Loading...
CC - Item 3A - Adoption of Development Impact Fees Municipal Code Amendment 15-01 M r0 !t F '9 Ai, CITY COUNCIL PR;DE STAFF REPORT „iii. CIVIC/NCDR'ORATED 1959 TO: THE HONORABLE MAYOR AND CITY COUNC FROM: JEFF ALLRED, CITY MANAGER L..? , DATE: MAY 26, 2015 SUBJECT: ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES MUNICIPAL CODE AMENDMENT 15-01 SUMMARY The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure. As a result of the State's action to eliminate redevelopment agencies in 2012, it is necessary for the City to establish Development Impact Fees (DIF) to generate funds for future improvements. The primary policy objective of a DIF program is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs associated with growth. In accordance with the City's Strategic Plan, which states: 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, a Rosemead DIF study was conducted to calculate and present fees that will enable the City to maintain its public facility standards as new development creates increases in service demands. The Rosemead DIF Study and the implementing Ordinance No. 949 and City Council Resolution 2015-07 have been prepared in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000 et seq.) and are included in this report as Attachments "A" through "C", respectively. Staff Recommendation It is recommended that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Move to INTRODUCE FIRST READING, by title only, Ordinance No. 949 (Attachment "B") to amend the Rosemead Municipal Code by repealing Section 12.44.020 (Park and Recreation Impact Fee) of Title 12, Chapter 12.44 and adding Article 7 (Development Fees), Chapter 17.170 (Development Impact Fees) to Title 17 to establish development impact fees for new residential and nonresidential development; and 2) ADOPT City Council Resolution No. 2015-07 (Attachment "C"), approving the Final Draft Rosemead DIF Study (Attachment "A"), dated April 21, 2015, and establishing DIF for new residential and new or intensified nonresidential development in the City of Rosemead. ITEM NUMBER: a\ City Council Report May 26,2015 Page 2 of 7 BACKGROUND Impact fees are one-time fees charged to new development, usually upon the issuance of a building permit. The fee represents new developments' fair share of infrastructure and facility needs. Impact fees are not charged to existing residences or businesses, and they cannot cover the cost of staffing. Impact fees must comply with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. Several years ago, Willdan Financial Services (Willdan) was engaged to conduct a development impact fee study for the City. The results of that study were presented to the City in 2010; however, the City did not adopt the fees that time. In late 2013 and early 2014, the City Council determined that it is now appropriate to move forward with the establishment of development impact fees. Accordingly, the City's Strategic Plan for 2014 and 2015 includes a strategic action item to complete a DIF study for the establishment of fund accounts for infrastructure improvements necessitated by new development. To make the study viable for 2014, the City engaged Willdan to provide technical assistance to City staff updating the analysis. On April 28, 2015 staff conducted a Stakeholder Outreach and City Council Workshop. This workshop included an overview of the purpose of impact fees, what is required for documenting impact fees, how such fees are calculated, and a summary of the Rosemead DIF Study. Public comments from both the City Council and general public were recorded. One letter of comment was submitted from the Building Industry Association (BIA) which has been included in this report as Attachment "D." Since the DIF Study contains a technical analysis that justifies the maximum fees that may be charged to support future development in compliance with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act, changes to the study are not proposed. However, all public comments were evaluated and incorporated into proposed Ordinance No. 949 and City Council Resolution No. 2015-07 where legally appropriate. ANALYSIS The Rosemead DIF Study summarizes an analysis of impact fees that may be charged to support future development in the City of Rosemead through the year 2025. The DIF program has four categories: traffic facilities, public safety facilities, government facilities, and park facilities. Although not included in this Study, analysis for the creation of fee categories for sewer impacts and parking impacts is underway. While each fee category has its own methodology for determining fees, three main principles apply throughout the study: 1) The City aims to continue the existing level of service through the City's growth; 2) New development should pay its fair share of the City's infrastructure needs; and 3) The amounts should be calibrated against the fees charged by other cities so that the fees are not unfair. City Council Report May 26,2015 Page 3 of 7 Single-Use Zones Development impact fees proposed for Single-Use Zones are shown in Table 1. Column "A" shows the maximum justified fee that may be charged to support future development in the City through the year 2025. Residential fees are charged per dwelling unit and fees for nonresidential development charged per 1,000 square feet of floor area. Given that the City currently only charges a park impact fee of $800 for residential development, a phased-in fee schedule for all land use types is proposed. As shown in Table 1, the phased-in schedule gradually implements the fees over a three year period. Column "B" details the fees that would become effective sixty (60) days following the adoption of the Rosemead DIF Program. Columns "C" and "D" detail the fee amounts that would become effective July 1, 2016 and July 1, 2017, respectively. The fees presented in Table 1 would be charged to projects devoted to solely nonresidential land uses or solely residential land uses. TABLE 1 — FEES FOR SINGLE-USE ZONES A B C D Effective Date of DIF July 1,2016 July 1,2017 Proposed Fee 1st Year of Phase-in 2nd Year of Phase-in 3rd Year of Phase-in Residential Single Family $ 8,082 $ 2,694 $ 5,388 $ 8,082 Multi-family $ 6,516 $ 2,172 $ 4,344 $ 6,516 Nonresidential Retail $ 1,365 $ 455 $ 910 $ 1,365 Office $ 1,997 $ 666 $ 1,331 $ 1,997 Industrial $ 1,250 $ 417 $ 833 $ 1,250 Note: Fees are expressed per dwelling unit for residential or per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land use. Mixed-Use Zones Some developments may include more than one land use type, such as a mixed-use development with both multi-family and retail uses. The City of Rosemead currently has two mixed-use residential/commercial zones where such development may occur. Traffic impact fees for mixed-use development are slightly lower than single-use zones, as this type of development generates less vehicle trips than development in single-use zones according to the Institute of Traffic Engineers (ITE) standards. Mixed-Use developments are less automobile dependent, as they provide greater opportunity for convenient walkability between the residential and nonresidential land uses. Development impact fees proposed for Mixed-Use Zones are shown in Table 2. Column "A" shows the maximum justified fee that may be charged to support future development in the City through the year 2025. Residential fees are charged per dwelling unit and fees for nonresidential development charged per 1,000 square feet of floor area. A phased-in fee schedule, over a period of three years, is also proposed for Mixed-Use Zones. City Council Report May 26,2015 Page 4 of 7 TABLE 2 — FEES FOR MIXED-USE ZONES A B C D Effective Date of DIF July 1,2016 July 1,2017 Proposed Fee 1st Year of Phase-in 2nd Year of Phase-in 3rd Year of Phase-in Residential Single Family $ 7,970 $ 2,657 $ 5,313 $ 7,970 Multi-family $ 6,444 $ 2,148 $ 4,296 $ 6,444 Nonresidential Retail $ 1,243 $ 414 $ 829 $ 1,243 Office $ 1,813 $ 604 $ 1,209 $ 1,813 Industrial $ 1,127 $ 376 $ 751 $ 1,127 Note:The fees in this table are for Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use development projects.Fees are expressed per dwelling unit for residential or per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land use. San Gabriel Valley City Comparison DIFs are charged on the basis of a variety of different factors, such as 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 categories of infrastructure (i.e. sewer, traffic, park, police, fire, etc.). In order to provide a comparison of overall impact fee levels among several cities in the San Gabriel Valley, staff estimated the total impact fee burden for a variety of prototypical development projects. 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), and • Industrial (300,000 square feet of floor area). The following six cities were surveyed: Alhambra, Arcadia, El Monte, Monterey Park, San Gabriel, and Temple City. The findings of the survey are summarized in Table 3, and graphical illustrations are included in Attachment "E." The column labeled "Survey City Average" shows the average fee per prototypical project across the six city jurisdictions. This table shows the proposed fee in the context of the overall impact fee burden for those seeking to build such prototypical projects as described above. City Council Report May 26,2015 Page 5 of 7 TABLE 3: City Survey Results — DIF Comparison Prototype Project Current Proposed with 3 Year Survey City Average Phase-in Single Family $800 $8,082 $9,570 (1 unit totaling 2,400 sf) Multi Family $16,000 $130,320 $86,235 (20 units totaling 29,000 sf) Retail $0 $68,250 $410,000 (50,000 sf of floor area) Office $0 $99,850 $210,643 (50,000 sf of floor area) The survey indicated that there is a great range, by city, in terms of the types of impact fees charged to developers. For this reason, it is important to note that while fee comparisons do a good job of comparing impact fees, cities use all sorts of other funding sources to pay for capital projects. The impact fees are only a portion of revenue used to fund capital improvement projects. For example, assessment districts, community facility districts, special taxes, sales taxes, etc. can also be used to pay for projects in one form of another. Rosemead has low property taxes, no utility user taxes, and no gross receipt tax. Thus, while the fee comparison can be helpful, the survey found that cities with lower impact fees, such as Alhambra, El Monte, and Monterey Park, charge special taxes to fund capital improvement projects which Rosemead doesn't charge. Municipal Code Amendment 15-01 — Ordinance No. 949 A Municipal Code Amendment is proposed to implement the DIF program within the City of Rosemead (Ordinance No. 949). The following is an outline of the key elements of the proposed Ordinance: • Definitions are provided for all key technical terms. • The DIFs will be calculated based on the City's comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Fee will be due on the date of final inspection or the date of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs later. • The following project scenarios qualify for DIF exemptions: o The DIFs will not be imposed upon a building permit for remodeling or for an addition to an existing residential structure so long as the remodeling or addition does not add a dwelling unit. City Council Report May 26,2015 Page 6 of 7 o The DIFs will not be imposed upon a building permit for the demolition of an existing residential structure and the construction of a new residential structure on the same site, provided the demolished structure was not vacant. o Places of worship, City projects, day care centers, private K-12 schools, square footage used for outdoor dining in the public right-of-way, and affordable housing units that are deed restricted to very-low income and low income households will also be exempt from DIFs. • Project proposals that involve the demolition of existing development will be entitled to a DIF credit. • Lastly, Ordinance No. 949 includes a ninety (90) day appeal process in accordance with California Government Code § 66020. Amendment to Comprehensive Fee Schedule According to the proposed implementing DIF Ordinance (Ordinance 949), the amount of each DIF shall be as established by resolution of the City Council and shall be set forth in the City's current comprehensive fee schedule. In compliance with this requirement, City Council Resolution 2015-07 proposes a revision to the City's Comprehensive Fee Schedule for the purpose of incorporating the justified and supported DIF outlined in the Rosemead DIF Study. If approved by City Council, the DIF will become effective sixty days following the City Council's second reading and adoption of Ordinance 949. Furthermore, projects that have been submitted with complete land use development application(s) and processing fee(s) to the City's Planning Division prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 949 will be exempt from the DIF program. FINANCIAL IMPACT The Rosemead Development Impact Fees will provide funding for traffic facilities, public safety facilities, government facilities, and park facilities to mitigate the impacts of new development on the community. The revenues received will vary based on the amount of development (both residential and non-residential) occurring in the City of Rosemead on an annual basis. If the fees are not adopted, a portion of these improvements will either not be built or will be built using other funds, including the General Fund. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION Municipal Code Amendment 15-01 is statutorily exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15273 (a)(1) "Rates, Tolls, Fairs and Charges," as well as Sections 15061 (b)(3) and 15378 (b)(4). LEGAL REVIEW The Rosemead DIF Study, Ordinance No. 949 and City Council Resolution No. 2015-07 have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. City Council Report May 26,2015 Page 7 of 7 PUBLIC NOTICE PROCESS This item has been noticed through the regular agenda notification process and Impact fee program adoption procedures set forth in the California Government Code section 66019. Prepared by: Submitted by: (littekijAad, Sheri Bermejo Michelle Ramirez City Planner Community Development Director ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study, dated December 18, 2014 Attachment B: Ordinance No. 949 Attachment C: City Council Resolution 2015-07 Attachment D: Letter from the Building Industry Association (BIA), dated April 27, 2015 Attachment E: Survey of Local Cities' Development Impact Fees City of Rosemead 4:e 0 OSED Development Impact Fee Study FINAL DRAFT April 21, 2015 ATTACHMENT "A" This page intentionally left blank. ATTACHMENT"A" Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 4 Background and Study Objectives 4 Facility Standards and Cost Allocation 4 Use of Fee Revenues 5 Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary 6 1. INTRODUCTION 7 Public Facilities Financing in California 7 Study Objectives 7 Study Methodology 8 New Development Facility Needs and Costs 8 2. GROWTH FORECASTS AND UNIT COSTS 11 Land Use Types 11 Occupant Densities 12 Existing and Future Development 13 Unit Costs 15 3. TRAFFIC FACILi TIES 16 Trip Demand from New Development 16 Traffic Improvements and Cost Allocation 19 Fee Schedules 25 Non-Fee Funding Needed 26 City of Rosemead 1 ATTACHMENT"A" 4. PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES 28 Service Population 28 Facility Inventory 29 Facility Standard 29 Fee Schedule 30 Estimated Fee Revenue 31 5. GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES 32 Service Population 32 Facility Inventory 33 Facility Standard 34 Fee Schedule 34 Estimated Fee Revenue 35 6. PARK 11CILH1FS 36 Service Population 36 Facility Inventory 36 Facility Standards 40 Fee Schedule 41 Estimated Fee Revenue 42 7. IMPLEMENTATION 44 Impact Fee Program Adoption Process 44 Inflation Adjustment 44 Reporting Requirements 44 Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP 44 8. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 46 Purpose of Fee 46 Use of Fee Revenues 46 City of Rosemead 2 ATTACHMENT"A" Benefit Relationship 47 Burden Relationship 47 Proportionality 47 9, APPENDIX 49 City of Rosemead 3 ATTACHMENT"A" 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; 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 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 Act requirements. City of Rosemead 4 ATTACHMENT"A" 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, and 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, and parks facilities. 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. The system plan approach is based on a master facilities plan in situations where the needed facilities serve both existing and new development. This approach allocates existing and planned facilities across existing and new development to determine new development's fair share of facility needs. This approach is used when it is not possible to differentiate the benefits of new facilities between new and existing development. Often the system plan is based on increasing facility standards, so the City must find non-impact fee revenue sources to fund existing development's fair share of planned facilities. This approach is not used for any of the fee categories in this study. 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. City of Rosemead 5 ATTACHMENT"A" Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary Table E.1 summarizes the proposed impact fees documented in this report. Table E.1: Proposed Impact Fee Schedule Public General Land Use Traffic1 Safety Government Parks Total Residential Single Family $ 1,024 $ 145 $ 1,013 $ 5,900 $ 8,082 Multi-family 634 121 844 4,916 6,516 Nonresidential Retail $ 1,136 $ 29 $ 200 N/A $ 1,365 Office 1,690 39 268 N/A 1,997 Industrial 1,136 14 99 N/A 1,250 Note: Fees are expressed per dwelling unit for residential or per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land use. 1 Traffic impact fees for development in single use zones shown. Fees in mixed use zones are slightly lower than the single use traffic fee. Sources:Tables 3.8,4.4,5.5,6.5,and 6.7 City of Rosemead 6 ATTACHMENT"A" 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. Four 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; • Steep reductions in federal and state assistance; and • 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 City of Rosemead 7 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 et 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. City of Rosemead 8 ATTACHMENT"A" 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: 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 $/Unit of Demand Existing Development 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, 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. City of Rosemead 9 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 _ $/Unit of Demand Existing+ New Development Demand 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 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 6 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; and • Park Facilities. Chapter 7 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 8. City of Rosemead 10 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 2014 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 2014 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 2014 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 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: Residential structures that do not contain more than two dwelling units. - Multi-family: Residential structures containing more than two dwelling units, such as apartments and condominiums. - Retail:All commercial, retail, and hotel/motel development. City of Rosemead 11 ATTACHMENT"A" • 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. 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, 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 U.S. Census Bureau and recent data from the California Department of Finance (2014). 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 3.65 Residents per dwelling unit Multi-family 3.04 Residents per dwelling 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 Bureau,2008-2012 American Community Survey, California Department of Finance(DOF),2014;The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report,October 31,2001,pp. 15-23 City of Rosemead 12 ATTACHMENT"A" Existing and Future Development Table 2.2 shows estimated residential and nonresidential development in Rosemead, both in 2014 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 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) 2012 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. 1 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. City of Rosemead 13 ATTACHMENT"A" Table 2.2: Rosemead Existing and Future Development Growth 2014 2025 2010-2025 Residents 54,349 56,367 2,018 [Melling Units' Single-Family 12,621 12,926 305 Multi-family 2,250 2,341 91 Total 14,871 15,267 396 Employment2 Retail 3,757 4,110 353 Office 8,399 9,190 791 Industrial 3,503 3,833 330 Total 15,659 17,133 1,474 Building Square Feet (000s)3 Retail 1,612 1,764 152 Office 2,683 2,936 253 Industrial 3,020 3,304 284 Total 7,315 8,004 689 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. 2 Based on data on employment by industry sector from the California Employment Development Department. Excludes government employment and home-based employment. 3 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 2012 RTP Growth Forecast,Southern California Association of Governments;Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead:Circulation Element Update and Environmental Impact Report, February 19,2010; KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering, Table 10. City of Rosemead 14 ATTACHMENT"A" 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$1,357,000 per acre for vacant residential parcels and $1,717,000 per acre for vacant commercial land. This value is based on recent listings of vacant residential and commercial parcels in Rosemead and nearby cities. This study assumes a value of $352 per square foot for most city buildings and community centers. A value of $188 per square foot is used to estimate the cost of public works shop facilities. These unit costs, including park improvement costs, were also based on a survey of the cost per square foot of typical public facility buildings in California. The unit values were calculated using the average of the figures collected in the survey. City of Rosemead 15 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 based 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 2014 2025 Growth Zoning Growth 2014-2025 Dwelling Units' Single-Family 12,621 12,926 - 305 305 Multi-family 2,250 2,341 91 - 91 Total 14,871 15,267 91 305 396 Building Square Feet (000s)2 Retail 1,612 1,764 152 - 152 Office 2,683 2,936 253 - 253 Industrial 3,020 3,304 284 - 284 Total 7,315 8,004 689 - 689 '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). 2 Based on estimated employees by land use and employment density assumptions from Table 2.1. Sources:Table 2.1 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 City of Rosemead 16 ATTACHMENT"A" through 2025 will primarily occur in mixed use zones, while single-family residential development will be primarily in single use zoning districts. 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 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 3.2: Trip Demand Factor A B C=AxB D E=CxD F=89%xE Trip Adjust- PM Peak Trip Demand Trip Demand ITE Trip Generation Primary Length ment Hour Factor, Single Factor, Mixed Category Trips Index2 Factor3 Trips4 Use Zonings Use Zonings Residential (per dwelling unit) Single Family Single Family Detached(210) 100% 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.89 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 3.71 1.11 0.99 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 0.97 1.11 0.99 '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. 2 Index value for the average length of trip to associated trip category.Captures varying impact of type of trip end. 3 Total factor by w hich trip demand is adjusted accounting for trip length and pass-by trips. 4 Trips per dwelling unit(residential)or per 1,000 building square feet(nonresidential). 5 The trip demand factor for each land use is the product of PM peak hour trips and the trip demand adjustment factor. 6According 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-to-commercial 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(RE);Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for the San Diego Region,SANDAG. 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. City of Rosemead 17 ATTACHMENT"A" Table 3.3: Trip Demand - Trip Existing Trip Demand Demand Existing DUI New Dev. DU/ Trip from New Factor 1,000 Sq. Ft. 1,000 Sq. Ft. Demand Development Single Use Zoning Residential Single-Family 1.00 12,621 305 12,621 305 Multi-family 0.62 2,250 - 1,395 - Nonresidential Retail 1.11 1,612 - 1,789 - Office 1.65 2,683 - 4,427 - Industrial 1.11 3,020 - 3,352 - Mixed Use Zoning Residential Single-Family 0.89 - - - - Multi-family 0.55 - 91 - 50 Nonresidential Retail 0.99 - 152 - 150 Office 1.47 - 253 - 372 Industrial 0.99 - 284 - 281 Total Trip Demand Units 23,584 1,158 Percent of Total 95.3% 4.7% Sources:Tables 3.1 and 3.2 City of Rosemead 18 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 19 ATTACHMENT"A" City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study Table 3.4: Existing and Future PM Peak Hour Intersection Conditions Future (2025) without Future(2025)with Existing Rosemead Rosemead Recommended Conditions(2009) Development Development Improvement Roadway Cross Street V/C LOS V/C LOS V/C LOS Walnut Grove Ave. Valley Blvd. 0.936 E 1.078 F 1.171 F EB&WB thru lane EB&WB left turn lane; Walnut Grove Ave. Marshall St. 0.898 D 1.034 F 1.586 F NB right turn lane Thru Lanes,Turn Lanes San Gabriel Blvd. Hellman Ave. 0.778 C 0.892 D 0.906 E Turn Lanes Walnut Grove Ave. Hellman Ave. 0.963 E 1.108 F 1.207 F New Ave. Garvey Ave. 0.803 D 0.922 E 1.013 F Thru Lanes Thru Lanes Del Mar Ave. Garvey Ave. 0.874 D 1.006 F 1.084 F San Gabriel Blvd. Garvey Ave. 0.964 E 1.110 F 1.123 F Thru Lanes Walnut Grove Ave. Garvey Ave. 0.900 E 1.035 F 1.143 F Thru Lanes Thru Lanes,Turn Lanes Walnut Grove Ave. San Gabriel Blvd. 0.872 D 1.003 F 1.069 F Turn Lanes Valley Blvd. Rio Hondo Ave. 0.753 C 0.866 D 0.929 E Turn Lanes Valley Blvd. Temple City Blvd. 0.791 C 0.907 E 0.942 E Turn Lanes Del Mar Ave. Hellman Ave. 0.758 C 0.870 D 0.898 D Turn Lanes San Gabriel Blvd. SR 60 Freeway 0.760 C 0.871 D 0.921 E Widening D Del Mar Ave. Garvey Ave. to New Mark Ave. 1.170 F 1.369 F 1.285 F DRosemead Blvd. 1-10 Fwy to City Limit 1.231 F 1.441 F 1.501 F W rn Lanes ru Lanes, 2 E m Z -1 Source:Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead Circulation Element Update and Environmental Impact Report,KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering,February 19, D 2010,Tables 15 and 16. City of Rosemead 20 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 Construction Location Description Cost Other Cost Total Cost Walnut Grove Ave. at Valley Blvd. Thru Lanes $ 100,000 $ 15,000 $ 115,000 Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall St. Turn Lanes 150,000 22,500 172,500 San Gabriel Blvd. at Hellman Ave. Thru Lanes, Turn Lanes 100,000 15,000 115,000 Walnut Grove Ave. at Hellman Ave. Turn Lanes 50,000 7,500 57,500 New Ave. at Garvey Ave. Thru Lanes 50,000 7,500 57,500 Del Mar Ave. at Garvey Ave. Thru Lanes 50,000 7,500 57,500 San Gabriel Blvd. at Garvey Ave. Thru Lanes 150,000 22,500 172,500 Walnut Grove Ave. at Garvey Ave. Thru Lanes 150,000 22,500 172,500 Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabriel Blvd. Thru Lanes, Turn Lanes 150,000 22,500 172,500 Valley Blvd. at Rio Hondo Ave. Turn Lanes 100,000 15,000 115,000 Valley Blvd. at Temple City Blvd. Turn Lanes 250,000 37,500 287,500 Del Mar Ave. at Hellman Ave. Turn Lanes 50,000 7,500 57,500 San Gabriel Blvd. at SR 60 Freeway Turn Lanes 100,000 15,000 115,000 Del Mar Ave. (Garvey to Newmark) Widening 450,000 67,500 517,500 Rosemead Blvd. (1-10 Freeway to City Widening, Thru Lanes, 10,415,000 2,085,000 12,500,000 Limit) Turn Lanes Intersection Total $ 12,315,000 $ 2,370,000 $ 14,685,000 1 Other costs include design,and project management. Sources:Table 3.4;City of Rosemead. City of Rosemead 21 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 V/C 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 (i.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, 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 V/C 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. City of Rosemead 22 ATTACHMENT"A" City of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study Table 3.6: Intersection Improvement Cost Allocation A B C D=((C-0.9)-(A-0.9))/(C-0.9) E_(C-B)/(C-A) F G=D x Ex F V/C Ratio Rosemead Cost to Existing Future (2025) Future (2025) Share of Improvement Only New Rosemead (2009) Without With Allocated to New Development New Conditions Development Development Development Allocation Project Cost Development Walnut Grove Ave. at Valley Blvd. 0.936 1.078 1.171 87% 40% $ 115,000 $ 39,500 Walnut Grove Ave. at Marshall St. 0.898 1.034 1.586 100% 80% 172,500 138,800 San Gabriel Blvd. at Hellman Ave. 0.778 0.892 0.906 100% 11% 115,000 12,600 Walnut Grove Ave. at Hellman Ave. 0.963 1.108 1.207 79% 41% 57,500 18,500 New Ave. at Gamey Ave. 0.803 0.922 1.013 100% 43% 57,500 24,900 Del Mar Ave. at Garvey Ave. 0.874 1.006 1.084 100% 37% 57,500 21,400 San Gabriel Blvd. at Garvey Ave. 0.964 1.110 1.123 71% 8% 172,500 10,100 Walnut Grove Ave. at Garvey Ave. 0.900 1.035 1.143 100% 44% 172,500 76,700 Walnut Grove Ave. at San Gabriel Blvd. 0.872 1.003 1.069 100% 34% 172,500 57,800 Valley Blvd. at Rio Hondo Avenue 0.753 0.866 0.929 100% 36% 115,000 41,200 Valley Blvd. at Temple City Blvd. 0.791 0.907 0.942 100% 23% 287,500 66,600 Del Mar Ave. at Hellman Avenue 0.758 0.870 0.898 100% 20% 57,500 11,500 San Gabriel Blvd. at SR 60 Freeway 0.760 0.871 0.921 100% 31% 115,000 35,700 Del Mar Ave. (Garvey to Newmark) N/A N/A N/A N/A 3.8% 517,500 19,700 Rosemead Blvd. (1-10 Freeway to City Limit)2 N/A N/A N/A N/A 4.7% 12,500,000 587,500 Total $14,685,000 $ 1,162,500 Note:Costs have been rounded to the nearest hundred. 'The Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead Circulation Bement Update and Environmental Impact Report identifies a minimum acceptable LOS of D,associated with a volume to capacity(V/C)ratio of less than 0.9.For all intersections with an existing V/C ratio less than or equal to 0.9,there is no deficiency and all improvements can be allocated to future traffic growth.For those intersections with existing deficiencies in LOS,the existing deficiency is netted out of the cost share allocated to new development.These allocations are less than 100%. 2Although not ow ned by the City,this portion of Rosemead Blvd.is fully within the City's 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 project cost is allocated on an equal basis to all existing and projected new development through the study's 2025 planning horizon. A total of 4.7%of the improvement costs for Rosemead Blvd.are allocated to new development and included in the impact fee. D DSources:Tables 3.4 and 3.5;Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead Circulation Element Update and Environmental Impact Report,KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering,February 19,2010; n 1/Widen Financial Services,and Rosemead Boulevard Relinquishment Study,Wlldan Engineering,June 2005. 2 E m 2 D City of Rosemead 23 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. Table 3.6 shows the estimated cost to rehabilitate and improve Rosemead Boulevard. Most of the improvement costs are needed to rehabilitate the roadway, and not only to accommodate new development. Therefore, the project cost is allocated on an equal basis to all existing and projected 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 percent of total trip demand in 2025. However, 3.8% percent of the improvement costs for Rosemead Boulevard are allocated to new development and included in the impact fee. 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. City of Rosemead 24 ATTACHMENT"A" Table 3.7: Traffic Facilities Cost per P.M. Peak Hour Trip Demand Unit Total Cost Allocated to New Development $ 1,162,500 (New Development Share of Intersection Costs) PM Peak Hour Trip Demand From Growth 1,158 Cost per Unit of PM Peak Hour Trip Demand $ 1,004 Sources:Tables 3.3 and 3.6 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 Zoning A B C=A *B D=2% *C E=C+D Cost Per PM Trip Demand Admin. Land Use Peak Hour Trip Factor Feel Charge (2%) Total Fee' Residential Single-Family $ 1,004 1.00 $ 1,004 $ 20 $ 1,024 Multi-family 1,004 0.62 622 12 634 Nonresidential Retail $ 1,004 1.11 $ 1,114 $ 22 $ 1,136 Office 1,004 1.65 1,657 33 1,690 Industrial 1,004 1.11 1,114 22 1,136 Fee per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential uses. Sources:Tables 3.2 and 3.7 City of Rosemead 25 „ „ ATTACHMENT A 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 8 C=A*B D=2% *C E=C+D Cost Per PM Trip Demand Admin. Land Use Peak Hour Trip Factor Fee' Charge (2%) Total Feel Residential Single-Family $ 1,004 0.89 $ 894 $ 18 $ 912 Multi-family 1,004 0.55 552 11 563 Nonresidential Retail $ 1,004 0.99 $ 994 $ 20 $ 1,014 Office 1,004 1.47 1,476 30 1,506 Industrial 1,004 0.99 994 20 1,014 ' Fee per dwelling unit for residential land uses and per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential uses. Sources:Tables 3.2 and 3.7 Non-Fee Funding Needed The traffic impact fee is projected to fund the $1,162,500 in project costs allocated to new development, as shown in Table 3.6. 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. City of Rosemead 26 ATTACHMENT"A" Table 3.10: Non-Fee Funding Needed for Traffic Improvements in Fee Program Intersection Improvements Total Improvement Cost $ 14,685,000 New Dexelopment Cost Allocation 1,162,500 Non-Fee Funding Needed $ 13,522,500 Total Non-Fee Funding Needed $ 13,522,500 Sources:Table 3.5 City of Rosemead 27 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 Population Total Service Residents Workers Population Existing Residents/Workers 54,349 15,659 Weighting Factor 1.00 0.31 Exisitng Service Population (2014) 54,349 4,854 59,203 New Residents/Workers 2,018 1,474 Weighting Factor 1.00 0.31 New Service Population (2014-2025) 2,018 457 2,475 Total Service Population (2025) 56,367 5,311 61,678 'Workers demand is weighted at 0.31 of residents demand based on the ratio of 40 working hours per week to 128 non-w orking hours(40/128=0.31). Sources:Table 2.2 City of Rosemead 28 ATTACHMENT"A" 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's Public Safety Department. Vehicle values are based on Kelley Blue Book values for each vehicle model and year. Table 4.2: Existing Public Safety Facilities Inventory Units Unit Cost Total Value Land Public Safety Building 0.30 acres $ 1,717,000 $ 515,100 Buildings Public Safety Building 4,250 sq. ft. $352 $ 1,496,000 Vehicles 2003 Ford Crown Victoria 1 ea $ 21,188 $ 21,188 2008 Toyota Prius Hybrid 1 ea 25,000 25,000 2005 Ford Explorer Sport Trac 1 ea 22,180 22,180 2005 Ford Ranger XLT 3 ea 15,450 46,350 2007 Chevrolet S10 1 ea 20,000 20,000 2008 Chevrolet S10 1 ea 20,000 20,000 2007 GEM Electric Car 1 ea 12,000 12,000 2008 Chevy Colorado LS 1 ea 16,150 16,150 2010 Honda Civic Hybrid Sedan 1 ea 21,564 21,564 Subtotal -Vehicles $ 204,432 Equipment Computer Desk Stations 14 ea 629 $ 8,806 Printer(HP LaserJet 4250N) 3 ea 1,449 4,347 Printer(LaserJet 4050N) 1 ea 349 349 Color Laser Printer(HP 4700dtn) 1 ea 6,349 6,349 Photo Copy Machine 1 ea 800 800 TV Monitors 3 ea 1,799 5,397 Cable Box Systems & Computer Projector/ Mechanical Wall System 1 ea 899 899 Chairs 26 ea 265 6,890 Tables 10 ea 298 2,980 Chairs (Stacking) 50 ea 99 4,950 Portable Speaker System 1 ea 1,245 1,245 LASD "Live Scan" Machine 1 ea 16,000 16,000 Closed Circuit Monitor System w/6 HD Cameras 1 ea 6,711 6,711 Subtotal - Equipment $ 65,723 Total Value of Existing Public Facilties $ 2,281,255 Sources:City of Rosemead;Loopnet;Kelley Blue Book. City of Rosemead 29 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 $ 2,281,255 Existing Service Population 59,203 Cost Per Capita $ 39 Cost per Resident $ 39 Cost Per Worker.' 12 I Based on 0.31 worker weighting factor. Sources:Tables 4.1 and 4.2 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 (2%) 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. City of Rosemead 30 ATTACHMENT"A" Table 4.4: Public Safety Facilities Fee Schedule A B C=AxB D=C x 2% E=C+D Cost Per Admin Land Use Capita Density Base Fee' Charge''2 Total Fee Residential Single-Family $ 39 3.65 $ 142 $ 3 $ 145 Multi-family 39 3.04 119 2 121 Nonresidential Commercial $ 12 2.33 $ 28 $ 1 $ 29 Office 12 3.13 38 1 39 Industrial 12 1.16 14 0 14 1 Fee per dwelling unit for residential,per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential. 2 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 4.3 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 2014 and 2025. The public safety impact fee is projected to generate approximately $97,000 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 Residents/Workers (2014-2025) 2,018 1,474 Fee per Capita $ 39 $ 12 Fee Revenue $ 79,000 $ 18,000 $ 97,000 Sources:Tables 4.1 and 4.3 City of Rosemead 31 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 Population Total Service Residents Workers1 Population Existing Residents/Workers 54,349 15,659 Weighting Factor 1.00 0.31 Exisitng Service Population (2014) 54,349 4,854 59,203 New Residents/Workers 2,018 1,474 Weighting Factor 1.00 0.31 New Service Population (2014-2025) 2,018 457 2,475 Total Service Population (2025) 56,367 5,311 61,678 'Workers demand is weighted at 0.31 of residents demand based on the ratio of 40 w orking hours per w eek to 128 non-working hours(40/128=0.31). Sources:Table 2.2 City of Rosemead 32 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 $16.1 million. This estimate is based on the assumed price of $1,717,000 per acre of vacant land in commercial districts and $1,357,000 per acre for land in residential areas. The City of Rosemead conducted a survey of several cities in California to gather information on current construction costs for public facilities. Based on this survey, construction costs are estimated to be $352 per square foot for City Hall and Garvey Park Public Services Center and $188 per square foot for maintenance shop facilities. Table 5.2: Existing General Government Land & Buildings Inventory Unit Cost Total Value Land 1,2 City Hall, including Public Plaza 0.98 acres $ 1,717,000 $ 1,682,660 Garvey Park Facility 1.43 acres 1,357,000 1,940,510 Ramona Yard 0.36 acres 1,357,000 488,520 Rosemead Park Facility 0.60 acres 1,357,000 814,200 Subtotal - Land 3.37 acres $ 4,925,890 Buildings Rosemead Park Public Works Facility 5,009 sq. ft. $ 188 $ 942,000 Garvey Park Public Services Center 4,500 sq. ft. 352 1,584,000 City Hall Public Plaza Improvements NA NA NA 1,500,000 City Hall 17,450 sq. ft. 352 6,142,400 Subtotal - Buildings 26,959 sq. ft. $ 10,168,400 Vehicles and Equipment(See Appendix Table A.1) $ 994,456 Total Value- Existing General Government Facilities $ 16,088,746 Acreage associated with the public work facilities located in parks is shown here and not included in the parks acreage calculated in the existing parkland inventory. Acreage associated with the Public Plaza is not included in the City Hall Public Plaza calculation as it is already counted in the City Hall land value. 2 Based on a review of parcels on the market,land value for facilities in residential and office/light industrial areas is estimated at$1,357,000 per acre.Land value for facilities in commercial districts estimated at$1,717,000 per acre. Source:City of Rosemead City of Rosemead 33 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 Total Value of Existing Facilities $ 16,088,746 Existing Service Population 59,203 Cost Per Capita $ 272 Cost per Resident $ 272 Cost Per Worker' 84 1 Based on 0.31 worker weighting factor. Sources:Tables 5.1,5.2,and 5.3 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 (2%) 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. City of Rosemead 34 ATTACHMENT"A" Table 5.5: General Government Facilities Fee Schedule A B C=A*B D=2% *C E=C+D Cost Per Admin. Land Use Capita Density Base Fee Charge Total Fee Residential Single-Family $ 272 3.65 $ 993 $ 20 $ 1,013 Multi-family 272 3.04 827 17 844 Nonresidential Retail $ 84 2.33 $ 196 $ 4 $ 200 Office 84 3.13 263 5 268 Industrial 84 1.16 97 2 99 I Administrative charge of 2.0 percent. Sources:Table 2.2 and 5.4 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 2014 and 2025. The general government impact fee is projected to generate approximately $673,000 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 Residents/Workers (2014-2025) 2,018 1,474 Fee per Capita $ 272 $ 84 Fee Revenue $ 549,000 $ 124,000 $ 673,000 Sources:Tables 5.1 and 5.4 City of Rosemead 35 ATTACHMENT"A" 6. Park Facilities The purpose of this fee is to generate revenue to expand the City's park facilities to accommodate new residential development and the increases in population that result. This chapter documents one development fee for park facilities that may be adopted by the City Council. The proposed fee is based on the City's existing standard of park acreage per 1,000 residents. The fee would be charged under the Mitigation Fee Act, and would only apply to residential development. 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 6.1 provides estimates of the City's current resident population and a projection for the year 2025. Table 6.1: Parks Service Population Existing New Future Residents Development Service (2014) (2014-2025) Population Residents 54,349 2,018 56,367 Sources:Table 2.2. Facility Inventory Table 6.2 summarizes the City's existing park inventory. The City of Rosemead currently maintains 49.44 acres of parkland. Of that total, 34.52 acres are owned by the City of Rosemead and 14.92 acres are leased from other agencies (i.e. Southern California Edison, San Gabriel County Water Company, and Garvey School District). For the purpose of this Nexus Study, only the existing parkland owned by the City is included in the fee calculation analysis. The land value of each park was estimated using a per acre land value of $1,357,000 based on recent listings for residential land in Rosemead and nearby areas. City of Rosemead 36 ATTACHMENT"A" Table 6.2: Existing Parkland Inventory Park Type AcrelSq. Est. Land Value Est. Land Ft. per Acrel Value Angelus Park Greenbelt 0.20 $ 1,357,000 $ 271,400 Gamey Parke Community 9.07 1,357,000 12,307,990 Gamey Recreation Center Facility 3.00 1,357,000 4,071,000 Rosemead Community Recreation Center Facility 2.75 1,357,000 3,731,750 Rosemead Park Community 19.25 1,357,000 26,122,250 Triangle Park Greenbelt 0.25 1,375,000 343,750 Subtotal - Improved Park Acres 34.52 $46,848,140 1 Based on a review of recent listings as of August 2014,land value for facilities in residential and office/light industrial areas is estimated at$1,357,000 per acre. 2 1.43 acres of public works facility land w Thin Garvey Park are excluded in this value.These appear in the general government facility inventory. Sources:City of Rosemead;Loopnet Table 6.3 shows the City's inventory of recreational facilities and park improvements, along with the estimated replacement cost of each item. Valuation estimates for recreational facilities are based on 2010 appraisal information and insurance figures for park facilities in Rosemead.The replacement cost for community centers and offices is estimated at $352 per square foot, consistent with the unit cost estimate for City buildings used throughout this study. The replacement cost for park concession stands and restrooms is estimated at $270 per square foot. The replacement cost for the Dinsmoor House is estimated at $134 per square foot, consistent with the Los Angeles County Building Valuation guidelines. ATTACHMENT"A" City of Rosemead 37 Table 6.3: Buildings and Park Improvement Costs Sq. Ft. Unit Cost Total Value Rosemead Park and Pool Recreation Center/ Preschool 1,533 $ 352 $ 540,000 Concession Stand and Restrooms 1,416 270 382,320 Playground (3) N/A N/A 360,000 Walking Trail and Fitness Equipment N/A N/A 650,000 Rosemead Aquatic Center 33,343 N/A 6,500,000 Basketball Courts N/A N/A 144,000 Subtotal $ 8,576,320 Garvey Park Recreation Offices and Restrooms 1,200 $ 352 $ 422,400 Splash Zone 5,562 N/A 3,200,000 Playground (3) N/A N/A 220,000 Gymnasium 8,000 352 2,816,000 Storage, Restrooms and Snack Bar 1,400 270 378,000 Tennis Courts N/A N/A 350,000 Subtotal $ 7,386,400 Other Facilities Rosemead Community Recreation Center ' 17,213 352 $ 6,058,976 Garvey Community Center 30,524 352 6,796,593 Dinsmoor(Residence/Museum Building Area) 3,000 134 403,200 Dinsmoor(land acres) 0.60 1,357,000 813,546 Subtotal $14,072,315 Total - Park and Recreation Building Improvements $30,035,035 Sources:Table 6.2;City of Rosemead City of Rosemead building and park improvement costs are shown in Table 6.4. The total value of recreational facilities in the City is approximately $30 million. This corresponds to an average park facilities cost of $870,000 per acre. This study also includes an estimated cost of $250,000 per acre for standard park improvements, including turf, parking, paving, lighting, and related basic improvements. Combining the average value of existing City facilities with the standard improvement cost gives a total improvement cost of$1,120,000 per acre of parkland. ATTACHMENT"A" City of Rosemead 38 Table 6.4: Building and Park Improvement Costs Value of Park and Recreation Buildings and Special Improvements A $30,035,035 Acres of Improved Parkland B 34.52 Building and Special Improvement Cost per Acre of Improved Parkland C=A/B $ 870,000 Basic Park Improvement Costs per Acre D $ 250,000 Total Building and Improvement Cost Per Acre E=C+D $ 1,120,000 Sources:Table 6.2 and Table 6.3;City of Rosemead ATTACHMENT"A" City of Rosemead 39 Facility Standards The National Parks and Recreation Association (NPRA) indicates that in 2013 the median operating ratio of parkland per population was 9.1 acres per 1,000 residents. The City's 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 6.5 shows the facility standards on which the park impact fee is based. As shown, Rosemead's standard of owned parkland is 0.64 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents. This existing standard is used as the basis of the park impact fee, which would apply to residential development. 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 reported median of 9.1 acres per 1,000 residents, it would need to use non-fee revenue to, over time, provide a level of facilities to serve existing development at the same standard at which new development is being charged. 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. As such, the City has chosen to calculate its park impact fees at the existing standard of 0.64 acres per 1,000 residents. Table 6.5: Improved Parkland Standards Existing Standard Improved Park Acreage 34.52 Residents 54,349 Existing Standard (Acres per 1,000 Residents) 0.64 Sources:Tables 6.1 and 6.2;City of Rosemead City of Rosemead 40 ATTACHMENT"A" Cost per Capita Table 6.6 shows parkland and improvement costs per capita under the Act. Table 6.6: Park Cost Per Capita Mitigation Fee Act Land Acres per 1,000 Residents 0.64 Land Cost per Acre $ 1,357,000 Land Cost per 1,000 Residents $ 868,480 Land Cost per Resident $ 868 Improvements Acres per 1,000 Residents 0.64 Improvements Cost per Acre $ 1,120,000 Improvements Cost per 1,000 Residents $ 716,800 Improvements Cost per Resident $ 717 Total Cost per Resident for Land and $ 1,585 Improvements Sources:Table 6.2,6.3 and 6.4;City of Rosemead Fee Schedule Table 6.7 shows the proposed park facilities fee schedule. The proposed fee is based on the costs per capita shown in Table 6.6. 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 (page 12). The proposed fee is based on the Act and includes the land and improvement components based on the existing standard of park facilities per capita. The total fee includes a two percent (2%) 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. City of Rosemead 41 ATTACHMENT"A" Table 6.7: Park Facilities Fee Schedule A B C=A*B D=2% *C E=C+D Cost Per Admin. Land Use Capita Density Base Fee Charge Total Fee Non-Subdivision Single Family Land - Mitigation Fee Act $ 868 3.65 $ 3,168 $ 63 $ 3,231 Improvements 717 3.65 2,617 52 2,669 Total Fee $ 1,585 $ 5,785 $ 115 $ 5,900 Multi-family Land -Mitigation Fee Act $ 868 3.04 $ 2,639 $ 53 $ 2,692 Improvements 717 3.04 2,180 44 2,224 Total Fee $ 1,585 $ 4,819 $ 97 $ 4,916 1 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent. Sources:Tables 2.2 and 6.6 Estimated Fee Revenue Table 6.8 shows the projected revenue from the park impact fee through the study's 2025 planning horizon. These estimates are calculated by multiplying the cost per capita from Table 6.6 by the projected growth in residents between 2014 and 2025. The park impact fee is projected to generate approximately $3.2 million through 2025. This revenue may be used to purchase park land, develop new parks, or develop improvements at existing parks that expand their capacity to accommodate additional usage resulting from population increases related to new development. Table 6.8: Projected Park Impact Fee Revenue New Residents (2014-2025) 2,018 Fee per Capita $ 1,585 Fee Revenue $ 3,198,000 Sources:Tables 6.1 and 6.6 City of Rosemead 42 ATTACHMENT"A" The City's Draft Park, Recreation, and General Facilities Master Plan identified approximately $32.0 million in park and recreation improvement needs. Many of these are repair projects, which may not be funded with impact fee revenue. However, the Draft Master Plan identifies a number of new construction projects, which could be partially funded with impact fees. Table 6.9 shows $2,725,000 in new construction projects identified in the Draft Master Plan. Additional projects will have to be identified in order to maintain the City's existing park facility standard. Table 6.9: Impact Fee-Eligible Projects in Draft Parks Master Plan Priority Proposed Improvement Level Total Cost 1 DeN,elop new Neighborhood Park(s)along Edison easement and on"surplus"properties 1 1,500,000 2 Construct a skate park 1 450,000 3 Construct new restroom/office building(1,800 sq ft)at Garvey Park(adj.to large playground) 2 585,000 4 Construct expanded playground at Garrey Park(located near recreation building) 2 190,000 Grand Total $ 2,725,000 Sources:Table 6,Rosemead Parks,Recreation and General Facilities Draft IVtaster Flan City of Rosemead 43 ATTACHMENT"A" 7. 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 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 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 City of Rosemead 44 ATTACHMENT"A" 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. City of Rosemead 45 ATTACHMENT"A" S. 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 City of Rosemead 46 ATTACHMENT"A" 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, and parks. Benefit Relationship - Determine the reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the type of development project on which the fees are imposed(§66001(a)(3) of the Act). 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 nonresidential 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 nonresidential 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 City of Rosemead 47 ATTACHMENT"A" 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 fora presentation of the proposed facilities fees. Table 6.9: Impact Fee-Eligible Projects in Draft Parks Master Plan Priority Proposed Improvement Level Total Cost 1 Develop new Neighborhood Park(s)along Edison easement and on"surplus"properties 1 1,500,000 2 Construct a skate park 1 1,100,000 3 Construct new restroom/office building(1,800 sq ft)at Garvey Park(adj.to large playground) 2 585,000 4 Replace large playground at Garvey Park(located near recreation building) 2 190,000 Grand Total $ 3,375,000 Sources:Table 6,Rosemead Parks,Recreation and General Facilities Draft Master Plan City of Rosemead 48 ATTACHMENT"A" 9. Appendix The following table provides a breakdown of the General Government Vehicles and Equipment that are included in the total value outlined in Table 5.2 Existing General Government Land & Buildings on page 33 of this Impact Fee Study. Appendix Table A.1: Existing General Government Vehicles & Equipment Inventory Unit Cost Total Value Administration 2009 Toyota Camry Hybrid (white) 1 $ 33,800 $ 33,800 2009 Toyota Camry Hybrid (gray) 1 33,800 33,800 2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE 1 38,000 38,000 Baldor 36 kW Trailer Mounted Generator 1 21,775 21,775 Baldor 60 kW Trailer Mounted Generator 1 29,297 29,297 Engineering 2009 Ford Escape SUV Hybrid 1 20,000 20,000 Public Services 1991 Ford F250 1 9,000 9,000 2001 Ford Taurus 1 17,985 17,985 2000 Ford F350 XL Super Duty 1 25,305 25,305 1999 Ford F150 1 12,000 12,000 2001 Ford Ranger XLT 1 22,756 22,756 2000 Ford Ranger 1 17,775 17,775 2007 Chevy Silverado F3500 1 38,000 38,000 2008 Chevy 3500 1 40,000 40,000 2008 Chevy Colorado LT 2 22,000 44,000 2009 Chevy Silverado 3 32,000 96,000 2009 Ford Altec 1 120,000 120,000 2005 Chevy Silverado Hybrid Truck 1 20,780 20,780 2006 Ford F250 Truck 1 21,000 21,000 2008 GMC C2500 HD Truck 1 22,500 22,500 2009 JCB MIDI CX 50HP Tractor 1 65,000 65,000 2014 Ford F350 Chasis Utility/ Dump 2 51,000 102,000 2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE 1 38,000 38,000 1985 Massey Ferguson Tractor 50E 1 15,000 15,000 Generator 2 3,000 6,000 Recreation 2002 Ford Econoline Long Cab Van 1 21,561 21,561 2003 Ford Econoline Long Cab Van 1 21,561 21,561 2006 Ford Econoline Long Cab Van 1 21,561 21,561 2010 Ford F150 Pickup 1 20,000 20,000 Total $ 994,456 Source:City of Rosemead City of Rosemead 49 9. Appendix The following table provides a breakdown of the General Government Vehicles and Equipment that are included in the total value outlined in Table 5.2 Existing General Government Land & Buildings on page 33 of this Impact Fee Study. Appendix Table A.1: Existing General Government Vehicles & Equipment Inventory Unit Cost Total Value Administration 2009 Toyota Camry Hybrid (white) 1 $ 33,800 $ 33,800 2009 Toyota Camry Hybrid (gray) 1 33,800 33,800 2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE 1 38,000 38,000 Baldor 36 kW Trailer Mounted Generator 1 21,775 21,775 Baldor 60 kW Trailer Mounted Generator 1 29,297 29,297 Engineering 2009 Ford Escape SUV Hybrid 1 20,000 20,000 Public Services 1991 Ford F250 1 9,000 9,000 2001 Ford Taurus 1 17,985 17,985 2000 Ford F350 XL Super Duty 1 25,305 25,305 1999 Ford F150 1 12,000 12,000 2001 Ford Ranger XLT 1 22,756 22,756 2000 Ford Ranger 1 17,775 17,775 2007 Chevy Silverado F3500 1 38,000 38,000 2008 Chevy 3500 1 40,000 40,000 2008 Chevy Colorado LT 2 22,000 44,000 2009 Chevy Silvered() 3 32,000 96,000 2009 Ford Altec 1 120,000 120,000 2005 Chevy Silverado Hybrid Truck 1 20,780 20,780 2006 Ford F250 Truck 1 21,000 21,000 2008 GMC C2500 HD Truck 1 22,500 22,500 2009 JCB MIDI CX50HP Tractor 1 65,000 65,000 2014 Ford F350 Chasis Utility/Dump 2 51,000 102,000 2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE 1 38,000 38,000 1985 Massey Ferguson Tractor 50E 1 15,000 15,000 Generator 2 3,000 6,000 Recreation 2002 Ford Econoline Long Cab Van 1 21,561 21,561 2003 Ford Econoline Long Cab Van 1 21,561 21,561 2006 Ford Econoline Long Cab Van 1 21,561 21,561 2010 Ford F150 Pickup 1 20,000 20,000 Total $ 994,456 Source:Qty of Rosemead City of Rosemead 49 ATTACHMENT"A" ORDINANCE NO. 949 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE ROSEMEAD MUNICIPAL CODE BY REPEALING SECTION 12.44.020 (PARK AND RECREATION IMPACT FEE) OF TITLE 12, CHAPTER 12.44 AND ADDING ARTICLE 7 (DEVELOPMENT FEES), CHAPTER 17.170 (DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES) TO TITLE 17 TO ESTABLISH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR NEW RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1 . Findings. The City Council finds and declares: A. The City provides public services and constructs and maintains public improvements for the benefit of residents, businesses, and employees within the City; and B. In 2010 the City adopted an update to the City of Rosemead General Plan, which anticipates and plans for new development in the City through the year 2025; and C. New development generates impacts on public services, public facilities, and community amenities for which revenues generated through property taxes and other means are generally insufficient to accommodate; and D. If additional capital facilities and public services are not added as development occurs, the existing facilities and services will not be adequate to serve the community. This could result in adverse impacts, such as inadequate public safety services, inadequate traffic safety and transportation improvements, inadequate parks and recreation facilities, as well as inadequate other general government facilities; and E. Strategy 6 (A) of the City's Strategic Plan 2014 and 2015, states: 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, and F. To prevent undesirable consequences, and to reduce the impacts of new development on capital facilities, equipment, and services, the City's capital facilities must be constructed, and the City's public services must be provided, at a rate which will accommodate the expected growth in the City; and 1 ATTACHMENT "B" G. The development impact fees established by this Chapter will be imposed upon development projects for the purpose of mitigating the impact of the development on the ability of the City to provide specified public improvements and services; and H. The City has caused to be prepared a City of Rosemead Final Draft Development Impact Fee Study, dated April 21, 2015 (Study). The Study is on file with the City Clerk; and I. The Study identifies the development potential of the City from the year 2014 until 2025; identifies four (4) categories of capital facilities and equipment required to serve and accommodate new development; and provides a summary of the portion of each improvement category's costs that can be funded by new development; and J. The four (4) categories of capital facilities and equipment that will be funded by the development impact fee established by this Ordinance are (1) traffic facilities; (2) park facilities; (3) general government facilities; and (4) public safety facilities. These capital facilities and equipment are needed to promote and protect the public health, safety and general welfare within the City, to facilitate orderly urban development, to maintain existing levels of service, and to promote economic and social well- being. K. The City Council has relied upon the factual information, analysis, and conclusions in the Study in adopting this Ordinance. L. It is the City's intent and desire to have developers pay for their fair share of public costs associated with new development while at the same time facilitating growth that is in the public interest; SECTION 2 . The City Council finds that this Ordinance is statutorily exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15273 (a)(1) "Rates, Tolls, Fairs and Charges," as well as Sections 15061 (b)(3) and 15378 (b)(4). SECTION 3. The City Council HEREBY FINDS AND DETERMINES that Ordinance 949 complies with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act (the Act), contained in California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. SECTION 4. Municipal Code Amendment. Section 12.44.020 (Park and Recreation Impact Fee) of Title 12, Chapter 12.44 (Park and Recreation Areas) of the Rosemead Municipal Code is HEREBY REMOVED in its entirety. SECTION 5. Municipal Code Amendment. Article 7 (Development Fees), Chapter 17.170 (Development Impact Fees) shall be added to Title 17 of the Rosemead Municipal Code to read as follows: 2 ATTACHMENT "B" Article 7 Development Fees Chapter 17.170 Development Impact Fees Sections: 17.170.010 Authority. 17.170.020 Findings and Purpose. 17.170.030 Definitions. 17.170.040 Establishment of DIFs. 17.170.050 Calculation and Payment of DIFs. 17.170.060 Exemptions and Credit for Existing Development. 17.170.070 Fee Adjustment 17.170.080 Fee Revenue Accounts. 17.170.090 Distribution of Impact Fee Funds. 17.170.100 Periodic Review and Inflation Adjustment. 17.170.110 Fee Refunds. 17.170.120 Fee Revision by Resolution. 17.170.130 Regulations. 17.170.010 Authority. This Chapter 17.170 of the Rosemead Municipal Code may be referred to as the Development Impact Fee Ordinance and is adopted pursuant to the police power of the City and under Government Code Section 66000 et seq. (Mitigation Fee Act). All words, phrases, and terms used in this Chapter shall be interpreted in accordance with the definitions set forth in the Mitigation Fee Act, unless otherwise specifically defined herein. 17.170.020 Findings and Purpose. A. The City has prepared a Development Impact Fee Nexus Study. It shows, and the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between the purpose for which the fees established by this Ordinance are to be used and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed, and between the amount of the fees and the cost of the traffic, public safety, general government, and park facilities or the portion of those facilities attributable to the development on which the fees are imposed. B. It is the intent of the City Council that the fee required by this Chapter shall be supplementary to any conditions imposed upon a development project pursuant to other provisions of the Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act, other state and local laws, which may authorize the imposition of project specific conditions on development. C. It is intended that, as further provided for in this Chapter, every person who develops or redevelops land in the City pay development impact fees established by this Chapter, as provided herein. No developer, property owner, or other person or entity shall be eligible to receive a building certificate of occupancy unless such 3 ATTACHMENT "B" developer, property owner, or other person or entity has first complied with all applicable provisions of this Chapter. 17.170.030 Definitions. For the purpose of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth herein: A. "Applicant' means the person(s) or legal entity or entities, who may also be the property owner, who is applying for a building permit. B. "City" means the City of Rosemead. C. "Credit' means any amount credited against a DIF obligation for a development project in accordance with the provisions of Section 17.170.060 (Exemptions and Credit for Existing Development). D. 'Development Impact Fee" and "DIF' mean each and all of the development impact fees established by this Chapter. E. "Development Impact Fee Study," 'DIF Study," and "Study', as used in this Chapter, mean the Final Draft Development Impact Fee Study dated April 21, 2015 and any present and future amendments, additions, and updates to said Study, all of which are deemed included in such definitions as used in this Chapter, which is on file with the Community Development Department and the City Clerk. F. "Industrial' means all industry, manufacturing, and warehouse development. G. "Mixed Uses" includes combinations of land use types in a single project. Generally, a Mixed Use Development consists of commercial and residential uses integrated either vertically in the same structure or group of structures, or horizontally on the same development site where parking, open spaces, and other development features are shared. However, light industrial and commercial development may also be considered as Mixed Use. In a Mixed Use Development, both uses are considered primary uses of the land. H. "Multi- family" or "Multi- Family Dwelling Unit' means a structure or portion thereof containing three or more dwelling units designed for the independent occupancy of three or more households, such as apartments and condominiums. For the purpose of DIF calculation, a second dwelling unit as defined by Government Code Section 65852.2 and regulated by Title 17, Article 3, Chapter 17.30, Section 17.30.190 shall also be categorized as a multi - family unit. I. "Office" means all general, administrative business professional, corporate, and medical and dental office development. 4 ATTACHMENT "B" J. "Project," as used in this Chapter, means the development or redevelopment proposal that is the subject of an application for a building permit to construct improvements on real property which are designed to be occupied for the purpose of single - family residential, multi - family residential, retail, office, or an industrial use as defined in this Section. K. "Public Facilities" means public facilities identified in the Study, including a capital improvement project list and cost estimates of the public facilities, which may be funded by the DIFs, and may include public improvements, public services, and community amenities. L. "Retail" as used in this Chapter, means all commercial, retail and hotel /motel development. M. "Single- family" as used in this Chapter, means residential structures that do not contain more than two dwelling units. N. "Vacant." For the purpose of this Chapter, a nonresidential property or a multifamily residential property shall be deemed "vacant" during the two years prior to the issuance of the building permit for a new structure, if the property owners or property tenants failed to maintain an active business license for the property during the entire two year period. For the purpose of a single - family home, the property is "vacant" if records do not show energy usage consistent with occupancy of the building and /or adjacent single - family properties that were occupied during the two - year period. 17.170.040 Establishment of DIFs. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, an Applicant for a building permit proposing new development shall pay the following DIFs according and pursuant to the procedure set forth in this Chapter: a. Traffic Facilities. b. Public Safety Facilities. c. General Government Facilities. d. Park Facilities. The amount of each DIF shall be as established by resolution of the City Council and shall be set forth in the City's current comprehensive fee schedule in effect at the time of project submittal into building plan check. 17.170.050 Calculation and Payment of DIFs. A. Calculation of DIFs. The amount of the charge due under this Chapter shall be determined at the time of submittal into building plan check for the project. Following 5 ATTACHMENT "B" project submittal the City shall timely provide the applicant with a notice in writing, a statement of the amount of the fees and notification of the 90 -day appeal period in which the applicant may protest the imposition of the fees. Said notice shall be in substantially the following form: The conditions of project approval for your project, identified as include development impact fees, more specifically described as: (identification of the amount of the fee). The applicant is hereby notified that the 90- day protest period to challenge such fees has begun as of the date of the fee imposition, which date was If the applicant fails to file a protest regarding the fees, as specified in California Government Code § 66020, the applicant shall be legally barred from later challenges. B. Payment of DIFs. The full amount shall be due and payable to the City on the date of final inspection or the date of the issuance of the certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs later. No certificate of occupancy shall be granted for the project, no one shall occupy the new dwelling unit or the new nonresidential building area, and no utility connections shall be permitted until the fee is paid in full. C. Mixed Uses. When improvement plans include more than one land use type, the impact fee shall be calculated separately for each land use type. 17.170.060 Exemptions and Credit for Existing Development, A. Exemptions. The following Projects are exempt from the requirement to pay DIFs: 1. The DIFs shall not be imposed upon a building permit for remodeling or for an addition to an existing residential structure so long as the remodeling or addition does not add a dwelling unit. 2. The DIFs shall not be imposed upon a building permit for the demolition of an existing residential structure and the construction of a new residential structure on the same site, provided the demolished structure was not "vacant' (as defined in Section 17.170.030) prior to the issuance of a building permit for the new structure. 3. The DIFs shall not be imposed on any alteration of a nonresidential structure, where the square footage is not increased by more than two hundred (200) square feet or ten (10) percent of the existing structure, whichever is less, cumulatively over a two year period, unless the alteration includes an intensification of use such as a shift to a higher cost fee category. If the alteration includes an intensification of use a credit for the existing development shall apply as outlined in Section 17.170.060.B. 6 ATTACHMENT "B" 4. The following projects, square footage, and affordable residential units shall not be subject to the requirements of this Chapter: places of worship, City projects, day care centers, private K -12 schools, square footage used for outdoor dining in the public right -of -way, and affordable housing units that are deed restricted to very -low income and low income households. 5. The DIFs shall not be imposed upon a project that has been submitted with complete land use development application(s) and processing fee(s) to the City's Planning Division prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. 6. There are no other exemptions to the DIF. B. Credit for Existing Development. For a project that involves the demolition of an existing structure and the construction of a new structure, the applicant shall be entitled to a credit in the amount of the applicable DIFs for the structure to be demolished, provided that such structure has not been vacant (as defined in Section 17.170.030), and provided that no DIF shall be reduced below $0. For nonresidential structures, the credit will be calculated based on the square footage of the existing structure to be demolished. For residential structures, the credit will be calculated based on the type and number of existing dwelling units to be demolished. 17.170.070 Fee Adjustment An applicant of any project subject to the DIFs described in this Chapter may apply to the City Council for an adjustment, reduction, or waiver of the DIF based upon the absence of any reasonable relationship between the impact on public facilities of that development and either the amount of fee charged or the type of facilities to be financed. Such requests shall be subject to the process outlined below. A. The application shall be made in writing and filed with the City Clerk not later than the time for filing of the request for a building permit. B. The application shall state in detail the factual basis and legal theory for the claim of waiver, reduction or adjustment. The applicant shall bear the burden of proof of presenting substantial evidence to support the request for an adjustment or waiver. C. The City Council shall consider the application at a public hearing held within sixty (60) days after the filing of the fee adjustment application. The decision of the City Council shall be final. D. If a reduction, adjustment, or waiver is granted, any change in use within the project shall invalidate the waiver, adjustment, or reduction of the fee. 17.170.080 Fee Revenue Accounts. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, an Impact Fee Reserve Account is hereby established for each fee category. The fees paid to the City pursuant to the 7 ATTACHMENT "B" provisions of this Chapter shall be deposited into the appropriate Impact Fee Reserve Account and used solely for the purpose described in this Chapter. All monies deposited into the Reserve Accounts shall be held separate and apart from other City funds. All interest or other earnings on the unexpended balance in the Reserve Account shall be credited to the Reserve Account. 17.170.090 Distribution of Impact Fee Funds. All monies and interest earnings in each of the Impact Fee Reserve Accounts shall be expended on the construction and related design and administration costs of constructing public facility improvements and purchasing land and equipment identified in the Nexus Study. Such expenditures may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: A. All direct and indirect costs incurred by the City to construct facility improvements pursuant to this Chapter, including but not limited to, the cost of land and right -of- way acquisition, planning, legal advice, engineering, design, construction, construction management, materials and equipment. B. Costs of issuance or debt service associated with bonds, notes or other security instruments issued to fund facility improvements identified. C. Administrative costs incurred by the City in establishing or maintaining the Impact Fee Reserve Accounts required by this Chapter, including but not limited to the cost of studies to establish the requisite nexus between the fee amount and the use of fee proceeds and yearly accounting and reports. 17.170.100 Periodic Review and Inflation Adjustment. A. Periodic Review. The City shall 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 shall be included in the report. Identification of the timing of receipt of other revenues to fund the facilities is also important. B. Inflation Adjustment. To account for inflation in facility construction costs, the fee imposed by this Ordinance shall be adjusted automatically on July 1 of each fiscal year, beginning on July 1, 2018, by a percentage equal to the appropriate Construction Cost Index as published by Engineering News Record, or its successor publication, for the preceding twelve (12) months. 17.170.110 Fee Refunds. Fees collected pursuant to this Chapter which remain unexpended or uncommitted for five or more fiscal years after deposit into the Impact Fee Reserve Account may be refunded as provided by State law. 8 ATTACHMENT "B" 17.170.120 Fee Revision by Resolution. The amount of the DIFs and the formula for the automatic annual adjustment established by this Chapter may be reviewed and revised periodically by resolution of the City Council. This Chapter shall be considered enabling and directive in this regard. 17.170.130 Regulations. The Community Development Director, or her /his designee, is authorized to adopt written administrative regulations or guidelines that are consistent with and that further the terms and requirements set forth within this Chapter. SECTION 6. Severability. If any section, subsection, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this chapter is declared by a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or otherwise invalid, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this chapter, and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 7. Publication. The City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance to be published in the manner required by law. SECTION 8. Effective Date. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk attest to the passage of this Ordinance. The City Clerk shall cause the same to be published once in the official newspaper within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. This Ordinance shall go into effect and be in full force and effect sixty (60) days from its date of adoption. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this - - - -- day of --- - - - - -, 2015. Margaret Clark, Mayor City of Rosemead ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney Burke Williams and Sorensen, LLP 9 ATTACHMENT "B" RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE TO IMPLEMENT THE DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 949. WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead adopted Ordinance No. 949 establishing the authority for imposing and charging Citywide Development Impact Fees (DIF) to new residential development and new commercial and industrial development within the City to mitigate the impacts on availability and condition of public facilities caused by this development, subject to the adoption of an implementing resolution and fee schedule; and WHEREAS, the City completed a Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study (Impact Fee Study), dated April 21, 2015, which is on file with the City Clerk. The Impact Fee Study identifies the need for and calculates the amount of the development impact fees to pay for the necessary public facility improvements, which are needed to serve and mitigate the impacts of new development; and WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose of the DIF to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of traffic, public safety, general government, and park facilities required to accommodate growth. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide municipal services to new development, and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings: 1) The fees collected shall be used fund expanded facilities to serve new development by the purchase of land, the construction or expansion of buildings and public facilities, purchases of vehicles and equipment, and the construction of roadway improvements, as more specifically described in the Impact Fee Study. Fees will be used to provide facilities in the following categories: traffic, general government, public safety, and parks. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City. 2) 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. 1 ATTACHMENT"C" 3) 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 nonresidential 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 nonresidential 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 of the Impact Fee Study 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 of the Impact Fee Study. 4) 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 of the Impact Fee Study for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. WHEREAS, the establishment of DIF is statutorily exempt under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Section 15273 (a)(1) "Rates, Tolls, Fairs and Charges," as well as Sections 15061 (b)(3) and 15378 (b)(4), and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015 the City Council heard public testimony and considered evidence in a public hearing held and noticed in accordance with Government Code §§ 66016 and 66018. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Adoption of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study. The Impact Fee Study and its appendices are hereby adopted and fully incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. 2 ATTACHMENT"C" SECTION 2. Schedule of Development Impact Fees (DIF). The Rosemead City Council hereby imposes the following development impact fees to be charged pursuant to Title 17 (Chapter 17.170) of the Rosemead Municipal Code and in accordance with the following phasing plan: DIF Phase-in Schedule for Single Use Zones and Mixed Use Zones Fee Schedule for Single Use Zones Fee Schedule for Single Use Zones Effective Date of DIF July 1,2016 July 1,2017 Proposed Fee 1st Year of Phase-in 2nd Year of Phase-in 3rd Year of Phase-in Residential Single Family $ 8,082 $ 2,694 $ 5,388 $ 8,082 Multi-family $ 6,516 $ 2,172 $ 4,344 $ 6,516 Nonresidential Retail $ 1,365 $ 455 $ 910 $ 1,365 Office $ 1,997 $ 666 $ 1,331 $ 1,997 Industrial $ 1,250 $ 417 $ 833 $ 1,250 Note:Fees are expressed per dwelling unit for residential or per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land use. Fee Schedule for Mixed Use Zones Fee Schedule for Mixed Use Zones Effective Date of DIF July 1,2016 July 1,2017 Proposed Fee 1st Year of Phase-in 2nd Year of Phase-in 3rd Year of Phase-in Residential Single Family $ 7,970 $ 2,657 $ 5,313 $ 7,970 Multi-family $ 6,444 $ 2,148 $ 4,296 $ 6,444 Nonresidential Retail $ 1,243 $ 414 $ 829 $ 1,243 Office $ 1,813 $ 604 $ 1,209 $ 1,813 Industrial $ 1,127 $ 376 $ 751 $ 1,127 Note:The fees in this table are for Residential/Commercial Mixed-Use development projects. Fees are expressed per dwelling unit for residential or per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land use. DIF Application Fees Application requests for DIF adjustments in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Title 17, Article 7, Chapter 17.170, Section 17.170.070: 3 ATTACHMENT"C" Fee: Same as "Appeals Filing Fees (City Council)"in Comprehensive Schedule of Fees and Charges Adopted by the Rosemead City Council (Community Development/Planning Fees). Filing an Appeal of DIF in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Title 17, Article 7, Chapter 17.170, Section 17.170.050: Fee: Same as "Appeals Filing Fees (City Council)"in Comprehensive Schedule of Fees and Charges Adopted by the Rosemead City Council (Community Development/Planning Fees). SECTION 3. Fee Adjustment. Unless otherwise revised, the fees established by this Resolution shall be adjusted annually each fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2018 by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Price Index for the Los Angeles County Area. SECTION 4. Effective Date of this Resolution. This Resolution will become effective sixty days following the second reading of Ordinance No. 949 on DATE 2015. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles of the State of California on DATE 2015. Margaret Clark, Mayor City of Rosemead, California ATTEST: Gloria Molleda, City Clerk City of Rosemead, California: APPROVED AS TO FORM Rachel H. Richman, City Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 4 ATTACHMENT"C" INp it°sa The Honorable Margaret Clark 9 BIH = Mayor mssoctgoo Rosemead City Hall Southern Colton-1i° Los Angeles and Ventura 8838 Valley Blvd. Counties Chapter Rosemead, CA 91770 ASSOCIATION OFFICERS Scott Ouellette,Williams Homes April 27, 2015 Scott Real Estate Advisory BIA/LAV President Subject: Development Impact Fee Study Greg Medeiros,Tejon Ranch Company BIA/LAV Vice-President Dear Mayor Clark, Keith Herren,Williams Homes BIA/LAV Treasurer The Building Industry Association of Southern California — Los Angeles / Mike Nix,Toll Brothers,Inc. BIA/LAVSecretary Ventura Chapter ("BIALAV") represents over 1,100 home building businesses Howard Press,Watt Communities throughout Southern California and is the voice of residential building BIA/LAVPast President development here in Rosemead. BIALAV understands the critical importance Darrin Shannon,Gothic Landscape that traffic mitigation, public safety, and parks play in developing strong and VP of Associates vibrant communities. New residents have the same expectations as existing BOARD OF DIRECTORS ones, and through an equitable partnership with the residential development Aleks Baharlo,KFG Investment Co. community, Rosemead can ensure that all residents, current and future, enjoy George Dickerson,All Promotions Etc. high quality communities in which to live and thrive. Bart Doyle, D.Barton Doyle Attorney at Law With this in mind, BIALAV offers the following amendments to the Development Johnny Escobedo, Impact Fee Study(Final Draft—April 21,2015): Landscape Development,Inc. Andy Henderson, Provide a Phased-In Approach The Henderson Law Firm Al Lee,Lennar The City of Rosemead has a strong reputation as smart-growth friendly, and has Karl Mallick,Kimley-Horn&Associates served as an example to others when it comes to supporting needed residential Ken Melvin,Standard Pacific Homes development. As such, no impact fees are currently imposed upon new housing units. The proposed fees effectively go from zero to sixty, signaling a dramatic Eileen Merino,CDS Insurance shift in policy. To ensure that housing is not discouraged, the fees should come Tom Mitchell,Newhall Land online over a five-year period. This would be achieved by increasing the amount John Musella,The Musella Group 20% year over year, and would prevent a shock to the development community Rogelio Navar,California Home Builders through a more gradual approach. Henrik Nazarian,Hall&Foreman,Inc. Nkechi Odu,Chelsea Investment Corp. Ensure Fees Serve Rosemead Residents-Remove the General Government Fee Ben Rocca,Richmond American Homes The General Government Fee proposes to collect between $844 and $1,013 per Sara Soudan',Lawyers Title new residential unit to spend on local government. BIALAV is concerned by this Rich Villasenor,KB Home proposal in that it does not seek to serve residents in a direct manner similar to Norm Witt,Cook Hill Properties the other proposed fees. Unlike traffic mitigation, public safety, and parks, an increase in general government funds will fail to provide similar added value. ATTACHMENT"D" 350 South Bixel Street,Suite 100,Los Angeles,California 90017 Office:213.797.5994 www.bialay.org "The Voice Of Residential Building And Development" Residents will be best served by a local government that does not look to expand and increase in size merely because development occurs, but rather by one that continually seeks to work effectively within its existing means. Recalculate the Park Fee to Better Reflect Existing Priority Projects The Park Fee, as currently configured, fails to properly take into account Rosemead's Draft Parks Master Plan, which clearly lays out the City's park priorities in the coming years. Instead, the Park Fee uses existing parks as a baseline for the fee amount. This means that new residential housing is effectively responsible for providing enough funds to support aquatic centers, community centers, splash zones, and gymnasiums, even though the City has no intention of building these facilities. Rather, the Draft Parks Master Plan calls for the construction of neighborhood parks, a skate park, and improvements to existing playground facilities.The Parks Fee should take into account City priorities and only enough to provide for projects currently on the park wish list. Collect Fees upon the Issuance of Certificate of Occupancy The proposed fees are to be collected and used in order to mitigate the impact that new residents have on existing public infrastructure. By collecting the fees at the time the certificates of occupancy ("C of Os") are issued, rather than at the time permits are pulled,the City can ensure that they are used solely for this intended purpose. Developers often utilize more expensive financing at the beginning of a project. As a result, fee collection upon the issuance of C of Os will dramatically reduce their impact on a residential unit's cost. Because higher costs result in higher product prices, the collection of fees upon the issuance of C of Os will ensure that housing remains accessible for Rosemead residents. Exempt Affordable Housing Units Affordable housing units are extremely difficult for builders to pencil out. In order to encourage development, so that all residents can afford housing, Rosemead should exempt these units from paying the proposed fees. Failure to do so sends the message that affordable housing is not a City priority. By keeping the cost of developing affordable housing low, Rosemead can ensure that home ownership remains an attainable goal for all residents, regardless of income level. Of note, the Development Impact Fee Study uses an extremely low baseline for projected growth. The Study anticipates a mere 28 residential units coming on line year over year, while traditional rates have been more than twice this amount.Therefore, it is likely that significantly more fees will be generated, providing Rosemead with additional resources to provide traffic mitigation, public safety, and parks for residents. These recommendations reflect a reasonable compromise. BIALAV is pleased to share our thoughts with Rosemead. Together, we can ensure that new fees are appropriate, that residential development is not stifled, and that homes remain available for all Rosemead residents. ATTACHMENT"D" Development Impact Fee Study-2 Sincerely, Z--- -4.4;11' , _47.44 Tim Piasky Chief Executive Officer Cc: The Honorable Sandra Armenta, Mayor Pro Tern The Honorable Bill Alarcon,Councilmember The Honorable Polly Low, Councilmember The Honorable Steven Ly, Councilmember Jeff Allred,City Manager Matthew Hawkesworth,Assistant City Manager Sheri Bermejo, City Planner Michelle Ramirez, Community Development Director ATTACHMENT"D" Development Impact Fee Study-3 i iOS E f.E)t,4A Today's Small Town America 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 listed below. • Arcadia • Alhambra • El Monte • Monterey Park • 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) The findings of the survey are summarized in the following tables and graphs. 1 ATTACHMENT"E" Tables - Analysis of DIF Applied to Prototypical Projects TABLE 1 - Prototypical Single-Family Detached Residential Project (2,400 square feet of floor area) CITY SINGLE FAMILY AVERAGE IMPACT FEE Arcadia $8,416 Alhambra $2,000 El Monte $3,357 Monterey Park $6,268 San Gabriel $9,991 Temple City $3,000 $5,505 NOTE: City of Montebello does not charge DIF. City of Alhambra only charges a park fee. Rosemead Existing Fee: $800 per unit Rosemead Proposed Fee: $8,082 per unit Impact Fee Comparison for Single Family Project Prototype 2,400 Square Feet $12,000.00 $10,000.00 - - $8,000.00 $6,000.00 $4,000.00 $2,000.00 . , ■Single Family Impact Fee $0.00 • PCc" ram <,> eceA a(4@ _co c a� tz\e 4,0 et as Sa �e 2 ATTACHMENT "E" TABLE 2 - Prototypical Multi-Family Attached Residential Project (20 units totaling 29,000 square feet of floor area) CITY MULTI FAMILY AVERAGE IMPACT FEE Arcadia $139,690 Alhambra $40,000 El Monte $97,258 Monterey Park $81,280 San Gabriel $124,180 Temple City $35,000 $86,235 NOTE: City of Montebello does not charge DIF. City of Alhambra only charges a park fee. Rosemead Existing Fee: $800 per unit Rosemead Proposed Fee: $6,516 per unit (Prototypical Project: $130,320) Impact Fee Comparison for Multi Family Project Prototype 29,000 Square Feet (20 Units) $160,000.00 $140,000.00 $120,000.00 $100,000.00 $80,000.00 $60,000.00 — $40,000.00 — $20,000.00 •Multi Family Impact Fee $0.00 — aa Ica ock. e •if� yea c\e `> PS` Prate �� �etea ac o9� 1' � oye 3 ATTACHMENT "E" TABLE 3 - Prototypical Retail Project (50,000 square feet of floor area) CITY RETAIL IMPACT AVERAGE FEE Arcadia $292,500.00 El Monte $113,439.00 Monterey Park $166,000.00 San Gabriel $1,068,080.00 $410,000 NOTE: Cities of Alhambra,Montebello,and Temple City do not charge nonresidential DIF Rosemead Existing Fee: $0 Rosemead Proposed Fee: $1,365 per 1,000 SF (Prototypical Project: $68,250) Impact Fee Comparison for Commercial Retail Project Prototype 50,000 Square Feet $1,200,000 00 $1,000,000.00 $800,000.00 $600,000.00 $400,000.00 - $200,000.00 II $0.00 , , II1= , •Retail Impact Fee a\ ��a� °ea a#y•;2 ,\4' ee Q°Q c?' et a a` V° °e 4 ATTACHMENT "E" TABLE 4 - Prototypical Office Project (50,000 square feet of floor area) CITY OFFICE IMPACT FEE AVERAGE Arcadia $116,000 El Monte $113,439 Monterey Park $166,000 San Gabriel $447,100 $210,643 NOTE: Cities of Alhambra,Montebello,and Temple City do not charge nonresidential DIF Rosemead Existing Fee: $0 Rosemead Proposed Fee: $1,997 per 1,000 SF (Prototypical Project: $99,850) Impact Fee Comparison for Commercial Office Project Prototype 50,000 Square Feet $500,000.00 $400,000.00 - $300,000.00 $200,000.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 • • , ■ , •Office Impact Fee aa�a oc'`e �a . % • Q oea ot`e y � <2,e:‘ 'D Pt Cho Q a a Oy�e lea p 5a 5 ATTACHMENT"E"