Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutReso 99-2001RESOLUTION NO. 99-2001 CITY COUNCIL CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCSCIO EAST OF 101 TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY AND ESTABLISHING A TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT X,VITHIN THE EAST OF 101 AREA RECITALS WHEREAS, on October 13, 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 requiring 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-I-7and 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-land 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-I-4); 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, the City of South San Francisco has 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 has 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, which a copy is attached as Exhibit A; and, WHEREAS, the Traffic Fee Study estimates the cost of transportation improvements that are necessary to accommodate future development within the East of 101 Area; and, WHEREAS, the Traffic Fee Study demonstrates the appropriateness of adopting the traffic impact fee amounts included in this resolution 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 2000 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 heating 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 heating at which this resolution was adopted; and, WHEREAS, 10 days advance notice of the public heating at which this resolution was adopted was given by publication in accordance with Section 6062(a) of the Government Code; 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 Environmental 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 adopted a specific program to track compliance with the mitigation measures. One approach is to use 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 were further analyzed in the 2001 Transportation Demand Management Program Supplemental Environmental Impact (2001 SEIR) and potential impacts analyzed; and, WHEREAS, on September 26, 2001, a duly noticed public hearing conducted in accordance with the requirements of CEQA for such actions, the City Council certified the 2001 SEIR; and, WHEREAS, the improvements identified in the separate environmental review once the improvements identify their scope and potential impacts; and, 2001 SEIR will undergo additional have been sufficiently engineered to FINDINGS WHEREAS, based on all the evidence in the record, including but not limited to the recitals of this resolution, the City Council finds as follows: A. The City of South San Francisco East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study complies with California Government Code Section 66001 by establishing the basis for imposition of the fee 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 further describes the following: ° identifies the purpose of the fee; identifies the use to which the fee will be put; shows a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; show a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; show 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 imposed. B. The traffic impact fee collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the transportation improvements 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 traffic impact fee set forth in this resolution, as it relates 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 §21080(b)(8)(D)). E. In adopting the 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 facilities, 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 development 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, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco does resolves as follows: The East of 101 Traffic Impact Fee Study is hereby adopted and the Traffic Impact Fee set forth herein. Resolution No. 99-2001 Imposing a Traffic Impact Fee for the East of 101 Area is hereby adopted. 3. Definitions (a) "Applicant" shall mean any person or legal entity that applies for a permit or other entitlement for a new development project. (b) "City" shall mean the City of South San Francisco. (c) "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 activities. 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. (d) "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 classifications, identified in the East of 101 Area of the City by the South San Francisco General Plan. (e) "Development" shall mean the construction, alteration, or addition, other than by the City, of any building or structure within the area within the City of South San Francisco. (f) "Development Project" means any Commercial, Office/Research and Development and Hotel Development Project. (g) "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. (h) "East of 101 Transportation Improvement Plan" shall mean the "South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and Transportation Demand Management Ordinance, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report," April 2001. (i) "Floor Area" shall mean the area of all floors and levels as defined in the City of South San Francisco Building Code. (j) "Hotel" shall mean a commercial facility containing guestrooms for the temporary use of transients where access to individual units is predominantly by means of common interior or exterior hallways. (k) "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 consumer 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. (1) "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. (m) "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. (n) 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 development, 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; legal 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. (o) "Public Works Director" shall mean the Director of Public Works or the Director's designee. (p) "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. (q) "Surface Transportation System" shall mean the city's system of streets, roads and intersections traversed by automobiles and other vehicles. (r) "Traffic Fee 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. (s) "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 listed 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. (t) "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 Ordinance, Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report," April 2001. 4. 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 development (including commercial, hotel, and office/research and development (R&D). 5. 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 permit for the development project or, if no use permit or amendment thereto required, at the earliest of any other permit required for the project, for such non-residential development. 6. Amount of Fee Land Use PM Trip Rate~ Cost Per Trip Fee2 Commercial 3.74 $1,671 $6.25 Office/R&D~ 0.90 $1,671 $1.51 Hotel 0.21 $1,671 $350.82 ~ Trips per 1,000 building square feet or per room (for hotels). 2 Fee per square foot, or per hotel room. 3 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively. 7. 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 permit 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. 8. Use of Fee Revenue The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate, interest beating 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 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. 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 Analysis and Revision of the Fee The Fee set forth herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the record 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 Adjustments The purpose of this section is to provide for annual adjustments of the Fee for inflation, beginning July 1, 2001 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/decrease 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 Adjustment: 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 construction 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, including 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 resulted 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 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, subsection, clause, sentence, phrase and other portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more section, subsection, clause sentence, phrase or other portion may be held invalid or unconstitutional. I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was regularly introduced and adopted by the City Council of the City of South San Francisco, held on the 26th day of September, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers Pedro Gonzalez, Karyl Matsumoto and John R. Penna, Mayor Pro Tem Eugene R. Mullin and Mayor Joseph A. Fernekes NOES: None. ABSTAIN: None. ABSENT: None. ATTEST: City Clerk 405/00 l/reso/2001/sep/trafficfeereso TABLE OF CONTENTS Table of Contents ................................................................................ Purpose of Study ................................................................................. 1 Mitigation Fee Act .............................................................................. 3 Traffic Demand from New Development ........................................ 4 Facilities Standards .............................................................................. 6 Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth ........................................... 8 Fee Schedule ........................................................................................ 9 Implementation ................................................................................... 9 MUNIFINANCIAL SEPTEMBER 6, 2001 i EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE As part of the South San Francisco General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance, this report was completed to present an analysis of the need for roadway and intersection improvements in the East of 101 Area in the City of South San Francisco to accommodate new development. The report documents a reasonable relationship between new development and an impact fee for funding of these facilities. The project is designed to help the City reduce future traffic congestion during peak hours in the East of 101 Area, establishes a fee structure that would help pay for future physical improvements, and complies with State and San Mateo County requirements. The project consists of the proposed General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance. In order to study the East of 101 area thoroughly, a traffic study was completed in April 2001 and the results conclude that both physical improvements and a TDM program will need to be implemented to reduce congestion during peak periods and improve mobility in the East of 101 area. These results are consolidated in a General Plan Amendment and TDM Ordinance. The General Plan Amendment contains policies that implement the East of 101 traffic study and TDM Ordinance. The TDM Ordinance will be incorporated into the City's Municipal Code. The planning area includes all land located east of US 101, south of San Bruno Mountain and the City of Brisbane, west of the San Francisco Bay, and north of the San Francisco International Airport (refer to Attachment A, Planning Area Map). The traditional core of South San Francisco's industry, the East of 101 area was originally developed with meat packing and heavy manufacturing activities. Bethlehem Steel, U.S. Steel, and the Edwards Wire Rope Factory were some of the city's major establishments whose products helped build California's modern transportation and communications infrastructure. In the 1930s, shipping also emerged as a major industry, as South San Francisco became an adjunct facility to the Port of San Francisco. Easy rail access made South San Francisco even more attractive as a shipping terminal, and the City became the central distribution point for the entire peninsula. MUNIFINANCIAL 2001 CITY Ob' SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY In the post-xvar years the City converted previously unused marshlands into areas usable for industrial development, drastically reshaping the shoreline and attracting light industry to the city for the first time. Plans were announced in 1963 for a 600-acre industrial park adjacent to the newly-developed Oyster Point Marina. This industrial park was South San Francisco's first industrial development to incorporate comprehensive planning, integrated design, and performance provisions, and featured a 0.5 FAR, ample parking and consistent landscaping and building design. The park heralded South San Francisco's industrial future. In some ways a microcosm of American industry, South San Francisco has been maMng a slow industrial transformation for the past 30 years. Steel production and other heavy industries have largely been replaced by warehousing, research and development and biotechnology, in part spurred by the success of the 97-acre Genentech campus, employing over 3,500 people. While the East of 101 area is almost completely built out, redevelopment remains extremely active. Since the city's industrial base has continued to evolve as the context for industry has changed, industry xvill continue to play an important role in South San Francisco's future. This intensification of land use has resulted in the need for traffic improvements to accommodate this new development. Since1998, the City has been ~vorking with a transportation consultant to prepare a detailed traffic study for the East of 101 Area. In October 1999, the South San Francisco City Council adopted the South San Francisco General Plan, which contains the Transportation Element ~vhich contains 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-I-7: Continue to require that nexv development pays 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 street improvements; 2) identifying transportation and circulation needs for a long-range planning horizon that will help the City manage anticipated groxvth in the East of 101 area; 3) enhancing street capacity; and 4) providing new linkages to integrate a multi-modal transportation system. The traffic analysis was used as a basis for this study prepared by CCS Planning & Engineering. The traffic study incorporated development MUNIF1NANCIAL SEPTEMBF, R 6, 2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY assumptions using information on current development projects and on sites likely to undergo change. The land use assumptions concluded that: Total build out will nearly double from existing development: 12.82 million square feet to 23.32 million square feet due mainly to the increase in office and R&D development. · Approximately 6 million square feet more of development than xvas projected in the General Plan. · Employment ~vill increase by 2.4 times 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. · The impact of assuming a 0.9 FAR for ne~v office development versus a 0.5 FAR is small. Total build out will be 23.3 million assuming a 0.9 FAR and 21.7 million assuming a 0.5 FAR. As a result of widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature passed the Mitigation Fee Act, starting with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1988. The Act, contained in Cali[ornia Government Code Section 66000 et seq., establishes requirements for the imposition and ongoing administration of impact fee programs. The Act became laxv in January 1989 and requires local governments to make the following findings xvhen adopting an impact fee: 1. Identify the purpose of the fcc; 2. Identify the use of fcc revenues; 3. Determine a reasonable relationship bet~veen the fee's use and the type of development paying the fee; 4. Determine a reasonable relationship betxveen the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee; and 5. Determine a reasonable relationship bet~veen the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee. In general, the fee can not be tnore than the cost of the public facility needed to accommodate the development paying the fee, and fee revenues can only be used for their intended purposes. The Act also has specific accounting and reporting requirements annually and every five vears for the use of fee revenues. MUNIFINANCIAL SEPTEMBER ~ 2001 CITY OF SOUTtl SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY The report addresses the statutory findings noted above in the following sections: The Purpose o£tlle Study section identifies the purpose of the fee. The TraFFic Demand £rom New Development section summarizes the total peak hour trips generated by new development used to establish the need for the fee. · The Facility Standards section establishes a reasonable relationship bet~veen the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee by showing that even ~vith the planned improvements the level of service would decline. · The Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth section establishes a reasonable relationship bet~veen the use of fee revenues and the type of development paying the fee by identifying the improvements to be funded by the fee. · The Fee Sctledule section establishes a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development paying the fee. Using a common factor for facility costs per trip, the schedule ensures that each development project pays its fair share of total facility costs based on trip generation. · The Fee Implementation section provides recommendations for the ongoing administration of the fee. The recommendations are meant to ensure compliance with the Act, and to ensure that fees are updated for facility cost inflation. The traffic impacts of ne~v development are based on anticipated growth under the General Plan and adjusted by City of South San Francisco staff to reflect pending and approved projects to generate trips on the roads ~vith planned improvements. The fee is based on additional square feet of development or rooms for hotels anticipated in the East of 101 Area. Approved projects prior to the instatement of the fee have paid for traffic improvements through developer agreements. The existing development xvas based on information on existing office buildings, maps from Genentech, and from the land use map in the General Plan. The approved development was based on information from the Major Projects List as of October 2000 and from the Genentech Master Plan and Gatexvay Specific Plan. The additional development xvas MuNIFINANCIAL SEPTt~MBER ~, 2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY based on this Major Projects l,ist, the Gateway and Genentech plans and also by working with the City to determine ~vhich 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 1 presents existing and planned development within the East of 101 Area. Table 1' Existing and Planned Development Existing Approved Additional Total Buildout (s.f.) (s.f.)~ (s.f.) (s.f.) Commercial 690,204 246,419 936,623 Office/R& D 4,632,323 1,800,105 9,649,470 16,081,897 Hotel2 967,852 430,465 679,477 2,077,794 Industrial 6,525,053 - (2,303,139) 4,221,914 Total 12,815,431 2,230,570 8,272,227 23,318,228 ~ Approved projects not included in the fee. It has been assumed that they have paid for traffic improvements through developer agreements. 2 Represents 1,170 rooms provided by CCS Planning and Engineering. Source: City of South San Francisico; MuniFinancial. CCS Planning & Engineering conducted trip counts at selected points in the East of 101 Area. Intersection operations ;vere evaluated for the a.m. and p.m. peak hours at 19 study intersections. Based on development data provided by the City of South San Francisco Planning staff, CCS Planning & Engineering ;vas 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 nexv development. Appendix A provides detailed information regarding the source of trip generation rate estimates. MUNIFINANCIAL SEPTli'MBER 6, 2001 5 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY Table 2: Trip Generation Rate by New Development Additional PM (1,000 s.f. or Peak Hour Land Use Trip Rate~ rooms)~ Trips (PM) Commercial 3.74 246 922 Office/R&D2 0.90 9,649 8,700 Hotel 0.21 1,170 246 Industrial 0.54 (2,303) (1,244) Total 8,624 ~ Evening peak hour trips measured in 1,000 building square feet for commercial and office/R&D uses and rooms for hotel uses. 2 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively. Sources: Table 1' CCS Planning and Engineering; City of South San Francisco Planning; MuniFinancial. The City's traffic facility standards are based on a measure of congestion commonly used in traffic planning and known as "level of service" (LOS). LOS is calculated based on the volume of traffic on a roadway or at an intersection compared to the capacity of the roa&vay or intersection. LOS "A", "B", and "C" suggest insignificant to acceptable delays. LOS "D" suggests tolerable delays though traffic is high and some short- term back ups occur. LOS "E" and "F" suggest significant to excessive delays as traffic volumes meet or exceed the capacity of the facility. The following policies present the performance standards acceptable to the City of South San Francisco: Strive to maintain level of service (LOS) D or better on arterial and collector streets, at all intersections, and on principal arterials in the CMP during peak hours. Accept LOS E or F after finding that: There is no practical and feasible way to mitigate the loxver level of service; and the uses resulting in the loxver level of service are of clear, overall public benefit. Traffic impacts from groxvth were measurcd using a traffic model. Thc model was calibrated to existing conditions using traffic counts and the land use data discussed above. Table 3 presents the LOS in the studied intersections based on existing conditions xvith no traffic improvements, MUN1FINANCIAL SEI'TItMBER 6. 2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 ARIzA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY and future conditions with planned improvements that minimize the decline in LOS caused by gro~vth. The impact of intensive transportation demand management measures xvere included in the model to minimize the need for improvements. Table 3: Intersection Operations Intensive TDM with Additional Existinq Improvements Intersection Control LOS~ Delay2 LOS~ Delay2 PM Peak Hour Bayshore Blvd & US-101 SB Ramp(s)3'5 Stop (Signal) C 11 F 82 Airport BIvd & 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 & ©yster Point Blvd Signal B 13 B 13 Gull Dr & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 13 C 17 Marina BIvd & Oyster Point Blvd Signal B 7 B 13 Airport Blvd & Miller Ave/US-101 SB Off-Ramp Signal C 15 B 15 Airport BIvd & 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 ~ LOS = Level of service 2 Delay = Average delay for all vehicles passing through intersection, in seconds 3 A (D) = For unsignalized intersections: average LOS for all vehicles passing through intersection (LOS for most difficult movement) 4 Bayshore Blvd. and US-101 SB Ramp intersection is currently stop sign controlled. It is evaluated with Hook Ramps and signalized intersection for future scenarios. s Grandview Ave. and East Grand Ave. intersection is analyzed as a signalized intersection in the "With Additional Improvements" scenarios only. Source: CCS Planning & Engineering; MuniFinancial MUNIFINANCIAL SEPTEMBER G, 2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFblC IMPACT FEE STUDY The results of the traffic model shown in the table indicate that nexv development is responsible for one hundred percent of planned improvements because the improvements either maintain existing LOS or minimize the decline in LOS caused by increased traffic generation from new development. Cost estimates for the planned traffic improvements to accommodate new development and included in the traffic model analysis are shown in Table 4. Table 4: Net Cost of Planned Traffic Projects Project '~ otal Construction Cost (2001 Dollars) 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 323,000 896,000 408,000 590,000 338,000 918,000 1,226,000 210,000 1,559,000 576,000 761,000 1,789,000 293,OO0 2,637,000 1,882,000 Total $ 14,406,000 Sources: CCS Planning and Engineering; City of South San Francisco; MuniFinancial. Different development projects affect 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 shoxvn in Table 5. The City does not anticipate any non-fee funding sources for these projects so the total cost is allocated to the fee program. MUNIFINANCIAL SEPTIzMBER 6, 2001 8 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFHC IMPACT F?.Z' STUDY Table 5: Cost per Trip to Accommodate Growth Fee Share of Planned Facilities Costs Peak Hour Trips (PM) $ 14,406,000 8,624 Cost per Trip $ 1,671 Sources: Tables 2 and 4; MuniFinancial. Table § shows the traffic Gcilities impact fee based on the cost per trip calculated in Table 5 and the trip rates used to model development impacts. The cost per trip is converted to a fee per unit of development based on building square feet or hotel rooms. Table 6: Traffic Facilities Impact Fee PM Cost per Land Use Trip Rate ~ Trip Fee 2 Commercial 3.74 $ 1,671 $ 6.25 Office/R&D3 0.90 1,671 1.51 Hotel 0.21 1,671 350.82 Trips per 1,000 building square feet or per room (for hotels). 2 Fee per square foot, or per hotel room. 3 Based on weighted average of PM trip rate for office and R&D land uses of 0.96 and 0.60, respectively. Sources: Tables 2 and 5; CCS Planning and Engineering; MuniFinancial. This section identifies tasks that the City should complete when implementing the fcc programs. 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. MUNIFINANETAI, $1i'PT~7~'IBlz'R 6, 2001 CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO EAST OF 101 AREA TRAFFIC IMPACT FEIi STUDY 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 I~ast 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 8GO00 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. MUNIFINANCTAL SIzT'TEMI.q,;R 6, 2001 10