Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Approve 2015-16 Annual Compliance Reports for Public Library
Dept. ID AD-17-007 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR. CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 4/3/2017 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Antonia Graham, Assistant to the City Manager SUBJECT: Approve 2015-16 Annual Compliance Reports for Public Library Facilities, Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities, Law Enforcement Facilities and Fire Suppression Facilities Development Impact Fees (DIF), Planned Local Drainage Facilities, Sanitary Sewer Facilities and Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Statement of Issue: On November 18, 2002, the City Council approved the establishment of a Park Impact Fee to be levied on the construction of all new floor area for all commercial and industrial development and all residential development not covered by Quimby Fees. In 2012, four new Ordinances were adopted establishing Development Impact Fees for Public Library, Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities, Law Enforcement, and Fire Suppression Facilities. California Government Code Section 66006 requires preparation of Annual Reports for Development Impact Fees (DIF). In addition, in accordance with the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and the California Government Code, three compliance reports on facilities improvement fees collected for development projects are presented for approval. The three funds managed by the Public Works Department with this requirement include Planned Local Drainage Facilities, Sanitary Sewer Facilities, and Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program. Financial Impact: None by this action. Recommended Action: A) Approve the Annual Compliance Report, "Public Library Facilities Development Impact Fees Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015-16;" and, B) Approve the Annual Compliance Report, "Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015-16;" and, C) Approve the Annual Compliance Report, "Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fees Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015-16;" and, D) Approve the Annual Compliance Report, "Fire Suppression Facilities Development Impact Fees Annual Report Fiscal Year 2015-16;" and, E) Approve the "Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2015-16;" and, F) Approve the "Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2015- 16;" and, Item 5. - 1 HB -78- Dept. ID AD-17-007 Page 2 of 3 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 G) Approve the "Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program Annual Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2015-16." Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the Annual Compliance Reports and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: Reporting requirements under California Government Code 66006 specify that the City must prepare annual reports of Development Impact Fees within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year. The reports must describe the fee, the amount of the fees collected, interest earned, and identification of any expenditures from those funds. The code also specifies that reports must be reviewed by the City Council at a regularly scheduled meeting not less than 15 days following release to the public. The reports referred to in this report were released for public review on March 7, 2016 (Attachment 1). Fiscal Year 2014-15 annual reports for and Public Library, Parkland Acquisition and Park, Law Enforcement, and Fire Suppression Facilities are attached for your review and approval Attachments 2-5). A summary of the fees collected and expenditures is provided in the table below: Parks Law Enforcement Fire Suppression Library Beginning Balance $2,578,268.00 $231,467.25 $104,010.14 $383,778.00 Fees Collected (includes $924,147.00 $114,340.52 $116,621.80 $66,974.00 interest earned Expenditures $543,172.00 $0 $0 $92,672.00 Ending Balance — ding 15 $2,959,243.00 $345,807.77 $220,631.94 $358,080.00 Park Expenditures: Various park improvement project, park leases, contracted/professional services, and staffing. As these funds are collected and their corresponding fund grows, the restricted funds may be used on projects identified in the City's General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report that established the fees, the City's Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council approved development projects. Public Works: Use of the funds for the Traffic Impact, Sanitary Sewer, and Planned Local Drainage fees is restricted to making system improvements as outlined in the respective master plans for each of the funds. Information contained in the reports conforms to the requirements of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code regarding revenues and expenditures in each fund. Drainage Sanitary Sewer Traffic Impact Beginning Balance $298,093.00 $4,623,345.00 $3,064,304.00 Fees Collected (includes $494,777.00 $1,611,690.00 $1,140,323.00 interest earned) Expenditures $0 $78,300 $163,821 Ending Balance — 09/30/15 $792,870.00 $6,156,735.00 $4,040,806.00 HB -79- Item 5. - 2 Dept. ID AD-17-007 Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Public Works Commission Action: The Public Works Commission reviewed each report on February 17, 2016, and recommended approval by a vote of 6-0-1 (Stanford absent). The Commission further recommended that projects be included in the Fiscal Year 2016-17 Capital Improvement Program in order to spend down the current fund balances of the Planned Local Drainage and Sanitary Sewer Facilities funds. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and maintain infrastructure Attachment(s): 1. Memo to City Council dated March 7, 2016. 2. 2015-16 Annual Compliance Report for the Public Library Facilities Development Impact Fees 3. 2015-16 Annual Compliance Report for the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees 4. 2015-16 Annual Compliance Report for Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fees 5. 2015-16 Annual Compliance Report for Fire Suppression Facilities Development Impact Fees 6. Planned Local Drainage Facility Fund Annual Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2015/16 7. Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2015/16. 8. Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program Annual Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2015/16 9. Resolution 2012-23 Adopting Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Study Report Item 5. - 3 HB -80- ATTACHMENT #1 c CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Interdepartmental Memo TO: Honorable Jayor and City Council Members FROM: Fred Wils ty Manager SUBJECT: RELEAS OF FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORTS FOR PUBLIC WORKS, PARKS, LAW ENFORCEMENT, FIRE SUPPRESSION, AND PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES FEES DATE: March 7, 2016 Reporting requirements under California Government Code 66006 specify that the City must prepare an annual report of Development Impact Fees within 180 days of the close of the fiscal year. Additionally, the Code requires that the report be available for public review not less than 15 days prior to being reviewed at a public meeting of the City Council. The Fiscal Year 2014-15 annual reports for Public Works, Park, Law Enforcement, Fire Suppression, and Public Library Facilities are attached for your preliminary review. They will be officially transmitted for approval at the April 4, 2016 City Council Meeting. By way of this transmittal, I am releasing the reports for public review. Please contact me with any questions. Cc: Michael Gates, City Attorney Joan Flynn, City Clerk Ken Domer, Assistant City Manager Robert Handy, Chief of Police Eric Engberg, Interim Fire Chief Travis Hopkins, Public Works Director Tom Herbel, City Engineer Bob Stachelski, Transportation Manager Stephanie Beverage, Library Director Janeen Laudenback, Community Services Director Scott Hess, Director of Building and Planning David Bunetta, Police Captain William Reardon, Fire Division Chief Dave Dominguez, Manager Facilities Development and Concessions Ken Dills, Project Manager Kevin Justen, Senior Administrative Analyst Elaine Kuhnke, Senior Administrative Analyst Mindy James, Senior Administrative Analyst Debbie Gilbert, Senior Administrative Analyst HB -8 1- Item 5. - 4 Attachments 1. 2014-15 Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Report 2. 2014-15 Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fee Annual Report 3. 2014-15 Fire Suppression Facilities Development Impact Fee Annual Report 4. 2014-15 Library Facilities Development Impact Fee Annual Report 5. 2014-15 Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report 6. 2014-15 Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report 7. 2014-15 Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee Program Annual Report 8. Resolution 2012-23 Adopting Development Impact Fee Calculations and Nexus Study Report Item 5. - 5 HB -82- ATTACHMENT 1 2014-15 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT H B -83- Item 5. - 6 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 I. BACKGROUND On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3946 which amended the Huntington Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.76 relating to Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees. The second reading of Ordinance 3946 was approved on July 2, 2012 (Attachment 1). II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS State law imposes both annual and five-year reporting requirements as a result of its collection of Park Impact Fees. The specific elements to be included in the report include: • A brief description of the type of fee in the fund account • The amount of the fee • The beginning and ending balance • The amount of fees collected and interest earned • Identification of each public improvement on which fees are expended • An identification of the approximate date by which the construction of public improvements will commence • A description of each interfund transfer loan made from the fund balance • The amount of refunds made pursuant to any protests The annual report is to be made available to the public within 180 days following the close of the fiscal year. It is also to be reviewed by the City Council no less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public at its next regularly scheduled meeting. This year the report is being presented to the City Council on April 4, 2016. Fee Description: Use of Fees Per HBMC 17.76.090, the funds collected from the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the "costs of providing the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction." Therefore, the expenses included in this report represent all costs associated with the planning, design, and construction stages of an eligible project, including staffing and professional design consultant costs. Specifically, the fees may be used as summarized below. 1 Item 5. - 7 xB _84_ 1. The acquisition of additional property for the expansion of parkland and community facilities development; 2. The construction of new parks and park facilities and community use facilities; 3. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new parkland and park facilities and community use facilities development; 4. The cost of financing; 5. Projects identified in City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), the adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City Council approved park acquisition and development projects. Since the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) generally includes projects and upgrades to existing facilities of $50,000 or more, all eligible park improvements may not meet the minimum qualifications required to be included in the City's CIP. However, projects and improvements less than the $50,000 threshold are still eligible park expenses as long as they are included in the documents referenced in Item 5 above or the City's adopted annual budget. Examples of these types of expenditures include the City's annual park license fees with Southern California Edison. Since these expenses are included in the City's budget, they are eligible and included in this report. Fee Amount: On June 18, 2012, in conjunction with approval of the new Ordinance 3946, Resolution 2012-23 was also adopted establishing new and revised development impact fees for all development within the city. As shown in Exhibit A-3 of Resolution 2012-23, the fees vary according to land use and were also implemented on a graduated scale ranging from 30% to 90% of the full fee amount. Since the reporting period of this report is Oct. 1, 2014 — Sept. 30, 2015, the majority of the fees collected were based on the 90% fees effective September 2, 2014 and shown below. Land Use Amount (30%) Amount (60%) Amount (90%) Detached Dwelling Units (per unit) Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per sq. ft.) Resort Lodging Units (per unit) Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) IndustriaUManufacturing Uses (per sq, ft.) (Eff.912/12) (Eff.912/13) (Eff.9/2/14) $6,802 $11,540 $16,278 $4, 632 $8, 576 $12, 520 $3, 351 $6, 701 $10, 052 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 $0.447 $0.66 $0.882 $0.393 $0.555 $0.718 Interfund Loans No park fees were loaned during this reporting period. Refunds Due to Protests No refunds were made due to protests during this reporting period. 2 HB -85- Item 5. - 8 III. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2014-15 Revenue As shown in Attachment 3, the beginning Park Development Impact Fee fund balance as of September 30, 2014, was $2,578,268. During Fiscal Year 2014- 15, $W,49,95,in Park Development lrnpact fees was collected and $36,152 in interest was earned, for a combined total of $924,147. , Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Expenditures As also shown in Attachment 3, $643,172 * expended for various .park improvement projects, park license agreements, contracted/professional services, and staffing. The-2014A5 year end Park Development fund balance is $2,959,243. IV. PROJECTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION DATES Per California Government Code 66006, the annual report should include the approximate date that construction will commence for public improvements funded through Park Development Impact Fees. A listing of these projects is summarized below. FY 2015-16 Bartlett Park Improvements Installation of signage, fencing and trail improvements Clegg Stacey Park Playground Installation of new ADA compliant play equipment, rubberized safety surfacing and landscape modifications. Sports Complex Team Room Construction of a team room at the sports complex to accommodate league and tournament play. Worthy Park Reconfiguration — Phase 1 Demolition of the closed racquetball building and reconfiguration of the park. FY 2016-17 Beach Playground Construction of a public tot playground on the beach in the vicinity of 91h St and PCH. Huntington Central Park Permanent Lot Construction of a permanent parking lot to accommodate programming at Shipley Nature Center. LISTING OF ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 3946 2. Resolution No. 2012-23 3. Overview Park Development Fee Annual Summary Statement Item 5. - 9 HB -86- ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3946 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 17.76 RELATING TO PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The City. Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 17.76, said chapter to read as follows: Chanter 17.76 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Sections 17.76.010 Legislative findings. 17.76.020 Intent and Purpose. 17.76.030 Definitions. 17.76.040 Parkland Acquisition, and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee. 17.76.050 Fund Established. 17.76.060 Fee imposed. 17.76.070 Calculation of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee. 17.76.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects 17.76.076 Fee Adjustments. 17.76.080 Payment of fee. 17.76.090 Use of funds. 17.76.100 Refund. 17.76.110 Exemptions and credits. 17.76.120 Appeals. 17.76.130 Credit for Construction of Non -Site Related Improvements. 17.76.140 Eligible Expenditures from Fee Reserve Account 17.76.150 Annual report and amendment procedures.. 17.76.160 Effect of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations. 17.76,170 Violation —Penalty. 17.76.180 Severability. 12-3209.002/79301 HB -87- Item 5. - 10 Ordinance No. 3946 17.76.010 - Legislative findings. A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections 66001 through 66009 has authorized the City to enact development impact fees. B. The imposition of development impact fees is a method of ensuring that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities and other costs necessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare. C. A well -planned park system, with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered is an important amenity to residents of the City. The City considers a mixture of passive and active park space uses optimal. Future residential development that does not require subdivision, will impact the City's existing park system by creating additional park users thus necessitating additional space for athletic fields, community facilities "tot lots," and other active uses and passive uses as well as passive space for businesses to enjoy. D. Funds to pay for the cost of acquisition and development of additional parkland and development of currently owned but underutilized parkland as well as development of facilities will be needed to serve the increasing users caused by development in the City. Without additional parks, parks development and community facilities, the City's current parks and community facilities will become overcrowded and overused. E. ' Pursuant to the "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach" ("Nexus Report" dated October, 2011, as amended April 27, 2012, which is incorporated herein by reference in these findings as though set forth in full, the fees established pursuant to this Chapter are derived from, based upon, and do not exceed the costs of parkland acquisition, park development and community facilities attributable to applicable new residential or nonresidential development. This study is based in part upon master planning to more specifically identify capital facilities to serve new development; the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park development and community facilities. F. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland, park development, and community facilities in furtherance of the City General Plan, as well as identified in the Nexus Report, and the attached City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Development Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan. F. A detailed study of the impacts of future residential and nonresidential construction in the City, along with an analysis of the need for the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development is set forth in the Nexus Report. G. As set forth in the Nexus Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland, park development, 2 12-3204,002/79301 Item 5. - 11 1413 -88- Ordinance No. 3946 community facilities, and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged. In addition, there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development to which the fee is charged and a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities or portion thereof attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 17.76.020 — Intent and Purpose. A Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact fee is being created for the purpose of assuring that the impacts created by new development in the City of Huntington Beach pay a fair share of the proportional costs for the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland, park development and community use facilities and related costs necessary to accommodate such development. This fee was once identified as a development impact fee in Resolution 2002-129 created pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance section 230.20, This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as well as following the recommendations in the Nexus Report including the Master Facilities Plan and the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan by ensuring that the City's acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and community facilities development are maintained when new development is constructed within the City limits. By imposing a fee that is reasonably related to the burdens created by new development on the City's parklands, together with funding available from other City revenue sources, the City will be able to purchase land and construct the required capital improvements to accommodate projected growth and fulfill the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and Master Facilities Plan a part of the Nexus Report. 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, ordinances or chapter provisions which may authorize the imposition of conditions on development. 17.76,030 - Definitions. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code. 17.76.040 - Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee. There is imposed a Parkland Acquisition and Parr Facilities Development Impact Fee on all non - subdivided new residential and nonresidential development. 17.76.050 - Fund' established. A Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is established. The Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is a fund to be utilized for payment of the actual or estimated costs of parkland acquisition and community facilities development as set forth in Chapter 8 of the Nexus Report which includes the City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan, as well as the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan related to new residential and nonresidential construction. 12-3209.002179301 llB -89- Item 5. - 12 Ordinance No. 3946 17.76.060 - Fee imposed. A. Any person who, 60 days after the effective date of this Development Impact Fee, seeks to engage in non -subdivided Residential or Nonresidential development by obtaining a building permit or other discretionary approval is required to pay a Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee in the manner and amount as set forth. in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee Resolution separately adopted. B. No certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or building permit approval for the activities listed in this Chapter, shall be issued unless and until the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee required by this Chapter has been paid to the City. 17.76.070 - Calculation of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee. A. At the time of the issuance of the building permit, the Director of Planning and Building or his/her designee ("Director") shall calculate the amount of the applicable Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee due as specified in the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee. B. The Director shall calculate the amount of the applicable Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee due by: 1. Determining the number and type of dwelling units in a residential development and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee amount per dwelling unit or pad as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; 2. Determining the gross square feet of floor area or number of lodging units, type of use and location in a nonresidential development, and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; 3. Determining the number and type of dwelling units and the nonresidential number of lodging units or gross square feet of floor area, type of use and location, in a structure containing mixed uses which include a residential use, and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee amount for each use as established by the current fee resolution setting the -amount of the fee; 4. Determining the gross square feet of floor area or number of lodging units, type of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include ►.i 12-3209.002/79301 Item 5. - 13 1-113 _90_ Ordinance No. 3946 two (2) or more nonresidential principal uses, and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution. The gross square feet of floor area of any accessory use will be charged at the same rate as the predominant principal use unless the Department of Planning and Building finds that the accessory use is related to another principal use. 17.76.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Proi ects. If a Development Project will be constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy will be issued for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the basis of the development characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of the fees may be made separately for each phase, provided the amount paid for each phase shall be equal to the percentage that that phase represents of the total development project's development characteristics. The fee shall be the fee in effect at the time payment is due. 17.76.076 Fee Adiustments, Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code. 17.76.080 Payment of fee. A. The City shall collect from the applicant the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or final building permit approval. B. Except for any administrative charge allocated to the City, all funds collected shall be properly identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fiend and used solely for the purposes specified in this Chapter. 17.76.090 Use of funds, A. Funds collected from the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fiend the costs of providing the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction and shall include: The acquisition of additional property for the expansion of parkland and community facilities development; 2. The construction of new parks and park facilities and community use facilities (except for non-residential as set forth in the Nexus report) and; - 1 The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new parkland and park facilities and community use facilities development; 4. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments). 5 12-3209.002179301 .: • Item 5. - 14 Ordinance No. 3946 5. Projects identified in City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City Council approved park acquisition and development projects. B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair existing parkland or park facilities or community facilities. C. Revenue raised would be limited to capitalized cost related to growth. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced provision of capital facilities for which Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the type described in this Chapter. E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter. 17.76.100 Refund. A. Any applicant who has paid a Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee(s) pursuant to this Chapter may apply to the Director for a full or partial refund of same, if, within one (1) year after collection of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee the Fee has been modified as follows: reduction in the number of dwelling units, a change in the type of dwelling units, a reduction in square footage, or the applicability of an exemption pursuant to this Chapter. In the event a refund is issued, the City may retain a sum up to twenty (20%) percent of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee paid by the applicant to offset the administrative costs of refund. In no event shall a refund exceed the amount of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee actually paid. B. Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that they were erroneously or illegally collected. If the Director determines the fees were not erroneously or illegally collected, then the applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 17.73.030 Appeals. An application for a refund pursuant to this Section must be filed within ninety (90) days after the payment of the fees. C. Ci , Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to the Mitigated Fee Act, upon application of the then current landowner, fees will be refunded if the City fails to commit them to a project of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report within five years from the date that the fees were collected from the applicant. For purposes of this subsection, fees are deemed to have been "committed" if they have been budgeted or otherwise encumbered by the City for an eligible improvement, studies, design drawings or any necessary applications for approval by other governmental agencies have been 2 12-3209.002/79301 Item 5. - 15 1413.92_ Ordinance No. 3946 initiated, construction bidding has been initiated, or improvements are under construction. Eligible refunds, plus interest at the City's average annual cost of funds, will be made only upon an application filed within 180 days of the expiration of the fifth anniversary of the fee payment. 17.76.110 Exemptions and credits. A. Exemptions. Any claim of exemption must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit or construction approval. Any claim of exemption must be filed in the same manner and will be considered pursuant to the same procedure as for a fee adjustment as provided in this Chapter 17.73. The following shall be exempted from payment of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee: Residential Development a. Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building in which no additional dwelling units are created, the use is not changed, and where no additional relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development will be provided over and above those provided by the existing building; b. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use, provided that no additional relocation or expansion of parkland and park facilities development will be required over and above those provided by the original use of the land; C. The construction of residential accessory buildings, structures or uses which will not require additional acquisition, relocation or expansion of parkland and park facilities development over and above those provided by the principal building or use of the land; d. Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling (one (1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the moving and relocation of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the City to another lot within the City. This exemption shall not apply to tract development, to the development of more than one (1) unit per lot, nor to the replacement of a single-family dwelling with more than one (1) dwelling unit; 2. Affordable housing for lower income households. Property rented, leased, sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price which does not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code when provided to a "lower income household" as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety 7 12-3209.002179301 HB -93- Item 5. - 16 Ordinance No. 3946 Code or "very low-income household" as defined in Section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code. This exemption shall require the applicant to execute an agreement to guarantee that the units shall be maintained for lower and very low-income households whether as units for rent or for sale or transfer. The agreement shall be in the form of a deed restriction or other legally binding and enforceable document acceptable to the City Attorney and shall bind the owner and any successor -in -interest to the real property being developed. The agreement shall subordinate, if required, to any state or federal program providing affordable housing to lower and very low-income households. The agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant or any successor -in -interest shall be required to provide annually, or as requested, the names of all tenants or purchasers, current rents, and income certification to insure compliance. Voluntary removal of the housing restriction or violation of the restriction shall require the applicant or any successor -in -interest to pay the then applicable Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee at the time of voluntary conversion or as imposed at the time of violation on the unit in violation, plus any attorneys' fees and costs of enforcement, if applicable; B. Credits. Any applicant whose development is located within a community facilities district (CFD) or , and is subject to the assessments thereof, shall receive an offset credit towards the fees established by this Chapter to the extent that the assessments fund improvements within the CFD which would otherwise be funded by the development impact fees established by this Chapter. 17.76.120-Allipeals. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code. 17.76.130 Credit for Construction of Non -Site -Related Improvements. Applications for credit for construction of non -site -related improvements shall submit applicable engineering drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates or the like to the Director. The Director shall determine any credit for improvement based on either these cost estimates or alternative estimates if the Director determines reasonably that the estimates submitted by the applicant are either unreliable or inaccurate. In no event shall the amount of the credit exceed the improvement cost specified in the Nexus Report, or other applicable basis for the fee, nor shall the credit exceed the amount that would otherwise apply. No .final inspection or certificate of occupancy for the Development Project may be issued until: (1) the construction is completed and accepted by the City; (2) a suitable maintenance and warranty bond is received and accepted by the City; and (3) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding and acceptance procedures are in strict compliance with City paving, drainage and other applicable requirements. 17.76.140 Elisible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. All monies and interest earnings, in any Reserve Account shall be expended on the projects of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time to 0 12-3209.002/79301 Item 5. - 17 xB -94- Ordinance No. 3946 document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development impacts of new development. 17.76.150 Annual report and amendment procedures. A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each.f seal year, the Deputy City. Manager of the City of Huntington Beach shall evaluate progress in implementation of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee and shall prepare a report thereon to the City Council in accordance with Government C ection 6600 , mcorporating among other things: ' _._ 1. Any parkland acquisition, park development and community facilities development commenced, purchased or completed utilizing monies from the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fund; 2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned; 3. The amount of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees in the fiord; and 4. Any recommended changes to the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee, including, but not necessarily limited to changes in this Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee chapter or fee resolution. B. Based upon the report and such other factors as the City Council deems relevant and applicable, the City Council may amend the ordinance codified'in this -Chapter or the fee resolution implementing this Chapter. Changes to the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules may be made by amending the fee resolution. Any change which increases the amount of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be adopted by the City Council only after a noticed public hearing. Nothing herein precludes the City Council or limits its discretion to amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee resolution establishing Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules at such other times as may be deemed necessary. 17.76.160 Effect of Parkland Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations. ,' This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property, density/intensity of development, design and improvement standards and public improvement requirements or any other aspect of the development of land or construction of buildings, which may be imposed by the City pursuant to the City's zoning regulations, subdivision regulations or other ordinances or regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation with respect to all residential and nonresidential development. 9 12-3209,002/79301 HB -95- Item 5. - 18 ' Ordinance No. 3946 17.76.170 Violation Penalty. A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted; and upon conviction, the violator shall be punishable according to law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal prosecution, the City shall have the power to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of this Chapter. 17.76.180 Severabiliity. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision; and such holding shall not. affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of July , 20 12. Mayor ATTEST: WI TW AN ROVED: City Clerk Deputy City Manager :tr APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Ybryanager City Attorney 12-3209.002/79301 10 Item 5. - 19 HB -96- Ord. No. 3946 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2012, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 02, 2012, and was passed and adopted by th6 affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Shaw, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman NOES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen ABSENT:. None ABSTAIN: None 1, Joan L. Flynn, CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain valley Independent on July 12, 2012. In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk A Senior Deputy City Clerk d Ciu Clerk and ex-officio exk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California HB -97- Item 5. - 20 ATTACHMENT 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENTIMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND ESTABLISHING NEW AND REVISED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY WFIEREAS, several policies within the City's General Plan require that new development mitigate its share of the impacts to the natural and built environments and be fiscally neutral so as to not result in'a net economic loss for the City; and Such General Plan policies include the maintenance of existing quality of life, maintenance of. existing service levels and funding of new facilities, the requirement of new development to mitigate a fair share of its impacts, and calling for the use of impact fees to fund needed improvements to serve new development, among other policies; and In accordance with these General Plan policies, the City Council has directed staff in the past to create development impact fees in accordance with State law. Said impact fees were codified in Chapter 17.65 and Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code as well as Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230,20. Pursuant to each ordinance set forth above, the amount of the development impact fee is to be set and/or updated by resolution of the City Council; and Subsequently, and periodically, staff has conducted comprehensive reviews of the City's development impact fees to determine whether those fees are adequate to defray the cost of public facilities related to new development;. those fees are set forth in Resolutions 6164, 2006- 23, 2000-97, 2004-88, 99-60 and 96-71; 2002-129, 2004-88 and The City contracted with Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC to provide a updated comprehensive evaluation of the City's existing development impact fees; and Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC prepared a report, entitled Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Deport for the City of Huntington Beach, dated October, 2011 as amended April 27, 2012 (the "Nexus Report"), that provides an evaluation of existing development impact fees, recommends an increase and change in methodology in certain development impact fees, the creation of new impact fees and establishes the nexus between the imposition of such impact. fees and. the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fees are charged; and The Nexus Report has been available for public review and comment; and The Nexus Report substantiates the need for a modification to existing fees to change - certain methodology as well as creation of new impact fees; and 12-3209.006179289 Item 5. - 21 HB -98- Resolution No. 2012-23 The City has collected development impact fees . to mitigate the impacts of new development, including fees for transportation, park land acquisition and development, library and other public facilities since the adoption of the respective ordinances and resolutions; and The City Council desires to repeal certain resolutions, create and update other development impact fee resolutions in accordance with the calculations :and recommendations contained in the Nexus Report; and In compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code section 66000 et sect., the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the proposed increase in development impact fees at its regular meeting on June 18 , 2012, to solicit public input on the proposed increases to development impact fees, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Findings pursuant to Government Code section 66001. The City Council finds and determines that the Nexus Report complies with California Government Code section 66001, and as to each of the proposed fees to be imposed on new development: (a) Identifies the purpose of the fee; (b) Identifies the use to which the fee will be put; (c) - Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; (d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed-, and (e) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 2. Fees for Uses Consistent with the Nexus Report, The City Council hereby determines that the fees imposed, pursuant to this resolution shall be used solely to finance the public facilities and/or equipment and park land acquisition described or identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report. 3. Approval of Items in the Nexus Report. The City Council has considered the specific public facilities, equipment and park land acquisition cost estimates identified in the Nexus Report and each ordinance thereto and hereby approves such public facilities, equipment and park land acquisition cost and cost estimates and further finds that the cost estimates serve as a reasonable basis for calculating and imposing. the development impact fees as set forth in the Nexus Report. 2 12-3209.006179289 H B -99- Item 5. - 22 Resolution No. 2012-2i 4. Consistency with General Plan. The City Council finds that -the public facilities equipment and park land acquisition and fee methodology identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report are consistent with the City's General Plan and, in particular, those policies that require new development to mitigate its share of the impacts to City infrastructure and to be fiscally neutral. 5. Differentiation among Public Facilities'. The City Council finds that the public facilities identified in the Nexus Report and funded through the collection of development impact fees recommended in the Nexus Report are separate and distinct from those public facilities funded through other fees presently imposed and collected by the City. To the extent that other fees imposed and collected by the City, including Specific Plan fees are used to fund the construction of the same public facilities identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report, then such other fees shall be a credit against the applicable development impact fees. Notwithstanding the above provision, this resolution shall not be deemed to affect the imposition or collection of the water and sewer connection fees authorized by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 6. CEOA Finding. The adoption of the Nexus Report and the increase in development impact fees are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act in that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b) (4), the creation of government- funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause a significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a "project°under CEQA. 7. Adoption of Report. The Nexus Report as amended April 27, 2012, including Appendices, is hereby adopted. 8. Fee Imposed The new Development Impact Fees set by this resolution shall not apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement approval on or before June 5, 2012 and the following milestones are met: 1. Project applicant has submitted an approved application for building permits within 180 days after the fee going -into effect or no later than February 18, 2013. 2. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued progress toward satisfying plan check comments. 3. Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect. An exception to the above milestones is the involvement of an outside third party regulatory agency. In such cases the 180. days to make building permit application will begin when the developer receives clearance from that agency. The City Manager shall. have the authority, in his/her sole discretion, to extend milestone dates for qualifying "grandfathered" projects. All other projects are subject to the fees then in. effect. All existing Development Impact Fees remain in effect until final action is taken on this resolution and respective ordinances. In the event.any portion of this resolution is held invalid, the previously approved. development impact fee shall automatically apply. 9. Timing of Fee. The development impact fees imposed by this resolution shall be paid pursuant to the ordinances or resolution creating each separate fee. Until final action is 3 12 3209.006t79289 Item 5. - 23 HB -100- Resolution No. 2012-23 taken by City Council adopting the ordinances or resolution referenced herein, resolutions 6164, 2006-23, 2000-97, 99-60, 2004-88 and 96-71 shall remain in effect. 10. Amount of Fee. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Development Impact Fees as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein as well as Nexus Report Schedules 3.2, 4.3, 5.2, 6.2, T I, 8.1, and 8.4. Exhibit A. and the Nexus Report sets forth the methodology and aggregate amount imposed as a development impact fee for both residential and nonresidential land uses and also sets forth the breakdown of each development impact fee by type of facility' The amount of the development impact fees excluding traffic impact fees shall be automatically modified annually pursuant to the the percentage of increase or decrease in the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside All Urban Consumer Price Index- (CPI) or any relevant successor for the Orange County area, from March to March of the preceding twelve (12) months. Traffic impact fees shall be increased using the Engineering News Record's construction cost index as reported for the twelve month period ending in March of each year. The escalator indices provided herein. shall not take effect until March of 2016, 11, Use of fee. The development impact fees shall be solely used for the purposes described in the respective ordinances creating the fees and the Nexus Report. Fees collected pursuant to existing ordinances and resolutions shall be maintained and used exclusively for those purposes and accounts for these fees shall remain in effect and shall be maintained by the City Manager or his/her designee. Fees collected under any of the categories listed in the Nexus Report may be used to finance the construction or implementation of any public facility listed in those categories to the extent that use of the fees may not exceed the percentage allocated to new development of all of the public facilities listed in the category, or sub -category, 12. Fee Determination by T3Mebf Use, A. Residential Development. Development impact fees for residential development shall be based upon the type of unit constructed, The development impact fee categories as shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the land use element of the City's General Plan, B. Nonresidential Land Uses. Development impact fees for nonresidential land uses shall be based upon the square footage of the building or other measurement detailed in the respective development impact fee ordinances. The development impact fee categories as shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the land use element of the City's General Plan, C. Uses Not Specified. In the event that there are land uses not specified in Exhibit A, the development impact fee for such use shall be determined by the City Manager or 4 12-3209.006/79289 HB -101- Item 5. - 24 Resolution No. 2012-23 his/her designee who shall determine such fee based on an analysis of the impacts of the proposed use on public facilities, equipment and/or park land. 13. Prior Resolutions Superseded. As provided herein the development impact fees approved and adopted by this resolution shall supersede and repeal any previously adopted development impact fee resolutions concerning the same, including 6164, 96-71, 99-60, 2000-97, 2004-88 and 2006-23, 2002-129, 2004-88. 14. Severability. If any action, subsection; sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution, the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto, shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto or fees levied by this resolution that. can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application of fees. In the event any section of this resolution is held. invalid the previously adopted affected fees shall be automatically reinstate as if never repealed or modified herein. 15. Effective Date. Consistent with California Government Code section 66017(a), the fees as identified in attached Exhibit "A" adopted by this resolution sball take effect sixty. (60) days following final action taken on the respective ordinances or amendments thereto by the City Council, 16. Appeals. Appeals of any fees, including methodology, use, land valuation etc. created pursuant to this resolution shall he conducted as set forth in Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.73. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of June 12,0112 Mayor ,,, ,� t ,...• t Cit�ii �' - er 12-3209.006)79289 INITI,A AN ROVED: Deputy City anager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney �. - 5 - �3• � Item 5. - 25 11t3 - i ii�- Exhibit A HB -103- Item 5. - 26 Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 30% Circulation Park Land/ System Open Space Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $119 $277 $1,800 $1,091 $6,802 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $245 $115 $1,238 $519 $4,632 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $111 $475 $940 $479 $3,351 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.231SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0,04/SF $0.23/SF Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft,) $0.312 $0.099 $4,175 No Fee $0.447 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq, ft.) $0,133 $0.009 $1.279 No Fee $0.393 Development Impact Fees ()effective 9/2/2013) 60% Circulation Park Land/ System Open Space Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities Enforcement Suppression Signals, . Public Library (No Tract Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $238 $553 $2,092 $1,126 $11,540 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $489 $229 $1,417 $686 $8,576 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) '$221 $950 $1,094 $588 $6,701 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0,04/SF $V3/SF Commerclal/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.625 $0.197 $4.175 No Fee $0.664 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq, ft.) $0.266 $0,018 $1.498 No Fee $0.555 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 90% Circulation Park Land/ System Open Space Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $356 $830 $2,385 $1,160 $16,278 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $734 $344 $1,597 $852 $12,520 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $332 $1,425 $1,248 $697 $10,052 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0,04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)" No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Commerclal/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0,937 $0.296 $4.175 No Fee $0.882 Ind ustrial/Manufacturing Uses (persq. ft.) $0.399 $0.027 $1,716 No Fee $0.718 hate Pr1nted:5/24J2012,June4 Resolution 30 60 90 Page 1 Item 5. - 27 xB -104- OVERVIEW Park Development Impact Fee Annual Financial Summary Statement Fiscal Year 2014-15 Amount Fund Balance 9/30/14 (inc. all Park Impact Fee Funds) 2,578,268 Revenue FY 2014-15 Amount Fees (Fund 209) - Misc 53,571 Fees (Fund 228) - Residential 627,610 Fees (Fund 235) - Non Residential 200,655 Fees (Fund 236) - Public Art in Parks 6,159 Combined Fund Interest 36,152 Revenue Total 924,147 Expenditures FY 2014-15 Amount Park Improvements (A) 254,564 Park Acquisition - Encyclopedia Lots 32,265 Park License Agreements 8,907 Professional/Contracted Services (B) 150,911 Staffing 96,525 Expenditure Total 543,172 Fund Balance (9130115) $2,959,243 A) Murdy Park Patio/Senior Center in Central Park/Worthy Park/Team Room 6) Professional Services for Park Master Plan Percent Funded with Dev. Impact Fees 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% ATTACHMENT 3 HB -105- Item 5. - 28 ATTACHMENT 2 2014-15 LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT Item 5. - 29 H B -1106- The costs of providing the acquisition, construction, furnishing of new buildings, purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles, development of a master plan to identify capital facilities, the cost of financing, projects identified in the City's General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City's Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council approved development projects. Fee Amount: On June 18, 2012, in conjunction with approval of the new Ordinance 3942, Resolution 2012-23 was also adopted establishing new and revised development impact fees for all development within the city. The fees vary according to land use and were also implemented on a graduated scale ranging from 30% to 90% of the full fee amount. Per City Council action, effective September 2, 2013, the fees were as follows: Land Use Amount Detached Dwelling Units (per unit) Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) Resort Lodging Units (per unit) Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) Interfund Loans $238 $489 $221 No fee No fee $0.625 per square foot $0.266 per square foot No Law Enforcement Facilities fees were loaned during this reporting period. Refunds Due to Protests No refunds were made due to protests during this reporting period. III. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Revenue The beginning fund balance as of October 1, 2014 was $231,467.25. During Fiscal Year 2014-2015, $110,688.52 in Law Enforcement Facilities Fees were collected. The ending fund balance as of September 30, 2015 was $345,807.77. HB -107- Item 5. - 30 LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2014-2015 I. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3942 which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.75 relating to Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July 2, 2012 (Attachment 1). REPORTING REQUIRMENTS State Law imposes both annual and five-year reporting requirements for collection of Development Impact Fees. The specific elements to be included in the report are: • A brief description of the type of fee in the fund account • The amount of the fee • The beginning and ending balance • The amount of fees collected and interest earned • Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of public improvements will commence • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund • The amount of refunds made pursuant to any protests The annual report is to be made available to the public within 180 days following the close of the fiscal year. It is also to be reviewed by the City Council no less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public at its next regularly scheduled meeting. This year the report is being presented to the City Council on April 18, 2016. Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.75.090, the funds collected from the Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of providing police services attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction and shall include: Item 5. - 31 1413 -108- Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Expenditures There were no expenditures during the 2014-15 Fiscal Year to the Law Enforcement Facilities fund. LISTING OF ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 3942 HB - 1 09- Item 5. - 32 ORDINANCE NO. 3942 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUMCIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER.17,75 RELATING TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR POLICE FACILITIES The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows - SECTION]. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 17.73, said chapter to read as follows: Chapter 17,75 POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES ... .... ----- _._._._. l 7.75,010 Legislative findings. 17.75.020 Intent and Purpose. 17.75.030 Definitions. 17-75,040 Police Facilities Development Impact Fee_ 17-75.050 Fund Established, 17.75.060 Fee imposed. 17,75.070 Calculation of Police Facilities Development Impact Fee. 17,75,075 Fee,Payrnents for Phased Development Prolects 17.75.076 Fee Adjustments. .17.75,080 Payment of fee. 17,75,090 Use of funds. ] 7,75.100 Refund. 17,75,110 Exemptions and credits. ] 7.75.120 Appeals. 17.75.130 Credit for Construction of Non -Site Related Improvements. 17.75.140 Eligible Expenditures from Fee Reserve Account 17,75.150 Annual report and amendment procedures. 1735.160 Effect of Police Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations. 17.75.170 Violation —Penalty. 17.75.180 Severability. . 1 12-3209.00 ,'78649 Item 5. - 33 HB -1 10- Ordinance No. 3942 17.75.010 - Legislative findings. A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections 66001 through 66009 has authorized, the City to enact Development Impact Fees, B. The imposition of Development Impact Fees is a method of ensuring that new, development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities and other costs necessary to accommodate' such development. These fees are established to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare. C. Increase in residential and nonresidential development in the City creates a need for increased funds to pay for the cost of increased police services and facilities which are nccded to serve the increasing development in the City. D. Pursuant to the "Development Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach" ("Nexus Report") dated October, 2011, as amended April 27, 2012, which incorporated herein by reference in these findings as though set forth in full, the fees established pursuant to this Chapter aTe derived from, based upon, and do not exceed the costs of providing additional police services -attributable to applicable new residential or nonresidential development. This study is based in part upon master planning to more specifically - identify capital fac'slities.io serve new development; the acquisition of additional property for police facilities; the construction of buildings for police services; the furnishing of buildings or facilities for police services; and the purchasing of equipment and vehicles for police services. E. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to .finance the police facilities and equipment identified in herein in furtherance of the City's General' Plan, as well as the Nexus Report and its attached Master Facilities Plan and the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan. F. Detailed study of the impacts of future residential and nonresidential construction in the City, along with an analysis of the need for new police facilities and equipment has been prepmvd. This study is included in the Nexus Report. G. As set forth in the Nexus Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the police facilities and equipment set forth in this Chapter and the impacts of the types of developmentor for which the corresponding fee is charged. In addition, there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development to which the fee is charged and a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities and equipment or portion .thereof attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 2 12-3209-001118649 HB-lll- Item 5. - 34 Ordinance No. 3942 17.75.020 —Intent and Purpose. A Police Facilities Development Impact Fee is being created for the purpose of assuring that the impacts created by new development in the City of Huntington Beach pay a fair share of the proportional facility and equipment and vehicle costs required to support needed police facilities and related costs necessary to accommodate such development. , This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as well as following the recommendations in the Nexus Report including the Master Facilities Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach Capital hnprovement Plan by ensuring that the City's police services are maintained when new development is constructed within the City limits. By imposing a fee that is reasonably related to the burdens created by new development on the City's Police Department, together with funding available from other City revenue sources, the City will be able to construct the required capital improvements, accommodate projected growth and fulfill the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and Master Facilities Plan, a part of the Nexus Report. 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 Subdivisiori,Map A'ct; the CaRf6mia Envir6nmental, Quality Act, other state and local laws, ordinances or chapter provisions which may authorize the imposition of conditions on development. 17.75,030 - Definitions. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code. I7.75,040 - Police Facilities Development Impact Fee. There is imposed a Police Facilities Development Impact Fee on all new non -subdivided Residential and Nonresidential development. 17.75.050 Fund established. A Police Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is established. The Police Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is a fund to be utilized for payment of the actual or estimated costs of police facilities and equipment as set forth in the Nexus Report which includes the Master Facilities PIan, as well as the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan related to new residential and nonresidential construction. 17.75.060 - Fee imposed. A. Any person who, 60 days after the effective date of this Development Impact Fee Ordinance, seeks to engage in non -subdivided Residential or Nonresidential development including mobilehome development by obtaining a building permit or other discretionary approval is required to pay a Police Facilities Development Impact Fee in the manner and amount as set forth in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee Resolution separately adopted. 12.3209.001179649 Item 5. - 35 HB -1 12- Ordinance No. 3942 B. No certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or final building permit approval or construction approval for a mobilehome pad or pads, as applicable, for the activities listed in this Chapter, shall be issued unless and until the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee required by this Chapter has been paid to the City. 17 7S 070 - Calculation of Police Facilities Development Impact Fee. A. At the time of the issuance of the building permit, the Director of Planning and Building or his/her designee {"Director") shall calculate the amount of the applicable Police Facilities Development Impact Fee due as specified in the current fee resolution setting the amount of the -fee. B. The Director of Planning and Building shall calculate the amount of the applicable Police Facilities Development Impact Fee due by: 1. Determining the number and type of dwelling units in a residential development or mobilehome pads in a mobilehome park or site, and multiplying the same by the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee amount per dwelling unit or pad as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; 2. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units, type of use and location in a nonresidential development, and multiplying the same by the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; 3. Determining the ntunber and type of dwelling units and the nonresidential number of lodging units or gross square feet of floor area, type of use and location, in a structure containing mixed uses which include a residential use, and multiplying the same by the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee amount for each use as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; 4. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units, type of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include two (2) or more nonresidential' principal uses, and multiplying the same by the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution. The gross square feet of floor area of any accessory use will be charged at the same rate as the predominant principal use unless the Department of Planning and Building finds that the accessory use is related to another principal use. 17 75 075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Proieets. If a Development Project will be constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy will be issued for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the basis of the development characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of 12-3209.001179649 HB -113- Item 5. - 36 Ordinance No. 3942 the fees may be made separately for each phase, provided the amount paid for each phase shall be equal to the percentage that that phase represents of the total development project's development characteristics. The fee shall be the fee in effect at the time payment is due. 17.75.076 Fee Adjustments. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17,73 of this Code. 17.75.080 - Payment of fee. A. The City shall collect from the applicant the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, final building permit approval or construction approval for mobilehome pad or pads, whichever occurs first. B. Except for any administrative charge allocated to the City, all funds collected shall be properly identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee fund and used solely for the purposes specified in this Chapter, �. 17.75.090 -Use of funds- .... ...... .... .. ........._................_......._...__........._........................................ .... . A. Funds collected from the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of providing additional police services attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction and shall include: I . The acquisition of additional property for law enforcement facilities; 2. The construction of „Pw facilities for law enforcement services; 3. The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for law enforcement services; 4. The purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles for law enforcement services; 5. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new police department development; 6. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments). 7. Projects identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget or City Council approved development projects. B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair existing buildings, and/or existing vehicles or equipment. 5 12-3209.001178649 Item 5. - 37 1--18 -114- Ordinance No. 3942 C. Revenue raised would be limited to capitalized cost related to growth. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced provision of capital facilities for which Police Facilities Development Impact Fees may be expended, Development Impact Fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities -provided are of the type described in this Chapter. E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter. 17.75.100 - Refund. I. Any applicant who has paid a Police Facilities Development Impact Fee pursuant to this Chapter may apply for a full or partial refund of same, if, within one (1) year after collection of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee the fee has been modified as follows: reduction in the number of dwelling units, a change in the type of dwelling units, a reduction in square footage, or the applicability of an exemption pursuant to this Chapter. In the event a refund is issued, the City may retain a sum up to twenty (20°fo) percent of the Development Impact Fee paid by the applicant to offset the administrative costs of refund. In no event shall a refund exceed the amount of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee actually paid. 3. Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that they were erroneously or illegally collected. If the Director determines the fees were not erroneously or illegally collected, then the applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 17.73 Appeals. An application for a refund pursuant to this Section trust be filed within ninety (90) days after the payment of the fees. C. City Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to the Mitigated Fee Act, upon application of the then current landowner, fees will be refunded if the City falls to commit them to a project of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report within Eve years from the date that the fees were collected from the applicant. For purposes of this subsection, fees are deemed to. have been "committed" if they have been budgeted or otherwise encumbered by the City for an eligible improvement, studies, design drawings or any necessary applications for approval by other governmental agencies have been initiated, construction bidding has been initiated, of improvements are under construction. Eligible refunds, plus interest at the City's average annual cost of funds will be made only upon an application filed within 180 days of the expiration of the fifth anniversary of the fee payment. 17.74.110 Fxernntions and credits. A. Exemptions. Any claim of exemption must be made no later than the tune of application for a building permit or mobilehome construction approval. Any claim of exemption must be tiled in the sainc manner and will be considered pursuant to 12-3209.0V I/78b49 HB -1 15- Item 5. - 38 Ordinance No. 3942 the same procedure as for a fee adjustment as provided in Chapter 17.73. The following shall be exempted from payment of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee: Residential Development a. Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building in which no additional dwelling units are created, the use is not changed and where no additional police services will be provided over and above those provided by the existing building, b. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use, provided that no additional police services will be required over and above those provided by the original use of the land; C. The construction of residential accessory buildings, structures or uses which will not require additional police services over and above those provided by the principal building or use of the land; d. The installation of a replacement mobilehome on a lot or other such site when a Police Facilities Development Impact Fee for such mobilehome site has previously been paid pursuant to this Chapter, or where a mobilehome legally existed on such site on or prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter; e. Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling (one (1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the replacement of one (1) mobilehome with another on the same pad, or the moving and relocation of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the City to another lot within the City. This exemption shall not apply to tract development, to the development of more than one (1) unit per lot, nor to the replacement of a single-family dwelling with more than one (1) dwelling unit; 2. Affordable housing for lower income households, Property rented, leased, ` sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price which does not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code when provided to a "lower income household" as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or "very low-income household" as defined in Section 50105 of the California Health mid Safety Code. This exemption shall require the applicant to execute an agreement to guarantee that the units shall be maintained for lower and very low-income households whether as units for cent or for sale or transfer. The agreement shall be in 7 1 Z-J 209M1 /78G49 Item 5. - 39 HB -116- Ordinance No. 3942 the form of a deed restriction or other legally . binding and enforceable document acceptable to the City Attorney and shall bind the owner and any successor -in -interest to the real property being developed. The agreement shall subordinate, if required, to any state or federal program providing affordable housing to lower and very low-income households. The agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant or any successor-in- iriterest shall be. required to provide annually, or as requested, the names of all tenants or purchasers, current rents and income certification to insure compliance. Voluntary removal of the -housing restriction or violation of the restriction shall require the applicant or any successor -in -interest to pay the then applicable Police Facilities Development Impact Fee at the time of voluntary conversion or as imposed at the time of violation on the unit in violation, plus any attorneys' fees and costs of enforcement, if applicable; B. Credits. Any applicant whose development is located within a community facilities district (CFD) or , and is subject to the assessments thereof, shall receive an offset credit towards the fees established by this Chapter to the extent that the assessments fund improvements within the CFD which would otherwise be funded by the Development Impact Fees established by this Chapter. 17.75.120 Appeals. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code. 17 74 130 Credit for Construction of Non -Site -Related Improvements. Applications for credit for construction of non -site -related improvements shall submit applicable engineering drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates or the like to the Director. The Director shall determine any credit for improvement based on either these cost estimates or alternative estimates if the Director determines reasonably that the estimatessubmitted by the applicant are either unreliable or inaccurate. In no event shall the amount of the credit exceed the improvement cost specified in the Nexus .Report, or other applicable basis for the fee, nor shall the credit exceed the amount that would otherwise apply. No final inspection or certificate of occupancy for the Development Project may be issued until. (1) the construction is completed and accepted by the City; (2) a suitable maintenance and warranty bond is received and accepted by the City; and (3) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding and acceptanceprocedures are in strict compliance with City paving, drainage and other applicable requirements 17175 140 Elieible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. All monies and interest earnings in any Reserve Account shall be expended on the projects of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time 12-3209,001/78649 HB -117- Item 5. - 40 Ordinance No. 3942 to document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the police services impacts of new development- 17.75.150 - Annual report and amendment procedures. A- Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Police Chief of the City of Mintington Beach shall evaluate progress in implementation of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee program and shall prepare a report thereon to the City Council in accordance with Government Code Section 66006, incorporating among other things - The police facilities and equipment commenced, purchased or completed utilizing monies from this Police Facilities Development Impact Fee fund; 2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned; The amount of Police Facilities Development Impact Fees in the fund; and 4. Recommended changes to the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee, j including, but not necessarily limited to changes in this Police Facilities . _. _. . - ---------- -- _..... ... :: ........ -Developiiient-Impact Fee chapter or the fe�resolutioii: Y B. Based upon the report and such other factors as the City Council deems relevant and applicable, the City Council may amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee resolution implementing this Chapter. Changes to the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules may be made by amending the fee resolution. Any change which increases the amount of the Police Facilities Development impact Fee shall be adopted by the City Council only after a noticed public hearing, Nothing herein precludes the City Council or limits its discretion to amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee resolution establishing Police Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules at such other times as may be deemed necessary. 17.75.160 - Effect of Pollee Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations. This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property, density/intensity of development, design and improvement standards and public improvement requirements or any other aspect of the development of land or construction of buildings, which may be imposed by the City pursuant to the City's zoning regulations, subdivision regulations or other ordinances or regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation with respect to all residential and nonresidential development. 17.75.170 - Violation ---Penalty- A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted; and upon conviction, the violator shall be punishable according to law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal 12-3209.001/7W9 Item 5. - 41 HB -118- Ordinance No.3942 prosecution; the City shall have the power to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of this Chapter. 17.75.180 - Severabill . If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision; and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2rd day of July , 201.2 . Mayor ATTEST: iN1TIATED AND APPROVED: . r ity Clerk Chief of Police REVIEtj APPROVED., APPROVED AS TO FORM: M#ager'�— ty tto ney 10 2-3209.001173649 HB -119- Item 5. - 42 L.... ' ... ... Ord. No. 3942 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON .BEACH ) f, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Iuntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thercof held on June 18, 2012, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 02, 2012, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Shaw, Carcltio, ohr, Boardman NOES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen ABSENT: None A13STAIN: None I, Joan L. Flynn, CITY CLERK of the City of Hunting on Beach and ex-at7i60 Clerk of the City Council. do hereby cenifv that a s}'nopsis of this ordinance has been published is the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on July 12, 2012. In accordance with the Chy Charter of said City �) oan L. Flvnn. Clerk t Senior bepu lY Ci ly 0crk C' Clerk and ex-officio(jerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Item 5. - 43 HB -120- ATTACHMENT 3 2014-15 FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT - _ Item 5. - 44 FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2014-2016 I. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3943 which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.74 relating to Fire Suppression Facilities Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July 2, 2012. REPORTING REQUIRMENTS State Law imposes both annual and five-year reporting requirements for collection of Development Impact Fees. The specific elements to be included in the report are: • A brief description of the type of fee in the fund account • The amount of the fee • The beginning and ending balance • The amount of fees collected and interest earned • Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of public improvements will commence • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund • The amount of refunds made pursuant to any protests The annual report is to be made available to the public within 180 days following the close of the fiscal year. It is also to be reviewed by the City Council no less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public at its next regularly scheduled meeting. This year the report is being presented to the City Council on April 4, 2016. Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.74.090, the funds collected from the Fire Suppression Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of providing additional Fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction and shall include: The acquisition of additional property for fire department facilities, the construction of new facilities for fire department services, the furnishing of new buildings or facilities for fire department services, the purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles for fire department services, the funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new Fire Department development, the cost of financing projects identified in the City's General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City's Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council approved development projects. Item 5. - 45 HB -1-22- Fee Amount: On June 18, 2012, in conjunction with approval of the new Ordinance 3943, Resolution 2012-23 was also adopted establishing new and revised development impact fees for all development within the city. The fees vary according to land use and were also implemented on a graduated scale ranging from 30% to 90% of the full fee amount. Per City Council action, effective September 2, 2013, the fees are as follows: Land Use Amount Detached Dwelling Units (per unit) Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) Resort Lodging Units (per unit) Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) Interfund Loans $553 $229 $950 No fee No fee $0.197 per square foot $0.018 per square foot No Fire Suppression Facilities Fees were loaned during this reporting period. Refunds Due to Protests No refunds were made due to protests during this reporting period. III. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2013-2014 Revenue r?, Py During Fiscal Year 2Ot4---201-5, $116,621.80 in Fire Suppression -Facilities Fees were collected. As of September 30, 2&4-5; the total revenue, as included in Fund 231, was $220,631.94.zt `I Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Expenditures There were no expenditures during the 2014-15 Fiscal Year to the Fire Suppression Facilities fund. As funds are collected, future reports will reflect expenditures in accordance with HBMC 17.74.090 as described above. H B -123- Item 5. - 46 ATTACHMENT 4 2014-15 LIBRARY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT Item 5. - 47 H 113.121_ PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2014-15 I. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3945 which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.67 relating to Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July 2, 2012 (Attachment 1). REPORTING REQUIRMENTS State Law imposes both annual and five-year reporting requirements for collection of Development Impact Fees. The specific elements to be included in the report are: • A brief description of the type of fee in the fund account • The amount of the fee • The beginning and ending balance • The amount of fees collected and interest earned • Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of public improvements will commence • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund • The amount of refunds made pursuant to any protests The annual report is to be made available to the public within 180 days following the close of the fiscal year. It is also to be reviewed by the City Council no less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public at its next regularly scheduled meeting. This year the report is being presented to the City Council on March 21, 2016. Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.67.065, the funds collected from the Public Library Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of expansion of the amount of library space and the number of collection items attributable to the new residential construction and shall include: The acquisition of additional property for Library construction, the construction of new facilities for Library services, the furnishing of new buildings or facilities for Library services, the purchase of Library collections to expand collections, the funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities, to serve new users and patrons, the cost of financing, projects identified in the City's General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City's Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council approved development projects. Fee Amount: On June 18, 2012, in conjunction with approval of the new Ordinance 3945, Resolution 2012- 23 was also adopted establishing new and revised development impact fees for all development within the city. As shown in Exhibit A-3 of Attachment 2, the fees vary according to land use HB -125- Item 5. - 48 and were also implemented on a graduated scale ranging from 30% to 90% of the full fee amount. Per City Council action, effective September 1, 2014, the fees are as follows: Land Use Amount Detached Dwelling Units (per unit) Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) Resort Lodging Units (per unit) Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) Interfund Loans $1,160 $852 $4697 $0.04 per square foot $0.04 per square foot No fee No fee No Library facilities fees were loaned during this reporting period. Refunds Due to Protests No refunds were made due to protests during this reporting period. III. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2014-15 Revenue The beginning fund balance as of September 30, 2013 was $239,277.00. During Fiscal Year 2014-15, $233,382.00 in Public Library Facilities Fees were collected. Therefore, the ending balance as of September 30, 2015 was $383,778.00. (This fee was not effective until September 2, 2012.) Fiscal Year 2014-2015 Expenditures There were $ 92,823.88 expenditures during the 2014-2015 Fiscal Year to the Library Facilities fund. All expenditures were for the Library Collection, to provide more materials for the public. As funds are collected, future reports will continue to reflect expenditures in accordance with HBMC 17.67.065 as described above. LISTING OF ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 3945 2. Summary of Public Library Facilities Development Fee Item 5. - 49 HB -126- ORDINANCE NO. 3945 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DELETING CHAPTER 17.66 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE AND .ADDING CHAPTER 17.67 RELATING TO LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby deleted in its entirety. SECTION 2. Chapter 17.67 is hereby added to the Huntington Beach Municipal Code said Chapter to read as follows: Chapter 17.67 LIBRARY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Sections: 17.67.010 Intent and Purpose 17.67.015 Legislative Finding 17.67.020 Definitions 17.67,030 Establishment of a Library Development Impact Fee 17.67.035 Fund Established 17.67.036 Fee imposed. 17.67.040 Exemptions and Credits 17.67,045 Calculation of Required Fees 17.67.050 Payment of Fees 17,67.055 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects 17.67.060 Refund 17.67.065 Use of Funds 17.67.070 Fee Adjustments 17.67.072 Appeals 17.67.075 Credit for Construction of Non -Site -Related Improvements 17.67.080 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. 17.67.090 Annual report and amendment procedures. 17.67.100 Effect of Library Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations. 17.67.110 Violation —Penalty. 17.67.120 Severability. 12-3209,005/77615 1 1413 -1217- Item 5. - 50 Ordinance No. 3945 17.67.010 Intent and Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a Library Development Impact Fee upon future Development Projects, an equitable share of the cost of mitigating future Library Facility needs created by such projects. A Library Development Impact Fee is being created for the purpose of assuring that the impacts created by new developments in the City of Huntington Beach pay a fair share of the proportional costs required for expansion of library facilities and collections. This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as well as following recommendations in the Master Facilities Plan, a part of the Nexus Report (as described below), and the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan by ensuring that the City's expansion of library facilities and collections "are maintained when new development is constructed within the City limits. By imposing a fee that is reasonably related to the burdens created by new development on the City's Library Services, together with funding available from other City revenue sources, the City will be able to construct the required capital improvements, accommodate projected growth and fulfill the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and Master Facilities Plan a part of the Nexus Repor6. 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, ordinances or chapter provisions which may authorize the imposition of conditions on development. 17.67.015 Legislative Findines. A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections 66001 through 66009 has authorized the City to enact development impact fees. B. The imposition of development impact fees is a method of ensuring that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities and other costs necessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare. C. Increase in residential development in the City increases the demand on the amount of library space and collection items. D. Pursuant to the "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach" ("Nexus Report") dated October, 2011, as amended April 27, 2012, which is incorporated herein by reference in these findings as though set forth in full, the fees established pursuant to this Chapter are derived from, based upon, and do not exceed the costs of providing additional library services- attributable to applicable new residential development. This study is based in part upon master planning to more specifically identify capital facilities to serve new development; the expansion of the amount of library facilities space and the number of collection items in the systems. 12-3209.005n7615 2 Item 5. - 51 HB -128- Ordinance No. 3945 E. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the expansion of library facilities and collections identified herein in furtherance of the City's General Plan, as well as the Master Facilities Plan which is a part of the Nexus Report and the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan. F. A detailed study of the impacts of future residential construction in the City, along with an analysis of the need for the expansion of library facilities and collections has been prepared. This study is included in the Nexus Report. G. As set forth in the Nexus Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the expansion of library facilities and collections set forth in this Chapter and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged. In addition, there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development to which the fee is charged and a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facilities and collections or portion thereof attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 17.67.020 Definitions. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code 17.67.030 Establishment of a Library Development Impact Fee. There is imposed a Library Development Impact Fee on all new non -subdivided Residential and Nonresidential development in the City. 17.67.035 Fund Established. A Library Development Impact Fee fund is established. The Library Development Impact Fee fund is a fund to be utilized for payment of the actual or estimated costs of Library services and collections as set forth in the Nexus Report which includes the Master Facilities Plan, as well as the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan related to new residential construction. 17.67.036 - Fee imposed. A. Any person who, 60 days after the effective date of this Development Impact Fee Ordinance, seeks to engage in non -subdivided Residential or Nonresidential development including mobilehome development by obtaining a building permit or other discretionary approval is required to pay a Library Development Impact Fee in the manner and amount as set forth in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee Resolution separately adopted. B. No certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, final building permit approval or construction approval for a mobilehome pad or pads, as applicable, for the activities listed in this Chapter, shall be issued unless and until the Library Development Impact Fee required by this Chapter has been paid to the City. 17.67.040 Exemptions and credits. A. Exemptions. Any claim of exemption must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit or mobilehome construction approval. Any claim of exemption 12-3209.005/77615 3 HB -129- Item 5. - 52 Ordinance No. 3945 must be filed in the same manner and will be considered pursuant to the same procedure as for a fee adjustment as provided in Chapter 17.73. The following shall be exempted from payment of the Library Development Impact Fee: Residential development. a. Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building in which no additional dwelling units are created, the use is not changed and where no additional library services will be provided over and above those provided by the existing building; b. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use, provided that no additional library services will be required over and above those provided by the original use of the land; C. The construction of residential accessory buildings, structures or uses which will not require additional library services over and above those provided by the principal building or use of the land; d. The installation of a replacement mobilehome on a lot or other such site when a Library Development Impact Fee for such mobilehome site has previously been paid pursuant to this Chapter, or where a mobilehome legally existed on such site on or prior to the effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter; e. Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling (one (1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the replacement of one (1) mobilehome with another on the same pad, or the moving and relocation of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the City to another lot within the City. This exemption shall not apply to tract development, to the development of more than one (1) unit per lot, nor to the replacement of a single-family dwelling with more than one (1) dwelling unit; 2. Affordable housing for lower income households. Property rented, leased, sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price which does not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code when provided to a "lower income household" as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or "very low-income household" as defined in Section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code. This exemption shall require the applicant to execute an agreement to guarantee that the units shall be maintained for lower and very low-income households whether as units for rent or for sale or transfer. The agreement shall be in the form of a deed restriction or other legally binding and enforceable document acceptable to the City Attorney and shall bind the owner and any successor -in -interest to the real property being developed. The agreement shall 12-3209.005/77615 0 Item 5. - 53 - HB -130- Ordinance No. 3945 subordinate, if required, to any state or federal program providing affordable housing to lower and very low-income households. The agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant or any successor -in -interest shall be required to provide annually, or as requested, the names of -all tenants or purchasers, current rents and income certification to insure compliance. Voluntary removal of the housing restriction or violation of the restriction shall require the applicant or any successor -in -interest to pay the then applicable Library Development Impact Fee at the time of voluntary conversion or as imposed at the time of violation on the unit in violation, plus any attorneys' fees and costs of enforcement, if applicable; B. Credits. Any applicant whose development is located within a community facilities district (CFD) or , and is subject to the assessments thereof, shall receive an offset credit towards the fees established by this Chapter to the extent that the assessments fund improvements within the CFD which would otherwise be funded by the Development Impact Fees established by this Chapter. 17.67.045 Calculation of Required Fees. A. At the time of the issuance of the building permit, the Director of Planning and Building or his/her designee ("Director") shall calculate the amount of the applicable Library Development Impact Fee due as specified in the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee. B. The Director shall calculate the amount of the applicable Library Development Impact Fee due by: 1. Determining the number and type of dwelling units in a residential development or mobilehome pads in a mobilehome park or site, and multiplying the same by the Library Development Impact Fee amount per dwelling unit or pad as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; 2. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units, type of use and location in a nonresidential development, and multiplying the same by the Library Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; 3. Determining the number and type of dwelling units and the nonresidential number of lodging units or gross square feet of floor area, type of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include a residential use, and multiplying the same by the Library Development Impact Fee amount for each use as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; 4. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units, type of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include two (2) or more nonresidential principal uses, and multiplying the same by the Library Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution. The 12-3209.005/77615 5 HB - I 11- Items.-54 Ordinance No. 3945 gross square feet of floor area of any accessory use will be charged at the same rate as the predominant principal use unless the Department of Planning and Building finds that the accessory use is related to another principal use. 17.67.050 Payment of Fees. A The City shall collect from the applicant the Library Development Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, final building permit approval or construction approval for mobilehome pad or pads, whichever occurs first. B Except for any adjustment charge allocated to the City all funds collected shall be properly identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the library facilities impact fee fund and used solely for the purposes specified in this Chapter. 17.67.055 Fee Payments for Phased Development Proiects. If a Development Project will be constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy will be issued for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the basis of the development characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of the fees may be made separately for each phase, provided the amount paid for each phase shall be equal to the percentage that that phase represents of the total development project's development characteristics. The fee shall be the fee in effect at the time payment is due. 17.67.060 - Refund. A. Any applicant who has paid a Library Development Impact Fee pursuant to this Chapter may apply to the Director for a full or partial refund of same, if, within one (1) year after collection of the Library Development Impact Fee the fee has been modified as follows: reduction in the number of dwelling units, a change in the type of dwelling units, a reduction in square footage, or the applicability of an exemption pursuant to this Chapter. In the event a refund is issued, the City may retain a sum up to twenty (2O%) percent of the Development Impact Fee paid by the applicant to offset the administrative costs of refund. In no event shall a refund exceed the amount of the Library Development Impact Fee actually paid. B. Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that they were erroneously or illegally collected. If the Director determines the fees were not erroneously or illegally collected, then the applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 17.73 Appeals. An application for a refund pursuant to this Section MUST be filed within ninety (90) days after the payment of the fees. C. Cily Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to the Mitigated Fee Act, upon application of the then current landowner, fees will be refunded if the City fails to commit them to a project of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report within five years from the date that the fees were collected from the applicant. For purposes of this subsection, fees 12-3209.005/77615 Item 5. - 55 1 1 HB -132- Ordinance No. 3945 are deemed to have been "committed" if they have been budgeted or otherwise encumbered by the City for an eligible improvement, studies, design drawings or any necessary applications for approval by other governmental agencies have been initiated, construction bidding has been initiated, or improvements are under construction. Eligible refunds, plus interest at the City's average annual cost of funds will be made only upon an application filed within 180 days of the expiration of the fifth anniversary of the fee payment. 17,67.065 Use of Funds A. Funds collected from the Library Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of expansion of the amount of library space and the number of collection items in the Library's collection attributable to new residential construction and shall include: 1. The acquisition of additional property for Library expansion; 2. The construction of new facilities for Library Services; 3. The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for Library Services; 4. The purchase of Library collections to expand the collections; 5. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new users and patrons; 6. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments). 7. Projects identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City Council approved development projects. B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair existing buildings. C. Revenue raised would be limited to capitalized cost related to growth. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced provision of capital facilities for which Library Development Impact Fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the type described in this Chapter. E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter. 17.67.070 Fee Adiustments Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code 12-3209.005177615 7 HB -133- Item 5. - 56 Ordinance No. 3945 17.67.072 Appeals Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code 17.67.075 Credit for Construction of Non -Site -Related Improvements. Applications for credit for construction of non -site -related improvements shall include acceptable engineering drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates submitted to the Director. The Director shall determine the amount of the credit for improvement construction based on either these cost estimates or alternative estimates if the Director determines reasonably that the estimates submitted by the applicant are either unreliable or inaccurate. In no event shall the amount of the credit exceed the improvement cost specified in the Nexus Report, or other applicable basis for the fee, nor shall the credit exceed the amount that would otherwise apply. No final inspection or certificate of occupancy for the Development Project may be issued until: (1) the construction is completed and accepted by the City; (2) a suitable maintenance and warranty bond is received and accepted by the City; and (3) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding and acceptance procedures are in strict compliance with City paving, drainage and other applicable requirements. 17.67.080 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. All monies and interest earnings in any Reserve Account shall be expended on the projects of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time to document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the impact of new development on the expansion of Library Services and collections. 17.67.090 Annual report and amendment procedures. A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Director of Library Services of the City of Huntington Beach shall evaluate progress in implementation of the Library Development Impact Fee and shall prepare a report thereon to the City Council in accordance with Government Code Section 66006, incorporating among other things: 1. The expansion of Library Services and collections commenced, purchased or completed utilizing monies from the Library Development Impact Fee fund; 2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned; 3. The amount of Library Development Impact Fees in the fund; and 4. Recommended changes to the Library Development Impact Fee, including, but not necessarily limited to changes in this Library Development Impact Fee chapter or fee resolution. B. Based upon the report and such other factors as the City Council deems relevant and applicable, the City Council may amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee resolution implementing this Chapter. Changes to the Library Development Impact Fee rates or schedules may be made by amending the fee resolution. Any change which 12-3209.005/77615 8 Item 5. - 57 HB -134- Ordinance No. 3945 increases the amount of the Library Development Impact Fee shall be adopted by the City Council only after a noticed public hearing. Nothing herein precludes the City Council or limits its discretion to amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee resolution establishing Library Development Impact Fee rates or schedules at such other times as may be deemed necessary. 17.67.100 Effect of Library Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations. This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property, density/intensity of development, design and improvement standards and public improvement requirements or any other aspect of the development of land or construction of buildings, which may be imposed by the City pursuant to the City's zoning regulations, subdivision regulations or other ordinances or regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation with respect to all residential and nonresidential development. 17.67.110 Violation —Penalty. A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted; and upon conviction, the violator shall be punishable according to law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal prosecution, the City shall have the power to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of this Chapter. 17.67.120 Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision; and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2 n d day of July , 2012 Mayor ATTEST: P06M.) 6�- J4PW) City Clerk .II.. MV114mager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney �5 . J , f_2- 12-3209.005/77615 9 HB -1 315- Item 5. - 58 Ord. No. 3945 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2012, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 02, 2012, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Shaw, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman NOES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I, Joan L. Flynn, CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on July 12, 20 11 In accordance with the City Charter of said City dJoan L. Flynn, Ct Clerk . Senior Deputy City Clerk o( JL06aj- C Clerk and ex-officio erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Item 5. - 59 HB -136- Actual Fund Balance Report with Encumbrance Tuesday, February 23, 201S 2014 Object Account Actuals Cumulative 14 2014 Encumbrance Cumulative 14 2014 Actuals + Encumbrance Cumulative 14 2014 00229.__Library. _Dev Impact Beginning Fund Balance 239,277 239,277 42965 - Pooled Cash Interest 2,860 2,860 42966 - Market Adjustments 1,083 1,083 47290 - Development Impact Fee 233,382 0 233,382 Revenues 237,325 0 237,325 Expenditures (92,824) 0 (92,824) Ending Fund Balance 383,778 0 383,778 H, k -1 1-_ Item 5. - 60 ATTACHMENT 5 2014-15 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FACILITIES FUND ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT Item 5. - 61 HB -138- CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION REQUEST FOR ACTION Item No. PW 16-02 SUBMITTED TO: Chairperson and Members of the Commission SUBMITTED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works DATE: February 17, 2016 SUBJECT: Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report Fiscal Year 2014115 Statement of Issue: In accordance with Section 14.48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is required to prepare an annual report of the status of the Planned Local Drainage Facility Fund (Drainage Fund) for the City Council. The process provides an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review planned projects, revenues and expenditures under the program. Funding Source: No funding is required for this action. Impact on Future Maintenance Costs: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Planned Local Drainage Facility Fund Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2014/15. Alternative Action(s): Recommend revisions to the report. Analysis: The Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund (Drainage Fund) is a development fee that is restricted to use for drainage system enhancements. Section 14.48.050 (d) requires the City Council to review the status of compliance with this Chapter, including the revenues collected and the funds expended. The following information conforms to the requirements of the HBMC regarding revenues and expenditures of the Drainage Fund. Although the reporting requirement became effective with the adoption of the revised ordinance in September 2006, the Drainage Fund has existed since 1975. The following information covers Fiscal Year 2013/14. HB - 139- Item 5. - 62 Fiscal Status The Drainage Fund advanced $250,000 to the Redevelopment Agency for improvements in 1987. With interest accrual of $603,877, the debt amount is currently $856,246. As a result, the Fund maintained a negative balance over a period of ten years until Fiscal Year 12/13, when the fund ended with a positive balance. In Fiscal Year 2014/15, revenue from developer fees exceeded expectations and the Drainage Fund ended the year with a positive balance of $792.870. On June, 29, 2011, the State of California enacted AB1 X26, which dissolves redevelopment agencies and designates Successor Agencies to "wind -down" activities of the former redevelopment agencies under supervision of newly created Oversight Boards. On January, 31, 2012, the City's Redevelopment Agency presented an initial draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) to the Successor Agency. In this case, the City has elected to become the Successor Agency. The debt noted above is included in the list of obligations; however, no payments are scheduled to the Drainage Fund within the presented time frame. Revenues Revenue for FY 2014/15 from development was $487,341 and interest to the fund was $7,346 for total revenue of $494,777. Expenditures No expenditures were made in FY 2014/15. Staff will monitor the fund as revenue is received and assess the need for future drainage projects. Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives The Drainage Fund is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the current Drainage Master Plan. Funds collected and deposited to the fund may be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of drainage facilities. The Fund is in compliance with these requirements. Item 5. - 63 HB -1 40- Beginning Balance 10114 $298,093. Revenue Developer fees Interest earned 487,431 7,346 Total Revenue $ 494,777 Total Expenditures 0 Beginning Balance 10/15 $792,870 Projected revenues Budgeted expenditures 225,000 0 Estimated Balance 10116 $1,017,870 Rate Schedule Fiscal Year 2014/15 Drainage Fees: $13,880 per acre. Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachments: None I1 B -141- Item 5. - 64 ATTACHMENT 6 2014-15 SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES FUND ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT Item 5. - 65 HB - 14 • � J � CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION REQUEST FOR ACTION Item No. PW 16-03 SUBMITTED TO: Chairperson and Members of the Commission SUBMITTED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works DATE: February 17, 2016 SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report Fiscal Year 2014115 Statement of Issue: In accordance with Section 14.36 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is required to prepare an annual report of the status of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund (Sanitary Sewer Fund) for the City Council. The process provides an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review planned projects, revenues and expenditures under the program. Funding Source: No funding is required for this action. Impact on Future Maintenance Costs: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Annual Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2014/ 15. Alternative Action(s): Recommend revisions to the report. Analysis: The Sanitary Sewer Fund is a development fee that is restricted to use for sewer capacity enhancements. The fee is unrelated to the monthly Sewer Service Charge used for operations and maintenance of the existing sewer system. Section 14.36.070 (d) requires the City Council to review the status of compliance with this Chapter, including the revenues collected and the funds expended. The following information conforms to the requirements of the HBMC regarding revenues and expenditures of the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Although this requirement became effective with the adoption of the revised ordinance in HB -143- Item 5. - 66 July 2003, the Sewer Facilities Fund has existed since 1988. The following information covers Fiscal Year 2014/15. Fiscal Status Revenues and expenditures are summarized below for the past fiscal year. The fund balance as of September 30, 2015 was $6,156,735. Not included in this figure are monies owed the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. The original advance was $131,000. With interest accrual, the debt amount for the fiscal year end was $452,172. On June, 29, 2011, the State of California enacted AB 1 X26, which dissolves redevelopment agencies and designates Successor Agencies to "wind -down" activities of the former redevelopment agencies under supervision of newly created Oversight Boards. On January, 31, 2012, the City's Redevelopment Agency presented an initial draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) to the Successor Agency. In this case, the City has elected to become the Successor Agency. The debt noted above is included in the list of obligations; however, no payments are scheduled to the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund within the presented time frame. Revenuesl Total revenue for FY 2014/15 was $1,611,690. Residential and commercial developer fees contributed $294,988 and $1,010,729 respectively. Other revenue included an annual payment from the Sunset Beach of $12,310 for their share of the Warner Avenue Gravity Sewer and a $226,225 payment from a developer for fees related to the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan. The fund was credited $67,438 in interest. Expenditures Fiscal Year 2014/15 Expenditures for the fund in FY 14/15 included $78,300 in salaries and consultant charges related to lift station design. Fiscal Year 2015/16 Budgeted expenditures for the current fiscal year include $271,605 in encumbrance carry -forwards. Item 5. - 67 HB -144- Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives The Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the current Sewer Master Plan. Funds collected and deposited to the fund may be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of sanitary sewer facilities. The Fund is in compliance with these requirements. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Beginning Balance 10/14 $4,623,345 Revenue Developer fees (residential) 294,988 Developer fees (commercial) 1,010,729 Other 238,565 Interest earned 67,438 Total Revenue $ 1,611,690 Expenditures Salaries (32,413) Design Service 45,887 Total Expenditures $ (78,300) Beginning Balance_10/15 $6,156,735 Budgeted revenues 896,000 Budgeted expenditures 271,605 Estimated Balance 10/16 $6,781,130 HB -145- Item 5. - 68 Rate Structure Fiscal Year 2014/15 _....kTlr�NIIFR C3NhI�GT[N_5 , _.....151ffertve CJcoer "I,i - Single Family Dwelling Unit 2,256 Multiple Family Dwelling Unit $ 1,845 Nan esidentra abased cn water meter sFZ6" hQ to �qun alent Dweftiog t(ntt, I li 3/4" 1 $ 2,564 1" 2 $ 5.129 1 1/" 3 $ 7.693 2" 5 $ 12,824 3" 11 $ 28,212 4" Compound 17 $ 43,599 4" Domestic & Turbine 33 $ 84,634 6" Compound 33 $ 84,634 6" Domestic & Turbine 67 $ 171,830 8" Domestic 117 $ 300,061 10" Domestic 183 $ 466,642 Attachments: None Item 5. - 69 HB -146- ATTACHMENT 7 2014-15 FAIR SHARE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT HH _14-_ Item 5. - 70 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION 2012-23 ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS AND NEXUS STUDY REPORT Item 5. - 71 H B - 148- RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONAND NEXUS REPORT FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND ESTABLISHING NEW AND REVISED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, several policies within the City's General Plan require that new development mitigate its share of the impacts to the natural and built environments and be fiscally neutral so as to not result in a net economic loss for the City; and Such General Plan policies include the maintenance of existing quality of life, maintenance of existing service levels and funding of new facilities, the requirement of new development to mitigate a fair share of its impacts, and calling for the use of impact fees to fund needed improvements to serve new development, among other policies; and In accordance with these General Plan policies, the City Council has directed staff in the past to create development impact fees in accordance with State law. Said impact fees were codified in Chapter 17.65 and Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code as well as Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230.20. Pursuant to each ordinance set forth above, the amount of the development impact fee is to be set and/or updated by resolution of the City Council; and Subsequently, and periodically, staff has conducted comprehensive reviews of the City's development impact fees to determine whether those fees are adequate to defray the cost of public facilities related to new development; those fees are set forth in Resolutions 6164, 2006- 23, 2000-97, 2004-88, 99-60 and 96-71; 2002-129, 2004-88 and The City contracted with Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC to provide a updated comprehensive evaluation of the City's existing development impact fees; and Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC prepared a report, entitled Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, dated October, 2011 as amended April 27, 2012 (the "Nexus Report"), that provides an evaluation of existing development impact fees, recommends an increase and change in methodology in certain development impact fees, the creation of new impact fees and establishes the nexus between the imposition of such impact. fees and the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fees are charged; and The Nexus Report has been available for public review and comment; and The Nexus Report substantiates the need for a modification to existing fees to change certain methodology as well as creation of new impact fees; and 12-3209.00&79289 Ha -149- Item 5. - 72 Resolution No. 2012-23 The City has collected development impact fees to mitigate the impacts of new development, including fees for transportation, park land acquisition and development, library and other public facilities since the adoption of the respective ordinances and resolutions; and The City Council desires to repeal certain resolutions, create and update other development impact fee resolutions in accordance with the calculations and recommendations contained in the Nexus Report; and In compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code section 66000 et seq., the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the proposed increase in development impact fees at its regular meeting on Jurle 18 , 2012, to solicit public input on the proposed increases to development impact fees, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Findings pursuant to Government Code section 66001. The City Council finds and determines that the Nexus Report complies with California Government Code section 66001, and as to each of the proposed fees to be imposed on new development: (a) Identifies the purpose of the fee; (b) Identifies the use to which the fee will be put; (c) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; (d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and (e) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 2. Fees for Uses Consistent with the Nexus Report. The City Council hereby determines that the fees imposed, pursuant to this resolution shall be used solely to finance the public facilities and/or equipment and park land acquisition described or identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report. 3. Approval of Items in the Nexus Report. The City Council has considered the specific public facilities, equipment and park land acquisition cost estimates identified in the Nexus Report and each ordinance thereto and hereby approves such public facilities, equipment and park land acquisition cost and cost estimates and further finds that the cost estimates serve as a reasonable basis for calculating and imposing the development impact fees as set forth in the Nexus Report. 2 12-3209M6/79289 Item 5. - 73 HB -150- Resolution No. 2012-23 4. Consistency with General Plan. The City Council finds that the public facilities equipment and park land acquisition and fee methodology identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report are consistent with the City's General Plan and, in particular, those policies that require new development to mitigate its share of the impacts to City infrastructure and to be fiscally neutral. 5. Differentiation among Public_ Facilities. The City Council fords that the public facilities identified in the Nexus Report and funded through the collection of development impact fees recommended in the Nexus Report are separate and distinct from those public facilities funded through other fees presently imposed and collected by the City. To the extent that other fees imposed and collected by the City, including Specific Plan fees are used to fund the construction of the same public facilities identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report, then such other fees shall be a credit against the applicable development impact fees. Notwithstanding the above provision, this resolution shall not be deemed to affect the imposition or collection of the water and sewer connection fees authorized by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 6. CEQA Finding. The adoption of the Nexus Report and the increase in development impact fees are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act in that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b) (4), the creation of government- funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause a significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a "project" under CEQA. 7. Adoption of Report. The Nexus Report as amended April 27, 2012, including Appendices, is hereby adopted. 8. Fee Imposed. The new Development Impact Fees set by this resolution shall not apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement approval on or before June 5, 2012 and the following milestones are met: 1. Project applicant has submitted an approved application for building permits within 180 days after the fee going into effect or no later than February 18, 2013. 2. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued progress toward satisfying plan check comments. 3. Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect. An exception to the above milestones is the involvement of an outside third party regulatory agency. In such cases the 180 days to make building permit application will begin when the developer receives clearance from that agency. The City Manager shall have the authority, in his/her sole discretion, to extend milestone dates for qualifying "grandfathered" projects. All other projects are subject to the fees then in effect. All existing Development Impact Fees remain in effect until final action is taken on this resolution and respective ordinances. In the event any portion of this resolution is held invalid, the previously approved development impact fee shall automatically apply. 9. Timingof Fee. The development impact fees imposed by this resolution shall be paid pursuant to the ordinances or resolution creating each separate fee. Until final action is 3 12-3209.006/79299 HB -151- Item 5. - 74 Resolution No. 2012-23 taken by City Council adopting the ordinances or resolution referenced herein, resolutions 6164, 2006-23, 2000-97, 99-60, 2004-88 and 96-71 shall remain in effect. 10. Amount of Fee. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Development Impact Fees as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein as well as Nexus Report Schedules 3.2, 4.3, 5.2, 6.2, 7.1, 8.1, and 8.4. Exhibit A and the Nexus Report sets forth the methodology and aggregate amount imposed as a development impact fee for both residential and nonresidential land uses and also sets forth the breakdown of each development impact fee by type of facility. The amount of the development impact fees excluding traffic impact fees shall be automatically modified annually pursuant to the the percentage of increase or decrease in the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or any relevant successor for the Orange County area, from March to March of the preceding twelve (12) months. Traffic impact fees shall be increased using the Engineering News Record's construction cost index as reported for the twelve month period ending in March of each year. The escalator indices provided herein shall not take effect until March of 2016. 11. Use of fee. The development impact fees shall be solely used for the purposes described in the respective ordinances creating the fees and the Nexus Report. Fees collected pursuant to existing ordinances and resolutions shall be maintained and used exclusively for those purposes and accounts for these fees shall remain in effect and shall be maintained by the City Manager or his/her designee. Fees collected under any of the categories listed in the Nexus Report may be used to finance the construction or implementation of any public facility listed in those categories to the extent that use of the fees may not exceed the percentage allocated to new development of all of the public facilities listed in the category, or sub -category. 12. Fee Determination by Type of Use. A. Residential Development. Development impact fees for residential development shall be based upon the type of unit constructed. The development impact fee categories as shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the land use element of the City's General Plan. B. Nonresidential Land Uses. Development impact fees for nonresidential land uses shall be based upon the square footage of the building or other measurement detailed in the respective development impact fee ordinances. The development impact fee categories as shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the land use element of the City's General Plan, C. Uses Not Specified. In the event that there are land uses not specified in Exhibit A, the development impact fee for such use shall be determined by the City Manager or 4 12-3209.006/79289 Item 5. - 75 HB -152_ Resolution No. 2012-23 his/her designee who shall determine such fee based on an analysis of the impacts of the proposed use on public facilities, equipment and/or park land. 13. Prior Resolutions Superseded. As provided herein the development impact fees approved and adopted by this resolution shall supersede and repeal any previously adopted development impact fee resolutions concerning the same, including 6164, 96-71, 99-60, 2000-97, 2004-88 and 2006-23, 2002-129, 2004-88. 14. Severability. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution, the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto, shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto or fees levied by this resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application of fees. In the event any section of this resolution is held invalid the previously adopted affected fees shall be automatically reinstate as if never repealed or modified herein. 15. Effective Date. Consistent with California Government Code section 66017(a), the fees as identified in attached Exhibit "A" adopted by this resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days following final action taken on the respective ordinances or amendments thereto by the City Council. 16. Appeal . Appeals of any fees, including methodology, use, land valuation etc. created pursuant to this resolution shall be conducted as set forth in Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.73. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 1" g day of June ® 0 12 Mayor ND APPROVED: 5 AS TO FORM: City Attorney 12-3209.006/79289 HB -153- Item 5. - 76 Exhibit A Item 5. - 77 HB -154- Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 30% Circulation Law Fire Enforcement Suppression Facilities Facilities System (Streets, Signals, Public Library Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $119 $277 $1,800 $1,091 $6,802 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $245 $115 $1,238 $519 $4,632 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $111 $475 $940 $479 $3,351 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0,04/SF $0.23/SF Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.312 $0.099 $4.175 No Fee $0.447 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq, ft.) $0.133 $0.009 $1.279 No Fee $0.393 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) 60% Circulation Law Fire Enforcement Suppression Facilities Facilities System (Streets, Signals, Public Library Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $238 $553 $2,092 $1,126 $11,540 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $489 $229 $1,417 $686 $8,576 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $221 $950 $1,094 $588 $6,701 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0,23/SF Comm ercial/Offce Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.625 $0.197 $4.175 No Fee $0.664 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.266 $0,018 $1.498 No Fee $0.555 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 90% Circulation Park Land/ System Open Space Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $356 $830 $2,385 $1,160 $16,278 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $734 $344 $1,597 $852 $12,520 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $332 $1,425 $1,248 $697 $10,052 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.937 $0.296 $4.175 No Fee $0,882 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.399 $0,027 $1.716 No Fee $0,718 Date Printed:5/24/2012, June 4 Resolution 3060 90 Page 1 KB -155- Item 5. - 78 ExhibitA-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) Land Use Adjusted Trip Ends Average Distance Trip -end to Trip Additional Trip Miles Cost per Trip Mile Recommended Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit or other unit (90% of original) 30% Increase Scenario Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit or other unit RESIDENTIAL_ LANb USES ( er tJttr# Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34,6 $ 50.22 $ 1,737.61 /Unit $ 1,722.55 /Unit Apartment 6.15 7,9 0,5 24,3 $ 50.22 $ 1,220.35 /Unit $ 1,209.50 /Unit Condominium/Townhouse 5,36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 50.22 $ 1,064.66 /Unit $ 1,054,. 5 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 50.22 $ 908.98 /Unit $ 899.59, /Unit RE80RTlTOURIST (Per Unjt or 1=nfry Y3oor}- ,. Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room $ 1,218. 3 /Room All Suites Hotel 3,77 7.6 0.5 14,3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room $ 719.93 /Room Motel 4.34 7,6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,061.61 /Room $ 841.02 /Room INRUS'FRIAL (peN 1000 SF} General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf $ 1 279,46 /1,000 Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0,5 26,9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf $ 1,23801 /1,000 Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0,5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf $ 566.11 /1,000 Warehousing 4,39 9.0 0.5 19,8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf $ 910,74 /1,000 OMMERGIAL (per 1,000 $F) Office Park 7,42 8,8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097.48 11,000 sf $ 1,522.61 t1.000 sf Research Park 5.01 8,8 0,5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415-48 11,000 sf $ 1,027.85 f ,000 Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf $ 1,917185 f ,000 Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 A,000 sf $ 4,059.85 f ,000 Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0,5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf $ 3,242.74 sf ,000 Movie Theater 2.47 4,3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 /1,000 sf $ 341.00 1.000 sf Church 5,92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 /1,000 sf $ 817.12 f ,000 Medical -Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286,02 /1,000 sf $ 4,559.89 sf ,000 General Office Building 7.16 8,8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 11,000 sf $ 1,47.0 08 sf '000 Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf $ 4,175.67 sf '000 Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf $ 1,582.76 f ,000 Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0:5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 11,000 sf $ 8,705.20 s ,000 High -Turnover Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf Convenience Market 43,57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028,66 sf ,000 Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf $ 1,930.20 f ,000 OTHER (As. noted Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre $ 424.64 /Acre Service StationlMarket av 107,69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64,34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel Position $ 14,894.71 /Fuel Position Service Station w/Car Wash 99,35 4.3 0.5 2116 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position Page 2 Item 5. - 79 HB -156- Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) Land Use Adjusted Trip Ends Average Distance Trip -end to Trip Additional Trlp Miles Cost per Trip Mile Recommended Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit or other unit (90% of original) 60% Increase Scenario Cost per 1000 sq, ft, dwelling unit or other unit RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit) Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 57.39 $ 1,985.69 /Unit $ 1,638.39 ]Unit Apartment 6.151 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 57.39 $ 1,394.58 /Unit $ 1,361.20 /Unit CondominiumlTownho use 5.36 7.9 0,5 21.2 $ 57.39 $ 1,216.67 /Unit $ 1,187.17 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 57.39 $ 1,038.76 /Unit $ 1,013,15 /Unit RESORT/TOURIST (per hit or Etitry Dorir} :' '. - Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room $ 1,355.39. /Room All Suites Hotel 3.77 TO 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 !Room $ 811.41 /Room Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 1 /Room $ 936.56 /Room INDUSTRIAL (per1000 SF). General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf $ 1,497.69 /1,000 sf Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf $ 1,449.18 11,000 sf Manufacturing 2.731 9.0 0.5 12-3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf $ 662.65 11,000 sf Warehousing 4.391 9.0 0,5 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 M,000 sf $ 1,066,39 11,000 sf COMMERCJAL (per 1,000 SF).7. Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32-6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097.48 11,000 sf $ 1,768,99 /1,000 sf Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf $ 1,193.98 /1,000 sf Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41-1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf $ 2,229.22 /1,000 sf Bldg. MateriialslLumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf $ 4,059,85 11,000 sf Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0-5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3.242.74 /1,000 sf $ 3,242.74 11,000 sf Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 11.000 sf $ 341,00 11,000 sf Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 81712 /1.000sf $ 817.12 11,000sf Medical -Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf $ 5,299,66 11,000 sf General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf $ 1,708.63 /1,000 sf Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 A,D00 sf $ 4,175.67 11,000 sf Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24,6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 11,000 sf $ 1,582.76 11,000 sf Discount Center 62.93 4:3 0.5 136.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 11,000 sf $ 8,705.20 11,000 sf High -Turnover Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 11,000 sf $ 1,228.89 11,000 sf Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028.66 11,000 sf Office Park 1 13.97 4.3 a5 30.0 $ 54,34 $ 1,930.20 1 /1,000 sf $ 1,930.201 11,00Q sf OTHER (asnated):, Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Aare $ 424,64 /Acre Service Station/Market av 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64,34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel Position $ 14,894.71 !Fuel Position Service Station w/Car Wash 99,35 4,3 0.5 213.E $ 64,34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position Page 3 (IF3Item 5. - 80 Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) Land Use Adjusted Trip Ends Average Distance Trip -end to Trip Additional Trip Miles Cost per Trip Mile Recommended Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit or other unit (90% of original) RESIDENTIAL LAhD USES.(pey Unit) Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,226.16 /Unit Apartment 6.15 T9 0.5 24.3 $ 64.34 $ 1,563.46 /Unit Condom IN u m/Town hou se 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 64.34 $ 1,364.01 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,164.55 /Unit R.i Si 7YTOURIST,(per Unit or Entry Hotel &291 7.61 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room All Suites Hotel 3,77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room Motel 4.341 7.61 0.51 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room IN.DUSTRIAL,( per4;0,0.0 SF} General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0,5 26.9 $ 64,34 $ 1,730,75 /1,000 sf Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf Warehousing 1 4.391 9.01 0,51 19.8 $ 64.341 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf COMMERCIAL, (per 11;000 SF) Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32,6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64,34 $ 1,415,48 /1,000 sf Business Park 9.34 8.8 0,5 41.1 $ 64,34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0,5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 /1,000 sf Ch urch 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 /1,000 sf Medical -Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64,34 $ 6,286.02 11,000 sf General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026,71 /1,000 sf Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175,67 11,000 sf Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24,6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf High -Turnover Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 191 $ 64,34 $ 1,228.89 11,000 sf Convenience Market 43,571 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf Office Park 13,971 4.3 0,51 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 11,000 sf ovimi 2.(as rioted) Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 1Acre Service Station/Market av 107.69 4.3 0,5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel Position Service Station w/Car Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position Page 4 Item 5. - 81 HB _158_ Res. No. 2012-23 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Shaw, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman NOES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CiK Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California HB -159- Item 5. - 82 ATTACHMENT #2 PUBLIC LIBRARY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3945 which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.67 relating to Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July 2, 2012. REPORTING REQUIRMENTS State Law imposes both annual and five-year reporting requirements for collection of Development Impact Fees. The specific elements to be included in the report are: • A brief description of the type of fee in the fund account • The amount of the fee • The beginning and ending balance • The amount of fees collected and interest earned • Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of public improvements will commence • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund • The amount of refunds made pursuant to any protests The annual report is to be made available to the public within 180 days following the close of the fiscal year. It is also to be reviewed by the City Council no less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public at its next regularly scheduled meeting. This year the report is being presented to the City Council on April 3, 2017. Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.67.065, the funds collected from the Public Library Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of expansion of the amount of library space and the number of collection items attributable to the new residential construction and shall include: The acquisition of additional property for Library construction, the construction of new facilities for Library services, the furnishing of new buildings or facilities for Library services, the purchase of Library collections to expand collections, the funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities, to serve new users and patrons, the cost of financing, projects identified in the City's General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City's Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council approved development projects. Fee Amount: On June 18, 2012, in conjunction with approval of the new Ordinance 3945, Resolution 2012- 23 was also adopted establishing new and revised development impact fees for all development within the city. As shown in Exhibit A-3 of Attachment 2, the fees vary according Item 5. - 83 HB - 160- to land use and were also implemented on a graduated scale ranging from 30% to 90% of the full fee amount. Per City Council action, effective September 1, 2014, the fees are as follows: Land Use Amount Detached Dwelling Units (per unit) Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) Resort Lodging Units (per unit) Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) Interfund Loans $1,160 $852 $4697 $0.04 per square foot $0.04 per square foot No fee No fee No Library facilities fees were loaned during this reporting period. Refunds Due to Protests No refunds were made due to protests during this reporting period. III. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2015-16 Revenue The beginning fund balance as of September 30, 2015 was $383,778. During Fiscal Year 2015-16, $66,974.00 in Public Library Facilities Fees were collected. Therefore, the ending balance as of September 30, 2015 was $358,080.00. (This fee was not effective until September 2, 2012.) Fiscal Year 2015-16 Expenditures There were $ 92,672.00 expenditures during the 2015-16 Fiscal Year to the Library Facilities fund. All expenditures were for the Library Collection, to provide more materials for the public. As funds are collected, future reports will continue to reflect expenditures in accordance with HBMC 17.67.065 as described above. HB -161- Item 5. - 84 ATTACHMENT #3 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 I. BACKGROUND On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3946 which amended the Huntington Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.76 relating to Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees. The second reading of Ordinance 3946 was approved on July 2, 2012 (Attachment 1). II. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS State law imposes both annual and five-year reporting requirements as a result of its collection of Park Impact Fees. The specific elements to be included in the report include: • A brief description of the type of fee in the fund account • The amount of the fee • The beginning and ending balance • The amount of fees collected and interest earned • Identification of each public improvement on which fees are expended • An identification of the approximate date by which the construction of public improvements will commence • A description of each interfund transfer loan made from the fund balance • The amount of refunds made pursuant to any protests The annual report is to be made available to the public within 180 days following the close of the fiscal year. It is also to be reviewed by the City Council no less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public at its next regularly scheduled meeting. This year the report is being presented to the City Council on April 3, 2017. Fee Description: Use of Fees Per HBMC 17.76.090, the funds collected from the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the "costs of providing the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction." Therefore, the expenses included in this report represent all costs associated with the planning, design, and construction stages of an eligible project, including staffing and professional design consultant costs. Specifically, the fees may be used as summarized below. 1 Item 5. - 85 HB -162- 1. The acquisition of additional property for the expansion of parkland and community facilities development; 2. The construction of new parks and park facilities and community use facilities; 3. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new parkland and park facilities and community use facilities development; 4. The cost of financing; 5. Projects identified in City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master Facilities [Din —In included in the Plexus Ponnrt City of Huntington Beach C=itul Improvement Plan (CIP), the adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City Council approved park acquisition and development projects. Since the City's Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) generally includes projects and upgrades to existing facilities of $50,000 or more, all eligible park improvements may not meet the minimum qualifications required to be included in the City's CIP. However, projects and improvements less than the $50,000 threshold are still eligible park expenses as long as they are included in the documents referenced in Item 5 above or the City's adopted annual budget. Examples of these types of expenditures include the City's annual park license fees with Southern California Edison. Since these expenses are included in the City's budget, they are eligible and included in this report. Fee Amount: On June 18, 2012, in conjunction with approval of the new Ordinance 3946, Resolution 2012-23 was also adopted establishing new and revised development impact fees for all development within the city. As shown in Exhibit A-3 of Resolution 2012-23, the fees vary according to land use and were also implemented on a graduated scale ranging from 30% to 90% of the full fee amount. Since the reporting period of this report is Oct. 1, 2015 — Sept. 30, 2016, the fees collected were based on the 90% formula effective Sept., 2, 2014. Land Use Amount (30%) Amount (60%) Amount (90%) (Eff.9/2/12) (Eff.9/2/13) (Eff.9/2/14) Detached Dwelling Units (per unit) $6, 802 $11, 540 $16, 278 Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) $4, 632 $8, 576 $12, 520 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) $3, 351 $6, 701 $10, 052 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per sq. ft.) $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 Resort Lodging Units (per unit) $0.23 $0.23 $0.23 Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.447 $0.66 $0.882 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.393 $0.555 $0.718 Interfund Loans No park fees were loaned during this reporting period. Refunds Due to Protests No refunds were made due to protests during this reporting period. 2 HB -163- Item 5. - 86 III. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2015-16 Revenue As shown in Attachment 3, the beginning Park Development Impact Fee fund balance as of September 30, 2015, was $2,968,906. During Fiscal Year 2015- 16, $537,761 in Park Development Impact fees was collected and $21,807 in interest was earned, for a combined total of $559,568. Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Expenditures As also shown in Attachment 3, $627,280 was expended for various park improvement projects, park license agreements, contracted/professional services, and staffing. The 2015-16 year end Park Development fund balance is $2,901,194. IV. PROJECTED CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT CONSTRUCTION DATES Per California Government Code 66006, the annual report should include the approximate date that construction will commence for public improvements funded through Park Development Impact Fees. A listing of these projects is summarized below. FY 2016-17 Sports Complex Team Room Construction of a team room at the sports complex to accommodate league and tournament play. Worthy Park Reconfiguration — Phase 1 Demolition of the closed racquetball building and reconfiguration of the park. Murdy Park Sports Field Preparation of a conceptual design to create a multi -use youth sports field on the exiting turf area adjacent to Goldenwest Street. Edison Park Playground Feasibility study to determine methods to address subsidence issues in a portion of the playground and adjacent tennis courts. Central Park Tot Lot Safety Modify perimeter sand retaining curb to allow ADA approved access from existing park pathway and install rubberized safety surfacing. FY 2017-18 Beach Playground Construction of a public tot playground on the beach in the vicinity of 9th St and PCH. Huntington Central Park Permanent Lot Construction of a permanent parking lot to accommodate programming at Shipley Nature Center. LISTING OF ATTACHMENTS: 1. Ordinance No. 3946 2. Resolution No. 2012-23 3. Overview Park Development Fee Annual Summary Statement 3 Item 5. - 87 HB -164- ATTACHMENT 1 ORDINANCE NO. 3946 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER- 17.76 RELATING TO PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 17.76, said chapter to read as follows: Chanter 17.76 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Sections 17.76.010 Legislative findings. 17.76.020 Intent and Purpose. 17.76.030 Definitions. 17.76.040 Parkland Acquisition, and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee. 17.76.050 Fund Established. 17.76.060 Fee imposed. 17.76.070 Calculation of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee. 17.76.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects 17.76,076 Fee Adjustments. 17.76.080 Payment of fee. 17.76.090 Use of funds. 17.76.100 Refund. 17.76.110 Exemptions and credits. 17.76.120 Appeals. 17.76.130 Credit for Construction of Non -Site Related Improvements. 17,76.140 Eligible Expenditures from Fee Reserve Account 17.76.150 Annual report and amendment procedures. 17.76.160 Effect of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations. 17.76.170 Violation —Penalty. 17.76.180 Severability. 12-3209.002/79301 HB -165- Item 5. - 88 Ordinance No. 3946 17.76.010 - Legislative findings. A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections 66001 u` alviigh vvvvi 11C1J aiiulviucd`uic �il`y' iv c13aCt dc'vcivYil?ciit iiltj�aVt fccs. B. The imposition of development impact fees is a method of ensuring that new developt bears a proportionate share of the cost of capital facilities and other costs necessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to promote and protect the public health, safety and welfare. C. A well -planned park system, with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered is an important amenity to residents of the City. The City considers a mixture of passive and active park space uses optimal. Future residential development that does not require subdivision, will impact the City's existing park system by creating additional park users thus necessitating additional space for athletic fields, community facilities "tot lots," and other active uses and passive uses as well as passive space for businesses to enjoy. D. Funds to pay for the cost of acquisition and development of additional parkland and development of currently owned but underutilized parkland as well as development of facilities will be needed to serve the increasing users caused by development in the City. Without additional parks, parks development and community facilities, the City's current parks and community facilities will become overcrowded and overused. E. Pursuant to the "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach" ("Nexus Report' } dated October, 2011, as amended April 27, 2012, which is incorporated herein by reference in these findings as though set forth in full, the fees established pursuant to this Chapter are derived from, based upon, and do not exceed the costs of parkland acquisition, park development and community facilities attributable to applicable new residential or nonresidential development. This study is based in part upon master planning to more specifically identify capital facilities to serve new development; the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park development and community facilities. F. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland, park development, and community facilities in furtherance of the City General Plan, as well as identified in the Nexus Report, and the attached City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Development Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan. F. A detailed study of the impacts of future residential and nonresidential construction in the City, along with an analysis of the need for the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development is set forth in the Nexus Report. G. As set forth in the Nexus Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland, park development, 2 12-320 .002/79301 Item 5. - 89 HB -166- Ordinance No. 3946 community facilities, and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding fee is charged. In addition, there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development to which the fee is charged and a reasonable reladonsh') otween the ainowit of tale lee anLL die Lost of U1e 1du- it1es or poi-uoi! thereof attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 17.76.020 — Intent and Purpose. A Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact fee is being created for the purpose of assuring that the impacts created by new development in the City of Huntington Beach pay a fair share of the proportional costs for the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland, park development and community use facilities and related costs necessary to accommodate such development. This fee was once identified as a development impact fee in Resolution 2002-129 created pursuant to Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance section 230.20. This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as well as following the recommendations in the Nexus Report including the Master Facilities Plan and the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan by ensuring that the City's acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and community facilities development are maintained when new development is constructed within the City limits. By imposing a fee that is reasonably related to the burdens created by new development on the City's parklands, together with funding available from other City revenue sources, the City will be able to purchase land and construct the required capital improvements to accommodate projected growth and fulfill the goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and Master Facilities Plan a part of the Nexus Report. 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, ordinances or chapter provisions which may authorize the imposition of conditions on development. 17.76.030 - Definitions. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code. 17.76.040 - Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee. There is imposed a Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee on all non - subdivided new residential and nonresidential development. 17.76.050 - Fund established. A Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is established. The Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is a fund to be utilized for payment of the actual or estimated costs of parkland acquisition and community facilities development as set forth in Chapter 8 of the Nexus Report which includes the City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan, as well as the City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan related to new residential and nonresidential construction. 12-3209.002f79301 HB -1 h7- Item 5. - 90 Ordinance No. 3946 17.76.060 - Fee imposed. A. Any person who, 60 days after the effective date of this Development Impact Fee, seeks to engage in non -subdivided Residential or Nonresidential development by obtaining a building permit or other discretionary approval is required to pay a Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee in the manner and amount as set forth in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee Resolution separately adopted. B. No certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or building permit approval for the activities listed in this Chapter, shall be issued unless and until the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee required by this Chapter has been paid to the City. 17 76.070 - Calculation of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee. A. At the time of the issuance of the building permit, the Director of Planning and Building or his/her designee ("Director") shall calculate the amount of the applicable Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee due as specified in the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee. B. The Director shall calculate the amount of the applicable Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee due by: Determining the number and type of dwelling units in a residential development and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee amount per dwelling unit or pad as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; 2. Determining the gross square feet of floor area or number of lodging units, type of use and location in a nonresidential development, and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee; Determining the number and type of dwelling units and the nonresidential number of lodging units or gross square feet of floor area, type of use and location, in a structure containing mixed uses which include a residential use, and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee amount for each use as established by the current fee resolution setting the. amount of the fee; 4. Determining the gross square feet of floor area or number of lodging units, type of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include 4 12-3209.002/79301 Item 5. - 91 Hs -168- Ordinance No. 3946 two (2) or more nonresidential principal uses, and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as established by the current fee resolution. The gross square feet of floor area of any accessory use will be charged at the same rate as the predominant principal use unless the Department of Planning and Building finds that the accessory use is related to another principal use. 17.76.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Proiects. If a Development Project will be constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy will be issued for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the basis of the development characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of the fees may be made separately for each phase, provided the amount paid for each phase shall be equal to the percentage that that phase represents of the total development project's development characteristics. The fee shall be the fee in effect at the time payment is due. 17.76.076 Fee Adiustments. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code. 17.76.080 Payment of fee. A. The City shall collect from the applicant the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or final building permit approval. B. Except for any administrative charge allocated to the City, all funds collected shall be properly identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fund and used solely for the purposes specified in this Chapter. 17.76.090 Use of funds. A. Funds collected from the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of providing the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction and shall include: The acquisition of additional property for the expansion of parkland and community facilities development; 2. The construction of new parks and park facilities and community use facilities (except for non-residential as set forth in the Nexus report) and; 3. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new parkland and park facilities and community use facilities development; 4. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments). 12-3209.002179301 1-113-169- Item 5. - 92 Ordinance No. 3946 S. Projects identified in City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, City of Huntington Beach Capital Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City Co'w^c.l approved Park acq' s.t:on and dev-.O.Vrne:lt Yr �ects. B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair existing parkland or park facilities or community facilities. C. Revenue raised would be limited to capitalized cost related to growth. D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced provision of capital facilities for which Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the type described in this Chapter. E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter. 17.76.100 Refund. A. Any applicant who has paid a Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee(s) pursuant to this Chapter may apply to the Director for a full or partial refund of same, if, within one (1) year after collection of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee the Fee has been modified as follows: reduction in the number of dwelling units, a change in the type of dwelling units, a reduction in square footage, or the applicability of an exemption pursuant to this Chapter. In the event a refund is issued, the City may retain a sum up to twenty (20%) percent of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee paid by the applicant to offset the administrative costs of refund. In no event shall a refund exceed the amount of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee actually paid. B. Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Director that they were erroneously or illegally collected. If the Director determines the fees were not erroneously or illegally collected, then the applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 17.73.030 Appeals. An application for a refund pursuant to this Section must be filed within ninety (90) days after the payment of the fees. C. City Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to the Mitigated Fee Act, upon application of the then current landowner, fees will be refunded if the City fails to commit them to a project of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report within five years from the date that the fees were collected from the applicant. For purposes of this subsection, fees are deemed to have been "committed" if they have been budgeted or otherwise encumbered by the City for an eligible improvement, studies, design drawings or any necessary applications for approval by other governmental agencies have been 0 12-3209.002/79301 Item 5. - 93 llB -170- Ordinance No. 3946 initiated, construction bidding has been initiated, or improvements are under construction. Eligible refunds, plus interest at the City's average annual cost of funds, will be made only upon an application filed within 180 days of the expiration of the 111U1 d11111VCINdly U1 UM =0 PUYUM1L. 17.76.110 Exemptions and credits. A. Exemptions. Any claim of exemption must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit or construction approval. Any claim of exemption must be filed in the same manner and will be considered pursuant to the same procedure as for a fee adjustment as provided in this Chapter 17.73. The following shall be exempted from payment of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee: 1. Residential Development a. Alteration or expansion of an existing residential building in which no additional dwelling units are created, the use is not changed, and where no additional relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development will be provided over and above those provided by the existing building; b. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and use, provided that no additional relocation or expansion of parkland and park facilities development will be required over and above those provided by the original use of the land; C. The construction of residential accessory buildings, structures or uses which will not require additional acquisition, relocation or expansion of parkland and park facilities development over and above those provided by the principal building or use of the land; d. Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling (one (1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the moving and relocation of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the City to another lot within the City. This exemption shall not apply to tract development, to the development of more than one (1) unit per lot, nor to the replacement of a single-family dwelling with more than one (1) dwelling unit; 2. Affordable housing for lower income households. Property rented, leased, sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price which does not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section 50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code when provided to a "lower income household" as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety 7 12-3209.002/79301 HB -171- Item 5. - 9z Ordinance No. 3946 Code or "very low-income household" as defined in Section 50105 of the California Health and Safety Code. This exemption shall require the applicant to execute an agreement to guarantee that the units shall be maintained for 10wei aiid 'very low-incon-le alvuscLIVIUS whcu er as uaiitS jvr reni va in SaiC Or. transfer. The agreement shall be in the form of a deed restriction or other legally binding and enforceable document acceptable to the City Attorney and shall bind the owner and any successor -in -interest to the real property being developed. The agreement shall subordinate, if required, to any state or federal program providing affordable housing to lower and very low-income households. The agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant or any successor -in -interest shall be required to provide annually, or as requested, the names of all tenants or purchasers, current rents and income certification to insure compliance. Voluntary removal of the housing restriction or violation of the restriction shall require the applicant or any successor -in -interest to pay the then applicable Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee at the time of voluntary conversion or as imposed at the time of violation on the unit in violation, plus any attorneys' fees and costs of enforcement, if applicable; B. Credits. Any applicant whose development is located within a community facilities district (CFD) or , and is subject to the assessments thereof, shall receive an offset credit towards the fees established by this Chapter to the extent that the assessments fund improvements within the CFD which would otherwise be funded by the development impact fees established by this Chapter. 17.76.120 Anneals. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code. 17.76.130 Credit for Construction of Non -Site -Related Improvements. Applications for credit for construction of non -site -related improvements shall submit applicable engineering drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates or the like to the Director. The Director shall determine any credit for improvement based on either these cost estimates or alternative estimates if the Director determines reasonably that the estimates submitted by the applicant are either unreliable or inaccurate. In no event shall the amount of the credit exceed the improvement cost specified in the Nexus Report, or other applicable basis for the fee, nor shall the credit exceed the amount that would otherwise apply. No final inspection or certificate of occupancy for the Development Project may be issued until: (1) the construction is completed and accepted by the City; (2) a suitable maintenance and warranty bond is received and accepted by the City; and (3) all design, construction, inspection, testing, bonding and acceptance procedures are in strict compliance with City paving, drainage and other applicable requirements. 17.76.140 ElWible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. All monies and interest earnings. in any Reserve Account shall be expended on the projects of the nature or type identified in the Nexus Report, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time to 12-3209.002/79301 Item 5. - 95 HB -172- Ordinance No. 3946 document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the acquisition, relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development impacts of new development. 17.76.150 Annual report and amendment procedures. A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal -year, the Deputy City . Manager of the City of Huntington Beach shall evaluate progress in implementation of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee and shall prepare a report thereon to the City Council in accordance with Government Coe ection 66006, cni orporating among other things: Any parkland acquisition, park development and community facilities development commenced, purchased or completed utilizing monies from the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee fund; 2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned; 3. The amount of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees in the fund; and 4. Any recommended changes to the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee, including, but not necessarily limited to changes in this Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee chapter or fee resolution. B. Based upon the report and such other factors as the City Council deems relevant and applicable, the City Council may amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee resolution implementing this Chapter. Changes to the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules may be made by amending the fee resolution. Any change which increases the amount of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be adopted by the City Council only after a noticed public hearing. Nothing herein precludes the City Council or limits its discretion to amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee resolution establishing Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules at such other times as may be deemed necessary. 17.76.160 Effect of Parkland Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations.,. This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property, density/intensity of development, design and improvement standards and public improvement requirements or any other aspect of the development of land or construction of buildings, which may be imposed by the City pursuant to the City's zoning regulations, subdivision regulations or other ordinances or regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation with respect to all residential and nonresidential development. 9 12-3209.002/79301 HB -173- Item 5. - 96 Ordinance No. 3946 17.76.170 Violation—Penaliy. A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted; and upon conviction, the violator shall be punishable according to law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal prosecution, the City shall have the power to sue in civil court to enforce the provisions of uiis k.111 aj3tcr, 17.76.180 Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portions shall be deemed a separate, distinct, and independent provision; and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 2nd day of July , 20 12 Mayor ATTEST: iNIT T A ROVED: City Clerk Deputy City Manager Ji Fanager APPROVED: APPROVED AS TO FORM: r'f City Attorney �11 10 12-3209.002/n9301 Item 5. - 97 HB -174- Ord. No. 3946 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF ORANGE 1 ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH } I, JOAN L. FLYNN, the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing ordinance was read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2012, and was again read to said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on July 02, 2012, and was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council. AYES: Shaw, Carchio, Bohr, Boardman NOES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 1, Joan L. Flynn, CITY CLERK of the City of Huntington Beach and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council, do hereby certify that a synopsis of this ordinance has been published in the Huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on July 12, 2012. In accordance with the City Charter of said City Joan L. Fl City Clerk -Senior -Denuty City Clerk . J C' Clerk and ex-officio erk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California HB -175- Item 5. - 98 ATTACHMENT 2 .RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT FOR THE CITY OFHUNTINGTONBEACH, AND ESTABLISHING NEW AND REVISED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, several policies within the City's General Plan require that new development mitigate its share of. the impacts to the natural and built environments and be fiscally neutral so as to not result in a net economic loss for the City; and Such General Plan policies include the maintenance of existing quality of life, maintenance ofexisting service levels and funding of new facilities, the requirement of new development to mitigate a fair share of its impacts, and calling for the use of impact fees to fund needed improvements to serve new development, among other policies; and In accordance with these General Plan policies, the City Council has directed staff in the past to create development impact fees in accordance with State law. Said impact fees were codified in Chapter 17.65 and Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code as well as Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230.20. Pursuant to each ordinance set forth above, the amount of the development impact fee is to be set and/or updated by resolution of the City Council; and Subsequently, and periodically, staff has conducted comprehensive reviews of the City's development impact fees to determine whether those fees are adequate to defray the cost of public facilities related to new development; -those fees are set forth in Resolutions 6164, 2006- 23, 2000-97, 2004-88, 99-60 and 96-71; 2002429, 2004-88 and The City contracted with Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC to provide a updated comprehensive evaluation of the City's existing development impact fees; and Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC prepared a report, entitled Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, dated October, 2011 as amended April 27, 2012 (the "Nexus Report"), that provides an evaluation of existing development impact fees, recommends an increase and change in methodology in certain development impact fees, the creation of new impact fees and establishes the nexus between the imposition of such impact. fees and. the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fees are charged-, and The Nexus Report has been available for public review and comment; and The Nexus Report substantiates the need for a modification to existing fees to change - certain methodology as well as creation of new impact fees; and 12-3209.0009289 Item 5. - 99 HB -176_ Resolution No. 2012-23 The City has collected development impact fees. to mitigate the impacts of new development, including fees for transportation, park land acquisition and development, library and other public facilities since the adoption of the respective ordinances and resolutions; and The City Council desires to repeal certain resolutions, create and update other development impact fee resolutions in accordance with the calculations -and recommendations contained in the Nexus Report; and In compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code section 66000 et seq., the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the proposed increase in development impact fees at its regular meeting on June 18 , 2012, to solicit public input on the proposed increases to development impact fees, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Findings pursuant to Government Code section 66001. The City Council finds and determines that the Nexus Report complies with California Government Code section 66001, and as to each of the proposed fees to be imposed on new development: (a) Identifies the purpose of the fee; (b) Identifies the use to which the fee will be put; (c) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; (d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and (e) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities -attributable to the development m which the fee is imposed. 2. Fees for Uses Consistent with the Nexus Report. The City Council hereby determines that the fees imposed, pursuant to this resolution shall be used solely to finance the public facilities and/or equipment and park land acquisition described or identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report. 3. Approval of Items in the Nexus Report. The City Council has considered the specific public facilities, equipment and park land acquisition cost estimates identified in the Nexus Report and each ordinance thereto and hereby approves such public facilities, equipment and park land acquisition cost and cost estimates and further finds that the cost estimates serve as a reasonable basis for calculating and imposing. the development impact fees as set forth in the Nexus Report. 2 12-3209.006/79289 1413 -177- Item 5. - 100 Resolution No. 2012-23 4. Consistency with General Plan. The City Council finds that the public facilities equipment and park land acquisition and fee methodology identified in the respective ordinances atiu i\IcAuj P QPQL1 cuc wi1b1Zi1eiit wiu] uic �i%y s veueral ILau aiau, iu ya ue Cuar, uivs� pvw,1%,3 that require new development to mitigate its share of the impacts to City infrastructure and to be fiscally neutral. 5. Differentiation among Public Facilities: The City Council fords that the public facilities identified in the Nexus Report and funded through the collection of development impact fees recommended in the Nexus Report are separate and distinct from those public facilities funded through other fees presently imposed and collected by the City. To the extent that other fees imposed and collected by the City, including Specific Plan fees are used to fund the construction of the same public facilities identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report, then such other fees shall be a credit against the applicable development impact fees. Notwithstanding the above provision, this resolution shall not be deemed to affect the imposition or collection of the water and sewer connection fees authorized by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 6. CEQA Finding. The adoption of the Nexus Report and the increase in development impact fees are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act in that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b) (4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause a significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a "project" -.under CEQA. 7. Adoption of Report. The Nexus Report as amended April 27, 2012, including Appendices, is hereby adopted. 8. Fee Imposed. The new Development Impact Fees set by this resolution shall not apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement approval on or before June 5, 2012 and the following milestones are met: 1. Project applicant has submitted an approved application for building permits within 180 days after the fee going.into effect or no later than February 18, 2013. 2. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued . progress toward satisfying plan check comments. 3. Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect. An exception to the above milestones is the involvement of an outside third party regulatory agency. In such cases the 180 days to make building permit application will begin when the developer receives clearance from that agency. The City Manager shall have the authority, in his/her sole discretion, to extend milestone dates for qualifying "grandfathered" projects, All other projects are subject to the fees then in effect. All existing Development Impact Fees remain in effect until final action is taken on this resolution and respective ordinances. In the event any portion of this resolution is held invalid, the previously approved. development impact fee shall automatically apply. 9. Timing of Fee. The development impact fees imposed by this resolution shall be paid pursuant to the ordinances or resolution creating each separate fee. Until final action. is 12-3209,006n9289 Item 5. - 101 HB -178- Resolution No. 2012-23 taken by City Council adopting the ordinances or resolution referenced herein, resolutions 6164, 2006-23, 2000-97, 99-60, 2004-88 and 96-71 shall remain in effect. 10. Amount of Fee. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Development Impact Fees as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein as well as Nexus Report Schedules 3.2, 4.3, 5.2, 6.2, 7.1, 8.1, and 8.4. Exhibit A and the Nexus Report sets forth the methodology and aggregate amount imposed as a development impact fee for both residential and nonresidential land uses and also sets forth the breakdown of each development impact fee by type of facility: The amount of the development impact fees excluding traffic impact fees shall be automatically modified annually pursuant to the the percentage of increase or decrease in the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or any relevant successor for the Orange County area, from March to March of the preceding twelve (12) months. . Traffic impact fees shall be increased using the Engineering News Record's construction cost index as reported for the twelve month period ending in March of each year. The escalator indices provided herein shall not take effect until March of 2016, 11. Use of fee. The development impact fees shall be solely used for the purposes described in the respective ordinances creating the fees and the Nexus Report. Fees collected pursuant to existing ordinances and resolutions shall be maintained and used exclusively for those purposes and accounts for these fees shall remain in effect and shall be maintained by the City Manager or his/her designee. Fees collected under any of the categories listed in the Nexus Report may be used to finance the construction or implementation of any public facility listed in those categories to the extent that use of the fees may not exceed the percentage allocated to new development of all of the public facilities listed in the category, or sub -category. 12. Fee Determination by Type of Use. A. � Residential Development. Development impact fees for residential development shall be based upon the type of unit constructed. The development impact fee categories as shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the land use element of the City's General Plan. B. Nonresidential Land Uses. Development impact fees for nonresidential land uses shall be based upon the square footage of the building or other measurement detailed in the respective development impact fee ordinances. The development impact fee categories as shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the land use element of the City's General Plan. C. Uses Not Specified. In the event that there are land uses not -specified in Exhibit A, the development impact fee for such use shall be determined by the City Manager or 4 12-3209.006179289 Item 5. - 102 Resolution No. 2012-23 his/her designee who shall determine such fee based on an analysis of the impacts of the proposed use on public facilities, equipment and/or park land. 13. Prior Resolutions Superseded. As provided herein the development impact fees approved and adopted by this resolution shall supersede and repeal any previously adopted development impact fee resolutions concerning the same, including 6164, 96-71, 99-60, 2000-97, 2004-88 and 2006-23, 2002-129, 2004-88. 14. Severability. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution, the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto, shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by a court. of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto' or fees levied by this resolution that. can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application of fees. In the event any section of this resolution is held invalid the previously adopted affected fees shall be automatically reinstate as if never repealed or modified herein. 15. Effective Date. Consistent with California Government Code section 66017(a), the fees as identified in attached Exhibit "A" adopted by this resolution shall take effect sixty, (60) days following final action taken on the respective ordinances or amendments thereto by the City Council. 16. A eals. Appeals of any fees, including methodology, use, land valuation etc. created pursuant to this resolution shall be conducted as set forth in Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.73. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the �_ day of June 0 12 Mayor REVOZ D�APPROVED: 5 12-3209.006179299 AN rROVED-. .:!a14 .f APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney �. ..5-a3••(� Item 5. - 103 HB -180- Exhibit A HB -181- Item 5. - 104 Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 30% Circulation Park Land/ System Open Space Law Fire (Streets. & Facilities Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $119 $277 $1,800 $1,091 $6,802 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $245 $115 $1,238 $519 $4,632 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $111 $475 $940 $479 $3,351 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0,04/SF $0.23/SF Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.312 $0.099 $4,175 No Fee $0.447 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq, ft.) $0,133 $0.009 $1.279 No Fee $0,393 Development impact Fees (Effective 9/212013) 60% Circulation Park Land/ System Open Space Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $238 $553 $2,092 $1,126 $11,540 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $489 $229 $1,417 $686 $8,576 Mobile Horne Dwelling Units (per Unit) $221 $950 $1,094 $588 $6,701 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/51' $0.23/SF Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.625 $0.197 $4.175 No Fee $0.664 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq, ft.) $0.266 $0.018 $1.498 No Fee $0.555 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 90% Circulation Park Land/ System Open Space Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $356 $830 $2,385 $1,160 $16,278 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $734 $344 $1,597 $852 $12,520 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $332 $1,425 $1,248 $697 $10,052 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)` No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.937 $0.296 $4.175 No Fee $0.882 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.399 $0,027 $1.716 No Fee $0.718 Date Printed;5/24/2012, June 4 Resoiutton 30 60 90 Page 1 Item 5. - 105 HB -182- OVERVIEW Park Development Impact Fee Annual Financial Summary Statement Fiscal Year 2015-16 Amount Fund Balance 9/30/15 (inc. a// Park Dev Impact Fee Funds) 2,968,906 Revenue FY 2015-16 Amount Fees (Fund 209) - Misc 150 Fees (Fund 228) - Residential 421,917 Fees (Fund 235) - Non Residential 107,084 Fees (Fund 236) - Public Art in Parks 8,611 Combined Fund Interest 21,807 Revenue Total 559,568 Expenditures FY 2015-16 Amount Park Improvements (A) 161,782 Park Acquisition - Enc Lots/LeBard (Year 1) 338,054 Park License Agreements 8,995 Professional/Contracted Services (B) 13,710 Staffing 104,740 Expenditure Total 627,280 Fund Balance (9/30/16) (inc. all Park Dev Impact Funds) $2,901,194 A) Team RoornNVorthy Design/Clegg Stacey Park Playground Equipment B) Professional Services for Park Master Plan Percent Funded with Dev. Impact Fees 100% 100% 100% 100% 50 % F_f r_[41 M IkhIAill III c3 H B -183 - Item 5. - 106 ATTACHMENT #4 LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 I. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3942 which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.75 relating to Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July 2, 2012. I. REPORTING REQUIRMENTS State Law imposes both annual and five-year reporting requirements for collection of Development Impact Fees. The specific elements to be included in the report are: • A brief description of the type of fee in the fund account • The amount of the fee • The beginning and ending balance • The amount of fees collected and interest earned • Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of public improvements will commence • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account orfund • The amount of refunds made pursuant to any protests The annual report is to be made available to the public within 180 days following the close of the fiscal year. It is also to be reviewed by the City Council no less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public at its next regularly scheduled meeting. This year the report is being presented to the City Council on April 3, 2017. Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.75.090, the funds collected from the Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of providing police services attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction and shall include: Item 5. - 107 11 k - 1 �a.- The costs of providing the acquisition, construction, furnishing of new buildings, purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles, development of a master plan to identify capital facilities, the cost of financing, projects identified in the City's General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City's Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council approved development projects. Fee Amount: On June 18, 2012, in conjunction with approval of the new Ordinance 3942, Resolution 2012-23 was also adopted establishing new and revised development impact fees for all development within the city. The fees vary according to land use and were also implemented on a graduated scale ranging from 30% to 90% of the full fee amount. Per City Council action, effective September 2, 2014, the fees were as follows: Land Use Amount Detached Dwelling Units (per unit) Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) Resort Lodging Units (per unit) Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) Interfund Loans $356 $734 $332 No fee No fee $0.937 per square foot $0.399 per square foot No Law Enforcement Facilities fees were loaned during this reporting period. Refunds Due to Protests No refunds were made due to protests during this reporting period. 111. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Revenue The beginning fund balance as of October 1, 2015 was $345,807.77. During Fiscal Year 2015-2016, $137,073.03 in Law Enforcement Facilities Fees were collected and $3,475 of interest/bank adjustments were posted. The ending fund balance as of September 30, 2016 was $486,355.80. HB -185- Item 5. - 108 Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Expenditures There were no expenditures during the 2015-2016 Fiscal Year to the Law Enforcement Facilities fund. Item 5. - 109 HB -186- ATTACHMENT #5 FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2015-2016 I. BACKGROUND: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3942 which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.74 relating to Fire Suppression Facilities Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July 2, 2012. II. REPORTING REQUIRMENTS State Law imposes both annual and five-year reporting requirements for collection of Development Impact Fees. The specific elements to be included in the report are: • A brief description of the type of fee in the fund account • The amount of the fee • The beginning and ending balance • The amount of fees collected and interest earned • Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of public improvements will commence • A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund • The amount of refunds made pursuant to any protests The annual report is to be made available to the public within 180 days following the close of the fiscal year. It is also to be reviewed by the City Council no less than 15 days after the information is made available to the public at its next regularly scheduled meeting. This year the report is being presented to the City Council on April 3, 2017. Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.74.090, the funds collected from the Fire Suppression Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to fund the costs of providing additional Fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment attributable to new residential and nonresidential construction and shall include: The acquisition of additional property for fire department facilities, the construction of new facilities for fire department services, the furnishing of new buildings or facilities for fire department services, the purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles for fire department services, the funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new Fire Department development, the cost of financing projects identified in the City's General Plan, the Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City's Capital Improvement Plan, or City Council approved development projects. HB -1 s7- Item 5. - 110 Fee Amount: On June 18, 2012, in conjunction with approval of the new Ordinance 3943, Resolution 2012-23 was also adopted establishing new and revised development impact fees for all development within the city. The fees vary according to land use and were also implemented on a graduated scale ranging from 30% to 90% of the full fee amount. Per City Council action, effective September 2, 2013, the fees are as follows: Land Detached Dwelling Units (per unit) Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) Resort Lodging Units (per unit) Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) Interfund Loans Amount $830 $344 $1,425 No fee No fee $0.296 per square foot $0.027 per square foot No Fire Suppression Facilities Fees were loaned during this reporting period. Refunds Due to Protests No refunds were made due to protests during this reporting period. FINANCIAL SUMMARY Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Revenue The beginning fund balance as of October 1, 2015 was $220,631.94. During Fiscal year 2015-2016 $67,705.05 in Fire Suppression Facilities Fees were collected and $2,100.00 of interest/bank adjustments were posted. The ending fund balance as of September 30, 2016 was $290,436.99. Fiscal Year 2015-2016 Expenditures There were no expenditures during the 2015-16 Fiscal Year to the Fire Suppression Facilities fund. As funds are collected, future reports will reflect expenditures in accordance with HBMC 17.74.090 as described above. Item 5. - 111 HB -1 8g- ATTACHMENT #6., • J' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION REQUEST FOR ACTION Item No. PW 17-05 SUBMITTED TO: Chairperson and Members of the Commission SUBMITTED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works DATE: February 15, 2017 SUBJECT: Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report Fiscal Year 2015116 Statement of Issue: In accordance with Section 14.48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is required to prepare an annual report of the status of the Planned Local Drainage Facility Fund (Drainage Fund) for the City Council. The process provides an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review planned projects, revenues and expenditures under the program. Funding Source: No funding is required for this action. Impact on Future Maintenance Costs: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Planned Local Drainage Facility Fund Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2015/ 16. Alternative Action(s): Recommend revisions to the report. Analysis: The Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund (Drainage Fund) is a development fee that is restricted to use for drainage system enhancements. Section 14.48.050 (d) requires the City Council to review the status of compliance with this Chapter, including the revenues collected and the funds expended. The following information conforms to the requirements of the HBMC regarding revenues and expenditures of the Drainage Fund. Although the reporting requirement became effective with the adoption of the revised ordinance in September 2006, the Drainage Fund has existed since 1975. The following information covers Fiscal Year (FY) 2013/14. HB -189- Item 5. - 112 Fiscal Status The Drainage Fund advanced $250,000 to the Redevelopment Agency for improvements in 1987. With interest accrual of $603,877, the debt amount is currently $860,484. As a result, the Fund maintained a negative balance over a period of ten years until FY 12/13, when the fund ended with a positive balance. In FY 2015/16, revenue from developer fees exceeded expectations and the Drainage Fund ended the year with a positive balance of $1,418,625. On June, 29, 2011, the State of California enacted AB1 X26, which dissolves redevelopment agencies and designates Successor Agencies to "wind -down" activities of the former redevelopment agencies under supervision of newly created Oversight Boards. On January, 31, 2012, the City's Redevelopment Agency presented an initial draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) to the Successor Agency. In this case, the City has elected to become the Successor Agency. The debt noted above is included in the list of obligations; however, no payments are scheduled to the Drainage Fund within the presented time frame. Revenues Revenue for FY 2015/16 from development was $615,331 and interest to the fund was $10,424 for total revenue of $625,755. Budgeted revenue for FY 16/17 is $356,000, which is based on the 3-year average from FY 12/13 through FY 14/15. Expenditures No expenditures were made in FY 2015/16. For FY 16117 $300,000 has been budgeted to update the City's Drainage Master Plan. Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives The Drainage Fund is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the current Drainage Master Plan. Funds collected and deposited to the fund may be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for construction of drainage facilities. The Fund is in compliance with these requirements. Item 5. - 113 HB -190- Beginning Balance 10/15 $792,870 Revenue Developer fees Interest earned 615,331 10,424 Total Revenue $ 625,755 Total Expenditures 0 Beginning Balance 10/16 $1,418,625 Projected revenues Budgeted expenditures 356,000 300,000 Estimated Balance 10/17 $1,474,625 Rate Schedule The Drainage Fee for FY 15/16 was $13,880 per acre. Per the Municipal Code this was adjusted by the Consumer Price Index to $14,1 16 (1.7%) for FY 16/17. Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachments: None HB -191- Item 5. - 114 ATTACHMENT #7 • J' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION REQUEST FOR ACTION Item No. PW 17-06 SUBMITTED TO: Chairperson and Members of the Commission SUBMITTED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works DATE: February 15, 2017 SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report Fiscal Year 2015116 Statement of Issue: In accordance with Section 14.36 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is required to prepare an annual report of the status of the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund (Sanitary Sewer Fund) for the City Council. The process provides an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review planned projects, revenues and expenditures under the program. Funding Source: No funding is required for this action. Impact on Future Maintenance Costs: Not applicable. Recommended Action: Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval of the Annual Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2015/16. Alternative Action(s): Recommend revisions to the report. Analysis: The Sanitary Sewer Fund is a development fee that is restricted to use for sewer capacity enhancements. The fee is unrelated to the monthly Sewer Service Charge used for operations and maintenance of the existing sewer system. Section 14.36.070 (d) requires the City Council to review the status of compliance with this Chapter, including the revenues collected and the funds expended. The following information conforms to the requirements of the HBMC regarding revenues and expenditures of the Sanitary Sewer Fund. Although this requirement became effective with the adoption of the revised ordinance in Item 5. - 115 HB -192- July 2003, the Sewer Facilities Fund has existed since 1988. The following information covers Fiscal Year (FY) 2015/16. Fiscal Status Revenues and expenditures are summarized below for the past fiscal year. The fund balance as of September 30, 2016 was $8,166,017. Not included in this figure are monies owed the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund by the Huntington Beach Redevelopment Agency. The original advance was $131,000. With interest accrual, the debt amount for the fiscal year end was $454,410. On June, 29, 2011, the State of California enacted AB X26, which dissolves redevelopment agencies and designates Successor Agencies to "wind -down" activities of the former redevelopment agencies under supervision of newly created Oversight Boards. On January, 31, 2012, the City's Redevelopment Agency presented an initial draft Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) to the Successor Agency. In this case, the City has elected to become the Successor Agency. The debt noted above is included in the list of obligations; however, no payments are scheduled to the Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund within the presented time frame. Revenues Total revenue for FY 2015/16 was $2,101,392. Residential and commercial developer fees contributed $34,186 and $2,007,368 respectively. The fund was credited $59,838 in interest. Budgeted revenue for FY 16/17 is $1,690,000, which is based on the three-year average between FY 12/13 through FY 14/15. Expenditures Fiscal Year 2015/16 Expenditures for the fund in FY 15/16 consisted of $92,110 in consultant charges related to lift station design. Fiscal Year 2016/ 17 Budgeted expenditures for the current fiscal year include $2,500,000 for the construction of the Edgewater Lift Station and $178,460 in encumbrance carry - forwards related to design of the station. Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives The Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the current Sewer Master Plan. Funds collected and deposited to the fund may be expended solely for the construction or reimbursement for HB -193- Item 5. - 116 construction of sanitary sewer facilities. The Fund is in compliance with these requirements. Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Beginning Balance 10/15 $6,156,735 Revenue Developer fees (residential) Developer fees (commercial) Interest earned 34,186 2,007,368 59,838 Total Revenue $ 2,101,392 Expenditures Design Services 92,110 Total Expenditures $ 92,110 Beginning Balance 10/16 $8,166,017 Budgeted revenues Budgeted expenditures 1,690,000 2,678,460 Estimated Balance 10/17 $7,177,557 Rate Structure Fiscal Year 2015/16 CITY SEWER CONNECTION FEES Effective October 1, 2013 Single Family Dwelling Unit $ 2,256 Multiple Family Dwelling Unit $ 1,845 Non -Residential (based on water meter size relationship to Equivalent Dwelling Unit, EDU ) Meter Size & Type EDU's Charge 3/4" 1 $ 2,564 1" 2 $ 5.129 1 '/2" 3 $ 7.693 2" 5 $ 12,824 3" 11 $ 28,212 4" Compound 17 $ 43,599 4" Domestic & Turbine 33 $ 84,634 6" Compound 33 $ 84,634 6" Domestic & Turbine 67 $ 171,830 8" Domestic 117 $ 300,061 10" Domestic 183 $ 466,642 Item 5. - 117 H B -194- Environmental Status: Not applicable. Attachments: None HB -195- Item 5. - 118 ATTACHMENT #8 1 7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION REQUEST FOR ACTION Item No. PW 17-07 SUBMITTED TO: Chairman and Members of the Commission SUBMITTED BY: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works DATE: February 15, 2017 SUBJECT: Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee Program Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2015/ 16 Statement of Issue: In accordance with Section 17.65.130 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is required to prepare an annual report of the status of the Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee Program for the City Council. The process also provides an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review revenues and expenditures under the program. Fundinq Source: No funding is required for the recommended action. All Traffic Impact Fee funds are maintained in a separate account from other City operation funds. Recommended Action: Motion to recommend approval of the 2015/16 Traffic Impact Fee Annual Report to the City Council. Alternative Action(s): Recommend revisions to the report elements or request additional information. Analysis: The Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee (TIF) program is intended to implement the goals and objectives of the General Plan by providing revenue to ensure that the adopted Level of Service standards for arterial roadways and signalized intersections are maintained when new development is constructed within the City limits and that these developments pay their fair share towards short and long term transportation improvements. During the 2011/12 fiscal year, the City Council approved an update of the Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee including minor revisions to the Municipal Code and the fee structure. The following sections comprise the annual report. Item 5. - 119 HB -196- Fiscal Status This report presents the fund information based on the City's preliminary audit for Fiscal Year 2015/16. The balance for the fund at the beginning of the fiscal year was $4,040,805. During FY 2015/16, Traffic Impact Fee fund recognized $1 14,551 in revenues including, $84,900 in Impact Fees Paid and $29,651 in interest and miscellaneous minor fees. Expenditures from the fund included $71,712 for Ellis/Main Traffic Channelization Modifications, $315,936 for Atlanta Avenue Widening and $176,273 for Edinger Widening for a total of $563,921. The fund balance at the end of the fiscal year was $3,591,435. Planned Capital Projects, Studies and Expenditures The City Council approved Capital Improvement Program (CIP) carry over funding for Fiscal Year 2016/17 in the amount of $423,484 for the Edinger Avenue Widening and $98,450 for the Atlanta Avenue Widening. Encumbrance carry over funds from FY 15/16 totaled $132,185. The revised budgeted expenditures against the fund total $654,1 19. Projected estimate of Fund Balance For budget purposes, the City has estimated that approximately $1,370,000 in new traffic impact fee payments would be realized during FY 16117 resulting in a projected balance (unprogrammed funds) of $4,307,316. The $1,370,000 estimate is only a rough approximation based on the three-year average revenue from FY 12/13 through 14/15. Actual payments to the fund could be significantly more or less than projected. However, current programming does not rely on a specific amount being collected in FY 16117. A summary of the fund activity is presented in tabular form below. Future Project and Fund Balance Uses of Traffic Impact Fee funds are restricted to roadway capacity projects or other projects that affect the performance of the street system to offset the impacts of traffic generated by new development. Often, these types of projects are quite expensive and can involve right-of-way acquisition and property impacts. Staff has been developing projects to address some key roadway capacity areas in the City that are also larger scale projects. With expenditures that can be millions of dollars, staff has been recommended that the Traffic Impact Fee fund accumulate a significant balance in order to make pursuit of those projects financially possible in the future. However, it is important to develop a program for fund expenditure to ensure the timely use of funds that are collected under this program. Staff often uses Traffic Impact Fee funds as a "matching fund" when pursuing capacity enhancing grant projects. Two such examples are improvements at the intersections of Beach/Warner and Brookhurst/Adams. Both projects are key HB - 1 97- Item 5. - 120 locations where future use of Traffic Impact Fee funds are expected. Between the 2 projects, more than $8 million in expenditures are anticipated. The City hopes to leverage Traffic Impact Fees to obtain grant funds for a portion of these costs. Other potential uses for funds include improvements to traffic operations and signal coordination throughout the traffic signal system and potential long-term improvements at the intersections of Beach Boulevard/Heil and Beach Boulevard/Talbert. The City is currently in the process of updating the Circulation Element of the General Plan, which will provide the most current snapshot of local street operations and long-term traffic projections. This information will aid in the future planning of projects for prioritizing the use of Traffic Impact Fee funds. Summary of Revenue and Expenditures Traffic Imr)act Fund Beginning Balance 10/15 $4,040,805 Revenue Traffic Impact Fees 84,900 Interest earned and misc.fees 29,651 Total Revenue $ 114,551 Expenditures Ellis/Main Modifications (71,712) Atlanta Avenue Widening (315,936) Edinger Avenue Widening 176,273 Total Expenditures $ (563,921 Beginning Balance 10116 $3,591,435 Budgeted revenues 1,370,000 Budgeted expenditures 654,119 Estimated Balance 10117 $4,307,316 Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives The Traffic Impact Fee Program is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as stated in the Municipal Code Chapter 17.65. Completion of the planned projects implements improvements identified in the Circulation Element of the General Plan and is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee program. Item 5. - 121 HB -198- ATTACHMENT #9 RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONAND NEXUS REPORT FOR THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH, AND ESTABLISHING NEW AND REVISED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY WHEREAS, several policies within the City's General Plan require that new development mitigate its share of the impacts to the natural and built environments and be fiscally neutral so as to not result in a net economic loss for the City; and Such General Plan policies include the maintenance of existing quality of life, maintenance of existing service levels and funding of new facilities, the requirement of new development to mitigate a fair share of its impacts, and calling for the use of impact fees to fund needed improvements to serve new development, among other policies; and In accordance with these General Plan policies, the City Council has directed staff in the past to create development impact fees in accordance with State law. Said impact fees were codified in Chapter 17.65 and Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code as well as Huntington Beach Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Chapter 230.20. Pursuant to each ordinance set forth above, the amount of the development impact fee is to be set and/or updated by resolution of the City Council; and Subsequently, and periodically, staff has conducted comprehensive reviews of the City's development impact fees to determine whether those fees are adequate to defray the cost of public facilities related to new development; those fees are set forth in Resolutions 6164, 2006- 23, 2000-97, 2004-88, 99-60 and 96-71; 2002-129, 2004-88 and The City contracted with Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC to provide a updated comprehensive evaluation of the City's existing development impact fees; and Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC prepared a report, entitled Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, dated October, 2011 as amended April 27, 2012 (the "Nexus Report"), that provides an evaluation of existing development impact fees, recommends an increase and change in methodology in certain development impact fees, the creation of new impact fees and establishes the nexus between the imposition of such impact fees and the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fees are charged; and The Nexus Report has been available for public review and comment; and The Nexus Report substantiates the need for a modification to existing fees to change certain methodology as well as creation of new impact fees; and 1 12-3209-006/79289 HB -199- Item 5. - 122 Resolution No. 2012-23 The City has collected development impact fees to mitigate the impacts of new development, including fees for transportation, park land acquisition and development, library and other public facilities since the adoption of the respective ordinances and resolutions; and The City Council desires to repeal certain resolutions, create and update other development impact fee resolutions in accordance with the calculations and recommendations contained in the Nexus Report; and In compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code section 66000 et seq., the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the proposed increase in development impact fees at its regular meeting on June 18 , 2012, to solicit public input on the proposed increases to development impact fees, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. Findings pursuant to Government Code section 66001. The City Council finds and determines that the Nexus Report complies with California Government Code section 66001, and as to each of the proposed fees to be imposed on new development: (a) Identifies the purpose of the fee; (b) Identifies the use to which the fee will be put; (c) Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; (d) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the type of development projects on which the fee is imposed; and (e) Demonstrates a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facilities or portion of the public facilities attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 2. Fees for Uses Consistent with the Nexus Report. The City Council hereby determines that the fees imposed, pursuant to this resolution shall be used solely to finance the public facilities and/or equipment and park land acquisition described or identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report. 3. Approval of Items in the Nexus Report. The City Council has considered the specific public facilities, equipment and park land acquisition cost estimates identified in the Nexus Report and each ordinance thereto and hereby approves such public facilities, equipment and park land acquisition cost and cost estimates and further finds that the cost estimates serve as a reasonable basis for calculating and imposing the development impact fees as set forth in the Nexus Report. nO6/79289 Item 5. - 123 2 HB -200- Resolution No. 2012-23 4. Consistency with General Plan. The City Council finds that the public facilities equipment and park land acquisition and fee methodology identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report are consistent with the City's General Plan and, in particular, those policies that require new development to mitigate its share of the impacts to City infrastructure and to be fiscally neutral. 5. Differentiation among Public_ Facilities. The City Council finds that the public facilities identified in the Nexus Report and funded through the collection of development impact fees recommended in the Nexus Report are separate and distinct from those public facilities funded through other fees presently imposed and collected by the City. To the extent that other fees imposed and collected by the City, including Specific Plan fees are used to fund the construction of the same public facilities identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report, then such other fees shall be a credit against the applicable development impact fees. Notwithstanding the above provision, this resolution shall not be deemed to affect the imposition or collection of the water and sewer connection fees authorized by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. 6. CEQA Finding. The adoption of the Nexus Report and the increase in development impact fees are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act in that pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, section 15378(b) (4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which do not involve any commitment to any specific project which may cause a significant effect on the environment, is not defined as a "project" under CEQA. 7. Adoption of Report. The Nexus Report as amended April 27, 2012, including Appendices, is hereby adopted. 8. Fee Imposed. The new Development Impact Fees set by this resolution shall not apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement approval on or before June 5, 2012 and the following milestones are met: 1. Project applicant has submitted an approved application for building permits within 180 days after the fee going into effect or no later than February 18, 2013. 2. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued progress toward satisfying plan check comments. 3. Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect. An exception to the above milestones is the involvement of an outside third parry regulatory agency. In such cases the 180 days to make building permit application will begin when the developer receives clearance from that agency. The City Manager shall have the authority, in his/her sole discretion, to extend milestone dates for qualifying "grandfathered" projects. All other projects are subject to the fees then in effect. All existing Development Impact Fees remain in effect until final action is taken on this resolution and respective ordinances. In the event any portion of this resolution is held invalid, the previously approved development impact fee shall automatically apply. 9. Timingof f Fee. The development impact fees imposed by this resolution shall be paid pursuant to the ordinances or resolution creating each separate fee. Until final action is 3 12-3209.006/79289 HB -201- Item 5. - 124 Resolution No. 2012-23 taken by City Council adopting the ordinances or resolution referenced herein, resolutions 6164, 2006-23, 2000-97, 99-60, 2004-88 and 96-71 shall remain in effect. 10. Amount of Fee. The City Council hereby approves and adopts the Development Impact Fees as set forth in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein as well as Nexus Report Schedules 3.2, 4.3, 5.2, 6.2, 7.1, 8.1, and 8.4. Exhibit A and the Nexus Report sets forth the methodology and aggregate amount imposed as a development impact fee for both residential and nonresidential land uses and also sets forth the breakdown of each development impact fee by type of facility. The amount of the development impact fees excluding traffic impact fees shall be automatically modified annually pursuant to the the percentage of increase or decrease in the Los Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside All Urban Consumer Price Index (CPI) or any relevant successor for the Orange County area, from March to March of the preceding twelve (12) months. Traffic impact fees shall be increased using the Engineering News Record's construction cost index as reported for the twelve month period ending in March of each year. The escalator indices provided herein shall not take effect until March of 2016. 11. Use of fee. The development impact fees shall be solely used for the purposes described in the respective ordinances creating the fees and the Nexus Report. Fees collected pursuant to existing ordinances and resolutions shall be maintained and used exclusively for those purposes and accounts for these fees shall remain in effect and shall be maintained by the City Manager or his/her designee. Fees collected under any of the categories listed in the Nexus Report may be used to finance the construction or implementation of any public facility listed in those categories to the extent that use of the fees may not exceed the percentage allocated to new development of all of the public facilities listed in the category, or sub -category. 12. Fee Determination by Type of Use. A. Residential Development. Development impact fees for residential development shall be based upon the type of unit constructed. The development impact fee categories as shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the land use element of the City's General Plan. B. Nonresidential Land Uses. Development impact fees for nonresidential land uses shall be based upon the square footage of the building or other measurement detailed in the respective development impact fee ordinances. The development impact fee categories as shown in Exhibit A generally correspond to the City's land use designations in the land use element of the City's General Plan. C. Uses Not Specified. In the event that there are land uses not specified in Exhibit A, the development impact fee for such use shall be determined by the City Manager or 12-3209.006/79289 Item 5. - 125 rd HB -2022- Resolution No. 2012-23 his/her designee who shall determine such fee based on an analysis of the impacts of the proposed use on public facilities, equipment and/or park land. 13. Prior Resolutions Superseded. As provided herein the development impact fees approved and adopted by this resolution shall supersede and repeal any previously adopted development impact fee resolutions concerning the same, including 6164, 96-71, 99-60, 2000-97, 2004-88 and 2006-23, 2002-129, 2004-88. 14. Severability. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this resolution, the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto, shall be held invalid or unconstitutional by a court of competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this resolution the Nexus Report, or other attachments thereto or fees levied by this resolution that can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application of fees. In the event any section of this resolution is held invalid the previously adopted affected fees shall be automatically reinstate as if never repealed or modified herein. 15. Effective Date. Consistent with California Government Code section 66017(a), the fees as identified in attached Exhibit "A" adopted by this resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days following final action taken on the respective ordinances or amendments thereto by the City Council. 16. Appeals. Appeals of any fees, including methodology, use, land valuation etc. created pursuant to this resolution shall be conducted as set forth in Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.73. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 18 day of June 0 12 Mayor REV ND APPROVED: INa;AVNDA ROVED: Z Cit a er Deputy Ciger APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 5 12-3209.006/79289 HB -2031- Item 5. - 126 Exhibit A Item 5. - 127 HB -204- Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 30% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities Public Library (No Tract Facilities Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $119 $277 $1,800 $1,091 $6,802 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $245 $115 $1,238 $519 $4,632 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $111 $475 $940 $479 $3,351 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.312 $0.099 $4.175 No Fee $0.447 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq, ft.) $0.133 $0.009 $1.279 No Fee $0.393 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) 60% Circulation Law Fire Enforcement Suppression Facilities Facilities System (Streets, Signals, Public Library Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $238 $553 $2,092 $1,126 $11,540 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $489 $229 $1,417 $686 $8,576 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $221 $950 $1,094 $588 $6,701 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.625 $0.197 $4.175 No Fee $0.664 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.266 $0.018 $1.498 No Fee $0.555 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 90% Circulation Park Land/ System Open Space Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map) Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $356 $830 $2,385 $1,160 $16,278 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $734 $344 $1,597 $852 $12,520 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $332 $1,425 $1,248 $697 $10,052 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.937 $0.296 $4.175 No Fee $0.882 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.399 $0.027 $1.716 No Fee $0.718 Date Printed:5/24/2012, June 4 Resolution 30_60_90 xs -205- Item 5. - 128 Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) Recommended Cost per 30% Increase 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit Scenario Cost per Adjusted Average Trip -end Additional Cost per or other unit (90% of 1000 sq. ft, dwelling Land Use Trip Ends Distance to Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile original) unit or other unit RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit) Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 50.22 $ 1.737.61 /Unit $ 1,722.55 /Unit Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 50.22 $ 1,220.35 /Unit $ 1,209.50 /Unit Condominium/Townhouse 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 50.22 $ 1,064.66 /Unit $ 1,054.55 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 50.22 $ 908.98 /Unit $ 899.59. /Unit RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door) Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.51 23.9 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,537.73 /Room $ 1,218.63 /Room All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0,5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room $ 729.93 /Room Motel 4.34 7.6 0.51 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room $ 841.02 /Room INDUSTRIAL (':per 1 000 SF) General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788,65 /1,000 sf $ 1,279.46 /1,000 Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf $ 1,238.01 /1,000 Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf $ 566.11 /1,000 Warehousing 4.391 9.01 0.51 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf $ 910,74 /1,000 COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 SF) Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097.48 11,000 sf $ 1,522.61 /1,000 sf Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf $ 1,027.85 s ,000 Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf $ 1,917.85 sf ,000 Bldg. Materials/Lumber 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf $ 4,059.85 /1,000 Store sf Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf $ 3,242.74 f ,000 Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 /1,000 sf $ 341.00 f ,000 Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 /1,000 sf $ 817.12 11,000 sf Medical -Dental Office 22,21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf $ 4,559.89 sf ,000 /1,000 General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf $ 1,470.08 sf Shopping Center pP 9 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf $ 4,175.67 sf ,000 Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf High -Turnover Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf $ 1,228.89 sf ,000 Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64:34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028.66 s/f ,000 Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf $ 1,930.20 sf ,000 OTHER (as noted) Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre $ 424.64 /Acre Service Station/Market 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64,34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel $ 14,894.71 /Fuel av Position Position Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Wash Position Position Page 2 Item 5. - 129 Exhlbit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) Land Use Adjusted Trip Ends Average Distance Trip -end to Trip Additional Trip Miles Cost per Trip Mile Recommended Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit or other unit (90% of original) 60% Increase Scenario Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit or other unit RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit) Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 57.39 $ 1,985.69 /Unit $ 1,938.39 /Unit Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 57.39 $ 1,394.58 /Unit $ 1,361.20 /Unit Condominium/Townho use 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 57.39 $ 1,216.67 /Unit $ 1,187.17 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 57.39 $ 1,038.76 /Unit 13.15 T; /Unit RESORTITOURIST`(per Unit or Entry Door) Hotel 6.291 7.61 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room $ 1,355.39 /Room All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room $ 811.41 /Room Motel 4.34 7.61 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061,61 lRoom $ 935.56 /Room INDUSTRIAL ( per 1,000 SF) General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 11,000 sf $ 1,497.69 /1,000 sf Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf $ 1,449.18 11,000 sf Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf $ 662.65 /1,000 sf Warehousing 4.391 9.01 0.51 19.8 $ 64,34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf $ 1,066.39 /1,000 sf COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 SF) Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097,48 /1,000 sf $ 1,768.99 /1,000 sf Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 11,000 sf $ 1,193.98 /1,000 sf Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf $ 2,229.22 11,000 sf Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf $ 31242.74 /1,000 sf Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 /1,000 sf $ 341,00 11,000 sf Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 /1,000 sf $ 817.12 11,000 sf Medical -Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf $ 5,299.66 /1,000 sf General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf $ 1,708.63 /1,000 sf Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 11,000 sf $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 11,000 sf $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf High -Turnover Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 MOOD sf $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf Convenience Market 43.571 4.31 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf Office Park 13.971 4.31 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf OTHER (as noted)' Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre $ 424.64 /Acre Service Station/Market av 107,69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel Position $ 14,894,71 /Fuel Position Service Station w/Car Wash gg 35 4.3 0.5 213.E $ 64,34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position HB -207- Page 3 Item 5. - 130 Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Scheduie of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) Land Use RESIDENTIALLAND U Detached Dwelling Unit Apartment Condominium/Townhou se Mobile Home Dwelling RESORTITOURIST (pe Adjusted Trip Ends Average Distance Trip -end to Trip Additional Trip Miles Cost per Trip Mile Recommended Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit or other unit (90% of original) ;ES (per Unit) 8,76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,226.16 /Unit 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 64.34 $ 1,563.46 /Unit 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 64.34 $ 1,364.01 /Unit 4.571 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 64.34 $ Unit or En 6.29 All Suites Hotel 3.77 Motel 4.34 INDUSTRIAL( per 1,000 SF) General Light Industrial Heavy Industrial Manufacturing Warehousing COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 SF Office Park Research Park Business Park Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store Garden Center Movie Theater Church Medical -Dental Office General Office Building Shopping Center Hospital Discount Center High -Turnover Restaurant Convenience Market Office Park OTHER (as noted) Cemetery 1 3.07 107.69 n/Market Service Station w/Car Wash 6.17 5.97 2.73 4.39 7.42 8.8 5.01 8.8 9.34 8.8 29.351 4.3 23.45 2.47 5.92 22.21 7.16 30.2 11.42 62.93 8.9 43.57 13.97 4.3 4.3 4.3 8.8 8.8 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 4.3 99.35J 4,3 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 0.51 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 22.0 $ 64,34 $ 0.5 41.1 $ 64,34 $ 1,164.55 /Unit 1,537.73 /Room 920.06 /Room 1,061.61 /Room 1,788.65 11,000 sf 1,730.75 /1,000 sf 791.38 11,000 sf 1,273.93 /1,000 sf 2,097.48 /1,000 sf 1,415.48 /1, 000 sf 2,644.37 /1,000 sf 0.51 63.11 $ 64.34 1 $ 4,059.85 1 /1,000 sf 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 19.1 $ 64,34 $ 0.5 93.7 $ 64,34 $ 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf 341.00 /1,000 sf 817.12 /1,000 sf 6,286.02 /1,000 sf 2,026.71 /1,000 sf 4,175,67 /1,000 sf 1,582.76 /1,000 sf 8,705.20 /1,000 sf 1,228.89 /1,000 sf 6,028.66 /1,000 sf 1,930.20 /1,000 sf 424.64 /Acre 14,894.71 /Fuel Position 13,743.02 /Fuel Position Page 4 Item 5. - 131 HB -208- Res. No. 2012-23 STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, JOAN L. FLYNN the duly elected, qualified City Clerk of the City of Huntington Beach, and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of said City, do hereby certify that the whole number of members of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach is seven; that the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the affirmative vote of at least a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on June 18, 2012 by the following vote: AYES: Shaw, Carchic, Bohr, Boardman NOES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None CiK Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California HB -209- Item 5. - 132 Council/Agency Meeting Held: Deferred/Continued to: ❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied City Clerk's Signature Council Meeting Date: May 7, 2012 Department ID Number: PL 2012-007 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager SUBJECT: Revise the City's Existing Development Impact Fees by adopting Resolution No. 2012-23 and Ordinance Nos. 3942 through 3947 Statement of Issue: Transmitted for City Council consideration are revisions to the City's existing Development Impact Fees. With the assistance of Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. staff has evaluated the City's public services needs for the next twenty years and analyzed what the future development opportunities were based on General Plan land use. From that Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. compared the future City's needs with the potential build out and derived these revised/new Development Impact Fees included in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report. Financial Impact: Adoption of the recommended impact fees (new and updates) will generate approximately $154.8 million through General Plan Build -out. This represents an approximately $20 million increase over the currently adopted impact fees. Recommended Action: Motion to: A) Adopt Resolution No. 2012 - 23, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Adopting the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, and Establishing New and Revised Development Impact Fees For All Development Within the City;" and, B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3942, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.75 Relating to Development Impact Fees for Police Facilities;" and, C) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3943, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.74 Relating to Development Impact Fees for Fire Facilities;" and, D) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3944, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 17.65 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Traffic Impact Fees;" and, Item 5. - 133 H B -210- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 E) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3945, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Deleting Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and Adding Chapter 17.67 Relating to Library Development Impact Fees;" and, F) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3946, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.76 Relating to Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees;" and, G) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3947, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.73 Relating to the General Provisions for Development Impact Fees." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motions: 1. Do not adopt Resolution #2012-23 and Ordinances #3942-3947, updating the proposed development impact fees leaving fees at current levels. 2. Make changes to the recommended fees and adopt as amended. 3. Continue the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: BACKGROUND Development Impact fees are one-time charges applied to offset the additional public-service costs of new development. Fees are proposed to be assessed at the time a building permit is issued and rededicated to providing additional services, such as water and sewer systems, roads, libraries, and parks and recreation facilities, made necessary by the increase in number of new residents in the area. The funds cannot be used for operation, maintenance, repair or replacement of existing capital facilities. The amount of the proposed fee is clearly linked to the added service cost. The development community has requested that the City of Huntington Beach make it easier for potential developers to calculate all impact fees from the early design stage of their project and to defer payment of the development impact fees to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy or Final Building Permit Approval. The actions in this report address only Development Impact Fees. Fees charged under the Subdivision Map Act will be addressed separately at a later date. These fees are Quimby and Drainage fees. STAFF ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDATION: The City of Huntington Beach is getting close to full build -out and development of the remaining vacant parcels as well as renovation/construction of existing homes and businesses. New development results in increased demand that must be absorbed by the existing HB -21 1- Item 5. - 134 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 infrastructure. Currently the city collects development impact fees for traffic, library development, and park land/open space. Working with staff, Revenue & Cost Specialist, L.L.C. generated a Master Facilities Plan for theoretical General Plan build -out of the City. The Master Facilities Plan indentifies all growth -related capital projects required to accommodate new City development through General Plan build -out. Using information in the Master Facilities Plan, a Development Impact Fee Calculation Report was generated. The purpose of the report is to assure that the impacts created by new development pays a fair share of the proportional costs required for expansion of all development within the City of Huntington Beach. On April 27, 2012 the Nexus report dated October 2011 was amended. Due to additional costs associated with the accounting, collection and state mandated tracking Park Land/Open Space Fee and the Public Meeting Facilities fee were collapsed into one fee, now called the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee. This was undertaken to provide the City greater flexibility to address the City's capital project needs and priorities over time. The Development Impact Report contemplates two new fees, police and fire, and updates the existing traffic, library, and park land/open space impact fees (Attachment No. 1) based on the City's changing requirement for public safety, streets and signals and other quality -of -life facilities. Attachment No. 9 is a comparison of current impact fees and proposed impact fees. The paragraphs to follow provide additional, detailed analysis of the changes sought to each type of fee. Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Fee (New) The purpose of the new Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Fee is to collect proportional contributions from new development to pay for additional required law enforcement facilities, vehicles and equipment. New development can be expected to generate additional law enforcement calls for service. Different types of development will create proportional levels of calls for service that generate law enforcement response. Additional sworn officers are necessary to respond to the increased demands for service and these fees will offset the added costs of housing and equipping the additional required officers. The proposed resolution establishes the actual amount of the new Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee. The resolution also specifies that the proposed fees be used solely for expanding or increasing capacity within the law enforcement facilities and to increase the number of enforcement vehicles and specialty equipment. Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment Fee (New) The purpose of this new fee is to provide proportional financial contributions as a result of new development to pay for additional fire suppression/emergency medical response facilities, vehicles and specialized equipment. In order to be able to continue to respond to an ever- increasing number of expected emergency calls, fire department staff has determined the need for the relocation of one fire station (as opposed to adding a ninth) and expanding one existing fire station. Having the right type and inventory of fire stations in the right locations enables the City's policy makers to house firefighters, apparatus and equipment to provide for maximum use of resources. The proposed resolution establishes the actual amount of the Fair Share Fire Department Impact Fee. The resolution specifies that the proposed fees would be used solely to acquire Item 5. - 135 HB -212- REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 additional fire facilities, vehicles and specialized equipment required to respond to additional calls for service (related to the new development) necessary to maintain the capability of responding to calls to the existing community. Fees will be used to finance the construction or acquisition of fire suppression/emergency medical facilities, vehicles and specialized equipment identified in the Master Facilities Plan that are necessary to accommodate anticipated and planned development in the community. Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Fee (Updated) The Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee collects proportional contributions from new development to pay for additional circulation system capacity by creating more travel lanes or more efficient street use to accommodate the additional trip -miles created by new development. Improvements take the form of construction of new travel lanes including the widening of streets, installation and modification of traffic signals to accommodate changes in traffic patterns and improving the infrastructure of our traffic signal system to enable development of better signal coordination. Improvements for pedestrians, bicycles and transit may also be included in these improvements. The current Traffic Impact Fee is $172 per net new trip generated by a proposed development. The recommended update to the Traffic Impact Fee slightly modifies the methodology for proportioning the cost to users, resulting in slightly increased fees for some uses and slightly lower fees for others. In general, the recommended methodology shifts fees from commercial uses to residential uses. The new methodology better reflects the actual impacts to the street system by not only accounting for the number of trips generated by the land use, but also the average length of the trip. This approach is based on the concept that a longer trip has greater potential to impact multiple locations within the circulation system. The proposed methodology is predicated on distributing the estimated $23,867,660 in circulation system improvement costs needed to serve additional traffic generated by new development. This process results in a "per unit" fee which can be assessed on new development. The "per unit" fee is developed based on typical trip generation rates for specific uses and also factors in the average length of a trip associated with that type of use. The "per unit" fee reflects the prorated fair share costs of improvements based on the number of trip - miles generated by the particular land use category. Rates recommended for adoption are based on a daily trip -mile of $64.34. This represents 10% less than the amount recommended in the Development Impact Fee Calculation Report due to the elimination of approximately $2.7 million in maintenance facility and equipment costs previously included in the calculation. The current Traffic Impact Fee was established using a fair share methodology based only on the number of trips generated by a particular land use. The following example is presented to generally describe the difference in methodology: If a typical single family home generates 8.8 trips per day the Traffic Impact Fee under the current program ($172 per trip) is $1,513. If a medium sized shopping center generates 30 trips/1000 square feet of floor area the Traffic Impact Fee under the current program is $5,160/1000 sf. Under the current program, with a trip length factor included (3.95 miles/trip for residential and 2.15 miles per trip for shopping center) the rates change to $2,482/dwelling unit and $4,655/1000 sf of floor area for the shopping center. While 1,000 square feet of floor area in a HB _13_ Item 5. - 136 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 shopping center generates more than 3 times the number of trips of one single family home, the shopping center only generates approximately 85% more trip miles. The resolution specifies that the proposed fees would be used solely for circulation system capacity improvements. This information is generally identified in Use of the Fee section the report. The ordinance modifications are necessary to revise Chapter 17.65 so that the collection of fees imposed on development projects is consistent with the intent of the City Council to impose fees on residential, commercial and industrial development projects. Public Library Facilities and Collection Fee (Updated) The current Library Development fee was initially adopted in 1998. A Library Facilities Impact Fee imposed on residential development would allow the City to expand on existing facilities to ensure the City's existing and new residents have adequate and sufficient access to enjoy the library space and collections. The City of Huntington Beach, through its General Plan, and Facility Master Plan has established its commitment to maintaining current standards of library services. The Library Development Fee, along with other City revenue sources, will allow the City to expand facilities and enhance collections to accommodate projected growth and increased demand for service. The development of any acreage zoned for residential use increases the demand on the finite amount of library space and collection items. Thus, those residential land uses that generate a higher number of residents will pay a proportionally higher amount. There is no information available demonstrating a substantive link between library use and local businesses. Library use is primarily by residents as opposed to business persons. Therefore, there are no fees being collected for commercial or industrial construction. The resolution specifies that the fees would be used solely for support of library services and facilities. Funds collected from the Public Library Fee shall be used to cover the cost of expansion of library space and collection items needed to meet the increased demands of residential growth and development. Funds can be used to acquire additional property, construct new facilities, furnish new buildings or facilities, purchase collection materials, funding for master plans or other studies to identify capital needs and the cost of financing. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair existing facilities. Ordinance modifications are necessary to revise Chapter 17.66 so that the collection of fees imposed on development projects is consistent with the intent of the City Council to impose fees on residential, commercial and industrial development projects. Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee (Updated) On December 16, 2002 The City Council adopted Resolution 2001-129 with findings that stated, "the purpose of the fee is for the development and improvements of the City's parks and recreational facilities in order to assure that the policies and standards for park, open space and recreational facilities contained in the City's General Plan and described in the Park Fee Study are met." The proposed fees presented herein do not change this approved purpose, but merely update the methodology used in calculating the fee based on the latest land values, future population, Item 5. - 137 HB _2)14_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 and build -out projections cited in the new "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report" completed by Revenue and Cost Specialists L.L.C. in October 2011. As referenced in the October 2011 report, the City owns or has long-term control of 778.41 acres of traditional park land, with about 87.9% developed. It is anticipated that the City will need to acquire 70.5 acres in park land to serve the additional projected 17,089 residents at build -out. The challenge facing the City is to provide new facilities and park land to serve the recreational needs of new residents. The proposed fees are based on the estimated per acre acquisition and development costs as presented in Schedule 9.1 factored by the City's existing park standards, and then multiplied by the average number of persons per type of dwelling unit. Currently this fee is $0.86 per square foot and applies to all new residential development (new construction and additions) the fee is paid at the time of permit issuance for all new residential development. The proposed fee will apply to new residential units only; it will no longer apply to residential room additions or expansions. This will result in an elimination of the per square foot fee for residential development, however a square foot fee will continue to be applied to all non-residential development. In addition, it should be noted that currently Ordinance No. 3596 of Chapter 254 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance exempts mobile homes from Park Impact fees. The proposed fees would require the payment of $11,169 per mobile home dwelling unit. However, in an effort to implement the proposed fees in a timely manner and since there no applications on file for approval of a mobile home park, staff is recommending that the mobile home exemption be extended until such time that Ordinance No. 3596 can be revised to reflect the new fees. Projected population increases will also place additional demands on existing community centers, and other community use facilities (such as the City's clubhouses, the Beach Public Service Center, Shipley Nature Center, etc). The Park Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee will enable the City to meet the added demands created by the construction of additional residential dwelling units to maintain the current standard of 0.620 square feet per person for the Public Facility use space. IMPLEMENTATION In order to mitigate the impact of increasing Law Enforcement Facilities Fee, Fire Suppression Facilities Fee, Circulation System Fee, and the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee, the proposed resolution is to have a "phased" implementation for the detached, attached and mobile home residential unit fees. The Public Library Fee will not be phased in. While the goal is to generate adequate funding to serve the increased demands of development, the phased implementation would allow for a more gradual increase over a three year period and not inhibit development in a difficult economy. That is, the phased approach would increase the detached, attached and mobile home residential unit to 70% of recommended fee in the first year beginning July 20, 2012, then increasing to 80% effective July 20, 2013, reaching 90% on July 20, 2014, and remaining at 90% of the recommendation. Beginning in March 2016, a CPI adjustment factor would be used to adjust those fees until a new study is funded. Using a Detached Dwelling as an example, the total development impact fee 100% recovery amount of $22,829 would not be implemented. Beginning July 20, 2012, the amount would be $16,331/unit. On July 20, 2013 HB _715_ Item 5. - 138 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 the fee would increase to $18,499/unit. On July 20, 2014, the fee would be $20,655 and would remain at the 90% level. Currently, all fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. It is recommended that the fees be collected at the time the impact is imposed on the system; therefore later in the development process at final building permit approval or issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Regarding development projects that have already received zoning entitlement approval (i.e., CUP, SPR, Variances, etc), there is proposed to be a "grandfathering" of existing development impact fees. Section 8, Fees Imposed, of the Fee Resolution (Attachment No. 1) describes the criteria for being "grandfathered" which basically states that new development impact fees shall not apply to those development projects that have received discretionary project entitlement approval on or before May 7, 2012 and the following milestones are met: 1. Project has submitted an approved application for building permits within 180 days after the fee going into effect or no later than January 20, 2013. 2. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued progress toward satisfying plan check comments. 3. Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect, no later than July 20, 2013. An exception to these milestones is when there is involvement by an outside third party regulatory agency. In such cases the 180 days to make building permit application will begin when the developer receives clearance from that agency. All other projects are subject to the new fees, which go into effect July 20, 2012 SUMMARY Staff is recommending approval of the proposed resolution and ordinances based on the following reasons: • The per unit fee established herein allows developers to easily calculate development impact fees • The fees established herein meet the City's changing requirement for public safety, streets and signals, storm drainage and other quality of life facilities • Allows for payment of Developer Impact fees at the time the impact is imposed on the system, therefore later in the development process. Environmental Status: Not applicable Strategic Plan Goal: Improve the City's infrastructure Item 5. - 139 HB _2 1 6_ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 Attachment(s): No. Description Resolution No. 2012 - 23 "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach adopting the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, and establishing new and revised Development Impact Fees." 2 Ordinance No. 3942 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.75 relating to Development Impact Fees for Police Facilities ." 3 Ordinance No. 3943 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.74 relating to Development Impact Fees for Fire Facilities." 4. Ordinance No. 3944 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending Chapter 17.65 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code relating to Traffic Impact Fees." 5 Ordinance No. 3945 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach deleting Chapter 17.66 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code and adding Chapter 17.67 relating to Library Development Impact Fees." 6 Ordinance No. 3946 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.76 relating to Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees." 7 Ordinance No. 3947 "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by adding Chapter 17.73 relating to the General Provisions for Development Impact Fees." 8. Com arison of Current vs. Proposed Development Impact Fees 9. Master Facilities Plan, prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. October 2011, Amended April 27, 2012 10. Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.0 October 2011, Amended April 27, 2012 HB _z 17_ Item 5. - 140 Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed Law Enforcement Facilities Effective Effective Effective Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $277 $317 $356 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $571 $652 $734 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $258 $295 $332 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee $455 $455 $455 Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee $532 $532 $532 Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee $1.041 $1.041 $1.041 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee $0.443 $0.443 $0.443 Fire Suppression Facilities Effective Effective Effective Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $645 $738 $830 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $267 $306 $344 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $1,108 $1,266 $1,425 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee $356 $356 $356 Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee $794 $794 $794 Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee $0.329 $0.329 $0.329 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee $0.030 $0.030 $0.030 Circulation System Fee Effective Effective Effective Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $1,507 $1,737 $1,986 $2,226 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $1,058 $1,220 $1,395 $1,563 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $786 $909 $1,039 $1,165 Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $746 $1,062 $1,062 $1,062 Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $1,081 $1,538 $1,538 $1,538 Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $5.194 $4.175 $4.175 $4.175 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $1.061 $1.789 $1.789 $1.789 Item 5. - 141 HB -218- 1 of 3 Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed Public Library Facilities Effective Effective Effective Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.44/SF $1,172 $1,172 $1,172 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.44/SF $908 $908 $908 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.44/SF $733 $733 $733 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee Park Land/Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) Effective Effective Effective Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.86/SF $12,500 $14,286 $16,071 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.86/SF $9,685 $11,068 $12,452 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $7,818 $8,935 $10,052 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $0.23/SF $459 $459 $459 Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $0.23/SF $359 $359 $359 Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.23/SF $0.954 $0.954 $0.954 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.23/SF $0.772 $0.772 $0.772 NOTE: The fees below fall under the Subdivision Map Act and will be addressed at a later date Storm Drainage Fee Effective Effective Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/12 per acre per acre per unit Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $13,880 $18,149 $3,061 Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $13,880 $18,968 $397 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $13,880 $18,735 $2,082 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $13,880 $21,076 $479 Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $13,880 $20,497 $356 Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $13,880 $21,076 $0.35 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $13,880 $22,247 $1.14 -_- Item 5. - 142 Park Land/Open Space & Facilities (Tract Map/Quimby) Current Fee Effective 7/20/12 Effective 7/20/13 Effective 7/20/14 Based on Land Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) Appraisal $12,500 $14,286 $16,071 Based on Land Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) Appraisal $9,685 $11,068 $12,452 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) N/A N/A N/A N/A Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) N/A N/A N/A N/A Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) N/A N/A N/A N/A Item 5. - 143 HB - 0_ 3 of 3 Master Facilities Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, California October, 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012) Copyright, 2009, 2010 & 2011 by Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L. C. All rights reserved No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means -- graphic, electronic, mechanical, including any photocopying, recording, taping or taping or information storage and retrieval systems without written permission Of. Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. 1519 East Chapman Avenue, Suite C Fullerton, CA 92831 (714) 992 9020 HB -221- Item 5. - 144 evenue ost pecialists, LLc Serving Local Goverrunents Since 1975 October 17, 2011 (amended April 27, 2012) Honorable Mayor and City Council Via Mr. Fred Nilson, City Manager City of Huntington Beach - City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Honorable Mayor, City Council, and City Manager Wilson, The following Document, the proposed Master Facilities Plan (MFP) is hereby submitted for City Council review and consideration. The proposed MFP is the result of many hours of work between City staff and Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. staff. This document represents a long-range program of identification and recognition of the entirety of infrastructure and physical needs necessary to meet the service demands of an ever-growing residential population and business community. The information included in this proposed MFP identifies capital needs throughout the community and is primarily based on the numerous elements of the Huntington Beach Comprehensive General Plan, it's many elements, Master Plans and other official documents. The City's five-year Capital Improvement Plan and the proposed development impact fees will be a function of the entire list of proposed projects listed in this document. Stated in a slightly different way, the list of projects contained herein needs to be agreed to by the City Council in order to increase the validity of both of the two above mentioned documents. This Master Facilities Plan contains the following: Item 5. - 145 Page Two, October 17, 2011 (amended 04/27/12) MFP Letter to the City of Huntington Beach • A section containing all of the Park Land Acquisition and Development of Recreation Facilities including Community Use Facilities projects. In addition to the efforts of Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager in coordinating the flow of information, the following staff were instrumental in identifying the required projects: M. Todd Broussard, P.E.- Principal Civil Engineer (Storm Drainage) David C. Dominguez - Facilities Development and Concessions Manager Eric G. Enberg - Division Chief/Fire Operations Jim B. Engle Community Services Director Kevin Justen, - Senior Administrative Analyst - Fire Tung M. Kao - Info Systems Specialist Darrin Maresh, Fire Development Specialist Tony Olmos - City Engineer Jerry Thompson - General Services Manager Bill Reardon - Fire Marshall/Division Chief Dan Richards - Customer Support/GIS Manager Bob Stachelski - Transportation Manager Chuck Thomas - Police Captain Jerry Thompson - General Services Manager Bob Wingenroth - Director of Finance RCS appreciates the efforts of the listed staff and any others whose efforts RCS may have been unaware of for their assistance in generating the information provided within this Master Facilities Plan, and we look forward to meeting with the City Council in order to implement and achieve maximum use this comprehensive report. Sincerely, SCOTT THORPE Vice President HB -22 33- Item 5. - 146 City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Table of Contents Guide to Master Facilities Plan i-vi Master Facilities Plan Cost Summary - All Projects 1 ......... ..... . 1. ..... 1. Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary 5 LE-001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space 6 LE-W2 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles 7 LE-003 Acquire Additional Sworn Office Issued Equipment 8 LE-004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment 9 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary 11 FS-001 Relocate Station #8 (Heil) 12 FS-002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility 13 FS-003 Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4 (Magnolia) 14 FS-004 Acquire an Engine Company and Ambulance for Station #4 (Magnolia 15 FS-005 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #1 (Gothard) 16 FS--006 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #2 (Murdy) 17 Circulation (Streets, Bridges and Signals) System Cost Summary 19 ST-001 Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue 21 ST-002 Beach Boulevard and Heil Avenue 22 ST-003 Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue 23 ST-004 Beach Boulevard and Slater Avenue 24 ST-005 Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue 25 ST-006 Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue 26 ST-007 Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue 27 ST-008 Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue 28 ST-009 Pacific Coast Highway and Goldenwest Street 29 ST-010 Pacific Coast Highway and Brookhurst Street 30 ST-011 Goldenwest Street and Bolsa Avenue 31 ST-012 Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue 32 ST-013 Newland Street and Talbert Avenue 33 ST-014 Newland Street and Warner Avenue 34 ST-015 Newland Street and Yorktown Avenue 35 ST-016 Gothard Street and Slater Avenue 36 ST-017 Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue 37 ST-018 Ward Street and Garfield Avenue 38 Item 5. - 147 HB -224- City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Table of Contents ST-019 Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue 39 ST-020 Miscellaneous Traffic Signals/Intersection Improvements 40 ST-021 Public Works Maintenance Building 41 ST-022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles 42 ......___ ...... ..._ ....__ . Sto.rm Drainage Collection System Cost Summary 44 SD-001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1) 45 SD-W2 Coastal and Bolsa Chica Wetlands Region (SD Region #2) 46 SD-W3 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3) 47 SD-004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4) 48 SD--005 Bolsa Chica Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region #5) 49 SD-006 Public Works Maintenance Building 50 Public Library Facilities and Collection Cost Summary 52 PL-001 Expand Banning Library 53 PL-002 Expand Main Street Library 54 PL-003 Expand Library Collection Items 55 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Cost Summary 57 PK-001 Bartlett Park Conceptual Plan and EIR 59 PK-002 Irby Park Phase 11 60 PK-003 Central Park Former Gun Range EIR, RAP and Development 61 PK-004 Le Bard Park Expansion Master Plan and Development plan 62 PK-005 Blufftop Park Trail Improvements 63 PK-006 Edinger Dock Development 64 PK-007 Wardlow Field Reconfiguration Design/Construction 65 PK-008 City -Wide Parks Master Plan 66 PK-009 Central Park Habitat Plan 67 PK-010 Central Park Acquisiton of Encyclopedia Lots 68 PK-011 Central Park Development of Remaining 86 Acres 69 PK-012 Central Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Facilities 70 PK-013 General Youth Sports Facilities Grants 71 PK-014 Murdy Youth Sports Complex Phase II 72 PK-015 Beach Playground 73 PK-016 Central Park Development of Former Gun Range 74 PK-017 Warner Dock Renovation and Expansion 75 HB -225- Item 5. - 148 City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Table of Contents PK-018 Lamb Park Design and Development 76 PK-019 Central Park Sports Complex Team Room 77 PK-020 Future Parks Acquisition (Possible Closed School Sites) 78 CF-001 Central Park Senior Center 79 CF-002 Edison Community Center Gymnasium 80 CF-003 Murdy Community Center Gymnasium 81 CF-004 Oak View Recreation Center Expansion 82 Item 5. - 149 HB -2216- CITY OF HCJNTINGTON BEACH GUIDE TO THE MASTER FACILITIES PLAN The Master Facilities Plan is a compilation of projects identified by City staff as being needed for the City of Huntington Beach through theoretical General Plan build -out of the City. The Plan is based on input from City staff, recommended projects contained in the City's several Master Plans for infrastructure and an occasional recommendation from RCS staff. The Master Facilities Plan generally provides for three major types of projects. The first group of projects provides for the maintenance, repair and rehabilitation of the City's varied infrastructure, including its streets, storm drains and other public facilities. These projects represent a very small portion of the needed replacement of the City's fixed assets identified at more than $1.435 million of depreciable fixed assets which are being consumed, conservatively, at an annual rate of just over $19.1 million, (assuming a conservative 75 year infrastructure lifetime). The $1.435 billion figure excludes significant amounts of owned park land, not subject to depreciation, at approximately $678.2 million. The following table indicates the replacement costs of the various infrastructure owned by the City. Table MFP-1 Replacement Value of Existing Infrastructure Infrastructure Replacement Value Law Enforcement $71,246,699 Fire Suppress ion/Medic $61,234,227 Circulation System (1) $533,539,375 Storm Drainage System (1) $203,631,313 Library Space/Collection $76,593,112 Park Improvements $488,783,370 Total $1,435,028,096 (1) Does not include millions of dollars owned in land right-of-way and Excludes "local" facilities, those limited to neighborhood facilities. The second group of projects are needed to serve future development and include such projects as widening of streets, creation of additional parkland or construction of a new fire station. These projects are proposed to be funded through the development impact fees recommended in the companion to this document called Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for City of Huntington Beach. i HB -227- Item 5. - 150 Guide to the Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan The last group of projects are proposed to enhance the quality of life for all City residents and spur economic growth in the community. These projects include the construction of a community centers, libraries and parks that expand the existing level of service. Goal of the Master Facilities Plan_. The Master Facilities Plan is not intended to be the final word on capital improvement projects needed for the City, but rather a starting point for discussions between policy -makers (i.e., the City Council), City management staff and the public prior to the formulation of a Five- or Six -Year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). The Master Facilities Plan begins the process of identifying all growth -related capital projects required to accommodate new City development through General Plan build -out. This document, as all capital improvement programs should be, is rooted in the philosophy that for the document to have any meaningful value to future residents and staff members, it must be constantly updated and revised as new legislation is adopted and as the environment and the City itself changes over the years. In short, the Master Facilities Plan is intended as a fluid, not static, document. Thus, it is essential that periodic updates be performed to add new projects or delete completed or no longer needed projects. The Master Facilities Plan represents the starting point for fulfillment of the following purposes: Planning - The Plan implements the standards and goals contained in the City's General Plan when applicable and proposes improvement projects which are constructed and located in conformance with the General Plan. Financial Planning - A Facilities Plan or CIP should consider the scheduling and availability of financing sources in order to achieve an orderly and comprehensive process. Individual project descriptions in this document detail the project's relationship to other recommended improvements and other scheduling constraints. This effort should always be a high priority of the City in order to insure that efforts between departments are coordinated and to avoid construction made more costly by duplication of construction efforts (i.e. a water pipe installed one year after a road is constructed). A sound capital planning process can also help to rationally plan projects for the purposes of long-term financing. Taxpayers can accrue savings when capital financing is coordinated such that long-term financing can be sized and timed to achieve the lowest possible financing costs. Budgeting - The following projects should provide the outline for preparation of the Five - Year Capital Improvement Plan in the future. The first year of the CIP then is incorpo- rated into the City's Annual Budget. Note: the scope of services did not include the ii Item 5. - 151 H B -22 8- Guide to the Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan identification of what year the projects will be needed therefore the project costs default to the last column. Master Facilities Planning Process. The Master Facilities Plan represents an interdepartmental effort to identify needed projects through the theoretical point of build -out of the City. Management staff was then asked to allocate projects as a first step towards prioritizing all projects for the Plan. Criteria considered by the management team in evaluating projects included: • Does the project generate operating savings or otherwise enhance the ability of the department to deliver services? • Did the project reduce or eliminate safety or health hazards? • Was the project needed to provide adequate levels of service to future residents or prevent deterioration of service to existing residents? • Was the project recommended in any of the City's engineering or planning Master Plans, the Corporate Plan or any other adopted City document? • Did the project have a significant positive effect on the community? Funding_ Analysis. The following summary section of this Plan includes a projection of historical and potential revenue sources for the financing of the listed capital improvement projects. Development impact fee revenues were estimated based on the proposed rates recommended in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report. For the purposes of this Report it was assumed that development will occur evenly over the period of build -out for the City. Other revenue sources were projected based on discussions with City staff, but are shown only for informational purposes. Given the magnitude of costs shown in this Report, RCS recommends that a more detailed financial strategy for construction of these improvements (i.e., a Capital Financing Plan) be conducted by the City within the immediate future. Such a document would seek to further identify and quantify potential financing sources for the City. It should be noted that the Master Facilities Plan emphasizes the total capital needs of the City, in contrast to the more traditional Capital Improvement Program approach which places more of an emphasis on reducing total needs to only reasonably assured revenue sources. The process of further scheduling projects on a year-to-year basis should continue onward during the Capital Improvement Program process. Organization of the Master Facilities Plan. The Master Facilities Plan is divided into eight major sections, according to the category of capital improvement. Each will ultimately be quantified as iii HB -229- Item 5. - 152 Guide to the Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan a separate development impact fee in the companion document. The eight types of improvements are: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment - These are projects needed for the City's Police Department, including expansion of the Police Station and acquisition of additional communication equipment and response vehicles. Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Response Vehicles - This program includes facilities necessary to accommodate new development support with the existing level of service provided by the City's Fire Department. This section contains the need for one fire station relocation, expansion of second, construction of additional vehicle storage space and a number of additional response apparatus. Circulation (streets, bridges and signals) System - These projects consists of future street additional traffic signals and intersection improvements. Storm Drainage Collection System - These projects include the construction of new storm drain lines, channels and other facilities for the purposes of storm drainage. Public Library Facilities and Collection - This program provides for the expansion of the City -owned library facilities. The project consists of the building expansion and expansion of the collection inventory. Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development - The acquisition and develop- ment of new parks, the construction of recreational facilities for the City and improvement of existing undeveloped parklands are accomplished through this program. It also includes open space acquisition and the construction of a number community/recreation/gymnasium centers for classes, meetings, sports activities and other general public uses. At the beginning of each of these sections is a summary of projects in that category and proposed project cost. Next, is an individual project description for each project submitted, detailing the proposed scope of the project, the submitting department, justification and listing of related projects. The table on the following page indicates the total project expenditures ($403,399,086) identified as necessary through build -out. Some of this amount, about $22.3 million would be financed by other revenues or government agencies. iv Item 5. - 153 HB -2310- Guide to the Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Table MIT-2 Cost of Future Infrastructure Infrastructure Project Totals Law Enforcement Facilities, et. al. $10,100, 895 Fire Suppress ion/Medic Facilities et. al. $11,941,972 Circulation (Streets/Bridges/Signals) $28,537,800 Storm Drainage Collection System $207,494,050 Library Facilities/Collection $7,841,369 Park Land Acquisition & Improvements $137,483,000 Totall $403,399,086 Fairness and reason (as well as the more important State and Federal statutes and court decisions) dictate that not all of the projects will qualify for development impact fee funding (i.e. some projects are replacements or service level increasing, etc.). If the City adopts the development impact fees that represent the General Plan Build -out need -based impact fees (Schedule 2.1 in the companion Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report), 42.6 % of the required funding (or $172.1 million) would be raised with development impact fees. Existing Development Impact Fee Fund balances of $3.6 million will provide 0.9% of the total project funding and other sources (inter -governmental support) will finance 5.7 % ($23.0 million) This leaves 50.8 %, or $204.8 million of the total project costs as unfunded, to be financed by other sources such as fees, rates, existing taxes or voter approved additional taxes, inter -governmental transfers and the rare occasional grant. Relationship to Development Impact Fee Report. The Master Facilities Plan was prepared in conjunction with the City's Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, also prepared by RCS, LLC. Projects listed in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report correspond to projects found in this document and contain the same numbering sequence as the Master Facilities Plan. The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report is also contains eight chapters specific to each one of these infrastructure sections according to the same category of projects described on the previous page. Thus, a reader who wants to find more information on Law Enforcement Project No. 1(Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space found on Schedule 3.1 of the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report may turn to Project No. LE-001 of the Master Facilities Plan. For readers of the Master Facilities Plan who wish to understand the determination of development v HB -2 31- Item 5. - 154 Guide to the Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan impact fee financing more fully, refer to the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, Chapter One. vi Item 5. - 155 HB -2 32- Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Master Project List Toti IThru G.P. Bufld-0ui LE-001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space $7,597,165 LE002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles $1,751,040 LE003 Acquire Additional Sworn Officer Issued Equipment $$27,690 LE004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment $425,000 FS001 Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil) $7,169,470 FS002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility $1,716,044 FS003 Construct A Single Bay/Quarters At Station 44 (Magnolia) $1,266,458 FS004 Acquire An Engine And Ambulance For Station #4 (Magnolia) $74.0,000 FS005 Acquire An Additional Engine For Station #1 (Gothard) $526,000 FS006 Acquire An Additional Engine For Station #2 (Murdy) $525,000 LGO01 Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue $600,000 LGO02 Beach Boulevard And Heil Avenue $1,000,000 LGO03 Beach Boulevard And Warner Avenue $400,000 LGO04 Beach Boulevard And Slater Avenue $500,000 L0005 Beach Boulevard And Talbert Avenue $1,000,000 1-0005 Beach Boulevard And Garfield Avenue $1,000,000 LG007 Beach Boulevard And Yorktown Avenue $500,000 LGO08 Pacific Coast Highway And Warner Avenue $2,000,000 LGO09 Pacific Coast Highway And Goldenwest Street $750,000 LG010 Pacific Coast Highway And Brookhurst Street $750,000 LG011 Goldenwest Street And Bolsa Avenue $500,000 LGO12 Goldenwest Street And Slater Street $50,000 LGO13 Newland Street And Talbert Avenue $500,000 LGO14 Newland Street And Warner Avenue $30,000 LGO15 Newland Street And Yorktown Avenue $300,000 I V: 1.33.0 Date: 5/0212012 Time; 10;50 AM Huntington Qeaoh October, 2011 Page; 1 HB -233- Item 5. - 156 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Master Project List TotalThru a.p. Etuilc-out L0016 Gothard Street And Slater Avenue $500,000 L0017 Gothard Street And Talbert Avenue $264,000 LGO18 Ward Street And Garfield Avenue $8,800 LG019 Brookhurst Street And Adams Avenue $10,000;000 LG020 Miscellaneous Traffic Signal/Intersection Improvements $5,000,000 LG021 Public Works Maintenance Building $2,820,000 LG022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles $65,000 SDO01 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1) $23,728,000 SDO02 Coastal And Bolsa Chica Wetlands Region (SD Region 42) $21,527,000 S0003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3) $34,236,000 S0004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region 04) $28,749,000 SDO05 Balsa Chica Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region 45) $98,549,000 SDO06 Public Works Maintenance Building $705,050 PL001 Expand Banning Branoh Library $5,268,470 PL-002 Expand Main Street Branch Library $1,651,375 ti PL003 Expand Library Collection items $921,524 PK001 Bartlett Park Conceptual Plan And EIR $5,400,000 PK002 Irby Park Phase 11 $500,000 PK003 Central Park Former Gun Range EIR, RAP And Development $4,325,000 PK004 Le Bard Park Expansion Master Plan And Development Plan $1,460,000 PK005 Blutftop Park Trail Improvements $1,000,000 PK006 Edinger Dock Development $700,000 PK007 Wardlow Field Reconfiguration Design/Construction $1,000,000 PIQ08 City -Wide Parks Master Plan $350,000 PK009 Central Park Habitat Plan $250,000 V: 1,33.0 Date. &02W12 Time: 10:55 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page; 2 K Item 5. - 157 HB _G;4_ Huntington Beech Master Facilities Plan Master Project List ToThru G.P. Build -Out PK010 Central Park Acquisiton Of Encyclopedia Lots $1,020,000 PK011 Central Park Development Of Remaining M Acres $20,000,000 PK012 Central Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Facilities $8{?0,000 PM13 General Youth Sports Facilities Grants $4,500,000 PK014 Murdy Youth Sports Complex Phase II $2,500,000 PK015 Beach Playground $350,000 PK016 Central Park Development Of Former Gun Range Area $3,OM,000 PK017 Warner Dock Renovation And Expansion $800,000 PK018 Lamb Park Design And Development $1,100,000 PK019 Central Park Sports Complex Team Room $100,000 PK020 Future Parks Acquisition (Possible Closed School Sites) $59,588,000 PK021 Central Park Senior Center $22,000,000 PK022 Edison Community Center Gymnasium $2,975,000 P.K023 Murdy Community Center Gymnasium $2,975,000 PK024 Oak View Recreation Center Expansion $800,000 Total All Projects $403 399,086 V; 1.33.0 Data: 510212012 Time; 11,01 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page; 3 HB -235- Item 5. - 158 City of Huntington Beach Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Item 5. - 159 KB -236- u co J N O O mr O QpQ� i0 O w � � u] p O s g r+ N rn N C8 tV ke A 69� p e9 O 69 C W O 6s 69 w G $ 69 w C d E W C m c a to U !i E N O C_ co c W p c a p W O � N N 8 4 p O O W W uj W .J J J J M,I al z 0 E 0 N N .Q �U 0 t U ym m C O m E Hs -2, 7- Item 5. - 160 1 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number:/Title LE 001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space Submitting Departments: Police Department Project Description: Acquire land (or replacement land is placed at City Hall) for and construct 12,041 square feet of law enforcement space. The departmentwill need to hire an additional 33 sworn officers at General Plan build-outto accommodate the additional 14.6% (8,697) in calls fo"ervice demand overthe current 59,479 annual calls -for -service. Roughly 249 of these would be to the beach area. The additional space could be in the main station or could be located elsewhere in the City. The space would be necessary to expend, patrol, investigation, traffic control or any of the many specialty support services such as communications or records, Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The City annually currently experiences roughly approximately 61,285 calls-for-sevice, 97.06 of which are from privately+eld properties within the CiVs limits. The land -use database indicates the addition of 7,065 residential dwellings,1,353 commercial lodging rooms and 7.3 million square feet of additional business (commercial, office and industrial) space which will generate, on average, an additional 8,448 annual calls -for -service, or a 14.651. increase. While the existing station is adequate to meetthe current needs, the addition of 34 sworn officers will generate the need for a proportionally greater amount of space. Relationship to General Plan Development The project primarily addresses additional cells -for -service from new development (97.05%) and thus is allocated 97.05%to new General Plan development Allocation To General Plan Buildout 97.055% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: The projecttiming would be dependent upon bath the rate of development and collection of Development Impact Fees. 2015- 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 568,524.00 568,524.00 2. Land Acquisition ! Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,033,801.00 1,033,801.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,173,493.00 5,173,493,00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 309,604.00 309,604.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 511,743.00 611,743,00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,597,165.00 7,597,165.00 [i Item 5. - 161 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:09 PM HB -2318- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project NumberjTitle LE 002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles Submitting Departments: Police Department Project Description: Acquire thirty -tyro additional response or specialty vehicles at an average cost of $54,720 each in orderto maintain the exsting ratio of 0.98 vehicles per officer. Approximately 97.05% of these vehicles are required to serve private sectror development Justification j Consequences of Avoidance: The Department currently has 231 law enforcement vehicles that are used by the 235 sworn officers creating an existing standard of 0.98 vehicles per sworn officer. With that the addition of 33 officers needed to respond to the annual calls-famervice likelyyo be generated by future General Plan developmentthe Citywill need to acquire and additional 32 vehides in order to maintain the 0.98 ratio of vehicle per sworn officer. Failure to maintain the current ratio of vehciels per officer could reduce the Uy's abilityto maintain beat strength and would certainly accelerate vehilce turnover. Relationship to General Plan Development: The acquisition addresses only the future additional calls -for -service from General Plan new development and thus is allocated 97.05 percent to new development. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 97.05 0 Reference Document Project Timing: The projecttiming would be dependent upon both the rate of development and collection of Development Impact Fees. 2015. 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design 1 Engineering /Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,751,040.00 1,751,040,00 TOTAL COST: 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,751,040.00 1,751,040.00 7 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:09 PM HB -239- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 162 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number:/Title LE 003 Acquire Additional Sworn Officer Issued Equipment Submitting Departments: Police Department Project Description Acquire additional equipment assigned to the additional 33 sworn officers necessary to accommodate General Plan development. The capitalized list of equipment includes (but is not limited to): a protective vest handgun, baton, compliment of leathers, handcuffs, uniforms, helmet raincoat and heavy duty flashlight The costs, at $9,930 includes a nominal background check medical/physical check and polygraph exam for the sucessful candidates. Justification f Consequences of Avoidance: The equipment is necessaryfor an officer to function in the field. The list is mostly safety equipment but also includes the costs absorbed by the City in the necessary for identifying an appropriate candidate. Roughly 97.05% of the required new officers would be required to serve new General Plan development Relationship to General Plan Development: The project primarily addresses additional calls -for -service from new development (97.05%) and thus is allocated 97.05% to new General Alan development. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 97.05% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project timing would be dependent upon both development and collection of development impact fees. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012-13 2013-14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design! Engineering 1 Administratic 0.00 0.00 Mo 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 0.00 0.0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 4. Conffngency 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment 1 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 327,690.00 327,690.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 327,690.00 327,690.00 Item 5. - 163 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:09 PM HB -240- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Plumber:/ Title LE 004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment Submitting Departments: Police Department Project Description: Acquire specialty equipment to supportthe additional 33 officers needed to accommodate new development Approximately 97% of that figure are needed to a=mmodate new development of private property. Justification I Consequences of Avoidance: The amount and type of crime is ever increasing. The Citywill need to acquire additional information -sharing computer capacity as well as specialty equipment such as bikes, dogs, hand-held radios, etc. Relationship to General Plan Development The project primarily addresses additional calls4or-service from new development (97.05%) and thus is allocated 97.05%to new General Plan development Allocation To General Plan Buildout 97.05% Reference Document: Project Timing: The projecttiming would be dependent upon both developmentand collection of development impactfees. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Guild -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425,000.00 425,000-00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425,000.00 426,000.00 rJ V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:09 PM HB -24 j _ Huntington Beach Item 5. - 164 City of Huntington Beach Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 10 Item 5. - 165 HB -242- \ k k k k k M co k k k k CL $ $ \ § § ¥ # e § \ j \ & G & V3, s a g a s % a s a 2 2 a a a a a a / f / ° \ z ( § k g ) 0 c ® \ ) W 2 CL 2 « it « 2 J / 2 ) s § 2 c ) \ J ¥ ) LL L # a 2 ) » ) - J k ) ƒ / ] \ 7 \ $ k k R \ ] § U.§ / \ § E al k p2 � § IN § P H 8 -243- Item 5.-166 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project hiumber:/Title FS 001 Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil) Submitting Departments: Fire Department Project Description: Relocate Station #8 from its current location on Heil Avenue justwest of Springale Streetto a more northerly area near Graham Streetjust north of Edinger Street The proposed 11.350 square foot facility would be a be alive vehicle configuration and would require roughly 1.25 acres. The facility would be capable of housing up to three companies and battalion chief. The facility would provide 3,650 square feet of vehicle bay space,1,290 square feet of mechanical/technical space, 6,150 square feet of living quarters consisting of (a maximum of 24) bunks, lockers, restrooms/showers, a physical training room, kitchen, dining and a dayroom. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The forty-five year -old station, once state-of-the-art has numerous limitations in addition to mere aging. In addition to asbestos removal needs, the station design does not allow for mixed gender accommodation or the assignment of an aerial response truck, Since the station needs to be reconstructed, relocation more northerly, about 1.25 miles, would improve the first -in engine, truck and paramedicALS response capacity to that area of the City. Redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach corridorwill likely result in a greater number of calls -for -service changing the response dynamic of the existing eight stations. if the station were not relocated, the area in question would receive longer response times. Relationship to General Plan Development: Relocating Station #8 (Heil) is consistent with the CiVs General Plan Public Safety response time commitments and would improve the average engine, aerial truck and ALS paramedic response time through-outthe City, in particular the EdingerlSeach corridor area Allocation To General Plan Buildout 50.00% Reference Document Project Timing: The redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach corridorwould likely be the trigger pointforthe need orfthis relocation. The station age and limitations are also an issue and could triggerthe construction timing. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDrruRES 2011 - 12 2012 -13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build-0ul Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 532,561.00 632,561.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,026,097.00 1,026,097.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,963,827,00 4,963,827.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 285,204.00 285,204.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 361,781.00 361.781.00 TOTAL COST: OM 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,169,470.00 7,169,470.00 12 Item 5. - 167 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:13 PM HB -244- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/MedicFadlities, Vehicles And Equipment Project NumberjTitle FS 002 Construct Station#8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility Submitting Departments: Fire Department Project Description: Construct a 3,620 square foot reserve apparatus storage facility upon relocation of the extisting Station #8 (Heil) to its proposed future location. The facility would consist of a Z660 square foot two bays wide by two vehicle deep storage building for up to fourreserve response vehicles. There would also be a contiguous 960 square foot basic storage room. The facilitywould be constructed on the rear portion of the parcel nearthe hose tower and hose storage building. Justification 1 Consequences of Avoidance: The proposed storage building is necessaryfar proper storage of the reservevehicles and other specialty equipment not used on aroutine basis, but important none -the -less. The existing vehicle storage facility cannot store all of the reservse vehciels that will be needed at General Plan build -out Relationship to General Plan Development The additional storage sapce is necessary, in part to new deveopment and also because of the limited capaciaty of the single existing reserve vehicle storage facility. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 25.00% Reference Document: Project -riming: The facilitywould likely be constructed etthe same time as the proposed relocation of station #8 (Heil), however, the construction could be completed ate differenttime. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through BwW-out Total a9 Years 1. Design I Engineering IAdministratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 120,415.00 120,415.DD 2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 327,266.00 327,266.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,122,703.00 1,122,703.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,210.00 64,210.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.130 0_00 81.450.00 81.450,00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,716,044.00 1,716,044.00 13 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM HB -245- Huntington Beach 'Item 5. - 168 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number./Title FS 003 Construct Single Bay/Quarters At Station #4 (Magnolia) Submitting Departments: Fire Department Project Description: Construct a 2,400 square foot addition to Station #4 (Magnolia). The plans consist of an additional bay and sufficient living quartersAraining/storage space to the existing two -bay Station #4 (Magnoila). The additional 1,400 square footvehicle baywould allowfor two additonal response vehicles, in this case an engine and an ambulance. The 1,000 square foot living quarters expansion would increase storage/locker space by approximately 200 square feet and livingAraining space by approximately 600 square feet Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The expanded facilitywill be needed to accommodate the additional calls -far -service demands from the planned densityinceasing redevelopment from the Downtown Specific Plan and along the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor. Increased call -load must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters and apparatus in orderto meetthe City's General Plan emergency response goals. Withoutthe additional facilities, the response goals will be unachievable with the greater demands. Relationship to General Plan Development: The facility expansion is required to accommodate higher densities resulting from development consistebtwith the Downtown Specific Plan and the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor as well for multiple response vehicle demands to other parts of the City. Allocation To General Plan Buildout'. 50.00% Reference Document ProjectTiming: As needed and as development impact fee receipts and other revenues become available. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 - 15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering /Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 109,650.00 109,650,00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,020,000.00 1,020,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,308.00 60.308.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 76,500.00 76,600.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0-00 0-00 a.00 1,266,458.00 1,266,458.00 14 Item 5. - 169 Date: 4/27/2= Time: 12:13 PM HB -246- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number:/Title FS 004 Acquire An Engine And Ambulance For Station #4 (Magnolia) Submitting Departments: Fire Department Project Description: Add an engine company and an ambulance to Station #4 (Magnolia), Project FD-003 details the proposed 2.400 square foot expansion required to house the new enine and paramedic vehicle and staff. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: Increased call -load must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters and apparatus in order to meet the City's General Plan emergency response goals. Withoutthe additional facilities. the response goals will be unachievable with the greater demands. The expanded facility will be needed to accommodate the additional calls -for -service demands from the planned densiiy4nceasing redevelopment from the Downtown Specific Plan and along the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor. Relationship to General Plan Development The facility expansion is required to accommodate higher densities resulting from development consistebtwith the Downtown Specific Plan and the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor as well for multiple response vehicle demands to other parts of the City. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 50.00% Reference Document Project Timing: As needed and as development impactfee receipts and other revenues become available. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 - 15 through Buad-art Total all Years 1. Design t Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way O.oa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 740,000.00 740,000.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 740,000.00 740,000.00 15 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:13 PM H B -247- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 170 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Supptession/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project NumberjTitie FS 005 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station#1 (Gathard) Submitting Departments: Fire Department Project Description: Ad a standard engine company at Station #1 (Gothard). The engine would be fully stocked with and appropriate and sufficient amount of hose, appurtenances and other safety/rescue equipment. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The expanded facilitywill be needed to accommodate the additional callsior-service demands from the planned density-inceasing redevelopment from the Downtown Specific Plan and along the Edinger/Beach SpecrficPlan corridor. Increased call -load must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters and apparatus in order to meet the City's General Plan emergency response goals. Without the additional facilities, the response goals will be unachievable with the greater demands. Relationship to General Plan Development: The facility expansion is required to accommodate higher densities resulting from development consistebtwith the Downtown Specific Plan and the Edinger/Beach Specific Pion corridor as well for multiple response vehicles response to other parts of the City. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 50.00 Reference Document: ProjectTiming: As needed and as development impact fee receipts and other revenues become available. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total a4 Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Contingency O.Oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 525,000.00 525,000.0o TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 526,000.00 525,000.00 16 Item 5. - 171 Cate: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM HB -248- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Idumberj Title FS 006 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station #2 (Murdy) Submitting Departments: Fire Department Project Description: Add a standard engine company at Station #2 (Murdy). The engine would be fully stocked with an appropriate and sufficient amouint of hose, appurtenances and other safety/rescue equipment Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The expanded facility will be needed to accommodate the additional calls -for -service demands from the planned density-inceasing redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach Specifc Plan corridor. Increased call -load must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters and apparatus in order to meet the City's General Plan emergency response goals. Without the additional facilities, the response goals will be unachievable with the greater demands. Relationship to General Plan Development: The facility expansion is required to accommodate higher densities along Edison/Beach Specific Plan and multiple response vehicles demands to other parts of the City. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 50.00% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: As needed and as development impact fee receipts and other revenues become available. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0o 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / other 0.00 0.0o 0.00 0.00 525,000.00 525,000.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 525,000.00 525,000.00 17 V: 1 M.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM H B -249- Huntington Beach' Item 5. - 172 City of Huntington Beach Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System I:I Item 5. - 173 HB _2-50_ [` w -p Fu o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 0 O O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 S o O O O op 0 O O 0 0 0 S 0 O 0 CD 0 F- c O O o O O a 0 O o O O 0 O O 0 O C. 0 C O O o C O ii] C 0 iA 0 O o 0 O O o O [] O 0 O t 0 cO m O w O O O O N w O .- [yJ j w 0 Ir � 0 0 w O r- r- w w w O O 0 W N w U -� a9 w NM w 69 aj CL QI m a V O N N 0 N N IL N 0 �0 g C S 000 g 0oOc:)OOMn 0p000m 0 CIO, goo CI p w w p g 0 w O ej e~H r w w S w m � N C o � O vn � N w <- O N m 0 w 0 w 0 vs 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 to 0 w 0 s3 � 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 m 0 w 0 w o U O C U e9 m c O pp 64 t4 (a 0 69 op �w 69�� 69 K! � 64 �pp� to �� C S 0 6% 0 w 0 w o w a w o w 0 w 0 fH o w O w C. w 0 w 0 w o 6% 0 w 0 w 0 en 0 69 0 w 0 w 0 w 0 w ow O 0 0 o O o o O o O O O 0 0 o O o 0 (D 0, o to w w 69 69 w w w w fA HJ EH fA w w f) E d } v _ o O O m Q Q y Q c c a o ? N m > Q y 5 Q v u t o C7 co N ¢ Q > ¢ y = m 7 N O ¢ Q e6 N 6) w 2 yS to 7-007 ?0 4 Q Q to (A a Y m a C rn Vc c ao ca o m m .a c c a o n o 0 0 m c c h[[ Q Q Q Q Q L F .�G N GY 4 Q Q C 'i L - C N v v -2 a E o a CD cm q ar 4 a m o c6 M an 0 N tG pp77 N W N > N N N a_�f y w V3 (n m m Q7 N 00`1 ¢ j O O N Qf nmmm OM Lrs 02 S U L L V U = - w m m @ m M m @ m m m m m co 5 v bQ 3 I L w o° n m m m m M m m m a a a t7 c7 �i z z }i m a a 0 N 19 Npp c� a N m r ao rn o N r� n D n ro rn 0 N C C] C? O b O P O $ O o O O O O O i o O O p O J J J J —0 J J J Lj> J J _ J J J J J - J J J 1-1B _2,1 - Item 5. - 174 C m N A A o m rIn U 3 N 0 CD � H a a 3 T O el �n ° o r- N ~ m N H s N o v► r 0 N M r- N O N N T 0 N W 0 m Ul W a v 20 - 7 Item 5. - 175 HB -252- Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project NumberjTile LC 001 Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the copabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed:1) Add 4th northbound through lane, and 2) Add a 3rd westbound through lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project. Since the project would not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traff ic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck. Level 'E" is "Unstable Flow:" and is identified as 'long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level 'E", 'Forced Flour' creates 'Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development: All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D', "E' or"F". Development anticipated overthe next twentyyears will generate 454,512 additional dailytrip-miles. This is a 14.651. increase daily over the City's existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 75.00% Reference Document ProjectTiming: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015.16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 - 12 2012 -13 2013 - 14 2014 -16 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Adminlstratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition I Right of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600,000,00 600,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 21 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM HB -2 53- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 176 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number.{Title LC 002 Beach Boulevard And Heil Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capebilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across 1he intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed: 1) Add 2nd northbound left tum lane. An alternative would be to construct 1) A de -facto westbound rightturn lane, and 2) add ade-facto southbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard, being aState Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project. Since the project would not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification/Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (orLOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as abottleneck. Level "E" is 'Unstable Flow:" and is identified as °long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E", "Forced Flow' creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development All new developmentwill impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D", "E" or "F'. Development anticipated over the nexttweniyyears will generate 454,542 additional deilytrip-miles. This is a 14.6%increase daily overthe CiVs existing demand of 3,107.224 daily trip -miles, all ofwhichwill compete for use of astatic number of majorroadwaylane miles. The 454,542 added daily trip -miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip -miles at thetwen"ar development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.00% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 22 Item 5. - 177 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -254- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number:} Title LC 003 Beach Boulevard And Warner Avenue Submitting Departments: Public Works -Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed:1) Add a separate westbound rightturn lane. An alternative would be to constructthe following:1) A de -facto westbound right turn lane, and 2) add a separate northbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project. Since the project would not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of trafficacross major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level'E" by acting as abottleneck. Level "E" is 'Unstable Flow.' and is identified as 'long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E', "Forced Flow' creates 'Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Relationship to General Plan Development: All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D', "E' or "F". Development anticipated overthe nextiwentyyears will generate 454,542 additional dailytrip-miles. This is e 14.6% increase daily over the CiVs existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip -miles at the twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.00% Reference Document ProjectTiming: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015.16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 - 12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 0141 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -255- Huntington Beach Item S. - 178 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/ Title LC 004 Beach Boulevard And Slater Avenue Submitting Departments: Public Works -Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (n all directions), the following improvementto the intersection is proposed:1) Add a separate eastbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project Since the project would not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification I Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus maximum movementoftrafftc across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level'E' by acting as a bottleneck. Level'E" is "Unstable Flow:" and is identified as'long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E", "Forced Flow' creates 'Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Pian Development All new developmentwill impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D', "E" or "F". Development anticipated overthe nexttwentyyears will generate 454,542 additional dailytrip-miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily overthe City s existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles represent 12.8 of the total 3,561,767 dailytrip-miles at the twenty�year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.0w, Reference Document: Project Timing: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2D15 - 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012-13 2013-14 2014 -15 through Buki-out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / might Of Way 0.00 0.00 0_00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 24 Item 5. - 179 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -256- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System ProjectNumberlTifle LC 005 Beach Boulevard And Talbert Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (n all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed: 1) Add a2ndwestbound lefttum lane, 2) add a de -facto westbound rightturn lane, 3) add aseparate northbound right turn lane, 4) add a 2nd eastbound left turn lane, and 5) stripe a de -facto eastbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project Since the projectwould not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost, but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification f Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus mabmum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level 'E" by acting as a bottleneck Level "E" is 'Unstable Flour." and is identified as 'long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level 'E", "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development: All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements orthe LOS will drop to unacceptable levels [ike'D", 'E" or"IF". Development anticipated overthe next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily trip -miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily over the CiVs existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added deytrip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3.561.767 dailytrip-miles atthe twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 62.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering 1 Administratic 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.0o 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment ! Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 25 V: 1,08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -257- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 180 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number./Title LC 006 Beach Boulevard And Garfield Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maArnize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), thefollowing Option #1 improvements to the intersection are proposed:1) Add a separate northbound righttum lane, and 2) add a de -facto southbound right turn lane. An alternative would to those improvements would be to:1) Add a 2nd northbound leftturn lane, and 2) add a 2nd southbound leftturn lane. Beach Boulevard, being aState Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project Since the project would not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification I Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe C ity.thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow:' and is identified as 'long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level "E", 'Forced Flow' creates 'Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Relationship to General Plan Development: All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like'D", "E" or "F". Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454,642 add Rion at dailytrip-miles. This is a14.6% increase daily over the City's existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles representl2.8% of the total 3,561,767 dailytrip-miles atthe twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00% Reference Document Project Timing: The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015.16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2D13-14 2014-15 throughBuiW-out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0o 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3- Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 b. Equipment / Other 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,D00,000.00 Item 5. - 181 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -258- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number:/ Title LC 007 Beach Boulevard And Yorktown Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection Cin all directions), the following improvementto the intersection is proposed:1) Add a separate westbound rightturn lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project. Since the project would not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles throughout the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow:" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E", 'Forced Flow" creates 'Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Relationship to General Plan Development: Al[ new development will impact exsting intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements orthe LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D", "E" or "F". Development anticipated overthe next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily trip -miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily overthe City's existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454.542 added daily trip -miles represent 1 2.8X of the total 3.561,767 daily trip -miles at the twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00% Reference Document: Project -riming: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012-13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build-o%A Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering IAdministratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,000,00 500,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 27 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PNI HB -259- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 182 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number:/ Title LC 008 Pacific Coast Highway And Warner Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maArnize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvementto the intersection is proposed:1) Add a 3rd northbound through lane. Pacific Coast Highway, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project Since the project would not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification / Oonsequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck Level `E' is "Unstable Flow.' and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level "E', "Forced Floyd" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Relationship to General Plan Development: Ali new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D", "E' or "F". Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional dailyt6p-miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily over the Ci1Vs existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added daily trip -miles represent 12.85Y. of the total 3,561,767 dailytrip-miles atthe twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00% Reference Document Projed Timing: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administradc 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0,00 0.00 a.0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 28 Item 5. - 183 Date: 412712012 Time: 12.14 PM HB -260- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number./ Title LC 009 Pacific Coast Highway And Goldenwest Street Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed:1) Add a2nd eastbound leftturn lane, and 2) allow southbound righttum overiap.Pecific Coast Highway, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project. Since the project would not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus max<mum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck Level 'E' is "Unstable Flow:" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level 'E", 'Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development All new developmentwilt impactexisting intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements orthe LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like'D", "E" or "F. Development anticipated over the nexttwentyyears will generate 154,542 additional dailytrip-miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily overthe City s existing demand of 3,107,224 dailytrip-miles, all of whichwill compete foruse of astatic number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added deilytrip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 dailytrip-miles at the twen"ear development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 88.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013-14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering I Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0_00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 al V:1,08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14PM HB -261- Huntington Beach Item S. - 184 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/ Title LC 010 Pacific Coast Highway And Brookhurst Street Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: Tb maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (n all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed:1) Add a 2nd eastbound lefttum lane and, 2) allow southbound righttum overlap.Pacific Coast Highway, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTRANS managed project, Since the projectwouid not be managed by the City, the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components. Justification J Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to aLevel "E" by acting as a bottleneck Level'E' is "Unstable Flow:" and is identified as 'long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level 'E", 'Forced Flow" creates ",lammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Relationship to General Plan Development: All new developmentwill impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements orthe LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D 'E" or "F". Development anticipated overthe next twentyyears will generate 454,542 additional daily trip -miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily overthe City s existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number Of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added daily trip -miles represent 12.8 % of the total 3,561,767 daily trip -miles at the twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.00% Reference Document Project Timing: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015- 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Adminlstratic 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisifion / Right Of Way 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750,DDO.OD 750,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment ! Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 30 Item 5. - 185 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -262- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number:/Title LC 011 Goldenwest Street And Boise Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks-Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (n all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed:1) Add a second southbound lefttum lane, 2) Add a separate northbound rightturn lane and 3). Allowwestbound rightturn overlap. This would be a City -managed project Justification J Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles throughout the City, thus movement of traffic across major circulation routes. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck Level "E" is 'Unstable Flow." and is identified as 'long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level 'E", "Forced Flow' creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like'V, "E' or "F'. Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional deilytrip-miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily over the CiVs existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,581,767dailytrip-milesatthetwentyyear development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013. 14 2014 -15 ttxnugh Build -out Total all Years 1. Design I Engineering I Administratic 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 5. Equipment I Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500,0X00 31 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PIN HB -263- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 186 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number:/ Title LC 012 Goldenwast Street And Slater Street Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvementto the intersection is proposed:1) Add a 2nd southbound teftturn lane. An alternative would to that improvement would be to:1) Convert a separate northbound rightturn lane to a third northbound through lane. This would be a City -managed project. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level'E" by acting as a bottleneck Level "E" is 'Unstable Flow:" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E", "Forced Flow" creates 'Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development All new developmentwill impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like'D", 'E'or T". Development anticipated over the nexttwentyyears will generate 454,542 additional dailytrip-miles. This is a14.6"/ increase daily overthe City's existing demand of 3,107,224 dailytrip-miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542added daily trip -miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,661,767 daily trip -miles at the twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering 1 Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6,000.00 6,000.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.00 4,000.00 5. Equipment ( Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 32 Item 5. - 187 Date:4/27/2012 Time: 12:14FM HB-264- Huntington Beach October,2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/ Title LC 013 Newland Street And Talbert Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (n all directions), the following improvementto the intersection is proposed:1) Add a 2nd eastbound leftturn lane. This would be a C"rty-menaged project Justification f Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck Level "E' is 'Unstable Flow:" and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level "E", "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Pian Development All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D",'E' or "F". Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily trip -miles. This is a14.W increase daily over the CitVs existing demand of 3,107,224 dailytrip-miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 dailytrip-miles atthe twenty rear development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Suildout: 95.00% Reference Document ProjectTiming: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 - 12 2012 -13 2013-14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design I Engineering IAdministratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.01) 40,000.0a 5. Equipment I Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 4.D0 0.00 0.00 600,000.00 500,000.00 33 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PIJI HB -265- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 188 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/ Title LC 014 Newland Street And Warner Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed:1) Convert aseparats westbound righttum lane to a de -facto rightturn lane, and 2) add a 3rdwestbound through lane. This would be a City -managed project. Justification I Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inabilityto increase circulation capacitywhere warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS)traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level'E' by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is 'Unstable Flow:" and is identified as "long queues of vehideswaiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E", "Forced Flaw" creates'Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Relationship to General Plan Development All new developmentwiil impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements orthe LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D", "E' or "F'. Development anticipated overthe next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional dailytrip-miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily over the CiVs existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added daily trip -miles represent 12.8 % of the total 3,561,767 daily trip -miles at the twentyyear development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering 1 Administratic a.0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,e00.00 3,600.00 2, Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,400.00 2,400.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 o.ao 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 34 Item 5. - 1 89 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -266- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Numbed Title LC 015 Newland Street And Yorktown Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvementto the intersection is proposed:1) Re -stripe westbound righttum lane to a 2nd westbound through lane.This would be in City managed project Justification t Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck. Level'E" is "Unstable Flow," and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level T", "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development: All new developmentwill impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements orthe LOS will drop to unacceptable levels iike'D", "E" or "F'. Development anticipated over the nexttwentyyears will generate 454,542 additional dailytrip-miles. This is a 14.6%increase daily over the CitJs existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, till of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added daily trip -miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip -miles at the twenty rear development horizon. Allocation To General Pian Buildout: 95.00% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected, 2015 - 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -1 a through Build -our Total alf Yeas 1. Design / Engineering /Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,000.00 38,000.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction D.Oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 240,000-00 240,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,D00.00 24,000.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 $00,000.00 300,000.00 35 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM HB -267- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 190 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulatian (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number:jTitle LC 016 GothardStreetAndSlaterAvenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in ail directions] the following improvementto the intersection is proposed: 1) Add a 2nd northbound lefttum lane. This would be a City -managed project Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles throughout the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inabilityto increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck Level "E' is "Unstable Flow:' end is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level "E'. "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development. All new development will impact exsting intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like 'D",'E" or'F'. Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454.542 additional daily trip -miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily over the City s existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added daily trip -miles represent 12.13% of the total 3,5S1,767 daily trip -miles at the twenty year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 60,000.00 2. Land Acquisition i Right Of Way 0.00 4.DD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.Da 40,000.00 5. Equipment 1 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.Oo 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500,0D0.00 36 Item 5. - 191 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -268- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number: Title LC 017 Gothard StreetAnd Talbert Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (n all directions), the following improvement to the intersection is proposed:1) Add a 2nd southbound left turn lane. An alternative to that improvement would be:1) Convert a separate eastbound right turn to a 2nd eastbound through lane. This would be a City -managed project. Justification j Consequences of Avoidance: There arefew opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flmK at intersections of major streets to a Level 'E' by acting as a bottleneck. Level "E" is "Unstable Flow." and is identified as 'long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level "E', "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some ofthem require improvements orthe LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like'V, "E" or "F'. Development anticipated over the nexttwenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily Yip -miles. This is a t4.6% increase daily overthe CilVe existing demand of 3,107,224 dailytrip-miles, all of which will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles represent12.8% of the total 3,561,767 dailytrip-miles atthe twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.00% Reference Document Project Timing: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240,000.00 240,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 24,000.00 24,000.00 5. Equipment / Other o.o0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 264,000.00 264,000.00 37 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM HB -269- Huntington Beach 'Item 5. - 192 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number./Title LC 018 Ward Street And Garfield Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (n all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed:1) Add a2nd eastbound leftturn lane, and 2) remove a separate eastbound right turn lane_ This would be a City -managed project. Justification J Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inabilityto increase circulation capacilywhere warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck. Level 'E" is "Unstable Flow," and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level 'E", 'Forced Flow' creates 'Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement'. Relationship to General Plan Development: All new developmentwill impact existing intersections % ithinthe City, mating some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like'D", "E" or'F'. Development anticipated overthe nexttwentyyeers will generate 454,542 additional dailytrip-miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily over the CiVs existing demand of 3,107,224 dBilytrip-miles, all of which will compete for use of astatic number of major roadway lane mites. The 454,542 added daily trip -miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,551,767 dailytrip-miles at the twentyyear development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00% Reference Document ProjectTiming: The projectvAll be constructed within normal reviewof priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 - 15 through Build-wt Total all Years 2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.0o 0.00 O.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,000.00 e,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 $00.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,800.00 8,800.00 38 Item 5. - 193 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -270- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/Title LC 019 Brookhurst Street And Adams Avenue Submitting Departments: PublicWorks -Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed:1) Add a 4th through lane in each of the four directions, 2) add a separate northbound rightturn lane, 3) allow northbound right turn overlap and 4) allowwestbound righttum overlap. Thiswould be a City -managed project Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to aLevel 'E' by acting as a bottleneck Level "E" is 'Unstable Flow:' and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level "E', "Forced Flow" creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Relationship to General Plan Development All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like 'D",'E" or "F". Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily trip -miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily over the CiVs existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip -miles, all ofwhich will compete for use of a static number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added daisy trip -miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 dailytrip-miles atthe twenty-yrear development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Bui[dout: 95,00 Reference Document ProjectTiming: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,2O0,000.00 1,200,000.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way o.00 0.00 O.Oo 0.00 o_Bo 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8,000,000.00 6,000,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 a.0o 800,000.00 800,000.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10,D00,000.00 10.000,000.00 39 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM HB -271- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 194 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number:/ Title LC 020 Miscellaneous Traffic Signaljlntersedion Improvements Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: Construct on average, atraffic signal (and supportive intersection improvements) peryear over atwenty-year development window. The intersections would be selected on an as -needed basis from an existing prioritized list of proposed intersections. The improvements would include, but not necessarily be limited to, concrete curb, sidewalk and disabled ramp afterationss, new signals infrastructure, consisintg of fight arms, lights, electrical control boxes, off -site controls. In addition there maybe a need for lane restriping and leMurn and right turn pockets. These projects would be a City -managed. Justification ! Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City, thus movement of traffic across major circulation routes. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service (or LOS) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E" by acting as a bottleneck Level "E" is "Unstable Flow:' and is identified as "long queues of vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection". Level 'E", "Forced Flow' creates "Jammed conditions, back-ups from other locations restrict or prevent movement". Relationship to General Plan Development: All new development will impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements orthe LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "D", "E" or'F'. Development anticipated overthe nexttwentyyears will generate 454,542 additional dailytrip-miles. This is a 14.6% increase daily overthe City's existing demand of 3,107,224 dnilytrip-miles, all ofwhich will compete for use of astatic number of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles represent 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 dailytrip-miles etthe twenty ear development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.001% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: The pmjectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administradc 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 DD0,000.00 600,000.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 4.000,000.00 4. Contingency 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,a0O.00 400,000.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00 M Item 5. - 195 pate: 4127/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -272- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Numberj Title LC 021 Public Works Maintenance Building Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: Construct a10,000 square foot, split-4ace block, general -use circulation system maintenance building. The facilitywould have full utilities and a number of roll -up doors. Approximately 80 , of the cost of the additional space would benefit circulation system maintenance. The remaining 20 o would be required for the growing storm drainage collection system maintenance needs and would thus be financed with Strom Drainage System Development Impact Fee proceeds. The cot below represents 8051. of the proposed facility costs. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The additional space needs is required tro support the roughly $40.0 million in additional equipment and supply space needs resulting from the addition of major circulation and stram drainage improvements as well as an untold amount of local street miles and local strom drainage lines. Relationship to General Plan Development The facility expansion is limited to the demand created bythe new infrastructure required to support new development Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00 Reference Document Project Timing: The projectwould be constructed based upon normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient DIF revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED ENPENDFURES 2011 -12 2012. 13 2013 -14 2014 -15 trrouyi Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 265,000.00 265,000.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,410,000.00 2,410,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 145,000.00 145,OD0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,820,000.00 2,820,000-00 41 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM HB -273- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 196 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/ Title LC 022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles Submitting Departments: PublicWorks-Maintenance Project Description: Acquire an additional maintenance utility truck and atraffic signal lifttruck. Justification J Consequences of Avoidance: The additional maintenance vehicle would be required to supportthe additional demands from the roughly $40.0 million in additional circulation system improvements. Relationship to General Plan Development The circulation system maintenance fleet expansion is limited to the demands created by new infrastructure required to support new development Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00% Reference Document Project Timing: The proposed afleet additions would be acquired based upon normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient DIF revenues are collected. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering IAdministratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2015 -16 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 $5,000.00 65,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 42 Item 5. - 197 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -2?4- Huntington Beach October, 2011 City of Huntington Beach Storm Drainage Collection System 43 HB -275- Item 5. - 198 E ƒ U % � co C _ 0 � $ % O Z U CML % co c E 0 7 p 2 ) 7 7 0 (L / Q § Q \ � § § § 7 k \ \ } \ \ wl cQ \ \ § § 2 3 / 2 2 2 a a a 2 a s a a a a m a a K a a& \ � a _ _ _ _ _ Q i 7 k k $ ƒ \ 7 A 7 § E k M k cc } \ k M o } � \ a E | - \ / \ 0 0 M A # m & EL ) k 9 7 § k k 0 k S\ G } F § _ \ j ) 0 w 44 \ Item 5.-199 HB=76- Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project Numberr<Title SD 001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1) Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: The 788 individual projects within Area 1 are required to remove storm drainage waterfrom the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safety conveying it to the proper outlet. Sub -drainage region #1 drains the lower central to east and southerly areas of the City. It is generally bordered on the east by the Santa Ana River Channel, on the southwest bythe Pacific Coast Highway and the Pacific Ocean, on the west mainly by Alabama and Main Streets, and on the north by Garfield and Ellis Avenues. It encompasses the Santa Ana River and the Talbert Channel Water Quality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 20-27,29-32, 40, and 41. Justification f Consequences of Avoidance: These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm water from the CiVs streets, roads and other public areas. Storm water will increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The amount ranges from a lour of 0,745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.830 for commercial properties. Knot completed, there would be the potential for flooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergency vehicle response by the City's Police, Fire and Public Works crews could be eifacted to all areas of the City. Relationship to General Plan Development: A proportional amount of the projects, visa vis the cost of the entire system, is appropriate. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 7.52% Reference Document Project Timing: The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013-14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,847,360.00 2,847,360.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 18,962,400.00 18,962,40D.D0 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,e98,240.00 1,89s,240.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.Oo TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23,728,000.00 23,728,000.DD 45 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012 Time:12:16 PM HB -277_ Huntington Beach Item 5. - 200 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project Number:/Title SD 002 Coastal And Bolsa ChicaWetlands Region (SD Region #2) Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: The 235 projects within Area#2 are required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely convey itto the proper outlet Sub -drainage region # 2 drains the central southwest area of the City, and is generally bordered by Lake and Main Streets on the east Pacific Coast Highway on the south and west SeepointAvenue and Edwards Street on the west and Ellis Avenue on the north. Sub -drainage 2 also includes the community surrounding the Springdele/Tolbert intersection. It encompasses the Bolsa Chico Wetlands and the Coastal Water Quality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 16-19. Justification f Consequences of Avoidance: These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm waterfrom the City's streets, roads and other public areas. Storm waterwill increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.830 for commercial properties. If not completed, there would be the potential for flooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergency vehicle response by the City"s Police, Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City. Relationship to General Plan Development: Apropoltional amount of the projects, vis-a-vis the cost of the entire system, is appropriate. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 7.52% Reference Document: Project Timing: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 though Buikku1 Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,583.240.00 2,583,240.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,221,600.00 17,221,600.00 4, Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,722,160.00 1,722,160.00 5. Equipment / Other 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,527,000.00 21,527,000.00 46 Item 5. - 201 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:16 PM HB -278- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project N u m b er:1 Title SD 003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3) Submitting Departments: Public Works -Engineering ProjectDescription: The 270 projects within Area#3 are required to remove storm drainage waterfrom the City's street surfaces and other publicareas and safely convey itto the proper outlet Sub -drainage region 3 drains the central section of the City, including a portion of the City of Fountain Valley, and is generally bordered by Newland and Magnolia Avenues on the east Ellis, Taylor and Talbert Avenues on the south, Graham and Bolsa Chica Streets on the west and Warner Avenue on the north. Sub -drainage 3 consists of the Slater Channel Water Quality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 10-15, Justification /Consequences of Avoidance: These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm waterfrom the City's streets, roads and other public areas. Storm waterwill increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.630 for commercial properties. If not completed, there would be the potential for flooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergency vehicle response bythe City s Police, Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City. Relationship to General Plan Development: A proportional amount of the projects, vis-a:-vis the cost of the entire system, is appropriate. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 7.52% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 - 12 2012-13 2013- 14 2014- 15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,108,320.00 4,108,320.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27,388,800.00 2TM,800.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,738,880.00 2,735,580.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,236,000.D0 34,236,000.00 47 V:1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:16PM j- B -2%9- Huntington Beach Item S. - 202 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project Number./ Title SD 004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4) Submitting Departments: PublicWorks- Engineering Project Description: The 220 projects within Area#4 are required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely convey itto the proper outlet.Sub-drainage region 4 includes the northern and northeastem parts of the City, and is generally bordered by Newland Street on the east Heil and Warner Avenues on the south, Springdale Street an the west and McFadden Avenue on the north_ Sub -drainage 4 corresponds to the Wintersburg Water Quality Channel Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps G9. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm water from the City's streets, roads and other public areas. Storm waterwill increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.630 for commercial properties. If not completed, there would be the potential for flooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Erne rgency vehicle response by the City s Police, Eire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City. Relationship to General Plan Development: A proportional amount of the projects, vis-a-vis the cost of the entire system, is appropriate. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 7.52% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Yaars 1 _ Design / Engineering / Adminisfratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,449,880.00 3,449,880.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22,999,200.00 22.999,200.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,299,920.00 2,299.920.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 28,749,000.00 28.749,000.00 eD Item 5. - 203 IOate: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM HB -280- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project Numberj Title SD 005 Bolsa Chica Channel 8 Harbour Region (SD Region #5) Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: The 278 projects within Area #5 are required to remove storm drainage water from the Gty s street surfaces and other public areas and safely convey itto the proper outlet Sub -drainage region 5 covers the northwestern section of the City, including a portion of the City of Westminster. Bub -drainage 5 corresponds to the Harbor Water Quality Planning Area and the Bolsa Chico Channel Water Quality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 1-5. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm waterfrom the City s streets, roads and other public areas. Storm waterwill increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.830 for commercial properties. If not completed, there would be the potential forflooding of downstream creeks, washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergency vehicle response bythe City`s Police, Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City. Relationship to General Plan Development: A proportional amount of the projects, vis-a-vis the cost of the entire system, is appropriate. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: T52% Reference Document ProjectTiming: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Huik!-out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11,825,880.00 11.825,880.00 2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 78,8$9,200.00 78.839,200.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7,883,920.00 7,883,920,00 5. Equipment/ Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 98,549,000.00 98,549,000.00 49 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:16 PM HB -2 8 1 - Huntington Beach Item 5. - 204 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project Number:/Title SD 006 Public Works Maintenance Building Submitting Departments: Public Works -Engineering Project Description: .Construct a 10,000 split -face block general use, maintenance building. The facility would be have full utilities and a number of roll -up doors. Appro dmetely 20% of the cost of an additional 10,000 square foot building in support of General Fund Public Works maintenance from Storm Drainage System Development Impact Fees. The remaining 80%would be financed with Circuation System Development Impact Fees. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The additional space needs would be required to supportthe additional demands from the construction of $ }00min circulation and storm drainage infrastructure improvements. Relationship to General Plan Development The facility expansion is limited to the demands created by the new infrastructure required to support new development. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 100.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013.14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 66,250.00 66,250,00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 o.o0 0,00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 602,500.00 602,500.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36,300.00 36,300.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.oa TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 705,050.00 705,050.00 50 Item 5. - 205 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM HB -282- Huntington Beach October, 2011 City of Huntington Beach Public Library Facilities And Collection 51 Item 5. - 206 1: c Q co IL Co U 0)U� C 4z� CO co �-f LL � N � w i o Ln It co a m IR m _ N c�D W Q' QO w w P3 � 6 6 O O O Oo a a a a 52 Item 5. - 207 HB -284- Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Public Library Facilities And Collection Project Number./Title PL 001 Expand Banning Branch Library Submitting Departments: Library Services Project Description: Expand the Banning Branch Library facilities by 10,100 square feet from the current 2,400 square feet to 1 Z500 square feetta assit in maintain the existing levels of service and extend those same levels of seance to the 17,089 new residents expected to be added through General Plan build -out. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The current defacto library standard of space is 0.669 square feet per resident Added 17,089 residents from new General Plan development will create additional demands upon the existing level of service provided by the library. Without increasing library space, the existing standard would decrease to about 0.614 square feet per resident. Relationship to General Plan Development: The proposed improvements are required to meet the demands of an increasing residential population. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 100.00% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: Based upon the rate of construction of residential units and thus collection of any imposed development Impact Fees. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 through8uiicl-oui Total al Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 535,260.00 535,260.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way a.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $08,000.00 808,000.a0 3. Construction 0100 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,668,370.00 3,586,370.00 4. Contingency 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 356,840.00 356,840.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 5,268,470.00 5,268,470.00 53 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:17 PM HB -285- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 208 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Public Library Facilities And Collection Project hiumberlTitle PL 002 Expand Main Street Branch Library Submitting Departments: Library Services Project Description: Expand the Main Street Branch Library facilities by 4,804 square feetfrom the current 4.500 square feetto 9,304 square feetto assist in the maintenance of the existing levels of service and extend those same levels of service to the 17,039 new residents expectedto be added through General Plan build -out The project consists taking 004 square feet of the current building that house the branch library currently used by a non--Citytenantand turning it into library space. There is no current effort to oust the current tenant however, ultimately the non -library space could easily be converted as librray space. Justification j Consequences of Avoidance: The current defacto library standard of space is 0.669 square feet per resident. Added 17.089 residents from new General Plan development will create additional demands upon the existing level of service provided bythe library. Without increasing library space, the existing standard would decrease to about 0.614 square feet per resident Relationship to General Plan Development The proposed improvements are required to meetthe demands of an increasing residential population. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 100.00% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: Based upon the rate of construction of residential units and thus collection of any imposed development Impact Fees. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012-13 2013-14 2014 - 15 through Build-aut Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 198,165.00 198,165.00 2. Land Acquisition t Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,321.100.00 1,321,100.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132,110.00 132,110.00 5. Equipment/Other o.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,651,375.00 1,651.375.00 54 Item 5. - 209 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 12:17 PM HB -?&6- Huntington Beach October,2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Public Library Facilities And Collection Project Number]Title PL 003 Expand Library Collection System Submitting Departments: Library Services Project Description: Expand the public library collection items inventory by roughly 36,861 items to maintain the existing 2.157 collection items per resident currently offered bythe City's library system. Justification I Consequences of Avoidance: Added population from new residential construction will increase the City's residential population by approximately 17,089 additional residents. Without expanding the library collection items inventory, that standard would drop to approximately 1.979 items per resident. Relationship to General Plan Development: The proposed improvements are required to meet the demands of an increasing residential population, Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 100,00% Reference Document: ProjectTiming: Based upon the rate of construction of residential units and thus collection of any imposed development Impact Fees. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering /Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2015 -16 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CM 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 921,524.00 921,624.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 921,524.00 921,524,00 55 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:17 PIA HH -? 8 i- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 210 City of Huntington Beach Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development W Item 5. - 2 11 HB -288- d � C41 WW cc � C4 0 c0� p 4 •C o M t��! o O w H7 n tu7*� 1 o co la M � di ai `6ni n � m 2 0 S o fie, E o v M o (q 0 8 0 co� g v N 6�4 m M b4 iDra V)i to E� VDS h.� W77 P 64- N q v! vDj 6D9 ai y 9 O tq. N b' K? O N M r N wp N N F+'� ta I!} vDi N} N q NS v47 4 6'h H iR M M K M N M OO N N eii R] t4 M tial •5 V) w i� Vd iA M V� w MS Vf N M 4 N! C O M y 1:5 M o a M R Q M Val H g Q d9 g 0 H CO t17 O LO? OD c c L EL ❑ v m a Q• � w m rn r o. pp m co W o E ❑ w 'E cu Pik F c C 19 � � m ❑ � 'C p � � w l7 x iL 0. m m F3 to M L m � � w o7 v' � •A � � � cLi � �- � w � c U J W S U U U U f] G7 z m U S U li U uJ M1 OD Cl) !� q R D a a 0. a a 4 d a 4 Ox. a C. a a a per, Ma a Iere:�!� Item 5. - 212 b 4 Ol rn 49 a C Q9 E a W LL 0 "U d � LL i..� C S.. I O [V ys Q ift �mm U Item 5. - 213 HB -290- Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number./Tile PK 001 Bartlett Park Conceptual Plan And EIR Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: The project consists of the environmental assessment and conceptual plan forthe remaining 28 acre Bartlett Park, largely an Environmentally Sensitive Habitat Area (ESHA). The preliminary plans include a natural -passive use consisting of trails, trailhead kiosks, and limited, natural parking. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The park improvements are needed for protection of the currently open orvacant parcel. Roughly 90 0 of the parkwould remain untouched with improvements designed to protect that 90%. Relationship to General Plan Development: Little direct relationship, butthe improvements are consistentwith the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly supportthe additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The design and environment assessment component is planned for 2009 to 2010. The first construction component is planned for between 2010 and 2020. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 400,000.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 500,000.00 900,000.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0o 0,00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 TOTAL COST: 400,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 S,000,000.00 5,400,000.00 59 V: 1,08.0 Date: 412712012 Time:11:36 Am HB -291- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 214 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Numberj Title PK 002 Irby Park Phase I[ Submitting Departments: Comm unity Services Project Description: The project consists of the development of the remaining eight acres. Construct bio-filter and water retention area. In addition, construct trails, passive pocket areas, interpretive signs and a small area of neighborhood park improvements (climbing apparatus, benches, picnictables) adjacent to the neighborhood area The more active portion would be designed in a fashion to protectthe more natural areas. Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance: The park needs a combination of passivelactive improvements to create a balance of active uses with protection of the water retention needs. The water retention needs would receive appropriations from storm drainage sources, a State PublicWorks Grant. Relationship to General Plan Development Little direct relationship, but the improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the additional residents resulting from new development. The project is also capacity increasing. Allocation To General Plan Bui[dout 0.00% Reference Document ProjectTimin g: Based upon receipt of State (Public Works) Grant The project is in conjunction with a PW State Grant- matching funds. X15-1S PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Bulld-out Total all Years 1, Design / Engineering / Administratit D.Do 0,00 0_00 0,00 50,000.00 50,o0D.00 2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00 4. Contingency 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 5. Equipment/ Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: O.oD O.oD 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500.000.00 Item 5. - 215 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 11:36 AM H B -292- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And mark Facilities Development Project Numberj Title PK 003 Central Park Former Gun Range EIR, RAP And Development Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: The project consists of an Environmental Impact Review, Remedial Action Plan and ultimately a development plan. The gun range has been inactive for overten years and the accumulated lead in the soil and use of creosote wood presents an environmental problem and mustbe remedieted before re -use. Phase I consists of preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Remedial Action Plan- Phase II ($2.0 million) is an estimate of the range remediation. Phase Ill (also $2.0 million) is the actual site improvements to turn it into an active park use, proposed atthis time to be a skate park Justification { Consequences of Avoidance: The roughly five acre gun range area is pats of the City's major regional park and needs to be used to its maximum potential in ayet to be determined manner. Relationship to General Plan Development Little direct relationship, butthe improvements are consistentwith the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectiysupport the additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing. Allocation To General Plan Suildout 0.00% Reference Document ProjectTiming: The study/report, site remediation and site improvements are planned for a period between 2010 and 2020. 2015 - 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 - 14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design I Engineering I Administratic 325,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 325,000.00 2, Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 4,000,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 325,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 4,325,000.00 61 V: 1,08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36Am HB -293- Huntington Beach Item S. - 216 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project NumberJTitle PK 004 Le Bard Park Expansion Master Plan And Development Plan Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Undertake the Park Master Plan and construction documents necessaryto expand the turf area and park amenities on the two remaining undeveloped acres. The improvements will be completed in a single phase. Improvements also include the elimination of drainage problems and construction of a ramp to the Santa Ana River Trail. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The park improvements are necessary to complete the park and maximize the roughty five acres available atthis park Relationship to General Plan Development: Little direct relationship, butthe improvements are consistentwith the QVs General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly supportthe additional residents resulting from new development. The project is also capacity increasing. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0AV/ Reference Document: PrajectTiming: As park -related revenues become available. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering ! Administratic 250,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250,000Ao 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0-00 aoo 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,200,000.00 1,200,000.00 4. Contingency 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 250,000.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 1,200,000.00 1,450,000.00 3% Item 5. - 217 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:11:36 AM HB -294- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number../Title PK 005 Blufftop Park Trail improvements Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct improvements to the existing two and a half -mile long asphafttrail, including a splittrait system for pedestrian and wheeled traffic. The project includes 15%far citizen input project designiengineering, soils and materials testing, project plan check and construction inspection. The project also includes a standard 10% for project contingency. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The project is necessaryto reduce the rate of erosion of the very important blufftop area. Relationship to General Plan Development: None directly, the improvements are primarily necessaryto maintain an existing asset Allocation To General Plan Buildout: Reference Document Project Timing: As revenues permit PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 0.00 o 2015-16 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 - 14 2014 -15 through Build-o:d Total all Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120,000.00 120,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80,000.00 80,000,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 63 V: 1-08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:35AM HB -295- Huntington Beach Iteim 5. - 218 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number./Title PK 006 Edinger Dock Development Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct a new dock and boat launch. Justification 1 Consequences of Avoidance: The improvements need to be made to meet the recreational boating needs of the community. Relationship to General Plan Development: Little direct relationship, butthe improvements are consistentwith the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly supportthe additional residents resulting from new development. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00 Reference Document: ProjectTiming: Within priority and as Park Fund revenues become available. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering ! Administratic 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00 2. Land Acquisition ! Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 600,000.00 e00,000.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 50,000.00 50,000.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 700,000.00 700,000,00 64 Item 5. - 219 Date: 4/27/2012 Time- 11.36 AM H Q-296- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number./Title PK 007 Wardlow Field Reconfiguration Design/Construction Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Reconfigure the park to accommodate a youth sports field and plan for additional parking. Construction costs for the little league field and parking lot are included at $380,009. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The parks earlier configuration is inefficient in terms of space. Relationship to General Plan Development: Little direct relationship, butthe improvements are consistentwith the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly supportthe additional residents resulting from new development Allocation To General Plan Buildout: Reference Document: Project Timing: 2010. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design I Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 0.00% 2015-16 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 -14 2014 - 15 through Build -out Total all Years 120,000.00 0.00 0.00 o.0a 0.00 120,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 800,000.00 800,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120,000M 0.00 0,00 0.00 880.000.00 1,000,000.00 65 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM HB -297- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 220 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Protect Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/Tittle PK 008 City -Wide Parks Master Plan Submitting Departments: Community Sertinces Project Description: The project consists solely of the preparation of a Parks Master Plan. Justification J Consequences of Avoidance: A Master Plan of Parks is needed to insure the continued rational programmed development of the City parks system. Relationship to General Plan Development: APark Master Plan for the continued development of the City's Park system is directly relatedto General Plan development. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document Project Tming: The project is scheduled forthe pariod of 2010 to 2020. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDIITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design 1 Engineering 1Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350,000.00 350,000.00 2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 5. Equipment/ Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350,000.ao 350,000.00 •s Item 5. - 221 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:11:36 AM HB -298- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/Title PK 009 Central Park Habitat Plan Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Complete an enhanced habitat plan for entire Central Park area. The plan is necesseryfor mitigating the raptorforaging area related to the areas slated for construction of the proposed Central Park Senior Center. The results may indicate the need for a one-to-one basis within the park. That is, all negative impacts must be fully mitigated. .Justification J Consequences of Avoidance: The area proposed forthe Senior Citizens Center has been vacantfor a great deal of time and has become a raptor foraging area. The City needs to study the entire park area and determine if and howthe impact of the proposed development of the Senior Center can be mitigated on a park -wide basis. Relationship to General Plan Development Little direct relationship, but the improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the additional residents resulting from new development Allocation To General Plan Buildout: Reference Document: Project Timing: As revenues permit 0,00% 2015 - 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design 1 Engineering / Administratic 0-00 0.00 0.0o 0.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 250,000.00 250,000.00 67 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 1 i:36 AM HB -299- Huntington Beach' Item 5. - 222 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/Title PK 010 Central PerkAcquisiton Of Encyclopedia Lots Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: The expenditures allow forthe acquisition of fifty-one privately owned lots located within park boundaries at approximately $20,900 per lot. The small, individual lots are located generally north of Ellis, south of Edwards and west of Golden West Avenues. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The acquisition of the small lots is necessary to allow forthe complete development and thus maAmization, of Central Park - Relationship to General Plan Development Little direct relationship, butthe improvements are consistentwith the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly supportthe additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document Project Timing: As Park Fund revenues permit 2016.16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,020,000.00 1,020,000.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,020,000-00 1,020,v00.00 30 Item 5. - 223 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 Am HB -300- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/Titte PK 011 Central Park Development Of Remaining 86 Acres Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Complete the mostly passive area of the park. near Ellis and Golden West Avenues, with trails, picnic areas, a restroom and additional parking per the Central Park Master Plan. Justification j Consequences of Avoidance: The improvements are necessaryto maximize the use of this major park Relationship to General Plan Development Little direct relationship, butthe improvements are consistentwith the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing. Allocation To General Pien Buiidout Reference Document: Project Timing: As park capital revenues permit PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design 1 Engineering I Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment/ Other TOTAL COST: 0.00% 2015 - 1E 2C11 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 0.00 0.00 0.0a 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.aa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 •' V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM HB -301 - Huntington Beach Item 5. - 224 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Paris Facilities Development Project NumberjTitle PK 012 Central Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Facilities Submitting Departments: CommunitySetvioes Project Description: Rebuild the 'Park Bench Cafe" and "Alice's Restaurant'. Justification J Consequences of Avoidance: The facilities are nearly thirty years old and in need of replacement. Relationship to General Plan Development: These improvements are largely concession -based improvements and thus financed with long-term concession revenues. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: As revenues permit and as negations are completed. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDFURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 tiroughRuild-out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering 1 Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800,000.Do 800,000.Do 4. Contingency 0-00 O.DO 0.00 0.0o 0.00 0-00 5. Equipment ! Other O.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800,DD0.00 800,000.00 %n Item 5. - 225 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:11:35 AM HB -302- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilitles Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development ProjectNlumbwjTitfe PK 010 Gener:nJ Youth Sports Facilities Grants Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Ttre proposed expenditure acts as seed money for grants obtained by volunteer youth sports programs. The protect consists of $150,000 per yew in grant *ssistance, Justifeation / Consequences of Avoidance: The City has had a long-term policy of assisting local groups leverage aty moneyfor common park area improvements. Relotlanship to General Plan Development Little drect relationship. butthe improvements are consistertwt the City's General Plzen Rearadon Element and indirectly supportthe additional residents resuHingfrom new development, Allocation To General Plop Buildout: 171,00% Reference Document: Project Timi ng: As requested * local groups the have sLiccess in obtaining grants or other ffnaneiel assistance. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1, Daslgn 1 Engineering 1Administrltl( 2. Land Acquisition i Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment/Other TOTAL COST: 2015.10 2011 -12 2M2 • 13 2013 -14 2014 -15 thrav h Uld•aLd 0.00 0,00 0,00 D.00 O.DO 0.00 O.Do 0.00 0.00 0.00 190,000.00 150,000.00 15D,000,Do 150,000.00 8,900,DDD,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 150,000,00 160,000,00 150,DDO.00 150,00D.00 3,900,000.00 Taal an Yaam 0,00 0,00 4,500,000.00 0.00 D.00 4,500,000.00 71 V: 1,08,0 Date; 510212012 Time:10:46 AM HB -303- Huntington Beach Octo Item 5. - 226 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project hlumberjTitle PK 014 Mundy Youth Sports Complex Phase II Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Reconfigure the current park/school configuration to increase youth sports capabilities. The City end school districtwill amend the existing joint use agreement and the City will construct a sports field on school property. There will also be parking lot improvements with additional spaces and aturn -around. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The existing field configuration does not maximize the existing field space for use byyouth sports associations and the re -design of the existing park and school parcels will address this shortcoming. Relationship to General Plan Development: The existing field configuration does not maximize the existing field space for use byyouth sports associations and the re -design will address this. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.0051, Reference Document Project Timing: As revenues permit 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering 1 Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 2,500,000.00 2,500,000.00 72 Item 5. - 227 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36AM HB -304- Huntington Beach October,2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/Trtle PK 015 Beach Playground Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct atot lotfyouth playground with capability to serve the needs of two different age groups. The improvement would be located on the City beach north of the pier adjacentto Blufftop Park at 9th Street The parkwould have asphalt access with aturnabout Justification /Consequences of Avoidance: The improvements are intended to improve the beach day experience for youths. Relationship to General Plan Development: The existing field configuration does not maximize the existing field space for use byyouth sports associations and the redesign will address this. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: Reference Document Project Timing: As revenues permit. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 0.00` o 2015 -16 2011 -12 2012. 13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through BuRd-out Total all Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350,000.00 350,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350,000.00 350,000.00 73 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM HB -305- Huntington Beach (Item 5. - 228 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/Title PK 016 Central Park Development Of Former Gun Range Area Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: The project consists of the removal of the eAs#ing gun range and designingjconstructing a skate parkfacility. Justification ( Consequences of Avoidance: The City currently has no facilities of its own for in -line skating and skateboarding in this area of the community and will need to offset the loss of the eDasling Huntington Beach High School skate facility. Relationship to General Plan Development: None directly, butthe proposed skate facility is capacity increasing. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project design is planned for 2010 and the construction between 2010 and 2020. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1, Design / Engineering I Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2015 -16 2011 -12 2012 • 13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 360,000.00 360,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,400,000.00 2,400,000.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 240,000.00 240,000,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 3,000,000.00 74 Item 5. - 229 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM HB -306- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Numbed Title PK 017 Warner Dock Renovation And Expansion Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Improve the Edinger Dock area by dredging the area and adding fourto six docks or slips. There would alsa be improements made to the public boat launch ramp. Justification i Consequences of Avoidance: The area serves the yacht dub activities as well as casual boaters. Relationship to General Plan Development: Little direct relationship, butthe improvements are consistentwith the>iVs General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly supportthe additional residents resulting from new development. The project is also capacity increasing. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00% Reference Document ProjectTiming: The project design is planned for2010 and the construction between 2010 and 2020. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design 1 Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 96,000.00 96,000,00 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 640,000.00 640,000.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,000.00 e4,000.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 75 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:11:36 AM H$ -307- Huntington Beach i Item 5. - 230 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number-j Title PK 018 Lamb Park Design And Development Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Design, engineer and construct park improvements on the 2.4 acre Lamb Park site. The improvements would include lighted sports facilities (ballfield and sportsfield) and other neighborhood fixtures such as benches, sidewalks, drinking fountains and a play apparatus on the parcel, a closed school site. Justification J Consequences of Avoidance: The park improvements, mostly sports oriented, are necessaryto complete the park and maximize the roughly 2.4 acres available at this park Relationship to General Plan Development Little direct relationship, but the improvements are consistent with the City's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly supportthe additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project design is planned for 2010 and the construction between 2010 and 2020. 2t115 - 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design 1 Engineering 1 Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132,000.00 132,000,00 2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 880,000.00 880,000,00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86,000.00 88,000.00 5. Equipment/ Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST. 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,100,000.00 1,100,000.00 76 Item 5. - 231 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM HB -308- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Lend Acquisition And Perk Facilities Development Project Number:/Title PK 919 Central Park Sports Complex Team Room Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct ateam-room at the sports complex. The facility would be used by teams for during game breaks. The facility would have electrical service and possibly a drinking fountain but would not include shower/locker facilfties. Justification (Consequences of Avoidance: The facilitywill provide sports teams with a location for team discussions, changing and personal effects security. Relationship to General Plan Development Little direct relationship, but the improvements are consistent with the CiVs General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the additional residents resulting from new development. The project is also capacity increasing. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00 a Reference Document ProjectTiming: The project design is planned for 2010 and the construction between 2010 and 2020. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2015 -16 2011 - 12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 ODD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 77 V:1.08,0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36AM HB -309- Huntington Beach 'Item 5. - 232 Onlinglon Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And PrarkFacllitissDevefop."nt Project Number:/Title PK 020 Future Perl%Acquisition (Possible Closed School Sites) SubmittingDopertments: CommunilyServices Project Description: Acquire approAmetely 68 acres of land suitablefor development of motive and passNe parks such as including neighboftod, community and spoils parks, Potantiol sites would include closed school sites. Land acquisition is estimated at$20.00 per square foot or $871,120 per ticre, JustAcation / Consequences of Avoidance: The City needs to acquire apprcodmately 100 eat;$ in order to meet the General Pian target of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residorils, F;eletionship to Genertti Plan Developmerrt: The City's General Plan currently identifies (a target of 5.0 acres of recre%icin opportunites per one thousand residents. Mocatlon To Ganerol Plan Suildout: 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project design is planned for 2010 and the construction between 2070 end 2020 PROPOSED FXPEND)TURF_S 1. Design 1 Engineering / Adminisb-atic 2, Land Acquisitlon I Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST; 2015 -15 2011 -12 2012.13 2013 -14 n14.1 b Itxouah Build -out Total di yws 0100 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01) 0.00 59.58B,D00,00 59.588,000.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.06 0,00 0.DO 0,00 0.00 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01) O,OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,588,00D,QO 50.588,000,00 78 V; 1.08.0 Date: 51OW2012 Time: f 1:00 AM Item 5. - 233 KB _310_ Huntington beach October. 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Paris Facilitie s Development Project Number:/ Title PK 021 Central Park Senior Center Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct 45,900 square foot Senior Center in Central Park The faciliiywould have a large multi -purpose room a number of smaller classrooms, awarming kitchen, fitness center, game room with pool tables, and ancillary offices. There would also be a garden patio with a waterfeature, turf and gardens. The facitity would have parking for 250 vehicles. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The City currently has ad 9-facto standard of 0.620 square feet or general purpose community use fad lity space per resident based upon the City's 118,1320 square feet of public use facilities available to the 190,377 residents. The Citywishes to maintain, if not improve, this standard by construction. The 0.620 square foot per person is not the standard for senior only facilities, butfor all community use facilities available to the entire residential population. Relationship to General Plan Development: The proposed land -use database indicates additional residential dwellings that would likely result in roughly 17,089 additional residents requiring at least 10,595 square feet of public use space in order to maintain the existing level of service (LDS) Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00 X Reference Document: Project Timing: The construction of the facility is on -hold pending litigation. 2015 - 1s PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2D14-15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design 1 Engineering IAdministratic 0_00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,200,000.00 2,200,000.00 2. Land Acquistion / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17,600,000.00 17.600,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,760,000.00 1,760,000,00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 440,000.00 440,000_00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.000,000.00 22,000,00.00 79 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:11:36 AM HB -3) 1 1- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 234 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Paris Facilities Development Project Number:/ Title PK 022 Edison Community Center Gymnasium Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct a 7,000 squarefoot gymnasium contiguous to the Edson Community Center, The facilitywouid be a basic "high school" design or grade with a single main basketball court that can be broken down into two smallerfull-courts or four half -courts for practice sessions. The facilitywould also have locker rooms and restrooms. Justification 1 Consequences of Avoidance: Due to higher demands of their own, the local high school gymnasiums are no longer as available as they once were. As a result the City is finding it more difficult to meet the City's youth indoor sports needs. Relationship to General Plan Development: The proposed land -use database indicates additional residential dwellings thatwould likelyresult in roughly 17,089 additional residents requiring at least 10,595 square feet of public use space in orderto maintain the existing level of service (LOS) Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.0051. Reference Document: Project Timing: The expansion is planned for construction between 2010 and 2020. 2015-16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012-13 2013-14 2014 - 15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 357,000.00 367,000.00 2. Land Acquistion / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3. Construction 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 2,380,000.00 2,380,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 238,000.00 238,000.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,975,000.00 2,975,000.00 '1 Item 5. - 235 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM HB I ?- Huntington Beach October, 2011 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Lend Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number. Title PK 023 Murdy Community Center Gymnasium Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct a 7,000 square toot gymnasium contiguous to the Murdy Community Center. The facilitywould be a basic "high school' design or grade with a single main basketball courtthat can be broken down into two smaller full -courts or four half -courts for practice sessions. The facility would also have locker rooms and restrooms. Justification {Consequences of Avoidance: The City currently has a de -facto standard of 0.620 square feet or general purpose community use facility space per resident based upon the City's 118,820 square feet of public use facilities available to the 190,377 residents. The Citywishes to maintain, K not improve, this standard by construction. The 0.620 square foot per person is not the standard for senior only facilities, but for all community use facilities available to the entire residential population. Relationship to General Plan Development: The proposed land -use database indicates additional residential dwellings thatwould likely result in roughly 17,089 additional residents requiring at least 10,595 square feet of public use space in order to maintain the existing level of service (LOS) Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The expansion is planned for construction between 2010 and 2020. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014 -15 through Build -out Total all Years 1. Design I Engineering 1 Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 357,000.00 357,000.00 2. Land Acquistion 1 Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 3, Construction 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.00 2,380,000.00 2,380,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 238,000.00 238,000.00 5. Equipment I Other 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,975,000.00 2,975,000.00 81 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:11:39 AM HB -3 13- Huntington Beach Item 5. - 236 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project NumberjTill a PK 024 OakVlew Recreation Center Expansion Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct a roughly 2,000 square foot expansion to the existing 10,000 square foot OakView Recreation Community Center. The facilitywould consist of a game room, multi -purpose room and a restroom. Justification/ Consequences of Avoidance: The facility is necessary (or planned) to maximize the fairly small facility. Relationship to General Plan Development The proposed land -use database indicates additional residential dwellings thatwould likely result in roughly 17,089 additional residents requiring at least 10,595 square feet of public use space in order to maintain the existing level of service (LOS) Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.09% Reference Document: Project Timing: The expansion is planned for construction between 2010 and 2020. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering i Administradc 2. Land Acquistion I Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment 1 Other TOTAL COST: 2015 - 16 2011 -12 2012 -13 2013 -14 2014 - 15 through Buid-out Total aU Years 0.00 0.00 o.0a 0.00 80.000.00 $0,000.00 0.00 0_00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00, a_ao 0.00 0.00 640,0a0.00 640,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,000.00 64,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 16,000.00 16,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 $00,000.00 800,000.00 82 Item 5. - 237 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 5:26 PM HB 14- Huntington Beach October, 2011 End of Plan 83 HB _;1-5_ Item 5. - 238 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, California October, 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012) Copyright, 2009, 2010 & 2011 by Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L. C. All rights reserved No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or copied m any form or by any means -- graphic, electronic, mechanical, including any photocopying, recording, tapxrrig or taping or information storage and retrieval systems without written permission Of. Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. 1519 East Chapman Avenue, Suite C Fullerton, CA 92831 (714) 992-9020 Item 5. - 239 HB t 6- eveuue ost pecialists, Ll,c Serving Local Governments Since I975 October 17, 2011 (amended April 27, 2012) Honorable Mayor and City Council Via Mr. Fred Wilson, City Manager City of Huntington Beach - City Hall 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 RE: 2011-12 Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee (DIF) Calculation Honorable Mayor, Council and City Manager Wilson: The City is experiencing private development of remaining vacant parcels and the on -going redevelopment of existing homes and businesses. This continuous development results in increased demand that must be absorbed (and accommodated) by the City's existing infrastructure and the Levels of Service (LOS) offered by that existing infrastructure. Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C., was contracted to undertake a comprehensive identification of the capital projects and capital acquisitions necessary to accommodate all such new demands for municipal service. Such a study is necessary to preserve the existing Levels of Service (LOS) currently offered to and enjoyed by (after having been paid for by) the existing community from the diminution of those existing LOS due to the addition of new residential and business development in Huntington Beach and calculate the development impact fees (DIFs) necessary to fund those required projects. Council and City staff, responsible for providing services to a continually expanding residential and business community, must recognize that the magnitude of the impact fees is a direct function of the nearly $403.4 million cost of the capital projects identified in the Master Facilities Plan as needed or required to accommodate new development. Regardless, anyone in the position of the Council members may find themselves reluctant to adopt the impact fees merely because they appear "too high". It is incumbent upon this Report and RCS Staff to convince the City Council of the justification and importance of the proposed impact fees The following Report calculates some new and a few updated impact fees for the City of Huntington Beach based on the aforementioned changes and the City's changing requirements for public safety, streets and signals, storm drainage and other quality of life facilities. The adoption of the updated DIFs will enable this City Council, as well as succeeding Councils, to continue to ensure that the City will be able to meet the basic infrastructure needs of new growth, without unduly burdening the existing population and business community for these development -generated capital costs. internee �r�r''revenu�cost.Carn Uaice 734.�392.9Q20 '1519 E. Chapman Ave HB -33 17 C ' .erton,714.95Item 5. - 240 Page 2 10/17/11 (amended 04127112) Letter to the Huntington Beach City Council and Staff Adoption of the recommended impact fees contained herein and imposition upon the numerous development opportunities in the City of Huntington Beach, would generate approximately $172.1 million in a combination of public improvement dedications and DIF revenues limited for use on the many capital expansion projects deemed as development generated. Existing Impact Fee Fund balances ($3.5 million) and other revenues sources ($23.0 million) make up a significant amount of the difference between the capital total and the total revenue sources. This leaves a shortfall of $204.8 million (95 % of which is $194.4 million in unfunded storm drainage projects). The identification of $403.4 million in capital needs mostly generated by new development, is not to be taken lightly, but must be examined in perspective to the cost of existing infrastructure, facilities, vehicles and equipment that a new development will share in the use and enjoyment of upon City review, approval, construction and finally, occupancy. To offer such a perspective, a major element in this Report is a proportional analysis, or comparison of what is being asked of future residents, in the form of dedicated public improvements or an in -lieu (impact fee) payment, with the cost of the City's existing infrastructure (land, facilities, and equipment), contributed by the existing population and business community. The dedications, taxes and assessments contributed to date by the existing community over numerous decades of development have generated just over $2.1 billion (at current replacement costs) in infrastructure or capital improvements to the City of Huntington Beach. The following table identifies those existing asset commitments (or equity if you will), by infrastructure. 741 Current 1J4uit . . Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $71,246,699 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $61,234,227 Circulation (Street, Si nals and Brid es) System $533,539,375 Storm Drainage Collection System $203,631,313 Public Library Facilities and Collection $76,593,112 Park Land and Park Facilities Development $1,166,934,162 FTotal Existing Infrastructure Replacement Investment $2,113,178,888 Item 5. - 241 HB -318- Page 3 10/17/11 (amended 04127112) Letter to the Huntington Beach City Council and Staff It is not intended for the recommended Development Impact Fee schedule to address all of the City's capital needs, as identified on the various schedules in this Report. As per California Government Code 66000 et. seq. and common fairness, development impact fees cannot address current capital deficiencies. The proposed fees will recognize and meet the needs of the City's growing population and business community. However, with the adoption of development impact fees, other City discretionary revenue resources that may have been used to meet growth -generated needs for expanded services and facilities will now be available for those accumulating replacement and rehabilitation projects. The information required to develop the City's capital costs and equity data was generated by the Huntington Beach staff, without whose help and cooperation, this Report would have been impossible to complete. The following management and support personnel were instrumental in working with RCS staff to gather or generate the information and technical data so critically necessary for the legal support of impact fees through the Master Facilities Plan and/or the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report. They are: Stephanie Beverage, Director of Library Services M. Todd Broussard, P. E, Principal Engineer (Storm Drainage) David Brunetta, Police Captain Luann Brunson, Senior Administrative Analyst - Community Services David C. Dominguez, Facilities Development/Concessions Manager Debbie Dove, - Police Specialist Eric C. Enberg - Fire Division Chief- Operations Jim B. Engle, Community Services Director Scott Hess, Director of Planning Mindy James - Police Budget Manager Kevin Justen, Senior Administrative Analyst - Fire Tung M. Kao, - Information System/Network Specialist - Police Jeff Lopez, Deputy Fire Marshall/Programs Darin Maresh, Fire Department Specialist Mike McClanahan, Deputy Fire Marshall/Training Shirley McNamee. Police Personnel Analyst Tony Ohnos, City Engineer Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner Bill Reardon, Fire Marshall/Division Chief Dan Richards, Information System GIS Manager Bob Stachelski. Transportation Manager Chuck Thomas, Police Captain Jerry Thompson, General Services Manager Ashley Wallace, Graduate Management Intern Darren Witt, Fire Engineer HB 1 9_ Item 5. - 242 Page 4 10/17/11 (amended 04127112) Letter to the Huntington Beach City Council and Staff The revisions are limited to merging what had been Chapter 8 (Community Use Facilities) and Chapter 9 (Park Land and Park Facilities Development into one Chapter) merging both the calculation and proposed capital projects. The companion Master Facilities Plan does the same by merging the four Community Use Facilities projects into the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development section. This was undertaken to provide the City greater flexibility to address the City's capital project needs and priorities over time. The resulting impact fees did not change beyond the reduction of a single dollar reduction for Attached Dwellings (due to rounding of whole dollars). Schedule 2.1 the proposed Development Impact Fees will demonstrate this. Without their hard work and willingness- to provide the best data available, this Report could not have been completed to the degree of accuracy and completeness that it has. I would like to highlight the efforts of Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager for his efforts in generating timely responses to RCS's many requests for critical information. The quality of information and resulting calculation were directly improved by all of the participating staff member's efforts. The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Deport and the Master Facilities Plan appendix are now submitted for your review and consideration. RCS is prepared to assist in increasing the Council's and community's understanding of this very significant part of the City's revenue structure. Sincerely, Scott Thorpe, Vice President Item 5. - 243 H13.320_ CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT and MASTER FACILITIES PLAN TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Chapter 1 - Background and Introduction ................................. 1 Chapter 2 - Demographics and Findings ................................. 16 Schedule 2.1 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule ...................... 26 Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment ................. 27 Chapter 4 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment ............. 40 Chapter 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System .................... 54 Chapter 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System ............................. 70 Chapter 7 - Public Library Facilities and Collection .......................... 82 Chapter 8 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development ............... 89 Appendix A - Expanded Land -use Database .............................. 108 Appendix B - Summary of Recommendations ............................. 111 Appendix C - Master Facilities Plan ................................... 114 HB -321- Item 5. - 244 Chapter 1 Background and Introduction The City of Huntington Beach has retained Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. to recalculate some of the City's existing Development Impact Fee (henceforth occasionally referred to as DIFs) schedules calculated at various points in time. Since that time, the City has experienced continued development of vacant land within the City. There is no reason to believe that the remaining undeveloped parcels will not also develop and underutilized parcels will redevelop, the current temporary economic building climate not -with -standing. The periodic review and adjustment of the Development Impact Fees that the City has committed to, are appropriate and warranted. Such updates are necessary to insure that the City collects sufficient DIF revenues to construct or acquire the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate new residents and businesses developing in the City. This DIF calculation effort that staff has undertaken results in a complete list of projects to be financed by the recommended Development Impact Fee schedule.' The information contained in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and the accompanying Master Facilities Plan (MFP) will allow the City Council to make more informed policy decisions. The DIF/MFP also combine to provide greater understanding or the need by the development community. It also provides an easier project tracking (and updating) system for the staff. Proportional Analysis. For perspective on the total amount of the calculated DIFs this Report includes a proportional analysis, or a comparison of the infrastructure identified as required to accommodate continued development through General Plan build -out with that of the City's existing infrastructure. This proportional analysis is intended to reconcile any difference between the City's desired level -of -service (LOS) required of new development, per statements in the various General Plan elements, with that of the de facto or actual level of service currently provided to the existing community. This addition will assist the Council in snaking many difficult policy decisions regarding the required additions of new development and will also recognize inter -generational equity along with common sense fairness. Development Impact Fee Structure. The City's General Plan provides a range of potential densities for residential development. The DIFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a per dwelling unit basis to reflect more accurately the average impacts for a specific development. For example, a parcel zoned for development as detached dwelling units may contain from three to six units per acre. If fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units per acre will pay the same amount as a developer constructing six units per acre. Development impact Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report l Item 5. - 245 HB -322_ Chapter One Background and Introduction fees for business uses are calculated on a square footage basis for commercial, office and industrial properties to reflect the impacts of different building intensities for this type of development. This structure addresses the issue of building expansion or intensification of commercial, office and industrial areas. For example, if a property owner of commercial, office or industrial property proposes an expansion to his building, the question exists about how to charge this proposed expansion for its impact on the City's streets, storm drainage system, and other infrastructures. A fee calculated on a building square footage basis will simplify this calculation. CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES In California, State legislation sets certain legal and procedural parameters for the charging of these fees. This legislation was passed as AB 1600 by the California Legislature and is now codified as California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66009. This section of State Code became effective January 1, 1989. AB1600 requires documentation of projects to be financed by Development Impact Fees prior to their levy and collection, and that the monies collected actually be committed within five years to a project of "direct benefit" to the development which paid the fees. Many states have such controlling statutes. Specifically, AB1600 requires the following: 1. Delineation of the PURPOSE of the (development impact) fee. 2. Determination of the USE of the (development impact) fee. Determination of the RELATIONSHIP between the use of the _public facilities and the type of development paying the (development impact) fee. 4. Determination of the relationship between the NEED for the facility and the type of development project. 5. Determination of the relationship between the AMOUNT of the fee and the COST of the portion of the facility attributed to the specific development project. This Report, with some additions, utilizes the basic methodology consistent with the above requirements of AB 1600. Briefly, the following steps were undertaken in the calculation of impact fees for the City and are listed following: Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 2 HB -32;- Item 5. - 246 Chapter One Background and Introduction 1. Review the City's land use map and determine the existing mix of land uses and amount of undeveloped and developed land. The magnitude of growth and its impacts can thus be determined by considering this land use data when planning an infrastructure required to support General Plan build -out. This all-important inventory is summarized in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 and detailed in Appendix A. 2. Define the level of service needed within the General Plan area for each project or acquisition identified as necessary. In some areas, certain statistical measures are commonly used to measure or define an acceptable level of service for a category of infrastructure. Street intersections, for instance, are commonly rated based on a Level of Service scale of "A" to "F" developed by transportation engineers. In some cases the identified level of service required of development may exceed that of what the City is currently providing. If so the reason must be explained and a methodology identified for raising the existing community's level of service without requiring new development to finance this increase. 3. Identify all additions to the capital facilities or equipment inventory necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area. Then, determine the cost of those additions. 4. Identify -a level of responsibility of General Plan development, identifying the relative need for the facility or equipment necessary to accommodate additional growth as defined, and as opposed to current needs. 5. Distribute the costs identified as a result of development growth on a basis of land use demand. Costs are distributed between each land use based on their relative use, nexus or demand on that particular capital infrastructure system. For example, future street costs were distributed to each land use based on their trip generation characteristics (frequency and distance creating daily trip -miles). Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 3 Item 5. - 247 HB -324- Chapter One Background and Introduction OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other important assumptions of this study include the following: Land Costs. Cost estimates for land acquisition were developed after discussions with City officials. Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made. However, the Report contains land costs (per acre) which are estimated to be the most appropriate figures for purposes of this study. PROPORTIONALITY TEST A test for proportionality is important, if for no other reason, than because it attempts to identify and achieve community inter -generational equity, i.e., fairness in balancing the infrastructure investment made by existing residents and businesses with the investment asked of new residents and businesses that will benefit from the existing infrastructure. In short, previous generations of businesses and residents have contributed to the development of the City's existing infrastructure and this fact should be recognized by future residents and businesses by contributing a like amount (but no more than) toward completing the various infrastructure systems. Mere replacements or the elimination of an existing deficiency cannot be required of new development. It is one thing to identify the many public improvement projects needed through build -out. It is an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements are required to meet the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects are replacements of the existing infrastructure while others are capacity increasing projects. Within the category of the latter, they may also be further classified into two categories; 1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required regardless of whether there is additional development or not. An example2 would be a traffic intersection currently controlled by stop signs that currently meets traffic warrants for a traffic signal, but is unfunded. However, some portion of that signal may be appropriate for impact fee financing. Another example would be the replacement of an existing but aged facility that creates no more capacity, but is merely the replacement of that same capacity. 2. Projects that are required as a result of development. An example of this would be a signal that is currently controlled quite adequately by stop signs, but because of development in the near and "downstream" areas, will ultimately need to be signalized. All impact fee calculations claim to be fair. Government Code §66000 (also referred to as Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report d HB Item 5. - 248 Chapter One Background and Introduction AB 1600) takes only two pages of text to describe the findings that development impact fees must adequately make, but does not explain specifically how to do so. Most DIF calculations will identify the desired or needed capital projects, ostensibly required as a result of the new development. Therefore, what is fair and equitable? Is it fair to require future residents and businesses in a city to construct, via payment of impact fees, a new Police Station when the current station is merely rented or leased space? On the other hand, if a community already has all of the water utility system they will need at build -out, are they precluded from imposing an impact fee to recoup some of that expenses incurred in the construction of the maximum needed water utility improvements prior to need for the maximum demand? These are difficult questions that may be made clearer and easier by reviewing the following examples. Comparison of Needed Infrastructure with Existing Infrastructure. The answer to these difficult questions may best be answered by comparing various infrastructure scenarios. This can be accomplished by looking closely at our friends in the planned community of Happy Valley' for a few scenarios to explain the three possible conditions that can occur regarding the agency's current infrastructure and the demand upon them. We will use the provision of fire protection, a service that most of us as nonprofessional fire fighters can somewhat understand. These three "conditions" include that the fire suppression system infrastructure construction has: 1. been On -target. 2. been Deficient. Or; 3. created Excess Service Capacity. Adoption of a Standard - According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a standard two -bay fire station (estimated for purposes of this example to cost about $3,000,000) can meet the needs of roughly 5,000 homes or 10,000,000 square feet of business pad. If these standards were adopted as Happy Valley's public safety element of the City's General Plan, they would be known as the demure or stated (or desired) standard (i.e., the standard the community would like to meet). This fee would be referred to as the General Plan Build -out Need -based Development Impact Fee. The inductive development impact fees (or cost per proportional unit served) for this de jure standard would then be: Table 1-1 Calculation of NFPA Impact Cost =- Land Use - ... Statronot Ilnx SerYed Residential Dwellings $3,000,000 5,000 $600.00 per home Business Square Feet $3,000,000 10,000,000 $0.30 per S.F. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 5 Item 5. - 249 HQ -3226- Chapter One Background and Introduction Service Base - Happy Valley's General Plan indicates that at General Plan build -out there will be 10,000 residential units and about 20,000,000 square feet of commercial/office/industrial space creating a need for four stations at build -out. The station calculation is as follows: Table 1-2 Determination of Required Number of Stations The infrastructure is "On -target" - The need for four stations appears simple and the Happy Valley Council need only impose the impact fees identified in Table 1-1. Currently, Happy Valley has 6,250 residential units and 7,500,000 square feet of commercial/industrial building pad and is half "built -out" (in terms of fire calls for service). In this example, existing development within Happy Valley is generating half of the ultimate (General Plan build -out) fire calls -for -service. This is demonstrated in Table 1-3 following: Table 1-3 Development of Current Infrastructure is "On -Target" N�.zn-ber; Llmts�erved �y Stations -- Residential Dwellings 6,250 5,000 1.25 Stations Business Square Feet 7,500,000 10,000,000 0.75 Stations Total Number of Stations Required Currently 2.00 Stations Conversely, Happy Valley has the remaining half of its fire demand (in terms of calls -for -service) Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 6 HB -327- Item 5. - 250 Chapter One Background and Introduction yet to come. Left to build are 3,750 detached dwelling units and 12,500,000 square feet of business floor space, and when constructed would generate the following capital needs identified on Table 1-4 following: Table 1-4 Remaining Development and Station Requirement Residential Dwellings 3,750 5,000 0.75 Stations Business Square Feet 12,500,000 10,000,000 1.25 Stations # of New Stations Required from Land to be Developed 2.00 Stations If the earlier calculated impact fees ($600 per residence and $0.30 per square foot of business pad) were adopted and imposed, Happy Valley would collect (by General Plan build -out) enough capital revenues to construct the remaining two stations and proportionality between existing and future residents and businesses would be evident. Table 1-5 following demonstrates this: Table 1-5 Remaining DIF Collection a Number Im ct Amount P _,of U�uts, ,;Fee Coeced Residential Dwellings 3,750 $600.00 $2,250,000 Business Square Feet 12,500,000 $0.30 $3,750,000 Amount Collected in Development Impact Fees $6,000,000 Cost of a Single New Station $3,000,000 Stations to be Built with Development Impact Fees 2.00 And everyone in the community of Happy Valley is adequately served by the four stations having been financed generally fairly by the total community. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 7 Item 5. - 251 HB -328- Chapter One Background and Introduction The infrastructure is in Deficient Condition - Consider, however, the implications if the current Happy Valley residents and businesses had shown the earlier limited commitment to contribute only enough financing to construct one station when, based upon their own adopted standards and level of development, they should have two stations? Clearly three more stations would be needed on the path to General Plan "build -out." The possibility of requiring the remaining future home and business owners to finance all three remaining stations would be completely inequitable. But would it be fair and equitable to charge new residents the $600 per home and new businesses the $0.30 per business square foot in order to acquire the remaining two stations required to meet the NFPA standards required of the new development? The simple and direct answer is probably not. With only one station constructed at half build -out, the Happy Valley community has not demonstrated to a proportional commitment to meeting the NFPA standards, and as a result would not have a strong case to assert that others who build later need to contribute toward the construction of multiple (two) fire stations at a higher service rate by including the "missing" second station. The problem is in trying to identify a municipal revenue source imposed only on the existing development. Simply, there is none. Soon as a business pays its impact fees, constructs, that business becomes part of the existing community. The service provided by the single existing station is the community's de facto (or"in fact") standard service level. In short, it is difficult (but possible) to claim that a higher level of service is required of new development when the City is somehow getting by with a lower level of service. With one station, the contributed equity to build the single station would be half of the impact fee proposed in Table 1-1, or $300/residential unit and $0.15/square foot of business space respectively (See Table 1-6, following). Table 1-6 Development Impact Fee at Deficient Condition =- _ N�tn-ber; LFruts_=oAtribulioz= -=�xis�uig Arnouni otd Residential Units 3,750 $300.00 $1,125,000 Business S.F. 12,500,000 $0.15 $1,875,000 Amount Contributed by Existing Community $3,000,000 Cost of One New Station $3,000,000 Station(s) built with Community's Contribution 1.00 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 8 HB -329- Item 5. - 252 Chapter One Background and Introduction If Happy Valley has only built one station at half General Plan build -out, we would be forced to conclude that the City is currently deficient by one station (or 50% of the amount required). If the future residents were asked to pay at a rate that would build two stations (the $600/$0.30 rates) the City would have three stations at General Plan build -out, one financed and built by the first half of the community, and two financed and built by the second half of the community. Considering that the fire department will respond to all calls -for -service within the entire community from one of the three completed fire stations, the first half of the community would, in effect "inherit" one half of a station at no cost to themselves. In short, Happy Valley would fail the proportionality test. The inequity would then be exacerbated when the community decides to build the final "missing" last (fourth) station from a Citywide assessment or from annual General Fund receipts, paid for by the entire community, including those who just paid for the two new stations via the adopted fire impact fees. The only equitable option is for the City to adopt impact fees at the $300/residence and $0.15/square foot rates. Adoption of this fee would be referred to as the Current Community Financial Commitment or .Investment -based Impact Fees. Admittedly, the City will go further into a deficit position in terms of the number of required stations, from being deficient by one station at half General Plan build -out to a deficiency of two stations at General Plan build -out, but the deficiency (or proportionality) would remain a constant 50% of the stations needed at either point in time. The community, if they are truly serious about meeting the NFPA recommended Level of Service (or standard), would then need to assess the entire community to raise the needed money in some fashion for financing the remaining two stations either in the form of an assessment or dedication of general receipts of the City. The Infrastructure has "Excess Capacity" - One final but important scenario remains and must be considered. In this scenario the existing residents of Happy Valley were the industrious sort and (at half General Plan build -out) had constructed three stations when they were at the point when they only needed two stations. Clearly there is excess capacity in each of the three existing stations. In this case, the Happy Valley's current de facto standard would be well above the de- jure or target standard. Statistically, each of the three stations would have 1/3 excess capacity (for providing services) and should be busy only about two-thirds of the time. Should the impact fee be limited only to the marginal $300 per residence and $0.15 per square foot for business space required to construct the one remaining required station or should the City be able to recover the costs for the existing capacity in the three stations through a recoupment impact fee? If so, the future residents receive a gift of the extra (third) station. If the excess capacity was recognized at the time the facilities were constructed and the excess capacity was identified for future use, there will be tough decisions ahead to be made by the Happy Valley City Council. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 9 Item 5. - 253 H B -3; 0- Chapter One Background and Introduction General Plan Build -out Needs -based Development Impact Fees or Recoupment Fee? The Happy Valley City Council should adopt, at a minimum, the $300lresidence and $0.15/square foot business space rates to insure that the fourth station would be built. Again, referred to as the General Plan Build -out Needs -based impact fees. This would be a benevolent gesture, giving the new residents a free ride on the cost of the (already built and paid for) third station. Or in the alternative, the Council can recognize that the $3,000,000 used to build the third station was a loan from the existing community's General Fund receipts, and should be repaid by the future community receiving an instantaneous level of fire protection the day they receive their occupancy permie, through the imposition and collection of impact fees.' In this case, the $600/residence and $0.301square foot of business space impact fees should be adopted, imposed and collected. The impact fee would accumulate $6,000,000 through build -out, with $3,000,000 required to repay the General Fund in delayed revenue (for Station #3) and $3,000,000 necessary to construct the fourth station. This would be referred to as a Recoupment-based Fee at General Plan build -out. More important, long term equity at General Plan built -out would be achieved as each home and business would have contributed the same $600 per residence and $0.30 per square foot. This situation is usually fairly limited and should be supported by the appropriate element of General Plan. Exceptions to Proportionality Test. The previous discussion applies particularly well to above ground or capacity -based services such as community use centers, pools, police and fire stations, civic centers, maintenance yards or other fixed location and finite capacity facilities that serve the entire population. However, it does not necessarily work well on ground level or below system infrastructures such as streets, utilities, and storm drainage, where the continuation of a deficient system into the future is not at all possible and the lack of additions would ensure the complete inability to approve any further private construction without creating unsafe conditions to a specific area. As an example, if the agency's storm drainage system is currently deficient and creates some period flooding but not necessarily in dangerous amounts, the agency may not be able to approve and allow any more future development unless the storm drainage runoff created by the new development, is properly collected and released at a river or flood control channel. Additionally, a currently deficient water system, i.e., one with only the most minimal of distribution pipes, may not be able to serve any more future development without a substantial increase in the capacity of the water distribution system. However, a water utility with users rates can increase existing user fees to eliminate any existing deficiencies. Si)ecific Plan or Benefit to a Specific Area. An additional exception occurs when the need or benefit from a specific facility is generated by a finite or easily defined area such as a specific plan or a new area of the agency that is significantly outside of the existing agency's urban in -fill service area or the specific plan is primarily the sole beneficiary of the infrastructure to be Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 10 HB -3 3 1 - Item 5. - 254 Chapter One Background and Introduction constructed. An example may be a small area of the City, proposed for say 2,000 homes, but separate from the rest of the City in such a way that, to meet the General Plan's stated fire suppression standard level of service of a five minute response time, it requires a separate fire station but serving less than any of the other stations, which on average serve 5,000 homes. There is little argument as to why the remaining residents and businesses should not need to finance that higher cost per home served. This is common in an area geographically separated from the major, or urban part of the community. An example would be a small area separated by a river or up on a hillside or in a canyon. These areas may need facilities specific to that area that are of little or no benefit to the rest of the community, such a bridge across a river that only benefits those live or work across the river. Densiq may also be a factor. Fire infrastructure system improvements to date may be spread over a more compact density (say 4-5 homes per acre) than the remaining development in town (say 2-3 homes per acre). The fire system infrastructure costs per residential dwelling for a lower density area will likely be higher than a more compact area with a higher dwelling density. Public Utilities. The treatment for municipal utilities is particularly clear in that the utility's operating and capital funds do not receive any General Fund financial support and they do not typically charge stand-by fees to vacant property. This means that the entire utility system has been supported only by what are called utility user fees (payments by the utility's customers). Or stated in another way, it is user -financed. In many cases the utility may have significant extra capacity because most infrastructures cannot be expanded in small defined portions that exactly match the pace of new development. An example would water reservoirs which are generally expanded on 1.0 million gallon portions, not 1,000 gallons at a time. To an individual user who has been contributing to the existing system over a period of time, it would appear quite fair for this excess capacity to be "purchased" for by new users that connect to the system who will benefit from the excess capacity has been constructed and identified. This holds particularly true for the purchase of water shares required for future water users. A water distribution system may also have significant distribution system capacity to reach homes and businesses in more outlying areas. RCS recently worked with a city where the existing water users, currently representing some 55 % of the water use demand at General Plan build -out, had already constructed nearly 70 % of the General Plan build -out water system. The 15 % difference amounted to just more than $7.0 million. Should any excess capacity paid for by existing users be a gift to the future users? Government Code §66000 et. seq. appears to prevent the city from trying to recoup the costs of the excess capacity purchased by the current users that will be the direct benefit of future users. Some excess capacity can and should be identified wherever possible, and recovered, providing that was identified as necessary for future development at the time it is created.' The excess capacity must be identified in terms of "existing project segment" and how it will benefit the future users must be identified. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 11 Item 5. - 255 HB -332- Chapter One Background and Introduction Such equity is the attempt of this Report. Excess capacity is often difficult to identify and even more difficult to convince others of. The City is probably much like Happy Valley, with excess or overcapacity in some areas of the infrastructure, and perhaps slightly deficient' in others, as you will see in the remainder of the Report. OTHER ISSUES Some members of the building industry have claimed that the addition of impact fees unfairly creates an inflated resale price for existing homes. The argument is that if the public agency adopts a development impact fee of $20,000 to $25,000 per detached dwelling home, then the price for an existing home is artificially increased by that same amount. We will use the example of detached dwelling at a construction cost of $200,000 to complete to a point that the occupancy permit is approved. Full Cost of a Residential Dwelling. The $200,000 represents only the above ground cost's construction. The true and actual cost of a new dwelling unit consists of the cost of acquiring the parcel, necessary government approvals and permits, construction supplies, labor, debt service on the above, on -site' public improvements, and The hidden cost of extending public services to that home. The costs of extending public services includes (but is not limited to): • The addition of law enforcement personnel requiring the expansion of the police station and response vehicles • Additional fire stations and response vehicles. • Widening of arterial and collector roads. • Additional capacity in downstream storm drainage pipes. • Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage and delivery. • Additions to the sewage capability, including collection, treatment and disposal. • Additions to the maintenance capabilities (i.e., municipal corporation yard and maintenance vehicles) necessary to maintain the above added infrastructure. • Additional parks, library, and public meeting space for recreational/social purposes. Thus while the cost of constructing the above ground portion of a detached dwelling may be $325,000, the "downstream" costs identified above may be in the area of $20,000 to $30,000 per detached dwelling or in the area of 6 % to 9 % % of the above ground cost. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 12 HB -333- Item 5. - 256 Chapter One Background and Introduction As an example, imagine a 2,800 square foot home, costing $325,000 to construct the above ground structure, located in the middle of an empty square mile, no roads, no utility service, no public safety response, no flood control and no recreational facilities. What is the market value of this home? Probably not even the $325,000 that it cost to construct the structure. The $25,000 development impact fee for all the infrastructures needed to support that one home, now seems like a relative bargain. Thus, the true and complete cost of a new detached dwelling is the cost of building the structure and the cost of extending the municipal services to the home regardless of who pays for the actual costs of extending those services. To some degree these service -related infrastructure costs have been recognized. The only question remaining is, who should for pay the required improvements, existing or new residents? Affect on Market Price. Again, let us assume that a cumulative $25,000 impact fee imposed upon new detached dwelling construction increases the market price of an existing detached dwelling. This additional amount is the recognition that the existing detached dwelling already has those physical links to the municipal services and thus has that value. A slightly different way of looking at this argument is that each existing detached dwelling has a "share" in a municipal corporation10 and that share is valued at the cost of the connections to the various municipal utilities, circulation system, flood protection and public safety. CHAPTER ORGANIZATION Chapters three through six will have three fee cost/fee tables. These four chapters include: Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation - This schedule identifies the various projects that the infrastructure manager has identified as required prior to General Plan build -out. These projects may be necessary in part or fully to accommodate new development. This schedule will identify the cost of the project and the portion of the project identified as resulting from new development. General Plan Build -out Needs -based Development Impact Fee - This table will identify the set of impact fees that would need to be adopted to meet the basic, or marginal needs, capital needs identified in the Report. Adoption of this level of impact fees would allow City officials to claim that new development is being approved and constructed without any additional cost to the existing residents and businesses. You could not, however, claim that new development is paying its "fair share." Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 13 Item 5. - 257 HB -334- Chapter One Background and Introduction Existing Financial Commitment or Equity -based Proportionality Test Fees - This table will identify the cost (in current nominal dollar value) of the existing infrastructure, including land, physical improvements and capital equipment. This is the average amount "invested" by the existing community of residents and businesses. This equity will be expressed in terms of the cost to construct or acquire the assets at current costs. If the average "equity" (for a detached dwelling for example) on this Table is greater then the average cost on the previous General Plan Build -out Needs -based impact fee Table, the infrastructure system is "front -ended" or has excess capacity. Stated slightly differently, the existing community has put more of the system into place than would be required of the remaining unbuilt portions of the community, (as they build). In effect, the existing community has advanced money to build capacity into the infrastructure system to meet the needs of residents and businesses not yet there! A good example of a front -ended system is the scenario where the City of Happy Valley had already built three fire stations while it only had the current actual demands for two stations. If the Existing Commitment -based impact fees are less than the General Plan Build -out Needs - based impact fee, we must conclude that existing community may not have contributed the amount of equity that they have needed to and that the construction of a needed infrastructure to support that municipal service has been lagging and is deficient. When this occurs, the Existing Community Financial Commitment or Investment -based development impact fees may act as a ceiling or upper limit of the development impact fees. A good example of a deficient system is the scenario where the City of Happy Valley had only built one fire station while it had current actual demands for two stations. In short, if the existing community has not been inclined to construct an infrastructure system proportionally as the community developed, what basis does the community have to require those future residents to invest more, thus by eliminating to some degree, the deficiencies created by the existing community? The answer is, there can be no such rational argument. To adopt the General Plan Build -out Needs -based impact fees, under these circumstances, would be an unfair attempt to eliminate the existing deficiency on the back of new development. Adoption of the Existing Commitment -based impact fees, under these circumstances, would allow City officials to claim that new development is not being required to pay to eliminate existing deficiencies. [This space left vacant to place the following Chapter endnotes on a single page] . Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 14 H B -335- Item 5.- 258 Chapter One Background and Introduction CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. For greater detail of each project, refer to the City's Master Facilities Plan in Appendix C. 2. Examples using other infrastructure will be used from time to time in this report, even though the City may not provide that service. 3. "Happy Valley" has been used as an imaginary community for purposes of DIF example for about nine years. Clearly no insult is intended to any real or imagined community of Happy Valley. It is also a Happy Valley because there is no inflation and the value of a dollar remains nominal. 4. Actually, the permitted structure receives fire protection services as it is being constructed. 5. This example assumes that each of the existing three stations is debt -free and owned out -right. 6. This action would be more supportable with a recent appraisal of the existing utility assets. 7. Not necessarily in a manner that indicates a danger, just below the standard being asked of the future residents. 8. On -site improvements include local streets and medians, curbs and sidewalks, sewer lines, water lines, street lights, storm gutter or drainage pipes, electrical power lines and all of the other requirements of the Department's building requirements on the privately held property, hence the "on -site" reference. "Off -site" improvements are increased capacity need that occur "down -stream" from the private property. The on -site public improvements generally become a city asset upon acceptance of the on -site public improvements made by the developer while the property upon which the on -site improvements, is still privately owned. 9. This Report does not address all of these services. They are only highlighted to make a point about the types of public services typically required to support a residential dwelling. 10. Not unlike a share in a corporation such as I.B.M. or A.T. & T. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 15 Item 5. - 259 HB -3 36- Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings This Chapter provides an inventory of developed and undeveloped (and underdeveloped) land within the City. The City, surprisingly, still possesses areas of vacant land zoned for residential and business uses. LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS This Report contains an inventory of developed land and land with remaining development opportunities within Huntington Beach boundaries. The undeveloped land inventory columns form the base for distribution of the estimated infrastructure costs required to extend the existing levels of service to the new development. The developed land inventory also forms the base for distributing the cost of the existing infrastructure for comparison and for the de facto identification of the existing levels of service (LOS) provided by those existing infrastructures. Table 2-1 below, summarizes the inventory of all private land uses contained within the current City limits. They are based upon General Plan data, Orange County projections, City records and a staff analysis of only privately held parcels.' Some of the vacant parcels have vested rights and would have the existing impact fees imposed. The acreage and unit data are detailed in Appendix A. City.of Huntington Breach `fatal Labd.UseOatabase Detached Dwelling Units (1) Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units Resort Lodging Units CommeraalJOffice Uses IndustriallManufacturincl Uses Table 2-1 Detailed Land Use Inventory 6,436.0 38,616 1,805.4 36,108 204.6 2,865 33.4 1,070 20.2 809 841.9 12,836,000 930.3 20,261,000 Net fncrease Total.... �4cres # of Units Ades. # of Uin�ts' . 295.00 1,749 111.20 5,307 1.00 9 18.60 818 9.30 535 39.80 2,417,000 187.00 3,638,000 Total -City Limits ; 10,271.8 ! --- 661.90 ----- Private Residences 8,446.0 77,589 407.2 7,065 Commercial Lodging Rooms 1 53.6 1,879 27.9 1,353 Business Square Feet 1 1,772.2 33,097,000 226.8 6,055,000 6,731.00 40,365 1,916.60 ; 41,415 205.60 ' 2,874 52.00 1,888 29,50 1,344 881.70 J 15,253,000 1,117.30 23,899,000 10,933.70 ----- 8,853.2 84,654 81.5 3,232 1,999.0 39,152,000 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 16 HB -337- Item 5. - 260 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings Land Use Definitions. This Report classifies properties as either one of three residential land uses or two different categories of commercial/industrial development. These land uses are defined belowz: Residential Land Uses: • Detached Dwelling Residential - This category of land use is generally found in the City's General Plan designations of RL (Residential Low Density) and RM (Residential Medium Density). • Attached Dwelling Residential - This category of land use is generally found in the City's General Plan designations of RM (Residential Medium. Density), RMH (Residential Medium High Density) and RH (Residential High Density). • Mobile Home Residential - This category of land use is generally found in any of the City's residential General Plan designations as noted above. With the more frequent replacement of a manufactured dwelling unit on an existing mobile home pad, it is important to note that such a replacement is not a development impact fee event. It is merely a replacement of an existing structure thus the demand already exists. No additional mobile home (or modular) units in private park like settings is are anticipated. However, one acre has been included in the calculations in order to calculate a development impact fee for that use should such an application be filed. BusinesslCommerce Land Uses: • Hotel/Motel Lodging - This category identifies the hotel and motel commercial lodging units and is generally found in the City's General Plan designations of CV (Commercial Visitor) and CG (Commercial General). It is limited to commercial lodging that is two stories or less and does not have an inordinate amount of meeting space. • Resort Lodging - This is a recognition that in terms of commercial lodging, a resort facility, with more intensive banquets or convention space, most likely will incur differing municipal service demands than that of a typical hotel/motel facility. It is also generally found in the City's General Plan designation of CV (Commercial Visitor). Resort lodging has been defined as three stories or higher with significant amounts of square feet with which to accommodate large events such as conventions, business sessions and weddings, thus having a large drive-in population that does not necessarily stay at the facility overnight. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 17 Item 5. - 261 HB -338- Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings • Commercial Uses - As utilized in this Report, Commercial uses include the general category of retail services and thus includes outlets ranging from restaurants to auto repair shops to shopping centers. This category is generally found in the City's General Plan designations of CN (Commercial Neighborhood), CO (Commercial Office), CG (Commercial General)), CR (Commercial Regional), and CV (Commercial Visitor). It would encompass all office uses. • Industrial Uses - This category contains all businesses generally found in the City's General Plan designation of I (Industrial). Definitions of Land Use Status. Each of the major land use categories detailed above is categorized as either Developed or Net Increase. Definitions are as follows: Developed Acreage - Includes land in the City which is fully developed and, or land which has received a building permit but which is not yet constructed. Acreage in this category may also include non -conforming use areas of the City which contain extensive development prior to annexation or before changes to the General Plan were made. City staff has also included projections regarding properties which are currently classified as "Developed" but which may undergo redevelopment in the future. In fact, most of the development increases within the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan Corridor and Downtown Specific Plan areas consist of redevelopment of existing uses. Net Increase Acreage - (Intensified/Redeveloped/or acreage available for development or redevelopment) - Refers to all non-public vacant acreage located within the City. This category also includes any parcels that may currently be partially developed but may have capacity for redevelopment. Table 2-2, following, provides a summary of the detailed land use inventory, limited to privately held property more detailed on Table 2-1. Staff's land use inventory reveals that there are approximately 10,271.80 acres of privately -held developed land within the City's planning boundaries. There remain approximately 661.90 acres of vacant or land available to be redeveloped (and thus increased in terms of demand) in the City. Available (undeveloped land or available for redevelopment) land represents approximately 6.0% of the total 10,933.7 privately held acres within the City of Huntington Beach. Undeveloped parcels to be developed as detached dwellings constitute the greatest amount (at 2.7 %) of available acreage of all the land uses. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page] . Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 18 HB -339- Item 5. - 262 Chapter 2 Demographics and FindiUs Table 2-2 Summary of Undeveloped and Developed Acreage _7, -- _ = o evel_d m, Percent 'Total Vacant, or: inle$s rimed -Percent Total - Total - Detached Dwelling Units 6,436.0 58.9% (1) 295.0 2.7% 6,731.0 Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4 16.5 % 111.2 1.0 % 1,916.6 Mobile Home Dwellings 204.6 1.9 % 1.0 0.0 % 205.6 Comm. Lodging Units 33.4 0.3 % 18.6 0.2 % 52.0 Resort Lodging Units 20.2 0.2% 9.3 0.1% 29.5 Commercial/Office Uses 841.9 7.7 % 39.8 0.3 % 881.7 Industrial/Manu. Uses 930.3 8.5 % 187.0 1.7 % 1,117.3 Total 10, 271.8 94.0 %1[: 661.9 6.0 % 10, 933.7 (1) Only 34 of the 295 acres are vacant lots. The remaining 261 acres represents the subdivided acres necessary for the addition of 1,566 detached units (on their own lots) in areas already developed such as a lot split of a larger parcel with an existing detached dwelling unit. See Appendix A for greater detail. General Plan Build -out is defined as that point in time when most if not all of the City's privately owned land is developed at maximum levels allowed by the City's General Plan. Commercial/industrial Development. In order to assess the costs of impact for commercial or industrial building intensification or building expansions, this Report includes a calculation of impact fees both on a per square foot basis for commercial and industrial development. In order to accomplish this, City Planning staff provided the typical maximum square feet of building allowable by the City's General Plan on a net acre of land. This percentage is sometimes referred to as the maximum Floor Area Ratio (or FAR), as shown following: Commercial/Office Development-15,246 G.S.F. per Acre (about 35% F.A.R.) Industrial Development - 21,390 G.S.F. per Acre (about 50% F.A.R.) Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 19 Item 5. - 263 HB -340- Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings POPULATION PROJECTIONS A second component in determining the magnitude of impact of future development and the necessary facilities needed to mitigate that impact is a realistic assessment of the build -out population of the City. Many of the facilities contained in this Report are sized according to the estimated population at theoretical "build -out" or upon service levels which are based in part upon an estimation of the population to be served. Library facilities, parks and recreation facilities and community center facilities and equipment are examples of cost areas which rely heavily on population projections to determine space and facility needs. Park standards are usually stated in terms of the number of acres of park land per 1,000 persons, for instance. There are at least two generally accepted methods for projecting future population levels in a City: (1) past growth trends projected forward and (2) population holding capacity based on the General Plan land -use element. Each of these methods can be useful even though both possess certain limitations. There are several serious flaws in projecting the build -out population of a community using the past growth trend methodology. While this method is relatively simple and therefore easy for the general public to understand, it does not give consideration to when an area is actually built out. Eventually there comes a point in time where the amount of available land to build on is negligible. This technique does not help explain when that point is reached. Also, the past growth trend approach is not sensitive to policy changes made by Council or land use issues contained in the City's General Plan. For these reasons, this technique is more useful in projecting short-term population levels and should not be used to forecast the built -out population of an area. This Report relies on the methodology of holding -capacity, (described in the following section), to project future service levels and facility requirements. Holding Capacity Analysis. The methodology used in this Report to forecast the built -out population of City of Huntington Beach is the current holding capacity approach. This method calculates the sum of existing development and potential development allowable under current land use regulations, using average densities found in the City. The first step in projecting the City's population using the holding capacity approach is to inventory the remaining undeveloped acres within the City limits, which was previously accomplished in Tables 2-1 and 2-2 of this Chapter. The next step is to estimate the potential Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development impact Fee Calculation Report 20 HB -3 4 1- Item 5. - 264 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings dwelling units allowed per acre and then multiply the potential number of units by the average number of residents per unit. Table 2-3, on the following page, projects the additional number of dwelling units and potential population for the City of City of Huntington Beach through build -out. The number of potential new dwelling units was calculated by multiplying the amount of vacant acreage for each land use zone by the average densities (i.e., number of units allowed per acre) indicated in the City's General Plan. The number of persons per unit for new residential units is based on the 2000 U.S. Census and ranges from 2.913 and 1.822 persons for detached dwelling units and mobile home dwelling units respectively to 2.257 persons for attached dwelling units. Based on these assumptions, future residential development is expected to generate approximately 17,089 additional residents3 to City of Huntington Beach, joining the approximately 190,377 citizens already living in City. This results in a total estimated population at General Plan build -out of roughly 207,221 residents.4 The estimated General Plan build -out population of approximately 207,221 residents using this holding capacity approach is typically lower than the population forecasts based on the mathematical models described previously. This implies either that the City's period of residential build -out will actually be shorter than the 10 years indicated above or that the City's growth rate will decline from historical levels. This latter scenario is probably more likely to occur. As the residentially zoned land within the City's limits remaining to be developed continues to be developed during the next ten to twenty years, the City is likely to see fewer new dwelling units developed each year. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 21 Item 5. - 265 xg -342- Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings Table 2-3 City of City of Huntington Beach Average Dwelling Occupancy, by Type (2000 United States Census Data) 7.7 Detached Totai 37,007 630 36,377 105.981 2.913 98.30% Mobile Home Total 3,024 125 2,899 5,281 ; 1.822 95.87% Other 122 1 31 91 j 1541 F777.692 I 0.00% Attached.#�es�deri#ia ; Duplex to Quadplex 9,681 265 9,416 26,190 2.781 97.26% Five or more i 16,488 605 15,883 31,356 1.974 96.33% Attached 9,471 329 9,142 20,186 2.208 96.53% Total - MFR 35,640 1,199 34,441 77,732 2.257 96.64% 190,377 I, Existing - State Department of Finance 01/01/11 Population Undeveloped Detached Dwellings 1,749 98.30% 1,719 Undeveloped Attached Dwellings 5,307 96.64% 5,129 Undeveloped Mobile Home's 9 95.87% 9 ArKellrng fJensrty 2.913 2.257 1.822 Population to be added development Potential "Build -out" Population, at Historic Vacancy Rates. C Potrrttal G A Buitdout Poputafron Atflt1°,& t3ixt�paneyRafe Ara le ncyi, Undeveloped Detached Dwellings 1,749 100.000/0' 1,749 Undeveloped Attached dwellings Ii 5,307 100.000/0 5,307 Undeveloped Mobile Home's 9 100.00% 9 Population to be added development Potential Maximum "Build -out" Population. (1) Summary File 3 (SF3), available at http://f`actfinder.census.gov (2) Current population based upon State of California Department of Finance data. #°3weltrng flensrty .: 2.913 2.257 1.822 �Intec/pat E Populatran : 5,007 11,576 16 16,599 16,599] 206,976 206,976 5,095 11,978 16 17,089 17,089 207,466 7207,466 206,976 207,466 207,221 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 22 HB -343- Item 5. - 266 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings SUMMARY OF FINDINGS City staff identified just under $403.4 million in needed and desired capital improvement projects required through the City's General Plan build -out, including both projects related to existing deficiencies and those needed solely to support future growth. The adoption of the recommended maximum impact fees supported by the calculations in this Report (Schedule 2.1) would finance about 42.6 % of the needed capital facilities by raising some $172.1 million. Existing fund balances of $3.6 will finance roughly 0.9 % of the capital needs. Other sources, primarily existing agreements or intergovernmental support will finance about $23.0 million or 5.7 %. Other capital revenue sources will need to be pursued for the remaining unfunded $204.8 million through build - out (50.8%). Roughly 95%(or $194.4 million) of the $204.8 million represents unfunded storm drainage projects that may never come to fruition. Based on these costs and the schedules found at the end of each of the remaining chapters of this Report, costs attributable to future development were derived on a per unit basis for residential land uses and on a per square foot of pad basis for commercial and industrial land uses. Schedule 2.1, found at the end of this Chapter, provides a summary detail of the maximum DIFs for each type of infrastructure and land use category. The fees are summarized in Table 2-4, following: Table 2-4 Summary of Recommended Development Impact Fees (Based Upon the Lower of General Plan Build -out Needs or Equity -based Impact Fees) - _ Recoznmende�e�elo meat .._.......7m °actFee_s. _. Detached Dwelling Units $25,890/Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Units $17,994/Dwelling Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units $17,235/Dwellin Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $2,854/Lodging Unit Resort Lodging Units $3,956/Lodging Unit Commercial/Office Uses $5.002/S uare Foot Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $4.010/S uare Foot Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 23 Item 5. - 267 1413 -344- Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings Specific impact fee rates for each land use can be found at the end of each chapter relating to each infrastructure. Schedule 2.1 at the end of this Chapter also identifies the probable impact fee revenue, the capital cost total and the difference, by individual infrastructure type (e.g., fire). Given the magnitude of the City's project list, vis-a-vis the proposed list of projects, and the lack of previous findings regarding any excess capacity, there is no potential for recoupment of the costs of previous development -generated capital projects (excess capacity) as was described in Chapter One. Additionally, the detail of the existing value of the various systems, does not approach the level of accuracy required to adopt a recoupment style impact fee. The recommended Development Impact Fees are those indicated following in Schedule 2.1. STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT The following chapters of this Report contain the detailed information relative to the calculation of DIFs recommended by RCS for the entire City. Appropriate textual explanations are contained in each chapter, with a chapter devoted to each of the nine sets of DIF cost schedules, listed below and three appendices. CHAPTER 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 4 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment CHAPTER 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System CHAPTER 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System CHAPTER 7 - Public Library Facilities and Collection CHAPTER 8 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development APPENDIX A - Expanded Land -use Database APPENDIX B - Summary of Recommendations APPENDIX C - Master Facilities Plan NOTE REGARDING TEXTUAL MATHEMATICS: It is important to note that the use of a computer provides for calculations to a large number of decimal points. Such data, when included in text and supporting textual tables, has been rounded to no more than two decimals for clarity and thus may be not replicated to the necessary degree of accuracy as the spreadsheet schedules at the end of each chapter. Should there be any difference between tables within a chapter and the schedules at the end of the same chapter, the schedules will prevail. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 24 HB -345- Item 5. - 268 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. The figures are consistent with the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Land Use Element. 2. bid. 3, Assuming that the vacancy factor retains its traditionally high occupancy factor as evidenced in 2000 Census (averaging just under 97%). The estimated 16,844 additional residents is the average of full occupancy (17,089) and the roughly 97% average occupancy (16,599). 4. Ibid. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 25 Item 5. - 269 HB -346- S ± m %2§ LL�5 /ct 0k CL E mkt E E 2t0 IF7 ® k c$ E/2 =ak/ ooQ� §kk CO_cr ccw k>o wk5ƒ\ ¢ g k� 2 2 E co t E L n Qm L—Lm I } k \ \ \ / \ I [ [ k \ k![� S}\ Rt2 - 1-7 � i a � ■ >© Cl� # «: ƒ 0 H B -J47- Item ),-270 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The Existing System (or the infrastructure). The Police Department currently operates out of the 78,700 square foot facilities at the Civic Center on Main Street and the 7,050 square foot 5" Street Substation. These combined 85,780 square feet of the two facilities provide roughly 365 square feet per each of the 235 sworn (budget approved) officers. The facility meet's current needs but will not likely accommodate the space needs required for the additional officers necessary to accommodate the additional calls -for -service generated by new development at General Plan build - out, Certainly not at the same standards of service afforded to existing development. The Department will need to hire additional officers to maintain the existing levels of law enforcement services and the current static facility will ultimately prove insufficient to house the entire staff at General Plan build -out. An expansion of the City -owned facility will need to occur before General Plan build -out to allow the City to accommodate that new development. Due to size limitations of the current police station parcels, it may be difficult to enlarge the current buildings at either of the existing sites. The existing facility space would cost approximately $53,423,178 to acquire at current land acquisition and construction costs. Additionally, the Department has a response fleet consisting of 231 vehicles installed with significant, and costly, amounts of sophisticated equipment costing some $12,640,310 to replace. The 235 General Fund -supported sworn officers are each assigned equipment such as various leathers, armaments, clothing, radios, protective vests, safety apparel costing an average of $9,930 per sworn officer for a total of $2,155,801 for the 235 current officers. The final key asset is the estimated $3,027,410 in law enforcement specialty equipment. These assets, totaling some $71,246,699, represent the cumulative commitment of the cumulative City Councils (and community) to the Police Department standards of service as supported by Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment infrastructure. Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Under or Undeveloped Parcels. Residents/ businesses benefit from law enforcement services in three ways: directly, indirectly and through standby availability. Direct services are those involving an actual unit response, usually as a result of being the victim of a crime or other emergency situation. Direct service results in the form of a law enforcement officer directly contacting the victim. Indirect benefits, such as crime prevention programs, free patrol time and other more general services that serve all, are benefits that are more difficult to calculate. As an example, the burglar that is arrested today in some neighbors home, may have broken into your home tomorrow. Most residents and businesses may go for many years before ever requiring a direct call -far -service. These fortunate residents Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 27 Item 5. - 271 HB -348- Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment and businesses still benefit for law enforcement services, if in no other way, than in the security that a law enforcement officer is available, through adequate planned stand-by, to respond if you require public safety assistance. Everyone benefits from stand-by capabilities, which is just the fact that law enforcement services are simply there, staffed, trained, equipped and available to respond as they are needed. Sworn law enforcement officials are the first responders to emergency problems that can occur to anyone. They are trained to act and solve just about any law enforcement problem that might occur. The concept of stand-by service is similar to stand-by water service. Consider owning a vacant lot not requiring water service, regardless of the fact that others have built a functional water system near your vacant lot. At some point in time, that vacant lot is developed and needs a water meter and water service. Because of the forethought of others, the water service is available when the lot is developed. One may not feel they need law enforcement services, but some day they will, and because of the foresight of others, the service capability will be available. The addition of new residential units and new businesses will increase the demand upon the law enforcement capacity to serve by creating more direct calls -for -service, more areas requiring preventive patrol, and in general, more opportunities for crimes to be committed. The development of vacant parcels into residential or business units will also generate more calls. Residents and business -owners occupying those residences and businesses will create the increase in law enforcement calls -for -service. Simply stated, more homes and businesses will mean more responses to the additional burglaries, domestic disputes, noise complaints, shoplifting, and miscellaneous incidents that will occur in the new homes and businesses. If the Law Enforcement capabilities (the base) are not expanded, then any increasing number of calls -for -service from development (the rate) will reduce the amount or free hours available for preventive patrol. This inability to expand the capabilities would ultimately drive the Department fully into a reactionary mode. Table 3-1, following, summarizes an analysis of the calls -for -service received by the Police Department in recent twelve month period.' The table indicates the breakdown of calls into the land uses that generated them and divides them by the number of developed units (during the same period), This process generates a calls -for -service factor for the various land -uses. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 28 HB -349- Item 5. - 272 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Table 3-1 Law Enforcement Calls -for -Service Generated by Land Use (2009) de - _ellxngs �e sped _oT.'A CaT1 = for 1-Gall1er �3etng Qr Detached Dwelling Units 38,616 13,185 0.341/Unit Attached Dwelling Units 36,108 25,350 0.702/Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units 2,865 910 0.318/Unit Hotel/Motel Units 1,070 420 0.393/Unit Resort Lodging Units 809 371 0.459/Unit Commercial Uses (in KSF) 12,836,000 11,514 0.897/KSF Industrial Uses (in KSF) 20,261,000 1 7,729 1 0.381/KSF Beach Area 1,806 The table above representing the 59,479 annual police calls -for -service to privately -held developed parcels within the City's limits (for a recent twelve months reporting periods), identifies the differing demand caused by the differing land uses. As an example, there were approximately 13,185 calls -for -service requiring a response to one of the 38,616 existing detached dwellings in the City (during the twelve month sample). The result indicates that each residential detached dwelling unit will statistically generate just slightly more than one third of a call -for -service per year,' on average. The same analysis was undertaken for the other seven land uses. Obviously there are calls to incidents on publicly owned roads and right-of-way, in parks and other publicly held parcels, these calls represent approximately 3 % of the annual calls -for -service. Calls -for - service to resort lodging facilities, typically larger than hotel/motel facilities (defined as three stories or more) have been separated in order to generate a more relevant calls -for -service rate for each of the two differing types of temporary lodging. Resort facilities have been shown to generate more calls -far -service, most likely due to their convention and banquet facilities. However, any such resorts constructed in the future would also have such amenities. The annual calls -for -service was responded to by one of the City's existing 235 sworn officers establishing an average of about 260.79 calls -for -service per sworn officer annually.' Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 29 Item 5. - 273 1-113 -350- Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Average Demand as Determined by Calls -for -Service. The calls -for -service ratios are on -average, that is to say that not every detached dwelling unit will generate 0.341 annual calls -for -service. Since they are statistically representative of averages of how calls -for -service are generated in City of Huntington Beach, they can be used to project the number of additional law enforcement calls - for -service that can be expected at General Plan build -out. This process is accomplished by multiplying the average calls -for -service rate, per Table 3-1, by the number of anticipated additional residential dwellings or business square feet per Table 2-1. The result is approximately 8,697 additional annual calls -for -service at General Plan build -out. The number of additional officers necessary to meet the anticipated (net) additional 8,697 annual calls -for -service from future development (8,448 from development and 249 from public rights -of -way) is then divided by the average number of calls -for -service capacity that an officer currently responds to (or 260.79 per year per officer). This process indicates that an additional thirty-three sworn police officers will be necessary to accommodate the anticipated new development at the current standards of service provided to the existing community. Or in the contrary, without the doubling of the Police staff, the City would experience a roughly 14.2 I reduction in the standards -of -service at General Plan build -out, as defined by the ability to respond to calls -for -service. Information from Table 3-1 and Table 2-1 (Land -use Database) has been used to determine how many additional officers will be required at build -out. By multiplying the demand rate for detached dwelling units (0.341 calls -for -service per unit) times the 1,749 anticipated detached dwelling units to be constructed through General Plan build -out, the City could expect an additional 597.2 annual calls -for -service. The total 8,697 additional calls -for -service, (8,448 from development and 249 from the public beach area from all land -uses (and rights -of -way) divided by roughly 260.79 calls per officer per year indicates the need for thirty-three additional officers to be able to accommodate the additional calls generated by the new development at General Plan build -out without diminishing the existing standards of coverage to the existing community to do so. Table 3-2 identifies the calls -for -service anticipated for each of the seven major land uses. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 30 HB -35 1 - Item 5. - 274 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Table 3-2 Additional Law Enforcement Calls (rounded) Generated by New Development, by Land Use NOTES: (1) Development of these types of units is not anticipated. One acre of units is included for calculation purposes.. Cumulatively, an additional (rounded) calls -for -service would be expected at General Plan build - out. It is important to note that the additional of the thirty-three officers (8,695 annual calls -for - service _ 260.79 calls/sworn officer) by General Plan build -out would merely maintain the existing levels of service, and would not increase the existing levels of service because of the additional 8,697 annual calls -for -service, or the 8,448 calls -for -service to the privately -held land - uses. No judgement is made, regarded or offered about the existing standards -of -service (LOS) or the current ratio of officers to calls -for -service, or that it is the City's desired level -of -service or that it is optimum, it merely is the existing, or defacto, level -of -service (LOS). The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to collect proportional contributions from new development to pay for additionally required law enforcement facilities, vehicles and equipment. Specifically, additional law enforcement calls -for -service can be expected, and the cost of adding sworn officers necessary to respond to these anticipated calls, and thus maintain the existing Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 31 Item 5. - 275 HL -352- Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Erluipment levels -of -service afforded the existing residential and business community, can also be determined. The additional costs can be proportionally determined and translated to a fee, or an amount, necessary to offset the added costs of the required additional law enforcement staffing. Those impact costs include housing and equipping the additional required officers. Providing that the impact cost is adopted and imposed as a fee, new development will finance the capital costs of expansion of the City's Police Department. The annual operations cost of the annual salary and benefits for those additional officers, will need to come from the increases in the base amounts of property, sales and transient occupancy general tax increases generated by the new residences and businesses and their occupants. The Use of the Fee. The fees collected will be used to fund the law enforcement facilities and equipment (identified in the Master Facilities Plan) that are necessary to accommodate the anticipated (and planned for) development identified in Table 2-1. The revenues raised for a properly calculated and legally -supported Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee would be limited to capital(ized) costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to expand or increase capacity within the law enforcement facilities, increase the number of response and investigator's vehicles, and specialty equipment. Conversely, the General Plan Build -out Needs -based Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee receipts cannot be used repair the existing building, replace existing vehicles, or re -outfit a new officer (due to normal vacancies of the existing 235 officers). The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. The fees collected from new development will be used to pay the proportional facility expansion costs generated by new development. As the development occurs, the impact (in the form of new or additional demands for service) is generated in differing amounts by differing land -uses and the development impact fees would be collected as the various types of development occurs (at a time in the development review and approval process determined by the City) . The collected fee would be put to use to acquire law enforcement space, vehicles and equipment for the new (and additional) officers necessary to respond to those additional calls generated by that same new development, without reducing the capability of responding to calls for the existing community. The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project. As noted in this report, residents and businesses will generate calls -for -service at different rates. Thus, there is a need to establish a specific schedule of development impact fees to fund the law enforcement facilities needed to support the development anticipated in Table 2-1. To meet that need, Police Department calls -for -service records were used to verify that differing land uses generate differing amounts of calls -for -service. Anecdotally we can all recognize that a retail store would be more likely to suffer shoplifting incidents, whereas a residence is more likely to experience a domestic disturbance or break-in and thus would have differing demands. The data in this Chapter demonstrates those expected differences using data specific to the City of Huntington Beach. The collected impact fees would be used to acquire additional building space, Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 32 HB -353- Item 5. - 276 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment response vehicles and specialty and issued equipment for additional officers necessary to respond to the additional calls -for -service generated by private residential dwelling and business space. It would take the construction of roughly 368 attached dwellings to generate the need for a one full police officer. Cumulatively over time, the calls generated by various new developments within the City will create the need for additional officers and ultimately an additional patrol beat. It is interesting to note that on an acreage basis, an acre of detached dwellings, yielding about six detached units, will generate about 2.0 annual calls -for -service, only 15 % of that generated by an acre of attached dwellings, yielding about 47 units. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Each new development would finance a proportional amount of the expansion of the Police Station, vehicle response fleet and specialty law enforcement equipment and thus a proportional share of the costs. The existing Police Station, while quite large and is generally capable of meeting the needs of the existing staff required to serve the existing community, was not necessarily designed to meet the City's law enforcement needs at General Plan build -out. The two buildings combined 85,750 square feet provides about an average of about 364.89 square feet per existing officer, a reasonable target to maintain for future police officers'. Based upon the future addition of thirty-three officers to maintain the existing levels of staffing, a 12,041 square foot expansion of the existing facility, or some other City -owned facility would be needed, (33 X 364.89 = 12,041) to maintain the same ratio of space per officer that is currently afforded by the existing facility. As a result of potential addition of thirty-three sworn officers, the City will also need to add thirty- three response vehicles at a total cost of $1,751,040 (or 33 vehicles X $54,720/vehicle) to maintain as close to the existing ratio of 0.98 vehicles per sworn officer as possible (231 vehicles divided by 235 officers = 0.98 vehicles per officer). The thirty-three new officers would each require a full set of personal equipment and armament at $9,930 each for a total of $327,690. Additional communications, telemetry and specialty operations equipment at an estimated total $425,000 has been included to maintain a similar ratio of specialty equipment to sworn officer. General Plan Build -out Needs -based Development Impact Fee Schedule. Table, 3-3, following, summarizes the resulting General Plan Build -out Needs -based Development Impact Fees (see Schedule 3.2 for detailed calculation) for development to contribute financially to the expansion of the City's Law Enforcement capacity in order to allow the City to extend the same level -of - service to the City's newest citizens and businesses without diminishing the existing level -of - services offered to the existing residents and businesses. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 33 Item 5. - 277 1113 -354- Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Table 3-3 General Plan Build -out Needs -based Law Enforcement Impact Fees — _ -- `--=�Ilo�ation of _— E�ansiQn Cast ---- Detached Dwelling Units $692,944 $396/Unit Attached Dwelling Units $4,323,304 $815/Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units $3,319 $369/Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $372,568 $455/Unit Resort Lodging Units $284,694 $532/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $2,515,742 $1.041/S.F. Ind-ustrial/Manufacturing Uses $1,610,348 $0.443/S.F. DIF Prot)ortionality Test by Conmarison with Existing Financial Commitment. The current equity in the City's law enforcement assets includes the 85,750 square feet of law enforcement facilities with a replacement cost of $53,423,178, the 231 law enforcement vehicles costing the City some $12,640,310, the inventory of assigned equipment for 235 officers at a total of $2,155,801, the specialty and communications equipment at $3,027,410. There is no existing Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee thus no existing fund balance. When this combined equity figure of $71,246,699 is distributed to the current community (via Table 3-4, following and detailed in Schedule 3.3), the existing community commitment, on a per unit basis, is just slightly less than the calculated Law Enforcement General Plan Build -out Needs -based Development Impact Fees (or cost) per unit, as indicated by the existing $71,246,699 invested in capital for the provision of law enforcement. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 34 HB -355- Item 5. - 278 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities Vehicles and E ui ment Table 3-4 Existing Financial Commitment or "Equity -based" Law Enforcement Impact Fees Detached Dwelling Units $15,793,603 $409/Unit Attached DwelEng Units $30,365,403 $841/Unit Mobile Home Units $1,090,040 $380/Unit Hotel/Motel Units $503,096 $470Unit Resort Lodging Units $444,401 $549/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $13,792,002 $1.074/S.F. Industrial Uses $9,258,164 $0.475/S.'F RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The General Plan Build -out Needs -based impact fees, identified in Table 3-3, are slightly less than the Financial Commitment or Investment -based fees identified in Table 3-4 indicating that the existing commitment has kept relative pace with law enforcement asset expansion. In order to ensure that proportionality, and its underlying fairness, be maintained the development impact fee schedule identified in Table 3-3, (General Plan Build -out Need -based Development Impact Fees) are the most reasonable for both additional new development and the existing community. The adoption of Table 3-3, and detailed in Schedule 3.2 at the end of the Chapter, would also generate sufficient capital, about 97 % of the full amount identified in the Master Facilities Plan, to construct most of the law enforcement facilities and capital equipment needed to absorb the new demands generated by the City's continued new development while maintaining proportionality with the commitment demonstrated by the existing community. The remaining 3 % would need to come from other sources. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 35 Item 5. - 279 113 56- Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment RECAP OF RECOMMENDED LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES, VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES • Adopt Schedule 3.2, General Plan. Build -out Needs -based development Impact Fees for the seven basic new land -uses. CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. The twelve month period spanning 2009. 2. Stated slightly differently, we could expect that any randomly selected thirty homes would generate about ten calls in a given year. 3. Again, this is not intended to imply that each officers annul work effort is limited to only 260.79 calls -for - service. Patrol officers respond to a far greater number of calls -for -service. Investigators may spend an entire year on only a few cases, while officers involved in management of the Department do not necessarily respond to any. The 260.79 calls -for -service is only an average and represent the composite calls -for -service workload distributed between the entire 235 sworn officers. 4. This is almost the same as the average of 365.0 square foot per officer of six cities (with greater than 85 officers) where RCS has conducted similar analyses. Those six municipalities include Huntington Beach, Anaheim, Ontario, Riverside, Chino and Corona. The average for twenty cities (of all sizes) is 353.6 square feet per sworn officer. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 36 HB -357- Item 5. - 280 'f s rn (A c4 N e') CU ' IT rn 00 69 ffl m r ;y c6 ce7 C O ob CV 0)d! N N � < mCO to aao ago IL. �oq vy 69 .a` o 0 0 0 0 o 0 + �: t AC! O: O 8 8 8 O O 8 t`q v CO (D r- (C CO (D 00 to EA (D r (D CD O Ln L!] 0 O t1- O N rL�•� L2 �: 69 CM � Q rr C O O H O a) iZ).T N trl M CAI; oi Q o - :tn 'N Q Q b C � W V C U � y Q � U `` Z v m � O 8 4 Q� 8 W.O v� A CIS C Item 5. - 281 to D)I ep, V:� a) r ffl O oc oc i-- Ln O .. O M N N O' O � 1609, E m Cr Q W N 0 cr w _a U U) _a V f4 lL > m V C.)_ C CL G O C±) a)a O c cm CD U N 3 E O cc 0) V c p !.0 o o w C m N m 0 0 Q Q r N;C! I I;t O C) I O O O q C> O wwww J -j J J W (n m a d! Z O W a' U � � � F U v � � w o a C° ¢ m ¢ cz Z H O w m //M� a) ¢C V, 0 LL C � 0 c L LU f w 3 Qi U- U O Q H E CO � CD cn E Lti 0 c J w J 0 Lr HB -358- 37 W U LC U: a n a q Q. a s es ds Ch N Q CD co M LO On n C� CSC Ln N V) V d Lf) CD O r O O CA N O Clopnp0CliO cD N (C co 64 EH EA Efl c3 Cl)M LL C(D ti Cl a) N E9 � O C.0 c7 M N L() (D FA , y: Efl ff! c 6o 69 613 0 0 o 0 0 o Q h d c*) o O Ln M O r O m rn tD v d N r M C'J M O LO h O T- CD O� O C] C7 OR CD N N -- to co Lo h ca N V) Cl) N N oD ch CA n chi oh Cl)C0 � 00 Cl) o O O a O a a CIt A n 0) 00 LO O CD S co LO S S r Lri ti 0 CV co O N O t9 cq 00 O M r r M O6 N T U cm C C m U '0 3 m J �� O Co o p E m C to M 1 m Y 0 m cd a� b co Q cn U 38 m 0 CD m rr, HB -359- Item 5. - 282 8 Qi o O � � C b � m � Qu .Q O � � W ul U 4 Q) w U � � q � � O U m W m o E Item 5. - 283 a � a n c. CL a QL � ,_ a a oy a• `a 0 0 0 0 0 d C. m cn C5 N d r CV CO Cj N LnClJ r r CA 00 Cl) O O CV N O� t co M O V) M � 16% N Co 69 R v:Q '' 0 Cl) �O�•• m o O T O p ' Cl) r en O LI) � N � co N r� �F ± C.) O U) d t C Y cCQ 69 0 0 0 N M Lf) n N CD (D M 0) a7 M ci N N O o M CV O O O O O O O O Ln C7 C M'] LO O_ CA C7 It cn 'It Ln I` C`7 r -.�L,.:i .... i N CO co CM L.f) ti M r CD p wa c 3 o r— 0 CO 0 M 0(5 al c0 o M 0 �s c Cn Ln O 0) O O M coam N Cl) CD CD N p N N as: O LO CD CV Q) _ cq N M N N Ico t 000 q m r k .-, y m U) m c LTA- CD CF as m C C (1) U .7: 3 C 3 ro coo 3 rn _ m (a D U M co N .0 m ID Q 2 Cc U HB -360- IAR e3 CD m U C 0 a� s U- U Chapter A Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The Existing Fire Suppression/Medic Infrastructure. The Fire Department responds to calls for service from eight existing stations and trains at a facility consisting of a training (and drying) tower, classrooms, offices and supportareas with specialty situation training mock-up implements. There is also a storage facility for reserve vehicles. The fire facilities are detailed as follows: Fire Station #1 (Gothard) is a 10,200 square foot facility on parcel that is just under an acre (42,166 square feet) and is located at 18311 Gothard Street. Fire Station #2 (Murdy) is a 11,500 square foot three -bays wide by two -vehicles deep facility also on a 42,166 square foot parcel at 16221 Gothard Street. Fire Station #3 (Bushard) is a one -bay wide by one -vehicle deep, 5,700 square foot facility located on a 12,980 square foot parcel located at 19711 Bushard Street. Fire Station #4 (Magnolia) is a 5,702 square foot, one -bay wide by one -vehicle deep facility located on a 21,780 square foot parcel located at 21441 Magnolia Street. Fire Station #5 (Lake) is a 11,508 square foot, three -bays wide by two -vehicles deep facility on a 14,200 square foot parcel located at 530 Lake Street. Fire Station #6 (Edwards) is a 13,000 square foot, three -bays wide by two -vehicles deep facility located on a 208,478 square foot parcel located at 18591 Edwards Street. Fire Station #7 (Warner) is an 8,750 square foot, two -bays wide by one -vehicle deep facility located on a 53,273 square foot parcel at 3831 Warner Avenue, Fire Station #8 (Heil) is a 5,712 square foot, two -bays wide by one -vehicle deep station on a 10,280 square foot parcel located at 5891 Heil Avenue. The Training Facility is also located at 18301 Gothard next to Station #1 on a 77,580 square foot portion of a City parcel and consists of 7,081 square feet of classrooms and offices. The site also has numerous training exercise implements and a drafting pool. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 40 HB -361- Item 5. - 284 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles, and Equipment Reserve Vehicle Storage Building - The facility is 2,525 square foot storage building and is located behind Fire Station #1 (Gothard). The land and replacement construction cost of the existing stations and training facilities is approximately $52,999,718. Not surprisingly, the City also has a sizable fleet of City -owned response and prevention units (and equipment) consisting of: • Four front line and three reserve ambulances; • Two front line ladder trucks, one aerial platform and a large tiller ladder truck and one reserve tiller ladder truck; • Eight front-line and four reserve engines; • Two Battalion Chief incident command vehicles; • Seven utility pick-up trucks of varying sizes (utility and specialty support); • Three specialty vehicles, a decontamination vehicle, a HazMat vehicle and Light/Air support vehicle; and, • Twenty-two administrative, inspection and investigation sedans. The total investment in the Department's vehicle compliment is about $9,237,000. The City's investment in assigned fire fighter equipment is approximately $1,010,202 at $7,595.50 for each of the 133 sworn fire fighters. The City has also acquired approximately $537,780 in computers/Electronic equipment. There is no existing Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicle and Equipment Impact Fee Fund thus no current year-end fund balance. The current equity of the stations, parcels, specialty equipment and the response fleet is estimated to be $63,784,700. The sale of Station #8 (Heil), to allow it to be relocated, decreases this figure by a net $2,550,473 to $61,234,227. This figure represents what it would cost to establish the existing eight station (along with the reserve vehicle and training facilities) response capability at current vehicle, equipment, land acquisition and facility construction costs. The relevance of this figure will be established later in this Chapter. Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Under or Undeveloled Parcels. While it can be said that numerous factors are considered when determining the number of and location of fire stations in any city, it can be stated without any logical argument that all new (net) private development in the City will have an effect on the City's current ability to respond to fire, medic, and emergency calls -for -service. The effect, simplified but not trivialized, is twofold. Initially, each new residential and business development will create, on average, more calls -for - service increasing the likelihood of simultaneous (and thus competing) calls -for -service. Additionally, as development spreads further from any existing station or stations, as large-scale development is often likely to do, the distances (and thus response times) will increase, taking the existing engine companies out -of -service for greater lengths of time. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 41 Item 5. - 285 HB -362- Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment The capacity of any fire station to respond to calls -for -service is finite and will ultimately reach practical limits (through a combination of call -frequency and total time on that call). When that station's capacity is exceeded, the level -of -service afforded to existing development will be greatly diminished. Or stated in another way, if development continues without the addition of fire stations (additional capacity), the existing station will be overwhelmed (new demand), making a timely response for emergency service less likely. That is to say, the existing engine companies may not be available to respond to your needs as they may be out -of -service on a call in a different part of the community. The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to collect proportional financial contributions from new development to pay for additional fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment. In order to be able to continue to be able to respond to an ever-increasing number of expected calls, the Fire Department staff has determined the need for the relocation of one new station (as opposed to adding a ninth) and an expansion of one existing station. Having the right type and inventory of fire stations in the right locations enables the City's policy makers to house fire fighters, apparatus, and equipment in a rational way for maximum use of resources. Conversely, the penalties are high and extremely visible, for inadequate fire response capacity. Adverse effects are felt by the City's fire staff, the council, and indeed by the existing taxpayers. With poor response capacity response times, (via distance or out -of --service due to a previous call), can become excessive and if a tragedy occurs, the incident will be well publicized. Often, response time is mistakenly referred to for only the first -in unit. This can be a grave error. More correctly, response time must consider the time necessary to assemble all of the fire resources necessary to place the incident under control. If the first unit arrives within five minutes but cannot provide the necessary water flow, undertake entry, or perform the needed functions due to a lack of staffing, the five minute response becomes insignificant and irrelevant. Thus an increase in the number and type of response vehicles is also necessary to match and equip the needed additional staff. The following sections identify the manner in which the City plans to meet the demands of additional calls -for -service and can thus accommodate new development. The Use of the Fee. The development impact fee would be collected as the development occurs at some point of the development review process determined by the City. As the development occurs, the impact is generated. The collected fees would be put to use to acquire the additional fire-fighters' facilities necessary to respond to additional calls -for -service, necessary to avoid reducing the capability of responding to calls from the existing community. These fees will be used to finance the construction or acquisition of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment (identified in the companion Master Facilities Plan) that have been identified as necessary to accommodate the anticipated (and planned for) development identified in Table 2-I. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 42 HB -363- Item 5. - 286 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The proposed fire suppression/medic facilities and equipment that are necessary to accommodate the anticipated (and planned for) in Table 2-1 are identified in the companion document the Master Facilities Plan. it is important to note that the fees would be used to acquire additional stations or expand existing stations (to increase the response capacity of that station) and increase the number of emergency response vehicles. Conversely, the Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Impact Fee receipts could not be used to simply repair any existing fire station or replace any existing emergency response vehicles. Additional facility capacity is planned to come on-line, as needed, as development creates additional demands beyond the existing capability (frequency and distance) of the existing stations. The six capital projects expansions proposed by the City's fire staff will cost a net $11,241,972. They are described briefly: FS-001- Relocate Station #8 (Heil) - The proposed project involves the relocation of the existing station from it's current location on Heil Street just west of Springdale to a more northerly area near Graham Street, north of Edinger Street. The relocation is largely needed to meet the shifting and increasing demands resulting from the redevelopment/up-sizing of both the Downtown Specific Plan and the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan corridor. The proposed building would be a three -bay wide by two -vehicle deep facility. The project would need approximately an acre and a quarter. FS-002 - Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility - The reserve vehicle storage facility behind the existing Station # 1 would need to be supplemented with a storage facility behind Station #8 as part of the above project but is not fully needed as result of the redevelopment of the two large specific plans. It is partly needed to accommodate existing reserve vehicles. FS-003 - Construct a Single Say/Quarters At Station #4 (Magnolia) - The project will add 2,400 square feet to the station. The additional space would consist of an additional 1,600 two vehicle deep bay to house and additional engine company and an ambulance. FS-004 - Acquire an Additional Engine and Ambulance for Station #4 (Magnolia) - This project consists of the response vehicles in support of the Station #4 expansion. FS-005 - Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #1- This additional engine would be needed to assist in handling the additional call volume resulting from the development in both the Downtown Specific Plan and the southerly portion of the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan corridor. FS-006 - Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #2 - This additional engine would be needed to assist in accommodating additional call -for -service volume resulting from the development in the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan corridor. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 43 Item 5. - 287 HB -364- Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment The proposed projects and costs are identified on Schedule 4.1 and are detailed in the Master Facilities Plan. The total cost of completing the fire infrastructure system is $11,941,972, which is mitigated by the $700,000 offset anticipated by the sale of the Station #8, Heil for a net total of $11,241,972. There is no existing Fire Suppression/Medic Development Impact Fee fund thus no fund balance. The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project. As noted in this report, residents and businesses will generate calls -for -service at different rates. Thus, there is a need to establish a specific schedule of development impact fees to finance the required expansion to the fire suppression/paramedic facilities et. al. needed to support the development anticipated and identified in Table 2-1. Fire suppression/medic response standards extended to new development should be consistent with the fire response currently enjoyed by the City's existing citizens and business community by constructing new facilities, or the result will be a deterioration in the level -of -service provided both to the existing residents and future citizens and businesses within the City. It follows that it is appropriate to assess future development to contribute additional fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and equipment. To project the impact of future development on fire services, it was first necessary to quantify the current impact on services from each of the City's land uses. Then, a determination of the costs of future capital facilities necessary to meet this increased demand was made. The following section illustrates the relative impact from each land use on fire services and facilities. The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project. As noted in this report, residents and businesses will generate calls -for -service at different rates. Thus, there is a need to establish a specific schedule of development impact fees to fund the fire suppression/paramedic facilities needed to support the development anticipated in Table 2-1. To meet that need, actual Fire Department calls -for -service records' were used to verify that differing land uses generate differing numbers of calls. The data in this Chapter demonstrates those expected differences using data specific to City of Huntington Beach. The collected impact fees would be used to acquire equipment for additional fire fighters, vehicles and additional building space necessary to respond to the calls -for -service generated by private residential dwelling and business space. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Each new development would finance a proportional amount of the expansion of the fire station/company response capacity, vehicle response fleet and specialty response/paramedic equipment and thus a proportional share of the costs. It is unlikely that any specific development will generate the need to construct the additional fire station, but each one will pay for their proportional demands on that expansion. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 44 HB -365- Item 5. - 288 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles. and Equipment While the majority of these requests for service were made by residents of Huntington Beach from their homes, a large percentage of requests were generated from existing commercial/office and industrial uses within the City. A survey of each land use and its existing effect on requests for calls -for -service was conducted to determine existing service ratios and thus be able to project the impact of future development on fire services. This survey was undertaken similarly to the process used to determine law enforcement demand as described in Chapter 3, Law Enforcement. Only requests for fire and medic services to privately held property were counted. Calls -for - service to public property such as City parks and public right-of-way or intersections were not included which, in effect, distributes these calls pro-rata through the calls -for -service from privately held property. This is based upon the argument that all public land serves privately held land in some manner. Table 4-1, following, identifies the number of requests for service received by the Fire Department during the period of July 1, 2008 and June 30, 2009, by land use (detached dwelling, attached dwelling, mobile home, resort hotel/motel, commercial/office, and industrial). The number of calls -for -service received by the Fire Department for each of the major land -uses during the year was then divided by either the existing number of dwelling units (for residential uses) or the developed acres (for commercial, office and industrial uses) to determine the number of requests generated per dwelling unit or commercial or an industrial acre. Table 4-1 Average Annual Existing Responses Per Unit Or Acre _ _ - _ Viand Llse _ =Dwellings, : =Rooms or Annual. Calls -for service `.. Annua�Calls per'_LTmt ; �r KSF ...� Detached Dwelling Units 38,616 4,762 0.123/Unit Attached Dwelling Units 36,108 1,846 0.051/Unit Mobile Home Units 2,865 607 0.212/Unit Hotel/Motel Units 1,070 51 0.0481Unit Resort Lodging Units 809 86 0.106/Unit Commercial & Office KSF 12,836,000 565 0.044/KSF Industrial KSF 1 20,261,000 1 82 1 0.004/KSF Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 45 Item 5. - 289 HB -366- Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The beach/City right-of-way areas generated 195 calls for service. Of residential land uses, the occupants of an attached dwelling unit are less likely, by less than half as much, to require an emergency fire service response at 0.051 annual responses per unit, than the occupants of a detached dwelling unit at 0.123 annual responses per unit. Commercial/Office development is shown to generate 0.044 responses per 1, 000 square feet of building pad, while industrial development generates a minimal response demand of 0.004 calls per 1, 000 square feet of building pad. The lower demand by industrial uses over commercial/office uses should be expected given the greater density of employees and patrons in a commercial or office establishment when compared to an industrial business of similar building size. However, it should be noted that while there are fewer calls for industrial properties, significant specialty training is required to be prepared for industrial responses, (i.e., confined space and hazardous materials training). Table 4-2 indicates that, given the high density of rooms and accompanying facilities, an acre of resort development, creates the highest demand for fire services, thus the development impact fee for that land use is the highest, on an average acreage basis. Table 4-2 Calls -for -service by Land -use an Acre Basis _- Cells er�mt— Unrts o ��_ Azual �p crE:.:...... Detached Dwelling Units 0.123 6 0.74 Attached Dwelling Units 0.051 20 1.02 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 0.212 14 2.97 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0.048 32 1.53 Resort Loqging Units 0.106 40 4.25 Commercial/Office Uses (per KSF) 0.044 1 15,246 1 0.67 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (KSF) 0.004 1 21,779 1 0.09 Based on the existing rate of responses by land use, the increased number of fire suppression/medic service responses generated by future residential, commercial/office and office Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 46 HQ -367- Item 5. - 290 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment development was extrapolated. This was accomplished by multiplying the average responses per unit or 1,000 square feet (KSF), established in Table 4-1, by the number of anticipated dwelling units, commercial rooms or business KSF. Table 4-3, following, indicates the number of additional calls -for -service that could be anticipated from the development of currently vacant land within the City's planning area. Table 4-3 Additional Annual Fire Suppression/Medic Responses Generated by Future Anticipated Development - -- — Fxre/I�ic T Potential _ Additional —ResponsesInii<s—_ - Annual li Detached Dwellin Units 0.123/unit 1,749 units 215.68 calls Attached Dwelling Units 0.051/unit 5,307 units 271.32 calls Mobile Home (in parks) 0.212/unit 9 units 1.91 calls Hotel/Motel Units 0.048/unit 818 units 38.99 calls Resort Lodging Units 0.106/unit 535 units 56.87 calls Commercial/Office Uses 0.044/KSF 2,417 KSF 106.39 calls Industrial Uses 0.040/KSF 3,638 KSF 14.72 calls Total 705.88 calls Proposed Capital Expenses. The total cost of the required improvements to the City's investment of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment was previously estimated to be $11,941,972 with an offset of $700,000 from the proceeds of sale of the to -be vacated Heil Station #8. Roughly 46.4 % has been identified as required to serve the net new calls -for -service resulting from development or up -sizing due to redevelopment. Projects FS-001 through FS-006 are capacity -increasing and have been determined by City staff to be necessary to accommodate the anticipated additional calls -for -service from new development or for a more appropriate aerial unit. When this cost is distributed the various land -uses and the demands created by each, a proportional cost is determined, by development unit. Table 4-4, summarized from Schedule 4.2, indicates the proportional cost by land -use unit. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 47 Item 5. - 291 HB -368- Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles, and Equipment Table 4-4 General Plan Build -out Needs Fire Facilities, 'Vehicles and Equipment Development Impact Fees Existing City Financial Commitment. The replacement value of the existing fire infrastructure (parcel and station, response fleet and related safety/specialty equipment) at a net $61,234,227 (includes the potential sale of the Heil Station) was referenced earlier in this Chapter. This represents the current investment or financial commitment by the existing community toward fire suppression/medic capability/capacity. When this figure is distributed over the existing development in the same manner as were the future costs, by the land use demands, an average investment, or financial commitment (or equity for that matter) per unit is determined. The results are summarized in Table 4-5 (from Schedule 4.3). As an example, each detached dwelling unit has "invested" over the lifetime of the City, about $922 (as identified in Table 4-5 following) into fire suppression/medic capital, an amount that is about 95 % of the General Plan Build -out Needs - based Development Impact Fee schedule identified in the previous Table 4-4 and detailed in Schedule 4.3. The current community's commitment has established the eight response station capacities and was paid for through years of General Fund receipts. To allow future residents to benefit by use of all of the capital needs without contributing additional assets, could endanger the existing residents and businesses. Table 4-5, following, summarizes the distribution of the $ in replacement costs to the existing community, (Schedule 4.3 indicates this in greater detail). Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 48 HB -369- Item 5. - 292 Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles, and Equipment Table 4-5 Existing Fire Suppression/Medic Existing Community Financial Commitment EEL 7 -�lllocatic = '7�ota1quiy Detached Dwelling Units $35,586,696 $922/Unit Attached Dwelling Units $13,795,263 $382/Unit Mobile Home Units (in arks) $4,536,145 $1,583/Unit Hotel/Motel Units $381,126 $356/Unit Resort Lodging Units $642,683 $792/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $4,222,277 $0.329/S.F. Industrial Uses $612,791 $0.030IS.F. Other (beach area) $1,457,246 NA Of importance is the fact that the Community Financial Commitment or Equity -based costs on Table 4-5 are just slightly higher, at roughly 105%, than the proposed General Plan Build -out - based impact fees as demonstrated in Table 4-4. This indicates that the City is just slightly behind in its cumulative and proportional investment in needed fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and equipment. RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Since the equity position of the existing community is slightly less than the General Plan Build -out Needs -based development impact fees necessary for expansion, the current Community Financial Commitment or Equity -based Proportionality Test -based Development Impact Fees, as identified in Table 4-5 and Schedule 4.3, would be the most equitable fee schedule to adopt. Resulting Development Impact Cost Distribution. The collection of the proposed development impact fee, through build -out would allow the City to provide a great deal (44.7 %) of the proposed expansions and most of the equipment, but not all of it. It would fall about $6.0 million short of financing all of the required improvements attributed to new development. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 49 Item 5. - 293 HB -370- Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles, and Equipment OTHER NOTES AND ISSUES 1. The City will need to monitor the approval of conditional uses within industrial zoned development where newly constructed industrial developments. These land uses are initially have the lower industrial use development impact fees imposed when constructed as "spec" buildings but end up being used, with a CUP, for commercial/office uses. These commercial/office uses generate far greater demand than the industrial uses. If left unchecked, the Fire Department, as well as other City services, will be faced with the greater demand from the actual commercial/office uses but will be left only with the collection of the far lower industrial use development impact fee rates. To avoid this under collection, the City should impose an impact fee representing the difference between the commercial/office development impact fee and the previously paid industrial land -use impact fee when a CUP is approved and tenant improvement plans are submitted indicating a commercial or office use. RECAP OF RECOMMENDED FIRE SUPPRESSION/MEDIC FACILITIES, VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. • Adopt Schedule 4.3 General Plan Build -out Needs -based for the seven basic land -uses. CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. The response data is generated from Department response incident data used to complete the annual National Fire Incident Report (NFIR's). Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 50 HB -371- Item 5. - 294 m Z t ro H QY V C ZZ O V U U � � Q t qQ tr c C, CU CA b � Item 5. - 295 (o r 0 0 C If) Q O O LO � O � 64 Eli (0 c{ O O (Nl! C�77 O II N L IN co N O O Vr tf) d' w 0 N N to tf) 7: 60 69 6% E9 Q9- LO CSC O a O a a O O M gCD S O O r 0 0 0 (I aoQoo -,;r oQo (� �. � o 0 =f CO C\l 0 � f- O N O lO LO O CL C M 4 N 6 O (V CV a) O O co OD M t-_ (D (O 6) O O O If) N (D C7 N N C7 f, ti CO 69 69 69 6-, 64 69 69 S{::i a 'O a 0 O IO C a ry (DA. pp o ai Q Q Q: C� C7. %� O Q P. 0 O O ,O L[) R [o Gi) 4fl tc) tl7 c) a:F. HB -372- LLLL G N U N NN cn O m cJ) 51 N a aco n rn � O NMU) "' v i o ai c4 r- v uC°i rn � Q m o0 r� *- rn o c �ci of � cp co c es a te M - M - rn to M O) . rY N L M CO O d' CO r cfl r <fl M � cn r N 69 63 (a E9 Cfl 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U' 'mod' N U? O O O C? M C) M CO In N M M M Cc CO d' 0 O r N N M N t70 CO d' C' r O N O O O S G O O O O O O �Cl coLOoa rLO r M d' CA N M S N O CEO CCOO S rn T- •- ao ai rw N r W i f!! D .� C p p C 7 CY) 3 rn p T) 3 m 0 O p p m -o eC 0 2 o f N � m � d ¢ � 2 � U � LL- 52 U HB -373- Item 5. - 296 O 1' �gg Cq O za b C � O try W ca O ® cu m Z rz � U m O � O Iro yp 'N `'' 17- ri R 43 uvi a U Item 5. - 297 Cd J uj C m. R R R R Q. R tyo� cal M O O OO O O N h CD N- Ce3 � Lo r N C i a i3 y Q) N Ln r T r r Co r 00 LA r 4 0 Ln co L6 r.: CC j ,- M 'o Hi O U a> CD W N dam' N c a) d0 D Z3 (ta co It Ln W r. CA Cl) Lq co N co N N N CV �o f� Ln ? a Cfl H3 0 0 Lo O a) O CO LO CV N ti O Cp Y tV y Q P.', O O O O O O O w M O C wti R. (D{ N i .t 00 O CD LO OODD w Ln r CO r N OD CD C O ' q� o o C3 o ci o 0 Z< 00 o 0 Crn 0 aOD ty I* M - N OMD N D_ r N 00 N N COD CO') U c0') pL6p O C-) N e0) d' CD N Cfl ..::$ Cp r T N N CD N i y c 3 .a) M w V 3 A 0 LM C: O Z5 m ro R V5 s' U fA HB -3 74- 53 U J .J vi v, cu Q 0 U od m 0 C CD ct Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System The following Chapter will identify the street, traffic signal and bridge improvements (henceforth referred to as the Circulation System) planned for the City through General Plan Build -out of the existing City limits as identified in the Land -use Database Table in Chapter 2. RCS recommends the continuation of the City's comprehensive Circulation System Development Impact Fee, i.e., a fee that combines the required street, signal and bridge expansions, all of which are related to the movement of primarily vehicles. The reasons are practical in that combining these three components will provide greater flexibility in establishing priorities in what is essentially a singular circulation issue with a common nexus, traffic or as stated in trip -mile generation. It is fairly common that a single circulation system capital improvement project will involve both a street improvement (or intersection) and signal improvement. The Existing Circulation System. The City currently has and maintains an extensive system of roadways available for transportation of goods and services, as well as for educational, recreational, and social purposes. Streets that fall under the jurisdiction of City of Huntington Beach are classified as one of four types of roadways for the purposes of this Report. Roadways are defined in part (in the City's General Plan Circulation Element)2 as: • Freeway - Very high mobility with limited access to arterial streets and no access to adjacent land use. (The City is not responsible for the construction of freeways but will likely have to financially assist CALTRANS with any alteration to an existing access/egress ramps]. • Arterial - High mobility with access to collectors, some access to local streets and major traffic generators. • Collector - Limited mobility connecting local streets with arterials; also provides good access to adjacent land uses. • Local -Limited mobility but provides very good access to adjacent land uses and collector streets. Typically, locals would be constructed upon the developer's private property and generally only benefits those new residential or business buildings. Assuming that the design criterion has been met and that the right-of-way improvements meet inspection requirements, the City then accepts Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 54 KB -375- Item 5. - 298 Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System the local street improvements along with the responsibility to maintain the improvement in , perpetuity. In short, local streets are of little benefit to the City-wide circulation system, and these costs are not shared by other developers, as the collector and arterial system improvements are. For these reasons, the cost of all local streets is excluded from the Circulation System Development Impact Fee calculation. Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Undeveloped Parcels. Undeveloped parcels create few trip -ends beyond an occasional visit to the site for weed abatement purposes or to consider a sale or development of the vacant parcel. None of these trip -ends are on a routine basis. However, a developed parcel will generate a statistically predictable number of trip -ends, depending upon the specific land use of the development. Thus it can be stated that a vacant parcel, when developed into a specific use, i.e., residential or business, will generate more traffic than it did when it was vacant. Similarly, a change in the use of the parcel may also increase the number of daily trip -ends. A good example would be the demolition of a low trip -generating insurance office which is reconstructed as a new high trip -generating fast-food restaurant. All new development contributes to cumulative traffic impacts, which are difficult to measure and mitigate on a project -by -project, basis but which have significant and widespread cumulative impacts on the City's existing road system. Factors that will increase the competition for existing lane miles (and freeway crossings) include, (as measured by trip -miles defined later in Chapter text) the following: • An increase in the City `s full-time population through the construction of about 7,065 additional dwelling units contributing approximately 183,270 new trip -miles daily or just more than 49.4% of the newly expected daily trip -miles. • The construction of 1,353 commercial lodging units (resort and hotel/motel) will generate 26,882 daily trip -miles, not quite 7.3 % of the total new trip -miles annually. • The construction of private commercial and office uses on the (net) 40 acres currently identified as undeveloped commercial or office uses will generate 78,553 new daily trip - miles, or about 21.2 % of the total new trip -miles expected at General Plan build -out. This figure could vary significantly depending upon the type of commercial uses constructed and possible zoning changes or conditional use permits issued. • The addition of 187 acres of industrial development (and Institutional Uses) generating the potential for an additional 82,219 daily trip -miles, just under a quarter of the total new trip -miles at 22.1 %. Again, it is possible that some parcels zoned for industrial uses will end up being commercial uses after obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. There Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 55 Item 5. - 299 HB -3/6- Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets Signals and Bridges) System are likely many existing industrial buildings contiguous to the City's many arterials and collectors that have become commercial uses. When all (or most) of the available vacant land is developed, the City can expect an additional 370,924 daily trip -miles. For perspective, the City currently experiences approximately 3,135,213 daily trip -miles from the existing residences and businesses. The 370,924 anticipated trip -miles represents an approximate 11.8 % increase over the existing 3,135,213 daily trip -miles. The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to collect proportional contributions from new development to pay for additional circulation system capacity and by creating more lane miles or more efficient lane miles with which to accommodate the additional trip -miles created by and anticipated from new development. Additionally there are circulation projects required to alter existing arterials, collectors or intersections that currently exist, but due to additional trip -miles are becoming ineffective at moving vehicles. An example would be the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue (ST-001). This project is required because additional citizens and business -owners will use the existing intersections along with the current users rendering it, again, ineffective at moving traffic at a reasonable pace, primarily during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour of traffic. Acceptable traffic paces can be maintained with a combination of road widening, freeway access/egress, proper signalization and turn lane channelization. The simple answer to increasing demand for lane miles is to construct additional lane miles. Unfortunately there are little if any opportunities to construct additional lane miles of arterials or collectors within the City's limits without the impractical and acquisition of very expensive right-of-way. Thus, given the size of City of Huntington Beach and the magnitude of growth projected in this Report, numerous intersection improvements and construction of technologically improved traffic signals will be the primary methodology employed by the City to avoid congestion and gridlock in the future. Traffic planners have long known that the critical constraint in a typical roadway network is usually not the roadway itself but the many intersections of arterial and collector roadways. While the street capacity may be theoretically adequate to carry traffic volumes at build -out, motorists may experience congestion and even gridlock at the intersections of the arterial/collector. While the City will likely undertake, some street widening projects where possible, the installation of traffic signals and lane reconfiguration at critical intersections in the City is perhaps a more important component of traffic circulation. The importance of traffic signals is twofold. First, the City can build only so many major collector streets and there are limits as to how wide they can be, indeed there are no more practical opportunities for additional lane -miles. Second, a north -south arterial/collector, by definition, will intersect with an east -west arterial/collector assuring that someone will have to stop, either at a stop sign or a traffic signal, adding time to their tasks. The traffic carrying capacity of each Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 56 HB -377- Item 5. - 300 Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System collector can only be maximized by assuring orderly flow of traffic by efficient signalization of those intersecting arterial/collector roadways. None of this is intended to eliminate the time-honored practice of the developer constructing the full width roadway and being reimbursed for the portion greater than would otherwise be required of the developer. This impact fee calculation and resulting fee collection would simply improve the reimbursement capability. The City's Master Facilities Plan Circulation System section identifies fifteen circulation projects costing a net $28,539,780. The individual projects and costs are identified on Schedule 5.1 at the end of the Chapter and detailed in the Master Facilities Plata. A total of $26,608,410 has been identified by staff as capacity increasing, leaving $1,929,390 to be supported by other financial resources such as assessment districts, State (CALTRANS) assistance, General Funds, etc. There is an existing Circulation System Development Impact Fee Fund balance of $200,000 leaving some $1,469,370 with unidentified revenue sources. The Use of the Fee. The continued collection of the Circulation System Development Impact Fee would be used to construct the projects (or portions of projects) identified in Schedule 5.1 at the conclusion of this Chapter's text. The collected fees will be used to create additional lane miles with which to accommodate the additional 370,924 additional daily trip -miles that will be generated by the scope of development identified in Table 2-1. Nineteen specific signal modification/intersection modification improvement projects have been included in the list of proposed projects. They include: Beach Boulevard - Seven signal modification/intersection improvement projects would be constructed along Beach Boulevard at the intersections with Edinger, Heil, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Garfield, and Yorktown Avenues. Pacific Coast Highway - Three signal modification/intersection improvement projects would improve traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue, Goldenwest and Brookhurst Streets. Newland Street - Three signal modification/intersection improvement projects along Newland Street include the intersections with Talbert, Warner and Yorktown Avenues. Goldenwest Street - There are two such projects planned at the intersections of Goldwest Street with Bolsa and Slater Avenues. Gothard Street - There are also two signal/intersection improvement projects planned at the intersection of Gothard Street with Slater and Talbert. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 57 Item 5. - 301 HB -378- Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets Signals and Bridles) System There are two more signal improvement projects, one at the intersection of Ward Street and Garfield Avenue and one at Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue as well as a few minor intersection improvements that will be identified as development projects arise. There is a minor amount for a facility addition at the City yard to store replacement signal equipment. The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Payin the e Fee. There is a reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the types of projects on which the fees are imposed. The fees will be used to provide for a fair share contribution for transportation system improvements, including various street, signal and bridge project improvements needed to accommodate additional development of residential units and business square feet. The development impact fee to be imposed and collected will be based on the ratio of projected number of trip -miles the proposed development will generate in relationship to the total 370,924 additional projected trip -miles at General Plan build -out. Any amount imposed as a Circulation System Development Impact Fee will continue to be placed in a separate fund as the current City practice (collecting interest) and is to be used only on the projects identified on Schedule 5.1 as development -related. From time to time the City may require an applicant of a private project to construct a street or signal improvement (or portion thereof) that is on the list of required improvements at the end of this Chapter. This method is often undertaken to expedite the project at the request of the applicant/developer. The developer should receive a credit representing the cost of those required improvements, against their mathematically calculated impact fee, for any money expended on this required improvement against any circulation projects. Should one not exist, a portion of the ordinance addressing the issue of credits should be prepared and added to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code. The following table identifies some of the key system attributes of the Circulation System. The attributes identify that approximately 89.4% of the total trip -miles at "build -out" are represented by the existing community who have contributed a similar, but larger amount (96.2 %) of the cost of the entire system. The traffic system yet to be built represents about 3.9 % of the total trip -mile supporting system when the City is fully developed. Since there is a finite amount of room for additional major roads, traffic signals must be constructed at the intersection of major arterials. All of this generally indicates that the City is "on target" in terms of the construction of a circulation infrastructure. Or another way to state it is that the current drivers will generate 89.4% of the ultimate "build -out" trip -miles, have constructed about 96.2 %, (in terms of cost) of the required infrastructure. It would be appropriate to assume that the remaining 10.6 % of the traffic trip -mile generators contribute the remaining 3.9 % of the infrastructure. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 58 HB -3119- Item 5. - 302 Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets Signals, and Brid eg s) System [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. Table 5-1 Comparison of Circulation System Attributes nfrastcture Ex-itmg Comniommun future 74 Total at Number of Trip -miles 3,135,213 370,924 3,506,137 O,Ay.:. Cost of Total System $533,539,375 $26,608,410 $560,147,785 The Relationship Between the Need for the FacilAy and the Type of Development Project. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the proposed circulation projects and the types of developments on which the fees would be imposed. New residents and new business owners will utilize the community's existing circulation system which will then require a number of street, signal and bridge improvements to maintain the existing level -of -service (LOS) enjoyed by the existing community. Schedule 5.1 identifies the additional traffic to be generated by new development, by type of development. The technical volume, Trip Generation (Manual) 7th Edition, produced by the Institute of Traffic Engineers, has been used to identify part of the nexus, or the relationship between the type of development and the projected number of trips that development will generate. The nexus will be based upon the combined factors of trip frequency and trip distance. New Trip Adjustment for Pass -by or Diverted Trips (trip frequency factors). Schedule 5.2 contains a sub -schedule that identifies adjustments to new total trip -ends. As an example, an acre of general commercial use would be expected, on average, to generate about 381 daily trip -ends. However, approximately 15 % of those trip -ends, or about 57 trip -ends per day, are pass -by trip - ends, in that, the trip -end is not truly an end but is actually a one in a series of stops, i.e. at various commercial establishments, with a different location such as a residence as the final trip - end or destination of the series of trip -ends. In order to be considered a pass -by trip, the location of the stop must be contiguous to the generators route, i.e. the route that would have been used even if the temporary stop had not been made'. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) indicates that: Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 59 Item 5. - 303 HB -380- Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) S sy tem Thus when forecasted trips based upon the trip generation rates are distributed to the adjacent streets, some reduction is made to account for those trips already there that will be attracted to the proposed development.' Pass -by trip -ends are fully adjusted (reduced at 100%) from the average trip -ends (per day) generated by the eleven land uses identified in Schedules 5.2 and 5.3. A diverted trip is similar to a pass -by trip -end in that it is an extra stop between, as an example, a motorist's work site and his or her residence. A diverted trip differs slightly in that it requires a minor deviation from the normal generator route and the temporary stop. In short, a diverted trip -end creates a separate side trip using additional (and different) lane miles from that of the normal route from the motorist's place of employment and his or her home. These trip -ends increase the traffic volume from the generator route only for brief distances. The ITE adds that diverted trips: are produced from traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator (route) and require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway with access to the site. These roadways could include streets or freeways adjacent to the generator but without access to the generator.' These diverted trip -ends will be adjusted (reduced at an assumed 50 %) from the full trip -end count for each of the land uses identified in the Chapter 2. Again, the trip -end adjustment schedule at the bottom of Schedule 5.2 indicates the total daily trip - ends reduced by the number of pass -by trips (at 100%) and diverted trips (at 50%). The trip pass - by and diversion percentages were generated by a study conducted by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) in conjunction with various U.S. and California agencies'. Average Trip Distances by Land Use (trip distance factors). Additionally, the same SANDAG data schedule referenced above provides information for a trip distance factor component to the nexus. Based upon that data, a trip to an industrial work -site has the greatest distance at 9.0 miles. A trip to an office average 8.8 miles, a residential trip averages 7.9 miles, a trip from a hotel or motel (once in residence) averages 7.6 miles, and an average trip to a commercial site is the shortest at 4.3 miles. This indicates that drivers are generally willing travel further distances to work and for treatment at medical offices than they are to shop. Both frequency (trip -ends) and distances (average miles per trip) have been combined into the nexus by combining frequency and distance, the two major factors of circulation master planing. When the trip frequency and trip distance factors are combined, a 200-unit attached dwelling residential specific plan would generate about 4,620 daily trip -miles (200 unit's X 23.1 daily trip - Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 60 1-113 -3 81 - Item 5. - 304 Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets Signals and Bridges) S sy tem miles per unit) and a ten -acre commercial -retail development would generate 4,955 daily trip -miles (10 acres X 32.6 trip-miles/K.S.F. X 15,246/1,000 S.F.). Each would pay their proportionate share of the total 370,924 newly created trip -miles expected at General Plan build -out. In the case of the detached dwelling development, the 4,620 daily trip -miles generated by the new 200 attached dwellings represents about 1.25 % of the 370,924 total new trip -miles anticipated at build - out, thus they would be required to contribute financially to the DIF fund or construct projects on the DIF list to an amount equal to 1.49% of the total development -related project costs. The 4,955 daily trip -miles generated by the ten acres of commercial development represent 1.34% of the total 370,924 new trip -miles anticipated at build -out. As a result they would be required to contribute financially to the DIF fund or construct projects on the DIF list to an amount equal to 1.34% of the total development -related project costs. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Again, the calculation of the Circulation System Development Impact Fee is based upon the recognition that differing types of developments generate differing numbers of trip -ends. The fee is based upon the projected number of trip -miles generated by the proposed private development project. Circulation System Development Impact fee receipts will be accumulated until they reach the amount necessary to construct a meaningful project to alleviate or mitigate the demands of those new developments. Table 5-2 (summarized from Schedule 5.2) following, identifies the General Plan Build -out based Circulation System Impact Fee Schedule based upon the net $26,608,410 in identified capacity -increasing projects. Table 5-2 General Plan Build -out Based Circulation System Impact Fees Aliocaton US. ... _ Total �nst m .-Per aCnit orm,S Detached Dwelling Units $4,341,072 $2,482/Unit Attached Dwellin Units $8,794,196 $1,657/Unit Mobile Home Units (in arks) $11,693 $1,299/Unit Hotel/Motel Units $903,562 $1,105/Unit Resort Lodging Units $1,024,741 $1,915/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $5,635,037 $2.331/S.F. Industrial/Manufacturin Uses $5,898,019 $1.621/S.F. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 61 Item 5. - 305 HB -382- Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System Again, adoption of this set of proposed fees would generate the total revenue necessary to construct a significant portion (about 93 %) of the needed street, traffic signal and bridge construction projects. The shortfall is largely due to removing new "passthrough" trips from new development outside of the City limits from the calculation. These figures, however, need to be compared to the existing community financial commitment demonstrated by the existing circulation assets to identify the level of fairness in adopting this schedule of development impact fees. Proportionality Test. Table 5-3, following (and summarized from Schedule 5.3) identifies the assets of the existing system (at current construction and acquisition costs). The $533,539,375 consists of the existing $431.6 million in circulation plan arterial/collector streets, $96.8 million in traffic signals and intersection improvements and $5.0 million in major bridges inventory. There is also a $200,000 balance in the Circulation System Development Impact Fee fund balance. When the combined $533.6 million is distributed over the existing community, using the identical nexus factor used for distribution future costs, the existing community has contributed the following, on average, by land use: Table 5-3 Existing Circulation System Community Commitment Comparison Development Impact Fees "1`ocatiog Tofal C9� Detached Dwelling Units $227, 375,119 $5, 888/Unit Attached Dwelling Units $141,943,317 $3,931/Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units $8,824,837 $3,080/Unit Hotel/Motel Lodgiag Units $2,804,166 $2,621/Unit Resort Lodging Units $3,675,809 $4,544/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $70,992,504 $5.531/S.F. Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $77,923,618 $3.846/S.F. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 62 HB -383- Item 5. - 306 Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System Of importance is that the existing community has contributed, on average, far more, (at nearly 237 %) than would be required of future development to meet the General Plan build -out needs for all users. This indicates that there is no proportionality issue as the future community is being asked to contribute at a far lesser amount (at about 42 %) than has been contributed by the existing community. Alternative Cost Methodology. A more precise calculation of costs for specific types of land uses (i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent homes, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average cost per trip of $71.74 by the applicable daily trip -mile rate. An example of this calculation can be found in Schedule 5.3 at the end of the Chapter and applied to Table 5-4, on the following page. These tables list trip -mile rates and costs for various residential, resort, industrial and commercial developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip -mile rates theoretically provides greater accuracy and therefore greater equity in determining specific uses demand on the City's circulation system, but at the same time may increase the City's administrative costs to administer the fee. A more extensive listing of traffic generators by land use is available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, New York, NY and SANDAL. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 63 Item 5. - 307 HB -384- Chapter 5 Circulation Streets Signals and Bridgesstem Table 5-4 Detail of Circulation System Financial Commitment -based Impact Fees for Specific Business Uses Detached Dwelling 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.60 $71.741 $2,482.20 /Unit Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $71.741 $1,743.28 /Unit Coadomialum/Townhome 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $71.741 $1,520.89 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling L 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $71.74 1 $1,298.49 /Unit RE$p�4:TCIlJUfZFT ipei lnrt ox$ut�7P4or} . . Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $71.74 $1,714.59 /Room All Sufees Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $71.74 $1,025.88 /Room Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $71.74 $1,193.71 /Room [FIlI1ST i�1Ar (pEr 1,00DSF)• General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $71.74 $1,994.37 IKSF Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $71.74 $1,929.81 IKSF Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $71.74 $882.40 IKSF Warchousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $71.74 $1,420.45 IKSF ltiCIAL {per #,dl0 �S :' GOIbf�[TE ... - Office Pack 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $71.74 $2,338.72 IKSF Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $71.74 $1,578.28 IKSF Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $71.74 $2,948.51 IKSF Bldg. Materi"Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $71.74 $4,526.79 IKSF Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $71.74 $3, 615.70 IKSF Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $71.74 $380.22 IKSF Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $71.74 $911.10 IKSF Medical Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $71.74 $7, 009.00 IKSF General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $71.74 $2,259.81 IKSF Shopping Center 30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 $71.74 $4, 655.93 IKSF Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $71.74 $1,764.80 IKSF Discount Canter 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $71.74 $9, 706.42 IKSF High-TumoverRestaurant 8.90 4.3 0.5 19.1 $71.74 $1,370.23 /KSF Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $71.74 $6,722.04 IKSF Walk-in Bank 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $71.74 $2,152.20 IKSF Outer (not avale 'KS) .>`' comotary (per acre) 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $71.74 $473,48 (Acre Service Statioa/Market (avg) 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $71.74 $16, 607.81 IFP/Day (4) Service Station and Car Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $71.74 $15,323.66 /FPIDay (4) Nom: 1. AD = Average Daily Trips 3. Adjusted for Pass -by and Diverted Trips. 2. KSF = Thousand Square Feet of Gross Floor Area 4. FP/Day = per Fueling Position"per day. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 64 HB -385- Item 5. - 308 Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The contribution of the existing community as evidenced in Table 5-3, Community Financial Commitment -based Proportionality Test Fees is far greater than what is to asked of future development (Table 5-2) the General Plan Build -out Needs -based Development Impact Fee schedule is adequate and reasonable for adoption. It would be more than adequate for the usual and normal application to the seven broad land -uses. as the fairest schedule of impact fees. However, it is further recommended that there should also be the option for the engineering staff to apply the per trip -mile fee from Schedule 5.2 multiplied by the specific use Table 5-4 or the more extensive listing of traffic generators by land use (available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, New York, N.Y.) multiplied by the SANDAG land - use trip distances. RECAP OF RECOMMENDED (LOCAL) CIRCULATION SYSTEM, VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. • Adopt Schedule 5.2. for the seven basic new land -uses including the per Daily Trip -mile rate with standard ITE trip -end rates for the application to unusual or highly specific development proposals. • Adopt Table 5-4 for application on specific business uses as necessary by engineering staff, as well as the table at the bottom of Schedule 5.2 to allow City staff to calculate specific Circulation System DIFs, based upon ITE data not necessarily highlighted on Table 5-4. [This space left vacant to place the Chapter Endnotes on a single page] . Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 65 Item 5. - 309 HB -386- ChaQter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals. and Bridges) System CHAPTER ENDNOTES 2.For complete definitions and standards, see the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element as part of the Infrastructure and Community Services Chapter page III-CE-1. Further description of the components of the Element are on page III-CE-2 and III-CE-3. 3.1he normal route between a daily work -site and the residence of the motorist. 4.As an example, a motorist travels the same route from work to home daily. On some number of occasions, the motorist stops at a market along the route to pick up some groceries. These stops at the market would be considered pass -by trips in that they do not generate an additional trip along that route. 5.Trip Generation, institute of Traffic Engineers, 525 School Street, SW., Ste. 410, Washington D.C. 20024- 2729, Chapter III, Definition of Terms, Pass -by Trips, page 1-7. 6.An example of a diverted trip would be a single trip where, along the way from work, a motorists evening drive home deviates from the normal route taken home to stop at perhaps a preferred grocery store, drop mail off at a post office and pick up a child from piano lesson before continuing home. Each of these three stops would be considered diverted trips. 7.Trip Generation, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 525 School Street, SW., Ste. 410, Washington D.C. 20024- 2729, Chapter III, Definitions of Terms, Diverted Linked Trips, I-5. 8.Traffic Generators, San Diego Association of Governments, 401 B Street, Suite 800, San Diego, CA 92101, Brief Guide to Traffic Generation Rates compiled in conjunction with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, U.S. Department of Transportation, the California Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, duly 1995. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 66 HB -387- Item 5. - 310 O r C 0 cD N 64 .01 0) C■7 Ml of N 63 1; C9: 609069 O' L ao a) � �. cm: N ' Spa � a o o O> O N N r - >%s O O O V) E D 0 CO C O co cD cD O 'O C2 O fC3 :0 r T' 0 S(DS O 0 CD 0 0 O O 0 O r 69 Q O 0 64 S O O 0 t.C) 64 C. 0 O O 0 C r CO O 0 O O Co O r 64 O 0 O O O I U') 64 O 0 O O O CD cy 69 O 0 O co to I-- (9 O 0 O LO � 64 Cl S 0 O L 69 O 0 O 0 Ln 64 pp 0 O 0 O V) 69 O 0 O 0 co 6% O 0 O 0 0 c) 60 O 0 O 0 0 ttcc�� H3 O 0 O `7 CD N E9 O 0 cc cc)0 64 O 0 O O O C) r O S 0 O O_ . LA E9 O 0 O 0 N oc CV 49 O 0 O 64 S qD I- El) In 0 N 0 O O coo O N � 0 N O co N 69 0 N O CD L� r C/3 z O w U U W w D (D ¢ E Q) Q U J Q C N co im m (D L � � Cn C U)LL q ¢ N C C C� m O C O C> d C L C C� � C C C O CD CA CD m ? ¢ OD c¢>¢ C N d ¢ m d _lie O> N w C C 7 Q m C a m C> j m C U L w J U C m a� an > d v$ C` ro o ro Q� w > ¢ a c m> > o y a� ¢ ro n 0 ¢ C¢ O N o o S' O C°3 O m O O 9 Q ¢ C > Q E ca c ° U > U wz�uJ�CIJ} ro is C C C Y o O CD 'o m¢� o O c a m op t >,TT�� ro C= c m F- Y� ro �- d D N ro ro CG fa Sp w ro C t C a 'O ca i C C Z) 0 -2-2-o�-o'2U 0_rn_a,$ ca ro co a r m r� 1 _ 7>> y>> 7_= (!� y Cn N a) N a) C1 m m y r2 2 U O N N m Q) m N N y± w to y_ �. N N� ro U? 7 fn Y Y (a Q S O S O S S O O O ro __ (!? co 2� p r 0 0 J M mp�CpmmmmUUC�i 3 3 v�r� av ca M W aci m ro ro c ro ca ro rA Yz o v c) s) cmn m m N maammmma.wraOOZZZOO( coa 0 coa O N m N ro ro ca O O N (D d 0 0 :mMCLa L O C w J r O 1 O N 0 O M O O d' S I,C) CD(D_ O Co O 1� O O M O O C)) O O O O r O N Q Cl) r O It 0 w 0 Co 0 1� r 0 M r 0 M r 0 O N 0 r N 0 N N 0 mcncrycnusm cncn rn cnmcnmcncncnmrnrn O co Q CD 64 9 7 Item 5. - 311 xB -388- N Ld fi ch y Q) y (bU CO CL m -M 4} y � O m U y b L lC I b 4 y tb 1 � Cc C 4 O O ti _04—': UNC�U LC LC Q Q CL O 4 R 4 N IN+ O N LO N LO U vLLn Q of Ncs o (q Lt°n IL Ln Efl E9 fA 'GO V i» r o °) c°'o ( n o 0 r- C0N M N ti Esi O O 0 co i�r ta 0 0 r Lo d' O LLo co C� O O V w r r Mco O' M M ONT CAD N CAD M M LO LC) r Ln N to N O N N "Y w N O CV r r N M r 0 0 o Lo O (1) N N CN') N o a) wc` i o g q � Ln 0 r LO f1 Nf Q0 N C7 cn T} rn rn o I= N r E CD al N U fl m a _j O a o o 2 Cu U 1 r Ld =� 0 0 o V] c p Q 2 T U 4� 10 LO N N M L � m ti �C O) tp Co C7 L, m ti r\ of L7j � � m C7 W N c0 Ln a O r 0 y Cn In V 4 L,: In 6 r E° a cd a \ 0 � CD os0000doo Ln to En 000 Ln h LO OD a) O) ti r� co co E n N � F Q U�LnLno0oLn tl Cv A 00 oD MN N LO CO �- C Q U •Z 0.. O O a a 0 0 0 r N O Ln Ln LO O O O Ln LC) Ln L6 6 M N M r a U 7 H m a CL Cl Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 Ln 0 Li 0 Ln 0 U[ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CD M (9 r r r C) CO � T C t: yy LR G I• NmmrncryLnM Ln cl O) N r N CD O CO �r Ln M M N LO C 12 cn i= O N CD C � oy is cti❑ m_❑$ ca c oD(n Y N y m c ❑ m V C U3 p� � 2 m 0 -$ ro❑ m U I m m m � V L E N F ¢ 2o z � U n- 0 0 r cc L4 N a .T I Ln N a. WIN Item 5. - 312 i Q. a a (�L n CX 0 0 0 0 CA O ItCV C ) CV N r C7 �t to N CN7 CND r C0] m CN7 � 00 CrJ 0 r' t Lh CD w O a�qq 65% 64 64 6,91 69 (fl O C+^7 (OD O 9 O Cl � R OD I,- C N f� " CO N C9 O f� N 64 69 M l- N 69 6% 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 CND lu� W LLq COD M CO MLONorlm C m ' m as PCl) Lo r- N r LD co IRr r CV7 co N M N CC 00 C CO 0 0 CCe) Co N r CO7 Cp a7 N (+� N COV Co C) C> N N Nd, C OD co O k c En C CA y — .d CM w cw E CD O_ o o L CD = °� ca a� c °' — Eo ` N 9 w C r Cl) N a U c 0 _m LL Item 5. - 313 KB -390- Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System The Existing System. The City's existing storm drainage network is composed of street gutter facilities, inlets and a pipeline network of storm drain lines, ranging from 24" to 96" pipe"'. This combination of improvements conveys storm water runoff to various larger lines and Flood Control District storm channels located throughout the City leading directly into the Santa Ana River to the north. There are also numerous small outlets which lead directly into the Pacific Ocean. The system, with minor exceptions, functions well to remove storm water runoff and protect developed parcels and other City infrastructure. However, as the City continues to develop currently vacant or underutilized parcels, the existing City -owned storm drainage lines will approach maximum capacity reducing the ability of the existing drainage lines to sufficiently and adequately collect and remove additional runoff. The City currently has more than 532,000 linear feet of storm drain pipe sized from 24" to 96" creating some 5.3 million cubic feet of storm drainage capacity. The system consists of roughly 1,000 inlet boxes and 2,000 junction/combination boxes'. The system also has 9,000 linear feet of reinforced concrete box providing additional large flow capacity. The estimated replacement value of the existing (non -local) storm drainage collection line's system assets are approximately $158,631,313. There are also fifteen storm drainage pump stations with a replacement value of $45,000,000. The City has in place an existing Storm Drainage Collection System Development Impact Fee but that fund currently has a zero fiend balance. Property -based Benefit Reasoning. Initially, separate zones was considered for each drainage basin within the City because each area has specific capital needs for storm -water collection. Storm -water runoff from along the northerly area of Beach Boulevard may not directly impact the homeowner near Huntington Harbour; similarly, a 24" collection line near Adams Avenue and the Santa Ana River required to handle runoff from the homes in that area may provide little direct benefit to a business in the downtown area of the City. In each case, there can be some distinct property -related areas of benefit for each drainage basin. User -based Benefit Reasoning, the Human Element. The owners and users of all developed and undeveloped parcels benefit, directly and indirectly, from all Citywide existing and future storm drainage improvements. As the various systems within the greater community of the City of Huntington Beach develop, the benefits are generally recognized as: Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 70 HB -391- Item 5. - 314 Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System 1. Proposed development projects can only be approved by the City when precautions, generally in the form of infrastructure improvements, have been made that assure that developed and undeveloped downstream parcels will not be adversely affected (i.e., inundated, flooded, cut off from access in and out), by storm water from the project being proposed. The avoidance of downstream or down -zone damage from the development of an upstream parcel may not be a major concern to a developer, but the City must concern itself with such issues when approving private development proposals. 2. The private development being assessed a development impact fee will receive the same storm -water protection from other development projects upstream or up -zone from their own developments. 3. Storm water must be adequately controlled and removed to large scale flood control channels or creeks to assure access by public safety vehicles to all parts of the City, regardless of which zone a call for service is in. Fire suppression and other paramedic calls, as well as law enforcement and public works responses cannot wait during heavy rainstorms. To the contrary, the number of emergency calls -for - service probably increases during such storm events and the City's public safety and maintenance units must be able to respond, to all zones. 4. The City of Huntington Beach's citizens and business owners/employees must also be able to travel safely in heavy rain through one storm drainage zone to another. An adequate and sufficient storm drainage system will provide such protection. For the above stated four reasons, RCS recommends the adoption of a single storm drainage development impact fee to be applied Citywide. Storm runoff does recognize a boundary between downtown and the other areas. It will leave one part of the City and pass through another to reach its southwest ultimate location, the Pacific Ocean. Demand U1on Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. The construction of flood control and storm drainage facilities is essential to the preservation of private property, public streets, curbs and other facilities. The county or a regional level of government is generally responsible for flood controP, and cities are generally responsible for storm drainage. The building of new homes and businesses on presently undeveloped land will increase the amount of runoff and thus accelerate the need for additional storm drainage facilities to handle increased runoff from these developing areas. As vacant and underdeveloped parcels are developed and pervious surfaces are replaced with impervious rooftop, parking lots, driveways, pools, and sidewalks, greater amounts of the rainfall runs off of the developed parcel. The amount of the runoff varies with differing types of development (i.e., land - Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 71 Item 5. - 315 HB -392- Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System use) and the varying amounts are referred to as the runoff coefficients. Approximately 0.775 (or 77.5 %) of rainfall that falls on a parcel developed with detached dwelling residences, exits that developed parcel. The rate for attached dwelling residences runoff is little much higher at 0.810 (81.0 %). Most business uses such as a hotellmotel, resort, retail/office and industrial have a runoff coefficient of between 0.875 and 87.5 % with industrial acres to 0.950 or 95 %. Clearly, water runoff increases when a vacant property is developed with impervious roof -top, sidewalks and driveways/parking lots. The cumulative effects of additional runoff must be managed with the appropriate capital facilities to move the water and, in some cases such as during heavy downpours, detain the storm water prior to releasing it slowly into the downstream storm drain. The costs of the new storm drainage will be distributed by the coefficients of drainage, i.e., the percentage of property that will end up with impervious coverage such as asphalt or cement -based concrete drives or parking lots, rooftop, pools and any other hard surface that do not allow any absorption into the soil. The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the development impact fee is to collect fair share contributions from the various land -uses to finance the proportional acquisition of additional storm drainage system improvements needed to collect that additional storm water runoff from the that same proposed development. The cost of extending the same level of storm drainage protection to the newly developing homes and businesses as is provided to the existing community, (that has largely paid for the existing system), can be calculated, an impact fee imposed and collected. The impact fee revenues can then be used to expand the storm drainage facilities necessary to extend the existing level -of -services. The City's Storm Drainage Plan identifies a total of $207,494,225 in storm drainage collection system capacity -increasing projects required to fully complete the City's General Plan build -out network of pipes, small channels and detention ponds. This cost cannot be mitigated by Storm Drainage System Development Impact Fee fund balance. The Use of the Fee. The construction of storm drainage collection facilities in the City of Huntington Beach is essential to the preservation of private property, and the millions of dollars invested in public streets, curbs, parks and other public facilities. The building of new residences and businesses on presently undeveloped (or underdeveloped) land will require the installation of additional storm drainage collection lines and inlets to handle the ever increasing runoff from this same new development. This Chapter reviews the costs of expanding the storm drainage collection system facilities needed to accommodate the drainage generated by future development. The revenues raised from a properly calculated and supported Storm Drainage Collection System Development Impact Fee would be limited to capital(ized) costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to construct additional or parallel storm drainage lines (to increase the drainage capacity of the system). Conversely, the Storm Drainage Impact Fee receipts would not be used to repair, replace or rehabilitate any existing storm drainage lines with adequate capacity. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 72 HB -393- Item 5. - 316 Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection stem The Relationship Between the Need for The Public Facilities and the Type of Development Project. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of developments on which the fees are imposed. New residents and businesses utilize and impact the community's existing storm drainage system which requires various storm drainage improvements. Upon the identification of the costs of storm drainage facilities, generated by future development, costs must be further distributed for each of the land uses (i.e., commercial and residential uses) based on their estimated storm runoff. Detached and attached residential dwelling development provides the most landscape percentage per parcel and thus the greatest percolation and conversely the least runoff of storm -water. As such, these land uses should not bear the same cost as Commercial/Office or Industrial use developments, both of which generally will have lesser landscape area (or stated another way, have a higher percentage of impervious area) and therefore generate a higher amount of storm water runoff. Schedule 6.1 contains the list of storm water projects identified' as necessary to control the storm water runoff resulting from the creation of an impervious surface by future development and also continue to protect the existing developed community. The list consists of hundreds of small projects in six storm drainage zones estimated to cost $207,494,050. For this Report, costs were distributed between land uses on established runoff coefficients. Table 6-1 is the listing of these runoff coefficients employed in this Report.' Table 6-1 Storm Drainage Runoff Coefficients (@ a 2"/hour rainfall) NP no osed - Me u ,i ent Af . Ruxlof--'' Detached Dwelling Units 0.775 Attached Dwelling Units 0.810 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 0.800 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0.900 Resort Lodging Units 0.875 Commercial/Office Uses 0.900 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.950 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 73 Item 5. - 317 1-113 -394- Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System Since this development impact fee category is an acre -based calculation, (as opposed to the number of units built on an acre), it is determined by applying a drainage factor to the type of land use zone. Differences result between what the City's development rules allows (for the General Plan Build -out Need -based Impact Fee) and what has actually been approved in the past (for the Community Financial Commitment or Proportionality Test) can significantly skew the resulting figures. As, an example, the City anticipates future approval of 5,307 attached dwelling units at roughly 48 units per acre density. However, the 36,1.08 existing attached dwelling units generate an average density of closer to 20 to 25 units per acre. Assuming a storm drainage impact fee of $5,000 per acre, each existing unit would have an equity share of about $200, ($5,000 per acre =25 units per acre = $200/unit) while the future units would be assessed about $100, ($5,000 per acre :- 48 units per acre = $104/unit). Schedule 6.1 identifies the six storm drainage zones and the projects necessary to provide flood protection and insure the ability to traverse the City during a heavy storm. The project costs total $207,494,050 without any mitigation by Development Impact Fee fund balance. Table 6-2, following, indicates that the 8,303.18 acres of acre -runoff factor created by the currently developed community represents about 92.7 %of the total acre -runoff factor that can be expected at General Plan build -out. Table 6-2 Comparison of Storm Drainage System Attributes Iafrastructare _ T�,x�stuigFu ufre'tital a ornmriY . ...:: *Budd but Total Runoff Acre Factor 8,303.18 557.85 8,861.03 :92`0-_.._._.lOQ . System Cost Contribution $203,631,313 $207,494,050 $411,175,363 - —�Pecenla of c�tal .......- .�._-9 %........- At the the same time the currently developed community's investment in the existing storm drainage system, at $203,631,313 is a lesser proportion at about 49.5% of the cost of the total system at projected General Plan build -out. Conversely that means that the current vacant and underdeveloped parcels will generate the remaining 6.3 % of the demand expected at General Plan build -out but would, if allocated all of the remaining storm drainage projects would need to Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 74 xB -395- Item 5. - 318 Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System finance the remaining 50.5 % of the total General Plan cost of the system at a guaranteed preventive (and assuredly illegal) development impact fee of about $370,000 per acre. This clearly indicates that the City's storm drainage collection system has not been constructed proportionally and ratably with the amount of storm runoff generated by the development in the City to date. Stated slightly differently, with 92.7 % of the City's acreage developed, the storm drainage system should also be close to 92.7%developed. However, such is not the case. Such a statement can be said of virtually all of Southern California's cities. The most likely reason is that the storm drainage system, without an exclusive revenue source, must compete with other far more needed (or desired) capital projects within the City's limited General Fund. As an example, a $1.0 million dollar signal modification that eliminates significant traffic delays daily, would more likely be funded as compared to a $1.0 million storm drainage project that benefits the community during a few hours of the few rainiest days of the year. A fair cost allocation would be to recognize that future additional drainage represents approximately 6.3 % of the total at General Plan build -out thus should be allocated roughly 6.3 % of the total cost of the remaining projects. Table 6-3, following, indicates the impact fee amounts that would need to be imposed to pay for the cost of completing the portion of the system's collection pipes and channels identified by staff to be financed with impact fees. It would be reasonable to expect future development to finance its proportional share of the identified storm drainage needs without violating the proportionality rule as has been done with other development impact fees in this report. Table 6-3 General Plan Build -out Needs Storm Drainage Facilities Impact Fees - T Ladd Usd � _ Allocatrou_ of Pro�ec�- _ Cosh �Fstrtbt�hom � Total Gost Per;i`7nit-or SF Detached Dwelling Units $5,354,096 $18,149 $3,061/Unit Attached Dwelling Units $2,109,274 $18,968 $397/Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units $18,735 $18,735 $2,082/Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $392,020 $18,149 $479/Unit Resort Lodging Units $190,624 $20,497 $356/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $838,839 $21,076 $0.347/S.F. Industrial/Manufacturin Uses $4,160,238 $22,247 $1.144/S.F. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 75 Item 5. - 319 HB -396- Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection S sy tem The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Payin the e Fee. There is a reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the types of projects on which the fees are imposed. The Storm Drainage Collection System Development Impact Fees that are imposed and collected will be used to mitigate the storm water runoff generated by the various types of development. If the development is a commercial/office or industrial/manufacturing property generating a significant amount of runoff, the fee collected will be proportionally higher and will be enough to construct the required additions to the storm drainage system downstream from this development. From time to time the City may require an applicant of a private project to construct an improvement (or portion thereof) that is on the list of required improvements at the end of this Chapter. This is often done to expedite the project for the applicant/developer. The developer should receive a credit for any money expended on this required improvement against their calculated storm drainage collection system impact fee. An ordinance clearly addressing the issue of credits should be prepared and added to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code should one not fully exist at this time. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Each new development, or demand increasing redevelopment, would finance a proportional amount of the expansion of the City's storm drainage collection system. Similar to the previous findings, the relationship is based upon the projected amount of storm water to be collected, contained and safely transported to flood control channels or rivers as a proportion of the entire amount of storm water to be so conveyed. The downstream collection lines (lines further down from the proposed project but prior the outfall into a river or flood control channel) need to be sized to handle all of the storm -water collected upstream. Storm - water that is collected in one location accumulates with feeder lines along the way and thus the downstream system must be built increasingly larger (at increasing higher material and construction costs) the further it gets away from its source. Table 6-4 distributes the total existing community financial commitment (or equity value) of the existing system, at $203,631,313, consisting of the actual storm drainage pipe, channels and detention basins. Please note that the resulting development impact cost, by land use, is in terms of units such as residential dwellings or commercial/office and industrial/manufacturing square feet of building pad (including multiple floors). [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page] . Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 76 HB -397- Item 5. - 320 Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection stem Table 6-4 Distribution of Current Equity -based Commitment in Storm Drainage System Collection (or Proportionality Verification) Ucl Use _.__ =- A1Xoi%ation J A f4ut�y �- - System per - fatal 1✓ost Per iJn1t oz� Detached Dwelling Units $122,325,402 $19,006 $3,168/Unit Attached Dwelling Units $35,863,547 $19,865 $993/Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units $4,013,573 $19,617 $1,401/Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $737,145 $22,070 $689/Unit Resort Lodging Units $433,735 $21,472 $536/Unit Commercial/Office Uses $18,583,394 $22,073 $1.448/S.F. Industrial/Manufacturin Uses $21,674,517 $23,298 $1.070/S.F. Of note is the fact that Table 6-4 summarizing Schedule 6.3, the investment "investment" (albeit General Plan proportionally deficient) of the current community is slightly greater, (at about 8 %) of the previously exhibited General Plan Build -out Needs -based fees identified in Table 6-3 summarizing Schedule 6.2. Based upon these proportional facts, the adoption of the General Plan Build -out Needs -based fees identified in Schedule 6.2 and summarized in Table 6-3, would be reasonable and equitable. RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES The adoption of Schedule 6.2 at the end of this chapter, as summarized in Table 6-3 and based upon as the Storm Drainage Collection System Development Impact Fees would generate approximately $13.0 million in capital revenues with which to construct a portion of the remaining $207.4 million in the storm drainage infrastructure required to complete the system. The City should adopt both the per unit fees, i.e., the dwelling unit fees and the square foot business construction square foot fees and the per acre figures under the column heading titled Cost Distribution per Acre on Schedule 6.2. The former is for application to projects that include a building creating new demand for all infrastructure and the latter for projects merely creating additional runoff (e.g. a parking structure). Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 77 Item 5. - 321 1113 -398- Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System RECAP OF RECOMMENDED STORM DRAINAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. • Adopt Schedule 6.2. for the seven basic new land -uses, and; 0 Adopt the Schedule 6.2, "Cost per Acre" column for construction of parking lots and other private construction causing additional runoff but few other impacts. CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. Storm drainage pipe below the size of 21 " is almost exclusively used for "local" or tract storm water collection and is thus not included in the equity calculation. In Huntington Beach this amounts to an additional 80,100 linear foot of reinforced concrete pipe that is 18" to 21" and considered to be "local" in nature and thus not included in this calculation. 2. Roughly assumes inlet boxes constructed at 425 linear foot intervals, combination boxes at 750 foot intervals and junction boxes at 300 linear foot intervals. 3. Projects of major importance generally involving the control of large quantities of flood water (over 500 C.F.S.) through numerous cities and unincorporated areas. 4. The projects individual scope and cost estimates have been provided by the City's contractual engineering firm Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Engineers and Scientists, Irvine, CA 92612-1311. 5. San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, Williamson and Schmidt, Civil Engineers, Irvine, California, August, 1986, Runoff Index Number 56. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 78 HB -399- Item 5. - 322 L Q) LQ to 6 q) ca -Q) Zt° C14 :0Q) p , CIZ Item 5. - 323 02 9 ,t 0) V) 0) cq fa 0) Cl) %r Co V) co ce) Ul) UO 0 -Rt cr) a) LO Lf) 6a 'Ga 60 6% JR JR 9 0 0 (s o 0q� V 8 C� O q IR (D ro ko CD co f4i (0 0 C 0 N, 0) CO C6 co Q CF 0 6 LO Cf3 0 LO (D CD� CD OC) (.0 2 (D CM 09� V:� ia C CO LO C� Cl) lici Cli 0 400 �t 0 0 cl! co C� q) 0� �r V (D 1-0 !� c,j o ci w ci N cli V) CV a) 6% e% U). 601, q 8 LU ) 0 n. 0 LU C5 LU C; E 0 HB -400- R t5 79 < LL: \ \ \ \ \ w w k k k k\ K k k k k® k k 7 g p 8 E 2 q® � / / k / \ \ \ � a e e G k G 3 3& e m a 2 k % \ k \ k C\L I S g q 2 G / o 2 Q 2 e e e \ \ 7 \ \ k 7 7 CD o CO to q $ © @ p m r o 0 o 0 R o � K % % % 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m w» o R E G \ G m R R m n q \ q $ q_ 7 \ k / 2 % \ f n / a a D a =\ 7 7 \ k / f / � � k © 7 0 k � 7 % f --I & / / \ � \ / \ \ d \ k \ CL £ \ SO / } } Item 5.-324 2 PL Oyt as O k O -rzCU C y U � U o Q� � v Q co o cOn m C� LL ro cVn r. O ti�C�jC`q Item 5. - 325 w � t j > > > C4 � a n a. a a Q. 4 E 00_ m o M o [GI I � �� I w 1 N i C N N C9 :: � � Efi Ef3 E9 4f3 b4 fH b3 O N ti Lo cn rn M cn LC\jr) m n Cl) c` 00 o co v 4 0 NM � ; Ef3 Efi cli E{} ifl O C9 O) cr3 N CC O f-, Cj C7 6D C CO ; O Il- co C4 i COS r cc � C7 Q Q ' O T, tr M VCr� Q Cl) — M CC r Icc .. . cc CO r co 0 N C of O cq c R o 0 t.CD f) o Ct Q O Q n Q r c C+r C M N co O: T y V CD R (D L) s v HB -402- E31 Ca Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection The Existing System. The City's library system consists of five library facilities providing a total of 127,400 square feet. When the 127,400 square feet of the library building space is divided by the City's residential population of 190,377', a space .standard of 0.669 square feet/resident is established, (127,400 square feet of library space - 190,377 residents). The City's library operations also house an extensive inventory of 410,594 collection items contained within the five libraries. When the 410,594 collection items are divided by the City's residential service population of 190,3772, a collection item standard of 2.157 library collection items/resident is established, (410,594 collection item's - 190,377 residents). Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Underdeveloped or Undeveloped Parcels. Stated simply, the 127,400 square feet of library facilities utilized by the City will accommodate only a finite number of collection items and residents/patrons. Additional residential development will increase the demand on the existing square feet of library pad and the existing collection items. The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to enable the City to collect a fee that would allow the City to construct additional square feet that would ensure that the City's existing and new residents would have adequate and sufficient access to and enjoyment of the library space and collection. The calculation in Table 7-1, following, establishes the City's existing de -facto library standards. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page] Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 82 HB -403- Item 5. - 326 Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection Table 7-1 Calculation of Existing City Library Facilities/Collection Items Standard Library. .. Facility. S.F. -` Collection . Items Banning Library 2,400 27,637 Central Library 115,000 314,921 Graham Library 1,200 14,920 Main Street Library 4,500 30,429 Oak View Library 4,300 22,687 Total Library Resources 127,400 410,594 Current Residential Population 190,377 1 190,377 Existing Standard/Resident 0.669 2.157 Table 7-2, following, indicates that the remaining residential dwelling development and typical number of residents per type of residential dwelling will generate a need for 11,443 additional square feet in order to maintain the existing library facility standard of 0.669 square feet per person. Table 7-2 Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Facility Standard Residential .. Land -Use Number `'Persons of Units per.: Dwelling _ Resident. Yield Detached Dwellings Units 1,749 3.053 5,095 Attached Dwellings Units 5,307 2.257 11,978 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 9 1.660 16 Additional Residential Population to be Served 17,089 Square Foot per Person Existing Standard 0.669 Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Standard 11,433 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 83 Item 5. - 327 HB -404- Chanter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection The library system also has a collection of 410,594 collection items' generating a collection standard of 2.157 collection items per resident within the system (410,594 collection item's 190,377 persons). Table 6-3, following, indicates the additional number of residents to be served and the number of collection items required to maintain the existing standard. The City will need to acquire roughly 36,861 collection items to maintain the existing 2.028 collection items per person in light of the additional 17,089 additional Huntington Beach residents expected at General Plan build -out. Table 7-3 Collection items Required to Maintain Existing Standard Residential _ 'Laird -Use Number. of Units Persons'per Dwellin g .._, Resident = _ Yield Detached Dwellings 1,749 2.913 5,095 Attached Dwellings 7,207 2.257 11,978 Mobile Home Dwellings 9 1.822 16 Additional City Population to be Served 17,089 Collection Items per Person Existing Standard 2.157 Collection Items Required to Maintain Existing Standard T 36,861 The Use of the Fee. The fee, if adopted, would be imposed, collected, and, as needed (and desired), expended on expansion of the amount of library facility space in the two libraries and the number of collection items in the system's collection. The library staff has indicated that the proceeds of any Library development impact fee would be used to expand the Banning Library from its 2,400 square feet to approximately 12,500 square feet and expansion of the existing 4,500 square feet Main Street Branch Libraries into the remaining 4,804 square feet (for a total of 9,304 square feet) in the same building after the current tenant chooses to move elsewhere. Collection items would be expanded in proportion with the population increase, most likely into the additional proposed library space. The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. The development of any acreage zoned for residential uses, increases the demand on the finite amount of library space and collection items. Thus, those residential land uses that generate higher numbers of residents (i.e., detached dwelling) will be charged a proportionally higher amount. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 84 11B -405- Item 5. - 328 Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection There is no information available demonstrating a substantive link between library use and local businesses. Library use is primarily by residents as opposed to business persons. The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Pang the Fee. Additional square feet will be constructed with the DIFs collected from residential development and additional collection items will be added to the existing collection. If not adopted and used to expand the City's existing Library standards' the level of service will decrease by about 8.3 % to 0.620 square feet and 1.98 collection items per resident at General Plan build -out. The Library DIFs, if adopted, imposed and collected, cannot be used for any other purpose than their stated use of maintaining the existing library standards. The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. The cost of acquiring land for additional library space and construction is about $520.63 per square foot', (per Schedule 6.1). The 127,400 square feet of library space, when divided by the 190,377 existing potential patrons create a standard of 0.669 square feet of library space per City resident. The standard of 0.669 square foot standard multiplied by the $520.63 per square foot of pad cost of library construction results in a charge of $348.30 per additional City resident. Table 7-4 following, demonstrates this. Table 7-4 Establishment of the Library Facilities Standard and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard Library Facilities Owned Square Feet 127,400 Current City Service Population 190,377 Square Feet per Resident Standard 0.669 Cost of Library Building Construction per Square Foot $520.63 Square Feet per Resident Standard 0.669 Cost per Additional Resident $348.30 The cost of acquiring additional collection items, called the accession process5, (per Schedule 6.1) is estimated by the Library staff to cost roughly $25.00 per collection item. The 410,594 collection items, when divided by the City's 190,377 population create a standard of 2.028 collection items per City resident. The standard of 2.157 collection item standard multiplied by the $25.00 per collection item results in a cost of $53.93 per additional City resident, in order to maintain the existing standard. Table 7-5 following, demonstrates this. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 85 Item 5. - 329 HB -406_ Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection Table 7-5 Establishment of the Library Collection Standard and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard Library Collection Items 410,594 Current City Service Population 190,377 Collection Items per Resident Standard 2.157 Cost of Library Collection per Collection item $25.00 Collection Items per Resident Standard 2.157 Cost per Additional Resident $53.93 Resulting Impact Costs. The combined cost per new resident is $402.23, consisting of $348.30 for 0.669 square feet of library space and $53.93 for 2.157 additional collection items. Table 7-6, following, indicates the amount required for pro-rata expansion of the library space per Schedule 7.1. If adopted and imposed on the remaining development, it would collect enough to acquire land for and construct an additional 11,432 square feet of public library space and an additional 36,861 collection items. Table 7-6 Summary of Library Space and Collection Impact Costs 5 dT UK- Cost per Impact Cns� Detached Dwelling Units 2.913 $402.23 $1,172/Dwellin Attached Dwelling Units 2.257 $402.23 $908/Dwelling Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.8221 $402.23 $733/Dwelling Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 86 1-18 -407- Item 5. - 330 Chapter 7 Public Libraa Facilities and Collection RECONVEMYNDED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES • Adopt Schedule 7.1 which contains the recommended City Library Facilities and Collection (item) Development Impact Fees and is summarized in Table?-6. • Establish a General Plan square foot standard for Library Facilities square feet per resident and a standard for Collection Items per resident. Chapter Endnotes 1. Based upon the 2011 State of California Department of Finance City population estimate of 190,377. 2. The current population of 190,377 establishes the existing standard. 3. A collection item is generally a book but can also be a CD, magazine subscription, video tape or some other like item with a similar cost and accession cost. 4. Based upon the construction cost of a 30,000 square foot library constructed in Highland, CA at a cost of $11,500,000 and increased by the Engineering News Record construction cost index increase of 14.95% over the 01/06 construction date (or $441.63 per square foot) and land acquisition at a cost of $20 per square foot of land with a FAR (floor area ratio) of 0.20 requiring five square feet of land per square foot of building pad. 06/2010 ENR- CCI = 8805 divided by the 01/06 ENR - CCI of 7660 = 14.95 percent increase. 5. The accession process includes: needs research, ordering, receipt, preparation, entering it into the computer and actual placement on the shelves. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report . 87 Item 5. - 331 xB -408- Schedule 7.1 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Public Library Facilities and Collection Banning Library Central Library Graham Library Main Street Library Oak View Library Existing Square Feet of Library Space Existing Library Collection Items Calculation of Existing Standards: Current Population (Residents) S.F. of Library Space/Resident Collection Items/Resident Library Construction/Square Foot 06/2010 Land Acquisition at $20.00/S.F, and 0.25 FAR. Land Acquisition and Construction per Square Foot Cost per Collection Item Cost per Square Foot or Collection Item Existing City Library Standard(s) Cost of Space per Resident Cost of Collection Item per Resident Type of Density Residential per Dwelling Dwelling Unit Unit Detached Dwelling Unit 2.913 Attached Dwelling Unit 2.257. Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 1.822 Library Space Library Collection 2,400 27,637 115,000 314,921 1,200 14,920 4,500 30,429 4,300 22,687 127,400 E0.594 190,377 190,377 0.669 2.157 $520.63 $520.63 $25.00 0.669 2,157 $348.30 ' $53.93 Library Library Total Space Collection Library Component Component Impact Fee $1,015 $157 $1,172 $786 $122 $908 $636 $98 $733 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -409- FullertoItem 5. - 332 Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development (including Open Space) This Chapter summarizes the City's existing inventory of parks and identifies the ratio of park land (and park facilities improvements) per resident allowable under the Quimby Act (§66477 of the Government Code') for residential developments involving the subdivision of land and AB 1600 (§66000) for the construction of residential developments not involving the subdivision of land. The existing per capita standard is then utilized to calculate the park dedication requirement for future residential development. RXISTING PARKS AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS SYSTEM Open space notwithstanding, intensive parks and recreational facilities constitute one of the City of City of Huntington Beach's greatest needs both with respect to facilities for current residents and future citizens. The provision of a well -planned park system, with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered, is an important amenity to residents of any city, the City of City of Huntington Beach included. A mixture of passive and active uses and facilities and programs which appeal to a broad spectrum of potential park and trail users are considered optimal in most urban cities. The City currently has at its disposal (and within general control) some 999.09 acres of park, beach and specialty uses for use by the City's many residents. However, not all of these acres are owned by the City, many are leased or owned by other agencies made available to the City via a joint use agreements with the various school districts or are S.C. E. right-of-way. The current acres dedicated to park use (and owned or under long-term control by the City) can reasonably well serve the City's current needs. However if the number of owned park acres remains static at 778.41 acres, the City may not be able to continue to meet recreational demands in light the probable 9.0 % increase in the City's population. At an attempt to achieve a high level of fairness, the City's owned park acreage will be used as the standard for calculating the park standard and the development impact fee schedule. The figure is a Government Code statute -based calculation and thus does not include other park opportunities in the area such as Harriet Weider Regional Park, which while clearly serving the City residents, are not City -facilities and thus cannot be programmed by the City. The City has a General Plan standard target of 5.0 acres per 1,000 acres per residents and the calculation of target does include the park acres of other agencies (i.e. the regional park and state-owned beach land) within the calculation of that General Plan Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 89 Item 5. - 333 xB -410- Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development target. That is completely acceptable for General Plan issues, and the City does meet that General Plan standard. Future residential development, by increasing the City's population, will impact the City's park system by requiring additional athletic fields, adequate space for various athletic activities and community center space. Given the magnitude of growth projected in this and other reports, the challenge facing the City will be to provide new facilities and park land to serve the recreational needs of these new residents. Without additional park land acquisition and development of currently owned but underutilized park land during the remaining period of private residential development, the City's parks will become overcrowded and overused, with the ultimate result becoming a negative experience for park users. Existing Park Land and Open Space Land. Currently, the City owns (or has long -tern control of) approximately 778.41 acres of traditional park land, about 87.9 %(683.9 acres) of it, developed. The entire list of parks and their acreage is identified on Schedule 8.1 at the conclusion of this Chapter with a summary by type in Table 8-1. Central Park is the largest developed park, representing just under a half of the park system acreage and provides the greatest variety of sports and passive uses. Table 8-1 Current Park Total Inventory parkOvied_ Nei hborhood Parks 183.79 129.74 Community/Sports Parks 546.82 470.81 Other (beaches, etc) 268.48 177.86 Total Acres (Owned) 999.09 778.41 City Park Standard. Table 8-2, following, is a comparison of the acreage of parks to the City of Huntington Beach's current population and indicates that the City presently possesses a total standard of 5.248 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, (999.09 park acres [190,377 resident's 1,0001, rounded). However as stated previously, the owned acreage will be used to calculate the standard and resulting impact fee. The City presently owns 778.41 acres and thus possesses an owned standard of 4.089 acres of owned park land per 1,000 residents, (778.41 owned park acre's _ [190,377 resident's - 1,000], rounded). This is above the benchmark of 3.0 acres per Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 90 HB -411- Item 5. - 334 Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development 1,000 persons contained in Section 66477 of the California Government Code relating to dedication of parks. Table 8-2 Calculation of Actual City -owned and Developed Park Acres Standard _' A 'ark Owned P�Cl =fires— _. Current Park Acres 999.09 778.41 Current City Population 190,377 190,377 Population Stated in Thousands 1 190.377 190.377 Park Acres per 1,000 Population 5.248 4.089 The Quimby Act, to be discussed later, allows a minimum standard of 3.0 acres per thousand resident's even if the City has not attained that standard. However, the park acres owned standard for the City of Huntington Beach, at 4.089 acres per 1,000 resident's, exceeds that minimum standard and thus the Quimby allowable minimum standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents is irrelevant and the 4.089 acres/1,000 resident's standard will be used for Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development. Though not particularly relevane to the City of Huntington Beach, the Quimby Act has a cap on land dedications required as a part of the subdivision of land of 5.0 acres per thousand (Government Code §66447 (a)(2). Planned Improvements. In addition to the ongoing improvement of the remaining 115.85 acres' available for increased residential development, the City will need to acquire 70.5 additional park acres, per Table 8-3, and develop these new parks to serve the additional 17,089 residents anticipated to live in City of Huntington Beach at General Plan build -out. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page] Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 91 Item 5.- 335 HB -4 1 2- Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 8-3 Calculation of Required Park Acres per Allowable Standard Future Added Population 17,089 Population Stated in Thousands 17.089 Allowable City of Huntington Beach Park Standard 4.128 Parks Acres Required to Maintain Standard 70.5 The 70.5 acres could be constructed in any of the following configurations: Mini or "Pocket" Parks - This type is the smallest of the park type designations, usually an acre or less. Mini parks are generally not planned due to higher maintenance costs. They are usually the result of the acquisition of an unusual parcel oftentimes with historical or community significance. Tarbox, Booster, Trinidad or Baily Parks are good examples of this category. Local or Neighborhood Parks - These parks are generally 3.0 to six acres and serve local (walk- in distance) users. Not surprisingly, the City has a number of these parks, roughly forty-nine at an average of about 3.5 acres in size. Neighborhood Parks, per the category title, are intended to serve walk-in populations nearby the park and typically are not highly programmed with City -run activities. Community - These parks, to be functional, are usually closer to ten acres or larger and are designed to meet the needs of the entire community. These needs include youth and adult sports organizations, clubs or associations and large scale community events such as 4`' of July celebrations or festivals. Langenbeck, Baca, Bartlett, Carr and Gisler Parks are good examples of a broad -based use community park. Sport Parks - These park, again as titled, are highly infrastructure -developed to meet the active sports needs of both youth and adults. Edison and Greer Parks are good examples of the City's sports parks. The proposed park improvements that could be contained within the roughly 65 needed acres and the existing standard (Table 8-2) are consistent with the City's Park and Recreation Element of the General Plan. The City's 3.785 acres per 1,000 population standard speaks reasonably well for the City as a three -acre per 1,000 population standard is the common minimum, but frequently Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 92 HB -413- Item 5. - 336 Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development unmet, target of municipalities and recreation and park special districts throughout California. City staff has plans and has identified parcels that would assist help reach the 5.0 acres per 1,000 standard at General Plan build -out. CALCULATION OF PARK DEDICATION STANDARD Unlike the other facilities discussed in this Report, the California Government Code contains specific enabling legislation for the acquisition and development of community and neighborhood parks by a City. This legislation, codified as Section 66477 of the Government Code and known commonly as the "Quimby Act," establishes criteria for charging new development for park facilities based on specific park standards. This Report will recommend the adoption of Quimby - style park fees over an AB 1600-style development impact fee for developments requiring the subdivision of land and an AB 1600 fee for non subdivided land. Allowable Park Standard As stated earlier, under Section 66477 of the Government Code, the City may charge new residential development based on a standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 population if the City does not presently possess a ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 for the existing population. The Government Code also enables a city to charge development based on a standard higher than 3.0 acres (to a maximum of 5.0 acres) if the City currently exceeds the minimum benchmark ratio of 3.0 acres per 1,000 persons. Schedule 8.1 indicates that the City exceeds that minimum standard (with 3.785 acres/1,000 residents) and may then impose a fee in order to maintain that standard. The law states that "if the amount of existing neighborhood and community park area ... exceeds the [3 acres of park area per 1,000 person] limit ... the legislative body may adopt the calculated amount as a higher standard not to exceed 5 acres per 1,000 persons. r' Park fees may be required by the City provided that the City meets certain conditions including: • The amount and location of land to be dedicated or the fees to be paid shall bear a reasonable relationship to the use of the park by the future inhabitants of the subdivision. • The legislative body has adopted a general plan containing a recreational element, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards contained therein. • The city ... shall develop a schedule specifying how, when, and where it will use the land or fees, or both, to develop park or recreational facilities ... Any fees collected under the ordinance shall be committed within five years after the payment of such fees. Once a per capita standard for parks is determined, the cost of residential development's impact on the City's park system can then be computed as follows: Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 93 Item 5. - 337 HB -414- Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Develo ment Park -land Acquisition Costs. Land costs will vary significantly from one park to another. The park land to be acquired must be suitable for park construction and is somewhat conservatively estimated at approximately $871,200 per acre (or $20.00/square foot) which has been used in the park development impact fee calculation, as a default Park development impact fee for ordinary residential dwelling development. This is consistent with the cost of recent development for detached dwelling development in the more northerly areas of the City of Huntington Beach area. However, the use of this $20.00 per square foot figure could be criticized if a developer can show that the cost of the residential land they are developing is currently valued at less than the $871,200/acre figure. Conversely the City should retain the ability to increase this impact fee in areas where the cost of land exceeds the $20.00 per square foot figure. The fee recommendation at the end of the Chapter will recognize this need for flexibility. Park Development Costs. Park development costs are based upon the very recent construction of Schedule 8.3, a current schedule of common park costs and typical improvements by type of park. Schedule 8.2 identifies the three types parks' that the City will likely construct over General Plan build-oue and the costs of the types and numbers of improvements generally included in each of the following and are summarized from Schedule 8.2, identifies the factors in the average costs to develop an acre of park land for the three types, based on figures which are consistent with the probable improvements and costs to build similar parks incurred by other communities. For cost estimate purposes, roughly forty-five acres of Central Park has been identified as higher cost sports park acres with the remainder as Community Park. Sixty acres of beach land has been categorized as neighborhood park due to the nature of the more limited improvement costs. The table also indicates the three major types of parks. The existing 834.06 developed park acres' cost the City an estimated $258,698,242 construct as parks for an average construction cost of $310.168 per acre. Table 8-4 Average Park Construction Cost per Acre Type = Park Park .Acres Costl Acre Average . Construction Cost Nei hborhood/Mini Park 271.01 $223,441 $60,559,816 Common Park 229.15 $289,296 $66,292,242 Sports/Regional Park 333.90 $394,884 $131,851,622 Total Cost - - 5258,698,242 Total Acres 834.06 __._=_.......: 834.06 Cost/Acre rounded - _= - $310 168 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 94 1113 -415- Item 5. - 338 Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Develo Went The $3 10,168 /acre is then increased by 15 % to $356,693 to account for the park architectural costs and 24% to $442,299/acre to account for project administration, plan check, engineering, inspection and materials testing costs. Lastly, the $422,299 per acre figure is increased by 15 % to $508,644 for a typical park project contingency. Schedule 8.2 shows this in numeric detail. Schedule 8.3 details the average park construction cost by type of park. The Existing Park Community Center Inventory. The City has a number of facilities dedicated for use as public uses facilities (as opposed to staff facilities). The existing 118,020 square feet of Community Use Facilities are identified in Table 8-5, following. Table 8-5 Inventory of Existing Park Community Use Facilities . ommunity Use k'acihty Square Feet Beach Public Service Center 2,561 City Gymnasium and Pool Facility 23,600 Edison Community Center 11,065 Harbor View Clubhouse 2,203 Huntington Beach Municipal Art Center 11,092 Huntington Beach Youth Shelter 5,600 Junior Lifeguard Headquarters 5,922 Lake Park Clubhouse 3,000 Lake View Clubhouse 2,000 LeBard Clubhouse 1,000 Murdy Community Center 11,000 Newland Barn 6,000 Newland House Museum 2,750 Oak View Community Center 10,000 Rodgers Senior Center 14,000 Seniors Outreach Center 2,700 Shipley Nature Center Interpretive Building 1,863 Terry Park Community Center 1,664 Total Community Use Facilities Square Feet 118,020 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 95 Item 5. - 339 HB -416- Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development The City has 118,020 public use community center square feet as identified in. Table 8-5 previous. When divided by the City's 849.58 acres of developed park land the result indicates an average of 138.92 square feet of community center per acre of developed park. At the development cost of $480.00 per square foot of community center, there is a cost of $66,680 for the 138.92 average square feet of public uses facilities per acre of existing developed park (138.92 square feet multiplied by the $480 per square foot of community center construction). The $66,680 represents the future cost of maintaining the existing square feet of community center per acre of park, and as a result, per capita. Average Park Acquisition and Development Cost per Capita. The combined park acquisition and development cost is $1,446,524 per acre ($871,200/acre for acquisition, $508,644 per acre for development and $77,780 for community center space acquisition). If the City were to charge development for the maximum allowable amount of park acreage as allowed in the Quimby Act and as recommended here, then the City would need to acquire 4.128 acres of new park land for every potential 1,000 new residents to the City. The 4,128 acres of land acquisition and park and community center improvements per 1,000 persons would be $6,130,008 or about 6,130.01 per new resident. Table 8-6 and Schedule 8.1 calculates the cost, per type of residential dwelling, to develop 4.089 acres, which represents the required park land cost for 1,000 persons. Table 8-6 Summary of Quimby ParklAB1600 Development Impact Fees for Residential Dwelling Construction The development impact fees for residential detached dwelling development involving the subdivision of land, as identified in Table 8-6, should be adopted under the auspices of the Quimby Act. The development impact fees for residential dwelling units not requiring the subdivision of a parcel, will need to be adopted as an AB 1600-supported development impact fee. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 96 HB -417- Item 5. - 340 Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Develo ment Open Space Fees for Business Uses. Imagine a community without any (or very little) park or open space. There a small number of such communities in the greater Los Angeles area. All private development benefits from the acquisition of land that is never developed, and exists, at a minimum, as a buffer from all other businesses. Schedule 8.4 identifies the cost for park land (as open space) for the business type land -uses. Again, the City owns 778.4 acres of park space which at a minimum acts as open space for all land uses. There are 10,271.8 acres of privately held developed land within the City's limits. As a result there is 0.0758 acres of park/open space for each developed privately held acre. The 0.0758 acres of open space per privately held acre is the recommended standard to be applied to the development of vacant parcels zoned for the business uses of commercial and resort lodging, commercial/office and industrial/manufacturing uses. The open space land acquisition cost will be limited to 25% of the $20.00 per square foot (or $871,200 per acre) acquisition cost based upon the premise that business use benefits largely from the open space component and but does not require the benefits of developed parks and that open space land acquisition costs are less than land appropriate for parks. The cost to acquire that 0.0578 acre of park land would be $16,605. Again the cost is limited to only open space land acquisition, but does not include the development component of that land as a park. That will fall to the developers of residentially zoned land that will generate park users (residents). Business acres benefit from the parks as open areas that make the City a desirable location for that business. The $300,000 per acre of development will be divided by the varying units from the three differing types of business uses in Table 8-7. Schedule 8.5 is summarized in Table 8-7 following. Table 8-7 Cost Calculation for Business Uses Units or CostAc —Cspr Res[deniaal Lards�e S F Lr_.. of=fJpeneecito. , r� -- Commercial Lodging Unit 36 $16,505 $458 Resort Lodging Unit 46 $16,505 $359 Commercial/Office Square Feet 17,300 $16,505 $0.954 Industrial Square Feet 21,390 $16,505 $0.772 Note: A lodging unit is defined as keyed room. Land Acquisition Cost Adjustment Challenge. As mentioned previously, the use of $871,200/acre as the default park land acquisition cost is based upon the assumption that parks acreage would likely be close in proximity and thus similar in cost to residential land value of the private project the park is intended to serve. However, if the developer or contractor of a home can provide Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 97 Item 5. - 341 HB -418- Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development evidence (acceptable to the Cite), in the form of a recent purchase agreement or appraisal of the property they will be developing that the current land value is worth less than the $871,200/acre (or a $20.00/square foot), the development impact fee could be adjusted accordingly by placing the actual cost of land acquisition into the Schedule 8.1 calculation. Again, if the City wishes to adopt such an adjustment, the terms under which the challenge may be made and proved should be included in the Development Impact Fee Ordinance. Similarly, if a development is closer to the beach area and land costs are higher, the City should be able to impose a park development impact fee consistent with the local land acquisition costs. Schedule 8.1 shows this calculation. RECAP OF RECOMMENDED PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. 0 Schedule 8.1 contains the maximum Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees to be imposed upon residential development based upon the facts presented in this Chapter for default or standard residential developments. • Schedule 8.4 contains the maximum Park/Open Space Land Acquisition Impact Fees to be imposed upon business development based upon the facts presented in this Chapter. CHAPTER ENDNOTES 1. Adoption of a Quimby Act fee requires a Park "plan". 2. The figure has relevance for municipalities that have large tracts of land available for subdivisions in the thousands or more. 3. The Quimby Act does allow use of revenues raised by the adoption of a Quimby Act Park Impact Fee to be used for rehabilitation of existing parks. 4. California Government Code, Title 7, Division 2, Section 66477 (b). 5. Totaling the roughly 64.7 acres of park land acquisition and development that could be expected to be financed by imposing the proposed development impact fees over General Plan build -out. 6. Mini parks are not included in the mix as they are very costly to construct on a per acre cost and generally are expensive maintenance factors. Mini parks are rarely planned for but generally occur as a result of a land donation or as the recognition of a historical site. 7.Based upon the 1,006.58 acres of parkland available, less the 45.01 acre Weider County Regional Park and the 127.51 un-improved park acres of City Parks. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 98 KB -419- Item 5. - 342 Schedule 8.1 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Park Quimby Fee for Dwellings on a Sub -divided AB1600 Fee for Dwelling on Non -subdivided and Nexus Report Parcel, and; Parcels ParkrEty Size Owned Parklarfi 13evetopci I?IatiGf Lake Park 4.75 0.00 4.75 Lake View Park 2.16 2.16 2.16 Lamb Park 2.60 2.60 0.00 Lambert Park 3.50 3.50 3.50 Langenbeck Park 17.02 9.24 17.02 Lark View Park 3.65 0.00 3.65 LeBard Park 4.99 3.01 4,99 Manning Park 2.46 2.46 2.46 Marina Park 9.34 9.34 9.34 Marine View Park 3 2.96 0.00 2.96 McCallen Park 5.84 5.84 5.84 Meadowlark Golf Course 98.00 98.00 98.00 Moffett Park 2.38 2.38 2.38 Murdy Park ; 16.04 16.04 16.04 Newland Park 2.94 2.94 2.94 ' Oak View Center Park 1.31 0.00 1.31 Weider Regional (County -owned) 45.01 0.00 23.01 Pattinson Park 3.51 3.51 1 3.51 Perry Park 1.88 1.88 1.88 Pleasant View Park 2.17 0.00 2.17 Prince Park , 0.22 0.22 0.22 Robinwood Park 1.41 0.00 2.01 1.41 ,Rodgers Senior Center Site 2.01 2.01 iSchroeder Park 2.37 0.00 2.37 ?Seabridge Park 3.91 3.91 3.91 Seeley Park 3.37 3.37 3.37 Sowers Park 2.65 2.65 2.65 Sun View Park 2.45 0.00 2.45 Talbert Park 5.44 5.44 5.44 Tarbox Park 0,44 0.44 0,44 Terry Park 4.81 4.81 4.81 Triangle Park 1.11 1.11 1.11 Trinidad Park 0.75 0.75 0.75 Wardlow Park 8.36 8.36 6.36 Wieder Park 4.80 4,80 4.80 Worthy Community Park 7.00 7.00 7.00 Total Acres (Owned/Developed) 999.09 778.41 1 849.58 Current Population 190,377 190,377 , 190,377 Population/1,000 190.38 190.38 ; 190.38 Current Standard 5.248 4.089 ; 4.463 99 Item 5. - 343 x Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -420- Fullerton, 92831 CA Schedule 8.1 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Park Quimby Fee for Dwellings on a Sub -divided Parcel, and; AB1600 Fee for Dwelling on Non -subdivided Parcels Pai aFk:<:<::<;: 17 Acres11,000 Population Standard 5.248 Quimby Maximum Allowable 5.000 Acquisition Cost per Acre (1) Construction Cost per Acre (2) Community Center Construction Total Component Cost Cost X Standard Population Served by Standard Cost per Resident Detached Dwelling Units 2.913 Attached Dwelling Units 2.257 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.822 4.463 4.463 $508,644 $66,680 $575,324 $2,567,677 1,000.0 $2, 567.67 ,add... Park uStEQr1 Devetopmen $10, 377 $7,480 $8,040 $5,795 $6,491 $4,678 1. Current estimate of $20.00 per acre acquisition cost for land consistent with park use. 2. See Schedule 9.3 for typical park amenity construction cost details. $6,130.01 $17,857 $13,835 $11,169 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L. L.C. HB -421- Fullerti Item 5. - 344 Schedule 8.2 City of Huntington Beach Park Site Inventory Improvement Cost Residential Park Development Impact Fee Calculation of Average Park Acre Construction Cost Prince Park French Park Tarbox Park Davenport Beach Humbolt Beach Park City Gym/Pool Site Finley Park Bailey Park Trinidad Park Booster Park Triangle Park Banning/Magnolia Park Oak View Center Park Robinwood Park Franklin Park Perry Park Rodgers Senior Center Site Heime Park Bauer Park Lake View Park Pleasant View Park Drew Park Circle View Park Schroeder Park Bushard Park Moffett Park Sun View Park Manning Park Burke Park Arevelos Park Lamb Park Sowers Park Eader Park Hawes Park Bolsa View Park College View Park Conrad Park Clegg -Stacey Park Golden View Park Newland Park Haven View Park Marine View Park Glen View Park Seeley Park Lambert Park ;Park Eze, .' Averag2 cost; per Acre TotaF Cyst for ParCc 0.22 $223,441 $49,157 0.33 $223,441 $73,736 0.44 $223,441 $98,314 0.46 $223,441 $102,783 0.48 $223,441 $107,252 0.50 $223,441 $111,721 0.56 $223,441 $125,127 0.59 $223,441 $131,830 0.75 $223,441 $167,581 0.85 $223,441 $189,925 1.11 $223,441 $248,020 0.00 $223,441 $0 1.31 $223,441 $292,708 1.41 $223,441 $315,052 1.52 $223,441 $339,631 1.88 $223,441 $420,070 2.01 $223,441 $449,117 2.02 $223,441 $451,351 2.04 $223,441 $455,820 2.16 $223,441 $482,633 2.17 $223,441 $484,868 2.28 $223,441 $509,446 2.31 $223,441 $516,149 2.37 $223,441 $529,556 2.38 $223,441 $531,790 2.38 $223,441 $531,790 2.45 $223,441 $547,431 2.46 $223,441 $549,665 2.50 $223,441 $558,603 2.58 $223,441 $576,478 0.00 $223,441 $0 2.65 $223,441 $592,119 2.68 $223,441 $598,823 2.68 $223,441 $598,823 2.70 $223,441 $603,291 2.70 $223,441 $603,291 2.71 $223,441 $605,526 2.80 $223,441 $625,636 2.81 $223,441 $627,870 2.94 $223,441 $656,917 2.95 $223,441 $659,152 2.96 $223,441 $661,386 3.02 $223,441 $674,793 3.37 $223,441 $752,997 3.50 $223,441 $782,044 101 Item 5. - 345 k cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -422- Fullerton, 92831 CA Schedule 8.2 City of Huntington Beach Park Site Inventory Improvement Cost Residential Park Development Impact Fee Calculation of Average Park Acre Construction Cost ;average �osf', Total Cost pBr Aore for Parr Pattinson Park 3.51 $223,441 Farquhar Park 3.52 $223,441 Hope View Park 3.61 $223,441 Lark View Park 3.65 $223,441 Seabridge Park 3.91 $223,441 Harbour View Park 4.02 $223,441 Green Park 4.04 $223,441 Lake Park 4.75 $223,441 Wieder Park 4.80 $223,441 Terry Park 4.81 $223,441 LeBard Park 4.99 $223,441 Talbert Park 5.44 $223,441 McCallen Park 5.84 $223,441 Discovery Well Park 6.60 $223,441 Gibbs Park 6.83 $223,441 Wardlow Park 8.36 > $223,441 Marina Park 9.34 $223,441 Meadowlark Golf Course 98.00 $223,441 Carr Park 10.72 $289,296 Irby Park 2.91 $289,296 Gisler Park 11.67 $289,296 Baca Park 14.35 $289,296 Langenbeck Park 17.02 $289,296 Bluff Top Park 19.66 $289,296 Bartlett Park 2.00 $289,296 Beach, City -leased 90.62 $289,296 Beach, City -owned 60.20 $289,296 Worthy Park 7.00 $394,884 Greer park 10.44 $394,884 Murdy Park 16.04 $394,884 Edison Park 47.18 $394,884 Huntington Central Park 1 1 253.24 $394,884 102 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L,L.C. HB -423- Fullert Item 5. - 346 Schedule 8.3 City of Huntington Beach Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park 17f�1t fSSt, -ho Pub Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $200 Linear Foot Lg Pk Gradinglirrigation/Turf $37,500 Acre Sm Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $42,750 Acre Plant Material: Trees-5, 24 gallon box/acre $149 Each Trees-15, 15 gallonlacre $290 Each Shrubs-10, five gallon $30 Each Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each Play apparatus Curbing, 450' per large $41.30 Linear Foot Curbing, 225' per small $41.30 Linear Foot Play equipment - large $123,750 Lot Play equipment - medium $99,000 Lot Play equipment - small $67,500 Lot Sand/Other Surfacing $5,775 Lot Buildings: Restroom -- Small $132,000 Each Restroom - Large $181,500 Each Equipment storage facility $99,000 Each Combined RestroomlConcession $297,000 Each Parking Lot 411 A.C. W/6" Rock base $8.30 Square foot V-gutter $13.20 Linear Foot Drain Inlet $990 Each Drain Inlet connector $330 Each Storm drain line $19.80 Linear Foot Drive approach $2,970 Each Perimeter curbing $16.50 Linear Foot Striping $0.50 Linear Foot Lighting $2,970 Each Lot signage $330 Lot Entrance $4,950 Lot Curb and Gutter $15.27 Linear Foot Storm Drainage Facilities Inlets $1,320 Each Connections $2,145 Each Lateral (to arterial) $82.50 Linear Foot Sewer Facilities Connection to arterial $4,125 Lot Line in street $107.30 Linear Foot Line in park $24.80 Linear Foot 5 A��s �legbbc�rfti3©d ...: 1,040 $208,000 0 $0 5 $213,750 60 $8,940 30 $8,700 40 $1,200 120 $960 0 $0 225 $9,293 0 $0 1 $99,000 0 $0 1 $5,775 1 $132,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 12,000 $99,600 300 $3,960 1 $990 1 $330 300 $5,940 1 $2,970 490 $8,085 400 $200 2 $5,940 1 $330 1 $4,950 3,780 $57,721 2 $2,640 2 $4, 290 45 $3,713 1 $4,125 29 $3,112 125 $3,100 20 Acre C3ri71UrF PdfC 2,704 $540,800 15 $562,500 0 $0 225 $33,525 75 $21,750 150 $4,500 450 $3,600 450 $18,585 225 $9,293 1 $123,750 0 $0 2 $135,000 3 $17,325 1 $132,000 1 $181,500 0 $0 1 $297,000 40,000 $332,000 800 $10,560 2 $1,980 2 $660 200 $3,960 4 $11,880 800 $13,200 1,300 $650 18 $53,460 3 $990 3 $14,850 3,232 $49,353 4 $5,280 4 $8,580 80 $6,600 1 $4,125 80 $8,584 1,500 $37,200 103 Item 5. - 347 Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB 424 Fullerton, CA 92831 Schedule 8.3 City of Huntington Beach Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park Unit :Cast, lrtsttici j Fire Hydrant S4,950 Each Street Lights Standards $2,475 Each Duct work/wiring Water Facilities $1,568 Each 3" metered service $4,125 Each Backflow device $4,125 Each Line in street $19.80 Linear Foot Water fountains $1 ,155 Each Fountain lines in park $19,80 Linear Foot Benches/Tables Tables, cement pads $2,475 Each Individual grills $825 Each Benches, cement pads $908 Each Bleachers $5,775 Each _ Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $123,750 Each individual Covered Picnic Pad $24,750 Each User Electrical Service park $16,500 Each _ Electrical Service per Area $2,063 Each Game Courts Basketball Courts $66,000 Each Basketball Court Lighting $57,750 Each Fenced Tennis Courts $99,000 Each Tennis Court Lighting $57,750 Each Baseball Field - Competitive $82,500 Each Balifield Lighting $412,500 Per two fields Baseball Field - Recreational $24,750 Each Pedestrian Walkway 5' Wide $22.28 Linear Foot 6' Wide $28.88 Linear Foot 9' Wide $37.13 $6.20 Linear Foot Linear Foot Miscellaneous Flatwork Small Park Signage $4,538 Lot Large Park Signage $24,750 Lot Bike Rack/Pad $2,890 Each Natural Element improvement (Lake, e $825,000 Each Small Concrete Stage Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $41,250 Each $82,500 Each Large Ampitheater with bowl $247,500 Each 1 $4,950 3 $7,425 3 $4,704 1 $4,125 1 $4,125 1,320 $26,136 1 $1 ,155 200 $3,960 4 $9,900 2 $1,650 4 1 $3,632 0 . $0 0 ------------ $0 ' 1 $24,750 0 so 1 - $2,063 $0 1.0 $66,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 so 0 - $0 0 $0 1 $24,750 i 500 $11,140 100 $2,888 100 ' $3,713 500 $3,100 1 $4,538 0 $0 1 $2,890 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 $29,700 20 $49,500 12 $18,816 1 $4,125 1 $4,125 120 $2,376 8 $9,240 1,000 $19,800 60 $148,500 30 $24,750 30 $27,240 0 so 2 $247,500 10 $247,500 1 $16,500 6 $12,378 $0 1 $66,000 0 $0 2 $198,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 6 $148,500 2,000 $44,560 500 $14,440 500 $18,565 " 8,500 $52,700 0 $0 1 $24,750 ' 6 $17,340 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $247,500 Schedule 8.3 City of Huntington Beach Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park ltrttt Cast; I:nsta116a1 Pub Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $200 Linear Foot Lg Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $37,500 Acre Sm Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $42,750 Acre Plant Material: Trees-5, 24 gallon box/acre $149 Each Trees-15, 15 gallon/acre $290 Each Shrubs-10, five gallon $30 Each Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each Play apparatus Curbing, 450' per large $41.30 Linear Foot Curbing, 225' per small $41.30 Linear Foot Play equipment - large $123,750 Lot Play equipment - medium $99,000 Lot Play equipment - small $67,500 Lot Sand/Other Surfacing $5,775 Lot Buildings: Restroom - Small $132,000 Each Restroom - Large $181,500 Each Equipment storage facility $99,000 Each Combined Restroom/Concession $297,000 Each Parking Lot 411 A.C. W/6" Rock base $8.30 Square foot V--gutter $13.20 Linear Foot Drain Inlet $990 Each Drain Inlet connector $330 Each Storm drain line $19.80 Linear Foot Drive approach $2,970 Each Perimeter curbing $16.50 Linear Foot Striping $0.50 Linear Foot Lighting i $2,970 Each Lot signage $330 Lot Entrance $4,950 Lot Curb and Gutter $15.27 Linear Foot Storm Drainage Facilities Inlets $1,320 Each Connections $2,145 Each Lateral (to arterial) $82.50 Linear Foot Sewer Facilities Connection to arterial $4,125 Lot Line in street $107.30 Linear Foot Line in park $24.80 Linear Foot 20 ;Acre sports. 1park '' 2,704 $540 08 0 20 $750,000 0 $0 150 $22,350 50 $14,500 100 $3,000 300 $2,400 450 $18,585 225 $9,293 0 $0 1 $99,000 2 $135,000 3 $17,325 1 $132,000 1 $181,500 1 $99,000 2 $594,000 40,000 $332,000 800 $10,560 2 $1,980 2 $660 200 $3,960 4 $11,880 800 $13,200 1,300 $650 18 $53,460 3 $990 3 $14,850 1,664 $25,409 4 $5,280 4 $8,580 80 $6,600 1 $4,125 80 $8,584 1,500 $37,200 105 Item 5. - 349 Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -426- Fullerton, CA 92831 Schedule 8.3 City of Huntington Beach Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park Fire Hydrant $4,950 Each Street Lights Standards $2,475 Each Duct workiwiring $1,568 Each Water Facilities 31' metered service $4,125 Each Backflow device $4,125 Each Line in street $19.80 Linear Foot Water fountains $1 ,155 Each Fountain lines in park $19.80 Linear Foot Benches[Tables Tables, cement pads $2,475 Each Individual grills $825 Each Benches, cement pads $908 Each Bleachers $5,775 Each Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $123,750 Each Individual Covered Picnic Pad $24,750 Each User Electrical Service park $16,500 Each Electrical Service per Area $2,063 Each Game Courts Basketball Courts $66,000 Each Basketball Court Lighting $57,750 Each Fenced Tennis Courts $99,000 Each Tennis Court Lighting $57,750 Each Baseball Field - Competitive $82,500 Each Ballfield Lighting $412,600 Per two fields Baseball Field - Recreational $24,750 Each Pedestrian Walkway 5' Wide $22.28 Linear Foot 6' Wide $28.88 Linear Foot 9' Wide $37.13 Linear Foot Miscellaneous Flatwork $6.20 Linear Foot Small Park Signage $4,538 Lot Large Park Signage $24,750 Lot Bike Rack/Pad $2,890 Each Natural Element Improvement (Lake, a $825,000 Each Small Concrete Stage $41,250 Each Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $82,500 Each Large Ampitheater with bowl $247,500 Each 20 AcrE Sports Aa�k 1 $4, 950 20 $49,500 5 $7,840 1 $4,125 1 $4,125 120 $2,376 8 $9,240 1,000 $19,800 30 $74,250 10 $8,250 15 $13,620 8 $46,200 0 $0 4 $99,000 1 $16,500 4 $8,252 $0 3 $198,000 8 $462,000 8 $792,000 8 $462,000 8 $660,000 4 $1,650,000 0 $0 11000 $22,280 250 $7,220 250 $9,283 4,000 $24,800 0 $0 1 $24,750 6 $17,340 0 $0 1 $41,250 0 $0 0 $0 Total Cost $7,897,671 Total Acres 20.00 Average Cost per Acre $394,884 106 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB 427 Fullerton, 'Item 5. - 350 Schedule 8.4 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Open Space Land Acquisition for Business Uses Land Acquisition Development Impact Fee Calculation Total City -owned Park/Open Space Acres Current City-wide Privately Developed Acres Current Open Space Standard per Developed Acre Acres/Developed Acre Standard Acquisition Cost per Acre Cost X Open Space Standard Open Space Land Value Adjusted Land Cost l�rnSF .' Commercial Lodging Keyed Units 36 ;Resort Lodging Keyed Units 46 Commercial Acres (in Square Feet) 17,300 Industrial Uses (in Square Feet) 21,390 778.4 10,271.8 0.0758 0.0758 $871,200 $66,037 25.00% $16,509.24 A"u.isi ion $459 per Keyed Unit $359 per Keyed Unit $0.954 per Square Foot j $0.772 per Square Foot MIYA Item 5. - 351 venue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -428- Fullerton, 92831 CA APPENDIX A Expanded Land -use Database 1 M HB -429- Item 5. - 352 C,ty of #�untington Beach dotal . ,.and Use Database; Detached Dwelling Units (1) Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units Resort Lodging Units Commercial/Office Uses Industrial/Manufacturing Uses Total - City Limits Private Residences Commercial Lodging Rooms Business Square Feet Developed Net Increase Tpta1 oCeS of Units - . :. ':Acres`. # of units Ades # n1Ur,rtS 6,436.0 38,616 295.00 1,749 6,731.00 40,365 1,805.4 36,108 111.20 5,307 1,916.60 41,415 204.6 2,865 1.00 9 205.60 2,874 33.4 1,070 18.60 818 52.00 1,868 20.2 809 9.30 535 29.50 1,344 841.9 12,836,000 39.80 2,417,000 881.70 15,253,000 930.3 20,261,000 187.00 3,638,000 1,117.30 23,899,000 10,271.8----- 8,446.0 77,589 407.2 7,065 8,853.2 84,654 53.6 11879 27.9 1,353 81.5 3,232 1,772.2 33,097,000 226.8 6,055,000 1,999.0 39,152,000 7771 x,stmg Community Developed TO.ge Dev(opec 7#at S Cirrreiitly Deyele f3ed Agres # of Units . Ades . pf 1Jrts Ades # pf UnrtS'.:.: Detached Dwelling Units (1) 6,436.0 38,616 Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4 36,108 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) ' 204.6 2,865 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.4 1,070 Resort Lodging Units 20.2 809 Commercial/Office Uses 841.9 12,836,000 IndustriaUManufacturing Uses 930.3 20,261,000 Existing Community 10,271.8 ----- 6,470.00 38,799 1,820.40 36,267 205.60 2,874 33.40 1,070 23.60 1,109 846.40 12, 905,200 974.30 21,219,320 10,373.70 i4dd,t,4al U(ts from flevelopertensifetlfRecfevalQped Total Intens,f,tfon of Existing; Uses Acres ': #of Unity Acres # of I.tntts Acres .. # of Units Detached Dwelling Units (1) Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) Hotel/Motel Lodging Units Resort Lodging Units Commercial/Office Uses industrial/Manufacturing Uses Redeveloped 34.0 183 15.0 159 1.0 9 0.0 0 3.4 300 4.5 69,200 44.0 1 958,320 101.90 1 0.0 0 261.0 1,566 261.00 1,566 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 0.0 0 14.6 468 14.60 468 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 1 0 0.0 0 106.2 1 2,313,817 106.20 2,313,817 0.0 0 143.0 2,679,680 143.00 2,679,680 0.0 ----- 524.80 ----- 524.80 1----- Irtensrf:,edlRedevelQped Total Devbloped TOT,lana Beackl anddmge 4cres #' of C3nits Acres ; # tr# tliits Ames ...:: f tin s.. Detached Dwelling Units (1) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Attached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 80.0 4,500 80.00 4,500 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0.0 0 4.0 350 4.00 350 Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Commercial/Office Uses 0.0 0 37.0 850,400 37.00 109850,400 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Sub -total Specific Plan A 0.0 121.00 ----- 121.00 ----- Item 5. - 353 HB -430- Specil'�c Plan >�siwrtwn . ! L?vetcpQ Acres l # of Units Detached Dwelling Units (1) 0.0 0 Attached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 0.0 0 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0.0 1 0 Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 Commercial/Office Uses 0.0 0 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 0 0.0 ----- Sub -total Specific Plan B �I;heEE:�fiC �#at3 � Rernaya[ De�tefo#�cE Acres # of Un>> 5 Detached Dwelling Units (1) 0.0 0 Attached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 0.0 0 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0.0 0 Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 Commerciai/Office Uses 0.0 0 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 0 0.0 0 16.2 648 0.0 0 0.0 0 5.9 235 13.1 398,583 0.0 0 35.20 ----- T+bfat .sp Acres c�4JP S 0.00 0 16.20 648 0.00 0 0.00 0 5.90 235 13.10 398,583 0.00 0 35.20 ----- Sub-total Specific Plan A 0.0 ! ----- (121.00) (121.00)1 ----- NOTES: (1). Only 34 of the 295 acres are vacant lots. The remaining 261 acres represents acres for the addition of 1,566 detached dwelling units In areas already developed such as a tot split of a larger parcel parcel with an existing detached dwelling units. (2). The inclusion of one acre of Mobile (or modular) Home Dwelling Units (in parks) Is to establish such a fee and does not imply that that the City anticipates such a private proposal. (3). The 35.2 acres is not intended to suggest there is 35.2 acres of vacant acres in the downtown area. The 35.2 acres is the result of anticipating 648 additional units at roughly 40 units per acre. HB -43 1 - Item 5. - 354 APPENDIX B Summary of Recommended Impact Fees Item 5. - 355 HB -432- SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE RECOMIIMNDATIONS Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities and Equipment • Adopt Schedule 3.2, page 38, General Plan Build -out Need -based Development Impact Fees. Chapter 4 - Fire Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment • Adopt Schedule 4.3, page 53, Community Financial Commitment -based Development Impact Fees. Chapter 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System • Adopt Schedule 5.2, page 68, General Plan Build -out Need -based Development Impact Fees along with the per Trip -mile rate for application to Table 5-4 (page 64) or for staff calculation per the Table on the bottom of Schedule 5.2. Chapter 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System • Adopt Schedule 6.2, page 80, General Plan Build -out Need -based Development Impact Fees for the seven specific land uses and the "per acre" cost for unusual uses not involving a structure. Chapter 7 - Public Library and Collection • Adopt Schedule 7.1, page 88. • Formalize a General Plan square foot and collection item per resident standard. Chapter 8 - Park (and Open Space) Land Acquisition and Park Land Development • Create Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund, Note (1). • Adopt Schedule 8.1, pages 99-100 , for residential uses requiring the subdivision of land for Quimby Act application. • Create AB1600 Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund, Note (1) • Adopt Schedule 8.1 pages 99-100, for residential uses not requiring the subdivision of land for AB 1600 application. • Adopt Schedule 8.4 Mitigation Fee Act Open Space Development Impact Fees, page 107, for application to the development of business uses. • Adopt alternative process for residential developments with significantly varying land values from the standard or default calculation embodied in Schedule 8.1 and 8.4. (1). Separate Park Land Acquisition and Development Funds are necessary because the Quimby Act allows use of receipts for rehabilitation of existing facilities whereas theAB1600 requirements prevent such expenditures. 112 HB -4 31- Item 5. - 356 APPENDIX C Master Facilities Plan (See Separate Document) 11K Item 5.- 357 H B -434- End of Document BB -435- Item 5. - 358