Adoption of the recommended impact fees contained herein and imposition upon the numerous development opportunities in the City of Huntington Beach, would generate approximately $172.1 million in a combination of public improvement dedications and DIF revenues limited for use on the many capital expansion projects deemed as development generated.
Existing Impact Fee Fund balances ($3.5 million) and other revenues sources ($23.0 million) make up a significant amount of the difference between the capital total and the total revenue sources. This leaves a shortfall of $204.8 million (95% of which is $194.4 million in unfunded storm drainage projects). The identification of $403.4 million in capital needs mostly generated by new development, is not to be taken lightly, but must be examined in perspective to the cost of existing infrastructure, facilities, vehicles and equipment that a new development will share in the use and enjoyment of upon City review, approval, construction and finally, occupancy.
To offer such a perspective, a major element in this Report is a proportional analysis, or comparison of what is being asked of future residents, in the form of dedicated public improvements or an in-lieu (impact fee) payment, with the cost of the City's existing infrastructure (land, facilities, and equipment), contributed by the existing population and business community.
The dedications, taxes and assessments contributed to date by the existing community over numerous decades of development have generated just over $2.1 billion (at current replacement costs) in infrastructure or capital improvements to the City of Huntington Beach. The following table identifies those existing asset commitments (or equity if you will), by infrastructure.
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Circulation (Street, Signals and Bridges) System
Storm Drainage Collection System
Public Library Facilities and Collection
Park Land and Park Facilities Development
Total Existing Infrastructure Replacement Investment
Item 9. - 191 HB -326-
261
It is not intended for the recommended Development Impact Fee schedule to address all of the City's capital needs, as identified on the various schedules in this Report. As per California Government Code 66000 et. seq. and common fairness, development impact fees cannot address current capital deficiencies. The proposed fees will recognize and meet the needs of the City's growing population and business community. However, with the adoption of development impact fees, other City discretionary revenue resources that may have been used to meet growth-generated needs for expanded services and facilities will now be available for those accumulating replacement and rehabilitation projects.
The information required to develop the City's capital costs and equity data was generated by the Huntington Beach staff, without whose help and cooperation, this Report would have been impossible to complete. The following management and support personnel were instrumental in working with RCS staff to gather or generate the information and technical data so critically necessary for the legal support of impact fees through the Master Facilities Plan and/or the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report. They are:
Stephanie Beverage, Director of Library Services
M. Todd Broussard, P.E, Principal Engineer (Storm Drainage) David Brunetta, Police Captain
Luann Brunson, Senior Administrative Analyst - Community Services David C. Dominguez, Facilities Development/Concessions Manager Debbie Dove, - Police Specialist
Eric C. Enberg - Fire Division Chief- Operations
Jim B. Engle, Community Services Director
Scott Hess, Director of Planning
Mindy James - Police Budget Manager
Kevin Justen, Senior Administrative Analyst - Fire
Tung M. Kao, - Information System/Network Specialist - Police Jeff Lopez, Deputy Fire Marshall/Programs
Darin Maresh, Fire Department Specialist
Mike McClanahan, Deputy Fire Marshall/Training
Shirley McNamee. Police Personnel Analyst
Tony Olmos, City Engineer
Ricky Ramos, Senior Planner
Bill Reardon, Fire Marshall/Division Chief
Dan Richards, Information System GIS Manager
Bob Stachelski. Transportation Manager
Chuck Thomas, Police Captain
Jerry Thompson, General Services Manager
Ashley Wallace, Graduate Management Intern
Darren Witt, Fire Engineer
HB -327- Item 9. - 192
262
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 Nan does the same by merging the four Community Use Facilities projects into the Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development section. This was undertaken to provide the City greater flexibility to address the City's capital project needs and priorities over time. The resulting impact fees did not change beyond the reduction of a single dollar reduction for Attached Dwellings (due to rounding of whole dollars). Schedule 2.1 the proposed Development Impact Fees will demonstrate this.
Without their hard work and willingness to provide the best data available, this Report could not have been completed to the degree of accuracy and completeness that it has. I would like to highlight the efforts of Bob Hall, Deputy City Manager for his efforts in generating timely responses to RCS's many requests for critical information. The quality of information and resulting calculation were directly improved by all of the participating staff member's efforts.
The Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and the Master Facilities Plan appendix are now submitted for your review and consideration. RCS is prepared to assist in increasing the Council's and community's understanding of this very significant part of the City's revenue structure.
Sincerely,
Scott Thorpe,
Vice President
Item 9. - 193
HB -328-
263
CITY OF HUNTINGTON EACH
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE
CALCULATION AND NEXUS REPORT
and
MASTER FACILITIES PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Chapter 1 - Background and Introduction 1
Chapter 2 - Demographics and Findings 16
Schedule 2.1 Proposed Development Impact Fee Schedule 26 Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 27 Chapter 4 - Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment 40 Chapter 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System 54 Chapter 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System 70
Chapter 7 - Public Library Facilities and Collection 82 Chapter 8 - Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development 89 Appendix A - Expanded Land-use Database 108
Appendix B - Summary of Recommendations 111
Appendix C - Master Facilities Plan 114
HB -329- Item 9. - 194
264
Chapter 1
Background and Introduction
The City of Huntington Beach has retained Revenue Sz. Cost Specialists, L.L. C. to recalculate some of the City's existing Development Impact Fee (henceforth occasionally referred to as DIFs) schedules calculated at various points in time. Since that time, the City has experienced continued development of vacant land within the City. There is no reason to believe that the remaining undeveloped parcels will not also develop and underutilized parcels will redevelop, the current temporary economic building climate not-with-standing. The periodic review and adjustment of the Development Impact Fees that the City has committed to, are appropriate and warranted. Such updates are necessary to insure that the City collects sufficient DIF revenues to construct or acquire the additional infrastructure needed to accommodate new residents and businesses developing in the City.
This DIF calculation effort that staff has undertaken results in a complete list of projects to be financed by the recommended Development Impact Fee schedule.' The information contained in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report and the accompanying Master Facilities Plan (MFP) will allow the City Council to make more informed policy decisions. The DIF/MFP also combine to provide greater understanding or the need by the development community. It also provides an. easier project tracking (and updating) system for the staff.
Proportional Analysis. For perspective on the total amount of the calculated DIFs this Report includes a proportional analysis, or a comparison of the infrastructure identified as required to accommodate continued development through General Plan build-out with that of the City's existing infrastructure. This proportional analysis is intended to reconcile any difference between the City's desired level-of-service (LOS) required of new development, per statements in the various General Plan elements, with that of the de-facto or actual level of service currently provided to the existing community. This addition will assist the Council in making many difficult policy decisions regarding the required additions of new development and will also recognize inter-generational equity along with common sense fairness.
Development Impact Fee Structure. The City's General Plan provides a range of potential densities for residential development. The DIFs for residential uses need to be calculated on a per dwelling unit basis to reflect more accurately the average impacts for a specific development. For example, a parcel zoned for development as detached dwelling units may contain from three to six units per acre. If fees are calculated on an acreage basis, the developer proposing three units per acre will pay the same amount as a developer constructing six units per acre. Development impact Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report Item 9. - 195 HB -330-
265
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 AB1600. 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
266
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 -332-
267
Chapter One Background and Introduction
OTHER ASSUMPTIONS OF THE REPORT
In addition to the land use assumptions contained in the next Chapter of this Report, other important assumptions of this study include the following:
Land Costs. Cost estimates for land acquisition were developed after discussions with City officials. Arguments for higher or lower costs can be made. However, the Report contains land costs (per acre) which are estimated to be the most appropriate figures for purposes of this study.
PROPORTIONALITY TEST
A test for proportionality is important, if for no other reason, than because it attempts to identify and achieve community inter-generational equity, i.e., fairness in balancing the infrastructure investment made by existing residents and businesses with the investment asked of new residents and businesses that will benefit from the existing infrastructure. In short, previous generations of businesses and residents have contributed to the development of the City's existing infrastructure and this fact should be recognized by future residents and businesses by contributing a like amount (but no more than) toward completing the various infrastructure systems. Mere replacements or the elimination of an existing deficiency cannot be required of new development.
It is one thing to identify the many public improvement projects needed through build-out. It is an entirely different thing to assume that all of the identified improvements are required to meet the demands of the new development. Clearly, some projects are replacements of the existing infrastructure while others are capacity increasing projects. Within the category of the latter, they may also be further classified into two categories;
1. Projects dealing with existing deficiencies, i.e., projects required regardless of whether there is additional development or not. An example' would be a traffic intersection currently controlled by stop signs that currently meets traffic warrants for a traffic signal, but is unfunded. However, some portion of that signal may be appropriate for impact fee financing. Another example would be the replacement of an existing but aged facility that creates no more capacity, but is merely the replacement of that same capacity.
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 HB -333- Item 9. - 198
268
Chapter One Background and Introduction
AB1600) 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 DIP 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 Valley3 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
andlise ta.tion÷e- _ st, 'nits -Served-- Impact Fe
Residential Dwellings $3,000,000 5,000 $600.00 per home Business Square Feet $3,000,000 10,000,000 $0.30 per S.F.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 5 Item 9. - 199 HB -334-
269
10,000 Residential Dwellings
Umber
f
nits'servecl-by.
0 tie_ StatiO
Residential Dwellings 6,250 5,000 1.25 Stations
Units serve
ne Station
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
5,000 2 Stations
Business Square Feet 20,000,000 10,000,000 2 Stations Required 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 half of the ultimate (General Plan build-out) fire calls-for-service.
This is demonstrated in Table 1-3 following:
Table 1-3
Development of Current Infrastructure is "On-Target"
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 1-IB -335- Item 9. - 200
270
nits served by
Ine Station -
Residential Dwellings 3,750 $600.00 $2,250,000
Chapter One Background and Introduction
yet to come. Left to build are 3,750 detached dwelling units and 12,500,000 square feet of business floor space, and when constructed would generate the following capital needs identified on Table 1-4 following:
Table 1-4
Remaining Development and Station Requirement
Residential Dwellings
Business Square Feet
3,750 5,000 0.75 Stations
12,500,000 I 10,000,000 1.25 Stations
2.00 Stations # of New Stations Required from Land to be Developed If the earlier calculated impact fees ($600 per residence and $0.30 per square foot of business pad) were adopted and imposed, Happy Valley would collect (by General Plan build-out) enough capital revenues to construct the remaining two stations and proportionality between existing and future residents and businesses would be evident. Table 1-5 following demonstrates this:
Table 1-5
Remaining DIE Collection
Business Square Feet 12,500,000 $0.30 $3,750,000
Amount Collected in Development Impact Fees $6,000,000
Cost of a_Single New Station
$3,000,000
Stations to be Built with Development Impact Fees 2.00 And everyone in the community of Happy Valley is adequately served by the four stations having been financed generally fairly by the total community.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 7 Item 9. -201
MB -336-
271
Cost of One New Station $3,000,000
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
Station(s) built with Community's Contribution 1.00
Chapter One Background and Introduction
The infrastructure is in Deficient Condition - Consider, however, the implications if the current Happy Valley residents and businesses had shown the earlier limited commitment to contribute only enough financing to construct one station when, based upon their own adopted standards and level of development, they should have two stations? Clearly three more stations would be needed on the path to General Plan "build-out." The possibility of requiring the remaining future home and business owners to finance all three remaining stations would be completely inequitable. But would it be fair and equitable to charge new residents the $600 per home and new businesses the $0.30 per business square foot in order to acquire the remaining two stations required to meet the NFPA standards required of the new development?
The simple and direct answer is probably not. With only one station constructed at half build-out, the Happy Valley community has not demonstrated to a proportional commitment to meeting the NFPA standards, and as a result would not have a strong case to assert that others who build later need to contribute toward the construction of multiple (two) fire stations at a higher service rate by including the "missing" second station. The problem is in trying to identify a municipal revenue source imposed only on the existing development. Simply, there is none. Soon as a business pays its impact fees, constructs, that business becomes part of the existing community.
The service provided by the single existing station is the community's de facto (or"in fact") standard service level. In short, it is difficult (but possible) to claim that a higher level of service is required of new development when the City is somehow getting by with a lower level of service.
With one station, the contributed equity to build the single station would be half of the impact fee proposed in Table 1-1, or $300/residential unit and $0.15/square foot of business space respectively (See Table 1-6, following).
Table 1-6
Development Impact Fee
at Deficient Condition
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 8 HB -337- Item 9. - 202
272
Chapter One Background and Introduction
If Happy Valley has only built one station at half General Plan build-out, we would be forced to conclude that the City is currently deficient by one station (or 50% of the amount required). If the future residents were asked to pay at a rate that would build two stations (the $600/$0.30 rates) the City would have three stations at General Plan build-out, one financed and built by the first half of the community, and two financed and built by the second half of the community.
Considering that the fire department will respond to all calls-for-service within the entire community from one of the three completed fire stations, the first half of the community would, in effect "inherit" one half of a station at no cost to themselves. In short, Happy Valley would fail the proportionality test. The inequity would then be exacerbated when the community decides to build the final "missing" last (fourth) station from a Citywide assessment or from annual General Fund receipts, paid for by the entire community, including those who just paid for the two new stations via the adopted fire impact fees.
The only equitable option is for the City to adopt impact fees at the $300/residence and $0.15/square foot rates. Adoption of this fee would be referred to as the Current Community Financial Commitment or Investment- based Impact Fees. Admittedly, the City will go further into a deficit position in terms of the number of required stations, from being deficient by one station at half General Plan build-out to a deficiency of two stations at General Plan build-out, but the deficiency (or proportionality) would remain a constant 50% of the stations needed at either point in time. The community, if they are truly serious about meeting the NFPA recommended Level of Service (or standard), would then need to assess the entire community to raise the needed money in some fashion for financing the remaining two stations either in the form of an assessment or dedication of general receipts of the City.
The Infrastructure has "Excess Capacity" - One final but important scenario remains and must be considered. In this scenario the existing residents of Happy Valley were the industrious sort and (at half General Plan build-out) had constructed three stations when they were at the point when they only needed two stations. Clearly there is excess capacity in each of the three existing stations. In this case, the Happy Valley's current de facto standard would be well above the de- jure or target standard. Statistically, each of the three stations would have 1/3 excess capacity (for providing services) and should be busy only about two-thirds of the time. Should the impact fee be limited only to the marginal $300 per residence and $0.15 per square foot for business space required to construct the one remaining required station or should the City be able to recover the costs for the existing capacity in the three stations through a recoupment impact fee? If so, the future residents receive a gift of the extra (third) station. If the excess capacity was recognized at the time the facilities were constructed and the excess capacity was identified for future use, there will be tough decisions ahead to be made by the Happy Valley City Council.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 9 Item 9. - 203
HB -338-
273
Chapter One Background and Introduction
General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Fees or Recoupment Fee? The Happy Valley City Council should adopt, at a minimum, the $300/residence and $0.15/square foot business space rates to insure that the fourth station would be built. Again, referred to as the General Plan Build- out Needs- based impact fees. This would be a benevolent gesture, giving the new residents a free ride on the cost of the (already built and paid for) third station.
Or in the alternative, the Council can recognize that the $3,000,000 used to build the third station was a loan from the existing community's General Fund receipts, and should be repaid by the future community receiving an instantaneous level of fire protection the day they receive their occupancy permit'', through the imposition and collection of impact fees.' In this case, the $600/residence and $0.30/square foot of business space impact fees should be adopted, imposed and collected. The impact fee would accumulate $6,000,000 through build-out, with $3,000,000 required to repay the General Fund in delayed revenue (for Station #3) and $3,000,000 necessary to construct the fourth station. This would be referred to as a Recoupment- based Fee at General Plan build-out. More important, long term equity at General Plan built-out would be achieved as each home and business would have contributed the same $600 per residence and $0.30 per square foot. This situation is usually fairly limited and should be supported by the appropriate element of General Plan.
Exceptions to Proportionality Test. The previous discussion applies particularly well to above ground or capacity-based services such as community use centers, pools, police and fire stations, civic centers, maintenance yards or other fixed location and finite capacity facilities that serve the entire population. However, it does not necessarily work well on ground level or below system infrastructures such as streets, utilities, and storm drainage, where the continuation of a deficient system into the future is not at all possible and the lack of additions would ensure the complete inability to approve any further private construction without creating unsafe conditions to a specific area. As an example, if the agency's storm drainage system is currently deficient and creates some period flooding but not necessarily in dangerous amounts, the agency may not be able to approve and allow any more future development unless the storm drainage runoff created by the new development, is properly collected and released at a river or flood control channel.
Additionally, a currently deficient water system, i.e., one with only the most minimal of distribution pipes, may not be able to serve any more future development without a substantial increase in the capacity of the water distribution system. However, a water utility with users rates can increase existing user fees to eliminate any existing deficiencies.
Specific Plan or Benefit to a Specific Area. An additional exception occurs when the need or benefit from a specific facility is generated by a finite or easily defined area such as a specific plan or a new area of the agency that is significantly outside of the existing agency's urban in-fill service area or the specific plan is primarily the sole beneficiary of the infrastructure to be Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 10 HB -339- Item 9. -204
274
Chapter One Background and Introduction
constructed. An example may be a small area of the City, proposed for say 2,000 homes, but separate from the rest of the City in such a way that, to meet the General Plan's stated fire suppression standard level of service of a five minute response time, it requires a separate fire station but serving less than any of the other stations, which on average serve 5,000 homes. There is little argument as to why the remaining residents and businesses should not need to finance that higher cost per home served. This is common in an area geographically separated from the major, or urban part of the community. An example would be a small area separated by a river or up on a hillside or in a canyon. These areas may need facilities specific to that area that are of little or no benefit to the rest of the community, such a bridge across a river that only benefits those live or work across the river.
Density may also be a factor. Fire infrastructure system improvements to date may be spread over a more compact density (say 4-5 homes per acre) than the remaining development in town (say 2-3 homes per acre). The fire system infrastructure costs per residential dwelling for a lower density area will likely be higher than a more compact area with a higher dwelling density.
Public Utilities. The treatment for municipal utilities is particularly clear in that the utility's operating and capital funds do not receive any General Fund financial support and they do not typically charge stand-by fees to vacant property. This means that the entire utility system has been supported only by what are called utility user fees (payments by the utility's customers). Or stated in another way, it is user-financed. In many cases the utility may have significant extra capacity because most infrastructures cannot be expanded in small defined portions that exactly match the pace of new development. An example would water reservoirs which are generally expanded on LO 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.6 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 HB -340-
275
Chapter One . Background and Introduction
Such equity is the attempt of this Report. Excess capacity is often difficult to identify and even more difficult to convince others of. The City is probably much like Happy Valley, with excess or overcapacity in some areas of the infrastructure, and perhaps slightly deficient' in others, as you will see in the remainder of the Report.
OTHER ISSUES
Some members of the building industry have claimed that the addition of impact fees unfairly creates an inflated resale price for existing homes. The argument is that if the public agency adopts a development impact fee of $20,000 to $25,000 per detached dwelling home, then the price for an existing home is artificially increased by that same amount. We will use the example of detached dwelling at a construction cost of $200,000 to complete to a point that the occupancy permit is approved.
Full Cost of a Residential Dwelling. The $200,000 represents only the above ground cost's construction. The true and actual cost of a new dwelling unit consists of the cost of acquiring the parcel, necessary government approvals and permits, construction supplies, labor, debt service on the above, on-site' public improvements, and
The hidden cost of extending public services9 to that home.
The costs of extending public services includes (but is not limited to):
• The addition of law enforcement personnel requiring the expansion of the police station and response vehicles
• Additional fire stations and response vehicles.
• Widening of arterial and collector roads.
• Additional capacity in downstream storm drainage pipes. • Additions to water delivery capability, including source, treatment, storage and delivery.
• Additions to the sewage capability, including collection, treatment and disposal. • Additions to the maintenance capabilities (i.e., municipal corporation yard and maintenance vehicles) necessary to maintain the above added infrastructure. • Additional parks, library, and public meeting space for recreational/social purposes.
Thus while the cost of constructing the above ground portion of a detached dwelling may be $325,000, the "downstream" costs identified above may be in the area of $20,000 to $30,000 per detached dwelling or in the area of 6% to 9% % of the above ground cost.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 12 FIB -341- Item 9. -206
276
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 corporationm and that share is valued at the cost of the connections to the various municipal utilities, circulation system, flood protection and public safety.
CHAPTER ORGANIZATION
Chapters three through six will have three fee cost/fee tables. These four chapters include:
Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation - This schedule identifies the various projects that the infrastructure manager has identified as required prior to General Plan build-out. These projects may be necessary in part or fully to accommodate new development. This schedule will identify the cost of the project and the portion of the project identified as resulting from new development.
General Plan Build- out Needs - based Development Impact Fee - This table will identify the set of impact fees that would need to be adopted to meet the basic, or marginal needs, capital needs identified in the Report. Adoption of this level of impact fees would allow City officials to claim that new development is being approved and constructed without any additional cost to the existing residents and businesses. You could not, however, claim that new development is paying its "fair share."
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 13 Item 9. -207 HB -342-
277
Chapter One Background and Introduction
Existing Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees - This table will identify the cost (in current nominal dollar value) of the existing infrastructure, including land, physical improvements and capital equipment. This is the average amount "invested" by the existing community of residents and businesses. This equity will be expressed in terms of the cost to construct or acquire the assets at current costs.
If the average "equity" (for a detached dwelling for example) on this Table is greater then the average cost on the previous General Plan Build - out Needs - based impact fee Table, the infrastructure system is "front-ended" or has excess capacity. Stated slightly differently, the existing community has put more of the system into place than would be required of the remaining unbuilt portions of the community, (as they build). In effect, the existing community has advanced money to build capacity into the infrastructure system to meet the needs of residents and businesses not yet there! A good example of a front - ended system is the scenario where the City of Happy Valley had already built three fire stations while it only had the current actual demands for two stations.
If the Existing Commitment- based impact fees are less than the General Plan Build- out Needs- based impact fee, we must conclude that existing community may not have contributed the amount of equity that they have needed to and that the construction of a needed infrastructure to support that municipal service has been lagging and is deficient. When this occurs, the Existing Community Financial Commitment or Investment- based development impact fees may• act as a ceiling or upper limit of the development impact fees.
A good example of a deficient system is the scenario where the City of Happy Valley had only built one fire station while it had current actual demands for two stations. In short, if the existing community has not been inclined to construct an infrastructure system proportionally as the community developed, what basis does the community have to require those future residents to invest more, thus by eliminating to some degree, the deficiencies created by the existing community? The answer is, there can be no such rational argument. To adopt the General Plan Build- out Needs- based impact fees, under these circumstances, would be an unfair attempt to eliminate the existing deficiency on the back of new development. Adoption of the Existing Commitment- based impact fees, under these circumstances, would allow City officials to claim that new development is not being required to pay to eliminate existing deficiencies. [This space left vacant to place the following Chapter endnotes on a single page].
Huntington Beach 2011- 12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 14 HB -343- Item 9. -208
278
Chapter One Background and Introduction
CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1. For greater detail of each project, refer to the City's Master Facilities Plan in Appendix C.
2. Examples using other infrastructure will be used from time to time in this report, even though the City may not provide that service.
3. "Happy Valley" has been used as an imaginary community for purposes of DIF example for about nine years. Clearly no insult is intended to any real or imagined community of Happy Valley. It is also a Happy Valley because there is no inflation and the value of a dollar remains nominal.
4. Actually, the permitted structure receives fire protection services as it is being constructed.
5. This example assumes that each of the existing three stations is debt-free and owned out-right.
6. This action would be more supportable with a recent appraisal of the existing utility assets.
7. Not necessarily in a manner that indicates a danger, just below the standard being asked of the future residents.
8. On-site improvements include local streets and medians, curbs and sidewalks, sewer lines, water lines, street lights, storm gutter or drainage pipes, electrical power lines and all of the other requirements of the Department's building requirements on the privately held property, hence the "on-site" reference. "Off-site" improvements are increased capacity need that occur "down-stream" from the private property. The on-site public improvements generally become a city asset upon acceptance of the on-site public improvements made by the developer while the property upon Athich the on-site improvements, is still privately owned.
9. This Report does not address all of these services. They are only highlighted to make a point about the types of public services typically required to support a residential dwelling.
10. Not unlike a share in a corporation such as I.B.M. or A.T. & T.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 15 Item 9. - 209 HB -344-
279
Chapter 2
Demographics and Findings
This Chapter provides an inventory of developed and undeveloped (and under-developed) land within the City. The City, surprisingly, still possesses areas of vacant land zoned for residential and business uses.
LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS
This Report contains an inventory of developed land and land with remaining development opportunities within Huntington Beach boundaries. The undeveloped land inventory columns form the base for distribution of the estimated infrastructure costs required to extend the existing levels of service to the new development. The developed land inventory also forms the base for distributing the cost of the existing infrastructure for comparison and for the de-facto identification of the existing levels of service (LOS) provided by those existing infrastructures. Table 2-1 below, summarizes the inventory of all private land uses contained within the current City limits.
They are based upon General Plan data, Orange County projections, City records and a staff analysis of only privately held parcels.' Some of the vacant parcels have vested rights and would have the existing impact fees imposed. The acreage and unit data are detailed in Appendix A.
Table 2-1
Detailed Land Use Inventory
City of Huntington Beach
T.Otal.::LanatiSe::-Database. ::: Acres
otal
of Units.. Acres it of Units 4tPP.: 1:tit:Units
Detached Dwelling Units (1) 6,436.0 38,616
295.00 1,749 6,731.00 40,365
Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4 36,108 111.20
5,307 1,916.60 41,415
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)
204.6 2,865 1.00 9 205.60
2,874
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.4 1,070 18.60
818 52.00 1,888
Resort Lodging Units 20.2 809 9.30 535 29.50 1,344 Commercial/Office Uses 841.9 12,836,000
39.80 2,417,000 881.70 15,253,000
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 930.3 20,261,000 187.00 3,638,000 1,117.30 23,899,000 Total - City Limits 10,271.8 661.90 10,933.70
Private Residences 8,446.0 77,589 407.2 7,065 8,853.2 84,654 Commercial Lodging Rooms 53,6 1,879 27.9 1,353
81.5 3,232
Business Square Feet 1,772.2 33,097,000 226.8 6,055,000 1,999.0 39,152,000 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 16 Item 9. - 210 HB -345-
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
Chapter 2 Demographics and Findings
Specific impact fee rates for each land use can be found at the end of each chapter relating to each infrastructure. Schedule 2.1 at the end of this Chapter also identifies the probable impact fee revenue, the capital cost total and the difference, by individual infrastructure type (e.g., fire).
Given the magnitude of the City's project list, vis-a-vis the proposed list of projects, and the lack of previous findings regarding any excess capacity, there is no potential for recoupment of the costs of previous development-generated capital projects (excess capacity) as was described in Chapter One. Additionally, the detail of the existing value of the various systems, does not approach the level of accuracy required to adopt a recoupment style impact fee. The recommended Development Impact Fees are those indicated following in Schedule 2.1.
STRUCTURE OF THIS REPORT
The following chapters of this Report contain the detailed information relative to the calculation of DIFs recommended by RCS for the entire City. Appropriate textual explanations are contained in each chapter, with a chapter devoted to each of the nine sets of DLF 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
288
289
290
291
292
38,616 Detached Dwelling Units
36,108 Attached Dwelling Units
2,865 Mobile Home Dwelling Units
420 1,070 Hotel/Motel Units
809 Resort Lodging Units
12,836,000 Commercial Uses (in KSF)
20,261,000 Industrial Uses (in KSF)
Beach Area
0.341/Unit
0.702/Unit
0.318/Unit
0.393/Unit
0.459/Unit
0.897/KSF
0.381/KSF
371
11,514
7,729
1,806
13,185
25,350
910
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Table 3-1
Law Enforcement Calls-for-Service Generated by Land Use (2009) The table above representing the 59,479 annual police calls-for-service to privately-held developed parcels within the City's limits (for a recent twelve months reporting periods), identifies the differing demand caused by the differing land uses. As an example, there were approximately 13,185 calls-for-service requiring a response to one of the 38,616 existing detached dwellings in the City (during the twelve month sample). The result indicates that each residential detached dwelling unit will statistically generate just slightly more than one third of a call-for-service per year,2 on average. The same analysis was undertaken for the other seven land uses. Obviously there are calls to incidents on publicly owned roads and right-of-way, in parks and other publicly held parcels, these calls represent approximately 3% of the annual calls-for-service. Calls-for- service to resort lodging facilities, typically larger than hotel/motel facilities (defined as three stories or more) have been separated in order to generate a more relevant calls-for-service rate for each of the two differing types of temporary lodging. Resort facilities have been shown to generate more calls-for-service, most likely due to their convention and banquet facilities.
However, any such resorts constructed in the future would also have such amenities.
The annual calls-for-service was responded to by one of the City's existing 235 sworn officers establishing an average of about 260.79 calls-for-service per sworn officer annually.3 Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 29 Item 9. - 223 HB -358-
293
294
Proportional Beach Increase 248.96 Calls
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Table 3-2
Additional Law Enforcement Calls (rounded)
Generated by New Development, by Land Use
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) 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 Industrial Uses (KSF) 3,638,000 0.381/KSF 1,387.80 Calls NOTES: (1) Development of these types of units is not anticipated. One acre of units is included for calculation purposes..
Cumulatively, an additional (rounded) calls-for-service would be expected at General Plan build- out. It is important to note that the additional of the thirty-three officers (8,695 annual calls-for- service 260.79 calls/sworn officer) by General Plan build-out would merely maintain the existing levels of service, and would not increase the existing levels of service because of the additional 8,697 annual calls-for-service, or the 8,448 calls-for-service to the privately-held land- uses.
No judgement is made, regarded or offered about the existing standards-of-service (LOS) or the current ratio of officers to calls-for-service, or that it is the City's desired level-of-service or that it is optimum, it merely is the existing, or defacto, level-of-service (LOS).
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to collect proportional contributions from new development to pay for additionally required law enforcement facilities, vehicles and equipment.
Specifically, additional law enforcement calls-for-service can be expected, and the cost of adding sworn officers necessary to respond to these anticipated calls, and thus maintain the existing Huntington Beach 2011- 12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 31 Item 9. - 225
HB -360-
295
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment levels-of-service afforded the existing residential and business community, can also be determined.
The additional costs can be proportionally determined and translated to a fee, or an amount, necessary to offset the added costs of the required additional law enforcement staffing. Those impact costs include housing and equipping the additional required officers. Providing that the impact cost is adopted and imposed as a fee, new development will finance the capital costs of expansion of the City's Police Department. The annual operations cost of the annual salary and benefits for those additional officers, will need to come from the increases in the base amounts of property, sales and transient occupancy general tax increases generated by the new residences and businesses and their occupants.
The Use of the Fee. The fees collected will be used to fund the law enforcement facilities and equipment (identified in the Master Facilities Plan) that are necessary to accommodate the anticipated (and planned for) development identified in Table 2-1. The revenues raised for a properly calculated and legally-supported Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee would be limited to capital(ized) costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to expand or increase capacity within the law enforcement facilities, increase the number of response and investigator's vehicles, and specialty equipment. Conversely, the General Plan Build-out Needs-based Law Enforcement Development Impact Fee receipts cannot be used repair the existing building, replace existing vehicles, or re-outfit a new officer (due to normal vacancies of the existing 235 officers).
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. The fees collected from new development will be used to pay the proportional facility expansion costs generated by new development. As the development occurs, the impact (in the form of new or additional demands for service) is generated in differing amounts by differing land-uses and the development impact fees would be collected as the various types of development occurs (at a time in the development review and approval process determined by the City). The collected fee would be put to use to acquire law enforcement space, vehicles and equipment for the new (and additional) officers necessary to respond to those additional calls generated by that same new development, without reducing the capability of responding to calls for the existing community.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project.
As noted in this report, residents and businesses will generate calls-for-service at different rates.
Thus, there is a need to establish a specific schedule of development impact fees to fund the law enforcement facilities needed to support the development anticipated in Table 2-1. To meet that need, Police Department calls-for-service records were used to verify that differing land uses generate differing amounts of calls-for-service. Anecdotally we can all recognize that a retail store would be more likely to suffer shoplifting incidents, whereas a residence is more likely to experience a domestic disturbance or break-in and thus would have differing demands. The data in this Chapter demonstrates those expected differences using data specific to the City of Huntington Beach. The collected impact fees would be used to acquire additional building space, Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 32 HB -361- Item 9. - 226
296
297
298
Detached Dwelling Units $15,793,603 $409/Unit
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment Table 3-4
Existing Financial Commitment or "Equity-based"
Law Enforcement Impact Fees
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Units
Hotel/Motel Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial Uses
$30,365,403
$1,090,040
$503,096
$444,401
$13,792,002
$9,258,164
$841/Unit
$380/Unit
$470Unit
$549/Unit
$1.074/S.F.
$0.4751S.F.
RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
The General Plan Build-out Needs-based impact fees, identified in Table 3-3, are slightly less than the Financial Commitment or Investment-based fees identified in Table 3-4 indicating that the existing commitment has kept relative pace with law enforcement asset expansion. In order to ensure that proportionality, and its underlying fairness, be maintained the development impact fee schedule identified in Table 3-3, (General Plan Build-out Need-based Development Impact Fees) are the most reasonable for both additional new development and the existing community. The adoption of Table 3-3, and detailed in Schedule 3.2 at the end of the Chapter, would also generate sufficient capital, about 97% of the full amount identified in the Master Facilities Plan, to construct most of the law enforcement facilities and capital equipment needed to absorb the new demands generated by the City's continued new development while maintaining proportionality with the commitment demonstrated by the existing community. The remaining 3% would need to come from other sources.
Huntington Beach 2011- 12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 35 Item 9. -229
HB -364-
299
Chapter 3 Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED LAW ENFORCEMENT FACILITIES, VEHICLES AND
EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
* Adopt Schedule 3.2, General Plan Build-out Needs-based development Impact Fees for the seven basic new land-uses.
CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1. The twelve month period spanning 2009.
2. Stated slightly differently, we could expect that any randomly selected thirty homes would generate about ten calls in a given year.
3. Again, this is not intended to imply that each officers annul work effort is limited to only 260.79 calls-for- service. Patrol officers respond to a far greater number of calls-for-service. Investigators may spend an entire year on only a few cases, while officers involved in management of the Department do not necessarily respond to any. The 260.79 calls-for-service is only an average and represent the composite calls-for-service workload distributed between the entire 235 sworn officers.
4. This is almost the same as the average of 365.0 square foot per officer of six cities (with greater than 85 officers) where RCS has conducted similar analyses. Those six municipalities include Huntington Beach, Anaheim, Ontario, Riverside, Chino and Corona. The average for twenty cities (of all sizes) is 353.6 square feet per sworn officer.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 36 HB -365- Item 9. - 230
300
ifi0•00.1.41160tod.:-
te:diie.i.1;00•0 • • -
:NO•wpeilekiliiii6m:::
• Amdant Alloca
.16 Eliminate'
97.05% $7,373,049
97.05% $1,699,384
97.05% $318,023
97.05% $412,463
97.05% $9,802,919
0.00% $0
0.00% $0
97.05% $9,802,919
...F0.14i.d:ta'Sqh.0.0.14'..
..iVe d:•
:!1050.1.1.ioned •
6.tiltatr. gas! ,
. :
LE-001 Additional Law Enforcement Facility Space $7,597,165 LE-002 Acquire Additional Response Vehicles $1,751,040 LE-003 Acquire Additional Sworn Office issued Equipment $327,690 LE-004 Acquire Law Enforcement Specialty Equipment $425,000 SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS I $10,100,895
2:..195% $224,116
$51,656
$9,667
$12,538
$297,976
LESS: Existing Law Enforcement Impact Fee Fund Balance $0 0.00WTr $0
SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS
$0 -076i*
$0
Total - Law Enforcement Capital Project Needs $10,100,895 :2A5% $297,976
Estimated
Cos
Percent
Need
AlopottiOne&
E Schedule 3.1
City of Huntington Beach t■.)
(..,) 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation
Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
NOTES:
1. Costs distribution based upon a 10% sampling of Police Department "Calls-for-Service" statistics.
Revenu )st Specialists, L.L.C. Full( CA 92831
301
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
111.2 5,307
1.0 9
18.6 818
9.3 535
39.8 2,417,000
Net Increased Units
Detached Dwelling Units (1) 295.0 1,749
Acres Llnits Generation
RatP.
P6it.04000.0
of Additional • . .:.. • • • ••••
e.ri&O'grokl:
. . . ::-AffePetien6
Expons.19a. 000000.:
Pr Acre
tr000ff0000io.iitz::
Schedule 3.2
City of Huntington Beach
2010-11 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Costs (Fees) Law Enforcement Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
Industrial/Manufacturing Use 187.0 3,638,000
0.341 597.18 7.07% $692,944 $2,349 5.93 $396 per Unit
0.702 3,725.83 44.10% $4,323,304 $38,879 47.72 $815 per Unit
0.318 2.86 0.03% $3,319
$3,319 9.00 $369 per Unit
0.393 321.08 3.80% $372,568 $20,031 43.98 $455 per Unit
0.459 245.35 2.90% $284,694 $30,612 57.53 $532 per Unit
0.897 2,168.07 25.66% $2,515,742 $63,210 60,729 $1.041 per S.F.
0.381 1,387.80 16,43%1 $1,610,348 $8,611 19,455 $0.443 per S.F. 10-0,004 $9.802:919 in Total Law Enforcement Capital Needs to C omplete**(0] ZEZ - .6 mon
00 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 302
303
Chapter
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The Existing Fire Suppression/Medic Infrastructure. The Fire Department responds to calls for service from eight existing stations and trains at a facility consisting of a training (and drying) tower, classrooms, offices and support areas with specialty situation training mock-up implements.
There is also a storage facility for reserve vehicles. The fire facilities are detailed as follows:
Fire Station #1 (Gothard) is a 10,200 square foot facility on parcel that is just under an acre (42,166 square feet) and is located at 18311 Gothard Street.
Fire Station #2 (Murdy) is a 11,500 square foot three-bays wide by two-vehicles deep facility also on a 42,166 square foot parcel at 16221 Gothard Street.
Fire Station #3 (Bushard) is a one-bay wide by one-vehicle deep, 5,700 square foot facility located on a 12,980 square foot parcel located at 19711 Bushard Street.
Fire Station #4 (Magnolia) is a 5,702 square foot, one-bay wide by one-vehicle deep facility located on a 21,780 square foot parcel located at 21441 Magnolia Street.
Fire Station #5 (Lake) is a 11,508 square foot, three-bays wide by two-vehicles deep facility on a 14,200 square foot parcel located at 530 Lake Street.
Fire Station #6 (Edwards) is a 13,000 square foot, three-bays wide by two-vehicles deep facility located on a 208,478 square foot parcel located at 18591 Edwards Street.
Fire Station #7 (Warner) is an 8,750 square foot, two-bays wide by one-vehicle deep facility located on a 53,273 square foot parcel at 3831 Warner Avenue.
Fire Station #8 (Heil) is a 5,712 square foot, two-bays wide by one-vehicle deep station on a 10,280 square foot parcel located at 5891 Heil Avenue.
The Training Facility is also located at 18301 Gothard next to Station #1 on a 77,580 square foot portion of a City parcel and consists of 7,081 square feet of classrooms and offices. The site also has numerous training exercise implements and a drafting pool.
Huntington Beach 2011- 12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 40 HB -369- Item 9. - 234
304
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Reserve Vehicle Storage Building - The facility is 2,525 square foot storage building and is located behind Fire Station #1 (Gothard).
The land and replacement construction cost of the existing stations and training facilities is approximately $52,999,718. Not surprisingly, the City also has a sizable fleet of City-owned response and prevention units (and equipment) consisting of:
• Four front line and three reserve ambulances;
• Two front line ladder trucks, one aerial platform and a large tiller ladder truck and one reserve tiller ladder truck;
• Eight front-line and four reserve engines;
• Two Battalion Chief incident command vehicles;
• Seven utility pick-up trucks of varying sizes (utility and specialty support); • Three specialty vehicles, a decontamination vehicle, a HazMat vehicle and Light/Air support vehicle; and,
• Twenty-two administrative, inspection and investigation sedans.
The total investment in the Department's vehicle compliment is about $9,237,000. The City's investment in assigned fire fighter equipment is approximately $1,010,202 at $7,595.50 for each of the 133 sworn fire fighters. The City has also acquired approximately $537,780 in computers/Electronic equipment. There is no existing Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicle and Equipment Impact Fee Fund thus no current year-end fund balance.
The current equity of the stations, parcels, specialty equipment and the response fleet is estimated to be $63,784,700. The sale of Station #8 (Heil), to allow it to be relocated, decreases this figure by a net $2,550,473 to $61,234,227. This figure represents what it would cost to establish the existing eight station (along with the reserve vehicle and training facilities) response capability at current vehicle, equipment, land acquisition and facility construction costs. The relevance of this figure will be established later in this Chapter.
Demand U a on Infrastructure Created b the Develo a ment of Under or Undevelo • ed Parcels.
While it can be said that numerous factors are considered when determining the number of and location of fire stations in any city, it can be stated without any logical argument that all new (net) private development in the City will have an effect on the City's current ability to respond to fire, medic, and emergency calls-for-service. The effect, simplified but not trivialized, is twofold.
Initially, each new residential and business development will create, on average, more calls-for- service increasing the likelihood of simultaneous (and thus competing) calls-for-service.
Additionally, as development spreads further from any existing station or stations, as large-scale development is often likely to do, the distances (and thus response times) will increase, taking the existing engine companies out-of-service for greater lengths of time.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 41 Item 9. - 235 HB -370-
305
The capacity of any fire station to respond to calls-for-service is finite and will ultimately reach practical limits (through a combination of call-frequency and total time on that call). When that station's capacity is exceeded, the level-of-service afforded to existing development will be greatly diminished. Or stated in another way, if development continues without the addition of fire stations (additional capacity), the existing station will be overwhelmed (new demand), making a timely response for emergency service less likely. That is to say, the existing engine companies may not be available to respond to your needs as they may be out-of-service on a call in a different part of the community.
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to collect proportional financial contributions from new development to pay for additional fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment. In order to be able to continue to be able to respond to an ever-increasing number of expected calls, the Fire Department staff has determined the need for the relocation of one new station (as opposed to adding a ninth) and an expansion of one existing station. Having the right type and inventory of fire stations in the right locations enables the City's policy makers to house fire fighters, apparatus, and equipment in a rational way for maximum use of resources.
Conversely, the penalties are high and extremely visible, for inadequate fire response capacity.
Adverse effects are felt by the City's fire staff, the council, and indeed by the existing taxpayers.
With poor response capacity response times, (via distance or out-of-service due to a previous call), can become excessive and if a tragedy occurs, the incident will be well publicized.
Often, response time is mistakenly referred to for only the first-in unit. This can be a grave error.
More correctly, response time must consider the time necessary to assemble all of the fire resources necessary to place the incident under control. If the first unit arrives within five minutes but cannot provide the necessary water flow, undertake entry, or perform the needed functions due to a lack of staffing, the five minute response becomes insignificant and irrelevant. Thus an increase in the number and type of response vehicles is also necessary to match and equip the needed additional staff. The following sections identify the manner in which the City plans to meet the demands of additional calls-for-service and can thus accommodate new development.
The Use of the Fee. The development impact fee would be collected as the development occurs at some point of the development review process determined by the City. As the development occurs, the impact is generated. The collected fees would be put to use to acquire the additional fire-fighters' facilities necessary to respond to additional calls-for-service, necessary to avoid reducing the capability of responding to calls from the existing community. These fees will be used to finance the construction or acquisition of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment (identified in the companion Master Facilities Plan) that have been identified as necessary to accommodate the anticipated (and planned for) development identified in Table 2-1.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 42 HB -37 1- Item 9. - 236
306
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Chapter 4 The proposed fire suppression/medic facilities and equipment that are necessary to accommodate the anticipated (and planned for) in Table 2-1 are identified in the companion document the Master Facilities Plan. It is important to note that the fees would be used to acquire additional stations or expand existing stations (to increase the response capacity of that station) and increase the number of emergency response vehicles. Conversely, the Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Impact Fee receipts could not be used to simply repair any existing fire station or replace any existing emergency response vehicles. Additional facility capacity is planned to come on-line, as needed, as development creates additional demands beyond the existing capability (frequency and distance) of the existing stations. The six capital projects expansions proposed by the City's fire staff will cost a net $11,241,972. They are described briefly:
FS-001 - Relocate Station #8 (Heil) - The proposed project involves the relocation of the existing station from it's current location on Heil Street just west of Springdale to a more northerly area near Graham Street, north of Edinger Street. The relocation is largely needed to meet the shifting and increasing demands resulting from the redevelopment/up-sizing of both the Downtown Specific Plan and the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan corridor. The proposed building would be a three-bay wide by two-vehicle deep facility. The project would need approximately an acre and a quarter.
FS-002 - Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility - The reserve vehicle storage facility behind the existing Station #1 would need to be supplemented with a storage facility behind Station #8 as part of the above project but is not fully needed as result of the redevelopment of the two large specific plans. It is partly needed to accommodate existing reserve vehicles.
FS-003 - Construct a Single Bay/Quarters At Station #4 (Magnolia) - The project will add 2,400 square feet to the station. The additional space would consist of an additional 1,600 two vehicle deep bay to house and additional engine company and an ambulance.
FS-004 - Acquire an Additional Engine and Ambulance for Station #4 (Magnolia) - This project consists of the response vehicles in support of the Station #4 expansion.
FS-005 - Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #1 - This additional engine would be needed to assist in handling the additional call volume resulting from the development in both the Downtown Specific Plan and the southerly portion of the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan corridor.
FS-006 - Acquire an Additional Engine for Station #2- This additional engine would be needed to assist in accommodating additional call-for-service volume resulting from the development in the Beach/Edinger Specific Plan corridor.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 43 Item 9. - 237 HB -372-
307
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The proposed projects and costs are identified on Schedule 4.1 and are detailed in the Master Facilities Plan. The total cost of completing the fire infrastructure system is $11,941,972, which is mitigated by the $700,000 offset anticipated by the sale of the Station #8, Heil for a net total of $11,241,972. There is no existing Fire Suppression/Medic Development Impact Fee fund thus no fund balance.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project.
As noted in this report, residents and businesses will generate calls-for-service at different rates.
Thus, there is a need to establish a specific schedule of development impact fees to finance the required expansion to the fire suppression/paramedic facilities et. al. needed to support the development anticipated and identified in Table 2-1. Fire suppression/medic response standards extended to new development should be consistent with the fire response currently enjoyed by the City's existing citizens and business community by constructing new facilities, or the result will be a deterioration in the level-of-service provided both to the existing residents and future citizens and businesses within the City. It follows that it is appropriate to assess future development to contribute additional fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and equipment.
To project the impact of future development on fire services, it was first necessary to quantify the current impact on services from each of the City's land uses. Then, a determination of the costs of future capital facilities necessary to meet this increased demand was made. The following section illustrates the relative impact from each land use on fire services and facilities.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Public Facility and the Type of Development Project.
As noted in this report, residents and businesses will generate calls-for-service at different rates.
Thus, there is a need to establish a specific schedule of development impact fees to fund the fire suppression/paramedic facilities needed to support the development anticipated in Table 2-1. To meet that need, actual Fire Department calls-for-service records' were used to verify that differing land uses generate differing numbers of calls. The data in this Chapter demonstrates those expected differences using data specific to City of Huntington Beach. The collected impact fees would be used to acquire equipment for additional fire fighters, vehicles and additional building space necessary to respond to the calls-for-service generated by private residential dwelling and business space.
The Relationship Between the Amount of the Fee and the Cost of the Portion of the Facility Attributed to the Development Project. Each new development would finance a proportional amount of the expansion of the fire station/company response capacity, vehicle response fleet and specialty response/paramedic equipment and thus a proportional share of the costs. It is unlikely that any specific development will generate the need to construct the additional fire station, but each one will pay for their proportional demands on that expansion.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 44 HB -373- Item 9. - 238
308
38,616 4,762 0.123/Unit Detached Dwelling Units
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
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
HB -374-
309
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment The beach/City right-of-way areas generated 195 calls for service. Of residential land uses, the occupants of an attached dwelling unit are less likely, by less than half as much, to require an emergency fire service response at 0.051 annual responses per unit, than the occupants of a detached dwelling unit at 0.123 annual responses per unit. Commercial/Office development is shown to generate 0.044 responses per 1,000 square feet of building pad, while industrial development generates a minimal response demand of 0.004 calls per 1,000 square feet of building pad. The lower demand by industrial uses over commercial/office uses should be expected given the greater density of employees and patrons in a commercial or office establishment when compared to an industrial business of similar building size. However, it should be noted that while there are fewer calls for industrial properties, significant specialty training is required to be prepared for industrial responses, (i.e., confined space and hazardous materials training).
Table 4-2 indicates that, given the high density of rooms and accompanying facilities, an acre of resort development, creates the highest demand for fire services, thus the development impact fee for that land use is the highest, on an average acreage basis.
Table 4-2
Calls-for-service by Land-use
an Acre Basis
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses (per KSF)
0.123 6 0.74
0.051 20 1.02
0.212 14 2.97
0.048 32 1.53
0.106 40 4.25
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 Item 9. - 240 HB -375-
310
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment development was extrapolated. This was accomplished by multiplying the average responses per unit or 1,000 square feet (KSF), established in Table 4-1, by the number of anticipated dwelling units, commercial rooms or business KSF. Table 4-3, following, indicates the number of additional calls-for-service that could be anticipated from the development of currently vacant land within the City's planning area.
Table 4-3
Additional Annual Fire Suppression/Medic Responses
Generated by Future Anticipated Development
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)
Hotel/Motel Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial Uses
Total
0.212/unit 9 units 1.91 calls
0.048/unit 818 units 38.99 calls
0.106/unit 535 units 56.87 calls
0.044/KSF 2,417 KSF 106.39 calls
0.040/KSF 3,638 KSF 14.72 calls
705.88 calls
Proposed Capital Expenses. The total cost of the required improvements to the City's investment of fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and specialty equipment was previously estimated to be $11,941,972 with an offset of $700,000 from the proceeds of sale of the to-be vacated Heil Station #8. Roughly 46.4% has been identified as required to serve the net new calls-for-service resulting from development or up-sizing due to redevelopment. Projects FS-001 through FS-006 are capacity-increasing and have been determined by City staff to be necessary to accommodate the anticipated additional calls-for-service from new development or for a more appropriate aerial unit. When this cost is distributed the various land-uses and the demands created by each, a proportional cost is determined, by development unit. Table 4-4, summarized from Schedule 4.2, indicates the proportional cost by land-use unit.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 47 Item 9. -241
HB -376-
311
Detached Dwelling Units $968/Unit
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
$1,693,338
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Units (in parks)
$2,130,176
$14,996
$401/Unit
$1,666/Unit
Hotel/Motel Units $306,117 $374/Unit
Resort Lodging Units $446,495 $835/Unit
Commercial/Office Uses $835,285 $0346/S.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 $ 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
312
Detached Dwelling Units $922/Unit
Chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment Table 4-5
Existing Fire Suppression/Medic Existing
Community Financial Commitment
$35,586,696
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Units (in parks)
Hotel/Motel Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial Uses
$13,795,263
$4,536,145
$381,126
$642,683
$4,222,277
$612,791
$382/Unit
$1,583/Unit
$356/Unit
$792/Unit
$0.3291S.F.
$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 in Table 4-4. This indicates that the City is just slightly behind in its cumulative and proportional investment in needed fire suppression/medic facilities, vehicles and equipment.
RESULTING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Since the equity position of the existing community is slightly less than the General Plan Build-out Needs-based development impact fees necessary for expansion, the current Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test-based Development Impact Fees, as identified in Table 4-5 and Schedule 4.3, would be the most equitable fee schedule to adopt.
Resulting Development Impact Cost Distribution. The collection of the proposed development impact fee, through build-out would allow the City to provide a great deal (44.7%) of the proposed expansions and most of the equipment, but not all of it. It would fall about $6.0 million short of financing all of the required improvements attributed to new development.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 49 Item 9. -243
HB -378-
313
chapter 4 Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities, Vehicles, and Equipment
OTHER NOTES AND ISSUES
1. The City will need to monitor the approval of conditional uses within industrial zoned development where newly constructed industrial developments. These land uses are initially have the lower industrial use development impact fees imposed when constructed as "spec" buildings but end up being used, with a CUP, for commercial/office uses. These commercial/office uses generate far greater demand than the industrial uses. If left unchecked, the Fire Department, as well as other City services, will be faced with the greater demand from the actual commercial/office uses but will be left only with the collection of the far lower industrial use development impact fee rates. To avoid this under collection, the City should impose an impact fee representing the difference between the commercial/office development impact fee and the previously paid industrial land-use impact fee when a CUP is approved and tenant improvement plans are submitted indicating a commercial or office use.
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED FIRE SUPPRESSION/MEDIC FACILITIES, VEHICLES AND EQUIPMENT DEVELOPMENT IMPACT t'EES.
• Adopt Schedule 4.3 General Plan Build-out Needs-based for the seven basic land-uses.
CHAPTER ENDNOTES
1. The response data is generated from Department response incident data used to complete the annual National Fire Incident Report (NFIR's).
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 50 HB -379- Item 9. - 244
314
COnstruction Needs
Sopportecl by
•Ottiet Resoutaas...
Opi.:10rot.oci.Ok Ne.W. . .
Development
cp
Schedule 4.1
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation
Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Vehicles
0it :: l'OpottlOr? pct.. ferOen APpOttiO00::
.iv.0.4.1 .•:iii: -.Obiiat .,:i.o..ei:iii:, :i0oiiaidia..t:
FS-001 Relocate Station #8 (Heil)
FS-002 Construct Station #8 (Heil) Apparatus Storage Facility FS-003 Construct a Single Bay/Quarters at Station #4 (Magnolia) FS-004 Acquire an Engine Company and Ambulance for Station #4 (Magnolia) FS-005 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #1 (Gothard) FS-006 Acquire an Engine Company for Station #2 (Murdy)
$1,716,044 75.00% $1,287,033 25.000/01 $429,011
$1,266,458 50,00% $633,229 50.00°M $633,229
$740,000 50.00% $370,000 50.00% $370,000
$525,000 50:00% $262,500 50.00%1 $262,500
$525,000 50:006/c $262,500 50.00% $262,500
$3,584,735 50.00% $3,584,735 $7,169,470 5O00%
SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS J $11,941,972 53.5.9%, $6,399,997 46.41%1 $5,541,975 LESS: Existing Fire Suppression Impact Fee Fund Balance 1 $0 . 100..009 $0 Sale of Property (Heil Station) ($700,000) 100.:0-0.0 0:00%
($700,000)
($700,000) SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS I ($700,000)
0.00%
$0
0.00% $0
0.00% $0
Total Fire Suppression/Medic Capital Project Needsj $11,241,972 .50:70% $5,699,997 49.3004 $5,541,975 orward to Schedule •?_
NOTES:
1. The cost distribution is based upon annual Fire Department "Calls-for-Services statistics (NFIRs).
Revenu■ .)st Specialists, L.L.C. Fulle A 92831
315
Detached Dwelling Units (1) 295.00 1,749 0.123
Attached Dwelling Units 11t20 5,307 0.051
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.00 9 0.212
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 18.60 818 0.048
Resort Lodging Units 9.30 535 0.106
Commercial/Office Uses 39.80 2,417,000 0.044
Industrial/Manufacturing U$el 187.00 3,638,000 0.004 TOTAL '1 .90
00 ej..-00.$00 Land Us e.
ected
New Calls
oi- Service
215.68
271.32
1.91 38.99
56.87 106.39
14.72 Percentage
of Additioflal
Service Calls
411.00000 Of
Expansion
Costs
P-0100000
iolao
Ave
or
30.55% $1,693,338 $5,740
38.44% $2,130,176 $19,156
0.27% $14,996 $14,996
5.52% $306,117 $16,458
8.06% $446,495 $48,010
15.07% $835,285 $20,987
2.09% $115,569 $618
41001.00#10it
Impact Fee per Uni ..............
oar& ,00
$968 per Unit
$401 per Unit
5.93 47.72
9.00 $1,666 per Unit
43.98 $374 per Unit
57.53 $835 per Unit
Schedule 4.2
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report General Plan Build-out Needs-based Development Impact Costs (Fees) Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Vehicles
60,729 $0.346 per S.F.
19,455 $0.032 per S.F.
. 705.88 00:0()% 505414175 in Total Fire Suppression capital NeedSto.Finfsh .SYSterri • age
CD
-P. Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 316
Allocation of
fnfrastruOtute
flEquity"
Oianit•OtiOn
Of TOogy:::
PO: e Acre
Average Units
or square
Feet/Acre
Current Final-rola!
.Commitment per Unit
or Square rogt..
of Existing
4,762.0
1,846.0
607.0
51.0 86.0
565.0
82.0 195.0
58.12% $35,586,696
22.53%1 $13,795,263
7.410/61 $4,536,145
0.62% $381,126
$642,683
$4,222,277
$612,791
$1,457,246
6.00 $922 per Unit
20.00 $382 per Unit
14.00 $1,583 per Unit
32.04 $356 per Unit
$794 per Unit
$0.329 per S.F.
21,779
$0.030 per S.F.
1.050/
6.900/
1.00%
2.38%
40.05 15,246
$61,234,
• • •• • •• • .•••• • ••• • • ••:. •• • • • • • •• ..,•:•••••••••••••• • • •••• —•••• •:
........
... .$52,999,718 in .. . .. . . .Suppression .... .. . . • , . . , •• • . . . . . . . ... ($3,250,473) Less Hell Station #8 (to .t*f .§0000 .4
$700,000 Proceeds of Sale of Fleil Station #8 , . . . . 03;*37;0 .00. .,A14:00.** Fire Suppression Vnhcles.
$1,010,202 in Existing Fire-fighter Assigned Equipment. . . . . ... ...........
-:•:•:. ..... . •:•::•:•:•
04$0.66•00$0.0010.010000tr.04 .:0.i.40.0.4,00
0 100. 00%
$5,529
$7,641
$22,171
$11,411
$31,816
CD
Schedule 4.3
t,..) City of Huntington Beach
4. 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees Fire Suppression/Medic Facilities and Vehicles
:Developed
.AC(4S I• Units . •
Cali
Gnrziot
Detached Dwelling Units (1) 6,436.00 38,616
Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.40 36,108 I
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 204.60 2,865 I
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.40 1,070
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial/Manufacturing Use 930.30 120,261,000
Beach Area
yoticV .............
Revenu .)st Specialists, L.L.C. Full( CA 92831
CZ
oc
1■")
20.20 I 809 I
841.90 112,836,000 1
I 0.123
0.051
0.212
0.048
0.106
0.044
0.004
317
Chapter 5
Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System
The following Chapter will identify the street, traffic signal and bridge improvements (henceforth referred to as the Circulation System) planned for the City through General Plan Build-out of the existing City limits as identified in the Land-use Database Table in Chapter 2.
RCS recommends the continuation of the City's comprehensive Circulation System Development Impact Fee, i.e., a fee that combines the required street, signal and bridge expansions, all of which are related to the movement of primarily vehicles. The reasons are practical in that combining these three components will provide greater flexibility in establishing priorities in what is essentially a singular circulation issue with a common nexus, traffic or as stated in trip-mile generation. It is fairly common that a single circulation system capital improvement project will involve both a street improvement (or intersection) and signal improvement.
The Existing Circulation System. The City currently has and maintains an extensive system of roadways available for transportation of goods and services, as well as for educational, recreational, and social purposes. Streets that fall under the jurisdiction of City of Huntington Beach are classified as one of four types of roadways for the purposes of this Report. Roadways are defined in part (in the City's General Plan Circulation Element) 2 as:
• Freeway - Very high mobility with limited access to arterial streets and no access to adjacent land use. [The City is not responsible for the construction of freeways but will likely have to financially assist CALT.RANS with any alteration to an existing access/egress ramps]. • Arterial - High mobility with access to collectors, some access to local streets and major traffic generators.
• Collector - Limited mobility connecting local streets with arterials; also provides good access to adjacent land uses.
• Local -Limited mobility but provides very good access to adjacent land uses and collector streets.
Typically, locals would be constructed upon the developer's private property and generally only benefits those new residential or business buildings. Assuming that the design criterion has been met and that the right-of-way improvements meet inspection requirements, the City then accepts Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 54 HB -383- Item 9. -248
318
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, SingrLls, and Bridges) System the local street improvements along with the responsibility to maintain the improvement in perpetuity. In short, local streets are of little benefit to the City-wide circulation system, and these costs are not shared by other developers, as the collector and arterial system improvements are.
For these reasons, the cost of all local streets is excluded from the Circulation System Development Impact Fee calculation.
Demand Upon Infrastructure Created by the Development of Undeveloped Parcels. Undeveloped parcels create few trip-ends beyond an occasional visit to the site for weed abatement purposes or to consider a sale or development of the vacant parcel. None of these trip-ends are on a routine basis. However, a developed parcel will generate a statistically predictable number of trip-ends, depending upon the specific land use of the development. Thus it can be stated that a vacant parcel, when developed into a specific use, i.e. , residential or business, will generate more traffic than it did when it was vacant. Similarly, a change in the use of the parcel may also increase the number of daily trip-ends. A good example would be the demolition of a low trip-generating insurance office which is reconstructed as a new high trip-generating fast-food restaurant.
All new development contributes to cumulative traffic impacts, which are difficult to measure and mitigate on a project-by-project, basis but which have significant and widespread cumulative impacts on the City's existing road system. Factors that will increase the competition for existing lane miles (and freeway crossings) include, (as measured by trip-miles defined later in Chapter text) the following:
• An increase in the City's full-time population through the construction of about 7,065 additional dwelling units contributing approximately 183,270 new trip-miles daily or just more than 49.4% of the newly expected daily trip-miles. • The construction of 1,353 commercial lodging units (resort and hotel/motel) will generate 26,882 daily trip-miles, not quite 7.3% of the total new trip-miles annually. • The construction of private commercial and office uses on the (net) 40 acres currently identified as undeveloped commercial or office uses will generate 78,553 new daily trip- miles, or about 21.2% of the total new trip-miles expected at General Plan build-out.
This figure could vary significantly depending upon the type of commercial uses constructed and possible zoning changes or conditional use permits issued. • The addition of 187 acres of industrial development (and Institutional Uses) generating the potential for an additional 82,219 daily trip-miles, just under a quarter of the total new trip-miles at 22.1 %. Again, it is possible that some parcels zoned for industrial uses will end up being commercial uses after obtaining a Conditional Use Permit. There Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 55 Item 9. - 249 HB -384-
319
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System are likely many existing industrial buildings contiguous to the City's many arterials and collectors that have become commercial uses.
When all (or most) of the available vacant land is developed, the City can expect an additional 370,924 daily trip-miles. For perspective, the City currently experiences approximately 3,135,213 daily trip-miles from the existing residences and businesses. The 370,924 anticipated trip-miles represents an approximate 11.8% increase over the existing 3,135,213 daily trip-miles.
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the fee is to collect proportional contributions from new development to pay for additional circulation system capacity and by creating more lane miles or more efficient lane miles with which to accommodate the additional trip-miles created by and anticipated from new development. Additionally there are circulation projects required to alter existing arterials, collectors or intersections that currently exist, but due to additional trip-miles are becoming ineffective at moving vehicles. An example would be the intersection of Beach Boulevard and Edinger Avenue (ST-001). This project is required because additional citizens and business-owners will use the existing intersections along with the current users rendering it, again, ineffective at moving traffic at a reasonable pace, primarily during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour of traffic. Acceptable traffic paces can be maintained with a combination of road widening, freeway access/egress, proper signalization and turn lane channelization. The simple answer to increasing demand for lane miles is to construct additional lane miles. Unfortunately there are little if any opportunities to construct additional lane miles of arterials or collectors within the City's limits without the impractical and acquisition of very expensive right-of-way.
Thus, given the size of City of Huntington Beach and the magnitude of growth projected in this Report, numerous intersection improvements and construction of technologically improved traffic signals will be the primary methodology employed by the City to avoid congestion and gridlock in the future. Traffic planners have long known that the critical constraint in a typical roadway network is usually not the roadway itself but the many intersections of arterial and collector roadways. While the street capacity may be theoretically adequate to carry traffic volumes at build-out, motorists may experience congestion and even gridlock at the intersections of the arterial/collector. While the City will likely undertake, some street widening projects where possible, the installation of traffic signals and lane reconfiguration at critical intersections in the City is perhaps a more important component of traffic circulation.
The importance of traffic signals is twofold. First, the City can build only so many major collector streets and there are limits as to how wide they can be, indeed there are no more practical opportunities for additional lane-miles. Second, a north-south arterial/collector, by definition, will intersect with an east-west arterial/collector assuring that someone will have to stop, either at a stop sign or a traffic signal, adding time to their tasks. The traffic carrying capacity of each Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 56 HB -385- Item 9. - 250
320
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System collector can only be maximized by assuring orderly flow of traffic by efficient signalization of those intersecting arterial/collector roadways.
None of this is intended to eliminate the time-honored practice of the developer constructing the full width roadway and being reimbursed for the portion greater than would otherwise be required of the developer. This impact fee calculation and resulting fee collection would simply improve the reimbursement capability.
The City's Master Facilities Plan Circulation System section identifies fifteen circulation projects costing a net $28,539,780. The individual projects and costs are identified on Schedule 5.1 at the end of the Chapter and detailed in the Master Facilities Plan. A total of $26,608,410 has been identified by staff as capacity increasing, leaving $1,929,390 to be supported by other financial resources such as assessment districts, State (CALTRANS) assistance, General Funds, etc. There is an existing Circulation System Development Impact Fee Fund balance of $200,000 leaving some $1,469,370 with unidentified revenue sources.
The Use of the Fee. The continued collection of the Circulation System Development Impact Fee would be used to construct the projects (or portions of projects) identified in Schedule 5.1 at the conclusion of this Chapter's text. The collected fees will be used to create additional lane miles with which to accommodate the additional 370,924 additional daily trip-miles that will be generated by the scope of development identified in Table 2-1. Nineteen specific signal modification/intersection modification improvement projects have been included in the list of proposed projects. They include:
Beach Boulevard - Seven signal modification/intersection improvement projects would be constructed along Beach Boulevard at the intersections with Edinger, Heil, Warner, Slater, Talbert, Garfield, and Yorktown Avenues.
Pacific Coast Highway - Three signal modification/intersection improvement projects would improve traffic flow along Pacific Coast Highway at Warner Avenue, Goldenwest and Brookhurst Streets.
Newland Street - Three signal modification/intersection improvement projects along Newland Street include the intersections with Talbert, Warner and Yorktown Avenues.
Goldenwest Street - There are two such projects planned at the intersections of Goldwest Street with Bolsa and Slater Avenues.
Gothard Street - There are also two signal/intersection improvement projects planned at the intersection of Gothard Street with Slater and Talbert.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 57 Item 9. - 251 HB -386-
321
Chapter 5 Circulation (Streets, Signals, and Bridges) System There are two more signal improvement projects, one at the intersection of Ward Street and Garfield Avenue and one at Brookhurst Street and Adams Avenue as well as a few minor intersection improvements that will be identified as development projects arise. There is a minor amount for a facility addition at the City yard to store replacement signal equipment.
The Relationship Between the Use of the Fee and the Type of Development Paying the Fee. There is a reasonable relationship between the fees' use and the types of projects on which the fees are imposed. The fees will be used to provide for a fair share contribution for transportation system improvements, including various street, signal and bridge project improvements needed to accommodate additional development of residential units and business square feet. The development impact fee to be imposed and collected will be based on the ratio of projected number of trip-miles the proposed development will generate in relationship to the total 370,924 additional projected trip-miles at General Plan build-out. Any amount imposed as a Circulation System Development Impact Fee will continue to be placed in a separate fund as the current City practice (collecting interest) and is to be used only on the projects identified on Schedule 5.1 as development-related.
From time to time the City may require an applicant of a private project to construct a street or signal improvement (or portion thereof) that is on the list of required improvements at the end of this Chapter. This method is often undertaken to expedite the project at the request of the applicant/developer. The developer should receive a credit representing the cost of those required improvements, against their mathematically calculated impact fee, for any money expended on this required improvement against any circulation projects. Should one not exist, a portion of the ordinance addressing the issue of credits should be prepared and added to the City of Huntington Beach Municipal Code.
The following table identifies some of the key system attributes of the Circulation System. The attributes identify that approximately 89.4% of the total trip-miles at "build-out" are represented by the existing community who have contributed a similar, but larger amount (96.2%) of the cost of the entire system. The traffic system yet to be built represents about 3.9% of the total trip-mile supporting system when the City is fully developed. Since there is a finite amount of room for additional major roads, traffic signals must be constructed at the intersection of major arterials.
All of this generally indicates that the City is "on target" in terms of the construction of a circulation infrastructure. Or another way to state it is that the current drivers will generate
89.4% of the ultimate "build-out" trip-miles, have constructed about 96.2 % , (in terms of cost) of the required infrastructure. It would be appropriate to assume that the remaining 10.6% of the traffic trip-mile generators contribute the remaining 3.9% of the infrastructure.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 58 HB -387- Item 9. -252
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
use) and the varying amounts are referred to as the runoff coefficients. Approximately 0.775 (or
77.5%) of rainfall that falls on a parcel developed with detached dwelling residences, exits that developed parcel. The rate for attached dwelling residences runoff is little much higher at 0.810 (81.0%). Most business uses such as a hotel/motel, resort, retail/office and industrial have a runoff coefficient of between 0.875 and 87.5% with industrial acres to 0.950 or 95 %. Clearly, water runoff increases when a vacant property is developed with impervious roof-top, sidewalks and driveways/parking lots. The cumulative effects of additional runoff must be managed with the appropriate capital facilities to move the water and, in some cases such as during heavy downpours, detain the storm water prior to releasing it slowly into the downstream storm drain.
The costs of the new storm drainage will be distributed by the coefficients of drainage, i.e., the percentage of property that will end up with impervious coverage such as asphalt or cement-based concrete drives or parking lots, rooftop, pools and any other hard surface that do not allow any absorption into the soil.
The Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the development impact fee is to collect fair share contributions from the various land-uses to finance the proportional acquisition of additional storm drainage system improvements needed to collect that additional storm water runoff from the that same proposed development. The cost of extending the same level of storm drainage protection to the newly developing homes and businesses as is provided to the existing community, (that has largely paid for the existing system), can be calculated, an impact fee imposed and collected. The impact fee revenues can then be used to expand the storm drainage facilities necessary to extend the existing level-of-services. The City's Storm Drainage Plan identifies a total of $207,494,225 in storm drainage collection system capacity-increasing projects required to fully complete the City's General Plan build-out network of pipes, small channels and detention ponds. This cost cannot be mitigated by Storm Drainage System Development Impact Fee fund balance.
The Use of the Fee. The construction of storm drainage collection facilities in the City of Huntington Beach is essential to the preservation of private property, and the millions of dollars invested in public streets, curbs, parks and other public facilities. The building of new residences and businesses on presently undeveloped (or underdeveloped) land will require the installation of additional storm drainage collection lines and inlets to handle the ever increasing runoff from this same new development. This Chapter reviews the costs of expanding the storm drainage collection system facilities needed to accommodate the drainage generated by future development.
The revenues raised from a properly calculated and supported Storm Drainage Collection System Development Impact Fee would be limited to capital(ized) costs related to that growth. The fees would be used to construct additional or parallel storm drainage lines (to increase the drainage capacity of the system). Conversely, the Storm Drainage Impact Fee receipts would not be used to repair, replace or rehabilitate any existing storm drainage lines with adequate capacity.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 72 HB -401- Item 9. -266
336
0.775
Storm Drainage Collection System Chapter 6
The Relationship Between the Need for The Public Facilities and the Type of Development Project. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facilities and the types of developments on which the fees are imposed. New residents and businesses utilize and impact the community's existing storm drainage system which requires various storm drainage improvements. Upon the identification of the costs of storm drainage facilities, generated by future development, costs must be further distributed for each of the land uses (i.e., commercial and residential uses) based on their estimated storm runoff. Detached and attached residential dwelling development provides the most landscape percentage per parcel and thus the greatest percolation and conversely the least runoff of storm-water. As such, these land uses should not bear the same cost as Commercial/Office or Industrial use developments, both of which generally will have lesser landscape area (or stated another way, have a higher percentage of impervious area) and therefore generate a higher amount of storm water runoff.
Schedule 6.1 contains the list of storm water projects identified 4 as necessary to control the storm water runoff resulting from the creation of an impervious surface by future development and also continue to protect the existing developed community. The list consists of hundreds of small projects in six storm drainage zones estimated to cost $207,494,050. For this Report, costs were distributed between land uses on established runoff coefficients. Table 6-1 is the listing of these runoff coefficients employed in this Report.5
Table 6-1
Storm Drainage Runoff Coefficients
(@ a 2"/hour rainfall)
Detached Dwelling Units
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses
0.810
0.800
0.900
0.875
0.900
0.950
Huntington Beach 2011- 12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 73 Item 9. - 267 HB -402-
337
338
Detached Dwelling Units
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
fmance 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 $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 $0.3471S.F.
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses $4,160,238 $22,247 $1.144/S.F.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 75 Item 9. - 269 HB -404-
339
340
341
Chapter 6 Storm Drainage Collection System
RECAP OF RECOMMENDED STORM DRAINAGE COLLECTION SYSTEM
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.
• Adopt Schedule 6.2. for the seven basic new land-uses, and; • Adopt the Schedule 6.2, "Cost per Acre" column for construction of parking lots and other private construction causing additional runoff but few other impacts.
CHAPTER ENDNOTFS
1. Storm drainage pipe below the size of 21" is almost exclusively used for "local" or tract storm water collection and is thus not included in the equity calculation. In Huntington Beach this amounts to an additional 80,100 linear foot of reinforced concrete pipe that is 18" to 21" and considered to be "local" in nature and thus not included in this calculation.
2. Roughly assumes inlet boxes constructed at 425 linear foot intervals, combination boxes at 750 foot intervals and junction boxes at 300 linear foot intervals.
3. Projects of major importance generally involving the control of large quantities of flood water (over 500 C.F.S.) through numerous cities and unincorporated areas.
4. The projects individual scope and cost estimates have been provided by the City's contractual engineering firm Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Engineers and Scientists, Irvine, CA 92612-1311.
5. San Bernardino County Hydrology Manual, Williamson and Schmidt, Civil Engineers, Irvine, California, August, 1986, Runoff Index Number 56.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 78 HB -407- Item 9. - 272
342
Other Revenue Sources $0
Total - Storm Drainage Collection System Capital Project Needs I $207,494,050 Schedule 6.1
1,.) City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Identification of Projects and Cost Allocation
Storm Drainage Collection System
$22,234,085
$20,171,660
$32,080,501
$26,938,963
$92,344,355
$660,660
93.'70% $194,430,225
$0
$0
$0
6.30% $1,493,915
6.30% $1,355,340
6.30% $2,155,499
6.30% $1,810,037
6.30% $6,204,645
6.30% $44,390
6.300/4 $13,063,825
0.00% $0
0.00% $0
0.00% $0
6.30% $13,063,825
° ward to Schedule
SD-002 Coastal and Bolsa Chica Wetlands Region (SD Region #2) SD-001 Santa Ana River & Talbert Channel Region (SD Region #1) SD-005 Bolsa Chica Channel & Harbour Region (SD Region #5) SD-006 Public Works Maintenance Building
SD-003 Slater Channel Region (SD Region #3)
SD-004 Wintersburg Channel Region (SD Region #4)
LESS: Existing Storm Drainage Impact Fee Fund Balance
SUB-TOTAL ESTIMATED NEW PROJECT COSTS$207,494,050
$34,236,000
$28,749,000
$23,728,000
$21,527,000
$98,549,000
$705,050
$0
$0
o.cook
0)30%
6.80%
Percerlt
eeef
Apportioned
•Dollar cat
SUB-TOTAL ADJUSTMENTS I
9a,n0/
93•70%
Percent • 00040.
voirar:obii
$194,430,225
onstrtiction*
Other Regources
.01#00,11/6/.00:
pbriirasq. .
nfraStr00 ,04.0g capv.oe,.
0-1
CD
NOTES:
There are no notes.
Revent. ost Specialists, L.L.C. Full CA 92831
343
Detached Dwelling Units (1) 295.00 1,749 0.775 228.63 40.98% $5,354,096 $18,149 5.93 $3,061 per Unit Attached Dwelling Units 111.20 5,307 0.810 90.07 16.15% $2,109,274 $18,968 47.72 $397 per Unit Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.00 9 0.800 0.80 0.14% $18,735 $18,735 9.00 $2,082 per Unit Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 18.60 818 0.900 16.74 3.00% $392,020 $21,076 43.98 $479 per Unit Resort Lodging Units 9.30 535 0.875 8.14 1.46% $190,624 $20,497 57.53 $356 per Unit Commercial/Office Uses 39.80 2,417,000 0.900 35.82 6.42% $838,839 $21,076 60,729 80.347 per S.F.
Industrial/Manufacturing Use 187.00 3,638,000 0.950 177.65 31.85% $4,160,238 $22,247 19,455 $1.144 per S.F.
TOTAL1 557.85• Total Storm Drainage itat,.Ne 0 Finish e101eiji#00:t
Impact Fee per Urn
vare Foot
erceetage
Of Additional
ServiCet Calls
Average Units
ua
Peet/Acre
waived
Use
Coefficient
of Drainage
. .Proll eseci land
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
00 Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, CA 92831 344
'MO* r.Oe'rita.
of Existing,iotatinage:
went HPand
Commitment per Unit
or Square root
-Eystip0.00:
Of 'EqwtY
perAcre
Allocalion:of
InfrastructUre
:Tgqi.ty!prOpOsed Lang' 4.10.
$3,168 per Unit
$993 per Unit
$1,401 per Unit
$689 per Unit
$536 per Unit
$1.448 per S.F.
$1.070 per S.F.
0.775 4,987.90 60.07% $122,325,402 $19,006 6.00
20.00 14.00
32.04 40.05
15,246
21,779
0.810 $19,8651,462.37
0.800
6,436.00
1,805.40
204.60 163.68
38,616
36,108
2,865 $19,617
17.61% $35,863,547
1.97% $4,013,573
Detached Dwelling Units (1)
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units
0.36%30.06 $22,0700.900
0.21%17.680.875 $21,472
$737,145
$433,735
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses 9.13%757.710.900 $22,073
10.64%883.780.950 $23,298
$18,583,394
$21,674,517industrial/Manufacturing Use
CD
Schedule 6.3
City of Huntington Beacht\.)
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Community Financial Commitment or Equity-based Proportionality Test Fees Storm Drainage Collection System
OTAL. 10,2/1.m
911000/4 4203;631;318 In ibta)...'0.iuit.iiCije.iii*jaw.tiiki4iiiii4fit.W.4§eti:::
$158;631;313-:.In Equity in Storm Drainage Collection System FacilitIes. :$15;000,090 :-,in Equity in Storm Drainage Basins.
itl:Eki$tingStorm.OrAinage.iblpact FPe f und.:B*O ca-
00 Revenu )st Specialists, L.L.C. Full( CA 92831
345
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 1, a space standard of 0.669 square feet/resident is established, (127,400 square feet of library space ÷ 190,377 residents). The City's library operations also house an extensive inventory of 410,594 collection items contained within the five libraries. When the 410,594 collection items are divided by the City's residential service population of 190,377 2, a collection item standard of 2.157 library collection items/resident is established, (410,594 collection item's 4- 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
346
Chapter 7 Public Libraiy Facilities and Collection
Table 7-1
Calculation of Existing City
Library Facilities/Collection Items Standard
Library
Facility S.F.
Collection
Items
Banning Library 2,400 27,637
Central Library 115,000 314,921
Graham Library 1,200 14,920
Main Street Library 4,500 30,429
Oak View Library 4,300 22,687
Total Library Resources 127,400 410,594
Current Residential Population 190,377 190,377
Existing Standard/Resident 0.669 2.157
Table 7-2, following, indicates that the remaining residential dwelling development and typical number of residents per type of residential dwelling will generate a need for 11,443 additional square feet in order to maintain the existing library facility standard of 0.669 square feet per person.
Table 7-2
Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Facility Standard Residential
Land-Use
Number
of Units
Persons per
Dwelling
= Resident
Yield
Detached Dwellings Units 1,749 3.053 5,095
Attached Dwellings Units 5,307 2.257 11,978
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 9 1.660 16
Additional Residential Population to be Served 17,089
Square Foot per Person Existing Standard 0.669
Square Feet Required to Maintain Existing Standard 11,433 Huntington Beach 2011- 12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 83 Item 9. -277
HB -412-
347
Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection
The library system also has a collection of 410,594 collection items 3 generating a collection standard of 2.157 collection items per resident within the system (410,594 collection item's +190,377 persons). Table 6-3, following, indicates the additional number of residents to be served and the number of collection items required to maintain the existing standard. The City will need to acquire roughly 36,861 collection items to maintain the existing 2.028 collection items per person in light of the additional 17,089 additional Huntington Beach residents expected at General Plan build-out.
Table 7-3
Collection items Required to Maintain Existing Standard Residential
Land-Use
Number
of Units
Persons per ,
Dwelling .
Resident
Yield
Detached Dwellings 1,749 2.913 5,095
Attached Dwellings 7,207 2.257 11,978
Mobile Home Dwellings 9 1.822 16
Additional City Population to be Served 17,089
Collection Items per Person Existing Standard 2.157
Collection Items Required to Maintain Existing Standard 36,861 The Use of the Fee. The fee, if adopted, would be imposed, collected, and, as needed (and desired), expended on expansion of the amount of library facility space in the two libraries and the number of collection items in the system's collection. The library staff has indicated that the proceeds of any Library development impact fee would be used to expand the Banning Library from its 2,400 square feet to approximately 12,500 square feet and expansion of the existing 4,500 square feet Main Street Branch Libraries into the remaining 4,804 square feet (for a total of 9,304 square feet) in the same building after the current tenant chooses to move elsewhere. Collection items would be expanded in proportion with the population increase, most likely into the additional proposed library space.
The Relationship Between the Need for the Fee and the Type of Development Project. The development of any acreage zoned for residential uses, increases the demand on the finite amount of library space and collection items. Thus, those residential land uses that generate higher numbers of residents (i.e. , detached dwelling) will be charged a proportionally higher amount.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 84 HB -413- Item 9. -278
348
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 process5, (per Schedule 6.1) is estimated by the Library staff to cost roughly $25.00 per collection item. The 410,594 collection items, when divided by the City's 190,377 population create a standard of 2.028 collection items per City resident. The standard of 2.157 collection item standard multiplied by the $25.00 per collection item results in a cost of $53.93 per additional City resident, in order to maintain the existing standard. Table 7-5 following, demonstrates this.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 85 Item 9. -279 HB -414-
349
Public Library Facilities and CollectionChapter 7
Table 7-5
Establishment of the Library Collection Standard
and Cost per Person to Maintain the Standard
Library Collection Items 410,594
Current City Service Population 190,377
Collection Items per Resident Standard 2.157
_
Cost of Library Collection per Collection item $25 MO
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
- -Cost per
_Resident
Residents_ _ pact o
an r :76 g _.- -Per _ --
Detached Dwelling Units 2.913 $402.23 $1,172/Dwelling
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 HB -415- Item 9. -280
350
Chapter 7 Public Library Facilities and Collection
RECOMMENDED DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
• Adopt Schedule 7.1 which contains the recommended City Library Facilities and Collection (item) Development Impact Fees and is summarized in Table7-6. • Establish a General Plan square foot standard for Library Facilities square feet per resident and a standard for Collection Items per resident.
Chapter Endnotes
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 01106 construction date (or $441.63 per square foot) and land acquisition at a cost of $20 per square foot of land with a FAR (floor area ratio) of 0.20 requiring five square feet of land per square foot of building pad. 06/2010 ENR- CCI = 8805 divided by the 01/06 ENR - CCI of 7660 = 14.95 percent increase.
5. The accession process includes: needs research, ordering, receipt, preparation, entering it into the computer and actual placement on the shelves.
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 87 Item 9. - 281 HB -416-
351
Land Acquisition at $20.00/S.F. and 0.25 FAR.
Land Acquisition and Construction per Square Foot
Cost per Collection Item
$80.00
$520.63
$25.00
Cost per Square Foot or Collection Item
Existing City Library Standard(s)
Cost of Space per Resident
Cost of Collection Item per Resident
$520.63 $25.00
0.669 2.157
$348.30 EREIRMSEE
$53.93
Schedule 7.1
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Public Library Facilities and Collection
Library
Space
Library
Collection
Banning Library 2,400 27,637
Central Library 115,000 314,921
Graham Library 1,200 14,920
Main Street Library 4,500 30,429
Oak View Library 4,300 22,687
Existing Square Feet of Library Space 127,400 .:Mliciiiigainn Existing Library Collection Items 410,594
Calculation of Existing Standards:
Current Population (Residents)
S.F. of Library Space/Resident
Collection Items/Resident
190,377 190,377
0,669
Library Construction/Square Foot 06/2010 $440.63 INDEVEREN Type of
Residential
Dwelling Unit
Density
per Dwelling
Unit
Detached Dwelling Unit 2.913
Attached Dwelling Unit 2.257.
Mobile Home Dwelling Unit 1.822
Library
Space
Component
Library
Collection
Component
Total
Library
Impact Fee
$1,015 $157 $1,172
$786 $122 $908
$635 $98 $733
88 Fullertc- --
Item 9. - 282
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
HB -417-
352
Chapter 8
Park Land Acquisition and
Park Facilities Development (including Open Space)
This Chapter summarizes the City's existing inventory of parks and identifies the ratio of park land (and park facilities improvements) per resident allowable under the Quimby Act (§66477 of the Government Code) for residential developments involving the subdivision of land and AB1600 (§66000) for the construction of residential developments not involving the subdivision of land The existing per capita standard is then utilized to calculate the park dedication requirement for future residential development.
EXISTING PARKS AND PARK IMPROVEMENTS SYSTEM
Open space notwithstanding, intensive parks and recreational facilities constitute one of the City of City of Huntington Beach's greatest needs both with respect to facilities for current residents and future citizens. The provision of a well-planned park system, with a variation in the size and nature of facilities offered, is an important amenity to residents of any city, the City of City of Huntington Beach included. A mixture of passive and active uses and facilities and programs which appeal to a broad spectrum of potential park and trail users are considered optimal in most urban cities. The City currently has at its disposal (and within general control) some 999.09 acres of park, beach and specialty uses for use by the City's many residents. However, not all of these acres are owned by the City, many are leased or owned by other agencies made available to the City via a joint use agreements with the various school districts or are S. C. E. right-of-way.
The current acres dedicated to park use (and owned or under long-term control by the City) can reasonably well serve the City's current needs. However if the number of owned park acres remains static at 778.41 acres, the City may not be able to continue to meet recreational demands in light the probable 9.0% increase in the City's population. At an attempt to achieve a high level of fairness, the City's owned park acreage will be used as the standard for calculating the park standard and the development impact fee schedule. The figure is a Government Code statute-based calculation and thus does not include other park opportunities in the area such as Harriet Weider Regional Park, which while clearly serving the City residents, are not City-facilities and thus cannot be programmed by the City. The City has a General Plan standard target of 5.0 acres per 1,000 acres per residents and the calculation of target does include the park acres of other agencies (i.e. the regional park and state-owned beach land) within the calculation of that General Plan Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 89 Item 9. - 283 HB -418-
353
Neighborhood Parks 183.79 129.74
Community/Sports Parks 546.82 470.81
Other (beaches, etc) 268.48 177.86
Total Acres (Owned) 999.09 778.41
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development target. That is completely acceptable for General Plan issues, and the City does meet that General Plan standard.
Future residential development, by increasing the City's population, will impact the City's park system by requiring additional athletic fields, adequate space for various athletic activities and community center space. Given the magnitude of growth projected in this and other reports, the challenge facing the City will be to provide new facilities and park land to serve the recreational needs of these new residents. Without additional park land acquisition and development of currently owned but underutilized park land during the remaining period of private residential development, the City's parks will become overcrowded and overused, with the ultimate result becoming a negative experience for park users.
Existing Park Land and Open Space Land. Currently, the City owns (or has long-tern control of) approximately 778.41 acres of traditional park land, about 87.9 %(683.9 acres) of it, developed.
The entire list of parks and their acreage is identified on Schedule 8.1 at the conclusion of this Chapter with a summary by type in Table 8-1. Central Park is the largest developed park, representing just under a half of the park system acreage and provides the greatest variety of sports and passive uses.
Table 8-1
Current Park Total Inventory
City Park Standard. Table 8-2, following, is a comparison of the acreage of parks to the City of Huntington Beach's current population and indicates that the City presently possesses a total standard of 5.248 acres of park land per 1,000 residents, (999.09 park acres [190,377 resident's 1,000], 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 4- [190,377 resident's -:- 1,000], rounded). This is above the benchmark of 3.0 acres per Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 90 HB -419- Item 9. - 284
354
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development 1,000 persons contained in Section 66477 of the California Government Code relating to dedication of parks.
Table 8-2
Calculation of Actual City-owned and Developed Park Acres Standard _
Park .,
Acrs.
Owned Park
_
Current Park Acres 999.09 778.41
Current City Population 190,377 190,377
Population Stated in Thousands 190.377 190.377
Park Acres per 1,000 Population 5.248 4.089
The Quimby Act, to be discussed later, allows a minimum standard of 3.0 acres per thousand resident's even if the City has not attained that standard. However, the park acres owned standard for the City of Huntington Beach, at 4.089 acres per 1,000 resident's, exceeds that minimum standard and thus the Quimby allowable minimum standard of 3.0 acres per 1,000 new residents is irrelevant and the 4.089 acres/1,000 resident's standard will be used for Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development. Though not particularly relevant 2 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 acres3 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-
355
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development Table 8-3
Calculation of Required
Park Acres per Allowable Standard
Future Added Population 17,089
Population Stated in Thousands 17.089
Allowable City of Huntington Beach Park Standard 4.128
Parks Acres Required to Maintain Standard 70.5
The 70.5 acres could be constructed in any of the following configurations:
Mini or "Pocket" Parks - This type is the smallest of the park type designations, usually an acre or less. Mini parks are generally not planned due to higher maintenance costs. They are usually the result of the acquisition of an unusual parcel oftentimes with historical or community significance. Tarbox, Booster, Trinidad or Daily Parks are good examples of this category.
Local or Neighborhood Parks - These parks are generally 3.0 to six acres and serve local (walk- in distance) users. Not surprisingly, the City has a number of these parks, roughly forty-nine at an average of about 3.5 acres in size. Neighborhood Parks, per the category title, are intended to serve walk-in populations nearby the park and typically are not highly programmed with City-run activities.
Community - These parks, to be functional, are usually closer to ten acres or larger and are designed to meet the needs of the entire community. These needs include youth and adult sports organizations, clubs or associations and large scale community events such as 4 th 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 -421- Item 9. -286
356
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 stawbrds. 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-
357
358
Chapter 8 Park Land Acquisition and Park Facilities Development The $310,168/acre is then increased by 15% to $356,693 to account for the park architectural costs and 24% to $442,299/acre to account for project administration, plan check, engineering, inspection and materials testing costs. Lastly, the $422,299 per acre figure is increased by 15% to $508,644 for a typical park project contingency. Schedule 8.2 shows this in numeric detail.
Schedule 8.3 details the average park construction cost by type of park.
The Existing Park Community Center Inventory. The City has a number of facilities dedicated for use as public uses facilities (as opposed to staff facilities). The existing 118,020 square feet of Community Use Facilities are identified in Table 8-5, following.
Table 8-5
Inventory of Existing Park Community Use Facilities
Community-Use Facility. --Square Feet 7
Beach Public Service Center 2,561
City Gymnasium and Pool Facility 23,600
Edison Community Center 11,065
Harbor View Clubhouse 2,203
Huntington Beach Municipal Art Center 11,092
Huntington Beach Youth Shelter 5,600
Junior Lifeguard Headquarters 5,922
Lake Park Clubhouse 3,000
Lake View Clubhouse 2,000
LeBard Clubhouse 1,000
Murdy Community Center 11,000
Newland Barn 6,000
Newland House Museum 2,750
Oak View Community Center 10,000
Rodgers Senior Center 14,000
Seniors Outreach Center 2,700
Shipley Nature Center Interpretive Building 1,863
_ Terry Park Community Center 1,664
Total Community Use Facilities Square Feet 118,020
Huntington Beach 2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation Report 95 Item 9. -289
HB -424-
359
360
361
362
Schedule 8.1
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Park Quimby Fee for Dwellings on a Sub-divided Parcel, and; AB1600 Fee for Dwelling on Non-subdivided Parcels
Lake Park
Lake View Park
Lamb Park
Lambert Park
Langenbeck Park
Lark View Park
LeBard Park
Manning Park
Marina Park
Marine View Park
McCallen Park
Meadowlark Golf Course
Moffett Park
Murdy Park
Newland Park
Oak View Center Park
Weider Regional (County-owned)
Pattinson Park
Perry Park
Pleasant View Park
Prince Park
Robinwood Park
Rodgers Senior Center Site
Schroeder Park
Seabridge Park
Seeley Park
Sowers Park
Sun View Park
Talbert Park
Tarbox Park
Terry Park
Triangle Park
Trinidad Park
Wardlow Park
Wieder Park
Worthy Community Park
Total Acres (Owned/Developed)
Current Population
Population/1,000
Current Standard
•Park
Size.
4.75 2.16
2.60 3.50
17.02 3.65
4.99 2.46
9.34 2.96
5.84 98.00
2.38 16.04
2.94 1.31
45.01 3.51
1.88 2.17
0.22 1.41
2.01 2.37
3.91 3.37
2.65 2.45
5.44 0.44
4.81 1.11
0.75 8.36
4.80 7.00
999.09
190,377
190.38
5.248
City Owned
:Parkland
0.00 2.16
2.60 3.50
9.24 0.00
3.01 2.46
9.34 0.00
5.84 98.00
2.38 16.04
2.94 0.00
0.00 3.51
1.88 0.00
0.22 0.00
2.01 0.00
3.91 3.37
2.65 0.00
5.44 0.44
4.81 1.11
0.75 8.36
4.80 7.00
778.41
190,377
190.38
4.089
Developed
Parkland
4.75 2.16
0.00 3.50
17.02 3.65
4.99 2.46
9.34 2.96
5.84 98.00
2.38 16.04
2.94 1.31
23.01 3.51
1.88 2.17
0.22 1.41
2.01 2.37
3.91 3.37
2.65 2.45
5.44 0.44
4.81 1.11
0.75 8.36
4.80 7.00
849.58
190,377
190.38
4.463
99 Item 9. - 293s, cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB -428- Fullerton, 92831 CA 363
5.248 4.089 4.463
5.000
4.089 4.463
$871,200
$508,644
$66,680
$871,200 $575,324
$8,040
$5,795
$13,835
$6,491
$4,678
$11,169
$3,562,337 $2,567,671
1,000.0 1,000.0
$3,562.34 $2,567.67
$10,377 $7,480 $17,857
IvetOpment.
$6,130.01
Schedule 8.1
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Park Quimby Fee for Dwellings on a Sub-divided Parcel, and; AB1600 Fee for Dwelling on Non-subdivided Parcels
Acres/1,000 Population Standard
Quimby Maximum Allowable
Acquisition Cost per Acre (1)
Construction Cost per Acre (2)
Community Center Construction
Total Component Cost
Cost X Standard
Population Served by Standard
Cost per Resident
. . . Occupan ts! ,
WOW'.
Detached Dwelling Units 2.913
Attached Dwelling Units 2.257
Mobile Home Dwelling Units 1.822
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. - 294 364
Schedule 8.2
City of Huntington Beach
Park Site Inventory Improvement Cost
Residential Park Development Impact Fee
Calculation of Average Park Acre Construction Cost
Item 9. - 295& Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB - 430-
Fullerton, 92831 CA
Prince Park
French Park
Tarbox Park
Davenport Beach
Humbolt Beach Park
City Gym/Pool Site
Finley Park
Bailey Park
Trinidad Park
Booster Park
Triangle Park
Banning/Magnolia Park
Oak View Center Park
Robinwood Park
Franklin Park
Perry Park
Rodgers Senior Center Site
Helme Park
Bauer Park
Lake View Park
Pleasant View Park
Drew Park
Circle View Park
Schroeder Park
Bushard Park
Moffett Park
Sun View Park
Manning Park
Burke Park
Arevelos Park
Lamb Park
Sowers Park
Eader Park
Hawes Park
Bolsa View Park
College View Park
Conrad Park
Clegg-Stacey Park
Golden View Park
Newland Park
Haven View Park
Marine View Park
Glen View Park
Seeley Park
Lambert Park
AVerage0* ::
Or Acre
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$223,441
$49,157
$73,736
$98,314
$102,783
$107,252
$111,721
$125,127
$131,830
$167,581
$189,925
$248,020
$0
$292,708
$315,052
$339,631
$420,070
$449,117
$451,351
$455,820
$482,633
$484,868
$509,446
$516,149
$529,556
$531,790
$531,790
$547,431
$549,665
$558,603
$576,478
$0
$592,119
$598,823
$598,823
$603,291
$603,291
$605,526
$625,636
$627,870
$656,917
$659,152
$661,386
$674,793
$752,997
$782,044 101
0.22 0.33
0.44 0.46
0.48 0.50
0.56 0.59
0.75 0.85
1.11 0.00
1.31 1.41
1.52 1.88
2.01 2.02
2.04 2.16
2.17 2.28
2.31 2.37
2.38 2.38
2.45 2.46
2.50 2.58
0.00 2.65
2.68 2.68
2.70 2.70
2.71 2.80
2.81 2.94
2.95 2.96
3.02 3.37
3.50 l?atki
Size
365
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
Size
vera ogt
per Acre J
ota ..o
F Paric
Pattinson Park 3.51 $223,441 $784,279
Farquhar Park 3.52 $223,441 $786,513
Hope View Park 3.61 $223,441 $806,623
Lark View Park 3.65 $223,441 $815,561
Seabridge Park 3.91 $223,441 $873,655
Harbour View Park 4.02 $223,441 $898,234
$902,703 Green Park 4.04 $223,441
$1,061,346 Lake Park 4.75 $223,441
Wieder Park 4.80 $223,441 $1,072,518
Terry Park 4.81 $223,441 $1,074,752
LeBard Park 4.99 $223,441 $1,114,972
Talbert Park 5.44 $223,441 $1,215,520
McCallen Park 5.84 $223,441 $1,304,897
Discovery Well Park 6.60 $223,441 $1,474,712
Gibbs Park 6.83 $223,441 $1,526,104
Wardlow Park 8.36 $223,441 $1,867,969
Marina Park 9.34 $223,441 $2,086,941
Meadowlark Golf Course 98.00 $223,441 $21,897,243
Carr Park 10.72 $289,296 $3,101,256
Irby Park 2.91 $289,296 $841,852
Gisler Park 11.67 $289,296 $3,376,088
Baca Park 14.35 $289,296 $4,151,402
Langenbeck Park 17.02 $289,296 $4,923,823
Bluff Top Park 19.66 $289,296 $5,687,565
Bartlett Park 2.00 $289,296 $578,593
Beach, City-leased 90.62 $289,296 $26,216,029
Beach, City-owned 60.20 $289,296 $17,415,636
Worthy Park 7.00 $394,884 $2,764,185
Greer park 10.44 $394,884 $4,122,584
Murdy Park 16.04 $394,884 $6,333,932
Edison Park 47.18 $394,884 $18,630,607
Huntington Central Park 253.24 $394,884 $100,000,314
Total $258,698,680 834.06 N..4., ' '' ''' .,:r'ier 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
115.00% Contingency
Total Park Construction Cost $508,644
102
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. HB - 431 -
RIIlert Item 9. - 296
366
367
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
-rk Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
:Unit.cOst;::10taIJOd::::
Fire Hydrant $4,950 Each
Street Lights
Standards $2,475 Each
Duct work/wiring $1,568 Each
Water Facilities
3" metered service $4,125 Each
Backf low device $4,125 Each
Line in street $19.80 Linear Foot
Water fountains $1,155 Each
Fountain lines in park $19.80 Linear Foot
Benches/Tables
Tables, cement pads $2,475 Each
Individual grills $825 Each
Benches, cement pads $908 Each
Bleachers $5,775 Each
Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $123,750 Each
Individual Covered Picnic Pad $24,750 Each
User Electrical Service park $16,500 Each
Electrical Service per Area $2,063 Each
Game Courts
lasketball Courts $66,000 Each
Basketball Court Lighting $57,750 Each
Fenced Tennis Courts $99,000 Each
Tennis Court Lighting $57,750 Each
Baseball Field - Competitive $82,500 Each
Ballfield Lighting $412,500 Per two fields
Baseball Field - Recreational $24,750 Each
Pedestrian Walkway
5' Wide $22.28 Linear Foot
6' Wide $28.88 Linear Foot
9' Wide $37.13 Linear Foot
Miscellaneous Fiatwork $6.20 Linear Foot
Small Park Signage $4,538 Lot
Large Park Signage $24,750 Lot
Bike Rack/Pad $2,890 Each
Natural Element Improvement (Lake, e $825,000 Each
Small Concrete Stage $41,250 Each
Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $82,500 Each
Large Ampitheater with bowl $247,500 Each
Total Cost
Total Acres
Average Cost per Acre
5Atit NOighborhpcid.:.
1 $4,950
3 $7,425
3 $4,704
1 $4,125
1 $4,125
1,320 $26,136
1 $1,155
200 $3,960
4 $9,900
2 $1,650
4 $3,632
0 $0
0 $0
1 $24,750
0 $0
1 $2,063
$0
1.0 $66,000
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
$0
1 $24,750
500 $11,140
100 $2,888
100 $3,713
500 $3,100
1 $4,538
0 $0
1 $2,890
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
1,117,206
- 5
intaggia $223,441
20Acre COrnrrilmj ' '
6 $29,700
20 $49,500
12 $18,816
1 $4,125
1 $4,125
120 $2,376
8 $9,240
1,000 $19,800
60 $148,500
30 $24,750
30 $27,240
0 $0
2 $247,500
10 $247,500
1 $16,500
6 $12,378
$0
1 $66,000
0 $0
2 $198,000
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
6 $148,500
2,000 $44,560
500 $14,440
500 $18,565
8,500 $52,700
0 $0
1 $24,750
6 $17,340
0 $0
0 $0
0 $0
1 $247,500
,,,.,....:,..,.,,..,„
,;::::::::::::::,::,::::0:ing: $4,339,444
15 , ,, $289,296
104
Fullerton, -- Item 9. -298
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
HB - 433 -
368
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
Park Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
..
Unit Cost, Installed
Pub Imps, Road/curb, gutter, etc. $200 Linear Foot
Lg Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $37,500 Acre
Sm Pk Grading/Irrigation/Turf $42,750 Acre
Plant Material:
Trees-5, 24 gallon box/acre $149 Each
Trees-15, 15 gallon/acre $290 Each
Shrubs-10, five gallon $30 Each
Shrubs-30, one gallon $8 Each
Play apparatus
Curbing, 450' per large $41.30 Linear Foot
Curbing, 225' per small $41.30 Linear Foot
Play equipment - large $123,750 Lot
Play equipment - medium $99,000 Lot
Play equipment - small $67,500 Lot
Sand/Other Surfacing $5,775 Lot
Buildings:
Restroom - Small $132,000 Each
Restroom - Large $181,500 Each
Equipment storage facility $99,000 Each
Combined Restroom/Concession $297,000 Each
Parking Lot
4" A.G. W/6 11 Rock base $8.30 Square foot
V-gutter $13.20 Linear Foot
Drain Inlet $990 Each
Drain Inlet connector $330 Each
Storm drain line $19.80 Linear Foot
Drive approach $2,970 Each
Perimeter curbing $16.50 Linear Foot
Striping $0.50 Linear Foot
Lighting $2,970 Each
Lot signage $330 Lot
Entrance $4,950 Lot
Curb and Gutter $15.27 Linear Foot
Storm Drainage Facilities
Inlets $1,320 Each
Connections $2,145 Each
Lateral (to arterial) $82.50 Linear Foot
Sewer Facilities
Connection to arterial $4,125 Lot
Line in street $107.30 Linear Foot
Line in park $24.80 Linear Foot
2,704 $540,800
20 $750,000
0 $0
150 $22,350
50 $14,500
100 $3,000
300 $2,400
450 $18,585
225 $9,293
0 $0
1 $99,000
2 $135,000
3 $17,325
1 $132,000
1 $181,500
1 $99,000
2 $594,000
40,000 $332,000
800 $10,560
2 $1,980
2 $660
200 $3,960
4 $11,880
800 $13,200
1,300 $650
18 $53,460
a $990
3 $14,850
1,664 $25,409
4 $5,280
4 $8,580
80 $6,600
1 $4,125
80 $8,584
1,500 .$37,200
105
Item 9. - 299
-. Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
HB - 434 -
Fullerton, CA 92831
369
- 20.-Acre SpOrtp.:Patk
1 $4,950
20 $49,500
5 $7,840
1 $4,125
1 $4,125
120 $2,376
8 $9,240
1,000 $19,800
30 $74,250
10 $8,250
15 $13,620
8 $46,200
$0
4 $99,000
1 $16,500
4 $8,252
$0
3 $198,000
8 $462,000
8 $792,000
8 $462,000
8 $660,000
4 $1,650,000
0 $0
1,000 $22,280
250 $7,220
250 $9,283
4,000 $24,800
0 $0
1 $24,750
$17,340
0 $0
1 $41,250
0 $0
0 $0
$7,897,671
20.00 $394,884
Revenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C.
HB - 435-
Fullerton, r"
Item 9. - 300
Pt A. 11, A J
Schedule 8.3
City of Huntington Beach
Development Impact Fee Calculation Report
r'qrk Improvement Cost Estimates, by Type of Park
Unit. - st, Installed
Fire Hydrant $4,950 Each
Street Lights
Standards $2,475 Each
Duct work/wiring $1,568 Each
Water Facilities
3" metered service $4,125 Each
Backflow device $4,125 Each
Line in street $19.80 Linear Foot
Water fountains $1,156 Each
Fountain lines in park $19.80 Linear Foot
Benches/Tables
Tables, cement pads $2,475 Each
Individual grills $825 Each
Benches, cement pads $908 Each
Bleachers $5,775 Each
Large Covered Picnic Area (lot) $123,750 Each
Individual Covered Picnic Pad $24,750 Each
User Electrical Service park $16,500 Each
Electrical Service per Area $2,063 Each
Game Courts
3asketball Courts $66,000 Each
Basketball Court Lighting $57,750 Each
Fenced Tennis Courts $99,000 Each
Tennis Court Lighting $57,760 Each
Baseball Field - Competitive $82,500 Each
Ballfield Lighting $412,600 Per two fields
Baseball Field - Recreational $24,750 Each
Pedestrian Walkway
5' Wide $22.28 Linear Foot
6' Wide $28.88 Linear Foot
9' Wide $37.13 Linear Foot
Miscellaneous Flatwork $6.20 Linear Foot
Small Park Signage $4,538 Lot
Large Park Signage $24,750 Lot
Bike Rack/Pad $2,890 Each
Natural Element Improvement (Lake, e $825,000 Each
Small Concrete Stage $41,250 Each
Small Ampitheater stage only, graded $82,500 Each
Large Ampitheater with bowl $247,500 Each
Total Cost
Total Acres
Average Cost per Acre
106
370
Schedule 8.4
City of Huntington Beach
2011-12 Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report Open Space Land Acquisition for Business Uses
Land Acquisition Development Impact Fee Calculation
Total City-owned Park/Open Space Acres
Current City-wide Privately Developed Acres
Current Open Space Standard per Developed Acre
Acres/Developed Acre Standard
Acquisition Cost per Acre
Cost X Open Space Standard
Open Space Land Value
Adjusted Land Cost
778.4
10,271.8
0.0758
0.0758
$871,200
$66,037
25.00%
$16,509.24
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. - 301Dvenue & Cost Specialists, L.L.C. Fullerton, 92831 CA HB - 436 - 371
APPENDIX A
Expanded Land-use Database
108
HB -437- Item 9. - 302
372
DevelOpe City of Huntington Beach
Total:.;-.Lanci•USepatabaee Acres # of units Acres of Units 40,365 I
41,415
2,8
1,749 6,731.00 38,616 295.00 Detached Dwelling Units (1) 6,436.0 5,307 1,916.60 36,108 111.20 1,805.4 Attached Dwelling Units 9 205.60 1.00 2,865 204.6 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 818 52.00 1,888 18.60 1,070 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.4 1,344 29.50 535 9.30 20.2 809 Resort Lodging Units
39.80 2,417,000 881.70 15,253,000 841.9 12,836,000 Commercial/Office Uses 930.3 20,261,000 187.00 3,638,000 1,117.30 23,899,000 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 10,933.70 661.90 Total - City Limits 10,271.8
84,654 7,065 8,853.2 8,446.0 77,589 407.2 Pnvate Residences
81.5 3,232 1,353 27.9 1,879 Commercial Lodging Rooms 53.6 1,772.2 33,097,000 226.8 6,055,000 1,999.0 39,152,000 Business Square Feet .-Develpped. To Be Develo
ikoivs of Units Acres # of Uni
Existing Community
as urreentlDeVeioged ores
183 6,470.00 38,799 34.0 6,436.0 38,616 Detached Dwelling Units (1) 36,267 159 1,820.40 15.0 Attached Dwelling Units 1,805.4 36,108 9 205.60 2,874 1.0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 2,865 204.6 1,070 0 33.40 0.0 1,070 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 33.4 300 23.60 1,109 3.4 Resort Lodging Units 809 20.2
69,200 846.40 12,905,200 4.5 841.9 12,836,000 Commercial/Office Uses 958,320 974.30 21,219,320 44.0 930.3 20,261,000 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 10,373.70 101.90 Existing Community 10,271.8
interisffiect/RecteveloPed Additional Units from
-....Intensification of Existing Uses.:
Developed
Acres Acres • *of Units:. # of Units
1,566 261.00 261.0 1,566 Detached Dwelling Units (1) 0 0.0
0.00 0 0 0.0 Attached Dwelling Units 0 0.0
0 0.00 0 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 0.0 0 0.0
468 14.60 14.6 468 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0 0.0
0.00 0 0 0.0 Resort Lodging Units 0 0.0
106.2 2,313,817 106.20 2,313,817 Commercial/Office Uses 0.0 0 0 143.0 2,679,680 143.00 2,679,680 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 524.80 524.80 Redeveloped 0.0
ilfitensifietilRetleVelOi* SpedificPlan.A . .
each and ,Edinger
Developed
Acres # of Units Acres Units !fl
0 0 0.00 Detached Dwelling Units (1) 0.0 0 0.0
4,500 80.00 Attached Dwelling Units 80.0 4,500 0.0 0
0.00 Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2) 0 0.0 0.0 0
4.0 350 4.00 Hotel/Motel Lodging Units 0 0.0 350
0.00 0 Resort Lodging Units 0.0 0 0.0 0
37.0 850,400 37.00 109850, Commercial/Office Uses 0 0.0 0 0.0 0.00 Industrial/Manufacturing Uses 0.0 0
121.00 121.00 Sub-total Specific Plan A 0.0
Item 9. -303 HB -438-
373
eveloped
ores # Of Units
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0. 0
0 0
0 0
0 0
0.0 0
0.0 Devel'oped.
#...pf. Volts
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0.0 0.0
0 0
0 0
0.0 0
35.20 Intensified/Redeveloped
0.00 0
35.20 ores Units
flu
0.0 0.0
0.0 0 . 0
0. 0
0 0
0 0
0.00 0.00
0.00 0.00
0.00 0
0 0
0 0
(121.0) (1,215,000) (121.00) (1,215,000)
0.0 0 0.00 0
(121.00) (121.00)
IritiftiSifted/Redevdid tita
0.0 0 0.00
0 16.2 648 16.20 648
0.0 0 0.00
0 0.0
0 0.00
0 5.9
235 5.90
235
13.1 398,583 13.10 398,583
Downtown
Detached Dwelling Units (1)
ached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses
Sub-total Specific Plan B
Detached Dwelling Units (1)
Attached Dwelling Units
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (2)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units
Resort Lodging Units
Commercial/Office Uses
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses
Sub-total Specific Plan A
TES:
j. Only 34 of the 295 acres are vacant lots. The remaining 261 acres represents acres for the addition of 1,666 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. 110 110
Item 9. - 304 HB -439- Item 9. - 304 HB -439-
374
375
SUMMARY OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE RECOMMENDATIONS Chapter 3 - Law Enforcement Facilities and Equipment
• Adopt Schedule 3.2, page 38, General Plan Build-out Need-based Development Impact Fees.
Chapter 4 - Fire Facilities, Vehicles and Equipment
• Adopt Schedule 4.3, page 53, Community Financial Commitment-based Development Impact Fees.
Chapter 5 - Circulation (Streets, Signals and Bridges) System • Adopt Schedule 5.2, page 68, General Plan Build-out Need-based Development Impact Fees along with the per Trip-mile rate for application to Table 5-4 (page 64) or for staff calculation per the Table on the bottom of Schedule 5.2.
Chapter 6 - Storm Drainage Collection System
• Adopt Schedule 6.2, page 80, General Plan Build-out Need-based Development Impact Fees for the seven specific land uses and the "per acre" cost for unusual uses not involving a structure.
Chapter 7- Public Library and Collection
• Adopt Schedule 7.1, page 88.
• Formalize a General Plan square foot and collection item per resident standard.
Chapter 8 - Park (and Open Space) Land Acquisition and Park Land Development • Create Quimby Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund, Note (1). • Adopt Schedule 8.1, pages 99-100, for residential uses requiring the subdivision of land for Quimby Act application.
• Create AB1600 Mitigation Fee Act Park Land Acquisition and Development Impact Fee Fund, Note (1)
• Adopt Schedule 8.1 pages 99-100, for residential uses not requiring the subdivision of land for AB1600 application.
• Adopt Schedule 8.4 Mitigation Fee Act Open Space Development Impact Fees, page 107, for application to the development of business uses.
• Adopt alternative process for residential developments with significantly varying land values from the standard or default calculation embodied in Schedule 8.1 and 8.4. (1). Separate Park Land Acquisition and Development Funds are necessary because the Quimby Act allows use of receipts for rehabilitation of existing facilities whereas theAB1600 requirements prevent such expenditures. 112
HB -441- Item 9. -306
376
APPENDIX C
Master Facilities Plan
(See Separate Document)
113
HB -442-
377
End of Document
HB -443- Item 9. -308
378
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 developer's 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 379
?tz/366/7'
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"cl Floor
Huntington Beach, California 92648
714-536-5227
http://huntinqtonbeachca.00v/HBPublicComments/
380
•=7 ,1`,„1
.Prtnted by: 0602 patricia Gamlno
Salesperson:
Apr 19,,2012. 11:32 am.
Ad #34959143
cc4UP..,
Phbrie #: (714) 536-5227
Name: City Of Huntington Beach (Parent)
Address:, PO Box 784
' Huntington Beac, CA 92648
CC
City Of Huntington Beach-Clerk's 0
Patty Esparza
(714) 374-1557
CU00070479
Siart date
Stop date
Inaertidili 2
. Pete ;0000 1, &Legal Huntington Beach
Taken by 0602 Patricia Gamino
Class:, 13000 - Legal Notices
Pubs'; TCN HBI
04-26-12
05-03-12
tintormatiolf
rnt Due::
Hät:AñioUht Ouè Isü
changfi -dUe to' dig604 .05;
noiisloa4, -pr athstchctioces
$ 213.50
$ 213.50
6213.50
Ad Copy:
Nona 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 DEVEL-
OPMENT IMPACT FEES
RESOLUTION AND
ADOPTION OF ORDI-
NANCES ESTABLISHING
CHAPTERS OF THE
HUNTINGTON BEACH
MUNICIPAL CODE
(HBMC) REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT
FEES (Traffic, Drainage,
Library, Law Enforce-
ment, Fire Suppression,
Meeting Facilities,
Parkland( and General
Provisions); The City
Council will consider the
adoption of a fee reso-
lution 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 addi-
tion, the city Council will
consider the adoption of
ordinances establishing
HBMC chapters; Library
Development Fee (HBMC
17.67), General Provi-
sions for Development
Impact Fees (HBAAC
17.73), Fire Suppression
Facilities Fee (HESIV1C
17.74), Law Enforce-
ment Facilities Fee
(HBMC 17.75), Park
Land/Open Space Ac-
quisition Impact Fee
(HBMC 17.76), Public
Meeting Facilities Fee
-- ad proof pg. 1 ---
381
Printed by: 9602 Patricia GamInc:
Salesperson:
Phone:
Apr 19,2012, 11:32am
Ad #34959143
(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 sup-
ported by the Develop-
ment Impact Fee Cal-
culation and Nexus
Report prepared by
Revenue & Cost Spe-
cialist, L.L.C. dated
October 2011. The nexus
report includes a com-
prehensive Master Fa-
cilities 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 Depart-
ment, 2000 Main Street,
Huntington Beach, Cali-
fornia 92648, for in-
spection 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 PER-
SONS 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 deliv-
ered 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, 2nd
Floor
Huntington Beach, Cali-
fornia 92648
714-536-5227
http://huntingtonbeach
ca.gov/HBPublicComme n
H.B. Indepen-
dent April 26, 2012
--- ad proof pg. 2 ---
382
DCO Beach Walk LLC
1745 Shea Center Drive, Suite 200
Highlands Ranch, CO 80129
Jim Ivory
Sares-Regis Group
18825 Bardeen Avenue
Irvine, CA 92612
091.8/091-5® AA/1V 09AE olopedwoo wiu zg x ww glculloi. op olleribq 092/09 AIGAV wim oicipEdwoo „9/9 z x His 'aqui
Pat Helgeson
Province Group
1601 Dove Street, Suite 250
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Jerry Moffatt
Rainbow Environmental Services
17121 Nichols Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Brian Starr
Building Industry Assoc. of So. Calif.
17744 Sky Park Circle, Suite 170
Irvine, CA 92614
Josie McKinley ,
Poseidon Resources
17011 Beach Blvd, #900
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Dave Stefanides
Orange County Assoc. of Realtors
25552 La Paz Road
Laguna Hills, CA 92553
Jerry Wheeler
HB Chamber of Commerce
2134 Main Street, Suite 100
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
President
Huntington Beach Tomorrow
PO Box 865
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
Global Premier Development, Inc.
2010 Main Street, Suite 1250
Irvine, CA 92614
Thomas G. Grable
Tri Point Homes, LLC
20201 SW Birch St., Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Jeff Bergsma
Team Design
221 Main Street, Suite S
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Janette T. Ditkowsky
Freeway Industrial Park
2032 La Colina Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Becky Sullivan
DJM Development Partners
922 Laguna Street
Santa Barbara, CA 93101
Morrie Golcheh
Progressive Real Estate
10537 Santa Monica Blvd, Suite 350
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Jeff Rulon
Christopher Homes
19 Corporate Plaza Drive
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Robert Reid
7572 Warner Avenue
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Huntington beach No. 1
2716 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 3040
Santa Monica, CA 90405
Mark Faulkner
Grey Star Development
2139 Meriweather Court
Walnut Creek, CA 9496
Steve Sheldon
Sheldon Group Consulting
901 Dove Street, Suite 140
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Raymond Dorame
Master Craft Homes Group
1401 Quail Street, Suite 100
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Michael Adams
Michael Adams Associates
21190 Beach Boulevard
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Chaim Elkoby
Crescent Heights
2200 Biscayne Blvd.
Miami, FL 33137
Alex Wong
Red Oak Investments
2101 Business Center Drive, Suite 230
Irvine, CA 92612
Sarah Klaustermeier Bijan Sassounian 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
gt Mhz__ , label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery ®5160/8160 Etiouette de format 25 mm x 67 mm comoatible avec Avery ®5160/8160 383
091-8/091.90 AJonv oaa alupdwoo ww zg x ww g awol op allenbil] 091-8/091.9® Alonv,glim elqpdwoo „g/g x „ oz!sjoriPI
Joe Diachendt
300 Pacific Coast Highway, #119
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Todd Schmieder
701 N. Parkcenter Drive
Santa Ana, CA 92705
Milad Queijan
8031 Main Street, Unit B
Stanton, CA 96680
Martin Potts
MPA, Inc.
4041 MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 375
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Shawn Millbern
8951 Research Drive
Irvine, CA 92618
David Oddo
815 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
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 Fred ensburg
Shea Homes 16072 Gothard St
1250 Corona Pointe Ct., Suite 600
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Corona, CA 92879
Dave Oddo
815 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Bruce Roeland
1720 Pacific Coast Highway #201
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Maddox Const
Maddox Const
14736 Beach Blvd
Westminster, CA 92683
'Robert Corona
2204 Pacific Coast Highway
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Scott Goodman
Goodman Development
17032 Palmdale Lane
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
D'Ambra
D'Ambra Inc.
7752 Warner Ave
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
Van Herk
3194 Haiti Circle
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Myles Const
9569 Albacore Ave
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Kevin Kelter
1616 Pacific Coast Highway
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
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 Teffon
2233 Ca lie Leon
West Covina, CA 91792
Dick Harlow
1742 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
RJ Murphy
6781 Defiance Drive
Huntington Beach, CA 92647
label size 1" x 2 5/8" compatible with Avery 65160/8160 Etimiette CiP, format 25 mm x 67 mm compatible avec Avery 65160/8160 384
Development Impact Fee Study
and Nexus Report
City Council Meeting
Monday, May 7, 2012
Background
• This process began in 2009 as a result of various
presentations to City Council regarding the increasing
need for Capital Improvements to respond to
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.
SUPPLEMENTAI
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date: I-Ch
Agenda Item No.
1 385
Chronology
Background
• Development Impact fees are one-time charges applied
to offset additional public-service costs of new
development
• 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)
• Received October 2011 report - November 2011
• Distributed reports to Council — December 2011
• 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
2 386
Report Content
The Development Impact Fee Report contemplates 2 new
fees:
• 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
3 387
388
389
390
Development Impact Fees
(Effective 7/20/2014)
Circulation
System
Park Land/
Open Space
Land Use
Law Fire
Enforcement Suppression
Facilities* Facilities*
(Streets,
Signals,
Bridges)*
Public
Library
Facilities
& Facilities
(No Tract
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.) $0443 $0.030 $1.789 No Fee $0.772
*Represents 90% of recommended residential land use fee set forth in the Development Impact Fee Calculation and Nexus Report, October 2011 (Amended April 27, 2012) X :
n 9"t
\L -, ILand Use
Adjusted
Trip Ends
Average
Distance
Trip-end to
Trip
Additional
Trip Miles
Cost per
Trip Mile
Cost per 1000 sq. ft,
dwelling unit or other unit
E IDENTIAL'LAND USES r unto
Detached Dwelling
Unit 976 79 0.5 346$ 6434 /Uni
oartment 6 1 79 05 24 $ 64 34 $ 1 583 46 /Unit
ndominium/
ownhouse ase 7.9 0.5 21 2 $ 6434 1364.01 /Unit
obile Home Dwelling 4.57 79 0.5 181 5 64.34 $ 1,164.55 lUSt SORT/TOURIST (per or Enby
Hotel 529 76 as 239$ 6434 $ 1,537.73 /Room
Su es Hotel 377 7 6 0.5 143$ 6434 920.06 /Room
otel 434 05 16586434 $ 1,061.81 /Room
NDUSTRIAL ( per.1,000 SF)
eneral Light
ndustnal 6.17 9.0 0.5 270$ 64.39 $ 1,788.65 1/1 ,09261 Heavy InduMria 597 9,0 as 26.9 64 $ 1,730 75 /1,000 sf enoftoturrng 273 90 05 12 3 $ 64.34 5 791.38 /1,000 sf arehou mg 439 9.0 as 19886434 $ 1,273.93 / ,000 sf
• ERCIAL ( 1,000 SF):
• ce Perk 7.42 8.8 0.5 32.6$ 64.34 $ 2,097.46 sf/1.00061 esearch Port, 501 6.8 05 22.0$ 64.34 1,415.48 /1,000 of Boolneno Park 934 8.5 05 41 6434 /1500 of
Bldg Materials/Lumber
tore 2935 4.3 as 63.1 $ 6434 $ 4,059.85 /1,00061
rden Center 23.40 43 0.5 50 $ 64 $ 3,242.74 /1 000 sf ov e Theater 2.47 43 as 5.3$ 84.34 34 .00 /1,000 of
harOh 592 43 0.5 12.7 $ 8434 $ 8 7 12 1,000 of
edicatOental Office 22.21 8.8 05 97.7$ 64.34 $ 8,286.02 ,000 of Buildi
emung
is! 0 ce 7.16 8.8 05 31.5 $ 84.34 $ 2.026.71 /1,00006 hopping Center 30.2 4.3 5.5 64.9 $ 64.34 $ 4,17567 /1,000 sf Hospital 1142 43 0.5 24.6 $ 64.34 $ 1,582.78 lt.000 Of Discount Center 62.93 4.3 0.5 130.3$ 64.34 $ 8.705.20 /1500 of Hig&Tumover
Restaurant 8.9 43 0.5 19.1 $ 69.34 $ 1,22869 /1,000 of onvenience Ma et 43.57 43 937564.34 $ 6,028.86 1 ,000 effi,o Park 97 43 05 30 0 $ 64,34 $ 1,93020 /1,000 of
• ER (as noted)
rnetery 307 43 6.6$ 6434 42464 /A
ervice Station/Market
avtg 107.65 4.3 55 231.5$ 6434 $ 14,894.71 pil'!,on
ervi. Station w/Car
sh 99.35 43 0.5 2136 9 6434 $ 13,743.02 /Fuel.Position 7 391
392
393
394
395
Project # 1
200 Unit Apartment Complex
Current: City of 70%
Huntington RCS Nexus Report: (effective
Beach (100%) 7/20/2012)
80%
(effective
7/20/2013)
90%
(effective
7/20/2014)
Law Enforcement Facilities No Fee $ 163,000 $ 114,200 $ 130,400 $ 146,800 Fire Suppression Facilities No Fee $ 76,400 $ 53,400 $ 61,200 $ 68,800 Circulation System (Streets,
Signals, Bridges) $ 211,600 $ 331,400 $ 244,070 $ 278,916 $ 312,692 Public Library Facilities $ 81,840 $ 181,600 $ 181,600 $ 181,600 $ 181,600 Park Land/
Open Space Acquisition &
Improvements $ 159,960 $ 2,767,000 $ 1,937,000 $ 2,213,600 $ 2,490,400 Development Impact Fee
Total-Project* $ 453,400 $ 3,519,400 $ 2,530,270 $ 2,865,716 $ 3,200,292 *Total does not include Storm Drainage Impact fee which developer may be subject to Project # 2
50 Single Family Detached
Current: City of 70%
Huntington RCS Nexus Report (effective
Beach (100%) 7/20/2012)
Law Enforcement Facilities No Fee $ 19,800 $ 13,860
Fire Suppression Facilities No Fee $ 46,100 $ 32,270
Circulation System (Streets,
Signals, Bridges) $ 75,350 $ 124,100 $ 86,850
Public Library Facilities $ 70,800 $ 58,600 $ 58,600
Park Land/
Open Space Acquisition &
Improvements $ 1,340,000 $ 892,850 $ 625,000
Development Impact Fee
Total-Project $ 1,486,150 $ 1,141,450 $ 816,580
*Total does not include Storm Drainage Impact fee which developer may be subject to 80% 90%
(effective (effective
7/20/2013) 7/20/2014)
$ 15,850 ' $ 17,800
$ 36,900 $ 41,500
$ 99,300 $ 111,300
$ 58,600 $ 58,600
$ 714,300 $ 803,550
$ 924,950 $ 1,032,750
12 396
Project # 3
150 Room Hotel (200,000 SF)
Current: City of Proposed: City of
Huntington Huntington Beach
Beach (100%)
Law Enforcement Facilities No Fee
Fire Suppression Facilities No Fee
Circulation System (Streets,
Signals, Bridges)
$ 111,900
Public Library Facilities $ 8,000
Park Land/
Open Space Acquisition &
Improvements $ 46,000
Development Impact Fee
Total-Project $ 165,900
$ 68,250
$ 53,400
$ 159,300
No Fee
$ 68,850
$ 349,800
Project # 4
40,000 SF Commercial (Shopping Center)
Current: City of Proposed: City of
Huntington Huntington Beach
Beach (100%)
Law Enforcement Facilities No Fee $ 41,640
Fire Suppression Facilities No Fee $ 13,160
Circulation System (Streets,
Signals, Bridges)
$ 207,760
$ 167,000
Public Library Facilities $ 1,600
No Fee
Park Land/
Open Space Acquisition &
Improvements $ 9,200
$38,160
Development Impact Fee
Total-Project $ 218,560
$259,960
*Total does not include Storm Drainage Impact fee which developer may be subject to
*Total does not include Storm Drainage Impact fee which developer may be subject to
13 397
Summary
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.
14 398
399
400
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
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
Meeting Date: ..117 //47
Agenda Item No.
401
12-3209.006/79289
3 Resolution No. 2012-23
4. Consistency with General Plan. The City Council finds that the public facilities equipment and park land acquisition and fee methodology identified in the respective ordinances and Nexus Report are consistent with the City's General Plan and, in particular, those polieie that require new development to mitigate its share of the impacts to City infrastructure and4 be fiscally neutral.
5. Differentiation among Public Facilities. The City Council findythat 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 byfthe 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 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(3) (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. T,he Nexus Report as amended April 27, 2012, including Appendices, is hereby adopted.
8. Fee Imposed. Theinew 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:
1. Project has/Submitted an approved application for building permits within 180 days aftethe 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 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' to extend milestone dates for qualifying "grandfathered" projects in his sole discretion.
All ot/her projects are subject to the new fees, which go into effect July 20, 2012. All existing Dev/ elopment 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. 402
403
May 4, 2012
Mayor Don Hansen and Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
Meeting Date:
Agenda Item No.
Re: Public Hearing Agenda Item 9— Development Impact Fee Revisions Mayor Don Hansen and Members of the City Council:
I am writing on behalf of the members of the Building Industry Association of Southern California, Orange County Chapter (BIA/OC) to address the proposed revisions to the 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 grateful for transparent and thoughtful manner in which staff has approached this issue.
Our members are especially appreciative of the time and consideration city staff has afforded our comments and concerns. The end result, while not a panacea, allows more flexibility in implementation of the new fee structure.
Certainly a fee increase of this magnitude is troubling to the building industry. The potential harm to our industry is exacerbated by the prolonged malaise of housing in this harsh economic climate. Certainly government is not immune to the economic challenges we all face. The health of the private sector, especially the building industry, has a direct correlation to the fiscal health of governments. For this reason, all levels of government are looking for ways to encourage growth. Dozens of local governments have slashed development fees and regulation in an attempt to spark recovery. The timing of this particular fee increase seems to illustrate a notable disconnect between how the public sector and private sector view our economic relationship.
Aside from the philosophical and economic issues associated with this fee increase, BIA/OC has identified a number of errors and inconsistencies in the associated nexus study. As a result, BIA/OC has engaged staff in an attempt to find a middle ground on the timing and implementation of the fees. Thankfully, staff has been open to many of our members' Orange County
Chapter
Building Industry Association
of Southern Ca Hernia
17744 Sky Park Circle
Suite 170
Irvine, California 92614
949.553.9500
fax 949.553.9507
www.biaoc.com
www.newhomesmatch.coni
Your industry's comprehensive online 11 1
to new homes
PRESIDENT
BILL WATT
BAYWOOD DEVELOPMENT
VICE PRESIDENT
MICHAEL MoCANN
CALMAR DEVELOPMENT
VICE PRESIDENT
CHRIS HAINES
PULTE GROUP
TREASURER / SECRETARY
DAVE BULLOCH
STANDARD PACIFIC HOMES
IMMEDIATE PAST PRES1IDENT
DAVE BARTLETT
BROOKFIELD HOMES
TRADE CON1RACTOR COUNCIL VP.
TOM RHODES
TWF1 ENTERPRISES
ASSOCIATE VICE PRESIDENT
MARK HIMMELSTE1N
NEWMEYER & DILLION, LLP
MEMBER-AT-LARGE
RICHARD DOUGLASS
RYLAND HOMES
MEMBER-AT-LARGE
MIKE WINTER
SARES-REGIS GROUP
BRYAN STARR
CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER
404
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,
71 Bry. tarr
Chief Executive Officer
Cc: Fred Wilson, City Manager
Bob Hall, Assistant City Manager
405
MAY 07 BIZ
Huntington Beech
CITY COUNCIL OFFICE
(VI r( 3
ORANGE COUNTY
BUSINESS COUNCIL
2 Park Plaza, Suite 100 I Irvine, California 92614-5904 phone: 949.79422421 fax: 949.476.04431 www.ocbc.org
May 7, 2012
The Honorable Don Hansen, Mayor
Members of the City Council
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648.
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 life.
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 new jobs, 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,
Kate Klimow
Vice President, Government Affairs
CC: Fred Wilson, City Manager
SHAPING ORANGE COUNTY'S ECONOMIC FUTURE
SUPPLEMENTAL
COMMUNICATION
meeting Date:
Aginda nem
z a6ed
917: i.i. zi.oz Lo Aew
406
407
RUTAN TUCKER LLP
RUTAN
RUTAF ,L & TUCKER, LLP
Fax;714-546-9035 May 7 2012 03:33pm P002/003
John A. Ramirez
Direct Dial; (714)662-4610
E-mail; jramire arutaiLcom
May 7, 2012
VIA FACSIMILE AND ELECTRONIC MAIL
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
c/o City Clerk, City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main Street
Huntington Beach, CA 92648
Fred Wilson
City Manager
City of Huntington Beach
2000 Main 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_ 3942-3947, respectively) Dear Honorable Mayor, City Council Members and Mx. 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"). On March 22, 2012, the City issued a Notice of Action approving Site Plan Review No. 11-005 (Beach.walk Apartments) consisting of approximately 173 apartment units located at the above-referenced property.
The purpose 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 following 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 17.75;
• Fire Facilities Fees, a new development impact fee authorized by the adoption of Ordinance No. 3943, and which will 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, Costa Mesa, CA 92628-1950 I 714.641.5100 I Fax 714.546.9035 1032/026565-0004
Orange County I Palo Alto I www,rutan.com 33233521 a05107/12 408
RUTAN TUCKER LLP Fax:714-546-9035 May 7 2012 03:33pm P003/003 RUTAN
RL1TAN rlICKER. LLP
Honorable Mayor and Members of the City
Council
Fred Wilson
May 7,2012
• 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 further 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 & TUCKER, LLP
A. Ramirez
JAR:lr
1032/026565-0004
3323352.1 a05/07/1.2
409
RECEIVED FROM
AS PUBLIC RECORD
OF MEW toFICE
JOAN L FLYNN, cgs( CLERK
ARCHSTONE
000
Memorandum
Date: May 7, 2012
To: Huntington Beach City Council
From: Kenneth Keefe
kL
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 SW 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.
• 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 I Santa Ana, CA 92707
T: 714.689.7000 F: 714.689.7101 I ArchstoneApartments.com 410
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 staff's 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.
411
-•••• • • EDINGERAVE. ......_..... „„,..„............... ,.... .. _ , Zoning Conformance Matrix
..____ ............_ .... . . . , 2.1.6 TOWN CE NTER BOULEVARD. SEGMENT ' _ . .. ... ........_
- - ,.. COM f EDT 1EN ' FRODIRDO _ fACPOSTD .
4-U-41t.-.*1 , giL.-..:4_ ,„,'-----7-„„ ADDDqN•NAI .
••
I
•
. . -
.... " , .. ...-.D- .. • ' .,!All
\
f
:,•
I
- 1/ ' - .
i / ' '
NTRo NAOITf
", TR•fiv'm
eanDr.,TVA : I 1
fT , 'T'Tf."..•-• RN ., ^N.
AD.,. fem.: Nom now. ..D. z,Nry ma..
iliiiiDt::
031
I
.....:..
''''-'7--'"' . 1. i-...: i. _hi ,-.• Tr,. .
. Ft
„
IA"R.,,fmmuN
.
.. AS.1-11,113 . ,•,, , .
4, 'f.
1, ■
D...., ...
1 211, .,
it4V. i .113
',Riff ......, : E ,
eNN'ff.stoz.,, , a : aft NA.
f l Er7 1 -- --;11
.0 - ID Nut.LA ...... -WA/
... , • ,
.
.
, , 41.1i•I•
..... , 4121r- -
vcrT T,CT.49a1 5 1 ou,
ctoe111.7.1X.mre.1
:ft mn.
A3 • ' `11s3 ' L.- ,
22,22 224
111 :.:-
..,
44.7-47:1
..,,,,,..,.......: .34:0,.x•walsavs.
,,,,,..,
m=n sn 4,,
A
t . e
l q
.1. ' • .....
......
d.,..
VI
.' ll
.16 if
./TsyNsacf : T,s,
.
ort.
P
'
. 1
foon.nr.cavarvo is AI
,
''''''
3 ....-- ... ■
_••••
_,
I .
,,'
•so tar
'......
L11
...,
_ ---
[....ne.....1,....
1..5,1eqt.,-ansa ■-.
,,„
+*—
A3 (1.4 • ,‘.
2 . .' `,„,"1:111L54.;., Zr
• .E,NI: : • . .2' ta - U•I
.
.
.
,
I1
•' V
i
1 a
m
—•
., <
■ i'. '
:0
f .,....•
s......:„.., „:„„r..,.... _ , ....
.
,,
' ffr4 -f a _ t . .
',7.
.
.4. &
:.-
..
i.'
,
Mr. ,- ,r` , ;,:1!
1 . '
:, -1
.
ta
.
r.
. z
..
.
,
..
,
,
Z
.
.
,i
,
re
.
nn
. .
rI
..
tn,
r
,
..
.
'
.4.
...i. i'''',
* , 10 1 2 .1 ilia .
Obit
it,
"... g',:;-'• : ..,no...:.:4:ow:
.;
• "
.-
" •
3 ,,,,.,, t. ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
2.*IUi t.Srp.a,,,,CE:tc.r.v.0.0c,t .
m.o. a c z.,.■ foT.,... .
44 1.11 9
" . .e '!-; :; °.;irt '
.41111 i t • ide
"1:7+ •
.Q
1 • .
To. ptrY., IDA.: prcwIA,
_ ... ..
i n 1 ''''•
, ,,,,
1=-4
''''' '
„
LEGAL DESGR1P1,014
Dsom r t
L t.
ME WEB Is MATED IN THE STATE ce o.,onN.coUhrTY Of ORANGE ANO IS DESCRIBTO AS
ROLLOS,
LOTS ti AND 7 Of TRACT NO.406, ASPER MAP FILET. IN BOOX 1, P A f MISCELLANEOUS MAPS. IN T. Off ■CE Of TIRE COUNTY RECORDER OF ORA.NDE COUNTY •
,s,,, !
PARCEL 1, AS SNOWN ON p MAP FILED RA BOOK 2. PAGE il OF PAR,a I. MAPS,IN TY,E OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER Of ORANDECOUNTY.
PARCELS I AND 2, A, ii-10:,NN ON A AAAP FRED. BOON S. PACE 36 OF PARCEL MAPS. IN THE OFF ■Ce OF THE COUNTY RECORDER Of ORMODE COUNTY.
OWNER/APPLICANT
, : or , "PO ei 7-
4P1211 _ IP 1 ' •••=r-.•;.., ,:.: : . I
. ---' iir' . 11'
" ' ''',1 .- I ' ,
,
i
'
WE
' i -'
• .'.
i ii• l• "
Ai s
4 ,10 ' ' ; 3110t...0 ". 41,7s.gi• ' ..,•40— ' , ' NE ' ''. ., . It,. :'..,1, —
ii11-4-21 1 - f
'a
PlitiliAliA' '...... -....
•„I
- -.
N• • • - EAST • WEST CONNECTION STREET:L.. 7H.:
,-
,
„.
• _ . ___-• _- _
• • . . • •" • . • • LP. 14°8111
• __ — ,
L l•
, ,
,
.,..c.,:! ..: 1 '• . , :. 1 •L':-
Archstone New Development Holdings, ,
, .....:...:.„...-, 3 MacArthur Place, Suite 600 0' 40' 80' 120' Santa Ana, California 92707
(714)689-7057 Attn: Sarah Klaustermeier SCALE. 1" = 40' , .. [ : • , 12-033 March 28, 1011 SITE
PLAN A2 1 v SITE PLAN -
.
—
EDINGER APARTMENTS . HUNTINGTON BEACH , CA
is) EM DATE
ef
D
"E4
■,
23 t
00 02.12
ARCHS TONE ARCHITECTS ORANGE o MI. 2 A.M. Otave
3 MacArthur Place, SUITE 600 SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA, 92707 714-689-7057 144 NORTH ORANGE Si, ORANGE, CALIFORNIA 92866 (714)639-9860 CASE FILE NUMBERS:
X X
412
• Increase in Annual •':
2011,Tak Bill Takitevenue • .• „ ExiMting Parcels
Archstone Huntington Beach at Edinger Project 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. • Job 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 —
Property Tax Revenue
142-321-01
142-321-02
142-321-10
142-321-12
142-321-13
Total
$10,500
$13,570
$18,901
$8,576
$32,205
$83,752
_
Projected Takes During Construction and Lease up 2013-2017 Average Tax Per Year $809,008
$725,257
Stabilized Ann'Ual Taxes • 2617
Total Tax $1,714,170
$1,630;418
• 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.
413
Archstone Edinger & Gothard
Estimated Schedule through Construction Start
Agresssive Conservative
Staff Approval (in months)
Planning Commission (in months)
City Council (in months)
Total Entitlement Period (in months)
6 Time Period per Staff
3 Time Period per Staff (preliminary feedback from staff indicates that the project will require Planning Commission approval) 3 Time Period per Staff (my understanding is that most projects that require Planning Commission approval ultimately require City Council approval) 12 Sum of Pieces Above
4 2
2 8
Design Period 'til Construction Start (in Months)
Total Entitlement & Design Period (in Months)
Today's Date
Range of Construction Start Dates
12 12 Typically a 12 month process including design development, preparation of construction documents, and "plan check" by the city staff 24 Sum of Pieces Above
May-12
Apr-14
20 May-12
Dec-13
414
Formatted: Indent: First line: 0"
I 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* received discretionary project entitlement ap-prova-l-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.
1,2,Project has submitted an approved application for building permits within 270480 days after receipt of discretionary project entitlement approval the fcc going into effect or no later than MarchJanuary 20, 2014-3.
2,3. From the time of initial building permit application, the project makes continued progress toward satisfying plan check comments.
4. Building Permits are issued within twenty-five months360 days 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 party regulatory agency. In such cases the 270-1-80 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.
415
Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed (Dwyer) ,C)400-- 049)e2J7 RECEIVED FROM
AS PUBLIC RECORD FO,
OF CITY CLERK OFFICE
JOAN L FLYNN, CITY CLERK
Law Enforcement Facilities
Consultant Effective Effective Effective 1
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14
25% 50%
75%
100%
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$396
$815
$369
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
$277
$571
$258
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
$317
$652
$295
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
$356 $99
$734 $204
$332 $92
$455 $114
$532 $133
$1.041 $0.260
$0.443 $0.111
$198
$408
$185
$228
$266
$0.521
$0.222
$297
$611
$277
$341
$399
$0.781
$0.332
$396
$815
$369
$455
$532
$1.041
$0.443
Fire Suppression 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)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
No Fee
$922
$382
$1,583
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
$645
$267
$1,108
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
$738
$306
$1,266
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
$830 $231
$344 L.c,4 $96
$1,4251 $396
$356 $89
$794! $199
$0.3291' $0.082
$0.0301- $0.008
1 $461
$191
$792
$178
$397
$0.165
$0.015
$692
$287
$1,187
$267
$596
$0.247
$0.023
$922
$382
$1,583
$356
$794
$0.329
$0.030
1 of 3
416
Circulation System Fee
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)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
$1,507
$1,058
$786
$746
$1,081
$5.194
$1.061
$2,482
$1,657
$1,299
$1,105
$1,915
$4.175
$1.789
$1,737
$1,220
$909
$1,062
$1,538
$4.175
$1.789
$1,986
$1,395
$1,039
$1,062
$1,538
$4.175
$1.789
$2,226 $1,751
$1,563 $1,208
$1,165.:
$1,062 - $836
$1,538' $1,290
$4.175 $4.939
$1.789 $1.243
$1,995
$1,358
$1,043
$926
$1,498
$4.685
$1.425
$2,238
$1,507
$1,171
$1,015
$1,707
$4.430
$1.607
$2,482
$1,657
$1,299
$1,105
$1,915
$4.175
$1.789
Development Impact Fee Comparison Current vs. Proposed
Public Library Facilities
Consultant Effective Effective Effective
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13 7/20/14 25% 50% 75% 100% $0.44/SF
$0.44/SF
$0.44/SF
$0.04/SF
$0.04/SF
$0.04/SF
$0.04/SF
Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
$1,172 $1,172 $1,172 $1,172 t $1,085 $1,114
$908 $908 $908 $908 $491 $630
$733 $733 $733 $733 $460 $551
No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee No Fee
$1,143 $1,172
$769 $908
$642 $733
No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee
No Fee No Fee
2 of 3
417
Park Land/Open Space & Facilities (No Tract Map)
Consultant Effective Effective
Current Fee Recom 7/20/12 7/20/13
Effective
7/20/14 16.67% 33.33% 50.00% 66.67% 83.33% 100.00% Detached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Attached Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Mobile Home Dwelling Units (per Unit)
Hotel/Motel Lodging Units (per Unit)
Resort Lodging Units (per Unit)
Commercial/Office Uses (per sq. ft.)
Industrial/Manufacturing Uses (per sq. ft.)
$0.86/SF
$0.86/SF
No Fee
$0.23/SF
$0.23/SF
$0.23/SF
$0.23/SF
$17,857
$13,835
$11,169
$459
$359
$0.954
$0.772
$12,500
$9,685
$7,818
$459
$359
$0.954
$0.772
$14,286
$11,068
$8,935
$459
$359
$0.954
$0.772
$16,071 E $ 4,697
$12,452[1 $ 2,880
$10,052 $ 1,862
$459 $ 153
$359 $ 144
$0.954k $ 0.351
$0.772 $ 0.320
$ 12,593
$ 9,453
$ 7,446
$ 337
$ 273
$ 0.713
$ 0.591
$ 15,224
$ 11,643
$ 9,307
$ 398
$ 316
$ 0.795
$ 0.643
$ 17,857
$ 13,835
$ 11,169
$ 459
$ 359
$ 0.954
$ 0.772
7,328
9,961
5,070 7,262
3,723 5,585
214 276
187 230
0.471 0.592
0.411
0.501
NOTE: The fees below fall under the Subdivision Map Act and will be addressed at a later date 3 of 3
418