Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 5263 RESOLUTION NO. 5263 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR THE LOCATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SENATE BILL 489 OF 1979 (CHAPTER 718, STATUTES 1979) WHEREAS, the city of Huntington Beach is located in a stand- ard metropolitan statistical area (SMSA) with a population of 250,000 or more which is served by a public transit operator, as defined in California Health and Safety Code section 99210; and California Government Code sections 25351, 25351.1, 25351.15, 37352. 1 and 37352. 2, added by Senate Bill 489 of 1979 (Chapter 718, Statutes 1979) require that the board or legislative body of a county or city so situated give consideration to the location of existing public transit corridors in the construction, purchase , or leasing (for five or more years ) of public buildings ; and A transit corridor, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 50093. 5, represents that area within a quarter mile of a transit route on which the level of service is at or above the average for the transit system as a whole; and The City Council is the duly authorized legislative body of the City of Huntington Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach that all future public buildings will be located in corridors served by public transit service at or above average service levels for the area unless a finding is made either that it is not feasible to locate the public build- ing in such a transit corridor, as determined from application of criteria discussed in Exhibit A, or that the affected local transit operator will provide service to the public building, or that the purpose of the public building does not require ahb 5/2/83 1. r transit access . BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the procedure for making these findings will include requesting the assistance of the local transit operator in making a determination of infeasibility and formally notifying the district as to the ultimate location decision. Exception to this procedure will be permitted for public buildings that do not require transit access, which are those public buildings generating less than two hundred trip ends daily unless that public building serves a disabled or otherwise transit dependent population, and those public build— ings described in Exhibit B of this resolution. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of May , 1983. ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: t City Clerk City Attorne REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: n City Administrator irector of Development Services li I 2. EXHIBIT A R HASE OR CONSTRUCT CRITERIA FOR FINDING IT IS INFEASIBLE TO LEASE C C 1 PURCHASE A PUBLIC BUILDING IN A TRANSIT CORRIDOR There are two primary criteria for a finding that it is not feasible to locate a public building in a transit corridor. These are: the un- availability of appropriate sites or space within a reasonable time frame, and excessive cost differentials between sites that are and are not in transit corridors, respectively. Site or space availability` is relatively easy to determine. For con- struction of a new building, the availability of appropriate vacant sites within transit corridors would be the measure. An exception would be a major mid- or high-rise building that could use a site already de- veloped but substantially under-utilized. Appropriate vacant sites would consider zoning and land use compatibility. A single family re- sidential neighborhood would not be the appropriate location for a city hall or courthouse despite availability of vacant land. For space to be purchased or leased, the availability of appropriately sized buildings within the 'service area of the building would be the measure. If space is absolutely not 'available within a transit corridor, such a finding should be made and documented asthe basis for selecting a site or space outside those corridors served by average or beater levels of transit service. Excessive cost differentials are difficult to define in the abstract, so there is no single formula for cost difference that can be utilized to justify a finding of infeasibility based on cost. The critical amount would depend upon the jurisdiction or agency, but a one-two percent dif- ference clearly would not be significant, while a four or five percent difference may or may not be. A significant or excessive cost differen- tial must be considered in light of overall facility construction and operating costs-, not just rent per square foot or land cost. In a typi- cal office environment with each staff' person utilizing 200-225 square feet, the cost of leasing officespace is likely to be only 10 percent of labor costs when benefits are included. Even excluding other cost items such as materials,, supplies, and utilities, a doubling of rent levels would account for only a 10 percent increase in operating costs. As a more realistic example, a 20 to 40 percent rent differential, the largest amount likely to be associated'with differences of transit access, would only represent a 2 to 4 percent differential in total costs . Other factors could well offset this minor difference, such as a savings in number of parking spaces required or increased `employee efficiency re- sulting from a convenient and accessible location. Good transit service could reduce -parking required by 20 to 50 percent. In evaluating cost differentials, consideration should be given to pr - vate (personal automobile) costs imposed on staff or clientel by a de- cision to locate a public building outside a transit corridor. Other considerations- should include opportunity: costs resulting from land pro- ductivity lost to parking facilities that might not otherwise be neces- sary, or the maintenance 'costs of parking (security, lighting, cleaning) required because of lack of transit access. k EXHIBIT A, Cont. The intent of the legislation and the goals of the Southern California "Association of Governments are to avoid the substituting of short-run cost considerations for proper long-term planning. Cost differences in the purchase of a site or a building must be amortized over the life- cycle of the building, not considered only in year of purchase. In conclusion, a cost differential of significant proportions is a legitimate reason for a finding that it is not feasible to locate a public building in a transit corridor, but differences must be real and not offset by other savings associated With a transit accessible site. EXHIBIT B PURPOSE OF A PUBLIC BUILDING DOES NOT REQUIRE TRANSIT ACCESS There are certain public buildings that by their nature may not be com- patible with or benefit from a location in a transit corridor. This would include: public buildings generating an insignificant number of public or employee vehicular or transit trips; public buildings incom- patible with land uses normally found in major transit corridors; and public buildings that must be located in particular service areas regard- less of the quality of transit access. Particular types of public build- ings may be exempted or excluded from review for several of the above reasons. Examples are easily visualized. These would include public buildings that represent extensive rather than intensive use of the land, such as warehouses, sewage plants, vehicle maintenance yards, etc. Such uses, apart from generating relatively few trips that could be served by tran- sit, would also be incompatible land uses with the residential, retail or office commercial uses often found along the major arterial routes that receive high levels of transit service. Other uses that would generate few trips that could be served by transit include uses such as fire stations, police stations, animal pounds, etc. Few public trips are associated with a fire station or police station, and trips to an animal pound or shelter generally require the use of an automobile since pets are discouraged or prohibited on buses. Public buildings that are oriented to serving a neighborhood such as a small park or tot lot are clearly not concerned with regional access nor do they generate a large number of vehicle trips. In contrast, a major youth recreation facility or seniorcitizen center that draws from a larger area and serves a more transit dependent client group would re- present the types of public buildings that should be located in a corri- dor with average or above average levels of transit service. Based upon the expectation that such public buildings 'do not require transit access, a list ,of public buildings that typically would be _. exempted from compliance with this: legislation is presented below. A list of those public buildings that normally would be expected to com- ply with this legislative mandate is also presented. These lists are not intended to be exhaustive but rather to denote the type of public buildings that would and would not require review. Public Buildings Which Public Buildings Which Do Not Re uire Compliance Require Compliance 1. Fire stations 1. Municipal or county administrative offices {city halls, etc. 1 2. Police stations 2. Senior citizen centers 3. Vehicle maintenance or storage facility 3. Libraries 4. Warehouse or storage facility 4. Community center or recreation facility 5. Neighborhood park or tot lot 5. Community or sub-regional park 6. Wilderness' park or camp 6. Jails EXHIBIT B, Cbnt. A suggested criterion for determining if 'other types of public buildings are required to locate in a transit corridor (including those on the list of public buildings normally requiring compliance) would be a mini- mal trip generation level of 200 persons per day. Table 1 presents a matrix of trip generation per employee and per 1, 000 square feet for various types of facilities, data based on surveys by Caltrans and other agencies. Larger buildings could be excluded as well if the applicant could demonstrate to the transit operator that lower trip generation rates were appropriate. TABLE 1. PUBLIC BUILDINGS TYPICALLY GENERATING 200 TRIPS DAILY Facility Size Facility Type Trips* Generating and Measure Average Range 200 Trips Governmental Office Building - per employee 10 6-12 20 - employees - per 1, 000 sq. ft. 33 25-69 6,000 - square feet Library - per employee 50 37-82 4 - employees - per 1, 000 sq. ft. 45 29-88 5, 000 —square feet * employees and visitors. Source: Michael Fajane, derived from following publications : Arizona Department of Highways , Trip Generation Intensity Factors, 1976. California Department of Transportation (District 4) , 12th Program Report--Trip Ends Generation Counts, December 1979. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Hand- Book, 1979. Res. No. 5263 STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss: CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ) I, ALICIA M. WENTWORTH, 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 more than a majority of all the members of said City Council at a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of May 1983 by the following vote: AYES: Councilmen: Pattinson, Thomas, Kelly, MacAllister, Bailey, Mandic NOES: Councilmen: None ABSENT: Councilmen: Finley City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California