Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
Proposed Revision to the City's Existing Development Impact
(s' Dept.ID PL 13-006 Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date:3/18/2013 7o 1yo7 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 3/18/2013 SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager PREPARED BY: Bob Hall, Assistant City Manager Scott Hess, AICP, Director of Planning and Building SUBJECT: Approve a revision to the City's Existing Development Impact Fee (DIF) Schedule by adopting Resolution No. 2013-11 Statement of Issue: Transmitted for City Council consideration is a proposed revision to the City's existing Development Impact Fee (DIF) schedule. The current DIF schedule states that the final phase of increases will become effective on September 2, 2014. The proposed revision would modify the effective date by moving it up to January 1, 2014. No other changes are proposed to the DIF schedule. Financial Impact: Adoption of the proposed revision could generate approximately$1.8 million more than what would be collected without the revision. Recommended Action: Approve revision to the City's Existing Development Impact Fee Schedule by adopting Resolution No. 2013-11, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Resolution No. 2012-23 Related to Development Impact Fees (Attachment No. 1)." Alternative Action(s): The City Council may make the following alternative motions: 1. Deny the revision to the City's Existing Development Impact Fee Schedule. 2. Continue the revision to the City's Existing Development Impact Fee Schedule and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: On June 18, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-23 Establishing New and Revised Development Impact Fees for all development within the City (Attachment No. 2). On September 2, 2012, the resolution went into effect relative to five development impact fees: Law Enforcement Facilities Fee, Fire Suppression Facilities Fee, Circulation Systems Fee, Public Library Facilities Fee, and Park Land and Park Facilities Fee. The Council adopted a phased-in approach over a three-year period. Currently developers are paying 30% of the difference between the old fee and the consultant's recommended fee. On September 2, 2013, the fee will increase to 60%, and on September 2, 2014, the final increase will go into effect reaching 90% of the difference. xB -67- Item 8. - I Dept. ID PL 13-006 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date:3/18/2013 At the 'February 4, 2013, City Council meeting, Mayor Connie Boardman presented a memo (Attachment No. 3) about the adopted. Development Impact Fees for Council consideration. The memo expressed the fact that over the last two years the city has seen a large influx of new projects being developed and it appears the economy is improving at a faster rate than anticipated. Therefore, it was recommended that new development pay their fair share or 100% of the consultant recommended Development Impact Fee. After discussion, the Council directed staff to bring forth this revision to the original resolution which changes the final 90% effective date from September 2, 2014, to January 1, 2014. There were supplemental communications regarding this memo distributed to the Council at the February 4, 2013, meeting (Attachment No. 3). Environmental Status: Not applicable Strategic Plan Goal: Improve the City's infrastructure Attachment(s): 1. City Council Resolution No. 2013- 11, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Resolution No. 2012-23 Related to Development Impact Fees" 2. City Council 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" 3. City Council Memo Dated January 7, 2013, From Mayor Connie Boardman Regarding The Proposal To Revise the City's Development Impact Fees as well as Supplemental Communications from the January 22, 2013, Council Meeting Item 8. - 2 HB -68- ATTACHMENT # 1 Resolution No. 2013-11 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF P THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH , AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 RELATED TO DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES WHEREAS, on June 18, 2012,the City Council adopted Resolution NZ2012-23, entitled"A Resolution Of The City Council Of The City Of Huntington;Be-ch Adopting The Development Impact Fee Calculation And Nexus Report For The City©t Huntington Beach, And Establishing New And Revised Development Impact Fees For 1 Development Within The City;" and The City Council desires to amend the effective date of certain fees contained in Resolution 2012-23, NOW, THEREFORE, The City Council of theCity of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: 1. All fees approved in Resolutio 20 2-23 with an effective date of September 2, 2014, shall now become effecti/Jan ` 1, 2014. 2. Except as specifid herein, all other terms of Resolution 2012-23 shall remain in full force and effect. PASSED AND ADOPTty Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held o , 2013. Mayor REVIEWED AND PROVED: INITI D AND APPROVED: City Manager.,;, Direc or of Tanning& Building APPROVED ASFO 1 C ty Attorip,y r 13-3654/91395 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 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 ' ""09.006/79289 Item 8. - 6 HB -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 Jwie 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 12-3209.006/79289 HB -73- Item 8. - 7 Resolution No.2012-23 4. Consisteney 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 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 12-3209.006/79299 Item 8. - 8 HB -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 xB -75- Item 8. - 9 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. Sever ability. 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—I q day of June 0 12 Mayor la ND APPROVED: INITI AND A ROVED: er Deputy City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 5 12-3209.006/79289 Item 8. - 10 HB -76- Exhibit A Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 30% Circulation Park Land/ System Open Spac 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 9/2/2013) 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 $11,5'. 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) i 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/ Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.937 $0.296 $4.175 No Fee $0.88c Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq.ft.) $0.399 $0.027 $1.716 No Fee $0.718 Date Printed:5/24/2012,June 4 Resolutlon 3060 90 Item 8. - 12 BB -78- Page 1 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.Urtiit . Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 50.22 $ 1,737.61 lUnit $ 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 11E6ORTlTOURtST(per Unit or ErtiEry Door):F, Hotel 6.29 7.61 0.51 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room $ 1,21.8.63 /Room All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room $ 729.93 /Room Motel 4,34 7.61 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,061.61 /Room $ 841.02 /Room IND.IlSTRtA1.(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 11,000 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 $ 1,273.93 1l1,000 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 /1,000 sf $ 1.522.61 f 000 Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf $ 1,027.85 sf'000 usiness Park 9,34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2.644.37 /1,000 sf $ 1,91:7.85 f,000 Bldg.Materials/Lumber 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf $ 4,059.85 f,000 Store 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 sf,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 /1,000 sf $ 1,470.08 sf1,000 Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf $ 4175.67 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 /1,000 sf $ 8,705.20 sf'000 High-Turnover Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf $ 1,228.813 sf,000 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 r►oted); Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre $ 424.64 /Acre ervice Station/Market 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel $14,894.71 /Fuel av Position Position Service Stationw/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel $13,743.02 /Fuel Wash Position Position HB -79- Item 8. - 13 Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) Recommended Cost per 60%Increase Scenario 1000 sq.ft,dwelling unit Cost per 1000 sq.ft, Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per or other unit(90%of dwelling unit or other Land Use Trip Ends Distance to Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile original) 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 JUnit Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 57.39 $ 1,394.58 /Unit $ 1,361.20 /Unit Condominiumrrownho 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 lUnit $ 1,013.15 /Unit RESORTITOURIST'(per Unit or Erdry.Door) Hotel 6.291 7.6 0.51 23.9 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,537.73 JRoom $ 1,355.39. JRoom All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.51 14.3 $ 64.34 1 $ 920.06 /Room $ 811.41 /Room Motel 4.341 7.6_0.51 16.5 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,061.61 !Room $ 935.56 /Room INDUSTRIAL.;(per.1 00..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 /1,000 sf Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf $ 662.65 /1,000 sf Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf $ 1,066.39 11,000 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 /1,000 sf Bldg. Materials/Lumber 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf Store Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf Movie Theater 2.471 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 11,000sf $ 817.12 /1,000 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 I1,000 sf $ 4,175.67 11,000 sf Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf $ 1,582.76 11,000sf 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 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf Restaurant Convenience Market' 43.57 4.31 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028.66 /1,000sf Office Park 13.971 4.31 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930 20 /1,000 sf $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf OTRER(as'not Cemetery 3.071 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 3 Item 8. - 14 xB -80- Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) Recommended Cost per Adjusted Average Trip-end to Additional Cost per 1000 sq.ft, dwelling unit or Land Use Trip Ends Distance Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile other unit(90%of original) RESIDENTIAL LAND-USES (per Unit) Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,226.16 /Unit Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 64.34 $ 1,563.46 /Unit Condom inium/Townhou 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 64.34 $ 1,364.01 /Unit se Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,164.55 r/Unit RESORT/TOURl,St er Unit or Ent Door (p Entry, _ ) Hotel 6.29 7.6 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 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64,34 $ 1,061.61 /Room INDUSTRIAL: ( per 9,4.dd 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 4.391 9.01 0.51 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf COMMERCIAL(per 11000 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 11,000 sf Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf Bldg. Materials/Lumber 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf Store 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 Church 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 /1,000 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 /1,000 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 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf Convenience Market 1 43.571 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 1 /1,000 sf Office Park 13.971 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,930.20 1/1,000 sf OTHER(as`noted) Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre Service Station/Market /Fuel 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 av Position Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Wash Position xB -81- Item 8. - 15 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 Ci y Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Item 8. - 16 HB -82- ATTACHMENT #3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To; Honorable City Council Members From. Connie Boardman, Mayor Date: January 7, 2013 Subject. CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM FOR JANUARY 22, 2013, CITY COUNCIL MEETING—REVISION TO THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On June 18, 2012, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-23-Establishing New and Revised Development Impact Fees for all development within the city. In order to mitigate the impact of increasing the Law Enforcement Facilities Fee, Fire Suppression Facilities Fee, Circulation System Fee, and the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee, the resolution incorporated a "phased" implementation for the various fees. While the goal was to generate adequate funding to serve the increased demands of development, the phased implementation allowed for a more gradual increase over a three-year period. Fees were scheduled to increase 30% each year for three years reaching 90% of the consultant's recommended fee. Over the past two years, the city has seen a large influx of new projects being developed. It appears that the development economy is improving at a faster rate than anticipated. Therefore, it is recommended that new development pay their full fair share of the proportional costs required for expansion of all development within the city of Huntington Beach. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff to bring forth Resolution No. 2012-23 moving Development Impact Fees to 100% as outlined in the Development Impact Fee Calculation Report. xc: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Planning & Building (?VXJ77A)ac 770 I HB -343- Item 12. - 1 Item 8. - 18 HB -84- Lugar, Robin From: Flynn,Joan Sent: Friday,January 18,2013 11:25 AM To: 'vcao@biaoc.com'; Wilson, Fred; CITY COUNCIL; Boardman, Connie; Hess, Scott; Hall, Bob Cc: Esparza, Patty; Lugar, Robin Subject: Fw: City Council Agenda Item 11 Attachments: 2013-01-15 Huntington Beach- Request for Conti nuance[1].pdf Importance: High Hello Victor. I am happy to forward your information and request to the listed individuals asking for a continuance to Agenda item 11.As Patty explained, this is not an action to consider a resolution, but a request to have the city attorney return with a resolution at a future meeting,at which time the city council would discuss, consider and cast theirvote on the full share of the development impact fees--when that staff item is prepared for the agenda,you will receive notice 14 days in advance according to your written request on file with our office. Regards—Joan Joan L. Flynn,CMC Huntington Beach City Clerk From: Victor Cao [mailto:vcao@biaoc.com] Sent: Friday,January 18, 2013 10:43 AM Pacific Standard Time To: Flynn,Joan Cc: Esparza, Patty Subject: City Council Agenda Item 11 SUPPLEMENTAL EMENTAL Dear Ms.Flynn, COMMUNICATION ION On behalf of our membership, please provide a copy of our letterto: Meeting Date: Mayor Boardman Aged Rem No.�,// City Council City Manager Fred Wilson Deputy City Manager Bob Hall Planning Director Scott Hess We appreciate your assistance in this matter.We are asking for a continuance for the item due to the absence of mailed notifications that the resolution was being brought forward. We understand the item was added in at the last minute by Council.Our highlights to Government Code§66016 provides our reasoning: "-.a local agency shall hold at least one open and public meeting, at which oral or written presentations can be made, as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data required by this section is available, shall be mailed at least 14 days prior to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for mailed notice of the meeting on new or increased fees or service charges." Considering that this is the first public meeting when the resolution is being brought forth and will be discussed,the BIA/OC j and other stakeholders are entitled to 14 days notification. BIA/OC has a certified mailing of our written request to be notified of any discussion of fee adjustments. Thank you for your time and service. Item 12. - 2 HB -344- H13 -85- Item 8. - 19 Sincerely, Victor Cao Government Affairs Assistant B1A of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (949) 553-9500 x120 office (714)202-7122 mobile I Ks -345- Item 12. - 3 Item 8. - 20 HB -86- January 17,2013 The Honorable Connie Boardman Mayor City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Orange County Chapter Re: Request for Continuance of Item 11.Revision to the City's Development Building Indowy Association Impact Fees of Southern California 17744 Sky Park Circle Suite 170 alif Dear Mayor Boardman: 9a9ss3 500ornia92614 fax 949.553.9507 www.biwc.com On behalf of the membership of the Building Industry Association Southern California, Orange County Chapter(BIA/OC),we respectfully request a continuance of the Revision to the City's Development Impact Fee.BIA/OC is a PRESIDENT •) p p DAVE BULLOCH non-profit trade association of nearly 1,000 companies employing over 100,000 STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES people affiliated with the home building industry.The Orange County Chapter VICE PRESIDENT DONNA KELLY represents the largest member base within BIA/OC. Our mission is to champion LENN4R housing as the foundation of vibrant and sustainable communities. TREASURER JOAN MARCUS-COLVIN THE NEW HOME COMPANY On June 18, 2012 the Council, after a substantial negotiation, adopted a fee schedule SECRETARY based on an agreement with the business community.The fulfillment of the BRIAN GEIS resolution brought forward would breach that agreement and should not be an item BROOKFIELD HOMES of consideration. IMMEDIATE PAST PRESDENT MICHAELMcCANN ALUANCE RESIDENTIAL Per Government Code§ 66016,the City of Huntington Beach is required to provide TRADE CONTRACTOR COUNCIL VJ RHODES a minimum of 14 days notification prior to a public hearing related to an TOM ENTERPRISES Y p p g Y TWR ENTERPRISES adjustment in development fees.Enclosed is a copy of our written request for ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT mailed notifications that was renewed on January 2,2013.At this time,the City has MARK HIMMELSTEIN not met their obligations under the Statute to notify stakeholders that the resolution NEWMEYER&DILLION,LLP was beingbrought forward.Our membership would appreciate adequate time for MEMBER-AT-LARGE AN LARGE g p pp q MIKE WINTER public review. SARES-REGIS GROUP 11 MEMBER-AT-LARGE JIM YATES Background RANCHO MISSION VIEJO BIA/OC has been an active participant in advocating for equitable policies with CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER regard to the City's Nexus Study(Study)first published in October 2011.We MICHAELaALSAMO appreciate the hard work of the City Council and staff to seek compromise and balance the interests of key stakeholders in the community. As you may recall on March 12, 2012,we provided official comments that outlined several flaws within the Study.By June 18,we had reached a consensus on an agreement to phase in the fee increases.BIA/OC has been deeply involved in the fee study process.The absence of proper notification at this time raises concerns about the City's intentions. Item 12. - 4 HB -346- HB -87- Item 8. - 21 Commitment to Compromise City Council adopted Councilman Carchio's "30-30-30" resolution as a balanced compromise toward development.The Carchio proposal provides home builders with a reasonable certainty of their fees during unpredictable economic conditions. Additionally,the phased approach was responsive to the business community in light of the extremely challenging market conditions.The recent move to renege on our compromise is troubling and we implore the City to respect the integrity of its past agreements. Economic Uncertainties The internal memorandum from the City cites improving conditions in the economy to rationalize raising fees.However,multiple market reports continue to cite fragile economic conditions.According to the U.S.Bureau of Labor and Statistics, unemployment in the County remains at 7.2%in contrast to the historical average of 4.4%.The Orange County Register reported, "Although the market appeared to find a price bottom amid waning foreclosures,the recovery remains fragile, and home prices and sales remain subpar."New home sales volume is still well below historic norms in Orange County.While it is evident that the economy has made progress, home building is one of many industries that have only just begun to recover.Any interference in the form of increased fees may jeopardize construction of new homes,job creation, and the fiscal well being of the residents of Huntington Beach. Our membership is committed to working collectively with you,city staff,and other stakeholders. We remain a resource to the City on important issues that are related to the prosperity of our local communities. It is our sincere request that the City table this item. Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration. Respectfully, Michael Balsamo Chief Executive Officer Enclosure Cc. City Council Fred Wilson,City Manager Bob Hall,Deputy City Manager Scott Hess, Director of Planning HB _347_ Item 12. - 5 Item 8. - 22 HB -88- January 2,2013 `gn City Clerk City of Huntington Beach Orange County 2000 Main Street Chapter Huntington Beach,CA 92648 Dear Sir or Madam: 17744 sky Put Circle Suke nD Irvine,CsIllorrlia 92614 On behalf of the members of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, 949.553'"M Tex 949.553.950 Orange County Chapter(BIA/OC),I am writing to officially request advance www.bieoe.com notification prior to proposal of development related fee increases per CA Government Code Section 66016. PRESIDENT DAVE OULLOCH In the event of a development related fee adjustment or new development related fee STANOMD PACIFIC HOMES ordinance,we respectfully request notification sixty days prior any public hearing. VICE PRESIDENT DONNA BELLY This information will allow us to communicate proposed changes to our members that LENNAR do business in your jurisdiction. TREASURER JOAN MARCUS-COLV8/ Please send all notifications to: THE NEW HOME coMPANv SECRETARY BRIM GEIS Victor Cao BROOMFIELD HOMES Government Affairs Assistant IMMEDIATE PAST PRESIDENT BIA/OC MIC IAEL M�wN ALLIANCE RESIDENTIAL 17744 Sky Park Circle#170 TRADE CONTRACTOR COUNCIL V Irvine,CA 92614 TOM MODES "ENTERPRISES I have also included the BIA/OC Fair Share Principles. This document is a Board ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT MARRHIMMELSTEIN Policy that we ask Orange County jurisdictions to consider when examining their fee NEWMEYER a DN.LION,LLP schedules. As always,feel free to contact me at anytime if I may be of assistance. MEMBER-AT-LARGE MIKE WINTER SARES•REGiS GROUP Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. IrEMWX-AT.I.ARC.E JIM YATES Sincerely, 'e - i RANCHO MISSION VIEJO I rT + CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER �..- Ln _ MICHAEL BALSAM� e. e ..D 6 Michael Balsarno Dom- _r; E b ,, v ru Chief Executive Officer,BIA/OC In Pcetaae s m r C. C3 CeNled Fee O RaWm RecFca r �' "�,Poerolc 't C3 Rn9tr qed Deeve y Fee ' :. � IFado=cea,ent RwTu*ed} ,� ., /'•.,., Total Postage Fees � 3- o SeM To > r- C-.>z..6r.�1h_..... _ wPOBOXMa , .................------.. Item 12. - 6 HB 348- HB -89- Item 8. - 23 Esparza, Patty From: Jim Ivory[JIVORY@Sares-Regis.com) Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2013 12:24 PM To: Villasenor, Jennifer Cc: Broeren, Mary Beth; Esparza, Patty; Flynn, Joan; Mike Winter Subject: SRG Letter to Council Re: Boardwalk Attachments: Letter to Council Re Fee Increase_13 01 22.pdf Jennifer I wanted to copy you on this. We put together a letter to Council just reinforcing the need Boardwalk has to remain grandfathered. I appreciate the update that you were able to provide last week. We are fairly confident that the grandfathered projects will remain grandfathered and for that are very appreciative. Thanks so much, Jim Ivory I Multi-Family Development Division iivory0sares-regis.com I P. 949 809 2530 1 F. 949 253 0475 SARES-REGIS Group 1 18825 Bardeen Ave. I Irvine, CA 92612 SUPPLEMENTAL. COMMUNICATION Maetfng Date: a�01 _� Agenda Item No. 1 HB ;49- Item 12. - 7 Item 8. - 24 HB -90- S r S-REL1S ("rot.q.). Market-proven performance January 22,2013 Hon. Mayor Boardman Hon. Mayor Pro Tern Harper Councilmembers Katapodis,Carchio,Shaw,Hardy,and Sullivan City Clerk Joan L. Flynn City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach California,92648 Re: January 22,2013 Meeting Of The City Council/Public Financing Authority And The Huntington Beach Housing Authority;Agenda Item No 11: Revision To The City's Development Impact Fees Dcar Honorable Mayor Boardman, Mayor Pro Tern Harper, City Council members, and City Clerk: On behalf of the SARIS-REGIS Group,I am writing to you concerning Item 11 in the:Agenda for the Council's January 22, 2013 meeting, entitled "Revision to the City's Development Impact hees." By way of background, SARES-R CTTS is actively developing the 12-acre property located at 744 Edinger Avenue with a mixed-use project consisting of 487 apartment units (including 57 affordable units), 10,000 square feet of commercial/retail uses, 4,500 square feet of office leasing area, and 9,000 square feet of residential recreation area. Our project has been fully entitled since 2011 and project completion is currently scheduled for August of 2015. I In May 2012, the City adopted Resolution 2012-23. That Resolution established new and significantly increased Development Impact lees for new developments within the City. Importantly, Resolution 2012-23 contains an express exemption for qualifying projects that the City had approved on or before May 7, 2012. Our Edinger Avenue project is exempt under this grandfather provision. Resolution 2012-23 calls for the increased impact fees to be phased in over three years for non-exempt projects. Agenda Item 11, and the other publicly-available documents discussing that item, all state that it concerns solely the elimination of the phase in so that non-exempt projects would immediately be subject to the full fee increase. Our conversations with some of you and City staff have confirmed this limited purpose for Agenda Item 11. Importantly, neither Agenda Item 11 nor any other information we have received in any way suggests that the grandfather provision in Resolution 2012-23 will be reconsidered or modified. i 18802 Bardeen Avenue/Irvine,CA 92612-1521/949.756.5959/Fax 949.756.5955/www.sares-regis.com Serving the West with offiecs in Irvine• San Francisco Bay Area • Sacramento • Ventura/Los Angeles • Denvcr • Phoenix Item 12. - 8 xs-350- HB -91- Item 8. - 25 SARE S-RE GI S G oup, Market-proven performance Therefore, Agenda Item 11 should have no impact on our development of the Edinger Avenue project. We appreciate the City's continuing commitment to its promise in Resolution 2012-23 not to increase Development Impact Fees for pre-approved projects such as ours. In an abundance of caution, however, we feel it is important for the City to understand our reliance on that promise and the devastating effects on our project should its exemption be eliminated. In reliance on the exemption and the City's promises that the increased fees would not apply to our project, SARES-RFGIS has spent millions of dollars on, among other. things, (1) securing debt and equity financing of over one-hundred million dollars,including a significant investment in the project by CaTERS, (2) paying consultants to prepare plans for the project, (3) securing a demolition permit and completing demolition of the prior building on the site, (4) grading the site, (5) going through the expensive plan check process with the City, and (6) other development activities and costs, including construction, insurance, marketing, financing, and interest fees. Moreover, we have hired a project manager and a project superintendent, and we are currently interviewing for site administrative assistant and assistant project manager position. It is also important for the City Council to understand the devastating effect of subjecting our project to the increased fees. Simply put, substantially increasing the impact fees by eliminating the exemption would make the project not economically viable,putting our substantial investment at great risk. Under these circumstances, and given SARES-RrGIS ' enormous investment in the project, eliminating the exemption now would not only raise legal objections — estoppel, due process, and CEQA — doing so would be wrong. We urge the City Council to keep its promise and maintain the exemption. Again, SARF.S-REGIS thanks the City, both for its consideration of our comments, and for its continued commitment to the grandfather provision in Resolution 2012-23. Respectfully submitted, Michael J. Winter Senior Vice President SARES-REGIS Group 18802 Bardeen Avenue I Irvine.CA 92612-1521/949.756.59591 Fax 949.756,59551 www.sares-regis.com j Serving the Wcst with offices in Irvine• San Francisco Bay Area a Sacramento o Ventura/Los Angeles e Dcnver • Phoenix IB -351- Item 12. - 9 Item 8. - 26 xs -92- Print Request Page 1 of 1 Request: 13236 Entered on: 01/21/2013 12:45 PM Customer informatio Name:Dianne Thompson Phone:714.698.0202 Address:7402 Yellowtail Dr#102 Alt. Phone:714.814.3103 Huntington Beach, CA Email:dianne@dianneth6mpson.net 92648 Request Classificatio Topic:City Council Agenda& Public Request type:Comment Hearing Comments Status:Closed Priority:Normal Assigned to:Johanna Stephenson Entered Via:Web Descriptio I am very concerned that increasing the Development Impact Fees on an earlier schedule than previously voted upon sends an alarming message to anyone who is considering a project in HB. The fact that we could change such an important part of the costs associated with a development from a previously agreed upon schedule will cause some who are considering HB to reconsider. Just because we see some projects moving forward doesn't mean that we couldn't cause them to stop when the costs exceed previous expectations. We are still at a perilous point in our economic recovery. We would be subjecting that recovery to an uncertainty that was partially responsible for the slowdown to begin with. I respectfully request that the fee schedule remain the same as voted upon in 2012. My business has been dramatically affected by the recession and it is slowly recovering. I have had to make tough choices to keep each of my employees and not lay them off. There are no further options if the recovery to HB is stifled or reversed. Reason Close Thank you for taking the time to send your thoughts to the City Council. A copy of your comments will also be forwarded to the City Clerk to be included in the record on this item. Thank you very much for writing. Date Expect Closed: 01/31/2013 Date Closed: 01/22/2013 08:08 AM By: Johanna Stephenson Enter Field Notes Below Notes: SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Meteft Date- /—g�a —gali; f� Agenda Item No. Notes Taken By: Date: Item 12. - 10,;ovoutreach.com/surfeity/Printreques_M -352-3=1215373&type=0 1/22/. xs -93- Item 8. - 27 r,p/1 Ut Pe It 0 February 4,2013 Hon. Mayor Boardman Hon. Mayor Pro Tern Harper Councilmembers Katapodis, Carchio, Shaw,Hardy,and Sullivan City Clerk Joan L. Flynn City Council Chambers 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Re: February 4,2013 Meeting Of The City Council/Public Financing Authority;Councilmember Item No. 12: Revision To The City's Development Impact Fees (Continued from January 22,2013 Meeting) Dear Honorable Mayor Boardman,Mayor Pro Tem Harper, City Council members, and City Clerk: On behalf of Pedigo and the developer, we are writing you to object to Councilmember Item 12 in the Agenda for the Council's February 4, 2013 meeting, entitled "Revision to the City's Development Impact Fees." This proposed revision would throw out the balanced "30-60-90" plan for impact fees in Resolution 2012-23 passed last June (upon which we all relied), and instead retroactively increase the fees to the 100% level, a devastating and uncalled for increase. Pedigo is the owner of a 6.2-acre property located at the corner of Gothard and Edinger. The developer has entered into an agreement to purchase that property from Pedigo as well as an adjoining 2.2-acre parcel. The developer plans to redevelop the combined property from its current industrial uses into a multifamily housing complex consisting of 510 apartment units (the "Project'.). The Project is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridors.Specific Plan,which the City adopted in March 2010. In fact,back in 2010, the City approached Pedigo and encouraged it to redevelop the property with a project that would be consistent with the nev., Specific Plan. As the Project is consistent with that plan, Pedigo's sale of its land for that purpose complies with the City's request and desires. Unfortunately,item 12 threatens that sale and the Project as a whole. At the January 22, 2013 City Council meeting, when this item was first raised, several interested patties described the disastrous effects increasing development impact fees would cause to projects that have already begun development, including the Project Indeed for this reason we oppose item 12 and any other increase in impact fees under Resolution 2012- 23. www.p oo-uso.com Item 8. - 28 HB -94- >O PE 'GOO In response, we understood the Mayor to say that her proposal would not affect pending projects,which we hope would include any projects that are already being processed by the City such as our developer's Project. To do otherwise would be grossly unfair. In proceeding with the Project, we =Iicd on the impact fees in Resolution 2012-23, and increasing the fees retroactively would not only be contrary to that Resolution but would kill the Project to the detriment of us all,including the City. As you may recall,in June 2012, the City passed Resolution 2012-23 over substantial objection from the community and business leaders. The Resolution established new and significantly increased impact fees for new developments within the City. However, to lessen the impact as part of a balanced plan, Resolution 2012-23 implemented the increase over time, by 30%" each year for three years. Based on this phased increase, Resolution 2012-23 has since become generally known as the"30-60-90 plan." Based on the Project's status at the time the Resolution was passed, we anticipated the Project would be subject to a 60% increase. However, even at the 60%level, it added $4.1 million in impact fees, stretching the project to its economic limits. ne purchase agreements on both parcels lapsed and eventually the parties made the economics work. Simply put, there is no more economic play. Had the Project been hit with the fan 100% impact fees, the developer would not have proceeded-there would be no Project. With the fee increase behind us, and inteliance on the 30-60-90 plan fee structure,we all invested substantial money and time into the Project. Among other things, Pedigo allowed a 50,000 sq.ft. lease on one of its three buildings to expire, and has not marketed that building or its other vacant building for new tenants. Lost rents alone are in excess of $400,000 as of today. In addition, the developer has spent over$1.8 million on the Project, $1.5 million of which was after and in reliance on the fee structure in Resolution 2012-23. In addition, in reliance on that fee structure, both Pedigo and the developer have spent a substantial amount of time preparing plans, .preparing and submitting its development application,working with City staff and performing other development activities. We have a good working relationship with staff and appreciate the substantial time they have devoted. It is imperative that the City Council understand the devastating effect of subjecting the Project to the increased impact fees at this late juncture. Raising the fees from the already high 60% increase in Resolution 2012-23, to the full. 100%,would add an additional $3.2 million in impact fees—raising the impact fees from$12.5 to$15.7 million. Simply put, the Project cannot withstand such a whopping increase, and in all likelihood it would force the developer to abandon the Project. The losses would be enormous for all: 1. Proms C►wner Losses. In addition to all of the owners' time gone to waste, Pedigo would suffer lost rents of over $800,000 (assuming it could re-let the vacant space within 6 months). W-522.3501 *Wp o-ueo.eom HB -95- Item 8. - 29 /ePE>O1GO* 2. Developer Losses. The developer will lose its investment of over$1.8 million Plus the large number of hours of employee and consultant time. 3. The Ci 's Losses. The City would lose the most It would not receive the $12.5 million in impact fees the Project would generate as well as increased property tag revenues, the City's staff time and resources spent on the Project would go to waste, the existing industrial uses would remain contrary to the Specific Plan, it will lose important housing inventory including affordable housing units, and the City would lose the betterment to the community offered by the Project and the new residents it would bring to the City and its businesses. And with the increased fees, new development at this location would be deterred if not precluded all together. Given our enormous investment in the Project in reliance on the 30-60-90 plan in Resolution 2012-23, increasing the impact fees as proposed is not only unfair, it also raises legal objections including estoppel, due process and CEQA. And it would deter future positive and beneficial development in the City, not only because of the exorbitant impact fees, but also because the business community could not rely on the City's process in adopting resolutions, a very bad precedent indeed. For all these reasons, we strongly urge the City Council to keep its promise and vote against item 12. We thank the City for consideration of our comments. Respectfully, Dated: February ,2013 Pedigo Products, Inc. By. L `� Name: �' p Its: C• d. Dated: February,, 2013 Archstone New Development Holdings, LP By: Name: Its: GEoa > PPCs-Je,n-{ M3501 • www. go-usa.COM Item 8. - 30 xB -96- NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 18, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following: MODIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23 REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: The City Council will consider a revision to the fee resolution modifying the schedule for the incremental increases. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed resolution amendment is on file in the Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office or online at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov on Thursday, March 14, 2013. ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any further questions please call Debra Gilbert in the Planning and Building Department at (714) 374-1643 and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street, 2nd Floor Huntington Beach, California 92648 714-536-5227 http://huntingtonbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/ ; bVERTI`SING Printed by:0602 Patricia Gaminoti Feb 13,20t 3 3 28 pfn Ato Salesperson: v IJ Phone: Ad#35390188 i t Account Irltc�rtltalttlin� � 'tn#o ttoF1 _ r * M 5 4 1 x$1.340;hoe# �+TaFrle.$City Of Huntington Beach(Parent) 1 i 03-07-13 it d iz+ 8.00 TCN Inctl ; Pt)Box 784 1n t0 '' 2 iC+nywprd; ry Huntington Beac CA 92648° �, t &Legal Huntington Beach Ad t7tpei Liner i 2 Patricia Gamin 7`akEs O60 i . :. . 1 Ct100070479 v �..,...4 _....._ v A Cis{ 13000-Legal Notices CaiOSS price: $122:C1 TCN HBl NBt pace; I $122 00 Ciit City Of Huntington Beach-Clerk's 0if i 1 ratDtile $122 00 Plated by g Patty Esparza (714)374-1557 u change clue. 18a, r11iS nexus fees, 0�tagrt ,� Ad Copy: NOTICE OF PUBUC NEARING BEFORE M CITY COM OF TR CITY OF tiUF1TINGTON WE NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, March 18, 2013, at 6:00 p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a public hearing on the following: MODIFICATION OF RESOLUTION NO.2012- 23 REGARDING DE- VELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: The City Council will consider a revision to the fee resolution modifying the schedule for the incremental increases. ON FILE: A copy of the proposed resolution amendment is on file in the Planning and Build- ing department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach,California 92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to interested parties at the City Clerk's Office or online at Irttp:J Jwww.hontlagton �b�o�aciu��o gav on Thurs- day,March 14,2013, ALL INTERESTED PER- SONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. It you challenge the City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If --- ad proof pg.1 --- CLASSIFIED � _A©VEHTISING .rJ jr 'Printed by:0602 Patricia Gamino Feb 13,2013,3:28 prn fl�82S salesperson: lI�>if;Aa>�g `nae J f Phone: Ad 9 35390198 w there are any further questions please call Debra Gilbert in the Planning and Building Department at(714)374- 1643 and refer to the above items.Direct your written communications to the City Clerk Joan L.Flynn.City Clerk City of Huntington Beach 2000 Main Street,2nd Floor Huntington Beach,Cali- fornia 42648 714-536.5227 h ttp://huntingtonbeach ca. gov/HBPublicComrnents/ Published H.B.Indepe- dent 2121&3/7/13 ......._- --- ad proof pg.2 --- _. PROOF OF PUBLICATION MODIFICATION OF RES- OLUTION NO. 2012-23 STATE OF CALIFORNIA) MENT IM DEVELOP-, MENT IMPACT FEES: 'The City Council will SS. the Peer a revision i- the fee resolution modi. ) Eying the schedule for the incremental' in- COUNTY OF ORANGE creases. ON FILE: A'copy of the proposed resolution amendment is on file in am a citizen of the United States and a the Planning 'and Building. Department, resident of the County of Los Angeles• I 2000 Main h,Cal,.Hun- r tington Beach,California am over the age of eighteen years and for inspection by r the the p public.A copy of the not a party to or interested in the notice staff report will be avar- able to interested ,par- published. I am a principal clerk of the ties at the City Clerk's p p ,Office or online at HUNTINGTON BEACH boPach a guoTvon INDEPENDENT, which was adjudged a 2013sday, 'March `14, ALL INTERESTED PER- .. newspaper of general circulation on SONS are invited to at- Se September 29 1961 case A6214 and tend.said hearing and p , , � express opinions or sub- 'June 11, , � aga 1963 case A24831 for the aga ,evidence for or inst the application City of Huntington Beach County of as outlined above. If you challenge the you City,Coun- - Orange cil's action mcourt;, and the State of California. may be limited to raising Attached to this Affidavit is a true and only those issues y°° or someone else raised at complete copy as was printed and the public hearing de- scribed in this notice, or in, written corre- publlshed on the following dates): spondence, delivered to the City at, or prior to,. the public hearing. If Thursday, February 21, 2013 there are any further ,� p� I� questions please call Thursday March /y 2013 Debra g filbert in 'the 7 9 Plannin and Building Department at (714) 374-1643 and, refer to the above items. Direct your written communica- tions certify (or declare) under penalty an L.Flynn,CiCityty Clerk Joan L.Fl ,City Clerk "City of Huntington Beach of perjury that the foregoing is true NOTICE OF 2000MaFloSotfeet,2nd and correct. BEFORE THE cmcoUNCa . Huntington Beach, California 92648 OF THE., 714.536-5227 CITY Of HUNTINGTON.. http://huntingtonbeachca. gov/HBPublicComrrients/I BEACH Published, H.B. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIV- Indepedent 2/21 & 3/7/ EN that on Monday, 13 Executed on March 14, 2013 March 18, 2013, at 6:00 — at Los Angeles, California p.m. in the City Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City.Council will hold a.puhlic hearing on the following: d/�IN �i1lU - Signature