The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About032096 CC AgendaIn compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the office of the City Clerk (909) 694-6444. Notification 48 hours prior to a meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to that meeting (28 CFR 35.102.35.104 ADA Title I1| AGENDA TEMECULA-CITY COUNCIL AN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING RANCHO CALIFORNIA WATER DISTRICT BOARD ROOM 42135 WINCHESTER ROAD MARCH 20, 1996 - 7:00 PM CALL TO ORDER: Flag Salute: ROLL CALL: Mayor Karel Lindemans presiding Councilmember Stone Birdsall, Ford, Roberts, Stone, Lindemans PUBLIC COMMENTS A total of 30 minutes is provided so members of the public can address the Council on items that are not listed on the Agenda or are listed on the Consent Calendar. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes each. If you desire to speak to the Council on an item not listed on the Agenda or on the Consent Calendar, a pink "Request to Speak" form should be filled out and filed with the City Clerk. When you are called to speak, please come forward and state your name for the record. For all other agenda items a "Request to Speak" form must be filed with the City Clerk before the Council gets to that item. There is a five (5) minute time limit for individual speakers. CITY COUNCIL REPORTS Reports by the members of the City Council on matters not on the agenda will be made at this time. A total, not to exceed, ten (10) minutes will be devoted to these reports. COUNCIL BUSINESS I Development Impact Fee Workshop RECOMMENDATION: 1.1 Review and discuss the attached Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study prepared by David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd., (DMG) for City of Temecula, and provide direction to staff as appropriate~ CITY MANAGER'S REPORT CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT Next regular meeting: March 26, 1996, 7:00 PM, Community Recreation Center, 30875 Rancho Vista Road, Temecula, California. ITEM NO. I APPROVAL CITY ATTORNEY CITY OF TEMECULA AGENDA REPORT TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: City Council Ron Bradley, City Manager l/d'~9 March 20, 1996 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE WORKSHOP PREPARED BY: Allie Kuhns, Senior Management Analyst RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and discuss the attached Development Impact Fee (DIF) Study prepared by David M. Griffith and Associates, Ltd., (DMG) for City of Temecula, and provide direction to staff as appropriate. DISCUSSION: On February 28, 1995, Council awarded a contract to DMG to conduct a complete analysis of development impact fees, specifically to identify the maximum fee required to adequately fund capital improvements which would normally be funded by DIF. The attached Development Impact Fee Study is the culmination of staff and consultant analytical efforts, providing the maximum proposed fees based on using DIF to fund capital improvements necessitated by new development in the City. Additionally, Staff worked very closely with the consultant to ensure Council has received the most accurate information available to determine the appropriate level of development impact fees to be collected by the City over the next several years. During this Workshop, Staff, along with DMG, will present an overview of the study and methodology used in calculating the fees. At the conclusion of this presentation, the Development Community will be afforded the opportunity to have Council, Staff, and DMG address any issues relating to the study and maximum fees presented. FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact as a result of this workshop. All fiscal impacts resulting from the future collection of fees will be addressed when final recommendations for fees are brought forward to Council for consideration. Attachment: Development Impact Fee Study CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY Prepared by: David At. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. 4320 Auburn Blvd. Suite 2000 Sacramento. CA 94841 CITY OF TEMECULA DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE STUDY Prepared by: David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd 4320 Auburn BIrd. Suite 2000 Sacramento. CA 94841 A CKNO WLEDGEMENTS CITY COUNCIL Karel F. Lindemans, Mayor Patricia H. Birdsall, Mayor Pro Tempore Ronald H. Roberts, Councilmember Jeffrey E. Stone, Councilmember J. Sal Mu~oz, Former Councilmember Ronald J.Parks, Former Councilmember CITY MANAGER Ronald .E. Bradley ASSISTANT CITY MANGER Mary lane McLamey CITY STAFF Building and Safety. Department Tony El'no, Chief Building Official Heida Osvold, Community Development Technician Community Development Department Gary Thornhill, Community Development Director Debbie Ubnoske, Planning Manager Dave Hogan, Senior Planner John Meyer, Senior Planner Community Services Department Shawn D. Nelson, Community Services Director Finance Department Genie Roberts, Director of Finance Tim McDermott, Assistam Finance Director Allie Kulms, Senior Management Analyst Fire Department Mark Brodowski, Battalion Chief Public Works Department Joe Kicak, Director of Public Works Steve Cresswell, Principal Engineer Martin Lauber, Traffic Engineer Annie Bostre-Le, Assistant Engineer City ofTeraecula - Development Impact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary C. D. E. Organization of the Report Facilities Addressed in this Report Development Projections Impact Fee Analysis Implementation Section 1 - Introduction A, B, C. D, E. F, G, Legal Background Purpose of the Fees Use of the Fees Reasonable Relationship Requirement Impact Fee Methodology Facilities to be Addressed Relationship to the General Plan Section 2 - Land Use and Development Potential B. C. D. Background and Setting Study Area and Time Frame Measures of Development Existing and Forecasted Development Section 3 - Street System Impact Fees B. C. D. E. Service Area and Time Frame Level of Service Demand Variable Facility Needs Impact Fee Calculation Section 4 - Park and Recreation Impact Fees B, C. D,. E. Service Area and Time Frame Level of Service Demand Variable Facility. Needs Impact Fee Calculation ES-1 ES-1 ES-2 ES-2 ES-4 1-1 1-3 1-3 1--4 1-5 1-8 1-8 2-i 2-2 2-2 2-3 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 34 4-1 4-1 4-3 44 44 January 8 1996 Dm,id,~t. Gnffith &Associates. LId Page City ofTemecula - Development Itnpact Fee Study TABLE OF CONTENTS (Cont'd) Section 5 - Corporate Facilities Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame B. Level of Service C. Demand Variable D. FaciiiW Needs E. Impact Fee Calculation Section 6 - Fire Protection Impact Fees A. Service Area and Time Frame B. Level of Service C. Dema.d Variable D. Facili~' Needs E. Impact Fee Calculation Section 7 - Library Impact Fees A. Service :~c~a and Time Frame B. Le,;ei of Se.wme C. Demand Variable D. Facility Needs E. iraFact Fee Calculation Section 8 - Summary of P, ecommended Impact Fees Section 9 - Implementation A. Adoption B Administration C Reporxing and Updates D. Training 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-5 5-6 6-1 6-2 6-3 6-4' 6-4 7-1 7-2 7-2 7-2 9-.1 9-4 &nuarv 8 1996 Dm,id,~L Grtff?tl~ & .,lssocia:e~. Lea( Page City of Ternecula - Development Impact Fee Study EXECUTIVE SUMMAR Y This report was prepared for the City of Temecula by David M. Griffith & Associates Ltd. It is intended to satisfy the requirements of Government Code Sections 66000 et seq. (commonly known as "AB 1600"), as well as other legal requirements beating on the establishment and impo- sition of development impact fees. A. ORGANIZATION OF TIrE REPORT Section I of this report provides an overview of impact fees. It discusses methods of calculating the fees and legal requirements for establishing and imposing them. Section 2 contains informa- tion on existing and projected land use and development in Temecula, in a form that can be used in the impact fee analysis. Sections 3 through 7 analyze the impacts of development on specific types of facilities. Those sections identify facilities eligible for impact fee funding and calculate recommended impact fees for each type of facility. Section 8 summarizes the impact fees calcu- fated in previous sections. and Section 9 recommends procedures for implementing an impact fee program, and addresses administration, reporting and updates, and training. B. FACII,ITTTS ADDRESSED IN THIS REPORT Five types of public facilities are covered by this report. with the report sections in which they are addressed. Those facilities are listed below, along Section 3 - Street System Improvements Section 4 - Parks and Recreation Improvements Section 5 - Corporate Facilities Section 6 - Fire Protection Facilities Section 7 - Libraries January8 1996 David M. Griffith &Associates, Ltd. Page ES- I City ofTemecula - Development Impact Fee 5~udv C. DEVELOPMENT PROJECTIONS Development projections used in this study are intended to represent all additional development ~xpected to occur in Tomeruin from 1995 to build out of the City and its sphere of influence, un- der the current General Plan. Estimated development potential of the study area is based on the Land Use Element of the General Plan. As shown in Section 2 of the report, Tem;ecula has the potential to grow from a population of about 40,000 currently, to over 2G0,000 at build out. Era- plcymenl could _m'ow by an even larger factor if all land in the study area is develoFed according to cu.wem plans. D. IrvlPACT FEE ANALYSIS Each type of facility addressed in this report was analyzed individually. The relationship between development and the need for additional facilities was quantified in a way that alloxvs itnpact fees to be calculated for various categories of development. In each case. a specific. measurable tribute ofde,,elopme:~ was used m represent the demand for additional capital iiiciliues. Street: System Improvements. The impsol f~e for transportation irnprovemems '~::.s base~ an esnmate of the totai lane miles of additional roadway that will be reqt.t~red ditional traffic generated by fi,ture development. Interchanges, c~e:'crossings and traffl; signals were also i:~c!uded in tl:e fee calculations. The estimated cost of all street system imprcvcme,'xts reia~ed to future development exceeds $200,000,000. T.~:e recommended inkpact fee rate was c.:l- c~lated .~s a cost per peak hour vehicle trip Recommended street system impact fees are shown in Table ES-I, and i~ Sections 3 and 8 of this report. Park a.d Recreation Improvements. The impact fee for park and recreation improvere. or. is ha,ted on the cost of facilities needed to maintain the existing level of sen,ice in terms of dryel- f, pod acres of park land per capita. The proposed impact tbes, as shown in 'fable ES-1 and Sec- ttons 4 .,'rod 8, are intended to be imposed in addition to land dedication or fee-in-lieu requirements urn!e:' the Qui;nby Act. Land costs were not included in the fee calcu!.tuo:~s City of Terntcula - Development Impact Fee Stu .dv Corporate Facilities, Corporate facilities include City Hail and the maintenance facility. New facilities for which money is currently budgeted were treated as existing for purposes of the ira- pact fee analysis. Recornrnended fees were based on the estimated cost of facilities needed to maintain the existing level of service. Those'fees are shown in Table ES-1 and Sections 5 and 8. Fire Protection Facilities. The impact fee for fire protection facilities was calculated by allocat- ing the cost of two future fire stations to all future development in the study area on a per acre ba- sis. Cost allocations were weighted by development type to reflect the difference in service levels for "heavy urban" and "urban" classes of d~velopment as shown in the Fire Protection Master' Plan. The analysis shows that future development creates a need for 4.8 fire stations. However, since all but two of the necessary. fire stations have already been constructed, only those two 'sta- tions were considered in calculating the impact fees. Recommended impact fees for fire protec- tion facilities are shown in Table ES-1, and in Sections 6 and 8 of this report. Libraries, The impact fee for libraries was based on the cost of facilities needed to maintain the service level adopted by the Riverside County, Library District. That standard calls for 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capita. The proposed impact fees are shown in Table ES-1 and Sections 7 and 8. Table ES-1 Impact Fee Summar~ Type '~; Residential, Detached Residential, Attached Office Retail Commercial Sen,ice Commercial Business Park DU t $1.564 DU $1.095 KSF: $4,486 KSF $6.355 KSF $3.679 KSF S3.345 $123 $1.609 $86 $1,207 $320 - $984 -- $492 - $233 .-- 'Facil ] Facil S221 S55 $398 $118 $42 $299 $ 98 $29 - $244 $46 - $127 $39 - $ 81 $33 ! - ~ DU = Dwelling Unit : KSF = 1,0Ot~ ~.oss square feet of building area. Devl Uni~ ~ ~:' $2.84~i I~ $4. 33 ii $,1,347 $3.692 ~i ._:J January8 1996 Dm,id,~I. Grt..fath &Associates, Ltd. Page ES; 5 City Of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Table ES-1 on the previous page is identical to Table 8-2 in Section 8 of this report. It sumtoo- rizes the impact fees recommended in this report by facility type and development category. The fees shown in that table have been adjusted slightly to include the cost of preparing this study. Additional detail is provided in the sections of the report dealing with individual facility. types. E. II%.IPLEMENTATION Implementation of an impact fee pro_m-am raises both practical and policy issues. Section 9 of this report points out many practical and procedural issues related to the implementation of the City's impact fee prog'.ram, and outlines administrative procedures mandated by the Government Code with respect to impact fees. Topics covered in that section include adoption and collection of t~es, accountability. ~br fee revenues, expenditure tithe limits, reporting and refunding require- ments. updating of fees, and staff training. From the point of view of the City Council, important policy choices must be made regarding the share of facility costi :o be funded by impact f~:es, and other sources of funding to be used far those faciiities not ~nded by :he f~es. The ~,es calculated in this re~:ort are intended to recover the ,qall cost of providip_g these five types of facilities to future development in the City Of ceurse. the City Council may choose to adopt fees lower than those recammended. In that event. t~e City ~hould identi~ the specific facilities that wi!l by funded by impact f~es, and the share of cost to be recovered through the fees: .;t~nuary 8. i996 David ,~. GrtJfith & Assoczate3, LId Pe. ge ES-.i City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 1 INTR OD UCTION The City of Temecula has retained David M. Gdffith & Associates, Ltd. (DMG) to analyze the capital cost of providing certain public facilities needed to support future development..in the City, and to recommend a schedule of development impact fees based on that analysis. The results of our study are contained in this report. The methods used to calculate fees in this study are based on relevant requirements of the U. S. Constitution, as well as California Government Code' Sec- tions 66000 et seq. Impact fees are charges imposed by government on development projects to mitigate the addi- tional demands they place on infrastructure and public facilities. The use of development impact fees has become widespread in California over the past ten years. Local government budgets have increasingly been squeezed by tax limitations and a loss of federal and state financial assistance, and many communities are requiring developers to pay a larger share of the capital cost for development-related public facilities. California law does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees can be charged. However, with a few minor exceptions, it does prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance or operating costs (see Government Code Section 65913.8). Consequently, the fees recommended in this report are based on facility costs only. A. LEGAL BACKGROUND The legal authority to impose fees on development may be specifically granted by statute, or it may be found in the broad police power exercised by local governments under most state eonsti- tutions. California's impact fee statutes do not. contain specific enabling language, so cities and counties in this state depend on the police power for their authority to levy such fees. 1. Constitutional Considerations. Like all exactions on development, impact fees are subject to 'constitutional limitations. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of January 8, 1996 Dav~d M. Grij~th & /lsxociates. Ltd. Page 1-1 · _ City of Te~necula - Development Impact Fee Study development impact fees as a legitimate form of land use re~'alation~ provided they meet certain standards. Those standards are intended to insure. among other things, that impact fees do not violate Fifth Amendment limitations on the taking of private property To be constitutionally valid, development regulations must advance a legitimate governmental in- terest. In the case of impact fees. that interest is the provision of adequate public facilkies'so that development does not cause deterioration in the quality. of essential public services. However, the U. S. Supreme Court has found that an agency' imposing exactions on development must demon- strata an "essential nexus" between such an exaction and the govemment's legitimate interest. (See Nollan v. CaIzL/brnia Coastal Commission, 1987). In a recent case (Dola, v. Cir~ of Ti- gard, !994), the Court made ctear that an' agency also must show teat an exaction is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by deve!opment. It should be noted that Dolan is less signi~- cant for imvac: fees than for otim~ types of exactions (e.g. mandatorJ dedication of land) because propoH!onali~ is inherent in the proper calculation of impact fees, and legal scholars are debating the application cf'Do/t.,:~ to fee l:ayments. 2. Cali~n'nia Law. In 1989. a California s:.atu~e :ook effect which goverils the establishrr, ent, in- crease and imp,'~sition of ti~es levied by local agencies as a condition of development project proval "tbr the purpose of de/i'aying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project...." Public facilities are defined in the statute to include "public impro:'e- ments, public settees and community amentries." these requirements are found in the Govern- ment Code, beginning with Section 66000, and are commonly known as ",-LB 1600" requirements, a~e¢ the ~987 Assembly Bill in which they originated. The statute establishes procedures for adopting and justiC~ing impact fees. It also includes restr c- lions on the collection and expenditure of fees, and a provision requi:ing the refilnd of fees which remain unspent after five years, unless a finding of continued need can be made. Annual reporting of activity in in~pact fee accounts is aiso required. Jam:tar?/8, i9~6 Dw'ta 34. Gr~/fi;/; & :l£~ociates. Lttt Pcge l-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study To satisfy the requirements of Section 66001, an agency establishing, increasing or imposing ira- pact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the f~e; and 3, Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. Those requirements are discussed in detail below. B. PUll.POSE OF THE FEES The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect the public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees recommended in this study is to fund the construction of certain capital improvements which are identified in this re- port. Those improvements are 'needed to mitigate the impacts of expected development in Teme- cula, and to prevem deterioration in public'services that would result from additional develop- ment if impact fee revenues were not available to fund those improvements. C. USE OF THE FEES Ira fee subject to Government Code Section 66001 is used to finance public.facilities, those facili- ties must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose, but is not man- datory if the facilities are identified in the General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. This report is intended to fulfill that requirement. Specific facilities used to calcu- late impact fees in this study are identified in subsequent sections of the report. Janua .rv 8, 1996 David M. Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page Cilv o~rTemecula - Development Impact Fee ~tudv D. REASONABLE REL-XTIONSR'rP REQUIRE~IENT As discussed above, Government Code Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its previ- sions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demonstrated between: [1] the use of the fee and the t)~e of development on which it is imposed; [2] the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a flee is imposed; and. [3] the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment on which the fee is imposed. These t.hree reasonable relationship' requirements closely resemble the "benefit," "impact," and "proportionality" elements, res~'ectively. of the hemps standard w'hich has evolved in the courts to test the validity of del,,e!opment exactions. In e,,:r opinion, "reasonable relationship" as deftnee2 by tl~ese requirements is i~ientical to "nexus" as a practical matter. We wU.! use the nexus te.m'dnot- ogy it. this report because it is more concise and descriptive, but the methcds used to calculate ira- Fact t~es in tlus study are intended to satisfy either formulation. Individual elements of the nexus sta~_dard are discussed fi~rther in the following paragraphs. 1. !mpact Relationship. All new development in a community creates additional demands c.n some or all public facilities provided by local government If the supply of facilities is not in- creased to satisfy that additional demand: the quality of public services for the entire co:nmunity deteriorates. The improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development in Temecula are identified in subsequent sections of this report. The need for those improvements is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships berrycon development and the demand for various type of fa- ciiities, based on applicable level of service standards. ' Bene~i Relationship, A reasonable benefit relationship requires that ti:e revenues are ex- ~., pended to provide the facilities for which they. are collected. a~d that those facilities are available .January 8, 1996 Dav#d.~ll. Griffith & Associates Ltd Page i-4 __ City o]'Temecula - Development Imt~act Fee Study to serve the developmere on which the fe~s are imposed. Nothing in the law requires that faciti- ties paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclusively to developments paying the fe~s. However, the location of facilities relative to the developments they are intended to serve has been an issue in some cases. Statutory procedures governing the earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues and the requirement for refunding of fees not expended within certain time limits, are intended to ensure that developments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. 3. Proportionality Relationship. A r~asonable proponionaiity relationship must be established through the procedures used in calculating impact fees for various types 9f facilities and eatego- ties of development. As a practical matter, Compliance with both statute and case law requires an agency to show that impact fees will be used to pay for capital facilities needed ~0 serve new de- velopment, and that the amount charged to different types of development is fairly related to the demands placed on public facilities. It is well-established that impact fees may not be used to mitigate pre-existing deficiencies in pub- lic facilities, to subsidize level-of-service improvements for the existing community or to solve problems not created by the development paying the fee. The Nollan decision reinforced the prin- ciple that development exactions, including impact fees, may be used only to mitigate conditions created by the developments upon which they are imposed. Methods of allocating facility costs and calculating fees which meet the proportionality requirement are discussed below. E. IMPACT FEE METHODOLOGY In general, any one of several approaches may be used in calculating impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends on the service characteristics of the facility being addressed and the availability of information on ,facility plans and future development. Each method has advantages and disadvantages in a particular situation, and to a limited extent they are interchangeable. Reduced to its simplest elements, the process of calculating impact fees involves only two steps: determining the cost of needed improvements, and allocating those costs equitably to various types of development. But in practice, impact fee studies must deal with imperfect information January 8, 1996 David M. Gr~ff~tth &.4ssociate$, Ltd. Page City ofTemecula - Development Impact Fee Study azld uncertainty about future events, and that introduces a variety of complications. Below we discuss three approaches to calculating impact fees, and their applicability to certain situations. 1, Plan-based Impact Fee~, This method is used where the estimated costs for a specified set of improvements (facility plan) are being allocated to all development represgnted by a specified land use plan. Costs are allocated in proportion to the relative intensity of demand represented by each type of development. This method assumes that the entire service capacity of the planned t~a- cili:ies will be absorbed by projected development, or that excess capacity is necessarily related to ser~dng future development. For example, it may be necessm3, to widen a street from two lanes to tbur lanes to serve pianned development, but some capacity may remain unused after t. hat devei- opment occurs. TIle plan-based me,hod is often 'the most workable approach where it is difficult to measure the actual service consumed by develcpment--for exaxnp!e, wi.,h respect to administra- live and law entbrcement facilities it is also useful for facilities such as streets, where capacity calmer. be n;atched closely tc~, de:sand The plan-based approach is inflexible in the sens~ that it is ba~ed on the relationship bevxeen a pa:'zicular facility plan and a particular land use p~an. Consequently, if the land use plan c, bat~ges sigr. ificantly~ the fees may have .~o be recaicuiated. Plan-based fee calc~xlations can be done in two ways. The basic method results direct!y in fees pet' mm ,~'development. However, i~ is also pos- sible ~o produce feesper'm,t ofdemat:d. which can then be converted to fees per unit of develop- mum, When stated in terms of demand units. plan-based fees take the same form as capaciW-based fees. 2. Capacit}'-based Impact Fees. This method is used where the cost and capacity of a facility or sys;em are known. anti the amount of capacity used by a particular quantit3, of development can be ,'neasured or estimated. The amount of development to be served is not used to calculate the fee, so this method is not dependent on a land use plan or development projections. This type of fee is established as a ram or cost per ur, it of capacity, and can be applied to any type or amount of development--provided that adequate capacity remains untoremitted. Using this -rant~ar.v 8, 1996 Davtd.~..[ Grtf~tn & Associa;es, Ltd. Page I-6 City oJ'Temecula - Development Impact .Fee Study method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. most commonly Used for water and wastewater systems. Capacity-based fees are To calculate a capacity-based impact fee rate per unit of demand, facility cost is divided by facility capacity. To apply the rate to a developmere project, or to produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square fe~t of building area), the rate is multiplied by the mount of capacity needed to serve some quantity of development. 3. Standard-based Impact Fees. This approach is related to the capacity-based approach in the sense that it is based on a rate, or cost per unit of demand. With the standard-based approach, costs are initially determined on a generic unit-cost basis, and then applied to development ac- cording to a standard that sets the amount of capacity to be made available per unit of develop- ment. This approach differs from the capacity-based approach which typically determines unit cost by dividing the cost of a planned or actual facility by its capacity. The standard-driven method is use~al where facility need is defined in terms of a service standard, and where unit costs can be determined without reference to the total size or capacity of a facility or system. Parks fit that description. It is common for cities or counties to establish a service standard for parks in terms of acres per thousand residents. Also, the cost per acre for a certain t,vpe of park can usually be estimated without knowing the size of a particular park or the total acreage of parks in the system. This approach is also useful for buildings such as libraries or ad- ministrative offices, where it is possible to estimate a generic cost per square foot before a build- ing is actually designed. One advantage of this approach is that a fee can be established without committing to a particular size of facility. Facility size can be adjusted based on the amount of de- velopment that actually occurs, avoiding excess capacity. It should be noted that this method is not well suited to specialized recreation facilities such as swimming pools, gymnasiums, or ball diamonds, which have fairly rigid size requirements. January 8, 1996 David J,l. GriJ~th de Associates, Ltd. Page 1-7 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study F. FACILITIES TO BE ADDRESSED Public facilities, equipment and infrastructure improvements relating to the following functions will be addressed in this study: Street System Parks and Recreation Facilities Corporate Facilities Fire Protection Facilities Library Facilities G. RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN Much of the analys~s in this report is based on information contained in the City of Temecula Gen- eral Plan, adopted November, 1993, especially the Land Use, Circulation, Housing, and GrOwth Mangemerit/Public Facilities elemen;s. J2nuapy 8. 1996 David.~l. Gr(f~tn & Associates, Ltd. Page 1-8 City of i~emecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 2 LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL Land use, demographics and development po. tential, both existing and projected, must be analyzed in the course of preparing an impact fee program, This section of th.e' repon organizes and corre- lares information on existing and projected developmere to provide a basis for the impact fee analysis in subsequent sections of the report. That information will be used to define levels of service, to project public facilities needs, and to allocate the cost of new capital facilities between existing and future developmere, and among various types of new developmere. Information on existing residential land use in Temecula is taken fi'om a January., 1995 Report (E-5) prepared by the California Department of Finance Demographic Research Unit. Information on existing non-residential land use, is based on the Land Use Element of the 1993 City of Teme- cula General Plan, which was updated using data from building permit records provided by the City. Projections ofbuildout development were taken from the Land Use Element. A. BACKGROUND AND SETTING The City of Temecula was incorporated in 1989. It is located in the fast-developing Southwestern corner of Riverside County along the 1-15 Freeway, midway between Riverside and San Diego. Nearby communities are Murrieta and Lake Elsinore. The City's boundaries encompass the his- torical town of Temecula, and much of the 87,000-acre planned community of Rancho California which began development in the late 1960's. Temecula's population has grown rapidly in recent years, averaging 8.5% per year since the 1990 Census. The January, 1995, population is approximately 40,000. During the same time frame, al- most 15 million square feet of new commercial, office, and business park space has been con- strncted in the City, bringing the total to more than nine million square feet. Development anticipated in the General Plan for the City and its Sphere of Influence is expected to support a danua.rv S, 1996 Davtd A[. Griffith &,4ssociates, Ltd. Page 2-1 City ofTemecula - Development Impact Fee Study total population of 200,000, and over 60 million squm'e feet of commercial, office, and business park development. B. STUDY AREA AND TIME FRAME The analysis in this study addresses all development expected fi'om the present time to buildout of future developmere contemplated in the Land Use Element of the General Plan for the City. and its Sphere of Influence. Development projections used in this study do not include the Environ- mental Study Area defined in the Land Use Element. No rate of development or buildout date is assumed in this study. C. MEASURES OF DEVELOPMENT To calculate impact fees for a particular .type of public facility the amount of development to be served must be measured in a way that reasonably reflects the impact that development will have on that BT~e of facility. Attributes of development. such as population and trip generation will be used in the impact fee analysis to represent demar, d for certain t~acilities, and as a yardstick to de- termine service levels for various types of faci!it-.'es. This section .~f the report establishes the amount of existing and projected cievelopment in l'cmecuia in terms of certain basic attributes in- cluding dwelling units ,'rod population (for residential land uses), building area and e:hployment (for non-residential land uses), and acreage and peak hour trip generation for all land uses. The use of those attributes in the impact fee analysis is discussed briefly be!ow. l. Dwelling Units and Population. Residential development is norn~ally measured in te,'Tns of acreage, dwelling units, and poputation The average number ofdwelling units per acre for apar- tfcular type of residential development is referred to as its "density." For future development, population is estimated by applying a pet sons-per-unit fi~ctor to the number of additional dwelling units e',.'pected in each residential land use category. For certain public facilities, such as parks and libraries, population alone is a useful measure of service demand, and can be used in setting sendue levels and allocating facility costs. But for .;anuarv 8 1996 Dm,id ;~12 Grtf~th &.4ssoctares. Lld Page2-2 City oi'Ternecula - Development Impact Fee Study many public facilities, resident population accounts for only a portion of demand, and does not, bY itself, represent the impact of all development on those facilities. Since population is directly re- lated to housing impact fees based on population alone apply to residential development only. 2. Building Area and Employment. Non-residential (commercial and industrial) development is typically measured in terms of acreage, building area, and employment. The relationship be- tween acreage and building area is defined by an average "floor area ratio" which varies by land use category. The number of employees related to non-residential development is estimated by applying an employment density factor to either acreage or building area. Where employment is used in impact fee calculations, it is usually combined with residem population to construct a "service population" for certain types of facilities. That method is not used in this study. 3. Trip Generation. The number of vehicle trips generated by developmere is commonly used as the basis for allocating road improvement costs to various types of development. This measure applies to all types of development. In this study, we use peak hour trips, rather than average dally trips, for allocating road improvement costs. Peak hour trips relate more directly to the need for street capacity. The number of peak hour trips related to a particular development is esti- mated by applying standard trip generation factors to units of development, such as acres, dwell- ing units, or square feet of building area. D. EXISTING AND FORECASTED DEVELOPMENT Summaries of existing and forecasted development by land use type are presented in Tables 2-1 through 2-3. Residential development is tabulated in two categories: "detached" and "attached." The detached residential category includes development classified as hillside, very low density, low density, and low-medium density in the Land Use Element of the City's General Plan. The at- tached residential category includes development classified as medium density and high densiW. Existing residential development in Table 2-1 is based on January, 1995 Department of Finance estimates. Build out totals in Table 2-3 are fi'om the General Plan, and Table 2-2 shows potential new development from 1995 through buildout of the current City and its sphere of influence. January 8, 1996 David;I,[. Gri..(~th & .4ssociates, Ltd. Page 2-3 Ciiv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-1 Existing Development January, 1995 Lancl De,,ll~d : 'Residential, Detached 4.510 RestdenUal. Attached 310 Office 147 Retail Commercial 246 Service Commercial 37 Business Park 250 TOTALS ! 5.49') No. olr Units: 10,372 3,718 2.556 2.675 485 3,818 i .t .090 9.534 ('nit i Pop 'Empi T)pe i [.'actor~ DU ' 3.20 DU s 2.40 K£F ~ 3.50 KSF ~ 2.0,) KSF s . 1.50 KSF s 3.00 DL [ ........... ~SF [ Popu- [OliDn "' 33,190 8,923 42.!!4 EmpIo}- i Pk Trip merit ' I Faztors ! J 1.00 0.70 8.946 2.60 5.349 8.00 727 4 00 11,453 1.90 26.476 "" ] Peak Ilr' Trips ' ..,J 10,372 2,603 6,646 1,939 7.253 511.2Ill Notes: Totals may not eqew. l the sum of the column entries due tc retmding, I Existing d~;eilmg re, its based on Department ofFinar. ce 1995 csumates. Exasting non-resadential developm. en~ is bc.:;ed on a 1991 ia/td use survey updated by t,~e Ci~ using building permit data FumTe development :s ba.,,ed on the Land Use Element of the Temecula General Plml. : Popuhtmn tbrecasks ussttrae 100% oc;:uoancy and rxe buscol on persons/DU t~om 1990 census: ~ Eraplot, went estimums bas,:d on estmmted empiu>,'ment densities provided by SCAG. ~ Pe~k hcur trip rat'.':: ba:,~.d on San Diego .\sso¢ianon of Geven~metlts tSAN'DAG) Tr,'~:. Generator. e mustuai. 5 DU = D!vellir. g Umt; Ke...~' = 1,0~0 Squsx~: Feet Gt'oss Bldg Existing population, as shown in Table 2-1, is a}so based on Department of Finance estimates for January, 1995. Projectivns of .flurare population are derived by applying a persons-per-dwelling unit ihc:or from :he 1990 census to buildout dwelling unit projections in each of the nvo residen- tial development c."-tegories. It is important to note that the population projections used in this study assume 5jlI .occupancy (i.e., a zero vacancy rate) for al! dwelling units. That assumption re- flects the f~ct that once a dwelling unit is approved, the City is commkted to provide publk' serv- ices to its occupal3ts Non-residential development is tabulated in four. categories: "office," "retail commercial," "service commerciaL" and "business park" The retail commercial calegory, incorporates the neighborhood commerzi,% communitv commercial, and highway/tourist commercial uses from the Land Use Element. Other non-residential categories correspond to those in the Land Use Element. Janun .rv & 1996 David Ai. Griffith & :lssociates, Ltd Page2-4 'R~sidential. Detached Residential, At,ached Office Retail Commercial Service Commercial Business Park I'~)1 ~i.~ City o['Tetnecula - Development Impact Fee Study Table 2-2 AdditionaiDevelopment Potential 1995 to Build Out 15,501 35,162 DU s 3.20 112,518 .1.00 1,618 19,260 DU s 2.40 46,224 0.70 394 6,870 KSF s 3.50 24,046 2.60 665 7,246 KSF s 2.00 14,492 .8.00 409 5,344 KSF s 1.50 8,015 4.00 2,366 36,066 KSF s 3.00 108,198 1.90 35,162 13,482 17,863 57,970 21:3~74 68,525 214.3'6 Note: For foomotes, .see Table 2-1. Estimates of current employment, and projections of future employment, related to non-residential land use categories, are based on average employment density factors (e.g. employees per thou- sand square feet of building area) provided by the Southern California Association of Govern- ments (SCAG). Current and projected employment in Temecula have been estimated by applying estimated floor area ratios, along with the SCAG employment density factors, to current .and pro- jected acres of non-residential development in the study area by land use category. Table Projected Total Development at Build Out i Residential. Detached 20, 111 45,534 Residential, Attached 1,928 22,978 Offlee 541 9,426 Retail Commercial 911 9.921 Business Park 2.616 3 . '1'() I Xl..~ 26.4.~3 68..~12 DU ~ 3.20 145,709 DU s 2.40 55,147 KSF s 3.50 KSF ~ 2.00 KSF ~ 1.50 KSF ~ 3.00 I)1 I 21m(I.8.~x~ K.~F I Peait Hr I :,Trr '*' 1.00 45,534 0.70 16,085 32,992 2.60 . 24,509 19,842 8.00 79,366 8,742 4.00 23,3 13 119,651 1.90 75,779 181,227 ~ 264,586 Note: For loomores, s~ Table 2-1. January8. 1996 DavtdJ~ Gri.~th &.~s~octate~'. Ltd. Page 2-5 City oFTemecula - Dev'elopment Impact Fee Study ':'tip generation figures shown in 'Fables 2-1, 2-2~ and 2-3 are for the p.m. peak hour rather than for a 50 -- 24-hour period. Rates shown in those tables are ~ 40 adapted from the San Diego Association of Govern- = ments (SANDAG) publicat;on "Traffic Generators." The rates used in this study are intended to repre- I0 sent average trip generation for all uses in a particu- recommended in "Traffic Generators." Residential Units Detached Attached Development Type Figure 2-A Charts on this page illustrate existing and planned development as shown in Tables 2-.I and 2-2. Figure 2-A shows existing and planned residential development in terms of dwe!l!~g uPAts by type of development. Figure 2-B shc, ws existing and planned non-.!'esidential development in terms of n,Ailions of'square fee:t ~i~r eacj: type :>f development The sum of the existing and pi.:.n~ned. devei- t opment is ind:cated by the total he:ghts of :he bars [ Non-Residential auildin~ Area on the charts. and represents the fa!! buildou.: poten- tial of the City and its sphere of influence as shown in the Land Use Element ef the General Plan. The information on existing and potential develop- ment in Temecula will be used in subsequent sections of th~s report as a basis tbr establishing service levels and allocating costs to calculate impact fees. Figure.2-B ~:mtary 8, 1996 D~'id ~t~( Grtffith &..lsSociates, Ltd. Page 2-6 City of Ternecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 3 STREET SYSTEM IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for streets and related improvements required to serve future development in Temecula. The City is served by ~ hierarchy of highways including the 1-15 freeway, two se_m'nents of State ROute 79, and a network of roads ranging from urban arterial highways to local streets. As the City g'ows, that network must be expanded to carry additional traffic. The Circulation Element of the Temecula General Plan indicates the full extent of the street system that ultimately will be required to serve the study area, i.e., the City and its sphere of influence. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The facilities addressed in this section include all urban arterial, arterial, major, and secondary highways, as well as principal collector streets. Local and collector streets are not included, on the assumption that they are typically constructed as part of a development project and need not be funded by impact fees. Because the types of streets considered in this section serve large areas of development, and also because much of the City's traffic flows to and from the 1-15 freeway and adjacent commercial and business park development, the entire study area is considered a single service area for purposes of calculating impact fees. Consequently, the fees calculated in this section of the report should be applied to all new .development in the study area. The time frame for this analysis is the period needed to complete build out of undeveloped land in the study area. A more specific time frame is not required, because the method used to calculate these impact fees does not depend on the timing of development. B. LEFEL OF SERFICE Level of service for streets and intersections is described in terms of traffic flow characteristics. Level of ser,,ice (LOS) categories range from A to F. LOS A is characterized by freely flowing traffic and no delays, while LOS F. is characterized by severe congestion and long delays. The standard adopted in Temecula's Circulation Element is LOS D, which means that the system Janua.rv 8. 1996 David A4( Grtffith &.4ssoctates, Ltd. Page 3-1 Ci .tv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study should be designed with adequate capacity to accommodate peak period traffic wireout l~tlling below that level of service. At LOS D, roadways reach the upper limit of stable flow conditions, and tr'~c volumes approach 90% of capacity. Intersections experience significant congestion, and ;,chiclea may have to wait through more than one cycle at signalized intersections. C DEMAND VARIABLE The demand variable used here to calculate impact fees for roadway improvements is the street capacity (in lane miles) required to serve a particular Wpe and amount of development. That capacity requirement is a fhnction of both the volume .o,f trips generated and the average trip len~h tbr each category- of development. For traffic signals, bridges and interchanges. trip generation alone is used as the demand variable. Trip generation and trip length figures are based the San Diego Association c.f'Governmem's (SANDAG) publication Tr~.',97c Ge~terators. D. FACTL1TY ~%~EDS The street system p!ar, ued fizr tke study area is described in the Cin:u!ation Element of the Temecula General Plan. However, deve!opmen~ patle,Txs in Temecula make it very difficult to distinguish clearly I~e::ween specific street improvements need..'d to serve exis'.ing development. and those needed to serce .~ture de..'eiopment. Consequently, basic roadway improvemores needed te serve ~ture development are quantified in ~ulk, as total lane relies of roadway, rat~.er than as a ilst of specific street improvements. The projection oftl'mse basic imt~rovetnent needs is based on estimated roadway capacity, in vehicles per lane per hour at LOS D--the standard established by the Circulation Element Other street system improvement needs, such as interchange improvements and traffic si_~nals, are specifically identified later in this section. The capacity-utilization approach is conservative in assigning costs to future development. k assigns only the cost of capacity actually needed to carry dcvelopme:l~-re!ated traffic. Other fee calculation methods assign to new development a share of the excess capacity that normally exists in any street system because street capaci~ comes in large increments {'additional lanes) and cannot be matched precisely to anticipated traffic volumes. Table 3-1 calculates required street capacity as lane-miles of'basic roadway improvements needed to ser¢e fitlure develop,,nent. Janua.rv & 1996 Dcv~d ~l'. G,-pyi/,/t &.qssociate& Ltd. Page 3-2 City o/'Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3-1 Basic Roadway Improvements Required for Future Development 7" ". '~ Ur~..~:',';:: '~eil..'. i~':',D..~_~,";~. Trips/. :.,: ~::'.Trlp ."' Lane..' i Lane Mi / l . .Toni" : ' 'Type.~/~::';:.;':'': ,li~i,/~.~i.~i:~.tgi~'!?'D~,~i unit .l~ngth? ....C~ l Devt Unit ]Laui~ MiIU ~.-s.t:e:l:la. !;)e:a~he:; ':.~.162 DI.. I 00 .'. 9.4 851~ 0 ".C,464' It~. 4(; Residential, AUaehed 19,260 DU 0.70 3.95 850 0.003253 62.65 Office 6,870 KSF 2.60 4.40 850 0.013459 92.47 Retail Commercial 7,246 KSF 8.00 1.80 850 0.016941 122.76 Sen, ice Commercial 5,344 KSF 4.00 2.15 850 0.010118 54.06 Business Park 36,066 KSF 1.90 4.50 850 0.010059 362.78 Total ~ 858.12 See Table 2-2 AveroBe tbr land use .type. Source: SANDAG Tra~c Generators. Based on SANDAO Tn~.~c Generators. Average capacity. for LOS D in vehicles per lane per hour. ' (d) x (e) / 6 (h) = (b) x (g) Other street system improvements (e.g., interchange improvements) required to serve future development in the study area are not included in the costs shown in Table 3-1. Table 3-2 lists those improvements, with their costs. and calculates an average cost per peak hour trip using total additional peak hour trips related to future development in the study area. Table :3-2 Other Street System Improvement Needs Winchester Road Interchange Improvements Overland Drive Overcrossing Rancho California Rd Interchange Improvements State Route 79 / I~15 Interchange Total Facilityi Facility ' "' DeScriptiOn .......': 'Cost ,., ....;__.:_ .' .=i .... $6.909.000 $13,081.000 $8.000.000 $4,100,000 I 'Total Pk ! Cost / Pk , HourTrips i lhmr'TriP '[ ' (c).z ] (d) s .. $32.090,000 214,376 S149.69 Cost estimates by City of Temecula Public Wor'ks Department. Sen Table 2-2. (d)=(b)/(c) January 8, 1996 David~. Griffith & .4ssoc~ates, Ltd. Page 3-3 City of..T.e_m.e._cjla - Dtn,elopme.t lmvact Fee St'~dv In addition to the street system improvements shown in Tables 3-1 and 3-2, additional traffic control systems and traffic signals will be required as a result of expected future development. Table 3-3 lists those improvements, with their costs. and calculates an average cost per peak hour trip using total additional peak hour trips related to future development in the study area. Table Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems . ';7~' Facility "~, . .';!~..' "Fat'illty' ' . .Total Pk ::~ C~t / Pk ". (a_)._:___'--- ,4 ( ) (c)-. '.... (d)_.--_ Controller Upg.,.ades (9) Completion of interim Traffic Signals (3) Re!ocate Existing Traffic Signal (1) Tr"~c Signall Interconnect System New Traffic Signals (165) T,.tal $180.000 $300.000 $80.000 $1,000,000 $24.750.000 $26,310,0o0 214,376 $122.73 Cost ~:s:nnates by City ofTeraccuja Pu'el ic Works D~:pa..-tmcnt S (ri)= E BtFACT FEE C4LCUL4TiON In order to compute an impact fee for street improvements, .it is necessary to combine the fee component for the basic roadway improvements from Table 3-1. with the ~'ee component for other street sysmm improvements, ~'om Table 3-2. Table 3-1 shows the number of lane miles of road- way required per unit of development for each land use category. Given that capacid' require- meat, the only other information needed to calculate the basic impact fee for street improvements is the average cost per lane mile for street construction. That cost is shown in Table 3-4. It is based 3n estimates pro~qded by the Cky of Temecula Department of Public Works, and is an aver- age of cmn'em dollar costs for various facility tS, pes (urban arterial, arterial, primatS,, and secon- dap.~ highways and principa! collector streets), weighted according to the lane miles of each type in the overall cin:ulatio:t plan for the study area. danua .rv 8. ;996 Davia 3~ Griff~th & Associates. Ltd Page 3-4 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Table 3--4 shows the calculation of a basic street impact fee component per unit of development for each land use type. It also converts the cost per unit into a fee per peak hour trip, so the fee for basic roadway improvements can be combined with the fee for other improvements. ~.,,d ~. ~ T.~e' ~i' Residential, Detached DU 0,004647 $303,699 $1.411.29 Residential, Attached DU 0.003253 $303.699 $987.93 Office KSF 0.013459 $303,699 $4,087.48 Kerail Comraercial KSF 0.016941 $303,699 $5.144.96 Service Commercial KSF 0.010118 $303,699 $3,072.83 Business Park K£F 0.~10059 $303.699 $3.054.91 Table 3-4 Cost Allocation for Basic Roadway Improvements i..~,;,.."i ~7~.~'~ ~,~.~o~,.~, i ~."'-. '.~ "~"~:" "~;7'~. '] .... SecTable 3-1. 4 SecTable2-2. Source: City. of Temecula Public Works Department s (g)=(e)/(0 (e) = (c) x (d) 1.00 $1,411.29 0.70 $1.411.29 2.60 $1.572.11 8.00 $643.12 4.00 $768.21 1.90 $1.607.85 In Table 3-5, the cost per peak hour trip for other street system improvements, from Table 3-2, ss used to calculate an impact fee component per development unit by land use type for those improvements. Table 3-5 Cost Allocation for Other Street-Related ImprovemenU ..,., Land Use ]'1D~vi · Type .. Unite ;:""'.'~i)'':'~'' '..." (b) Residential, D~tached DU 1.00 Residential. Attached DU 0.70 Retail Commercial Office KSF 2.60 Business Park KSF 8.00 Service Commercial KSF 4.00 KSF 1.90 l! our Trip '.: "'>,'~'fc)" ....!" (d)" $149.69 $149.69 $149.69 $149.69 $149.69 $149.69 ':,~. Fee/ Devi ;nlf ~,':'(~), $149.69 $104.78 $389.19 $1,197.52 $598.76 $284.41 x S~ Table 2-2. : S~e Table 3-2 ~ (e) = (c) x (d) Janua.rv8, 1996 David.l.t. Griffith & ,4ssociates, Ltd. Page 34 Ci.ly of Temecula - De velopment bnpact Fee Study Table 3-6 Cost Allocation for Traffic Signals and Traffic Control Systems i.and Use Type ....... l~esidential. Detached Residential, Attached Retail Commercial Service Conm:crcial Business Park Devl i Pk itr 'rriln (:nfit~ Devl L'nil ..... ..... DU 1.00 DU 0.70 KSF 2.60 KSF 8.00 KSF ~ 4 00 KSF ~ 1.90 Cost I Pk Fee/ llom' Trip: De~l Unit ,.,(.~!_).'_ ........(.e,), ~. - :t;122.73 $122.73 $122.73 $85.91 5122.73 $319.10 $122.73 $981.84 $122.73 $490.92 $122.73 $233.19 See Table 2-2. See Table 3-3 (e)=(c)x(d) The traffic signal impact f~es in Table 3-6 wii! be treatec~ as a separate component of the traffic impact fees 7he *.-".:es for basic roadway improvements (Table 3-4) and other street system improvements (Table 3-5) will be merged mtca single i.m-pact ,'~e for street im0rovernents, as shown in TatMe 3-7. Thc:se fees could be combined in either of two ways--both of which produce essentially the same result. The simplest method is to add the fee per development unit columns fi-om the two tables to establish a total fee per development unit for each land use type. The alternative, which is used her~, is io add the peak hour trip fees from the two tables to establish a total peak hour trip t~e for each land use type. That total peak hour trip fee can then be converted into a fee per development unit based on the number of peak hour trips per development unit. The advantage of the latter method is that adopting the fees in terms of peak hour trips provides greater fley, ibility in applying the impact fees to cievelopments~ that may vary significantly from the average trip generation rates used to calculaie the fees. d.~m:a~, 8. 1996 Dtn'id.~,l~ Gri/~th &Assoctates. Ltd Page 3-6 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Table ~-7 Street Improvement Impact Fees ,Devl ]PkHrTripa/] TotaiCost/i TotaiFee." Land Use . i . '- "" ~".... a · · [ """: _.. : .... ResldenUal. Detached DU ' 1.00 $1.560.98 $1.560.98 Residential, .Attached DU 0.70 $1.560.98 $1.092.69 Office KSF 2.60 $1.721.80 $4.476.68 Retail Commercial KSF 8.00 $792.81 $6.342.48 Service Commercial KSF 4.00 $917.90 $3,671.60 Business Park KSF 1.90 $1.757.54 $.1,339.33 See Table 2-2. Sum of Fees per Pk Hr Trip ~'om Tables 3-4 and 3-5 (e) = (c) x (d). May not equal sum of fees from Tables 3-.I and 3-5, due to rounding In Section 8, the street system impact fees calculated in this section will be combined with xmpact fees for other types of facilities to establish a total impact fee per development unit by land use categoS,. January8 1996 David A,l. Griffith &.-llsociates, Ltd. Page 3-7 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Slutiv SECTION 4 PARK & RECREATION I,~IPACT FEES This section of the report addresses. impact fees for park and recreation improvements required to serve future development in Temecula. Land for future parks is not covered by these impact fees. The City has already acquired considerable land for future parks, and additional park land will be acquired through required dedication, or fees in lieu of dedication, pursuant to the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). Impact fees for park and recreation improvements, as calculated in this section, are intended to be imposed in addition to park land dedication, or fee-in-lieu, requirements imposed under the provisions of the Quimby Act. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIJ~IE FRAME The facilities addressed in this section include both neighborhood and community parks as well as specialized recreation facilities. Functionally, neighborhood parks are intended to serve a specific par~ of the City while community parks and specialized facilities serve the entire City. However, because the impact fees calculated in this section are based on citywide level-of-service standards for parks and recreation facilities, the impact fees will be calculated on a citywide basis and applied to new development in all pans of the City. Sen'ice area standards contained in Temecula's Parks and Recreation MEter Plan should be followed to ensure that all areas of the City benefit from the parks deyeloped using those~impact fees. No specific time frame is specified in this analysis because the method used to calculate these impact fees does not depend on the timing of developmere. Furthermore, since the fees are calculated in terms of per capita costs, it is not necessary in this analysis to establish the total amount of development to be served. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The level-of-service standard used to calculate impact fees for park and recreation improvements -is based on existing levels of service in Temecula. Table 4-I lists the City's ~xisting parks ;and specialized recreation facilities. It should be noted that some parks currently under development January 8. 1996 David M. Gri~th &Associates, Ltd. Page 4-1 City o/~Temecula - Development Impact Fee Studv are treated as existing t~cilities because funds have already been appropriated to improve those fhcilifies. Table 4-I Existing Parks and Recreation Facilities FaciJily Name Neighborhood/Mini Parks Sam Hicks Monument Pazk t Vetetan's Park Caile Aragen Park Bahia Vista Park Paloma dei Sol Park Kent Hintergardt Memorial Park John Magee Park Riverton Park Loma Linaa Par'< Nicolas Road Park: Butterfield Stage Park; Veorburg Park: Na.k'a.~ama Pa~k: InfonTsation Center Duck Pcad: Subtotal Neighborhood Parks Community Parks Rancho California Spons Park; Pala Cemmm~i~' Park Marganta Community Park Tcmeeula Middle School Ske 3 Sublotal Community Parks Recreation Facilities ComanunL-/Recreation Center Subtotal Recreation Facilities Acreage or ht,-csted S 3.50 3.50 0.25 0.23 9.50 ,9.00 1 5.00 3.0',, 3.00 3 .oo 0.25 0.25 6P,.O0 iO O0 10.00 2.67 90.6? $1.770,000' SI.776,000 Pe~'tion currently und~ development. Clu'rently under development. Acreage adjusted because the City is fu::dmg only a portion of impruve:ncnts Actual size = I4 acres. Amotmt shov, Tt is Citys equity in the facility, defined as cost less ou~¢atqding debt. The existing level cf service for both neighborhood and community parks in Temecula w!ll be defined in terms of acres of existing developed park land per capita. Tha. sta.dard will then be converted into a cost per capita using an average develo[,ment cost of $i25,000 per ac;e for January 8. 1996 David~'l. Grt~9'ith & :Issocmtes, Ltd. Page 4-2 Cin, of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study neighborhood parks and $150,000 per acre for community parks. Level of service for recreation facilities will be defined directly in terms of the City's equity per capita for existing facilities. Table 4-2 Existing Level of Service - Parks . . ~.67 , 42.114 0.00215 $150.000 $322.50 See Table 4-1, : See Table 2-1. Cost esUmates by City. of Temecuia CornmumW Services District. Table 4-2, above, shows how the existing level of service for parks in Temecula is established in terms of cost per capita. Table ,1-3, below, presents a similar calculation for recreation facilities. It can be seen from these tables that the total cost per capita for all existing park and recreation improvements comes to $502.03. Table 4-3 Existing Level of Service - Recreation Facilities Facility j E:dsting Type [ Equi~ ' fa) ~ (b) ' Recreation Facilities[ $1,770,000 Existing Cost Popula:ion" per-Capita (c) ~ ~d) = (b) / 42, Z 14 ; $42.03 See Table 4-1, : See Table 2-1. C DE3'L4ND VARIABLE Population is used in this section to represent development in establishing the level of service for parks. Thus, in effect, it has already been selected as the demand variable for calculating park impact fees. .fanua.rv 8. 1996 David ~l,L Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 4-3 Cilv of Teraecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 5 CORPORATE FACILITIES IMPACT FEES As is the case with other City facilities, Temecula's City Hall and Maintenance Yard will have to 'be expanded to accommodate increases in sentice demand as the City grows, This section of the report calculates impact fees for additional corporate facilities that will be needed to serve new development. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The costs to be recovered through impact fees are for corporate facilities needed to serve all fu- ture development contemplated in the Land Use Element. Since City Hall and the maintenance yard serve all of Temecula, the entire City will be treated as a single service area for those facilities. B. LEVEL OF SERVICE It is self-evident that the need for administrative facilities, as with other kinds of public facilities, generally increases as a City grows. However, the relationship between specific types of develop- ment and the need for space in administrative facilities is complex and cannot be measured di- rectly. Consequently, no single attribute of development neatly represents the need for space in such facilities. Temecula's existing City Hall houses all City departments, and supports virtually every service provided by the City. For purposes of this analysis, it is reasonable to assume that the mount of space in Temecula's existing City Hall (approximately 20,000 square feet) represents the City's current need for administrative space. That assumption is reinforced by the fac~ that the City is currently purchasing a larger building (approximately 28,000 square feet) to meet space require- ments that are increasing as a result of rapid development. January 8, 1996 Dav~d.~[. Griffith & Associates, LId Page City of Tetnecula - Development Impact Fee Stud.'; In this study, projections of future City Hall space needs related to new deveiopment wffi be based on the relationship between existing development and existing facilities. In other words, the cur- rent level of service will be used as the standard for determining future needs At present, the City leases a maintenance facility. However, a new maintenance yard is scheduled for construction in the current fiscal year, and funds have been budgeted for that purpose. Tl:is study will treat that facility as existing. As in the case of City Hall, projections of future mainte- nance facility needs related to new de%.elopment will be based on the relationship between e,x/sting development and the facility ~vhich is about to be constructed. The City estimates that 25% of the new maintenance facility will represent oversizing to meet the needs of future development. Con- sequently, 75~,~ of the fhcility cost will be attribut~.d to existing development. C, DEM_AND VARIABLES Because of the variety of ser-,ice., housed in City Etall, no single demand variable is very useful i:x representing the relaUo;~ship bet-.Neen development and the need for space in CIty Hall. Conse- quently, this study will use multip!e demand va~ables to allocate City Hall facility costs to devel- opment. "Costs will be aFporti{.,ncd to the se~:eral major fi. mctiens, and the shar~ attributed to each function will be allocated to development using an appropriate demand variable..~k similar ap- proach wili be used it., allocating maintenance facility costs. City departments can be diviaed into line functions and support functions, according to their pri- ma~ purpose. Line departments, such as Public Works, serve development directly. Supnon de- nanments. such as Finance, support development indirectly, by providing internal services to line departments The approach used here is to segment City Hall facility costs according to the per- centage of existing City Hall space occupied by major line functions, and then to allocate shares of total ~a,zi!ity cost based on the relationship of those functions to existing development. Costs for the Main:enance Facility will be allocated in two segments representing shares of the faciliW de- voted to street ,naintenance and to landscape maintenance. Jtmua~' 8. 1996 ' David ),;( Grif]it;t &.Issocia;es, LtiZ Pcge 5-2' City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study City Hall. Table 5-1 shows the City Hall space occupied by various departments in terms of square feet, and as a percentage of total space. It also shows the percentage occupied by each line department as a percentage of the space occupied by all line departments. The latter break- down, which is shown in the right hand column, represents the share of overall building area at- tributable to each of the major line functions, if all uP. assigned and support department space is allocated to the line departments in proportion to the space they occupy. When impact fees are calculated, City Hall costs will be segmented according to those percentages, and each segment will be allocated to development in a way that reasonably represents the relationship between de- velopment and a particular line function. Deparh::ent Table 5-1 City Hall Space Analysis ." Total Support Functions City Manager/Pcrsonnelansurance 2.236 11.1% Ci.ty Clerk 1.383 6.9*./0 Finance/Information Systems/Support Svcs 2.083 10.4% Subtotal 5,702 28,4% Line Functions Planning 2.355 Building and Safety/Fire Department 1.765 8.8% Public Works/Engineering 2.816 14.1% Commumt~ Services 2.648 13.3% Subtotal 9,.~84 48,0% Unassigned Space 4.700 23.5% City Hall Total 19,986 100,0% Line Depts .] 24.6% 4.917 18.4~ 3,677 29.4% 5,876 27.6% 5.516 100.0% 19,986 0% 0 100.0% 19,986 Source: City of Ternecula Building and Safety Deparune~t Note: Due to rounding, some columns my not add precisely to ind cored total. In order to quantifij the relationship between development and the line functions listed in Table 5-1, an appropriate demand variable must be selected for each function. Demand variables are measurable attributes of development used in allocation formulas to represent facility needs cre- ated by development. January 8, 1996 David ~L. Grill~th.& Assoczates. Ltd. Page 5-3 City of Temecula - Deve!opment impact Fee Stud'; For some public facilities such as water and sewe~ systems, u~ers are physically connected to the system, and the service provided to a pani~.~ilar development can be measured. As a result, the relationship between development and t!:e need for additional facilities can be measured directly. However', the nature and variety of the ser,'ices provided by departments located in City Hall mean they cannot be measured or attributed so readily. ,Ls a result, the demand variables used to allocate City Hall costs are based on a qualitative assessment of the relative impacts of various types of development on the primary services provided by each line function. For example, since much of the work performed by Public Works and Engineering is related to streets and tra.ffic control, the demand variable selected to represent that function is tr',p generation. Thus, the share of City Hall facility costs assigned to Pubic Works and Engineering is allocated to various types of development as a function of their trip generation rates Similar logic applies to the selection of dcmard w. tiables ;tBr ~he other functions addressed here. The Cartonunity Services b. mction is primarily inv61ved in the proviiion of parks and recreation sere,ices. Since the need for th~se sepalices is target? dete:v. fined by resident papalallan, projec- tions of space needs for Community Services are based on population growtk. For Building Safety, and Planning. we have projected Ci~, Ha;i space needs based on squat.-. feet ,~f new ccn- struclion, and newly developed acreage, respectively. 7able 5-2 Demand Variables - Corporate Facili~ Segments I)cmahti Ftln,7. liOII ' "' Va:.i;~ble City Hall (Building a~td Safety/Fire. 18.4%) Cite Hal! (Public Work¢.fEngineering, 29.4%) City Hall (Co ntni~ Services, 27.6%1 Main( Facibtvm~ard IS(reel Main(.. 60%1 Maint Facdic,' (Landscape Main(, .:;.,,.. Building Area: 'l.'plp Generation Resident Population Trip C,e. neration Resident Population Building area for residential develolaner, t assumes ml average of i ,800 sq. ft. per de'ached dwelling and 1 .GO0 sq. R. per :~."~aehed dwe!ling. Resident population e,.;.l:t. ates ass'mat: 0% vacanc~ rate. ,ramh~ry 8. 1996 ..... Day:idA[. Gri...t~itl7 &.4ssoc;ote.~', L:d. Page .5-4-- Ci.tv of Ternecula - Development Impact Fee Study The demand variable selected for each major line function in City Hail is shown in Table 5-2, along with the percentage of facility cost attributed to that function. Table 5-:2 also shows the shares of maintenance facility space occupied by street maintenance and by landscape maime- nance, and the demand variable to be used in allocating those share~ of maintenance facility costs. Maintenance Facility. The maintenance facility is used primarily to support street and landscape maintenance activities. As shown in Table 5-2, the City estimates that 60% of the space is used for streets and 40% for landscape services. That table also lists the demand variables for each segment of the facility. For obvious reasons, trip generation is used for the street maintenance portion. Because landscape maintenance relates mostly to parks, resident population is used as the demand variable for that segment of the facility, as it is for park and recreation impact fees and for the Community Services portion of City Hall costs. D. FACILITY NEEDS The next step is to quantify the relationship between existing development and existing facilities, using the selected demand variables. That relationship is then used to project future facility needs Existing and projected City Hail space needs are shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 City Hall Space Needs Planrang 4,917 5,499 Acres 0,894 20.954 Acres 18,733 Building and Safety/Fire 3.677 31,927 KSF ' 0.115 138,077 KSF ' 15,879 Public Works/Engineering 5.876 50,210 Trips 0.117 214.376 Trips 25,082 Communi.tyServices 5.516 42.114Pop 0.131 158,742P0p 20,795 Totals 19,986 80,489 See Table 5-1. See Tables 2-1 & 2-2. (d) = (b) / (c) Note that KSF (l ,O00s of Sq Ft) in this table includes r~sidential buildings, so it differs from the KSF to~al shown in Table 2-2. (t') = (d) x (e) January 8, 1996 David~l. Gri. l~th &.-ls$octates. Ltd. Page 5-5 ' __ C~.ofT:~.rn.~.ec.u.ta . _D. ev__elo_~_ment Jrntmct Fee Study The cost of maintenance facilities cannot be summarized conveniently in terms of building square footage, because buildings represent a smaller share of total cost than is the case fi~r City Hall. For that refmon, the cost of the maintenance facility will be related directly to demand, in a manner similar to That used for recreation facilities in Section 4. The total cost of the maintenance build- ing to be constructed this fiscal year by the City is estimated ~o be $550,000. Since only 75% of the fhcility is needed to serx/e existing development, we will use '75% of that amount, or $4 12,500 as :he cos-' of ~xisting facilities. Table 5-4 shows the relationship between existing developmen: rind the maintenance facili~., in terms of cost per unit of demand for street maintenance and land- scape maintenance. Major' 'Fable Maintenance Facility. Cost Allocation ? E~iscin[' %, Fna!cL:r, ns (a, i .. ' .: .....~__ __: ......... ~i 'totals ~ 100% ,, ..... ,.Share ofF. Existing' ] Cost/Un'~' Cos(. Demand IofDemand .__ [ $247,500 30,2!6 Tt'-'ps ] $4.93 $i65.000 42.1!4Pop [ $3.92 $412,500 Est:.,r.,,,te b? 2gy of Temecula Community Facihfies Disu'ict. : Scc ]'a~le 2-i s (e = (c~' E. [NIPACT FEE CALCULATION Table 5-3 projects a need t;3r approximately 80,000 square feet of additional City Hall space at buildout--assuming titat all available land in the City and the sphere of influence is actually devel- opeC:. Of that total. 8,000 square feet of additional space can be accommodated in the existing ~uiiding currently being acquired by the City for use as its City Hall. That building is being pur- chased at an extremely favorable price, which amounts to approximately $75 per square foot of b~i!ding ar~a, dncluding land--less than half the cost of developing a new facility. This study assumes that future tS~cilities will cost $150.00 per squaae foot in 1995 dollars, plus 20% for design and contract administration. .~,ssuming a land cost of $3.00 per square foot and a ja, ua,3' 8, 1996 Dax,#d ,tZ GmJ~th & Asxociates, Ltd. Page .5-6 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee StuaN~ floor area ratio of 0.25, land would add $12.00 per square foot of building area. The total cost per square foot, then, would be $192.00 at current price levels, and the additional 72,000 square feet of future City Hall space would cost $13.8 million. For purposes of calculating the City Hall portion of the impact fees for corporate facilities, a weighted. average facility cost has been used. That average is based on 8,000 square feet costing $75.00 per square"foot, and 72,000 square feet costing $192.00 per square foot. The weighted average cost is $180.30 per square foot. In order to establish the City Hall portion of the corporate facilities impact fee for a particular type of developmere, the space requirement attributable to that developmeht would be determined using the "square feet per unit of demand"' factors from Table 5-3. Then the facility Cost per square foot would be applied. Taking a detached residence as an example, the fee would be corn- puted as shown below. (A detached residence is assumed to be 1,800 square feet (1.8 KSF) in size, occupy 0.435 acres, generate I peak hour trip and house 3.2 residents.)' City Hall Space per Detached DU = (0.435 Acres x 0.894 SF/Ac) + (1.8 KSF x 0.115 SF/KSF) -~ (I.0 Peak Hr Trips x 0.117 SFFFrip) -,- (;3.2 residents x 0.1.~1 SF/resident) = l.l'z2 square feel The square footage requirement is converted to an impact fee using the weighted average facility cost per square foot, as follows: City Hall Impact Fee = 1.132 square feet · $180.30 = $204.10 The fee for maintenance facilities is computed using costs per unit of demand from Table 5-4. Maint Facility Impact Fee = (1.0 Peak Hr Trips x $4.93fTrip) + (3.2 Residents x $3.92/Resident) = S17.47 As shown below, the total corporate facilities impact fee for a detached residence is the sum of the two components calculated above. Corporate Facilities Impact Fee = S204.10 + $17.47 = $221.57 per Detached DU January. 8, 1996 David M. GriJ~th & .4ssociate$. Ltd. Page 5-7 City of Temecula - Devel.opment Impact Fee Study Corporate facilities impact fees for other types of development are calculated using the same pro- cedure using demand factors and costs from previous tables. The resulting impact fees by land use category, are shown in Table 5-5, L-aii~l"L;.~e ............ '[ ResidentinS Detached DU Attached DU O~ce KSF R~tajl Commercial KSF Sen,ice Commercial KSF Business Park KSF Table 5-.5 Corporate Facilities Impact Fees Devl icily ilall Cost/!Maint Fat' Cost/j' ~ota[ I Devl t.,it : Fee ! !)c~ I [hlil [ Units: Devl Unit $ $204.10 $105.62 $ 84.83 $20-1.30 $117.45 $ 71.39 ta: $1747 $12.82 $39.44 $19 72 $ 9.37 " 5221.47 $118.48 $' 97.65 $243.74 $137.17 $ 80.76 (e) =(c~ ~ (d) Ira mos: cases, we reconun. end that ampact fees be formally adopted as a fee per service unit rather than as a fee per development unit However, in the case of corporate facilities, that is. not possi- ble because several types of service units are used in calculating the fees. Consequently, these t~es should be adopted in the form shown in Column (e) of Table 5-5. In Section 8, the corporate facilities impact fees calculated In this section will be combined with impact fees for other types of facilities to establish a total ~mpact fee per development unit by land use category Janua.ry 8. i996 David3,1. GriJfith &Associates. Ltd. Page .i-8 City of Temecula - Development lm~act Fee Sat& SECTION 6 FIRE PR 0 TE CTION IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for new fire protection facilities required to serve future development in TemeCula. The City of Temecula contacts with the Riverside County Fire Department for fire protection services. That arrangement covers fire service operations, but the City is responsible for funding new fire stations needed to serve development in Temecula. Prior to Temecula's incorporation, Riverside County collected an impact fee' for fire facilities. Temecula has continued to collect that fee. The purpose of this section is to update that fee. At present, the study area is served by four fire stations. Two of those stations (#12 and ~73) were constructed prior to the City's incorporation. Station #83 was recently completed, and Station #84 is now under construction. Two additional stations will be needed to provide adequate coverage of the study area at buildout. A. SERVICE AREA AND TIME FRAME The overall study area addressed by this analysis encompasses the City of Temecula and its sphere of influence. It would be possible to define specific service areas for individual fire stations, since operationally, each station has primary responsibility for a certain geographic area. However, we believe that calculating separate impact fees for: iOdividual fire station service areas is undesirable, because that approach may result in a fee structure that imposes significantly different charges on similar development projects for essentially the same level of service. Consequently, this analysis will treat fire protection facilities serving Temecula as an integrated system, and will allocate facility costs city-wide, so that the impact fees for a particular type of development project would be the same, regardless of its location in the study area. The time frame for this study is not defined as a certain number of years, but as the time required to build out all additional development contemplated in the City of Temecula General Plan. The method used to calculate these impact fees does not depend on the timing ofdevelopment. Janua.rv 8, 1996 David M Griffith & Assoctafes, Ltd. Page 64 Ci~' o_f Temecula - Development Impact Fe.e Stud, v '3. LEFEL OF SERFICIj' In iIs Master Plan, the Pjverside County Fire Department has adopted response time and distance standards for four categories of development. By applying the standards for allowable distance, *,he Department can determine ',,,,here fire stations should be sited to serve a particular geograpl~c area. Table 6d surranafizes the standards relating to distance between development and the nearest fire station for each category of development. O'Mng io the nature of existing and planned deve!epment in Temecula, two of those categories. "heavy urban" and "urban" appiy within the st~dy area. Table 6-1 Fire Protection Standards' *~ Develnpment ~, Dcscril,~licm ! H=aC. L'rban hnens= C?m-t. ind. :'L20 DU'A~ iI I/. lJrban B:oad raj.~ Comr~lnd: 2-8 DU/Ac [IiI. Rural Fc~, ~ubiic fac;lities: 0 2-1 DU/Ac I[ Iv. Ouu'¢ing < i ,a ........z_ .......................... . Fir'at ~,larm ; A~wabie !~ull Oper--'ion ~ I~b.~anrr.. 15 Minutes I 3.0 Mi. 20 Minutes ~ 5.0 Ma 36 Minutes ~ 8.0 ~j.. . 7,eurce' Rive.-s~.3e Count, FLTe Dcpa.~m=nt Master Plan Table 6-2 sho',~is the theoreticaj coverage area for each caregot5 cf development, based on the allowable distance [rom development ~o the nearest fire station. The coverage areas shown in teat table for ,,arious development categories are based on a hypothetical square service area with a fire station at the center of =he square. The distance from the station to 'each corner of the square would equal the allowable mnn~ng distance for the relevant deveiopment category Table 6-2 l'heoretical Fire Station Coverage '!~'~le~el~'~tlt,,nle[;t ! ' t =' ', " " 30 Mi. il IV. Ouri)~ng 8.0 Mi. Covered t I 5 5q %Ii 23811 18.0 Sq. Mi. 11,520 Acres 50.0 Sq. Mi 32.0C0 Acres !28.0 Sq. Mi. 81,920 Acres i Ar.za of squarc ;',':th cue*half the dlagenal equal to allowabic nmning disre.rice. dumtarv 8 1996 Dav;d ,%r. Grt:~th & Associates, LId Fege 6-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study ff fire service coverage in the study area were perfectly e~cient, only one fire station would be needed to serve currently existing development in Temecula, and a total of four stations would be needed at buildout to serve the amount and type of development contemplated in the Land Use Element of the Temeeula General Plan. But the real world is far from perfect in terms of the developed area that actually can be covered from a particular fire station location. Th~ e~ciency' of that coverage is influenced by the street system, development panems, topography, undeveloped land, open space, site availability and other factors. Thus the City has four stations at present, and plans call for a total of six fire stations in the study area at buildout. Of course, it is important to note that the four existing stations are intended to serve considerable future development, as well as the existing development in the study area. Because of the standards used to determine the need for fire stations in Temecula, different ~'pes of development contribute differently to the need for fire stations. The effect of those standards is that a fire station can cover less area if it serves "heavy urban" development as opposed to low-density residential uses. That being the case, the proponionality principle requires that "heavy urban" development pay a proportionately larger share of costs for fire protection facilities than "urban" development. C DE~VIAND VARIABLE As indicated in the foregoing discussion of service levels, the number of fire stations needed to serve the study area is determined by the size of the area that can be covered by each fire station, given the type of development it serves. Thus, the allocation of fire protection facility costs in this section is based on developed acreage, stated in terms of gross acres. However, the cost allocation must also take account of the fact that fire station coverage depends on the type of development served. Since two categories of development are represent~ in the study area, two different coverage rates will be used in the fee calculations. The theoretical coverage areas from Table 6-2, in acres, will be used as a starting point for the cost allocation. As defined in the Fire Department Master Plan, detached residential development in Temecula equates to the "urban" category, and all other development in the City is considered "heavy urban." January& 1996 David M Griffith & Associates. Ltd. Page6~3 C/rx, t;..(T~,mec,da - Development !mpact /.'rec Study D. FACILITY NEEDS If the theoretical coverage areas from Table 6-2, are applied to all development contemplated in the Land Use Element at build out, 3.97 fire stations would be required to serve the entire study are~, assuming perfectly efficient coverage. The fact that six stations are planned, refle~s the inevitability of some inefficiencies in coverage (for reasons discussed previously), and impiie8 that the actual coverage will achieve only 67% efficiency.. If we adiust ~e coverage figures accordip. gly. and calculate the number ef fire stations attributable to all remaining deve!opment in the study area. we find that the demand created by future development is responsible for 4.8 of the six stations. (That is not a surp~.~e, considering that tae Cit~,, at build out, will be approximately five times its current size.) But the facl remains that only two of the six fire stations needed at buildout remain to be ~nded. Consequently, we will calculate the impact fee for fire facilities by allocating the estimated cost of those two stations to all future development in the study ~rea. E. I-,~IP.4CT FEE (2a. LCUL, JTION Each of the two fattlre fire stations, including equipment, is expected to cost $2.35 million in current dollars, so tl~e :otai cost of fiature facilities is $4.7 million. T:~e area theoretically covered by a single station is !),520 acres for "urban" development, and 2,880 for "heavy urban" development. So, in effect, an acre of heaw urban deve!opment creates exactly four times as -nmch demand for fire stations as does an acre of urban development. Table 6-3 sho~vs the allocation of fu:ure fire facilities costs, based on that ratio of demand. Table 6-3 Cost Allocation - Fire Facilities s Development ] ~ttture ,. I Dema~X~i t ' bm~ ' ; !5.501 Acres : 1.0 H~ Urb~: ] 5.453 Acres 4.0 Total [ 20,951 Acres Equivslent 15.501 Acres 21,812 Acres 37.313 Acres I , e Equats to Detached Residential developmere. See Table 2-1. 2 Includes all h.na use ~l~es except Detached Res den a See Table 2-1. · IanuaC78. 1996 David~[. Gr~jTth &.qs~oc:ates, Ltd. Page 6-./ City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study The allocated cost per acre from Table 6-3, can be convened to standardized impact fees per unit of development as shown in Table 6-4. Table 6-4 Standardized Impact Fees - Fire Facilities Resxdenual, Dc~ch~ DU ' 0.435 $126 $54.81 Residential, Artached DU 0.083 $504 $41.83 Office KSF; 0.058 $504 $29.32 Retail Commercial KSF 0.092 $504 $46.37 Service Commercial KSF 0.077 $504 $3 8.81 Business Park KSF 0.066 $504 S33.26 DU = Dwelling Unit: KSF = 1,000 Gross Square Feet. Based on densities or floor area ratios fi'om Table 2-3. See Table 6-3. The standardized impact fees shown in Table 6-4 are based on average residential densities and commercial/industrial floor area ratios, as shown in Tables 2-1 through 2-3. We recommend that impact fees be formally adopted as per-acre charges for the "urban" and "heavy urban" development categories, as shown in Table 6-3. That approach allows the fees to be adjusted for projects that differ significantly from the average characteristics used in calculating standardized fees.' January 8, 1996 David M. G,ffith & .4ssoctates, Ltd. Page 6-5 ' City of Teme~'ttla - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 7 LIBRARY IMPACT FEES This section of the report addresses impact fees for library facilities required to serve future development in Temeeula. The City is a member of the Riverside County Library District, which provides library service in both cities and unincorporated portions of the County. Prior to Temecula's incorporation, Riverside County collected a public facilities impact fee which was used to fund new libraries, as well as other types of public facilities. Temeeula'has continued to charge that fee. The purpose of this section is to update the impact fee for library facilities. At present, there is one 15,000 square foot branch library in Temecula. That facility was constructed by Riverside County, and was underway before Temecula was incorporated. It is located within the City limits, and serves residents of Temecula and Mufietta, as well as unincorporated portions of southwest Riverside County. A, SERVICE AREA AND TItlE FRAME Branch libraries do not have well defined service areas. It is not unreasonable to assume that library users most ot~en patronize the branch closest to where they live. However, they may also use other branches, because of differences in services or materials, or because they stop at the library while traveling to or from work, shopping, or other destinations. For that reason, and because the facility needs addressed in this section are based on 'city-wide level-of-service standards, library impact fees are calculated here on a city-wide basis, and would apply to new residential development in all pans of the City. No specific time frame is specified in this analysis because the method used to calculate these impact fees does not depend on the timing of development. Furthermore, since the fees are calculated in terms of per capita costs, it is not necessary in this analysis to establish the total amount of development to be served. January 8, 1996 David M. Gri~jth &Associates, Ltd. Page 7-I __ Citv orTemecula - Develor. me,t :'mpa_c_t. Fee Stu&' B. LEVEL OF SERVICE The level-of-service standard established by the Riverside County Library District is used in this section to determine the need for library. facilities. That standard calls for 0.5 square feet of library space and 1.2 volumes per capka. Although the existing library. in Temecula falls short of meeting that standard tbr the current population, the City has funds on hand' to bring the level of service for current develop:nent up to that' standard. Those funds include impact fees collected since incorporation. C DE:I,IAND VARL4BLE The levei-of-ser¢ice standard for libraries is stated in terms of facilities and materials per capita, so population is the attribute of development lhat determines the need for additional libraries. Thus, population will be used to represent demand in the impact fee calculations. Since the ies -".,: ~ based on population, they will apply only to residential development. Later in this section, per capita costs ~vill be converted into impact fees per dwelling unit. D. E4CII. ITY NEEDS As stated previously, the adopte.i service standard fi:r libraries is 0.5 square feet of library space and i.2 volumes per capita. That standard is reirenced in the Grov,q.h Management/Public Facilities Element of the Temecula General Plan. Since it is possible to determine the per capita cost of eacilities needed to maintain that standard, there is no need in tl,.is section to project ~e total quantity of development to be served, or the total cost of facilities to be prcvieed. Impact fees can be based or: the per-capita cost of facilities. E. IA,IPACT FEE CALCULATION Table 7-! shows the per capita cost of library. buildings and materials based on tke Library. District standard. Also shown, in cu~ent dollars, is the total cost oflibra.ry facilities and m;,terials needed to sex,,,e the additional population projected to build out. Ja~ua .rv 8, 1996 Davtd,~vZ Gri dJjith & Associates, LId ?age 7- 2 Ci.tv of Temecula - Development Im pact Fee Study Table 7-1 Library Facilities - Cost per Capita Library. Space ' 0.5 Square Fe=t $100.00 a 158,742~ Materials 1.2 Volumes S24.00; 158,742 Total S124,00 158,742 $15,874,200 $3,809,808 $19,684,008 Based on total project cost of $200 per Sq. Ft., eatimated by the Riverside Coon .ty Library District. Baeed on average cost of Sl0.00 per volume, ~ttmated by the Riverside County Librdry Diswict. See Table 2-2. Table 7-2 converts the total per capita cost from Table 7-1 into impact fees per dwelling unit for detached and attached residential development. That conversion is based on the average number of persons per dwelling unit from Section 2 of this report. Table 7-2 Standardized Impact Fees - Library Facilities Land Use ~' Persons.: i Cost ] Fee per Type . ' i Dwdling Unit ' ! per Capita: i Dwellina lYenil Resxdential. Detached 3.20 $124.00 I 5396,80 Residential~ Attached 2.40 $124.00 I S297,i50 See Table 2-I. "See Table 7-1. Although the standardized fees shown in Table 7-2 are administratively convenient, and can be used for most development projects, we recommend that the impact fees be formally adopted in terms of the cost per capita as shown in Table 7-1. That per capita rate provides a basis for tailoring impact fees to fit projects that may vary significantly from the typical project characteristics used to standardize the fees. Janua .ry 8, 1996 Dayid Ol. Gr~ffYth & Assocmtes, Ltd Page 7-3 Ci~ of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 8 SUMMARY OF RECOMME~DED I~]IPACT FEES This section of the report summarizes the recommended impact fees from the previous five sections. In it, we also make a minor adjustmum to incorporate th~ cost of this Istudy !rod the impact fees. Table 8-1 shows the development impac~ fees per unit of development as calculated in Sections 3 - 7 of this report. Fees have been rounded to the nearest dollar. Table 8-1 Summary of Calculated Development Impact Fees Type ] ~.,.. Residential. Detached DU 1 $1.561 $123 Residential, Attached DU $1.093 $86 Ofi]ce KSF: $4,477 $319 Retail Commercial KSF $6.343 $982 Service Commercial KSF $3,672 $491 Business Park KSF $3.339 $233 . Parh/'! Curp Recr ~ Fncii $1,6061 $221 $1.205 $118 - $ 98 - $244 - $137 - $ gl VacU ! FacU I n.i U.. j' S55 S397 S3.963 $42 $298 $2.842 $29 - $4,923 $46 - $7,615 $39 - $4,339 $33 - $3.686 t DU = Dwelling Unit : KSF = 1,000 Gross Square Feet of Building Area The cost of preparing this impact. fee study is similar to other "soft costs" of facility development (eg., design, contract administration, financing costs) which are commonly capitalized as project costs. The total amount impact fees from Table 8-1 will be adjusted here to include the cost of this study. In making this adjustment, we have assumed that ~he impact fee study must be updated every five years. Consequently, the fees will be 'increased by the percentage required to recover the study cost from fees expected to be collected in the next five years. The projection of development for that period is based on 1990-1994 building permit data provided by the Temecula Building and Safety Department. Ja,tuar~. 8 1996 David~,l. Gr~th & Associates. Ltd. Page 8-1 Cit'~ ~f ,'*en e~/; - Develoomen,' imvact ,r'~c S__rut~, If development in Temecula over the next five years proceeds at the average pace recorded forthe 1990-1994 period, the development impact fees shown in Table 8-1 woulci produce revenue of S17,?02~616. Adding the cost of this study, $34,500, would bring the total to $17,737,1 16, an increase of 0.19%, or $0.19 per hundred dollars. Table 8-2 shows the fees from Table 8-1 adjusted by that amount. It should be noted tha~ the adjustment is so small, in most cases, it is lost in rounding fees to the nearest dollar. Tab]e 8-2 Summary of Adjusted Development Impact Fees Residehum. Detached { Residential, Attached ~ $ i. !8 I DU $42 ~ $299 Devl Unit $3.970 'i - , Off.ace I KSF: { · KSF ~ Retail Ccmm,:rciat i Service C,:mmerc:rd : KSF i~ Business Park I K~F $1,564 I $123 $1.095} $32~ .... $984 ' ! DU = Dwellin..; .',_:r. lt i KSI = 1.01~0 Gm;s Square Fee_: of Building 31.207I -- I $ 98 ~29 ' - -- } 346 -- -- $137 $39~ - -- I $ I -- 32,846 $4,933 37,629 $3.692 In the evet:t th,,.t the Ci?/chooses ~o impose impact fees lower that tliose calculated in this report the adjcsrment needed to cff,'e:' the cost oftl~is study would have to be revaiculated Jamuerv .~ /996 David.Ill Gr{]fith &W.s~ociates, Ltd Page 8-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study SECTION 9 IMPLEMENTATION This section of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administration Of a devel- opment impact fee program based on this study, and for the interpretation and application of im- pact fees recommended herein. A. ADOPT/ON The form in which development impact fees are adopted, ~vhether by ordinance or resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. As a practical matter, we recommend that the actual fee amounts be specified in a resolution so that adjustments are less cumbersome. In general, we also recommend that the fees be formally adopted as a fee rate per service unit, rather than as a schedule of fees per unit of development for each land use type. For example, ira- pact fees for street improvements would be adopted as a fee rate per peak hour trip rather than as a schedule of fees per dwelling unit for residential land use categories, and per thousand square feet of building area for non-residential land use categories. However, there is an exception with respect to the fees recommended in this study. The method used to calculate the impact fees for corporate facilities (City Hall and the maintenance facility) involves several types of service units. Defining an impact fee rate for 'those facilities would involve a somewhat cumbersome formula, and the City may prefer to adopt a schedule for that particular fee. B. ADMINISTRATION Several requirements of the California Government Code address the administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting procedures, refunds, updates and reporting. Refer- ences to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the Government Code. Janua.rv 8, 1996 David ~Z Griffith & Associates, Ltd. Page 9-1 Ci.~, ofT~mecula - D~,;lopment Impact Fee Study Credit for Improvements provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer, as a condi- tion of project approval, to construct facilities or improvements for which impact fees have been, or will be charged, the impact fee imposed on that development project, for that .type of facility, should be ac~iusted to reflect a credit for the cost of those facilities or improvements. If the reim- bursement would exceed the amount of the fee for that .type of facility, the City may wish to exe- cute a reimbursement agreement with the developer, stating that the additional coit will be reimbursed when impact fees are available from other development proje~s to cover the amount due. The agreement should specify. the amount due, an approximate schedule for reimbursement. and other terms of the agreement. Application of Impact Fee Rates. In general, impact fees recommended in this report are calcu- lated initially in terms of cost per set-vice unit, and then converted into fees per unit of develop- r_,-;er, t. Service units are attributes of development, such as population and trip generation, which are used to measure demand for certain .types of t~cilities. To implement impact fees, it is neces- sary to estimate how many units of service are required by a certain development project. For the administrative convenience of the City, and to facilitate cost estimating by builders and develop- ers, it is useful to have the impact fee rates converted into standardized fees for common units of development--e.g., dwelling units for residential development, or building area for commercial or business park development. All impact ie rates calculated in this study have been conver/ed to standardized fees for six categories of development. As discussed above, we recommend that. whenever possible, impact fees be formally adopted as rates per service unit. That approach provides a basis for adjusting fees in cases where a develop- ment project has demand characteristics that vary. significantly from the norm. It should be noted, hoxvever, that the use of commercial and industrial buildings can change over'time, and we believe that the City is justified in applying fees based on reasonable average demand characteristics for various categories of development. The thct that the initial user of a new building may have be- low average demand for certain services does not ensure that future users will have similarly low demand. Janumy 8, 1996 Dav'id.~,t. GrbSqth & Associates. Ltd. Page 9-2 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopmerit or intensi~- cation of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project which represents an increase in demand for City facilities as measured by the demand vari- ables used in this study. Since residential service demand is normally estimated on the basis of de- mand per dwelling unit, an addition to a single family dwelling unit 'typically would not b~ subject ' to an impact fee, assuming it does not increase the number of dwelling units in the structure. Ira dwelling unit is added to an existing structure, no impact fee would be charged for the previously existing units. A similar approach can be used for other types of development. Collection of Fees. Section 66007 provides that a local agency shall not require payment fees for residential development prior to the date of final inspection, or issuance of a certificate ofoccu- pancy, whichever occurs first. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, the agency may choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases, upon final in- spection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwelling unit completed. An important exception allows fees to be collected at an earlier time if they will be used to reim- burse the agency for expenditures previously made, or for improvements or facilities for Which money has been appropriated. The agency must also have. adopted a construction schedule or plan for the improvement. In any case, utility service fees may be collected at the time an applica- lion for service is received. These restrictions do not apply to non-residential development. Accountability. Section 66006 specifies that fees shall be deposited "with the other fees for the improvement in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any Commingling of the fees with other revenues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments, and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. ". Interest earned on the fee revenues must also be placed in the capital' account and used for the same purpose. The law does not specify any requirement to segregate funds for individual projects. The most corn- mon practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues collected for each type of facility but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach.' January 8, 1996 DavidM. Griffith & Associate& Ltd. Page 9-3 City of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study Expenditure Time Limits and Refunds. Section 66001 requires, for any fee revenue remaining unexpended five years after it is collected, that the local agency' make findings once each fiscal year to identify the purpose to which the fee is to be put, and to demonstrate a reasonable rela- tionship between the fee and the purpose for which it was charged. This requirement applies only to money in the possession of the local agency, and not to letters of credit, bonds, or similar in- struments. Any unexpended funds for which a continued need cannot be demonstrated must be refunded, to the then current owners of lots or units in the development from which it was col- lected. The procedures for such refunds are provided in Government Code Section 66001. Costs of Implementation. The ongoing cost of implementing the impact fee program is not in- cluded in the fees themselves. Implementation costs would include the staff time involved in ap- plying the fees to specific projects, accounting for fee revenues and expenditures, preparing required annual reports, updating the fees, and preparing forms and public information handouts. We recommend that those costs be included in user fees charged to applicants for processing de- velopment applications. The cost of preparing this study has been included in the impact fees. (See Section 8 of this report.) C. REPORTING AND UPDATES Reporting. Section 66006 requires that once each year, within 60 days of the close of the fiscal year, ihe local agency must make available to the public an income and expenditure statement for each separate account establiihed to receive fee revenues. The governing body is required to re- view those statements at the next regularly scheduled public meeting not less than 15 days after the statements are made public. Annual Update of .Capital Impr{~vement Plan. Section 66002 provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public heating. The alter- native is to identif}' improvements in other public documents. Since impact fee calculations in this study include costs for future facilities not covered by the City's CIP, we believe that this report, rather than the CIP, should be designated as the public document in which the use of impact fees JanuaC~ 8. 1996 Daytri M.. Gr#ffith &.]ssociates, Ltd. Page 9-4 C~tv of Temecula - Development Impact Fee Study is identified. If that is done, we believe the City would not be required to update its CIP annually to satisfy Section 66002. Annual Update of Impact Fee Rates. The fees recommended in this report are stated in cur- rent dollars, and the fees should be adjusted annually to 'account for construction cost escalation. The Engineerlint News Record Building Cost Index is recommended as the basis for indexing construction costs. D. TRAINING AND PUBLIC 13FFORMATION Administering an impact fee program effectively requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for applying and collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. We rec- onunend that one employee be designated as the coordinator for the impact fee program, and be made responsible for training all staff who are responsible for fee-related activities. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to give close attention to handouts which provide information to the public re- garding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from user fees, such as applica- tion and plan review fees, and the purpose and use of the fee should be made clear. Finally, everyone who is responsible for capital budgeting and project management must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. The fees recom- mended in this report are tied to specific uses and specific cost estimates. Fees must be allocated accordingly. AB 1600 limits an agency's flexibility to reprogram fee proceeds without revising the fees and making necessary accounting adjustments. Janua.rv & 1996 David ~X,Z Gri~Tth & Associates, Ltd. Page 9-5