The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2017-04-03 Agenda Packet FRED A. WILSON City Manager MICHAEL E. GATES City Attorney ROBIN ESTANISLAU City Clerk ALISA CUTCHEN City Treasurer AGENDA Monday, April 03, 2017 CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4:00 PM - Study Session 6:00 PM - Regular Meeting Council Chambers - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BARBARA DELGLEIZE Mayor MIKE POSEY PATRICK BRENDEN Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember JILL HARDY WILLIAM O’CONNELL Councilmember Councilmember ERIK PETERSON LYN SEMETA Councilmember Councilmember MEETING ASSISTANCE NOTICE - AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act the following services are available to members of our community who require special assistance to participate in City Council meetings. If you require special assistance, 48-hour prior notification will enable the city to make reasonable arrangements. To make arrangements for an assisted listening device (ALD) for the hearing impaired, American Sign Language interpreters, a reader during the meeting and/or large print agendas, please contact the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 536-5227, or request assistance from the Sergeant-at-Arms at the meeting. CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY The City Council/Public Financing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach will regularly convene in joint session on the first and third Monday of each month for the purpose of considering agenda items. The Huntington Beach Successor Agency, Housing Authority, Parking Authority and Civic Improvement Corporation are also agencies on which the Council serves as members. On each agenda these agencies may have items scheduled. CITY COUNCIL AGENDA The City Council agenda and supporting documentation is made available for public review during normal business hours in the Office of the City Clerk, 2000 Main Street immediately following distribution of the agenda packet to a majority of the City Council. Packet delivery typically takes plan on W ednesday afternoons prior to the regularly scheduled meeting on Monday. The agenda packet is posted on the city’s website at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/agendas/. Questions on agenda items may be directed to the City Clerk’s Office at (714) 536-5227. AUDIO/VIDEO ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS City Council meetings are televised live on cable TV Channel 3, and can be viewed via live or archived web cast at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/agendas/. SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATION Staff and members of the public have the opportunity to submit information related to an agenda item following distribution of the agenda packet to the City Council. This information is identified as “Supplemental Communication” and is assembled into a packet by the City Clerk on the day of the City Council meeting. The Brown (Open Meetings) Act requires that copies of Supplemental Communication be made available to the public immediately upon distribution of material to a majority of the City Council. Communication received by any individual at the meeting will be made available to the public in the City Clerk’s Office the following morning. AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS Awards, presentations, and proclamations made by the Mayor on behalf of the City. The Public Information Office coordinates the arrangements with the Mayor and submits a list of presentations through the City Manager’s Office. WEB ACCESS: **REMINDER** Live Broadcast and audio and video archives can be accessed at http://huntingtonbeach.granicus.com As a courtesy to those in attendance, please silence your cell phones and pagers HB -1- PUBLIC COMMENTS This is the time of the meeting for the City Council to receive comments from the public regarding items of interest or agenda items not scheduled for Public Hearing. Pursuant to the Brown (Open Meetings) Act, the City Council may not enter into discussion regarding items not on the City Council agenda. Members of the public who wish to speak to a member of the Council on an item not on the agenda may consider setting up an individual appointment by contacting the Council's Administrative Assistant at 714-536-5553. The following statement applies to any public exchange of comments during City Council meetings: “The City Council strives to treat members of the public with respect. Comments or concerns provided by the public shall be done in a civil and respectful manner. Any public comments that are discriminatory, defamatory or otherwise not protected speech, whether as to race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or any other protected classification, will not be considered by the City Council and may be a basis for the Mayor to interrupt the public comment. In addition, any such public comments will not be consented to, agreed to, ascribed to, or otherwise adopted by the City Council in its considerations, deliberations, discussions, and findings regarding any matter before it tonight. The City Council provides this public opportunity for free speech, but the City Council categorically rejects comments from anyone, including the public, that are of a discriminatory nature, and such comments will not inform the City Council’s decision.” To participate in Public Comments, pink Request to Speak forms are available at the Chambers entrance and are collected by the Sergeant at Arms. Each speaker is allowed 3 minutes, and time may not be donated to another speaker. COUNCIL COMMITTEE / APPOINTMENTS / LIAISON REPORTS AND ALL AB 1234 DISCLOSURE REPORTING This agenda item allows Councilmembers to make announcements regarding Council committees, appointments or liaison reports, and all individuals as appropriate to disclose any conferences, training, seminars, etc. attended at the Agency’s expense, per Government Code §53232.3(d). Lists of the conferences, training, seminars, and other activities generally attended by the City Council, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk, and City Treasurer are included as appendices to the City Budget. The budget is available on the city’s website at http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov/Government/budget_information/. Exceptions to these lists have been submitted as a report to the City Clerk for inclusion in the record of this meeting... PUBLIC HEARING Public Hearings allow citizens to speak in favor or against specific items brought to Council by staff. Staff may provide a presentation. The Mayor will open the Public Hearing to receive comments on that specific item. Upon hearing all public comments, the Mayor will close or continue the Public Hearing. Council may then decide to engage in discussion and/or take action on the item. To participate in a Public Hearing, green Request to Speak forms are available at the Chambers entrance and are collected by the Sergeant at Arms. ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING Administrative Hearings required by Huntington Beach Municipal Code Section 1.18 entitle only affected property owners to speak on a respective item. To participate in the Administrative Hearing, blue Request to Speak forms are available at the Chambers entrance and are collected by the Sergeant at Arms (the Police Officer located near the speakers’ podium). CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar items are considered routine items that do not normally require separate consideration. The City Council/Public Financing Authority usually makes one motion for approval of all the items listed under this section. However, Council may remove an item from the motion for discussion purposes. ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS Administrative Items are considered separately and require separate motions. These actions are normally of a non-routine nature, and frequently require a staff presentation. ORDINANCES Ordinances require two readings before the City Council. They are first introduced, and then adopted at a subsequent meeting. Ordinances typically become law thirty (30) days after adoption. However, an emergency ordinance may be adopted upon introduction, and is effective immediately. COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS This portion of the agenda is provided for Items of business presented by individual members of the City Council. HB -2- -1- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, April 03, 2017 FRED A. WILSON City Manager MICHAEL E. GATES City Attorney ROBIN ESTANISLAU City Clerk ALISA CUTCHEN City Treasurer AGENDA Monday, April 03, 2017 CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH 4:00 PM - Study Session 6:00 PM - Regular Meeting Council Chambers - 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL BARBARA DELGLEIZE Mayor MIKE POSEY PATRICK BRENDEN Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember JILL HARDY WILLIAM O’CONNELL Councilmember Councilmember ERIK PETERSON LYN SEMETA Councilmember Councilmember 4:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL O'Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, Peterson ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO STUDY SESSION / CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) STUDY SESSION 1. The Finance Commission will provide a presentation on the Subcommittee Findings and Recommendations for the Downtown Bid. 2. Staff to present suggested changes to Resolution No. 2013-24 (Downtown Specific Plan District 1 Alcohol and Live Entertainment) Conditions of Approval. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION Mayor Delgleize to Announce: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council takes this opportunity to publicly introduce and identify designated labor negotiator, City Manager Fred Wilson, who will be participating in today's Closed Session discussions regarding labor negotiations with: Huntington Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (POA), and/or Surf City Lifeguard Employees’ Association (SCLEA). HB -3- -2- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, April 03, 2017 CLOSED SESSION 3. Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiators and Fred Wilson, City Manager regarding the following: Huntington Beach Firefighters’ Association (HBFA), Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association (POA), and/or Surf City Lifeguard Employees’ Association (SCLEA). 4. Pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2) the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding potential litigation. Number of cases, one (1). 6:00 PM – COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING ROLL CALL O'Connell, Semeta, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, Peterson PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE INVOCATION - To be led by Father Christian Mondor of Sts. Simon and Jude Catholic Church, and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation. CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Delgleize to announce April as National Child Abuse Prevention Month and present Proclamation to the Child Abuse Prevention Center’s Executive Director, Scott Trotter. Mayor Delgleize to present the Fair Housing Month Proclamation to Senior Housing Counselor, Adrienne Ray of the Fair Housing Foundation. Mayor Delgleize to call on representatives from the International Surfing Museum who will present "Operation Rings." ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) HB -4- -3- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, April 03, 2017 COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 1. City Manager to update the City Council on the current uses for the Rodgers Center located at 1706 Orange Avenue. CONSENT CALENDAR 2. Approve and adopt minutes Recommended Action: Review and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes dated March 20, 2017, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk. 3. Approve Cal OES Violence Against Women Act Grant (LE16 09 6860) for the 2017 calendar year which includes accepting the grant between the State of California, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the City; approve the appropriation and expenditure of $272,183, of which $204,137 is to be fully reimbursed by the grant from Cal OES; and, amend the Professional Services Listing to include provided domestic violence services Recommended Action: A) Accept the grant between the State of California, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the City of Huntington Beach; and, B) Approve the appropriation and expenditure of $272,183 of which $204,137 is to be fully reimbursed by the grant from Cal OES. The remaining $68,046 will be funded from appropriations in the police department’s budget; and, C) Amend the Professional Services Listing to include provided domestic violence services. 4. City Council Position on Legislation Pending before Congress and the State Legislature as Recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) Recommended Action: A) Approve a City position of Support for the highest possible funding for FY 2018 for the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (T-HUD) bill; and, B) Approve a City position of Oppose on AB 199 (Chu) Public Works: Private Residential Projects; and, C) Approve a City position of Support on AB 572 (Quirk-Silva) Alcoholism or Drug Treatment Facilities: Orange County pilot program; and, HB -5- -4- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, April 03, 2017 D) Approve a City position of Support on AB 346 (Daly) Redevelopment: Housing Successor Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund; and, E) Approve a City position of Support on AB 285 (Melendez) Drug and Alcohol Free Residences; and, F) Approve a City position of Oppose on SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities; and, G) Approve a City position of Oppose on AB 252 (Ridley-Thomas) Local Government: Taxation Prohibition Video Streaming Services; and, H) Approve a City position of Oppose on SB 25 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process; and, I) Approve a City position of Oppose of SB 57 (Stern) Natural Gas Storage Moratorium. 5. 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 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, G) Approve the “Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program Annual Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2015-16.” 6. Request to approve Conceptual Master Plan of Improvements for Irby Park, update of the Irby Park Master Plan, and potential updates and/or changes to the existing park HB -6- -5- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, April 03, 2017 Recommended Action: A) Approve the Conceptual Master Plan for Improvements at Irby Park as presented; and, B) Approve updating the Irby Park Master Plan, along with potential updates and/or changes to the existing park. 7. Adopt Resolution No. 2017-12 establishing Permit Parking District "U" affecting residents along Polynesian Lane and Regatta Drive in Huntington Beach Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2017-12, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing Permit Parking District “U” on Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane Within the City of Huntington Beach.” ORDINANCES FOR INTRODUCTION 8. Approve for introduction Ordinance Nos. 4117, 4118, 4119, 4124 and 4129, amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to enhance law enforcement efforts to provide public safety and quality of life in Huntington Beach related to sidewalks, beach regulations, camping on public property, park regulations and refuse management; and, adopt Resolution 2017-03 regarding camping on public property Recommended Action: A) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4117, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 12.32 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Sidewalks;” and, B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4118, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.08 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Beach Regulations;” and, C) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4119, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.10 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Camping on Public Property;” and, D) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4124, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Park Regulations;” and, E) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4129, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 8.21 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Refuse Management;” and, F) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-13, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Regarding the Administrative Procedure for the Removal of Unlawful Campsites, Bulky Items, and Personal Property.” HB -7- -6- City Council/PFA Agenda – Monday, April 03, 2017 COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS 9. Submitted by Mayor Pro Tem Posey and Councilmember Peterson - Direct the City manager to issue a Request for Proposal for Parking Management Services for the Main Promenade Parking Structure Recommended Action: Direct the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposal for Parking Management Services for the Main Promenade Parking Structure within 60 days. 10. Submitted by Councilmember O'Connell - Consider establishing a City Council Ad Hoc Committee on Homelessness Recommended Action: Mayor to establish a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to work with key stakeholders to formulate a homelessness workplan based upon the recommendations of the Homeless Task Force for the Council's further review and action. 11. Submitted by Councilmember O'Connell - Reaffirm the City's Declaration of Policy about Human Dignity Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Manager bring forth to the City Council a resolution reaffirming the City's support for the "Declaration of Policy About Human Dignity." COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) ADJOURNMENT The next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority is Monday, April 17, 2017, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. INTERNET ACCESS TO CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY AGENDA AND STAFF REPORT MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AT http://www.huntingtonbeachca.gov HB -8- Minutes City Council/Public Financing Authority City of Huntington Beach Monday, March 20, 2017 4:00 PM - Council Chambers 6:00 PM - Council Chambers Civic Center, 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, California 92648 A video recording of the 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM portion of this meeting is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and archived at www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas/ 4:00 PM - COUNCIL CHAMBERS CALLED TO ORDER — 4:01 PM ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Posey requested, and was granted, permission to be absent pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-54. Present: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson Absent: Posey ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) Pursuant to the Brown "Open Meetings" Act, City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced supplemental communications that were received by her office following distribution of the Council Agenda packet: For Study Session Item No. 1, three (3) communications — a PowerPoint communication entitled Shipley to Shore Trail System Study Session – Huntington Central Park – Orange County Harriet Weider Park; and email communications from Shari Engel and Steve Engel. PUBLIC COMMENTS PERTAINING TO STUDY SESSION / CLOSED SESSION ITEMS (3 Minute Time Limit) — 4 Speakers The number [hh:mm:ss] following the speakers' comments indicates their approximate starting time in the archived video located at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas. Juana Mueller was called to speak and voiced concerns about the lack of a permanent parking lot at the Shipley Nature Center which, in her opinion, could be used as the starting point for the proposed "Shipley to Shore" trail. (00:02:31) Steve Engel was called to speak and voiced his support of the proposed "Shipley to Shore" trail and encouraged inclusion of a permanent parking lot at the Shipley Nature Center. (00:06:00) Betty Reinertson was called to speak and shared her support of the proposed "Shipley to Shore" trail, including a permanent parking lot at the Shipley Nature Center. (00:07:53) HB -9-Item 2. - 1 Council/PFA Regular Minutes March 20, 2017 Page 2 of 9 Jean Nagy was called to speak and shared her support of the “Shipley to Shore” trail, and reported a chasm that has developed from rain along the Equestrian Center/Central Park border that needs to be filled for safety reasons. (00:08:34) STUDY SESSION 1. Community Services Department presented a report on the “Shipley to Shore” trail concept linking Huntington Central Park to Orange County Harriet Wieder Regional Park, including an overview of the concept, issues, opportunities and constraints of the project in response to Council direction provided at the January 26, 2017, Strategic Planning Retreat. City Manager Wilson introduced Community Services Director, Janeen Laudenback who presented a PowerPoint entitled: Shipley to Shore Trail System, Study Session, Huntington Central Park - Orange County Harriet Weider Park with slides entitled: What is the "Shipley to Shore" Trail System?, Why "Shipley to Shore" Trails?, Park and Recreation Master Plan, General Plan, Trail Stakeholders, City of Huntington Beach Central Park, Central Park Trail System, Orange County Parks, Harriet Weider Park, Harriet Weider Park Proposed Trail Improvements, Detail of SCE "Pinch-Point", Oil Operations, Another Look at the Trail, Opportunities and Constraints, Public Safety Challenges (2), Where Are We Now?, and Next Steps. Councilmember Brenden and Real Estate and Project Manager Carlos Marquez discussed leasehold areas and various owners of properties involved, and current uses of the properties. Councilmember Brenden and Director Laudenback discussed the two Central Park access points off of Edwards. Councilmember Hardy, Director Laudenback and City Attorney Gates discussed the possibility of moving the temporary parking lot at Shipley Nature Center, and communications in process with the Parks Defense Fund attorney. Councilmember O'Connell and Director Laudenback discussed the time frame, costs and completing this project in a phase-by-phase process. Councilmember Brenden requested that the Central Park trails enhancement phase include looking at a "boardwalk" type trail around the lake because of all of the roots that can create trip hazards. Councilmember Brenden and Director Laudenback discussed the plan to negotiate with the County regarding the land they own within the trail system, as well as the lack of knowledge about the Bolsa Chica Conservancy plan for habitat restoration. RECESS TO CLOSED SESSION — 4:36 PM City Clerk Robin Estanislau announced that Closed Session Item No. 6, regarding the lawsuit of Kevin Jackson vs. City of Huntington Beach, has been pulled from tonight's discussions. A motion was made by O’Connell, second Brenden to recess to Closed Session for Item Nos. 2 – 5, and 7. With no objections, the motion passed. Mayor Delgleize Announced: Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council takes this opportunity to publicly introduce and identify designated labor negotiator, City Manager Fred Wilson, who will be participating in today's Closed Session discussions regarding labor negotiations with: Huntington HB -10-Item 2. - 2 Council/PFA Regular Minutes March 20, 2017 Page 3 of 9 Beach Firefighters' Association (HBFA), Huntington Beach Police Officers' Association (POA), and/or Surf City Lifeguard Employees’ Association (SCLEA). CLOSED SESSION 2. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Huntington Shorecliff, LP v. City of Huntington Beach, et al. (JS Stadium), Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2011-00463995. 3. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Cory Wekerle v. City of Huntington Beach, Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2016-00839579. 4. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: ComUNIDAD v. City of Huntington Beach; Orange County Superior Court Case No. 30-2016-00869173-CU- WM-CXC. 5. Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6, the City Council recessed into Closed Session to meet with its designated labor negotiators and Fred Wilson, City Manager regarding the following: Huntington Beach Firefighters’ Association (HBFA), Huntington Beach Police Officers’ Association (POA), and/or Surf City Lifeguard Employees’ Association (SCLEA). 6. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council shall recess into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Kevin Jackson vs. City of Huntingotn Beach, WCAB Case No. ADJ1015343 & ADJ10152339; Claim No. COHB-14-0168. 7. Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1), the City Council recessed into Closed Session to confer with the City Attorney regarding the following lawsuit: Ronald Thompson vs. City of Huntington Beach, WCAB Case No. ADJ9431733; Claim No. COHB- 14-0082. 6:00 PM – COUNCIL CHAMBERS RECONVENED CITY COUNCIL/PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING — 6:06 PM ROLL CALL Mayor Pro Tem Posey requested, and was granted, permission to be absent pursuant to Resolution No. 2001-54. Present: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson Absent: Posey PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE — Led by Councilmember Hardy INVOCATION — Led by Mark Currie of Baha'i of Huntington Beach and member of the Greater Huntington Beach Interfaith Council HB -11-Item 2. - 3 Council/PFA Regular Minutes March 20, 2017 Page 4 of 9 In permitting a nonsectarian invocation, the City does not intend to proselytize or advance any faith or belief. Neither the City nor the City Council endorses any particular religious belief or form of invocation. CLOSED SESSION REPORT BY CITY ATTORNEY — None AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS Mayor Delgleize called on Victoria Alberty and Karen of Top Dog Barkery, who presented Husky mixes Jax and Angel, the Adoptable Pets of the Month. More details about these two dogs, and other dogs available for adoption, may be found at www.waggintrails.org Mayor Delgleize presented a commendation to Marina High School student Austin Hwang who was recently honored as a “Luminary” by the Disneyland Resort for his action to improve his community. Austin is the founder and president of Marina Wave, an environmental club at Marina High School with a focus on water conservation, education, fundraising, and volunteering. Mayor Delgleize called on Fire Chief David Segura who presented commendations to Golden West College Track and Field coaches and staff for their life-saving efforts to help ASGWC President and team member Javier Venegas when he recently collapsed on the field. Mayor Delgleize called on Senior Librarian Barbara Richardson who presented the Mayor’s Award to Library Services Clerk, Debra Garcia. For the past ten (10) years Debra has been instilling the love of reading to toddlers through her interactive story telling. She is so popular that Tabby Theater is filled to capacity whenever she reads, reaching over 40,000 children and adults each year. Her positive impact in the community is inspiring. At the end of the year, unfortunately, Ms. Garcia will be moving to Texas, but she is commended for having a major impact in the lives of many residents of Huntington Beach. ANNOUNCEMENT OF SUPPLEMENTAL COMMUNICATIONS (Received After Agenda Distribution) — None PUBLIC COMMENTS (3 Minute Time Limit) — 4 Speakers The number [hh:mm:ss] following the speakers' comments indicates their approximate starting time in the archived video located at http://www.surfcity-hb.org/government/agendas. Emma Moses, Senior, Edison High School and member of Edison's Center for International Business and Communication Studies (CIBACS) was called to speak and invited community participation in her upcoming Run Fore One 3K Fundraiser at Edison on Sunday, April 2, at 8 a.m., to raise awareness and funds for clean drinking water in Africa. (01:00:40) Norma Vander Molen, Residents for Responsible Desalination (R4RD), was called to speak and shared her opposition to the Poseidon Desalination project. (01:02:58) Dr. Mikel Hogan, Residents for Responsible Desalination (R4RD), was called to speak, asked questions of the City Council about costs, permits and reports for the Poseidon Desalination project, and requested a Study Session update by City staff for the public. (01:06:23) Shawn Thompson, City of Huntington Beach Environmental Board, was called to speak and shared her support for the grant the City is applying for to provide winter habitat for Monarch butterflies. Speaking as a private citizen, she stated her support for Councilmember Items No. 11, official naming of the Bandstand at Central Park for Tom Ridley. (01:08:26) HB -12-Item 2. - 4 Council/PFA Regular Minutes March 20, 2017 Page 5 of 9 COUNCIL COMMITTEE - APPOINTMENTS - LIAISON REPORTS, AB 1234 REPORTING, AND OPENNESS IN NEGOTIATIONS DISCLOSURES Councilmember Peterson reported attending the Huntington Beach Police Department Awards Ceremony, and a legislative advocacy trip to Sacramento for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Councilmember Hardy invited everyone to the public discussion this week by Jamie Ford, author of the HB Reads One Book, Hotel on the Corner of Bitter and Sweet, at Central Library on Wednesday, March 23, 7 – 9 p.m. Councilmember Semeta, Council Liaison for the Sister City Association, reported attending the Cherry Blossom Festival this past Sunday, and thanked Association Board Member Maureen Anzivino for a successful event. Councilmember Semeta also reported attending an Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC-OC) trip to Sacramento, the Huntington Beach Police Department Awards Ceremony which included acknowledging Councilmember Peterson's son Dylan for being instrumental in recently saving a life at Huntington Beach Pier. Councilmember O'Connell reported attending an Association of California Cities - Orange County (ACC- OC) and United Way meeting on Homelessness, the Huntington Beach Police Department Awards Ceremony, the 3/1 Marines 5K Run, the ACC-OC legislative advocacy trip to Sacramento with the Orange County Business Council to advocate for funding and job opportunities for Huntington Beach, the Chamber of Commerce State of the City event, and the Cherry Blossom Festival. Councilmember Brenden reported attending a Downtown Business Improvement District meeting, an Oak View Task Force meeting, the Huntington Beach Police Department Awards Ceremony, the California Energy Commission hearing on the new AES power plant in Sacramento with ACC-OC, the Chamber of Commerce State of the City event, and the ACC-OC & Environment Committee event "Community Choice Aggregations: A New Option for Local Governments.” Mayor Delgleize reported attending many of the events already listed by the other Council members, plus the 18th Annual Holocaust Art and Writing Contest Awards Ceremony for elementary, junior high and high school students, which included seven (7) schools from Huntington Beach. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT City Manager Fred Wilson reported that an update on the disposition of the Rodgers Seniors' Center downtown will be given at the next regular City Council meeting of April 3rd. CONSENT CALENDAR 1. Approved and adopted minutes A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to review and adopt the City Council/Public Financing Authority regular meeting minutes dated March 6, 2017, and the City Council special meeting minutes dated March 14, 2017, as written and on file in the office of the City Clerk. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None HB -13-Item 2. - 5 Council/PFA Regular Minutes March 20, 2017 Page 6 of 9 2. Received and filed the City of Huntington Beach Strategic Plan Updates A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to receive and file the Six-Month Strategic Objectives. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None 3. Approved Fiscal Year 2015/16 Year-End Budget Adjustments, Inter-fund Transfers and Available Fund Balance Recommendations A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to approve the year-end budget adjustments, transfers, and fund balance recommendations for the Fiscal Year 2015/16 Revised Budget in the Funds and amounts contained in Attachments 1 and 2 (Fiscal Year 15/16 Inter-Fund Transfers and Inter- Department Transfers; Fiscal Year 15/16 Appropriation Adjustments). The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None 4. Approved Fiscal Year 2015/16 Year End Audit and Consolidated General Liability Fund A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to authorize the City Manager to perform all actions necessary to properly record and fund a General Liability Internal Service Fund (Fund 552) for the fiscal year ended September 30, 2016, and adjust the FY 2016/17 Adopted Budget accordingly. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None 5. Authorized the release of the Guarantee & Warranty Bond for Lamb Park (Fairwind Subdivision) A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to release the Guarantee & Warranty Bond No. PB03010402299 and instruct the City Treasurer to notify the Surety, Philadelphia Indemnity Insurance Company, of this action. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None HB -14-Item 2. - 6 Council/PFA Regular Minutes March 20, 2017 Page 7 of 9 6. Adopted Resolution No. 2017-11 amending the City’s Classification Plan adding the classification of Senior Finance Analyst A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to adopt Resolution No. 2017-11, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the City Classification Plan by Adding the Classification of Senior Finance Analyst." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None 7. Approved and authorized execution of Amendment No. 2 with Hinderliter, de Llamas and Associates in an amount not to exceed $115,000 for Sales and Use Tax Auditing Services and increase Appropriations and Professional Services Authority accordingly A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute "Amendment No. 2 to Agreement Between the City of Huntington Beach and Hinderliter, de Llamas and Associates for Sales and Use Services;" and, increase Appropriations and Professional Services Authority in the Finance Department Accordingly. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None 8. Approved and authorized execution of a three-year Professional Services Contract with Keyser Marston Associates, Inc., in the amount not exceed $180,000 for Economic Analysis Services A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute a "Professional Services Contract between the City of Huntington Beach and Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. for Economic Analysis Services" in the amount not to exceed $180,000 over a three- year period. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None 9. Authorized the City Attorney to enter into Amendment No. 1 to Agreement with AlvaradoSmith, and amend the Budget and Professional Services Authority accordingly A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to authorize the City Attorney to enter into "Amendment No. 1 to Attorney Services Agreement with AlvaradoSmith," and amend the Budget and Professional Services Authority accordingly. The motion carried by the following vote: HB -15-Item 2. - 7 Council/PFA Regular Minutes March 20, 2017 Page 8 of 9 AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None 10. Adopted Ordinance No. 4130 re-establishing Fees for State Franchised Video Service Providers as part of the City’s membership on the joint powers authority of the Public Cable Television Authority (PCTA) Approved for introduction March 6, 2017, Vote: 7-0 A motion was made by Peterson, second O’Connell to adopt Ordinance No. 4130, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Re-Establishing Fees for State Franchised Video Service Providers." The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER ITEMS 11. Submitted by Councilmember Brenden - Naming of the Bandstand in Central Park Councilmember Brenden introduced this item, provided some background details, and requested that the prescribed procedures be followed to acknowledge the contribution of Tom Ridley to the Concert Band and Summer Concert in the Park program. A motion was made by Brenden, second O’Connell to task the official naming of the Bandstand at Central Park for Tom Ridley to the Community Services Commission for appropriate research, review and recommendation to the full City Council. The motion carried by the following vote: AYES: O’Connell, Semeta, Delgleize, Hardy, Brenden, and Peterson ABSENT: Posey NOES: None COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS (Not Agendized) Councilmember Peterson expressed condolences at the passing this past week of Clem Dominguez, his appointed Planning Commissioner. Clem was an active surfer, an active member of the community who asked lots of questions, did his homework and was very, very detailed. Councilmember Hardy stated that she enjoyed knowing Clem through the years, and expressed her condolences to his family for a man that will be missed. Councilmember Semeta expressed her condolences to family of Mr. Dominguez whom she described as a very unique man who was able to disagree and yet remain a friendly individual. She also acknowledged the Assistance League of Huntington Beach Annual Fundraiser - "Treasures by the Sea 2017" which was attended by more than 800 people. She reported attending the 3/1 Marines 5K Fun Run/Walk and made the commitment to participate next year. HB -16-Item 2. - 8 Council/PFA Regular Minutes March 20, 2017 Page 9 of 9 Councilmember Brenden announced that he was challenging all Council members to participate in next year's 3/1 Marines 5K Run Run/Walk Council Relay to raise funds for a local charity. He also expressed his condolences and prayers for the family of Clem Dominguez and the great loss to the City. Councilmember Brenden reported attending the Ribbon Cutting and Grand Opening for Salt Life on Main Street, taking a tour of the Carlsbad Desalination facility, attending the Chamber of Commerce AM Connect Breakfast, a performance of Forever Young, the Rotary Club Surf City Splash event, participating in the Arbor Day Walk which went from Central Park up to the Urban Forest, taking a 25- mile bicycle ride along the Santa Ana River to observe first-hand conditions of concern, attending the Orange County Council of Government's General Assembly meeting, the Goldenwest College Patrons Luncheon and Nature Center Ceremony, the Chamber of Commerce Orchard Supply Hardware Grand Opening, the Assistance League of Huntington Beach Annual Fundraiser – "Treasures by the Sea 2017" and the Cherry Blossom Festival in Central Park. Councilmember O'Connell reported attending the Chamber of Commerce State of the City meeting, and publicly accepts Councilmember Brenden's 3/1 Marines Council Relay challenge for next year. He expressed his condolences to the family of Clem Dominguez and asked that this meeting be adjourned in memory of a man who will be greatly missed. Mayor Delgleize reported also attending the many events already listed by other Council members, as well as the Make-A-Wish Foundation Event at Harbour View Elementary School to fulfill a wish for Abigail Tremp, a 12 year old with a heart condition, who will now get to go to Washington, DC. ADJOURNMENT — At 7:06 PM, in memory of Clem Dominguez, to the next regularly scheduled meeting of the Huntington Beach City Council/Public Financing Authority on Monday, April 3, 2017, at 4:00 PM in the Civic Center Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California. ______________________________________ City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach and Secretary of the Public Financing Authority of the City of Huntington Beach, California ATTEST: ______________________________________ City Clerk-Secretary ______________________________________ Mayor-Chair HB -17-Item 2. - 9 Dept. ID PD-17-003 Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Statement of Issue: The Police Department applied for a grant through the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) to fund our Violence Against Women Program. The Police Department was notified of its award of $204,137. City Council approval is necessary to fully accept the grant from the State. The grant has a three-year funding cycle, with the third year being January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2017. Financial Impact: A City match amount of $68,046 is required and has been included in the police department’s personnel budget under the General Fund, Account Number 10070203. The total project cost for the 2017 calendar year is $272,183 with the grant award offsetting $204,137 in new revenue. A new grant fund will be established upon approval by City Council. No additional appropriation of funds is necessary. Recommended Action: A) Accept the grant between the State of California, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the City of Huntington Beach; and, B) Approve the appropriation and expenditure of $272,183 of which $204,137 is to be fully reimbursed by the grant from Cal OES. The remaining $68,046 will be funded from appropriations in the police department’s budget; and, C) Amend the Professional Services Listing to include provided domestic violence services. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: The Police Department applied for, and was awarded, a grant by Cal OES to combat, investigate and prosecute domestic violence, sexual assault, and stalking cases. This is the third year of a three-year grant cycle. This third-year grant funding is $272,183, which includes a $68,046 City 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: Robert Handy, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Approve Cal OES Violence Against Women Act Grant (LE16 09 6860) for the 2017 calendar year which includes accepting the grant between the State of California, Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) and the City; Approve the appropriation and expenditure of $272,183, of which $204,137 is to be fully reimbursed by the grant from Cal OES; and, amend the Professional Services Listing to include provided domestic violence services HB -18-Item 3. - 1 Dept. ID PD-17-003 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 match. The majority of the grant will pay for the services of two Victim Advocates. The Victim Advocates are contracted through the Community Service Programs, Inc. and Interval House. The remaining funds will pay for two part-time domestic violence investigators. This collaboration has been in effect since 1998. Since the inception of the Violence Against Women Project, the advocates have been continuously funded through a series of grants. The goal of the program is to help heal families and stop the cycle of violence. Without this grant, the Police Department would not be able to offer the services of victim advocates to victims of domestic violence. The advocates work closely with a police department investigator to form a cohesive team to assist victims. The acceptance of the grant will pay for the collaboration involving the Police Department through December 31, 2017. The cash match of $68,046 is located within the existing department budget. In addition, the agreement with Interval House offers priority shelter for domestic violence victims and their children from Huntington Beach on a 24 hour basis. The two part-time investigators assist a full-time detective, allowing the police department to investigate domestic violence incidents in a timely manner, resulting in improved services to victims. Environmental Status: Not applicable. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and maintain public safety Attachment(s): 1) Grant Award letter HB -19-Item 3. - 2 EDMUND G. BROWN JR. GOVERNOR Cal OES GOVERNOR'S OPPICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES MARK S. GHILARDUCCI DIRECTOR March 8, 2017 Bo Svendsbo, Lieutenant Huntington Beach, City of 2000 Main Street Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Subject: NOTIFICATION OF APPLICATION APPROVAL Law Enforcement Specialized Units Program Subaward #: LE16 09 6860, Cal OES ID: 059-36000 Dear Lt. Svendsbo: Congratulations! The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES) has approved your application in the amount of $204,137, subject to Budget approval. A copy of your approved subaward is enclosed for your records. Cal OES will make every effort to process payment requests within 45 days of receipt. This subaward is subject to the Cal OES Subrecipient Handbook. You are encouraged to read and familiarize yourself with the Cal OES Subrecipient Handbook, which can be viewed on Cal OES website at www.caloes.ca.gov . Any funds received in excess of current needs, approved amounts, or those found owed as a result of a close-out or audit, must be refunded to the State within 30 days upon receipt of an invoice from Cal OES. Should you have questions on your subaward please contact your Program Specialist. VSPS Grants Processing Enclosure c: Subrecipient's file 3650 SCHRIEVER AVENUE • MATHER, CALIFORNIA 95655 VICTIM SERVICES & PUBLIC SAFETY BRANCH TELEPHONE: (916) 845-8112 • FAX: (916) 636-3770 HB -20-Item 3. - 3 Dept. ID AD-17-012 Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Statement of Issue: On March 22, 2017, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee met to discuss Federal and State legislation. At this meeting members recommended a support position for the highest level of funding for Fiscal Year 2018 for the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (T-HUD) bill. Additionally, the members voted to take a support position on AB 572, AB 346, AB 285; and an oppose position on AB 199, AB 252, SB 57, SB 35, and SB 649 pending before the State legislature. This action requests the City Council authorization for the Mayor to sign City position letters on the aforementioned pending Federal and State legislation. Financial Impact: There is no fiscal impact. Recommended Action: A) Approve a City position of Support for the highest possible funding for FY 2018 for the Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (T-HUD) bill; and, B) Approve a City position of Oppose on AB 199 (Chu) Public Works: Private Residential Projects; and, C) Approve a City position of Support on AB 572 (Quirk-Silva) Alcoholism or Drug Treatment Facilities: Orange County pilot program; and, D) Approve a City position of Support on AB 346 (Daly) Redevelopment: Housing Successor Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund; and, E) Approve a City position of Support on AB 285 (Melendez) Drug and Alcohol Free Residences; and, F) Approve a City position of Oppose on SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities; and, G) Approve a City position of Oppose on AB 252 (Ridley-Thomas) Local Government: Taxation Prohibition Video Streaming Services; and, H) Approve a City position of Oppose on SB 25 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process; and, I) Approve a City position of Oppose of SB 57 (Stern) Natural Gas Storage Moratorium. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the recommended actions and direct staff accordingly. 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: City Council Position on Legislation Pending before Congress and the State Legislature as Recommended by the City Council Intergovernmental Relations Committee (IRC) HB -21-Item 4. - 1 Dept. ID AD-17-012 Page 2 of 4 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Analysis: On Wednesday, March 22, 2017, the Intergovernmental Relations Committee met to discuss pending Federal and State legislation. The City’s Federal Representative from Townsend Public Affairs (TPA) provided the Committee with an update on the President’s proposed budget. The Committee also reviewed the 2017 State Legislative Matrix provided by the City’s State Advocate, TPA. The Committee members chose to take the following positions on pending legislation. Support – Transportation, Housing, and Urban Development (T-HUD) Bill Under the preliminary budget, both the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships programs would be eliminated. Additionally, funding for transportation programs like TIGER are slated for reductions. State and local governments and the communities they serve rely on the resources provided by the Housing and Urban Development Department and the Department of Transportation. These infrastructure needs – for transportation, community development, and accessible affordable housing – exist in the City. Support – AB 572 (Quirk-Silva) – Alcoholism or Drug Treatment Facilities Orange County This bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services to establish a pilot program to locate an investigator within a participating county to investigate complaints against licensed adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities within the county. This bill would require the department to implement the pilot program by executing a contract with the County of Orange providing that the department will assign an investigator and the county will reimburse the department for the investigator’s compensation and benefits. The bill would require the pilot program to be completed no later than December 31, 2019. Currently there is limited State staff to investigate complaints and this would assist cities that have limited staffing and who have seen an influx of these treatment facilities. Support AB 346 (Daly) Redevelopment Housing Successor Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund Existing law authorizes the city, county, or city and county that created a former redevelopment agency to elect to retain the housing assets and functions previously performed by the former redevelopment agency. Existing law requires the housing successor to maintain any funds transferred to it, together with any funds generated from housing assets in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund to be used in accordance with applicable housing-related provisions of the Community Redevelopment law. This bill would authorize a housing successor to use remaining funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for homelessness services, transitional housing or emergency housing services, as well as for the development of affordable housing. Support – AB 285 (Melendez) Drug and Alcohol Free Residences Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of community care facilities by the State Department of Social Services. This Department also provides for the licensure and regulation of adult alcoholism and drug abuse recovery and treatment facilities for adults. This bill would, define a “drug and alcohol free residence” as a residential property that is operated as a cooperative living arrangement to provide an alcohol and drug free environment for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug abuse, or both, who seek a living environment that supports personal recovery. As written, this bill would authorize a drug and alcohol free residence to demonstrate its commitment to providing a supportive recovery environment by applying and becoming certified by an approved certifying organization that is approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. HB -22-Item 4. - 2 Dept. ID AD-17-012 Page 3 of 4 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Oppose – AB 199 (Chu) Public Works: Private Residential Projects This bill would eliminate the long-standing residential exemption from prevailing wage rates and thereby make private, market-rate residential development a public works project for which prevailing wage would be paid. Oppose – AB 252 (Ridley-Thomas) Local Government Taxation Prohibition Video Streaming Services Existing law authorizes counties, cities, and other local agencies to impose various taxes and fees in connection with activity or property within those jurisdictions. This bill would prohibit the imposition by a city, city and county, or county, including a chartered city, of a tax on video streaming services, including but not limited to, any tax on the sale or use of video streaming services (e.g. Netflix, Hulu, etc.). This bill would enact a technologically biased tax policy that undermines local voters. AB 252 imposes a discriminatory tax that disadvantages cable and vide providers. Tax policies should be technology neutral and applied based on service provided, not the technology used. Oppose – SB 57 (Stern) Natural Gas Storage Moratorium This bill would extend the moratorium on natural gas injections at the Aliso Canyon storage facility until the Root Cause Analysis of the leak that started in October 2015 has been completed. It would also require the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) to complete its analysis regarding the need for the Aliso Canyon storage facility by the end of the year. Additionally, the extension of the moratorium would impact the region’s energy reliability. The CPUC has determined the existing production capacity at Aliso Canyon is insufficient to meet estimated demand in the coming season. Oppose – SB 35 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a General Plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. This bill would require the planning agency to include it its annual report specified information regarding units of housing, including rental housing and housing designated for homeownership, that have completed construction. The bill would also require an accessory dwelling unit development or a multifamily housing development that satisfies specified planning objective standards to be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and would not be subject to a conditional use permit. This bill would limit the authority of a local government to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions. Oppose – SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collation facility, as specified is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit. This bill would define the term “small cell” as a particular type of telecommunications facility for these purposes which would take away the rights of the city to issue discretionary permits. The Intergovernmental Relations Committee, comprised of Mayor Delgleize and Council Member Jill Hardy (Mayor Pro Temp Posey was absent), approved a support position on the T-HUD Bill, AB 572, AB 346, AB 285 and an oppose position on AB 199, AB 252, SB 35, SB 57, SB 649. Environmental Status: Not applicable. HB -23-Item 4. - 3 Dept. ID AD-17-012 Page 4 of 4 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Strategic Plan Goal: Strengthen economic and financial sustainability Enhance and maintain public safety Enhance and maintain City service delivery Improve quality of life Attachment(s): 1. AB 572 (Quirk-Silva) – Alcoholism or Drug Treatment Facilities Orange County 2. AB 346 (Daly) Redevelopment Housing Successor Low Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund 3. AB 285 (Melendez) Drug and Alcohol Free Residences 4. AB 199 (Chu) Public Works: Private Residential Projects 5. AB 252 (Ridley-Thomas) Local Government Taxation Prohibition Video Streaming Services 6. SB 57 (Stern) Natural Gas Storage Moratorium 7. SB 35 (Wiener) Planning and Zoning Affordable Housing Streamlined Approval Process 8. SB 649 (Hueso) Wireless Telecommunication Facilities HB -24-Item 4. - 4 california legislature—2017–18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 572 Introduced by Assembly Member Quirk-Silva February 14, 2017 An act to add and repeal Section 11834.015 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities. legislative counsel’s digest AB 572, as introduced, Quirk-Silva. Alcoholism or drug abuse treatment facilities: Orange County pilot program. Existing law provides that the State Department of Health Care Services has the sole authority in state government to license adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities, as defined. Existing law authorizes the department to conduct announced or unannounced site visits to licensed facilities to review compliance with all applicable statutes and regulations. This bill would require the State Department of Health Care Services to establish a pilot program to locate an investigator within a participating county to investigate complaints against licensed adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment facilities within the county. The participating county would be the County of Orange if the Orange County Board of Supervisors elects to participate in the pilot program. The bill would require the department to implement the pilot program by executing a contract with the County of Orange providing that the department will assign an investigator and the county will reimburse the department for the investigator’s compensation and benefits. The bill would require the pilot program to be completed no later than December 31, 2019, and would require the county to submit 99 HB -25-Item 4. - 5 a report of the results of the pilot program, as specified, to the Legislature no later than July 1, 2020. The provisions of this bill would be repealed on January 1, 2021. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 11834.015 is added to the Health and line 2 Safety Code, to read: line 3 11834.015. (a) (1) The State Department of Health Care line 4 Services shall establish a pilot program to locate a Substance Use line 5 Disorder Compliance Division investigator within a participating line 6 county to investigate licensed adult alcoholism or drug abuse line 7 recovery or treatment facilities within that county. The participating line 8 county shall be the County of Orange, if the Orange County Board line 9 of Supervisors adopts an ordinance or resolution electing to line 10 participate in the pilot program. line 11 (2) The department shall implement the pilot program by line 12 executing a contract with the County of Orange that provides for line 13 all of the following: line 14 (A) The department shall assign a Substance Use Disorder line 15 Compliance Division investigator to investigate complaints against line 16 licensed adult alcoholism or drug abuse recovery or treatment line 17 facilities within the County of Orange. line 18 (B) The County of Orange shall reimburse the department for line 19 the investigator’s compensation and benefits. line 20 (C) The County of Orange shall provide office space and line 21 amenities to the investigator. line 22 (b) The pilot program established pursuant to subdivision (a) line 23 shall be completed no later than December 31, 2019. line 24 (c) If the County of Orange participates in the pilot program line 25 authorized by subdivision (a), it shall, no later than July 1, 2020, line 26 submit a report of the results of the pilot program to the Legislature, line 27 in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code, that line 28 includes both of the following: line 29 (1) An evaluation of the effectiveness of the pilot program. line 30 (2) Recommendations for subsequent actions. 99 — 2 —AB 572 HB -26-Item 4. - 6 line 1 (d) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, line 2 and as of that date is repealed. O 99 AB 572— 3 — HB -27-Item 4. - 7 california legislature—2017–18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 346 Introduced by Assembly Members Daly and Brough February 8, 2017 An act to amend Section 34176.1 of the Health and Safety Code, relating to local government. legislative counsel’s digest AB 346, as introduced, Daly. Redevelopment: housing successor: Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund. Existing law dissolved redevelopment agencies and community development agencies as of February 1, 2012, and provides for the designation of successor agencies to wind down the affairs of the dissolved redevelopment agencies and to, among other things, make payments due for enforceable obligations and to perform duties required by any enforceable obligation. Existing law authorizes the city, county, or city and county that created a former redevelopment agency to elect to retain the housing assets and functions previously performed by the former redevelopment agency. Existing law requires the housing successor to maintain any funds transferred to it, together with any funds generated from housing assets in a separate Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund to be used in accordance with applicable housing-related provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law, except as specified. Existing law requires the housing successor to expend funds received from the successor agency to meet its enforceable obligations, and for specified administrative and monitoring costs relating to ensuring the long-term affordability of units subject to affordability restrictions. The housing successor may expend a specified amount per fiscal year for homeless 99 HB -28-Item 4. - 8 prevention and rapid rehousing services, and must use all funds remaining thereafter for the development of affordable housing, as specified. This bill would authorize a housing successor to also use funds remaining in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund for homelessness services, transitional housing, or emergency housing services, as well as for the development of affordable housing. This bill would also make nonsubstantive changes to that provision. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 34176.1 of the Health and Safety Code line 2 is amended to read: line 3 34176.1. Funds in the Low and Moderate Income Housing line 4 Asset Fund described in subdivision (d) of Section 34176 shall be line 5 subject to the provisions of the Community Redevelopment Law line 6 (Part 1 (commencing with Section 33000)) relating to the Low and line 7 Moderate Income Housing Fund, except as follows: line 8 (a) Subdivision (d) of Section 33334.3 and subdivision (a) of line 9 Section 33334.4 shall not apply. Instead, funds received from the line 10 successor agency for items listed on the Recognized Obligation line 11 Payment Schedule shall be expended to meet the enforceable line 12 obligations, and the housing successor shall expend all other funds line 13 in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund as follows: line 14 (1) For the purpose of monitoring and preserving the long-term line 15 affordability of units subject to affordability restrictions or line 16 covenants entered into by the redevelopment agency or the housing line 17 successor and for the purpose of administering the activities line 18 described in paragraphs (2) and (3), a housing successor may line 19 expend per fiscal year up to an amount equal to 5 percent of the line 20 statutory value of real property owned by the housing successor line 21 and of loans and grants receivable, including real property and line 22 loans and grants transferred to the housing successor pursuant to line 23 Section 34176 and real property purchased and loans and grants line 24 made by the housing successor. If this amount is less than two line 25 hundred thousand dollars ($200,000) for any given fiscal year, the line 26 housing successor may expend up to two hundred thousand dollars line 27 ($200,000) in that fiscal year for these purposes. The Department 99 — 2 —AB 346 HB -29-Item 4. - 9 line 1 of Housing and Community Development shall annually publish line 2 on its Internet Web site an adjustment to this amount to reflect any line 3 change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers line 4 published by the federal United States Department of Labor for line 5 the preceding calendar year. For purposes of this paragraph, line 6 “statutory value of real property” means the value of properties line 7 formerly held by the former redevelopment agency as listed on line 8 the housing asset transfer form approved by the department line 9 pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 34176, the line 10 value of the properties transferred to the housing successor pursuant line 11 to subdivision (f) of Section 34181, and the purchase price of line 12 properties purchased by the housing successor. line 13 (2) Notwithstanding Section 33334.2, if the housing successor line 14 has fulfilled all obligations pursuant to Sections 33413 and 33418, line 15 the housing successor may expend up to two hundred fifty thousand line 16 dollars ($250,000) per fiscal year for homeless prevention and line 17 rapid rehousing services for individuals and families who are line 18 homeless or would be homeless but for this assistance, including line 19 the provision of short-term or medium-term rental assistance, line 20 housing relocation and stabilization services including housing line 21 search, mediation, or outreach to property owners, credit repair, line 22 security or utility deposits, utility payments, rental assistance for line 23 a final month at a location, moving cost assistance, and case line 24 management, or other appropriate activities for homelessness line 25 prevention and rapid rehousing of persons who have become line 26 homeless. line 27 (3) (A) The housing successor shall expend all funds remaining line 28 in the Low and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund after the line 29 expenditures allowed pursuant to paragraphs (1) and (2) for the line 30 development of the development of one of the following purposes line 31 set out in subparagraph (A) or (B) below: line 32 (A) Notwithstanding Section 33334.2, the development of line 33 homelessness services, transitional housing, or emergency housing line 34 services. line 35 (B) (i) The development of housing affordable to and occupied line 36 by households earning 80 percent or less of the area median line 37 income, with at least 30 percent of these remaining funds expended line 38 for the development of rental housing affordable to and occupied line 39 by households earning 30 percent or less of the area median income line 40 and no more than 20 percent of these remaining funds expended 99 AB 346— 3 — HB -30-Item 4. - 10 line 1 for the development of housing affordable to and occupied by line 2 households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area line 3 median income. A housing successor shall demonstrate in the line 4 annual report described in subdivision (f), for 2019, and every five line 5 years thereafter, that the housing successor’s expenditures from line 6 January 1, 2014, through the end of the latest fiscal year covered line 7 in the report comply with the requirements of this subparagraph. line 8 (B) line 9 (ii) If the housing successor fails to comply with the extremely line 10 low income requirement in any five-year report, then the housing line 11 successor shall ensure that at least 50 percent of these remaining line 12 funds expended in each fiscal year following the latest fiscal year line 13 following the report are expended for the development of rental line 14 housing affordable to, and occupied by, households earning 30 line 15 percent or less of the area median income until the housing line 16 successor demonstrates compliance with the extremely low income line 17 requirement in an annual report described in subdivision (f). line 18 (C) line 19 (iii) If the housing successor exceeds the expenditure limit for line 20 households earning between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area line 21 median income in any five-year report, the housing successor shall line 22 not expend any of the remaining funds for households earning line 23 between 60 percent and 80 percent of the area median income until line 24 the housing successor demonstrates compliance with this limit in line 25 an annual report described in subdivision (f). line 26 (D) line 27 (C) For purposes of this subdivision, “development” means new line 28 construction, acquisition and rehabilitation, substantial line 29 rehabilitation as defined in Section 33413, the acquisition of line 30 long-term affordability covenants on multifamily units as described line 31 in Section 33413, or the preservation of an assisted housing line 32 development that is eligible for prepayment or termination or for line 33 which within the expiration of rental restrictions is scheduled to line 34 occur within five years as those terms are defined in Section line 35 65863.10 of the Government Code. Units described in this line 36 subparagraph may be counted towards any outstanding obligations line 37 pursuant to Section 33413, provided that the units meet the line 38 requirements of that section and are counted as provided in that line 39 section. 99 — 4 —AB 346 HB -31-Item 4. - 11 line 1 (b) Subdivision (b) of Section 33334.4 shall not apply. Instead, line 2 if the aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing line 3 restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the line 4 housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host line 5 jurisdiction within the previous 10 years exceeds 50 percent of the line 6 aggregate number of units of deed-restricted rental housing assisted line 7 individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former line 8 redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the same line 9 time period, then the housing successor shall not expend these line 10 funds to assist additional senior housing units until the housing line 11 successor or its host jurisdiction assists, and construction has line 12 commenced, a number of units available to all persons, regardless line 13 of age, that is equal to 50 percent of the aggregate number of units line 14 of deed-restricted rental housing units assisted individually or line 15 jointly by the housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, line 16 and its host jurisdiction within the time period described above. line 17 (c) (1) Program income a housing successor receives shall not line 18 be associated with a project area and, notwithstanding subdivision line 19 (g) of Section 33334.2, may be expended anywhere within the line 20 jurisdiction of the housing successor or transferred pursuant to line 21 paragraph (2) without a finding of benefit to a project area. For line 22 purposes of this paragraph, “program income” means the sources line 23 described in paragraphs (3), (4), and (5) of subdivision (e) of line 24 Section 34176 and interest earned on deposits in the account. line 25 (2) Two or more housing successors within a county, within a line 26 single metropolitan statistical area, within 15 miles of each other, line 27 or that are in contiguous jurisdictions may enter into an agreement line 28 to transfer funds among their respective Low and Moderate Income line 29 Housing Asset Funds for the sole purpose of developing transit line 30 priority projects as defined in subdivisions (a) and (b) of Section line 31 21155 of the Public Resources Code, permanent supportive housing line 32 as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (b) of Section 50675.14, line 33 housing for agricultural employees as defined in subdivision (g) line 34 of Section 50517.5, or special needs housing as defined in federal line 35 or state law or regulation if all of the following conditions are met: line 36 (A) Each participating housing successor has made a finding line 37 based on substantial evidence, after a public hearing, that the line 38 agreement to transfer funds will not cause or exacerbate racial, line 39 ethnic, or economic segregation. 99 AB 346— 5 — HB -32-Item 4. - 12 line 1 (B) The development to be funded shall not be located in a line 2 census tract where more than 50 percent of its population is very line 3 low income, unless the development is within one-half mile of a line 4 major transit stop or high-quality transit corridor as defined in line 5 paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) of Section 21155 of the Public line 6 Resources Code. line 7 (C) The completed development shall not result in a reduction line 8 in the number of housing units or a reduction in the affordability line 9 of housing units on the site where the development is to be built. line 10 (D) A transferring housing successor shall not have any line 11 outstanding obligations pursuant to Section 33413. line 12 (E) No housing successor may transfer more than one million line 13 dollars ($1,000,000) per fiscal year. line 14 (F) The jurisdictions of the transferring and receiving housing line 15 successors each have an adopted housing element that the line 16 Department of Housing and Community Development has found line 17 pursuant to Section 65585 of the Government Code to be in line 18 substantial compliance with the requirements of Article 10.6 line 19 (commencing with Section 65580) of Chapter 3 of Division 1 of line 20 Title 7 of the Government Code and have submitted to the line 21 Department of Housing and Community Development the annual line 22 progress report required by Section 65400 of the Government Code line 23 within the preceding 12 months. line 24 (G) Transferred funds shall only assist rental units affordable line 25 to, and occupied by, households earning 60 percent or less of the line 26 area median income. line 27 (H) Transferred funds not encumbered within two years shall line 28 be transferred to the Department of Housing and Community line 29 Development for expenditure pursuant to the Multifamily Housing line 30 Program or the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program. line 31 (d) Sections 33334.10 and 33334.12 shall not apply. Instead, if line 32 a housing successor has an excess surplus, the housing successor line 33 shall encumber the excess surplus for the purposes described in line 34 paragraph (3) of subdivision (a) or transfer the funds pursuant to line 35 paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) within three fiscal years. If the line 36 housing successor fails to comply with this subdivision, the housing line 37 successor, within 90 days of the end of the third fiscal year, shall line 38 transfer any excess surplus to the Department of Housing and line 39 Community Development for expenditure pursuant to the line 40 Multifamily Housing Program or the Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker 99 — 6 —AB 346 HB -33-Item 4. - 13 line 1 Housing Grant Program. For purposes of this subdivision, “excess line 2 surplus” shall mean an unencumbered amount in the account that line 3 exceeds the greater of one million dollars ($1,000,000) or the line 4 aggregate amount deposited into the account during the housing line 5 successor’s preceding four fiscal years, whichever is greater. line 6 (e) Section 33334.16 shall not apply to interests in real property line 7 acquired on or after February 1, 2012. With respect to interests in line 8 real property acquired by the former redevelopment agency prior line 9 to before February 1, 2012, the time periods described in Section line 10 33334.16 shall be deemed to have commenced on the date that the line 11 department approved the property as a housing asset. line 12 (f) Section 33080.1 of this code and Section 12463.3 of the line 13 Government Code shall not apply. Instead, the housing successor line 14 shall conduct, and shall provide to its governing body, an line 15 independent financial audit of the Low and Moderate Income line 16 Housing Asset Fund within six months after the end of each fiscal line 17 year, which may be included in the independent financial audit of line 18 the host jurisdiction. If the housing successor is a city or county, line 19 it shall also include in its report pursuant to Section 65400 of the line 20 Government Code and post on its Internet Web site all of the line 21 following information for the previous fiscal year. If the housing line 22 successor is not a city or county, it shall also provide to its line 23 governing body and post on its Internet Web site all of the line 24 following information for the previous fiscal year: line 25 (1) The amount the city, county, or city and county received line 26 pursuant to subparagraph (A) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (b) line 27 of Section 34191.4. line 28 (2) The amount deposited to the Low and Moderate Income line 29 Housing Asset Fund, distinguishing between amounts deposited line 30 pursuant to subparagraphs (B) and (C) of paragraph (3) of line 31 subdivision (b) of Section 34191.4, amounts deposited for other line 32 items listed on the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule, and line 33 other amounts deposited. line 34 (3) A statement of the balance in the fund as of the close of the line 35 fiscal year, distinguishing any amounts held for items listed on the line 36 Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule from other amounts. line 37 (4) A description of expenditures from the fund by category, line 38 including, but not limited to, expenditures (A) for monitoring for line 39 the following: 99 AB 346— 7 — HB -34-Item 4. - 14 line 1 (A) Monitoring and preserving the long-term affordability of line 2 units subject to affordability restrictions or covenants entered into line 3 by the redevelopment agency or the housing successor and line 4 administering the activities described in paragraphs (2) and (3) of line 5 subdivision (a), (B) for homeless prevention subdivision (a). line 6 (B) Homeless prevention and rapid rehousing services for the line 7 development of housing described in paragraph (2) of subdivision line 8 (a), and (C) for the development (a). line 9 (C) The development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of line 10 subdivision (a). line 11 (5) As described in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), the statutory line 12 value of real property owned by the housing successor, the value line 13 of loans and grants receivable, and the sum of these two amounts. line 14 (6) A description of any transfers made pursuant to paragraph line 15 (2) of subdivision (c) in the previous fiscal year and, if still line 16 unencumbered, in earlier fiscal years and a description of and status line 17 update on any project for which transferred funds have been or line 18 will be expended if that project has not yet been placed in service. line 19 (7) A description of any project for which that the housing line 20 successor receives or holds property tax revenue pursuant to the line 21 Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and the status of that line 22 project. line 23 (8) For interests in real property acquired by the former line 24 redevelopment agency prior to before February 1, 2012, a status line 25 update on compliance with Section 33334.16. For interests in real line 26 property acquired on or after February 1, 2012, a status update on line 27 the project. line 28 (9) A description of any outstanding obligations pursuant to line 29 Section 33413 that remained to transfer to the housing successor line 30 on February 1, 2012, of the housing successor’s progress in meeting line 31 those obligations, and of the housing successor’s plans to meet line 32 unmet obligations. In addition, the housing successor shall include line 33 in the report posted on its Internet Web site the implementation line 34 plans of the former redevelopment agency. line 35 (10) The information required by clause (ii) of subparagraph line 36 (B) of paragraph (3) of subdivision (a). line 37 (11) The percentage of units of deed-restricted rental housing line 38 restricted to seniors and assisted individually or jointly by the line 39 housing successor, its former redevelopment agency, and its host line 40 jurisdiction within the previous 10 years in relation to the aggregate 99 — 8 —AB 346 HB -35-Item 4. - 15 line 1 number of units of deed-restricted rental housing assisted line 2 individually or jointly by the housing successor, its former line 3 redevelopment agency, and its host jurisdiction within the same line 4 time period. line 5 (12) The amount of any excess surplus, the amount of time that line 6 the successor agency has had excess surplus, and the housing line 7 successor’s plan for eliminating the excess surplus. line 8 (13) An inventory of homeownership units assisted by the line 9 former redevelopment agency or the housing successor that are line 10 subject to covenants or restrictions or to an adopted program that line 11 protects the former redevelopment agency’s investment of moneys line 12 from the Low and Moderate Income Housing Fund pursuant to line 13 subdivision (f) of Section 33334.3. This inventory shall include line 14 all of the following information: line 15 (A) The number of those units. line 16 (B) In the first report pursuant to this subdivision, the number line 17 of units lost to the portfolio after February 1, 2012, and the reason line 18 or reasons for those losses. For all subsequent reports, the number line 19 of the units lost to the portfolio in the last fiscal year and the reason line 20 for those losses. line 21 (C) Any funds returned to the housing successor as part of an line 22 adopted program that protects the former redevelopment agency’s line 23 investment of moneys from the Low and Moderate Income Housing line 24 Fund. line 25 (D) Whether the housing successor has contracted with any line 26 outside entity for the management of the units and, if so, the line 27 identity of the entity. O 99 AB 346— 9 — HB -36-Item 4. - 16 california legislature—2017–18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 285 Introduced by Assembly Member Melendez February 2, 2017 An act to add Section 11834.19 to the Health and Safety Code, relating to residential facilities. legislative counsel’s digest AB 285, as introduced, Melendez. Drug and alcohol free residences. Existing law provides for the licensure and regulation of community care facilities by the State Department of Social Services. Existing law also provides for the licensure and regulation by the State Department of Health Care Services of adult alcoholism and drug abuse recovery and treatment facilities for adults. This bill would, among other things, define a “drug and alcohol free residence” as a residential property that is operated as a cooperative living arrangement to provide an alcohol and drug free environment for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug abuse, or both, who seek a living environment that supports personal recovery. The bill would authorize a drug and alcohol free residence to demonstrate its commitment to providing a supportive recovery environment by applying and becoming certified by an approved certifying organization that is approved by the State Department of Health Care Services. The bill would provide that a residence housing persons who are committed to recovering from drug or alcohol addiction is presumed to be a drug and alcohol free residence if the residence has been certified by an approved certifying organization. The bill would require an approved certifying organization to, among other things, maintain an affiliation with a national organization recognized by the department, establish 99 HB -37-Item 4. - 17 procedures to administer the application, certification, renewal, and disciplinary processes for a drug and alcohol free residence, and investigate and enforce violations by a residence of the organization’s code of conduct, as provided. The bill would specify the information and documentation that an operator who seeks to have a residence certified is required to submit to an approved certifying organization. This bill would require an approved certifying organization to maintain and post on its Internet Web site a registry containing specified information of a residence that has been certified pursuant to these provisions, and would require the department to maintain and post on its Internet Web site a registry that contains specified information regarding each residence and operator that has had its certification revoked. The bill would deem the activities of a certified drug and alcohol free residence a residential use of property under specified circumstances. This bill would require, on and after January 1, 2020, a state agency, state-contracted vendor, county agency, or county-contracted vendor that directs substance abuse treatment, or a judge or parole board that sets terms and conditions for the release, parole, or discharge of a person from custody, if it requires that person to reside in a sober living environment, to only refer that person to a residence listed as a certified drug and alcohol free residence on a registry posted by an approved certifying organization. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following: line 3 (a) (1) Substance use disorder is ranked in the top five clinically line 4 preventable burdens on health care spending. line 5 (2) The level of health care services used by addicts before line 6 receiving treatment is more than double that of nonaddicts. It has line 7 been shown that after 12 months of treatment of substance use line 8 disorders, the levels of health care services used return to almost line 9 average. line 10 (3) There are an estimated 3.5 million persons with diagnosable line 11 substance use disorders in California and a limited number of 99 — 2 —AB 285 HB -38-Item 4. - 18 line 1 available drug and alcohol free residences to effectively treat line 2 addiction in California. line 3 (4) Substance use disorder can be treated in a cost-effective line 4 manner in its earliest stages in a private practice environment. line 5 (5) The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act line 6 (Public Law 111-148) mandates substance disorder treatment as line 7 an essential benefit. line 8 (6) The need for competent substance disorder treatment will line 9 continue to rise throughout the next decade. line 10 (b) Therefore, it is the intent of the Legislature, in enacting this line 11 act, to establish specialty certifications for proper substance abuse line 12 treatment so that all of the following may occur: line 13 (1) Access to substance use treatment services can be expanded. line 14 (2) Those seeking treatment for substance use disorders in line 15 California will find a coordinated system of care in which “no line 16 wrong door” is found in response to accessing this care. line 17 (3) Professional services can be recognized for their valuable line 18 contributions to the continuum of care in addiction treatment and line 19 recovery. line 20 SEC. 2. Section 11834.19 is added to the Health and Safety line 21 Code, to read: line 22 11834.19. (a) (1) For purposes of this section, “drug and line 23 alcohol free residence” means a residential property that is operated line 24 as a cooperative living arrangement to provide an alcohol and drug line 25 free environment for persons recovering from alcoholism or drug line 26 abuse, or both, who seek a living environment that supports line 27 personal recovery. line 28 (2) A drug and alcohol free residence may demonstrate its line 29 commitment to providing a supportive recovery environment by line 30 applying and becoming certified by an approved certifying line 31 organization pursuant to subdivision (c). line 32 (3) To use the designation “certified drug and alcohol free line 33 residence” the cooperative living arrangement shall satisfy all of line 34 the following requirements: line 35 (A) Owners, managers, operators, and residents observe and line 36 promote a zero tolerance policy regarding the consumption or line 37 possession of alcohol or controlled substances or marijuana being line 38 used in any manner not consistent with a documented prescription. line 39 (B) Residents actively participate in community or individual line 40 programs of recovery from substance use disorder, including, but 99 AB 285— 3 — HB -39-Item 4. - 19 line 1 not limited to, Alcoholics Anonymous or Narcotics Anonymous line 2 programs. line 3 (C) Within the drug and alcohol free residence, a resident who line 4 has been referred to, and has access to, ongoing outpatient line 5 treatment, aftercare, or other recovery maintenance services line 6 commits to continue to use these services in accordance with a line 7 clinically managed system of care, if one exists for the resident. line 8 (4) A residence that houses persons who are committed to line 9 recovering from drug and alcohol addiction shall be presumed to line 10 be a drug and alcohol free residence if the residence has been line 11 certified by an approved certifying organization. line 12 (5) If a residence is certified pursuant to this section within 90 line 13 days of beginning its operations, the activities at that residence line 14 shall be deemed a residential use of property and a use of property line 15 by a single family, pursuant to Article 2 (commencing with Section line 16 11834.20). line 17 (b) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: line 18 (1) “Approved certifying organization” means an organization line 19 approved by the department to certify a residence as a drug and line 20 alcohol free residence pursuant to this section. line 21 (2) “Approved national organization” means a national line 22 organization, recognized by the department, the primary function line 23 of which is to improve access to, and the quality of, drug and line 24 alcohol recovery residences through standards, education, research, line 25 and advocacy. line 26 (3) “Recovery specialist training” means training in recognizing line 27 addiction, dependence, abuse of alcohol or other drugs, and other line 28 symptoms that relate to substance use, and supporting recovery to line 29 address that addiction, dependence, or use. line 30 (c) An approved certifying organization shall do all of the line 31 following: line 32 (1) Maintain an office in the state. line 33 (2) Maintain nonprofit status in the state. line 34 (3) Be an affiliate of, and continuously maintain affiliation with, line 35 the national organization recognized by the department. line 36 (4) Maintain the most current standards published by the line 37 approved national organization. line 38 (5) Document that the organization actively develops and confers line 39 professional, residential, or organizational quality designations line 40 according to applicable nationally recognized standards. 99 — 4 —AB 285 HB -40-Item 4. - 20 line 1 (6) Demonstrate that it has established drug and alcohol free line 2 residence certification requirements. line 3 (7) Demonstrate that it has procedures to administer the line 4 application, certification, renewal, and disciplinary processes for line 5 a drug and alcohol free residence. line 6 (8) Inspect, at least annually, a drug and alcohol free residence line 7 to ensure compliance with certification requirements. line 8 (9) Submit to the department and the operator of a residence line 9 that the organization certifies a written code of conduct for a drug line 10 and alcohol free residence that incorporates national standards for line 11 legal and ethical conduct for recovery residences. line 12 (10) Submit to the department and the operator of a drug and line 13 alcohol free residence disciplinary guidelines that include sanctions line 14 for first and subsequent violations of the organization’s code of line 15 conduct that allows the drug and alcohol free residence notice and line 16 opportunity to correct a violation and requires the approved line 17 certifying organization to revoke the certification of the residence line 18 if the required corrective action is not completed within the line 19 specified time period. line 20 (11) Respond to and investigate suspected violations of the line 21 organization’s code of conduct. line 22 (12) Require an operator who seeks to have a residence certified line 23 to submit all of the following documents with the operator’s line 24 completed application and fee: line 25 (A) Procedures and requirements for verifying that a resident line 26 is not using alcohol or drugs in a manner not consistent with a line 27 prescription or product labeling. line 28 (B) A prohibition on the premises against alcohol, illegal drugs, line 29 or the use of prescribed medications by an individual except as line 30 prescribed by a physician and used in accordance with the line 31 prescription. line 32 (C) Policies to support a resident’s recovery efforts. line 33 (D) A good neighbor policy to address neighborhood concerns line 34 and complaints. line 35 (E) A policy for informing local government officials and line 36 neighbors about the approved certification organization’s complaint line 37 procedures, the contact number of the operator of the residence, line 38 and a contact number of a minimum of one resident assigned with line 39 the responsibility of mitigating a complaint. 99 AB 285— 5 — HB -41-Item 4. - 21 line 1 (F) Rules for residents, copies of forms provided to residents, line 2 relapse policy, fee and refund policies, and eviction procedures line 3 and policies. line 4 (G) Proof that the owner or operator of the residence has line 5 completed a minimum of 10 hours of alcohol and drug free line 6 program management education accepted by the approved line 7 certifying organization. line 8 (H) Proof that at least one resident or an onsite staff member line 9 has completed or will complete a minimum of 10 hours of recovery line 10 specialist training accepted by the approved certifying organization. line 11 At least one resident or onsite staff member shall complete a line 12 minimum of 10 hours of this training each year. line 13 (I) Proof that a minimum of one resident has received line 14 certification approved by the approved certifying organization. line 15 Certification shall include, at a minimum, all of the following line 16 subjects: ethics, health and safety topics related to addiction line 17 recovery and maintenance, and emergency planning procedures. line 18 (13) Maintain and post on its Internet Web site a registry line 19 containing the street address and the name and contact telephone line 20 number of the operator of each residence that has been certified line 21 as a drug and alcohol free residence pursuant to this section. line 22 (14) (A) Review the registry posted on the department’s Internet line 23 Web site pursuant to subdivision (i) to determine whether the line 24 residence that the operator has applied to have certified has had a line 25 previous certification revoked or the operator submitting the line 26 application for certification has operated a residence for which a line 27 previous certification has been revoked. line 28 (B) Deny an application for certification if the residence address line 29 or operator name in the application is listed on the registry and line 30 satisfies the conditions described in subparagraph (A), and send line 31 the applicant a written notice of denial of certification. line 32 (d) The department shall adopt application procedures and line 33 standards of approval for an organization that seeks to be approved line 34 by the department as an approved certifying organization. line 35 (e) The department shall adopt application procedures and line 36 standards of approval for an organization that seeks to be approved line 37 by the department as an approved national organization. line 38 (f) (1) The department may conduct periodic reviews of an line 39 approved certifying organization to determine whether the line 40 organization is in compliance with all applicable laws. 99 — 6 —AB 285 HB -42-Item 4. - 22 line 1 (2) The department may revoke approval of an approved line 2 certifying organization if the organization does any of the line 3 following: line 4 (A) Ceases to be affiliated with the approved national line 5 organization. line 6 (B) Fails to perform any of the duties imposed by subdivision line 7 (c). line 8 (C) Refuses to comply with sanctions imposed by the line 9 department. line 10 (D) Discontinues certifying drug and alcohol free residences. line 11 (g) (1) The department may investigate complaints it receives line 12 regarding a drug and alcohol free residence independently or in line 13 conjunction with the approved certifying organization. line 14 (2) The department may impose sanctions and commence line 15 disciplinary actions, including revoking the certification of a line 16 residence as a drug and alcohol free residence. line 17 (h) A city, county, city and county, or local law enforcement line 18 agency that suspects that a drug and alcohol residence is not line 19 operating in compliance with the residence’s code of conduct may line 20 request the department to revoke the certification of that residence. line 21 (i) The department shall maintain and post on its Internet Web line 22 site a registry containing both of the following information: line 23 (1) The street address of each residence that has had its line 24 certification revoked. line 25 (2) The name of each operator of a residence that has had its line 26 certification revoked. line 27 (j) Notwithstanding any other law, on and after January 1, 2020, line 28 a state agency, state-contracted vendor, county agency, or line 29 county-contracted vendor that directs substance abuse treatment, line 30 or a judge or parole board that sets terms and conditions for the line 31 release, parole, or discharge of a person from custody, if it requires line 32 a person to reside in a sober living environment, shall only refer line 33 that person to a residence listed as a certified drug and alcohol free line 34 residence on a registry posted by an approved certifying line 35 organization to guarantee proper rehabilitation in accordance with line 36 the terms and conditions of the court’s orders or terms of release line 37 as applicable, pursuant to subdivision (a) of Section 1170 of the line 38 Penal Code. line 39 (k) Notwithstanding any other law, on and after January 1, 2020, line 40 a licensed or certified alcohol and drug treatment program shall 99 AB 285— 7 — HB -43-Item 4. - 23 line 1 only refer its participants to a residence listed as a certified drug line 2 and alcohol free residence on a registry posted by an approved line 3 certifying organization. O 99 — 8 —AB 285 HB -44-Item 4. - 24 california legislature—2017–18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 199 Introduced by Assembly Member Chu January 23, 2017 An act to amend Section 1720 of the Labor Code, relating to public works. legislative counsel’s digest AB 199, as introduced, Chu. Public works: private residential projects. (1) Existing law requires private residential projects built on private property that are built pursuant to an agreement with a state agency, redevelopment agency, or local public housing authority to meet the requirements for projects that are defined as “public works,” including, among other requirements, the payment of prevailing wages. Existing law defines the term “political subdivision” for the purposes of these requirements to include any county, city, district, public housing authority, public agency of the state, and assessment or improvement districts. Existing law makes a willful violation of specific laws relating to the payment of prevailing wages and the hours worked on public works projects a misdemeanor. This bill would instead require private residential projects built on private property that are built pursuant to an agreement with the state or a political subdivision to meet the requirements for projects that are defined as “public works,” thus expanding the types of projects that must meet these requirements. By expanding the definition of a crime, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (2) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. 99 HB -45-Item 4. - 25 This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 1720 of the Labor Code is amended to line 2 read: line 3 1720. (a) As used in this chapter, “public works” means: line 4 (1) Construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair line 5 work done under contract and paid for in whole or in part out of line 6 public funds, except work done directly by any public utility line 7 company pursuant to order of the Public Utilities Commission or line 8 other public authority. For purposes of this paragraph, line 9 “construction” includes work performed during the design and line 10 preconstruction phases of construction, including, but not limited line 11 to, inspection and land surveying work, and work performed during line 12 the postconstruction phases of construction, including, but not line 13 limited to, all cleanup work at the jobsite. For purposes of this line 14 paragraph, “installation” includes, but is not limited to, the line 15 assembly and disassembly of freestanding and affixed modular line 16 office systems. line 17 (2) Work done for irrigation, utility, reclamation, and line 18 improvement districts, and other districts of this type. “Public line 19 work” does not include the operation of the irrigation or drainage line 20 system of any irrigation or reclamation district, except as used in line 21 Section 1778 relating to retaining wages. line 22 (3) Street, sewer, or other improvement work done under the line 23 direction and supervision or by the authority of any officer or line 24 public body of the state, or of any political subdivision or district line 25 thereof, whether the political subdivision or district operates under line 26 a freeholder’s charter or not. line 27 (4) The laying of carpet done under a building lease-maintenance line 28 contract and paid for out of public funds. line 29 (5) The laying of carpet in a public building done under contract line 30 and paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. line 31 (6) Public transportation demonstration projects authorized line 32 pursuant to Section 143 of the Streets and Highways Code. 99 — 2 —AB 199 HB -46-Item 4. - 26 line 1 (7) (A) Infrastructure project grants from the California line 2 Advanced Services Fund pursuant to Section 281 of the Public line 3 Utilities Code. line 4 (B) For purposes of this paragraph, the Public Utilities line 5 Commission is not the awarding body or the body awarding the line 6 contract, as defined in Section 1722. line 7 (b) For purposes of this section, “paid for in whole or in part line 8 out of public funds” means all of the following: line 9 (1) The payment of money or the equivalent of money by the line 10 state or political subdivision directly to or on behalf of the public line 11 works contractor, subcontractor, or developer. line 12 (2) Performance of construction work by the state or political line 13 subdivision in execution of the project. line 14 (3) Transfer by the state or political subdivision of an asset of line 15 value for less than fair market price. line 16 (4) Fees, costs, rents, insurance or bond premiums, loans, interest line 17 rates, or other obligations that would normally be required in the line 18 execution of the contract, that are paid, reduced, charged at less line 19 than fair market value, waived, or forgiven by the state or political line 20 subdivision. line 21 (5) Money loaned by the state or political subdivision that is to line 22 be repaid on a contingent basis. line 23 (6) Credits that are applied by the state or political subdivision line 24 against repayment obligations to the state or political subdivision. line 25 (c) Notwithstanding subdivision (b): line 26 (1) Private residential projects built on private property are not line 27 subject to the requirements of this chapter unless the projects are line 28 built pursuant to an agreement with a state agency, redevelopment line 29 agency, or local public housing authority. the state or a political line 30 subdivision. line 31 (2) If the state or a political subdivision requires a private line 32 developer to perform construction, alteration, demolition, line 33 installation, or repair work on a public work of improvement as a line 34 condition of regulatory approval of an otherwise private line 35 development project, and the state or political subdivision line 36 contributes no more money, or the equivalent of money, to the line 37 overall project than is required to perform this public improvement line 38 work, and the state or political subdivision maintains no proprietary line 39 interest in the overall project, then only the public improvement line 40 work shall thereby become subject to this chapter. 99 AB 199— 3 — HB -47-Item 4. - 27 line 1 (3) If the state or a political subdivision reimburses a private line 2 developer for costs that would normally be borne by the public, line 3 or provides directly or indirectly a public subsidy to a private line 4 development project that is de minimis in the context of the project, line 5 an otherwise private development project shall not thereby become line 6 subject to the requirements of this chapter. line 7 (4) The construction or rehabilitation of affordable housing units line 8 for low- or moderate-income persons pursuant to paragraph (5) or line 9 (7) of subdivision (e) of Section 33334.2 of the Health and Safety line 10 Code that are paid for solely with moneys from the Low and line 11 Moderate Income Housing Fund established pursuant to Section line 12 33334.3 of the Health and Safety Code or that are paid for by a line 13 combination of private funds and funds available pursuant to line 14 Section 33334.2 or 33334.3 of the Health and Safety Code do not line 15 constitute a project that is paid for in whole or in part out of public line 16 funds. line 17 (5) Unless otherwise required by a public funding program, the line 18 construction or rehabilitation of privately owned residential projects line 19 is not subject to the requirements of this chapter if one or more of line 20 the following conditions are met: line 21 (A) The project is a self-help housing project in which no fewer line 22 than 500 hours of construction work associated with the homes line 23 are to be performed by the home buyers. line 24 (B) The project consists of rehabilitation or expansion work line 25 associated with a facility operated on a not-for-profit basis as line 26 temporary or transitional housing for homeless persons with a total line 27 project cost of less than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000). line 28 (C) Assistance is provided to a household as either mortgage line 29 assistance, downpayment assistance, or for the rehabilitation of a line 30 single-family home. line 31 (D) The project consists of new construction, expansion, or line 32 rehabilitation work associated with a facility developed by a line 33 nonprofit organization to be operated on a not-for-profit basis to line 34 provide emergency or transitional shelter and ancillary services line 35 and assistance to homeless adults and children. The nonprofit line 36 organization operating the project shall provide, at no profit, not line 37 less than 50 percent of the total project cost from nonpublic line 38 sources, excluding real property that is transferred or leased. Total line 39 project cost includes the value of donated labor, materials, and line 40 architectural and engineering services. 99 — 4 —AB 199 HB -48-Item 4. - 28 line 1 (E) The public participation in the project that would otherwise line 2 meet the criteria of subdivision (b) is public funding in the form line 3 of below-market interest rate loans for a project in which line 4 occupancy of at least 40 percent of the units is restricted for at line 5 least 20 years, by deed or regulatory agreement, to individuals or line 6 families earning no more than 80 percent of the area median line 7 income. line 8 (d) Notwithstanding any provision of this section to the contrary, line 9 the following projects shall not, solely by reason of this section, line 10 be subject to the requirements of this chapter: line 11 (1) Qualified residential rental projects, as defined by Section line 12 142(d) of the Internal Revenue Code, financed in whole or in part line 13 through the issuance of bonds that receive allocation of a portion line 14 of the state ceiling pursuant to Chapter 11.8 (commencing with line 15 Section 8869.80) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government Code line 16 on or before December 31, 2003. line 17 (2) Single-family residential projects financed in whole or in line 18 part through the issuance of qualified mortgage revenue bonds or line 19 qualified veterans’ mortgage bonds, as defined by Section 143 of line 20 the Internal Revenue Code, or with mortgage credit certificates line 21 under a Qualified Mortgage Credit Certificate Program, as defined line 22 by Section 25 of the Internal Revenue Code, that receive allocation line 23 of a portion of the state ceiling pursuant to Chapter 11.8 line 24 (commencing with Section 8869.80) of Division 1 of Title 2 of line 25 the Government Code on or before December 31, 2003. line 26 (3) Low-income housing projects that are allocated federal or line 27 state low-income housing tax credits pursuant to Section 42 of the line 28 Internal Revenue Code, Chapter 3.6 (commencing with Section line 29 50199.4) of Part 1 of Division 31 of the Health and Safety Code, line 30 or Section 12206, 17058, or 23610.5 of the Revenue and Taxation line 31 Code, on or before December 31, 2003. line 32 (e) Notwithstanding paragraph (1) of subdivision (a), line 33 construction, alteration, demolition, installation, or repair work on line 34 the electric transmission system located in California constitutes line 35 a public works project for the purposes of this chapter. line 36 (f) If a statute, other than this section, or a regulation, other than line 37 a regulation adopted pursuant to this section, or an ordinance or a line 38 contract applies this chapter to a project, the exclusions set forth line 39 in subdivision (d) do not apply to that project. 99 AB 199— 5 — HB -49-Item 4. - 29 line 1 (g) For purposes of this section, references to the Internal line 2 Revenue Code mean the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as line 3 amended, and include the corresponding predecessor sections of line 4 the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, as amended. line 5 (h) The amendments made to this section by either Chapter 938 line 6 of the Statutes of 2001 or the act adding this subdivision shall not line 7 be construed to preempt local ordinances requiring the payment line 8 of prevailing wages on housing projects. line 9 SEC. 2. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 10 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because line 11 the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school line 12 district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or line 13 infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty line 14 for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of line 15 the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within line 16 the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California line 17 Constitution. O 99 — 6 —AB 199 HB -50-Item 4. - 30 AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY FEBRUARY 28, 2017 california legislature—2017–18 regular session ASSEMBLY BILL No. 252 Introduced by Assembly Member Ridley-Thomas (Coauthors: Assembly Members Baker, Bigelow, Mathis, Steinorth, Waldron, Chávez, and Low) (Coauthors: Senators Berryhill, Hill, and Bradford) January 31, 2017 An act to add and repeal Section 7284.8 of the Revenue and Taxation Code, relating to taxation. legislative counsel’s digest AB 252, as amended, Ridley-Thomas. Local government: taxation: prohibition: video streaming services. Existing law authorizes counties, cities, and other local agencies to impose various taxes and fees in connection with activity or property within those jurisdictions. The California Constitution also authorizes a charter city to levy local taxes to raise revenues for local purposes, subject to restrictions imposed by that city’s charter or preemption in matters of statewide concern. This bill, until January 1, 2023, would prohibit the imposition by a city, city and county, or county, including a chartered city, city and county, or county, of a tax on video streaming services, including, but not limited to, any tax on the sale or use of video streaming services or any utility user taxes. tax on video streaming services. This bill would make a legislative finding and declaration regarding the statewide concern of the promotion of uniformity in access throughout the state to video streaming services. Revised 3-14-17—See last page.98 HB -51-Item 4. - 31 Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 7284.8 is added to the Revenue and line 2 Taxation Code, to read: line 3 7284.8. (a) A city, city and county, or county, including a line 4 chartered city, city and county, or county, shall not impose any line 5 tax on video streaming services, including, but not limited to, any line 6 tax on the sale or use of video streaming services or any utility line 7 user taxes. tax on video streaming services. line 8 (b) For purposes of this section, “video streaming service” means line 9 the provision of on-demand video content sent in compressed form line 10 over the Internet and displayed by the viewer in real time for a fee line 11 on a subscription basis. line 12 (c) The Legislature finds and declares that the promotion of line 13 uniformity in access throughout the state to video streaming line 14 services is a matter of statewide concern and, therefore, is not a line 15 municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of line 16 the California Constitution. line 17 (d) This section shall become inoperative on January 1, 2023, line 18 and shall be repealed as of that date. line 19 line 20 REVISIONS: line 21 Heading—Line 4. line 22 line 23 O 98 — 2 —AB 252 HB -52-Item 4. - 32 AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 14, 2017 AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 2, 2017 SENATE BILL No. 57 Introduced by Senator Senators Stern and Hertzberg (Coauthors: Senators Hertzberg, Allen, Wiener, and Wilk) (Coauthor: Assembly Member Acosta) December 8, 2016 An act to amend Section 3217 of the Public Resources Code, and to amend Section 714 of the Public Utilities Code, relating to natural gas, and declaring the urgency thereof, to take effect immediately. legislative counsel’s digest SB 57, as amended, Stern. Natural gas storage: moratorium. (1) Under existing law, the Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources in the Department of Conservation regulates the drilling, operation, maintenance, and abandonment of oil and gas wells in the state. Existing law requires the State Oil and Gas Supervisor to continue the prohibition against Southern California Gas Company injecting any natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility located in the County of Los Angeles until a comprehensive review of the safety of the gas storage wells at the facility is completed, as specified, the supervisor determines that well integrity has been ensured by the review, the risks of failures identified in the review have been addressed, the supervisor’s duty to prevent damage to life, health, property, and natural resources, and other requirements is satisfied, and the Executive Director of the Public Utilities Commission has concurred via letter with the supervisor regarding his or her determination of safety. This bill would additionally require the supervisor to continue that prohibition until a specified root cause analysis of the natural gas leak 97 HB -53-Item 4. - 33 from the facility that started approximately October 23, 2015, has been completed and released in its entirety to the public. (2) Under existing law, the Public Utilities Commission is authorized to supervise and regulate every public utility in the state. Existing law requires the commission, no later than July 1, 2017, to open a proceeding to determine the feasibility of minimizing or eliminating use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility located in the County of Los Angeles while still maintaining energy and electric reliability for the region, and to consult with specified entities in making its determination. This bill would require that proceeding to be completed by December 31, 2017. (3) This bill would declare that it is to take effect immediately as an urgency statute. Vote: 2⁄3. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the line 2 following: line 3 (a) Chapter 14 of the Statutes of 2016 was enacted to address line 4 the significant natural gas leak at the Aliso Canyon natural gas line 5 storage facility located in the County of Los Angeles that started line 6 on approximately October 23, 2015, and was not sealed until line 7 February 18, 2016. line 8 (b) In order to protect public health and safety, Section 3217 line 9 of the Public Resources Code requires the State Oil and Gas line 10 Supervisor to continue the prohibition against the injection of line 11 natural gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility until line 12 certain conditions are satisfied, as specified. line 13 (c) The requirements of Section 3217 of the Public Resources line 14 Code do not affect or impair the authority of the Governor, as line 15 vested by the California Constitution and statutes, to declare an line 16 emergency based on a sudden and severe energy shortage under line 17 the California Emergency Services Act (Chapter 7 (commencing line 18 with Section 8550) of Division 1 of Title 2 of the Government line 19 Code). line 20 SECTION 1. line 21 SEC. 2. Section 3217 of the Public Resources Code is amended line 22 to read: 97 — 2 —SB 57 HB -54-Item 4. - 34 line 1 3217. (a) (1) The supervisor shall continue the prohibition line 2 against Southern California Gas Company injecting any natural line 3 gas into the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility located in line 4 the County of Los Angeles until a comprehensive review of the line 5 safety of the gas storage wells at the facility is completed and the line 6 supervisor determines that well integrity has been ensured by the line 7 review, the risks of failures identified in the review have been line 8 addressed, the Safety and Enforcement Division of the Public line 9 Utilities Commission-ordered third party third-party root cause line 10 analysis analysis, instigated at the direction of the Safety and line 11 Enforcement Division of the Public Utilities Commission and the line 12 supervisor, of the natural gas leak from the facility that started line 13 approximately October 23, 2015, has been completed and released line 14 in its entirety to the public, and the supervisor’s duty to prevent line 15 damage to life, health, property, and natural resources, and other line 16 requirements, as specified in Section 3106, is satisfied. The line 17 supervisor may not lift the prohibition on injection until the line 18 Executive Director of the Public Utilities Commission has line 19 concurred via letter with the supervisor regarding his or her line 20 determination of safety. line 21 (2) For purposes of this section, “facility” means the Aliso line 22 Canyon natural gas storage facility located in the County of Los line 23 Angeles operated by Southern California Gas Company. line 24 (b) (1) The criteria for the gas storage well comprehensive line 25 safety review shall be determined by the supervisor with input line 26 from contracted independent experts and shall include the steps line 27 in subdivision (c). line 28 (2) The supervisor shall direct the contracted independent line 29 experts to provide a methodology to be used in assessing the tests line 30 and inspections specified in the criteria. This requirement may be line 31 satisfied by the independent experts reviewing and, if necessary, line 32 revising the division’s written methodology for assessing the tests line 33 and inspections specified in the criteria. The methodology shall line 34 include all tests and inspections required by the criteria. The line 35 division shall post the methodology online on a public portion of line 36 its Internet Web site. line 37 (c) The gas storage well comprehensive safety review shall line 38 include the following steps to ensure external and internal well line 39 mechanical integrity: 97 SB 57— 3 — HB -55-Item 4. - 35 line 1 (1) All gas storage wells shall be tested and inspected from the line 2 surface to the packer or to any wellbore restriction near the top of line 3 the geologic formation being used for gas storage, whichever is line 4 higher in elevation, to detect existing leaks using temperature and line 5 noise logs. line 6 (2) Any leaks shall be stopped and remediated to the satisfaction line 7 of the supervisor. line 8 (3) Following remediation, leak detection tests shall be repeated line 9 and results reviewed by the supervisor. line 10 (4) (A) Unless a well has been fully plugged and abandoned line 11 to the supervisor’s satisfaction and in accordance with Section line 12 3208, the well shall be evaluated and remediated in accordance line 13 with subparagraph (B) or plugged in accordance with subparagraph line 14 (C). line 15 (B) If a gas storage well is intended to return to service for the line 16 purposes of resuming injections to the facility, it shall be tested line 17 and inspected from the surface to the packer or to any wellbore line 18 restriction near the top of the geologic formation being used for line 19 gas storage, whichever is higher in elevation, to ensure mechanical line 20 integrity. As identified in the division’s criteria, these tests and line 21 inspections shall include the measurement of casing thickness and line 22 integrity, an evaluation of the cement bond on the casing, the line 23 determination as to whether any deformities in the well casing line 24 exist, and an evaluation of the well’s ability to withstand pressures line 25 that exceed maximum allowable injection and production pressures, line 26 with a reasonable margin for safety, at the facility in accordance line 27 with the criteria determined by the supervisor with input from line 28 independent experts pursuant to subdivision (b). If the tests reveal line 29 that a well poses a risk of failure, the supervisor shall require line 30 remediation and repeat tests as necessary to demonstrate to the line 31 satisfaction of the supervisor that remediation has mitigated any line 32 potential identified risks. If the operator cannot remediate the well line 33 to mitigate the identified risks to the satisfaction of the supervisor, line 34 the well shall be plugged and abandoned in accordance with line 35 Section 3208. line 36 (C) (i) If a well is to be taken out of service before resumption line 37 of gas injections at the facility, it shall be removed from operation line 38 and isolated from the gas storage reservoir through plugging line 39 according to the division’s criteria, including, but not limited to, line 40 the demonstration of sufficient cement to prevent migrations 97 — 4 —SB 57 HB -56-Item 4. - 36 line 1 between the reservoir and other zones, placement of a mechanical line 2 plug at the bottom of the well, and subsequent filling of the well line 3 with fluid, and to specifications approved by the supervisor. All line 4 gas storage wells that are taken out of service under this line 5 subparagraph shall be subjected to ongoing testing and monitoring line 6 requirements identified in the criteria determined by the supervisor line 7 with input from independent experts. The monitoring shall include, line 8 but not be limited to, real-time and daily pressure monitoring, as line 9 applicable. A gas storage well shall not be returned to service line 10 unless the testing and remediation required under subparagraph line 11 (B) has been completed. line 12 (ii) A gas storage well, within one year of being plugged and line 13 isolated from the gas storage reservoir pursuant to clause (i), shall line 14 either be returned to service by satisfactorily completing the testing line 15 and remediation required under subparagraph (B) or be line 16 permanently plugged and abandoned to the supervisor’s satisfaction line 17 in accordance with Section 3208. line 18 (D) The supervisor shall make a written finding for each gas line 19 storage well that has satisfactorily completed the testing and line 20 remediation required under subparagraph (B). line 21 (5) The gas storage well comprehensive safety review is not line 22 complete until every gas storage well at the facility has completed line 23 the testing and remediation required under subparagraph (B) of line 24 paragraph (4), been temporarily abandoned and isolated from the line 25 reservoir as required under clause (i) of subparagraph (C) of line 26 paragraph (4), or been fully plugged and abandoned to the line 27 supervisor’s satisfaction in accordance with Section 3208. line 28 (d) Upon completion of the gas storage well comprehensive line 29 safety review but before authorizing the commencement of line 30 injections at the facility, the division shall hold at least one duly line 31 noticed public meeting in the affected community to provide the line 32 public an opportunity to comment on the safety review findings line 33 and on the proposed pressure limit as provided in subdivision (e). line 34 (e) (1) Before commencing injections at the facility, the operator line 35 of the facility shall provide the division with the proposed line 36 maximum reservoir pressure and include data and calculations line 37 supporting the basis for the pressure limit. The pressure limit shall line 38 account for the pressure required to inject intended gas volumes line 39 at all proposed inventory levels and the pressure limit shall not line 40 exceed the design pressure limits of the reservoir, wells, wellheads, 97 SB 57— 5 — HB -57-Item 4. - 37 line 1 piping, or associated facilities with an appropriate margin for line 2 safety. line 3 (2) The operator’s proposed maximum reservoir pressure shall line 4 be subject to review and approval by the supervisor, and the line 5 supervisor shall consult with independent experts regarding the line 6 appropriate maximum and minimum reservoir pressure at the line 7 facility. line 8 (f) Once the gas storage well comprehensive safety review is line 9 complete pursuant to paragraph (5) of subdivision (c), the line 10 supervisor has approved the maximum and minimum reservoir line 11 pressure pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (e), and the public line 12 hearing is held pursuant to subdivision (d), the supervisor may line 13 allow injections of natural gas at the facility. line 14 (g) All gas storage wells returning to service pursuant to line 15 subdivision (f) shall only inject or produce gas through the interior line 16 metal tubing and not through the annulus between the tubing and line 17 the well casing. The operator shall also conduct ongoing pressure line 18 monitoring and comply with any other requirements specified by line 19 the supervisor. line 20 (h) The gas storage wells at the facility that are plugged and line 21 abandoned in accordance with Section 3208 pursuant to this section line 22 shall be periodically inspected by the operator for leaks using line 23 effective gas leak detection techniques such as optical gas imaging. line 24 (i) (1) Before the completion of the gas storage well line 25 comprehensive safety review, production of natural gas from gas line 26 storage wells at the facility shall be limited to gas storage wells line 27 that have satisfactorily completed the testing and remediation line 28 required under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision line 29 (c) unless insufficient production capacity is available. Only if line 30 production capacity supplied by the tested and remediated wells line 31 is demonstrably insufficient may the supervisor allow other gas line 32 storage wells to be used. line 33 (2) The supervisor shall direct the operator of the facility to line 34 provide a plan to ensure, at the earliest possible time, the line 35 availability of sufficient gas production capacity using gas storage line 36 wells that have satisfactorily completed the testing and remediation line 37 required under subparagraph (B) of paragraph (4) of subdivision line 38 (c). line 39 (j) With respect to the gas storage well comprehensive safety line 40 review at the facility, all testing, inspection and monitoring results 97 — 6 —SB 57 HB -58-Item 4. - 38 line 1 reported to the division, gas storage well compliance status, any line 2 required remediation steps, and other safety review-related line 3 materials shall be posted in a timely manner by the division online line 4 on a public portion of its Internet Web site. line 5 (k) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, line 6 and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that line 7 is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date. line 8 SEC. 2. line 9 SEC. 3. Section 714 of the Public Utilities Code is amended line 10 to read: line 11 714. (a) The commission, no later than July 1, 2017, shall open line 12 a proceeding to determine the feasibility of minimizing or line 13 eliminating use of the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility line 14 located in the County of Los Angeles while still maintaining energy line 15 and electric reliability for the region. This determination shall be line 16 consistent with the Clean Energy and Pollution Reduction Act of line 17 2015 (Ch. 547, Stats. 2015) and Executive Order B-30-2015. The line 18 commission shall consult with the State Energy Resources line 19 Conservation and Development Commission, the Independent line 20 System Operator, the local publicly owned utilities that rely on line 21 natural gas for electricity generation, the Division of Oil, Gas, and line 22 Geothermal Resources in the Department of Conservation, affected line 23 balancing authorities, and other relevant government entities, in line 24 making its determination. line 25 (b) The proceeding opened pursuant to subdivision (a) shall be line 26 completed by December 31, 2017. line 27 (c) This section shall remain in effect only until January 1, 2021, line 28 and as of that date is repealed, unless a later enacted statute, that line 29 is enacted before January 1, 2021, deletes or extends that date. line 30 SEC. 3. line 31 SEC. 4. This act is an urgency statute necessary for the line 32 immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety within line 33 the meaning of Article IV of the California Constitution and shall line 34 go into immediate effect. The facts constituting the necessity are: line 35 In order to mitigate, at the earliest possible time, harm from the line 36 gas leak at the Aliso Canyon natural gas storage facility, and to line 37 thoroughly evaluate the integrity of and the risks associated with 97 SB 57— 7 — HB -59-Item 4. - 39 line 1 gas storage wells at that facility, it is necessary that this act take line 2 effect immediately. O 97 — 8 —SB 57 HB -60-Item 4. - 40 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 21, 2017 AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 9, 2017 AMENDED IN SENATE FEBRUARY 21, 2017 SENATE BILL No. 35 Introduced by Senator Wiener (Principal coauthors: Senators Allen and coauthor: Senator Atkins) (Coauthor: Senator Allen) December 5, 2016 An act to amend Sections 65400 and 65582.1 of, and to add Section 65913.4 to, the Government Code, relating to housing. legislative counsel’s digest SB 35, as amended, Wiener. Planning and zoning: affordable housing: streamlined approval process. (1) The Planning and Zoning Law requires a city or county to adopt a general plan for land use development within its boundaries that includes, among other things, a housing element. The Planning and Zoning Law requires a planning agency, after a legislative body has adopted all or part of a general plan, to provide an annual report to the legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the Department of Housing and Community Development on the status of the general plan and progress in meeting the community’s share of regional housing needs. This bill would require the planning agency to include in its annual report specified information regarding units of housing housing, including rental housing and housing designated for homeownership, that have completed construction. The bill would also require the Department of Housing and Community Development to post an annual 96 HB -61-Item 4. - 41 report submitted pursuant to the requirement described above on its Internet Web site, as provided. (2) Existing law requires an attached housing development to be a permitted use, not subject to a conditional use permit, on any parcel zoned for multifamily housing if at least certain percentages of the units are available at affordable housing costs to very low income, lower income, and moderate-income households for at least 30 years and if the project meets specified conditions relating to location and being subject to a discretionary decision other than a conditional use permit. Existing law provides for various incentives intended to facilitate and expedite the construction of affordable housing. This bill would require an accessory dwelling unit development or a multifamily housing development that satisfies specified planning objective standards to be subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process, as provided, and to not be subject to a conditional use permit. The bill would limit the authority of a local government to impose parking standards or requirements on a streamlined development approved pursuant to these provisions, as provided. The bill would provide that if a local government approves a project pursuant to that process, that approval will not expire if that project includes investment in housing affordability, and would otherwise provide that the approval of a project expire automatically after 3 years, unless that project qualifies for a one-time, one-year extension of that approval. (3) The bill would make findings that ensuring access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and declare that its provisions would apply to all cities and counties, including a charter city, a charter county, or a charter city and county. (4) By imposing new duties upon local agencies with respect to the streamlined approval process and reporting requirement described above, this bill would impose a state-mandated local program. (5) The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement. This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: yes. State-mandated local program: yes. 96 — 2 —SB 35 HB -62-Item 4. - 42 The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. Section 65400 of the Government Code is line 2 amended to read: line 3 65400. (a) After the legislative body has adopted all or part line 4 of a general plan, the planning agency shall do both of the line 5 following: line 6 (1) Investigate and make recommendations to the legislative line 7 body regarding reasonable and practical means for implementing line 8 the general plan or element of the general plan, so that it will serve line 9 as an effective guide for orderly growth and development, line 10 preservation and conservation of open-space land and natural line 11 resources, and the efficient expenditure of public funds relating to line 12 the subjects addressed in the general plan. line 13 (2) Provide by April 1 of each year an annual report to the line 14 legislative body, the Office of Planning and Research, and the line 15 Department of Housing and Community Development that includes line 16 all of the following: line 17 (A) The status of the plan and progress in its implementation. line 18 (B) The progress in meeting its share of regional housing needs line 19 determined pursuant to Section 65584 and local efforts to remove line 20 governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and line 21 development of housing pursuant to paragraph (3) of subdivision line 22 (c) of Section 65583. line 23 The housing element portion of the annual report, as required line 24 by this paragraph, shall be prepared through the use of forms and line 25 definitions adopted by the Department of Housing and Community line 26 Development pursuant to the rulemaking provisions of the line 27 Administrative Procedure Act (Chapter 3.5 (commencing with line 28 Section 11340) of Part 1 of Division 3 of Title 2). Before and after line 29 adoption of the forms, the housing element portion of the annual line 30 report shall include a section that describes the actions taken by line 31 the local government towards completion of the programs and line 32 status of the local government’s compliance with the deadlines in line 33 its housing element. That report shall be considered at an annual line 34 public meeting before the legislative body where members of the line 35 public shall be allowed to provide oral testimony and written line 36 comments. line 37 The report may include the number of units that have been line 38 substantially rehabilitated, converted from nonaffordable to 96 SB 35— 3 — HB -63-Item 4. - 43 line 1 affordable by acquisition, and preserved consistent with the line 2 standards set forth in paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section line 3 65583.1. The report shall document how the units meet the line 4 standards set forth in that subdivision. line 5 (C) The degree to which its approved general plan complies line 6 with the guidelines developed and adopted pursuant to Section line 7 65040.2 and the date of the last revision to the general plan. line 8 (D) The number of units of housing housing, including both line 9 rental housing and housing designated for homeownership, that line 10 have completed construction thus far in the housing element cycle, line 11 and the income category, by area median income category, that line 12 each unit of housing housing, including both rental housing and line 13 housing designated for homeownership, satisfies. That report shall, line 14 for each income category described in this subparagraph, line 15 distinguish between the number of rental housing units that satisfy line 16 each income category and the number of units that are housing line 17 designated for homeownership that satisfy each income category. line 18 (E) The Department of Housing and Community Development line 19 shall post a report submitted pursuant to this paragraph on its line 20 Internet Web site within a reasonable time of receiving the report. line 21 (b) If a court finds, upon a motion to that effect, that a city, line 22 county, or city and county failed to submit, within 60 days of the line 23 deadline established in this section, the housing element portion line 24 of the report required pursuant to subparagraph (B) of paragraph line 25 (2) of subdivision (a) that substantially complies with the line 26 requirements of this section, the court shall issue an order or line 27 judgment compelling compliance with this section within 60 days. line 28 If the city, county, or city and county fails to comply with the line 29 court’s order within 60 days, the plaintiff or petitioner may move line 30 for sanctions, and the court may, upon that motion, grant line 31 appropriate sanctions. The court shall retain jurisdiction to ensure line 32 that its order or judgment is carried out. If the court determines line 33 that its order or judgment is not carried out within 60 days, the line 34 court may issue further orders as provided by law to ensure that line 35 the purposes and policies of this section are fulfilled. This line 36 subdivision applies to proceedings initiated on or after the first line 37 day of October following the adoption of forms and definitions by line 38 the Department of Housing and Community Development pursuant line 39 to paragraph (2) of subdivision (a), but no sooner than six months line 40 following that adoption. 96 — 4 —SB 35 HB -64-Item 4. - 44 line 1 SEC. 2. Section 65582.1 of the Government Code is amended line 2 to read: line 3 65582.1. The Legislature finds and declares that it has provided line 4 reforms and incentives to facilitate and expedite the construction line 5 of affordable housing. Those reforms and incentives can be found line 6 in the following provisions: line 7 (a) Housing element law (Article 10.6 (commencing with line 8 Section 65580) of Chapter 3). line 9 (b) Extension of statute of limitations in actions challenging the line 10 housing element and brought in support of affordable housing line 11 (subdivision (d) of Section 65009). line 12 (c) Restrictions on disapproval of housing developments line 13 (Section 65589.5). line 14 (d) Priority for affordable housing in the allocation of water and line 15 sewer hookups (Section 65589.7). line 16 (e) Least cost zoning law (Section 65913.1). line 17 (f) Density bonus law (Section 65915). line 18 (g) Accessory dwelling units (Sections 65852.150 and 65852.2). line 19 (h) By-right housing, in which certain multifamily housing are line 20 designated a permitted use (Section 65589.4). line 21 (i) No-net-loss-in zoning density law limiting downzonings and line 22 density reductions (Section 65863). line 23 (j) Requiring persons who sue to halt affordable housing to pay line 24 attorney fees (Section 65914) or post a bond (Section 529.2 of the line 25 Code of Civil Procedure). line 26 (k) Reduced time for action on affordable housing applications line 27 under the approval of development permits process (Article 5 line 28 (commencing with Section 65950) of Chapter 4.5). line 29 (l) Limiting moratoriums on multifamily housing (Section line 30 65858). line 31 (m) Prohibiting discrimination against affordable housing line 32 (Section 65008). line 33 (n) California Fair Employment and Housing Act (Part 2.8 line 34 (commencing with Section 12900) of Division 3). line 35 (o) Community redevelopment law (Part 1 (commencing with line 36 Section 33000) of Division 24 of the Health and Safety Code, and line 37 in particular Sections 33334.2 and 33413). line 38 (p) Streamlining housing approvals during a housing shortage line 39 (Section 65913.4). 96 SB 35— 5 — HB -65-Item 4. - 45 line 1 SEC. 3. Section 65913.4 is added to the Government Code, to line 2 read: line 3 65913.4. (a) A development shall be subject to the streamlined, line 4 ministerial approval process provided by subdivision (b) and shall line 5 not be subject to a conditional use permit if it satisfies all of the line 6 following objective planning standards: line 7 (1) The development is an accessory dwelling unit development line 8 or a multifamily housing development that contains two or more line 9 residential units. line 10 (2) The development is located on a site that satisfies both of line 11 the following: line 12 (A) Is an urban infill site as defined by Section 21061.3 of the line 13 Public Resources Code. line 14 (B) Is a site zoned for residential use or residential mixed use line 15 development with at least two-thirds of the square footage line 16 designated for residential use. line 17 (3) If the development contains units that are subsidized, the line 18 development applicant or development proponent already has line 19 recorded, or is required by law to record, a land use restriction that line 20 is: line 21 (A) Fifty-five years for subsidized units that are rented. line 22 (B) Forty-five years for subsidized units that are owned. line 23 (4) The development satisfies both of the following: line 24 (A) Is located in a locality that, according to its last production line 25 report to the Department of Housing and Community Development, line 26 completed construction of fewer units of housing by income line 27 category than was required for the regional housing needs line 28 assessment cycle for that reporting period. period, or has not line 29 submitted an annual housing element report to the Department of line 30 Housing and Community Development pursuant to paragraph (2) line 31 of subdivision (a) of Section 65400 for at least two consecutive line 32 years before the development submitted an application for approval line 33 under this section. line 34 (B) The development is subject to a requirement mandating a line 35 minimum percentage of below market rate housing based on either line 36 of the following: line 37 (i) The locality’s locality did not submit its latest production line 38 report to the Department of Housing and Community Development line 39 by the time period required by Section 65400, or that report reflects line 40 that there were fewer units of above moderate-income housing 96 — 6 —SB 35 HB -66-Item 4. - 46 line 1 constructed than was required for the regional housing needs line 2 assessment cycle for that year, and the project seeking approval line 3 dedicates a minimum of 10 percent of the total number of units to line 4 housing affordable to households making below 80 percent of the line 5 area median income, unless the locality has adopted a local line 6 ordinance that requires that greater than 10 percent of the units be line 7 dedicated to housing affordable to households making below 80 line 8 percent of the area median income, in which case that zoning line 9 ordinance applies. line 10 (ii) The locality’s locality did not submit its latest production line 11 report to the Department of Housing and Community Development line 12 by the time period required by Section 65400, or that report reflects line 13 that there were fewer units of housing affordable to households line 14 making below 80 percent of the area median income constructed line 15 than was required for the regional housing needs assessment cycle line 16 for that year, and the project seeking approval dedicates the line 17 majority of the total number of units to housing affordable to line 18 households making below 80 percent of the area median income, line 19 unless the locality has adopted a local ordinance that requires that line 20 greater than the majority of the units be dedicated to housing line 21 affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area line 22 median income, in which case that ordinance applies. line 23 (5) The development is consistent with objective zoning line 24 standards standards, including the Density Bonus Law in Section line 25 65915, and objective design review standards in effect at the time line 26 that the development is submitted to the local government pursuant line 27 to this section. For purposes of this paragraph, “objective zoning line 28 standards” and “objective design review standards” mean standards line 29 that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. line 30 (6) The development is not located on a site that is any of the line 31 following: line 32 (A) A coastal zone, as defined in Division 20 (commencing line 33 with Section 30000) of the Public Resources Code. line 34 (B) Either prime farmland or farmland of statewide importance, line 35 as defined pursuant to United States Department of Agriculture line 36 land inventory and monitoring criteria, as modified for California, line 37 and designated on the maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping line 38 and Monitoring Program of the Department of Conservation. line 39 Conservation, or land zoned or designated for agricultural 96 SB 35— 7 — HB -67-Item 4. - 47 line 1 protection or preservation by a local ballot measure that was line 2 approved by the voters of that jurisdiction. line 3 (C) Wetlands, as defined in Section 328.3 of Title 33 of the line 4 Code of Federal Regulations. line 5 (D) Within a very high fire hazard severity zone, as determined line 6 by the Department of Forestry and Fire Protection pursuant to line 7 Section 51178, or within a high or very high fire hazard severity line 8 zone as indicated on maps adopted by the Department of Forestry line 9 and Fire Protection pursuant to Section 4202 of the Public line 10 Resources Code. This subparagraph does not apply to sites line 11 excluded from the specified hazard zones by a local agency, line 12 pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 51179, or sites that have line 13 adopted sufficient fire hazard mitigation measures as may be line 14 determined by their local agency with land use authority. line 15 (E) A hazardous waste site that is listed pursuant to Section line 16 65962.5 or a hazardous waste site designated by the Department line 17 of Toxic Substances Control pursuant to Section 25356 of the line 18 Health and Safety Code, unless the Department of Toxic line 19 Substances Control has cleared the site for residential use or line 20 residential mixed uses. line 21 (F) Within a delineated earthquake fault zone as determined by line 22 the State Geologist in any official maps published by the State line 23 Geologist. line 24 (G) Within a flood plain as determined by maps promulgated line 25 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the line 26 development has been issued a flood plain development permit line 27 pursuant to Part 59 (commencing with Section 59.1) and Part 60 line 28 (commencing with Section 60.1) of Subchapter B of Chapter I of line 29 Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations. line 30 (H) Within a floodway as determined by maps promulgated by line 31 the Federal Emergency Management Agency, unless the line 32 development has received a no rise certification in accordance line 33 with paragraph (3) of subdivision (d) of Section 60.3 of Title 44 line 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations. line 35 (7) The development does not require the demolition of either line 36 of the following: line 37 (A) Housing that is subject to rent control, housing that is subject line 38 to deed restrictions, or any housing that has been occupied by line 39 residents within the past 10 years. years by tenants. 96 — 8 —SB 35 HB -68-Item 4. - 48 line 1 (B) A historic structure that was placed on a national, state, or line 2 local historic register before December 31, 2016. register. line 3 (8) The development proponent has certified that either of the line 4 following is true: line 5 (A) The project is a public work for purposes of Chapter 1 line 6 (commencing with Section 1720) of Part 7 of Division 2 of the line 7 Labor Code. line 8 (B) If the project is not a public work, that all construction line 9 workers employed in the execution of the project will be paid at line 10 least the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for the type of line 11 work and geographic area, as determined by the Director of line 12 Industrial Relations pursuant to Sections 1773 and 1773.9 of the line 13 Labor Code. If the development is subject to this subparagraph, line 14 then all of the following shall apply: line 15 (i) The development proponent shall ensure that the prevailing line 16 wage requirement is included in all contracts for the performance line 17 of the work. line 18 (ii) Contractors and subcontractors shall pay to all construction line 19 workers employed in the execution of the work at least the general line 20 prevailing rate of per diem wages. line 21 (iii) Except as provided in clause (iv), the obligation of the line 22 contractors and subcontractors to pay prevailing wages may be line 23 enforced by the Labor Commissioner through the issuance of a line 24 civil wage and penalty assessment pursuant to Section 1741 of the line 25 Labor Code, which may be reviewed pursuant to Section 1742 of line 26 the Labor Code, within 18 months after the completion of the line 27 project, or by an underpaid worker through an administrative line 28 complaint or civil action. If a civil wage and penalty assessment line 29 is issued, the contractor, subcontractor, and surety on a bond or line 30 bonds issued to secure the payment of wages covered by the line 31 assessment shall be liable for liquidated damages pursuant to line 32 Section 1742.1 of the Labor Code. line 33 (iv) Clause (iii) shall not apply if all contractors and line 34 subcontractors performing work on the project are subject to a line 35 project labor agreement that requires the payment of prevailing line 36 wages to all construction workers employed in the execution of line 37 the project and provides for enforcement of that obligation through line 38 an arbitration procedure. For purposes of this clause, “project labor line 39 agreement” has the same meaning as set forth in paragraph (1) of line 40 subdivision (b) of Section 2500 of the Public Contract Code. 96 SB 35— 9 — HB -69-Item 4. - 49 line 1 (v) Notwithstanding subdivision (c) of Section 1773.1 of the line 2 Labor Code, the requirement that employer payments not reduce line 3 the obligation to pay the hourly straight time or overtime wages line 4 found to be prevailing shall not apply if otherwise provided in a line 5 bona fide collective bargaining agreement covering the worker. line 6 The requirements of paragraph (2) of subdivision (c) of Section line 7 1773.1 of the Labor Code do not preclude use of an alternative line 8 workweek schedule adopted pursuant to Section 511 or 514 of the line 9 Labor Code. line 10 (9) The development shall not be upon an existing parcel of line 11 land or site that is governed under the Mobilehome Residency Law line 12 (Chapter 2.5 (commencing with Section 798) of Title 2 of Part 2 line 13 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Recreational Vehicle Park line 14 Occupancy Law (Chapter 2.6 (commencing with Section 799.20) line 15 of Title 2 of Part 2 of Division 2 of the Civil Code), the Mobilehome line 16 Parks Act (Part 2.1 (commencing with Section 18200) of Division line 17 13 of the Health and Safety Code), or the Special Occupancy Parks line 18 Act (Part 2.3 (commencing with Section 18860) of Division 13 of line 19 the Health and Safety Code). line 20 (b) (1) If a local government determines that a development line 21 submitted pursuant to this section is in conflict with any of the line 22 objective planning standards specified in subdivision (a), it shall line 23 provide the development proponent written documentation of line 24 which standard or standards the development conflicts with, and line 25 an explanation for the reason or reasons the development conflicts line 26 with that standard or standards, as follows: line 27 (A) Within 60 days of submittal of the development to the local line 28 government pursuant to this section if the development contains line 29 150 or fewer housing units. line 30 (B) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local line 31 government pursuant to this section if the development contains line 32 more than 150 housing units. line 33 (2) If the local government fails to provide the required line 34 documentation pursuant to paragraph (1), the development shall line 35 be deemed to satisfy the objective planning standards specified in line 36 subdivision (a). line 37 (c) Any design review of the development may be conducted line 38 by the local government’s supervising body for design review, line 39 including a planning department or city council, and shall be line 40 completed as follows and shall not in any way inhibit, chill, or 96 — 10 —SB 35 HB -70-Item 4. - 50 line 1 preclude the ministerial approval provided by this section or its line 2 effect, as applicable: line 3 (1) Within 90 days of submittal of the development to the local line 4 government pursuant to this section if the development contains line 5 150 or fewer housing units. line 6 (2) Within 180 days of submittal of the development to the local line 7 government pursuant to this section if the development contains line 8 more than 150 housing units. line 9 (d) A development approved pursuant to this section that is line 10 located within one-quarter mile of a major transit stop shall not be line 11 subject to any local or state parking minimum requirements. For line 12 purposes of this subdivision, “major transit stop” has the same line 13 meaning as defined in Section 21064.3 of the Public Resources line 14 Code. line 15 (d) (1) Notwithstanding any other law, a local government, line 16 whether or not it has adopted an ordinance governing parking line 17 requirements in multifamily developments, shall not impose parking line 18 standards for a streamlined development in any of the following line 19 instances: line 20 (A) The development is located within one-half mile of public line 21 transit. line 22 (B) The development is located within an architecturally and line 23 historically significant historic district. line 24 (C) When on-street parking permits are required but not offered line 25 to the occupants of the development. line 26 (D) When there is a car share vehicle located within one block line 27 of the development. line 28 (2) Parking requirements for streamlined developments shall line 29 not exceed one parking space per unit. This paragraph shall not line 30 apply to accessory dwelling units or developments described in line 31 paragraph (1). line 32 (3) A local government shall comply with the requirements of line 33 Section 65852.2 when establishing parking requirements for a line 34 streamlined development that is an accessory dwelling unit. line 35 (e) (1) If a local government approves a development pursuant line 36 to this section, that approval shall not expire if the project includes line 37 public investment in housing affordability, beyond tax credits, line 38 where the majority of the units are affordable to households making line 39 below 80 percent of the area median income. 96 SB 35— 11 — HB -71-Item 4. - 51 line 1 (2) If a local government approves a development pursuant to line 2 this section and the project does not include a majority of the units line 3 affordable to households making below 80 percent of the area line 4 median income, that approval shall automatically expire after three line 5 years except that a project may receive a one-time, one-year line 6 extension if the project proponent can provide documentation that line 7 there has been significant progress toward getting the development line 8 construction ready. line 9 (f) For purposes of this section, “locality” or “local government” line 10 means a city, including a charter city, a county, or a city and line 11 county, including a charter city and county. line 12 (g) For purposes of this section, “production report” means the line 13 information reported pursuant to subparagraph (D) of paragraph line 14 (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 65400. line 15 SEC. 4. The Legislature finds and declares that ensuring access line 16 to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern, and not a line 17 municipal affair. Therefore, the changes made by this act are line 18 applicable to a charter city, a charter county, and a charter city and line 19 county. line 20 SEC. 5. Each provision of this measure is a material and line 21 integral part of this measure, and the provisions of this measure line 22 are not severable. If any provision of this measure or its application line 23 is held invalid, this entire measure shall be null and void. line 24 SEC. 6. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to line 25 Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because line 26 a local agency or school district has the authority to levy service line 27 charges, fees, or assessments sufficient to pay for the program or line 28 level of service mandated by this act, within the meaning of Section line 29 17556 of the Government Code. O 96 — 12 —SB 35 HB -72-Item 4. - 52 SENATE BILL No. 649 Introduced by Senator Hueso (Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Quirk) (Coauthor: Senator Dodd) February 17, 2017 An act to amend Sections 65850.6 and 65964 of the Government Code, relating to telecommunications. legislative counsel’s digest SB 649, as introduced, Hueso. Wireless telecommunications facilities. Under existing law, a wireless telecommunications collocation facility, as specified, is subject to a city or county discretionary permit and is required to comply with specified criteria, but a collocation facility, which is the placement or installation of wireless facilities, including antennas and related equipment, on or immediately adjacent to that wireless telecommunications collocation facility, is a permitted use not subject to a city or county discretionary permit. Existing law defines various terms for these purposes. This bill would define the term “small cell” as a particular type of telecommunications facility for these purposes. Under existing law, a city or county, as a condition of approval of an application for a permit for construction or reconstruction of a development project for a wireless telecommunications facility, may not require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless telecommunications facility or any component thereof, unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless telecommunications facility, or require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction of the city or county, as specified. 99 HB -73-Item 4. - 53 This bill would apply these prohibitions to the approval of small cell facilities as defined by this bill. Vote: majority. Appropriation: no. Fiscal committee: no. State-mandated local program: no. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: line 1 SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares that, to ensure line 2 that communities across the state have access to the most advanced line 3 wireless communications technologies and the transformative line 4 solutions that robust wireless connectivity enables, such as Smart line 5 Communities and the Internet of Things, California should work line 6 in coordination with federal, state, and local officials to create a line 7 statewide framework for the deployment of advanced wireless line 8 communications infrastructure in California that does all of the line 9 following: line 10 (a) Reaffirms local governments’ historic role and authority line 11 with respect to wireless communications infrastructure siting and line 12 construction generally. line 13 (b) Reaffirms that deployment of telecommunications facilities line 14 in the rights-of-way is a matter of statewide concern, subject to a line 15 statewide franchise, and that expeditious deployment of line 16 telecommunications networks generally is a matter of both line 17 statewide and national concern. line 18 (c) Recognizes that the impact on local interests from individual line 19 small wireless facilities will be sufficiently minor and that such line 20 deployments should be a permitted use statewide and should not line 21 be subject to discretionary zoning review. line 22 (d) Requires expiring permits for these facilities to be renewed line 23 so long as the site maintains compliance with use conditions line 24 adopted at the time the site was originally approved. line 25 (e) Requires providers to obtain all applicable building or line 26 encroachment permits and comply with all related health, safety, line 27 and objective aesthetic requirements for small wireless facility line 28 deployments on a ministerial basis. line 29 (f) Grants providers fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and line 30 nonexclusive access to locally owned utility poles, street lights, line 31 and other suitable host infrastructure located within the public line 32 right-of-way and in other local public places such as stadiums, line 33 parks, campuses, hospitals, transit stations, and public buildings 99 — 2 —SB 649 HB -74-Item 4. - 54 line 1 consistent with all applicable health and safety requirements, line 2 including Public Utilities Commission General Order 95. line 3 (g) Provides for full recovery by local governments of the costs line 4 of attaching small wireless facilities to utility poles, street lights, line 5 and other suitable host infrastructure in a manner that is consistent line 6 with existing federal and state laws governing utility pole line 7 attachments generally. line 8 (h) Permits local governments to charge wireless permit fees line 9 that are fair, reasonable, nondiscriminatory, and cost based. line 10 (i) Advances technological and competitive neutrality while not line 11 adding new requirements on competing providers that do not exist line 12 today. line 13 SEC. 2. Section 65850.6 of the Government Code is amended line 14 to read: line 15 65850.6. (a) A collocation facility shall be a permitted use not line 16 subject to a city or county discretionary permit if it satisfies the line 17 following requirements: line 18 (1) The collocation facility is consistent with requirements for line 19 the wireless telecommunications collocation facility pursuant to line 20 subdivision (b) on which the collocation facility is proposed. line 21 (2) The wireless telecommunications collocation facility on line 22 which the collocation facility is proposed was subject to a line 23 discretionary permit by the city or county and an environmental line 24 impact report was certified, or a negative declaration or mitigated line 25 negative declaration was adopted for the wireless line 26 telecommunications collocation facility in compliance with the line 27 California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 (commencing line 28 with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code), the line 29 requirements of Section 21166 do not apply, and the collocation line 30 facility incorporates required mitigation measures specified in that line 31 environmental impact report, negative declaration, or mitigated line 32 negative declaration. line 33 (b) A wireless telecommunications collocation facility, where line 34 a subsequent collocation facility is a permitted use not subject to line 35 a city or county discretionary permit pursuant to subdivision (a), line 36 shall be subject to a city or county discretionary permit issued on line 37 or after January 1, 2007, and shall comply with all of the following: line 38 (1) City or county requirements for a wireless line 39 telecommunications collocation facility that specifies types of line 40 wireless telecommunications facilities that are allowed to include 99 SB 649— 3 — HB -75-Item 4. - 55 line 1 a collocation facility, or types of wireless telecommunications line 2 facilities that are allowed to include certain types of collocation line 3 facilities; height, location, bulk, and size of the wireless line 4 telecommunications collocation facility; percentage of the wireless line 5 telecommunications collocation facility that may be occupied by line 6 collocation facilities; and aesthetic or design requirements for the line 7 wireless telecommunications collocation facility. line 8 (2) City or county requirements for a proposed collocation line 9 facility, including any types of collocation facilities that may be line 10 allowed on a wireless telecommunications collocation facility; line 11 height, location, bulk, and size of allowed collocation facilities; line 12 and aesthetic or design requirements for a collocation facility. line 13 (3) State and local requirements, including the general plan, any line 14 applicable community plan or specific plan, and zoning ordinance. line 15 (4) The California Environmental Quality Act (Division 13 line 16 (commencing with Section 21000) of the Public Resources Code) line 17 through certification of an environmental impact report, or adoption line 18 of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. line 19 (c) The city or county shall hold at least one public hearing on line 20 the discretionary permit required pursuant to subdivision (b) and line 21 notice shall be given pursuant to Section 65091, unless otherwise line 22 required by this division. line 23 (d) For purposes of this section, the following definitions apply: line 24 (1) “Collocation facility” means the placement or installation line 25 of wireless facilities, including antennas, and related equipment, line 26 on, or immediately adjacent to, a wireless telecommunications line 27 collocation facility. line 28 (2) “Small cell” means a wireless telecommunications facility line 29 within the volume limits established by the Federal line 30 Communications Commission for small wireless antennas and line 31 associated equipment in the First Amendment to Nationwide line 32 Programmatic Agreement for the Collocation of Wireless Antennas line 33 (47 C.F.R. Part 1 Appendix B). line 34 (2) line 35 (3) “Wireless telecommunications facility” means equipment line 36 and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, line 37 base stations, and emergency power systems that are integral to line 38 providing wireless telecommunications services. line 39 (3) 99 — 4 —SB 649 HB -76-Item 4. - 56 line 1 (4) “Wireless telecommunications collocation facility” means line 2 a wireless telecommunications facility that includes collocation line 3 facilities. line 4 (e) The Legislature finds and declares that a both small cell line 5 and collocation facility, facilities, as defined in this section, has line 6 have a significant economic impact in California and is are not a line 7 municipal affair as that term is used in Section 5 of Article XI of line 8 the California Constitution, but is are a matter of statewide concern. line 9 (f) With respect to the consideration of the environmental effects line 10 of radio frequency emissions, the review by the city or county shall line 11 be limited to that authorized by Section 332(c)(7) of Title 47 of line 12 the United States Code, or as that section may be hereafter line 13 amended. line 14 SEC. 3. Section 65964 of the Government Code is amended line 15 to read: line 16 65964. As a condition of approval of an application for a permit line 17 for construction or reconstruction for a development project for a line 18 wireless telecommunications facility, facility or small cell, as line 19 defined in Section 65850.6, a city or county shall not do any of line 20 the following: line 21 (a) Require an escrow deposit for removal of a wireless line 22 telecommunications facility or any component thereof. However, line 23 a performance bond or other surety or another form of security line 24 may be required, so long as the amount of the bond security is line 25 rationally related to the cost of removal. In establishing the amount line 26 of the security, the city or county shall take into consideration line 27 information provided by the permit applicant regarding the cost line 28 of removal. line 29 (b) Unreasonably limit the duration of any permit for a wireless line 30 telecommunications facility. Limits of less than 10 years are line 31 presumed to be unreasonable absent public safety reasons or line 32 substantial land use reasons. However, cities and counties may line 33 establish a build-out period for a site. line 34 (c) Require that all wireless telecommunications facilities be line 35 limited to sites owned by particular parties within the jurisdiction line 36 of the city or county. O 99 SB 649— 5 — HB -77-Item 4. - 57 Dept. ID AD-17-007 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 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, 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 HB -78-Item 5. - 1 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 interest earned) $924,147.00 $114,340.52 $116,621.80 $66,974.00 Expenditures $543,172.00 $0 $0 $92,672.00 Ending Balance – 09/30/15 $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 interest earned) $494,777.00 $1,611,690.00 $1,140,323.00 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 HB -80-Item 5. - 3 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH Interdepartmental Memo TO: Honorable ay f or and City Council Members FROM Fred WilsC Rity Manager SUBJECT: RELEASIOF 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 -81-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 HB -82-Item 5. - 5 ATTACHMENT 1 2014-15 PARKLAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT HB -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 1716 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 HB -84-Item 5. - 7 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.) Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) (Eff. 9(2/12) $6,802 $4,632 $3,351 $0.23 $0.23 $0.447 $0.393 (Eff. 9/2/13) $11,540 $8,576 $6,701 $0.23 $0.23 $0.66 $0.555 (Eff.9/2/14) $16,278 $12,520 $10,052 $0.23 $0.23 $0.882 $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, $887,995 in Park Development Impact 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, $543,172 was expended for various park improvement projects, park license agreements, contracted/professional services, and staffing. The 2014-15 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 9" 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 HB -86-Item 5. - 9 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: Chapter 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 hnpact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations. 17.76.170 Violation—Penalty. 17.76.180 Severability. 1 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 12-3200,002/79301 HB -88-Item 5. - 11 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 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. 3 12-3209.002179301 HB -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 Parldand 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: I. 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 d 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 12-3209.002/79301 HB -90-Item 5. - 13 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 Projects. 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 Adjustments. 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: 1. The acquisition of additional property for the expansion of parldand 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; 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 12-3209.002/79301 HB -91-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 ParIdand 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 1 approval by other governmental agencies have been 6 12-3209.002/79301 HB -92-Item 5. - 15 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: 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; 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 -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 Appeals. 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 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 to 12-3209.002179301 HB -94-Item 5. - 17 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 Governnient Coc--Te-3'e-dro-i--166006, incorporating among other things: 1. Any parldand 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 Parldand 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 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. 10 12-3209.002/79301 HB -96-Item 5. - 19 civ Clerk and ex-officio of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Ord. No. 3946 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 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 -Senior Deputy City Clerk 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 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT FOR THE CITY OF HUNTING TON PEACH, 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 inn 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 impact; 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 12-3209.006179289 HB -98-Item 5. - 21 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 at 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. 2 12-3209.006/79289 HB -99-Item 5. - 22 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 goinginto 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 discretiori, 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 121209.006/79289 HB -100-Item 5. - 23 Resolution No. 20 l2-23 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 Develooment 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 Deputy City Manager ApPB.OVED : TYYSc 0-7VM CV Attorney (r1 W. 5 _073_0. 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 ordinance S 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 Beack at a regular meeting thereof held on the i g day of June 20/12 • Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: 5 12-3209.006179289 HB -102-Item 5. - 25 Exhibit A HB -103-Item 5. - 26 Land Use Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 30% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $119 $245 $111 No Fee No Fee • $0.312 $0.133 $277 $115 $475 No Fee No Fee $0,099 $0.009 $1,800 $1,238 $940 $172/trip $172/trip $4,175 $1279 $1,091 $519 $479 $0.04/SF $0,04/SF No Fee No Fee $6,802 $4,632 $3,351 $0.23/SF $0.23/SF $0.447 $0.393 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) 60% Land Use Law Fire Enforcement Suppression Facilities Facilities Circulation System (Streets, Signals, Bridges) Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities Public Library (No Tract Facilities Map) 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.) $238 $489 $221 No Fee No Fee $0.625 $0.266 $553 $229 $950 No Fee No Fee $0.197 $0.018 $2,092 $1,417 $1,094 $172/trip $172/trip $4.175 $1,498 $1,126 $686 $588 $0.04/SF $0,04/SF No Fee No Fee $11,540 $8,576 $6,701 $0,23/SF $0,23/SF $0.664 $0355 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 90% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open. Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $356 $734 $332 No Fee No Fee $0,937 $0.399 $830 $344 $1,425 No Fee No Fee $0,296 $0,027 $2,385 $1,160 $16,278 $1,597 $852 $12,520 $1,248 $697 $10,052 $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF $4.175 • No Fee $0.882 $1,716 No Fee $0.718 Date PrInted:S/24/2012,June4 Resolution BO 60_90 Page 1 HB -104-Item 5. - 27 OVERVIEW ATTACHMENT 3 Park Development Impact Fee Annual Financial Summary Statement Fiscal Year 2014-15 Amount 2,578,268 Fund Balance 9/30/14 (inc. all Park Impact Fee Funds) 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 Fund Balance (9/30/15) Amount 254,564 32,265 8,907 150,911 96,525 Expenditure Total 543,172 $2,959,243 Percent Funded with Dev. Impact Fees 100% 100% 100% 100% 50% FY 2014-15 Park Improvements (A) Park Acquisition - Encyclopedia Lots Park License Agreements Professional/Contracted Services (B) Staffing A) Murdy Park Patio/Senior Center in Central Park/Worthy Park/Team Room B) Professional Services for Park Master Plan HB -105-Item 5. - 28 ATTACHMENT 2 2014-15 LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT HB -106-Item 5. - 29 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) $238 Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) $489 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) $221 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) No fee Resort Lodging Units (per unit) No fee Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.625 per square foot Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.266 per square foot Interfund Loans 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). 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 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: HB -108-Item 5. - 31 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 -109-Item 5. - 32 ORDINANCE NO. 3942 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF H'UNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL 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 I. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to add Chapter 1733, said chapter to read as follows: Chapter 17.75 POLICE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Sections 17.75.010 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,Payments for Phased Development Projects 17.75.076 Fee Adjustments, .17.75.080 Payment of fee. 17.75.090 Use of funds, 17.75.100 Refund, 17.75.110 Exemptions and credits. 17.75.120 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. 17.75.160 Effect of Police Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision regulations. 17.75.170 Violation—Penalty. 17.75.180 Severability. 12-3209.00 in8649 HB -110-Item 5. - 33 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 needed 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, 20I2 which 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 police services 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 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 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 police facilities and equipment 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 equipment or portion thereof attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. 12-3209_0008619 HB -111-Item 5. - 34 Ordinance No. 3942 17.75.020 —Intent and Purposes 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 Improvement 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 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. 17.75.030 - Definitions. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code. 17.75,040 - 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 Plan, 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. 3 12-3209.001/7g649 HB -112-Item 5. - 35 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. 17.75.070 - 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, 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 sarne by the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee amount per dwelling unit or pad as established by the current fee resolution setting the arnount 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 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 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 Tate 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 Projects. 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 4 I 2-3209.001178M9 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 mob ilehome 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: The acquisition of additional property for law enforcement facilities; 2. The construction Qf ile-vv facilities for law enforcement services; 3. The furnishing nf 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 12-3209.001/713649 HB -114-Item 5. - 37 ..... ..... 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 facilitiesTrovided 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. 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%) 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 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 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, 17.74.110 Exemptions and credits. A. Exemptions, Any claim of exemption must be made no later than the time of application for a building permit or mobilehome construction approval. Any claim of exemption must be filed in the same manner and will be considered pursuant to 6 12-3209.061/78649 HB -115-Item 5. - 38 Ordinance No. 3942 the same procedure as for a fee adjustment as provided in Chapter 1733. The following shall be exempted from payment of the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee: 1. Residential Developrrtent 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 and; 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 mobilehorae 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 mobilehoine 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 fbr rent or for sale or transfer. The agreement shall be in 7 2-3209,001/75649 HB -116-Item 5. - 39 Ordinahce 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- 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 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 Anneals. 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 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 he 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 17.75.140 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 8 12-32Q9.001/78649 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. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Police Chief of the City of Huntington 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: 1. 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; 3. The amount of Police Facilities Development Impact Fees in the fund; and 4. Recommended changes to the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee, including, but not necessarily limited to changes in this Police Facilities Development Impact Fee chapter or the fee re,solution, 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 Police 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 he 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 9 12-3209.001/78649 HB -118-Item 5. - 41 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 INITIATED AND APPROVED: _ Chief of Police APPROVED AS TO FORM: 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 - 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 bolding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions thereof, SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption. 10 12-3209.001/73649 HB -119-Item 5. - 42 Clerk and ex-officio of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Ci Ord. No. 3942 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, Carchlo, Bohr, Boardman NOES: Harper, Dwyer, Hansen ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None I, Joan L. Hynn, CITY CLERK of the City of Huntingt, on Beach and en-ntficio Clerk of tlx- City Council. do hereby certify that a synopsis or this ordinance has been pub] ished in i he huntington Beach Fountain Valley Independent on July 12, 2012. In accordance with the City Charter or said City fqoan L. Flynn. City Clerk Senior Deputy City Clerk HB -120-Item 5. - 43 ATTACHMENT 3 2014-15 FIRE SUPPRESSION FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT HB -121-Item 5. - 44 FIRE SUPPRESSION 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. 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. 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 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. HB -122-Item 5. - 45 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) $553 Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) $229 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) $950 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) No fee Resort Lodging Units (per unit) No fee Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. :ft.) $0.197 per square foot Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.018 per square foot Interfund Loans 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 )y During Fiscal Year 2014=2015, $116,621.80 in Fire Suppression Facilities Fees were collected. As of September 30, 2045; the total revenue, as included in Fund 231, was $220,631.94. t 1 Li 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. HB -123-Item 5. - 46 ATTACHMENT 4 2014-15 LIBRARY FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT HB -124-Item 5. - 47 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). 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 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) $1,160 Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) $852 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) $4697 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) $0.04 per square foot Resort Lodging Units (per unit) $0.04 per square foot Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) No fee Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) No fee Interfund Loans 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 HB -126-Item 5. - 49 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 HB -127-Item 5. - 50 OrdinSnce 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 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 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. 12-3209.005/77615 2 HB -128-Item 5. - 51 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: 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 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 foun 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 4 HB -130-Item 5. - 53 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. 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 -131-Item 5. - 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 Projects. 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 (20%) 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. 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 12-3209.005/77615 6 HB -132-Item 5. - 55 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: 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 Adjustments 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 12-3209.005177615 8 HB -134-Item 5. - 57 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 ,2(11.2 . Mayor INITIATED AND VED: Dire&of"of ebt rary Services C...) G, APPROVED AS TO FORM: i(V) City Attorney 3". f 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. 12-3209.005/77615 9 HB -135-Item 5. - 58 1 eP.Li 41. 4 `+'• C Clerk and ex-officio ierk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California 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, 2012. In accordance with the City Charter of said City k Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk Senior Deputy City Clerk HB -136-Item 5. - 59 Actual Fund Balance Report with Encumbrance Tuesday, February 23, 2016 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 HB -137-Item 5. - 60 ATTACHMENT 5 2014-15 PLANNED LOCAL DRAINAGE FACILITIES FUND ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT HB -138-Item 5. - 61 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 2014/15 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 AB1X26, 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. HB -140-Item 5. - 63 Beginning Balance 10/14 $298,093 Revenue Developer fees 487,431 Interest earned 7,346 Total Revenue $ 494,777 Total Expenditures 0 Beginning Balance 10/15 $792,870 Projected revenues 225,000 Budgeted expenditures 0 Estimated Balance 10/16 $1,017,870 Rate Schedule Fiscal Year 2014/15 Drainage Fees: $13,880 per acre. Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachments: None HB -141-Item 5. - 64 ATTACHMENT 6 2014-15 SANITARY SEWER FACILITIES FUND ANNUAL COMPLIANCE REPORT HB -142-Item 5. - 65 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 2014/15 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, 201 5 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 AB1X26, 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. HB -144-Item 5. - 67 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 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 11/2 " 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 Attachments: None HB -146-Item 5. - 69 ATTACHMENT 7 2014-15 FAIR SHARE TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE PROGRAM ANNUAL REPORT HB -147-Item 5. - 70 ATTACHMENT 8 RESOLUTION 2012-23 ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS AND NEXUS STUDY REPORT HB -148-Item 5. - 71 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 12-3209.006/79289 HB -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 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: Identifies the purpose of the fee; Identifies the use to which the fee will be put; 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 -150-Item 5. - 73 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 fmds 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 12-3209.006/79289 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 HB -152-Item 5. - 75 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 , ;op Mayor INITIATEFf AND AP,PROVED: Deputy City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Citc, Attorney fy) 5 12-3209.006/79289 HB -153-Item 5. - 76 Exhibit A HB -154-Item 5. - 77 Land Use Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 30% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $119 $245 $111 No Fee No Fee $0.312 $0.133 $277 $115 $475 No Fee No Fee $0.099 $0.009 $1,800 $1,238 $940 $172/trip $172/trip $4.175 $1.279 $1,091 $519 $479 $0.04/SF $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee $6,802 $4,632 $3,351 $0.23/SF $0.23/SF $0.447 $0.393 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) 60% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $238 $489 $221 No Fee No Fee $0.625 $0.266 $553 $229 $950 No Fee No Fee $0.197 $0.018 $2,092 $1,417 $1,094 $172/trip $172/trip $4.175 $1.498 $1,126 $686 $588 $0.04/SF $0,04/SF No Fee No Fee $11,540 $8,576 $6,701 $0.23/SF $0,23/SF $0.664 $0.555 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 90% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $356 $734 $332 No Fee No Fee $0.937 $0.399 $830 $344 $1,425 No Fee No Fee $0.296 $0.027 $2,385 $1,597 $1,248 $172/trip $172/trip $4.175 $1.716 $1,160 $852 $697 $0.04/SF $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee $16,278 $12,520 $10,052 $0.23/SF $0.23/SF $0.882 $0,718 Date Printed:5/24/2012, June 4 Resolution 30 60 90 Page 1 HB -155-Item 5. - 78 Exhibit A-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 R ES IDENTIAL LAND US ES s ''" • Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0,5 34.6 $ 50.22 $ 1,737.61 /Unit $ 1722.55 /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 $ 1464.66 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18,1 $ 60.22 $ 908.98 /Unit 09,69, /Unit RESORT/TOUMST:(00 Unit Or Piti.TiOtiar ) Hotel 6.29 7.6 0,5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,537.73 /Room $ 1,218,63 /Room All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 $ 920.06 /Room $. 72943 /Room Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room $ 841.02 _ /Room INriliAll,. 0.0 SO) General Light industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf $ 1,20.46 /1,000 Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf $ 1,238.01 . /tow 1 of Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0,5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 11,000 sf $ 566.11 /1 .000 elt Warehousing 4.39 9,0 0.5 19,8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf $ .91 ,014 L1,000 cgiViinRCIAL (per 1.,000 S , . ,., •-• Office Park 7,42 8,8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,097.48 11 ,000 sf $ 1,522 1 /1 •000 sf Research Park 5.01 8.8 0,5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf $ 1,027.85 sifi 'M 1 1 Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf ' $ 1,91'7,85 /1 '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 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf 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 /1,000 sf Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf $ 4,559.89 /1,000 sf General Office Building 7.16 8,8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf $ 1,470.go . : sf Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0,5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 11,000 sf $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf 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 s/:r1,000 Convenience Market 43,57 4.3 0,5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028,66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028,66 /1,000 sf Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf OTHER (0$ noted): Cemetery 3.07 4,3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre $ 424.64 /Acre Service Station/Market Savg) 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 0.5 213.6$ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position Page 2 HB -156-Item 5. - 79 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 , 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 Condommfrownno 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 RESORTrrOPRI§T (Pei Unit or Entry Door Hotel 6.29 7.6 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 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room $ 935.56 /Room INDUSTRIALTPer 1;000 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 /1,000 sf cofinnEricIAL (per 1,00 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 11,000 sf Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41. $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf $ 2,229.22 /1,000 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 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341,00 11,000 sf $ 341.00 /1,000 sf Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817,12 /1,000 sf $ 817.12 /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 Pi ,000 sf $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf $ 1,582.76 11,000 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 /1,000 sf Convenience Market 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64,34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf -OTHER (is -notid)' Cemetery 3.07 4,3 0.5 6.6 $ 64,34 $ 424.64 /Acre $ 424.64 /Acre Service Station/Market (avg) 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 0.5 213.6 $ 64,34 $ 13,743.02 Position /Fuel $ 13,743.02 /Fuel I Position I Page 5 HB -157-Item 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) RESIO:ENT.14.14.0lP.:V4g§fl'W 1-10) : .. 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 -Dondominiumflownhou 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 RgsOrorrouRisT.(pir unit or 4001:P000 '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 INDIUSTRIA14 br MO 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 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64,34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf c9MMeRC144, (PO 1,000 SE) . 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 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 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64,34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $' 1,930.20 /1,000 sf , OTH ER (akffioted). ' .". •-• . Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre Service Station/Market (av9) 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 HB -158-Item 5. - 81 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 Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California HB -159-Item 5. - 82 PUBLIC LIBRARY 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. 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. 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 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 HB -160-Item 5. - 83 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) $1,160 Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) $852 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) $4697 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) $0.04 per square foot Resort Lodging Units (per unit) $0.04 per square foot Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) No fee Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) No fee Interfund Loans 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 PARKLAND A.CQU:SITION AND PikRi._ rACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE ANNUAL REPORT FISCAL YEk,P1 2015.-S 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 HB -162-Item 5. - 85 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 irt.--1 th.. Nextls rsity of HLintington Pe'=ch rsapita! 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 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.) Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) Amount (30%) (Eff. 9/2/12) $6,802 $4,632 $3,351 $0.23 $0.23 $0.447 $0.393 Amount (60%) (Eff. 9/2/13) $11,540 $8,576 $6,701 $0.23 $0.23 $0.66 $0.555 Amount (90%) (Eff.9/2/14) $16,278 $12,520 $10,052 $0.23 $0.23 $0.882 $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. F NANC I'.I SU FV1MARY Fiscal 7 -16 Reve,..- 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. '.ZOJECTED 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 9 th 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 HB -164-Item 5. - 87 ATTACHMEJT ORDINANCE NO, 3946 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING THE HUNTLNGTON 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 PARR AND ACQUISITION AND PAN; 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. 1 12-3209.002/79301 HB -165-Item 5. - 88 Ordinance i\hi 3946 Legislative A. The State of California, through the enactment of Government Code Sections 66001 through 66009 has authorized the (:,ity to enact development inapaet fees. B. The imposition of development impact fees is a method of ensuring that new develop t 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 12-3209,002/79301 HB -166-Item 5. - 89 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 who wit of the fee and Inc cost of Inc facilities Or partiori 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 2002429 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. 3 12-3209.002(79301 HB -167-Item 5. - 90 Ordinance No. 3946 17.7 Fee lin:nosed, A. Any person who, oe 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 4 12-3209.002179301 HB -168-Item 5. - 91 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 Projects. 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 Adjustments. 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 Parldand Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or final building penult 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: 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 (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 parldand and park facilities and community use facilities development; 4. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments). 5 12-3209.002179301 HB -169-Item 5. - 92 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 Councilapproved park acquisition and develo.prr.ent 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. 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 6 12-3209.002/79301 HB -170-Item 5. - 93 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: 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 parldand 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. - 94 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 Appeals. 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 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 8 12-3209.002179301 HB -172-Item 5. - 95 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 Code ection 66006, incorporaing 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 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 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 1NITI " 'ROVED: ji i Deputy City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: Llmik, Citi) Attorney ND APPROVED: Ordinance No. 3946 17.76.170 V,.i .iat.an---Periak.;:::,, A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the same mariner 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 Seven.ALN. 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. 10 12-3209.002/79301 HB -174-Item 5. - 97 : C Clerk and ex-officio terk of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach, California Ord. No. 3946 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 )1 egui!Ar 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. Flynn, City Clerk 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 OF HUNTING TON 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 12-3209.006179289 HB -176-Item 5. - 99 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 1.8 , 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: Identifies the purpose of the fee; Identifies the use to which the fee will be put; Shows a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; 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 -177-Item 5. - 100 Resolution NV 2012-2 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 arid, 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 12-3209,006/79289 HB -178-Item 5. - 101 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 (CP1) 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 HB -179-Item 5. - 102 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 Attorney 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 ordinance S 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. Mayor IN1TI: 4VAN I 401411Filft Deputy City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: 12-3209.006179289 5 HB -180-Item 5. - 103 !Exhibit HB -181-Item 5. - 104 Land Use Exhit A-3 Aternative, Fee Scheule No. 3 2ment :iiipz .zt Fees (EffeCT. „./2 U2.) Circulation System Law Fire (Streets ? Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $119 $245 $111 No Fee No Fee $0.312 $0.133 $277 $115 $475 No Fee No Fee $0.099 $0,009 $1,800 $1,238 $940 $172/trip $172/trip $4,175 $1.279 $1,091 $519 $479 $0.04/SF $0,04/SF No Fee No Fee $6,802 $4,632 $3,351 $0.23/SF $0.23/SF $0.447 $0.393 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) 60% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $238 $489 $221 No Fee No Fee $0.625 $0.266 $553 $2,092 $229 $1,417 $950 $1,094 No Fee $172/trip No Fee $172/trip $0 .197 $4.175 $0.018 $1.498 $1,126 $686 $588 $0.04/SF $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee $11,540 $8,576 $6,701 $0.23/SF $0,23/SF $0.664 $0.555 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 90% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $356 $734 $332 No Fee No Fee $0,937 $0.399 $830 $344 $1,425 No Fee No Fee $0.296 $0,027 $2,385 $1,597 $1,248 $172/trip $172/trip $4.175 $1.716 $1,160 $852 $697 $0.04/SF $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee $16,278 $12,520 $10,052 $0.23/SF $0.23/SF $0.882 $0,718 Date Printed:5/24/2012, June 4 Resolution 30 60_90 Page 1 HB -182-Item 5. - 105 OVERVLD,, ATTACHMENT 3 Park Develorr•rilt i .-7:-ipact Fee Annual Financial Fiscal Year 201 5-1 6 Amount Fund Balance 9/30/15 (inc. all Park Dev Impact Fee Funds) 2,968,906 Revenue Amount 150 421,917 107,084 8,611 21,807 Revenue Total 559,568 FY 2015-16 Fees (Fund 209) - Misc Fees (Fund 228) - Residential Fees (Fund 235) - Non Residential Fees (Fund 236) - Public Art in Parks Combined Fund Interest Percent Funded with Dev. impact Expenditures FY 2015-16 Amount Fees Park Improvements (A) 161,782 100% Park Acquisition - Enc Lots/LeBard (Year 1) 338,054 100% Park License Agreements 8,995 100% Professional/Contracted Services (B) 13,710 100% Staffing 104,740 50% Expenditure Total 627,280 Fund Balance (9/30/16) (inc. all Park Dev Impact Funds) $2,901,194 A) Team Room/Worthy Design/Clegg Stacey Park Playground Equipment B) Professional Services for Park Master Plan HB -183-Item 5. - 106 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 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 17.75.090, 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: HB -184-Item 5. - 107 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) $356 Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) $734 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) $332 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) No fee Resort Lodging Units (per unit) No fee Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.937 per square foot Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.399 per square foot Interfund Loans 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 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. HB -186-Item 5. - 109 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 -187-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 Use Amount Detached Dwelling Units (per unit) $830 Attached Dwelling Units (per unit) $344 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per unit) $1,425 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per unit) No fee Resort Lodging Units (per unit) No fee Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.296 per square foot Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.027 per square foot Interfund Loans 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 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. HB -188-Item 5. - 111 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 2015/16 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 AB1X26, 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 16/17 $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. HB -190-Item 5. - 113 Beginning Balance 10/15 $792,870 Revenue Developer fees 615,331 Interest earned 10,424 Total Revenue $ 625,755 Total Expenditures 0 Beginning Balance 10/16 $1,418,625 Projected revenues 356,000 Budgeted expenditures (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 $14,116 (1.7%) for FY 16/17. Environmental Status: Not applicable Attachments: None HB -191-Item 5. - 114 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 2015/16 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 HB -192-Item 5. - 115 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 AB1X26, 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) 34,186 Developer fees (commercial) 2,007,368 Interest earned 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 1,690,000 Budgeted expenditures (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 ½” 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 HB -194-Item 5. - 117 Environmental Status: Not applicable. Attachments: None HB -195-Item 5. - 118 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. Funding 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. HB -196-Item 5. - 119 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 $114,551 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 $654,119. 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 16/17 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 16/17. 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 -197-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 Impact 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 10/16 $3,591,435 Budgeted revenues 1,370,000 Budgeted expenditures (654,119) Estimated Balance 10/17 $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. HB -198-Item 5. - 121 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 HUNTING TON 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. 2 12-3209.006/79289 HB -200-Item 5. - 123 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 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 12-3209.006/79289 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 4 12-3209.006/79289 HB -202-Item 5. - 125 Mayor INITIA-TEVANDA ROVED: Cit37Attorney fy) City/X/1&thier ND APPROVED: REVI 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 Deputy City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: 5 12-3209.006/79289 HB -203-Item 5. - 126 Exhibit A HB -204-Item 5. - 127 Land Use Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3 Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 30% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $119 $245 $111 No Fee No Fee $0.312 $0.133 $277 $115 $475 No Fee No Fee $0.099 $0.009 $1,800 $1,238 $940 $172/trip $172/trip $4.175 $1.279 $1,091 $519 $479 $0.04/SF $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee $6,802 $4,632 $3,351 $0.23/SF $0.23/SF $0.447 $0.393 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) 60% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $238 $489 $221 No Fee No Fee $0.625 $0.266 $553 $229 $950 No Fee No Fee $0.197 So.on $2,092 $1,417 $1,094 $172/trip $172/trip $4.175 $1.498 $1,126 $686 $588 $0.04/SF $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee $11,540 $8,576 $6,701 $0.23/SF $0.23/SF $0.664 $0.555 Land Use Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 90% Circulation System Law Fire (Streets, Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Park Land/ Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map) 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.) $356 $734 $332 No Fee No Fee $0.937 $0.399 $830 $344 $1,425 No Fee No Fee $0.296 $0.027 $2,385 $1,160 $16,278 $1,597 $852 $12,520 $1,248 $697 $10,052 $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF $4.175 No Fee $0.882 $1.716 No Fee $0.718 Date Printed:5/24/2012, June 4 Resolution 30_60_90 Page 1 HB -205-Item 5. - 128 Exhibit A-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 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 6.16 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 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 $ 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 0.5 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 2,000 Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf $ 1,238.01 LI,000 Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf 566.1 1 /1,000 of Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf 910.74 /1,000 fe 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 /1,000 sf Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf $ 1,027.85 /1,000 sf 1 Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf $ 1,917.85 1,000 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 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf 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 /1,000 sf Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf $ 4,559.89 /1,000 sf General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf $ 1,470.08 /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 /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 /1,000 sf Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.6 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf Office Park 13.97 _ 4.3 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 (avg) 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 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position Page 2 HB -206-Item 5. - 129 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 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 Condomumrfownho 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 Unit or Entry Door) Hotel 6.29 7.6 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 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room $ 935.56 /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 $ 1,497.69 /1,000 sf Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 $ 1,730.75 11,000 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 /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 /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. 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 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf 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 /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 /1,000 sf $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf 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 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 /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 /1,000 sf Office Park 13.97 4.3 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 (ayg) 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 0.5 213.6 $ 64,34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Positi on $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Position Page 3 HB -207-Item 5. - 130 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 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 Condomum/Townhou 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 RESORT/TOURIST (per Unit or Entry Door) 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 1,000 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 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /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 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 29.35 Store 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 11,000 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 8.9 Restaurant 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0$ 64.34 1,930.20 /1,000 sf OTHER (as noted) Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre Service Station/Market (avg) 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel Position Service Station w/Car Wash I 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel Positbn Page 4 HB -208-Item 5. - 131 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 oc,1 Cif' 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, HB -210-Item 5. - 133 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 -211-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) s as a result of new 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 The purpose of this new fee is to provide proportional financial contribution 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. HB -212-Item 5. - 135 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 (Updated) 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 The Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee collects proportional contributions from new development to ay for additional circulation system capacity by creating more travel lanes or more efficient by new development. e Traffic Impact Fee slightly modifies the methodology for proportioning the cost to users, resulting in slightly increased fees for some uses and slightly l traffic generated by new development. This process results in a “per unit” fee which can be assessed on new generally describe the difference in methodology: 5,160/1000 sf. ange 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 p street use to accommodate the additional trip-miles created 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 th 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 additiona 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 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 $ 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 ch HB -213-Item 5. - 136 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 T fees imposed on dev impose fees on residential, commercial and industrial development projects. 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. he ordinance modifications are necessary to revise Chapter 17.65 so that the collection of elopment projects is consistent with the intent of the City Council to Public Library Facilities and Collection Fee (Updated) The current Library Development fee was initially adopted in 1998. A Librar F ensure the City’s existing and new residents have adequa 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 am y Facilities Impact ee imposed on residential development would allow the City to expand on existing facilities to te and sufficient access to enjoy the ount. There is no information the increased demands of industrial development projects. 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 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 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee (Updated) On December 16, 2002 The City Council adopted Resolution 200 s and recreational facilities in order to assure that the policies and standa 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, 1-129 with findings that tated, “the purpose of the fee is for the development and improvements of the City’s parks rds for park, open HB -214-Item 5. - 137 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 standards, and then multiplied issuance for all new residential (such as the City’s clubhouses, the Beach Public 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 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 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 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 ation System Fee, and the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities , attached and mobile home sidential unit to 70% of recommended fee in the first year beginning July 20, 2012, then Facilities Fee, Circul 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 re 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 -215-Item 5. - 138 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 cted at the time of building permit issuance. It is recommended that e fees be collected at the time the impact is imposed on the system; therefore later in the elopment projects that have already received zoning entitlement approval (i.e., UP, SPR, Variances, etc), there is proposed to be a “grandfathering” of existing development s within 180 days after the fee going into effect or no later than January 20, 2013. than An exc estones 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 o the 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 colle th development process at final building permit approval or issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. Regarding dev C 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 permit 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 July 20, 2013. eption to these mil when the developer receives clearance from that agency. All other projects are subject t new fees, which go into effect July 20, 2012 SUMMARY Staff is recommending approval of the proposed resolution and ordinances based on the sons: ignals, storm drainage and other quality of life facilities following rea • 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 s • 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 Goal Strategic Plan : prove the City’s infrastructure Im HB -216-Item 5. - 139 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007 Attachment(s): No. Description 1. 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. Comparison 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.C October 2011, (Amended April 27, 2012) HB -217-Item 5. - 140 Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed Law Enforcement Facilities Current Fee Effective 7/20/12 Effective 7/20/13 Effective 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 Current Fee Effective 7/20/12 Effective 7/20/13 Effective 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 Current Fee Effective 7/20/12 Effective 7/20/13 Effective 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 1 of 3HB -218-Item 5. - 141 Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed Public Library Facilities Current Fee Effective 7/20/12 Effective 7/20/13 Effective 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) Current Fee Effective 7/20/12 Effective 7/20/13 Effective 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 Current Fee per acre Effective 7/20/12 per acre Effective 7/20/12 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 2 of 3HB -219-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 $12,452 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)N/A N/A N/A N/A Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)N/A N/A N/A N/A Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)N/A N/A N/A N/A Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)N/A N/A N/A N/A Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)N/A N/A N/A N/A 3 of 3HB -220-Item 5. - 143 Master Facilities Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, California October, 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012) Copyright, 2009, 2010 & 2011 by Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. All rights reserved. No part of this work covered by the copyright hereon may be reproduced or copied in any form or by any means -- graphic, electronic, mechanical, including any photocopying, recording, taping or taping or information storage and retrieval systems without written permission of Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. 1519 East Chapman Avenue, Suite C Fullerton, CA 92831 (714) 992-9020 HB -221-Item 5. - 144 Voice: 714 992 1519 E chappia.TVANTI:lu.t. •:S:utte C ,7F-01e4p p. :78$:714:992,90'41 evenue ost pecialists, Serving Local Governments Since 1975 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: 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: •A Table of Contents •A Guide to the Master Facilities Plan •A Project Summary schedule •A section containing all Law Enforcement capital needs •A section containing all of the Fire Suppression/Medic capital needs •A section containing all of the Streets, Bridges and Signals projects •A section containing all of the Storm Drainage System improvements •A section containing the future Public Library and Collection expansion needs. HB -222-Item 5. - 145 Page Two, October 17, 2011 (amended 04/27/12) frIFP 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 Jerty Thompson - General Services Manager Bill Reardon - Fire Marshall/Division Chief Dan Richards - Customer Support/GIS Manager Bob Stachelski - Transportation Manager Chuck Thomas - Police Captain Jelly 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 -223-Item 5. - 146 City of Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Table of Contents Guide to Master Facilities Plan Master Facilities Plan Cost Summary - All Projects ehie Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary LE-001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space LE-002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles LE-003 Acquire Additional Sworn Office Issued Equipment LE-004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment °WM Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary FS-001 Relocate Station #8 (Heil) FS-002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility FS-003 Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4 (Magnolia) FS-004 Acquire an Engine Company and Ambulance for Station #4 (Magnolia FS-005 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #I (Gothard) FS-006 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #2 (Murdy) 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 '-vi 6 7 8 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 HB -224-Item 5. - 147 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 Storm Drainage Collection System Cost Summary SD-001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1) 45 SD-002 Coastal and Bolsa Chica Wetlands Region (SD Region #2) 46 SD-003 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 PL-001 Expand Banning Library PL-002 Expand Main Street Library PL-003 Expand Library Collection Items Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Cost Summary 57 PK-001 Bartlett Park Conceptual Plan and EIR 59 PK-002 Irby Park Phase II 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 52 53 54 55 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 HB -226-Item 5. - 149 CITY OF HUNTINGTON 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 Suppression/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. 1 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 HB -228-Item 5. - 151 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 ±±± 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 HB -230-Item 5. - 153 Guide to the Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Table MFP-2 Cost of Future Infrastructure Infrastructure Project Totals .. Law Enforcement Facilities, et. al.$10,100,895 Fire Suppression/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 Total $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 -231-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 HB -232-Item 5. - 155 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Master Project List natal Thru 5uflel-Out LE-001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space $7,597,165 LE-002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles $1,751,040 LE003 Acquire Additional Sworn Officer Issued Equipment 027,690 LE.004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment $425,000 FS001 Reiocate 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)$740,000 F5005 Acquire An Additional Engine For Station #1 (Gothard)$526,000 FS006 Acquire An Additional Engine For Station #2 (Murdy)$525,000 LG001 Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue $600,000 LGO02 Beach Boulevard And Heil Avenue $1,000,000 L0003 Beach Boulevard And Warner Avenue $400,000 L0004 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 LGO07 Beach Boulevard And Yorktown Avenue $500,000 LGO08 Pacific Coast Highway And Warner Avenue $2,000,000 LGO09 Pacific Coast Highway And Goidenwest Street $750,000 LG010 Pacific Coast Highway And Brookhurst Street $750,000 LG011 Goldenwest Street And Balsa Avenue $500,000 LG012 Goklenwest Street And Slater Street $50,000 L0013 Newland Street And Talbert Avenue $500,000 LGO14 Newland Street And Warner Avenue $30,000 LGO15 Newland Street And Yorktown Avenue $300,000 V: 1.33.0 Date: W02/2012 Time: 100,5 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page; 1 HB -233-Item 5. - 156 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Master Project List Total Thru P, Quild-Out L.0016 Gothard Street And Slater Avenue $500,000 LG017 Gothard Street And Talbert Avenue $264,000 LC.018 Ward Street And Garfield Avenue $8,800 LGO19 Brookhurst Street And Adams Avenue $10,000000 LG020 Miscellaneous Traffic Signal/Intersection improvements $5,000,000 L.C.021 Public Works Maintenance Budding $2,820,000 LG022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles $65,000 SI)001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region 01)$23,728,000 50002 Coastal And Boise China Wetlands Region (SD Region 42)$21,527,000 80003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3)$34,236,000 80004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4)$28,749,000 SD005 Boise Chica Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region 45)$98,549,000 S0006 Public Works Maintenance Building $705,050 PL-001 Expand Banning Branch Library $5,268,470 PL-002 Expand Main Street Branch Library $1,651,375 PL-003 Expand Library Collection Items $921,524 PK001 Bartlett Park Conceptual Plan And EIR $5,400,000 PK002 Irby Park Phase II $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 Blufftop Park Trail Improvements $1,000,000 PK006 Edinger Dock Development $700,000 PK007 Wardlow Field Reconfiguration Design/Construction $1,000,000 PK008 City-Wide Parks Master Plan $350,000 PK009 Central Park Habitat Plan $250,000 V: 1.33.0 Date: 5/02/2012 Time: 10:55 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 2 HB -234-Item 5. - 157 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Master Project List Toted Thru GP, Build-Out P1<010 Central Park Acquisiton Of Encyclopedia Lots $1,020,000 PI4011 Central Park Development Of Remaining 86 Acres $20,000,000 PK012 Central Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Facilities $800,000 P1<013 General Youth Sports Facilities Grants $4,500,000 P1<014 Murdy Youth Sports Complex Phase II $2,500,000 P1<015 Beach Playground $350,000 P1<016 Central Park Development Of Former Gun Range Area $3,000,000 P1<017 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 P1<020 Future Parks Acquisition (Possible Closed School Sites)$59,688,000 P1<021 Central Park Senior Center $22,000,000 P1<022 Edison Community Center Gymnasium $2,975,000 PK023 Murdy Community Center Gymnasium $2,975,000 PK024 Oak View Recreation Center Expansion $800,000 Total All Projects $403,399,088 V; 1.33,0 Date: 5102/2012 Time: 11:01 AM Huntirizon Beach October, 2011 Page: 3 HB -235-Item 5. - 158 City of Huntington Beach Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 4 HB -236-Item 5. - 159 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 Through Build Out Project Build Out Total $0 $0 $0 $7,597,165 $7,597,165 $0 $0 $0 $1,751,040 $1,751,040 $0 $0 $0 $327,690 $327,690 $0 $0 $0 $425,000 $425,000 $0 $0 $0 $10,100,895 $10,100,895 2011 - 12 2012 LE -001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space $0 LE -002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles $0 LE -003 Acquire Additional Sworn Officer Issued Equipment $0 LE -004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment $0 TOTALS $0 Notes: 1) If project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their '7hru Build Our amount Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:09 PMHB -237-Item 5. - 160 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 department will need to hire an additional 33 sworn officers at General Plan build-out to accommodate the additional 14.6% (8,697) in calls-for-service demand over the 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 expand, 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, 97.05% of which are from privately-held properties within the City's 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, oral4.6% increase. While the existing station is adequate to meet the 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 calls-for-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 project timing would be dependent upon both the rate of development and collection of Development Impact Fees. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 568,524.00 1,033,801.00 5,173,493.00 309,604,00 511,743.00 7,597,165.00 Total all Years 568,524.00 1,033,801.00 5,173,493.00 309,604.00 511,743.00 7,597,165.00 6 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 12:09 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -238-Item 5. - 161 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number:/ Title LE 002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles Submitting Departments: Police Department Project Description: Acquire thirty-two additional response or specialty vehicles at an average cost of $54,720 each in order to maintain the existing ratio of 0.98 vehicles per officer. Approximately 97,05% of these vehicles are required to serve private sectror development Justification / 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-for-service likely yo be generated by future General Plan development the City will need to acquire and additional 32 vehicles 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 City's ability to 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% Reference Document Project Timing: The project timing 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 / 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 am 1,751,040.00 1,751,040.00 7 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:09 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -239-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 / Consequences of Avoidance: The equipment is necessary for an officer to function in the y ield. 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 Plan development. Allocation To General Plan E3uildout: 97.05% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project timing would be dependent upon both development and collection of development impactfees. 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 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 0.00 327,690.00 327,690.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 327,690.00 327,690.00 8 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:09 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -240-Item 5. - 163 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number/ Title LE 004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment Submitting Departments: Police Department Project Description: Acquire specialty equipment to support the additional 33 officers needed to accommodate new development Approximately 97% of that figure are needed to accommodate new development of private properly. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The amount and type of crime is ever increasing. The !City will 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 calls-for-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 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 / 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.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 9 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 12:09 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -241-Item 5. - 164 City of Huntington Beach Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 10 HB -242-Item 5. - 165 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment 2011 - 12 2012-13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015- 16 Through Build Out Project Build Out Total FS -001 Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil)$0 $0 $0 $0 $7,169,470 $7,169,470 FS -002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,716,044 $1,716,044 FS -003 Construct A Single Bay/Quarters At Station #4 (Magnolia)$0 $0 $0 $0 $1,266,458 $1,266,458 FS -004 Acquire An Engine And Ambulance For Station #4 (Magnolia)$0 $0 $0 $0 $740,000 $740,000 FS .005 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station #1 (Gothard)$0 $0 $0 $0 $525,000 $525,000 FS -006 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station #2 (Murdy)$0 $0 $0 $0 $525,000 $525,000 TOTALS $0 $0 $0 $0 $11,941,972 $11,941,972 Notes: 1) If project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their "Thru Build Out" amount V: 1,12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1HB -243-Item 5. - 166 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number/Title FS 001 Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil) Submitting Departments: Fire Department Project Description: Relocate Station #8 from its current location on Heil Avenue just west of Springale Street to a more northerly area near Graham Street just 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 3,550 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 paramedic ALS response capacity to that area of the City. Redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach corridor will likely result in a greeter 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 City's General Plan Public Safety response time commitments and would improve the average engine, aerial truck and ALS paramedic response time through-out the City, in particular the Edinger/Beach corridor area. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 60.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach corridor would likely be the trigger point for the need orf this relocation. The station age and limitations are also an issue and could trigger the construction timing. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 - 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014-15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 532,561.00 1,026,097.00 4,963,827.00 285,204.00 361,781.00 7,169,470.00 Total all Years 532,561.00 1,026,097.00 4,963,827.00 285,204.00 361,781.00 7,169,470.00 12 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -244-Item 5. - 167 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number/Title 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 2,660 square foot two bays wide by two vehicle deep storage building for up to four reserve response vehicles. There would also be a contiguous 960 square foot basic storage room. The facility would be constructed on the rear portion of the parcel near the hose tower and hose storage building. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The proposed storage building is necessary for proper storage of the reserve vehicles and other specialty equipment not used on a routine 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 Timing: The facility would likely be constructed at the same time as the proposed relocation of station #8 (Heil), however, the construction could be completed at a different time. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design 1 Engineering I Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment/Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.90 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through 13k4d-out 120,415.00 327,266.00 1,122,703.00 64,210.00 81,450.00 1,716,044.00 Total aflYears 120,415.00 327,266.00 1,122,703.00 64,210.00 81,450,00 1,716.044.00 13 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -245-Item 5. - 168 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number/ Title FS 003 Construct A Single Bay/Quarters At Station #4 (Magnolia) Submitting Departments: Fire Department Projed Description: Construct a 2,400 square foot addition to Station #4 (Magnolia). The plans consist of an additional bay and sufficient living quarters/training/storage space to the existing two-bay Station #4 (Magnoila). The additional 1,400 square foot vehicle bay would allow for two additoned 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 living/training space by approximately 800 square feet Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The expanded facility will be needed to accommodate the additional calls-for-seivce demands from the planned density-inceasing 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 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 consistebt with 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 impact fee receipts and other revenues become available. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 109,650.00 0.00 1,020,000.00 60,308.00 76,500.00 1,266,458.00 Tota$ all Years 109,650.00 0.00 1,020,000.00 60,308.00 76,500.00 1,268,458,00 14 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 12:13 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -246-Item 5. - 169 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-01:13 details the proposed 2,400 square loot 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. Without the additional facilities, the response goals will be unachievable with the greater demands. The expanded facility will be needed to accommodate the additional calls-for-servce demands from the planned density-inceasing 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 consistebt with 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 impact fee receipts and other revenues become available. 2015 - 15 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012- 13 2013 -14 2014 - 35 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 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: 4127/2012 Time: 12:13 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -247-Item 5. - 170 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles And Equipment Project Number:/Title FS 005 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station *1 (Gothard) 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 facility will be needed to accommodate the additional calls-for-seivce demands from the planned density-inceasing redevelopment from the Downtown Specific Plan and along the Edinger/Beach Specific 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 resulting from development consistebt with the Downtown Specific Plan and the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor as well for multiple response vehicles response to other parts of the City. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 50.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: 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 0.00 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 6. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 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 16 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -248-Item 5. - 171 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment Project Number/ 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-servce 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: Project Timing: 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 / Administrate 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 0.90 3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 am 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 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: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:13 PM Huntington Beach October, 2411HB -249-Item 5. - 172 City of Huntington Beach Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System 18 HB -250-Item 5. - 173 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013-14 2014 - 15 2015-16 Through Build Out Project Build Out Total LC -001 Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $600,000 $600,000 LC -002 Beach Boulevard And Heil Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LC -003 Beach Boulevard And Warner Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $400,000 LC -004 Beach Boulevard And Slater Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 LC -005 Beach Boulevard And Talbert Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LC -006 Beach Boulevard And Garfield Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 LC -007 Beach Boulevard And Yorktown Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 LC -008 Pacific Coast Highway And Warner Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,000,000 $2,000,000 LC -009 Pacific Coast Highway And Goldenwest Street $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $750,000 LC -010 Pacific Coast Highway And Brookhurst Street $0 $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $750,000 LC -011 Goldenwest Street And Boise Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 LC -012 Goldenwest Street And Slater Street $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $50,000 LC-013 Newland Street And Talbert Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 LC -014 Newland Street And Warner Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 $30,000 LC -015 Newland Street And Yorktown Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $300,000 LC -016 Gothard Street And Slater Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 LC -017 Gothard Street And Talbert Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $264,000 $264,000 LC -018 Ward Street And Garfield Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,800 $6,800 LC-019 Brookhurst Street And Adams Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,000,000 $10,000,000 LC -020 Miscellaneous Traffic Signal/Intersection Improvements $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 LC -021 Public Works Maintenance Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,820,000 $2,820,000 LC -022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,000 $65,000 n.0 V: 1.12.0 Date: 4127/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1HB -251-Item 5. - 174 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System 2015 - 16 Through Project Build 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 2013-14 2014 - 15 Build Out Out Total TOTALS $0 $0 $0 $0 $28,537,800 $28,537,800 Notes: 1) If project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their "Thru Build Out" amount. t•-) V:1.12.0 Date: 412712012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 2HB -252-Item 5. - 175 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/ Title LC 001 Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue Submitting Departments: Public Works - 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 4th northbound through lane, and 2) Add a 3rd westbound through lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTR4NS 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 Setvice (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 "Co', "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. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 75.00% 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 / Administratic OM 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 0.00 600,000.00 600,000.00 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: um 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 Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -253-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: Public Works - 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 2nd northbound left-turn lane. An alternative would be to construd: 1)A de-facto westbound rightturn lane, and 2) add a de-facto southbound 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 out the Qt 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 "Icing 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 "0", "E" or "F". Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily trip-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 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 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 I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.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 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4127/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -254-Item 5. - 177 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 capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed: 1) Add a separate westbound right turn lane. An alternative would be to construct the 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 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 '1 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 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 85.00% 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 / 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 am 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 23 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -255-Item 5. - 178 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number:/ Tide 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 (in all directions), the following improvement to the intersection is proposed: 1) Add a separate eastbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard, being a State Highway, makes this a CALTPANS 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) 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 "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 12.8% 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 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 1 Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 aim 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 24 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October. 2011HB -256-Item 5. - 179 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/Title LC 005 Beach Boulevard And Talbert Avenue Submitting Departments: Public Works - 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 2nd westbound left turn lane, 2) add a de-facto westbound right turn lane, 3) add a separate 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 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) 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 454,542 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 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip-miles at the twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 62.00% 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 / Administratic am 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 25 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -257-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: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following Option el improvements to the intersection are proposed: 1) Add a separate northbound right turn 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 left turn lane, and 2) add a 2nd southbound left 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 casts into engineering and contingency components. Justification I 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 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 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 12.8% 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 project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 - 18 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 26 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -258-Item 5. - 181 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: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvernent to the intersection is proposed: 1) Add a separate westbound 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 casts 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) 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 "0", "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 12.6% 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 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 /Aclministratic 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 am 3.Construction 0.00 am 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 4.Contingency 0.00 Dm 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 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -259-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: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvement to 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 / 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 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 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 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 coo 0.00 OM 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.Construction 0.00 am 0,00 0.00 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 4.Contingency o.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: am 0.00 0.00 0.00 z000sicaoci 2,000,000.00 28 V: 1.08,0 Date: 4127/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -260-Item 5. - 183 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: Public Works -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 2nd eastbound left turn lane, and 2) allow southbound right turn overlap.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 cast 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) 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 wilt impact existing intersections within the City, making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to unacceptable levels likeTi","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 ol 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 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 ail Years 1.Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100 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 29 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -261-Item 5. - 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: Public Works - 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 2nd eastbound left turn lane and, 2) allow southbound rightturn overlap.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 / 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 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", 11 E" or "F". Development anticipated over the next tyventy 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 12.8% 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 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 0.00 750,000.00 750,000.00 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 30 V: 1,08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -262-Item 5. - 185 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: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maxirnize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvements to the intersection are proposed: 1) Add a second southbound left turn lane, 2) Add a separate northbound right turn lane and 3). Allow westbound right turn overlap. This would be a City-managed project Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: There are tow opportunities to add additional lane miles through out 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 utile LOS will drop to unacceptable levels like "Er, "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 121% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip-miles at the twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 96.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. 2015 - 15 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 / Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 coo 0.00 0.00 am 3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 900,000.00 4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 40,000.00 5.Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: 0.00 ace 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500,000,00 31 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -263-Item 5. - 186 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/ Title LC 012 Golcienwest Street And Slater Street Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvement to the intersection is proposed: 1) Add a 2nd southbound left turn lane. An alternative would to that improvement would be to: 1) Convert a separate northbound right turn 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 out the City, thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routesis 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 121", '`E" or "F". Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454.542 additional daily trip-miles. This is al 4.6% 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 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip-miles at the twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.013% 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 I. Design / Engineering / 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 9.00 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 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -264-Item 5. - 187 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: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection On all directions), the following improvement to the intersection is proposed: 1) Add a 2nd eastbound left turn lane. This would be a City-managed project 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) 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 454,542 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 12.8% 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 project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering /Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 coo 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 60,000.00 0.00 400,000.00 40,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 Total all Years 60,000.00 0.00 400,000.00 40,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 33 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -265-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: Public Works - 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) Convert a separate westbound right turn lane to a de-facto right turn lane, and 2) add a 3rd westbound through lane. This would be a City-managed project. 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)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 454,542 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 12.8% 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 project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 through Build-out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering I Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3,600.00 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 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST:0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30,000.00 30,000.00 34 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -266-Item 5. - 189 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/Title LC 015 Newland Street And Yorktown Avenue Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvement to the intersection is proposed: 1) Re-stripe westbound right turn lane to a 2nd westbound through lane. This would be a City-managed project. 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) traffic flow at intersections of major streets to a Level "E'l 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 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 project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 36,000.00 0.00 240,000.00 24,000.00 0.00 $00,000.00 Total WE Years 36,000.00 0.00 240,000.00 24,000.00 0.00 300,000.00 35 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4127/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -267-Item 5. - 190 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/ Title LC 016 Gothard Street And Slater Avenue Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvement to the intersection is proposed: 1) Add a 2nd northbound leftturn lane. This would be a City-managed project. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the My, 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 97","E" or "F". Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily trio-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 3,561,767 daily trip-miles at the 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. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5, Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 60,000.00 0.00 400,000.00 40,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 Total all Years 60,000.00 0.00 400,000.00 40,000.00 0.00 500,090.00 36 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -268-Item 5. - 191 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number/ Title LC 017 Golhard Street And Talbert Avenue Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection (in all directions), the following improvement lathe 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 / 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 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 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 3,561,767 daily trip-miles at the 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 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years 2.Land Acquisition / Right Of Way Dm 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.Construction Dm 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 0.00 Dm 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gm TOTAL COST: Dm Dm 0.00 0.00 264,000.00 264,000.00 37 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4127/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -269-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: Public Works - 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 2nd eastbound left turn lane, and 2) remove a separate eastbound right turn lane. This would be a City-managed project. 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 Setvice (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 Tr", "E" or 'F. Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 454542 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 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip-miles at the twenty-year development horizon. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 55.00% 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 - 33 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years 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 8,000.00 8,000.00 4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800.00 800.00 6. 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 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -270-Item 5. - 193 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: Public Works - 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 right turn lane, 3) allow northbound right turn overlap and 4) allow westbound right turn overlap. This would be a City-managed project. 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) 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 tvventy 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 12.8% of the total 3,561,767 daily trip-miles at the Wenty-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. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1, Design I Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment I Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 -16 through Build-out 1,200,000.00 0.00 8,000,000.00 800,000.00 0.00 10,000,000.00 Total all Years 1,200,000.00 0.00 8,000,000.00 800,000.00 0.00 10,000,000.00 39 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -271-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 Signal/Intersection Improvements Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: Construct on average, a traffic signal (and supportive intersection improvements) per year over a twenty-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 alterationss, new signals infrastructure, consisintg of light arms, lights, electrical control boxes, off-site controls. In addition there maybe a need for lane restriping and left-turn 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 out 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 "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 12.8% 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 project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 -16 through Build-out 600,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 400,000.00 0.00 5,000,000.00 Total all Years 600,000.00 0.00 4,000,000.00 400,000.00 0.00 5,000,000.00 40 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -272-Item 5. - 195 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System Project Number:/ Title LC 021 Public Works Maintenance Building Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: Construct a 10.000 square foot split-face block, general-use circulation system maintenance building. The facility would 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% 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 80% 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 strain 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 by the new infrastructure required to support new development Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.00% Reference Document Project Timing: The project would be constructed based upon normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient DIF revenues are collected. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012.13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Tata! all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 265,000.00 265,000.00 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 2,410,000.00 2,410,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 145,000.00 145,000.00 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 2,820,000.00 2,820,000.00 41 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -273-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: Public Works - Maintenance Project Description: Acquire an additional maintenance utility truck and a traffic signal lift truck. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The additional maintenance vehicle would be required to support the 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 DIE 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 0.00 coo 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 65,000.00 65,000.00 TOTAL COST:0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65,000.00 65,000.00 42 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -274-Item 5. - 197 City of Huntington Beach Storm Drainage Collection System 43 HB -275-Item 5. - 198 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Storm Drainage Collection System 2011 12 2012 - 13 2013 -14 2014-15 2015- 16 Through Build Out Project Build Out Total SD -001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1)$0 $0 $0 $0 $23,728,000 $23,728,000 SD -002 Coastal And Boise Chica Wetlands Region (SO Region #2)$0 $0 $0 $0 $21,527,000 $2t527,000 SD -003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3)$0 $0 $0 $0 $34,236,000 $34,236,000 SD -004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4)$0 $0 $0 $0 $28,749,000 $28,749,000 SD -005 Balsa Chica Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region #5)$0 $0 $0 $0 $98,549,000 $98,549,000 SD -006 Public Works Maintenance Building $0 $0 $0 $0 $705,050 $705,050 TOTALS $0 $0 $0 $0 $207494,050 $207494,050 Notes: 1) If project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their "Thru Build Out" amount. V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:15 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1HB -276-Item 5. - 199 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project Number/Title SD 001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1) Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: The 788 individual projects within Area lare required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely 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 by the 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 Duality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 20-2729-32, 40, and 41. 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 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 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: 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. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 2,847,360.00 0.00 18,982,400.00 1,898,240,00 0.00 23,728,000.00 Total all Years 2,847,360.00 0.00 18,982,400.00 1,898,240.00 0.00 23,728,000.00 45 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -277-Item 5. - 200 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project Number/Title SD 002 Coastal And Bolsa Chica Wetlands Region (SD Region *2) Submitting Departments: Public Works - 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 it to 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, Seepoint Avenue and Edwards Street on the west and Ellis Avenue on the north. Sub-drainage 2 also includes the community surrounding the Springdale/Talbert intersection. It encompasses the Balsa Chic,a Wetlands and the Coastal Water Quality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 15-19. 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 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 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: 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. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012'13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 2,583,240.00 0.00 17,221,600.00 1,722,160,00 0.00 21,527,000.00 Total all Years 2,583,240,00 0.00 17,221,600.00 1,722,160.00 0.00 21,527,000.00 46 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -278-Item 5. - 201 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project Number:/ Title SD 003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3) Submitting Departments: Public Works - Engineering Project Description: The 270 projects within Area #3 are required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely convey it to 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 Balsa 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 water from the City's 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 low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0130 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 ail 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 rim ono 0.00 0.00 27,388,800.00 27,388,800.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,738,880.00 2,736,680.00 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 34,236,000.00 34,236,000.00 47 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -279-Item 5. - 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: Public Works - 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 it to the proper outlet.Sub-drainage region 4 includes the northern end northeastern parts of the City, and is generally bordered by Newland Street on the east Heil and Warner Avenues on the south, Springdale Street on 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 6-9. 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 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 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: 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. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment! Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 -16 through Build-out 3,449,880.00 0.00 22,999,200.00 2,299,920.00 0.00 28,749,000.00 Total all Years 3,449,880.00 0.00 22,999,200.00 2,299,920.00 0.00 28,749,000.00 48 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -280-Item 5. - 203 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System Project Number:/ Title SD 005 Bolsa Chica Channel a 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 City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely convey it to 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 Boise Chica 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 water from the City's 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 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: 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. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 . 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 11,825,880.00 0.00 78,839,200.00 7,883,920.00 0.00 98,549,000.00 Total all Years 11,825,880.00 0.00 78,839,200.00 7,883,920.00 0.00 98,549,000.00 49 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -281-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 c i 0,000 split-face block general use, maintenance building. The facility would be have full utilities and a number of roll-up doors. Approximately 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 support the additional demands from the construction of $ Xx>0 .0( in 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: 100110% Reference Document: Project Timing: The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 am 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 -16 through Buttd-out 66,250.00 0.00 602,500.00 36,300.00 0,00 705,050.00 Total all Years 66,250.00 0.00 602,500.00 36,300.00 0.00 705,050.00 50 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -282-Item 5. - 205 City of Huntington Beach Public Library Facilities And Collection HB -283-Item 5. - 206 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Public Library Facilities And Collection - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 Through Build Out Project Build Out Total $0 $0 $0 $5,268,470 $5,268,470 $0 $9 $0 $1,651,375 $1,651,375 $0 $0 $0 $921,524 $921,524 $0 $0 $0 $7,841,369 $7,841,369 2011 - 12 2012 PL -001 Expand Banning Branch Library $0 PL -002 Expand Main Street Branch Library $0 PL -003 Expand Library Collection System $0 TOTALS $0 Notes: 1) If project timing is not a component of this effort, then all projects default to their "Thru Build Our' amount. I')) t.) V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:16 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1HB -284-Item 5. - 207 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 12,500 square feet to assit in maintain the existing levels of service and extend those same levels of service to the 17,089 new residents expected to be added through General Plan build-out. Justification I Consequences of Avoidance: The current defado 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: Project Timing: 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: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 535,260.00 808,000.00 3,568,370.00 356,840.00 0.00 5,268,470.00 Total all Years 535,260.00 808,000.00 3,568,370.00 356,840.00 0.00 5,268,470.00 53 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:17 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -285-Item 5. - 208 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Public Library Facilities And Collection Project Number:/ Title PL 002 Expand Main Street Branch Library Submitting Departments: Library Services Project Description: Expand the Main Street Branch Library facilities by 4,804 square feet from the current 4,500 square feet to 9,304 square feet to assist in the maintenance of the existing levels of service and extend those same levels of service to the 17,089 new residents expected to be added through General Plan build-out The project consists taking 4,804 square feet of the current building that house the branch library currently used by a non-City tenant and 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 / 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 Project Timing: 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-out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 198,166.00 198,165.00 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 1,321,100.00 1,321,100.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132,110.00 132,110.00 5. Equipment/Other 0.00 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 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 12:17 PM Huntington Beach October. 2011HB -286-Item 5. - 209 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 by the 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: Project Timing: 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-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 0.00 921,524.00 92t524.00 TOTAL COST: 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 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -287-Item 5. - 210 City of Huntington Beach Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development 56 HB -288-Item 5. - 211 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014- 15 2015-16 ThrOUg11 Build Out Project Build Out Tota! PK -001 Batelt Park Conceptual Plan And EIR $400,000 $0 30 $0 $$,009,000 $5,400.000 PK -002 Firby Park Phase LI $i)SO $0 SO $500,000 0509.000 PK -003 Central Park Former Gun Range EIR, RAPA pd Development 4325,909 $0 $0 $0 34,000,000 £4,325,000 PK -904 Le Bard Park Expansion Master Plan And Development Plan $200,600 $9 $0 $0 $1,200.000 $1,450,000 PK -005 Eltufflop Park Trail Improvements $0 SO $0 50 $1,000,000 51,000,000 PK -0013 Edinger Dock Development SO $0 $0 $9 5790,000 $790,060 P1<-DO?Wardlow Field Reconfiguration DesigniConstructlon $120,090 $00 $0 $O $600,000 $1,090,000 PK 408 Citye Parks Master Plan $0 $0 .50 59 $150,0a0 $350,000 PK -099 Central Parkl-rabitat Plan SO $0 $0 $0 4250.000 $250,000 P1<-Dill Cenlral Perk Acguisiton Of Encyclopedia Lots $0 $00 $0 so $1,020,000 51.020,000 PK -Gf 1 Central Park Development Of Remaining 86 Acres $0 $0 $0 $0 $20,000.000 620,099,000 PK -012 Central Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Facilities 30 $0 SO 30 $600,000 $800,000 PK -013 General Youth Sports Faailities Grarft $160.000 $150,000 $150,000 £150,000 $3,000,000 $4,504,090 PK -014 MurtrYoultr Sports Complex Phase I/$O SD $0 $0 $2.509,900 3Z0013,000 P1<411$Beach Playground SO $0 $O $0 5350,000 $350,000 PK -U16 Cenlrei Park Development Of Portner Gun Range Area .50 SO $0 .50 $3,000,000 $3,900,000 PK -017 Warrm....r Doac Renovator' And Expansion $0 60 $0 $O $600,1100 .5800.000 P1<4118 Lan% Park. Design And Development SO $0 $O '10 51,100,400 $1,100.990 PK -019 Cenlral Park Sports Comptex Team Room $8 SO $0 $0 $190.000 5100,000 PK -020 Future Parks Acquisition (Possible Closed Salon! Sites)$0 $4 $0 $O $59,586,000 $56.588,000 PK -021 Central Park SentorCanter $O $0 SO .50 $22,000,000 522,000,000 PK_-012 Echop Ctmninurilly Center Gymnasium $0 50 50 $0 $2,975,000 52,075,000 V: 1.12.0 Date: 5/02/2012 Time: 11:02 AM Huntinglon Beach October, 2011 Page: 1HB -289-Item 5. - 212 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015- 16 ThrOugh Bu Rd Out ROje ot Btrikj Out Total so 50 $2,975,000 $2,075,000 $0 $800,0110 $8CO3000 $150,1100 .$150.000 $135705,000 $1374330000 2011 - 12 2012 - 13 PK-023 Mud/ Community Center Gymnasium $O So PK -024 Oak View Recreation Center Expansion $0 $0 TOTALS $1,245,000 S150,e00 notes: 1) If project ffrning is not a component of Ibis eft-E, then ail projects default to their -TM Bead Our amount ift V: 1.12.0 Date: 5102/2012 -11rne: 11:02 AM HUnlington Beach October, 2011 Page: 2HB -290-Item 5. - 213 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/ Title PK 001 Bartlett Park Conceptual Plan And EIR Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: The project consists of the environmental assessment and conceptual plan for the 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 or vacant parcel. Roughly 90% of the park would remain untouched with improvements designed to protect that 90%. 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 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 0.00 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 0.00 500,000.00 500,000.00 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 5,000,000.00 5,400,000.00 59 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -291-Item 5. - 214 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/ Title PK 002 Irby Park Phase II Submitting Departments: Community 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, picnic tables) adjacent to the neighborhood area. The more active portion would be designed in a fashion to protect the more natural areas. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The park needs a combination of passive/active 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 Public Works 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 Buildout 0.00% Reference Document Project Timing: Based upon receipt of State (Public Works) Grant The project is in conjunction with a PW State Grant- matching funds. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratit 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gm 2015 - 16 through Build-out 50,000.00 0.00 400,000.00 5%000.00 0.00 500,000.00 Total all Years 50,000.00 0.00 400,000.00 50,000.00 0.00 500,000.00 60 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -292-Item 5. - 215 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ Titie 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 over ten years and the accumulated lead in the soil and use of creosote wood presents an environmental problem and must be remediated 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 part of the City's major regional park and needs to be used to its maximum potential in a yet to be determined manner. 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 Buildout 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: 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 - 16 through Build-out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 325, 000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 325,000.00 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 4000,000.00 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: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -293-Item 5. - 216 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/Title PK 00 41 Le Bard Park Expansion Master Plan And Development Plan Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Undertake the Park Master Plan and construction documents necessary/a 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 roughly five 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 support the 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-related revenues become available. 2015 - 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 16 through Build-out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 250,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 250,000.00 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 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 62 V: 1.08.0 Date: 412712012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -294-Item 5. - 217 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 asphalt trail, including a split trail system for pedestrian and wheeled traffic. The project includes 15% for citizen input, project design/engineering, 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 necessary to reduce the rate of erosion of the very important blufftop area. Relationship to General Plan Development: None directly, the improvements are primarily necessary to maintain an existing asset Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document Project Timing: As revenues permit. 2015 - 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 16 through Build-out Total all Years 1.Design! Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120,000.00 120,000.00 2.Land Acquisition / Right Of Way coo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 4.Contingency am 0.00 0.00 0.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 5.Equipment / Other 0.0o 0.00 0.00 am 0.00 coo TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 Gm 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 63 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -295-Item 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 / 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, 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: 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: Within priority and as Park Fund revenues become available. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / AdministratiC 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 -14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 600,000.00 50,000.00 700,000.00 Total all Years 50,000.00 0.00 0.00 600,000.00 50,000.00 700,000,00 64 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -296-Item 5. - 219 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 S380,000. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The parks earlier configuration is inefficient in terms of space. 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:0.00% Reference Document Project Timing: 2010. 2015 -16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 -14 2014 - 15 through Build-out Total all Years 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 120,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120,000.00 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 0,00 800,000.00 800,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80,000.00 80,000.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 TOTAL COST:120,000.00 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 Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -297-Item 5. - 220 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ Title PK 008 City-Wide Parks Master Plan Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: The project consists solely of the preparation of a Parks Master Plan. Justification / 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 A Park Master Plan for the continued development of the City's Park system is directly related to General Plan development. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00% Reference Document Project Timing: The project is scheduled for the period of 2010 to 2020. 2015 - 16 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 through Buitd-out Total all Years 1.Design / Engineering / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350,000.00 350,000.00 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 0.00 350,000.00 360,000.00 66 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -298-Item 5. - 221 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 necessary for mitigating the raptor foraging 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 / Consequences of Avoidance: The area proposed for the Senior Citizens Center has been vacant for 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 how the 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: 0.00% 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 / Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 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: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 21111HB -299-Item 5. - 222 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ Title PK 010 Central Park Acquisitorr Of Encyclopedia Lots Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: The expenditures allow for the acquisition of fifty-one privately owned lots located within park boundaries at approximately $20,000 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 for the complete development and thus maximization, of Central Park. 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 Buildout 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: As Park Fund revenues permit. 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 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 1,020,000.00 68 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -300-Item 5. - 223 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ Title 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 / Consequences of Avoidance: The improvements are necessary to maximize the use of this major park 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 Buildout 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: As park capital revenues permit. 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 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 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 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00 69 V: 1.08,0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -301-Item 5. - 224 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/Title PK 012 Central Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Facilities Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Rebuild the 'Park Bench Cafe" and "Alice's Restaurant'. Justification / 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 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 0.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 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 0.00 800,000.00 800,000.00 70 V: 'l.08.0 Date: 4127/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -302-Item 5. - 225 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail infrastruCturs: Park Land Acouisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/7WD PK 01 General Youth Sporis Facilities Grants Submitting Departments: Community S ervicee Project Description! The proposed expenditure acts as seed money to grants obtained by volunteer youth sports programs. The project consists of VI S0,000 per year in grant 'assistance. Justification I Consequences of Avoidance: The City has had along-term policy of assisting iocal groups leverage City money for common park ores improvements. Relationship to General Plan Development; Little direct relationship. but the improvements are consistentwth the City's Genera/ Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the additional residents resulting from new development, Allocag on To General Plan Buileaut 0.00% Reference Document Project Timing: As requested by local groups that have success in obtaining grants or other financial assistance. 2015 .10 PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 g012 -12 2015 -14 2014 -15 through DulEd-aut Toisl en yen.re 1. Design / Engineering / Administrat1(0,00 ado 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 1,50,000.00 1,50,000,00 150,000,00 150,000,00 0,000,000,00 4,500,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 6. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 TOTAL COST:150,000,00 150,000.00 190,000.00 100,000.00 3,g:10,000M 4.500,000,00 71 VI 1,08,0 Date: 5/02/2012 Time: 10:46 AM Huntington Beach October. MilHB -303-Item 5. - 226 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/ Title PK 014 Murdy Youth Sports Complex Phase ll Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Reconfigure the current park/school configuration to increase youth sports capabilities. The City and school district will 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 a turn -around. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The existing field configuration does not maximize the existing field space for use by youth 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 by youth sports associations and the re-design will address this. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00% 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 / 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 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -304-Item 5. - 227 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ Title PK 015 Beach Playground Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct a tot tot(youth 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 adjacent to Blufftop Park at 8th Street The park would have asphalt access with a turnabout 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 by youth sports associations and the re-design will address this. Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00% Reference Document Project Timing: As revenues permit. 2015 - 10 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 0.09 350,000.00 350,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 9,00 0,00 0.00 5. Equipment / Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 TOTAL COST: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 Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -305-Item 5. - 228 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/ Title PK 018 Central Park Development Of Former Gun Range Area Submitting Departments; Community Services Project Description: The project consists of the removal of the existing gun range and designing/constructing a skate park facility. 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 existing Huntington Beach High School skate facility. Relationship to General Plan Development None directly, but the 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 / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 360,000.00 0.00 2,400,000.00 240,000.00 0.00 3,000,000,00 Total all Years 360,000.00 0.00 2,400,000.00 240,000.00 0.00 3,000,000.00 74 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -306-Item 5. - 229 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:/ Title PK 017 Warner Dock Renovation And Expansion Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Improve the Edinger Dock area by dredging the area arid adding fourth six docks or slips. There would also be improements made to the public boat launch ramp. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The area serves the yacht club activities as well as casual boaters. 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 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 / Administratic 2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 96,000.00 0.00 0.00 640,000.00 64,000.00 800,000.00 Total all Years 96,000.00 0.00 0.00 640,000.00 64,000.00 600,000.00 75 V: 1.06.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -307-Item 5. - 230 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ 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 sportsfielci) and other neighborhood fixtures such as benches, sidewalks, drinking fountains and a play apparatus on the parcel, a closed school site. Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The park improvements, mostly sports oriented, are necessary to 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 support the 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. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 -12 2012 - 13 2013 - 14 2014 - 15 2015 - 16 through Build-out Total all Years 1. Design! Engineering / Adminisiratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132,000.00 132,000.00 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 0.00 880,000.00 880,000.00 4. Contingency 0.00 Pm 0.00 0.00 88,000.00 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 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -308-Item 5. - 231 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ Title PK 019 Central Park Sports Complex Team Room Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct a team-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 Justification / Consequences of Avoidance: The facility will 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 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 Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document Project Timing: The project design is planned for 2010 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 / Engineering 1 Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.Land Acquisition / Right Of Way 0.0o 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.Construction 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 100,000,00 100,000.00 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 0.00 100,000.00 100,000.00 77 V:1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: /1:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -309-Item 5. - 232 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ Title PK 020 Future Porks Acquisttion Possible Closed School Sites) Submitting Departments: Community Seivicos Project Description: Acquire approximate/y 88 a'es of land suitable for development of active and passive parks such as including neighborhood, community " and sports parks, Potential sites would include closed school sites. Land acquisition is estimated at $ao.on per square foot or $671,120 per acre, Justification / Consequence,s of Avoidance: The City needs to acquire approximately 100 coes in order to meet the Qeneral Plan target of 5,0 acres per 1,000 rasiden#0, Relationship to General Plan Development The City's General Plan currently identifies a target of 5.0 acres of recreation opportunites per one thousand residents. Allocation To General Plan &Mout 0.00% Reference Document Project Timing: The project design is planned for 2010 and the construction between 2010 and 2020 W15 - 13 PROPOSED EXPENID/TURES 2011 -12 2012 • 13 2013 -11 2011 -15 through Build-out Tow di YEIBil 1. Design I Rrigineering / Admlnistratit 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 um 0.00 2, Land Acquisition I Right Of Way arm 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,5813,000,00 50,688,000.00 3.Construction 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 4.Contingency 0.00 000 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 5.Equipment/Other DM 0,00 0.00 0,00 am 0,00 TOTAL COST; 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 10,508,000,00 50.508,000.00 78 V; 1,08.0 Date: 5/0212012 Time: 11:00 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011 HB -310-Item 5. - 233 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ Title PK 021 Central Park Senior Center Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct 45,000 square foot Senior Center in Central Park. The facility would have a large multi-purpose room, a number of smaller classrooms, a warming kitchen, fitness center, game room with pool tables, and ancillary offices. There would also be a garden patio with a water feature, turf and gardens. The facility would have parking for 250 vehicles. Justification / Consequences &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 City wishes to maintain, if 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 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 (LOS) Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The construction of the facility is on-hold pending litigation. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering /Administratic 2. Land Acquistion / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 2,200,000.00 0.00 17,600,000.00 1,760,000.00 440,000.00 22,000,000.00 Total all Years 2,200,000.00 0.00 17,600,000.00 1,760,000,00 440,000.00 22,000,000.00 79 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4127/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -311-Item 5. - 234 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number/ Title PK 022 Edison Community Center Gymnasium Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct a 7,000 square foot gymnasium contiguous to the Edison Community Center. The facility would be a basic "high school' design or grade with a single main basketbali court that can be broken down into two smaller full-courts or four half-courts for practice sessions. The facilitywould also have locker rooms and restrooms. Justification / 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 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 (LOS) Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The expansion is planned for construction between 2010 and 2020. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Aoquistion / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment! Other TOTAL COST: 2011 - 12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 . 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Build-out 357,000.00 0.00 2,380,000.00 238,000.00 0.00 2,975,000.00 Total all Years 357,000.00 0.00 2,380,000.00 238,000.00 0.00 2,976,000.00 80 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:36 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -312-Item 5. - 235 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land 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 foot gymnasium contiguous to the Murdy Community Center. The facility would be a basic "high school" design or grade with a single main basketball court that can be broken down into two smaller full-courts or four half-courts for practice sessions. The facility would also have locker roams 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 City wishes to maintain, if 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 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 (LOS) Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The expansion is planned for construction between 2010 and 2020. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquistion / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 2014 - 15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015 - 16 through Boild-out 357,000.00 0,00 2,380,000.00 238,000.00 0.00 2,975,000.00 Total all Years 357,000.00 0.00 2,380,000.00 238,000.00 0.00 2,975,000.00 81 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 11:39 AM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -313-Item 5. - 236 Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan Project Detail Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development Project Number:// Tille PK 024 Oak View Recreation Center Expansion Submitting Departments: Community Services Project Description: Construct a roughly 2,0130 square foot expansion to the existing 10,000 square foot Oak View Recreation Community Center. The facility would 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 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 (LOS) Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00% Reference Document: Project Timing: The expansion is planned for construction between 2010 and 2020. PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 1. Design / Engineering / Administratic 2. Land Acquistion / Right Of Way 3. Construction 4. Contingency 5. Equipment / Other TOTAL COST: 2011 -12 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 0.00 0.00 2012 - 13 0.00 rim 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2013 - 14 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2014-15 0.00 cLoo 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2015- 16 through Build-out 80,000.00 0.00 640,000.00 64,000.00 16,000.00 800,000.00 Total all Years 80,000,00 0.00 640,000.00 64,000.00 16,000.00 900,000.00 82 V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time: 5:26 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011HB -314-Item 5. - 237 End of Plan HB -315-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 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 -316-Item 5. - 239 evenue ost pecialists,ux Serving Local Governments Since 1975 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 8z 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. Itistbirkiv:tsww fOieri'.1.40.iiP,sigrn.: \'oce 714 992 9020 1 519., • 92831: 1TO3c: 7E14.992...9021HB -317-Item 5. - 240 $533,539,375Circulation (Street, Signals and Bridges) System $203,631,313Storm Drainage Collection System $76,593,112Public Library Facilities and Collection $1,166,934,162Park Land and Park Facilities Development Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $71,246,699 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $61,234,227 Total Existing Infrastructure Replacement Investment $2,113,178,888 Page 2 10/17/11 (amended 04/27/12) 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 fmally, 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. HB -318-Item 5. - 241 Page 3 10/17/11 (amended 04/27/12) 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 Goverment 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 Olmos, 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 -319-Item 5. - 242 Page 4 10/17/11 (amended 04/27/12) 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 Report and the Ma4er 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 HB -320-Item 5. - 243 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULATION Als1D 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 making 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 HB -322-Item 5. - 245 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. 3.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 -323-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 HB -324-Item 5. - 247 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 example' 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. 1 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 4 HB -325-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 3 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 Station Cost Units Served Impact Fee 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 HB -326-Item 5. - 249 Residential Dwellings 10,000 5,000 2 Stations Business Square Feet 20,000,000 10,0 00 ,000 2 Stations Required Stations at General Plan Build-out 4 Stations Nunalper of Units_ Units served by- One Station 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 .Number of Units Units served by i .6.-tio:.,Strtion .: • Background and IntroductionChapter One 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" 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 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 Number of Units Units served by One Station Stations Required $3,000,000Cost of a Single New Station Residential Dwellings 3,750 $600.00 Business Square Feet 12,500,000 $0.30 Amount Collected in Development Impact Fees $6,0 00,0 00 Stations to be Built with Development Impact Fees 2.00 $2,250,000 $3,750,000 Background and IntroductionChapter One 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 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 DIE Collection 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 HB -328-Item 5. - 251 Cost of One New Station $3,000,000 Residential Units 3,750 $3 0 0.00 $1,125,000 Business S.F.12,500,000 $0.15 $1,875,000 Amount Contributed by Existing Community $3,000,000 Station(s) built with Community's Contribution 1.00 • Amount Collected Existing _Contribution 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 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 HB -330-Item 5. - 253 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 $300/residence 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 permit', through the imposition and collection of impact fees.' In this case, the $600/residence and $0.30/square 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. Specific 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 -331-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. Density 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 HB -332-Item 5. - 255 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 9 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 corporation l ° 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 HB -334-Item 5. - 257 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 HB -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 HB -336-Item 5. - 259 Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings This Chapter provides an inventory of developed and undeveloped (and under-developed) 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. Table 2-1 Detailed Land Use Inventory City. of Huntington Beach Total - Land Use Database Deve °peel Net Increase Total Acres # of Units .Acres # of Units Acres # of Units Detached Dwelling Units (1)6,436.0 38,616 295.00 1,749 6,731.00 40,365 Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4 36,108 111.20 5,307 1,916.60 41,415 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)204.6 2,865 1.00 9 205.60 2,874 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.4 1,070 18.60 818 52.00 1,888 Resort Lodging Units 20.2 809 9.30 535 29,50 1,344 Commercial/Office Uses 841.9 12,836,000 39.80 2,417,000 881.70 15,253,000 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 930.3 20,261,000 187.00 3,638,000 1,117.30 23,899,000 Total-City Limits 10,271.8 661.90 10,933.70 Private Residences 8,446.0 77,589 407,2 7,065 8,853.2 84,654 Commercial Lodging Rooms 53,6 1,879 27.9 1,353 81.5 3,232 Business Square Feet 1,772.2 33,097,000 226.8 6,055,000 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 below2: 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. Business/Commerce 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 HB -338-Item 5. - 261 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 Nacarit, RedeNircloped or Intensified Acres Percent rof Total Developed Acres 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 Indu.strial/Manu. Uses 930.3 8.5%187.0 1.7%1,117.3 Total 10,271.8 94.0%661.9 6.0%10,933.7 Demographics and FindingsChapter 2 Table 2-2 Summary of Undeveloped and Developed Acreage (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 HB -340-Item 5. - 263 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 -341-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 residents 3 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 HB -342-Item 5. - 265 .Total NUMber of Occupants 36,377 105,981 2,899 5,281 91 154 9,416 26,190 15,883 31,356 9,142 20,186 34,441 77,732 Existing - State Department of Finance 01/01/11 Population 37,007 630 Mobile Home Total 3,024 125 Other 122 31 Five or more 16,488 Attached 9,471 Total - MFR 1,19935,640 Attached Residential Duplex to Quadplex 9,681 265 605 I 329 Potential G. P. Build-out Population At WO% Occupancy Rate Anticipated Occupancy Units Rate Occupancy •:Der4ity. Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings Table 2-3 City of City of Huntington Beach Average Dwelling Occupancy, by Type (2000 United States Census Data) Average Occupancy Percentage Occupied 2.913 98.30% 1.822 95.87% 1.692 0.00% 2.781 97.26% 1.974 96.33% 2.208 96.53% 2.257 96.64% 190,377 potentialiaRBUlid-OUt:POpUl4tiOn At Historic OCCUpanCYRate$•::::-::: " 40040t00.- '0)0: '4267opparvy Probable Dwelling :Bate:. • 000.041.i.65,.. j Density• .:AntiOiPat:ed: .Poput4tivn. Undeveloped Detached Dwellings 1,749 98.30% 1,719 2.913 5,007 Undeveloped Attached Dwellings 5,307 96.64% 5,129 2.257 11,576 Undeveloped Mobile Home's 9 95.87% 9 1.822 16 Population to be added development 16,599 16,599 Potential "Build-out" Population, at Historic Vacancy Rates.206,976 206,976 Undeveloped Detached Dwellings 1,749 100.00% 1,749 2.913 Undeveloped Attached dwellings 5,307 100.00% 5,307 2.257 Undeveloped Mobile Home's 9 100.00% 9 1.822 Population to be added development Potential Maximum "Build-out" Population. Population at General Plan Build-out @ Low per Dwelling Resident Densities Population at General Plan Build-out @ High per Dwelling Resident Densities Average Population at General Plan Build-out ••40tiC ipated: • population 5,095 11,978 16 17,089 17,089 207,466 I 207,466 206,976 207,466 207,221 (1)Summary File 3 (SF3), available at http://factfindercensus.gov (2)Current population based upon State of California Department of Finance data. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 22 HB -343-Item 5. - 266 Recommended Developinent Impact FeesLand Use $17,235/Dwelling UnitMobile Home Dwelling Units $2,854/Lodging UnitHotel/Motel Lodging Units $3,956/Lodging UnitResort Lodging Units $5.002/Square FootCommercial/Office Uses Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $4.010/Square Foot Detached Dwelling Units $25,890/Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Units $17,994/Dwelling Unit Chapter 2 Demographics and FindinRs 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) Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 23 HB -344-Item 5. - 267 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 - CHAPTER 4 - CHAPTER 5 - CHAPTER 6 - CHAPTER 7 - CHAPTER 8 - APPENDIX A APPENDIX B APPENDIX C Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Storm Drainage Collection System Public Library Facilities and Collection Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development -Expanded Land-use Database -Summary of Recommendations -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 HB -346-Item 5. - 269 Circulation SySteni.-;StOrM Drainage :ParkLartd/Oriert:::•:: •Enforcement • .":............• :.-Facilities :et. al.' .::••SuppreSSiOn •..Local:Streete:•: • :Collection :-;Systeiti • • . •• ••FaCilities SpaCe..A0gUiSitiOn:: kf.rapro:OrnentS; )01 Vii.cjt 1.709: Total Per.1:41iit or'..0;:roao. -.Schedule :.• Schedtile: : . : :Schedule 7 :.;$CtridUle:0:: 4. .8_4:- •• • . Calculated:costs/DIFs $396 $815 $369 $455 $532 $1.041 $0.443 $692,604 $4,325,205 $2,516,097 $1,611,634 $9 805-671 ,• • Attached Dwelling Units Commercial/Office Uses Detached Dwelling Units (1) Attached Dwelling Units Other Sources Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units Resort Lodging Units Detached Dwelling Units (1) Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2 City-wide Impact Fee Industrial/Manufacturing Uses Commercial/Office Uses Industrial/Manufacturing Uses Capital Total Hotel/Motel Lodging Units Resort Lodging Units Existing Fund Balance Overatlet(Shorffati) $10,100,895 $9,805,671 ($295,224) . $0 $0 $922 $2,482 $3,061 $1,172 $17,857 $25,890 $382 $1,657 $397 $908 $13,835 $17,994 $1,583 $1,299 $2,082 $733 $11,169 $17,235 $356 $1,105 $479 No Fee $459 $2,854 $794 $1,915 $356 No Fee $359 $3,956 $0.329 $2.331 $0.347 No Fee $0.954 $5.002 $0.030 $1.621 $1.144 No Fee $0.772 $4.010 $1,612,578 $4,341,018 $5,353,689 $2,049,828 $31,231,893 $45,281,610 $2,027,274 $8,793,699 $2,106,879 $4,818,756 $73,422,345 $95,494,158 $14,247 $11,691 $18,738 $6,597 $100,521 $155,115 $291,208 $903,890 $391,822 $0 $375,462 $2,334,572 $424,790 $1,024,525 $190,460 $0 $192,065 $2,116,460 $795,193 $5,634,027 $838,699 $0 $2,305,818 $12,089,834 $109,140 $5,897,198 $4,161,872 $0 $2,808,536 $14,588,380 :0'04* $26,606,048 $0 .07 5,1 81 *41-.04*640 $172,060.129 $5,274,430 $26,606,048 $13,062,159 $6,875,181 $110,436,640 $172,060,129 $0 $200,000 $0 $0 $3,379,000 $3,579,000 $700,000 $260,020 $o $0 $22,000,000 $22,960,020 $11,941,972 $28,537,800 $207,494,050 $7,841,369 $137,483,000 $403,399,086 ($5,967542)i::($9*.1•00)'($1.687.380) per Unit per Unit per Unit per Unit per Unit per S.F. per S.F. Schedule 2.1 City of Huntington Beach Summary of Development Impact Fees By Type of Fee (Fees per Residential Dwelling Unit, or Business Square Foot) at Fair Share or Equity-based Development Impact Fees HB -347-Item 5. - 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-for-service. These fortunate residents Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 27 HB -348-Item 5. - 271 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 Detached Dwelling Units 38,616 13,185 0.341/Unit Attached Dwelling Units 36,108 25,350 0.702/Unit 910Mobile Home Dwelling Units 0.318/Unit2,865 420Hotel/Motel Units 0.393/Unit1,070 371809Resort Lodging Units 0.459/Unit Commercial Uses (in KSF)12,836,000 11,514 0.897/KSF 7,729 0.381/KSF Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and EquipmentChapter 3 Table 3-1 Law Enforcement Calls-for-Service Generated by Land Use (2009) 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,2 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-for-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 HB -350-Item 5. - 273 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% 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 -351-Item 5. - 274 Additional Calls- for-service Detached Dwelling Units Attached Dwelling Units 1,749 5,307 0.341/Unit 0.702/Unit 597.18 Calls 3,725.83 Calls Mobile Home Units (1)0.318/Unit 2.86 Calls 818Hotel/Motel Units 321.08 Calls0.393/Unit 535Resort Lodging Units 245.35 Calls0.459/Unit Commercial Uses (net in KSF)2,417,000 0.897/KSF 1,268.07 Calls 0.381/KSF 1,387.80 Calls Total Calls Per.or reAc. - - - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and EquipmentChapter 3 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 HB -352-Item 5. - 275 Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 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 4 . 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 HB -354-Item 5. - 277 Detached Dwelling Units $3 96/Unit$692,944 $4,323,304 $815/UnitAttached Dwelling Units Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $455/Unit$372,568 Resort Lodging Units $532/Unit$284,694 $1.041/S.F.Commercial/Office Uses $2,515,742 Allocation of Expansion Costs Mobile Home Dwelling Units $3,319 $369/Unit Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $1,610,348 $0.443/S.F. :Expansionf.C.oStH Per Unit or S F• • Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and EquipmentChapter 3 Table 3-3 General Plan Build-out Needs-based Law Enforcement Impact Fees DIF Proportionality Test by Comparison 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 $15,793,603 $409/UnitDetached Dwelling Units $30,365,403 $841/UnitAttached Dwelling Units $1,090,040 $380/UnitMobile Home Units Hotel/Motel Units $470Unit$503,096 Resort Lodging Units $549/Unit$444,401 $13,792,002 $1.074/S.F.Commercial/Office Uses Industrial Uses $9,258,164 $0.475/S.F. Allocation of Equity Total Equity Per Unit or SF Law Enforcement Facilities. Vehicles and EquipmentChapter 3 Table 3-4 Existing Financial Commitment or "Equity-based" Law Enforcement Impact Fees 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 HB -356-Item 5. - 279 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 •ArpOirnt.AllOcatect. to Eliminate : : • woqfy.. I New POelb4iti1W):1 • •PeteOriti.:APPortioned Dollar Cost Prcent Need ?IPP-o.#00 Dollar Cost Schedule 3.1 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment LE-001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space $7,597,165 $224,116 LE-002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles $1,751,040 2 95%r g ,p $o $51,656 $9,667LE-003 Acquire Additional Sworn Office Issued Equipment $327,690 LE-004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment $425,000 $12,538 SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS $10,100,895 2..9.59/9 $297,976 LESS: Existing Law Enforcement impact Fee Fund Balance $0 $0 SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS $0 $0 Total - Law Enforcement Capital Project Needs $10,100,895 $297,976 NOTES: 1. Costs distribution based upon a 10% sampling of Police Department "Calls-for-Service" statistics. 97.05%$7,373,049 97.05%$1,699,384 97.05%$318,023 97.05% $412,463 97.05% $9,802,919 0.00%$0 0.00%$0 97.05%$9,802,919 For-Ward tc: Schedule 3.2 Fullerton, CA 92831Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.HB -358-Item 5. - 281 • • • : • . : . • • : :Propp.qed. Land Use Allodjtiiiii of Expansion .00* Cost Average Units Development Distribution or Square Impact Fee per ifi-I Per sqywo.Foot Detached Dwelling Units (1) Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Dwelling Units Hotel/Motel Lodging Units Resort Lodging Units Commercial/Office Uses Industrial/Manufacturing Use AV!* 295.0 1,749 0.341 597.18 7.07%$692,944 $2,349 5.93 $396 per Unit 111.2 5,307 0.702 3,725.83 44.10%$4,323,304 $38,879 47.72 $815 per Unit 1.0 9 0.318 2.86 0.03%$3,319 $3,319 9.00 $369 per Unit 18.6 818 0.393 321.08 3.80%$372,568 $20,031 43.98 $455 per Unit 9.3 535 0.459 245.35 2.90%$284,694 $30,612 57.53 $532 per Unit 39.8 2,417,000 0.897 2,168.07 25.66%$2,515,742 $63,210 60,729 $1.041 per S.F. 187.0 3,638,000 0.381 1,387.80 16.43%$1,610,348 $8,611 19,455 $0.443 per S.F. 8 448.17 100.00%$9,802,919 in Total Law Enforcement Capital Needs to Complete Syste . . . . loCre.a Acres Units : New Cat/s of Additional Rate for ;$640 : Sciv1.60 Schedule 3.2 City of Huntington Beach 2010-11 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Costs (Fees) Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment :67)0.0;4 Nr.66:i.it.00 U.) 00 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -359-Item 5. - 282 tr..q.:t!stro.oty Dow ope0:;: Adres.: Prnposed Land Use 1.:0;27).... 8. :Units or Calls for ... . .. . Annual Calls Per Unit::: 38,616 13,185 0.341 36,108 25,350 0.702 2,865 910 0.318 1,070 420 0.393 809 371 0.459 12,836 11,514 0.897 20,261 7,729 0.381 Mobile Home Units Hotel/Motel Units Resort Units Commercial/Office KSF Industrial KSF TOTAL Land Use Detached Dwelling Units Attached Dwelling Units . • .. 100-:.0* $71,246 699 in Total Equity a Current Law Enforcement Assets $53 423 178 in Equity in Current Law Enforcement Facilities $12 640 310 in Equity in Current (a*:: 0-0.0r:66610i-it $3 027 410 in Equity in Existing .................................................... :1; $2 155 801 in Equity in Current Law Enforcement Officer Equipment $0 in Existing Law Enforcement Impact Fee Fund Balance : Schedule 3.3 City of Huntington Beach 2010-11 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Edsling call s for Service poicOht6:46 $evice Calls..: dthieniAiiaiidtat• . . . . .. ..or Square Commitment per Unit- .... . $4110t0 Detached Dwelling Units (1)6,436.0 38,616 0.341 13,185.0 $2,454 6.00 $409 per Unit22.17% $15,793,603 Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4 36,108 0.702 25,350.0 $16,819 20.00 $841 per Unit42.62% $30,365,403 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 204.6 2,865 0.318 910.0 $5,328 14.00 $380 per Unit1.53% $1,090,040 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.4 1,070 0.393 420.0 $15,063 32.04 $470 per Unit0.71% $503,096 Resort Lodging Units 20.2 809 0.459 371.0 $22,000 40.05 $549 per Unit0.62% $494,401 Commercial/Office Uses 841.9 12,836,000 0.897 11,514.0 $16,382 15,246 $1.074 per S.F.19.36% $13,792,002 20,261,000 0.381 7,729.0 $9,952 21,779 $0.457 per S.F.Industrial/Manufacturing Use 930.3 12.99% $9,258,154 Fullerton, CA 92831Revenue & Cast Specialists, L.L.C.HB -360-Item 5. - 283 Chapter 4 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 support areas 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 Undeveloped 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 HB -362-Item 5. - 285 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 2-1. 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 Bay/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 HB -364-Item 5. - 287 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 Dwellings, Rooms or 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 0.048/Unit Resort Lodging Units 809 86 0.106/Unit Commercial & Office KSF 12,836,000 565 0.044/KSF Industrial KSF 20,261,000 82 0.004/KSF Annual Calls-for- service Annual Calls per Unit or KSF 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 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 45 HB -366-Item 5. - 289 Calls per Unit or KSF Units or KSF per Acre Annuals _ Calls per Acre 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 Lodging Units 0.106 40 4.25 Commercial/Office Uses (per KSF)0.044 15,246 0.67 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (KSF)0.004 21,779 0.09 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 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 HB -367-Item 5. - 290 Fire/Medic, Responses Per iJnit/KSF Detached Dwelling 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 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 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 HB -368-Item 5. - 291 $1,693,338 $968/Unit $2,130,176 $401/Unit $14,996 $1,666/Unit $306,117 $374/Unit $446,495 $835/Unit $835,285 $0.346/S.F. $115,569 $0.032/S.F. Detached Dwelling Units Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Units (in parks) Hotel/Motel Units Resort Lodging Units Commercial/Office Uses Industrial Uses otal Cost Per. Unit or . SF Allocation of Costs Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and EquipmentChapter 4 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 Detached Dwelling Units $13,795,263 $382/UnitAttached Dwelling Units Hotel/Motel Units $356/Unit$381,126 Resort Lodging Units $792/Unit$642,683 $4,222,277Commercial/Office Uses $0.3291S.F. Industrial Uses $0.030/S.F.$612,791 Allocation of Equity $35,586,696 Mobile Home Units (in parks)$4,536,145 $1,583/Unit Other (beach area)$1,457,246 NA Total Equity Per Unit or SF $922/Unit Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and EquipmentChapter 4 Table 4-5 Existing Fire Suppression/Medic Existing Community Financial Commitment 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 HB -370-Item 5. - 293 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 poseriptio • :--..:.POITO.00::::: ::::....:Af.0.00::-:-..:::::.;..:-.00ite:c6.4 ::-:'.::40:06:itlai.10.' ::::17.000-4 e..." ,:-:,-:.ifveea -_:_ -::::i.-:::APP.oftio..004.:::::: :::::.::Doithie6.4::::::-; Schedule 4.1 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Vehicles dOil.strugibi.11-Af66W::. COnstruction.Ne6as Supported by Generated by New Development FS-001 Relocate Station #8 (Heil)$7,169,470 $3,584,735 50.00% $3,584,735 FS-002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility $1,716,044 75.00%$1,287,033 25.00% $429,011 FS-003 Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4 (Magnolia)$1,266,458 50-00%$633,229 50.00% $633,229 FS-004 Acquire an Engine Company and Ambulance for Station #4 (Magnolia)$740,000 WO%$370,000 50.00% $370,000 FS-005 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #1 (Gothard)$525,000 $262,500 50.00% $262,500 FS-006 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #2 (Murdy)$525,000 ..51..1005,7-$262,500 50.00% $262,500 SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS $11,941,972 .;:535.99/0.1 $6,399,997 46.41% $5,541,975 LESS: Existing Fire Suppression Impact Fee Fund Balance $0 :-.]:-1011•00 %------$0 0.00% $0 Sale of Property (Heil Station) ($700,000)($700,000)'0.00% $0 SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS ($700,000)0:;00% ($700,000)0.00% $0 Total - Fire Suppression/Medic Capital Project Needs $11,241,972 60:70%$5,699,997 49.30% $5,541,975 -F9NOTt:ta,S01.00.1:4:-.2L, NOTES: 1. The cost distribution is based upon annual Fire Department "Calls-for-Service statistics (NFIFis). Lit Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.Fullerton, CA 92831HB -372-Item 5. - 295 • :.!="0.roori.t000:-).111001.16.11::Of Cost :AVOM001:Mits:,.D6ttelopoietit . *40660.1,:- Costs FOr Acre or " Squaa Impact Fee per Unit or $0/jOi.0:f100t:1,•!,' Expected Ne w call for Senrice UndeveloPed Acres Units Schedule 4_2 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Costs (Fees) Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Vehicles 1ProposettLendUsg:: Detached Dwelling Units (1)295.00 1,749 0.123 215.68 30.55%$1,693,338 $5,740 5.93 $968 per Unit Attached Dwelling Units 111.20 5,307 0.051 271.32 38.44%$2,130,176 $19,156 47.72 $401 per Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.00 9 0.212 1.91 0.27%$14,996 $14,996 9.00 $1,666 per Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 18.60 818 0.048 38.99 5.52%$306,117 $16,458 43.98 $374 per Unit Resort Lodging Units 9.30 535 0.106 56.87 8.06%$446,495 $48,010 57.53 $835 per Unit Commercial/Office Uses 39.80 2,417,000 0.044 106.39 15.07%$835,285 $20,987 60,729 $0.346 per S.F. Industrial/Manufacturing Use 187.00 3,638,000 0.004 14.72 2.09%$115,569 $618 19,455 $0.032 per S.F. TOTAL .661W • 100.0016 ).010t4t:Fird-S600t0604644.1: Needs to Finish System Fullerton, CA 92831Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.HB -373-Item 5. - 296 Detached Dwelling Units (1)6,436.00 38,616 0.123 4,762.0 58.12% Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.40 36,108 0.051 1,846.0 22.53% Mobile Home Dwelling Units 204.60 2,865 0.212 607.0 7.41% Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.40 1,070 0.048 51.0 0.62% Resort Lodging Units 20.20 809 0.106 86.0 1.05% Commercial/Office Uses 841.90 12,836,000 0.044 565.0 6.90% Industrial/Manufacturing Use 930.30 20,261,000 0.004 82.0 1.00% Beach Area 195.0 2.38% $35,586,696 $5,529 6.00 $922 per unit $13,795,263 $7,641 20.00 $382 per Unit $4,536,145 $22,171 14.00 $1,583 per Unit $381,126 $11,411 32.04 $356 per Unit $642,683 $31,816 40.05 $794 per Unit $4,222,277 $5,015 15,246 $329 per S.F. $612,791 $659 21,779 $0.030 per S.F. • $1,457,246 . . ............................. . . $61,234,227 in Total.E q uity in Current Fire. . . Su pp ression ............ $52,999,718 in Existing Fire Suppression Facilities. ($3,250,473) Less Heil Station /18 (to be relocated).- Pn..0. 0::•.,:).:f...$4(.0.• - - $9,237,000 in Existing Fire Suppression Vehicles. in :EkiStin • :C -11.• • •. - • :O . :p. • r ppor . -- - $1,010,202 in Existing Fire-fighter Assigned Equipment.- - $0 in Existing Fire Suppression Impact Fee Fund Balance. 1.90...pocv9 •Existing 'calls for - r.Atiocatiorrof infrastructure : )f Equity" or Square per Acre ,0444W6 Commitment per Unit - or Square Foot ;:tOTAL;I, 40;27140 of Existing Schedule 4.3 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Vehicles UI Revenue &Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -374-Item 5. - 297 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 HB -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 HB -376-Item 5. - 299 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 Plan. 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 HB -378-Item 5. - 301 Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) 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 Paying the 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 -379-Item 5. - 302 3,135,213 89.4% 370,924 10.6% 3,506,137 1°0.0 % Cost of Total System ercentage: of Total $533,539,375 $26,608,410 4.8% $560,147,785 100,0% Infrastructure Factor • Total at Build-out Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) SystemChapter 5 [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]. Table 5-1 Comparison of Circulation System Attributes The Relationship Between the Need for the Facility 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 generator3 route, i.e. the route that would have been used even if the temporary stop had not been made 4 . The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) indicates that: Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 59 HB -380-Item 5. - 303 Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System 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.5 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 6 . 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 fall 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 agencies8. 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 HB -381-Item 5. - 304 $1,657/Unit$8,794,196Attached Dwelling Units $1,105/UnitHotel/Motel Units $903,562 $1,915/Unit$1,024,741Resort Lodging Units Commercial/Office Uses $2.331/S.F.$5,635,037 Detached Dwelling Units $4,341,072 $2,482/Unit Mobile Home Units (in parks)$11,693 $1,299/Unit Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $5,898,019 $1.621/S.F. Allocation of Costs Total Cost Per Unit or SF Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System 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 DIP 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 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 61 HB -382-Item 5. - 305 $3 ,931/Unit$141,943,317Attached Dwelling Units $3,675,809 $4,544/UnitResort Lodging Units $70,992,504Commercial/Office Uses $5.5311S.F. Detached Dwelling Units $227,375,119 $5,888/Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units $8,824,837 $3,080/Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $2,804,166 $2,621/Unit Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $77,923,618 $3.846/S.F. Allacation of Costs; TOtal Cost Per Unit or SF 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 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 SANDAG. [This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page'. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 63 HB -384-Item 5. - 307 Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System Table 5-4 Detail of Circulation System Financial Commitment-based Impact Fees for Specific Business Uses Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per Cost per 1,000 Square LAND USE Trip-ends Distance to Tnp Trip-miles Feet or Dwelling Unit .RESIDENTIALIANDESES er:Unit : Detached Dwolling 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.60 $71.74 $2,482.20 /Unit Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $71.74 $1,743.28 /Unit Condominium/Townhome 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $71.74 $1,520.89 /Unit Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $71.74 $1,298.49 /Unit RESORT/TOURIST (P er Mgt at Entry Daar)! Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.9 $71.74 $1,714.59 /Room All Suites 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 $1,183.71 /Room 1,1VDOS:TRIAL:(Per.:4:000:S.P):: General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $71.74 $1,994.37 /KSF Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26-9 $71.74 $1,929.81 /KSF Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $71.74 $882.40 /KSF Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $71.74 $1,420.45 /KSF VOMMERGIAL:(p0::1;.009 Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $71.74 $2,338.72 /KSF Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $71.74 $1,578.28 /KSF Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $71.74 $2,948.51 /KSF Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $71.74 $4,526.79 /KSF Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $71.74 $3,615.70 /KSF Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $71.74 $380.22 /KSF Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $71.74 $911.10 /KSF Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $71.74 $7,009.00 /KSF General Office Building 7.16 as 0.5 31.5 $71.74 $Z259.81 /KSF Shopping Center 30.20 4.3 0.5 64.9 $71.74 $4,655.93 /KSF Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $71.74 $1,764.80 /KSF Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $71.74 $9,706.42 /KSF High-Turnover Restaurant 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 /KSF Walk-in Bank 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $71.74 $2,152.20 /KSF - - - Cemetery (per acre)3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 $71.74 $473.48 /Acre Service Station/Market (avg)107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $71.74 $16,607.81 /FP/Day (4) Service Station and Car Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $71,74 $15,323.66 /FP/Day (4) NOTES: ADT = Average Daily Trips 3. Adjusted for Pass-by and Diverted Trips. 2. KSF = Thousand square Fe,et of Gross Floor Area 4. FP/Day =per "Riding 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 HB -386-Item 5. - 309 Chapter 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 and III-CE-3. 3.The 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. July 1995. Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 66 HB -387-Item 5. - 310 Estimated •:I : Cost . . . . . Construction Needs Supported by. . . Other Resources. 02Thetruction NePcis •That Increase : .1 MfrastnictOre Capacity 7:500%$450,000 95.00%$950,000 95.00% 95.00% 62.00% 95.00% 95.00% $380,000 $475,000 $620,000 $950,000 95X0% 88:00% 95131-19/0 05.55:10000704 P§.9.P°4 :-95:40% $285,000 $475,000 $250,800 $8,360 $9,500,000 $4,750,000 $2,679,000 $61,750 93:24%$26,608,410 Schedule 5.1 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System :...e0.,:.007::t ::Aiii4.0-#10.00.::..:rotooril::::::.:.4ppo.#0.#.##. Neth.:- [ Dollar Cost .::::Ateed:-::-:,-:--Doliairde.4-: :- . :•••.•.•.- :•::::::-:.:::.:::.:.H.H.:.:: . : . :-:-::::::""" " ST-001 Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue $600,000 25:009k $150,000 ST-002 Beach Boulevard and Heil Avenue $1,000,000 5.00%$50,000 ST-003 Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue $400,000 :-599°A $20,000 ST-004 Beach Boulevard and Slater Avenue $500,000 -:•53):6%$25,000 ST-005 Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue $1,000,000 $380,000 ST-006 Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue $1,000,000 $50,000 ST-007 Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue $500,000 $25,000 ST-008 Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue $2,000,000 $100,000 ST-009 Pacific Coast Highway and Goldenwest Street $750,000 $90,000 ST-010 Pacific Coast Highway and Brookhurst Street $750,000 ..$37,500 ST-011 Goldenwest Street and Balsa Avenue $500,000 5.00%$25,000 ST-012 Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue $50,000 •5.00°A $2,500 ST-013 Newland Street and Talbert Avenue $500,000 5.00%$25,000 ST-014 Newland Street and Warner Avenue $30,000 5.00%$1,500 ST-015 Newland Street and Yorktown Avenue $300,000 5.00%$15,000 ST-016 Gothard Street and Slater Avenue $500,000 5.00W0 $25,000 ST-017 Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue $264,000 5.00Q/0 $13,200 ST-018 Ward Street and Garfield Avenue $8,800 5.00%$440 ST-019 Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue $10,000,000 5,00%$500,000 ST-020 Miscellaneous Traffic Signals/Intersection Improvements $5,000,000 5,00%$250,000 $T-021 Public Works Maintenance Building $2,820,000 $141,000 ST-022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles $65,000 $3,250 SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS $28,537,800 ::;:;;•::.:7...600 $1,929,390 LESS: Local Circulation Impact Fee Fund Balance ($200,000) ($200,000) Support from Other Agencies ($260,020)•1p0.:60%($260,020) SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS ($460,020) ($460,020) Total - Local Circulation-related Capital Project Needs $28,077,780 5., 23%$1,469,370 0.00%$0 000%$0 0 .00%$0 77% $26,608,410 FaiWal#W$Chedale:52,-: °VOTES: There are no notes. Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -388-Item 5. - 311 Percentage Allocation of 'Average Units DeveloPment. .of Additional Expansion Distriptilidn•or:Square Impact Fee per Unit Tr,p-nnles Costs •or Square Foot . Additibnãl Daily„ •1 Rate: Schedule 5.2 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Costs (Fees) Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System -- - -- 295 1,749 34.60 60,515 16.31%$4,341,072 _ . $14,715 5.93 $2,482 per UnitDetached Dwelling Units Attached Dwelling Units 111 5,307 23.10 122,592 33.05%$8,794,196 $79,084 47.72 $1,657 per Unit Mobile Home Dwelling U 1 9 18.10 163 0.04%$11,693 $11,693 9.00 $1,299 per Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Unit 19 818 15.40 12,597 3.40%$903,652 $48,583 43.98 $1,105 per Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Unit 9 535 26.70 14,285 3.85%$1,024,741 $110,187 57.53 $1,915 per Unit Commercial/Office Uses 40 2,417,000 32.50 78,553 21.18%$5,635,037 $141,584 60,729 $2.331 per S.F. Industrial/Manufacturing 187 3,638,000 22.60 82,219 22.17%$5,898,019 $31,540 19,455 $1.621 per S.F. . :: TOT AL: : : : . 6::1 .10 . ..4::. idd..b ri: . .. : . .. : :: .$26;60841:0 :In:Capital. Object- .Needs TO FiniSh'CirCiflatiori:;40tern:; .. : : ' . : ALTERNATIVE FEE METHODLOGY 370,924 $26,608,410 $71.74 per Daily Trip-mile Trip-ends Adjustment Calculation ' Land Use Daily Total Trips Percent of Diverted Trips Diverted Trip % Adjustment Diverted Trip Percent Percent of Pass-by Trips (1) Combined Diverted and Pass-by Remaining Trip % as Adjustment % Adjusted Trip Rate, Adjustment % X Total Trips Average Trip Length Trip-ends X0.5 X Length Detached Dwellings 9.57 11.0 0.50 5.5 3.0 8.5 91.50%8.76 7.9 34.6 Attached Dwellings 6.39 11.0 0.50 5.5 3.0 8.5 91.50%5.85 7.9 23.1 Mobile Home Units 4.99 11.0 0.50 5.5 3.0 8.5 91.50%4.57 79 18.1 Hotel/Motel Lodging 5.27 38.0 0.50 19.0 4.0 23.0 77.00%4.06 7.6 15.4 Resort Lodging 9.13 38.0 0.50 19.0 4.0 23.0 77.00%7.03 7.6 26_7 Commercial Uses (KSF)23.25 40.0 0.50 20.0 15.0 35.0 65.00%15.11 4.3 32.5 Industrial Uses (KSF)5.68 19.0 0.50 9.5 2.0 11.5 88.50%5.03 9.0 22.6 (1) Pass-by trips adjusted at 100%. oo Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -389-Item 5. - 312 Proposed Land Use Schedule 5.3 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System Percentage Allocation of Dtstribiltion; -:;CëntFinrciál of Existing Trip-miles Infrastructure "EqUily" of 7EqUity7::::::: per or Square-::-:',:: FeetlAcre : pomo.tmept.poiookE::: - - Detached Dwelling Units Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Dwelling U Hotel/Motel Lodging Unit Resort Lodging Units Commercial/Office Uses Industrial/Manufacturing TOTAL 6,436 38,616 34.60 1,336,114 42.62%$227,375,119 $35,329 6.00 $5,888 per Unit 1,805 36,108 23.10 834,095 26.60%$141,943,317 $78,622 20.00 $3,931 per Unit 205 2,865 18.10 51,857 1.65%$8,824,837 $43,132 14.00 $3,080 per Unit 33 1,070 15.40 16,478 0.53%$2,804,166 $83,957 32.04 $2,621 per Unit 20 809 26.70 21,600 0.69%$3,675,809 $181,971 40.05 $4,544 per Unit 842 12,836,000 32.50 417,170 13.31%$70,992,504 $84,324 15,246 $5.531 per S.F. 930 20,261,000 22.60 457,899 14.61%$77,923,618 $83,762 21,779 $3846 per S.F. 1:0;272:3,135,213 100 00°k $533539 375 in Total Equity in Curront Circulation System Assets • • $431,589 .; 575:-- - --in 'General : Plan Circulation.MajOisttet:::::::::::::. $0 in General .............................. $5 000,000 in General Plan Circulation Bridges $62 500 000 in General Plan Circulation Intersections $34 25O000 in General Plan Circulation Signals. . $200 000 in Circulation Impact Fo Fund Balance ALTERNATIVE FEE METHODLOGY 3,135,213 $533,539,375 $170.18 per Daily Trip-mile ON 1.0 Fullerton, CA 92831Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.HB -390-Item 5. - 313 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"1 . 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 fund 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 Upon 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 control3 , 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 HB -392-Item 5. - 315 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 hotel/motel, 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 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 Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System 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 4 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) Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 73 HB -394-Item 5. - 317 Total Runoff Acre Factor 8,303.18 557.85 8,861.03 P.Q..reQat4gulofiptal-sH:.92.7%100.0% System Cost Contribution $203,631,313 $207,494,050 $411,175,363 Percentage of Total 49.5% 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 36,108 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 At 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 HB -395-Item 5. - 318 Total Cost Per Unit 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/Manufacturing Uses $4,160,238 $22,247 $1.144/S.F. Cost Distribution per Acre Allocation of Project Costs 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 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 75 HB -396-Item 5. - 319 Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the 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 Total Cost Per Unit or SF 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/Manufacturing Uses $21,674,517 $23,298 $1.070/S.F. Storm Drainage Collection SystemChapter 6 Table 6-4 Distribution of Current Equity-based Commitment in Storm Drainage System Collection (or Proportionality Verification) 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 HB -398-Item 5. - 321 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; •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 Line § SD-001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1) SD-002 Coastal and Bolsa Chica Wetlands Region (SD Region #2) SD-003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3) SD-004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4) SD-005 Bolsa Chica Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region #5) SD-006 Public Works Maintenance Building SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS LESS: Existing Storm Drainage impact Fee Fund Balance Schedule 6.1 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation Storm Drainage Collection System Other Revenue Sources SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS Total - Storm Drainage Collection System Capital Project Needs are Capacity: Estimated :Cost... 1:40000/640::: :::Dallar:Cost:: •• • • • • • • •-Pet#00t::' Need 4Ppoft10ne d Dollar CoSt $23,728,000 $22,234,085 6.30%$1,493,915 $21,527,000 $20,171,660 6.30%$1,355,340 $34,236,000 $32,080,501 6.30%$2,155,499 $28,749,000 $26,938,963 6.30%$1,810,037 $98,549,000 $92,344,355 6.30%$6,204,645 $705,050 $660,660 6.30%$44,390 $207,494,050 $194,430,225 6.30%$13,063,825 $0 acook $0 0.00%$0 $0 ano% $0 0.00%$0 $o 0,00% $0 0.00%$0 $207,494,050 $194,430,225 6.30%$13,063,825 Forward to .Schedule NOTES: There are no notes. n.) Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -400-Item 5. - 323 Aores., •Units Proposed Land Use of Drainage Schedule 6.2 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Costs (Fees) Storm Drainage Collection System Percentage At.i.oehti0.0; Of Average Units bevel' • inent • • "'"•-• ot Additional •Service Calls Expansion p040 • Per Acre or ,qua eet/Acre - ... Impact••••••:::•' " •-•pgr, . .. . ...or Square Foo t. Detached Dwelling Units (1)295.00 1,749 0.775 228.63 40.98%$5,354,096 $18,149 5.93 $3,061 per Unit Attached Dwelling Units 111.20 5,307 0.810 90.07 16.15%$2,109,274 $18,968 47.72 $397 per Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.00 9 0.800 0.80 0.14%$18,735 $18,735 9.00 $2,082 per Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 18.60 818 0.900 16.74 3.00%$392,020 $21,076 43.98 $479 per Unit Resort Lodging Units 9.30 535 0.875 8.14 1.46%$190,624 $20,497 57.53 $356 per Unit Commercial/Office Uses 39.80 2,417,000 0.900 35.82 6.42%$838,839 $21,076 60,729 $0.347 per S.F. Industrial/Manufacturing Use 187.00 3,638,000 0.950 177.65 31.85%$4,160,238 $22,247 19,455 $1.144 per S.F. TOTAL 661.90 100: 00%$12,063,825 in fr.:0 01*6.6 0040 0.000.00014:01.0:84:-.:'::: 00 Fullerton, CA 92831Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.HB -401-Item 5. - 324 in Total Equity in Current Law Enforcement Assets - in Equity in Storm Drainage Collection System Facilities. -. in Equity in Storm Drainage Basins. in Existinri Storm Draina q e lmDact Fee Fund Balance. • •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • of Drainage Factor .Storni Percentage of Existing Service Cells lnfastructure I; Acres Units • 6,436.00 38,616 0.775 4,987.90 60.07%$122,325,402 1,805.40 36,108 0.810 1,462.37 17.61%$35,863,547 204.60 2,865 0.800 163.68 1.97%$4,013,573 33.40 1,070 0.900 30.06 0.36%$737,145 20.20 809 0.875 17.68 0.21%$433,735 841.90 12,836,000 0.900 757.71 9.13%$18,583,394 930.30 20,261,000 0.950 883.78 10.64%$21,674,517 10,271,80 po.ogTo S203,631,313 $158,631,313 $45,000,000 so• • • • • • • • .• • • • • • • • Developed TOTAL $19,865 20.00 $993 per Unit Distributin iieth46:-Onliel:' of 'Equity'1 or Square parAde Feet/Acre Current Financial Commitment per Unit or Square Foot $19,006 6.00 $3,168 per Unit $19,617 14.00 $1,401 per Unit $21,472 $22,070 40.05 32.04 $689 per Unit $536 per Unit $22,073 15,246 $1.448 per S.F. $23,298 21,779 $1.070 per S.F. Proposed LanCi Use Detached Dwelling Units (1) Attached Dwelling Units Mobile Home Dwelling Units Hotel/Motel Lodging Units Resort Lodging Units Commercial/Office Uses industrial/Manufacturing Use Schedule 6.3 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees Storm Drainage Collection System 00 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L. L. C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -402-Item 5. - 325 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 190,377 2 , 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 190,377 190,377 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 of Units Persons 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 HB -404-Item 5. - 327 Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection The library system also has a collection of 410,594 collection items 3 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 Land-Use Number of Units Persons per Dwelling 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 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 HB -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 Paying 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 Relationshi 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 process 5 , (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 HB -406-Item 5. - 329 Residents per Dwelling Cost..per Resident Impact Cost Per Unit Detached Dwelling Units 2.913 $402.23 Attached Dwelling Units 2.257 $402.23 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.822 $402.23 $1,172/Dwelling $908/Dwelling $733/Dwelling Public Library Facilities and CollectionChapter 7 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 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 86 HB -407-Item 5. - 330 Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES •Adopt Schedule 7.1 which contains the recommended City Library Facilities and Collection (item) Development Impact Fees and is summarized in Table7-6. •Establish a General Plan square foot standard for Library Facilities square feet per resident and a standard for Collection Items per resident. Chapter Endnotes I. 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 HB -408-Item 5. - 331 Cost of Space per Resident $348.30 $53.93Cost of Collection Item per Resident Land Acquisition at $20.00/S.F. and 0.25 FAR. Land Acquisition and Construction per Square Foot Cost per Collection Item $80.00 $520.63 Cost per Square Foot or Collection Item Existing City Library Standard(s) $520.63 $25.00 0.669 2.157 Current Population (Residents) S.F. of Library Space/Resident Collection Items/Resident Library Construction/Square Foot 06/2010 190,377 190,377 0.669 2.157 $440,63 2.913 2.257 1.822 $1,015 $157 $1,172 $786 $122 $908 $635 $98 $733 Detached Dwelling Unit Attached Dwelling Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Unit Schedule 7.1 City of Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Public Library Facilities and Collection Library Space Library Collection 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 Existing Square Feet of Library Space Existing Library Collection Items Calculation of Existing Standards: Type of Density Library Library Total Residential per Dwelling Space Collection Library Dwelling Unit Unit Component Component Impact Fee 88 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -409-Item 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 AB1600 (§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. EXISTING 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 HB -410-Item 5. - 333 Neighborhood 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 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 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 1,0001, 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 Owned Park Ares Current Park Acres 999.09 778.41 Current City Population 190,377 190,377 Population Stated in Thousands 190.377 190.377 Park Acres per 1,000 Population 5.248 4.089 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 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 relevant2 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 HB -412-Item 5. - 335 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."' 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 HB -414-Item 5. - 337 Average Construction Cost Cost/ Acre Type of Park $258,698,242Total Cost 834.06Total Acres 834.06 $310,168Cost/Acre (rounded) Neighborhood/Mini Park 271.01 $223,441 $60,559,816 Community Park 229.15 $289,296 $66,292,242 Sports/Regional Park 333.90 $394,884 $131,851,622 Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development 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 par& that the City will likely construct over General Plan build-out6 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 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 94 HB -415-Item 5. - 338 Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development The $310,168/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 Community Use Facility 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 HB -416-Item 5. - 339 Detached Dwelling Units 2.913 $6,130.01 $17,857 Attached Dwelling Units 2.257 $6,130.01 $13,385 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.822 $6,130.01 $11,169 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 Park/AB1600 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 Cost • per Keyed Room or Square Foot 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 Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development 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 Note: A lodging unit is defmed 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 HB -418-Item 5. - 341 Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development evidence (acceptable to the City), 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. •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.I3ased 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 HB -419-Item 5. - 342 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 Lake Park 4.75 Lake View Park 2.16 Lamb Park 2.60 Lambert Park 3.50 Langenbeck Park 17.02 Lark View Park 3.65 LeBard Park 4.99 Manning Park 2.46 Marina Park 9.34 Marine View Park 2.96 McCallen Park 5,84 Meadowlark Golf Course 98.00 Moffett Park 2.38 Murdy Park 16.04 Newland Park 2.94 Oak View Center Park 1.31 Weider Regional (County-owned)45.01 Pattinson Park 3.51 Perry Park 1,88 Pleasant View Park 2.17 Prince Park 0.22 Robinwood Park 1,41 Rodgers Senior Center Site 2.01 Schroeder Park 2.37 Seabridge Park 3.91 Seeley Park 3.37 Sowers Park 2.65 Sun View Park 2.45 Talbert Park 5.44 Tarbox Park 0.44 Terry Park 4.81 Triangle Park 1.11 Trinidad Park 0.75 Wardlow Park 8.36 Wieder Park 4.80 Worthy Community Park 7.00 Total Acres (Owned/Developed)999.09 Current Population 190,377 Population/1,000 190.38 Current Standard 5.248 City Owrie Parkland 0.00 2.16 2.60 3,50 9.24 0.00 3.01 2.46 9.34 0.00 5.84 98.00 2.38 16.04 2.94 0.00 0.00 3.51 1.88 0.00 0.22 0.00 2.01 0.00 3.91 3.37 2.65 0.00 5.44 0.44 4.81 1.11 0,75 8.36 4.80 7.00 778.41 190,377 190.38 4.089 . .Developed Parkland .. 4.75 2.16 0.00 3.50 17.02 3.65 4.99 2.46 9.34 2.96 5.84 98.00 2.38 16.04 2.94 1.31 23.01 3.51 1.88 2.17 0.22 1.41 2.01 2.37 3.91 3.37 2.65 2.45 5.44 0.44 4.81 1.11 0.75 8.36 4.80 7.00 849.58 190,377 190.38 4.463 99 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, 92831 CAHB -420-Item 5. - 343 :.:POVOtifiPrrmpt $7,480 $5,795 Land and Development $17,857 $13,835 $4,678 $11,169 Land Acquistion $10,377 $8,040 $6,491 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 Acres/1,000 Population Standard Quimby Maximum Allowable 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 .Occupants! Dwelling Detached Dwelling Units 2.913 Attached Dwelling Units 2.257 Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.822 5.248 4.089 4.463 5.000 4.089 4.463 $871,200 $508,644 $66,680 $871,200 $575,324 $3,562,337 $2,567,671 .001 Fee 1,000.0 1,000.0 Per.PerePn.: $3,562.34 $2,567.67 $6,130.01 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. 100 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, 92831 CAHB -421-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 .Par .17.i iZ.6.... Average Cost per Acre Total Cost far:Park: Prince Park 0.22 $223,441 $49,157 French Park 0.33 $223,441 $73,736 Tarbox Park 0.44 $223,441 $98,314 Davenport Beach 0.46 $223,441 $102,783 Humbolt Beach Park 0.48 $223,441 $107,252 City Gym/Pool Site 0.50 $223,441 $111,721 Finley Park 0.56 $223,441 $125,127 Bailey Park 0.59 $223,441 $131,830 Trinidad Park 0.75 $223,441 $167,581 Booster Park 0.85 $223,441 $189,925 Triangle Park 1.11 $223,441 $248,020 Banning/Magnolia Park 0.00 $223,441 $0 Oak View Center Park 1.31 $223,441 $292,708 Robinwood Park 1.41 $223,441 $315,052 Franklin Park 1.52 $223,441 $339,631 Perry Park 1.88 $223,441 $420,070 Rodgers Senior Center Site 2.01 $223,441 $449,117 Helme Park 2.02 $223,441 $451,351 Bauer Park 2.04 $223,441 $455,820 Lake View Park 2.16 $223,441 $482,633 Pleasant View Park 2.17 $223,441 $484,868 Drew Park 2.28 $223,441 $509,446 Circle View Park 2.31 $223,441 $516,149 Schroeder Park 2.37 $223,441 $529,556 Bushard Park 2.38 $223,441 $531,790 Moffett Park 2.38 $223,441 $531,790 Sun View Park 2.45 $223,441 $547,431 Manning Park 2.46 $223,441 $549,665 Burke Park 2.50 $223,441 $558,603 Arevelos Park 2.58 $223,441 $576,478 Lamb Park 0.00 $223,441 $0 Sowers Park 2.65 $223,441 $592,119 Eader Park 2.68 $223,441 $598,823 Hawes Park 2.68 $223,441 $598,823 Bolsa View Park 2.70 $223,441 $603,291 College View Park 2.70 $223,441 $603,291 Conrad Park 2.71 $223,441 $605,526 Clegg-Stacey Park 2.80 $223,441 $625,636 Golden View Park 2.81 $223,441 $627,870 Newland Park 2.94 $223,441 $656,917 Haven View Park 2.95 $223,441 $659,152 Marine View Park 2.96 $223,441 $661,386 Glen View Park 3.02 $223,441 $674,793 Seeley Park 3.37 $223,441 $752,997 Lambert Park 3.50 $223,441 $782,044 101 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, 92831 CAHB -422-Item 5. - 345 Schedule 8.2 City of Huntington Beach Park Site Inventory Improvement Cost Residential Park Development Impact Fee Calculation of Average Park Acre Construction Cost d:• .S.i2e . :AVerage .Q0St 3 per 'Acre :: :Totatott .fbirPark.:: Pattinson Park 3.51 $223,441 $784,279 Farquhar Park 3.52 $223,441 $786,513 Hope View Park 3.61 $223,441 $806,623 Lark View Park 3.65 $223,441 $815,561 Seabridge Park 3.91 $223,441 $873,655 Harbour View Park 4.02 $223,441 $898,234 Green Park 4.04 $223,441 $902,703 Lake Park 4.75 $223,441 $1,061,346 Wieder Park 4.80 $223,441 $1,072,518 Terry Park 4.81 $223,441 $1,074,752 LeBard Park 4.99 $223,441 $1,114,972 Talbert Park 5.44 $223,441 $1,215,520 McCallen Park 5.84 $223,441 $1,304,897 Discovery Well Park 6.60 $223,441 $1,474,712 Gibbs Park 6.83 $223,441 $1,526,104 Wardlow Park 8.36 $223,441 $1,867,969 Marina Park 9.34 $223,441 $2,086,941 Meadowlark Golf Course 98.00 $223,441 $21,897,243 Carr Park 10.72 $289,296 $3,101,256 Irby Park 2.91 $289,296 $841,852 Gisler Park 11.67 $289,296 $3,376,088 Baca Park 14.35 $289,296 $4,151,402 Langenbeck Park 17.02 $289,296 $4,923,823 Bluff Top Park 19.66 $289,296 $5,687,565 Bartlett Park 2.00 $289,296 $578,593 Beach, City-leased 90.62 $289,296 $26,216,029 Beach, City-owned 60.20 $289,296 $17,415,636 Worthy Park 7.00 $394,884 $2,764,185 Greer park 10.44 $394,884 $4,122,584 Murdy Park 16.04 $394,884 $6,333,932 Edison Park 47.18 $394,884 $18,630,607 Huntington Central Park 253.24 $394,884 $100,000,314 Total 834.06 $258,698,680 Total Park Acres 834.06 Average Construction Cost/Acre $310,168 Community Input, Design, Engineering 115.00% Sub-total Park Construction Cost $356,693 Project Administation, Soils<Materials Testing, etc.124.00% Sub-total Park Construction Cost $442,299 Contingency 115.00% Total Park Construction Cost $508,644 102 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, 92831 CAHB -423-Item 5. - 346 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 $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 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 Schedule 8.3 City of Huntington Beach Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park Unit Cost Installed 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 4" 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 Acre Neighborhood 20; AprOiCOMMuriity::Rark,'; 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 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 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -424-Item 5. - 347 gqAcre:COrrtmuhlity,prot: $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 30 $148,500 $24,750 30 $27,240 0 $0 2 $247,500 10 1 $247,500 $16,500 6 $12,378 $0 1 $66,000 0 2 $0 $198,000 0 $0 0 0 $0 $0 $148,500 2,000 $44,560 500 $14,440 500 $18,565 8,500 $52,700 0 1 $0 $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 Unit Cost, Installed $4,950 Each $2,475 Each $1,568 Each $4,125 Each $4,125 Each $19.80 Linear Foot $1,155 Each $19.80 Linear Foot $2,475 Each $825 Each $908 Each $5,775 Each $123,750 Each $24,750 Each $16,500 Each $2,063 Each $66,000 Each $57,750 Each $99,000 Each $57,750 Each $82,500 Each $412,500 Per two fields $24,750 Each $22.28 Linear Foot $28.88 Linear Foot $37.13 Linear Foot $6.20 Linear Foot $4,538 Lot $24,750 Lot $2,890 Each $825,000 Each $41,250 Each $82,500 Each $247,500 Each Total Cost Total Acres Average Cost per Acre 5 Acre Neighborhood 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 $3,632 0 $0 0 $0 1 $24,750 0 $0 1 $2,063 $0 1.0 $66,000 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 1 $24,750 500 $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 1,117,206 5 $223,441 $4,339,444 15 $289,296 Fire Hydrant Street Lights Standards Duct work/wiring Water Facilities 3" metered service Backf low device Line in street Water fountains Fountain lines in park Benches/Tables Tables, cement pads Individual grills Benches, cement pads Bleachers Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) Individual Covered Picnic Pad User Electrical Service park Electrical Service per Area Game Courts Basketball Courts Basketball Court Lighting Fenced Tennis Courts Tennis Court Lighting Baseball Field - Competitive Ballfield Lighting Baseball Field - Recreational Pedestrian Walkway 5'Wide 6'Wide 9' Wide Miscellaneous Fiatwork Small Park Signage Large Park Signage Bike Rack/Pad Natural Element Improvement (Lake, e Small Concrete Stage Small Ampitheater stage only, graded Large Ampitheater with bowl 104 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -425-Item 5. - 348 Schedule 8.3 City of Huntington Beach Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park Unit Cost, Installed 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 4" A.G. 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 2,704 $540,800 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 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -426-Item 5. - 349 Schedule 8.3 City of Huntington Beach Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park siUn4:c05t.Inlstalled Fire Hydrant $4,950 Each Street Lights Standards $2,475 Each Duct work/wiring $1,568 Each Water Facilities 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 $67,760 Each Fenced Tennis Courts $99,000 Each Tennis Court Lighting $57,750 Each Baseball Field - Competitive $82,500 Each Ballfield 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 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, e $825,000 Each Small Concrete Stage $41,250 Each Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $82,500 Each Large Arnpitheater with bowl $247,500 Each 20 Acre Spoils..poKi: 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 1,000 $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. Fullerton, CA 92831HB -427-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 778.4 Current City-wide Privately Developed Acres 10,271.8 Current Open Space Standard per Developed Acre 0.0758 Acres/Developed Acre Standard 0.0758 Acquisition Cost per Acre $871,200 Cost X Open Space Standard $66,037 Open Space Land Value 25.00% Adjusted Land Cost $16,509.24 Units/SF per APre. Opon:Spage;-,--;- A00:00000.! Commercial Lodging Keyed Units 36 $459 per Keyed Unit Resort Lodging Keyed Units 46 $359 per Keyed Unit Commercial Acres (in Square Feet)17,300 $0.954 per Square Foot Industrial Uses (in Square Feet)21,390 $0.772 per Square Foot 107 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, 92831 CAHB -428-Item 5. - 351 APPENDIX A Expanded Land-use Database 108 HB -429-Item 5. - 352 Developed_ 1 Acres # of Units T04!:pity:of Huntington - poach Total Land U se Database # of Units 40,3656,731.001,749295.0038,6166,436.0Detached Dwelling Units (1) 41,4151,916.60 205.60 5,307111.2036,1081,805.4Attached Dwelling Units 2,87491.002,865204.6Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 1,88852.0081818.601,07033.4Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 1,34429.505359.3080920.2Resort Lodging Units 15,253,000881.702,417,00039.8012,836,000841.9Commercial/Office Uses 23,899,0001,117.303,638,000187.0020,261,000930.3Industrial/Manufacturing Uses Total - City Limits 10,933.70661.9010,271.8 84,6548,853.27,065407.277,5898,446.0Private Residences 3,23281.51,35327.91,87953.6Commercial Lodging Rooms 39,152,0001,999.06,055,000226.833,097,0001,772.2Business Square Feet To Be DevelopedExisting Community- - .. .. . as Currrently Developed Deve oped Aoro g :..Acres. ..I # of Units # of Units Detached Dwelling Units (1)6,436.0 38,616 34.0 Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4 36,108 15.0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)204.6 2,865 1.0 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.4 1,070 0.0 Resort Lodging Units 20.2 809 3.4 Commercial/Office Uses 841.9 12,836,000 4.5 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 930.3 20,261,000 44.0 Existing Community 1 0,271 .8 101.90 38,7996,470.00183 36,2671,820.40159 2,874205.609 1,07033.400 1,10923.60300 12,905,200846.4069,200 21,219,320958,320 974.30 10,373.70 Acoitio041::Usoitg :ifroar . lntensifcation of Existing Uses Intensified/Redeveloped Acres .:i:#..of Units Detached Dwelling Units (1)0.0 0 261.0 1,566 261.00 1,566 Attached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0.0 0 14.6 468 14.60 468 Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Commercial/Office Uses 0.0 0 106.2 2,313,817 106.20 2,313,817 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 0 143.0 2,679,680 143.00 2,679,680 Redeveloped 0.0 524.80 524.80 Specific Plan A Beach and Ecfinger Acres #of Units 000.000.00.0Detached Dwelling Units (1) 80.00 4,5004,50080.000.0Attached Dwelling Units 0.0000.000.0Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 350 4.00 3504.000.0Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0.00 000.00.0Resort Lodging Units 109850,40037.00850,40037.000.0Commercial/Office Uses 000.000.000.0Industrial/Manufacturing Uses Sub-total Specific Plan A 121.00121.000.0 HB -430-Item 5. - 353 • 1Deve oped Acres # of Units Specific Plan B Downtown ::Intensified/RedeVelOpeq::::: Acres (3) kof:Units .. 0.00 0 16.20 648 0.00 0 0.00 0 5.90 235 13.10 398,583 0.00 0 35.20 Detached Dwelling Units (1)0.0 0 0.0 0 Attached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 16.2 648 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)0.0 0 0.0 0 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 5.9 235 Commercial/Office Uses 0.0 0 13.1 398,583 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 0 0.0 0 Sub-total Specific Plan B 0.0 35.20 Specific Plan A - Removal •°eve oped Acres lotoo-Offp-O./Recto.v.01.0-00::::: # of Units 'Total Acres .• ofAcres of Units Detached Dwelling Units (1)0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Attached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Commercial/Office Uses 0.0 0 (121.0)(1,215,000)(121.00)(1,215,000) Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0 Sub-total Specific Plan A 0.0 (121.00)(121.00) 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 lot 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. 110 HB -431-Item 5. - 354 APPENDIX B Summary of Recommended Impact Fees 111 HB -432-Item 5. - 355 SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATIONS 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 AB1600 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 -433-Item 5. - 356 APPENDIX C Master Facilities Plan (See Separate Document) 113 HB -434-Item 5. - 357 End of Document HB -435-Item 5. - 358 Dept. ID CS 17-003 Page 1 of 3 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Statement of Issue: There is a need for the City Council to review and approve the conceptual master plan of improvements for Irby Park. Per City Council Direction, Community Services Department staff has worked with various stakeholders to develop a conceptual master plan for the Park. Financial Impact: Funding will be identified and recommended to City Council upon the completion of the entitlement process and a final determination of costs. Possible options include a joint public/private partnership utilizing both grants, park funds, community donations, and volunteer services. Recommended Action: A) Approve the Conceptual Master Plan for Improvements at Irby Park as presented, and; B) Approve updating the Irby Park Master Plan, along with potential updates and/or changes to the existing park. Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the Conceptual Master Plan for Improvements for Irby Park as presented, and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: As part of the 2016 and 2017 Strategic Planning sessions, City Council included improvements to the undeveloped portion of Irby Park as a quality of life Strategic Objective. In 2016, Council directed the Community Services Department to collaborate with Cal State University, Long Beach (CSULB) to develop an improvement plan based upon community input. The 2017 Strategic Plan also includes an objective to develop a conceptual plan for Irby Park and present it to the Community Services Commission and City Council for consideration. Per the objective, the plan is to be presented to Council before June 1, 2017. Irby Park is located at 6770 Ruth Drive. It is within the residential tract bordered by Goldenwest Street, Heil Avenue, Edwards Street and Warner Avenue. The park is 10.91 acres, consisting of 2.91 developed land and eight acres of undeveloped land. The developed portion of the park was purchased in 1964 and partially constructed in 1971. The undeveloped portion of the park was acquired through a donation and land dedication from a private developer. The undeveloped 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: Janeen Laudenback, Director of Community Services SUBJECT: Request to approve Conceptual Master Plan of Improvements for Irby Park, update of the Irby Park Master Plan, and potential updates and/or changes to the existing park HB -436-Item 6. - 1 Dept. ID CS 17-003 Page 2 of 3 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 property has peat moss conditions, which makes the area undesirable for the placement of structures such as single family homes. Over the years, the City has looked at a few options to develop the property and at one point, considered declaring it surplus. In 1989 proposals with an offer to sell the land were solicited however, no offers were received. Shortly after, Charter Section 612 (“Measure C”) was established to require that any sale or lease of park property be subject to a vote of the public. Since the 8-acre area is zoned and included in the City’s inventory as parkland, any disposition would be subject to a public vote. Past development concepts included a water treatment facility in 2006 and more recently, a community garden in 2014 however, neither option came to fruition. Per City Council direction, staff has worked with Cal State Long Beach University Long Beach – Department of Recreation & Leisure Studies (CSULB) to solicit community input on the type of amenities and designs they envisioned for the undeveloped portion of the park. The CSULB students prepared and sent out a survey to residents within 1,000 feet of the park. (Attachment 1) The survey results indicated that the overall design should be passive in nature. Desired amenities included walking paths, restoration of existing vegetation, increased and improved landscaping and pet friendly features. Based upon the survey results, the CSULB students under the guidance of university faculty developed a concept plan for improvements. The plan was presented to the Community Services Commission on April 11, 2016. (Attachment 2) The plan took into consideration that the majority of respondents desired a passive design for the park. The plan received positive comments from the Commission and staff was directed to work with a professional landscape firm to further refine the plan and develop cost estimates for implementation. RJM Design Group has prepared a conceptual plan based upon the work of the CSULB students and staff input. (Attachment 3) The main components of the plan include a loop trail system, landscape improvements, benches and dog bag dispensers. The plan also calls for decorative fencing along Dale Vista and a park identification sign. Other elements of the plan include security lighting and turf hydro-seeding, and irrigation. To complete this project as shown on the conceptual plan, Engineering estimates show the cost to fully develop the 8 acre site at approximately $1.9 million. Because of the passive nature of this park, this estimate is much lower than the average cost of $585,000 per acre, which the City normally uses to develop cost estimates. As a part of this request, Council is not being asked to approve funding for the project however; staff will look at funding options including possible grants and donations, as well as the use of volunteer support to complete some of the elements on the plan as a phased project. Staff estimates that the initial phase of this project would be approximately $150,000. This would include both professional installations together with community volunteer projects. However, before any in- depth strategies for improvements can occur, the environmental review for the project must be completed and an approved plan for the park must be established. As with all park master plans – new or updated, approval must come from both the Community Services Commission and City Council. The Community Services Commission approved the plan at the March 8, 2017 meeting. If the City Council approves the concept for the park, the project would go through the entitlement process, including any required environmental approvals. Staff will then return to City Council for funding as a part of the CIP process. Staff is therefore recommending approval of the conceptual plan as presented. Environmental Status: The project will go through the required environmental process per direction from the Community Development Department – Planning Division staff. HB -437-Item 6. - 2 Dept. ID CS 17-003 Page 3 of 3 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Strategic Plan Goal: Improve quality of life Attachment(s): 1. April 2016 Survey from and Results 2. Conceptual Plan developed by CSULB 3. Conceptual Plan developed by RJM HB -438-Item 6. - 3 F-1-6 Initial Report Last Modified: 4/06/2016 1. How frequently do you visit the undeveloped portion of Irby Park? # Answer Response % 1 Daily 19 15% 2 4-6 times a week 7 6% 3 2-3 times a week 28 22% 4 Once a week 10 8% 5 Twice A Month 11 9% 6 Once a Month 20 16% 7 Never 32 25% Total 127 100% Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 7 Mean 4.38 Variance 4.67 Standard Deviation 2.16 Total Responses 127 2. Do you feel Irby Park is in need of restoration and/or development? # Answer Response % 1 Yes 108 85% 2 No 19 15% Total 127 100% Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 2 Mean 1.15 Variance 0.13 Standard Deviation 0.36 Total Responses 127 HB -439-Item 6. - 4 F-1-7 3. If no, please explain: Text Response Check all the ways it is used now. You cannot replicate that when it is developed I have been resident of the neighborhood for 25 years and love the open undeveloped land. I feel that upgrading the land will bring more unwanted traffic to the neighborhood. I like it the way it is. I like it the way it is!! It's nice to have that piece of land! It is fine the way it is. Others around. We don't want the rif raf brought into the neighborhood. I live across the street from the undeveloped area of Irby Park and since my house was burglarized years ago, the police recommendation has been, "take down the license number of any suspicious vehicle that parks across the street." I DO NOT want more traffic on MY street. Let's leave some spaces open and undeveloped. The developed portion of the park, and other nearby parks, seem to be enough. I walk past the park but do not use it. The undeveloped portion Statistic Value Total Responses 10 4. What type of amenities would be important to include in restoring the undeveloped portion of Irby Park? # Question 1. Not Important 2. 3. 4. 5. Very Important Total Responses Mean 1 Walking paths 2 3 11 11 69 96 4.48 2 Restore local plants/flowers 2 9 15 18 53 97 4.14 3 Shade structures 13 7 24 19 34 97 3.56 4 Landscape improvements 1 5 7 20 64 97 4.45 5 Additional trees 5 4 11 21 57 98 4.23 6 Restrooms 46 12 15 8 14 95 2.28 7 Picnic Tables 19 11 28 21 17 96 3.06 8 Gazebos 47 11 19 10 8 95 2.17 9 Lighting on pathways 24 11 17 12 32 96 3.18 10 Pet friendly features 14 2 14 23 45 98 3.85 11 Sports fields 54 8 7 15 11 95 2.17 12 Sports courts 53 8 13 11 10 95 2.13 13 Other (please explain) 4 0 2 1 19 26 4.19 HB -440-Item 6. - 5 F-1-8 Other (please explain) Like the idea of a nature center type setting - see the Secret Garden in Huntington Central Park. Paths through Cali Native plantings and trees. Anything that can make for a nice outing with the family will be greatly appreciated! For example, I like the idea of picnicking there, BUT if there are LEGITIMATE concerns over loitering/etc then I'm also okay without picnic facilities. No official sports field as it would impact parking in nearby streets. No restrooms as that would bring in all the transients, drifters, & homeless. No sports fields or courts. Play structure and recyclable water feature. Our house backs to the field and we really only want to see paths for walking/biking and trees!! We love to walk our dogs back there but sometimes when it's overgrown it's hard so walking paths would be awesome!! Community garden I would prefer a park for our neighborhood that would bring in people that like to relax and get close to nature, walk your dog, etc. I do not want low income housing to bring down the home rates and bring in a different kind of neighborhood vibe. I have been a home owner here for over 30 years, this has been such a great place to raise our children and live in a comfortable safe neighborhood. After all the years it has been promised to home owners to be a park it's just time to get it done. A park forever and a day 50 years ago is a long time to wait. I lived in this neighborhood as a kid many years ago and visit occasionally. I don't think a sports field would be good because parking would be an issue.it should remain a simple park with walking paths lighting and nice amenities for kids to play. A section of park has remained an open field which gets over grown and becomes a fire hazard, since it is often used as a launch site for fireworks. Restore local plants and maintain only, perhaps add some water sprinklers. Radio controlled car area. This land has sat idle and undeveloped for decades, literally. The tract is booming with younger families as most of our parents have passed away and the houses we grew up have been sold. With all the development happening in our beloved city and quite honestly I do not see it coming to halt anytime soon. It would be in the best interest of the neighborhood and community if parcel of land was developed as a finished/landscaped park and sports facility. Anything other than a community park would be a travesty to what is now becoming a tourist Mecca in our beautiful beachside community. Save Irby!! Keep it natural. No concrete. I would love a water feature. I think it is important to clean it up and make it user friendly but SAFE so keeping it well lit and open is important. Also why I don't think it is a good idea to add restrooms. I don't live right on the park but think it has to be a passive space if that is right word so as not to negatively affect those that do live on the adjacent properties. Close-by Murdy Park has courts and fields; I would like to see Irby Park developed to be pleasing to the eye and a place for a leisurely walk or picnic. Thank you. No sports fields already have too many problems quick people from out of area coming in and making a mess of the existing Park When this track was first put in. The developer was supposed to complete the park because we do not have a school within our homes like the other areas around us so the park was going to be completed for our kids to play at. We need places open for the kids to ride their bikes and play in the dirt NO BATHROOMS! This will attract people to the park during odd hours and make houses more accessible to vandalism. I'd like to keep the park bathroom free!!!!!! I like the open space but it is not very attractive the way it is. It needs to be improved to match the developed part of the park. Needs better security at night, do many druggies hanging out and destroying property in the park. Do not use undeveloped area because of its condition. Must be sure we do not disturbed homes privacy that backing up to park. Drinking fountain. Any improvements would be welcome, just NO HOUSING of any kind. HB -441-Item 6. - 6 F-1-9 Incorporate anything that encourages pet friendly use of the park but not anything that will allow people to stay too late into the night and not anything that will allow people to spend the night at the park. Water features like the city commissioned park improvement plan would be amazing. Environmental water reclamation along with useful beauty. http://irbypark.org/city-commissioned-irby-park-improvement-plan/ A water feature would be amazing, like a splash pad for the kids, or a pond. It depends on the budget, it would be good if the park has basketball and tennis courts (2 each). Even xeriscaping with paths would look better than the way it is now. Parks unfortunately take water. While HB has many sports fields and recreational parks, there are precious few natural environments and gardens. I would love a place that supports that vital connection. As natural as possible and not too many trees too close together. (Spooky if someone hiding in there.) Irrigation and mowing to make it less of an eyesore. I would like this area to continue to serve the neighborhood, not something which would draw residents from all over the city. Our track is very quiet and we would like it to stay that way. Open, undeveloped space is preferred by most here. If it had been mowed regularly, instead of waiting twice a year and "haying" the long grass which fueled weeds, it would be a nice open space park today. Some small seating. Statistic Walki ng paths Resto re local plants /flowe rs Shade structur es Lands cape impro veme nts Additi onal trees Restro oms Picnic Tables Gaze bos Lighti ng on pathw ays Pet friend ly featur es Sport s fields Sport s court s Othe r (plea se expla in) Min Value 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Max Value 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 Mean 4.48 4.14 3.56 4.45 4.23 2.28 3.06 2.17 3.18 3.85 2.17 2.13 4.19 Variance 0.93 1.25 1.92 0.83 1.27 2.25 1.85 1.86 2.57 1.97 2.31 2.11 5.58 Standard Deviation 0.96 1.12 1.38 0.91 1.13 1.50 1.36 1.37 1.60 1.40 1.52 1.45 2.36 Total Responses 96 97 97 97 98 95 96 95 96 98 95 95 41 5. How often do you attend activities organized by the City of Huntington Beach Community Services Department? # Answer Response % 1 Never 29 25% 2 A few times a year 60 52% 3 Monthly 14 12% 4 Weekly 11 9% 5 Daily 2 2% Total 116 100% Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 5 Mean 2.11 Variance 0.90 Standard Deviation 0.95 Total Responses 116 HB -442-Item 6. - 7 F-1-10 6. Do you reside within the housing tract bounded by Heil Avenue, Goldenwest Street, Warner Avenue, and Edwards Street? # Answer Response % 1 Yes 96 82% 2 No 21 18% Total 117 100% Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 2 Mean 1.18 Variance 0.15 Standard Deviation 0.39 Total Responses 117 7. Would you be willing to attend a community meeting to share your ideas for restoring Irby Park? # Answer Response % 1 Yes 89 76% 2 No 28 24% Total 117 100% Statistic Value Min Value 1 Max Value 2 Mean 1.24 Variance 0.18 Standard Deviation 0.43 Total Responses 117 HB -443-Item 6. - 8 Lodgepole Fencing Omit Passive Park Elements • Provide Fencing & Entry Way • Park Sign at Entry • Landscaping at Entry • Provide Loop Trail • Planting Along Loop Trail Project Limit 444Y/;/ Pi (xi I C Ape.4/ SkAPC.€ ..th e = o eels, Conceptual Plan Presented to Community Services Commission in April 2016 in addition to City Staff Recommendations F-1-" ftAY "l4fir , , „ / Developed Portion Entry Way HB -444-Item 6. - 9 F-1-1 HB -445-Item 6. - 10 Dept. ID PW 17-016 Page 1 of 2 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Statement of Issue: Residents along Polynesian Lane and Regatta Drive have petitioned the City to establish a residential permit parking district, Permit Parking District “U” in Huntington Beach. Financial Impact: The provisions of Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.42 requires that the residents choosing to participate in a residential permit parking district pay a proportionate share of the cost to establish or amend the district making the district cost neutral to the City. Typical costs include, but are not limited to, installation of signs, curb markings, staff time to issue permits, and administrative costs to create or amend the district. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 2017-12, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing Permit Parking District “U” on Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane Within the City of Huntington Beach.” Alternative Action(s): Deny the recommended action. Analysis: Public Works received a petition signed by residents on properties along Polynesian Lane, Regatta Drive, and Bobbie Circle requesting a permit parking district on those streets. The reasons the residents are requesting permit parking is to have the ability to park during the day without time restrictions, while retaining the existing on-street parking restrictions which address Edison High School students parking issues in the neighborhood. On Polynesian Lane, Regatta Drive, and a portion of Bobbie Circle, the current parking restrictions are one (1) hour parking on weekdays between 10 am to 2 pm, except holidays. The request would allow the residents access to on- street parking longer than one hour while still controlling the commuter parking associated with the students. Following procedures in Municipal Code Chapter 10.42 (Permit Parking Districts) staff validated the petition, determined the concerns of the residents require further consideration, and examined the proposed boundaries. The original streets in the area staff considered for permit parking were Regatta Drive, Polynesian Lane, Bobbie Circle, Niguel Circle, and Adelia Circle. Ballots were sent to residents on these streets to vote on the proposal (total of 99 addresses). The code requires a 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: Travis K. Hopkins, PE, Director of Public Works SUBJECT: Adopt Resolution No. 2017-12 establishing Permit Parking District “U” affecting residents along Polynesian Lane and Regatta Drive in Huntington Beach HB -446-Item 7. - 1 Dept. ID PW 17-016 Page 2 of 2 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 minimum of seventy-five percent (75%) of the property units be in favor to continue the evaluation process. Polynesian Lane between Regatta Drive and Bobbie Circle, and Regatta Drive west of Polynesian Lane received seventy-five percent (75%) or greater in favor of the proposal. The voting results of the remaining streets did not exceed forty percent (40%) in support of permit parking. As stated in the Municipal Code, staff is required to investigate the parking conditions on the requested permit parking streets. Staff cannot document how much “commuter parking” demand exists in the neighborhood due to the current parking restrictions which already manage student parking intrusion. Staff assumed that there would be sufficient parking demand from the high school students if the current parking restrictions were not in place to satisfy the minimum commuter parking impact requirement. To provide a framework for considering the residents request, staff conducted parking observations during school days at various times of the day to confirm staff assumptions about the likely parking demand on the streets and to assess the existing parking conditions. Staff observed that on a typical school day during the time before the parking restrictions are in effect, Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane, between Regatta Drive and Bobbie Circle, have a significantly higher parking occupancy than during the parking restriction times. Staff believes this supports the conclusion that there would be sufficient commuter parking demand in the neighborhood if the current parking restrictions did not exist. Based on the ballot results, parking observations, and discussions with the requesting residents, the recommended permit parking streets for Permit Parking District “U” are Polynesian Lane from Regatta Drive to Bobbie Circle, and Polynesian Lane west of Regatta Drive. The new parking district would replace the existing one-hour parking restrictions along the areas that overlap with the current parking restrictions. The areas with the current parking restrictions, that are not included in the new parking district, are recommended to be unchanged. One unrestricted parking area, the bulb at the west end of Regatta Drive, would require permits with implementation of the parking district. Public Works Commission Action: None required. Environmental Status: The project is categorically exempt from CEQA. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and maintain public safety Attachment(s): 1. Vicinity Map 2. Map of Permit Parking District 3. Public Works Review of Permit Parking District Request 4. Resolution No. 2017-12, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Establishing Permit Parking District “U” on Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane Within the City of Huntington Beach” HB -447-Item 7. - 2 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ATTACHMENT PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT "U" VICINITY MAP HB -448-Item 7. - 3 HA ILTO AVE 001 9021 9031 9041 9061 9071 9081 -, 9091 9062 9072 9061 9071 9062 9072 NIGUEL CIR EXISTING NO PARKING (RED CURB) 9111 ATTACHMENT 2 PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT "U" EDISON HIGH SCHOOL RECOMMENDED PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT AREAS EXISTING 1 HR PARKING (10AM TO 2PM MON-FRI, EXCEPT HOLIDAYS) TO REMAIN CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH HB -449-Item 7. - 4 1 | Page Proposed Permit Parking Review Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane The requested permit parking streets are segments of Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane. The streets in the neighborhood staff initially considered for permit parking were Regatta Drive, Polynesian Lane, Bobbie Drive, Niguel Circle, and Adelia Circle. A vicinity map of the location is shown below. An aerial photo of the neighborhood is shown on Figure 1. HB -450-Item 7. - 5 2 | Page Figure 1. Aerial photo of Regatta Drive, Polynesian Lane and the surrounding area. Following procedures in City Municipal Code Chapter 10.42 (Permit Parking Districts) residents submitted a petition requesting permit parking. The petition included signatures from residents on HB -451-Item 7. - 6 3 | Page Regatta Drive, Bobbie Circle, Adelia Circle, and Polynesian Lane. Staff validated the petition and determined the concerns require further consideration. The original streets in the area staff considered for permit parking were Regatta Drive, Polynesian Lane, Bobbie Circle, Niguel Circle, and Adelia Circle. Ballots were sent to residents on these streets to vote on the proposal. Regatta Drive west of Polynesian Lane, and Polynesian Lane between Regatta Drive and Bobbie Circle received the minimum of 75 percent in favor of the proposal for further consideration. The voting results of the remaining streets did not exceed 40 percent in support of permit parking. City Municipal Code Chapter 10.42 requires an investigation to be conducted to determine if certain parking related conditions exist in the area to evaluate the parking district request. Staff evaluated the parking conditions of the streets and the information is presented on the following pages. HB -452-Item 7. - 7 4 | Page Field survey of parking conditions: The following information are from separate field reviews of the area. The streets were surveyed on weekdays at various times of the day to assess the parking conditions. Field Survey 1: Thursday, Oct 13, 2016, 9:30 AM Street Number Parked Vehicles Approx. Parking Capacity % Occupancy Regatta Dr (west of Polynesian Ln) 18 28 64% Regatta Dr (Polynesian Ln to Kaneohe Ln) 19 24 79% Polynesian Ln (Regatta Dr to Bobbie Dr) 10 13 77% Polynesian Ln (Bobbie Dr to Niguel Cir) 4 11 36% Bobbie Cir (west of Polynesian Ln) 16 28 57% Field Survey 2: Monday, Oct 17, 2016, 3:00 PM Street Number Parked Vehicles Approx. Parking Capacity % Occupancy Regatta Dr (west of Polynesian Ln) 5 28 18% Regatta Dr (Polynesian Ln to Kaneohe Ln) 4 24 17% Polynesian Ln (Regatta Dr to Bobbie Dr) 3 13 23% Polynesian Ln (Bobbie Dr to Niguel Cir) 3 11 27% Bobbie Cir (west of Polynesian Ln) 9 28 32% Field Survey 3: Tuesday, Oct 25, 2016, 1:30 PM Street Number Parked Vehicles Approx. Parking Capacity % Occupancy Regatta Dr (west of Polynesian Ln) 7 28 25% Regatta Dr (Polynesian Ln to Kaneohe Ln) 6 24 25% Polynesian Ln (Regatta Dr to Bobbie Dr) 3 13 23% Polynesian Ln (Bobbie Dr to Niguel Cir) 1 11 9% Bobbie Cir (west of Polynesian Ln) 5 28 18% HB -453-Item 7. - 8 5 | Page Field Survey 3: Thursday, Oct 27, 2016, 10:30 AM Street Number Parked Vehicles Approx. Parking Capacity % Occupancy Regatta Dr (west of Polynesian Ln) 10 28 36% Regatta Dr (Polynesian Ln to Kaneohe Ln) 14 24 58% Polynesian Ln (Regatta Dr to Bobbie Dr) 3 13 23% Polynesian Ln (Bobbie Dr to Niguel Cir) 6 11 55% Bobbie Cir (west of Polynesian Ln) 5 28 18% HB -454-Item 7. - 9 6 | Page Analysis: Along Polynesian Lane and Regatta Drive, current parking restrictions exist to manage on-street parking in the neighborhood associated with Edison High School. The current restrictions are one (1) hour parking on weekdays from 10 am to 2 pm, except holidays. The affected areas on Polynesian Lane and Regatta Drive with the existing parking restrictions are shown on Figure 2. The reasons the residents are requesting the permit parking district is to be able to park on the street without the current parking restrictions and without having the on-street parking regularly impacted by Edison High School students. The current restrictions make it impossible to complete a traditional analysis of the need for permit parking since we cannot document how much “commuter parking” demand there is in the neighborhood. One basic premise assumed by staff is that there would be sufficient parking demand from high school students if the current restrictions were not in place. The real basis for this request from the residents is to provide a means of relief for residents from the 1 hour restriction. Converting the areas to permit parking only would accomplish the goal of allowing residents access to the parking (for longer than 1 hour) while still controlling the commuter parking. Despite the challenges, staff still performed some parking observations to confirm our basic assumptions about the likely demand on the streets and provide a framework for considering the resident’s request. HB -455-Item 7. - 10 7 | Page Figure 2. Existing Parking Restriction Areas on Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane. Staff observed that on a typical school day the time before the parking restrictions are in effect, Regatta Dr and Polynesian Lane between Regatta Drive and Bobbie Circle have a significantly higher parking occupancy than during the restriction times. These parking impacted areas are shown in Figure 3. Additionally, staff noticed that during the parking restriction times, Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane had higher on-street parking counts than later in the afternoon when Edison High School classes end for the day. HB -456-Item 7. - 11 8 | Page Figure 3. Parking Impacted Areas on Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane before Parking Restriction Times. Based on the field observations and discussions with requesting residents the recommended permit parking streets for the proposed district are: • Regatta Drive west of Polynesian Lane • Polynesian Lane from Regatta Drive to Bobbie Circle Residents along Regatta Drive east of Polynesian Lane voted only 40% in support of permit parking and are not recommended to be a part of the permit parking district. HB -457-Item 7. - 12 9 | Page A permit parking district on these streets would replace the existing one (1) hour parking restrictions along the areas that overlap. The areas with the current parking restrictions that are not to be included in the new permit parking district are recommended to remain unchanged. The number of affected addresses is nineteen (19). Please refer to Figure 4 showing staff recommendations for the new permit parking district. Figure 4. Recommended Permit Parking District Streets and Existing Parking Restrictions to remain. HB -458-Item 7. - 13 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH ESTABLISHING PERMIT PARKING DISTRICT "U" ON REGATTA DRIVE AND POLYNESIAN LANE WITHIN THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 10.42 allowing the establishment of parking districts in residential areas under certain conditions and; The citizens of the residential streets known as Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane have petitioned for establishment of a permit parking district on Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane; and The Director of Public Works reviewed the petition, sent a ballot for further consideration to residents of Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane, and caused an investigation which reasonably established that: 1. A minimum of 75% of the Property Units on Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane are in favor of the proposed Permit Parking District; and 2. Unrestricted parking creates a situation in which the subject streets cannot be used for parking by Residents or their guests because Commuter Vehicle parking unreasonably and regularly interferes with the use of the available street parking; and 3. Unrestricted parking creates a situation where Commuter Vehicles or their occupants produce significant sources of health, safety, or welfare concerns. Therefore, the Director of Public Works has found the requirements of Chapter 10.42 to be reasonably fulfilled, and determined that the Permit Parking District will not affect other uses of on-street parking, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: Permit Parking District "U" is hereby established to include Regatta Drive and Polynesian Lane, effective every Monday through Friday from 6 a.m. to 4 p.m. 17-5687/153845/RLS 3/7/17/PD 1 HB -459-Item 7. - 14 City Attorney INITIATED AND APP VED: Direcloi‘if Public Works RESOLUTION NO. 2017-12 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of 2017. Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Manager APPROVED AS T r•P'" aRM: 17-5687/153845/RLS 3/7/17/PD 2 HB -460-Item 7. - 15 Dept. ID PD-17-002 Page 1 of 4 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Statement of Issue: The proposed amendments to the Huntington Beach Municipal Codes (HBMC) in part are intended to modernize existing rules, clarify definitions, and provide additional tools to maintain order and the quality of life in Huntington Beach. Transmitted for City Council consideration are amendments to five chapters of the HBMC and Resolution 2017-03 regarding camping on public property. Financial Impact: There is no fiscal impact. Recommended Action: A) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4117, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 12.32 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Sidewalks;” and, B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4118, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.08 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Beach Regulations;” and, C) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4119, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.10 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Camping on Public Property;” and, D) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4124, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Park Regulations;” and, E) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 4129, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 8.21 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Refuse Management;” and, F) Adopt Resolution No. 2017-13, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Regarding the Administrative Procedure for the Removal of Unlawful Campsites, Bulky Items, and Personal Property.” 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: Robert Handy, Chief of Police SUBJECT: Approve for introduction Ordinance Nos. 4117, 4118, 4119, 4124 and 4129, amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code to enhance law enforcement efforts to provide public safety and quality of life in Huntington Beach related to sidewalks, beach regulations, camping on public property, park regulations and refuse management; and, adopt Resolution 2017-03 regarding camping on public property HB -461-Item 8. - 1 Dept. ID PD-17-002 Page 2 of 4 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Alternative Action(s): Do not approve the Ordinances and direct staff accordingly. Analysis: The Police Department and the City Attorney’s office have identified several sections of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) for consideration of amending to modernize and improve the effectiveness in enforcing the intent of the laws. The majority of the changes include clarifications of certain definitions or changes in numerical sequence of ordinances. Chapter 13.10 of the Municipal Code is recommended to be repealed and replaced with regulations that have withstood court challenge. Ordinance No. 4117 The proposed changes to Ordinance 4117 apply to codes related to sidewalks and will require the following sections to be renumbered: 12.32.015, 12.32.030, 12.32.045, 12.32.050, 12.32.060, 12.32.080, and 12.32,090. The language would remain the same; however, if the other changes are adopted as recommended, the numbers would need to change to stay in sequential order. Section 12.32.010 adds “public place” and “public way” under the definition section. This definition will be added to all applicable sections within Section 12.32.025. Of note, Section 12.32.110 is a new section which establishes conduct on public property, monuments, fountains, and lawns. This section would aid in regulating the misuse of fountains, bike racks, planters, fencing, trash cans, utility cabinets, railings and other public property. For example, downtown has been known to draw crowds during large specific events, after the nightly closure of bars, street fairs, and other unplanned activities. There have been occasions when persons use public property to gain an elevated platform for viewing, throwing of objects, street performing, skateboard jumps or other unintended uses that create a danger/liability or damage to City property. There have been several occasions where persons have used public fountains to bathe in or clean personal belongings. This section prohibits persons wading, bathing, swimming, or entering fountains or utilizing the fountains to clean objects or belongings. This section also prohibits persons from intentionally throwing or discharging an object or liquid in the downtown area from 100 Main Street to 500 Main Street that would adversely affect public safety. Section 12.32.010 currently prohibits the hindrance or obstruction of any public sidewalk. In addition to the new definition of public place or public way, the Police Department is recommending adding specific language to include the Pier, Pier Plaza, and the Civic Center. This change would increase areas where the Police Department could enforce the regulations regarding persons gathering in public areas that inhibit the free passage of others which has become problematic in downtown areas and other public places. The new section would be renumbered to 12.32.130. Ordinance No. 4118 The amendment to chapter 13.08, Beach Regulations, will include adding a new definition “Adjacent Beach Area” to provide regulatory authority in a new area that is outside the current Beach. All sections of Chapter 13.08 would include the new definition. HB -462-Item 8. - 2 Dept. ID PD-17-002 Page 3 of 4 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 The proposed change would aid law enforcement by allowing for the laws pertaining to the Beach to be applied to a new defined area adjacent to the beach. The new area would encompass the waterline to the west curb line of PCH in our downtown area and add the strip of land owned and operated by the City south of Anderson Street and the property lines of South Pacific Avenue. There have been multiple citizen complaints in the areas of the beach service road, our beach parking lots, Pier Plaza, walkways, and grassy areas at or near the beach. By accepting the recommended change, the police department can uniformly enforce the laws as they pertain to the Beach and Adjacent Beach Area. This amendment would also update the definition of smoking to include e-cigarettes, vaping, or other lighted smoking products or equipment used to burn any tobacco products, weed, plants, or other combustible substance. This update is necessary to enforce the intended laws as they pertain to the current methods utilized to “smoke.” Ordinance No. 4119 Ordinance number 4119 relates to HBMC Chapter 13.10, Camping on Public Property. This recommendation of repealing the existing ordinance and replacing it with new language is to modernize the City’s rules and mirror an ordinance that has successfully withstood a legal challenge. The proposed camping ordinance will provide our staff with another tool to help alleviate camping issues in the City. Ordinance No. 4124 Ordinance number 4124 relates to HBMC Chapter 13.48, park regulations. Currently there is an ordinance that prohibits smoking on the beach. The recommended changes would prohibit smoking within our City parks as well. We receive many complaints about smoking in the parks. This change would provide us a tool to deal with those complaints and is congruent with many other regulations on smoking in many public places. Section 13.48.010 currently defines words associated with park rules. The recommended action is to add the definition of smoking to this chapter to include e-cigarettes and vaporizing. This definition is the same as defined in Chapter 13.08. This change is also consistent with many other regulations dealing with smoking and is necessary due to the changes of consumer habits. Section 13.48.115 recommended action prohibiting smoking at the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, the Pier, Pier Plaza or Parks. Ordinance No. 4129 Ordinance number 4129 relates to refuse management per HBMC Chapter 8.21. The intent is to keep the existing language regarding trash disposal but add another section that specifically prohibits the discard of infectious waste including hypodermic needles, syringes, diapers, materials that have been infected with human or animal waste, contaminated materials exposed to infected materials and unused or unwanted prescription medications or controlled substances. These additional provisions will further define and enhance our ability to deal with particular problems encountered by our officers and the public in regard to waste. Environmental Status: None. Strategic Plan Goal: Enhance and maintain public safety HB -463-Item 8. - 3 Dept. ID PD-17-002 Page 4 of 4 Meeting Date: 4/3/2017 Attachment(s): 1. Ordinance No. 4117, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 12.32 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Sidewalks” 2. Ordinance No. 4118, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.08 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Beach Regulations” 3. Ordinance No. 4119, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.10 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Camping on Public Property” 4. Ordinance No. 4124, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 13.48 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Park Regulations” 5. Ordinance No. 4129, “An Ordinance of the City of Huntington Beach Amending Chapter 8.21 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Refuse Management” 6. Resolution No. 2017-13, “A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Regarding the Administrative Procedure for the Removal of Unlawful Campsites, Bulky Items, and Personal Property” HB -464-Item 8. - 4 ORDINANCE NO. 4117 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 12.32 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO SIDEWALKS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 12.32 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 12.32 SIDEWALKS—OBSTRUCTING 12.32.010 Definitions The following words and phrases when used in Chapter 12.32, and any other Chapter or Section where these definitions are incorporated by reference, mean as follows: A. "Aggressive" means approaching, speaking to, or following a person in a nonconsensual, hostile, or forceful manner as would cause a reasonable person to fear harm or criminal conduct; or I. Touching another person without such person's consent in the course of asking, begging or soliciting alms; or 2. Continuing to ask, beg, or solicit alms from a person after such person has made a negative response or otherwise indicated a desire not to contribute; or 3. Intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe or free passage of the person solicited by any means, including causing such person to take evasive action to avoid physical contact or preventing such person from departing the location of the solicitation; or 4. Intentionally following the person solicited, without such person's consent, for the purpose of continuing to ask, beg or solicit alms after such person has made a negative response or indicated a desire not to contribute; or 5. Making any statement, gesture, or other communication which a reasonable person in the situation of the person solicited would perceive to be a threat of bodily harm; or 1 MV/MG:16-5399/152738.docirriv HB -465-Item 8. - 5 ORDINANCE NO. 4117 6. Rendering any service to a motor vehicle, including but not limited to any cleaning, washing, protecting, guarding or repairing of said vehicle or any portion thereof, without the prior consent of the owner, operator or occupant of such vehicle, and thereafter asking, begging or soliciting alms or payment for the performance of such service, regardless of whether such vehicle is stopped, standing or parked on a public street or upon other public or private property; or 7. Intentionally blocking, preventing, impeding or interfering with the free and unobstructed ability of the person solicited to enter into or emerge from any vehicle during the course of asking, begging or soliciting alms or following a negative response by the person solicited to any such solicitation; or 8. Intentionally blocking, preventing, impeding or interfering with the operation or movement of any vehicle operated or occupied by the person solicited, during the course of asking, begging or soliciting alms or following a negative response by the person solicited to any such solicitation. B. "Ask, beg, or solicit alms" includes the spoken, written, or printed word or such other act conducted for the purpose of obtaining an immediate donation of money or thing of value, whether for personal use, or as a charitable contribution to any individual or organization, or for any other purpose. C. "Beach" includes that strip of land owned and/or operated by the City of Huntington Beach, south of Warner Avenue, lying between Pacific Coast Highway and the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. "Beach" also includes that portion of the State Beach (Bolsa Chica) which the City operates pursuant to an operating agreement with the State of California. "Beach" also includes that strip of land owned, controlled and/or operated by the City of Huntington Beach lying from and including Anderson Street to the north, Warner Avenue to the south, the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean and the west legal property line of adjoining residential properties which are on South Pacific Avenue, excluding the street appendages that extend west of South Pacific Avenue. D. "Beach Parking Lot" means roads, driveways or parking area to service the each, Pier or Pier Plaza, excluding those areas located on a street or highway. E. "Beach Service Road" means the paved roadway on the Beach that extends from Beach Boulevard to Seapoint Avenue running parallel to Pacific Coast Highway nearest to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean. F. "City building" means any building which is owned or occupied by the City of Huntington Beach or any of its Departments and which is used for public purposes. 2 MWMG:16-5399/152738.doc/mv HB -466-Item 8. - 6 ORDINANCE NO. 4117 G. "Civic Center" means the area in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange bounded by Lake Street on the east, Yorktown Avenue to the north, Main Street on the west, Utica Avenue on the south, and Park Street on the east and south between Utica Avenue and Lake Street. H. "Downtown Huntington Beach" means Districts 1, 2, and 3 of the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan, which are depicted below: 3 LAND USKS 5. DEV'EL.OPNIENT STANDARDS 3.3_1_ District • — CNowrotown Core fv1I.NocIA.SP Now, S.F Pm.. I IA. mg./NT...O'Dea PEACH DOWNTOWN SPS.C3FIc pl...Ah DOWNTOWN sP•cti-oL NLAN, T-S9 Octotwr :oil 3 - LAND USES Eln DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.3.2. District 2 - Visltor-serving .1.19cong 1-40 17Wrice adap HUNTINGTON PEACH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. S 340 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN ON0D•r 6, zoN 3 MV/MG: 16-5399/152738. doc/m v HB -467-Item 8. - 7 ORDINANCE NO. 4117 3 -LAND USES & DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.3.3_ District 3 - Visitor-serving Recreation 1.0.mr• 2-03 Oda.. 3 MAO. HUNTINGTON BEACH DOWN tOwN SPECIFIC PLAN NO. S 1-70 DOWNTOWN SPILCIPIC PLAN Octobor s, polo 1. "Enclosed Area" means an area which is substantially surrounded by a fence, ditch, wall or other barrier so as to limit access to a relatively few points around the area. J. "Pier" means the appurtenance beginning at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street on the Beach, which is a platform extending into the Pacific Ocean and supported by piles or pillars. K. "Pier Plaza" means the developed area on the each immediately north and south adjacent to the Pier bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and the Beach Parking Lots adjacent thereto. L. "Public Place" means any of the following: 1. Any area inside a City or School District Building; 2. Any enclosed area outdoors which is owned or occupied by the City of Huntington Beach and used for public purposes, or which is owned or occupied by a public school district; 3. Any unenclosed area outdoors, whether such area is publicly or privately owned or occupied, to which the general public has access and to which, by right or by express or implied invitation, the general public may resort for business, pleasure, or other lawful purpose; this category includes, but is not limited to, publicly owned open areas such as streets, sidewalks, 4 MV/MG:16-5399/I52738.doc/mv HB -468-Item 8. - 8 ORDINANCE NO. 4117 parks, beaches, and open areas that may be either public or privately owned, such as entrance ways, alcoves, yards, and parking lots; 4. Any privately owned walkway, whether enclosed or unenclosed, which is open to the general public and which, among its principal purposes, serves to allow pedestrians to pass through or over the premises, without regard to the pedestrian's destination; 5. Outdoor parking lots, whether publicly or privately owned, which are adjacent to streets, sidewalks or other public places open to the general public. M. "Public Way" means any public place or portion of a public place which serves primarily for the movement of pedestrian, vehicular, or bicycle traffic from one area to another; "Public Way" includes, but is not limited to, streets, sidewalks, bicycle paths, covered or enclosed walkways for pedestrians, and the portions of the Pier and Pier Plaza set aside for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. N. "School district building" means any building which is owned or occupied by a public school district and which is used for public purposes. 0. "Sidewalk" means that portion of a highway, other than the roadway, set apart by curbs, barriers, markings or other delineation for pedestrian travel. P. "Street" means a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Street includes highway. 12.32.020 Loitering, Obstructing Free Passage, And Sitting Or Lying Upon The Public Way Except as provided in Section 12.32.025 no person, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer, or where a sign or signs have been posted in accordance with this Chapter, shall loiter, stand, sit or lie in or upon any Public Way, including any sidewalk, street, curb, crosswalk, walkway area, mall or that portion of public or private property utilized for public use; neither shall any person block nor obstruct, nor prevent the free access to the entrance to any building open to the public. 12.32.025 Fourth Of July Parade Viewing A. No person shall place on any Public Way or Public Place, public property, furniture, stakes, rope, ribbon, signs or any other item used to reserve areas for parade viewing before 7:00 a.m. on July 3rd. B. No materials used to reserve areas of Public Way or Public Place shall block or interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or block those portions of sidewalks and streets used for the same prior to 6:00 a.m. on July 4th. 5 MV/MG:16-5399/152738.doc/mv HB -469-Item 8. - 9 ORDINANCE NO. 4117 C. Adhesive material, including adhesive tape, is prohibited for use in reserving space for parade viewing. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, the use of tape or other adhesives on trees, poles and signs. D. No person shall sell, lease, or rent any seat or space Public Way. E. No person may use any area of the Public Way so as to interfere with any person's viewing of the parade from a City authorized and approved grandstand. F. All materials used to designate a private viewing area as described in this Section shall be removed by 3:00 p.m. on July 4th. 12.32.030 Animals Or Vehicles No person, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer, or where a sign or signs have been posted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, shall ride, operate, walk or park any motorcycle, horse or other similar object or animal, in or upon any public or quasi-public sidewalk, street, curb, crosswalk, walkway area, mall or that portion of private property utilized for public use, so as to hinder or to obstruct the free passage of pedestrians thereon, or to create any hazardous condition thereon. 12.32.040 Signs Signs posted as provided in this Chapter shall conform to the following requirements: A. Each sign shall not be less than 22 by 30 inches; B. Colors of such signs shall be optional; C. All signs shall be clearly visible to persons in restricted locations; D. Signs shall have the word "WARNING" two inches in height, and all other lettering shall be at least 5/8 inches in height; E. Signs shall be posted every 100 feet; F. The following wording shall appear on each sign: WARNING Obstruction of pedestrian traffic in this area by persons loitering, standing, sitting, lying or by riding, operating, walking or parking any motorcycle, bicycle, horse or similar objects or animals is prohibited and punishable as a MISDEMEANOR. 6 MWMG:16-5399/152738.doc/mv HB -470-Item 8. - 10 ORDINANCE NO. 4117 12.32.050 Driving Over Unprotected Sidewalk No person shall drive any wagon or other vehicle over, along or across any cement or other improved sidewalk or curb unless planking is laid thereon in such manner as to protect such sidewalk or curb. 12.32.060 Paved Sidewalk Crossing Excepted The provisions of Section 12.32.050 shall not apply to the driving of vehicles over sidewalks or curbs at places where cement or asphalt crossings are constructed across such sidewalks and curbs. 12.32.110 Conduct On Public Property, Monuments, Fountains And Lawns No person, after having been notified by a law enforcement officer or private security officer that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this Section, shall: A. Walk, stand, sit or lie upon any monument, vase, decorative fountain, drinking fountain, bike rack, trash receptacle, median, fire hydrant, street-tree planter, berm, utility cabinet, railing, fence, planter, or upon any other public property not designed or customarily used for such purposes; B. Walk, stand, sit or lie upon any public lawn or planted area which is posted with signs that forbid such conduct; or C. Walk, stand, lie or skateboard upon any public bench. D. No person shall bathe or wade in, swim, enter into, be present in, or remain in, any public fountain or fountain open to the public. No person shall willfully or knowingly permit any animal in his or her custody to bathe or wade in, enter into, be present in, or remain in any fountain. No person shall utilize the fountain water for cleaning of objects, belongings, or personal items. E. In Downtown Huntington Beach from 100 Main to 500 Main, no person shall intentionally throw, discharge, launch or spill any solid object (including but not limited to footballs, hacky sacks, baseballs, beach balls, Frisbees, or other similar devices) or liquid substance or otherwise cause any object or substance to be thrown, discharged, launched, spilled or to become airborne or otherwise risk touching hitting or causing non-consensual contact with another person or persons property or to otherwise creating a situation that would risk adversely affecting public safety. 12.32.120 Begging And Solicitation No person shall ask, beg, or solicit alms in an aggressive manner in any Public Place or Public Way, or other place open to the general public, whether publicly or privately owned, including 7 MV/MG: 1 6-5399/15273 8.docimv HB -471-Item 8. - 11 ORDINANCE NO. 4117 but not limited to any sidewalks, streets, alleys, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas, buildings, doorways and entrances to buildings, gasoline service stations, and the grounds around or enclosed by buildings. 12.32.130 Nuisance It shall be deemed a public nuisance for any person, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer, or where a sign has been posted in accordance with this Chapter, to loiter, stand, sit or lie in or upon the Pier, Pier Plaza, the Civic Center, any Public Place or Public Way, or any public or quasi-public sidewalk, street, curb, crosswalk, walkway area, mall or that portion of private property utilized for public use, so as to hinder or obstruct the free passage of pedestrians thereon. It shall be a public nuisance for any person to block or obstruct, or prevent the free access to the entrance to any building open to the public. 12.32.140 No Restriction On Free Speech This Chapter is not intended to restrict the exercise of any free speech protected by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of California. 12.32.150 Severability The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this chapter of the code, hereby adopted, be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions of this chapter independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid. 8 MV/MG: I 6-5399/152738.doc/mv HB -472-Item 8. - 12 / City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: APPROVED A FORM: Police Chief ORDINANCE NO. 4117 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 day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Manager 9 MV/MG:16-5399/152738.docimv HB -473-Item 8. - 13 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC CHAPTER 12.32 Chapter 12.32 SIDEWALKS—OBSTRUCTING 12.32.010 Definitions the entrance to any building open to the public. (1516 9/69, 1625 3/71, 3695 3/05) The following words and phrases when used in Chapter 12.32, and any other Chapter or Section where these definitions are incorporated by reference, mean as follows: A. "Aggressive" means approaching, speaking to, or following a person in a nonconsensual, hostile, or forceful manner as would cause a reasonable person to fear harm or criminal conduct; or 1. Touching another person without such person's consent in the course of asking, begging or soliciting alms; or 2. xittirriLing_t_o_a_sL„_g beg, or solicit alms firia2e1..n after such person has made a negative response or otherwise indicated a desire not to contribute:, 3. Intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe or free passage of the person solicited by any means, including causing such person to take evasive action to avoid physical contact or preventing such person from departing the location of the solicitation; or 4. Intentionally following the person solicited, without such person's consent, for the purpose of continuing to ask, beg or solicit alms after such person has made a negative response or indicated a desire not to contribute; or 5. Making any statement, gesture. or other communication which a reasonable person in the situation of the person solicited would perceive to be a threat of bodily harm; or 1 MV/MG: 16-5399/1 52749 . doclmv HB -474-Item 8. - 14 6. Rendering any service to a motor vehicle, including but not limited to at -igviina, t,gr,jpi guarding or re f said vehicle or any portion thereof, without the prior consent of the owner, operator or occupant of such vehicle, and thereafter asking, begging or soliciting alms or payment for the performance of such service, regardless of whether such vehicle is stopped, standing or parked on a public street or upon other public or private property; or 7. Intentionally blocking, preventing, im_peding or interfering with the free and unobstructed ability of the person solicited to enter into or emerge from any vehicle during the course of asking, begging or soliciting alms or following a negative response by the person solicited to any such solicitation: or 8. Intentionally blocking, preventing, impeding or interfering with the operation or movement of any vehicle operated or occupied by the person solicited, during the course of asking, begging or sol'citing alms or following a negative response by the person solicited to any such solicitation. "Ask, beg, or solicit alms" includes the spoken, written, or printed word or such other act conducted for the purpose of obtaining an immediate donation of money or thing of value, whether for personal use, or as a charitable contribution to any individual or organization, or for any other purpose. C. "Beach" includes that strip of land owned and/or operated by the City of Huntington Beach, south of Warner Avenue, lying between Pacific Coast Highway and the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. "Beach" also includes that portion of the State Beach (Bolsa Chica) which the City operates pursuant to an operating agreement with the State of California. "Beach" also includes that strip of land owned, controlled and/or operated by the City of Huntington Beach lying from and including Anderson Street to the north, Warner Avenue to the south, the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean and the west legal property line of adjoining residential properties which are on South Pacific Avenue, excluding the street appendages that extend west of South Pacific Avenue. D. "Beach Parking Lot" means roads, driveways or parking area to service the each, Pier or Pier Plaza, excluding those areas located on a street or highway. E. "Beach Service Roall" means the paved roadway on the Beach that extends from Beach Boulevard to Seapoint Avenue running parallel to Pacific Coast Highway nearest to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean, 2 MV:16-5399/152749 HB -475-Item 8. - 15 "City building" means any building which is owned or occupied by the City of Huntington Beach or any of its Departments and which is used for public purposes. G. "Civic Center" means the area in the City of Huntington Beach, County of Orange bounded by Lake Street on the east, Yorktown Avenue to the north, Main Street on the west, Utica Avenue on the south, and Park Street on the east and south between Utica Avenue and Lake Street. H. "Downtown Huntington Beach" means Districts 1, 2, and 3 of the Huntington Beach Downtown Specific Plan, which are depicted below: 3 - LAND 1/SES. eNJELC.F. VtANCLARDS 3.3.. 1r)i..1 itt I CW•0 DtOWD Core. NICK.,.1. La %et .1.4gruem 3-3. 0n1=P f Or .41,=17 whk -r41•47.ft • AC 114 ..VVNTPWN 54,16C1e1. P,AMI NO. 5 DOWNTOVV“ PR.C1 PIC .3,39 C.C.1715.n Se•• 3 MV:16-5399/152749 HB -476-Item 8. - 16 — Z _ Lenenal IDINeweeNworeere 3 - LAND USES ea DEVELOPMENT STAN DAR DS District 2 - Visitcpr-serving Mixed-Use . .01.nr••••nn•••••••n• ....11.6•n•••n••nn••nn• rygneell• <140101. 21645 HUNTINGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN NO 5 5-So DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN CHtober S. .011 3 . LAND USES ea DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3 -3.3. District 3— Visitor-serving Recreation PAHaes-A5 Obtaleat HU.TINGTON BEACH DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN NO, 5 5-70 DOWNTOWN S•ICIFIC PLAN CHH-aber 521311 4 MV:16-5399/152749 HB -477-Item 8. - 17 1. "Enclosed Area" means an area which is substantially surrounded by a fence, ditch, wall or other barrier so as to limit access to a relatively few points around the area. J. "Pier" means the appurtenance beginning at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street on the Beach, which is a platform extending into the Pacific Ocean and supported by piles or pillars. K. "Pier Plaza" means the developed area on the each immediately north and south adjacent to the Pier bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and the Beach Parking Lots adjacent thereto, L. "Public Place" means any of the following: 1. Any area inside a City or School District Building; 2. Any enclosed area outdoors which is owned or occupied by the City of Huntington Beach and used for public purposes, or which is owned or occupied by a public school district; 3. Any unenclosed area outdoors, whether such area is publicly or privately owned or occupied, to which the general public has access and to which, by right or by express or implied invitation, the general public may resort for business, pleasure, or other lawful purpose; this category includes, but is not limited to, publicly owned open areas such as streets, sidewalks, parks, beaches, and open areas that may be either public or privately owned, such as entrance ways, alcovesKards, and parking lots; 4. Any privately owned walkway, whether enclosed or unenclosed, which is open to the general public and which, among its principal purposes, serves to allow pedestrians to pass through or over the premises, without regard to the pedestrian's destination; 5. Outdoor parking lots,whr ,j.gly_o_wn es„ _wi_e_h are adjacent to streets, sidewalks or other public places open to the erg reriblic. M. "Public Way" means any public place or portion of a public place which serves primarily for the movement of pedestrian, vehicular, or bicycle traffic from one area to another; "Public Way" includes, but is not limited to, streets, sidewalks, bicycle paths, covered or enclosed walkways for pedestrians, and the portions of the Pier and Pier Plua setaside for pedestrian or vehicular traffic. 5 MV:! 6-5399.152749 HB -478-Item 8. - 18 N. "School district building" means any building which is owned or occupied by a public school district and which is used for public purposes. 0. "Sidewalk" means that portion of a highway, other than the roadway, set apart by curbs, barriers, markings or other delineation for pedestrian travel, P. "Street" means a way or place of whatever nature, publicly maintained and open to the use of the public for purposes of vehicular travel. Street includes highway. 4-21-32420-Animals-er-Vehieles12.32.020 Loitering, Obstructing Free Passage, And Sitting Or Lying Upon The Public Way Betng-wame H3 a-sign-e ae-eefeactee Bf-138 if-eimeet-er-£H+1+19 EIF-EIHE 91313 ffe41319 Except as provided in Section 12.32.025 no person, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer, or where a sign or signs have been posted in accordance with this Chapter, shall loiter, stand, sit or lie in or upon any Public Way, including any sidewalk, street, curb, crosswalk, walkway area, mall or that portion of public or private property utilized for public use; neither shall any person block nor obstruct, nor prevent the free access to the entrance to any building open to the public, 127327015-Feepth-ef-July-Par-ade-Viewing 5 or any other item used to reserve areas for parade viewing before 7:00 am. on July 3rd. for the same prior to 6:00 a.m. on July 4th. D.No person shall sell, lease, or rent any seat or space on public property. shall be removed by 3:00 p.m. on July lth. (3695 3/05) 6 MV:16-5399/152749 HB -479-Item 8. - 19 12.32.025 Fourth Of July Parade Viewing A. No person shall place on any Public Way or Public Place, public property, furniture, stakes, rope, ribbon, signs or any other item used to reserve areas for parade viewing before 7:00 a.m. on July 3rd. B. No materials used to reserve areas of Public Way or Public Place shall block or interfere with pedestrian or vehicular traffic, or block those portions of sidewalks and streets used for the same prior to 6:00 a.m. on July 4th, C. Adhesive material, including adhesive tape, is prohibited for use in reserving space for parade viewing. This prohibition includes, but is not limited to, the use of tape or other adhesives on trees, poles and signs. D. No person shall sell, lease, or rent any seat or space Public Way. E. No person may use any area of the Public Way so as to interfere with any person's viewing of the parade from a City authorized and approved grandstand. F. All materials used to designate a private viewing area as described in this Section shall be removed by 3:00 p.m. on July 4th. 42:3-2:030-sicifis12.32.030 Animals Or Vehicles No person, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer, or where a sign or signs have been posted in accordance with the provisions of this chapter, shall ride, operate, walk or park any motorcycle, horse or other similar object or animal, in or upon any public or quasi-public sidewalk, street, curb, crosswalk, walkway area, mall or that portion of private property utilized for public use, so as to hinder or to obstruct unreasonably the free passage of pedestrians thereon, or to create any hazardous condition thereon. 12.32.040 Signs Signs posted as provided in this chapter shall conform to the following requirements: A. Each sign shall not be less than 22 by 30 inches; B. Colors of such signs shall be optional; C. All signs shall be clearly visible to persons in restricted locations; D. Signs shall have the word "WARNING" two inches in height, and all other lettering shall be at least 5/8 inches in height; E. Signs shall be posted every 100 feet; 7 MV 16-53991152749 HB -480-Item 8. - 20 F. The following wording shall appear on each sign: WARNING Unreasonable-eObstruction of pedestrian traffic in this area by persons loitering, standing, sitting, lying or by riding, operating, walking or parking any motorcycle, bicycle, horse or similar objects or animals is prohibited and punishable as a MISDEMEANOR. on Beach Department 536 5933. - : - - ; - I.. - " 123270450 12.32.050 Driving Over Unprotected Sidewalk No person shall drive any wagon or other vehicle over, along or across any cement or other improved sidewalk or curb unless planking is laid thereon in such manner as to protect such sidewalk or curb. (69-11/10) 12.32.050 .12.32.00 Paved Sidewalk Crossing Excepted The provisions of Section 12.32.050 shall not apply to the driving of vehicles over sidewalks or curbs at places where cement or asphalt crossings are constructed across such sidewalks and curbs. (69-1 I /1 0) 4-273-27060-Pfeh-ibited-Aets 4-273.243-70-Der-m-itien-s 3. Intentionally blocking or interfering with the safe or free passage of the person 8 MV: 16-5399/152749 HB -481-Item 8. - 21 EHIE 7. intentionally blocking, preventing, impeding or interfering with the free and organization, or for any other purpose. (3228 1/9 11) 6144E EFENRCAR This chapter is not intended to restrict the exercise of protected free speech. (3228 1/94) 4-273.27090-SeveFabi1ity invalid. (3228 4/94) 4-2T3-27109-NuiGamee 9 MV:16-5399/152749 HB -482-Item 8. - 22 12.32.110 Conduct On Public Property, Monuments, Fountains And Lawns No person, after having been notified by a law enforcement officer or private security officer that he or she is in violation of the prohibition in this Section, shall: A. Walk, stand, sit or lie _upon any monument, vase, decorative fountain, drinking fountain, bike rack, trash receptacle, median, fire hydrant, street- treelattn,giet railin u onothean r public property not designed or customarily used for such purposes; B. Walk, stand, sit or lie upon any public lawn or planted area which is posted with signs that forbid such conduct; or C. Walk, stand, lie or skateboard upon any public bench. D. No person shall bathe or wade in, swim, enter into, be present in, or remain in, any public fountain or fountain open to the public. No person shall willfully or knowingly permit any animal in his or her custody to bathe or wade in, enter into, be present in, or remain in any fountain. No person shall utilize the fountain water for cleaning of objects, belongings, or personal items. E. In Downtown Huntington Beach from 100 Main to 500 Main, no person aholLatenamaly_hdischalun or s ill any solid object (including but not limited to footballs, hacky sacks, baseballs, beach balls. Frisbees, or other similar devices) or liquid substance or otherwise cause any object or substance to be thrown, discharged, launched, spilled or to become airborne or otherwise risk touching hitting or causing non- consensual contact with another person or persons property or to otherwise creating a situation that would risk adversely affecting public safety. 12.32.120 Beggina And Solicitation No person shall ask, beg, or solicit alms in an aggressive manner in Public Way, or other place open to the general public, whether publicly or privately owned, including but not limited to any sidewalks, streets, alleys, driveways, parking lots, parks, plazas, buildings, doorways and entrances to buildings, gasoline service stations, and the grounds around or enclosed by buildings. 12.32.130 Nuisance It shall be deemed a public nuisance for any person, after first being warned by a law enforcement officer, or where a sign has been posted in_accordarice with this Chapter, to loiter, starlsitrliejaoruor _thgle Pier Pier Plaza, Civic Center an PublicyPlace or Public Wa or an ic or uasi- ublic sidewalk treet curb crosswalk walkwa area, mall or that portion of private property utilized for public use, so as to hinder or 10 NW:16-5399/152749 HB -483-Item 8. - 23 obstruct the free passage of pedestrians thereon. It shall be a public nuisance for any person to block or obstruct, or prevent the free access to the entrance to any building open to the public. 12,32.140 No Restriction On Free Speech This Chapter is not intended to restrict the exercise of any free speech protected by the United States Constitution or the Constitution of the State of California. 12.32.150 Severability The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach hereby declares that should any section, paragraph, sentence or word of this chapter of the code, hereby adopted, be declared for any reason to be invalid, it is the intent of the Council that it would have passed all other portions of this chapter independent of the elimination herefrom of any such portion as may be declared invalid. 11 MV:16-5399/152749 HB -484-Item 8. - 24 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 13.08 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO BEACH REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 13.08.005 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 13.08.005 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the respective meanings set forth herein, unless the context in which they are used clearly indicates to the contrary: "Adjacent Beach Area" includes that strip of land owned and/or operated by the City of Huntington Beach, south of Anderson St., lying between Pacific Coast Highway and the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. "Beach" also includes that portion of the State Beach (Bolsa Chica) which the City operates pursuant to an operating agreement with the State of California. The "Adjacent Beach Area" includes the Beach Service Road, the Pier, the Pier Plaza, walkways, guardrails, hills, raised banks, structures and Beach Parking Lots. The "Adjacent Beach Area" extends from the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean to the west curb line of Pacific Coast Highway from Warner Avenue to the Santa Ana River and the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean to the west residential property lines of South Pacific Avenue from Warner Avenue to Anderson Street. Unless otherwise specifically referenced, this definition shall only apply to this section of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. "Alcoholic Beverage" includes alcohol, spirits, liquor, wine, beer and every liquid or solid containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer and which contains one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume and which is fit for beverage purposes either alone or when diluted, mixed, or combined with other substances. "Beach" includes that strip of land owned and/or operated by the City of Huntington Beach, south of Warner Avenue, lying between Pacific Coast Highway and the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. "Beach - also includes that portion of the State Beach (Bolsa Chica) which the City operates pursuant to an operating agreement with the State of California. "Beach" also includes that strip of land owned, controlled and/or operated by the City of Huntington Beach lying from and including Anderson Street to the north, Warner Avenue to the south, the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean and the west legal property line of adjoining residential properties which are on South Pacific Avenue, excluding the street appendages that extend west of South Pacific Avenue. 16-5399/142597/sf 1 HB -485-Item 8. - 25 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 "Beach Parking Lot" means roads, driveways or parking area to service the Beach, Pier or Pier Plaza, excluding those areas located on a street or highway. "Beach Service Road" means the paved roadway on the Beach that extends from Beach Boulevard to Seapoint Avenue running parallel to Pacific Coast Highway nearest to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean. "Director" refers to the Director of the Community Services Department and/or his or her designee. "Occupied" means used for the purpose of protecting human beings from wind, sun, rain or public view. "Pacific Ocean" includes all waters of the Pacific Ocean to a point three miles out from the mean high tide line, parallel to the three miles out from the Beach whether or not the lands lying under said tidal waters are privately owned or publicly owned including but not limited to the Water Activity Zone. "Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation or any other group or combination, acting as a unit. "Pier" means the appurtenance beginning at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street on the Beach, which is a platform extending into the Pacific Ocean and supported by piles or pillars. "Pier Plaza" means the developed area on the Beach immediately north and south adjacent to the Pier bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and the Beach Parking Lots adjacent thereto. "Smoke or Smoking" means the carrying or holding of a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, e-cigarette, or any other lighted smoking product or equipment used to burn any tobacco products, weed, plant, or any other combustible substance. Smoking includes emitting or exhaling the fumes of any pipe, cigar, cigarette, e- cigarette or any other lighted smoking equipment used for burning or vaporizing any tobacco or nicotine product, weed, plant, or any other combustible substance. "Water Activity Zone" means the area that extends 1,000 feet seaward into the Pacific Ocean from the mean high tide line. "Wheeled Conveyance" shall include, but not be limited to, automobiles, bicycles, skateboards, rollerblades, rollerskates, and strollers. 16-5399/142597/sf 2 HB -486-Item 8. - 26 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 13.08.020 Defacing and/or Destroying Public Property No Person shall cut, carve, hack, remove, deface or otherwise injure any fence, post, toilet, lavatory, restroom, building, sign or other structure, at or on the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, Pier or Pier Plaza, or to place writing upon the interior or exterior of any fence, post, toilet, lavatory, restroom, building, sign or other structure therein, any initial, name writing, printing, drawing or vulgar, profane or obscene word or picture. 13.08.025 Structures/Furniture No Persons shall temporarily or permanently, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move or convert any structure or place any furniture on the Pier, Pier Plaza, Beach Service Road and Beach Parking Lot area, except by permit issued by the Director. 13.08.030 Littering No Person shall deposit or discard or leave any handbill, bottle, can or rubbish or trash or debris on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, other than in those receptacles provided for such purpose, or to deposit in any commode or urinal in any public toilet any newspaper, rag, part of clothing or any item likely to clog said commode or urinal. This section shall not be interpreted to prohibit distribution of any constitutionally protected material. 13.08.051 Tents and Canopies A. No Person shall erect, maintain or occupy any canopy in excess of 100 square feet, or any tent without at least two sides completely open to public view, on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, as described in Section 13.08.005(B), except by permit issued by the Director. B. No Person shall erect, maintain or occupy any canopy or tent on the Beach Parking Lot, Beach Service Road, Pier or Pier Plaza except by permit issued by the Director. 13.08.060 Fires No Person shall light, kindle, set or maintain fires or coals thereon, except in the City- provided fire rings or in self-contained BBQs kept within six feet of a City-provided fire ring, except by permit issued by the Director. Disposable heating BBQ materials shall not be deposited anywhere except within the inside perimeter of the City-provided fire ring. The heating element of self-contained BBQs must be raised at least 18 inches above the surface of the sand. 13.08.070 Dogs and Other Animals A. No Person having the care, charge or control of any animal, domesticated or wild, shall permit or allow said animal to be, under any circumstances or conditions, on the Pier or on or upon that Beach or Adjacent Beach Area bounded by the Beach Service Road and the Pacific Ocean, including the Water Activity Zone, unless it is a guide dog, signal dog or service dog as defined in Penal Code Section 365.5, except that upon those Adjacent Beach Areas, and the Water Activity Zone, located north of the line created by extending the northern curb 16-5399/142597/sf 3 HB -487-Item 8. - 27 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 line of 22nd Street to the Pacific Ocean to Seapoint Avenue, wherein dogs constrained by a leash no longer than six feet in length are permitted. B. No Person shall permit any animal, domesticated or wild, to be left unattended on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area. 13.08.080 Soliciting No Person shall engage in the business of soliciting, distributing, selling or peddling any liquids or edibles for human consumption, or to hawk, peddle or vend any goods, wares or merchandise on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, except pursuant to a permit issued by the Director. No Person shall give, set up or maintain any exhibition, show performance, concert, lecture, entertainment or similar activity on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area without written permission to do so from the Director. No Person shall for profit offer sports camps, sports lessons or other similar activity on the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or in the Water Activity Zone without the written permission of the Director. 13.08.090 Alcoholic Beverages—Consumption Except as hereinafter provided, no Person shall, on or upon the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, consume or sell, any Alcoholic Beverage, except pursuant to a permit issued by City Council. 13.08.100 Alcoholic Beverages—Permits—Terms A. The Director may grant permits for the sale and consumption of Alcoholic Beverages under the following terms and conditions: 1. The kind or kinds of permitted Alcoholic Beverages shall be identified in the permit. 2. Each permit shall require that all Alcoholic Beverages be sold and consumed on permittee's premises, the location and area of permittee's premises to be set forth in said permit. 3. That there be compliance with all other City, county and state laws and regulations. 4. Such other terms and conditions as are reasonably required to protect the peace, health, welfare or safety of the public. 5. The permit shall not be transferable and shall be valid only on dates specified. B. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as permitting the sale, purchase, distribution, or consumption of any Alcoholic Beverage on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, except pursuant to and as limited by a permit, as above set forth. 16-5399/142597/sf 4 HB -488-Item 8. - 28 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 13.08.110 Alcoholic Beverages—Permits—Revocation or Suspension Permits are subject to suspension or to revocation by the City Council after notice to permittee and public hearing, on any of the following grounds: A. Permittee has made a substantial misrepresentation in his or her application for permit. B. Permittee or any of his or her employees has violated any laws or regulations concerning the operation of the business, or any terms or conditions of the permit. C. Permittee or any of his or her employees has been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. D. Permittee or any of his or her employees has knowingly permitted use of narcotics or dangerous drugs without reporting such incidents to the Police Department without unnecessary delay or not more than 24 hours after the commission thereof. E. Permittee or any of his or her employees has caused or permitted any breach of the peace on such premises, or has performed or permitted any act against the peace, health, welfare or safety of the public. 13.08.115 Smoking Boundaries No Person shall Smoke on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, Pier or Pier Plaza unless the Director has designated a specific signed smoking area. 13.08.120 Hazardous Water Sports The following regulations shall apply to water sports: A. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the Director shall set the hours and areas during which no Person within the Water Activity Zone, based on prevailing weather, water conditions, density of use and/or other hazard inducing conditions, shall use or have in his or her possession any surfboard, wind surfboard, paddleboard, bodyboard, skimboard, canoe, boat or any similar object made entirely or partially of wood, metal, hard plastic or any other hard substance, or which exceeds four feet in any dimension. B. The Director shall give notice of the time and area during which hazardous water sports, as defined by Section 13.08.120(A), are prohibited. Such prohibition shall be effective when a yellow flag or sign having a solid black circle in the center, commonly known as a "black ball" flag or sign is prominently displayed from a lifeguard tower, station, Pier or similar structure. C. During the times the "black ball" flag or sign is displayed, only swimming and bathing shall be permitted in the Water Activity Zone within 200 yards of the point of the display of the "black ball" flag or sign. 16-5399/142597/sf 5 HB -489-Item 8. - 29 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 D. No Person shall fail, refuse or neglect to leave the Water Activity Zone when such restriction and prohibition, as set out in this section, are in force. E. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the Director or his or her authorized agent, may from time to time designate by permit, certain areas to be used exclusively for an event. Such designation may be revoked at any time and the area covered by such designation may be enlarged or reduced at any time. No Person shall enter in such area so designated except while participating in the permitted special or specific event. 13.08.130 Hazardous Articles No Person shall use any surfboard, paddleboard, skimboard, bodyboard, wind surfboard, rubber life raft, canoe, boat, or any similar object made entirely or partially of wood, metal, glass, hard plastic or any other hard substance at any time, on the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or in the Water Activity Zone in a manner that constitutes a hazard to any other Person. 13.08.135 Motorized Vessels No Person shall operate or cause to operate any motorized vessel, boat, or personal watercraft in the Water Activity Zone unless authorized by the Director. 13.08.140 Beach Games and Practices No Person shall use on the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or in Water Activity Zone any athletic apparatus, object or game in a manner that constitutes a hazard to any Person or conduct or participate in any sport or game that constitutes a hazard to any Person. 13.08.150 Digging No Person shall dig or cause the digging of any hole in the sand exceeding a depth of two feet. Any Person who digs, or causes to be dug, any hole upon the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area shall fill the hole before leaving the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area. 13.08.160 Spear Guns No Person shall have any spear gun or similar underwater device in his or her possession on the shore of the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area unless the point of such device is covered by a sheath, cork or other protective device. No spear gun or similar weapon or instrument shall be kept cocked, loaded or otherwise prepared so as to be capable of being discharged while on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area. 13.08.170 Jumping From the Pier and Public Bridges No Person shall dive, jump or enter the water from the Pier or public bridge or any part thereof; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to the regularly employed lifeguard personnel of the City who are engaged in lifeguard training or in emergency jumps from the Pier or bridges for the purpose of saving lives and/or property. 16-5399/142597/sf 6 HB -490-Item 8. - 30 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 13.08.180 Climbing on Rails of the Pier or Bridges No Person shall sit, walk or balance on the rails of the Pier or public bridges or walkways or climb upon, over or under such rails, or sit, walk, balance or climb upon or over any cement walls which may be adjacent to such rails. 13.08.190 Climbing on Lifeguard Stations No unauthorized Person shall climb, sit, stand or cause someone else to climb, sit or stand on any lifeguard station or ladder on the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or Pier unless told to do so by an official employee of the City. 13.08.195 Tampering With Lifesaving Equipment No Person shall tamper with lifesaving equipment, structures or buoys on the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or on the Pier. 13.08.200 Leaving Objects No Person shall lay, store, hang or cause to be laid, stored, or cause to be hung any object on, against, or upon any lifeguard station or municipal structure except by permit issued by the Director. 13.08.210 False Alarms No Person shall cause a false rescue or call for help when it is not needed, or to cause a lifeguard to enter the water upon a false rescue, or to leave his or her tower or to have his or her attention drawn to a false alarm. 13.08.220 Interfering With Lifeguard No Person shall willfully resist, delay or obstruct any lifeguard in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her position. 13.08.225 Interfering With Park Ranger No Person shall willfully resist, delay or obstruct any park ranger in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her position. 13.08.230 Causing Object to Reflect No Person shall use a mirror, glass or any similar object to cause the sun to reflect thereon so as to interfere with the vision of any lifeguard or other Person(s). 13.08.240 Curfew A. Except as otherwise specified, no Person shall be on the Beach or the Adjacent Beach Area bounded by the Beach Service Road and the Pacific Ocean including the Water Activity Zone between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. except upon official business of the City or by permit issued by the Director. In the event of special circumstances so warranting, the Director, in his or her judgment, is authorized and empowered to modify temporarily the hours during which the Beaches are closed. Said modification is to be filed with the City Manager at least 10 days prior to the requested date and posted conspicuously. 16-5399/142597/sf 7 HB -491-Item 8. - 31 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 B. Pier and Pier Plaza Curfew. No Person shall remain on or upon the Pier or Pier Plaza between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. except by permit issued by the Director. 13.08.260 Electrical Systems No Person shall use any electrical outlets on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area without first obtaining written consent from the Director and paying such fees as may be prescribed. 13.08.270 Noise No Person shall play, use or operate, or permit to be played, used or operated, any instrument, machine or device, for producing or reproducing sound upon the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, at such a volume as unreasonably to disturb the peace, quiet and comfort of Persons who are not voluntary listeners thereto, after having been warned. 13.08.280 Vehicle and Parking Regulation—Beach A. No Person shall operate or possess any motor-driven cycle, motor-driven bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, motor truck or other motorized vehicle or conveyance (regardless of power source or size) on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area other than for law enforcement, lifesaving or emergency purposes, or for Beach maintenance purposes, except by permit issued by the Director; nor on any roads on which signs are posted prohibiting such activity, nor in any manner or direction prohibited by posted signs, nor on any Beach or Adjacent Beach Area other than on the roads, drives or parking areas designed for such purposes. B. No Person shall operate any Wheeled Conveyance on the Beach Service Road if said Wheeled Conveyance has been prohibited by the Director and said prohibition has been properly posted. C. Exceeding Speed Limit. 1. No Person shall operate any Wheeled Conveyance of any type on the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or Beach Service Road at a speed in excess of 10 miles per hour unless a greater speed is posted. The maximum speed limit when pedestrians are present shall be five miles per hour. 2. No Person shall operate any Wheeled Conveyance of any type on the Beach Service Road at a walking speed in excess of two and one-half miles per hour, between designated points, when the yellow lights are flashing. D. Delivering Concessions. During the period of June 15th to September 15th, any and all commercial motor vehicles of any type, must make their deliveries to Beach concessions between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., except by permit from the Director. During all other times of the year, deliveries must take place during Beach non-curfew hours. 16-5399/142597/sf 8 HB -492-Item 8. - 32 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 E. Parking, No Person shall park any vehicle except in designated parking areas; provided, however, that the Director is authorized to permit parking in non- designated areas when, in his or her opinion, such parking will not interfere with Adjacent Beach Area operations. F. Traffic Control Signs. The Director is authorized and directed to erect and maintain signs at locations he or she deems appropriate, indicating the speed limits established by the City Council for the Beaches, along roadways and streets herein. The Director is also authorized to designate parking areas and traffic patterns and to erect and maintain signs indicating such areas and patterns. 13.08.285 Motor Vehicle Permits Any Person desiring to access the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or Pier with a vehicle for delivery, maintenance, transportation or any other service must obtain a permit from the Director. 13.08.290 Vehicle and Parking Regulation—Pier and Pier Plaza Pursuant to Section 13.08.280 of this chapter, the following shall apply: A. Speed Limit. No Person shall operate any Wheeled Conveyance upon the Pier or Pier Plaza in excess of five miles per hour. B. Heavy Vehicles. No Person shall drive or permit to be driven any vehicle of any kind or character whatsoever, upon the Pier or Pier Plaza of a gross weight in excess of 20,000 pounds. C. Roller Skates, In-Line Skates, Skateboards and Scooters on the Pier or Pier Plaza. No Person shall use any roller skates, in-line skates, skateboards or scooters on the Pier or Pier Plaza at any time. These items must be carried if brought on the Pier or Pier Plaza. D. Parking. No Person shall park a vehicle on the Pier or Pier Plaza, unless he or she possesses a written permit from the Director allowing him or her to do so. No Person shall leave a vehicle standing or unattended on the Pier or Pier Plaza at any time. E. Unauthorized Vehicles Prohibited. No Person shall push or operate any automobile, motorcycle, truck, or any other motor driven vehicle or conveyance upon the Pier or Pier Plaza, except by permit issued by the Director. F. Bicycles on Pier. No Person shall ride a bicycle or any similar type vehicle on the Pier or Pier Plaza, except by permit issued by the Director. Bicycles or similar type vehicles may be walked or pushed on the Pier or Pier Plaza. No bicycle or similar type vehicle shall be chained, cabled or locked by any means to the railings on the Pier, ramps, stairs, or parking lot except to the bicycle racks provided therefor. 16-5399/142597/sf 9 HB -493-Item 8. - 33 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 G. Delivering Concessions. Vendors or their agents shall not make deliveries by vehicles to concessionaires on the Pier except between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. during the dates of June 15th to September 15th. During all other times, deliveries must be made during non-curfew hours. 13.08.300 Beach Parking Lot Regulations The following regulations will apply to parking in any of the City-owned and operated Beach Parking Lots: A. Parking is allowed within designated spaces only. B. There shall be no parking between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. except by permit issued by the Director. C. Any deviation from this section will be by permission of the Director and shall be conspicuously posted. D. No loitering or obstructing of flow of traffic will be allowed in the parking lot by any Person or Persons. E. No Person shall obstruct or cause to be obstructed any entrance or exit in the parking lot. F. No trailers or similar vehicles will be allowed in the parking lot except by permit issued by the Director. G. Fees for parking shall be established by resolution of the City Council. H. Any vehicle leaving the parking lot and returning will be required to pay on re-entering. I. Number of parking permits per concession owner will be determined by the Director. J. The Director shall have the authority to designate reserved parking areas in City-owned and/or operated Beach Parking Lots. K. No unauthorized vehicle shall park in a reserved parking area where signs are posted giving notice of such reserved parking. 13.08.310 Fishing From the Pier Fishing is allowed from the Pier, but the following acts are prohibited: A. Overhead Casting. Cast a fishing line, either with or without a fishing pole, over the top railing of the Pier. 16-5399/142597/sf 10 HB -494-Item 8. - 34 ORDINANCE NO. 4118 B. Negligent Casting. No Person shall cast in the water adjacent to the Pier or on the Pier, a fishing line, lobster trap, crab trap, any mussel hook, or any other such device in such a manner as to create a hazard to any other person. C. Extra Lines. No Person shall have more than two fishing lines in the water under or near the Pier at one time. D. Projecting Poles. No Person shall allow or permit any fishing pole to extend inward from the Pier rail to a distance of more than four feet. E. Cleaning of Fish or Mussel. No Person shall place, cut or clean any fish, mussel or bait, or any other marine life directly upon any bench or seat placed upon the Pier or upon the floor or railings of the Pier except in the areas provided therefor. F. Lobster Traps. No Person shall have more than two traps in the water under or near the Pier at any one time. A Person shall attend said traps at all times. G. Feeding Wildlife. No Person shall provide food, bait or other material in a manner as to feed wildlife upon the Pier. H. Fishing from Closed Area. No Person shall set up or cast a fishing line in areas on the Pier that have been closed to fishing. I. No Person shall use the Pier railing for leverage to pull fishing line, lobster trap, any mussel hook, or other such device in such a manner as to create a hazard to any other Person or cause damage to the Pier railing. 13.08.330 Removal of Sand No Person shall remove, or cause to be removed from the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or Pacific Ocean, any sand without written permission from the Director. 13.08.340 Glass Containers on the Beach No Person shall have, possess or use any dangerous article or container such as a bottle, glass, crockery or similar object upon the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or in the Water Activity Zone. 13.08.350 Beach and Ocean Closure—Authority A. The Director shall have the authority to close any Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, harbor, or ocean waters of the Pacific Ocean in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Such closure shall be effective when notice of closure is given through any of the following methods: 1. Signs stating that the Beach is closed or that swimming is prohibited, or depicting a swimmer and a red circle with a slash through the circle, or otherwise advising of closure; 16-5399/142597/sf 11 HB -495-Item 8. - 35 APPROVED AS City Attorney INITIATED AND APPROVED: Police Chief ORDINANCE NO. 4118 2. Public address announcements; 3. Oral or written notice from the Director, any marine safety officer, lifeguard, or other authorized agent; or 4. Any other device or announcement reasonably communicating such closure. B. No Person shall enter, remain in, or fail or refuse to leave a closed area of the Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, harbor, or the Pacific Ocean while such restriction is in effect. 13.08.360 Enforcing Officer This chapter shall be enforced by the Director, as well as by peace officers having jurisdiction of any area in which a violation of any provision of this title takes place. 13.08.370 Violation—Penalty Any Person violating any provision of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not more than $500.00 or be imprisoned for a period not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. 13.08.380 Violation—Alternative Remedies Any violation of any provisions of this chapter shall subject the violator to ejection from the premises of the area in which the violation occurs. 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 day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Manager 16-5399/142597/sf 12 HB -496-Item 8. - 36 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC CHAPTER 13.08 13.08.005 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the respective meanings set forth herein, unless the context in which they are used clearly indicates to the contrary: "Adjacent Beach Area" includes that strip of land owned and/or operated by the City of Huntingtonlleaeh. south of Andersojving kc)aAffigfva d th e h rran_high_tickline of the Pacific Ocean. "Beach" also includeslat_poAlion of the State Beach B w o e te sursu. t to n h the SteAKo_a rni _The_itAdjacent Beach_ ea" inclu des i Servi ce the Pie Ir_P_a and Beach Parking Lots. The "Adjacent Beach Area" extends from the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean t(y-ie west curb line of.P.acific Coast Highway from Warner Avenue to the Santa Ana River and the mean high tid if the Pacific Iceant. - - - • - . - of South Pacific Avenue from Warner Avenue to Anderson Street. Unless otherwise specifically referenced, this definitioa,thall Qnlv apply to this se ction Municipal Code. "Alcoholic bBeverage" includes alcohol, spirits, liquor, wine, beer and every liquid or solid containing alcohol, spirits, wine or beer and which contains one-half of one percent or more of alcohol by volume and which is fit for beverage purposes either alone or when diluted, mixed, or combined with other substances. "Beach" includes that strip of land owned and/or operated by the City of Huntington Beach, south of Warner Avenue, lying between Pacific Coast Highway and the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean. "Beach" also includes that portion of the State Beach (Balsa Chica) which the City operates pursuant to an operating agreement with the State of California. "Beach" also includes that strip of land owned, controlled and/or operated by the City of Huntington Beach lying from and including Anderson Street to the north, Warner Avenue to the south, the mean high tide line of the Pacific Ocean and the west legal property line of adjoining residential properties which are on South Pacific Avenue, excluding the street appendages that extend west of South Pacific Avenue. "Beach earking ILot" means roads, driveways or parking area to service the bBeach, prier or Pier Plaza, excluding those areas located on a street or highway. "Beach service fRoad - means the paved roadway on the beach that extends from Beach Boulevard to Seapoint Avenue running parallel to Pacific Coast Highway nearest to the shoreline of the Pacific Ocean. "Director" refers to the Director of the Community Services Department and/or his or her designee. "Occupied" means used for the purpose of protecting human beings from wind, sun, rain or public view. -Pacific Ocean" includes all waters of the Pacific Ocean to a point three miles out from the mean high tide line, parallel to the three miles out from the Beach whether or not the lands 16-53991146219/SF HB -497-Item 8. - 37 lying under said tidal waters are privately owned or publicly owned including but not limited to the Water Activity Zone. "Person" means any individual, firm, copartnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation or any other group or combination, acting as a unit. "Pier" means the appurtenance beginning at the intersection of Pacific Coast Highway and Main Street on the bBeach, which is a platform extending into the Pacific Ocean and supported by piles or pillars. -Pier Plaza" means the developed area on the bBeach immediately north and south adjacent to the pBier bounded by Pacific Coast Highway and the bBeach pParking 4Lots adjacent thereto. "Smoke or smoking" means the carrying or holding of a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, e, cigarette or any other lighted smoking product or equipment used to burn any tobacco products, weed, plant, or any other combustible substance. Smoking includes emitting or exhaling the fumes of any pipe, cigar, cigarette, emcigarette or any other lighted smoking equipment used for burning or vaporizing any tobacco or nicotine product, weed, plant, or any other combustible substance. "Water Activity Zone" means the area that extends 1,000 feet seaward into the Pacific Ocean from the mean high tide line. "Wheeled conveyance" shall include, but not be limited to, automobiles, bicycles, skateboards, rollerblades, rollerskates, and strollers. (3606-6/03, 3656-8/04, 3667-10/04, 3930-2/12) 13.08.020 Defacing and/or Destroying Public Property No pPerson shall cut, carve, hack, remove, deface or otherwise injure any fence, post, toilet, lavatory, restroom, building, sign or other structure, at or on the bBeach, Adjacent Beach Area, pPier or Pier Plaza, or to place writing upon the interior or exterior of any fence, post, toilet, lavatory, restroom, building, sign or other structure therein, any initial, name writing, printing, drawing or vulgar, profane or obscene word or picture. (769-7/60, 3606-6/03) 13.08.025 Structures! Furniture No pPersons shall temporarily or permanently, construct, enlarge, alter, repair, move or convert any structure or place any furniture on the pPier, Pier Plaza, bBeach sService fRoad and bBeach pParking4Lot area, except by permit issued by the *IDirector. (3606-6/03, 3615-10/03) 13.08.030 Littering No pPerson shall deposit or discard or leave any handbill, bottle, can or rubbish or trash or debris on the bBeach or Acc_e_a_B_el ackArea, other than in those receptacles provided for such purpose, or to deposit in any commode or urinal in any public toilet any newspaper, rag, part of clothing or any item likely to clog said commode or urinal. This section shall not be interpreted to prohibit distribution of any constitutionally protected material. (80-8/11, 769-7/60, 1306-3/67, 3606-6/03) 16-5399/146219/SF 2 HB -498-Item 8. - 38 13.08.051 Tents and Canopies A. No pPerson shall erect, maintain or occupy any canopy in excess of 100 square feet, or any tent without at least two sides completely open to public view, on the bBeach or Adjacent Beach Area, as described in Section 13.08.005(B), except by permit issued by the dDirector. B. No pPerson shall erect, maintain or occupy any canopy or tent on the bBeach pParking 1Lot, leach service fRoad, pPier or Pier Plaza except by permit issued by the dDirector. (3606-6/03, 3963-12/12) 13.08.060 Fires No pPerson shall light, kindle, set or maintain fires or coals thereon, except in the City-provided fire rings or in self-contained BBQs kept within six feet of a City-provided fire ring, except by permit issued by the dDirector. Disposable heating BBQ materials shall not be deposited anywhere except within the inside perimeter of the City-provided fire ring. The heating element of self-contained BBQs must be raised at least 18 inches above the surface of the sand. (769-7/60, 1306-3/67, 3606-6/03, 3930-2/12) 13.08.070 Dogs and Other Animals A. No pPerson having the care, charge or control of any animal, domesticated or wild, shall permit or allow said animal to be, under any circumstances or conditions, on the pPier or on or upon that bBeach or Adjacent Beach eArea bounded by the hBeach sService rRoad and the Pacific Ocean, including the Water Activity Zone, unless it is a guide dog, signal dog or service dog as defined in Penal Code Section 365.5, except that upon those Adjacent bBeach eAreas, and the Water Activity Zone, located north of the line created by extending the northern curb line of 22nd Street to the Pacific Ocean to Seapoint Avenue, wherein dogs constrained by a leash no longer than six feet in length are permitted. B. No pPerson shall permit any animal, domesticated or wild, to be left unattended on the bBeach or Adjacent Beach Area. (344-10/31, 554-12/49, 769-7/60, 2907-8/87, 3355-7/97, 3606-6/03, 3930-2/12) 13.08.080 Soliciting No person shall engage in the business of soliciting, distributing, selling or peddling any liquids or edibles for human consumption, or to hawk, peddle or vend any goods, wares or merchandise on the bBeach or Adjacent Beach Area, except pursuant to a permit issued by the dDirector. No pPerson shall give, set up or maintain any exhibition, show performance, concert, lecture, entertainment or similar activity on the bBeach or Adjacent Beach Area without written permission to do so from the flDirector. No pPerson shall for profit offer sports camps, sports lessons or other similar activity on the bBeach, Adjacent Beach Area or in the Water Activity Zone without the written permission of the tiDirector. (769-7/60, 3606-6/03, 3930-2/12) 13.08.090 Alcoholic Beverages—Consumption Except as hereinafter provided, no pPerson shall, on or upon the beach or Adjacent Beach Area, consume or sell, any aAlcoholic bBeverage, except pursuant to a permit issued by City Council. (769-7/60, 1306-3/67, 1588-8/70, 3606-6/03) 16-5399/146219/SF 3 HB -499-Item 8. - 39 13.08.100 Alcoholic Beverages—Permits—Terms A. The flDirector may grant permits for the sale and consumption of aAlcoholic bBeverages under the following terms and conditions: 1. The kind or kinds of permitted aAlcoholic4Beverages shall be identified in the permit. 2. Each permit shall require that all aAlcoholic bBeverages be sold and consumed on permittee's premises, the location and area of permittee's premises to be set forth in said permit. 3. That there be compliance with all other City, county and state laws and regulations. 4. Such other terms and conditions as are reasonably required to protect the peace, health, welfare or safety of the public. 5. The permit shall not be transferable and shall be valid only on dates specified. B. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as permitting the sale, purchase, distribution, or consumption of any sAlcoholic beverage on the 413each or Adjacent Beach Area, except pursuant to and as limited by a permit, as above set forth. (769-7/60, 1306-3/67, 1588-8/70, 3603-6/03) 13.08.110 Alcoholic Beverages—Permits—Revocation or Suspension Permits are subject to suspension or to revocation by the City Council after notice to permittee and public hearing, on any of the following grounds: A. Permittee has made a substantial misrepresentation in his or her application for permit. B. Permittee or any of his or her employees has violated any laws or regulations concerning the operation of the business, or any terms or conditions of the permit. C. Permiftee or any of his or her employees has been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude. D. Permittee or any of his or her employees has knowingly permitted use of narcotics or dangerous drugs without reporting such incidents to the Police Department without unnecessary delay or not more than 24 hours after the commission thereof. E. Permittee or any of his or her employees has caused or permitted any breach of the peace on such premises, or has performed or permitted any act against the peace, health, welfare or safety of the public. (769-7/60, 1306-3/67, 1588-8/70) 13.08.115 Smoking Boundaries No pPerson shall sSmoke on the bBeachoL.Mjacent Beach Area, f)Pier or Pier Plaza unless the 4Director has designated a specific signed smoking area. (3656-8/04) 13.08.120 Hazardous Water Sports The following regulations shall apply to water sports: A. In order to protect the public health, safety and welfare, the 41pirector shall set the hours and areas during which no person within the Water Activity Zone, based on prevailing 16-5399/146219/SF 4 HB -500-Item 8. - 40 weather, water conditions, density of use and/or other ha7ard inducing conditions, shall use or have in his or her possession any surfboard, wind surfboard, paddleboard, bodyboard, skimboard, canoe, boat or any similar object made entirely or partially of wood, metal, hard plastic or any other hard substance, or which exceeds four feet in any dimension. B. The dpirector shall give notice of the time and area during which hazardous water sports, as defined by Section 13.08.120(A), are prohibited. Such prohibition shall be effective when a yellow flag or sign having a solid black circle in the center, commonly known as a "black ball" flag or sign is prominently displayed from a lifeguard tower, station, pier or similar structure. C. During the times the "black ball" flag or sign is displayed, only swimming and bathing shall be permitted in the Water Activity Zone within 200 yards of the point of the display of the "black ball" flag or sign. D. No pPerson shall fail, refuse or neglect to leave the Water Activity Zone when such restriction and prohibition, as set out in this section, are in force. E. Notwithstanding any provision of this section, the dpirector or his or her authorized agent, may from time to time designate by permit, certain areas to be used exclusively for an event. Such designation may be revoked at any time and the area covered by such designation may be enlarged or reduced at any time. No person shall enter in such area so designated except while participating in the permitted special or specific event. (769-7/60, 831-4/61, 1306-3/67, 1743-5/72, 1776-9/72, 1856-8/73, 3606-6/03, 3930-2/12) 13.08.130 Hazardous Articles No pperson shall use any surfboard, paddleboard, skimboard, bodyboard, wind surfboard, rubber life raft, canoe, boat, or any similar object made entirely or partially of wood, metal, glass, hard plastic or any other hard substance at any time, on the bBeach, Adjacent Beach Area or in the Water Activity Zone in a manner that constitutes a hazard to any other 13Person. (769-7/60, 1306- 3/67, 3606-6/03) 13.08.135 Motorized Vessels No pPerson shall operate or cause to operate any motorized vessel, boat, or personal watercraft in the Water Activity Zone unless authorized by the dDirector. (3606-6/03) 13.08.140 Beach Games and Practices No i3Person shall use on the 13Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or in Water Activity Zone any athletic apparatus, object or game in a manner that constitutes a hazard to any pPerson or conduct or participate in any sport or game that constitutes a hazard to any pPerson. (769-7/60, 1306-3/67, 3606-6/03) 13.08.150 Digging No pPerson shall dig or cause the digging of any hole in the sand exceeding a depth of two feet. Any pPerson who digs, or causes to be dug, any hole upon the bBeach or Adjacent Beach Area shall fill the hole before leaving the bBeach or Adjacent Beach Area. (769-7/60, 3606-6/03) 16-5399/146219/SF 5 HB -501-Item 8. - 41 13.08.160 Spear Guns No pPerson shall have any spear gun or similar underwater device in his or her possession on the shore of the bBeach o_r_Adjacent Beach Area unless the point of such device is covered by a sheath, cork or other protective device. No spear gun or similar weapon or instrument shall be kept cocked, loaded or otherwise prepared so as to be capable of being discharged while on the bBeach or Adjacent Beach Area. (769-7/60, 1306-3/67, 3606-6/03) 13.08.170 Jumping From the Pier and Public Bridges No pPerson shall dive, jump or enter the water from the prier or public bridge or any part thereof; provided, however, that this section shall not apply to the regularly employed lifeguard personnel of the City who are engaged in lifeguard training or in emergency jumps from the prier or bridges for the purpose of saving lives and/or property. (769-7/60, 911-7/62, 3606-6/03) 13.08.180 Climbing on Rails of the Pier or Bridges No pPerson shall sit, walk or balance on the rails of the pPier or public bridges or walkways or climb upon, over or under such rails, or sit, walk, balance or climb upon or over any cement walls which may be adjacent to such rails. (769-7/60,911-7/62, 1935-11/74, 3606-6/03) 13.08.190 Climbing on Lifeguard Stations No unauthorized pPerson shall climb, sit, stand or cause someone else to climb, sit or stand on any lifeguard station or ladder on the bBeackAdjacent Beach Area. or prier unless told to do so by an official employee of the City. (769-7/60, 1306-3/67, 3606-6/03) 13.08.190 Climbing on Lifeguard Stations No unauthorized prerson shall climb, sit, stand or cause someone else to climb, sit or stand on any lifeguard station or ladder on the bBeack Adjacent Beach Area, or pPier unless told to do so by an official employee of the City. (769-7/60, 1306-3/67, 3606-6/03) 13.08.195 Tampering With Lifesaving Equipment No pPerson shall tamper with lifesaving equipment, structures or buoys on thel3Beach, Adjacent Beach Area, or on the pPier. (3606-6/03) 13.08.200 Leaving Objects No pPerson shall lay, store, hang or cause to be laid, stored, or cause to be hung any object on, against, or upon any lifeguard station or municipal structure except by permit issued by the dDirector. (1306-3/67, 3606-6/03) 13.08.210 False Alarms No pPerson shall cause a false rescue or call for help when it is not needed, or to cause a lifeguard to enter the water upon a false rescue, or to leave his or her tower or to have his or her attention drawn to a false alarm. (769-7/60, 1306-3/67) 16-5399/146219/SF 6 HB -502-Item 8. - 42 13.08.220 Interfering With Lifeguard No pPerson shall willfully resist, delay or obstruct any lifeguard in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her position. (1306-3/67) 13.08.225 Interfering With Park Ranger No pP_erson shall willfully resist, delay or obstruct any park ranger in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her position. (1306-3/67) 13.08.230 Causing Object to Reflect No person shall use a mirror, glass or any similar object to cause the sun to reflect thereon so as to interfere with the vision of any lifeguard or other pPerson(s). (1306-3/67, 1535-11/69, 1743- 5/72) 13.08.240 Curfew A. Except as otherwise specified, no pPerson shall he on the bBeach or the Adjacent bBeach aArea bounded by the beach service fRoad and the Pacific Ocean including the Water Activity Zone between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. except upon official business of the City or by permit issued by the €11)irector. In the event of special circumstances so warranting, the flDirector, in his or her judgment, is authorized and empowered to modify temporarily the hours during which the 1313eaches are closed. Said modification is to be filed with the City Manager at least 10 days prior to the requested date and posted conspicuously. B. Pier and Pier Plaza Curfew. No pPerson shall remain on or upon the pPier or Pier Plaza between the hours of midnight and 5:00 a.m. except by permit issued by the €1Director. (769-7/60, 861-9/61, 1306-3/67, 3606-6/03, 3930-2/12) 13.08.260 Electrical Systems No pPerson shall use any electrical outlets on the bBeach or Adjacent BtackAren without first obtaining written consent from the flDirector and paying such fees as may be prescribed. (1306- 3/67, 1509-7/69, 3606-6/03) 13.08.270 Noise No pPerson shall play, use or operate, or permit to be played, used or operated, any instrument, machine or device, for producing or reproducing sound upon the 11Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, at such a volume as unreasonably to disturb the peace. quiet and comfort of pPersons who are not voluntary listeners thereto, after having been warned. (1306-3/67, 1743-5/72, 1935-11/74, 3606-6/03) 13.08.280 Vehicle and Parking Regulation—Beach A. No pPerson shall operate or possess any motor-driven cycle, motor-driven bicycle, motorcycle, automobile, motor truck or other motorized vehicle or conveyance (regardless of power source or size) on the bBeach or Adjacent Beach Area other than for law enforcement, lifesaving or emergency purposes, or fortil3each maintenance purposes, except by permit issued by the flDirector; nor on any roads on which signs are posted prohibiting such activity, nor in any manner or direction prohibited by posted signs, nor on 16-5399/146219/SF 7 HB -503-Item 8. - 43 any bBeach or Adjacent Beach Area other than on the roads, drives or parking areas designed for such purposes. B. No pPerson shall operate any wWheeled eConveyance on the bBeach sService fRoad if said wWheeled eConveyance has been prohibited by the dDirector and said prohibition has been properly posted. C. Exceeding Speed Limit. 1. No pPerson shall operate any AryWheeled eConveyance of any type on the bBeach or bBeach sServ ice fRoad at a speed in excess of 10 miles per hour unless a greater speed is posted. The maximum speed limit when pedestrians are present shall be five miles per hour. 2. No i3Person shall operate any wWheeled eConveyance of any type on the bBeach sService FRoad at a walking speed in excess of two and one-half miles per hour, between designated points, when the yellow lights are flashing. D. Delivering Concessions. During the period of June 15th to September 15th, any and all commercial motor vehicles of any type, must make their deliveries to bBeach concessions between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m., except by permit from the dpirector. During all other times of the year, deliveries must take place during bBeach non-curfew hours. E. Parking. No pPerson shall park any vehicle except in designated parking areas; provided, however, that the ElDirector is authorized to permit parking in non-designated areas when, in his or her opinion, such parking will not interfere with Adjacent beach ftArea operations. F. Traffic Control Signs. The dDirector is authorized and directed to erect and maintain signs at locations he or she deems appropriate, indicating the speed limits established by the City Council for the bBeaches, along roadways and streets herein. The •z1Director is also authorized to designate parking areas and traffic patterns and to erect and maintain signs indicating such areas and patterns. (1306-3/67, 2138-1/77, 2768-5/85, 2851-8/86, 3123- 11/91, 3329-5/96, 3606-6/03) 13.08.285 Motor Vehicle Permits Any pPerson desiring to access the bBeach, Adjacent Beach Area, or pPier with a vehicle for delivery, maintenance, transportation or any other service must obtain a permit from the dDirector. (3329-5/96, 3606-6/03) 13.08.290 Vehicle and Parking Regulation—Pier and Pier Plaza Pursuant to Section 13.08.280 of this chapter, the following shall apply: A. Speed Limit. No pPerson shall operate any wWheeled eConveyance upon the pPier or Pier Plaza in excess of five miles per hour. B. Heavy Vehicles. No pPerson shall drive or permit to be driven any vehicle of any kind or character whatsoever, upon the pPier or Pier Plaza of a gross weight in excess of 20,000 pounds. C. Roller Skates, In-Line Skates, Skateboards and Scooters on the Pier or Pier Plaza. No pPerson shall use any roller skates, in-line skates, skateboards or scooters on the pPier or Pier Plaza at any time. These items must be carried if brought on the pPier or Pier Plaza. 16-5399/146219/SF 8 HB -504-Item 8. - 44 D.Parking. No pPerson shall park a vehicle on the pPier or Pier Plaza, unless he or she possesses a written permit from the dDirector allowing him or her to do so. No pPerson shall leave a vehicle standing or unattended on the pPier or Pier Plaza at any time. E. Unauthorized Vehicles Prohibited. No pPerson shall push or operate any automobile, motorcycle, truck, or any other motor driven vehicle or conveyance upon the pPier or Pier Plaza, except by permit issued by the ElDirector. F. Bicycles on Pier. No pPerson shall ride a bicycle or any similar type vehicle on the pPier or Pier Plaza, except by permit issued by the flpirector. Bicycles or similar type vehicles may be walked or pushed on the pPier or Pier Plaza. No bicycle or similar type vehicle shall be chained, cabled or locked by any means to the railings on the pPier, ramps, stairs, or parking lot except to the bicycle racks provided therefor. G. Delivering Concessions. Vendors or their agents shall not make deliveries by vehicles to concessionaires on the pPier except between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m. during the dates of June 15th to September 15th. During all other times, deliveries must be made during non-curfew hours. (3606-6/03) 13.08.300 Beach Parking Lot Regulations The following regulations NNW appi .), to parking in any of the City -owned and operated bBeach pParking -11,ots: A.Parking is allowed within designated spaces only. B. There shall be no parking between 10:00 p.m. and 5:00 a.m. except by permit issued by the klDirector. C. Any deviation from this section will be by permission of the elDirector and shall be conspicuously posted. D.No loitering or obstructing of flow of traffic will be allowed in the parking lot by any pPerson or pPersons. E. No pPerson shall obstruct or cause to be obstructed any entrance or exit in the parking lot. F. No trailers or similar vehicles will be allowed in the parking lot except by permit issued by the t1Director. G.Fees for parking shall be established by resolution of the City Council. H.Any vehicle leaving the parking lot and returning will be required to pay on re-entering. I. Number of parking permits per concession owner will be determined by the elnirector. J. The E1Director shall have the authority to designate reserved parking areas in City-owned and/or operated bBeach pParking K. No unauthorized vehicle shall park in a reserved parking area where signs are posted giving notice of such reserved parking. (3606-6/03) 16-5399/146219/SF 9 HB -505-Item 8. - 45 13.08.310 Fishing From the Pier Fishing is allowed from the pPier, but the following acts are prohibited: A. Overhead Casting. Cast a fishing line, either with or without a fishing pole, over the top railing of the pPier. B. Negligent Casting. No pPerson shall cast in the water adjacent to the pPier or on the pPier, a fishing line, lobster trap, crab trap, any mussel hook, or any other such device in such a manner as to create a hazard to any other pPerson. C. Extra Lines. No pPerson shall have more than two fishing lines in the water under or near the pPier at one time. 0. Projecting Poles. No pPerson shall allow or permit any fishing pole to extend inward from the pPier rail to a distance of more than four feet. E. Cleaning of Fish or Mussel. No pPerson shall place, cut or clean any fish, mussel or bait, or any other marine life directly upon any bench or seat placed upon the 'Pier or upon the floor or railings of the pPier except in the areas provided therefor. F. Lobster Traps. No pPerson shall have more than two traps in the water under or near the pPier at any one time. A pPerson shall attend said traps at all times. G. Feeding Wildlife. No pPerson shall provide food, bait or other material in a manner as to feed wildlife upon the pPier. H. Fishing from Closed Area. No pPerson shall set up or cast a fishing line in areas on the pPier that have been closed to fishing. I. No pPerson shall use the pPier railing for leverage to pull fishing line, lobster trap, any mussel hook, or other such device in such a manner as to create a hazard to any other i3Person or cause damage to the pPier railing. (3606-6/03) 13.08.330 Removal of Sand No pPerson shall remove, or cause to be removed from the bBeach, or Pacific Ocean, any sand without written permission from the director. (1306-3/67, 3606-6/03) 13.08.340 Glass Containers on the Beach No person shall have, possess or use any dangerous article or container such as a bottle, glass, crockery or similar object upon the bBeach, Adjacent Beach Area, or in thc Water Activity Zone. (2882-12/86, 3606-6/03) 13.08.350 Beach and Ocean Closure—Authority A. The dDirector shall have the authority to close any bBeach, Adjacent Beach Area, harbor, or ocean waters of the Pacific Ocean in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Such closure shall be effective when notice of closure is given through any of the following methods: 1. Signs stating that thebBeach is closed or that swimming is prohibited, or depicting a swimmer and a red circle with a slash through the circle, or otherwise advising of closure; 16-5399/146219/SF 10 HB -506-Item 8. - 46 2. Public address announcements; 3. Oral or written notice from the dDirector, any marine safety officer, lifeguard, or other authorized agent; or 4. Any other device or announcement reasonably communicating such closure. B. No pPerson shall enter, remain in, or fail or refuse to leave a closed area of the beach. Adjacent Beach Area, harbor, or the Pacific Ocean while such restriction is in effect. (3101- 5/91, 3606-6/03) 13.08.360 Enforcing Officer This chapter shall be enforced by the ElDirector, as well as by peace officers having jurisdiction of any area in which a violation of any provision of this title takes place. (3606-6/03) 13.08.370 Violation—Penalty Any pPerson violating any provision of this chapter shall, upon conviction, be guilty of a misdemeanor, and subject to a fine of not more than $500.00 or be imprisoned for a period not to exceed six months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. (3606-6/03) 13.08.380 Violation—Alternative Remedies Any violation of any provisions of this chapter shall subject the violator to ejection from the premises of the area in which the violation occurs. (3606-6/03) 16-5399/146219/SF 11 HB -507-Item 8. - 47 ORDINANCE NO. 4119 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 13.10 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO CAMPING ON PUBLIC PROPERTY The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Chapter 13.10 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: Chapter 13.10 CAMPING 13.10.010 Purpose. The streets and public areas within the City should be readily accessible and available to residents and the public at large. The use of these areas for camping purposes or storage of personal property interferes with the rights of others to use the areas for which they were intended. Such activity can constitute a public health and safety hazard which adversely impacts neighborhoods and commercial areas. Camping on private property without the consent of the owner, proper sanitary measures and for other than a minimal duration adversely affects private property rights as well as public health, safety, and welfare of the City. The purpose of this chapter is to maintain streets, parks and other public and private areas within the City in a clean, sanitary and accessible condition and to adequately protect the health, safety and public welfare of the community, while recognizing that, subject to reasonable conditions, camping and camp facilities associated with special events can be beneficial to the cultural and educational climate in the City. Nothing in this chapter is intended to interfere with otherwise lawful and ordinary uses of public or private property. 13.10.020 Definitions. Unless the particular provisions or the context otherwise requires, the definitions contained in this section shall govern the construction, meaning, and application of words and phrases used in this chapter. "Camp" means to place, pitch or occupy camp facilities; to live temporarily in a camp facility or outdoors; to use camp paraphernalia. "Camp facilities" include, but are not limited to, tents, huts, vehicles, vehicle camping outfits or temporary shelter. "Camp paraphernalia" includes, but is not limited to, bedrolls, tarpaulins, cots, beds, sleeping bags, hammocks or cooking facilities and similar equipment. 16-5399/144821/my 1 HB -508-Item 8. - 48 ORDINANCE NO. 4119 "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee. -Establish" means setting up or moving equipment, supplies or materials on to public or private property to "camp" or operate camp facilities. "Maintain" means keeping or permitting equipment, supplies or materials to remain on public or private property in order to camp or operate camp facilities. "Operate" means participating or assisting in establishing or maintaining a camp or camp facility. "Park" means the same as defined in Section 12.72.010 of this title. "Private property" means all private property including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, alleys, and improved or unimproved land. "Public property" means all public property including, but not limited to, streets, sidewalks, alleys, improved or unimproved land and parks. "Store" means to put aside or accumulate for use when needed, to put for safekeeping, to place or leave in a location. "Street" means the same as defined in Section 12.16.180 of this title. 13.10.030 Unlawful camping. It is unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to camp, occupy camp facilities, or use camp paraphernalia in the following areas: A. Any public property; or B. Any private property. 1. It is not intended by this Chapter to prohibit overnight camping on private residential property by friends or family of the property owner, so long as the owner consents and the overnight camping is limited to not more than one consecutive night. In addition, it is not intended by this Chapter to prohibit overnight camping on public property as required by State or Federal law. 2. Nothing in this chapter is intended to prohibit or make unlawful, activities of an owner of private property or other lawful user of private property that are normally associated with and incidental to the lawful and authorized use of private property for residential or other purposes; and provided further, nothing is intended to prohibit or make unlawful, activities of a property owner or other lawful user if such activities are expressly authorized by the Huntington Beach Municipal Code or other laws, ordinances and regulations. MV:16-5399/144821.doc 2 HB -509-Item 8. - 49 ORDINANCE NO. 4119 3. The City Manager may, as provided in Section 13.10.050 of this chapter, issue a temporary permit to allow camping on public or private property in connection with a special event. 13.10.040 Storage of personal property on public and private property. It is unlawful and a public nuisance for any person to store personal property, including camp paraphernalia, in the following areas, except as otherwise provided by resolution of the City council: A. Any public property; or B. Any private property without the written consent of the owner. 13.10.050 Permit for special events required. The City Manager may, in his or her discretion, issue a permit to establish, maintain and operate a camp or a camp facility in connection with a special event. A special event is intended to include, but not be limited to, programs operated by the departments of the City, youth or school events, marathons or other sporting events and scouting activities. The City Manager may consult with various City departments, the health officer and the public prior to issuing any temporary permit. Each department or person consulted may provide comments regarding any health, safety or public welfare concerns and provide recommendations pertaining to the issuance, denial or conditioning of the permit. A reasonable fee, to be set by the City council shall be paid, in advance, by the applicant. The fee shall be returned if the application is denied. In exercising his or her discretion to issue a temporary permit, the City Manager may consider any facts or evidence bearing on the sanitary, health, safety and welfare conditions on or surrounding the area or tract of land upon which the proposed temporary camp or camp facility is to be located. 13.10.060 Posting copy of permit. It is unlawful for any person to establish, maintain, conduct or carry on any camp or camp facility unless there shall be at all times posted in a conspicuous place upon the area or tract of land upon which the camp or camp facility is located a permit obtained from the City Manager in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.10.050 of this chapter. 13.10.070 Power of the City Manager to make rules and regulations. The City Manager is further empowered to ascertain that the operation or maintenance of any camp or camp facilities to which a temporary permit shall apply will in no way jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare and for this purpose may make additional rules and regulations pertaining to their establishment, operation or conduct. The City Manager may also impose conditions on the establishment, maintenance and operation of the camp or camp facility, including, but not limited to, security, sanitation facilities, the number of occupants, posting of bonds or deposits, insurance, quiet hours, duration of the permit, and permitted activities on the MV:16-5399/144821.doc 3 HB -510-Item 8. - 50 APPROVED AS ORM: ity Attorney ITIATED AND APPROV ORDINANCE NO. 4119 premises. When the City Manager shall issue any permit under the terms of Section 13.10.050 of this chapter, the same may be revoked at any time thereafter by the City Manager if the City Manager becomes satisfied that the maintenance or continuing operation of the camp or camp facilities is adverse to the public health, safety and welfare. 13.10.080 Current ordinance provisions. Neither the adoption of the ordinance codified in this chapter nor the repeal hereby of any ordinance shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violation of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as affecting any of the provisions of such ordinance relating to the collection of any such license or penalty or the penal provision applicable to any violation thereof, nor to affect the validity of any bond or cash deposit in lieu thereof, required to be posted, filed or deposited pursuant to any ordinance, and all rights and obligations thereunder appertaining shall continue in full force and effect. 13.10.090 Violations—Penalty Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punishable as provided in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. In addition to the remedies set forth in Penal Code Section 370, the City Attorney may institute civil actions to abate a public nuisance under this chapter. 13.10.100 Severability If any provision of this Chapter is rendered illegal or invalid or unenforceable, all other parts of this Chapter shall remain in full force and effect. 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 day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Manager Police Chief MV:16-5399/144821, doe 4 HB -511-Item 8. - 51 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC Chapter 13.10 13.10.010 Purpose and Intent The public parks, beaches, streets, sidewalksand ether public areas within the City should be readily available and accessible and available to residents and the public at large for their intehdeci-purposes. The. use of these areas for camping purposes or storage of personal property interferes with th other ae_rights_of_s_to_nsethe ed.S_ucl_actiyity can constitute ic ighborhoods and • 1. erci, am n • • • ate s ro. - • w • the SI .1 • he ewn II a I" anit measures and for o r than ; 11 11 urati sely.Mets_priyate_p_op_a_rits_as_w_dl as public lfd_m atene_of theCity Tl_ie_purpost_o_ maintain parks and other ublic and rivate areas within the Ci in a clean sanitary and accessible condition an to accLattly_protect liesommim4,AvkLefl that. facilities associated with special events can be beneficial to the cultural and educational climate in the City. Nothing in this chapter is intended to interfere with otherwise lawful and ordinary uses of public or private prop 13.10.020 Definitions :Unless the particular provisions or the context otherwi erequires , the finitioreontain d in tits=tiolLsha_g_o_v_em_the con struction,nemt *catiot,and_app.l isch apter ._ 5,9443 31-te-afea-fer-i+V-Hig-ftee0iiiiiiErflatiOE engage4kplace, pitch or occupy camp facilities, to live temporarily in a camp facility or outdoors; to use camp paraphernai. "Camp facilities" include, but are not limited to, tents, huts, vehicles, vehicle camping outfits or temporary shelter. 16-5399/143764/mv 1 HB -512-Item 8. - 52 3•11-EH-1C-RE Rr-Bri-VELie EH:1-13f+E : • . : - • ' " 31:1-13 DE)eFF Rne-fife8 "Camp paraphernalia" includes, but is not limited to, bedrolls, tarpaulins, cots, beds, hammocks or cooking facilities and similar "City Manager" means the City Manager or designee h. and Pr Street. "Establish" means setting u or moving equipment, supplies or materials on to public or priyatejronertytocani p" or onerate camp aintain" eevin eau' les or m main ulp_r_priyate_proptthjimorder_IQmwigrae_Qampfasilities_, Eirerat " neans_pa civatinz or facility. t...siat EimE or main aininu a camp or cam "Park" means the same as set-fecthdefined in Section 13.18.010 (sec -Park -) 12.72.010 of this eedetitle. "Private property" means all private property including, but not limited to, streets, sktoulLs,Blle Ys._an_d_r_o_v_ccl_prun improve diansi B-LefieFE "Public property" means all public property including, but not limited to, streets, siclewalks roved or unimproved land and parks. "Store - er-sterager means to put aside or accumulate for use when needed, to put for safekeeping, to place or leave at a location. "Street" means the same as defined in the-V-el+iele-C-edeSection 12.16.180 of this title (3964-12/12) 13.10.030 Unlawful Camping in Public Places It is unlawful aid a public nuisance for any person to camp,occuov camp facilities, or use paraphernalia in the following areas Texeept-as-etheFwise-glewed: A. Any public efeaproperty; or B. eivie-eentefAny prijamm- (3964-12/12) 16-53991143764/my 2 HB -513-Item 8. - 53 1. It is notintenc_kd thi s Chanter to prohibit overnigh tpim_onp_r_i_v_Iteiesidential prope rty 'rK he property owner,s_o_lschts and the overnight limite d to not more than one consecutive night. In addition. is inte nded by this Chapter to by State or Federal law. 2. Nothing in this chapter ndedlo_pmlili* make unlawful. activities owner of private pro e or h i er of • prowM_Abatammormally associated with and incidental to the lawful and authorized use of private properly for residential or other purposes; and provided further, nothing is intended to prohibit or make unlawful, activities of a property owner or other lawful user if such activities are expressly authorized by the Huntington Beach Munici al Code or other laws ordinances and re gulations. The Cilvivianager ma as roviae in ur 0.050 of Liapter, issu to 'low cam connection w ith a special event. 13.10.050 Irielations—PenaltyPermit for special events required. " 4441 The City Manager may, in his or her discretion, issue a permit to establish, maintain and operate a camp or a camp facility in connection with a special event, A special event is intended to include, but not be limited to, programs operated by the departments of the City, youth or school events, marathons or other sporting events and scouting activities. The City Manager may consult with various City departments, the health officer and the Dublic prior to issuing any temporary permit. Each department or person consulted may provi • e comments regarding any health, safety or public welfare concerns and provide recommendations pertaining to the issuance, denial or conditioning of the permit. A reasonable fee, to be set by the City Council shall be paid, in advance, by the applicant. The fee shall be returned if the application is denied. In exercising his or her discretion to issue a temporary permit, the City Manager may consider any facts or evidence bearing on the sanitary, health, safety and welfare conditions on or surrounding the area or tract of land upon which the proposed temporary camp or camp facility is to be located. 13.10.060 Posting copy of permit. It is unlawful for any person to establish, maintain, conduct or carry on any camp or camp facility unless there shall be at all times posted in a conspicuous place upon the area or tract of land upon which the camp or camp facility is located a permit obtained from the City Manager in accordance with the provisions of Section 13.10.050 of this chapter. 13.10.070 Power of the City Manager to make rules and regulations. The City Manager is further empowered to ascertain that the operation or maintenance of any camp or camp facilities to which a temporary permit shall ap 11 will in no Wa 16-5399/143764/my HB -514-Item 8. - 54 jeopardize the public health, safety or welfare and for this purpose may make additional rules and regulations pertaining to their establishment, operation or conduct. The City Manager may also impose conditions on the establishment, maintenance and operation of the camp or camp facility, including, but not limited to. security, sanitation facilities, the number of occupants, posting of bonds or deposits, insurance, quiet hours, duration of the mrmil, and permitted activities on the premises. When the City Manager shall issue any permit under the terms of Section 13,10.050 of this chapter, the same may be revoked at any time thereafter by the City Manager if the City Manager becomes satisfied that the maintenance or continuing operation of the camp or camp facilities is adverse to the public health, safety and welfare. 13.10.080 Current ordinance provisions, Neither the adoption gf the ordinance codified in this chapter nor the repeal hereby of any ordinance shall in any manner affect the prosecution for violation of ordinances, which violations were committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as affecting any of the provisions of such ordinance relating to the collection of any such license or penalty or the penal provision applicable to any violation thereof, nor to affect the validity of any bond or cash deposit in lieu thereof, required to be posted, filed or deposited pursuant to any ordinance, and all rights and obligations thereunder appertaining shall continue in full force and effect. 13.10.090 Violations—Penalty Any person who violates any of the provisions of this Chapter shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction shall be punishable as provided in the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. In addition to the remedies set forth in Penal Code Section 370, the City Attorney may institute civil actions to abate a public nuisance under this chapter. 13.10.100 Severability If any provision of this Chapter is rendered illegal or invalid or unenforceable. all other parts of this Chapter shall remain in full force and effect. 16-53991143764/mv 4 HB -515-Item 8. - 55 ORDINANCE NO. 4124 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 13.48 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO PARK REGULATIONS The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 13.48.010 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, entitled "Definitions" is hereby amended to add the following definitions alphabetically: "Smoke or Smoking" means the carrying or holding of a lighted pipe, cigar, cigarette, e-cigarette, or any other lighted smoking product or equipment used to burn any tobacco products, weed, plant, or any other combustible substance. Smoking includes emitting or exhaling the fumes of any pipe, cigar, cigarette, e- cigarette or any other lighted smoking equipment used for burning or vaporizing any tobacco or nicotine product, weed, plant, or any other combustible substance. SECTION 2. Section 13.48.115 is added to Chapter 13.48 to read as follows: "13.48.115 Smoking Boundaries No Person shall Smoke on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, Pier or Pier Plaza or Park unless the Director has designated a specific signed smoking area." 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 day of , 2017. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk REVIEWED AND APPROVED: City Manager Police Chi SF:16-5399/148093.doc HB -516-Item 8. - 56 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC Chapter 13.48 13.48.010 Definitions 13.48.010 Definitions For the purposes of this chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings as set forth herein, unless the context in which they are used clearly indicates a contrary meaning: "Alcoholic beverages" means any and all spirituous, vinous, malt or fermented liquor, liquids or compounds, whether medicated, proprietary, patented or not, and by whatever name called, containing one-half of one percent, or more, of alcohol by volume which are potable or fit as, or which may be used for beverage purposes. "City" means the City of Huntington Beach. "Department" means the Department of Community Services. "Director" means the Director of the Community Services Department or other person(s) authorized by him or her, pursuant to law, to act in his or her stead. "Park" includes every park recreation center, lake, pond or other body of water, riding and hiking trail, parking lot and every other recreation facility owned, managed and/or controlled by the City and under the jurisdiction of the director. "Permission" means written permission, granted by the director or his or her authorized agent. "Person" means any individual, firm, partnership, joint venture, association, social club, fraternal organization, corporation or any other group acting as a unit. "Skateboard" means a board of any material which has wheels attached and such wheels may be used for moving or propulsion. "Skateboard park” means any facility that is designed and maintained for the purpose of recreational skateboard use. cigarette, or any other lighted smoking product or equipment used to burn any tobacco products, weed, plant, or any other combustible substance. Smoking includes emitting or exhaling the fumes of any pipe, cigar, cigarette, e-cigarette or any other lighted smoking equipment used for burning or vaporizing any tobacco or nicotine product, weed, plant, or any other combustible substance. "Sound amplifying system" means and includes any system of electrical hookup or connection, loudspeaker system or equipment, sound amplifying system and any apparatus, equipment, device. instrument or machine designed for or intended to be used for the purpose of amplifying sound or increasing the volume of the human voice, musical tone, vibration, or sound wave. This definition shall not apply to the regular and customary use of portable radios, televisions, record players or tape recorders played or operated in such places at such times so as not to disturb other persons in their permitted uses of the park. (1246-10/66, 2451-11/80, 3181-1/92) 16-5399/149386 HB -517-Item 8. - 57 13.48.115 Smoking Boundaries No Person shall Smoke on the Beach or Adjacent Beach Area, Pier or Pier Plaza or Park unless the Director has designated a specific signed smoking area. 16-53991149386 2 HB -518-Item 8. - 58 ORDINANCE NO. 4129 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH AMENDING CHAPTER 8.21 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO REFUSE MANAGEMENT The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Section 8.21.040 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: 8.21.040 Littering/Dumping of Refuse or Waste Prohibited (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to cast, deposit, place, sweep, throw, discard or leave any refuse or cause such refuse to be cast, deposited, swept, placed, thrown, discarded or left in any place, public or private, within the City, without the express perrnission of the owner of the premises. (b) No person shall throw, discard or deposit infectious or potentially infectious waste in any amount on any public street, sidewalk, beach, park or other public property within the City, or private property within the City not owned by the person, or in or upon any body of water within the jurisdiction of the City; "Infectious waste" refers to all waste materials which are defined as being injurious to the public health or safety by federal, state, or county statutes, legislation, policies, or rules and regulations as they may be amended from time to time. Examples include, but are not limited to: a. hypodermic needles, pen needles, intravenous needles, syringes, lancets and other instruments used to administer medication or otherwise designed to cut or pierce the skin, b. disposable diapers, rags, or other materials used to clean areas infected by human or animal waste or fluids, c. other materials contaminated with or exposed to infected or contagious individuals, animals or materials, d. any material that contains human excrement, waste, blood or other fluid, e. unused, unwanted or expired prescription medications or other controlled dangerous substances that can be ingested by humans or animals, bottles that contain or previously contained such medications or substances, or other medical supplies used to facilitate the taking of such substances. 1 MD:16-5399/152825.doc HB -519-Item 8. - 59 City Clerk ATTEST: City Attorney ORDINANCE NO. 4129 (c) Penalty. Subsections (a) and (b) apply to all persons within the City and is in addition to any other anti-littering and/or dumping and/or waste provisions as provided in federal, state, or county law or provided within this Code. Any person who purposely or knowingly violates subsection (b) shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or be imprisoned for a period not to exceed six months, or both. Subsection (a) is an infraction subject to the penalties outlined in section 1.16.040 of this Code. 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 day of , 2017. Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: REVIEWED AND APPROVED: INITIATED AND APPROVED: City Manager Police Chief MD:16-5399/152825.doc HB -520-Item 8. - 60 Blat-_-RifteeEk-fff LEGISLATIVE DRAFT HBMC CHAPTER 8.21 8.-2-1T040-Dumpi-ng-ef-Ref-tt3e-Pfehi-bit-ed aema 8.21.040 Littering/Dumping of Refuse or Waste Prohibited (a) It shall be unlawful for any person to cast, deposit, place, sweep, throw, discard or leave any refuse or cause such refuse to be cast, deposited, swept, placed, thrown, discarded or left in any place, public or private, within the City, without the express permission of the owner of the premises. (b) No person shall throw, discard or deposit infectious or potential y infectious waste in any amount on any public street, sidewalk, beach, park or other public property within the City, or private property within the City not owned by the person, or in or upon any body of water within the jurisdiction of the City:, "Infectious waste" refers to all waste materials which are defined as being injurious to the public health or safety by federal, state, or county statutes, legislation, policies, or rules and regulations as the m be amended fr m j e to time Exdes include bu ot limited to: a. hypodermic needles, pen needles, intravenous needles, syringes, lancets and other instruments used to administer medication or otherwise designed to cut or pierce the skin, b. disposable diapers, rags, or other materials used to clean areas infected by human or animal waste or fluids, c. other materials contaminated with or exposed to infected or contagious individuals, animals or materials, d. any material that contains human excrement, waste, blood or other fluid, e. unused, unwanted or expired prescription medications or other controlled dangerous substances that can be ingested by humans or animals, bottles that contain or previously contained such medications or substances, or other medical supplies used to facilitate the taking of such substances (c) Penalty. Subsections (a) and (b) apply to all persons within the City and is in addition to any other anti-littering and/or dumping and/or waste provisions as provided in federal, state, or county law or provided within this Code. Any person who purposely or knowingly violates subsection (b) shall, upon conviction thereof, be guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a fine not to exceed $1,000.00 or be imprisoned for a period not to exceed six months, or both. Subsection (a) is an infraction subject to the penalties outlined in section 1.16.040 of this Code. 1 MD/16-5399/152820.docx HB -521-Item 8. - 61 RESOLUTION NO. 2017-13 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH REGARDING THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE REMOVAL OF UNLAWFUL CAMPSITES, BULKY ITEMS, AND PERSONAL PROPERTY WHEREAS, on March 20, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No 4119 regarding Camping, and Unattended Property; and In addition to the proliferation of camping on public property which obstructs access by pedestrians and by emergency vehicles, individuals camping frequently urinate and defecate on City property (and nearby private property) causing unsanitary conditions to persist within the area of the camping creating an environment for the spread of disease and bacteria; and The City Council contemplated that concurrently with adopting Ordinance No 4119, it would adopt administrative procedures that would provide community outreach and supportive services and advance notice to affected individuals as to the provisions of the Ordinances and would provide guidance and assistance in complying with such requirements within a reasonable time after notice; and Through the Ordinances, the City Council hereby declares its intent to prevent the misappropriation of City property for personal use and to promote the public health, safety, and welfare by ensuring that City property remains in a clean, sanitary, and accessible condition; and The City Council finds and determines that this Administrative Procedure declares the City's intent and its procedures for implementation and enforcement of the Ordinances, NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby resolve as follows: ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE FOR THE REMOVAL OF PERSONAL PROPERTY STORED ON CITY PROPERTY PURPOSE: 1. This Administrative Procedure will guide implementation and enforcement of Chapters 12.32 and 13.10 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code which prohibits camping and the storing of personal property on public property, and also prohibit sitting and lying down on certain public ways. This Procedure requires outreach to affected individuals, referral of individuals to supportive services, reasonable advance notice to affected individuals of the deadlines by which they are to remove their personal property from public property, the deadline by which the personal property that has been removed must be picked up from City storage before it will be destroyed, and an exception to permit the temporary use of tents, sleeping bags, and sleeping overnight between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. the next morning in certain areas of the City. 1 SF:16-5399/142714 HB -522-Item 8. - 62 2. EXCEPTION - TEMPORARY TENTS AT NIGHT FOR SHELTER-RELATED OUTREACH: 13.10 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code prohibit camping and lying down on public property throughout the City. Notwithstanding that prohibition, this Administrative Procedure exempts homeless individuals from camping on City property overnight in order for them to have shelter at night, as long as those items are removed from City property by 6:00 a.m. the next morning, and the individuals are not violating any other laws. Further, no camping is permitted at any time at the Civic Center, the Pier, Pier Plaza, Downtown Huntington Beach, any public or private school. 3. The "Outreach" section below describes how the City will engage other agencies and keep a current inventory of available shelter beds at any given point in time, direct persons in need to these resources, and continue to support these shelter and housing efforts directly with its assets and indirectly through its various service funding efforts. 4. This policy is a fluid document that may be updated and revised from time-to- time by the City Manager or his designee, as needed, to adapt to the needs of the community and the City. 5. REPORTING AN UNLAWFUL CAMPING: All reports of the unlawful storage of personal property on City property, including homeless camping on City property, are to be directed to the Police Chief of his or her designee. 6. The Huntington Beach Police Department may conduct a site visit, and document the camping activities. The Huntington Beach Police Department may initiate a cleanup strategy based primarily on the threat to others or property. If there is an apparent immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, or immediate threat to others, themselves, or to private or public property, an immediate response may be initiated and the conditions giving rise to the immediate threat shall be documented in writing. 7. Cleanup of unlawful camping will, whenever possible, include an outreach strategy for those camping. The purpose of the outreach is to unite and engage the appropriate social service providers (employed by agencies other than the City) with the needs of persons camping. Storage bags will be provided prior to the removal or personal property for storage upon request. 8. Concurrently with cleanup of the unlawful camping, pursuant to Chapter 13.10 of the Municipal Code, the City shall post and provide a notice, entitled "Notice of Clean-Up" which states: a. A general description of the personal property to be removed and the location from which the personal property will be removed; 2 SF:16-5399/142714 HB -523-Item 8. - 63 b. A statement that the personal property in the Public Area is currently being stored in violation of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code; c. Describe where the removed personal property will be stored, if not removed by the deadline listed in the notice; d. Personal property not recovered after 90 days of City storage will be deemed abandoned and destroyed. e. If any form of prescription medications, prescription eye glasses, or personal identification (drivers licenses, birth certificates, social security cards, etc.) is found, such items shall be placed safely aside for the City representative to manage. If at all possible, the owner of these types of items shall be located during the cleanup and reunited with their items. If the owner cannot be found on-site, the items will be given to a social service provider for custody or if necessary, be taken back to the Public Works Office until the owner is found, and held for at least 90-days. f. Any Bulky Items (couch, mattress or other property too large to be stored in a garbage receptacle), and trash, garbage, or other waste and/or insect infested items not suitable for storage or for continued use shall be sorted into piles and disposed of or recycled appropriately. g. Individuals affected by the clean-up can call the Huntington Beach Police Department at 714-536-5944 and arrange to retrieve their personal property from the City. h. Individuals whose personal property has been removed and stored by the City will not be fined, charged or otherwise cited by the City for its cost to move and store it. i. Personal Property will be stored for 90-days from the Date written above and if not recovered within that time will be deemed abandoned and will be destroyed. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a regular meeting thereof held on the day of , 2017. 3 SF: 6-5399/142714 HB -524-Item 8. - 64 Citi Attorney :The City Manager Mayor REVIEWED AND APPROVED: APPROVED TO FORM: 4 INITIATED AND APPROVE Police Chief SF:16 -5399/142714 HB -525-Item 8. - 65 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication Honorable Mayor and City Council Members To: From: Date: Subject: Erik Peterson, City Council Member Mike Posey, City Council Member March 27, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM FOR THE APRIL 3, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING — REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL FOR PARKING MANAGEMENT SERVICES FOR MAIN PROMENADE PARKING STRUCTURE STATEMENT OF ISSUE: The City operates the Main Promenade Parking Structure in Downtown Huntington Beach. Operations of the structure, to include part-time staffing and contract maintenance, is through the Community Services Department's parking/camping operations comprised of four (4) full-time employees. The parking/camping program is staffed nearly 20 hours per day, 7 days a week, and includes all beach attended lots, the Sunset Vista Campground, and Sunset Beach parking lots. The City recently invested over $1.5 million to make substantial structural improvements and nominal aesthetic upgrades to the structure, More upgrades, including to the structures' lighting system, bathrooms, and elevators are forthcoming. While the City is currently investing in the parking structure, instances of deferred maintenance and recent extended downtime for elevators highlight a desire to explore the feasibility of contracting out the management of the parking structure for increased operational efficiency and effectiveness. The City owns the parking structures at the Strand and Bella Terra, but contracts out the parking management services at both facilities. There may be increased potential to create efficiencies in downtown parking operations through a Request for Proposal for parking management services. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct the City Manager to issue a Request for Proposal for Parking Management Services for the Main Promenade Parking Structure within 60 days. Cc: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Ken Domer, Assistant City Manager Janeen Laudenback, Community Services Director Robin Estanislau, City Clerk Michael Gates, City Attorney HB -526-Item 9. - 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH N) City Council Interoffice Communication To: From: Date: Subject: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members Billy O'Connell, City Council Member March 27, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM FOR THE APRIL 3, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING — CONSIDER ESTABLISHING A CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEE ON HOMELESSNESS. STATEMENT OF ISSUE: In March 2015, the City Council established a seven (7) member Homeless Task Force to make recommendations to the City Council regarding how to address homelessness within the City. Over the ensuing year, the task force established six (6) sub-committees with the goal of reviewing best practices in the areas of policing, housing, coordination of services, economic self-sufficiency, and health services, and developing specific next action steps for the City Council's review and consideration. The Homeless Task Force presented its findings to the City Council at a study session on March 21, 2016, and offered solutions in each of the categories the sub- committees studied and evaluated. While some progress has been made on implementing the short-term recommendations contained in the report,no subsequent Council discussion or action was taken on the task force's other recommendations. As such, to ensure a comprehensive plan is developed, a prioritization for implementation of Task Force recommendations needs to be made. Despite an informative presentation on homeless outreach efforts made by the Police Department and Office of Business Development at the Council's February 21, 2017, study session, the City lacks a comprehensive strategy or plan that define specific goals, objectives, action steps, milestones and implementation costs. It is imperative that the City Council give city management direction on how to proceed. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Mayor to establish a City Council Ad Hoc Committee to work with key stakeholders to formulate a homelessness workplan based upon the recommendations of the Homeless Task Force for the Council's further review and action. Xc: Fred Wilson, City Manager Ken Domer, Assistant City Manager Robin Estanislau, City Clerk Kellee Fritzal, Deputy Director, Business Development HB -527-Item 10. - 1 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH City Council Interoffice Communication To: From: Date: Subject: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members 4‘- Billy O'Connell, City Council Member March 27, 2017 CITY COUNCIL MEMBER ITEM FOR THE APRIL 3, 2017, CITY COUNCIL MEETING — REAFFIRM THE CITY'S DECLARATION OF POLICY ABOUT HUMAN DIGNITY STATEMENT OF ISSUE: On May 6, 1996, the City Council adopted a Declaration of Policy About Human Dignity that prompted the creation of the Human Relations Task Force in 1997. The Policy was meant to support a community-wide effort to promote human dignity as an important element in building a better community. The Policy declared that everyone should be treated with courtesy and respect, regardless of their racial background, their nation of origin, the religion they practice, their sexual orientation, gender, or disability status. It is the right of all citizens to pursue their daily lives with the knowledge that they will not be physically harmed or verbally abused. Given recent events throughout the nation, now more than ever, it is important to reaffirm our position that, as a City, we are welcome to everyone. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Manager bring forth to the City Council a Resolution reaffirming the City's support for the Declaration of Policy About Human Dignity. xc: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager Ken Domer, Assistant City Manager Robin Estanislau, City Clerk Michael Gates, City Attorney HB -528-Item 11. - 1