CC - Item 1A - Rosemead Development Impact Fee StudyCity of Rosemead
OSEMETD
Development Impact Fee Study
FINAL DRAFT
April 21, 2015
This page intentionally left blank.
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVESUMMARY ....................................................................................... ............................... 4
Background and Study Objectives ......................................................................................... ............................... 4
Facility Standards and Cost Allocation .................................................................................. ............................... 4
Useof Fee Revenues ............................................................................................................. ............................... 5
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary ...................................................................... ............................... 6
1. IMODUCP ION ........................................................................................... ............................... 7
Public Facilities Financing in California .................................................................................. ............................... 7
StudyObjectives ..................................................................................................................... ..............................7
StudyMethodology ............................................................................................................... ............................... 8
New Development Facility Needs and Costs ........................................................................... ..............................8
2. GROWTH FORECASTS AND UNIT COSTS ................................................... ........................:....11
LandUse Types .................................................................................................................... ............................... 11
OccupantDensities ........... .................... :............................................................................................................. 12
Existing and Future Development ....................................................................................... ............................... 13
UnitCosts ............................................................................................................................ ............................... 15
3. TRAFFIC FACIUMS .................................................................................... .............................16
TripDemand from New Development ................................................................................ ............................... 16
Traffic Improvements and Cost Allocation .......................................................................... ............................... 19
FeeSchedules ...................................................................................................................... ............................... 25
Non-Fee Funding Needed ................................................................................................... ............................... 26
4. PUBLIC SAFETY FACIUM ...................................................................... .............................28
ServicePopulation ............................................................................................................... ............................... 28
Facility Inventory ................................................................................................................. ............................... 29
Facility Standard .................................................................................................................. ............................... 29
FeeSchedule ....................................................................................................................... ............................... 30
Estimated Revenue ....................................................................................................... ............................... 31
Service Population ...............................................................................................................32
Facility Inventory ...................................................................................................................33
FacilityStandard ..................................................................................................................34
FeeSchedule .......................................................................................................................34
Estimated Revenue .......................................................................................................35
S'717:7:NIrIYYI .,
Service Population ............................................................................................................... ............................... 36
Facility Inventory .................................................................................................................36
Facility Standards ................................................................................................................40
Fee Schedule .......................................................................................................................41
Estimated Revenue .......................................................................................................42
7. IWLEMENTATTON .................................................................................... ............................... 44
Impact Fee Program Adoption Process ................................................................................. .............................44
InflationAdjustment ........................................................................................................... ............................... 44
ReportingRequirements ..................................................................................................... ............................... 44
Programming Revenues and Projects with the CIP ...........:................................................... .............................44
8. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINOINGS ............................................................... .............................46
Purpose Fee .................................................................................................................... ............................... 46
Useof Fee Revenues ........................................................................................................... ............................... 46
City of Rosemead 2
BenefitRelationship ............................................................................................................ ............................... 47
BurdenRelationship ...................................... :............................... ..................................................................... 47
Proportionality .................................................................................................................... ............................... 47
9 . APPENDIX ..................................................................................................... .............................49
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.
z a2; f 011 1C6I .ll; ' =''4 c '
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.
Traci i Si r cl rc•!s r c psiAiioC MI
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
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.
Development Impact Fee Schedule Summary
Table E.1 summarizes the proposed impact fees documented in this report.
Table E.1: Pro Fee Schedule
Public General
Land Use Traffic' 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.
I Traffic impactfees 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
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.
f! C lClll`I 5 `I. "l a C 31, lil 9ilf`71TIT
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
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.
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.
A number of approaches are used to identify facility needs and costs to serve new
development. This is often a two -step process: (1) identify total facility needs, and (2) allocate
to new development its fair share of those needs.
There are three common methods for determining new development's fair share of
planned facilities costs: the existing inventory method, the planned facilities method, and the
system plan method. Often the method selected depends on the degree to which the
community has engaged in comprehensive facility master planning to identify facility needs.
The formula used by each approach and the advantages and disadvantages of each method
is summarized below:
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
New Development Demand
I $ / Unit of Demand
This method is appropriate when planned facilities will entirely serve new development, or
when a fair share allocation of planned facilities to new development can be estimated. An
example of the former is a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped area. An
example of the latter is traffic improvements where data from a traffic study can be used to
determine the share of facility costs that should be allocated to new development. Under
this method new development funds the expansion of facilities at the standards used in the
applicable planning documents. This method is used to calculate the traffic impact fee in this
study.
System Plan Method
This method calculates the fee based on: the value of existing facilities plus the cost of
planned facilities, divided by demand from existing plus new development:
Value of Existing Facilities + Cost of Planned Facilities
Existing +New Development Demand
Unit of 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.
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 S.
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.
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.
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.
CCL C i3i '1l 11:15
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 (DOFF), 2014; The Natelson Company, Inc.,
Employment Density Study Summary Report, October 31, 2001, pp. 15 -23
10':, ;ICI
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.
Table 2.2: Rosemead Existing and Future Development
I Growth in Rosemead households is based on the SCAG RTP fvlodel. 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 Grculation 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 RTPGrowth Forecast, Southern California Association
of Governments; Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead: Grculation Element Update and
Environmental Impact Report, February 19, 2010; KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering,
Table 10.
Growth
2014 2025 2010 -2025
Residents 54,349 56,367 2,018
Dwelling Units
Single - Family 12,621 12,926 305
Mulfi- family 2,250 2,341 91
396Total14,871 15,267
Em&yment
Retail 3,757 4,110 353
Office 8,399 9,190 791
Industrial 3,503 3,833 330
1,474Total15,659 17,133
Building Square Feet 000s)
Retail 1,612 1,764 152
Office 2,683 2,936 253
Industrial 3,020 3,304 284
689Total7,315 8,004
I Growth in Rosemead households is based on the SCAG RTP fvlodel. 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 Grculation 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 RTPGrowth Forecast, Southern California Association
of Governments; Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead: Grculation Element Update and
Environmental Impact Report, February 19, 2010; KOA Corporation Planning and Engineering,
Table 10.
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.
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.
tl• It Ci! i'OO'11 -L lie =' s, l ili
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 Zoninq Growth 2014 -2025
DmI inq Units
Single - Family 12,621 12,926
Multi- family 2,250 2,341
Total 14,871 15,267
Buildina Sauare Feet (OOOs)
305 305
91 - 91
91 305 396
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 Nbddl. 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
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
Nonresidential
A B G =AX6 U k =GXU h = &9 %xE
0.99Retail
Trip Adjust-PM Peak Trip Demand Trip Demand
TIE Trip Generation Primary Length ment Hour Factor, Single Factor, Mixed
Category Trips'Index Factor'Trips'Use Zoning Use Zoning'
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
Shopping Center (820)66%0.46 0.30
I
3.71
per 1,000 square feet)
1.11 0.99Retail
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
I Excludes pass -by trips. Pass -by trips are links that do not add more than one nine to the total trip. Rosemead Circulation dement Traffic Analysis
identifies that 34% of PM peak hour retail trips are pass -by trips.
z Index value for the average length of trip to associated trip category. Captures varying Impact of type of trip end.
s Total factor by which trip demand is adjusted accounting for trip length and pass -by trips.
Trips per dwelling unit (residential) or per 1,000 building square feet (nonresidential).
s The trip demand factor for each land use Is the product of PM peak hour trips and the trip demand adjustment factor.
s According to the Traffic Analysis for the City of Rosemead, an 11% reduction in FM peak hour trip demand is assumed for development in mixed
use zones due to internal capture of some residentlal- to- comrterclal 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 (IIE; 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.
Table 3.3 Trip Demand
Trip Existing Trip Demand
Demand Existing DU/ 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
3, 11 WE I IIOCt WT 11
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
w
N
Nh0
iiC vvEv0
z
0
U
d m
E>
E 2 2 2 2 2 E E EwwzFFFFFrFFF F F'-
L
9 0 O LL LL W LL LL LL LL LL LL W W W LL LL
JEN £
V o
N O
IO m N O O O W W co W N
LL
N d O LL LL O LL W LL LL LL LL p W p p W LL
J
O E O.d w_ M O
O 7 U_OJ m o N O o NM O m O r r O a
y C o o m m O o o COro m m m m a
0 T 0 0 0 0 0
m
o NO W U W W W 0 U U U U LL LL
G y
Q
N O O
C D m N r m W N m m W r r r r N
O O
U
QY
O
cn EmJ
Ga
U T]fn Q Q N
C O
T
Q
3
Ll
O Q Q Q Q N C O
C LL Q
EE NE'T T T T oZ o.NE coo T
w LL
2 S 0 0
C7 C7 C7 U'm F S t C'S
Q Q Q Q Q g
R 2 m 2 m mSmoo
p CD (S Q 9 D m m
Q p O
C
C C N0 C Q N C N
N
2
N w C cd Ccd N C NN
In Z fn 0 Q
vvEv0
z
0
U
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
Intersection Total $ 12,315,000 $ 2,370,000 $14,685,000
Other costs include design, and project management.
Sources: Table 3.4; City of Rosemead.
City of Rosemead 21
Limit) Turn Lanes V V ' V
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
o
LL
E
c
E
NN
O
m
T
z
1 V
k S d
x 0 N
a U o Z
C
O
E Z a
8 ,,oCd
o N
C
E 3EmjZ00
E v
O U
a
O N
N OOdr
aO
0O
Q
O
0
cu,
A
CO
V
N
i
C
QqCl)
dn
F-
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0cccc000000000000omMcc M a7 7 M N (d- n LLJ fJc [ to MofNV - ( r a7 n NmNOJ o a .Yro300r
U aoro0GN
Al
000000000000000 0
0 Ic o 0 0 0 0 o Ic 0 0 0IcinCon n n non oiooCD 'Xi
T cV IJ I I f cV N cV N 1 h I o uJ 2 ro ro ro
9Ot 2 p 0
y}
2 0
Lro o adam
ON m'O U
O O_-
N ! oOO E
O j J
w 9
c000000000000odditl °i m a
tl N oE m w o
E wEoE> ro d m ooog
ro
O cO h M 7 M OJ OJ N N
N m W a d
d D o :I C N O O O O W Z ro o t
orrOrr.- rrr00o o n m
M 7 N M N cO ONOr M 0 (M O 1 r d d m ry o j ytlooororooMmcqrroorrr =0000 oy ti "
a ro N C 0
mO ° ormuMi r d m °' aD `o 3 w
mm rnm m am rn m r C3 C3 Z Z0000000000000
m a
ro m o
N o N N0
o D
da
T L
L
N U m E m`m o ro S
Q G N N L Q m E c ..
Q ¢iO x L ' a
ro N E m d
CCIn ToidisanmisonE o E o cTpy
UQQQ Q Q F C7 ro wroro
j m C7 m N itl m m
m
0 o m o is T) o o
d
L <o U p DC7CSC7 (D (D m and an m L E dJdroC7 >> T T m 0 i E NZ 8
m m m 3 m m ' ' F s r y33inz0U) >> DD Z°
W
cy
m
m
am
m
c
ms
N
d
8
Y
m
v
K
u
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
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
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
Nonresidential
A B C =A'B D=2% *C E =C +D
Industrial
Cost Per PM Trip Demand Admin.
Land Use Peak Hour Trip Factor Fee'Charge (20 %)Total Fee'
Residential
Single - Family 1,004 1.00 1,004 20 1,024
Multi- family 1,004 0.62 622 12 634
Nonresidential
1,114 $ 22Retail $1,004
Office 1,004
Industrial 1,004
1.11 1,114 $ 22 1,136
1.65 1,657 33 1,690
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
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
Land Use
A
Cost Per PM
Peak Hour Trip
B
Trip Demand
Factor
C =A'B
Fee
D=2% *C
Admin.
Charge (2 %)
E =C +D
Total Fee
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
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
Table 3.10: Non -Fee Funding Needed for
Traff ic Improvements in Fee Progra
Intersection Improvements
Total Improvement Cost 14,685,000
New Development 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
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.
RTMOTH, IMMIX* MOGYIf='
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
Residents Workers'
Service
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
per weekto 128 non - working hours (40/128= 0.31).
on the ratio of 40
Sources: Table 2.2
City of Rosemead 28
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
Buildings
Public Safety Building
Vehicles
2003 Ford Crown Victoria
2008 Toyota Prius Hybrid
2005 Ford Explorer Sport Trac
2005 Ford Ranger XLT
2007 Chevrolet S10
2008 Chevrolet S10
2007 GEM Electric Car
2008 Chevy Colorado LS
2010 Honda Civic Hybrid Sedan
Subtotal - Vehicles
0.30 acres $ 1,717,000 $ 515,100
4,250 sq.ft. $352 $ 1,496,000
1 ea $ 21,188 $ 21,188
1 ea 25,000 25,000
1 ea 22,180 22,180
3 ea 15,450 46,350
1 ea 20,000 20,000
1 ea 20,000 20,000
1 ea 12,000 12,000
1 ea 16,150 16,150
1 ea 21,564 21,564
204,432
Equipment
Computer Desk Stations
Printer (HP LaserJet 4250N)
Printer (LaserJet 4050N)
Color Laser Printer (HP 4700d1n)
Photo Copy Machine
TV Monitors
Cable Box Systems & Computer Projector/
Mechanical Wall System
Chairs
Tables
Chairs (Stacking)
Portable Speaker System
LASD "Live Scan" Machine
Closed Circuit Monitor System w/ 6 HD Cameras
Subtotal - Equipment
Total Value of Existing Public Facilties
14 ea 629 $8,806
3 ea 1,449 4,347
1 ea 349 349
1 ea 6,349 6,349
1 ea 800 800
3 ea 1,799 5,397
1 ea 899
899
26 ea 265 6,890
10 ea 298 2,980
50 ea 99 4,950
1 ea 1,245 1,245
1 ea 16,000 16,000
1 ea 6,711 6,711
65,723
2,281,255
Sources: City of Rosemead; Loopnet; Kelley Blue Book
City of Rosemead 29
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
Existing Service Population
Cost Per Capita
Cost per Resident
Cost Per Worker
2,281,255
59,203
39
39
12
Based on 0.31 worker weighting factor.
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.2
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
Table 4.4: Public Safety Facilities Fee Schedule
Nonresidential
Commercial $ 12 2.33 $ 28 $ 1 $ 29
Office 12 3.13 38. 1 39
Industrial 12 1.16 14 0 14
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
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)
Fee per Capita
Fee Revenue
2,018 1,474
39 $ 12
79,000 $ 18,000 $r 111
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3
City of Rosemead 31
A B C=AeB 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
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
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)
Fee per Capita
Fee Revenue
2,018 1,474
39 $ 12
79,000 $ 18,000 $r 111
Sources: Tables 4.1 and 4.3
City of Rosemead 31
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.
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
Residents Workers'
Total
Service
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 - working hours (401128 = 0.31).
Sources: Table 2.2
City of Rosemead 1 32
Mli + - lllyl i 1 Cil'; ,
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
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 w Hh the public w ork facilities located in parks is show n here and not included in the parks
acreage calculated in the existing parkland inventory. Acreage associated with the Public Raza is not included in
the City Hall Public Haze 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
Inventory Unit Cost Total Value
Land '
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 w Hh the public w ork facilities located in parks is show n here and not included in the parks
acreage calculated in the existing parkland inventory. Acreage associated with the Public Raza is not included in
the City Hall Public Haze 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
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
Existing Service Population
Cost Per Capita
Cost per Resident
Cost Per Worker'
Based on 0.31 worker weighting factor.
Sources: Tables 5.1, 52, and 5.3
16,088,746
59,203
272
272
84
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
Table 5.5 Government Facilities Fee Schedule
Cost Per
Land Use Capita Density Base Fee
Admin.
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
1 Administrative charge of 2.0 percent.
Sources: Table 2.2 and 5.4
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
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.
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
Existing New Future
Residents Development Service
Residents 54,349 2,018 1 56,367
Sources: Table 2.2.
SCI V=
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
Table 6.2: Existing Parkland Inventory
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.
21.43 acres of public works facility land within 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.
City of Rosemead 37
Park Type Acre /Sq.
Ft.
Est. Land Value
per Acre
Est. Land
Value
Angelus Park Greenbelt 0.20 1,357,000 271,400
Garvey Park Community 9.07 1,357,000 12,307,990
Garvey 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
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.
21.43 acres of public works facility land within 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.
City of Rosemead 37
Table 6.3: Buildings and Park Improvement Costs
So. Ft. Unit Cost Total Value
Rosemead Park and Pool
1,200 $352 422,400
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.
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 a 34.52
Building and Special Improvement Cost per Acre of Improved Parkland C =A /a $ 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 of Rosemead
City of Rosemead 39
Cli(fi j " ICR iC)
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
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 $
Improvements Cost per Resident
Total Cost per Resident for Land and
Improvements
019
716,800
717
1,585
Sources: Table 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4; Qty of Rosemead
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
Table 6.7: Park Facilities Fee Schedule
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
A B C A'B D =2 %'C F =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
5,900TotalFee $ 1,585 5,785 $ 115
Multi - family
Land - Mitigation Fee Act 868 3.04 2,639 53 2,692
Improvements 717 3.04 2,180 44 2,224
4,916TotalFee $ 1,585 4,819 $ 97
Administrative charge of 2.0 percent.
Sources: Tables 2.2 and 6.6
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
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 he 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
PrnnnwA Inerernvement Level Total Cast
Sources: Table 6, Roserreed Parks, naereatIon and General Facilities Draft vaster Pan
City of Rosemead 43
Grand Total $ 2,725,000
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.
rs`il: 10 i'- ,Ci3,(115! 3lt•?'li!
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.
ME'= "u'Jt'1.5
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.
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
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
8. 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.
Identify the purpose of the fee (566001(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.
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
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.
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.
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.
MMortilMI
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
development on which the fee is imposed ( 566001(6) 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 for other facility demand factors are determined for different types of land uses.
See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter for a presentation of the
proposed facilities fees.
Table 6.9: Impact Fee - Eligible Projects in Draft Parks Master Plan
Priority
Pr000md Improvement Level Total Cost
Sources: Table 6, Rosemead Parks, Recreation and General Faollitles Draft Mester Fan
City of Rosemead 48
Grand Total $ 3,375,000
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.
3endix Table A.1: Existing General Government Vehicles &
Administration
2009 Toyota Camry Hybrid (white)
2009 Toyota Camry Hybrid (gray)
2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE
Balder 36 kW Trailer Mounted Generator
Baldor 60 kW Trailer Mounted Generator
Engineerrng
2009 Ford Escape SUV Hybrid
Public Services
1991 Ford F250
2001 Ford Taurus
2000 Ford F350 XL Super Duty
1999 Ford F150
2001 Ford RangerXLT
2000 Ford Ranger
2007 Chevy Silvorado F3500
2008 Chevy 3500
2008 Chevy Colorado LT
2009 Chevy Silveradc
2009 Ford Altec
2005 Chevy Silverado Hybrid Truck
2006 Ford F250 Truck
2008 GMC C2500 HD Truck
2009 JCB MIDI CX50HP Tractor
2014 Ford F350 Chasis Utility / Dump
2014 Ford Fusion Hybrid SE
1985 Massey Ferguson Tractor 50E
Generator
Recreation
2002 Ford Econoline Long Cab Van
2003 Ford Econoline Long Cab Van
2006 Ford Econoline Long Cab Van
2010 Ford F150 Pickup
Total
1 $ 33,800 $33,800
1 33,800 33,800
1 38,000 38,000
1 21,775 21,775
1 29,297 29,297
1 20,000 20,000
1 9,000 9,000
1 17,985 17,985
1 25,305 25,305
1 12,000 12,000
1 22,756 22,756
1 17,775 17,775
1 38,000 38,000
1 40,000 40,000
2 22,000 44,000
3 32,000 96,000
1 120,000 120,000
1 20,780 20,780
1 21,000 21,000
1 22,500 22,500
1 65,000 65,000
2 51,000 102,000
1 38,000 38,000
1 15,000 15,000
2 3,000 6,000
21,561 21,561
21,561 21,561
21,561 21,561
20,000 20,000
994,456
Source: City of Rosemead
City of Rosemead 49