Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012/12/04 Item 11CITY COUNCIL ~~ ~ AGENDA STATEMENT ``.~.i`. ecru of CHUTAVISTA 12/4/12, Item ~` ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICPAL CODE SECTION 3.55.090 FOR THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES ANNUAL INFLATION ADJUSTMENT INDEX METHODOLOGY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICPAL CODE SECTION 3.55.090 FOR THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES ANNUAL INFLATION' ADJUSTMENT INDEX METHODOLOGY. ~ SUBMITTED BY: DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS ~~~ K/~ ASSISTANT DIRECT R F ENG G N7 V° REVIEWED BY: CITY MANAGER ~ ASSISTANT CITY ANAGER S / 4/STHS VOTE: YES ^ NO SUIVIIVIARY On March 4, 2008, City Council approved Ordinances 2008-3106 through 2008-3110 establishing the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee Program (WTDIF). The current methodology for adjusting the fee every July ls` allows the use of either the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, or 2%, whichever is higher. The proposed change would allow for flexibility in choosing the most appropriate annual adjustment that may not be the highest index, as long as it is at least 2%. )n order to comply with the requirements of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the WTDIF is subject to an annual increase of at least 2%. This change would be consistent with the methodology used by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) which this year recommended using the minimum 2%. Additionally, this change makes the WTDIF methodology for adjusting the fee the same as the eastern Chula Vista Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Development Services Director has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines because it involves fiscal/administrative activities which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to 11-1 12/4/12, Item ~~ Page 2 of 4 CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, environmental review and determination will be required prior to the approval of any future projects funded through Western Transportation Development Impact Fees. RECOMMENDATION 1. City Council conduct the public hearing 2. City Council approve the ordinance amending the Chula Vista Municipal Code Section 3.55.090 the WTDIF Program annual adjustment methodology. BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable DISCUSSION On Mazch 4, 2008, the City Council adopted Ordinances 2008-3106 through 2008-3110 (Attachment # 1) establishing the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) program so that development in western Chula Vista, west of I-805, would pay for its fair share of increasing traffic impacts. The WTDIF is similaz to the eastern TDIF which was established in 1988. The City has numerous Development Impact Fees (DIF) that help mitigate impacts caused by growth. Fee Adjustments Each of the DIF's has a methodology for an annual construction inflation adjustment that is applied so that projects identified in the DIF programs can be funded and the costs can keep up with the inflation of construction materials and labor. To that end, the WTDIF is adjusted every July 151 so that it complies with the TransNet Ordinance prepared by SANDAG. In November of 2004 county-wide voters passed the TransNet Ordinance which states in part, "Any local agency that does not provide its full monetary contribution required by Section 9(A) in a given fzscal year will not be eligible to receive funding for local streets and roads under Section 4(D)(1) of the TransNet Ordinance for the immediately following fiscal year. " The TDIF was established before the TransNet Ordinance and is exempt, but the WTDIF must comply. For the annual adjustment factor, the WTDIF established in 2008, has been increased three times by the minimum 2% required in FY09/10, FY10/11 & FYl 1/12; however this fiscal year, the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index (CCI) increased by 9.38%. The SANDAG Board of Directors agenda report dated February 24, 2012 (Attachment # 2), explains that the construction cost index published by the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-City Average increased 1.93% over the past year and that the ENR has more closely tracked the trends SANDAG has been experiencing in its project bid prices over the past yeaz than the Caltrans CCI. SANDAG's action recommended that the update to the regional fee program should be increased by the minimum 2% instead of the 9.38%. An excerpt of the meeting minutes is also attached. Since the TransNet Ordinance allows for flexibility in choosing an appropriate index, the WTDIF program, subject to the requirements of the TransNet Ordinance requirements adjustment methodology should also reflect that methodology. Without this flexibility, effective July 1, 2012, the WTDIF should have been increased by 9.38%. Tonight's action is to revise the WTDIF annual adjustment methodology to have the ability to match SANDAG's methodology 11-2 12/4/12, Item Page 3 of 4 and be more flexible in choosing the appropriate annual inflation adjustment factor as long as it complies with the TransNet Extension Ordinance requirement of the annual increase being at least a 2% minimum. No other changes are being proposed to the WTDIF program with this report. The proposed change would allow the WTDIF program to continue to mirror the regional requirements so that adjustments can be made with consideration of factors discussed on a regional basis at SANDAG. The most expensive projects in the WTDIF program aze improvements to the Light Rail Trolley and to the Interstate-5 and Interstate-805 freeways and SANDAG's experience in construction bids on these lazge regional projects provide a very good basis. By also allowing consideration of the ENR 20-City Construction Cost Index, that also increases the flexibility to adjust the WTDIF more appropriately every fiscal year. Listed below in Table 1, is the FY12 WTDIF fee and the FY13 fee with a 2% increase, effective July 1st, 2012 (FY13). In accordance with the existing WTDIF ordinance, the FY13 fee should have increased 9.38% per the higher Consumer Price Index (CPI) to be used. This action will allow City Council to be flexible in deciding which CPI factor to use when considering information from SANDAG. Since SANDAG approved using a 2% CPI for FY13, City staff concurs that a similar CPI increase is justified. Tahle 1: WTDIF Fee Schedule Adiustmeuts Develo ment T e FY12 (2.00% Increase) FY 13 New Fee (2.00% Increase) FY13 New Fee (9.38%Caltrans Highway CCI) FY13 Difference Low Densit Residential er DU $3,408 $3,476 $3,728 $252 Medium Densit Residential er DU $2,726 $2,781 $2,982 $201 Hi h Densit Residential er DU $2,045 $2,086 $2,237 $151 Mobile Home er DU $1,704 $1,738 $1,864 $126 Re Tonal Commercial erAcre $68,156 $69,523 $74,550 $5,027 Communi Commercial erAcre $95,419 $97,333 $104,370 $7,037 Nei hborhoodCommercial erAcre $163,575 $166,856 $178,920 $12,064 Nei hborhood Commercial er KSF $16,358 $16,686 $17,892 $1,206 Street Front Commercial er Acre $54,525 $55,619 $59,640 $4,021 Retail Commercial erAcre $54,525 $55,619 $59,640 $4,021 Wholesale Trade erAcre $81,788 $83,428 $89,460 $6,032 Hi h Rise Office er Acre $204,469 $208,570 $223,650 $15,080 Low Rise Office er Acre $102,235 $104,285 $111,825 $7,540 Low Rise Office erKSF $6,816 $6,952 $7,455 $503 Medical Office erAcre $170,391 $173,808 $186,375 $12,567 Low Rise Hotel/Motel er Acre $68,156 $69,523 $74,550 $5,027 Low Rise Hotel/Motel er Room $3,408 $3,476 $3,728 $252 Hi h Rise Hotel er Acre $102,235 $104,285 $111,825 $7,540 Hea Indust erAcre $40,894 $41,714 $44,730 $3,016', Warehouse/Stora a er Acre $20,447 $20,857 $22,365 $1,508 Industrial Park erAcre $30,670 $31,285 $33,548 $2,2631 Li ht Industrial erAcre $68,156 $69,523 $74,550 $5,027 11-3 12/4/12, Item ~ ~ Page 4 of 4 DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2(a)(1) is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, nor has staff been informed by any City Councilmember, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The WTDIF fee was increased by 2% effective July 1, 2012, using the 2% minimum recommended by SANDAG. The WTDIF language is specific in that, the higher of two indexes, but not less than 2%, must be used. Since one of the indexes is at 9.38%, the WTDIF fee adjustment should have been increased by 9.38%. SANDAG has recommended that the region use the 2% increase instead of the 9.38% increase. City staff concurs with SANDAG, so the public hearing is to allow the WTDIF to use any index, consistent with SANDAG's annual recommendation, as long as it is at least 2%. To date, in FY12/13, there have been no building permits issued within the WTDIF area. There is no direct impact to the General Fund as the program accounts for City staff costs in the amount of 2% of the program estimate for administration and monitoring ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The WTDIF, as do all of the City's DIF's, requires a sepazate fund from the General Fund. Tonight's action aids the General Fund by minimizing City infrastructure costs due to future development, encourages development by keeping the fees commensurate to the region's construction costs and allows for annual increases to be adjusted to be similar to what the region recommends. There is no direct ongoing impact to the General Fund as the program accounts for City staff costs in the amount of 2% of the program estimate for administration and monitoring. ATTACHMENTS 1. Ordinance 3110 dated March 4, 2008 2. SANDAG Boazd of Director's agenda & meeting minutes Prepared by: Francisco X Rivera, Principal Civi[ Engineer, Public Works Department J: IEngineerlAGENDAICAS2012112-04-121WTDIFCOLA-AgSt-11 26 I2-FINAL (2).doc 11-4 arra~~uvrEr~rr ~ ORDINANCE NO. 3110 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHLiLA VISTA ACCEPTING THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT (TF-358) PREPARED BY STAFF AND ESTABLISHING A WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM TO MITIGATE TRANSPORTATION IMPACTS WITHIN WESTERN CHULA VISTA INCLUDING PROJECT OR-4 WHEREAS, the adoption of the City's General plan indicated that future growth was going to occur in the City west of I-805; and V~~FIEREAS, the traffic studies for the City's General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan show the City's transportation network will be impacted by new development within the western portion of the City unless new transportation facilities are added to accommodate the new development; and WHEREAS, since January 1988, the City has had a program in place for the collection of a transportation development impact fee for the fmancing of street improvements in the azea east of I-805; and WHEREAS, the Engineer's Report establishes that the transportation facilities necessitated by development within the western portion of the City comprise an integrated network; and WHEREAS, the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee is solely based upon that portion of the project costs which are attributable to new development; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing at which oral or written presentations regarding the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee could be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code and California Government Code Sections 66000, et. seq., the City Council has accepted a report entitled "Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" (Engineer's Report) dated February 2008 that analyzed the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee necessary to fund transportation facilities needed to serve future development within the western portion of the City; and WHEREAS, the City's Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has detemtined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c){3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA; and 11-5 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista is placing this ordinance on its first reading which will establish a development impact fee per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU) to finance transportation facilities within the western portion of the City of Chula Vista; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a), the fees proposed by this ordinance will not become effective until sixty (60) days after its second reading. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt Chapter 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to transportation development impact fees to pay for various transportation facilities located on the west side of the City as follows: SECTION 1: Findings The City Council fords, after consideration of the evidence presented to it including the "Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" dated February 2008, that the creation of a transportation development impact fee is necessary in order to assure that there aze sufficient funds available to finance the transportation facilities necessary to serve development west of I-805; and ' The City Council finds that new development within the western portion of the City of Chula Vista should be required to mitigate the burden created by development through the constrvcton of transportation facilities; and The City Council finds, based on the evidence presented at the public hearing, and consistent with the City's General Plan, and the various reports and information received by the City Council in the ordinary course of its business, that the imposition of traffic impact fees on all development within the western portion of the City of Chula. Vista for which building permits have not been issued is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfaze by providing for the public transportation facilities to assure effective implementation of the City's General Plan; and The City Council finds that the amount of the proposed fees levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the transportation facilities. SECTION 2: Chapter 3.55 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is hereby adopted and shall read as follows: 3.55.010 General intent. The City's General Plan Land Use and Transportation Element requires that adequate public facilities be available to accommodate increased population created by new development within the City of Chula Vista. The City Council has determined that new development will create adverse impacts on the City's existing public transportation facilities which must be mitigated by the financing and construction of certain public transportation facilities which aze the subject of this chapter. 11-6 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 3 New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public transportation facilities in direct relationship to the amount of vehiculaz traffic and population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the development. The City Council has determined that a reasonable means of financing the public transportation facilities is to chazge a fee on all developments within the western portion of the City. Imposition of the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee on all new development for which building permits have not yet been issued is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, thereby ensuring effective implementation of the City's General Plan. 3.55.020 Definitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined herein, unless from the context it appeazs that a different meaning is intended. A. "Building permit" means a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform Building Code. B, "City Engineer" means the City Engineer, the City Engineer's designee or the City Managers designee. C. "Density" means dwelling units per gross acre identified for each planning azea shown on the approved tentative map or approved tentative pazcel map or as determined by the City Manager's designee. D. "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development. E. "Development permit" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a development project. issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinance of the City. F. "Development project" or "development'' means any activity described as the following: 1. Any new residential dwelling unit developed on vacant land; 2. Any new commerciaUoffice or industrial development constructed on vacant land; 3. Any expansions to established developments or new developments on non-vacant land in those land use categories listed in subsections (F)(1) and {2) of this section, if the result is a net increase in dwelling units. The fee shall be based solely on this net dwelling unit increase; 4. Any new or expanding special land use project; 5. Any special purpose project developed on vacant land or non-vacant land, or expanded within apre-existing site, if the result is a net increase in dwe]ling units. The fee shall be based solely on this net dwelling unit increase; 6. Any other development project not listed above but described in Section 65927 and 65928 of the State Government Code. "Community purpose facility'' means a facility which serves one of the following purposes: 1. Social service activities, including such sen~ices as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, A]coholics Anonytnous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Day care; 11-7 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 4 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. G. "Western portion of the City of Chula Vista'' generally means that azea of the City located between the City boundary on the west, Interstate 805 on the east, the City boundary on the north and the City's boundary on the south, as shown on the map entitled "Figure 1" of the Engineering study. H. "Engineering study" and "Engineer's Report" means the Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee dated February, 2008 and prepared by City staff on file in the Office of the City Clerk. I. "Regional Arterial System' (RAS) RAS roadways are generally described as those facilities that act as a critical link in providing direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. They are roadways that are listed in the most recent edition of SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan J. "Special land use" means any nonresidential, non- commerciaUoffice or non-industrial development project (e.g., Olympic Training Center. hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. K. "Special purpose project" means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g., day caze). A. The public transportation facilities (facilities) which aze the subject matter of the fee, aze listed below as detailed in subsection C of this section and in the Engineer's Report on file in the Office of the City Clerk. B. The City Council may modify or amend the list of projects in order to maintain compliance with the circulation element of the City's General Plan. C. The facilities aze as follows: 1. (I-5-1) I-5/E Street NB off-ramp re-striping add lane 2. (I-5-2) I-5/E StreeUBay Blvd SB off-ramp re-striping add lane 3. (I-5-3) I-5/NB ramp widening at E, H, J, Ind., Palomar & Main Sts (21%) 4. (I-5-4) E Street bridge widening over I-5 (250' X 20' X $350/sf) 5. (I-5-5) F Street bridge widening over I-5 (250' X 20' X $350/sf 6. (I-5-6} I-5/H Street NB off-ramp re-striping add lane 7. (I-5-7) I-S/H Street SB off-ramp re-striping add Lane 8. (I-5-8} H Street bridge widening over 1-5 (2D0'X40'X$350/sf) 11-8 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 5 9. (I-5-9) I-5/J Street NB off-ramp re-striping add lane l0. (I-5-10} I-5!J Street under crossing widening add EB-NB (175x20X$350} l 1. (I-S-I 1) L Street bridge widening over I-5 (S/W for peds 300' X 12')(21 %} 12. (I-5-12) I-SBay Blvd (south of L St.} SB on/off ranips traffic signal i3. (I-5-13) I-5/Industrial Blvd NB on/offramps traffic signal 14. (1-5-14) I-5/Palomar Street bridge widening {2751£ X SOIf X $350/sf) 15. (I-5-15) I-S/Main Street NB on/offramps traffic signal {CV shaze $120k) 16. (I-5-16) I-5/Main Street bridge widening (2751£ X 201£ X $350/sf) 17. (I-5-17) I-5 HOV & Managed Lanes from SR905 to SR54 (63.4% in CV} 18. STM 361 a. I-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Study (80% Fed. DEMO funds) b. (SANDAL cost estimate is $4.3M & CV shaze TBD) Interstate-805 Improvem eats 19. (I-805-I } NB on-ramp rczdening & metering at Bonita, East H St (EB-NB), Telegraph Canyon Road (Project I-805-1 is 100% funded in 2006 RTIP with State funds.) 20. (I-805-2) Main St. under crossing widening for EB-NB left turn lane State Route 54 Improvements 21. SR-54-1) SR-54 WB off-ramp re-stripe at Broadway 22. (SR-54-2) SR-54 EB off-ramp at N. Fourth Avenue -add ramp lane Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects 23. (RAS-1) Bonita Road from First Avenue to I-805 24. (RAS-2) Broadway from C Street to south of Main Street (City Limits) 25. (R AS-3) E Street improvements -First Ave to Bonita RoadJE. Flower St 26. (RAS-4) E Street improvements, I-5 to 300' east of NB ramp 27. (RAS-5) E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 11-9 Ordinance No. 31 I 0 Page b 28. (RAS-6) H Street LRT grade sepazation (underpass LRT option) 29. (RAS-7) H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane & traffic signal modifications 3D. (RAS-8) H Street 14'-wide median & street light improvements {same as RAS-9} 31. {R AS-9} H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway 32. (R AS-10) H Street improvements from Second Ave to Hilltop Drive 33. (R AS-11) East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Dr. to I-805 34. (RAS-12} L Street/Bay Blvd traffic signal & add turn lanes 35. (RAS-13) L Street improvements south side west of Industrial Blvd 36. (RAS-14} Telegraph Canyon Road at I-805 south side sidewalk 37. (RAS-15) Orange Avenue from Palomaz Street to Hilltop Drive 38. (RAS-16) Palomaz Street improvements from I-5 to I-805 39. (RAS-i7} Main St. improvements from I-5 to T-805 (See GPU Table 5.10-6) 40. (R AS-18) H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes 41. (RAS-19} H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right tum lanes General Plan Impacts and Mifigatiens 42. (GP-1) E. St. from Manna to I-5 43. {GP-2) Marina Pazkzvay from E-J St. 44. (GP-3) L St. from Hilltop to I-805 45. (GP-4) Main St. from I-5 to Broadway 46. (GP-5) Main St. from Broadway to Hilltop Dr. 47. (GP-6) Third Avenue from L St. to Palomar St. 48. (GP-7) H St. from Marina to I-5 49. {GP-8} J St. from Marina to I-5 11-10 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 7 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Improvements (21% WTDIF share per GPU) 50. (BP-1) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street & F Streets 51. (BP-2} F Street sidewalk bike lane improvements from I-~ to Fourth Avenue 52. (BP-3) Industrial Blvd improvements & bike lanes from L St. to Main Street 53. (BP-4) Main Street bike lanes from Industrial Blvd & I-805 54. (BP-5) Orange Ave. bike lanes from Palomar St. to Hilltop Drive 55. (BP-6} Develop bicycle paths & pedestrian access to Third Avenue Midhayfront Local Coastal Program Roadways 56. (Mid-1) E Street re-stripe to add EB-NB dual lefr turn to NB I-5 on-ramp. 57. (Mid-2) I-5/E St. SB off-ramp widening to add fourth lane 58. (Mid-3) Bay Blvd 15' widening along Westerly Curb Line at E 5t. approach for 1SB/3NB 59. (Mid-4} I-SB St. NB widen off-ramp to add 3rd lane for Right Turn only lane 60. (Mid-5) E St revisions to median and North Curb Line east of I-5 to add 3rd WB lane. 61. (Mid-6} Marina Parkway 4-lane from E St. to J St. 62. {Mid-7) E St./Woodlawn Ave EB-SB RT lane plus a Traffic Signal} 63. (Mid-8} E St. at Broadway add WB & EB LT lane + WB & EB RT only lane. plus a Traffic Signal & No R/W costs. 64. {Mid-9) F S11Broadway re-striping to provide EB-SB & WB-NB RT lane 65. (Mid-10) H Street widening at Broadway for WB Thru & EB Thru & RT only. Other Roadways 66. (OR-1) N. 4a` Avenue/Brisbane Ave traffic signal modifications 67. (OR-2} Second Avenue/D Street ail-way stop installation 68. (OR-4) Traffic Management Center (30%TDIF/30%WTDIF/40%TSFund) 11-11 Ordinance No. 3 ] 10 Page 8 3.55.040 Territory to which fee applicable. The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the fee herein established shall be applicable is the temtorial limits of the western portion of the City of Chula Vista (territory} as defined above, as they may from time to time be amended. 3.55.054 Establishment of a fee. A development impact fee (fee) is hereby established to pay for the facilities within the territory. The fee shall be paid upon the issuance of building permits for each development project within the western portion of the City of Chula Vista.. The WTDIF fee in the amounts set forth in CVMC 3.55.030 is hereby established to pay for transportation improvements and facilities within the western portion of the City of Chula Vista. 3.55.060 Determination of fees by land use cateEOrv. A. For purposes of this fee, single-family dwelling units shall include single-family detached -homes and detached condominiums; multifamily. dwelling units shall include attached condominiums, townhouses, duplexes, triplexes, and apartments. The density of the development type shall be based on the number of dwelling units per gross acre for single-family or multifamily residential and shall be based upon the densities identified on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel map entitling the development unless otherwise approved in writing by the City Manager's designee. B. CommerciaUoffice and industrial development projects shall be chazged on a per acre or per squaze footage basis. For purposes of This fee, gross acreage and/or square footage as it applies to the commercial, industrial and office development types, means all land area that the City Manager's designee deems necessary within the boundary of the pazcel or pazcels of the development project for which building permits aze being requested. C. The fee multiplied by the total number of dwelling units, square footage or acres within a given development project represents a developer's fair share ("fair share") for that development project. 3.55.070 Time to determine amount due. The fee for each development shall be calculated at the time of building permit issuance and shall be the amount as indicated at that time, and not when the tentative map or final map were granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when application was made for the building permit. No building permit shall be issued unless the development impact fee is paid. The fees shall be deposited into a WTDIF fund, which is hereby created, and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this chapter. The Director of Finance is authorized to establish various accounts within the fund for the various improvements and facilities identified in this chapter and to periodically make expenditures from the fund for the purposes set forth herein in accordance with the facilities phasing plan or capital improvement plan adopted by the City Council. The City Council fords that collection of the fees established by this chapter at the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds 11-12 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 9 will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for those facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting fox the western part of the City. 3.55.080 Pu ose and use of fee. The fees collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes as detemtined by the City Council: I . To pay for the construction of facilities by the City, or to reimburse the City for facilities installed by the City with funds from other sources. 2. To reimburse developers who have been required by CVMC3.55.150 A to install improvements that are major streets and are listed in CVMC 3.SSA30. 3. To reimburse developers who have been permitted to install improvements pursuant to CVMC 3.55.150 B. 3.55.090 Amount of fee. A. The fee shall be the amounts as set forth below in Table 1. The fee shall be adjusted on ]uly 1 of each yeaz beginning in 2009. The annual inflation adjustment will be 2 % or based on Caltrans highway construction cost index, whichever is higher, The program collects 2% of the total improvement cost estimate for staff administration and an additional 1 % for SANDAG Administrative costs. B. Adjustments of the fee based upon the annual inflation adjustment or the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index shall be automatic and shall not require further action by the City Council. The WTDIF may also be reviewed and amended by the City Council as necessary based on changes in the type, size, location or cost of the facilities to be financed by the fee; changes in land use designation in the City s Genera] Plan; and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. 11-13 Ordinance No. 3 Z 10 Page 10 Table 1 PROPOSED WTDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFJCATION Pro osed TDIF Fee er EDU: $3 243.0{) ad ilac ClagsiCeatioo E[~Us '' 7O1F Fta~e RESIDENTIAL Residential LO 0-b dwellin units er acre 1 er EDU $3 43 / DU Residential MED 6.1 To 20 dwellin units r acre _g per EDU $2 594/ DU Residential HIGH Over 20 dwellin units er acre .6 per EDU $1 946 / DU Mobile Home .5 per EDU $1 622 / DU COMMERCIAL Contain 1-5 major dept. stores & usually have more than 50 tenants. Typically lazger than 40 Re Iona] Commercial acres. 20 EDU/Acre $64 860 /Acre Smaller in that size than regional. Contain 'unior Dept. Store or vaziety Store,( i.e. Target - Centerwith other commercial stores)as a major tenant and have 15 to 50 other tenants. Conununi Commercial Smaller in size 8-20 acres. 28 EDU/Age $90,804 /Acre Less than 10 acres. Includes supermarket and ei boyhood Commercial dru store. Ma include office s aces. 48 EDU/Acre $155 664/Acre ei hborhood Commercial Same as above but in 5 uaze Foota a 4.8 EDU/KSF $15 664 /KSF Commercial activities found along major streets, not in a planned center with limited on Street Froat Commercial site arldn . 16 EDU/Acre $51 888 /Acre Retail Commercial Secial RetaiUStri Commercial 16EDU/Acre SS]888/KSF Usually located neaz transportation facilities. Strucnrres are usually lazge and cover majority of the parcel. Examples aze clothing and Wholesale Trade su I also includes swa meet areas. 24 EDU/Acre $77 832 /Acre FFICE Hi h Rise Office More than ] OO,ODO S.F. and 6+ Stories 60 EDU/Acre $I94 580/Acre Low Rise Office <b Stories 30 EDU/Acre $97 290/Acre Low Rise Office (in thousands < b Stories of uaze feet) 2 EDU/KSF $6 486 / KSF MedicalOfBce Medical and Dental Facilities 50 EDU/Acre $162.150/Acre LODGING Low Rise Hotel/Motel < 4 Stories 20 EDU/Acre S64 860 /Acre Low Rise Hotel or Motel < 4 Stories 1 EDU/Room $3 243 /Room Hi Rise Hotel >=4Stories 30 /EDU/Acre $97290/Acre INDUSTRY Shipbuilding; airframe, and aircraft manufacturing. Usually located next to transportation facilities and commercial areas. Hea Indus Parcels are ical] 2D-50 Acre. ] 2 EDU/Acre $38 97 6 /Acre Usually large buildings located neaz freeways, azehouse /Storage industrial or stri commercial azeas. b EDUlAcre $19,458 /Acre Office/sndustrial uses clustered into a center. The primary uses aze industrial by may includ high percentages of other uses in service or Industrial Park etaii activities. 9 EDU/Acre 529 I87 /Acre 11 other industrial uses and manufacturing Li t Industrial of included in categories above. 20 EDUlAcre $64 860 /Acre 11-14 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 11 3.55.100 Development projects exempt from the fee. A_ Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt from the provisions of the fee if those projects are designed to provide the public service for which the agency is chazged (public purpose). B. Community purpose facilities which are not operated for profit (nonprofit community purpose facilities) are also exempt inasmuch as these institutions provide benefit to the community as a whole, including all land use categories which are the subject matter of the fee. The City Council hereby determines that it is appropriate to spread any impact such nonproft community purpose facilities might have to the other land use categories subject to the fee. In the event that a court determines that the exemption herein extended to community purpose facilities shall for any reason be invalid, the City Council hereby allocates the nonprofit community purpose facilities' fair share to the City of Chula Vista and not to any of the land use categories which are the subject matter of the development impact land use categories. C. Development projects which are additions or expansions to existing dwelling units or businesses, except special land use projects, shall be exempt if the addition or expansion does not result in a net increase in dwelling units or commercial/industrial acreage. 3.55.110 Authority for accounting and expenditures. A. The fees collected shall be deposited into a Western Transportation Development Impact Fee fmancing fund (WTDIF fee fund, or fund), which is hereby created and shall be expended only for the purposes set forth in this chapter. B. The director of finance is authorized to establish a single fund for the various facilities identified in this chapter and to periodically make expenditures from the fund for the purposes set forth herein. 3.55.120 Findings. The City Council fmds that: A. Collection of the fee established by this chapter at the time of the building permit issuance is necessary to provide funds for the transportation facilities identified in CVMC 3.55.030 and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public transportation facilities; and B. The purpose of the Fees hereby enacted prevents new development from reducing the quality and availability of public transportation infrastructure facilities provided to residents of the City by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of additional capital transportation infrastructure improvements needed to meet the growth generated by such development; and C. The revenue from the fees hereby enacted will be used to construct public facilities and infrastructure and pay for other capital expenditures needed to serve new development as identified in the Engineer's Report dated February, 2068; and D. Based on analysis presented in the Engineer's Report there is a reasonable relationship betty=een 1. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed and 2. The need for facilities and the t}*pes of development projects on which the fees aze imposed. 11-15 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 12 3. The amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 3.55.130 Fee additional to other fees and charges. This fee is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or the financing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or developments A. Whenever a developer of a development project would be required by application of City law or policy, as a condition of approval of a development permit to construct or finance the construction of a portion of a transportation facility identified in Section 3.55.030 the City Council may impose an additional requirement that the developer install the improvements with supplemental size, length or capacity in order to ensure efficient and timely construction of the transportation facilities network. If such a requirement is imposed, the City Council shall, in its discretion, enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer, or give a credit against the fee otherwise levied by this chapter on the development project, or some combination thereof. B. Whenever a developer requests reimbursement, or a'credit against fees, for work to be done or paid for by the developer under subsection (A) of this section, the request shall be submitted in writing to the City Managers designee. 1. The request shall contain a description of the project with a detailed cost estimate which itemizes those costs of the construction .attributable to the transportation facility project and excludes any work attributable to a specific subdivision project. The estimate is preliminary and the amount of reimbursement or credit against fees is subject to final determination by the City Manager's designee. Additional information shall be provided to the City by the developer upon request of the City. 2. Such reimbursement or credit against fees shall be subject to the following conditions: a. Requirements of Developer. i. Prepazation of plans and specifications for approval by the City; ii. Secure and dedicate any right-of--way required for the transportation facility project; iii. Secure all required permits and environmental clearances necessary for the transportation facility project; iv. Provision of performance bonds (where the developer intends to utilize provisions for immediate credit, the performance bond shall be for 100 percent of the value of the transportation facility project); v. Payment of all City fees and costs. b. The City will not be responsible for any of the costs of constructing the transportation facility project. The developer shall advance all necessary funds to construct the hansportation facility project. c. The developer shall secure at least three qualified bids for work to be done and shaIl award the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder. The developer may combine the construction of the transportation facility project with other development- 11-16 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 13 related work and awazd one construction contract for the combined work based on a clearly identified process for determining the low bidder, all as approved by the City Manager's designee. Should the construction contract be awazded to a qualified bidder who did not submit the lowest bid for the transportation facility project portion of the contract, the developer will only receive transportation development impact fee credit based on the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. An}' claims for additional pa}rznent for extra work or charges shall be justified, shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City Manager's designee and shall only be reimbursed at the prices for similaz work included in the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. d. Upon complying with the conditions set forth ut subsectrons (B)(I} and (B)(2}(a) of this section as determined by the City and upon approval of the estimated cost by the City Manager's designee, the developer shall be entitled to immediate credit for 50 percent of the estimated cost of the construction attributable to the transportation facility project. Once the developer has received valid bids for:the project which comply with subsection (B)(2)(c) of this section, entered into binding contracts for the construction of the project, and met the conditions set forth in subsections (B)(1) and (B)(2)(a) of this section as determined by the City, all of which have been approved by the City Manager's designee, the amount of the immediate credit shall be increased to 75 percent of the bid amount attributable to the transportation facility project. The immediate credits shall be applied to the developer's obligation to pay transportation development impact fees for building pemuts issued after the establishment of the credit. The developer shall specify these building permits to which the credit is to be applied at the time the developer submits the building permit applications. e. If the developer uses all of the immediate credit before final completion of the transportation facility project, then the developer may defer payment of development impact fees for other building permits by providing to the City liquid security such as cash or an irrevocable letter of credit, but not bonds .or set-aside letters, in an amount equal to the remaining amount of the estimated cost of the transportation facility project. f When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the developer shall submit verification of payments made for the construction of the transportation facility project to the City. The City Manager's designee shall make the. final determination on expenditures which aze eligible for credit or cash reimbursement. g. After final determination of eligible expenditures has been made by the City Manager's designee and the developer has complied with the conditions set forth in subsection {B) of this section, the final amount of transportation development impact fee credits shall be determined by the City Manager's designee. The developer shall receive credit against the deferred fee obligation in an amount equal to the difference between the final expenditure determination and the amount of the 75 percent immediate credit used, if any. The City shall notify the developer of the final deferred fee obligation, and of the amount of the applicable credit. If the amount of the applicable credit is less than the deferred fee obligation, then the developer shall have 30 days to pay the deferred fee. If the deferred fees are not paid within the 30-day period, the City may make a demand against the liquid security and apply the proceeds to the fee obligation. h. At the time building permits are issued for the developer's project, the City will incrementally apply credit which the developer has accrued in lieu of collecting the 11-17 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 14 required transportation development impact fees. The amount of the credit to be applied to each building permit shall be based upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of the building pemut issuance. The City Manager's designee shall convert such credit to an EDU basis for residential development and/or a gross acre basis for commercial or industrial development for purposes of determining the amount of credit to be applied to each building permit. i. If the total eligible construction cost for the transportafion facility project is more than the total transportation development impact fees which will be required for the developer's project, then the amount in excess of development impact fees will be paid in cash when funds aze available as determined by the City Manager; a reimbursement agreement v«ll be executed; or the developer may waive reimbursement and use the excess as credit against future transportation development impact fee obligations. The City may, in its discretion, enter into an agreement with the developer to convert excess credit into EDU and/or gross acre credits for use against future development impact fee obligations at the fee rate in effect on the date of the agreement. j. The requirements of this subsection (B} of this section may, in the City's discretion, be modified through an agreement between the developer and the City and approved by City Council. C. Whenever a transportation 'development impact fee credit is generated by constructing a transportation facility using assessment district or community facilities district fmancing, the credit shall only be applied to the transportation development impact fee obligations within that district. 3.55.160 Procedure for fee waiver or reduction. A. Any developer who, because of the nature or type of uses proposed for a development project, contends that application of the fee imposed by this chapter is unconstitutional, or unrelated to mitigation of the traffic needs or burdens of the development, may apply to the City Counci] for a waiver, reduction, or deferral of the fee. A development which is designed and intended as a temporary use (10 years or less) and which is conducted in facilities which are, by their nature, short-term interun facilities such as a portable or modulaz building (including mobile homes, trailers, etc.) may qualify for a waiver, reduction, or deferral. in addition, a deferral may be granted on the basis of demonstrated economic hazdship on the condition that: (1) the use offers a significant public benefit; (2) the amount deferred bears interest at a fair mazket rate so as to constitute an approximate value equivalent to a cash payment; and (3) the amount deferred is adequately secured by agreement with the applicant. Unless the requirement for timely filing is waived by the City, the application shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk not later than 10 days after notice of the public hearing on the development permit application or the project is given, or if no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of the 11-Y8 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 15 building permit application. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the claim of waiver or reduction. B. The City Council shall consider the application at a public hearing on same, notice of which need not be published other than by description on the agenda of the meeting at which the public hearing is held. Said public hearing should be held within 60 days after its filing. The decision of the City Council shall be final. If a deferral, reduction or waiver is granted, it should be granted pursuant to an agreement with the applicant, and the property owner, if different from the applicant, providing [hat any change in use within the project shall subject the development to payment of the full fee. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure authorized by taw for protesting or challenging the fee imposed by this chapter. 3.55.170 Assessment districts. If any assessment or special taxing district is established for any or all of the facilities listed in Section 3.55.030 the owner or developer of a project may apply to the City Council for a credit against the fee in an amount equal to the developments attributable portion of the cost of the authorized improvements as determined by the City Manager's designee, plus incidental costs normally occurring with a construction project, but excluding costs associated with assessment district proceedings or financing. 3.55.180 Economic incentive credit. The City Council may authorize the City to participate in the financing of transportation facility projects or portions of transportation facility projects as defined in Section 3.55.030 at the time of the appropriation of funds by City Council for the construction of an eligible transportation facility, the City shall be eligible to receive a credit known hereafter as an economic incentive credit. Such economic incentive credit may be applied to development impact fee obligations far lhose projects which the City Council determines, in its sole discretion, to be beneficial to the City. The use of the economic incentive credit may be subject to conditions which shall be set forth in a written agreement between the developer of the project and the City and approved by i City Council. The City may receive economic incentive credit only for those eligible projects identified in Section 3.55.030 for amounts of funding not identified in the financial and engineering study "Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" report dated February 2008. 3.55.190 Fund loans. A. Loans by the City. The City may loan funds to the fund to pay for facilities should the fund have insufficient funds to cover the cost of said facility. Said loans, if granted, shall be approved upon the adoption of the annual City budget or upon resolution of the City Council and shall carry interest rates as set by the City Council for each fiscal year. A schedule for repayment of said loans shall 11-19 Ordinance No. 3110 Page 16 be established at the time they are made and approved by the Council, with a maximum term not to exceed the life of the fund. B. Developer .Loans. A developer may loan funds to the City as outlined in CVMC 3.SS.liO. The City may repay said developer loans with interest, under the terms listed in subsection (A) of this section. 3.55.200 Effective date. This chapter shall become effective May 17, 2408. SECTION 3: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Jac Grill Ann Moore Engirt ing General Services Director City Attorney 11-20 Ordinance No, 3110 Page 17 PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, California, this 18th day of March 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers: Castaneda, Ramirez, and Cox NAYS: Councilmembers: McCann ABSENT: Councilmembers: None ABSTAIN: Cottncilmembers: Rindone P Cheryl Cox, 'ayo ATTEST: D ~ Donna R. Norris, CM , Interim Crty Clerk STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CITY OF CHULA VISTA I, Donna R. Norris, Interim City Clerk of Chula Vista, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance No. 31.10 had its first reading at a regulaz meeting held on the 4th day of March 2008 and its second reading and adoption at a regulaz meeting of said City Council held on the 18th day of March 2008; and was duly published in summary form in accordance with the requirements of state law and the City Charter. Executed this 18th day of March 2008. ~ d Donna R. Norris, CMC, rim ity Clerk 11-21 S~WD BOARD OF DIRECTORS FEBRUARY 24, 2012 ~-TTP~CHMENT Z- AGENDA ITEM NO. 12-02- ACTION -APPROVE TransNet REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION File Number 1500100 IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FEE ADJUSTMENT Introduction The Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP), an element of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, requires the 18 cities and the County of San Diego to collect an exaction from the private sector for each new housing unit constructed in their jurisdiction. The RTCIP has been implemented in the San Diego region since July 1, 2008. The TransNet Extension Ordinance requires SANDAG to annually adjust the minimum RTCIP fee amount on July 1 of each year, based on an analysis of construction cost indices, but never less than 2 percent. The purpose of this annual adjustment is to ensure the RTCIP retains its purchasing power to improve the regional arterial system. Staff has evaluated construction cost trends and relevant indices, and based on this analysis, a 2 percent fee adjustment is recommended. This would raise the minimum RTCIP exaction from $2,123 to $2,165 beginning July 1, 2012. Discussion Background The purpose of the RTCIP is to help ensure future development contributes its proportional share of the funding needed to pay for the regional arterial system and related regional transportation faciliTy improvements, as defined in the most recent Regional Transportation Plan adopted by SANDAG. The RTCIP funding programs fall under the responsibility of the 19 local jurisdictions, which have established these programs under the state's Mitigation Fee Act. The jurisdictions must maintain their RTCIP funding programs and comply with specific administrative requirements in order to remain eligible for their TransNet local street and roads funding. Section 9 of the TransNet Extension Ordinance requires the RTCIP exaction to be increased annually in an amount not to exceed the percentage increase set forth in the Engineering Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record (ENR) or a similar cost of construction index. However, the Ordinance also states that in no event shall the increase be less than 2 percent per year. 11-22 analysis ®t C®nsfrcecti®n C®st indices The Ordinance allows for flexibility in choosing an appropriate index. SANDAG staff evaluated changes recorded in the Engineering Construction Cast Index published by the ENR and the Caltrans Construction Cost Index (CCI). Each index collects a different set of cost factors to determine construction cost trends. The ENR CCI represents an average from 20 cities across the nation and is based on price changes in four areas: lumber, cement, structural steel, and labor. Over the past year, the ENR CCI between February 2011 and January 2012 (latest available) has increased 1.93 percent. The Caltrans CCI is based on actual transportation project bid prices from throughout the state for earthwork, aggregate, concrete, asphalt, and steel. The Caltrans CCI has increased 9 percent over the past year. Based on staff's evaluation, the ENR CCI has more closely tracked the trends SANDAG has been experiencing in its project bid prices over the past year than the Caltrans CCI. Although over the past year the ENR CCI has recorded a 1.93 percent increase in price levels, the minimum adjustment allowed by the RTCIP Section of the TransNet Extension Ordinance is 2 percent. Staff's evaluation identified two trends that have affected construction costs over the past year. First, early in 2011, the effects of very low interest rates increased the demarid for non-labor construction related commodities, temporally pushing up their prices. As the year wore on, however, the demand for these construction commodities fell as economic grovvth sputtered, leaving commodity prices at the end of the year below the level recorded early in the year, but above the level recorded the previous year. A second factor affecting the ENR CCI was the relatively slower rate of growth in wages compared to construction commodities, keeping the ENR CCI below the Caltrans CCI, which does not include the price effects of changes in labor costs. r~ ~ ~S Y L. G LEGOS ecutive irector Key Staff Contacts: Marney Cox, (619) 699-1930, Marney.Cox@sandag.org Ariana zur Nieden, (619) 699-6961, Ariana.ZurNieden@sandag.org 1123 SA/VDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS AGENDA ITEM NO. 12-03-~ B MARCH 23, 2072 ACTION REQUESTED -APPROVE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DISCUSSION AND ACTIONS FEBRUARY 24, 2012 Chair Jerome Stocks (Encinitas) called the meeting of the SANDAG Board of Directors to order at 9:02 a.m. The attendance sheet for the meeting is attached. 1. APPROVAL OF MEETING MINUTES (APPROVE) Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Mark Lewis (EI Cajon), and a second by Mayor Mary Sessom (Lemon Grove), the Board of Directors approved the minutes from the January 27, 2012, meeting. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS/COMMUNICATIONS/MEMBER COMMENTS Joe Minervini, a member of the public, requested that SANDAG accelerate improvements to the intersection of Highway 67 and Dye Road. Arum Prem, Full Access & Coordinated Transportation (FACT), sought support for FACT's proposed application to the Federal Transit Administration for the Veteran's Transportation and Community Living grant program. Bill Figge, Deputy Director, Caltrans District 11, announced that bids were recently opened for the Interstate 15 (I-15) direct access ramp in Mira Mesa, and that the apparent low bid came in 5 percent below the Engineer's Estimate. 3. ACTIONS FROM POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEES (APPROVE) This item summarized the actions taken by the Borders Committee on January 27, the Executive and Regional Planning Committees on February 10, and the Transportation Committee on February 17, 2012. Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Sessom and second by Mayor Ron Morrison (National City), the Board of Directors approved the actions taken by the Policy Advisory Committees at the meetings noted above. Yes - 16 (weighted vote, 100%). No - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent -Carlsbad, Coronado, and Del Mar. Chair Stocks recused himself from voting on the Consent agenda and left the Board room. First Vice Chair Jack Dale (Santee) assumed chairing the meeting. 11-24 CONSENT ITEMS (4 through 11) 4. UCSD SUPERCOMPUTER CENTER AGREEMENT (APPROVE) Staff negotiated a scope of work for transportation Activity-Based Model (ABM) services with the San Diego Supercomputer Center at the University of California, San Diego (UCSD). This contract would utilize the cutting-edge computing resources and expertise at the Supercomputer Center to improve the ABM performance and execution. The Executive Committee recommended that the Board of Directors authorize the Executive Director to execute the UCSD Service Agreement, in substantially the same form as attached to the agenda report. 5. AMENDMENT TO FY 2012 BUDGET: RESOLUTION TO ACCEPT CALIFORNIA ENERGY COMMISSION FUNDS FOR REGIONAL PLUG-IN ELECTRIC VEHICLE READINESS (APPROVE) The Board of Directors was asked to adopt Resolution No. 2012-18, authorizing the Executive Director, on behalf of SANDAG, to enter into an Agreement with the California Energy Commission in order to prepare a regional electric vehicle readiness plan, supported by the creation of amulti-stakeholder working group named the San Diego Regional Electric Vehicle Infrastructure (REVI) Working Group, and to amend the FY 2012 Budget and Overall Work Program to complete the proposed project. 6. ENTERPRISE ARJIS PROJECT UPDATE (INFORMATION) This report provided an update on the Enterprise Automated Regional Justice Information System (ARJIS) project. The legacy ARJIS mainframe was officially retired as of December 1, 2011. 7. QUARTERLY INVESTMENT REPORT FOR PERIOD ENDING DECEMBER 31, 2011 (INFORMATION) The SANDAG Investment Policy requires that the Board of Directors be provided a quarterly report of investments held by SANDAG. This report included all money under the direction or care of SANDAG as of December 31, 2011. 8. QUARTERLY PROGRESS REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PROJECTS -OCTOBER THROUGH DECEMBER 2011 (INFORMATION) This quarterly report summarized the current status of major highway, transit, arterial, traffic management, and transportation demand management projects in the SANDAG five- year Regional Transportation Improvement Program for the period October to December 2011. 9. REPORT SUMMARIZING DELEGATED ACTIONS TAKEN BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR (INFORMATION) In accordance with SANDAG Board Policy Nos. 003 (Investment Policy), 017 (Delegation of Authority), and 024 (Procurement and Contracting-Construction), this report summarized certain delegated actions taken by the Executive Director since the last Board of Directors meeting. 1125 10. REPORTS ON MEETINGS AND EVENTS ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF SANDAG (INFORMATION) Board members provided brief reports orally or in writing on external meetings and events attended on behalf of SANDAG since the last Board of Directors meeting. 11. APPOINTMENT OF POLICY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS (INFORMATION) This item summarized the voting and advisory members appointed to the Borders, Executive, Public Safety, Regional Planning, and Transportation Committees as well as the Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs appointed by the SANDAG Chair. Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Jim Desmond (San Marcos) and second by Mayor Sessom, the Board of Directors approved Consent Items Nos. 4 through 11. Yes - 17 ; No - 0 ;Abstain - 0; Absent -Del Mar and Encinitas. Chair Stocks returned to the Board room and resumed chairing the meeting. CHAIR'S REPORT (12) 12. SUMMARY OF ANNUAL SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS RETREAT (INFORMATION) Chair Stocks provided a summary of the discussion at the annual SANDAG Board of Directors Retreat held on February 1-3, 2012. Council President Tony Young (City of San Diego) suggested that the Board consider including policymakers from the education sector on SANDAG. Action: This item was presented for information only. REPORTS (13 through 18) 13. FY 2012 TransNedTRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT REVENUE REVISIONS AND FY 2013 TO FY 2017 TRANSIT REVENUE ESTIMATES (APPROVE) By March 1 of each year, SANDAG provides revenue estimates for the upcoming fiscal year as well as a projection for the next four fiscal years to allow transit and local agencies to plan for capital projects and to determine operating subsidies. First Vice Chair Dale, Transportation Committee Chair, introduced the item. Sookyung Kim, Financial Programming Manager, and Marney Cox, Chief Economist, provided the staff report. The Transportation Committee recommended that the Board of Directors: (1) approve the revision to the TransNet revenue estimate and Transportation Development Act (TDA) apportionment for FY 2012; (2) approve the FY 2013 allocation for TransNet and the apportionments for TDA, State Transit Assistance, and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) revenues; and (3) approve the transit revenue estimates for FY 2014 to FY 2017 for TDA, FTA, and TransNet. 1126 Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Carrie Downey (Coronado) and second by Mayor Don Higginson (Poway), the SANDAG Board of Directors approved: (1) the revision to the TransNet revenue estimate and Transportation Development Act (TDA) apportionment for FY 2012; (2) the FY 2013 allocation for TransNet and the apportionments for TDA, State Transit Assistance, and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) revenues; and (3) the transit revenue estimates for FY 2014 to FY 2017 for TDA, FTA, and TransNet. Yes - 19 (weighted vote, 100%). No - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent -None. 14. FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FEDERAL FISCAL YEAR 2011 JOB ACCESS AND REVERSE COMMUTE AND NEW FREEDOM GRANTS (APPROVE) First Vice Chair Dale, Transportation Committee Chair, introduced the item. Brian Lane, Regional Planner, provided the staff report and the Transportation Committee recommendation that the Board of Directors approve the Job Access and Reverse Commute and New Freedom projects proposed for selection, as attached to the agenda report. Chair Stocks noted there was one request to speak on this item. Paul Jablonski, Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Transit System (MTS), stated that these funds are going to services for people who most need it. Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Downey and second by Supervisor Ron Roberts (County of San Diego), the Board of Directors approved the Job Access and Reverse Commute and New Freedom projects proposed for selection, as attached to the agenda report. Yes - 19 (weighted vote, 100%). No - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent -None. 15. FIRST READING OF AMENDMENTS TO ORDINANCE NO. CO-04-01 (SAN DIEGO TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM ORDINANCE AND EXPENDITURE PLAN) TO SWAP FUNDS ALLOCATED FOR TWO REVERSIBLE HIGH OCCUPANCY VEHICLE LANES ON A PORTION OF INTERSTATE 805 FOR A PORTION OF THE ACQUISITION COSTS OF THE STATE ROUTE 125 TOLL ROAD FRANCHISE LEASE AND RELATED ASSETS, AND TO EXTEND THE TIMEFRAME NECESSARY TO ALLOW A REGIONAL FUNDING BALLOT MEASURE TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE VOTERS (CONDUCT FIRST READING) First Vice Chair Dale introduced this item. Kim Kawada, TransNet and Legislative Affairs Program Director, provided the staff report. On December 16, 2011, the Board of Directors approved the acquisition and financing method for the State Route 125 (SR 125) asset purchase from South Bay Expressway, and directed staff to return with a proposed amendment to the TransNet Extension Ordinance to swap the funds allocated for two reversible high-occupancy-vehicle lanes on Interstate 805 between SR 905 and SR 54 for the acquisition of the SR 125 franchise lease. On December 9, 2011, the Board of Directors also directed staff to return with an Ordinance amendment to extend the timeframe to act on an additional regional funding measure from 2012 to no later than 2016. 11x27 Action: Upon a motion by Chair Stocks and second by Mayor Sessom, the Board of Directors waived reading of the proposed amendments to the TransNet Extension Ordinance as contained in the agenda report. Yes - 19 (weighted vote, 100%). No - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent -None. 16. ANNUAL REVIEW AND PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO BOARD POLICIES AND BYLAWS (APPROVE) John Kirk, General Counsel, discussed the significant changes being proposed to the Board Policies. He noted that the Executive Committee recommended that the Board of Directors approve the proposed amendments to Board Policies, attached to the agenda report, and renew the annual delegation of authority to the Executive Director pursuant to Board Policy No. 003: Investment Policy. Supervisor Bill Horn (County of San Diego) requested that this item be bifurcated to separate out the proposed amendments to Section 8.10.1 of Policy No. 003: Investment Policy, as he did not approve the proposed amendments related to investments with foreign banks. Mayor Sessom also asked that the proposed amendments to Policy No. 004: Rules of Procedure for Board of Directors, Policy Advisory Committees (PACs), and Other Legislative Bodies, be acted on separately, as she did not support the proposed changes to the authority of the Board or PAC Chairs concerning public comments. Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Downey and second by Mayor Art Madrid (La Mesa), the Board of Directors approved the proposed amendments to Board Policy Nos. 007, 009, 017, 018, 024, 031, and 034, as well as renewing the annual delegation of authority to the Executive Director pursuant to Board Policy No. 003: Investment Policy. Yes - 19 (weighted vote, 100%). No - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent - 0. Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Downey and second by Supervisor Roberts, the Board of Directors approved the proposed amendments to Board Policy No. 004: Rules of Procedure for Board of Directors, Policy Advisory Committees, and Other Legislative Bodies. Yes. - 13: Carlsbad, Coronado, County of San Diego, Del Mar, Encinitas, Escondido, Imperial Beach, National City, Oceanside, Poway, San Diego, Santee, and Vista (weighted vote, 82%). No - 6: Chula Vista, EI Cajon, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, San Marcos, and Solana Beach (weighted vote, 18%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent -None. Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Sessom and second by Second Vice Chair Jim Janney (Imperial Beach), the Board of Directors approved the proposed amendments to Board Policy Nos. 003: Investment Policy. Yes - 13: Chula Vista, Coronado, County of San Diego (A), DeI Mar, EI Cajon, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Poway, San Diego, and Santee (weighted vote, 72%). No - 6: Carlsbad, Escondido, Oceanside, San Marcos, Solana Beach, and Vista (weighted vote, 28%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent -None. 11528 17. PROPOSED MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING WITH THE CALIFORNIA HIGH-SPEED RAIL AUTHORITY AND OTHER SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES (APPROVE) First Vice Chair Dale stated that the Board of Directors was asked to authorize the Executive Director to execute a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the California High- speed Rail Authority (CHSRA) and other Southern California transportation agencies, in substantially the same form as attached to the report. The MOU outlines a process that would allow far up to $1 billion in early investments by the CHSRA for projects in the Southern California region that would improve the speed of existing regional rail services and improve interconnectivity with the future high-speed train system. These agencies have developed one master list of projects, which includes capacity and safety projects along the Los Angeles-San Diego-San Luis Obispo rail corridor in San Diego County. Action: Upon a motion by Councilmember Downey and second by Mayor Sessom, the Board of Directors authorized the Executive Director to execute an MOU with the CHSRA and other Southern California transportation agencies, in substantially the same form as attached to the agenda report. Yes - 19 (weighted vote, 100%). No - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent -None. 18. T~ansNet REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CONGESTION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FEE ADJUSTMENT (APPROVE) Second Vice Chair Janney introduced the item. Mr. Cox, Chief Economist, reported that the TransNet Extension Ordinance requires the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) fee charged by local jurisdictions be adjusted every year on July 1 in order to maintain the purchasing power of the program for improvements to the Regional Arterial System. The Board of Directors was asked to approve a 2 percent adjustment to the RTCIP, raising the minimum fee from $2,123 to $2,165 beginning July 1, 2012. Chair Stocks asked staff to include in next year's review of this issue the amount of each member jurisdiction's fees. Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Desmond and second by Supervisor Horn, the Board voted to postpone this item to the next Board of Directors meeting. Yes - 5: Carlsbad, Chula Vista, Del Mar, Escondido, and San Marcos (weighted vote, 29%). No - 13: County of San Diego (A), Ef Cajon, Encinitas, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, Oceanside, Poway, City of San Diego, Santee, Solana Beach, and Vista (weighted vote, 71%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent -Coronado. This motion failed. Action: Upon a motion by Mayor Cheryl Cox (Chula Vista) and second by Mayor Morrison, the Board of Directors approved a 2 percent adjustment to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, raising the minimum fee from $2,123 to $2,165 beginning July 1, 2012. Yes - 17 (weighted vote, 97%). No - 1: San Marcos (weighted vote, 3%). Abstain - 0 (weighted vote, 0%). Absent -Coronado. 1129 19. CONTINUED PUBLIC COMMENTS There were no other public comments at this time. 20. UPCOMING MEETINGS (INFORMATION) The next Board Policy meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 9, 2012, at 10 a.m. The next Board Business meeting is scheduled for Friday, March 23, 2012, at 9 a.m. 21. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 10:35 a.m. DGunn/M/DGU/Board of Directors Attachment: Attendance sheet 1130 Meeting Adjourned Time: 10:35 a.m. Meeting Start Time: 9:02 a.m. ATTENDANCE SANDAG BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING FEBRUARY 24, 2012 JURISDICTION/ ORGANIZATION NAME ATTENDING City of Carlsbad Matt Hall (Primary) Yes City of Chula Vista Cheryl Cox (Primary) Yes City of Coronado Carrie Downey (Primary) Yes City of Del Mar Terry Sinnott (1st. Alt.) Yes City of EI Cajon Mark Lewis (Primary) Yes City of Encinitas Jerome Stocks, Chair (Primary) Yes City of Escondido Sam Abed (Primary) _ Yes City of Imperial Beach Jim Janney, 2nd Vice Chair (Primary) Yes City of La Mesa Art Madrid (Primary) Yes City of Lemon Grove Mary Sessom (Primary) Yes City of National City Ron Morrison (Primary) Yes City of Oceanside Jack Feller (1st. Alt.) Yes City of Poway Don Higginson (Primary) Yes City of San Diego - A Lorie Zapf (1st Alt.) Yes City of San Diego - B Tony Young (Primary, Seat B) Yes City of San Marcos Jim Desmond (Primary) Yes City of Santee Jack Dale, 1st Vice Chair (Primary) Yes City of Solana Beach Mike Nichols (1st Alt.) Yes City of Vista Judy Ritter (Primary) Yes County of San Diego - A Ron Roberts (Primary, Seat A) Yes County of San Diego - B Bill Horn (Primary, Seat B) Yes Caltrans Bill Figge (2nd. Alt.) Yes MTS Harry Mathis (Primary) Yes NCTD Chris Orlando (Primary) Yes Imperial County Sup. John Benison (Primary) No US Dept. of Defense CAPT Clifford Maurer (Primary) Yes SD Unified Port District Lou Smith (Primary) Yes ~ SD County Water Authority Javier Saunders (Primary) No ~~ Baja California/Mexico Alberto Diaz (Alternate) Yes Southern California Tribal Allen Lawson (Co-Primary) Yes Chairmen's Association Edwin Romero (Co-Primary) No 11$31 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICPAL CODE SECTION 3.55.090 FOR THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES ANNUAL INFLATION ADJUSTMENT INDEX METHODOLOGY WHEREAS, the adoption of the City's General plan indicated that future growth was going to occur in the City west of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the traffic studies for the City's General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan show the City's transportation network will be impacted by new development within the western portion of the City unless new transportation facilities are added to accommodate the new development; and WHEREAS, since January 1988, the City has had a program in place for the collection of transportation development impact fees for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the "Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" (Engineer's Report) Program adopted on March 4, 2008 by Ordinances 3106 through 3110 establishes that the transportation facilities necessitated by development within the western portion of the City comprise an integrated network; and WHEREAS, the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) is solely based upon that portion of the project costs which aze attributable to new development; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed public hearing at which oral or written presentations regarding the WTDIF could be made; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code and California Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq., the City Council has accepted the Engineer's Report that analyzed the WTDIF necessazy to fund transportation facilities needed to serve future development within the western portion of the City; and WHEREAS, the WTDIF Program is subject to an annual inflation adjustment factor of 2% or based on the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, whichever is higher, effective every July 1st; and WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension. Ordinance requires the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to annually adjust the minimum Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) fee amount on July 1st of each year, based on an analysis of construction cost indices, but never less than 2%; and 11-32 Ordinance Page 2 WHEREAS, SANDAG has stated that the TransNet Extension Ordinance allows for flexibility in choosing an appropriate index; and WHEREAS, SANDAG staff evaluation of the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index 20-City Average has increased 1.93% while the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index has increased 9.38%, but on February 24, 2012, the SANDAG Board of Directors has approved a recommendation that al] RTCIP, an element of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, approve an annual inflation adjustment factor of 2%, which is the minimum inflation adjustment increase allowed by the TransNet Extension Ordinance; and WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2012 the WTDIF program was required to implement the higher annual inflation adjustment factor of 2% or the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index; which is at 9.38%; and WHEREAS, Chula Vista would like to amend the WTDIF annual inflation adjustment factor to be more consistent with the flexibility allowed in the TransNet Extension Ordinance and concurs with the action taken by the SANDAG Board of Directors that the ENR 20-City Average inflation adjustment factor of 1.93% for the year better represents the costs on local agencies and Chula Vista also concurs with the 2% minimum increase as required by the TransNet Extension Ordinance; and WHEREAS, City Council must take action to amend the Municipal Code to amend the annual construction inflation adjustment factor to be used as long as it is at least a 2% increase and as such would defer to the annual action taken by the SANDAG Board of Directors to choose the most appropriate inflation factor to use for the City of Chula Vista's WTDIF program. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section I. The City Council of the Ciry of Chula Vista does hereby amend Section's 3.55.090 A and B of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to transportation development impact fees to pay for various transportation facilities located on the west side of the City as follows: 3.55.090 Amount of fee. A. The fee shall be the amounts as set forth below in Table 1. The fee shall be adjusted on July Ist of each year beginning in 2009. The annual inflation adjustment will be two percent or based on the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index''°''•°°° °°~°'~~°'~°~ °°°' a~a°° or Engineering Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-City Average, or an increase of at least two percent •°'~~°'~°- °~ ~° '~~°''°~. The program collects two percent of the total improvement cost estimate for staff administration. 11-33 Ordinance Page 3 B. Adjustments of the fee based upon the annual inflation adjustment or the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, the ENR 20-City Average or an increase that is at least two percent shall be automatic in accordance with annual action taken by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors and shall not require further action by the City Council. The WTDIF may also be reviewed and amended by the City Council as necessary based on changes in the type, size, location or cost of the facilities to be financed by the fee; changes in land use designation in the City's General Plan; and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Section II. Effective Date This Ordinance amendment shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage. Section III. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented By: Approved as to form by: r Richard A. Hopkins /~~~(Glen R. Goo ~ - Director of Public Works ` City Attorney 11-34 i-}-~, ~ ~ tit Rye-visecl ardinance ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CI-IULA VISTA AMENDING CHULA VISTA MUNICPAL CODE SECTION 3.55.090 FOR THE WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ORDINANCES ANNUAL INFLATION ADJUSTMENT INDEX METHODOLOGY WHEREAS, the adoption of the City's General plan indicated that future growth was going to occur in the City west of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the traffic studies for the City's General Plan and the Urban Core Specific Plan show the City's transportation network will be impacted by new development within the western portion of the City unless new transportation facilities are added tco accommodate the new development; and WHEREAS, since January 1988, the City has had a progiam in place for the collection of transportation development impact fees for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805; and WHEREAS, the "Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" (Engineer's Report) Program adopted on March 4, 2008 by Ordinances 3106 through 3110 establishes that the transportation facilities necessitated by development within the western portion of the City comprise an iptegrated network; and WHEREAS, the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee.(WTDIF) is solely based upon that portion of the project costs which are attributable to new development; and WHEREAS, on March 4, 2008, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista held a duly noticed-public hearing at which oral or written presentations regarding the WTDIF could be made; and . WHEREAS, pursuant to the Municipal Code and California Government Code Sections 66000 et. seq., the City Council has accepted the Engineer's Report that analyzed the WTDIF necessary to fund transportation facilities needed to serve future development within the western portion of the City; and WHEREAS, the WTDIF Program is subject to an annual inflation adjustment factor of 2% or based on the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, whichever is higher, effective every July 1st; and WHEREAS, the TransNet Extension Ordinance requires the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) to annually adjust the minimum Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) fee amount on July Ist of each yeaz, based on an analysis of construction cost indices, but never less than 2%; and ' Ordinance Page 2 WHEREAS, SANDAL has- stated that the TransNet Extension Ordinance allows for flexibility in choosing an appropriate index; and WHEREAS, SANDAL staff evaluation of the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index 20-City Average has increased 1.93% while the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost ]ndex has increased 9.38%, but on February 24, 2012, the SANDAL Board of Directors has approved a recommendation that all RTCIP, an element of the TransNet Extension Ordinance, approve an annual inflation adjustment factor of 2%, which is the minimum inflation adjustment increase allowed by the TransNet Extension Ordinance; and WHEREAS, effective July 1, 2012 the WTDIF program was required to implement the higher, annual inflation adjustment factor of 2% or the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, which is at 9.38%; and WI-IEREAS, Chula Vista would like to amend the WTDIF annual inflation adjustment factor to be more consistent with the flexibility allowed in the TransNet Extension Ordinance and concurs with the action taken by the SANDAL Board of Directors that the ENR 20-City Average inflation adjustment factor of 1.93% for the year better represents the costs on local agencies and Chula Vista also concurs with the 2% minimum increase as required by the TransNet,Extension Ordinance; and WHEREAS, City Council must take action to amend the Municipal Code to amend the annual construction inflation adjustment factor to be used as long as it is at least a 2% increase and as such would defer to the annual action taken by the SANDAL Board of Directors to choose the most appropriate inflation factor to use for the City of Chula Vista's WTDIF program. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Cliula Vista does ordain as follows: Section I. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby amend Section's 3.55.090 A and B of the Chula Vista Municipal Code relating to transportation development impact fees to pay for various transportation facilities located on the west side of the City as follows: 3.55.090 Amount of fee. A. The fee shall be the amounts as set forth below in Table 1. 1'he fee shall be adjusted on July 1st of each year beginning in 2009. The annual inflation adjustment will be a minimum of two percent or greater based on the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index ~'•o a ~, or Engineering Construction Cost Index published by the Engineering News Record (ENR) 20-City Average, as determined in Section B below ~-~^~~^~- ~°'~~^'~^~ The program collects two percent of the total improvement cost estimate for staff administration. Ordinance Page 3 B. Adjustments of the fee based upon the annual inflation adjustment or the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index, the ENR 20-City Average or an increase that is at least two percent shall be automatic in accordance with annual action taken by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Board of Directors and shall not require further action by the City Council. The WTDIP may also be reviewed and amended by the City Council as necessary based on changes in the type, size, location or cost of the facilities to be financed by the fee; changes in land use designation in the City's General Plan; and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Section II. Effective Date This Ordinance amendment shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its firial passage. Section III. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented By: Richard A. Hopkins Director of Public Works Approved as to form by: l- Glen R. Goo ~i~~City Attorney