The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2008/03/04 Item 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ITEM TITLE: .- 3/4/08, Item '::;; PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING A WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE. A. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA 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 EXCLUDING PROJECTS - 1-5-17, STM-361, RAS-15, BP-5, 1-805-2, RAS-I7, BP- 4, BP-2, AND OR-4 B. ORDINANCE OF THE I ,CITY OF CHULA 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 PROJECTS - 1-5-17, STM-361, RAS-15, BP-5 C. ORDINANCE OF THE ,CITY OF CHULA 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 PROJECTS - 1-805-2, RAS-I7, BP-4 D. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA 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 BP-2 SUBMITTED BY: REVIEWED BY: E. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA 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 DIRECTOR OF ENG~ERIN AND GENERAL SERVICES ~ CITY MANAGER ~"Sv ASSISTANT CITY AGER '7"'-- 4/STHS VOTE: YES 0 NO IZI 5-1 Page 2, Item .5 Meeting Date 3/04/08 SUMMARY City of Chula Vista staff have prepared a Western Transportation Development Impact Fee Report (Report) to analyze potential traffic impacts of proposed new development on the westside of the City's transportation system and to calculate development impact fees based on that analysis. The City's Eastern Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) Program was established on January 12, 1988 by Ordinance 2251. That program is responsible for the equitable funding of transportation facilities east ofI-805. The proposed Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) is a similar program proposed for Western Chula Vista. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Review Coordinator 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; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA review. Although environmental review is not necessary at this time, environmental review will be required prior to the approval of final design plans and the awarding of construction contracts for facilities funded through Western Transportation Development Impact Fees. RECOMMENDATION I. Council conduct the public hearing. 2. Council approve the ordinances establishing the WTDIF Program (first reading). BOARDS/COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION New development places demands on the existing transportation infrastructure which can be mitigated by upgrading existing and/or constructing new transportation facilities. The proposed WTDIF program will provide for future transportation facilities needs due to westside development through the Year 2030. The proposed future development will result in the need for transportation infrastructure improvements to accommodate growth-related traffic, including but not limited to traffic signals, curb, gutter and sidewalk, public transportation infrastructure and pedestrian and bicycle facilities. A well planned fee program can generate sufficient funds to allow the city to adequately mitigate impacts created by new development. The ancillary reason for adopting a Western TDIF is because in November 2004 county-wide voters passed the Transnet Ordinance prepared for the San Diego Association of Govemments (SANDAG). This Ordinance states in part, "Any local agency that does not provide its filll monetary contribution required by Section 9(A) in a given fiscal 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 Ordinance is further described below. The impact fees are calculated for an Area of Benefit that encompasses the entire westside of the city, see Attachment I, "Western Transportation Development Impact Fee Report" (Report). The WTDIF program will distribute the cost of infrastructure equitably among new development in Western Chula Vista. The fee will be used to construct new transportation improvements or 5-2 Page 3, Item .5 Meeting Date 3/04/08 expand existing facilities and shall not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the new transportation improvements in accordance with California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. California Government Code Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees meet the following requirements: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee and; 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which the fee is imposed; b. The need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed and; c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project on which the fee is imposed. Each of these requirements were followed in the development of the fee program. Methodologv for Fee Determination Government Code section 66000 et seq. requires, among other things, that the City establish a reasonable relationship between the projects to be funded and the amount of the fee. As more thoroughly discussed below, the WTDIF program uses Average Daily Traffic (ADT), which is converted to Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDU's), as the tool to equate impact fees among the different land uses. ADT generation rates published by SANDAG are used to determine the trip generating characteristics of the different landuse categories on the transportation system. The process for determining WTDIF fees included two phases. The fIrst phase involved performing a defIciency analysis to determine what future growth-related traffic impacts were placed on the existing regional and local transportation network. To accomplish this, a variety of recently approved documents were analyzed. The process included gathering a voluminous amount of land use data detailing the amount of new development proposed for the west side of Chula Vista as depicted in the City's General Plan and Urban Core SpecifIc Plan (UCSP). Existing, approved traffic studies performed for the General Plan and the UCSP were used to defIne and locate traffic impacts and their mitigations. Other approved reports were also used in determining impacts; these include the UCSP report entitled, "Chula Vista Urban Core SpecifIc Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis", the city's Infrastructure DefIciency Plan, the "Final City of Chula Vista, Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment, Environmental Impact Report, February, 1991" and project listings from the City's Capital Improvement Program. Attachment 1 lists the infrastructure improvements from all sources. The project list includes local as well as Regional Arterial System (RAS) segments, intersection improvements including traffic signals, interchange improvements, bicycle and pedestrian projects and Light Rail facilities. The locations where traffic impacts occurred, as shown in Attachment 1, were gathered and assembled together in one list. The fInal list designates the transportation facilities on the west 5-3 Page 4, Item ..5 Meeting Date 3/04/08 side of Chula Vista that will require transportation improvements due to projected westside growth. The next phase in the process involved calculating an impact fee to address the traffic impacts identified in the deficiency analysis above. The program looked at associated costs for all eligible projects in Year 2007 dollars, the current number of Average Daily Trips (ADT) and the existing, corresponding Level of Service (LOS) for each affected street segment and intersection proposed for improvement. Anticipated traffic volumes for year 2030 were retrieved from the Traffic Impact Reports listed above and their impacts on existing infrastructure were analyzed to determine the impacts attributable solely to future development. This information establishes the nexus between future development and the need for future improvements. Street segments and intersections that are currently operating at unacceptable levels of service were removed from the list of projects to be funded by future development as these conditions are not attributable to future development and therefore are not eligible for inclusion in the funding program. The WTDIF fee is based on estimated trips for residential, commercial and industrial development. The City of Chula Vista, like other cities in San Diego County, uses the SANDAG Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region as the resource for specific land use trip generation. Trips were then converted to EDU's which are units of measure that standardize all land use types (housing, retail, office, industrial, etc.) to the level of demand created by one single-family dwelling unit (SFDU). For example, in the case of traffic volume, one EDU is equivalent to the amount of trips per day, in both directions, for a SFDU. According to SANDAG, this SFDU generates 10 trips per day. A small business that generates 30 trips per day would therefore be equivalent to three EDU's in terms of traffic demand. The City historically has refined the SANDAG approach and has identified three residential land use categories used in this report. The report aggregates residential land uses to utilize four categories and recommends the following: 10 ADTs generated from a residential project with densities ranging on average from I to 6 dwelling units per gross acre; 8 ADTs from a residential project with densities between 6 and 20 dwelling units per gross acre; 6 ADTs from a residential project with densities greater than 20 dwelling units per gross acre; and 4 ADTs from a mobile home residential project. These city aggregated categories comport with the SANDAG Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region. Applicable costs for all eligible projects as described above were summed up and divided by the number of remaining EDU's on the west side of the city. From this process, the report estimated the portion of total project costs that can be directly attributed to new development on the westside of Chula Vista. The baseline costs per EDU were determined to be $3,148.11. To this sub-total, the following administrative costs were added: a 2% WTDIF Administration cost, $62.96/EDU, and an additional 1% SANDAG Administrative cost, $31.48/EDU. The [mal fee was calculated at $3,243 per EDU. This $3,243 per EDU fee will be collected and monitored separately for Regional facilities and local roadways. Regional arterials will comprise 78.92 % or $2,559 of the total fee, while 21.08 % or $684 of the total fee will remain for local roadways. Of note is how the Report calculated the trip generation rate for Commercial land uses. Commercial land use trip generation rates have been reduced by 62.6%. This reduced rate is based on the final edition of the study entitled, "RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study - Final Report" 5-4 Page 5, Item >=) Meeting Date 3/04/08 dated November 26, 2007 prepared for SANDAG by MuniFinancial and attached with Attachment 1. This study was prepared "to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in San Diego County could use to adopt an impact fee and fulfill their contribution to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Plan (RTCIP). The report documents the required statutory findings under California's Mitigation Fee Act." The report identifies commercial trip origins, distributions, and generation rates. The R TCIP study found that approximately 62.6 percent of regional commercial trips are generated from within San Diego County and more specifically from residential units within the county, which leads to the observation that 37.4 percent of commercial trips are generated from outside of the region. The RTCIP study concluded that residential development directly causes 62.6 percent of commercial development. Consequently, the travel demand associated with that share of commercial development is covered by residential development. These conclusions are in alignment with the previously approved Eastern TDIF analysis. Consequently, the commercial trip rates were adjusted accordingly by reducing them by 62.6 percent. The reduced trip generation rates for commercial land uses are then similar to those rates used in the Eastern TDIF program for citywide consistency. Development Proiects Exempt from the Fee 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 charged ("public purpose"). Exempt development uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use of land, generally described as "community purpose facility": "Community purpose facility" means a facility which serves one of the following purposes: 1. Social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, Alcoholics Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Day care; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. 5-5 Page 6, Item !5 Meeting Date 3/04/08 Table I below presents the WTDIF rates for the different land uses. PROPOSED WESTERN TDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICA TION Proposed Western TDIF Fee per EDU: $3,243 SIDENTIAL esidential (LOW) 1-6 dwelling units per acre 7 to 20 dwelling units per acre Over 20 dwelling units per acre esidential (MED) esidential (HIGH) Mobile Home COMMERCIAL egional Commercial Community Commercial eighborhood Commercial eighborhood Commercial Street Front Commercial etail Commercial Wholesale Trade OFFICE igh Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. and 6+ Stories < 6 Stories < 6 Stories ow Rise Office (in Acreage) ow Rise Office ( in Square ootage) edical Office Medical and Dental Facilities ODGING ow Rise Hotel/Motel (in Acreage)< 4 Stories ow Rise Hotel or Motel (in < 4 Stories umber of rooms) igh Rise Hotel >4 Stories NDUSTRY Heavy Industry Warehouse IStorage dustrial Park ight Industrial SF - Thousands of Square Feet 5-6 Iper EDU $3,243per DU .8per EDU per DU $2,594 .6per EDU per DU $1,946 .5per EDU $1,622per DU 19EDU/Acre $61,617/Acre 26EDU/Acre $84,318 1 Acre 45EDU/Acre $145,935/Acre 5EDU/KSF $16,215/KSF 15EDU/Acre $48,645 1 Acre 15EDU/KSF $48,645 1 Acre 22EDU/Acre $71,346IAcre 60EDU/Acre $194,580 IAcre 30EDU/Acre $97,290/Acre 2EDU/KSF $6,486/KSF 50EDU/ACRE $1 62,1 50Acre 20EDU/Acre $64,860/Acre I.OEDU/Room $3,2431 RM 30/EDU/Acre $97,2901 Acre 12EDU/Acre $38,9161 Acre 6EDU/Acre $19,458/Acre 9EDU/Acre $29,1871 Acre 20EDU/Acre $64,860/Acre Page 7, Item 5 Meeting Date 3/04/08 Area of Benefit The area of benefit for the proposed fee is that area within the City of Chula Vista west of I -805. The absence of contiguity to the proposed street improvement is not essential to conferring a benefit to properties. The circulation system on the westside of the city must be viewed as a whole. Each of the proposed street improvements listed in Attachment 1 will mitigate the adverse traffic impacts generated by new development in total. Individual projects are not reviewed because every development will create systemic traffic, and ultimately utilize the entire system of streets to access work, commerce, schools, residences and the many other land uses throughout the City. A failure in any part of the system will have a negative impact on other parts and traffic from the development closest to an impacted segment of street will be just as affected as traffic from a more distant development. The analogy of a water system is sometimes used where constrictions or breaks in any part of the system will have significant impacts on the whole system. In addition, the street improvements are required by the City's Growth Management Ordinance as a condition to all development within the area of benefit in order to maintain acceptable levels of service on the major roadways. The proposed area of benefit contains a total of 19,914 future EDU's. Western Transportation Development Impact Fee Credits The WTDIF program allows for the construction of eligible transportation projects by developers in lieu of paying the WTDIF at building permit issuance similar to the existing Eastern TDIF program. Any projects constructed by a developer would be audited and credits issued incrementally as the facility is constructed. Program Monitoring Monitoring the change in land use inventory will be important to maintain the integrity of the fee program. In practice, the fee shall only apply to a proposed project that generates more trips than what is presently being generated today. In other words, the fee is based solely on the change in trip generating potential of proposed projects. For example, if the city receives a new project application and this proposed project's trip generating potential is equal to that of the present land use that it is replacing, then the developer need not pay any WTDIF fee. However, through a simple calculation, if the proposed development generates an increased amount of trips, for example, one hundred more trips, then this project shall pay the WTDIF fee in an amount equal only to the increase or change in trip generating potential, or in this case, 10 EDUs. TRANSNET Ordinance and the Regional Trans1>ortation Congestion Improvement Program In November 2004, San Diego County voters approved local Proposition A extending the Transnet Yz cent sales tax for transportation programs through 2048. Included in Proposition A and the Transnet Extension Ordinance was the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP is to ensure that new development directly invests in the region's transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. The ordinance states, "Revenue collected through the Funding Programs shall be used to construct transportation improvements on the Regional Arterial System such as new arterial 5-7 Page 8, Item 5 Meeting Date 3/04/08 roadway lanes, turning lanes, reconfigured freeway-arterial interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services, or similar types of improvements, preliminary and final engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand generated by new development throughout the San Diego region. A reasonable portion of the program revenue, up to a maximum of three percent, may be usedfor fund administration." As discussed above, city staff followed the procedures and intent of two documents in preparing the WTDIF Program. The Transnet Ordinance prepared for SANDAG and approved by the voters in November 2004 and the subsequent report, entitled "RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study- Final Report" dated November 26, 2007 prepared for SANDAG by MuniFinancial. The RTCIP is identified as Section 9 of the Transnet ordinance and states in part; "Any local agency that does not provide its full monetary contribution required by Section 9(A) in a given fiscal 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 ". City staff envisions a subsequent report to be done shortly after approval of this program that reviews the feasibility of combining the city's two TDIF programs, this proposed program on the westside and the existing program on the eastside, into one comprehensive TDIF program. The main inducement for developing a single program is to track improvements citywide on Regional Arterial System (RAS) facilities, as shown in the updated Regional Transportation Plan. This is important because the RTCIP states, "Starting on July 1, 2008, each local agency in the San Diego region shall contribute $2,000 in exactions from the private sector, for each newly constructed residential housing unit in that jurisdiction to the RTCIP. These exactions shall 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 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG's) most recent, adopted Regional Transportation Plan. " RAS roadways are listed in SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), Mobility 2030 (November 2007) and are generally described as those roads that act as a critical link in providing direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. The Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program portion of the Transnet ordinance states that "Each jurisdiction's Funding Program shall be submitted for review by the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee (!TOC) referred to in Section I1 of the Transnet Ordinance prior to April 1, 2008, approved by Regional Transportation Commission by June 1, 2008 and shall become operative on July 1, 2008. Failure to submit a Funding Program for review by ITOC by April 1 of any year beginning April 1, 2008 shall result in that jurisdiction losing eligibility toC receive funding for local streets and roads under Section 4(D) (I) of the Ordinance until July 1 of the following year. " Each jurisdiction shall have up to but no more than seven fiscal years to expend Funding Program revenues on the Regional Arterial Systems projects. The seven year term shall commence on the first day of July following the jurisdiction's receipt of the revenue. At the time 5-8 Page 9, Item 5 Meeting Date 3/04/08 of the review and audit by the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, each jurisdiction collecting a development impact fee to meet the requirements of its Funding Program shall provide the Committee with written [mdings for any expended, unexpended and uncommitted fees in their Program Fund and demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged, consistent with the requirements of Government Code Section 66000. Failure to adopt the WTDIF ordinance puts the City at risk of losing approximately five million dollars annually in each of the next five years in TransNet revenues. These TransNet revenues are used nearly entirely on pavement rehabilitation throughout the City. Staff has worked with and met numerous times with the Building Industry Association of San Diego County (BIASD). Attachment 2 contains a letter from the BlASD with their concerns, questions and suggestions to the City Manager dated February 12, 2008 as well as the City Manager's response letter. Fee Adiustments and Program Administration The Transnet Ordinance provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the fee on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009. The annual inflation adjustment will be 2 per cent or based on the Caltrans highway construction cost index, whichever is higher. The program collects an additional 2% of the total improvement cost estimate for staff administration and an additional 1 % for SANDAG administrative costs. As discussed above, the RTCIP and Transnet ordinance provided guidance for the creation of the WTDIF program including the following: 1. Provides for the collection of a fee for each new dwelling unit. As of July l, 2008, the City will need to collect an average fee of $2,000 per dwelling unit constructed, to be used on regional projects, and arterial street projects within the City of Chula Vista. 2. The program includes an annual escalator to the fee. 3. Fee revenues collected and any accrued interest shall be held in a separate account by the city. 4. The City must submit their Funding Program for review to the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee (ITOC) by Aprill, 2008 and subsequently every year after. 5. The RTCIP allows up to 3 percent of program revenues to be used for program administration. SANDAG anticipates adding a 1 percent administrative charge to the RTCIP fee to fund costs related to the ITOC. Local agencies may add up to 2 percent for their program administration costs. 5-9 Page 10, Item 5 Meeting Date 3/04/08 Findings Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the WTDIF Program Ordinance based on the following findings: A. 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 B. 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 Impact Fee Report dated February 2008; and C. Based on analysis presented in the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee Report, Attachment I, there is a reasonable relationship between 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 types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. 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. Proposed Ordinance By adopting the proposed ordinance, Council will establish a new WTDIF rate of $3,243 per EDU. This ordinance will become effective 60 days after the second reading. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICTS Staff has reviewed the property holdings of the City Council Members and has found that conflicts exist in that Council Members Rindone, McCann, Castaneda and Ramirez have property holdings within 500 feet of the boundaries of the projects which are the subject of this action. These Council Members will only vote on the implementing ordinances that exclude conflicting projects. FISCAL IMPACT The Western Transportation Development Impact Fee, as do all of the City's Development Impact Fees, will require the creation of a separate fund from the general fund. There will be no negative impact to the General Fund. Tonight's action aids the General Fund by minimizing city infrastructure costs due to future development. The program accounts for staff costs in the amount of 2% of the program estimate for administration and monitoring. 5-10 Page 11, Item 5 Meeting Date 3/04/08 As previously discussed, failure to adopt this ordinance puts the City at risk of losing approximately five million dollars annually in each of the next five years in TransNet revenues. These TransNet revenues are used nearly entirely on pavement rehabilitation throughout the City. ATTACHMENTS I) Engineer's Report for the Western Transportation Development Impact Fee 2) Comment letter from BIASD and Response Letter from City Manager Prepared by: Dave Kaplan, Transportation Engineer. Engineering and General Services Department M:lEngineerIAGENDA\CAS2008\OJ-04-08\ WTDIF\FINALIFINAL2- WTDlF CAS 10-17-07 dek-DCADraft5 DEK 2-18-08.doc 02/27/2008 9:40: 18 AM 5-11 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA 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 EXCLUDING PROJECTS - 1-5-17, STM-361, RAS-15, BP-5, 1-805-2, RAS-17, BP-4, BP-2, AND OR-4 WHEREAS, the adoption of the City's General plan indicated that future growth was going to occur in the City west of! -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 1987, 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 area east of Interstate 805. 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 determined 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 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 ORD#1 5-12 WHEREAS, pursuant to Govemment Code Section 660 I 7(a), the fees proposed by this ordinance will not become effective until sixty (60) days after its first reading; and 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 westside of the City as follows: SECTION 1: Findings The City Council finds, 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 are sufficient funds available to finance the transportation facilities necessary to serve development west ofI-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 construction 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 welfare 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 are the subject of this chapter. New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public transportation facilities in direct relationship to the amount of vehicular 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 charge 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 5-13 ORD#1 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 appears 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 Manager's designee. C. "Density" means dwelling units per gross acre identified for each planning area shown on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel 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 commercial/office or industrial development constructed on vacant land; 3. Any expansions to established developments or new developments on nonvacant land in those land use categories listed in subsections (F)(l) 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 nonvacant land, or expanded within a pre-existing site, if the result is a net increase in dwelling 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 services as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, Alcoholics Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Day care; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. H. "Western portion of the City ofChula Vista" generally means that area 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 I" of the Engineering study. 1. "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. J. "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 ORD# 1 5-14 volume corridors. They are roadways that are listed in the most recent edition of SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan K. "Special land use" means any nonresidential, non-commercial/office or nonindustrial development project (e.g., Olympic Training Center, hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. 1. "Special purpose project" means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g., day care). 3.55.030 Public transportation facilities to be fmanced bv the fee. A. The public transportation facilities ("facilities") which are the subject matter of the fee, are 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 are as follows: I. (1-5-1) 1-5/E Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 2. (1-5-2) 1-5/E Street/Bay Blvd SB off-ramp restriping add lane 3. (1-5-3) 1-5/NB ramp widening at E, H, J, Ind., Palomar & Main Sts 4. (1-5-4) E Street bridge widening over 1-5 5. (1-5-5) F Street bridge widening over 1-5 6. (1-5-6) 1-51B Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 7. (1-5-7) 1-5/H Street SB off-ramp restriping add lane 8. (1-5-8) H Street bridge widening over 1-5 9. . (1-5-9) 1-5/J Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 10. (1-5-10) 1-5/J Street undercrossing widening add EB-NB I I. (1-5-1 I) L Street bridge widening over 1-5 (S/W for peds) 12. (1-5-12) 1-5/Bay Blvd (south ofL St.) SB on/off ramps traffic signal 13. (1-5-13) 1-5/Industrial Blvd NB on/off ramps traffic signal 14. (1-5-14) 1-5/Palomar Street bridge widening 15. (1-5-15) 1-5/Main Street NB on/off ramps traffic signal 16. (1-5-16) 1-5/Main Street bridge widening 5-15 ORD#1 Interstate-80S Improvements 17. (1-805-1) NB on-ramp widening & metering at Bonita, East H St (EB-NB), Telegraph Canyon Road (Project 1-805-1 is 100% funded in 2006 RTIP with State funds.) State Route 54 Improvements 18. (SR-54-1) SR-54 WB off-ramp restripe at Broadway 19. (SR-54-2) SR-54 EB off-ramp atN. Fourth Avenue - add ramp lane Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects 20. (RAS-1) Bonita Road from First Avenue to 1-805 21. (RAS-2) Broadway from C Street to south of Main Street (City Limits) 22. (RAS-3) E Street improvements - First Ave to Bonita Road/E. Flower St 23. (RAS-4) E Street improvements, 1-5 to 300' east ofNB ramp 24. (RAS-5) E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 25. (RAS-6) H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 26. (RAS-7) H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane & traffic signal modifications 27. (RAS-8) H Street 14' -wide median & street light improvements 28. (RAS-9) H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway 29. (RAS-10) H Street improvements from Second Ave to Hilltop Drive (RAS-11) East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Dr. to 1-805 (RAS-12) L StreetlBay Blvd traffic signal & add turn lanes (RAS-13) L Street improvements south side west ofIndustrial Blvd (RAS-14) Telegraph Canyon Road at 1-805 south side sidewalk (RAS-16) Palomar Street improvements from 1-5 to 1-805 (RAS-18) H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes (RAS-19) H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes ORD#1 5-16 General Plan Impacts and Mitigations (GP-l) E. St. from Marina Parkway to 1-5 (GP-2) Marina Parkway from E St. to J St. (GP-3) L St. from Hilltop Drive to 1-805 Parkway (GP-4) Main St. from 1-5 to Broadway (GP-5) Main St. from Broadway to Hilltop Dr. (GP-6) Third Avenue from L St. to Palomar St. (GP-7) H St. from Marina Parkway to 1-5 (GP-8) J St. from Marina Parkway to 1-5 Bicycle & Pedestrilm Facilities Improvements (21 % WTDlF share per GPU) (BP-I) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street & F Streets (BP-3) Industrial Blvd improvements & bike lanes from L St. to Main Street (BP-6) Develop bicycle paths & pedestrian access to Third Avenue Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Roadways (Mid-I) E Street restripe to add EB-NB dual left turn to NB 1-5 on-ramp. (Mid-2) I-SIE St. SB off-ramp widening to add fourth lane (Mid-3) Bay Blvd IS' widening along Westerly Curb Line at E St. approach for ISB/3NB (Mid-4) I-SIE St. NB widen off-ramp to add 3rd lane for Right Turn only lane (Mid-5) E St revisions to median and North Curb Line east ofI-5 to add 3rd WB lane. (Mid-6) Marina Parkway 4-lane fromE St. to J St. (Mid-7) E St./W oodlawn Ave EB-SB RT lane plus a Traffic Signal (Mid-8) E St. at Broadway add WB & EB LT lane + WB & EB RT only lane plus a Traffic Signal & No R1W costs. (Mid-9) F StlBroadway restriping to provide EB-SB & WB-NB RT lane (Mid-I 0) H Street widening at Broadway for WB Thru & EB Thru & RT only. 5-17 ORD#1 Other Roadways (OR-I) N. 4th Avenue/Brisbane Ave traffic signal modifications (OR-2) Second AvenuelD Street all-way stop installation 3.55.040 Territorv to which fee applicable. The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the fee herein established shall be applicable is the territorial limits of the western portion of the City ofChula Vista ("territory") as defined above, as they may from time to time be amended. 3.55.050 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 Chuta 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 bv land use catee:orv. 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. Commercial/office and industrial development projects shall be charged on a per acre or per square footage basis. For purposes of this fee, gross acreage and lor 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 parcel or parcels of the development project for which building permits are 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 proj ect. 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 finds that collection of the fees established by this chapter at the time of the building permit is necessary to 5-18 ORD#1 ensure that funds will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for those facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for the western part of the City. 3.55.080 Purpose and use of fee. The fees collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes as detennined 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.l50 A to install improvements that are major streets and are listed in CVMC 3.55.030. 3. To reimburse developers who have been pennitted 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 I. The fee shall be adjusted on July I of each year 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% ofthe 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 WTmp 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, fmancing and planning infonnation. 5-19 ORD# 1 Pro Dosed TDIF Fee Der EDU: I $3,243.00 LaDd Use Classification EO Us TO IF Rate RESIDENTIAL Residential (LOW) 0-6 dwellino units per acre I ner EDU $3,243 I DU Residential (MED) 6.1 To 20 dwelling units per acre .8 per EDU $2,594 I DU Residential (HIGH) Over 20 dwelling units per acre .6 per EDU $1,9461 DU Mobile Home .5 per EDU $1,6221 DU COMMERCIAL Contain 1-5 major dept. stores & usually have Imore than 50 tenants. Typically larger than 40 Regional Commercial acres. 20EDU/Acre $64,860 I Acre Smaller in that size than regional. Contain junior Ioept. Store or variety Store,( i.e. Target Center Iwith other commercial stores)as a major tenant and have 15 to 50 other tenants. Smaller in size, Community Commercial 8-20 acres. . 28EDU/Acre $90,804 I Acre lNeighborhood Commercial Less than 10 acres. Includes supermarket and drug store. Mav include office SDaces. 48EDUlAcre $155,664/Acre N'eicl1borhood Commercial Same as above but in Square Footage 4.8 EDU/KSF $15,664/KSF Conunercial activities found along major streets, bot in a planned center with limited on-site Street Front Commercial IDarking. 16EDU/Acre $51,888IAcre etail Commercial SDecialty RetaiVStrip Commercial 16EDU/Acre $51,888/KSF liTsually located near transportation facilities. Structures are usually large and cover majority of ~e parcel. Examples are clothing and supply, Wholesale Trade also includes swap meet areas. 24 EDUI Acre $77,832/Acre OFFICE High Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. and 6+ Stories 60EDU/Acre $194,580 I Acre Low Rise Office < 6 Stories 30EDU/Acre $97,290 I Acre LOW Rise Office (in thousands < 6 Stories of square feet) 2 EDU/KSF $6,486 I KSF Medical Office Medical and Dental Facilities 50EDU/Acre $162,150/ Acre LODGING LOW Rise HoteVMotel < 4 Stories 20EDUlAcre $64,860 I Acre Low Rise Hotel or Motel < 4 Stories I EDU/Room $3,243 I Room Hicl1 Rise Hotel >=4 Stories 30/EDUI Acre $97,290IAcre INDUSTRY Shipbuilding, airframe, and aircraft manufacturing. Usually located next to Heavv Industry transportation facilities and commercial areas. Parcels are tvDicallv 20-50 Acre. 12EDU/Acre $38,916/Acre Usually large buildings located near freeways, Warehouse IStorage industrial or strio commercial areas. 6EDU/Acre $19,458 I Acre Office/iDdustrial uses clustered into a center. The primary uses are industrial by may include high percentages of other uses in service or retail Industrial Park activities. 9EDU/Acre $29,187 I Acre Licl1t Industrial <>.11 other industrial uses and manufacturing not lincluded in cateoories above. 20EDU/Acre $64,860 I Acre Table 1 PROPOSED WTDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION 5-20 ORD# 1 3.55.100 Development proiects 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 charged ("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 nonprofit 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 commerciaVindustrial acreage. 3.55.110 Authority for accountinl!: and expenditures. A. The fees collected shall be deposited into a Western Transportation Development Impact Fee financing 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 Findinl!:s. 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, 2008; and D. Based on analysis presented in the Engineer's Report there is a reasonable relationship between I. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed and 2. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. 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. 5-21 ORD# 1 3.55.130 Fee additional to other fees and char!!es. 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 3.55.150 Developer construction of transportation facilities. 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 Manager's 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. Preparation 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 transportation facility project. c. The developer shall secure at least three qualified bids for work to be done and shall award the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder. The developer may combine the construction of the transportation facility project with other development-related work and award 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 awarded 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. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges shall be justified, shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City Manager's designee and 5-22 ORD#1 shall only be reimbursed at the prices for similar work included in the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. d. Upon complying with the conditions set forth in subsections (B)(1) 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 proj ect, 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 permits 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 proj ect to the City. The City Manager's designee shan make the final determination on expenditures which are 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 fmal 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 3D-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 win incrementally apply credit which the developer has accrued in lieu of collecting the required transportation development impact fees. The amount of the credit to be applied to each building permit shan be based upon the fee schedule in effect at the time of the building permit 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 transportation 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 are available as determined by the City Manager; a reimbursement agreement will 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 5-23 ORD#1 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 financing, 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 Council 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 interim facilities such as a portable or modular 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 hardship on the condition that: (1) the use offers a significant public benefit; (2) the amount deferred bears interest at a fair market 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 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 that 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 law for protesting or challenging the fee imposed by this chapter. 3.55.170 ExemDtions. Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt from the provisions of this fee. Exempt development uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use of land, generally described as "community purpose facility" as defined above in CVMC Section 3.55.020. ORD#1 5-24 3.55.180 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 development's 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 proj ect, but excluding costs associated with assessment district proceedings or fmancing. 3.55.190 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 defmed 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 for those 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 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 fmancial. and engineering study "Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" report dated February 2008. 3.55.195 Fund loans. A. B. 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 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. Developer Loans. A developer may loan funds to the City as outlined in CVMC 3.55.150. 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 SECTION 3: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Jack Griffm Engineering and General Services Director Ann Moore City Attorney 5-25 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA 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 PROJECTS - 1-5-17, STM-36l, RAS-15 AND BP-5 WHEREAS, the adoption of the City's General plan indicated that future growth was going to occur in the City west ofl-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 1987, the City has had a program in place for the collection of a transportation development impact fee for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805. 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 determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defmed under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to Section l5060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA; and 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 ORD#2 5-26 WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a), the fees proposed by this ordinance will not become effective until sixty (60) days after its first reading; and 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 westside of the City as follows: SECTION 1: Findings The City Council finds, 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 are sufficient fimds available to finance the transportation facilities necessary to serve development west ofI-805; and The City Council fmds 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 construction 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 welfare 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 are the subject of this chapter. New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public transportation facilities in direct relationship to the. amount of vehicular 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 charge 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 5-27 ORa # 2 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 appears 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 Manager's designee. C. "Density" means dwelling units per gross acre identified for each planning area shown on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel 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 commercial/office or industrial development constructed on vacant land; 3. Any expansions to established developments or new developments on nonvacant land in those land use categories listed in subsections (F)(l) 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 mcrease; 4. Any new or expanding special land use project; 5. Any special purpose project developed on vacant land or nonvacant land, or expanded within a pre-existing site, if the result is a net increase in dwelling 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 services as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, Alcoholics Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Day care; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. H. "Western portion of the City of Chula Vista" generally means that area 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. 1. "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. J. "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 ORD#2 5-28 volume corridors. They are roadways that are listed in the most recent edition of SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan K. "Special land use" means any nonresidential, non-commercial/office or nonindustrial development project (e.g., Olympic Training Center, hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. 1. "Special purpose project" means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g., day care). 3.55.030 Public transDortation facilities to be financed bv the fee. A. The public transportation facilities ("facilities") which are the subject matter of the fee, are 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 are as follows: I. (1-5-1) 1-5/E Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 2. (1-5-2) 1-5/E Street/Bay Blvd SB off-ramp restriping add lane 3. (1-5-3) I-5INB ramp widening at E, H, J, Ind., Palomar & Main S18 (21 %) 4. (1-5-4) E Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20' X $350/sf) 5. (1-5-5) F Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20' X $350/sf 6. (1-5-6) I-5/H Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 7. (1-5-7) I-5/H Street SB off-ramp restriping add lane 8. (1-5-8) H Street bridge widening over 1-5 (200'X40'X$350/sf) 9. (1-5-9) I-5/J Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 10. (1-5-10) I-5/J Street undercrossing widening add EB-NB (175x20X$350) II. (1-5-11) L Street bridge widening over 1-5 (S/W for peds 300' X 12')(21 %) 12. (1-5-12) 1-5/Bay Blvd (south ofL St.) SB on/off ramps traffic signal 13. (1-5-13) 1-5/Industrial Blvd NB on/offramps traffic signal 14. (1-5-14) 1-5/Palomar Street bridge widening (2751fX 501fX $350/sf) 15. (1-5-15) I-5/Main Street NB on/off ramps traffic signal (CV share $120k) 16. (1-5-16) 1-5/Main Street bridge widening (2751fX 20lfX $350/sf) 17. (1-5-17) 1-5 HOV & Managed Lanesfrom SR905 to SR54 (63.4% in CJ1 18. STM 361 5-29 ORD # 2 a. 1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Study (80% Fed. DEMO funds) b. (SANDAG cost estimate is $4.3M & CV share TBD.) Interstate-805 Improvements 19. (1-805-1) NB on-ramp widening & metering at Bonita, East H St (EB-NB), Telegraph Canyon Road (project 1-805-1 is 100% funded in 2006 RTIP with State funds.) State Route 54 Improvements 20. (SR-54-1) SR-54 WB off-ramp restripe at Broadway 21. (SR-54-2) SR-54 EB off-ramp at N. Fourth Avenue - add ramp lane Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects 22. (RAS-I) Bonita Road from First Avenue to 1-805 23. (RAS-2) Broadway from C Street to south of Main Street (City Limits) 24. (RAS-3) E Street improvements - First Ave to Bonita RoadIE. Flower St 25. (RAS-4) E Street improvements, 1-5 to 300' east ofNB ramp 26. (RAS-5) E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 27. (RAS-6) H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 28. (RAS- 7) H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane & traffic signal modifications 29. (RAS-8) H Street 14'-wide median & street light improvements (same as RAS-9) 30. (RAS-9) H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway 31. (RAS-10) H Street improvements from Second Ave to Hilltop Drive 32. (RAS-11) East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Dr. to 1-805 33. (RAS-12) L StreetlBay Blvd traffic signal & add turn lanes 34. (RAS-13) L Street improvements south side west of Industrial Blvd 35. (RAS-14) Telegraph Canyon Road at 1-805 south side sidewalk 36. (RAS-15) Orange Avenuefrom Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive 37. (RAS-16) Palomar Street improvements from 1-5 to 1-805 38. (RAS-18) H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes ORD # 2 5-30 39. (RAS-19) H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes General Plan Impacts and Mitigations 40. (GP-l) E. St. from Marina to 1-5 41. (GP-2) Marina Parkway from E-J St. 42. (GP-3) L St. from Hilltop to 1-805 43. (GP-4) Main St. from 1-5 to Broadway 44. (GP-5) Main St. from Broadway to Hilltop Dr. 45. (GP-6) Third Avenue from L St. to Palomar St. 46. (GP-7) H St. from Marina to 1-5 47. (GP-8) J St. from Marina to 1-5 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Improvements (21 % WTDIF share per GPU) 48. (BP-l) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street & F Streets 49. (BP-3) Industrial Blvd improvements & bike lanes from L St. to Main Street 50. (BP-5) Orange Ave. bike lanes from Palomar St. to Hilltop Drive 51. (BP-6) Develop bicycle paths & pedestrian access to Third Avenue Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Roadways 52. (Mid-I) E Street restripe to add EB-NB dual left turn to NB 1-5 on-ramp. 53. (Mid-2) I-5/E St. SB off-ramp widening to add fourth lane 54. (Mid-3) Bay Blvd 15' widening along Westerly Curb Line at E St. approach for lSB/3NB 55. (Mid-4) I-5/E St. NB widen off-ramp to add 3rd lane for Right Turn only lane 56. (Mid-5) E St revisions to median and North Curb Line east of 1-5 to add 3rd WB lane. 57. (Mid-6) Marina Parkway 4-lane from ESt. to J St. 58. (Mid-7) E St./Woodlawn Ave EB-SB RTlane plus a Traffic Signal) 59. (Mid-8) E St. at Broadway add WB & EB LT lane + WB & EB RT only lane. plus a Traffic Signal & No R/W costs. 60. (Mid-9) F StlBroadway restriping to provide EB-SB & WB-NB RT lane ORD#2 5-31 61. (Mid-lO) H Street widening at Broadway for WB Thru & EB Thru & RT only. Other Roadways 62. (OR-I) N. 4th AvenueIBrisbane Ave traffic signal modifications 63. (OR-2) Second Avenue/D Street all-way stop installation 3.55.040 Territorv to which fee applicable. The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the fee herein established shall be applicable is the territorial limits of the western portion of the City of Chula Vista ("territory") as defined above, as they may from time to time be amended. 3.55.050 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 CVMe 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 offees bv 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. Commercial/office and industrial development projects shall be charged on a per acre or per square footage basis. For purposes of this fee, gross acreage and lor 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 parcel or parcels of the development project for which building permits are 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 proj ect. 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 fmds that ORD#2 5-32 collection of the fees established by this chapter at the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for those facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for the western part of the City. 5-33 QRD#2 3.55.080 PurJlose and use offee. The fees collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes as determined by the City Council: 1. 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 3.55.030. 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 July I of each year 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 fmanced by the fee; changes in land use designation in the City's General Plan; and upon other sound engineering, fmancing and planning information. ORD#2 5-34 ProDosed TDIF Fee Der EDU: I $3,243.00 ",:..,_" ..,..,...::.._.,".'..:.,...>.,:.'.:.;....:...".;:,:..:..:"",_,:"_'C T , , ED Us TDIF Rate Land Use Classifi.atiiin' , " " RESIDENTIAL , esidential (LOW) 0-6 dwellin~ units oer acre 1 oer EDU $3,2431 DU Residential (MEm 6.1 To 20 dwellin~ units Der acre .8 per EDU $2,5941 DU Residential !HIGH) Over 20 dwellin~ units oer acre .6perEDU $1,946/DU Mobile Home .5 per EDU $1,6221 DU COMMERCIAL Contain 1-5 major dept. stores & usually have !more than 50 tenants. Typically larger than 40 Re~ional Commercial acres. 20EDU/Acre $64,860 1 Acre Smaller in that size than regional. Contain junior lDep!. Store or variety Store,( I.e. Target Center with other commercial stores)as a maj or tenant Community Commercial and have 15 to 50 other tenants. Smaller in size, 8-20 acres. 28EDU/Acre $90,804 1 Acre Neiwborhood Commercial Less than 10 acres. Includes supermarket and dru~ store. Mav include office soaces. 48EDU/Acre $155,6641 Acre ~eiwborhood Commercial Same as above but in Souare Foota.e 4.8EDU/KSF $15,664/KSF Commercial activities found along major streets, bot in a planned center with limited on-site Street Front Commercial oarking. 16EDU/Acre $51,8881 Acre Retail Commercial Soecialty RetaiIJStrio Commercial 16EDU/Acre $51,888/KSF Usually located near transportation facilities. Structures are usually large and cover majority of Ithe parcel. Examples are clothing and supply, Wholesale Trade also includes swao meet areas. 24EDU/Acre $77.832/Acre OFFICE Hiw Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. and 6+ Stories 60EDU/Acre $194,5801 Acre Low Rise Office < 6 Stories 30EDU/Acre $97,290/Acre LOW Rise Office (in thousands < 6 Stories of souare feen 2 EDU/KSF $6,4861 KSF Medical Office Medical and Dental Facilities 50EDU/Acre $162,1501 Acre LODGING , Low Rise HotelJMotel < 4 Stories , 20EDU/Acre $64,8601 Acre Low Rise Hotel or Motel < 4 Stories ' 1 EDU/Room $3,243 1 Room lHigh Rise Hotel 1>=4 Stories 30/EDU/Acre $97,2901 Acre INDUSTRY Shipbuilding, airframe, and aircraft manufacturing. Usually located next to Heavv Industry tTansportation facilities and commercial areas. Darcels are tvoicallv 20-50 Acre. 12EDU/Acre $38,916/Acre Usually large buildings located near freeways, Warehouse IStora~e industrial or strin commercial areas. 6EDU/Acre $19,4581 Acre Office/industrial uses clustered into a center. The primary uses are industrial by may include high percentages of other uses in service or retail Industrial Park activities. 9EDU/Acre $29,1871 Acre 111.11 other industrial uses and manufacturing not Liwt Industrial included in cate~ories above. 20EDU/Acre $64,8601 Acre Table 1 PROPOSED WTDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION ORD#2 5-35 3.55.100 Development proiects 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 charged ("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 nonprofit 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 accountine and expenditures. A. The fees collected shall be deposited into a Western Transportation Development Impact Fee financing 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 Findines. The City Council finds 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, 2008; and D. Based on analysis presented in the Engineer's Report there is a reasonable relationship between I. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed and 2. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. 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. ORD#2 5-36 3.55.130 Fee additional to other fees and chare:es. This fee is in addition to the requirements imposed by other City laws, policies or regulations relating to the construction or the fmancing of the construction of public improvements within subdivisions or developments 3.55.150 Developer construction of transportation facilities. 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 Manager's designee. I. 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 fmal 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. Preparation of plans and specifications for approval by the City; ii. Secure and dedicate any right-of-way required for the transportation facility proj ect; 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 transportation facility project. c. The developer shall secure at least three qualified bids for work to be done and shall award the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder. The developer may combine the construction of the transportation facility project with other development-related work and award 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 awarded 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. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges shall be justified, shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City Manager's designee and ORD # 2 5-37 shall only be reimbursed at the prices for similar work included in the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. d. Upon complying with the conditions set forth in subsections (B)(1) 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)(l) 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 permits 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 [mal 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 transporUtion 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 are 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 [mal 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 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 permit 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 transportation 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 are available as determined by the City Manager; a reimbursement agreement will 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 ORD#2 5-38 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 financing, 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 Council 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 interim facilities such as a portable or modular 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 hardship on the condition that: (1) the use offers a significant public benefit; (2) the amount deferred bears interest at a fair market 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 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 that 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 law for protesting or challenging the fee imposed by this chapter. 3.55.170 Exemptions. Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt from the provisions of this fee. Exempt development uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use of land, generally described as "community purpose facility" as defined above in CVMC Section 3.55.020. ORO#2 5-39 3.55.180 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 development's 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 fmancing. 3.55.190 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 for those 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 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. 3.55.195 Fund loans. A. B. 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 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. Developer Loans. A developer may loan funds to the City as outlined in CVMC 3.55.150. 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 SECTION 3: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Jack Griffin Engineering and General Services Director Ann Moore City Attorney 5-40 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA 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 PROJECTS - 1-805-2, RAS-17 AND BP-4 WHEREAS, the adoption of the City's General plan indicated that future growth was going to occur in the City west ofI-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 1987, 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 area east of Interstate 805: 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 determined 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 WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Chula Vista is placing this ordinance on its fust 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 ORD # 3 5-41 WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a), the fees proposed by this ordinance will not become effective until sixty (60) days after its frrst reading; and 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 westside of the City as follows: SECTION 1: Findings The City Council frnds, 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 are sufficient fimds available to frnance the transportation facilities necessary to serve development west ofI-805;and The City Council frnds 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 construction of transportation facilities; and The City Council fmds, 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 welfare by providing for the public transportation facilities to assure effective implementation of the City's General Plan; and The City Council frnds 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 frnancing and construction of certain public transportation facilities which are the subject of this chapter. New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public transportation facilities in direct relationship to the amount of vehicular traffic and population generated by the development or the gross acreage of the commercial or industrial land in the development. The City Council has detennined that a reasonable means of frnancing the public transportation facilities is to charge 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 ORD#3 5-42 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 Defmitions. For the purposes of this chapter, the following words or phrases shall be construed as defined herein, unless from the context it appears 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 Manager's designee. C. "Density" means dwelling units per gross acre identified for each planning area shown on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel 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 commercial/office or industrial development constructed on vacant land; 3. Any expansions to established developments or new developments on nonvacant 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 nonvacant land, or expanded within a pre-existing site, if the result is a net increase in dwelling 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 services as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, Alcoholics Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Day care; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. H. "Western portion of the City of Chula Vista" generally means that area 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. 1. "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. J. "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 ORD#3 5-43 volume corridors. They are roadways that are listed in the most recent edition of SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan K. "Special land use" means any nonresidential, non-commercial/office or nonindustrial development project (e.g., Olympic Training Center, hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. L. "Special purpose project" means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g., day care). 3.55.030 Public transDortation facilities to be fmanced bv the fee. A. The public transportation facilities ("facilities") which are the subject matter of the fee, are 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 are as follows: I. (I-5-1) 1-51E Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 2. (1-5-2) 1-51E Street/Bay Blvd SB off-ramp restriping add lane 3. (I-5-3) 1-5/NB ramp widening at E, H, J, Ind., Palomar & Main Sts (21%) 4. (1-5-4) E Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20' X $350/sf) 5. (1-5-5) F Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20' X $3501sf 6. (1-5-6) 1-5/H Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 7. (1-5-7) 1-5/H Street SB off-ramp restriping add lane 8. (I-5-8) H Street bridge widening over 1-5 (200'X40'X$350/sf) 9. (1-5-9) 1-5/J Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 10. (1-5"10) 1-5/J Street undercrossing widening add EB-NB (175x20X$350) 11. (I-5-1I) L Street bridge widening overI-5 (SIW for peds 300' X 12')(21 %) 12. (I-5-12) 1-5/Bay Blvd (south ofL St.) SB on/off ramps traffic signal 13. (1-5-13) 1-5/Industrial Blvd NB onJofframps traffic signal 14. (1-5-14) 1-5/Palomar Street bridge widening (2751fX 50lfX $350/sf) 15. (I-5-15) 1-5/Main Street NB on/off ramps traffic signal (CV share $120k) 16. (1-5-16) 1-5/Main Street bridge widening (2751fX 20lfX $350/sf) 17. (I-5-17) 1-5 HOV & Managed Lanesfrom SR905 to SR54 (63.4% in CJ1 18. STM 361 5-44 ORD#3 a. 1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Study (80% Fed. DEMO funds) b. (SANDAG cost estimate is $4.3M & CV share TBD.) Interstate-805 Improvements 19. (1-805-1) NB on-ramp widening & metering at Bonita, East H St (EB-NB), Telegraph Canyon Road (Project 1-805-1 is 100% funded in 2006 RTIP with State funds.) 20. (/-805-2) Main St. undercrossing widening for EB-NB left turn lane State Route 54 Improvements 21. (SR-54-1) SR-54 WB off-ramp restripe at Broadway 22. (SR-54-2) SR-54EB off-ramp at N. Fourth Avenue - add ramp lane Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects 23. (RAS-1) Bonita Road from First Avenue to 1-805 24. (RAS-2) Broadway from C Street to south of Main Street (City Limits) 25. (RAS-3) E Street improvements - First Ave to Bonita RoadiE. Flower St 26. (RAS-4) E Street improvements, 1-5 to 300' east ofNB ramp 27. (RAS-5) E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 28. (RAS-6) H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 29. (RAS-7) H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane & traffic signal modifications 30. (RAS-8) H Street l4'-wide median & street light improvements (same as RAS-9) 31. (RAS-9) H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway 32. (RAS-10) H Street improvements from Second Ave to Hilltop Drive 33. (RAS-11) East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Dr. to 1-805 34. (RAS-12) L Street/Bay Blvd traffic signal & add turn lanes 35. (RAS-B) L Street improvements south side west ofIndustrial Blvd 36. (RAS-l4) Telegraph Canyon Road at 1-805 south side sidewalk 37. (RAS-I5) Orange A venue from Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive 38. (RAS-16) Palomar Street improvements from 1-5 to 1-805 ORD#3 5-45 39. (RAS-17) Main St. improvements from I-5 to I-805 (See GPU Table 5.10-6) 40. (RAS-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 turn lanes General Plan Impacts and Mitigations 42. (GP-I) E. S1. from Marina to 1-5 43. (GP-2) Marina Parkway from E-J S1. 44. (GP-3) L S1. from Hilltop to 1-805 45. (GP-4) Main S1. from 1-5 to Broadway 46. (GP-5) Main S1. from Broadway to Hilltop Dr. 47. (GP-6) Third Avenue from L St. to Palomar S1. 48. (GP-7) H S1. from Marina to 1-5 49. (GP-8) J St. from Marina to 1-5 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Improvements (21 % WTDIF share per GPU) 50. (BP-l) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street & F Streets 51. (BP-3) Industrial Blvd improvements & bike lanes from L S1. to Main Street 52. (BP-4) Main Street bike lanes from Industrial Blvd & I-805 53. (BP-5) Orange A ve. bike lanes from Palomar St to Hilltop Drive 54. (BP-6) Develop bicycle paths & pedestrian access to Third Avenue Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Roadways 55. (Mid-I) E Street restripe to add EB-NB dual left turn to NB 1-5 on-ramp. 56. (Mid-2) 1-5/E St. SB off-ramp widening to add fourth lane 57. (Mid-3) Bay Blvd 15' widening along Westerly Curb Line at E S1. approach for I SB/3NB 58. (Mid-4) I-5/E S1. NB widen off-ramp to add 3rd lane for Right Turn only lane 59. (Mid-5) E St revisions to median and North Curb Line east of 1-5 to add 3rd WB lane. 60. (Mid-6) Marina Parkway 4-lane from E S1. to J S1. 5-46 ORD # 3 61. (Mid-7) E St./Woodlawn Ave EB-SB RT lane plus a Traffic Signal) 62. (Mid-g) E St. at Broadway add WB & EB LT lane + WB & EB RT only lane. plus a Traffic Signal & No RJW costs. 63. (Mid-9) F StJBroadway restriping to provide EB-SB & WB-NB RT lane 64. (Mid-IO) H Street widening at Broadway for WB Thru & EB Thru & RT only. Other Roadways 65. (OR-I) N. 4th Avenue/Brisbane Ave traffic signal modifications 66. (OR-2) Second A venue/D Street all-way stop installation 3.55.040 Territorv to which fee applicable. The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the fee herein established shall be applicable is the territorial limits of the western portion of the City of Chula Vista ("territory") as defined above, as they may from time to time be amended. 3.55.050 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 WTDlF 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 ofChula Vista. 3.55.060 Determination of fees bv 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. Commercial/office and industrial development projects shall be charged on a per acre or per square footage basis. For purposes of this fee, gross acreage and lor 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 parcel or parcels of the development project for which building permits are 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 ORD#3 5-47 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 finds that collection of the fees established by this chapter at the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for those facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for the western part of the City. 3.55.080 Purpose and use of fee. The fees collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes as determined by the City Council: 1. 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 3.55.030. 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 I. The fee shall be adjusted on July I of each year 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 I % 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 General Plan; and upon other sound engineering, fmancing and planning information. 5-48 ORD#3 Table 1 PROPOSED WTDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Proposed TDIF Fee per EDU: I $3,243.00 ILl""'!' ",3",.","", """",,'" ,'.'" >t"e,',,'" , . , ':;,",' ", . I,'" ' EDUs TDIF Rate , and Use Classification' ",; .' ., RESIDENTIAL lResidential (LOW) 0-6 dwelling units oer acre 1 oer EDU $3,243/DU Residential (MED) 6,1 To 20 dwelling units oer acre ,S per EDU $2,594 I DU Residential (HIGH) Over 20 dwelling units oer acre ,6perEDU $1,946 I DU Mobile Home ,5 per EDU $1,622 I DU COMMERCIAL Contain 1-5 major dept, stores & usually have more than 50 tenants, Typically larger than 40 Regional Commercial acres. 20EDU/Acre $64,860 I Acre Smaller in that size than regional, Contain junior Dept Store or variety Store,( I.e, Target Centet with other commercial stores)as a major tenant Community Commercial and have 15 to 50 other tenants. Smaller in size, S-20 acres, 2SEDU/Acre $90,804 I Acre iNeighborhood Commercial Less than 10 acres. Includes supermarket and drug store. Mav include office soaces, 4SEDU/Acre $155,664 I Acre IN.,ighborhood Commercial Same as above but in Souare Footage 4,SEDU/KSF $15,664/KSF Commercial activities found along major streets, Inot in a planned center with limited on-site Street Front Commercial arking, l6EDU/Acre $51,888 I Acre Ketall Commercial Soecialtv Retail/Strio Commercial l6EDU/Acre $51,888/KSF Usually located near transportation facilities. Structures are usually large and cover majority of the parcel. Examples are clothing and supply, Wholesale Trade also includes swao meet areas. 24EDU/Acre $77,832 I Acre OFFICE High Rise Office More than 100,000 S,F, and 6+ Stories 60EDU/Acre $194,580/Acre ILOW Rise Office < 6 Stories 30EDU/Acre $97,290 I Acre Low Rise Office (in thousands < 6 Stories of sauare feet) 2 EDU/KSF $6,486 I KSF !Medical Office lMedical and Dental Facilities 50 EDUI Acre $162,1501 Acre LODGING iLow Rise HotellMotel < 4 Stories 20 EDUI Acre $64,860 I Acre iLaw Rise Hotel or Motel < 4 Stories 1 EDU/Room $3,243 I Room High Rise Hotel b=4 Stories 30/EDU/Acre $97,290 I Acre INDUSTRY Shipbuilding, airframe, and aircraft manufucturing.Usuallyloc&ednextto Heavv Industrv lTansportation facilities and commercial areas. Parcels are typicallv 20-50Acre. l2EDU/Acre $38,916/Acre Usually large buildings located near freeways, W arehouse IStora~e industrial or strio commercial areas, 6EDU/Acre $19,458 I Acre Office/industrial uses clustered into a center, The IPrimary uses are industrial by may include high [percentages of other uses in service or retail tIndustrial Park activities. 9EDU/Acre $29,187 I Acre lLight Industrial IAll other industrial uses and manufacturing Dot included in categories above. 20 EDU/ Acre $64,860 I Acre ORD # 3 5-49 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 charged ("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 nonprofit 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 financing 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 Finding:s. The City Council finds 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, 2008; and D. Based on analysis presented in the Engineer's Report there is a reasonable relationship between I. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed and 2. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. 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. ORD#3 5-50 3.55.130 Fee additional to other fees and chare:es. 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 3.55.150 Developer construction of transportation facilities. 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 fmance 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 Manager's designee. I. 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 fmal 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. Preparation 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 transportation facility project. c. The developer shall secure at least three qualified bids for work to be done and shall award the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder. The developer may combine the construction of the transportation facility project with other development-related work and award 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 awarded 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. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges shall be justified, shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City Manager's designee and ORD # 3 5-51 shall only be reimbursed at the prices for similar work included in the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion ofthe contract. d. Upon complying with the conditions set forth in subsections (B)(l) 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)(l) 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 permits 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 are eligible for credit or cash reimbursement. g. After fmal 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 fmal expenditure determination and the amount of the 75 percent immediate credit used, if any. The City shall notify the developer of the fmal 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 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 permit 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 transportation facility proj ect 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 are available as determined by the City Manager; a reimbursement agreement will 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 ORD#3 5-52 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 financing, 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 Council 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 interim facilities such as a portable or modular 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 hardship on the condition that: (1) the use offers a significant public benefit; (2) the amount deferred bears interest at a fair market 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 proj ect is given, or if no development permit is required, at the time of the filing of the 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 that 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 law for protesting or challenging the fee imposed by this chapter. 3.55.170 Exemptions. Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt from the provisions of this fee. Exempt development uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use of land, generally described as "community purpose facility" as defined above in CYMC Section 3.55.020. ORD # 3 5-53 3.55.180 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 development's 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. 3.55.190 Economic incentive credit. The City Council may authorize the City to participate in the fmancing of transportation facility projects or portions of transportation facility projects as defmed 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 for those 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 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. 3.55.195 Fnnd loans. A. B. 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 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. Developer Loans. A developer may loan funds to the City as outlined in CVMC 3.55.150. 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 SECTION 3: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Jack Griffin Engineering and General Services Director Ann Moore City Attorney 5-54 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CllliLA 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 BP-2 WHEREAS, the adoption of the City's General plan indicated that future growth was going to occur in the City west ofI-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 1987, the City has had a program in place for the collection of a transportation development impact fee for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805. 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 determined 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 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 ORD#4 5-55 WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 66017(a), the fees proposed by this ordinance will not become effective until sixty (60) days after its first reading; and 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 westside of the City as follows: SECTION 1: Findings The City Council finds, 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 are sufficient funds available to finance the transportation facilities necessary to serve development west ofI-805; and The City Council fmds 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 construction 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 welfare by providing for the public transportation facilities to assure effective implementation of the City's General Plan; and The City Council fmds 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 are the subject of this chapter. New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public transportation facilities in direct relationship to the amount of vehicular 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 charge 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 5-56 ORD#4 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 defrned herein, unless from the context it appears 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 Manager's designee. C. "Density" means dwelling units per gross acre identifred for each planning area shown on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel 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: I. Any new residential dwelling unit developed on vacant land; 2. Any new commercial/offrce or industrial development constructed on vacant land; 3. Any expansions to established developments or new developments on nonvacant land in those land use categories listed in subsections (F)(I) 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 nonvacant land, or expanded within a pre"existing site, if the result is a net increase in dwelling 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: I. Social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, Alcoholics Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Day care; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. H. "Western portion of the City of Chula Vista" generally means that area 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. 1. "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 Offrce of the City Clerk. J. "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 ORD # 4 5-57 volume corridors. They are roadways that are listed in the most recent edition of SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan K. "Special land use" means any nonresidential, non-commercial/office or nonindustrial development project (e.g., Olympic Training Center, hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. 1. "Special purpose project" means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g., day care). 3.55.030 Public transportation facilities to be l"manced bv the fee. A. The public transportation facilities ("facilities") which are the subject matter of the fee, are 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 are as follows: 1. (I-5-1) I-51E Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 2. (1-5-2) I-5/E Street/Bay Blvd SB off-ramp restriping add lane 3. (I-5-3) I-5INB ramp widening at E, R, J, Ind., Palomar & Main Sts (21 %) 4. (1-5-4) E Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20' X $3501sf) 5. (1-5-5) F Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20' X $3501sf 6. (I-5-6) I-5/R Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 7. (1-5-7) I-5/R Street SB off-ramp restriping add lane 8. (1-5-8) R Street bridge widening over 1-5 (200'X40'X$350/sf) 9. (1-5-9) I-5/J Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 10. (I-5-10) I-5/J Street undercrossing widening add EB-NB (175x20X$350) 11. (1-5-11) L Street bridge widening overI-5 (S/W for peds 300' X 12')(21 %) 12. (1-5-12) I-5/Bay Blvd (south ofL St.) SB on/off ramps traffic signal 13. (1-5-13) I-5/Industrial Blvd NB on/off ramps traffic signal 14. (1-5-14) I-5/Palomar Street bridge widening (2751fX 50lfX $350/sf) 15. (1-5-15) I-5/Main StreetNB on/off ramps traffic signal (CV share $120k) 16. (I-5-16) I-5/Main Street bridge widening (2751fX 20lfX $350/sf) 17. (/-5-17)/-5 HOV & ManagedLanesfromSR905 toSR54 (63.4% in 0) 18. STM 361 ~. 5-58 ORa #4 a. 1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Study (80% Fed. DEMO funds) b. (SANDAG cost estimate is $4.3M & CV share TBD.) Interstate-805 Improvements 19. (1-805-1) NB on-ramp widening & metering at Bonita, East H St (EB-NB), Telegraph Canyon Road (project 1-805-1 is 100% funded in 2006 RTIP with State funds.) 20. (1-805-2) Main St. undercrossing widening for EB-NB left turn lane State Route 54 Improvements 21. (SR-54-1) SR-54 WE off-ramp restripe 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-I) Bonita Road from First Avenue to 1-805 24. (RAS-2) Broadway from C Street to south of Main Street (City Limits) 25. (RAS-3) E Street improvements - First Ave to Bonita RoadIE. Flower St 26. (RAS-4) E Street improvements, 1-5 to 300' east ofNB ramp 27. (RAS-5) E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 28. (RAS-6) H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 29. (RAS- 7) H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane & traffic signal modifications 30. (RAS-8) H Street 14'-wide median & street light improvements (same as RAS-9) 31. (RAS-9) H Street widening to 6-1anes from Interstate-5 to Broadway 32. (RAS-lO) H Street improvements from Second Ave to Hilltop Drive 33. (RAS-11) East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Dr. to 1-805 34. (RAS-12) L StreetlBay Blvd traffic signal & add turn lanes 35. (RAS-B) L Street improvements south side west of Industrial Blvd 36. (RAS-14) Telegraph Canyon Road at 1-805 south side sidewalk 37. (RAS-15) Orange A venue from Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive 38. (RAS-16) Palomar Street improvements from 1-5 to 1-805 5-59 ORD #4 39. (RAS-17) Main St. improvements from 1-5 to 1-805 (See GPU Table 5.10-6) 40. (RAS-I8) H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes 41. (RAS-I9) H St/4th Ave add WB-NB & EB-SB right turn lanes General Plan Impacts and Mitigations 42. (GP-I) E. St. from Marina to 1-5 43. (GP-2) Marina Parkway from E-J St. 44. (GP-3) L St. from Hilltop to 1-805 45. (GP-4) Main St. from 1-5 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 1-5 49. (GP-8) J St. from Marina to 1-5 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Improvements (21 % WTDIF share per GPU) 50. (BP-I) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street & F Streets 51. (BP-2) F Street sidewalklbike lane improvements from 1-5 to Fourth A venue 52. (BP-3) Industrial Blvd improvements & bike lanes from L St. to Main Street 53. (BP-4) Main Street bike lanes from Industrial Blvd & 1-805 54. (BP-5) Orange A ve. bike lanes from Palomar St. to Hilltop Drive 55. (BP-6) Develop bicycle paths & pedestrian access to Third Avenue Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Roadways 56. (Mid-I) E Street restripe to add EB-NB dual left turn to NB 1-5 on-ramp. 57. (Mid-2) 1-5/E St. SB off-ramp widening to add fourth lane 58. (Mid-3) Bay Blvd 15' widening along Westerly Curb Line at E St. approach for I SB/3NB 59. (Mid-4) 1-5/E S1. 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 1-5 to add 3rd WB lane. 5-60 ORD#4 61. (Mid-6) Marina Parkway 4-lane from E St. to ] 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 StJBroadway restriping to provide EB-SB & WB-NB RT lane 65. (Mid-IO) H Street widening at Broadway for WB Tbru & EB Tbru & RT only. Other Roadways 66. (OR-I) N. 4th Avenue/Brisbane Ave traffic signal modifications 67. (OR-2) Second Avenue/D Street all-way stop installation 3.55.040 Territorv to which fee aoolicable. The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the fee herein established shall be applicable is the territorial limits of the western portion of the City of Chula Vista ("territory") as defmed above, as they may from time to time be amended. 3.55.050 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 ChuJa 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 bv land use catelWrv. 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. Commercial/office and industrial development projects shall be charged on a per acre or per square footage basis. For purposes of this fee, gross acreage and lor 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 parcel or parcels of the development project for which building permits are 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. ORD # 4 5-61 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 frnal 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 identifred 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 frnds that collection of the fees established by this chapter at the time of the building permlt is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for those facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for the western part of the City. 3.55.080 PurDose and use offee. The fees collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes as determined 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 3.55.030. 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 July I of each year 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 frnanced by the fee; changes in land use designation in the City's General Plan; and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. 5-62 ORD#4 " Table 1 PROPOSED WTDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Pro Dosed TDIF Fee per EDU: I $3,243.00 'Land Use C1assificatiori .. I I EDUs I TDIF Rate RESIDENTIAL Residential (LOW) 0-6 dwelling units Der acre I Der EDU $3,2431 DU K.esidential (MED) 6.1 To 20 dwelling units Der acre .8per EDU $2,5941 DU K.esidential rmOR) Over 20 dwelling units Der acre .6 per EDU $1,9461 DU Mobile Home . . .5 per EDU $1,6221 DU COMMERCIAL Contain 1-5 major dept. stores & usually have more than 50 tenants. Typically larger than 40 Regional Commercial acres. 20 EDUI Acre $64,860 I Acre Smaller in that size than regional. Contain junior Dept. Store or variety Store,( i.e. Target Center with other commercial stores)as a major tenant and have 15 to 50 other tenants. Smaller in size, Community Commercial 8-20 acres. 28EDU/Acre $90,8041 Acre iNei"hborhood Commercial Less than I 0 acres. Includes supermarket and drug store. Mav include office SDaces. 48EDU/Acre $155,6641 Acre iNei"hborhood Commercial Same as above but in Square Footage 4.8 EDU/KSF $15,664/KSF Commercial activities found along major streets, not in a planned center with limited on-site Street Front Commercial Ioarking. 16EDU/Acre $51,8881 Acre Retail Commercial SDecialtv Retail/StriD Commercial 16EDUlAcre $51,888/KSF !usually located near transportation facilities. Structures are usually large and cover majority of be parcel. Examples are clothing and supply, Wholesale Trade also includes swaD meet areas. 24EDU/Acre $77,832/Acre OFFICE High Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. and 6+ Stories 60 EDUI Acre $194,580 I Acre L.ow Rise Office < 6 Stories 30 EDUI Acre $97,290/Acre Low Rise Office (in thousands < 6 Stories of souare feet) 2 EDU/KSF $6,4861 KSF Medical Office Medical and Dental Facilities 50EDU/Acre $162,150/ Acre LODGING Low Rise Hotel/Motel < 4 Stories 20EDU/Acre $64,860/Acre Low Rise Hotel or Motel < 4 Stories I EDU/Room $3,2431 Room High Rise Hotel >=4 Stories 30lEDU/Acre $97,290 I Acre INDUSTRY Shipbuilding, airframe, and aircraft Imanufacturing. Usually located next to lHeavy Industrv transportation facilities and commercial areas. Iparcels are typically 20-50 Acre. 12EDU/Acre $38,916/Acre ~arehouse/Storage lusually large buildings located near freeways, industrial or strip commercial areas. 6EDU/Acre $19,4581 Acre Office/industrial uses clustered into a center. The primary uses are industrial by may include high percentages of other uses in service or retail Industrial Park activities. 9 EDUI Acre $29,187 I Acre Light Industrial All other industrial uses and manufacturing not included in categories above. 20EDU/Acre $64,860 I Acre ORD # 4 5-63 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 charged ("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 nonprofit 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 accountine: and expenditures. A. The fees collected shall be deposited into a Western Transportation Development Impact Fee financing 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 Findine:s. 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, 2008; and D. Based on analysis presented in the Engineer's Report there is a reasonable relationship between 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 types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. 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. 5-64 ORD # 4 3.55.130 Fee additional to other fees and chare:es. 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 3.55.150 Developer construction oftransportation facilities. 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 Manager's 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 fmal 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. Preparation 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 transportation facility project. c. The developer shall secure at least three qualified bids for work to be done and shall award the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder. The developer may combine the construction of the transportation facility project with other development-related work and award 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 awarded 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. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges shall be justified, shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City Manager's designee and ORD#4 5-65 shall only be reimbursed at the prices for similar work included in the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. d. Upon complying with the conditions set forth in subsections (B)(1) 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 permits 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 fmal 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 are eligible for credit or cash reimbursement. g. After fmal 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 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 permit 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 transportation facility proj ect 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 are available as determined by the City Manager; a reimbursement agreement will 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 5-66 ORD#4 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 financing, 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 Council 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 interim facilities such as a portable or modular 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 hardship' on the condition that: (1) the use offers a significant public benefit; (2) the amount deferred bears interest at a fair market 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 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 that 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 law for protesting or challenging the fee imposed by this chapter. 3.55.170 Exemptions. Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt from the provisions of this fee. Exempt development uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use of land, generally described as "community purpose facility" as defined above in CVMC Section 3.55.020. ORD # 4 5-67 3.55.180 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 development's 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 fmancing. 3.55.190 Economic incentive credit. The City Council may authorize the City to participate in the fmancing 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 for those proj ects 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 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. 3.55.195 Fund loans. A. B. 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 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. Developer Loans. A developer may loan funds to the City as outlined in CVMC 3.55.150. 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 SECTION 3: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Jack Griffm Engineering and General Services Director Ann Moore City Attorney 5-68 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA 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! -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 1987, 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 area east of Interstate 805. 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 proj ect 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 determined that the activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines; ther<;:fore, pursuant to Section 15060(c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA; and 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 ORD#5 5-69 WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 660l7(a), the fees proposed by this ordinance will not become effective until sixty (60) days after its fust reading; and 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 westside of the City as follows: SECTION 1: Findings The City Council finds, 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 are sufficient funds available to finance the transportation facilities necessary to serve development west ofI-80S; 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 construction 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 welfare 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 are the subject of this chapter. New development contributes to the cumulative burden on these public transportation facilities in direct relationship to the amount of vehicular 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 charge 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 5-70 ORD # 5 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 appears 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 Manager's designee. C. "Density" means dwelling units per gross acre identified for each planning area shown on the approved tentative map or approved tentative parcel 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: I. Any new residential dwelling unit developed on vacant land; 2. Any new commercial/office or industrial development constructed on vacant land; 3. Any expansions to established developments or new developments on nonvacant land in those land use categories listed in subsections (F)(l) 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 nonvacant land, or expanded within a pre-existing site, if the result is a net increase in dwelling 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 services as Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, Boys and Girls Club, Alcoholics Anonymous and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools; 3. Private schools; 4. Day care; 5. Senior care and recreation; 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. H. "Western portion of the City of Chula Vista" generally means that area 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. 1. "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. J. "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 ORD # 5 5-71 volume corridors. They are roadways that are listed in the most recent edition of SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan K. "Special land use" means any nonresidential, non-commercial/office or nonindustrial development project (e.g., Olympic Training Center, hospitals, utilities), or non-special purpose project. L. "Special purpose project" means any for-profit community purpose facility (e.g., day care). 3.55.030 Public transportation facilities to be fmanced bv the fee. A. The public transportation facilities ("facilities") which are the subject matter of the fee, are 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 are as follows: 1. (1-5-1) 1-5IB Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 2. (1-5-2) 1-5IB Street/Bay Blvd SB off-ramp restriping add lane 3. (1-5-3) 1-5/NB ramp widening at E, H, J, Ind., Palomar & Main Sts (21%) 4. (1-5-4) E Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20' X $350/sf) 5. (1-5-5) F Street bridge widening over 1-5 (250' X 20' X $350/sf 6. (1-5-6) 1-5/H Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 7. (1-5-7) 1-5/H Street SB off-ramp restriping add lane 8. (1-5-8) H Street bridge widening over 1-5 (200'X40'X$350/sf) 9. (1-5-9) 1-5/J Street NB off-ramp restriping add lane 10. (1-5-10) 1-5/J Street undercrossing widening add EB-NB (175x20X$350) 11. (1-5-11) L Street bridge widening over 1-5 (S/W for peds 300' X 12')(21%) 12. (1-5-12) 1-5/Bay Blvd (south ofL St.) SB on/off ramps traffic signal 13. (1-5-13) 1-5/Industrial Blvd NB on/off ramps traffic signal 14. (1-5-14) 1-5/Palomar Street bridge widening (2751fX 501fX $350/sf) 15. (1-5-15) 1-5/Main Street NB on/off ramps traffic signal (CV share $120k) 16. (1-5-16) 1-5/Main Street bridge widening (2751fX 20lfX $350/sf) 17. (I-5-17) 1-5 HOV & Managed LanesfromSR905 to SR54 (63.4% in CJ1 18. STM 361 5-72 ORD#5 a. 1-5 Multi-Modal Corridor Study (80% Fed. DEMO funds) b. (SANDAG cost estimate is $4.3M & CV share TBD.) Interstate-80S Improvements 19. (I-805-1) NB on-ramp widening & metering at Bonita, East H St (EB-NB), Telegraph Canyon Road (Project 1-805-1 IS 100% funded in 2006 RTIP with State funds.) 20. (I-S05-2) Main St. undercrossing widening for EB-NB left turn lane State Route 54 Improvements 21. (SR-54-I) SR-54 WB off-ramp restripe at Broadway 22. (SR-54-2) SR-54 EB off-ramp atN. Fourth Avenue - add ramp lane Regional Arterial System (RAS) Projects 23. (RAS-I) Bonita Road from First Avenue to 1-805 24. (RAS-2) Broadway from C Street to south of Main Street (City Limits) 25. (RAS-3) E Street improvements - First Ave to Bonita Road/E. Flower St 26. (RAS-4) E Street improvements, 1-5 to 300' east ofNB ramp 27. (RAS-5) E Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 28. (RAS-6) H Street LRT grade separation (underpass LRT option) 29. (RAS-7) H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane & traffic signal modifications 30. (RAS-8) H Street 14'-wide median & street light improvements (same as RAS-9) 31. (RAS-9) H Street widening to 6-lanes from Interstate-5 to Broadway 32. (RAS-IO) H Street improvements from Second Ave to Hilltop Drive 33. (RAS-II) East H St. north side improvements from Hilltop Dr. to 1-805 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 1-805 south side sidewalk 37. (RAS-15) Orange A venue from Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive 38. (RAS-16) Palomar Street improvements from 1-5 to 1-805 5-73 ORD # 5 39. (RAS-17) Main Sf. improvements from 1-5 to I-80S (See GPU Table 5.10-6) 40. (RAS-I8) 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 turn lanes General Plan Impacts and Mitigations 42. (GP-I) E. S1. from Marina to 1-5 43. (GP-2) Marina Parkway from E-] S1. 44. (GP-3) L S1. from Hilltop to I-80S 45. (GP-4) Main St. from 1-5 to Broadway 46. (GP-5) Main S1. from Broadway to Hilltop Dr. 47. (GP-6) Third Avenue from L S1. to Palomar S1. 48. (GP-7) H S1. from Marina to 1-5 49. (GP-8) J S1. from Marina to 1-5 Bicycle & Pedestrian Facilities Improvements (21 % WTDIF share per GPU) 50. (BP-I) Bayshore Bikeway (bike path) between E Street & F Streets 51. (BP-2) F Street sidewalklbike lane improvements from 1-5 to Fourth A venue 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-80S 54. (BP-5) Orange A ve. bike lanes from Palomar St. to Hilltop Drive 55. (BP-6) Develop bicycle paths & pedestrian access to Third Avenue Midbayfront Local Coastal Program Roadways 56. (Mid-I) E Street restripe to add EB-NB dual left turn to NB 1-5 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 S1. approach for I SB/3NB 59. (Mid-4) I-5IE S1. 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 1-5 to add 3rd WB lane. 5-74 ORD#5 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 RJW costs. 64. (Mid-9) F St/Broadway restriping to provide EB-SB & WB-NB RT lane 65. (Mid-IO) H Street widening at Broadway for WB Thru & EB Thru & RT only. Other Roadways 66. (OR-I) N. 4th Avenue/Brisbane Ave traffic signal modifications 67. (OR-2) Second Avenue/D Street all-way stop installation 68. (OR-4) Traffic Management Center (30% TDIF/30% WTDIF/40% TSFund) 3.55.040 Territorv to which fee applicable. The area of the City of Chula Vista to which the fee herein established shall be applicable is the territorial limits of the western portion of the City of Chula Vista ("territory") as defined above, as they may from time to time be amended. 3.55.050 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 bv 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. Commercial/office and industrial development projects shall be charged on a per acre or per square footage basis. For purposes of this fee, gross acreage and lor 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 parcel or parcels of the development project for which building permits are 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. ORO # 5 5-75 3.55.070 Time to determine amount due. The fee for each development shalI 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 finds that colIection of the fees established by this chapter at the time of the building permit is necessary to ensure that funds will be available for the construction of facilities concurrent with the need for those facilities and to ensure certainty in the capital facilities budgeting for the western part of the City. 3.55.080 Purpose and use of fee. The fees collected shall be used by the City for the following purposes as determined 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 3.55.030. 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 I. The fee shall be adjusted on July 1 of each year 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 General Plan; and upon other sound engineering, financing and planning information. 5-76 ORD#5 Table 1 PROPOSED WTDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFICATION Proposed TDIF Fee per EDU: r $3,243.00 " ce- , I Land Use Classification ED Us TDIF Rate RESIDENTIAL R.esidential (LOW) 0-6 dwellin~ units ner acre 1 per EDU $3,2431 DU Residential IMED) 6.1 To 20 dwellin~ units oer acre .8 per EDU $2,594 I DU Residential <HIGH) Over 20 dwelIin2 units ner acre .6 per EDU $1,946/DU Mobile Home , .5 per EDU $1,6221 DU COMMERCIAL , Contain 1-5 major dept. stores & usually have Re2ional Commercial ~ore than 50 tellants. Typically larger than 40 acres. 20 EDUI Acre $64,860 I Acre Smaller in that size than regional. Contain junior Dept. Store or variety Store,( I.e. Target Center ~ith other commercial stores)as a major tenant and have 15 to 50 other tenants. Smaller in size, Community Commercial 8-20 acres. 28 EDU/Acre $90,804/Acre !Neighborhood Commercial Less than 10 acres. Includes supermarket and dru~ store. Mav include office soaces. 48 EDUI Acre $155,664/Acre !Nei~hborhood Commercial Same as above but in Square Footage 4.8 EDU/KSF $15,664/KSF Cominercial activities found along major streets, not in a planned center with limited on-site Street Front Commercial parkin~. 16EDU/Acre $51,888/Acre R.etail Commercial Snecialtv RetaiVStrip Commercial 16EDU/Acre $51,888/KSF Usually located near transportation facilities. Structures are usually large and cover majority of the parcel. Examples are clothing and supply, Wholesale Trade also includes swan meet areas. 24 EDUI Acre $77,832/Acre OFFICE High Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. and 6+ Stories 60 EDUI Acre $194,580 I Acre Low Rise Office < 6 Stories 30EDU/Acre $97,290 I Acre Low Rise Office (in thousands < 6 Stories of square feet) 2 EDU/KSF $6,486 I KSF Medical Office IMedical and Dental Facilities 50 EDU/Acre $162,150 I Acre LODGING ow Rise HotellMotel < 4 Stories 20 EDUI Acre $64,860 I Acre Low Rise Hotel or Motel < 4 Stories 1 EDU/R.oom $3,243 I Room tHigh Rise Hotel p=4 Stories 30 /EDUI Acre $97,290 I Acre INDUSTRY Shipbuilding, airframe, and aircraft manufacturing. Usually located next to Heavv IndustrY transportation facilities and commercial areas. Parcels are tvnicallv 20-50 Acre. 12EDU/Acre $38,916/Acre Warehouse/Stora2e Usually large buildings located near freeways, industrial or strip commercial areas. 6EDU/Acre $19,458/Acre Office/industrial uses clustered into a center. The primary uses are industrial by may include high percentages of other uses in service or retail Industrial Park activities. 9EDU/Acre $29,187/Acre Light Industrial All other industrial uses and manufacturing not included in cate20ries above. 20EDU/Acre $64,860 I Acre ORD# 5 5-77 3.55.100 Development proiects exempt from the fee. A. Development projects by public agencies shaIl be exempt from the provisions of the fee if those projects are designed to provide the public service for which the agency is charged ("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 nonprofit 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 conimunity 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 dweIling units or businesses, except special land use projects, shaIl 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 accountinl! and expenditures. A. The fees coIlected shaIl be deposited into a Western Transportation Development Impact Fee fmancing fund ("WTDIF fee fund," or "fund"), which is hereby created and shaIl be expended only for the purposes set forth in this chapter. B. The director of fmance 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 Findinl!s. The City Council finds that: A. CoIlection 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 wiIl 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, 2008; and D. Based on analysis presented in the Engineer's Report there is a reasonable relationship between I. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed and 2. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. 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. 5-78 ORD # 5 3.55.130 Fee additional to other fees and charl!es. 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 3.55.150 Developer construction of translJortation facilities. 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 Manager's designee. I. 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. Preparation 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 transportation facility project. c. The developer shall secure at least three qualified bids for work to be done and shall award the construction contract to the lowest qualified bidder. The developer may combine the construction of the transportation facility project with other development-related work and award 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 awarded 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. Any claims for additional payment for extra work or charges shall be justified, shall be documented to the satisfaction of the City Manager's designee and ORD#5 5-79 shall only be reimbursed at the prices for similar work included in the lowest bid for the transportation facility portion of the contract. d. Upon complying with the conditions set forth in subsections (B)(1) 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 permits 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 [mal 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 are 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 develaper shall receive credit against the deferred fee abligatian in an amount equal ta the difference between the final expenditure determination and the amount of the 75 percent immediate credit used, if any. The City shall natifY the develaper 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 ta pay the deferred fee. If the deferred fees are nat paid within the 30-day periad, 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 develaper's project, the City will incrementally apply credit which the developer has accrued in lieu .of collecting the required transpartation development impact fees. The amaunt 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 permit issuance. The City Manager's designee shall convert such credit to an EDU basis for residential development and/ar a gross acre basis for commercial or industrial development for purposes of determining the amount of credit to be applied ta each building permit. i. If the total eligible construction cost for the transpartation facility proj ect is more than the total transportatian 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 are available as determined by the City Manager; a reimbursement agreement will be executed; or the developer may waive reimbursement and use the excess as credit against future transpartatian develapment impact fee obligations. The City may, in its discretian, enter inta an agreement with the develaper to canvert excess credit inta EDU and/or gross acre credits for 5-80 ORD#5 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 financing, 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 Council 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 interim facilities such as a portable or modular 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 hardship on the condition that: (1) the use offers a significant public benefit; (2) the amount deferred bears interest at a fair market 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 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 that 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 law for protesting or challenging the fee imposed by this chapter. 3.55.170 Exemptions. Development projects by public agencies shall be exempt from the provisions of this fee. Exempt development uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use of land, generally described as "community purpose facility" as defined above in CYMC Section 3.55.020. ORD # 5 5-81 3.55.180 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 development's 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 fmancing. 3.55.190 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 defmed 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 for those 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 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 fmancial and engineering study "Western Transportation Development Impact Fee" report dated February 2008. 3.55.195 Fund loans. A. B. 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 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. Developer Loans. A developer may loan funds to the City as outlined in CVMC 3.55.150. 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 SECTION 3: Effective Date This Ordinance shall become effective 60 days after its second reading and adoption. Presented by Approved as to form by Jack Griffm Engineering and General Services Director Ann Moore City Attorney 5-82 5-84 ~\f~ --- "- - ~ --= CnY OF CHUlA VISTA Executive Summary Section 1: Introduction A. Development Impact Fees B. Transportration Development Impact Fees C. Historical Background Section 2: Development A. Development Forecast B. Population Growth Estimates C. Vehicular Growth Estimates Section 3: Fee Methodolgy A. Average Daily Trips (ADTs) B. Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) C. Proposed Projects and Fee Calculations Exhibit 1 Map of Benefit Area within Jurisdictional Areas of Western Chula Vista 27 Exhibit 2 SANDAG Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for San Diego Region 29 Exhibit 3 WTDIF Cost Estimates and Project Descriptions 31 Exhibit 4 WTDIF Master Land Use Inventory Table 49 Exhibit 5 RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study (Revised Draft) 56 Table A Citywide Land Use Summary Table 10 Table B Population and Dwelling Unit Estimates 11 Table C Traffic Volume Growth Estimates 12 Table D Assignment of ADTs 16 Table E Conversion of ADTs to EDUs 18 Table F Proposlild WTDIF Fee per Land Use Classification 23 5-85 '- ....." 5-86 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Chula Vista has prepared this Engineer's Report (report) to analyze the impacts of development on certain transportation facilities located west of Interstate 1-805 and to calculate development impact fees for those facilities in western Chula Vista. This report represents the 2008 Chula Vista Western Area Transportation Development Impact Fee Program for Streets, also known as the Western Transportation DIF, or "WTDIF". The report includes a discussion of the rationale behind development of these impact fees, an analysis of the proposed fee program, the Average Daily Trip (ADT) rate assignments for each land use and associated Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) and the transportation facility projects to be funded by future development in accordance with this fee program. The methods used in the report to calculate fees satisfy all legal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U.S. Constitution, the California Constitution and California Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (the "California Mitigation Fee Act", "Mitigation Fee Act" or "Act"). The WTDIF is a single program with two separate funding roles. The first portion of the fee is to be used on Regional Arterial System (RAS) roadway projects, and arterial street projects within the western jurisdictional boundary of the City of Chula Vista. RAS roadways are generally described as those roads that act as critical links in providing direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. The second portion of the fee will be used to make improvements to non- RAS facilities as described in detail below. The fee shall be charged to residential as well as non-residential units. The exact amount charged per dwelling unit varies based on the type of residential unit. The exact amount charged per non-residential land use also varies as described below. The fees calculated in this study for all land uses provide for the regional component of the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). City staff reviewed a variety of previously approved documents that dealt with traffic issues in order to determine the initial fee for the WTDIF program using the best information available at the time. The focus of this report then is fourfold: . To establish the fee program and a benefit area. . To document the average daily trip (ADT) rates and traffic volume increases for residential and non-residential land uses due to planned growth. . To provide descriptions and cost estimates for eligible WTDIF facilities. . To provide for the justification for future automatic increases of the fee based on construction cost indices. Additionally, the report will discuss the principles and requirements of California Government Code Section 66000 concerning how any proposed fees will not exceed the i 5-87 estimated reasonable cost of providing the new transportation improvements, i.e., the Reasonable Relationship Requirement. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that for fees subject to its provisions, the following findings must be made: . Identify the purpose of the fee. · Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. lIII Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed. III' Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed. · Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. Since January 1987, the City has had a program in place for the collection of a transportation development impact fee for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805. The WTDIF program is designed to complement the original TDIF program and capture those growth induced impacts and fund improvements on the west side of the City. TransNet In November 2004, San Diego County voters approved local Proposition A extending the TransNet Yl cent sales tax for transportation programs through 2048. Included in Proposition A and the TransNet Extension Ordinance is the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP is to ensure that new development directly invests in the region's transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. The RTCIP provides for the collection of a fee for each new residential unit. Currently, the RTCIP documents the need to collect a County-wide fee of $2,000 per residential unit for roadways that are determined to be Regional Arterial System (RAS) facilities. RAS roadways are listed in SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), dated November, 2007. The ordinance states, "Revenue collected through the Funding Programs shall be used to construct transportation improvements on the Regional Arterial System such as new arterial roadway lanes, turning lanes, reconfigured freeway-arterial interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services, or similar types of improvements, preliminary and final engineering, right of way acquisition, and construction that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand generated by new development throughout the San Diego region. A reasonable portion of the program revenue, up to a maximum of three percent, may be used for fund administration. " ii 5-88 Introduction 9 Page Z 5-90 A. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Development impact fees are imposed upon development in an area of benefit, often . containing a number of different properties, property owners, and land use types. The WTDIF has two main purposes: (1) To fund the construction of fadlities needed to reduce, or mitigate, potential impacts, including but not limited to, direct and cumulative impacts resulting from development within the benefit area; and (2) To spread the costs associated with construction of the facilities equitably among the developing properties within the benefit area. The benefit area described herein is that area within the jurisdictional area of the western portion of the City of Chula Vista, generally meaning that area 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 bqundary on the south, as shown on the map and attached as Exhibit 1. In the environmental review process, such as in the California Env;ronmental Quality Act (CEQA) process, a project's potential impacts are identified and, where feasible, a method of mitigating those impacts (reducing the actual impact to a level of insignificance) is identified. In the case of larger projects, the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identifies cumulative impacts resulting from the project, as well as direct impacts. Cumulative impacts are impacts created by overall development, of which individual projects do not create a significant impact directly, but contribute to an impact through the additive effect. Since future individual development projects located on the westside of Chula Vista are not solely responsible for the entire impact on any single segment of roadway, intersection, pedestrian or bicycle fadlity, they are only required to contribute a portion of the mitigation costs based on that project's fair share. Each project's fair share of the impact is based upon the amount of traffic the proposed project generates as measured by ADT. B. WESTERN TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE (WTDIF) As described above, a transportation development impact fee is an impact fee designed to mitigate cumulative impacts on the local transportation network as a result of new development. Generally, development of property produces impacts on the local road network resulting in decreased available traffic capacity on the street system. To measure the effects of traffic, cities establish capacity or Level of Service (LOS) standards that they each consider appropriate for their jurisdictions. Where potential impacts resulting from development are projected to reduce the capacity on streets to the point where the identified Level of Service will not be maintained, the impacts are deemed to be significant, and should be mitigated. Typical mitigation for cumulative impacts to the system would provide a host of improvements designed to restore capacity and maintain the desirable level of service. Examples of capacity-increasing improvements include but are not limited to such enhancements as adding new roads to the circulation netwgrk, widening or improving existing roads, installing new traffic signals or improving existing signalization, freeway interchange improvements, and improving signal coordination (management of traffic operations). For the City of Chula Vista, other non-traditional improvements were included in the calculation of the fee as a result of the City's goal of improving pedestrian and bicycle capacities as shown below from the city's General Plan. Page 3 5-91 GENERAL PLAN GOALS, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES The following discussion of Goals, Objectives and Polides is taken from the city's recently approved General Plan in the Land Use and Transportation (LUT) section and is the basis for including bicycle and pedestrian fadlities in the fee calculation. GOAL 7. 9 -Improv;ng Vehicular And Transit Mobility The City of Chula Vista will continue its efforts to develop and maintain a safe and efficient transportation system with adequate roadway capacity; however, the City's ability to widen roads to accommodate increased demand from automobife traffic is limited. Additionally, road widening in some areas is not consistent with goals to create streets that are pedestrian-friendly and safe. Therefore, the City must seek alternative ways to increase the capacity to move both people and cars. This includes more efficient use of roadways, traffic demand reduction, and increased use of transit, bicycles, and walking. Objective - LUT 18 Reduce traffic demand through Transportation Demand Management (TOM) strategies, increased use of transit, bicycles, walking, and other trip reduction measures. POLICY LUT 18.3 Provide and enhance all feasible alternatives to the automobile, such as bicycling and walking, and encourage public transit ridership an existing and future transit routes. GOAL 7.1 f -Increase Mobility Through Use of Bicycles and Walking Bicycles are an alternative to driving, accommodating longer trips than walking, especia//y when combined with transit. Every trip begins and ends with walking, sa the pedestrian environment becomes the primary transportation element that connects all travel modes. For walking and bicycling to be viable alternatives to travel by car, the bicycle and pedestrian systems must efficiently and conveniently connect residential areas and activity centers in a safe and comfortable manner, and within an interesting environment. Objective - LUT 23 Promote the use of non-polluting and renewable alternatives for mobility through a system of bicycle and pedestrian paths and trails that are safe, attractive and convenient forms of transportation. POLICY LUT 23. 1 Encourage the use of bicycles and walking as alternatives to driving. POLICY LUT 23.2 Foster the development of a system 01 inter-connecting bicycle routes throughout the City and region. In the case of transportation development impact fee programs, the accepted method of distributing costs in an equitable manner is to compare traffic generated by each project that will potentially affect the overall system. This can be done by establishing a uniform list of trip generation factors typical for the types of uses contemplated for the developments. This study utilized the "Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates" published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in 2002, Exhibit 2. Such an analysis is performed when information on the proposed developments is general in nature. The actual number of trips generated by the final development of individual Page 4 5-92 parcels may vary from the projections. Due to the tremendous differences between green field development on the east side of Chula Vista and this new program on the west side of Chula Vista, constant vigilance should be maintained in monitoring the program including the assumed land uses actually developed on the west side and the proposed scheduling of improvements. As a component of the city's Growth Management Program, the City's Planning Division provides annual growth forecasts for two time frames; 24 months and five years. Providing this information enables city departments and other service agencies to assess the probable impacts that growth may have on maintaining compliance with the city's eleven growth management quality of life threshold standards, including traffic. Ultimately, through the city's growth management review process, the GMOC will provide a set of recommendations to the City Council for the purpose of maintaining the city's quality of life. It is through this program that monitoring of local as well as RAS streets shall be accomplished within the existing annual Traffic Monitoring Program. C. HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CHULA VISTA'S TRANSPORTATION DIF PROGRAM In February 1986, the Chula Vista City Council adopted a schedule of development impact fees (DIF) for the Eastlake I development. Eastlake was the first major planned development that added significant traffic to the street system. Fees were established to ensure that Eastlake contributed to the cost of certain street improvements, including a four-lane interim facility in the State Route 125 (SR-125) corridor. Also included in the development impact fee was the cost of constructing a fire station and a community park in Eastlake I. While the fees were imposed as a condition of development on Eastlake, City staff recommended to the Council that a development impact fee ordinance be prepared to provide for the financing of transportation improvements by all of the developments that would benefit from the improvements. Therefore, in January 1987, the Council authorized the preparation of a development impact fee program for the financing of street improvements in the area east of Interstate 805. In December 1987, a report entitled "The Interim Eastern Area Development Impact Fees for Streets" was completed. The "Area of Benefit" included all of the undeveloped lands that benefited from the proposed transportation improvements, within the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego, east of Interstate 805. The Council adopted an Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee in January 1988 by Ordinance Number 2251 (TDIF). The fee was established at $2,101 per equivalent dwelling unit (EDU). In October 1993, the City Council approved the General Plan Amendment for the Otay Ranch. As a result, the TDIF program was updated in December 1993, including the first phase of the Otay Ranch. For the first time since the adoption of the original TDIF in 1988, a comprehensive general plan of land uses and circulation system requirements was in place in the Otay Valley area. The TDlF program was subsequently updated again in 1999, 2002 and 2005 to reflect changes to the circulation element of the General Plan, land use changes and to adjust the construction cost estimates. Page 5 5-93 This report analyzes the westside of Chula Vista. The purpose of the WTDIF is to establish a benefit area and inventory of transportation facilities for Western Chula Vista, in an effort to mitigate cumulative transportation impacts. Page 6 5-94 Development 5 ~~ Page 8 5-96 A. DEVELOPMENT FORECAST A fundamental principle in the formulation of a development impact fee is that the need for additional public facilities is generated by new development, and thus the cost of the facilities should be paid by that new development. Generally, existing facilities have adequate capacity to support the existing state of development, and any capacity that is added to the street network is in response to the need for capacity and other improvements created by subsequent development, i.e. new demand. It is, therefore, incumbent upon new development to fully mitigate these impacts. City staff reviewed a variety of previously approved reports that dealt with western Chula Vista traffic issues, their consequent impacts and mitigations. These sources included the recently approved General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and the recently approved Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Traffic Impact Report. The proposed Area of Benefit is the area served by the proposed street projects that are necessary to maintain an acceptable level of service on the City's westside circulation system. The need for improvements is related to development through changing traffic patterns on the overall system. Once constructed, the proposed street projects, both RAS and local streets, will serve the westside area by providing a transportation system for residents and visitors to use by way of improved roadways as well as improved pedestrian and bicycle facilities thus freeing up capacity on existing streets which can be used by the demand generated by new development. Table A identifies the future development types within the Area of Benefit. New and future development in the City is generally described in the adopted General Plan and more specifically in the Urban Core Specific Plan. These two documents were used in tabulating the information shown in Table A. Typically, residential development is segregated by low density (1-6 Dwelling Units/Acre or DU/acre), residential medium density (6-20 DU/acre), residential high density (>20 DU/acre) and mobile home units, while non-residential land use is separated into general commercial, street front commercial and regional commercial acreage, office acreage and industrial acreage. In the column labeled Year 2030, Table A lists the number and types of development proposed based on a General Plan designation. The "Change" column illustrates the change in units of the differing land use types between the Year 2002 and the buildout horizon year of 2030. A positive number indicates an increase in that land use and a negative number indicates a decrease. Later on in the calculation of the fees, units were backed out of the total units built, to account for those units placed on the ground between the year 2002 and the current year of 2008. Pase 9 5-97 Table A Citywide land Use Summary Table (Adopted land Uses on Bayfront) SANDAG Land Use Year 2002 Year 2030 Change Units Code 101 Single-Family Dwelling Unit 15202.00 14261.00 -941.00! DU , , i , 102 ,Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 19D28.00 33836.00 14808.001 DU I I-- I i 103 Mobile Home 3311.00 1885.00 -1426.00 DU - 1501 Low Rise Hotel! Motel 28.32 44.04 15.n Acre 1502 High Rise Hotel/Motel 0.00 0.50 0.50 Acre 1505 Low Rise Hotel 0.00 1800.00 1800.00 - Rooms 2001 Heavy Industry 101.83 97.58 -4.25 Acre 2101 I ndustrial Park 84.52 54.63 -29.89 Acre 2103 Light Industrial 226.68 382.17 155.49 Acre 2104 VVarehouse/Storage 90.01 52.97 -37.04 Acre 5001 VVholesale Trade 29.05 0.00 -29.05 Acre 5002 Regional Commerce 55.34 33.20 -22.14 Acre 5003 Community Commercial 103.82 193.39 89.57 Acre 5004 Neighborhood Commercial 71.61 85.99 14.38 Acre 5007 Streetfront Commercial 192.91 290.95 98.04 Acre 5009 Other Commercial 18.59 3.28 -15.31 Acre [--------- ------------~------------------------- -"----- n__...______.......__ ------------- -- 5012 Adopted Bayfront Neighborhood Commercial 0.00 150.00 150.00 KSF -- --..---- f---- ----- -- ~-- 6001 High Rise Office 0.00 17.09 17.09 Acre 6002 Low Rise Office 74.47 138.26 63.79 Acre 6003 Govt. Office 9.99 10.89 0.90 Acre 6005 Adopted Bayfront Low Rise Office 0.00 60.00 60.00 KSF 6509 Medical Office 45 36 -9 Acre Note: DU = Dwelling Units KSF = Thousands of Square Feet Page 10 5-98 B. POPULATION GROWTH ESTIMATES Table B below is derived from the City of Chula Vista's General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) dated December 2005. Table B depicts population and housing units proposed on the westside of Chula Vista between the General Plan Base Study Year condition of 2002 and the General Plans Horizon Study Year of 2030. Summarizing the values for the westside of Chula Vista only, one is able to determine the following: Population Growth on the westside of the City is proposed to increase from a value of 110,493 to 139,170 which is an increase of 21%. Population growth figures were used in order to determine fractional responsibility for eligible non-vehicular projects. In other words, the Engineer's Report utilized the 21% to assign or allocate equitable cost share to pedestrian and bicycle facilities for the WTDIF program. Exhibit 3 shows infrastructure improvements such as bicycle and pedestrian improvements that do not have any Level of Service criteria or thresholds associated with them. These projects are still viable projects in that they increase the capacity of the entire transportation system on the west side and their improvement is in line with the General Plans Mobility goals as stated above. Therefore these projects were included in the calculations utilizing a separate procedure. This process involved using the population growth value of 21% as previously described. With that factor in hand, staff multiplied the eligible 2007 costs to construct non-vehicular infrastructure by 21% (population growth factor) and placed that dollar amount in the WTDIF column of Exhibit 3. For example, if a pedestrian facility such as a sidewalk had a total 2007 cost of $100 to construct, $21 dollars were deemed attributable to new demand and that value ($21) was placed in the WTDIF program. Table B PODulation and Dwellinll Unit Estimates Existing Conditions Year 2030 Change Wests;de Westside Westside Westside Westside Westside Dwelling Population Dweffing Population Dwelling Population Units Units Units Northwest 19,711 56,931 27,497 74,861 7,786 17,930 I Southwest 18,368 56,562 22,281 61,790 3,913 5,228 I 0 1,000 2,519 1,000 2,519 I Bayfront 0 , !-'--.--.--..-- ---.-.-- _.....- .--.. ! . Total 38,071 110,493 50,778 139,170 +12,699 +28,677 i , . . . Percent Change 25% 21% i Reference: Table 5. 17-1 General Plan FEIR Page 11 5-99 C. VEHICULAR GROWTH ESTIMATES The Engineer's Report also calculated traffic volume increases on the west side of the City. A summary of the trips generated between 2002 and 2030 is shown below in Table C. Table C was generated utilizing Exhibit 4, the WTDIF Master Land Use lilVentory Table. This table inventories land use type and intensities for. all Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) on the west side of Chula Vista. It then identifies trips using the trip generating factors shown in Table D further below, which are themselves taken from the "Not So Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates" published by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in 2002. Similarly, then, the Engineer's Report used the vehicular growth value of 28% in order to determine fractional responsibility for eligible vehicular projects. In other words, the Engineer's Report utilized the 28% to assignor allocate equitable cost share to vehicular facilities for the WTDIF program. With that factor in hand, staff multiplied the eligible vehicular infrastructure costs by 28%. For example, using the same logic as before, if there was now a vehicular facility such as a roadway that cost $100.in 2007 dollars to construct, $28 was placed in the WTDIF program. Table C Traffic Volume Growth Estimates . Trips Change Year Year 2002 2030 Volumes 546,850 762,768 215,918 Percent Increase +28% Page 12 5-100 Fee Methodology 1 Page 14 5-102 "',- A. AVERAGE DAILY TRIPS (ADT's) The basis and methodology used in calculating the fee in this Engineer's Report is consistent with the basis and methodology used in previous Eastern Area TDIF reports and Eastern Area TDIF ordinances except for the array of different land uses between the west and east side of the city. Minor alterations had to be taken but the tasks were conceptually similar. One of the most common tools used to spread the benefit of traffic related improvements among different land uses, involves the use and assignment of vehicular trips. Vehicular trips can be directly correlated to an equivalent dwelling unit or EDU based on trip generating characteristics. There is a clear relationship between the generation of vehicle trips based on the land use and density of a specific parcel. In the report dated April, 2002, and titled "(Not So) Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region", published and continually updated by SANDAG, vehicle trips generated by various classifications of land use are detailed. For example, the SANDAG Report identifies several categories of residential land use generating ADT ranging from 4 to 12 trips per unit. The City historically has refined the SANDAG approach and has identified three residential categories for this study. This report aggregates residential land uses to utilize only four categories and recommends the following: 10 ADTs generated from a residential unit with densities ranging on average from 1 to 6 dwelling units per gross acre; 8 ADTs from a residential unit with densities from 6 to 20 dwelling units per acre, 6 ADTs for densities greater than 20 dwelling units per gross acre; and 4 ADTs from a mobile home residential unit. For commercial development, as in previous updates for the Eastern TDIF, the "pass-by" trip phenomenon was included in setting the generation rate for commercial land uses in the WTDIF. Pass-by trips are trips in which a stop at a retail commercial facility is one part of a linked trip to or from home or work. The following is excerpted from the report "RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study (Revised Draft)" dated November 26, 2007 prepared for the San Diego Association of Governments by Munifinancial, Exhibit 5. "To determine the amount of commercial development associated with residential development we conducted an analysis of taxable retail sales data for 2004, the most recent complete year of data available from the State Board of Equalization. The analysis calculated the total spending potential of San Diego County households and estimated what portion of that spending occurred within the County. The result was that 62.6 percent of total taxable retail sales was estimated to be associated with local household spending. The remainder was associated with local business and visitor spending. Based on this analysis, residential development directly causes 62.6 percent of commercial development. Consequently, the travel demand associated with that share of commercial development is shifted to residential development." In other words, the SANDAG report is stating that some local trips to commercial land uses are double counted as both an attraction of the commercial unit and as a generator of the residential land use. This phenomenon was discovered in the analysis of the Eastern TDIF program. The Eastern TDIF program analysis found that approximately n percent of commercial trips were generated from within the City's eastern TDIF area and 28 percent were observed from outside the TDIF area. The conclusions of these two analyses are similar in concluding that it is reasonable to discount some of the trips arriving and departing commercial sites because they are already accounted for in the residential trip generating rates from SANDAG. Thus, in keeping with the most recent analysis done by Munifinancial, and in line with procedures previously documented in the Eastern TDIF program, this report has reduced the trip generating capability of commercial land uses by 62.6%. For mixed land use projects wherein the same building contains a mixture of residential and non-residential land use, the fee shall be calculated based strictly on land use type and intensity with no regard for internal capture. Table D identifies the ADTs assigned to the various land uses. Page 15 5-103 lRESIDENTIAL IResidential (LOW) . 1-6 dwelling units per acre i 1C ADT/DU !Residential (MED) 6.1- 20 dwelling units per acre ! BADT IOU ! iResidential (HIGH) Over 20 dwellino units per acre , t ADT/DU , i IMobile Home ! ADT/DU !COMMERCIAL IRegional Commercial ----- Contain-1-5 major dept. stores tt usually-have morer--18' ADTTAcre I , than 50 tenants. Typically larger than 40 acres. : ! , ICommunity Commercial Smaller in that size than regional. Contain junior DePt~ 26, ADT I Acre , Store or variety Store,( i.e. Target Center with othe, commercial stores)as a major tenant and have 15 to 501 , other tenants. Smaller in size, 8-20 acres. I , INeighborhood Commercial Less than 10 acres. Includes supermarket and drug 449 ADT I Acre , store. May include office spaces. INeighborhood Commercial Same as above but in Square Footage 4 ADT IKSF IStreet Front Commercial Commercial activities found along major streets, not inl 15C ADT I Acre ] a planned center with limited on-site parking. i IRetail Commercial Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial I 15C ADT I Acre IWholesale Trade Usually located near transportation facilities.! 22 ADT I Acre Structures are usually large and cover majority of thel ! parcel. Examples are clothing and supply, also includesl , swap meet areas. , iOFFICE IHigh Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. and 6+ Stories I 60C ADT I Acre ! !Low Rise Office (in acreage) < 6 Stories i 30C ADT I Acre ! iLow Rise Office (in thousands of square < 6 Stories I 2C JADT IKSF ifeet) , IMedical Office Medical and Dental Facilities I 50C ADT I Acre , , !LODGING iLow Rise Hotel! Motel iLow Rise Hotel or Motel iHioh Rise Hotel ilNDUSTRY iHeavy Industry < 4 Stories < 4 Stories >4 Stories i I 20C !ADT I Acre i 1{ IADT I Room' 30C ADT I Acre iWarehouse IStorage !Industrial Park Shipbuilding, airframe, and aircraft manufacturing.! Usually located next to transportation facilities and! commercial areas. Parcels are typicallv 20-50 Acre. I Usually large buildings located near freeways,! industrial or strio commercial areas. i Office/industrial uses clustered into a center. Thej primary uses are industrial by may include high! percentages of other uses in service or retail activities.! All other industrial uses and manufacturing noti included in categories above. i 120 ADT I Acre 6C ADT I Acre iLight Industrial 9C ADT I Acre 20C ADT I Acre l!'D~/KSF=:~vera~~ Oaily.__!@.!Jj~er Th_ousand of _~~~~~eet:_.______.___.___._________.__,.___~._.___,._-----.-J Page 16 5-104 B. Equivalent Dwelling Units (EDUs) One of the more common methods used to compare trip generation potential among the different land uses involves the conversion of trips from a particular land use type into "Equivalent Dwelling Units" or EDUs. Residential dwellings of 0 - 6 dwelling units per acre (LOW density) are assigned one (1.0) EDU per unit and become the base for assigning EDU factors to other land uses by comparing the relationship and nature of vehicular trips generated by those land uses to the ADTs generated by this residential density category. In other words, EDUs are units of measure that standardize all land use types (housing, retail, office, etc.) to the level of demand created by one single-family housing unit. For example, in the case of traffic generation, one EDU is equivalent to the amount of two way traffic (i.e, ADT) generated from and attracted to a single-detached household. A small business calculated to generate three times as much traffic as an average single-detached dwelling unit would have a value of three EDUs in terms of traffic; a large industrial. complex that generates a thousand times as much traffic each day would have a demand of 1,000 EDUs. The basis and methodology used in calculating the fee in this Engineer's Report is consistent with the basis and methodology used in previous Eastern TDIF reports and Eastern TDIF ordinances as amended. Table E summarizes the EDUs assigned to the various future dwelling units and acres of non-residential development. All land uses and their generated trips were summed up and divided by 10 to equate them to EDU's as shown on the last sheet in Exhibit 4. The total number of future EDU's within the Area of Benefit for this report is 19,914. Page 17 5-105 E!i;;n(f'LI~g,:~r~~!f!'e;;qQ':':i~ ,RESIDENTIAL 'Residential lOW) iResidential (MED) iResidential (HIGH) iMobile Home !COMMERCIAl !Re ional Commercial iCommunit Commercial :Neighborhood Commercial !Nei hborhood Commercial (in thousands of square feet) iStreet Front Commercial iRetail Commercial iWholesale Trade iOFFICE ,High Rise Office !low Rise Office :low Rise Office (in thousands of s uare feet) Medical Office flODGING ilow Rise Hotel/Motel ilow Rise Hotel or Motel iHigh Rise Hotel ilNDUSTRY iHeavy Industry ,Warehouse /Storage Industrial Park Li ht Industrial iAOT/KSF- Average Daily Traffic per Thousand of Square Feet. 20. 1. 30. i EDU/ Acre i EDU / Acre i 9. EDU/Acre i 20.0 EDU/ Acre i Page 18 5-106 C. PROPOSED PROJECTS AND FEE CALCULATIONS The final step in developing the fee was to determine which projects are to be included in the program. The entire process for calculating impact fees involved two steps and is likened to a fraction with the numerator or top number representing the total cost of infrastructure improvements divided by the lower number (denominator) which is allocated to the various land use types and their consequent trips/EDU's as discussed above. The following paragraphs discuss staff's method for calculating the total cost of infrastructure improvements. City staff reviewed a variety of previously approved reports that dealt with western Chula Vista traffic issues, their consequent impacts and mitigations. These sources included the recently approved General Plan Environmental Impact Report, and the recently approved Urban Core Specific Plan (UCSP) Traffic Impact Report. In addition however, other reports were used in determining impacts and they include the UCSP report entitled, "Chula Vista Urban Core Specific Plan Facilities Implementation Analysis", the city's Infrastructure Deficiency Study, The "Final City of Chula Vista, Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No. 8 Amendment Environmental Impact Report, February, 1991" and project listings from the city's Capital Improvement Program. Fees were calculated by allocating costs for a specified set of improvements to a specified increment of development which is served by the improvements. In this case, the Year 2030 was used as the incremental degree of improvement because it is the study horizon year for the recently approved General Plan, Urban Core Specific Plan and is the study horizon year for SANDAG. The total cost of mitigating eligible facilities ($62,691,413.90) was divided by the total units of demand (19,914 EDU's) to calculate a cost per unit of demand in EDU's (Base fee of $3,148.11 /EDU). Exhibit 3, WTDIF Cost Estimates, list the infrastructure projects, describing them as either Regional Arterials or local roads, their total costs-to-construct in 2007 dollars, the City's share of costs expressed as a percent and in dollars, and the WTDIF share as a percent and in 2007 dollars. Dividing the costs for RAS facilities by the total cost of the program determined the percentages of fees charged to RAS facilities. The percentage splits are important for allocating correct dollar amounts to separate accounting funds dealing with Regional Arterial funds and local road funds. The Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program portion of the TransNet ordinance states that "Each jurisdiction's Funding Program shall be submitted for review by the Independent Taxpayers Oversight Committee (ITOC) referred to in Section 11 of the TransNet Ordinance prior to April 1, 2008, approved by Regional Transportation Commission by June 1, 2008 and shall become operative on July 1, 2008. Failure to submit a Funding Program for review by ITOC by April 1 of any year beginning April 1, 2008 shall result in that jurisdiction losing eligibility to receive funding for local streets and roads under Section 4(D) (1) of the Ordinance until July 1 of the following year. " Again, the intent of the fee program is to have the costs of all the proposed improvement projects spread equally to all new development, regardless of the location of the improvement relative to any particular development. Therefore, the recommended fee is based on an even distribution of the cost of the entire proposed improvement program divided by the number of future EDUs in the Area of Benefit. NOTES ON THE FEE CALCULA T/ON Amplification for Exhibit 3, WTDIF Cost Estimates. City staff did not include any existing infrastructure deficiencies to determine the fee amount. The procedure for including an Pase 19 5-107 infrastructure improvement project onto Exhibit 3, and therefore into the fee calculation, was that the (potential) infrastructure improvement project had to have an acceptable existing LOS which degrades to an unsatisfactory LOS in the Year 2030 study time frame due to development. Locations with an existing deficiency were not included in the fee computation. Some items on Exhibit 3, notably project OR-3, do not have dollar amounts listed because the exact locations and infrastructure improvements are not known at this time. However, the items were placed in the table in order to keep track of them for future traffic studies and WTDIF updates. DEFERRALS The City has on file some bonds and liens for completion of minor segments of WTDIF facilities. These bonds and liens will be used to construct facilities once the CIP program is underway for a given improvement. As with all construction projects, there will be variations in each project cost so that the actual cost may vary. It is recommended when the WTDIF program is comprehensively updated, at a minimum of every 5 years, that any monies collected for deferral for WTDIF listed streets and facilities be added to the fund balance so that the fee will be lowered in a corresponding amount. FEE ADJUSTMENT Because this program is being established and run in conjunction with the TransNet program, fee adjustments have been set in line with the RTCIP. The RTCIP states "Local agencies and SANLJAG can ftnd the administrative costs 0/ the RTCIP with a charge added to the RTCIP impact fie. The RTCIP allows up to 3 percent o/program revenues to be usedftr program administration. SANLJAG anticipates adding a 1 percent administrative charge to the RTCIP fie to ftnd costs related to the ITOC. Local agencies may add up to 2 percent ftr their program administration costs. These charges are similar to any other user fies imposed by local agencies and are not suiject to the Act. These charges must be justified based on the actual program administration costs 0/ each agency. Agencies should keep cost records and ac(just the administrative charge as appropnate based on actual costs. " Therefore, other costs to the TDIF program are as follows: WTDIF Proiect Administration: Two (2%) percent of the program's direct construction costs to fund activities related to general administration of the TDIF including the following: . Strategic planning and funding advocacy; . Staff time spent in administering the fee program and the various credits of each developer; . Growth Management Activities; . Geographic Information System (GIS); . WTDIF program updates; . Supplies and equipment used to administer the program; and . Feasibility studies. ITOC Administration: One (1%) percent of the program's direct construction costs to fund activities related to administering the program including related fiscal and performance audit costs. Page 20 5-108 The final tabulation for Western TDIF fees then breaks down as follows. The proposed fee is $3,243 per EDU which includes 2% for WTDIF project administration costs and 1% for SANDAG administration costs. ADDITIONAL NOTES ON PROCESSING FEES A T COUNTER Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, other provisions of the Government Code (e.g., see Section 65913.8) prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance or operating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on capital costs only. Additionally, the city is restricted to collecting fees only for facility improvements over and above the existing land use demand. The intent being that fees are collected for future demand remediation. Staff went through a meticulous and detailed process of calculating the baseline condition in order to accurately determine future demand based solely on new development. The baseline condition includes an inventory of existing land uses that are on the ground today in western Chula Vista and therefore generating trips today. The 2002 values from the city's General Plan EIR, were updated through the city's permit-monitoring software to account for any construction from the year 2002 to the present. Monitoring the change in land use inventory will be important to maintain the integrity of the fee program. In practice, the fee shall only apply to a proposed project that generates more trips than what is presently being generated today. In other words, the fee is based solely on the change in trip generating potential of proposed projects. For example, if the city receives a new project application and this proposed project's trip generating potential is equal to that of the present land use on the ground that it is replacing, then the developer need not pay any WTDIF fee. However, through a simple calculation, if the proposed development generates an increased amount of trips, for example, one hundred more trips, then this project shall pay the WTDIF fee in an amount equal only to the increase or change in trip generating potential, or in this case, ten (10) EDUs. Calculations for the WTDIF Cost Estimates included 180 residential EDU's and 1,241 non-residential EDU's built since 2002 in the WTDIF area of benefit. These values were subtracted from the EDU count for the final calculation. PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Direct Construction Costs Construction costs were estimated by applying an average of actual unit costs from recently completed street projects. These projects and their associated unit costs are shown in Exhibit 3, WTDIF Cost Estimates. The costs of grading, drainage facilities, improvements and landscaping are all estimated according to project size, complexity and other project specific constraints. These costs differ according to the scope of the facility. Estimates of direct construction costs for the purposes of this report were prepared without benefit of detailed construction drawings. For this reason, the estimates are considered conceptual in nature and typically include a 15% contingency factor in addition to the estimated construction costs to cover anticipated minor engineering issues that are not quantifiable at this level of study. Developer Credits The WTDIF program allows for the construction of eligible transportation projects by developers in lieu of paying the WTDIF at building permit issuance with approval of City Engineer. Any projects constructed by a developer would be audited and credits issued Page 21 5-109 incrementally as the facility is constructed. If the total construction costs amount to more than the total WTDIF fees for the developer's project, the developer is entitled to receive WTDIF credits in the amount of the excess of construction costs over the required WTDIF fees. The same builder can use this WTDIF credit to satisfy the fee obligations for a future development, or the developer will receive cash reimbursement when funds are available, as determined by the City Manager. Salt Costs In addition to direct construction costs, the following "soft costs" associated with construction of the projects are included in the calculation of the WTDIF fee: Civil Enr/ineerin'<. Reimbursement shall not exceed 7.5 percent of the WTDIF eligible improvement cost or actual cost, whichever is less. Civil engineering includes the cost of preparatory planning, survey, and design of a project. Soils Enr/ineerin'<. Reimbursement shall not exceed 15 percent of the WTDIF eligible improvement cost or actual cost, whichever is less, of eligible grading as defined in the directive. Landscape Architecture: Reimbursement shall not exceed 10 percent of the WTDIF eligible cost of improvement or actual cost, whichever is less, of eligible landscape and irrigation within the TDIF improvement. Survevin'<. Reimbursement shall not exceed 2 percent of the WTDIF eligible cost of improvement or actual cost, whichever is less, of the TDIF eligible improvement. Utilitv En'<ineerin-;/Coordinatiorr. Reimbursement shall not exceed 3 percent of the WTDIF eligible cost of improvement or actual cost, whichever is less, of eligible dry utilities within the TDIF improvement. Environmental Consultin'<. Reimbursement shall be for the actual work required to conduct, obtain and monitor all necessary environmental clearances required to construct the TDIF facility Annual Fee Adjustments & Collection The fee shall be collected as a condition of building permit issuance. The TransNet ordinance provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the RTCIP impact fee on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009. The annual inflation adjustment will be 2 per cent or based on Caltrans highway construction cost index, whichever is higher. SANDAG will calculate the fee adjustment for RAS arterials. Fees for non-RAS arterials may also be annually adjusted based on updated information regarding land use or the type, size, location, or cost of proposed facilities pursuant to City ordinances and policies. All fees collected shall be deposited in an interest-accruing fund, and shall be expended only with the approval of the City Council for the Proposed Projects listed in this report. These automatic adjustments do not require further action by the City Council. The proposed fee per land use is shown in Table F below: pase 22 5-110 TABLE F WTDIF FEE PER LAND USE CLASSIFicA 'riON $3,243.00 PROPOSED Proposed TDIF Fee per EDU: ....""......... . 1Li. nllilu.:>f ..,iK:alh~,",. .. .,.;....,.,;,._.,..,,~"" ~'_;" .",",.,.....~!'if;;,. RESIDENTIAL Residential (LOW) Residential (MED) Residential ( HIGH Mobile Home COMMERCIAL $3,2431 DU $2,5941 DU $1,9461 DU $1,622/ DU 0-6 dwelling units per acre 6 - 20 dwelling units per acre Over 20 dwelling units per acre 1 per EDU .8 per EDU .6 per EDU .5 per EDU Contain 1-5 major dept. stores & usuallYl have more than 50 tenants. Typically larger! I than 40 acres. I Smaller in that size than regional. Contain! junior Dept. Store or variety Store, ( i.e.1 arget Center with other commerciall stores)as a major tenant and have 15 to 50i other tenants. Smaller in size, 8.20 acres. I Less than 10 acres. Includes supermarketl and dru store. May include office s aces. ! Same as above but in Square Foota e ! Commercial activities found along majon streets, not in a planned center with limitedl on-site parking. Specialty Retail/Strip Commercial I Usually located near transportationl facilities. Structures are usually large andl cover majority of the parcel. Examples are! clothing and supply, also includes swapl meet areas. I $64,860 / Acre 20 EDU/ Acre Re ;onal Commercial $90,804/Acre 28 EDU / Acre Commercial Communi $155,664/Acre $15,566/KSF 48 EDU/ Acre 4.8 EDU/KSF Neighborhood Commercial Neighborhood Commercial $51,888/Acre $51,888/KSF 16EDU/Acre 16EDU/Acre Street Front Commercial Retail Commercial $77,832/Acre 24 EDU/ Acre Wholesale Trade OFFICE High Rise Office More than 100,000 S.F. and 6+ Stories Low Rise Office < 6 Stories Low Rise Office (in < 6 Stories thousands of square feet) Medical Office LODGING Low Rise Hotel/ Motel Low Rise Hotel or Motel High Rise Hotel INDUSTRY ! $194,580/Acre $97,290/Acre 60 EDU/ Acre 30 EDU/ Acre $6,486/ KSF 1$162,150/ Acre 2 EDU/KSF 50EDU/Acre edical and Dental Facilities $64,860/ Acre $3,243/ Room $97,290/Acre 20EDU/Acre 1 EDU/Room 30 /EDU / Acre < 4 Stories < 4 Stories >=4 Stories Shipbuilding, airframe, and aircraf~ manufacturing. Usually located next tol transportation facilities and commerciaU areas. Parcels are t icall 20-50 Acre. ! Usually large buildings located nearl freeways, industrial or strip commerciall , areas. I Office/industrial uses clustered into a! center. The primary uses are industrial b~ may include high percentages of other usesl' in service or retail activities. !All other industrial uses and manufacturingl.1 Inot included in categories above. ! $38,916/Acre 12EDU/Acre Heavy Industry $19,458/Acre 6 EDU/ Acre arehouse /Storage $29,187/Acre 9 EDU / Acre Industrial Park $64,860/ Acre 20EDU/Acre Light Industrial Page 23 5-111 ~.~ Pose 24 5-112 Page 26 5-114 Exhibit 1 Map of Benefit Area within Jurisditional Areas of Western (hula Vista Q WDtSlDI TRANSPORtATION ~'_ OMLOPMENT IMPACt FEE III WUlOflNrHSTlUale +" JIA -. ClfYOfCHlnA\I1SfA I. _ llilllSGlOlOlllltoUMbAl'f . . . . , . . . . , . . . , . , . . , . ,- Figure 1 5-115 Page 27 5-116 Page 28 '- ..." EXHIBIT 2 (NOT SO} BRIEF GUIDE OF VEHICULAR TRAFFIC GENERATION RATES FOR THE SAN DIEGO REGION APRIL 2002 CSAN~~ 401 BStreet,Sul!8800 SIltlDiego,CaUfomia92101 (619) 699-1900 0 F8)((619)899-1950 NOTE: This li$ting only ro:presents II gum. of average. Of estimated. mfflc generation 'driveway" rates and some VlIry general trip datil fOf rInd u.ses (emphasis on acraagllllnd ouilding SQUllre footagel inthll San Dillgo regilln, These",mslbothlocalandnatlonallarllsubjecttochangllssfuturlldocumlll1tBtioncecomessvailllble,ornragionalsou.cesa'eupdBted. I"armaraspecifK:intol'T1llltlon regarding traffic datil and trip rates, please refer to thll San Diego Traffic Genlllllt<lrs manual. AJw-V1I ched with local juritsdit:titmJ; ftN theN ",..",,~ '" ~1Ii1ItI r-. LAND USE TRIP CATEGORIES [PRIMARY:OlVERTEiD:PASS-BY]' AGRICULTURE 10pen $paced...... .......180:18:21 .........[78:20:21 AIRPORT.............. Commercial GllnllrlllAvietian Hll"pol'ts AUTOMOBilE" Car Wash Automlltic Self-servll GlISOline ............... wnhlFoooMllrt with/Food Man: & Car Wash OlderServi~e Station De.sign Sales IDealer& Repairl Auto Repa;r Center AUloPartaSalu Quldlubll Tire Store ............[21:51:28] CEMETERY CHURCH (orSynagogueJ..... ......[64:25:11] COMMERCIAURETAIL" Super Regionll Shopping Cemer (More than 80 acres, more than 800,000 sq. ft.. wlusually 3+ majolstoresl Regiona.l Sh~ping Cemer. ........[54:35:11] (40-80acres, 400,000-800.000 sq.fl..w/usually2+majorllloresl Cammunity Shopping Canter..... .........[47:31:221 (15-4(1 acres. 12S,000-4OO,000 sq. ft.. w/usually 1major$tore.dellched restaurllnt(Sl,groceryanddrugstoreJ Neighborhaod Sholllling Canter ILesslhan15acres,lesslhen 125,000 sq. ft., wlueuelly grocery & drugstore, cleaners, beeuty & barber shop, & !astfoodslS<Vicesl CommerdalShQJls. .... . [45:40:151 Spec;lIlty RetaillStrip Commen;ia.1 Elec:tranicsSuperstore Factory Outlet SUII&nnerket Druglrtore ConvenillnceMarket (15-16hoursl ConvenienceMlIrket 124hoursJ Conveniern;eMlIrket(w/ga.solinepwnps) Dis~ountClub DlscountSlore FumilureSlore LumbllrStore HomelmprovementSuperstore Hardwara/PeimStore GardenNursery Mixed Use: Commarciallw/supennerklltl/Residential EDUCATIDN University (4yeers).......... Junior College (2 yearsl. High School.............. Middle/Junior High. Elementury Dey Care ..............191:9:0] .........192:7:1] .......................[75:19:6] ........[63:25:12] ..............;....[57:25:10] .[28:68:14J FINANCIAL" ............ 81tnk IWalk.ln Gnlyl with Drive-Through Drive-Throughanly Savings & Loan Drive-Throughonly .......... [36:42:23] HOSPITAL ........................................ General Convalescent/Nursing ...[73:25:21 INDUSTRIAL IndUStriel/BueinessPerkl~omme,c;elincludedl .......[79:19:2] Indu$triel Park lnocommorciall IndustrieIPlentlmultillle.Mtsl. ..........................192:6:31 Manufacturing/Assembly Wa..,nousin9 Storage SGience Research & Development Landfill & Recy~lin9 Center ESnMATED WEEKDAY VEHICLE HIGHEST PEAK HOUR % Iplua IN:OUT ratlol TRIP LENGTH TflIP GENERATION RATE lDRIVEWAY} Between 6:00_9,30 A.M. ae_3,OO_6,30P.M. IMII..]' ,""".. 10.8 12.5 60/acre, l00lfllght, 70/1000sq.It.... .. 16:41 .. 15:5) 6/lIcre.2lflight, S/besedaircraft" "" .. 0:31 "., (6:5) l00/a0:re." 9oo/sita,6OOIacra" .. (5:5] '" (5:5] lOO1wash$lall.. .. (6:5] '" 15:51 " 160/vehiclllfuelingspllco.. '" l5:51 '" 15:5) 155/vehic:llIfuelingspaca.. '" (5:5] '" (S:5) 150/vehiclefuelingspaCll,9oo/station.. '" l6:5] '" (S:S) 50/1 000 sq. ft., 3oo/ac'e. 60/servico stall' .. .. (7:31 '" (4:61 20/1000 sq. fl" 4oo/acrll, 20/service stall. '" 17:31 ,,. (4:61 6O/1oo0sq.lt. .. .. ",,, 4O/aerw;""ta~OO '" l6:4] ''''' l5:S) 25'1000sq.ft..30/serviceSUlII". '" (6:41 ,,. l6:5) 5/acre. 9/1000sq.It..30/lIcreU(qulldruplllrates .. (6:4) '" (5:5) 5.' for Sunday, or. days ofassambly. 35/1000 sq. It..~ 400/lcre. '" 0:31 ". 16:5) 60/1000sq.ft"c500/acra" .. 17:31 '" 15:51 5.2 80/1000 sq. It.. 700/acre. .. '" 16:41 "'" (5:51 J.6 120/l000sQ.ft.. 1200/acrll." .. (6:41 "'" (5:5) 4O/10oosq.It.. 400/ilCra. '" (6:41 '" (5:5) " 50/1000sq.ft". "'" (6:51 4O/1000sq.ft... '" (7:31 '" (6:5) 150/1 OOOsq. tt.. 2000/acre. .. .. 17:31 "'" (5:5. 90/'OOOsQ.ft.oo .. (6:41 "'" (6:51 500I1000sq.fl. .. .. (5:51 .. 15:51 7001l000sq.ft.". '" (5:5) '" 15:51 85011000sq.fl., 550/vehicleluelingspace". .. (5:51 '" (6:61 60fl00Qsq.ft,,600/acre. .. '" [7:31 '" (6.51 60/1000 SQ. ft.. 600/acre.. '" (6:41 .. 115:5) 6/1000sq.It..100/acreoo .. [7:31 '" (6:6) 30/1000sq.It..150/llClII" '" (6:41 '" (5:5) 4O/1000sq.ft." '" (6:41 .. (5:5) 60/1000sq. ft., 6oa/acre.. '" 16:4] '" (6:5) 40/1000 sq. ft.. 90/acre" '" (6:41 ''''' 16:5) {~JdO~:~ :i~2gg/~;;~r~~~~~:~~~~~~nIYI '" (6:4] '" (5:5) '" (3:71 '''' 16:41 2.4/student, 100 aore. '0% IB:21 '" (3:71 ,., 1.21student, 24/1000 sq. ft.. 120/ac1"9..' ,,. (8:21 '" (6:41 '.0 1.31student,l!5/1000sq.ft.,60/acre"oo 20% 17:31 ""' 14:61 ... 1.4/student. 12/1000 sq. ft. SO/acre" "'" (6:41 '" (4:61 5.0 t.6/student, 1411000 Sq. ft.. 90/acre" .. 32. (6:41 '" (4:61 J.4 5/ehild,BO/1000sq.ft." '''' (5:51 '" (6:61 J.' >4 1601,000sq.lt.. 1000/a~re." .. 17:31 .. (4:6) 20011000 sq. ft.. 15oo/acre. .. 15:41 ''''' (5:5) 250l125one-wayl/1ane. '" 15:51 '''' (5:51 60/1ooosq.ft..800/acreoo '" '" looI50Gne-wlly)/Iane.. .. '" '.J 201b1ld, 25/1000 sq. ft., 250/acre" '" 0:31 ". 14:61 31bed.. '" 16:41 '" (4:61 18/100Qsq.It..2oo/acre" .. ,,. 18:2l ,,. (2:81 '.0 8/1000 SQ. fl.. SO/acre" '" (9:1) ,,. (2:81 10/1000 sq. ft.. 120/e~re. ,.. (8:21 '" (3:71 11.7 411000 sq. tt" SO/acre" ". (9:1) 2lJ% (2:81 5/1000 sq. ft., 60/aclll." '" (7:31 '" (4:61 2/1000 sq. ft., O.21val,llt. 3O/a~re. '" (5:5) '" 15:5) 8/1000 sq. ft., eO/acre. 16. 19:1} ,.. 11:91 6/acra ". 15:51 "'" 14:61 (OVER} MEMBER AGENCIES: calas 01 Carlsbed. Chula V~. Cof'<)ll8dc. 0&1 Mil", El Calon. Encinllas. Escondida. Im~rial Belich. La Mssa. Lemon GI'OVtI. NIIttonal City. O~aanside. PO'o'flly, San Oleg;o. SenMarcoll, Santee, Solane Beach. Villa and County "" San Diego. ADVISORYIlIAISON MEMBERS: Callfomia Oepartrnenl of Tranaportalion, County Wlllar Authorily, U.S. Oapartmanl of Defenu. S.D. Unjfiad Port Oll;;lric:l end Tijuana/Baje California. 5-117 Page 29 LAND USE llUP CATEGORIES [PRIMARY:DIVERTED:PASS.8Y!" UBRARY LODGING ................. ...... ...... HotaIlwJco""entiorlfecilili...lrestaursm) Mo,", Reson:Hatel BuslnuaHotel [44:44:12] .........158:38:41 MILITARY ....[82:16:2! OFFICE SUlnO"rdCammereiaIOHlce. ....[n:19:4] (lIlssthan 100,OQOsq.ft.) Large(High-RiselCommereiIlIOffiee....... ........[82:1S:3] (maretlllln 100,OOOsq. ft.. 6+ $totiea} Offu::1I Park. (400.000+ sq. ft.) Single Tenant Otfice CorparateHeadquarters Government (Civk: Center) .............................. [50:34:161 Po$totflc" Central/Welk-lnOnly Communitvll101includlngmaildrOlllanal Communitvlw/l'l'laildrap~nel Mail Drop Lane only DeparrmentofMotorVahicles Medical-Dernal ...160:30:101 PARKS............................................................ ...166:28:61 Cltv (devaloPlld wfmaating rooms and 5POru facilitiesl RagionalldaVftlapedl Naiyhb<lrhoodlCounty(undeVftloPlld! Stala(avarage loooacresl Amusement rThama) San Diego Zoo Sea World RECREATION Beach.,OcaanorBay.... .... ....................[62:39:91 Beach,Lake(ffest1watar) Bowling Canter CampgrOWd GoIfCoursa Driving Range only Marinas Multi,purllDse Iminiature golf, videa arcade. batting cage. etc.) RacquelballfHealth Club TennisCourt$ SpOttS FacUltiu Outdoor Stadium Indoor Arena Raeelr8ck. Thea1atl5(multiplexw/ma!inee) .........166:17:17J RESiDENTIAL..... ..................[86:11:3) Estate. Urban or Rural (average 1-20Ulacre] Single Family Detaclled (average3-60Ulacre) COndominium lor any multi.family 6.20 DU/Bcral Apertment (ofBny rnulti-family units mora lhan 20 DUlacre) MilitaryHousing(off-obase,multi-famlly! ([esslhan 6 DU/acre! (6-20 DU/acrel MobilaHomfl Family AduluOnly RetiramentCammunity Congregale Cara Facilitv RESTAURANT" ............................. [51:37:12J Quality sit-down.llightumover FaslFood Iw/drlve-tllrough) FaslFood(withoutdrive-1hroughl Delicatassen(7am-4pml TRANSPORTATION 6usDepat Trucl:Term;nal WaterportlMerineTarminel TrBn,itstallonIUghtRailw/parkingl F>ark& RideLols TRIP LENGTH (MII...I' 3.9 7.B ", B.B 10.0 B.B B.O .. '-' a3 6.' 7.9 " ESTIMATED WEEKDAY VeilCLE TRIP GENERATION RATE (DRIVEWAY) HIGHEST PEAle HOUR % (plus IN:OUT 181101 s....... 6:00-9:30 A.M. _.. 3:OO-6:JO P.M. 50/toOO sq. ft.. 400lacrau '" (7:3) ."" (5:51 .. (6:41 .. (6:41 .. (4:61 '" (6:41 '" (6:41 '" (4:61 .. (4:6) '" !ll:41 '" 19:11 ."" (2:81 14' (9:11 .'" (2:6! .'" (9:1] '4' "'. '''' (9:1) '''' (2:61 ". (9:1) 15. 12:81 17. 19:1) ". 11:91 '" (9:1) 12. (3:7) '" '" .. (6:41 '" 15:51 '" (5:51 "'" (5:51 '" (5:5] 12% f5:S1 .. (6:4] 117. 14:5] .. 16:2} "' (3:7) '" .. 13. 15:5) "" (5:S) .. 16:41 10/occupied room, 300/acre 9/occupied room, 200I-.;re. Sloceupiedloom.l00/aclfl. 7Ioccupiadroom.. 2.S/mililllry&civillanpotfsonnel. 2011000sq.fl.,o3001BCJ1I. 1711000 sq. ft..o 6OOlecra. 1211000sq.ft.. 200/acre. u 14/1000 sq. ft., lSO/acra. 7tlOOO sq. ft., 110/ecre. 3011000 sq. ft... 9011000,q.h:... 200/1000 sq. ft.. 1300lacre. 30011000 sq. ft., 10OOlacre. 15001750ona-way)!Iane. lSOIloo0sq.ft.,900/acre.. 5011000sq. fl., 5oo/acra' 50/aCI8- 20/lIcra. S/lICre(addforspeciflc$pOrtlJ5o:s!,6Ipicnicaite.'. 1/acr...l0/llicnicsiteu 8O/acre, 130/acra(aummo:ronly!.. 115/ecre' SO/acre. 60011000 ft. sllore1ine, 501acl1l. 5011000 ft. shoreline, 6lacro:. 3D/l000aq.ft.. JOO/acre, JOllane.. 4/ca.mpsile.. 7/acre, 4Olholo:. 7oolcourse. .. 70/ecre, 141111e box' 4Iberth.,20Iecre. u 90/acto: 30/1000 SC!. ft.. 300/acre. 40/court. 16/acro:.30/caunu '" 0:31 "' (4:61 "" .. '" (8:Z! "" (3:7) "" (7:31 '" 15:S1 '" (3:71 '" (6:4! 2% .. "" (6:4) "" 16:4) "" ". (5:6) '.. .. (6:41 .. "" ''''' t7:31 '" "" ''''' t7:31 .. 12:6) ''''' t7:3) .. (2:81 '" 0:31 '" (3:71 '" (6:41 '" (3:71 '" (6:4] '" "" ,.. 16:4] '" 13:71 ''''' 16:4] '" (4:61 '" (6:4) "" (6:41 .. (5:51 '" (6:41 .. (7:31 .. (5:51 .. (6:41 '" (5:5! '" 16:5) .. (6:41 '" (6:51 '" (6:41 '" "" .. (4:61 .. 15:5) '4' (7:3) ". (3:7) ... (7:31 15. (3:7) 50facre,0.2Iseat. 30/Bere.0.llseat. 4OIacre,0.6seat. SOll000SQ.ft., 1.8/seat, 360/sc....o:n. 12/dweJlingunil.' 10/dweJlingunit.. S/dweJlingunil.' 6/dwemngunit.. Sldwelling unil 8/dwelling unit 5/dweUlngunit,40/aCl'O:' 3/dwo:lling unil, 20/acra. 4/dwellingunilU 2.5/dwelllngunil.. 100/1 000 sq. ft.. 3/s8et, SOO/acl8. .. 160/1000sq. ft..a/se!!. 10CO/Bcre. n 65011000sq.ft..20Isllilt.3OOOIacre. .. 70011000sq.ft.u 15011000sq.ft.. 11/seat. 2511000sq.ft... 10/1000sq. ft., 7lbay, SO/acreu 170ibe"tt,12/acreu 300/acra,2'''lparkingspace(4/occupiedl.' 400/acre (600/pav&d acre!, {5/parking.space1s/oCCUPied).n . PrimlOl'y,ource:SMID1f1(Jf}Tr.fflcGenarators. . Othar 'OUICM: fTE Trip Ganar.tiM RapQtt /6th EditilJnl, Trip Ga......tlon Rates (Olher agenCla. and pubUc81ional, vsri<l... SANOAG & CAt TIlANS stw;as. repo", ""d estimates. . TripcategoryparcomagerlJllocaredailyframlocalholJll~dsu""'eys.oft.ncannOlbeappliedtovety.pedficlendus....anddonotinclud.non.'esid.ntdriva<s idrattSA/IIOAGAn.aiysi.fpfTripDivarsiDn, ravl.edNovembar. 19901: PFlIMAFlY-ona"ipdiractlybotw...."origina,.;p,lmlOl'yclaslination. OIV~IlTEO - IInkad trip lh...ing ona 0< mo,a .tOllS al""lltlla way to a primary destination) wIlosa dists",. comp."'d 10 dirOCl dl$lanc. ~ 1 mila. PASS-BY'undlve"edordivarled< 1 mil.. , Trip I.ngt;..r.av....g.....ight.d fot all lripS 10 and from g.".rall.nd lJlIesij a. IAlltrip"vstam-wida avarsga length .15.Smilesl < RtladcurveillQUMian: 1..r1ffi.. O.~02 l.nIl<I ~ 15.945}T tat It' 1000 f1 . FirledC\.IfVeillQuatil)n: I.n01 _ 0.758 lnlxl ~ 3.950 - a rIpS, X... .q.. . F1nedcurvaillQuation: 1__2.1eSLnld1+ 12.8S l-triosIOU.d-densityIOUlecr,l.0U_dwallingunit . SugjjmedPAss.aYlundl"""edordiv."ad<lmllelpercanlageston,iprete'edUCIioosonly dunngp.M.p..kpariadlbllledoncombinationoflocaldatalroviewandOlher.ourcos"): COMMEROAUPETAII,. Ragionai Shopping Cenl... Zl% Camm.orilv . . 3:l% Nl:ighborhoad' 4O'llo Soecl.ltyRotaWStripCommarciallOlhar! to% '- ~ Convenl<<>eeMarket m OlscoumaublStote 3:l% _CAe - "" AUTOMOIIILE G8S0inaSl81;an !lO'll. RESTAURANT Quajity 10% Sil-dowr1l-Oghlurn""et 20% FBStFood 4O'llo t T(ipR8ductlons'lno'.m-tohalPP'omot8raglan.I'~m8"gl'O\lVlh'palici.... andocknowladg.SanO,egO",expandlngmuattana,tsyst.m.consider vahocleltip"".reduct,onalwnhptopardocumom81,onendnec8SSllry .djustmentaforpeakpark>d8)_ThafollowingaluomasxatT1Qles: 1'1 AS%daiiytrlpreductionforlandureswijhtran.itaccessornaar tranailSlalionaaccessiblewijhinll4mila. (2) IJpto 10'llodallylripraductianformixed."".d.veJopmamswh.", residamiel and commercial '!lIail are combined ldemonstrata made .plilofwelkinglripalorepj8C8V.hiculartrips). 5-118 Paje30 EXHIBIT 3 WESTSIDE TRANSPORATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE fWTDIF) Interstate 5 Imorovement Proiects (Year 2007 estimated oroiect cost) This category is for freeway improvements along/within Interstate-S. ./-5-./ ./-5/E Street HB Ramp restriping to add lane ($12, 627.30). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 3 & S.8-4, p. S-167 (SIS of 768) of EIR as Intersection #2. The improvements will provide for restriping only on the existing roadway width to provide a west-to-north right turn lane. Cost does not include drainage inlet relocation or railroad grade crossing costs. Street width to match recent street widening completed at 76S E Street. This project is assumed to be a part of the RAS-4 project. Coordination with LRT, RAS-S, project also needed. Existing level of Service is "C" & for Year 2030 is "E" with no improvements made. ./-5-2 ./-5/E Street/Bay Blvd SB o.ff-ramp restnjJing to add lane ($12, 627.30). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan EIR Tables 3 & S.8-4 as Intersection #1. The improvements will provide for restriping only to provide an eastbound through lane, eastbound right turn lane, southbound left-turn lane, southbound right-turn lane, and northbound right-turn lane. Cost does not include roadway widening or westerly extension of E Street. These are assumed to be a part of the Bayfront Redevelopment Project, BAY-I. A separate project will be identified for each of the four approaches since they may each be constructed independent from one another. Existing level of Service is "B" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. ./-5-3 ./-5/NB Ramp widening at: E, H; J, ./ndustnal, Palamar & Main Streets ($8,194,860). Caltrans has prepared an Interstate-S Project Study report dated January 2002 with a FYOS/06 cost estimate of $7.9S million for nine locations, in South San Diego and Chula Vista. Six of nine (66.7%) locations are in Chula Vista. Therefore the costs are adjusted to Year 2007 and apportioned by jurisdiction. Caltrans has not secured funding but anticipates utilizing SHOPP and/or CMAQ funds. Also, SANDAG 2007 Draft RTP shows $225M access improvement project for those locations from Sea World Drive (San Diego) to J Street (Chula Vista). WTDIF contribution to project share is assumed to be 28% of Caltrans cost estimate due to vehicular trip growth % in GPU. Cost estimate is $7.95M X 1.0308 (ENR construction cost index) X 66.7% X 28% = $1,529,707.20. This estimate was prepared by Caltrans and includes the direct costs and soft costs. Existing level of Service is "B" to "D" for Year 2030 it is "F" with no improvements made. ./-5-4 E Street bndge widening over ./nterstate-5 ($2, 143, 750). Anticipated bridge deck widening of 20-feet between the northbound and southbound ramps, a distance of approximately 2S0-feet, to accommodate wider shoulder lanes and sidewalks. No 5-119 Page 31 Caltrans study yet. Study expected with Projects 1-5-17 & STM-361. Preliminary cost estimate is based on 250 LF of work X 20-feet widening X $350/sq.ft. = $1,750,000. In addition, direct costs of $262,500 (15%) and soft costs of $131,250 (7.5%) have been added to the project estimate. No project cost share percentage identified yet for WTDIF until studies are completed. /-5-5 F Street bridge widening over Interstate-5 ($2, 143, 750). Anticipated bridge deck widening of 20-feet between the LRT R/W and Bay Blvd, approximately 250-feet, to accommodate wider shoulder lanes, bike lanes and sidewalks. No Caltrans study yet. Study expected with Projects 1-5-17& STM-361. Preliminary cost estimate is based on 250 LF of work X 20-feet widening X $350/sq.ft. = $1,750,000. In addition, direct costs of $262,500 (15%) and soft costs of $131,250 (7.5%) have been added to the project estimate. No project cost share percentage identified yet for WTDIF until studies are completed. /-5-6 1-5/NB Off-ramp/H Street restriping to add lane ($I2, 627.30). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 36 & 5.8-4 as Intersection #25. The improvements will provide for restriping only to provide a westbound through lane, a westbound right turn lane and a north-to-east right turn lane. See EPS Table 36 (need to confirm). Cost estimate does not include the roadway widening. This project is assumed to be a part of the RAS-IO project. Coordination with LRT, RAS-6, project, the 1-5-17 project and STM-361 project also needed. Existing level of Service is "B" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. /-5-7 /-5/H Street Sll Off-ramp restriping to add lane ($12, 627.30). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 37 & 5.8-4 as Intersection #24. The improvements will provide for restriping only to provide an eastbound through lane, eastbound right turn lane, southbound left-turn lane and southbound right-turn lane. Cost does not include roadway widening. This project is assumed to be a part of the RAS-IO project. Coordination with LRT, RAS-6 project, the 1-5- I 7 project and STM-361 project also needed. Existing level of Service is "c" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. /-5-8 /-5/H Street bndge WIdening over Interstate-5 ($3, 430, 000). Anticipated bridge deck widening of 40-feet between the northbound and southbound ramps, a distance of approximately 200-feet, to accommodate additional and wider shoulder lanes plus new wider sidewalks. No Caltrans study yet. Study expected with Projects 1-5-17 & STM-361. Coordination needed with RAS-6 project. Preliminary cost estimate is based on 200 LF of work X 40-feet widening X $350/sq.ft. = $2,800,000. In addition, direct costs of $420,000 (15%) and soft costs of$210,000 (7.5%) have been added to the project estimate. No cost identified yet for WTDlF until studies are completed. Existing levels of service based on travel time delay from the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP). During the A.M./Mid-day/P.M. peak periods, the levels of service are D/DIE. No Year 2030 projections available. 5-120 Page 32 /-5-9 /-5/J Street HB Ramp restriping to add lane ($12, 627.30. This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 3 & 5.8-4 as Intersection #59. The improvements will provide for restriping only to provide an additional eastbound left tum lane and an exclusive westbound right turn lane. Cost does not include undercrossing widening which is Project 1-5-10. This project is also to be coordinated with Projects 1-5-17 & STM-36I. Existing level of Service is "B" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. /-5-10 J Street undercrossing widening to add EB-HB Itfi /urn lane at 1-5 ($/,500, 625). In order to provide an additional east-to-north left turn lane for J Street to the northbound on- ramp at Interstate-5, the undercrossing must be widened by 20-feet. Current undercrossing has two through lanes eastbound, two through lanes westbound, one east-to-north left tum lane and one west-to-south left turn lane. This project needs to be coordinated with 1-5-17 & STM-36I. Preliminary cost estimate is based on 175 LF of work X 20-feet widening X $350/sq.ft. = $1,225,000. In addition, direct costs of $183,750 (15%) and soft costs of $91,875 (7.5%) have been added to the project estimate. Existing levels of service based on travel time delay from the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP). During the P.M. peak period only, the levels of service is E. No Year 2030 projections available. 1-5-11 L Street bn'dge widening over /-5 ($/,543,500) Anticipated bridge deck widening of 12-feet between Bay Blvd and Industrial Blvd. For approximately 300 lineal feet along the south side of the roadway to provide for pedestrian access that does not exist today. The north side of the bridge deck has a narrow sidewalk. Preliminary cost estimate is based on 300 LF of work X 12-feet widening X $350/sq.ft = $1,260,000. In addition, direct costs of $189,000 (15%) and soft costs of $94,500 have been added to this project estimate. This project needs to be coordinated with 1-5-17 & STM-36I. WTDIF share of costs are 21% of$I,543,500, due to population growth expected as cited in the GPU Table 5-5. In addition, direct costs of 15% and soft costs of 7.5% have bee added to the project. Since this project is for missing infrastructure for pedestrians, no level of service threshold exists. WTDIF share is $324,135.00. 1-5-12 /-5/Bay Blvd (south if L Street) SB on/qff-ramps trqffic signal ($257. 700). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 3 & 5.8-4 as Intersection #63. The iroprovements will provide for a traffic signal on Bay Blvd at the Interstate-5 southbound on/off ramps located just south of L Street. There is no cost to the WTDIF since this is an existing deficiency but not yet identified by Caltrans as a location to signalize. 1-5-13 1-5/1ndustria1Blvd HB on/cfframps trqffic signal ($257. 700). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 3 & 5.8-4 as Intersection #64. The improvements will provide for a traffic signal on Industrial Blvd at the Interstate-5 northbound 5-121 Page 33 on/off ramps located just south ofL Street. The entire cost is attributed to the WTDIF. Existing level of Service is "C" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. /-5-14 /-5/Palomar Street bridge widening ($5,895,3/2. 50). Anticipated bridge deck widening of 50-feet between the northbound and southbound ramps, a distance of approximately 275-feet, to accommodate exclusive left turn lanes and wider shoulder lanes to accommodate bike lanes plus new wider sidewalks. No Caltrans study yet. Study expected with Projects 1-5-17 & STM-361. Preliminary cost estimate is based on 275 LF of work X 50-feet widening X $350/sq.ft = $4,812,500. In addition, direct costs of$721,875 (15%) and soft costs of $360,937.50 have been added to this project estimate. No project cost share percentage identified yet for WTDIF until studies are completed. Existing levels of service based on travel time delay from the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP). During the A.M./Mid-day/P.M. peak periods, the levels of service are DIEIE. No Year 2030 projections available. /-5-15 /-5/Main Street NB on/o/.f ramps traffic signal & south SIde improvements ($645, 000). Per Caltrans study and letter dated June 5, 2007, anticipated improvements to signalize and provide for a sidewalk along south side of Main Street and retaining wall are estimated at $645,000. Since the City of San Diego and City of Chula Vista city limits are along the centerline of the roadway, costs have been separated out by jurisdiction, including Caltrans. City of Chula Vista share of costs is $120,000. Cost should be out of the Traffic Signal Fund due to existing need for signalization. No cost for WTDIF. /-5-16 /-5/Main Street bridge widening ($1,925, 000). Anticipated bridge deck widening of 20-feet between the northbound and southbound ramps, a distance of approximately 275 feet, to accommodate additional through lanes and wider shoulder lanes to accommodate bike lanes plus new wider sidewalks. No Caltrans study yet. Study expected with Projects 1-5-17 & STM-361. Preliminary cost estimate is based on 275 LF of work X 20-feet widening X $350/sq.ft = $1,925,000. In addition, direct costs of$288,750 (15%) and soft costs of $144,375 have been added to this project estimate. No project cost share percentage identified yet for WTDIF until studies are completed. /-5-17 /-5HOV & ManagedLanesftom SR-905toSR-54 ($216,612,930.48). This project is identified in the SANDAG Mobility 2030 Plan and also in the 2007 Draft RTP. Two High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV)/Carpool LanesIManaged Lanes are proposed on Interstate- 5 from SR-54 south to SR-905. Approximately 63.4% of the project is located within the City of Chula Vista city limits. The area from SR-905 to Main Street is located within the City of San Diego jurisdiction. The WTDIF share of the cost estimate is based on the 8.2 percent increase in traffic volumes that the west side will generate onto Interstate-5. WTDIF share is $216,612,930.48 X 0.634 X 0.082 = $11,261,273.03. Existing level of Service is "D" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. 5-122 Page 34 STM-J61 .1-5 Multl~Modal COJ7Jdor Slue(;; ($2, 700, 000). This corridor study will evaluate and identifY the ultimate transportation infrastructure improvements needed for several modes of transportation across, along and within the Interstate- 5 corridor. The study will prioritize needed improvements that will then be phased in based on system need and federal, regional and local funding. SANDAG is the lead on this study with participation from Caltrans and the City of Chula Vista. Modes to be evaluated include bicycles, freight rail, light rail trolley, pedestrians, transit, and vehicular users. This study will look at local roadways that traverse the Interstate-5 corridor and including access to/from Interstate-5 from SR-54 to south of Main Street. Federal funds have been earmarked for the Interstate-5/H Street interchange improvements (STM-362) but the corridor study needs to be completed first in order to meet Caltrans and FHW A criteria due to existing interchange spacing that does not meet the minimum I-mile separation criteria. The Federal earmark is $2,160,000 (80%) of $2.7 M and the WTDIF share is the matching 20% of the $2.7 M representing $540,000. Staff is monitoring the HR-1195 bill that will move the money from I-5/H Street interchange into this study. Interstate 805 ImDrovement Proiects IY ear 2007 estimated oroiect cost) This category is for freeway improvements along/within Interstate-805. 1-805-1 .1-805/NB ramp widening and ramp-metering at: Bonda Road, E H St (EB-NB) & Telegraph Canyon Road ($10,101,840). This project is listed in the SANDAG 2006 Regional Transportation Improvement program (RTIP) as "MPO ill: CAL51" and will provide ramp widening for an HOV lane and ramp metering at three locations all in the northbound direction. All of the project funding has already been identified totaling $9.808 M in SHOPP & STIP funds. The $9.808 M estimate is based in Year 2006 construction dollars. The cost shown above totaling $10.1 M is in Year 2007 escalated dollars if the project is delayed. There is no cost to the WTDIF since this is an existing deficiency. Construction is expected to commence in the first quarter of 2008 and be operational by 2009. .1-805- .1-805/Main Street undercrossing wideningjOr EB-NB ltiji lurn lane ($5, 145, 000). In order to provide for ultimate improvements in this area, the undercrossing must be widened up to 40-feet. The widening is necessary in order to provide for an additional east-to-north left turn lane for Main Street to the northbound on-ramp at Interstate-805. The current undercrossing at 88-feet in width curb-to-curb, has an interim striping of two through lanes eastbound, two through lanes westbound, one east-to-north left turn lane and two west-ta-south left turn lanes. The project will provide for wider lanes and will also provide a sidewalk along the north side of the roadway and restore the shoulder widths to provide for bicycle lanes. Reconstruction of the south sidewalk will also be required. Preliminary cost estimate is based on 300 LF of work X 40-feet widening X $350/sq.ft. = $4,200,000. In addition, $630,000 (15%) direct costs and 5-123 Page 35 $315,000 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $5,145,000. The Eastern TDIF has already paid to provide the second WB-to-SB left turn and Federal & State funds have already paid for ramp improvements. WTDIF share is $5,145,000. Existing levels of service are based on travel time delay from the City's Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) Traffic Monitoring Program (TMP). During the A.M./Mid-day/P.M. peak periods, the levels of service are C/ AID. No Year 2030 projections available. State Route 54 Imnrovement Proiects lYear 2007 estimated oroiect cost) This category is for freeway improvements along/within State Route-54. SR-54-1 SR-54/W.B qff-ramp restriping at .Broadway ($1 (U08). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 3 & 5.8-4 as Intersection #34. The improvements will provide for restriping only to provide an additional westbound-to-northbound right turn lane. Since this is an existing deficiency at level of Service "F" there is no cost to the WTDIF. SR-54-2 SR-54/E.B qff-ramp at North Fourth Avenue to add a ramp lane ($93,442. 02). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 3 & 5.8-4 as Intersection #44. The improvements will provide for minor improvements to add a second EB-to-SB exclusive right turn lane at the off-ramp. A cost estimate for the off-ramp improvements is needed. The entire cost goes to the WTDIF. Coordination with Caltrans is needed to provide a more detailed cost estimate. Existing level of Service is "C" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. Rel!ional Arterial Svstem (RA.8l Proiects rYear 2007 estimated oroiect cost) This category of projects is for those roadways that are on the SANDAG Regional Arterial System (RAS). These roadways are significant regional facilities located within the County and have met the SANDAG and Caltrans criteria for being classified as an RAS roadway. RAS roadways handle larger volumes of traffic than other collector roadways and also serve as secondary access routes when the freeways cannot handle additional traffic due to incidents or peak hour volumes. Some of these RAS projects are part of the City of Chula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report presented to the City Council on April 5, 2007. Per the report, preliminary cost estimates are based on needed infrastructure unit costs for Year 2006 of: $150/LF of sidewalk, $725/LF for sidewalk, curb & gutter and $6500 for each pedestrian ramp. These costs have been escalated to Year 2007 unit costs of $154.62/LF for sidewalk, $747.33/LF for sidewalk, curb & gutter and $6700 for each pedestrian ramp. 5-124 Page 36 RAS-1 Eonita Road.from First Avenue to 1-805 ($393, 663.55). This project is part of the City ofChula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report presented to the City Council on April 5, 2007. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas generally along the south side of Bonita Road near Hilltop Drive. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $321,358. In addition, $48,203.70 (15%) direct costs and $24,101.85 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $393,669.35. The WTDIF share of costs is 21 % of $393,669.35 due to population growth expected of21 % as cited in GPU Table 5- 5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $393,663.55 X 21 % = $82,669.35. RAS-2 Eroadway .from C Street to south 0/ Main Street (City Limits) ($539,214.38). This project is part of the City ofChula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report presented at the City Council Workshop of April 5, 2007. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas mostly south of Main Street. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $440,175. In addition, $66,026.25 (15%) direct costs and $33,013.13 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $539,214.38. WTDIF share of costs are 21% of $440,175 due to population growth expected of21% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $440,175 X 21% = $113,235.02. RAS-3 E Street improvements .from First Avenue to Eonita RoadiE. Flower Street ($813,532.30). This project is part of the City ofChula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas generally along the north side of the street east of Corte Maria Avenue. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $664,108. In addition, $99,616.20 (15%) direct costs and $49,808.10 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $539,214.38. WTDIF share of costs are 21% of$813,532.30 due to population growth expected of 21% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $813,532.30 X 21% = $170,841.78. RAS-4 E Street improvements .from 1nterstate 5 to 300-ftet east 0/ HE ramp ($175,519.41). This project is part of the City of Chula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report. Work generally consists of relocating a drainage inlet to the north and repaving the area to match recent street widening completed as part of gas station remodeling/reconstruction at 765 E Street in order to provide an exclusive west-to-north right turn lane onto NB 1-5 on-ramp. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $143,281.20. In addition, $21,492.18 (15%) direct costs and $10,746.09 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $175,519.47. WTDIF share of costs are 28% of$175,519.47 due to vehicular trip growth expected of28% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $175,519.47 X 28% = $49,145.45. Coordination with LRT, RAS-5 project, the 1-5-4 & 1-5-17 projects and STM-361 project also needed. RAS-5 E Street LJ?T grade separation (E St. underpass/LRT overhead option) ($29,023,881.52). 5-125 Page 37 This project does not change the current elevation of E Street. The LRT profile is raised from about D Street to about F Street so that the LR T goes over the local street. This project is listed in the General Plan Traffic Study Appendix A. SANDAG's "Concept Engineering Report for E Street & H Street Grade Separations" dated October 14, 2003, provided an evaluation of constructing an overpass or an underpass at E Street and at H Street. The report also looked at the feasibility and probable construction costs associated with each alternative. Although no specific project has been identified for funding, the report's preferred recommendation is for the roadway to stay at its' current elevation (roadway overpass) and for the LRT to be an underpass similar in profile to Interstate-5. The same study also evaluated the H Street at-grade crossing (RAS-6). SANDAG's "Mobility 2030" plan identifies regional Light Rail Grade Separations at a cost of $ 100M for the region. Grade separation in the amount of$IOO M to $237 M for both the LRT & Coaster are shown on the draft "2007 Regional Transportation Plan". It is expected that funding from other sources such as local, state and federal funds will be used in addition to TransNet funds. This alternative was estimated at $24,414,436 in Year 2003. The costs have been increased to Year 2007 and are estimated at $29,023,881.52. WTDIF share of costs are 28% of $29,023,881.52 due to vehicular trip growth expected of28% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $29,023,881.52 X 28% = $8,126,686.83. Note that RAS-5 is listed twice but only one of the two alternatives wiIl be provided. Therefore this option, LR T overhead, is not listed on WTDlF table. RAS-5 E Street LRTgradeseparation (E Sf. overpass/lRTundepass option) ($31,796,297.72). This project does not change the current elevation of E Street. The LRT would be lowered from about D Street to about F Street in order to cross below E Street similar in profile to the Interstate-5. This project is listed in the General Plan Traffic Study Appendix A. SANDAG's "Concept Engineering Report for E Street & H Street Grade Separations" dated October 14, 2003, provided an evaluation of constructing an overpass or an underpass at E Street and at H Street. The report also looked at the feasibility and probable construction costs associated with each alternative. Although no specific project has been identified for funding, the report's preferred recommendation is for the roadway to stay at its' current elevation (roadway overpass) and for the LRT to be an underpass similar in profile to Interstate-5. The same study also evaluated the H Street at-grade crossing (RAS-6). SANDAG's "Mobility 2030" plan identifies regional Light Rail Grade Separations at a cost of $ 100M for the region. Grade separation in the amount of $ I 00 M to $237 M for both the LRT & Coaster are shown on the draft "2007 Regional Transportation Plan". It is expected that funding from other sources such as local, state and federal funds will be used in addition to TransNet funds. This alternative was estimated at $28,428,918 in Year 2003. The costs have been increased to Year 2007 and are estimated at $33,796,297.72. WTDIF share of costs are 28% of $33,796,297.72 due to vehicular trip growth expected of28% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDlF share is $33,796,297.72 X 28% = $9,462,963.36. Note that RAS-5 is listed twice but only one of the two alternatives will be provided. This LRT underpass option is listed in WTDlF table. 5-126 Page 38 RAS-o H Street LRF grade separation (H St. underpassiZRF overhead option) ($29-720,274.6/). This project does not change the current elevation of H Street. The LRT profile is raised from about G Street to about I Street so that the LRT goes over the local street. This project is listed in the General Plan Traffic Study Appendix A. SANDAG's "Concept Engineering Report for E Street & H Street Grade Separations" dated October 14, 2003, provided an evaluation of constructing an overpass or an underpass at E Street and at H Street. The report also looked at the feasibility and probable construction costs associated with each alternative. Although no specific project has been identified for funding, the report's preferred recommendation is for the roadway to stay at its' current elevation (roadway overpass) and for the LRT to be an underpass similar in profile to Interstate-5. The same study also evaluated the E Street at-grade crossing (RAS-5). SANDAG's "Mobility 2030" plan identifies regional Light Rail Grade Separations at a cost of$IOOM for the region. Grade separation in the amount of$IOO M to $237 M for both the LRT & Coaster are shown on the draft "2007 Regional Transportation Plan". It is expected that funding from other sources such as local, state and federal funds will be used in addition to TransNet funds. This alternative was estimated at $25,000,321 in Year 2003. The costs have been increased to Year 2007 and are estimated at $29,720,274.61. WTDIF share of costs are 28% of $29,720,274.61 due to vehicular trip growth expected of 28% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $29,720,274.61 X 28% = $8,321,676.89. Note that RAS-6 is listed twice but only one of the two alternatives will be provided. Existing level of Service is "c" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. Therefore this option, LRT overhead, is not listed on WTDIF table. RAS-o H Street LRF grade separation (H St. overpass/LRF underpass option) ($3/,723,906. 6t5). This project does not change the current elevation of H Street. The LR T would be lowered from about G Street to about I Street in order to cross below H Street similar in profile to the Interstate-5. This project is listed in the General Plan Traffic Study Appendix A. SANDAG's "Concept Engineering Report for E Street & H Street Grade Separations" dated October 14, 2003, provided an evaluation of constructing an overpass or an underpass at E Street and at H Street. The report also looked at the feasibility and probable construction costs associated with each alternative. Although no specific project has been identified for funding, the report's preferred recommendation is for the roadway to stay at its' current elevation (roadway overpass) and for the LRT to be an underpass similar in profile to Interstate-5. The same study also evaluated the E Street at-grade crossing (RAS-5). SANDAG's "Mobility 2030" plan identifies regional Light Rail Grade Separations at a cost of $IOOM for the region. Grade separation in the amount of$IOO M to $237 M for both the LRT & Coaster are shown on the draft "2007 Regional Transportation Plan". It is .expected that funding from other sources such as local, state and federal funds will be used in addition to TransNet funds. WTDIF share of costs are 28% of $31,723,906.66 due to vehicular trip growth expected of 28% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $31,723,906.66 X 28% = $8,882,693.87. Note that RAS-6 is listed twice but only one of the two alternatives will be provided. Existing level of Service is "C" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. This LRT underpass option is listed in WTDIF table. 5-127 Page 39 RAS-7 H Street at Broadway EB queue jumper lane & trqffic signal modifications ($469, 735.56). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 3 & 5.8-4 as Intersection #27. On H Street at the intersection with Broadway, add an eastbound bus queue jumper lane and an additional westbound through lane and an exclusive west-to-north right turn lane. Preliminary estimate of hard costs of $372,000 for construction are taken from the 2006 draft Bayfront report and escalated to Year 2007, now revised to $383,457.60. In addition, $57,518.64 (15%) direct costs and $28,759.32 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $469,735.56. Therefore, WTDIF share is 100% of $469,735.56. Existing level of Service is "C" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no improvements made. RAS-8 H Street 14 '-wide median & street light improvements ($6,25/ 776.23). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables I & 3 and is for H Street improvements for a 6-lane roadway, 14-foot wide raised median and new street light standards from Interstate-5 to Broadway. Preliminary Year 2006 hard costs for construction are estimated at $4,951,000 and escalated to be $5,103,490 in Year 2007. In addition, $765,523.62 (15%) direct costs and $382,761.81 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $6,251,776.23. See RAS-9 for revised project scope and costs. Therefore, WTDIF share is zero for RAS-8 since it is included in RAS-9. RAS-9 H Street widening to 6-lanes .from Interstate-5 to Broadway ($1/425, 181. 04). In order to provide a six-lane roadway from Interstate-5 to Broadway, two through lanes must be added, one for each direction to Broadway. H Street is currently a four-lane roadway. Preliminary Year 2006 hard costs for construction are estimated at $9,048,000 and escalated to be $9,326,678.40 in Year 2007. In addition, $1,399,001.76 (15%) direct costs and $699,500.88 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $11,425,181.04. WTDIF share of costs are 100% of $11,425,181.04 as cited in Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 5.8-2 & 5.8-7. Existing level of Service is "B" & for Year 2030 is "F" with no iroprovements made. RAS-10 H Street improvements .from Second Avenue to Hilltop JJrive ($25,186). This project is part of the City ofChula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas generally along the south side of H Street. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $20,560. In addition, $3,084.00 (15%) direct costs and $1,542.00 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $25,186. WTDIF share of costs are 21% of $25,186 due to population growth expected of 21% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $25,186 X 21 % = $5,289.06. 5-128 Page 40 RAS-ll East H Street north side improvements.from Hilltop Drive to 1-805 ($226,563. 75). This project is part of the City ofChula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas along the north side of the street. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $184,950. In addition, $27,742.50 (15%) direct costs and $13,871.25 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $226,563.75. wrDIF share of costs are 21% of $184,950 due to population growth expected of 21% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $226,563.75 X 21 % = $47,578.39. RAS-12 L Street/Bay Blvd trqffic signal & add turn lanes ($474, 000). This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Tables 3 & 5.8-4. The Level of Service is "F" today at this intersection. Since this is an existing deficiency the wrDIF share is zero. RAS-13 L Street improvements south side west if Industrial Blvd. ($187,863.55). This project is part of the City ofChula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas generally along the south side of L Street from Bay Blvd to Industrial Blvd. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $153,358. In addition, $23,003.70 (15%) direct costs and $11,501.85 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $187,863.55. WTDIF share of costs are 21% of $187,863.55 due to population growth expected of21% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, wrDIF share is $187,863.55 X 21% = $39,451.35. Coordination with the 1-5-11 & 1-5-17 project and STM-361 project also needed. RAS-/4 Telegraph Canyon Road at 1-805 south side sidewalk improvements ($/4JJ53.63). This project is part of the City ofChula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas generally along the south side of Telegraph Canyon Road through the 1-805 undercrossing. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $117,105. In addition, $17,565.75 (15%) direct costs and $8,782.88 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $143,453.63. WTDIF share of costs are 21 % of $143,453.63 due to population growth expected of 21 % as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, wrDIF share is $143,453.63 X 21 % =$30,125.26. RAS-15 Orange Avenue .from Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive ($500, 871.88). This project is part of the City ofChula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas from Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive. Generally, most improvements are needed near Palomar Street. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $408,875. In addition, $61,331.25 (15%) direct costs and $30,665.63 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $500,871.88. wrDIF share of costs are 21 % of $500,871.88 due to population growth expected of 21 % as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, wrDIF share is $500,871.88 X 21% = $105,183.09. 5-129 Page 41 JUS-i6 Palomar Street improvements .from .lnterstate-5 to .lnterstate-805 ($432,949.30). This project is part of the City ofChula Vista's Infrastructure Deficiency Report. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas generally along both sides of Palomar Street from 1-5 . .to 1-805. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $353,428. In addition, $53,014.20 (15%) direct costs and $26,507.10 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $432,949.30. WTDlF share of costs are 21% of $432,949.30 due to population growth expected of 21 % as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDlF share is $432,949.30 X 21% = $90,919.35. JUS-i7 Main Street improvements.from .lnterstate-5 to .lnterstate-805 ($7,575,959.83). This project is part of the City of Chula. Vista's GPU Table 5.10-6. Improvements consist of curb, gutter and sidewalk areas along both sides of Main Street from 1-5 to 1-805. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $6,184,457. In addition, $927,668.55 (15%) direct costs and $463,834.28 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $7,575,959.83. WTDlF share of costs are 21% of $7,575,959.83 due to population growth expectedof21% as cited in GPU Table 5-5. Therefore, WTDIF share is $7,575,959.83 X 21 % = $1,590,951.56. JUS-i8 H Street/fh Avenue addition if a WB-N.B n"ght tul71 lane & protective-pennissive 10/1 turn trqffic signal modtftcations./Or fh Avenue ($93, 442. 02). This project is part of the City of Chula Vista's GPU Table 5.10-4 intersection #28. Improvements consist of widening the westbound H Street approach to Fifth Avenue by . constructing an exclusive right turn lane. For Fifth Avenue, traffic signal modifications to provide for protective-permissive left turns on the north and south approaches will be provided. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $76,279.20. In addition, $11,441.88 (15%) direct costs and $5,720.94 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $93,442.02. WTDIF share of costs are 100% of $93,442.02. H Street/,fh Avenue addition if a WB-NlJ & E.B-S.B n"ght tul71 lanes ($76,279.20). JUS-i9 This project is part of the City of Chula Vista's GPU Table 5.10-4 intersection #29. Improvements consist of widening the westbound and the eastbound H Street approaches to Fourth Avenue by constructing an exclusive right turn lane. One right turn lane will be for the WB-NB right turn & the other will be for the EB-SB right turn move. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $76,279.20. In addition, $11,441.88 (15%) direct costs and $5,720.94 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $93,442.02. WTDIF share of costs are 100% of $93;442.02. TF-358 West Side Transportation Development impact Fee (ffTDiE) Study ($350, 000). This project is to establish a development impact fee for the area west of Interstate-805 since the existing Transportation Development Impact Fee covers the City of Chula Vista area from 1-805 to the east. Since there is no City of Chula Vista DIF for transportation facilities west of 1-805, 5-130 Pase 42 the WTDIF will establish a DIF that will address impacts for those parcels located outside of the existing TDIF area into their own WTDIF. The WTDIF share of costs is 100% of $350,000. Bicvcle & Pedestrian Facilities Imorovements IYear 2007 estimated proiect cost) This category of projects is typically for bicycle and pedestrian related projects identified in the City's Bikeway Master Plan or General Plan Update document. lJP-1 lJayshore lJikeway (bike path) between E Street and F Street ($201,568.81). This project is listed in the January 2005 "City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan" as Project # I and will provide for a 0.25-mile long bike path parallel to and separate from the Bay Blvd roadway as part of the Bayshore Bikeway. WTDIF share of costs are 21 % of $201,568.81 due to population growth expected. Therefore, WTDIF share is $201,568.81 X 21 % = $42,329.45. lJP-2 F Street sidewalk/bike lane improvements .from /-5 to Fourth Avenue ($10,172,965.20). This project is part of the Urban Core Specific Plan to make this portion ofF Street more into a bicycle and pedestrian corridor. WTDIF share of costs are 21% of $10,172,965.20 due to population growth expected. Therefore, WIDIF share is $10,172,965.20 X 21% = $2,136,322.69. lJP-3 /ndustrial Blvd improvements & bike lanes .from L Street to Main Street ($2,482,909.58). This project is listed in the January 2005 "City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan" as Project #5 and will provide for approximately 1.5-miles of bike lanes in each direction. WTDIF share of costs are 21 % of $2,482,909.58 due to population growth expected. Therefore, WTDIF share is $2,482,909.58 X 21% = $521,411.01 lJP-4 Main Street bike lanes.from /ndustriallJlvd to /-805 ($115,221.21). This project is listed in the January 2005 "City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan" as Project #4 and will provide for approximately 2.75-miles of bike lanes in each direction. WTDIF share of costs are 21 % of $115,227.21 due to population growth expected. Therefore, WTDIF share is $115,227.21 X 21 % = $24,197.71. lJP-5 Orange Avenue bike lanes.from Palomar Street to Hilltop Drive ($257, 041.03). This project is listed in the January 2005 "City of Chula Vista Bikeway Master Plan" as Project #9 and will provide for approximately 1.56-miles of bike lanes in each direction. WTDIF share of costs are 21 % of $257,041.03 due to population growth expected. Therefore, WTDIF share is $257,041.03 X 21 % = $53,978.62. 5-131 Page 43 BP-6 Develop bicycle paths & pedestrian access to Third Avenue ($300, 000). This project was approved as part of a Federal earmark with SAFETEA-LU Demonstration funds to develop more bicycle paths and increase pedestrian access to Third Avenue. The Federal earmark is $240,000 (80%) of $300,000 and the WTDIF share is the matching 20% required in order to utilize this federal funding source. Therefore, the WTDIF share is $60,000. Midbavfront Local Coastal Prol!ram Roadwavs The Midbayfront projects (Mid-#) are from the Final Environmental Impact Report "Midbayfront LCP Resubmittal No.8 Amendment" Volumes I & II, dated July 1991. Mid-1 E Street restripe to add EB-NB duall<jl turn to NB on-ramp ($12, 621.30). This project will restripe the existing E Street bridge deck to provide for an additional EB-NB left turn lane onto NB on-ramp. The WTDIF share is 100% of$12,627.30. Mid-2 /-5& St. SB qfframp widening to add.fOurth lane ($1,365,810.00). This project is to provide four SB off-ramp lanes; dual SB-EB left turns, one shared SB-thru/SB- WB right turn lane and an exclusive SB. WB right turn lane. The level of service without mitigation is LOS "F" and with these improvements, it is LOS "D". Therefore, the WTDIF share is 100% of$I,365,81O.00. Mid-3 Bay Blvd 15-jOot widening along WCL at E Street approach.fOr 1 SB 13 NB lanes ($141,583.60). This project will widen the west side of Bay Blvd, south of E Street in order to provide for a 15- foot widening so that in the northbound direction, three lanes can be provided within the first 300-foot approach to E street. The lanes provided will consist of a NB- WB left turn, and dual NB-EB exclusive right-turn lanes. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $115,578.45. In addition, $17,336.77 (15%) direct costs and $8,668.38 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $141,583.60. The WTDIF share is 100% of$141,583.60. Mid-4 1-51E Sf. NB widen qfframpto addthird lane.fOr right turn lane ($/,365,412.50). This project is to provide a third NB off-ramp lane at the E Street off-ramp. The lanes would be; NB-WB left-turn lane, a shared NB-WB & NB-EB turn lane (Caltrans may also determine to require the NB thru movement to be allowed from this middle lane) and a NB-EB exclusive right turn lane. The level of service without mitigation is LOS "F" and with these improvements, it is LOS "D". Therefore, the WTDIF share is 100% of$I,365,412.50. 5-132 Page 44 Mid-5 E Street revisions to median and north curbline east if /nterstate-5 to add r westbound lane (See JUS-4). This project to provide an additional westbound lane approaching Interstate-5 is listed as RAS-4 and is already included in the WTDIF. Mid-6 Manna Parkway 4-lane .from E Street to G Street (1/,826, 79J. 49). This project is to provide for a 4-lane Marina Parkway as an extension to the west of E Street, west of Bay Blvd through the intersection of G Street It will angle south and align with the existing Marina Parkway intersection at G Street. The cross-section is 74-feet and an approximate length of 2300-feet. The unit costs are taken from the 2006 draft Bayfront report but is shown in the 1991 Midbayfront FEIR on p.3-172. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $1,491,258.36. In addition, $223,688.75 (15%) direct costs and $111,844.38 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $1,826,791.49. The WTDIF share is 100% of $1,826,791.49. Mid-7 E Street/Woodlawn Avenue Ell-Sll right-turn lane (1/07,493.75). This project is to provide an exclusive EB-SB right-turn lane from E Street to Woodlawn Avenue. Traffic signal modifications and a pedestrian ramp are part of the street widening. The level of service without mitigation is LOS "D" and with these improvements, it is LOS "C". Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $87,750 using unit costs from the 2006 draft Bayfront report. In addition, $\3,162.50 (15%) direct costs and $6,581.25 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $107,493.75. Therefore, the WTDIF share is 100% of$107,493.75. Mid-8 E Street at llroadway add W1J & Ell liff-turn lane and W1J & Ell right turn lane (1556, 150). This project to provide an additional WB-SB left turn lane, an additional EB-NB left turn, an exclusive WB-NB right turn lane, and an exclusive EB-SB right turn lane. Traffic signal modifications and pedestrian ramps are part of the street widening. Drainage inlet relocation is required. The level of service without mitigation is LOS "E" and with these improvements, it is LOS "D". Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $454,000 using unit costs from the 2006 draft Bayfront report. In addition, $68,100 (15%) direct costs and $34,050 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $556,150. Therefore, the WTDIF share is 100% of $556,150. Mid-9 F Street/llroadway restriplng to provide Ell-Sll & Wll-Nll right turn only lane (125,254.60). This project is to provide for an exclusive EB-SB right turn lane for eastbound F Street approaching Broadway. In addition, for westbound F Street approaching Broadway, an exclusive WB-NB right turn only lane will also be provided. The unit costs are taken from the 2006 draft Bayfront report but is shown in the 1991 Midbayfront FEIR on p.3-191. The WTDIF share is 100% of $2,982,516,72. The level of service without mitigation is LOS "E" and with 5-133 Page 45 these improvements, it is LOS "D". Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $20,616. In addition, $3,092.40 (15%) direct costs and $1,546.20 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $25,254.60. Therefore, the WTDIF share is 100% of$25,254.60. Mid-10 H Street widening at Broadway fOr WE thru & EB thru & EB-SB right turn only lane ($469, 7]5.56). This project is to provide widening on H Street for an additional eastbound through lane at the approach with Broadway and an exclusive eastbound-to-southbound exclusive right turn only lane. In the westbound direction;H Street would be widened to provide an additional westbound through lane at the approach to Broadway. The unit costs are taken from the 2006 draft Bayfront report since it is similar to project BA Y-5 in scope, but is shown in the 1991 Midbayfront FEIR on p.3-191. The level of service without mitigation is LOS "E" and with these improvements, it is LOS "C". Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $383,457.60. In addition, $57,518.64 (15%) direct costs and $28,759.32 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $469,735.56. The WTDlF share is 100% of$469,735.56. Other Roadwavs IV ear 2007 estimated Droiect cost) This category of projects is for those roadways that are not on the Regional Arterial System (RAS) but are circulation element roadways as identified in the City's General Plan Update Circulation Element. OR-1 North Fourth Avenue/Brisbane Avenue trqffic signal mod(/1cations ($93,442. 02). This project is to provide traffic signal modifications at the intersection of North Fourth AvenuelBrisbane Avenue in order to provide a south-to-west right-turn overlap signal phase. This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Table 5.8-4 as Intersection #45. Existing level of Service is "B" & for Year 2030 is "E" with no improvements made. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $76,279.20. In addition, $11,441.88 (15%) direct costs and $5,720.94 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $93,442.02. Therefore, the WTDlF share is 100% of$93,442.02. OR-2 Second Avenue/D Street all-way stop installation ($12, 627.]0). This project is to provide all-way stop control at the intersection of Second Avenue and 0 Street. Today it is currently only stop controlled on D Street. This project is listed in the Urban Core Specific Plan Table 5.8-4 as Intersection #57. Existing level of Service is "B" & for Year 2030 is "E" with no improvements made. Preliminary hard costs for construction are estimated at $10,308. In addition, $1,546.20 (15%) direct costs and $773.10 (7.5%) soft costs increase project estimate to $12,627.30. Therefore, the WTDlF share is 100% of$12,627.30. OR-] Trqffic signal progression and upgrades (TBD). 5-134 Page 46 This project is to provide improvements to signalized Traffic Monitoring Program corridors in order to reduce delays to the motorists and pedestrians and comply with the Growth Management Oversight Commission (GMOC) threshold standards. Typical improvements will be made to signal indications, traffic signal timing improvements, upgraded traffic signal hardware, new equipment installation that has been recognized in the industry to improve travel speed by reducing wait times for users. A project listing is to be determined as needs are identified in the annual report to the GMOC or other traffic studies done in conjunction with impending development/redevelopment projects. Once projects are identified, they will be added through subsequent WTDlF program updates. OR-4 Trqf1ic Monitonng Center ($~50~198.92). This project is to provide for a Citywide Traffic Management Center (TMC). The TMC will contain computer workstations with video & traffic surveillance systems and integration into the traffic monitoring system. This project is listed in the "Eastern Area Transportation Development Impact Fee" program update dated March 2005 as TDlF Project #65. The TDIF share is 60% of the costs and the City share is 40%. The 40% City share is to be funded through the Traffic Signal Fee fund. The WTDlF will pay one-half of the current TDIF share. The WTDlF share is 30% of $5,505,198.92. Therefore, the current WTDlF share is $1,651,559.68. Until the next update to the TDIF program, the TDlF share will be $0.00 (Zero Dollars). With the next update to the TDIF program, the TDIF share will be reduced by the same amount that the WTDlF pays so that both the TDIF & WTDIF shares are equal to each other. Therefore, with the next TDIF update the funding for this project will be: 30% WTDIF, 30% TDIF and 40% Traffic Signal Fund. Bavfront Redevelooment (orooosed) Proiect The Bayfront projects (Bay-#) are from the draft Bayfront Environmental document. Since this is a proposed document, there is no approval on the environmental document. The roadway projects identified as mitigation have been listed in Exhibit 3 as WTDIF projects but no WTDlF obligation is shown. Once the final environmental document has been adopted, then those roadway projects will be added to the WTDIF program and other projects, primarily the Mid- bayfront projects, will be reviewed and either removed or amended in the WTDlF program. J:lEngineer\TRAFFIC\TF358\WTDIF project description.fxr.doc 5-135 Page 47 5-136 Page 48 WTDIF Master Land Use Inventory Table SANDAG DELTA LU bulldout TAl: SANDAG LAND USE "" TA' LAND USE YEAR Years2030- Trip rate Delta Trips current trips dellatrlps CODE CODE 2030 trips 2002 4161 """ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 5.75 4161 "'" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 5.75 0.00 449.00 0 2581.75 2581.75 0.00 4170 '" SINGLEFAMLY 190.00 4170 '" SINGlEFAMLY 251.00 61.00 10.00 610 1900.00 2510.00 610.00 4170 '" MUlTI.f"AMILV 110.00 4170 '" MULTI-FAMILY 110.00 0.00 8.00 0 880.00 880.00 0.00 4172 '" SINGLE FAMILY "".00 "" '" SlNGLEI'AMLY "'00 56.00 10.00 560 2060.00 2620.00 560.00 4172 '" MULTI-FAMILY 376.00 4172 ,W MULTI-FAMJLY 435.00 59.00 8.00 472 3006.00 3480.00 472.00 4173 '" SINGLE fAMILY 0,01l 4173 '" SINGLE FAMLY 13.00 13.00 10.00 130 0.00 130.00 130.00 4173 211)1 INDUSTRIAL PARK 6.34 4173 2101 INDUSTRIAL PARK '.00 -6.34 90.00 -571 570.60 0.00 -570.60 4173 2103 LIGHTJNDUSTRlAI.. 9.'15 "" 2103 lIGHCINOUSTRIAL 21.75 18.30 200.00 3660 1890.00 5550.00 3660.00 4113 '''" WAREHOUSING_OR _STORAGE '00 4113 2104 WAREHOUSING_OR_STORAGE '.00 -2.55 60.00 -153 153.00 0.00 -153.00 4173 '00' WHOLE SALE TRADE ...... 4113 "" WHOLE SALE TRADE '.00 -6.44 224.00 -1443 1442.56 0.00 -1442.56 "" '00' OTHER RETAIL '" 4173 '"" OTHER RETAIL '.00 -o.B2 150.00 -123 123.00 0.00 -123.00 4113 "'" LOW RISE OFFICE 2.72 4173 "" LOW RISE OFFICE ,." 0.00 300.00 0 B1B.00 816.00 0.00 4116 '" SINGLEFMlILY 203.00 4176 '" SINGLE FAMILY "'.00 26.00 10.00 260 2030.00 2290.00 260.00 4176 '" MULTl-FAMILY 382.00 4176 '" MULTl-FAMILY 367.00 5.00 B.OO '"' 3056.00 3096.00 40.00 4176 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY 1.11 4176 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY 1.11 0.00 200.00 0 222.00 222.00 0.00 ".. 2103 LIGHT_INDUSTRY 4.72 41B8 2103 LIGHT_INDUSTRY 6.10 1.3B 200.00 276 944.00 1220.00 276.00 4188 """ COMMUNITY_COMMERCIAL ".00 ".. '00' COMMUNllY_COMMERC1AL 20.90 0.00 262.00 0 5475.80 5475.80 0.00 4188 "'" OTHER RETAIL 0.91 4188 '00' OTHER RETAIL '.00 -0.97 150.00 -'48 145.50 0.00 -145.50 ".. .= LOWRlSEOFFICE 0.41 4188 6002 LOWRI5EOFFICE '.00 -0.41 300.00 -123 123.00 0.00 -123.00 "" '"" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 2.64 4192 ,,~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ,... 0.00 449.00 0 1185.36 1185.36 0.00 4192 '"" 8TREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 3.68 4192 .", 8TREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 3.68 0.00 150.00 0 552.00 552.00 0.00 CJ1 4192 "'" LOW RISE OFFICE ,." 4192 6002 LOW RISE OFFICE ,." 0.00 300.00 0 1218.00 1218.00 0.00 I 4192 """ GOV'T OFFICE OR CENTER 3,59 4192 '00' GOV'T OfFICE OR CENTER 3.59 0.00 300.00 0 1077.00 1077.00 0.00 ~ 4197 "'" LOW-RISE HOTELOR MOTEL 2.12 4197 ,,,, LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEl 2.12 0.00 200.00 0 424.00 424.00 0.00 4197 "'" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 2.98 4197 '007 STREETFRONT COMr.lERCIAl 4.27 1.29 150.00 19' 441.00 640.50 193.50 W 4197 '00' STREETFRONTCOMMERCIAL{RE-387 ,." 4197 '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL IRE- .." 5.BO 150.00 870 0.00 870.00 B70.00 ..... 4197 '00' LOW-RISE OFFICE 1.29 4197 "'" LOW-RISE OFFICE '.00 -1.29 300.00 -387 3B7.00 0.00 -387.00 4199 '" SINGLEFMlILY 29.00 4199 '" SINGLE FMI!LY 29.00 0.00 10.00 0 290.00 290.00 0.00 4199 ,W MULTI-fAMILY 324.00 "" '" MULTl-FAMIt.Y 3301.00 10.00 8.00 00 2592.00 2672.00 BO.OO '''' ,W MULTI-FAMILY '.00 ,= '" MULTl-FAMILY 1000.00 1000.00 8.00 8000 0.00 BOOO.OO 8000.00 "" '''' HlGHRISEHOTEllMOTEL '.00 ,= '''' HIGH RIS!: HOTEll MOTEL 1800.00 1800.00 10.00 18000 0.00 18000.00 18000.00 '''' 5012 COMMERClALRETAIL '.00 ,= 5012 COMMERCIAL RETAIL 150.00 150.00 45.00 6750 0.00 6750.00 6750.00 4200 '00' LOW RISE OFFICE '.00 ,= .". LOW RISE OFFICE "'.00 60.00 20.00 1200 0.00 1200.00 1200.00 "W ,~ SlNGLEFAMLY 272.00 "" '" SINGLEFAMLY 261.00 -11.00 10.00 -110 2720.00 2610.00 -110.00 "" '" MULTI-FAMILY 111,00 '''' ,W MULT1-fAMILY 212.00 101.00 8.00 808 888.00 1696.00 808.00 "w '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL '.00 '''' '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 2.87 -0.13 150.00 -20 450.00 430.50 -19.50 '''' .= LOW RISE OFfICE 2.30 '''' '"" LOW RISE OFFICE ,." -1.90 300.00 -570 690.00 120.00 -570.00 "" '" SINGLEFAtJlILY 19.00 '''' '" SINGLEFAMR-Y 79.00 0.00 10.00 0 790.00 790.00 0.00 4204 'W MULTI.fAMILY 231.00 '''' '" MUlTl-FAM1LY 231.00 0.00 8.00 0 1848.00 1848.00 0.00 "" ''''' LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 4.02 '''' 1501 LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL ,.w 0.00 200.00 0 804.00 804.00 0.00 "OO ''''' NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL '.00 "" - NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 5.91 5.91 449.00 2654 0.00 2653.59 2653.59 "OO '00' STREETFROOT COMMERCIAL 5.12 "" '007 STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 5.78 0.66 150.00 99 768.00 867.00 99.00 m 4209 '" SINC'.lE'-J'.o.MLY 19.00 '''' '" SINGLE FAMILY '.00 -19.00 10.00 -190 190.00 0.00 -190.00 4209 'W MULTI-FAMILY 319.00 4209 '"' MUlTI-FAMILl 531.00 212.00 8.00 1898 2552.00 4248.00 1696.00 >< "" '''' lOW-RISEHOTELORMora (l.70 "" '''' LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 0.00 -0.70 200.00 ~140 140.00 0.00 .140.00 :::I: "" """ STREETFRONTCOMMERClAL 5.16 4200 ,"" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl. 6.29 1.13 150.00 170 774.00 943.50 169.50 4210 '" SINGLEFAMLY 408.00 4210 '" SINGLE FAMILY 415.00 7.00 10.00 70 4080.00 4150.00 70.00 - 4214 '" SlNGlEFAtJlILY 38.00 4214 '" SiNGlE FAMILY '.00 --38.00 10.00 -380 380.00 0.00 -380.00 c:J 4214 '"' MULTI--FAMILY 515.00 4214 '" MULTI--FAMILY 754.00 239.00 8.00 1912 4120.00 6032.00 1912.00 - 4214 'W MOBILE HOME PARK 75,00 4214 ,eo MOBILE HOME PARK '.00 -75.00 5.00 -375 375.00 0.00 -375.00 -i 4217 '" SINGLE FAMILY 93,00 4217 '" SINGLE FAMILY 69,00 -24.00 10.00 -240 930.00 690.00 -240.00 4211 'w MULTl-FAMlLY 405.00 4217 'W MULTI-FAMIlY 429,00 24.00 8.00 192 3240.00 3432.00 192.00 ~ cl' 4217 """ STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 1.77 4217 ""' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 227 0.50 150.00 75 265.50 340.50 75.00 ':'il .... '" J:1ENGINEERrrRAFFICrrF35B1 WTDIF Report Exh 4 Masler land use Table 1-30-08 dek AlTACHMENT 4 PAGE 1 SANDAG SANDAG YEAR DELTA LU bulklout TAZ CODE LAND USE "" TAZ CODE LAND USE 2030 Yeanl2030_ Triprale DellllTrlps current trips trips dellatrlps 2002 4217 """ LOW RISE OFFICE 0.51 4217 '"'" LOWRIS€OfflCE '" -0.51 "" '" SINGLEfAMK.Y 44.00 .'" '" SlNGLEfAMlLY '" -44.00 .'" ,~ MULTI-FAMILY ~." .'" ", MUlTI-FAMILY 401.00 345.00 4220 '" MOBLE HOME PAAK 127.00 .'" '" MOBLE HOME PARK ,." -127.00 .'" '''' lOW RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 4.02 "" '''' LOW RISE liOTl:l OR MOTEL 3.91 -0.11 .'" '''' STREETfRONTCOMMERCIAL '.00 .'" '''' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl 3.91 0.11 "" '" SINGLE fAMILY 92.00 "" '" SINGLEfAMLY n." -15.00 "" ,~ MUlTI-FAMILY 399.00 "" '" MUlTI.f"AMILY 421.00 22.00 "" '" SINGLEfAML.Y 173.00 .'" '" SINGLEFAMLY 120.00 -53.00 4226 ", MULTI-FAMILY 266.00 "" '" MUlTI-FAMILY 423.00 157.00 .'" """ LOW RISE OffICE 1.77 .'" OO~ LOW RISE OFFICE ,.n 0.00 "" '" SINGLE fAMILY 28.00 "'" '" SINGlE FAMILY 0.00 .28.00 4230 ", MULTI-FAMILY 330.00 "'" ", MULTI-FAMILY 504.00 174.00 4230 '" MOBILE HOME PARK 47.00 "'" '" MOBILE HOME PARK 0.00 -47.00 42311 "'" LOW RISE HOTEUMOTEl '" 4230 "'" lOW RISE HOTEUMOTEl 1.97 1.97 "'" "'. NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER: '" "'" "" NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENl 4.03 4.03 "'" "" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 'n 42311 '''' STREETfRONT COMMERCIAL ." -2.13 4231 '" SINGLE fAMILY "." 4231 '" SINGLE fAMILY 0.00 -36.00 4231 '" MULTI-FAMILY 2113.00 4231 ", MULTI.fAMILY 764.00 556.00 4231 "', STREETfRONT COMMERCIAL '" 4231 '''' sTREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 6.75 0.70 4231 '"'" lOW RISE OFFlCE 4.66 4231 '''' lOW RISE OFFICE ,,, .2.16 4231 '''' OTHER HEALTH CARE 3.20 4231 00'" OTHER HEALTH CARE 0.00 -3.20 "" '" SINGLE FAMILY 52.00 "" '" SINGLEfAMLY 42.00 .10.00 "" ", MULTI-FAMILY 71.00 "" '" MULTI-FAMIlY 242.00 171.00 4236 "" STREETFRONT COMNERCIAL 1.47 .no ""' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 1.76 0.29 CJ'I 4236 '"'" LOW RISE OFFICE 0.62 "" "', lOWRISEOFFlCE 11.72 -0.10 I "" '''' GOVT OFFICE OR CENTER 6.40 "" '''' GOVT OFfICE OR CENTER .." 0.90 ~ 4236 '" S!NGLEFAMLY 532.00 4236 '" SINGLEFAMLY 581.00 49.00 (.0) 4238 ", MUlTI-FAMJLY 293.00 4236 '" MUlTJ.fAMllY 293.00 0.00 4242 '" SINGlE FAMILY 113.00 4242 '" SlfIfGlEFAMILY 124.00 11.00 00 4242 '" MULTI.f"AMllY 236.00 4242 '" MIJlTI--FAMILY 236.00 0.00 4243 '" SINGLEFAMLY "''' 4243 '" 5JNGLEFAMLY "''' -10.00 4243 '" MUlTI.fAMILY 00." 4243 '" MULTI--FAMILY 553.00 487.00 4243 '" MOBILE HOME PARK 16S.00 4243 '" MOBILE HOME PARK 0.00 -169.00 4243 '''' LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEl 3.70 4243 '''' LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 3.12 ..{l.58 4243 "', STREETfRONT COMMERCIAl 7.91 4243 '''' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 9,37 1.46 4243 '''' OTHER HEALTH CARE 0.14 4243 '''' OTHER HEALTH CARE 0.00 -0.1-4 4244 '" SI~EfAMILY 32.00 4244 '" SINGLE fAMILY 0.00 -32.00 4244 '" MULTl-fMtllY 320.00 4244 '" MULTI-FAMILY 853,00 533.00 4244 "" STREETFRONl COMMERCIAL 4.88 4244 '''' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl 5.52 0.84 4244 '"'" LOW RISE OFFICE 1.59 .". '"'" LOW RISE OFFICE '" 0.31 ".. '''' OTHER HEALTH CARE 0.21 4244 "" OTHER HEALTH CARE 0.00 -0.21 4247 '" SINGLE FAMILY 256.00 4247 '" SiNGlE FAMILY 223.00 -35.00 4247 ,~ MUlTl-I'AMILY 376.00 4247 '" MULTI-FAMlLY 462.00 104.00 4246 '" SINGLEFAMl.Y '" 4246 '" SINGLEFAMLY 0.00 -3.00 4248 '" MULT-FAMILY 442.00 4246 '" MIJlT.f"AMILY lll8O.oo 638.00 4246 "" LOW RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL m 4246 '"'' LOW RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 4.S7 1.47 4246 "" NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER 4.40 4248 '''. NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENl 0.00 -4.40 4246 '''' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl 0.90 4248 '''' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl 7.45 6.55 4246 '00' MIO--HIGHRlSEOFFlCE 0.00 4246 '00' MIO.HIGH RISE OFFICE 2.33 2.33 4248 """ lOW Rise OFFICE ,." 4246 """ LOW RISE OFFICE 0.00 0.00 4250 '" SINGLE FAMILY 57.00 "" '" SINGlI:FAMIlY 0.00 ..fJ7.00 "" ,~ NUlTI.fAMILY 247.00 "" '" MUlTI-FAMILY 309.00 62.00 "" '"'" lOWRISEOFFICE 2.23 "" '"'" LOWRlSEOFFlCE 0.00 .2.23 4250 '''' OTHER HEALTH CARE '" "" 6509 OTHER HEALTH CARE ,." -2.73 4252 '" SINGLE FAMILY 116.00 "" '" SINGlE FAMK.Y 116.00 0.00 ~ 4252 '" MULTI.fAMllY 56,00 4252 '" MULTI-FAMILY "." 0.00 ~ ::g J:fENGINEERfTRAFFICrrF3581 WTDIF Report Exh 4 Master land use Table 1.30-oa dek 300.00 10.00 6.00 5.00 200.00 150.00 10.00 8.00 10.00 8.00 300.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 200.00 449.00 150.00 10.00 8.00 150.00 300.00 500.00 10.00 8.00 150.00 300.00 300.00 10.00 8.00 10.00 8.00 10.00 8.00 5.00 200.00 150.00 500.00 10.00 8.00 150.00 300.00 500.00 10.00 8.00 10.00 8.00 200.00 449.00 150.00 600.00 300.00 10.00 8.00 300.00 500.00 10.00 8.00 -153 -4'0 2760 -835 -22 17 -150 176 .530 1256 o .280 1392 -235 ,., 1609 .320 -350 ..<8 105 -8<8 -1600 -000 1366 44 -30 270 490 o 110 o -100 3896 -845 -116 21' -70 -320 4264 126 93 .105 -350 632 -30 5104 '" .1976 66' 1400 o -870 '96 -86, -1365 o o 153.00 440.00 448.00 635.00 804.00 570.00 920.00 3192.00 1730.00 2128.00 531.00 280.00 2640.00 235.00 0.00 0.00 1008.00 360.00 1664.00 907.50 1398.00 1600 520.00 668.00 220.50 246.00 1920.00 5320.00 2344.00 1130.00 1904.00 300.00 528.00 845.00 740.00 1186.50 70 320.00 2560.00 702.00 477.00 105 2580.00 3024.00 30.00 3536.00 640.00 1975.60 135.00 0.00 0.00 570.00 1976.00 669.00 1365 1180.00 448.00 0.00 0.00 3208.00 0.00 782.00 586.50 770.00 3368.00 1200.00 3384.00 531.00 0.00 4032.00 0.00 394.00 1809.47 688.50 0.00 6112.00 1012.50 750.00 o 420.00 1936.00 264.00 216.00 2190.00 5810.00 2344.00 1240.00 1904.00 200.00 4424.00 0.00 624.00 1405.50 o 0.00 6824.00 828.00 570.00 o 2230.00 3856.00 0.00 8640.00 934.00 0.00 1117.50 1400.40 0.00 0.00 2472.00 0.00 o 1180.00 448.00 -153.00 --440.00 2760.00 -635.00 .22.00 16.50 -150.00 176.00 -530.00 1256.00 0.00 .280.00 1392.00 -235.00 394.00 1809.47 -319.50 .360.00 4448.00 105.00 -648.00 -1600 .100.00 1368.00 43.50 .30.00 270.00 490.00 0.00 110.00 0.00 -100.00 3896.00 -845.00 .116.00 219.00 -70 -320.00 4264.00 126.00 93.00 .105 --350.00 832.00 .30.00 5104.00 294.00 -1975.60 982.50 1400.40 0.00 .570.00 496.00 -669.00 .1365 0.00 0.00 ATTACHMENT 4 PAGE 2 . ~ :s . ~ . ~ :s 0 . ~ ~ =" ,- ~ . ~ :s :s ~ , 0 . ~ " ... . ~ . Q . . . ~ ~ =~ ~~ c(~~ ~2!~ .. . Q. > <<a ~S >" .. . " 0 z :l . <W 00 zO <0 . S " . . " W . " 0 z :l . oW 00 zO 00 . S 888g8~ggg88g888g8ggggggggg8gg8~gggg2~~gg~gg~gg~8g8gg~8ggg g~~~g~~gg~~~~dg~~~~dgg~~~~dcid~gg~~~~~~~~~~~~ddg~dg~,~~dg~~ 0<11...............""0) N..-Il) '<'IlO" "'0.....,.<'1 "'......."""'.............. r- '<TN ...~ J<Ja:lM01i'l",O '7 'Il) '7 " 10 M"i ell '7 ,...,..... , ... r "l' -, I C\I";' 10 ' .,-... 88888~~88gg88gg88~g88g2ggI0888g~8g8ggg~gg~g8088~88gg8~8ggg d~d~d~~ci.ci~~ggd~d~cidci~~~~~g~d~gci~d~~~.~~~~~ gg~dci~~~gd~~~ ~ ~ lOll) ~ "'~ ~ E N ~1l)~lO; ~.... ~ ""~"''''IO~ ....10 ~r-a:l M~Ng IO~ &assaaas&&~ss&&&S~~&&&~&a~aasa&aaa&~a&&assam&S~&&&&&&&ssa 2NOQO~NOa:l""$O""OO;IO"'IOOOIO"'OIO o",OOOONIOO~OOO..,....or- 00(")1'-0000000<'10 ~~~~~....~~~....... ~~"'~~g'" ffi~M ~ e- ~~g ~ "'m~N ~ ~~~IO ~ ~ g~~ ggg~g~~go""~g~o~~~~~ogg~~~goooa;8mlO~~~N~O*~~O*oo~r-og~~m~~~~ om~~~~~N8~N~~ 'N~" ~O~~N~ M~~~ ~___~~ ~N~ _~ ~~MO~~O '";" '~'7 "<l) (0)'7 m";" .,."", _,~ _.""" -r N'";"<l)"_ ggggggggggggggg8gggggggg88ggggggggggg88gggggggggggggggggg g~g~~ggg=ggggggm~ggggmg2ggg~ggggm~gggggmgggggm~ggggg~gg~g N~ N~~~ ~~~ ~~M<l) N~~ N~~~ ~~~<l) ""'_M Nt'lN~ ~ gggggg~gg~~~~g8gg~~ggg~~~~ggg~~ggg~~~~gggg~~gg~~gg~~~g8g~ g~~~~o~~~q~~~o~~~qqd~g~N9NdOO~~~~~N9do~~ooo~dod9dm~~~~$~d ";" ~ '(DC')! '..... ~ l'} II) 10 ~ 88888~~g.~8~~~88~g~ggg8~~~~888 ~g8g~~~~88 m~o88~oo8~~;888; o~ogo'-"-'o~oN~Cid~d~ddd~MNNV~Nci~~d~dN~Qci~~OON~~g~~~~~~~o~~o o ~S! ~~~ ~ 0 ~~~i ~~ 0 ~ C ~ ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~E~~~ $ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ $ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ $~ ~~ ~ $~~ <I. .. <I. 15 ~ ~ :::E 0 ~ , " ' 8w~~>- fi:~~ !!l:&i1i..l~t;zl::;;; f~~~~a~~~ ~&W~~.i:;t:;a:w [f~i=~~~~~~ O....O",:::E...."'....<0 ~ ~ ~ ~ ffi ~ ~ ffi ~ ::! ~ !!!!:1 0 3i!:\j ~ ::!!:: :;; lL:I: 0 :! c: SOW 8\!)~~ ~S ~~~~~~~i~!~!~~~~ ~~~~G~w~t:;~a:WW~~~t:; :J=w~~O:::Jl-w"" :I: J-~W ~~~~.~~~3~~~~ 5ffi~ ~~~ ..~w:::E"':::E....OVJ::EzVJ ~ uj ~ ~ 15 'Q ~ ffi ~::!! ~~ ~~ ~ul8 ~8 w ~u ~>-~>-~g~~>-b~~~;';j~>-~~ ~~~~~Qif~j;!;li!~O~~~gli! . .w,1~~:I:w~lL~lLW~ w~w~w....t:;..!:t~wyo::Ul::J..r.=w ~~~~~~~Cl:J!:~lL313Cl~8~ VJ :;; VJ ::!! :! :I: '" ~ ~ 9 t; ~ 9 ~ ~ :::E :::E '" W d ~ ~ ~ \!) :;; w ~ < i ~ ~ b ~ VJ o > z ",0 ~ ~ ~ :;; ~ ll! . :; ... ~ .i l!! ~ ~ (J o u w c:: :::e a:::::E UJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ >- ill >- ~ (J 0 ~d~~~~~~~ ~~w~~lt~~e: ~~~~~lii~~tu ~ ~ '~ ~ :! ~ ~ ~ ~ .... ~ .... .... 8 VJ ~ ::!! '" ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ; ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g 8 8 8 ~ 8 ~ 8 8 ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ ~ ~ g;""/<l~ N!i ~ ~~ "'; ~ ~~oiciticici:8~o'o'~~~.., ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~re~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~re v v v V V V V V . v v V V v V v V V V V V v V v v v v V V V V V V V V V V V v v v V V "'" V V V v V v v V V V V V V o'~~;~~~~~ 3! ld~ ~ :!! w"" :t :ot W ~:i! ill ;i ..J ~ ~!i ~i ~ 5 i ~~ ~~ ~ i~ ~ il i ~irl~ 05 ~o ~:I: ~ ~ ~~ ~~:I: 8~ O:::EO ~ ~~u uju ~ ~u ~ u ~~ >-o~ ~ u~~ u\!)~~ cu~ irl>-~u 0 ~~~~~~d~~l::~~~~~~l::~~~~&~~~~~l::i~~irl~~~~~~~l::~~~~~l::~b~~~~~~ :;;ocO~~:I:oo::o~~~oo::~o~~c::C::O:I::::E~~ o~~o~oc::o~:::Ec::c::o:I:<:::Ec::c::o~:I:~~c::<~c:: ~:I;~ ff: ~ < ~e:J: * lL lL <( j;lL ll!~if< LL i'ljj~Lf<2 if\l5u. <(:I: g::t:I:\lli1 <<: lL :I:\ljO::lL< 0 LL llju.ll:I2ZlL lL< LL 5~o~o~~.~~~~~~~~~oi~~~_~~~~~~z5~i~~~~o~oi~g~~.~i~_~~o~~~wi~~_~~_~o*~_~i ~ :;; ~ ~ ~ i ~ ~ ~ 9 ~ ~ i :::E ~ 5 9 ~ i ~ 0 9 5 ~ ~ ~ w 9 ~ i :::e ~ W :;; 9 '" i w :;; 9 ~ i z ~ 9 '" 9 ~ 0 w ~ i w ~ ~ ~ > - > < > < . < . ~ ~ ~ :;:; 5 ~ . > . o ~ U 0 .nu .. ~ ~ ~ ~..o~~~~..~~~~..~~~.~" u - . ~ . ;; Ii 8 8 . ~ ~ ,... <IS '" lil o ~ ~ C C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~;:~~ N ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~ ~~ ~: ~~~ ~~ ~ ~~~~~~ 5-139 .. '" '" 0 N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ .. G it ~ ... Z .. " " " ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ .. ~ . ... $ , ~ ~ . " . " ~ ~ x .. ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ " ~ ~ ~ 5 " ~ o ~ ~ ~ .. .. z 5 z ~ Page 51 SANDAG SANDAG YEAR DELTA LU bulldout TAZ CODE LAND USE 20" TAZ CODE LAND USE 2030 Years20JO_ Trip rate DeRaTrlps c:urrenttrlps trips delta trips '00' 42811 """ lOWRISEOFFICE 4.15 "'" 61102 lOW RISE OFFICE 4.14 ..0.01 300.00 -3 1245.00 1242.00 -3.00 42811 ''''' OTHER HEALTH CARE 0.17 428n "'" OTHER HEALTH CARE 0."' ..0.17 500.00 -8, 85 0 -8' 4281 '''' MUlTI-FAMllY 352.00 "" '''' MUlTI-FAMllY 778.00 426.00 8.00 3408 2816.00 6224.00 3408.00 4281 ''''' HOTEUMOTa 0."' 4281 "'" HOTEUMOTEl a.5n 0.50 300.00 150 0.00 150.00 150.00 4281 '"" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl 1.4n 4281 ,." STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL '" ..0.02 150.00 -3 210.00 207.00 -3.00 4281 '0" MlO-HlGH RISE OFFICE 0."' 4281 anOl MlO-I-IlGHRISEOfFICE '.00 1.00 600.00 600 0.00 600.00 600.00 4281 """ lOW R-tSE OFFICE 0.00 4281 '00' lOW RISE OFFICE 0.00 0.00 300.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 "" "'" HEAVY INDUSTRY 49.88 "" '"" HEAVY INDUSTRY 54.42 4.54 120.00 54' 5985.60 6530.40 544.80 4284 21n3 LIGHT INDUSTRY 3.12 4284 2103 lIGHT INDUSTRY In.31 7.25 200.00 1450 624.00 2074.00 1450.00 4284 "'''' LOWRJSEOFFICE 11.42 4284 ''''' LOW RISE OFFICE 11.42 0.00 300.00 0 3428.00 3426.00 0.00 4285 '''' RESIOENTIALHIGH 0,01l 4285 '''' RESIOENTIALHIGH 531.00 531.00 8.00 4248 0.00 4248.00 4248.00 4285 "'" REGIONAl COMMERCIAL 55.34 4285 "'"' REGIONAl COMMERCIAL 33.W -22.14 187.00 -4139 10348.58 6209.15 -4139.43 "" ''''' LOW-NIO RISE OFFICE 000 4285 '"" lOW-M1D RISE OFFICE 11.07 11.07 300.00 3320 0.00 3320.40 3320.40 4292 '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 0.00 .m ,"'" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 0.'" 0.00 150.00 0 135.00 135.00 0.00 4295 '" SINGlEFMlILY ".00 "" '" SINGl..EFAMILY 56.00 -12.00 10.00 -120 680.00 560.00 -120.00 4295 '''' MULTI-FAMllY 189.00 "" '''' MULTI-FAMILY 2111.00 12.00 8.00 96 1512.00 1606.00 96.00 4295 ''''' NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 1.50 4295 ''''' NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 0.," -1.50 449.00 -8" 673.50 0.00 -673.50 4295 "'" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 2.10 4295 5007 STREETFRONTCOMMERCIAL 1.82 -0.28 150.00 -42 315.00 273.00 -42.00 4295 '00' LOW RISE OFFICE 9.12 "" "'"' lOW RISE OFFICE 11.46 2.34 300.00 702 2736.00 3438.00 702.00 .'" '" SINGLEF.......ILY 19.00 "" '" SINGLEFAMLY 0.00 ~19.00 10.00 -190 190.00 0.00 -190.00 4298 '''' MULTI-FAMiLY 69.00 "" '" MULTj.f'AMtlY 100.00 31.00 8.00 248 552.00 800.00 248.00 4298 1501 HOTEUMOTEL 0.00 4298 "'" HOTEUMOTEL 2.81 2.81 200.00 562 0.00 562.00 562.00 4298 "'" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAl 7AO 4298 """ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 0.00 -7.40 449.00 -3323 3322.60 0.00 -3322.60 "" """ STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 3.711 .", '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 12.59 8.89 150.00 1334 555.00 1888.50 1333.50 4298 "'" MIO--HIGH RISE OFFICE 0.00 4298 '"" MID-HIGHR1SEOFFICE 1.38 1.38 600.00 828 0.00 828.00 828.00 01 4301 '" SINGLE FAMILY 21.00 .~, '" SlNGLEFAMLY 0.00 -21.00 10.00 ~210 210.00 0.00 .210.00 43nl '" MUlTI-FAMILY 156.00 .~, '''' MULTI-FAMILY 199.00 43.00 8.00 34. 1246.00 1592.00 344.00 I 4301 '" MOBILE HOME PARK 71.00 4301 '" M0fI1LE HOME PARK 0.00 -77.00 5.00 -385 385.00 0.00 -365.00 ~ 43Gl "'" LOW~ISE HOTEL AND MOTEL OA3 "0' 1501 LOW~ISE HOTEL AND MOTEL 0.00 -0.43 200.00 -86 86.00 0.00 -86.00 -1>0 ."" '00' STREETFRONTCOMMERCIAL 1.63 .~, '"" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 8.29 6.66 150.00 988 244.50 1242.90 998.40 0 "'" '00' MIO-HIGH RISE OFFICE 0.00 4301 "''' MID-HIGH RISE OFFICE 2.16 2.76 600.00 1657 0.00 1657.20 '1657.20 "'" "'" LOW RISE OFFICE 0.35 .~, "'" LOW RISE OFFICE 0.00 -0.35 300.00 -105 105.00 0.00 -105.00 4302 'OT SINGLEFAMtLY 2-93,00 .~, '" SINGLE FAMILY 294,00 1.00 10.00 " 2930.00 2940.00 10.00 .= TO> MUlTI-FAMILY ~.oo 4302 '" MUlTI-FAM1LY 21.00 1.00 8.00 8 160.00 168.00 8.00 4301 '" sINGLEFAMl.Y 328.00 .~, 101 SINGLEFAMLY 328.00 0.00 10.00 0 3280.00 3260.00 0.00 4301 '''' MULTI-FAMJLY ".00 4301 "" MULT1-FAMlLY 29.00 0.00 6.00 0 232.00 232.00 0.00 .~. '" SINGLE FMUlY 112.00 .~, TO' SINGlE F"MILY 112.00 0.00 10.00 0 1120.00 1120.00 0.00 .~. '" MULTI-FAMllY 142.00 .~. TO> MULTl-FAMILY 142,00 0.00 8.00 0 1136.00 1136.00 0.00 "'" '"" lOW RISE OFFICE 0.00 .~. ''''' lOW RISE OFFICE G.40 0.40 300.00 120 0.00 120.00 120.00 4310 TO' SINGlE FAMILY 126.00 4310 TO' SINGLEFAMLY 726,00 0.00 10.00 0 7260.00 7260.00 0.00 4310 "'" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl OAO 4310 "''' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl 0.40 0.00 150.00 0 60.00 60.00 0.00 4313 TO' SINGLE FAMilY 402.00 4313 '" SiNGlE FAMILY 4G7.00 5.00 10.00 50 4020.00 4070.00 50.00 4314 TO' SINGLE fAMilY 158.00 4314 '" SINGLE FAMILY 131.00 -27.00 10.00 -270 1580.00 1310.00 -270.00 4314 '''' MUlTI-FAMllY 167.00 4314 '" MIJlTI-FAM1LY 249.00 82.00 8.00 656 1336.00 1992.00 656.00 4314 '" MOBlE HOME PARK 63.00 4314 '" MOBLE HOME PARK '.00 --63.00 5.00 -315 315.00 0.00 -315.00 4314 '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl 0.00 4314 "'" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 3.41 3.41 150.00 '" 0.00 511.20 511.20 4314 '00' MlD-HlGHRISEOfFICE '00 4314 '00' MID-HIGHRlSEOFF1CE 1.14 1.14 600.00 .82 0.00 681.60 681.60 4315 TO' SINGLE FAMILY 1&1.00 4315 '" SINGLE FAMILY 161.00 -3.00 10.00 -30 1640.00 1610.00 -30.00 4315 TO> MlJlTI-FAMILY '.00 4315 '''' MULTI-FAMJlY 139.00 137.00 8.00 1096 16.00 1112.00 1098.00 4315 '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL ,.'" 4315 '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl. '.00 -2.90 150.00 -43. 1020.00 585.00 -435.00 4315 '00' lOWRlSEOFFICE 0.00 4315 500' LOW RISE OFFICE 0.12 0.72 300.00 '" 0.00 214.50 214.50 4316 TO' SINGLE FAMILY 72.00 4316 '" SINGlE FAMILY 70.00 -2.00 10.00 -20 720.00 700.00 -20.00 4316 '''' MULTI-FAM1LY 126.00 4316 '''' MULTI-FAMILY 126.00 0.00 8.00 0 1008.00 1008.00 0.00 4316 ''''' NElGHBORIiOOO SHOPPING CENTER ,." 4316 "". NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENl 6.11 0.23 449.00 T03 2840.12 2743.39 103.27 4316 '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL '" 4316 "'" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 2.43 -0.38 150.00 -57 421.50 364.50 -57.00 4316 '00' LOW RISE OFFICE .." 4316 "'"' LOW RISE OFFICE 4.80 0.34 300.00 102 1278.00 1380.00 102.00 ti' 4319 '" SINGlEFAMl.Y 293.00 4319 '" SINGLE FAMILY =.00 9.00 10.00 90 2930.00 3020.00 90.00 ':1: ~ J:fENGINEERrrRAFFICfTf3581 WTDIF Report Exh 4 Master land use Table 1-30-08 dek ATTACHMENT 4 PAGE 4 SANDAG DELTA LU bulldout TAZ SANDAG LAND USE 2002 TAZ LAND USE TEAR YlIars2030- Trip rate Della Trips current trips delta trips CODE CODE 2030 trips 2002 43111 '" MULTI.f"AMILY 103.00 4319 '" MUlTI-FAMILY 103.00 0.00 6.00 0 824.00 824.00 0.00 4319 "'" LOW RISE OFFlCE 0.54 4319 "'" LOW RISE OFFICE ,." 0.00 300.00 0 162.00 182.00 0.00 "" '" SINGLEFAMLY 49<1.00 4320 '" SINGLE FAMILY 4116.00 2.00 10.00 20 4940.00 4960.00 20.00 "" '" MULTI-f'AMILY 2:00 "" '" MULTI-FAMILY '.00 0.00 8.00 0 16.00 16.00 0.00 "m '" SINGLEFAMLY ".00 4326 '" SINGLE FAMILY ".00 0.00 10.00 0 920.00 920.00 0.00 "m '" MUlTI.f"AMILY 213.00 "m '" MUlTI-FAMILY 399.00 186.00 8.00 1488 1704.00 3192.00 1488.00 "" "" LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL ,." "" "" LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL '.00 -0.99 200.00 ~198 198.00 0.00 -198.00 "" .., STREETFRONT COMMERCW. 4.15 ",. """ STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL .." 0.84 150.00 125 622.50 747.75 125.25 "" "'" OTHER COMMERCIAl 2.33 "" "'" OTHER COMMERCIAl ,." ~2.33 150.00 -350 349.50 O.DO -349.50 "" .., LOW RISE OFFlCE '.00 .m 00" LOW RISE OFFICE '.00 1.00 300.00 2.. 0.00 299.10 299.10 "" '" SINGLE FAMLY 296.00 4328 '" SINGLE FAMILY 296.00 0.00 10.QO 0 2960.00 2960.00 0.00 "" '" SINGLEFAMLY 12.00 4330 '" SINGLE FAMILY 11.00 5.00 10.00 50 120.00 170.00 50.00 ,,~ '" MULTI.f"AMILY 261.00 ,,~ '" MULTI.f"AMILY 261.00 0.00 8.00 0 2088.00 2088.00 0.00 ,,~ ... NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 5.28 "'" ... NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 5.28 O.DO 449.00 0 2370.72 2370.72 0.00 030 "" STREETFROHT COMMERCIAl '0' .", .., STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL '00 --3.15 150.00 -473 786.00 313.50 -472.50 4330 "" LOWRISEOFFlCE 3.16 ,,~ 00" LOWRISEOFFlCE 10.38 7.20 300.00 2160 948.00 3108.00 2160.00 4330 ''''' OTHER HEALTH CARE 3.69 4330 "" OTHER HEALTH CARE 0.00 -3.69 500.00 -1845 1845 0 -1845 4331 '" MULTI.f"AMILY 0.00 4331 '" MUlTl-FAMILY 103.00 108.00 6.00 864 O.DO 864.00 864.00 4332 '" SINGLE FAMLY 161.00 4332 '" SINGLEFAMH..Y 161.00 0.00 10.00 0 1610.00 1610.00 0.00 4332 '" MVlTI.f"AMILY 13.00 4332 '" MULTI.f"AMILY 13.00 0.00 8.00 0 104.00 104.00 0.00 4333 '" SINGLE FAMILY 21.00 4333 '" SiNGlE FAMILY 21.00 0.00 10.00 0 210.00 210.00 O.DO 033 '" MUlTI-FAMILY '.00 .m '" MULTI-FAMILY 110.00 110.00 6.DO 980 0.00 880.00 880.00 4333 "'. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 1.93 4333 ... NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 1.93 0.00 449.00 0 866.57 866.57 0.00 4340 '" SINGLE FAMILY 00.00 "" '" SINGLEFAMLY 90.00 0.00 10.00 0 ODD.oo 900.00 0.00 4340 '" MULTI-FAMIL'i 266.00 .~ '" MULTI-FAMILY 286.00 0.00 8.00 0 2288.00 2288.00 0.00 "" "" LIGHT INOUSTRY 18.96 .~ 2103 L1GHTNDUSTRY 18.116 O.DO 200.00 0 3792.00 3792.00 0.00 (11 4340 2104 WAREHOUSINGiPUBLIC STORAGE 3.511 "" ,,~ WAREHOUSINGJPUBlIC STORAGE 3.59 0.00 60.00 0 215.40 215.40 0.00 I "" '" SINGLEFMlILY ".00 4342 '" SINGLE FAMILY ".00 0.00 10.00 0 660.00 660.00 0.00 ..... ..., '" MULTI.f"AMILY ".00 4342 '" MULTI-FAMILY 316.00 218.00 8.00 1744 764.00 2528.00 1744.00 "'" ..., '00' LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 0.61 ..., "'" LCUlRISEOFFICE 0.92 0.31 300.00 92 183.00 275.40 92.40 ..... ..., .., STREETFRONTCOMMERCIAL 4.22 ..., '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 4.65 0.43 150.00 85 633.00 697.50 64.50 ..., "'" OTHER COMMERCIAL 7.63 4342 ... OTHER COMMERCIAl 3.26 -4.35 150.00 -853 1144.50 492.00 -652.50 4345 '" SINGLE FAMILY '.00 4345 '" SINGLE FAMILY '.00 -7.00 10.00 -70 70.00 0.00 -70.00 4345 '" MULTI-FAMILY 191.00 4345 '" MULTI.f"AMILY 442.00 251.00 8.00 2008 1526.00 3536.00 2008.00 4345 '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL ,W ..., .., sTREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 2.27 0.07 150.00 11 330.00 340.50 10.50 ..., ,,,. OTHER HEALTH CARE 4A8 4345 6509 OTHER HEALTH CARE 4.48 0.00 500.00 0 224() 2240 0 .... '" SiNGlE FAMILY 263.00 ..., '" SINGLEFAMLY 2113.00 0.00 10.00 0 2830.00 2830.00 0.00 "00 '" SINGLE FAMILY 177.00 .'" '" SINGLE FAMILY 221.00 44.00 10.00 440 1770.00 2210.00 440.00 4350 '" MULTI-FAMILY 119.00 "" '" MULTI-FAMIlY 230.00 111.00 8.00 68' 952.00 1840.00 888.00 4352 "" HEAVY NDUSTRY o.oa 4352 '00' HEAVY NDUSTRY 33.16 33.16 120.00 3979 0.00 3979.20 3979.20 4352 "" LIGHT INDUSTRY 25.70 4352 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY 51.73 26.03 200.00 5208 5140.00 10346.00 5206.00 "" '" SINGLEFAMLY '159.00 4353 '" SINGLE FAMILY 4511.00 O.DO 10.00 0 4590.00 4590.00 0.00 4355 '" SINGLEFAMLY ".00 .", '" SINGLE FAMH..Y 10,00 -12.00 10.00 -120 220.00 100.00 -120.00 4355 '" MULTI.f"AMILY 498.00 "" '" MULTI.f"AMILY 689,00 191.00 8.00 1528 3984.00 5512.00 1528.00 4355 '''' LOW-RISE HOTEL OR Mora 0.75 .", '00' LCUI-RIBE HOTEL OR MOTEL '.00 -0.75 200.00 -150 150.00 O.DO -150.00 4355 2103 LIGI-iTt/OUSTRY 6.511 "" 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY 12.32 3.73 200.00 746 1718.00 2464.00 746.00 4355 ,,~ WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE 1.32 4355 2104 WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE '.00 -1.32 60.00 -79 79.20 O.DO -79.20 4355 ,~ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAl '.00 .", ... NEIGl-IBORHOOD COMMERCIAL '.00 0.00 449.00 0 0.00 O.DO 0.00 4355 .., STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 9A2 .", "" STREfTFRONT COMMERCIAL .... -4.48 150.00 -873 1413.00 740.40 -672.60 4355 '00' LOW RISE OffICE 4355 .., LOW RISE OFFICE 1.23 1.23 300.00 370 O.DO 370.20 370.20 4357 '" SINGt.EFAMLY 14.00 .", '" SINGLE-FAMILY '.00 .14.00 10.00 -140 140.00 0.00 ~140.00 4357 '" MULTI-FAM1LY 2aO.OO 4357 '" MULTI.f"AMllY 32a.00 68.00 8.00 544 2080.00 2624.00 544.00 4357 .., COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 17.65 4~57 "" COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 17.65 0.00 262.00 0 4624.30 4624.30 0.00 4357 "" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 3.78 4357 5a07 STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 4.21 0.43 150.00 85 567.00 631.50 64.50 4358 '" SINGLE FAMILY 2110.00 4358 '" SINGLE FAMILY 290.00 0.00 10.00 0 2900.00 2900.00 0.00 .". '" MULTI.f"AMILY "'.00 "" '" MULTI.f"AMllY 112.00 32.00 8.00 256 640.00 896.00 256.00 ;j' 4359 '" SlNGlEFAMILY 453.00 4359 '" SINGLE fAMILY 456.00 3.00 10.00 30 4530.00 4560.00 30.00 ~ ~ J:/ENGINEERffRAFF1CffF3581 WT01F Report Exh 4 Master Land use Table 1-30-08 dek ATTACHMENT 4 PAGE 5 SANDAG SANOAG YEAR DELTA LU bulldoul TAZ LAND USE 20" TAZ LAND USE Years 2030- Triprale Delta Trips currenltrlps deltalrlps COOE CODE 2030 lrlps 2002 4359 '" MULTi-fAMILY ".00 4359 ,~ MULTI-FAMILY ".00 0.00 8.00 0 688.00 688.00 0.00 "" '" SINGLE FAMILY ".00 "'" '" SINGLEFAMl-Y ".00 12.00 10.00 120 540.00 660.00 120.00 "'" "" MUlTI-FAMILY 432.00 "'" '" MULTI-FAMII..Y 530.00 98.00 8.00 784 3456.00 4240.00 784.00 "'" '" SJNGLEFAMLY 95.00 "" '" SINGLEFAt.4ILY 95.00 0.00 10.00 0 950.00 950.00 0.00 "" ,~ MULTI-FAMILY 310.00 "" ,~ MULTI-FAMILY 310.00 0.00 8.00 0 2480.00 2480.00 0.00 "'" '" SINGLEFANILY 95.00 "'" '"' SINGLEFAMl-Y 95.00 0.00 10.00 0 950.00 950.00 0.00 "" "" MOBILE HOME PARK 132.00 "'" '" MOBn...E HOME PARK 132.00 0.00 5.00 0 660.00 660.00 0.00 "'" 2103 LIGI-ITINOUSTRY 9.07 "'" 2103 L1GHTt/OUSTRY 10.84 1.77 200.00 354 1814.00 2168.00 354.00 4363 2104 WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE '.00 "" "'" WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE '.00 -1.00 60.00 ..., 60.00 0.00 --60.00 4363 '00' NEIGHElORHOOD SHOPPI'jG CENTER ,." "" 000' NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENT ,." 0.00 449.00 0 3434.85 3434.85 0.00 "'" '" SINGlEFANILY 342.00 "" '" SINGLE FAMILY 342.00 0.00 10.00 0 3420.00 3420.00 0.00 ,~, ,~ MULTI-FAMILY 153.00 "" ,~ MUlTI-FAMILY 153.00 0.00 8.00 0 1224.00 1224.00 0.00 "" 000' STREET FRONT COMNERCIAL 'TO ,~, 000' STREE:T FRONT COMMERCIAL ,." 0.00 150.00 0 180.00 180.00 0.00 "" '" SINGLEFAMl-Y 101.00 "" '" SINGLEFAt.4l.Y '.00 -101.00 10.00 -1010 1010.00 0.00 -1010.00 '''' "2 MULTI-FAM1LY 399.00 .'" ,~ MULTI-fAMILY 575.00 176.00 8.00 1408 3192.00 4600.00 1408.00 .'" "" LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 0.50 .~. .002 LOWRlSEOfFlCE '" 0.36 300.00 108 150.00 258.00 108.00 "" 000' STREETFRONT COMNERCIAL 6.11 "'" 000' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL W -2.67 150.00 -401 916.50 516.00 -400.50 4367 '" SiNGlE FAMILY ....00 "'" '" SINGLEFAIIIILY 27.00 -17.00 10.00 -170 440.00 270.00 -170.00 "" ,~ MULTI..fAMILY 46.00 ,~, ,~ MULTI-FAMILY 683.00 637.00 8.00 5096 368.00 5464.00 5096.00 "'" '" MOSIlE HOME PARK 129.00 "'" '" MOSILE HOME PARK '.00 -129.00 5.00 -645 645.00 0.00 -645.00 4367 2104 WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE 2.27 "" 2104 WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE ,.'" -2.27 60.00 -136 136.20 0.00 -136.20 4367 '''''' NEIGHBORHOOD SHOf'PING CENTER '.00 "'" 000' NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENl '.00 0.00 449.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 .~, '00' STREETFR9NT COMMERCIAL 8.52 "" '00' STREETFRONT COMMERC LAL 9.79 1.27 150.00 190 1278.00 1468.43 190.43 4367 '"" OTHER COMMERCIAL 0.62 "" '''''' OTHER COMMERCIAL '.00 -0.62 150.00 -93 93.00 0.00 -93.00 '~7 '002 LOWRISEOFFICE 2.52 ,~, "oo LOW RISE OFFICE 0.00 -2.52 300.00 -7&; 756.00 0.00 -756.00 en .'" '" SfNGLEFAMtLY 479.00 ,~. '" SINGLE FAMILY 482.00 3.00 10.00 30 4790.00 4820.00 30,00 I .~. ,~ NULTl-FAMllY 14.00 "" ,~ MULTI..fAM1LY 14.00 0.00 8.00 0 112.00 112.00 0.00 ~ 4370 '" SINGLEFANILY 81.00 4370 '" SINGLEFAMLY 71.00 -10.00 10.00 -100 810.00 710.00 -100.00 -1>0 4370 ,~ MUlTl-FAMILY 382.00 4370 ,~ MULTI-fAMILY "".00 84.00 8.00 672 3056.00 3128.00 672.00 4370 2104 WAREHOUSINGIPUBLlC STORAGE ,.'" 4370 2104 WAREHOUSINGiPUBLIC STORAGE 0.66 0.00 60.00 0 39.60 39.60 0.00 '" 4372 '" SINGLE FAMLY 377.00 "" '" SINGlE FAMILY 378.00 1.00 10.00 10 3770.00 3780.00 10.00 4374 '" SiNGlE FAMILY 77.00 4374 '" SINGl-EFANILY 7200 -5.00 10.00 -60 770.00 720.00 -50.00 4374 ,~ MULTl-FAMILY 141.00 4374 ,~ MULTl-FAMlLY 160.00 19.00 8.00 152 1128.00 1280.00 152.00 4375 '" SLNGLEFAMLY '.00 4375 '" SINGLEFAMLY '.00 -9.00 10.00 -90 90.00 0.00 -90.00 4375 ,~ MULTl-FAMILY 309.00 4375 ,~ MULT1-FAMILY 707.00 398.00 8.00 3184 2472.00 5656.00 3184.00 4375 '00' NEIGHBORHOOD SHOPPING CENTER 0.00 4375 "" NElGHBORHOOO SHOPPING CENl '.00 0.00 449.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4375 000' S7REE:TFRONT COMMERCIAL 13.87 4375 000' STREE:TFRONT COMMERCIAL ... -5.41 150.00 -812 2080.50 1268.93 -811.58 4375 ""' LOW RISE OFFICE 0.39 4375 '002 LOW RISE OFFICE '.00 -0.39 300.00 -117 111.00 0.00 -117.00 4378 '" SINGLEFAMl-Y '.00 4376 '" SINGLE FAMILY '.00 -1.00 10.00 -10 10.90 0.00 -10.00 4376 ,~ MULTI-FAMlLY 202.00 4376 M NULTI-FAMLY 202.00 0.00 8.00 0 1616.00 1616.00 0.00 4376 '00' NEIGHI3ORHOOD COMMERCIAL 2.7" 4376 "" NEIGHBORHOOO COMMERCIAL 3.28 0.52 449.00 233 1239.24 1472.72 233.48 4376 000' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 2.69 4376 000' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL '" -0.43 150.00 -65 403.50 339.00 -64.50 4376 ""' LOVVRISEOFFICE 2.00 4378 ~2 LOWRISEOFFIC€ 2.'" 0.00 300.00 0 618.00 618.00 0.00 4318 '00' COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 31.38 4378 '00' COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 31.39 0.00 262.00 0 8221.56 6221.56 0.00 4319 '" SINGLE FANLY 7100 4379 '" SINGLEFAMLY 71.00 0.00 10.00 0 710.00 710.00 0.00 4379 1~ MULTI-FAMlLY 13.00 4379 ,~ MULTI-FAMlLY 13.00 0.00 8.00 0 104.00 104.00 0.00 4379 000' STREETFRONT COMNERCIAL 1.48 4379 000' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 1.48 0.00 150.00 0 222.00 222.00 0.00 4382 '" SlNGlEfAMILY 69.00 "" '" SINGlE I'AMILY 53.00 -16.00 10.00 -160 690,00 530.00 -160.00 "" ,OO MULTI-FAMILY 832.00 4382 ,~ MULTI-FAM1LY "".00 24.00 8.00 192 6656.00 6848.00 192.00 4384 '" SINGLE FAMLY 91.00 "" '" SINGLEFAMl.Y 74.00 -17.00 10.00 -110 910.00 740.00 -170.00 4384 ,~ MULTI-FAMILY 23.00 4384 ,~ MULTI-FAMtlY 63.00 40.00 8.00 320 184.00 504.00 320.00 4365 '" SINGlEFANILY 11.00 '''' '" SINGLEFAMtLY 0.00 -11.00 10.00 -110 110.00 0.00 -110.00 "" ,OO MULTI-FAMILY 38.00 "" ,~ MULTl-FAMJLY 303.00 265.00 8.00 2120 304.00 2424.00 2120.00 4385 '" MOBtlEHOMEPARK 119.00 4385 '" MOBU HOME PARK 119.00 0.00 5.00 0 595.00 595.00 0.00 4385 151)1 LOW.flISE HOTEL OR MOTEL '" 4395 151)1 LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL -0,85 200.00 -170 170.00 0.00 ~170.00 .~, 2103 LfGHTINDUSTRY 1.13 4385 2103 LlGHTtNDUSTRY 0.00 -1.13 200.00 -226 226.00 0.00 -226.00 cl' 4385 "'" WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE 7.11 "" 2104 WAREHOUSING AND STORAGE 6.95 -0.16 60.00 -10 426.60 417.00 -9.60 '" <0 ~ J:JENGINEERfTRAFFICfTF358/ WTDIF Report Exh 4 Master Land use Table 1-30-08 dek ATTACHMENT 4 PAGE 6 SANOAG DELTA LU bulldout TAZ SANDAG LAND USE 2002 TAZ LAND use Y,",R Years2030_ Trip rate Delta Trips currenttrlps delta trips CODE CODE 2030 trips 2002 4385 """ STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 0.69 "" ,." STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 1.81 1.12 150.00 167 103.50 270.90 167.40 4385 ,." LOW RISE OFFICE 0.00 4385 ''''' LOW RISE OFFICE 0.00 0.90 300.00 271 0.00 270.90 270.90 4387 '" SiNGlE FAMILY 57.00 ,~, '" SINGLE FAMILY ".00 -11.00 10.00 -110 570.00 460.00 -110.00 4387 '" MULTI-FAMILY ....00 4387 "" MULTI-FAMILY 948.00 60.00 8.00 480 7104.00 7564.00 460.00 4387 """ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 2.25 4387 """ NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 2.25 0.00 449.00 0 1010.25 1010.25 0.00 4361 5"" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 1.16 4387 '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 1.16 0.00 150.00 0 174.00 174.00 0.00 4391 "'" LIGHTlNDUSTRjAL 0.01l 4391 2103 LlGHTlNDUSTRIAL 0.00 0.00 200.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4391 5"" WHOLESALE TRADE '.M 'm ..., WHOLESALE TRADE '.00 -9.98 224.00 -2231 2231.04 0.00 -2231.04 4391 "'" COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 18Al 4391 ~'" COMMUNITY COMMERCIAl.. 18A1 0.00 262.00 0 4823.42 4623.42 0.00 4391 '"'' STREET FRONT COMMERCIAL 4.13 ,~, ~" STRECT FRONT COMMERCIAL 2.82 -1.31 150.00 -197 619.50 422.70 -196.60 4391 '"'' LOW-MIDRISEOFFICE 0.00 4391 "" LOW-MlD RISE OFFICE 1.41 1.-41 300.00 423 0.00 422.70 422.70 4392 '" SINGlEFAMLY 147.00 4392 '" SINGLEFANILY 0.00 -147.00 10.00 -1470 1470.00 0.00 -1470.00 "" '" MULTI-FAMILY 263.01l "" '" MULTI-FAMILY 4l4.oo 171.00 8.00 1368 2104.00 3472.00 1368.00 "" '" MOBILE HOME PARK 296.01l "" '" MOBILE HOME PARK 296.00 0.00 5.00 0 1460.00 1480.00 0.00 4395 '" SINGLE FAMILY 192.00 "" '" SINGLE FAMILY 192,00 0.00 10.00 0 1920.00 1920.00 0.00 4395 "" MULTI-FAMILY ~.oo 4395 '" MULT1-FAMILY ~oo 0.00 6.00 0 432.00 432.00 0.00 4395 '''' MOBILE HOME PARK 191.00 4395 '" MOBILE HOME PARK 191.00 0.00 5.00 0 955.00 955.00 0.00 "" '" SINGLE FAMILY 89.00 "" '" SINGLE FAMILY 113.00 24.00 10.00 240 690.00 1130.00 240.00 "M '" MULTI-FAMILY 201.00 "M '" MULTI-FAMILY 201.00 0.00 6.00 0 1608.00 1606.00 0.00 "" .... NEIGHBORHOOO COMMERCIAL 6.85 '''' 50" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ,." 0.00 449.00 0 3075.65 3075.65 0.00 4397 '" SINGt-EFAMILY 399.00 4397 '" SINGLE FAMILY ....00 0.00 10.00 0 3990.00 3990.00 0.00 4397 '" MULTI-FAMILY 116,00 4397 '" MULTI-FAMlLY 116.00 0.00 8.00 0 928.00 926.00 0.00 4398 '"' SINGLE FAMILY 27.1l0 4398 '"' SINGLE FAMILY '.00 ~27.oo 10.00 -270 270.00 0.00 -270.00 "" '"' MULTI--FAMILY 12.00 "" '" MULTI--FAMILY 0.00 -12.00 8.00 -96 98.00 0.00 -96.00 4398 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY S.20 439B 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY '.00 -5.20 200.00 -1040 1040.00 0.00 -1040.00 4398 50"' WHOLESALE TRADE '.00 4398 ~"' WHOl-ESALE TRADE 0,00 -2.00 224.00 -4" 446.00 0.00 -446.00 C11 4398 ..., RETAIL COMMERCIAL 0.00 4398 ~"' RETAIL COMMERCIAL 17.51 17.51 150.00 2627 0.00 2627.10 2627.10 I 4398 ..., LOW RISE OFFICE 0.35 4398 ''''' LOW-MlDRISEOFFICE 40.87 40.52 300.00 12155 105.00 12259.80 12154.60 ~ 4399 '" 8INGlEFAMLY '.00 '''' '" SINGLE FAMILY 0.00 -2.00 10.00 -20 20.00 0.00 -20.00 .j>. "" '" MULTI--FAMILY '.00 4399 '" MULTI-FAMILY 213.00 211.00 6.00 1666 16.00 1704.00 1686.00 W 4399 '" MOBILE HOME PARK 18.00 4399 '"' MOBILE HOME PARK 0.00 -16.00 5.00 -90 90.00 0.00 -90.00 4399 '"'" LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTel 0.50 "" 1501 LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 0.00 -0.50 200.00 -100 100.00 0.00 -100.00 ,,,. '007 STREET FRONT COMMERCIAL 0.01l 4399 '00' STREET FRONT COMMERCIAL 1.27 1.27 150.00 191 0.00 190.50 190.50 4399 ''''' LOW RISE OFFICE 0.01l 4399 ''''' LOW RISE OFFICE '" 0.64 300.00 191 0.00 190.50 190.50 "00 '" SINGLE FAMILY 27.00 "00 '"' SINGLE fAMILY ".00 --4.00 10.00 -40 270.00 230.00 -40.00 "00 '" MULTI-FAMILY 590.00 "00 '" MUlTI.f'AMILY 616.00 26.00 6.00 208 4720.00 4926.00 208.00 ,,00 '00' STREETFRONTCOMMERCIAL 5.27 "00 '007 sTREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 7.49 2.22 150.00 333 790.50 1123.50 333.00 "00 ..., LOW RISE OFFlCE 0.51 "00 ..., LOW RISE OFFICE 0.00 -0.51 300.00 -153 153.00 0.00 -153.00 4401 '"' s!NGLEfAMILY 96.00 4401 '"' SINGLEfAMLY 0.00 -96.00 10.00 -980 980.00 0.00 -960.00 4401 '"' MULTI-FAMILY 111.00 4401 '"' MULTI--FAMILY 1207.00 1096.00 8.00 6766 686.00 9656.00 8766.00 "'" '" MOBIlE HOME PARK 23.00 4401 '" MOBILE HOME PARK 0.00 -23.00 5.00 -115 115.00 0.00 -115.00 4401 2101 t/OUsTRIALPARK 34.25 "0' 2101 lNDUSTRIALPARK 32.24 -2.01 90.00 -161 3062.50 2901.60 -180.90 ,,", 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY 1.61 "'" 21113 LIGHT INDUSTRY O.M ~1.61 200.00 -322 322.00 0.00 -322.00 4401 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY 0.00 "" "'" LlGHTlNDUSTRY 2.05 2.05 200.00 410 0.00 410.00 410.00 4401 .." STREET FRONT COMMERCIAL 0.62 "'" ~"' STREET FRONT COMMERCIAL 2.98 2.36 150.00 354 93.00 447.00 354.00 4401 ..., LOW-MID RISE OFFICE 0.01l 4401 '00' LOW-t.lIDRISEOFFICE 0,75 0.75 300.00 224 0.00 224.40 224.40 4402 '"' SINGlE FAMILY '.00 '''' '" SINGLE FAMILY 0.00 -1.00 10.00 -10 10.00 0.00 -10.00 "'" '" MULTI--FAM!LY 0.01l "" '" MULTI-FAMILY 11l7.oo 107.00 8.00 856 0.00 856.00 856.00 4402 '00' COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 15.48 44112 '00' COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 15.48 0.00 262.00 0 4055.76 4055.76 0.00 4402 '00. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 2.91l ,," '"'" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL 0.00 -2.90 449.00 -1302 1302.10 0.00 ~1302.10 "" ..., STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL U2 4402 ..., STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL '" 2.56 150.00 384 273.00 657.00 364.00 4402 .... OTHER COMMERCIAL 1l.90 "" "" OTHER COMMERCIAL 0.00 -0.90 150.00 -135 135.00 0.00 -135.00 "" ..., LOW--MIO RISE OFFICE 0.00 "" ..., LOW--MtD RISE OfFICE 1l.24 0.24 300.00 71 0.00 71.40 71.40 "'" '" SiNGlE FAMILY 451.00 "'" '"' SINGLEFAMLY 488.00 15.00 10.00 150 4510.00 4660.00 150.00 4404 '" MULTI-FAMILY 77.00 "'" '" MUlTI-FAMILY 77.00 0.00 8.00 0 816.00 616.00 0.00 "'" '00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 0." "" ..., STREETFROOT COMMERCIAL 0,99 0.00 150.00 0 148.50 148.50 0.00 cl' "" '"' SINGLE FAMILY 300.00 "" '" SINGLEFANILY 331.00 31.00 10.00 310 3000.00 3310.00 310.00 "" " ~ J:1ENGINEERfTRAFFICfTF3561 WTDIF Report Exh 4 Master Land use Table 1-30-06 dek ATTACHMENT 4 PAGE 7 SANDAG SANDAG YEAR DELTA LU bulldout TAZ LAND USE 2002 TAZ LAND USE Years 2030. Trip rate Delta Trips current trips COOE CODE 2030 trips delta trips 2002 4405 "" MUlII-FAMILY 00.00 "00 '" MULTI-FAMIlY 90.00 0.00 8.00 0 720.00 720.00 0.00 "" 2103 lIGHT INDUSTRY 0.82 "'" 2103 LIGHTt/OUSTRY '.00 -0.82 200.00 -184 164.00 0.00 -164.00 "" '" MOBILEHOME~ARK '.00 ""' '" MOOK.E HOME PARK '.00 -5.00 5.00 -25 25.00 0.00 -25.00 ""' "" LOW RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 1.35 ,.. "'" LOW RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL '.00 -1.35 200.00 ~270 270.00 0.00 -270.00 ""' '''' WAREHOUSINlJ OR STORAGE 13.42 ... '''" WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE ,.'" ~13.42 60.00 -805 805.20 0.00 -805.20 ""' ''''' NEIGHBOflWOOD COMMERCIAL 0.00 ,.. "'" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ,.'" 0.00 449.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 4406 ~, STREET FRONT COMMERCIAl ,." ,.. ''''' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAl 1.33 -0.93 150.00 ~140 339.00 199.50 ~139.50 ""' "" OTHER COMMERCIAL 0.11 ""' '"'" NEIGHBORHOOO COMMERCIAl 14.35 13.84 449.00 6124 318.79 6443.15 6124.36 ""' 6002 LOW RISE OFFICE 0.62 ""' "'" LOW RISE OFFICE 1.79 1.17 300.00 351 186.00 537.00 351.00 4407 '" SINGlEFAMILV 1.'" 441J7 '" SINGLE FAMILY 1.1J1J 0.00 10.00 0 10.00 10.00 0.00 4407 '''' MULTI-FAMK.Y 127.00 4407 '''' MULTI-FAMILY 142.00 15.00 8.00 120 1016.00 1136.00 120.00 '''''' '" MOBILE HOME PARK 115.00 ""' '" MOBILE HOME PARK 9IJ.01J -25.00 5.00 -125 575.00 450.00 ~125.oo 4401 2101 lNOUSTRIAlPARK 21.73 441J7 2101 INOUSTRIAlPARK 22.39 0.66 90.00 59 1955.70 2015.10 59.40 ""' 2103 L1GHTI'lOUSTRY 23.53 4407 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY 23.95 0.42 200.00 84 4706.00 4790.00 84.00 4407 2104 WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE '" 4407 ""' WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE ,." 0.00 60.00 0 272.40 272.40 0.00 4407 ""'" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL ,.'" 4407 '""' NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAl ,.'" 0.00 449.00 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 "" '"' SINGLE FAMilY 87.00 "" '" SINGLE FAMILY ,"00 -11.00 10.00 -110 670.00 560.00 -110.00 4408 '''' MUlTI.fAMILY 180.00 "" '''' MULTI-FAMILY 14lloo -40.00 8.00 -320 1440.00 1120.00 -320.00 "" '" MOBILE HOME PARK 502.00 '''''' '"' MOBILE HOME PARK 502,00 0.00 5.00 0 2510.00 2510.00 0.00 4408 2103 LlGHTlNDUSTRY '" "" 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY 13.11 4.72 200.00 94. 1798.00 2742.00 944.00 .." ""' .....AAEHOUSING OR STORAGE 2.31 .." ""' WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE 2.31 0.00 60.00 0 138.60 138.60 0.00 '''''' "'" STREET FRONT COMMERCIAL 0.97 4408 "'" STREET FRONT COMMERCIAL 0.00 -0.97 150.00 -146 145.50 0.00 -145.50 .." '"' MULTI-FAMIlY 45.00 .." '''' MULTI-FAMILY 45.00 0.00 '.00 0 360.00 360.00 0.00 .." '"' MOBILE HOME PARK 428.00 '''''' '" MOOK.E f-lOME PAAK 426.00 0.00 5.00 0 2130.00 2130.00 0.00 "'" '"' SINGLEFAMLY 231.00 4410 '" SINGLEFAMLY 189.00 -42.00 10.00 -420 2310.00 1890.00 -420.00 Cl'1 4411J '"' MUlTJ-FAMILY "'" 4410 '"' MULTI-FAMIlY ".00 8.00 8.00 " 208.00 256.00 48.00 I 4410 '"' MOBILE HOME PARK 129.00 ..'" '"' MOBILE HOME PARK 129.00 0.00 5.00 0 845.00 645.00 0.00 ~ 4410 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY 1.43 4410 2103 RESEARCH & LIMITED INDUSTRIAL 7.65 6.22 200.00 1244 286.00 1530.00 1244.00 .j:>o 4410 "'" STREET FRONT COMMERCIAL 0.57 4410 "'" STREET FRONT COMMERCIAL '00 -0.57 150.00 -86 85.50 0.00 -85.50 .j:>o 4413 '"' MULTI-FAMILY 10.00 .." '"' MULTI-FAMllY '.00 -10.00 '.00 -80 60.00 0.00 -aO.OO "" '"' MOBILE HOME PARK 52,00 4413 '"' MOBILE f-lOME PARK 0,00 -52.00 5.00 -260 260.00 0.00 -260.00 4413 "" NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAl 10.41 4413 .00. NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAl 15.57 5.16 449.00 2317 4674.09 6990.93 2316.84 "" "" OTHER RETAIL 0.54 4413 '00' OTHERRETAlL '.00 -0.64 160.00 -9, 96.00 0.00 -96.00 4413 '00' LOW RISE OFFICE 0.11 "" "'" LOW RISE OFFICE '.00 -0.11 300.00 -'33 33.00 0.00 -33.00 4414 '"' SINGlE FAMilY 144.00 4414 '" SINGL!:FAMlLY 110.00 -34.00 10.00 -340 1440.00 1100.00 -340.00 .... '"' MULTl-FAMlLY 117.00 4414 '" MUlTI-FAMILY 89.00 ~28.00 6.00 -224 936.00 712.00 -224.00 ".. 2103 LIGHTJNOUSTRY 9,41 4414 2103 L1GHTINOUSTRY 18.18 8.77 200.00 1754 1882.00 3636.00 1754.00 4414 '00' WHOLESAlE TRADE '" 4414 "'" 'M--iOlESALETRADE '.00 -1.06 224.00 -237 237.44 0.00 -237.44 4414 "'" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 8.82 4414 "'" STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL '" 0.52 150.00 " 1323.00 1401.00 78.00 4414 ,"'. OTHERRETAlL 0.48 4414 ,"'. OTHERRETAlL '.00 -0.48 150.00 -72 72.00 0.00 -72.00 4414 ''''' OTHER HEALTH CARE 0.&1 4414 ""' OTHER HEALTH CARE '" -0.61 500.00 -305 305 0 -'305 4416 '"' SINGLEFAMlLY 1,00 4418 '"' SINGlE FAMILY '"' -1.00 10.00 -10 10.00 0.00 -10.00 441& 2101 INDUSTRIAlPAAK 11.38 4418 2101 NOUSTRIALPARK '.00 -11.38 90.00 -1024 1024.20 0.00 -1024.20 4418 2103 LIGHTlNDUSTRY 12.27 4416 2103 LlGHTlNDUSTRY '" -12.27 200.00 -2454 2454.00 0.00 -2454.00 4416 '00' COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL '" 4418 ''''' COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 21.27 27.27 262.00 7145 0.00 7144.74 7144.74 4418 "'" OTHER RETAIL 2.03 4418 "'" OTf--lERRETAli. '.00 -2.03 150.00 -305 304.50 0.00 -304.50 4417 2101 J.lDUSTRIAl PARK 4.27 "" 2101 >>-IDUSTRIAlPARK '.00 -4.27 90.00 -384 384.30 0.00 -384.30 4417 2103 lIGHT INDUSTRY 24.20 4417 2103 lIGHT INDUSTRY 60.71 36.51 200.00 7302 4840.00 12142.00 7302.00 4417 2104 WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE 2.83 4417 ""' WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE 2.83 0.00 60.00 0 169.80 169.80 0.00 4417 '''"' LOW RISE OFFICE 0.69 "" "'" LOW RISE OFFICE '.00 -0.69 300.00 -207 207.00 0.00 -207.00 4418 '"' SINGLE FAMilY '.00 4418 '" SiNGlE FAMILY ,.'" -4.00 10.00 -40 "'.00 0.00 -40.00 "" '''' MULTI-FAMlLY '.00 4418 '''' MUlTl-f'AMILV 133.00 130.00 6.00 1040 24.00 1064.00 1040.00 4418 2101 lNDUSTRIAlPARK 8.55 4418 2101 INDUSTRIAl PAAK '.00 -6.55 90.00 -590 589.50 0.00 -589.50 4418 2103 l]GHTlNDUSTRY '"' 4416 2103 llGHTNQUSTRV 32.49 29.45 200.00 5890 608.00 6498.00 5690.00 4418 2104 WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE 25.83 4418 ""' WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE 16.85 -8.98 60.00 -539 1549.80 1011.00 -538.80 4418 '00' WHOLESALE TRADE "" "" '"" WHOLESALE TRADE '.00 -2.70 224.00 -605 604,60 0.00 -604.60 ." .." '"' SINGLE FAMILY "." 4422 '"' SINGlEFAMLY '.00 -22.00 10.00 .220 220.00 0.00 -220.00 " '" <0 '" '" J:/ENGINEERlTRAFFICrrF3581 WTDIF Report Exh 4 Master land use Table 1-30-08 dek ATTACHMENT 4 PAGE 6 SANDAG SANDAG YEAR DELTA LU bulklout TAl LAND USE 2002 TAl LAND USE Years 2030_ Tripl'lIte Della Trips current trips dellatrips CODE CODE 2030 "'p' 2002 .." "'" LOW RISt: HOTEL OR t.lOTEL 0.33 .." 1501 LOW RISE HOTEL OR t.lOTEL 0,00 -0.33 200.00 -66 66.00 0.00 -66.00 .." 2103 LIGHTINDUS1RY 26.95 ~~22 2103 LIGHT INDUSTRY ~7.56 20.61 200.00 4122 5390.00 9512.00 4122.00 .." "'" WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE 18,33 ~~22 "'" WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE 10,99 -7.34 60.00 -440 1099.60 659.40 -440.40 .." &"" STREETFRONT COt.lMERCIAL 0.51 .." '00' STREETFRONT COMt.lERCI1U. 0.00 -0.51 150.00 -77 76.50 0.00 -76.50 .." """ OTHERCOt.lMERCIAL 1,35 .." '"'' OTHER COMMERCIAL '.00 -1.35 150.00 -203 202.50 0.00 -202.50 'l~22 """ LOW RISE OFFICE 0.50 .." '"" LOW RISE OFFICE '.00 -0.50 300.00 -150 150.00 0.00 -150.00 4~23 "" MULTI-FAMILY 49.00 4423 '" MULTI-FAMILY '.00 -49.00 8.00 -392 392.00 0.00 -392.00 .." 2103 LlGHTI'lOUSTRY 9.93 .." 2103 llGHTINDUSTRY 26.11 16.16 200.00 3'56 1966.00 5222.00 3236.00 4423 2104 WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE 4.25 4~23 2104 WAREHOUSING OR STORAGE .." 0.00 60.00 0 255.00 255.00 0.00 .." "" MULTI-I=AMILY "'.00 4~25 "" MULTI-I=AMIlY "'.00 0.00 8.00 0 5248.00 5248.00 0.00 4425 "" LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 1.76 4425 1501 LOW-RISE HOTEL OR MOTEL 1.76 0.00 200.00 0 352.00 352.00 0.00 4425 =. NEIGHBORHOOD COMt.lERCI1U. 2,51 ~425 "'" NEIGHElORHOOD COt.lt.lERCIAL 2,51 0.00 449.00 0 1126.99 1126.99 0.00 4425 =, STREETFRONTCOMt.lERCIAl 1.30 4425 '00' STRt:ETFRONT COMMERCl,I,L 2.25 0.95 150,00 143 195.00 337.50 142.50 .." '" SINGLEFAt.lILY 195.00 4426 '" SINGlE FAMILY 2~7.00 62.00 10.00 620 1850.00 2470.00 620.00 4426 "" t.lULTI-FAMILY 69.00 .." '" MULTI-FAMILY 69.00 0.00 8.00 0 552.00 552.00 0.00 "" "" HEAVY INDUSTRY 51.95 4612 "''' HEAVY tf[IUSTRY 10.00 -41.95 120.00 -5034 6234.00 1200.00 --5034.00 4612 =, WI"IOLESALETRADE 6.89 ~612 '"'' WHOLESALE TRADE '.00 -6.69 224.00 .1543 1543.36 0.00 -1543.36 4612 =, COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL 0.00 ~S12 "" COMMUNITY COMMERCiAl 42.99 42.99 262.00 11263 0.00 11263.38 11263.38 4612 =, STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL '.00 "" .00' STREETFRONT COMMERCIAL 48.37 48.37 150.00 7256 0.00 7255.50 7255.50 "" '00' LOW RISE OFFICE 1.44 4612 '"" LOW RISE OFFICE 10.00 656 300.00 2568 432.00 3000.00 2568.00 213350 539447 762797 213360 Total EDU's from table above 21,335 EDU's AD.fiJSTMENTS Residential Units built since 2001 1 aD EDU's NON.Residential Units built since 2001 1241 EDU's en ITotal EDU's 19914\ I COSTS - $62,691,413 ..... -1>0 $3,148 per EDU + soft costs en cl' "" '" '" " J:JENGINEERlTRAFFIClTF358/ wrDlF Report Exh 4 Master Land use Table 1-30..08 dek ATTACHMENT 4 PAGE 9 ~~". 5-146 Page 58 RTCIP IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY- FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 26, 2007 PREPARED FOR THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MuniFinancial Oakland Office 1700 Broadway, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Tel: (510) 832-0899 Fax: (510) 832-0898 MuniFinancial A WILLDAN COMPANY Anaheim, CA Industry, CA Lancaster, CA Oakland, CA Orlando, FL www.munLcom 5-147 EXHIBIT 5 Phoenix, AZ. Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA Temecula, CA Page 59 5-148 Page 60 '- "" TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARy........................................................... 1 ~m~~ 1 New Development Investments in Regional Transportation 1 Purpose of Study 2 Regional Arterial System 3 Initial RTCIP Impact Fee Calculation 3 2. NEXUS ANALySiS.............................................................................. 6 Approach 6 Growth Projections 6 Facilities Standard and Need for Transportation Improvements 12 Facility Costs and Available Funding 14 Cost Allocation and Fee Schedule 17 Extension of RTCIP to Nonresidential Land Uses 20 3. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................................................ 22 Adoption By Local Agencies 22 Inflation Adjustment 23 Collection and Administration 24 Use of Revenues 24 Exemptions 25 4. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS ........................................................26 Purpose of Fee 26 Use of Fee Revenues 26 Benefit Relationship 27 Burden Relationship 27 Proportionality 28 ApPENDIX A: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM.. .......................... ............ .A-1 ApPENDIX B: RETAIL SPENDING AND SALES ANALySiS.......................... B-1 Total Household Spending B-1 Capture and Leakage B-4 Local Spending Share ofTotal Sales B-5 Visitor Indust~ Spending 8-5 ApPENDIX C: LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS ................C-1 Initial RTCIP Fee Adoption - Local Agency Implementation Checklist C-2 Annual and Five-Year RTCIP Fee Update - Local Agency Implementation Checklist C-4 IIMuniFinancial November 26,2007 ; Page 61 5-149 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SySTEM...................................................................5 TABLE 1: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT & LAND USE FORECASTS................................8 TABLE 2: OCCUPANT DENSiTY............................ ...... ......... ...... ............ ... .............. ... 9 TABLE 3: TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS.....................................................................10 TABLE 4: ALLOCATION OF TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING AND COMMERCIAL SQ. FT. IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY..............................................................................12 TABLE 5: TRAVEL DEMAND FROM EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT ...................... 12 TABLE 6: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM ROADWAY STATISTICS................................ 13 TABLE 7: ESTIMATED ARTERIAL SYSTEM CAPACITY INVESTMENTS ($2008) ..............15 TABLE 8: RTP INVESTMENT PLAN, 2002-2030 ($2002) .........................................16 TABLE 9: REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANNED ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS ................. 18 TABLE 10: RESIDENTIAL COST PER TRIP (ESTIMATED FOR $2008)...........................19 TABLE 11: RTCIP IMPACT FEE (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) ........................................20 TABLE 12: NONRESIDENTIAL COST PER TRIP (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) ....................21 TABLE 13: NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) .........................21 TABLE A.1: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM ............................................................ A-1 TABLE B.1: TAXABLE RETAIL SALES (2004) ......................................................... B-2 TABLE B.2: HOUSEHOLD TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING POTENTIAL (2004) ............... B-3 TABLE B.3: SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL HOUSEHOLD TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING & SALES (2004).... ...... ...... ... ........ ........ .... ........ ......... ........ .............. .... B-4 TABLE B.4: ALLOCATION OF TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY (2004) .... .... ............ .............. ......... ............ ...... ............ ....... .... .......... .... B-5 TABLE B.5: VISITOR INDUSTRY RETAIL SPENDING (2004)...................................... B-6 i\l1iIJiFillflllt1al J,,&17.2001 11 Page 62 5-150 1 . INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Tills chapter provides a summary of the study's results and explains the background and purpose for the study. The chapter also describes the initial nexus analysis that preceded the current study. SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in San Diego County can use to adopt an impact fee and fulfill their contribution to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Plan (RTCIP). Tills report documents the required statutory findings under California's Mitigation Fee Actl. The nexus analysis conducted for this study finds that the impact fee required by the RTCIP of $2,000 per residential unit is justified based on the requirements of the Act. Tills report is an update to the first version of this study dated September 5, 2006. The changes made in this report from the prior version are: · Merged the mobile home land use category into the multi-family category because of the minimal amount of projected mobile home development and to simplify administration of the fee; and · Updated unit cost inflation adjustment based on more accurate construction cost index (Caltrans highway cost index instead of a combination of several national indices) . · Clarified that the initial RTCIP fee beginning in 2008 will be $2,000 per residential unit regardless of type of unit. The $2,000 fee per residential unit will be updated annually for cost inflation following initial adoption by local agencies in 2008. NEW DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS IN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION In 2004 voters in San Diego County approved a 40-year extension to TransNet, a program designed to fund improvements to the region's transportation system first initiated in 1987. The prime component of the program is a half-cent sales tax increase that is projected to raise over $10 billion for improvements through 2030.2 Expenditure of TransNet funds is implemented through the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) and updated periodically as mandated. 1 California Government Code, ~~66000-66025. 2 San Diego Association of Governments, Draft 2007 Rtgiona/TnmspOrlation Plan (June 2007), Table 4.1, p. 4-9. BMuniFmncial 1\!ove11Iber 26,2007 5-151 1 Page 63 San Diego AIsociation of Governments RTQP Impact Fee Nexus Study The draft 2007 RTP details the need for $58 billion in transportation improvements.3 Of that total, $27 billion in funding will come from a variety of state and federal sources. The remaining $31 billion will come from local funding sources including the TransNet sales tax extension. These amounts represent the Reasonably Expected Scenario, one of three scenarios examined in the draft 2007 RTP.4 In addition to the sales tax extension, the TransNet program requires implementation of a new local funding source for the draft 2007 RTP, the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP).5 The purpose of the RTCIP is to ensure that new development directly invests in the region's transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. Key components of the RTCIP include: . Beginning July 1, 2008 each local agency must contribute $2,000 from exactions imposed on the private sector for each new residence constructed in the County. . Although the RTCIP does not specify a revenue source for this contribution, most local agencies are likely to collect this revenue as a development impact fee imposed on new dwelling units at building permit issuance. . Revenues must be expended on improvements to the Regional Arterial System (RAS), described below, and in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recent adopted RTP. . The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. . If a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding for local roads. Cities have the authority to impose impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act contained in California Government Code sections 66000 through 66025. Counties have the same authority for their unincorporated areas. In doing so, each local agency is required to make findings demonstrating a reasonable nexus between the collection of fees, the need for facilities created by new development, and the expenditure of fee revenues to benefit new development. PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in San Diego County can use to adopt an impact fee and fulfill their contribution to the RTCIP. This report documents the required statutory findings under the Mitigation Fee Act. 3 Ibid., Table 4.3, page 4-11. 4 Ibid., Table 4.1, page 4-9. 5 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, Commission Ordinance 04-01, May 28, 2004, Sec. 9. IIlIilMuniF_ 1\TolJIIIJlbttr26,2007 o . Page 64 5-152 San DiegoA.rsociation of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Slutfy REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM SANDAG employs a rigorous process to define the RAS.6 The most important criterion for determining whether to include an arterial in the RAS is the arterial's role as a "critical link". Critical links provide direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. The other criteria for inclusion of an arterial in the RAS include: · Links to areas with high concentrations of existing' or future population or employment; · Links to activity centers such as hospitals, retail centers, entertainment centers, hotels, colleges, and universities; · Accommodate high future traffic volumes; · Accommodate Regional Transit Vision (Red and Yellow Car,service); and · Provide access to intermodal (freight, port, military, or airport) facilities., As of the date of the first version of this report in Septembe. 2006, the RAS included 777 ' route miles (not lane miles) of arterials. Figure 1 is a map of the Regional Arterial System from the adopted 2005 RTP. The RAS included both the regionally significant arterials and the other regional arterials indicated on the map. A list of arterial segments included in this version of the RAS is provided in Appendix A to this report. A list of the types of improvements that the RTCIP can fund on the RAS is discussed in the Implementation chapter of this report. INITIAL RTCIP IMPACT FEE CALCULATION SANDAG staff developed the RTCIP contribution amount of $2,000 per residence using an approach that allocated transportation system improvements proportionately across both existing development and projected growth. The methodology was as follows: 1. The Regional Arterial System carried 10.8 million vehicle miles traveled (VM1) in 2000 and was projected to carry 14.9 million VMT in :2030. The difference of 4.1 million VMT, or 27 percent of the 2030 VMT total was attributed to growth (4.1 + 14.9 = 27 percent). 2. The entire transportation network was projected to accommodate 60.1 million vehicle miles traveled (VM1) in 2030. Of this total, 37.4 million VMT, or 62 percent, were attributed to residential development (37.4 + 60.1 = 62 percent). This amount included any trip that started or ended at a home (home-work, home-school, home-college, and home-other). 3. Multiplying the results of steps #1 and #2 resulted in 16 percent of total VMT in the County in 2030 attributed to new, residential development (0.27 x 0.62 = 16 percent). 6 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Pinal 2030. Regional Transportation PIa,t, MobilifY 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appendix 7 - Evaluation Criteria and R=kings, Table TA 7.1, p. 105. lBMun;Rnancial NOflember 26,2007 5-153 3 Page 65 San Diego Association of Governments RTGP Impact Fee NeXNS Study 4. As of 2000, SANDAG and local agencies had identified improvements for 710 additional lane miles to complete the Regional Arterial System. At a cost of $5.1 million per lane mile (in 2002 dollars) this equals a total cost of $3.6 billion (710 x $5.1 million = $3.6 billion). 5. If all development, existing and new, paid a proportionate share of this cost new residential development's share would be $593 million (0.16 x $3.6 billion = $593 million). 6. Allocating the new residential development share over a projected increase in dwelling units of 320,000 from 2000 to 2030 yielded a cost per unit of slighrly less than $2,000 ($593 million + 320,000 = $1,853). The methodology described above and employed by SANDAG to calculate the RTCIP assumes that all development, existing and new has the same impact on the need for RAS improvements based. on the amount of travel demand generated (vehicle trips). Thus existing and new development should share proportionately in the cost of transportation system improvements. For descriptive purposes this can be considered an "average cost" approach. The "average cost" approach probably results in a lower fee and is therefore more conservative and defensible compared to other approaches used for impact fee nexus analysis. The "average cost" approach does not focus on the marginal impacts of new development on congestion. A "marginal cost" approach examines the cost of additional transportation improvements needed to mitigate impacts by maintaining existing levels of services. Based on our experience preparing transportation fee studies, this "marginal cost" approach would probably result in allocating to new development a greater share of planned transportation system improvements compared to the "average cost" approach. The approach used by SANDAG to justify the RTCIP impact fee is therefore more conservative. I!lMuniHnancial lVo!1(!171/m" 26,2007 4 Page 66 5-154 San Diego Auociation 0/ Gowrnments RTaP Impact Fee Nexus Stlldy Figure 1 Regional Arterial System ~................................ aJII ......... (- ~=ll Q>Qnt)'ds..Diego umnnSTA1tS ...... BMuniFrnancial I\,To/1('1Jlber 26,2007 5-155 5 Page 67 2. NEXUS ANALYSIS This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between increased travel demand from new development on the Regional Arterial System (RAS), the cost of RAS improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and an impact fee to fund those investments. ApPROACH Impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in any development impact fee study and described in detail in the sections that follow include: 1. Prepare growth projections; 2. Identify facility standards; 3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on facility standards and growth projections; 4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development. Due to policy considerations SANDAG indicated that the nexus study should employ the same "average cost" approach used in the initial fee calculation to the greatest extent technically defensible under the Mitigation Fee Act. Consistent with the initial SANDAG approach, the need for RAS improvements determined by this nexus study is based on the relative amount of travel demand generated by all existing and new, residential and nonresidential, development. As mentioned above (see page 3), this is a conservative approach because a more detailed impact analysis probably would result in allocating to new development a greater share of planned RAS improvements. The analysis required for each of the four steps listed above is conducted on a countywide basis consistent with SANDAG's initial fee calculation. We updated certain assumptions with more recent data when available. The approach takes a countywide perspective because the RAS represents a countywide network that facilitates mobility between and through cities and unincorporated areas. New development, regardless of location, both adds congestion (increased vehicle trips) to a range of artetials within the RAS and benefits from the expenditure of fee revenue on a range of RAS facilities. GROWTH PRO.JECTIONS This section describes the SANDAG forecast for population and employment, and estimates of land use in terms of dwelling units and nonresidential building square feet. Land use forecasts are converted to vehicle trips to provide a measure of travel demand (further discussed below). IIlIMunW""""",, f\Towmber 26,2007 6 Page 68 5-156 San Diego Associatz"on of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus 51lidy Population, Employment, and Land Use The planning horizon for this analysis is 2030, consistent with current land use and transportation forecasts adopted by SANDAG. The nexus analysis uses forecasts of dwelling units and employment to estimate new development demand for transportation improvements. Forecasts for 2030 are from SANDAG's Urban Development Model (UDM). The UDM is one of four interrelated forecasting models used by SANDAG to project land use and transportation for the region.! The UDM allocates changes in the region's economic and demographic characteristics to jurisdictions and other geographic areas within the region. The model is based on the spatial interrelationships among economic factors, housing and population factors, land use patterns, and the transportation system. The model generates 2030 forecasts for small geographic areas including the traffic analysis zones used in the transportation modeling process. The UDM complies with federal mandates that transportation plans consider the long-range effects of the interaction between land uses and the transportation system. The initial SANDAG fee calculation used 2002 as the base year for cost estimates so that is the base year used for this nexus analysis. Dwelling units and employment for 2002 are based on interpolations of development estimates for 2000 and 2005 from the UDM model. Total employment was allocated to land use categories based on analysis of employment by land use using data from five counties and conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments. Table 1 lists the 2002 and 2030 land use assumptions based on SANDAG forecasts and used in the nexus analysis. The land use categories shown in Table 1 and used in this nexus analysis are the same that are used in the SANDAG forecasts with one exception. This nexus analysis includes mobile homes in the multi-family category because of the minimal amount of forecast mobile home development. SANDAG forecasts mobile homes to increase by 2,000 units during the planning horizon, or 1.3 percent of forecast growth in multi-family units. The employment forecasts are converted to building square footage shown in Table 1 by land use using occupant densities factors shown in Table 2. These factors are derived from a study of employment, building square feet, and land use conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The density factors were derived from a random sample of 2,721 parcels drawn from across five counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). We could not identify such a study for San Diego County. The SCAG study's density factors are based on the largest sample of properties that we are aware of, and are used in development impact fee studies throughout the State. 1 For more information on SANDAG's economic, demographic, and transportation forecasting models. see San Diego Association of Governments, Final2030 Forecast Process and Model Documentation, April 2004. IlIIlMuniF01anCiaI J:\TOllembcl' 26,2007 5-157 7 Page 69 San Diego Arsodation of Governments RTOP Impact Pee Nexus S tUfty Table 1: Population, Employment & land Use Forecasts 2002 2030 Increase Percent Residents 2,909,000 3,855,000 946,000 33% Dwelling Units Single Family 648,000 778,000 130,000 20% Multi-family' 419,000 576,000 157,000 37% Total 1,067,000 1,354,000 287,000 27% 2 Employment Retail 295,000 393,000 98,000 33% Office/Services 348,000 451,000 103,000 30% Industrial 383,000 628,000 245,000 64% Subtotal 1,026,000 1,472,000 446,000 43% Residential3 138,000 149,000 11,000 8% Public' 139,000 157,000 29,000 ~% Total 1,303,000 1,778,000 475,000 36% Building Square Feet (000S)5 Retail 148,000 197,000 49,000 33% Office/Services 104,000 135,000 31,000 30% Industrial 345 000 565 000 220,000 64% Total 597,000 897,000 300,000 50% 1 Multi-family population includes mobile homes. 2 Based on Series 10 forecast data provided by SANDAG. Estimates by major land use type rolled up from County Assessor's categories. Interpolated 2008 data based on 2005 and 2010 forecasts. 3 Employment on residential land uses such as home-based businesses. Travel demand included in estimates for residential land uses. 4 Travel demand caused by public land uses so excluded from nexus analysis. 5 Based on occupant density factors shown in Table 2. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Data Warehouse (http:datawarehouse.sandag. org), SANDAG Series 10 forecast of employment by land use; MuniFinancial. llMuniFinancial l\ToIJet71ber 26,2007 8 Page 70 5-158 San Diego As.rociation ofGovernmentJ RTOP Impact Fee N,xus Study Table 2: Occupant Density Land Use Commercial Office/Services Industrial' 500 Square feet per employee 300 Square feet per employee 900 Square feet per employee Note: Source data based on random sample of 2,72-1 developed parcels across five Los Angeles area counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). MuniFinancial estimated weighting factors by land use categories used in the survey to calculate average employment densities by major category (commercial, office, industrial). 1 Adjusted to correct for over-sampling of industrial parcels in Ventura County. Source: The Natelsan Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments; October 31, 2001, Table 2-A, p. 15. MuniFinanciaL Travel Demand By Land Use Category To estimate travel demand by type ofland use the nexus study uses vehicle trips rather than vehicle miles traveled (VM1) that were used in the initial SANDAG calculation. Vehicle trips can be calculated in a consistent manner across land use categories based on population and employment estimates by land use category. This enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use categories, a key requirement of the Mitigation Fee Act. VMT, on the other hand, is available from transportation models only for a limited number of "production and attraction" categories: home-work, home-school, home-college, home- other, and non-home. A reasonable measure of vehicle trips is weekday average daily vehicle trips ends. Because automobiles are the predominant source of traffic congestion, vehicle trips are a reasonable measure of demand for new capacity even though the measure excludes demand for alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle, pedestrian). The following two adjustments are made to vehicle trip generation rates to better estimate travel demand by type of land use: · Pass-by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass-by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. · The trip generation rate is weighted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system. Table 3 shows the calculation of travel demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by SANDAG. The surveys provide a robust database of trip generation rates, pass-by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. I1lMunO'inanclal l\lo/Jembef" 26,2007 5-159 9 Page 71 San Diego AsIociation ofGovemments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexu, Study Table 3: Travel Demand Factors E"'CxDI A B C=A+B 0 6.S F G "'Ex F TriD Rate Adiustment Factor Total Average Adjust- Average Travel Primary Diverted Excluding Trip ment Daily Trip Demand Trips1 Tri S1 Pass-b 1 Len th2 Factor' Ends' Factor' Residential: Single Family 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 10 11.10 Multi-famill 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 8 8.88 Nonresidential ~ Commercial 47% 31% 78% 3.6 0.41 68 27.88 Office/Services 77% 19% 96% 8.8 .1.22 20 24.40 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 9.0 1.28 8 10.24 1 Percent of total trips. Primal)' trips are trips with no midway stops, or "links". Diverted trips are linked trips whose distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass-by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip. 2ln miles. 3 Systemwide average trip length is 6.9 miles. 4 Trip ends or travel demand per dwellfng unit or per 1,000 building square feel 5 Single family based on 3-6 units per acre category. MultHamily based on 6-20 units per acre category. 6 Multi-family deman factos include mobile homes. The combined average daily trip ends calculation multiplies 2002 population by average daily trip ends for both muiti~family and mobile homes and then weights the sum by the 2002 population. 7 Commercial based on "community shopping center" category. Office/services based on "standard commercial office" categol)'. Industrial based on "industrial park (no commercial)" category. Sources: San Diego Association of Govemm8flts, Brief Guide of Vehicular Trafflc Generation Rates for the San Diego Region, July 1998; Shifting Burden of Commercial Development to Residential Development Applying the travel demand factots shown in Table 3 directly to development by land use category implicitly assumes that the cause of each vehicle trip on the transportation network is shared equally by the land use at each trip end (origin and destination). But depending on the regional economic forces affecting development in a particular area, the cause of a trip may be related more to the land use at the origin or the destination. For example, in some areas residential development may be caused by job growth, while in other areas the opposite may occur Gobs follow housing). These cause and effect relationships may change over time in the same area. Given the complexity of these regional economic and land use relationships, most.transportation impact fee nexus studies make the simplifying but reasonable assumption to weight the origin and destination of a trip equally when identifying the cause of travel demand on a transportation system. However, there is one regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship that remains consistent across geographical areas and over time. Commercial development is to a jarge extent caused by the spending patterns of local residents. Commercial development follows residential development or anticipates new development occurring in the near term. This development pattern can be observed throughout metropolitan regions and is driven by the site location process followed by retailers. When seeking new locations, the most common measure of a potential market used by site location analysts is the number of BMuniFinanciaI November 26,2007 10 Page 72 5-160 S a11 Diego As.roaation of Government.r RTOP Impact Fee Nexus Study households within a reasonable driving distance for shopping trips and the median income of those households. Given this consistent regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship, it is reasonable to allocate at least some of the burden of commercial trip ends to residential development. This approach is used in impact fee nexus studies to more accurately allocate the burden of transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth.2 Not all retail spending is related to local residential development. By "local" we mean residents (or businesses) located within the area subject to the impact fee. There are three major sources of retail spending: 1. Local households; 2. Local businesses; and 3. Visitors that travel to the area to shop. The RTCIP impact fee is limited to residential development so the focus of this nexus study was shifting the appropriate share of travel demand from commercial to residential development. The demand for commercial development by local businesses was not identified. To determioe the amount of commercial development associated with residential development we conducted an analysis of taxable retail sales data for 2004, the most recent complete year of data available from the State Board of Equalization. The analysis calculated the total spending potential of San Diego County households and estimated what portion of that spending occurred within the County. The result was that 62.6 percent of total taxable retail sales was estimated to be associated with local household spending. The remainder was associated with local business and visitor spending. Based on this analysis, residential development direcdy causes 62.6 percent of commercial development. Consequendy, the travel demand associated with that share of commercial development is shifted to residential development. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4 and presented in detail in Appendix B. Total Travel Demand By Land Use Category Table 5 shows estimates of travel demand from existing and new development and the shares that residential and nonresidential development comprise of the total. Travel demand is based on the travel demand factors calculated in Table 3 and the growth estimates in Table 1. Commercial development associated with local household spending as shown in Table 4 is included in the residential land use category. Based on this analysis new residential development will represent about 13 percent of total travel demand in 2030. 2 See Economic and Planning Systems. Inc.. Infrastructure Financing Technical &port Southwe.rt Area Pian, prepared for the City of Santa Rosa Department of Community Development, January 1995, p.28. See also Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., Road Impact Mitigation Fee Nexu.r Stu&, prepared for the Calaveras Council of Goverrunents, April 28, 2004, p.20. IllMunmancia' Nowmber 26,2007 5-161 11 Page 73 San Diego Association of Governments RTGP Impact Fee Nexus Study Table 4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft. in San Die 0 Coun Taxable Retail Sales 2004 Share Buildina Sauare Feet 2002 2025 Growth Total Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft. $44,470,000 100.0% 148,000 197,000 49,000 Local Residential Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. 27,856,000 16,614,000 62.6% 37.4% 93,000 55,000 123,000 74,000 30,000 19,000 Sources: Tables 1 and 8.4: MunlRnancial. Table 5: Travel Demand From Existin and New Develo ment Oevelooment Travel Demand Travel Demand Growth1 Existing Land Use Cate 0 Factor' 2002-2030 2002) Total Residential Single Family 11.10 648,000 130,000 7,193,000 1,443,000 8,636,000 Multi-family4 8.88 419,000 157,000 3,721,000 1,394,000 5,115,000 Local-serving Commercials 27.88 93,000 30,000 2,593,000 836 000 3,429,000 Subtotal 1,160,000 317,000 13,507,000 3,673,000 17,180,000 Percent of Total 47.7% 13.0% 60.7% Nonresidential Other Commercials 27.88 55,000 19,000 1,533,000 530,000 2,063,000 OfficeJServices 24.40 104,000 31,000 2,538,000 756,000 3,294,000 Industrial 10.24 345 000 220,000 3 533 000 2 253 000 5786,000 Subtotal 1,757,000 617,000 7,604,000 3,539,000 11,143,000 Percent of Total 26.8% 12.5% 39.3% Total 21,111,001 7,212,000 28,323,000 Percent of Total 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% t Per dwelling unil for residential land uses and per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land uses. " Dwelling units for residential land uses and 1.000 square feet for nonresidential land uses. ~ Estimated total trip ends adjusted for the factors shown in Table 3. . The multi-family travel demand factor and demand calculations include mobUe homes. 3 Represents share 01 total commercial square feet and travel demand associated with spending by San DIego County households. ~ Represents share of total commerclal square feet aoo travel demand associated with spending by San DIego County businesses and visitors. Source: Tables 1, 3 and 4; MunlFinancial. FACILITIES STANDARD AND NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The critical policy issue in a development impact fee nexus study is the identification of a facility standard. The facility standard detennines new development's need for new facilities. The facility standard is also used to evaluate the existing level of facilities to ensure that new development does not fund infrastructure needed to serve existing development. The facility standard used by this nexus analysis is average weekday vehicle hours of delay on the Regional Arterial System (RAS) in 2008. Hours of delay provide a reasonable system- wide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility. SANDAG's IIllMuniFinancial f\.TOfJel71ber 26,2007 12 Page 74 5-162 San Diego A.rsociation of Governments RTGP Impact Fee Nexus Study transportation forecasting model (TransCAD) demonstrates that hours of delay increase with the level of new development, and decrease with investment in additional transportation system capacity. Projected hours of delay in 2002 is used for the standard because that is the implementation date for the RTCIP, representing existing conditions at the time new development would begin contributing to transportation system improvements. The original RTCIP fee estimate was based on the need for 710 additional lane miles to complete the RAS as of the year 2000 (see "Initial RTCIP Impact Pee Calculation" in Chapter 1). Through 2002 the region added 73 lane miles to the RAS. This effort reduces the level of investment needed to complete the RAS to 637 lane miles. The data in Table 6 from the TransCAD model demonstrates a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional investment in the RAS. The table shows the projected increases in vehicle hours of delay from 2002 to 2030 and the benefits of adding 637 lane miles to the RAS. Without any investment in the RAS vehicle hours of delay will increase by 114 percent during this period. With an investment of 637 new lane miles in regional arterials vehicle hours of delay will increase substantially less, by 68 percent. Table 6: Regional Arterial System Roadway Statistics Proiected 2030 Without With Improvements Improvements Exist; ng 2002 Lane Miles Change, 2002-2030 (amount) Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 2,805 2,805 3,442 637 0% 23% 137,481 108,350 73,129 43,998 114% 68% Average Weekday Vehicle Hours of Delay Change, 2002-2030 (amount) Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 64,352 Note: 2002 data interpolated based on 2000 and 2005 data provided by model output (see Source). Source: San Diego Association of Governments. TransCAD model output. New development is not the entire cause of the forecasted increase in vehicle hours of delay. As discussed above, new development is only allocated a share of RAS investment costs. The SANDAG transportation model assumes that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita for all existing and new development will increase 9.6 percent from 2000 to 2030 continuing recent trends.3 Thus some of the increased in vehicle hours of delay is caused by increased travel from existing development. This trend does not affect the nexus analysis under the "average cost" approach taken by this nexus analysis (see "Initial RTCIP Impact Fee Calculation" in Chapter 1). Under this approach RAS investment costs are allocated 3 Email communication from Bill McFarlane, Transportation Modeling Section, San Diego Association of Goverrunents, March 8, 2006. IIMuniFinancial lVolJember 26,2007 5-163 13 Page 75 San Diego Association of Governments RTOP Impact Fee Nexus Study proportionately across existing and new development based on total travel demand, thus incorporating the impact of changes in travel behavior such as increased VMT per capita. FACILITY COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDING This section estimates total costs associated with RAS improvements that are the responsibility of new development. The need for RTCIP funding based on available revenues identified in the adopted 2005 RTF is evaluated. Finally, this section provides a current list of specific projects identified for investment in the RAS. Unit Cost Estimates and Total Facility Costs For the purposes of this nexus analysis, facility costs are estimated in 2008 dollars, the first year of implementation of the RTCIP. This subsection explains the approach taken to increase unit costs from 2002 dollars to 2008 dollars. Historically, SANDAG has assumed an annual increase of 2.6 percent for road construction costs based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) construction cost index average annual compounded rate from 1980-2004. In recent years that rate has risen significandy and grown increasing volatile. To examine this issue SANDAG commissioned a study in 2005 by URS, a private consulting firm, that examined a range of data on transportation capital project cost inflation since 2002. The URS study recommended use of several national highway construction cost indices to adjust transportation project cost estimates for SANDAG's financial planning purposes. 4 These rates were used in the prior version of this nexus study dated September 5, 2006. Analysis of actual costs for road construction projects in the San Diego region conducted by SANDAG staff during the past year has determined that the Calttans highway remains the best indicator of local construction cost inflation. Indeed, the URS study recognized that California's construction costs are higher than those in national indexes.S Consequendy this nexus analysis returns to the use of the Caltrans construction cost index to inflate unit cost estimate from 2002 dollars to 2008 dollars. Estimates for 2008 are based on Calttans index data through 2007. Annual Caltrans index data was available through 2006 at the time of this study. Index data for 2007 should be available by February 2008 when SANDAG will inform local agencies of the RTCIP impact fee amount that must be adopted by July 1, 2008 (see "Adoption By Local Agencies" in Chapter 3). For the purposes of this study the 2007 index was estimated based on the average annual compounded growth rate in the index for the ten-year period from 1996 through 2006. A ten-year average was used because of the high volatility of the index in recent years. The approach taken in this report is to estimate 2008 costs based on inflation through 2007. As shown in Table 7, the cost estimate for an arterial lane mile is estimated at $10.9 rnillion in 2008 dollars. The total compounded increase from the 2002 is 115 percent. Total costs to 4 San Diego Association of Governments, Transportation Project Cost AnalYsis Gune 17, 2005) completed by URS, p.8-1. S Ibid., p. 4-1. II!lMuniF"""","" l"Jo/)('fJlber 26,200/ 14 Page 76 5-164 San Diego As.rociation of Government.r RTGP Impact Pee NI!XUJ Study complete the arterial system are estimated at $7.0 billion based on this revised unit cost estimate. Table 7: Estimated Arterial System Capacity Investments ($2008) Caltrans Inflation Rate Year Index Annual Cummulative 2002 142.2 NA NA $ 2003 148.6 4.50% 4.50% 2004 216.2 45.49% 52.04% 2005 268.3 24.10% 88.68% 2006 280.6 4.58% 97.32% 2007' 305.7 8.94% 114.96% Cost 5,100,000 5,330,000 7,754,000 9,623,000 10,063,000 10,963,000 Regional Arterial Widenings & Extensions (lane miles) (2002-2030) 637 Total Regional Arterial System Capacity Investments (2002-2030) (Est. $2008) $ 6,981,238,400 1 Annual inflation rate for 2007 was estimated using the ten-year compounded annual growth rate from 1996 to 2006 for the CalTrans highway construction annual cost index. The actual rate for 2007 will be upclated after the annual index data is published by CalTrans on January 30th of 2008. ' Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appeicix 9. Project Cost Estimates, p. 159; California Dept. of Transportation, Price Index for Selected Highway Constroction Items (Second Quarter Ending June 30, 2007); Table 6; MuniFinancial. Available RTP Funding To justifY the need for the RTCIP impact fee, the fee should only be imposed to the extent additional funding is needed to accommodate new development net of other anticipated funding sources. The adopted 2005 RTF examined three funding and expenditure scenarios described below.6 All dollars are in $2002 and are for the planning horizon 2002 to 2030. · The Revenue Constrained scenario ($30 billion) was based on existing revenue sources and did not assume extension of the TransNet sales tax. · The Reasonably Expected scenario ($42 billion) was based on extension of the TransNet sales tax ($8 billion) plus $4 billion more from higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds and increases in state and federal gas taxes based on historical trends. · The Unconstrained Revenue scenario ($67 billion) was based on an analysis of transportation system needs to 2030 and identified potential revenue sources but did not specifY which ones to implement. 6 SANDAG. Pinal2030 Regional Tramportation Pkm, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Chapter 4, pp. 35-53. .MuniFinancial 1\'olJet1Jber 26,2007 5-165 15 Page 77 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Pee Nexus Study SANDAG adopted the Reasonably Expected scenario. Under this scenario the adopted 2005 RTP invests $24.5 billion for projects that expand system capacity. Other improvements totaling $17.5 billion would improve operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road, and transit, and related facilities. The adopted 2005 RTP expenditure plan is summarized in Table 8, below. Table 8: RTP Investment Plan, 2002-2030 ($2002) $ Millions ($2002) Capacity Expansion Investments New Transit Facilities $ 8,500 20% Managed High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Facilities 7,450 18% Highway System CompletionlWidening Projects 3,580 9% New Local Streets and Roads 4,430 11% Regional Significant Arterials 500 1% Subtotal $ 24,460 58% Other Investments' 17.485 42% Total Expenditures $ 41,945 100% 1 Includes projects that improve the operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road, and transit, and related facilities. Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), p. 44; MuniFinancial. As shown in Table 8, the adopted 2005 RTP allocates $500 million for investment in the RAS. Under the Revenue Constrained and Unconstrained Revenue scenarios the total allocation is $350 million and $700 million, respectively.7 Given the need for a $6.98 billion total investment (Table 7), substantial additional resources are needed. The adopted 2005 RTP indicates that local jurisdictions need to identify matching funds for investment in the RAS because the regional funding provided through the adopted 2005 RTP: . . .is intended to be matched with revenues from the local jurisdictions, which are responsible for improving regional roadways and local streets to meet their residents needs and mitigate the effects of local land use developments.8 7 Ibid., Table 4.3, p. 46, Table 4.5, p. 49. 8 Ibid., p. 103. IIMuniFInancial 1'\[oPftJlber26,200; 16 Page 78 5-166 San DiegoA.rsociation ojCovernments RTGP Impact Fee Nexus Study The adopted 2005 RTP further indicates that a regional development impact fee as contemplated by the RTCIP is one of the potential revenues sources for supplementing adopted 2005 RTP resources.9 The funding assumptions discussed above are based on the most recendy adopted 2005 RTP because the draft 2007 RTP has not been adopted as of the date of this report. These assumptions are likely to vary in the final adopted 2007 RTP. However, the draft 2007 RTP continues to indicate that funding is needed from the RTCIP to mitigate the impacts of new development on the transportation system. Specific RAS Improvement Projects Table 9 shows the adopted 2005 RTP's initial planned improvements in the RAS. These projects represent a $700 million investment under the Unconstrained Revenue scenario, or 136 additional lane miles at the 2002 cost estimate of $5.1 million per lane mile. Under the adopted Reasonably Expected scenario the adopted 2005 RTP allocates $500 million, sufficient to fund 98 additional lane miles in $2002. These projects are candidates for funding with RTCIP contributions. Funding these improvements with the RTCIP would enable RTCIP resources to expand improvements in the RAS towards full completion of the system (637 lane miles from 2002 to 2030). COST ALLOCATION AND FEE SCHEDULE The vehicle trip rates described in the Growth Projections section, above, provide a means to allocate a proportionate share of total RAS improvements to each new development project. Trip rates are a reasonable measure of each development project's demand on the regional transportation system. New development's share of total RAS improvements is divided by total trips generated by new development to calculate a cost per trip. The cost per trip multiplied by the trips generated by a development project determines that project's fair share of total RAS improvements. New development could contribute up to $320 per trip as shown in Table 10. This amount is based on' the nexus approach taken for this analysis that allocates RAS costs to new residential development based on shares of total travel demand in 2030. This approach is based on allocating to residential development the entire burden of trips associated with commercial development that serves households within the County (see earlier discussion under "Shifting Burden of Commercial Development to Residential Development"). 9 Ibid., p. 50. IIMuniFrnancial j\TofJember26,2007 5-167 17 Page 79 San Diego Association of Governments RTGP Impact Fee N,xus Study Table 9: Regionally Significant Planned Arterial Improvements Arterial Limits Type Jurisdiction Balboa Ave. Bear Mountain Pkwy. Black Mountain Rd. Black Mountain Rd. Cannon Rd. Cannon Rd. Cannon Rd. Citracado Pkwy. Citracado Pkwy. College Ave. College Ave. Deer Springs Rd. Del Dios Hwy. East Valley Pkwy. EI Camino Real El Camino Real EJ Camino Real Friars Rd. Friars Rd. Genesee Ave. Genesee Ave. HStreet Harbor Dr. Heritage Rd. Jamacha Blvd. Kearny Villa Rd. Manchester Ave. Melrose Dr. Melrose Dr. Mission Ave. Oceanside Blvd. Siempre Viva Rd. South Santa Fe Ave. Torrey Pines Rd. Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Via de la Valle Vista Sorrento Pkwy. Vista Way Kearney Villa Rd. - Ruffin Rd. Widen Canyon Rd. - Valley Pkwy. Widen Mercy Rd. - Mira Mesa Bivd. Widen Emden Rd. - Caramel Valley Rd. Extend Hidden Valley Rd. - Frost Rd. Extend EI Camino Real - Mystra Dr. Extend Melrose Dr. - SR 78 Extend 1-15 - Scenic Trail Way Extend Avenida Del Diablo - Vineyard Ave. Extend Montezuma Rd. - Alvarado Widen EI Camino Real- Cansbad Village Dr. Extend 1-15 - Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Widen Via Rancho Pkwy. - Valley Pkwy. Widen East Valley Blvd. - Bear Valley Pkwy. Widen Camino Santa Fe - EJ Camino Real Widen Manchester Ave. - Tamarack Ave. Widen Tamarack Ave. - SR 76 Widen Colusa St. - Lis Las Cumbres Widen SR-163 - Frazee Rd. Widen 1-5 - Campus Point Dr. Widen Osler St. - Marlesta Dr. Widen Bonita Vista High - Otay Lakes Widen Pacific Hwy. - California St. Widen Airway Rd. - Siempre Viva Rd. Extend Omega SI. - Pointe Pkwy. Widen SR 52 - Ruffin Rd. Widen 1-5 - Lux Canyon Dr. Widen Spur Ave. - N Santa Fe Ave. Extend Aspen Way - Palomar Airport Rd. Extend Enterprise SI. - Centre City Pkwy. Widen Oceanside Blvd. - Rancho Del Oro Widen Heritage Rd. - La Media Rd. Widen Mar Vista Dr. - Bosstick Blvd. Widen N. of Callan SI. - S. of Carmel VaHey Rd. Widen Craven Rd. - Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Extend Deer Springs Rd. - Craven Rd. Widen Camino Santa Fe - El Camino Real Widen Rose Coral Row - Sorrento Valley Blvd. Extend Emerald Dr. - Melrose Dr. Widen City of San Diego City of Escondida City of San Diego City of San Diego City of Cansbad City of Cansbad County of San Diego City of Escondida City of Escondida City of San Diego City of Carls bad County of San Diego City of Escondida City of Escondida City of San Diego City of Cansbad City of Oceanside City of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Diego City of Chula Vista City of San Diego City of San Diego County of San Diego City of San Diego City of Encinitas City of Oceanside City of Carlsbad City of Escondido City of Oceanside City of San Diego County of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Diego City of San Diego City of Vista Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Fina/2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (Febrosry 2005), Technical Appendix 9 - Proiect Cost Estimates, P. 160. IIlIMunF_ 1'-TolJembel' 26,2007 5-168 18 Page 80 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study Table 10: Residential Cost per Trip (Estimated for $2008) Allocation of Total Costs to Residential Land Uses Total Regional Arterial System Investments ($2008) New Residential Development Share of Total Trips New Residential Development Share of Total Costs $ 6,981,238,400 13.0% $ 907,561,000 New Residential Vehicle TriDs 12002-20301 Single Family Multi-family' Total New Residential Vehicle Trips 1,443,000 1,394,000 2 837 000 New Residential Development Cost per Trip (Est. $2008) $ 320 , Multi-family travel demand factor and demand calculations include mobile homes. Tables 5 and 7; MuniFinancial. The cost per trip of $320 is estimated in 2008 dollars the first year for implementation of the RTCIP. As explained in the "Facility Costs and Available Funding" section above this estimate is based on actual Caltrans construction cost index data through 2006 and an estimate for 2007. The RTCIP specifies that new development must contribute $2,000 per dwelling unit. A single fee for all dwelling units may not adequately ensure a reasonable relationship between each new development project's proportionate share of total improvements and the amount of the fee. Separate fees by major residential land use category based on trip generation rates would more likely fulfill this statutory requirement.10 To test whether the required RTCIP contribution of $2,000 per unit is justified for different types of units, Table 11 provides a fee schedule by major residential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from Table 10. As explained above in the "Growth Projections" section mobile homes are forecast separately by SANDAG but because of the extremely limited number they have been included in the multi-family land use category. The fee ranges from a low of $2,842 for multi-family units to a high of $3,552 for single family units. The average fee per dwelling unit is $3,164. The impact fee required by the RTCIP of $2,000 per residential unit is therefore well below the amount justified under the Mitigation Fee Act for major residential land use categories. 10 Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code, 566001(b). IIMuniFlllancial I\JOllt'17lbc,,26,2007 5-169 19 Page 81 San Diego Arsodation of Governments RTOP Impact Fee Nexus Study Table 11: RTCIP Impact Fee (Estimated for $2008) Trip New Demand Development Factor Fee' (dwelling units) Cost Per Trip Estimated Revenue2 Land Use Single Family $ 320 11.10 $ 3,552 130,000 $ 461,760,000 Multi-family' 320 8.88 2,842 157,000 446,194,000 Total Estimated Revenue $ 907,954,000 Total New Dwelling Units (2006-2030) 287.000 Weighted Average RTCIP Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit (Est. $2008) $ 3,184 1 Fee per dwelling unit. 2 Numbers may vary due to rounding. 3 Multi-family travel demand factor and demand calculations include mobile homes. Sources: Tables 1, 3 and 10; MuniFinancial. EXTENSION OF' RTCI P TO NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USES The RTCIP specifically exempts all nonresidential development. However, one option for increasing contributions from new development for RAS improvements would be to apply the RTCIP to nonresidential development as well. Table 12 shows new development's total investment in the RAS that could be made under this approach. A fee schedule by major nonresidential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from Table 12 is shown in Table 13. Fees per 1,000 building square feet range from a low of $2,519 for industrial and $2,704 for commercial and to a high of $6,002 for office/ services. .MuniFonan"" November 26,2001 20 Page 82 5-170 San Diego Auociation of Govmtment,r RTCIP Impact Fee NeXUJ StUffy Table 12: Nonresidential Cost Der TriD (Estimated for $2008) OffIce/Services & Industrial Commercial New NonrA.<:identia/ Develooment Share of Total Trias Commercial1 Office/Services Industrial New Nonresidential Vehide Trips (2002-2030) t Total Vehicle Trips (2030)1 New Nonresidential Development Share NA 756,000 2 253 000 3,009,000 28 323 000 10.6% 530,000 NA !!Ie> 530,000 283'-3000 1.9% Allocation of Tota' Casts to Nonresidential Land Uses Total Regional Arterial System Investments ($2008) New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Trips New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Costs $ 6,981,238,400 $ 6,981,238,400 .1.Q.lli l.lli $ 740,011,000 $ 132,644,000 NA 1,366,000 756,000 NA 2 253 000 !!Ie> 3 009 000 1366 noo $ 246 $ 97 New Nonresidential Vehicle Trio.<: f'200'2-'2030J Commercial2 Office/Services Industrial Total Nonresidential Vehicle Trips (2030)1 Cost per Trip (Est $2008) I For the purpose of determmmg new commel'Clal developmenfs fair share of total costs, trips exdude those assocateld With spendIng by local (San Diego County) resdients. Commerciel trips associated with local residentisl spending are used to allocat. total costs to residential development (set! Tabie 10). 2 Includes local and regional commercial trips. It would be inpradical to identify on a project..tly-projec\ basis that portion of new commercial development :associsted only with non-local residential spending. Therekml, new commercial development's fair share of total costa is allocated ac:roas all new commercial vehicle trips (see Table 5). Tables 5 and 7; MunlFinencial. Table 13: Nonresidential Impact Fee (Estimated for $2008) Trip New Demand Development Factor Fee 1 (ks/) Cost Per Trip Estimated Revenue Land Use Commercial Office/Services Industrial $ 97 246 246 27.88 $ 24.40 10.24 2,704 6,002 2,519 49,000 $ 31,000 220,000 132,496,000 186,062,000 554 180.000 Total Estimated Revenue (Est. $2008). $ 872,738,000 1 Fee per 1,000 square feet Sources: Tables 1, 3 and 10; MuniFinancial. .MuniF<nancial .i.'\J0I~mb('1'26, 2007 5-171 21 Page 83 3. IMPLEMENTATION Local agencies need to adopt a "Funding Program" to implement the RTCIP.l The Funding Program must generate the funding per new residential unit required by the RTCIP. This chapter provides guidance on use of this nexus study by local agencies to implement a Funding Program and comply with the RTCIP. "Local agencies" includes all cities in the County plus the County of San Diego for development in the unincorporated area. The guidance provided in this study is not a substitute for legal advice and all local agencies should consult with their legal counsel regarding compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act VIet). Local agencies are hereby put on notice that the findings and guidance in this study are generalized, and were created for use as a framework to be tailored by each local agency. SANDAG disclaims any responsibility for any liability to users of this study, or any other party, for any loss or damages, consequential or otherwise, including but not limited to time, money, or goodwill, arising from the use, operation or modification of the information in the study. In using this report, local agencies further agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SANDAG, its officers and employees, for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from use of the study. Distribution of this study shall not constitute any warranty by SANDAG. ADOPTION By LOCAL AGENCIES Adoption Schedule To meet the requirements of the Act and the July 1, 2008 RTCIP deadline, local agencies will need to adopt the RTCIP impact fee by May 1, 2008. This allows for the sixty-day period required under California Government Code section 60017 of the Act between the date of adoption and the date the fee becomes effective. The same section of the Act includes certain notice and public hearing requirements as well that each local agency must follow. Legal counsel should also advise on timelines, hearings requirements, and all other actions required for fee adoption by the Act. A checklist for the initial adoption of the RTCIP with a schedule of steps required for implementation is included in Appendix C of this study. The checklist is tided, "RTCIP Impact Fee Initial Adoption - Local Agency Implementation Checklist." Ordinance, Resolution, and Nexus Study Local agencies may need to adopt an ordinance and resolution to implement the fee. The ordinance would provide the authority for the agency to impose the RTCIP impact fee. The resolution would specify the fee amount. Setting the fee by resolution avoids having to amend the local agency's municipal code whenever the fee must be adjusted, facilitating annual updates to the fee for cost inflation. 1 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extrnsion Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, Sec. A. EiMuniFlnancial NOJH:17,ber26,2007 22 Page 84 5-172 San Diego A.rsodation of Governments RTGP Impact Fee N,xus Study To adopt the initial fee of $2,000 per residential unit the local agency fee resolution may reference this nexus study for documentation of the findings required by the Act. The local agency may reference this nexus study to support adoption of a fee on residential development up to the maximum amounts shown in Tables 11. The adopted fee should be no higher than the levels indicated in the table by land use category. Fee revenues should only be used for the purposes described in this report. For the purposes of this study "single family" includes projects at net development densities of six or fewer units per acre (see Table 3, footnote 5). "Multi-family" includes projects at net development densities of over six units per acre. To facilitate integration with existing fee schedules, there are several conditions under which the local agency's fee schedule may vary while still referencing this nexus study for documentation of the findings required under the Act. · The fee schedule shown in Table 11 may be applied to single family and multi- family land use categories that do not vary substantially from the definition of those categories used in this nexus study. For example the "break point" between the definition of single and multi-family may be at a different development density level. · The fee may be applied to different residential land use categories, e.g. condominiums or mobile homes, using the cost per trip calculated in the this nexus study (see Table 10 for the cost per trip). The trip rate used to calculate the fee should reasonably reflect travel demand generated by new development within the land use category. Local agencies must conduct a separate nexus study if the conditions described above are not met. Applying Fee To Nonresidential Development The local agency may also apply an impact fee to nonresidential development to fund improvements to the RAS. However, as mentioned above in the Nexus AnalYsis chapter, expansion of the RTCIP Funding Program to nonresidential development is not a requirement of the TransNet ordinance and is not necessary for a local agency to implement the RTCIP. If the agency chooses to apply the fee to nonresidential development and adopts the fee schedule as shown in Table 13, above, then the fee resolution can reference this nexus study and the local agency does not have to conduct a separate study. If the local agency adopts a different nonresidential fee schedule then the agency will need to conduct a new nexus study to justify the nonresidential fee. INF"LATION ADJUSTMENT The initial RTCIP funding requirement of $2,000 per new dwelling unit will apply upon initial adoptions of the fee in 2008. The TransNet ordinance provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the RTCIP impact fee onJuly 1 of each year beginning in 2009.2 The inflation 2 San Diego Association of Govem.ments, TransNet Extension Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, Sec. C IIMuniFlllanCiaI lVo/Jf1JIbef'26,2007 23 5-173 Page 85 San Diego.Auociation ofGowrnmmtJ RTOP Impact Fee Nexus Stu& adjustment will be two percent or based on tbe Caltrans highway construction cost index, whichever is higher. SANDAG may choose to use a different cost index. Each local agency will need to adjust their RTCIP impact fee annually. A checklist for tbe annual update and a five-year update of tbe RTCIP fees along with a schedule of steps required for implementation is included in Appendix C. This checklist is tided, "RTCIP Impact Fee Annual and Five-Year Update - Local Agency Implementation Checklist." COLLECTION AND ADMINISTRATION Each local agency will be responsible for the collection, administration, and expenditure of RTCIP impact fee revenues generated within its jurisdiction. Fee revenues should be placed in a separate fund and administered pursuant to tbe requirements of tbe Act. For example, interest earnings on fund balances need to be credited to the fund. In addition, tbe Act requires tbat the local agency provide specific information regarding fee revenues and expenditures annually and every five years in a public report.3 The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of tbe RTCIP. Each local agency must submit their Funding Program for review by the ITOC by Apcll, 2008. The ITOC must review and audit each local agency's program annually. The reporting requirements required by the Act should be sufficient to meet tbe ITOC's needs in this regard. If a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding for local roads. Local agencies and SANDAG can fund the administrative costs of the RTCIP with a charge added to the RTCIP impact fee. The RTCIP allows up to three percent of program revenues to be used for program administration.4 SANDAG anticipates adding a one percent administrative charge to the RTCIP fee to fund costs related to tbe ITOC. Local agencies may add up to two percent for tbeir program administration costs. These charges are similar to any otber user fees imposed by local agencies and are not subject to tbe Act. These charges must be justified based on the actual program administration costs of each agency. Agencies should keep cost records and adjust the administrative charge as appropriate based on actual costs. USE OF" REVENUES RTCIP impact fee revenues must be expended on improvements to tbe RAS in a manner consistent with tbe expenditure priorities in tbe most recent adopted RTF. Fee revenues may not be expended on road maintenance. RTCIP impact fee revenues may be used for any capital costs associated with improving the RAS including costs associated witb: 3 California Government Code, 5566001(d) and 66006(b). 4 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension &giona! Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, Sec. D(2). IlllMun;F_ Nopember 26.2007 24 Page 86 5-174 San Diego Association of Governments RTClP Impact Pee Nexus 51.& . Arterial widenings, extensions, and turning lanes; . Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; . Reconfigured freeway-arterial interchanges; . Railroad grade separations; and . Expanded regional express bus service. Costs funded by the RTCIP impact fee may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. The RTCIP requires that each local agency expend revenues within seven years of receipt or have an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period.5 The Act has a similar requirement with a five years limitation unless there is an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period. EXEMPTIONS The RTCIP program exempts the following residential development from the impact fee:6 . New moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income residential units as defined in Health & Safety Code sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, 50106, and by reference in Government Code section 65585.1; . Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities; . Rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/ or the replacement of a previously existing residential unit; . Development projects subject to development agreements prior the effective date of the TransNet ordinance (May 28, 2004) that expressly prohibit the imposition of new impact fees, however if the terms of the development agreement are extended beyond July 1, 2008, the requirements of the RTCIP shall apply; . Guest dwellings; . Additional residential units located on the same parcel regulated by the provisions of any agricultural zoning; . Kennels and catteries established in conjunction with an existing residential unit; . The sanctuary building of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other house of worship eligible for property tax exemption; . Residential units that have been issued a building petrnit prior to July 1, 2008; and . Condominium conversions. 5 Ibid., Sec. G( 4). 6Ibid, Sec. E. lilMun;F_ NO/Jembl!1" 26,2007 ,- "J Page 87 5-175 4. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (Ad) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in CalifOrnia Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee. Sample text that may be. used for the five statutory findings required for adoption of the RTCIP impact fee are presented in this chapter and supponed in detail by the Nexus AnalYsis chapter of this repon. All statutory references below are to the Act. This sample framework for the mitigation fee act findings is only to provide local agencies with guidance and is not a substitute for legal advice. Local agencies should customize the findings for their jurisdiction and consult with their legal counsel prior to adoption of the RTCIP impact fee. PURPOSE OF FEE For the first finding the local agency must: Identify the purpose of the fee. (~66001(a)(1)) SANDAG policy as expressed through the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Commission Ordinance 04-01) is that new development shall contribute towards the Regional Anerial System (RAS) through the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP impact fee is to implement this policy. The fee advances a legitimate public interest by enabling SANDAG to fund improvements to transponation infrastructure required to accommodate new development. USE OF FEE REVENUES For the second finding the local agency must: Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (~66001(a)(2)) The RTCIP impact fee will fund eXpanded facilities on the Regional Anerial System (RAS) to serve new development. These facilities include: . Roadway widening; · Roadway extension; · Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; liI!IlMuniF<nancial J."'\!olJenlber26,2007 5-176 26 Page 88 San Diego Arsodation of Governments RTOP Impact Pee Nexus StJlriy . Freeway interchanges and related freeway improvements; Railroad grade separations; and . . Improvements required for regional express bus and rail transit. Costs for planned traffic facilities are preliminarily identified in this report. Costs funded by the RTCIP impact fee may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. More detailed descriptions of planned facilities, including their specific location, if kriown at this time, are shown in the SANDAG's Regional Transportation Plan and other documents. Local agencies implementing the RTCIP may change the list of planned improvements to meet changing circumstances and needs, as they deem necessary. Fee revenues will be used for the sole purpose of expanding capacity on the RAS to accommodate new development. The RTCIP impact fee will not be used for the purpose of correcting existing deficiencies in the roadway system. BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP For the third finding the local agency must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (566001(a)(3)) The local agency will restrict fee revenues to capital projects that expand capacity on the RAS to serve new development. Improvements funded by the RTCIP impact fee will expand a region-wide arterial system accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. SANDAG has determined that the planned projects identified in this report will expand the capacity of the Regional Arterial System to accommodate the increased trips generated by new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that will pay the fee. BURDEN RELATIONSHIP For the fourth finding the local agency must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (566001 (a) (4)) New dwelling units and building square footage are indicators of the demand for transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units and building square footage are created, the occupants of these structures generate additional vehicle trips and place additional burdens on the transportation system. The need for the RTCIP impact fee is based on SANDAG transportation model projections of growth that show an increase in vehicle hours of delay on the RAS primarily as a result of new development even with planned improvements to that system. The model estimated impacts from new development based on trip generation rates that varied by land use category, providing a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the need for improvements. I1MunjFinancial NOI~1Jlber26, 200i 27 Page 89 5-177 San Diego AIsoaatiol1 of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Stu4Y PROPORTIONALITY For the fifth finding the SANDAG must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between 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. (~66001(b)) This reasonable relationship between the RTCIP impact fee for a specific development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trips the project will add to the Regional Arterial System. The total fee for a specific residential development is based on the number and type of new dwelling units multiplied the trip generation rate for the applicable residential land use category. The fee for a specific nonresidential development is based in a similar manner on the amount of building square footage by land use category. Larger projects generate more vehicle trips and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use category. Thus, the fee schedule ensures a reasonable relationship between the RTCIP impact fee for a specific development project and the cost of the Regional Arterial System improvements facilities attributable to the project. IIlIiMun;F"ancial I\TolJembl1r26,2007 5-178 28 Page 90 ApPENDIX A: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM Table A.l lists the arterials included in the Regional Arterial System by the Rtgional Transportation Plan adopted in 2005. Table A.1: Regional Arterial System Arterial Limits 1st St 2nd St 30th St 32nd St 54th St 70th St Ardath Rd Avocado Ave Avocado Blvd Balboa Ave Ballantyne St Barham Dr Barnett Ave Bay Marina Way (24th St) Bear Valley Pkwy Bernardo Center Dr Beyer Blvd Black Mountain Rd Bobier Dr Bonita Rd Borden Rd Borrego Springs RdlYaqui Pass Rd (S-3) Bradley Ave Broadway (EI Cajon) Broadway (Lemon Grove) Broadway (San Diego) Broadway (Vista) Buckman Springs Rd/Hwy 80/Sunrise Hwy (S-1) Buena Creek Rd Cabrillo Dr (SRZ09) Camino del Norte Camino Del Rio North Camino Ruiz Camino Santa Fe Ave Cannon Rd Cannon Road Canon St Carlsbad Blvd IiIMuniF"1llaI1Cia1 j'\..TofJl'171ber 26,200/ 5-179 ASt-KS!. Greenfield Dr - Main St National City Blvd - 2'. St Harbor Dr - Norman Scott Rd EI Cajon Blvd - SR94 University Ave - 1-8 Hidden Valley Rd - 1-5 Main St - Chase Ave Chase Ave - SR94 Mission Bay Dr - 1-15 Broadway - Main St La Moree Rd - Mission Rd Saint Charles St - Pacific Highway 1-5 - Terminal Ave East Valley Pkwy - Sunset Dr Camino Del Norte - 1-15 Main St -Dairy Mart Road Del Mar Heights - Pomerado Rd Melrose Dr - E Vista Way E St - San Miguel Rd Las Posas Rd - Woodland Pkwy Palm Canyon Dr (S-22)- SR78 Marshall Ave - 2nd St SR67 - E. Main S!. Spring St - College Ave C St - Main St Lincoln Pkwy/SR78 - Washington Ave SR94 - SR79 Las Posas Rd - Twin Oaks Valley Rd Cochran St - Cabrillo Monument Camino Ruiz - Pomerado Rd Mission Center Rd - Mission Gorge Rd Camino del Norte - SR56 Sorrento Valley Blvd - Miramar Rd Carls bad Blvd - Melrose Dr Melrose Drive - SR 78 Rosecrans St - Jennings St Eaton St - La Costa Ave A.I Page 91 Sat! Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee N""" Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits Carls bad Village Dr Carmel Mountain Rd Carmel Valley Rd Centre City Pkwy Citracado Pkwy Clairemont Mesa Blvd Coast Hwy (S-21) College Ave College Blvd Community Rd Convoy St Crosby St Cuyamaca St Dairy Mart Rd Deer Springs Rd Dehesa Road Dehesa Road' Del Dios Hwy Del Mar Heights Rd (SA 710) Discovery St Douglas Dr E St East H St East Main St East Valley Pkwy East Via Rancho Pkwy East Vista Way EI Cajon Blvd EI Cajon Blvd EI Camino Real EI Camino Real EI Camino Real (S-11) EI Norte Pkwy Encinitas Blvd Espola Rd Euclid Ave Fairmount Ave Faraday Ave Federal Bivd Fletcher Pkwy Friars Rd Garnet Ave Genesee Ave Gilman Dr Grand Ave 1-5 - Coast Blvd/Coast Hwy Sorrento Valley Rd - EI Camino Real North Torrey Pines Rd - EI Camino Real 1-15(N) -1-15(S) Centre City Pkwy - SR78 1-15 - Moraga Ave La Costa Ave - Via de la Valle Federal Blvd - Waring Rd North River Rd - Palomar Airport Rd Twin Peaks Rd - Scripps Poway Pkwy Linda Vista Rd - SR 52 1-5 - Harbor Dr Mission Gorge Rd - Marshall Ave SR-905 - 1-5 Twin Oaks Valley Rd -1-15 Jamacha Rd - Harbison Canyon Rd Harbison Canyon Rd - Sycuan Rd Via Rancho Pkwy - Claudan Rd 1-5 - Camino Del Norte San Marcos Blvd - La Moree Rd SR76 (Mission Ave) - North River Rd 1-5 - E Bonita Rd Hilttop Dr - Mount Miguel Rd Broadway - Greenfield Dr Lake Wohlford Rd - East Valley Pkwy Broadway - Bear Valley Pkwy Vista Village Dr - SR76 Park Blvd - 1-8 Chase Ave - Washington Ave Via de la Valle - Carmel Valley Rd/SR56 SR 56 - Carmel Mountain Rd Dougias Dr - Manchester Ave Woodland Pkwy - Washington Ave First St - Ei Camino Real Summerfield Ln - Poway Rd SR94 - Sweetwater Rd 1-8 - EI Cajon Blvd Meirose Dr - College Blvd College Ave - SR94 1-8 - SR-67 Sea World Dr - Mission Gorge Rd Balboa - Mission Bay Dr N. Torrey Pines Rd - SR163 La Jolla Village Dr - 1-5 Mission Blvd to Mission Bay Dr IiMuniFrnancial A..2 Page 92 Nouenrber 26,2007 5-180 San Diego Association of Governments RTGP Impact Fee Nexus Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits Grape St Greenfield Dr Grossmont Center Dr H St Harbor Dr Hawthorn St Heritage Rd Hill St Hunte Pkwy Imperial Ave Jackson Dr Jamacha Blvd Jamacha Rd Keamy Villa Rd Kettner Blvd LSt La Costa Ave La Jolla Village Dr La Media Rd La Mesa Blvd Lake Jennings Rd Lake Murray Lake Wohlford Rd Las Posas Rd Laurel St Lemon Grove Ave Leucadia Blvd Linda Vista Rd Lomas Santa Fe Ave Lytton St Main St Manchester Ave Mapleview St Mar Vista Dr Market St Marshall Ave Marshall Ave Marshall Ave Massach usetts Ave Massach usetts Ave Melrose Dr Mira Mesa Blvd Miramar Rd Mission Ave Mission Ave Mission Ave North Harbor Dr - 1-5 E Main St - 1-8 1-8 - Fletcher Pkwy 1-5 - Hilltop Dr Pacific Hwy - 1-5 (National City) 1-5 - North Harbor Dr Otay Mesa Rd - Siempre Viva Rd 1-5 (Oceanside) - Eaton St Proctor Valley Rd - SR 125 Valencia Pkwy - Lisbon St Mission Gorge Rd - 1-8 Sweetwater Pkwy - SR94 Main St - SR94 Pomerado Rd - Waxie Way 1-5 - India St 1-5 -1-805 Carlsbad Blvd - EI Camino Real North Torrey Pines Rd - 1-805 Telegraph Canyon Rd - SR905 Univers~y Ave - 1-8 Mapleview St - 1-8 I -8 - Navajo Rd Valley Ctr Road (N) - Valley Ctr Rd (S) Discovery St - Buena Creek Rd North Harbor Dr - 1-5 Lisbon St - SR94 1 st St - EI Camino Real Morena Blvd - Convoy St 1-5 - Coast Hwy Rosecrans St - Saint Charles St 1-5 - Hilltop Dr EI Camino Real - 1-5 SR67 - Lake Jennings Rd Buena Vista Dr - SR78 Harbor Dr - Valencia Pkwy Fletcher Pkwy - West Main St Cuyamaca - Fletcher Pkwy Main St - Washington Ave Broadway - University Ave Lemon Grove Ave - Broadway Ave SR76 - Rancho Santa Fe Rd 1-805 -1-15 1-805 to 1-15 Andreason Dr - Center City Pkwy Escondido Blvd - Broadway Ave Coast Hwy - Frazee Rd IIIMun;Financial 1Vovenlber 26,200/ A-3 Page 93 5-181 San Diego Association of Government! RTGP Impact Fee Nexus Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits Mission Bay Dr Mission GorQe Rd Mission Rd Mission Road (S-13; inc/. Main St in Failbrook) Montezuma Rd Montezuma Vailey Rd/Palm Canyon Dr (S-22) Morena Blvd National City Blvd Navajo Rd Nimitz Blvd Nobel Dr Nordahi Rd North Harbor Dr North River Rd North Santa Fe Ave North Torrey Pines Rd (S-21) Ocean View Hills Pkwy Oceanside Blvd Old Highway 80 Old HiQhway 80 Olivehain Rd Olympic Pkwy OranQe Ave Otay Lakes Rd Otay Mesa Rd Otay Vailey Rd Pacific HiQhway Palm Ave Palomar Airport Rd Palomar SI Paradise Vailey Rd Paseo Ranchero Plaza Blvd Poinsettia Lane Pomerado Rd Poway Rd Proctor Valley Rd Questhaven Rd Rancho Bernardo Rd Rancho Del Oro Dr Rancho Penasquitos Blvd Rancho Santa Fe Rd Regents Rd Rosecrans St Ruffin Rd San Felipe Rd/Great S. Overland Route (S-2) Grand Ave to 1-5 1-8 - MaQnolia Ave Rancho Santa Fe Rd - Andreason Dr 1-15 - SR76 Fairmount Ave - EI Cajon Blvd SR79 - Imperial Co Line Balboa Ave - 1-8 1-5-CSt WarinQ Rd - Fletcher Pkwy 1-8 - Harbor Dr 1-5 -1-805 SR78- Nordahl Rd Rosecrans St - Grape St Douglas Dr - SR76 (Mission Rd) SR76 - Melrose Dr Carmel Vailey Rd - La Joila VillaQe Dr 1-805 - SR905 Hill St - Melrose Dr SR79 - Sunrise Hwy Buckman Springs Rd - 1-8 (In-ko-pah) EI Camino Real - Rancho Santa Fe Rd Brandywine Ave - SR125 Palomar St - Brandywine Ave Bonita Rd - SR 94 SR905 - SR125 Hilltop Dr - HeritaQe Rd Sea World Dr - Harbor Dr 1-5 - 1-805 Carlsbad Blvd - Business Park Dr 1-5 - Orange Ave 8th Street - Sweetwater Pkwy East H St - Otay Mesa Rd National City Bivd - 8th St Carlsbad Blvd - Melrose Dr 1-15 (N) -1-15 (S) 1-15 - SR67 Mount Miguel Rd - Hunte Pkwy Twin Oaks Vailey Rd - Rancho Santa Fe Rd 1-15 - Summerfield Ln SR 78 - SR 76 SR56 -1-15 Mission Rd - Olivenhain Rd MoraQa Ave - Genesee Ave 1-8 - Canon St Waxle Way - Balboa Ave S-22 - Imperial Co Line IIMuniFinancial A-4 Page 94 ;:',TolJember26,2007 5-182 San Diego Association 0/ Governments RTap Impact Fee Nexus Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits San Marcos Blvd Scripps Poway Pkwy Sea World Dr Siempre Viva Rd Sorrento Valley Blvd Sorrento Valley Rd South Santa Fe Ave Sports Arena Blvd Spring St SR75 Sunrise Highway Sunset Cliffs Blvd Sweetwater Rd Sweetwater Rd Sweetwater Road Sycamore Avenue Ted Williams Pkwy Telegraph Canyon Rd Torrey Pines Rd Twin Oaks Valley Rd Twin Peaks Rd Twin Peaks Rd University Ave Valencia Pkwy Valley Center Rd Vandegrift Blvd Via de la Valle Via Rancho Pkwy Via Rancho Pkwy Vista Sorrento Pkwy Wabash Blvd Washington Ave Washington Ave Washington St West Main St West Valley Pkwy West Vista Way Wildcat Canyon Rd' Willow St WillowSt Willows Road Winter Gardens Blvd Woodland Dr Woodside Ave Business Park Dr - Mission Rd 1-15 - SR67 W Mission Bay Dr - Morena Blvd Heritage Rd - SR905 Sorrento Valley Rd - Camino Santa Fe Ave Carmel Mountain Rd - 1-805 Broadway (Vista) - Pacific SI Sea World Dr - Rosecrans StlSR209 1-8 - SR125 No limits SR79 - 1-8 1-8 - W Mission Bay Dr 2nd St - Willow St 2nd St to Willow St Broadway Ave - Troy SI South Santa Fe Avenue - S. Melrose Dr 1-15 - Twin Peaks Rd 1-805 - Otay Lakes Rd Prospect PI - La Jolla Village Dr Deer Springs Rd - Questhaven Rd Pomerado Rd - Espola Rd Ted Williams Pkwy - Espola Rd 54th St - La Mesa Blvd Market - Imperial Ave SR76 - Lake Wohlford Rd North River Rd - Camp Pendleton Hwy 101 (S-21) - EI Camino Real 1-15 - Del Dios Hwy Sunset Dr - 1-15 Sorrento Valley Blvd - Carmel Mtn Rd Norman Scott Rd - 1-5 EI Norte Pkwy - Center Valley Pkwy EI Cajon Blvd - Jamacha Rd Pacific Hwy - Park Blvd 1-8 - Marshall Ave Claudan Rd - Broadway Jefferson StlSR78 - Vista Village Dr Mapleview Street - San Vicente Rd Sweetwater Rd - Bonita Rd Sweetwater - Bonita Rd 1-8 - Viejas Casino SR67 - Greenfield Dr Barham Dr - EI Norte Pkwy Magnolia Ave - SR67 .. Inclusion in ReQional Arterial System contingent upon designation as a four-lane arterial by the County of San Diego. I!llMun;Fmncial Nouember 26, 200i A-5 Page 95 5-183 ApPENDIX B: RETAIL SPENDING AND SALES ANALYSIS This appendix presents the analysis conducted to estimate the amount of commercial development within San Diego County that is associated with spending by local (San Diego County) households. The following steps summarize the approach taken for the analysis and are explained in more detail below. 1. Estimate total potential spending by local households based on estimates of per household spending by retail category; 2. Compare total local household spending potential with total retail sales to estimate by retail category: a. Leakage of spending by local households to retail establishments outside the County, b. Capture of sales from visitors outside the County by local retail establishments; 3. Calculate the share of retail sales associated with local household spending; and 4. Validate the estimate of total local household spending by analyzing visitor industry data. All data is from 2004 because this was the last complete year of retail sales data available from the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) at the time of this report. TOTAL HOUSEHOLD SPENDING Total spending by San Diego households is estimated by adjusting per household spending based on statewide data for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. As an initial step in the analysis, statewide taxable retail sales by category were compared with San Diego County sales to determine if any anomalies existed in San Diego sales patterns that should be accommodated in the model. As shown in Table B.t, San Diego has about $44 billion in taxable retail sales in 2004 compared to statewide sales of $500 billion. Sales patterns in the County are very similar to the statewide sales though the County has slighrly more spending in retail stores compared to non-retail stores. The retail store categories that exhibit higher levels of spending compared to the state as a whole (apparel, general merchandise, specialty, and food and beverage) are associated with visitor spending, indicative of San Diego's strong tourism industry. We also conjecture that the higher levels of spending in the building material category are associated with spending by Mexican visitors, though we could not find specific data to support this hypothesis. IiIMuniFlflancial J:-..ToM17lbllf'26,2007 5-184 B-t Page 96 St111 Diego Association ojGovernments RTGP Impact Fee Nexus SIH4; Table B.1 - Taxable Retail Sales (2004) Taxable Retail Sales 2004 (SOOOs} Percent of Cateoorv San San Diego Diego Callf~ Diff- Retail Cate 0 Coun California Cou ornla erence Aooarel Store.,,> Women's Apparel 420,000 4,617,000 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% Men's Apparel 107,000 1,034,000 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% Family Apparel 907,000 8,819,000 2.0% 1.8% _0.3% Shoes 210,000 2 487 000 0.5% .Q2f, m.O%) Subtotal 1,644,000 16,957,000 3.7% 3.4% 0.3% General MArchandise General Merchandise 4,721,000 47,948,000 10.6% 9.6% 1.0% Drug Store 484,000 5 992 000 .1.J.!1 1.2% lQ.J:t.l Subtotal 5,205,000 53,940,000 11.7% 10.8% 0.9% ~ Gift, Art Goods, Novelty 167,000 1,858,000 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% Sporting Goods 353,000 3,652,000 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% Florists 122,000 1,078,000 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Photo Equip., and Supplies 37,000 523,000 0.1% 0.1% (O.O%) Musical Instruments 121,000 1,516,000 0.3% 0.3% (0.0%) Stationery and Books 356,000 4,018,000 0.8% 0.8% (0.0%) Jewelry 258,000 2,638,000 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% Office and School Supply 1.411,000 15,661,000 3.2% 3.1% 0.0% Other Specialties 1,716,000 18018000 3.9% ;;&!, 0.3% Subtotal 4,541,000 48,962,000 10.2% 9.8% 0.4% Jlroilli Grocery - All Type Liq. 1,005,000 12,550,000 2.3% 2.5% (0.2%) Grocery. All Other 732,000 7 276 000 1.6% 1.5% 0.2% Subtotal 1,737,000 19,826,000 3.9% 4.0% (0.1%) Food and Beveraoe Restaurant - No Alcohol 1,890,000 19,960,000 4.3% 4.0% 0.3% Restaurant. Bar -Beer-Wine 795,000 10,792,000 1.8% 2.2% (0.4%) Restaurant - Bar -All Type Liq. 1,363,000 12523000 .illi 2&& 0.6% Subtotal 4,048,000 43,275,000 9.1% 8.7% 0.4% Household Home Furnishings 1,162,000 11,991,000 2.6% 2.4% 0.2% Household Appliances 387,000 4414 000 0.9% 0.9% m.O%) Subtotal 1,549,000 16.405,000 3.5% 3.3% 0.2% Buildina Material Building Material 2,649,000 25,603,000 6.0% 5.1% 0.8% Hardware Stores 231,000 3,392,000 0.5% 0.7% (0.2%) Plumbing and Elec. Supply 414,000 4,086,000 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% Paint, Glass, Wallpaper 47,000 1 074000 .Q."lli 0.2% l..QJ..'&l Subtotal 3,341,000 34,155,000 7.5% 6.8% 0.7% Automotive Auto Dealers - New 5,541,000 59,683,000 12.5% 11.9% 0.5% Aut Dealers - Used 551,000 5,752,000 1.2% 1.2% 0.1% Auto Supplies and Parts 421,000 5,334,000 0.9% 1.1% (0.1%) Service Stations 2,805,000 32 760 000 6.3% 6.6% m.2%) Subtotal 9,318,000 103,529,000 21.0% 20.7% 0.3% Other Retail Stores Liquor Stores 186,000 2,350,000 0.4% 0.5% (0.1%) Second-hand Merch. 66,000 534,000 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Farm Imp!. Dealers 177,000 2.976,000 0.4% 0.6% (0.2%) Farm and Garden Supply 95,000 2,386,000 0.2% 0.5% (0.3%) Fuel and Ice Dealers 9,000 321,000 0.0% 0.1% (0.0%) Mobile Home and Camper 108,000 1,453,000 0.2% 0.3% (0.0%) Boat, Motorcycle, Plane 321,000 3104000 0.7% 0.6% Q..lli Subtotal 962,000 13,124,000 2.2% 2.6% (0.5%) Subtotal Retail Stores 32,345,000 350,173,000 72.7% 70.0% 2.7% Non-Retail stores Business and Personal Services 2,147,000 22,307,000 4.8% 4.5% 0.4% All Other Outlets 9 978 000 1 ?7 597 000 ~ ~ (31%) Subtotal 12,125,000 149,904,000 27.3% 30.0% (2.7%) Total 44,470,000 500,077,000 Source: Taxable Salt3$ln Canfomia (Sales & Use Tv) DUring 2004, California State Board of Equalization. IIlMun;Fmncial l\"'olJe1J1ber 26,2007 E.2 Page 97 5-185 San Diego As.rociation of Government.r RTCIP Impact p" Nexus Study To separate out household from business spending, all household spending is assumed to occur in retail stores and all business-to-business spending is assumed to occur in non-retail stores. As shown in Table B.l, non-retail stores include "Business and Personal Services" and "All Other Outlets". Both categories are largely composed of retail establishments that sell primarily to businesses. The "All Other Outlets" category primarily includes manufacturing, warehousing and other establishments that sell primarily to businesses. There is some overlap in the source of spending (household versus business) across all retail (store and non-store) categories but this overlap is assumed to be largely offsetting between total retail store and total non-store spending. This approach is commonly used in retail spending and sales analysis to separate household from business spending. Per household spending estimates were generated based on statewide data for retail stores adjusted for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. San Diego's median income is about one percent less than the State's median income resulting in a commensurate adjustment to state per household spending patterns by retail store category. San Diego per household spending is multiplied by the number of households in San Diego to estimate total spending for 2004. As shown in Table B.2 this approach results in a total spending potential for San Diego households of $30 billion. Table B.2 - Household Taxable Retail Spending Potential (2004) Total Saendina Per Household Saendina California Householdes ($0005) State San Diego County Total Soendina San Diego Households ($OOOs ) Major Business Group Households 12,015,591 1,043,221 Median Household Income $ 47,493 $ 47,067 Household 8oendino and Sales Per Household Soendina Apparel Stores $ 16,957,000 $ 1,411 $ 1,399 $ 1,459,000 General Merchandise 53,940,000 4,489 4,449 4,641,000 Specialty 48,962,000 4,075 4,038 4,213,000 Grocery 19,826,000 1,650 1,635 1,706,000 Food and Beverage 43,275,000 3,602 3,569 3,724,000 Household 16,405,000 1,365 1,353 1,412,000 Building Material 34,155,000 2,843 2,817 2,939,000 Automotive 103,529,000 8,616 8,539 8,908,000 Other Retail Stores 13.124000 1092 1082 1 129.000 Total - Consumer $ 350,173,000 $ 29,143 $ 28,882 $ 30,131,000 Source: u.S. Census, Table P53; California Department of Finance, Rerpot E-5; Table A.1; MuniFinancial. llMuniF'tnancial ll\JolJemOel' 26,200/ 5-186 B-3 Page 98 San Diego Association of Governments RTaP Impact Fee Nexus Study CAPTURE AND LEAKAGE Capture and leakage are common concepts used in retail analysis. Not all local household spending occurs in San Diego County; some spending leaks out to other areas when residents travel or are otherwise attracted to retail opportunities outside the County. Furthermore, not all retail store sales in San Diego County are generated by local households; some are captured by stores from customers visiting the County from other locations including Mexico. Given San Diego's attractiveness as a tourist destination and its proximity to the Mexican border, one would expect that a significant share of total retail store sales would represent capture of visitor spending. Given this regional economic context, we estimated leakage rates by major store category to calculate net local household spending in San Diego County by categcry. We then compared this estimate of spending with actual sales by store category and calculated the amount of outside capture that the category would need to force local household spending to equal local sales. This analysis is shown in Table B.3. The model resulted in a leakage estimate of eight percent of household spending, and capture estimate of 14 percent of retail store sales. The differences between the estimates of local spending and sales by category shown io the middle columns are due to rounding. Table B.3 . San Diego County Local Household Taxable Retail Spending & Sales (2004) A S C=Ax(1-S) = IE E=Gx(1-F) =1-( I ) Potential SDendino local SDendlna/Sales Reconciliation Actual Sales San Diego Based on San Diego Households Spending Olff- County Sales Ma"or Business Grou $0009 leaka e $0009 erence' $0009 Apparel Stores $ 1,459,000 15% $ 1,240,000 1% $ 1,233,000 25% $ 1,644,000 General Merchandise 4,641,000 15% 3,945,000 (0%) 3,956,000 24% 5,205,000 Specialty 4,213,000 15% 3,581,000 (0%) 3,587,000 21% 4,541,000 Grocery 1,706,000 0% 1,706,000 0% 1,702,000 2% 1,737,000 Food and Beverage 3,724,000 15% 3,165,000 0% 3,157,000 22% 4,048,000 Household 1,412,000 0% 1,412,000 0% 1,410,000 9% 1,549,000 Building Material 2,939,000 0% 2,939,000 (0%) 2,940,000 12% 3,341,000 Automotive 8,908,000 0% 8,908,000 (0%) 8,945,000 4% 9,318,000 Other Retail Stores 1129000 150/0 960 000 JQ'!cl 962 000 Ql!, 962 000 Total $ 30,131,000 a% $ 27,856,000 (0%) $ 27,892,000 14% $ 32,345,000 Leakage/Capture Total $ 2,275,000 $ 4,453,000 Difference not equal to zero due to rounding. SOlSCe: Tables A.1 and A.2: MuniFlnancial. The leakage rates in Table B.3 that determine the local spending amounts and outside capture rates were estimated based on (1) survey data of visitor spending in San Diego estimating spending by retail category, and (2) an assumptions that comparison goods such as apparel and general merchandise are likely to have higher leakage rates compared to convenience goods such as groceries. Local households are most likely to spend on comparison goods and travel related activities outside the County in the "apparel stores", "general merchandise", "specialty", and "food and beverage" categories. For these categories a leakage rate of 15 percent was estimated. For all other categories all household spending was assumed to remaio local (zero leakage). The "other retail store" was a special case in that llMuniFinancial ~~ofle1JJber 26,2007 B4 Page 99 5-187 San Diego Arsociation of Governments RTGP Impact Fee Nexu.r Sl1iify it was the only category where potential local spending was greatet than total sales. For this category we assumed a 15 percent leakage rate to generate a zero percent capture rate. LOCAL SPENDING SHARE OF TOTAL SALES The share of total retail sales in the County associated with spending by local residential development can be calculated from the results of Tables B.l and B.3. As shown in Table B.4, an estimated 62.6 percent of total retail spending (store and non-store) is associated with spending by residential development (households) located in San Diego County. Table 8.4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending in San Diego County (2004) Taxable Retail Sales ($0005) Share Total Taxable Retail Spending $ 44,470,000 100.0% Local Residential Taxable Spending Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending 27,856,000 16,614,000 62.6% 37.4% Sources: Tables 8.1. and 8.3; MuniFinancial. VISITOR INDUSTRY SPENDING Visitor industry spending was analyzed to validate the estimate of retail spending associated with local households. Data regarding spending by overnight visitors from the San Diego Conventions and Visitor Bureau (SDCVB) was supplemented with research on cross-border spending by residents of Mexico (primarily day visitors) to conStruct a comprehensive model of visitor spending. As shown in Table B.S, visitors spent about $8.249 billion in San Diego County in 2004. Of the amount about $3.901 billion was associated with hotel accommodations, food, drugs, services, and other non-retail taxable items. Taxable retail spending equaled the remaining $4.348 billion split between two categories, "restaurants and dining" and "shopping". This estimate of taxable retail spending is nearly equal to the estimated $4.489 billion in capture shown at the bottom of Table B.3, suggesting that the model's estimates of local household spending based on the SBOE data and estimated leakage rates are reasonable. BMuniFlOanciat I\[ovembcl" 26,2007 5-188 B.5 Page 100 San Diego A..rJociation ofGovernmentJ RTCIP Impact Pee Nexus Study Table 8.5: Visitor Indust Percent Non-taxable Taxable Retail Amount Retail Sales Sales 1,324,000 $ 1,324,000 $ 1,821,000 273,000 1,548,000 552,000 552,000 1,269,000 1,269,000 552.000 552 000 5,518,000 2,701,000 $ 2,817,000 Visitor Soendino (Non-Mexican Visitors - see Notel Lodging 24% $ Restaurants & Dining' 33% Attractions & Entertainment 10% Shopping 23% Other 10% Subtotal 100% $ VisitorSoendina (Mexican Visitors ~ see Note) Lodging2 [Incl. in "Othe~'] Restaurants & Dining'" 5% 137,000 Attractions & Entertainment' [Incl. in "Other1 Shopping4 52% 1,420,000 Other' 43% 1 174 000 Subtotal 100% $ 2,731,000 $ Total Taxable Retail Visnor SDendina Lodging Restaurants & Dining Attractions & Entertainment Shopping Other (prtmartly groceries) Total Note: NonMMexican visitor spending data based on San Diego Conventions & Visitor Bureau (SDCVB) estimates. Shares by category based on a 2002 visitor survey. The survey focused on overnight visitors and therefore excluded most spending by visitors from Mexico because a large majority of visits are day trips. This study assumes that the SDCVB estimates exclude all Mexican visitor spending. Mexican visitor spending is based on the Ghaddar and Brown study. 1 NonMtaxable retail sales represent tips for service estimated by SDCVB. Same percentage applied to estimate of visitor spending from Mexico. :/. The Ghaddar and Brown study did not separate out this category in estimates of spending. 3 Ghaddar and Brown study did not separate out this category for California estimates. Share of spending estimated at one--half of share estimated for Texas and Arizona Mexican visitors based on a higher percentage of day trips in California. Share deducted from food and groceries category. ... Includes the clothing (46 percent) and appliances and furniture (six percent) from Ghaddar and Brown study. ~ Includes groceries (32 percent) personal hygiene (five percent) and other (six percent) from Ghaddar and Brown study. Sources: San Diego Conventions & Visitor Bureau, San Diego County Visitor Industry Summary (2004); San Diego Conventions & Visitors Bureau, email from Susan Bruinzeel, June 11, 2006; Ghaddar, Suad and Cynthia J. Brown, The Economic Impact of Mexican Visitors Along the U. S.-Mexico Border: A Research Synthesis, Center for Border Economic Studies, University of Texas- Pan American, December 2005, Table 4, FiQures 1,2, and 3; MuniFinancial. The only significant discrepancy between the visitor 'pending estimates based on SDCVB and Mexican visitor survey data, and the outside capture estimates based on the SBOE data, is in the food and beverage category. The visitor spending data for restaurants and dining, substantially the same category as the SBOE food and beverage category, resulted in an IIilIMun;F_ November 26,2001 B-6 Page 101 5-189 San Diego Association of Governments RTaP Impact Pee Nexus Study estimate of $1,664 million in taxable spending (see Table B.5). The SBOE model tesulted in an outside capture estimate of $883 million (see the difference between total sales and the local spending estimate for this category in Table B.3). The visitor spending estimate of $1,664 million would represent a significant share, about 41 percent, of total sales in the SBOE food and beverage category. Consequendy, we suspect that the visitor survey data ptobably overestimates spending in this category. Rather than reduce estimates of total capture, the approach taken for this study assumes that the visitor survey data underestimates taxable retail spending by an equal amount across all other categories. Therefore the estimate of total retail sales associated with local household spending remains a reasonable estimate for the purposes of this analysis (shifting the burden of commercial traffic associated with local household spending to residential land uses). IllMun;F"""", ],ropcmber26,200/ 5-190 B-! Page 102 ApPENDIX C: LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS Tbis appendix presents the steps that local agencies are required to take when adopting and updating a funding prograni to implement the RTCIP. The first checklist describes steps for initial adoption of the RTCIP impact fee and the second checklist shows steps for the required annual and five-year updates. These checklists follow a timeline that meets the requirements established by the California Government Code section 60017 and the TransNet Ordinance. IIlIMuniF<nan<:iaI NOlJe17Jb~r 26,2007 c-! Page 103 5-191 Sail Diego ASJoci'ation of Govemment.r RTClP Impact Pee N,xu.r S tu4J INITIAL RTCI P FEE ADOPTION - LOCAL AGENCY IMPLE.MENTATION CHECKLIST Note: Local agencies with existing impact fee programs that meet the requirements of the RTCIP impact fee may not need to complete all steps outlined below. o Prepare initial Funding Program! 2007 o Estimate annual RTCIP impact fee revenues o Identify Regional Arterial System2 improvements (location and description) and estimate costs o Estimate construction schedule and program RTCIP impact fee for identified improvements (minimum five- year planning horizon) o For improvements to be funded with RTCIP fees and other revenues, identify the anticipated source, amount, and timing of other revenues o Work with adjacent local agencies if improvements extend beyond boundaries o Optional- Prepare local nexus study (if required to substitute for or supplement SANDAG's RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study) o Prepare fee adoption documents for Council action o Draft ordinance and resolution to enable local agency to impose RTCIP impact fee o If using SANDAG's RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study revise Funding Program based on updated fee schedule Early 2008 o Prepare for Council public hearing and fee adoption3 o At least 14 days prior mail notice to any interested party that has filed a written request to be notified o At least 10 days prior make nexus study, Funding Program, and fee schedule available to public o At least 10 days prior publish notice of meeting o Place public hearing and adoption of ordinance/resolution on agenda of regularly scheduled meeting Before April 1 , 2008 1 The term "Funding Program" is used in the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program of the TransNet Extmsion, Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (RTCIP). The Funding Program as described herein is designed to meet certain requirements of both the RTCIP and the Mitigation Fee Act (California Govmzmmt Cod, Sections 66000-660025). 2 The Regional Arterial System is defined by SAND.AG. See San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Pinal2030 fugionalTranportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005) and applicable amendments. 3 (:alifornia Government Cod, Sections 6062, 66002, 66016(a), 66018, and 65090.S IIlMuniRnancial l:',lollember 26,2007 5-192 C-2 Page 104 San Diego.AfJociation ofGovmrments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study o Adopt RTCIP impact fee and Funding Program at regularly scheduled Council meeting and submit to Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee4 By April 1 , 2008 o Incorporate RTCIP impact fee and Funding Program into local agency's FY 2008-09 budget process5 (J Establish separate account for collection of fee revenue (J Appropriate annual estimate of fee revenues and expenditures By July 1, 2008 o Collect RTCIP impact fee (J Fees become effective no sooner than 60 days following adoption6 (J Collect at same time as other building permit fees o Deposit revenues in separate account By July 1, 2008 4 RTCIP, Section A(5). 5 California Government Code Section 66007(b). Adoption of the Funding Program and appropriation of fee revenues will enable collection of the fee at building permit issuance rather than at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy. 6 California Govemmmt Code Section 66017(.). Ili!lMunFonancial r-,ro/Je17Jber 26,2001 C-- -, Page 105 5-193 San Diego Association ?/ Governments RTGP Impact F.. Nexuf Study ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR RTCI P FEE UPDATE- LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST Note: Local agencies with existing impact fee programs that meet the requirements of the RTCIP impact fee will need to integrate the steps outlined below into the periodic update of their existing programs. Note: Years shown are for the first fiscal year of RTCIP implementation. Schedule would repeat annually thereafter. o Receive transmittal from SANDAG of RTCIP impact fee schedule updated for cost inflation o Update Funding Program 7 o Estimate annual RTCIP impact fee revenues o Update Regional Arterial System8 improvements ~ocation and description) and estimated costs o Update construction schedule and program RTCIP impact fee for identified improvements (minimum five- year planning horizon) o For improvements to be funded with RTCIP fees and other revenues, identify the anticipated source, amount, and timing of other revenues o Continue to work with adjacent local agencies if improvements extend beyond boundaties o Optional- Update local nexus study (if required to substitute for or supplement SANDAG RTGP Impact Fee Nexus Sttl&) o Prepare for Council public hearing and fee update9 o Draft resolution updating fee schedule o At least 14 days prior mail notice to any interested party that has filed a written request to be notified o At least 10 days prior make nexus study, Funding Program, and fee schedule available to public o At least 10 days prior publish notice of meeting By February 1 (2009) February (2009) March (2009) 7 The term "Funding Program" is used in the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program of the Tran,rNet Extension, Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (RTCIP). The Funding Program as described herein is designed to meet certain requirements of both the RTCIP and the J.\.1itigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000-660025). 8 The Regional .Arterial System is defined by S.ANDAG. See San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Flnal2030 &gionalTrantportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005) and applicable amendments. 9 California Government Code Sections 6062, 66002, 66016(a), 66018, and 65090. IIMuniFrnancial lVol;ember26,2007 5-194 C4 Page 106 San Diego Association of Governments RTOP Impact Pee Nexus Stu& 0 Adopt updated RTCIP impact fee and Funding By Aprill (2009) Program at regularly scheduled Council meeting and submit to Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC)10 0 Update RTCIP impact fee and Funding Program as By July 1 (2009) part of local agency's annual budget processll 0 Appropriate annual estimate of fee revenues and expenditures 0 Prepare Annual RTCIP report based on audited financial Fall (2009) data for prior fiscal year 12 0 Brief description of the fee 0 Fee schedule 0 Fiscal year beginning and ending balance of fee account 0 Fee revenue collected and interest earned 0 Identification of each improvement funded by the fee and amount of the expenditures on each improvement including the total percentage of the public improvement cost funded with fees 0 Identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete the improvement (may refer to adopted Funding Program) 0 Description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. 0 Amount of refunds made, if any 0 Submit Funding Program and Annual RTCIP report Fall (2009) to ITOC13 10 RTCIP, Section A(5). 11 California Government Code Section 66007(b). Adoption of the Funding Program and appropriation of fee revenues will enable collection of the fee at building permit issuance rather than at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy. 12 California Government Code Section 66006(b)(1) and RTCIP, Section G(2). 13 (RTCIP, Section G(2). TIlls schedule may require amendment of Section G(2). IIMuniFinancial lVovembe-r 26,2007 C.j Page 107 5-195 San DiegoAIIociation of Governments RTOP Impact Pee Nexus Study o Submit Funding Program and Annual RTCIP report to Council14 o Make annual RTCIP report available to the public o Review annual RTCIP report at regularly scheduled Council meeting at least 15 days following issuance of report (by January 15) o At least 15 days prior to review of annual RTCIP report at regularly scheduled Council meeting mail notice to any interested party that has filed a written request to be notified o Prepare and submit Five-Year RTCIP Report to ITOClS o To be done after the end of every five years following adoption of the program in FY 2008-09 o Use Funding Program as basis for report o Identify the purpose of the fee, i.e. improvement of Regional Arterial System to accommodate new development o Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose of the fee by referencing the Funding Program and showing that anticipated fee revenues are fully programmed to fund planned improvements o Identify soutces, amounts, and riming of other revenues if needed to complete planned improvements o Fee revenues not committed to a planned improvement within five years of collection must be refunded to the ITOC o Prepare and submit Five-Year RTCIP Report to Council16 o To be done after the end of every five years following adoption of the program in FY 2008-09 14 California Government Cod, Section 66006(b)(2). 15 RTClP, Section G(4). This schedule may require amendment of Section G(4). 16 Califomia Go"""",..t Code Section 66001 (d). January 1 (2010) Fall (2013) January 1 (2014) I!IllMuniRnancial 1'iofll'flZber26,2007 Co Page 108 5-196 .~ 5-197 TORY R. WALKER ENGINEERING, INC. WATER RESOURCES PLANNING & ENGINEERING September 24, 2007 Kirk Ammerman City of Chula Vista 315 Fourth Avenue, Suite M Chula Vista, CA 91910 RE: Otay Ranch Village 11 - Chula Vista Tract No. 01-11 Scour Estimation and Riprap Repair Below Gabion Drop Structure #1 Dear Kirk, We have prepared this letter to summarize our analysis of scour, or slope equilibrium, downstream of Gabion Drop Structure #1 below Tract No. 01-11 and to provide supporting calculations for the proposed riprap repair downstream of the structure. As we have previously stated, Gabion Structure #2 appears to be stable and not in need of any remedial repairs. SCOUR ANALYSIS The expected long-term scour within the channel between Gabion Structures #1 and #2 was evaluated by applying fluvial geomorphic principles. Field observations and survey data were used in conjunction with these principles to estimate an anticipated scour depth at Gabion Structure #1. From field observations, it is evident that, for most of the reach between the two gabion structures, the channel bed has reached a new state of equilibrium based on the new (developed) hydrologic regime. The comparison of the channel profile over time, based on survey data, verifies this observation. The attached profile exhibit illustrates this with the old channel profile, the existing channel profile, and the anticipated long-term profile. It is evident from the application of fluvial geomorphic principles to the field observations and surveyed data that a uniform equilibrium slope of approximately 0.0095 flit! is forming between the two gabion structures. The advantage of having the above data, especially the gap in years between the two profiles, is that it provides a better basis for estimating scour and an equilibrium 973 VALE TERRACE DRIVE. SUITE 202, VISTA, CA 92084 I PH: 760.414.9212 Fx: 760.414.9277 I WWW.TRWENGINEERING.COM 5-198 Otay Ranch Village 11 - Chula Vista Tract No. 01-11 Scour Estimation and Riprap Repair Below Gabion Drop Structure #1 February 26, 2008 slope than mathematical predictive models, which are based on empirical formulas from other stream systems. RIPRAP DESIGN A HEC-RAS model was prepared to estimate average velocities in the channel downstream of Gabion Structure #1. Flow rates for the analysis were taken from Chapter 9 of the Master Drainage Study for Otay Ranch Village 11. The upstream end of the model was the top of the upstream row of gab ion baskets, and the downstream end of the model was at Channel Sta. 7+50, as shown on the attached exhibit. The sections were taken from the recent survey of the drop structure. Sections 80 through 105 were adjusted in elevation and cross-sectional shape to reflect the anticipated equilibrium condition of the reach, which consisted of a . trapezoidal section with 5-foot bottom width and 2:1 side slopes. The results of the HEC-RAS analysis were used to size the riprap that will be placed downstream of the gabion structure. . The unit weight of the rock riprap was assumed to be 165 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). % Ton gradation riprap is recommended, based on the velocity midwayan the rip rap slope. The calculated velocity at the lowest point of the riprap slope is not appropriate, as this would be the potential scour hole where riprap is designed to unravel and fill in the scour hole. Therefore our recommendation is to use the RSP Class % Ton riprap with the minimum layer thickness of 4.0 feet. The recommended riprap gradation is presented below, as presented by Caltrans and adopted by the City. Rock Ri ra Gradations Caltrans RSP Class, % Ton Riprap La er Thickness = 4.0 feet % Larger Than Rock Size 1-ton 50 - 100 0-5 1/2-ton 1/4-ton A filter blanket is required, as well as RSP-fabric type A. An upper layer of smaller rock and a lower layer of sand are needed for % Ton riprap. Riorao Installation Method The Caltrans Rock Slope Protection Design Manual suggests that Method B placement be used for % Ton Riprap. With Method B placement, rock is dumped near the planned location, and then worked into place using machinery. 973 V AlJ!. TERRACE DRIVE, SUITE 202, VISTA., CA 92084 I PH: 760.414.92.12. Fx: 760.414.9277 1 WWW.TRWENGINEERlNG.COM 5-19il Otay Ranch Village 11 - Chula Vista Tract No. 01-11 Scour Estimation and Riprap Repair Below Gabion Drop Structure #1 February 26, 2008 Should you have any questions, please call Tory Walker at (760) 414-9212 or (760) 420-7922. Sincerely, +~~ TORY R. WALKER ENGINEERING, INC. Tory R. Walker, P.E. Presiden 973VALETERRACEDRlVE,SUlTE202, VISTA,CA92084 I PH: 760.414.9212 FX:760,414.9277) www.TRWENGINEERING.COM 5-20:1) MasterOralnage S~ may Ranch VlJIage 11 CHAPTER 9 OTAY RANCH VILLAGE 11 EXISTING ANO PROPOSED CONOrnON COMPARISON Longitude: 11ft'5T - Velocity Flow V_ "" "" 100-Year,l- 3JI" ... 7,02 1170 7.72 5G-Year, 1.2.25" .... 8.13 ... 7,02 26-Yesr, I ==2.0'" ,sa ~sa ... 6.57 iQ-Year.I-1.7" 133 5.11 2>1 e," 5--Vear I=-Ui" .. 4.85 '83 5,84 iOU-Year, 1..3.0" .... .,82 .61 7.69 6Q..Year, ,..2:lS" 272 6.92 ..., .... 26-Year, 1-2.0" '09 .... .64 6.4' 1o-Year,I~1.'" 148 .... ... .,.. 5-Vacl-1.5" 111 ".70 214 5.6. 1BI BASIN INLET 1OQ.Vesr,I-3,a" ... 8.75 70' 7,2' 5Q..Yeer,r-2.26" 303 .... ... B.7S 2&-Y~,I.2.0. .33 e,,, 402 8.56 io-Vear,I=1.r ,.. e,eo 307 8.a1 S-Year.I-1.6" 12. 5,99 .... 8,34 UNIVERSITY SITE NORMAL DEPTH CHANNEL ANALYSIS C11 I N o ~ Summary of Existing and Developed Condition Channel VeJociIIes H.....ECtDATA~~..... ESI.t_~~ W.cL.I!lle&.021~ SNOI8'Q'~ 1 3S'Q'Hd 'll1J~31J.o!O~d 13NN'V' 'Q'lll^H:)N'n:!A~l~ I, \\ \\\ .:',\.' j '\ .\ ,'\ I, \, \ ' '\" \". \ \, .\. \ \.\\, "- \ \ \ "- " \, '~' \ ',,- ' '" .'\ '" -,< "'< ' " \'" '" <. '-',-, -'- " " '--- '-...,.... ~',- " .......~ . j ", Ii I " " , , " /,// ~ j / .; Ii: , ,!! ,:I, ., \, \,\ \ \ . . I I _:.~ ~ /~.// .:.--.... i Ii , ../".,---~. " " "" , " '-, /~/ \ ;\ / ---.-.-",. .....,. '" ", , -~" ',., " , "', " " "'" " ,//) ../' //"'/ / /"~/"//' / " ,/~ / i \, i, I' \, .\ ;'" '. , \ , , " " '- . ~ , , " .\ \" ! I / , , ", \, " " \ -, '-, " 5 202 " " " "~I " / ~-_...., ,.", .---.-..,'..... ...~-_.. ..-"'-:- ..->...~/"' ;./- /",.,-' / ! I (, // '-, " , " " ~'f1: . . 0 ;:;Q; III l 5~; {Ol ::c.a: :-1 - .. Ill!! / -' /" ;0:' ~'i -/ " ~ . ~ I ~ ~ iii_ ii ~i ~ !<j . ~~ ,~. g~ ,1I.!; <( ...'" ~~ > z" ~ s 5!t> 1 -:---~ ,-..------ ',-; ,~,/ ) / / ,/ / /"'-~. /::~ " \ ~, jjl .\ i ) r\ \ \ \ \ \ \ '. i \', \.' / "~ \ \ \ ') ,'I. \ ,.. \ . , , \, \. \. .1 I j, , ii [ CJ1 I ..., o to> .. 126167" R,rp.-'RAf'.",. a-423'.51 . i 126188 ..r", J!;420. ~ 1 126146X, GROUNo ' El.-419.68 I 1261 RIP- - :~1 a=420.1' 25168. lP-RAP <#23.22 126185 ~ CROlW a-,420.011261 11 . RIP ~4~111 EL-4!9.79 261 tp ,P" 126140 v.~ GROlW 6184 a-419.33x L=420-.1e-.... "116173 ..." . 126160 ~ ~R!E;fW'23 '2"..m TOt' '~ E1:~ .~. '_. ' EL-424.71 "".. . '," "JJDf~181' . II?" 126177 128178 a"424.~" RIP-R " .. RiP-1W' EL"424.77. 51""". a=424;'84 TOP .~po. EL-424.69 . ~ . EL-425.84 126183 RIP-R a-425.23 126164 RIP-'RAP EL=425.39 126162 T EL-425.15 128165 RIP- 'EL=424.37 . " 2 ~ 1'2617 - 'RIP EL""2423 126187. , -----"- TCExl EL-4~ I.A5 I . "--~l 8-' r-_ \, RI\.~~'71 . . /{:;tI.S f'- a=424:08 : . p~lr_. .. 1251Be : .1 pu+tJ/) GROlW. '\... .'.....,.. a.421.04\. 126170 ,"r", RIP-R ( '/"1 s~~. E1:-423.94 1 .6 ~_. I J>IC"'. ) : .. ...,.; . '.. P~I ..' 126183 . ---.............~, ../ GRQUIlO '126176 a-.421. 72X RIP~ . a-423.98 ~ 126158 X.TOP- ' .. .-::EL'i'427.7.4 '-I x~I60,__'" EL-=425.52 126157 XTOP ......~.EL...27.64 . '''':':~:'.12615& -~ . ." ,"---)<:TOE a424.94 26135 IP-RAP -;419.62 126149 , TOP ~~19...]O .' ':- ~;... .'I~- 'f._ 'X 125151 \"'" fa:: a-413.,64,p- 126152'<",' . ~A-i.~4: I .:\ ,. 126'143: T(lp'-~ 1', ' E\.-42D.67 f2~i39 .' RIP.-RAP .. \E1:~4'19.27 6141 " E1:-4ZL'25" '--' '1~6142 ,~~.~~ liD. J ..;:;. , ./ ."\" \ ,.1.f2:.0 . 1/ i 5)50' . -'19.08'26154 '. T , . ..w-.12.79 \!. 126.153, . ,... .'..... '1' .. ',TOE I E1:=412.85 , 12614'1 , TOP "E1:-419.46 126128 T E1:-412.66 125127 T ;: a-411.63. -.,..' 126146 GROUNo a...421.02 lo~ Ii .' ... ;,' I I (-()f-/'"3 126133 . XTOP ....a~43Q,.69 . -. '.."'Tl6132 ~TOE a=422.3D 126131 ="KTOP E1:-422.04 126130 X TOE EL~419.21 126129 TOP 0.-418.28 126126 TOP EL-418.05 26125 ROlINJ -419.69 100 "-"I7'IY' 1/ I.!. L r7 G;E. <. ->'''1 . .>~.t- Cl )> P71/ucA( /1 Crl-EIM} ;"-=Jo' SNOIE~J LY 31iJOl:ld l.3NN'dH:l L 3S'o'Hd 'LL3~'d11lAH:JN'o'MA'dl.O 5-204 '......,....'0. ~~ " l · ; ! i ,~ ~ iz ~ ,~= j ~~i .~<!- ;j~ ,,~ ~~ .~. >- g~ ~ z- S :>~u ~l oj . . ; 'I . I "' ~ ..- "' ~ iii o CD ~ s '" o ~ ~ o ~ . c o :c " .--~-<l>- 4 ,. . o . --.....-- -~ HEC-RAS Plan: un River: Otay Reach: Gabion QT<lliiI'~ J, MinChEl' 651.001 441.001 354.00' 269.00 214.00 651.00 441.001 354.00 i 269.00 : 214.001 651.00 441.00 354.00 269.00 214.001 423.79 423.79 423.791 423.79! 423.79 ( I 423.791 423.79 423.79 423.79 423.79 "'--420.071 420.07 i 420.07 ! 420.07 420.07 651.00 419.27 -- 419.271 441.00 354.00 419.27i 269.00 419.271 -,.- 214.00 419.27 _.. I 651.001 413.64 441.00~ 413.64 354.001 413.64 269.001 413,64! 214.00 413.64 - I 651.00 409.20 - 441.001 409.20 -- 354.00 i 409.20 269.001 409.20 214.00 - 409.20! : 1)'i,"S:aoV"11C'~ '11Jll'"C'.\11C,11F._:11111'low.,Aiila": 'ToP.Wldli>l'!" 425.98'j 425.62 426.41 -0~Oi02ii5 5.28 123_35 73.001 __ o,n, 425.61 425.29L_.. 4-25.94 0.010138' 4.56 --- 96.73 71.43l__~ 425.43 425.121 425.71 0.010401 ..4.24 83.42 70.121. 0.69' 425.23 __424.94: 425.46 0.0099621 _.. 3.85 69.82 65.nl 0.66 425.08 __ 424-821 425.281 0.0097491 3.53 80-601 . ~I 0.64 425.62 425.621 426.321-.'~~O:O21607! 6.681 97.411-'-- 71.5O! j-.01 _.__'_ 425.291 425.29 425.841 0.0229781 5.98) 73.721 67.13i ...~~::". 1.011 425.12] 425.12 425.611 0.0240421 5.651 62.671 64.37i .___~ 424.941 424.94 425.36 0.025402 5.22j~ 51.57 62.211 1.01 424.82 424.a2L_~. 425.19 0.026625 .~ 43.88 6O.67L,~_ -,- -U1j ! __ I 421.03 422.05: 425.66 0.282572 17.27 37.70 _ 45.71 3.351 420.n 421.63! 425.16 0.420407 1EL80 26.241 44.78 3.871 420.6SL_,' 421.43 424.911 0.526905 ... 16.54 2U11! __ "'44.38 4.201 420.561_ 421.22 424.64j O.702529[ 16.22 16.59! ___ 43.981 4.65) 420.48j 421.08 424.441 0.896626;._ 15.971 13.40'._._ 43.711 5.081 1 I! I i ___ 421.43 421.731 422,711 _~o.0356561 9,06! -2!E __ 48.201 .__.., _ 421.12 421,31 i 422.051 0.034118 7.751 _~81_ 46.71 _ 420.97 421.10; 421.75 __ 0.033121 7.081 49.97 46.01 420.811 420.891 421.431 0.031971 6.331 ___ '42:52T 45_24 420_69; 420,741 421.201 0.031036 5.751 37.201 44.68 -~. I I=! , [~_ i 416.861 418.35i 421.671 0.095417\ 17.60( 37.001 416.141 417.541 420.931 -- 0.1250921 17.5sf""" 25.111 .- _ 415.801 417.14; ..420.591 0.14678e! 17.56r 20.151 415.421 416.67i 420.22 0.180246! -'7.5if 15.31 415.,51 415.33: ~ 419.951 0.2'4953~--'7'~=i=- 12.17 412,031 413.89[-" 419.271 0.1554461 21,591= 30.151 411.451 413.101.. 418.06: 0.1935501 . 20.S,!! 21.371 411.18~ 412.69L 417.401 0.2095221 .3.Q,:021 17.681 410.881 412.23[ 416.59 0.2285761 .____ 19.17: 14.031 410.si 411.901._ 415.91 0.242648 ..._18.38] 11.64 ! 413.65! 412.84! 412.441 411.99 411.63 1.31i 1.24' -.uOr ._._..-.._~ ----~ 1.11 -...-= ....~ "'-~-~ --_.~..~ 2.55 2.76! 2.SS! 17,971 15.081 13.691 12.181 11.09l. 16_3)-- 14.00t 12.901 11.71! 10.871 = 2.801 2.94 ------;;c:;: n~~.~ ._-~ .,-~ 651.00 408.801 414.31 441.00 408.80' 413.48 _.__ 354_00 408.80.._ 413.041 269.00 408.80 412.54! - 214.00: ~ -~ 412.17; -- 651.001 408.50;- 414.'01 441.00 408.50(-- h 413.2,T 354.00 269_00 214.00 651~OO! 441.ooi 354.00 i- 269.00 --- 214.00 415.25 414.22 413.70 .'-413.121 412.691 - --.I . 41:O~f--- 413.85 413.34 412.76 412.32 ! 413.54\ 412.51fn-- 411,991 411.411 410.981 86.67 27.121--- 0.74 .----- ----=-= 64.29 23.45! ___~ _.....__... 54.34 21.61 _...' ._.-2:72: 44.051 19.54 o_nl 37.02\ 17.98. .--- O.?!] i : .- 91.491 27.691 --- -0.69 __.~ 24.08! 0.67 __58.10 22.27; 0.66 47.37 20.231 0.65 40_00 18_691 0.84 . 87,':lu::-__~1 -= 65.21l .. . 23.38 0.71: 55.36] 21.63 0.70i 45.12! ..--.- 19.65 0.691 38.091___ .~t,6t_-____ 0.681 0.009789 0.009984 0.0100901 0,0102241 0,0103201 I 7.51 ---..as 6.51 6.11 5.781--' I 7.12[".. 6.451 6.09 5.68 5.35 0.0084071 0.0084021 0.008396 0.008395 0.008378 0.009510 0,0095011 0.009503 : 0.009509 i 0.009503 r 7.47 8_76 6.39 5.96 5.62 5-206 4301' - Otay Reach with Gabions, Trib to Salt Ck Plan: Otay Reach - Uitimate 2/25/2008 ..--.. ......-- Olay Gablon - ............---..--.-.. ~1 420 . ' , ' " " ...- "- .", . n n__ .._..__ _. _ .....,.:: _. _. . ':._' ~':.: _. .~_.: _;_::'"..": :_. ..-~-.,".,,_-.---::.......--: f' .f ,,' ,,' .... .... ,,' w ili 1, . '-' ..- ..,.,- ..' ;::.:.:..:.~.:.-.-. ,.- 415- ,:."",- ~.-'.~.-~....~;.... , J f- 410' 405-L- o g 8 ~ 50 100 150 Main Channel Distance (ft) '" <> ~ ~ - '" - 200 , 250 I ._..__._.~ .- f~~~~~~01 ; . WS 050 WS 025 WS 010 . WS.05 \ Ground \ ['~~:: <> '" <0 NNN ~ -- 300 Olay Reach with Gabions, Trlb to Salt Ck Plan: Olay Reach - Ultimate 2/25/2008 RS = 126 ,04- 426.0 425.5- g 425.0- c .9 ~ 424.5-1 . In 1 4240t , -'--, , 423.5' 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Station (fl) Olay Reach with Gablons, Trib to Salt Ck Plan: Otay Reach - Ultimate 2/25/2008 RS = 125 " 426.01- 425.5..1 425.0- . 424.5 In 424.0' 423.5 ",'-- 0 10 .04 "0 "-'-~--"------__.".,",__'^ 20 30 40 50 60 r(----."'."'" 425j-.. 424- g 423" c 0 ~ . > 422~ . m 421' 420- 0 10 Slalion (ft) Olay Reach wllh Gabions, Trlb to Salt Ck Plan: Otay Reach - Ultimata 2/25/2008 RS '" 120 Just D/S of upper Gablon --...-------...- --.~,.-.,-,..,------ .--.04'" 20 30 Slation(ft) 40 '1_.- Legen(r~ WS 0100 , WS Q50 WS '025 WS010 70 i WSQS ~. Ground Ban~ S~__ 60 ...:~, --- I Lege'ocr' 70 i WSQ100 I WS Q50 I ~:: ~~: . . WSQ5 . . B:~;;.. 60 legend WS 0100 , WSQ50 WS 025 WSQ10 WSQ5 . Ground . Bank Sla 50 60 f---'" 424 J 423i g "'1 c 9 ii . 421 ill 420-1 i 419 I 0 10 \.(~-~ 424 .j-- . 1 422' w.----.~--,04-"--...... 420 Olay Reach with Gablons, Trlb to Salt Ck Plan: Olay Reach - Ultimate 2125/2006 RS = 115 Top of lower Gablon '-"--"-.04-'''''-'-'' ......_.__..~-_...._...._~'~._--- _._._.__...~~._.,,- , 20 30 Slalion 1ft) 40 50 Otay Reach with Gabions, Tob to Salt Ck Plan: Olay Reach - Ultimate 212512008 RS=110 ,._.....____.__.__~__"..._"___ -"-~ .04----=~:=.____..____..__^_~.~=~======~_:>.t -...--.-- ,04-"~ J!1:....-------- .....1_....__. 418- . iil 416 414 j 412 ~ , 0 10 20 30 420'. I .04 --'->r== 4161 4161 1 414- g c o ~ ~ .., w 412 410 408 o Stalion(ft} Olay Reach with Gabions, Tob to Salt Ck Plan: Olay Reach - Ultimate 212512006 RS = 105 Invert lowered 3.500 ,,-.,,----.-.-~.-..._--- '-,04-- 10 20 30 StaUon(f1) 40 40 L.g.nd~ WS Q100 ws 050 WS 025 WSQ10 . . WS05 . Ground . Bank Sta 60 .J.._.. . ~'Leoend WS 0100 WSOSO WS '025 WSQ10 . WS05 . Ground . Bank Sla 50 __ Legen~J WS 0100 . WS050 WS Q25 WSQ10 WSQ5 . Ground . Bank Sla 50 424- ~__.,._.,_~_~~.,~,~~:_=i-=----__ 422 420. 418' i :;:~I.. 412- 410. 406. o g 5 ~ ~ . m 420- _._~?~,.~.,+--,._._._~.~.~. 418- 416~ 414' m 412.j j :::1 o g o g . > .. w Jc-~. 416j 414-:1 i 412J - 410' 406 408 o '."--'-"----,04--""" , 10 10 Olay Reach with Gablon., Tl1b to Sail Ck Plan: Olay Reach - Ultimate 2/25/2008 RS = 100 Invert lowered 2.8311 .04-........m.- - -:::::-~~:::i ~ ---- - - ""II ~ 30 , 40 20 Station (ft) Olay Reach with Gabions, Trib to Salt Ck Plan: Olay Reach - Ultimate 2/2512008 RS ;:: 90 Section 105, lowered O.79ft. invert adjusted l:Jy ~3.5n for ulllm -.......,04----.- 20 30 40 Slation(ft} Otay Reach with Gabions, Tl1b 10 Salt Ck Plan: Otay Reach - Ultimale 2/25/2008 RE ;:: 80 Section 105, lowered 5.500 -- .--'t=----.:: .04--- 10 20 30 40 StaUcn (ft) , 50 50 .... .__.1:::::: .. .04 =:::'I., Leg-~- WS Q100 , WE Q50 wsa25 WS010 . WSQ5 . Ground . Bank Sla 60 __.~~~end WS 0100 WS 050 WSQ25 WSalD . WSQ5 . . Ground l...~~_~_~_.~ 60 r..~::~:O- , WS Q50 WE 025 WSQ1Q . WSQ6 . Ground . Bank Sta 50 TORY R. WALKER ENGINEERING, INC. Project Qtay Ranch Village 11 Date 2125/08 By T JS Client Brookfield San Diego Builders Checked By Subject Gabion Drop Structures 1 & 2 Approved By RIPRAP ENERGY DISSIPATOR DESIGN Ref: U,S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Hydraulic Design of Energy Dissipators for Culverts & Channeis, Hydraulic Engineering Circuiar No. 14, 1975 Assume: SSD Specific Weight of Stone, Ws = 165 pel Given: Exit Velocity = 17.6 fps (or less) Then: D50(avg) = 1.98 ft (from Figure II-C-1) D50(min) = 1.76 ft W50(min) - 467 Ibs (1/2 ton ciass) D50(min) = 1.76 ft D100(max) = 3.00 ft D30(min) = 1.46 ft D90(min) = 2.11 ft D15(min) = 1.19 ft D85(min) = 2.07 It RIPRAP GRADATION Percent Lighter Limits of Stone By Weight (SSO) Weight, ibs 1 00 934 2335 50 467 692 15 146 346 SIZE Limits of Stone Diameter. in 26.53 - 36.01 21.06 24.01 14.29 - 19.06 Minimum Layer Thickness, T" = I Use Layer Thickness, T = 46.9 in 48.0 in = 3.91 feet = 4.00 feet . minimum layer thickness is 1.5 times 01 OO(avg). riprap dissipator trwe.xIs/EnElrgy Dissipalor 2/2512008 5-211 TORY R. WALKER ENGINEERING, INC. Project Otay Ranch Village 11 Date 25-Feb-08 By T JS Client Brookfield San Diego Builders Checked By SUbject Gabion Drop Structures 1 & 2 Approved By Estimation of Launch Toe Riprap Volume Required Volume (from Design of Riprap Revetment (HEC No. 11), FHWA, March 1989) R., = [d, * T * (FS)]/sine where: R., = required riprap quantity, fr' per foot of bank ds = estimated depth of scour below existing channel bottom, feet e = angle of bank with the horizontal, degrees T = riprap layer thickness, feet FS = factor of safety ds = 4.0 feet (from scour calculations) e = 0.59 radians for H:V = 1.5 e = 33.7 degrees T = 4.0 feet FS = 1.25 (from Table 3-2, Hydraulic Design of Flood Control Channels, USACOE, July 1991) Then Rq= 36.1 ft' Try: channel side slope = 2.0 stream side siope = 0.0 Base, B = 5.1 Height, H = 4.0 Then: Area = 36.4 ft' OK Topwidth, TW = 13.1 feet '~I 5.9 ft---j channel side slope ---+ T Y t 1---- B -.1 stream side slope Launch Toe trwe.xls Page 1 of 1 5-212 9201 Spectrum Center Blvd., Suite 110 San Diego, CA 92123.1407 P 858.450.1221 F 858.552.1445 www.biasandiego.org PRESIDENT Sherman D. Harmer, Jr. Urban Housing Partners, Inc. VICE PRESIDENT Andrew Murphy American Property Enterprises TREASURER I SECRETARY Bob Cummings Barratt American IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT Scott Brusseau Newport Na1ional Corpora1ion CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER Paul A. Tryon AFFILIATES California Building Industry Association National Association of Home Builders National Association of Industrial and Office Properties ,t.TT A.CHMENT 2 February 12, 2008 Mr. David R. Garcia City Manager City of Chula Vista 276 Fourth Avenue, MS A-100 Chula Vista, CA 91910 Re: Western Transportation Impact Fee Dear Mr. Garcia, The Building Industry Association of San Diego County continues to review the city's proposed transportation impact fee (TIP) for the Western portion of Chula Vista. Based on our examination, we believe additional analysis and clarification is warranted in the project list and fee methodology. The city has identified nearly $400 million in transportation needs for the Western section of Chula Vista. Of that, new development will be required to assume approximately $63 million of obligation. It is our understanding that the TIF will satisfy direct and indirect traffic impacts of new development. Our region, as is it nationwide, suffers from the worst housing recession in a generation. Economic uncertainty coupled with the lending crisis has brought our industry to a standstill. The housing market cannot absorb an additional $63 million in government mandates and the city should reconsider implementing the TIF at a time when builders are shutting down and jobs are being lost. The BIA recognizes the city's plan to implement a $2,000 per unit fee on residential development in order to comply with the voter approved Transnet Sales Tax Initiative. Those funds are intended for use on the Regional Arterial Network and jurisdictions are required to establish this fee in prior to July 2008. However, the city's plan goes far beyond the Transnet obligation and is requiring funding for projects that require additional examination. Most notably is the nearly $12 million private sector charge for the study and creation of the 1-5 HOV & Managed Lanes from SR 905 to SR 54. This represents 20% of the pri vate sector fee and goes far BUILDING INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION OF SAN DIEGO COUNTY 5-213 beyond what is legally required for traffic impact mitigation. Projects such as these are financed by separate funding sources including gas taxes and other federal funding sources. Requiring mitigation for the 1.5 HOV and Managed lanes is an unjustified financial burden that places an additional economic hardship on new development. Under this new fee, commercial and office transportation development impact fees for Western Chula Vista would be 26% and 30% higher, respectively, than they are in Eastern Chula Vista. Development in Western Chula Vista involves higher land costs, potential demolition of existing buildings, and a more constrained development envelope than development in Eastern Chula Vista. The higher fees could serve as a deterrent commercial and office development. The proposed TIP will impede the city's efforts to attract new capital to its redevelopment area. The city should provide meaningful incentives in order to 'jump start' redevelopment in the downtown area. The BIA would request additional time to confer with city staff to identify appropriate incentives that will facilitate development within the urban areas. The BIA requests that the city allocate a portion of redevelopment tax increment revenue toward its transportation needs since it will be new development that will generate the additional resources. Allocating a portion of tax increment dollars will reduce the economic burden without jeopardizing the resources necessary to finance the proposed road network. We also recommend that the city consider allocating a portion of other revenue sources such as Transnet and gas tax that are generated by future growth toward future growth. For example, if 20 percent of the total Transnet sales tax will be generated by future growth, than 20% of all Transnet sales tax dollars that the city receives should be dedicated to road needs of future growth. The city should also allow for the payment of fees at the "Certificate of Occupancy," rather than at building permit. Fee payments are a tremendous economic burden and requiring payment prior to building absorbs much-needed capitol at a critical stage of development. Paying at certificate of occupancy would provide important flexibility while still meeting the financial obligations required by the city. The BIA appreciates the willingness of city staff to meet and discuss the merits of the TIP program. We have found the meetings to be informative and professional and look forward to continued dialogue on this important subject. ~~ Staff Vice President Government Affairs Cc: Mayor Cheryl Cox and Council Members 5-214 ~M?- :::.c:_ -: ~~~~ CITY OF CHULA VISTA OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER February 26, 2008 Mr. Matthew J. Adams Building Industry Association of San Diego County 9201 Spectrum Center Blvd., Suite liD San Diego, CA 92123-1407 Dear Mr. Adams: It was a pleasure meeting you on Wednesday, February 12, 2008. I thought the meeting went well and was quite constructive. I am confident that by working together on these complex fee issues, we will be able to find common ground in order to make the proposed Western Transportation Development Impact Fee (WTDIF) Program a success for the BlA as well as the City of Chula Vista. Thank you for your letter dated February 12, 2008 concerning some issues the BIA has on the City's proposed WTDIF program. In reference to your concern as to whether or not paying the fee satisfies "direct and indirec/ traffic impacts of new development", it is our intention that the fee does satisfy both direct and indirect impacts. The Urban Core Specific Plan, on which this program is partially based, reviewed the west side of Chula Vista, utilizing the City's best estimates for land use over the next 25 years. Future large projects could require an Initial Study and potential CEQA document, including a Traffic Impact Report. Consequently, this review could lead to additional, newly discovered impacts and additional project-related mitigations. It is the City's intention to streamline the land development process by having the traffic liabilities mitigated by the payment of the WTDIF. The WTDIF will not cover costs associated with improvements a development would be required to provide for access to the development site. Should a new driveway or access roadway require improvements, such as signalization, turning lanes: enhanced signage, or other site-specific improvements that are not part of the WTDIF, those improvements would be the direct responsibility ofthe development. The institution of a west side TDIF progranl will not contribute to the existing housing crisis brought about by an economic down turn and problems with the sub-prime lending industry. A 15% increase to fees will have a nominal impact on project feasibility, adding only 1 % to 2% to the total development costs. The west side TDIF allows in-fill developers to pay a manageable "fair share" fee toward cumulative traffic impacts rather than pay for the full cost of the cumulative mitigation. Staff is concerned that the in-fill developer will be unable to absorb the cost of a cumulative impact that must be built prior to construction of their project. A cumulative impact like splitting the grade crossing at the H Street or E Street Trolley line ($35 million) would render any future projects 276 FOURTH AVENUE' CHULA VISTA' CALIFORNIA 91910' (619) 691-5031 . (619) 409-5884 @ 1'r.l9_C()n~1JmCrRl;cydl)<l !'1lJ.l!ll 5-215 Mr. Matthew Adams Febmary 26, 2008 Page 2 infeasible should the improvements need to be built prior to or concurrently with the in-fill development. The greatest issue for the BIA seems to be n... the nearly $12 million private sector charge for the study and creation of the 1-5 HOV & Managed Lanes... n. The $217 million Interstate-5 project fair-share represents only $11.2 million of the $137 million of the project costs within the City ofChula Vista. The proposed WTDIF does not take into consideration over $79 million of the project costs outside of the City limits. The 8.2% represents the amount of traffic western Chula Vista will add to Interstate-5. Thus, the $11.2 million in the WTDIF represents only 8.2% of the estimated costs within the City limits. Please take note that in order to obtain Federal funds, a local agency must typically provide at least 11.47% to 20% of total project costs as the "local match" contribution. The City and Region will have to pursue other revenue sources to come up with the shortfall needed. Recently, we have used TDIF funds in eastern ChuIa Vista as our local match for work on the 1-805 interchanges at East Orange A venue/Olympic Parkway and at Main Street/Auto Park Way. We also utilized TDIF funds for improvements at Telegraph Canyon Road and I-80S and East H Street and 1-805 that were not pal1 of a cost sharing with Federal funds. The City is very sensitive to the needs of the development community on the west side of town. Your observation of rates being 26% and 30% higher for commercial and office, respectively is noted. However, our calculations, as shown on Table I, indicate that rates are comparable, ifnot less than, those on the east side of the city. TABLE 1 - DIF Fees Comparison LAND USE EDU TDIF WTDIF COMMERCIAl- NEIGHBORHOOD (Per Acra) COMMERCIAL. STREET FRONT {Per Acre) INDUSTRIAL PARK (Per Acre) LODGING - LOW RISE HOTEL (Example: a 30 room hotel) MEDICAL OFFICE (Per Acre) OFFICE -lOW RI SE (Per Acre) 45/Acre $484,965 $145,935 ,$ 48,645 $ 29,187 $ 97,290 151Acre S.O/Acre l.a/Room $161.655 $96,993 $323,310 RESIDENTIAL - SINGLE FAMILY HOME SO/Acre 30fAcre 1.0 $538,850 $:123.310 ,$ 10,777 $162.150 $ 97,290 $ 3,243 RESIDENTIAL. MUl TJ.FAMll Y HOME 0.8 I $ 8.621 i I Credn) I I I .-- (Credit) $ 2,594 ------ (Trip rate credil is provided for redevelopment i projects by subtracting oul 8)(istmg land uses) ! We welcome the opportunity to continue our working relationship with the BIA on development incentives. Our working relationship with the BIA, lenders, developers and the community helped develop "Incentive Zoning" included within the Urban Core Specific Plan. If there are new ideas or additional incentives to be considered, we welcome those suggestions. Tax increment dollars are best utilized to make an investment in projects as an incentive to bring in new development that will generate additional resources for the community. Some developments require tax increment investment for transp0l1ation needs, however some CITY OF CHULA VISTA P.Ol.o'.........~F"'... 5-216 - Mr. Matthew Adams February 26, 2008 Page 3 developments need assistance in other areas (acquisition financing, construction lending, land write downs, environmental studies, etc), and it would not be prudent to arbitrarily allocate tax increment resources solely to transportation needs when the need might be greater in other areas. Your letter fUl1her states that the BIA would, "also recommend that the city consider allocating a portion of other revenue sources such as TransNel and gas tax...towardjilture growth ". The City needs to spend upwards of $19 million per year to rehabilitate and maintain its entire pavement inventory. The City has available to it approximately $7 million per year for pavement rehabilitation, mostly consisting of TransNet funding. Any reduction in funding for rehabilitation will cause the City's pavement inventory to degrade at a faster rate, resulting in more expensive rehabilitation treatments. I appreciate your suggestion that fees be paid upon "Certificate of Occupancy". Staff has considered your comments and believes that there may be some merit to moving to an occupancy permit trigger for some developments. While not included in the ordinance at present, statlwill work with the BIA to further investigate this idea and come back to Council within 120 days with recommendations for any potential changes. Again, I thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to review our program. We look forward to working with you on these and other important issues in the future. 2EiL~ City Manager cc: Scott Tulloch, Assistant City Manager Jack Griffin, Director of Engineering and General Services Eric Crockett, Assistant Director of Housing and Redevelopment Rick Hopkins, Assistant Director of Engineering and General Services/City Engineer Frank Rivera, Principal Civil Engineer Dave Kaplan, Transportation Engineer J:\Engincer\AGENDA\CAS200&\03-04-08\WTDlF\FINAL LETTER FROM CITY MANAGER to MA IT AD^MS 2-25-08 DEKFXR.doc CITY OF CHULA VISTA <:,":PooI-C_Fito<>doIt"'\ll'I 5-217