Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007/02/13 Item 4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ~f:.. CITY OF -~ CHULA VISTA 02/13/07 Item ~ ITEM TITLE: PUBLIC HE~RING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN ORDIN~CE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2892 RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOP~ENT IMP ACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO. RESOLUTIQN ACCEPTING A REPORT PREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT PLANNING AND FINANCING GROUP REcoMMErimING AN UPDATE OF THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES 'ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2892 RELATING TO PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPM~NT IMPACT FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO TO PAY FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS AS A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: CITY ENGIl'fEER .d') / INTERIM CITY MANAGER JI 4/5THS VOTE: YES NO X BACKGROUND The City Council established the original Otay Ranch Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee (Ped Bridge DIF) on Janu3ll"Y 5, 1999 by Ordinance 2767. The original Ped Bridge DIF was set up to fund the construction of a first bridge between Villages One and 4-1 02/13/07, Item~ Page 2 of5 Five over La Media Road ("North La iMedia Bridge"), half of a second bridge between Villages One and Two over Olympic Ilarkway ("West Olympic Pkwy Bridge"), and half of a third bridge between Villages Flive and Six also over Olympic Parkway ("East Olympic Pkwy Bridge"). On January t, 2003, by Ordinance No. 2892, the City Council amended the original Ped Bridge DIF 0 include Otay Ranch Village Six's fair share of bridge improvements of half of the East Olympic Pkwy Bridge and half of a fourth bridge over La Media Road between Villag~ Six and Two ("South La Media Bridge"). This fourth bridge completes a continuous IVillage Pathway loop between all four Villages. North La Media Bridge has been c~pleted by the McMillin Companies and is in service, West Olympic Pkwy Bridg~ and East Olympic Pkwy Bridge have been , completed by the Otay Ranch Compa1j.y and are in service. Otay Ranch Company, as part of Village Two development, will ~onstruct the South La Media Bridge. Tonight, Council will consider the adoJl>tion of an Ordinance to amend Pedestrian Bridge Ordinance No. 2892, to include Village!Two's fair share of bridge improvements. The fee is payable at issuance of building permils. The public hearing has been duly noticed. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coorditjator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California EnviroI1rnental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as ~efined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Sectipn 15060( c )(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. . RECOMMENDATION That Council: I. Conduct the Public Hearing; 2. Approve the Resolution acceptiqg the report prepared by Development Planning and Financing Group (Ped Bridge Report); 3. Adopt the Ordinance amending prdinance No. 2892 relating to Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee and A~ea of Benefit for Otay Ranch Villages One, Five, and Six to include Village Twol to pay for pedestrian bridge improvements as a condition of issuance of buildin~ permits (first reading); BOARDS/COMMISSION RECOM~ENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION Otay Ranch Village Two is located south of Olympic Parkway (Poggi Canyon), west of La Media Road, and north of Wolf Canyon. The Village Two tentative map requires the Developer to form a Pedestrian Bridge IDIF program or annex to an existing program's "Area Benefit" in order to complete the financing for their half of the two Pedestrian Bridges (the West Olympic Pkwy Brid~e and South La Media Bridge) and secure the 4-2 02/13/07, Item---=L- Page 3 of5 construction of both bridges prior to approval of the First Final "B" Map for Otay Ranch Village Two (See attached Exhibit 1 showing these bridges). The other halves of these bridges have been funded by the adjace~t projects: South La Media Bridge by Village Six and West Olympic Pkwy Bridge by Vi~ages One and Five. The original Ped Bridge DIF Ordinance 2767 covers Villages One at/.d Five. It was established to fund one full bridge (the now completed North La Media ~oad Bridge) and two half bridges, East Olympic Pkwy Bridge and the West Olympic PkivY Bridge. On January 7, 2003, by Ordinance N<il. 2892, City Council amended the original Ped Bridge DIF to include Otay Ranch Village Six's fair share of bridge improvements of half of the East Olympic Pkwy Bridge 4nd half of South La Media Bridge which was not identified in the original DIF ordinance! The balance as of January 9, 2007 in the DIF is about $1,746,247. Staff, together with Ithe Otay Ranch Company, is proposing to revise the existing modified DIF by expandipg the Area of Benefit to include Village Two. Funds collected at issuance of building permits in Village Two would be added to the balance and would contribute to the con~truction of all remaining bridges. There are two other bridges planned $thin the eastern territories. One over Eastlake Parkway, which will connect the pedestpan trail system within the Eastern Urban Center to the pedestrian trail system within Qtay Ranch Village II The second, over Hunte Parkway, will connect the pedestrian trail system within Otay Ranch Village II to a future pedestrian trail system within Qtay Ranch Village 10 (University Village). On February 18, 2003 by Ordinance No. 2~98, City Council approved the Pedestrian Bridge DIF for Otay Ranch Village 1 I to fim\nce the construction of these two bridges. This Ordinance was amended on August 2~, 2005 by Ordinance No. 3017 to account for construction costs increases of the pedestrian facilities. Pedestrian Bridge Report The original Pedestrian Bridge Developtnent Impact Fee Report (Report) was updated on December 17, 2002 to include Villag~ Six and construction of the South La Media Bridge, to revise the construction cos~ estimates for the other remaining bridges and establish the new fee. Development Pljuming and Financing Group, who also wrote the original report, prepared the updated Ri::port, dated February 6, 2007 to include Village Two. The Report was prepared at the ~xpense of the developers and has been reviewed by the City Attorney and the Engineeri4g Department. The Report is attached as Exhibit 3. The Report contains a revised total c<l>st estimate for the South La Media Bridge of $2,582,889 and the actual construction icost for West Olympic Pkwy and East Olympic Parkway Bridges: $2,663,045 and $1,6$2,312 respectively. The fee, payable at issuance of a building permit, will be $1,114 pe~ single-family detached (SFD) dwelling unit and $826 per multiple-family (MF) dwelling. This represents an increase in the fee from the current $783 SFD, $580 MF rates, established on December 17,2002. The report also outlines in greater detail the methodology used to develop the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee. In ilhort, the fee is based on people per household 4-3 , , ! factors similar to the Park ACqUisit~" n and Development fee ("PAD") as used in Municipal Code 17.10 where househo ds with larger numbers of people per household inure greater benefit than smaller hous holds. The people per household factors used for the Pedestrian Bridge Development Ifpact Fee are 3.52 for single-family detached dwellings and 2.61 for multifamily dielling units. The methodology has not changed with this amendment. , 02/13/07, Item-1- Page 4 of5 Area of Benefit , The Area of Benefit of the updated Ped IBridge DIF will include all of Villages One, Five, Six and Two (see Exhibit 2). There are approximately 1300 single-family units and 1425 multi-family units and 60 mixed-use $its in Village Two that would be subject to the new fees. ' I . Pedestrian Bridges and Village Connec*.Y.i!y The planned pedestrian bridges of Ota)l Ranch, Villages One, Five, Six, and Two are an integral part of the Village Pathway that forms a loop through these Villages. The Village Pathway provides pedestrians, bicycles! and carts with a route that is separated from the major roadways of this part of Otay ~anch. The bridges and the Pathway support the pedestrian orientation of these Village~' and tie them together with a continuous and safe way to cross the six lanes of Olym ic Parkway and La Media Road. Due to each individual bridge being part of a whole ystem, each Village derives a benefit from all the bridges in proportion to the number of nits in that Village. Therefore, by expanding the Ped Bridge DIF to include Village Two one overall bridge funding mechanism is created that spreads the cost more equitably an reflects the proportional benefit derived by each Village. ' MEETINGS WITH THE MASTER qEVELOPERS , I Staff has had meetings with the Otay ~anch Company to discuss the Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Program for qtay Ranch Village Two. The Developer does not object to the proposed modified Pedestrjan DIF. DECISION MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the property holdin$s of the City Council and has found no property holdings within 500 feet of the bound<1fies of the property, which is the subject of this action. FISCAL IMPACT The Ped Bridge Development Impact F 'e, as is the case for all of the City's Development Impact Fees, is maintained separately fr m the General Fund. The Developers have paid for all costs related to this update inclu ing the preparation of the Report. The fair share maintenance costs associated with all tay Ranch pedestrian bridges are funded by the Community Facilities Districts in which they are located. ! 4-4 02/13/07, Item~ Page SofS EXHIBITS: 1. Pedestrian Bridge Facility Map 2. Area of Benefit 3. Pedestrian Bridge DIF Report Prepared by: Boushra Salem, Senior civil Engineer, Engineering Department 4-5 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT MAP OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATIONS ~rt~La Media Bridge I I West Olympic Parkway Bridge I East Olympic P .j>. I en m X ::r: - OJ - -1 I1J -- o rlfl~1 ~ ... --- t:;;:::U.l.-:--...... D.-'4:~ "...... Il!l'~'~,. So;"';' I w -=.:!.. 6l_~~ lA'~.........." #-.~ .+-- .L~ J1l:=~ /P_.- .- ......./-. ....,=r:.. -- .~- ~ ---~~--------~-- . :::::r' ~-=._-,....--::.....---_._---~~ "', -~~_..";;..-:'.:;;:;.....~~-==~.-:.=~....;::;-',.,...,... '," """ I ...... m X -r.: - OJ - -i )D . o r~~_ =.:.~--.--- ,.....,.~- ......"-'1'... .'II!..... _. /Pmjoo-- ~ ---I PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT MAP OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VILLAGES 1,2,5 & 6 Village 2 Village 1 Village 5 liIi=~ J't=-- fIil,~~, K1~~ 111,: "'"'W"-'" #.........."11.. ">'I::::"" A.'_~ r__"_ -- .~w... . - .+..-.- t.:l ,-.---------.---.----- . ;....... -..._--_..~-_. ..-------..-.. . "" ~~s.::.=_:_'~~.~.,'::;:;;:..;,: ,..:~"Z:""~=~";J~ ExHIBIT 3 , , CITY ot CHULA VISTA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGEi DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT FOR OrA Y RANCH VILLAGE 2 FebrtLary 13,2007 P*pared by: Development Pl~ing & Financing Group 27127 CaUd Arroyo, Suite 1910 San Juan C~pistrano, CA 92675 4-8 CITY qF CHULA VISTA PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE D~VELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT INDEX DESCRIPTION PAGE 1. Background and Purpose of ~eport 2 2. Description of Pedestrian Br~dges and Cost Estimates 3 3. Area of Benefit 3 4. Development within the Areal of Benefit 5 5. Pedestrian Bridge Developm~nt Impact Fee Methodology 6 6. Implementation of Pedestriary Bridge Development Impact Fee 7 Map of Pedestrian Bridge Locati~ns Map of General Development PI~n , , Summary of Pedestrian Bridge ~evelopment Impact Fee Pedestrian Bridge Developmentllmpact Fee Ordinance Exhibit 1 Exhibit 2 Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4 Village 2 Februay 13, 2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page I 4-9 1. Background and Purpose of iRe port i The Pedestrian Bridge Development! Impact Fee Report ("Report") is being prepared at the request of Otay Project, LLCi ("Otay Ranch Company"). In connection with developing residential and non-residential property in Village 2, the Otay Ranch Company is currently conditioned or iwill be conditioned through the mapping process to construct two pedestrian bridges. It is the City of Chula Vista's ("City!') intent that Village 2 be annexed into the existing Pedestrian Bridge Development Imp~ct Fee District ("PBDIFD") adopted on January 5, 1999 for Villages I and 5 and modi~ed on December 17, 2002 to include Village 6 and that the cost of the additional two I pedestrian bridges be shared among the various beneficiaries of such bridges. The~. rpose of the Report is to determine an appropriate pedestrian bridge development impac fee based on the cost of the pedestrian bridges, the area of benefit, the type of land use d its corresponding benefit. The bridges described in this Report are considered an additional facility need of the City arising as a result of new development. Government CoUe Section 66000 requires that a City establish a reasonable relationship or "nexus'r between a development project or class of development projects, and the public I improvements for which a development impact fee is charged. To meet the requirements of Gover\unent Code 66000, the Report must demonstrate compliance with the following items: i o Identify the purpose of thei fee; o Identify the use to which tlJ.e fee will be put; o Determine how there is a! reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed (i.e., a "type" nexus); and o Determine how there is l' reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the pe of development project on which the fee is imposed (i.e., a "burden" exus). In addition, when a city imposes a fee as a condition of developmeqt approval, it must determine how there is a reasonable relationship bdtween the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion bf that facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. ' Government Code Section 66000 ajIso requires that a public agency segregate and account for the fees received separat~ from the general fund. Additionally, if a public agency has had possession of a d~eloper fee for five years or more and has not committed or expended the funds for ia public facility, then the public agency must make a finding describing the continuing n~ed for the fees each fiscal year after the five year period has expired. Village 2 Februay 13, 2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 2 4-10 2. Description of Pedestrian Bridges and Cost Estimates The pedestrian bridges included withinl this Report are described as follows: (i) South La Media and (ii) West Olympic Parkway] The North La Media which is part of the existing PBDIFD has been completed and fullYlfunded. The East Olympic Parkway Bridge which is also part of the PBDIFD is near fompletion and sufficient funding is in place to reimburse the Otay Ranch Company f~r the construction. The location of each bridge is depicted on the map attached to this ~eport as Exhibit I. Also, included on the map in Exhibit 1 is the Village I, 2, 5 and 6 p~thway systems and its linkage with the pedestrian bridges described in this Report. A sJjmmary of the total estimated cost of constructing each bridge remaining to be constructe~, including soft cost are summarized as follows: , South La West Olympic Media Bridee Pky. Bridee Total Hard & Soft Cost I $2582889 $2 663 045 The preliminary cost estimate for the! South La Media Bridge was prepared by Simon Wong Engineering. The West Olympic Parkway Bridge is near completion and near final costs are assumed. The two Ibridges will be constructed using cast-in-place reinforced concrete. Aesthetic featur~s include columns and abutments with simulated stone fascia, rectangular columns with a 2-way taper, walkway accent lighting and concrete stain on exposed concrete surJ\aces. The South La Media Bridge is planned to be 13 feet wide with a 10 foot wide wal~ay, a total vertical clearance of 18 feet 6 inches, and 474 feet in length. The West Oly~pic Parkway Bridge is planned to be 17 feet wide and 450 feet in length. A hard cost cimtingency factor of 25% has been applied to the South La Media Bridge. The design cost includes the cost of ~reparing design-related plans, including the cost associated with checking and revie~ing such plans. The construction and special inspection cost includes the City inspe~tion cost and the cost of retaining an outside firm with special experience in bridge insp~ctions. The project administration cost includes the City's cost associated with verifyIng and auditing bridge expenditures and related documentation. The program administtation cost includes the City's cost associated with monitoring and updating this fee progr~m including, but not limited to, tracking building permits and changes in land use, colle4ting the fee, and revising cost estimates to ensure the adequacy of this fee program. ' 3. Area of Benefit The Otay Ranch Villages 1,2,5 and 6iSectional Planning Areas ("SPA's") Plan - Parks, Recreation, Open Space, and Trails ~aster Plan has been designed, in part, to promote the use of transit (bus and light rail), Pfdestrian and bicycle trails as alternatives to using an automobile to access the village cor~ and to neighboring SPA's which will serve as the commercial hub for Villages I, 2, 5 aIjd 6. Village 1 and 5 have been developed with a village core and Village 2 is planned t~ contain village core land use components similar to Village 6. A map depicting the G~neral Development Plan land uses, including the village core of Villages I and 5, Village 2 and Village 6 is enclosed in Exhibit 2. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 3 4-11 Pedestrian trails have also been desi~ned to provide access to schools, parks, residential neighborhoods, and open space wIthin villages, as well as between SPA's. The pedestrian bridges described in this j Report are an integral part of the pedestrian trail system for the system to operate as ddsigned. The South La Media Bridge cross~s La Media Road about equal distance between Olympic Parkway and Birch Road. i This bridge serves to connect the pedestrian trail system in Village 6 to the planned p9destrian trail system in Village 2. Village 2 is also planned to have its own pedestrian rail system serving its village core, schools, parks, neighborhoods, and open space. L~d within Villages 2 and 6 will benefit from the installation of this bridge primarily dtje to: (i) its location and proximity to the bridge, and (ii) its ease of access to the bridge ba~ed on the trail configuration. The West Olympic Parkway Bridge !crosses Olympic Parkway between Heritage Road and La Media Road and serves to 40nnect the existing pedestrian trail system within Village I to the planned pedestrian ~ail system within Village 2. Land within Village I and Village 2 will benefit from the !installation of this bridge primarily due to: (i) its location and proximity to the bridge, ~nd (ii) its ease of access to the bridge based on the trail configuration. A summary of the two pedestrian bri1ges and the three areas of benefit ("AOB") based on the discussion above are as follows. South La West Olympic Media Bridl!:e Pkv. Bridl!:e Village 2 AOB AOB Village I and 5 AOB Village 6 AOB 4. Development within the Are~ of Benefit The property within the AOB des~ribed in this Report is in various stages of the entitlement process. Property within jthe AOB has development approvals ranging from General Plan Designation to complqted homes. An "A" Map allows the transfer of ownership of individual neighborhoo~ areas. A "B" Map functions as a final map and allows property owners to obtain bui*ing permits and create individual lots. The current entitlement status and land use for pnjPerty within the AOB by ownership, is as follows: Otay Ranch Company: .. Villal!:e I: This area is coJinplete and consists of 2,786 residential units, with approximately 1,565 singl~-family units and 1,221 multi-family units. .. Villal!:e 5: This area is coJinplete and consists of 1,326 residential units, with approximately 944 single-~amily units and 382 multi-family units. .. Villal!:e 6: This area is neat completion and consists of 443 single-family units and 1,048 multi-family uni(ts. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 4 4-12 ~ Village 2: Has an approv~d tentative tract map. The land uses in the tentative tract map consist of apprqximately 2,785 residential units, with approximately 1,300 single-family units, 1 1,425 multi-family units and 60 mixed use units. , McMillin: ~ Village 5: The development of this area is completed and consists of 1,526 residential units, 2.8 acre~ of commercial, 13.5 acres of parks and a 10 acre school site. ~ Village 6: This area is ccpmplete and consists of 482 single-family units and 212 multi-family units, III acres of community purpose facility, and a 37.6 acre school site. The approved tentative tract map lan4 uses for Village 2 for residential dwelling units and non-residential acres and the remainipg units are described in greater detail in Exhibit 3. The land use assumptions in Exhibit ~ will serve as the basis for allocating the benefit of the remaining pedestrian bridges iIil determining the pedestrian bridge development impact fee in this Report. The residential land uses within Vill~ge 2 will have different degrees of benefit from the installation of the pedestrian bridges.1 Residential units containing larger square footage will typically hold more people PCil' household than the residential units containing smaller square footage. As such, r~sidential units with a larger number of people per household will inure greater benefit !from using the pedestrian trail system and its two bridges than residential units with a $maller number of people per household. The City utilizes people per household factor~ ("PPHF") in determining the amount of parkland dedication required by new developIjoent projects pursuant to City Ordinance, Chapter 17.10, as modified and approved onlNovember 12, 2002. The PPHF used in Chapter 17.1 0 can serve as a reasonable m4thod of allocating the bridge benefit to different residential uses. Chapter 17.10.040 applies PPHF to the following residential uses: 3.52 2.61 er household er household , F or purposes of clarification and the ~ase of program administration, we have developed the following definitions for the abov~ mentioned residential land use categories: "SFD" means a single residential unit!on a single assessor's parcel in within a tract with a density of less than or equal tol8 residential units per acre. "MF" means any residential unit witJllin a tract with a density greater than 8 residential units per acre or any residential! unit within a mixed-use project. For purposes of allocating the bridg~ benefit to different types of residential uses, the PPHF's described in the preceding 1able were used in this Report. The Otay Ranch Company has provided, as noted in !Exhibit 3, the estimated residential product types anticipated to be developed for each planning area. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 5 4-13 The non-residential property consis~ing of mixed use, community purpose facility, schools, and parks is considered to in\lre insignificant benefit from the installation of the two bridges. A small number of en:)ployees related to the mixed use and community purpose facility uses may utilize the pj:destrian trail system and its two bridges for fitness and recreation purposes during and after work hours, however the degree of this use and benefit inured to these types of properties is considered immaterial and insignificant. The school and park uses are designed to ~erve and accommodate the residential users in the villages. These land uses do not gene~ate pedestrian trail users, instead their purpose is to serve or accommodate the residential users in the villages. As such, non-residential component of mixed use, community purpose facility, school and park uses within Village 2 are considered exempt from the pedestrian bridge fee obligation described in this Report. 5. Pedestrian Bridge Developm~mt Impact Fee Methodology The Steps or methodology used to de'1e1op the pedestrian bridge development impact fee applicable to residential units within \lillage 2 is as follows: Step I: Determine the total cOl1istruction cost estimate for each of the remaining bridges. Step 2: Determine the amount of!available funds from the existing PBDIFR and any funds remaining in the constructidn funds of Community Facilities District No. 99-1, 2001-2 and 08-1. Step 3: Subtract from the total ~onstruction cost estimate in Step I the available funds determined in Step 2 to det~rmine for each bridge the net bridge cost estimate allocable to Village 2. Step 4: For each bridge and corresponding AOB, determine the total number of people per planning area by mul~iplying the actual and/or planned residential units within the planning area by the aPJPlicable PPHF. Step 5: For each bridge and cor:esponding AOB, determine the total number of people within the AOB by summi*g the results of each planning area from Step 4. Step 6: For each bridge and corre~ponding AOB, determine the bridge cost allocable to a planning area by multiplying ithe applicable bridge cost in Step 4 by the fraction obtained by dividing the total nur(nber of people per planning area as determined in Step 4 by the total number ofpeo~le within the AOB as determined in Step 5. Step 7: For each bridge and cOljresponding AOB, determine the applicable bridge cost per residential unit by dividiJIlg the bridge cost allocable to the planning area as determined in Step 6 by the actual and/or planned residential units within each planning area. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 6 4-14 Step 8: For each bridge and corr~sponding AOB, determine the combined cost of all bridges per residential unit by aggregating the results of Step 7 for all bridges and related AOB. Exhibit 3 outlines on a detailed baiSis the methodology used to calculate the pedestrian bridge development impact fee ap~licable to residential units within Village 2. 6. Implementation of Pedestria~ Bridge Development Impact Fee The City Council may periodicall~ review the adequacy of the pedestrian bridge' development impact fee established i$ this Report and the attached Ordinance. The City Council, by resolution, may adjust t!he amount of this pedestrian bridge development impact fee, as necessary, to reflect changes in: (i) the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index, (ii) the coJt of the pedestrian bridges, and (iii) the land use assumptions used in this Report. the pedestrian bridge development impact fee is required to be paid upon the issuance ~f a building permit. A developer may request authorizati~m from the City to construct one or more of the pedestrian bridges. Upon application by a developer to construct a pedestrian bridge, an agreement shall be prepared for City Council action which contains at least the following information and requirements: a) A detailed description oftIte project, including a preliminary cost estimate; b) The developer shall: (i) prepare plans and specifications for approval by the City, (ii) secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the project, (iii) secure all required perrriits, environmental clearances necessary for the construction of the project, (iv) provide performance bonds, and (v) pay all City fees and costs; . c) The developer shall advanfe all necessary funds to construct the project. The City will not be responsibl~ for any construction costs beyond those agreed to in advance by the City of*yond any change orders approved by the City; d) The developer shall secure,at least three (3) qualified bids for the construction. Any extra work charg~s during construction shall be justified and documented; e) When all work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City, the developer shall submit v~rification to the City of payments made for the construction. The City Manager shall make the final determination on expenditures eligible for credit or cash reimbursement; f) The City shall inspect all! construction and verify quantities, in accordance with the City and state co~e, to ensure the final improvement complies with all applicable standards apd is constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer; , Village 2 Februay 13, 2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 7 4-15 g) The developer will receiv~ a credit against the required development impact fees during the issuance o~ building permits for the proposed development. If the total construction c~st amounts to more than the total required development impact fees, ithe developer will be paid the excess cash when funds are available as deterimined by the City Manager. The revised ordinance attached hereip as Exhibit 4 addresses, among other things, the developer construction of the pedestrian bridge(s), the pedestrian bridge development impact fee, the procedure for waiverl or reduction of the development impact fee, and exemptions. With the adoption of tjIe pedestrian bridge development impact fee, the following development impact fees id4ntified in Exhibit 4 would apply. Village 2 Februay 13,2007 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report Page 8 4-16 EXHIBIT 1 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT MAP OF PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE LOCATIONS North La Media Bridge East Olympic P .j>. I ~ -.j (/) r~''l......i~' =:,.:.-...... Cl =::t..-,. iiIl=:;'.. m =- w!:.'.a. fLil= 3A--""'-'7"rP'-,--", .~~ J&:::::-- /r.:J';.~;::'7"'" ....~_... ""'".;,- ~J *;:::0- ..-- ~:;... 7a€:;~::~-*~:=~~==--===-- EXHIBIT 2 PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT MAP OF GENERAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR VILLAGES 1, 2, 5 & 6 @ iL"LJ'i =.:.~-- Village 2 Village 1 Village 5 eHills Vill e of Heritage .j:>. I ~ CD Cl~-" M~.. El'l..-i.,----" o =:;a [i.l ~~ p.~~.~ y..,""'........~ ....., _. ~=- /"..-........ i __. ..-. -:...... -- .~- .+--- ~;... s;'~~-::.':"~::.~-;;t;'".3-=---...:=.::::;:&. 4-19 EXHIBIT 3 CALCULATION OFPEDEST~IAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE WEST OLYMPIC PARKWAY BRIDGE Total Persons No. of per Persons per Cost per Planning Product Household Household Planning Cost per Area Type Density ---lif-- Acres Factor (1). (2) Area Unit (2) (3) Village Two: (Olay Ranch Company) R-4 SFD 3.9 160 41.50 3.52 563.2 $ 90,505 $ 566 R-5 SFD 8.3 130 15.70 3.52 457.6 73,535 566 R-6 SFD 5.0 63 12.60 3.52 221.8 35,636 566 R-7 SFD 4.7 44 9,40 3.52 154.9 24,889 566 R-8 SFD 5.0 50 10.10 3.52 176.0 28,283 566 R-9 SFD 7.5 101 13.50 3.52 355.5 57,131 566 R-15 SFD 4.6 37 8.00 3.52 130.2 20,929 566 R-17 SFD 8.7 119 13.70 3.52 418.9 67,313 566 R-18A SFD 5.9 65 11.10 3.52 2288 36,767 566 R-18S SFD 4.3 48 11.10 3.52 169.0 27,151 566 R-19 SFD 7.7 83 10.80 3.52 292.2 46,949 566 R20 SFD 4.3 83 19.50 3.52 292.2 46,949 566 R-21 SFD 2.8 62 21.80 3.52 218.2 35,071 566 R-23 SFD 5.3 71 13.50 3.52 249.9 40,161 566 R-24 SFD 5.1 41 8.00 3.52 144.3 23,192 566 R-25A SFD 7.6 34 4.50 3.52 119.7 19,232 566 R-258 SFD 6.9 34 4.90 3.52 119.7 19,232 566 R-26 SFD 8.3 75 9.00 3.52 264.0 42,424 566 R-10 MF 27.3 90 3.3 2.61 234.9 37,748 419 R-11 MF 14.7 ,144 9.8 2.61 375.8 60,396 419 R-12 MF 12.5 ~95 23.6 2.61 770.0 123,729 419 R-13 MF 14.3 H49 10,4 2.61 388.9 62,493 419 R-14 MF 20.9 146 7.0 2.61 381.1 61,235 419 R-16 MF 29.6 ' 74 2.5 2.61 193.1 31,037 419 R-27 MF 14.7 H10 7.5 2.61 287.1 46,136 419 R-28 MF 16.3 85 5.2 2.61 221.9 35,651 419 R-29 MF 25.8 152 5.9 2.61 396.7 63,752 419 R-30 MF 17.5 180 10.3 2.61 469.8 75,495 419 MU-1 MU 5.6 10 1.8 2.61 26.1 4,194 419 MU-2 MU 5.0 12 2,4 2.61 31.3 5,033 419 MU-3 MU 8.8 38 4.3 2.61 99.2 15,938 419 C-1 Com'l 0.0 12.5 0.0 NIA N/A Total. Village Two 2.185 345.2 8,451,9 $ 1,358,187 4-20 EXHIBIT 3 SUMMARY OF PED~STRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PER UNIT West South Olympic La Media Parkway Bridge Bridge Total Village Two: SFD - Fee per Unit $549 $566 $1.1141 MF - Fee per Unit $407 $419 $8261 i 4-21 EXHIBIT 3 CIT)f OF CHULA VISTA PEDESTRIA/'l BRIDGE COST ESTIMATE South La Media West Olympic East Olympic Bridqe Pkwy Bridge (a) Pkwy Bridge (a) Total Hard Costs: Construction Cost $ 1,150,000 $ Approach Ramps 150,OpO Mobilization @ 10% 115,000 Contingency @ 25% 353,71'0 Total Hard Costs $ 1, 768, 7~0 $ Soft Costs: Design Cost $ 351,000 $ Construction & Special Inspection Cost @ 15% 265,313 Project Admin. (Audit) @ 2% 35,3V5 Program Admin. @ 5% 88,4~8 Contingency @ 10% 74'01~ Total Soft Costs $ 814,1~~ $ Total Hard & Soft Cost $ 2,582,8~!L $ 2,663,045 $ 1,682,312 $ 6,928,246 Less: Funds Available for Bridge CFD 08-1 $ $ $ (915,134) $ (915,134) CFD 08-1 (158 Additional Units) (91,640) (91,640) CFD 2001-2 (513,586) (513,586) CFD 99-1 (832,678) (832,678) Pedestrian Bridge DIF Fund (1,265,616) (472,180) (161,952) (1,899,747) Remaining Bridge Cost $ 1,317,273 (b) $ 1,358,187 (b) $ $ 2,675,461 Footnotes: (a) Based on actual costs incurred by The Otay Ranch Company to construct bridge. (b) Village 2 to fund approximately one-half of the $outh La Media Bridge and the West Olympic Parkway Bridge. 4-22 RESOLUTIoN NO. 2007- RESOLUTION OF THJ<: CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING A REPORTlpREPARED BY DEVELOPMENT , PLANNING AND FINAN~ING GROUP RECOMMENDING AN UPDATE OF THE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACt FEE AND AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILl:,AGES ONE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWQ. WHEREAS, in connection Mth developing residential and non-residential property in Otay Ranch Village 2, Qtay Project, LP ("Developer") has requested an update of the City's Pedestrian Bridgel Development Impact Fee ("Ped Bridge DIF") for Otay Ranch Villages One, Five and Si~, to included Village 2; and, WHEREAS, the City Council ~stablished the original Ped Bridge DIF on January 5, 1999, by Ordinance No. 2767, w~ich was set up to fund the construction of the pedestrian bridge facilities within OtaylRanch Villages One and Five; and, WHEREAS, on January 7, 20Q3, by Ordinance No. 2892, City Council amended the original Ped Bridge DIF to includ~ Otay Ranch Village Six to pay its fair share to fund the construction of the pedestrian bridge facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council will consider the approval of an update to the Ped Bridge DIF to expand the area of benelfit to include Village Two and assure that funding will be collected at issuance of buildipg permits in Village Two for the completion of four bridges (North La Media Bridg~, West Olympic Parkway Bridge, East Olympic Parkway Bridge and South La Media Bridge) as the Otay Ranch Villages build out; and, WHEREAS, Development Plapning & Financing Group has prepared a report, entitled "City of Chula Vista PedestriaJil Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch Village 2," dated February 13,12007 (the "Report") regarding updating the Ped Bridge DIF to include Village 2; and WHEREAS, the Report incllldes the following definitions: (i) single-family detached ("SFD") dwelling unit mearls a single residential unit on a single assessor's parcel in within a tract with a density lof less than or equal to eight residential units per acres; and (ii) multiple-family ("MF")'dwelling means any residential units with density greater than eight residential units per acre or any residential unit within a mixed-use project; and, WHEREAS, the Report prop~ses the adjustment of the Ped Bridge DIF from $827 to $1,114 per SFD and from $58d to $826 per MF; and, 4-23 WHEREAS, the Report provi<lles that the City Council may periodically review the adequacy of the Impact Fee and,: at such reviews, may adjust the amount of this Impact Fee as necessary to assure cbnstruction and operation of the Facilities. The reasons for which adjustments may be jnade include, but are not limited to, the following: (i) changes in the costs of the Facilitie$ as may be reflected by such index as the Council deems appropriate, such as the Eng,neering-News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI); (ii) changes in the cost of pedestrian bridges; type, size, location or cost of the Facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee; (iii) changes in the land use assumptions used in the Report; and (iv) other soun~ engineering, financing and planning information. Adjustments to the above Impact Fee iIDay be made by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule. NOW, THEREFORE, BE ITiRESOLVED that the City Council of the City Of Chula Vista does hereby accept the re~ort titled: "City Of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for cj)tay Ranch Village 2", dated, February 13, 2007, prepared by Development Planning & Financing Group, a copy of which shall be kept on file in the City Clerk's Office. Presented by Approved as to form by Scott Tulloch City Engineer .~~~ H:\ENGINEER\RESOS\Resos2007\02-13-07\Resolution t? Accept Report for OR V2.doc 4-24 ORDIN~CE NO. ORDINANCE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 2892 RELATING TO PED~STRIAN BRIDGE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE AND! AREA OF BENEFIT FOR OTAY RANCH VILLAGES pNE, FIVE, AND SIX TO INCLUDE VILLAGE TWO TO PAY FOR PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IMPROVEMENTS A$ A CONDITION OF ISSUANCE OF BUILDING PERMITS. WHEREAS, the City's Gener8i1 Plan Land Use and Public Facilities Elements require that adequate public facilities ~e available to accommodate increased population created by new development; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that new development within certain areas within the City of Chul~ Vista as identified in this ordinance, will create adverse impacts on certain existing public facilities which must be mitigated by the financing and construction of those facl1ities identified in this ordinance; and WHEREAS, developers of la1Jtd within the City are required to mitigate the burden created by their development by constructing or improving those facilities needed to provide service to their respecti ve d~velopments or by the payment of a fee to finance their portion of the total cost of such fablities; and WHEREAS, development within the City contributes to the cumulative burden on pedestrian facilities in direct relationship to the amount of population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the development; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Otfiy Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) is to organize land uses based upon a vqlage concept to produce a cohesive, pedestrian friendly community, encourage non, vehicular trips and foster interaction amongst residents; and WHEREAS, a component ~f the Otay Ranch circulation system is a comprehensive trail system to prdvide for non-vehicular alternative modes of transportation; and WHEREAS, the Otay Ranch Gbp requires a non-auto circulation system, such as pedestrian walkways and bike paths" shall be provided between villages and, where appropriate and feasible, grade sep<(rated arterial crossings should be provided to encourage pedestrian activity between ~illages; and 4-25 Ordinance No. Page 2 WHEREAS, the City Councilladopted the Otay Ranch Villages One and Five Pedestrian Bridge Development Impac~ Fee ("Impact Fee") by Ordinance 2767 ("Ped Dif Bridge Ordinance") in order to pay fot pedestrian bridge facilities that will serve Otay Ranch Villages One and Five; and, WHEREAS, the City Council ~mended the original Ped Bridge DIF Ordinance 2767 on January 7, 2003, by Ordinance 2892, to include Otay Ranch Village Six to pay for its fair share of bridge improvemerjts as a condition of issuance of building permits; and, WHEREAS, the Conditions of lAp pro val for Otay Ranch Village Two tentative map require that a funding mechanisIin be established to pay for one-half of Village Two's fair share of bridge improvemenls; and WHEREAS, pedestrian faciliti~s have been built, or are proposed, that will directly connect Villages One, Five, SiX and Two including a continuous village pathway and cartpath system. The pedestrian falCilities cross major streets and their use would be encouraged and facilitated by the provdion of over-crossings of these major streets; and WHEREAS, the completion of the pedestrian bridges in Village Two will complete the linkage of the pedestrian facilities in Villages One, Five, Six and Two, serving to enhance overall pedestrian Elccess in and among these villages and would be facilitated by including the funding fot the construction of the bridges required by the Village Two tentative map in current I1npact Fee program by: I) amending the per unit fees payable at issuance of a building ~ermit; 2) revising the facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee; and 3) revising the territory to which the Impact Fee is applicable to include Village Two; and WHEREAS, the original Ped Bridge DIF Ordinance used the persons per dwelling unit rates established in Secti~n 17.10.040 of Chula Vista Municipal Code for the various residential land use categqries in deriving the Equivalence Dwelling Unit ratio upon which the Impact Fee is based; and, WHEREAS, the person per dw~lling unit rates for Parkland Dedication in Sec. 17.10.040 were modified by Ordinance,No. 2886. The rates for single family went from 3.22 persons per unit to 3.52 persons li'er unit and the multiple-family rates went from 2.21 persons per dwelling units to 2.61 persons per unit. The attached, cluster housing or planned unit development and the dupl~x categories were deleted from Sec. 17.10.040; and WHEREAS, Otay Ranch, Villag~s One, Five, Six and Two are those areas of land within the City of Chula Vista surround~d by Telegraph Canyon Road, Otay Lakes Road, Heritage Road, Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, Birch Road, and State Route 125. This area is shown on the map marked Exhibit "2," and included as an attachment to the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge pevelopment Impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch 4-26 Ordinance No. Page 3 Village Two, dated February 13, 2007"on file in the Office of the City Engineer; and WHEREAS, City Engineerin$ Staff has approved the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report dated November 6, 1998; the updated Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch Village Six dated December 17, 2002; and the updated Bedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Village Two dated February 13,2007 (the "Report"); and WHEREAS, the Report, recommends pedestrian over-crossing facilities needed for pedestrian access, and establishes a, fee payable by persons obtaining building permits for developments within Otay Ranch iVillage Two benefiting from the construction of these facilities; and WHEREAS, there are four Pe~estrian Over Crossings (POC) proposed for the Otay Ranch Villages One, Five, Six Imd Two: North La Media Bridge POC between Villages One and Five, South La Med* Road POC between Villages Six and Two, West Olympic Pkwy Bridge POC between Villages One and Two, and East Olympic Parkway Bridge POC between Villages Five anc\ Six; and WHEREAS, the Environmenta' Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the Califqrnia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "P~oject" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuaht to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to,CEQA. WHEREAS, on February 13, M07, a public hearing was held before the City Council to provide an opportunity for iinterested persons to be heard on the approval of the Report and establishment of the ImjJact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City Council ~etermined, based upon the evidence presented at the Public Hearing, including, but not limited to, the Report and other information received by the City Council in the coprse of its business, that imposition of the Impact Fee on all developments within Otay Rianch Villages One, Five, Six and Two in the City of Chula Vista is necessary in order to protect the public safety and welfare and to ensure effective implementation of the City's Cfeneral Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the amount of the Impact Fee levied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providing the public facilities identified by the report. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Counciliofthe City ofChula Vista does ordain as follows: SECTION I. Environmental Review 4-27 Ordinance No. Page 4 The Environmental Review Cqordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Enviro/llllental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the activity is not a "Project" as idefined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Sect/on 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. SECTION 2. Acceptance of Reports The City Council has reviewed the proposed Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Report for Otay Ranch Village Two, dated February 13, 2007, and has accepted the same, by Resolution No. , in the form on file in the Office of the City Clerk; the City Council previo1Jsly reviewed, accepted and adopted Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Rep~rts, dated November 6, 1998, and December 17, 2002 (collectively, the "Reports"). SECTION 3. Facilities The facilities to be financed by the Impact Fee are fully described in the Reports and incorporated herein by this reference, ("Facilities"), all of which Facilities may be modified by the City Council from tim~ to time by resolution. The locations at which the Facilities will be constructed are sho~n on Exhibit" 1" of the approved 2002 and 2007 Reports. The City Council may modif)l or amend the list of projects herein considered to be part of the Facilities by written resolution in order to maintain compliance with the City's Capital Improvement Program, or to reflect changes in land development and estimated and actual pedestrian generatIon. SECTION 4. Territory to Which Fee Is Applicable The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the Impact Fee herein established shall be applicable is set forth on Ethibit "2" of the 2002 and 2007 Reports and is generally described herein as the "Terri~ory." SECTION 5. Purpose The purpose of this ordinance lS to establish the Impact Fee in order to provide the necessary financing to construct t~ Facilities within the areas shown in Exhibit" I" of the Report, in accordance with the City's General Plan. SECTION 6. Establishment of Fee The Impact Fee, to be based 0/1 a per Equivalent Dwelling Unit ("EDU") basis, and payable prior to the issuance ofbu!lding permits for residential development projects within the Territory, is hereby establis~d to pay for the Facilities. 4-28 Ordinance No. Page 5 SECTION 7. Due on Issuance of Buildlng Permit The Impact Fee shall be paid ir!1 cash upon the issuance of a residential building permit. Early payment is not permitted., No building permit shall be issued for residential development projects subject to this ordinance unless the developer has paid the Impact Fee imposed by this ordinance. SECTION 8. Determination ofEquival~nt Dwelling Units Residential land uses shall be converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units for the purpose of this fee based on the followil1g table: Land Use Reople per household EDU's Single Family ("SFD") . 3.52 I Multi Family ("MF") 2.61 0.74 Fe~ by Land Use "Single family" shall mean a residential unit within a subdivision, planning area or neighborhood with a net density of 8 units per acre or less as shown on the approved tentative map for said subdivision, pl~ing area or neighborhood. "Multi-Family" shall mean a resid~ntial unit within a subdivision, planning area or neighborhood with a net density of gr~ater than 8 units per acre or any residential unit within a mixed-use project as shown ad the approved tentative map for said subdivision, planning area or neighborhood. SECTION 9. Time to Determine Amount Due; Advance Payment Prohibited The Impact 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 was granted or applied for, or when the building permit plan check was conducted, or when applicatii::m was made for the building permit. SECTION 10. Purpose and Use of Fee The purpose of the Impact Fee is to pay for the planning, design, construction and/or financing (including the cost of!interest and other financing costs as appropriate) of the Facilities, or reimbursement to th~ City or, at the discretion of the City if approved in advance in writing, to other third *arties for advancing costs actually incurred for planning, designing, constructing, or fiIjIancing the Facilities. Any use of the Impact Fee shall receive the advance consent of the City Council and be used in a manner consistent with the purpose of the Impact Fee. SECTION II. Amount of Fee; Amendment to Master Fee Schedule 4-29 Ordinance No. Page 6 The initial Impact Fee shall be' calculated at the rate of $1,114 per Single Family Dwelling Unit (SFD) and $826 per M~ltiple Family Dwelling Unit (MF). Chapter XVI, Other Fees, of the Master Fee Schedul<i, Section E, shall be amended to read as follows: "E. Otay Ranch Villages I, 5, 6 and 2 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee. This section is intended to rnemorialize the key provisions of Ordinance No. , but said ordinance governs o~er the provisions of the Master Fee Schedule. For example, in the event of a conflict in iIilterpretation between the Master Fee Schedule and the ordinance, or in the event that thete are additional rules applicable to the imposition of the Impact Fee, the language of the <brdinance governs. a. Territory to which Fee Applicable The area of the City of Chula 'Vista to which the Impact Fee herein established shall be applicable is set forth ip Exhibit "2" of the City of Chula Vista Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact fee Report for Otay Ranch Village Two dated February 13, 2007, and is generally described as the area surrounded by Telegraph Canyon Road, Otay Lakes Road, Heritage Road, Olympic Parkway, La Media Road, Birch Road, and State Route 125. b. Rate per Residential Land lifse and Fee The Impact Fee shall be calculated at the rate of $826 per EDU and translated into a fee per land use based on th~ people per household factor given below, which rate shall be adjusted from time! to time by the City Council. Residential Land Use EOD's EDU's Single Family (SFQ) 1 $1,114 Multi Family (MF! 0.74 $826 c. When Payable The Impact Fee shall be paid! in cash not later than immediately prior to the issuance of a building permit." , The City Council shall revie~ the amount of the Impact Fee annually or from time to time. The City Council may, lit such reviews, adjust the amount of this Impact Fee as necessary to assure constructiqn and operation of the Facilities. The reasons for which adjustments may be made include, but are not limited to, the following: : (i) changes in the costs of the Facilities *s may be reflected by such index as the Council deems appropriate, such as the En~neering-News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR-CCI); (ii) changes in the cost of pedestrian bridges; type, size, location or cost of 4-30 Ordinance No. Page 7 the Facilities to be financed by the Implict Fee; (iii) changes in the land use assumptions used in the Reports; and (iv) other sound engineering, financing and planning information. Adjustments to the above Impact Fee may be made by resolution amending the Master Fee Schedule. SECTION 12. Authority for Accounting and Expenditures The proceeds collected from th(1 imposition of the Impact Fee shall be deposited into a public facility financing fund (~'Otay Ranch Villages 1, 5, 6 and 2 Pedestrian Bridge Development Impact Fee Fundi," or alternatively, "Fund") which is hereby created and shall be expended only f~r the purposes set forth in this ordinance, the Director of Finance is authorized to establish various accounts within the Fund for the Facilities identified in this ordinance 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 th~ City Council. SECTION 13. Findings The City Council hereby finds th~ following: A. The establishment of the Inf1pact Fee is necessary to protect the public safety and welfare and to ensure the effective implementation of the City's General Plan. B. The Impact Fee is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of the Facilities concurrent with the need for these Facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for growth impacted public facilities. C. The amount of the fee l~vied by this ordinance does not exceed the estimated cost of providinglthe Facilities for which the fee is collected. D. New development project~ within the territory will generate a significant amount of pedestrian traffi~ that current pedestrian facilities cannot service, therefore construction of ,the Facilities will be needed to service new development projects. E. That the legislative finding: and determination set forth in Ordinances 2767 and 2892 continue to be true and correct. SECTION 14. Impact Fee Additional to pther Fees and Charges The Impact Fee established by ,this section 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 4-31 Ordinance No. Page 8 developments. SECTION 15. Mandatory Constructi~n of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty to Tender Reimbursement Offer Whenever a developer is requ*ed as a condition of approval of a development permit to construct or cause the construction of the Facilities or a portion thereof, the City may require the developer to install the Facilities according to design specifications approved by the City and in the size or capacity necessary to accommodate estimated pedestrian traffic as indicated in the! Report and subsequent amendments. If such a requirement is imposed, the City sh*ll offer, at the City's option, to reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash!or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit against the Impact Fee levied by thd ordinance or some combination thereof, in the amount of the costs incurred by the ~eveloper that exceeds their contribution to such Facilities as required by this ordinance,1 for the design and construction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that paliicular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Impact Fee. The Cityl may update the Impact Fee calculation, as City deems appropriate prior to making s~ch offer. This duty to offer to give credit or reimbursement shall be independent oOhe developer's obligation to pay the Impact Fee. SECTION 16. Voluntary Constructiorj of a Portion of the Facilities; Duty of City to Tender Reimbursement Offer If a developer is willing and ag~ees in writing to design and construct a portion of the Facilities in conjunction with the ~rosecution of a development project within the Territory, the City may, as part of a written agreement, reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as Fees are collected, or give a credit against the Impact Fee levied by this ordinance or some' combination thereof, in the amount of the costs incurred by the developer that exceeds ~heir contribution to such Facilities as required by this ordinance, for the design and constuction of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Impact Fee and in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in writing by the City. The City may update the Impact Fee! calculation, as City deems appropriate prior to making such offer. This duty to dtend credits or offer reimbursement shall be independent of the developer's obligati9n to pay the Impact Fee. SECTION 17. Procedure for Entitlemerj.t to Reimbursement Offer The City's duty to extend a reimbursement offer to a developer pursuant to Section 15 or 16 above shall be conditIoned on the developer complying with the terms and conditions of this section: a. Written authorization shaq be requested by the developer from the City and issued by the City COlillcil! by written resolution before developer may incur 4-32 Ordinance No. Page 9 any costs eligible for rqimbursement relating to the construction of the Facilities, excluding any ~ork attributable to a specific subdivision project. b. The request for authoriZ1\tion shall contain the following information, and the City may from time to! time request such other information as: (I) Detailed descriptions pf the work to be conducted by the developer with the preliminary cost e~timate. c. If the Council grants authprization, it shall be by written agreement with the Developer, and on the following conditions among such other conditions as the Council may from time to time impose: (I) Developer shall prepare all plans and specifications and submit same to the City for approval; , (2) Developer shall secUl~ and dedicate any right-of-way required for the improvement work; (3) Developer shall sedure all required permits and environmental clearances necessary fpr construction of the improvements; (4) Developer shall provi~e performance bonds in a form and amount, and with a surety satisfactory to the City; (5) Developer shall pay all City fees and costs. (6) The City shall be helq harmless and indemnified, and upon demand by the City, defended by'the developer for any of the costs and liabilities associated with the imjJrovements. (7) The developer shall a~vance all necessary funds for the improvements, including design and ~onstruction. The City will not be responsible for any of the costs of con~tructing the facilities. (8) The developer shall se~ure at least three (3) qualified bids for work to be done. The constructior\l contract shall be granted to the lowest qualified bidder. Any claims tor additional payment for extra work or charges during construction s~all be justified and shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City' Engineer. (9) The developer shall Ilrovide a detailed cost estimate, which itemizes those costs of the cOrlstruction attributable to the improvements. Soils Engineering shall be limited to 7.5 percent of the project cost, Civil Engineering shall be! limited to 7.5 percent of the hard cost and 4-33 Ordinance No. Page 10 landscape architectur~ shall be limited to 2 percent of the landscaping cost. The estimate is !preliminary and subject to final determination by the City Engineer upop completion of the Public Facility Project. (10) The agreement may! provide that upon determination of satisfactory incremental completi~n of the public facility project, as approved and certified by the City lEngineer, the City may pay the developer progress payments in an amou*t not to exceed 75 percent of the estimated cost of the construction comI1leted to the time of the progress payment but shall provide in such case for the retention of 25 percent of such costs until issuance by the City of a Notice of Completion. (II) The agreement maYlrovide that any funds owed to the developer as reimbursements may e applied to the developer's obligations to pay the impact Fee for buildi g permits to be applied for in the future. (12) When all work has b~en completed to the satisfaction of the City, the developer shall su~mit verification of payments made for the construction of the pnpject to the City. The City Engineer shall make the final determination! on expenditures, which are eligible for reimbursement. (13) After final determinatIon of expenditures eligible for reimbursement has been made by the PuWic Works Director, the parties may agree to offset the developer's duty !to pay Impact Fees required by this ordinance against the City's dutyl to reimburse the developer. (14) After offset, if any f1.(nds are due the developer under this section, the City may at its optioq, reimburse the developer from the Fund either in cash or over time as! Fees are collected, or give a credit against the Impact Fee levied by this ordinance or some combination thereof, in the amount of the costs in~urred by the developer that exceeds their required contribution to such !Facilities as required by this ordinance, for the design and constructi~n of the Facility not to exceed the estimated cost of that particular Facility as included in the calculation and updating of the Impact Fee and! in an amount agreed to in advance of their expenditure in writingi by the City. A developer may transfer a credit against the Impact Fee to another developer with the wtiitten approval of the City Engineer in his/her sole discretion. (15) SECTION 18. Procedure for Fee Modification 4-34 Ordinance No. Page 11 Any developer who, because i of the nature or type of uses proposed for a development project, contends that ~pplication of the Impact Fee imposed by this ordinance is unconstitutional or uqrelated to mitigation of the burdens of the development, may apply to the City Cpuncil for a waiver or modification of the Impact Fee or the manner in which it is calcul*ted. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk not later than ten days after notice is given of the public hearing I on the development permit applicati04 for the project, or if no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of thei building permit application. The application shall state in detail the factual basis for the qlaim of waiver or modification, and shall provide an engineering and accounting report ,showing the overall impact on the Development Impact Fees (OIF) and the ability of th~ City to complete construction of the Facilities by making the modification requested ~y the applicant. The City Council shall make reasonable efforts to consider the application within sixty days after its filing. The decision of the City Council shall be ifinal. The procedure provided by this section is additional to any other procedure autljlOrized by law for protection or challenging the Impact Fee imposed by this ordinance. I SECTION 19. Fee Applicable to PublidAgencies , Development projects by publici agencies, including schools, shall be exempt from the provisions of the Impact Fee. . SECTION 20. Assessment District If any assessment, communit~ facilities district or special taxing district is established to design, construct and i pay for any or all of the Facilities ("Work Alternatively Financed"), the owner or developer of a project may apply to the City Council for reimbursement from the Fu~d or a credit in an amount equal to that portion of the cost included in the calculation I of the Impact Fee attributable to the Work Alternatively Financed. In this regard, tre amount of the reimbursement shall be based on the costs included in the Report, as arr\ended from time to time, and therefore, will not include any portion of the financing cOSls associated with the formation of the assessment or other special taxing district. SECTION 21. Expiration of this Ordinarce This ordinance shall be of no ifurther force and effect when the City Council determines that the amount of Impact F~es which have been collected reaches an amount equal to the cost of the Facilities. SECTION 22. Time Limit for Judicial Action Any judicial action or proceediJjlg to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this ordinance shall be brought within the jime period as established by law. In accordance with Government Code Section 6602Q(d)(l), the ninety-day approval period in which , 4-35 Ordinance No. Page 12 parties may protest begins upon the eff~ctive date of this ordinance. , SECTION 23. Other Not Previously D~fined Terms For the purposes of this ordinaJ!1ce, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined in this Section, unless from the context it appears that a different meaning is intended. (a) "Building Permit" niJeans a permit required by and issued pursuant to the Uniform Buildirjg Code as adopted by reference by this City. (b) "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development. (c) "Development Penni!" means any discretionary permit, entitlement or approval for a ddelopment project issued under any zoning or subdivision ordinanqe of the City. (d) "Development Project" or "Development" means any activity described in Sectioni66000 of the State Government Code. (e) "Single Family Att<(ched Dwelling" means a single-family dwelling attached to another $ingle family dwelling, with each dwelling on its own lot. SECTION 24. Effective Date This ordinance shall become etffective sixty days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Pipproved as to form by Scott Tulloch City Engineer ~" ~ -,D.Ck,./ : . Moo . . y Attorney 4-36