program shall be prepared to ensure compliance with the mitigation during the project
implementation; and
WHEREAS, the traffic improvements identified in the General Plan and the Muni
Financial Fee Study Update will undergo separate environmental review once the improvements
have been sufficiently engineered to identify their scope and potential impacts; and
WHEREAS, in 2001, the City of South San retained Muni Financial to assist the City in
reviewing the needs of residents, businesses and employees through build-out under the adopted
General Plan and adopting a traffic impact fee to determine the level of fees necessary to
generate funds to pay for the transportation facilities necessitated through build-out under the
adopted General Plan; and
WHEREAS, Muni Financial prepared and presented to the City Council a Traffic Impact
Fee Study, East of 101 Area For the City of South San Francisco ("Traffic Fee Study") which the
Council adopted at its September 26,2001 meeting is attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the 2001 Traffic Fee Study estimated the cost of transportation
improvements that would be necessary to accommodate future development within the East of
101 Area; and
WHEREAS, the City has retained the services of Muni Financial to update the 2001
report and identify the City's need for additional street improvements in the East of 101 area and
to update the costs to undertake the adopted and updated list of recommended improvements,
and this Traffic Fee Study Update is attached as "Exhibit A"; and
WHEREAS, the attached Traffic Fee Study Update demonstrates the appropriateness of
revising the traffic impact fee amounts included in the original 2001 study based on current
estimates of the need for and cost of transportation improvements needed to accommodate new
development, including (1) an estimate of traffic demand from new development; (2) an estimate
of the increase in the East of 101 Area's employment population between the year 2005 and the
year 2020, the planning horizon anticipated to be used in future preparation of a General Plan for
the City; and (3) the cost of constructing the necessary transportation improvements to offset the
impacts of the estimated increase in the East of 101 Area's employment population by 2020; and
WHEREAS, in accordance the Government Code, at least 14 days prior to the public
hearing at which this Resolution was adopted, notice of the time and place of the hearing was
mailed to eligible interested parties who filed written requests with the City for mailed notice of
meetings on new or increased fees or service charges; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with the Government Code, Exhibit A was available for
public review and comment for ten days prior to the public hearing at which this resolution was
adopted; and
WHEREAS, 10 days advance notice of the public hearing at which this Resolution was
adopted was given by publication in accordance with Section 6062(a) of the Government Code;
and
FINDINGS
WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows:
A. The City of South San Francisco East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update
complies with California Govemrnent Code Section 66001 by establishing the basis for
imposition of the revised fees on new development in the East of 101 area. The purpose of the
traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution is to finance transportation improvements to reduce
the impacts caused by future development in the East of 101 Area, as further explained in
Exhibit A. Such facilities are described in Exhibit A. The East of 101 Fee Study Update further
describes the following:
1. identifies the purpose of the fee;
2. identifies the use to which the fee will be put;
3. shows a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed;
4. shows a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities
and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed;
5. shows a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the
cost of the public facilities or portions of facilities attributable to the development
on which the fee is irnposed.
B. The traffic impact fee collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to
finance the transportation improvernents described in Exhibit A.
C. After considering Exhibit A, the testimony received at this noticed public hearing,
the agenda statements, the General Plan, and all correspondence received (together, "Record"),
the City Council approves and adopts Exhibit A and incorporates such report herein; it further
finds that future development in the City will generate the need for the transportation
improvements described in Exhibit A, and that such improvements are consistent with the
General Plan.
D. Adoption of the n~vised and adjusted traffic impact fees set forth in this
Resolution, as they relate to development within the East of 101 area, is intended to obtain funds
for transportation facility improvements necessary to reduce congestion and improve levels of
service within the East of 101 Area. While the fee may contribute sufficient funds for the
improvements, it will not, by and of itself, ensure the improvements are constructed. Moreover,
any improvements intended to be funded by the fee will be fully analyzed under CEQA when the
improvements are sufficiently engineered and the precise location and scope of the
improvements identified. As such, the fee, as it relates to development within the City, is not a
"project" within the meaning of CEQA because it is not a necessary causal link in the provision
of the improvements identified in the Muni Financial Fee Study. (Pub. Res. Code
~21 080(b )(8)(D)).
E. In adopting the revised and adjusted traffic impact fee set forth in this Resolution,
the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, Section 7 of the California
Constitution.
F. The Record establishes:
1. That there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the traffic
impact fee set forth in this Resolution (payment for certain listed transportation
improvements) and the type of development projects on which such fee is imposed in that
all development in the East of 101 Area--office/research and development, commercial
and hotel-generates or contributes to the need for the transportation improvements listed
in Exhibit A; and
2. That there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the
transportation improvements listed in Exhibit A and the type of development projects on
which the transportation improvement impact fee set forth in this Resolution is imposed
in that new development in the East of 101 Area--office/research and development,
commercial and hotel-will generate persons who live, work, and/or shop in the City of
South San Francisco and who generate or contribute to the need for the improvements
listed in Exhibit A; and
3. That there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the traffic
impact fee set forth in this Resolution and the cost of the transportation improvements
listed in Exhibit A or that portion of such improvements attributable to the development
on which such fee is imposed in that such fee is calculated based on the number of
residents or employees generated by specific types of land uses, the total cost of
construction of such faciliti(;~s, and the percentage by which development within the City
contributes to the need for such facilities; and
4. That the cost estimates set forth in Exhibit A are reasonable estimates for
the cost of the transportation improvements listed therein, and the fees expected to be
generated by future devdopment will not exceed the projected cost of such
improvements; and
5. That the method of allocating of the fee set forth in this Resolution to a
particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly proportional to each
development's burden on and benefits from the improvements to be funded by such fee,
in that such fee is calculated based on the number of trips each particular development
will generate.
ADOPTION OF FEE
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of South San
Francisco as follows:
1. The 2005 East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study Update is hereby adopted.
2. Definitions.
(a) "Applicant" shall mean any person or legal entity that applies for a
permit or other entitlement for a new development project.
(b) "Child Care Facility" shall mean any child care facility as that term is
defined by section 1596.750 of the California Health and Safety Code,
including but not limited to facilities providing non-medical care to
children under eighteen years of age in need of personal services,
supervision, or assistance essential for sustaining the activities of daily
living or for the protection and supervision of an individual on less
than a 24-.hours basis. Such facilities shall include day care centers,
employer-sponsored child care centers, and family day care homes.
(c) "City" shall mean the City of South San Francisco.
(d) "Commercial" shall mean any development constructed or to be
constructed on land having a General Plan land use designation or
zoning designation for facilities for the purchase or sale of
commodities or services and/or the sales, servicing, installation, or
repair of such commodities or services and other space uses incidental
to these aetivities. Commercial land uses include, but are not limited
to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls, auto accessories
stores; banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores,
discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; drug stores; eating and
drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general
merchandise stores; hardware stores; home furnishings and
improvement centers; hotels and motels; laundromats; liquor stores;
restaurants; service stations; shopping centers; supermarkets; and
theaters. "'Commercial" includes the Commercial land use designation
in the General Plan.
( e) "Commercial, Office/Research & Development and Hotel
Development Project" shall mean the construction of new Floor Area
on a lot in the Community Commercial, Business Commercial, Coastal
Commercial, Mixed Industrial, and Business and Technology Park
land use dassifications, identified in the East of 101 Area of the City
by the South San Francisco General Plan.
(t) "Develop:ment" shall mean the construction, alteration, or addition,
other than by the City, of any building or structure within the area
within th(;~ City of South San Francisco.
(g) "Development Project" means any Commercial, Office/Research and
Developnlent and Hotel Development Project.
(h) "East of 101 Area Traffic Impact Fee" or "Fee" shall mean the charge
or charges imposed on development to fund the transportation
improvements to ensure that such development pays its fair share of
improvements generated by such development pursuant to this
resolution and applicable law.
(i) "East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan" shall mean the "South
San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand
Managemc~nt Ordinance, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact
Report," April 2001.
G) "Floor Area" shall mean the area of all floors and levels as defined in
the City of South San Francisco Building Code.
(k) "Hotel" shall mean a commercial facility containing guestrooms for
the temporary use of transients where access to individual units is
predomimmtly by means of common interior or exterior hallways.
(1) "Industrial" shall mean any development constructed or to be
constructed on land having a General Plan land use or zoning
designation for the manufacture, production, assembly, or processing
of conSUlner goods and/or other space uses incidental to these
activities. Industrial land uses include but are not limited to:
assembly; concrete and asphalt batching plants; contractors' storage
yards; fabrication; lumber yards; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards
and service yards; printing; processing; warehouse and distribution;
and wholesale and heavy commercial uses. "Industrial" includes the
following General Plan land use designations: light industry and heavy
industry .
(m) "Land Use Category" shall mean any of the specific land uses that
have been listed in this Resolution and are used to provide the basis for
future traffic projections.
(n) "New Development Project" shall mean any construction, addition,
alteration or other change of use of a building or land that requires the
City to issue a grading, building, plumbing, mechanical, or electrical
permit, or any other form of entitlement.
(0) Office/Research and Development" shall mean any development
constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan land
use or zoning designation for general business offices, medical or
professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices, offices for
large wholesaling or manufacturing operations, research and/or
developtnent, research and development campus development with
ancillary retail and services, and other space uses incidental to these
activities. Office land uses include, but are not limited to:
administrative headquarters; business parks; finance offices; insurance
offices; llegal offices; medical and health services offices and office
buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional
associations; real estate offices; research and/or development offices
and travel agencies.
(P) "Public Works Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works or
the Director's designee.
(q) "Site-Related Right-of-Way or Improvement Construction" shall mean
right-of-way or traffic improvements that must be constructed on the
site of a new development project in order to comply with applicable
City development regulations and standards.
(r) "Surface Transportation System" shall mean the City's system of
streets, roads and intersections traversed by automobiles and other
vehicles.
(s) "Traffic F,ee Study" shall mean the report entitled "Traffic Impact Fee
Study, East of 101 Area For the City of South San Francisco,"
September 6,2001 draft, prepared by Muni Financial.
(t) "Traffic Fee Study Update" shall mean the report entitled "Traffic
Impact Fee Study Update, East of 101 Area, City of South San
Francisco,," May 6, 2005 draft, prepared by Muni Financial.
(u) "Transportation Improvements" shall include those improvements that
are described in Exhibit A; provided that the City Council later
determines in accordance with applicable law (1) that there is a
reasonable relationship between development within the City and the
need for alternative transportation improvements, (2) that the
alternative transportation improvements are comparable to the
facilities llisted in Exhibit A, and (3) that revenue from fees charged
pursuant to this resolution will be used only to pay new development's
fair and proportionate share of the alternative transportation
improvements.
(v) "Vehicle Trips" shall mean the number of average, daily trips
generated by uses of land, as specified in the "South San Francisco
General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management
Ordinancl~, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report," April
2001.
3. Revised and Adiusted Traffic Impact Fee Imposed.
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66000 et seq, (''Mitigation Fee
Act") a Fee shall be imposed and paid at the times and in the amounts and
otherwise apply and be administered as prescribed in this Resolution for each
non-residential devdopment (including commercial, hotel, and office/research
and development (R&D)).
4. Time for Fee Payment.
A Fee shall be charged and paid for each non-residential development,
including commercial, hotel, and office/research and development developments,
upon issuance of the: building permit, or if no building permit required, upon
approval of a use pt~rmit for the development project or, if no use permit or
amendment thereto n~quired, at the earliest of any other permit required for the
project, for such non-residential development.
5. Amount of Fee.
Land Use PM Trip Rate Cost per Trip Traffic Fee 2 Admin Fee j Total Fee
1
Commercial 3.74 $2,288 $8.56 $0.21 $8.77
Office/R&D4 0.90 $2,288 $2.06 $0.05 $2.11
Hotel 0.21 $2,288 $480.52 $12.01 $492.54
ITrips per 1,000 building square feet or per room (for hotels).
2F ee per square foot, or hotel room.
3Based on an estimate of2.5 percent of traffic fee.
4Based on a weighted average ofPN[ trip rate and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively.
6. Exemptions From Fee. The Fee shall not be imposed on:
a. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential
structure that has been destroyed or demolished; provided that, the
building pemlit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the
building was destroyed or demolished, unless the replacement or
reconstruction increase the square footage of the structure by 50 percent or
more.
b. Any "Child day care facility" as that term is defined by section
1596.750 of the California Health and Safety Code, including but not
limited to facilities providing non-medical care to children under eighteen
years of age in need of personal services, supervision, or assistance
essential for sustaining the activities of daily living or for the protection
and supervision of an individual on less than a 24-hours basis. Such
facilities include day care centers, employer-sponsored child care centers,
and family day care homes.
7. Credit for Existing Uses
Applicants whose projects involve the rehabilitation, remodeling or
replacement of existing buildings with warehouse, industrial or light industrial
uses shall be entitled to fee credits that discount the overall Traffic Facilities
Impact Fee by the number of trips already generated by existing uses. Thus,
credit shall be awarded to existing uses based on a net increase in trip generation.
Such discount shall be determined by and fall within the sole discretion of the
City Engineer.
8. Use of Fee Revenue.
The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate,
interest bearing account to permit accounting for such revenues and the interest
that they generate. Such revenues and interest shall be used only for the facilities
and the purposes for which the Fee was collected, which. are the following:
a. To pay for acquisition of the right-of-way;
b. To pay for design, engineering, construction of and property
acquisition for, and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related
to, the Transportation Improvements;
c. To reimburse the City for the Transportation Improvements
constructed by the City with funds from other sources including funds
from other public entities, unless such funds were obtained from grants or
gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the Improvements.
d. To reimburse developers that have designed and constructed any of
the Improvements with prior City approval and have entered into an
agreement, as provided in Section 12, below; and
e. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and
ongoing administration of the Fee program, including, but not limited to,
the cost of studies, legal costs, and other costs of updating the Fee.
9. Standards.
The Standards upon which the need for the Facilities are based are the
standards of the City, including the standards contained in the General Plan and
those City standards reflected in the Report Update.
10. Periodic Review.
a. During each fiscal year, the Public Works Director shall prepare a
report for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006,
identifying the balance of Fee revenues in the Fee account.
b. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the City Council
shall also review, as part of any adopted City Capital Improvement Plan
each year, the approximate location, size, time of availability and
estimates of cost for all Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The
estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of
inflation. The City Council shall make findings identifying the purpose to
which the existing Fee revenue balances are to be put and demonstrating a
reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is
charged.
11. Subsequent Analvsis and Revision of the Fee.
The Fee set D)rth herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council
in reliance on the Rl~cord identified above. The City may continue to conduct
further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When
additional information is available, the City Council may review the Fee to
determine that the Fee amounts are reasonably related to the impact of
Development within the City. In addition to the inflation adjustments pursuant to
Section 12, below, the City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings
and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the General Plan, as from
time to time amended by the City.
12. Fee Adiustments.
The purpose of this section is to provide for annual adjustments of the Fee
for inflation, beginning July 1, 2006 and each July thereafter, as follows:
a. Construction Cost. Annually each July, the City Manager shall
adjust the cost of construction of the Facilities, as shown in the Report,
increasing/decreasing such construction cost by the annual percentage
increase/decn~ase reached by comparing the Engineering News Record
Construction Cost Index (20-city average) for the prior March or April
over the same Construction Cost Index for the same month for the prior
year. The City Manager may round the adjusted Facilities construction
cost to whole dollars.
b. Land Acquisition Cost. Annually each July, the City Manager
shall adjust the cost of acquiring real property interests for the Facilities as
shown in the Report by calculating the percentage change in land cost per
acre within the City, based on a comparison of the most recent appraisal
(prepared for the City for the purpose of adjusting the Fee) and the
immediately preceding appraisal (prepared for the City for the purpose of
adjusting the Fee and using the same methodology) (the "Land Index").
The City Manager may round the adjusted Facilities land acquisition cost
to whole dollars.
c. Total Annual Fee Adiustment. Annually each July, the City
Manager shall adjust the Fee by applying the total annual Fee adjustment
for that year to the prior year's Fee. The total annual Fee adjustment shall
be reached by apportioning the adjustment in construction cost and land
acquisition cost calculated according to this section according to the
percentage each cost comprises of the whole Fee pursuant to the Report.
13. Credits and Reimbursement for Developer Constructed Facilities.
The City and a developer may enter into an improvement
agreement to allow the developer to construct certain of the Facilities. Such an
agreement is totally discretionary on the part of the City. Such agreement shall
provide for security for the developer's commitment to construct the Facilities
and shall refer to this Resolution for credit and reimbursement. If the City enters
into such an agreement with a developer prior to construction of one or more of
the Facilities, the City shall provide the developer a credit in accordance with the
following:
a. Credit Amount. The credit shall be in the amount of the lowest bid
received for eonstruction of the facility, as approved by the Director of
Public Works. However, in no event shall a credit pursuant to this
provision exceed the current facility cost. For the purposes of this section,
such current facility cost shall be the amount listed in the Report for that
particular facility, as subsequently adjusted pursuant to Sections 11 and 12
of this Resolution prior to issuance of the building permit for that facility.
Once. issued, credit pursuant to this section shall not be adjusted for
inflation or any other factor. Credit provided pursuant to this section is not
transferable.
b. Application of Credit. Developers may apply credit given pursuant
to this section against the Fee applicable to a particular project, until the
credit is exhausted or an excess credit results. The total credit shall be
divided by the number of units to determine the amount of credit that can
be applied against the Fee for each unit, and if the credit per unit is less
than the Fee per unit, the developer shall pay the difference for each unit.
c. Reimbursement for Excess Credit. Reimbursement for excess
credit shall only be from remaining unspent Fee revenues. Once all the
Facilities have been constructed or acquired, and to the extent Fee
revenues are sufficient to cover all claims for reimbursement of Fee
revenues, inc:luding reimbursement for excess credit, developers with
excess credit shall be entitled to reimbursement, subject to such
developers certifying in writing to the City that the cost of constructing the
facility that n~sulted in an excess credit was not passed on to tenants of the
development, and indemnifying the City from land-owner claims for
reimbursement under Government Code Section 66000 et seq., and
Section 66001 in particular. If remaining Fee revenues after all of the
Facilities have been constructed or acquired are insufficient to cover all
claims for reimbursement of Fee revenues, such claims, including claims
for reimbursement of excess credit, shall be reimbursed on a pro rata basis
in accordance with applicable law.
14. Effective Date.
This Resolution shall become effective immediately. In accordance with
Government Code Section 66017, the Fee shall be effective 60 days from the
effective date of this Resolution.
15. Severability.
Each component of the Fee and all portions of this Resolution are
severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or any portion of this
.~"... ""'1'1...,.....-, .~,' ,,'-....-...." .....-...,.--.....---.--.-
Resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable by a body of competent
jurisdiction, then the remaining Fee components and/or Resolution portions shall
be and continue in full force and effect, except as to those Fee components and/or
resolution portions that have been adjudged invalid. The City Council of the City
of South San Francisco hereby declares that it would have adopted this Resolution
and each section, sulbsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof,
irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, clause sentence,
phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional.
*
*
*
*
*
I hereby certify that the fon~going Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by
the City Council of the City of South San Francisco at a regular meeting held on the 24th day of
August, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES:
Councilmembers Richard A. Garbarino. Pedro Gonzalez and Karvl Matsumoto.
Mayor Pro Tem Joseph A. Fernekes and Mayor Ravmond L. Green
NOES: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
/1/u/4' II? ~
/ 7 City Clerk
EXHIBIT A to Reso 101-2005
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE
EAST OF 101 AREA
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
MAY 6, 2005
Oakland Office
1700 Broadway
6th Floor
Oakland, California 94612
Tel: (510) 832-0899
Fax: (510) 832-0898
,.--t",. .'""'..."'r:....... .....~..--."'.'--."r'~--
. M,uniiFi:nanoia:l
A. WILLDAN.C()MPANY
Anaheim, CA
Industry, CA
Jacksonville, FL
Lancaster, CA
Oakland, CA
www.muni.com
. -------- .-,-.------.-.------..-----.--.-----.----.- .--.-
Phoenix, AZ.
San Diego, CA
Seattle, WA
Temecula, CA
Washington, DC
slualUO~ JO alqe.L
G........................................................................................ I\pnlS J.O asodJnd
~ ...............................alepdn aa:ll:ledwl :l!:lJeJ.L eaJ" ~o ~ JO lse3
9.......................... .. ... ... ............ ............................................... Al!leuo!lJodoJd
g.......... ....... ...................... .......... ........... ....................... d!4SUO!lela~ uapJns
g....... ................................ ........................... ................ "d!4SUo!lela~ l!J.auas
v................................................................................. sanua^a~ aa:J J.o asn
v. ........................................................................................... aa:J J.o asodJnd
p............................ .................... .........s6U!pU!:I J:l" aa:l uOIJe6IJ!W
v ~ ................................ "".......... ............................................ . UO!lelUaWaldw I
V ~................................"... ........ ............................................... alnpa4::>S aa::l
G ~ ............................... "'................... 4V^OJE) alepowwo::>::>V Ol Sls08 Al!l!::>e:J
o ~ ................................ ................................. ................. spJepUelS sa!l!I!::>e::l
L .................................... JuawdOlaAaa MaN WOJJ puewaa :l!:lJeJ.L
/TJPUtJU!:1!UlIW
EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE UPDATE
This report is an update to the Traffic Impact Fee report dated September 13, 2002. The
purpose of this update is to adjust the fee to incorporate seven additional capital projects to be
funded by the fee.
The City Council adopted East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP), which evaluated
potential improvement needs at 20 intersections to accommodate the building of the area east of
US 101 (East of 101 Area) in South San Francisco. CCS Engineering prepared the "Addendum
to Traffic Impact Fee Study East of 101 Area" on July 2,2003. The addendum presents the
existing traffic volumes, project conditions traffic volumes, necessary roadway improvements,
and cost estimates at 10 additional study intersections in the East of 101 area, identified on page
A-I in the Addendum to Traffic Impact Fee Study. The improvements required to mitigate the
impacted intersections under the moderate IDM conditions are listed below.
No. Location Improvement Items
21 Forbes Avenue & Eccles Signalize, widen SB approach to provide a free right-turn
Avenue . lane, widen WE approach to provide an exclusive left-
turn lane, extend EB left-turn lane to 310 feet.
23 Forbes Avenue & Gull Road Extend SB left-turn pocket length to 240 feet.
24 South Airport Boulevard & Widen EB approach to provide an additional right-turn
US-l0l NB Ramps land, and remove one NB through lane.
26 East Grand Avenue & East Widen NB approach to provide additional right-turn
Grand Avenue Overcrossing lane.
27 East Grand Avenue & Widen NB approach to provide an exclusive right-turn
Ilttlefield Avenue lane, widen EB approach to provide an additional
through lane.
28 East Grand Avenue & Signalize, widen EB approach to provide an additional
Allerton Avenue through lane.
29 Utah Avenue & Harbor Way Signalize, widen EB approach to provide an exclusive
left-turn lane, widen WE approach to separate shared
through-left lane into exclusive through and left-turn
lanes.
MuniFinancia/
1
'[''T' ., .. -,. ": -1-- ~-
, T-- . ..---..------------------.------
ApnlS JO asodJnd
pm lUdmdopAdp pm q:>l13dSdI '~U!snoqdIt:& 'SIt:dA O~ lst:d dtp IOJ uO'!lt:w.JOJsmll f8r-osnpU!
A\.OTS t: ~UPfBw Uddq St:q O:>SpUt:It[ ms tpnoS 'msnpU! m:>!ldmy JO mSO:>OI:>'FW t: SAt:A\. dWOS UI
'dlIUUJ f8r-osnpU! S,O:>SPUt:Id Ut:S tpnos pdPf8ldq ~lt:d dU 'u2~SdP ~UPUUq
put: ~U!dt::>SPUt:T lUdlS~SUO:> pUt: ~up[l13d dTdure '1rv d S'O t: pdlrut:dJ put: 'suo~s!AOld d:>UBWIOJIdd
pm 'u2~SdP pdlt:I2dlU! '~tJ!UUt:Td dA~SUdqdIdwo:> dlt:lOCUO:>ll! OllUdWdoTdAdP Tt:r-osnpU!
lSI9 S,o:>spmld UBS tpnoS st:A\. ~il13d f8r-osnPll! srcu .t:upt:W lll!Od ldlSAO pddoTdAdP ATA\.dU dtp
OllUd:>t:~Pt: ~l13d yt:plsnpll! dl:>t:-009 t: IOJ ~96 r ll! Pd:>unOUUt: dldA\. smTd 'dW"p. lSIg dqllOJ k~:)
dtp Ol msnpll! lq~TI ~UFl:>t:mt: pm dUf{dlOqS dtp ~UIdt:qSdl Arre:>Flst:lp 'lUdWdoTdAdP yt:plsnpll!
IOJ dNt:sn St:dl13 OlUI spm'[qSI'Em pdsnun ATsnO!AdId PdUdAUO:> k~:J dtp SIt:dA 1t:A\.-lSod dtp UI
't:"[IlSlJ!Udd
dl'!lUd dtp IOJ lll!od uO'!lnqplsp yt:llUd:> dtp dure:>dq k~:) dtp pm 'yt:ll!Wldl ~ll!ddIllS t: St: dA!l:>t:mt:
dlOW UdAd o:>spmId ms tptlOS dPt:W SSd:>:>t: '[!t:1 ASt:g: 'o:>spmld ms JO UOd dtp Ol kITPt:J
l:>un~pt: m dure::>dq o::>spmId (res tpnoS st: 'msnpll! lO~t:W t: st: pd~ldmd OSYt: ~ll!ddIlls 'sO~6 r
dtp uI .dlIU:>n.nSt:IJUI SUOFlt:::llfUIlWUIO::l pUB UOFlt::J,lodsmll uldpom S,t:TUlOJITB:J PUUq pddpq
Sl::lnpOId dSOqA\. SlUdUIqSnqt:lSd 10~t:W s):lo dtp JO dWOS dldA\. AlOl::lt:d ddolI dIT& Spl13A\.pg: dtp
pm 'pdlS .S'fl 'pdlS WdqdTtpdg: 'S;;I'!l!A'!l::lt: ~upn:pt:Jnmw AAt:dq pm ~UPPt:cbt:dW tp~ pddopAdP
ATIE~!lO St:A\. t:dXV' wr JO lSt:g: dtp 'msnpll! sP:>SPu-eld ms tpnos JO dIO::l yt:UO'!lpt:;Q dIU
.uochw yt:UOFlt:UldlUI
O::lSPu-eld u-eS dtp JO quOU pu-e 'At:g: O::lSPu-eld u-eS dtp JO lSdA\. 'dUt:qS!lg: JO k~:J dql
pUB UTBlunoW oumg: ms JO tpnos 'w r Sfl JO lSt:d pdlt::>oT pmT TIE sdpnpll! t:dl13 ~lJ!UUBTd dIU
~~nv ,g~Id ;);)d: :J~JL
.Sd'!lITPt:J dSdtp
JO ~UPutlJ IOJ ddJ l::lt:dtll!' u-e pU1~ lno PUUq lUdWdopAdP OZOZ u-eTci yt:IdUd9 pdAOIddt: UddA\:).dq
dIllsuo'!lt:pl dNt:UOSt:dl t: SlUdWtl::lOP UOddl dIU .t:dXV' W r JO lSt:g: dqlll! SlUdWdAOldurr
UOFl::ldSIdlll! pu-e At:A\.pt:OlIOJ PddU dtp JO S~SAyt:u-e Pdlt:pdn u-e SlUdSdId lIoddl S!1U. 'ddJ dtp
Aq PdPutlJ dq Ol Sl::ld~Old yt:l~dt::> pmo'!lppt: dtp dlt:IOCUO::lll! pm 'lOOZ '9Z ldqWdlddS uo lPuno:)
kO dql Aq pdldop~ 'ddd l:>t:dwI ::l9Jt:I.1 wr JO lSt:g: dtp lsn~pt: Ol S~ dlt:pdn SIlll JO dsocbnd dIU
'dPO:J yt:dPTUTIW s,k~:J :Jtp Olll! pdlt:IomO::lUI dq ffiA\. d::lu-eupIO Will dIU .d::lmupIO
Will pu-e ApruS ::l9Jt:ll t:dry' W r JO lSt:g: dqllUdWdTdtll!' It:tp Sdpnod SUTBlUO:> lUdWPUdmy
mTd yt:ldUd9 dq,L 'd::lmuplO Will pm lUdwpUdWY u-eTd yt:IdUd9 t: ll! pdlt:pnOSUO::l dIt: Sl"[IlSdl
dq.1 't:dXV' W r JO lSt:g: dtp urr kmqow dAOIdtll!' pm spo!ldd ~t:dd ~U!.JtlP UO'!lSd~UO::> d::lnpdl
Ol PdlUdWdTdtll!' dq Ol PddU ffiA\ w't:I2old Will t: pu-e SlUdWdAOldw~ yt:::l~sAqd qloq It:ql dpnpuo:>
Sl"[IlSdl dq,L . WOZ rrIdy UI pdldTdwo::l st:& ApruS ::l9Jt:ll t: 'A'[q~nOlotp t:dl13 W r JO lSt:g: dql Apms
0.1 'd::lUBupIO Will dtp pUB 'tp&oI2 JO sl::lt:dW! dql sdZAV3u-e q::lIll1l\ 'lUdIDpUdWY u-eTd yt:ldUd9
pdldopt: dql JO SlS~SUO::ll::ld~Old ~!lo dU 'SlUdWdl!tlbdl kuno:J Odlt:W ms pUB dlt::J,S tpTf1\.
ATdwo::l pu-e 'SlUdWdAOIdtll!' yt:::l~sAt[d dIruUJ IOJ At:d dTdq P"[IlO1l\ l'Etp dIru:>rmS ddJ t: qsnqt:lSd 't:dlY
W r JO lSt:g: dql UI slnoq ~dd ~urmP UOFlSd~UO::l ::l9Jt:ll dlIUUJ d::lnpdl Ol pdu2~SdP S~ ureI20ld
(wCIJ) lUdWd~t:u-eW PUBWdQ UOpt:lIodsmlL pu-e (dill u-eTd lUdWdAOldwI UO'!lt:llodsu-el.1 dIU
.UJunO:J ko dql Aq 'woz '9Z IdqwdlddS pdlt:p 't:dl13. W r JO lSt:g:
dql UIlll!A\ lUdWdopAdP dIrunJ IOJ ddd l::lt:dwI lUdWdoPAdQ ::l9Jt:l.1 t: ~urqSnqt:lSd pu-e Apms
ddd l::lt:dwI ::l!tJt:l.1 to 1 JO lSt:g: O::lSput:Id ms tpnos JO k~:J dtp ~updopt: uO'!lnTosd~ t: olu~
pdlt:IOCUO::lll! put: WOZ '9 IdqwdlddS pdlt:p llOddl ddd l:>t:dwI :>9Jt:I.1 dql sdlt:pdn llOddl sIll.1
/Tl,tJUTJU?:].Junw
z
biotechnology, in part spurred by the success of the -ll4-acre Genentech campus, employing
over 4,500 people, have largely replaced steel production and other heavy industries. While the
East of 101 Area is ahnost completely built out, redevelopment remains extremely active. The
City's industrial base has continued to evolve in response to market trends and conditions and
will continue to play an important: role in South San Francisco's future.
South San Francisco General Plan
In October 1999, the South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco
General Plan, which contains a Transportation Element with specific policies that provide for
improving circulation in the East of 101 Area. A traffic impact fee for the planning area is called
for in South San Francisco General Plan Amendment policy 4.2-1-7:
Continue to require that new development pay a fair share of the cost of street and other
traffic and transportation improvements, based on traffic generated and impacts on
service levels. Explore the feasibility of establishing impact fee, especially for
improvements required east of 101.
Therefore, the objective of the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment is to implement
the General Plan Transportation Element policy by: 1) updating traffic projections for the East
of 101 Area, identifying specific st.reet improvements; 2) identifying transportation and
circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon that will help the City manage anticipated
growth in the East of 101 Area; 3) enhancing street capacity; and 4) providing new linkages to
integrate a multi-modal transportation system.
General Plan Land Use and Development Assumptions
The 1999 General Plan and General Plan EIR established a 20-year projection for future
development in the East of 101 area, based on new floor area ratios (FAR) of up to 1.0 and an
estimate of how much land would convert from older industrial uses to higher-density research
and development facilities. In 2001, the City Council amended the estimated General Plan
build out by adopting the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation
Demand Management Ordinance Supplemental EIR. The Supplemental EIR incorporated the
following assumptions into the TIP analysis:
. Total build out will nearly double from existing development: 12.82 million square feet
to 23.3 million square feet due mainly to the increase in office and R&D development.
. Approximately 6 million square feet more of development will be constructed than was
projected in the General Plan.
. Employment will increase by a factor of 2.4 from 21,654 to 52,880. This increase is due
to both increases in floor space in the East of 101 Area and due to office and R&D uses
having much higher employment intensity than industrial development.
MunzFinancial
.3
,--_." '"""".rT' .-, ," ~.._".' .,_.., T' "-'-- ,...-
-~-~- ----------.--------------
S~NlaNI.:I .L~'V 33.:1 NOI.L "~I.LIII\I
"lJvat:{l Ol are Sd::>uaIapl AlOlnlElS rrv 'S&OTIOJ
lEtp llOddl atp Aq rreldp U! pauoddns pm Ialdlnp Srql U! paluasdId are uodal Srql U! palUawn::>op
SdaJ sapITP-eJ ::>rrqnd pagpsn[ wn~-ew alp JO uopdop-e 10J paJIIlbal s2UWug AlOlm'ElS aAg au
.aaJ -e 2updop-e
uaq& s2upug ;;>Ag lU;;>wn::>Op Ol sdpu;;>2-e TE::>OI s;;>JIIlb;;>J pv;;>ttL 'sw-eJ20Jd ;;>aJ JO UOp-ellSrcrfUIP-e
pm UOPIsodWI ;;>tp IOJ sapu;;>2-e TE:)OI uo sluaw;;>JIIlb;;>J s;;>qsrrq'ElS;;> (SZ099 q2nOltp 00099 suop::>as
apo:J /uauttuatlO9 tJ!tuof.Z{tJ:J U! paupnuo::> 1-7V;;>ttL .SlU;;>WPU;;>W1':l lu;;>nbasqns pm L861 U! 0091
fig: ANw;;>ssV lpIA\. ~JV ;;>lp) Pvaad UO,1.1tJ'i.1.1!W;;>tp paldop-e ;;>nu-els~;;>'1 ;;>l-elS ;;>lp 's;;>;;>J s;;>PITP-eJ
::>rrqnd JO uOPIsodUI! p-e;;>ldsdpIA\. ;;>tp ;;>p~ 0.1 '(sapuno::> pm s;;>pp) ;;>sn pmI 2up-e~aI IOJ
;;>IqIsuods;;>1 s;;>pu;;>2-e '[B::>oI Aq Sl:Jia[old lu;;>wdoPA;;>P uo pasodWI pu-e p;;>nssI sI l!wJ;;>d 2upnnq -e
u;;>q& p~d Af['E::>!c:LU s;;>;;>J ;;>rop-;;>UO ;;>IE 'S;;>;;>J Alm::>-eJ ::>rrqnd s-e Ol p;;>IJ;;>PI OSTE 's;;>;;>J S;;>PITP-e] :>gJ-eI.1
aa :llo asodJ n d
(( 1) (-e) W099~) .aaJ ;;>tp JO ;;>sodmd ;;>tp AJPU;;>PI
:lsnw AlD atp 2upug lSIg dt:{lIod
.lu;;>wdoPA;;>P &;;>u Ol sa::>~as TEdpIUTIw
;;>pfAold Ol AlD ;;>tp 2urrq-eua Aq A:lD ;;>lp JO lS;;>J;;>lU! ;;>l-erop~;;>I.E sd::>mAp-e aaJ attL .luawdoldAap
l-elp ;;>.LU;;>S Ol slUaWaAOJdWI flnId-e::> IOJ lu;;>wdopAap &au wol] a::>mos 2upUTIJ -e 2upfAoJd
Aq brrod srqllu;;>wdldUI! Ol sI ;;>aJ s;;>PITP-eJ ::>rrqnd ;;>lp JO asodmd;;>ttL .tp.&.0J2 ;;>l-epOUlWO::>::>-e
Ol p;;>JIIlb;;>J 'sapm:>-eJ :>gJ-ell 2upnpU! 'sapITP-eJ :>rrqnd JO lSO::> ;;>lp t:{lIA\.lUdwdoIdAap
2upsIX;;> u;;>pmq lOU ffi& lu;;>wdoPA;;>P 4\dU l-etp SI o:>spmJd u-eS tpnos JO AlIJ atp JO brrod ;;>u
sanua^a~ aa:llo aSn
((Z)(-e)W099~) 'p;;>2req::> SI ;;>;;>J ;;>tp q::>fC[& IOJ sapITP-eJ ::>rrqnd dtp AJPuapI l-etp SlU;;>wn::>Op
:>rrqnd IatpO U! ap-ew dq A~W 10 'sluaw;;>JIIlbaI mId ::>gp;;>ds 10 TElaua2. ;;>lq-e::>rrdd-e
U! ;;>p-ew ;;>q AEW 'Z0099 JO fotS9 Uop::>;;>s U! pagpads s-e mId luawaAoldWI flnId-e::> -e Ol
a:>u;;>JaJal Aq ;;>p-ew ;;>q 'lOU pa;;>u lnq 'A-eW uop-e::>gpuapI l-eU .pagpuapI;;>q f['Eqs s;;>PITP-eJ
;;>lp 'sapm:>-eJ ::>rrqnd 2upu-eug sI ;;>sn ;;>tp H 'lnd;;>q Ol sI ;;>;;>J ;;>tp q::>fC[& Ol asn atp AJPU;;>PI
:lsnw AlI:) ;;>ql2upug puo::>as;;>tp IOd
~2lJ!U;;>p~ A-e&p-eOlI +
:;;>pnpU! alaq palu;;>sald s2upug
;;>tp U! papnpU! S;;>PITP-eJ ;;>s;;>ttL 'o::>spmJd UES tpnos JO AlD ;;>tp U!t{lIA\. pal-e::>OI aq ffi& s;;>PITP-eJ
patnreId TIV 'lu;;>wdoI;;>A;;>P &;;>u ;;>.LUas Ol s;;>PITP-eJ p;;>pmdxa PUTIJ ffi& ;;>;;>J sapITP-eJ :>gJ-ell ;;>q.L
/VPUVU!:J!UI1W
fr
· Intersection signalization, and;
· Other roadway improvements in the City of South San Francisco
Planned traffic facilities are identified in this report. This report provides the size and cost
estimate for each planned facility. More detailed descriptions of certain planned facilities,
including their specific location if known at this time, are included in various facility master plans
and other City planning documents. The City may change the list of planned traffic facilities to
meet changing circumstances and needs, as it deems necessary. The fee program should be
updated if these changes result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new
development.
Planned facilities to be funded by the fee are described in the Facilities) Inventories) Plans and
Standards section within each facility chapter.
Benefit Relationship
For the third finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of
development project on which the fee is imposed. (~66001(a)(3))
Need to revise to traffic fees
The City will restrict fee revenues to the acquisition of land, construction of public buildings,
and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services that serve new
development. Public facilities funded by the fee will provide a citywide network of services
accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Thus, there
is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and
nonresidential types of new development that will pay the fee.
The planned facilities that will be funded by the fee are described in the following chapter.
Burden Relationship
For the fourth finding the City must:
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility
and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (~66001(a)(4))
Building square footage is an indicator of the demand for traffic facilities needed to
accommodate growth. As additional building square footage is created, the occupants of these
structures will place additional burdens on the traffic facilities. The need for the fee is based on
traffic engineering reports prepared by the City that quantify the expected traffic impacts of new
development.
MHmFinancial
5
""OrT' -, ...,. '''-1- .
. r'--------~--"----'----'--"" .,-....--.. -......
~l!1eUOrJ.lodo.ld
((qh0099~) 'PdsodUJ! SI ddJ dqlll:>~& uo
lUdWdopAdP dql Ol dlq13lnqp:u13 AlTIP13J :>nqnd dql JO uoplod 10 kTIP13J :>nqnd dql JO lSO:>
dql PU13 ddJ dql JO lUnOW13 dlll Udd&ldq d~SUOp13ldl dlq13UOS13dl 13 SI dldql &Oll dUIWldldQ
:lSnW AlD dql2upug lpJg dlp lOd
.l:>d~Old l13lp Ol dlq'Blnqp:u13 SdP"!lP13J dql JO lSO:> dql pm l:>d~Old lUdwdOldAdP :>gpdds
13 10J ddJ l:>13dWI :>gJ13;o dql Udd&ldq d~SUOp13pl dlq13UOS13dl 13 SdIDSUd drnpdll:>S ddJ dtp 'snu
'ddk dsn pml dureS dql JO Sl:>dfOld ldT['BWS mtp ddJ Idq2~ 13 A13d pm UOP131dUd2 dFP Idq2-r:r
13 dA1311 ffi& ddk dsn pml Ufelld:> 13 JO Sl:>d~Old Id2113'1 .l:>dfOld dlp JO dZIS dql UO pdS13q ddJ 13 OlU!'
l:>d~Old lUdWdopAdP 13 JO d213wOJ dl13nbs pdl13tupSd dq:l SlldAUO:> drnpdll:>S ddJ dt[.1 'lddJ dl13nbs
2UTIJnnq UO pdS13q SI l:>d~Old :>gpdds 13 lOJ ddJ l'BlOl dlll 'SA13&P1301 :>nqnd m pp13 ffi& l:>dfOld
dql sdpl dP~dA pdl13IDpSd dtp UO pdS13q SI l:>dfOld l13q:l Ol dlq13lnqIlU13 Sdpm:>13J dql JO lSO:> dq:l pm
l:>dfOld lUdWdopAdP :>gI:)dds 13 lOJ ddJ l:>13dUJ! :>gJ13;o dtp Udd&ldq d~SUOp13pl dlq13UOS13dl Srcl.L
117PU17U!iI!UI1W
9
TRAFFIC DEMAND FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT
The adopted East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan (TIP) evaluated potential
improvement needs at 20 study intersections to accommodate the build out of the area east of
US 101. The approved Traffic Impact Fee (2001) is based on the square feet of development or
rooms for hotels anticipated in the South San Francisco General Plan.
The update to the Traffic Impact Fee reflects additional development approvals and
construction since 2001, including: 1) projects that have been approved prior to the adoption of
the Fee and not subject to the fee; 2) projects approved since 1999 and have not obtained a
building permit; 3) approved projects subject to a development agreement; and 4) approved
project that have obtained a building permit and paid the fee. The existing and planned
development was based on information on existing office buildings, the South San Francisco
General Plan, the South San Francisco General Plan and Transportation Demand Management
Ordinance SEIR, the Major Projects Lists from 2001 to 2005, the Genentech Master Plan,
Britannia East Grand Business Park, Bay West Cove Specific Plan, and the Gateway Specific
Plan. The updated square feet of approved development (2001-2005) was based on the Major
Projects Lists and also by working with the City to determine which properties are likely to
change from industrial or vacant to office or office/R&D.
The traffic study projected the commercial and hotel development by assuming that 80 percent
of the land- area of a site that is projected to change from vacant or industrial to office or
office/R&D will become office space, ten percent of that site will be hotel development at a 1.0
FAR and another ten percent will be commercial development at a 0.3 FAR.
Table lpresents existing and planned development within the East of 101 Area.
MuniPinancial
7
. --., -"'".'''''~rp .~.., .' ~'-"""'-"r"~--"--
'---'-r'~-'---" .. ..,.__._._..._~_...-_..._---_.-.,-_._..._---'. .-.---.,.---..--........-...--.--
~uawdOla^aa pauueld pue 6u!~S!X3 : ~ alqeJ.
BZtB~~'€Z ~ 17Z'09~'6 B60' ~ ~6 6BB'9170'~ ~ I BlO.l
17~6'~ZZ'17 (17~Z'~ZH' ~) (S06'6L17) ~SO'9ZS'9 IBPlSnpul
176L'LLO'Z 06S'~Z17' ~ - 17Ot17S9 vl8l0H
L6B' ~ BO'9 ~ 9S6'LZS'6 ~~S'9L~'~ BZv' LL ~ 's a~'tI/8:lwO
~Z9'9~6 6Z6'~~Z 0617'17~ 17Ot069 IBpJ8WW08
t ('J'S) Jnopl!ns (TS) (TS) (TS)
l: ~
Ueld leJaua~ leJo.L ' aa:l J:>edwl sJ!wJad 6ulPI!nS pa^oJddv
:>lyeJ.L OJ J:>afqns pa^oJddv SOOZ- ~OOZ 18 6UIJS!X3
a6eJooJ aJenbs ~OOZ
'(som:
L1~JeVII 01 ~OOl Jaqwaldas) 'aal6uIlslxa aLII Pled pue I!WJad 6uIPl!nq e paU!elqo a^eLlleLll spafOJd c;
'slUaWaaJ6e JadOla^ap L16nOJLlI spedw! paleD!l!W .
as!MJaLllO JO aall~edw! ~!>>eJl aLII Pled a^eLl sl~afoJd asa1l1 'aal aLII U! papnt~uI IOU SI~aroJd pa^oJddv
'~OOl '9 Jaqwaldas 'aa.:! l~edwl ~!>>eJ1 ~O~ lO Ise3 '~ alqe1 'sl~afoJd pa^oJddv pue DUllspg ~
'6upaau!6u3 pue 6UIUUeld s~~ Aq pap!^oJd SWOOJ OL ~ I ~ SIUasaJda~ v
'SOlleJ eaJe JOOIl
pue sUOlleO!llssep asn puel fiu!sn 'ueld leJauaE) oospueJ.:! ues L11nos aliI Japun lnopl!nq lellualod lel01 t
'o~!s!~ueJ::I ues lIlnOS lO Al!8 :e~Jnos
'PFBd Uddq dA.'eq SddJ dq:J. pm pdAOlddE Uddq dAEq S:J.TWldd
~u!pnnq tprql1\ 10J s:j.:>d~old :J.udwdoPAdQ pm q:>IEdSdlI pm d:>gJO JO lfB:j.dP dtp Sl1\oqs 'Vl ~lq13~
/17PU17U!:1!unW
8
Table 1A: 2001 - 2005 Office/R&D Projects Approved and Fees Paid
Project Name
Britannia East Grand
Britannia East Grand
Britannia Point Grand
333 - 351 Allerton
Cell Genesys
Genentech B33
Genentech B32
Britannia East Grand
Commercial
Bay West Cove (Slough)
Bay West Cove (Slough)
Bay West Cove (Slough)
Bay West Cove (Slough)
Bay West Cove (Slough)
Total
Address
471 E. Grand Avenue
451 E. Grand Avenue
210 E. Grand Avenue
333 Allerton
500 Forbes
1633 Grandview
1541 Grandview
465 E. Grand Avenue
160 Beacon Street
Building A
Building B
Building C
Building D
Building FIG
Square Feet
149.187 $
106,207
67,674
64,103
153,949
130,115
125,000
98,460
14,490
98,184
79.994
67.015
80.171
141.964
Fee Paid
284,949
202.855
102.188
11,992
232,463
196,474
91,685
117,167
21,880
148,258
120,791
101,193
121,058
214.366
1,967,319
Source: City of South San Francisico.
1,376.513 $
CCS Planning & Engineering conducted trip counts at selected points in the East of 101 Area.
Intersection operations were evaluated for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at 32 study
intersections. Based on development data provided by the City of South San Francisco Planning
staff, CCS Planning & Engineering was able to calculate actual a.m. and p.m. trip rates in the
East of 101 Area. Traffic demand from new development and the impact fee are based on
evening peak hour trip generation rates because this period is more congested than the morning
and therefore has a greater impact on the need for traffic improvements.
Table 2 shows traffic demand that would be generated by new development.
MuniPinancial
9
.~,_. "'''''''''rr''~'' .....,~.-...........--."'r. ..,--
....'--.....,.-.-- ._._----~-_._----_._"'---_...__...-."-_..__._--, ",... .....-..-.-..-
(Wd) sd!J.L ~(SWOOJ
JnOH >lead JO TS OOO'~)
,euol~IPP"
JuawdOla^aa MaN ~q aJe~ uO!JeJaua~ d!Jl :z alqe.L
asn puel
~ ale~ d!J.L
Wd
6~L'9 lelo.L
(996) (El9' ~) vg'O leplsnpul
9vl OL~'~ ~l'O ISIoH
069'9 9l9'6 06'0 <:al!l~/S::lYJO
L99 lEl vL'E lepJsww08
.,{taA!l:ladsaJ '09'0
pue 96'0 JO sasn puel a'l1~ pue a:l!jJo JOJ aleJ d!Jl V'Jd JO a6eJaAB pal1l6!aM uo pases z:
'sasn (alOll JOJ SWOOJ pue sasn a'l1~/a:l!jJo
pue tspJaWWO:l JOJ laaJ aJsnbs 6u!PI!nq 000' ~ U! paJnssaw sd"'l Jnoll )jsad 6U!UaA3 ~
'(SPUsu!:!lunV'J :6u!UUSld
O:lS!:lUSJ:! uss lIlnos JO ^tl::> :flulJaaUlflu3 pue flu!UUeld S::>::> : ~ e(qel :sa:lJnos
spJepueJS sa!J!I!:>e.:l
:O:>SpUBId
ms qlnos JO Al~J dql O:l dJq'B:ldd:>:>'E Spl13pm:lS d:>mWlopdd dql :lUdSdId sdPITod 2lfF&oTIoJ dU
.AlIfP'EJ dql JO Alp'Ed'E:>
dql Pdd:>Xd IO :lddW SdWTIlOA :>gJUl S'E SA'Epp dA~SSd:>Xd O:l :lm:>g~~s :lSd~nS ,d" pm "ti"
SO'1 .m:>:>o sdt).-}[:>'Eq Wld:l-:lIOqS dWOS pm q2Itl S~ :>gJE.tl q2noql SA'Epp dlq'EIdlO:l S:lSd~nS "a"
SO'1 'dNTqdd:>:>13 O:l :lm:>g~IsUI dl13 SA'Epp :l'Eql :lSd~nS "J" PU'E "'a,, "'v,, SO'1 .uo!:l:>dsId:lUI
IO A'E.&.p'EOI dq:l. JO Alp'Ed'E:> dq:l. O:l pdl13dwo:> uO!:l:>dsId:lUI m :l'E 10 A'E.&.p'EOI13 uo :>gJ'E.tl JO
dWTIlOA dql UO PdS'Eq pd:l13'[rl:>re:> sr, SOl .(SO')) "d:>~dS JO PAdl" S'E UA\0ID{ pm 2uruu13ld :>gJ'E.tl
UI pdsn AfUoUJUJo:> uO!:lsd2uo:> JO dmS'EdW 'E uo PdS'Eq dl13 Spl13ptre:lS AlIfP'EJ :>gJ'E.tl scAlD dqJ,
'S:lUdUIdAOIdW! 10J PddU dql d~ O:l ppow dlp
UI pdpnpUI dId.&. SdmS'EdW :lUdWd2'EU'EW pmWdp uO!:l'EPodSU13.tl dAT,SUd:lUI JO :l:>13dW! dl{.1 'q:l11\o:ili
Aq pdSn'E:>.SO'1 UI dur.pdP dql d~ :l'Eql S:lUdWdAOIdW! pdUlreld q:l.r,.&. SUO!:l!PUO:> d1mrg prre
'S:lUdWdAOIdW! :>gJ'E.tl ou qlr,.&. SUO!:l!PUO:> 2UflS'fXd uo PdS'Eq SUO!:l:>dSId:lUI pd!pms dql UI SOl dlp
S:ludsdId f dlq'8L .dAOq'E pdssn:>s!p 'E:l'Ep dsn pml dql pm S:luno:> :>gJ'E.tl 2UIsn suo!:l!puo:> 2Uflspcd
O:l pd:l'EIqrre:> S'E.&. ppow dl{.1 ,.ppow :>gJ'E.tl 13 2UIsn pdmS'EdW dId.&. q:l11\0:ili WOl] Sl:>'EdW! :)gJ'EI~
.:lgdUdq :>rrqnd Ire1dAO 'l13dP JO dl'E
d:>~dS JO PAdl Id.&.Ol dlp UI ~TTISdl Sdsn dql pm ~;;):>~dS JO PA;;)l Id.&.Ol dql ;;)l13~!:lIW
O:l A'E.&. ;;)lqIS'EdJ pm re:>!:l:>'EId ou SI ;;)Idql :l'Eql ~ur.pug Id:l]13 ,d" IO "ti" SO'1 :ldd:>:>V +
.smoq }['Edd ~UFffiP dWJ dql UI SrepdP'E redpUIId uo pm 'SUO!:l:>dSId:lUI Ire l'E 'S:ldd.tlS
10:l:>dTIO:> pm repdP'E UO IdUdq IO "a" (SO'}) d:>'!AldS JO PA;;)l ~:l~W O:l dAFQS +
ltJPUtJU!::I!UI1W
Ot
Table 3: Intersection Operations
Intensive TDM
with Additional
Existina Improvements
Intersection Control LOS1 Delai LOS1 Delai
PM Peak Hour
Bayshore Blvd & US-101 SB Ramp(s)3.5 Stop (Signal) C 11 F 82
Airport Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal D 27 D 31
Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Signal D 25 F 85
Dubuque Ave & US-101 Ramps Signal B 12 C 22
Gateway Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal C 24 F 63
Veterans Rd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal A 3 B 13
Bay West Cove Driveway & Oyster Point Blvd3 Stop A (A) 0 A (C) 1
Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 13 B 13
Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 13 C 17
Marina Blvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 7 B 13
Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US-101 SB Off-Ramp Signal C 15 B 15
Airport Blvd & Grand Ave Signal C 20 D 26
Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave Signal A 3 A 4
Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave Signal C 18 C 22
Forbes Blvd & East Grand Ave Signal C 18 D 26
Grandview Ave & East Grand Ave3.4 Stop (Signal) A (B) 3 C 19
Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave Signal C 21 C 22
South Airport Blvd & Gateway Blvd Signal D 26 D 25
South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave Signal C 16 C 17'
Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave Stop B 11 F 831
Forbes Ave & Allerton Ave Stop A(B) 2 A (C) 2
Forbes Ave & Gull Rd Signal B 9 D 29
South Airport Blvd & US 101 NB Ramps Signal C 21 C 19
E. Grand Ave & US 101 NB Off-Ramp Yield A (A) 0 A (A) 0
E. Grand Ave/US 101 NB Off-Ramp & E Grand Signal B 10 B 9
Ave Overcrossing
E. Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave Signal B 10 C 15
E. Grand Ave & Allerton Ave Stop A(B) 1 F (F) OVR
Utah Ave & Harbor Way Stop D 29 F OVR
South Airport Blvd & 1-380 EB Ramp Signal A 5 B 6
South Airport Blvd & 1-380 WB Ramp/North Signal B 14 B 14
Access Rd
South Airport Blvd & North Access Rd Stop A (A) A (A) 1
1 LOS = Level of service
2 Delay = Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection. in seconds. OVR = Overflow Conditions
3 A (D) = For unsignalized intersections:average LOS for all vehicles passing through intersection (LOS for most
difficult movement)
4 Bayshore Blvd. and U5-101 5B Ramp intersection is currently stop sign controlled. It is evaluated with Hook Ramps
and signalized intersection for future scenarios.
5 Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the 'With Additional
Improvements" scenarios only.
Source: CCS Planning & Engineering. Addendum to Traffic Impact Fee. July 2. 2003; MuniFinancial
MuniFinancial 11
~'1"""'rr'." ~. ~'--.. .----.';'-,-.-
-,-_. -.--.-----.----..-------.-
It
tt1.t:JUtJU!d!UlIW
't "lq~~ or Ul1\.oqs dl13 SISAflm13 ppOW :>9J13:O d~ or pdpnpUI
PU13 lUdWdopAdP l1\.dU dl13pOUIWO:>:>13 Ol SlUdWdAOldWI :>9J1'~:O pdurr&l:d d~ 10J Sdl13WFSd lSO:> ITV
'SdUET
WItH..PT pUE q2no;np. dAIsnpXd olUI dU13Tl.PT-q2no;np.
PdIEqS dl13IEddS Ol q:>1301dd13 H& UdP~ 'dUET UlIll-l,PT
dAISnpxd UE dp~Old Ol q:>'BOldd'B 9:3: UdP~ 'dZrre~IS A'B& 10ql'BH ~ dnudAV qm.n 60
.dUET q2no;np. dnUdA V uoudITV
{Euoppp'B UE dp~Old Ol q:>'Boldd'B 9:H UdP~ 'dzrreu2IS ~ dnUdA V pUEl-9 lS'BH 80
'dmq q2no;np.
- {Euoppp'B m dp~old Ol q:>'Boldd'B 9:H UdP~ 'dmq dnudAV PP9dp:l.Y1
ultU-lq2F dAIsnpxd m dp~Old Ol q:>'Boldd'B 9:N UdPI& ':lil dnudAV pUEl-9 lS'BH L0
'dUET 2UISS01:>ldAO dnUdA V pml-9
ultU-lq2F pmoppp'B dPIAOld Ol q:>'Boldd'B 9:N UdPtti\ lS'BH':lil dnudAV pUEl-9lS'BH 90
'dUET q2nonp HN dUO dAOWdl pUE 'PUET SdUTe1[ 9:N to I -sn
ultU-lq2F {Euoppp'B m dp~old Ol q:>'Boldd'B 9:H UdPI& ~ PIEAdTUo9: uochw ~nos 170
.lddJ 0170 Ol q.l2udTld){:>od Ulru-l.PT 9:S PUdlXH p'BolI fiU-9 ~ dnudAV sdqlod to
'lddJ OIt Ol dU'BT wru-l.pT 9:H pUdlXd 'dUET UlIll
-l.pT dAIsnpxd U'B dp~old Ol q:>'BOldd'B H& UdP!'& 'dUET dnUdA V
ulru-lq2p: ddlJ 13 dPIAOld Ol q:>'BOldd'B 9:S UdP~ 'dzrreu2IS s"P:>H ~ dnudAV sdqlod 10
sWdlI lUdWdAOldwI UOp'B:>o'1 'oN
''Bd1'& d~ JO lno PUUq q2nonp lUdWdopAdP dl'BpOUIWO:>:>'B Ol sl:>dfOld UdAdS sdpnpUI dl'Bpdn s~
41MOJ~ a1epowwo:>:>'V 01 5150:) A1!I!:>e.:l
'lUdWdopAdP
l1\.dU W01J UOp'Bldud2 :>9J'B:O PdS'Bdl:>UI Aq pdSn'B::> SO'1 UI dUf[:>dP d~ d~ 10 SOl 2UPSpcd
~lUreW ld~p SlUdWdAOldWI dql dSn'B:>dq SlUdWdAOldWI PdUU'BTd JO lUd:>ldd Pdlpunq dUO 10J
dTqIsuodsdl SI lUdWdopAdP l1\.dU l'B~ dl'B:>pUI dN'Bl d~ or Ul1\.oqs ppOW :>9J'B:O d~ JO SlTUSdl dt[.1
Table 4: Net Cost of Planned Traffic Projects
Project
Road ImDrovements
Bayshore/Airport Blvd & Sister Cities/Oyster Point Blvd
Dubuque Ave & Oyster Point Blvd
Eccles Ave & Oyster Point Blvd
Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd
Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US 101 SB off-ramp
Airport Blvd & Grand Ave
Dubuque Ave & East Grand Ave
Gateway Blvd & East Grand Ave
Forbes Blvd/East Grand Ave & Harbor Blvd
Grandview Dr & Grand Ave
Airport Blvd & San Mateo Ave
South Airport Blvd/Mitchell Ave & Gateway Blvd
South Airport Blvd & Utah Ave
Harbor Wy
Mitchell Ave
Hwy 101 northbound off-ramp/So Airport Blvd
Hwy 101 northboud off-ramp/Grand/E. Grand Ave
Forbes Ave & Eccles Ave
Forbes Ave & Gull Rd
East Grand Ave & Littlefield Ave
East Grand View Ave & Allenton Ave
Utah Ave & Harbor Way
Subtotal
Other CaDital Facilities
Traffic software upgrade
Less: Existing Fund Balance
Subtotal 2
Total
lotal
Construction
Cost
(2004 Dollars)1
$
341,000
946,000
431,000
623,000
357,000
969,000
1,294,000
222,000
1,646,000
608,000
803,000
1,888,000
309,000
2,783,000
1,986,000
1,386,000
565,000
1,985,000
117,000
810,000
521,000
978.000
21,568,000
$
$
$
$
$
350.000
(1.967.319)
(1,967,319)
19,950,681
1 Project cost increased to 2004 dollars using a rate of 5.5 percent based on Engineering News
Record. Construction Cost Index.
2 Fund balance and credits to the fee program for traffic mitigation for the E. of 101 area. See Table
1A.
Sources: CCS Planning and Engineering; City of South San Francisco; MuniFinancial.
Different development projects impact the transportation network at different rates depending
on the number of trips generated. A cost per trip factor is used to calculate each project's fair
share of planned improvement costs. The cost per trip is calculated by dividing the total
planned facility costs by the total trip generated by new development and is shown in Table 5.
MuniFinancial,
13
.-~_.,. "-.r".rT' .., "~-"""'''''r'''''''---'- -
-T----
.W1U~Old ddJ dql Ol pdl13::l0rre
SI lSO::l 113l0l dql os Sl::ldfOld dSdqllOJ Sd::lmOS ~UWUtlJ ddJ-UOU Atre dl13dp~tre WU SdOP A:lIJ dqI,
lIIMOJE) alepOWWO:l:l'f 01 d!J.L Jad ISO:) :S alqe.L
(~d) sd!Jl JnoH )lead
SlSO~ sa!l!l!3e:l pauueld}O aJe4S aa:l
6~L'B
~B9'096'6~ $
d!Jl. Jad lSO~
$
BBl'l
'IBPUBU!:l!unW :V pUB Z sa(qBl :saomos
alnpa4~S aa:l
.lSO::l
113m::l13 dql dUIWldldP O:J, drq13T!l3A13 ST 13:J,13P lUdpgJns UdqA\. pdlsn!p13 dq prnoqS:J,I .dl13UlpSd U13 ST ddJ
UOP.13:QSTUTWP13 dql JO lunoure dqJ. .ddJ ::lgJ13:Q dql JO lUd::lldd S'Z JO lSO::l pdl13UlpSd tre UO pdS13q
ST ddJ UOP.13:QS~13 dqJ. 'SWOOl ploq .:to lddJ dll3nbs ~UWTITIq UO pdS13q lUdwdoldAdP JO :J,TUTI ldd
ddJ 13 Ol PdUdAUO::l ST dplldd :J,SO::l dqJ. .S:J,::l13dwr lUdwdOldAdP ppOW Ol pdsn Sdl13l dpl dql ptre
S dlq13I, lIT pdl13yn::lll3::l dplldd :J,SO::l d'ql UO pdS13q ddJ l::l13dwr SdP.TIP13J ::lgJ13:Q d'ql SA\.oqs 9 ~lqEJ.
P9.l6P ~O.l~ 19.OBP BBl"l ~l.O lalOH
~ ~.l 90'O 9O.l BBtl 06'0 t>a~clla3!.UO
LL"B $ ~l.O $ 99.B $ BBl'l $ PL.E; le!OJawwo~
aa:l taa:l taa:l dill .. a~e~ d!Jl. asn pue1
le~ol. U!WPV :l!yeJl. Jad ~so~ Wd
aa::ll:ledwl sa!J!I!:le::l :lWeJ.L :9 alqe.L
'Ala^!padsaJ '09'0 pUB 96'0 JO sasn PUBI al!l~ pUB aoYJo JOJ alBJ d!Jl Wd JO 96BJ9^B p9l116!aM uo pasBS l'
'99J OYJBJl JO lU90Jad S"Z JO alBW!lS9 UB UO paSBS I':
'WOOJ (9l011 J9d JO 'lOOJ aJBnbs Jad aa:!1;
'(St9l011 JOJ)WOOJ Jad JO 19aJ 9JBnbs 6UIPl!nq 000' ~ Jad sdIJ1,
"IB!OUBU!:!lunw :6UIJ9aU16u3 pUB 6U!UUBld s~:::> :S pUB Z salqBl :saOJnos
uOneluawaldwl
'suret3old ddJ dql ~up.UdUldldwr UdqA\. dldldmo::l prnoqs .kD dql l13ql S1{S13l SdgP.UdPI UOP.::ldS S'!1U
/tJPUtJU!:1.!unw
frt
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City should update its Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) on an annual basis to show the
programming of fee revenues to the traffic facilities. Use of the CIP in this manner provides
ongoing and up to date documentation of a reasonable relationship between new development
and the use of fee revenues.
The City may alter the scope of the planned projects listed in Table 4, or substitute new projects,
as long as the project list continues to represent improvements needed to accommodate new
development in the East of 101 Area. If the total cost of all planned projects net of non-fee
funding sources, if any, varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fee, the City should
revise the fee accordingly.
For the five-year planning period of the CIP, the City should allocate all existing fund balances
and projected fee revenue to traffic projects. The City can hold funds in a project account for
planned improvements longer than five years if necessary to collect sufficient funds to complete
the project.
Inflation Adjustment
The City should identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and adopt an
automatic inflation adjustment to the fee annually. If right-of-way acquisition is planned the City
should use separate indexes for land and construction costs. Calculating the land cost index may
require use of a property appraiser every several years. The construction cost index can be based
on the City's recent capital project experience or taken from any reputable source, such as the
Engineering News Record. To calculate the fee increases, each index should be weighted by the
share of total planned facility costs represented by land or construction, as appropriate.
Reporting Requirements
The City should comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code
66000 et seq. For facilities to be funded with a combination of impact fees and other revenues,
the City must identify the source and amount of the other revenues. The City must also identify;
when the other revenues are anticipated to be available to fund the project. .
MuniPinancial
15
.-.~-" . '-.':"'''rT' .-, ,', ~'~'--""""""'r""-'---
--"-r"-~"---'---'-----'----------"'----'--'--