CC - Item 2B - Discussion of Potential Development Impact FeesROSEMEAD CITY COUNCIL
STAFF REPORT
TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL
FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER ((I
DATE: APRIL 22, 2014
SUBJECT: DISCUSSION OF POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
SUMMARY
As a result of the State's action to eliminate redevelopment agencies, it will be
necessary for the City to establish development impact fees (DIF) to generate funds for
future improvements to streets, parks, and facilities. The establishment of development
impact fees will ensure that new developments will pay their "fair share' of future capital
improvement costs. The City's Strategic Plan includes the following action item: To
address a foreseeable lack of funding for future capital improvements, complete a
Development Impact Fee (DIF) study for the initiation of new fund accounts for
infrastructure improvements.
No final actions will be taken at this workshop. Any future action to establish
development impact fees would require a public hearing at a future City Council
meeting.
Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City review and comment on this matter
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The State's action in 2012 to dissolve redevelopment agencies has severely limited the
ability of cities to fund capital improvement projects associated with development. As a
result, it is necessary for the City of Rosemead to initiate Development Impact Fees
(DIF) to ensure that new developments will pay their fair share of needed capital
improvements. DIF payments associated with new residential and commercial
development will enable the City to accumulate funds to construct needed capital
improvements to maintain its public facilities standards that contribute to the quality of
life in the community. Accounts that will be created through the assessment of
development impact fees (DIF) include the following:
• Traffic Facilities
• Public Safety Facilities
• General Government Facilities
• Parks Facilities
ITEM NUMBER.
City Council Meeting
April 22, 2014
Review of Draft Annual Comprehensive Fee Resolution Update for Fiscal Year 2014 -15
pads 2 of 2
A study has been conducted for the establishment of development fees (DIF) in
compliance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, contained in California
Government Code Sections 66000 at sec. The study is included in this report as
Attachment A. The findings required by the Mitigation Fee Act are also included in the
study and the Resolution.
A summary of the proposed development impact fees is provided in the chart below.
More information regarding these proposed fees is detailed in the study (Attachment B)
Proposed Development Impact Fee (DIF) Schedule
Land Use
Traffic
Public
Safe
General
Government'
Parks
Total
Residential
Single Family
$1,010
$167
$1,145
$6299
$8,621
Multi- family
$614
$135
$920
$5,057
$6,726
Nonresidential
Retail
$1,119
$31
$207
N/A
$1,357
Office
$1634
$42
$277
N/A
$1,953
Industrial
$1,109
$15
$103
N/A
$1,227
Note'. Fees are expressed per dwelling unit for residential order 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land use
' Includes City-owned land, buildings and equipment, and County owned library facilities.
For additional information purposes, a survey of local cities' development impact fees
(DIF) is included as Attachment B.
LEGAL REVIEW
The City Attorney has reviewed the draft Resolution (Attachment A) and the
Development Impact Fee study (Attachment B).
PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS
This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process.
Attachments
CITY OF ROSEMEAD
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY
E DRAFT
ATTACHMENT A
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .... ...............................
Background and Study Objectives
Facility Standards and Costs
Use of Fee Revenues
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
1 . INTRODUCTION ......... ...............................
Public Facilities Financing in California
Study Objectives
Study Methodology
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
Organization of the Report
2. GROWTH FORECASTS AND UNIT COSTS .....
Land Use Types
Occupant Densities
Existing and Future Development
Unit Costs
3. TRAFFIC FACILITIES .. ...............................
Trip Demand from New Development
Traffic Improvements and Cost Allocation
Fee Schedule
Non -Fee Funding Needed
4. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES .......................
Service Population
Facility Inventory
Facility Standard
Fee Schedule
Estimated Fee Revenue
5. GENERAL GOVERNMENTFACILITIES ..........
Service Population
Facility Inventory
Facility Standard
Fee Schedule
Estimated Fee Revenue
6. LIBRARY FACILITIES .. ...............................
Service Population
Facility Inventories
Facility Standard
Fee Schedule
....Ill
iv
v
1
1
1
2
2
4
5
5
6
6
8
... 10
10
13
19
20
... 21
21
22
23
23
24
... 25
25
25
28
28
29
... 30
30
31
32
33
City of Rosemead
Estimated Fee Revenue 34
7. PARKFACILITIES ............................................ ............................... 35
Service Population
35
Facility Inventory
35
Facility Standards
38
Mitigation Fee Act
38
Quimby Act
38
Cost per Capita
39
Fee Schedule
40
8. IMPLEMENTATION ........................................... ...............................
42
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
42
Inflation Adjustment
42
Reporting Requirements
42
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
42
9.MITIGATION FEEACT FINDINGS ......................... ...............................
43
Purpose of Fee
43
Use of Fee Revenues
43
Benefit Relationship
43
Burden Relationship
44
Proportionality
44
Executive Summary
This report summarizes an analysis of development impact fees that may be charged to support
future development in the City of Rosemead through 2025. The City Council may choose to
impose the costs representing future development's share of public facilities and capital
improvements on that development in the form of a development impact fee. The public facilities
and improvements included in this analysis are divided into the fee categories listed below:
- Traffic Facilities;
Public Safety Facilities,
General Government Facilities;
Library Facilities; and
- Park Facilities.
Background and Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program is to ensure that new
development pays the capital costs associated with growth. The primary purpose of this report is
to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to maintain its public facility standards as
new development creates increases in service demands.
Impact fees must comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in
California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. This report provides the necessary findings
required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the fee schedules contained herein.
All development impact fee - funded capital projects should be programmed through the City's
Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Using a CIP can help the City identify and direct its fee revenue
to public facilities projects that will accommodate future growth. By programming fee revenues to
specific capital projects, the City can help ensure a reasonable relationship between new
development and the use of fee revenues as required by the Mitigation Fee Act.
Facility Standards and Cost Allocation
There are three approaches typically used to calculate facilities standards and allocate the costs
of planned facilities to accommodate growth in compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act
requirements.
The existing inventory approach is based on a facility standard derived from the City's existing
level of facilities and existing demand for services. This approach results in no facility deficiencies
attributable to existing development. This approach is often used when a long -range plan for new
facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee
study. Future facilities to serve growth will be identified through the City's annual capital
improvement plan and budget process and/or completion of a new facility master plan. In this
report this approach is used for the public safety, general government, library, and parks facilities
City of Rosemead
The planned facilities approach allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facilities that serve
new development to the increase in demand associated with new development. This approach is
appropriate when specific planned facilities that only benefit new development can be identified,
or when the specific share of facilities benefiting new development can be identified. Examples
include street improvements to avoid deficient levels of service or a sewer trunk line extension to
a previously undeveloped area This approach is used for the proposed traffic fee.
Use of Fee Revenues
Impact fee revenue must be spent on new facilities or expanding current facilities to serve new
development. Facilities can be generally defined as capital acquisition items with a useful life
greater than five years. Impact fee revenue can be spent on capital facilities to serve new
development, including but not limited to. land acquisition, construction of buildings, the
acquisition of vehicles or equipment, information technology, and software licenses and
equipment.
IV
City of Rosemead
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the proposed impact fees documented in this report.
Table E.1:
Fee Schedule
Public General
I and use Traffic' Safety Government Library Parks' Total
Residential
Single Family $1,010 $167 $1,145 $1,583 $6,299
Multi- family $614 $135 $920 $1,271 $5,057
$10,204
$7,997
Nonresidential
Retail
$1,119
$31
$207
N/A
N/A
$1,357
Office
$1,634
$42
$277
N/A
N/A
$1,953
Industrial
$1,109
$15
$103
N/A
N/A
$1,227
Note'. Fees are expressed per dwelling unit for residential or per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land use
Traffic impact fees for development In single use zones shown. Fees in mined use zones are slightly lower than the
single use traffic fee.
' Parks fee shown for development projects that do not involve new land subdivision. For subdivisions. Quimby Act land
fee would apply. Total parks fee for subdivisions would be $6,941 per single family unit
Sources. Tables 3.9, 4 4, 5.5, 6 4, and 7 6', W illdan Financial Services.
v
1. Introduction
This report presents an analysis of the need for public facilities to accommodate new
development in Rosemead. This chapter provides background for the study and explains the
study approach under the following sections:
Public Facilities Financing in California;
Study Objectives;
Study Methodology; and
- Organization of the Report.
Public Facilities Financing in California
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the
financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. Three dominant trends stand out.
The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in
1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996;
Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the next
generation of residents and businesses; and
- Steep reductions in federal and state assistance.
State action to dissolve Redevelopment in 2012
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth pays its
own way." This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from existing
ratepayers and taxpayers onto new development. This funding shift has been accomplished
primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and development impact fees.
Assessments and special taxes require the approval of property owners and are appropriate
when the funded facilities are directly related to the developing property. Development impact
fees, on the other hand, are an appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all
development jurisdiction -wide. Development impact fees need only a majority vote of the
legislative body for adoption.
Study Objectives
The primary policy objective of a public facilities fee program is to ensure that new development
pays the capital costs associated with growth. The proposed fees documented in this report will
enable the City to expand its inventory of public facilities as new development leads to increases
in service demands.
Rosemead is forecast to experience moderate growth through this study's planning horizon of
2025. This growth will create an increase in demand for public services and the City facilities
required to deliver those services. Given the revenue challenges described above, the City
Council is considering using a development impact fee program to ensure that new development
funds the share of facility costs associated with growth.
Impact fees must comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in
California Government Code Sections 66000 at seq. This report provides findings that may be
adopted by the City Council that demonstrate that the proposed fees comply with the
requirements of section 66001 of the Act, which pertains to establishing and increasing impact
fees.
Study Methodology
Development impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate
growth. The five steps followed in this development impact fee study include:
1. Estimate existing development and future growth: Identify a base year for
existing development and a growth forecast that reflects increased demand for public
facilities;
2. Identify facility standards: Determine the facility standards used to plan for new
and expanded facilities,
3. Determine the cost of facilities required to serve new development: Estimate the
cost of facilities required to accommodate new development;
4. Calculate fee schedule: Allocate facilities costs per unit of new development to
calculate the development impact fee schedule; and
5. Identify alternative funding requirements: Determine if any non -fee funding is
required to complete projects.
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of facility
standards (step #2, above). Facility standards document a reasonable relationship between new
development and the need for new facilities. Standards ensure that new development does not
fund deficiencies associated with existing development.
New Development Facility Needs and Costs
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new development.
This is often a two step process. (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate to new
development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of planned
facilities costs the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the system
plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the community has
engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method is
summarized below:
2
Existing Inventory Method
The existing inventory method allocates costs based on the ratio of existing facilities to demand
from existing development as follows:
Current Value of Existing Facilities
Existing Development Demand
= $ /unit of demand
Under this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard
currently serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method results in no
facility deficiencies attributable to existing development. This method is often used when a long -
range plan for new facilities is not available. Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are
identified in the fee study. Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital
improvement plan and budget process, possibly after completion of a new facility master plan. In
this study, the existing inventory method is used for the public safety, general government, library,
and park impact fees.
Planned Facilities Method
The planned facilities method allocates costs based on the ratio of planned facility costs to
demand from new development as follows:
Cost of Planned Facilities
= $ /unit of demand
New Development Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or when a
fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An example of
the former is a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area An example of the
latter is traffic improvements where data from a traffic study can be used to determine the share
of facility costs that should be allocated to new development. Under this method new
development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the applicable planning
documents. This method is used to calculate the traffic impact fee in this study.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on the value of existing facilities plus the cost of planned
facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development.
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities
Existing + New Development Demand
= $ /unitofdemand
This method is useful when planned facilities need to be analyzed as part of a system that
benefits both existing and new development. It is difficult, for example, to allocate a new fire
station solely to new development when that station will operate as part of an integrated system
of fire stations that together achieve the desired level of service.
The system plan method ensures that new development does not pay for existing deficiencies.
Often facility standards based on policies such as those found in General Plans are higher than
existing facility standards. This method enables the calculation of the existing deficiency required
to bring existing development up to the policy -based standard. The local agency must secure
3
non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities required to correct the deficiency to ensure
that new development receives the level of service funded by the impact fee.
Organization of the Report
The determination of an impact fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and
development of growth projections for population and employment. These projections are used
throughout the analysis of different facility categories, and are summarized in Chapter 2.
Chapters 3 through 7 identify facility standards and planned facilities, allocate the cost of planned
facilities between new development and other development, and identify the appropriate
development impact fee for each of the following facility categories:
- Traffic Facilities;
- Public Safety Facilities;
General Government Facilities;
Library Facilities; and
Park Facilities.
Chapter 8 details the procedures that the City should follow when implementing a development
impact fee program. Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in California Government
Code section 66019.
The findings required for adoption of the proposed public facilities fees in accordance with the
Mitigation Fee Act are documented in Chapter 9.
2. Growth Forecasts and Unit Costs
Growth projections are used as indicators of demand to determine facility needs and allocate
those needs between existing and new development. This chapter explains the source for the
growth projections used in this study based on a 2010 base year and a planning horizon of 2025.
Estimates of existing development and projections of future growth are critical assumptions used
throughout this report . These estimates are used as follows:
The estimate of existing development in 2010 is used as an indicator of existing
facility demand and to determine existing facility standards.
- The estimate of total development at the 2025 planning horizon is used as an
indicator of future demand to determine total facilities needed to accommodate
growth and remedy existing facility deficiencies, if any
- Estimates of growth from 2010 through 2025 are used to (1) allocate facility costs
between new development and existing development, and (2) estimate total fee
revenues.
The demand for public facilities is based on the service population, dwelling units or
nonresidential development creating the need for the facilities. The service population for general
government facilities and public safety facilities includes residents and workers. The service
population for parks and libraries includes only residents. The demand for traffic facilities is based
on the number of vehicle trips associated with residential and nonresidential development.
Land Use Types
To ensure a reasonable relationship between each fee and the type of development paying the
fee, growth projections distinguish between different land use types. Impact fees have been
calculated for the following land use types.
Single family: Attached and detached one -unit dwellings.
Multi- family: All attached multi- family dwellings such as duplexes and
condominiums.
- Retail: All commercial, retail, and hotel /motel development.
- Office: All general, professional, and medical office development.
Industrial: All manufacturing and warehouse development.
Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed use
development with both multi - family and retail uses. In those cases the impact fee would be
calculated separately for each land use type.
The City has the discretion to determine which land use type best reflects a development
project's characteristics for purposes of imposing an impact fee and may adjust fees for special or
unique uses to reflect the impact characteristics of the use
City of Rosemead
Occupant Densities
Occupant density assumptions ensure a reasonable relationship between the development of
housing units or building square footage and the increase in service population, and therefore the
amount of the fee. For the public safety, general government, library and parks fees, the demand
for facilities is estimated based on service population, while developers pay the fee based on the
number of additional housing units or building square feet of nonresidential development.
Therefore, the fee schedule must convert service population estimates to these measures of
project size. This conversion is done with average occupant density factors by land use, shown in
Table 2.1.
The residential density factors are based on data for Rosemead from the 2000 U.S. Census and
recent data from the California Department of Finance (2010). The nonresidential factors are
based on a 2001 Employment Density Study Summary Report conducted by The Natelson
Company, Inc., on behalf of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG).
Table 2.1: Occupant Density
Residential
Single Family
4.01
Residents per dwelling unit
Multi- family
3.22
Residents perdwelling unit
Nonresidential
Retail
2.33
Employees per 1,000 square feet
Office
3.13
Employees per 1,000 square feet
Industrial
1.16
Employees per 1,000 square feet
Sources. U.S. Census, Tables 131 -1-133,
Table E -5. Califomia Department of Finance
(DOE). 2010 -, The Natelson Company, Inc.,
Employment Density Study Summary
Report , October 31, 2001,
pp 15-23, Willdan Financial Services.
Existing and Future Development
Table 2.2 shows estimated residential and nonresidential development in Rosemead, both in
2010 and in 2025. The base year estimate of residents and dwelling units comes from the
California Department of Finance.
Current employment in Rosemead is based on data provided by the California Employment
Development Department (EDD). Adjustments were made to account for business owners and
sole proprietors, which are not included in the EDD employment estimates. An additional
adjustment was made for home -based employment, which would not be associated with
nonresidential buildings and the associated nonresidential impact fees. Government employment
is excluded from the service population because additional local government workers and
facilities are typically added to serve new development. Whereas non - government development
City of Rosemead
creates an increased demand for public facilities, development of government facilities occurs to
meet that demand. Building square footage is estimated based on the building occupant density
factors shown in Table 2.1.
The 2025 projections for residents and employment are based on the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG) 2008 Adopted RTP Baseline Growth Forecast. The total
number of dwelling units in 2025 is taken from the SCAG forecast. The distribution of new
housing between single family units and multi - family units is based on the percentage of each unit
type in the growth forecast in the Rosemead Circulation Element Update Traffic Impact Analysis.
Projected 2025 population is based on the forecasted number of dwelling units in Rosemead,
along with the occupant density factors shown in Table 2.1.
Projected employment is based on the RTP's forecast for employment in Rosemead, with an
adjustment for home-based employment, business owners, and government employment. It is
assumed that the distribution of employment between retail, office, and industrial land uses will
remain the same in 2025 as it is today.
,
The Traffic Impact Analysis growth projection is based on the full buildout capacity of the General Plan's
land use designations. This is a larger amount of growth than the SCAG projections for 2025. Therefore, the
SCAG projections are used to estimate development through this study's planning horizon of 2025.
Table 2.2: Rosemead Existing and Future
0-2825
Residents
57,756
60,604
2,848
Dwelling Units'
Single Family
12,091
12,664
573
Multi- family
2.685
2,856
171
744
Total 14,776 15,520
Employments
Retail
6,900
7,361
461
Office
4,474
4,773
299
Industrial
4,355
4.646
291
1,051
Total 15,729 16,780
Building Square Feet (OOOs) a
Retail
2,967
3,165
198
Office
1,432
1,527
95
Industrial
3.745
3.996
251
544
Total 8,144 8,688
'Growth in Rosemead households is based on the SCAG RTP Model SCAG does not provide
household growth projections by type of unit (single or multi - family). The proportion of growth that
is single versus multi family is based on the KOA Traffic Analysis supporting the 2010 Rosemead
General Plan Circulation Element Update.
' Based on data on employment by industry sector from the California Employment Development
Department. Excludes government employment and home -based employment.
' Based on estimated employees by land use and employment density assumptions from Table
2.1.
Sources. Table 2.1; Table E -5, California Department of Finance ; California Employment
Development Department; Adopted 2008 RTP Growth Forecast, Southern California Association
of Governments; Traffm Analysis for the City of Rosemead. Circulation Element Update and
Environmental Impact Report, February 19, 2010, KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering,
Table 10, Willi Financial Services.
Unit Costs
This study makes use of unit costs for land values and building construction. These costs are
used to estimate the replacement value of existing facilities. Building costs are typically
expressed in terms of cost per square foot while land costs are expressed in terms of cost per
acre.
Land is estimated at $700,000 per acre for vacant residential parcels and $3.0 million per acre for
vacant commercial land. This value is based on recent listings of vacant residential and
commercial parcels in Rosemead and nearby cities.
8
of Rosemead
This study assumes a value of $375 per square foot for most city buildings and community
centers, based on construction costs for recent similar projects in other cities Willdan has worked
with. A $150 per square foot building cost is used to estimate the cost of public works shop
facilities. Park improvement costs are based on recent appraisal information provided by the City.
3. Traffic Facilities
The purpose of the traffic impact fee is to fund the share of roadway improvement costs allocated
to new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the projected vehicle trip growth in
Rosemead and the roadway improvements that have been identified to accommodate additional
traffic.
Trip Demand from New Development
The allocation of roadway project costs to new development projects is based on the trip demand
generated by each project. Trip demand is estimated base on the number of peak hour trips per
dwelling unit and per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential development. Table 3.1 shows the
estimates of existing dwelling units and building square footage, as well as projected growth
through 2025.
Table 3.1: Dwelling Unit and Building Square Footage Estimates
Mixed Use Single Use Total Growth
2010 2025 Growth Zoning Growth 2010 -2025
Dwelling Units'
Single Family 12,091 12,664 - 573 573
MUlti- family 2685 2,856 171 - 171
Total 14,776 15,520 171 573 744
Building Square Feet (000SI z
Retail 2,967 3,165 198 - 198
Office 1,432 1,527 95 - 95
Industrial 3.745 3.996 251 - 251
Total 8,144 8,688 544 - 544
' Gmv4h in Rosemead households is based on the SCAG RTP Model. SCAG does not provide household gmmh projections
by type of unit (single or multi family) The proportion of gmwth that is single versus multi family is based on the KOA Traffic
Analysis supporting the 2010 Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element Update.
Based on estimated employees by land use and employment density assumptions from Table 2.1.
Sources. Table 21t Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead. Circulation Element Update and Environmental Impact Report,
February 19. 2010', KDA Corporation Planning and Engineering. Table 10', Willdan F'mandal Services.
The Traffic Impact Analysis estimates that development in mixed use zones will have an 11
percent internal capture rate due to the ability of residents and workers in these areas to shop
and complete other tasks without needing to drive other areas. This assumption is incorporated in
this analysis. It is assumed that multifamily and nonresidential development through 2025 will
primarily occur in mixed use zones, while single family residential development will be primarily in
single use zoning districts.
to
City of Rosemead
The trip demand associated with each land use type is determined based on the number of
afternoon peak hour trips generated by the development, adjusted for variations in the number of
pass -by trips and the average trip length associated with each land use. The analysis is based on
peak hour traffic conditions because peak hour traffic demand determines the facility
improvements that will be needed to accommodate traffic at acceptable levels of congestions.
Table 3.2 (following page) shows the trip demand factors for each land use type. Trip demand
factors are shown for both single use zoning districts and mixed use zoning, incorporating the 11
percent trip generation reduction assumed in mixed use areas.
Table 3.3 shows the estimated trip demand from new and existing development, based on the
development estimates shown in Table 3.1 and the trip demand factors shown in Table 3.2. As
shown, new development is projected to generate approximately five percent of trip demand at
the 2025 planning horizon, while existing (2010) development is projected to account for 95
percent of trip demand.
Table 3.3: Trip Demand
i rip Existing Trip Demand
Demand Existing DU/ New Dev. DUI Trip from New
Factor 1,000 So. Ft. 1.000 So. Ft. Demand Develar ment
Single Use Zoning
Residential
Single Family
1.02
12,091
573
12,333
584
Multi- family
0.62
2,685
-
1,665
-
Nonresidential
Retail
1.13
2,967
-
3,353
-
Office
1.65
1,432
-
2,363
-
Industrial
1.12
3,745
-
4,194
-
Mixed Use Zoning
Residential
Single Family
0.91
-
-
-
-
Multi- family
0.55
-
171
-
94
Nonresidential
Retail
1.01
-
198
-
200
Office
1.47
-
95
-
140
Industrial
1.00
-
251
-
251
Total Trip Demand Units
23,907
1,269
Percent of Total
95.0%
5.0
3 .1 and 3 .2.
Impact Fee Study
Table 3.2: Trip Demand Factor
A B C =AxB D E =CxD F =a9 %xE
Trip
Adjust- PM Peak
Trip Demand
Trip Demand
Primary Length
ment Hour
Factor, Single
Factor, Mixed
Trios' Index2
Factor' Trios°
Use Zonina'
Use Zoninae
Residential (per dwelling unit)
Single Family Single Family Detached (210) 100% 1.00 1.00 1.02 1.02 0.91
Multi- family Apartment (220) 100% 1.00 1.00 0.62 0.62 0.55
Nonresidential (per 1,000 square feet)
Retail Shopping Center (820) 66% 0.46 0.30 3.75 1.13 1.01
Office General Office Building (710) 100% 1.11 1.11 1.49 1.65 1.47
Industrial General Light Industrial (110) 100% 1.14 1.14 0.98 1.12 1.00
Excludes pass -by trips. Pass -by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip. Rosemead Circulation Element Traffic Analysis identifies
that 34% of PM peak hour retail trips are pass -by trips.
' Index value for the average length of thin to associated trip category . Captures varying impact of type of trip end.
' Total factor by which trip demand is adjusted accounting for trip length and pass -by trips.
x Trips per dvrelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 building square feet (nonresidential)
s The trip demand factor for each land use is the product of PM peak hour trips and the trip demand adjustment factor.
°According to the Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead, an 11 % reduction in PM peak hour trip demand is assumed for development in mixed use zones
due to internal capture of some residential- tocommercial trips in these zones.
Sources: Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead- Circulation Element Update and Environmental Impact Report, February 19, 2010', KOA Corporation
Planning and Engineering: Trip Generation, 7th Edition. 2003, Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE), Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the
San Diego Region, SANDAG', Willdan Financial Services.
City of Rosemead
Traffic Improvements and Cost Allocation
Goal 1 of the Rosemead General Plan Circulation Element is to "Maintain efficient vehicular and
pedestrian movements throughout the city." This goal is supported by Implementation Action 1.3:
"Make every feasible effort to provide LOS D operations or better on arterial roadways and
collector roadways." The Traffic Impact Analysis for the City of Rosemead Circulation Element
Update identified traffic improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of projected
increases in traffic in Rosemead and maintain a LOS of D or better on the City's arterials and
collectors.
Table 3.4 shows the existing and projected future volume to capacity (V /C) ratio and LOS for
intersections where new development is anticipated to result in a LOS of E or F, generating a
need for traffic improvements to increase the capacity of the intersection. The V/C ratio is the
ratio of the actual or projected traffic in an intersection and the theoretical capacity of the
intersection. A V/C ratio of 1.0 is the threshold between LOS E and LOS F.
Conditions are shown for the Traffic Impact Analysis base year of 2009. The table also shows
projected conditions in 2025 with no additional development in Rosemead, as well as with
additional development in Rosemead consistent with the Rosemead General Plan Land Use
Element.
City of Rosemead
Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3.4: Existing and Future PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions
Existing Conditions
Future (2025) without
Future (2025) with
2009
Development
Deve lopened
t
Recommended
Roadway
Vicinity
VIC
LOS
VIC
LOS
VIC
LOS
Improvement
_
Walnut Grove Ave.
Valley Blvd
0.936
E
1.078
F
1.171
F
Thou Lanes 1i
Walnut Grove Ave.
Marshall Street
0.898
D
1.034
F
1.586
F
Turn Lanes
San Gabriel Blvd.
Hellman Ave.
0,778
C
0.892
D
0.906
E
Thru Lanes, Turn Lanes
Walnut Grove Ave.
Hellman Ave.
0.963
E
1.108
F
1.207
F
Turn Lanes
New Ave.
Garvey Ave.
0.803
D
0.922
E
1.013
F
Thru Lanes
Del Mar Ave.
Garvey Ave.
0.874
D
1.006
F
1.084
F
Thru Lanes
San Gabriel Blvd.
Garvey Ave.
0.964
E
1.110 '',
F
1.123
i
F
Thru Lanes
Walnut Grove Ave.
Garvey Ave.
0.900
E
1.035
F
1.143
F
Thru Lanes
Walnut Grove Ave.
San Gabriel Blvd.
0.872 i'i
D
1.003
F
1.069
F
Third Lanes, Turn Lanes
Valley Blvd.
Rio Hondo Ave.
0.753
C
0.866
D
0.929
E
Turn Lanes
Valley Blvd.
Temple City Blvd.
0.921
E
1.061
F '..
1.079
F
Turn Lanes
Del Mar Ave.
Hellman Ave.
0.812
D
.. 0.932
E
0.958
E
Turn Lanes
San Gabriel Blvd.
SR 60 Freeway
0 793
C
0.910
E
0.945
E
Turn Lanes
Del Mar Ave.
Garvey to Newmark
1.170
F
1.369
F
1.285
F
Widening
1 -10 Fwy to City
"i
Widening. Thru Lanes,
Rosemead Blvd.
Limit
1.231
F
14
F
1.501
F
Turn Lanes
Source. Tragic Analysis for the City of Rosemead Cimulation Element Update and Environmental
Impact Report, KOA
Corporation Planning
and Engineering, Tables 15 and 16.
of Rosemead _ _ Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3.5 shows the intersection improvements that the Traffic Impact Analysis recommends to
mitigate the projected traffic increases. The cost of completing the intersection improvements was
estimated by the Rosemead Public Works Department. These improvements would primarily
involve restriping intersections to revise the turn lane configuration and restrict parking.
Table 3.5: Traffic Project Costs for Roadway and Intersection Improvements
Location
Descriptb
Cons
C
omen cows
(Design, Platted M mL
Total Cost
Walnut Grove Ave. at Valley
Thor Lanes
$100000
$15,000
$115
Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall SL
Turn Lanes
!1
$22.500
$1]2500
Ban Gabnel BWtl at Hellman Ave.
Thou Lanes, Tum Lanes
$100000
$15000
$115000
Walnut Grove Ave. at Hellman Ave.
Tum Lanes
$50 o00
$] 500
_
§5] 500
Nev, Ave. at Garvey Ave.
Thm Lanes
$50,000
$] 500
$57 50
Del Mar Ave. at Garvey Ave.
Thou Lanes
$
$
$57 500
Ban Gabriel Blvd at Garvey Ave
Thru Lanes
$150,000
$22500
$1]2500
Walnut Grove Ave. at Garvey Ave
Thm Lan
$150,000
$22 5
$172 500
Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabriel
Blvd.
Tbru Lanes, Tum Lanes
$150000
$22500
$172500
Valley Blvd at RIO Hondo Ave
Tum Lane
$
$15 0
$115 000
Valley Blvd. at Temple City Blvd.
Tum Lanes
$250000
$
$2875
Del Mar Ave. at Hellman Ave
Turn Lanes
$50 000
§] 500
$57 500
San Gabriel Blvd. at Be 60 Freeway
Turn Lane
$15 0
$115 00.
Del Mar Ave .(GarveVo Newmark)
Widening
$450000
$67,500
$51],500
Rosemead Blvd. (L10 Freeway to City
Lima)
Widening, Tbru Lanes, Turn
Lanes
$1 C 415000
$2,085000
$12500000
Total Costs
$12315000
$23]0000
$14585000
so _v: Tame 61'. nN a1 aoeemaan
Table 3.6 shows the allocation of the intersection improvement costs to new development in
Rosemead. This determines the cost that will be charged to new development in the City through
the impact fee. The improvement costs are adjusted for two factors to determine new
development's share of costs:
Existing deficiencies: Some of the intersections with planned improvements
currently operate at LOS E or F, which is lower than the minimum acceptable LOS of
D. This corresponds to a VIC ratio greater than 0.90. Therefore, existing development
is creating some of the need for improvements at these intersections. Column D of
Table 3.6 shows the share of improvement costs allocated to new development.
When the entire cost is not allocated to new development the intersection has an
existing LOS of E or F, and a V/C ratio greater than 0.90. The share of costs
allocated to new development is based on the percentage of the future intersection
deficiency L e. the amount by which the future V/C ratio exceeds 0.90) that is caused
by development projected to occur between the present time and 2025.
Traffic growth from non - Rosemead trips: New development in Rosemead will
cause increases in traffic in Rosemead. In addition, the Traffic Impact Analysis
projects that there will be increases in traffic due to vehicles passing through the City,
IS
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
including commute routes on surface streets and vehicles that choose to cut through
the City during periods of extreme freeway congestion. This increase in traffic does
not result from new development in Rosemead. Column B of Table 3.6 shows the
projected VIC ratio with only projected growth in regional traffic passing through
Rosemead, and no traffic generated by additional development in the City. Column E
shows the share of improvement needs for each intersection allocated to new
development in Rosemead, and not to growth in pass- through traffic.
16
City of Rosemead
0936
1078
1.171
Development Impact Fee Study
_
Table 3.6: Intersection Improvement Cost Allocation
$39,464.94
Walnut Grove at Marshall St
0.898
1.034
A B
C
0= ((C- 0.9) -(A0 g) /(C 09)
E= (GB)/(C -A)
F G =Ox ExF
V/C Ratio
0.778
0.892
Rosemead
Cost to
Existing Future (2025j
-Future (2025)
Share of Improvement
Only New
Rosemead
(2009) Without
With
Allocated to New
Development
Project New
Conditions Development
Development
Development'
Allocation
Cost Development
Walnut Grove Ave. at Valley Blvd.
0936
1078
1.171
87%
40%
$115,000
$39,464.94
Walnut Grove at Marshall St
0.898
1.034
1586
100%
80%
$172,500
$138,804.66
San Gabriel Blvd at Hellman Ave.
0.778
0.892
0.906
100%
11%
$115,000
$12,578.13
Walnut Grove Ave. at Hellman Ave.
0.963
1.108
1.207
79%
41%
$ 57,500
$18,542.35
New Ave. at Garvey Ave.
0.803
0.922
1013
100%
43%
$57,500
$24,916.67
Del Mar Ave. at Garvey Ave.
0.874
1.006
1.084
100%
37%
$57,500
$21,357.14
San Gabriel Blvd. at Garvey Ave.
0.874
1.006
1.084
100%
37%
$172,500
$64,071.43
Walnut Grove Ave. at Garvey Ave.
0.964
1.11
1.123
71%
8%
$172,500
$10,056.05
Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabriel Blvd.
0.872
1.003
1.069
100%
34%
$172,500
$57,791.88
Valley Blvd. at Rio Hondo Ave.
0753
0.866
0.929
100%
36%
$115,000
$41,164.77
Valley Blvd. at Temple City Blvd,
0.921
1.061
1.079
88%
11%
$287,500
$28,910.61
Del Mar Ave. at Hellman Ave.
0.812
0.932
0.958
100%
18%
$57 500
$10,239.73
San Gabriel Blvd. at SR 60 Freeway
0.793
0.91
0.945
100%
23%
$115,000
$26,48026
Del Mar Ave. (Garvey to Newmark)
1.170
1.369
1.285
30%
73%
$517,500
$112,841.88
Rosemead Blvd (1 -10 Freeway to City Limit) 2
1231
1.441
1.501
5%
$12,500,000
$625,00000
Total
$14,685,000
$1,232,221
The Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead Circulation Element and Environmental Impact Ramon
is identifies de a minimum acceptable Level of Service (e05) of re associated th a volume to capacity wit
ratio of less than O8. For , intersections with an existing Vou ratio less than sham to O9, new d Is to mente These and all Improvements then be allocated to lulYre traffic groWln. For those intersections filth
existing deficiencies In LOS, the existing deficiency is netted out of the fist share alloraled to new tlevelopmenl. These allaabOns are less than 100%.
Although not owned by the City, this portion of Rosemead Blvd. Is fully with the Ci ce boundaries. Funds are needed to leverage against State funds or grants in Order to Improve roadway conditions and
enhance mobility for this roadway within the City. This approach has been successfully used for other Improvements along Rosemead Boulevard. The projact cast is allocated on an equal basis to all existing and
protected new development through the study's 2025 planning horizon. As shown In Table 3.3. new development between 2010 and 2025 is projected to generate approximately five percentoftecal trip demand In
2025. Correspondingly, five percent of the Improvement costs for Rosemead Boulevard are allocated to new development and Included in the impact fee.
Sources: Traffic Analysis for City of Rosemead Circulation Element and Environmental Impact Report, February 19 2010 and Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study, June 2005
17
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
In addition to the intersection improvement projects identified by the Traffic Impact Analysis, the
City of Rosemead has identified the need for approximately $12.5 million in rehabilitation and
improvement work on Rosemead Boulevard. The Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study
identifies improvements that are needed to Rosemead Boulevard to bring the street up to City
standards. The study also identifies the need to widen the street to six lanes north of the 10
Freeway to accommodate existing traffic and future growth.
The study was prepared to inform considerations of relinquishment of the street, which is
currently a state highway, to the City of Rosemead. While the City has decided not to pursue
relinquishment at this time, the Public Works Department has indicated that the improvements
and rehabilitation needs identified in the Relinquishment Study will still be needed within the 2025
planning horizon of the impact fee study. The improvements are likely to be partly funded by
Caltrans and partly funded by the City of Rosemead.
There are a number of improvements identified in the Circulation Element Traffic Impact Analysis
that are not included in this fee study. The Traffic Impact Analysis identified improvement needs
at several intersections and roadway segments along Rosemead Boulevard. Improvements at
these intersections and roadway segments are included in the Rosemead Boulevard
Relinquishment Study, and are therefore not identified separately. In addition, the Traffic Impact
Analysis identified the need to widen Walnut Grove Avenue to six lanes between Valley
Boulevard and Marshall Street to maintain an acceptable LOS. The Rosemead Public Works
Department indicates that this improvement is infeasible due to right -of -way constraints.
Therefore, this project is not included in the fee study.
Table 3.7 shows the cost of traffic improvements allocated to new development per unit of trip
demand generated by new development. The cost per trip demand unit is used as the basis of
the proposed traffic impact fee.
Table 3.7: Traffic Facilities Cost per P.M. Peak Hour Trip
Demand Unit
New Development Share of Intersection Costs $1,232,221
Peak Hour Trip Demand From Growth 1269
Cost per Unit of Peak Hour Trip Demand $971.02
M
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
Fee Schedules
Table 3.8 shows the proposed traffic impact fee for development projects in single use zoning
districts. The cost per unit of trip demand is converted to a fee per unit of development based on
the trip demand factors for single use zoning districts shown in Table 3.2.
The total fee includes a two percent administrative charge to fund fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, fee
justification analyses, and legal review. The administrative charge should be reviewed and
adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the
charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee
program.
Table 3.8: Traffic Impact Fee, Single Use Zon
A a
Cost Per PM Trip Demand
Total Fee'
Residential
Single Family $971 1.02 $990 $20 $1,010
Multi - Family $971 0.62 $602 $12 $614
Non - Residential
Retail
$971
1.13 $1,097
$22
$1,119
Office
$971
1.65 $1,602
$32
$1,634
Industrial
$971
1.12 $1,088
$22
$1,109
Fee per dwelling unit for
residential land uses and per 1,000 square feet for ngnresitlential uses.
sources: Tables 32 and 3 7 Wllldan Financial Services.
19
City of Rosemead
Development Impact Fee Study
Table 3.9 shows the proposed traffic impact fees for development projects in mixed use zoning
districts.
Table 3.9: Traffic Impact Fee, Mixed Use Zones
A 6 C =A
Cost Per PM Trip Demand
Residential
Single Family $971 0.91
Multi - Family $971 0.55
Non - Residential
$18
Retail
$971 1.01
Office
$971 1.47
Industrial
$971 1.00
' Fee per dwelling unit for residential
land uses and per 1,000 squ
sources'. Tables 3 2 and 3.7 Willdan Flnandal services.
Non -Fee Funding Needed
Fee'
Admin.
E =C +D
$884
$18
$901
$534
$11
$545
$981
$20
$1,000
$1,427
$29
$1,456
$971
$19
$990
ve feet for nonresidential uses
The traffic impact fee is projected to fund the $1,232,000 in project costs allocated to new
development, as shown in Table 3.7. A significant amount of non -fee funding will be needed to
complete the traffic improvement projects included in the fee study. As shown in Table 3.10,
approximately $13.5 million in non -fee funding will be needed. This funding may come from
subventions of gas tax revenue, state and regional transportation funding programs, the General
Fund, or other sources.
Table 3.10: Non -Fee Funding Needed for Traffic
Improvements in Fee Program
Intersection Improvements
Total Improvement Cost $14,685,000
New Development Cost Allocation _ $1,232,221
Non -Fee Funding Needed $13,452,779
12
4. Public Safety Facilities
The purpose of the public safety impact fee is to fund the public safety facilities needed to serve
new development. A proposed fee is presented based on the existing facility standard in the City
of Rosemead. This fee will allow the City to maintain its current level of facilities per capita as
growth occurs.
Service Population
Public safety facilities are used to provide public safety services to both residents and
businesses. The service population used to determine the demand for public safety facility
includes both residents and workers. Table 4.1 shows the current public safety facilities service
population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of 2025.
Both residents and businesses create demand for public safety facilities; however, residents and
workers do not create demand for facilities at an equal rate. It is assumed that relative facilities
demand is proportional to the time people spend working compared to the time they spend not
working. Thus, each worker is weighted at 0.31 and each resident is weighted at 1.00, based on
the ratio of 40 working hours per week to 128 non - working hours per week.
Table 4.1 Public Safety Facilities Service
service
Existing ResidentsNVorkers
57,756
15,729
Weighting Factor
1.00
0.31
Exisitng Service Population (2010)
57,756
4,876
62,632
New ResidentsNVorkers
2,848
1.051
Weighting Factor
1.00
0.31
New Service Population (2010-2025)
2,848
326
3,174
Total Service Population (2025)
60,604
5,202
65,806
'workers demand 5 weighted at 0.31 of residents demand based on the ratio of 40 working hours per
to 128 non - working hours (40/128= 0.31).
Sources'. Table 2 2. Willdan Financial
21
of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
Facility Inventory
Table 4.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of public safety facilities. The estimated values
shown for public safety equipment were provided by the City. Vehicle values are based on Kelley
Blue Book values for each vehicle model and year.
Table 4.2: Existing Public Safety Facilities
Eauioment
Inventory
Units
Unit Cost
Total Value
Land
1
ea
$ 25,000
$
25,000
Public Safety Building
0.30
acres
$ 3000,000
$
900,000
Buildin s
6
ea
400
2,400
Public Safety Building
3,600
sq. k.
$ 375
$
1,350,000
Vehicles
1
ea
11,000
11,000
2003 Ford Crown Victoria
1
ea
$ 9,500
$
9,500
2005 Ford Sport Tree
1
ea
16,500
16,500
2005 Ford Ranger
3
ea
8,700
26,10D
2007 Chev. Colorado w / Comp. System
1
as
30,000
30,OOD
2008 Chev. Colorado wl Comp. System
1
ea
30,000
30,OOD
2007 GEM Electric Car
1
ea
12,500
125D0
Subtotal - Vehicles
1
ea
16,000
$
124,600
Eauioment
Telephone System
1
ea
$ 25,000
$
25,000
Computer Desk Stations
26
ea
3,000
78,000
Printers
6
ea
400
2,400
Color Laser Printer
1
ea
2,500
2,500
Photo Copy Machine
1
ea
11,000
11,000
TV Monitors
5
ea
900
4,500
Cable Box Systems 8 Computer Projector/
N/A
N/A
5,000
Mechanical Wall System
Chairs
100
ea
15
1,500
Tables
20
ea
50
1,000
Portable Speaker System
1
ea
4,000
4,000
LASD "Live Scan" Machine
1
ea
16,000
16,000
Closed Circuit Monitor System w/ 6 HD Cameras
1
ea
24,000
24.00
Subtotal - Equipment
$
174,900
Total Value of Existing Public Faculties
$
2,549,500
Sources'. City of Rosemead, Loopnet Kelley Blue Book, Wildan Financial Services.
22
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
Facility Standard
Table 4.3 shows the existing facility standard for public safety facilities. This value is calculated
by dividing the total value of existing public safety facilities by the existing service population. The
resulting cost per resident is used to determine the impact fee for residential land uses, while the
cost per worker is used to determine the impact fee for nonresidential land uses.
Table 4.3: Public Safety Facility Cost per Capita
Value of Existing Facilities $ 2,549,500
Existing Service Population 62.632
Cost Per Capita $ 41
Cost per Resident $ 41
Cost Per Worker' 13
Basetl on 0.31 worker weighting factor.
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2; Mill Financial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 4.4 shows the proposed public safety facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is
converted to a fee per unit of new development based on the dwelling unit and employment
densities (persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building
space) shown in Table 2.1.
The total fee includes a two percent administrative charge to fund fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, fee
justification analyses, and legal review. The administrative charge should be reviewed and
adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the
charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee
program.
23
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
Table 4.4: Public Safety Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C =AxS D= Cx2% E =CtD
Cost Per Admin
Residential
Single Family $
41
4.01
$
164 $
3
$
167
Multi- family
41
3.22
132
3
135
Nonresidential
Commercial $
13
2.33
$
30 $
1
$
31
Office
13
3.13
41
1
42
Industrial
13
116
15
0
15
' Fee per dwelling unit for residential, per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential.
Administrative charge of 2.0
percent.
sources'. Tables 2.2 and 4.3: Willtlan Financial services.
Estimated Fee Revenue
Table 4.5 shows the projected revenue from the public safety facilities fee through the study's
2025 planning horizon. These estimates are calculated by multiplying the cost per capita from
Table 4.3 by the projected growth in residents and workers between 2010 and 2025. The public
safety impact fee is projected to generate approximately $131,000 through 2025. The fee
revenue can be used to expand existing public safety facilities, construct new facilities, and
purchase additional vehicles and equipment to accommodate additional development and the
corresponding demands for services.
Table 4.5: Projected Public Safety Impact Fee Revenue
Total Fee
Residents Workers Revenue
New ResidentsNVorkers(2010 -2025) 2,848 1,051
Fee per Capita $ 41 $ 13
Fee Revenue $ 117,000 $ 14,000 $ 131,000
sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3', Willi Financial services.
24
5. General Government Facilities
The purpose of the general government facilities impact fee is to fund the general government
facilities needed to serve new development. The proposed fee is based on the existing facility
standard in the City of Rosemead. This fee will allow the City to maintain its current level of
facilities per capita as growth occurs.
Service Population
General government facilities are used to provide civic and administrative services to both
residents and businesses. City administration and public works facilities are included in the
general government fee category. The service population used to determine the demand for
general government facilities includes both residents and workers. Table 5.1 shows the current
service population and the estimated service population at the planning horizon of 2025.
Both residents and businesses create demand for general government facilities; however,
residents and workers do not create demand for facilities at an equal rate. It is assumed that
relative facility demand is proportional to the time people spend working compared to the time
they spend not working. Thus, each worker is weighted at 0.31 and each resident is weighted at
1.00, based on the ratio of 40 working hours per week to 128 non - working hours per week.
Table 5.1 General Government Service
Service
Existing ResidentsNVorkers
57,756
15,729
Weighting Factor
1.00
0.31
Existing Service Population (2010)
57,756
4,876
62,632
New Residents/Workers
2,848
1,051
Weighting Factor
1.00
0.31
New Service Population (2010-2025)
2,848
326
3,174
Total Service Population (2025)
60,604
5202 ,
65,806
' Workers demand is weighted at 0.31 of residents demand based on the ratio of 40 working hours per
week to 128 non - working hours (401128 =0.31).
Sources: Table 2.2; Willdan Financial Services.
Facility Inventory
Table 5.2 summarizes the City's current inventory of general government land and buildings. The
total estimated value of the City's existing inventory of land and buildings is approximately $12.1
25
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
million. This estimate is based on the assumed price of $3 million per acre of vacant land in
commercial districts and $700,000 per acre for land in residential areas. Based on similar projects
in other cities Willdan has worked with, construction costs are estimated to be $375 per square
foot for City Hall and Garvey Park Public Services Center and $150 per square foot for
maintenance shop facilities.
Table 5.2: Existina General Government
Land
& Buildinas
Inventory
Unit Cost
Total Value
Land'''
City Hall
0.98
acres
$ 3,000,000
$ 2,940,000
Garvey Park Facility
1.43
acres
700,000
1,001,000
Ramona Yard
0.35
acres
700,000
252,000
Rosemead Park Facility
0.60
acres
700,000
420.000
Subtotal - Land
3.37
acres
$ 4,613,000
Buildings
Rosemead Park Public Works Facility
Building 1
398
sq. ft.
$ 150
$ 60,000
Building
1,168
sq. ft.
150
175,000
Building 3
3,143
sq. ft.
150
471,000
Building
300
sq. ft.
150
45,000
Subtotal - Rosemead Park Facility
5,009
sq. ft.
$ 751,000
Other Buildings
Garvey Park Maintenance Yard
14,136
sq. ft.
$ 150
$ 2,120,000
Garvey Park Public Services Center
4,500
sq. ft.
375
1,688,000
City Hall
20.000
sq. ft.
375
7,500,000
Subtotal - Other Buildings
38,636
sq. ft.
$ 11,308,000
Subtotal - Buildings
43,645
sq. ft.
$ 12,059,000
'Acreage associated with the public vxork facilities located In parks is shown
here and not included
in the parks
acreage calculated in the existing parkland inventory .
2 Based on a review of parcels on the market, land value
for facilities in
residential and officeAght industrial
areas is
estimated at $700.000 per acre. Land value for facilities in
commercial
districts estimated at $3,000,000 per acre.
source: City of Rosemead: Willdan Financial services.
26
of Rosemead
Fee
Table 5.3 summarizes the City's current inventory of general government vehicles and
equipment. The City currently has an estimated $877,000 worth of vehicles and equipment. The
estimated values shown for general government vehicles were provided by the City.
Table 5.3: Existina General Government
Vehicles
& Eauioment
Inventory
Unit Cost
Total Value
Administration
Hybrid SUV
1
$ 35,000
$ 35,000
Toyota Camry, Hybrid Sedan
2
26,000
52,000
Community Service
Chevrolet Compact Pickup
2
20,000
40,000
Public Services
Nissan 4x2 Pickup
1
20,000
20,000
Ford 3/4 Ton Pickup
1
27,000
27,000
Ford 1 Ton Pickup
2
29,000
58,000
Chevrolet Compact Pickup
3
20,000
60,000
Chevrolet 1 Ton Pickup
3
29,000
87,000
Ford Taurus
1
25,000
25,000
Ford Compact Pickup
2
20,000
40,000
Ford 1/2 Ton Pickup
1
26,000
26,000
Aerial Lift Truck
1
95,000
95,000
Tractor
1
90,000
90,000
Dump Truck
1
60,000
60,000
Aerial Scissor Lift
1
20,000
20,000
Generator
2
5,000
10,000
Public Works
Ford Econoline 1 Ton Van
3
28,000
84,000
Public Works Administration
Ford Taurus
1
25,000
25,000
Toyota Prius
1
23,000
23.000
Total $ 877,000
Source '. City of Rosemead: Willdan Financial Services.
27
City of Rosemead _ Development Impact Fee Study
Facility Standard
Table 5.4 shows the existing facility standard per capita for general government facilities. This
value is calculated by dividing the total value of existing general government facilities by the
existing service population. The resulting cost per resident is used to determine the impact fee for
residential land uses, while the cost per worker is used to determine the impact fee for
nonresidential land uses.
Table 5.4: General Government Facility Cost per Capita
Value of General Government Land
$
4,613,000
Value of General Government Buildings
12,059,000
Value of General Government Vehicles B Equipment
877,000
Total Value of Existing Facilities
$
17,549,000
Existing Service Population
62,632
Cost Per Capita
$
280
Cost per Resident
$
280
Cost Per Worker'
87
' Based on o 31 vrorker veighfing factor.
Sources: Tables 5 , 5.2, and 5 3; Willdan Finacial Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 5.5 shows the proposed general government facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is
converted to a fee per unit of new development based on dwelling unit and employment densities
(persons per dwelling unit or employees per 1,000 square feet of nonresidential building space).
The total fee includes a two percent administrative charge to fund fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, fee
justification analyses, and legal review. The administrative charge should be reviewed and
adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the
charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee
program.
28
City of Rosemead
Development Impact Fee Study
Table 5.5: General Government Facilities Fee Schedule
A B C =A'B D -2 %'C I E_
Cost Per I Admin.
Land Use Capita
Density
Base Fee
Charge'
Total Fee
Residential
Single Family $ 280
4.01
$ 1,123
$ 22
$ 1,145
Multi- family 280
3.22
902
18
920
Nonresidential
Retail $ 87
2.33
$ 203
$ 4
$ 207
Office 87
3.13
272
5
277
Industrial 87
1.16
101
2
103
'Administrative
charge of 2.0 percent.
Sources: Table 2 2 and 54; Willdan Financial Services.
Estimated Fee Revenue
Table 5.6 shows the projected revenue from the general government impact fee through the
study's 2025 planning horizon. These estimates are calculated by multiplying the cost per capita
from Table 5.4 by the projected growth in residents and workers between 2010 and 2025. The
general government impact fee is projected to generate approximately $900,000 through 2025.
The fee revenue can be used to expand existing general government facilities, construct new
facilities, and purchase additional vehicles and equipment to accommodate additional
development and the corresponding demands for services.
Table 5.6: Projected General Government Impact Fee Revenue
Total Fee
Residential Non - Residential Revenue
New ResidentsANorkers(2010 -2025) 2,848 1,051
Fee per Capita $ 280 $ 87
Fee Revenue $ 797,000 $ 91,000 $ 888,000
Sources'. Tables 5.1 and 5.4', Willdan Financial Services.
29
6. Library Facilities
The purpose of the library impact fee is to fund the library facilities needed to serve new
development- The proposed fee is based on the existing facility standard in the City of
Rosemead. This fee will allow the City to maintain its current level of facilities per capita as
growth occurs.
The Rosemead Library is owned and operated by the County of Los Angeles Public Library.
However, it is likely that the City of Rosemead would be required to provide funding for future
library expansions, a replacement of the Library building, and/or investment in expanded
collections and technology. The proposed impact fee would provide funding to expand the library
facilities to accommodate growth in the City.
Service Population
Table 6.1 shows the current library facilities service population and the estimated service
population at the planning horizon of 2025. As residents are considered to be the primary users of
libraries, demand for libraries is based on the City's residential population, rather than a
combined resident- worker service population.
Table 6.1: Library Service Population
Existing
New
Future
Residents
Development
Service
2010
2010 -2025
Population
Residents 57,756
2,848
60,604
Source. Table 2.2.
30
City of Rosemead
Facility Inventories
Development Impact Fee Study
Table 6.2 summarizes the Rosemead Library's current inventory of library land, buildings,
collections, and computers. The Rosemead Library's collection includes books, magazine and
newspaper subscriptions, videotapes, CDs, audio recordings, books on tape and laser disks. The
average unit cost for these items is based on an estimate of library volume costs from the Bowker
Annual.
Table 6.2: Existing Library Facilities
Invento Unit Cost Total Value
Land
Rosemead Library 2.23 acres $ 3,000,000 $ 6,690,000
Buildings
Rosemead Library 29,860 sq. ft. $ 375 $ 11,198,000
Volumes
Rosemead Library 123,120 items $ 36 $ 4,432,000
computers
Rosemead Library 34 computers $ 800 $ 27,000
Total Value Existing Facilities $ 22,347000
sources: County of Los Angeles Public Library, The bow er Annual', City of Rosemead, Mean
Financial Services.
31
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
Facility Standards
Table 6.3 shows the existing facility cost standard per capita for library facilities. This value is
calculated by dividing the total value of existing library facilities by the existing service population.
The resulting cost per resident is used to determine the impact fee for residential land uses.
Using this facility standard as the basis for the impact fee will allow the City to maintain the
current value of facilities per capita as growth occurs.
Table 6.3: Library Facility Cost per Capita
Value of Existing Facilities $ 22,347,000
Existing Service Population 57.756
Cost Per Capita $ 387
' Based on 0 31 worker weighting factor.
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6 2'. Willdan Finacial Services.
The County of Los Angeles Public Library has adopted planning guidelines to identify targeted
levels of facilities per capita. Table 6.4 compares the County facility standards with the level of
facilities per capita currently provided by the Rosemead Library. As shown, the Rosemead Library
meets the standard for building space, but provides volumes and computers at a lower rate than
the adopted standard.
This comparison is shown for informational purposes, as the proposed fee is based on the current
value of facilities per capita shown in Table 6.3. However, this suggests that the City and the
Library may want to prioritize adding computers and expanding the Library's collection of volumes
as growth occurs.
32
Development Impact Fee Study
Table 6.4: Los Angeles County Library Standards
Fee Schedule
Table 6.5 shows the proposed library facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a
fee per unit of new development based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit, as
shown in Table 2.1.
The total fee includes a two percent administrative charge to fund fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, fee
justification analyses, and legal review. The administrative charge should be reviewed and
adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the
charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee
program.
33
Existing Inventory
county
Library
Standard
Building SnacE
Square Feet
29,860
Existing Population
57 756
Square Feet per Capita
0.52
0.50
Volumes
Volumes
123,120
Existing Population
57,756
Volumes per Capita
2.13
2.75
Computers
Computers
34
Existing Population
57,756
Computers per 1,000 Capita
0.59
1.00
Sources: Tables 6.1 and 6 2; County of Los Angeles Public Library ; Willi Financial
Services.
Fee Schedule
Table 6.5 shows the proposed library facilities fee schedule. The cost per capita is converted to a
fee per unit of new development based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit, as
shown in Table 2.1.
The total fee includes a two percent administrative charge to fund fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, fee
justification analyses, and legal review. The administrative charge should be reviewed and
adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the
charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee
program.
33
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
Table 6.5: Librar
Facilities Fee Schedule
A 7B-7777--U
'C E =C-D
Cost Per in.
Land Use
Capita
Densit
Base Fee
Char e'
t otal ree
Single Family
$ 387
4.01
$ 1,552
$ 31
$ 1,583
Multi- family
387
322
1,246
25
1,271
' Administrative charge of 2 o percent.
Sources. Table 2.1 and 6.3; Willtlan Financial Services.
Estimated Fee Revenue
Table 6.6 shows the projected revenue from the library facilities fee through the study's 2025
planning horizon. These estimates are calculated by multiplying the cost per capita from Table
6.3 by the projected growth in residents between 2010 and 2025. The library impact fee is
projected to generate approximately $1.1 million through 2025.
This revenue may be used to expand or remodel the Rosemead Library to accommodate
additional demand. Fee revenue could also be used to expand the Library's collections or provide
additional computers. If a new facility for the Rosemead Library is constructed, fee revenue could
be used to fund new development's share of costs for the new facility.
Table 6.6: Projected Library Impact Fee
Revenue
New Residents (2010-2025) 2,848
Fee per Capita $ 387
Fee Revenue $ 1,102,000
Sources. Tables 6.1 and 6.3 W illdan Financial Services.
34
7. Park Facilities
The purpose of this fee is to generate revenue to expand the City's park facilities to
accommodate new development.
This chapter documents two development fees for park facilities that may be adopted by the City
Council. The Quimby Act (Government Code §66477) allows cities to adopt park land dedication
requirements for residential subdivisions. The City may allow subdivision developers to pay a fee
in lieu of dedicating park land. Revenue from the Quimby Act in lieu fee must be used for
developing, improving, or rehabilitating park facilities accessible to the residents of the new
development. A Quimby Act in lieu fee is documented based on a land dedication standard of 2.5
acres per 1,000 residents, which is consistent with the National Parks and Recreation Association
recommended minimum standard of park facilities cited in the Rosemead General Plan.
A second fee, based on the City's existing standard of park acreage per 1,000 residents, is also
presented. The fee would be charged under the Mitigation Fee Act, and would apply to residential
development that does not involve a land subdivision. The improvement component of the
Mitigation Fee Act Fee would also be applied to subdivisions that are subject to the Quimby Act
land dedication requirement or in -lieu fee.
Service Population
Facility standards for parks are typically expressed as a ratio of park acres per 1,000 residents.
As residents are considered to be the primary users of parks in the City of Rosemead, demand
for parks and associated facilities is based on the City's residential population, rather than a
combined resident- worker service population. Table 7.1 provides estimates of the City's current
resident population and a projection for the year 2025.
Table 7.7: Parks Service Population
Existing
New
Future
Residents
Development
Service
2010
2010 -2025
Population
Residents 57,756
2,848
60,604
Sources: Table 2.2.
Facility Inventory
Table 7.2 summarizes the City's existing park inventory. The City of Rosemead currently
maintains 49.44 acres of parkland. The land value of each park was estimated using land value
assumptions that vary by the location of the park. Parks in residential areas were assigned a per
acre land value of §700,000, based on recent listings for residential land in Rosemead and
35
City of Rosemead
Impact Fee Study
nearby areas. Parks in commercial areas were assigned a land value of $3 million per acre. The
average value of parkland in Rosemead is estimated to be approximately $980,000 per acre.
Table 7.2: Existing Parkland Inventory
Est. Land
Park Type cre q. Esl. Land Value
�. ..e. ems.' Value
Angelus Park
Greenbelt
020 $
700.000
700,000
$ 140000
6.349000
Garvey Parka
Community
9.07
3.00
3,000,000
9,000,000
Garvey Recreation Center
Facility
0.25
700,000
175,000
Guess Park
Greenbelt
0.75
700,000
525000
Klingerman Park
Mini
Greenbelt
0.17
700,000
119,000
Olney Park
Rosemead Community Recreation Center
Facility
2.75
3,000,000
8,250,000
Rosemead Park
Community
1925 .
700,000
13,475,000
Sally Tanner Park
Neighborhood
1.25
700,000
875,000
Jess Gonzalez Spent, Complex Park
Specialty Facility
6.00
700,000
4,200,000
Greenbelt
025
3,000,000
750,000
Triangle Park
Neighborhood
6.50
700,000
4,550,000
Zapopan Park
4944
$48,408,000
Subtotal - Improved Park Acres
$ 980,000
Weighted Average Land Value per Acre
' 8asetl on a review o! recen\ IisOngs, lantl value for lacili \ies in residentel and office /light indusVial
areas Is estimal�
at A00,000 per
acre. Land value far faulifies In commercial dennots estimated at $3 000 000 per
In this
rare .
value. These appear In the general government facility
' 1 43 acres of public works facility air, vats in Garvey
Park are aWrIed
inventory
Sources: City, of Rosemeatl -, Loopnet, ayaL n Financial
services.
Table 7.3 shows the City's inventory of recreational facilities and park improvements, along with
the estimated replacement cost of each item. Unit costs of construction for recreational facilities
are based on appraisal information for park facilities in Rosemead. The replacement cost for
community centers and offices is estimated at $375 per square foot, consistent with the unit cost
estimate for City buildings used throughout this study.
The total value of recreational facilities in the City is approximately $27.7 million. This
corresponds to an average park facilities cost of $560,000 per acre. This study also includes an
estimated cost of $250,000 per acre for standard park improvements, including turf, parking,
paving, gutters and related basic improvements. Combining the average value of existing City
facilities with the standard improvement cost gives a total improvement cost of $810,000 per acre
of parkland.
36
City of Rosemead _
Table 7.3: Buildings and Park Improvement Costs
Development Impact Fee Study
So. Ft.
Unit Cost TOW
Rosemead Park and Pool
Rosemead Club House
Concession Stand and Restrooms
684
$ 200 $
177,000
Picnic Shelter
1,416
250
354,000
Playground
N/A
N/A
240,000
Track and Exercise Equipment
N/A
N/A
360,000
Rosemead Pool House
N/A
N/A
650,000
Large Pump Room
4,888
175
855,000
Subtotal - Rosemead Park and Pool
980
445
436 000
$
3,072,000
Garvey Pa k
Recreation Offices and Restrooms
1,200
$
Pool House
375 $
450,000
Picnic Shelter
5.166
175
904,000
Playground
N/A
N/A
720,000
Gymnasium
N/A
N/A
220,000
Storage, Restrooms and Snack Bar
8,128
200
1,626,000
Subtotal - Garvey Park
1,400
250_
350,000
$
4,270,000
Za000an Park
Playground
N/A
N/A
240,000
Sally Tanner Park
Playground
N/A
N/A
120,000
Klinoerman Park
Playground
Tennis Courts
N/A
N/A
1,000,000
Subtotal - Klingerman Park
N/A
N/A
350,000
$
1,350,000
Other Fac'ld es
Rosemead Community Recreation Center
18,000
$ 375 $
Jess Gonzalez Sports Complex Restrooms, Office and Bay
1,800
250
6,750,000
Garvey Community Center
30,524
375
450,000
11 447 000
Subtotal - Other Facilities
$
18,647,000
Total - Park and Recreation Buildings and Special Improvements
$
27,699,000
Acres of Improved Parkland
Building and Special Improvement Cost per Acre of Improved Parkland
4944
A $
560,000
Basic Park )mpnre,nj C t A e $ 250,000
Total Building and Improvement Cost Per Acre =A. e $ 81000
Basic Improvements typically inuude turf parking, paving, elc. Costs fbr the lighted pall Oelds at Rosemead and Garvey paMS are
Included in the $250,0]0 per acre worth pt standard Improvemenls.
Sources'. Table 7 2, City of Rosemead; W illtlar Fnancial Services.
37
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
Facility Standards
The Rosemead General Plan does not adopt a park acreage standard, but cites the National
Parks and Recreation Association's (NPRA) recommended minimum standard of 2.5 acres per
1,000 residents. The General Plan also states that the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) recommends a minimum of 4.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
Mitigation Fee Act
Table 7.4 shows the facility standards on which the park impact fees are based. As shown, the
City's existing parkland standard is 0.86 acres per 1,000 residents. This standard is used as the
basis of the Mitigation Fee Act park impact fee, which would apply to residential development that
does not involve a new land subdivision. The improvements portion of the Mitigation Fee Act
impact fee could also apply to residential subdivisions that are also subject to the Quimby Act
land dedication or in -lieu fee requirements. Using the existing standard for the park impact fee will
ensure that the City will be able to maintain the current level of park facilities per capita as growth
occurs.
Under the Mitigation Fee Act, if the City charged the fee at a higher standard, such as the
NPRA's recommended 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents, it would need to use non -fee revenue to,
over time, provide a level of facilities to new development equal to the level upon which the fee is
based. This would require significant investment in park facilities using non -fee revenue. In
addition, the City does not have available park development sites to provide this standard of park
acres per capita.
Quimby Act
Under the Quimby Act, the City may require land dedication or in -lieu fees at a higher level than
the existing standard without needing to use other funding to achieve that level of facilities
Citywide. The Quimby Act permits land dedication requirements of up to 3.0 acres per 1,000
residents, unless the City's existing standard is greater than this amount. The Quimby Act land
dedication requirement and in -lieu fee is based on the National Parks NPRA recommended
minimum of 2.5 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents cited in the Rosemead General Plan. The
Quimby Act park and in -lieu fee may be based only on the cost of providing land at the
designated standard. Therefore, residential subdivisions would also pay a fee for park
improvements under the Mitigation Fee Act.
38
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
Table 7.4: Improved Parkland Standards
Existing Standard
Improved Park Acreage 4044
Residents 57,756
Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 0.86
Quimby Act Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 2.50
sources Tables 7.1 and 72 , City of Rosemead Willdan Financial services
Cost per Capita
Table 7.5 shows parkland and improvement costs per capita under the Mitigation Fee Act and
Quimby Act standards.
Table 7.5: Park Cost Per Ca
Land
Acres per 1,000 Residents
0.86
Land Cost per Acre
$ 980.000
Land Cost per 1,000
Residents
$ 842,800
Land Cost per Resident
$ 843
Improvements
Acres per 1,000 Residents
0.86
Improvements Cost per Acre
$ 810 000
Improvements Cost per
1,000 Residents
$ 696,600
Improvements Cost per
Resident
$ 697
Total Cost per Resident $ 1.540
2.501
$ 980 000
2,450,000
$ 2,450
sources: Table 7.2, 7.3 and TA; City of Rosemead, Willdan Financial
services
The National Parks 8 Recreation Association standard is 2.50 acres per 1000 residents. However, realistically the City will
not be able to purchase more than 1.0 acres per 1000 residents due to the "built -out' condk,cn of the commun@y.
39
City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study
Fee Schedule
Table 7.6 shows the proposed park facilities fee schedule. The proposed fees are based on the
costs per capita shown in Table 7.5. The cost per capita is converted to a fee per unit of new
development based on the average number of residents per dwelling unit, as shown in Table 2.1.
The proposed fee for non - subdivision development is based on the Mitigation Fee Act and
includes the land and improvement components based on the existing standard of park facilities
per capita. The proposed fee for subdivision developments includes the Quimby Act land
dedication in -lieu fee, based on a standard of 2.5 acres per 1,000 residents, and the Mitigation
Fee Act park improvement fee based on the existing standard of park facilities per capita.
If developers dedicate either undeveloped park land or improved park facilities, they should be
provided a credit against the applicable portion of the park fees.
The total fee includes a two percent administrative charge to fund fee program administrative
costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, fee
justification analyses, and legal review. The administrative charge should be reviewed and
adjusted during comprehensive impact fee updates to ensure that revenue generated from the
charge sufficiently covers, but does not exceed, the administrative costs associated with the fee
program
40
City of Rosemead
Tahln 7 A- Pa.4
A
Cost Per
rnnan
Non - Subdivision
I $
$
3,380
2,795
6,175
Single Family
68
56
124
I $
Land - Mitigation Fee Act
$
843
Improvements
697
Total Fee
$
1,540
Multi - family
12,620
$
Land - Mitigation Fee Act
$
843
Improvements
$
697
Total Fee
$
1,540
Subdivision
Single Famil v
Land - Quimby Act $ 2,450
Improvements 697
Total Fee $ 3 147
Multi family
Land - Quimby Act $ 2,450
Improvements 697
Total Fee $ 3,147
Development Impact Fee Study
B C =A'8 0 =2 %'C E =C +O
Admin.
151 Base Fee Charge' Total Fei
4.01
4.01
I $
$
3,380
2,795
6,175
$
$
68
56
124
I $
3,448
2.851
$
6,299
3.22
3.22
I $
$
2,714
2,24
4,958
$
$
54I
45
99
$
2,768
2.289
$
5,057
4.01
$
9.825
$
197
$
10,022
4.01
2,79
56
2.851
$
12,620
$
253
$
12,873
122
$
7,889
$
158
$
8,047
3.22
2.244
45
2.289
$
10,133
$
203
$
10,336
Haminsrrauve charge of 2.0 percent _
Sources Tables 2.2 and 7.5, Widen den Financial services.
41
8. Implementation
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process
Impact fee program adoption procedures are found in the California Government Code section
66019. Adoption of an impact fee program requires the City Council to follow certain procedures
including holding a public hearing. Data, such as an impact fee report, must be made available at
least 10 days prior to the public hearing. The City's legal counsel should be consulted for any
other procedural requirements as well as advice regarding adoption of an enabling ordinance
and/or a resolution. After adoption there is a mandatory 60 -day waiting period before the fees go
into effect.
Inflation Adjustment
Appropriate inflation indexes, such as the Construction Cost Index (CCI), should be used to
update the fees annually for changes in facility costs. The inflation procedures can be specified
in the fee ordinance or resolution. If desired, the fee ordinance can include automatic inflation
updates so that the updates do not have to be considered by the City Council each year. A
construction cost index can be based on the City's recent capital project experience or can be
taken from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News- Record. Updating the land value
estimates used in this study may require the use of a qualified real estate appraiser.
While fee updates using inflation indices are appropriate for periodic updates to ensure that fee
revenues keep up with increases in the costs of public facilities, the City should also conduct
more extensive updates of the fee documentation and calculations when significant new data on
growth forecasts and/or facility plans becomes available.
Reporting Requirements
The City should comply with the annual and five -year reporting requirements of the Mitigation Fee
Act. For facilities to be funded by a combination of impact fees and other revenues, identification
of the source and amount of these non -fee revenues is essential. Identification of the timing of
receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important.
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP
The City maintains a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to plan for future infrastructure needs.
The City should program projects to be funded with impact fees in the CIP. The CIP identifies
costs and phasing for specific capital projects. The use of the CIP in this manner documents a
reasonable relationship between new development and the use of those revenues.
The City may decide to alter the scope of the planned projects or to substitute new projects as
long as those new projects continue to represent an expansion of the City's facilities. If the total
cost of facilities varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fees, the City should consider
revising the fees accordingly.
42
9. Mitigation Fee Act Findings_
Impact fees are one -time fees typically paid when a building permit or certificate of occupancy is
issued. Impact fees are 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 (the Act) 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.
The five findings required for adoption of the public facilities fees documented in this report are
presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the preceding chapters. All statutory
references are to the Act.
Purpose of Fee
Identify the purpose of the fee ( §66001(a)(1) of the Act).
Development impact fees are designed to ensure that new development will not burden the
existing service population with the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The
purpose of the fees proposed in this report is to provide a funding source from new development
for capital improvements to serve that development. The fees advance a legitimate City interest
by enabling the City to provide municipal services to new development.
Use of Fee Revenues
- Identify the use to which the fees will be put. If the use is financing facilities, the
facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by
reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in §65403 or §66002, may be
made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other
public documents that identify the facilities for which the fees are charged
( §66001(a)(2) of the Act).
Fees proposed in this report, if enacted by the City, would be used to fund expanded facilities to
serve new development. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the
City. Fees addressed in this report will fund the purchase of land, the construction or expansion of
buildings and public facilities, purchases of vehicles and equipment, and the construction of
roadway improvements. Fees will be used to provide facilities in the following categories: traffic,
general government, public safety, parks and library facilities.
Benefit Relationship
• Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of
development project on which the fees are imposed ( §65001(a)(3) of the Act).
43
Rosemead Development Impact Fee study
The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings,
and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new
development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities
accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Fees are
not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable
relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development projects
that will pay the fees.
Burden Relationship
Determine the reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and
the types of development on which the fees are imposed ( §66001(a)(4) of the Act).
Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new
development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single
facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to
the type of development. For most facility categories service population standards are calculated
based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of
workers associated with non - residential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard,
one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand
between residential and non - residential development. The estimated demand for traffic facilities is
based on the average number of vehicle trips generated by each type of development, adjusted
for variations trip length and pass -by trips.
Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts provides a description of how service population and growth
forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of
each facility category chapter.
Proportionality
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between 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) of the Act).
The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project
and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new
development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the
project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting
in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees
ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the
facilities attributable to that project.
See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population or Trip Demand from New
Development sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service
populations or other facility demand factors are determined for different types of land uses. See
the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the proposed
facilities fees.
44
ATTACHMENT B
Reserved
SURVEY OF LOCAL CITIES' DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES
Staff has prepared the following Development Impact Fee (DIF) comparison report which is
based on a survey of impact fees in the following cities:
• Arcadia
• El Monte
• Monterey Park
• Pasadena
• San Gabriel
• Temple City
• Rosemead (Existing)
• Rosemead (Proposed)
DIFs are charged on the basis of a variety of different factors, such as the number of dwelling
units, the number of building square feet, acreage, or the number of vehicle trips generated in a
development project. In addition, different cities charge fees for different types of facilities.
Therefore, the total impact fee burden for a variety of prototypical development projects was
estimated to provide a comparison of overall impact fee levels across the cities surveyed. The
following land uses were included in this analysis:
• Single - Family Detached Residential (2,400 square feet of floor area)
• Multi- Family Attached Residential (20 units totaling 29,000 square feet of floor area)
• Retail (50,000 square feet of Floor area)
• Office (50,000 square feet of floor area)
• Industrial (300,000 square feet of floor area), and
• Mixed -Use Residential - Commercial (36 units totaling 52,000 square feet of residential
and 25,000 square feet of Retail floor area)
The findings of the survey are summarized in the following tables and graphs.
• Table 1 - Survey of DIF in Local Cities
• Table 2 - Analysis of DIF Applied to Prototypical Projects
• Graphs - Illustration of Fee Comparison Applied to Prototypical Projects
Reserved
I — Survev of Develooment Impact Fees in Local Cities
City Single Family Multi Family Retail Office Industrial Notes
Arcadia
Park Development Fee
$2.85
$3.73
--
Residential fee is per Sq.R[. Credit is given for existing
structures.
Traffic Impact
$1,576
$1,576
$5.85
$2.32
$1.53
Residential fee is Per Unit. Non - residential fee is per Sq.
Ft
V Morse
Star. Drain
$924
$573
$0.89
$0.89
Residential Fee is Per Unit. Commercial Fee is per Sq.R.
Streets
$815
$815
$OAO
$0.40
Residential Fee is Per Unit. Commercial Fee is per Sq.Ft
Tragic Impact
$67.90
$6290
$0.120183
$0.120183
--
Commercal Retail depends on project size
Quimby Park
$6,032
$5,520
—
MIKA Pork
F$I�w
Recreation and Park 0evelopment
$)00.00
$700.00
$1.DO
$1.00
Per new resklen[ial unit antl per Sq. Ft. of non -
residendal)neworaddition). flat$350 per Res
addition
Public Safety Impact Fee
$2.43
$2.43
1 $2.43
$2.43
1 $2.43
Per Sq.Ft. of dwelling area or new leasable area. SFR
additions are exempt.
Pasade.
Residential Fee
$20,987.03
$18,245.02
$15,556.6410 $28,814.50 depending on no. of
bedrooms in unit. (Fees in than are for 3 -bed and 2-
bed units)
Public Art
If project is over $500,000 Or more than 25,000 if, fee
is 1% of building valuation. In -lieu fee option available.
Traffic Reduction & Transportation
Improvement Fee
$2,556.88
$2,556.80
$8.09
$3.84
$3.20
Per Residential Unit and Per Sq. Ft. non- residential.
Rosemead Fylsdm
Park Mitigation Impact Fee
$000.00
$800.00
-
-
Per residential unit
1— Survey of Development Impact Fees in Local Cities
CRY Single Family Multi Family Retall tiffice Industrial Notes
WP,. ad
Park Mitigation Impact Fee
$6,299.00
$5,057.00
Per residential unit
Traffic
$1,010.00
$614,0
$1,119.00
$1,634.00
$1,109.00
Per residential unit and Per square 1,000 ran-
maternal square feel
Public Safety
$162,0
$135,0
$31.00
$42.00
$15.00
Per residential unit and Per square 1,000 non-
residential square feet
General Government
$1,145,0
$920.00
$207,0
$222.00
$103,0
Per residential unit and Per square 1,000 nom-
residential square feet
Son Gabrkl
Police Facility
$757
$779
$0.21
$0.21 1
$0.21
Per residential unit and Per square non - residential
square foal
Fire Facility
$235
$235
$1.01
$1.01
$1.01
Per residential unit and Per square non - residential
square foot
Open Space and Recreation
$2,243
$2,243
Per residential unit and Per square non - residential
square foot
Traffic ($232 per trip) R- 1,R -3,C
$2,380
$1,428
$238
$238
238
R-1 (Per Unit - 30 trips(, R -3 (Per Unit -6 trips(,
Nonresidential (Per Trip)
Trull, (S232 per trip(, R -2
$1,904
R-2(Per Unit- Strips)
Traffic ($232 per trip). Second Unit
$1,428
Tnifflc($232 per trip), Senior Unit
$952
Sewer, R -1, R -3, C, M -1
$4,097
$1,365
$181
$3.81
$7.73
A-1 (Per Unit(, R -3 (Per Unit), Commercial and
Industrial (Per Sq Ft)
Seweq R -2
$2,049
-
R-2 (Per Unit)
Sewell Second Unit
$1,025
--
Second Unit (Based an 1/2 of R -2)
Sewer, Senior Unit
$6,843
Senior Unit (Based 1/2 of R -3(
Seweq Ace. Addition> SW
$2,049
Temale city
Sewer Reconstruction Fee
$2,500
$25,00
Per project for Multi famip (defined as 4 or more units)
Per Unit for 1-3 units
Park
$500
$500
Per unit
2 — Analysis of Development Impact Fees Applied to Prototypical Developments
City Single Family Multi Family Retail Office Industrial Notes
Park NwlopmeMFee
Park Development Fee
$6,840.00
$108,170.00
Residential fee is per Sq.F.t. Credit is
gNen for existing structures.
Traffic Impact
$1,576.00
$31,520.00
$292,500.0
$116,000.00
$459,000
Residential fee Is per Unit. Non
residential per Sq. Ft.
Total:
$8,416.00
$139,690.00
$292,500.00
$116,000.00
$4$9,000.00
61 Monte
Storm Drain
$924.00
$11,460.00
$44,500.00
$44,5110.0
Residential Fee is per Unit,
Commercial Fee is per Sq.Ft.
Streets
$815.00
$16,300.00
$20,000.0
$20,000.00
Residential Fee is per Unit,
Commercial Fee is per Sq.Ft.
Traffic Impact
$67.90
$6]90
$6,009.15
$6,009.15
Commercial Retail depends on project
size
Quimby Park
$6,032.00
$110,40000
Total:
$7,838.90
$138,227.90
$70,509.15
$70,509.15
Monterey Pork
Recreation and Park Development
$70.00
$14,000.00
$0,000.0
$50,000.00
$300,000.00
Per new residential unit and Per Sq. Ft.
of non- residental knew or addition).
flat SlSO Oer Resadditi0n
Public Safety Impact Fee
$5,832.00
$70,470.00
$121,50D0
$121,500.00
$729,000.00
Per Sq.Ft. of dwelling area or new
leasable area. SFR additions are
exert.
Total:
$6,532.00
$84,470.00
$171,s00.00
$171,500.00
$1,029,00.00
Pasaderm
Residential Fee
$20,987.03
$36,900.40
$15,556.64 to $28,814.50 depending
on no. of bedrooms in unit. Fees in
chartare for 3 -bed and 2 -bed units)
Public Art
$53,160.00
$83,875.00
$171,360.00
Downtown and Old Town Areas
Traffic Reduction and Transportation
Improvement Fee
$2,556.88
$51,137.60
$444,500.00
$192,000.00
$9W,OW.00
Total:
$23,543.91
$88,038.0
$497,660.00
$2]5,8]5.00
$1,131,360.00
2 — Analysis of Development Impact Fees Applied to Prototypical Developments
City Single Family Multi Family Retail Office Industrial Notes
Rosemead aisdna
Park Mitigation Impact Fee
$800.00
$16,000.00
Per Residential Unit
Total:
$800.00
$16,000.0
$0.00
$0.00
$0.0)
Rosemead Proposed
Park Mitigaion Impact Fee
$6,299.00
$101,140.00
Per Residential Unit
Traffic
$1,010.00
$12,280.0
$55,950.00
581,]00.00
$332,100.0
Public Sdf,y
$167.0
$2,700.00
$1,550.00
$2,100.0
$4,500.00
General Government
$1,145.00
$18,400.0
$10,350.0
$13,850.00
$30,900.00
Total:
$8,621.00
$134,520.00
$6].90.0
597,650.00
$368,100.00
Son Gobdel
Police Facility
$777.00
$15,540.0
$10,500.00
$10,500.0
$63.00.00
Per residential unit and Per square non
residential square foot
Fire Facility
$235.00
$4,700.00
$50,500.0
$50,500.w
$303,000.00
Per residential unit and Per square non
residential square foot
Open Spam and Recreation
$2,243.00
$44,860.0
Per residential unit and Per square non
residential square foot
Traffic per trip) R- 1,R -3,C
$2,380.00
$28,560.00
$508,130.0
$131,376.0
$497,658.00
R -1 (Per Unit -10 trips, R -3 (Per Unit
601p ), Commercisl(Per Trip
Sanitary Sewer, R-1, R-3, C, M -1
$4,097.00
$27,300.0
$19Q500.00
$190,500.0
$2, 319, 000.0
R -1(Per Unit), R -3 (Per Unit),
Commercial and Industrial (Per Sq FU
Total:
$9,732.00
$120,960.0
$759,630.00
$382,076.00
$3,182,658.00
Tempk Ci ly
Sewer Reconstruction Fee
$2,500
$25,000
...
--
Per project for mu9i- family (defined as
4 or more units) Per Unit for 1-3 units
Park
$500
$10,000
Per unit
Total:
$3,000
$35,000
$0
$0
$0
Graphs
Illustration of Development Impact Fees Applied to Prototypical Projects
Impact Fee Comparison for Single Family Project Prototype
2,400 Square Feet
$25,000.00
$20,000.00
$15,000.00
$10,000.00
$5,000.00
$0.00 ■ Single Family Impact Fee
cease cF` 0
Qs
Impact Fee Comparison for Multi Family Project Prototype
29,000 Square Feet (36 Units)
$160,000.00
$140,000.00
$120,000.00
$100,000.00 IN IN
$80,000.00
$60,000.00
40,000.00
$20,000.00
$0,00 111 Multi Family Impact Fee
eam e 0 a¢ca `i3O. 0& ¢�Ce a c�
Vs, 0�- e�¢, Qese a�} Q�op
PO
Impact Fee Comparison for Commercial Retail Project Prototype
50,000 Square Feet
$800,000.00
$700,000.00 --
$600,000.00
$500,000.00
$400,000.00
$300,000.00
$200,000.00
$100,000.00
$0.00 ■Retail Impact Fee
e¢aa ee�¢ Qa� aeea S`�,4r Sea ¢S e' \ c"
¢c¢'y C¢i¢ a zc c F.v
a S¢ 4e
P eey¢
Impact Fee Comparison for Commercial Office Project Prototype
50,000 Square Feet
$450,000.00
$400,000.00
$350,000.00
$300,000.00
$250,000.00
$200,000.00
$150,000.00
$100,000.00
$50,050.00 ■ Office Impact Fee
c¢aa ec�¢
�¢�e �CcA
q a c$b ea
A a�C sQC¢° QP Q \
a
v F
pe Q¢ye
Impact Fee Comparison for Industrial Project Prototype
300,000 Square Feet
$3,500,000.00
$3,000,000.00 -
$2,500,000.00
$2,000,000.00
$1,500,000.00
$1,000,000.00
$500,000.00
$0,00 ■ Industrial Impact Fee
`aa�z ¢ca¢ QaN' aeoa 4Q, oyea
as¢, QaSa a�4 Qs °Q c
d'OC� g9ee °e0eaa Sa
Pa
Impact Fee Comparison for Mixed Use Project Prototype
Retail 25,000 Square Feet and 36 Residential Units
$700,000.00
$600,000.00
$500,000.00
$400,000.00
$300,000.00
$200,000.00
$100,000.00
$0.00 ■ Mixed Use Impact Fee
,Qa`E (>-A
a ¢
ao ozacc � °a
P a¢
QO