HomeMy WebLinkAbout1992-09-30 - AGENDA REPORTS - IMPACT FEE STUDY (2)TO:
FROM:
DATE:
CITY OF SANTA CUR TA
I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M
Honorable Mayor and Members of the
George A. Caravalho, City Manager
September 30, 1992
SUBJECT: Council Study Session - Draft Deve
BACKGROUND
:e Study
On .March 7, 1991, the City entered into a contract with the consulting firm of
Recht Hausrath Associates (Oakland, CA). to prepare a development impact fee
study. A draft study was prepared, divided into two studies entitled, "Public
Facilities Fee Program," (includes community facilities, general government,
libraries, parks and recreation, and transportation) and "Art in Public Places
and Child Care Facilities Mitigation Program." Separate studies for the two
areas are necessary as the fees collected for them are administered
differently.
The two studies provide a schedule of fees that the City may collect from new
development to contribute to infrastructure funding, so as to help ensure that
new development pays its fair share cost of improving local infrastructure.
As the City's population increases, so does the demand for infrastructure and
public facilities. A proportional amount of new facilities must be provided
to serve new development to avoid a decline in local levels of service.
Infrastructure and public facilities funding is stated throughout the goals
and policies of the City's adopted General Plan. Particularly, the concept of
"pay as you go" will be substantially implemented by .this fee program. The
fees collected will assist in meeting the goal of providing adequate
services. Another goal will be addressed by allocating the cost of public
services on a fair and equitable.basis determined by service demand.
The study accomplishes meeting these goals through its methodology, which is a
combination of several factors: General Plan buildout, determination of the
public facilities standards, projection of the public facilities needs to meet
the standards, identification of funding (combination of public and private
sources), and determination of public facility fees. A chart summarizing the
fees is located on page 4 (Table 4) in the Executive Summary and on page 9
(Table I-3) of the draft Public Facilities Fee Program. The Art in Public
Places methodology is quantified on page 3 of the art and child care program
(bullets and second paragraph), and the child care requirements are summarized
on page 8 (Table III -3)
At its meeting of April 9, 1991, the Council appointed Mayor Klajic and Mayor,
Pro -Tem Heidt as representatives on a task force to facilitate the direction
of the study. The Deputy City Manager/Community Development and the Director
of Finance were assigned to the task force as well. The task farce met three
times and provided direction on nontechnical issues such as facility
standards, appropriate financing mechanisms, and projects to be financed
through this study.
Agenda Item: �
City Council
September 30, 1992
page 2
The consultants, Dick Recht and Bob Spencer of Recht Hausrath Associates will
be in attendance to give a presentation on the draft study and to assist the
Council. A copy of the draft study and the Executive Summary are attached.
RECOMMENDATION
1. Receive overview presentation.
2. Discuss the Draft Development Impact Fee Study
3. Defer action until 1993.
Attachments:
1. Executive summary
2. Draft Reports (2 bound together)
MAR:723
0
MEMORANDUM
To: Santa Clarita City Council
From: Robert D. Spencer—
Date: June 17, 1992
Subject: Executive summary of Public Facilities Fee Program draft report dated March
1992
This memorandum provides an executive summary of the Public Facilities Fee Program
draft report dated March 1992. Also included is a discussion"of key policy issues. 'Be
program and its policy implications will be explained in full during an upcoming
workshop with Council. Finally, we summarize the Mitigation Program draft report that
was attached to the fee report.
SUMMARY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM
The purpose of public facilities fees, also known as impact fees, is to fund facilities
necessary to accommodate growth. City facilities provide services that benefit city
residents and employees of local businesses. New development increases this service
population and the demand for city services. If the City does not expand facilities to
serve growth, the level of facilities enjoyed by existing residents will decline. For
example, roads will be more congested, parks more deteriorated, and libraries more
crowded. Constraints on other funding sources have led local governments throughout
California to adopt facilities fees to fund the capital costs of growth.
The report provides the legal documentation required by state law to justify. a public
facilities fee program. The document explains the reasonable relationships between
types of new development, the need for new facilities; and the level of fees, given a set
of policy assumptions.
Council should consider the draft report as a discussion document which it can use to
decide policy issues regarding which facilities to fund at what level of fees. Should
Council adopt this method of capital funding, the actual program may differ from that
shown in the draft report as a result of Council's policy direction.
Santa Clarita City Council Page 2
June 17, 1992
New Development Projections
Projections of increases in population and employment provide the basis for estimates of
additional facilities required to serve growth. Growth projections for the next twenty
years are based on the City's recently adopted General Plan. Projections encompass all
areas of the Santa Clarita Valley anticipated to be annexed to the City by 2011. Table 1
shows these projections.
TABLE 1
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA POPULATION AND EMPLO"IENT,
1991
AND 2011
Avg. Ann.
1991 2011
Increase
Increase
Population 118,800 232,300
113,500
3.4%
Employment 42,100 136,900
94,800
6.1%
Total Service Population 160,900 369,200
208,300
4.2%
Source: See Table II -3 of draft report.
Public Facility Planning and Facility Standards
Determining the quantity of new facilities required to serve existing and new
development requires the adoption of facility standards. Standards are often expressed
per capita for the facilities associated with a given city program (e.g. acres of park land
per 1,000 capita). Standards are a critical policy assumption because they link growth
with the amount of needed facilities. The additional facilities needed to serve the city's
service population in 2011, based on specified standards, are shown in Table 2.
Allocating Public Facility Costs To New Development
New development may not be responsible for funding (with fees) all of the facility needs
listed in Table 2. A portion of facility needs may be funded by alternate funding sources
under the following circumstances:
• If facility needs are based on a higher standard than currently exists in the city,
then existing development must fund a portion to cure this existing deficiency. It
would be inequitable to impose the entire cost on new development.
► If a portion of facility needs to serve new development can be funded by alternate
sources, then the amount funded by fees may be reduced.
Santa Clarita City Council Page 3
June 17, 1992
TABLE 2
FACILITY NEEDS, 1991 TO 2011
Facility Type Facility Standard Facility Needs
Community Facilities
1 major recreational center
Community, senior, and youth
per 45,000 residents
centers, 2 sports centers
General Government
1,253 bldg. sq. ft. per 1,000
Civic center, corporation yards, ,
Facilities
capital
materials recovery facility; etc.
Libraries
200 bldg. sq. ft. and 1,270
18,000 bldg. sq. ft., 114,600
Revenues
volumes per 1,000 capital
volumes
Parks & Recreation
2 improved park acres per
Improve 68 existing unimproved
253,950
1,000 residents
acres, acquire and improve 258
49,294,000
12,647,000
additional acres
Transportation
Level of service 'D"
Intersection improvements, transit
0
0
buses, commuter rail stations
t City residents plus employees of local businesses.
Source: See Chapters III through VII of the draft report.
The costs of the facility needs shown in Table 2, allocated between public facilities fees
and alternative funding sources are shown in Table 3. Community facilities, general
government facilities, and parks require alternative funding sources because of the first .
reason cited above (existing deficiencies). Transportation facilities require non -fee
funding sources because of the second reason cited above (anticipation of alternate funds
to reduce new development's contribution through fees).
TABLE 3
FACILITIES NEEDS AND FUNDING SOURCES, 1991 TO 2011
Total
Public
Facilities
Facilities Fee
Other Funding
Sources
Facility Type
Costs
Revenues
Total Avg. Annual
Community Facilities
9,940,000
4,861,000
5,079,000
253,950
General Government
61,941,000
49,294,000
12,647,000
632,350
Libraries
7,776,000
7,776,000
0
0
Parks & Recreation
101,082,000
81,039,000
20,043,000
1,002,150
Transportation
58,272,000
43,313,000
14,959,000
747,950
Total
1 $239,011,000
1 $186,283,000
$52,728,000
$2,636,400
Source: Table I-2 of draft report.
Santa Clarita City Council
June 17, 1992
Page 4
Table 4 presents the public facilities fees needed to generate the fees revenues shown in
Table 3 ($186 million).
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM POLICY ISSUES
The public facilities fee program raises three critical policy issues for Council
consideration. These issues are discussed below. The draft report reflects the policy
direction of the task force that guided the study. The task force was composed of senior
city staff and two Council members.
Facility Standards and Non -Fee Funding Commitments
In the past, the County provided fewer public facilities than are now considered
adequate by the City to serve residents and local employees. Thus, without accounting ,
for growth, the City has a large existing deficiency in community facilities, general
government facilities, and parks. Although the City seeks to achieve a higher standard in
these areas, new development cannot be held responsible for a higher standard than the
current population is willing to provide for itself. Thus, the City must use alternate funds
TABLE 4
PUBLIC
FACILITIES FEES
Residential
Nonresidential
(Per Dwelling
Unit)
(Per 1.000 Building
Sg Ft.)
Single-
Multi -
Facilities
Family
Family
Office
Retail
Industrial
Community Facilities
$133
$86
--
--
-
General Government
735
476
789
550
448
Libraries
270
175
57
39
32
Parks & Recreation
1,897
1,230
406
283
231
Transportation
699
377
2,158
2,049
803
Subtotal
$3,734
$2,344
$3,410
$2,921
$1,514
Fee Administrationi
93
59
85
73
38
Total
$3,827
$2,403
$3,495
$2,994
$1,552
1 Based on expenses for program administration at 2.5 percent of the total fee amount.
Source: Table I-3 of draft report.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM POLICY ISSUES
The public facilities fee program raises three critical policy issues for Council
consideration. These issues are discussed below. The draft report reflects the policy
direction of the task force that guided the study. The task force was composed of senior
city staff and two Council members.
Facility Standards and Non -Fee Funding Commitments
In the past, the County provided fewer public facilities than are now considered
adequate by the City to serve residents and local employees. Thus, without accounting ,
for growth, the City has a large existing deficiency in community facilities, general
government facilities, and parks. Although the City seeks to achieve a higher standard in
these areas, new development cannot be held responsible for a higher standard than the
current population is willing to provide for itself. Thus, the City must use alternate funds
Santa Clarita City Council
June 17, 1992
Page 5
to expand facilities to the higher adopted standard for the existing population. This is
called correcting an existing deficiency.
About $38 million, or $1.9 million per year over twenty years, is needed to correct
existing deficiencies in community facilities, general government facilities, and parks
(Table 3). If the City does not meet this obligation, then the impact fees shown in Table
4 will be overstated and inequitable on new development.
The City can changethisfunding obligation by changing the facility standards used to
calculate facility.needs. Lower standards result in a lower commitment, but also a lower
amount of new facilities to serve the city. Points for Council consideration regarding this
policy issue include:
Facility Standards: What level of public facilities is needed to adequately serve
the community?
Commitment of Alternative Revenue Sources: What are the limits of the City's
long term financial capacity to fund new public facilities with alternative revenues
sources (besides fee revenues), particularly if general. revenues are the likely
source for most of this commitment?
Existing Debt Service Payments on General Government Facilities: The City
currently has outstanding debt of which about $9.5 million is funding general
government facilities. The non -fee funding obligation shown in Table 3 is in
addition to the annual payment to retire this debt. If the City wants the debt
service payment to fulfill its funding obligation, then planned facilities in the
general government area would need to be reduced.
Regional Public Facilities Fee Programs
Many public facilities located in the city also serve residents of surrounding
unincorporated areas, and vice versa. New regional facilities can only be equitably .
funded by fees if fees are imposed on all new development in the city and surrounding
areas. In the case of the Public Facilities Fee Program presented in the draft report,
only the libraries fee had to be documented as a regional fee. That is, for this fee to be
implemented it should be adopted by the County and the City and imposed on all new
development in the Santa Clarita Valley.
The regional funding approach is analogous to the fire facilities fee already adopted by
the City which also applies to the unincorporated area. Other parts of the Public
Facilities Fee Program, such as transportation and parks, could also benefit from a
regional approach, though the documentation does not reflect this in its current version.
Issues for the Council to consider include:
► Should the County.be approached to jointly implement a library facilities fee?
Santa Clarita City Council Page 6
June 17, 1992
Does the City wish to pursue other regional funding programs with the County?
Annexations
In certain cases an annexation will increase existing deficiencies, and the City's
commensurate non -fee funding obligation. This occurs if (a) the annexation is inhabited,
and (b) the annexation does not include public facilities at a level being funded by the
fee program. This concern only applies to community facilities, general government
facilities, and parks.
If an annexation results in an increase in the existing deficiency for a type of facility, the
City would probably need to increase its non -fee funding obligation to correct the
increased deficiency. Alternatively, the City could develop a regional fee program with
the County so that new development has already paid its share of new facilities when
annexation occurs.
MITIGATION PROGRAM
In addition to the Public Facilities Fee Program, an attached draft report documents a
mitigation program in two areas: art in public places and child care facilities. These
programs are different from facilities fees because the City would not anticipate owning
these facilities, but rather would expect new development to mitigate its negative impacts
by including these facilities in each project. If it is not feasible for a project to do so,
then an in -lieu fee is paid and the City uses the funds to provide the needed facilities.
Art in Public Places
The purpose of the art in public places mitigation program is to moderate some of the
negative visual impacts of new development. The mitigation program would require art
be provided in conjunction with certain types of development. Generally this includes
fairly large projects with reasonably significant impact, i.e. a noticeable difference. in the
city before and after the development. Developments of this scale would be required to
provide art equal to at least one percent of the building permit value of the
development. An in -lieu fee. may be paid at the same rate at the developer's discretion.
The key policy issue is at what level to set the mitigation requirement. Most cities with
similar programs use one percent of building permit value. In addition, important
implementation issues to be considered include:
Would the Council or another public body like the Parks and Recreation.
Commission be responsible for the program?
What conditions does a developer have to meet to fulfill the mitigation
requirements, e.g, how visible does the art need to be?
Santa Clarita City Council
June 17, 1992
What art is acceptable?
► How would the in -lieu fee revenues be spent?
Child Care Facilities
Page 7
The child care mitigation program's objective is to ensure that new commercial/
industrial development provides a minimum level of child care facilities for children
associated with employees of that development. To be conservative, the level of
mitigation was calculated based on the child care needs of low- and moderate -income
families and only the children of those families likely to seek licensed child care.. The
fees are shown below in Table S.
TABLE 5
CHILD CARE FACILITIES IN -LIEU FEE
Fee Per 1,000
Land Use Category Square Feet
Standard Office $889
Retail/Commercial 620
Industrial/Business Park 505
Source: Table III -3 of mitigation program draft report.
As with art in public places, the key policy issue is at what level to set the mitigation
requirement. In addition, important implementation issues to be considered include:
► Should there be requirements to set aside child care slots for low and moderate
income families?
► How will the City allocate in -lieu fee revenues? Through a single non-profit
agency? Through competitive application?
RECHT
HAUSRATH
&ASSOCIATES
MEMORANDUM
To: Santa CMta City Council
From: Robert D. Spencer
Date: September 24, 1992
Re: Public Facilities Fee Program - September 30 Study Session
This memorandum explains critical issues for Council consideration regarding the
Public Faculties Fee Program. The first issue should be resolved at the study
session because it affects the final draft report that will be used as a basis for the
public hearing on the program. The remaining two items are key policy issues 'on
which the Council can provide direction either now or later at the public hearing.
1. Compared to residential development, what is the relative demand for public
facilities generated by commercial. and industrial development for the
following types of facilities:
• General government faiilities (e.g. 1 employee equals 1 resident)
• Libraries (e.g. 0.20 employees equals 1 resident)
• Parks (e.g. 0.20 employees equals,1 resident)
2. Does the City wish to commit $1.9 million per year from general revenues to
raise existing facility standards for parks, community facilities (e.g. recreation'
centers), and general government facilities (e.g. civic center)?
I Are the proposed facility standards, including their impact on fee levels, too
high given their potential to act as a disincentive to economic development
and affordable housing in the City?
URBAN ECONOMISTS 1212 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 (510) 839.8383 FAX 839-8415
RECHT
HAUSRATH
&ASSOCIATES
MEMORANDUM
To: Santa Clarita City Council
From: Dick Recht and Bob Spencer
Date: September 30, 1992
Re: Summary of comments made at public workshops
City staff and Recht Hausrath & Associates have held two public workshops regarding
the proposed Public Facilities Fee Program. The great majority of participants were
from the development community (real estate brokers, landowners, builders, and "
developers). Generally their comments were critical of the program. They are .
summarized below for you information.
• Fees will increase development costs, force new or expanding companies to locate
elsewhere, and limit job growth in Santa Clarita.
• Fees make it more difficult to produce affordable housing in the City.
• New development that locates in the surrounding unincorporated area to avoid
fees will still place demands on city facilities, especially roads.
• The fiscal benefit of new development to the City (increased tax base) needs to
be considered when evaluating fees which could drive new development
elsewhere.
• Higher fees make development less feasible and are a financial burden on current
landowners.
• The comparison of fees with other cities in the draft report does not include cities
that Santa Clarita is competing with for commercial and industrial development,
such as Palmdale/Lancaster and Simi Valley:
• The City cannot afford the facility standards upon which the fees are based
because they will drive development to competitive areas.
In sum, workshop participants thought that the City should conduct a comprehensive
study of the City's competitive position for new development and the impact of fees on
that position prior to adopting the fee program.
URBAN ECONOMISTS 1212 BROADWAY OAKLAND CA 94612 (510) 839.8383 FAX 839-8415
City of Santa Clarita
September 30,1992
PROFITABILITY OF RESIDENTIAL FRANCHISES
AT APPROVED RATES*
* Based on the 12. months ending April 30, 1992.
(a) Includes actual revenues plus additional approved revenue for the 12 months ending April 30, 1992.
(b) Franchise fees were not paid during the reporting period; this is a theoretical value, based on 10% of approved franchise
revenues subject to the franchise fee.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
1
-, of Revenue
Approved Revenues (a)
$794419000
100%
Franchise Fees (h)
($7329000)
-10%
f
Opelating Costs
(1120
-83°lo
Potential Dpel aflllg PICo#it '
$5009000
7%
r
* Based on the 12. months ending April 30, 1992.
(a) Includes actual revenues plus additional approved revenue for the 12 months ending April 30, 1992.
(b) Franchise fees were not paid during the reporting period; this is a theoretical value, based on 10% of approved franchise
revenues subject to the franchise fee.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
1
City of Santa Clarita
September 30,1992
Exhibit 9A2
ESTIMATED FRANCHISE FEES ACCRUED VERSUS
HAULER COST INCREASES NOT PASSED THROUGH
For the 20 Months Ending December 31, 1992
(a) Based on 10% of reported revenues from January 1, 1992 to April 30, 1992. Revenues estimated based on average monthly revenues
during 12 months ending April 30, 1992.
(b) Based on an initial disposal fee of $19.75 per ton, and the increases shown in Exhibit 10.
(c) Rates were increased from $16.85 to $17.81 per single family unit per month, or 5.7%.
(d) Multi -family bin rates increased by 4.6% to 5.6%, depending on service level. An average multi -family increase of 5.0% is assumed
in this analysis. -
(e) Estimated based on average monthly revenue reported for 12 months ending April 30, 1992. See Exhibit 9B.
(f) Based on tipping fee increase from $24.45 to $28.89 per ton. See Exhibit 9B.
(g) Based on 0.7% change in PPI between April 1991 and December 1991. See Exhibit 9C.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
+J
City
Credits
Hauler
Credits
' 'ranctiise
b ces !
12ate Increase Cbltected
'.
Disposal Cost
PPI Ad,ustmett ;,
Qwed fo City
by Haulers to Offset
Dis '1 Ctist.Increases.
Increases
Not Implemented;
oit Januar 1,!';
May 1, 1991 to April 30, 1992
$2302000 (a)
$241,000 (c)
($312,000) (b)
($110000) (g)
$212,000
$64,000 (d)
May 1, 1992 to Dec. 319 1992
$460,000 (e)
$0
($198,000) (f)
($221000) (g)
$240,000
Total
$690,000
$3052000
($510,000)
($33,000)
$4529000
(a) Based on 10% of reported revenues from January 1, 1992 to April 30, 1992. Revenues estimated based on average monthly revenues
during 12 months ending April 30, 1992.
(b) Based on an initial disposal fee of $19.75 per ton, and the increases shown in Exhibit 10.
(c) Rates were increased from $16.85 to $17.81 per single family unit per month, or 5.7%.
(d) Multi -family bin rates increased by 4.6% to 5.6%, depending on service level. An average multi -family increase of 5.0% is assumed
in this analysis. -
(e) Estimated based on average monthly revenue reported for 12 months ending April 30, 1992. See Exhibit 9B.
(f) Based on tipping fee increase from $24.45 to $28.89 per ton. See Exhibit 9B.
(g) Based on 0.7% change in PPI between April 1991 and December 1991. See Exhibit 9C.
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
+J
City of Santa Clarita
September 30,1992
ESTIMATED RATE ADJUSTMENTS
Effective January 1;1993
Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson
3 `
tt
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM
MARCH 1992
RECHT HAUSIZATH & ASSOC
URBAN ECONOMISTS
1212 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, California 94612
-, W
IATES
Ageldaltem:—
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY ....................... 1
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA ...... 2
FEE DETERMINATION ............................ 4
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COSTS AND FEE
SCHEDULES ................................ 7
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION ..................... 9
II. NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS ................... 11
PROJECTIONS OF DWELLING UNIT AND
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SPACE ............ 12
PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT .. 15
III. COMMUNITY FACILITIES ............................ 18
EXISTING FACILITIES ............................. 18
FACILITY STANDARDS ............................ 18
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS ...................... 18
FUNDING PLAN .................................. 20
IV. GENERAL GOVERNMENT ............................22
EXISTING FACILITIES ............................. 22
FACILITY STANDARDS ............................ 23
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS ...................... 24
FUNDING PLAN .................................. 25
V. LIBRARIES ......................................... 29
SERVICE POPULATION PROJECTIONS ............... 29
EXISTING FACILITIES ............................. 31
FACILITY STANDARDS ............................ 31
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS ...................... 31
FUNDING PLAN .................................. 32
VI. PARKS & RECREATION .............................. 34
EXISTING FACILITIES ............................. 34
FACILITY STANDARDS ............................ 35
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS ...................... 37
FUNDING PLAN .................................. 39
VII. TRANSPORTATION ................................. 42
INTERIM FEE PROGRAM .................... ... 42
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT 'Page i
Table of Contents
PROJECTION OF TRIP GENERATION ................. 43
EXISTING FACILITIES........ .................. 44
FACILITY STANDARDS ............................ 44
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS ...................... 45
FUNDING PLAN ................................... 47
VIII. COMPARISON OF CAPITAL FACILITIES FEES
BETWEEN SANTA CLARITA AND COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES50
DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITIES ................... 50
METHODOLOGY ................................. 51
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS ......... 52
DISCUSSION BY PROTOTYPE PROJECT .............. 54
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT • Page ii
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
City facilities provide services for the benefit of city residents, businesses, and employees.
As this service population increases, so does the demand for city facilities. As
developers build new homes and commercial/industrial buildings, the City must provide
proportional amounts of new facilities to serve this development, that is, unless existing
residents are to experience a decline in the level of facilities that they had previously
enjoyed. Moreover, recently incorporated cities such as Santa Clarita often have
deficient levels of facilities. In this case, the City is choosing to expand its facilities
beyond what is needed solely to accommodate new development to raise its levels of
service for all residents and employees, new and existing.
This report documents the amount and cost of new capital facilities for city services
required to (1) serve new development through the year 2010 and, (2) to correct existing
deficiencies. In addition, this report reviews funding alternatives including public
facilities fees, or impact fees, paid by new development to fund its fair share of those
facilities needs. The report documents the maximum justified level of those fees.
A key element of the City of Santa Clarita's fee program is its commitment of alternative
funds to raise existing facility standards to an appropriate level. New development's
need for facilities, and the -fees imposed on it, are then be based on this appropriate
level without new development curing existing deficiencies. This approach highlights two
critical policy issues:
• Facility Standards: What level of public facilities is needed to adequately
serve the community?
• Commitment of Alternative Revenue Sources: What are the limits of the
City's long term financial capacity to fund new public facilities with alternative
revenues sources (besides fee revenues), particularly if general funds are the
likely source for most of this commitment?
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 1
a
This introductory chapter to the Public Facilities Fee Program summarizes the Program
under the following topics:
• Public Facilities Financing in California
• Fee Determination
• Facilities Costs and Fee Schedules
• Program Implementation
The introduction is intended to provide a general understanding of the concepts and
methodology used to design public facilities fees. The second chapter sets forth
projections of new development. Each succeeding chapter contains a detailed analysis of
the specific costs and assumptions involved in the calculation of the fee for a facility
type, e.g. parks. The final chapter provides a comparison between the City of Santa
Clarita and three other communities of total fees imposed on new development to fund
capital facilities.
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA
Several events during the recent past have undercut the financial capacity of local
governments to build infrastructure: passage of Proposition 13, difficulty passing bond
initiatives, and severe reductions in federal and state assistance. Since Proposition 13,
Property taxes have been inadequate to fund capital needs, and have.been generally
insufficient for on-going operations and maintenance expenses at pre -Proposition 13
levels of service. As an immediate response to their funding crisis, cities and counties
throughout California cut back services, deferred maintenance, and slashed capital
investment. Similar to other cities, the Santa Clarita finds itself in a situation of scarce
resources.
As a longer-term response, most cities and counties are shifting the burden of financing
the capital costs of additional infrastructure to accommodate new development from tax
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT page 2
Chapter I Introduction and Summary
revenues and general obligation bonds to that development. This shift has primarily
been accomplished through the imposition of public facilities fees, also know as
development impact fees. Some fee programs address only a few specific facilities, such
as sewer, fire, or storm drainage, while other municipal fee programs are comprehensive,
requiring developers to pay for all additions to municipal. facilities needed to
accommodate new development.
As a result of wide -spread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature
passed AB 1600 adding Government Code sections 66000 et seq. which lay ground rules
for imposition and on-going administration of fees. The law, which became effective in
January 1989, requires local governments to document that a reasonable relationship
exists between new development, the fee, and the facilities built to accommodate that
development. The legal requirements restrict how local governments may impose and
use public facilities fees. These statutes have also made local governments less
vulnerable to litigation and have given developers a more predictable environment in
which to build. In general, the law requires that the fee amount be sufficient only to
fund the additional facilities required to serve new development.
It is important to distinguish between a fee for public facilities financing and a tax. Fees
must conform to the conditions imposed by AB 1600 and case law and are used
exclusively to fund the capital costs of new facilities. In addition, fees only require action
by the elected governing board of a city or county to be imposed. Taxes,, on the other
hand, may be used for either capital or operating and maintenance costs, and tax
increases generally must be approved by the voters. Consequently, it is critical in the
documentation for any public facilities fee program to demonstrate that the fee is not
greater than the cost of facilities to accommodate new development to avoid being
challenged as a tax. The Public Facilities Financing Plan serves that purpose.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 3
Chapter I Introduction and Summary
FEE DETERMINATION
The design of the City's public facilities fee program followed a seven step process: (1)
selecting a time period, (2) projecting new development, (3) determining facility service
areas, (4) identifying facilities to accommodate new development, (5) estimating their
costs, (6) determining alternative funding sources, and (7) selecting an appropriate and
equitable means to allocate costs among new development.
Projecting New Development
Projections of new development provide the basis for projections of additional facilities
required to serve growth. The Program uses growth projections based on the City's.
recently adopted General Plan. Projections were made for the planning area outlined on
the map on the following page. These projections are presented below in Table I-1.
Residents are used as a measure of the impacts of residential development, and
employees are used as a measure of the impacts of non-residential development. The
projections indicate that the City will add a total service population (residents plus
employees) of 208,300 during the next two decades.
TABLE I-1
NEW DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
1991 TO 2011
Residential 46,200 dwelling units 113,500 residents
Commercial/Industrial 43,300 building sq. ft. 94,800 employees.
208,300 service
population
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 4
Santa Clarita Planning Area
0 5000 10q rEff
�, AA
Santa Clarita General Plan
City of Santa Clarita
r �
��� ,'
~'�"-•
i�
��w
Angeles National Forest
f Caa[ak ��
Haste ancon 11!
!:3 '
Castalo J
Val ante �s c
n �u
1
' �• • ••
>/ '
lr i
�.
,
\ -
I
...
_}
1011 Li
zz
/'
'
✓
i
. a
a �I Send
Canyon
rayon f'
Newhall
Pica 0
' Anpelesrest National �...�...-.,,._._.%""�
,.__...._ Canyon
` -..
Forest/",-
Forest j'
�'••
4'
N San Gabriel Manlains
Santa Clarita Planning Area
0 5000 10q rEff
�, AA
Santa Clarita General Plan
City of Santa Clarita
Chanter I Introduction and Summary
Identifying Facilities to Accommodate New Development and Correct Existing Deficiencies
Determining the quantity of new facilities required to serve new development requires
the adoption of standards. These standards establish minimum levels of service for city
infrastructure. Standards are often stated in terms of a city department's amount of
facilities per capita (e.g. acres of park land per capita). The new facilities that
development must fund is then calculated according to these standards and projected
population and employment growth.
The City can adopt its own reasonable standards that reduce, maintain, or increase the
present levels of service provided to the existing population. However, new development
cannot be held accountable for higher standards than the current population is willing to
provide for itself. Thus, if existing facilities are below the standard chosen as a basis for
fees, the City must use alternative funds to expand these facilities to the same standard.
This is called correcting an existing deficiency. New development cannot be asked to
cure an existing deficiency.
Estimating Facilities Costs
Each department provided cost estimates for the new facilities it will require through the
year 2011 based on the standards developed during the previously step. We gave careful
review to the determination as to which facilities and costs were appropriately funded by
a public facilities fee. Thus, the portion of facilities costs that remedy existing
deficiencies (to benefit the existing population) and those which provide additional
capacity (to benefit growth) were allocated according to the shares that benefit each
group.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 6
Chapter I Introduction and Summary
Determining Alternative Funding Sources
We reviewed alternative funding sources to determine if any were available and
appropriate for funding facilities required to accommodate growth. If so, then the
amount funded by alternative sources was not included in the allocation of facilities costs
to new development described in the final step below.
Allocating Facilities Costs To New Development
The number of new residents and employees usually determines facilities needs, while
fees are usually paid based on the physical amount of new development, e.g.. number of
dwelling units or amount of building space. Thus, the final step distributes total facilities
costs among land use categories based on the population or employment density of each
category. This approach ensures that fees are directly related to the cost of facilities
required to accommodate a particular type of development. In some cases, such as
community facilities, costs are only allocated to residential development because
commercial/industrial development is not assumed to generate a significant demand for
this type of facility (see Chapter III).
SUMMARY OF FACILITIES COSTS AND FEE SCHEDULES
Table I-2 summarize the total costs of facilities to accommodate development during the
next twenty years and the cost to correct existing deficiencies. Costs to accommodate
new development are assumed to be funded by fee revenues. The amount under "other
funding sources" in the table indicates costs associated with correcting existing
deficiencies, with the exception of transportation facilities. In this case, additional traffic
modeling analysis must be completed by the City to more precisely determine new
development's share of facilities costs. In the meantime, an interim transportation
facilities fee is proposed that conservatively allocates a portion of total costs to new
development.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 7
Chapter I Introduction and Summary
TABLE I-2
FACILITIES NEEDS AND FUNDING SOURCES
1991 To 2011
Total Public
Facilities Facilities Fee
Other Funding Sources
Facility Type Costs Revenues
Total Avg. Annual
Community Facilities
9,940,000
4,861,000
5,079,000 253,950
General Government
61,941,000
49,294,000
12,647,000 632,350
Libraries)
7,776,000
7,776,000
0 0
Parks & Recreation
101,082,000
81,039,000
20,043,000 1,002,150
Transportation
58,272,000
43,313,000
14,959,000 747,950
Total
$239,011,000
1 $186,283,0001
$52,728,000 $2,636,400
t The inclusion of libraries in the Program requires cooperation with the County of Los Angeles.
See Chapter V.
2 Transportation is an interim ten-year program from 1991 to 2001.
The costs and revenues have.
been doubled in this table to be comparable with the other facilities
plans. See Chapter VII.
Source:. Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Table I-3 presents the public facilities fees if new development is required to fully fund
its share.of total facilities costs shown in Table I-2. In addition, a small part of the cost
of supplying the facilities to accommodate development consists of the documentation,
administration and implementation expenses of the fee program. Based on the
experience of other cities, an estimate of .2.5 percent of all fees collected appears to be
reasonable for these costs. The City is therefore justified in adding a 2.5 percent
surcharge on all fees collected to cover these overhead costs. The City should monitor
the actual expenses incurred and compare with this estimate and adjust the fee as
necessary to insure that excess funds are not collected.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 8
Chapter I Introduction and Summary
TABLE I-3
PUBLIC FACILITIES FEES
Residential Nonresidential
(Per Dwelling Unit l (Per 1.000 Building Sa.
Ft.)
Single- Multi -
Facilities Familyl Familyl Office Retail3
Industrial4
Community Facilities $133 $86 — --
General Government 735 476 789 550
448
Libraries5 270 175 57 39
32
Parks & Recreation 1,897 1,230 406 283
231
Transportation 699 377 2,158. 2,049
803
Subtotal $3,734 $2,344 $3,410 $2,921
$1,514
Fee Administration6 93 59 85 73
38
Total $3,827 $2,403 $3,495 $2,994
$1,552
1 Single-family generally includes detached dwellings at densities less than 6.7 units per acre; multi.
family includes all other units.
'- Includes all development with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
3 includes all development with 2.50 to 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
4 Includes all development with less than 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
5 Adoption of the libraries fee is dependent upon cooperation with the County of Los Angeles. See
Chapter V.
6 Based on 2.5 percent of the fee amount.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates
PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION
We recommend that the City undertake annual and longer-term (perhaps five-year)
reviews of its facilities fee program. The annual review, required by law, will verify that
the assumptions on which the fees are based remain generally applicable and will make
adjustments for inflation. The longer-term reviews will allow for detailed re-examination
of all assumptions such as growth forecasts, development trends, facilities needs,
annexation policies, inflation, and land costs. Such reviews will help attune long-range
infrastructure planning to the City's changing needs.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 9
Chapter I Introduction and Summmy
The actual implementation and administration of a public facilities fee program will
involve adopting new procedures, training personnel, tracking facility costs and
accounting for fee revenues. In addition, City staff will be frequently confronted with
particular situations in which they must interpret the program's criteria and render
special judgments. The City should adopt administrative guidelines to provide staff and
the development community with guidance regarding on-going operation of the program.
The guidelines should assist in maintaining consistent standards regardless of city
personnel turnover or updates to the fee program.
The .City anticipates that the public facilities fees will be collected at time of building
permit issuance. The fees will not be collected on vacant land until development occurs.
Fees will only be collected on developed land if the existing structures are being
expanded or otherwise modified to allow more intense use of the property.
Fee revenues for each facility category will be collected in a separate trust account, and
interest earned on fund balances will be credited to that account. Funds will be
transferred from that account to specific accounts for construction as needed to finance
the facilities required to serve new development. The City anticipates using its five-year
capital improvement program to indicate the actual phasing and location of new facilities
to be funded by the public facilities fees. For those funds unexpended or uncommitted
after five years, the.City should demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee
and the purpose for which the fee was charged, otherwise the City shall return the fees
to the current owners of the property on which the fee was imposed.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 10
II. NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
This chapter presents estimates of new development anticipated in the City of Santa
Clarita during the next twenty years, 1991 through 2011. The amount and cost of new
public facilities bears a strong relationship to the number of new residents and
employees that will live and work in the City as a result of new development. In this
manner, projections of new development will provide a basis for estimates in subsequent
chapters of the public facilities needed to accommodate that development.
The projections presented here are based on the City's recently approved General Plan,
its first General Plan since incorporating in 1987. The plan allocates land available for
development to different land uses. Designated land uses are then translated into
numbers of dwelling units and square feet of commercial and industrial building space
based on allowable development densities specified by the plan. Population and
employment projections can then be derived from these estimates of dwelling units and
building space. The result is an estimate of the build -out capacity of the City based on
the adopted General Plan.
Besides the analysis summarized above regarding new development projections, two
additional issues must be considered:
Tune Horizon
The public facilities fee program is a financing plan for capital investments that
have a life expectancy of at least several decades. This suggests that the time
horizon for the program should be at least 10 to 15 years, and possibly longer.
However, too long a time period may be unreasonable because of the uncertainty
of projections that distant, and the chance that the policy assumptions underlying
the program will change. Given these considerations, new development is
projected over a twenty-year period, from a 1991 base year through 2011. These
projections represent 80 to 90 percent of the eventual build -out of the City based
on the adopted General Plan.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 11
Chanter H New Development Projections
Annerations
The City's present intention is that certain areas contiguous to its current
boundaries eventually will be assumed within its municipal jurisdiction through
periodic annexations. This a normal process for a city in a growing region such as
the Santa Clarita Valley. Though at this time it is difficult to predict an exact
annexation schedule, it is reasonable to assume that by 2011 certain annexations
will have occurred. An annexation schedule was estimated as part of the fiscal
impact assessment prepared for the General Plan, and the new development
projections presented here incorporate that schedule.l In the case of Santa
Clarita, annexations have a significant impact on development projections because
large portions of developable land lie in the surrounding unincorporated area.
Though projections of new development are a prerequisite for establishing a public
facilities fee program, the exact timing and final amount of that development generally
does not have a significant effect on the calculated fee. New and expanded facilities are
needed and fee revenues accrue in concert with the pace of new development. For
example, to the extent that these projections overestimate the actual amount of
development then fewer public facilities than estimated here will be needed to
accommodate that development. But fewer fee revenues will have accrued to the City to
fund those facilities as well. Thus, the general relationship between new development,
the need for facilities, and the fee amount remains relatively constant.
PROJECTIONS OF DWELLING UNIT AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SPACE
Los Angeles County has been one of the fastest growing regions of the United States and
the Santa Clarita Valley has been one of the fastest growing areas within that region.
Population and employment in the Santa Clarita Valley nearly doubled from 1980 to
t Fiscal Impact Assessment, General Plan Land Use Allocations, City of Santa Clarita, Economics Research
Associates (ERA), Revised 9/7/90, pp. 112-3.
Public Facilities Fee Program DRAFT REPORT Page 12
Chapter II New Development Proiections
1990, with most of that increase occurring within current City boundaries (the City was
incorporated in 1987).2 Primary reasons behind this growth include:
• Development of the regionwide freeway system provided easy access to
employment centers in and around Los Angeles from suburban areas like the
Santa Clarita Valley,
• With extensive development occurring throughout Los Angeles County, the
Santa Clarita Valley became one of the few remaining areas=that had large
tracts of land available for development, and
• Job growth in neighboring San Fernando and Antelope Valleys supported
residential growth in the Santa Clarita Valley.
The growth inducing factors noted above are anticipated to continue to effect significant
growth in the Santa Clarita Valley. However, in contrast to previous trends, the Valley
is projected to attract more jobs than additional employed residents. Employers are
anticipated. to follow a typical trend of relocating to growing labor market areas in the
suburbs. These projections suggest that the Valley's character will shift from being
predominantly suburban residential with a high percentage of.out-commuting, to
becoming a major employment center for the County, approximately balanced between
jobs and housing.
Table 1I-1 presents estimates of dwelling units and commercial/industrial building square
feet for 1991 and 2011, showing the projected growth over the next twenty years. The
1991 dwelling unit estimate is from the California Department of Finance and is based
on the 1990 census. The other data shown in the table is based on projections from the
fiscal impact assessment prepared for the General Plan. As the table shows, dwelling
units in the City are expected to more than double, while commercial and industrial
building space is anticipated to more than triple during this period. This anticipated
2 During the 1980s population was estimated to have grown from 79,000 to 153-,900, and employment from
24,000 to 46,000. City of Santa Clarita General Plan, Adopted June 26, 1991, Table H-1 (including footnotes),
p. H-5; 2010 Projections, County of Los Angeles Department of Regional Planning, December 1987, Table
A-6, p. A-7.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 13
Chapter 11 New Development Proiectionr
growth is reflected in the 23,500 dwelling units that have already been approved within
the City and the surrounding unincorporated area, out of a total projected increase of
46,200 shown in the table.3
TABLE 1I-1
NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS
1991 To 2011
1991 2011 Increase
Residential (Dwelling Units)'
Single-Farnily2 27,100 46,000 18,900
Multi-Family2 17,300 44,600 27,300
Total 44,400 90,600 46,200
Commercial/Industrial (1,000 Sq. Ft.)3
Standard Office 100 3,400 3,300
Retail/Commercial4 8,900 28,000 19,100
Industrial/Business Park 11,500 32,400 20,900
Total 20,500 63,800 43,300
t 1991 estimates from DOR 2011 projection from ERA absorption schedule
allocated by dwelling type based on total new units added 1990 to 2020.
2 Single-family generally includes detached dwellings at densities less than 6.7 units
1per acre; multi -family includes all other units.
1991 estimated at 5% above ERA 1990 estimates. 2011 estimated at 82% of
ERA 2020 build -out projection.
4 0.1 million sq. ft. added to 1991 and 1.9 million sq. ft, added to 2011 to represent
hotel and recreational employment at average retail employment density.
Source: Report E-5 Preliminary, California Department of Finance (DOF), May 3,
1991, p. 23; Fiscal Impact Assessmer:l, General Plan Land Use Allocations, City of
Santa Clarita, Economia Research Associates (ERA), Revised 9/7/90, Tables 11 -
and II -3; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
3 As of April, 1991. City of Santa Clarita General Plan, adopted June 26, 1991, p. L-16.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 14
Chanter II New Development Proiectionr
PROJECTIONS OF POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
New residents will live in the dwelling units and new employees will work in the
additional building space projected above. The amount of population and employment
growth can be estimated using factors for residential density (population per dwelling
unit) and employment density (employees per 1,000 square feet of building space).
Residential density factors were derived from 1991 estimates of population and housing
prepared by the California Department of Finance and based on the 1990 census.
Employment density factors were derived from the fiscal impact assessment prepared for
the General Plan and based on the average density projected for development in each
land use category from 1991 to 2011.
Table II -2 applies density factors to the projected growth from Table II -1 to estimate
new residents and employees. As the table indicates, the City's resident population is
expected to grow by 113,500 and its employment base by 94,700 jobs over the next
twenty years.
Public Facilities Fee Program -DRAFT REPORT Page 15
Chapter II New Development Proiections
TABLE 11.2
NEW POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
1991 To 2011
Dwelling Residents New
Residential Units Per Unit Residents
Single-Familyl 18,900 3.10 58,600
Multi-Familyl 27,300 2.01 54,900
Total 46,200 113,500
1,000 Sq. Ft. Employees
Building Per 1,000 New
Commercial/Industrial Space Sq. Ft. Employees
Standard Office 3,300 3.33 11,000
Retail/Commercial2 19,100 2.32 44,300
Industrial/Business Park 20,900 1.89 39,500
Total 43,300 94,800
t Single-family generally includes detached dwellings at densities less than 6.7 units
per acre; multi -family includes all other units.
Includes 531 employees and 3,770 employees in new hotel and recreational
development, respectively.
Source: Table II -1; Residential densities based on Report E-5 Preliminary, California
Department of Finance (DOF), May 3, 1991, p. 23; Employment densities based on
Fiscal Impact Assessment, General Plan Land Use Allocations, City of Santa Clarita,
Economics Research Associates, Revised 9/7/90, Table II -2; Recht Hausrath &
Associates.
Based on estimated 1991 population and employment, these projections represent an
average annual growth rate of 3.4 percent for -population and 6.1 percent for
employment, as shown in Table II -3. Table II -3 also shows total service population
growth, i.e. residents plus employees. Service population is used in the following
chapters as a measure of new development's total demand for some types of additional
public facilities.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 16
Chanter 11 New Development Projections
TABLE II -3
EXISTING AND PROJECTED POPULATION AND EMPLOYMENT
1991 AND 2011
Average
Annual
1991 2011 Increase Increase
Population 118,800 232,300 113,500 3.4%
Employment 42,100 136,900 94,800 6.1%
Total Service Population 160,900 369,200 208,300 4.2%
Source: 1991 population estimates from Report E-5 Preliminary, California Department of
F'mance (DOF), May 3, 1991, p. 23; 1991 employment estimates are 5% above 1990 estimates
from Fiscal Impact Assessment, General Plan. Land Use Allocations, City of Santa Clarita,
Economics Research Associates (ERA), Revised 9/7/90, Table II -2; Recht Hausrath &
Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 17
III. COMMUNITY FACILITIES
EXISTING FACILITIES
Community facilities include community centers and special purpose sports complexes.
The City does not have any existing community facilities and considers this a serious
deficiency.
FACILITY STANDARDS
The lack of any community facilities means that no existing facility standard can be
calculated for the City. The City does not have adopted standards to guide planning for
community facilities, but the need for these facilities is discussed in broad terms in the
Human Resources Element and Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan.
For purposes of the public facilities fee program, facility standards are derived directly
from the list of specific facility needs discussed in the next section.
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS
The City has identified community facilities needs in the five-year capital improvement
program (CIP).. A total ten new facilities with an estimated cost of $28.0 million are
included in the 1991 CIP. However, only the five highest priority projects costing $9.9
million are included in the fee program.4 These projects are shown in Table III -1.
4 The other five projects included a bicycle motocross, a cultural center, a golf course, a lawn bowling court,
and a Santa Clara River project.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 18
Chanter III Community Facilities
TABLE III -1
COMMUNITY FACILITIES
1991 To 2011
Facility
Costs
Community Center
$3,050,000
Fifty Meter Pool
1,150,000
Senior Center
1,140,000
Sports Complex
3,450,000
Youth Center
1,150,000
Total
$9,940,000
t Building costs only. Land for these projects is included
in General Government facilities (see chapter IV).
Source: City of Santa Clarita.
Given that the City currently does not have any community facilities, there is a large
existing deficiency. As a result, the costs shown in Table III -1 must be allocated to new
and existing development based on relative shares of total development in 2011. This
allocation is shown in Table III -2, based on resident population. The portion allocated
to new development is conservative in that the cost of the land, which is already owned
by the city, is not included.
TABLE III -2
ALLOCATION OF COMMUNITY FACILITIES NEEDS
1991 TO 2011
Residents Percent Cost
Existing Development 118,800 51.1% 5,079,000.
New Development 113,500 48.9% 4,861,000
Total 232,300 100.0910 9,940,000
Source: City of Santa Clarita; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 19
Chanter III Community Facilities
FUNDING PLAN
Facilities to Correct the Existing Deficiency
Existing development's $5.1 million share of community facilities costs shown in
Table II -2 will have to be entirely funded by future revenues other than fees paid by new
development. Over the next twenty years this equals an average of $254,000 per year.
Facilities to Accommodate New Development
A community facilities fee will be the primary source of funding for new development's
share of these facilities. At this time the City contemplates imposing the fee on
residential development only, not on commercial. and industrial development. The City
has some limited empirical data on use of these facilities by people working in the City
which suggests that sports facilities, such as the fifty meter pool and the sports complex,
would be used by workers. If upon collecting more data it indicates workers use these
facilities, the City may revise the fee at that time.
Based on a total cost of $4.9 million as shown in Table III -2, the cost per new resident
for community facilities is $43. The fee for each land use is shown in Table III -3.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 20
Chapter III Community Facilities
TABLE III -3
COMMUNITY FACILITIES FEE
Average Service
Cost Per
Fee Per
Land Use Category Population Per Unit
Capita
Unit
Residential
Single -Family' 3.10 per dwelling unit
$43
$133
Multi -Family' 2.01 per dwelling unit
43
86
t Single-family generally includes detached dwellings at densities less than 6.7 units per
acre; multi -family includes all other units.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 21
IV, GENERAL GOVERNMENT
EXISTING FACILITIES
General government facilities include city office and maintenance buildings, the land
associated with those structures, and miscellaneous fixed assets not contained in the
other facility categories of the Public Facilities Fee Program. Often these facilities
provide services to other functions of city government rather than serving the public
directly.
The City of Santa Clarita's existing general government facilities include buildings
anticipated for temporary use as well as land expected to be developed for permanent
facilities in the future. This is not unusual because the City is recently incorporated and
only now is beginning to plan for needed facilities.5 For example, the City owns the
office building that it anticipates to operate temporarily as the City Hall, and also owns a
ridge top site planned for a permanent Civic Center. Table IV -1 summarizes the City's
existing government facilities.
The facilities shown in Table IV -1 vary in type, e.g. undeveloped land, buildings, and
miscellaneous fixed assets. To simplify the analysis that follows, this assortment was
translated into a building square foot equivalent based on a typical. cost of $200 per
square foot. This cost is meant to include not only building costs, but the cost of
associated land and furnishings. Based on this costs the City has an existing investment
in general government facilities equal to 153,000 square feet. of building space.
S See for example City of Santa Clarita Civic Center Space Needs Assessment Master Plan Study, Hughes
Heiss and Associates and Patrick Sullivan Associates, October 24, 1990,
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 22
Chapter N General Government
TABLE IV -1
EXISTING GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
Current
Facility Description
Value
City Hall' 75,000 sq. ft.
$11,500,000
Corporation Yard2 61,500 sq. ft.; 4.06 acres
5,865,000
Civic Center Site3 195 undeveloped acres
9,863,000
Saugus Rehabilitation Site4 400. acres
2,500,000
Miscellaneous Fixed Assets Vehicles, furnishings & equipment
871,000
Total Existing Facilities
$30,599,000
Typical Cost Per Sq. Ft.
$200 per sq. ft.
Total Existing Facilities
153,000 sq. ft.
t 1991 purchase price.
2 1990 purchase price (53,600,000) plus improvements ($2;765,000).
3 Current value of $11,000,000 was reduced 18 percent to $9,013,000 because 43 of the
_
238 total acres
were allocated to unimproved park land (see Chapter VI). $850,000 was added for City expenses through
FY 1991/92 for architecture and engineering for the planned Civic Center.
4 Funds reserved through FY 1991/92 budget towards total estimated cost of $10 million
5 Fixed asset inventory as of April 30, 1991.
Source: City of Santa Clarita; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
FACILITY STANDARDS
Facility standards are more difficult to calculate for general government facilities than
for other facility categories because of the wide range of facility types and lack of
nationally -accepted standards. In the case of parks facilities for example, there are
standards adopted by national associations regarding the appropriate number of park
acres per 1,000 residents. The "level of service" standards used in transportation
planning to measure traffic congestion is another example of a commonly used standard.
General government facilities, on the other hand, include land, buildings, and fixed assets
used for a variety of services with no particular method for equating "apples" with
"oranges".
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 23
Chanter N General Govemment
Table IV -1, above, shows one method for calculating a standard for general government
facilities using a typical cost per building square feet of $200 as a common denominator.
This cost represents the cost of land, buildings, and fixed assets typically needed to
furnish a square foot of space for general government functions. Based on the City's
existing investment in these facilities equal to 153,000 square feet, and given the 1991
service population (residents plus workers) of 160,900, the existing general government
facility standard is 951 building square feet per 1,000 capita.
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS
The major general government facilities currently planned for the next twenty years to
accommodate build -out of the City include a new Civic Center to replace the existing
City Hall and additional corporation yard space. Other planned facilities include land
for community facilities, a materials recovery facility, and miscellaneous vehicles,
equipment, and furnishings. In the case of the new Civic Center, a portion of the total
building cost has already been financed through the purchase of the current City Hall
office building, which will presumably be sold once the Civic Center is completed. These
planned facilities and there costs are summarized in Table IV -2.
Based on a typical cost of $200 per square foot, Table IV -2 shows that the City plans to
add the equivalent of 309,700 square feet in land, buildings, and fixed assets during the
next two decades. (This figure does not include the space equivalent to the value of
existing assets.that•are to be used to finance new space, primarily the existing City Hall.)
Combined with the 153,000 square feet that represents the existing level of facilities from
Table IV -1, the total general government facilities required to serve the City's service
population in 2011 is equivalent to 462,700 square feet. This is a standard of 1,253
square -feet per 1,000 capita (based on 2011 projected residents and workers). Thus, the
City's planned general government facilities imply increasing the existing standard by 32
percent, from 951 to 1,253 square feet per 1,000 capita.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 24
Chapter IV General Govemment
TABLE IV -2
PLANNED GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
1991 TO 2011
Total Existing Net
Facility Description Cost Assets Cost
Civic Centerl 115,000 sq. ft. $47,013,000 $21,363,000 $25,650,000
Corporation Yards2
Land 13.14 acres 1,971,000 0 1,971,000
Buildings 114,500 sq. ft. 18,320,000 0 18,320,000
Materials Recovery
Facility 30,000 sq. ft. 5,000,000 0 5,000,000
Sauus Rehabilitation
Site 400 acres 10,000,000 2,500,000 7,500,000
Miscellaneous Fixed Vehicles, equip.,
Assets4 & furnishings 3,500,000 0 3,500,000
Total Cost $85,804,000 $23,863,000 $61,941,000
Typical Cost Per Sq. Ft. $200 per sq. ft
Unfunded Facilities 309,700 sq. ft.
1 Total cost based on $9,013,000 for land plus $38,000,000 for buildings. Funded cost based on value of
land, existing City Hall, and architectural and engineering expenses to date. See Table IV -1.
2 Assumes $150,000 per acre, $160 per square foot for buildings, and a floor -area ratio (FA.R.) of 0.20.
3 Funded cost equals funds reserved through FY 1991/92 budget.
Includes equipment for services now provided by Los Angeles County to the City.
Source: Proposed 1991 Five -Year Capital Improvement Program; FY 1991/92 Approved Budget; City
staff; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
FUNDING PLAN
The City anticipates funding general government facilities with a combination of public
facilities fees to fund those facilities necessary to accommodate new development, and
other funding sources to correct the existing deficiency.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 25
Chanter IV General Government
Facilities to Correct the Existing Deficiency
The existing deficiency for general government facilities is equivalent to 302 square feet
per 1,000 capita. This is the difference between the 2011 standard (1,253 square feet)
and the 1991 standard (951 square feet). Applying this deficiency to the existing service
population of 160,900 equals 48,700 square feet, or a cost of $9,731,000.
Facilities to Accommodate New Development
Based on the 1,253 square feet per 1,000 capita standard, 261,100 square feet of new and
expanded general government facilities are needed to accommodate new development.
At a typical cost of $200 per square foot, the total cost is $52,210,000.
A portion of the City's existing general government facilities shown in Table IV -1 is
being financed with debt. Specifically, $7,500,000 of the cost of the existing City Hall
and $2,025,000 of the cost of the existing corporation yard are being financed with
certificates of participation issued by the City, which is a form of debt. New
development will finance a portion of this debt through its tax contributions to the
general fund. General fund revenues will be used to fund the debt payments over time.
The portion of debt-financed facilities attributable to new development depends on new
development's share of the City's total service population. In 1992 new development will
contribute nearly nothing to the debt service payment because it will represent such a
small percentage of the citywide service population. By 2011 new development is
projected to be 56.4 percent of the citywide service population, thus contributing 56.4
percent of the debt service payment in that year. It is assumed that development will
occur evenly across this period and, as a result, will on average contribute half this
percentage to debt service payments, or 28.2 percent, over the time period of the public
facilities fee program documented here.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 26
Chapter IV General Government
Facilities Funding Plan Summary
A summary of the funding plan for general government facilities is shown in Table IV -3.
New development contribution to existing facilities in the form of debt service payments
must be deducted from its gross share of unfunded facility needs. Furthermore, this
deduction must be added to existing development's share of the unfunded facility needs.
Essentially existing development must be responsible for more of the unfunded need
because new development is contributing to the existing level of funded facilities. These
calculations are shown in Table IV -3.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 27
TABLE IV -3
FUNDING PLAN FOR GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES
1991 TO 2011
-
Square Feetl
Cost
New Development Share of
Unfunded Facilities
Gross Share
261,000
$52,210,000
Less - Contribution to
Financing Existing Facilities
14,600
2,916,000
Net Share
246,400
$49,294,000
Existing Development Share
of Unfunded Facilities
Existing Deficiency
48,700
9,731,000
Add - Savings From
Financing Existing Facilities
14,600
2,916,000
Net Share
63;300
12,647,000
Total Unfunded Facilities
309,700
$61,941,000
1 Based on a typical cost of $200 per square foot.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 27
Chapter IV General Government
As shown in the table above, new development's net share of the unfunded facility need
is $49,294,000. This amount equals a cost of $237 per capita based on a new
development service population of 208,300. Using this per capita cost the general
government public facilities fee is calculated in Table IV -4.
TABLE IV4
GENERAL GOVERNMENT FACILITIES FEE
Average Service Cost Per Fee Per
Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit
Residential
Single-Familyl 3.10 per dwelling unit $237 $735
Multi -Family' 2.01 per dwelling unit 237 476
Commercial/Industrial
Standard Office2 3.33. per 1,000 sq. ft. 237 789
Retail/Commercial3 2.32 per 1,000 sq. ft. 237 550
Industrial/Business Parka 1.89 per 1,000 sq. ft. 237 448
t Single-family generally includes detached dwellings at densities less than 6.7 units per
acre; multi -family includes all other units.
Z Includes all development with more than 250 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
; Includes all development with 2.50 to 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
4 Includes all development with less than 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 28
V. LIBRARIES
This chapter documents a public facilities fee for libraries. The key difference with this
part of the fee program is that library facilities are currently owned and operated by the
County through a library district. Furthermore, the libraries that serve City residents and
workers also serve the surrounding unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley.
Consequently, to properly implement a library facilities fee, it is desirable for the fee to
be imposed on new development both within the City and within the surrounding Valley.
The reason for this requirement is equity. For example, if the fee is imposed only on
new development within the City, and growth continues in the unincorporated area, then
new development in the City will not receive its fare share of new facilities. Whatever
facility standard is used to determine the fee will be diluted by unincorporated area
growth over time, and a future deficiency will be created that will be the city's
responsibility to correct. The result of this regional service delivery is that it is desirable
for both the City and the County to impose the library facilities fee on new development
throughout the Santa Clarita Valley.
SERVICE POPULATION PROJECTIONS
Because the service area for library facilities is larger than the City, theservice
population projections presented in Chapter 11 must be adjusted to include the
surrounding unincorporated area. The effect is to increase existing development
estimates to account for residents and workers located outside the City in 1991.
Estimates for 2011, however, do not change because the City is assumed to have annexed
substantially all developed areas in the Valley by that time.
One additional adjustment is made to the employment projections to calculate a service
population for the library. Based on surveys of library users it is clear that
commercial/industrial development places demands on library facilities. However, these
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 29
Chapter V Libraries
surveys. indicate that this demand is not as high (measured on a per worker basis) as is
demand from residents (measured on a per resident basis). Thus, a library system's true
service population can be expressed as total residents plus a fraction of total employees.
This service population is the appropriate measure of new development's need for
additional library facilities.
For the purposes of projecting the increase in the library's service population over the
next twenty years, one worker is assumed to represent 20 percent of the demand of one
resident. This assumption is conservative given that this demand factor in other
communities is as high as 50 percent. This assumptions should be confirmed and
adjusted as appropriate based on surveys of library users in the Santa Clarita Valley.
Table V-1 shows the population and employment projections for the Santa Clarita Valley
(incorporated and unincorporated areas), including the calculation of the library's service
population based on the assumptions discussed above.
TABLE V-1
LIBRARY SERVICE POPULATION
PROJECTIONS
1991 To 2011
1991
2011
Increase
Population 160,000
232,300
72,300
Employment 47,300
136,900
89,600
Adjusted Employment) 9,500
27,400
17,900
Total Service Population2 169,500
259,700
90,200
1 Based on 20 percent of total employment.
2 Population plus adjusted employment.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 30
Chanter V Libraries
EXISTING FACILITIES
The County library district is divided in to regions, one of which serves the Santa Clarita
Valley. This region has three existing library facilities with a total of 33,900 square feet
of building space containing 214,600 volumes. These facilities are listed in Table V-2.
TABLE V-2
EXISTING LIBRARY FACILITIES
Building
Library Sq. Ft. Volumes
Newhall 4,800 42,600
Valencia 24,000 127,600
Canyon Country 5,100 44,400
Total Existing Facilities 33,900 214,600
Source: County Library; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
it
FACILITY STANDARDS
The library's existing facility standard can be calculated from the facilities shown in
Table V-2, and the 1991 service population shown in Table V-1. The existing standard
for building space is 200 square feet per 1,000 capita. In terms of volumes, the existing
standard is 1,270 volumes per 1,000 capita. These are very low standards compared to
other cities and standards established by national library associations.
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS
For purposes of the library facilities fee program, the existing standard is used to
determine the facilities required to accommodate new development. - New facilities are
anticipated by county library staff to cost $241 per building square foot and $30 per
volume. The building cost includes $220 per square foot for construction and
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 31
Chanter V Libraries
furnishings, including shelving, and $21 per square foot for land. The latter cost is based
on a cost per acre of $225,000 and a floor -area ratio (F.A.R.) of 0.25. Table V-3 applies
the existing standard and the cost assumptions to the projected service population
increase to calculate library facility needs over the two decades.
TABLE V-3
PLANNED LIBRARY FACILITIES
1991 To 2011
Building
Sq. Ft.
Volumes
Increase Service Population 90,200
90,200
Standard 200
1,270
Planned Facilities 18,000
114,600
Cost Per Unit $241
$30
Total Cost $4,338,000
$3,438,000
Combined Cost $7,776,000
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
FUNDING PLAN
Using the existing standard to determine facility needs means that there is no deficiency
that existing development must correct. All the new facilities shown in Table V-3 are
required to serve new development just in order to maintain this standard. Thus, the
total cost of $7,776,000 can be allocated to new development through a library facilities
fee to ensure the existing library facilities are not burdened by new development. Based
on a projected service population increase of 90,200, the cost per capita is $86. Because
new workers are assumed to have.a relative demand for library facilities equal to 20
percent of residents, the fee per new worker is $17. Table V-4 shows the total library
facilities fee for each land use category.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 32
Chanter V Lifiraries
TABLE V-4
LIBRARY FACILITIES FEE -
Average Service Cost Per Fee Per
Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit
Residential
Single-Familyl 3.10 per dwelling unit $87 $270
Multi-Familyl 2.01. per dwelling unit 87 175
Commercial/Industrial
Standard-Office2 3.33 per 1,000 sq, ft. 17 57
Retail/Commercial3 2.32 per 1,000 sq. ft. 17 39
Industrial/Business Park4 1.89 per 1,000 sq. ft. 17 32
Single-family generally includes detached dwellings at densities less than 6.7 units per
LL
i-family includes all other units.
s all development with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
all development with 2.50 to 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
all development with less than 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
echt Hausrath & Associates.
Facilities
.: . A -AFA
Page
VI. PARKS & RECREATION
EXISTING FACILITIES
Parks and recreation facilities include open space, park land, park improvements, and
trails. Currently the City has ten improved parks, five unimproved parks, two trails, and
three open space areas. These parks and their respective acreage are shown in
Table VI -1. As shown in the table, the City currently anticipates developing portions of
the Civic Center site and Whites Canyon park that are now unimproved, while retaining
the remainder as open space.
The W. S. Hart park had to be treated specially in this analysis because it is a county
park located in the City but that serves an area larger than the City. A "city serving'
portion of the park had to be determined for use in the facility standard calculations in
the next section. The park has 110 improved park acres. Thirty of these acres are used
by a museum, historical society, and county district park office, facilities assumed to serve
a broad region extending beyond the Santa Clarita Valley. The remaining 80 developed
acres are assumed to serve the Santa Clarita Valley only, where 74 percent of the
population currently lives in the City. Thus, 59.44 acres (74 percent of 80 acres) are
allocated to serving city residents. To be conservative, none of the unimproved or open
space acreage in the park (149 acres) is allocated to city residents.
The improved parks shown in Table VI -1 have a variety of facilities. Most have picnic
and children's play areas, and all have some combination of active sports facilities.
These include tennis, basketball, and volleyball courts, softball and soccer fields, and
swimming pools. In addition, most parks have some type of building for community use.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 34
Chapter V! Parks & Recreation
FACILITY STANDARDS
The Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan includes standards for
determining the appropriate level of park and recreation facilities. These standards
address amount of acreage per park, park location, and type of park improvements. For
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page
TABLE VI -1
EXISTING PARK FACILITIES
Acres Acres
Improved Parks & Trails
Open Space
Almendra
4.30 Civic Center Site2 80.00
Canyon Country
17.20 Whites Canyon 13.00
H. M. Newhall
15.00 W. S. Harts 149.00
North Oaks
230 Total 242.00
Begonias Lane
5.00
Old Orchard
5.40
Santa Clarita
7.50
Valencia Glen
5.50
Valencia Meadows
4.80
W. S. Harts
59.44
Bouquet Canyon Trail
3.88
South Fork Trail
9.09
Subtotal
139.41
Unimproved Parks
Oak Springs Canyon
5.00
Calgrove
0.25
Civic Center Site2
43.00
Pamplico
5.00
Whites Canyon
15.00
Subtotal
68.25
Total Parks & Trails
.207.66
I W. S. Hart park has a total of 259 acres.. See text for explanation of acreage allocation.
Z The Civic Center site has a total of 238 acres with 115 acres expected to be used for the Civic
Center and the remaining 123 acres expected to be used for parks and open space.
Source: City of Santa Clarita; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
FACILITY STANDARDS
The Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan includes standards for
determining the appropriate level of park and recreation facilities. These standards
address amount of acreage per park, park location, and type of park improvements. For
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page
Chanter VI Parks & Recreation
example, the acreage standard is five acres per 1,000 residents.6 The Element is the
most comprehensive and authoritative expression of City park policies in absence of a
parks master plan. The City anticipates preparing a master plan in the future to aid in
implementing the Element's goals and policies.
In addition to -General Plan standards, the City has adopted a Quimby park in -lieu fee
based on a statutory standard. Quimby fees are governed by Government Code 66477 .
and are specifically exempt from the law governing public facilities fees (Government
Code 66000 et seq.). Under the former statute, the City may require residential
developers that subdivide land to provide three acres of unimproved park land per 1,000
residents projected to live in the new development. For those projects that do not
provide park land, there is an in -lieu fee option. How the Quimby fee will relate to the
park facilities fee documented here is discussed in the "Funding Plan" section.
The City has decided to use a park standard of two acres per 1,000 residents for the
purposes of the public facilities fee program. In addition to this standard, all existing
unimproved parks and all park land acquired in the future are to be improved to a level
consistent with General Plan standards. Existing improved parks currently meet these
standards. Although the five -acre per 1000 residents standard is General Plan policy,
funding constraints to correct existing deficiencies suggest that the lower standard is
more realistic at this time. The City anticipates raising the two -acre standard if possible
in the future.
The two -acre standard is higher than the current standard calculated using the City's
existing park land and population. The existing standard is 1.74 acres per 1,000 residents
based on the City's 1991 population and the improved and unimproved parks shown in
Table VI -1, not including open space. The standard is actually: slightly lower, 1.53 acres
per 1,000 residents, if the unimproved acreage is reduced to be equivalent in value to the
improved acreage. The higher two -acre standard creates an existing 'deficiency of 0.47
6 City of Santa Clartla General Plait, adopted June 26, 1991, p. PR -15.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 36
Chapter VI Parks & Recreation
acres per 1,000 residents that is the responsibility of the existing population. The City
will have to correct this deficiency using funds other than revenues from park facilities
fees or Quimby fees which are paid by new development.
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS
Based on discussions with City staff and local realtors, the average cost of unimproved
park land is currently estimated at $225,000 per acre. This represents the cost of a
parcel several acres in size located in a residential area. This cost estimate assumes that
the parcel has minimal site improvements, such as curb, gutter, grading, and drainage so
it is suitable for park development.
Park improvement costs are assumed to be $132,000 per acre. This represents the
average cost of improving park land. to General Plan standards.
Based on the two -acre standard and the estimates of average costs noted above, the City
will need to fund $101.0 million in new park facilities during the next twenty years. This
includes acquisition and improvement of 258 acres, most of which is required to
accommodate new development, though some is needed to correct existing
development's deficiency. Correcting the existing deficiency also requires improvement
of the 68.25 acres of currently unimproved parks. The total cost of new development's
share of the new park facilities is $81.0 million. Costs to correct the deficiency are
$20.0 million. These acreage and costs amounts are summarized in Table VI -2.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 37
Chapter VI Parks & Recreation
TABLE VI -2
ALLOCATION OF PARK FACILITIES
NEEDS
1991 TO 2011
Acres
Costl
Correct Existing Deficiency
Land Acquisition 31
$ 6,975,000
Park Improvement 99
13,068,000
Total
$20,043,000
Accommodate New Development
Land Acquisition 227
51,075,000
Park Improvement 227
29,964,000
Total
$81,039,000
Total New Facilities
Land Acquisition 258
58,050,000
Park Improvement 326
43,032,000
Total
$101,082,000
1 Costs based on $225,000 per acre for land acquisition and $132,000
per acre for park improvement.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
For comparison purposes, the Parks and Recreation Element of the General Plan
documented a need for approximately 500 additional acres of parks to correct existing
deficiencies, and 1,500 acres to accommodate new development 7 This analysis was
based on a five -acre standard and assumes build -out of the planning area. The analysis
also considers physical barriers such as major roads which results in a greater need than
simple application of the 5 -acre standard.
7 Ibid., pp. PR -17, PR -19.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT , Page 38
Chanter I7 Parks & Recreation
FUNDING PLAN
Correct Existing Deficiency
The City expects to fund the costs of correcting the existing deficiency from general fund
revenue sources over the next twenty years. With a total deficiency cost of $20.0 million, .
the average annual cost will be $1,002,000.
Accommodate New Development
The City anticipates funding new development's share of new parks with a park facilities
fee. This approach is supported by Policy 4.1 in the Parks and Recreation Element of
the General Plan which states that the City shall "[e]ncourage the use of developer fees
and land dedication incentive programs."8 One focus of the Element's goals and
policies is the contribution that new residential development should make towards
funding new and expanded parks because of the benefits received by new residents from .
these facilities.
The City also has a Quimby park in -lieu fee for residential development, as mentioned
previously. For those projects that provide park land or pay the Quimby in -lieu fee, the
value of the park land or amount of the fee will be credited against the park facilities
fee.
In addition, the Parks and Recreation Element contemplates that commercial and
industrial development should contribute to funding new park facilities. It seems
reasonable to have non-residential development share in the funding because of the
benefits that businesses and their workers receive from park facilities. These benefits
include facilities for individual exercise, for team sports sponsored by businesses, and for
rest, relaxation, and eating lunch outside during the work day. Goal 11 in the Element
states that the City should develop recreational facilities and services "that meet the
8 Ibid., p. PR -22.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 39
Chapter P7 Parks & Recreation
needs of retail, commercial, and industrial. businesses in the planning area." Policy 11.2
under that goal says the City shall "[e]xplore mechanisms to obtain commercial and
industrial park development fees..::9
Though workers certainly use and benefit from parks, they probably do so at levels less
than residents of the City. Based on surveys of park use in Santa Clarita and similar
cities, per capita use of parks by workers is assumed to be 20 percent of use by residents.
This ratio will be used below to equitably apportion park facilities costs between
residential and non-residential development.
New development is estimated to add 113,500 more residents and 94,700 employees to
the City during the next twenty years. Counting employees at 20 percent results in a
service population of 132;400 (113,000 plus 20 percent of 94,700). Using this service
population and the $81.0 million cost to accommodate it, new development's per capita
share of new park facilities is $612 per resident and $122 per employee. The park
facilities fee by land use is shown in Table VI -3.
9 Ibid. p. PR -27.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 40
Chapter W Parks & Recreation
TABLE VI -3
PARK FACILITIES FEE
Average Service Cost Per Fee Per
Land Use Category Population Per Unit Capita Unit
Residential
Single -Family' 3.10 per dwelling unit $612 $1,897
Multi -Family' 2.01 per dwelling unit' 612 1,230
Commercial/Industrial
Standard Office2 333 per 1,000 sq. ft. 122 406
Retail/Commercial3 2.32 per 1,000 sq. ft. 122 283
Industrial/Business Park4 1.89 per 1,000 sq. ft. 122 231
Single-family generally includes detached dwellings at densities less than 6.7 units per
acre; multi -family includes all other units.
2 Includes all development with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
3 Includes all development with 2.50 to 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
4 Includes all development with less than 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 41
VII. TRANSPORTATION
INTERIM FEE PROGRAM
This chapter documents an interim transportation facilities fee. The fee is interim
because the City needs to conduct additional traffic modeling to confirm the assumptions
used in the fee calculation. These assumptions are based on several studies conducted to
date, and include the results of traffic modelling completed for the General Plan
Circulation Element. However, that modelling effort was conducted at too general a
level to appropriately document a public facilities fee. The City expects to complete
additional traffic modelling during the next year or two to identify more rigorously the
impacts of new development. Based on the results of this modeling exercise, which
should include surrounding unincorporated areas, the fee will be adjusted as appropriate.
The facilities fee is based on estimates of transportation needs for the next ten years
(1991 to 2001) rather than the twenty-year time period used for the other facilities in this
report. Again, this is because of the need for additional modeling to determine new
development impacts. The period probably will be extended. to twenty years once the
City completes additional analysis.
Furthermore, the transportation facility needs identified here represent only a portion of
the City's total needs in this area. The City already has existing bridge and thoroughfare
(B & T) districts to fund certain major road improvements. The public facilities fee
program will complement the B & T districts by funding additional needed
improvements to the City's road network, as well as important transit improvements. In
particular, the fee program includes improvements to accommodate the cumulative
impacts of growth which are difficult to attach to any specific development project. The
City will remain able to impose additional traffic mitigation requirements on projects if
traffic studies indicate greater impacts than would be mitigated by the existing B & T
districts and transportation facilities fee program.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 42
Chapter VII Transportation
PROJECTION OF TRIP GENERATION
Projected population and employment growth commonly determines relative impacts
from new development on the need for public facilities. However, the common
approach in traffic analysis is to use the number of vehicle trip ends to assign traffic
impacts based on the particular land use at each end of the trip. A trip end is defined as
either a departure or a destination. In this chapter, "trip" is used to mean trip end.
Compared to population and employment, trip generation provides a more precise
estimate of the impact of new development on the need for transportation facilities.
Trip generation refers to the number of trips on the road system during a given time
period, and it varies throughout the day. Transportation engineers typically use peak
hour trips to measure the impact of new development. Peak hour, trips represent the
busiest single hour in a 24-hour period, which occurs usually at the evening rush hour.
As the occasion of greatest potential congestion, peak hour trip generation determines
the need for additional road or transit system capacity.
Peak hour trip generation projections for the public facilities fee program are based on
the projections of dwelling units and commercial/industrial space presented in
Chapter II. To estimate growth for a ten-year period (1991 to 2001), the projections
from Chapter II are reduced by fifty percent.
For each land use category, an adjusted trip generation factor is developed based on
commonly used averages from studies done nationwide and compiled by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers. The trip generation rates are adjusted to reflect average trip
lengths and the percentages of diverted and interrupted trips based on data from the San
Diego Association of Governments. (See Appendix A.) Adjustments reflect the fact that
trips that are shorter in length or are more likely to be a diversion on the way to the
primary destination put less demand. on the transportation system. Estimated trip
generation from new development for the next ten years is shown in Table VII -1.
1
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 43
Chapter VII Transportation
TABLE VII -1
NEW DEVELOPMENT TRIP GENERATION PROJECTION
1991 To 2001
Land Use
Residential
Single -Family
Multi -Family
Commercial/Industrial
Standard Office
Retail/Commercial
Industrial/Business Park
Total 1991 to 2011
New Development
(1991 to 2011)
18,900 dwelling units
27,300 dwelling units
3,300 1,000 sq. ft.
19,100 1,000 sq. ft.
20,900 1,000 sq. ft.
Total 1991 to 2001 (50 percent of 2011 estimate)
Adjusted
Peak Hour Total Peak
Trip Rate Hour Trips
1.15 21,700
0.62 16,900
3.55
3.37
1.32
11,700
64,400
27,600
142,300
71,200
Source: Trip Generation, Institute of Transportation Engineers; 1991; Trip Generation, San II
Diego Association of Governments, 19%; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
EXISTING FACILITIES
Transportation facilities include roadways and related facilities for vehicle travel, transit
facilities such as buses, bus yards and rail systems, and other transportation facilities such
as bikeways and park-and-ride lots. The City's existing transportation facilities consist
primarily of -its network of streets and highways. The City also owns and operates Santa
Clarita Transit (SCT). SCT provides local and regional bus service and a dial -a -ride
service.
FACILITY STANDARDS
Facilities standards for roads are typically referred to as "levels of service", or LOS. The
LOS scale most commonly used by transportation engineers measures traffic conditions
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 44
f]
Chapter M Transportation
in a range from A to F. Level D, for example, describes an intersection with average
delays between 25 and 40 seconds per vehicle. When applied to a road segment, LOS D
depicts a condition which borders on unstable flow where speed and ability to maneuver
are severely restricted because of traffic congestion.
One of the primary objectives of public transit programs is to provide alternatives to
single occupancy vehicle trips, particularly peak hour trips. Thus, improvements to
transit and related facilities are an alternative for enhancing levels of service on roads.
The goals and policies in the Circulation of the City's General Plan recognize this trade-
off. As a result, standards for transit facilities are considered in this context.
In a 24-hour period, trip generation will vary for a particular intersection or road
segment. For example, the intersection may have a LOS D at peak hour and a LOS B
or A for most of the remainder of the day. This uneven trip distribution causes
transportation planning to balance two factors. One factor is the advantage of more
road or transit capacity to facilitate traffic flow at peak hours, the periods at which
convenient access is most constrained. The other factor is the cost of that capacity.
The majority of California cities use a peak hour LOS C as the general basis for
planning improvements. Though undesirable, a peak hour LOS D is usually acceptable
in situations where maintenance of a higher LOS is infeasible. The Circulation Element
of the City's General Plan uses these same standards for transportation planning.
FACILITY NEEDS AND COSTS
The transportation facilities fee program includes three primary types of improvements
to the City's transportation system:
• Road intersection improvements,
• Bus transit facilities, and
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 45
Chapter VII Transportation
• Commuter rail facilities.
Projections of these facility needs and their costs have been summarized from a number
of sources. Road improvement needs are based on a recent study by City staff and
include traffic signals and signal phasing, intersection improvements, and pedestrian
bridges. Bus transit improvements are based on a recent public transit needs study
prepared by COMSIS Corporation for the Los Angeles County Transportation
Commission (LACTC). Estimates for the commuter rail station projects were provided
by city staff.
The transportation projects included in the fee program have been reviewed to ensure
that they are not included in any other funding program. In particular, the road
improvement projects included here are not part of the existing bridge and thoroughfare
districts. In addition, the LACTC is responsible for planning the regional commuter rail
system and has not identified specific funding sources for the commuter rail stations to
be located in the City. In fact, LACTC encourages local participation in funding
regional transportation projects, such as the use of local public facilities fees.
The City anticipates that the cost of facilities included in the fee program will be shared
between new development and alternative funding sources. The estimated costs of these
facilities and the allocation.of costs between new development and other funding
sources, are shown in Table VII -2.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 46
Chapter VII Transportation
TABLE VII -2
PLANNED TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
1991 To 2001
New Other
Total Development Funding
Facility Cost Share Sources
Intersection Improvements
$16,395,000
$16,395,000 $0
Signal Modification & Phasing
8,132,000
8,132,000 0
Pedestrian Bridges
1,625,000
1,625,000 0
Transit Buses & Vans
7,913,000
3,957,000 3,956,000
Bus Shelters, Signs, Etc.
621,000
311,000 310,000
Bus Yard
2,200,000
2,200,000 0
Commuter Rail Stationsl
21,386,000
10,693,000 10,693,000
Total Planned Facilities
$58,272,000
$43,313,000 $14,95.9,000
t Total cost estimate for 1.5 stations to be built during the next ten years..
Source: For intersections, signals, pedestrian bridges, etc. see City of Santa Clarita Preliminary Report
Traffic bnpact Fee, May 22, 1991. For buses/vans, bus shelters, etc. see Rt6fic Transit Needs Santa
Clarita Valley, Los Angeles County Transportation Commission by COMSIS Corporation, March 1990,
Table 24, p. 151. These projects also includes City CIP project nos. 90-2100 & 91-2100. For bus yard
project see City CIP project no. 90-0203. City staff provided estimate for rail station project. Recht
Hausrath & Associates.
FUNDING PLAN
New development's share of the facilities costs shown in Table VII -2 ($43,313,000) is
anticipated to be funded by a transportation facilities fee. Based on the best available
information, including the traffic modelling completed for the General Plan, the.City has
determined that new development's share of each project is considered equitable
because:
• The overall level of service for the City's road system is unlikely to improve
by 2001, even with the planned traffic and transit improvements funded by
new development; and
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 47
Chapter VII Transportation
• The transit improvements funded by new development are likely to result in
peak hour trips being transferred from the road system to the transit system,
thereby reducing new development's impact on road levels of service.
With regards to alternative sources of funding for the projects in Table VII -2, the
situation is different from the other public facilities fees documented in this report. In
all other cases the City has an existing deficiency which it is responsible for correcting to
justify the full fee imposed on new development. In the case of transportation facilities,
however, the City is not required to provide the amount alternative funding indicated
($14,959,000) to justify the fee on new development. This is because, as stated above,
levels of service are likely to decline even with the improvements funded by new
development. In other words, new development is probably not providing all the
facilities necessary to accommodate it which result in maintaining existing levels of
service.. One objective of the additional traffic modelling that the City plans to
undertake will be to verity this assumption.
Based on new development's share of costs equal to $43,313,000, and projected new peak
hour trips of 71,200, the cost per peak hour trip is $608. The transportation facilities fee
is based on this cost per peak hour trip and the estimated number of peak hour trips
generated by land use. The fee calculation is shown in Table VII -3
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 48
Chapter VII I Transportation
TABLE VII -3
INTERIM TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES FEE
Average Peak Hour Trip Cost/Peak Fee Per
Land Use Category Generation Per Unit Hour Trip Unit
Residential
Single-Familyl 1.15 per dwelling unit $608 $699
Multi -Family' 0.62 per dwelling unit 608 377
Commercial/Industrial
Standard Office2 3.55 per 1,000 sq. ft. 608 2,158
Retail/Commercial3 3.37 per 1,000 sq. ft. 608. r 2,049
Industrial/Business Park4 1.32 per 1,000 sq. ft. 608 803
t Single-family generally includes detached dwellings at densities less than 6.7 units per
acre; multi -family includes all other units.
2 Includes all development with more than 2.50 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
3 Includes all development with 2-50 to 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
4 Includes all development with less than 2.00 employees per 1,000 building square feet.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 49
VIII. COMPARISON OF CAPITAL FACILITIES FEES
BETWEEN SANTA CLARITA AND COMPARABLE COMMUNITIES
This chapter presents the results of a study that compared the City of Santa Clarita's
existing and proposed fees on new development with fees currently adopted in three
comparable communities. Only fees that fund capital facilities were included in the
analysis. The communities included in the study were: the City of Thousand Oaks, the
City of Irvine, and the unincorporated areas of Los Angeles County surrounding the City
of Santa Clarita. Each community shares similarities with Santa Clarita in their
population, economy, and competition for new development.
DESCRIPTION OF COMMUNITIES
The three communities were selected from a list of alternatives provided by the City of
Santa Clarita. Except for the unincorporated areas of the Santa Clarita Valley,
-the
communities are similar in population size. The 1991 population estimates for the three
cities were provided by the California Department of Finance. The Santa Clarita Valley
unincorporated area population was estimated by the Southern California Association of
Governments. The population estimates for the four communities are listed below:
• Thousand Oaks - 105,702
• Irvine - 111,418
• Unincorporated Santa Clarita Valley - 42,000
• Santa Clarita - 118,758
In general, similar economic conditions exist in each jurisdiction. All four communities
border on the greater Los Angeles area and originally served as bedroom communities
to employment centers in metropolitan Los Angeles. Over time,. as the region expanded,
employment. growth spread to these surrounding communities. These communities have
become increasingly interdependent as residents commute across cities and counties to
get to work and home.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 50
Chapter VIII Public Facilities Fees Comparison
The top employers in the four jurisdictions reflect dominant regional economic trends.
For example, similarities exist in the types of high technology manufacturing companies
located in each community. These companies all have ties to the aerospace industry
which was a major factor in the economic boom experienced in the Los Angeles region
during the 1950s and 1960s. Other examples of related high technology sectors showing
more recent growth include electronics and telecommunications.
METHODOLOGY
This study compared a total of 13 capital facilities fees in the Cities of Thousand Oaks
and Irvine and the unincorporated areas of Santa Clarita Valley, to existing and
proposed fees for the City of Santa Clarita. The proposed fees for the City of Santa
Clarita include those documented in this report (community facilities, general.
government, library, parks, and transportation), as well as two in -lieu mitigation fees
documented in a separate report (arts in public spaces and child care). In addition to
these fees, all other capital facility fees were included to provide a comprehensive
perspective on each community's funding of capital facilities by new development. The
other fees included were: fire, flood control, police, schools, sewer, and water.
Other fees imposed on new development that are related to reimbursing the community
for operating costs associated with regulating development projects are not included in
the analysis. These types of fees include, for example, application fees and building
J
permit fees.
Fees were compared across communities using prototype projects in five land use
categories. The land use categories included: single-family dwelling, multi -family
dwelling, standard office, retail/commercial, and industrial/business park.
Characteristics of a prototype project for each land use category were assumed in order
. to provide a consistent comparison of fees imposed on new development. Though the
prototypes chosen were representative of typical development projects, it is possible that
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 51
Chapter VIII Public Facilities Fees Comparison
comparing projects with different characteristics than those assumed here could yield
different results.
Certain fees imposed on new development in the City of Santa Clarita are the same as
those imposed in.the surrounding unincorporated area. This is because the service areas
of some public agencies that impose fees in the Santa Clarita Valley, such as the sewer
district, overlap both communities. In this case a common fee was used for both
communities in the fee calculations. This was also true for the City's proposed library
fee, i.e. it was assumed that the County would impose the same fee in the
unincorporated area because the library district serves the whole Valley.
In other cases, there are several agencies, such as water companies, that have divided the
Valley into separate service areas. This is also true for certain agencies serving the other
cities included in the study. In these cases, the agency with the most representative fee
structure and service area was chosen for the fee calculation.
SUMMARY OF RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS
Total capital facilities fees calculated for each prototype project are summarized by
community in Table_ VIII -I. The primary conclusions of this analysis are summarized
below. Compared to the three other communities studied, and assuming the City of
Santa Clarita adopts the proposed fees, the City generally will have:
• Lower fees on residential development than the other two cities,
• Higher fees on office development than the other two cities,
• Fees on retail and industrial development that are lower than one city's and
higher than the other's, and
• Higher fees for all five prototype developments studied than the surrounding
unincorporated area of the. Santa Clarita Valley.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 52
Chapter VIII Public Facilites Fees Comparison
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
The most important effect of the proposed fees for the City of Santa Clarita may be the
added incentive, all other factors being equal, for developers to pursue projects in the
surrounding unincorporated area rather than the City. Unincorporated area
development around a city can impose costs on the city to serve.new development while
the city is unable to require that development to contribute to the funding of those
services. An example of this situation is the traffic impacts on city streets caused by
development in surrounding unincorporated areas. If adoption of the proposed fees by
the City of Santa Clarita generates these impacts, the City will be under additional
pressure to reach some type of agreement with the County regarding development
policies. Recent court decisions have strengthened the right of the city to insist that such
impacts be mitigated.
Besides the issue discussed above, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from a fee
comparison study such as this one. The results cannot be considered in isolation. First,
though these fees represent real costs to developers, it is extremely difficult to estimate
consequent impacts on development trends. For example, a community that is relatively'
attractive to new development may experience little or no impact on its rate of growth
after imposing capital facilities fees.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 53
TABLE VIII -1
COMPARISON OF CAPITAL FACILITIES FEES
Unincorporated
Prototype
City of
City of
City of
Santa Clarita
Project
Santa Clarita
Thousand Oaks
Irvine
Valley.
Single -Family
$13,038
$17,311
$18,605
$5,108
Multi -Family
$104,111
$168,615
$155,128
$95,176
Retail
$445,571
$455,019
$350,462
$284,060
Office
$599,721
$391,601
$542,138
$253,515
Industrial
$329,937
$214,509
$646,240
$142,153
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
The most important effect of the proposed fees for the City of Santa Clarita may be the
added incentive, all other factors being equal, for developers to pursue projects in the
surrounding unincorporated area rather than the City. Unincorporated area
development around a city can impose costs on the city to serve.new development while
the city is unable to require that development to contribute to the funding of those
services. An example of this situation is the traffic impacts on city streets caused by
development in surrounding unincorporated areas. If adoption of the proposed fees by
the City of Santa Clarita generates these impacts, the City will be under additional
pressure to reach some type of agreement with the County regarding development
policies. Recent court decisions have strengthened the right of the city to insist that such
impacts be mitigated.
Besides the issue discussed above, it is difficult to draw definitive conclusions from a fee
comparison study such as this one. The results cannot be considered in isolation. First,
though these fees represent real costs to developers, it is extremely difficult to estimate
consequent impacts on development trends. For example, a community that is relatively'
attractive to new development may experience little or no impact on its rate of growth
after imposing capital facilities fees.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 53
Chapter Vlll Public Facilities Fees Comparison
Second, a high level of fees may imply a high standard of capital facilities to serve new
development, i.e. the costs of fees may have compensatory benefits to developers and the
occupants of their projects. For example, the City of Santa Clarita is the only community
studied that would impose, if adopted, an art in public places and child care mitigation
programs. Conceivably such programs make the City a more attractive place for
residents and businesses. Alternately, a low level of fees may mean the community is
imposing higher costs on developers through other methods, such as exactions and
mitigation requirements.
Third, it is difficult to know how much of the capital facilities fees are (1) passed on to
the building occupant in the form of higher selling prices or lease rates, (2) passed back
to the land owner in the form of lower land prices, or (3) absorbed by the developer in
the form of lower profits. To complicate matters, the answers to this question may vary
depending on whether one is considering short term impacts, long term impacts, and the
particular local and regional real estate market context at a given time.
DISCUSSION BY PROTOTYPE PROJECT
Explanations of the differences in each community's fees summarized above are
discussed in more detail in the following sections. Tables VIII -2 through VIII -6 that
follow this discussion present in detail, for each prototype project, each community's fees
by fee category.
Residential Development
Overall, the City of Santa Clarita capital facilities fees on both single-family and multi-
family projects would be lower than the other two cities and higher than the surrounding
unincorporated area. The specific fees that tend to be higher in the other cities
compared to Santa Clarita are traffic, parks, and sewer. In the City of Thousand Oaks,
for example, a higher sewer fee explains most of the difference with the City of Santa
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 54
Chanter V111 Puhlic V- Fees Comparison
Clarita's total fee for either of the residential projects. The parks fee in both Thousand
Oaks and Irvine also explains a significant portion of the difference in fees.
With regards to the surrounding unincorporated area, the City's fees are not significantly
higher. The major reason for the higher City fees are the general government and
community facilities fees, fees which are not imposed by the County.
Commercial/Industrial Development
The major differences in capital facilities fees between Santa Clarita and the other two
cities for the commercial/industrial prototype projects are:
• The City of Santa Clarita's proposed fees include several categories not found
in the other communities, including parks, art in public places, and child care.
• Traffic fees explain a large portion of the differences between the cities' total
fees, with Thousand Oaks having the lowest, followed by Santa Clarita and
Irvine with the highest.
• Thousand Oaks' high sewer fee partially offsets what otherwise would be a
generally low total fee compared to the other cities.
Compared to the surrounding unincorporated area of the Santa Clarita Valley, the City's
fees generally are twice the level of fees in the County. The major reasons for the
higher City fees are:
• If the proposed fees are adopted the City will funding facilities not provided
by the County to new commercial/industrial development, e.g. parks, art in
public places, and child care; and
• The City has a substantially higher traffic fee, again primarily because its
standards are higher than the County's.
Public Facilities Fee Program -
55
Chapter VIII Public Facilities Fees Comparison
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 56
TABLE VIII -2
SINGLE-FAb9ILV RESIDENTIAL
ONE UNIT, 1,800 SQ. FT., $300,000 VALUATION
City of
Unincorpor'd
City of .
Thousand
City of
Santa Clarita
Fee Category
Santa Clarita
Oaks
Irvine
Valley
Traffic
$3,342
$2,020
$5,000
$3,100
Parks
$1,928
$3,000
$6,750
$2,080
Library
$267
$1,200
$0
$0
General Government
$725
$0
$1,500
$0
Sewer
$1,630
$5,525
$1,500
$1,630
Water
$1,890
$2,280
$850
$1,890
Schools
$2,808
$2,808
$2,808
$2,808
Police
$0
$84
$0
$0
Fire
$326
$121
$197
$326
Flood Control
$0
$273
$0
$0
Community Facilities
$375
$0
$0
$0
Art in Public Spaces
$0
$0
$0
$0
Child Care
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$13,291
$17,311
$18,605
$11,834
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 56
Chanter VIII Public Facilities Fees Comparison
Public Facilities Fee Program -DRAFT REPORT page 57
TABLE VIII -3
MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
12
UNITS, 14,400 SQ. FT., $1,000,000 VALUATION
City of
Unincorpor'd
Fee Category
City of
Santa Clarita
Thousand
Oaks
City of
Irvine
Santa Clarita
Valley
Traffic
$26,772
$23,472
$29,000
$26,040
Parks
$15,000
$30,000
$73,500
$15,413
Library
$2,076
$1,200
$0
$0
General Government
$5,640
$0
$5,000
$0
Sewer
$11,736
$66,300
$14,400
$11,736
Water
$16,912
$22,572
$8,400
$16,912
Schools
$22,464
$22,464
$22,464
$22,464
Police
$0
$650
$0
$0
Fire
$2,611
$905
$2,364
$2,611
Flood Control
$0
$1,052
$0
.$0
Community Facilities
$2,916
$0
$o
$o
Art in Public Spaces
$0
$0
$0
$0
Child Care
$0
$0
$0
$0
Total
$106,127
$168,615
$155,128
$95,176
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program -DRAFT REPORT page 57
Chapter WH Public Facilities Fees Comparison
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 58 .
TABLE VIIIA
RETAIL/COMMERCIAL
50,000 SQ. FT., 5 ACRES, $2,426,110 VALUATION
City of
Unincorpor'd
City of
Thousand
City of
Santa Clarita
Fee Category
Santa Clarita
Oaks
Irvine
Valley
Traffic
$123,100
$39,320
$256,131
$77,500
Parks
$14,400
$0
$0
$0
Library
$1,950
$0
$0
$0
General Government
$11,700
$0
$12,131
$0
Sewer
$136,450
$353,600
$35,000
$136,450
Water
$48,045
$32,784
$25,000
$48,045
Schools
$13,000
$13,000
$13,000
$13,000
Police
$0
$2,500
$0
$0
Fire
$9,065
$3,300
$9,200
$9,065
Flood Control
$0
$10,515
$0
$0
Community Facilities
$0
$0
$0
$0
Art in Public Spaces
$24,261
$0
$0
$0
Child Care
$45,600
$0
$0
$0
Total.
$427,571
$455,019
$350,462
$284,060
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 58 .
Chapter V111 Public Facilities Fees Comparison
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 59
TABLE VIII.5
STANDARD OFFICE
80,000 sQ. FT., 5.25 ACRES, $5,321,848
VALUATION
City of
Unincorpor'd
City of
Thousand
City of
Santa Clarita
Fee Category
Santa Clarita Oaks
Irvine
Valley
Traffic
$240,043
$57,920
$417,009
$81,375
Parks
$33,040
$0
$0
$0
Library
$4,560
$0
$0
$0
General Government
$62,320
$0
-$26,609
$0
Sewer
$98,400
$265,200
$36,750
$98,400
Water
$38,436
$27,360
$26,250
$38,436
Schools
$20,800
$20,800
$20,800
$20,800
Police
$0
$4,000
$0
$0
Fire
$14,504
$5,280
$14,720
$14,504
Flood Control
$0
$11,041
$0
$0
Community Facilities
$0
$0
$0
$0
Art in Public Spaces
$53,218
$0
$0
$0
Child Care
$126,960
$0
$0
$0
Total
$692,281
$391,601
$542,138
$253,515
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 59
Chapter VIII Public Facilities Fees Comparison
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 60
TABLE VIII.S
INDUSTRIAL/BUSINESS PARK
100,000 SQ. Fr., 6.56 ACRES, $3,512,040 VALUATION
City of
Unincorpor'd
City of
Thousand
City of
Santa Clarita
Fee Category
Santa Clarita Oaks
Irvine
Valley
Traffic
$116,712
$70,096
$505,560
$61,008
Parks
$18,720
$0
$0
$0
library
$2,560
$0
$0
$0
General Government
$35,360
$0
$17,560
$0
Sewer
$21,000
$56,576
$45,920
$21,000
Water
$16,015
$38,441
$32,800.
$16,015
Schools
$26,000
$26,000
$26,000
$26,000
Police
$0
$3,000
$0
$0
Fire
$18,130
$6,600
$18,400
$18,130
Flood Control
$0
$13,796
$0
$0
Community Facilities
$0
$0
$0
$0
Art in Public Spaces
$35,120
$0
$0
$0'
Child Care
$119,040
$0
$0
$0
Total
$408,657
$214,509
$646,240
$142,153
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 60
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
ART IN PUBLIC PLACES &
CHILD CARE FACILITIES
MITIGATION PROGRAM
11::01 ' 'I: 1
MARCH 1992
RECHT HAUSRATH & ASSOCIATES
URBAN ECONOMISTS
1212 Broadway, Suite 1700
Oakland, California 94612
MITIGATION PROGRAM
FOR THE
CITY OF SANTA CLARITA
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ..................................... 1
II. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES .............................. 2
INTRODUCTION .................................. 2
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION .......................... 2
III. CHILD CARE ...................................... 4
INTRODUCTION . ......... .................. .
4
CHILD CARE POLICY .............................
4
LEGAL AUTHORITY ..............................
5
PROGRAMS IN OTHER CITIES ......................
5
MITIGATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS ...........
6
MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS CALCULATION ........
9
Public Art & Child Cwu Mitigation PmV= - DRAFT REPORT Page i
I. INTRODUCnON
This report provides documentation for two programs designed to mitigate certain
impacts of new development in the City of Santa Clarita. The purpose of the art in
public places mitigation program is to moderate some of the negative visual impacts of
new development. The child care mitigation program's objective is to ensure that new
development provides a minimum level of child care facilities for children of families
associated with that development.
Public Art & Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 1
II. ART IN PUBLIC PLACES
INTRODUCTION
The City of Santa Clarita is considering an art in public places mitigation program that
would require public art be provided in conjunction with certain types of development.
The type of development targeted by the programm generally includes fairly large projects
with reasonably significant impact, i.e. a noticeable difference in the City before and
after the development. Developments of this scale would be required to provide public
art equal to at least one percent of the building permit value of the development. For
projects which are large enough to cause a significant impact but too small to feasibly
make an on-site public art investment, an in -lieu fee option is allowed.
PROGRAM DESCRIPTION
The City is concerned that new development meet appropriate standards of
attractiveness. If they fail to do so they have the potential to negatively impact the
quality of life in Santa Clarita. In particular, large development projects contribute to
the increasing density and urbanization of the Santa Clarita Valley, and hence can
adversely affect the health and welfare of its citizens. The City appropriately, through its
zoning ordinance, already places some conditions upon new development to mitigate
these adverse impacts. Common conditions imposed through the zoning ordinance
include height and density restrictions and set -back requirements. These types of
conditions place physical limitations upon the size of new development.
The City recognizes additional negative impacts that are not fully addressed by its
existing land use ordinances. Specifically, the City recognizes the need to provide visual
and cultural stimulation as a balance to increasing density and urbanization. With the
art in public places mitigation program, this balance can.be maintained through either
on-site -dedication of art or through collection. of in -lieu fees to provide art on public
Public Art & Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT IPage 2
Chapter II Art in Public Places
land. By collecting in -lieu fees and placing art, the potential adverse effects of
cumulative new development can be mitigated. By imposing either option, the City is
endeavoring to fulfill its commitment to protect the visual quality of its citizens as the
City continues to grow and increase in density.
Because size is a determining factor in causing the negative impacts discussed here,
development projects subject to the art in public places program would only include
projects over a specified size. Those projects that would be subject to the program are
as follows:
• Commercial and industrial projects over $500,000 in building permit value,
• Multi -family residential projects over $1,500,000 in building permit value, and
• Single-family subdivisions over thirty units.
A number of cities already have Art in Public Places programs.. The large majority of
these require public art equal to one percent of the project building permit value. This
is the same requirement that the City of Santa Clarita is considering, applied to those
projects listed above. The developer may either provide art within the project costing at
least this amount, or contribute an in -lieu fee equal to this amount.
The.City will develop guidelines for implementing this program. These guidelines will
address the review process for art to be placed by the developer, and the process for
expenditures of in -lieu fee revenues.
Unlike the existing zoning restrictions previously which place constraints on projects, the
art in public places program would not place additional size limitations on new
development. The program would help to mitigate some of the adverse effects of
significant new development without resorting to new restrictions on that development.
Public Art & Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 3
III. CHILD CARE
INTRODUCTION
This chapter documents the mitigation required by non-residential development to
support the City of Santa Clarita's child care policy objectives. The objective of the child
care mitigation program is to insure that at least a minimum amount of new child care
facilities will be available in new commercial and industrial projects to accommodate the
needs of the employees, particularly those with limited incomes. This child care
mitigation program represents the culmination of over three years of work and research
that the City has undertaken to address the issue of child care.
Representatives from the City, business community, educational institutions and local
citizen groups convened as the Santa Clarita Valley Child Care Task Force in 1989.
That same year the City applied for a local coordination grant from the California State
Department of Education. The awarded grant allowed the City to hire a six-month child
care coordinator, conduct a needs assessment to identify services and needs, support a
child care resource and referral office, establish a technical committee to examine land
use regulations and the development approval process related to child care facilities, and
develop a long-range plan for child care in the Santa Clarita Valley.
The following sections explain the City's child care policy, its legal authority to
implement a mitigation program, similar programs in other cities, and the City's
proposed program.
CHILD CARE POLICY
The provision of quality child care for children between ages 0 and 12 years'is a policy
goal of the City of Santa Clarita under the Human Resource Element of the General
Plan. During the early 1980's, great numbers of young families chose to move into Santa
Public Art & Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 4
Chapter III Child Can'
Clarita because of the City's abundant supply of affordable housing, and now
employment opportunities in the Valley serve as an added attraction. Employment
increased from 23,209 in 1982 to 33,600 in 1988, and the city projects that employment
will grow to over 120,000 by year 2010.
The influx of young families to the City caused an upturn in children (ages 0 to 12
years). Estimates indicate that the City experienced an increase of 52 percent in
children in this age group between 1980 and 1990. Employment growth in the Valley
also added to the need for child care for those workers that prefer care near their place
of employment.
Given the critically low supply of child care and its cost, affordable services for low and
moderate income households are even more scarce. As a result, the City's child care
policy targets the low and moderate income group to best ensure provision of adequate'
child care facilities which the City considers imperative to its future.
LEGAL AUTHORITY
The child care program presented in this report is intended to provide a portion of the
facilities needed by the employees in new developments. The City's legal authority for
the program is derived from constitutional police powers codified in the City's land use
ordinances. The program is not a public facilities financing program based on
development impact fees imposed under_ the authority of California Government Code
Section 66000 et seq. (AB 1600), because the City does not currently own nor does it
intend to provide publicly -owned child care.
PROGRAMS IN OTHER CITIES
Various cities and counties throughout California_ and other states have implemented
child care mitigation programs. Some programs, such as the City of Irvine's, are only
Public Art & Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 5
Chanter III Chr7d Core
imposed on residential development, while other programs apply to all development. Of
the programs reviewed, most calculate child care impacts based on either the total
square footage of non-residential development or number of proposed housing units in
the cases of residential development.
Implementation of child care mitigation programs also differ. Some cities offer
incentives for commercial project in exchange for added allowable building space or
swifter permit processing. Other cities have derived schedules requiring minimum
amounts of child care facility space or payment of an in -lieu fee based on the total
proposed project size.
MITIGATION PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS
The City's child care mitigation program is designed to provide child care needed by
workers in a new development. The program only targets workers from low and
moderate income families, and only children living in those families for whom their
parents are likely to. seek licensed child care. In other words, the child care capacity
needed is calculated based on the need for licensed facilities for children of low and
moderate income employees. Commercial and industrial projects may accommodate this
need either by providing adequate space for licensed child care facilities on-site or off-
site, or by payment of a fee in -lieu of providing such facilities. Table 111-1 shows the
number of workers, number of children, and the associated amounts of child care space
by type of land use calculated for the purposes of this program.
Public Art & Child Core Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 6
Chapter III Cht7d Care
TABLE III -1
CHILD CARE FACILITIES NEEDED BY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
Children
Child Care Space Needs (Sq. Ft.)
Age
Age
Age 0-5
Age 6-12
Land Use
Workers
0 to 51
6 to 19
Indoor Outdoor
Indoor Outdoor
Per 1,000 Square Feet of Building Space
Category
Standard Office
333
0.06 0.05
3.72 4.65 2.35 3.52
Retail/
Commercial
232
0.04 0.03
2.59 3.24 1.63 2.45
Industrial/
Business Park
1.89
0.04 0.03
2.11 2.64 1.33 2.00
1 Children of local and non -local workers likely to seek a licensed child care program.
2 Only children of local workers likely to seek a licensed child care program.
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Table III -2 summarizes the results of Table III -1 by showing the total amounts of indoor
and outdoor child care space required for a development by type of.land use.
TABLE III.2
SUMMARY OF CHILD CARE FACILITIES NEEDS
Sq. Ft. of Child Care
Space Per 1,000 Sq. Ft.
of Building Space
Land Use Category Indoor Outdoor
Standard Office 6.07 8.17
Retail/Commercial 4.22 5.69
Industrial/Business Park 3.44 4.64
Source: Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Public Ari & Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 7
Chapter III Child Care
In some situations the developer may feel that the addition of child care facilities is not
appropriate for the project. This is likely to be especially true for smaller projects. In
these situations, the developer can choose to pay the in -lieu fee shown in Table III -3
instead of providing on-site or. off-site child care facilities. The fee calculation is based
on the amount of child care space by land use type shown in Table III -2, and building
construction costs of $125 per square foot and playground construction costs of S16 per
square foot.
TABLE III.3
CHILD CARE FACILITIES IN -LIEU FEE
Fee Per 1,000
Land Use Category Square Feet1
Standard Office $889
Retail/Commercial 620
Industrial/Business Park 505
1 Based on space requirements shown in Table III -1 and costs of 5125
and $16 per square foot for indoor and outdoor space, respectively.
Source: Table III -1; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
Prior to adoption of this program several issues should be addressed regarding program
implementation. The key issue is to what extent and how should the City ensure that the
program reaches the target population, i.e. low and moderate income families employed
in the City who seek licensed day care. For, example, what are the appropriate
requirements regarding service to low and moderate income families to place on a
developer who provides child care facilities? In addition, how does the City plan to
administer the in -lieu fees received in support of the program's goals? Finally, what is
the City's legal obligation to ensure that the target population is reached by the
program? In other words, how much flexibility does the City have in designing the
program?
Public Art & Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT I Page 8
Chanter III Child Care
MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS CALCUI.ATION
The factors that determine the amount of child care space to be provided by a
commercial or industrial project are discussed below followed by step-by-step summary
of the formula.
The number of workers per project was based on the employment density (workers per
1,000 square feet) by type of land use. Total workers were translated into number of
households based on the average number of workers per household, which is typically
between one and two.
Next, child care needs of workers that live and work in Santa Clarita Valley (local
workers) and workers that commute from outside the Valley (non -local workers) were
considered separately. The need to distinguish between local and non -local workers is
because of differences in income levels and child care needs between each group. A
1989 survey conducted by a local developer found that 40 percent of the workforce in a
local industrial park lived in the City. This figure appears to be reasonable, given the
census data for other cities of similar characteristics. Based on this figure, we estimated
the percent of worker households that lived and worked in the City of Santa Clarita.
The remaining worker households reflect those: that commute from outside the City for
employment.
The local and non -local households were then converted into local and non -local families
because families most closely represent users of child care. The ratios used to convert
local and non -local households to families was based on the percentage of families to
households in the City of Santa Clarita and the County, respectively.
The City's population has relatively high incomes compared to the county, so the salary
range of the City's residents (local workers) are probably different from the income
levels of the non -local workforce. However, the cost of child care does not vary for local
Public Art & Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 9
Chanter III Child Gene
versus non -local workers, so the same low and moderate income level should be applied
to both groups. What varies is the distribution of income within each group, so
application of the same definition of low and moderate income yields different
percentages of families in each group that have this income level or less.
The low and moderate income level was based on 80 percent of the County's median
family income. For the non -local workforce, this income level was applied to the
County's family income distribution to estimate the percentage of non -local families with
low and moderate incomes. For local families, the same low and moderate income level
was applied to the City's family income distribution to estimate the percentage for local
families.
Child care needs are different for local and non -local workers.. Given that most parents
prefer to have child care near their homes, the need for child care facilities near the
place of employment by non -local workers was assumed to be less than the. need of such
care by local workers. In addition, since school age children (ages 6 to 12) of non -local
workers would need transportation from school sites to their parents' work site, child
care programs for ages 6 to 12 were assumed to be used exclusively by local workers.
Therefore, the program targets children ages 0 to 5 from non -local families and children
ages 0 to 12 from local families.
Only the number of children of workers that need and want licensed child care located
in the City of Santa Clarita are accounted for in the formula. As indicated by the
Community Child Care Assessment Report, only about half of parents with children use
licensed child care.' Most other parents use either family day care or care provided at
their own home by an unlicensed provider or a relative.
t Senter, Sheri A. and Rowe Becker, Mary, The City of Santa Clarita Child Care Coordination Grant,
Community Child Care Assessment Analysis, National Pediatric Support Services, July 1990.
Public Art & Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 10
Chanter III Child Care
The report also found that most parents prefer to: have child care located near their
place of residence. Some parents, however, do prefer child care facilities located near
work. Thus, we only count the portion of non -local workers that prefer child care near
work, i.e. within the City of Santa Clarita. This distinction is not necessary for the local
workers.
Given all these considerations, appropriate calculations must be made to estimate the
number of children of workers accommodated by new development that would require
licensed child care located within the City. The following steps describes the child care
mitigation formula.
1. The number of workers a non-residential development will generate is
estimated by the total square footage of the project (in 1,000 square feet
units) multiplied by the number of employees per 1,000 square feet by land
use type. Employment densities and land use categories are from the fiscal
impact assessment prepared for the General Plan and are shown in
Table III -1.
2. The number of workers is used to calculate the number of households. This
is done by dividing the number of workers by the average number of workers
per household (1.48). The average number of workers per household is based
on the Southern California Association of Government projections for 2010
for the Santa Clarita Valley.
3. Multiply the total number of households by 0.40 to calculate those households
with local workers. The remainder (60 percent) as assumed to be non -local
households. This figure is based on a local developer's 1989 survey of
workers in an industrial park located in the City.
4. Convert the number of households to the number of families for local and
non -local worker households. According to Urban Decision Systems, families
represent 0.79 of the households in the City. In the County, non -local families
equal 0.64 of total households.
5. Multiply the number of local families by 0.26, to calculate the number of local
workers from low and moderate income families. For non -local families,
multiply by 0.45. These factors are based on application of the County's low
and moderate income level which is up to 80 percent of the County median
income. This income level is applied to the distribution of family incomes in
the City for local workers, and to the distribution of family incomes in the
Public Art do Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 11
Chapter III Child Care
County for non -local workers, to derive the factors stated above. Data is
derived from Urban Decision Systems reports for 1990.
6. Calculate the number of children per local family by multiplying the number
of local families by 0.43 for children ages 0 to 5 and by 0.54 for children ages
6 to 12. Calculate the number of children ages 0 to 5 per non -local family by
multiplying the number of non -local families by 0.45. The population of
children between 0 and 12 age is estimated separately for the City and the
County based on reports by Urban Decision Systems for 1990.
7. Children from both local and non -local low and moderate income families are
multiplied by 0.47 to calculate the number whose parents are likely to seek
licensed child care. This ratio is from the Community Child Care Assessment
Report.
8. For children from non -local families, multiply by 0.30 to account for only
those workers that prefer to have child care near work. The Community
Child Care Assessment Report indicated that this portion of families prefers
child care located near their place of work or have no location preference.
The result to this point in the calculations for the number.of children per
1,000 square feet of building space are shown in Table III -1
9. The total amount of space required for children depends on the age range.
Based on the City of Santa Clarita's guidelines, children ages 0 to 5 need an
average of 60 square feet of indoor space and 75 square feet of outdoor area.
Children ages 6 to 12 require less area, 50 square feet of indoor and 75
square feet of outdoor space. See Tables I11-1 and III -2 for the schedule of
child care space required by type of building use.
Public Art do Child Care Mitigation Program - DRAFT REPORT Page 12
APPENDIX A
TECHNICAL ADJUSTMENTS TO TRIP GENERATION RATES
Trips generated by new residential, retail, office, and industrial land uses have significant
differences. These differences should be factored into the way the cost of new traffic
facilities are allocated to each type of land use. Without adjustment, imposing the same.
cost per trip on, for example, retail as the cost for commute trips, may be inequitable.
This level of refinement is not usual for traffic impact fees in California, or, for that
matter, in other parts of the United States.
The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) completed an exhaustive survey
of travel behavior throughout the San Diego region. The results were published in
Analysis of Trip Diversion, January 12, 1988, and revised November 1990. Data was
based, in part, on information compiled from SANDAG's third and most recent survey of
travel behavior in 1986 (1986 Travel Behavior Analysis, Volume 1, Results of Surveys,
September 1986). The survey analyzed the travel patterns of 2,754 households in
conjunction with a roadside survey conducted by Caltrans during the same period.
SANDAG has also completed additional computer analysis of more recent trip data.
The results from this work have been used to calculate discounts for interrupted trips
based on weighted average trip lengths for different land uses.
INTERRUPTED TRIPS
Many trips include stops along the way at secondary destinations before arriving at the
final, or primary, destination. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip
generation rates used in this study include all stops regardless of whether the tripend is
actually at the trip's primary destination or is an "interrupted" tripend. Interrupted
tripends may be characterized as either being passby (the stop lay directly on the route
between the trip origin and primary destination) or diverted (out of the way of the
shortest route to the primary destination). Passby tripends do not add to the total traffic
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page A -I
Appendix A Technical Adiustmentr to Tiro Generation Rates
volume, since the vehicle would be making the same trip anyway. Diverted tripends only
require additional road capacity depending on the distance driven out of the way.
Every type of land use includes some portion of interrupted tripends, ranging from less
than one percent to over fifty percent of total trips. Moreover, the primary and
interrupted trips vary in average length depending on land use. If all tripends were given
equal weight, the trip generation rates would misstate the aggregate traffic impacts of
new development. For example, the fee schedule would penalize land uses that attract
larger percentages of interrupted tripends or have shorter than average trip lengths.
The adjustment for interrupted trips occurs in two steps which are summarized below
.and further discussed in the following sections:
1. The weighted average trip length by land use is calculated based on the average
length and frequency of primary and diverted trips. The result is converted to a
trip length factor by dividing it by the average trip length of all trips in the system.
2. The trip length factor is reduced by the percentage of passby trips, because these
trips have no impact on system capacity and have not been accounted for in step
(1)• -
DIVERTED TRIP AND TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT
Different types of land use are likely to generate longer or shorter trips than the length
of the average trip for the system as a whole. The average trip length adjustment is
necessary to more equitably allocate the cost of additional road capacity among the
various types of land use. The variation around the system -wide average trip length
serves as the basis for calculating weighted trip length factors.
For example, industrial parks attract workers from all over the region and deliveries
from outside the region, thus the average type length is longer than the average for the
system. Trips to and from convenience markets will be very short on average because
Public Facilities Fee Program -DRAFT REPORT Page A-2
Appendix A Technical Adiustments to Trip Generation Rates
these stores locate in the center of a discrete residential market area. Homes typically
have a trip length close to the average because they generate both longer home to work
commute trips and shorter trips for shopping, schools and.visits to other homes.
The relative differences in average trip lengths are determined by calculating the ratio of
a particular land use's average trip length to the trip length for the system as a whole.
These ratios may be expressed as factors greater or less than one and are used to adjust
an impact fee fora particular land use.
The adjustment for diverted trips and trip lengths is demonstrated in the following
example. Suppose all trips to and from a gas station consisted of the following four types
of trips: 1) 20.1 percent were primary trips that averaged 5.09 miles; 2) 54.1 percent were
diverted one mile or more and averaged 3.28 miles; 3) 17.9 percent of trips diverted less
than a mile and were on average 0.46 mile long; and 4) 7.9 percent were passby trips
that. by definition have no length (zero miles). The weighted average diverted trip length
for all four types of trips to and from a gas station is calculated by the equation below.
(20.1%x5.09miks) + (54.1%0.28miks) + (17.9%x0A6miks) + (7.9%0.00miks)
2.88 miles
Now assume that the weighted average trip length for all trips on the system is 6.89
miles. The diverted trip adjustment factor is 2.88 miles divided by 6.89 miles, or 0.42.
PASSBY TRIP ADJUSTMENT
The formula above only adjusts for diverted trips based on trip length and frequency.
Passby trips, however, have no trip length so are not included in that adjustment. The
gross peak hour trip rate must still be corrected for passby trips, which, to continue the
example, account for 7.9 percent of gas station trips. The adjustment factor calculated
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page A-3
y + �
Appendix A Technical Adiustments to Trip Generation Rates
above of 0.42 is multiplied by one minus the percent of passby trips, i.e. 92.1 percent, to
calculate a total adjustment factor of 0.39.
COMBINED TRIP GENERATION RATE ADJUSTMENT
The ITE peak hour trip rate. for gas stations is 15.18 per pump. Adjusted by a factor of
0.385 to account for all interrupted trips and average trip lengths, the rate becomes 5.84
peak hour trips per pump. This final result is used to calculate the public facilities fee.
Calculation of. the adjustment factor is shown in Table A-1 on. the following four pages.
These factors are used to calculate an adjusted peak hour trip rate as shown in Tables
VII -1 and VII -3 in Chapter VII.
Public Facilities Fee Progrmn - DRAFT REPORT Page A-4
TABLE A-1
INTERRUPTED TRIPS & TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Diverted
. Diverted
Diverted
Diverted
All Trips:
Trip
Total
Primary
1 Mile
Less Than
Primary
1 Mile
Less Than
Average
Length
Passby
Adjust -
Land Use Category
Stops
or More
1 Mile
Stops
or More
1 Mile
Length
Factors
Trips
ment
Factor
(Average
Trip Length in Miles)
(Percent of Total Trips)
(Afiles)
(Percent)
RESIDENTIAL
Single -Family Detached
8.54
4.45
0.48
86.6%
10.8%
13%
7.88
1.14
13%
1.13
Multi -Family (<20 DU/acre)
8.54
4.45
0.48
86.6%
10.8%
13%
7.88
1.14
13%
1.13
Multi -Family (> =20 DU/acre)
8-54
4.45
0.48
86.6%
10.8%
13%
7.88
1.14
13%
1.13
Mobile Home
8.54
4.45
0.48
86.6%
10.8%
13%
7.88
1.14
13%
1.13
Retirement Community
8.54
4.45
0.48
86.6%
10.8%
13%
7.88
1.14
13%
1.13
Congregate Care Facility
9.30
5.92
0.76
70.0%
29.3%
0.7%
8.25
1.20
0.0%
1.20
OFFICE
Standard Office (<100,000 sq. ft.)
10.04
5.60
039
76.6%
23.4%
0.0%
9.00
131
0.0%
131
Large Office (> =100,000 sq. ft.)
11.17
5.44
0.13
80.2%
15.6%
4.2%
9.81
1.42
0.0%
1.42
Medical Office
8.22
4.66
0.45
64.5%
27.6%
2.7%
6.60
0.96
5.2%
0.91
Government Office
8.98
4.38
0.39
52.4%
33.1%
8.5%
6.19
0.90
6.0%
0.85
INDUSTRIAL
Business Park (w/ commercial)
9.91
6.40
0.49
84.8%
13.6%
1.6%
9.28
1.35
0.0%
135
Light Industry (w/out commercial)
9.91
6.40
0.49
84.8%
13.6%
1.6%
9.28
135
0.0%
135
Manufacturing
1239
5.20
0.44
94.9%
3.3%
1.8%
11.94
L73
0.0%
1.73
Warehousing
1239
5.20
0.44
94.9%
33%
1.8%
11.94
1.73
0.0%
1.73
Research & Development
9.91
6.40
0.49
84.8%
13.6%
1.6%
9.28
135
0.0%
135
TABLE A-1
INTERRUPTED TRIPS & TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Land Use Category
Primary
Stops
Diverted
1 Mile
or More
Diverted
less Than
1 Mile'
Primary
Stops
Diverted
1 Mile
or More
Diverted
Less Than
1 Mile
Mile
All
Pass
Tri by
Total
Adjust -
ment
SHOPPING CENTERS
(Average Trip Length in Miles)
(Percent of Total Trips)
(Percent)
Factor
Super Regional (> =500,000 sq. ft.)
Regional (300,000.499,999 sq. R.)
Community (100,000-299,999 sq. ft.)
Neighborhood (<100,000 sq. ft.)
RETAIL SHOPS
7.04
7.04
4.59
6.27
3.86
3.86
4.54
3.50
0.45
0.45
OSl
0.45
44.8%
44.8%
46.8%
393%
36.6%
36.6%
31.7%
46.7%
16.6%
16.6%
15.6%
9.6%
4.64
4.64
3.67
4.14
0.67
0.67
0S3
0.60
2.0%
2.0%
4.4%
0.66
0.66
0.57
Convenience Market
Supermarket
Furniture Store
Other Retail
RESTAURANTS &BARS
5.09
6.27
6.27
6.27
3.28
3-50
3.50
3.50
0.46
0.45
0.45
0.45
20.1%
393%
393%
393%
54.1%
46.7%
46.7%
46.7%
17.9%
9.6%
9.6%
9.6%
2.88
4.14
4.14
4.14
0.42
0.60
0.60
0.60
7.9%
4.4%
4.4%
4.4%
039
0.57
0S7
0S7
Fast Food (with drive-through)
High Turnover (sit down)
Quality (sit down) •
FINANCIAL SERVICES
5.09
5.83
5.83
3.28
4.59
4.59
0.46
0.43
0.43
20.1%
51.1%
51.1%
54.1%
38.8%
38.8%
17.9%
7.8%
7.8%
2.88
4.79
4.79
0.42
0.70
0.70
7.9%
23%
23%
039
0.68
0.68
Bank (walk-in only)
Bank (with drive-through)
Savings &Loan
6.13
6.13
6.13
2.85
285
2.85
0.40
0.411
0.40 1
41.1%
41.1%
41.1%
39.2%
39.2%
39.2%
163%
163%
163%
3.70
3.70
3.70
0S4
0S4
0S4
3.4%
3.4%
3.4%
0.52
0.52
0.52
TABLE A-1
INTERRUPTED TRIPS & TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Diverted
Diverted
Diverted
Diverted
All Trips:
Trip
Total
Primary
1 Mile
Less Than
Primary
1 Mile
Less Than
Average
Length
Passby
Adjust -
Land Use Category
Stops
or More
1 Mile
Stops
or More
1 Mile
Length
Factors
Trips
ment -
Factor
(Average
Trip Length in Miles)
(Percent of Total Trips)
(Miles)
(Percent)
OTHER SERVICES
Manual Car Wash
8.00
4.28
0.40
54.1%
34.7%
8.6%
5.85
0.85
2.6%
0.83
Gas Station
5.09
3.28
0.46
20.1%
54.1%
17.9%
2.88
0.42
7.9%
039
Hotel/Motel
9.88
4.85
032
873%
123%
0.0%
9.25
1.34
0.0%
134
Set6Storage
8.00
4.28
0.40
54.1%
34.7%
8.6%
5.85
0.85
2.6%
0.83
Other Services
8.00
4.28
0.40
54.1%
34.7%
8.6%
5.85
0.85
2.6%
0.83
RECREATIONAL
Park
5.74
5.78
0.72
58.1%
33.0%
0.0%
5.24
0.76
8.9%
0.69
Marina
832
5.01
0.62
49.4%
44.0%
4.2%
634
0.92
2.4%
0.90
Tourist Attraction
9.40
3.86
0.63
53.7%
463%
0.0%
6.83
0.99
0.0%
0.99
Movie Theater
7.76
534
034
553%
19.2%
20.2%
5.43
0.79
53%
0.75
Other Outdoor Recreation
9.41
735
032
703%
16.6%
11.8%
7.91
1.15
13%.
1.14
Other Indoor Recreation
5.28
5.22
030
1 46.8%
433%
6.7%1
4.76
0.69
1 3.2%
0.67
Based on dividing the average trip length for each land use by 6.89 miles, the average length of all trips in the system.
Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Analysis of Trip Diversion", Revised November, 1990; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
TABLE A-1
INTERRUPTED TRIPS & TRIP LENGTH ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Diverted
Diverted
Diverted
Diverted
All Trips:
Trip
Total
Land Use Category
Primary
Stops
1 Mile
More
Less Than
Primary
1 Mile
Less Than
Average
Length
Passby
Adjust -
or
1 Mile
Stops
or More
1 Mile
Le
Length
Factor t
Trips
ment
(Average Trip Length in Miles)
(Percent of Total Trips))
(Miler)
( Percent
Factor
INSTITUTIONAL
Hospital
930
5.92
0.76
70.0%
293%
0.7%
8.25
1.20
0.0%
1.20
Church
630
4.13
0.42
63.7%
313%
2.5%
532
0.77
2.5%
0.75
Military
1238
6-57
0.33
78.6%
19.9%
1.5%
11.04
1.60
0.0%
1.60
Nursery School/Day Care Center
4.01
435
0.41
16.6%
74.7%
6S%
3.94
0.57
2.2%
0.56
chool
4.67
2.84
0.44
53.2%
33.6%
4.6%
3.46
OSO
8.6%
0.46
LffighS�chool
535
4.02
OS6
74.1%
23.1%
0.0%
4.890.71
2.8%
0.69
e
933
5.08
0.70
83.6%
16.4%
0.0%
8.63
1.25
0.0%
1.25
ersity
935
4.65
0.46
85.9%
14.1%
0.0%1
8.69
1.26 1
0.0%1
1.26
Based on dividing the average trip length for each land use by 6.89 miles, the average length of all trips in the system.
Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Analysis of Trip Diversion", Revised November, 1990; Recht Hausrath & Associates.
APPENDIX B
INSTITUTE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS LAND USE CATEGORIES
The trip generation rates used for the transportation facilities fee shown in Tables VII -1
and VII -3 in Chapter VII are from studies conducted throughout the country by various
public agencies and consulting firms. These studies are summarized by the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) in their manual Trip Generation The manual includes
brief definitions for each land use category. Table B-1 identifies the name and ITE
reference number for these land use categories. Trips generation rates for each land use
were taken for the evening peak hour of the adjacent street unless unavailable, in which
case the rate was for the on-site evening peak hour.
Public Facilities Fee Program - DRAFT REPORT Page B -I
.: •t
Appendix B Institute of Timesportation Enzi Leers Land Use Catezories
TABLE B-1
INSIITITIE OF TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS LAND USE CATEGORIES
ITE Ref-
rrE Ref -
Land Use Category
erence No.
Land Use Category
erence No.
RESIDENTIAL
RESTAURANTS
Single -Family Detached
210
Fast Food (with drive-through)
834
Multi -Family (<20 DU/acre)
230
High Turnover (sit down)
832
Multi -Family (> -20 DU/acre)
222
Quality (sit down)
831
Mobile Home
240
FINANCIAL
Retirement Community
250
Bank (walk-in only)
911
Congregate Care Facility
252
Bank (with drive through)
912
OFFICE
Savings & Loan
913
Standard Office (<100,000 sq. ft.)
710
OTHER SERVICES
Large Office (> =100,000 sq. ft.)
710
Manual Car Wash
847
Medical Office
720
Gas Station
844
Government Office
733
Hotel/Motel
310
INDUSTRIAL
Self -Storage
151
Business Park (w/ commercial)
770
Other Services
710
Light Industry (w/out commercial)
110
RECREATIONAL
Manufacturing
140
Park
412
Warehousing
I%
Marina
420
Research & Development
760
Tourist Attraction
480
SHOPPING CENTERS
Movie Theater
443
Super Regional (> =700,000 sq. ft.)
820
Other Outdoor Recreation
430
Regional (400,000-699,999 sq. ft.)
820
Other Indoor Recreation
492
Community (100,000-399,999 sq.
820
INSTITUTIONAL
Neighborhood (<100,000 sq. ft.)
820
Hospital
610
COMMERCIAL SHOPS
Church
560
Convenience Market
851
Military
501
Supermarket
850
Nursery School/Day Care Center
565
Furniture Store
890
Elementary School
520
Other Retail
810
High School
530
L_
Junior College
540
College/University
550
Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation, 5th edition, 1991.
Public Facilities Fee Pmgrmn - DRAFT REPORT Page B-2