HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council - 2021-75 RESOLUTION NO. 2021-75
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACI-1 TO
ACCEPT AND APPROVE THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT FOR FISCAL
YEAR ENDING JUNE 30. 2021 AND TO MAKE THE FINDINGS AS REQUIRED I3Y
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66006(b) AND 66001(d)
WHEREAS, Cite has received and expended reportable development impact fees as
authorized by Government Code Section 66000, et. seq.; and the Huntington Beach Municipal
Code; and
In accordance with Government Code Section 66006(a), the City has established and
maintained separate funds for each development impact fee in a manner to avoid any
comminelina of the Ices with other revenues and funds for the City, except for temporary
investments, and has expended those fees solely for the purpose for which the fees were
collected; and
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66006(b)(1), the City is required to prepare and
make available to the public within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day ofeach
Fiscal year, information describing the type of fee in each account or fund, the amount of the fee,
the beginning and ending balance of the account or fund, the amount of the fees collected and
interest earned, and details regarding the use of the fees; and
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(d)(1). the City is required, for the fifth
fiscal year following the first deposit into the account or fund, and every five years thereafter, to
make specified findings with respect to that portion of the account or find that remains
unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted; and
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(d)(2), the fifth year findings must be made
in connection with the public intorrnation required by Government Code Section 66006(b); and
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66006(b)(2), the City must review the information
made available to the public pursuant to Section 66006 at a regularly scheduled public meeting
occurring not less than 15 days after the information is made public; and
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(e), except as otherwise provided by law,
when sufficient funds have been collected, as determined pursuant to Government Code Section
66006(b)(1)(F), to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement identified in
Government Code section 66001(a)(2), and the public improvements remain incomplete, the
City must identify an appropriate date by which the construction of the public improvements will
be commenced, or must refund to the then current record owner or owners of the lots or units of
the development project or projects on a prorated basis, the unexpended portion of the fce, and
any interest accrued thereon: and
The Development Impact Fcc Report for Fiscal Year End ,tune 30, 2021 (the "DIF
Report") attached hereto as Exhibit "A", provides the information required by Government Code
20-8383/223226 1
Resolution No. 2021-75
Section 66006(b) to be made available to the public on an annual basis for the following
development impact fees:
• A Law Enforcement Facilities Development Impact Fee as approved by Ordinance No.
3942, passed on Jule 2, 2012 and codified in Chapter 17.75 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code, to fund the costs of providing police services attributable to new
residential and nonresidential construction
• A Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee as approved by Ordinance No. 3943
Development Impact Fees for Fire Facilities, passed on July 2, 2012 and codified in
Chapter 17.74 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. to fund the costs of providing
additional fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment attributable
to new residential and nonresidential construction
• A Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee as approved by Ordinance No. 3944, passed
on July 2, 2012 and codified in Chapter 17.65 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code,
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 new developments pay their fair share toward short- and long-term transportation
improvements
• A Library Development Impact Fee as approved by Ordinance No. 3945, passed on July
2, 2012 and codified in Chapter 17.67 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code, to find
the costs of expansion of the amount of library space and the number of collection items
attributable to new residential construction
• A Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development impact Fee, as approved by
Ordinance No. 3946. passed on July 2, 2012 and codified in Chapter 17.76 of the
Huntington Beach i lunicipal Code, to fund the costs of providing the acquisition,
relocation and expansion of parkland and park facilities development attributable to new
residential and nonresidential construction
• A Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fee, pursuant to Chapter 14.36 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code, to fund sewer capacity enhancements to accommodate new
development requiring service from the City sewer system
• A Drainage Facilities Fee, pursuant to Section 14.48.050 of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code, restricted to use for drainage system enhancements
The DIF Report was made available to the public on December 2, 2021, more than 15
days prior to the regularly scheduled meeting held on December 21, 2021, of the City Council of
the City of Huntington Beach; and
The City first collected and deposited fees in Fiscal Year 2012-1 3; and
21-10754/272665 1
Resolution No. 2021-75
The City Council now wishes to accept the DIF Report and to make requisite findings
relating to unexpended funds for the five-year period ending with Fiscal Year June 30. 2021.
NOW, THEREFORE. BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, the following:
1. The foregoing recitals and determinations are true and correct.
2. The Citv has timely made available to the public the requisite information and proposed
findings concerning the development impact fees received, deposited, invested and expended by
the City.
3. The City Council at its regularly scheduled public meeting of December 21, 2021, has
publicly reviewed the following information as contained in the DIF Report and finds that it
complies with Government Code Section 66006(b), establishing the requirements for annual
reporting on development impact fees:
a. A briefdescription of the type of fee in the account or fund;
b. The amount of the fee:
C. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund;
d. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned:
e. An identification ofcach public improvement on which tees were expended and
the amount of expenditures on each improvement including the total percentage
of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with ices;
f. An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public
improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds
have been collected to complete financing on an incomplete public improvement:
g. A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund,
including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be
expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will
be repaid and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan;
and
It. The amount of any refunds made due to sufficient funds being collected to
complete financing on incomplete public improvements, and the amount of
reallocation of funds made due to administrative costs of refunding unexpended
revenues exceeding the amount to be refunded.
4. The City Council finds that the DIF Report contains the following requisite information
to support making the findings relating to unexpended funds, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66001(d) as of the end of l-iscal Year 2020-21 :
a. Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put:
b. Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which
it is charged;
C. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in
incomplete improvements; and
2t-10754/272665 3
Resolution No. 2021-75
d. Designate the approximate dates on which the anticipated funding is expected to
be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
5. The City Council finds that all fees, payments, and expenditures have been collected,
deposited, invested and expended in compliance with all applicable provisions of Government
Code Section 66000, et. seq.
6. The City Council finds that no refunds or allocations of fees are required pursuant to
Government Code Section 66001(e).
7. The City Council finds that the City is in compliance with the annual reporting
requirements of Government Code Section 66006(b)(1) for Fiscal Year 2020-21.
8. The City Council finds that the City is in compliance with Government Code Section
66001(d) relative to making required fifth year findings for the period beginning in Fiscal Year
2016-17 and ending Fiscal Year 2020-21.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 21st day of December
, 2021.
Mayor
RVffWI�D AND APP ED: APPROVED AS TO
City Manager City Attorney
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
-�_ 0 4---
Chief Financial Officer
21-10754/272665 4
Resolution No. 2021-75
EXHIBIT A
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE REPORT
21-10754/272665 5
• • �♦
�NTING rO
��croea,�'ye�
I• � 11' - `" T � C � s
all _ _ „ �►�"-_ _
• I '. � I �. Q a'�ks COUNTY CP i
4 ♦ -
r
It •may. Y� \1 _ • _
4
f t 1
l
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Report
Fiscal Year Ended
June 30, 2021
((.. NAMGTA n O` \N0 R?0 RA IE" 'Y n
2
9" FFB 17. 1991
cF �UNTY CPS\
Submitted by
Dahle Bulosan, Chief Financial Officer
Intentionally
Left
Blank
Table of Contents
CityCouncil Directory ................................................................................................I
City Officials Directory ...............................................................................................III
TransmittalLetter...........................................................................................................1
Introduction
Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting .....................................3
Description of Development Impact Fees...................................................................5
Development Impact Fee Master Fee Schedule.........................................................9
Development Impact Fee Report
Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance Summary.......11
Financial Summary Report
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee ............................13
Police Facilities Development Impact Fee..................................................................17
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee......................................................................19
Library Development Impact Fee................................................................................21
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund .....................................................................23
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund ...................................................................................27
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program ......................................................33
Development Impact Fee Project Identification
CI P.............................................................................................................................39
Council Action
Request for Council Action December 17, 2018.........................................................43
Resolution 2018-85 Amending Development Impact Fee Schedule to Include ADU ..48
Development Impact Fee on Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU)...................................58
Request for Council Action May 7, 2012.....................................................................66
Resolution 2012.23 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report............75
Ordinance 3942 — Police Facilities Development Impact Fee.....................................102
Ordinance 3943 — Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee ........................................113
Ordinance 3944 — Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program .........................124
Ordinance 3945 — Library Development Impact Fee ..................................................140
Ordinance 3946 — Parkland Acquisition & Park Facilities Development Impact Fee...150
Ordinance 3947 — General Provisions for Development Impact Fees.........................161
Comparison of Current vs. Proposed Development Impact Fees ...............................169
Master Facilities Plan.................................................................................................173
Development Impact Fee Calculation & Nexus Report...............................................269
Intentionally
Left
Blank
t,ArrS 1167p4
City Council Directory
Kim Carr Barbara Delgleize
Mayor Mayor Pro Tern
Erik Peterson Mike Posey Dan Kalmick
Council Member Council Member Council Member
Natalie Moser Rhonda Bolton
Council Member Council Member
i
Intentionally
Left
Blank
aCity Official Directory
Elected Officials
CityAttorney ............................................................................ Michael Gates
City Clerk ................................................................................. Robin Estanislau
City Treasurer .......................................................................... Alisa Backstrom
City Manager's Office
City Manager ............................................................................ Oliver Chi
Assistant City Manager ............................................................ Travis Hopkins
Department Directors
Administrative Services ........................................................... Brittany Mello, Interim
Community Development ........................................................ Ursula Luna-Reynosa
Community & Library Services ................................................. Chris Slama
Finance .................................................................................... Dahle Bulosan
Fire ........................................................................................... Scott Haberle
Police ....................................................................................... Julian Harvey, Interim
PublicWorks ............................................................................ Sean Crumby
III
Intentionally
Left
Blank
IV
��NS I NCIO
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
V —'- 2000 Main Street. Fluntinetm Beach, CA 92648
9✓�FU^iY�AE0e2 FINANCE DEPARTMENT�o
December 21. 2021
Dear Mayor and Members of the City Council:
The City Council approved the establishment of Development Impact Fees through the enactment of
Government Code Sections 66001 through 66009. Four ordinances have been adopted establishing
development impact fees for Parkland .Acquisition and Park Facilities, Police Facilities, Fire Facilities,
and Library. The law requires any local agency that imposes development impact fees to prepare an
annual report providing specific information about those fees. Additionally, three Public Works facilities
improvement fees - Planned Local Drainage, Sanitary Sewer Facilities. and Fair Share Traffic Impact
Mitigation Program - collected for development projects are also included in the annual compliance
report requirement.
In accordance with the provisions of the California Government Code Section 66006 (b) and 66001 (d),
as amended by Assembly Bill (A) 518 and Senate Bill (SB) 1693. I hereby submit the Development
Impact Fee (DIF) Report for the City of Huntington Beach. California for the fiscal year (FY) ended
June 30, 2021.
DIFs are charged by local governmental agencies in connection with approval of development projects.
The purpose of these fees is to defray all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the
development project. The legal requirements for enactment of a DIF program are set forth in
Government Code 66000-66025 (the -mitigation Fee Act"). the bulk of which was adopted as 1987's
AB 1600 and thus commonly referred to as "AB 1600 requirements".
DIFs are collected at the time a building permit is issued for mitigating the impacts caused by new
development on the City's infrastructure. Fees are used to finance the acquisition, construction and
improvement of public facilities needed because of this new development. A separate fund has been
established to account for the impact of new development on each of the following types of public
facilities.
State law requires the City prepare and make available to the public the DIF Report within 180 days after
the last day of each fiscal year. The City Council must review the annual report at a regular scheduled
public meeting not less than fifteen days after the information is made available to the public. This report
was filed with the City Clerk's office and available for public review on December 2, 2021.
Sinccrelv,
Dahle Bulosan
Chief Financial Officer
1
Intentionally
Left
Blank
2
�rytING)Q
Introduction
Legal Requirements for Development Impact Fee Reporting
California Government Code Section 66006 (b)
California Government Code Section 66006 (b) defines the specific reporting requirements for local
agencies that impose AB 1600 DIFs on new development. Annually,for each separate fund established
for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, the local agency shall, within 180 days of the close of the
fiscal year, make available to the public the information shown below for the most recent fiscal year.
a) A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund.
b) The amount of the fee.
c) The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund.
d) The amount of the fees collected and interest earned.
e) An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of
the expenditures on each improvement, including the total percentage of the cost of the public
improvement that was funded with fees.
f) An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the public improvement
will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to
complete financing on an incomplete public improvement, as identified in paragraph (2) of
subdivision (a) of Section 66001, and the public improvement remains incomplete.
g) A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including the
public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case
of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest that the
account or fund will receive on the loan.
h) The amount of refunds made pursuant to subdivision (e) of Section 66001 and any allocations
pursuant to subdivision (f) of Section 66001.
California Government Code Section 66001 (d)
For all funds established for the collection and expenditure of DIFs, California Government Code
Section 66001 (d) has additional requirements. For the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into
the fund and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings with
respect to that portion of the fund remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted:
a) Identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put.
b) Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and purpose for which it is charged.
c) Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing in incomplete
improvements identified in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a).
d) Designate the approximate dates on which the funding referred to in subparagraph (c) is
expected to be deposited into the appropriate account or fund.
California Government Code Section 66002
The State of California Government Code Section 66002 states that:
a) Any local agency, which levies a fee subject to Section 66001, may adopt a capital
improvement plan, which shall indicate the approximate location, size, time of availability, and
estimates of cost for all facilities or improvements to be financed with the fees.
3
4 HJF.!NNG)pk r
ryC� Ba
9 - • \,(/
Introduction
F�'�JATY Ca��
California Government Code Section 66002 (Continued)
b) The capital improvement plan shall be adopted by, and shall be annually updated by, a
resolution of the governing body of the local agency adopted at a noticed public hearing. Notice
of the hearing shall be given pursuant to Section 65090. In addition, mailed notice shall be
given to any city or county, which may be significantly affected by the capital improvement plan.
This notice shall be given no later than the date the local agency notices the public hearing
pursuant to Section 65090. The information in the notice shall be not less than the information
contained in the notice of public hearing and shall be given by first-class mail or personal
delivery.
c) "Facility" or"improvement," as used in this section, means any of the following:
1) Public buildings, including schools and related facilities; provided that school facilities
shall not be included if Senate Bill 97 of the 1987-88 Regular Session is enacted and
becomes effective on or before January 1, 1988.
2) Facilities for the storage, treatment, and distribution of nonagricultural water.
3) Facilities for the collection, treatment, reclamation, and disposal of sewage.
4) Facilities for the collection and disposal of storm waters and for flood control purposes.
5) Facilities for the generation of electricity and the distribution of gas and electricity.
6) Transportation and transit facilities, including but not limited to streets and supporting
improvements, roads, overpasses, bridges, harbors, ports, airports, and related
facilities.
7) Parks and recreation facilities.
8) Any other capital project identified in the capital facilities plan adopted pursuant to
Section 66002.
4
o B„
ppN ^
o p
q ^ ,
.. oe Introduction
BF�OUNr`CP`w
Description of Development Impact Fees
Police Facilities Development Impact Fees
Background: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3942,
which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) by adding Chapter 17.75 relating to
Law Enforcement Facilities Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July
2, 2012.
Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.75.090, the funds collected from the Police 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:
1) The costs of providing the acquisition, construction, furnishing of new buildings;
2) Purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles
3) Development of a Master Plan to identify capital facilities,
4) 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
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees
Background: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3946,
which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) by adding Chapter 17.76 relating to
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees. The second reading of the
Ordinance was approved on July 2, 2012.
Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.76.090, the funds collected from 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) The acquisition of additional propertyfor 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, projects identified in the City's General Plan, the Master Facilities
Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City's Capital Improvement Plan, the adopted
annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City Council approved park acquisition and
development projects.
5
o`5N;I-N Il ^
N �
9�FH,,,c✓g Introduction coJ
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
Since the City's 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 improvement less than the $50,000 threshold are still eligible park
expenses as long as they are included in the documents referenced in item 4 above of 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.
Library Development Impact Fees
Background: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3945,
which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) by adding Chapter 17.67 relating to
Library Development Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July 2,
2012.
Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.67.065, the funds collected from the Library Development Impact Fees
shall be used to fund the costs of expansion of the amount of library space and the number of collection
items attributed to the new residential construction and shall include:
1) The acquisition of additional property for Library construction;
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 collections,
5) The funding of master plan to identify capital facilities;
6) To serve new users and patrons;
7) 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.
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees
Background: On June 18, 2012, the City Council approved the introduction of Ordinance No. 3942,
which amended the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC) by adding Chapter 17.74 relating to
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees. The second reading of the Ordinance was approved on July
2, 2012.
Fee Description: Per HBMC 17.74.090, the funds collected from the Fire Facilities Development Impact
Fees 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:
1) The acquisition of additional property for Fire Department facilities;
2) The construction of new facilities for Fire Department services;
3) The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for Fire Department services;
4) The purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles for Fire Department services;
5) The funding of a Master Plan to identify capital facilities to serve new Fire Department
development;
6
1.0 rON1-N610 n
9=.. _ram-• . h
oe9 Introduction
CfOOJNP.'Ca\`
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
6) 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.
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
Fee Description: The Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program (Traffic Impact Fee) 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.
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 Traffic Impact Fee for
the City Council. The process also provides an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review
revenues and expenditures under the program.
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
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.
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund
Fee Description: The Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund (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. In accordance with Section
14.36.070 (d) of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is
required to prepare an annual report of the status of the Sewer Fund for the City Council. The process
also provides an opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review revenues and expenditures
under the program.
The Sewer 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.
7
>�tNpx! G, ..
NBF
_ v
Introduction
CF�DN,rtt Cx`�l
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund
Fee Description: The Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund (Drainage Fund) is a development fee
that is restricted to use for drainage system enhancement. In accordance with Section 14.48.050 (d)
of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code (HBMC), the Public Works Department is required to prepare
an annual report of the status of the Drainage Fund for the City Council. The process also provides an
opportunity for the Public Works Commission to review revenues and expenditures under the program.
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.
8
=6f�OVN11 C'a �;r
' Introduction
. oa
4
Master Fee Schedule
Development Impact Fees
(per Resolution 2012-23 and amended on 1211 T 18 to include ADU DIF)
Law Fire Circulation Systems Public Parkland,
Land Use Enforcement Suppression (Streets. Signals, Library Open Space 8
Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Facilities
(No Tract Map
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $ 362.05 S 844 11 $ 2.385 00 S 1,179 72 S 16,554 73
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) S 74648 S 349.85 S 1.59700 S 866 48 S 12,732.84
Accessory Dwelling Units (per Unit) $ 183 50 S 86.00 ' $ 21300 S 3,130.00
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $ 337 64 S 1.44923 S 1,248.00 S 708.85 S 10.222.98
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/Inp $0.041/SF $0.234/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/tnp $0 041/SF $0 234/Sf
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. R ) S 0 953 S 0.301 $ 4.175 No Fee S 0.897
IndustnaliManufactunng Uses (per sq ft ) S 0.406 S 00275 $ 1.716 No Fee S 0.730
Notes: ' See Schedule Rates of Traffic Impact Fees. amended 12/17/2018 to include Accessory Dwelling
9
MOMI M6)�
� z
Introduction
Master Fee Schedule
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees
(per Resolution 2012-23 and updated May 2021)
Land Use Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling
unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES (per Unit)
Detached Dwelling Unit S 2,624.30 /Unit
Apartment S 1,843.08 /Unit
Condominium/ Townhouse S 1,607.96 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling $ 1,372,83 /Unit
RESORT/TOURIST(per Unit or Entry Door)
Hotel S 1,812.75 /Room
All Suites Hotel S 1,084.61 /Room
Motel S 1,251,48 /Room
INDUSTRIAL (per 1,000 SF)
General Light Industrial S 2.108,54 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial S 2,040.29 /1,000 sf
Manufacturing $ 932.91 11,000 sf
Warehousing S 1.501.77 /1,000 sf
COMMERCIAL (per 1,000 S17
Office Park $ 2.472,61 /1,000 sf
Research Park $ 1.668.63 /1.000 sf
Business Park $ 3.117.30 /1,000 sf
Bldg Matenals/Lumber Store $ 4,78&94 /1,000 sf
Garden Center $ 3,822.69 /1,000 sf
Mode Theater $ 401.99 /1.000 sf
Church $ 96126 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office S 7,410.25 /1.000 sf
General Office Building S 2.389.18 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center $ 4.922.47 /1.000 sf
Hospital S 1.865.83 /1.000 sf
Discount Center $ 10,262.09 /1.000 sf
High-Tumover Restaurant $ 1.448 67 /1,000 sf
Convenience Market S 7.106 86 /1,000 sf
Office Park S 2,275A1 /1,000 sf
OTHER(as noted)
Cemetery S 500 58 /Acre
Service Station/Market (avg) S 17.558 57 /Fuel Position
Service Station w/Car Wash S 16.200.91 /Fuel Position
10
N�NT�M6)0
9
'ems _ Foes Development Impact Fee Report
Frp�V��
Statement of Revenues. Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021`
Development Impact Fees
Parkland
Acquisition Sewer Drainage Traffic
& Park Police Fire Library Facilities Facilities Impact
Description Facilifies Facilities Facilities Facilities Fund Fund Fees
REVENUES
Fees 788,972 154,900 99,561 104,298 92,206 217.735 225,314
Interest 3,088 9,948 5,042 1,084 12.285 8,706
Other Revenue 12,310 106
Total Revenues 792,060 164,948 104,603 105,382 104,516 230,020 234,126
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 3,556,058 349,272 2,954,357 26,749 52,308
Total Expenditures 3,556,058 349,272 2,954,357 26,749 52,308
Rev Over/(Under) Exp (2,763,998) 164,848 104,603 (243,890) (2,849.841) 203,271 181,818
Beginning Fund Balance 13,125,968 1,758,089 929,316 1.229,988 7,084,170 2,518,623 2,739.414
Ending Fund Balance 10,361,970 1,922,937 1,033,919 986,098 4,234,329 2,721,894 2,921,232
Note: Unaudited actual
11
Intentionally
Left
Blank
12
H�w1 NSl�
°t 4w.,,
... .� e
+ ^;'� Financial Summary Report
fsFCpu�cx`t
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees
The Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee program is intended to implement the
goals, objectives and policies of the City of Huntington Beach General Plans 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 (HBMC 17.76,020 (B).
Fiscal Status
This report presents the fund information based on the Clty's preliminary audit for Fiscal Year 2020/21. The
balance for the fund at the beginning of the fiscal year was $13,125,968, During FY 2020/21, the Parkland
Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund recognized $788,972 in impact fees paid, as
well as $3.088 in interest and market adjustment for a total of$792,060.
Expenditures from the fund totaled $3,556,058 for a wide range of projects, including the construction of new
Edison Community Center building improvements ($1.3 million), LeBard Park Improvements ($390k), various
ADA playground equipment and accessibility improvements at Bushard. Circle View, and Schroeder Parks
($660k). LeBard Park purchase final payment ($316k), as well as other various park improvements. The fund
balance at the end of the fiscal year is $10.361,970.
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17118" FY 18119 FY 19120 FY 20121'
REVENUES
Fees 537,612 3,150,305 7.941.094 4.026.144 385,395 788,972
Interest 21.807 14,479 (29,654) 495,707 383,539 3.088
Other Revenue 50
Total Revenues 559,419 3,164,784 7,911,489 4,521,851 768,934 792,060
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 627,281 901,073 758.321 1,533,146 2,949.744 3,556,058
Total Expenditures 627,281 901,073 758,321 1,533,146 2,949,744 3,556,058
Rev Over/(Under) Exp (67.712) 2,263.711 7.153.168 2,988.705 (2.180,810) (2,763.998)
Beginning Fund Balance 2.968.906 2,901.194 5.154,905 12.318.073 15,306,778 13.125,968
Ending Fund Balance 2,901,194 5,164,905 12,318,073 15,306,778 13,125,968 10,361,970
Note: ^Reflects a 9-mon1h fiscal period An increase in revenue was due to the following development
FY 1 S16 Pacific City.Waterfront Hilton Expansion, and New Beach Boulevard Medical Building
FY 16/17 and 17!18 Pacific City and Monogram final building
'Unaudited actual
13
r�N;.INC�Q
Ot ya 1
�—ter 144::
r , ';' Financial Summary Report
OP
OVIM
tCad\
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
Planned Park Projects, Studies, and Expenditures
The FY 2021122 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) includes funding for the following new projects:
Huntington Central Park Disc Golf Course Reconfiguration ($100,000), Sun View Playground Improvements
(Proposition 68 Per Capita Grant match amount of S44,488), Edison Park Reconfiguration Preliminary Design
($300,000), Marina Park Conceptual Design ($35,000), Carr Park Improvements preliminary design
($100,000), Bluff Top Park Improvements-Year 2 ($750,000), Harbor View Clubhouse Improvements-Year 2
(775,000), Central Library Fountain Restoration-Year 2 ($620,000), LeBard Park-Ph. II (680,000), Huntington
Central Park Restroom-Ph. III (S103,000). The combined total of these planned projects is $3,507,488. It is
anticipated that these projects will either be completed or encumbered by June 30, 2022.
Future Protect and Fund Balance
Per HBMC 17.76.090 (A)(5), use of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee funds
are restricted to 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, the adopted annual
City of Huntington Beach budget, or City Council approved park acquisition and development projects. Often,
these types of projects require multiple years to plan and construct due to changing City priorities, community
involvement, and the entitlement process. With expenditures totaling millions of dollars, staff recommends
that the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development 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 also uses Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee funds as a
"matching fund" when pursuing park enhancement projects for grant funding opportunities as available.
Looking forward, other potential uses of the fund balance include construction funding for the Edison Park
Reconfiguration Improvements over a two-year period, with an anticipated completion date of June 2024.
Additionally it is anticipated that the final plans and specs for the Marina Park Reconfiguration project would
begin in FY 2022/23, with construction beginning in FY 2023/24. Finally, continued playground ADA
equipment improvements as listed on the City Council approved Park Playground & Equipment Replacement
Priority List are also planned on an on-going basis through FY 2024/25 at an estimated cost of$3 million.
14
��Mi.Msro —
,y Financial Summary Report
cf�o¢Mv v°��
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees (Continued)
Summary of Revenue and Expenditures
Parkland Acquisition & Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund'
Beginning Balance 7/1/2020 $13,125,968
Revenue
Developer Fees (Residential) 551.774
Developer Fees (Commercial) 237.198
Others, Interest, & Adjustments 3.088
Total Revenue $792,060
Expenditures
Various Park Improvements/Monument Signs (4,094)
Park Leases (10.068)
Bartlett Park Loop Trail (2,502)
Edison Playground Reconfiguration (75,948)
Edison Community Center Improvements (1,355,772)
Edison Park Reconfiguration (12,386)
Harbor View Clubhouse Rehabilitation (24,770)
HCP Group Picnic Area Reuse Improvements (213,042)
Huntington Central Library Fountain Improvements (45,503)
Irby Park Improvements (29,860)
Lake Park Reconfiguration (21,035)
LeBard Park Improvements (390,654)
LeBard Park Land Purchase (final payment) (316.050)
Murdy Park Sports Fields (16,081)
Playground Improvements (Bushard-Circle View) (323,013)
Rodgers Seniors Center Redevelopment (134,357)
Schroeder Park Improvements (337,714)
Huntington Central Park Art Installation (90.000)
Personnel and Professional Services 151208)
Total Expenditures S 3,556.058
Beginning Balance 711/2021 $10,361,970
'Fgures are rounded to the nearest dollar
Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives
The Park Development Impact Fee Program Is Intended to Implement the goals, objectives and policies of
the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, as staled in the Municipal Code Chapter 17.76. Completion of
the planned projects is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Park Development Impact Fee
program.
The Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund reports funds being held past
the fifth year and first deposit. These funds are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project
Identification section of this annual compliance report.
15
Intentionally
Left
Blank
16
o4r��t�.xero�s
F
u �1r Y
: '"'�""'.'o� Financial Summary Report
Fro •.�.�``
uq*r
Police Facilities Development Impact Fee
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 171W FY 18/19 FY 19120 FY 20121•
REVENUES
Fees 137,073 253,771 461,454 278,513 178,437 154.900
Interest 3,475 2,333 (1,198) 48.848 49.575 9,948
Other Revenue
Total Revenues 140,548 256,104 460,256 327,361 228,012 164,948
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 140.548 256,104 460.256 327.361 228,012 164,848
Beginning Fund Balance 345,808 486.356 742460 1,202.716 1,530.077 1,758,089
Ending Fund Balance 486,356 742,460 1,202,716 1,530,077 1.758,089 1,922,937
Note 'Reflects a 9-month fiscal penod
'Unaudited actual
The Police Facilities Development Impact Fees of $154,900 and a $9.948 interest/bank adjustments were
posted in FY 2020/21, There were no expenditures during the Fiscal Year 2020/21 to the Police Facilities
Development Impact Facilities funds.
The Police Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first
deposit. These funds are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this
annual compliance report.
17
Intentionally
Left
Blank
18
o`+pM4 M.6)0y�
i
Financial Summary Report
rF�OVIYir V�\`
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/18^ FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21•
REVENUES
Fees 67,705 104,346 225,915 156.211 98.953 99,561
Interest 2.100 1.314 (552) 25.418 27.274 5,042
Other Revenue
Total Revenues 69,805 105,660 225,363 181,629 126,227 104,603
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures
Total Expenditures
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 69,805 105,660 225.363 181,629 126.227 104,603
Beginning Fund Balance 220.632 290,437 396.097 621,460 803.089 929.316
Ending Fund Balance 290,437 396,097 621,460 803,089 929,316 1,033,919
Note: "Reflects a 9-month fiscal period
'Unaudited actual
The Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees of$99.561 and a $5,042 interest/bank adjustments were posted
in FY 2020121. There were no expenditures during the Fiscal Year 2020/21 to the Fire Facilities Development
Impact Facilities funds.
The Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first deposit.
These funds are intended for the projects Identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this annual
compliance report.
19
Intentionally
Left
Blank
20
Hie".M6r�
et ��..,, fs�
:,!,`"'";"okt Financial Summary Report
sF�DONT1 t"4
Library Development Impact Fee
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 15/16 FY 16/17 FY 17/1B" FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21•
REVENUES
Fees 64,147 208,080 532,513 313.292 128,248 104.298
Interest 2,827 1,651 (1,842) 40.351 36,229 1,084
Other Reeenue
Total Revenues 66,974 209,731 530,671 353,643 164,477 105,382
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 92.672 53.806 50,313 125.856 156,639 349.272
Total Expenditures 92,672 53,806 50,313 125,856 156,639 349,272
RevOwrl(Under) Exp (25.698) 155,925 480.358 227,787 7,838 (243.890)
Beginning Fund Balance 383,778 358,080 514,005 994,363 1,222,150 1,229,988
Ending Fund Balance 358,080 514,005 994,363 1,222,150 1,229,988 986,098
Note: "Reflects a 9-month fiscal period
'Unaudited actual
Library Development Impact Fees of 5104.298 and interesUbank adjustments of $1,084 were posted in
FY 2020/21. Expenditures incurred in FY 2020121 include book/e-book/digital purchases ($181,311), as well
as professional services charges for the development of the Library Facilities Master Plan ($167,961), for a
total of 5349.272.
21
Intentionally
Left
Blank
22
o`H�Mt�c�o�s
' ,�•""`- • � Financial Summary Report
'``f��UbTI(�����e
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30. 2021
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 15116 FY 16/17 FY 17/18A FY 18/19 FY 19/20 FY 20/21'
REVENUES
Fees 615,331 58,004 72,646 429.294 703,122 217.735
Interest 10.424 5.648 4.055 53,429 74,100 12.285
Other Revenue (386)
Total Revenues 625,755 63,652 76,701 482,337 777,222 230,020
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 63,795 236,119 26,749
Total Expenditures 63,795 236,119 26,749
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 625,755 (143) (159,418) 482,337 777.222 203,271
Beginning Fund Balance 792,870 1,418,625 1,418,482 1,259,064 1,741,401 2,518,623
Ending Fund Balance 1,418,625 1,418,482 1,259,064 1,741.401 2,518,623 2,721,894
Note: 'Reflects a 9-month fiscal penal
'Unaudited actual
Please see Request for Action Item submitted to Public Works Commission on November 17. 2021,
The Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first deposit. These
funds are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this annual compliance
report.
23
Intentionally
Left
Blank
24
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Chairperson and Members of the Commission
SUBMITTED BY: Sean Crumby, PE, Director of Public Works
DATE: November 17, 2021
SUBJECT: Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund Annual Compliance
Report for Fiscal Year 2020/21
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 revenues and expenditures under the program.
Funding Source: No funding is required for this action.
Recommended Action: Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval
of the Planned Local Drainage Facility Fund Compliance Report for Fiscal Year
2020/21 .
Alternative Action(s): Recommend revisions to the reports.
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) 2020/21 .
Fiscal Status:
The Drainage Fund advanced $250,000 to the Redevelopment Agency for
improvements in 1987. With interest accrual of $672,750, the debt amount is
currently $922,750. As a result, the Fund maintained a negative balance over a
25
period of ten years until FY 12/13, when the fund ended with a positive balance.
In FY 2019/20, the Drainage Fund ended the year with a balance of $2,518,623.
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 2020/21 from development was $217,735 and interest and market
adjustments to the fund totaled $12,285 for total revenue of $230,020.
Expenditures:
Expenditures for FY 2020/21 totaled $26,749 for consultant fees related to work on
the Drainage Master Plan.
Conformance with Proaram Goals and Obiectives:
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.
Summary of Revenue and Expenditures
Local Drainage Facilities Fund'
Beginning Balance 7/1/2020 $2,518,623
Revenue
Developer Fees 217,735
Interest and Adjustments 12,285
Total Revenue $230,020
Expenditures
Drainage Master Plan 26,749
Total Expenditures $ 26,749
[Beginning Balance 711/2021 $2,721,894
*Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar
Rate Schedule
The Drainage Fee for FY 2020/21 was $14,888 per acre.
Attachments: None.
26
ct r.�"t xcrpys
Financial Summary Report
'4sf�ouxrr"`\`o
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 15118 FY 16117 FY 17118" FY 18119 FY 19120 FY 20121'
REVENUES
Fees 2,041,554 38.582 180,456 215,496 405.790 92,206
Interest 59.838 31.458 17.063 257,329 188,404
Other Re�ierue 12.310 45,058 (2,214) 12,310 12,310
Total Revenues 2,101,392 82,350 242,577 470,611 606,504 104,516
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 92.110 159,127 341,264 1,898,104 85,394 2.954,357
Total Expenditures 92,110 159.127 341,264 1,898,104 85,394 2,954,357
Rev Over/(Under) Exp 2.009.282 (76,777) (98,687) (1,427,493) 521,110 (2,849,841)
Beginning Fund Balance 6.156.735 8.166,017 8.089.240 7,990.553 6,563,060 7,084,170
Ending Fund Balance 8,166,017 8,089,240 7,990,553 6,563,060 7,094,170 4,234,329
Note: "Reflects a 9-month fiscal period
'Unaudited actual
Please see Request for Action Item submitted to Public Works Commission on November 17, 2021.
The Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund reports funds being held past the fifth year and first deposit. These funds
are intended for the projects identified in the DIF Project Identification section of this annual compliance report.
27
Intentionally
Left
Blank
28
J ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Chairperson and Members of the Commission
SUBMITTED BY: Sean Crumby, PE, Director of Public Works
DATE: November 17, 2021
SUBJECT: Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Annual Compliance Report
Fiscal Year 2020/21
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 revenues and expenditures under the program.
Funding Source: No funding is required for this action.
Recommended Action: Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval
of the Annual Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund Compliance Report for Fiscal Year
2020/21 .
Alternative Action(s): Recommend revisions to the reports.
Analysis:
The Sanitary Sewer Fund is comprised of development fees that are charged
when an increase is sewage flow occurs due to development of property. The
use of those fees are restricted to increasing the capacity of the sewer system to
accommodate the flow from that development. 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 July 2003, the
29
Sewer Facilities Fund has existed since 1988. The following information covers
Fiscal Year (FY) 2020/21 .
Fiscal Status:
The Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund advanced $131 ,000 to the Redevelopment
Agency for improvements in 1987. With interest accrual of $356,289, the debt
amount for the fiscal year end was $487,289.
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 2020/21 was $104,516. Residential and commercial developer
fees contributed $92,206. In addition, the City received $12,310 from the Sunset
Beach Sanitary District representing the agency's share for the construction of Lift
Station D.
Expenditures:
Expenditures for the fund in FY 2020/21 totaled $2,954,357. Ongoing construction
costs at Saybrook Lift Station totaled $909,627. Ongoing construction costs at
Slater Lift station totaled $1 ,847,201 . Engineering/design costs for the McFadden
Lift Station totaled $197,529. It should be noted that these projects are also
partially funded by the Sewer Service Fund.
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.
30
Summary of Revenue and Expenditures
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund'
-Beginning Balance 7f112020 $7,084,170
Revenue
Developer Fees (Residential) 92.206
Sunset Beach SD 12,310
Total Revenue $104,516
Expenditures
McFadden Lift Station (197,529)
Saybrook Lift Station (909,627)
Slater Lift Station 1.847,621
Total Expenditures $ 2,954,357
Beginning Balance 71112021 $4,234,329
'Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar
Rate Structure Fiscal Year 2020/21
CITY SEWER CONNECTION FEES Effective July 1 2019
Single Family Dwelling Unit $2,380
Multiple Family Dwelling Unit $1,946
Non-Residential (based on water meter size relationship to Equivalent Dwelling Unit, EDU )
Meter Size & Type EDU's Charge
3/4" 1 $2,704
1" 2 $5,409
1 Y2" 3 $8,114
2" 5 $13,526
3" 11 $29,756
4" Compound 17 $45,985
4" Domestic& Turbine 33 $89,266
6" Compound 33 $89,266
6" Domestic 8 Turbine 67 $181,234
8" Domestic 117 $316,483
10" Domestic 183 $492,181
Attachments: None.
31
Intentionally
Left
Blank
32
M�NtiM6��
o ��
' '"'' • t Financial Summary Report
�Fcatnnr C*`\te
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2021
Last Five Fiscal Years
Description FY 15116 FY 16117 FY 17118A FY 18119 FY 19120 FY 20121'
REVENUES
Fees 84,900 436,630 713,993 588,763 564,171 225,314
Interest 28,726 15,788 6,049 150,937 83,723 8,706
Other Revenue 925 362,078 70 (1,088) 106
Total Revenues 114,551 814,496 720,112 738,612 647,894 234,126
EXPENDITURES
Expenditures 563,921 610.801 90,191 914,922 2,157,222 52,308
Total Expenditures 563,921 610,801 90,191 914,922 2,157,222 52,308
Rev Overf(Under) Exp (449,370) 203.695 629,921 (176,310) (1,509,328) 181,818
Beginning Fund Balance 4.040,806 3,591,436 3,795,131 4,425,052 4,248,742 2,739,414
Ending Fund Balance 3,591,436 3,795,131 4,425,052 4,248,742 2,739,414 2,921,232
Nob: "Reflects a 9- onth fiscal penod
'Unaudited actual
Please see Request for Action Item submitted to Public Works Commission on November 17, 2021.
33
Intentionally
Left
Blank
34
J ' CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSION
REQUEST FOR ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Chairperson and Members of the Commission
SUBMITTED BY: Sean Crumby, PE, Director of Public Works
DATE: November 17, 2021
SUBJECT: Traffic Impact Fee Fund Annual Compliance Report for Fiscal
Year 2020/21
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 provides an opportunity for the Public
Works Commission to review revenues and expenditures under the program.
Fundinq Source: No funding is required for this action.
Recommended Action: Motion to recommend to the City Council the approval
of the Traffic Impact Fee Fund Annual Compliance Report for Fiscal Year 2020/21 .
Alternative Action(s): Recommend revisions to the reports.
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.
Revenues:
During FY 2020/21, the Traffic Impact Fee fund recognized revenues of $225,420
in Impact Fees Paid and $8,706 in interest and market adjustment for a total of
$234,126.
35
Expenditures:
Expenditures from the fund included $1 ,401 in capital improvement expenses for
Atlanta Avenue Widening. In addition, there were $50,907 in Federal Highway
Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant match expenditures related to traffic
signal modifications at Gothard/Slater, Newland/Ellis Goldenwest/Heil. Total
expenditures were $52,308.
Current Fiscal Year:
The current fiscal year budget includes allocations from the Traffic Impact Fee
fund for 7 projects/studies. Each of these projects has a demonstrated
connection to increased traffic volumes on various streets. The following is a brief
summary of the 9 projects funded with Traffic Impact Fee revenues:
Modification of 3 traffic signals to add protected left turns $ 390,000
(Bolsa Chica/Robinwood, Adams/Target, Brookhurst/Beachmont)
Traffic signal modification - Main/Delaware $ 415,000
Traffic signal modification - Warner/Ash $ 450,000
Bushard Fiber Optic (Bushard Fire Station) $ 25,000
Citywide Mobility and Corridor Improvements $ 400,000
Murdy Fire Station Signal (design only) $ 5,000
Heil Fire Station Signsl (design only) $ 5,000
Total $1,690,000
In addition to these new projects, funding for 2 remaining projects was carried
over into Fiscal Year 21 /22 for construction of projects that were designed and bid
during FY20/21 . The construction contracts were awarded late in FY20/21 and
construction could not begin before the new fiscal year, resulting in the need to
"carry over" the funds for construction. The projects are:
Modification of the Warner/Graham traffic signal $243,036
Modification of the Warner/Nichols and
Brookhurst/Indianapolis traffic signal $ 35,623
Total $278,659
The total planned Traffic Impact Fee expenditure for FY21 /22 is $1 ,968,659.
Projecting the current fiscal year Traffic Impact Fee payments is challenging for
several reasons including the rapidly changing development environment and
completion schedules for projects. It is reasonable to expect that revenues for
the Traffic Impact Fee fund for FY21 /22 are likely to be $200,000 - $350,000.
36
Conformance with Program Goals and Objectives:
The Traffic Impact Fee Program is being used 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 to continue to provide a safe and efficient transportation
system consistent with the goals of the Circulation Element of the General Plan
and is in conformance with the goals and objectives of the Fair Share Traffic
Impact Fee program.
Summary of Revenue and Expenditures
Traffic Impact Fund'
-Beginning Balance 7/1/2020 $2,739,414
Revenue
Traffic Impact Fees 225,240
Interest and Adjustments 8,706
Total Revenue $234,126
Expenditures
Atlanta Avenue Widening (1,401)
Signal Modifications (50.907
Total Expenditures S 52.308
Beginning Balance 7/112021 $2,921,232
'Figures are rounded to the nearest dollar
Attachments:
1 . Traffic Impact Fee Schedule effective May 2021 .
37
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees
Resolution No. 2012-23
(Updated May, 2021)
Land Use Fee
Detached Dwelling Unit $2,624.30 /Unit
Apartment $1,843.08 /Unit
Condominium/Townhouse $1,607.96 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling $1,372.83 /Unit
Hotel $1,812.75 /Room
All Suites Hotel $1,084.61 /Room
Motel $1,251.48 /Room
General Light Industrial $2,108.54 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial $2,040.29 /1,000 sf
Manufacturing $932.91 /1,000 sf
Warehousing $1,501.77 /1,000 sf
Office Park $2,472.61 /1,000 sf
Research Park $1,668.63 /1,000 sf
Business Park $3,117.30 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store $4,785.94 /1,000 sf
Garden Center $3,822.69 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater $401.99 /1,000 sf
Church $963.26 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office $7,410.25 /1,000 sf
General Office Building $2,389.18 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center $4,922.47 /1,000 sf
Hospital $1,865.83 /1,000 sf
Discount Center $10,262.09 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover Restaurant $1,448.67 /1,000 sf
Convenience Market $7,106.86 /1,000 sf
Office Park $2,275.41 /1,000 sf
Cemetery $500.58 /Acre
Service Station/Market (avg) $17,558.57 /Fuel Position
Service Station w/ Car Wash $16,200.91 /Fuel Position
38
Hp���6)p
°t ��i
fsF�o �'��t°!s Development Impact Fee Project Identification
The City's current, Adopted Budget 2021-2022, which includes the Five-Year Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP)2021/22—2025/26 can be found on the City's website at:
https://huntinp,tonbeachca.gov/files/users/finance/Adopted-Budget-2021-2022--9.27.2 i.pdf
Funding of Infrastructure
The FY 2021/22—FY 2025/26 CIP identifies all funding sources and amounts for individual projects through
FY 2025/26. The CIP is updated annually to reflect the current City's infrastructure needs. As a CIP is
identified, the project is evaluated to determine the portion of the project that will service existing residents
and businesses versus new development.
Once the determination of use is made. the percentage of use attributed to new development is then funded
by the appropriate development fee based on the type of project. The percentage of use associated with
existing residents or businesses are funded from other appropriate sources. Estimated construction start
dates for projects are adjusted, as needed, to reflect the needs of the community.
CURRENT MAJOR CIP PROJECTS
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fees
New park development projects included in the Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2021/22 include the
construction of various park improvements as listed below. Funds are also budgeted for park leases,
professional services. and personnel services.
FY 2021/22
Bluff Top Park Improvements - $750,000
The full project includes renovations to the Bluff Top Park area. including the replacement of the railing and
pathway widening (partially State funded), as well as replacement of access ramp and stairway railing, turf
mitigation, and enhanced landscaping at public access nodes.
Carr Park Improvements Preliminary Design - $100,000
Improvements include addressing accessibility issues throughout the park with new walkways, ADA
compliant picnic tables, improved access around the fishing pond, new themed playground equipment to
meet current ADA requirements, as well as pond resurfacing. FY 21-22 funding is for preliminary design
services only. The City has submitted an application to the State for $2.6 million in support of the project
as part of its Proposition 68 Statewide Park Development & Community Revitalization competitive grant
program and is awaiting notification.
Central Library Fountain Restoration - $620,000
FY 20-21 included funding for design and engineering services. FY 21-22 includes $620,000 in Park
Development funding for partial funding of the total construction costs associated with the rehabilitation of
the fountains. Additional funding sources include the Library Impact Fee and Infrastructure Funds.
Edison Park Reconfiguration Preliminary Design - $300,000
This multi-year project includes the reconfiguration of Edison Park to include dual use tennis/pickleball
courts, repurposing of group picnic area, additional soccer fields, tot lot playground improvements.
walkways, parking lot rehabilitation, turf and irrigation improvements. FY 20-21 includes funding for design
services.
Harbour View Clubhouse Improvements - $775,000
Construction of facility improvements to address ADA conformance, as well as aging equipment and
materials throughout the building.
39
0 Development Impact Fee Project Identification
Huntington Central Park Disc Golf Course Reconfiguration - $100,000
Evaluation and construction of improvements to existing configuration with the goal of mitigating the
challenges on the lower level playing field.
Huntington Central Park Restrooms - $103.000
This multi-year project included the re-construction of all six (6) restroom facilities in Huntington Central
Park. FY 21-22 funding is required to complete the final restroom.
LeBard Park Improvements (Ph. 11) - $680.000
Year 2 of a two-year project including new playground equipment, turf, irrigation and concrete walkway
rehabilitation. Year 2 to include tennis court renovation, as well as a structural analysis of the existing
clubhouse.
Marina Park Conceptual Design Reconfiguration - $35,000
Preparation of a conceptual master plan to update the park, including renovation of existing restroom/snack
bar building, tennis courts, and potential repurposing of hardscape areas to include pickle ball courts, or
other park amenities.
Sun View Playground Improvements - $44 488 (20% grant match amount)
Improvements include the installation of new play units, ADA safety surfacing, swing set, and walkways.
The budgeted amount represents the 20% match associated with the Proposition 68 2018 Parks Bond Act
Per Capita Grant award amount of$177,952. Total project cost is estimated at $222,400.
FY 2022/23
Preliminary projects include the second year of the two-year Edison Park Reconfiguration project, Marina
Park, as well as possible partial funding of Carr Park design services depending on the final outcome of the
Proposition 68 Statewide Park Development & Community Revitalization Competitive Grant award. Other
preliminary projects include the continuation of various playground equipment and site turf improvements
as needed throughout the city in order to comply with ADA requirements, as well as potential partial funding
of the future Oak View Community Center improvements.
FY 2023/24
Preliminary projects include the continuation of playground equipment rehabilitation at various parks as
listed on the City Council approved Park Playground & Equipment Replacement Priority List, as well as
additional projects as recommended in the Parks & Recreation Master Plan 2021 update currently
underway.
Police Facilities Development Impact Fees
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2021/22 includes the following projects funded by Police Facilities
Development Impact Fees:
Communications Center Remodel - $780,000
The Police Department Building was completed in 1974 and needs infrastructure upgrades due to age.
The Dispatch Center is too small to accommodate the current number of employees. The project includes
relocation of the current Watch Commander's area to facilitate relocation of the Dispatch Center to a larger
area and more appropriately accommodate 2151 century policing.
Traffic Office Remodel - $180,000
The traffic department consists of old modular walls that are not configured to accommodate current
employees and workflow. The project includes renovation and refurbishment of the Traffic Bureau interior
of the Police Department and complete redesign of interior walls and workspace.
40
wJri11N�rON v
'��F "`' -' .t°` Development Impact Fee Project Identification
rOJNi:.�s�
Police Intersection Camera System Installations - $164,000
Project includes the installation of 360-degree view cameras at 11 intersections throughout the City. The
new cameras, hardware and software would provide Police the ability to monitor traffic at specific loactions
and record/store data for law enforcement and investigation purposes.
HOPE Proiect- $368,000
In April 2021, City Council approved implementation of a Mobile Crisis Response pilot program and
selection of Be Well OC (Mind OC) as the service provider for the program. Police Development Impact
Fees were identified and approved to fund a portion of the first year costs.
Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2021/22 includes the construction for reconfiguration and renovation
of Fire Station#5 (Lake)and Fire Station #2 (Murdy). This project is needed for gender accommodation, in
addition to better use of space to accommodate personnel and services in Fire Department facilities. The
project includes professional services contracts for assessments of Fire Department facilities.
The Fire Facilities Development Fees are eligible for expenditures related to providing additional Fire
suppression and medic facilities, vehicles and equipment associated with residential and nonresidential
construction. The Master Facilities Plan for the City of Huntington Beach, adopted in October 2011,
identifies the following eligible projects:
Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil)
Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility
Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4 (Magnolia)
Acquire an Engine and Ambulance and for Station #4 (Magnolia)
Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #1 (Gothard)
Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #2 (Murdy)
These projects will be evaluated and considered for submission in the FY 2022/23 budget process.
Library Development Impact Fees
The Library Development Impact Fees are eligible for expenditures related to costs for expanded or new
library spaces and the number of collection items attributed to new residential construction. Future use of
funds include continued expenditures for library collection materials, such as books and media items
(DVD, books on CD and music CDs), as well as $300,000 in partial funding for rehabilitation and
restoration of the Central Library Fountains included in the City's FY 2021/22 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP). It is anticipated that additional future funds will be allocated to library facility rehabilitation
and expansion projects to be recommended in the Library Facilities Master Plan.
Sanitary Sewer Facilities Fund
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2021/22 through FY 2025/26 includes sewer lift station reconstruction
projects for a total cost of$2.1 million. This will include the rehabilitation/upgrade of Humbolt lift station in
FY 2021/22, with the prioritization of future lift stations to be determined in future fiscal years.
Planned Local Drainage Facilities Fund
The Capital Improvement Plan for FY 2021/22 through FY 2025/26 includes $1.58 million for storm drain
pump station forebay improvements and $1.25 million for the installation of half round grates at various
locations throughout the City.
41
��x�iacrc
'y� ` T' t Development Impact Fee Project Identification
F�cuvr.cp`•
Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program
The FY 2021122 Capital Improvement plan includes a total of$1,690,000 of projects to be funded from Fair
Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees. Of this, $390,000 is for the installation of left turn arrows at Bolsa
Chica/Robinwood, Adams/Target, and Brookhurst/Beachmont, $450,000 is for traffic signal modifications
at Warner/Ash, $415,000 is for traffic signal modifications at Main/Delaware, $25,000 is for fiber optics at
Bushard Fire Station, $400,000 is for Citywide Mobility and Corridor Improvements, and $10,000 is for the
design of fire station signals at the Murdy and Heil Fire Stations.
42
fIPPRp✓�� 7-D
City of Huntington Beach
File #: 18-609 MEETING DATE: 12/17/2018
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Director of Community Development
Subject:
Adopt Resolution No. 2018-85 amending the existing Development Impact Fee schedule to
include Accessory Dwelling Units and removing references to Development Impact Fees from
the Master Fee Schedule
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for City Council consideration (1) amend the City's existing Development Impact Fees to
establish a reduced DIF specific to Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) and (2) remove references to
DIFs from the City's Master Fee Schedule so that it is a standalone schedule. The ADU DIF has
been established in consultation with Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC to ensure that ADUs are not
charged a DIF more than their proportionate share towards public services as established in the
Development Impact Fee Calculatioh and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, dated
October 2011 and amended on April 27, 2012,
Financial Impact:
If adopted, the recommended action will establish a reduced, prorated Development Impact Fee rate
for accessory dwelling units. Estimated revenues from development impact fees related to ADUs are
approximately $48,000 annually.
Recommended Action:
Conduct a public hearing regarding the ADU Development Impact Fees, and, adopt Resolution No.
2018-85, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach Amending the Existing
Development Impact Fee Schedule to Include Accessory Dwelling Units and Removing References
to Development Impact Fees from the Master Fee Schedule."
Alternative Actionlsl:
Do not approve the recommended actions and direct staff accordingly.
Analysis:
Background: On May 7, 2012, the City Council revised the City's existing Development Impact Fees
City of Huntington Beach Page 1 of a Printed on 12112/2018
616 po,ered Cy La�,S.Br 7-
43
File #: 18-609 MEETING DATE: 12/17/2018
(DIFs) by adopting Resolution No. 2012-23 and Ordinance Nos. 3942 through 3947. These actions
resulted in establishing two new DIFs (Law Enforcement and Fire), and updates to three previously
existing DIFs (Traffic, Public Library and Parks).
Revenue & Cost Specialists, LLC (the "Consultant") was retained to assist the City in preparing a
study to: (1) project the future growth to be served, (2) identify the current and projected level of
service for each public facility, (3) identify any additional facilities or improvements needed to
accommodate future growth, and (4) allocate the costs of providing the needed public services
between the existing population and new population. This study was titled Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, dated October 2011, amended on
April 27, 2012, and attached as Attachment 4 (the "Nexus Report").
The City has been collecting the revised DIFs since adoption. The City is required to account for
every fee it collects. Funds collected for each capital facility or service are deposited in separate
accounts and not commingled with any other funds for other impact fees. While funds are accruing
for individual capital facilities, the City must keep track of each fund and provide an annual report.
This information must be provided at a regularly scheduled public meeting. This report has been
scheduled as Item 18-577 on the December 17 City Council agenda.
ADU DIF: The State of California has promoted the construction of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs)
in single-family and multi-family zones as a means to provide additional rental housing. Effective
January of 2017, SB 1069 was codified (Chapter 720, Statutes of 2016) which made several changes
to address barriers to the development of ADUs. One such change has to do with fees and provides
that DIFs shall not be charged for ADUs that are incorporated into existing square footage, and that
for attached or detached ADUs that result in new square footage, the fee must be proportionate to
the burden of the unit and may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service.
Staff is proposing to revise the Citys DIFs to include a new sub-land use category that will result in a
DIF specific to ADUs. The Consultant was retained to prepare a memo, dated December 3, 2018,
entitled, Imposition of Development Impact Fees on Accessor, Dwelling Units (the 'ADU Nexus
Report") attached to this Staff Report as Attachment 3, which tiers off the Nexus Report to determine
the appropriate DIFs for an ADU. The Nexus Report already projected future growth, identified
current and projected level of service for public facilities, and identified additional facilities or
improvements needed to accommodate future growth. Therefore, the focus of the ADU Nexus
Report is to demonstrate the nexus between the impact created by the development of ADUs and the
amount of the fee and the projected burden that ADUs will create on the City's infrastructure.
The analysis contained within the ADU Nexus Report results in a DIF for ADUs of S3,954.
Legal Requirements: As stated in the ADU Nexus Report (toward the bottom of page 7), the required
Government Code Section 66001 findings contained within each chapter of the Nexus Report apply
to the imposition/ collection of ADU DIFs also. The ADU fees collected would be used to finance the
same projects specifically identified In each corresponding infrastructure chapter contained in the
Nexus Study as follows:
City of Huntington Beach Page 2 of 4 Printea on 12f12/2018
44
File #: 18-609 MEETING DATE: 12/17/2018
The portion of the DIF proceeds for Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Infrastructure (about 4.6% of the total) would be limited to projects identified on Schedule 3.1 ,
page 37 of the 2012 DIF Calculation and Nexus Report of pages 6 through 9 of the
accompanying 2012 Master Facilities Plan:
The portion of the DIF proceeds for Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment
Infrastructure (about 2.1% of the total) would be limited to projects identified on Schedule 4.1 ,
page 51 of the 2012 DIF Calculation and Nexus Report or pages 12 through 127 of the
accompanying 2012 Master Facilities Plan:
The 11 .4% portion of the DIF proceeds for the Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges
System) Infrastructure would be limited to projects as identified on Schedule 5.1 page 67 of
the 2012 DIF Calculation and Nexus Report or pages 21 through 42 of the accompanying
2012 Master Facilities Plan:
The 5.3% portion of the DIF proceeds for the Public Library Facilities and Collection
infrastructure would be limited to projects identified on pages 53 through 55 of the
accompanying 2012 Master Facilities Plan:
The 78.0% portion of the DIF proceeds for Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development infrastructure would be limited to projects identified on pages 59 through 82 of
the accompanying 2012 Master Facilities Plan.
A duly noticed public hearing will be held on December 17. 2018, pursuant to Government Code
Section 66018. A legal notice was published in the Huntington Beach Wave, a newspaper of general
circulation, on November 29, 2018. and December 6, 2018, pursuant to Government Code Section
6062a.
If approved by the City Council, adjustments to the DIFs will become effective sixty (60) days upon
adoption consistent with Government Code Section 66017(a).
Remove DIFs from Master Fee Schedule: The procedural requirements for DIFs are different from
other types of fees and charges in that a public hearing is required and very specific findings are
required. For this reason, staff is recommending that the references to DIFs be removed from the
Master Fee Schedule and remain a standalone existing resolution to aid any future revisions.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable as the action is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in that
pursuant to Section 15378(b)(4) of the CEQA Guidelines, 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".
Strategic Plan Goal:
Enhance and maintain infrastructure
City of Huntington Beach Page 3 of C Printed on 1 211 2/20 1 8
313 : wered by Lemmar:�
45
File #: 18-609 MEETING DATE: 12/17/2018
Attachment(s):
1. Resolution No. 2018-85, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach
Amending the Existing Development Impact Fee Schedule to Include Accessory Dwelling
Units and Removing References to Development Impact Fees from the Master Fee Schedule"
2. Public Hearing Notifications.
3. ADU Nexus Report (December 3, 2018. Memorandum prepared by Revenue & Cost
Specialists, LLC., entitled Imposition of Development Impact Fees on Accessory Dwelling
Units)
4. Nexus Report (Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of
Huntington Beach, dated October 2011 and amended on April 27, 2012, prepared by Revenue
& Cost Specialists, LLC.)
City of Hurcington Beach Page G of: Printed on 12/122018
615 �„xerzd by Lzms:z:
46
ATTACHMENT # 1
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-85
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-85
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE TO INCLUDE
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND REMOVING REFERENCES TO DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES FROM THE MASTER FEE SCHEDULE
WHEREAS, several policies within the City's General Plan require that new
development mitigate its share of 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, amount 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 Chapters 17.65. 17.67, 17.73. 17.74. 17.75, and 17.76, (collectively, the "DIFs"), of
the Huntington Beach Municipal Code. Pursuant to each ordinance set forth above, the amount
of the DIFs was set by Resolution No. 2012-23 based upon the report of Revenue & Cost
Specialists, LLC (the "Consultant"), entitled Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus
Report for the City of Huntington Beach, dated October 2011 and amended in April 27, 2012 (the
"Nexus Report")-. and
Subsequently, the State of California has promoted the construction of Accessory
Dwelling Units ("ADUs") in single-family and multi-family zones as a means to provide
additional rental housing. Effective January of 2017. SB 1069 was codified (Chapter 720.
Statutes of 2016) which made several chanties to address barriers to the development of ADUs.
One such change pertains to fees and provides that DIFs shall not be charged for ADUs that are
incorporated into existing square footage and that for attached or detached ADUs that result in
new square footage, the fee must be proportionate to the burden of the unit and may not exceed
the reasonable cost of providing the service; and
The City retained the services of the Consultant to provide analysis and demonstrate the
nexus between the impact created by ADUs and the amount of the fee, and the projected burden
that ADUs will create on the City's infrastructure. This information is contained in a
memorandum dated December 3, 2018, entitled Imposition of Development Impact Fees on
Accessory Dwelling Units (the "ADU Nexus Report"), and
The ADU Nexus Report has been available for public review and comment; and,
Further, while leaving Resolution No. 2012-23 unamended and in place, the City
incorporated the Development Impact Fees into the Consolidated Comprehensive Citywide
Master Fee and Charges Schedule pursuant to Resolution No. 2016-59. The City desires to
remove the Development Impact Fees from the Fee and Charges Schedule, and amend
1
I S-694 7/1933 76/SF-
48
RESOLU"LION NO- 2018-85
Resolution No. 2012-23 to establish and add Development Impact Fees Resolution for ADUs.
The amount of all DIFs is attached as Exhibit A: and
To solicit public input on the proposed DIFs for ADUs, and in compliance with the
A4itigation Fee Act, California Government Code section 66000 et seg., the City Council held a
noticed public hearing on the ADU.Nexus Report and on DIFs for ADUs at its regular meeting on
December 17, 2018,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby
resolve as follows:
I. Findines pursuant to Government Code section 66001. The City Council finds and
determines that the ADU Ncxus Report complies with California Government Code section 66001,
and as to each of the proposed fees to be imposed on ADUs:
(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 ADU Nexus Report. The City Council hereby
determines that the DIFs for ADUs 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 ADU Nexus Report.
3. Approval of ADU DIPS as set forth in the ADU Nexus Report. Pursuant to
Resolution No. 2012-23, the City Council approved the specific public facilities, equipment and
park land acquisition cost estimates identified in the Nexus Report. As set forth in the ADU Nexus
Report, the City Council finds that there is a nexus between the impacts of ADUs and the public
facilities, equipment and park land acquisition identified in the Nexus Report such that the ADU
Impact Fees are neecssan, to mitigate the impact of ADUs. The Council further finds that, as set
forth in the ADU Nexus Report, the cost estimates contained in the Nexus Report are a reasonable
basis for calculating and imposing the ADU D1FS.
4. Consistencv with General Plan. As set forth in the ADU Nexus Report, the City
Council finds that ADU Impact Fees are necessary to mitigate the impact of ADUs on City
infrastructure.
IS-69a7/193376/SFF
49
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-85
5. CEO.A Finding. The adoption of the ADU Nexus Report and the establishment of
ADU Impact Fees are not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act in that pursuant to
CEQ.A Guidelines. section 15378(b) (4), the creation of government funding mechanisms which
do not invoke any commitment to any specific project which may cause a significant effect on the
environment, is not defined as a "project" under CEQA.
6. Adoption of Re 3o. The ADU Nexus Report, including Appendices, is hereby
adopted.
7. .Amount of Impact Fees. The City Council hereby amends the D.1.Fs to include
ADU DIFS and adopts the DIFS as a stand-alone fee schedule as set forth in Exhibit ".A,"
attached hereto and incorporated herein. The amount of the DIFS, including those for ADUs.
but excluding traffic impact fees, shall be automatically modified annually pursuant to 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, including traffic impact fees on ADUs, 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 for only the ADU DIFS shall not take effect until
March of 2020. but this limitation shall not affect the escalator indices for all other DIFS.
8. Use of DIFS. The DIFS shall be solely used for the purposes described in the
respective Ordinances and Resolutions creating the DIFs and their associated Nexus Reports.
DIFS 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 hisiher designee. Fees collected under any of the categories
listed in the ADU .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.
9. Fee Determination by Type of Use.
A. Residential Development. DIFS for residential development shall be based
upon the type of unit constructed. The DIF 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. DIFS 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 DIF 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.
3
18-694 7i193376/SFF
50
RESOLUTION NO. 2018-85
C. Uses Not Specified. in the event that there are land uses not specified in
Exhibit A, the DTP for such use shall be determined by the City Manager or his/hCT 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.
10. Severability. If any action, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase of this Resolution,
the ADU 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, or other attaclunents 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.
11. Effective Date. Consistent with California Government Code Section 66017(a), the
DIFs 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.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Iluntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the 17th day of December 201 S-
L �hiavor
REVIE\\% 7 -D APPROVED: INITIATED AND PPROVED:
Citv \- to c It Community Development Director
APPROVED FORM:
City Attorney 1sr
Z;'�
4
18-6947/193', 6.'SFF
51
Page 1 Exhibit A
Resolution No. 2018-85
Development Impact Fees
(per Resolution 2012-23 and amended on 12/17/18 to include ADU DIF)
Circulation Park Land/
Systems Open Space &
Law Fire (Streets, Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) 5 362.05 $ 844.11 $ 2,385.00 $ 1,179.72 $ 16,554.73
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $ 746.48 $ 349.85 S 1,597.00 $ 866.48 $ 12,732.84
Accessory Dwelling Units (per Unit) $ 183.50 $ 86.00 $ 213.00 $ 3,130.00
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $ 337.64 $ 1,449.23 $ 1,248.00 $ 708.85 $ 10,222.88
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip 50.041/SF $0.234/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.041/SF $0.234/SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $ 0.953 $0.301 $4,175 No Fee $0.897
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $ 0.406 $0.0275 $1.716 No Fee $0.730
see Schedule Rates of Traffic Impact Fees, amended 12/17/2018 to include Accessory Dwelling
52
Page 2 Exhibit A
Resolution No. 2018-85
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees
(per Resolution 2012-23 and amended on 12/17/18 to include ADU DIF)
Adjusted Average Trip-end to Additional Cost per Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
Land Use Trip Ends Distance Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile dwelling unit or other unit
;J11D111.11M(prU10
Detached Dwelling Unit 876 79 05 346 $ 64 34 $ 222616 /Unit
Apartment 6 15 79 05 243 S 6434 $ 1.563 46 [Unit
Condominium/
Townhouse 536 79 0 5 21 2 S 6434 S 1.364 01 /Unit
Accessory Dwelling S 341 00 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling 4571 791 0 5 18 1 S 6434 $ 1.164 55 /Unit
(pwr UYttorEwy Door)
7oLe 6 29 761 051 2391 $ 6434 $ 1.537 73 Room
s Hotel 377 76 0 5 143 S 6434 $ 92006 /Room
434 76 05 16 5 S 64 34 $ 1.061 61 /RoomRIAL(qrt;000 Light Industrial
6 17 90 05 27 8 5 64 34 S 1 78865 /1 000 sf
Heavy Industrial 597 90 05 269 $ 64 34 $ 1 73075 11.000 sf
Manufactunng 2 73 90 05 12 3 $ 64 34 $ 791 38 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 439 90 05 19 8 S 64 34 S 1 27393 /1.000 sf
CONNERML(pW110111181111)
Office Park 742 88 05 326 $ 64 34 S 2 097 48 /1 000 sf
Research Park 501 88 0 5 220 $ 64 34 S 1.415 48 /1 000 sf
Business Park 934 88 0 5 41 1 S 64 34 S 264437 /1 000 sf
Bldg Matenals/Lumber
Store 2935 43 0 5 631 S 64 34 S 4 059 85 /1 000 sf
Garden Center 2345 4 31 05 504 $ 64 34 $ 324274 /1 000 sf
Movie Theater 247 4 3 0 5 53 S 64 34 S 34100 11.000 sf
Church 592 4 3 05 12 7 S 6434 S 81712 /1 000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22 21 88 0 5 977 S 64 34 S 6.28602 /1 000 sf
General Office Building
7 16 88 O S 31 5 5 64 34 5 2.02671 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 302 4 3 05 649 $ 6434 S 4.17567 11.000 sf
Hospital 11 42 4 31 05 246 S 6434 $ 1,58276 11.D00 sf
Discount Center 62 93 4 3 0 5 135 3 S 64 34 $ 8.70520 /1 000 sf
High-Restaurant
89 4 3 05 191 S 64 34 S 1,22889 /1 000 sf
Restaurant
Convenience Market 4357 4 3 05 93 7 $ 64 34 S 602866 11.000 sf
Office Park 1 1397 43 051 3001 S 6434 1 S 1,930 20 /1 000 sf
OTHER(as noted)
Cemetery 307 43 05 66 S 6434 $ 424 64 /Acre
Service Station/Market [Fuel
10769 43 05 231 5 S 6434 S 14 894 71
lavg) Position
Service Station w/Car /Fuel
Wash 9935 43 0 5 2136 S 64 34 $ 13 74302 Position
53
Res. No. 2018-85
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH )
I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, 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 December 17, 2018 by the following vote:
AYES: Brenden, Carr, Semeta, Peterson, Posey, Delgleize, Hardy
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSE: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California
54
ATTACHMENT #2
PUBLIC HEARING
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
Notice of Public Hearing on the Adoption of a Resolution Amending the Development Impact
Fee Section of the Citywide Master Fee and Charges Schedule
Notice is hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, in the Council Chambers of the Civic Center, Huntington Beach located at
2000 Main Street, at the hour of 6:00 PM, or as soon as possible thereafter on Monday, the 17"
day of December 2018, for the purpose of considering the Adoption of a Resolution Amending
the Development Impact Fee section of the Citywide Master Fee and Charges Schedule.
The revisions to be considered are to modify the Development Impact Fee section of the Citywide
Master Fee and Charges Schedule to create a new proportionate share fee for Accessory
Dwelling Units that is significantly less than the fee for a single-family house.
All interested persons are invited to attend to express their opinions for, or against, the proposed
fee revisions with written or oral comments. Written communications to the City Council should
be mailed to the Office of the City Clerk at the address below. Further information may be
obtained from the Finance Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA, 92648-2702 or
by telephone (714) 536-5630.
The City of Huntington Beach endeavors to accommodate persons of handicapped status in the
admission or access to, or treatment or employment in, city programs or activities. The City of
Huntington Beach is an equal opportunity employer.
Dated: November 29, 2018 City of Huntington Beach
December 6, 2018 By: Robin Estanislau, City Clerk
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648-2702
Telephone: (714) 536-5405
" Notice to City Clerk " this copy to run twice in newsprint no later than 19 days prior to the
Council Meeting date. Run in both display format and in legal
section.
azs
56
ATTACHMENT #3
evenue
ost
pecialists, LLC
Sen Ig Local Goueniments .Since 1975
TO: Ursula Luna-Reynosa, Community Development Director
FROM: Scott Thorpe, Senior Vice President., Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC p'
DATE: December 3. 2018
RE: Imposition of Development Impact Fees on Accessory Dwelling Units
The State Legislature has concluded that increased demand for housing units in California has
exceeded the existing housing inventory and also the current pace of housing unit construction.
Furthermore, the Legislature determined that one approach to diminishing the housing
imbalance was to increase the production of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). The State
Legislature :hen passed a number of bills requiring that local government ordinances and
resolutions be amended to meet this objective. There are three bills, they are:'
AB 2299 (Bloom) generally requires local governments to ministerially approve
ADUs If the unit complies with certain parking requirements: the maximum
allowable size of an attached ADU and the set-back requirements.
SB-1069 (Wiecowski) reduces parking requirements to one space per bedroom
or unit. The law also prohibits parking requirements if the ADU meets other
certain conditions.
AB 2406 (Thurmond) creates more flexibility for housing options by authorizing
local governments to permit junior accessory dwelling units (JADU) through local
ordinance amendments. The bill defines JADUs cannot exceed 500 square feet
and it must be completely contained within the space of an existing residential
structure.
There are three types of ADUs to be addressed by local governments; each type requires that
there be amain house" on the parcel. The three types are:
1. ADUs constructed from unused space within an existing residential detached dwelling or
attached dwelling on a parcel.
2. ADUs constructed separate and distinct from existing residential dwelling from currently
excess or unused parcel space.
3. ADUs constructed creating an addition structure contiguous to an existing residential
structure.
Internet: %;1%VW.revenuccost.com
\'cake. 714.992.9020 1519 E. Chapman Avenue • Suite C • Fullerton. CA 92831
58
City of Huntington Beach Accessory Dwelling Unit DIF Calculation Report December, 2019
This Report will address the second and third types identified above. The reason that #1 is not
a focus of this report will be addressed later.
This reoort will also not address the merits of the State's Program to quickly and easily create
additional small housing units but will instead address the potential Impact that these ADUs will
have on the City's ability to accommodate the additional service demands from these new units
with adequate municipal infrastructure and municipal services.
Demand Upon City Infrastructure from the Construction of ADUs. It is unclear in the end just
how many ADU applications will be received in either the short or long term but a few basic
dynamics would indicate that a good number could be expected". Many homeowners in
Huntington Beach are likely to have adequate space for an ADU and equity with which to
finance it. Given the City's access to beaches and many other outdoor activities, a new ADU
could command high return in terms of rents. more so than many cities. Regardless of how
many ADU applications are received. the City will need to be prepared to absorb that number of
new ADUs and the City will have no option but to accommodate these new dwelling units with
municipal services due to the State's imposition of the streamlined rules.
The Importance of Capital Infrastructure. The Levels of Service (LOS) of any one City
infrastructure is based upon (or limited by) the capacity of that infrastructure to sup Don 'the
residents and businesses. The design of any municipal project has a finite capacity, such as a
,our lane road, a 30" storm drainage oioe or a 10,000 square foot library. Each is designed to
meet the needs of a defined number of users. A street segment can only handle so many
vehicles Per hour, especially at an allowable/practical speed that makes it worth using for
driving, especially over longer distances. A storm drainage pipe that is 30' cannot handle
storm flows twice that capacity. A library can hold just some many collection items and serve
only so many people. and doubling the amount of librarians cannot mare up for limited library
space. A municipality with 0,40 square feet Per resident of library space will be able to serve
more residents than a municipality with only a 0.10 square feet standard Per resident of library
Space. Make no mistake about it, the amount of and complexity of any infrastructure inventory
defines (all or in part) the level of service (LOS) provided by that infrastructure.
Good municipal service takes a balance of infrastructure and service-providing staff, requiring
both one-time capital revenues and reoccurring operational revenues (i.e. property and sales
taxes) respectively. As an example, it takes a balance of capital and operating costs to
accommodate new ADU development generated additional police responses within the City's
desired standard. It will also take additional officer-assigned equipment, law enforcement station
space, response and support vehicles and specialty equipment to make that response possible.
Limited Capital and Operating Revenues. It is unlikely that the construction of ADUs will
significantly increase the City's annual operation revenues. This makes 'he one-time DIF
financing of any City development-required infrastructure that much more important The
importance of having a properly calculated and documented DIF schedule in order to
accommodate development-related demands cannot be over-stated. The same concept holds
Revenue and Cost Service, LLC, Fullerton CA, .92831 2
828
59
City of Huntington Beach Accessory Dwelling Unit DIF Colculotion Report December, 2018
true for the two labor-intensive public safety services and the infrastructure-intensive services
such as the City's circulation, storm drainage collection, and potable water distribution and
sewer collection systems. Of course. the DIFs can only be used for the capital acquisitions but
the ongoing labor staffing costs needed to meet the added demands for service will need to
come from other annual tax receipts and other financial resources.
The City has an adopted DIF schedule that includes the following land-uses:
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Hotel/Mote! Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
ConlrnerciaMOffice Uses
industrial Uses
The adopted fee schedule was based upon a DIF Calculation and Nexus Report"' that was
adopted June 18, 2012 via City Resolution 2012-23. The DIF schedule was empirically derived
based upon documented demands for the previously identified land-uses. This is the preferred
manner to approach the identification of the ADU development-generated impact costs.
ADU Development Within and Existing Detached Dwelling_ As a recap, one major type of ADU
that the City will likely face is one that can be cobbled from existing excess space inside of the
initial detached dwelling (i.e. an unused bonus room or a master bedroom, a 'breezeway or other
similar existing underutilized space). This will not be addressed because it is existing space
and is already considered to be part of the City's housing inventory. It is merely unused space
due perhaps to changes in the lifestyle of the existing structure occupants. A good example
would be excess space resulting from the "empty nest' issue. The impact of the conversion of
existing space within the main house cannot be calculated as any additional person or persons
living in space converted from within an existing detached dwelling would be indistinguishable
from the original occupants of the existing detached dwelling. Numerous existing detached
dwellings already provide space for numerous extended family members. Lastly, the impact
costs of an ADU within and existing detached dwelling have probably already been included in
the average of the detached dwelling empirically-supported infrastructure demand within the
existing DIF Calculation and Nexus Report.
The second major type of ADU Is one that Is constructed separate and distinct from the existing
detached dwelling. The third type may be constructed contiguous to the main house. Both
represent new or added residential dwellings to the City's existing housing Inventory. These
separate and distinct ADUs can range up to a maximum of 1,200 square feet; assuming all
other required City codes and standards are met. The conversion of a garage would be
included In this category as It would result in a new residential dwelling repurposed from prior
parking (non-living) capacity.
Revenue and Cost Service, LLC, Fullerton CA, 92831 3
829
60
City of Huntington Beach Accessory Dwelling Unit DIF Calculation Report December, 2018
Unfortunately, the calculation of new demand resulting from the latter type of ADUs cannot be
calculated empirically as was done with the existing land-uses in the City's 2012 DIF Calculation
and Nexus Report. The simple reason is that, due to the dispersed nature of ADUs, there is no
empirically-derived individual demand information available about ADUs.
Law Enforcement Demands — Surely these units will annually generate new police-
related calls-for-service, but an empirically calculated annual ratio of police calls-
for-service per number of dwelling units is too difficult to determine. Law
enforcement agencies do not keep track of nor keep records based upon the
land-use type of the structure :hat generated a call-for-service focusing instead
on the type of call-for-service, i.e. a burglary. assault, noise: etc. Additionally,
most cities are simply unaware of how many ADUs are within their city limits.
Fire Suppression/Paramedic Demands — Again, some calls-for-service can be
expected as people who live in any new ADUs will occasionally need fire
suppression/Paramedic assistance, but again, there is no information as to how
many additional calls-for-service there will be and how often they will occur. As
an example, In the 2012 DIF Calculation and Nexus Report, the Fire Department
was able to identify 4,762 responses to calls-for-service requests from the 38,616
existing detached dwellings for a ratio of 0.123 annual calls-for-service per
detached dwelling. Fire departments keep excellent calls-for-service records but
the National Fire Information Reporling System (NFIRS) that is used by every fire
department does no: have a separate reporting category for 'accessory dwelling
units°, thus no call demand information is available.
Circulation System Demands — The demand upon the City's existing circulation
system from a new detached dwelling can be determined to be about 36.4 daily
trip-miles generated mostly in part from data contained in the Institute of
Transportalion Engineers (ITE) three volume manual where detached dwelling is
a specific category. ITE data for detached dwellings has been calculated by
surrounding tracts of detached dwellings (absent any ADUs) with trip counting
equipment, determining the number of trip-ends for the survey area and then
dividing it by the number of detached dwellings included within the survey area.
This is the process behind all ITE data and is consistently applied to all of the
previously mentioned land-uses. However, it is not Dossible to duplicate that
effort for ADUs because, by definition, there can be no survey area consisting of
only ADUs. As a result the ITE manual, as comprehensive as it is, also does not
have a separate ADU category in their list of traffic generators simply because of
the great difficulty in measuring that demand.
Storm Drainage Collection System Runoff Demands — Storm Drainage runoff can be
measured. If an accessory unit is built new with a pad that creates an additional
750 square feet of impervious space, the additional storm water runoff that can
be measured and thus calculated. If the ADU is constructed within the existing
Revenue and Cost Service, LLC, Fullerton CA, 92831 q
830
61
City of Huntington Beach Accessory Dwelling Unit DIF Calculation Report IDecember, 2018
detached dwelling, :here will be no additional runoff and thus no additional
demand upon the storm drainage system. Schedule 6.2 of the 2012 DIF Report
identified a cost of $18,149 in capital needs per residential acre. When that
figure is divided by 43,560 square feet (in an acre), the result is 50.417 per
square foot of impervious rooftop or pad. However, in 2012 the Council did not
adopt a DIF for the storm drainage collection system infrastructure, so to remain
consistent with that City Council DIF policy; no storm drainage DIF for ADUs is
recommended
Library Space and Collection Items — The City of Huntington Beach owns and
operates five public libraries consisting of 127,400 square feet of library space
housing 410,594 collection items. These five facilities can all expect to see some
increases in demand. Again; the difficulty in determining additional demand rests
in the complexity in determining the average number of persons living in ADUs.
A 600 square foot ADU is easily capable of housing two or more people. A
1,200 square foot ADU is can easily consist of three bedrooms and can easily
support the housing needs of between four and six residents. Unfortunately, the
United States Census does not have a separate category for determining the
number of residents per ADUs either placing such data into a category along with
persons living in boats, RV's and "other" units.
Utility Demands — Water distribution and sewer collection demand can probably be
determined for a new ADU, most likely on a fixture basis as long as the new ADU
is separate from the `main" house and not converted space within the existing
"main" house. The City has a schedule identifying "connection fees" (impact
fees) for differing meter sizes. Many public agencies that provide utility services
will probably see water or sewer dernand by existing detached dwellings increase
over time due to the inclusion of a new ADU on the existing water meters.
Homeowners can be expected to take economic advantage of interior unused
space within their home to turn some of the unused space into ADUs thus by
increasing the averace number of persons in any particular home. The same
can be said for unused space within their parcels. Sewer collection system
demand is usually a function of water use, so that could be expected to increase
also, and probably can be determined for a new separate accessory living unit
again, by fixtures.
Utility engineering staff has indicated that according to current City policy,
"connection" fees will be imposed if the proposed ADU requires an increase in
meter size at the main house or an additional meter (i.e. from a 3/4" meter to a T'
meter, and the fee would be the delta between the two). The City also collects a
DIF on behalf of the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) which would likely
charge the fee based upon the number of bedroom additions per the OCSD rate
schedule. See attachment A. City of Huntington Beach Public Works Fee
Schedule, page 5-6 of 7.
Revenue and Cost Service, LLC, Fullerton CA, 92831 5
331
62
City of Huntington 8eoch Accessory Dwelling Unit DIF Cciculotion Report December, 2018
Long Term Demand Changes. What is most likely to occur from an increase in the number of
detached dwellings with ADUs will effectively be the creation of duplex-style residential units
within residential neighborhoods, primarily comprised of detached dwelling units (single family).
The ADU adds a kitchen and the opportunity for another household to occupy the property:
therefore, resulting in an increase in the average number of persons living at that property. This
In turn will increase the average demands from detached dwellings (where we can measure
demands) as vacant spaces within the existing detached dwelling to indoor apartments and
back-yard separate ADUs (again, up to 1,200 S.F.).
Clearly, some unknown amount of ADUs are likely to be constructed in the City of Huntington
Beach and it appears that the best (and only) way to deal with the unknown demand on City
services is to have a development impact fee schedule specifically for ADUs. Given the
difficulties in identifying an empirical methodology, some other approach on calculating demand
is necessary.
Recommended Aoproach. The recommended approach for the calculation of DIFs for
application to the construction of ADUs is to make it a function of the demand of one attached
dwelling unit. Staff has indicated that the 25 ADU applications to date more closely resemble a
duplex for reasons previously explained and thus the attached dwelling DIF should be applied.
Any new application for a new duplex unit currently has the attached dwelling unit DIF rate
imposed.
The five separate infrastructure-based DIFs adopted from the 2012 report are assessed on a
per unit basis, regardless of the size of the dwelling unit, and differentiated by land use
categories. For residential development, the land use categories include either detached
residential dwellings (single-family units), or attached residential dwellings (multi-family units).
In other words, the adopted fee for a detached dwelling (single family unit) is 521,009
regardless of whether the house is 1,500 square feet or 5,000 square feet in size. Similarly. the
adopted fee for an attached dwelling (multi-family unit) is 316,047 regardless of the size of the
unit. The impacts to public infrastructure and the municipal services with the development of
those units are based upon statistical averages from the land use category as opposed to the
size of the units. In short, empirical evidence is only available based upon the average of all
attached dwellings. Municipal service demand statistics based upon differing sizes of attached
dwellings (i.e. one, two or more bedrooms) are not available. The same holds true for detached
dwellings.
The City could adopt a similar modified approach for application to the construction of ADUs.
According to data received from the Orange County Assessor the average size for all dwelling
units in Huntington Beach is 2.386 square feet. Again, since the adoption of SB 1069 became
effective in January of 2017, the City of Huntington Beach has received roughly 25 applications
for ADUs. The average size ADU applied for in Huntington Beach is 729 square feet. The
average size of an ADU in Huntington Beach is approximately 31% of the average sized
dwelling unit in Huntington Beach. Cities are not required to impose DIFs, however, if they
choose to impose them it is critical that the fee not exceed the proportionate share of the
Revenue and Cost Service, LLC, Fullerton CA, 92831 6
332
63
City of Huntington Beach Accessory Dwelling Unit DIF Calculation Report December, 2018
impact Therefore, to be conservative, it is recommended that the City adopt an ADU fee that is
only 25% of the attached dwelling unit DIF This action would recognize that an individual ADU
will have some impact on City services but would allow the City to recognize the State
Legislatures encouragement that cities and counties consider the spirit/intent of the new ADU
laws, that is to create additional smaller housing supply alternatives without overwhelming
financial barriers
The fee has to be separated into the five individual impact fees identified in the 2012 report and
resolution Table 1, following, demonstrates this
Table 1-1
Calculation of an Attached Dwelling Unit
Per Imposed Infrastructure-based Development Impact Fee
Calculated Percent Adopted City Staff DIF Impact
Infrastructure Development j of DIF Impact Recommended Cost Per
Impact Fee Imposed Fee/Unit Percentage ADU
Law Enforcement $815 90.1% $734 25 0% $183.50
Fire Suppression $382 90.1% S344 25.0% $86.00
Circulation System $1.657 96.4% $1.597 25.0% $399 25
Storm Drainage $397 0.0% $0 25.0% $0.00
Library Facilities $908 93 8% $852 25.0% $213.00
Park Land et. al. S13,835 90.5% S12.520 25 0% $3,130 00
Total 517,994 89.2% $16,047 j 25 0% $4,011,75
The five required Government Code §66000 findings within each chapter would apply to the
imposition/collection of ADUs DIFs also. The fees collected would be used to finance the same
projects specifically identified in each corresponding infrastructure chapter in the 2012 DIF
Calculation and Nexus Report
The portion of the DIF proceeds for Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Infrastructure (about 4.6% of the total) would be limited to projects identified on Schedule 3 1.
page 37 of the 2012 DIF Calculation and Nexus Report or pages 6 through 9 of the
accompanying 2012 Master Facilities Plan
The portion of the DIF proceeds for Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles and Equipment
infrastructure (about 2 1% of the total) would be limited to projects identified on Schedule 4 1.
page 51 of the 2012 DIF Calculation and Nexus Report or pages 12 through 17 of the
accompanying 2012 Master Facilities Plan
Revenue and Cost Service, LLC, Fullerton CA, 92831 7
64
City of Huntington Beech Accessory Dwelling Unit DIF Colculotion Report December, 2018
The 11.4% portion of the DIF proceeds for the Circulation (Streets, Sionals and Bridges System
infrastructure would be limited to projects identified on Schedule 5.1 page 67 of the 2012 DIF
Calculation and Nexus Report or pages 21 through 42 of the accompanying 2012 Master
Facilities Plan.
The 5.3% portion of the DIF proceeds for Public Library Facilities and Collection infrastructure
would be limited to projects identified on pages 53 through 55 of the accompanying 2012 Master
Facilities Plan.
The 78.0% portion of the DIF proceeds for Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development infrastructure would be limited to projects identified on pages 59 through 82 of the
accompanying 2012 Master Facilities Plan.
Summary: This approach for applying a reasonable DIF upon the construction of ADU's
provides a methodology consistent with that utilized in the original 2012 Development Impact
Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington Beach, in terms of assessing fees
based upon average residential land uses as opposed to the size of the residence, and ensures
that ADUs are not paying more than their proportionate share for the impact on City services.
This approach results In DIFs for ADUs that are significantly less than those fees imposed on
non-ADUs, which likely include higher impacts.
As summarized from Accessory Dwelling Unit tliemorondum, State of California Department of Housing and
Community Development, December 2016, pages 3-5.
Hov:ever, the City has received 25 applications to date and the ADu applications average about 729 scuare feet.
Develooment Jmaoct Fee Calculation and Nexus Reoort for the City of Huntington Beech, California, and October,
2011 (Amended April 27, 2012). Revenue and Cost Specialists, LLC, Fullerton, CA. 92631. Adopted as Resolution
2012-23 June is, 20i2.
Revenue and Cost Service, LLC, Fullerton CA, 92831 8
834
65
Council/Agency Meeting Held:
Deferred/Continued to:�jf7/a�Q/�
❑ Approved ❑ Conditionally Approved ❑ Denied o,t_DEpCit 6
lerc'S, ignat e
Council Meeting Date: May 7, 2012 Department ID Number: PL 2012-007
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
REQUEST FOR CITY COUNCIL ACTION
SUBMITTED TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
SUBMITTED BY: Fred A. Wilson, City Manager
PREPARED BY: Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT: Revise the City's Existing Development Impact Fees by adopting
Resolution No. 2012-23 and Ordinance Nos. 3942 through 3947
Statement of Issue:
Transmitted for City Council consideration are revisions to the City's existing Development
Impact Fees. With the assistance of Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. staff has evaluated
the City's public services needs for the next twenty years and analyzed what the future
development opportunities were based on General Plan land use. From that Revenue & Cost
Specialists, L.L.C. compared the future City's needs with the potential build out and derived
these revised/new Development Impact Fees included in the Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report.
Financial Impact:
Adoption of the recommended impact fees (new and updates) will generate approximately
$154.8 million through General Plan Build-out. This represents an approximately $20 million
increase over the currently adopted impact fees.
Recommended Action: Motion to:
A) Adopt Resolution No. 2012 - 23, "A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Huntington
Beach Adopting the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of
Huntington Beach, and Establishing New and Revised Development Impact Fees For All
Development Within the City;" and,
B) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3942, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.75 Relating to
Development Impact Fees for Police Facilities;" and,
C) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3943, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending the Huntington Beach Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 17.74 Relating to
Development Impact Fees for Fire Facilities;" and,
D) Approve for introduction Ordinance No. 3944, "An Ordinance of the City of Huntington
Beach Amending Chapter 17.65 of the Huntington Beach Municipal Code Relating to Traffic
Impact Fees;" and,
Item 9. - I HB -136-
66
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 -137- Item 9. - 2
67
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
infrastructure. Currently the city collects development impact fees for traffic, library
development, and park land/open space. Working with staff, Revenue & Cost Specialist,
L.L.C. generated a Master Facilities Plan for theoretical General Plan build-out of the City. The
Master Facilities Plan indentifies all growth-related capital projects required to accommodate
new City development through General Plan build-out. Using information in the Master
Facilities Plan, a Development Impact Fee Calculation Report was generated. The purpose of
the report is to assure that the impacts created by new development pays a fair share of the
proportional costs required for expansion of all development within the City of Huntington
Beach.
On April 27, 2012 the Nexus report dated October 2011 was amended. Due to additional costs
associated with the accounting, collection and state mandated tracking Park Land/Open Space
Fee and the Public Meeting Facilities fee were collapsed into one fee, now called the Park
Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee. This was undertaken to provide the
City greater flexibility to address the City's capital project needs and priorities over time.
The Development Impact Report contemplates two new fees, police and fire, and updates the
existing traffic, library, and park land/open space impact fees (Attachment No. 1) based on the
City's changing requirement for public safety, streets and signals and other quality-of-life
facilities. Attachment No. 9 is a comparison of current impact fees and proposed impact fees.
The paragraphs to follow provide additional, detailed analysis of the changes sought to each
type of fee.
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Fee (New)
The purpose of the new Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Fee is to collect
proportional contributions from new development to pay for additional required law
enforcement facilities, vehicles and equipment. New development can be expected to
generate additional law enforcement calls for service. Different types of development will
create proportional levels of calls for service that generate law enforcement response.
Additional sworn officers are necessary to respond to the increased demands for service and
these fees will offset the added costs of housing and equipping the additional required officers.
The proposed resolution establishes the actual amount of the new Law Enforcement
Development Impact Fee. The resolution also specifies that the proposed fees be used solely
for expanding or increasing capacity within the law enforcement facilities and to increase the
number of enforcement vehicles and specialty equipment.
Fire_Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment Fee (New)
The purpose of this new fee is to provide proportional financial contributions as a result of new
development to pay for additional fire suppression/emergency medical response facilities,
vehicles and specialized equipment. In order to be able to continue to respond to an ever-
increasing number of expected emergency calls, fire department staff has determined the need
for the relocation of one fire station (as opposed to adding a ninth) and expanding one existing
fire station. Having the right type and inventory of fire stations in the right locations enables the
City's policy makers to house firefighters, apparatus and equipment to provide for maximum
use of resources.
Item 9. - 3 FIB -Ba-
st
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5107/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
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
additional fire facilities, vehicles and specialized equipment required to respond to additional
calls for service (related to the new development) necessary to maintain the capability of
responding to calls to the existing community. Fees will be used to finance the construction or
acquisition of fire suppression/emergency medical facilities, vehicles and specialized
equipment identified in the Master Facilities Plan that are necessary to accommodate
anticipated and planned development in the community.
Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) System Fee (Updated)
The Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee collects proportional contributions from new development to
pay for additional circulation system capacity by creating more travel lanes or more efficient
street use to accommodate the additional trip-miles created by new development.
Improvements take the form of construction of new travel lanes including the widening of
streets, installation and modification of traffic signals to accommodate changes in traffic
patterns and improving the infrastructure of our traffic signal system to enable development of
better signal coordination. Improvements for pedestrians, bicycles and transit may also be
included in these improvements.
The current Traffic Impact Fee is $172 per net new trip generated by a proposed development.
The recommended update to the Traffic Impact Fee slightly modifies the methodology for
proportioning the cost to users, resulting in slightly increased fees for some uses and slightly
lower fees for others. In general, the recommended methodology shifts fees from commercial
uses to residential uses. The new methodology better reflects the actual impacts to the street
system by not only accounting for the number of trips generated by the land use, but also the
average length of the trip. This approach is based on the concept that a longer trip has greater
potential to impact multiple locations within the circulation system.
The proposed methodology is predicated on distributing the estimated $23,867,660 in
circulation system improvement costs needed to serve additional traffic generated by new
development. This process results in a "per unit' fee which can be assessed on new
development. The "per unit" fee is developed based on typical trip generation rates for specific
uses and also factors in the average length of a trip associated with that type of use. The "per
unit' fee reflects the prorated fair share costs of improvements based on the number of trip-
miles generated by the particular land use category. Rates recommended for adoption are
based on a daily trip-mile of $64.34. This represents 10% less than the amount recommended
in the Development Impact Fee Calculation Report due to the elimination of approximately
$2.7 million in maintenance facility and equipment costs previously included in the calculation.
The current Traffic Impact Fee was established using a fair share methodology based only on
the number of trips generated by a particular land use. The following example is presented to
generally describe the difference in methodology:
If a typical single family home generates 8.8 trips per day the Traffic Impact Fee under the
current program ($172 per trip) is $1,513.
If a medium sized shopping center generates 30 trips/1000 square feet of floor area the Traffic
Impact Fee under the current program is $5,160/1000 sf.
FIB -]39- Item 9. - 4
69
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
Under the current program, with a trip length factor included (3.95 miles/trip for residential and
2.15 miles per trip for shopping center) the rates change to $2,482/dwelling unit and
$4,655/1000 sf of floor area for the shopping center. While 1,000 square feet of floor area in a
shopping center generates more than 3 times the number of trips of one single family home,
the shopping center only generates approximately 85% more trip miles.
The resolution specifies that the proposed fees would be used solely for circulation system
capacity improvements. This information is generally identified in Use of the Fee section the
report.
The ordinance modifications are necessary to revise Chapter 17.65 so that the collection of
fees imposed on development projects is consistent with the intent of the City Council to
impose fees on residential, commercial and industrial development projects.
Public Library Facilities and Collection Fee (Updated)
The current Library Development fee was initially adopted in 1998. A Library Facilities Impact
Fee imposed on residential development would allow the City to expand on existing facilities to
ensure the City's existing and new residents have adequate and sufficient access to enjoy the
library space and collections. The City of Huntington Beach, through its General Plan, and
Facility Master Plan has established its commitment to maintaining current standards of library
services. The Library Development Fee, along with other City revenue sources, will allow the
City to expand facilities and enhance collections to accommodate projected growth and
increased demand for service.
The development of any acreage zoned for residential use increases the demand on the finite
amount of library space and collection items. Thus, those residential land uses that generate a
higher number of residents will pay a proportionally higher amount. There is no information
available demonstrating a substantive link between library use and local businesses. Library
use is primarily by residents as opposed to business persons. Therefore, there are no fees
being collected for commercial or industrial construction.
The resolution specifies that the fees would be used solely for support of library services and
facilities. Funds collected from the Public Library Fee shall be used to cover the cost of
expansion of library space and collection items needed to meet the increased demands of
residential growth and development. Funds can be used to acquire additional property,
construct new facilities, furnish new buildings or facilities, purchase collection materials,
funding for master plans or other studies to identify capital needs and the cost of financing.
Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair existing
facilities.
Ordinance modifications are necessary to revise Chapter 17.66 so that the collection of fees
imposed on development projects is consistent with the intent of the City Council to impose
fees on residential, commercial and industrial development projects.
Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Fee (Updated)
On December 16, 2002 The City Council adopted Resolution 2001-129 with findings that
stated, "the purpose of the fee is for the development and improvements of the City's parks
and recreational facilities in order to assure that the policies and standards for park, open
space and recreational facilities contained in the City's General Plan and described in the Park
Fee Study are met."
Item 9. - 5 1-1B -140-
70
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
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,
and build-out projections cited in the new "Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus
Report" completed by Revenue and Cost Specialists L.L.C. in October 2011 .
As referenced in the October 2011 report, the City owns or has long-term control of 778.41
acres of traditional park land, with about 87.9% developed. It is anticipated that the City will
need to acquire 70.5 acres in park land to serve the additional projected 17,089 residents at
build-out. The challenge facing the City is to provide new facilities and park land to serve the
recreational needs of new residents.
The proposed fees are based on the estimated per acre acquisition and development costs as
presented in Schedule 9.1 factored by the City's existing park standards, and then multiplied
by the average number of persons per type of dwelling unit.
Currently this fee is $0.86 per square foot and applies to all new residential development (new
construction and additions) the fee is paid at the time of permit issuance for all new residential
development. The proposed fee will apply to new residential units only; it will no longer apply
to residential room additions or expansions. This will result in an elimination of the per square
foot fee for residential development, however a square foot fee will continue to be applied to all
non-residential development. In addition, it should be noted that currently Ordinance No. 3596
of Chapter 254 of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance exempts mobile homes from Park
Impact fees. The proposed fees would require the payment of $11 ,169 per mobile home
dwelling unit. However, in an effort to implement the proposed fees in a timely manner and
since there no applications on file for approval of a mobile home park, staff is recommending
that the mobile home exemption be extended until such time that Ordinance No. 3596 can be
revised to reflect the new fees.
Projected population increases will also place additional demands on existing community
centers, and other community use facilities (such as the City's clubhouses, the Beach Public
Service Center, Shipley Nature Center, etc). The Park Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development Fee will enable the City to meet the added demands created by the construction
of additional residential dwelling units to maintain the current standard of 0.620 square feet per
person for the Public Facility use space.
IMPLEMENTATION
In order to mitigate the impact of increasing Law Enforcement Facilities Fee, Fire Suppression
Facilities Fee, Circulation System Fee, and the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development Fee, the proposed resolution is to have a "phased" implementation for the
detached, attached and mobile home residential unit fees. The Public Library Fee will not be
phased in. While the goal is to generate adequate funding to serve the increased demands of
development, the phased implementation would allow for a more gradual increase over a three
year period and not inhibit development in a difficult economy.
That is, the phased approach would increase the detached, attached and mobile home
residential unit to 70% of recommended fee in the first year beginning July 20. 2012, then
increasing to 80% effective July 20, 2013. reaching 90% on July 20, 2014, and remaining at
90% of the recommendation. Beginning in March 2016, a CPI adjustment factor would be used
to adjust those fees until a new study is funded. Using a Detached Dwelling as an example,
tIB -lal- Item 9. - 6
71
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
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
the fee would increase to $18,499/unit. On July 20, 2014, the fee would be $20,655 and would
remain at the 90% level.
Currently, all fees are collected at the time of building permit issuance. It is recommended that
the fees be collected at the time the impact is imposed on the system; therefore later in the
development process at final building permit approval or issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy.
Regarding development projects that have already received zoning entitlement approval (i.e.,
CUP, SPR, Variances, etc), there is proposed to be a "grandfathering" of existing development
impact fees. Section 8, Fees Imposed, of the Fee Resolution (Attachment No. 1) describes the
criteria for being "grandfathered" which basically states that new development impact fees shall
not apply to those development projects that have received discretionary project entitlement
approval on or before May 7, 2012 and the following milestones are met:
1. Project has submitted an approved application for building permits within 180 days
after the fee going into effect or no later than January 20, 2013.
2. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued
progress toward satisfying plan check comments-
3- Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect, no later than
July 20, 2013.
An exception to these milestones is when there is involvement by an outside third party
regulatory agency. In such cases the 180 days to make building permit application will begin
when the developer receives clearance from that agency. All other projects are subject to the
new fees, which go into effect July 20, 2012
SUMMARY
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed resolution and ordinances based on the
following reasons:
• The per unit fee established herein allows developers to easily calculate development
impact fees
• The fees established herein meet the City's changing requirement for public safety,
streets and signals, storm drainage and other quality of life facilities
• Allows for payment of Developer Impact fees at the time the impact is imposed on the
system, therefore later in the development process.
Environmental Status:
Not applicable
Strategic Plan Goal:
Improve the City's infrastructure
Item 9. - 7 HB -142-
72
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
MEETING DATE: 5/07/2012 DEPARTMENT ID NUMBER: PL 2012-007
Attachment(s):
•. •
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.0 October 2011, Amended April 27, 2012
HB -143- Item 9. - 8
73
ATTACHMENT #1
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
ADOPTING THE DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE CALCULA TION AND NEXUS RF_PORT
FOR THE CITY OFHL1WTLNGTOA'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 Alexus 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
iz-azo�.00an9zs9
75
Resolunon No. 21112-1s
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 seg.. the City Council held a noticed public hearing on the proposed increase in development
impact fees at its regular meeting on 2012, to solicit public input
on the proposed increases to development impact fees,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City cf 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.
12 d 209.110&r79299
76
Resolution No. 2012-23
4. Consistence 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. Timingof f Fee. The development impact fees imposed by this resolution shall be
paid pursuant to the ordinances or resolution creating each separate fee. Until final action is
3
12-3209.006n9289
77
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, 62, 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
12-3209.040179289
78
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, 96-717 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 validiry
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 day of 20
Mayor
REVIEWED AND APPROVED: [NI"II AN ROVED:
City Manager Deputy City Manager
A-PPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney �J5 -
5
12-3209.006/79289
79
Resolution No. 2012-23
EXHIBIT A
80
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: staff Recommendation
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012)
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities* Facilities* Bridges)* Facilities Map)*
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $277 $645 $1,737 $1,172 $12,500
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $571 $267 $1,220 $908 $9,685
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $258 $1,108 $909 $733 $7,818
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $455 $356 $1,062 No Fee $459
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $532 $794 $1,538 No Fee $359
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $1.041 $0.329 $4.175 No Fee $0.954
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.443 $0.030 $1.789 No Fee $0-772
*Represents 70% of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report, October 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012)
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013)
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities* Facilities* Bridges)* Facilities Map)*
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $317 $738 $1,986 $1,172 $14,286
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $652 $306 $1,395 $908 $11,069
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $295 $1,266 $1,039 $733 $8,935
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $455 $356 $1,062 No Fee $459
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $532 $794 $1,538 No Fee $359
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $1.041 $0.329 $4.175 No Fee $0.954
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.443 $0.030 $1.789 No Fee $0.772
*Represents 80% of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report, October 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012)
June 4 Consultant-Staff Recom Fee
Date Printed:5/24/2012
81
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: Staff Recommendation
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014)
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities* Facilities* Bridges)* Facilities Map)*
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $356 $830 $2,226 $1,172 $16,071
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $734 $344 $1,563 $908 $12,452
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $332 $1,425 $1,165 $733 $10,052
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $455 $356 $1,062 No Fee $459
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $532 $794 $1,538 No Fee $359
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $1.041 $0.329 $4.175 No Fee $0.954
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.443 $0.030 $1.789 No Fee $0.772
*Represents 90% of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report, October 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012)
June 4 Consultant-Staff Recom Fee
Date Printed:5/24/2012
82
Resolu[ion No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: Staff Recommendation
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012)
Adjusted Average Trip-end to Additional Cost per Cost per 1000 sq.ft,
Land Use Trip Ends Distance Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile dwelling unit or other unit
R'ESIDENTIALrtLANDUSESr(per,�Unrt). f i`�"� :,-rn�.S�- �,- .a-��•' . �.,.' �.� :•, ,`vr:;�`� � ;.- 4 .;c
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 50.22 $ 1,737.61 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 50.22 S 1,220.35 /Unit
Condominium/Townhou 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 50.22 S 1,064.66 /Unit
se
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 50.22 $ 908.98 /Unit
Hotel - 1 6.291 7.61 0.51 23.9 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,537.73 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 1 $ 920.06 1 /Room
Motel 4.34 7.61 0.51 16.5 $ 64.34 1 S 1,061.61 1 /Room
INDUSTRIAL"( Pg�1?000�SF)'t ,
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 S 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
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 S 1,415.48 11,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber
Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 S 64.34 $ 4,059.85 11,000 sf
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 S 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341.00 11,000 sf
Church 5.92 4.31 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 89 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 54.34 $ 1,228.89 11,000 sf
Restaurant
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf
Office Park 13.97 4.31 0.5 30.01 S 64.34 1 $ 1,930.20 11,000 sf
r-.. r Y. .r � x:x- n-' ' G' . a.;-�.x -s" y n�• -- :'t� "2
Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 S 64.34 S _ 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 S 14,894.71 /Fuel
av ) Position
Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel
Wash Position
Page 3
83
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: Staff Recommendation
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013)
Adjusted Average Trip-end to Additional Cost per Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
Land Use Trip Ends Distance Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile dwelling unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES(per,Unit),.
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 S 57.39 S 1,985.69 /Unit
Apartment 6,15 7.9 0.5 24.3 S 57.39 S 1.394.58 /Unit
Condominium/
Townhouse 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 57.39 $ 1,216.67 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwellinc 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 S 57.39 S 1,038.76 /Unit
RESORTIrOURIST.(per U11 oc:Entry Door)
Hotel 1 6 29 7.6 0.5 23.9 S 64.34 S 1,537.73 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 114.31 $ 64.34 IS 920.06 /Room
Motel 4.341 7.61 16.5 S 64.34 1 S 1.061.61 1 /Room
INDUSTRIAL ( peKj';'000;SF.)
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 S 64.34 S 1,788.65 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 S 64.34 $ 1,730,75 /1,000 sf
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 S 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 S 64.34 S 1,273.93 /1,000 sf
. . zs .,.
COMMERCIAL;(per.1,000SF) ::'3 . ,:w.
Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 S 54.34 S 2,097.48 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 S 64.34 S 1,415.48 /1,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 S 64.34 S 2,644.37 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber
Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 S 64.34 S 4,059.85 /1,000 sf
Garden Center 23.451 4.3 0.5 50.4 S 54.34 S 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.471 4.3 0.5 5.3 S 64.34 S 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.921 4.31 0.5 12.7 S 64.34 S 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.81 0.5 97.7 S 64.34 S 6,286.02 /1,000 sf
General Office Buildine 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 S 54.34 S 2,026.71 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.51 64.9 S 64.34 S 4.175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 S 64.34 S 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 S 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover
Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 S 64.34 S 1,228.89 /1.000 sf
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 S 64.34 S 6.028.66 /1.000 sf
Office Park 1 13.971 4.3 0.5 30.0 S 64.34 S 1,930.20 /1,000 sf
OTHER (as:noted)F
Cemetery v 3,071 4.3 0.5 6.6 S 64.34 S 424,64 /Acre
Service Station/Market /Fuel
107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 S 64.34 $ 14,894.71
(av ) Position
Service Station w/Car /Fuel
Wash 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 S 64.34 $ 13,743.02 Position
84 Page 4
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A: Staff Recommendation
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014)
Adjusted Average Trip-end to Additional Cost per Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
Land Use Trip Ends Distance Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile dwelling unit or other unit
12ES(DENTIAL LQN_ D6U$ES.(per:Unrt)*.; ;.t 'r tTn ` .:', . .'^: - <' t3 }� i:r ' 'v �' .
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 S 1,563.46 /Unit
Condominium/ 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 64.34 S 1,364.01 /Unit
Townhouse
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,164.55 /Unit
RESORT/;T,OURIST_(pe%Un'it
Hotel 6.29 7.61 0.51 23.9 $ 64.34 1 S 1,537.73 1 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.51 14.3 $ 64.34 1 $ 920.06 /Room
Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 16.5 $ 64.34 S 1,061.61 /Room
INDUSTRIAL( per. 1,000 SF)` .,, '. :' < : , ;Y;
n.4L-
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $u 64.34 S 1,788.65 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial 1 5.971 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 S 1,730.75 /1,000 sf
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 S 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.391 9.0 0.5 19.8 S 64.34 $ 1,273.93 /1,000 sf
Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 S 2,097.48 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 S 1,415.48 /1,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 S 64.34 S 2,644.37 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Matedals/Lumber
Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf
Garden Center 23.45 4.31 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 S 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 S 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 S 64.34 S 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 S 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 S 64.34 S 2,026.71 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 S 64.34 S 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.42 4.31 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 4.3 0.5 19.1 S 64.34 S 1,228.89 /1,000 sf
Restaurant
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 S 6,028.66 /1,000 sf
Office Park 1 13.97 4.3 0.51 30.0 S 64.34 S 1,930.20 /1,000 sf
OTFIER „t - ^;fir ,r y.�vi• �y, Zd';: - {My".y,�:
(as noted)t : r i ;�' !i:, • 4 .sc�. rot - nG-- ''t��} ! z. , i
Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 S 64.34 S 424.64 /Acre
Service StatiorVMarket 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 S 14,894.71 /Fuel
(av Position
Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 S 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel
Wash Position
Page 5
85
Resolution No. 2012-23
EXHIBIT A- 1
86
Exhibit A-1 Hansen-Alternative FW§LWL-&F6W63 1
Development Impact Fees (Current)
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $1,720 $0.44/SF $0.86SF
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $1,548 $0.44/SF $0.86SF
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $1,032 $0.44/SF No Fee
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23SF
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee No Fee $1.061 $0.04/SF $0.23SF
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014)
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities* Facilities* Bridges)* Facilities Map)*
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $356 $830 $2,226 $1,172 $16,071
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $734 $344 $1,563 $908 $12,452
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $332 $1,42S $1,165 $733 $10,052
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $1.041 $0.329 $4.175 No Fee $0.954
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.443 $0.030 $1.789 No Fee $0.772
*Represents 90% of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development Impact Fee Calculation
and Nexus Report, October 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012)
June L Hansen Recom Fee 1 page
Page 1
87
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A-1 Hansen-Alternative Fee Schedule No. 1
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014)
Adjusted I Average I Trip-end to Additional Cost per Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
Land Use Trip Ends Distance Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile dwelling unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL LAND USES{per Unit);; . . . . _ li. .- _ . .
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 64.34 S 2,226.16 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 64.34 S 1,563.46 /Unit
Condominium/ 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 S 64.34 S 1,364.01 /Unit
Townhouse
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 S 64.34 S 1,164.55 /Unit
RESOR_ TIfOURIS_T=(per'Unitor.Entry,Door}{ r '. _t:< <
Hotel 1 6.291 7.61 0.51 23#$ 6544,�,34 S 1,537.73 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14Motel 4.34 7.6 0.5 1634 S 1,061.61 /Room
INDUSTRIAL ('per:1 000.$F)a sC ?:r -
-ti
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 S 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 11,000 sf
Warehousing 4.391 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 S 64.34 S 2.097.48 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 S 1,415.48 11,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 S 2,644.37 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber
Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 S 4,059.85 /1,000 sf
Garden Center 23.45 4.31 0.5 50.4 S 64.34 $ 3,242.74 11,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.31 0.5 5.3 S 64.34 S 341.00 11,000 sf
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 S 64.34 S 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 S 6,286.02 11,000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 S 2,026.71 11,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 S 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 $ $4.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Tumover 8.9 4 3 0.5 19.1 S 64.34 S 1,228.89 /1,000 sf
Restaurant
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 S 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf
OTHER'(as noted}
Cemetery 1 3.071 4.31 0.51 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market 107.59 4.3 0.5 231.5 S 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel
av ) Position
Service Station w/Car /Fuel
99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 S 54.34 $ 13.743.02
Wash Position
Page 2
88
Resolution No. 2012-23
F77EXIHIBIT A®2
89
Exhibit A-2 Dwyer-Alternative Fg&�df flew-2
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 25%, 20%
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $99 $231 $1,751 51,085 55,223
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $204 $96 $1,208 $491 $3,386
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $92 $396 $914 $460 $2,969
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.260 $0.082 $4.175 No Fee $0.375
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.111 $0.008 $1.243 No Fee $0.338
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) 50%, 40%
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (ND Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $198 $461 $1,995 $1,114 $8,381
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $408 $191 $1,358 $630 55,998
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $185 $792 $1,043 $551 $5,019
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.521 S0.165 $4.175 No Fee $0.520
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.222 $0.015 $1.425 No Fee $0.447
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 75%, 60%
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $297 $692 $2,238 $1,143 $11,540
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $611 $287 S1,507 $769 $8,611
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $277 $1,187 $1,171 $642 $7,069
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee 5172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/5F
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.781 $0.247 $4.175 No Fee $0.664
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.332 $0.023 $1.607 No Fee $0.555
June 6 Dwyer Recom Fee 1 page
90
Exhibit A-2 Dwyer-Alternative F&PS�fitYdifleW10'32
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2015) 100%, 80%
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) 5396 $922 $2,482 $1,172 $14,698
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $815 $382 $1,657 5908 $11,223
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $369 $1,583 $1,299 $733 $9,119
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF 50.23/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF 50.23/SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $1.041 50.329 $4.175 No Fee $0.809
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.443 $0.030 $1.789 No Fee $0.664
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2016) 100%, 100%
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $396 $922 $2,482 $1,172 $17,857
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $815 $382 $1,657 $908 $13,835
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) S369 $1,583 $1,299 $733 511,169
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/5F $0.23/SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $1.041 $0.329 $4.175 No Fee $0.954
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.443 50.030 $1.789 No Fee $0.772
June 4 Dwyef Recom Fee i page
91
Exhibit A-2 Dwyer-Alternative Fef;eS�dhigPu'k tdb!22'3
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012)
25% Increase Scenario
Cost per 1000 sq. ft. Cost per 1000 sq.ft,
Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per dwelling unit or other dwelling unit or other
Land Use Trip Ends Distance to Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile unit unit
f2ESIDENTIAL IAND,USES:(per�lJnit)?�„ :34'1�* :xc ,15; n '?` !icitId:� .�..e.'. l��,US.L':~_. .. ? r: _'
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 S 50.22 S 1,737.61 /Unit S 1;686'58 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 50.22 $ 1,220.35 /Unit ':S.'.t:1;t84 22,• /Unit
Condominium(Townho 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 S 50.22 S 1,064.66 /Unit 5: 1,032.44; /Unit
use ;
,:
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 50.22 S 908.98 /Unit `$ '� 880.67"' /Unit
RESORTITOURIST (pe�Unit_orlEntiy?Door) -.~m45r,a :Ya' t
Hotel 6.291 7.61 0.51 23.9 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,537.73 /Room --�$� ;1,],95i$4;. /Room
All Suites Hotel 1 3.771 7.6 0.51 14.3 $ 64.34 1 $ 920.06 /Room ;$' 716,35`, /Room
Motel 1 4.341 7.61 0.51 16.5 $ 64.34 $ 1,061.61 /Room $ 825.26 /Room
INDUSTRIAL(-Pei 1,000;SF,).' t.-. '3+ +ajF n $ '�y iL' = �:u. .. �';Slo lsv�•. t .:u�� n.r'(+`
IN
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf s-.1,243`.09; /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 54.34 S 1,730.75 /1,000 sf $' 1,20282,- /11000 sf
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 $ 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf .$; - 550 2�. /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64.34 S 1,273.93 /1,000 sf $ r ;:13N5%- /1,000 sf
COMMERCIAL (Per 11'000;SF).�:-'. �.k' " .:�.c_..'. r ..�'. �7,"«'? - -": ,. 7�4 C .
Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 S 64.34 $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf 5 1;481 55'. /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf $ ''1.000 16° /1,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 4 i.1 S 64.34 $ 2,644.37 /1,000 sf -S 11.865:95-... /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 S 64.34 $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf S 4,059.85 /1,000 sf
Store
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 S 64.34 $ 3,242.74 11,000 sf S 3.242.74 11,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 S 64.34 S 341.00 I /1,000 sf S 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 S 817.12 /1,000 sf S 817.12 /1,000 sf
=:
Medical-Dental Office 22.211 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 S 6,286.02 /1,000 sf ,S.:=-4,436:59, /1,000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 S 64.34 S 2,026.71 /1,000 sf S.`:1-,430:32 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30,21 4.3 0.5 64.9 S 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf S 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 s 1,582.76 /1,000 sf S 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62,93 4.3 0.5 135.3 S 64.34 S 8,705.20 1 /1,000 sf S 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 S 1,228.89 /1,000 sf S 1,228.89 /1,000 sf
Restaurant
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 S 64.34 S 6,028.66 /1,000 sf S 6.028.66 /1,000 sf
Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 11,000 sf $ 1,930.20 /1.000 sf
OT,HER;(asnoted) rs -:1 d�-'i�.:x"z_ r. ,:�,. ?;'13.� '-a:--.. fir•. .�:6^.
Cemetery 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 S 64.34 S 424.64 /Acre S 424.64 /Acre '
Service Station/Market 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 S 14,894.71 /Fuel S 14.894.71 /Fuel
av Position Position
Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 S 64.34 S 13,743.02 /Fuel S 13,743.02 /Fuel
Wash Position Position
Page 3
92
Resoiut ion No. 2012-23
Exhibit A-2 Dwyer-Alternative Fee Schedule No. 2
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013)
50% Increase Scenario
Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit or other
Land Use Trip Ends Distance to Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile dwelling unit or other unit unit
RESIDENT.IAL,LAND USES"er Unit .
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 57.39 S 1,985.69 /Unit $ ':V866-.44- /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 57.39 $ 1,394.58 /Unit S 1,310.63 /Unit
Condom iniumrTownho 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 $ 57.39 S 1,216.67 /Unit S 1,142:96 /Unit
use
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 57.39 S 1,038.76 !Unit 5 975.30 /Unit
RESORTLTOURIST:(per.Unit`or,Eritry Door),. ' .*F'+..,' ,a r+x'`s =T'`. , 't; :,
Hotel 6.29 7.61 0.51 23,9 $ 64.34 S 1,537.73 /Room u S 1,309:80' /Room
All Suites Hotel 1 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 J $ 920.06 /Room $. 784.25' /Room
Motel 1 4341 7.61 0.51 16.51 S 64.34 1 S 1,061.61 /Room IS 904.05 1 /Room
INDUSTRIAL(.Per 1;000 SF,) 9
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 S 1,788.65 /1,000 sf S 11424.95 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial 5.971 9.0 0.5 26.9 S 64.34 S 1,730.75 /1.000 sf $. 1,378.79 /1,000 sf
Manufacturing 2,73 9.0 0.51 12.3 S 64.34 S 791.38 /1,000 sf .3 630.47 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.391 9.01 0.51 19.8 $ 64.34 1 S 1,273.93 /1,000 sf S 1,014 51 /1,000 sf
COMM_ERCIA_L:(pei:1,000 SF),.
Office Park 7,421 8.8 o.,51 32.6 S 64.34 1 $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf $. 1,686.86 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 S 64.34 $ 1,415,48 /1,000 sf S 1.138.60 M.000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 54.34 S 2,644.37 /1,000 sf :$ 2,125.43 /1,000 sf
Bog. Materials/Lumber 29 35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 S 4,059.85 11,000 sf $ 4.059.85 /1,000 sf
Store
Garden Center 23.451 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 1 $ 3,242,74 MOOD sf S 3.242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.471 43 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 S 341.00 /1,000 sf S 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.921 4.31 0.51 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 /1,000 sf S 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-DentalOfnce 22.211 8.8 0.51 97.7 S 64.34 $ 6,286.02 /1,000 sf S 5,053.07 /1.000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 6.8 D.5 31.5 S 64.34 $ 2,026.71 11,000 sf S 1,629:12 /1,000 st
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 S 4,175.67 11,000 sf S 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.42 4.3 0.51 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.51 135.3 S 64.34 $ 8,705.20 11,000 sf S 8,705,20 11,000 sf
High-Turnover 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf $ 1.228.89 /1.000 sf
Restaurant
Convenience Market 43.57 4.31 0.5 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf S 6,028.66 /1,000 sf
Office Park 13.97 4.31 0.51 30.0 S 64.34 S 1,930.20 1 11,000 sf S 1,930.20 /1,DOD sf
OTHER"(as noted)
Cemetery 3.071 4.3 - 0.51 6.6 S 64.34. S 424.64 /Acre S 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market IF-uel /Fuel
1 107.69 4.3 OS 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 S 14,994.71
Position Position
Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel $ 13,743.02 /Fuel
Wash Position Position
Page
93
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A-2 Dwyer-Alternative Fee Schedule No. 2
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014)
Increase Scenario
Cost per 1000 sq. ft, Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per dwelling unit or other dwelling unit or other
Land Use Trip Ends Distance to Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile unit unit
RESIDENTIAL`l'AND,USES_(pe'r Unit):`?
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,226.16 /Unit '$:�2,046.30 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 O.51 24.3 $ 64.34 $ 1,563.46 /Unit $ 1,437.05, [Unit
CondominiumrTownho 5.36 7.9 0.5I 21.2 $ 64.34 $ 1,364.01 /Unit '5-1;253.49r. /Unit
use
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 64.34 $ 1.164.55 /Unit S° 1,069.93 /Unit
RESORTrrOURIST eiUnitouEri Door ' :" `• '* '=*
Hotel 6.29 7.61 O.51 23.9 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,537.73 /Room i$ 1,423.76] /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 $ 64.34 S 920.06852.16�, !Room
Motel 4.341 7.61 0.51 16.5 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,061.51 /Room5, -982.83 /Room
IN_D,USTRIAL•i(!pei•:1;OOpsSF),L,AA' '11:: r`-rr�: .::«= :L- sr �. {,,��,'- .�._".•i.l ?+: 3. t u�:; F3._ 1':'_'+. r3.Y:e `�.r' of
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 S 1.788.65 /1,000 sf� $ 1,606 80, /1,D00 sf
Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 S 1.730.75 /1,000 sf 5 .._1;554.77: /1,000 sf
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 S 64.34 S 791.38 /1,000 sf S' 710.93 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 S 64.34 S 1,273.93 11,000 sf i� 1,144`.22; /1,000 sf
COMMERCIAL•",(pergt OOO�SF)F ,'L'r P • ..=- T @ '��n:� �- 'g'"+a,ft :,. Ott ' .� -
r. •v
... �:.. ,. r s�. ah...e:3'� .. ..ili csllE.Sw _. �'ry,._•J/ �'
Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 S 64.34 $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf S- 1,892.1V /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 S 64.34 $ 1,415.48 /1,D00 sf S 1,277.04' 11,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 S 64.34 S 2,644.37 /1,000 sf ��S =t2,384:905 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 S 64.34 S 4,059.85 /1,000 sf $ 4,059.85 /1,000 sf
Store
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 $ 64.34 S 3.242.74 /1,000 sf S 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 54.34 $ 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 S 64.34 S 6.286.02 /1,000 sf 5;;. 5,6fi9.54 /1,000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,OD0 sf S'"1,827.91' /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 S 64.34 S 4,175.67 /1,000 sf S 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.42 4.31 0.51 24.6 $ 64.34 S 1,582.76 /1,000 sf S 1,582.76 /1.000 sf
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 S 64.34 S 8,705.20 /1,000 sf I S 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 S 1,228.89 /1,000 sf $ 1,228.89 11,000 sf
Restaurant
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 S 64.34 S 6,028.66 /1,000 sf $ 6,028.66 11,000 sf
Office Park 13.97 4.3 0.5 30.0 S 64.34 S 1,930.20 /1,000 sf $ 1,930.20 /1,D00 sf
Cemetery 3.071 4.3 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 $ 424.64 /Acre $ 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 S 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel $ 14,894.71 /Fuel
ay Position Position
Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 S 64.34 $ 13.743.02 /Fuel $ 13,743.02 /Fuel
Wash Position Position
Page 5
94
Resolution No. 201 i_23
Exhibit A-2 Dwyer-Alternative Fee Schedule No. 2
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2015)
100% Increase
Scenario Cost per
Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per Cost per 1000 sq. ft, 1000 sq. ft, dwelling
Land Use Trip Ends Distance to Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile dwelling unit or other unit unit or other unit
RESIDENTIALhIAND USES'(pek',Uiiit)` +l ' mot':'; K r'.'.: + i ` ' %a `4, zx. < .
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 $ 64.34 $ 2,226.16 /Unit S 2,226.16 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 S 64.34 S 1,563.46 /Unit S 1,563.46 /Unit
Condominiumrrownho 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 S 64.34 S 1,364.01 /Unit $ 1,354.01 /Unit
use
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 64.34 S 1,164.55 /Unit $ 1,164.55 /Unit
RESORT_!T_O_URI_ST
Hotel 6.291 7.61 0.5 23.9 $ 64.34 IS' 1,537.73 1 /Room ` • S 1,537.73 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.771 7.61 0,5 14.3 $ 64.34 1 S 920.06 [Room 1 $ 920.06 /Room
Motel 4.341 7.61 0.51 16.5 $ 64.34 1 $ 1,061.61 1 /Room I S 1,061.61 /Room
IN0USTRIAL;{;per71;000;SF)r. ... r• ,.� �. : . -: 'c,, f .. - -
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 2Z8 S 64.34 $ 1,788.65 /1,000 sf S 11788.65 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial 5.97 9.0 0.5 26.9 $ 64.34 S 1,730.75 /1.000 sf S 1,730.75 11,000 sf
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.51 12.3 $ 64.34 S 791.38 /1,000 sf $ 791.38 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.51 19.8 $ 64.34 S 1,273.93 /1,000 sf 5 1,273.93 /1,000 sf
COMMERCIAL•+/I er1000'SF (�r & err rjk " x r �3 vs cy ;rx._ il c ..;• AA!, .±>
_.alp - J u','.. �..'-.Av. i.a-? +.... .aeri.T X• +. ..-. _lam.-«., �_ ' 2- 5. r.
Office Park} 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 S 2,097.48 /1,000 sf $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5,01 8.8 0.51 22.0 $ 64.34 S 1,415A8 /1,000 sf $ 1,415.48 /1,000 sf
Business Park 9,34 8.8 0.5 41.1 $ 64.34 S 2,644.37 /1,000 sf $ 2.644.37 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber Store 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 S 64.34 S 4,059.85 /1,000 sf S 4,059.85 /1,000 sf
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 S 64.34 $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2A7 4.3 0,51 5.3 S 64.34 $ 341.00 /1,000 sf S 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 S 64.34 S 817.12 /1,000 sf S 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.51 97.7 S 64.34 $ 6.286.02 /1,000 sf S 6.236.02 /1,000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5I 31.5 S 64.34 S 2.026.71 /1,000 sf S 2,026.71 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf S 4,175.67 11,000 sf
Hospital 11,42 4.3 0.51 24.6 S 64.34 S 1.582.76 /1,000 sf S 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.51 135.3 $ 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf S 5.705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 $ 64.34 $ 1,228.89 /1,000 sf S 1.228.89 /1,000 sf
Restaurant
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 S 17930.20 /1,000 sf
OTF'IER.(as.iloted_)+? r, _. � -�yt .�"' 'a�r-.i_;, - z�r;__ .� '!y'F„-�C 't � __ �•r4t??T� _
Cemetery 3.071 4.31 O.51 6.6 $ 64.34 1 S 424.64 1 /Acre IS 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 S 14,894.71 /Fuel $14 894 71 /Fuel
(av Position Position
Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 S 13,743.02 /Fuel $13,743.02 IFuel
Wash Position Position
?aye c
95
Resolution No. 2012-23
EXHIBIT A- 3
96
Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012) 30%
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $119 $277 $1,800 $1,091 $6,802
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $245 $115 $1,238 $519 $4,632
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $111 $475 $940 $479 $3,351
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.312 SO.D99 $4.175 No Fee $0.447
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.133 $0.009 $1.279 No Fee $0.393
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013) 60%
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $238 $553 $2,092 $1,126 $11,S40
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $489 $229 $1,417 $686 $8,576
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $221 $950 $1,094 $588 $6,701
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.625 $0.197 $4.175 No Fee $0.664
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.266 $0.018 $1.498 No Fee $0.555
Development Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014) 90%
Circulation Park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, & Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signals, Public Library (No Tract
Land Use Facilities Facilities Bridges) Facilities Map)
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $356 $830 $2,385 $1,160 $16,278
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $734 $344 $1,597 $852 $12,520
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $332 $1,425 $1,248 $697 $10,052
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/5F $0.23/SF
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee No Fee $172/trip $0.04/SF $0.23/SF
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.937 $0.296 $4.175 No Fee $0,882
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.399 $0.027 $1.716 No Fee $0.718
Date Printed:5/24/2012,June 4 Resolution 30 60 90
Page 1
97
Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee SdWd& Pl. S0122-23
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2012)
Recommended Cost per 30% Increase
1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit Scenario Cost per
Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per or other unit (90% of 1000 sq. ft, dwelling
Land Use Trip Ends Distance to Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile original) unit or other unit
RESIDENTIAL.LAN D:USES:(perUnit)`"`:'�.
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 L 34.6 S 50.22 -S - 1,737.61 /Unit 5..;.1;722.55 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 5 50.22 $ 1,220.35 /Unit ;5.,1,209.5b, /Unit
Condominium/Townhouse 5.361 7.91 0.51 21.2 S 50.22 S 1.064.66 /Unit S 1,0.54.55 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.571 7.91 0.51 18.1 S 50.22 S 908.98 /Unit $.,,,_:899.59 /Unit
RESORT/TOURIST](per'Unit,orEhtry.Doi r)'� a,;. ." <""';'�` - ,1• _:• . -r:w�r �� i
Hotel 6.291 7.61 0.51 23.91 S 64.34 1 S 1,537.73 1 /Room I S 1,218.63 /Room
All Suites Hotel 1 3.771 7.61 0.5I 14.3 S 64.34 1 S 920.06 1 /Room S, i729.93 /Room
Motel 1 4.341 7.61 0.51 16.51 S 64.34 IS 1,061.61 1 /Room S 841.02 /Room
INDUSTRIAL,( per`1,000 SF,)`
' /1,000
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 S 64.34 $ 1,788.65 I /1,000 sf 5•�.�1279':46,4
Heavy Industrial 5.971 9.0 0.5 26.9 S 64.34 S 1.730.75 /1,000 sf $`->1,23.8.01 /1,000
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.5 12.3 S 64.34 $ 791.38 /1,000 sf S': 566i�1', /1,000
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 0.5 19.8 $ 64.34 S 1,273.93 1 /1,000 sf ,5;,=;'910.74. /1,000
COMMERCIAL_�(0er1,000S_F)
Office Park 742ry 8.8 0.5 32.6 $ 64.34 S 2,097.48 /1,000 sf $ .i,522t61., /1.000
. sf
-%�� /1,000
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 S 64.34 S 1,415.48 /1,000 sf S 1,027.85 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 S 64.34 S 2,644.37 /1,000 sf $ 1,917,85 /1,000
Bldg. Materials/Lumber 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 S 64.34 S 4,059.85 11,000 sf S 4.059.85 /1,000
Store sf
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 S 64.34, $ 3.242.74 /1,000 sf S 3,242.74 st,000
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $ 64.34 S 341.00 /1.000 sf $ 341.00 of,000
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 $ 64.34 $ 817.12 /1,000 sf $ 817.12 s,000
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 IS 6,286.02 /1,000 sf '$ :'4-559.89 /1,000
sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 S 64.34 S 2,026.71 11,000 sf 5 '1 470 08'' /1,000
a > sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 S 4,175.67 /1,000 sf S 4,175.679 sf•000
Hospital 1 1 42 4.3 0.5 24.6 S 64.34 S 1.582.76 11.000 sf $ 1,582.76 s/f,000
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 S 64.34 $ B,705.20 /1,000 sf S 8,705.20 /1,000
sf
High-Tumover Restaurant 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 S 64.34 S 1,22B.89 /1,000 sf S 1.228.89 of,000
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.5 93.7 S 64,34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf I $ 6,028.66 11,000
sf
Office Park 13.97 4.31 0.5 30.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20
_ . . . _ . ,. _ /1,000 sf $ 1,930.20 s/f1,000
. . :; :OTHER (a�noted)", " .zz -
Cemetery 3.071 4.31 0.5 6.6 $ 64.34 S 424.64 !Acre S 424.64 /Acre
Service Station/Market 107 69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 S 14,894,71 /Fuel $ 14,894.71 /Fuel
(av PositionPosition
Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel $ 13,743.02 /Fuel
Wash Position Position
Page 2
98
Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Sc�iec�u a p,0. 3' -23
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2013)
Recommended Cost per 60% Increase Scenario
1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
Adjusted Average Trip-end Additional Cost per or other unit(90% of dwelling unit or other
Land Use Trip Ends Distance to Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile original) unit
RESIDENTIAL�'[A_ ND USES:(per Unit)..,7 ., `•': .i3j,`.:"x=�''` '`' ''z-" ;`�S",' ';a� !'.. ..'4"4v ,% `,a' d°' "Sj '„'sir.
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 S 57.39 S 1,985.69 /Unit _51;938.39 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.51 24.3 S 57.39 S 1,394.58 /Unit51:'1,3fi120' /Unit
CondominiumlTownho 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 S 57.39 S 1,216.67 /Unit �S�r:1,187,..17, /Unit
use
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 S 57.39 S 1,038.76 /Unit :Wf,1,013.15 /Unit
RES_OR_TITOURIST}(pe�tiUnit odr EAtry.__Do_or) -, sg ;; -; :'-a'E`�c,r^7'�'��,' ,d'4r.
Hotel 1 6.291 7.6 0.51 23.9 S 64.34� S 1.537.73 /Room $;, 1,355.W /Room
All Suites Hotel 13.77 7.6 0.5 14.3 S 64.34 1 S 920.06 /Room 811?41 /Room
Motel 14.34 7.6 0.51 16.51 S 64.34 1 S 1,061.51 1 /Room $?'�. 935i56*] /Room
I_NDUST_RIA0(I0_er1,000_S_F)-. :�.
General Light Industrial 6.17 9.0 0.5 27.8 $ 64.34 S 1.788.65 /1,000 sf .$+ 1,497.69:1 /1,000 sf
Heavy Industrial 5.971 9.0 0.51 26.9 S 64.34 1 $ 1,730.75 /1,000 sf $g, 1,449:18 11,000 sf
Manufacturing 2.73 9.0 0.51 12.3 $ 54.34 S 791.38 11,000 sf S�.`:. 662�65 /1,000 sf
Warehousing 4.39 9.0 O.51 19.81 S 64.34 1 S 1,273.93 11,000 sf JJ 1.066.39: /1,000 sf
COMMERCIAL(per 1,000:SF)` 1 ' .';:. i$ •� ° •�_ - ' ' '•�� " '+ -�'"`
Office Park 7,421 8.8 0.51 32.6 S 64.34 S 2.097.48 1 /1,000 sf $7. 1,768.99 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.51 22.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,415.48 11,000 sf .$,'7.1,193.98 /1,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.81 0.51 41.1 $ 64.34 S 2,644.37 /1,0D0 sf S''2,229.22 /1,00D sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 $ 64.34 $ 4,059.85 I-
11.000 sf I $ 4.059.85 11,000 sf
Store
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.51 50.4 $ 54.34 S 3,242.74 /1,000 sf $ 3,242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.51 5.3 $ 64.34 $ 341,00 /1,000 sf $ 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.921 4.3 0.51 12.7 $ 64.34 S 817.12 /1,000 sf $ 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.211 6.8 0.51 97.7 S 64.34 S 6,286.02 /1,000 sf $:'..5,219:66 11,000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $ 64.34 $ 2.026.71 /1,000 sf $ �1-708:63 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.21 4.3 0.51 64.9 S 64.34 $ 4,175.67 /1,000 sf S 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.421 4.3 0.51 24.6 S 64.34 1 S 1,582.76 /1,000 sf $ 1,582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62.931 0.5 135.3 S 64.34 $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf $ 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Tumover 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 S 64.34 S 1.228.89 /1,000 sf $ 1.228.89 /1,000 sf
Restaurant
Convenience Market 1 43.57 4.3 0.51 93.7 $ 64.34 $ 6,028.66 /1,000 sf S 6,028.66 /1,000 sf
Office Park 1 13.971 4.3 O.51 33.0 $ 64.34 $ 1,930.20 /1,000 sf $ 1.930.20 /1,000 sf
OTHER as not6d i f;. ,. 7�j.'L:{t 'r s r �- + ,:� ;.. 1<r .t�tyG �, �. c•�' -h?',s: .
Cemetery 3,071 4.31 0.51 6.6 $ 64.34 1 $ 424.64 1 /Acre I S 424.64 I /Acre
Service Station/Market 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 $ 64.34 $ 14,894.71 /Fuel $ 14.894.71 /Fuel
(av Position Position
Service Station w/Car gg,35 4.3 0.5 213.6 $ 64.34 $ 13,743.02 Fuel S 13,743.02 !Fuel
Wash Position Position
Page 3
99
Resolution No. 2012-23
Exhibit A-3 Aternative Fee Schedule No. 3
Schedule of Rates for Traffic Impact Fees (Effective 9/2/2014)
Recommended Cost per
Adjusted Average Trip-end to Additional Cost per 1000 sq. ft, dwelling unit or
Land Use Trip Ends Distance Trip Trip Miles Trip Mile other unit (90% of original)
RESIDENTIAL'-`LAND USES (per Unit�g;"' . ,T i�l? ° `.,:r' s' !
:'•,
Detached Dwelling Unit 8.76 7.9 0.5 34.6 S 64.34 $ 2,226.16 /Unit
Apartment 6.15 7.9 0.5 24.3 $ 64.34 $ 1,563.46 /Unit
Condominium/Townhou 5.36 7.9 0.5 21.2 S 64.34 $ 1,364.01 /Unit
se
Mobile Home Dwelling 4.57 7.9 0.5 18.1 $ 64.34 S 1.164.55 /Unit
RESORTtTOU_ RIST (per Unit or
Hotel 1 6.291 TE31 0.51 23.9 $ 54.34 IS 1.537.73 /Room
All Suites Hotel 3.77 7.6 0.5 14.31 S 64.34 1 S 920.06 1 /Room
Motel 4.341 7.61 0.51 16.51 S 64.34 1 S 1,061.61 1 /Room
INDUSTRIAL (kPer 1,00QtSF), " iA,;
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(pW`,000'SF)r '3'1 -.
Office Park 7.42 8.8 0.51 32.6 S 64.34 $ 2,097.48 /1,000 sf
Research Park 5.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $ 64.34 S 1,415.48 /1,000 sf
Business Park 9.34 8.8 0.5 41.1 S 64.34. S 2,644.37 /1,000 sf
Bldg. Materials/Lumber 29.35 4.3 0.5 63.1 S 64.34 S 4,059.85 /1.000 sf
Store
Garden Center 23.45 4.3 0.5 50.4 S 64.34 $ 3.242.74 /1,000 sf
Movie Theater 2.47 4.3 0.51 5.3 $ 64.34 S 341.00 /1,000 sf
Church 5.92 4.3 0.5 12.7 S 64.34 S 817.12 /1,000 sf
Medical-Dental Office 22.21 8.8 0.5 97.7 $ 64.34 S 6,286.02 /1.000 sf
General Office Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 S 64.34 $ 2,026.71 /1,000 sf
Shopping Center 30.2 4.3 0.5 64.9 $ 64.34 S 4,175.67 /1,000 sf
Hospital 11.42 4.31 0.5 24.6 S 64.34 S 1.582.76 /1,000 sf
Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 135.3 $ 64.34 S 8,705.20 /1,000 sf
High-Turnover 8.9 4.3 0.5 19.1 S 64.34 $ 1,228.89 11,000 sf
Restaurant
Convenience Market 43.57 4.3 0.51 93.7 S 64.34 S 6,028.66 /1,000 sf
Office Park 1 13.97 4.3 0.51 30.0 S 64.34 1 S 1,930.20 /1,000 sf
OT,HER;(as
Cemetery 3.071 4.31 0.51 6.61 S 64.34 1 S 424.64 1 /Acre
Service Station/Market 107.69 4.3 0.5 231.5 S 64.34 S 14,894.71 /Fuel
(av ) Position
Service Station w/Car 99.35 4.3 0.5 213.6 S 64.34 S 13,743.02 /Fuel
Wash Position
Pace 4
100
ATTACHMENT #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
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 17.73, said chapter to read as follows:
Chanter 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.
17.75.1 10 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.
1
12-3209.001/78649
102
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, 2012, 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.
12-3209.001/78649 ..
103
Ordinance No. 3942
17.75.020 —Intent and Purpose.
A Police Facilities Development Impact Fee is being created for the purpose of assuring
that the impacts created by new development in the City of Huntington Beach pay a fair
share of the proportional facility and equipment and vehicle costs required to support
needed police facilities and related costs necessary to accommodate such development.
This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan, as well as following the recommendations in the Nexus
Report including the Master Facilities Plan, and the City of Huntington Beach Capital
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
12-3209.001/78649
104
Crdinance 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.
B. The Director of Planning and Building shall calculate the amount of the applicable
Police Facilities Development Impact Fee due by:
1. Determining the number and type of dwelling units in a residential
development or mobilehome pads in a mobilehome park or site, and
multiplying the same by the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee
amount per dwelling unit or pad as established by the current fee resolution
setting the amount of the fee;
2. Determining the gross square feet of floor area, or number of lodging units,
type of use and location in a nonresidential development, and multiplying
the same by the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee amount as
established by the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee;
3. Determining the 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 rate as the predominant principal use unless
the Department of Planning and Building finds that the accessory use is
related to another principal use.
17.75.075 Fee Pavments for Phased Development Proiects. If a Development Project
will be constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy
will be issued for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on
the basis of the development characteristics of the entire Development Project. Payment of
4
12-3209.001/78649
105
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 - Pavment of fee.
A. The City shall collect from the applicant the Police Facilities Development Impact
Fee prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of
occupancy. final building permit approval or construction approval for mobilehome
pad or pads, whichever occurs first.
B. Except for any administrative charge allocated to the City, all funds collected shall
be properly identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the Police Facilities
Development Impact Fee fund and used solely for the purposes specified in this
Chapter.
17.75.090 - Use of funds.
A. Funds collected from the Police Facilities Development Impact Fee shall be used to
fund the costs of providing additional police services attributable to new residential
and nonresidential construction and shall include:
1. The acquisition of additional property for law enforcement facilities;
2. The construction of new facilities for law enforcement services:
3. The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for law enforcement services:
4. The purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles for law enforcement
services:
5. The funding of a master plan to identify capital facilities to serve new police
department development:
6. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments).
7. Projects identified in the City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the
Master Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, the City of Huntington
Beach Capital Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach
budget or City Council approved development projects.
B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair
existing buildings, and/or existing vehicles or equipment.
5
12-3209.00I178649
106
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 f'acilities�provided are
of the type described in this Chapter.
E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter.
17,75.100 - Refund.
A. 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.
B. Erroneous or Illeeal 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
12-3209M 1/78649
107
Ordinance No. 3942
the same procedure as for a fee adjustment as provided in Chapter 17.73. The
following shall be exempted from payment of the Police Facilities Development
Impact Fee:
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 police services will be provided over and above
those provided by the existing building;
b. The replacement of a destroyed or partially destroyed
building or structure with a new building or structure of the same
size and use, provided that no additional police services will be
required over and above those provided by the original use of the
land:
C. The construction of residential accessory buildings, structures or
uses which will not require additional police services over and
above those provided by the principal building or use of the land;
d. The installation of a replacement mobilehome on a lot or other such
site when a Police Facilities Development Impact Fee for such
mobilehome site has previously been paid pursuant to this Chapter,
or where a mobilehome legally existed on such site on or prior to the
effective date of the ordinance codified in this Chapter;
e. Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling
(one (1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the replacement
of one (1) mobilehome with another on the same pad, or the moving
and relocation of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the
City to another lot within the City. This exemption shall not apply to
tract development, to the development of more than one (1) unit per
lot, nor to the replacement of a single-family dwelling with more
than one (1) dwelling unit;
2. Affordable housing for lower income households. Property rented, leased,
sold, conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price
which does not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section
50052.5 of the California Health and Safety Code when provided to a
"lower income household" as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California
Health and Safety Code or "very low-income household" as defined in
Section 50105 of the California Health 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
7
12-3209.001/786-49
108
Ordinance No. 3942
the form of a deed restriction or other legally binding and enforceable
document acceptable to the City Attorney and shall bind the owner and any
successor-in-interest to the real property being developed. The agreement
shall subordinate, if required, to any state or federal program providing
affordable housing to lower and very low-income households. The
agreement shall be recorded with the Orange County Recorder prior to the
issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Applicant or any successor-in-
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 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
17.75.140 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
12-3209.001/78649
109
Ordinance No. 3942
to document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the police services impacts of
new development.
17.75.150 - Annual report and amendment procedures.
A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the
Police Chief of the City of 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 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 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 be operative and remain in full force and effect without limitation with respect to all
residential and nonresidential development.
17.75.170 - Violation—Penalty. A violation of this Chapter shall be prosecuted in the
same manner as misdemeanors are prosecuted; and upon conviction, the violator shall be
punishable according to law. However, in addition to or in lieu of any criminal
9
12-3209.0 0 117 8 619
110
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 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 ju 1 y . 2012
Mayor
ATTEST: � INITIATED AND APPROVED:
c
ity Clerk UChief of Police
REVIE D APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ager (M�!�,w —
ty'Attofney
10
12-3209.001/78649
111
ATTACHMENT #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 THE DEVELOPMENT
IMPACT FEES FOR FIRE FACILITIES
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. The Huntington Beach Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding
Chapter 17.74, said chapter to read as follows:
Chapter 17.74
FIRE FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
Sections
17.74.010 Legislative findings.
17.74.020 Intent and Purpose.
17.74.030 Definitions
17.74.040 Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee.
17.74.050 Fund Established.
17.74.060 Fee imposed.
17.74.070 Calculation of Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee.
17.74.075 Fee Payments for Phased Development Projects
17.74.076 Fee Adjustments
17.74.080 Payment of fee.
17-74.090 Use of funds.
17.74.100 Refund.
17.74.110 Exemptions and credits.
17,74.120 Appeals
17.74.130 Credit for Construction of Non-Site Related Improvements.
17.74.140 Eligible Expenditures from Fee Reserve Account
17.74.1 50 .Annual report and amendment procedures.
17.74.160 Effect of Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision
regulations.
17.74.170 Violation—Penalty.
17.74.180 Severability.
1
12-3209.00Ir8660
113
Ordinance No. 3943
17.74.010 - 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 fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles
and specialty equipment which are needed to serve the increasing development in the
City.
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 fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment 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 fire stations: the
construction or acquisition of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment, and increase the number of emergency response vehicles.
F. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the acquisition,
relocation and expansion of fire stations; the construction or acquisition of fire
suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment, and increase the number
of emergency response vehicles identified herein in furtherance of the City General Plan,
the Nexus Report and its attached Master Facilities Plan, and the City of Huntington
Beach Master 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
fire stations: the construction or acquisition of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles
and specialty equipment, and increase the number of emergency response vehicles 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 acquisition, relocation and expansion of fire stations: the construction or acquisition
of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment, and increase the
number of emergency response vehicles 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
12-3209.001178e50
114
Vrchname No. 3Y4S
the facilities and equipment or portion thereof attributable to the development on which
the fee is imposed_
17.74.020 —Intent and Purpose.
A Fire 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 acquisition,
relocation and expansion of fire stations; the construction or acquisition of fire
suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment, and increase the number of
emergency response vehicles and related costs necessary to accommodate such development.
This Chapter is intended to implement 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, which is a part of the Nexus Report, and the City of Huntington Beach
Capital Improvement Plan by ensuring that the Citv's acquisition, relocation and expansion of
fire stations: the construction or acquisition of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and
specialty equipment, and the increase in the number of emergency response vehicles 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 Citv's Fire Department,
toeether with fundine available from other City revenue sources, the Citv will be able to
construct the required capital improvements, accommodate projected growth and fulfill the
goals, objectives and policies of the Citv's General Plan, the Nexus Report and its attached
Master Facilities Plan.
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.
17.74.030 - Definitions. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.74.040 - Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee. There is imposed a Fire Facilities
Development Impact Fee on all non-subdivided, new Residential and Nonresidential
development.
17.74.050 - Fund established. A Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is established.
The Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee fund is a fund to be utilized for payment of the
actual or estimated costs of Fire facilities and equipment as set forth 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
3
12-32o9.001n8e50
115
Ordinance No. 3943
17.74.060 - 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 including
mobilehome development by obtaining a building permit or other discretionary approval
is required to pay a Fire 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 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 Fire Facilities
Development Impact Fee required by this Chapter has been paid to the City.
17.74.070 - Calculation of Fire 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 Fire
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 Fire Facilities Development
Impact Fee due by:
l. 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 b%
the Fire 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 Fire 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 Fire 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 Fire 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 Director finds that the accessory
use is related to another principal use.
4
12-3209.001/7&650
116
uromance i.o. �y4�
17.74.075 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.
17.74.076 Fee Adjustments. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.74.080 Payment of fee.
A. The City shall collect from the applicant the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee prior
to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or final
building permit approval or construction approval for mobilehome pad or pads,
whichever occurs first.
B. Except for any administrative allocated to the City, all funds collected shall be properly
identified and promptly transferred for deposit in the Fire Facilities Development Impact
Fee fund and used solely for the purposes specified in this Chapter.
17.74.090 Use of funds.
A. Funds collected from the Fire 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:
1. The acquisition of additional property for fire department facilities;
2. The construction of new facilities for fire department services;
3. The furnishing of new buildings or facilities for fire department services;
4. The purchase of new specialty equipment and vehicles for fire department
services;
5. The funding of a master plan to identify, capital facilities to serve new Fire
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.
5
12-3209.00tn8650
117
Vrtllnance No. S933
B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair
existing buildings, and/or existing vehicles or equipment.
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 Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees may be expended,
Development Impact Fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt
instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the type described in this
Chapter.
E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter.
17.74.100 Refund.
A. .Any applicant who has paid a Fire Facilities 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 Fire 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 Fire
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) 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.
6
12d209.001,78650
118
Urutnnnue
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 the same procedure
as for a fee adjustment as provided in this Chapter 17.73. The following shall be
exempted from payment of the Fire 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 Fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment 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 Fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty
equipment 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 Fire suppression/medic facilities,
vehicles and specialty equipment 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 Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee for such mobilehome site
has previously been paid pursuant to this Chapter, or where a mobilehome
legally existed on such site on or prior to the effective date of the
ordinance codified in this Chapter;
e. Construction, replacement or rebuilding of a single-family dwelling (one
(1) unit per lot) on an existing lot of record, or the replacement of one (1)
mobilehome with another on the same pad, or the moving and relocation
of a single-family home from one (1) lot within the City to another lot
within the City. This exemption shall not apply to tract development, to
the development of more than one (1) unit per lot, nor to the replacement
of a single-family dwelling with more than one (1) dwelling unit;
2. Affordable housing for lower income households. Property rented. leased, sold,
conveyed or otherwise transferred, at a rental price or purchase price which does
not exceed the "affordable housing cost," as defined in Section 50052.5 of the
California Health and Safety Code when provided to a "lower income household"
as defined in Section 50079.5 of the California Health and Safety Code or "very
7
12-3209.0008650
119
Vramanee No. .i`J4.i
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 eery 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 Cite 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 Fire 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.
17.74.120 Appeals. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.74.130 Credit for Construction of Non-Site-Related improvements. Applications for
credit for construction of non-fire-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
17.74.140 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve .Account. . All monies and interest
earnings in any Reserve Account shall be expended on 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
8
12-2209.001n8e50
120
urmnance NO. �94J
reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and
specialty equipment impacts of new development.
17.74.150 Annual report and amendment procedures.
A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Fire Chief
of the City of Huntington Beach shall evaluate progress in implementation of the Fire
Facilities 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 Fire facilities and equipment commenced, purchased or completed utilizing
monies from the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee fund;
2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned;
3. The amount of Fire Facilities Development Impact Fees in the fund; and
4. Recommended changes to the Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee, including,
but not necessarily limited to changes in this Fire Facilities Development Impact
Fee chapter or the 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 Fire Facilities Development Impact
Fee rates or schedules may be made by amending the fee resolution. Any change which
increases the amount of the Fire 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 Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee rates or schedules at such
other times as may be deemed necessary.
17.74.160 Effect of Fire Facilities Development Impact Fee on zoning and subdivision
regulations. This Chapter shall not affect, in any manner, the permissible use of property,
density/intensity of development, design and improvement standards and public improvement
requirements or any other aspect of the development of land or construction of buildings, which
may be imposed by the City pursuant to the City's zoning regulations, subdivision regulations or
other ordinances or regulations of the City, which shall be operative and remain in full force and
effect without limitation with respect to all residential and nonresidential development.
17.74.170 Violation—Penaltv. 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.
17.74.180 Severabilih,. 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
9
12-3209.001/78660
121
vramance no. sva�
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 day of 20
Mayor
ATTEST: INITIATED AND O ED:
Citv Clerk Fire Chief
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
J_,_APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager nC
Ci - Attorney
� • I - Iv
10
12-3209,001/78650
122
ATTACHMENT #4
ORDINANCE NO. 3944
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HU`NfINGTON BEACH
AMENDING CHAPTER 17.65 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO TRAFFIC IMPACT FEES
The City Council of the City of Huntington Beach does hereby ordain as follows:
SECTION 1. Section 17.65.01 5 is hereby added to Chapter 17.65, said section to read as
follows:
17.65.015 - 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 and nonresidential development in the City creates a need for
increased funds to pay for the cost of street, traffic signal and bridge improvements which
are needed to serve the increasing development in the City.
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 street, traffic signal and bridge improvements
attributable to applicable new residential or nonresidential development. This study is
based in part upon master planning to more specifically identify existing circulation
system elements.
E. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to finance the possible
acquisition and expansion of circulation systems identified herein in furtherance of the
City's General Plan, as well as the Master Facilities Plan which is part of the Nexus 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 the potential acquisition and expansion of
circulation systems has been prepared. This study is included in the Nexus Report.
f 2-3209.004n6802 1
124
Ordinance No. 3944
G. As set forth in the Nexus Report, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for
the potential acquisition and expansion of existing circulation system elements and
increase the number of vehicles 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 system or portion thereof attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed.
SECTION 2. Sections 17.65.050, 17.64.070, 17.65.090, 17.65.100. and 17.65.120 of the
Huntington Beach Municipal Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
17.65.050 Establishment of a Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee A Fair Share
Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee is hereby established. Any person who, 60 days after the effective
date of this Chapter, seeks to develop land, or modify the use of land within the City. by
applying for a building permit or other entitlement for use, or an extension of a building permit
or other entitlement for use previously granted, for a development project that will generate net
additional vehicle trips on City streets, is hereby required to pay a Fair Share Traffic Impact
Mitigation Fee in the manner and amount specified in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee
Resolution separately adopted.
The Citv Council shall, by resolution, set the specific amount of the fee, applicability of the fee,
a formula for adjusting the fee to account for annual inflation in transportation improvement
construction costs, describe the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fee is
imposed, list the specific public improvements to be constructed, and describe the estimated cost
of these facilities.
This fee shall be adjusted as provided in the resolution setting the specific amount of the Fee.
17.65.070 Calculation and Pavment of the Traffic Impact Fee
(a) Fee Calculation. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for calculating the Fair
Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee required by this Chapter, in accordance with the Fair
Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
The applicable amount of the fee shall be estimated at least 60 days prior to the first
public hearing for any discretionary planning approvals required by City Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance. The estimated fee shall identify the use category, the vehicle
trip-miles for the use and the total estimated for fee based upon the proposed size of the
developments. The fee estimated shall be recalculated as needed at the time a building
permit is issued, based on the vehicle trip generation characteristics of the final
development plan for which the building permit is issued.
(b) Payment Procedure for Commercial or Industrial Development Projects. Fees
required by this Chapter from a New Commercial or Industrial Development Project shall
be paid at the time that the City issues a building permit for the Project. t
(c) Payment Procedure for Residential Development Proiects. The fee required by this
Chapter from a New Residential Development Project shall be paid before final inspection
of the dwelling unit on which the fee was imposed. However, the Planning Director may
adopt procedures to advance the time the fee is due on Residential Development Projects
consistent with Government Code Section 66007, as amended.
12.3209.004176802 2
125
Ordinance No.3944
(d) Fee Pavments for Phased Development Proiects. If a Development Project will be
constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy will be
issued for each phase, fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the
basis of the vehicle trip 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 the vehicle trips for that phase represent of the total
development project's vehicle trips. The fee per vehicle trip shall be the fee in effect at
the time payment is due. (3e27-4/09, aa79-eno)
(e) Deposit of Fees. All Traffic Impact Fees collected shall be transferred for deposit into a
separate reserve account, as specified in this Chapter, and used solely for the purposes
specified in this Chapter. (3827-4/09,3a29-&10)
17.65.090 Fee Refunds. upon application, fees collected by the City pursuant to this Chapter
shall be refunded only under the following circumstances:
(a) Erroneous or Illeeal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that they were erroneously or illegally
collected, or if the City is compelled to do so pursuant to a final judgment by a court of
competent jurisdiction. An application for a refund pursuant to this Section shall be filed
within ninety (90) days after the payment of the fees pursuant to Section 17.65.070.
(b) Cih Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(e), fees
will be refunded if the City fails to commit them to a surface transportation improvement
project of the nature or type identified in the Master Facilities Plan, which is part of 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 Citv'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.
17.65.100 Fee Credits for Construction of Cih-wide Surface Transportation Improvements
(a) An applicant for a New Development project shall be entitled to a credit against the
amount of the Master Facilities Plan otherwise required by this Chapter, if the applicant
agrees to dedicate right-of-way needed for, or construct a traffic improvement listed in the
Master Facilities Plan. No credit shall be given for site-related improvements or site-
related right-of-way dedications.
(b) Application. A separate application shall be filed for each adjustment request made
pursuant to this Section. Such application shall be filed with the Public Works Director
on a form provided by the Director, not later than:
(1) Thirty (30) days prior to the first public hearing on an applicable discretionary
permit application for the development project; pursuant to the City Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance: or
(2) If no such discretionary permit is required, at the time of application for a
building permit for the development project- Each application shall provide the
documentation and assurances specified below.
12-3209.004ne802 3
126
Ordinance No. 3944
Any credit application shall be considered pursuant to Section 17.65.070 in the same
manner as the fee calculation adjustment.
(c) Credit for the Dedication of Non-Site-Related Ri ht-of-Way. Credit for the
dedication of non-site-related right-of-way for streets or street segments listed in the
Master Facilities Plan shall be valued at 115 percent of the most recent assessed value as
determined by the Orange County Assessor, or at the fair market value established by a
private appraiser acceptable to the City. In no event shall the credit exceed the right-of-
way costs for the street segment specified in the Master Facilities Plan or other applicable
basis for the fee, nor shall the credit exceed the amount of the Fair Share Traffic Impact
Mitigation Fee that would otherwise apply. Credit for the dedication shall be provided
when the property has been conveyed at no cost to, and accepted by, the City in a manner
specified by the City.
(d) Credit for Construction of Non-Site-Related Improvements. Applications for credit
for construction of non-site-related improvements shall submit acceptable engineering
drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates to the Public Works Director.
The Director shall recommend to the Planning Commission 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 Master Facilities Plan, or other applicable basis for the
fee, nor shall the credit exceed the amount of the Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation
Fee 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.
17.65.120 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account. All monies and interest
earnings in the Reserve Account established by this Chapter shall be expended on the
construction of surface transportation projects of the nature or type identified in the Master
Facilities Plan, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time to document the
reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development. Such
expenditures may include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
(a) Reimbursement for all direct and indirect costs incurred by the City to construct surface
transportation improvements pursuant to this Chapter, including the cost of land and right-
of-way acquisition, planning, legal advice, engineering, design, construction and
equipment.
(b) Reimburse the City for the construction of surface transportation projects of the nature or
type identified in the Master Facilities Plan, or such other report as may be prepared from
time to time to document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the traffic
impacts of new development constructed by the City with local funds from other sources.
(c) Costs of issuance or debt service associated with bonds, notes or other security instruments
issued to fund surface transportation improvements identified in the Master Facilities Plan.
(d) Reimbursement for administrative costs incurred by the City in establishing or maintaining
the Reserve .Account required by this Chapter, including the cost of studies to establish the
12-3209.0t4n6802 4
127
Ordinance No. 3944
requisite nexus between the fee amount and the use of fee proceeds. City administrative
costs shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the Reserve Account balance in any fiscal year.
(e) No Reserve Account funds shall be used to pay for capital improvements that are
associated with existing arterial street segment or signalized intersection Level of Service
deficiencies, except to the extent that new development contributes to the further
degradation of operations, nor shall Reserve Account funds be used for periodic surface
transportation system maintenance.
SECTION 3. Sections 17.65.030, 17.65.040, and 17.65.080 are hereby deleted in
entirety from this chapter.
SECTION 4. Section 17.65.050 is hereby added to this chapter, said section to read as
follows:
17.65.150 Severabilitv. If any section, phrase, sentence, or portion of this Chapter is for any
reason held invalid or unconstitutional by anv 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 5. All other sections of Chapter 17.65 not modified by this ordinance shall
remain in full force and effect.
SECTION 6. This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Citv Council of the City of Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of 20_.
Mayor
ATTEST: INITIATED AND APPROVED:
City Clerk Director of P lic Works
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FOR-M:
City Manager ,
, City
12-3209.004176802 5
128
KEY
INSERTIONS: DoOble underline
DELETIONS St-4et#lreagh
ORDINANCE NO. 3944
LEGISLATIVE DRAFT
Chanter 17.65
FAIR SHARE TRAFFIC MPACT FEE
(3048-9/90, 3477-11/00, 35 1 7-1 010 3, 3827-4/09. 3879-6/10)
Note: Ordinance No. 3827(expired 4115110)and Ordinance No. 3879,effective from 5/3110 to SW 1.temporarily defer
the payment of certain, Development Impact Fees.
Sections:
17.65.010 Short Title
17.65,015 - Legislative findings,
17.65.020 Intent and Purposes
17.65.030 Definitions
17.6-5.040 Applicability of Chapter
17.65.050 Establishment of a Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee
17.65.060 Exemption
17.65.070 Calculation and Payment of the "Traffic Impact Fee
17.65.080 Fee Adjustments
17.65.090 Fee Refunds
17.66.100 Fee Credits for Construction of Civywide Surface Transportation
Improvements
17.65-110 Establishment of Reserve Account for Fees
17.65.120 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account
17.65,130 Annual Program Review and Periodic Adjustment of the Fee
17.65.140 Preparation of Implementation Guidelines
17.65.150 Severabiliri.
17.65.010 Short Title
This Chapter of the Municipal Code may be cited as the "Fair Share Traffic Impact Fee
Ordinance".
17.65.015 - 1egislative findings
A. 1h_e State of Califomia through the enactment of Government Code Sec 's 66QQI
thw-u-S 61 6�has authorized the CitYAILenact developLent imna e ,
B. The imposition of development impact fees i a met od of D ew
s� tuueDt�ears a proportionate share ��1 e cost o�c�iLa] Casilii ud�thacaas
ttesessary to accommodate such development. These fees are established to promote and
protect the public. htaLth Qty and welfare.
C. Increase in re ' tial and nonce dential devel 2ment in the G* _comes a�ee�il C
ii1cremed funds to pay for thecost of street. traffic signal and-bLidg ilia r7 ove ents which
are needed to developmenhrLthe CitL
TLP�uSuant to t1Le"Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report fQr�heS,aP�£
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 Page 1 of 11
6010
2-3209.004I78740
129
KEY
INSERTIONS: Q.Qub£underline
DELETIONS
htuntw- etch 1 as amended April
w i 3p Qted�Itd iAeomorated herein by refg e�-oe iat e*�u-as-lliup. ses
forthm ll_1be e seta d Pursuant to this hanter are derived rom based upon
anal do not exceed the cost of pr yidinad�itipnal street`tr�ffi�sie�l—and ride
jytipro<ement_ attr butable to new residettttL4Lt14nLe�j�ential constructiol7_T�iis stud is
based in mart upon masteLplattrting to�rtore sno�ific_a11� idep2 v e i�ting circulation
51steme1P=-1ds
E The fees_-deed nursustcti_to this Chat all be used to fimce the_ s- e
acquisition and exQansion�eJLCplatiotL;y�tems an ed herein ttLf heran^e of the
Cit ''s-a eral Plan as weJJ as he Master Facilities Plan wltic is p of the \teu-LE1art
an Ewucity tin>?t laeegch Capital lmmroverrtent Plate
P. DetailgA stusiYof_the im -aclsStflitu e esidential att_d nottre�iaLcQnt ct'
wit~ al gitaa analysis the need for the pat-enua-L acquisition and an
ei dQui of
c�c LatjQn stemSli sl2�en orenared This stud' i� c u d e d is the - -q Report.
AssetathJp e \exus Renon, I�L�LS_a r�oita e e ation�hsp-lesveelLthe need for
the note-ltal��q�isilionnd erosion of esisin circulation systettLel�tttent� and
nc�ease the nu11112er of vehicles set forth in tbis Chapicr and le act Q the tvoesof
dove meat for which the corresRone fee is charged ID�aSl�ion there-i�a
rcasona le relatLonshi2betw'ecn the fee's use�nd.the type of d�velontnent_t w ic}t the
cf charged and —Qna�i c�clati n pal ehveett the amount of the_fee aril t_he c et
the system or monion thereof attrihutable to [he dcvcloizment of w h-he-fet-is-1nlposed_
17.65.020 Intent and Purposes
This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan. by ensuring that the City's adopted Level of Service standards
for arterial roadways and signalized intersections 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 surface transportation system, 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.
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 Califomia Environmental Quality Act, other state
and local laws. ordinances or Charter provisions which may authorize the imposition of
conditions on development.
17.65.030 Definitions $ge ChamreL 17 73 of this Code
rylr_tlle_ ihi5 Ghnw-f }t
(a) �Appiieaat:L-shall--rneart-anv-per-seat-o 1�rthat applies fc r a pc o o 'cr
entitleffient r,._ , new a ve}epn nt prteet.
Huntino_;on Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 Paoe 2 of 11
5!2/io
12-3209.004r5740
130
KEY
INSERTIONS: Double underline
DELETIONS •S£,,`^�,`,�„�'^,`,
{� "•aj— all m the r:... afliutIt:..,_,en Beach
iiGommei'eial ..r indust..:el DeyeL.pment Dfe:eet" shell fiieaB the ,. ...-tpa etien of neT
) ef the Non Residential b
(d) =Develepmen£ Rre ec•" Eneans any resideStial, eemmefeial , industFial D&V,IOPMen£
l2fe,jeet.
(e) _ mean-die f e
develepment t p�sr n£ to tk- Ckap£er:
/S] "Cleef n.ea" shall mean the aFea „f all fleef5 and levels as defined in the HLUntingten
Beaeh Building Cede,
F Publie Faeilities" shall mean publiely owned buildings and stHettir-e
lam/ rn-fnxc-. ,.�q ..fee Fidueung City, Ge .n.1--State ..F c..a-_..1 /=,..._'., business
C. eh Faeilities shell elude but t be limited ♦eeity hall- ei: and fife fif t,t.wsS,
D :faC44.es. Private eemmefeial Deyelepment rb ' awned land shall Be
Ge..e. mefit _ D. hlie Daeil:t:es ,
(h\ "Land Use r..te..e.-.:� shall .. any ..f� ..5eeifi. �s ti.�¢...t have been 1 sted-Hi .it
lTr/ fai_. haf'e ii pie ntatien fesehitien ,the ed p t to SeetieieR :.i.v?-II Sed-to
YT
.:ae the basis F f f„tUfe tFaffie p e..ti.e..�
(i) !�ielhDe4 ean-any-ee*str-uc4iO ;
^ �se-ef-a-bt34 liens Y-4and-that-feEj i es the r:ny to issue ,.�.,a:.... building,
a:
el. h' ..he el efe _ e1 ef the efe-ntifle:7ent.
^a; ... re __ __ ___._ __.
[�] "<D hl' \l I Di shall mean h Difeetef fD hl' \lr as D-f th-�-vr,zxcDxfcizora
V/ designee.
(1.\�7 "Residefir 1 De ele f fneant�ro shall fw. elling unit-en-a-let
in any efthe residential T D
.. ,. d isti�:,�1.._s__of._l_e r:t. Fe peseS-af4s
ad A:,:en of rl..,._ n,.ea shall be ee:sidered-e-enstruet. n of a D e,.:Aent:el Development
lzrojeet-lf-the-addlt:enal >:leef A_e., e ea r,a.. �54) pereent ef the e3tis ingg Floof-Area;
a-%4etefmined-by-tlie-Building-and car Direeter.
(4) "Site RelateE�R-lglit-&f ti ,._ 1mpfeye. e.,t r.,�n=sliall znefn fi`ht v v.-a':-er
that nn- . tome ee istfaeted-en-the site of a new
ti e-Cvr.ply Aith a plie. ble Git«- e.-ele.....en „I..t:&�,;tandaf:ds.
(m) =Surface-Frans t: ^ system" shall mean the Gitrs-systemefstreet ads an
3n£erseette ileS-and-o£ttervehieles-
(n) "Fee r,.le..l..tien D,.peft" shall me ..B the ea entitled " ip L-of Hun ..g ... D,.aeh C_aif
Sbare-Fraf ie-lvlit get-ion-lrnpae-t-Fee�alealation-.le hRA An^ 1..,.t:r.,....:',...�_ ..--e.,.,-e� :
Hamilten-Rabinevitr llsekuler�z' tom,
:aTfaftsperteti.en System Needs
een-tiTe-fc"pE3ft-pfCpafce-a-xv.�.ae-err,.
efi
t:.lea r:n tiEu .w ,. . ae,,,.h T_e,n....,._.,,,:,,,, c,^tear Areea,. e..9 ,. nnnn nnrn
prepared-lay�l�Eensult}ng-l✓ngtneers;-Bated-vepteinbef-1..��
Huntington Beacti Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 Page 3 of 11
6010
12-3209.004r8740
131
KEY
INSERTIONS: Double underline
DELETIONS St+�.
lf') "Vehicle TFip shall Fnean thenumber of average daily trips generated b) uses of land_
as ..ified in the Santa Ana River Are.. ("S A P A") tr.,ffie Fnedel and at the iseretien e
..the Public Works Difeetef when the C A D A trafAe fnE.ae1 a,.,... .. -:ae�.�eh:..le���-
the Fnest reeent edit:.,.. of IRstirut_e of Tr.. ert.ati— Engineers, T•- /_e u.19h-
-i—oTo�o--it>•c,lfeal�t 1 '
(a) Nei.-nere..,pmenf-Rre{eeFs l-}eernecl-Cetn _
d.lte 9131iga 1.1 1 a by d : rhapt _ shall apply 4e all .. . ddeyelepm nt-prey
far which a • applieatien was
NN buildingpeFmany deemedh n. iilam ..1...nt fi3 - 11 l.e��
a new de eleprneft• ^t-ueless-s p.Ejeet-ear..plies --ithe-the-r itements-of-this
Ghaptef.
(b) New Devetopment Rrefeets-Deemed Coma lete Prior to De«linber 1�"�O11�1t1}s
2#44. New d,,...,1,.pment ., eets f„r ,,.—h-the i diseferiena>-' development appliE$tigg -- --
was deemed .. 1� a-htriltling-pemri tT
2004._f.,19 7n shall be sub_}eet to the piv'r"}sions ef Mtifi4eipal /`ode 11 apteF 17 65 Pr
1 t Fee (lra'.. either tee n thrn date tlie-.-aWieatien-was
tlte-4ater-i„rl�raf{tom. `�,�.. o..
deet23ed-:3ppf3t�eEl-O[ e --ding pe.-...:t . issued, as applie
17.65.050 Establishment of a Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee,_A Fair Share
Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee is hereby established. Any person who, 0a after the effective
date of this Chapter, seeks to develop land, or modify the use of land within the City, by
applying for a building permit or other entitlement for use, or an extension of a building permit
or other entitlement for use previously granted, for a development project that will generate net
additional vehicle trips on City streets, is hereby required to pay a Fair Share Traffic Impact
Mitigation Fee in the manner and amount specified iu-1 el e current City of Huntineton Beach Fee
Ike uiigwl SEnara el do to ed• herein.
The City Council shall, by resolution, set the specific amount of the fee,�tZnlicabilih o the fie
a formula for adjusting the fee to account for annual inflation in transportation improvement
construction costs, describe the benefit and impact area on which the development impact fee is
imposed, list the specific public improvements to be constructed, gDAdescribc the estimated cost
of these facilities. d dRSPFihP the able felationship that exists between- the fees-the
Naneas f dew firm ed the
tity and the—east-9`trttpfdveniefit
Beees „„ ,.d by _ � development. -l-kte-spevifie—amettrtt-o€-the-fee-shall.., 1..,s ,he,
eaieg y fer the a.,....laptne.,t t lied-b} the--,�trip 'er hand 11, Gategef-.- multiplied b,
the sii�e fvi�the use.
This fee shall be adjusted as orovided_ Slte et en
Deeefnber-1-2a8l _ ange4n-the
., g--years deteffnined IIrc F��v+r3eeritrg�etrs�tecer�
published by the ?AeGfaw ill.
17.65.060 Exemptions
(a) Exemption Categories. The following development projects shall be exempt from the
requirements of this Chapter:
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 Page 4 of 11
6,2/10
12-3209.004/-78740
132
KEY
INSERTIONS: Double unAeLjine
DELETIONS &ti ` �^og::
(1) Goverruncnt and public facilities.
(2) Alteration or expansion of an existing building in which no additional dwelling
units are created, the use is not changed, and where no additional vehicle trips will
be produced over and above those produced by the existing building.
(3) The construction of accessory buildings, structures or uses which will not produce
additional vehicular trips over and above those produced by the principal building
or use of the land.
(4) 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
vehicle trips will be produced over and above those produced by the original use of
the land.
(b) Claim for Exemption Required. Any claun 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 Section I7.65080(c).
17.65.070 Calculation and Pavment of the Traffic Impact Fee
Note: Ordinance No. 3327(expired 4/15110)anc Ordinance No. 3879,effective from 513/10 to 513111.temporarily defer
the payment of certain Development Impact Fees.
(a) Fee Calculation. The Public Works Director shall be responsible for calculating the Fair
Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee required by this Chapter, in accordance with the Fair
Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Schedule adopted by resolution of the City Council.
The applicable amount of the fee shall be estimated at least 60 days prior to the first public
hearing for any discretionary planning approvals required by City Zoning and Subdivision
Ordinance. The estimated fee shall identify the use category, the vehicle tr*11 p-a ilea
for the use and the total estimated for fee based upon the proposed size of the
developments. The fee estimated shall be recalculated as needed at the time a building
permit is issued, based on the vehicle trip generation characteristics of the Final
development plan for which the building permit is issued. (38274/09, 3879-6/10)
Note: Ordinance No. 3827(expired 4115/10)and Ordinance No. 3879, effective from 513110 to 513/11.
temporarily defer the payment of certain Development Imoact Fees.
(b) Payment Procedure for Commercial or Industrial Development Projects. Fees
required by this Chapter from a New Commercial or Industrial Development Project shall
be paid at the time that the City issues a building permit for the Project. (3827-4109.3879-6n9)
Note: Ordinance No.3827(expired 4115110)and Ordinance No. 3879,effective from 5i3/10 to start 1,
temporarily defer the payment of certain Development Impact Fees.
(c) Payment Procedure for Residential Development Projects. The fee required by this
Chapter from a New Residential Development Project shall be paid before final inspection
of the dwelling unit on which the fee was imposed. However. the Planning Director may
adopt procedures to advance the time the fee is due on Residential Development Projects
consistent with Government Code Section 66007. as amended. (3827-4/09, 3879-6/10)
Note: Ordinance No.3827 (expired 4/15/10)and Ordinance No. 3879,effective from S13/10 to 513111.
temporarily defer the payment of certain Development Impact Fees.
(d) Fee Pavments for Phased Development Projects. If a Development Project will be
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 Page 5 of 11
62/10
12-3209.004/-78740
133
KEY
INSERTIONS: D%Jble inderllIlE
DELETIONS SF6ke0+F0u0
constructed in phases, and separate building permits and certificates of occupancy will be
issued for each phase, fees unposed pursuant to this Chapter shall be calculated on the
basis of the vehicle trip 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 the vehicle trips for that phase represent of the total
development project's vehicle trips. The fee per vehicle trip shall be the fee in effect at
the time payment is due. (3827-4109,3879-5110)
Note: Ordinance No. 3827(expired 4115/10)and Ordinance No. 3879,effective from 5•3/10 to 5/3/11.
temporarily defer the payment of certain Development Impact Fees.
(e) Deposit of Fees. All Traffic Impact Fees collected shall be transferred for deposit into a
separate reserve account, as specified in this Chapter, and used solely for the purposes
specified in this Chapter. (3827-4/09. 3879-6/10)
Note: Ordinance No. 3827 (expired 4/15/10)and Ordinance No. 3879,effective trom 5/3/10 to 513/11.
temporarily defer the payment of certain Development Impact Fees.
17.65.080 Fee Adjustments See Chanter 1 3
(a) r�-ftai,^piicaixc- ro--r�2',i'-B2l�e}@�Q n{�Ur ol��i_^.abJc'c riO-d-fc�2-fZqu+f�'1 t'. ia}:ter-t++ate
apply t the Cit.- r _ . re4 of the r ,
1
(b} C-+�eemstanees-Flrtrt-?�7sr-d+3stifi-�FR 'tea-:ri;tmcet--E. �.�-��"��re;=+yes-ts3at
maw,- s €y-a-€ie-adjustn eat inelad butare-net-nee-essaFilY
(I� The Deve epffient-PFajeet4nc4udes ae e tsttfta btrtldtr -that is PropeSed to be
defelis ed Provided the b i4di aproposed - .ble-afkeina
used-ai-the t ine1c-o the Dei'elepment D•••:=• ,tviea, af?cd-S"fF'r:rrxc nt if'•^' if f;a f2atkt1a
abou"s-l+rior-use-isavai lab k te-tdeteFmin, -tts-tfip eeneratnwtea � erist-ies. Airy
Sac-l2-adjl+5tfr#eRt-}5-IHffttecd-t6-ll?c"43A+At+'t'rOl-tile-IE'e-ihai--FF(3Hld-Ott".^' ."'
,he`e. . 1_ elopment-F-feject.
H The • h5 seal o har-aetefi hours ,.fepe_atien) e fth,New
Developrneftt-RFoeei pfadttce� p-genefatien-ehafac-te that afe ubs .ice
diffefent fiem-the-land- czti-Ihefee ea culatien4sbased-
(3) 1=he ew Bes-elepn3ctx-Rsojeet jnc}udes-multiple !taig uses whase trip geaeratian
c is ies-afe eh-that-the--fef}pletr p
g �a o is an*' e s tlt the St+fr+o€t?tr veltiele-tr3ps-z'issesated-'with
its individual 1_�3nd uspq.
(c-) An applieatiafi f a vex �justn,;t-steal 4x—made grid a eid a as f'qllews.-
Appfieatiftp. A sepafate pplicatien shall be fled C._ aeh add eat _ ,owe
pursBan to t#r8eetie Sael}applieaiien shall be made en a form .._evided b the
Publ:, iFee-tE1rand shall be filed h iii-P Pu Nlie 11J.._Es Difeete-net-latef
th+
{1} thirty(y9 a tionaf}
pefmit applteatisfrieop tefx Rrojzct ptffsuaf+t to tmg
and--Subdivi^o^ OFdinarlee� of
(B) if ne s 'eh disefetieafy- 1-is Tequ red, at� the of. ph
aluil< � ea ,�+
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 Page 6 of 11
612t10
12-3209.004/78740
134
KEY
INSERTIONS: Double underline
DELETIONS &V*ethroD�h
detail the factual basis far the re e -f2Z'f *C-t'i(1R-ad
The Publiie Works Pi-reete_ shall detefffiine if the appheatienis-EO�d
if net '.
.-., a theublie hearing t.. l.e-eantinued
YY���
dete . :ned to be a pfete y
(2) Hea fins The nl.,.,..:_,,. !',.mfflissi n er tt.eq-on4-m^-`_Ttmiuis3shall eeaside
C 7 fee adjustment . pl' the srm,e-pablie�hearin
Separate Leering .:A.:.. (si.ay) 60 days aRemo the fee ...i;..,."ent e....heat�.�
_ionoaa. A el the de e. the Planning-ev`�rTmissien, Z n
Cy{ A ate... .... ete f PublieWorks Commissionthe City G 11 :1r by filing —1 t-e.ert
appe
gal with the Gity Clerk .,4441 t ..-...
n (10)-days-of the Ul :..0..
17.65.090 Fee Refunds
Upon application; fees collected by the City pursuant to this Chapter shall be refunded only
under the following circumstances:
(a) Erroneous or llleeal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Public Works Director that they were erroneously or illegally
collected, or if the City is compelled to do so pursuant to a final judgment by a court of
competent jurisdiction. Art application for a refund pursuant to this Section shall be filed
within ninety (90) days after the payment of the fees pursuant to Section 17.65.070.
(b) City Failure to Commit Funds. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66001(e), fees
will be refunded if the City fails to commit them to a surface transportation improvement
project of the nature or type identified in the 1 ransportatton$ystem-tieeds
-,tnalysi vjvbster Facilities Plan whic e Nexus Rem 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.
17.65.100 Fee Credits for Construction of Cih'wide Surface Transportation Improvements
(a) An applicant for a New Development project shall be entitled to a credit against the
amount of the Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee otherwise required by this
Chapter, if the applicant agrees to dedicate right-of-way needed for, or construct a traffic
improvement listed in, the n System-.N�Qe. alysi5Maste acilities Plan.
No credit shall be given for site-related improvements or site-related right-of-way
dedications.
(b) Application. A separate application shall be filed for each adjustment request made
pursuant to this Section. Such application shall be filed with the Public Works Director
on a form provided b_y the Director, not later than:
Huntington Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 Page 7 of 11
62110
12-320 D0a/787a0
135
KEY
INSERTIONS: Double underline
DELETIONS St4kegK4ug4
(1) Thirty (30) days prior to the first public hearing on an applicable discretionary
permit application for the development project, pursuant to the City Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance; or
(2) If no such discretionary permit is required, at the time of application for a building
permit for the development project. Each application shall provide the
documentation and assurances specified below.
Any credit application shall be considered pursuant to Section 17.65.070 in the same
manner as the fee calculation adjustment.
(c) Credit for the Dedication of Non-Site-Related Right-of-Way. Credit for the dedication
of non-site-related right-of-way for streets or street segments listed in the mien
S;4&ffi7 na}ysisM ter Eacilities Plan shall be valued at 115 percent of the most
recent assessed value as determined by the Orange County .Assessor. or at the fair market
value established by a private appraiser acceptable to the City. In no event shall the credit
exceed the right-of-way costs for the street segment specified in the Transpenatie
SN-stefn r nab slvlaster Fac�lilies I']an, or other applicable basis for the fee, nor
shall the credit exceed the amount of the Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee that
would otherwise apply. Credit for the dedication shall be provided when the property has
been conveyed at no cost to, and accepted by, the City in a manner specified by the City.
(d) Credit for Construction of Non-Site-Related Improvements. Applications for credit
for construction of non-site-related improvements shall submit acceptable engineering
drawings, specifications and construction cost estimates to the Public Works Director.
The Director shall recommend to the Planning Commission 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 Transper-tation-System Needs�nalysis e
Facilities Plan, or other applicable basis for the fee, nor shall the credit exceed the amount
of the Fair Share Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee that would otherwise apply.
\o 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 Citv paving, drainage and other applicable requirements.
17.65.110 Establishment of Reserve Account for Fees
Pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, fees paid to the City pursuant to this Chapter shall
be deposited into a separate Reserve Account in the City's General Fund and used solely for the
purposes of providing surface transportation improvements. All monies deposited into the
Reserve Account established by this Chapter shall be held separate and apart from other Ciro
funds. All interest or other earnings on the unexpended balance in the Reserve Account shall be
credited to the Reserve Account.
17.65.120 Eligible Expenditures From Fee Reserve Account
All monies and interest earnings in the Reserve .Account established by this Chapter shall be
expended on the construction of surface transportation projects of the nature or type identified in
Huntington,Beach Municipal Code Chapter 17.65 Page 8 of 11
62/10
12-3209.DW78740
136
KEY
INSERTIONS: j�QU_�€U-¢4�.2C1j0.E
DELETIONS &triket '^ O
the TFanspeFiatien System Needs Analysis-MmInEaQilities Plan, or such other report as may be
prepared from time to time to document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the
traffic impacts of new development. Such expenditures may include, but are not necessarily
limited to the following:
(a) Reimbursement for all direct and indirect costs incurred by the City to construct surface
transportation improvements pursuant to this Chapter: including the cost of land and right-
of-way acquisition, planning, legal advice, engineering, design, construction and
equipment.
(b) Reimburse the City for the construction of surface transportation projects of the nature or
type identified in the T-ranspertation--System '.`'��a� ^� -sis-master Facilities Plan, or such
other report as may be prepared from time to time to document the reasonable fair share of
the costs to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development constructed by the City with
local funds from other sources.
(c) Costs of issuance or debt service associated with bonds, notes or other security instruments
issued to fund surface transportation improvements identified in the Trafrspestatie -&y—
Ne ads Master Facilities Plan.
(d) Reimbursement for administrative costs incurred by the City in establishing or maintaining
the Reserve Account required by this Chapter, including the cost of studies to establish the
requisite nexus between the fee amount and the use of fee proceeds. City administrative
costs shall not exceed ten (10) percent of the Reserve Account balance in any fiscal year.
(e) No Reserve Account funds shall be used to pay for capital improvements that are
associated with existing arterial street segment or signalized intersection Level of Service
deficiencies, f,-xcy tR tiQlhe extent that new develo2rrient contributes to the further
deera ion of operations. nor shall Reserve Account funds be used for periodic surface
transportation system maintenance.
17.65.130 Annual Program Review and Periodic Adiustment of the Fee
Within 180 days after the last day of each fiscal year, the City Council shall review the status of
compliance with this Chapter, including the amount of fees collected, expenditures from the
Reserve Account, and the degree to which the fees collected pursuant to this Chapter are
assisting the City to mitigate the surface transportation impacts of new development. At least
every five (5) years after the effective date of the Ordinance enacting this Chapter, the Public
Works Director shall prepare, and the City Council shall consider, the fee formula established to
implement this Chapter, whether any adjustment in the fee formula or use of fee proceeds is
warranted, or any other changes are needed to the procedures established by this Chapter, to
fulfill the goals, objectives or policies of the City's General Plan. Each year between periodic
reviews of the fee formula, the fee shall be increased by a factor to account for inflation in
surface transportation construction costs, as provided in the City Council resolution setting the
fee amount. (36 1 7-1 010 3)
17.65.140 Preparation of Implementation Guidelines
Within sixty (60) days after the effective date of the Ordinance enacting this Chapter, the
Director of Public Works shall prepare administrative guidelines to implement the provisions of
this Chapter. The guidelines shall include administrative procedures, example fee calculations,
application forms and such other information that will assist City staff, decision makers,
Huntington Beach Mundoal Code Chapter 17.65 Paoe 9 of 11
6/211 C
12-32C9.004r78740
137
KEY
INSERTIONS: RQu21e_UndedlIle
DELETIONS StTWkethceugkl
developers ands the public to understand how the provisions of this Chapter are to be
implemented."
17.6�.1�0 Severabilih. If any secti9tt ohra�e sentence or portion of this ChaJf41 a
reason held invalid or tut�lsSitutt4nlbv anv court of comp 1cRt j1lLi5�Lction such portions shall
bLd,Lejned a sepaza slag we�and wdepende�Lpro -ision; and susal141d__-ne shall not-affect the
��alidity 4�the remainina�portion5lheLe4f
Huntington Beam Municipal Coae Chapter 17.55 Page 10 of 10
512/10
12-3209.004l76740
138
ATTACHMENT #5
ORDINANCE NO. 3945
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUITINGTON BEACH
DELETING CHAPTER 17.66 OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL
CODE AND ADDING CHAPTER 17.67 RELATING TO LIBRARY
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The Ciry 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
reeulations.
17.67.110 Violation—Penalty.
17.67.120 Severability.
l b3209.005/7 76 15 1
140
Ordinance No. 3945
17.67.010 Intent and Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to establish a Library
Development Impact Fee upon future Development Projects, an equitable share of the cost of
mitigating future Library Facility needs created by such projects.
A Library Development Impact Fee is being created for the purpose of assuring that the impacts
created by new developments in the City of Huntington Beach pay a fair share of the
proportional costs required for expansion of library facilities and collections.
This Chapter is intended to implement the goals, objectives and policies of the City of
Huntington Beach General Plan, as well as following recommendations in the Master Facilities
Plan, a part of the Nexus Report (as described below), and the City of Huntington Beach Capital
Improvement Plan by ensuring that the City's expansion of library facilities and collections are
maintained when new development is constructed within the City limits. By imposing a fee that
is reasonably related to the burdens created by new development on the City's Library Services,
together with funding available from other City revenue sources, the City will be able to
construct the required capital improvements, accommodate projected growth and fulfill the
goals, objectives and policies of the City's General Plan and Master Facilities Plan a part of the
Nexus Repor6.
It is the intent of the City Council that the fee required by this Chapter shall be supplementary to
any conditions imposed upon a development project pursuant to other provisions of the
Municipal Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality .Act, other state
and local laws, ordinances or chapter provisions which may authorize the imposition of
conditions on development.
17.67.015 Legislative 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.
I23209.005/77615 2
141
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 Citv's General
Plan, as well as the Master Facilities Plan which is a pan 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 analvsis 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 Citv.
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 Platt 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
12-3209.005177615 3
142
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 form of a deed restriction or other legally binding and enforceable
document acceptable to the City Attorney and shall bind the owner and any
successor-in-interest to the real property being developed. The agreement shall
12-3209.005r/7615 4
143
Ordinance No. 3945
subordinate, if required, to any state or federal program providing affordable
housing to lower and very low-income households. The agreement shall be
recorded with the Orange County Recorder prior to the issuance of a certificate of
occupancy. Applicant or any successor-in-interest shall be required to provide
annually, or as requested, the names of all tenants or purchasers, current rents and
income certification to insure compliance. Voluntary removal of the housing
restriction or violation of the restriction shall require the applicant or any
successor-in-interest to pay the then applicable Library Development Impact Fee
at the time of voluntary conversion or as imposed at the time of violation on the
unit in violation, plus any attorneys' fees and costs of enforcement, if applicable;
B. Credits. Any applicant whose development is located within a community facilities
district (CFD) or , and is subject to the assessments thereof, shall receive an offset credit
towards the fees established by this Chapter to the extent that the assessments fund
improvements within the CFD which would otherwise be funded by the Development
Impact Fees established by this Chapter.
17.67.045 Calculation of Required Fees.
A. At the time of the issuance of the building permit, the Director of Planning and Building
or his/her designee ('Director") shall calculate the amount of the applicable Library
Development Impact Fee due as specified in the current fee resolution setting the amount
of the fee.
B. The Director shall calculate the amount of the applicable Library Development Impact
Fee due by:
I. 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
12-32W MM61 s 5
144
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 Pavment 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 mobi lehome 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 Pavments 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 17.71 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
12.3 209.005n7615 6
145
Ordinance No. 3945
are deemed to have been -committed" if they have been budgeted or otherwise
encumbered by the Cite 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. Elieible
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 anniJersary 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:
I. 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
12-3209.005/77615 7
146
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 reasonabh 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
eamings in any Reserve Account shall be expended on the projects of the nature or type
identified in the Nexus Report, or such other report as may be prepared from time to time to
document the reasonable fair share of the costs to mitigate the impact of new development on the
expansion of Library Services and collections.
17.67.090 Annual report and amendment procedures.
A. Within one hundred eighty (180) days after the last day of each fiscal year, the Director
of Library Services of the City of Huntington Beach shall evaluate progress in
implementation of the Library Development Impact Fee and shall prepare a report
thereon to the City Council in accordance with Government Code Section 66006,
incorporating among other things:
1. The expansion of Library Services and collections commenced, purchased or
completed utilizing monies from the Library Development Impact Fee fund;
2. The amount of the fees collected and the interest earned;
3. The amount of Library Development Impact Fees in the fund; and
4. Recommended changes to the Library Development Impact Fee, including, but
not necessarily limited to changes in this Library Development Impact Fee
chapter or fee resolution.
B. Based upon the report and such other factors as the City Council deems relevant and
applicable, the City Council may amend the ordinance codified in this Chapter or the fee
resolution implementing this Chapter. Changes to the Library Development Impact Fee
rates or schedules may be made by amending the fee resolution. Any change which
12-3209.005/77615 8
147
Ordinance No. 3945
increases the amount of the Library Development Impact Fee shall be adopted by the Citv
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 anv 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 ofthe remaining portions thereof.
SECTION 3- This ordinance shall become effective 30 days after its adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of'Huntington Beach at a
regular meeting thereof held on the day of . 20
Mayor
ATTEST:
r\IT/?fEDAND .
City Clerk
Direst of tbrary Services U
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
i
�3 Ci y Attorney J
5 f2
f 2-3209.005177615 9
148
ATTACHMENT #6
ORDINANCE NO, 3946
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNI'INGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUZvTINGTON 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 Impact Fee on
zoning and subdivision regulations.
17.76.170 Violation—Penalty.
17.76.180 Severability.
1
12-3209.002.-79301
150
Ordinance No. 3946
17.76.010 - Lepislative 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
12-3209.002;779301
151
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. "Ihere 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
152
Ordinance No. 3946
17.76.060 - Fee imposed.
A. Any person who, 60 days after the effective date of this Development Impact Fee,
seeks to engage in non-subdivided Residential or Nonresidential development by
obtaining a building permit or other discretionary approval is required to pay a
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee in the manner and
amount as set forth in the current City of Huntington Beach Fee Resolution separately
adopted.
B. No certificate of occupancy, temporary certificate of occupancy, or building permit
approval for the activities listed in this Chapter, shall be issued unless and until the
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee required by this
Chapter has been paid to the City.
17.76.070 - Calculation of Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact
Fee.
A. At the time of the issuance of the building permit, the Director of Planning and
Building or his/her designee ("Director') shall calculate the amount of the applicable
Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee due as specified in
the current fee resolution setting the amount of the fee.
B. The Director shall calculate the amount of the applicable Parkland Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development Impact Fee due by:
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 of use and
location, in a structure containing mixed uses which include a residential use,
and multiplying the same by the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities
Development Impact Fee amount for each use as established by the current fee
resolution setting the amount of the fee;
4. Determining the gross square feet of floor area or number of lodging units,
type of use and location in a structure containing mixed uses which include
4
12-3209.002/79301
153
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 Pavments 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 Adiustments. Shall be as set forth in Chapter 17.73 of this Code.
17.76.080 Pavment 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 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 nee+ parkland
and park facilities and community use facilities development;
4. The cost of financing (e.g., interest payments).
5
12-3209.002179301
154
Ordinance No. 3946
5. Projects identified in City of Huntington Beach General Plan, the ;Master
Facilities Plan included in the Nexus Report, City of Huntington Beach Capital
Improvement Plan, adopted annual City of Huntington Beach budget, or City
Council approved park acquisition and development projects.
B. Funds shall not be used for periodic or routine maintenance or to maintain or repair
existing parkland or park facilities or community facilities.
C. Revenue raised would be limited to capitalized cost related to growth.
D. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for advanced provision
of capital facilities for which Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Impact Fees may be expended, impact fees may be used to pay debt service on such
bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the
type described in this Chapter.
E. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in this Chapter.
17.76.100 Refund.
A. Any applicant who has paid a Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Impact Fee(s) pursuant to this Chapter may apply to the Director for a full or partial
refund of same, if, within one (1) year after collection of the Parkland Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development Impact Fee the Fee has been modified as follows:
reduction in the number of dwelling units, a change in the type of dwelling units, a
reduction in square footage, or the applicability of an exemption pursuant to this
Chapter. In the event a refund is issued, the City may retain a sum up to twenty (20%)
percent of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Impact Fee paid
by the applicant to offset the administrative costs of refund. In no event shall a refund
exceed the amount of the Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
Impact Fee actually paid.
B. Erroneous or Illegal Collection. Fees will be refunded if the applicant demonstrates to
the satisfaction of the Director that they were erroneously or illegally collected. If the
Director determines the fees were not erroneously or illegally collected, then the
applicant may appeal the decision pursuant to Chapter 17.73.030 Appeals. An
application for a refund pursuant to this Section must be filed within ninety (90) days
after the payment of the fees.
C. 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
155
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:
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
13-3209M2F79301
156
Ordinance No. 3946
Code or "very low-income household" as defined in Section 50105 of the
Califomia 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 Attomey 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 attomeys' 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 othenise 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
altemative 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
157
VrQlnan CC NO. Jy40
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 Section 66006, incorporating 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
fez 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
12-3209.00 217 9 3 0 1
158
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 day of 20_
Mayor
ATTEST:
INIT"- AN�� PROVED:
City Clerk
Deputy City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Manager
City Attorney
S: . J 2
10
12-3209.002I79301 -
159
ATTACHMENT #7
0RDINANCE N0. 3947
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
AMENDING THE HUNTINGTON BEACH MUNICIPAL CODE
BY ADDING CHAPTER 17.73 RELATING TO GENERAL PROVISIONS
FOR 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
17.73. said chapter to read as follows:
Chapter 17.73
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE(S) - GENERAL
Sections
17.73.010 Definitions
17.73.020 Fee(s) .Adjustment
17.73.010 Appeals.
17.73.040 Judicial Review
17.73.010 Definitions. As used in this Chapter:
(a) "Applicant" means the property owner, landowner or duly designated agent thereof, that
applies for a permit or other entitlement for a new development permit.
(b) "Attached Dwelling Unit' [terra is used in Thorpe report] shall mean shared living
quarters with two or more dwelling units on a site; without separate kitchen or bathroom
facilities for each room or unit. This classification includes boarding houses.
(c) "Building permit' means the City permit required for new building construction and/or _-
additions which add square footage pursuant to Title 17 of this Code. Neither a grading
permit, nor a foundation permit shall be considered a building permit for purposes of this
Chapter.
(d) "Calculation" means the point in time at which the City calculates the development
impact fee(s) to be paid by the applicant. Calculation will generally occur at the time of
issuance of the applicable building permit or construction approval for a residential or
commercial/industrial development or mobilehome pad but may occur earlier in the
development approval process.
(e) "Chief' may mean the Chief of Police or Fire Chief.
(f) "City' shall mean the City of Huntington Beach.
12-3209,003179647 ]
161
Ordinance No. 3947
(g) "City Manager" means the City Manager or his/her designee of the City of Huntington
Beach.
(h) "Collect" or "collection" means the point in time at which the development impact fee(s)
are paid by the applicant. Collection will occur on the date of final inspection or the date
a certificate of occupancy or temporary certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first,
or in the case of a mobilehome pad or pads, collection will occur at or on the date of
construction approval is issued.
(i) "Collections' shall mean books, magazines. DVDs, compact disks, computer programs,
digital resources and other reference and circulation materials.
(j) "Commercial or Industrial Development Project" shall mean the construction of new
Floor Area on a lot in any of the Non-Residential Zoning Districts of the City.
(k) "Community Use Facilities" shall mean facilities dedicated for community use for social,
community and educational groups.
(1) "Detached Dwelling Unit" shall mean a detached building or buildings designed
primarily for use as a dwelling, with one or more habitable rooms with only one kitchen,
and designed for occupancy as a unit by one or more persons living as a household unit
with common access to all living, kitchen and bathroom areas, no portion of which is
rented as a separate unit.
(m) "Development" means the addition of new dwelling units and/or new nonresidential
square footage to an undeveloped, partially developed or redeveloped site and involving
the issuance of a building permit and certificate of occupancy for such construction,
reconstruction or use. Development may also include expanded uses that create additional
impacts on City facilities, infrastructure or park land. Development also includes the
approval and construction of new mobilehome pads in existing or new mobilehome parks
or sites, but not including the following so long as no additional dwelling units or gross
floor area is added:
I. A permit to operate;
2. A permit for the internal alteration, remodeling, rehabilitation, or other
improvements or modifications to an existing structure;
3. The rebuilding of a structure destroyed by an act of God or the rehabilitation or
replacement of a building in order to comply with the City's seismic safety
requirements;
4. Parking facilities; or
5. The rehabilitation or replacement of a building destroyed by imminent public
hazard, acts of terrorism, sabotage, vandalism, warfare or civil disturbance except
where said destruction was caused or in any manner accomplished, instigated,
12-3209.003/78647 2
162
Ordinance No. 3947
motivated, prompted, incited, induced, influenced, or participated in by any
persons or their agents having any interest in the real or personal property at the
location.
(n) "Development Project' means any residential, commercial or industrial Development
Project. shall mean any construction, addition, alteration or other change of use of a
building or land that requires the City to issue a grading, building, plumbing, mechanical,
or electrical permit, or any other form of entitlement.
(o) "Director" may mean the Director of Community Services; Director of Library Services;
Director of Planning and Building, or Director of Public Works.
(p) "Dwelling unit" or "DU" is as defined in Section 203.06 of the Huntington Beach Zoning
and Subdivision Ordinance ("ZSO").
(q) "Fee resolution" means and refers to the City resolution specifying the development
impact fee(s) per dwelling unit or mobilehome pad for residential development and per
gross square foot of floor area for nonresidential development, by type and by location.
(r) "Fees Calculation Report' shall mean the report prepared for the City entitled
"Development Impact Fee(s) Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Huntington
Beach" dated October, 2011.
(s) "Floor Area" shall mean the area of all floors and levels as defined in the ZSO.
(t) "Government or Public Facilities" shall mean publicly owned buildings and structures
used for the purposes of conducting City, County, State of Federal Government business.
Such facilities shall include, but not be limited to, city halls, police and fire stations,
offices, equipment yards, sanitation facilities, schools, recreation centers, and similar
facilities. Private commercial Development Projects leasing publicly owned land shall
not be considered Government or Public Facilities.
(u) "Gross square feet" or "gsf' means the area of a nonresidential development measured
from the exterior building lines of each floor with respect to enclosed spaces but
excluding parking spaces whether or not enclosed. For purposes of this Chapter, the term
"enclosed spaces" specifically includes, but is not limited to. an area available to and
customarily used by the general public and all areas of business establishments generally
accessible to the public such as fenced, or partially fenced in areas of garden centers
attached to and serving the primary structure.
(v) "Land Use Category" shall mean any of the specific land uses that have been listed in the
fair share implementation resolution authorized pursuant to Section 17.65,050, and used
to provide the basis for future development impact projections.
(w) "Library Facilities' shall mean library building space and library materials, which are
owned and operated by the City of Huntington Beach.
12-3209.003/78647 J
163
Ordinance No. 394:1
(x) "Library Materials' shall mean books, magazines, DVDs, compact disks, computer
programs, digital resources and other reference and circulation materials.
(y) "Master Facilities Plan" shall mean the report prepared for the City entitled Development
Impact Fee Master Facilities Plan, prepared by Revenue & Costs Specialists, LLC, dated
October 2011.
(z) `Mobilehome" shall mean a structure transportable in sections which is a minimum of 8
feet in width and 40 feet in length, built on a permanent chassis, and designed to be a
dwelling with or without a permanent foundation.
(aa) "Nonresidential development" means a development undertaken for the purpose of
creating gross floor area, excluding dwelling units, but which includes, and is not limited
to commercial, industrial, retail, office, hotel/motel, and warehouse uses involving the
issuance of a building permit for such construction, reconstruction or use.
(bb) "Planning and Building Director' shall mean the Planning and Building Director of The
City of Huntington Beach or his/her designee.
(cc) "Planning Department" shall mean the Planning Department of the City of Huntington
Beach.
(dd) 'Police Department" means the Police Department of the City of Huntington Beach.
(ee) "Residential development" means a development undertaken for the purpose of creating a
new dwelling unit or units and involving the issuance of a building permit and certificate
of occupancy for such construction, reconstruction or use, or the construction approval
for a mobilehome pad or pads.
(ff) "Residential Development Project" shall mean the construction of a dwelling unit on a lot
in any of the residential zoning districts of the City. For purposes of this Chapter, the
addition of Floor Area shall be considered construction of a Residential Development
project if the additional Floor Area exceeds fifty (50) percent of the existing Floor Area,
as determined by the Director of Planning and Building.
(gg) "Site-Related Right-of-Way or Improvement Construction" shall mean right-of-way or
traffic improvements that must be constructed on the site of a new development project in
order to comply writh applicable City development regulations and standards.
(hh) "Surface Transportation System' shall mean the City's system of streets, roads and
intersections traversed by automobiles and other vehicles.
(ii) "Trip-Miles' shall mean the number of Vehicle Trips multiplied by the average trip
length for a specified use as identified in the 'Fee Calculation Report '.
0j) "Vehicle Trips" shall mean the number of average, daily trips generated by uses of land,
as specified in the most recent edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip
Generation, and at the discretion of the Public Works Director when the reference
12-3209.003178647 4
164
Urdinance No. 3947
document does not provide a reasonable representation of vehicle trips for a specific use,
special studies or alternative reference documents may be used.
17.73.020 Fee Adjustments
(a) An applicant for a New Development Project subject to a fee required by Title 17 of this
Code may apply to the City for a refund, reduction, adjustment or waiver of the fee.
(b) Circumstances That May Justify a Fee Adjustment Examples of circumstances that may
justify a fee adjustment include, but are not necessarily limited to the following:
(1) The Development Project includes an existing building that is proposed to be
demolished, provided the building proposed to be demolished was capable of being
used at the time of the Development Project application, and sufficient information
about its prior use is available. Any such adjustment is limited to the amount of the
fee that would otherwise be due for the New Development Project.
(2) The physical or operating characteristics (e.g., hours of operation) of the New
Development Project are substantially different from the land use on which the fee
calculation is based.
(3) The New Development Project includes multiple land uses that are complementary.
(4) Property values are worth less than the City's estimated value in the methodology.
Likewise, the City may present evidence in the form of an appraisal and the value is
in excess of that used in the methodology.
(c) An application for a fee adjustment shall be made and decided as follows:
(1) Application. A separate application shall be filed for each adjustment request made
pursuant to this Section. Such application shall be made on a form provided by the
Director of Planning and Building or his/her designee and shall be filed with the
Director of Planning and Building not later than:
(.A) thirty (30) days prior to the first public hearing on an applicable discretionary
permit application for the Development Project, pursuant to the City Zoning and
Subdivision Ordinance; or
(B) if no such discretionary permit is required, at the time of application for a
building permit for the Development Project
(d) Each application shall state in detail the factual basis for the requested fee reduction,
adjustment or waiver. The Director of Planning and Building shall determine if the
application is complete, and if not, may cause the public hearing to be continued until the
application is determined to be complete. The Director shall act within 10 days after
receipt of the completed application to approve or deny the application.
12-3209M3n8647 5
165
urainance No. 3947
17.73.030 Appeals.
(a) An applicant may appeal, by protest, any imposition of the development impact fee(s) by
filing a notice of appeal with the City Manager or his/her designee or his/her designee
within ninety (90) days after the applicant pays the required development impact fee(s).
(b) A valid appeal by protest of the imposition of the development impact fee(s) shall meet
all of the following requirements:
I. Tendering in advance of the appeal any required payment in full or providing
assurance of payment satisfactory to the City Manager or his/her designee;
2. Serving written notice on the City Manager or his/her designee including:
(A) A statement that the required payment has been tendered under protest or
that required conditions have been satisfied;
(B) A statement informing the City Manager or his/her designee of the factual
elements of the dispute and the legal theory forming the basis of the
protest;
(C) The name and address of the applicant;
(D) The name and address of the property owner;
(E) A description and location of the property;
(F) The number of residential units or nonresidential gross square footage
proposed, by land use or dwelling unit type, as appropriate; and
(G) The date of issuance of the building permit.
(c) The City Manager or his/her designee shall schedule a hearing and render a final decision
on the applicant's appeal within sixty (60) days after the date the applicant files a valid
appeal.
(d) The hearing shall be administrative. Evidence shall be submitted by the City Manager or
his/her designee and by the applicant and testimony shall be taken under oath.
(e) The burden of proof shall be on the applicant to establish that the applicant is not subject
to the imposition of the development impact fee(s) pursuant to the applicable
development impact fee ordinance and applicable state law.
(f) If the development impact fee(s) has been paid in full or if the notice of appeal is
accompanied by a cash deposit, letter of credit, bond or other surety acceptable to the
City Manager or his/her designee in an amount equal to the development impact fee(s)
calculated to be due, the application for the building permit or mobilehome construction
approval shall be processed. The filing of a notice of appeal shall not stay the imposition
or the collection of the development impact fee(s) calculated by the City to be due unless
sufficient and acceptable surety has been provided.
(g) Any petition for judicial review of the City Manager's final decision shall be made in
accordance with applicable state law and after the administrative remedies proscribed
herein have been exhausted.
1 a-3209.003na6a7 6
166
Ordinance No. 3947
1. Hearing. The City Manager or his/her designee shall consider the fee(s)
adjustment application prior to the public hearing as the application for a
discretionary development permit for the Development Project, or, if no such
permit is required, the City Manager or his/her designee shall consider the
application at a separate hearing within (sixty) 60 days after the fee(s) adjustment
application is deemed complete by the City Manager or his/her designee.
2. Appeal. Any person may appeal the decision of the City Manager or his/her
designee to the City Council, by filing a written appeal with the City Clerk within
ten (10) days of the City Manager or his/her designee's decision.
17.73.040 Judicial review.
(a) .Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul the
development impact fee ordinance, or any provision thereof, or resolution, or amendment
thereto, shall be commenced within ninety (90) days of the effective date of the
ordinance, resolution, or any amendment thereto.
(b) .Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside or annul the imposition or
collection of a development impact fee(s) on a development shall be preceded by a valid
appeal by protest pursuant to Section 17.73.030 hereof and a final decision of the City
Manager or his/her designee pursuant thereto and shall be filed and service of process
effected within ninety (90) days after the hearing on appeal regarding the imposition of
development impact fee(s) upon the development.
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 20 .
Mayor
ATTEST:
INITIATED AND APPROVED:
Cit_v Clerk
Deputy City Manager
REVIEWED AND APPROVED:
A AS TO FORM:
City Manager �^
C t Attorney
12-3209.003179647 7
167
ATTACHMENT #8
HB -=';- Item 9. - 88
168
Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed
Law Enforcement Facilities
Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $277 $317 $356
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $571 $652 $734
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $258 $295 $332
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee $455 $455 $455
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee $532 $532 $532
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee $1.041 $1.041 $1.041
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee $0.443 $0.443 $0.443
Fire Suppression Facilities
Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $645 $738 $830
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $267 $306 $344
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) No Fee $1,108 $1,266 $1,425
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee $356 $356 $356
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee $794 $794 $794
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee $0.329 $0.329 $0.329
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) No Fee $0.030 $0.030 $0.030
Circulation System Fee
Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $1,507 $1,737 $1,986 $2,226
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $1,058 $1,220 $1,395 $1,563
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $786 $909 $1,039 $1,165
Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $746 $1,062 $1,062 $1,062
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $1,081 $1,538 $1,538 $1,538
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $5.194 $4.175 $4.175 $4.175
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $1.061 $1.789 $1.789 $1.789
Item 9. - 89 HB-224_ 1 of 3
169
Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed
Public Library Facilities
Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.44/SF $1,172 $1,172 $1,172
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.44/SF $908 $908 $908
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.44/SF $733 $733 $733
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee
Park Land/Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map)
Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.86/SF $12,500 $14,286 $16,071
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.86/5F $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) $0.23/5F $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.) $0.23/5F $0.772 $0.772 $0.772
NOTE: The fees below fall under the Subdivislon Map Act and will be addressed at a later date
Storm Drainage Fee
Effective Effective
Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/12
per acre per acre per unit
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $13,880 $18,149 $3,061
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $13,880 $18,968 $397
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit) $13,880 $18,735 $2,082
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) $13,880 $21,076 $479
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) $13,880 $20,497 $356
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.) $13,880 $21,076 $0.35
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.) $13,880 $22,247 $1.14
HB -225- Item 9. - 90
170
Park Land/Open Space & facilities (Tract Map/Quimby)
Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee 7/20/12 7/20/13 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
3of3
Item 9. - 91 HB -226-
171
ATTACHMENT #9
FILE -227- Item 9. - 92
172
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.
AU 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,
electromc, mechanical, including any photocopying, rueording, !aping or
taping or information storage and retrieval systems without written permission
of-
Revenue& Cast Specialists, L.L.C.
1519 East Chapman Avenue, Suite C
Fullerton, CA 92831
(714)992-9020
Item 9. - 93 HB -22s-
173
j ® evenue
`1 m ost
�,� peCMII ts, LLC
Sensing Local C. vcrruneras Sbtce 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<St&m Drainage 5)stem improvements
• A section containing the future Pubke Library nn¢Collection expansion needs.
- Internet'www revenuecostcom -
-<Voice 714 992:9020. 1519 E, Chapman Ai?e FIB ���_ C+:Fullerton -.CA 93831.- I'ax..714.992 IlelTl 9. - 94
174
Page Two, October 17, 1011 (amended 04127112) MFP Letter to the City of Huntington Beach
• A section containing all of the Park Land Acquisition and Development of
Recreation Facilities including Community Use Facilities projects.
In addition to the efforts of Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager in coordinating the flow of
information, the following staff were instrumental in identifying the required projects:
M. Todd Broussard, P.E.- Principal Civil Engineer (Storm Drainage)
David C. Dominguez - Facilities Development and Concessions Manager
Eric G. Enberg - Division Chief/Fire Operations
Jim B. Engle Community Services Director
Kevin Justen,- Senior Administrative Analyst - Fire
Tsang M. Kao - Info Systems Specialist
Darrin Maresh, Fire Development Specialist
Tony Ohnos - City Engineer
Jerry Thompson - General Services .Manager
Bill Reardon - Fire Marshall/Division Chief
Dan Richards - Customer Support/GIS Manager
Bob Staehelski - Transportation Manager
Chuck Thomas - Police Captain
Jerry Thompson - General Services Manager
Bob Wingenroth - Director of Finance
RCS appreciates the efforts of the listed staff and any others whose efforts RCS may have been
unaware of for their assistance in generating the information provided within this Master Facilities
Plan, and we look forward to meeting with the City Council in order to implement and achieve
maximum use this comprehensive report.
Sincerely,
SCOTT THORPE
Vice President
Item 9. - 95 HB -230-
175
City of Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Table of Contents
Guide to Master Facilities Plan i-vi
Master Facilities Plan Cost
agSummary All Projects I
`°^y';3gaa8.,.F"q�g S 5-.,`5_.WSf„"a"�°.i`" k1. ltL$t,`�.k' x,�, P xa�x $su,4Fe88 EEs4` Wd
°YI.aR'<EttfOFCBmCIIt2Ca'1C It1 �� C 'dII(1� glllpnle-='flm
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary 5
LE-Ml Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space 6
LE-W2 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles 7
LE-W3 Acquire Additional Sworn Office Issued Equipment 8
LE-004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment 9
,a
l~ixetSuppressiunTNlcclac )~ac>Itttes, ehiC a ai d,l guy ntent I
it :10
.. ...ae .r...:...... ..x...-..a Yeti>aiY"Ex.[M..6 ....Ba a.x'Iti
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Cost Summary 11
FS-001 Relocate Station #8 (Heil) 12
FS-002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility 13
FS-003 Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4 (Magnolia) 14
FS-004 Acquire an Engine Company and Ambulance for Station #4 (Magnolia 15
FS-005 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #1 (Gothard) 16
FS 006 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #2 (Murdy) 17
kfa3.o"3'
ka h(xW a Circulation (Streets'Y�$nid-ES ki&S gnats) 5ysfi
.•x...:,+w Y w w ..8_,1; a.,... .. ..> _ ? x<ox+ax-.» -.xa8.,a w.... '_, > :kk.u8...s..........°.E ....F.,:
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
i{H _211_ Item 9. - 96
176
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
t� a£agELrxj1 �y..�t°�yS'�e3.1.�8884.8$�883E. *"s RfaYa.. 8E8$S BxiBry, A
d<f s ��k"E;. R b k R 3E 3tQr 873 'ar,nageaCOl10tx1(>jn ystefll x.a. �' m
„rs s
Storm Drainage Collection System Cost Summary 44
SD-001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1) 45
SD-W2 Coastal and Bolsa Chica Wetlands Region (SD Region #2) 46
SD-W3 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3) 47
SD-004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4) 48
SD-W5 Bolsa Chica Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region #5) 49
S13-006 Public Works Maintenance Building 50
v8F�,vi:RggL� ,yYg$ 8
3gfy. +
ani� q..w•x vr. 3 .
"
a xisr<g �� y �,3 '0�$ x 8�. aa„�i�s= a Public ltbrary" Fac�Imes' Calectxon p ` ,k � 11
KniB.
Public Library Facilities and Collection Cost Summary 52
PL-001 Expand Banning Library 53
PL-002 Expand Main Street Library 54
PL-003 Expand Library Collection Items g 55
.:..• .,..�F�S'. . u .••••, yR,aF,•,an.,re>a 58 88n8 saA3x`aa.. Eaaxs3 _ .a._gg y#�e.xr..x 2xEhsn a ga`mw � 8a z: ianq anPF
'A NITP c ..>AAt eevk
Park Land s Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Cost Summary 57
PK-001 Bartlett Park Conceptual Plan and EIR 59
PK-002 Irby Park Phase 11 60
PK-003 Central Park Former Gun Range EIR, RAP and Development 61
PK-004 Le Bard Park Expansion Master Plan and Development plan 62
PK-005 Blufftop Park Trail Improvements 63
PK-006 Edinger Dock Development 64
PK-007 Wardlow Field Reconfiguration Design/Construction 65
PK-008 City-Wide Parks Master Plan 66
PK-009 Central Park Habitat Plan 67
PK-010 Central Park Acquisiton of Encyclopedia Lots 68
PK-OI I 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
[tern 9. - 97 HB -2 2-
177
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
He -233- Item 9. - 98
178
CITY OF HLNTINGTON 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 5678.2 million. The following table indicates the replacement
costs of the various infrastructure owned by the City.
'rabic 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
Librar Space/Collection $76,593,112
Park Improvements $488,783,370
Total $1,435,028,096
(1)Does not include millions of dollars owned in land right-of-way and
Excludes "local" facilities, those limited to neighborhood facilities.
The second group of projects are needed to serve future development and include such projects
as widening of streets, creation of additional parkland or construction of a new fire station. These
projects are proposed to be funded through the development impact fees recommended in the
companion to this document called Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report for City
of Huntington Beach.
i
Item 9. - 99 1-113 -234-
179
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 perfomted to add new projects or delete completed or no longer
needed projects.
The Master Facilities Plata 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
1-113 -235- Item 9. - 100
180
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 comtnunity?
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 Nextts 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.
Oreanization of the Master Facilities Platt. The Master Facilities Plan is divided into eight major
sections, according to the category of capital improvement. Each will ultimately be quantified as
Item 9. - 101 1-1B -z 3u-
181
Guide to the Huntington Reach 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
1113 -2;7- Item 9. - 102
182
Guide to the Huntington Beach Master Facilities Plan
Table NIFP-2
Cost of Future Infrastructure
Infrastructure I Project Totals
Law Enforcement Facilities, et. al. $10,100,895
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities et. al. $11,941,972
Circulation (Streets/Brid es/Signals) $28,537,800
Storm Drainage Collection System $207,494,050
Library Facilities/Collection $7,841,369
Park Land Acquisition & Improvements $137,483,000
Totall $403,399,086
Fairness and reason (as well as the more important State and Federal statutes and court decisions)
dictate that not all of the projects will qualify for development impact fee funding (i.e. some
projects are replacements or service level increasing, etc.). If the City adopts the development
impact fees that represent the General Plan Build-out need-based impact fees (Schedule 2.1 in the
companion Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report), 42.6% of the required
funding(or S 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 Plat 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
Item 9. - 103 1-113 -23s-
183
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 -239- Item 9. - 104
184
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Master Project List Totai Thri
O.P.5uild-Oui
1.6-001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space $7,597,165
LE002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles $1,751,040
LE003 Acquire Additional Sworn,Officer Issued Equipment $327,690
LE004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment $425,000
FS001 Relocate Fire Station #8 (Heil) $7,169.470
FS002 Construct Station#8 (Hell)Apparatus Storage Facility $1.715.044
FS003 Construct A Single Bay/Quarters At Station 44(Magnolia) 51,266.458
FS004 Acquire An engine And Ambulance For Staton#4(Magnolia) $740,000
FS005 Acquire Ar.Additional Engine For Station#1 (Gothard) S525,000
FS006 Acquire An Additional Engine For Station#2 (Murdy) $525,000
LGO01 Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue $600.000
LGO02 Beach Boulevard And Heil Avenue S1,000,000
L0003 Beach Boulevard And Warner Avenue $400,000
Lr,004 Beach Boulevard And Slater Avenue $500.000
L0005 Beach Boulevard And Talbert Avenue $1,000,000
1-0006 Beach Boulevard And Garfield Avenue $1,000,000
LC-007 Beach Boulevard And Yorktown Avenue $500,000
LC008 Pacific Coast Highway And Warner Avenue $2,000,000
LG009 Pacific Coast Highway And Goldenwest Street $750,000
LG010 Pacific Coast Highway And Brookhurst Street $750,000
LG011 Goldenwest Street And Bolsa Avenue $500,000
LG012 Goldenwest Street And Slater Street $50,000
LGO13 Newland Street And Talbert Avenue $500,000
1-0014 Newland Street And Wamer Avenue $30,000
LG015 Newland Street And Yorktown Avenue $300,000
I
V: 1.33.0 Date: 5/02=12 Time:10:55 AM Huntington Beach October,2011 Page: 1
Item 9. - 105 I-I13 -240-
185
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Master Project List Total Thru
G.P.5uikd-Out
L0015 Gothard Street And Slater Avenue $500,000
1-0017 Gothard Street And Talbert Avenue $264,000
LC018 Ward Street And Garfield Avenue $8,800
LGO19 Brookhurst Street And Adams Avenue $10,000b00
LG020 Miscellaneous Traffic Signal/Intersection Improvements U,000,000
LG021 Public Works Maintenance Building $2,820,OD0
LG022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles $65,000
SDOD1 Santa Ana River &Talbert Channel Region(SO Region#1) $23,728,000
SDO02 Coastal And Bolsa Chlca Wetlands Region (SD Region#2) $21,527,000
S0003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3) $34,236,000
S0004 Wlntersburg Channel Region (SD Region#4) $28,749,000
SDO05 Bolsa Chica Channel & Harbour Region(SD Region 95) S98,549,000
S0006 Public Works Maintenance Building $705,050
PL-001 Expand Banning Bran h 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 $1,450,000
PK005 Blufftop Park Trail Improvements S1,000,000
PK006 Edinger Dock Development $700,000
PK007 Wardlow Field Reconfiguration Design/Construction $1,000,000
PK0Q$ City-Wide Parks Master Plan $350,00D
PK009 Central Park Habitat Plan $250,000
2
V: 1.33.0 Date; 5102/2012 Time:10:55 AAA HurKington Beam October,2011 Pape: 2
HB _241_ Item 9. - 106
186
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Master Project List TatelThru
GP.6uR&Out
PK010 Central Park Acquisiton Of Encyclopedia Lots $1,D20,000
PKD11 Central Park Development Of Remaining S6 Acres $20,0130,000
PK012 Central Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Facilities $800,000
PK013 General Youth Sports Facilities Grants $4,500,D00
PK014 Murdy Youth Sports Complex Phase II $2,5D0,000
PK016 Beach Playground $350,000
PK016 Central Park Development Of Former Gun Range Area $3,000,000
PK017 Warner Dock Renovation And Expansion $800.000
PK018 Lamb Park Design And Development $1,10D,0DD
PK019 Central Park Sports Complex Team Room $100,000
PK020 Future Parks Acquisition (Possible Closed School Sites) $59,585,000
PK021 Central Park Senior Center S22,000,000
PK022 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 $403,399,086
3
V: IM.0 Data: 5102f2012 Tme:11:01 AM Huntington Beach Octot)er,2011 Page: 3
Item 9. - 107 1-1B -242-
187
City of Huntington Beach
Law Enforcement Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment
4
HB -24=- Item 9. - 108
188
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
2015- 16
Q Through Project Build
110 2011 - 12 2012- 13 2013- 14 2014- 15 Build Out Out Total
LE-001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space $0 $0 $0 SO $7,597,165 $7.597.185
LE -002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles $0 $0 s0 $0 $1.751,040 SI,751,040
LE-003 Acquire Additional Sworn Officer Issued Equipment $0 $0 $0 $0 $327,690 $327,690
LE.004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment $0 $0 $0 so $425,000 $425,000
TOTALS $0 $0 $0 $0 $10,100.895 $10,100,895
Holes:
1)a Frojecl timing Is rot a component of this effort,then all projects default to their'Thru Build our amount
cc
z
4�
V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:09 PM Huntington Beach October,2011 Page: 1
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Fecilifies.Vehides And EquipmBrit
Project Number:/Title LE 001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space
Submitting Departments: Police Department
Project Description:
Acquire land(or replacement land is placed at Oy Hall)for and construct 12.041 square feet of law enforcement space. The department»ill
need U hire an additional 33 sworn officers at General Plan build-out to accommodete the additional I k6%(8.597)in colls-forservice
demand over the current 59.479 annual calls-for-service. Roughly 249 ofthese would be to the beach area The additional space could be in
the main station or could be located elsewhere in the City.The spacewvuld be necessaryto expand,patrol.investigation,tralficcontrol or erry
of the many specialty support services such as communications or records.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The Dy annually curreDtly experiences roughly apprmammely 61,285 calls-for-sevice.97.05%otwhidt we from privately-held prop end es
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 at additional business(commercial office and industrial)space which will generate,on average,an additional 8.448
annual calls-forservice,or a 14.6%increase. While the ewsting station is adequate to meetthe cement needs,the addition of 34 swom officers
will generate the need for a proportionaly @reeler amount of space.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The projeetprimerily 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-riming:
The projecitiming 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 11u+7h Buikaa To141 en Yam
1. Design/Engineering l Administratic 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 568,524.00 568,524.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,033,001.00 1.033.801.00
3.Constnlcdon 0.00 0.DO D.DO 0.00 5,173493.00 5.173.493,00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 309,504.DO 309,604.00
5.Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 511,743.00 611,743,00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 Goo 0.00 0.00 7,597,165.D0 7,597,155.00
6
V: 1.08.0 Date: 427/2012 Time: 12:09 PM H H -24 J- Huntington Beach Item 7. - I 10
190
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Facilities.Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number)Tile LE 092 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles
Submitting Departments: Police Department
Project Description:
Acquire thirty-two additional response or specialty vehicles at on average cost of 454,720 each in order to maintain the easling ratio of 0.98
vehicles per officer. Approximately97.05:of these vehicles are required to serve private sectror development
Justification I Consequences of Avoidance:
The Department currently has 231 law entorcementvehides that are used by the 235 sworn officers creating an epsting standard of 0.96
vehicles per sworn officer. With that the addition of 33 officers needed to respond to the annual calls-forservice likelyy0 be generated by
future General Plan development the Gtywill need to acquire and additional 32 vehides in order to maintain the 0.98 ratio of vehicle per sworn
officer.Failure to maintoin the current ratio of vehdeis per officer could reduce the City s abildy to maintain beat strength and would certainly
occe lerete vehilce turnove r.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The acquisition addresses only the tutu, addtional cells-ta-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
Proj e d Timing:
The project liming would be dependent upon both the rate of development and collection of Development Impel Fees.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011.12 2012-13 2013-14 W14-is VwoWh Budibwt Tdei nC Yon
1. Design/Engineering/Adminlstretic 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 aoo 0.00 0.00
S. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 1,751040.00 1,751.040.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75t,040.00 1,751,040.00
7
Item 9. - I I I Date: 4/272012 Time:12:09 PM '-j j3 .246- Huntington Beach October.2011
191
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Law Enforcement Fadlities.Vehicles And Equipment
Project Numb arj/ rtle LE 003 Acquire Additional Swom Officer Issued Equipment
Submitting Departments: Police Department
Project Description:
Acquire additional equipment assigned to the additional 33 swom officers necasseryto accommodate General Plan development. The
capitalized list of equipment includes(but is not limited to):a protective vest handgun.beton.compliment of leathem handcuffs.uniforms.
helmet raincoat and heavy duty Ilashfight 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 form officer to function in the field. The list is mostly safety equipment but also includes the costs absorbed by
the City in the necessaryfor identifying an appropriate candidate. Roughty,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 additiond colls-tor-service from new development(97,05:)end thus is allocated 97.05:to new General
Piw development
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 9TOS
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 tlaw.gh Banda Total en vans
1. Design l Engineering 7 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.DO
3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 D.DO
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.D0 0.00
5. Equipment i Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 00 377.890.00 327,690.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 D.00 0.00 0.DO 327.690.00 327,690.00
8
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4127f2012 Time:12:09 PM H11 -247- Huntington Beach, l tem 9. - 112
192
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Intrestructure: Law Enforcement Facilities.Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number)Trtle LE 004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment
Submitting Departments: Police Depertment
Project Description:
Acquire specialty equipmenito support the additional 33 officers needed to accommodate new development Approximately 97%of that
figure are needed to accommodate new development of private property.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidenca:
The amount and type of crime is ever increasing. The Citywill need to acquire additional information-sharing computer capacity as well as
specialty equipment such as bikes,dogs,hand-held radios,etc.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The project primarily addresses additonal call"or-service from new development(97.05%)and thus is allocated 97.95%to new General
Plan development
Allocation To General Plan Suildout 97.05%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The project timing would be dependent upon bath development and collection of development impact fees.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 M14-15 u1agh eiSl3 Tole)all rears
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0,00 0.00 0.00 O.00 0.00 0.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0,00 ().Do 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 1 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425.000.00 425,000.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 425,000.00 425,000.00
9
Data: 4272012 Time:12:09 PM
Item 9. - 1 1 -1H>3 _24S_ Huntington Beach October,2011
193
City of Huntington Beach
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities,
Vehicles and Equipment
10
HB -249- Item 9. - 114
194
Huntington Beach
H Master Facilities Plan
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles And Equipment
2015-16
Through Project Build
2011 - 12 2012- 13 2013-14 2014. 15 Build Out Out Total
FS-001 Relocate Fire Station%8(Hell) s0 s0 s0 s0 $7.169.470 $7.169,470
FS-002 Construct Stallion 08(Heig Apparatus Storage Facility $0 so s0 $0 I1,716,044 $1,716 044
FS-003 COnshLLt A Single Bay/Ouartors At Station#4(Magw a) $0 so $10 $0 I1.266.458 $1,266.450
FS-004 Acquire An Engine And Ambulance For Station#4(Magnolia) $0 s0 s0 $0 $740,000 I740,000
FS.005 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station#1 (Gothard) $0 $0 $0 So $525.000 $525.000
FS-006 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station 02(Murdy) $0 s0 $0 s0 $525.000 $525,000
TOTALS $0 s0 s0 U $11.941,972 $11.941.972
Notes
1)II pro)eU timing is not a component of this 66ort,then all protects defauh to their'Thru Build Our'amount.
u)
N
Z
w
1J
IJ,
V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Trine:12:13 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastrumm: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities,Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number)Title FS 0111 Relocate Fire Station#8(Heil)
Submitting Departments: Fue Department
Project Description:
Relocate Station 08 from its cument location on Heil Avenue justwest of Springale Streetto a more northerly area near Graham Stmetjust
north of Edinger Street The proposed 11350 square toot facility would be a be afive vehicle configuration and would require roughly 1.25
Hues. The facilitywould be capable of housing up to three companies and battalion chief. The facililywould provide 3,550 square feet of
vehicle bay space,1,290 square feet of mechanicaptedmicel space,6.150 squarefeet of living quarters consisting of(a maximum ot24)
bunks,lockers,mstrooms/shwrers.a physical training room kitchen,dining and a dayroom.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The fortyfive yearold 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 allowfor mixed gender accommodation orthe assignment of an aerial response truck. Since the station
needs to be reconstructed,relocation more northerV about 1.25 miles.would improve the first-in engine,truck and paramedic ALS response
cap"t to that areaof the Ciy. Redevelopment along the EdingegBeach corridorwi0 likely result in a greaternumber of calls-4orservice
changing the response dynamic of the existing eight stations.Ilthe stationwere not relocated.the amain question would receive longer
response times.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
Relocating Station 08(Heil)is consistent with the City's General Plan Public Safety response time commitments and would improve the
average engine,aened truck and ALS paramedic response time through-outthe Gty,in partialar the Edinger/Beach corridor area.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 50.00
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach corridor would likefy be the trigger point for the need orf this mlocation. The station age and
limitations are also an issue and could trigger the construction timing.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 M13-14 2014 15 tt, u e ws] Total all Years
1.Design/Engineering/Administratk 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.00 532,561.00 532.561.00
2.Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 ODD 0.00 0.D0 1,026,09700 1 025,097.00
3.Construcilon 0.00 0.00 O.Do 0.00 4,963,527.00 4,963,627.D0
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.DO 0,00 285,204.13D 285.204.DO
5. Equipment/Other 0.0o 0,00 0.00 0.DO 351,781.00 361.781.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.169 470,00 7,169 470.00
12
V: 1.08.0 Dade: 4/2712012 Time:12:13 PM (-{j3 _25 j_ Huntington Beads Item 9. - 116
196
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: fire SuppressioWedic Facilities.Vehicles And Equipment
Project Number)Title FS 002 Construct Station l8(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 48(Heif)to its proposed future location.
The facility would consist of a Z660 square foot two bays wide by two vehicle deep storage building for up to four reserve response vehicles.
There would also be a contiguous 960 square foot basic storage room. The facilitywould be constructed on the rear portion of the parcel
new the hose lover 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 rese rvse vehciels that will be needed at General
Plan build out
Relationship to General Plan Development
The additional storage sapoe is necessary,in port to newdeveopment end also because of the limited cepaday of the single existing
reserve vehicle storage facility.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 26.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The facilaywould likely be constructed at the same time as the proposed relocation of station t8(Heil),however,the construction could be
completed at a different ti me.
M15-16
PROPOSED ESPENOFFURES 2011 .12 2012-13 m13-14 2014-15 Va1>< h Bie u Tare)a Ysert
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120,415.00 120,415.00
2. Land Acquisition/PJght Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 327.266.00 327266.00
3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0o 1,122,703.00 1,122.7D3.00
4. Contingency 0.D0 0,00 a00 0.00 84,210.00 64,210.tb
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 81.450.00 81,450.00
TOTAL COST: 000 ano 0.00 0.00 1,716,044.00 1,716,044.00
13
Item 9. - 117 Date: 4/272D12 Time:12:13 PM i-iB 252 Huntington Beach October.2011
197
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities,Vehicles And Equipment
Project NumberJTide FS 003 Construct A Single Bsy/Guarters Al Station#I(Magnolia)
Submitting DepoMents: Fire Depertrnerd
Project Description:
Construct a L400 square foot addition to Station t14(Magnolia).The plans consistot en oddilionni bay and sufficient living
quariersAraining/storage space to the existing two-boy Station C4(Magnoiia). The additional 1,400 square footvehide baywould allowfor
two additional response vehicles,in this case an engine and an ambulance. The 1.000 square foot living quarters expansionwould increase
storege/locker space by approximately 200 square feet and livingAraining space by approximately,800 square feet
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The expanded facifitywill be needed to accommodate the additional calls-forservce demands from the planned densityinceasing
redevelopment it=the Downtown Specific Plan and along the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beech Specific Plan corridor. Increased
calWoed must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters and apparatus in order to meetthe 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 consislebtwith 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, 50.001/
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As needed and as development impact fee receipts and other revenues become available.
2015-15
PROPOSED EXPENDFTURES 2011-12 2012.13 M13-14 2014 15 woup7Mm TIXw all Ycan
1. Design/Engineering!Administrati< 0.D0 0.00 000 0.00 109.650.00 100,650.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.DO 0,00 0.00 0.00 1,020.DD0.00 1,D20,000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 W.308.00 60,308.00
5. Equipment/Other D.00 0.00 0,00 O D0 76,500.D0 76.600.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.266.458.00 1,2e6,45e.00
14
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:13 PM IAB _25',_ Huntington Beech item 9. - 118
198
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities,Vehicles And Equipment
Proj act Numb ery Title FS 004 Acquire An Engine And Ambulance For Station 14(Magnolia)
Submitting Departments: Fire Department
Project Description:
Add an engine company and an ambulance to Station$4(Magnolia). Project FO-003 details the proposed 2,400 square loot expansion
required to house the new enine and paramedic vehicle and staff.
Jusli6cation/Consequences of Avoidance:
Increased call-load must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters and apparatus in order to meet the Gti/s General Plan
emergency response goals. Without the additional facilities.the response goals will be unachievable with the greater demands.The
expan ded fad lity will be nee de d to a mmc data the additional cal is-tor-semv edamen cis from the planned densityinceasing
redevelopment from the Downtown Specific Plan and along the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The finality elglansion is required to accommodate higher densities resulting from development consistebtwith the Downtown Specific Plan
and the southerly portion of the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor as well for multiple response vehicle demands to other parts of the City.
Allocalion To General Ran Buildout: 50.001t,
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As needed and as development impact fee receipts and other revenues become available.
2015-16
PROPOSED EJTENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Wougn 13 :4 Tq all Years
1. Design!Engineering/Adminlstrati( 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 0.00 000 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 a.00 0,00 740,000.00 740,00000
TOTAL COST: 0.00 O.Do 0.00 0.00 740,000./10 740,000.00
15
Item 9. - 119 Date: 4R7/2012 Time:12:13 PM li B 54_ Huntington Beach October,2011
199
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Fad lit as,Vehicles And Equipment
Project NumberJTitle FS 005 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station tl (Gothard)
Submitting Departments: Fire Department
Project Description:
Ad a standard engine company at Station rl (Gotherd). The engine would be fully stocked with and appropriate and sufficient amount of
hose,appurtenances and other salety/rescue equipment.
Ju slification/Consequences of Avo idance:
The expanded faaliywifl be needed to accommodate the additional cellsior-service demands from the planned densiiy4nceasing
redevelopment from the Downtown Specific Plan and along the Edinger/Beach Specific Plan corridor- Increased cali-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 vdth the greater demands.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
The facility expansion is required to accommodate higher densities resulting hum development consistebtwith 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 end as development impact fee receipts end other revenues become available.
2015-to
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES =011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 th Qu Buldarn Walel Veen
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 0D0 0,00
a.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0,00 0.00 000 525,000.00 525,000.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 526,000.00 525,000.00
]6
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/272012 Tine:12:13 PM 1`113 255 Huntington Beet, Item 9. - 120
200
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Fire Suppression/Medic Fadlibes.Vehicies And Equipment
Project Number]Title FS 005 Acquire An Addition Engine For Station#2(Mundy)
Submitting Departments: Fire Deparunenl
Project Description:
Add a standard engine company at Station R2(Murdy). The engine would be fully stocked with an appropriate and sufficient amouint of hose.
appurtenances and other sedety/rescue equipment
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The expended facility will be needed to accommodate the additional calls-f orservice demands from the planned densiytinceasing
redevelopment along the Edinger/Beach Specitc Plan corridor. Increased call-load must be balanced by have adequate fire station quarters
and apparatus in orderto meet the Ciy'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]Beech Specific Plan and multiple response vehicles
demands 10 other parts of the City.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 50.00
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
As needed and as development impact tee receipts and other revenues become available.
Ails-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 ai14-15 e.wOn 9uJdo Toren all Yeas
1. Design I Engineering/Administratk 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.Do OM 0DO
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 o.DO 525.000.00 525,ODO.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 525,000.o0 525,DOo.00
17
Item 9. - 121 Date: 4/272012 Time:12:13 PM H B _2 i 6_ Huntington Beach Oacbet 2011
201
City of Huntington Beach
Circulation (Streets, Signals
And Bridges) System
18
HB _257_ Item 9. - 122
202
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
`O Local Circulation (Streets, Signals And Bridges) System
2Di5-16
Through Project Build
t'J 2011 - 12 2012- 13 2013- 14 2014- 15 Build Out Out Total
LC-001 Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue T $0 SO $0 SD $600.000 $60 ,000
LC.002 Beall Boulevard And Heil Avenue $0 s0 s0 $0 $1,000.000 $11000,000
LC-D03 Beach Boulevard And Warner Avenue s0 S0 s0 $0 S400,000 $400,000
LC-004 Beach Boulevard And Slater Avenue $0 $0 $0 s0 $500.000 $500.000
LC-005 Beach Boulevard And Talbert Avenue $0 $0 $0 $D $1,000.0D0 $1 000,000
LC-M Beach Boulevard And Garfield Avenue $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,D00 $1,000,000
LC-007 Beach Boulevard And Yorktown Avenue s0 $0 $0 $0 $500.000 S500,0DO
LC-008 Pacific Coast HigtrwW And Warner Avenue $0 $0 SO $0 $2-000.000 $2,000,000
LC.00g Pacllic Coast Highway Arid Goldernvesl Street $0 $0 $o s0 $750,000 $750.000
LC-010 Pacific Coast Highway And Broohhurst Street $0 $0 $0 s0 375D,00D $750.000
N LC-011 Goldenwesl Street And Rol"Avenue $0 s0 $0 f0 $500,000 $500,000
O
W
LC.012 Goldmavest Sheet And Slater Street $0 $0 $0 s0 $60,000 S50,000
T
w LC-013 Newland Street And Talbert Avenue 50 SO $0 $0 E500,OOD $500,000
LC.014 Newland Street And Warner Avenue SO $0 $0 SO $30,000 S30,ODD
LC.015 Newland Street And Yorktown Avenue SO s0 SO W $300.000 $300,OD0
LC-010 GDthard Street And Slater Avenue s0 $0 s0 to $500,000 $500,D00
LC-017 Gothard Street And Talbert Avenue $0 SO s0 SO $264,000 $264,000
LC-018 Ward Street And Garfield Avenue $D s0 s0 $O se,800 $9800
LC-Dig Brooklanst Street And Adarre Avenue $0 s0 $0 s0 $10,000,000 $10.000,000
LC-020 Mlscellerimus Traffic Signaulnterseclion Improvements SO SO $0 SO S5,000,D00 $5,000,00D
LC.021 Pubtic Works Maintenance Building $0 s0 SO $0 S2,820,000 $2,920,000
LC-022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles $0 so $0 $0 $65,000 $65.000
ZD
V: 1.12.0 Date: 427/2012 Time: 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October, 2011 Page: 1
Huntin in 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 so $28 537.600 $26.537.800
Notes:
1)If project Uming is rot a component of this effort then a8 pro)ects default to their'Thru Budd Out-amount.
N
O
A
l'1A
fJ
V
r?
N
O
V: 1.12.0 Date: 4127t2012 Time:12:14 PM Huntington Beach October,2011 Page: 2
N
A
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Intrastrudure: Local Circulation(Streets,Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number)Tittle LC 001 Beach Boulevard And Edinger Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To ma>ami2e the capability to move vehides and pedestrians across the intersection(n of directions),the following improvements to the
intersection are proposed:1)Add 4th northbound through lane,and 2)Acid a 3rd westbound through lane. Beach Boulevard,being a Slate
Highway,makes this a CALTRANS managed project. Since the project would not be managed bythe City.the estimated cost consists of the
entire project cost but does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles throughout the Oty.thus mmamum movement oftroffic 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
flaw at intersections of major streets too Level"E'by aping as a bottleneck. Level'E'is'Unstable Flour.'and is identified as'long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level'E".'Forced Flow'creates'Jammed conditions,back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development
All new development will impact existing intersections within the City.melting some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop la
unacceptable levels like'D'.'E'or`F'.Development anticipated over the next twentyyears wilt generate 454.542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase daily over the Otys existing demand of 3,107,224 deify 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 Timi ng:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues we collected.
2015-ie
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014.15 TMQh swat Tma1 wt Yeen
1.Design/Engineering/Adminlstrati< 0.00 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 0o 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.oc 0.00 600.000.00 600,000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.0o 0.60 600,000.00 600,000.00
21
Item 9. - 125 Date: 4/2712012 Time:12:14 PM HB -260- Huntington Beach October,2011
205
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets.Signals And Bridges)System
Project NumberJTdle LC 002 Beach Boulevard And Heil Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To mabmize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(in all directions).the following improvemerts to the
interseciicn are proposed:1)Add 2nd northbound lef-tum lane.An alternative would be to construct 1)A de-facto westbound right turn lane,
and 2)add a de4acto southbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard being a Slate Highway,in ekes 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 ofAvoidance:
There are fen opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe Oy,thus me)dmum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capad"ere warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service(or LOS)tragic
flaw 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',Torced Flow'creates"Jammed conditions,back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Al new de,elopmentwill impact mosting intersections within the City.making some ofthem require improvements ortte LOSwill drop to
unacceptable levels like"D",'E'or'P.Development anticipated overtle nexttwentyyears will generate 454.542 additional dailytrip-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase dairy averthe City's existing demand of 1107.224 daily trip-miles,all of whirhwill compete foruse of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dairy trip-miles represent 12.8%of the total 3,561,767 daily tr"iles atthe twentyyew
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildeut 95.00%
Reference Document
Projectriming:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED DrPENDITURES 2011-12 2012 13 2013-14 2014-15 uroughauaja Taei Wream
1.Design!Engineering/Adminkstratic 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 0.00 000 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 l 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 1.000,00a00
22
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB -261- Huntington Beach Item 9. - 126
206
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets.Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number)Title LC 003 Beech Boulevard And Werner 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 we proposed:l)Add a sepermewestbound right turn lane. An ahemativewould be to constructthe following 1)A de-facto
westbound right turn lane,and 2)add a separate northbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard.being o 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 1 Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City,thus maximum movement of tralfic across major circuletion routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation cepaciywhere warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service(or LOS)traffic
Flow at intersections of major streets to a Leval'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',"Forted Flow'creates'Jammed conditions,bock-ups from o"Hocations restrict or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Ran Developm era:
All new development will impact existing intersections within the City.making soma of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels 5ke'D'.'E'or'F".Development anticipated over the next tweny,years will generate 454,542 additional daily tnp-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase daily over the CityWs existing demand of 3,107.224 daily trip-miles.all otwhichwill compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454.542 added daily trip-miles represent 12.811.of the total 3,561,767 daily trip miles at the twenty-yew
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildoul: 95.00%
Reference Document
Project Ti ming:
The project will be constructed within normal reviewof priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015.16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 12 2012-13 2013-14 M14-1s 0vaupn aumb Trial all Ye
1. Design/Engineering/Administratk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00
4.Contingency 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00
23
Item 9. - 127 Date: 4127/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB 267 Huntington Beech October.2011
207
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets,Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number/Title LC 004 Beach Boulevard And Slater Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(n all directions),the following improvement to the
intersection is proposed 1)Add a separate eastbound right turn lane. Beach Boulevard being aState Highway,makes this a CALTRANS
managed project Since the project would not be managed by the City.the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not
separate those costs into engineering and contingency components.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles throughout the City,thus mammum 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
8ow+at intersections of major streets to a Level'E'try Wing as a bottleneck Level'E"is"Unstable Row.'and is identified as'long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level'E','Forced Flow'creates'Jammed conditions,back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Al new 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 nerl twenty years will generate 454,542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6:increase deity over the Chy's emsing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip-miles.all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles represent 12.8%of the total 3,551.767 deity trip-miles at the twentyyear
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 collecled.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 :013-14 20A is wowneu;a T=l all vc"r+
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0.00 0.00 0,DO 0.00 tree 0.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 a00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 Otto 0.00 Otto 500,000.00 500,000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 tree 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 e00 0.00 500.000.00 5D0,000.00
24
V: 1.08.0 Date: 427/2012 Time:12:14 PM H 13 263 Huntington Beach Item 9. - 128
208
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets.Signals And Bridges)System
Project NumberJTitle LC 005 Beach Boulevard And Talbert Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(n all directions),the following improvements to the
intersection are proposed:1)Add a 2nd westbound leftium lane.2)add a de-facto westbound rightturn lane.3)add a separate northbound
right turn lane,4)add a 2nd eastbound left turn lane.and 5)stripe a de4acto eastbound righttum lane. Beach Boulevard,being a Stale
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 thin,does not separate those costs into engineering and contingency components.
Justification/Consequences at Avoidance:
There we few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City,thus mtvdmum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capadry where warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service(or LOS)traffic
flow at imersectons of major streets to a Level'E"by acting as a bottleneck Level"E"is'Unstable Flaw.'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 movemem".
Relationship to General Plan Development:
All new developmentwill impact existing intersections within ne 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 twenyyews will generate 454542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase daiy over the City's existing demand of 3,107.224 daily trip-miles,all otwhich will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lame miles. The 454.542 added deiytrip rr files represent 12.8%of the total 3.561,767 deilytrip-miles aithe twentyyew
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout. 62.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The projeawill be constructed within normal review at priorities and as adequate end sufficient revenues are collected.
M15-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2a13-14 2014-15 utro-iq,aunaau Tout an rasa
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0,00 o.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
TOTALCOST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000.000.00 1,000,00000
25
Item 9. - 129 l�B -���-
Date: 4/2772012 Tune:12:14 PM Huntington Beach October,2011
209
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(n all directions),the following Option fl improvements
to the intersection are proposed:1)Add a separate northbound right tum lane,and 2)add a de-4acto southbound rightturn lane. An alternative
would to those improveme rns 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 costs into engineering end contingency components.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City.thus maximum movement of Vatfic across major circulation routes
is aidmL Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warrartted 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 wolung upstream of the intersection'. Level'E",'Forced Flaw'aeates'Jammed tbnditions-back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development
All new development will impact exsting intersections within the City,making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like'D','E'or'P.Development anticipated over the nett twentyyears will generate 454,542 additional daily hip-miles.
This is a 14.5%increase daily over the Cih/s existing demand of 3.107,221 daily trip-miles-all of which will compete for use of a static number
of mayor roadway lane miles. The 454.542 added daily trip-mites represent 12.8%of the total 3.561,767 daily trip-miles at the twenty-year
dwelopment horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Mayn BWAq Tea ell Yee
1. Design I 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.D0 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.D0 0,00 0.00 0.00 1,000,000.00 1,000.000.00
26
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/272012 Time*12:14 PM HB -26;- Huntington Beach, Iteat 9. - 130
210
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets.Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number/Title LC 007 Seach Boulevard And Yorktorm Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To ma>amite the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(n all directions).the following improvement to the
intersection is proposed:1)Add a separate westbound right turn lone. Beach Boulevard being a State Highway,makes this a CALTRANS
managed project- Since the project would not be managed by the aty.the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not
separate those costs into engineering and contingency components.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles throughout the City.thus me>amum 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 at'long queues of
vehicles waling upstream of the intersection". Level"E'.'Forced Floor creates'Jammed conditions.back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
AJI new developmentwill impact ebstng intersections within the City,making some of them require improvements orthe LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like'D","E"or'F".Development anticipated overthe next twentyyears will generate 454,542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.13V increase daily over the City s existing demand of 3.107,224 dailytrip-miles.all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added daily trlp,miles represent 12.8%of the toted 3,561,767 doilytrip-miles at the twenlyyear
development hariton.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The orojea will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-1s
PROPOSED EMDENDITURES 2011-12 2012.13 2013-14 2014-15 Itvngh Suiil d Total all Yeas
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o oa
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 ODD 500.000.00 500,000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 000 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
Item 9- - 13 1 j-)ii -zct�-
Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM Huntington Beach October,2011
211
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrestruc9ue: Local Circulation(Streets.Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number)TNe 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[n 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 projectwould not be managed try the City,the estimated cost consists of the entire project cost but does not
separate those costs into engineering and contingency components.
Justrication/Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City,thus meximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capaciywhere warranted end needed would reduce the Level of Service(or LOS)traffic
flow at intersections of major streets to a Level 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,backups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Ali new devslopmentwill impact e)dsfing intersectonswithin the City,milking 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 dailytrip-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase daily over the Gty's existing demand of 3.107.224 daily trip-miles,all otwhich will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 45,t542 added dairy trip-miles represent 12.8%ofthe total 1561,767 daily trip-miles at the twenlyyear
development horizon.
Alocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00%
Reference Document
Project Tming:
The projectvnll be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
201 s-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2e11-12 M12-13 2013-14 2014-15 nmo hs d .i1 T=it W Ye.
t. Design i Engineering 1 Administratit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.o0
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.000,000.00 2,000,000.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 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 2,000,000.00 2.000,000.00
28
V: 1.08.0 Date: 427f2012 Time:12-14 PM 1-113 _267_ Huntington Beach Item 9. - 132
212
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets,Signals And Bridges)System
Project Numberj Tile LC 009 Pacific Coast Highway And Goldenwast Street
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To mabmize the capnbilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(in oil directions),the following improvements to the
intersection we proposed:1)Add a 2nd eastbound elltun lane,and 2)allow southbound rightlum overlap.Pecific Coast Highway,being a
State Highway,makes this a CALTRANS managed project. Since the project would not be managed by the City.the estimated cast 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 G1y.thus mepmum 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 abottleneck Levef'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 amsting intersections within the City,making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like'D',"E'of'F".Development anticipated overthe next twentyyears will generate 154.542 additional daily trip-miles,
This is a 14.6%increase daily overthe Gtjs existing demand of 3,107,224 deilytrip-miles,all of which will compete lore of a static number
o1 major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added dailytrip-miles represent 12.8%of the total 3,561,767 dailytrip-miles at the twenty w
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildoul: 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 20:2-13 2013-14 2014-15 Wougl hdw 4 7=1 an rears
1. Design l Englneering l Administratit 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 O.Oo
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750,000.00 750.000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.Do 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment l Other 0.00 0.00 trod D.00 0,00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750,000.00 750.00D.00
24
ItE Ill y. - I , Date: 4f27f2012 Time:12:14 PM Huntington Beach October,2011
» HR -26X-
213
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets,Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number:/Tide LC 010 Pacific Coast Highway And Brookhurst Street
Submitting Departments: PublicWorks-Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capabilityto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(n all directions).the following improvements to the
intersection ere proposed:1)Add a 2nd eastbound lefttum lane and.2)allow southbound righttum cverlap.Pacific Coast Highway,being a
State Highway,makes this a CALTRANS managed projem Since the projeCwould not be managed bythe 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 oppodurities to add additional lane miles through out the City,thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulMon 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 Flaw:'and is identified as'long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level'E','Forced Flow'creates°Jammed conditions.backups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement".
Relationship to General Plan Development
All new developmenh ill impact existing intersections within fhe City.making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like"D'.'E'or"P'.Development anticipated overthe neb twentyyeers will generate 454,542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase daily overthe City"s existing demand of 3.107,224 dailytrip-miles.all otwNch will compete for use of a static number
01 major roadway lane miles. The 454542 added deilytrip-miles represent 12,8%of the total 3,561,767 deilytrip-mites at the twenty-year
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00 0
Reference Document
ProjectTiming:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014.15 wauytleulb TalW all Years
1. Design I Engineering I Admini5tratic 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0,00 DaD 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750000.00 750.00000
4.Contingency 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment I Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 750,000.00 750.000.00
30
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4272012 Time:12:14 PM FIB _269- Huntington Beech Item 9. - 134
214
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets.Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number)True LC 011 Goldenwest Street And Boise Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public\Norks-Engineering
Project Descriplion:
To maximize the capability tD move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(n all directions),the following improvements to the
intersection ere proposed:l)Add a second southbound left turn lane.2)Add a separate northbound rightturn lane and 3).Allowwestbound
rigMturnoverlap. Thiswould be aC-managed project
Justification I Consequences of Avoidance:
There are law opportunities to add additional lane miles throughout the City,thus movement of traffic across major circulation routes. Failure
to or inabiliyto increase circulation capaci"ere warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service(or LOS)traffic flowat
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 Pion Development
All new development rrili impact existing intersections mthin 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 twenyyears vdll generate 454542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase daily over the Gy-s existing demand of 3,107.224 daily tdp-miles,all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454542 added daily Op-miles represent 12.0%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 projeavvill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES x'11-12 2012-13 2013-14 M14-15 thcugl auildaut TOW all Yvan
1. Design/Engineering I Administratk D.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 60,000.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction O.DO 0.00 a.DO 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40,000.00 40.000.00
5. Equipment/tithe[ 0.00 0.00 0.DO 0.00 O.DO 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,000.00 500.000.00
31
Item 9. - 135 Date: 4/272012 Time:12:14 PM 1113 -270- Huntington Beach October,2011
215
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets,Signals And Bridges)System
PTajecl NumbwJThle LC 012 Goldenwest Street And Slater Street
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capabiliy to move vehicles end pedestrians across the intersection(in all direcions�the following improvement to the
intersection is proposed:1)Add a 2nd scuthbound tell turn lane.An alternative would to that improvementwould be to:1)Convert a separate
northbound right turn lone to a third northbound through lane.This would be a Cry-managed project
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
There met"opportunities to add additional lane miles throughout the Cy.thus maArnum movement of traffic across major circulation
rouiesis critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capociywhere warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service(or
LOS)trahicilow 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 conditicns,backups from other
locations resaiC or prevenimcvement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development
All new developmentwill impact existing intersections within the City,malting some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like'D'.'E'or"F".Development anticipated over the nextnwentyyears will generate 45A542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a14.6%increase daily overthe City's existing demand of 3.107.224 dailytdp-miles,ell ofwhich will compete for use of a staficnumber
of major roadway lane miles. The 454542 added daily a p-miles represent 12.6:of the total 3.561,76?doily Mp-miles at the twenty-year
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00%
Re(arence Document
Project Timing:
The projectvnll be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
mu-is
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 20+i-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 mmVI,Sump{ ToW ou Years
1. Design I Engineering/Administrati( 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,D00.00 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 0.00 000 4,000.00 4,000.DO
5. Equipment I Other 0,00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.OW.OD 50,000.00
32
V: 1.08.0 Date: 427/2012 Time:12:14 PM Fiuntingtln Beech
HR -271- Item 9. - 136
216
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrnstructura: 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(n all directions}the following improvement to the
intersection is proposed:1)Add a 2nd eastbound let,turn lone.This would be a Wmanaged project
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
There we few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City,thus maximum movement of traffic across major crcutaiion routes
is critical. Failure to or inabiliyto increase circulation cnpacitywhere worranted and needed would reduce the Level of Senice(or LOS)traffic
fiow at intersections of major streets to a Level"E"by acting as a bottleneck Level"E'is'Unstable Flown"and is identified as'tong queues o1
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level"E".'Forced Flow'creates'Jammed conditions,back-ups from other locations restrid or
prevent movement".
Relationship to General Plan Development
All new development will impact existing intersections within the Orly.making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like"D'.'E'ar"F'.Development anticipated over the next trremyyeers will generate 454542 additional dairy trip-miles.
This is a 14.5:increase dairy over the Gys existing demand of 3.107.224 dairy trip-miles,all otwhich will compete tot use of a static number
Of major roadway lace miles. The 454.542 added deiy trip-miles represent 12.8%of the total 3,561,767 daily trip-miles at the twenty-yew
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.00
Reference Dowment
Project Timing:
The pmjeciwill be constructed within normal revieve of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011.12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 itrwah Ou dl ul Total ell Years
1. Design/Engineering!Administrafrc OA0 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00
2. Land Acquisition!Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Coo 0.00
3.Construction 0.00 0.0o 0.00 0,00 400,000.00 400,000.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.0D 0.00 0.00 4.000.00 40,000.00
5. Equipment 1 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.DO 0.00 0.00 0,00 5W.00D.00 500,OCA.00
33
Date: 4l2712012 Tune:12:14 PM Huntington Beach October.2011
Item . - 137 Ile -_2 ,-_-2_
217
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)CorrveR a separate westbound right turn lane to a de-lacto right turn lane,and 2)add a 3rd westbound though
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 maAmum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or incubi Gtyto 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 botHeneck- Level'E'is'Unstable Flow:'and is identified as'long queues of
vehicles wlvting upstream of the intersection". Level"E'."Forced Flow'creates'Jammed conditions,back-ups from other locations restrict or
present 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"P.Development anticipated over the net twentyyears will generate 454.542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase daily over the City s existing demand of 1107.224 daffy trip-miles,all otwfllch will compete lot 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 Generel 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 collecled.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 4012.13 M13.14 2014.15 lr. o Told all Yens
1. Design/Engineering I Administratk 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 l 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: 1.06.0 Date: 412712012 Time:12:14 PM FIR 27, Huntington Beach Item 7. - I38
218
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets,Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number)Title LC 015 Newland Slreet And Yorktown Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(n at directions),the following improvement to the
intersection is proposed:1)Re-stripe westbound right tum lane to a 2nd westbound through lane.This would be a C4ty-managed project
Justification/Consequences of Awidance:
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 iniarsections of major streets to a Level'E'by acting as a botteneck. Level'E'is'Unstable Flan'and is identified as'long queues of
vehicles viaifing upstream cf the intersection'. Level"E","Forced Flow'creates'Jammed condili ons,back-ups from other locations resinct or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
All new developmentwill impact emsting intersections within the City,making some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like'D','E'or'!`'.Development anticipated over the nexttwentyyears will generate 454.542 additional dailyfrip-miles.
This is a 14.6:increase daily over the Clys existing demand of 3.107,221 doilytip-miles.all ofwhich will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added darlytripmiles represent 12.8:of the total 3,561,767 daily tripmiles atthe twenty-year
development horizon.
Allocation To General flan Buildout 95.GO%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
Wis.16
PROPOSED DCPENMTURES Mil-12 2012-10 2013-14 2014.15 trolgh ewa<m Taal WE Yeas
1. Design/Engineering IAdministatic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 36.000.00 39,000.00
2. Lend Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.Construction 0,00 0.00 0.00 OM 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 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 300,000.00 300,000.00
35
Date: 4272 j-(j; _�;�_
012 Time:12:14 PM Huntington Beach October.2011
Item 9. - 139
219
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Loco]Crculnton(Streets,Signets And Bridges)System
Project Number)Title LC 016 Gothwd Street And Slater Avenue
Subrniaing Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Projed Description:
To maximize the capabiliyto move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(in all directionsZ the following improvementto the
imersection is proposed:1)Add a 2nd northbound lefttunn lane.This would be a City-managed project-
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the Oty,thus maximum movement of Gallic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capacity where warranted end needed would reduce the Level of Service(or LOS)traffic
flow at intersections of major streets m 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 Flow'creates"Jammed conditions,beck-ups from other locations restrict of
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 Qtys exsting demand of 3,107.221 daily trip-miles,allot which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454,542 added daily trip-miles represent 12.0%of the total 3,5S1,767 daiytrip-miles at the twer,"ar
development horizon,
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 9E,00%
Reference Documerr
Project-riming:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES m11-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-1s tnmupneuldaut Tow0Ye
1. Design/Engineering/Administrati( 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 60,000.00 60.000.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400,000.00 400,000.00
4.Contingency 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,D0 40,D00.00 40.000,00
5. Equipment l Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0,00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.D0 500,D00.00 500.000.00
36
V: 1.08.0 Date: 427/2012 Time:12:14 PM ).(L3 _2 75- Huntington Beach IteRl 7. — 140
220
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets,Signals And Bridges)System
ProjecSNumbegTitle LC 017Gothard Street And Talbert Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To madmize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(n all diredons).the following improvement to the
intersection is proposed:l)Add a 2nd southbound left turn lane. An eltemative to that improvement would be:l)Convert a separate
eastbound right turn to a 2nd eastbound through lane.This would be a City-managed project.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
There we few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City,dws mabmum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is critical. Failure to or inability to increase circulation capadtywhere 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 Row"and is identified as'long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level'E','Forced RoW creates"Jammed conditions,back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement.
Relationship to General Plan Development
All new development will impact emsting 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 deity trip-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase daily overthe CitV s exis8ng demand of 3,107,224 daily trip-riles,all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway,lane miles. The 45-1512 added deilylrip-mites represent 12.8%of the total 3.561.767 daily trip-miles atthe twen"ear
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildoul, 95,00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review d prionties and as adequate and suf(cent revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 awough 6uikl Tome an rears
2. Lard Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.t10
3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2404000.00 240,000.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24,000.00 24,000.00
5. Equipment 7 Other OM 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 264.000.00 264 000.00
37
Item 9. - 141
Date: 4272 me: jig -376-
012 Ti 12:14 PM Huntington Beach October,2011
221
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets,Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number/TNe LC 016 Ward Street And Garfield Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To maximize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection fin ell direc5ons�the lollowing improvements to the
intersection are proposed:1)Add a 2nd eastbound left turn lane,and 2)remove a separate eastbourd right turn lane-This would be a
City-managed project
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
There ore few opportunities to add additional lane miles through out the City,thus maximum movement of traffic across major circulation routes
is criucal. Failure to or inability m increase circulation capacitywhere warranted and needed would reduce the Level of Service(or LOS)traffic
flow at intersections of major streets to a Level"E'by acting as a bottleneck. Level'E"is'Unstable Flow"and is identified as"long queues of
vehicles waiting upstre am of the intersection'. l-evel'E",'Forced Flow'creates'Jammed conditions,back-ups from other locations restrict or
prevent movement'.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
All new devalopmentwill impact existing intersections within the City,making some of them require improvements or the LOS mll drop to
unacceptable levels like'D","E'or'F.Development anticipated over the next twenty years will generate 45A542 additional daily trip-miles.
This is a 14.6%increase daily over the CiVs existing demand of 3,107,224 daily trip-miles,all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadray lane miles. The 454.542 added daily trip-miles represent 12.8%of the total 3,561,767 deilytrip-miles at the twenty-year
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95.00%
Reference Document
Project T imin g:
The projectwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and suYlio ent(avenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 201r-12 M12-13 2013-14 2014-15 i gh&ul0.ovt TOW1el1Y..
2.Land Acquisltion/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 o.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 0.00 600.00 000.00
5. Equipment l Other 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 coo 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 000 0.00 000 a,800.00 8,800.00
38
V: 1.08.0 Date: 427/2012 Time:12:14 PM 11B _177- Hunfinglon Beach Item 9. - 142
222
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Grculston(Streets.Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number)Tile LC 019 Broakhurst Street And Adams Avenue
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
To me»mize the capability to move vehicles and pedestrians across the intersection(m all directions).the following improvements to the
intersection are proposed:1)Add a 4th through lane in each of the tour directions.2)add a separate northbound rightturn lane-3)allow
northbound right turn overlap and 4)allowwes!bound right turn overlap.This would be a Ciy-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
Ilow at intersections of major streets to a Level'E'by acting as a bottleneck Level'E"is*Unstable Row.'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 exisdng intersections within the City,malting some of them require improvements or the LOS will drop to
unacceptable levels like'D",'E"or'F'.Development anticipated over the nett twentyyews will generate 454.542 additional dailytrip-miles.
This is a 14.6°:increase daily over the Drys existing demand of 3.107,224 daily trip-miles.aft 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 deiythpyThiles elthe twenty-year
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95,00%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The projectvill be constructed wdthin normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
M15-16
PROPOSED EY,PENOrrURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Rough u1 TMI eO Yana
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,200,000.00 1.200.000.00
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 9,000.000.00 8,000.000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 e00,000.00 600.000.00
5. Equipment/Other 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 obo 0.00 0.00 10,000,000.00 10,000,000.00
39
Item 9. - 143 Date: 427/2012 Time:12:14 PM I-I13 ` Huntington Beach October.2011
223
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Circulation(Streets.Signals And Bridges)System
Project NumberJ Title LC 020 Miscellaneous Traffic Signa ritersection Improvements
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
Construct on average.a traffic signal(and supportive intersection improvements)peryear over a twen"ar 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 aheralionss,new signals intrestrudum,consisintg of light
arms,lights,electrical control boxes.0-site controls. In addition there may be a need for lane res piping and Iefkurn and right turn pockets.
These projedswould be aC-ity-managed.
Justilicalion/Consequences of Avoidance:
There are few opportunities to add additional lane miles through outthe City,thus movement offre}fic across major circulation routes. Failure
to or inability to increase circulation capacity where wammated and needed would reduce the Level of Service(or LOS)traffic flow at
intersections otmojor streetsto al-evel'E"by acting as abottleneck Level'E'is'Unstable Flow:'and is identified as"long queues of
vehicles waiting upstream of the intersection'. Level'E'."Forced Flaw^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 aty,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 deity over the City s existing demand of 3,107.224 dadytrip-miles.all of which will compete for use of a static number
of major roadway lane miles. The 454542 added daily trip-miles represent 12.8%of the total 3.561,767 daily trip-miles at the tweniy-yem
development horizon.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 95.00
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The projedwill be cc nstruded within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES =011-12 2012-13 2m3-14 M14-15 Inman B64 G ToWl all Yeas
1.Design/Engineering/Administrant 0.00 0.00 0,00 0,00 800,000,00 600,000.00
2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,000.000.00 4.000,000.00
4.Contingency 0.00 Gore 0.00 0.00 400000.00 400,000.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,000,000.00 5,000,000.00
40
V: 1.08-0 Date: 4272012 Time:12:14 PM Huntington Beach
t(t� -z�t�- Item 9. - 144
224
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local Grculaton(Streets-Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number)Tille LC 021 Public Works Maintenance Building
Submitting Deperinnonts: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
Construct a 10.000 square foot.split-face block.general-use circulation system maintenance building. The facilitywould have full utilities and
a number of ral}vp doots. Approximately,00%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 Orainege System Developmentlmpact Fee proceeds. The rot below represents BO%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-tram drainage improvements as we0 as an untold amount of I0001 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 flan Buildouc 95.00%
Reference Document
ProjectTiming:
The projeciwould be constructed based upon normal reviewof priorities and as adequate and sufficient DIF revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 IIrouyl BulklW TaNtllY",
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 265,000.00 285,000.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.DO 000 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 0.00 146.000.00 145.000.00
5. Equipment 1 Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00
TOTAL COST: 000 0.00 0.00 0,00 2,820.000.00 2,820,00000
41
Item 9. - 145 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:14 PM HB --SO- Huntington Beach October-2011
225
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Local arculation(Streets,Signals And Bridges)System
Project Number)Title LC 022 Public Works Maintenance Vehides
Submitling Departments: Public Works-Maintenance
Project Description:
Acquire an additional maintenance utility truck and a tratfic signal lift truck
Justification J Consequances of Avoidance:
The additional maintenance vehicle would be required to support the additional demands from the roughly f40.0 million in additional
circulation system improvements.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The circulation system maintenance fleet expansion is limited to the demands created by newinfrostructure required to support new
development.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 95,00
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The proposed afleet additionswould be acquired based upon normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient OF revenues we
collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EJTENDITURES nil-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014 15 Reugn 0ulklw Twi.0 r.as
1. Design I Englneering IAdministratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.DO
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 D.oO O.OD 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5, Equipment I Other O.DO ODO 0.00 0.00 65 000.00 55.000.00
TOTAL COST: 0,00 D.00 0.00 0,00 55,000.00 65,000.00
42
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4272012 Time:12:14 PM FIB _281_ Huntington Beach Item 7. - 146
226
City of Huntington Beach
Storm Drainage
Collection System
43
Item 9. - 147 HB -282-
227
Huntin n Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Storm Drainage Collection System
2015- 16
Through Project Build
2011 -12 2012- 13 2013- 14 2014-15 Build Out Out Total
SD-001 Santa Ana River&Talbert Channel Region(SO Region p1) so so so s0 523,72B.000 $23.726.000
SD-002 Coastal And Bolsa Chlca Wetlands Region(SO Region 912) 50 so so $0 $21,527,000 $21.527.000
SO-DD3 Slater Channel Regim(SO Region p3) $0 $0 50 $0 $34,236.000 334,236,000
SD-0O4 Wintersburg Channel Region(SO Region a4) so $0 $O so S28,749 000 $28.749,000
SO-005 Bolsa China Channel&Harbour Region(SO Region 05) $0 $0 $0 So $90,549,000 $98.549,000
SD-006 Public Works Maintenance Building $0 50 50 $0 $705,050 $705 050
TOTALS $0 $0 50 so $207494,050 $207494.050
Notes:
1)If prolect Doting is not a component of this effort,then all projWs default to their'Thru Build Out"amount.
N
N
00
IJ
lam♦
r-'
CD
41
V: 1.12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:15 PM Huntington Beach October,2011 Page: 1
00
00
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number)Title SD 001 Santa Ana River 6 Talbert Channel Region(SO Region @1)
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
The 788 individual projects within Area 1 are required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas
and safely ccirveying H to the proper oullet. Sub-drainage region K1 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 aid Ellis Avenues.It encompasses the Santa Ana River end the
Talbert Channel Water Quality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 20-27.29-32.40.and 41.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
These improvements are needed to provide efficient removal of storm water from the CiVs streets,roads and other public areas. Storm
water will increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The
amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0.830 for commercial properties. Hnot completed,tharewould 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-n-vis the cost of the entire system.is appropriate.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 7.52%
Reference Document
Projed Timing:
The project will be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED DePENOMJRES 2011-12 2012-13 2013.14 2014-is MroWh BuhdE T=1.11Ye&,
1. Design!Engineering/Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.847,360.00 2,847,360.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 o oo 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 1898$400.00 18,982,400.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 1.898,240.00 1,898.240.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.og 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 23.728,000.00 23.728,000.00
45
Item 9. - 1491 Date: 4/272012 Tune:12:16 PM HB -284- Huntington Beach October.2011
229
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number)Title SO 002 Coastal And Bolso Chico Wetlands Region(SO Region 42)
Submitting Departments: PublicWorks-Engineering
Project Description:
The 235 projects within Area S2 are required to remove storm drainage water from the Citys street surfaces end other public areas and safely
convey itto the proper outlet Sub-drainage region l2 drains the central so ulhwest area of the City,and is generally bordered by Lake and
Main Streets on the east Pacific Coast Highway on the south and west Seapoint Avenue and Edwards Street on the west and Ellis Avenue
on the north.Sub-drainage 2 also includes the community surrounding the Sprmgdala(falbert intersection.it encompasses the Boise Chien
Wetlands and the Coastal Water Quality Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 16-19.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
These improvements we needed to provide efficient removal of storm water from the Ws streets.roads and other public we as. Storm
waterwill increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The
amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to a high of 0,830 for commercial properties. II not completed.there would be the
potential for flooring of downstream creeks.washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergencyvehide response by the Ws
Police,Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the Cry.
Relationshipto General Plan Development
A proportional amount of the projects,vis-evis the cost of the entire system-is oppropriate.
Allocation To General Plan Buildoul: 7.52 0
Reference Document
Proj ect Tming:
The projedwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-15
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES m11-12 2012.13 2013-14 2014 15 th. .h awktW 7�1el Years
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0.01) 0,00 0.00 O.DO 2.583,240,00 2,58$,240.00
2. Lend Acquisition/Right Of Way a00 O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 17,221,500.00 17,221,600,00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1 722,160.00 1,722,160.00
5. Equipment Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21,527,000.00 21,527,000.00
46
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:16 PM HB 28, Huntington Beach Item 7. — 150
230
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collecton System
Project Number:/Title SD 003 Slater Channel Region(SD Region 13)
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
The 270 projects within Area i'3 are required to remove storm drainage wailer from the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely
conveyitto the proper outlet Sub-drainage region 3 drains the central section of the City,inducting a portion of the City of Fountain Valley and
is generally bordered try Newland and Magnolie Avenues on the east Ellis.Taylor and Talbert Avenues on the south Graham and Bolsa
Chica Streets on the west and Warner Avenue on the north.Sub-drainrige 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 tram the City's streets.roads and other public areas. Stone
weterwill increase in amounts proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capebiliy,of the groundto absorb water. The
amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings to c 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 bythe Cr1V 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,visa is the cost of the entire system is appropriate.
Allocation To General Plan Buifdout 7.52
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project will be constructe d within normal review of pnorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 M14-15 urwith Buiq t Taal M Yq
1. Design!Engineering/Administratic 0.00 o.Do 0.00 0,00 4,108.320ol) 4,108,320,00
2. Land ADquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 O.DD 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Consimction 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 27.388,B00.00 27,388,800.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.738,880.00 2.730.880.00
5. Equipment I Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.D0 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COSY: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34,236,000,DO 34.236,000,00
47
Item 9. - 15 Y late: 412712012 Time:12:16 PM HB 286 Huntington Beech October.2011
231
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number)Title SO 004 Wntersburg Channel Region(SD Region A4)
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
The 220 projects within Area t4 are required to remove storm drainage water from the Crty s street surfaces and other public areas and safely
covey alto the proper outletSub-drainage region 4 includes the northern and northeastern parts ofthe City,and is generally bordered by
Newland Street on the east Heil and Warner Avenues on the south,Spnngdale Street on Lhe west and McFadden Avenue on d*north.
Sub-drainage 4 corresponds to the Wintersburg Water Quality Channel Planning Area and is represented in watershed Drainage Maps 6-9.
Justif cetion/Consequences of Avoidance:
These improvements ere needed to provide efficient removed of storm weterfrom the Cit)ts streets,roads and other public areas. Storm
water will incre ase in amounts proportion al to the amount of impervi out s surface red uclng the capability of the ground to absorb water. The
amount ranges from a low of 0.745 for detached dwellings Ica high of 0.630 for com merael properties. Knot completed there would be the
potential for flooding of downstream creeks,washes and other storm drainage collection pipes. Emergencyvehide response by the Civs,
Police.Fire and Public Works crews could be effected to all areas of the City.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
A proponicnal amount of the projeM vis-a-vis the cost of the entire system.is appropriate.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 7.52%
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
The projectwill be constructed within nonnal review of prioriiies and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
2D15-16
PROPOSEDEkPENOITURES 2011-12 M12-13 W13.14 M14-15 Mo h8uldcs TotaleUYM.
1. Design/Engineering I Administrabc 000 0.00 0.0o D.DO 3,449,880.00 3,449,880.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 a00 0.00 0,DO 0.00
3. CDnsuuctlon 0.oa 0.00 0.Do 0.00 22,999,200.00 22,999,2DO.00
4. Contingency 0,00 0.00 O.Do 0.00 2,299,920o0 2299,920.00
5.Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OM
TOTAL COST: 0.00 poll 0.00 0.00 28,749,000.00 28,74%000.00
48
V: 1.08.0 Date: 42712012 Time:12:16 PM HB 287 Huntington Beast Item 7. - 152
232
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Number)Tile SO 005 Bolsa Chico Channel&Harbour Region(SD Region i5)
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Project Description:
The 278 projects within AreaM are required to remove storm drainage water from the City's street surfaces and other public areas and safely
comrey it to the proper outlet Sub-drainage region 5 covers the northwestern section of the City,including a potion of the City of Westminster.
Bub-drainage 5 corresponds to the Harbor Water Quality Planning Area end the Boise Chico Channel Water Quality Planning Area and is
represented in watershed Drainage Maps 1-5.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
These improvements ore needed to provide efficient remU MJ of storm water from the Citys streets, roads and other public areas. Storm
water will increase in amourds proportional to the amount of impervious surface reducing the capability of the ground to absorb water. The
amount ranges from alaw of 0.745 for detached dwellings toe 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. Emergencyvehida response by the Cnys
Police.Fire and Public Works crews could be affected 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 colleded.
2015-16
PROPOSED LxPENDITDRES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 tr wlgh B1iltl w Tool NI Ye"
1.Design/Engineering/Administrati( 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.0o 11,625,680.00 11,825,980.00
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 78,839,200.D0 78.839,200.00
4.Contingency 0.D0 D.oD 0,00 0.00 7,883,920.00 7,883,920.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTALCOST: 0.00 0oo 0.00 0.00 98.549.000,00 98,5490D0.00
49
Item 9. - 153, Date: 4272012 Time:12:16 PM HB _288_ Huntington Beach October.2011
233
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Storm Drainage Collection System
Project Numbed Title SD 006 Public Works Maintenance Building
Submitting Departments: Public Works-Engineering
Projed Description:
.Construct a 10.000 split-face block general use,maintenance building. The facility would be have full utilities and a number of roll-up doors.
Appropmalely 211%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 Orcuation System Development Impact Fees.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The additional spael needs would be required to supporlthe additionat demands from the ConsWction of 87 OM in circulation and storm
drainage infrastructure improvements.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The facility expan sion is limited to the demands created by the new infrastructure required to support new development.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 100.00%
Reference Oocumenc
Project Timing:
The projedwill be constructed within normal review of priorities and as adequate and sufficient revenues are collected.
M15-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 20:2-13 2013.14 2014-15 UVOUgh Bicd� Taal an Ye.
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 68,250.00 86,250,00
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 0.00 602.500.00 602,500,00
d.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 36.300.00 36,300,DO
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 705,050.00 705,050,00
50
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:16 PM HB -,59_ Huntington Beach Item 9. - 154
234
City of Huntington Beach
Public Library Facilities
And Collection
51
Item 9. - 155 HB -290-
235
Huntin )n Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Public Library Facilities And Collection
2015- 16
Through Project Build
2011 -12 2012-13 2013- 14 2014- 15 Build Out Out Total
PL •001 Expand Banning Branch Library $0 $0 30 so $5.268.470 $5.268 470
PL-002 Expand Main Street Branch Library $0 so $0 $0 $1.651,375 41 651,375
Pt. -003 Expand Library CaOectlon System 50 $0 w 50 $921,524 $021.524
TOTALS $0 $a $0 E0 $7.841,369 $7.841.369
Notes:
1)If project timing is not a wmponent of this eaon,then all protects default to their"Thru Build Out'amount.
N
W
m
T_
rY
� N
V: 1,12.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:12:16 PM Huntington Beach October,2011 Page: 1
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Public Library FacilNes And Cc lledon
Project Number./Title PL 001 Expand Banning Branch Library
Submitting Departments: Library Services
Project Description:
Expand the Banning Branch Library facilities by I V 00 square feet from the anent 2,400 square feet to 12.500 square teetto asses 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-ouL
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The anent 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 der.ease to about 0,614 square feel 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 Buildeut: 100.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
Based upon the rate of construction of residential units and thus collection of any imposed development Impact Fees.
2016-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 20t2-0 20t3.14 201e-15 Uroughswf «rt Tad Wre.
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 535,260.00 535,260.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 508,000.00 808.000.00
3.Construction 0.00 DAD 0,00 0.00 3,568,370.00 3,588,370.00
4. ConUngency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.DD 358,840.00 356,640.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 D.DD 0,00 0.00 5,208,470.00 5,268,470.00
53
Item 7. - 157, Date: 427/2012 Tune:12:17 PM HB _292_ Huntington Beach October.2011
237
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Public Library Facilifies And Collection
Project NumberJTite PL 002 Expand Main Street Branch Library
Submitting Departments: Library Services
Project Description:
Expand the Main Street Branch Library facilities by 4,804 square feetfrom the current 4,500 square feetto 9,304 square feetto assist in the
maintenance of the existing levels of service and eaend those same levels of service to the 17,089 newresidents expeCed to be added
through General Plan build-out The project consists taking g804 square feet of the current building that house the branch library currently
used by anon-CRytenent 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.
Ju s0cation/Cons equence s of Avoidance:
The current defocto 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 senrice provided by the fiblary. 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 we 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 W12-13 2013-14 2014-15 Mrough SWaoA Tani all Years
1. Design/Engineering I Administrati( 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 198165.00 198.155.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.09 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 Q00 o.00 1,321.100.00 1,321,100.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 132.110.00 13z110.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 coo
TOTAL COST. aoo 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.651 375.00 1.651,375.00
54
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/2712012 Tune:12:17 PM 1-18 _29__ Huntington Beall Item 9. - 158
238
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 dams per resident currently
offered bythe Gigs library system.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
Added populalionfrom new residential construction will increase the aly s residential population by approximately 17,089 additional
residents. Without expending 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 meetthe demands of an increasing residential population.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 100.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
Based upon the rate of construction of residentid units and thus collection of any imposed development Impact Fees.
2015-16
PROPOSED E>PEND[TURES 2011.12 2012-13 2013.14 2014-15 M,"h BOWa Taw ali Year.
1.Design l Engineering lAdministfatic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
2.Land Acquisition 1 Right Of Way 0.00 0,00 0.00 0,00 0,00 0.00
3,Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 921.524.00 921.524.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 921,524.00 921,524.00
55
Item 9. - 159 Date: 4/2712012 Time:12:17 Pm HB _21/4_ Huntington Beach October.2011
239
City of Huntington Beach
Park Land Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development
56
HB -295- Item 9. - 160
240
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Deveiopment
2015- iB
Through Project 13udd
2011 -12 2012- 13 2013- 14 201./- 15 Build Out Out Total
PK•001 &r090 Park Conoeplurl Plan And EIR S4o0.on0 Vi $0 $0 $5,0meau, 35,400,000
PK-nO2 kby Park Phase ll 30 s0 $0 90 $500,000 9500.0u0
PK-003 Canud Park Fcrmer Gm Range EIR,RAP And Dewhipnent :325,000 b0 s0 30 34,000,000 91.325,000
PK� Le Bard Park Expansion master Plan And Development Plan 5250,000 s0 50 $0 $1 200 000 31,45D.DDO
PK-0O5 11tufAop Park Tr;II rmpmverncnm $a 90 $0 $0 $1,000.0m s1Ap0,000
PK-000 Edinger Dcoc Devebpmerd 5o $0 30 $0 $700,000 5700.000
PK-D07 Wnrdlmv Field Recunfigumbcn❑oafgNConslluction .S120,000 SO $D 50 S890,000 91,Oc0,000
PK OU C../-VTde Parks blastnt Ph,,, 30 so SO 50 5350,000 3350.00n
PK-030 Centralpark 7faotat plan so s0 50 SO 3750.000 37WOOD
PK-010 Cmr.al Park AcguiNlcn0l EncycloFadia lots 50 50 50 50 S1,020000 111,020,000
N
PK-of I Central Perk Devalopmeot G1 Remaining 86 Acres s0 s0 SO $0 $2D,000.000 520,000.000
PK-012 Contal Park Rebulki Teo Restaurant FacuDes 50 50 50 90 560U,000 $80000
z
� 1'K-013 Cwrerat YOWL SOods Facilities Grants 5780,000 $150.000 3130,000 bt 5p,0pD S3,L00,000 s4,500,p00
t� P7( 014 Murdy Y0u11,Sports Complex NOW ll 50 50 SO $0 b2,500,000 92,D00,000
' PK-0t5 Beach Plar'gmorld 80 iD s0 50 $350,000 335o.cm
PK016 Central Pmx Devnlo➢u:enl(x Fcnbor Gun RauVu Area $0 30 50 s0 53,000,OOD $3 000.000
PK 017 Warner Dock Renoveteo And E_xponeim $0 50 $0 SO $800,000 5a00,000
PK-DI) t.arnb Pork(#.sign And Oeve30pmenl so so 50 s0 51,100,000 E1,101),Dco
PK-0te Central Park 3po.s Comriox Team Room $D 90 $D $0 $100.000 31Ce,000
PK 020 Future Parks Aogdsition(Possible Closed Soboal Sites) s0 so SO 60 959,560,DOO $58,586,UD0
PK-021 Centre)Park Sent"Corder s0 s0 50 30 S22,000,000 922,600,000
PK r12 Edison Coaxnunr:y Canter Grrnnesium 30 50 $0 $O $2,975,000 52,975,001)
U
V
V. 1.12.0 Pate: 5N212012 Time:11:02 lu41 Hunbngl0n Beach October,2011 Page: I
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan
Park Land Acquisition And Park FacRies Develol"Lnt
2015- 1s
Through Pr0jerb Bum
2011 - 12 2012-13 2013- 14 2014.15 Build Out Out Total
PK-023 I.tunfy Commuidty Canter Gyrmraslum so 30 30 30 $2,975.000 32.97Sp00
PK-om Oak Va.13 0 30on Center Evenelce b0 so so b0 5000,000 SBC0,000
- - — -- �- — _ TOTALS si'N5,ac0 315a,000 315a.ac0 S1s0,u00 4135788 000 3137480 000
NOfas
1)8 prof:et 4ming m nala ownpenent of this etrorl,0rzn an pwjem rtelault fa 9%e Inm lluilo our amount
N
tO
N
IC
IJ
J
r-r
f� In
V:1.12.0 Date: 5l02l2012 17me:11:01 AM Huntington Beach October,2011 Page: 2
U
N
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Develop ment
Project Number)Title PK 001 Bailee 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 arvacant 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 consistentwith the Ws General Plan Recreation Element and inciirecily 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 lhrough8r 1 Total all Yvan
1.Design/Engineering/Administratic 400,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 500,000.0o 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,aoo.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
Item 9. - 163 Date: 4/2712012 Time:11:36 AM }I Zvi Huntington Beach October,2011
243
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Fadliti as Development
Project NumberJTiile PK 0021rby Park Phase ll
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
The project consists of the development of the remaining eight acres. Construct bic filter end water retention area In addition,construct trails,
passive pocket areas,interpretive signs end a small area of neighborhood park improvements(climbing apparatus.benches.pimictables)
adacanito the neighborhood area The more active portion would be designed in afashion 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 ureter retention needs would receive appropriations from storm drainage sources,a State Public Works GrenL
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little drect relationship,but the improvements are consistent with the QVs General Plan Recreation Element end indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development The project is also capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout ROO
Reference Document
Project Timing:
Based upon receipt of State(Public Works)Grant The project is in conjunction with a PW State Grant-matching funds.
xls-1e
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011- 2012-13 M13-14 2014.15 woup ucllw vi Total all roars
1. Design I Engineering I Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 50,Ooo,Do
2. Land Avquisillon I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 400.000.DO 400,000.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50,000.00 50,000.00
5. Equipment I Other O.DO 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 500,000.00 500.000.00
60
V: 1.08.0 Date. 4272012 Tune:11:36 AM 1-113 _2yy- Huntington Beach Item 9. - 164
244
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Fadliiies Development
Project NumberJTnie 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 erruironmentnl problem and must be
remediated before re-use. Phase I consists of preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and Remedial Action Plan. Phase It(£2.0
million)is an estimate of the range remediation. Phase III(also£2.0 million)is the actual site improvements to turn it into an active park use.
proposed atthis time to be a skate perk
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The roughly five acre gun range area is pan of the Dtys major regional park and needs to be used tons maximum potentid in a yet to be
determined manner.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little direct relationship,butthe improvements we consistentwth the CiVs General Plan Recrealion 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-ie
PROPOSED E)�PENDRURES 2011-12 2012-13 2o13-14 2014-15 LHmeh Butch TWIon rears
1. Design/Engineering/Adminlstratic 325,003.00 0.00 0.00 0,DO 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.OD 0.00 0.00 4 000.000,00 4,000,000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 O.DO o.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 325,000.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 4,000,OD0.00 4,325.000.00
61
Item 9. - 165 Date: 4f27/2012 Time:11:35 AM j.(Q -3pO- Huntington Beach October,2011
245
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Perk Land Acquisition And Pork Facilities Development
Project Number)The PK 004 Le Bard Park Expansion Master Plan And Development Plan
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Undertake the Park Master Plan and construction documents necessaryto expand the turf area and park amenities on the two remaining
undeveloped acres. The improvements will be completed in a single phase. Improvements dso include the elimination of drainage
problems and construction of a ramp to the Santa Ann 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,bulthe improvements are consistentwith the C4Vs General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly supponthe
additional residents resulting from new development. The project is also capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00
Reference Document:
Proj a ct Tm ing:
As park-related revenues became available.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2D12-13 2013-14 2014-1s ti o h guidon Tam nn vean
1. Design l Engineering l Administratk 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 0.03 0.00 0.0D 0.00 0.00
5.Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 o.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 250,000.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,2W,DW.W 1450,000.00
62
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27/2012 Time:11:36 AM H13 _3101_ Huntington Beach Item 7. - 166
246
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Perk Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number)TNe PK 005 Bluthop Park Trail improvements
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct improvemems to the a dsting two and a hall-mile long asphelt trail including a split hail system for pedestrian and wheeled traffic.
The project includes 15 o for citizen input project designifengineering.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 necessaryta reduce the rate of erosion of the very important blufhop area
Relationship to General Plan Development:
None directly.the improvements are primarily necessaryto maintain an emsting asset
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As revenues permit-
M15 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-i2 2012-13 2013.14 2014-15 ftVeh w,J Toni all rm.,
1. Design I Engineering I Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120.000.00 120,000.00
2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00
3.Construction 0.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 800,000.00 800.000,00
4. Conlingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80,000.00 000WOO
5. Equipment/Other 0,00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 000 0,00 0.00 O.oO 1,000,ODO.00 1,000,000.00
63
Item 9. - 167 Date: 4127MI2 Time:11:36 AM j-j 3)02) Huntington Beach October,2011
247
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Lend Acquisition And Pa*Fecilities Development
Project Numb erJTitle PK 806 Edinger Dods Development
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct a new dock and boat launch.
Justification 1 Consequences of Avoidance:
The improvements need to be made to meet the recreationd boating needs of the community.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little direct relationship,but the improvements we consistent with the Gtys General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from new development.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00
Reference Document
Project Ti ming:
Within pnoriy and as Park Fund revenues become available.
2015-18
PROPOSEDE)PENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014.15 NWghevifloiA To•,aleUYe
1.Design 1 Engineering/Administralk 0.00 o.DO 0.00 0.00 50,0D0.00 50,000.00
2. Land Acquisition f Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0,00 0.00
3.Construction D.Do 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6D0,000.00 600,000.OD
5. Eq uipmenll Other o.oD 0,00 D.00 0.00 50,000.Do 50,000.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.0D 0.DO 700,000.0D 700,000.D0
64
V: 1.08.0 Date: 427/2012 Time:11:36 AM 11B Huntington Beach Item 7. - 168
248
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Lend Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project NumberJTNe PK 007 Werdlow Field Reconfiguration DesigryConstmclion
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Rem nfigure the park to accommodate a youth spoils field and plan for additional perking. Construction costs for the little league field and
Parking lot are induded et f380.000.
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 consistenlwith the Ciy's General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additions)residents resulting from new development
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.001/
Reference Document:
Project Timing:
2010.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 M12-13 2➢13-14 2014-15 Nogh euA Taal nil Yum
1.Design l Engineering l Administratic 120.000.00 D.DD Goo 0,00 O.DD 120,000.00
2, Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 O.DO
3,Construction 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 8DO.000.DO $00.000-00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.DO 80.000.00 e0,000.00
5. Equipment l Other 0.00 0.00 O.OD 0.00 O.OD 0.00
TOTAL COST: 120,DOO.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 e80,000.00 1.000,000.DO
65
Item 9. - 169 Dale: 4272012 Time:11:36 AM HB 304 Huntington Beach October.2011
249
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Fadlifies Development
Project Number./Title Pl< 008 CityWide Perks Muster Pion
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
The pmjeciconsists solelyof the preparalion at Perks Master Plan.
Jusliricaoon/Consequences of Avoidance:
A Master Plan of Perks is needed to insure the continued rational programmed development of the Gty parks system.
Relationship to General Plan Development
A Park Master Plan for the continued development of the Clty'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 forthe period of 2010 to 2020.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011 12 2012.13 2013-14 2014-15 wagh 13.6c1 Towmve>
i. Design I Engineering lAdministmtk 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.D0
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment I Other 0.00 0,00 0.00 0M 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.D0 0.00 350.000.00 350,000.00
66
V: 1.08.0 Date: 427=12 Time:11:35 AM HB -305- Huntington Beach,Item 9. - 170
250
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Perk 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.a0 negative impacts must be fully mitigated.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The area proposed lorthe Senior Citizens Center has been vacant for a great deal of time and has become a raptor foraging area. The Dry
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 pwk- ide basis.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Lillie direct relationship,but the improvements are consistent with the CVs General Plan Recreation Elementand indirectly supponthe
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 X13-14 2014-15 mrwgn Bird-an Tam eu v«R
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 250.000.010 250.000.00
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 0o0 0.00 000
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: O.Oo 0.00 0.00 0.00 250.000.00 250,000.00
67
Item 9. - 171 Date: 127/2012 Time:11:36 AM H13 _3,06_ Huntington Beach October,2011
251
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Lend Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number:/Title PK 010 Central Park Acquisiton 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 appronmately$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 Avoidenc e
The acquisition of the small lots is necesseryto 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 QVs 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
z01s-1s
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013.14 2014-15 rtrc.0 -clan Town vows
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0.00 too 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 O.DO 0.00 0.00 1,020,000,00 1,020,000.00
3.Construction 0.00 D.00 too 0.00 0.00 ODD
4. Contingency 0,00 0.00 0.00 D,DO 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment/Other 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.D0
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 O.DD 0.00 1,020,D00.DO 1,020.000.00
68
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4/27=12 Time:11:36 AM HB 307 Huntington Beach Item 7. - 172
252
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Lend Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/True PY. 011 Central Pork Development Of Remaining 66 Acres
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Complete fhe mostly passive area of the park near Ellis end 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 necessaryto maximize the use of this major park-
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little direct relationship,butthe improvements are consistentwith the CiVs General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from na wdevelopment The projectis also capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Buildou[ 0.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As park capital revenues permit
2015-15
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2c11-12 2012-13 2013-14 2011-15 thwhDwa TOW anYeara
1. Design/Engineering/Administrati( 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.Construction 000 0.00 000 0.00 20,000,000.00 20,000,000.00
a. Contingency 0.00 D.oD 0.00 0.00 O.Oo 0.DO
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,D00.00
69
-, Date: 4/27M12 Time:11:36 AM Huntington Beach October,2011
Item 9. - IT) HB -308-
253
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project NumberJTile PK 017 Central Park Rebuild Two Restaurant Facilili s
Submitting Depanments: Community Services
Project Description:
Rebuild the'Park Bench Cafe'and-Nice's Restaurann'.
Juslification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The facilities ere nearly thirty years old and in need of replacement
Relationship to General Plan Development:
These improvements we largely concession-based improvements and thus financed with longterm concession revenues.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As revenues pemill and as negations we completed.
2015-15
PROPOSED F>CPENDr URES 21'11-12 M12-13 2013-14 2014-15 trrluhWil6 t 7=1 all Yaw.
1. Design/Engineering Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
2.Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0.o0 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: 1.08.0 Date: 427/2012 Time:11:36 AM HF3 309 Huntington Beach Item 7. - 174
254
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition A-nd Perk Facilities Development
Project Number/T'ide PK 013 General Youth Spoes Facilities Grants
submitting Departments: Corrounay S arvices
Project Dasaiphcn:
The proposed expenditure ads as see:!.money ton grords obtain ed by volunteer youth sports programs, The pmjectconsists c11150.000 per
year in grant assistance.
Justification{l7msequences of avoidance:
The aty has hed a!ongfrrm policy of assisting!coal groups leverage Cry money for cammon park area improvements,
Rela lonship to General Pion Development
Li10e died ralewonship,by the imprcnmments we cons isient w:r.t1:e Citys General Plan Recreation Element and indirectly supportthe
additional residents rasultina Lim new development.
Alloca5on To Genera Plan SuildovL 0.00%
Reference Document
Projem Timing:
As requested by local grDu ns them hava siceess in ohtoining grants or oche.financial assistance.
Kns•10
PROPOSED EXPFINDITl1FE-S 2011-12 2a12.13 2015-14 27.4-15 tnrrmah llubb his all Yarn
1.Design/Eng!n0enng/Administralk 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0,00
2.Lend Acquislnon/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 aDo
3.Gonwructi0n 153,000.00 150.010.00 150,000.00 150,000.Do 3,900,000,00 4,500,OD0.00
4.Contingency acc CM 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
5. Equipment!Other 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00
TOTAL COST: '50.CCc.00 160.00000 150DD0.00 150.000.00 3,600.00000 4,500,000.00
71
V: 1.08.0 Dot: 51WI2012 Tcne.10AG AM Huntington Beech October.2011
Item 9. - 175 1-1B -=10-
255
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/Title PK 014 Mundy Youth Sports Complex Phase ll
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Projed Description:
Reconfigure the current park school configuration to incaeaseyouth sports capabilities. The City and school distridwill 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-aro und.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The existing field configuration does not meximize the existing field space for use by youth sports associations and the redesign of the
existing park and school parcels M11 address this shortcoming.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The existing field configuration does not maximize the existing liald space for use by youth sports associations and the redesign will address
this.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As revenues permit
2015-16
PROPOSEDDCPENOfTURES XII-12 2012-13 M13-A 2014-15 :rroufheulld-W Tmel all Yeam
1.Design I Engineering 1 Administratk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
2.Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.500.000.00 2.500.000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5.Equipment I Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 2,500.000.00 2,500,000.00
72
V: 1.06.0 Date: 4127=12 Time:11:36 AM 1-111 _i 1 1_ Huntington Beach Item 7. - 176
6
256
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park.Facilities Development
Project NumberJTfle PK 015 Beach Playground
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Desorption:
Construct atot loyyouth playground with capabilityto serve the needs of two different age groups. The improvement would be located on the
City beach north of the pier adjacent to Blufhop Park ee 9th Street The park would have asphoh 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 meamize the existing field space for use oyyouth sports associations and the redesign will address
this.
Allocation To General Plan Buifdout 0.00%
Reference Document
Project Timing:
As revenues permd.
2015-18
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013.14 7014-15 Rragh euld.ar. Tuns all Tea,
1. Design/Engineering/Administralic 0.010 000 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 0.00 350,000.00 350,000.00
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment I Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 350,000.00 350,000.00
73
Item 9. - 177 Date: 427/2012 Time:11:36 AM 1-1 B _)1 2- Huntngton Beach October,2011
257
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acqui"on And Park Facilities Development
Project NumberJTdle PK 016 Central Park Development Of Former Gun Range Area
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Desuiption:
The project consists of the removal of the wdsting gun range and designinglconstructing a skate park facility.
Justification I Consequences of Avoidance:
The City currently has no facilities of its awn for in-line skating and skateboarding in this area of the community and will need to offset the loss
of the wasting Huntington Beach High School skate facility.
Relationship to General Plan Development
None directly,butthe proposed skate facility is capacity increasing.
Allocation To General Plan Buildout: 0.00
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The project design is planned for 2010 and the construction between 2010 and 2020.
2)15-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012.13 2C13-14 M14-15 wuyn er:.w- ' Taal di revs
1. Design/Engineering I Administratk D.DO 0,00 0.00 0.00 360.000.00 360,000.00
2. Land Acquisition I Right Of Way 0.00 O.DD 0.00 0.00 o.o0 0.00
3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.D0 0.00 2,400,000.00 2.400.000.00
4.Contingency 0.D0 0.00 O.OD O.DO 240,000.00 240,000.OD
5. Equipment/Other 0.DO 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.000.000.00 3,000,OD0.00
74
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4272012 Time:11:36 AM FIB =j Huntington Beach,Item 9. - 178
258
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number)Tide PK 017Wamer Dock Renovelion And Expansion
Submitting Departments: Community Serrices
Project Description:
Improve the Edinger Dock wee by dredging Lie wee and adding lour to six docks or slips. There would also be impmements made to the
public boat launch ramp.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The area serves the yacht dub activities as well as casual boaters.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little direct relationship,but the improvements are consistent with the Citl/s General Plan Reaeation Element end indirectly svppod the
additonal 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 Wough Bum opt Taal all Yaers
1. Design I Engineering/Administratic 0,00 0.00 0.00 aco 96,0D0.00 96.000.01)
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.Construction 0.00 O.W 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.D0 540,DDO.00 640,000.00
5. Equipment/Other 0.co 0.00 0.00 0.D0 64.000.00 64,000.00
TOTAL COST: 0 DD 0.00 0.00 0.00 BDO.000.00 800,000.00
75
]tern 9. - 179 Date: 4/272012 Time:11:36 AM j 1 J 1 Huntington Beach October,2011
259
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Faalibes Development
Project Numb erJTitle 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
(baltheld and spartsfield)and other neighborhood futures such as benches,sidewalks,drinking fountains and a play apparatus on the parcel,
a dosed school site.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance.
The park improvements,mostly sports oriented,are necessary to complete the park and maamite 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 Ptan Recreation Element and indirectly support the
additional residents resulting from newdevelopment The projectis 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,
201s 16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012.13 2013.14 2014-15 u.a,ha,ada Tcw an Yns
1. Design/Engineering/Administratk 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 0.00 880,000.00 990,000oo
4. Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 86.000.00 K000.00
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 1,100,000ol)
76
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4272012 Time:11:36 AM HB 331 Huntington Beach Itein 7. - 180
260
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Lend Acquisition And Perk Facilities Development
Project Number*)Title PK 019 Central Park Sports Complex Teem Room
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct a team-room at the sports complex. The lecility woul d be used try teems for during game breaks. The facility would have electrical
service and possibly a driniking fountain butwould not include showerllocker lecithies.
Justification I Consequences ct Avoidance:
The feciliywlll provide sports teams with a location for team discussions,chenging and personal effects security.
Relationship to General Plan Development
Little direct relationship,butthe improvements are consistentwdh the Di/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 M411 e•.aean Taw ell vmrs
1.Design/Engineering/Administratk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.oD O.Do
2. Land Acquisition/Right Of Way 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.OD 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 D.00 0,00 0,00 100,000.0o 10000o.00
4.Contingency O.OD 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
5. Equipment!Other 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 D.DO
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00,000.DO 1 DO.000.00
77
Item 9. - 181 Date: 4272012 Time:11:36 AM 1113 1 Huntington Beach October.2011
261
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Perk La-d AcquisitionAnci Pak Fadlhiss Deveioprnent
Prated NUmbe.-ITdle PK CZO Future PerksAcqulekor(Possible peseo School Sees)
Submiturlg Dspanments: Ccmm.ney Sernces
Project Desciption:
Acquire aopraametely 58 aces of lard su"rable for devnopmeb of active and pessrve parks sudr as inciudmg neighbodlood community
and sports perks. Pota atiel sites would Include dosed school sites. Land acquisidan Is estimoted at 320.00 per square toot or lZ71,120 per
core.
Justification J Consequences of Avoidance:
The City needs to equlre eppr=mately 105 Goss in order to meet the Ga.neral Plan target of 5.0 acres per 1.000 rasidems.
Relationship to General Plen Devslopmsnt
The Gys Generel Plan currently identifies a target of 5.0 aces at recaea6or,opponuritss per one thousand residents.
Allecn0on To GanpJy Plan Suildcuf: O CO
Reference Document
Projed Tinting:
The projed design is pla-nsd for 2010 end he construction between 20i 0 and 2020.
2015-m
PROPOSEDFFXPENDITURES :V}t-:] 2011.13 Z0;0-tn 411•15 Nm4hsvk: v. TaeluiYeen
1. Design l Engineering lAdminlstratic o,cc q.o0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0D
2. Land Acquisition f Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5e,5e8,ODDOO 59,588,000.00
3.Corstnlcmon 0.00 ODD 0.00 0.00 D.00 D,00
4,Contingency 0.00 000 0.W D.oO 0DO 0.00
5.Equipment(Other D.00 O.X 0.00 0.00 OX ODD
TOTAL COST: DOD 0.00 COO 0,00 59,5sC.000,00 59,58e,000.0c
78
V. t.D5.0 Date: 5/0212012 Time;11:00 AM HunOn gton 6earh October.2017
1113 -_17- Item 9. - 182
262
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Numb erJTrle PK 021 Cantrell Park Senior Center
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Desaription:
Construct 45.000 square fool Senior Center in Central Park The facility would have a large multi-purpose mom anumber of smaller
classrooms,awanning kitchen,fitness center-game room with pool tables,and ancillary offices. There would also be agarden patio with a
waterfeature.tudandgardens. The facility would have parking for 250 vehicles.
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 Ciywfshes to maintain.it not improve,this standard
try construction. The 0.620 square foot per person is not the standard for senior only facilities.but for all community use facilities mailable to
the entire residential population.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
The proposed land-use database indicates additional residential dwellings thatwould likely result in roughly 17.089 adcKonal 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.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2m1-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Rrweh BUIW 4 ToW all Yuers
1. Design/Engineering/Administratk 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,200.000.00 2,200,000.00
2.land Acquistion/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.600.000,00 17.600.000.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 1,76D,D00.00 1,760.000.00
5. Equipment l Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 440.0D0.00 440,000.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 22.000,000.00 22.000,000.00
79
Item 9. - 183 Date: 427R012 Time:11:36 AM I-{B v I` Huntington Beach October.2011
263
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Numbery Title PK 022 Edison Community Center Gymnasium
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct a 7,000 square foal gymnasium contiguous to The Edison Community Center. The lacifilywould be a basic"high school'design or
grade with a single main basketball court that can be broken down into two smaller full-courts orfour hall-courts lot practice sessions. The
facilitywould also have locker rooms and restrooms.
Justification/Consequences of Ava idance:
Due to higher demands of their ow%the local high school gymnasiums are no longer as available as they once were. As a result the City is
finding d more difficult to meet the City'syouth indoor sports needs.
Relationship to General Plan Development:
The proposed lend-use database indicates additional residential dwellings that would likely result in roughly 17,083 additional residents
requiring al leasl 10,595 square feet o1 public use space in order to maintain the emsting level of service(LOS)
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00
Reference Document
Project-riming:
The eVansion is planned for construction between 2010 and 2020.
2015.15
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011.12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 Vrvgheuib t Tarai all Yu
1. Design/Engineering/Administratic 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 357,000.00 357,000.00
2. Land Acqulstlon/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 OAo
3. Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,380,000.00 2,3E0,a00.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.0o 0.00 0.00 235,000.00 238,000.00
5. Equipment I Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,975,000.00 2,975.000.00
80
V: 1.08.0 Date: 4127/2012 Time:11:36 AM 11 B -319 Huntington Beach Item 9. - 184
264
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Land Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/Title PK 023 Mundy Community Center Gymnasium
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct a 7.000 square toot gymnasium contiguous to the Mundy Community Center. The fecilitywould be a basic°high school'design or
grade with a single main basketball courtthed can be broken down into two smaller full-courts or four half-courts for practice sessions. The
facility would also have locker rooms and restrooms.
Justification/Consequences at Avoidance:
The City currently has a de-iecto standard of 0.620 square feet or general purpose commuruty use facility space per resident based upon the
Citys 118.820 square feet of public use facilities available to the 190.377 residents. The Citywishes to maintain,A not improve,this standard
by construction. The 0.620 square foot per person is not the standard for senior onlyfacildies,but for ell 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
Proje ct Timin g:
The expansion is planned for construction between 2010 and 2020.
20t5-t6
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 M12-13 2013-14 2014-is thwsh 0_aean Toni au Year
1. Design/Engineering I Adminislrati[ 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 357,000.00 357.000.00
2. Land Acquistion/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.Construction 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,3e0,000do 2.380,000.00
4.Contingency 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 238,000.00 23e,000.D0
5. Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2,975.000.00 2,s75,000.00
81
Item 9. - 185 Data: 4,27/2012 Time:11:39 AM j j 3 no Huntington Beach October.2011
265
Huntington Beach
Master Facilities Plan Project Detail
Infrastructure: Park Lend Acquisition And Park Facilities Development
Project Number/Tdle PK 024 Oak View Recreation Center Expansion
Submitting Departments: Community Services
Project Description:
Construct aroughy 2.000 square foot expansion to the existing 10,000 square tool Oak View Recreation Community Center. The facilitywould
consist of a game room multipurpose room and a restroom.
Justification/Consequences of Avoidance:
The faciliyis necessmy(or planned)to memmize the(airy small facility.
Relationship to General Plan Development
The proposed land-use database indicates additional residential dwellings thatwould likely result in roughly 17,089 additional residents
requiring atleast 10,595 square feet of public use space in orderlo maintain the epsting level of service(LOS)
Allocation To General Plan Buildout 0.00
Reference Document
Project Timing:
The tnpansion is planned for construction betwe an 2010 and 2020.
2015-16
PROPOSED EXPENDITURES 2011-12 2012-13 2013.14 2014-15 VraghBut"o To'.a1d'Y�
1.Design/Engineering/Administratit 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 80.000.00 80,000.00
2.Land Acquistion/Right Of Way 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
3.Constwction 0.00 0.00 0.Do O.DO 640.000.00 640,000,00
4.Contingency 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64,000.00 64,000.00
5.Equipment/Other 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15,000.00 16,000.00
TOTAL COST: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 soD,000.00 800.000.00
82
V: 1.08.0 Date: 42712012 Time: 5:26 PM H 32( Huntington Beach Item 9. - 186
266
End of Plan
83
Item 9. - 187 Hs -322-
267
ATTACHMENT # 10
HB ->>>- item 9. - 188
268
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 systoms without written permission
of:
Revenue& Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
1519 East Chapman Aveaue, Suite C
Fullerton, CA 92931
(714)992-9020
Item 9. - 189 i-ILI _3)24_
269
3._�� o evenue
ost
pecialists, LLc
Serving Local Governments Since I975
October 17, 2011 (amended April 27, 2012)
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Via Mr. Fred Wilson, City Manager
City of Huntington Beach - City Hall
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RE: 2011-12 Master Facilities Plan and Development Impact Fee (DIF) Calculation
Honorable Mayor, Council and City Manager Wilson:
The City is experiencing private development of remaining vacant parcels and the on-going
redevelopment of existing homes and businesses. This continuous development results in
increased demand that must be absorbed (and accommodated) by the City's existing infrastructure
and the Levels of Service (LOS) offered by that existing infrastructure. Revenue & Cost
Specialists, L.L.C., was contracted to undertake a comprehensive identification of the capital
projects and capital acquisitions necessary to accommodate all such new demands for municipal
service. Such a study is necessary to preserve the existing Levels of Service (LOS) currently
offered to and enjoyed by (after having been paid for by) the existing community from the
diminution of those existing LOS due to the addition of new residential and business development
in Huntington Beach and calculate the development impact fees (DIFs) necessary to fund those
required projects.
Council and City staff, responsible for providing services to a continually expanding residential
and business community, must recognize that the magnitude of the impact fees is a direct function
of the nearly $403.4 million cost of the capital projects identified in the Master Facilities Plan as
needed or required to accommodate new development. Regardless, anyone in the position of the
Council members may find themselves reluctant to adopt the impact fees merely because they
appear "too high". It is incumbent upon this Report and RCS Staff to convince the City Council
of the justification and importance of the proposed impact fees
The following Report calculates some new and a few updated impact fees for the City of
Huntington Beach based on the aforementioned changes and the City's changing requirements for
public safety, streets and signals, storm drainage and other quality of life facilities. The adoption
of the updated DIFs will enable this City Council, as well as succeeding Councils, to continue to
ensure that the City will be able to meet the basic infrastructure needs of new growth, without
unduly burdening the existing population and business community for these development-generated
capital costs.
qd
--.: Internet'waw-reyenuecost ccim
voice 714 492 9020, ,,_57519 E "Ave 1IB C blillerton CA;92831_ _.;lax 774 9'.Ltelll 9. - 190
270
Page 2 10/17/11 (amended 04127112) Letter to the Huntington Beach City Council and Staff
Adoption of the recommended impact fees contained herein and imposition upon the numerous
development opportunities in the City of Huntington Beach, would generate approximately$172.1
million in a combination of public improvement dedications and DIF revenues limited for use on
the many capital expansion projects deemed as development generated.
Existing Impact Fee Fund balances (S3.5 million) and other revenues sources ($23.0 million)
make up a significant amount of the difference between the capital total and the total revenue
sources. This leaves a shortfall of $204.8 million (95% of which is $194.4 million in unfunded
storm drainage projects). The identification of$403.4 million in capital needs mostly generated
by new development, is not to be taken lightly, but must be examined in perspective to the cost
of existing infrastructure, facilities, vehicles and equipment that a new development will share in
the use and enjoyment of upon City review, approval, construction and finally, occupancy.
To offer such a perspective, a major element in this Report is a proportional analysis, or
comparison of what is being asked of future residents, in the form of dedicated public
improvements or an in-lieu(impact fee)payment, with the cost of the City's existing infrastructure
(land, facilities, and equipment), contributed by the existing population and business community.
The dedications, taxes and assessments contributed to date by the existing community over
numerous decades of development have generated just over $2.1 billion (at current replacement
costs) in infrastructure or capital improvements to the City of Huntington Beach. The following
table identifies those existing asset commitments (or equity if you will), by infrastructure.
T
I'Service'Provided'.. = Investzneiit
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $71,246,699
Fire Su ressioa/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment $61,234,227
Circulation (Street, Signals and Bridges) System $533,539,375
Storm Drainage Collection System $203,631,313
Public Library Facilities and Collection $76,593,112
Park Land and Park Facilities Development $1,166,934,162
Total Existinp lnfrastrucmm Re lacement Investment $2,113,178,888
Item 9. - 191 HB -326-
271
Page 3 10/17/11 (amended 04127112) Letter to the Huntington Beach City Council and Staff
It is not intended for the recommended Development Impact Fee schedule to address all of the
City's capital needs, as identified on the various schedules in this Report. As per California
Government Code 66000 et. seq. and common fairness, development impact fees cannot address
current capital deficiencies. The proposed fees will recognize and meet the needs of the City's
growing population and business community. However, with the adoption of development impact
fees, other City discretionary revenue resources that may have been used to meet growth-generated
needs for expanded services and facilities will now be available for those accumulating
replacement and rehabilitation projects.
The information required to develop the City's capital costs and equity data was generated by the
Huntington Beach staff, without whose help and cooperation, this Report would have been
impossible to complete. The following management and support personnel were instrumental in
working with RCS staff to gather or generate the information and technical data so critically
necessary for the legal support of impact fees through the Master Facilities Plan and/or the
Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report. They are:
Stephanie Beverage, Director of Library Services
M. Todd Broussard, P.E, Principal Engineer (Storm Drainage)
David Brunetta, Police Captain
Luann Brunson, Senior Administrative Analyst - Community Services
David C. Dominguez, Facilities Development/Concessions Manager
Debbie Dove, - Police Specialist
Eric C. Enberg - Fire Division Chief- Operations
Jim B. Engle, Community Services Director
Scott Hess, Director of Planning
Mindy James - Police Budget Manager
Kevin Justen, Senior Administrative Analyst - Fire
Tung M. Kao, - Information System/Network Specialist - Police
Jeff Lopez, Deputy Fire Niarshall/Programs
Dorin Afaresh, Fire Department Specialist
Mike McClanahan, Deputy Fire Marshall/Training
Shirley McNamee. Police Personnel Analyst
Tony Ohnos, City Engineer
Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner
Bill Reardon, Fire Marshall/Di-vision 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 -327- Item 9. - 192
272
Page 4 10/17/11 (amended 04127172) Letter 10 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 Mall, Deputy City Manager for his efforts in generating timely responses
to RCS's many requests for critical i ntormation. 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 Maser Facilities Plan
appendix arc 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 stricture.
Sincerely,
Scott Thorpe,
Vice President
Item 9. - 193 1-113 -;2s-
273
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT
and
MASTER FACILITIES PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Chapter 1 - Background and Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Chapter 2 - Demographics and Findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Schedule 2.1 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Chapter 4 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Chapter 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Chapter 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Chapter 7 - Public Library Facilities and Collection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82
Chapter 8 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
Appendix A - Expanded Land-use Database . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
Appendix B - Summary of Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . III
Appendix C - Master Facilities Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
Item 9. - 194
274
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 [he 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
DIFiA4FP 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 I
Item 9. - 195 HB -330-
275
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 AB1600 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 -331- Item 9. - 196
276
Chapter One Background and Introduction
1. Review the City's land use map and determine the existing mix of land uses
and amount of undeveloped and developed land. The magnitude of growth
and its impacts can thus be determined by considering this land use data
when planning an infrastructure required to support General Plan build-out.
This all-important inventory is summarized in Table 2-1 in Chapter 2 and
detailed in Appendix A.
2. Define the level of service needed within the General Plan area for each
project or acquisition identified as necessary. In some areas, certain
statistical measures are commonly used to measure or define an acceptable
level of service for a category of infrastructure. Street intersections, for
instance, are commonly rated based on a Level of Service scale of "A" to
"F" developed by transportation engineers. In some cases the identified
level of service required of development may exceed that of what the City
is currently providing. If so the reason must be explained and a
methodology identified for raising the existing community's level of service
without requiring new development to finance this increase.
3. Identify all additions to the capital facilities or equipment inventory
necessary to maintain the identified levels of service in the area. Then,
determine the cost of those additions.
4. Identify a level of responsibility of General Plan development, identifying
the relative need for the facility or equipment necessary to accommodate
additional growth as defined, and as opposed to current needs.
5. Distribute the costs identified as a result of development growth on a basis
of land use demand. Costs are distributed between each land use based on
their relative use, nexus or demand on that particular capital infrastructure
system. For example, future street costs were distributed to each land use
based on their trip generation characteristics (frequency and distance
creating daily trip-miles).
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 3
Item 9. - 197 HB -.32-
277
Chapter One Background and Introduction
OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT
In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other
important assumptions of this study include the following:
Land Costs. Cost estimates for land acquisition were developed after discussions with City
officials. Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made. However, the Report contains land
costs (per acre) which are estimated to be the most appropriate figures for purposes of this study.
PROPORTIONALITY TEST
A test for proportionality is important, if for no other reason, than because it attempts to identify
and achieve community inter-generational equity, i.e., fairness in balancing the infrastructure
investment made by existing residents and businesses with the investment asked of new residents
and businesses that will benefit from the existing infrastructure. In short, previous generations
of businesses and residents have contributed to the development of the City's existing
infrastructure and this fact should be recognized by future residents and businesses by contributing
a like amount (but no more than) toward completing the various infrastructure systems. Mere
replacements or the elimination of an existing deficiency cannot be required of new development.
It is one thing to identify the many public improvement projects needed through build-out. It is
an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements are required to meet
the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects are replacements of the existing
infrastructure while others are capacity increasing projects. Within the category of the latter, they
may also be further classified into two categories;
1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required regardless of whether
there is additional development or not. An example2 would be a traffic intersection
currently controlled by stop signs that currently meets traffic warrants for a traffic signal,
but is unfunded. However, some portion of that signal may be appropriate for impact fee
financing. .Another example would be the replacement of an existing but aged facility that
creates no more capacity, but is merely [he replacement of that same capacity.
2. Projects that are required as a result of development. An example of this would be a signal
that is currently controlled quite adequately by stop signs, but because of development in
the near and "downstream" areas, will ultimately need to be signalized.
All impact fee calculations claim to be fair. Government Code §66000 (also referred to as
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 4
1-1B -1 Q- Item 9. - 198
278
Chapter One Background and Introduction
AB 1600) takes only two pages of text to describe the findings that development impact fees must
adequately make, but does not explain specifically how to do so. Most DIF calculations will
identify the desired or needed capital projects, ostensibly required as a result of the new
development. Therefore, what is fair and equitable? Is it fair to require future residents and
businesses in a city to construct, via payment of impact fees, a new Police Station when the current
station is merely rented or leased space? On the other hand, if a community already has all of the
water utility system they will need at build-out, are they precluded from imposing an impact fee
to recoup some of that expenses incurred in the construction of the maximum needed water utility
improvements prior to need for the maximum demand? These are difficult questions that may be
made clearer and easier by reviewing the following examples.
Comparison of Needed Infrastructure with Existing Infrastructure. The answer to these difficult
questions may best be answered by comparing various infrastructure scenarios. This can be
accomplished by looking closely at our friends in the planned community of Happy Valley' for a
few scenarios to explain the three possible conditions that can occur regarding the agency's current
infrastructure and the demand upon them. We will use the provision of fire protection, a service
that most of us as nonprofessional fire fighters can somewhat understand. These three
"conditions" include that the fire suppression system infrastructure construction has:
1. been On-target.
2. been Deficient. Or:
3. created Excess Service Capacity.
Adoption of a Standard - According to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), a
standard two-bay fire station (estimated for purposes of this example to cost about $3,000,000)
can meet the needs of roughly 5,000 homes or 10,000,000 square feet of business pad. If these
standards were adopted as Happy Valley's public safety element of the City's General Plan, they
would be known as the demure or stated (or desired) standard (i.e., the standard the community
would like to meet). This fee would be referred to as the General Plan Build-out Need-based
Development Impact Fee. The inductive development impact fees (or cost per proportional unit
served) for this de jure standard would then be:
Table 1-1
Calculation of NFPA Impact Cost
_= Land Use = Statl013MV :'`Un its Served Im ae[ Fee
Residential Dwellings $3,000,000 5,000 $600.00 per home
Business Square Feet $3,000,000 10,000,000 $0.30 er S.F.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 5
Item 9. - 199 HB -334-
279
Chapter One Background and Introduction
Service Base - Happy Valley's General Plan indicates that at General Plan build-out there will be
10,000 residential units and about 20,000,000 square feet of commercial/office/industrial space
creating a need for four stations at build-out. The station calculation is as follows:
Table 1-2
Determination of Required Number of Stations
:_ dumber -_ Untts.served.:by; Stations
of Units OnetationzazRG"_titred
Residential Dwellings 10,000 5,000 2 Stations
Business Square Feet 20,000,000 10,000,000 2 Stations
Re uired Stations at General Plan Build-out 4 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 ha]f 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"
_ Number = IJntts sere cd�ny =� Stations
Residential Dwellings 6,250 5,000 1.25 Stations
Business Square Feet 7,500,000 10,000,000 0.75 Stations
Total Number of Stations Required Currently 2.00 Stations
Conversely, Happy Valley has the remaining half of its fire demand (in terms of calls-for-service)
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 6
1113 -3i5- Item 9. - 200
280
Chapter One Background and Introduction
yet to come. Left to build are 3,750 detached dwelling units and 12,500,000 square feet of
business floor space, and when constructed would generate the following capital needs identified
on 'fable 1-4 following:
Table 1-4
Remaining Development and Station Requirement
7 ..t-
'by Stattons
7
:1 : 017_U ruKz- ia 60
6, 7
Residential Dwellings 3,750 5,000 0.75 Stations
Business Square Feet 12,500,000 10,000,000 1.25 Stations
# of New Stations Required from Land to be Developed 2.00 Stations
If the earlier calculated impact fees (S600 per residence and$0.30 per square foot of business pad)
were adopted and imposed, Happy Valley would collect(by General Plan build-out)enough capital
revenues to construct the remaining two stations and proportionality between existing and future
residents and businesses would be evident. Table 1-5 following demonstrates this:
Table 1-5
Remaining DIF Collection
Nif
to .:. Wts -.z;
Fee Collected
Residential Dwellings 3,750 $600.00 $2,250,000
Business Square Feet 12,500,000 S0.30 $3,750,000
Amount Collected in Development Impact Fees $6,000,000
Cost of a Single New Station $3,000,000
Stations to be Built with DeYSLO ment Irtt act Fees 2.00
And everyone in the community of Happy Valley is adequately served by the four stations having
been financed generally fairly by the total community.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 7
Item 9. - 201 1-1 B -3 16-
281
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 unposed 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
� Nimbt;r l:xtsting �Amognt
N = of llmts Contributtonol� Ied -<
Residential Units 3,750 $300.00 $1,125,000
Business S.F. 12,500,000 $0.15 $1,875,000
Amount Contributed by Existing Community $3,000,000
Cost of One New Station $3,000,000
Station(s) built with Community's Contribution 1.00
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 8
FIB -,17- Item 9. - 202
282
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 Citv 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 50070 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 retraining 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
he 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 50.15 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 HHappy Valley City Council.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 9
Item 9. - 203 I-113 -33)s-
283
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 S300/residence and $0.1.5/square foot
business space rates to insure that the fourth station would be built. Again, referred to as the
General Plan Build-oul 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, unposed
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 Impart Fee Calculation Report 10
HB -339- Item 9. - 204
284
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 rainute 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 higlier than a more compact area with a higher dwelling density.
Public utilities The treatment for municipal utilities is particularly clear in that the utility's
operating and capital funds do not receive any General Fund financial support and they do not
typically charge stand-by fees to vacant property. This means that the entire utility system has
been supported only by what are called utility user fees (payments by the utility's customers). Or
stated in another way, it is user financed. In many cases the utility may have significant extra
capacity because most infrastructures cannot be expanded in small defined portions that exactly
match the pace of new development. An example would water reservoirs which are generally
expanded on 1 .0 million gallon portions, not 1,000 gallons at a time. To an individual user who
has been contributing to the existing system over a period of time, it would appear quite fair for
this excess capacity to be "purchased" for by new users that connect to the system who will benefit
from the excess capacity has been constructed and identified. This holds particularly true for the
purchase of water shares required for future water users.
A water distribution system may also have significant distribution system capacity to reach homes
and businesses in more outlying areas. RCS recently worked with a city where the existing water
users, currently representing some 55% of the water use demand at General Plan build-out, had
already constructed nearly 70% of the General Plan build-out water system. The 15% difference
amounted to just more than $7.0 million. Should any excess capacity paid for by existing users
be a gift to the future users? Government Code §66000 et. seq. appears to prevent the city from
trying to recoup the costs of the excess capacity purchased by the current users that will be the
direct benefit of future users. Some excess capacity can and should be identified wherever
possible, and recovered, providing that was identified as necessary for future development at the
time it is created.' The excess capacity must be identified in terms of"existing project segment"
and how it will benefit the future users must be identified.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 11
Item 9. - 205 1-IB -340-
285
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 deficienC 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 S200,000 to complete to a point that the occupancy
permit is approved.
Full Cost of a Residential Dwelling. The 5200,000 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-site8 public improvements, and
The hidden cost of extendinu public services to that home.
The costs of extending public services includes (but is not limited to):
• The addition of law enforcement personnel requiring the expansion of the police
station and response vehicles
• Additional fire stations and response vehicles.
• Widening of arterial and collector roads.
• Additional capacity in downstream storm drainage pipes.
• Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage and
delivery.
• Additions to the sewage capability, including collection, treatment and disposal.
• Additions to the maintenance capabilities (i.e., municipal corporation yard and
maintenance vehicles) necessary to maintain the above added infrastructure.
• Additional parks, library, and public meeting space for recreational/social
purposes.
Thus while the cost of constructing the above ground portion of a detached dwelling may be
$325,000, the "downstream" costs identified above may be in the area of$20,000 to $30,000 per
detached dwelling or in the area of 6% to 9%% of the above ground cost.
Huntington Beach 2017-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 12
1-113 -341- Item 9. - 206
286
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
corporationi0 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."
Humington Beach 2011-12 Development lmpact Fee Calculation Report 13
Item 9. - 207 HB -342-
287
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 .'deeds-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
1-]a -34:_ Item 9. - 208
288
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 communhy 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[he 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-she
improvements, is still privately owned.
9. This Repot does not address all of these services. They are only highlighted to make a point about the types of public
services typically required to support a residential dwelling.
10. Not unlike a share in a corporation such as I.B.M. or A.T. &T.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 15
Item 9. - 209 HB -344-
289
Chapter 2
Demographics and Findings
This Chapter provides an inventory of developed and undeveloped (and underdeveloped) land
within the City. The City, surprisingly, still possesses areas of vacant land zoned for residential
and business uses.
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This Report contains an inventory of developed land and land with remaining development
opportunities within Huntington Beach boundaries. The undeveloped land inventory columns form
the base for distribution of the estimated infrastructure costs required to extend the existing levels
of service to the new development. The developed land inventory also forms the base for
distributing the cost of the existing infrastructure for comparison and for the de facto identification
of the existing levels of service (LOS) provided by those existing infrastructures. Table 2-1
below, summarizes the inventory of all private land uses contained within the current City limits.
They are based upon General Plan data, Orange County projections, City records and a staff
analysis of only privately held parcels.' Some of the vacant parcels have vested rights and would
have the existing impact fees imposed. The acreage and unit data are detailed in Appendix A.
Table 2-1
Detailed Land Use Inventory
Ctty;of Huntrgton Beach Aevelo ed Net Incxease Total
Total, „CandUse,Dafabase ;j :Acres, #I:ofUnrfs is . .Acres-, ,, ,,,#,iif,Urnts, Acres,; „#of,Unns„"
Detached Dwelling Units(1) I 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 ! B81 .70 15,253,000
Industrial/ManufacturingUses 930.3 20.261,000 187.00 3,638,000 11 1,117.30 23,899,000
Total - City Limits 10,271.8 ——� 661.90 - I 10,933.70 ---
Private Residences 8,446.0 j 77,589 407.2 7,065 8,853.2 84,654
Commercial Lodging Rooms j _ _53.6 1,879 27.9 1 ,353 81.5 3,232
Business Square Feet 1,77 -2 33,097,000 226.8 6,055,000 1,999.0 39,152.000
Hwuington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 16
]HB -345- Item 9. - 210
290
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
Item 9. - 211 1-113 -146-
291
Chanter 2 Demographics and Findiiws
• 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 AJet 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. Staffs 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
11B -147- Item 9. - 212
292
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Table 2-2
Summary of Undeveloped and Developed Acreage
= y � �} _Developed Percent ;_Vacant: . Percent Total
Acres- of R6dgWopW of �rses
�
or
Ahteii-si Total
Acres
Detached Dwelling, Units 6,436.0 58.9% (1) 295.0 2.7% 6,731.0 1
Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4 16.5% 111.2 1.0% 1,916.6
Mobile Home Dwellings 204.6 1.9% 1.0 0.0% 205.6
Comm. Lodging Units 33.4 0.3% 18.6 0.2% 52.0
Resort Lodging Units 20.2 0.2% 9.3 0. 1% 29.5
Commercial/Office Uses 841.9 7.7% 39.8 0.3% 881.7
Industrial/Manu. Uses 930.3 8.5% 187.0 1.7% 1,1173
:T 661.9�outa]IE10,271 8 94 0%] 6.0% 10,933.7
(1) Only 34 of the 295 acres are vacant lots. The remaining 261 acres represents the subdivided acres necessary
for the addition of 1,566 detached units (on their own lots) in areas already developed such as a lot split of a larger
parcel with an existing detached dwelling unit. See Appendix A for greater detail.
General Plan Budd-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 Inzpaci Fee Calculation Report 19
Item 9. - 213 1-113 -'14S-
293
Chapter 2 Denwgraphics and Findinos
POPLII.ATION 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 suer 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 hnpact Fee Calculation Report 20
FIB -=4Q- Item 9. - 214
294
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findittgs
dwelling units allowed per acre and then multiply the potential number of units by the average
number of residents per unit.
Table 2-3, on the following page, projects the additional number of dwelling units and potential
population for the City of City of Huntington Beach through build-out. The number of potential
new dwelling units was calculated by multiplying the amount of vacant acreage for each land use
zone by the average densities (i.e., number of units allowed per acre) indicated in the City's
General Plan.
The number of persons per unit for new residential units is based on the 2000 U.S. Census and
ranges from 2.913 and 1.822 persons for detached dwelling units and mobile home dwelling units
respectively to 2.257 persons for attached dwelling units. Based on these assumptions, future
residential development is expected to generate approximately 17,089 additional residents3 to City
of Huntington Beach, joining the approximately 190,377 citizens already living in City. This
results in a total estimated population at General Plan build-out of roughly 207,221 residents.'
The estimated General Plan build-out population of approximately 207,221 residents using this
holding capacity approach is typically lower than the population forecasts based on the
mathematical models described previously. This implies either that the City's period of residential
build-out will actually be shorter than the 10 years indicated above or that the City's growth rate
will decline from historical levels. This latter scenario is probably more likely to occur. As the
residentially zoned land within the City's limits remaining to be developed continues to be
developed during the next ten to twenty years, the City is likely to see fewer new dwelling units
developed each year.
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 21
Item 9. - 215 FIB -3 50-
295
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Table 2-3
City of City of Huntington Beach
Average Dwelling Occupancy, by Type
(2000 United States Census Data)
Number .tress Number : Total Number,t ,.Average :Percentage]
Fx(stingfiesidenUais ot,Um15: , � , at : aOccupled ; dtOccuparrte) Occupancy','OccUPIied_
Detached-Aesdenttal :;: _ __
Detached Total 37,007 630 36 a77 ` 105,981 F2.913 1 98.30%,
Mobile Home Total 3,024 125 2.899 F _ 5,2811 1.822 1 95.87°h
Other 122 31 9-1 ! 15a r 1.692 0.0 0°
lAttachedResideiitial ',
Duplex to Ouadplex 9.681 265 9,416 _ 26,190 2.781 I 97.26%
Five or more 16,48E 605 _ 15,883 31,356 : _ 1.974 96.33°
Attached 9,471 329 9,142 20.186 2.208 96.53
Total -MFR ' 35.640 1,199 !, 34,441 77,732 2.257 _ 96.64°
Existing - State Department of Finance 01/01/11 Population PT:K"1 P,77 190,377
Buttd opt.Populabon AntkJpat9d Dccripancy - Piobabte DJrel6ng i.Annclpated
1Poiential G'P.
�AtHrstoiic:DccupancyRates, -_-J;_ Units:': ..� ":Rats :GL�upancy,' �Densrty. .: 'Population,;:
jUndeveloped Detached Dwellings 1,749 98.309h t.719 _ 2.913 5,007
ngs undeveloped Attached Dwelli 5,307 96.64%___ 5,129 2.257 11,57E
jUndeveloped Mobile Home's 9 95.87% -9 I 1.822F 16
Population to be added development ! 16,599 1 16.599
Potential 'Build-out" Population,at Historic Vacancy Rates. -_ j 206,976 206.976
Pptenfla/G'P. Bmld outFopulahon Antk/paied C�dupancy YProbable OweNmg Anbcrpated;
`AtY00%,O�bupancyR2le ,Units; .Rate ..:Occupancy`° 'Densely .:- -Fopuiabon;.
Undeveloped Detached Dwellings 1,749 700.00°k' 1,749 2.913 5,095
Undeveloped Attached dwellings !, _ 5,307 100.00°�I 5,307J - 2.257 t1,978
Undeveloped Mobile Home's ! 9 100.00°kj 9 I 1.822 16
Population to be added development 17,089 17,089
Potential Maximum "Build-out" Population. 207,466 j 207,466
Population at General Plan Build-out @ Low per Dwelling Resident Densities 206,97E
Population at General Plan Build-out @ High per Dwelling Resident Densities '; 207,466
Average Population at General Plan Build-out _ 207,221
(1)Summary File 3(SF3), available at http:/lfactfinder.census.gov
(2)Current population based upon State of California Department of Finance data.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 22
1-1B -;:1- Item 9. - 216
296
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
City staff identified just under $403.4 million in needed and desired capital improvement projects
required through the City's General Plan build-out, including both projects related to existing
deficiencies and those needed solely to support future growth. The adoption of the recommended
maximum impact fees supported by the calculations in this Report (Schedule 2.1) would finance
about 42.6% of the needed capital facilities by raising some $172.1 million. Existing fund
balances of S3.6 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 retraining unfunded $204.8 million through build-
out (50.8%). Roughly 95%(or S194.4 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)
Rec6mmende�3eve16-- e6 E=
— m aetF'et'%
t _
Detached Dwelling Units $25,890/DweLling Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $17,994/Dwellin g Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $17,235/Dwelling Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $2,854/1-od in Unit
Resort Lodging Units $3,956/Lodging Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $5.002/S uare Foot
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $4.010/S uare Foot
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 23
Item 9. - 217 HB -3 2-
297
Chapter 2 DemagraDhics and Findinzs
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 DI Fs recommended by RCS for the entire City. Appropriate textual explanations are contained
in each chapter, with a chapter devoted to each of the nine sets of DIF cost schedules, listed below
and three appendices.
CHAPTER 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
CHAPTER 4 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
CHAPTER 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
CHAPTER 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System
CHAPTER 7 - Public Library Facilities and Collection
CHAPTER 8 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development
APPENDIX A - Expanded Land-use Database
APPENDIX B - Summary of Recommendations
APPENDIX C - Master Facilities Plan
NOTE REGARDING TEXTUAL MATHEMATICS: It is important to note that the use of a
computer provides for calculations to a large number of decimal points. Such data, when
included in text and supporting textual tables, has been rounded to no more than two decimals
for clarity and thus may be not replicated to the necessary degree of accuracy as the spreadsheet
schedules at the end of each chapter. Should there be any difference between tables within a
chapter and the schedules at the end of the same chapter, the schedules will prevail.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 24
HB -353- Item 9. - 218
298
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
(averagingjust 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.
Flantington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 25
Item 9. - 219 HB _554_
299
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
�— Law. Fire Circulation System Stnrm Drainage: Public r Park L"WOpen ;; Development
Enlorcemen[ Suppreseton Laval Stieels 'Collecbon Library Space M.qulclbon Irinpaai ice Total
�Facilities et al , Facihhes et nl Slgna16&Brldgen System Faciliboa &Improvements P0r'Unlf ar Square Foot':
SchMula 32 SdhadUls 4 2. '. Schedule 5 2 .Gchoduia a 2. schedule 71 „li0hedulP.8.1 8 8 4
.. ,..; T
oaiculeree oaaciDlEs _ _
7.
Detached Dwelling Units(1) 5396 $922 $2.482 $3.081 S1.17277 $17.857 M 890 per Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $815 $382 $1.057 $397 i $908 $13 835 $17 994 per Unit
Mobile Home Dwslling Units(2 S369 , $1,593 51,299 $2,082 $733 S11.169 $17,235 per Unit
Holel/Molol Lodging Unite $466 $355 $1.105 $479 No Fee $459 $2,854 per Unit
Resat Lodging Units $532 $794 $1,915 S35e No Fee $359 $3.950 par Unit
COmmerciagot8co Uwe $1.041 $0.329 $2.331 $0.347 No Fee $0.954 $5.002 per S.F.
InduslrlaVMnnutacluring Uses k77$:O.443 $0.030 $1.621 _ $1.14A No Fee $0.772 $4.010 per S.F.
W :Andcrlwicd'OIF.Collecdon I;; .; `
Detached Dwelling Unite(1) $892.604 $1.612.578 $4.341.018 S6,353,689 $2.049,828 $31,231,893 $45,281,610
Attached Dwelling Unite S4,325,205 $2,027.274 S8,793,899 $2,106.879 $4.818.768 $73,422,345 $95,494,168
Mobile Horne Dwelling Unite(2 $3.321 $14.247 $11,691 $18,738 $0.597 $100.521 $155,115
Hotel/Wei Lodging Units 5372,190 S291,208 $903,89D $391,822 - $0 $375,402 $2,334,572
� Resort Lodging Units S284,e20 S424,790 $1,024,526 5180,4e0 $O $182,065 $2,118,400
Commcrciallofico Uses $2,518.097 $795,193 $5.634,027 $838.899 $0 $2.305,818 $12,089.934
Indusbial/Manulactud 72ng Uwe 51,e11,e34 $109.140 $5,897,108 $4,161.8 $0 $2.808,530 $14,508,380
iMel;.. , < ,59.80b 671 :; 35274430- ,r;SP8,000048 ,:..:;' $13002,15g .,?$8,876781 „�S 3I10,430,640 , ..'�5772,080,129
City-wide Impact Feo $9,805,671 $5,274,430 $26,606,048 $13.062.159 $6.875.181 $110.436.640 $172.060.129
Existing Fund Balance $0 $0 $200,000 $0 so $3,379.000 $3.579.000
Olhot sources _ so $700,oee 3260.020 $a $0 $22.000,eD6 $22.900,020
cap11al Total $10.100,895 $11841,972 $28,537,800 $207,494,050 $7.841,369 $137,483.000 $403,390.086
<,.OvMepe!(SAatttatl)'� „ ;:`(3z`Bs.zx4J ;:,; (55967;542) , , .,,./si,�71.73z) ....i:(5194,A31,891) . ....'- {5988188) , . (E1,t387;360) . , (ii04706,937)
tJ
N
O
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`h 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 he 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
Item 9. - 221 1-113 -=56-
301
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Eguipmem
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 tree 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 -357- Item 9. - 222
302
Chapter 3 [frW Enforcement Facilities Vehicles and FauiDmznt
Table 3-1
Law Enforcement Calls-for-Service Generated by Land Use (2009)
176@1W__
917-ota
V pe
iid 2se
.. . .... ...
eser�icy -Acre
Detached Dwelling Units 38,616 13,185 0.341/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 36,108 25,350 0.702/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 2,865 910 0.318/Unit
HoteUMotel Units 1,070 420 0.393/Unit
Resort Lodging Units 809 371 0.459/Unit
Commercial Uses (in KSF) 12,836,000 11,514 0.897/KSF
Industrial Uses (in KSF) 20,261,000 7,729 0.381/KSF
, Beach Area -MOM I'M
The table above representing the 59,479annual 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 statistic-ally generate just slightly more than one third of a call-for-service per
year,' on average. The same analysis was undertaken for the other seven land uses. Obviously
there are calls to incidents on publicly owned roads and right-of-way, in parks and other publicly
held parcels, these calls represent approximately 3% of the annual calls-for-service. Calls-for-
service to resort lodging facilities, typically larger than hotel/motel facilities (defined as three
stories or more) have been separated in order to generate a more relevant calls-for-service rate for
each of the two differing types of temporary lodging. Resort facilities have been shown to
generate more calls-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.3
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 29
Item 9. - 223 1113 -358-
303
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].
Iluruington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 30
I]a -359- Item 9. - 224
304
Chapter 3 I-aw Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Table 3-2
Additional Law Enforcement Calls (rounded)
Generated by New Development, by Land Use
list
end Use ` -
APE e ......
ER�Dwgli
—Detached Dwelling Units 1,749 0.341/Unit 597.18 Calls
Attached Dwelling Units 5,307 0.702/Unit 3,725.83Calls
Mobile Home Units (1) 9 0.318/Unit 2.86 Calls-
Hotel/Motel Units 818 0.393/Unit 321.08 Calls
Resort Lodging Units 535 0.459/Unit 245.35 Calls
Commercial Uses (net in KSF) 2,417,000 0.897/KSF 1,268.07 Calls
IndustrialUses (KSF) 3,638,000 0.381/KSF 1 ,387.80 Calls
I EMEME
Proportional Beach Increase 248.96 Calls
NOTES;(1)Development of these types of units is out 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 Ls 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
swom officers necessary to respond to these anticipated calls, and thus maintain the existing
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 31
Item 9. - 225 HB -360-
305
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 capitalized) 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 Paving 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
1-113 -361- Item 9. - 226
306
Chanter 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 To 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 Proiect. Each new development would finance a proportional
amount of the expansion of the Police Station, vehicle response fleet and specialty law enforcement
equipment and thus a proportional share of the costs. The existing Police Station, while quite
large and is generally capable of meeting the needs of the existing staff required to serve the
existing community, was not necessarily designed to meet the City's law enforcement needs at
General Plan build-out. The two buildings combined 85,750 square feet provides about an average
of about 364.89 square feet per existing officer, a reasonable target to maintain for future police
officers'. Based upon the future addition of thirty-three officers to maintain the existing levels of
staffing, a 12,041 square foot expansion of the existing facility, or some other City-owned facility
would be needed, (33 X 364.89 = 12,041) to maintain the same ratio of space per officer that is
currently afforded by the existing facility.
As a result of potential addition of thirty-three sworn officers, the City will also need to add thirty-
three response vehicles at a total cost of $1,751,040 (or 33 vehicles X $54,720/vehicle) to
maintain as close to the existing ratio of 0.98 vehicles per sworn officer as possible (231 vehicles
divided by 235 officers = 0.98 vehicles per officer). The thirty-three new officers would each
require a full set of personal equipment and armament at $9,930 each for a total of $327,690.
Additional communications, telemetry and specialty operations equipment at an estimated total
$425,000 has been included to maintain a similar ratio of specialty equipment to sworn officer.
General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Fee Schedule Table, 3-3, following,
summarizes the resulting General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Fees (see
Schedule 3.2 for detailed calculation) for development to contribute financially to the expansion
of the City's Law Enforcement capacity in order to allow the City to extend the same level-of-
service to the City's newest citizens and businesses without diminishing the existing level-of-
services offered to the existing residents and businesses.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 33
Item 9. - 227 HB -362-
307
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Table 3-3
General Plan Build-out Needs-based Law Enforcement Impact Fees
M11 ii
�Land!Use
Detached Dwelling Units $692,944 $396/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $4,323,304 $815/Uait
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $3,319 $369/Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $372,568 $455/Unit
Resort Lodging Units $284,694 $532/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $2,515,742 $1-041/S.F.
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $1,610,348 $0.443/S.F.
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 553,423,178, 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 571,246,699 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 lcft vacant to place the following table on a single page].
Hunlington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 34
H B -363- Item 9. - 228
308
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Table 34
Existing Financial Commitment or "Equity-based"
Law Enforcement Impact Fees
-gv.
Land U k
Detached Dwelling Units $15,793,603 S409/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $30,365,403 $841/Unit
Mobile Home Units $1,090,040 $380/Unit
Hotel/Motel Units $503,096 $470Unit
Resort Lodging Units $444,401 $549/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $13,792,002 S1.074/S.F.
Industrial Uses $9,258,164 $0.475/S F.]
RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The General Plan Build-out Needs-based impact fees, identified in Table 3-3, are slightly less than
the Financial Commitment or Investment-based fees identified in Table 3-4 indicating that the
existing commitment has kept relative pace with law enforcement asset expansion. In order to
ensure that proportionality, and its underlying fairness, be maintained the development impact fee
schedule identified in Table 3-3, (General Plan Build-out Need-based Development Impact Fees)
are the most reasonable for both additional new development and the existing community. The
adoption of Table 3-3, and detailed in Schedule 3.2 at the end of the Chapter, would also generate
sufficient capital, about 97% of the full amount identified in the Master Facilities Plan, to
construct most of the law enforcement facilities and capital equipment needed to absorb the new
demands generated by the City's continued new development while maintaining proportionality
with the commitment demonstrated by the existing community. The remaining 3% would need
to come from other sources.
Hutainglon Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 35
Item 9. - 229 HB -364-
309
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED LAW ENFORCEMENT FACIIdTIFS, VEHICLES AND
EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
a 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
1-113 -165- Item 9. - 230
310
C I'O V n COi m N O O Of! U
a n4 vn0I
cr;l
co
�(
N nm:
tp 0. Q p
� - L
In yOy O 1' O'O b
pN m
y U
e.
O W IZ m
U �
F ccuj
y
o' S
a J ml V
Q
2 m ~ ac E
w m y n
v m U o
aCi m Q n J LL d
C W H 'o
Q a
o O T y �iW. Q E 76
o E
oW
o a cC
w O c hpf/7 0 $
V ¢ y E o c c 3
O E w
W O 0 3
ca 't u
l I cn c'`c rn = U
O- C vi 3 0 01W
S` CoQJ
L n N
ro
y m ly
O Ll
D. 0 ` a QQQI N
O "� ¢ ¢ Q
r C m o
a �
j O uFj
m N ro o ®;. .: o 0 o Lu chi 37
Z o cr.` w w w Lu o
C C 3 m
61
�i UND �
Item 9. - 231 HB -366-
311
� m
41 N D m mrD
n a a a n c gip£ w
Z. m
" p y . .� t7 N 8 Omi tin N Iv'n � LL
m n
? i m
,W
•:• O m. r�i rN cq � cD �N�yy ID
ca
11 C'
N r c4i Orn
O �;N.
k:6:
)W< G''
�• o 0 0 ��pp a !Q'
1511,
:0
ti �.�i !� O t0 CV. N (D 'O.
a,
m co m Cv
m cl o co
y 0 Oni N N N O tOD m V
ai 2 °'
j Cp .CL
LIL
y C
C Q1 Q)
C tr �p � v_ cc'o
ro LU �,m N c7
ri
a U 2 0
U ' m
mCpU 'm77 =1a .`m. � � y
m F D ll •'J' u ; 'o cmi A R
Cco
O
yl E a 38
� 3 m
UNC7a
Hs -')67- Item 9. - 232
312
ml
t E —
c 4 `m ys m m� a)
Q m 1 m m
pp Q III 4 Q a 4 4 -m
G E per• pop � � ROQ tlr�r��. O' � � � � o W•�' m
CIA r%
. UU I Q m' m
NN C :py m W U 6 LL
to N C C , G:
� � w
' d M 9 O O
V' U W U�)1O
•rn ':Q Q O Q'Qr
,•, cl cr c c c c
L O n N m N r'I O n .n
O� ID rn O p�p O N O: N QQ N to
• ` , r M K fA cnj cl
JR
c o w� Cli m e eni �� n a U C; o 0 0 0 0I 0 0 I
�9 rD I
m
C6 � .- n
y U 5
c
C q E
W rII Q h m m O• N O O N � rD m m'DI
rmi m U cmi cra' N �� ai I`N
� L,•• W OQ N N :;;I
13 LQco
O 61
OJ 6 1 N•.
O Q m C
U E , w w J U
4 U c rn rn y c 'c I .LO ' vi
m E VLCJ C 3 O U ry C_ C C N U t•3
.p. 0 4 b. . 3
cb —yLL
M
2 C ¢ m n m E m n m E. 39
0 -6Item 9. - 233 HB -368-
313
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
Hs -369- Item 9. - 234
314
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles, and Equt ent
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 Repon 41
Item 9. - 235 HB -370-
315
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles, and fggt Rment
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 Tablc 2-1 .
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 42
H13 -_7l- Item 9. - 236
316
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 Suppress ion/Mod ic 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
Item 9. - 237 HB -372-
317
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities. Vehicles. and F44ipmera
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
TAB -;7;_ Item 9. - 238
318
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
} T2welluis _ ?cnnualAnnual Calls
Zaitd�se� 4 '=="Rooms�or ,Calls for per C3rut
servtce
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
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 45
Item 9. - 239 lie -374-
319
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. CommerciallOffice 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
Cads ' iJmts of Annu;fls
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
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 -375- Item 9. - 240
320
Chanter 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
; a Fire/ is 3Potennal` Addttional w
wand Use _- _ - 12e��onses= � JJmt;Y— - l�tlnual Fi't
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
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 /i8. 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 Calcularion Report 47
Item 9. - 241 1-113 -376-
321
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Equipment
Table 4-4
General Plan Build-out Needs Fire Facilities, Vehicles
and Equipment Development Impact Fees
Iartd Uses o> Cbsts _-1P3-17nior�F
Detached Dwelling Units $1,693,338 $968/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $2,130,176 $401/Unit
Mobile Home Units (in arks) $14,996 $1,666/Unit
Hotel/Mote] Units $306,117 $374/Unit
Resort Lodging Units $446,495 $835/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $835,285 $0.3461S.F.
Industrial Uses $115,569 $0.032/S.F.
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 S 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 -377- Item 9. - 242
322
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
Table 4-5
Existing Fire Suppression/Medic Existing
Community Financial Commitment
75g:
- ..
Detached Dwelling Units $35,586,696 S922/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $13,795,263 $382/Unit
Mobile Horne Units (in parks) $4,536,145 $1,583/Unit
Hotel/Motel Units $381,126 $356/Unit
Resort Lodging Units $642,683 $792/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $4,222,277 $0.329/S.F.
Industrial Uses $612,791 $0.030/S.F.
Other (beach area) $1,457,246 NA
Of importance is the fact that the Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based costs on
Table 4-5 are just slightly higher, at roughly 105%, than the proposed General Plan Build-out-
based impact fees as demonstrated inTable 4-4. This indicates that the City is just slightly behind
in its cumulative and proportional investment in needed fire suppression/Medic facilities, vehicles
and equipment.
RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Since the equity position of the existing community is slightly less than the General Plan Build-out
Needs-based development impact fees necessary for expansion, the current Community Financial
Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test-based Development Impact Fees, as identified
in Table 4-5 and Schedule 4.3, would be the most equitable fee schedule to adopt.
Resulting Development Impact Cost Distribution. The collection of the proposed development
impact fee, through build-out would allow the City to provide a great deal(44.7%)of the proposed
expansions and most of the equipment, but not all of it. It would fall about $6.0 million short of
financing all of the required improvements attributed to new development.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 49
Item 9. - 243 HB -378-
323
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities Vehicles and Fqupment
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
foe 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,
0 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
H13 -379_ Item 9. - 244
324
Schedule 4. 1
to City of Huntington Beach
�
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Consr ucrlon Needs Conslrucrlan Needs
Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation R_
Supported by Generated by New -
Fire SuppressiordMedic Facilities and Vehicles l7rheResaurcas' " (7evelopinent
AO5114rlcas7 AN9ed t Do �Cos�t
LmeN l7escrlprTon _ _
FS-001 Relocate Station#8(Heil) _ _ $7,169,470 ' :;50:00 33,584,735 50.00% $3,584,735
FS-002 Construct Station #8(Heil)Apparatus Storage Facility _ $1.716.044 ;z75.00% $1,287.033 25.00° $429.011
FS-003 Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4(Magnolia) v $1.266,458 9`i;50.00% $633,229 50.000 $633,229
FS-004 Acquire an Engine Company and Ambulance for Station #4(Magnolia) $740,000 50:00° $370,000 50.00% $370,000
FS-005 Acquire an Engine Company for Station#1 (Gothard) $525,000 '50000 $262,500 50.00° $262,500
(FS-006 Acquire an Engine Company for Station#2(Murdy) $525,000 r;SbO(00° $262.500 50.00° _ $262,500
SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS $11,941,972 ii S.i53,590 $6,399,997 46.41°k $5.541,975
LESS: Existing Fire SuppreSSion Impact Fee Fund Balance — $0 100.0 $0 _ 0.00° $0
Sale of Property(Heil Station) ($700,000) t00.00Q/° ($700.000) 0.00° $0
rw __ SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS ($700,000) '0.00:,. ($700,000) 0.000/0 $0
F Total - Fire Suppressio_NMedic Capital Project Needs $11,241,972 .: S50i7095 $5,699,997 49.30°,6 $5,541,975
NOTES:
1. The cast distribution is based upon annual Fire Department 'Galls-for-Service' statistics(NFIRs).
r
u
Revenw ist Specialists, L.L.C. Fulls :;A 92831
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 SuppressionlMedic Facilities and Vehicles
Undeveloped Calf lxpect9d Percentage Allocation of Cast Average Units Development
Acres Unrts Gener3han New Calls olAddrtronal F�parrsldn Drstrrbutrori or Square Irnpact Fee por Umt
Prtlpoied,Larid Use_„ , FTate., , ,, . ..lor5ervlce ` Serglce'Calls ,.,:;'Casts PerAcre9, Feet/Acre or5juareFoot,
Detached Dwelling Units_(_1) 295.00 1.749 0.123 215.68 30.55% $1,693,338 $5,740 W 5.93 $.968 per Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 11120 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 5.5 $306,117 $16,458 43.98 $374 par Unit_
Resort Lodging Units 9.30 535 0.106 56.87 8.06 $446,495 $48,010 57.53 $835 per Unit
N
o, Commercial101flceUses 1 39.80 2,417,000 0.044 106.39 15.07% $835,285 $20,987 60,729 $0.346 per SF.
8,0
IndustrlaVManu fact uringUs 187.00 3,6300 _ 0.004 14.72 2.09% $115,569 $618 19,455 $002 per S.F.
W TTOTAL"- ,• ,.661,90; , , ;-; 705:88 100.00 ,-•'$5,541 975::in Total Flrb:Suppression Capltal Needs to Nhtsh Syatem
m
r-.
rD
r_n
� N
N
4�, Revenue&Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831
Schedule 4.3
t,j City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees
Fire SuppressionlMedic Facilities and Vehicles
Developed Ca!! fxrslrng Percenlage AlldgaUon d 'Drstrlbuhen Average Units Cwient Frnancral
°` '. ACIes Units " Generation Calls for .'. of brrsring /nfrastrucfule OI^EQurty: or Square `:Cammrtmeirt per Unit
Pr osed Larid;Use„ Kale Service i Seryide.;Cal4s, FeaVAcre or
Qo Equity' perAae;;, i .Squa`reFoot.
Detached Dwelling Units(1) 6,436.00 38,616 0.123 4,762.0 58.12% $35,586,696 $5,529 6.00 $922 per Unit
Attached Dwelling Units _ 1_,805.40 36.108 0.051 1.84&0 22.53% $13,795,263 $7,641 20.00 $382 per Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 204.60 _ 2,865 0.212 607-0 7.41% $4,536,145 _ $22,171 14.00 $1,583 per Unit
H_otelfMotei Lodging Units 33.40 1,070 0.048 51.0 0.62 $381,126 $11,411 _ 32.04 $356 perUnit
Resort Lodging Units 20.20 809 0.106 86.0 1.05% $642,683 $31,816 40.05 $794 per Unit
Commerclal/Office Uses _ 841.90 12.836.000 0.044 565.0 6.90°/ $4,222,277 $5,015 15,246 $0.329 perSF
N _.._
J
Ind ustriaUManutacturing Use 930.30 20.261,000 0.004 82.0 1.02a $612,791 $659 21,779 T $0.030 per S.F.
= Beach Areai. " 195.0 1 2.38 $1,457 24677-
7OTAC} .10,27,1:8J` c: 8;1t3a.0 , t00'.00 5811,234,227.'1n,Total;6qu�ty In Ctirrent Flre Suppression Assets
r� „$52,999718:SIn'Eiifsfing EireS pie95ion FacitldesF ::
($3 250,473j Less Moll S016n,48:(to tie relocateif) .,. ,t
sj$700,000praCeedslo}.Sale of Heili+Station N13
'4 237 b00 In Existing Ffre Suppiesswn Vehicles
,$537 780: ih F�cistlrig,ComputettEJecfronlc'FireEgUiPment
`$1 010202-;1i1 F�rlsfing,Fire HghtecAsslgnedEquigment <<i
50,4;In,EiristiligFlre'Stip' ress,on`ImpacfFeeEundBalance
w
Revenu )st Specialists, L.L.C. Fully CA 92831
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 offreeways 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
f1B -3s33- Item 9. - 248
328
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.
0 The construction of private commercial and office uses on the (net) 40 acres currently
identified as undeveloped commercial or office uses will generate 78,553 new daily trip-
miles, or about 21.2% of the total new trip-miles expected at General Plan build-out.
This figure could vary significantly depending upon the type of commercial uses
constructed and possible zoning changes or conditional use permits issued.
• The addition of 187 acres of industrial development (and Institutional Uses) generating
the potential for an additional 82,219 daily trip-miles, just under a quarter of the total
new trip-miles at 22. 1 %. Again, it is possible that some parcels zoned for industrial
uses will end up being commercial uses after obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. There
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 55
Item 9. - 249 1]B 84-
329
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
1-113 -385- Item 9. - 250
330
ClWler 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$200,000leaving 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 additional370,924 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 mod ification/intersection improvement projects would
improve traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue, Goldenwest and Brookhurst
Streets.
Newland Street - Three signal modification/intersection improvement projects along Newland
Street include the intersections with Talbert, Warner and Yorktown Avenues.
Goldenwest Street - There are two such projects planned at the intersections of Goldwest Street
with Bolsa and Slater Avenues.
Gothard Street - There are also two signal/intersection improvement projects planned at the
intersection of Gothard Street with Slater and Talbert.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 57
Item 9. - 251 FIB -386-
331
Chapter S 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 Develo_pMent Paying the Fee. There
is a reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the types of projects on which the fees are
unposed. 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
applicantldeveloper. 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
1-1e -187- Item 9. - 252
332
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals. and Bridges) Svstem
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]
Table 5-1
Comparison of Circulation System Attributes
7'
11iff WE __.,T,_ota';at
Number of Trip-miles 3,135,213 370,924 3,506.137
_51 0
Cost of Total System $533,539,375 $26,608,410 $560,147,785
sut
47 St
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 nexav,
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 5.1
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 generator' route, i.e. the route that would have been used
even if the temporary stop had not been made'. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITT-)
indicates that:
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 59
Item 9. - 253 FIB -388-
333
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets Signals, and Bridges) S sy tem
Thus when forecasted trips based upon the trip generation rates are distributed to the
adjacent streets, some reduction is made to account for those trips already there that will
be attracted to the proposed development.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'. These trip-ends
increase the traffic volume from the generator route only for brief distances. The ITE adds that
diverted trips:
are produced from traffic volume on roadways within the vicinity of the generator(route)
and require a diversion from that roadway to another roadway with access to the site.
These roadways could include streets or freeways adjacent to the generator but without
access to the generator.'
These diverted trip-ends will be adjusted(reduced at an assumed 50%) from the full trip-end count
for each of the land uses identified in the Chapter 2.
Again, the trip-end adjustment schedule at the bottom of Schedule 5.2 indicates the total daily trip-
ends reduced by the number of pass-by trips (at 100%)and diverted trips (at 50%). The trip pass-
by and diversion percentages were generated by a study conducted by the San Diego Association
of Governments (SANDAG) in conjunction with various U.S. and California agencies$.
Average Trip Distances by Land Use (trip distance factors). Additionally, the same SANDAG
data schedule referenced above provides information for a trip distance factor component to the
nexus. Based upon that data, a trip to an industrial work-site has the greatest distance at 9.0 miles.
A trip to an office average 8.8 miles, a residential trip averages 7.9 miles, a trip from a hotel or
motel (once in residence) averages 7.6 miles, and an average trip to a commercial site is the
shortest at 4.3 miles. This indicates that drivers are generally willing travel further distances to
work and for treatment at medical offices than they are to shop. Both frequency (trip-ends) and
distances (average miles per trip)have been combined into the nexus by combining frequency and
distance, the two major factors of circulation master planing.
When the trip frequency and trip distance factors are combined, a 200-unit attached dwelling
residential specific plan would generate about 4,620 daily trip-miles (200 unit's X 23.1 daily trip-
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 60
1113 -389- Item 9. - 254
334
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets Signals and Bridges) stem
miles per unit)and a ten-acre commercial-retail development would generate 4,955 daily trip-miles
(10 acres X 32.6 trip-miles/K.S.F. X 15,246/1,000 S.F.). Each would pay their proportionate
share of the total 370,924 newly created trip-miles expected at General Plan build-out. In the case
of the detached dwelling development, the 4,620 daily trip-miles generated by the new 200
attached dwellings represents about 1.25% of the 370,924 total new trip-miles anticipated at build-
out, thus they would be required to contribute financially to the DIF fund or construct projects on
the DIF list to an amount equal to 1.49% of the total development-related project costs. The
4,955 daily trip-miles generated by the ten acres of commercial development represent 1.34% of
the total 370,924 new trip-miles anticipated at build-out. As a result they would be required to
contribute financially to the DIF fund or construct projects on the DIF list to an amount equal to
1.34% of the total development-related project costs.
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the portion of the Facility
Attributed to the Development Project. Again, the calculation of the Circulation System
Development Impact Fee is based upon the recognition that differing types of developments
generate differing numbers of trip-ends. The fee is based upon the projected number of trip-miles
generated by the proposed private development project. Circulation System Development Impact
fee receipts will be accumulated until they reach the amount necessary to construct a meaningful
project to alleviate or mitigate the demands of those new developments. Table 5-2 (summarized
from Schedule 5.2) following, identifies the General Plan Build-out based Circulation System
Impact Fee Schedule based upon the net $26,608,410 in identified capacity-increasing projects.
Table 5-2
General Plan Build-out Based Circulation System Impact Fees
- - -ADocatton_ a— Total=Coit -
Land=Use -of Costs'- er Unit or SF
Detached Dwelling Units $4,341,072 $2,482/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $8,794,196 $1,657/Unit
Mobile Home Units (in arks) $11,693 $1,299/Unit
Hotel/Motel Units $903,562 $1,105/Unit
Resort Lodging Units $1,024,741 $1,915/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses 55,635,037 $2.331/S.F.
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $5,898,019 $1.621/S.F.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 61
Item 9. - 255 H13 -390-
335
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets. Signals and Bridges) stun
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 arteriallcollector 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 Pee 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
Allocattbn - Tofal_C9st
I,and'LJse �- - of hosts= T=PerTT'nit_-Qr SF ' - =
Detached Dwelling Units $227,375,119 $5,888/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $141,943,317 53,931/Unit
Mobile home Dwelling Units $8,824,837 $3,080/Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $2,804,166 $2,621/Unit
Resort Lodging Units $3,675,809 $4,544/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $70,992,504 $5.531/S.F.
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $77,923,618 53.846/S.F.
Humington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 62
1-113 -391- Item 9. - 256
336
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets Signals. and Bridges) System
Of importance is that the existing community has contributed, on average, far more, (at nearly
237%) than would be required of future development to meet the General Plan build-out needs for
all users. This indicates that there is no proportionality issue as the future community is being
asked to contribute at a far lesser amount (at about 42%) than has been contributed by the existing
community.
Alternative Cost Methodology. A more precise calculation of costs for specific types of land uses
(i.e., banks, hospitals, convalescent homes, etc.) can be determined by multiplying the average
cost per trip of$71.74 by the applicable daily trip-mile rate. An example of this calculation can
be found in Schedule 5.3 at the end of the Chapter and applied to Table 5-4, on the following
page. 'These tables list trip-mile rates and costs for various residential, resort, industrial and
commercial developments. A fee system based on a lengthy schedule of trip-mile rates
theoretically provides greater accuracy and therefore greater equity in determining specific uses
demand on the City's circulation system, but at the same time may increase the City's
administrative costs to administer the fee. A more extensive listing of traffic generators by land
use is available in Trip Generation as published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers, New
York, NY and SANDAL.
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page].
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 63
Item 9. - 257 1IE -392-
337
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 Trlp�d Additions! Costier Cost per 1,000 Sguaro
LAND USE j Trip-=& Dlsaaa to Trip Trip-miles Trip-milt Fee or Dwelling Unit
RFSID£NT/AL1AND,USES-(pei:Untr)
Deachod Dwelling 8.76 7.91 0.51 34.60 1 $71.74 , $2,482.20 /Unit
Apartment I 6.15 7.9 0.51 24.31 $71.74 $1,743.2.8 7Uait
Condominium/Townhomc 1 5.36 7.91 O.S1 21.21 S71.74 $1,520.89 /Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling i 4.57 7.9 0-51 18.1 1 $71.74 j $1,298.49 /Unit
R£SORT?OUR/ST(perUnitor`Eatry,Doar), " .... " .:.; , .-.: .. ... . . ,;5; . .,<,... ,;:::.: . ."..,•
Hotel 6.29 7.6 0.5 23.91 $71.74 1 $1,714.59 /Raom
AD Suites Hotel 3.77 76 0.5 14.3 571.74 $1,025.88 /Room
Metal 4.34 7.6 0-51 16.51 $71.74 1 $1,183.71 /Room
Gstool Light ladustrial 1 6.171 9.01 0.51 27.8 $71.74 1 $1,994.37 /KS!
Heavy ladustrinf 5.97 9.0 0.5 1 26.91 $71.74 1 $1,929.81 /KSF
Manufacturing 2.79 9.0 O.S1 12.3 $71.74 1 $882.40 /KSF
Warehousing 4.391 9.0 as 1 19.81 $71.74 1 $1,420.45 /KSF
COMMERCIAL(pcti:1000SF)=. -...,„ . ..:[ :'.. , -
OlricePark 7.421 9.8 0.5 32.6 $71.74 $2,338.22•/KSF
Research Park 3.01 8.8 0.5 22.0 $71.74 $1,578.28 /KSF
Business Park 9.341 8.8 0.5 41.1 $71.74 $2,948.51 /KSF
Bldg. Ma=-i&W!Lumber Store 29.351 4.3 0.5 63.1 $71.74 $4,526.79 /KSF
Garden Center 23-45 I 4.3 0.5 50.4 $71.74 $3,615.70 /KSF
Movie Theater 1 2.47 4.3 0.5 5.3 $71.74 $380.22 7KSF
Cburch 1 5,921 4.3 0.5 12.7 $71.74 $911.10 /KSF
Aledical-Dental Office 2221 8.8 0.5 977 $71.74 $7.009.00 /KSF
General Olrka Building 7.16 8.8 0.5 31.5 $71.74 $2,259.81 /KSF
';Stropping Center 3020 4.3 0.5 64.9 $71.74 $4,655.93 /KSF
111osp ud 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 Rmtauraat 8.90 43 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
Otticc{udr aradelilc�pa KSF)_; .- . : " .� ." : .•;
Cemcrary(per acre) 3.07 4.3 0.5 6.6 _ $71.74 $473.49 /_Acre
Service Station/Muke(avA) 10769 4.3 0.5 231.5 $71.74 $16,607.81 /FP/Day(4)
Service Station and Car Wash 99.35 4.31 0.51 213.6 . $71.74 $15,323.66 /FP/Day(4)
HOTFS:
1.ADT=A me Xc Daily]Tops 3.A4juard tar Pay-by and Duetted Toy.
L KSP=Tb m .d Squ Feu orO, Floor A.ea 4.FP7Day=per'F-UW Pnuuoo'per day.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 64
HB -;911- Item 9. - 258
338
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 EMPACT FEES.
• Adopt Schedule 5.2. for the seven basic new land-uses including the per Daily Trip-mile rate
with standard ITE trip-end rates for the application to unusual or highly specific development
proposals.
• Adopt Table 5-4 for application on specific business uses as necessary by engineering staff, as
well as the table at the bottom of Schedule 5.2 to allow City staff to calculate specific Circulation
System DIFs, based upon ITE data not necessarily highlighted on Table 5-4.
[This space left vacant to place the Chapter Endnotes on a single page].
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 65
Item 9. - 259 1113 -194-
339
Chapter 5 Circulation (Sweets. Signals. and Bridges) S stem
CHAPTER ENDNOTES
2.For complete definitions and standards, see the City of Huntington Beach General Plan Circulation Element as
pan of the Infrasiracture and Community Services Chapter page III-CE-1. Further description of the components
of the Element are on page 111-CE-2 and 111-CE-3.
3."Ihe 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
FIB -3195- Item 9. - 260
340
Schedule 5. 1
City of Huntington Beach
p� 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report ConsfrucUon Needs --; ConsfruCUorvlyeeds
Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation ;s Supported 5y Thal lncreaso ;
Circulation(Streets, Signals and Bridges)System ;Other,Resources - Infrastructure Capacity
id
Lrne rP OeScriphon EstCoslf PNeed r i7ollarrcCast Ne9d,t- Do�rioLbst
ST-001 Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue $600,000 ," :25.00% $150 000 ::575i $450,000
ST-002 Beach Boulevard and Heil Avenue _ _ $1,o00,000 :�`•:5;00°h $50,000 .ri95;00° $950,000
ST-003 Beach Boulevard and Warner Avenue _ $400.000 s 5:00pPo $20,000 �?';95:00 , $380,000
ST-004 Beach Boulevard and Slater Avenue $500,000 �:5:000A S25,000 ii<951009k $475,000
ST-005 Beach Boulevard and Talbert Avenue S1,000,000 EL28:00° $380,000 62.00% $620,000
S_T-006 Beach Boulevard and Garfield Avenue $1,000.000 '5 00° $50,000 ? 95:00% $950,000
ST-007 Beach Boulevard and Yorktown Avenue _ _ $500,000 -<'5.00°h $25.000 "'; 95.00% $475,000
ST-008 Pacific Coast Highway and Warner Avenue _ $2,000,000S5i00°h _$100.000 $1,900,000
ST-009 Pacific Coast Highway and Goldenwest Street _ $750,000 ;t]2.'00% $90,000 '"88 00% $660,000
ST-010 Pacific Coast Highway and Brookhurst Street _ $750,000 ^xs5:00 $37,500 95:00° $712.500
ST-011 Goldenwest Street and Bolsa Avenue S500,D00 ":5.00% $25.000 ::::95.00OA $475,000
A ST-012 Goldenwest Street and Slater Avenue __ $50,000 iC.'r5iD0?/° $2.500 <95.00% $47.500
ST-013 Newland Street and Talbert Avenue _ $500,000 35SD0a $25.000 =':95i06, $475,000
Z ST-014 Newland Street and Warner Avenue _ $30,000 ;�,: i5i00° _ $1.500 : 95.00°/ $28.500
w ST-015 Newland Street and Yorktown Avenue $300,000 "`":`5.00° $15,000 •'95:00% $285,000
ST-016 Gothard Street and Slater Avenue $500,000 s`'5.000/b $25,000 95.00,0 $475.000
c ST-017 Gothard Street and Talbert Avenue $264,000 ;#ii5".00?k $13,200_ i=:95:D00/ $250,800
ST-018 Ward Street and Garfield Avenue _ $8,800 ? '5i00° $440 ;':,'95'.000 $8,36D
ST-019 Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue E10,000,000 ";!5,00% $5D0,000 :iii95.0(N $9.500,000
ST-020 Miscellaneous Traffic Signals/Intersection Improvements $5.000,000 ':::5:00% $250,000 ": 95:00% $4,750,000
ST-021 Public Works Maintenance Bullding $2,820,000 -'.,5'i00°h $141,000 : ;95i00. $2,679,000
SF-022 Public Works Maintenance Vehicles _ _ US,000 ' 6i00N $3,250 1.n-95;009M $61,750
SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS $28,537800 ,-"676a. $1,929,390 "93;240/° $26,608,410
LESS:
Local Circulation Impact Fee Fund Balance ($200,000) 100.00% (5200,000) ;'`•' OtDON $0
Support from Other Agencies 1 ($260,020) '%100.00^ ($260,020) 0.00% SO
SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS ($460,020) 100:00 (5460,020) [c%4 00% SO
Total - Local Circulation-related Capital Project Needs $28,077,780 ':5 23% St 469 370 ,84,77°!° $26.608,a10
0,(40TES:
v1.There are no notes.
Rever. 'ost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullert( . 92831
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
Dolly Tnp end Additional
Undeveloped
...........
A" or's Vara'A
Proposed Land Use, V=
Percentage ANacatlon of Cast Average Units
T, q
I' Acres Units Generation Oady pt Additional arislon D strrUutlon Or Square MOPE
Detached Dwelling Units 295 1,749 34+60 60,515 16.31% $4,341,072 $14,715 5.93 $2,482 per Unit
Attached Dwelling Units i'll 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 1631 0.040/a $11.693 $11,693 9.00 $1,299 per Unit
Holel/Motel Lodging Unit 19 818 15.40 12.597 3,40% $903,6552 $48,583 43.98 $1,105 per Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Unit 9 535 26.70 14,285 3.850* $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 1 60,729 $2.331 per S.F.
lIndustrial/Manufacturing 187.1 3,638,000 1 2 22.17%1 $5L898.()1_9 L $1.621 per S.F.
Es
AL TERNA TIVE FEE METHODL OG Y 370,924 1� $26,60874710 $71.74 per Dally Trip-mile
Trip-ends Adjustment Daily Percent of Diverted Diverted Percent Combined Remaining Adjusted Trip Average Trip-ends
Calculation Total Diverted Trip% Trip of Pass-by Diverted and Trip% as Rate,Adjustment Trip XO.5
Land Use Trips Trips Adjustment Percent Trips(1) Pass-by Adjustment% _% X Total Trips -Length X Length
Detached Dwellings9.57 11.0 0.50 5+5 3.0 8.5 91.50% f 8.76 7.9 34.6
Attached Dwellings 6.39 1-1.0 -0.50 -5.5 3.0 8.5 91.564-5.85 79 2a I
Mobile Home Units 4.99 11.0 0.50 5.5 3.0 8.5 91.500A 4.57 7.9 181
5.27 38.0 0.50 19.0 4.0 23.0 _7_6 15.4
Hotel/Motel Lodging TD6
77 00 A
Resort Lodging 9.t8 38.011 0.501 190 4.0 23.0 77.000/91 7.03 1 7.61 26.7
_Z�Ommerclal Uses(KSF) 23.25 1 40. 15.0 35.0 65.00%1 15.11 43 325
Industrial Uses(KSF) 5.68 1 19.0 0.50 1 9.5 2.0 11.5 88.50% 5.031 9.01 22.6
(1)Pass-by trips adjusted at 100%.
Cr\
Go
Fullerton. CA 92831
Revenue 8 Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
Schedule 5.3
t� City of Huntington Beach
4` 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
v�
Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees
Circulation(Streets, Signals and Bridges)System
Developed DadyTrf end Erisbng Percentage: Alloeationol DlbYrlbutlon AverageUnds CurrentFinaifClal,
'� � Acres , ': Units :. Generrahon ,Darly -bf ExlstJng � Inlraslruclure of Egmty' or Square Cpmmrfinenl per Unrf '.
PropaseO,Land llse� ( , Rate <iTr/p,miles, ,; ;Trip,miles ` 'Equity' per Acre FeeVAcre or Squa�e,Foot
Detached DwellingUnits 6,436 38.616 34.60 1,336,114 42. $227_375_11�9 $35,329 6.00 $5,888 per Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 1,805 36,108 23.10 834,095 26.60% $141,943,317 I $78,622 20.00 _ $3,931 per Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling U 205 2,865 18.10 51,857 _ 1.65% $8,824,837 $43,132 14.00 $3,080 per Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Unit 33 1,070 15.40 16,47B 0.53% $2.804,166 $83,957 32.04 $2,621 per Unit
Resort Lodging Units _ 20 809 26.70 21,600 0.69% $3,675,809 $181,971 40.05 $4,544 per Unit
a Commercial/Office Uses . 842 12,836,000 32.50 417,170 13,31 $70,992,504 $84,324 15,246 $5.531 perBF.
w Industrial/Manufacturing 930 20,261,0001 923,618 $83,762 21,779 $3.846 per S.F.
375 `inr7otal F�uitg,in:Current Girculatlod5ystem Assels. . 1a
$431;589,375 in'.GeneraLPtanCirculatio'nMaJor;Streets
$0`In`Generalt?tanMalor.Strests R O W
$6t000 000 ri;Gene'taI Plari Grculation"Bridges. '<>` . . . „ „ ;<
•;:$62;500,000'1nGeherat Planbi ulatlon-,ln 4e 66tlons _
$34�250,OOD,lnGeneral;Nla�CiiCulatlon;Stgnals -;
`$200,000 ,In�:Girculahon'Impact F,ee'Fund Balance
ALTERNATIVE FEEMETHODLOGY 3,135,213 y «„;;° $533,539,375 $170.18 per Daily Trip-mile
a
Rever. Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullertc . 92831
Chapter 6
Storm Drainage Collection System
The Existing System. The City's existing storm drainage network is composed of street gutter
facilities, inlets and a pipeline network of storm drain lines, ranging from 24" to 96" pipe"'. This
combination of improvements conveys storm water runoff to various larger lines and Flood
Control District storm channels located throughout the City leading directly into the Santa Ana
River to the north. There are also numerous small outlets which lead directly into the Pacific
Ocean. The system, with minor exceptions, functions well to remove storm water runoff and
protect developed parcels and other City infrastructure. However, as the City continues to develop
currently vacant or underutilized parcels, the existing City-owned storm drainage lines will
approach maximum capacity reducing the ability of the existing drainage lines to sufficiently and
adequately collect and remove additional runoff.
The City currently has more than 532,000 linear feet of storm drain pipe sized from 24" to 96"
creating some 5.3 million cubic feet of storm drainage capacity. The system consists of roughly
1,000 inlet boxes and 2,000 junction/combination boxesZ. 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. 1'he 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 -399- Item 9. - 264
344
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 control', and cities are generally
responsible for storm drainage. The building of new homes and businesses on presently
undeveloped land will increase the amount of runoff and thus accelerate the need for additional
storm drainage facilities to handle increased runoff from these developing areas. As vacant and
underdeveloped parcels are developed and pervious surfaces are replaced with impervious rooftop,
parking lots, driveways, pools, and sidewalks, greater amounts of the rainfall runs off of the
developed parcel. The amount of the runoff varies with differing types of development(i.e., land-
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 71
Item 9. - 265 HB -400-
345
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, retailloffice 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
H 13 -401- Item 9. - 266
346
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
The Relationship Between the Need for The Public Facilities and the Type of Development
ro' t. 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 Reports
Table 6-1
Storm Drainage Runoff Coefficients
(® a 2"/hour rainfall)
Ffo bkdiand-_L�se E. Cge�lc�nt}f
1 - �t Iiup�of
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/Manufacturin Uses 0.950
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 73
Item 9. - 267 HB -402-
347
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection stem
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
S207,494,050 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
_
lafrasTucture Xlsttng' Fut-ute otai 9t
Faetory Ci n3urunit3 4 ommumiy Btitld out _
Total Runoff Acre Factor 8,303.18 557.85 8,861.03
��icenta of Total 2 7% - _b 1MAS
System Cost Contribution $203,631,313 $207,494,050 $411,175,363
�Pecenta elf potal_ s19, % r 'SO
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 -403- Item 9. - 268
348
Cal apter 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
:Total Cost:"".`
La�'�7se f.- - � of Pr6j �.tstnbutton �Eer:tInrt.or�F-
,. -
Detached Dwelling Units $5,354,096 $18,149 $3,061/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units $2,109,274 $18,968 $397/Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units $18,735 $18,735 $2,082/Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units $392,020 $18,149 $479/Unit
Resort Lodging Units $190,624 $20,497 $356/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $838,839 $21,076 $0.347/S.F.
Industrial/Manufacturin Uses $4,160,238 $22,247 $1.144/S.F.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 75
Item 9. - 269 1113 -404-
349
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Tyne of Development Paving 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 industriallmanufacturing 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 -40- Item 9. - 270
350
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
Table 6-4
Distribution of Current Equity-based Commitment in
Storm Drainage System Collection (or Proportionality Verification)
__y
Equtty per Per Unor
Detached Dwelling Units $122,325,402 $19,006 $3,168/Unit
Attached Dwelling Units S35,863,547 $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.
Of note is the fact that Table 6-4 summarizing Schedule 6.3, the investment "investment" (albeit
General Plan proportionally deficient) of the current community is slightly greater, (at about 8%)
of the previously exhibited General Plan Build-out Needs-based fees identified in Table 6-3
summarizing Schedule 6.2. Based upon these proportional facts, the adoption of the General Plan
Build-out Needs-based fees identified in Schedule 6.2 and summarized in Table 6-3, would be
reasonable and equitable,
RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The adoption of Schedule 6.2 at the end of this chapter, as summarized in Table 6-3 and based
upon as the Storm Drainage Collection System Development Impact Fees would generate
approximately $13.0 million in capital revenues with which to construct a portion of the
remaining $207.4 million in the storm drainage infrastructure required to complete the System.
The City should adopt both the per unit fees, i.e., the dwelling unit fees and the square foot
business construction square foot fees and the per acre figures under the column heading titled
Cost Distribution per Acre on Schedule 6.2. The former is for application to projects that include
a building creating new demand for all infrastructure and the latter for projects merely creating
additional runoff (e.g. a parking structure).
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 77
Item 9. - 271 1113 -406-
351
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED STORM DRAINAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.
0 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
1113 -407- Item 9. - 272
352
C
CD
Schedule 6.1
N City of Huntington Beach
w 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Conslructron Needs Construcf1arr Needs
Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation Supportedby- That Increase
Storm Drainage Collection System OtfiarQetsowcBs i?Inlrastructtire Capacit
�stlmafed Percent nloned Percent Apportroned
�L1re,rP�Descnpnon . Cast Need [7o11arCast Need 1)ollarCast
SD-001 Santa Ana River&Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1) $23,728,000 9170, $22,234,085 6.30% $1,493,915
SO-002 Coastal and Bolsa Chica Wetlands Region(SD Region#2) $21.527.000 i?.F93 7 $20,171,660 6,30% $1,355,340
SD-003 Slater Channel Region(SD Region #3) $34,236.000 93.70? $32,080,501 6,30% $2,155,499
SD-D04 Wintersburg Channel Region(SD Region#4) $28,749,000 ri:;=93i10% $26.938,963 6.30% $1,810,037
S6405 Bolsa Chica Channel &Harbour Region(SD Region#5) $98,549,000 :':V'10°b $92,344.355 6.30% $6,204,645
SD-006 Public Works Maintenance Building ��$705,050 '-;- 93:70°. $660,660 6.300 $44,390
SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS $207,494,050 ♦7ii93:70 $194,430,225 F 6.30°/ $13,063,825
LESS: Existing Storm Drainage Impact Fee Fund Balance _ $0 i0.00 $0 0.00% $0
Other Revenue Sources $0 "`.:a0 00 i(F1 0.00 $0
w _ SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS $0 4.^s-0'00. $0 0.00° $D
w Total - Storm Drainage Collection System Capital Project Needs S207,494,050 .�,93 70? $194,430,225 6.3 $13.063,825
=Forward to 5chadula'6:2: `
p NOTES:
i There are no notes.
c�
m
v
�o
Reveal ost Specialists, L.L.C. Full CA 92831
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
` Undeveloped I CaelHclent Storm , Percentage Allocation of Cast � Average Unify � !>avePopman!
Acres Units, bl Drarnage fharnage b/Additional txparulon thsfnbutfon or Square impact Foe par Un,t
Detached Dwelling Units(1) 295.00 1,749 0.775 228.63 40.980)b $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 0.1 40A $18,735 $18,735 9.00 $2,OR2 per Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 18.60 818 0.900 16.74 3.000/b $392.020 $21,076 43.9B $479 per Unit
Resort Lodging Units 9-30 535 0.875 8.14 1.46% $190,624 $20,497 57.53 $356 per Unit
cwn Corninercial/Office Uses 1 39.80 2,417,000 0.900 35.82 6.42!j $838,839 $21,076 60,729 $0.347 per S.F.
Inclustri 187.00 3,638,000 0.9501 177.65 I —
tj 31.85-4 $4,160,238 $22,247 19,455 $1,144 per P.
57: Finish bWern.,,,;
00
Revenue 8 Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831
Schedule 6.3
City of Huntington Beach
---j 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
yr Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees
Storm Drainage Collection System
Developed ' d,
S7orm Percentages tlon C Finan
oefficiam
1:� itm U r
Uc ure. -4u Mm entpe?..
Drainage
dWProrp Land Use. .. ','Ru'n'W,1-
Detached Dwelling Units(1) 6.436.00 38,616 0-775 4,987.90 60.070% $122,325,402 $19,006 6.00 $3,168 per Unit
Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.40 36,1 OB 0.810 1,462.37 17.61% $35.863,547 $19,865 20.00 $993 per Unit
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 204.60 2,865 0.800 163.68 1.970 $4,013,573 $19,617 14.00 $1,401 per Unit
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.40 1.070 0.900 30.06 0.36% $737,145 $22,070 32.04 $689 per Unit
Resort Lodging Units 20.20 809 0.875 17.68 0.21% $433,735 $21,472 40.05 $536 per Unit
Commercial/Office Uses 841-90 12,836,000 0.900 757.71 1 9.13% $18,583,394 $22,073 11,246 $1.448 parS.F.
cn
Industi 0.950 883.78 10,64%1 $21,674,517 $23,298 21-779
linkiM n quityin 41:4.,064 �tM 6i:313n. 11 C' Cjjk',� 'tori ont
;;$158,631,313; In Equity in Storm Drainage Collection SystBrMFacllltles
-St6rinVai
00
Ir
Revenu 1st Specialists,L.L.C. Fulls CA 92831
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 190,377z, 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 -411- Item 9. - 276
356
Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection
Table 7-1
Calculation of Existing City
Library Facilities/Collection Items Standard
Library. Collection
...Facilit .,S.F. 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 4,3001 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 Number ` Persons per Resident
Land-Use of Units Dwelling ..Yield.'_,.
Detached Dwellings Units 1,749 3.053 5,095
Attached Dwellings Units 5,307 2.257 11,978
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 9 1.660 16
Additional Residential Population to be Served 17,089
Square Foot per Person Existing Standard 0.669
Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Standard 11,433
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 83
Item 9. - 277 HB _412-
357
Chapter 7 Publir. Library Fnriit'ties and Collection
The library system also has a collection of 410,594 collection items; generating a collection
standard of 2.157 collection items per resident within the system (410,594 collection item's
190,377 persons). Table 6-3, following, indicates the additional number of residents to be
served and the number of collection items required to maintain the existing standard. The City will
need to acquire roughly 36,861 collection items to maintain the existing 2.028 collection items per
person in light of the additional 17,089 additional Huntington Beach residents expected at General
Plan build-out.
Table 7-3
Collection items Required to Maintain Existing Standard
Residential . Number Peisons;per_' Resident
Land-Ilse of Units Dwellin 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 -413- Item 9. - 278
358
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 Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility
Attributed to the Development Project. The cost of acquiring land for additional library space
and construction is about $520.63 per square foot , (per Schedule 6.1). The 127,400 square feet
of library space, when divided by the 190,377 existing potential patrons create a standard of 0.669
square feet of library space per City resident. The standard of 0.669 square foot standard
multiplied by the $520.63 per square foot of pad cost of library construction results in a charge
of$348.30 per additional City resident. Table 7-4 following, demonstrates this.
Table 7-4
Establishment of the Library Facilities Standard
and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard
Library Facilities Owned Square Feet 127,400
Current City Service Population 190,377
Square Feet per Resident Standard 0.669
Cost of Library Building Construction per Square Foot $520.63
Square Feet per Resident Standard 0.669
Cost per Additional Resident $348.30
The cost of acquiring additional collection items, called the accession process', (per Schedule 6.1)
is estimated by the Library staff to cost roughly $25.00 per collection item. The 410,594
collection items, when divided by the City's 190,377 population create a standard of 2.028
collection items per City resident. The standard of 2.157 collection item standard multiplied by
the $25.00 per collection item results in a cost of$53.93 per additional City resident, in order to
maintain the existing standard. Table 7-5 following, demonstrates this.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 85
Item 9. - 279 1113 -414-
359
Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection
Table 7-5
Establishment of the Library Collection Standard
and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard
Library Collection Items 410,594
Current City Service Population 190,377
Collection Items per Resident Standard 2.157
Cost of Library Collection per Collection item $25.00
Collection Items per Resident Standard 2.157
Cost per Additional Resident $53.93
Resulting Impact Costs. The combined cost per new resident is $402.23, consisting of $348.30
for 0.669 square feet of library space and $53.93 for 2.157 additional collection items. Table 7-6,
following, indicates the amount required for pro-rata expansion of the library space per Schedule
7.1. if adopted and imposed on the remaining development, it would collect enough to acquire
land for and construct an additional 11,432 square feet of public library space and an additional
36,861 collection items.
Table 7-6
Summary of Library Space and Collection Impact Costs
�� �Residenis Cost �� ;Impact CosE ;
Resider..: = Per Unit,
Detached Dwelling Units 2.913 $402.23 $1,172/Dwellin
Attached Dwelling Units 2.257 $402.23 $908/Dwelling
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.822 $402.23 $733/Dwelling
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 86
HH -415- Item 9. - 280
360
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.
0 Establish a General Plan square foot standard for Library Facilities square feet per resident and
a standard for Collection Items per resident.
Chapter Endnotes
1. Based upon the 2011 State of California Department of Finance City population estimate of 190,377.
2. The current population of 190,377 establishes the existing standard.
3. A collection item is generally a book but can also be a CD, magazine subscription, video tape or some other
like item with a similar cost and accession cost.
4. Based upon the construction cost of a 30,000 square foot library constructed in Highland, CA at a cost of
$11,500,000 and increased by the Engineering News Record construction cost index increase of 14.95% over the
01/06 construction date (or $441.63 per square foot) and land acquisition at a cost of S20 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 = 8905 divided by the 01/06 ENR- CC] of 7660 = 14.95 percent increase.
5. The accession process includes: needs research, ordering, receipt, preparation, entering it into the computer and
actual placement on the shelves.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 87
Item 9. - 281 HB -416-
361
Schedule 7.1
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
Public Library Facilities and Collection
Library Library
Space 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 y
Existing Square Feet of Library Space 127,400 =`a. 'iyg'°°•' .;
Existing Library Collection Items s,« f 410,594
Calculation of Existing Standards:
Current Population (Residents) 190,377 1 190,377
S.F. of Library Space/Resident 0.669 *
Collection Items/Resident s.'<V11P;N.x ems?„i 2.157
Library Construction/Square Foot 06/2010 1 $440.63 ,,§ `•,
Land Acquisition at $20.00/S.F. and 0.25 FAR. $80.00 i;fs s „°
iLand Acquisition and Construction per Square Foot $520.63 �srPo§ 's '
jCost per Collection Item « ;'Rol i $25.00
Cost per Square Foot or Collection Item $520.63 $25.00
Existing City Library Standard(s) 0.669 2.157
Cost of Space per Resident $348.30 ifir, mmE g
Cost of Collection Item per Resident k -a(z '°ss .. $53.93
Type of Denstry Library Library Total
Residential per Dwelling Space Collection ° Library
Dwelling Unit Unit ( Component Component Impact Fee
Detached Dwelling Unit 2.913 $1,015 $157 $1,172
Attached Dwelling Unit 2.257. $786 $122 $908
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 1.822 $635 $98 $733
88
Revenue & Cost SpeGalists, L.L.C. Fullertc-
HB -41 7_ Item 9. - 282
362
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 Q66477 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
Item 9. - 283 HB -d1S-
363
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
Neighborhood Parks 183.79 129.74
ComrnuEity/Sports Parks 546.82 470.81
Other (beaches, etc) 268.48 177.86
Total Acres (Owned) 999.09 778.41
City Park Standard. Table 8-2, following, is a comparison of the acreage of parks to the City of
Huntington Beach's current population and indicates that the City presently possesses a total
standard of 5.248 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, (999.09 park acres —. [190,377 resident's
1,000], rounded). However as stated previously, the owned acreage will be used to calculate
the standard and resulting impact fee. The City presently owns 778.41 acres and thus possesses
an owned standard of 4.089 acres of owned park land per 1,000 residents, (778.41 owned park
acre's _ [190,377 resident's _ 1,000], rounded). This is above the benchmark of 3.0 acres per
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impacr Fee Calculation Report 90
HB -419- Item 9. - 284
364
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition _
�isition 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
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 1,0()0 Population 5.248 4.089
The Quimby Act, to be discussed later, allows a minimum standard of 3.0 acres per thousand
resident's even ifthe City has not attained that standard. However, the park acres owned standard
for the City of Huntington Beach, at 4.089 acres per 1,000 resident's, exceeds that minimum
standard and thus the Quimby allowable minimum standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents
is irrelevant and the 4.089 acres/1,000 resident's standard will be used for Park Land Acquisition
and Park Facilities Development. Though not particularly relevane to the City of Huntington
Beach, the Quimby Act has a cap on land dedications required as a part of the subdivision of land
of 5.0 acres per thousand (Government Code §66447 (a)(2).
Planned Improvements. In addition to the ongoing improvement of the remaining 115.85 acres'
available for increased residential development, the City will need to acquire 70.5 additional park
acres, per Table 8-3, and develop these new parks to serve the additional 17,089 residents
anticipated to live in City of Huntington Beach at General Plan build-out.
[This space left vacant to place the following table on a single page]
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 91
Item 9. - 285 HB -420-
365
Chapter 8 Park land Aggyisition 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 e 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 -42 1- Item 9. - 286
366
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
Item 9. - 287 HB -422-
367
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 deve!opment impact fee for ordinary
residential dwelling development. This is consistent with the cost of recent development for
detached dwelling development in the more northerly areas of the City of Huntington Beach area.
However, the use of this $20.00 per square foot figure could be criticized if a developer can show
that the cost of the residential land they are developing is currently valued at less than the
$871,200/acre figure. Conversely the City should retain the ability to increase this impact fee in
areas where the cost of land exceeds the $20.00 per square foot figure. The fee recommendation
at the end of the Chapter will recognize this need for flexibility.
Park Development Costs. Park development costs are based upon the very recent construction of
Schedule 8.3, a current schedule of common park costs and typical improvements by type of park.
Schedule 8.2 identifies the three types parks' that the City will likely construct over General Plan
build-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 84
Average Park Construction Cost per Acre
Type Park Costl ge_ .
Avers
of;:. Acres Acre Construction..
Park; .' Cost
Neighborhood/M i ni Park 271.01 $223,441 $60,559,816
Community Park 229.15 $289,296 $66,292,242
Sports/Regional Park 333.901 $394,8841 $131,851,622
Total Costa $258,698,242
Total Acres 834.06 —...- :.. 834.06
Cost/Acre rounded . __:___`-. .: $310168
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 94
lie -423- Item 9. - 288
368
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 Zse 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,HO
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 95
Item 9. - 289 HB -424-
369
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, $508,64-4 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
` tsons.per Feuer rt�Impact F
gtes denttal Land Usc= t �3_wellin _ 2estdent .;P.er iltttt
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
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
1113 -425- Item 9. - 290
370
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
Resideaha� Land Lase � -� S ��,,, oLQpen':: d£cyed�to�►nD
Commercial Lodging Unit 36 $16,505 $458
Resort Lodging Unit 46 $16,505 $359
Commercial/Office Square Feet 17,300 $16,505 $0,954
Industrial Square Feet 21,390 $16,505 $0.772
Note: A lodging unit is defined as keyed room.
Land Acquisition Cost Adiustment Challenge. As mentioned previously, the use of$871,200/acre
as the default park land acquisition cost is based upon the assumption that parks acreage would
likely be close in proximity and thus similar in cost to residential land value of the private project
the park is intended to serve. However, if the developer or contractor of a home can provide
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 97
Item 9. - 291 HB _426_
371
Chapter 8 Park band 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.
7.13ased 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 -427- Item 9. - 292
372
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;
AB1 600 Fee for Dwelling on Non-subdivided Parcels
Park Cny Owhidd Devebped
Size Parkland 'PaddanW�
Lake Park 4.75 0.00 4.75
Lake View Park 2.16 2.16 2.16
Lamb Park 2.60 2.60 0.00
Lambert Park 3.50 3.50 3.50
Langenbeck Park 17.02 9.24 17.02
Lark View Park 3.65 0.00 3.65
LeBard Park 4.99 3.01 4.99
Manning Park 2.46 2.46 2.46
Marina Park 9.34 9.34 9.34
Marine View Park 2.96 0.00 2.96
McCallen Park 5.84 5.84 5.84
Meadowlark Golf Course 98.00 98.00 98.00
Moffett Park 2.38 2.38 2.38
Murdy Park 16.04 16.04 16.04
Newland Park 2.94 2.94 2.94
Oak View Center Park 1.31 0.00 1.31
Weider Regional (County-owned) 45.01 0.00 23.01
PattInson Park 3.51 3.51 3.51
Perry Park 1.88 1.88 1.88
Pleasant View Park 2.17 0.00 2.17
Prince Park 0.22 0.22 0.22
Robinwood Park 1.41 000 1.41
Rodgers Senior Center Site 1 2.01 2.01 2.01
Schroeder Park 2.37 0.00 2.37
Seabridge Park 3.91 3.91 3.91
Seeley Park 3.37 3.37 3.37
Sowers Park 2.65 2.65 2.65
Sun View Park 2.45 0.00 2.45
Talbert Park 5.44 5.44 5.44
Tarbox Park 0.44 0.44 0.44
Terry Park 4.81 4.81 4.81
Triangle Park 1.11 1.11 1.11
Trinidad Park 0.75 0.75 0.75
Wardlow Park 8.36 8.36 8.36
Wieder Park 4.80 4.80 4.80
lWorthy Community Park 7.00 7.00 7.00
Total Acres(Owned/Developed) 999.09
Current Population 190.377
Population/1,000 190.38 �90.3 8 190.38
Current Standard 5248 4.089 4.463
99
Item 9. - 293& cost Spedalists, L.L.C. HB -428- Fullerton, 92831 CA
373
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;
ABI 600 Fee for Dwelling on Non-subdivided Parcels
Park
a
Parkland*
ZO
Si
Acres/1,000 Population Standard 5.248 4.089 4.463
Quimby Maximum Allowable 5000 4.089 1 L 4.463
Acquisition Cost per Acre (1)
Constriction Cost per Acre (2) $508,644
Community Center Construction $66,680
Total Component Cost
Cost X Standard
Population Served by Standard 1,000.0 1,000.0 Per Person
Cost per Re
Occupants! _ land Park ��,ntand and
. . . ...
er:
Detached Dwelling Units 2.913 $10,377 $7,480 $17,857
Attached Dwelling Units 2.257 $8,040 $5,795 $13,835
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.822 $6,491 $4,678 $11,169
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. HB -429- Fullert Item 9. - 294
374
Schedule 8.2
City of Huntington Beach
Park Site Inventory Improvement Cost
Residential Park Development Impact Fee
Calculation of Average Park Acre Construction Cost
Park Average Cbst Total Cost:,;
"'o6r,Acre tar Park
Prince Park 0.22 $223,4417 $49,167
French Park 0.33 $223,441 $73,736
Tarbox Park 0.44 $223,441 $98,314
Davenport Reach 0.46 $223,441 $102,783
Humboft 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 5131,830
Trinidad Park 0.75 $223.441 $167,581
Booster Park 085 $223,441 $189,925
Triangle Park1.11
.1 1 $223,441 $248,020 1
Banning/Magnolia Park 0.00 $223,441 so
Oak View Center Park j 1.31 �$223 411 $292,708
S2 N14
Robinwood Park 1.41 41 $315,052
Franklin Park 1.52 5223,441 $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 237 $223,441 $529,556
.Bushard Park 238 $223,441 $531.790
iMoffett Park 2.38 $223,441 1 $531,790
ISun View Park 2.45 $223.441 1 $547,431
Manning Park 2.46 S223,441 $549,665
Burke Park 12.50 $223,441 $558,603
Arevelos Park 258 $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 -271 $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 302 $2231441 $674,793
[
Seeley Park 337 $223,441 5752,997 01 Lambert Park 3.50 $223,441 $$;82 04.4
Item 9. - 295&Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -4 10- Fullerton, 92831 CA
375
Schedule 8.2
City of Huntington Beach
Park Site Inventory Improvement Cost
Residential Park Development Impact Fee
Calculation of Average Park Acre Construction Cost
Srie; ,4veprearg�e^st Tfor
Pattinson Park 3.51 1 $223.441 $794,279
Farquhar Park 3.52 $223,441 1 $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 $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 B34.06 $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. fAB _431_ Fullen Item 9. - 296
376
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
UnitCbst Iristalled 'e 3FAcie.NeigFib"orhood 20 a"Comrriunity.Pim-]
Pub Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $200 Linear Foot 1 .040 $208,000 2,704 $540,800
Lg Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $37,500 Acre 0 1 $0 15 $562,500
Sm Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $42,750 Acre 5 $213,750 0 $0
Plant Material:
Trees-5, 24 gallon box/acre $149 Each 60 $8,940 225 $33,525
Trees-15, 15 gallon/acre $290 Each 30 $8,700 75 $21,750
Shrubs-10, five gallon $30 Each 40 $1,200 150 $4,500
Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each 120 $960 450 $3,600
Play apparatus
Curbing, 450' per large $41.30 Linear Foot 0 $0 450 $18,585
Curbing, 225' per small $41.30 Linear Foot 225 S9,293 225 $9,293
Play equipment - large $123,750 Lot 0 $0 1 $123.750
Play equipment - medium $99,000 Lot 1 $99,000 0 1 $0
Play equipment- small_ $67,500 Lot 0 $0 2 $135,000
Sand/Other Surfacing $5,775 Lot 1 $5,775 1 3 $17,325
Buildings:
Restroom - Small $132.000 Each 1 $132,000 ; 1 $132,000
Restroom - Large $181 ,500 Each 0 $0 ' 1 $181,500
Equipment storage facility ; $99,000 Each 0 $0 0 $0
Combined Restroom/Concession_ ; $297,000 Each 0 $0 1 $297,000
Parking Lot
V A.C. W/6" Rock base $8.30 Square foot 12,000 $99,600 40,000 $332,, _
V-gutter S13.20 Linear Foot 300 $3.960 800 $10,560
Drain Inlet Y $990 Each 1 $990 2 $1,980
Drain Inlet connector $330 Each 1 $330 2 $660
Storm drain line $19.80 Linear Foot 300 $5,940 200 $3,960
Drive approach $2.970 Each 1 $2,970 , 4 $11,880
Perimeter curbing $16.50 Linear Foot 490 $8,085 800 $13,200
Striping $0.50 Linear Foot 400 $200 1 1 ,300 $650
Lighting $2,970 Each 2 $5,940 18 $53,460
Lot signage _ $330 Lot 1 $330 3 $990
Entrance S4,950 Lot 1 $4,950 3 $14,850
Curb and Gutter S15.27 Linear Foot 3,780 $57,721 3,232 $49,353
Storm Drainage Facilities
Inlets S1 ,320 Each 2 $2,640 4 $5,280
Connections $2,145 Each 2 $4,290 4 $8.580
Lateral (to arterial) $82.50 Linear Foot 45 $3,713 80 $6,600
Sewer Facilities
Connection to arterial $4,125 Lot 1 $4,125 1 $4,125
Line in street $107.30 Linear Foot 29 $3,112 80 $8,584
Line in park $24 80 Linear Foot 125 $3,1DO 1,500 $37,200
103
Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831
Item 9. - 297 f-IB _ ;2_
377
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
'Irk Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
Unit,Cost, lr;stflUed; S ACee sibighbo 12U..Acie'Co Palk;
Fire Hydrant S4,950 Each 1 $4,950 6 $29,700
Street Lights
Standards $2,475 Each 3 1 $7,425 20 $49,500
Duct work/wiring $1,568 Each 3 1 $4,704 12 $18.816
Water Facilities _ 1
3" metered service $4,125 Each 1 $4,125 1 $4,125
Backflow device $4,125 Each 1 $4,125 1 1 $4,125
Line in street $19.80 Linear Foot 1 ,320 $26,136 120 $2,376
Water fountains $1,155 Each 1 $1,155 8 1 $9,240
Fountain lines in park $19.80 Linear Foot 200 $3,960 1.000 $19,800
Benches/Tables
Tables, cement pads $2,475 Each 4 $9,900 60 $148,500
Individual grills $825 Each 2 $1,650 30 $24,750
Benches, cement pads $908 Each 4 1 $3,632 30 $27,240
Bleachers $5,775 Each 0 $0 0 $0
Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $123,750 Each 0 $0 2 $247,500
Individual Covered Picnic Pad $24,750 Each 1 $24,750 10 $247,500
User Electrical Service park $16,500 Each 0 $0 1 $16,500
Electrical Service per Area $2,063 Each 1 $2.063 6 $12,378
Game Courts $0 $0
lasketball Courts S66,000 Each 1.0 $66.000 1 $66,000
Basketball Court Lighting $57,750 Each 0 $0 1 0 $0
Fenced Tennis Courts $99,000 Each 0 $0 2 $198,000
Tennis Court Lighting $57,750 Each 0 $0 0 $0
Baseball Field - Competitive $82,500 Each 0 $0 0 1 $0
Ballfleld Lighting $412,500 Per two fields 0 $0 0 $0
Baseball Field - Recreational $24,750 Each 1 $24,750 6 $148,500
Pedestrian Walkway
5' Wide $22.28 Linear Foot 500 $11,140 2,000 $44,560
6' Wide $28.88 Linear Foot I too $2,888 500 $14,440
9' Wide $37.13 Linear Foot 100 $3,713 500 $18,565
Miscellaneous Flatwork $6.20 Linear Foot 500 $3,100 8,500 $52,700
Small Park Signage $4,538 Lot 1 $4,538 0 $0
Large Park Signage $24,750 Lot 0 $0 1 $24,750
Bike Rack/Pad $2,890 Each 1 $2,890 6 $17,340
Natural Element Improvement (Lake, a $825,000 Each 0 $0 0 $0
Small Concrete Stage $41 ,250 Each 0 $o 0 $0
Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $82,500 Each 0 so 0 $0
Large Ampitheater with bowl $247,500 E 1 0 1 $0 1 $247.500
Total Cost 1,117,206rs4`y $4,339,444
Total Acres M12- 5 �s 15
Average Cast per Acre a~;t`?ip $223,441 fg E3 r4 $289,296
104
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, ' --- '
HB -433- Item 9. - 298
378
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
Untt Cosf;;lristalled .�< 20Acre S 'ris Park
Pub Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $200 Linear Foot 2,704 $540,800
Lg Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $37.500 Acre 20 $750,000
Sm Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $42.750 Acre 0 $0
Plant Material:
Trees-5, 24 gallon box/acre $149 Each I 150 $22.350
Trees-15, 15gallon/acre j $290 Each 50 $14,500
Shrubs-1 0, five gallon _ $30 Each 100 1 $3,000
Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each 300 $2,400
Play apparatus
Curbing, 450' per large $41.30 Linear Foot 450 $18,585
Curbing, 225' per small $41.30 Linear Foot 225 $9,293
Play equipment - large S123,750 Lot 0 $0
Play equipment - medium $99,000 Lot 1 $99,000
Play equipment - small $67,500 Lot 2 $135.000
Sand/Other Surfacing , $5,775 Lot 3 $17,325
Buildings:
Restroom - Small 1 $132,000 Each 1 $132,000
Restroom - Large 1 $181 ,500 Each 1 $181,500
Equipment storage facility $99,000 Each 1 $99,000
Combined Restroom/Concession JS297,000 Each 2 S594,000
Parking Lot j
4' A.C. W/6' Rock base $8.30 Square foot k 40.000 $332,000
V-gutter $13.20 Linear Foot 800 $10,560
Drain Inlet $990 Each 2 $1,980
Drain Inlet connector $330 Each 2 $660
Storm drain line $19.80 Linear Foot 200 $3,960
Drive approach $2,970 Each 4 $11.880
Perimeter curbing S16.50 Linear Foot 800 S13,200
Striping S0.50 Linear Foot 1,300 $650
Lighting S2,970 Each 18 $53,460
Lot si nage $330 Lot 3 $990
Entrance $4,950 Lot 3 $14,850
Curb and Gutter S15.27 Linear Foot 1,664 $25,409
Storm Drainage Facilities
Inlets $1,320 Each 4 $5,280
Connections $2,145 Each 4 $8,580
Lateral (to arterial) $82.50 Linear Foot 80 $6,600
Sewer Facilities
Connection to arterial S4,125 Lot 1 $4,125
Line in street $107.30 Linear Foot 80 $8,584
Line in park $24.80 Linear Foot 1,500 $37.200
105
Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831
Item 9. - 299 H13 -434-
379
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
^qrk Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
•Unit CosY ;lristaAed ::20'Acre;Spoifs Park :;3
Fire Hydrant S4,950 Each 1 $4,950
Street Lights
Standards $2,475 Each 20 $49.500
Ductwork/wiring $1,566 Each 5 $7.940
Water Facilities
3" metered service $4,125 Each 1 $4,125
Backflow device S4,125 Each 1 $4,125
Line in street $19.80 Linear Foot 120 $2,376
Water fountains 1 $1 ,155 Each 8 $9,240
Fountain lines in park $19.80 Linear Foot 1 1,000 $19,800
Benches/Tables
Tables, cement pads $2,475 Each 30 $74,250
Individual grills $825 Each 10 $8,250
Benches, cement pads $908 Each 15 $13,620
Bleachers $5,775 Each 8 $46,200
Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $123.750 Each 0 $0
Individual Covered Picnic Pad $24,750 Each 4 $99,000
User Electrical Service park $16,500 Each 1 $16,500
Electrical Service per Area $2,063 Each 4 $8,252
Game Courts $0
3asketball Courts $66,000 Each 3 $198,000
Basketball Court Lighting $57,750 Each 8 $462,000
Fenced Tennis Courts $99,000 Each 8 $792.000
Tennis Court Lighting $57,750 Each 8 S462,000
Baseball Field - Competitive $82,500 Each 8 $660,000
Ballfield Lighting ; $412,500 Per two fields 4 $1,650,000
Baseball Field - Recreational j S24,750 Each 0 $0
Pedestrian Walkway
5' Wide $22.28 Linear Foot 1,000 $22,280
6' Wide $28.88 Linear Foot 250 $7,220
9' Wide $37.13 Linear Foot 250 $9,283
Miscellaneous Flatwork $6.20 Linear Foot 4,000 S24,800
Small Park Signage _ $4,538 Lot 0 $0
Large Park Signage $24,750 Lot 1 $24,750
Bike RacklPad $2,890 Each J 6 $17,340
Natural Element Improvement (Lake, a $825,000 Each 0 $0
Small Concrete Stage 1 $41,250 Each 1 $41,250
Small Ampitheater stage only, graded 1 $82.500 Each 0 $0
Large Ampitheater with bowl 1 $247,500 Each 0 $0
Total Cost $7,897,671
Total Acres 20.00
Averse Cost per Acre $394,894
106
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, "'
HB -435- Item 9. - 300
380
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 776.4
Current City-wide Private) Developed Acres 10,271.8
Current Open Space Standard per Developed Acre 0.0758
AcreslDevelo ed Acre Standard 0.0756
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
UrntsiSF :' Open Spact3'e-
per,Acre ;; „Ao`d�smon ��'
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
Item 9. - 301 venue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB _436_ Fullerton, 92831 CA
381
APPENDIX A
Expanded Land-use Database
108
Ha -437- Item 9. - 302
382
Cttyof Hunprgton Beach Developed :' Net Increase > Total _
Total_ Larldtlse,Datatiase, Acres #:of Umts _ Acresi' #of;Umts . Rcres #nfUnrts,,.;
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 2,6
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 j 15,253,000
IndustraVManufacturingUses 930.3 20,261,000 187.00 3,638,000 1,117.30 23,899,000
Total -City Limits 10,271.8 661.90 --- i 10,933.70 ---
Private Residences 8,446.0 77,589 407.2 7,065 8,853.2 94,654
rCommercial 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
Existmg Commumty Developed To'Be Developed oral `
as,Currieritlypeveloped Acres 1 ;of.Unrts, Acresf , , ,#of;UrMa
Detached Dwelling Units(1) 6,436.0 38,616 j 34.0 183 ; 6,470.00 38,799
Attached Dwelling Units 1 ,805.4 36,108 15.0 j 159 1,820.40 36,267
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(2) 204.6 2.865 1.0 9 205.60 2,874
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units j 33.4 ; 1,070 0.0 0 33.40 1,070
Resort Lodging Units 20.2 809 3.4 300 23.60 1,109
Commercial/Office Uses _ 841.9 12,836,000 4.5 69,200 846.40 12,905,200
IndustriaVManufacturing Uses 930.3 20,261,000 44.0 958,320 974.30 21,219,320
Existing Community 10,271.8 ----- 101.90 ----- 10,373.70 --•
Additw nal Units from Developed Intensified/Redevetoped ;, Total
Infensi ication of Exisung Uses j Acres, A. #_'of Unds -' ., ,Acresi #of,Units, Acres.„ #ot.Unrts,'t
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 i 0.0 I 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 I 0.0 0 143.0 2,679,680 143.00 2,679,680
Redeveloped 0.0 ----- 524.80 ----- 524.80 ----
Specficf'IanA D@veloped Intensified/Redeveloped Total ,
Beach`arid Edm ' ,. .gar. ii Acres , #`of Umts Acres; #:of,Unrts ,1
Detached Dwelling Units (1) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0
Attached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 80.0 4,500 80.00 4,500
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(2) 0.0 0 j 0.0 0 0.00 0
r--
Hotel/Mote! Lodging Units 0.0 0 4.0 350 4.00 350
Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0
CommerciaVOffice Uses 0.0 0 37.0 850,400 37.00 109850,
lndustriaVManufacturing Uses 0.0 0 0.0 , 0 0.00 1 u
Sub-total Specific Plan A 0.0 ----- 121.00 ---- 121.00 --
Item 9. - 303 FIB _438_
383
Specific Plan B' Developed:; Intehsffred/Redevelo Total
_..::
Downtown,,, ,Acres , #nY Untts`.I Atxes;(3).. . #of>sUnrts> Acres.:=, #of:Unrts
Detached Dwelling Units (1) 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0
ached Dwelling Units 0.0 0 16.2 1 648 16.20 648
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 5.9 235 5.90 235
Commercial/Office Uses 0.0 0 13.1 398.583 13.10 398,583
IndustrlaldManufacturing Uses 0.0 0 0.0 L 0 0.00 0
Sub-total Specific Plan 8 0.0 ---- 35.20 - 35.20 -----
peci#icPlanA :Developed intensifiedlRedeveloped TotaF
Reinoyal . .Acres :# of Unrts:?- , AcreS. .,.�.. .#otr n Acres*; =#•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 Lod Ling Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0
Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.00 0
CommercialJOffice Uses 0.0 0 (121.0) (1 ,215.000) (121.00) (1,215,000)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 0 , 0.0 0 1 0.00 0
sub-total specific Plan A 0.0 ----- (121.00) --- 1 (121.00)1 ---
TES:
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 -439- Item 9. - 304
384
APPENDIX B
Summary of Recommended Impact Fees
ttt
Item 9. - 305 14B -440-
385
SUM?14iARY 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 - Eire 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 -441- Item 9. - 306
386
APPENDIX C
Master Facilities Plan
(See Separate Document)
113
Item 9. - 307 HB -442-
387
End of Document
HB _443_ Item 9. - 308
388
Q
t
HUNTINGTON BEACH
Chamber of Commerce
March 16, 2012
Mayor Don Hansen& Members of City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main St.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Dear Mr. Mayor&Council Members:
On behalf of our members and in the interest of promoting greater economic growth in the City of Huntington
Beach, the Chamber of Commerce wishes to weigh in on the proposed park,fire,and police impact fee increases
that staff is scheduled to present to Council on April 2,2012.
It is our position that the budding economic growth the city is experiencing is fragile and must be encouraged if it
is to flourish. We supported the Beach and Edinger Corridors Specific Plan adoption and are excited to see it taking
shape. To that end,a large and unexpected fee increase is something that may slow and potentially even stall the
redevelopment that staff and council envisioned and desired in the first place. This is something we want to avoid.
First, it is our understanding that the proposed impact fee increases are quite large. We recommend that the
nexus study be thoroughly reviewed to make sure that whatever fee amounts are ultimately presented to council
be as accurate and as low as possible so our city remains an attractive place for development. A large fee increase
could prove to be an onerous burden for projects in the planning stages and can negatively affect land valuations
on all potential apartment sites throughout the city. As a Chamber we want the investment of hundreds of
millions of dollars to be made here in Huntington Beach,bringing high quality development to our community.
Second, we recommend that the city be fair in providing a reasonable period and perhaps a phasing in of any fee
increases. We feel that landowners and developers alike should be given ample notice to allow them time to
adjust and prepare for the "impact" of the increased fees. We ask that grandfathering provisions be broad so that
projects that have financial commitments may continue unaffected. We would likewise recommend that
allowances be made for projects that have had financing delays, environmental delays, or other delays which are
beyond the developers control. Any tax or fee increase should be broadcast loud and clear months ahead of time
so stakeholders aren't taken by surprise. A stakeholder meeting 3 weeks prior to council hearing is an extremely
compressed time frame given the magnitude of the proposed increase.
Finally, we want to stress that these developments are going to bring diverse and energetic growth to the city.
These residential units will be filled with students, young professionals, empty nesters, and families. They will
serve as workforce housing and provide for the sensible and smart growth our local economy needs in order to
thrive and stay competitive. These are consumers who will support our existing businesses and patronize the new
commercial and retail being proposed, developed, and constructed today. Please do not hastily implement a
massive new fee increase without fully considering the necessity, appropriateness, timeliness, and economic
consequences.
We would highly recommend that a presentation to Council be delayed until such time as the developer
community has time to work with staff to resolve the above concerns.
Sincerely, /
Jerry L.Wheeler,Sr. IOM
President/CEO
2134 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P: (714) 536-8888 F. (714) 960-7654
389
'f//' //t-
f ucrUN - V12,6112--
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on Monday, May 7, 2012, at 6:00 p.m. in the City
Council Chambers, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, the City Council will hold a
public hearing on the following :
ADOPTION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES RESOLUTION AND ADOPTION
OF ORDINANCES ESTABLISHING CHAPTERS OF THE HUNTINGTON BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE (HBMC) REGARDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
(Traffic, Drainage. Library, Law Enforcement, Fire Suppression, Meeting
Facilities, Parkland and General Provisions): The City Council will consider the
adoption of a fee resolution modifying the Fair Share Traffic Impact fee (HBMC.
17.65), the Drainage fee (HBMC 17.78), the Library Development fee (HBMC
17,67) and the adoption of the nexus report and a comprehensive Master Facilities
Plan. In addition, the City Council will consider the adoption of ordinances
establishing HBMC chapters, Library Development Fee (HBMC 17.67), General
Provisions for Development Impact Fees (HBMC 17.73), Fire Suppression Facilities
Fee (HBMC 17.74), Law Enforcement Facilities Fee (HBMC 17.75), Park
Land/Open Space Acquisition Impact Fee (HBMC 17.76), Public Meeting Facilities
Fee (HBMC 17.77). and Drainage (HBMC 17.78). The proposed ordinances will
repeal existing HBMC Chapters 14.48 (Drainage) and 17.66 (Library Development
Fee). The proposed revisions to the existing fees and establishment of new fees
are supported by the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report
prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialist, L.L.C. dated October 2011. The nexus
report includes a comprehensive Master Facilities Plan of capital needs and
acquisitions based upon the growth anticipated under the City's adopted General
Plan.
ON FILE: A copy of the proposed request and supporting materials is on file in the
Planning and Building Department, 2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, California
92648, for inspection by the public. A copy of the staff report will be available to
interested parties at the City Clerk's Office on Thursday, May 3, 2012.
ALL INTERESTED PERSONS are invited to attend said hearing and express opinions or
submit evidence for or against the application as outlined above. If you challenge the
City Council's action in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or
someone else raised at the public hearing described in this notice, or in written
correspondence delivered to the City at, or prior to, the public hearing. If there are any
further questions please call the Planning and Building Department at (714) 536-5271
and refer to the above items. Direct your written communications to the City Clerk
Joan L. Flynn, City Clerk
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street, 2"tl Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
714-536-5227
htto://huntingtonbeachca.gov/HBPublicComments/
390
CI1�1iJl�
a- - .. : .Printed by.0602 Pablcia Gamin Apr 19,2012,1132 am .,=
�, � Sdeperaon: I- R�
_ - �,l Phone: Ad C.l39S9143 i I�EYwraF f
s (714)SM-5227 - det6 04-28-12^ -- SIZe Ili 140.340
-Iry City Of Huntington Beach(Parent) 3 '}deie 05-03-12 y 14.00 TCN htalf
(1F6ss: .PO Box'784 2 �
Huntington Beac,CA 92648 ", &Legal Huntington Beach A' Liner
e,l�by 0802 Patrtba Gaminto
ay T000070479.' 13000-Legal Notices 610 9'p�!(ea''t: $213.50
TCN HBI Net '� $213.50
r `rC 1t City Of Huntington Beach-Clerk's O $213 50
Patty Psparza 1 Y .,;. '
(714)374-1557
1 1 'f { Tom._ �_.._.i=�-'f^.��� �1.:� ��-..���-�.�.�— •AWar�w,(H e1Dee -n ',.• ^
Ad Copy:
Nona of Kw EOMmt6
6902E fit 07Y C01N101
OF T1N
QFY OF NUNIINGTON
6G0f
NOTICE IS HEREBY
GIVEN that on Monday,
May 1, 2012. at 6:00
p.m. in the City Council
Chambers, 2000 Main
Street, Huntington
Beach. the City Council
will hold a public hearing
on the fallowing:
ADOPTION OF DEVEL-
OPMENT IMPACT FEES
RESOLUTION AND
ADOPTION OF ORDI_
NANCES ESTABLISHING
CHAPTERS OF THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE
(HRMC) REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES(Treffte,Dmleag.,
IIGary Lew Eeferm-
m e t,lie.Seppor"'Jerr,
It Feellltl.a,
Parldamd a.d Gwd
Preelslensk The City
Council will consider the
adoption of a toe reso
Witch modifying the Fair
Share Traffic Impact fee
(HBMC 17.65). the
Drainage fee (HBMC
17.I9). the Library
Development fee(HBMC
17.67) and the adoption
of Me neaus report and
a om cprehomwe Mester
Facilities Plan. In addi.
Loa,Me City Coursed will
consider Me adoption of
ordinances establishing
HBMC chapters; Library
Development Fee(HBMC
17.67). General Provi
signs for Developmant
Impact Fees (HBMC
17.73). Fire Suppression
Facilities Fee (HBMC
17.74). Law Enforce-
ment Facilities Fee
(HBMC IY.75), Park
Land/Open Space Ac.
quisition Impact Fee
(HBMC 17.76). Public
Meeting Facilities Fee
ad prool pg.I --
391
1 V
k,ADVEUT
PNBIIE br 0602 PaMda 6aeNITo _Apr 19,2012.11:72 am
r SSSalesperson: non Au— al
AE0369591
(HBMC 17.77). and
Drainage (HBMC 1779).
The proposed ordinances
will repeal existing
HBMC Chapters 14.48
(Drainage) and 17,66
(Library Development
Fee). The proposed
revivoos to the existing
lees and establishment
of new lees we sup-
ported by the Develop.
meet Impact Fee Cal-
culation and Nexus
R.port prepared by
Revenue A, Cost Spe-
cialist. L.L.C. dated
October 2011.The nexus
report includes a
cu.-Master Fa
cililies Plan of capital
needs and acquisitions
based upon the growth
anticipated under the
City'$ adopted General
Plan.
ON Fab A copy of the
proposed request and
supporting materials is
on file in the Planning
and Building Depart
mart,2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach. Cali
form& 92648, for in
speclbn by the public.
A copy of the staff
report will be available
to interested parties at
the City Clerk's Office
an Thursday. May 3.
2012,
ALL INTERESTED PER-
SONS are invited to
a send said hearing and
:.press opinions or
submit evidence for or
against the application
as outlined above.II you
challenge the City
Councirs M11p0 in cop it.
you may be limited to
raising only those issues
you or someone else
raised at the public
hearing described in this
notice, or in written
correspondence deliv
eyed to the City at, or
prim to, the public
hearing. II there we any
further questions please
call the Planning and
Building Department at .
(714) 536-5271 and
refer to the above Items.
Direct your written
communications to the
City Clark
lean L.Flynn,Cl I Clerk
Cty of Huntington arse
2000 Main Street.2nd
Floor
Huntington Beach.Cali-
fornia 92648
714-536-5227
httpl/1wrdbrQtmbeach
wywh4Pub6eCmrmenW
Published H.B.Indianan-
dent April 16,2012
-- ad proof pg.2 ---
392
09f9/09154 niaAV 39Ae alggeowoa ww 19 x ww gZ lewo;9p 9panom
0919/09190 7dany gtirA algpedwoo ,o/c i x„t azis lagel
Jim Ivory Pat Helgeson DCO Beach Walk LLC
Sares-Regis Group Province Group 1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200
18825 Bardeen Avenue 1601 Dove Street, Suite 250 Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
Irvine, CA 92612 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Jerry Moffatt losie McKinley Jerry Wheeler
Rainbow Environmental Services Poseidon Resources HB Chamber of Commerce
17121 Nichols Street 17011 Beach Blvd, #900 2134 Main Street, Suite 100
Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Brian Starr Dave Stefanides President
Building Industry Assoc. of So. Calif. Orange County Assoc. of Realtors Huntington Beach Tomorrow
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170 25552 La Paz Road PO Box 865
Irvine, CA 92614 Laguna Hills, CA 92553 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Ben Brosseau Consulting, Inc. David J. Nagel Thomas E. Schiff
15149 Camarillo Street Decron Properties Decron Properties
Sherman Oaks, CA 91403 6222 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400 6222 Wilshire Blvd., Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90048 Los Angeles, CA 90048
Ryan Mordahl Morrie Golcheh Steve Sheldon
Global Premier Development, Inc. Progressive Real Estate Sheldon Group Consulting
2010 Main Street, Suite 1250 10537 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 350 901 Dove Street, Suite 140
Irvine, CA 92614 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Thomas G. Grable Jeff Rulon Raymond Dorame
Tri Point Homes, LLC Christopher Homes Master Craft Homes Group
20201 SW Birch St., Suite 10O 19 Corporate Plaza Drive 1401 Quail Street, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660 Newport Beach, CA 92660
Jeff Bergsma Robert Reid Michael Adams
Team Design 7572 Warner Avenue Michael Adams Associates
221 Main Street, Suite S Huntington Beach, CA 92647 21190 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Janette T. Ditkowsky Huntington beach No. 1 Chaim Elkoby
Freeway Industrial Park 2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3040 Crescent Heights
2032 La Colina Drive Santa Monica, CA 90405 2200 Biscayne Blvd.
Santa Ana, CA 92705 Miami, FL 33137
Becky Sullivan Mark Faulkner Alex Wong
DJM Development Partners Grey Star Development Red Oak Investments
922 Laguna Street 2139 Meriweather Court 2101 Business Center Drive, Suite 230
Santa Barbara, CA 93101 Walnut Creek, CA 94596 Irvine, CA 92612
Sarah Klaustermeier BijanSassounian John Trommald
Archstone Beach Promenade Bayview HB, LLC
3 MacArthur Place,Suite 600 21190 Beach Boulevard 13912 Seal Beach Boulevard
Santa Ana, CA 92707 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Seal Beach, CA,90740
�/7/12 label size 1-x 2 5/8"compatible with Awry 165160/8160
ttiouene de format 25 mm x 67 mm comoatible avec Avcry 05i60/9i 60 393
0918/0919Z AAAV cane algpedwoc ww 19 x ww cE iewiol ap auanbna
09t9/091ce AJ;AV.grlrn algeedwoc,9/c Z x,t azls lapel Om
Joe Diachendt Milad Queijan . Shawn Millbern
300 Pacific Coast Highway,#119 8031 Main Street, Unit B 8951 Research Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Stanton, CA 96680 Irvine, CA 92618
Todd Schmieder Martin Potts David Oddo
701 N. Parkcenter Drive MPA, Inc. 815 Main Street
Santa Ana, CA 92705 4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 375 Huntington Beach,CA 92648
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Rick Polhamus Rick Hill
19802 Sea Canyon Circle Urban Infill Properties, Inc.
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 345 University Drive, Suite E-3
Costa Mesa, CA 92627
John Vander Velde Holly Fredensburg
Shea Homes 16072 Gothard St
1250 Corona Pointe Ct., Suite 600 Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Corona, CA 92879
Dave Oddo Robert Corona Van Herk
815 Main Street 2204 Pacific Coast Highway 3194 Haiti Circle
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Huntington Beach, CA 92648 Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Bruce Roeland Scott Goodman Myles Const
1720 Pacific Coast Highway#201 Goodman Development 9569 Albacore Ave
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 17032 Palmdale Lane Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Maddox Const D'Ambra Kevin Kelter
Maddox Const D'Ambra Inc. 1616 Pacific Coast Highway
14736 Beach Blvd 7752 Warner Ave Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Westminster, CA 92683 Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Bob Reed Marty Sunday Johnson Bros
RW Reed 16402 Gothard St#B 730 14th Street
419 Main Street#289 Huntington Beach,CA 92647 Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Bill Teflon RJ Murphy
2233 Calle Leon 6781 Defiance Drive
West Covina, CA 91792 Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Dick Harlow -/7
1742 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
394
label size 1"x 2 5/8"compatible with Avery°5 6018160
'1 ' bimia;te rip.tnrmat 25 ram x 67 mm comoatibia avec A'very agi6D/6 i60
Development Impact Fee Study
and Nexus Report
City Council Meeting
^z Monday, May 7, 2012
Background
• This process began in 2009 as a result of various
presentations to City Council regarding the increasing
Q need for Capital Improvements to respond to
:1� development in Huntington Beach.
• Staff was given direction to identify funding sources to
move Heil Fire Station, address other public safety needs
and make park improvements to accommodate projected
development.
• There were numerous complaints by developers regarding
perceived excessive park fees for Condos and Single
Family Homes.
This report prepared by Revenue & Cost Specialists
addresses those issues.
COMMUNICATION
rwee+lr+o Date: 5-/7//,;L,
AgW42 Item No.
395
Background 0
• Development Impact fees are one-time charges applied
y.: to offset additional public-service costs of new
r' development
=3" The amount of the proposed fee must be clearly linked
to the added service cost (required by the Mitigation Fee
Act):
• Need demonstrated by Master Facilities Plan
(October 2011, amended April 2012)
• Nexus established by Development Impact Fee
Calculation and Nexus Report (October 2011,
amended April 2012)
' s
Chronology
• Received October 2011 report -November 2011
Y • Distributed reports to Council—December 2011
r.f • Initial meeting with BIA and Chamber of Commerce—December 2011
Study Session—January 17, 2012
} • Notice on City counters, posted reports to website, mailed notices to
stakeholders—February 2012
• Stakeholder meeting with Developers—March 13, 2012
• Chamber of Commerce legislative Committee—March 28, 2012
• Follow up meetings, letters to stakeholders—March and April 2012
• Public hearing notice distributed—April 19, 2012
• Received April 2012 revised report—April 27, 2012
• Agendized for Council Meeting May 7, 2012
2
396
Report Content 0
• The Development Impact Fee Report contemplates 2 new
�. fees:
¢,3 . Police
• Fire
• Update of existing fees:
• Traffic
• library
• Park Land/Open Space
• Fees collected under the Subdivision Map Act will be
addressed separately at a later date:
• Quimby (Park Land/Open Space with Tract Map)
• Storm Drainage
Amended Report
• April 27, 2012: Nexus report (October 2011) amended to
consolidate Park Land Open Space Fee (Chapter 8) and
��. Public Meeting Facilities Fee (Chapter 9)
Due to additional costs associated with the accounting,
collection and state mandated tracking
• Additionally, a calculation error in the Master Facilities Plan
was corrected on pages 1-3, 57, 58, 71, and 78
3
397
Recommendation 0
• The maximum Development Impact Fees are identified in
the Development Impact fee Calculation and Nexus
Report on page 26,table 2.1
k n Staff does not recommend full implementation of the
maximum new fees for residential units, but rather a
phase-in over 3 years up to 90%of the maximum new
fees collected
• Note: Modification of fees for Storm Drainage and
Quimby (Park Land/Open Space & Facilities with Tract
Map), fall under the Subdivision Map Act and will be
addressed at a later date
Proposed Fees
4
398
Development Impact Fees
(Effective 7/20/2012) 0
Circulation Part and/
System Open Space
'ur: taw Fire (Streets, Public &Facilities
Enforcement Suppresswn Signals, Uti (No Traci
Land Use Facilities' Facllnies' Bridges)' Facilities Map)'
rp. Detached Dwelling Units(per Unit) S277 $645 S7 737 $1,172 $12,500
Attached Dwelling Units leer Unit) $571 5267 $1,220 $908 59,685
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(per
Unn) S2S8 51,108 5909 5733 $7,818
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units(per
Unit) 54SS 5356 51,062 No Fee 5459
Resort Lodging Units(per Unit) $532 $794 Sl,$38 No Fee $359
Commercial/Office Uses(Per sq.ft.) 51.O41 $0.329 Sa,175 No Fee 50.954
Inous:rial/Manufacturing Uses(per
sq.ft.) 50.443 $0.030 $1.789 No Fee $0772
'Represents 70%of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development
Impact Fee Calculation and News Report,October 2011 (Amended April 27,2012)
•�uua ].� iAtiY rmr CPI CS Y..�pl R-�T L
wa{Y' t
Of 0 N]>S➢ f ��]I
c nz',sYn is
w> s
m o s_u uan .m.
0 . tYY II iVtl .4an
y 1 i11�<' fm•
ltl
f •�' _ •. � of n \Yw ,\ xu ��an
Ig a os : \Y �\ tip m�a
wYn�ltlrY �®I
vri o aai wY i .uw ®•
] sad .i o n�sYY s .oac Ih owe
�9ti a-o ..Y. is ]%1:. Inlda
wyp �®♦
—_ en•z ,
'••' an ^� nxs YYs eao Isam
` - 7. est o swy �s vmr. Inm
s Ydvwv v .mn mmo•
Is
y i\ �Ln ra
OS _ S_dIM r!
LS LIi{YY \ . tlttl
inw
5
399
Development Impact Fees
(Effective 7/20/2013) 0
Circulation parkland/
System Open 5pace
U. Fire (Streets, Public &Facilities
p, Enforcemem Suppression Signals, library (No Tract
y land Use Faculties' Facilities. Bridges)' Facilities Map)'
t ..,.
Detached Dwelling Units(per Unit) $317 $738 S1,986 $1,172 $14,286
Attached Dwelling Units(per Unit( $6S2 $306 51,395 $908 51068
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(per
Unit) $295 $1.266 $1,039 S733 S8,935
HoteVMotel lodging Units(per
Unit) 5455 5356 $1,062 No Fee $459
Reson lodging Units(per Una( S532 5794 $1,538 No Fee $359
Commercial/Office Uses(per sq.ft.) $1.041 $0.329 S4.17S No Fee 50,954
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses(per
sq,fl.( S0.443 50.030 S1.789 No Fee $0.772
-Represents M of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development
Impact Fee Calculation and Neaus Report,Water 2011 (Amended April 27.2012)
/4sf MM Ir.raw tlmsY 4e�I fatlT W V.L
"'�° end 1i osl Ya't sra itY
11
n+l\r.n It taY 1.iN+
�. fflll.TYtRI a]\
M.
•�• a. 0 1a\tY +snn ln�
oa •.om a� .m.
_ wY I! flea nAIY
rL� 0 n as
__ O Wat'YYt ],OOZY Y
4OO wY 1 .IIY
W]t '
aat ID� rJ Oy 9:L YY .OIU ntlO
__ _
p-0Y
!W
OY inN t tIIIW n®
]a ry t ]aIDn
�a \Yr , umm wAae
@f of o> s In®•
- Im]c �naa
� tim
6
400
Development Impact Fees
(Effective 7/20/2014)
Circulation park Land/
System Open Space
Law Fire (Streets, public 8 Facilities
Enforcement Suppression Signa6, Ubrary (No Tract
land Use Facilities' Facilities' Bridges)' Faclhies Map('
Detached Dweeing Units(per Unit( 5356 5830 $2,226 51,172 516,O71
Attached Dwelling Units(per Unit( $734 $344 $1,553 $908 $12,452
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(per
Una) 5332 51,425 $1,165 5733 510,052
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units(per
Unit) 5455 $356 51,O62 No Fee $459
Resort Lodging Units(per Unit) 5532 $794 51,538 No Fee $359
Commercial/Office Uses(per s9.h.) $1.041 $0.329 54.175 No Fee 5O.954
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses(per
sc.C.) 50,443 50.030 $1.789 No Fee 50.772
'Represenss 90%of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development
Impact Fee Calculation and Nesus Report,October 2011 (Amended Apr4 27.2012)
pel \�yILY�,aY�,r�.P wPm\Y6
\)d Iti .5 Yf\YY I
ril cs is'.l\wv I\ i-7- •u.
IIWNSi Ipn W
.Jil wY if 1y1.+]�
�n cs .9s wY is svm
sr -
•`4" �ed oi� nos wY s +
v vd cat mats y •s +q a "t ..
,yam vssm
• .n co os wa. �Ioze
ror p_
M M wY i lM!
IT .t0 MJr �\
ti+ is CS tit wY \ W9 •:t TL✓
+.r.rt.nr •en y+)ry
`�.✓ .�pJI MY \
s c aii wYn enm
'n^0' vq a Y v e>max
\�' yi\wY �s :tact �h®✓
wds wv a
.i o Yse wYn Ixm Imo.•
sv +mjl wY ,s umm i
d +>+JswY Is +y.f .
ww
jsews. 1s +rat.' 1.":—
�K'+ wm •j p3 T] \MY I\ t)lUC
7
401
t
Current vs. Proposed
Agency Comparables
Agency Comparables
lnw Fnforceme)rt Fvnlities
Mn
f.l. Cv�ml lnttlm leen.e IRrtM IP�I+wn r..+seR e�,w.+t
/M/:) i/A/)3 ]/)0I11 lyNnn i.uMr.l OrWe le.nr (p.W..l
•ice Un.[Nl0..IIN Vnnlcx Vnrtl No I- S:]] S):) $3% No ht S "I STi] No lx Wfx
�i`=f� nNVr.0 WNVN UXV IN VmV $]]I k]] $)3. Refx S 623 13 Na lx No
MeN.Wm.R:.IIN.nu IM UnI) No 1n S:5! SI9] f33) n S 3tl Nu lx Nefx No
WtWMaellw{rn{UnrU ln�'Jrv11 Mofx H55 HS] H55 NO he S )X $0311N No l.. Xefx
Y+YtLCO{M U.M1flnt Until No $])) S]3] $]ll tie ix Mefn
pen m.rMS'Q]]N.'JntlHr p.R.l Na In S)d: SILL: Si.MI No In 50.{l%1 $R)1 No Win
IMWnWWn�f.pum{Urtln�p.R.l WIx $(I Y3 $C w3 $ W No S 61f16 $0)1 Wtn Nofx
Fire Suppression F cilities
w�.n.m INW.
Lme-t I YZ tR.aM fM1are 1°I.wu� n..NorL YtWa.
>/XVI )/}till ])AYH NnMeim le+wNl D.M. YW. Lvnp+..l
pamyp�UM.In.Untl WIx $ S $)3{ MM WIn 53.)H $1. Nolx SHit
uum.e p..YNVnrtL len untl WIn $xf] S. $Sn x SiXi SIG) No In $[m
Wen Nenv 0.ePay V Wt(Hr Urpl No In SLIM S'.1C6 Slf)] No. S]..H MC Ix N.lx 569
—1~.Lm{N Uxn 11 unU x S3M S3 S3 bIn S l SH] Nnlx Wal
4�M 1<MNVIw I]n VNI WIn $T. $n. $T. 'n fx No f.. S/m
p4
Cpnm.rtuVV]te VtnlYrp!tl WI..
♦NNN
W uu+uU4Nw'xtvN Untlpr p.Rl WIn $Q030 NVD] $0UD Mfn So.:H L']) Nefx eN
8
402
Agency Comparables
Omolatipn SV;trrrI Pee
w.•�, tNw.
cv,em (F•C+w (Rees,. en.aam Iwurwr� M..Fm enure•
fee )/}dl} )/}p/ll ]/]!r/1. ne.n In•nfbl d•q• Y.tlr Cmgerl
�' ` dunwao..6,4 W.nlonunU 51.50} SLn, SLM WA L$1.1a S3.119 SY9 S}R. SUit
_ ♦r�. o.eLvi9 umml ,Um1 51 51 S1395 SLM3 SL31. H3o) 5. sum SJ
MWeFome P.•diy VnN IGn UmI $[44 $q SL 51.34$ SL',a
^s We•I[eiry Uvnalw Vmp 514 SL S1SQ SLW SL $91] SL993 SLQS
9ewr:oge4 ueo lw,uml S1a9' SLSL SL . SLS. SLI 5LL33 5.Y3
(a nnnoY/Uly Uvr IPrq RI Ss_M H 1R S..]R H.115 WX H335 $..M$]$9Nn1 $5.]0
hlumuyWnu!aeam.UM it R1 S, 5:-1. 1:1n SLm S12M $2.93G $cn 59.9Mn SLsm
Public bbm PoNlties
Li•n•.vv IlMmx•
C.n l lnntw $nMm IR•tinwv N•vpvn Buoneu
heT 1f'•rUw J ll ] 1 ) d. • Y Cam •
Ytulr•a R.•IWrS unU lM,un,11 SOURi SLI)i S:.IIi 5L3]} Mr•.• W, $743 Mi.• Mol••
Ln.nva 0—"um•1—uml SC uAF S. S. 59 xa l•• H.1 Snl ra le• Ma I.
IbmeM U.IT.1 %.^, $)1[ Snl SW Ma h• H41 Nor.• MO In bI-
,MwMa[w1N{ryUn.",Unnl %MAI xa lx xa I— Na M• WI" Ia 1" 9, .• MI•• I.
IMVIlaC4,ry Ur,"I UW) $SYRi Xai•. Na in Ma lw r Na le• brae Mr•.
(pn,ni•a•V01k.Ufn lo-rw Rl $LYRI ..I- My I- e x Na I- Ma lw a ee M1a I— blw
wMeW3uwwuryV+n lw„a'r150 MA I Nvl•e xafr Ma«e Wrx xa I— Ne I— na I- bFn
Agency Comparables
Park Land/Open Space(No Tma
Map)
'i' Ln.lm.m (Iun
A..•r 4v..n, 1n 12 ImfM IRM.r I11 NeWu1 6+unn
;..F�, r•• )lrcly 1rm,:3 ]i}w:. .wr•.,.],.•0•1 o-r. Yap dma•n
fle[.NNDu•Ln9 Urinlxe U,rt1 5045I slzN SI.SK s"All 91" 5111. SL/M S%.ln
Ln�'Rea DwYi{Um•IY Unnl Sc M53 59b 51:D S:},.S} SSJ S611. 56A4 521.16
MabY nano DwViUV IWUN •bre• $]AI• HA19 $:QOS} H,1.91b 1.• .... 1M f•e
rMNNb••Ite]M(uM•(M.Uml wlw H59 Hs9 Hif MI.e Nor.• Xalw Mal•. w•I�
.etYl loq.'{Urvnlwr UMl Sc oar S359 $359 HN Fa l•• I.e Na f.. No i.e • wL
CwnmrnY/O.Tv'JvflNrq R.) 50]5Rr $U 9L $195. $095. Mare: Mo 4. NO rw F I- oeq•
eAw
iiqumuy,x•n�meum4Vr.c^wR_I5013Rr $11))E $(I))} y))} Mo ix xa nee Fa rw No l.e rt•
9
403
Implementation & Applicability
Current
v: Fees collected at Building Permit Issuance,
:_
except Quimby Fees
Recommendation
• Fees due at Building Final or Certificate of
Occupancy
Projects in the Works
Projects are "grandfathered" under current fee structure if:
Entitled by June 4, 2012 (zoning entitlement approval—CUP,
SPR,Variances, etc.)
Submit approved application for building permits within 190
days of fees going into effect (no later than 1/20/2013)
Continued progress toward satisfying plan check comments
Building permits issued within 360 days of fees going into
effect(no late than 7/20/2013)
Exception:Outside 3rd party regulatory agency involvement
may allow for an extension of this provision
10
404
All New Projects
• Subject to new fees 60 days from date of the 2nd reading
w; . (7/20/12)
Phased Implementation of Law Enforcement, Fire
Suppression,Circulation and Park Facilities Fee (for Detached,
Attached,&Mobile Home Residential units)
• 70% Implementation beginning 7/20/12
• 80% Implementation beginning 7/20/13
• 90% Implementation beginning 7/20/14
• 100% implementation of all other fees beginning 7/20/12
(for all Non-Residential Developments, and full implementation of Public
Library fee for all)
Example Project Scenarios
405
Project# 1
200 Unit Apartment Complex
' kurram:city pl )p3L Box 9p%
Noa,), bn BCS Maaus bpWt: 7/20mye 11NVM1 I/"I
iBea6 I1O01{1 )/2Na112) )RW2D131 )/20/]011)
a w:
• A
Law Enbrwmant F.W,tnr No ha $lu,W0 S 1I1,2W $lA4W $116,800
1
Fin Spppraalon hulrtwr %.Pae 5)6,1JD $53,aW $61,20J $W.BW
I
G¢uS:bn Syat+m.IStmts,
SYn+le Bnaenj1 $211.6W 5 331,.W $211,0]J S 278,916 $312,02
1
Plbk Library hdL:ias $0:810 S lsl,EW $:81.6W 5 181,6W $18:f,W
P.M1 Lana/
Own Sp+te 1wu�mon B
emaewemanb ii $159,960 I $2J67,D00 1 :937,D00 $2,2:3.60D 5 2.19p,10t1
per+bpnvntlmWC he
LovLPigeR' $153,1W $3,519,1W $2.530,170 $1,065.]l6 $3,200,292
'Total peas not Im1we Stom pnrtu8a Imm"fee wnkn Wralopat nay oe suojatt to
Project# 2
50 Single Family Detached
'[ m:C?y of 70% eox 90x
N--thvhao B Fwm ftp lan wa IaNamra IaNamn
_ BtpN IIWIi) 7/20/2012) 7/20/20131 ]/20/2011)
S I
I
Law Enf -ect Facl6::er No he 5:9,8m 513,86o SII.BSJ 517,BW
FW Suponssion.Facilitiar 5o far $16,1t10 532.220 536,9W $I1,SW
S".k.on Sywn(Stnm,
SgmN,Br0pal $)5,350 5134:W $66A50 $99.3W $111,3W
PLBtic L,Gary Fatil6ws SS 7J9O0 $58,600 558,600 $S8,6W 558.f
j —I
Part L../
Own$1.4cpunitgn L
InW0veman4 $1.310,0W $892,830 $625,000 S)t1,3W 5W3,55J
Dev+bomenUmwtt Faa
iwl-Prgect S1.4MIW $1,Si 1,a50 $B36,SW $924950 51,032,750
•TotalE se tIrxJN.S:Wen Dnlnap Imo fee Wnk,deyebwt may W sa0j.ctto
12
406
n
Project# 3
150 Room Hotel (200,000 SF)
:ary.1 .r.m.xd.Enr.f
nM.Q[On Nv/rtl/pNn 9e¢n
�^ n (sroal
is peo<
< p taw Enf..e ,.! No he $98.2w
Fin S.. wo.Fepl.iea No Fee $$3.4W
Ckx L:b.SyTam lSrteo,
S159.no
Puolk lbrery Fxilrt.es I $B,JW No
Pea tam/ i
tm.�wemers s w,Wo s sa.eso
Dewbpnenamwc.Fee
TcaF.roje<; $165.9W sM9. W
•Total does.rot sxlWe 5W. Dnilvly Imwct N.w.<d.evebwr
mry oe subte[t[o
Project#4
40,000 SF Commercial (Shopping Center) '
'C.m .eNr.f Pm,.res Chy-f
�er.dr floDS�l
��' law Etnonerent h[tri.r NO Fee Sa>.eeo
Fire 5...nstlon Fx9i:ies lb Fee 5 1,3,1I 0
G¢ulatbn SMem(S:rnn,
Siavlr,tYd[es) $10>,>60 $l6).DW
Puplk lidrary hctl.b $1,Wo NO Fee_
P,n tam/
own
Impoaemen:s $9.IW $381W
Je.bom.nnmwe Fee I -- —
Tal.Prgen $ISB59D $359lw
'Twal doe+nx lrclude Storm.Ora'wp Imwct he wticn devebpr
mry Ee+uEpe.:o
13
407
Summary R
Staff is recommending approval of the proposed resolution
and ordinances based upon the following reasons:
The phased-in residential per unit fee established herein
allows developers to easily calculate development
impact fees
• The fees established herein meet the City's changing
requirement for public safety, streets and signals, and
other quality of life facilities
• Allows for payment of Development Impact Fees at the
time the impact is imposed on the system, therefore
later in the development process.
v
TM Questions
ti
14
408
-
2
�� O a 'f m-s apS pC o m -°_- im m co�o=._.J_ m>`• u .. dQ-y d';r° `oL d .,° u cm oyc
caoa'rH'"-
pp
O� Yvw e06p0< 2�W 'i .• � Ein� .. �' n ° `v m� m^ P-. r�1O au�^f mm c `' _ oLm
d�o�_mvi °�VN c� n_2EFzW W�V�YeE56a. r�o'a_om;bocf p-�Vs c��E of c�cE..LL.. °-foa.". ° On E=d U~_ --'
a
O �� y6 Wp6U6�-UJ O.�i �eV
rE 2
'nm ns o`
zOe iwE cc�v�o3<<OKfi VZ£ZCao4 i'.u.`o __x Aso _- aora s.:.E�' - .f zeti,p = Ec - `co+2 a'Z _
cn — a ro iv = ro c -O a> -O -0 >1 (1)
C: � -C O C: cocc --'
N c N o Q ro c (Zco CO
^ ro aJ tq C O W -0 D � O C O a) .
N O
m 7 IS1 CV Oro .`-. a) N CM
66 ® (n NO C C O N 2 Q co _ N d ro '� c
O cc Z o m ro U N N U 0 '- _0 r c 0
0 Q c0cN � 3 � roQrororo3 'C NT = o
r o a) r
O U J O mc � ro CL L � N � _ o ctOvw O
N c6
c o o c ro 3 �rn roi Cp O Q a o — M U
68. LL. O O a) cep cEp Z Z p Cn ((0 -
-C-. L a s a L i
C L 0 O W N � C
LJJ ~ '� O L ro N Z O ate .-- ro 'O O N cc m >.�
Z ro C > a L — [L p_ E ,- ai a) - N N ,= OU
Q = o ro .N Z UJ N m L) Q.N 7 7 N QT7
Q E — 0 3 n c ro E a
H ro L E o � � Z m a w O c tr ca c
U — m e a t — ccn � UOQ C) n HF — 0 cu
_ per`' ama n^ ootgoc ° auNo -o��e;=
p �o TCFr° cc°iL°c°ora Ow m�m • o °~?qcc °a'-a._ws'� ce =c`rcN 9°QY=-Emu_oc o
Tc. v - arr Z_ e-c cEu c_ cl• aee�ccio_.:.,m�'^.�:�� m.:"'°
Cp _a oral mo z—o.. a >__ °oN v'a.:E,�c u`• ° - - um mu ._no�oom a - Uv'.=m- ow
�Or Y`�Cx :gig e�ooOe.p OF.. 2aw"' �` •C: _, oc -mrcooA - m^o mn C r _ on.3�F w° c � `o_' m-n _.
i W ° S _ II- N� CF y�C�•6U'au° 'Un y�O._ -Uu pEiD-onc ^•••N mc� ._ m^ _-C_°NU ate °
�OZODN m 2 E.
no w G 6` • 6 nsn °o w U 2o _ e
. c F c c c_ -_ ... b o°o �c m.J..3
oe _ `Eo o«WO �Z�W� ea�t E^- ^cmi�uo°Ue o ^m umu u�3m��� m`._vEna-_
t= • c� 'o off_. A uu_„ ' ��x u-o ce� o mew_ me cow : .2 cw
F TFo m F' cFe p -o cF'�F ° • beu'
oOENOZaz Wv owxc • w_ b o� wEw :¢ ='
om cz TEr 'isms r maxoom a • i_ ° mpm o°u- 'o um c°ucuc'=m .m mL -
2 zwF Comm 3.Ea Osa iv 28 s0 e.e`W'dSci.`-$nm_^ _$`oio�a Lv=�W�Jn f C6r
m - -0 O a) m C "O O 'er "O "a TN
C U L O C L O m C }'C Z)
N c N mO .� Q a) (a "' T.0 (6 M (a Y
C
^ ^ ^ N � ` COW -0 OV OHO
Q O C co 7 OCo
W cooQ a� a) m - (NprUU (�
LinO Z frt U) O C C U N ` Q 0 N d 6 _ '6 r
e V -p J O a co l3 U N V L p - N C
U. T.m c cLi tl (' m 3 3 N C � r
U J C N .Q L � r m N o (D N
® O s =O O C /4 3 0 0) V O O Q t6 0 N M U Y R
® LL r 01 N O
OC O O O) O E ` YL -c oL. l�v` -0N (a LCa) ZZ (O CQLL C m C CU
W .S
~ � � � aZano. W -0 0 w.
Q -OO E (a � Z � 3 ac >1 E � 7 7 N Q'0 a
(n U m E Ea c a= Z ccn �iU0 < o a H H U 0CES LL
suC;ry CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE
2000 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648
BOB HALL, DEPUTY CITY MANAGER
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager CZ
CC: Fred Wilson, City Manager
Joan Flynn, City Clerk
DATE: May 7, 2012
SUBJECT: Supplemental Communication: #9 Public Hearing regarding Development
Impact Fees
Staff is recommending the following amendment to Resolution 2012-23:
This change would allow for a project having received discretionary approvals to be
grandfathered under the current fee structure. The staff report calls for that date to be
May 7, 2012. Staff is recommending this date be changed to June 4, 2012.
Attached is a copy of the revised page (pg. 3) of the Fee Resolution located under
Attachment #1 of the Development Fee Impact Agenda Item. This can also be found on
page HB-147 of your agenda packet.
Current language: "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 May 7, 2012, and the following milestones are met..."
Proposed language: "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 4, 2012, and the following milestones are met..."
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Moo*g Date: .1 /ZaS
Agenda Item No.
411
Resolution No.2012-23
4. Consistency with General Plan. The City Council finds that the public facilities i
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 policiesl
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 findy Zatthepublic
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/he City. To the extent
that other fees imposed and collected by the City, including Specif 5A Ian fees, are used to fund
the construction of the same public facilities identified in the resp/ective 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 no/defined as a "project" under CEQA.
7. Adoption of Report. TJ e Nexus Report as amended April 27, 2012, including
Appendices, is hereby adopted.
S. 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 IN-lay
7, 2012 and the following milestones are met: ---------..._.-
I. Project has/•submitted an approved application for building permits within 180
days after the fee going into effect or no later than January 20. 2013.
2. From he time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued
progress toward satisfying plan check comments.
3. Building Permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect. no later
than July 20, 2013.
An exception to 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 eveloper receives clearance from hat agency. The City Manager shall have the
authority to extend milestone dates for qualifying "grand fathered" projects in his sole discretion.
All other projects are subject to the new fees, which go into effect July 20, 2012. 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.
( M1T
t
12-3209.000l79289
412
C)
HUNTINGTON BEACH
Chamberof Commerce
May 4, 2012
Mayor Don Hansen & Members of City Council
RE: Proposed New Development Impact Fees
Dear Mayor Hanson and members of the City Council:
The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce appreciates the amount of time and effort the City has
invested in proposing a new development impact fee structure. We understand the economic
challenges currently facing the City and the need for additional revenues. However, as an organization
representing the business community, we have concerns that raising development fees under the
current proposal without examining thoroughly all the components may actually be counterproductive.
The City has spent a considerable amount of time attempting to encourage new development with the
adoption of the Beach/Edinger Corridor Plan and has amended the Downtown Specific Plans as well.
Any changes at this time will certainly create the need to reevaluate any pending proposals, and may
jeopardize the various projects viability. The Chamber believes it is important to balance and anticipate
the consequences of the proposed increase of development impact fees along with a reevaluation of the
process of reviewing project applications.Without this, we are asked to pay an increase in fees without
improvements to the current way of doing business.
The Chamber appreciates the opportunity to participate in this important proposal. We believe that the
modifications proposed by staff to allow some grandfathering and a phasing in of the proposed new fees
as a great first step.
But we are also concerned about the potential impact these fees will have on future lodging
development and our tourism industry. Anything that could impact the revenue stream we receive from
our hospitality industry goes well beyond the impact fee and should be examined closely before any
implementation.
Beyond the issue of development fees, the existing City project review process remains time consuming
and expensive and can be overwhelming for many developers. To propose a continuation of the existing
review process without any streamlining provisions and at a greater expense seems inconsistent with
previous Council efforts.
The Huntington Beach Chamber of Commerce requests Council to continue discussion on this item for at
least thirty days in order to provide all parties with additional opportunities to discuss our detailed
concerns and collectively propose a better package for your approval.
Thank you, SUPPLEMENTAL
�Z �/� COMMUNICATION
Jerry L. Wheeler, Sr.fIOM Mft Dole:_ 7
President/CEO AgenU"ern No—�_
2134 Main Street, Huntington Beach, CA 92648 P: (714) 536-8888 F: (714) 960-7654
413
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
May 4, 2012 Mtie*V Date'
qMayor Don Hansen and Members of the City Council AQM1da Wn NO.
City of Huntington Beach Orange County
2000 Main Street Chapter
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
o.`fou:nvn C,hlmm:.
Re: Public Hearing Agenda Item 9—Development Impact Fee Revisions
Mayor Don Hansen and Members of the City Council: v74a Sky Park ade
SuBe 170
lry ,Udom,a 92614
I am writing on behalf of the members of the Building Industry Association of Southern 949.553,9500
fax 949.S53.9507
Califomia, Orange County Chapter(BIA/OC) to address the proposed revisions to the « «
ewh°mttmrtch mn
City's development impact fees. As a key stakeholder on issues related to housing and
community development, BIA/OC has been closely engaged on this issue. Our members
appreciate the opportunity to offer our perspectives to the proposals being considered by
your city council.
We begin by acknowledging the hard work of the City's fine professional staff. BIA/OC is PREsoE
grateful for transparent and thoughtful manner in which staff has approached this issue.
gAvvocn DEVEIOPYE.Y.
Our members are especially appreciative of the time and consideration city staff has KEPRE$mEN
afforded our comments and concerns. The end result, while not a panacea, allows more YiC El cc nN
C.ALYAR DE VEIOPYE M
flexibility in implementation of the new fee structure. tiEPREv E n
CnmS-° s
PUl iE DRDUP
Certainly a fee increase of this magnitude is troubling to the building industry. The
i RFI9J PERr$E[pEiI.W
potential harm to our industry is exacerbated by the prolonged malaise of housing in this CAVE BAuX.
SIANDAR0 P¢iiC nO S
harsh economic climate. Certainly government is not immune to the economic challenges
,YUEDutF.PAST vq[Sy DENt
we all face. The health of the private sector,especially the building industry, has a direct CA''ESARi:Er
BAC IEID W 9
correlation to the fiscal health of governments. For this reason, all levels of government are
i RADE COMPACTOR CUP4R YP.
looking for ways to encourage growth. Dozens of local governments have slashed iCY Ar S
. .ENIERP.g S
development fees and regulation in an attempt to spark recovery. The timing of this
L$$Op/.lE V,CE Pii:$IDEAi
particular fee increase seems to illustrate a notable disconnect between how the public wAK RmYEES*EII
�VER A DIIQN LLP
sector and private sector view our economic relationship.
uEUBERA,URGE
.CN.RO COUGIASS
R1�nCU s
Aside from the philosophical and economic issues associated with this fee increase, BIA/OC
YEYBER AT URGE
has identified a number of errors and inconsistencies in the associated nexus study. As a V. W.TER
$ARESREG,SG P
result, BiA/OC has engaged staff in an attempt to find a middle ground on the timing and
BAY"
$iAPR
implementation of the fees. Thankfully, staff has been open to many of our members' Cn EE ExECUUifh O�R,CER
414
ideas. While we acknowledge that the City's exposure caused by the nexus study may not
be fully mitigated by our collaboration,BIA/OC feels that the current staff proposal reflects
a good degree of compromise. BIA/OC supports the staff proposal to "grandfather"
projects in the development pipeline. We are also very supportive of the plan to phase
in development impact fees over a number of years.
While we remain concerned about the pressure that development fee increases place on our
industry, we are also grateful for the collaboration efforts of city staff. We look forward to
continued dialogue on this important issue and remain a resource to the city on matters
related to housing and community development. Thank you for your thoughtful
consideration.
Sincerely,
, I
Bry tarr
Chief Executive Officer
Cc: Fred Wilson, City Manager
Bob Hall, Assistant City Manager
415
*RANGI COUNTY 2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 1 Irvine, California 92614-5904
BUSINESS COUNCIL phone: 949.794.2242 1 fax: 949.478.0443 1 www.ocbc.org
May 7, 2012
i
The Honorable Don Hansen, Mayor MAY 0 7 2012
Members of the City Council Huntington Beach
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
Huntington Beach, CA 92648.
I
Re: Agenda Item 9: Revise the City's Existing Development Impact Fees - OPPOSE
Dear Mayor Hansen, Mayor Pro Tern Dwyer and Council Members:
Based in America's sixth largest county, Orange County Business Council represents the largest, most
diverse businesses, with over 2,000,000 employees worldwide. We advance Orange County's economic
prosperity while protecting a high quality of fife.
Despite signs that Orange County is beginning to emerge from the lingering recession, ongoing fiscal
challenges at the state and local level persist. Although most cities have focused their efforts on economic
growth by finding innovative incentives to encourage business investment and development, we can
understand the city's need to update its fee program. Regardless, the business community believes it is
critical that the city use sound data and realistic assumptions in order to generate fees that accurately
calculate the "fair share' for new development.
Most surprising about the proposed new and increased fees is the change in the City's vision from just one
year ago. In March of 2011, the City released its Ten Point Plan for making it easier to do business in
Huntington Beach. OCBC even honored the city with its inaugural'Red Tape into Red Carpet"awards for
its efforts to proactively cut through the red tape and open the door for business. The Ten Point Plan was
heralded as a means to help "produce more newjobs, expand the local tax base, and increase the
satisfaction of the business community in receiving the important services they need to remain successful."
Unfortunately, the process the city has followed in its Development Impact Fee update and its reliance on a
fatally flawed Nexus Report pulls the "welcome' mat out from under business.
OCBC does commend the city for its recent modifications that allow for a phasing of the proposed new fees
and some grandfathering of projects already in the development process to use the exiting fee structure.
However, the fact that the City actually had to modify its position to not increase fees on projects already
under development highlights the many problems with the current fee plan.
We would respectfully ask the City to review the proposed impact fee plan for consistency with its own Ten
Point Plan. The lack of a streamlined development process along with increased costs seems contradictory
to the City's stated commitment to 'assist businesses in order for them to grow and prosper.'
Please consider a modest delay of 30 to 60 days to examine the financial feasibility of a longer fee phase -
in period and to allow further analysis on the Nexus Report to ensure its compliance with appropriate
technical studies and an accurate fee calculation that reflects sound assumptions and calculations.
Sincerely, SUPPLEMENTAL
AoA� COMMUNICATION
Kate Klimow Date
Vice President, Government Affairs '
CC: Fred Wilson, City Manager Agerda Item No.
SHAPING ORANGE COUNTYS ECONOMIC FUTURE
416
Z a5k 8Y1 ZtOZ LO XeW
RUTAN &TUCKER, LLP
Attorneys at Law
611 Anton Boulevard, 14th Floor
Costa Mesa California 92626-1931
Mailing Address: Post Office Box 1950, Costa Mesa, California 92628-1950
Telephone: 714.641.5100 Facsimile 714.546.9035
FACSIMILE 'TRANSMISSION
DATE: May 7, 2012
To: Hard Copy to Follow via Mail: NO
NAvF F.Ax No. PHONE No.
Honorable Mavor and Members of the City Council (714) 374-1557 (714) 536-5227
c/o City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach
Mr. Fred Wilson, City Manager (714) 536-5233 (714) 536-5575
City of Huntington Beach
FROM: John A. Ramirez - 1032
RE: Attached Letter of Even Date
CLIEN TPVSATTER N'o.: 026565-0004 Nu%aER OF PAGES. INCLUDING COS-R: 3
MESSAGE:
THE ANFORA1AT10N CONTAINED IN TEES FACSIML.E Iv1ESSAGE IS INTENDED FOR THE USE OF THE LNDrVIDUAL OR ENTITY TO
w1,TCH IT IS ADDRESSED,AND MAY CONTAIN D:FORNIATION THAT IS PRIVILEGED AND CONFIDENTIAL. IF THE READER OF THIS
',ESSAGE IS NOT THE L.i'ENDED RECIPIENT OR AGENT RESPONSIBLE TO DELIVER THE MESSAGE TO THE INTENDED RECIPMNT,
YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFIED THAT ANY DISSENM;ATION, DISTRIBUTION OR COPYING OF THIS COMMUMC.ATION IS STRICTLY
PROHI9=. D YOU HAVE RECEIVED THIS COMMUNICATION IN ERROR; PLEASE NOTIFY US IMMEDIATELY BY TELEPHONE
AND RETURN THE ORIGINAL MESSAGE TO US.AT THE ABOVE.ADDRESS VL-1 THE U.S.POSTAL SERVICE. TRAM'};YOU.
If then-we problems receiving[his Fax Transmittal please call 714.64 1.5 100.F> 1235.
i032i025565-0004
5332555.1 05N7.12
417
R U TA N John A.Ramirez
Dimct Dial:(714)662.4610
RUTAa& TUCKER, LLP E-alai1;jramirezgrutao.com
May 7, 2012
VIA FACSIMILE AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Fred Wilson
c/o City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach City Manager
2000 Main Street City of Huntington Beach
Huntington Beach, CA 92648 20001`-lain Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Re: Adoption of Development Impact Fees Resolution (Resolution No. 2012-23) and
Ordinances Amending and/or Adding Chapters of the Huntington Beach
Municipal Code Regarding Police, Fire, Traffic Impact, Library, and Parkland
Acquisition/Park Facilities Development Impact Fees, and General Provisions
Relating Thereto (Ordinances Nos. 1942-3947, respectively)
Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Mr. Wilson:
This letter is written on behalf of DCO Beachwalk, LLC, a Delaware limited liability
company ("Developer''). Developer is the owner of real property located at 19891 and 19895
Beach Boulevard, in the City of Huntington Beach ("City"). Oa March 22, 2012, the City issued
a Notice of Action approving Site Plan Review No. 11-005 (Beachwalk Apartments) consisting
of approximately 173 apartment units located at the above-referenced property.
The -urpose of this letter is to confirm our understanding of the"grandfathering"
provision in Section 8 of City Council Resolution No. 2012-23 ("Fee Resolution"). It is our
understanding that, pursuant to the Fee Resolution, the fallowing new and revised Development
Impact Fees will be imposed on development projects in the City:
• Police Facilities Fees, a new development impact fee authorized by the adoption
of Ordinance No. 3942, and which will be codified at Huntington Beach
Municipal Code ("HBMC") Chapter 17.7%
• Fire Facilities Fees, a new development impact fee authorized by the adoption of
Ordinance No. 1943, and which w711 be codified at HBMC Chapter 17.74;
• Traffic Impact Fees, a pre-existing development impact fee that has been
updated and revised pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3944, which
amends HBMC Chapter 17.65 to reflect such revisions;
611 Anton Blvd, suite 1400. Costa Mesa, CA 92626
PO Box 1950, Cost& Me5a, CA 92626-1950 : 714.641 .5100 1 Fax 714,546.9035 1032=6565.36N
Orange Cointy I Palo Alto I www.rutar..com 33Z3352.I n95M7112
418
RUTAN
wraw a rx.ca �
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Council
Fred Wilson
May 7, 2012
Page 2
• Library Development Fees; a pre-existing development impact fee that has been
updated and revised pursuant to the adoption of Ordinance No. 3945, and which
will be codified at HBMC Chapter 17.67; and
• Parkland Acquisition and Park Facilities Fees, a pre-existing development
impact fee that has been updated and revised pursuant to the adoption of
Ordinance No. 3946, which amends HBMC Chapter 17.76 to reflect such
revisions.
It is our f utber understanding that the above-referenced Development Impact Fees do not
apply to projects that have received discretionary project entitlement approval on or before -May
7, 2012, and that satisfy the following: (a) submit an approved application for a building permit
within 180 days after the fee going into effect or no later than January 20, 2013 (subject to
extension by City Manager in his/her sole discretion); (b) make continued progress toward
satisfying Plan Check comments after initial building permit application; and (c) building
permits are issued within 360 days after the fees go into effect, but not later than July 20, 2013
(subject to extension by the City Manager in his/her sole discretion).
If our understanding is correct, because the Beachwalk Apartments received a Site
Development Permit on or about March 22. 2012, the new and revised Development Impact Fees
set by the Fee Resolution shall not apply to the Beachwalk Apartments, so long as the
Beachwalk Apartments comply with the requirements set forth in items (a) though (c), above.
We respectfully request that City staff confirm our understanding of the Fee Resolution
and accompanying ordinances during the Public Hearing Item on the matter.
Please contact me should you have any questions or concerns regarding the foregoing.
Sincerely,
RUTAN & TUCKFR, UP
JAR:Ir
f A. Ramirez
j
1032426365-0004
3323352.1 LSN?+li
419
FROM
sARCHSTONE n RECORD ii
7
000 OF CM OLE ICE
f.E /
Memorandum ,lain
Date: May 7, 2012
To: Huntington Beach City Council
From: Kenneth Keefe
Group Vice President
Subject: Proposed Development Fee Impact Increase
Thank you for the opportunity to convey our concerns with respect to the proposed development
impact fee increase.
Archstone and two land owners, Pedigo Products, Inc. and the George W. Psaros Trust, are involved in a
development project at the southwest corner of Edinger& Gothard consisting of 510 luxury multi-family
units (see attached site plan). Archstone first learned on February 1, 2012, more than 6 months after we
began our process, that the city is proposing to increase the development impact fees. The project is at-
risk of not moving forward due to financial infeasibility if the proposed increase in fees passes and does
not include a grandfathering provision that would enable the project to remain at the current fee level.
Please find below a summary of facts as well as the progress made to date:
• Archstone and the two land owners have standing in the city. Archstone is the owner of a 152
unit multi-family project at 8945 Riverbend Drive in the city and will break ground on a 384 unit
luxury multi-family project later this year at the corner of Gothard and Center Avenue, Pedigo
Products has owned their portion of the proposed site for over 40 years and ran their
manufacturing business for more than 30 years of that time. The Psaros's have owned their
portion of the site for more than 25 years.
• Due to the sites strategic location in the specific plan area, the city approached Rick Pedigo
several years ago and asked for him to work together with the Psaros's to attract a developer
who would redevelop the site consistent with the city's vision. The land owners have done
precisely what the city requested.
• Archstone and the two land owners have invested significant time and effort since July 2011
working to assemble the two parcels at the 5W corner of Edinger & Gothard streets to develop a
luxury multi-family project consistent with the city's vision and the specific plan.
• The two land owners have structured their tenant leases to position the property for sale
resulting in the loss of tenants and reduced revenue.
• Archstone and the two land owners have incurred approximately $400,000 in out-of-pocket
costs to develop the project.
• Archstone has met with the city many times (6+/-) over the pasts six months working towards a
site plan acceptable to city staff.
• Archstone submitted a site plan application to the city on April 4, 2012 and received first round
comments from the city staff last week.
At Archstone and the two land owners are committed to creating a first-class development that is
consistent with the specific plan.
3 MacArthur Place,Suite 600 1 Santa Ana,CA 92707
T: 714.689.7000 F: 714.689.7101 1 Archst•neApanments.c•rn
420
Please find attached a summary of public benefits offered by the proposed project.
The phasing-in of the fees does not solve our problem since Archstone would likely pull a building permit
sometime between December 2013 and May 2014, resulting in a fee increase of approximately$6.1
million (based on the proposed fee schedule effective as of July 20, 2013) rendering the project
infeasible.
Therefore, in order for us to keep the deal alive and for the city to realize the project benefits, Archstone
requests that the grandfathering provision be adjusted. Please find attached a copy of the current draft
proposal which I have redlined in a manner consistent with what would help allow this project to
proceed. Archstone will work diligently with the city to clear staffs comments, obtain the entitlements,
design the project, obtain the building permit, and construct and operate the project in an expeditious
manner.
Archstone is committed to this luxury multi-family project and hope that the city will grant us the
flexibility requested.
Thank you.
421
I
I I I x 1 Q Aw i-i
ZQ gill III
� x # }I�#iij4 i• rl :•I� ��; � i:;��s �9E' tE� � � =r a - o w-I I � I I I I - I
a a
I E jla.`:a ._ e, 1:.1 ' i :: ;_:,�{a• ii 1 i 9 a it• f
'f I ji @ sr: IISf;�I
\ 10,
�
3 ;I IT
133a1S423VH100 Z
cr-
I
-
��
G I I
2; I-_ '. w
lw ti
z EI yl _ii ,{I fflll' ll II`!I f 11 ,a :
LU
P�v
LIJ
1 S
I I I I..,I • I� :a a r }`�L"� L.iF �i� �� I 1 :� � 3 LIS
u f
Lu
422
Archstone Huntington Beach at Edinger Protect Benefits
• Description - 510 unit multifamily apartment development on the southwest corner of Edinger
Avenue and Gothard Street.
• Status—Project is consistent with the Beach and Edinger Corridor Specific Plan and Archstone
has submitted a site plan review application to the city.
• lob Creation—Project is expected to create 1,000 jobs for construction workers and consultants
throughout project planning and construction.
• Permits and Fees—Project is estimated to net the city $8,729,753 before the proposed increase
to permits and fees being voted on by city council May 7,2012.
• Increased Property Taxes—
Pro ertyTaxRevenue
� ;�:_� ry,-.;i;. i6 : .%"je sr y'�i.::c .. .�• - �-• "j{j,. {.�ti•%r'�,o � -'�Irlcrease.In'Ahnual�.
Exisiting Parcels 2011;Tax Bill: Tax.Revenue ,?
142-321-01 $10,500
142-321-02 $13,570
142-321-10 $18,901
142-321-12 $8,576
142-321-13 $32,20S
Total $93,752
Projected Taxes Durin Construction and,Lease-up 2013 201Z.
Avera a Tax Per Year $809,008
Stabilized Annual Taxes ' ,. 2017 'v.. fi-
TotalTax $1,714,170 ° $1530;418"'. P%
• Increased Sales Tax Revenue—510 units will net between 750 and 1,100 new residents to
Huntington Beach who will be shopping in the city and paying sales tax.
• High Quality Residents— Project aims to house residents who meet Archstone's background
check, credit standards, and income levels necessary to pay rent in accordance with The Fair
Housing Act.
• Affordable Housing - Project will contain 51 affordable housing units at moderate and low
income levels.
423
Art h,1.e Edinger&Gothard
B tlina(gg Schedule though Construction Start
<(CC££Ivg Conservative
Staff Approval fin monfhsl a 6 lime Period per Staff
Planning Commission(in n.n,hsi 2 3 Time Pencd per Staff 1pfelimmary feedback from staff indicates that the projen will require Planning Commission approvail
City Courcd Im ntpnthsf 2 3 Time Period per Staff(my understanding is that most m i,,,cls that wquhe Pianni,Commission approval ultimately regmre City C ounul apprwalj
local Enmlemerd Period fin months) a 12 Sum of Pieces Above
Design Period'til Construction Start(m Months) 12 12 Tywollya 12 month process including design development,pteparalion of construction dp[umenls,and"plan check'by the city stall
Total[nhtlement g Deign Putod(in Months) 20 24 Som of PlecesAWve
t oda y's Dale May 12 May 12
Range of Construction Start Dates Din 13 Apt-14
A
N
A
Resolution No.2012.23—Paragraph 8—Archstone's Proposed edits
8. Fee Imposed. The new Development Impact Fees set by this resolution shall not apply to
projects that have submitted a site plan review application•
appreval_on or before May 7,2012 and the following milestones are met:
1 The site plan application has been deemed complete and the Project has received
discretionary project entitlement approval on or before 360 days after the new fees go
into effect or no later than June 20,2013.
4.2.Project has submitted an approved application for building permits within 270180 days
after receipt of discretionary orolect entitlement approval the fee gaiAgints effed or no
later than Mar 20,2019.
2.3.From the time of initial building permit application,the project makes continued
progress toward satisfying plan check comments.
9.4.Building Permits are issued within twentyfive m n h after the new fees go
into effect,no later than July 20,20143.
An exception to the above milestones is the involvement of an outside third parry regulatory
agency. In such cases the 270MW days to make building permit application will begin when the
developer receives clearance from that agency. The City Manager shall have the authority to extend
milestone dates for qualifying 'grandfathered' projects in his sole discretion. All other projects are
subject to the new fees, which go into effect July 20, 2012. 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.
t------ Wmatted:IIIOQIC FirstWic P
425
RECEIVED FROM •
AS PUBLIC RECOfiD
Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed (Dwyer) OF— GnCLERKOFF E {�q
JOM I,FLYW GT!CLERK 7r /
Law Enforcement Facilities
Consultant Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee Recant 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 14 25% 50% 75% 100%
I't `
Detached Dwelling Units(per Unit) No Fee $396 $277 $317 $356f'I $99 $198 $297 $396
Attached Dwelling Units(per Unit) No Fee $815 $571 5652 $734 p{ $204 $408 $611 $815
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(per Unit) No Fee $369 $258 $295 $332 $92 $185 $277 $369
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units(per Unit) No Fee $455 $455 $455 $455 ( $114 $228 $341 $455
Resort Lodging Units(per Unit) No Fee $532 $532 $532 $532 $133 $266 $399 $532
Commercial/Office Uses(per sq.ft.) No Fee $1.041 $1.041 $1.041 $1.041 $0.260 $0.521 $0.781 $1.041
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses(per sq.ft.) No Fee $0.443 $0.443 $0.443 $0.443 $0.111 $0.222 $0.332 $0,443
lei
m Fire Suppression Facilities
Consultant Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee Recont 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 25% 50% 75% IOD°,6
Detached Dwelling Units(per Unit) No Fee $922 $645 $738 $830 ; $231 $461 $692 $922
Attached Dwelling Units(per Unit) No Fee $382 $267 $306 $344rU` $96 $191 $287 $382
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(per Unit) No Fee $1,583 $1,108 $1,266 $1,425h $396 $792 $1,187 $1,583
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit) No Fee $356 $356 $356 $356 1 $89 $178 $267 $356
Resort Lodging Units(per Unit) No Fee $794 $794 $794 $794li $199 $397 $596 $794
Commercial/Office Uses(per sq. ft.) No Fee $0.329 $0.329 $0.329 $0.329 I $0.082 $0.165 $0.247 $0329
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses(per sq.ft.) No Fee $0.030 $0.030 $0.030 $0.030 $0.008 $0.015 $0.023 $0.030
1 of
Circulation System Feel
Consultant Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 25% 50% 75% 100%
Detached Dwelling Units(per Unit) $1,507 $2,482 $1,737 $1,996 $2,226 $1,751 $1,995 $2,238 $2,482
Attached Dwelling Units(per Unit) $1,058 $1,657 $1,220 $1,395 $1,563 $1,208 $1,358 $1,507 $1,657
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(per Unit) $786 $1,299 $909 $1,039 $1,165 $914 $1,043 $1,171 $1,299
Motel Lodging Units(per Unit) $746 $1,105 $1,062 $1,062 $1,062„ $836 $926 $1,015 $1,105
Resort Lodging Units(per Unit) $1,081 $1,915 $1,538 $1,538 $1,538 $1,290 $1,498 $1,707 $1,915
Commercial/Office Uses(per sq.ft.) $5.194 $4.175 $4.175 $4.175 $4.175 $4.939 $4.685 $4.430 $4.175
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses(per sq. ft.) $1.061 $1.789 $1.789 $1.789 $1.789a $1.243 $1.425 $1.607 $1.789
Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed b
Public Library Facilities
Consultant Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 25% 50% 75% 100%
Detached Dwelling Units(per Unit) $0.44/SF $1,172 $1,172 $1,172 $1,172 t' $1,085 $1,114 $1,143 $1,172
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit) $0.44/SF $908 $908 $908 $908F $491 $630 $769 $908
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(per Unit) $0.44/SF $733 $733 $733 $733 $460 $551 $642 $733
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units(per Unit) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee 4t No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
Resort Lodging Units(per Unit) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
Commercial/Office Uses(per sq. ft.) $0.04/SF No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses(per sq.ft.) $0.04/5F No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
n Fi
t
2 of
Y
If
Park Land/Open Space & Facilities(No Tract Map)
Consultant Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 66.67% 83.33% 100.00%
Detached Dwelling Units(per Unit) $0.86/SF $17,857 $12,500 $14,286 $16,071 t $ 4,697 $ 7,328 $ 9,961 $ 12.593 $ 15,224 $ 17,857
Attached Dwelling Units(per Unit) $0.86/SF $13,835 $9,695 $11,0G8 $12,452 a $ 2,880 $ 5,070 $ 7,262 $ 9,453 $ 11,643 $ 13,835
Mobile Home Dwelling Units(per Unit) No Fee $11,169 $7,819 $8,935 $10,052[' $ 1,862 $ 3,723 $ 5,585 $ 7.446 $ 9,307 $ 11,169
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units(per Unit) $0.23/SF $459 $459 $459 $4591 $ 153 5 214 $ 276 5 337 $ 398 $ 459
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit) 50.23/SF $359 $359 $359 $359 $ 144 $ 187 $ 230 5 273 $ 316 5 359
Commercial/Office Uses(per sq.ft.) $0.23/5F $0.954 $0.954 $0.954 $0.954r 5 0.351 $ 0,471 $ 0.592 $ 0.713 $ 0.795 $ 0.954
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses(per sq. ft.) $0.23/5F $0.772 $0.772 $0.772 50.772 y $ 0.320 $ 0.411 $ 0.501 5 0.591 $ 0.6,13 5 0.772
:i
N NOTE:The fees below fall under the Subdivision Map Act and will be addressed at a later date
m
3 of 3
Res. No. 2021-79
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF ORANGE ss:
CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH
I, ROBIN ESTANISLAU, 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 December 21, 2021 by the following vote:
AYES: Peterson, Bolton, Posey, Delgleize, Carr, Moser, Kalmick
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
RECUSE: None
City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the
City Council of the City of
Huntington Beach, California