Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2008 04-01 CC CDC AGENDA PKT
Agenda Of A Regular Meeting - National City City Council / Community Development Commission of the City of National City Council Chambers Civic Center 1243 National City Boulevard National City, California Regular Meeting - Tuesday — April 1, 2008 — 6:00 P.M. .1.,12124 Open To The Public .Please complete a request to speak form prior to the commencement of the meeting and submit it to the City Clerk. It is the intention of your City Council and Community Development Commission (CDC) to be receptive to your concerns in this community. Your participation in local government will assure a responsible and efficient City of National City. We invite you to bring to the attention of the City Manager/Executive Director any matter that you desire the City Council or Community Development Commission Board to consider. We thank you for your presence and wish you to know that we appreciate your involvement. ROLL CALL Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag by Mayor Ron Morrison Public Oral Communications (Three -Minute Time Limit) NOTE: Pursuant to state law, items requiring Council or Community Development Commission action must be brought back on a subsequent Council or Community Development Commission Agenda unless they are of a demonstrated emergency or urgent nature. IJpon request, this agenda can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability in compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Please contact the City Clerk's Office at (619) 336-4228 to request a disability -related modification or accommodation. Notification 24-hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. Spanish audio interpretation is provided during Council and Community Development Commission Meetings. Audio headphones are available in the lobby at the beginning of the meetings. Audio interpretacltn en espanol se proporciona durante sesiones del Consejo Municipal. Los audiofonos estin disponibles en el pasillo al principlo de !a junta. Council Requests That All Cell Phones And Pagers Be Turned Off During City Council Meetings OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING AGENDAS AND MINUTES MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH OUR WEBSITE AT www.cl.national-city.ca CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA 4/1/08- Page 2 PRESENTATION 1. Recognizing Randal G. Triviz, Police Lieutenant for his 25 years of service with the City of National City. CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR Consent Calendar: Consent calendar items involve matters, which are of a routine or non controversial nature. All consent calendar items are adopted by approval of a single motion by the City Council. Prior to such approval, any item may be removed from the consent portion of the agenda and separately considered, upon request of a Councilmember, a staff member, or a member of the public. 2. Approval of the Minutes of the Regular City Council/Community Development Commission Meeting of March 18, 2008. (City Clerk) 3. Approval of a motion to waive reading of the text of the Ordinances considered at this meeting and provides that such Ordinances shall be introduced and/or adopted after a reading of the title only. (City Clerk) 4. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the City Engineer to approve installation of "Keep Clear" striping in front of two commercial driveways on Euclid Avenue to prevent vehicles stopped at the traffic signal at Plaza Boulevard from blocking the driveways. (TSC Item No. 2008-4) (Engineering) 5. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City requesting SANDAG to provide advanced funding through debt financing in the amount of $4,500,000 for the National City Street Resurfacing Program, authorizing the City Manager to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the City of National City and SANDAG to memorialize the term of the advanced funding, and rescinding Resolution No. 2008-23. (Engineering) CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA 4/1/08- Page 3 CONSENT CALENDAR (Cont.) 6. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City amending Resolution No. 11,155, Section 5 to establish bi-monthly meetings for the National City Senior Citizens Advisory Committee. (Community Services) 7. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the Mayor to sign a Memorandum of Understanding for Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses for Fire and Rescue Resources. (Fire) 8. Warrant Register #35 for the period of 02/20/08 through 02/26/08 in the amount of $1,447,334.84. (Finance) 9. Warrant Register #36 for the period of 02/27/08 through 03/04/08 in the amount of $2,013,206.45. (Finance) PUBLIC HEARINGS 10. Public Hearing — Fiscal Year 2008-2009 Funding Cycle for the CDBG and HOME Programs — Funding Recommendations. (City Manager) 11. Public Hearing — Time Extension Request — Conditional Use Permit to convert 29 apartments into condominium units for individual sale at 900-910 Manchester Street. (Applicant: Manchester Hills 29, LLC) (Case File No. 2008-07 TE) (Planning) 12. Public Hearing and proposed Finding of No Significant Environmental Effect for an Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan to exclude accessory parking floor area from the calculation of floor area ratio and to reduce the standard parking stall width. (Applicant: City initiated) (Case File No.: 2007- 26 SP, IS). (Planning) 13. Public Hearing to discuss the Ordinance amending Title Four of the National City Municipal Code by adding Chapter 4.52 Establishing and Approving a Transportation Development Impact Fee for Capital Improvement Projects Necessary to Maintain Acceptable Levels of Traffic and Transportation Service within the City and the Transportation Impact Fee Program Report. (Engineering) **Refer to Items #14 and #15** CITY COUNCILJCOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA 4/1/08- Page 4 NON CONSENT RESOLUTION 14. Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City setting the fee schedule for the Transportation Development Impact Fee, effective July 1, 2008, to be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit for new development, which also includes approval and adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Program. (Engineering) **Refer to Items #13 and #15** ORDINANCE FOR ADOPTION 15. An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of National City amending Title 4 of the National City Municipal Code by adding Chapter 4.52 Establishing and Approving a Transportation Development Impact Fee for Capital Improvement Projects Necessary to Maintain Acceptable Levels of Traffic and Transportation Service within the City. (Engineering) **Refer to Items #13 and #14** NEW BUSINESS 16. Request Council approval of a free city-wide clean-up and electronic waste recycling event on April 19, 2008 as part of Earth Day activities at a cost of $4,000. (Community Services) 17. Request to initiate an Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan to add to the plan area the half block located east of Roosevelt Avenue, south of 15th Street, and north of 16th Street. (Applicant: Willmark Communities, Inc.) (Case File No.: SP-2005-3) (Planning) 18. Establishing criteria for proposed City Council Policy for naming City facilities, parks and amenities. (City Manager) COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION CONSENT CALENDAR 19. Warrant Register for the period of 2/29/08 through 03/13/08 in the amount of $941,266.98. (Community Development Commission/Finance) CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA 4/1/08- Page 5 CONSENT CALENDAR (Cont.) 20. Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City appropriating $382,998.08 deposited by Marina Gateway Development Company for reimbursement to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for site improvements as part of the "North Fill Bank Project." (Redevelopment Division) NON CONSENT RESOLUTIONS 21. Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City (CDC) authorizing the Chairman to execute an Amendment to the Community Development Commission Facade Improvement Agreement with Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo and Foodland, Inc. for the purpose of increasing the amount of their loan from the CDC from $347,320 to $542,349 and authorizing the Chairman to execute a Reconveyance of the current Deed of Trust in order to record a new Deed of Trust for $542,349. (Economic Development Division) 22. Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City authorizing the Chairman to execute a Subordination Agreement with Sterling Bank to place the CDC Facade Loan Agreement with Mike N. Dello and Mono Dallo in a second trust deed position. (Economic Development Division) 23. Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City opposing California Proposition 98 - the Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act. (Community Development Commission) 24. Resolution of the Community Development Commission of the City of National City endorsing Califomia Proposition 99 — the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act. (Community Development Commission) STAFF REPORTS 25. Update on affordable housing programs and projects. (Housing Division) 26. A report on a Maritime Transition Zone proposed by the Port Tenants Association. (Redevelopment Division/City Attorney) CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA 4/1/08- Page 6 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL ADJOURNMENT Next Adjourned City Council and Community Development Commission Budget Workshop - Saturday — April 5, 2008 - 9:00 a.m. — Kimball Senior Center — 1221 "D" Avenue - National City. Next Regular City Council and Community Development Commission Meeting — Tuesday — April 15, 2008 - 6:00 p.m. — Council Chamber - National City. TAPE RECORDINGS OF CITY COUNCIL/COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETINGS ARE AVAILABLE FOR SALE IN THE CITY CLERK'S OFFICE ITEM #1 City of National City Human Resources Department 140 East 12'h Street, Suite B National City, California 91950-3312 Phone No. (619) 336-4300 Fax No. (619) 336-4303 MEMORANDUM DATE March 18, 2008 TO FROM Lilia Munoz, HR Assistan SUBJECT 4/1/08 Lavonne Watts, Executive Assistant IV (City Manager's office) Josie Flores -Clark, Confidential Assistant (Mayor/Council office) ANNIVERSARY RECOGNITION The following City employee will be completing his twenty-five years of service with the City of National City on April 4, 2008: NAME : Randal G. Triviz POSITION : Police lieutenant HIRED : April 4, 1983 As part of the Employee Recognition Program, the employee wishes to have the opportunity to receive a City Council Recognition at the Council Meeting of Tuesday, April 1, 2008. Please make the necessary arrangements if this is acceptable, and send confirmation of the schedule to Human Resources and the employee concerned. The recognition letter and gift catalog will be sent prior to the presentation. Thank you. xci LT Randal Triviz Police Chief R;000�r.Glx C 11 Recycled Paper ITEM #2 4/1/08 Approval of the Minutes of the Regular City Council/Community Development Commission Meeting of March 18, 2008. (City Clerk) City of National City Office of the City Clerk 1243 National City Boulevard, National City, CA 91950-4397 Michael R. Dalla, CMC - City Clerk (619) 336-4228 Fax: (619) 336-4229 To: Honorable Mayor and Council From: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk Subject: Ordinance Introduction and Adoption 1/1/08 It is recommended that the City Council approve the following motion as part of the Consent Calendar: "That the City Council waive reading of the text of all Ordinances considered at this meeting and provide that such Ordinances shall be introduced and/or adopted after a reading of only the title." ® Recycled Paper City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ..IEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 ITEM TITLE Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City authorizing the City Engineer to approve installation of "Keep Clear" striping in front of two commercial driveways on Euclid Avenue to prevent vehicles stopped at the traffic signal at Plaza Boulevard from blocking the driveways (TSC Item No. 2008-4) PREPARED BY Stephen Manganiello DEPARTMENT Engineering EXT. 4382 EXPLANATION Please see attached. J Environmental Review X NIA MIS Approval Financial Statement N/A DATION ON RECOMMEDATION Approved By: Finance Director Account No. At their meeting orf March 12, 2008 the Traffic Safety Committee approved the staff recommendation to install "Keep Clear" striping in front of two commercial driveways on Euclid Avenue to prevent vehicles stopped at the traffic signal at Plaza Boulevard from blocking the driveways. ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No. 1. Explanation 2. Staff Report to the Traffic Safety Committee A-200 (Rev. 7/03) Explanation City Engineering received a request for installation of "Keep Clear" striping in front of two commercial driveways on Euclid Avenue to prevent vehicles stopped at the traffic signal at Plaza Boulevard from queuing (stacking) in front of the driveways, preventing ingress/egress. The first driveway is located approximately 100 feet north of Plaza Boulevard. The second driveway is located approximately 120 feet south of Plaza Boulevard. Staff visited the sites during the aftemoon peak period and observed that vehicles stopped at the traffic signal at Plaza Boulevard do block the driveways during most signal cycles (see attached photos located in the staff report to the Traffic Safety Committee). At their meeting on March 12, 2008 the Traffic Safety Committee approved the staff recommendation. Work will be completed by the City Public Works Department. TSC 200&4 RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE CITY ENGINEER TO INSTALL "KEEP CLEAR" STRIPING IN FRONT OF TWO COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS ON EUCLID AVENUE TO PREVENT VEHICLES STOPPED AT THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT PLAZA BOULEVARD FROM BLOCKING THE DRIVEWAYS WHEREAS, two commercial driveways on Euclid Avenue, one approximately 100 feet north of Plaza Boulevard, and the other approximately 120 feet south of Plaza Boulevard, become blocked by traffic stopped at the traffic signal at the intersection preventing ingress/egress to the properties; and WHEREAS, installing "Keep Clear" striping in front of the two driveways will assist in keeping the driveway dear and accessible; and WHEREAS, at its meeting on March 12, 2008, the Traffic Safety Committee approved the installation of "Keep Clear" striping in front of the two driveways on Euclid Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby authorizes the City Engineer to install "Keep Clear" striping in front of two commercial driveways on Euclid Avenue, one approximately 100 feet north of Plaza Boulevard, and the other approximately 120 feet south of Plaza Boulevard, to prevent traffic stopped at the intersection traffic signals from blocking ingress/egress to the properties. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: Michael R. Della, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney ITEM TITLE: ri NATIONAL CITY TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AGENDA REPORT FOR MARCH 12, 2008 REQUEST FOR INSTALLATION OF "KEEP CLEAR" STRIPING IN FRONT OF TWO COMMERCIAL DRIVEWAYS ON EUCLID AVENUE NEAR PLAZA BOULEVARD (BY: COUNCILMEMBER L. NATIVIDAD) PREPARED BY: Stephen Manganiello, Engineering Department DISCUSSION: Councilmember Luis Natividad has requested installation of "Keep Clear" striping in front of two commercial driveways on Euclid Avenue to prevent vehicles stopped at the traffic signal at Plaza Boulevard from queuing (stacking) in front of the driveways, preventing ingress/egress. The first driveway is located approximately 100 feet north of Plaza Boulevard. The second driveway is located approximately 120 feet south of Plaza Boulevard. Staff visited the sites during the aftemoon peak period and observed that vehicles stopped at the traffic signal at Plaza Boulevard do block the driveways during most signal cycles (see attached photos). STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends installing "Keep Clear" striping in front of two commercial driveways on Euclid Avenue to prevent vehicles stopped at the traffic signal at Plaza Boulevard from queuing (stacking) in front of the driveways, preventing ingress/egress. The first driveway is located approximately 100 feet north of Plaza Boulevard. The second driveway is located approximately 120 feet south of Plaza Boulevard. EXHIBITS: 1. Location Map 2. Photos 2008 4 Location Map Driveway at Euclid Avenue, south of Plaza Boulevard (looking north) Driveway at Euclid Avenue, north of Plaza Boulevard (looking south) City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ..,EETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 r ITEM TITLE Resolution of the City of National City requesting SANDAG to provide advanced funding through debt financing for resurfacing street improvements in the amount of $4,500,000 and authorizing the City Manager to execute the revised Memorandum of Understanding between the San Diego Association of Govemments and the City of National City PREPARED BY Din Daneshfar DEPARTMENT Engineering EXT. 4387 EXPLANATION See attached explanation. Environmental Review X N/A MIS Approval Financial Statement Approved By Finance Director The advanced funding will be effective upon SANDAG's completion of the MOU execution and reflected in the City's CIP (08-09). Account No STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the revised Resolution, direct the ity Clerk to attach the Resolution to the signed MOU, and submit it to SANDAG for its execution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMEDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No. 1. Revised Resolution 2. Revised MOU 3. Table 1 4. Attachment "A" A-200 (Rev 7/03) EXPLANATION: Summary of Staff Request On February 5, 2008 the City Council adopted a resolution approving the MOU through the SANDAG's debt -financing program that allowed National City to receive advanced funding for its resurfacing project. However, recently SANDAG has made major revisions to its MOU language which must be reflected on our approved MOU. Due to these revisions Engineering Department is resubmitting the MOU that reflects the SANDAG's changes and requesting re -adoption of the resolution. SANDAG'S comments are included in the Attachment "A" which shows the added wordings (underlined) and the omitted language (struck out). For further review, see the following additional background that was included in the February 5th staff report. Additional Background In November 1987 and 2004, the voters of San Diego County approved the San Diego Transportation Improvement Program Ordinance and Expenditure (Proposition A). City of National City has been receiving an estimated $1,000,000 in revenues annually from these Sales Tax Funds (TransNet). These revenues have been used to resurface the city streets as well as repair curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveways, pedestrian crossings and provide traffic stripping and signage. The City of National City has 217 lane miles of street. On the average the City resurfaces approximately 3 lane miles of streets each year. At this rate, the City cannot keep up with the resurfacing needs of the City streets. Moreover, any deferred repair and resurfacing, lead to much higher repair costs in the future. Implementation of a large resurfacing program at this time allows National City to not only avoid tremendously higher future repair costs (due to worsening pavement conditions as well as escalating construction costs), it also allows us to take advantage of better bid prices in a slow construction market. $6.5 million resurfacing program The Engineering Department is gearing up to implement an approximately $6.5 million resurfacing program for the City of National City in 2008. The estimated $6.5 million consist primarily of a $4.5 million from Transnet short term debt in addition to using another approximately $2 million that consist of a variety of other funding sources as follows: Estimated Funds Available for Street Resurfacing (08-09) TRANSNET (June 2008) $257,000 Gas Tax (08-09) $338,000 CIWMB Grant (Chip Seal) $150,000 CIWMB Grant (Overlay) $150,000 Proposition 1 B $982,000 TRANSNET Financing (August 2008) $4,500,000 Total $6,377,000 SANDAG Transnet Short Term Debt The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has a debt financing program that allows the cities to receive advanced funding for their transportation projects. In order to obtain these funds a request to SANDAG must be processed through a Council Resolution for the debt financing. In 2005, City of National City received $3 million through the same mechanism. At this time, we are requesting that the Council approve a new $4.5 Million program in debt financing in order for the City to be able to keep its resurfacing effort and keep that the integrity of the City infrastructure. SANDAG's Interest & Administration Costs and City's Payment Responsibilities The City of National City will be responsible for repayment of the debt in the next 5 years. The City must also pay for its proportional share of the cost of the annual interest and administrative costs of the commercial paper. SANDAG will deduct the principal, interest and proportionate administrative costs from the City of National City monthly TransNet Sales tax allocations prior to making any other sales tax payments for other City of National City projects. There will be some remaining TransNet funds after the payments each year. The remaining funds will be used for other transportation projects in the City. Street Conditions and Program Implementation The existing pavement conditions in the City neighborhood streets have been rapidly deteriorating in the past few years. Using this funding program is a good opportunity to resurface a large number of street sections in one year. The long term cost savings in doing a large scale program at one time will more than compensate for the interests and other costs paid on the debt. Compilation of Street Resurfacing List Engineering Staff is working to identify sections throughout the City and along neighborhood streets. In that effort, the Department is using the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) as established in the "2003 Pavement Management Program Update" study as well as visual inspections and other reports. This PCI is a numerical value assigned to a pavement section based on its condition. 3 The project will use Rubberized Asphalt Concrete (RAC) which offers a number of benefits compared to conventional asphalt concrete paving. These benefits include longer service life, dark color retention, and significantly reduced road noise due to vehicular traffic. RAC is more resistant to cracking and lowers maintenance costs. It is also safer by providing superior wet traction and greater skid resistance. Moreover, RAC is a far superior product from an environmental stand point as it uses used recycled rubber as a primary material source and as such contributes to the recycling effort. Project Schedule It is expected that the project will begin construction in August 2008. Staff Recommendation Engineering Staff recommends that this TransNet Debt Financing Resolution be re -adopted including the revisions. 4 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY REGARDING TRANSNET COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is made and entered into effective as of this day of , 2008, by and between the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG") and the City of National City ("City"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement. WHEREAS, SANDAG serves as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, and in that role is responsible for the administration of the TransNet program (Proposition A, November 1987, and 2004); and WHEREAS, in order to accelerate the implementation of sales tax funded projects, SANDAG has established a debt financing program for the short term (commercial paper) and for the long term (bonds) to provide advanced funding for eligible projects under the TransNet program; and WHEREAS, the City of National City wishes to borrow $4,500,000 from the iransNet Commercial Paper program; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to memorialize their agreement in this MOU to carry out the purposes set forth above; AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: SANDAG AGREES: 1. To lend the City of National City $4,500,000 through debt financing for its Street Resurfacing Program from the TransNet Program subject to certain conditions set forth below and SANDAG Board Policies concerning TransNet Program loans. 2. SANDAG will transfer the funds to the City after the execution of this MOU and after the approval of the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program scheduled for adoption on July 25, 2008. 3 Neither the City nor any officer thereof is responsible for any damage or Liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANDAG under or in connection with any work, authority 1 or jurisdiction delegated to SANDAG under this MOU. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANDAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810 8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANDAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANDAG under this MOU. THE CITY AGREES: 4. The City Council at its February 5, 2008 meeting approved the request to borrow $4,500,000 of advanced funding through debt financing for its Street Resurfacing Program. The City will pay its proportionate share of the annual interest and administrative costs of the commercial paper program based on the ratio of the amount of financing for each fiscal year. The City acknowledges that SANDAG will deduct said interest and administrative costs from the monthly TransNet Sales tax allocations prior to making payments to the City for other programmed projects. The amounts to be deducted are estimated in the City Council Resolution hereto. The City also will repay the principal amount borrowed in equal installments of $ 900,000 each fiscal year beginning in FY 2009 and ending in FY 2013 (as shown in City Council Resolution attached). Neither SANDAG nor any officer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the City under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the City under this MOU. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, the City shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANDAG, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the City under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the City under this MOU. THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE: 1. That all obligations of SANDAG under the terms of this MOU are subject to the appropriation of the required resources by SANDAG and the approval of the SANDAG Board of Directors. Any notice required or permitted under this MOU may be personally served on the other party, by the party giving notice, or may be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: For SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Attn: Director of Finance For City of National City 1243 National City Blvd National City, CA 91950 Attn: City Manager That unless it is amended by the parties in writing, this MOU shall terminate on June 30, 2013. The indemnification provisions of this MOU shall survive termination of the MOU. 2 This MOU shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this MOU, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Diego, State of Califomia. All terms, conditions, and provisions hereof shall inure to and shall bind each of the parties hereto. and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. For purposes of this MOU, the relationship of the parties is that of independent entities and not as agents of each other or as joint venturers or partners. The parties shall maintain sole and exclusive control over their personnel, agents, consultants, and operations. 8. No alteration or variation of the terms of this MOU shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 9. Nothing in the provisions of this MOU is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties to this MOU or affect the legal liability of the parties to this MOU. 10. This MOU may be executed in any number of identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each party has signed one such counterpart. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this MOU effective on the day and year first above written. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF CITY OF NATIONAL CITY GOVERNMENTS GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director CHRIS ZAPATA CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of General Counsel Legal Counsel 3 National City S4.5M Commercial Paper Capacity Analysis Beginning Balance (est) Ali( ations CP Proceeds CP Principal Repayment CP Interest/Other Fees CP Disbursement Ending Balance FY 2009 1,258,000 4,500,000 {ut;0 FY 2010 1/4,067 1,.312,000 FY 2011 442,624 1,379,000 (1(2:.-.'3K) FY 2012 818,686 1,449, 000 FY 2013 T, -105,248 1,515,000 $174,062 $442,624 $818,686 S1,305,248 S1,898,310 Notes: 1. Assumes no other project expenditures from the TransNet program over through FY2013 2. Fstirnated revenues based on Jan. 2008 projections for the next 5-years, updated on an annual basi, 3. As of Feb. '08 the beginning balance tor FY2009 estimated to be $-61,681. SANDAG anticipates NC will reduce the remaining payments for FY08 to reduce the balance to zero; therefore, the beginning balance is shown as zero for purposes of this analysis 02/05/2008 ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY REGARDING TRANSNET COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is made and entered into effective as of this day of , 2008, by and between the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG") and the City of National City ("City"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement: WHEREAS, SANDAG serves as the San Diego County Reicmal_Transaortation Commission, and in that Tole is responsible for the_ administration ()fine. 1ransNel_p_rogram (pr positirm A November 1987 and 2004),_and - - WHLI:EAS, in order to accelerate_ the implementation of sales tax funded projects,_ SANDAG has established a debt financing program for the short terra (commerc:ialpaper) and for the long term (lumdsj to picrvrde advanced funding for eligibleproiects under the TransNet program; and WHEREAS, the City of National City wishes to borrow $4,500,000 from the TransNet Commercial Paper program; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to memorialize their agreement in this MOU to carry out the purposes set forth above; AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: SANOAG AGREES: Io lend the City of National City_ $4,500,000 through debt linanrinu_ior its Street Resurf acing Program from the TransNet Program subject to certain conditions set forth below and SANt)AG Board Policies concfnrninq TransNet Program loans. Acting as-4heS4in Diego Gafmty I ier�,at -l-r-an-iportation-C,,ommissior . 6ANDA(4-is respone,itite toe -the -administration of the-TransNet program -Fir position A� November-49t31- 34d-2004). 1 -ord+ --lo acceter<;te the implementation of sales -tax- funded.-pfo}ects, -SANG-}AG has- e+4ablishod--a- ornmer€ial-paper program. to prey advanced funding -for efigibie-prolecte> candor the TransNet progfann-SANDAL-anyrruved the case-ot advanced -funding tor the..-Street-f e 44ffacrn' -Prog-ram for -the G,ity of National City :ts--fail-et the approval -fur Amendrrif-ent No.:: 7 kJ the 2008•RTIP on-duly-2,5. 2008: C-702?5) (Kev 09/05) ATTACHMENT 1 MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS AND THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY REGARDING TRANSNET COMMERCIAL PAPER PROGRAM This Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU") is made and entered into effective as of this day of , 2008, by and between the San Diego Association of Governments ("SANDAG") and the City of National City ("City"). RECITALS The following recitals are a substantive part of this Agreement: WHEREAS SANDAG serves as the San Diego County Regional I ransportation Commission, and in that role is responsible for the administration -of the TransNet program (Proposition A, November 1987 and 2001.and - - WHEREAS in order to accelerate the implementation of sales tax funded projects, SANDAG has established a debt tinancingjnogram for the short term (commercial paper) and for the long term (bonds) to provide advanced funding for eligible projects under the TransNet program; and WHEREAS, the City of National City wishes to borrow $4,500,000 from the TransNet Commercial Paper program; and WHEREAS, the parties wish to memorialize their agreement in this MOU to carry out the purposes set forth above; AGREEMENT NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein, the parties agree as follows: SANDAG AGREES: 1. To lend the City of National City $4,500,000 through debt financing for its Street Resurfacing Program from the TransNet Program subject to certain conditions set forth below and SANDAG Roard Policies concerning TransNet Program loans. Acting -as -the Sari-Diecgrr.-County-- egianat ranspoFtation Comreission SANDAG--is responsible --far -the administration of the -TransNet pr-ograrh-(Proposition A;. November 19f;7 and 2004):-•k}-or er to ae;elera►e the irnplementalion of sales -tux -funded-m-oiects, SANDAG-has established- a commercial -paper •-p ,jrars} 1u provide advanced funding for eligible-prrrieols undeF the-TransNet-pregrarrr-SANDAG-approved the use -of advanced -funding for -he Street Resurfacing--Program-foF$he..Oily of -National City as pad -of -the approval for Amendment -No. _ to the-2008 R1 U7-oo-Jely.-5, 2008, C-70229 (Rev 09/05) 2. SANDAG will transfer the funds to the City upon -after the execution of this MOU and after the pproval of the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement Program scheduled for adoption on July 25 2008.. 3. Neither the City nor any officer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANDAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANDAG under this MOU. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Government Code Section 895.4, SANDAG shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless the City, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Govemment Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by SANDAG under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to SANDAG under this MOU. THE CITY AGREES: 4. The City Council at its February 5, 2008 meeting approved the request to borrow $4,500,000 of advanced funding through debt financing for its Street Resurfacing Program. The City will pay its proportionate share of the annual interest and administrative costs of the commercial paper program based on the ratio of the amount of financing for each fiscal year. The City acknowledges that SANDAG will deduct said interest and administrative costs from the monthly TransNet Sales tax allocations prior to making payments to the City for other programmed projects. The amounts to be deducted are estimated in the City Council Resolution hereto. The City also will repay the principal amount borrowed in equal installments of $ 900,000 each fiscal year beginning in FY 2009 and ending in FY 2013 (as shown in City Council Resolution attached). 5. Neither SANDAG nor any officer thereof is responsible for any damage or liability occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the City under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the City under this MOU. It is understood and agreed that, pursuant to Govemment Code Section 895.4, the City shall fully defend, indemnify and save harmless SANDAG, all officers and employees from all claims, suits or actions of every name, kind and description brought for or on account of injury (as defined in Government Code Section 810.8) occurring by reason of anything done or omitted to be done by the City under or in connection with any work, authority or jurisdiction delegated to the City under this MOU. THE PARTIES MUTUALLY AGREE: 1. That all obligations of SANDAG under the terms of this MOU are subject to the appropriation of the required resources by SANDAG and the approval of the SANDAG Board of Directors. 2. Any notice required or permitted under this MOU may be personally served on the other party, by the party giving notice, or may be served by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following addresses: For SANDAG 401 B Street, Suite 800 San Diego, CA 92101 Attn: Director of Finance For City of National City 1243 National City Blvd National City, CA 91950 Attn: City Manager 2 C-70229 (Rev 09/05) 3. That unless it is amended by the parties in writing, this MOU shall terminate on June 30, 2013. 4. The indemnification provisions of this MOU shall survive termination of the MOU. 5. This MOU shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this MOU, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of San Diego, State of California. 6. All terms, conditions, and provisions hereof shall inure to and shall bind each of the parties hereto, and each of their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors, and assigns. 7. For purposes of this MOU, the relationship of the parties is that of independent entities and not as agents of each other or as joint venturers or partners. The parties shall maintain sole and exclusive control over their personnel, agents, consultants, and operations. 8. No alteration or variation of the terms of this MOU shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto, and no oral understanding or agreement not incorporated herein shall be binding on any of the parties hereto. 9. Nothing in the provisions of this MOU is intended to create duties or obligations to or rights in third parties to this MOU or affect the legal liability of the parties to this MOU. 10. This MOU may be executed in any number of identical counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, and all of which together shall be deemed to be one and the same instrument when each party has signed one such counterpart. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this MOU effective on the day and year first above written. SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF CITY OF NATIONAL CITY GOVERNMENTS GARY L. GALLEGOS Executive Director CHRIS ZAPATA CITY MANAGER APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Office of General Counsel Legal Counsel 3 C-70229 (Rev 09/05) RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CTI'Y OF NATIONAL. CITY REQUESTING SANDAG=••1-!ROUG11--I-T TRAN4NETCOMMERCIA-LP-4P•l':R PROUR.A-MTO PROVIDE ADVANCED FUNDING THROUGH DEBT FINANCING FOR IMPROVEMENTS ON THE NATIONAL CITY STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND SANDAG TO MEMORIALIZE THE TERM OF THE ADVANCED FUNDING. WHEREAS, SANDAG, acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, is responsible for the administration of the TransNet program (Proposition A, November 1987 and November 2004); and WHEREAS, to accelerate the implementation of sales tax funded projects, SANDAG has established a commercial paper program to provide advanced funding for eligible projects under the TransNet program; and WHEREAS, the following project being implemented by the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Ih*- e heen is scheduled to be approved by SANDAG through the TransNet Program of Projects as part of the 2008 Regional Transportation Improvement program and would benefit from the availability of advance funding: W I i I REAS. NATIONAL CITY STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM, w •ieh requires an amount of $4,500.000 (Four -million five hundred thousand dollars) in debt financing NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY as follows: 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to request advance funding from SANDAG through its debt financing program in an amount not to exceed $4,500,000 (Four million five hundred thousand dollars). 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute any necessary documents relating to the receipt of said funds from SANDAL. 3. That the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY will be responsible for paying its proportionate share of the annual interest and administrative costs of the commercial paper based on the ratio of the amount of financing provided to the CITY OF NATIONAL CiTY to the total commercial paper outstanding 1'or each fiscal year. 4. That SANDAG will deduct said interest and administrative costs from the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY monthly TransNet Saks tax allocations prior to making any other sales tax payments for other CITY OF NATIONAL CI'I'Y projects. 5.That the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY will repay to SANDAG the principal amount borrowed according to the schedule-below_attac.lied. Ifpaid-from-futuresates-tax reve ies,- liese prin eiNI-pa menu- vita--Ise-deducted4iy-SANDAL-from--(ITY (lI NrYI I€)NAL %+attsNet-sales to zr-lueat-ions pEir f to -making any other sales-l.pyments fer ether GITY N-ATIANAI.. (41 Y—s-project-s. See-Atac-hcd 6.5.That the first priority use of the CITY OF NATIONAL CITY's annual allocation of TransNet revenues shall be payment of any required costs of debt financing. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 5°i day of February 2008 RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY REQUESTING SANDAG TO PROVIDE ADVANCED FUNDING THROUGH DEBT FINANCING IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,500,000 FOR THE NATIONAL CITY STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AND SANDAG TO MEMORIALIZE THE TERM OF THE ADVANCED FUNDING, AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2008-23 WHEREAS, SANDAG, acting as the San Diego County Regional Transportation Commission, is responsible for the administration of the TransNet program (Proposition A; November 1987 and November 2004); and WHEREAS, to accelerate the implementation of sales tax funded projects, SANDAG has established debt financing programs to provide advanced funding for eligible projects under the TransNet program; and WHEREAS, the following project being implemented by the City of National City has been approved by SANDAG through the 2008 TransNet Program of Projects, and would benefit from the availability of advance funding: NATIONAL CITY STREET RESURFACING PROGRAM, which requires an amount of $4,500,000 (Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars) in debt financing. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City as follows: 1. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to request advance funding from SANDAG through its debt financing program in an amount not to exceed $4,500,000 (Four Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars). 2. That the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and SANDAG regarding the TransNet Commercial Paper Program, and any other necessary documents relating to the receipt of said funds from SANDAG. 3. That the City of National City will be responsible for paying its proportionate share of the annual interest and administrative costs of the commercial paper based on the ratio of the amount of financing provided to the City of National City to the total commercial paper outstanding for each fiscal year. 4. That SANDAG will deduct said interest and administrative costs from the City of National City monthly TransNet Sales tax allocations prior to making any other sales tax payments for other City of National City projects. 5. That the City of National City will repay to SANDAG the principal amount borrowed according to the schedule set forth in Attachment "A". If paid from future sales tax revenues, these principal payments will be deducted by SANDAG from City of National City's monthly TransNet sales tax allocations prior to making any other sales payments for other City of National City's projects. Resolution No. 2008 — April 1, 2008 Page 2 6. That the first priority use of the City of National City's annual allocation of TransNet revenues shall be payment of any required costs of debt financing. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that Resolution No. 2008-23 is hereby rescinded. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: Michael R. Della, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney National City $4.5M Commercial Paper Capacity Analysis FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013 Beginning Balance (est) 174,062 442,624 818,686 1,305,248 Allocations 1,258,000 1,312,000 1,379,000 1,449,000 1,515,000 CP Proceeds 4,500,000 CP Principal Repayment (900,000) (900,000) (900,000) (900,000) (900,000) CP Interest/Other Fees (183,938) (143,438) (102,938) (62,438) (21,938) CP Disbursement (4,500,000) Ending Balance $174,062 $442,624 $818,686 $1,305,248 $1,898,310 Notes: 1. Assumes no other project expenditures from the TransNet program through FY 2013. 2. Estimated revenues based on January 2008 projections for the next 5 years, updated on an annual basis. 3. As of February 2008, the beginning balance for FY 2009 estimated to be $61,682. SANDAG anticipates NC will reduce the remaining payments for FY 2008 to reduce the balance to zero; therefore, the beginning balance is shown as zero for purposes of this analysis. 02/05/2008 ATTACHMENT "A" City of National City COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 6 MEETING DATE: April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. ITEM TITLE: Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City Amending Resolution No. 11,155, Section 5 to establish bi-monthly meetings for the National City Senior Citizens Advisory Com- mittee. PREPARED BY: Kaseem Baker (619) 336-4274 DEPARTMENT Community Services Due to a decrease in action items corning before the committee for consideration, both staff and the committee members recommend modifying the Committee's schedule to reflect bi-monthly meetings. Meetings would therefore be held at 10:00 am on the third Wednesday of every January, March, May, July, September and November in the Kimball Senior Center. Environmental Review N/A Financial Statement N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the resolution. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Senior Citizens Advisory Committee has voted in favor of the recommendations. TACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No. 1. Resolution RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 11,155, SECTION 5, TO ESTABLISH BI-MONTHLY MEETINGS FOR THE NATIONAL CITY SENIOR CITIZENS ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Council created the Senior Citizens Advisory Committee ("Committee") on August 14, 1973, by adoption of Resolution No. 11,155; and WHEREAS, due to a decrease in action items coming before the Committee for consideration, it is recommended by Staff and members of the Committee to change the meetings to every other month instead of every month, which would establish the meetings at 10:00 a.m. on the third Wednesday of every January, March, May, July, September, and November. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby amends Resolution No. 11,155, Section 5, to establish bi-monthly meetings for the National City Senior Citizens Advisory Committee to be held on the third Wednesday of every January, March, May, July, September, and November at 10:00 a.m. in the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: Michael R. Della, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 ITEM TITLE RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR ZONE 4 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSES FOR FIRE AND RESCUE RESOURCES PREPARED BY Walter Amedee %, DEPARTMENT (Ext. 4556) EXPLANATION The attached Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) among Zone 4 cities, districts and tribal govemments located in San Diego County was developed to provide mutual support for fire protection, emergency medical, and rescue services. Each agency has agreed to respond to emergency alarms outside of their home jurisdictions with resources without regard to political and/or jurisdictional boundaries. All alarms which deal with emergency responses shall adhere as closely as possible to the nearest unit concept, regardless of political jurisdiction. The details as to the method of operation, procedures, type of units and responses, and other planning as may be necessary to effectuate this Memorandum of Understanding shall be covered by the Operational Plan agreed upon and adopted by the Fire Chiefs of the respective parties. Each party may cancel the MOU by mutual agreement of each of the individual parties, or until any party gives sixty (60) days written notice of intention to terminate to each of the other parties. Environmental Review NI N/A Financial Statement N/A Approved By: Finance Director Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the Resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign the Memorandum of Understanding for Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses for Fire and Rescue Resources. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. Memorandum of Understanding for Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses for Fire and Rescue Resources Exhibit "A" Resolution A-200 (9/99) RESOLUTION NO. 2008 - RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR ZONE 4 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSES FOR FIRE AND RESCUE RESOURCES WHEREAS, certain cities, districts and tribal governments located in San Diego County maintain, as part of their staffing, an organized and equipped fire protection service charged with the duty of fire protection, emergency medical and rescue services within the limits of said jurisdictions, hereinafter referred to as "the Parties"; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Parties to extend the fire suppression, emergency medical, and rescue services of each of their services be it, in some circumstances, outside of the limits of their home jurisdictions and into the jurisdictions of the other Parties; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire that in some circumstances one or more of the other Parties will respond to fire suppression, emergency medical, and rescue incidents occurring within the limits of their home jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of National City hereby authorizes the Mayor to execute a Memorandum of Understanding for Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses for Fire and Rescue Resources. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING FOR ZONE 4 JOINT EMERGENCY RESPONSES FOR FIRE AND RESCUE RESOURCES WHEREAS, certain cities, districts and tribal governments located in San Diego County maintain, as part of their staffing, an organized and equipped fire protection service charged with the duty of fire protection, emergency medical and rescue services within the limits of said jurisdictions, referred to below as the "Parties"; and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Parties to extend the fire suppression, emergency medical, and rescue services of each of their services be, in some circumstances, outside of the limits of their home jurisdictions, and into the jurisdictions of the other Parties; and WHEREAS, the Parties desire that in some circumstances one or more of the other Parties will respond to lire suppression, emergency medical, and rescue incidents occurring within the limits of their home jurisdictions. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Parties, as set forth individually in Exhibit "A", have agreed to respond to emergency alarms outside of their home jurisdictions with resources, and within the jurisdictional arca of the other Parties in accordance with the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. 2. Any party may, upon determining mutual benefit, agree to provide resources without regard to political and/or jurisdictional boundaries, and adhere to the procedures established in the Operational Plan for determining response patterns that are the subject of this Memorandum of Understanding. All alarms which deal with emergency responses shall adhere as closely as possible to the nearest unit concept, regardless of political jurisdiction. 3. 1'hc details as to the method of operation, procedures, type of units and responses, and other planning as may be necessary to effectuate this Memorandum of Understanding shall be covered by the Operational Plan agreed upon and adopted by the Fire Chiefs of the respective parties. l'age 1 of 6 2008 4. There shall be an Operational Committee, consisting of a chief officer or his/her designee from each party, with the purpose of implementing the provisions of this Memorandum of Understanding relating to operational procedure. Each party shall furnish in writing to the others the name and rank of all participating officers. 5. The duties of incident Commander shall be assumed by the Fire Officer from a participating party who arrives first at the scene of the incident, regardless of the jurisdiction in which the incident occurs. There shall be an orderly transfer of command when an Officer from the jurisdiction in which the incident occurs arrives at the scene, if said Officer agrees to assume Incident Command. 6. All non -tribal parties hereto agree to indemnify the other parties for any liability imposed upon the other parties pursuant to Government Code §895.2, for injury caused by a negligent or wrongful act or omission of the indemnifying party's officers, agents, or employees which occur during the performance of this Memorandum of Understanding. This indemnification provision is included herein pursuant to Government Code §895.4, and is intended to eliminate the prorate right of contribution described in Government Code §895.2 between the parties so that each party bears the liability and cost of its own negligence. Tribal parties to this Memorandum of Understanding agree to indemnify the other parties for any liability imposed upon the other parties in the manner and for the purposes described in Government Code Sections 895.2 and 895.4. Notwithstanding such agreement, tribal parties observance of the provisions of the Government Code described herein is not a waiver of the tribal parties' sovereign immunity, nor does it imply that the tribal party is subject to the jurisdiction of the federal court, or the courts of any state or political subdivision thereof. Each party to this Memorandum of Understanding waives all claims against other parties to this Memorandum of Understanding for compensation for any equipment loss or damage, or physical injury or death which may result during the performance of this Memorandum of Understanding. Page 2 of 6 MOU for Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses for Fire & Rescue Resources 7. Each party to this Memorandum of Understanding shall maintain proper Worker's Compensation insurance, or the equivalent of Workers' Compensation, covering its own employees without cost to the other parties, and each party shall be responsible for all salaries and benefits for its own personnel without cost to the other parties. 8. Each of the parties shall be fully responsible for all repairs, maintenance and upkeep of its own equipment and vehicles which are used pursuant to this Memorandum of Understanding while said equipment and vehicles are used outside of its home jurisdiction, including gas, oil, lubrication, parts replacement and repair of casualty damage. However, during prolonged suppression activities, the recipient jurisdiction shall replenish chemical agents and fuel as needed; provide minor maintenance of fire suppression equipment; and provide for meals, hydration and the well being of personnel involved in the suppression activity. 9. The assurance of automatic aid as set thrth in this Memorandum of Understanding shall constitute the sole consideration for the performance of this Memorandum of Understanding. It is, therefore, understood and agreed that no money payments shall be made between the parties for services provided under the terms of this Memorandum of Understanding, that no charges shall be assessed by any party against any other party for services provided under the terms of this Memorandum of Understanding, and that each party shall he fully responsible for all of its costs in connection with the performance of this Memorandum of Understanding except as provided for in Section 8. This provision shall not be construed to prevent any party, or its representative, from billing patients for ambulance transport and other emergency medical services, provided that billing rates shall be consistent with the adopted fee schedule of the agency providing the services. 10. Nothing in this Memorandum of Understanding shall prevent any party from participating in separate agreements with other fire jurisdictions and shall have no effect upon the existing San Diego County Mutual Aid Agreement. 2008 Page 3 of 6 MOU for Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses for Fire & Rescue Resources I 1. Each party to the Memorandum of Understanding shall warrant that it has sufficient equipment and personnel to handle normal involvements for which it shall be responsible under this Memorandum of Understanding (fire suppression, emergency medical, and rescue incidents). It is not the intent of this Memorandum of Understanding for any agency to subsidize another agency with equipment needed to protect their jurisdiction. The parties to this Memorandum of Understanding shall provide each responding apparatus with a minimum of three, full-time, paid professional firefighters. The parties shall provide a compliment of equipment according to the National Fire Protection Association standards for Pamphlet 1901. 12. This Memorandum of Understanding shall become effective upon the execution by each of the parties hereto and shall continue until terminated by mutual agreement of each of the individual parties, or until any party gives sixty (60) days written notice of intention to terminate to each of the other parties. No cause shall be required for any termination. Termination of this Memorandum of Understanding by any party shall not terminate the Memorandum of Understanding with respect to the remaining parties to the Memorandum of Understanding, each of which may determine its continued participation independently. 13. In order to standardize fire fighting procedures among the co-signers of this Memorandum of Understanding and thus ensure efficient fire suppression and/or rescue operation at the incident where automatic aid is being rendered, the parties to this Memorandum of Understanding shall establish a system of standardized training for their fire suppression personnel. 14. It is mutually understood and agreed that this Memorandum of Understanding does not relieve any of the parties hereto from the necessity and obligation of providing adequate fire protection and/or equipment within their own area, and each party hereto agrees that it shall use reasonable diligence in maintaining its fire fighting equipment in accordance with the minimum peacetime standards 2008 Page 4 of 6 mot) for Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses for Fire & Rescue Resources and requirements established by the Insurance Services Organization for jurisdictions of comparable size. I5. This Memorandum of Understanding shall become effective upon execution by these parties hereto and shall continue until terminated by the terminating party(s) providing thirty (30) days written notice to the non -terminating party(s). IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this Memorandum of Understanding has been executed by the parties hereto by their duly authorized officers as indicated in Exhibit "A". 2008 Page 5 of 6 mot for Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses for Fire & Rescue Resources EXIIIBIT "A" The signatures of duly authorized officers for the parties hereto participating in the Memorandum Of Understanding For Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses For Fire And Rescue Resources. JURISDICTION City of National City Approved: April 1, 2008 By: Signature Date Name: Ron Morrison Print Title: Mayor 2otis Page 6 of 6 MOU for Zone 4 Joint Emergency Responses for Fire & Rescue Resources EETING DATE April 1, 2008 City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 8 AGENDA ITEM NO. (-ITEM TITLE Warrant Register # 35 for the period of O2/20/08 through 02/26/08 in the Amount of $1,447,334.84 PREPARED BY EXPLANATION D. Gallegos -Finance DEPARTMENT Finance EXT. Jeanette Ladrido 619-336-4331 Per Govemment Section Code 37208, attached are the warrants issued for the period of 02/20/08 through 02/26/08. The Finance Department has implemented a policy to provide explanation of all warrants Above $50,000.00 Vendor Check# Public Emp Ret Sys 219529 Tritech Software 219550 Amount Explanation 236,555.35 73,727.45 * PERS - Retirement Contribution for PI'E 2/11/08 ** Annualsupport services for PD Software Emp. Ret. * P.D. Software ** 1 CEnvironmental Review Financial Statement Not applicable. N/A MIS Approval Approved By: 1 Finance • rector Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Ratification of warrants in the amount of $ 1,447,334.84 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1. Warrant Resister #35 ATTACHMENTS L ( Listed Below ) Z--ead21/2L-C_ Resolution No. A-200 (Rev. 7/03) 1/8 WARRANT REGISTER # 35 2/26/2008 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CIIK NO DATE AMOUNT MELVIN DEPOSIT 111167 - 2335 E 4TH ST 219420 2/25/2008 100.00 GOODYEAR LITERACY SERVICES - JAN 2008 219421 2/26/2008 1,000.00 GOODYEAR MILEAGE RFIM1I - JAN 2008 219422 2/26/2008 159.31 ACE UNIFORMS & ACCESSORIES,INC NAVY MOTOR PANTS 219423 2/26/2008 828.57 ACEDO RETIREE HEAI:I I I BENEFITS MAR'08 219424 2/26/2008 160.00 AIRGAS-WEST MOP 1145714 CARBON DIOXIDE 219425 2/26/2008 48.78 ALL AMERICAN SEWER TOOLS SEWER HOSE 219426 2/26/2008 1,532.29 ALIEN RETIRE! HEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219427 2/26/2008 125.00 \MERICAN 110MF.I.AND SOLUTIONS ICS "TRAINING 219428 2/26/2008 5,785.00 AMERICAN ROTARY BROOM CO., INC SWEEPER REPAIRS 219429 2/26/2008 1,108.57 ARCO GASPRO PLUS FUEL FOR CITY FLEET 219430 2/26/2008 27,154.30 ARJIS ARJIS COSTS 219431 2/26/2008 182.00 AT&T/MCI PHONE 619 336-1080 12/1/07-1/12/08 219432 2/26/2008 104.13 AYDELOTTE SUBSISTENCE/RIFLES COURSE 219433 2/26/2008 768.00 BABAKI SUBSISTENCE & "TRAVEL 219434 2/26/2008 496.11 BANK OF AMERICA CREDIT CARD FEES 219435 2/26/2008 293.00 BANK OF AMERICA GFOA REGISTRATION 219436 2/26/2008 80.00 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP LIABILITY CLAIM 219437 2/26/2008 1,512.60 BLACKIE'S'IROI'ILIES AND AWARDS MOP 67727 FLAGS 219438 2/26/2008 70.69 BOOT WORLD SAFETY BOOTS 219439 2/26/2008 753.14 BOYD RETIREE I IEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219440 2/26/2008 145.00 ROADWAY AlJ'l'O ELECTRIC ELECTRICAL PARTS FOR VEIIICLES 219441 2/26/2008 161.63 C W REED JR RETIREMENT 2000964-S90 MAR'08 219442 2/26/2008 1,051.30 CA MUNICIPAL TREASURERS ASSO 2008 D(JES GEORGE HOOD 219443 2/26/2008 155.00 2/8 , WARRANT REGISTER # 35 2/26/2008 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOUNT CACEO FINANCIALLY DISTRESSED PROP 219444 2/26/2008 130.00 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL SECURITY MOP145754 FILE BAR - MAJOR 219445 2/26/2008 245.71 CALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY MOT' 445698 ELECTRICAL MATERIAI. 219446 2/26/2008. 1,383.42 CALTAC ('AL TAC MEMBERSHIP FOR LIBRARY 219447 2/26/2008 115.00 CEB CA GOVERNMENT' TORT LIAB 219448 2/26/2008 125.85 CHEVRON USA, INC. MOP 445699 FUEL, 219449 2/26/2008 224.15 CINGUI,AR WIRELESS PD WIRELESS DATA CONNECTION 219450 2/26/2008 1,067.95 CITY OF CARLSBAD TECHNICAL PERSONNEL CHARGES 219451 2/26/2008 274.43 CITY .OF CHULA VISTA ANIMAL SHELTER COSTS 219452 2/26/2008 8,316. CITY OF TUSTIN MEMBERSHIP & SUBSCRIPTIONS 219453 2/26/2008 275.00 CMTA ANNUAL CONFERENCE CMTA CONFERENCE GEORGE HOOD 219454 2/26/2008 305.00 CONDON RETIREE I EF.ALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219455 2/26/2008 280.00 CORPORAL E EXPRESS MOP 445704 OFFICE SUPPLIES 219456 2/26/2008 812.52 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO MAIL PROCESSING 12/16/07-01/15/08 219457 2/26/2008 5,371.37 CPOA REGISTRATION ANI) TRAINING 219458 2/26/2008 75.00 DAY WIRELESS SYSTEMS INSTALUMAINTAIN COMMUNICATION 219459 2/26/2008 903.71 DEFRATIS RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219460 2/26/2008 I20.00 DIAZ EDLJC REIMB/COMMAND IC 219461 2/26/2008 160.00 DICERCI ILO RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219462 2/26/2008 70.00 DIZINNO SUBSISTENCE & "TRAVEL EXP 219463 2/26/2008 496.11 DOUGIIERTY SUBSISTENCE: SNIPER COURSE 219464 2/26/2008 768.0o- DPREP, LI,C: TUITIONBABAKI MARYANN 219465 2/26/2008 393.1,, DPREP, I.LC TIIITION/THOMAS DIZINNO 219466 2/26/2008 393.00 DREDGE RETIREE HEALTII BENEFIT MAR'08 219467 2/26/2008 250.00 3/8 WARRANT REGISTER # 35 2/26/2008 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOUNT DSL EXTREME INTERNET LINE FOR REC CENTER 219468 2/26/2008 53.88 DURRA INK LETTERHEAD ENVELOPES FIR 219469 2/26/2008 539.18 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT UNEMPLOYMENT INS REIMB 219470 2/26/2008 5,849.00 ENTERPRISE GROUP COPY PAPER 219471 2/26/2008 • 2,565.26 ENVIRONMENTAL IIAZARDS SERVICES 1-IUD HEALTHY I IOMES DEM GRANT 219472 2/26/2008 96.00 ENVIRONMENTAL IIEAI.TII COALITION CONTRACT/ ENV IlEALTH DEC'07 219473 2/26/2008 7,250.54 EWERT, PHII.LIP RETIREE. HEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219474 2/26/2008 160.00 FEDEX SAFE ROUTE 2 SCHOOL 219475 2/26/2008 46.08 ',EDEX KINKO'S 3 X 5 CARDSTOCK MAILERS 219476 2/26/2008 239.56 FIREFIGHTERS' ABC'S ('ONFERENCE REGISTRATION 219477 2/26/2008 500.00 FLEET SERVICES, INC MOP #67804 AIR DRYER 219478 2/26/2008 446.49 GONZALES REIMII/OCFS MEETING 219479 2/26/2008 52.00 GRAINGER MOP 1/65179 BALLASTS 219480 2/26/2008 2,101.59 GREEN MECHANICAL CONTRACTORS REPLACE. CO2 SENSORS AT PD 219481 2/26/2008 7,899.84 IIAMILTON RETIREE HEAL: ill BENEFITS MA308 219482 2/26/2008 100.00 HOIXGES ANNUAL CAPPO CONFERENCE 219483 2/26/2008 149.32 HOIJ.OWAY RETIREE HEALTH BI•:NI?FITS MAR'08 219484 2/26/2008 150.00 HONF.YWELL INC. REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE 219485 2/26/2008 623.94 HORIZON HEALTH EAP EMPLOYEE ASST PROGRAM 219486 2/26/2008 1,300.00 HORIZON I ILALTH EAP EMPLOYEE ASST PROGRAM 219487 2/26/2008 855.62 1DENTIX INC. GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSES 219488 2/26/20(18 8.00 JFRASTRUCI'URE ENGINEERING ENGINEERING PLANNING SVCS 219489 2/26/2008 5,720.00 INNOVATIVE PLAYGROUNDS CO. LLC BUBBLE WINDOW 219490 2/26/2008 975.09 INTERNATIONAL. TRAINING TEGISTRA•TION/SNIPER RIFLES 219491 2/26/2008 775.00 4l8 WARRANT REGISTER it 35 2/26/2008 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOUNT JEFFERSON PILOT FINANCIAL LIFE STD LTD FEB 2008 219492 2/26/2008 11,925.23 JOHN DEERE LANDSCAPES MOP t/69277 SAW BLADE 219493 2/26/2008 90.19 KIMBLE RETIREE I IEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219494 2/26/2008 300.00 KLOS REIMB MEALS & MILEAGE 219495 2/26/2008 63.00 KOLANDA RETIREE IIFAI,TH BENEFIT MAR'08 219496 2/26/2008 135.00 LA PRENSA SAN DIEGO ADVERTISING/JOB OPPORTUNITY 219497 2/26/2008 96.00 LASER SAVER INC TONER 219498 2/26/2008 978.04 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES LUNCIIEON MEETING ANNUAL DUES 219499 2/26/2008 1,000.00 LEXIS-NF.XIS ONLINE CHARGES JAN 2008 219500 2/26/2008 378. LOPEZ TRANSLATION SVCS 2/19/08 219501 2/26/2008 200.00 MAINTEX, INC. JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 219502 2/26/2008 2,240.10 MARTINEZ PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES 219503 2/26/2008 56.00 MARTINEZ 1FRAVEL EXPENSF./TRAINING 219504 2/26/2008 14.55 MASONS SAW & LAWNMOWER SRVC SAW CHAIN 219505 2/26/2008 644.09 MATIENZO RETIREE HEAL, TH BENEFIT MAR'08 219506 2/26/2008 100.00 MCCABE RETIREE HEALTH BENEPII S MAR'08 219507 2/26/2008 280.00 MED7RONIC EMERGENCY RESPONSE LIFEPAK 12 I 'Nu FOR ALS ENGINE #31 219508 2/26/2008 15,927.02 METROCALI. PD PAGERS 219509 2/262008 4.35 MORGAN SQUARE, INC. FY07-08 APPORTIONMENT#7 219510 2/26/2008 5,187.46 MURRAY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219511 2/26/2008 150.00 MX LOGIC, INC MAIL FILTF..R AND WEB FILTER SVC 219512 2/26/2008 441.00 MYERS RETIREE IIEALTII BENEFITS MAR'08 219513 2/26/2008 140.u. NATIONAI, CITY ROTARY CLUB MEMBERSHIP DUES & LUNCHES 219514 2/26/2008 144.00 NATIONS' CITIES WEIEKI.Y ADVERTISING/JOB OPPORTUNITY 219515 2/26/2008 360.00 5/8 WARRANT REGISTER # 35 2/26/2008 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOIJNT NEXUS INTEGRATED SOLUTIONS IN HOUSE PHONE MAINTENANCEJSVC 219516 2/26/2008 620.00 NOSAI., WILLIAM A. RETIREMENT SETILEMENF MAR'08 219517 2/26/2008 992.29 NOTEWARE SUBSISTENCE/SAFETY CONE 219518 2/26/2008 915.34 ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S T D T'1J1T1ON/FIELD TRAINING 219519 2/26/2008 50.00 ORKIN PEST CONTROL PES'1 MAINTENANCE FOR CITY BLDG 219520 2/26/2008 433.75 PACIFIC AUTO REPAIR SMOG CHECKS FOR CITY VEIHCLES 219521 2/26/2008 815.00 PALOMAR COMMUNITY COI.I EGF DIST REGISTRATION 219522 2/26/2008 72.00 PALOMAR COMMUNITY COLLEGE DIST REGISTRATION 219523 2/26/2I08 72.00 PAUU RETIREE HEALII I BENEhIFS MAR'08 219524 2/26/2008 340.00 (OTTER RETIREE. I ZEAL 1I I BENEFITS MAR'08 219525 2/26/2008 150.00 PREPAID LEGAL SERVICES '10 REPLACE WARRANT435375 219526 2/26/2008 107.65 PRO STREET LIGHTING INC. CODE. ALARMS 219527 2/26/2008 343.65 PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPI.Y MOP 445742 UNIFORMS - PARKS 219528 2/26/2008 687.43 PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT SYSTEM SERVICE PERIOD 02-08-3 2I9529 2/26/2008 236,555.35 RANDALL RETIREE HEALTI1 BENEFITS MAR'08 219530 2/26/2008 140.00 RAY RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219531 2/26/2008 190.00 REGIONAI. COMMIJNICATIONS SYSTEM RADIO COMMUNICATION - JAN 2008 219532 2/26/2008 17,928.53 ROBERT HALF I.EGAI. TEMPORARY SERVICES 219533 2/26/2008 585.44 ROUNDS SUBSISTENCE/MOTION COURSE. 219534 2/26/2008 223.08 RUIZ RETIREE HEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219535 2/26/2008 310.00 SAFEWAY SIGN CO. STREET SIGN, OVF.RHEAD 219536 2/26/2008 3,117.60 M'S ALIGNMENT FRONT WHEEL. ALIGNMENT 219537 2/26/2008 259.10 SD BMW MOTORCYCLES REPAIRS/MAINTENANCE OF VFHICI.F.S 219538 2/26/2008 1,138.52 SHORT, CRAIG RHTREE HEALTH BENEFITS MAR'08 219539 2/26/2008 300.00 6/8 WARRANT REGISTER # 35 2/26/2008 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOUNT SMART & FINAL MOP 45756 SUPPLY 219540 2/26/2008 143.38 SOLANO PRESS BOOKS SOLANO LAND USE 2008 219541 2/26/2008 150.15 SPARKLE1TS SPARKLET"TS WATER FOR OFFICE: 219542 2/26/2008 96.17 STRATACOM MOP 63845 TIME SUMMARY 219543 2/26/2008 395.97 SWEETWATER AUTHORITY FACILITIES DIVISION 219544 2/26/2008 6,438.98 TARULLI TIRE SAN DIEGO INC TIRE RECAP 219545 2/26/2008 191.40 TIIE REGIONAL TRAINING CENTER REGISTRATION/INST SYMPOSIUM 219546 2/26/2008 38.00 THOMSON WEST LEGAL PURI.ICATIONS 219547 2/26/2(108 88.09 TOM MOYNAHAN MOP #45734 TOWING CHARGES 219548 2/26/2008 50.' TRAINING & INSTRUCTION FOR TUITION/TRAINING 219549 2/26/2008 95.00 TRITECH SOFTWARE SYSTEMS LAW ENFORCEMENT DATABASE 219550 2/26/2008 73,727.45 TROY BEHNEKE VERTICAL BLINDS/INSTALLATION 219551 2/26/2008 896.96 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO ADVERTISING/JOB OPPORTUNITY 219552 2/26/2008 325.00 UNION TRIBUNE PUBLISHING CO Al) FOR LF.GA(. NOTICES - CITY CLERK 219553 2/26/2008 176.00 UNITED RENTALS FORKLIFT 219554 2/26/2008 456.82 VALLEY INDUS-IRIAI. SI I;CIAI:IIHS MUP#46453 BACKFLOW PRIWFNIE.R 219555 2/26/2008 1,284.81 VISTA PAINT' MOP #68834 PAINT SUPPLIES 219556 2/26/2008 442.70 WATTIRI,INF. T ECI INOLOGIES CI IEMICALS FOR MUNICIPAL POOL 219557 2/26/2008 577.45 WILLY'S ELECTRONIC SUPPLY MOP 45763 MAINOR EQUIPMENT 219558 2/26/2008 1.053.40 WOOD & WOOD CLAIM/FRJSI4IE V. CITY OF N C 219559 2/26/2008 17,062.74 WOOD & WOOD CLAIM/NAT CITY V. OFFICER ONE 219560 2/26/2008 3,016.00. WOOD & WOOD CLAIM/FLORES A V. J C PENNEY 219561 2/26/2008 13(1.(,,, YBARRA SIJIISISTENCE TRAVF.1, & TUITION 2I9562 2/26/2008 415.00 ZINTLOW, DAVID la; FIRI{I{ ILEAI:I II BF.NI•:FIIS MAR'08 219563 2/26/2008 150.00 PAYEE, ZIONS BANK Workers compensation checks: WARRANT REGISTER # 35 2/26/2008 DESCRIPTION 7/8 CIiK NO DATE AMOUNT 1 ITII LEASE PAYMT MHZ EQUIP 219564 2/26/2008 48,678.25 • Total AIP $ 568,067.42 14532 2/20/2008 525.00 14533 2120/2008 440.00 14534 2/20/2008 25.30 14535 2/20/2008 58.64 14536 2/20/2008 1,418.98 14537 2/20/2008 64.62 14538 2/21/2008 440.00 14539 2/21/2008 1,293.62 14540 2/21/2008 65.19 14541 2/21/2008 15.46 14542 2/22/2008 63.17 14543 2/22/2008 105.33 14544 2/22/2008 111.49 14545 2/22/2008 235.87 14546 2/22/2008 4I.99 14547 2/25/2008 512.00 14548 2/25/2008 19.86 14519 2/25/2008 122.44 14550 2/25/2008 162.00 14551 2/25/2008 57.30 14552 2/26/2008 413.51 PAYEE PAYROLL Pay period 4 Start Date WARRANT REGISTER # 35 2/26/2008 DESCRIPTION End Date Check Date 8/8 CHK NO DATE AMOUNT 14553 2/26/2008 85.29 14554 2/26/2008 159.89 14555 2/26/2008 68.62 14556 2/26/2008 63.511 Total - Workers' Comp S 6,569.07 1/29/2008 2/11/2008 2.170/2008 872.698.` GRAND TOTAL $ 1,447,334.84 Warrant Register # 35 2/26/2008 001 GENERAL FUND 954,722.63 104 LIBRARY FUND 28,568.44 105 PARKS MAINTENANCE FUND 23,214.69 109 GAS TAXES FUND 7,658.86 111 P.O.S.T. FUND 2,839.52 125 SEWER SERVICE FUND 25,975.71 130 EMT-D REVOLVING FUND 14,645.50 154 STATE PUBLIC LIBRARY FUND 3,867.08 158 SWIMMING POOL REVOLVING FUND 625.21 171 LIBRARY SCHOOL DISTRICT CNTRCT 697.59 172 TRASH RATE STABILIZATION FUND 2,209.49 173 NATIONAL SCHOOL DIST CONTRACT 1,467.60 174 SWEETWATER SCHOOL DIST CONTRAC 2,666.31 191 STOP PROJECT 855.24 212 PERSONNEL COMPENSATION FUND 16,670.94 230 ABANDONED VEHICLE ABATEMENT GRANT 2,944.63 246 WINGS GRANT 30,158.84 254 LEAD -BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION GRANT 4,066.97 282 REIMBURSABLE GRANTS CITYWIDE 5,978.52 290 POLICE DEPT GRANTS 4,275.06 294 HUD HEALTHY HOMES GRANT 8,696.80 301 GRANT-C.D.B.G. 5,153.66 302 CDC PAYMENTS 37,790.03 307 PROPOSITION A" FUND 5,741.41 320 LIBRARY GRANTS 7,593.66 626 FACILITIES MAINT FUND 38,416.89 627 LIABILITY INS. FUND 33,232.11 628 GENERAL SERVICES FUND 9,727.33 629 INFORMATION SYSTEMS MAINTENANC 23,717.16 630 OFFICE EQUIPMENT DEPRECIATION 73,727.45 631 TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVOLVING 4,555.91 632 GENERAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES 14,670.25 633 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE RESERVE 5,849.00 643 MOTOR VEHICLE SVC FUND 44,254.35 726 ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS T & A DEPOSITS 100.00 Total 1,447,334.84 1EETING DATE April 1, 2008 City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 9 AGENDA ITEM NO. ITEM TITLE Warrant Register # 36 for the period of 02/27/08 through 03/04/08 in the Amount of $2,013,206.45 PREPARED BY EXPLANATION D. Gallegos -Finance DEPARTMENT Finance EXT. Jeanette Ladrido 619-336-4331 Per Government Section Code 37208, attached are the warrants issued for the period of 02/27/08 through 03/04/08. The Finance Department has implemented a policy to provide explanation of all warrants Above $50,000.00 Vendor Check# Amount Explanation CDC 219580 1,735,856.72 Rev. -Transportation * Portillo Concrete 219626 99,975.60 Concrete Improvements * CDC - Reimbursement from Dept. of Transportation for NC Blvd. Project ( Environmental Review N/A MIS Approval Financial Statement Not applicable. Approved By. Finance Director Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Ratification of warrants in the amount of $ 2,013,206.45 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1. Warrant Register 6 ACV-4 _ ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. A-200 (Rev. 7/03) 1/5 WARRANT REGISTER # 36 3/4/2008 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOUNT A P A PAYMENT CENTER APA CONFERENCE REGISTRATION 219565 3/4/2008 934.00 A P A PAYMENT' CENTER APA CONE HOUSING RESERVATION 219566 3/4/2008 187.48 ACTION TROPHIES & ENGRAVING ID PLATE 219567 3/4/2008 136.57 AMERICAN ROTARY BROOM CO., INC MOP 462683 ROSS MOTOR 219568 3/4/2008 613.35 AT&T/MCI PHONE 619 477-3833 2/13- 3/12/08 219569 3/4/2008 166.59 AT&T/MC1 PHONE 619 472-6486 12/1/07-1/19/08 219570 3/4/2008 16.87 AUSTIN DOORS CITY-WIDE DOOR REPAIRS CITY WIDE 219571 3/4/2008 1,351.02 BEST BEST & KRIEGER LLP PERSINNEL ISSUES 219572 3/4/2008 4,426.59 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL. SF.CUR TY MOP #45754 EXIT DEVICE, KEYS 219573 3/4/2008 407.05 ..ALIFORNIA ELECTRIC SUPPLY MOP #45698 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES 219574 3/4/2008 182.57 CARQUEST AUTO PARTS MOP #47557 HEATER HOSE 219575 3/4/2008 64.71 CCH GOV GAAP GIJIDE 219576 3/4/2008 24.64 CDWG NEATSUITE NLP NEATSUITE ADV 219577 3/4/2008 8,971.88 CEB CA TORT DAMAGES 219578 3/4/2008 102.15 CLEAN IIARBORS HAZARDOUS WASTE PICK UP 219579 3/4/2008 191.00 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CDC REVENUE FROM T'RANSP 219580 3/4/2008 1,735,856.72 CORPORATE EXPRESS MOP 45704 OFFICE SUPPLIES 219581 3/4/2008 487.71 COTI ONWOOD ELECTRIC CART SALES LABOR, MAINTENANCE SERVICE 219582 3/4/2008 375.88 COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF S D RECORDING FEES 219583 3/4/2008 50.00 COUNTY CLERK COUNTY OF S D RECORDING FEES 219584 3/4/2008 50.00 COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO ST'ORMWA l l R COSTS 219585 3/4/2008 44,610.00 'OA IFI1ON/SI1cx)I ING INVESTIGATION 219586 3/4/2008 220.00 U D-MAX ENGINEERING INC JANUARY 2008 SERVICES 219587 3/4/2008 28,988.70 D-MAX ENGINEERING INC DIPOSIT#1 195 WESTAIR GASES 219588 3/4/2008 1,276.25 2/5 WARRANT REGISTER # 36 3/4/2008 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CIIK NO DATE AMOUNT D-MAX ENGINEERING INC DEPOSIT#I I95 WESTAIR GASES 219589 3/4/2008 585.00 D-MAX ENGINEERING INC DEPOSIT#1081 MARINA GATEWAY 219590 3/4/2008 450.00 DANIEL PEARCE/ RPM WELDING MOP#45749 REPAIRS TO LIGHT POLE 219591 3/4/2008 403.88 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION HIGIIWAY LIGHTING 219592 3/4/2008 3.085.11 DIXIELINE LUMBER CO. MOP #45707 LITHIUM ION TOOLS 219594 3/4/2008 4,509.72 DREW FORD MOP #49078 NUB ASSEMBLY 219595 3/4/2008 816.25 DURRA INK COMPLAINT REQ & APPL 219596 3/4/2008 672.08 ENVIRONMENTAL IIAT.ARDS SERV1CIS HUD HEALTHY HOMES DEM 219597 3/4/2008 212.98 ESCALANTE SETTLEMENT OF LIABILITY CLAIM 219598 3/4/2008 975.0"" EXPRESS TEL LONG DISTANCE PHONE 219599 3/4/2008 195.48 FEDEX TRAFFIC DOCUMENT'S FOR GRANTS 219600 3/4/2008 12.55 FEDEX KINKO'S 3 X 5 CARDSTOCK MAII.ERS 219601 3/4/2008 239.56 FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC MOP # 45723 COUPLINGS, PIPE 219602 3/4/2008 479.46 FIRE EEC SEAT BELT, II1VlE 219603 3/4/2008 215.50 FLI?F: E SERVICES, INC MOP 1767804 DISC PADS, SEALS 219604 3/4/2008 83.13 GAFFNEY REIMB/ANNUAL. TRAINING CONE 219605 3/4/2008 66.15 GRAINGER MOP65179 STORAGE RACK, SHELVES 219606 3/4/2008 2,012.74 I IARRIS & ASSOCIATES DEPOSEI #1125 PARADISE VILLAGE 219607 3/4/2008 2,550.00 I.H. TROPHIES & AWARDS API'ARA'I'IJS BOARDS 219608 3/4/2008 269.38 INSTITUTE OF TRANSP. ENGINEERS FI F DI IFS!MANGANIELLO 219609 3/4/2008 262.00 LASER SAVER INC MOI' 45725 TONER - ENE COMP 219610 3/4/2008 265.09 MATEHEW BENDER & CO INC MI INICIPAI. CODE FEB 2008 219611 3/4/2008 499.k. N C CHAMBER OF COMMERCE CHAMBER MEMBERSHIP/POST R. 219612 3/4/2008 65.00 NAPA AUTO PARTS MOP45735 011. 219613 3/4/2008 568.73 PAYEE NATIONAI. CITY AUTO TRIM NATIONAL CITY DETAIL SHOP NATIONAL, CITY IROPI IY ONE SOURCE DISTRIBUTORS ORANGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S T D OUCIIPS POWER EQUIPMENT PACIFIC AUTO REPAIR PACIFIC AUTO REPAIR PARKHOUSE TIRE TARTS PLUS AUTOSTORE 4711 PERRY FORD PERVO TRAFFIC CENTER PORTILLO CONCRETE, INC. POWERSTRIDE BATTERY CO INC PRUDENTIAL OVERAI.1. SUPPLY RADIATION DETECTION COMPANY RICK ALBA APPRAISAL, SERVICE WARRANT REGISTER # 36 3/4/2008 DESCRIPTION REPAIR AND MAINTENANCE MOT' 445737 AUTO DETAIL MOT' 1166556 NAME PLATES MOT' 467256 ELECTRICAL SUPPLIES TUITION & MATERIAL. FEE/COURSE MOP 445740 WHEELS W/BEARINGS LABOR, SAFETY INSPECTION REPAIR/ REPLACE (WATER CORE 13RIDGESTONE TIRES MOP 464946 POLY V-BELTS MOP 445703 MOULDING MOP 1163846 STREET PAINT JANIJARY 2008 SERVICES MOP 467839 BATTERIES MOT' 445742 UNIFORMS - PARKS QUARTERLY TLD CBGN BADGE APPRAISAL OF POLICE VEHICLE RON BAKER CIIEVROLET-GEO-ISULU MOP /145751 MAINTENANCE SVC SAM'S ALIGNMENT SD BMW MOTORCYCLES SDG&E MART & FINAL SUN TRUST SUPERIOR READY MIX CONCRETE BUSHINGS, 1!SPl 560-1034 REPAIRS & MAINTENANCE FACILITIES DIVISION MOP 45756 MATERIALS & SUPPLIES NEW FIRE TRUCK#1 LEASE PMT449 CONCRETE CHK NO 219614 219615 219616 219617 219618 219619 219620 219621 219622 219623 219624 219625 219626 219627 219628 219629 219630 219631 219632 219633 219634 219635 219636 219637 DATE 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/4/2008 3/5 AMOUNT 244.69 100.00 84.83 1,345.66 102.00 95.48 211.54 525.00 1,237.54 132.58 173.41 456.37 99,975.60 208.31 303.80 119.00 120.00 194.27 970.91 889.28 28.187.90 160.24 5,009.63 133.93 4/5 WARRANT REGISTER # 36 3/4/2008 PAYEE DESCRIPTION CHK NO DATE AMOUNT SYMPRO, INC. SYMPRO SOFTWARE MAINTENANCE 219638 3/4/2008 4,175.00 TARULL! TIRE SAN DIEGO INC MOP 447940 TIRE REPAIR 219639 3/4/2008 170.23 TETRA TECH ISG #1 DI•;POSIT# 1 198 1333-35 24TH ST 219640 3/4/2008 2,124.54 TETRA TECH ISG #1 DL:POSTrit1133 1334 0 AVENUE219641 3/4/2008 549.54 'TETRA TECH ISG #1 DEPOSIT#1183 2638 E I5TH ST 219642 3/4/2008 525.00 'ME LIGHTHOUSE, INC. MOP #45726 REVOLVING LIGHT 219643 3/4/2008 170.48 THE PALAVRA TREE INC FOUWI II ANNUAL MULTI CULTURAL 219644 3/4/2008 75.00 TOPN,CO PRODUCTS MOP #63849 NUTS, WASHERS 219645 3/4/2008 65.89 TURNER'S PORTABLE WELDING FABRICATE 2 FLAG POLE HOLDERS 219646 3/4/2008 646.5 IJLI -'TIIE URBAN LAND INSTITUTE 131.1 RENEWAL219647 3/4/2008 200.00 VALLEY INDUSTRIAL SPECIALTIES MOP 446453 MISC SMALL TOOLS ' 219648 3/4/2008 370.00 WESTFI.EX INDUSTRIAL MOP 463850 COUPLER, ADAPTER 219649 3/4/2008 254.28 YOUNG SUBSISTENCE & TRAVEL/COURSE 219650 3/4/2008 1,377.97 Workers compensation checks Total A/P S2,090,872.56 14557 2/27/2008 370.00 14558 2/27/2008 400.00 14559 2;27/2008 525.00 14560 2/27/2008 14561 2/27/2008 14562 2/27/2008 14563 2/27,2008 14564 2/27/2008 14565 2/27/2008 425.00 506.00 400.V 440.0u 460.00 32.30 PAYEE WARRANT REGISTER # 36 DESCRIPTION 3/4/2008 5/5 CHK NO DATE AMOUNT 14566 2/27/2008 96.20 14567 2/27/2008 402.81 14568 2/27/2008 75.04 14569 2/27/2008 1,065.00 14570 2/28/2008 375.22 14571 2/28/2008 823.28 14572 2/28/2008 55.34 14573 2/29/2008 1,004.00 14574 2/29/2008 391.00 14575 2/29/2008 72.14 14576 3/3!2008 16.78 14577 3/3/2008 1,001.25 14578 3/3/2008 2.031.50 14579 3/3/2008 567.00 14580 3/3/2008 137.62 14581 3/4/2008 137.60 14582 3/4/2008 120.21 1458.3 3/4/2008 94.44 14584 3/4/2008 174.95 14585 3/4/2008 101.26 14586 3/4/2008 32.95 Total - Workers' Comp $12,333.89 GRAND TOTAL S 2,013,206.45 Warrant Register # 36 3/4/2008 001 GENERAL FUND 52,922.03 104 LIBRARY FUND 0.00 105 PARKS MAINTENANCE FUND 370.91 109 GAS TAXES FUND 44,690.44 111 P.O.S.T. FUND 1,550.44 125 SEWER SERVICE FUND 74,339.17 172 TRASH RATE STABILIZATION FUND 191.00 254 LEAD -BASED PAINT HAZARD REDUCTION GRANT 119.00 294 HUD HEALTHY HOMES GRANT ' 404.02 301 GRANT-C.D.B.G. 22,731.70 321 SMART GROWTH INCENTIVE PROG/RIP-TE FUND 1,735,856.72 626 FACILITIES MAINT FUND 37,220.95 627 LIABILITY INS. FUND 13,428.89 629 INFORMATION SYSTEMS MAINTENANC 12,425.00 631 TELECOMMUNICATIONS REVOLVING 378.94 632 GENERAL ACCOUNTING SERVICES 229.39 643 MOTOR VEHICLE SVC FUND 8,287.52 726 ENGINEERING/PUBLIC WORKS T & A DEPOSITS 8,060.33 Total 2,013,206.45 City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 10 (TEM TITLE PUBLIC HEARING — FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 FUNDING CYCLE FOR THE CDBG AND HOME PROGRAMS — FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS PREPARED BY EXPLANATION Rosemary Toscano ,( DEPARTMENT (Ext. 4391) City Manager The purpose of Public Hearing #3 is for the City Council and the Housing and Community Development Committee (HCDC) to discuss their funding recommendations. Upon conclusion of the discussions, the City Council will then formulate their funding recommendations for the FY 2008-2009 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Program funding. Each year the City completes an extensive public participation process to review and approve various programs and projects eligible for CDBG and HOME program funds. The funding recommendations formulated during Public Hearing #3 will be incorporated into the City's FY 2008-2009 Draft Annual Action Plan that will be made available for a 30-day public review and comment period, from April 3, 2008 to May 5, 2008. Environmental Review NI N/A Financial Statement Approved By: Finance Director The estimated amount of funding available for FY 2008-2009 for each program is as follows: Community Development Block Grant - $1,092,595 Account No. Home Investment Partnership Program - $574,466 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Conduct public hearing. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. Attachment 1: Listing of Applicant Requests A-200 (9199) fl7779 CA/Nirn/ 7 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 FUNDING REQUESTS FY 2008- 2009 CDBG PROGRAM ENTITLEMENT TAB AGENCY NAME PUBLIC SERVICE ACTIVITIES 1 City of National City - Community Services Department City of National City - Community Services Department 6 City of National City - Police Department City of National City - Public Library Community Food Bank of National City Community Youth Athletic Center $1,092,595 NUMBER TO BENEFIT FROM ACTIVITY NAME THE ACTIVITY REQUEST At -Risk Youth After - school Teen Program - "Supreme Teens" Tiny Tots Homeless Outreach Program and (1) Enforcement (HOPE) National City Public Library Literacy Services Project Hunger/ Prgect Independence Diversion Program Development National City Tourists & National City Chamber of Visitors Information Commerce (2) Center National City Pop Warner Youth Football National City Diablos and Cheer Program The Philippines through PASACAT Dance and Music 10 South Bay Community Services 11 San Diego Community Housing Corporation 12 TELACU Housing National City, Inc. - c/o TELACU Residential Manage 13 Trauma Intervention Programs of San Diego County, Inc. CDBG FUNDING 100 Individuals 40 Individuals 250 Individuals 220 Individuals 1 000 Individuals 750 Individuals 506 Individuals 2 250 Individuals National City Police Department Juvenile Diversion Program Park Villas Educational Enrichment Program Social Services ment Coordinator Pro ram Crisis Intervention Team 39 500 29 336.50 1 $87 376 $47,250 $16 100 50 000 (2) Not a CDBG Eligible Activity $30,000 $15,000 55 Individuals $18,752 20 Individuals 11 800 119Individuals $30,540 3,481 Individuals (Entire Service Delive Area ••8,000 TOTAL PUBLIC SERVICE REQUESTS 383 654.50 Footnotes: (1) Request amount adjusted to reflect eligible CDBG program expenses. Revised CDBG request is $87,376. (2) This activity is not eligible for CDBG funding; consider alternate funding for this activity such as the City's Redevelopment funds (80%). Agency is requesting $100,000 to fund this activity. TAB COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 FUNDING REQUESTS AGENCY NAME ACTIVITY NAME NUMBER TO BENEFIT FROM THE ACTIVITY CDBG FUNDING REQUEST PRIOR YEAR COMMITMENTS TO PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES Public Facility Improvement Activities 14 15 City of National City - Fire Department City of National City - Fire De • artment TAB • AGENCY NAME Fire Apparatus Lease Payments - Fire Truck#1: 5 of 5; & Fire Truck#2: 4 of 5 Fire Station Construction - Section 108 Loan Payment 2 Fire Apparatus / Equipment 1 Public Facility Improvement TOTAL PRIOR YEAR COMMITMENTS ACTIVITY NAME PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT ACTIVITIES Community Enhancement Activities 16 Christmas in July * National City (3) 17 Christmas in July * National City NUMBER TO BENEFIT FROM THE ACTIVITY City Clean -Up Program Home Re air Program Public Facility Improvement Activities 18 $118,529.92 $524,633.00 $643,162.92 CDBG FUNDING REQUEST 14 00 Households 20 Households Community Food Bank of CFBNC - Walk -In Cooler National City (CFBNC) Project 19 Operation Samahan Women/Dental Clinic Operation Samahan, Inc. Renovation Public Infrastructure Improvement Activities 20 Miscellaneous Concrete Improvement and City of National City - Upgrade Substandard En•ineerin• De artment _ Pedestrian Ramps $100,559 $110,000 1 Public Facility Improvement (1,000 Individuals) 1 Public Facility Improvement (200 Households) Public Infrastructure Im • rovements $13,000 $50,000 TOTAL PHYSICAL IMPROVEMENT RE $250,000 UESTS $523,559 Footnotes: (3) As a Public Service Activity, this activity is eligible as proposed; however, if considered for funding outside of 15% PS set -aside a few modifications to the program's delivery will be necessary. TAB AGENCY NAME PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION City of National City - Community Development Department City of National City - Community Services Department COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 FUNDING REQUESTS NUMBER TO BENEFIT FROM CDBG FUNDING ACTIVITY NAME THE ACTIVITY REQUEST CDBG Program Administration Neighborhood Council Program Fair Housing and The Fair Housing Council of Tenant -Landlord San Diego Education Services n/a n/a n/a $75,519 105,000 38,000 TOTAL PROGRAM ADMINSTRATION REQUESTS $218,519 FISCAL YEAR 2008-2009 FUNDING REQUESTS HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS ACT (HOME) PROGRAM FY 2008- 2009 HOME PROGRAM ENTITLEMENT TAB AGENCY NAME ACTIVITY NAME $574,446 NUMBER TO BENEFIT FROM THE ACTIVITY Affordable Housing Activities 1 Casa Familiar/Mitch Thompson/Don Countryman 2 3 4 Habitat for Humanity Habitat for Humanity (1) South Bay Community Services National City Small Site Acquisition & Rehabilitation Program G Street Condominiums (New In -fill Housing Construction) Harding Avenue Homes (New In -fill Housing Construction) HOME Housing Assistance for Low Income Families (Tenant Based Rental Assistance - TBRA) L CDBG FUNDING REQUEST 18 Households 8 Households (1) 3 Households 15 Households TOTAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING ACTIVITY REQUESTS $1,780,000 $335,000 (1) $71,168 $249,000 $2,435,168 NOTE: 15% MINIMUM OF THE 2008-2009 ENTITLEMENT MUST BE SET -ASIDE FOR CHDO'S (or not less that $86,166.90) TAB # AGENCY NAME ACTIVITY NAME NUMBER TO BENEFIT FROM THE ACTIVITY CDBG FUNDING REQUEST PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 5 City of National City - Economic Development Department HOME Program Administration n/a $57,000 TOTAL PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION REQUESTS $57,000 Footnotes: (1) Habitat was requested by Mayor and Council to research the feasibility of constructing more than two affordable housing units at the Harding location. Staff will provide an update regarding this request. City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 11 ITEM TITLE Public Hearing Time Extension Request - Conditional Use Permit to Convert 29 Apartments into Condominium Units for Individual Sale at 900-910 Manchester Street. (Applicant: Manchester I lilts 29, LI,C) (Case File No. 2008-07 TE) VK PREPARED BY Martin Reeder, 336-4310 DEPARTMENT Planning EXPLANATION In March 2005, the City Council approved a Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditional Use Permit for the conversion of 29 apartment units at the intersection of Manchester Street and Plaza Boulevard into condominium units for individual sale. On February 6, 2007, Council extended the Tentative Subdivision Map for 36 months and the Conditional Use Permit for one year. The Subdivision Ordinance allows applicants to request time extensions for up to a total of 36 months, whereas the Land Use Code allows the extension of a Conditional Ilse Permit for no more than one year at a one time. As no Final Map has been processed for the approved project, the Conditional Use Permit required for the conversion of the units would thus expire on March 2, 2008. Conversion plans included interior and exterior renovations, as well as various site repairs. Many items are already complete, such as cabinets, countertops, appliances and carpet inside, and painting and roof repairs outside. The parking lot has also been re -striped. The owners are requesting an extension of the Conditional [Ise Permit. They state that while most of the Subdivision Map requirements have been completed, including preparing CC&Rs for the site, the extension is needed due to current real estate market conditions (see attached letter). Environmental Review X N/A Financial Statement N/A Approved By: Finance Director Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Wep Staff recommends that the expiration date for CUP-2004-24 be extended by one year to March 2, 2009. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. 1. Resolution No. 2005-45 2. I.ocation Map 3. Applicant's letter of request A-200 (9/99) r RESOLUTION NO. 2005 - 45 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROVING A TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP AND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR THE CONVERSION OF 29 APARTMENT UNITS TO CONDOMINIUMS AT 900-910 MANCHESTER STREET APPLICANT: WESTONE MANAGEMENT CONSULTANTS CASE FILE NO. S-2004-15/CUP-2004-24 WHEREAS, application was made for approval of a tentative subdivision map and conditional use permit for the conversion of 29 apartment units to condominiums at 900-910 Manchester Street on property generally described as: Lot 6 of O.D. Arnold Estates Unit No. 1, in the City of National City, County of San Diego, State of California, according to Map thereof No. 3700, filed in the Office of the County Recorder of San Diego County, August 23, 1957. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City considered said applications at public hearing held on January 10, 2005, and by resolution recommended conditional approval of the application; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered said application at a public hearing held on February 1, 2005, and continued to the meeting of February 15, 2005, at which time oral and documentary evidence was presented; and WHEREAS, at said public hearing the City Council considered the staff report prepared for Case File Nos. S-2004-15 and CUP-2004-24 which is maintained by the City, and incorporated herein by reference; along with evidence and testimony at said hearing; and WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and City law; and WHEREAS, the action recited herein is found to be essential for the preservation of public health, safety and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City that it hereby approves a tentative subdivision map and a conditional use permit for the conversion of 29 apartment units to condominiums at 900-910 Manchester Street, based on the findings: FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE TENTATIVE SUBDIVISION MAP 1. The proposed map is consistent with the National City General Plan and applicable specific plans, since the project will create 29 new homeownership opportunities. i Resolution No. 2005 — 45 March 1, 2005 Page Two 2. The site is physically suitable for the proposed type of development, since all development is existing and will remain, and only the form of ownership will change. 3. The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development, since all development is existing and will remain, and only the form of ownership will change. 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, since the site is fully developed and all existing improvements will remain, and no expansion will take place. 5. The design of the subdivision and the proposed/required improvements are not likely to cause serious public health problems, since all necessary public services will be provided. 6. The design of the subdivision and the proposed/required improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of the property within the proposed subdivision, since the site is fully developed and all existing improvements will remain, and no expansion will take place. 7. The discharge of sewerage waste from the subdivision into the City of National City sewer system will not result in a violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Califomia Regional Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (commencing with Section 13000) of the Water Code, as specified by Govemment Code Section 66474.6. 8. The subdivision has been considered by the Planning Commission with regard to its effect on the housing needs of the region, and these needs are balanced by the public service needs of the residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. 9. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive and natural heating and cooling opportunities in the subdivision, based on consideration of local climate, topography, property configuration and other design and improvement requirements without requiring reduction in allowable density or lot coverage. FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape, since the site is fully developed and all existing improvements will remain. 2 Resolution No. 2005 — 45 March 1, 2005 Page Three 2. That the site has sufficient access to streets and highways that are adequate in width and pavement type to carry the volume and type of traffic generated by the proposed use, since no additional traffic will be generated, since the project consists solely of a change of ownership, and repair and renovation of existing improvements. 3. That the proposed use will not have an adverse effect upon adjacent or abutting properties, since the existing multi -family development already exists and only the form of ownership is changing. Conditions requiring the new owners to maintain the property have been included with the approval. 4. That the proposed use is deemed essential and desirable to the public convenience and welfare, since the creation of 29 new homeownership opportunities that should be attractive to first time homebuyers will allow for mobility in the housing market, and since the increased rate of homeownership may translate into an improved property appearance. 5. The proposal is consistent with housing element goals and objectives, since the conversion of the existing apartment complex will create 29 additional opportunities for homeownership, which will likely be available to persons with a moderate or lower income level. Plans and reports submitted by the applicant, along with conditions of approval, show that necessary upgrading will be completed prior to sale of any unit, since all common area improvements will be completed during the planned Renovation Program and each unit interior will be renovated before it is sold as will be specified in a Lien Contract and Agreement not to Convey. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that based on the findings hereinbefore stated, said tentative subdivision map and conditional use permit for the conversion of 29 apartment units to condominiums at 900-910 Manchester Street is hereby approved subject to the following conditions: This tentative map and conditional use permit authorize the conversion of the property at 900-910 Manchester Street, including 29 residential apartment units, into condominiums. Except as required by conditions of approval, all plans submitted for permits associated with the project shall conform with Exhibits A - revised, B and C, Case File No. S-2004-15/CUP-2004-24, dated December 13, 2004 and October 29, 2004, respectively. Resolution No. 2005 — 45 March 1, 2005 Page Six 18. The subdivider shall submit an approval letter from Sweetwater Authority stating fire flow requirements have been met. If additional improvements are needed, the developer shall enter into an agreement for the water improvements with the Authority prior to obtaining the final map approval. 19. The developer shall bond for the monumentation, the public improvements and the on -site grading, drainage, landscaping, and other improvements through an agreement with the City prior to the approval of the final map. 20. Before this Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditional Use Permit shall become effective, the applicant and the property owner both shall sign and have notarized an Acceptance Form, provided by the Planning Department, acknowledging and accepting all conditions imposed upon the approval of this permit. Failure to return the signed and notarized Acceptance Form within 30 days of its receipt shall automatically terminate the Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditional Use Permit. The applicant shall also submit evidence to the satisfaction of the Planning Director that a Notice of Restriction on Real Property is recorded with the County Recorder. The applicant shall pay necessary recording fees to the County. The Notice of Restriction shall provide information that conditions imposed by approval of the Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditional Use Permit are binding on all present or future interest holders or estate holders of the property. The Notice of Restriction shall be approved as to form by the City Attomey and signed by the Planning Director prior to recordation. 21. Approval of the tentative map expires two (2) years after adoption of the resolution of approval at 5:00 p.m. unless prior to that date a request for a time extension not exceeding three (3) years has been filed as provided by National City Municipal Code Section 17.04.070. 22. The Conditional Use Permit shall expire two (2) years after adoption of the resolution of approval at 5:00 p.m. or one year after recordation of the final map, whichever is tater, unless exercised prior to that time, by transfer of any unit to separate ownership. One or more extensions of time may be granted, pursuant to provisions of the Land Use Code. 23. Plans to stabilize the slopes fronting Plaza Boulevard and the slopes along the south side of the property shall be submitted and approved by the City Engineer. Plans shall include repairing and raising the height of the south retaining wall as necessary. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution shall be transmitted forthwith to the applicant; and 4 Resolution No. 2005 — 45 March 1, 2005 Page Seven BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this Resolution shall become effective and final on the day following the City Council meeting where the resolution is adopted. The time within which judicial review of this decision may be sought is governed by the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.6. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of March, 2005. '.)A ATTEST: fi c ael i Mi DallaCity Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III City Attorney Passed and adopted by the Council of the City of National City, California, on March 1, 2005, by the following vote, to -wit: Ayes: Councilmembers Inzunza, Morrison, Natividad, Parra, Zarate. Nays: None. Absent: None. Abstain: None. AUTHENTICATED BY: NICK INZUNZA Mayor of the City of National City, California MICHAEL R. DALLA City Clerk of the City of National City, California By: Deputy I HEREBY CERTIFY that the above and foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of RESOLUTION NO. 2005-45 of the City of National City, California, passed and adopted by the Council of said City on March 1, 2005. /r City Jerk of the City f National City, California By: Deputy 6 100 ��I S Feet• PROJECT SITE 827 833 839 CITY BOUNDARY A LOCATION MAP 1 ime Extension Request for: Tentative Subdivision Map and Conditional Use Permit to convert 29 apartments to 2007-6 T.E. condominium units at 900-910 Manchester Street. (S-2004-15/CUP-2004-24) NATIONAL CITY PLANNING DRN. DATE: 1/22/07 INITIAL HEARING: 2/06/07 MOVED 7 F=0'013 PH i.C2 Manchester Hills 29, LLC 5422 Napa Street San Diego, CA 92110 (619) 220-0775 February 6, 2008 Ms. Angela Reeder City Planner City of National City 1243 National City Blvd. National City, CA 91950 Reference: 900-910 Manchester St., National City Tentative Map #S-2004-15, CUP #2004-24 Original Approval Date: March 1, 2005 Dear Mr. Reeder: The owners of the above referenced property, Manchester Hills 29, LLC, hereby request an additional twelve (12) month extension of the Conditional 1Jse Permit (CUP). In March of last year, the Tentative Map was extended for 36 months and therefore does not require an extension at this time. The reason for this extension is due to the continued real estate market conditions. All units are currently occupied and there arc no current plans to market the individual condominium units. Thank you in advance for your cooperation in this matter. Sincerely, Manchester Hills 29, LLC A California limited Liability Co Walid E. Romaya - Member 8 CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April I, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 12 ITEM TITLE Public Hearing and Proposed Finding of No Significant Environmental Effect for an Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan to Exclude Accessory Parking Floor Arca from the Calculation of Floor Arca Ratio and to Reduce the Standard Parking Stall Width (Applicant: City initiated) (Case File No.: 2007-26 SP, IS). PREPARED BY Raymond Pe 336-4421 DEPARTMENT Planning EXPLANATION On September 18. 2007, Council initiated Specific Plan Amendment (2007-26 SP) by minute action. The amendment is intended to increase the feasibility of development in the Downtown Specific Plan arca by excluding above ground parking from the calculation of floor area ratio (FAR) and by reducing the required standard parking stall width by one -foot. Excluding parking from the maximum allowed FAR would allow more building floor area to be devoted to permitted land uses, up to the maximum FAR. Reduced parking stall dimensions would increase design flexibility for parking layouts. On March 3, 2008, the Planning Commission voted (6-0) to recommend approval of the first part of the amendment to exclude parking from the calculation of FAR (Resolution No. 4-2008); however, the Commission voted (5-1) to recommend denial of the second part of the amendment to reduce the standard parking stall width (Resolution No. 5-2008). In recommending denial, members of the Planning Commission cited some of the problems that can result from narrower parking stalls, including the difficulty in parking maneuvers, less room to enter and exit vehicles, loss of usahle spaces when vehicles park too close or encroach into adjacent spaces. and the resulting property damage between closely parked vehicles. The attached background report describes the proposed amendment in more detail. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW An Addendum to the Downtown Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report has been prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). FINANCIAL STATEMENT Not applicable. Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends approval of Specific Plan Amendment (2007-26 SP) to: I. Exclude accessory parking floor area from the calculation of floor area ratio, and 2. Reduce the standard parking stall width. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 1'he Planning Commission recommends: I. Approval of a specific plan amendment to exclude accessory parking floor area from the calculation of floor area ratio (Vote: Ayes- DeLaPaz, Reynolds, Flores, Pruitt, Baca, Alvarado); and 2. Denial of a specific plan amendment to reduce the standard parking stall width (Vote: Ayes- DeLaPaz, Reynolds, Flores, Baca, Alvarado. Nays- Pruitt). ATTACHMENTS 1. Background Report 2. Downtown Specific Plan Map 3. Proposed Amendment 4. Land Ilse Code Definitions 5. Land Ilse Code Parking Table A-200 (9/80) ry Resolution No. 6. PAR Calculation Example 7. LIR Addendum and Initial Study (E1R available in Planning Department for reference) 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 4-2008 9. Planning Commission Resolution No. 5-2008 BACKGROUND REPORT SITE CHARACTERISTICS The Downtown Specific Plan generally includes the blocks along National City Boulevard between Division Street and 16th Street, and the blocks between 7th Street and Plaza Boulevard from Interstate 5 to D Avenue (Attachment 2). The plan area is approximately 150 acres in size and is approximately one mile in length along National City Boulevard and one-half mile in length along Plaza Boulevard. Approximately 347 parcels are located within the boundaries of the plan. BACKGROUND The Downtown Specific Plan was adopted by the City Council in February of 2005. The plan establishes a desired vision for the future of downtown. This vision reflects a revitalized and more intensive urban core with the introduction of mixed uses emphasizing a significant residential component with the potential for several thousand dwelling units. The policies of the plan encourage and facilitate development activity to achieve the goals and objectives supporting the plan vision. Although the plan proposes significant public sector actions through policies and programs, e.g. the construction of community facilities and infrastructure improvements, a large part of the implementation of the plan is dependent on private sector participation through the land development process. The first development projects received land use entitlements (Consistency Review) in the fall of 2005, and most of the currently proposed projects were proposed or received entitlements in 2006. This initially intense entitlement activity has subsided due to economic and market forces that have had a slowing effect on real estate development and the construction industry. Currently, only one project that was approved under the specific plan is under construction. The Harbor View project located on D Avenue between 8th Street and 9th Street is a 75-unit condominium project with ground floor commercial space that is expected to be completed in April/May. Bay View Tower, formerly the Red Lion Inn, is a condominium conversion that is also expected to be completed in April/May. This project is located in the plan arca, but was approved prior to the adoption of the Downtown Specific Plan. Most other developers have suspended or reduced their activities on their proposals and entitlements for downtown; some are attempting to move forward in the current development climate by redesigning or repositioning their original project proposals. During the Strategic Planning process conducted in 2007, the City Council reaffirmed its desire to . realize the vision of the Downtown Specific Plan. I-Iowever, the pace of anticipated development activity that is essential to achieve this vision has been slow and unable to meet expectations most recently and may be unable to do so in the foreseeable near term. 1 Faced with greater development challenges, some project proponents have reevaluated the factors affecting the feasibility of their projects. Most of these are factors beyond the control or direct influence of the City, such as financing costs, construction costs (labor and materials), site and engineering constraints, and the cost of land. However, the City does have certain regulatory authority, which can either hinder or facilitate land development. Developers have approached the City with requests for regulatory relief in the form of relaxed development standards. The most common requests have been to exclude parking structures from the calculation of floor area ratio (FAR) and to reduce parking dimensions. In response to the issues and problems faced by the development community, the Community Development Commission requested the initiation of a specific plan amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan. On September 18, 2007, the City Council initiated the amendment by minute action. PROPOSED AMENDMENT Floor Area Ratio The proposed amendment (Attachment 3) would exclude accessory parking floor area, such as in parking structures, from the calculation of floor area ratio. Floor area ratio is the total (building) floor area on a lot divided by the lot area. The definitions of "floor area" and "floor area ratio" (Attachment 4) include aboveground floor space used for parking. The maximum floor area ratio in each development zone of the specific plan functions as a development standard that sets the maximum land use intensity based on allowable floor area and also establishes a potential building envelope in terms of building mass and bulk. Parking Dimensions This portion of the proposed amendment (also Attachment 3) would reduce the width of standard size car stalls by I -foot. A standard parking stall is 9-feet wide and 18-feet deep; compact stalls arc 8-feet wide and 16-feet deep. There arc variations in these dimensions and in aisle widths depending on the angle of parking, whether walls or obstructions are present, and other factors. Up to 10-percent of required residential stalls may be compact, and up to 25-percent of commercial and industrial stalls may be compact. Current parking dimension requirements are contained in the Land Use Code (Attachment 5) ANALYSIS Floor Area Ratio The specific plan allows relatively intense development in most development zones. Many development zones along National City Boulevard allow up to 6.0 FAR with no height limit. However, even with these allowed development intensities, developers have indicated that 2 development potential and feasibility have been limited because parking structures are included when calculating floor arca ratio. Development can maximize floor area by providing parking below grade since underground parking is not included in floor area by definition. However, the construction of underground parking facilities is more expensive than constructing aboveground structures. Consequently, more intense development projects may be Icss feasible because of the higher costs of underground parking and/or because potential floor area is reduced by parking structures. In addition to construction costs, the remediation of underground contaminants has proved to be a major cost in the case of some projects with underground parking. High water tables in some areas of downtown have also affected project feasibility because of the costlier construction techniques needed to build below grade in these areas. Above ground parking would eliminate the additional costs associated with these situations. 'l'hc proposed amendment would not increase land use intensity in any development zone. For example, in a development zone that allows 6.0 FAR, a 10,000 square foot lot could he developed with 60,000 gross square feet of non -parking floor area if all parking is provided underground. With the proposed amendment, the same development would still be limited to 60,000 gross square feet of non -parking floor area, the difference being that parking could be provided above grade in addition to the 60,000 square feet of non -parking floor area. The amount of additional parking floor area that could occur above grade would depend on several factors and assumptions, including the land uses proposed, which generates the amount of required parking, and the efficiency and design of the parking structures (Attachment 6). The examples in Attachment 6 suggest that building size could increase more than 25-percent if parking floor area is excluded from the FAR calculation. The increase in building size may only result in one or two additional stories for a development with more lot coverage, but could result in several additional floors for a development with less lot coverage. The potential increase in building mass and bulk should be weighed against the regulatory relief that could increase development feasibility and the earlier attainment of the specific plan's goals and objectives. Parking Dimensions The Downtown Specific Plan requires fewer parking spaces than the Land Use Code requires outside of the plan area. However, even with these reduced parking requirements, some developers have indicated that they have had difficulty in designing parking facilities that meet the required width of standard car spaces. Parking is typically proposed within parking structures. Unlike surface parking, parking structures have physical constraints or requirements that limit the possible configurations for parking layouts. Design solutions are also limited by lot size, even if most or all of a block is proposed for development —most blocks are only 250-feet square. 3 The proposed amendment would not reduce the required number of parking spaces for any land use, but would reduce the required dimensions for parking. Reduced dimensions could increase the possible design solutions for parking facilities, which could potentially increase the feasibility of development projects downtown. Several City departments have provided input on the proposed reduction of parking stall dimensions. Comments were mixed and primarily based on observation and experience with reduced standards in other communities. The comments are summarized below: 1. Reduced standards/requirements would alleviate a regulatory burden on developers and increase the potential and feasibility for development projects to he built. 2. Reduced standards/requirements would be appropriate for the downtown area, which is intended to be an intense, transit -oriented urban environment. Similar standards apply to other downtown urban areas such as downtown San Diego. 3. Reduced standards/requirements should not be an issue for owner- or tenant -occupied parking spaces since these would be operated and maintained by an HOA or other legal mechanism, and the general public would not he using these private parking spaces. 4. The buyer/tenant accepts the provided parking associated with their housing choice, i.e. development provides alternative choices to different market segments. 5. The parking regulations were amended two years ago; the adopted parking standards were determined to he adequate and appropriate for the City at that time. 6. The parking requirements in the Downtown Specific Plan are already substantially reduced compared to the requirements for the rest of the City. 7. Developers should exhaust all design solutions before requesting exemptions. 8. Granting an exemption may establish a precedent for subsequent requests. 9. Amending policy in response to specific development proposals would establish policy for all future potential projects. 10. Reduced parking stall dimensions could actually result in fewer usable parking spaces as drivers of large vehicles may tend to pass up spaces they perceive as being too tight, such as when a parked vehicle has encroached onto an adjacent space. 11. Increased potential for vehicle damage resulting from parking maneuvers and entering or exiting parked vehicles. The following are the results of a survey of parking dimension requirements of several cities in the area. The dimensions are the minimum required for perpendicular (90-degree angle) parking if located within a structure. The dimension requirements may increase depending on the angle of parking, width of aisles, whether walls or obstructions are present, and other factors. Of the cities surveyed, standard stall widths vary from 8-feet to 9-feet, and stall depths vary from 18-feet to 19-feet. Three of the five cities (including National City) also allow for compact parking stalls. 4 City Standard Stall Compact Stall Width Depth 19 Width Dep.lh 15 Chula Vista 9 8 El Cajon 8.5 18.5 n/a n/a La Mesa 9 18 8 16 National City 9 18 8 16 San Diego 8 18 n/a n/a If adopted, the amendment would reduce the required standard parking stall width from 9-feet to 8-feet within the specific plan area. The resulting parking stall dimensions (8-feet wide and 18- fect deep) would be equivalent to the minimum requirement adopted by the City of San Diego. The City of San Diego parking standards apply city-wide and do not include provisions for compact stalls. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommends a minimum stall width of 8-feet for long-term parking and a minimum width of 8-feet, 4-inches for short-term parking. Most of the parking that would be developed in the downtown would serve residential land uses, and would be considered long-term parking. Parking that is developed to serve retail commercial uses with higher turnover rates would be considered short-term parking. Planning Commission On March 3, 2008, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed amendment. The Conunission unanimously concurred with staff's recommendation for the first part of the amendment to exclude accessory parking floor area from the calculation of floor arca ratio. However, the Commission recommended denial of the second part of the amendment to reduce the standard parking stall width on a vote of 5-1. Some of the Commissioners recommending denial cited concerns with the problems that can result from narrower parking stalls, including the difficulty in parking maneuvers, less room to enter and exit vehicles, loss of usable spaces when vehicles park too close or encroach into adjacent spaces, and the resulting property damage between closely parked vehicles. The Planning Commission recommendations for approval and denial are contained in the respective resolutions (Attachments 8 and 9). Environmental Review A Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was certified for the Downtown Specific Plan. Based on the Initial Study prepared for the amendment, an Addendum to the EIR is recommended (Attachment 7). 5 Attachment 2 DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN Attachment 3 PROPOSED AMENDMENT Floor Arca Ratio Amend Table 6 Development Zone Standards of Chapter IV Land Use Regulations & Development Standards of the Downtown Specific Plan by adding the following footnote: 'The calculation of Floor Area Ratio shall exclude floor area used for accessory parkin& including stalls, aisles, driveways, ramps, loading areas, access routes, and lobbies, stairways, elevators, utilities, .storage areas, and related areas servinx parldnifloor areas. Development Zone lA 1B 2 3 4 5A 5B 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Table 6 Development Zone Standards Densities DU/AC3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE F.A.R. FLOOR AREA RATIO 6:1 6:1 Maximum Height',2 None None 4:1 4:1 75' 75' 6:1 90' 20-30 3:1 4:1 36' 90' 20-30 6:1 None 20-30 6:1 3:1 5:1 None 36' 3:1 4:1 90' 5:1 4:1 4:1 36' 50' 90' 75' 75' KIMBALL PARK ' 36' Height Limit for townhouses in all districts. Additional height, beyond the 36-foot limit, is not allowed tor an additional occupied floor, but con be approved for stair houses, garden rooms, trellis structures and similar. Specitic height limits are not applied to Development /ones IA, 1 B, 6 and 7, the ultimate height will be governed by Floor Area Ratio and the pragmatics of market capacity and the floor plate requirements of a chosen building use. ' t imits on densities, as described in "dwelling units per acre" ,only oppy to Townhou se Development Zones 5, 8, and 10. Otherwise, the intensity of development is governed by Hour Area Ratio and height. Attachment 3 (continued) Parking Dimensions Amend Table 5 Parking Requirements of Chapter VI Urban Design Guidelines of the Downtown Specific Plan by adding the following footnote: "'The minimum width of a standard size car stall shall be reduced by 1-foot for required parking within the Downtown Specific Plan. TABLE 5 PARKING REQUIREMENTS RESIDENTIAL NUMBER OF BEDROOMS MINIMUM REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PER DWEU.ING UNIT Studio One Bedroom Two Bedroom Three or More 1 1 1.2 1.4 NON RESIDENTIAL MINIMUM REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PER 1,000 SQ. FT. GM' 2.5'• NOTES: Inckxles Goss Floor Arne pies be$ow Grade Floor Area and rxclodes Hoar Area Devoted 10 Pmking '411re minimum parking ration apply to a1 non-residential uses ar,d only eating and drinking establishments that do not have a common parking area with ahoy ollux uses. There is no minimum Fortuna requirement for nutrrxx doting. 8 ,s__._.__.__....,._..,,,,,��,,.,,m,.,.r+,. Attachment 4 LAND USE CODE DEFINITIONS 18.04.2.52 Floor area. "Floor area" means the sum of the gross areas of the several floors of a building or buildings, measured from the exterior faces of exterior walls or from the centerlines of walls separating two buildings. In particular, "floor area" includes basement space, except as specifically excluded in this definition; elevator shafts or stairwells, at each floor; floor space in penthouses; attic space (whether or not a floor has been laid) providing structural headroom of eight feet or more; floor space in interior balconies or mezzanines; floor space in open or roofed terraces, exterior balconies, breezeways or porches, if more than fifty percent of the perimeter of such terrace, balcony, breezeway or porch is enclosed, and provided that a parapet not higher than three feet eight inches, or a railing not less than fifty percent open and not higher than four feet six inches, shall not constitute an enclosure; any other floor space used for dwelling purposes, no matter where located within a building, when not specifically excluded; floor space in accessory buildings, except for floor space used for accessory off-street parking; floor space used for permitted or required accessory off-street parking spaces located more than twenty-three feet above curb level; floor space used for permitted or required accessory off-street parking spaces located more than fifty percent above ground (subterranean and semi -subterranean parking areas); and any other floor space not specifically excluded. However, the floor area of a building shall not include cellar space, except that cellar space used for retailing shall be included for the purpose of calculating requirements for accessory off-street parking spaces and accessory off- street loading berths; elevator or stair bulkheads, accessory water tanks, or cooling towers; uncovered steps; attic space, whether or not a floor actually has been laid, providing structural headroom of less than eight feet; floor space in open or roofed terraces, exterior balconies, breezeways, or porches, provided that not more than fifty percent of the perimeter of such terrace, balcony, breezeway, or porch is enclosed, and provided that a parapet not higher than three feet eight inches, or a railing not less than fifty percent open and not higher than four feet six inches, shall not constitute an enclosure; floor space used for permitted or required accessory off-street parking spaces located less than fifty percent above curb level; floor space used for accessory off- street loading berths, up to two hundred percent of the amount required by the applicable zone regulation; and floor space used for mechanical equipment. (Ord. 1503 § 1 (part), 1976: NCLUC § 950-7 (part)) 18.04.254 Floor area ratio. "Floor arca ratio" means the total floor area on a lot divided by the lot area. For example, a building containing twenty thousand square feet of floor area on a zoning lot of ten thousand square feet has a floor area ratio of two. (Ord. 1503 § 1 (part), 1976: NCLUC § 950-7 (part)) 9 Attachment 5 LAND USE CODE TABLE XV PARKING TABLE STANDARD SIZE CAR Required Stall Stall Distance Increase in Parking Angle Width Stall Depth ;Aisle Width At Bay Side Bay Width Aisle Width for Public Facilities A B C D E F G Parallel 9'0"" 9'0" 12'0"" 23'0" 21'0" 2' 20° 9'0"" 15'0" 12'0"" 26'3" 27'0" 1' 9'6" 15'5" i 12'0"" 27'8" 27'5" 10'0"" 15'9" 12'0"" 29'2" 27'9" 9'0"• 17'3" : 12'0"" 18'0" 29'3" 1' 9'6"' 17'8" 12'0"*" 19'0" 29'8" 10'0"' 18'2" i 12'0"" 20'0" 30'2" 45° 9'0"" 19'8" 13'0" 12'7" 32'8" 9'6"" 20'1" 13'0" 13'4" 33'1" 10'0"' 20'5" 13'0" 14'1" 33'5" 60° 9'0"" 21'0' 9'6"' 21'2" 10'0"' 21'5" 18'0" 10'4" 39'0" 18'0" 11'0" 39'2" 18'0" 11'5" 39'5" 70° 9'0"" 21'0" 19'0" 9'6" 40'0" 9'6"" 21'2" 18'5" 10'1" 39'7" 10'0"' 21'2" 18'0" 10'6" 39'2" 80° 9'0"' 20'3" 24'0" 9'1" 44'3" 9'6"" 20'4" 24'0" 9'6" 44'4" 10'0"" 20'5" 24'0" 10'2" 44'5" 90° 9'0"' 18'0" 24'0" 9'0" 43'0" 9'6"' 18'0" 24'0" 9'6" 43'0" 10'0"' 18'0" 24'0" 10'0" 43'0" * See Sections 18.58.330 and 18.58.340 " See G for public parking facilities. COMPACT SIZE CAR H I J K L Parallel 8'0" 8'0" 12'0" 16'0"/19'0" 20'0" 30° 8'0" 15'6" 12'0" 15'10" 27'6" 45 8'0" 17'0" 12'0" 11'4" 29'0" 2' 60° 8'0" 17'9" ... 17 0" 9 2" 34 9" 2 90° 8'0" 16'0" 20'0" 8'0" 36'0" 2' 1' 10 Attachment 6 FAR CALCULATION EXAMPLE The following scenarios assume the development of a residential condominium project on a 20,000 square foot lot with a maximum allowed FAR of 6.0 and no height limit. Example 1 tJnit mix: Studio and/or one -bedroom units Lot coverage: 100% (approx..) Total floor area (max): 120,000 GSF (20,000 SF Lot x 6.0 FAR) Floor area per unit: 1,200 GSF* *'['his gross figure is assumed and can vary substantially depending on the efficiency of design. Units (max): 100 (120,000 GSF 1,200 GSF per unit) Units per level (max): 16 (20,000 SF floor plate _ 1,200 GSF per unit) Residential levels (min @ 100 units): 6.25 (100 units _ 16 units per level) Parking (min @ 100 units): 100 stalls (1 stall per unit) Parking floor area per stall: 325 GSF* *'This gross figure is assumed and can vary substantially depending on the efficiency of design. Parking floor area (@ 100 units): 32,500 GSF (100 stalls x 325 GSF per stall) Parking stalls per level (max): 61 (20,000 SF floor plate _ 325 GSF per stall) Parking levels (min @ 100 stalls): 1.64 (100 stalls - 61 stalls per level) Total levels (min @ 100 units): 7.89 levels (6.25 residential + 1.64 parking) Possible development outcomes: a) Project under current policy with underground parking: 120,000 GSF residential, 100 units, 6.25-stories b) Project under current policy with aboveground parking: 94,650 GSF residential + 25,350 GSF parking = 120,000 GSF total, 78 units, 6.25-stories c) Project under proposed amendment with aboveground parking: 120,000 GSF residential + 32,500 GSF parking = 152,500 GSF total, 100 units, 7.89- stories Conclusion: The amendment would not increase the land use intensity (100 units), but could increase the size of the building by 32,500 GSF (27%) and 1.64 stories, e.g. a developer could provide 1.64 levels of parking aboveground instead of underground, and still develop the maximum allowed floor area of 120,000 GSF. 11 Attachment 6 (continued) Example la A project developed under current policy with underground parking Aboveground: 120,000 GSF residential, 100 units, 6.25-stories Underground: 32,500 GSF parking Example 1 b A project developed under current policy with aboveground parking Aboveground: 94,650 GSF residential + 25,350 GSF parking = 120,000 GSF total, 78 units, 6.25-stories Underground: -0- GSF 12 Attachment 6 (continued) Example lc A project developed under amended policy with aboveground parking Aboveground: 120,000 GSF residential + 32,500 GSF parking = 152,500 GSF total, 100 units, 7.89-stories Underground: -0- GSF 8 7 6 5 ti ;, '`7 s } it .',_: S t '.. ' :f c:i':v 4 _. a • -' utr" Allowed by Allowed by Current Policy Proposed Amendment Example la 100 units 6.25-stories Aboveground: 120,000 GSF Underground: 32,500 GSF Example 1 b 78 units 6.25-stories Aboveground: 120,000 GSF Underground: -0- GSF Example 1c 100 units 7.89-stones Aboveground: 152,500 GSF Underground: -0- GSF 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 13 Attachment 6 (continued) Example 2 - Same as Example 1, but at half the lot coverage Lot coverage: 50% (approx.) Units per level (max): 8 (10,000 SF floor plate _ 1,200 GSF/DU) Residential levels (min @ 100 units): 12.50 (100 units = 8 units per level) Parking stalls per level (max): 30 (10,000 SF floor plate _ 325 GSF per stall) Parking levels (min @ 100 stalls): 3.33 (100 stalls - 30 stalls per level) Total levels (min (a,> 100 units): 15.83 levels (12.50 residential + 3.33 parking) Possible development outcomes: a) Project under current policy with underground parking: 120,000 GSF residential, 100 units, 12.50-stories b) Project under current policy with aboveground parking: 94,650 GSF residential + 25,350 GSF parking = 120,000 GSF total, 78 units, 12.3.5- stories a) Project under proposed amendment with aboveground parking: 120,000 GSF residential + 32,500 GSF parking = 152,500 GSF total, 100 units, 15.83- stories Conclusion: The amendment would not increase the land use intensity (100 units), but could increase the size of the building by 32,500 GSF (27%) and 3.33 stories, e.g. a developer could provide 3.33 levels of parking aboveground instead of underground, and still develop the maximum allowed floor area of 120,000 GSF. 14 Attachment 6 (continued) Example 2a A project developed under current policy with underground parking Aboveground: 120,000 GSF residential, 100 units, 12.50-stories Underground: 32,500 GSF parking 15 Attachment 6 (continued) Example 2b A project developed under current policy with aboveground parking Aboveground: 94,650 GSF residential + 25,350 GSF parking = 120,000 GSF total, 78 units, 12.50-stories Underground: -0- GSF 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 16 Attachment 6 (continued) Example 2c A project developed under amended policy with aboveground parking Aboveground: 120,000 GSF residential + 32,500 GSF parking = 152,500 GSF total, 100 units, 15.83-stories Underground: -0- GSF 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 3 2 1 17 Attachment 6 (continued) Allowed by Allowed by Current Policy Proposed Amendment Example 2a 100 units 12.50-stories Aboveground: 120,000 GSF Underground: 32,500 GSF Example 2b 78 units 12.50-stories Aboveground: 120,000 GSF Underground: -0- GSF Example 2c 100 units 15.83-stories Aboveground: 152,500 GSF Underground: -0- GSF 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 :t! 18 Case File Information: Reference Files: Addendum Completed By: Date: Project Description: Addendum Description: Attachment 7 Program EIR Addendum Downtown Specific Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (SCH#2004011110) Downtown Specific Plan SP-2004-2 Raymond Pe, Redevelopment Projects Manager January 23, 2008 The Downtown Specific Plan establishes land use and development policy for approximately 150-acres within the downtown area. The specific plan includes land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines for the physical development of the plan area. A proposed amendment to the specific plan (2007-26 SP) would exclude accessory parking floor arca from the calculation of floor area ratio and reduce the width of standard parking stalls by 1 -foot. Background The City Council certified the Program EIR and approved the Downtown Specific Plan on February 1, 2005. The EIR identified impacts and included mitigation measures that have been incorporated into the project. The purpose of this addendum is to address the proposed amendment to the development standards of the specific plan. Project Description The Downtown Specific Plan consists of development zones with land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines for each zone. The primary development standard in each zone is the maximum allowed floor arca ratio (FAR). Floor area ratio is the total (building) floor area on a lot divided by the lot area. The maximum FAR controls the intensity of development within each zone, i.e. the allowable building floor area that can be developed. Another development standard is the required parking for land uses. Because the specific plan does not establish parking stall dimensions, the standards contained in the Municipal Code are applied. 19 Project Change The proposed amendment to the specific plan would exclude accessory parking floor area, such as in parking structures, from the calculation of floor area ratio. The amendment would also reduce the width of standard size car stalls by I -foot. A standard parking stall is 9-feet wide and 18-feet deep. The proposed amendment is intended to provide regulatory relief to improve development feasibility in the implementation of the specific plan. Environmental Analysis An Initial Study (attached) was prepared for the proposed amendment to the specific plan. The Initial Study found that there would be "no impact" for most issues and "less than significant impact" for two issues —Aesthetics (I.c.) and Transportation/Traffic (XV.f). The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be no significant impacts to aesthetics with the adoption and implementation of the specific plan (EIR, Section 4.4, Page 70). The proposed amendment could potentially result in additional floor area devoted to accessory parking aboveground, as in parking structures. Consequently, the size and bulk of buildings could increase by an amount equivalent to any floor area provided for aboveground parking. The potential increase in huilding size and bulk could alter or eliminate existing views, reduce solar access or opportunities for passive heating and cooling on nearby properties, and degrade the visual character or quality of development sites and surroundings. However, the design guidelines and consistency review process of the Downtown Specific Plan would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. The design guidelines address site design and include substantial requirements for the aesthetic treatment of buildings and parking structures. The implementation of these design guidelines would avoid any potential aesthetic impacts of above grade parking structures and larger buildings that could result from the proposed amendment. The guidelines effectively require that parking be screened from public view and/or architecturally treated or integrated into the building design. Other guidelines address huilding composition,• providing solar access, creating views, reducing apparent bulk and scale, and minimizing the impact of buildings on surrounding land uses. Compliance with the design guidelines is determined through the consistency review process established by the specific plan. This discretionary entitlement process insures that development projects implement the policies of the specific plan, including the design and aesthetic treatment of buildings and parking structures. Thus, the amendment would avoid or result in less than significant aesthetic impacts with the implementation of the adopted design review policies of the specific plan. Program EIR Addendum 20 Page 2 of 3 The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be potentially significant impacts to transportation/traffic (EIR, Section 4.3, Page 49). However, the proposed amendment would not result in additional significant impacts to transportation/traffic since there would be no significant changes to the implementation of adopted plans and policies, no changes to permitted land uses, and no increases to allowed land use intensities or densities. The amendment would not reduce the required number of parking spaces, but would reduce the minimum standard stall width from 9-feet to 8-feet. The proposed reduction in stall width could potentially result in fewer usable parking spaces if drivers avoid spaces perceived as constricted, such as when parked vehicles encroach into adjacent spaces. The 8-foot width is a standard used by the City of San Diego. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) recommends a minimum stall width of 8-feet for long- term parking and a minimum width of 8-feet, 4-inches for short-term parking. Most of the parking developed in the downtown would be residential, and would he considered long-term parking. Parking serving retail commercial uses with higher turnover rates would be considered short-term parking. Justification for Preparation of an Addendum Pursuant to CEQA § 15164, no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is needed for this project due to the proposed amendment since there would be no substantial changes to the project or its circumstances that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts. Furthermore, there is no new information showing that the project will have significant effects not discussed in the previous EIR, that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous FIR, that there arc mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible that are in fact feasible, or that different mitigation measures than those previously identified would substantially reduce significant impacts. The Initial Study demonstrates that there is no potential for new significant impacts or for a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Program EIR. Since the character and circumstances of the project would be unchanged, the discussions on land use/planning, geology/soils, traffic/circulation, aesthetics, noise, air quality, hazards/hazardous materials, population/housing, cultural resources, water services, police protection, fire protection, school facilities, sewage services, and recreation in the Program EIR are still relevant and need not be re-examined. Attachment: Initial Study Program FIR Addendum 21 Page 3 of 3 1. PROJECT" TITLE/PROJECT #: Specific Plan Amendment, Project No. 2007-26 SP, IS 2. LEAD AGENCY: City of National City Planning Department 1243 National City Boulevard National City, CA 91950 Contact: Raymond Pe, AICP Phone: (619) 336-4421 3. PROJECT LOCATION: Downtown Specific Plan within the City of National City 4. PROJECT PROPONENT: Community Development Commission 1243 National City Boulevard National City, CA 91950 Contact: Raymond Pe, AICP Phone: (619) 336-4421 5. COMBINED GENERAL PLAN/ Downtown Specific Plan and development zones ZONING DESIGNATION: 6. ASSOCIATED APPLICATIONS: N/A 7. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project is a proposed amendment to the development standards of the Downtown Specific Plan. The specific plan consists of development zones with land use regulations, development standards, and design guidelines for each zone. The primary development standard in each zone is the maximum allowed floor arca ratio (FAR). Floor area ratio is the total (building) floor area on a lot divided by the lot area. The maximum FAR controls the intensity of development within each zone, i.e. the allowable building floor area that can be developed. Another development standard is the required parking for land uses. Because the specific plan does not establish parking stall dimensions, the standards contained in the Municipal Code are applied. The proposed amendment to the specific plan would exclude accessory parking floor area, such as in parking structures, from the calculation of floor area ratio. The amendment would also reduce the width of standard size car stalls by 1-foot. A standard parking stall is 9-feet wide and 18-feet deep. The proposed amendment is intended to provide regulatory relief to improve development feasibility in the implementation of the specific plan. 22 Initial Study - Page 2 of 14 8. OTHER AGENCIES WHOSE APPROVAL MAY BE REQUIRED (AND PERMITS NEEDED): N/A ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below least one impact that is a "Potentially Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on ❑ Aesthetics I7 Biological Resources [-1 Geological Problems L7 Land Use / Planning ❑ Public Services Ll Utilities & Service Systems • Agricul would be potentially affected by this project, involving at Significant Impact" or is "Potentially Significant Unless the following pages. tore ❑ Cultural Resources ❑ Hazards & Hazardous Materials f7 Noise [-1 Recreation 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance DETERMINATION: (To be completed by the Lead Agency) On the basis of this Initial Evaluation: • 0 Air Quality O Energy & Mineral Resources • Hydrology /Water Quality O Population / Housing ❑ Transportation/Circulation I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and an ADDENDUM TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN EIR will be prepared. I Lind that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (I) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or is "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL. IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effect that remains to be addressed. Signature Printed Name: Raymond Fe, AICF Date l Title: edcvcld El ment Projects Manager 23 initial Study - Pane 3 of 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: I . A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No impact" answer is adequately suplxrrtcd if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to the project. A "No impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project -specific factors as well as general standards. 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved. Answers should address off -site as well as on - site, cumulative as well as project -level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence than an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an LIR is required. 4. "Negative Declaration: Less than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporated" applied where the incorporation of a mitigation measure has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant impact" to "Less then Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. 5. Earlier analyses may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section I 5063(c)(3)(D). G. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). References to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. S. This in only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project's environmental effects in whichever format is selected. 9. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and h) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance. 24 Initial Study - Page 4 of 14 ISSUES with Supporting Documentation & Sources I. AESTHETICS - Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? (Sources: 1, 2, 3,4) b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime Views in the area? (Sources: 1,2,3,4) Potentially Less Than tess Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation I LJ LJ ri (I x r 'l x x x The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be no significant impacts to aesthetics with the adoption and implementation of the specific plan (FIR, Section 4.4, Page 70). The proposed amendment to the specific plan could potentially result in impacts to aesthetics. Although the amendment would not change planned or permitted land uses, increase development intensity or density, or significantly alter development standards, the amendment might result in additional floor area devoted to accessory parking. Consequently, the size and hulk of buildings could increase by an amount equivalent to any floor area provided for aboveground parking. The potential increase in building size and hulk could alter or eliminate existing views, reduce solar access or opportunities for passive heating and cooling on nearby properties, and degrade the visual character or quality of development sites and surroundings. However, the design guidelines and consistency review process of the Downtown Specific flan would reduce any potential impacts to less than significant. The design guidelines address site design and include substantial requirements for the aesthetic treatment of buildings and parking structures. The implementation of these design guidelines would avoid any potential aesthetic impacts of above grade parking structures and larger buildings that could result from the proposed amendment. The guidelines effectively require that parking be screened from public view and/or . architecturally treated or integrated into the building design. Other guidelines address building composition, providing solar access, creating views, reducing apparent bulk and scale, and minimizing the impact of buildings on surrounding land uses. Compliance with the design guidelines is determined through the consistency review process established by the specific plan. This discretionary entitlement process insures that development projects implement the policies of the specific plan, including the design and aesthetic treatment of buildings and parking structures. Thus, the amendment would avoid or result in less than significant aesthetic impacts with the implementation of the adopted design review policies of the specific plan. 25 Initial Study - Page 5 of 14 II. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES -- In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation & Site Assessment Model (1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in as.sessing impacts on agriculture and farmland. Would the project: a) Convert Prince Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring l'rogram of the California Resources Agency, to non- agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation X 1-1 ❑ U x L] The Program E1R for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be no significant impacts to agricultural resources (FIR, Section 9.0, Page 163). The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to agricultural resources. III. AIR QUALITY Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non - attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3,4 ) d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) Potentially Less Than less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation Ll rl ❑ x ❑ x X 26 Initial Study - Page 6 of 14 The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Ilan found that there would be potentially significant impacts to air quality (EIR, Section 4.6, Page 102). Ilowever, the proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to air quality since there would be no significant changes to the implementation of adopted plans and policies, no changes to permitted land uses, and no increases to allowed land use intensities or densities. IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES - Would the project: a) I lave a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish arid Game (CPRG) or II.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 4) h) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of I'ish and Game (CMG) or US Fish and Wildlife Service? (Sources: 1, 4) c) Ilave a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 904 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? (Sources: 1, 4) d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? (Sources: 1, 4) e) Conflict with any local [foiicies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? (Sources: 1, 4) f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? (Sources: 1, 4) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant impact Impact Mitigation Impact incorporation LI LI IJ x x x X X X The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be no potential significant impacts to biological resources (EiR, Section 9.0, Page 163). The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to biological resources. V. CULTURAL RESOURCES Would the project: Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? (Sources: 1, 4) 27 initial Study - Page 7 of 14 h) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to 15084.5? (Sources: 1, 4) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? (Sources: 1, 4) d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? (Sources: 1, 4) u x r1 11 i_1 x The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be no potential significant impacts to cultural resources (EIR, Section 9.0, Page 163) with the implementation of the adopted mitigation measures. The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to cultural resources that could not be mitigated with the adopted measures. VI. GEOLOGY & SOILS Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: i) Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. (Sources: 1, 4) ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? (Sources: 1, 4) iii) Seismic -related ground failure, including liquefaction? (Sources: 1, 4) iv) landslides? (Sources: 1, 4) b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the toss of topsoil? (Sources: 1, 4) c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off -site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, Liquefaction or collapse? (Sources: 1, 4) (1) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? (Sources: 1, 4) L. I I� Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Sigiifl ant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation iJ C.1 fi C n IJ e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic l 1 u tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? (Sources: 1, 4) x 'lire. Program F.IR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be less than significant impacts from geology and soils (EIR, Section 9.0, Page 163). The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts from geology and soils. 28 Initial Study - Page S of 14 Vll. HAZARDS & HAZARDOI.IS MATERIAIS Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? (Sources: 1, 4) b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? (Sources: 1, 4) c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one -quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? (Sources 1, 4) (1) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? (Sources: 1, 4) e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: 1, 4) f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? (Sources: I, 4) g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? (Sources: 1, 4) h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? (Sources: 1, 4) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation The Program E1R for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be no significant impacts from hazards and hazardous materials (EIR, Section 9.0, Page 163). The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts from hazards and hazardous materials. VII1. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY Would the protect: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? (Sources: 1, 4) b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? (Sources: 1, 4) Potentially Less Than less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation Ll LJ • I x it X 29 Initial Study Page 9 of 14 c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site? (Sources: 1, 4) (1) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or off -site? (Sources: 1, 4) e) Create Or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff/ (Sources: 1, 4) 0 Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? (Sources: 1, 4) g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? (Sources: 1, 4) h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? (Sources: 1, 4) i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? (Sources: 1, 4) j) Inundation by seichc, tsunami, or mudflow? (Sources: 1, 4) X n n x ri i n P1 n X X X x The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be less than significant impacts to hydrology and water quality (EIR, Section 9.0, Page 163). The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to hydrology and water quality. IX. LAND USE & PLANNING Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, Local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? (Sources: 1, 2, :3,4) Potentially Les., Than less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation r n n n x The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be potentially significant impacts to land use and planning (EIR, Section 4.1, Page 29). However, the proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to land use and planning since there would be no significant changes to the implementation of adopted plans and policies, no changes to permitted land uses, and no increases to allowed land use intensities or densities. 30 initial Study - Page 10 of 14 X. MINERAL RESOURCES Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? (Sources: I , 4 ) h) Result in the loss of availability of a locally -important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? (Sources: 1, 4) Potentially Significant Impact n Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporation I less Than No Significant Impact Impact x The Program E1R for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be no significant impacts to mineral resources (EIR, Section 9.0, Page 163). The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to mineral resources. Xi. NOISE Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: 1, 4) d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in thc project vicinity above levels existing without the project? (Sources: I, 2, 3, 4) c) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise Levels? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) t) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) Potentially Significant Impact Less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporation n Less Than No Significant Impact Impact x The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be potentially significant impacts from noise (EIR, Section 4.5, Page 77). However, the proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts from noise since there would be no significant changes to the implementation of adopted plans and policies, no changes to permitted land uses, arid no increases to allowed land use intensities or densities. XII. POPULATION & HOUSING Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other Potentially Significant Impact less Than Significant w/ Mitigation Incorporation less Than No Significant Impact Impact n n n x 31 Initial Study - Page 11 of 14 infrastructure)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) J LI X X The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be potentially significant impacts to population and housing (EIR, Section 4.8, Page 124). however, the proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to population and housing since there would be no significant changes to the implementation of adopted plans and policies, no changes to permitted land uses, and no increases to allowed land use intensities or densities. XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: Fire protection? (Sources: 1, 4) Police protection? (Sources: 1, 4) Schools? (Sources: 1, 4) Parks'? (Sources: 1, 4) Other public facilities? (Sources: 1, 4) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact incorporation The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific l'lan found that there would be less than significant impacts to public services (EIR, Section 9.0, Page 163). The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to public services. XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) Potentially Less hhan Less Tian No Significant Significant w/ Significant impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation Ll L X 32 Initial Study Page 12 of 14 b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? (Sources: i, 2, 3, 4) J iA 11 x The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be less than significant impacts to public services (EIR, Section 9.0, Page 163). The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to public services including recreation. XV. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC Would the project: a) Cause an increase in traffic: which is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.c., result in a substantial increase in either the nwnber of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) b) Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in Location that results in substantial safety risks? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) e) Result in inadequate emergency access? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) f) Result in inadequate parking capacity? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) g) Conflict witli adopted policies plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? (Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation L' n x 'Hie Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be potentially significant impacts to transportation/traffic (EIR, Section 4.3, Page 49). However, the proposed amendment would not result in additional significant impacts to transportation/traffic since there would be no significant changes to the implementation of adopted plans and policies, no changes to permitted land uses, and no increases to allowed land use intensities or densities. The amendment would not reduce the required number of parking spaces, but would reduce the minimum standard stall width from 9-feet to 8-feet. The proposed reduction in stall width could potentially result in fewer usable parking spaces if drivers avoid spaces perceived as constricted, such as when parked vehicles encroach into adjacent spaces. The 8-foot width is a standard used by the City of San Diego. The Institute of Transportation Engineers (I'I'E) recommends a minimum stall width of 8-feet for long-term parking and a minimum width of 8-feet, 4-inches for short-term parking. Most of the parking developed in the downtown would be residential, and would be considered long-term parking. Parking serving retail commercial uses with higher turnover rates would be considered short-term parking. 33 Initial Study - l'agc 13 of 14 XVI. UTILITIES & SERVICE SYSTEMS Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? (Sources: 1, 4) b) Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1, 4) c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water - I drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? (Sources: 1, 4) d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? (Sources: 1, 4) e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing connnitments? (Sources: 1, 4) t) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? (Sources: 1, 4) Potentially Less Than Less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? (Sources: 1, 4) n n x x n n n X n n x The Program EIR for the Downtown Specific Flan found that there would be less than significant impacts to utilities and service systems (EIR, Section 9.0, Page 163). The proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts to utilities and service systems. XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS of SIGNIFICANCE a) L)oes the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major • periods of California history or prehistory? (Sources: 1, 4) b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable'? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? (Sources: 1, 4) Potentially Less Than less Than No Significant Significant w/ Significant Impact Impact Mitigation Impact Incorporation x X 34 Initial Study - Page 14 of 14 c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? (Sources: 1, 4) I Li X The Program Elk for the Downtown Specific Plan found that there would be potentially significant impacts under mandatory findings of significance based on the initial Study. However, the proposed amendment would not result in additional impacts under mandatory findings of significance since there would be no significant changes to the implementation of adopted plans and policies, no changes to permitted land uses, and no increases to allowed land use intensities or densities. REFERENCE SOURCES: Reference # Document Title 1 National City Downtown Specific Plan Final Program Environmental Impact Report 2 National City General Plan 3 National City Downtown Specific Plan 4 Environmental Assessment Form for project Available for Review at: National City Planning Dcpt. 1243 National City Boulevard National City, CA 91950 National City Planning Dept. National City Planning Dcpt. National City ('tanning Dept. 35 RESOi,tUTION NO. 4-2008 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF TI IE CITY OF NATIONAI, CITY, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO EXCLUDE ACCESSORY PARKING FLOOR AREA FROM THE CALCULATION OF FLOOR AREA RATIO AND A FINDING OF NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT APPLICANT: CLI'Y INITIATED CASE FILE. NO. 2007-26 SP, IS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City considered a Specific Plan Amendment application to amend the Downtown Specific Plan to exclude accessory parking floor area from the calculation of floor area ratio within the plan area at a duly advertised public hearing held on March 3, 2008, at which time oral and documentary evidence was presented; and, WHEREAS, at said public hearing the Planning Conunission considered the stall' report contained in Case File Nos. 2007-26 SP, IS maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing; and, WIIEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and City law; and, WHEREAS, the action recited herein is found to be essential for the preservation of public health, safety, and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the (.'ity of National City, California, that the testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing held on March 3, 2008, support the following findings for the Specific Plan Amendment. RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN I. That the proposed specific plan amendment is consistent with the General Plan, which encourages the adoption of a specific' plan for the redevelopment and revitalization of the downtown. The proposed amendment would further the attainment of the goals and objectives of the specific plan through revised land development policies. The proposed development standards would advance the implementation of the plan by allowing more flexibility in building and site design to increase development feasibility in the plan area. 2. That the General Plan encourages less restrictive development standards within a specific plan for the downtown to encourage and facilitate more intensive development relative to the other areas of the City. 36 RECOMMENDED FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL, OF A PROGRAM EIR ADDENDUM 1. That the Program EIR Addendum (2007-26 IS) has been read and considered together with the Program EIR and any comments received during the public review process; and, 2. That based on the whole record including the Initial Study, there is no substantial evidence that the amendment will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Program EIR Addendum reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis; and, 3. That pursuant to CEQA §15164, no Subsequent or Supplemental EIR is needed for this project due to the proposed amendment since there would be no substantial changes to -the project or its circumstances that would result in new significant impacts or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified impacts; and, 4. That there is no new information showing that the project will have significant effects not discussed in the previous EiR, that significant effects previously examined will be substantially more severe than shown in the previous EIR, that there are mitigation measures or alternatives previously found to be infeasible that are in fact feasible, or that different mitigation measures than those previously identified would substantially reduce significant impacts; and, 5. That the Initial Study demonstrates that there is no potential for new significant impacts or for a substantial increase in the severity of impacts identified in the Program FiR, and since the character and circumstances of the project would be unchanged, the discussions on land use/planning, geology/soils, traffic/circulation, aesthetics, noise, air quality, hazards/hazardous materials, population/housing, cultural resources, water services, police protection, fire protection, school facilities, sewage services, and recreation in the Program EIR are still relevant and need not be re-examined. BF IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission has considered the proposed Program FIR Addendum (2007-26 IS) together with the Program EIR and any cominents received during the public review process, and finds on the basis of the whole record (including the Initial Study and any continents received) that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment, and that the proposed Program EIR Addendum reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis, and hereby recommends approval of the proposed Program EiR Addendum. 13E iT FURTIIER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be transmitted forthwith to the applicant and to the City Council. :37 CER"1'IFICATION: This certifies that the Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 17, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Alvarado, Baca, DeLaPaz, Pruitt, Reynolds, Flores NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CIIAIRWOMAN 38 RESOLUTION NO. 5-2008 A RESOLUTION OF TIIE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE DOWNTOWN SPECIFIC PLAN TO REDUCE THE STANDARD PARKING STAI,L, WIDTH APPLICANT: CITY INITIATED CASE FiLE NO. 2007-26 SP, IS WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of National City considered a Specific Plan Amendment to amend the Downtown Specific Plan to reduce the standard parking stall width of parking spaces within the plan area at a duly advertised public hearing held on March 3, 2008, at which time oral and documentary evidence was presented; and, WIIERF.AS, at said public hearing the Planning Commission considered the staff report contained in Case File Nos. 2007-26 SP, iS maintained by the City and incorporated herein by reference along with evidence and testimony at said hearing; and, WHEREAS, this action is taken pursuant to all applicable procedures required by State law and City law; and, WHEREAS, the action recited herein is found to be essential for the preservation of public health, safety, and general welfare. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of National City, California, that the testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing held on March 3, 2008 tail to support findings that the proposed amendment is in the public interest. BE IT FIJRTHER RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of National City, California, that the testimony and evidence presented to the Planning Commission at the public hearing held on March 3, 2008, support the following findings: 1. That the parking regulations were only recently amended on March 21, 2006 (Ordinance No. 2006-2280), which reduced the standard parking stall depth and resulted in the current standard stall dimensions, which were determined to he adequate and appropriate for parking facilities citywide. 2. That the parking requirements in the Downtown Specific Plan are already substantially reduced compared to the requirements for the rest of the City. 3. That the amendment would not encourage 'design solutions to he exhausted under the current development standards. 39 4. That the amendment would apply to all development and eliminate the discretion to evaluate the merits of exemption requests for individual projects on a case -by -case basis. 5. That the amendment could result in fewer usable parking spaces when vehicles are parked too close to or encroach into adjacent spaces. 6. That the amendment could increase the potential for vehicle damage resulting from parking maneuvers and entering or exiting parked vehicles. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends denial of Specific Plan Amendment no. 2007-26 SP, IS. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that copies of this Resolution be transmitted forthwith to the applicant and to the City Council. CERTIFICATION: This certifies that the Resolution was adopted by the Planning Commission at their meeting of March 17, 2008, by the following vote: AYES: Alvarado, liaca, DeLaPaz, Reynolds, F1.ores NAYS: Prui tt ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CHAIRWOMAN 40 City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT ''OEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 13 ITEM TITLE Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of National City to discuss the Ordinance Amending Title Four of the National City Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 4.52 Establishing and Approving a Transportation Development Impact Fee for Capital Improvement Projects Necessary to Maintain Acceptable Levels of Traffic and Transportation Service Within the City and the Transportation Impact Fee Program Report. PREPARED BY Stephen Manganiello DEPARTMENT Engineering EXT. 4382 EXPLANATION At the March 18, 2008 City Council Meeting staff introduced the following ordinance: "An Ordinance to the City Council of the City of National City Amending Title Four of the National City Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 4.52 Establishing and Approving a Transportation Development Impact Fee for Capital Improvement Projects Necessary to Maintain Acceptable Levels of Traffic and Transportation Service Within the City'. After introduction of the ordinance, City Council set a Public Hearing date of April 1, 2008 to open this item for discussion. Environmental Review X N/A MIS Approval Financial Statement N/A Approved By: Finance Director Account No STAFF RECOMMENDATION 0 hearing for discussion OARD / COM SSION RECOMMEDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No. 1. Transportation Impact Fee Program Report l A-200 (Rev. 7/03) TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 2 1.2 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) 3 SECTION 2.0 ANALYSIS AND FEE METHODOLOGY 4 2.1 RTCIP NEXUS STUDY 5 2.2 APPROACH 5 2.3 GROWTH PROJECTIONS 6 2.4 FACILIIIESSTANDARD AND NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 11 2.5 FACILITY COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 2.6 COST ALLOCATION AND FEE CALCULATIONS 13 SECTION 3.0 PROGRAM FACILITIES AND COST ESTIMATES 17 3.1 PROGRAM FACILITIES 18 3.2 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES 18 SECTION 4.0 FEE SUMMARY 36 4. I FEE SCHEDULE 37 4.2 DEVELOPMENT FORECAST 37 4.3 ES77MA T ED FEE REVENUES 38 SECTION 5.0 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND FEE REQUIREMENTS 39 5.1 FEE COLLECTION AND USE OF REVENUES 40 5.2 ANNUAL FEE ADJUSMENTS 41 5.3 EXEMPTIONS 42 5.4 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS 42 5.5 FEE WAIVERS, REDUCTIONS AND REFUND OF FEE 43 ATTACIIMENT A RTCIP IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND LAND USE FORECASTS 7 TABLE 2 - OCCUPANT DENSITY 8 TABLE 3 TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS 9 "TABLE 4 - ALLOCATION OF TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING AND COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY 10 TABLE. 5 -TRAVEL DEMAND FROM EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT 11 TABLE 6 REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM ROADWAY STATISTICS 12 TABLE 7 - ESTIMATED ARTERIAL SYSTEM CAPACITY INVESTMENTS ($2008) 14 TABLE 8 - RTP INVESTMENT PLAN, 2002-2030 ($2002) 14 TABLE 9 TIT PROGRAM FACILITY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY 15 TABLE 10 - RESIDENTIAL COST PER TRIP (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 16 TABLE 11 - RTCIP IMPACT FEE (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 16 TABLE 12 - TIE PROGRAM FACILITY LIST I8 TABLE 13 - TIF PROGRAM FACILITY COST ESTIMATES AND ANTICIPATED REVENUES 19 TABLE 14A - TIME SCHEDULE (RESIDENTIAL) 37 TABLE 14B --'TDIF SCIIEDULE (NON-RESIDENTIAL) 37 TABLE 15 - DEVELOPMENT FORECAST 38 TABLE 16 - ESTIMATED TDIF REVENUES 38 1.1 BACKGROUND Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) In November 2004, San Diego County voters approved local Proposition A extending the TransNet Yl cent sales tax to fund the region's transportation system for 40 years. The draft 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) details the need for $58 billion in transportation improvements. Of that total, $27 billion in funding will come from a variety of state and federal sources. The remaining $31 billion will come from local funding sources including the TransNet sales tax extension (which will generate approximately $8 billion). As part of Proposition A and the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) was created to ensure that new development directly invests in the region's transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. K.ey components of the RTCIP include: • Beginning July 1, 2008 each local agency must contribute $2,000 from exactions imposed on the private sector for each new residence constructed within their jurisdiction. • The $2,000 fee per new residential unit will be updated annually by SANDAG for cost inflation following initial adoption by local agencies. • Development impact fees may be used as a revenue source to satisfy local agency contributions to the RTCIP. Fces would be imposed on new dwelling units at building permit issuance. • Revenues must be expended on improvements to the Regional Arterial System and in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recent adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). • The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. • If a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding. Cities have the authority to impose impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act contained in California Government Code sections 66000 through 66025. Each local agency is required to make findings demonstrating a reasonable nexus between: a) the collection of fees, b) the need for facilities created by new development, and c) the expenditure of tee revenues to benefit new development. Regional Arterial System The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has established a Regional Arterial System (RAS) comprised of a select group of arterial roadways which provide "critical links" or direct connections between communities, ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. The current RAS system (as of 2002) 2 contains 2,805 lane miles throughout San Diego County. Based on analysis of existing average weekday vehicle hours of delay on the RAS and future delay based on new development, SANDAG has estimated that an additional 637 lane miles are needed to minimize congestion. SANDAG uses thc following criteria for determining whether or not an arterial should be included in the RAS: • Provides a Zink to areas with high concentrations of existing or future population employment • Provides a link to activity centers such as hospitals, retail centers, entertainment centers, hotels, colleges, and universities • Accommodates high future traffic volumes • Accommodates Regional Transit Vision • Provides access to intcrmodal (freight, port, military, or airport) facilities. The adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) allocates $500 million for investment in the Regional Arterial System (RAS), resulting in a shortfall of over $6 billion. As such, the RTP indicates that local jurisdictions need to identify matching funds for investment in the RAS because the regional funding provided through the RTP, "...is intended to be matched with revenues from the local jurisdictions, which are responsible for improving regional roadways and local streets to meet their residents needs and mitigate the effects of local land use developments." The following Regional Arterial System (RAS) roadways are located within thc City of National City: • Harbor Drive • National City Boulevard • Plaza Boulevard • Euclid Avenue • 30't' Street 1.2 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) arc typically imposed by local agencies to mitigate "cumulative" impacts on the local transportation network due to increased traffic and delay caused by new development. Cumulative impacts are related to overall development (a combination of local projects and regional growth) in a geographic region or plan area, rather than "direct" or site -specific impacts caused solely by an individual project. When traffic from an individual project contributes to a cumulative impact, that project is required to contribute a "fair share" towards the cost of improvements. TD1F's assist in determining that fair share amount, typically by defining a cost per trip which can he applied to the project based on the project's land use category, size and applicable trip generation rate, and the costs associated with the new or expanded transportation facilities needed to mitigate the impact. 3 2.1 RTCIP NEXUS STUDY San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) policy as expressed through the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan is that new development shall contribute towards Regional Arterial System (RAS) improvements through the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). SANDAG coordinated a regional nexus study to assist local agencies in San Diego County in their efforts to adopt a transportation impact fee to fulfill their contribution to the RTCIP, while satisfying the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (contained in California Government Code sections 66000 through 66025). The study titled, RTC.IP Impact Fee Nexus Study — Final Report was prepared on November 26, 2007 by MuniFinancial (Oakland, CA office), under the supervision of SANDAG. The nexus analysis documents a reasonable relationship between increased travel demand from new development on the Regional Arterial System (RAS), the cost of RAS improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and an impact fee to fund those investments. Five arterials within the City of National City are included as part of the RAS. As such, the City of National City has chosen to use the nexus analysis provided in the RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study as a means for establishing a Transportation impact Fee Program to advance a legitimate public interest by enabling both SANDAG and the City of National City to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to accommodate new development. Much of the language provided in the following subsections of Section 2.0 is taken directly from the RTC:IP Impact Fee Nexus Study. The entire nexus study is included as Attachment A of this TIT Program report. 2.2 APPROACH impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The following four steps, which arc described in detail in the subsections that follow, are commonly used to prepare a development impact fee study: 1) Prepare growth projections 2) Identify facility standards 3) Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on facility standards and growth projections 4) Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development. The methodology for the nexus analysis assumes that all development, existing and new has the same impact on the need for transportation system improvements based on the amount of travel demand generated (vehicle trips). Thus, existing and new development should share proportionately in the cost of transportation system improvements. For descriptive purposes this can be considered an "average cost" approach. 5 The approach when applied to the Regional Arterial System (RAS) takes a countywide perspective because the RAS represents a countywide network that facilitates mobility between and through cities and unincorporated areas. New development, regardless of location, both adds congestion (increased vehicle trips) to a range of arterials within the RAS and benefits from the expenditure of fee revenue on a range of RAS facilities. 2.3 GROWTH PROJECTIONS This section describes the SANDAG forecast for population and employment, and estimates of land use in terms of dwelling units and nonresidential building square feet. Land use forecasts are converted to vehicle trips to provide a measure of travel demand. Population, Einployment and Land Use The planning horizon for this analysis is 2030, consistent with current land use and transportation forecasts adopted by SANDAG. The nexus analysis uses forecasts of dwelling units and employment to estimate new development demand for transportation improvements. Forecasts for 2030 arc from SANDAG's Urban Development Model (UDM). The UDM is one of four interrelated forecasting models used by SANDAG to project land use and transportation for the region. The UDM allocates changes in the region's economic and demographic characteristics to jurisdictions and other geographic areas within the region. The model is based on the spatial interrelationships among economic factors, housing and population factors, land use patterns, and the transportation system. The model generates 2030 forecasts for small geographic areas including the traffic analysis zones used in the transportation modeling process. The UDM complies with federal mandates that transportation plans consider the long-range effects of the interaction between land uses and the transportation system. The initial SANDAG fee calculation (see Attachment A) used 2002 as the base year for cost estimates so that is the base year used for this nexus analysis. Dwelling units and employment for 2002 are based on interpolations of development estimates for 2000 and 2005 from the UDM. Total employment was allocated to land use categories based on analysis of employment by land use using data from five counties and conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Table 1 lists the 2002 and 2030 land use assumptions based on SANDAG forecasts and used in the nexus analysis. The land use categories shown in Table 1 and used in this nexus analysis are the same that are used in the SANDAG forecasts with one exception. This nexus analysis includes mobile homes in the multi -family category because of the minimal amount of forecast mobile home development. SANDAG forecasts mobile homes to increase by 2,000 units countywide during the planning horizon, or 1.3 percent of forecast growth in multi -family units. The employment forecasts are converted to building square footage by land use as shown in Table 1 using occupant densities factors shown in 'fable 2. These factors are derived from a study of employment, building square footage, and land use conducted for SCAG. The density factors were derived from a random sample of 2,721 parcels drawn from 6 across five counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). This type of study was not available for San Diego County. The SCAG study's density factors are based on a large sample of properties and arc used in development impact fee studies throughout the State of California. Table 1 - Population, Employment and Land Use Forecasts 2002 2030 Increase Percent Residents 2,909,000 3,855,000 946,000 33% Dwelling Units Single Family tduFi_tamihy` Total Employrtent' Retail Office/Services Industrial Subtotal Residential' Publics Total Building Square Feet (000s)6 Retail Office/Services Indusrial Total 648,000 778,000 130,000 20% 419,000 576,000 157,000 37% 1,467,000 1,354,000 287,000 27% 295,000 393,000 98.000 33% 348,000 451,000 103.000 30% 383,000 628,000 245,000 64% 1,026,000 1,472,000 446,000 43% 138,000 149.000 11,000 8% 139,000 157,00D 29,000 21% 1,303,000 1,778,000 475,000 36% 148,000 197,000 49,000 33% 104,000 135,000 31,000 30% 345.000 565.000 220,000 64% 597,000. 897,000 300,000 50% Multi -family population Mclvies mobile homes. Based on Series tc forecast data provided by SAl'2AG. Estimates by maor rand use type rolled up from County Assessors categories. Interpolated 2003 data based on 2C05 and 2010 forecasts. Ervplayrnerd on residerti.;: land uses such as tame -trams businesses. Travel demand included in esinates for residential lard uses. a Travel demand caused by c.o.,. lard uses so excluded frcm nexus analysis. ° Based or: occupant density factors silvan in Tah'.e 2 Sources: San Diego Association of Governments (SAW/AG) Data Ware: se IhttQ:d-tarrcaehoase.sanda3. org;. :r4Pt1AG S?ves 10 forecast of employment 9y land use: MuniFinancial. 7 Table 2 — Occupant Density Land Use Commercial 500 Square feet per employee Office/Services 300 Square feet per employee Industrial' 900 Square feet per employee Wale: Sarre data based on random sample of 2.721 developed parcels across five Las .Angeles area counties (Los An, s, Orange, Rkwside. San Bernardino. and Ventura). Mun Fnancial estimated weigI' r.g factors by land use categories used in the survey to calculate averve employment densbies by mayor category (commercial. office, industrati. Adfusted to c ,erect for over -sampling of irdr;strial parcels in entxa County. Source: The Natelsan Company, Inc, Employment Der:.. y S.triy Surrantry Report,prepared for the Southern Ca>ronua Associat cn of Governments; October 31. 2001. Table 2-A, p. 15. AiiriFinancial. Travel Demand by Land Use Category To estimate travel demand by type of land use the nexus study uses vehicle trips. Vehicle trips can be calculated in a consistent manner across land use categories based on population and employment estimates by land use category. This enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use categories, a key requirement of the Mitigation Fee Act. A reasonable measure of vehicle trips is weekday average daily vehicle trips ends. Because automobiles are the predominant source of traffic congestion, vehicle trips are a reasonable measure of demand for new capacity even though the measure excludes demand for alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle, pedestrian). The following two adjustments are made to vehicle trip generation rates to better estimate travel demand by type of land use: • Pass -by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass -by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • The trip generation rate is weighted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system. Table 3 shows the calculation of travel demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by SANDAG. The surveys provide a robust database of trip generation rates, pass -by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. 8 Table 3 — Travel Demand Factors E-CsD' A 6 C-P.+15 D 63 F G-EiF Trip Rate Adjustment Factor Total Average Adjust- Average Travel Primary Diverted Excluding Trip ment Daily Trip Demand Trips' Trips' Pass -by' Lentth2 Factor' Ends' Factor' 27% 7.9 1 11 10 11 10 Single Family 88% 11% Muh-family`- 88% 11% 27% 7.9 1.11 8 6.83 Nor•.resxiereial' Commercial 47% 31% 78% 3.0 0.41 98 27.88 OnicESc-wires 779E 1C% Pe% 6.8 172 20 24.40 ;r:dustriai 76% 167E 98% 6.0 1.28 8 10.24 ' Pe cent dicta tips. Panay Wet ale 6.ips rit3 is: midway star js or -*As' Diverted tips are arkea 1rps abase 'dace adz at least one NIe c7 tie raiinary trip Passt'ytrps are aria that oo rot ail rave Man URR rnde t0 the teat the 2 in maes. '..Dyclea a4W average try Hop is 6.9 riles Trip eras or tray et uenn,ara per a Form; bra or per 1,000 mining swam *et Sere taint)* cased an 3-8 urds per acre category. I -fa y Oaeed at 6-al beets coracle category ' stuc:rarity ae'rar. ta. :s muds moue t!orres. Tt!e caMned average only t%4n8s pk!ialkef n I. es. 2CO2 pcgbla32 t+ a.e as9e clay tic Dos for bah rnmeCtamaly and !''ache Males and lr t Astr a Die awn by the 2002 paplfa6 n. Co'M1T4rcal bases Ott'.aneritery shopr!r.9 center eaery. Omce.scrACes Oases On'Can?a'd erri..mezal 2'dta' ralegvy '.naJstrt3l nisei or. :1cuckta park cio ¢armero3,r category. GJrecE San Ctego AssoWto:! or Galm+rds, Wet Gabe tt .Duct- l— Tlpt.KC Geoe'aoUo Rafa 1 r tie Sag Liego P.-VW, :Ay '.93a; Shifting Burden of Commercial Development to Residential Development Applying the travel demand factors shown in Table 3 directly to development by land use category implicitly assumes that the cause of each vehicle trip on the transportation network is shared equally by the land use at each trip end (origin and destination). But depending on the regional economic forces affecting development in a particular area, the cause of a trip may be related more to the land use at the origin or the destination. For example, in some areas residential development may be caused by job growth, while in other areas the opposite may occur (jobs follow housing). These cause and effect relationships may change over time in the same area. Given the complexity of these regional economic and land use relationships, many transportation impact fee nexus studies make the simplifying but reasonable assumption to weight the origin and destination of a trip equally when identifying the cause of travel demand on a transportation system. However, there is one regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship that remains consistent across geographical areas and over time. Commercial development is to a large extent caused by the spending patterns of local residents. Commercial development follows residential development or anticipates new development occurring in the near term. This development pattern can be observed throughout metropolitan regions and is driven by the site location process followed by retailers. When seeking new locations, the most common measure of a potential market used by site location analysts is the number of households within a reasonable driving distance for shopping trips and the median income of those households. 9 Given this consistent regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship, it is reasonable to allocate at least some of the burden of commercial trip ends to residential development. This approach is used in impact fee nexus studies to more accurately allocate the burden of transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. Not all retail spending is related to local residential development. There are three primary sources of retail spending: 1) Local households 2) Local businesses 3) Visitors that travel to the area to shop. An analysis of taxable retail sales data for 2004, the most recent complete year of data available from the State Board of Equalization, was used to determine the amount of commercial development associated with residential development (see Attachment A). The analysis calculated the total spending potential of San Diego County households and estimated what portion of that spending occurred within the County. The result was that 62.6 percent of total taxable retail sales was estimated to be associated with local household spending. The remainder was associated with local business and visitor spending. Based on this analysis, residential development directly causes 62.6 percent of commercial development. Consequently, the travel demand associated with that share of commercial development is shifted to residential development. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4. Total Travel Demand by Land Use Category Table 5 shows estimates of travel demand from existing and new development and the shares that residential and nonresidential development comprise of the total. Travel demand is based on the travel demand factors calculated in Table 3 and the growth estimates in Table 1. Commercial development associated with local household spending as shown in Table 4 is included in the residential land use category. Based on this analysis, new residential development will represent about 13 percent of total travel demand in 2030. Table 4 — Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending and Commercial Square Footage in San Diego County Taxable Retail Sales (2004) Share Building Square Feet 2002 2025 Growth Total Taxable Retail Spending 8 Commercial Sq. Ft. S 44,470,000 Local Residential Taxable Spending 8 Sq. Ft. 27,856,000 Local Business and visitor Taxable Spending 8 Sq Ft. 16,614,000 100 0% 62.6% 37.4% 148,000 197,000 49,000 93,000 123,000 30,000 55.000 74,000 19,000 Scaeres: TatFes t and 3.4; MuniFirancial. 10 Table 5 — Travel Demand from Existing and New Development Land Use Category Travel Demand Factor' nevelotxnent Travel Demand Total Existing' Growth' (2002) (2002-2030) Existing (2002) Growth (2002-2030) Residential Single Family 11.10 648,000 130,000 7,193,000 1.443,030 8,636,00C A1titi-(aril? 8.88 419,000 157,000 3,721,000 1394,000 5,115,00C Local -serving Commercial' 27.88 93.000 30,000 2,593,000 836.000 3,429.000 Subtotal 1,160,000 317,000 13,507,000 3,673,000 17,180,000 Percent of Total 47.7% 13.0% 60.7% Nonresidential Other. Commercial's 27.88 55,000 19,000 1,533,000 530,000 2,063,000 Office/Services 24.40 104,000 31,000 2,538,000 75.6,000 3,294,000 Industrial 10.24 345,000 220,000 3.533.000 2.253 000 5,786,000 Subtotal 1.757.000 617,000 7.604,000 3,539.000 11,143,000 Percent of Total 26.8% 12.5% 39.3% rota) 21,111,001 7,212,000 28,323,000 Percent of Total 75.0% 25.0% 100.09E Per dafeWfing unit for r sientul land uses and per 1 000 swam feet for no residental land uses. Dwelling unts kr resaennal land uses and 1.000 square kit for aoreesidental land uses. Esii hated total tr p ends ajusted toa the frb's shown' Table 3. ' Th , mull -:array vaaei demand fa for and dectad calculations nclude mobile hones. Represents share of tots.. camm:erciasquare feel and bra el demand associated with spending by San Diego Coy housebe-as '.iepresxas share of Irai oommersV square feel and bred demane associaofd wit; spending by an Ccegc County bos nesses and visitors. Source. Tables 1, 3 am 4. IdanFinanaat 2.4 FACILITIES STANDARD AND NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The facility standard determines new development's need for new facilities. The facility standard is also used to evaluate thc existing level of facilities to ensure that new development does not fund infrastructure needed to serve existing development. The facility standard used by this nexus analysis is average weekday vehicle hours of delay on the Regional Arterial System (RAS) in 2008. Hours of delay provide a reasonable system -wide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility. SANDAG's transportation forecasting model (TransCAD) demonstrates that hours of delay increase with the level of new development, and decrease with investment in additional transportation system capacity. Projected hours of delay in 2002 is used for thc standard because that is the implementation date for the RTCIP, representing existing conditions at the time new development would begin contributing to transportation system improvements. The data in Table 6 from the TransCAD model demonstrates a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional investment in the RAS. The table shows the projected increases in vehicle hours of delay from 2002 to 2030 and the benefits of adding 637 lane miles to the RAS. Without any investment in the RAS vehicle hours of delay will increase by 114 percent during this period. With an investment of 637 new lane miles in regional arterials vehicle hours of delay will increase substantially less, by 68 percent. 11 Table 6 — Regional Arterial System Roadway Statistics Projected 2030 Existing Without With 2002 Improvements Improvements Lane Miles 2,805 2,805 3,442 Change, 2002-2030 (amount) - 637 Change. 2002-2030 (percent) 0% 23% Average Weekday Vehicle Hours of Delay 64,352 137,481 108,350 Change. 2002-2030 (amount) 73.129 43,998 Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 114% 68% Note: 2002 data interpolated based on 2000 and 2005 data provided by model output (see Sourcc). Source: San. Diego Association of Governments. TransCAD model output. New development is not the entire cause of the forecasted increase in vehicle hours of delay. As discussed previously, new development is only allocated a share of RAS investment costs. The SANDAG transportation model assumes that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita for all existing and new development will increase 9.6 percent from 2000 to 2030 continuing recent trends. Thus, some of the increase in vehicle hours of delay is caused by increased travel from existing development. This trend does not affect the nexus analysis under the "average cost" approach taken by this nexus analysis. Under this approach RAS investment costs arc allocated proportionately across existing and new development based on total travel demand, thus incorporating the impact of changes in travel behavior such as increased VMT per capita. 2.5 FACILITY COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDING Attachment A details total costs associated with Regional Arterial System (RAS) improvements that are the responsibility of new development, from a countywide perspective, because the RAS represents a countywide network that facilitates mobility between and through cities and unincorporated areas. New development, regardless of location, both adds congestion (increased vehicle trips) to a range of arterials within the RAS and benefits from the expenditure of fee revenue on a range of RAS facilities. Attachment A also summarizes the need for RTC1P funding based on available revenues identified in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Tables 7 and 8 summarize facility investments including RAS capacity investments. The adopted RTP allocates $500 million for investment in the Regional Arterial System (RAS), resulting in a shortfall of over $6 billion. As such, the RTP indicates that local jurisdictions need to identify matching funds for investment in the RAS because the regional funding provided through the RTP, "...is intended to he matched with revenues from the local jurisdictions, which are responsible for improving regional roadways and local streets to meet their residents needs and mitigate the effects of local land use developments." 12 Table 9 summarizes the City of National City TIF Program facility improvements and cost estimates. The facility improvements identified in Table 9 will provide increased roadway capacity necessitated by the cumulative impacts of future development. These improvements are consistent with the adopted General Plan for National City, and are required to maintain acceptable levels of traffic and transportation service. Further studies, including environmental review, may show superior alternative facilities that also provide the needed increased capacity. Once such studies are completed, tees collected under the TIF Program may be used to fund those superior alternative facilities. A detailed summary of program facility cost estimates and anticipated revenue sources is provided in Section 3.0 of this report. The absence of contiguity of the facility improvements to individual development parcels is not essential, since traffic from any one development can utilize the entire circulation system to access work, schools, commercial centers, residences, and other land uses throughout the City and region. A failure in any one part of the circulation system will have a negative impact on other parts of the system, given the nature of traffic. Conversely, by increasing roadway capacity on one portion of a circulation system, other locations can also experience congestion relief and improved levels of service. 2.6 COST ALLOCATION AND FEE CALCULATIONS The vehicle trip rates described in Subsection 2.3 provide a means to allocate a proportionate share of total RAS improvements to each new development project. Trip rates are a reasonable measure of each development project's demand on the regional transportation system. New development's share of total RAS improvements is divided by total trips generated by new development to calculate a cost per trip. The cost per trip multiplied by the trips generated by a development project determines that project's fair share of total RAS improvements. New development could contribute up to $320 per trip as shown in Table 10. This amount is based on the nexus approach taken for this analysis that allocates RAS costs to new residential development based on shares of total travel demand in 2030. This approach is based on allocating to residential development the entire burden of trips associated with commercial development that serves households within the County (see previous discussion in Subsection 2.3). The R1'CIP specifies that new residential development must contribute $2,000 per dwelling unit. To test whether the required RTCIP contribution of $2,000 per unit is justified for different types of units, Table 11 provides a fee summary by major residential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from Table 10. '['he fee ranges from a low of $2,842 for multi -family units to a high of $3,552 for single family units. The average fec per dwelling unit is $3,164. The impact fee required by the RTCIP of $2,000 per residential unit is therefore well below the amount justified under the Mitigation Fee Act for major residential land use categories. Attachment A also includes RTCIP fee calculations for non-residential development, summarized as follows: $2,704 for commercial, $6,002 for office, and $2,519 for industrial. 13 Table 7 — Estimated Arterial System Capacity Investments ($2008) Year Caltrans Inflation Rate Index Annual Cummulative Cost 2002 142.2 NA NA $ 5.100,000 2003 148.6 4.50% 4.50% 5,330,000 2004 216.2 45.49% 52.04% 7,754,000 2005 268.3 24.10% 88.68% 9,623,000 2006 280.6 4.58% 97.32% 10,063,000 2007' 305.7 8.94% 114.96% 10.963,000 Regional Arterial Widenings & Extensions (lane miles) (2002-2030) 637 Total Regional Arterial System Capacity Investments (2002-2030) (Est. $2008) $ 6,981,238,400 Annual inflation rate for 2007 was estimated using the ten-year compounded annual growth rate from 1996 to 2006 for the CalTrans highway construction annual cost index. The actual rate for 2007 will be updated after the annual index data is published by CafTrans on January 30th of 2008. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments. Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appeicix 9 - Project Cost Estimates, p. 159; California Dept. of Transportation. Price Index for Selected Highway Construction Items (Second Quarter Ending June 30, 2007): Table 6: MuniFinancial. Table 8 — RTP Investment Plan, 2002-2030 ($2002) $ Millions (52002) Capacity Expansion Investments New Transit Facilities $ 8,500 20% Managed High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Facilities 7,450 18% Highway System CompletionANidening Projects 3,580 9% New Local Streets and Roads 4.430 11 % Regional Significant Arterials 500 1% Subtotal $ 24,460 58% Other Investments' 17,485 42% Total Expenditures $ 41,945 100% ' Includes projects that improve the operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road. and transit, and related facilities. Source: San Diego Association of Governments.. Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Mobility 2030 (February 2005), p. 44; MuniFinancial 14 Table 9 — TIF Program Facility Cost Estimate Summary No. Project 1 CIP# Location From To Description I PS&E ROW Cost Est. Cost Est. I Construction Cost Est. Total Cost Est. 1 Plaza Blvd. Widening* 99-09 Plaza Blvd. Highland Ave. Euclid Ave. Widen arterial from 4-lanes to 6-lanes (-. 1.1 miles) j $1, I01,000 $2,733,000 . $14,137,100 517,971,100 * Project is part of the Regional Arterial System (RAS). Improvements are consistent with RTCIP requirements for use of impact fee revenues (see Section 5.0). 15 Table 10 — Residential Cost per Trip (Estimated for $2008) Allocation of Total Costs to Residential Land Uses Total Regional Arterial System Investments ($2008) $ 6.981,238,400 New Residential Development Share of Total Trips 13.0%, New Residential Development Share of Total Costs $ 907,561,000 New Residential Vehicle Trips (2002-2030) Single Family Multi -family' Total New Residential Vehicle Trips New Residential Development Cost per Trip (Est. $2008) 1,443,000 1,394,000 2.837,000 $ 320 Multi -family travel demand factor and demand calculations include mobile tomes. Tables 5 and 7: MuniFinancial. 'fable 11 — RTC1P Impact Fee (Estimated for $2008) Land Use Single Family Multi-family3 Cost Per Trip $ 320 320 Total Estimated Revenue Total New Dwelling Units (2006-2030) Trip Demand Factor New Development Fee' (dwelling units) 11.10 $ 3.552 8.88 2,842 Weighted Average RTCIP Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit (Est. $2008) 130.000 157,000 Estimated Revenue2 $ 461.760,000 446.194,000 $ 907.954,000 287,000 $ 3,164 Fee per dwelling unit. = Members inay vary dub to rounding. 3 Multi -family travel demand factor and demand calculations include mobile homes. Sources: Tables 1, 3 and 10; tNuniFironcial. 16 3.1 PROGRAM FACILITIES The program facilities, which are subject to the TDIF, are summarized in Table 12. Project descriptions and construction schedules are provided below. Project exhibits are included at the end of Section 3.0. Table 12 — TIF Program Facility List No. Project Plaza Blvd. Widening CIP# 99-09 Location Plaza Blvd. From Highland Ave. To Descri tion Euclid Ave. Widen arterial from 4-lanes to 6-lanes (— I.1 miles) * Project is part of the Regional Arterial System (RAS). Improvements are consistent with RTCIP requirements for use of impact fee revenues (see Section 5.0). National City TIF Program Facility No. I — Plaza Boulevard Widening The project will increase capacity on Plaza Boulevard from Iiighland Avenue to Euclid Avenue by widening from a 4-lane Arterial to a 6-lane Arterial. The project includes widening eastbound and westbound Plaza Boulevard, traffic signal upgrades, new sidewalks and curb ramps, pavement resurfacing, signing, striping and pavement delineation, drainage and landscaping improvements, and structural improvements under 1-805, including tie -back retaining walls. The project schedule is estimated as follows: • Draft Environmental Document Approval — December 2005 • Final Environmental Document — June 2006 • Right -of -Way Certification — July 2009 • Authorization to Proceed with Construction — August 2009 • Advertise for Construction - October 2009 • Construction Completion - December 2010 3.2 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Table 13 summarizes the TIF Program facility cost estimates and anticipated revenues. A detailed cost estimate for each project is provided at the end of Section 3.0. 18 Table 13 — TIF Program Facility Cost Estimates and Anticipated Revenues TIF Program Facility No. 1 — Plaza Boulevard Widening PS&E Cost Est. 1 ROW Cost Est. Construction Cost Est. Total Cost Est. Revenue Sources 1 $1,101,000 $2,733,000 $14,137,100 $17,971,100 Prior FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 TDIF* n/a n/a n/a $390,000 $465,100 $1,580,800 $0 S168,000 $2,267,900 S2,435,900 RSTP S2,000,000 $0 $0 SO SO $0 5708,000 S1,292,000 SO $2,000,000 TransNet $766,000 $200,000 $126,000 $174,000 $200,000 $200,000 S393,000 $1,273,000 $0 $1,666,000 i Other Federal/ State SO 50 $0 1 S5,000,000 S5,000,000 $1,869,200 SO SO S11,869,200 $11,869,200 Total Revenues $2,766,000 1 $200,000 $126,000 $5,564,000 $5,665,100 $3,650,000 $1,101,000 S2,733,000 $14,137,100 $17,971,100 *TD1F revenues for future fiscal years assume a 2% per year increase in fees per new residential dwelling unit applied to the current 4.0 for the current fee schedule and development forecasts). fee schedule (see Section 19 1 TIF Program Facility No. 1 — Plaza Boulevard Widening Project Vicinity Map STRUCTURAL SECTION TYPES r' Nw PLAZA Blvd/ PAWS O IY co-N /wP•RAW SNOULDER3 r 4' NMAu-.e LOoRI.4YS/ PAPIIIPS enK O t0' PCC EXIT RAW TERMINI Y L'L -AB E 4 Cli•+B CROSS OJTTERS CIrTP/Py,IIC 51 'PL' LINE EXISTING STRUCTURAL SECTIONS QT'4C 10'.1e 1 1'0" .AC7C7 0 1BVCr. AS P45 THICKNESS VARIES 15 SNCIILOEP SECTION 41'TO ALE' CITYRPWSLIC eN 0.3'55 B. TC Eap BA.CV 00, TYK 0 GPO F z Zy II 'L71 CITYR PPLLOLIc WMG e' —.a— :CO • O. .' 43 PAVE ENTPLANED (Nkail 7' NW s501PL1 Sa➢3L 0 A 36 'PL' LINE 4D' TO 45' 54' TO 44' 37 TO 45' M TI 3' SWJ,3'B vor Ii TYPE 0 CMG 4.3' TO 11.55'' CITYR� JC 31' TO 40' _23 5'TO 43' eN TC 5.p O'70 O. smsta YC .LANE AC PAYMENT IY Nmil INA a1P�212%1'To 3p1s '00 .CE1 I '- R. S10 'PL' 2P.7T TO 31455 T.5. TO 11' I`TTPE 0 CJR Nt.Aq: 1' SBm7V1ATIONRJ Ilk SW EN14t SR 55 CO TC P0 R/W AC AB AS CT. cL0-AB NM PCA ❑r Es s0G 5.. 55..0 BACK Or SI0054L1 EXIstill0 SIDEWALK WXINLY KTAININO PALL ORIGINAL GRADE TOP Cl CURB PIICCHI RUDE R1041 C! WAY ASPIC.? WIC:Kit AGOREOATE BASE AGGREGATE SUBBASE WRIT TKATID BASE CLASS TWO AGGREGATE BASE NOT MIX AS.NALT PORTLANO MIGHT CCNCKTE COO( c TRAVELED WAY EDGE Cr SNO41L0E14 STATION VARIES BwAEVARO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS Itl SCALE ERMA ems' - ---- PRE.INL.ANY E5L:NEERIN1) Np- fCR CCN3TPT.o'1 ' rA-r, 4Ao-�ARr +D+> )j PLAZA _OLLEVARC 5PCY NIC.LAYC AYCNU ro SL ..3 4.45,E CITY 0= NATIONAL C: Y cm: b15 1 1 X-1 1 CI1YRNSLIC 31. 'P L' LINE e' IC 31• to m on .a s• sn.cur—. 23 c. G= T R. Sta-' COW PLM[ AC POK1[Mf tr w � T'L' 411•.O 10 ISN3,N SO.2 TT SONS TO 51.3PE O 3141I TO 8,0 300 CI.Rs 52422 TO 33424 CI11e.1M.IC 01TTE eL,C IN, 1 34' TO 40' iC 3• S. s• 3 fMKJT--) 1 1 F:ss IOC, tin Inn ocos L Q.1' TO 21.4' sta'FLS 1, 1dLf6 s .$ems 'PL' LINE P.. AOULEYARP_ Sto L 12.23 T 44.16 41' TO 43' TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS PC SCALE 1353 RRCI:u:4441 CMC!NEER!NO I. NOT r0,1 COvS TRUCTICr1 • r, 1 r7/ IK *amt ., v P_.Z4 BCuLEVASC rIMY xm•u`0 *01 U -3 w:uo an a( , ROM liL•Aw --rw ASP.- - 4311, 'R- CIT 0= N4Ti0NAL C'T' Ln1 'x +wm, Q 1p1.1f1 X - RA ES 'TO s S▪ . • 6, iIm Sr EArOUT SA*WT•� RAISED I(DIAY 1 SWOT •-2i3 �@- 1 lFSSE _ _ 22-. 1' TO T.,' I T1'vE At OMI TYRE Al OURt I ' TO S.T' R/ St0 `TT7E C QAM ` i 'IL'19H1 TO SMf1 12'TO 11' ('OI4TRUCTICN 11 COLD PURE AC -CC(R PLANE AC /ArEIT (Y h10A) [(TAILS PAVEI(RT li" Um() ION r mu CGLT Ar I11 4,0 D4T. I9.1' TO S9' r•/LASA DIW UWERCRO.SSIMO 2_ 5to1Li al TO F6**96 'PL' LIRE I TC O' TO 19• 1' TO ,• «O 5�01g1.>st.Q L Vfl,Qis u(+wl6.+r.•.AI DYr Ia(•a.. e 6 1.1.02.ey GalraNCSS' TAP. 45,4' TO T1,1' 1 �SArWT l,T w ES En. 9Y S• Sr TM ON 9 6.1' TO 3I.4' RA TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS RO SCC.E 65% *RCI.,111A'7 EYGIeEERIUG 40T rol CO1StRUCTICN 2,1E1 JAY AR• 2V"ej no/co ry r..artr.r a. P_AZA BOULEVARD tn:y .:;rll.0 EVE. 'J (.1CLID Av(.4 •\/ J� d15R-- Y' d4tr CITY OF NA-:QNA_ CITY btafi. 7 ✓•. Z VOA. Y. X- 3 IN CITYIMLIC 31.5'/ VOe 5' TC DaL S• I 35' TO 31.4' n-4.I SARYIT - N— = I1 Sta 'IL' 'ETAS/ TO TN13 TYPE 0 Cl/15 CITY PUBLIC 54' TO 11' 0ALT!AN5 •A' TO 107' 'PL' LIjIC 1 •i'TO 131' CITY ^P Llt r C0L0 PLANE AC— 4,- PAVEIENI 1 Y ) 41,PLWAT76 d4 LINE A1' TO 5•' CITY NSLIC 102' 10 154' CALTIANS TO' TO N' 1k TO 5' SIy TOOQ 15 L m Sta 55•03 TO TS•1/ • TYPE 0 CMI 1Y1 ES {III Ik +•To so, se 5• ••m s. "'TYPE O CVMO ttMJ 21.1' TO 40' 3APCNT 10.3' RAIsc0 NOIAN TYPE= 'E./' TO 32.2' 1' TO 5. TYPE At CUM ' 311 CONSTI1UCT)NJ PAVESEMNTNIr IMN) AC OETA]LS 2' NMA Sia V,M V7DA15 TC 54' TO 10,5' r "'a" r {,1aCUi ES 1k ET1A' 5' S•1• TO 33' 31 E0I CCU)PLANEAC PAVEMENT 12' ow) r NW TYPE 0 CUM 1/.5. PI Ito 'PL' 14444 TO 'E0A01 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS NO SCALE /5.3 PIE . :VINAPY ENOI;EENI14.\ I v31 '04 CONSTNLCT70N 0A'EI !AMA" 200E • m PL.AZA 3c1.J_E:'dP.D 1,0. 1410•l..17 ra.0 ro tx., .4a.4 E.f.R:f.Ai.A l!•.1 : >23h- der; Act:: X 4 USE4I�•11v+•1 0 Sfo AP� 61.]OL6 a^3'1 BN c1TY PUBLIC C1n PUBLIC B/N 37' TO 31' AO' PL, L]IE 44. cITyBAeuc BA n s' Tc ESN A 30.5' —COLO PLANE AC PAVEMENT (i' Nov) NIA •PL• L NE PLAT BOULgVARD St0 'Pt 82.08 TO 133,50 SW TO B5' 40,1 SANCUT—' T 1� 1E.5' TC s' A sN CITY KWIC M S, 7C 34' TO 4A' Exist — — — Wart V - CCLY PLANE A< PAYEIICR IY lam) NM 41.'P"Mi4LT6 Qf.b6 SB 0.5' TYPE 0 CUB \ I + 11� RCINCORCOWAVE COIIER- ME 0, mum BO% C 26.4' cots(5EI OB.IWOE PULATOS1NB( Z 1 Exlsn.m c lclatE Lam aANELJ \ t- — TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS NO SCALE ry5% Psi ...ANNOY i0GINECNI1.G1 •O7 '00 CONS TOI,C'ION 1 `l JUTE; UN J001 2001 PLAZA 9DU_EVARD I007 NICoLA+O IVS+I( TO LoC.10 A'tTnLL CIT' C= NATIONAL CITY le SI )(-5 5 5 s'- ! fig'' Ca - VI r. CMJ5 .414 ,0' TO 13' Do- RwYE AC DIKE I1 ltw,t--/ 1 1 $J Lm SASE AID SUItA0100 -_ 7,5 A DIKE CA/TP6 ES TYPE A DWI) 32' 'PL4' Llr.fi 05 tp Off -RAM &to S)-505 5755.14 TO 5 6+52 W. TO 91' AA' TO 93.2' ,• En —45 1 'PL3' LTE ETA ES roil tm p�( q� 3,3 ISO0OSt!70i� TOi574.00 yES ET11•I Eale2 41Ita 'PLI' LIf[ ES/ -ET* PO • IT TO 100' 44.1' 10 SO.T' 1 — _ TYPE A Olu— { �'R AC Mkt`.PGJI Lu5• MSC C AMD SWEACIA'O p1 NO ON -RAM 5ta (5t-505'575"55 TO 576*11 'PL2' LVE ES IAA' To 1T.T A.STO 5,T' ETV E row to] ta] pp s,D k.50-bOs 572.-/5 i8 y 5C4+2s SO' ro 100' 12.4' :0 Si' S EIIIH E .To 1 o' TO 3.5IS xx— 1 54.� TYPE A DIEE— ESO'To 2,5' A01*MS 63. -SE,DYE AC DIKE `-ISEIIDYE SASE APO SWFAclnO TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS 50 SCALE 11 PaCL I41 AAA` P,,ct:EF;tij. Ill 40- EJa ED4 "A1 JA111000 AAY teal `LAZo, .OLLE v,,R: f 414 5410..1 C 1/LM,L '0 i.,C l: I,LM.( l;= \ATIO`.,L CITY m I - LSD w c.;.v (DATA TABLE NO. I DELTA/OWING I ROILS m ST1 32'31•E © 1 too. 21'so* 100.00' m I NII6 4'34'E I - LOOM 301.31 41.22. 546.00' b 1 I a13.3I' 7]• 1 I000.00' ErN62.23'lO'C ; - c1YA.i Parcel 557-420-31 231.21' 1101.21'1 CXRST C- nr-\\ } ASR/PRLY�RAJE-CT STERLI.. Al IT-_'. .. I 12' (3.1/ R1) 12' (3,1/ (3) 12' 13.44 «I 1213.111 RI 12' (3.14 1) 12' 13.14 n1 -�-1rtM]1N «I 12' 13.61.A)'1 i E t (,.520' TSR C-/W �I PROPOSED C-T RAY NATIONAL CITY c- xRSrTi�l IS NORTHER' PSR/PP. PROJECT LIMIT AWING C'r RAW E -RI WWI" PAD 3 } 12 ' (3./6N) ' 12' 13,11 «) 12' 13.61 n) 12' 13.14 n) , 12' 11-14 al 12' I7.14 R) 12' (3.00 R) 12' 13.11 1) 2 1.12 «( EIISTINC ON RAW LIN1T a AC OVERLAY AS DETTCCRAIIIID TO NA0E A SNOOTM TRANSITION A' (1.2261 I I ►:(• 2.TIR1' I `�.. 1? 14.2°) 12' *,3.l9_II)$ -.. ... 12 13.1E RI 12. 13.04 RI 121_{3./6 K lY 17.6E 0) 2 13.44 •) 12' 13.44 •) 12'I3:{! ill, 11 12('l4. _.PLAZA...000LIIIYARD' I1 1. LIMIT Cf AC OVERLAY AS DETE10YI1120 10 MARE A 3N001N TRYISITI014 ft21STI110 CM RM. S PROJECTT PSR/PR-- L)MIT MI Or 'A.CACTE RA. POI NW 621.1 EAI2TINC Dsr RAND ; NATIONA CITY CITY: RlW EASTERLY PSR/PR PROJECT 12' 13.160 12' (3.6Y) 12'- 13.168) 1 12' 13.041 32. (SAW 12' OA"'- • 4' (1.22541 CITY R/W' 1' (2.44n) / ( I I EX)ST C-T RP/ X ! 4 I! I ' bi0 Of O I 0 CR74 -� I CO �I DRAFT DOKKEN II{y��}{2�2Rp L N■ I M t E 11 I N■ 6w 01120' 4 2123 1111) 51h1311 PLAZA BLVD WIDENING PROPOSE; PROJECT PLAN VIEW ATTACNNINT C 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 1 of 8 Project No. 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCUD AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 1 011782 FURNISH SINGLE SHEET ALUMINUM SIGN (0.063'-UNFRAMED) SOFT 330 $15.00 $4,950.00 2 070012 PROGRESS SCHEDULE (CRITICAL PATH) LS LUMP SUM $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3 070018 TIME -RELATED OVERHEAD DY 240 $4,134.00 $992,160.00 4 071321 TEMPORARY FENCE (TYPE CL-6) LF 4000 $8.00 $32,000.00 5 074016 CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT LS LUMP SUM $10,000.00 $10,000.00 6 074019 PREPARE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM LS LUMP SUM $10,000.00 $10,000.00 7 074019A HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN LS LUMP SUM $5,000.00 $5,000.00 8 074028 TEMPORARY FIBER ROLL LF 2550 $4.00 $10,200.00 9 074032 TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT FACILITY EA 14 $2,500.00 $35,000.00 10 074033 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (TYPE 2) EA 14 $2,500.00 $35,000.00 11 074038 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION EA 34 $400.00 S13,600.00 12 074041 STREET SWEEPING LS LUMP SUM 515,000.00 $15,000.00 13 120090 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS EA 36 5350.00 512.600.00 14 120100 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM WD 240 $1.000.00 $240.000.00 15 120159 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC STRIPE (PAINT) LF 26500 50.70 $18.550.30 218/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 2 of 8 Project No. 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCUD AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT NO CODE QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 16 120199A TRAFFIC PLASTIC DRUM EA 980 $50.00 $49,000.00 17 120300 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKER EA 850 $4.00 $3,400.00 18 128650 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN EA 2 $7,500.00 $15.000.00 19 150608 REMOVE CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 1200 $8.00 $9,600.00 20 150710 REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 18100 $0.75 513,575.00 21 150722 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKER EA 2590 $1.25 $3,237.50 22 150741 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN MOUNTED ON MAST ARM EA 8 $190.00 $1,520.00 23 150744 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN (WOOD POST) EA 8 $100.00 $800.00 24 150745 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN (METAL POST) EA 21 $125.00 $2,625.00 25 150747 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN (STRAP AND SADDLE BRACKET METHOD) EA 2 $115.00 $230.00 26 150804 REMOVE DRAINAGE FACILITY EA 4 $750.00 $3.000.00 27 150805 REMOVE CULVERT LF 9 $150.00 $1.350.00 28 150820 REMOVE INLET EA 23 $1,000.00 $23,000.00 29 150860 REMOVE BASE AND SURFACING CY 150 $25.00 $3,750.00 30 152387 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN -TWO POST EA 4 $750.00 $3,000.00 31 152391 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN (METAL POST) EA 26 $300.00 $7,800.00 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 3 of 8 Project No. 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 32 152392 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN (WOOD POST) EA 8 S250.00 $2,000.00 33 152440 ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE EA 15 $500.00 $7,500.00 34 153112 COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT (.15' MAXIMUM) SQFT 407000 $0.60 $244,200.00 35 153220 REMOVE CONCRETE (CHANNEL) CY 200 $200.00 $40,000.00 36 155003 CAP INLET EA 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 37 160101 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS LUMP SUM $20,000.00 $20,000.00 38 170101 DEVELOP WATER SUPPLY LS LUMP SUM $20,000.00 $20,000.00 39 190101 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 15600 $45.00 $702,000.00 40 192037 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (RETAINING WALL) CY 200 $100.00 $20,000.00 41 192050 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (TIEBACK WALL) ((ENGMET)) CY 850 S200.00 S170.000.00 42 193006 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (SLURRY CEMENT) CY 60 S300.00 S18.000.00 43 193013 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (RETAINING WALL) CY 150 S100.00 S15.000.00 44 193118 CONCRETE BACKFILL CY 30 S150.00 $4,500.00 45 198001 IMPORTED BORROW TON 320 $50.00 $16.000.00 46 260201 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE CY 9790 $60.00 $587.400.00 47 374002 ASPHALTIC EMULSION (FOG SEAL COAT) TON 1 $575.00 $575.00 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 4 of 8 Project No. 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 48 390133 HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE B) TON 9990 $90.00 $899,100.00 49 394001 PLACE ASPHALT CONCRETE DIKE LF 330 $10.00 $3,300.00 50 500050 TIEBACK ANCHOR EA 180 $6,000.00 $1,080,000.00 51 510060 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE, RETAINING WALL CY 390 $800.00 $312,000.00 52 510502 MINOR CONCRETE (MINOR STRUCTURE) CY 130 $2,000.00 $260,000.00 53 510512 MINOR CONCRETE (BOX CULVERT) CY 1600 51,300.00 $2,080,000.00 54 511035 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT LS LUMP SUM $60,000.00 560,000.00 55 513553 RETAINING WALL (MASONRY WALL) LS LUMP SUM $100,000.00 $100,000.00 56 520103 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (RETAINING WALL) LB 150000 $1,00 $150,000.00 57 530100 SHOTCRETE CY 380 $1,000.00 $380,000.00 58 566011 ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST EA 25 $431.00 510.775.00 59 566012 ROADSIDE SIGN - TWO POST EA 4 $871.00 $3.484.00 60 568001 INSTALL SIGN (STRAP AND SADDLE BRACKET METHOD) EA 4 $150.00 $600.00 61 568015 INSTALL SIGN (MAST -ARM HANGER METHOD) EA 11 $900.00 $9,900.00 62 650010 12" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 6 $150.00 $900.00 63 650014 18" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 330 $150.00 $49.500.00 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 5 cf 8 Project No. 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE — COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 64 650018 24" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 240 $175.00 $42,000.00 65 650022 30" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 68 $200.00 $13,600.00 66 650026 36" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 150 $210.00 $31,500.00 67 665718 18" SLOTTED CORRUGATED STEEL. PIPE (.168" THICK) LF 37 $175.00 $6,475.00 68 721431 CONCRETE (CONCRETE APRON) CY 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 69 721810 SLOPE PAVING (CONCRETE) CY 20 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 70 731502 MINOR CONCRETE (MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION) CY 1550 8550.00 $852,500.00 71 750001 MISCELLANEOUS IRON AND STEEL LB 5500 $3.00 $16,500.00 72 750502 MISCELLANEOUS METAL (RETAINING WALL) LB 400 $10.00 $4,000.00 73 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 530 $30.00 $15,900.00 74 840504 4" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 2900 $1.50 $4.350.00 75 84D506 8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 3590 $2.50 $8.975.00 76 840508 8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 12-3) LF 850 $2.25 $1.912.50 77 840511 4" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DASHED WHITE) LF 470 $1.25 $587.50 78 840515 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING SQFT 5270 $3.00 $15,810.00 79 840656 PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPE (2-COAT) LF 26700 $0.50 $13,350.00 2/8/2008 Proect No. 1646 ITEM ITEM NO CODE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE — COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM DESCRIPTION 80 850101 PAVEMENT MARKER (NON -REFLECTIVE) 81 850111 PAVEMENT MARKER (RETROREFLECTIVE) ((ENGMET)) 82 860251 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT HIGHLAND AVE) 83 860252 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT L AVE) 84 860253 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT N AVE) 85 860254 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT PALM AVE) 86 860255 TRAFFIC SIGNAL (PLAZA BLVD AT 1805 SOUTHBOUND RAMPS) 87 860256 TRAFFIC SIGNAL (PLAZA BLVD AT 1805 NORTHBOUND RAMPS) 88 860257 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT GROVE ST) 89 860258 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT EUCLID AVE) 90 860703 INTERCONNECTION CONDUIT AND CABLE 999990 MOBILIZATION 10% UNIT QUANTITY EA 47 EA 1270 LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM PRICE $3.00 $3.50 S60.000.00 $60,000.00 8120,000, 00 $150,000.00 $175,000.00 $175,000.00 $150,000.00 $105,000.00 $100,000.00 $1,221,990,00 SUBTOTAL PAGE 6 of 8 AMOUNT $141.00 $4.445.00 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $120,000.00 • $150,000.00 $175,000.00 $175,000.00 $150,000.00 $105,000.00 $100,000.00 $1,221,990.00 $12,219,910.00 2 8/2008 Project No. 1646 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 7 of 8 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) SUPPLEMENTAL WORK ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 066061 COZEEP WD 120 $440.00 $52,800.00 066063 PUBLIC INFORMATION LS LUMP SUM $68,000.00 $68,000.00 066063E DISPUTES REVIEW BOARD LS LUMP SUM $15.000.00 $15,000.00 066063D FEDERAL TRAINING LS LUMP SUM $16,000.00 $16,000.00 066090 MAINTAIN TRAFFIC WD 240 $600.00 $144.000.00 066094 VALUE ANALYSIS LS LUMP SUM $10,000.00 S10,000.00 066111A JUST IN TIME TRAINING LS LUMP SUM S15,000.00 $15.000.00 066595 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 50/50 MAINTENANCE SHARING LS LUMP SUM $50,000.00 $50,000.00 066596 ADDITIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS LUMP SUM 522,000.00 $22,000.00 066597 STORM WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS LS LUMP SUM $25,000.00 $25,000.00 066610 PARTNERING LS LUMP SUM $25,000.00 $25,000.00 066666 PRICE INDEX FOR AC LS LUMP SUM $39,200.00 $39,200.00 SUBTOTAL S482,000.00 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 8 of 8 Project No. 1646 ITEM ITEM NO CODE IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCUD AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) STATE FURNISHED WORK ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT 066105 RESIDENT ENGINEERS OFFICE LS LUMP SUM $150,000.00 $150,000.00 SUBTOTAL $150,000.00 PROJECT SUBTOTAL 512,851,910.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% 51,285,190.00 PROJECT TOTAL $14,137,100.00 4.1 FEE SCHEDULE Commencing July 1, 2008, prior to the issuance of any building permit for new residential development in the City of National City, a Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) shall be paid based on the fee schedule shown in Table 14a. For the purpose of the TDIF, single family dwelling units (DU) are classified based on a low residential density of 6 DU/Acre or less. Multi -family dwelling units are classified based on a medium to high residential density of greater than 6 DU/Acre. The following fee schedule shown in Table 14b has been set for new non-residential development. Non-residential land uses are classified per 1,000 square feet of building area. The imposition of the TDIF upon non-residential development is currently under suspension per City Council Ordinance (refer to Chapter 4.52 of the National City Municipal Code for further discussion). Table 14a — TDIF Schedule (Residential) Land Use Fee Single -Family Residential $2,000 per dwelling unit Multi -Family Residential $2,000 per dwelling unit Table 14b — TDIF Schedule (Non-residential) Land Use Fee Commercial $2,704 per 1,000 square feet Office/Services $6,002 per 1,000 square feet Industrial $2,519 per 1,000 square feet 4.2 DEVELOPMENT FORECAST Table 15 forecasts future development projects subject to the TDIF. Estimates are based on current projects likely to apply for building permits during each fiscal year, historical averages, and market conditions. 37 Table 15 — Development Forecast FY APN Project SF DU MF DU 08/09 558-220-06 1I&lI Townhomes (16th St. & Harbison Ave.) 0 7 558-050-20, 21, and 23 Hilltop View Homes (8th St. & Harbison Ave.) 0 22 560-050-06, 10, & 12 and 560- 410-03 The Highlands at 14th (14th St. & Kimball Way) 16 0 561-380-24 Grove Ave. project 8 0 New SF/MF (based on 3-yr average)* 72 70 Total: 96 99 09/10 556-554-16 Centro 0 61 557-351-17 through 25 Carolino Hillside Homes (16th & M Ave) 9 0 558-200-17 and 18 18th Street V. Castro Subdivision 0 16 New SF/MF (based on 3-yr average)* 72 70 Total: 81 147 10/11 556-554-17 Lumina R2 0 317 560-100-05, 06, 07, 08 Park Lofts 0 301 New SF/MF (based on 3-yr average)* 72 70 Total: 72 688 * Based on historical data from Year 2005 to 2007 for residential building permits issued by the City. 4.3 ESTIMATED FEE REVENUES Table 16 summarizes estimated revenues generated by the TD1F based on the current fee schedule and development forecast. Table 16 — Estimated TDIF Revenues FY Land Use Fee Estimated Development Estimated Revenue 08/09 SF Residential $2,000 / DU 96 $192,000 08/09 MF Residential $2,000 / DU 99 $198,000 Total: $390,000 38 5.1 FEE COLLECTION AND USE OF REVENUES Commencing July 1, 2008, prior to the issuance of any building permit for residential development in the City of National City, a Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) shall be paid based on the fee schedule provided in Subsection 4.1. The fee shall be paid before the issuance of building permits for each development project within the City of National City. No building permit shall be issued within the City of National City unless and until the TDIF has been paid in full. In the case of discretionary permits that will not involve a building permit, but which will involve new development, payment of the fee shall be recommended as a condition of permitting to the decision -making body that would approve such permit. A fee schedule has also been set through City Council Ordinance for non-residential development. However, based on the Ordinance the imposition of the TDIF upon non-residential development is currently under suspension (refer to Chapter 4.52 of the National City Municipal Code for further discussion). The purpose of the fee is to defray the actual or estimated costs of constructing planned transportation facilities necessary to accommodate increased traffic generated by future development consistent with sections 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code (Mitigation Fee Act). Costs funded by the TDIF may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. The TDIF collected shall fund transportation facilities, or portions thereof, identified in this report, that will provide increased road capacity necessitated by the cumulative impacts of future development. Further studies, including environmental review, may show superior alternative facilities that also provide the needed increased capacity. Once such studies are completed, fees collected may be used to fund those superior alternative facilities. The TDIF shall not be used to fund roadway maintenance activities or to correct existing deficiencies in the roadway network. Types of improvements associated with the TDIF include: • Roadway widening, roadway extension and turning lanes • Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements • Improvements to freeway -arterial interchanges • Railroad grade separations • Expanded regional express bus and rail transit service. The revenue raised by payment of the TDIF shall be placed in a separate and special account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling with other revenues and funds of the City of National City. TDIF revenues, along with any interest earnings on the account or fund, shall be used solely to: 1) Pay for the City's future construction of facilities described in this report, or to reimburse the City for those described or listed facilities constructed by the City with fiends advanced by the City from other resources; or 40 2) Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install such listed facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity, relative to demand generated by the subject project; or 3) Pay costs associated with administration of the TDIF. TDIF revenues shall also be applied towards improvements that expand capacity on the Regional Arterial System (RAS), as required by the TransNet Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). Therefore, commencing July 1, 2008, $2,000 per new residential unit developed shall be collected and expended on the RAS improvement projects identified in this report, through the City of National City TIF Program. In addition, non-residential development fees collected pursuant to Table 1 4b (see Subsection 4.1), and atter release of the suspension of the non-residential fees, will be expended on the RAS improvement projects also identified in this report. SANDAG will update the minimum lee requirements annually for cost inflation (see Subsection 5.2 for further discussion on annual fee adjustments). Revenues shall be spent within five years of receipt or have an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period. The City of National City TIF Program report shall be updated annually to account for changes to the fee schedule, development forecasts, and facility improvement projects, including construction schedules, cost estimates and alternative funding sources. The TIF Program report, along with a separate financial report detailing fee revenues and expenditures, shall be submitted annually to the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) for review. The TDIF fund, including accrued interest, shall be subject to the all of the applicable provisions of Government Code Section 66000 et seq., including but not limited to the requirements for accounting, reporting and expenditure of the fund for the improvements specified in this report. 5.2 ANNUAL FEE ADJUSMENTS The TDIF may be adjusted annually starting July 1, 2009, and on each July 1st thereafter, based on the following factors: 1) The cost index used by SANDAG for the annual adjustment to the RTCIP impact fee 2) Changes in the type, size, location or cost of the transportation facilities, if any, to be financed by the 'l'DIF, changes in land use designations in the City's General Plan, and upon other sound engineering, financing, and planning information. Adjustments to the TDIF resulting from review of the factors above may be made by resolution amending the fee schedule and subject to compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. 41 5.3 EXEMPTIONS The following new development shall be exempt from paying the TDIF: • Public facilities, government buildings, public buildings and public schools • Uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use of land, generally described as "community purpose facility": a. Social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys Club and Girls Club, YMCA and services for the homeless b. Private schools (elementary and secondary) c. Day care (nonprofit only) d. Senior care and recreation (nonprofit only) e. Worship, spiritual growth and development • Condominium conversions • Moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income residential wets as defined by Health and Safety Code sections 50079.5, 50093,50105, 50106, and be reference in Government Code section 65585.1 • Rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing residential unit • Development projects subject to development agreements prior to May 28, 2004 that expressly prohibit the imposition of impact fees, however, if the terms of the development agreement are extended beyond July 1, 2008, then the requirements of this Chapter shall apply • Guest dwellings • Additional residential units located on the same parcel regulated by the provisions of any agricultural zoning • Kennels and cattcries established in conjunction with an existing residential unit • The sanctuary building of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other house of worship eligible for property tax exemption. 5.4 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS Whenever a developer of a development project would be required, as a condition of approval of a development permit, to construct or finance the construction of a portion of a transportation facility identified in this report, the City Council may impose an additional requirement that the developer install the improvements with supplemental size, length or capacity in order to ensure efficient and timely construction of the transportation facilities network. If such a requirement is imposed, the City Council shall, in its discretion, enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer. The 42 reimbursement agreement can be for either in the form of a cash payment or a credit against the fee otherwise levied on the development project, or some combination thereof. The determination of the form is at the sole discretion of the City. The reimbursement amount shall not include the portion of the improvement needed to provide services or mitigate the need for the facility or the burdens created by the development. A developer shall not receive cash reimbursement from the appropriate TDIF fund until all developers who have previously executed reimbursement agreements payable from the same fund have been fully reimbursed or until such agreements have expired. The maximum term of any reimbursement agreement shall be twenty- five (25) years. 5.5 FEE WAIVERS, REDUCTIONS AND REFUND OF FEE Refer to Chapter 4.52 of the National City Municipal Code for requirements and explanation of fee waivers, reductions and refund of fees. 43 RTCIP IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY - FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 26, 2007 PREPARED FOR THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MuniFinancial Oakland Office 1700 Broadway, 6th Floor Oakland, California 94612 Tel: (510) 832-0899 Fax: (510) 832-0898 MuniFinancial A WILLDAN COMPANY Anaheim, CA Industry, CA Lancaster, CA Oakland, CA Orlando, FL www.muni.com Phoenix, AZ Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA Temecula, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 Summary 1 New Development Investments in Regional Transportation 1 Purpose of Study 2 Regional Arterial System 3 Initial RTCIP Impact Fee Calculation 3 2. NEXUS ANALYSIS 6 Approach 6 Growth Projections 6 Facilities Standard and Need for Transportation Improvements 12 Facility Costs and Available Funding 14 Cost Allocation and Fee Schedule 17 Extension of RTCIP to Nonresidential Land Uses 20 3. IMPLEMENTATION 22 Adoption By Local Agencies 22 Inflation Adjustment 23 Collection and Administration 24 Use of Revenues 24 Exemptions 25 4. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 26 Purpose of Fee 26 Use of Fee Revenues 26 Benefit Relationship 27 Burden Relationship 27 Proportionality 28 APPENDIX A: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM A-1 APPENDIX B: RETAIL SPENDING AND SALES ANALYSIS B-1 Total Household Spending B-1 Capture and Leakage B-4 Local Spending Share of Total Sales B-5 Visitor Industry Spending B-5 APPENDIX C: LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS C-1 Initial RTCIP Fee Adoption — Local Agency Implementation Checklist C-2 Annual and Five -Year RTCIP Fee Update - Local Agency Implementation Checklist C-4 IjMuerinarxacd \oveml cr 26. 2007 1 LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM 5 TABLE 1: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT & LAND USE FORECASTS 8 TABLE 2: OCCUPANT DENSITY 9 TABLE 3: TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS 10 TABLE 4: ALLOCATION OF TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING AND COMMERCIAL SQ. FT. IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY 12 TABLE 5: TRAVEL DEMAND FROM EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT 12 TABLE 6: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM ROADWAY STATISTICS 13 TABLE 7: ESTIMATED ARTERIAL SYSTEM CAPACITY INVESTMENTS ($2008) 15 TABLE 8: RTP INVESTMENT PLAN, 2002-2030 ($2002) 16 TABLE 9: REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANNED ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS 18 TABLE 10: RESIDENTIAL COST PER TRIP (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 19 TABLE 11: RTCIP IMPACT FEE (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 20 TABLE 12: NONRESIDENTIAL COST PER TRIP (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 21 TABLE 13: NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 21 TABLE A.1: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM A-1 TABLE B.1: TAXABLE RETAIL SALES (2004) B-2 TABLE B.2: HOUSEHOLD TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING POTENTIAL (2004) B-3 TABLE B.3: SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL HOUSEHOLD TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING & SALES (2004) B-4 TABLE B.4: ALLOCATION OF TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY (2004) B-5 TABLE B.5: VISITOR INDUSTRY RETAIL SPENDING (2004) B-6 A-1;il;a ir,;,rrwd pr!j• 17. 2001 1) 1 . INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This chapter provides a summary of the study's results and explains the background and purpose for the study. The chapter also describes the initial nexus analysis that preceded the current study. SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in San Diego County can use to adopt an impact fee and fulfill their contribution to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Plan (RTCIP). This report documents the required statutory findings under California's Mitigation Fee Act1. The nexus analysis conducted for this study finds that the impact fee required by the R'1'CIP of $2,000 per residential unit is justified based on the requirements of the Act. This report is an update to the first version of this study dated September 5, 2000. The changes made in this report from the prior version are: • Merged the mobile home land use category into the multi -family category because of the minimal amount of projected mobile home development and to simplify administration of the fee; and • Updated unit cost inflation adjustment based on more accurate construction cost index (Caltrans highway cost. index instead of a combination of several national indices). • Clarified that the initial RTCIP fee beginning in 2008 will be $2,000 per residential unit regardless of type of unit. The $2,000 fee per residential unit will be updated annually for cost inflation following initial adoption by local agencies in 2008. NEW DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS IN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION In 2004 voters in San Diego Count}' approved a 40-year extension to TransNet, a program designed to fund improvements to the rcgion's transportation system first initiated in 1987. The prune component of the program is a half -cent sales tax increase that is projected to raise over $10 billion for improvements through 2030.2 Expenditure of TransNet finds is implemented through the Regional 'Transportation Plan (R'IP), prepared by the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) and updated periodically as mandated. 1 California Government Code, §§i661X0-66025. 2 San Diego Association of Governments, Draft 2007 Regional Tronrportation Plan (June 2007), Table 4.1, p. 4-9. EjMuniFinanci;d .\o?t"iier26. 'Q07 1 San Diego Association of Governments RT(7P Impact Pee Ne-1.7u Study The draft 2007 RTP details the need for $58 billion in transportation improverncnts.3 Of that total, $27 billion in funding will come from a variety of state and federal sources. The remaining $31 billion will come from local funding sources including the TransNet sales tax extension. These amounts represent the Reasonably Expected Scenario, one of three scenarios examined in the draft 2007 RTP.4 In addition to the sales tax extension, the TransNet program requires implementation of a new local funding source for the draft 2007 RTP, the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP)_5 The purpose of the RTCIP is to ensure that new development directly invests in the region's transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. Key components of the RTCIP include: • Beginning July 1, 2008 each local agency must contribute $2,000 from exactions unposed on the private sector for each new residence constructed in the County. • Although the RTCIP does not specify a revenue source for this contribution, most local agencies are likely to collect this revenue as a development impact fee Unposed on new dwelling units at building permit issuance. • Revenues must be expended on improvements to the Regional Arterial System (RAS), described below, and in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recent adopted RTP. • The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee, created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. • 1f a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding for local roads. Cities have the authority to impose impact fees under the Antiphon Fee Act contained in California Government Code sections 66000 through 66025. Counties have the same authority for their unincorporated areas. In doing so, each local agency is required to make findings demonstrating a reasonable nexus between the collection of fees, the need for facilities created by new development, and the expenditure of fee revenues to benefit new development. PURPOSE OF STUDY 'I'hc purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in San Diego County can use to adopt an impact lee and fulfill their contribution to the RTCIP. This report documents the required statutory findings under the Mitigation Fee Act. 3 lbid., Table 4.3, page 4 11. `t ibid., Table 4.1, page 4 9. 5 San Diego Association of Governments, TranjNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, Commission Ordinance 04-01, May 28, 2004, Sec. 9. ISMuniFinamiat \otrmber 26. 2007 San Diego ibjociation of Governments R7Y.7I' Impact Fee Nei Shelly REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM SANDAG employs a rigorous process to define the RAS.6 The most important criterion for determining whether to include an arterial in the RAS is the arterial's role as a "critical link". Critical links provide direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. The other criteria for inclusion of an arterial in the RAS include: • links to areas with high concentrations of existing or future population or employment; • Links to activity centers such as hospitals, retail centers, entertauunent centers, hotels, colleges, and universities; • Accommodate high future traffic volumes; • Accommodate Regional Transit Vision (Red and Yellow Car service); and • Provide access to intermodal (freight, port, military, or airport) facilities. As of the date of the first version of this report in September 2006, the RAS included 777 route miles (not lane miles) of arterials. Figure 1 is a map of the Regional Arterial System from the adopted 2005 R'1'P. The RAS included both the regionally significant arterials and the other regional arterials indicated on the map. A list of arterial segments included in this version of the RAS is provided in Appendix A to this report. A list of the types of improvements that the RTCIP can fund on the RAS is discussed in the Implementation chapter of this report. INITIAL RTCIP IMPACT FEE CALCULATION SANDAG staff developed the RTCIP contribution amount of 112,000 per residence using an approach that allocated transportation system improvements proportionately across both existing development and projected growth. The methodology was as follows: 1. 'lire Regional Arterial System carried 10.8 million vehicle miles traveled (Vlvfl) in 2000 and was projected to carry, 14.9 mullion Vlvfl' in 2030. The difference of 4.1 million Vlvl'1', or 27 percent of the 2030 VMT total was attributed to growth (1.1 14.9 = 27 percent). 2. 'The entire transportation network was projected to accommodate 60.1 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2030. Of this total, 37.4 mullion VIM, or 62 percent, were attributed to residential development (37.4 _ 60.1 62 percent). This amount included any trip that started or ended at a home (home -work, homc-schuol, home -college, and home other). 3. Multiplying the results of steps #1 and #2 resulted in 16 percent of total VIM in the County in 2030 attributed to new, residential development (0.27 x 0.62 = 16 percent). 6 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Alobikty' 2030 (February- 2005), Technical Appendix 7 — Evaluation Criteria and Rankings, Table TA 7.1, p. 105. fjMuniFinancial :\ otr»nber 26. 2007 San Diego Association of Governments RTCII' Impact Fee 1Vr ae Study 4. As of 2000, SANDAG and local agencies had identified improvements for 710 additional lane miles to complete t.hc Regional Arterial System. At a cost of $5.1 million per lane mile (in 2002 dollars) this equals a total cost of $3.6 billion (710 x $5.1 million = $3.6 billion). 5. If all development, existing and new, paid a proportionate share of this cost new residential development's share would be $593 million (0.16 x $3.6 billion = $593 million). 6. Allocating the new residential development share over a projected increase in dwelling units of 320,000 from 2000 to 2030 yielded a cost per unit of slightly less than $2,000 ($593 million - 320,000 = $1,853). "Ihe methodology described above and employed by SANDAG to calculate the R1'CIP assumes that all development, existing and new has the same impact. on the need for RAS improvements based on the amount of travel demand generated (vehicle trips). Thus existing and new development should share proportionately in the cost of transportation system improvements. For descriptive purposes this can be considered an "average cost" approach. The "average cost" approach probably results in a lower fee and is therefore more conservative and defensible compared to other approaches used for impact fee nexus analysis. The "average cost" approach does not focus on the marginal impacts of new development on congestion. A "marginal cost" approach examines the cost of additional transportation improvements needed to mitigate impacts by maintaining existing levels of services. Based on our experience preparing transportation fee studies, this "marginal cost" approach would probably result. in allocating to new development a greater share of planned transportation system improvements compared to the "average cost" approach. The approach used by SANDAG to justify the R'I CIP impact fee is therefore more conservative. MuntFinancial ''\.oremhn 26. 200.7 San Diego Assolia:ton of Governments Figure 1 flaunt/1 REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT ARTERIAL NETWORK April 2003 ANY SiOM&att ARwr.ls 0014, AWWanal Art•nais laNtuniFiminclal R 1 C!P Impact Fee Nexus Rudy Regional Arterial System \"inrmb r?i;. 20)7 r ovsh of W. Urge �riip Rb7tS _ ypCGD 2. NEXUS ANALYSIS This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between increased travel demand from new development on the Regional Arterial System (RAS), the cost of RAS improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and an irnpact fee to fund those investments. APPROACH Impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in any development impact fee study and described in detail in the sections that follow include: 1. Prepare growth projections; Identify facility standards; 3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on facility standard and growth projections; 4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development. Due to policy considerations SANDAG indicated that the nexus study should employ the same "average cost" approach used in the initial fee calculation to the greatest extent technically defensible under the h1itit;ation Fee Act. Consistent: with the initial SANDAG approach, the need for RAS improvements determined by this nexus study is based on the relative amount of travel demand generated by all existing and new, residential and nonresidential, development. As mentioned above (see page 3), this is a conservative approach because a more detailed impact analysis probably would result in allocating to new development a greater share of planned RAS improvements. The analysis required for each of the four steps listed above is conducted on a countywide basis consistent with SANDAG's initial fee calculation. We updated certain assumptions with more recent data when available. The approach takes a countywide perspective because the RAS represents a countywide network that facilitates mobility between and through cities and unincorporated areas. New development, regardless of location, both adds congestion (increased vehicle trips) to a range of arterials within the RAS and benefits from the expenditure of fee revenue on a range of RAS facilities. GROWTH PROJECTIONS This section describes the SANDAG forecast for population and employment, and estimates of land use in terms of dwelling units and nonresidential building square feet. Land use forecasts are converted to vehicle trips to provide a measure of travel demand (further discussed below). BalftsniFinancial .\orember 2K. 2007 /, San Diego Association of Government.' RT CTP Impaa Fee Nexru Study Population, Employment, and Land Use The planning horizon for this analysis is 2030, consistent with current land use and transportation forecasts adopted by SANDAG. The nexus analysis uses forecasts of dwelling units and employment to estimate new development demand for transportation improvements. Forecasts for 2030 are from SANDAG's Urban Development Model (UDM). 'The UDM is one of four interrelated forecasting models used by SANDAG to project land use and transportation for the region) '17ie UDM allocates changes in the region's economic and demographic characteristics to jurisdictions and other geographic areas within the region. The model is based on the spatial interrelationships among economic factors, housing and population factors, land use patterns, and the transportation system. The model generates 2030 forecasts for small geographic areas including the traffic analysis zones used in the transportation modeling process. The UDM complies with federal mandates t.hat transportation plans consider the long-range effects of the interaction between land uses and the transportation system. The initial SANDAL fee calculation used 2002 as the base year for cost estimates so that is the base year used for this nexus analysis. Dwelling units and employment for 2002 are based on interpolations of development estimates for 2000 and 2005 from the UDM model. Total employment was allocated to land use categories based on analysis of employment by land use using data from five counties and conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments. Table 1 lists the 2002 and 2030 land use assumptions based on SANDAG forecasts and used in the nexus analysis. The Iand use categories shown in Table 1 and used in this nexus analysis are the same that are used in the SANDAG forecasts with one exception. 'll>is nexus analysis includes mobile homes in the multi -family category because of the minimal amount of forecast mobile home development. SANDAG forecasts mobile homes to increase by 2,000 units during the planning horizon, or 1.3 percent of forecast growth in multi -family units. The employment forecasts are converted to building square footage shown in Table 1 by land use using occupant densities factors shown in Table 2. These factors are derived from a study of employment, building square feet, and land use conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The density factors were derived from a random sample of 2,721 parcels drawn from across five counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). We could not identify such a study for San Diego County. The SCAG study's density factors are based on the largest sample of properties that we are aware of, and are used in development impact fee studies throughout the State. t For morc inforrnatiou on SANI)AG's economic, demographic, and transportation forecasting models, see San Diego Association of -Governments, Final2030 Forerait Process and Model Documentation, April 2004. EiMunWinarcral November 26. 200T San Diego Association of Governments RTC7P Impact Pee Nexus Duel), Table 1: Population, Employment & Land Use Forecasts 2002 2030 Increase Percent Residents 2,909,000 3,855,000 946,000 33% Dwelling Units Single Family 648,000 778,000 130,000 20% Multi -family' 419,000 576,000 157,000 37% Total 1,067,000 1,354,000 287,000 27% Employment2 Retail 295,000 393,000 98,000 33% Office/Services 348,000 451,000 103,000 30% Industrial _ 383,000 628,000 245,000 64% Subtotal 1,026,000 1,472,000 446,000 43% Residential' 138,000 149,000 11,000 8% Public4 139,000 157,000 29,000 21% Total 1,303,000 1,778,000 475,000 36% Building Square Feet (000s)5 Retail 148,000 197,000 49,000 33% Office/Services 104,000 135,000 31,000 30% Industrial 345.000 565.000 220,000 64% Total 597,000 897,000 300,000 50% Multi -family population includes mobile homes. 2 Based on Series 10 forecast data provided by SANDAG. Estimates by major land use type rolled up from County Assessor's categories. Interpolated 2008 data based on 2005 and 2010 forecasts. Employment on residential land uses such as home -based businesses. Travel demand included in estimates for residential land uses. Travel demand caused by public land uses so excluded from nexus analysis. s Based on occupant density factors shown in Table 2. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Data Warehouse (http:datawarehouse.sandag. org), SANDAG Series 10 forecast of employment by land use; MuniFinancial. MiitA„r,rx,:...rdt ortmber 26. 2007 8 San 1)ie o Association of Governments RI G7P Impart fee Nexur Study Table 2: Occupant Density Land Use Commercial 500 Square feet per employee Office/Services 300 Square feet per employee Industrial' 900 Square feet per employee Note: Source data based on random sample of 2,721 developed parcels across five Los Angeles area counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). MuniFinancial estimated weighting factors by land use categories used in the survey to calculate average employment densities by major category (commercial, office, industrial). Adjusted to correct for over -sampling of industrial parcels in Ventura County. Source: The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern California Association of Governments; October 31, 2001, Table 2-A, p. 15. MuniFinancial. Travel Demand By Land Use Category To estimate travel demand by type of land use the nexus study uses vehicle trips rather than vehicle miles traveled (ViviT) that were used in the initial SANDAG calculation. Vehicle trips can be calculated in a consistent manner across land use categories based on population and employment estimates by land use category. This enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use categories, a key requirement of the Afitisation lee Aei. VA4T, on the other hand, is available from transportation models only for a limited number of "production and attraction" categories: home -work, home -school, home -college, home - other, and non -home. A reasonable measure of vehicle trips is weekday average daily vehicle trips ends. Because automobiles are the predominant source of traffic congestion, vehicle trips are a reasonable measure of demand for new capacity even though the measure excludes demand for alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle, pedestrian). The following two adjustments are made to vehicle trip generation rates to better estimate travel demand by type of land use: • Pass -by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass -by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • The trip generation rate is weighted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system. Table 3 shows the calculation of travel demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by SANDAG. The surveys provide a rohustdatabase of trip generation rates, pass -by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. Mlunnancial \,'c'rber 2i . 2'k)7 San Diego /bsor7atron of GOternments Table 3: Travel Demand Factors RTC71' Impart Fee Nexus Study A D C=A•B D Trip Rate Adjustment Factor E=CxDI 6.9 F G-FxF Total Average Adjust- Average Travel Primary Diverted Excluding Trip ment Daily Trip Demand Trips Trips' Pass -by' Lengths Factors Ends` Factor Residential' Single Family 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 10 11.10 Multi-family6 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 8 8.88 Nonresidential' Commercial 47% 31% 78% 3.6 0.41 68 27.88 Office/Services 77% 19% 96% 8.8 1.22 20 24.40 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 9.0 1.28 8 10.24 Percent of total trips. Primary nips are (rips with no midway slops or 'links'. Diverted trips are nked trips whose distance adds at least one mile to the primary hip. Pass -by hips are finks that do not add more than one mile to the total nip ' In miles ' Systemwide average nip length is 6.9 miles. Trip ends or navel demand per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feat. Single family based on 3-6 units per acre category. Multi-famlty based on 6-20 units per acre category. Multilunily deman tactos include mobile homes. The combined average daily trip ends calculation muXiplies 2002 population by average daily nip ends for both multi -family and mobile homes and Then weights the sum by me 2002 population. Commercial based on "community shopping center' category. Office/seivices based on-stamkard commercial office category. Industrial based on industrial park (no commercial)' category. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates for (he San Diego Region, July 1998; Shifting Burden of Commercial Development to Residential Development Applying the travel demand factors shown in Table 3 directly to development by land use category implicitly assumes that the cause of each vehicle trip on the transportation network is shared equally by the land use at each trip end (origin and destination). But depending on the regional economic forces affecting development in a particular area, the cause of a trip may he related more to the land use at the origin or the destination. For example, in some areas residential development may be caused by job growth, while in other areas the opposite may occur (jobs follow housing). These cause and effect relationships may change over time in the same area. Given the complexity of these regional economic and land use relationships, most transportation impact fee nexus studies make the simplifying but reasonable assumption to weight the origin and destination of a trip equally when identifying the cause of travel demand on a transportation system. IIowever, there is one regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship that remains consistent across geographical areas and over time. Commercial development is to a large extent caused by the spending patterns of local residents. Commercial development follows residential development or anticipates new development. occurring in the near tens. This development pattern can be observed throughout metropolitan regions and is driven by the site location process followed by retailers. When seeking new locations, the most common measure of a potential market used by site location analysts is the number of IZMuniFrlarl(dal November 26, 200.' 10 San Diego Ain:vation 0-Governments KTC71' Inrfxrct Fee Nexus Study households within a reasonable driving distance for shopping trips and the median income of those households. Given this consistent regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship, it is reasonable to allocate at least some of the burden of commercial trip ends to residential development. This approach is used in impact fee nexus studies to more accatrately allocate the burden of transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth.2 Not all retail spending is related to local residential development. By "local" we mean residents (or businesses) located within the area subject to the impact fee. There arc three major sources of retail spending: 1. Local households; 2. Local businesses; and 3. Visitors that travel to the area to shop. The WI'CIP impact fee is limited to residential development so the focus of this nexus study was shifting the appropriate share of travel demand from commercial to residential development. The demand for commercial development by local businesses was nut identified. To determine the amount of commercial development associated with residential development we conducted an analysis of taxable retail sales data for 2004, the most recent complete year of data available from the State Board of Equalization: The analysis calculated the total spending potential of San Diego County households and estimated what portion of that spending occurred within the County. The result was that 62.6 percent of total taxable retail sales was estimated to be associated with local household spending. The remainder was associated with local business and visitor spending. Based on this analysis, residential development directly causes 62.6 percent of commercial development. Consequently, the travel demand associated with that share of commercial developtent is shifted to residential development. The results of this analysis are sununrarized in Table 4 and presented in detail in Appendix B. Total Travel Demand By Land Use Category Table 5 shows estimates of travel demand from existing and new development and the shares that residential and nonresidential development comprise of the total. Travel demand is based on the travel demand factors calculated in Table 3 and the growth estimates in "fable 1. Commercial development associated with local household spending as shown in Table 4 is included in the residential land use category. 13ased on this analysis new residential development will represent about 13 percent of total travel demand in 2030. 2 Scc Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., Infrastructure Financing Technical Report Southwest Area Pon, prepared for the City of Santa Rosa Department of Community Development, January 1995, p.28. See also Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., Road Inpad Mitigation Fee NeNws Study, prepared for the Calaveras Council of Governments, April 28, 2004, p.20. ESMuniFvtarrial :\ or mher 26. 2007 It San Dies° At rociation of Government, RTCIP Imptu1 Fee Nexus S7xdy Table 4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft. in San Diego County Total Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft. Local Residential Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. Taxable Retail Sales (2004) Share $ 44,470,000 100.0% 27,856,000 62.6% 16.614,000 37.4% Building Square Feet 2002 2025 Growth 148,000 197,000 49,000 93,000 123,000 30,000 55,000 74,000 19,000 Sources' Tables 1 and 8.4;1.41uT-mancial. Table 5: Travel Demand From Existing and New Development Land Use Category Travel Demand Factor' Development Travel Demand' Total Existing' (2002) Growth (2002-2030) Existing (2002) Growth (2002-2030) Residential Single Family 11.10 648,000 130,000 7,193,000 1,443,000 8,636,000 Multi -family. 8.88 419,000 157,000 3,721,000 1,394,000 5,115,000 Local -serving Commercials 27.88 93,000 30,000 2 593 000 836,000 3,429 000 1.160,000 317,000 13,507,000 3,673,000 Subtotal 17,180,000 Percuntof Total 47.7% 13.0% 60.7% Nonresidential Oder Commercial" 27.88 55,000 19,000 1,533,000 530,000 2,063,000 Office/Services 24.40 104,000 31,000 2,538,000 756,000 3,294,600 Industrial 10.24 345,000 220,000 3,533.000 2,253,000 5,786,000 Subtotal 1,757,000 617,000 7,604,000 3,539,000 11,143,000 Percent of Total 26.8% 12.5% 39.3% Total 21,111,001 7,212,000 28,323,000 Percent of Total 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Per dweeng unit for resirkencd Lund lees and per 1,000 square feet far noMBsrden WI land uses. Dwelling units for residential land uses and 1,000 sgtcno keel for rnrwes dorvdI land uses. Estimated total tap ends adjusted for One factus shown in Table 3 The nwtti.tanily travel demand factor and demand calculations include rtnntilu !tunes. Represents snare of total commercial square feet and travel dtnmod associated with spending by San Diego County htnuonokts ° Represents stun, of total commercial square feel and travel demand associated wen sprding by San Dingo Crnrnty businesses and visitors. Source: Tables 1, 3 and 4; MxaFutanial. FACILITIES STANDARD AND NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The critical policy issue in a development impact fee nexus study is the identification of a facility standard. The facility standard determines new development's need for new facilities. The facility standard is also used to evaluate the existing level of facilities to ensure that new development does not fund infrastructure needed to serve existing development. The facility standard used by this nexus analysis is average weekday vehicle hours of delay on the Regional Arterial System (RAS) in 2008. !lours of delay provide a reasonable system- wide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility. SANDAG's IiMWrkinanciel \ nrember 26. 20)7 1 San Diego Assodation of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study transportation forecasting model (TransCAD) demonstrates that hours of delay increase with the level of new development, and decrease with investment in additional transportation system capacity. Projected hours of delay in 2002 is used for the standard because that is the implementation date for the RTCIP, representing existing conditions at the time new development would begin contributing to transportation system improvements. The original RTCIP fcc estimate was based on the need for 710 additional lane miles to complete the RAS as of the year 2000 (see "initial RTCIP Impact Fee Calculation" in Chapter 1). 'Through 2002 the region added 73 lane miles to the RAS. This effort reduces the level of investment needed to complete the RAS to 637 lane miles. The data in Table 6 from the TransCAD model demonstrates a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional investment in the RAS. The table shows the projected increases in vehicle hours of delay from 2002 to 2030 and the benefits of adding 637 lane miles to the RAS. Without any investment in the RAS vehicle hours of delay will increase by 114 percent during this period. With an investment of 637 new lane miles in regional arterials vehicle hours of delay will increase substantially less, by 68 percent. Table 6: Regional Arterial System Roadway Statistics Projected 2030 Existing Without With 2002 Improvements Improvements Lane Miles 2,805 2,805 3,442 Change, 2002-2030 (amount) - 637 Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 0% 23% Average Weekday Vehicle Hours of Delay 64,352 137,481 108,350 Change, 2002-2030 (amount) 73,129 43,998 Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 114% 68% Note: 2002 data interpolated based on 2000 and 2005 data provided by model output (see Source). Source: San Diego Association of Governments, TransCAD model output. New development is not the entire cause of the forecasted increase in vehicle hours of delay. As discussed above, new development is only allocated a share of RAS investment costs. The SANDAG transportation model assumes that vehicle miles traveled (\'M'1) per capita for all existing and new development will increase 9.6 percent from 2000 to 2030 continuing recent trends.3 Thus some of the increased in vehicle hours of delay is caused by increased travel from existing development. This trend does not affect the nexus analysis under the "average cost" approach taken by this nexus analysis (see "Initial RTCIP Impact Fee Calculation" in Chapter 1). Under this approach RAS investment costs are allocated 3 Email communication from Bill McFarlane, Transportation Modeling Section, San Diego Association of Governments, Nfarch H, 2O06. BiIVIunrinandal \`orember 2K. 7007 1 i .San Diego Association of Governments RTC.7P Impact Fee Nexus Study proportionately across existing and new development based on total travel demand, thus incorporating the impact of changes in travel behavior such as increased Vhfl' per capita. FACILITY COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDING 'This section estimates total costs associated with RAS improvements that are the responsibility of new development. 'The need for RTCIP funding based on available revenues identified in the adopted 2005 RTP is evaluated. Finally, this section provides a current. list of specific projects identified for investment in the RAS. Unit Cost Estimates and Total Facility Costs For the purposes of this nexus analysis, facility costs arc estimated in 2008 dollars, the first year of implementation of the R I'C1I'. This subsection explains the approach taken to increase unit costs from 2002 dollars to 2008 dollars. Historically, SANDAG has assumed an annual increase of 2.6 percent for road construction costs based on the California Deparunent of Transportation (Caltrans) construction cost index average annual compounded rate from 1980-2004. In recent years that rate has risen significantly and grown increasing volatile. To examine this issue SANDAG commissioned a study in 2005 by URS, a private consulting firm, that examined a range of data on transportation capital project cost inflation since 2002. The URS study reconunended use of several national highway construction cost indices to adjust transportation project cost estimates for SANDAG's financial planning purposes. 4 'These rates were used in the prior version of this nexus study dated September 5, 2006. Analysis of actual costs for road construction projects in the San Diego region conducted by SANDAG staff during the past year has determined that the Caltrans highway remains the best indicator of local construction cost inflation. indeed, the URS study recognized that California's construction costs are higher than those in national indexes.5 Consequently this nexus analysis returns to the use of the Caltrans construction cost index to inflate unit cost estimate from 2002 dollars to 2008 dollars. Estimates for 2008 are based on Caltrans index data through 2007. Annual Caltrans index data was available through 2006 at the time of this study. Index data for 2007 should he available by February 2008 when SANDAL; will inform local agencies of the R'TCIP impact fee amount that must be adopted by July 1, 2008 (sec "Adoption By I A>cal Agencies" in Chapter 3). For the purposes of this study the 2007 index was estimated based on the average annual compounded growth rate in the index for the ten-year period from 1996 through 2006. A ten-year average was used because of the high volatility of the index in recent years. The approach taken in this report is to estimate 2008 costs based on inflation through 2007. As shown in Table 7, the cost estimate for an arterial Lane mile is estimated at $10.9 million in 2008 dollars. 'llic total compounded increase from the 2002 is 115 percent. Total costs to 4 San Diego Association of Governments, Transportation Project Cod Analyse (June 17, 2005) completed by UItS, p. 5 Ibid., p. 4-1 INPAuniFnanciat ;1'ot,emyer7/,. 2007 11 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study complete the arterial system arc estimated at $7.0 billion based on this revised unit cost estimate. Table 7: Estimated Arterial System Capacity Investments ($2008) Caltrans Inflation Year Index Annual Rate Cummulative Cost 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007' 142.2 148.6 216.2 268.3 280.6 305.7 NA 4.50% 45.49% 24.10% 4.58% 8.94% NA $ 4.50"/0 52.04% 88.68% 97.32% 114.96% 5,100,000 5,330,000 7,754,000 9,623,000 10,063,000 10,963,000 Regional Arterial Widenings & Extensions (lane miles) (2002-2030) 637 Total Regional Arterial System Capacity Investments (2002-2030) (Est. $2008) $ 6,981,238,400 ' Annual inflation rate for 2007 was estimated using the ten-year compounded annual growth rate from 1996 to 2006 for the CalTrans highway construction annual cost index. The actual rate for 2007 will be updated after the annual index data is published by CalTrans on January 30th of 2008. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appeicix 9 - Project Cost Estimates, p. 159; California Dept. of Transportation, Price index /or Selected Highway Construction Items (Second Quarter Ending June 30, 2007); Table 6; MuniFinanciat. Available RTP Funding To justify the need fur the RTCIP impact fcc, the fee should only he imposed to the extent additional funding is needed to accommodate new development net of other anticipated funding sources. The adopted 2005 RTP examined three funding and expenditure scenarios described below.6 All dollars are in $2002 and arc for the planning horizon 2002 to 2030. • The Revenue Constrained scenario ($30 billion) was based on existing revenue sources and did not assume extension of the TransNet sales tax. • The Reasonably Expected scenario ($42 billion) was based on extension of the TransNet sales rax ($8 billion) plus $4 Killion more from higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds and increases in state and federal gas taxes based on historical trends. • The Unconstrained Revenue scenario ($67 billion) was based on an analysis of transportation system needs to 2030 and identified potential revenue sources but did not specify which ones to implement. 6 SAN1.)AG, Final 2030 Resiona/T Transportation Plan, ,Mobi/iiy 20.70 (February 2005), Chapter 4, pp. 35-53. �jNh,niFu�al :\'orerter 26. 2007 i 5 San Diego Association of Governments RTC!P Impact Fee Nexus Study SANDAG adopted the Reasonably Expected scenario. Under this scenario the adopted 2005 Ril' invests $24.5 billion for projects that expand system capacity. Other improvements totaling $17.5 billion would improve operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road, and transit, and related facilities. The adopted 2005 RTP expenditure plan is summarized in "fable 8, below. Table 8: RTP Investment Plan, 2002-2030 ($2002) $ Millions ($2002) Capacity Expansion Investments New Transit Facilities $ 8,500 20% Managed High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Facilities 7,450 18% Highway System Completion/Widening Projects 3,580 9% New Local Streets and Roads 4,430 11% Regional Significant Arterials 500 1% Subtotal $ 24,460 58% Other Investments' 17,485 42% Total Expenditures $ 41,945 100% Includes projects that improve the operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road, and transit, and related facilities. Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), p. 44; MuniFinancial. .As shown in Table 8, the adopted 2005 R'I'P allocates $500 mullion for investment in the RAS. Under the Revenue Constrained and Unconstrained Revenue scenarios the total allocation is $350 million and $700 million, respectivcly.7 Given the need fur a $6.98 billion total investment (fable 7), substantial additional resources are needed. The adopted 2005 RTP indicates that local jurisdictions need to identify matching funds for investment in the RAS because the regional funding provided through the adopted 2005 RTP: ...is intended to be matched with revenues from the local jurisdictions, which are responsible for improving regional roadways and local streets to meet their residents needs and mitigate the effects of local land use developments.8 7 Ibid.,'fable 4.3, p. 46, Table 4.5, p. 49. 8 ]hid. p. 103. ESMunrFinanc Norrmbrr 26.2007 16 San Diego Association of Gorxrnments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Stilly The adopted 2005 RIP further indicates that a regional development impact fee as contemplated by the RTCIP is one of the potential revenues sources for supplementing adopted 2005 RTP resources.` The funding assumptions discussed above arc based on the most recently adopted 2005 RTP because the draft 2007 RTP has not been adopted as of the date of this report. 'lilcse assumptions arc likely to vary in the final adopted 2007 RTP. However, the draft 2007 RIP continues to indicate that funding is needed from the RTCIP to mitigate the impacts of new development on the transportation system. Specific RAS Improvement Projects Table 9 shows the adopted 2005 RTP's initial planned improvements in the RAS. These projects represent a $700 million investment under the Unconstrained Revenue scenario, or 136 additional laic miles at the 2002 cost estimate of $5.1 million per lane mile. Under the adopted Keasonably Expected scenario the adopted 2005 RTP allocates $500 million, sufficient to fund 98 additional lane miles in $2002. These projects are candidates for funding wiih RTCiP contributions. Funding these improvements with the RTCIP would enable RTCIP resources to expand improvements in the RAS towards full completion of the system (63'7 lane miles from 2002 to 2030). COST ALLOCATION AND FEE SCHEDULE The vehicle trip rates described in the Growth Projections section, above, provide a means to allocate a proportionate share of total RAS improvements to each new development project. Trip rates are a reasonable measure of each development project's demand on the regional transportation system. New development's share of total RAS improvements is divided by total trips generated by new development to calculate a cost per trip. The cost per trip multiplied by the trips generated by a development project determines drat project's fair share of total RAS improvements. New development could contribute up to $320 per trip as shown in Table 10. This amount is based on the nexus approach taken for this analysis that allocates RAS costs to new residential development based on shares of total travel demand in 2030. This approach is based on allocating to residential development the entire burden of trips associated with commercial development that serves households within the County (see earlier discussion under "Shifting Burden of Commercial Development to Residential Development"). 9 Ibid., p. 50. INMunilinarn 1ommber 74. 2007 San Diego .Association of Governments WI GP Impact Fee Nexus Study Table 9: Regionally Significant Planned Arterial Improvements Arterial Limits Type Jurisdiction Balboa Ave. Keamey Villa Rd. - Ruffin Rd. Widen City of San Diego Bear Mountain Pkwy. Canyon Rd. - Valley Pkwy. Widen City of Escondido Black Mountain Rd. Mercy Rd. - Mira Mesa Blvd. Widen City of San Diego Black Mountain Rd. Emden Rd. - Caramel Valley Rd. Extend City of San Diego Cannon Rd. Hidden Valley Rd. - Frost Rd. Extend City of Carlsbad Cannon Rd. El Camino Real - Mystra Dr. Extend City of Carlsbad Cannon Rd. Melrose Dr. - SR 78 Extend County of San Diego Citracado Pkwy. 1-15 - Scenic Trail Way Extend City of Escondido Citracado Pkwy. Avenida Del Diablo - Vineyard Ave. Extend City of Escondido College Ave. Montezuma Rd. - Alvarado Widen City of San Diego College Ave. El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Dr. Extend City of Carlsbad Deer Springs Rd. 1-15 - Twin Oaks VaNey Rd. Widen County of San Diego Del Dios Hwy. Via Rancho Pkwy. - Valley Pkwy. Widen City of Escondido East Valley Pkwy. East Valley Blvd. - Bear Valley Pkwy. Widen City of Escondido El Camino Real Camino Santa Fe - El Camino Real Widen City of San Diego El Camino Real Manchester Ave. - Tamarack Ave. Widen City of Carlsbad El Camino Real Tamarack Ave. - SR 76 Widen City of Oceanside Friars Rd. Colusa St. - Lia Las Cumbres Widen City of San Diego Friars Rd. SR-163 - Frazee Rd. Widen City of San Diego Genesee Ave. 1-5 - Campus Point Dr. Widen City of San Diego Genesee Ave. Oster Si. - Marlesta Dr. Widen City of San Diego H Street Bonita Vista High - Otay Lakes Widen City of Chula Vista Harbor Dr. Pacific Hwy. - California SL Widen City of San Diego Heritage Rd. Airway Rd. - Siempre Viva Rd. Extend City of San Diego Jamacha Blvd. Omega St. - Pointe Pkwy. Widen County of San Diego Kearny Villa Rd. SR 52 - Ruffin Rd. Widen City of San Diego Manchester Ave. 1-5 - Lux Canyon Dr. Widen City of Encinitas Melrose Dr. Spur Ave. - N Santa Fe Ave. Extend City of Oceanside Melrose Dr. Aspen Way - Palomar Airport Rd. Extend City of Carlsbad Mission Ave. Enterprise St. - Centre City Pkwy. Widen City of Escondido Oceanside Blvd. Oceanside Blvd. - Rancho Del Oro Widen City of Oceanside Siempre Viva Rd. Heritage Rd. - La Media Rd. Widen City of San Diego South Santa Fe Ave. Mar Vista Dr. - Bosstic k Blvd. Widen County of San Diego Torrey Pines Rd. N. of Callan St. - S. of Carmel Valley Rd. Widen City of San Diego Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Craven Rd. - Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Extend City of San Marcos Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Deer Springs Rd. - Craven Rd. Widen City of San Marcos Via de la Valle Camino Santa Fe - El Camino Real Widen City of San Diego Vista Sorrento Pkwy. Rose Coral Row - Sorrento Valley Blvd. Extend City of San Diego Vista Way Emerald Dr. - Melrose Dr. Widen City of Vista Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appendix 9 - Project Cost Estimates, p. 180. � � � Norember76, 7007 1.Y .Van Diego Association of. Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexia .1'tudy Table 10: Residential Cost per Trip (Estimated for $2008) Allocation of Total Costs to Residential Land Uses Total Regional Arterial System Investments ($2008) New Residential Development Share of Total Trips New Residential Development Share of Total Costs New Residential Vehicle Trips (2002-2030) Single Family Multi -family' $ 6,981,238,400 13.0% $ 907,561,000 1,443,000 1,394,000 Total New Residential Vehicle Trips 2,837,000 New Residential Development Cost per Trip (Est. $2008) $ 320 Multi -family travel demand factor and demand calculations include mobile homes. Tables 5 and 7; MuniFnancial. The cost per trip of $320 is estimated in 2008 dollars the first year for implementation of the RTCIP. As explained in the "Facility Costs and Available Funding" section above this estimate is based on act.ual Caltrans construction cost index data through 2006 and an estimate for 2007. The RTCIP specifies that new development must contribute $2,000 per dwelling unit. A single fee for all dwelling units may not adequately ensure a reasonable relationship between each new development project's proportionate share of total improvements and the amount of the fee. Separate fees by major residential land use category based on trip generation rates would more likely fulfill this statutory requirement.10 To test whether the required RTCIP contribution of $2,000 per unit is justified for different types of units, Table 11 provides a fee schedule by major residential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from Table 10. As explained above in the "Growth Projections" section mobile homes arc forecast separately by SANDAG but because of the extremely limited number they have been included in the multi -family land use category. The fee ranges from a low of $2,842 for multi -family units to a high of $3,552 for single family units. The average fee per dwelling unit is $3,164. 1ite impact fee required by the RTCIP of $2,000 per residential unit is therefore well below the amount justified under the Mitigation Fee Ad for major residential land use categories. 10 hfitiRation Fee Act, California Government Code, j6. i001(h). BriMunFnancial \orember26, 2007 19 San Diego Association of Governments 1(JCIP Impact Fre Nexus.f'tudf Table 11: RTCIP Impact Fee (Estimated for $2008) Trip New Cost Per Demand Development Estimated Land Use Trip Factor Feet (dwelling units) Revenue2 Single Family $ 320 11.10 $ 3,552 130,000 $ 461,760,000 Multi -family' 320 8.88 2,842 157,000 446,194,000 Total Estimated Revenue $ 907,954,000 Total New Dwelling Units (2006-2030) 287,000 Weighted Average RTCIP Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit (Est. $2008) $ 3,164 Fen per dweAing unit. 2 Numbers may vary due to rounding. 3 Multi -family travel demand factor and demand calculations include motile homes. Sources: Tables 1, 3 and 10; MuniFinancial. EXTENSION OF RTCI P TO NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USES lire RTCIP specifically exempts all nonresidential development. However, one option for increasing contributions from new development for RAS improvements would be to apply the RTCIP to nonresidential development as well. Table 12 shows new development's total investment in the RAS that could be made under this approach. A fee 'schedule by major nonresidential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from Table 12 is shown in Table 13. Fees per 1,000 building square feet range from a low of $2,519 for industrial and $2,704 for commercial and to a high of $6,002 for office/services. 1211101unnnancial November 2o. 200.7 20 Sax Diego /Lrociation of l;ooernmentr Table 12: Nonresidential Cost per Trip (Estimated for $2008) OfficelServices & Industrial R7'C:I P Impact hie Nexus Study Commercial New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Trios Commercial' Office/Services Industrial New Nonresidential Vehicle Trips (2002-2030)' Total Vehicle Trips (2030)' New Nonresidential Development Share NA 756,000 2 253 000 3.009,000 28,323,000 10.6% Allocation of Total Costs to Nonresidential Lard Uses Total Region:d Arterial System Investments (62008) $ 6,981,238,400 New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Trips 10.6' New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Costs $ 740,011,000 New Nonresidential Vehicle Trips ( o2-2030t Commercial` NA Office/Services 756,000 Industrial 2.253.000 Total Nonresidential Vehicle Trips (2030)' Cost per Trip (Est. $2008) 3,009,000 $ 241.3 530,000 NA NA 530,000 28,323 000 1.9% $ 6,981.238,400 1.9% $ 132,644,000 1,366,000 NA !48 1,366.000 $ 9/ For fie piapose o1 determining new commettral devclopreors hi shale of total costs, trips meet&e false asaocateid with lending by local (Sin 0)090 Couny) rea,lnnls. Commercial trips associated with Io0il residential spending all used to elocote total cosh to rasMertWel development (sec Talk 10). Includes brat and reg../ commercial tops It would be Yyactical lu idertty on a pmjebby-pvokc.1 basis ewt portion of new commercial devciuq,ent 000ated om, wen not -local residential spend,/ Therefore. new commercial development's fair share of WWI vests is allocated across al crew almrc,ual vehicle fps (see Table 5) Tables 5 and /: Maef to novel Table 13: Nonresidential impact Fee (Estimated for $2008) Land Use Commercial Office/Services Industrial Cost Per Trip 97 246 246 Total Estimated Revenue (Est. $2008) Trip Demand Factor 27.88 24.40 10.24 Feel $ 2,704 6,002 2,519 New Development Estimated (ksf) Revenue 49,000 $ 132,496,000 31,000 186,062,000 220,000 554,180 000 $ 872,738,000 ' Fee per 1,000 square feet. Sources: Tables 1, 3 and 10; MurHFnancial. �jMuniFrwrial .\ orember 26. 200 ?t 3. IMPLEMENTATION Local agencies need to adopt a "Funding Program" to implement the RTCIP.t The•Funding Program must generate the funding per new residential unit required by the RTCIP. This chapter provides guidance on use of this nexus study by local agencies to implement a Funding Program and comply with the RTCIP. "Local agencies" includes all cities in the County plus the County of San Diego for development in the unincorporated area. The guidance provided in this study is not a substitute for legal advice and all local agencies should consult with their legal counsel regarding compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Act). Local agencies are hereby put on notice that t.hc findings and guidance in this study are generalized, and were created for use as a framework to be tailored by each Local agency. SANDAG disclaims any responsibility for any liability to users of this study, or any other party, for any loss or damages, consequential or otherwise, including but nor limited to time, money, or goodwill, arising from the use, operation or modification of the information in the study. In using this report, local agencies further agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SANDAG, its officers and employees, for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from use of the study. Distribution of this study shall not constitute any warranty by SANDAG. ADOPTION BY LOCAL AGENCIES Adoption Schedule To meet the requirements of the Act and the July 1, 2008 R1'C1P deadline, local agencies will need to adopt the R'1•C1P impact fcc by May 1, 2(H18. This allows for the sixty-day period required under California Government Code section 60017 of the Act between the date of adoption and the date the fee becomes effective. The same section of the Act includes certain notice and public hearing requirements as well that each local agency must follow. Legal counsel should also advise on timelines, hearings requirements, and all other actions required for fee adoption by the ilct A checklist for the initial adoption of the RTCIP with a schedule of steps required for implementation is included in Appendix C of this study. The checklist is titled, "RTCIP Impact. Fee Initial Adoption - Local Agency Implementation Checklist." Ordinance, Resolution, and Nexus Study Local agencies may need to adopt. an ordinance and resolution to implement the fee. The ordinance would provide the authority for the agency to impose the RTCIP impact fee. The resolution would specify the fee amount. Setting the fee by resolution avoids having to amend the local agency's municipal code whenever the fee must be adjusted, facilitating annual updates to the fee for cost. inflation. 1 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Rmgiona/ Tranrportation Cungertion Improvement Program, Sec, A. 13Munirirear>cial \Norc,';her 21. 2007 �' San Diego As.onation of Governments R 1(!t' Impact Fee Nexus Study To adopt the initial fee of $2,000 per residential unit die local agency fee resolution may reference this nexus study for documentation of the findings required by the Act. The local agency may reference this nexus study to support adoption of a fee on residential development up to the maximum amounts shown in 'fables 11. The adopted fcc should lye no higher than the levels indicated in. the table by land use category. Fee revenues should only be used for the purposes described in this report. For the purposes of this study "single family" includes projects at net development densities of six or fewer units per acre (see Table 3, footnote 5). "Multi -family" includes projects at net development densities of over six units per acre. To facilitate integration with existing fee schedules, there are several conditions under which the local agency's fee schedule may vary while still referencing this nexus study for documentation of the findings required under the Act. • The fee schedule shown in Table 11 may be applied to single family and multi- family land use categories that do not vary substantially from the definition of those categories used in this nexus study. For example the "break point" between the definition of single and multi -family may be at a different development density level. • The fee may be applied to different residential land use caregorics, c.g. condominiums or mobile homes, using the cost per trip calculated in the this nexus study (see "fable 10 for the cost per trip). The trip rate used to calculate the fee should reasonably reflect travel demand generated by new development within the land use category. Local agencies must conduct a separate nexus study if the conditions described above are not met. Applying Fee To Nonresidential Development The local agency may also apply an impact fee to nonresidential development to fund improvements to the RAS. however, as mentioned above in the Nexus Analysis chapter, expansion of the RTCIP Funding Program to nonresidential development is not a requirement of the TransNet ordinance and is not necessary for a local agency to implement the RTCIP. If the agency chooses to apply the fee to nonresidential development and adopts the fee schedule as shown in Table 13, above, then the fee resolution can reference this nexus study and the local agency does not have to conduct a separate study. if the local agency adopts a different nonresidential fee schedule then the agency will need to conduct a new nexus study to justify the nonresidential fee. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT The initial R"l'C1P funding requirement of $2,000 per new dwelling unit will apply upon initial adoptions of the fee in 2008. 'Hie TransNet ordinance provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the R'l'CIP impact fcc on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009 2'1'he inflation 2 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Regional Transportation Congestion Impsnvenrent P,' rom, Sec. C. IMlVhxcianrial orcn,ber 26. ?007 2; Al San llrego Association of Gowrnmentr RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Sludty adjustment will be two percent or based on the Caltrans highway construction cost index, whichever is higher. SANDAG may choose to use a different cost index. Each local agency will need to adjust. their RTCIP impact fee annually. A checklist for the annual update and a five-year update of the RTCIP fees along with a schedule of steps required for implementation is included in Appendix C. This checklist is titled, "RTCIP Impact Fee Annual and Five -Year Update - Local Agency Implementation Checklist." COLLECTION AND ADMINISTRATION Each local agency will be responsible for the collection, administration, and expenditure of RTCIP impact fcc revenues generated within its jurisdiction. Fee revenues should be placed in a separate fund and administered pursuant to the requirements of the Aa. For example, interest earnings on fund balances need to be credited to the fund. In addition, the /lct requires that the local agency provide specific information regarding fee revenues and expenditures annually and every five years in a public report.3 The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. Each local agency must submit their Funding Program for review by the ITOC by April 1, 2008. The 1TOC must review and audit each local agency's program annually. The reporting requirements required by the Act should he sufficient to meet the ITOC's needs in this regard. if a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding for local roads. Local agencies and SANDAG can fund the administrative costs of the RTCIP with a charge added to the KTCIP impact fee. The RTCIP allows up to three percent of program revenues to he used for program administration.4 SANDAG anticipates adding a one percent administrative charge to the RTCIP fcc to fund costs related to the ITOC. Local agencies may add up to two percent. for their program administration costs. These charges are similar to any other user fees imposed by local agencies and are not subject to the Act. These charges must he justified based on the actual program administration costs of each agency. Agencies should keep cost records and adjust the administrative charge as appropriate based on actual costs. USE OF REVENUES RTCIP impact fee revenues must be expended on improvements to the RAS in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recent adopted MP. !'. Fee revenues may not be expended on road maintenance. RTCIP impact fee revenues may be used for any capital costs associated with improving the RAS including costs associated with: 3 California Government Code, §§66001(d) and 66006(b). 4 San Diego Association of Goverrunents, TransNet Extension Rtsional Transportation (:onsestian Imptnvement Program, Sec. D(2). ISMuniFrianciol Not'ember 24. 200' 2? .Van Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impart Fee Nexus Slut • Arterial widcnings, extensions, and turning lanes; • 'Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; • Reconfigured freeway -arterial interchanges; • Railroad grade separations; and • Expanded regional express bus service. Costs funded by the RTCIP impact fee may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. The. RTCIP requires that each local agency expend revenues within seven years of receipt or have an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period.5 The Act has a similar requirement with a five years lirnitation unless there is an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period. EXEMPTIONS The RTCIP program exempts the following residential development from the impact fee:6 • New moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income residential units as defined in Health & Safety Code. sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, 50106, and by reference in Government Code section 65585.1; • Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities; • Rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing residential unit.; • Development projects subject to development agreements prior the effective date of the TransNet ordinance (May 28, 2004) that expressly prohibit the imposition of new impact fees, however if the terms of the development agreement are extended beyond July 1, 2008, the requirements of the RTCIP shall apply; • Guest dwellings; • Additional residential units located on the same parcel regulated by the provisions of any agricultural zoning; • Kennels and catteries established in conjunction with an existing residential unit; • The sanctuary building of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other house of worship eligible for property tax exemption; • Residential units that have been issued a building permit prior to July 1, 2008; and • Condominium conversions. 5 Ibid., Scc. G(4). t'Ibid, Scc. E. EaMunFmancial :\ o,rmbcr 26. 2007 2.5 4. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and unposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendtnents. The Act, contained in California. Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The .Act requires Local agencies to document five futdings when adopting a fee. Sample text that may be used for the five statutory fnidings required for adoption of the RTCIP impact fee are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the Nexus Analysis chapter of this report. All statutory references below arc to the Act. This sample framework for the mitigation fee act findings is only to provide local agencies with guidance and is not a substitute for legal advice. Local agencies should customize the findings for their jurisdiction and consult with their legal counsel prior to adoption of the RTCIP impact fee. PURPOSE OF FEE For the first finding the local agency must: Identify the purpose of the fee. (§66001(a)(1)) SANDAG policy as expressed through the TratisNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Commission Ordinance 04 01) is that new development shall contribute towards the Regional Arterial System (RAS) through the Regional Transportation Congestion improvement Program (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP impact fee is to implement this policy. The fee advances a legitimate public interest by enabling SANDAG to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to accommodate new development. USE OF FEE REVENUES For the second finding the local agency must: Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall lie identified. That identification may, but need not, be made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may he made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. te.66001(a) (2)) The RTCIP impact fee will fund expanded facilities on the Regional Arterial System (R.AS) to serve new development. These facilities include: • Roadway widening; • Roadway extension; • Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; ENIuniThancial `otem1er 26. 2007 26 San Diego Astoriation of Goarnmvents RT.1 P Impart Fee Nexus Study • Freeway interchanges and related freeway improvements; • Railroad grade separations; and • Improvements required for regional express bus and rail transit. Costs for planned traffic facilities are preliminarily identified in this report. Costs funded by the RTCIP impact fee may include projectadministration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. More detailed descriptions of planned facilities, including their specific location, if known at this time, are shown in the SANDAC's Regional Transportation Plan and other documents. Local agencies implementing the RTCIP may change the list of planned improvements to meet changing circumstances and needs, as they deem necessary. Fee revenues will be used for the sole purpose of expanding capacity on the RAS to accommodate new development. The RTCIP impact fee will not be used for the purpose of correcting existing deficiencies in the roadway system. BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP For the third finding the local agency trust: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fec's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(a)(3)) The local agency will restrict fee revenues to capital projects that expand capacity on the RAS to serve new development. Improvements funded by the RTCIP impact fee will expand a region wide arterial system accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. SANDAG has determined that the planned projects identified in this report will expand the capacity of the Regional Arterial System to accommodate the increased trips generated by new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of fcc revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that will pay the fee. BURDEN RELATIONSHIP For the fourth finding the local agency must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (566001(a) (4)) New dwelling units and building square footage are indicators of the demand for transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units and building square footage arc created, the occupants of these structures generate additional vehicle trips and place additional burdens on the transportation system. The need for the RTCIP impact fee is based on SANDAG transportation model projections of growth that show an increase in vehicle hours of delay on the RAS primarily as a result of new development even with planned improvements to that s5'stern. The rnndel estimated impacts from new development based on trip generation rates that varied by land use category, providing a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the need for unprovemeti ts. ljMunl aural Norember 26. 2007 San Diego A sociatton o/ Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study PROPORTIONALITY For the fifth finding the SANDAL trust. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. (§66001(b)) This reasonable relationship between the RTCIP impact fee for a specific development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trips the project will add to the Regional Arterial System. The total fee for a specific residential development is based on the number and type of new dwelling units multiplied the trip generation rate for the applicable residential land use category. The fee for a specific nonresidential development is based in a similar manner on the amount of building square footage by land use category. Larger projects generate more vehicle trips and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use category. 'thus, the fee schedule ensures a reasonable relationship between the RTCIP impact fee for a specific development project and the cost of the Regional Arterial System improvements facilities attributable to the project. EjMuniFn; rcial No ernber26. 2007 ),Y APPENDIX A: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM Table A.1 lists the arterials included in the Regional Arterial System by the Regional Transportation Plan adopted in 2005. Table A.1: Regional Arterial System Arterial Limits 1st St A St - K St. 2nd St 30th St 32nd St 54th St 70th St Ardath Rd Avocado Ave Avocado Blvd Balboa Ave Ballantyne St Barham Dr Greenfield Dr - Main St National City Blvd - 2n1 St Harbor Dr - Norman Scott Rd El Cajon Blvd - SR94 University Ave - 1-8 Hidden Valley Rd -1-5 Main St - Chase Ave Chase Ave - SR94 Mission Bay Dr - 1-15 Broadway - Main St La Moree Rd - Mission Rd Barnett Ave Bay Marina Way (24th St) Bear Valley Pkwy Bernardo Center Dr Saint Charles St - Pacific Highway 1-5 - Terminal Ave East Valley Pkwy - Sunset Dr Camino Del Norte - 1-15 Beyer Blvd Black Mountain Rd Bobier Dr Bonita Rd Borden Rd Main St -Dairy Mart Road Del Mar Heights - Pomerado Rd Melrose Dr - E Vista Way E St - San Miguel Rd Las Posas Rd — Woodland Pkwy Borrego Springs Rd/Yaqui Pass Rd (S-3) Palm Canyon Dr (S-22)- SR78 Bradley Ave Broadway (El Cajon) Broadway (Lemon Grove) Broadway (San Diego) Broadway (Vista) Buckman Springs Rd/Hwy 80/Sunrise Hwy (S-1) Buena Creek Rd Cabrillo Dr (SR209) Camino del Norte Camino Del Rio North Camino Ruiz Marshall Ave - 2nd St SR67 - E. Main St. Spring St - College Ave C St - Main St Lincoln Pkwy/SR78 - Washington Ave SR94 - SR79 Las Posas Rd - Twin Oaks Valley Rd Cochran St - Cabrillo Monument Camino Ruiz - Pomerado Rd Mission Center Rd - Mission Gorge Rd Camino Santa Fe Ave Cannon Rd Camino del Norte - SR56 Sorrento Valley Blvd - Miramar Rd Carlsbad Blvd — Melrose Dr Cannon Road Melrose Drive - SR 78 Canon St Carlsbad Blvd Rosecrans St - Jennings St Eaton St - La Costa Ave EilliksinFinanCsdl f orrm/a-2G.2007 1-1 San Diego A.crocintivn of Goxrwnmentr RTC7P Impact flee Nexur Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits Carlsbad Village Dr Carmel Mountain Rd Carmel Valley Rd Centre City Pkwy Citracado Pkwy Clairemont Mesa Blvd Coast Hwy (S-21) College Ave College Blvd Community Rd Convoy St Crosby St Cuyamaca St Dairy Mart Rd Deer Springs Rd Dehesa Road 1-5 - Coast Btvd/Coast Hwy Sorrento Valley Rd - El Camino Real North Torrey Pines Rd - El Canino Real 1-15(N)-1-15(S) Centre City Pkwy - SR78 1-15 - Moraga Ave La Costa Ave - Via de la Valle Federal Blvd - Waring Rd North River Rd - Palomar Airport Rd Twin Peaks Rd - Scripps Poway Pkwy Linda Vista Rd - SR 52 Dehesa Road* Del Dios Hwy Del Mar Heights Rd (SA 710) Discovery St Douglas Dr E St East H St East Main St East Valley Pkwy East Via Rancho Pkwy East Vista Way El Cajon Blvd El Cajon Blvd El Camino Real El Camino Real 1-5 - Harbor Dr Mission Gorg Rd - Marshall Ave SR-905 - 1-5 Twin Oaks Valley Rd -1-15 Jamacha Rd - Harbison Canyon Rd Harbison Canyon Rd — Sycuan Rd Via Rancho Pkwy - Claudan Rd 1-5 - Camino Del Norte San Marcos Blvd - La Mores Rd SR76 omission Ave) - North River Rd 1-5 - E Bonita Rd Hilltop Dr - Mount Miguel Rd Broadway - Greenfield Dr Lake Wohlford Rd - East Valley Pkwy_ Broadway - Bear Valley Pkwy Vista Village Dr - SR76 Park Blvd -1-8 El Camino Real (S-11) El Norte Pkwy Encinitas Blvd Espola Rd Euclid Ave Fairmount Ave Faraday Ave Chase Ave - Washington Ave Via de la Valle - Carmel Valley Rd/SR56 SR 56 - Carmel Mountain Rd Douglas Dr - Manchester Ave Woodland Pkwy - Washington Ave First St - El Camino Real Summerfield Ln - Poway Rd Federal Blvd Fletcher Pkwy Friars Rd Garnet Ave Genesee Ave Gilman Dr Grand Ave SR94 - Sweetwater Rd 1-8 - El Cajon Blvd Melrose Dr - College Blvd College Ave - SR94 1-8 - SR-67 laretuniFriancial Sea World Dr - Mission Gorge Rd Balboa - Mission Bay Dr N. Torrey Pines Rd - SR163 La Jolla Village Dr -1-5 Mission Blvd to Mission Bay Dr No?Cnccr %ti, 200. San Uiego Arrogation of Gowrnmentr wren' !apart Fee Nexus Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits Grape St Greenfield Dr Grossmont Center Dr North Harbor Dr -1-5 E Main St -1-8 H St Harbor Dr Hawthorn St Heritage Rd Hill St Hunte Pkwy Imperial Ave Jackson Dr 1-8 - Fletcher Pkwy 1-5-Hilltop Dr Pacific Hwy -1-5 (National City) 1-5 - North Harbor Dr Otay Mesa Rd - Siempre Viva Rd 1-5 (Oceanside) - Eaton St Proctor Valley Rd - SR 125 Valencia Pkwy - Lisbon St Jamacha Blvd Jamacha Rd Kearny Villa Rd Kettner Blvd L St Mission Gorge Rd -1-8 Sweetwater Pkwy - SR94 Main St - SR94 Pomerado Rd - Waxie Way 1-5 - India St La Costa Ave La Jolla Village Dr La Media Rd 1-5 -1-805 Carlsbad Blvd - El Camino Real La Mesa Blvd Lake Jennings Rd Lake Murray Lake Wohlford Rd Las Posas Rd Laurel St Lemon Grove Ave North Torrey Pines Rd -1-805 Telegraph Canyon Rd - SR905 University Ave -1-8 Mapleview St -1-8 1 -8 - Navajo Rd Valley Ctr Road (N) - Valley Ctr Rd (S) Discovery St - Buena Creek Rd North Harbor Dr -1-5 Leucadia Blvd Linda Vista Rd Lisbon St - SR94 1st St - El Camino Real Lomas Santa Fe Ave Lytton St Main St Morena Blvd - Convoy St 1-5 - Coast Hwy Rosecrans St - Saint Charles St Manchester Ave Mapleview St Mar Vista Dr Market St 1-5 - Hilltop Dr El Camino Real -1-5 Marshall Ave Marshall Ave Marshall Ave Massachusetts Ave Massachusetts Ave Melrose Dr Mira Mesa Blvd SR67 - Lake Jennings Rd Buena Vista Dr - SR78 Harbor Dr - Valencia Pkwy Fletcher Pkwy - West Main St Cuyamaca - Fletcher Pkwy Main St - Washington Ave Broadway - University Ave Lemon Grove Ave - Broadway Ave SR76 - Rancho Santa Fe Rd Miramar Rd Mission Ave Mission Ave 1-805 -1-15 1-805 to 1-15 Mission Ave Andreason Dr - Center City Pkwy Escondido Blvd - Broadway Ave iamunifinamia Coast Hwy - Frazee Rd ;\ oaember ZG. 2007 1. San Diego Asmetation of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits Mission Bay Dr Mission Gorge Rd Mission Rd Grand Ave to 1-5 Mission Road (S-13; incl. Main St in Fallbrook) Montezuma Rd Montezuma Valley Rd/Palm Canyon Dr (S-22) Morena Blvd National City Blvd Navajo Rd Nimitz Blvd 1-8 - Magnolia Ave Rancho Santa Fe Rd - Andreason Dr 1-15 - SR76 Fairmount Ave - El Cajon Blvd SR79 - Imperial Co Line Balboa Ave - 1-8 1-5 - C St Waring Rd - Fletcher Pkwy 1-8 - Harbor Dr Nobel Dr 1-5 -1-805 Nordahl Rd SR78- Nordahl Rd North Harbor Dr Rosecrans St - Grape St North River Rd Douglas Dr - SR76 (Mission Rd) North Santa Fe Ave SR76 - Melrose Dr North Torrey Pines Rd (S-21) Carmel Valley Rd - La Jolla Village Dr Ocean View Hills Pkwy 1-805 - SR905 Oceanside Blvd Rosecrans St 1-8 - Canon St Regents Rd Moraga Ave - Genesee Ave Hill St - Melrose Dr Old Highway 80 SR79 - Sunrise Hwy Old Highway 80 Olivehain Rd El Camino Real - Rancho Santa Fe Rd Brandywine Ave - SR125 Olympic Pkwy Orar ge Ave Otay Lakes Rd Otay Mesa Rd Buckman Springs Rd -1-8 (In-ko-pah) Palomar St - Brandywine Ave Bonita Rd - SR 94 SR905 - SR125 Otay Valley Rd Hilltop Dr - Heritage Rd Pacific Highway Sea World Dr - Harbor Dr Palm Ave 1-5 -1-805 Palomar Airport Rd Carlsbad Blvd - Business Park Dr Palomar St 1-5 - Orange Ave Paradise Valley Rd 8th Street - Sweetwater Pkwy Paseo Ranchero East H St - OtayMesa Rd Plaza Blvd National City Blvd - 8th St Poinsettia Lane Carlsbad Blvd - Melrose Dr Pomerado Rd 1-15 (N) -1-15 (S) Poway Rd 1-15 - SR67 Proctor Valley Rd Mount Miguel Rd - Hunte Pkwy Qu esthaven Rd Twin Oaks Valley Rd - Rancho Santa Fe Rd Rancho Bemardo Rd 1-15 - Summerfield Ln Rancho Del Oro Dr SR 78 - SR 76 Rancho Penasquitos Blvd SR56 -1-15 Rancho Santa Fe Rd Mission Rd - Olivenhain Rd Ruffin Rd Waxie Way - Balboa Ave San Felipe Rd/Great S. Overland Route (S-2) S-22 - Imperial Co Line MuniFinanciel N,nember26, 2007 San Dieo Association of Governmenis RTG:IP Impact Free Nexus Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits San Marcos Blvd Business Park Dr - Mission Rd Scripps Poway Pkwy 1-15 - SR67 Sea World Dr W Mission Bay Dr - Morena Blvd Siempre Viva Rd Sorrento Valley Blvd Sorrento Valley Rd Heritage Rd - SR905 _ Sorrento Valley Rd - Camino Santa Fe Ave Carmel Mountain Rd -1-805 South Santa Fe Ave Broadway (Vista) - Pacific St Sports Arena Blvd Sea World Dr - Rosecrans St/SR209 Spring St 1-8 - SR125 SR75 No limits Sunrise Highway SR79 -1-8 Sunset Cliffs Blvd 1-8 - W Mission Bay Dr Sweetwater Rd 2nd St - Willow St Sweetwater Rd 2nd St to Willow St Sweetwater Road Broadway Ave - Troy St Sycamore Avenue South Santa Fe Avenue — S. Melrose Dr Ted Williams Pkwy 1-15 - Twin Peaks Rd Telegraph Canyon Rd 1-805 - Otay Lakes Rd Torrey Pines Rd Prospect PI - La Jolla Village Dr Twin Oaks Valley Rd Deer Springs Rd - Questhaven Rd Twin Peaks Rd Pomerado Rd - E pola Rd Twin Peaks Rd Ted Williams Pkwy - Espola Rd University Ave 54th St - La Mesa Blvd Valencia Pkwy Market - Imperial Ave VaIly Center Rd SR76 - Lake Wohlford Rd Vandegrift Blvd North River Rd - Camp Pendleton Via de la Valle Hwy 101 (S-21) - El Camino Real Via Rancho Pkwy Via Rancho Pkwy Vista Sorrento Pkwy Wabash Blvd Washington Ave Washington Ave 1-15 - Del Dios Hwy__ Sunset Dr -1-15 Sorrento Valley Blvd - Carmel Mtn Rd Norman Scott Rd - 1-5 El Norte Pkwy - Center Valley Pk�v El Cajon Blvd - Jamacha Rd Washington St Pacific Hwy - Park Blvd West Main St 1-8 - Marshall Ave West Valley Pkwy Claudan Rd - Broadway West Vista Way Jefferson St/SR78 - Vista Village Or Wildcat Canyon Rd' Mapleview Street - San Vicente Rd Willow St Sweetwater Rd - Bonita Rd Willow St Sweetwater - Bonita Rd Willows Road I-8 - Viejas Casino Winter Gardens Blvd SR67 - Greenfield Dr Woodland Dr Barham Dr - El Norte Pkwy Woodside Ave Magnolia Ave - SR67 • Inclusion in Regional Arterial System contingent upon designation as a four -lane arterial by the County of San Diego. I,MuniFinercial orrmber 26. ylO7 APPENDIX B: RETAIL SPENDING AND SALES ANALYSIS This appendix presents. the analysis conducted to estimate the ariiount of couunercial development within San Dicgo County that is associated with spending by local (San Diego County) households. The following steps summarize the approach taken for the analysis and are explained in more detail below. 1. Estimate total potential spending by local households based on estimates of per household spending by retail category; 2. Compare total local household spending potential with total retail sales to estimate by retail category: a. Leakage of spending by local households to retail establishments outside the County, b. Capture of sales from visitors outside the County by local retail establishments; 3. Calculate the share of retail sales associated with local household spending; and 4. Validate the estimate of total local household spending by analyzing visitor industry data. All data is from 2004 because this was the last complete year of retail sales data available from the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) at the time of this report. TOTAL HOUSEHOLD SPENDING Total spending by San Diego households is estimated by adjusting per household spending based on statewide data for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. As an initial step in the analysis, statewide taxable retail sales by category were compared with San Diego County sales to determine if any anomalies existed in San Diego sales patterns that should be accommodated in the model. As shown in Table B.1, San Diego has about $44 billion in taxable retail sales in 2004 compared to statewide sales of $500 billion. Sales patterns in the County are very similar to the statewide sales though the County has slightly more spending in retail stores compared to non -retail stores. The retail store categories that exhibit higher levels of spending compared to the state as a whole (apparel, general merchandise, specialty, and food and beverage) are associated with visitor spending, indicative of San Diego's strong tourism industry. We also conjecture that the higher levels of spending in the building material category are associated with spending by Mexican visitors, though we could not rind specific data to support this hypothesis. agtxunrinanciat ;", ore rher 26. 2007 13-1 San Diego Arrogation of Genernments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study Table B.1 - Taxable Retail Sales (2004) Taxable Retail Sala 2004 (3000s1 Percent of Category San San Diego Diego Calif- Diff- RetaU Category County California County omia *ranee Awarel Stores Womens Apparel 420,000 4,617,000 0.9% 0.9% 0.0% Men's Apparel 107.000 1,034,000 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% Family Apparel 907,000 8,819.000 2.0% 1.8% 0.3% Shoes 210,000 2.487.000 0 5Y. =St 10.0%1 Subtotal 1,644,000 16,957,000 3.7% 3.4% 0.3% General Merchandise General Merchandise 4,721,000 47,948,000 10.6% 9 8% 1.0% Drug Store 484,000 5,992,000 1.1% 1.2% 10.1%1 Subtotal 5,205,000 53,940.000 11.7% 10.8% 0.9% ciah Gift, Art Goods, Novelty 167,000 1,858,000 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% Sporting Goods 353,000 3,652,000 0.8% 0 7% 0.1% Florists 122,000 1,078,000 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Photo Equip., and Supplies 37,000 523,000 0.1% 0.1% (0.0%) Musical Inskuments 121,000 1,516.000 0.3% 0.3% (0.0%) Stationery and Books 356.000 4,018,000 0.8% 0.8% (0.0%) Jewelry 258.000 2,638,000 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% Office and School Supply 1,411,000 15,661,000 3.2% 3.1% 0.0% Other Specialties 1,716,000 18.018,000 3 9% Ma 0.3% Subtotal 4,541,000 48,962,000 10.2% 9.8% 0.4% Grocery Grocery - All Type Liq 1,005,000 12,550,000 2.3% 2 5°% (0.2%) Grocery - AU Other 732,000 7.276,000 1.6% .1.5% 0.2°% Subtotal 1,737,000 19,826,000 3.9% 4.0% (0.1%) Food and Beveraoe Restaurant - No Alcohol 1,890,000 19,960,000 4.3% 4.0% 0.3% Restaurant -Bar-Beer-Wine 795,000 10,792.000 1.8% 2.2% (0.4%) Restaurant - Bar -Al Type Liq. 1,363,000 12.523.000 3 1 q° 2,5% Q Subtotal 4,048,000 43,275.000 9.1% 8.7% 0.4% Household Home Furnishings 1,162,000 11,991,000 2.6% 2.4% 0.2% Household Appliances 387.000 4,414.000 0.9ye 0.95 (0.0%1 Subtotal 1,549,000 16,405,000 3.5% 3.3% 0.2% Budding Material Building Material 2,649,000 25,603,000 6.0% 5.1 % 0.8% Hardware Stores 231,000 3,392,000 0.5% 0.7% (0.2%) Plumbing and Elec. Supply 414,000 4.086.000 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% Paint, Glass, Wallpaper 47,000 1 074 000 0.17, 0.2°% (0.1%) Subtotal 3,341,000 34,155,000 7.5% 6.8% 07% Automotive Auto Dealers - New 5,541,000 59,683,000 12 5% 11.9% 0.5% Aut Dealers - Used 551,000 5,752,000 1.2% 1.2% 0.1% Auto Supplies and Parts 421,000 5,334,000 0.9% 1.1% (0.1%) Service Stations 2,805,000 32.760.000 1.3.1i. (12212.1. Subtotal 9.318,000 103,529,000 21.0% 20.7% 0.3% Other Retail Stores Liquor Stores 186,000 2,350,000 0.4% 0.5% (0.1%) Second-hand Merch. 66,000 534,000 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% Farm Imp!. Dealers 177,000 2,976,000 0.4% 0.6% (0 2%) Farm and Garden Supply 95.000 2,386.000 0.2% 0.5% (0.3%) Fuel and Ice Dealers 9,000 321,000 0.0°% 0.1% (0.0%) Mobile Home and Camper 108,000 1,453,000 0.2% 0.3% (0.0%) Boat. Motorcycle, Plane 321,000 3,104,000 0.7% 0 0.1% Subtotal 962,000 13.124,000 2.2% 2.6y° (0.5%) Subtotal Retail Stores 32.345,000 350,173,000 72.7% 70.0 % 2.7% non -Retail Sons Business and Personal Services 2,147.000 22,307,000 4.8% 4.5% 0.4% NI Other Outlets 9.978.000 127.597.000 22.4% 25.5 13.1%1 Subtotal 12,125,000 149,904.000 27.3% 30.0% (2.7%) Total 44,470,000 500,077,000 Source. Tarapb Sales In CaFrorna (Saes 6 Use Tax) aYninp 2004. Cakfarna State Board d Equalization. SjNkanif inandal Nnrember 20. 200 San Vieego Association of Governments RT(71' Gnpact Fee Nexus Study 1'o separate out household from business spending, all household spending is assumed to occur in retail stores and all business -to -business spending is assumed to occur in non -retail store's. As shown in 'Table 13.1, non -retail stores include "Business and Personal Services" and "All Other Outlets". Both categories are largely composed of retail establishments that sell primarily to businesses. The "All Other Outlets" category primarily includes manufacturing, warehousing and other establishments that sell primarily to businesses. There is some overlap in the source of spending (household versus business) across all retail (store and non -store) categories but this overlap is assumed to be largely offsetting between total retail store and total non -store spending. This approach is commonly used in retail spending and sales analysis to separate household from business spending. Per household spending estimates were generated based on statewide data for retail stores adjusted for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. San Diego's median income is about one percent less than the State's median income resulting in a conunensurate adjustment to state per household spending patterns by retail store category. San Diego per household spending is multiplied by the number of households in San Diego to estimate total spending for 2004. As shown in Table B.2 this approach results in a total spending potential for San Diego households of $30 billion. Table B.2 - Household Taxable Retail Spending Potential (2004) Major Business Group Households Median Household Income Total Spending Catifomia Householdes ($000s) Household Spending and Sales Apparel Stores $ General Merchandise Specialty Grocery Food and Beverage Household Building Material Automotive Other Retail Stores Total - Consumer $ 16,957,000 53,940,000 48,962,000 19,826,000 43,275,000 16,405,000 34,155,000 103,529,000 13,124,000 350,173,000 Per Household Spending San Diego State County 12,015,591 1,043,221 $ 47,493 $ 47,067 Per Household Spending $ 1,411 $ 4,489 4,075 1,650 3,602 1,365 2,843 8,616 1,092 $ 29,143 Total Spending San Diego Households ($000s) 1,399 $ 1,459,000 4,449 4,641,000 4,038 4,213,000 1,635 1,706,000 3,569 3,724,000 1,353 1,412,000 2,817 2,939,000 8,539 8,908,000 1,082 1,129 000 $ 28,882 $ 30,131,000 Source: U.S. Census, Table P53: California Department of Finance, Rerpot E-5; Table A.1; MuniFinancial. • EiMunFinendal :\'ocrr.,lxr 26. 2007 13- 3 San ()repo Assoc1a!ion of Governments RTC IP Impact Fee Nexui Study CAPTURE AND LEAKAGE Capture and leakage are common concepts used in retail analysis. Not all local household spending occurs in San Diego County; some spending leaks out to other areas when residents travel or are otherwise attracted to retail opportunities outside the County. Furthermore, not all retail store sales in San Diego County are generated by local households; some arc captured by stores from customers visiting the County from other locations including Mexico. Given San Diego's attractiveness as a tourist destination and its proximity to the Mexican border, one would expect that a significant share of total retail store sales would represent capture of visitor spending. Given this regional economic context, we estimated leakage rates by major store category to calculate net local household spending in San Diego County by category. We then compared this estimate of spending with actual sales by store category and calculated the amount of outside capture that the category would need to force local household spending to equal local sales. This analysis is shown in Table B.3. The model resulted in a leakage estimate of eight percent of household spending, and capture estimate of 14 percent of retail store sales. The differences between the estimates of local spending and sales by category shown in the middle columns are due to rounding. Table B.3 - San Diego County Local Household Taxable Retail Spending & Sales (2004) Major Business Group Apparel Stores General Merchandise Specially Grocery Food and Beverage Household Building Material Automotive Other Retal Stores Total A 0 Potential Spending San Diego Households ($000s) Leakage $ 1.459,000 15% 4,641,000 15% 4,213,000 15% 1,706,000 0% 3,724,000 15%, 1,412,000 0% Z939,000 0% 8.908,000 0% 1.129.000 $ 30,131,000 8% Leakage/Capture Total $ 2.275,000 C=Ax(1-B) D=CIE E=Gx(r-F) Local Spending/sates Reconciliation Based on Spending ($0003) Diff- erence' Based on Sales (S000s) $ 1,240,000 1% $ 1.233,000 3,945,000 (0°/,) 3,956.000 3,581,000 (0%) 3,587,000 1,706,000 0% 1,702,000 3,165,000 0% 3,157,000 1,412,000 0% 1,410000 2,939,000 (0%) 2,940,000 8,908,000 (0%) 8,945,000 960.000 (0�) 962,000 $ 27,856,000 (0%) $ 27,892,000 F=1-(C/G) G Actual Sales San Diego Outside County Sales Capture (S000s) 25% 24% 21 % 2% 22% 9% 12% 4% 14% $ 4,453,000 $ 1.644,000 5,205,000 4.541,000 1,737.000 4.048,000 1,549,000 3,341,000 9.318,000 962.000 $ 32,345,000 zafterence not equal to zero due to rounding. Souce'. Tables A 1 and A 2, Aa Fimrd;Y The leakage rates in Table B.3 that determine the local spending amounts and outside capture rates were estimated based on (1) survey data of visitor spending in San Diego estimating spending by retail category, and (2) an assumptions that comparison goods such as apparel and general merchandise arc likely to have higher leakage rates compared to convenience goods such as groceries. Local households are most likely to spend on comparison goods and travel related activities outside the County in die "apparel stores", "general merchandise", "specialty", and "food and beverage" categories. I;or these categories a leakage rate of 15 percent was estimated. For all other categories all household spending was assumed to remain local (zero leakage). The "other retail store" was a special case in that fiCMunifialanaal \ntrlreber 26. 200 ii-/ San Diego Asro ia1inn of Governments R I CIP Impart Fee Nex-uf Slut. it was the only category where potential local spending was greater than total sales. For this category we assumed a 15 percent leakage rate to generate a zero percent capture rate. LOCAL SPENDING SHARE OF TOTAL SALES The share of total retail sales in the. County associated with spending by local residential development can be calculated from the results of Tables 13.1 and B.3. As shown in Table B.4, an estimated 62.6 percent of total retail spending (store and non -store) is associated with spending by residential development (households) located in San Diego County. Table B.4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending in San Diego County (2004) Taxable Retail Sales ($000s) Share Total Taxable Retail Spending Local Residential Taxable Spending Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending $ 44,470,000 100.0% 27,856,000 62.6% 16,614,000 37.4% Sources: Tables 6.1, and B.3; MuniFinancial. VISITOR INDUSTRY SPENDING Visitor industry spending was analyzed to validate the estimate of retail spending associated with local households. Data regarding spending by overnight visitors from the San Diego Conventions and Visitor Bureau (SDCV13) was supplemented with research on cross -border spending by residents of Mexico (primarily day visitors) to construct a comprehensive model of visitor spending. As shown in Table B.5, visitors spent about $8.249 billion in San Diego County in 2004. Of the amount about $3.901 billion was associated with hotel accoiruiaodations, food, drugs, services, and other non -retail taxable items. Taxable retail spending equaled the remaining $4.348 billion split between two categories, "restaurants and dining" and "shopping". This estimate of taxable retail spending is nearly equal to the estimated $4.489 billion in capnirc shown at the bottom of Table B.3, suggesting that the model's estimates of local household spending based on the SBOE data and estimated leakage rates are reasonable. winuesirinancial No,.e ber 26. 2007 7S i San Uiego Association of Governments RT(:1P Impact Pee Nexus Stitch, Table B.5: Visitor Industry Retail Spending (2004) Total Visitor Soendinu Percent Amount Non-taxable Taxable Retail Retail Sales Sales Visitor Spending (Non -Mexican Visitors - see Note) Lodging 24% $ 1,324,000 $ 1,324,000 $ Restaurants & Dining' 33% 1,821,000 273,000 1,548,000 Attractions & Entertainment 10% 552,000 552,000 Shopping 23% 1,269,000 1,269,000 Other 10°l0 552 000 552,000 Subtotal 100% $ 5,518,000 2,701,000 $ 2,817,000 Visitor Spending (Mexican Visitors - see Note) Lodging' [Ind. in "Other] Restaurants & Dining''' 5% 137,000 Attractions & Entertainment2 [Incl. in "Other'[ Shopping 52% 1,420,000 Others 43% 1,174,000 Subtotal 100% $ 2,731,000 Total Taxable Retail Visitor Spending Lodging Restaurants & Dining Attractions & Entertainment Shopping Other (primarily groceries) Total NA NA 21,000 116,000 NA NA 1,420,000 1,174,000 $ 1,195,000 $ 1,536,000 NA $ 1,664,000 NA 2,689,000 $ 4,353,000 Note: Non -Mexican visitor spending data based on San Diego Conventions & Visitor Bureau (SDCVB) estimates. Shares by category based on a 2002 visitor survey. The survey focused on overnight visitors and therefore excluded most spending by visitors from Mexico because a large majority of visits are day trips. This study assumes that the SDCVB estimates exclude all Mexican visitor spending. Mexican visitor spending is based on the Ghaddar and Brown study Non-taxable retail sates represent tips for service estimated by SDCVB. Same percentage applied to estimate of visitor spending from Mexico. The Ghaddar and Brown study did not separate out this category in estimates of spending. Cheddar and Brown study did not separate out this category for California estimates. Share of spending estimated at one-half of share estimated for Texas and Arizona Mexican visitors based on a higher percentage of day trips in California. Share deducted from food and groceries category. ° Includes the clothing (46 percent) and appliances and furniture (six percent) from Cheddar and Brown study. Includes groceries (32 percent) personal hygiene (five percent) and other (six percent) from Cheddar and Brown study. Sources: San Diego Conventions & Visitor Bureau, San Diego County Visitor Industry Summary (2004) ; San Diego Conventions & Visitors Bureau, email from Susan Bruinzeel, June 11, 2006; Cheddar, Sued and Cynthia J. Brown, The Economic Impact or Mexican Visitors Along the U.S.-Mexico Border: A Research Synthesis, Center for Border Economic Studies, University of Texas - Pan American, December 2005, Table 4. Figures 1,2, and 3: Munifinanclal. The only significant discrepancy between the visitor spending estimates based on SDCVB and Mexican visitor survey data, and the outside capture estimates based on the SBOE data, is in the food and beverage category. The visitor spending data for restaurants and dining, substantially the same category as the SBOE food and beverage category, resulted in an lrMVtursT-nar Norco:bcr 26. 2007.Ct-i San Diego Association of Goirenments RTCIP Impact Fee New Slue!), estimate of $1,664 million in taxable spending (see fable B.5). The SI3OF model resulted in an outside capture estimate of $883 mullion (see the difference between total sales and the local spending estimate for this category in Table B.3). Thc visitor spending estimate of $1,664 million would represent a significant share, about 41 percent, of total sales in the SHOE. food and beverage category. Consequently, we suspect that the visitor survey data probably overestimates spending in this category. Rather than reduce estimates of total capture, the approach taken for this study assumes that the visitor survey data underestimates taxable retail spending by an equal amount across all other categories. 'Therefore the estimate of total retail sales associated with local household spending remains a reasonable estimate for the purposes of this analysis (shifting the burden of commercial traffic associated with local household spending to residential land uses). 31Mem Fnenciat .\orembet' 26. 100.' li 7 APPENDIX C: LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS This appendix presents the steps that local agencies are required to take when adopting and updating a funding program to implement the RTCIP. The first checklist describes steps for initial adoption of the RTCIP impact fee and the second checklist shows steps for the required annual and five-year updates. These checklists follow a timeline that meets the requirements established by the California Government Code section 60017 and the "I'ransNct Ordinance. Erbkrufi`rikial November26. 200. (.-1 .San Diego Asmriation of Gote'rnments RTCIP Impact Nee Nexus Study INITIAL RTCIP FEE ADOPTION - LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST Note: Local agencies with existing impact fee programs that meet the requirements of the R'ICIP impact fee may not treed to complete all steps outlined below. U Prepare initial Funding Programl u F.stimate annual RTCIP impact fee revenues u Identity Regional Arterial System2 improvements (location and description) and estimate costs ❑ Estimate construction schedule and program RTCIP impact fee for identified improvements (minimum five- year planning horizon) u For Improvements to be funded with RTCIP fees and other revenues, identify the anticipated source, amount, and timing of other revenues u Work with adjacent local agencies it improvements extend beyond boundaries u Optional -- Prepare local nexus study (if required to substitute for or supplement SANDAG's RTC7PImpact Fee Nexus Study) ❑ Prepare fee adoption documents for Council action u Draft ordinance and resolution to enable local agency to impose RTCIP impact fee ❑ If using SANDAG's R'I'C!P Impact Fee Nexus Study revise Funding Program based on updated fee schedule 2007 Early 2008 Cl Prepare for Council public hearing and fee adoption3 Before April 1, 2008 u At least 14 days prior mail notice to any interested party that has filed a written request to be notified ❑ At least 10 days prior make nexus study, Funding Program, and fee schedule available to public u At least 10 days prior publish notice of meeting ❑ Place public hearing and adoption of ordinance/resolution on agenda of regularly scheduled meeting 1 The term "Funding Program" is used in the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program of the 1 ranrNel Extension, Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (R"IC11'). The Funding Program as described herein is designed to meet certain requirements of both the R'IC1P and the Mitigation Pce Act ((".atifonda Government Code Sections 660X)-660025). 2 The Regional Arterial System is defined by SANDAG. Sec San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2(X/5) and applicable amendments 3 Catifornia Government Cork Sections 6062, 66002, 66016(a), 66018, and 65090. Noir: aer26.=00i San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Pce Nexus Study ❑ Adopt RTCIP impact fee and Funding Program at 13y April 1, 2008 regularly scheduled Council meeting and submit to Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committec4 Incorporate RTCIP impact fee and Funding Program By July 1, 2008 into local agency's FY 2008-09 budget process5 u Establish separate account for collection of fee revenue u Appropriate annual estimate of fee revenues and expenditures 0 Collect RTCIP impact fee u Fees become effective no sooner than 60 days following adoption6 u Collect at same time as other building permit fees u Deposit revenues in separate•account By July 1, 2008 4 RTC7P, Section A(5). 5 California Government Code Section 66007(b). Adoption of the Funding program and appropriation of fee revenues will enable collection of the fee at building permit issuance rather than at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy. (' Ca4fornia Goverment Code Section 66017(a). EilMuniFtriancrol \number 26. 7007 (. - San Diego Association of (;oternmenls RTCIP Impart Fee Nexus.Sludy ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR RTCIP FEE UPDATE - LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST Note: Local agencies with existing impact fee programs that meet the requirements of the RTCIP impact fce will need to integrate the steps outlined below into the periodic update of their existing programs. Note: Years shown are for the first fiscal year of RTC1P implementation. Schedule would repeat annually thereafter. U Receive transmittal from SANDAG of RTCIP impact fce schedule updated for cost inflation U Update Funding Program? u Estimate annual RTCIP impact fce revenues u Update Regional Arterial System8 improvements (location and description) and estimated costs ❑ Update construction schedule and program RTCIP impact fee for identified improvements (minimum five- year planning horizon) n For improvements to be funded with RTCIP fees and other revenues, identify the anticipated source, amount, and timing of other revenues u Continue to work with adjacent local agencies if improvements extend beyond boundaries u Optional — Update local nexus study (if required to substitute for or supplement SANDAG R I C.7P Impact Fee Nexus Study) O Prepare for Council public hearing and fee update` u Draft resolution updating fee schedule ❑ At least 14 days prior mail notice to any interested party that has tiled a written request to be notified u At least 10 days prior make nexus study, Funding Program, and fee schedule available to public ❑ At least 10 days prior publish notice of meeting 15y February 1 (2(K)9) February (2009) March (2009) ' The term "Funding Progratu" is used in the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program of the 'I ransNet Extension, Ordinance and Expenditure flan (RTCIP). The Funding Program as descnhed herein is designed to meet certain requirements of both the RTCIP and the Iritigation Fee Act (Cabjornia Government Cork Sections 66000-660025). 8 The Regional Arterial System is defined by SANDAG. See San Diego Association of Governments (SANI)AG), Final 2030 Regional Transportation Mtn, Mobility 2030 (February 2005) and applicable amendments. 9 Cali forma Government Code Sections 6062, 66002, 66016(a), 66018, and 65090. ESPAunginancial Norember 20. 2007 (. 3 San Diego Auodation of Governments RTCIP Impact Fie Nexus Study ❑ Adopt updated RTCIP impact fee and Funding By April 1 (2009) Program at regularly scheduled Council meeting and submit to Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC)1° U Update RTCIP impact fee and Funding Program as By July 1 (2009) part of local agency's annual budget process11 ❑ Appropriate annual estimate of fee revenues and expenditures O Prepare Annual RTCIP report based on audited financial Fall (2009) data for prior fiscal year 12 o Brief description of the fee u Fee schedule ❑ Fiscal year beginning and ending balance of fee account ❑ Fee revenue collected and interest earned ❑ Identification of each improvement funded by the fee and amountof the expenditures on each improvement including the total percentage of the public improvement cost funded with fees o Identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete the improvement (inay refer to adopted Funding Program) ❑ Description of each intcrfund transfer or loan made from the account including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will be expended, and, in the case of an intcrfund loan, the date on which the loan will be repaid, and the rate of interest thatthe account or fund will receive on the loan. ❑ Amount of refunds made, if any ❑ Submit Funding Program and Annual RTCIP report to ITOC13 10 RTCIP, Section A(5). Fall (2009) 11 California Government Code Section 66007(b). Adoption of the Funding Program and appropriation of tee revenues will enable collection of the fee at building perms issuance rather than at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy. 12 Cabfornia Government Code Section 66006(b)(1) and RTCIP, Section G(2). 13 (RICH), Section G(2). This schedule may require amendment of Section G(2). >�ltnu�r�;narw:�:a November 26. 2007 .San Diego Association of Governments R 1 C!P Impart Fee Nexus Study 0 Submit Funding Program and Annual RTCIP report to Council14 u Make annual R'I'CIP report available to the public ❑ Review annual RTCIP report at regularly scheduled Council meeting at least 15 days following issuance of report (by January 15) ❑ At least 15 days prior to review of annual RTCIP report at regularly scheduled Council meeting mail notice to any interested party that has filed a written request to be notified LI Prepare and submit Five -Year RTCIP Report to ITOC15 u To be done after the end of every five years following adoption of the program in FY 2008-09 ❑ Ilse Funding Program as basis for report ❑ Identify the put -pose of the fee, i.e. improvement of Regional Arterial System to accommodate new development ❑ Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee • and the purpose of the fee by referencing the Funding Program and showing that anticipated fee revenues are fully programmed to fund planned improvements 1.1 Identify sources, amounts, and timing of other revenues if needed to complete planned improvements ❑ Fee revenues not committed to a planned improvement within five years of collection must be refunded to the frOC January 1 (2010) Fall (2013) ❑ Prepare and submit Five -Year RTCIP Report to Councill6 January 1 (2014) ❑ To be done after the end of every live years following adoption of the program in FY 2008-09 14 California Government Code Section 66006(b)(2). 1' RTCIP, Section G(4). This schedule may require amendment of Section G(4). 16 California Government Code Section 66001(d). \otw bn 26. ?00 C 6 City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT AEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 14 (ITEM TITLE A Resolution of the City Council of the City of National City setting the fee schedule for the Transportation Development Impact Fee, effective July 1, 2008, to be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit for new development, which also includes approval and adoption of the Transportation Impact Fee Program PREPARED BY Stephen Manganieuo DEPARTMENT Engineering EXT. 4382 EXPLANATION Please see attached. Environmental Review X N/A MIS Approval Financial Statement N/A Approved By: Finance Director Account No STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the Resolution REC OMMEDATION • ARD / CO MMI ON N/A { ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No. 1. Explanation 2. Transportation Impact Fee Program Report A-200 (Rev. 7193) Explanation At the March 18, 2008 City Council Meeting staff introduced the following ordinance: "An Ordinance to the City Council of the City of National City Amending Title Four of the National City Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 4.52 Establishing and Approving a Transportation Development Impact Fee for Capital Improvement Projects Necessary to Maintain Acceptable Levels of Traffic and Transportation Service Within the City". After introduction of the ordinance, City Council set a Public Hearing date of April 1, 2008 to open this item for discussion. The following summarizes the fee schedules for both residential and non-residential development. Transportation Development Impact Fee — Residential Commencing July 1, 2008, prior to the issuance of any building permit for residential development in the City of National City, a Transportation Development Impact Fee shall be paid in the following amount based upon the use of land: Residential Land Use Fee Single-family $ 2,000 per dwelling unit Multi -family $ 2,000 per dwelling unit The fee shall be paid before the issuance of building permits for each development project within the City of National City. No building permit shall be issued within the City of National City unless and until the TDIF has been paid in full. In the case of discretionary permits that will not involve a building permit, but which will involve new development, payment of the fee shall be recommended as a condition of permitting to the decision -making body that would approve such permit. Transportation Development Impact Fee — Non -Residential Commencing July 1, 2008, prior to the issuance of any building permit for commercial, office/service, or industrial development in the City of National City, a Transportation Development Impact Fee shall be paid in the following amount based upon the use of land: Non -Residential Land Use Fee Commercial $ 2,704.00 per 1,000 square feet Office/Services $ 6,002.00 per 1,000 square feet Industrial $ 2519.00 per 1,000 square feet The fee shall be paid before the issuance of building permits for each development project within the City of National City. No building permit shall be issued within the City of National City unless and until the TDIF has been paid in full. In the case of discretionary permits that will not involve a building permit, but which will involve new development, payment of the fee shall be recommended as a condition of permitting to the decision -making body that would approve such permit. The imposition of the TDIF upon non-residential development, as set forth by City Council Ordinance, shall be suspended from being imposed until one of the following occurs: A. SANDAG requires the City to collect a transportation development impact fee from non-residential development, the City thereafter holds a public hearing to consider whether to release the suspension, and the City determines to release the suspension; or, B. The City Council determines, after a public hearing, that the suspension should be released based upon the public health, safety, and welfare of the City of National City; or, C. The passage of at least two years from the date of the adoption of this Ordinance, a public hearing is held before the City Council to consider whether the continuance of the suspension of the fee upon non-residential should remain in place, and the City Council determines the suspension should be released. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ADOPTING THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY "TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE PROGRAM", AND THE IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE — 2008, AND ESTABLISHING TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of National City caused to be prepared the National City "Transportation Impact Fee Program"; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2008, the City Council held a noticed public hearing, at which time public comments and other oral and documentary evidence was received and considered with respect to the adoption of the City of National City "Transportation Impact Fee Program" dated April 2008, (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the "Transportation Impact Fee Program"); and WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The "Transportation Impact Fee Program" complies with California Government Code Section 66001 by establishing the basis for imposition of fees on new development. In particular, the "Transportation Impact Fee Program": 1. Identifies the purpose of the fee. 2. Identifies the use to which the fee will be put. 3. Shows a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 4. Shows a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. 5. Shows a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. B. The fees collected pursuant to this Resolution shall be used to finance the public facilities described or identified in the "Transportation Impact Fee Program". C. After considering the specific project descriptions and cost estimates identified in the "Transportation Impact Fee Program", the Council approves such project descriptions and cost estimates, and finds them reasonable as the basis for calculating and imposing certain development impact fees. D. The projects and fee methodology identified in the "Transportation Impact Fee Program" are consistent with the City's General Plan. Resolution No. 2008 — April 1, 2008 Page 2 E. The "Transportation Impact Fee Program" is categorically exempt from environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15061 (b) (3). The intent of the study and proposed fees is to provide one means of mitigating potential environmental impacts which have been identified in environmental analyses of other planning efforts, including the General Plan EIR. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of National City that: 1. The "Transportation Impact Fee Program", dated April 2008, is hereby approved and adopted. 2. The "Impact Fee Schedule — 2008" which is based upon the "Transportation Impact Fee Program" is hereby approved and adopted. A copy of said "Impact Fee Schedule — 2008" is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference. 3. Definitions: "New Development" shall mean development requiring a development permit. "Development Permit" shall mean any permit or approval from the City of National City including, but not limited to, a general plan amendment, zoning or rezoning of property, a conditional use permit, a design permit, a coastal development permit, a variance permit, a planned development permit, subdivision map, parcel map, building permit, or any other permit for construction, reconstruction, or development. 4. Timing of Fee. A development impact fee shall be imposed upon issuance of any development permit and shall be paid at the rate in effect on the day of payment prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project, or at such earlier time permitted by law as set forth in Govemment Code Section 66007. 5. Contract for Payment. If any fee or charge is not paid prior to the issuance of a building permit for construction of any portion of a residential development, the City may require the property owner or lessee of record, as a condition of issuance of the building permit, to execute a contract to pay the fee within the time specified in Section 4 above. 6. Fee Determination. (a) Development impact fees for residential development shall be based upon the type of unit constructed. Residential development of detached single- family units shall pay the Single Family Detached residential fees. Multi -family units shall pay the multi -family fees. Resolution No. 2008 — April 1, 2008 Page 3 (b) Development impact fees for nonresidential land uses shall be based upon the "TDIF Schedule (Non-residential)" set forth in Table 14a of the "Transportation Impact Fee Program", dated April 2008. (c) If a development permit is issued that would alter the amount of the development impact fee due for the development or require the payment of a new or additional development impact fee, any such previously paid fees shall be credited against the new total fee due, as determined by the Building and Safety Director, provided, however, that, in no event, shall the City refund fees previously paid because of a change in land use. 7. Amount of Fee. Development impact fees shall be as set forth in the "Transportation Impact Fee Program", dated April 2008, on file in the office of the City Clerk, and as set forth in the "Impact Fee Schedule — 2008", a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". 8. Effective Date. The fees designated in the "Transportation Impact Fee Program" and in the "Impact Fee Schedule — 2008" shall be effective July 1, 2008. 9. Use of Fee. The fee shall be solely used (1) for the purposes described in the "Transportation Impact Fee Program", (2) for reimbursing the City for development's fair share of those capital improvements already constructed by the City; or (3) for reimbursing developers who have constructed public facilities described in the "Transportation Impact Fee Program". 10. Judicial Action to Challenge this Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void, or annul this Resolution shall be brought within 120 days of the date of adoption of this Resolution. 11. Severability. If any provision or clause, or paragraph of this Resolution or the imposition of a fee for any project subject to the "Transportation Impact Fee Program", or the application thereof to any person or circumstance shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions of this Resolution or other fees levied by this Resolution which can be given effect without the invalid provisions or application of fees, and to this end the provisions of the Resolution are declared to be severable. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael R. Della, City Clerk George H. Eiser, III, City Attorney IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE - 2008 Transportation Development Impact Fee — Residential Residential Land Use Fee Single-family $ 2,000 per dwelling unit Multi -family $ 2,000 per dwelling unit Transportation Development Impact Fee — Non -Residential Non -Residential Land Use Fee Commercial $ 2,704 per 1,000 square feet Office/Services $ 6,002 per 1,000 square feet Industrial $ 2519 per 1,000 square feet EXHIBIT "A" April 2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1.0 INTRODUCTION 1 1.1 BACKGROUND 2 1.2 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) 3 SECTION 2.0 ANALYSIS AND FEE METHODOLOGY 4 2.1 RTCIP NEXUS STUDY 5 2.2 APPROACH 5 2.3 GROWTH PROJECTIONS 6 2.4 FACILITIES STANDARD AND NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS 11 2.5 FACILITY COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDING 12 2.6 COST ALLOCATION AND FEE CALCULATIONS 13 SECTION 3.0 PROGRAM FACILITIES AND COST ESTIMATES 17 3.1 PROGRAM FACILITIES 18 3.2 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES 18 SECTION 4.0 FEE SUMMARY 36 4.1 FEE SCHEDULE 37 4.2 DEVELOPMENT FORECAST 37 4.3 ESTIMATED FEE REVENUES 38 SECTION 5.0 PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION AND FEE REQUIREMENTS 39 5.1 FEE COLLECTION AND USE OF REVENUES 4(1 5.2 ANNUAL FEE ADJUSMENTS 41 5.3 EXEMPTIONS 42 5.4 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS 42 5.5 FEE WAIVERS, REDUCTIONS AND REFUND OF FEE 43 ATTACHMENT A RTCIP IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 - POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT AND LAND USE FORECASTS 7 TABLE 2 -• OCCUPANT DENSITY 8 TABLE 3 - TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS 9 TABLE 4 - ALLOCATION OF 'TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING AND COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY 10 TABLE 5 - TRAVEL DEMAND FROM EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT 11 TABLE 6 - REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM ROADWAY STATISTICS 12 TABLE 7 - ESTIMATED ARTERIAL SYSTEM CAPACITY INVESTMENTS ($2008) 14 TABLE 8 - RTP INVESTMENT PLAN, 2002-2030 ($2002) 14 TABLE 9 - TIF PROGRAM FACILITY COST ESTIMATE SUMMARY 15 TABLE 10 - RESIDENTIAL COST PER TRIP (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 16 TABLE 11 - RTCIP IMPACT FEE (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 16 TABLE 12 -- TIF PROGRAM FACILITY LIST 18 TABLE 13 - TIF PROGRAM FACILITY COST ESTIMATES AND ANTICIPATED REVENUES 19 TABLE 14A - TDIF SCHEDULE (RESIDENTIAL) 37 TABLE 14B -- T'D1F SCHEDULE (NON-RESIDENTIAL) 37 TABLE 15 - DEVELOPMENT FORECAST 38 TABLE 16 ESTIMATED TDIF REVENUES 18 1.1 BACKGROUND Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) In November 2004, San Diego County voters approved Local Proposition A extending the TransNet 4 cent sales tax to fund the region's transportation system for 40 years. The draft 2007 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) details the need for $58 billion in transportation improvements. Of that total, $27 billion in funding will come from a variety of state and federal sources. The remaining $31 billion will come from local funding sources including the TransNet sales tax extension (which will generate approximately $8 billion). As part of Proposition A and the TransNet Extension Ordinance, the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP) was created to ensure that new development directly invests in the region's transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. Key components of the RTCIP include: • Beginning July 1, 2008 each local agency must contribute $2,000 from exactions imposed on the private sector for each new residence constructed within their jurisdiction. • The $2,000 fee per new residential unit will be updated annually by SANDAG for cost inflation following initial adoption by local agencies. • Development impact fees may be used as a revenue source to satisfy local agency contributions to the RTCIP. Fees would be imposed on new dwelling units at building permit issuance. • Revenues must be expended on improvements to the Regional Arterial System and in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recent adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). • The Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. • If a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding. Cities have the authority to impose impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act contained in California Government Code sections 66000 through 66025. Each local agency is required to make findings demonstrating a reasonable nexus between: a) the collection of fees, b) the need for facilities created by new development, and c) the expenditure of fee revenues to benefit new development. Regional Arterial System The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) has established a Regional Arterial System (RAS) comprised of a select group of arterial roadways which provide "critical links" or direct connections between communities, ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. The current RAS system (as of 2002) 2 contains 2,805 lane miles throughout San Diego County. Based on analysis of existing average weekday vehicle hours of delay on the RAS and future delay based on new development, SANDAG has estimated that an additional 637 lane miles are needed to minimize congestion. SANDAG uses the following criteria for determining whether or not an arterial should be included in the RAS: • Provides a link to areas with high concentrations of existing or future population employment • Provides a link to activity centers such as hospitals, retail centers, entertainment centers, hotels, colleges, and universities • Accommodates high future traffic volumes • Accommodates Regional Transit Vision • Provides access to intcrmodal (freight, port, military, or airport) facilities. The adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) allocates $500 million for investment in the Regional Arterial System (RAS), resulting in a shortfall of over $6 billion. As such, the RTP indicates that local jurisdictions need to identify matching funds for investment in the RAS because the regional funding provided through the RTP, "...is intended to be matched with revenues from the local jurisdictions, which are responsible for improving regional roadways and local streets to meet their residents needs and mitigate the effects of local land use developments." The following Regional Arterial System (RAS) roadways are located within the City of National City: • Harbor Drive • National City Boulevard • Plaza Boulevard • Euclid Avenue • 30t Street 1.2 TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES (TDIF) Transportation Development Impact Fees (TDIF) are typically imposed by local agencies to mitigate "cumulative" impacts on the local transportation network due to increased traffic and delay caused by new development. Cumulative impacts are related to overall development (a combination of local projects and regional growth) in a geographic region or plan area, rather than "direct" or site -specific impacts caused solely by an individual project. When traffic from an individual project contributes to a cumulative impact, that project is required to contribute a "lair share" towards the cost of improvements. '1'D1Fs assist in determining that fair share amount, typically by defining a cost per trip which can be applied to the project based on the project's land use category, size and applicable trip generation rate, and the costs associated with the new or expanded transportation facilities needed to mitigate the impact. 3 1 2.1 RTCIP NEXUS STUDY San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAL) policy as expressed through the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan is that new development shall contribute towards Regional Arterial System (RAS) improvements through the Regional Transportation Congestion improvement Program (RTCIP). SANDAG coordinated a regional nexus study to assist local agencies in San Diego County in their efforts to adopt a transportation impact fee to fulfill their contribution to the RTCIP, while satisfying the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (contained in California Government Code sections 66000 through 66025). The study titled, RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study — Final Report was prepared on November 26, 2007 by MuniFinancial (Oakland, CA office), under the supervision of SANDAG. The nexus analysis documents a reasonable relationship between increased travel demand from new development on the Regional Arterial System (RAS), the cost of RAS improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and an impact fee to fund those investments. Five arterials within the City of National City are included as part of the RAS. As such, the City of National City has chosen to use the nexus analysis provided in the RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study as a means for establishing a Transportation Impact Fee Program to advance a legitimate public interest by enabling both SANDAG and the City of National City to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to accommodate new development. Much of the language provided in the following subsections of Section 2.0 is taken directly from the RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study. 'The entire nexus study is included as Attachment A of this TIF Program report. 2.2 APPROACH Impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The following four steps, which are described in detail in the subsections that follow, are commonly used to prepare a development impact fee study: 1) Prepare growth projections 2) identify facility standards 3) Deterniine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new development based on facility standards and growth projections 4) Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development. The methodology for the nexus analysis assumes that all development, existing and new has the same impact on the need for transportation system improvements based on the amount of travel demand generated (vehicle trips). Thus, existing and new development should share proportionately in the cost of transportation system improvements. For descriptive purposes this can be considered an "average cost" approach. 5 The approach when applied to the Regional Arterial System (RAS) takes a countywide perspective because the RAS represents a countywide network that facilitates mobility between and through cities and unincorporated areas. New development, regardless of location, both adds congestion (increased vehicle trips) to a range of arterials within the RAS and benefits from the expenditure of fee revenue on a range of RAS facilities. 2.3 GROWTH PROJECTIONS This section describes the SANDAG forecast for population and employment, and estimates of land use in terms of dwelling units and nonresidential building square feet. Land use forecasts are converted to vehicle trips to provide a measure of travel demand. Population, Employment and Land Use The planning horizon for this analysis is 2030, consistent with current land use and transportation forecasts adopted by SANDAG. The nexus analysis uses forecasts of dwelling units and employment to estimate new development demand for transportation improvements. Forecasts for 2030 are from SANDAG's Urban Development Model (UDM). The UDM is one of four interrelated forecasting models used by SANDAG to project land use and transportation for the region. The UDM allocates changes in the region's economic and demographic characteristics to jurisdictions and other geographic areas within the region. The model is based on the spatial interrelationships among economic factors, housing and population factors, land use patterns, and the transportation system. The model generates 2030 forecasts for small geographic areas including the traffic analysis zones used in the transportation modeling process. 1'he UDM complies with federal mandates that transportation plans consider the long-range effects of the interaction between land uses and the transportation system. The initial SANDAG fee calculation (sec Attachment A) used 2002 as the base year for cost estimates so that is the base year used for this nexus analysis. Dwelling units and employment for 2002 are based on interpolations of development estimates for 2000 and 2005 from the UDM. Total employment was allocated to land use categories based on analysis of employment by land use using data from five counties and conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Table 1 lists the 2002 and 2030 land use assumptions based on SANDAG forecasts and used in the nexus analysis. The land use categories shown in Table 1 and used in this nexus analysis are the same that are used in the SANDAG forecasts with one exception. This nexus analysis includes mobile homes in the multi -family category because of the minimal amount of forecast mobile home development. SANDAG forecasts mobile homes to increase by 2,000 units countywide during the planning horizon, or 1.3 percent of forecast growth in multi -family units. The employment forecasts are converted to building square footage by land use as shown in Table 1 using occupant densities factors shown in Table 2. These factors are derived from a study of employment, building square footage, and land use conducted for SCAG. The density factors were derived from a random sample of 2,721 parcels drawn from 6 10,11. across five counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). This type of study was not available for San Diego County. The SCAG study's density factors are based on a large sample of properties and are used in development impact fee studies throughout the State of California. Table 1 - Population, Employment and Land Use Forecasts 2002 2030 increase Percent Residents 2,909,000 3,855,000 946,000 33% Dwelling Units Single Family 648,000 778,000 130,000 20% Multi-tamity' 419,000 576,000 157,000 37% Total 1,067,000 1,354,000 287,000 27% Employment' Retail 295,000 393,000 98,000 33% Office/Services 348,000 451,000 103,000 30% industrial 383,000 628,000 245,000 64% Subtotal 1,026,000 1,472,000 446,000 43% Residential' 138,000 149,000 11,000 8% Public4 139,000 157,000 29,000 21% Total 1,303,000 1,778,000 475,000 36% Rilding Square Feet (000s)s Retail 148,000 197,000 49,000 33% Office/Services 104,000 135,000 31,000 30% Industrial 345,000 565 000 220,000 64% Total 597,000. 897,000 300,000 50% Muk fam lypooulaton incltries rota homes. 2 Based cr. Series 10 forecast data provided by S? NDAG. Estimates by mayor land use type roled up from County Assessor's categories. Interpolated 2C09 data based on 2CCd and 2010 forecas*s. Employment on residential Land uses such as home -based businesses. Travel demand included in estimates residential land uses. 4 Travel demand caused by public land uses so excluded from ryas analysis. Based or occupant density factors shown in Table 2. F.-.ounces- San Diego Association of Governments 1SANDAG) Data W.Rd,t use(htp.daf m3ehoase.sandsa. o-p). aeo,n4G Series 10 trecast o employ by land use; McriFinanciai. 7 Table 2 — Occupant Density Land Use Commercial 500 Square feet per employee Office/Services 300 Square feet per employee Industrial 900 Square feet per employee Nowt Source data based on random sample of 2.721 drueloped parcels across five Les Ang es area counties (Los Angeles. Orange. Riverside. Ssn Sernarcinc. and ventra). MuniFerarxial estimated tseighing factors by land use categories need in the survey to calculate average employ -Inert densties by ma;or category (commercial, off-oe, Indust al j. Ad}usted to correct for over -sampling cf indt strict parcels in Verrtra Couiy. Source: The irate/sal Company, Inc. Enydo mere Der•.sty study Summary Report prepared for the Southern Caiforrva Associatrn of Gov .Horns; October 31. 2I C1. Table 2dl p. 15. ManiFinanrad. Travel Demand by Land Use Category To estimate travel demand by type of land use the nexus study uses vehicle trips. Vehicle trips can be calculated in a consistent manner across land use categories based on population and employment estimates by land use category. This enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use categories, a key requirement of the Mitigation Fee Act. A reasonable measure of vehicle trips is weekday average daily vehicle trips ends. Because automobiles are the predominant source of traffic congestion, vchicic trips are a reasonable measure of demand for new capacity even though the measure excludes demand for alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle, pedestrian). The following two adjustments are made to vehicle trip generation rates to better estimate travel demand by type of land use: • Pass -by trips are deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass -by trips are intermediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • The trip generation rate is weighted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system. Table 3 shows the calculation of travel demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by SANDAG. The surveys provide a robust database of trip generation rates, pass -by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. 8 Table 3 — Travel Demand Factors E-CXC.r A b C-A+B o 6.9 F G-ExF Trip Rate Adjustment Factor Total Average Adjust- Average Travel Primary Diverted Excluding Trip men' Daly Trip Demand Trips' Trips' Pass -by' Leng(h2 Factors Ends4 Factor' Residenrala Singh' Farr111y 96% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 10 11.10 Mold -family` 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 a 6.86 NarrealdenNef- Commercial 47% 319E 78% 3.6 3.41 ice 27.88 Office $eriices 77% 1 % 98% 8.8 122 20 24.40 Industrial 79% 19% 9E% 9A 129 a 10.24 ' Parent x iota afps. ?may t ps are tot wen no ninny smile or "Xis'. - 4verea lrpc are ars eo laps *Pose asra rce alas least ore mile ra:r e p unary trip . Pass -Cy eta are eras OW do rat add rare than are rale to the seta. hp. :a cross. '. rytte.' aids a.Vrage tap Havel 1S 6.9 roles. Trip €mils or easel Oerrana per daeing unit or per 1.$OC 13Utdn9 square :eel. Sege family0a ed to 3-6 units per ale cale9oy_ Lox -rat -ay Oa -el on -21 Wls per acre caregry. Mt. tar 3y deman rac.^S midi' s mctat roomer. Tee coTliM1 average tat tap eMl tawnier." rrcrples 2CO2 ptfutapan try aie"a7e daily L1p eras ar Wel routes r y anima*? hones via ter oelgra toe slit by Cie 2022 pd;.tr'abut ' COTS . rc31 b3142 O4 Vitointatty enwpPrg centa- category. Oldre,serlacE6 L ued oo -standard trainee r-a etre" caley'O'y. manna bated Or. Inatrc9tal pare 1'n0 corrio 0P r category. SuJ(0E6 Sal njego Assort or of Gowernmerrs, Evert C r! YMC.::ar Trd`c Ger7e!arka Raft mr e* Sao cow P.epx4 ;uh : ?8; Shifting Burden of Commercial Development to Residential Development Applying the travel demand factors shown in Table 3 directly to development by land use category implicitly assumes that the cause of each vehicle trip on the transportation network is shared equally by the land use at each trip end (origin and destination). But depending on the regional economic forces affecting development in a particular area, the cause of a trip may be related more to the land use at the origin or the destination. For example, in some areas residential development may be caused by job growth, while in other areas the opposite may occur (jobs follow housing). These cause and effect relationships may change over time in the same area. Given the complexity of these regional economic and land use relationships, many transportation impact fee nexus studies make the simplifying but reasonable assumption to weight the origin and destination of a trip equally when identifying the cause of travel demand on a transportation system. However, there is one regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship that remains consistent across geographical areas and over time. Commercial development is to a large extent caused by the spending patterns of local residents. Commercial development follows residential development or anticipates new development occurring in the near term. This development pattern can be observed throughout metropolitan regions and is driven by the site location process followed by retailers. When seeking new locations, the most common measure of a potential market used by site location analysts is the number of households within a reasonable driving distance for shopping trips and the median income of those households. Given this consistent regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship, it is reasonable to allocate at least some of the burden of commercial trip ends to residential development. This approach is used in impact fee nexus studies to more accurately allocate the burden of transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. Not all retail spending is related to local residential development. There are three primary sources of retail spending: 1) Local households 2) Local businesses 3) Visitors that travel to the area to shop. An analysis of taxable retail sales data for 2004, the most recent complete year of data available from the State Board of Equalization, was used to determine the amount of commercial development associated with residential development (sec Attachment A). The analysis calculated the total spending potential of San Diego County households and estimated what portion of that spending occurred within the County. The result was that 62.6 percent of total taxable retail sales was estimated to be associated with local household spending. The remainder was associated with local busincss and visitor spending. Based on this analysis, residential development directly causes 62.6 percent of commercial development. Consequently, the travel demand associated with that share of commercial development is shifted to residential development. The results of this analysis arc summarized in Table 4. Total Travel Demand by Land Use Category Table 5 shows estimates of travel demand from existing and new development and the shares that residential and nonresidential development comprise of the total. Travel demand is based on the travel demand factors calculated in Table 3 and the growth estimates in Table 1. Commercial development associated with local household spending as shown in Table 4 is included in the residential land use category. Based on this analysis, new residential development will represent about 13 percent of total travel demand in 2030. Table 4 — Allocation of Taxable Retail Spend'ng and Commercial Square Footage in San Diego County Taxable Retail Sales (2004) Share Buildtna Square Feet 2002 2025 Growth Total Taxable Retail Spending 8 Commercial Sq. Ft S 44,470.000 100 0% Local Residential Taxable Spending & Sq Ft 27,866,000 62.6% Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft 15,614,CC0 37.4% 148,000 197.000 49,000 93,000 123.000 30,000 55,000 74,000 19,000 Sources: Tables 7 and 3.4; AkiniFiranxil. 10 Table 5 — Travel Demand from Existing and New Development Land Use Category Travel Demand Factor' povelotxnent Travel Demand Total Existing2 Growth (2002) (2002-2030) Existing (20021 Growth (2002-2030) Residen(ai Single Family 11.10 648,000 130,000 7,193,000 1,443,000 8,636,1100 hMdh-family' 8.88 419,000 157,000 3,721,600 1,394,000 5,115,030 Local -serving ComnercfaP 27.88 93.000 30,000 2,593,000 836 000 3 429.000 Subtoll 1,160,000 317,000 13,507,000 3,673,000 17,180,000 Percent of Total 47.7% 13.0% 60.79E Nonresidential Other Commercial4 27.88 55,000 19,000 1,533,000 530,000 2,063,000 Office/Services 24.40 • 104,000 31,000 2,538,000 756,000 3,294,000 Industfiat 10.24 345,000 220,000 3 533,000 2.253.000 5,786,000 Subtotal 1,757.000 617,000 7,604,000 3,539,000 11,143,000 Percent of Total 26.8% 12.59c 39.3% Total 21,111,001 7,212,000 28,323,000 Percent of Total 75.0% 25.09E 100-0% ' Per ovreling unit kr residential land uses and per 1.OL4 square feet to mnmes4etdal Land Uses ' Qnyfenp unds kr res:cenSal Laud uses and l,009 square Met to r•.osesroenntwl lad uses. Esi6nated total op ends aejusted for she factors shaven Table 3. ▪ The m id -fa wily 7avN demand tar or and demand r.tr+,I r:v - k cMde mapu7e homes. Repieserds share of Iota' commercial square feet and travel demand assodaaed wits spending by San Diego Canty househo-,'s. Represerss shore M falai commercial square tees and vavef demand associated with spending by San Diego County bus -nest's and visitors. °oo -tries t, 3 and4; bluaiFinaw-ia_ 2.4 FACILITIES STANDARD AND NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The facility standard determines new development's need for new facilities. The facility standard is also used to evaluate the existing level of facilities to ensure that new development does not fund infrastructure needed to serve existing development. The facility standard used by this nexus analysis is average weekday vehicle hours of delay on the Regional Arterial System (RAS) in 2008. Hours of delay provide a reasonable system -wide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility. SANDAG's transportation forecasting model (TransCAD) demonstrates that hours of delay increase with the level of new development, and decrease with investment in additional transportation system capacity. Projected hours of delay in 2002 is used for the standard because that is the implementation date for the RTCIP, representing existing conditions at the time new development would begin contributing to transportation system improvements. The data in Table 6 from the TransCAD model demonstrates a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional investment in the RAS. The table shows the projected increases in vehicle hours of delay from 2002 to 2030 and the benefits of adding 637 lane miles to the RAS. Without any investment in the RAS vehicle hours of delay will increase by 114 percent during this period. With an investment of 637 new lane miles in regional arterials vehicle hours of delay will increase substantially less, by 68 percent. 11 Table 6 — Regional Arterial System Roadway Statistics Protected 2030 Existing Without With 2002 Improvements Improvements Lane Miles 2,805 2,805 3,442 Change. 2002-2030 (amount) 637 Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 0% 23% Average Weekday Vehicle Hours of Delay Change. 2002-2030 (amount) Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 64,352 137,481 108,350 73,129 43,998 114% 68% Note: 2002 data interpolated based on 2000 and 2005 data provided by model output (see Source). Source: San. Diego Association or Governments, TransCAD model output. New development is not the entire cause of the forecasted increase in vehicle hours of delay. As discussed previously, new development is only allocated a share of RAS investment costs. The SANDAG transportation model assumes that vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per capita for all existing and new development will increase 9.6 percent from 2000 to 2030 continuing recent trends. Thus, some of the increase in vehicle hours of delay is caused by increased travel from existing development. This trend does not affect the nexus analysis under the "average cost" approach taken by this nexus analysis. Under this approach RAS investment costs are allocated proportionately across existing and new development based on total travel demand, thus incorporating the impact of changes in travel behavior such as increased VMT per capita. 2.5 FACILITY COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDING Attachment A details total costs associated with Regional Arterial System (RAS) improvements that are the responsibility of new development, from a countywide perspective, because the RAS represents a countywide network that facilitates mobility between and through cities and unincorporated. areas. New development, regardless of location, both adds congestion (increased vehicle trips) to a range of arterials within the RAS and benefits from the expenditure of fee revenue on a range of RAS facilities. Attachment A also summarizes the need for RTCIP funding based on available revenues identified in the adopted Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). Tables 7 and 8 summarize facility investments including RAS capacity investments. The adopted RTP allocates $500 million for investment in the Regional Arterial System (RAS), resulting in a shortfall of over $6 billion. As such, the RTP indicates that local jurisdictions need to identify matching funds for investment in the RAS because the regional funding provided through the RTP, "...is intended to be matched with revenues from the local jurisdictions, which are responsible for improving regional roadways and local streets to meet their residents needs and mitigate the effects of local land use developments." 12 Table 9 summarizes the City of National City TIF Program facility improvements and cost estimates. The facility improvements identified in Table 9 will provide increased roadway capacity necessitated by the cumulative impacts of future development. These improvements arc consistent with the adopted General Plan for National City, and arc required to maintain acceptable levels of traffic and transportation service. Further studies, including environmental review, may show superior alternative facilities that also provide the needed increased capacity. Once such studies are completed, fees collected under the TIF Program may be used to fund those superior alternative facilities. A detailed summary of program facility cost estimates and anticipated revenue sources is provided in Section 3.0 of this report. The absence of contiguity of the facility improvements to individual development parcels is not essential, since traffic from any one development can utilize the entire circulation system to access work, schools, commercial centers, residences, and other land uscs throughout the City and region. A failure in any one part of the circulation system will have a negative impact on other parts of the system, given the nature of traffic. Conversely, by increasing roadway capacity on one portion of a circulation system, other Locations can also experience congestion relief and improved levels of service. 2.6 COST ALLOCATION AND FEE CALCULATIONS The vehicle trip rates described in Subsection 2.3 provide a means to allocate a proportionate share of total RAS improvements to each new development project. Trip rates are a reasonable measure of each development project's demand on the regional transportation system. New development's share of total RAS improvements is divided by total trips generated by new development to calculate a cost per trip. The cost per trip multiplied by the trips generated by a development project determines that project's hair share of total RAS improvements. New development could contribute up to $320 per trip as shown in Table 10. This amount is based on the nexus approach taken for this analysis that allocates RAS costs to new residential development based on shares of total travel demand in 2030. This approach is based on allocating to residential development the entire burden of trips associated with commercial development that serves households within the County (see previous discussion in Subsection 2.3). The RTCIP specifies that new residential development must contribute $2,000 per dwelling unit. To test whether the required RTCIP contribution of $2,000 per unit is justified for different types of units, Table 11 provides a fee summary by major residential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from Table 10. The fee ranges from a low of $2,842 for multi -family units to a high of $3,552 for single family units. The average fee per dwelling unit is $3,164. The impact fee required by the RTCIP of $2,000 per residential unit is therefore well below the amount justified under the Mitigation Fee Act for major residential land use categories. Attachment A also includes RTCIP fee calculations for non-residential development, summarized as follows: $2,704 for commercial, $6,002 for office, and $2,519 for industrial. 13 Table 7 —Estimated Arterial System Capacity Investments ($2008) Year Caltrans Index Inflation Rate Annual Cummulative Cost 2002 142.2 NA NA $ 5,100,000 2003 148.6 4.50% 4.50% 5,330,000 2004 216.2 45.49% 52.04% 7,754,000 2005 268.3 24.10% 88.68% 9,623,000 2006 280.6 4.58% 97.32% 10,063,000 2007' 305.7 8.94% 114.96% 10,963,000 Regional Arterial Widenings & Extensions (lane miles) (2002-2030) 637 Total Regional Arterial System Capacity Investments (2002-2030) (Est. $2008) $ 6,981,238,400 1 Annual inflation rate for 2007 was estimated using the ten-year compounded annual growth rate from 1996 to 2006 for the CatTrans highway construction annual cost Index. The actual rate for 2007 will be updated after the annual index data is published by CalTrans on January 30th of 2008. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments. Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appeicix 9 - Project Cost Estimates, p. 159; California Dept. of Transportation, Price Index for Selected Highway Construction Items (Second Quarter Ending June 30, 2007): Table 6: MuniFinancial. Table 8 — RTP Investment Plan, 2002-2030 ($2002) $ Millions ($2002) Capacity Expansion Investments New Transit Facilities $ 8,500 20% Managed High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Facilities 7,450 18% Highway System Completion/Widening Projects 3,580 9% New Local Streets and Roads 4,430 11% Regional Significant Arterials 500 J. Subtotal $ 24,460 58% Other Investments' 17,485 42% Total Expenditures $ 41,945 100% 1 Includes projects that improve the operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road. and transit, and related facilities. Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan. Mobility 2030 (February 2005). p. 44; MuniFinancial. 14 Table 9 — TIF Program Facility Cost Estimate Summary No. I Project CIP# Location From I To Description PS&E Cost Est. ROW Cost Est. Construction Total Cost Est. Cost Est. 1 Plaza Blvd. Widening* 99-09 Plaza Blvd. j Highland I Ave. Euclid Ave. Widen arterial from 4-lanes to 6-lanes (— 1.1 miles) $1,101,000 S2,733,000 $14,137,100 $17,971,100 * Project is part of the Regional Arterial System (RAS). Improvements are consistent with RTCIP requirements for use of impact fee revenues (see Section 5.0). 15 Table 10 — Residential Cost per Trip (Estimated for $2008) Allocation of Total Costs to Residential Land Uses Total Regional Arterial System Investments ($2008) New Residential Development Share of Total Trips New Residential Development Share of Total Costs New Residential Vehicle Trips (2002-2030) Single Family Multi -family' Total New Residential Vehicle Trips New Residential Development Cost per Trip (Est. $2008) $ 6,981,238,400 13,0%, $ 907.561,000 1,443.000 1,394,000 2.837,000 320 Multetamily travel demand factor and demand calculations include mobile homes. Tables 5 aid 7: MuniFinai vial. Table 11— RTC1P Impact Fee (Estimated for $2008) Land Use Trip Cost Per Demand Trip Factor New Development Fee' (dwelling units) Estimated Revenue Single Family Multi -family' $ 320 11.10 $ 3,552 320 8.88 2,842 Total Estimated Revenue Total New Dwelling Units (2006-2030) Weighted Average RTCIP Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit (Est. $2008) 130.000 $ 461.760,000 157,000 446.194,000 $ 907,954,000 287.000 $ 3.164 Fee pei dwelling unit. Nurnbei5 may vary rine to axinding. Multi -family have) demand factor and demand calculations include nnobile hones. Sources: Tables 1. 3 and 10: MuniFinancial. 16 3.1 PROGRAM FACILITIES The program facilities, which are subject to the TDIF, arc summarized in 'fable 12. Project descriptions and construction schedules are provided below. Project exhibits are included at the end of Section 3.0. Table 12 — TIF Program Facility List No. Project CIP# Location From To Descri i tion I Plaza Blvd. 99-09 Plaza Blvd. Highland Euclid Ave. Widen arterial from Widening Ave. 4-lanes to 6-lanes (-- 1.1 miles) * Project is part of the Regional Arterial System (RAS). Improvements are consistent with RTCIP requirements for use of impact fee revenues (see Section 5.0). National City TIF Program Facility No. 1— Plaza Boulevard Widening The project will increase capacity on Plaza Boulevard from highland Avenue to Euclid Avenue by widening from a 4-lane Arterial to a 6-lane Arterial. The project includes widening eastbound and westbound Plaza Boulevard, traffic signal upgrades, new sidewalks and curb ramps, pavement resurfacing, signing, striping and pavement delineation, drainage and landscaping improvements, and structural improvements under I-805, including tie -back retaining walls. The project schedule is estimated as follows: • Draft Environmental Document Approval -- December 2005 • Final Environmental Document — June 2006 • Right -of -Way Certification — July 2009 • Authorization to Proceed with Construction — August 2009 • Advertise for Construction — October 2009 • Construction Completion — December 2010 3.2 PROJECT COST ESTIMATES Table 13 summarizes the TIF Program facility cost estimates and anticipated revenues. A detailed cost estimate for each project is provided at the end of Section 3.0. 18 Table 13 — TIF Program Facility Cost Estimates and Anticipated Revenues TIF Program Facility No. 1 — Plaza Boulevard Widening PS&E ROW Cost Est. Cost Est. Construction I Total Cost Est. ! Cost Est. Revenue Sources $1,101,000 ' $2,733,000 $14,137,100 S17,971,100 Prior FY 06/07 FY 07/08 FY 08/09 FY 09/10 FY 10/11 TDIF* n/a n'a n/a $390,000 1 $465,100 $1,580,800 SO S168,000 $2,267,900 $2,435,900 RSTP $2,000,000 $0 SO $0 $0 $0 $708,000 $1,292,000 $0 $2,000,000 TransNet S766,000 $200,000 $126,000 $174,000 $200,000 $200,000 $393,000 $1,273,000 $0 $1,666,000 Other Federal / State $0 SO $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $1,869,200 $0 $0 $11,869,200 $11,869,200 Total 1 1 Revenues $2,766,000 $200,000 $126,000 $5,564,000 $5,665,100 $3,650,000 $1,101,000 $2,733,000 $14,137,100 $17,971,100 *TD1F revenues for future fiscal years assume a 2% per year increase in fees per new residential dwelling unit applied to the current fee schedule (see Section 4.0 for the current fee schedule and development forecasts). 19 TIF Program Facility No. 1 — Plaza Boulevard Widening Project Vicinity Map a pY 5 0. aOL,.i STRUCTURAL SECTION TYPES In 0- MyA i2' GL:-JE F- I / RAVS sMp.IOCAs T A. NIM r CUCC-.t Mira. PARKING L003 al Ir. CLt-AI EXIT RANI TER01NI O 1 ttP-4• MOSS OU11 s CITT,PAIL 10 51' 'PL' LINE EXISTING STRUCTURAL SECTIONS C I T' 10'rM O .' ACCTP ON / 70.•Van At N.S THICKNESS VARIES IN SMOULDER SEC 10N 41' 10 41' Ol !SATIRIC Pk 0.00 , 1C 34' TO 44' Ik tc P' • NR SR £R+ TYPE 0 CVM' CITY PUBLIC RA WIC 5' SANUT COLD PLANE AC - PAVCMENT 121.41 r SPo'PLS 34 95LTO 4Z*26 'PC LINE 40TO 45' TYPE 0 CUM 4,5'TO 14.5' 3P' TO 45' CITTR 11LIC —a. PM 31' IC 40' 1 32' TO 43' TC SI so sR —COLD PLANE It PAVEMENT (r NO.1 421 R. Sic 'Pt' ESR17 TO 3141. YNA 7.5' TO 1T' ▪ LTTPF C CURD St0P L 22.80LTOY 3I 95 0' TO5' GIA8SHIATInig R S► ENI.t A 4— R 00 TC PO R/P OS IS AS CTP CLE-AP PC▪ C LTR LS s+0 Va. •W0 MO0 CC SIDSPALX GISMO SIDERAx MMEXINIRI RETAINING BALL ORIGINAL MADE TOP Of CLOS PROFILE GRACE RI01T Of PAY ASPSALT OONCRCTE AWMM31 MSC A0011E0A15 SAMS( CCI[NT TREATED SASE CLASS TRO 000REDATE SASE I021 MX ASPNALT PORTLAND CLIENT CONCRETE CDOE C• TRAVELED RAY E000 CP SNOIILOCR VAT10M VARIES POULEYAR0 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS NO 1CKES ,651: Pai.,;ul u.Rr ibG1LCFRILG NOT $''R CON5IR,C11P1 3±JL: JkMJAPY 201D PNPMtt 3' JL PSBR dSP� T .'Atr Nrr I.Mf IJ ��1 WFnst., tl� P_:.ZA BOULEVARD fRM1 Nl:.LMO NK.LE TO CMC.:) 4I0lt CITY OF NATIDNAL K rzL yeAtl •I'. rt ea. T 1C..11 :L1 .> RANT tT k 4. gd atD ogi YPiD' aTr2PUKIc LINE A E17Y 61' I 11'TO 4) tl sm• _ MFS]Al1D Mk Sm B• TC 3I' TO 47' I 6N N' TO 44' TC 6' SP T ~ B► Ste— •{i] 'PL' IN30 TO 44+63, , 50013 TO 51432 TYPE 0" T' TAAL.. COLD NEW K PSKM[Nf (tY ). ' ram O cods 2,1' TO 21,4' 5'446 TO 51.10 Apo cup% 32+22 TO 53.26 PLAZA ■OULlYA11D 10 I ; PL' CITYaBLIC LINE CITY P�6LIc 2 . 31' Mk SO 3' TC IS' 41' 4 34' TC S'v D'TDt yy 1'2Mr 3+ ,—SIKUT SIPcui- T, T— n Lao s • ao- TIPL D CURS {T] Y — — — /�� ar.o n u t A -' `Or PIKYFNT IY Lav 2' NBA y, PLZ4 BONN1!YA�Da — — — — MO Plus /,a.. PAVEMENT 12" k6N) 1.1_70 lT' 2' NNN ,j 6 -TYPE o aPB W Sto PL 42+2B TO 11+t I m TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS ND SCALE 5 �� (�:Ha: $k PNE.IMA2� tNNEEA:+; Lo• .a6 Eanr.CT;ON :� ERIi: .IWIla1 MO/ n a ,a 'r .wuev.. '. rLAZ:. 3OU_E'✓AP,C mow NIGN.WO /'rt.0 ro To2,10 4'I[N3 3 i ";TY C:-Y OF NATIONAL rises m"_ .. :f.N k �' ;Y - NO2 • ..., 434 a N 0:. Vu>_.s24.10.40,/,, S' RV1 ES 10' LINE .J'LA2A 11v0 INACCRCR055ING 60' E5 so' SAPCUT— pCAl1RMARI 1 T1V106T Chbb P A/ C AC PAVEMENT (r Owe) 3to PL' 62Q1.1TbY tin 0 'PL' LINE ETV 1' E' it UT:— SAITO r I 21.5' 133 —0S C C9LTR0 55 TOGS TTK 0 OIAU RA' CS 45.1' TO SS' Ck y TO U i S' . TC 0' TC 1Y t' TO I1' TC s. fAaglT SARVTI RAIS[D MEDIAN I—2AtGLT 2%+ T i �-2� i �Tp =C r Z%� + GNUT i � - 1 pppppp M $T0 D CAM `�] I' TO T•I';TYPE Al CUI ` TYPE Al CURS' • T.. O 3,/• I TYPE 0 CAB 'PL' SMIS TO aDAx1 tx' 70 IS' 'fl SU m16TRINTION '� COLD PUM AC- -CQLD PLANE AC PAVEMENT (r wax) DETAILS PAMERT (Y .AC)- D2) t.t' TO N.A' 2 NW rm., Sto PLL59 3 TO 62+13 44.4' 10 11.4' ES ETN I M 4' 5' EI 511 •-2S 010 20' TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS MO SCALE �MS% PREL:V:NA=r ENCINEER1NGIi :I KC r FMCD,,STRUCTId: II ( DAIE: Al11AR' 2',j , ntnve Or, essa.------ re — rr tr v i as ra �y L•cOAAO s� PLAZA DC'_LEVARD r.p HI0.P.0 A+LR.0 '0 iI.CI ID Avrn.E C"v OF '<ATIO\A_ CITY 3 F 1 1 :u .... ., w[.M:.n45. 0- TC 1A CITY PUBLIC 1n1 TC 11 See 'Pl' 11oS1 10 TINS TYPE 0 CLI, SMQIT 12.5' TO 1S.5' IK CITY PIC 54' TO *4' C4LUAN6 f1 10 10T' 51.5' 1 rq 55' TO 54,4' 'PI,' Lye I PAV[EM IPLANEb[)j i xwA a5A,,MAYQe i4 LINE 42' TO 131' 44' TO 54' t5 Iw 11.1' TO 40' 1' To me sr 5' _ cur �a 00 W I YM1CV(-- UN CUT-, • 1A1xa MEDIAN i T 5.[fl N TYPE Al PI •J I/ TYPE 11 cIM-, ��PD Y COLD PLANT AC CONSTALICTIO,ECOY PAVEMENT (E.WO DETAILS COL D@P/LINE AC Y xr. PAVEMENT 12' NMI 2` NNA 5T 20.1' SAno %A'FLA 67 00 0Y Tc*-J5 SAAMV CITY1PU LIc TC IP ?:cm.o�— 1 1 —T " --'` 101 Na 7L' TSp) 10 T5.11 II' TO 15' CITY P1.4L1C 102' TO 154' CALTIUJ6 TO. TO 1/' 51'TO 60.5' H1C1^ SAKI/7 TYPE 0 Ca0 1 ES 611.11.1611 P, 21.S' 1A IN 5' WO' TO SY 51 If fx TYPE 0 C[111 ZIry Ste 'PL' 41.44 TO T0401 TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS No SCALE •.5Y POT,; N1w.PY ENc:.EE1:4' • li '.0' 'C. CDNS [1LCTJC,, \Y •Nq :ANu.Nr 2001 !i'=EV••"•'•— '•`- SY fTh '0P1 66641 a. i.. .wawa.• ni =LAZA eDU_E."APD '11,11 NI06,6,16 r$w..L 10 EL:ID .'R\LC ..:'Y 0� \AT1ONAL 'Y taiw p Ai [111. X- 4 tITTRWIIIC +D' s o4P1 $l 3O`fOn 52 Of� tl VyLRrmar w� [cm •\[•r -.rib .00.O3.Cp• 'PL• L.E II Irr CITY URIC A I'TO It?" CITTRABLIC 37' TO n' 40' 'PL' LitlE —COLD PLANE RC PAYDIAT cr IIOR) Y RYA 'PL' iPa V.1 S O8 1'O e7.d, SO' TO 15' CITY PUBLIC Rn $r TC DS' TO RR' T4' TC p EaIN A i , j.. i 1 1 USX E1-. r- M I A —� COLD /LAIR[ AC PAYMENT lr (I(x) b4 sSo'+e ,t ILIV47 as INIMORCFC o t_�EU TYc D� AWE AM CUM,nx nRRE aunua n0/6) ERISTIRC CORCRETC LINEDCIrAM4Ji TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS AG {CALI 1 Pn-NINAR, COW RCI4CFAIr.L rat FOP CDVJIRUCTi pelt .� IR :a,( I SL11'^� - +.PPS- , nit ^C ir.a•uC.' Or. P_:,ZA BDU_E:'APD rp:Y +Ic1iLA+0 L+'f+u ro LUC.ID MULE. CITY OF NATIONAL M1I W Na ^ �1VAs1 x. Z. c. e � e CALT .115s 50' TO 93' ES CRin O' TO li'ES M OV� 12I10/C AC 01 CC--/ MCA-, SASE ARO SVIACI50 En TYPE A DICE 32' 'PLC LVEE 16' ES Sto kSD-BoMMO 6I .8Z Miami T9 51' CS 1A' TO 55.2' 1• rn tea TYPE A DIRE• w eT �p 91� AAM► StD 15D-eo5' 7 . 7 TO 37A•D0 rou' LINE 1 D� 'PL 1' LICE 91' TO 109' CA 1Ius (S eri 41,1' TO 50,7' Sto 15DaeOSy�T5�35 YOM�78�11 ES 16.6'T91T.T' 4.5' TO 5.1'I ED r- - r —ICJ 'PL2' LIME PD-, 22.A' TO 32' 2xr4. ES Ex 11 IT92. E.90' TO 2.5' 23, ka+ w TYPE A DICEI E AC DIRE 1L moors *-1' - BASE .0 SWAM* CALTnPARS 60' TO 100' E5 ERN. ETV ES 9.9' TO 1':_0' TO 5.5 { 1 5i+ ,yam` 0p 1 A REMOVE AC VAC -REBORE TTIE A OIAE -I ®- BASE AND SURIACISG Ito kst°eD 11str ici re+2e TYPICAL CROSS SECTIONS MD SCALE p5? PRCLIYIG+M` ER:IMi F.D:NC ACT FOR :<wSTRJ_1:OR i t j A1Ei MOAT ?GOS wo)w, I ®1 PLAZA ?CI,LE'RARJ fqW 1.I11.1.1Y0 1/L11.E l0 IUCI I: ALONE :iTY C \A'10\1.L CITY •SA1S' Y, X-0 ( DATA TABLE CELTA/BEARINO ST3 32'3A"E p.07•21'00• Ow3.31'63• m 652'25'AO•E CITY Parcel 55T-A20-31 RADIUS LEWTN C-TT /w Ex(ST -\\ e• L 12' (7.11'e) 12' (3.64 .) 12' (3.11 .1 II' 13.11 n) 12' 13.11 .) .12(3.11 e) /2 43,16 .l 12' (3:1t 11... s• EXIST C- R/M' PROPOSED C-T R/W NATIONAL CITY EXIST C-T R/W' 5 NORTHERLY PSR/PR PROJECT ..MIT EXISTING OFF RAW KR 0, 1Cd 1E FAD (1.22.) (3,46.) 12' (3.11 .) (3.M n1 12' 11.1A, YI J f 12' 13.46.1- 12' 13.11 ►1 12' 13.64 .1 V' i 1.111T 0, AG OVERLAY = A $100T4 TRANSIt1011 \ 1.. I- C 0 EXISTING rye RANP (1.22 AI) 4' (1.22n1 3 w 12f (3.11 .) 12. 13.e1 .1 12' 13.11 e) 1r1331 sift )1 ,` Ni l -1 i ("' ✓r •-. (1.22.) , 1 1 1364.) ._. PLAZA' 61OYLEYARD1a ` \42. TA.) k 1 .j _ 41111.261) UNIT OF AC OVERLAY 0,45201111.51.1111ON �EXISTINC O BARR S PROJECT P EI.0 OFPCER NDYT fti.01 ) LIT T R / EXISTING OFF RAMP NATIONA CI TY'. R?W. EASTERLY. PSR/PR PROJECT '-.LIMI )11 '1•. T2' (3.1r) 12' 13d41) 12' (3.11.)....�.. .22n1 of �11 ) CITY R/W 1 CX}SR/w DOKKEN 2.Ry�3y C N■ I N C 1 A I N■ Ey ai.N0J NiFl I I611 A111-13n X CITY CITY C 0 I lb I I 1 1 o DRTr\I I I I j DRAFT PLAZA OLVD WIDENING PROPOSED P23OJICT PLAN VIEW ATTACHMENT C 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 1 of 8 Project No. 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 1 011782 FURNISH SINGLE SHEET ALUMINUM SIGN (0.063'-UNFRAMED) SOFT 330 S15.00 $4,950.00 2 070012 PROGRESS SCHEDULE (CRITICAL PATH) LS LUMP SUM • $5,000.00 $5,000.00 3 070018 TIME -RELATED OVERHEAD DY 240 $4,134.00 $992,160.00 4 071321 TEMPORARY FENCE (TYPE CL-6) LF 4000 $8.00 $32.000.00 5 074016 CONSTRUCTION SITE MANAGEMENT LS LUMP SUM 510,000.00 510,000.00 6 074019 PREPARE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM LS LUMP SUM $10,000.00 $10,000.00 7 074019A HEALTH AND SAFETY PLAN LS LUMP SUM $5,000.00 55,000.00 8 074028 TEMPORARY FIBER ROLL LF 2550 $4.00 $10,200.00 9 074032 TEMPORARY CONCRETE WASHOUT FACILITY EA 14 $2,500.00 $35,000.00 10 074033 TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE (TYPE 2) EA 14 $2,500.00 $35.000,00 11 074038 TEMPORARY DRAINAGE INLET PROTECTION EA 34 $400.00 $13,600.00 12 074041 STREET SWEEPING LS LUMP SUM 515,000.00 S15,000.00 13 120090 CONSTRUCTION AREA SIGNS EA 36 S350.00 $12,600.00 14 120100 TRAFFIC CONTROL SYSTEM WD 240 $1,000.00 $240,000.00 15 120159 TEMPORARY TRAFFIC STRIPE (PAINT) LF 26500 50.70 $18 550.00 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 2 of 8 Project No. 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE — COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 16 120199A TRAFFIC PLASTIC DRUM EA 980 $50.00 $49,000.00 17 120300 TEMPORARY PAVEMENT MARKER EA 850 $4.00 $3,400.00 18 128650 PORTABLE CHANGEABLE MESSAGE SIGN EA 2 $7,500.00 $15,000.00 19 150608 REMOVE CHAIN LINK FENCE LF 1200 $8.00 59,600.00 20 150710 REMOVE TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 18100 $0.75 $13,575.00 21 150722 REMOVE PAVEMENT MARKER EA 2590 $1.25 $3,237.50 22 150741 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN MOUNTED ON MAST ARM EA 8 $190.00 $1,520.00 23 150744 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN (WOOD POST) EA 8 $100.00 $800.00 24 150745 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN (METAL POST) EA 21 S125.00 S2,625.00 25 150747 REMOVE ROADSIDE SIGN (STRAP AND SADDLE BRACKET METHOD) EA 2 5115.00 $230.00 26 150804 REMOVE DRAINAGE FACILITY EA 4 $750.00 $3,000.00 27 150805 REMOVE CULVERT LF 9 $150.00 $1,350.00 28 150820 REMOVE INLET EA 23 $1,000.00 $23,000.00 29 150860 REMOVE BASE AND SURFACING CY 150 $25.00 $3,750.00 30 152387 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN -TWO POST EA 4 $750.00 $3,000.00 31 152391 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN (METAL POST) EA 26 $300.00 $7,800.00 2118/2008 Project No. 1646 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 3 of 8 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE — COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 32 152392 RELOCATE ROADSIDE SIGN (WOOD POST) EA 8 $250.00 $2,000.00 33 152440 ADJUST MANHOLE TO GRADE EA 15 $500.00 $7,500.00 34 153112 COLD PLANE ASPHALT CONCRETE PAVEMENT (.15' MAXIMUM) SQFT 407000 $0.60 $244,200.00 35 153220 REMOVE CONCRETE (CHANNEL) CY 200 $200.00 $40,000.00 36 155003 CAP INLET EA 1 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 37 160101 CLEARING AND GRUBBING LS LUMP SUM $20,000.00 $20,000.00 38 170101 DEVELOP WATER SUPPLY LS LUMP SUM $20,000.00 $20,000.00 39 190101 ROADWAY EXCAVATION CY 15600 $45.00 $702,000.00 40 192037 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (RETAINING WALL) CY 200 $100.00 $20,000.00 41 192050 STRUCTURE EXCAVATION (TIEBACK WALL) ((ENGMET)) CY 850 $200.00 $170,000.00 42 193006 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (SLURRY CEMENT) CY 60 $300.00 $18.000.00 43 193013 STRUCTURE BACKFILL (RETAINING WALL) CY 150 $100.00 $15,000.00 44 193118 CONCRETE BACKFILL CY 30 $150.00 54,500.00 45 198001 IMPORTED BORROW TON 320 $50.00 $16,000.00 46 260201 CLASS 2 AGGREGATE BASE CY 9790 $60.00 $587,400.00 47 374002 ASPHALTIC EMULSION (FOG SEAL COAT) TON 1 $575.00 $575.00 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 4 of 8 Project No, 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 48 390133 HOT MIX ASPHALT CONCRETE (TYPE B) TON 9990 $90.00 $899,100.00 49 394001 PLACE ASPHALT CONCRETE DIKE LF 330 $10.00 $3,300.00 50 500050 TIEBACK ANCHOR EA 180 $6,000.00 $1,080.000.00 51 510060 STRUCTURAL CONCRETE. RETAINING WALL CY 390 $800.00 $312,000.00 52 510502 MINOR CONCRETE (MINOR STRUCTURE) CY 130 $2,000.00 $260,000.00 53 510512 MINOR CONCRETE (BOX CULVERT) CY 1600 $1,300.00 $2,080.000.00 54 511035 ARCHITECTURAL TREATMENT LS LUMP SUM $60,000,00 $60,000.00 55 513553 RETAINING WALL (MASONRY WALL) LS LUMP SUM $100,000.00 $100,000.00 56 520103 BAR REINFORCING STEEL (RETAINING WALL) LB 150000 $1.00 $150,000.00 57 530100 SHOTCRETE CY 380 S1,000.00 $380,000.00 58 566011 ROADSIDE SIGN - ONE POST EA 25 $431.00 $10,775.00 59 566012 ROADSIDE SIGN - TWO POST EA 4 $871.00 $3,484.00 60 568001 INSTALL SIGN (STRAP AND SADDLE BRACKET METHOD) EA 4 $150.00 $600.00 61 568015 INSTALL SIGN (MAST -ARM HANGER METHOD) EA 11 $900.00 $9,900.00 62 650010 12" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 6 $150.00 $900.00 63 650014 18" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 330 $150.00 $49,500.00 2/8/2008 Project No. 1646 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 5 of 8 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 64 650018 24" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 240 $175.00 $42,000.00 65 650022 30" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 68 $200.00 $13,600.00 66 650026 36" REINFORCED CONCRETE PIPE LF 150 $210.00 $31,500.00 67 665718 18" SLOTTED CORRUGATED STEEL PIPE (.168" THICK) LF 37 $175.00 $6,475.00 68 721431 CONCRETE (CONCRETE APRON) CY 3 $1,000.00 $3,000.00 69 721810 SLOPE PAVING (CONCRETE) CY 20 $1,000.00 $20,000.00 70 731502 MINOR CONCRETE (MISCELLANEOUS CONSTRUCTION) CY 1550 $550.00 $852,500.00 71 750001 MISCELLANEOUS IRON AND STEEL LB 5500 $3.00 $16,500.00 72 750502 MISCELLANEOUS METAL (RETAINING WALL) LB 400 $10.00 $4.000.00 73 839521 CABLE RAILING LF 530 $30.00 $15,900.00 74 840504 4" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 2900 $1.50 $4,350.00 75 840506 8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE LF 3590 $2.50 $8,975.00 76 840508 8" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (BROKEN 12-3) LF 850 $2.25 $1,912.50 77 840511 4" THERMOPLASTIC TRAFFIC STRIPE (DASHED WHITE) LF 470 $1.25 $587.50 78 840515 THERMOPLASTIC PAVEMENT MARKING SOFT 5270 $3.00 $15,810.00 79 840656 PAINT TRAFFIC STRIPE (2-COAT) LF 26700 $0.50 $13,350.00 2/8/2008 Project No. 1646 ITEM ITEM NO CODE PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE — COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) COMBINED ESTIMATE ITEM DESCRIPTION 80 850101 PAVEMENT MARKER (NON -REFLECTIVE) 81 850111 PAVEMENT MARKER (RETROREFLECTIVE) ((ENGMET)) 82 860251 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT HIGHLAND AVE) 83 860252 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT L AVE) 84 860253 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT N AVE) 85 860254 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT PALM AVE) 86 860255 TRAFFIC SIGNAL (PLAZA BLVD AT 1805 SOUTHBOUND RAMPS) 87 860256 TRAFFIC SIGNAL (PLAZA BLVD AT 1805 NORTHBOUND RAMPS) 88 860257 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT GROVE ST) 89 860258 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MODIFICATION (PLAZA BLVD AT EUCLID AVE) 90 860703 INTERCONNECTION CONDUIT AND CABLE 999990 MOBILIZATION 10% UNIT QUANTITY EA 47 EA 1270 LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM LS LUMP SUM PRICE $3.00 $3.50 $60,000.00 $60,000.00 $120,000.00 $150,000.00 $175,000,00 $175,000.00 $150.000.00 $105,000.00 $100,000.00 $1,221,990.00 SUBTOTAL PAGE 6 of 8 AMOUNT 5141.00 $4,445.00 $60.000.00 $60,000.00 $120,000.00 $150,000.00 5175.000.00 $175.000.00 $150,000.00 $105,000.00 $100,000.00 $1,221,990.00 512,219,910.00 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 7 of 8 Project No. 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) SUPPLEMENTAL WORK ITEM ITEM ITEM DESCRIPTION UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT NO CODE 066061 COZEEP WD 120 $440.00 $52,800.00 066063 PUBLIC INFORMATION LS LUMP SUM $68,000.00 $68,000.00 066063E DISPUTES REVIEW BOARD LS LUMP SUM $15,000.00 $15,000.00 066063D FEDERAL TRAINING LS LUMP SUM $16,000.00 $16,000.00 066090 MAINTAIN TRAFFIC WD 240 $600.00 $144,000.00 066094 VALUE ANALYSIS LS LUMP SUM $10,000.00 $10,000.00 066111A JUST IN TIME TRAINING LS LUMP SUM $15,000.00 $15,000.00 066595 WATER POLLUTION CONTROL 50/50 MAINTENANCE SHARING LS LUMP SUM $50,000.00 $50,000.00 066596 ADDITIONAL WATER POLLUTION CONTROL LS LUMP SUM $22,000.00 $22,000.00 066597 STORM WATER SAMPLING AND ANALYSIS LS LUMP SUM $25,000.00 $25,000.00 066610 PARTNERING LS LUMP SUM $25,000.00 $25,000.00 066666 PRICE INDEX FOR AC LS LUMP SUM $39,200.00 $39,200.00 SUBTOTAL $482,000.00 2/8/2008 PRELIMINARY ESTIMATE OF COST PAGE 8 of 8 Project No. 1646 IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY IN THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ON PLAZA BOULEVARD BETWEEN HIGHLAND AVENUE AND EUCLID AVENUE -- COMBINED ESTIMATE (1646 combined.mdb) STATE FURNISHED WORK ITEM ITEM NO CODE ITEM DESCRIPTION 066105 RESIDENT ENGINEERS OFFICE UNIT QUANTITY PRICE AMOUNT LS LUMP SUM $150,000.00 $150,000.00 SUBTOTAL $150,000.00 PROJECT SUBTOTAL $12.851,910.00 CONTINGENCIES 10% $1.285,190.00 PROJECT TOTAL $14.137,100.00 4.1 FEE SCHEDULE Commencing July 1, 2008, prior to the issuance of any building permit for new residential development in the City of National City, a Transportation Development Impact Fee ('l'DIF) shall be paid based on the fee schedule shown in Table 14a. For the purpose of the TDIF, single family dwelling units (DU) are classified based on a low residential density of 6 DU/Acre or less. Multi -family dwelling units are classified based on a medium to high residential density of greater than 6 DU/Acre. The following fee schedule shown in Table 14b has been set for new non-residential development. Non-residential land uses are classified per 1,000 square feet of building area. The imposition of the TDIF upon non-residential development is currently under suspension per City Council Ordinance (refer to Chapter 4.52 of the National City Municipal Code for further discussion). Table 14a — TDIF Schedule (Residential) Land Use Fee Single -Family Residential $2,000 per dwelling unit Multi -Family Residential $2,000 per dwelling unit Table 14b — TDIF Schedule (Non-residential) Land Use Fee Commercial $2,704 per 1,000 square feet Office/Services $6,002 per 1,000 square feet Industrial $2,519 per 1,000 square feet 4.2 DEVELOPMENT FORECAST Table 15 forecasts future development projects subject to the TDIF. Estimates are based on current projects likely to apply for building permits during each fiscal year, historical averages, and market conditions. 37 Table 15 — Development Forecast FY APN Project SF DU MF DU 08/09 558-220-06 H&H Townhomes (16th St. & Harbison Ave.) 0 7 558-050-20, 21, and 23 Hilltop View Homes (8th St. & Harbison Ave.) 0 22 560-050-06, 10, & 12 and 560- 410-03 _ The Highlands at 14th (14th St. & Kimball Way) 16 0 561-380-24 Grove Ave. project 8 0 New SF/MF (based on 3-yr average)* 72 70 Total: 96 99 09/10 556-554-16 Centro 0 61 557-351-17 through 25 Carolino Hillside Homes (16th & M Ave) 9 0 558-200-17 and 18 18th Street V. Castro Subdivision 0 16 New SF/MF (based on 3-yr average)* 72 70 147 Total: 81 10/11 556-554-17 Lumina R2 0 317 560-100-05, 06, 07, 08 Park Lofts 0 301 New SF/MF (based on 3-yr average)* 72 _ 70_ 688 Total: _ 72 * Based on historical data from Year 2005 to 2007 for residential building permits issued by the City. 4.3 ESTIMATED FEE REVENUES Table 16 summarizes estimated revenues generated by the TDIF based on the current fee schedule and development forecast. Table 16 — Estimated TDIF Revenues FY Land 1Jsc Fee Estimated Development Estimated Revenue 08/09 SF Residential $2,000 / DU 96 $192,000 08/09 MF Residential $2,000 / Dll 99 $198,000 Total: $390,000 38 5.1 FEE COLLECTION AND USE OF REVENUES Commencing July 1, 2008, prior to the issuance of any building permit for residential development in the City of National City, a Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) shall be paid based on the fee schedule provided in Subsection 4.1. The fee shall be paid before the issuance of building permits for each development project within the City of National City. No building permit shall be issued within the City of National City unless and until the TDIF has been paid in full. In the case of discretionary permits that will not involve a building permit, but which will involve new development, payment of the fee shall be recommended as a condition of permitting to the decision -making body that would approve such permit. A fee schedule has also been set through City Council Ordinance for non-residential development. However, based on the Ordinance the imposition of the TDIF upon non-residential development is currently under suspension (refer to Chapter 4.52 of the National City Municipal Code for further discussion). The purpose of the fee is to defray the actual or estimated costs of constructing planned transportation facilities necessary to accommodate increased traffic generated by future development consistent with sections 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code (Mitigation Fee Act). Costs funded by the TDIF may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. The TDIF collected shall fund transportation facilities, or portions thereof, identified in this report, that will provide increased road capacity necessitated by the cumulative impacts of future development. Further studies, including environmental review, may show superior alternative facilities that also provide the needed increased capacity. Once such studies are completed, fees collected may be used to fund those superior alternative facilities. The TDIF shall not be used to fund roadway maintenance activities or to correct existing deficiencies in the roadway network. Types of improvements associated with the TDIF include: • Roadway widening, roadway extension and turning lanes • Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements • Improvements to freeway -arterial interchanges • Railroad grade separations • Expanded regional express bus and rail transit service. The revenue raised by payment of the TDIF shall be placed in a separate and special account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling with other revenues and funds of the City of National City. TDIF revenues, along with any interest earnings on the account or fund, shall be used solely to: 1) Pay for the City's future construction of facilities described in this report, or to reimburse the City for those described or listed facilities constricted by the City with funds advanced by the City from other resources; or 40 2) Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted to install such listed facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity, relative to demand generated by the subject project; or 3) Pay costs associated with administration of the TDIF. TDIF revenues shall also be applied towards improvements that expand capacity on the Regional Arterial System (RAS), as required by the TransNet Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). Therefore, commencing July 1, 2008, $2,000 per new residential unit developed shall be collected and expended on the RAS improvement projects identified in this report, through the City of National City TIF Prograrn. In addition, non-residential development fees collected pursuant to Table 14b (see Subsection 4.1), and after release of the suspension of the non-residential fees, will be expended on the RAS improvement projects also identified in this report. SANDAG will update the minimum fee requirements annually for cost inflation (see Subsection 5.2 for further discussion on annual fee adjustments). Revenues shall he spent within five years of receipt or have an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period. The City of National City TIF Program report shall he updated annually to account for changes to the fee schedule, development forecasts, and facility improvement projects, including construction schedules, cost estimates and alternative funding sources. The TIF Program report, along with a separate financial report detailing fcc revenues and expenditures, shall be submitted annually to the Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC) for review. The TDIF fund, including accrued interest, shall be subject to the all of the applicable provisions of Government Code Section 66000 et seq., including but not limited to the requirements for accounting, reporting and expenditure of the fund for the improvements specified in this report. 5.2 ANNUAL FEE ADJUSMENTS The TDIF may be adjusted annually starting July 1, 2009, and on each July 1st thereafter, based on the following factors: I) The cost index used by SANDAG for the annual adjustment to the RTCIP impact fee 2) Changes in the type, size, location or cost of the transportation facilities, if any, to be financed by the TDIF, changes in land use designations in the City's General Plan, and upon other sound engineering, financing, and planning infonnation. Adjustments to the TDIF resulting from review of the factors above may be made by resolution amending the fee schedule and subject to compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. 41 5.3 EXEMPTIONS The following new development shall be exempt from paying the TDIF: • Public facilities, government buildings, public buildings and public schools • Uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use of land, generally described as "community purpose facility": a. Social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys Club and Girls Club, YMCA and services for the homeless b. Private schools (elementary and secondary) c. Day care (nonprofit only) d. Senior care and recreation (nonprofit only) e. Worship, spiritual growth and development • Condominium conversions • Moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income residential units as defined by Health and Safety Code sections 50079.5, 50093,50105, 50106, and be reference in Government Code section 65585.1 • Rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing residential unit • Development projects subjcct to development agreements prior to May 28, 2004 that expressly prohibit the imposition of impact fees, however, if the terms of the development agreement are extended beyond July 1, 2008, then the requirements of this Chapter shall apply • Guest dwellings • Additional residential units located on the same parcel regulated by the provisions of any agricultural zoning • Kennels and catteries established in conjunction with an existing residential unit • The sanctuary building of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other house of worship eligible for property tax exemption. 5.4 REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENTS Whenever a developer of a development project would be required, as a condition of approval of a development permit, to construct or finance the construction of a portion of a transportation facility identified in this report, the City Council may impose an additional requirement that the developer install the improvements with supplemental size, length or capacity in order to ensure efficient and timely construction of the transportation facilities network. If such a requirement is imposed, the City Council shall, in its discretion, enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer. The 42 reimbursement agreement can be for either in the form of a cash payment or a credit against the tee otherwise levied on the development project, or some combination thereof. The determination of the form is at the sole discretion of the City. The reimbursement amount shall not include the portion of the improvement needed to provide services or mitigate the need for the facility or the burdens created by the development. A developer shall not receive cash reimbursement from the appropriate TDIF fund until all developers who have previously executed reimbursement agreements payable from the same fund have been fully reimbursed or until such agreements have expired. The maximum term of any reimbursement agreement shall be twenty- five (25) years. 5.5 FEE WAIVERS, REDUCTIONS AND REFUND OF FEE Refer to Chapter 4.52 of the National City Municipal Code for requirements and explanation of fee waivers, reductions and refund of fees. 43 RTCIP IMPACT FEE NEXUS STUDY - FINAL REPORT NOVEMBER 26, 2007 PREPARED FOR THE SAN DIEGO ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS MuniFinancial Oakland Office 1700 Broadway, 6"' Floor Oakland, California 94612 Tel: (510) 832-0899 Fax: (510) 832-0898 MuniFinancial A WILLDAN COMPANY Anaheim, CA industry, CA Lancaster, CA Oakland, CA Orlando, FL www.muni.com Phoenix, AZ Sacramento, CA Seattle, WA Temecula, CA TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY 1 Summary 1 New Development Investments in Regional Transportation 1 Purpose of Study 2 Regional Arterial System 3 Initial RTCIP Impact Fee Calculation 3 2. NEXUS ANALYSIS 6 Approach 6 Growth Projections 6 Facilities Standard and Need for Transportation Improvements 12 Facility Costs and Available Funding 14 Cost Allocation and Fee Schedule 17 Extension of RTCIP to Nonresidential Land Uses 20 3. IMPLEMENTATION 22 Adoption By Local Agencies 22 Inflation Adjustment 23 Collection and Administration 24 Use of Revenues 24 Exemptions 25 4. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 26 Purpose of Fee 26 Use of Fee Revenues 26 Benefit Relationship 27 Burden Relationship 27 Proportionality 28 APPENDIX A: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM A-1 APPENDIX B: RETAIL SPENDING AND SALES ANALYSIS B-1 Total Household Spending B-1 Capture and Leakage B-4 Local Spending Share of Total Sales B-5 Visitor Industry Spending B-5 APPENDIX C: LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS C-1 Initial RTCIP Fee Adoption — Local Agency Implementation Checklist C-2 Annual and Five -Year RTCIP Fee Update - Local Agency Implementation Checklist C-4 53MlunFrcrxial .\ox'.ber2(. 200: i LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES FIGURE 1: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM 5 TABLE 1: POPULATION, EMPLOYMENT & LAND USE FORECASTS 8 TABLE 2: OCCUPANT DENSITY 9 TABLE 3: TRAVEL DEMAND FACTORS 10 TABLE 4: ALLOCATION OF TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING AND COMMERCIAL SQ. FT. IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY 12 TABLE 5: TRAVEL DEMAND FROM EXISTING AND NEW DEVELOPMENT 12 TABLE 6: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM ROADWAY STATISTICS 13 TABLE 7: ESTIMATED ARTERIAL SYSTEM CAPACITY INVESTMENTS ($2008) 15 TABLE 8: RTP INVESTMENT PLAN, 2002-2030 ($2002) 16 TABLE 9: REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT PLANNED ARTERIAL IMPROVEMENTS 18 TABLE 10: RESIDENTIAL COST PER TRIP (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 19 TABLE 11: RTCIP IMPACT FEE (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 20 TABLE 12: NONRESIDENTIAL COST PER TRIP (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 21 TABLE 13: NONRESIDENTIAL IMPACT FEE (ESTIMATED FOR $2008) 21 TABLE A.1: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM A-1 TABLE B.1: TAXABLE RETAIL SALES (2004) B-2 TABLE B.2: HOUSEHOLD TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING POTENTIAL (2004) B-3 TABLE B.3: SAN DIEGO COUNTY LOCAL HOUSEHOLD TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING & SALES (2004) B-4 TABLE B.4: ALLOCATION OF TAXABLE RETAIL SPENDING IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY (2004) B-5 TABLE B.5: VISITOR INDUSTRY RETAIL SPENDING (2004) B-6 Wnni1'inzrn, <r! 17, 2001 11 1 . INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY This chapter provides a summary of the study's results and explains the background and purpose for the study. The chapter also describes the initial nexus analysis that preceded the current study. SUMMARY The purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in San Diego County can use to adopt an impact fee and fulfill their contribution to the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Plan (RTCIP). This report documents the required statutory findings under California's Mitigation Fee Act'. The nexus analysis conducted for this study finds that the impact fee required by the RTCIP of $2,000 per residential unit is justified based on the requirements of the Act. This report is an update to the first version of this study dated September 5, 2006. The changes made in this report from the prior version arc: • Merged the mobile home land use category into the multi -family category because of the minimal amount of projected mobile home development and to simplify administration of the fee; and • Updated unit cost inflation adjustment based on more accurate construction cost index (Caltrans highway cost index instead of a combination of several national indices). • Clarified that the initial R1'C1P fee beginning in 2008 will he $2,000 per residential unit regardless of type of unit. The $2,000 fee per residential unit will be updated annually for cost inflation following initial adoption by local agencies in 2008. NEW DEVELOPMENT INVESTMENTS IN REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION In 2004 voters in San Diego County approved a 40-year extension to TransNet, a program designed to fund improvements to the region's transportation system first initiated in 1987. The prime component of the program is a half -cent sales tax increase that is projected to raise over $10 billion for improvements through 2030.2 Expenditure of TransNet funds is implemented through the Regional Transportation Plan (RIP), prepared by the San Diego Association of Covernrricnts (SANDAL) and updated periodically as mandated. 1 California Government Code, §§66(XX)-66025. 2 San Diego Association of Governments, Draft 2007 Regional Tramfwrtutian Plan (June 2007),'I'able 4.1, p. 4-9. 13111RuniFnar l November 26, 2007 .Van i)iego Association of (;ortrnnrents RT(7P Impact Fee Nexus Study '1'hc draft 2007 RTP details the need for $58 billion in transportation improvements.3 Of that total, $27 billion in funding will come from a variety of state and federal sources. The remaining $31 billion will come from local funding sources including the TransNet sales tax extension. These amounts represent the Reasonably Expected Scenario, one of three scenarios examined in the draft 2007 RTP.4 In addition to the sales tax extension, the TransNet program requires implementation of a new local funding source for the draft 2007 RTP, the Regional Transportation Congestion improvement Program (RTCIP).5 The purpose of the RTCIP is to ensure that new development directly invests in the region's transportation system to offset the negative impacts of growth on congestion and mobility. Key components of the RTCIP include: • Beginning July 1, 2008 each local agency must contribute $2,000 from exactions imposed on the private sector for each new residence constructed in the County. • Although the R'l'CIP does not specify a revenue source for this contribution, most local agencies are likely to collect this revenue as a development impact fee imposed on new dwelling units at building permit issuance. • Revenues must be expended on improvements to the Regional Arterial System (RAS), described below, and in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recent adopted RTP. • The Independent Tax -payer Oversight Committee, created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. • If a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding for local roads. Cities have the authority to impose impact fees under the Mitigation Fee Act contained in California Government Code sections 66(X)0 through 66025. Counties have the same authority for their unincorporated areas. In doing so, each local agency is required to make findings demonstrating a reasonable nexus between the collection of fees, the need for facilities created by new development, and the expenditure of fee revenues to benefit new development. PURPOSE OF STUDY The purpose of this study is to provide a single nexus analysis that all local agencies in San Diego County can use to adopt an impact fee and fulfill their contribution to the RTCIP. This report documents the required statutory findings under the Mitigation Fee Act. 3 Ibid., Table 4.3, page 4-11. 4 Ibid., Table 4.1, page 4-9. 5 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Fv-frntion Ordinance and Expenditure Plan, Commission Ordinance 04-01, May 28, 2004, Sec. 9. Munifnarr�l November 26. 200 San Diego Arrogation of Governments REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM RTCIP Impact Fee Nexar Shah, SANDAL employs a rigorous process to define the RAS.6 The most important criterion for determining whether to include an arterial in the RAS is the arterial's role as a "critical link". Critical links provide direct connections between communities ensuring system continuity and congestion relief in high volume corridors. The other criteria for inclusion of an arterial in the RAS include: • Links to areas with high concentrations of existing or future population or emnploymneut; • Links to activity centers such as hospitals, retail centers, entertainment centers, hotels, colleges, and universities; • Accommodate high future traffic volumes; • Accommodate Regional Transit Vision (Red and Yellow Car service); and • Provide access to intermodal (freight, port, military, or airport) facilities. As of the date of the first version of this report in September 2006, the RAS included 777 route miles (not lane miles) of arterials. Figure 1 is a 'nap of the Regional Arterial System from the adopted 2005 RTP. The RAS included both the regionally significant arterials and the other regional arterials indicated on the map. A list of arterial segments included in this version of the RAS is provided in Appendix A to this report. A list of the types of improvements that the RJ'CIP can fund on the RAS is discussed in the Implementation chapter of this report. INITIAL RTCIP IMPACT FEE CALCULATION SANDAG staff developed the RTCIP contribution amount of $2,000 per residence using an approach that allocated transportation system improvements proportionately across both existing development and projected growth. The methodology was as follows: 1. The Regional Arterial System carried 10.8 mullion vehicle miles traveled (VMT) in 2000 and was projected to carry 14.9 million VIvfI' in 2030. The difference of 4.1 trillion VMT, or 27 percent of the 2030 VMT total was attributed to growth (4.1 14.9 27 percent). 2. The entire transportation network was projected to accommodate 60.1 million vehicle miles traveled (WW1) in 2030. Of this total, 37.4 million VMT, or 62 percent, were attributed to residential development (37.4 - 60.1 = 62 percent). This amount included any trip that started or ended at a home (home -work, home -school, home college, and home -other). 3. Multiplying the results of steps #1 and #2 resulted in 16 percent of total VMI' in the County in 2030 attributed to new, residential development (0.27 x 0.62 = 16 percent). 6 San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Final 2030 Retgonal Transportation Plan, dlobi% 2010 (February 2005), Technical Appendix 7 - Evaluation Critena and Rankings, Table TA 7.1, p. 105. 'IM u,Fetarciaal \'or-rncer 26. 2007 San Diego Association of Governments RT C7P Impact Fee Nexus StaJy 4. As of 2000, SANDAG and local agencies had identified improvements for 710 additional lane mules to complete the Regional Arterial System. At a cost of $5.1 million per lane mile (in 2002 dollars) this equals a total cost of $3.6 billion (710 x $5.1 million = $3.6 billion). 5. If all development, existing and new, paid a proportionate share of this cost new residential development's share would be $593 million (0.16 x $3.6 billion = $593 million). 6. Allocating the new residential development share over a projected increase in dwelling units of 320,000 from 2000 to 2030 yielded a cost per unit of slightly less than $2,000 ($593 million - 320,000 = $1,853). "I'he methodology described above and employed by SANDAG to calculate the RTCL' assumes that all development, existing and new has the same impact on the need for RAS improvements based on the amount of t.ravel demand generated (vehicle trips). Thus existing and new development should share proportionately in the cost of transportation system improvements. For descriptive purposes this can be considered an "average cost" approach. The "average cost" approach probably results in a lower fee and is t.hercfore more conservative and defensible compared to other approaches used for impact fee nexus analysis. "1'he "average cost" approach does not focus on the marginal impacts of new development on congestion. A "marginal cost" approach examines the cost of additional transportation improvements needed to mitigate impacts by maintaining existing levels of services. Based on our experience preparing transportation fee studies, this "marginal cost" approach would probably result in allocating to new development a greater share of planned transportation system improvements compared to the "average cost" approach. The approach used by SANDAG to justify the R'1'C1P impact fee is therefore more conservative. aMuniFinandal \'ores.;bee 26. 2007 4 San Diego Association of Governments Figure 1 (Ipur 4.2 REGIONALLY SIGNNCAPO ARTERIAL NETWORK ijMunWuiaWiul Regional Arterial System \o,en ber 16. 200T RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study 2. NEXUS ANALYSIS This chapter documents a reasonable relationship between increased travel demand from new development on the Regional Arterial System (RAS), the cost of RAS improvements needed to accommodate that growth, and an impact fee to fund those investments. APPROACH Impact fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate growth. The four steps followed in any development impact fee study and described in detail in the sections that follow include: 1. Prepare growth projections; 2. Identify facility standards; 3. Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accouunodatc new development: based on facility standards and growth projections; 4. Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit of development. Due to policy considerations SANDAG indicated that the nexus snrdy should employ the same "average cost" approach used in the initial fee calculation to the greatest extent technically defensible under the Mitigation Fee Art. Consistent with the initial SANDAG approach, t.hc need for RAS improvements determined by this nexus study is based on the relative amount of travel demand generated by all existing and new, residential and nonresidential, development. As mentioned above (see page 3), this is a conservative approach because a more detailed impact analysis probably would result in allocating to new development a greater share of planned RAS improvements. The analysis required for each of the four steps listed above is conducted on a countywide basis consistent with SA.NDAG's initial fee calculation. We updated certain assumptions with more recent data when available. The approach takes a countywide perspective because the RAS represents a countywide network that facilitates mobility between and through cities and unincorporated areas. New development, regardless of location, both adds congestion (increased vehicle trips) to a range of arterials within the RAS and benefits from the expenditure of fee revenue on a range of RAS facilities. GROWTH PROJECTIONS This section describes the SANDAG forecast for population and employment, and estimates of land use in terms of dwelling unfits and nonresidential building square feet. Land use forecasts ate converted to vehicle trips to provide a measure of travel demand (fimhcr discussed below). 11gManrinaicial orentaer 26. 2007 San Dingo Association of Goremmentr RTCIP bz'pad I'er Newt' Stud Population, Employment, and Land Use The planning horizon for this analysis is 2030, consistent with current land use and transportation forecasts adopted by SANDAG. The nexus analysis uses forecasts of dwelling units and employment to estimate I1ew development demand for transportation improvements. forecasts for 2030 are from SANDAG's Urban Development Model (UDM). The UDM is one of four interrelated forecasting models used by SANDAL to project land use and transportation for the region) The UDN1 allocates changes in the regiou's economic and demographic characteristics to jurisdictions and other geographic areas within the region. The model is based on the spatial interrelationships among economic factors, housing and population factors, land use patterns, and the transportation system. The model generates 2030 forecasts for small geographic areas including the traffic analysis zones used in the transportation modeling process. the UDM complies with federal mandates that transportation plans consider the long-range effects of the interaction between land uses and the transportation system. 'the initial SANDAG fee calculation used 2002 as the base year for cost estimates so that is the base year used for this nexus analysis. Dwelling units and employment for 2002 are based on interpolations of development estimates for 2000 and 2005 from the UDM model. Total employment was allocated to land use categories based on analysis of employment by land use using data from five counties and conducted for the Southern California Association of Governments. Table 1 lists the 2002 and 2030 land use assutnptlons based on SAN DAG forecasts and used in the nexus analysis. The land use categories shown in Table 1 and used in this nexus analysis are the same that are used in the SANDAG forecasts with one exception. This nexus analysis includes mobile homes in the multi -family category because of the minimal amount of forecast mobile home development. SANDAL forecasts mobile homes to increase by 2,000 units during the planning horizon, or 1.3 percent of forecast growth in multi -family units. The employment forecasts are converted to building square footage shown in Table 1 by land use using occupant densities factors shown in Table 2. These factors are derived from a study of employment, building square feet, and land use conducted for die Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). The density factors were derived from a random sample of 2,721 parcels drawn from across five counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura). We could not identify such a study for San Diego County. The SCAG study's density factors are based on the largest sample of properties that we are aware of, and arc used in development impact fee studies throughout the State. 1 For inure information on SANDAG's economic, demographic, and transportation forecasting models, sec San Diego association of Governments, Firm/ 2030 Forecast Process and Model Documtnioion, April 2(X)4. eljMuniFnanc al :\ nrember 26. 2007 San Diego Association of Governments WIaP Impact Fee Nexus Study Table 1: Population, Employment & Land Use Forecasts 2002 2030 Increase Percent Residents 2,909,000 3,855,000 946,000 33% Dwelling Units Single Family 648,000 778,000 130,000 20% Multi -family' 419,000 576,000 157,000 37% Total 1,067,000 1,354,000 287,000 27% Employment2 Retail 295,000 393,000 98,000 33% Office/Services 348,000 451,000 103,000 30% Industrial 383,000 628,000 245,000 64% Subtotal 1,026,000 1,472,000 446,000 43% ResidentiaI3 138,000 149,000 11,000 8% Public4 139,000 157,000 29,000 21% Total 1,303,000 1,778,000 475,000 36% Building Square Feet (000s)5 Retail 148,000 197,000 49,000 33% Office/Services 104,000 135,000 31,000 30% Industrial 345,000 565,000 220,000 64% Total 597,000 897,000 300,000 50% Multi -family population includes mobile homes. 2 Based on Series 10 forecast data provided by SANDAG. Estimates by major land use type rolled up from County Assessor's categories. Interpolated 2008 data based on 2005 and 2010 forecasts. Employment on residential land uses such as home -based businesses. Travel demand included in estimates for residential land uses. Travel demand caused by public land uses so excluded from nexus analysis. S Based on occupant density factors shown in Table 2. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) Data Warehouse (http:dafawarehouse.sandag. org), SANDAG Series 10 forecast of employment by land use; MuniFinancial. EMunif-x,ancial Norc rber 26. 2007 8 San Diego Association of Governments Table 2: Occupant Density W1(.IP Impact ►'e.e Wean, Study Land Use Commercial 500 Square feet per employee Office/Services 300 Square feet per employee Industrial' 900 Square feet per employee Note: Source data based on random sample of 2.721 developed parcels across five Los Angeles area counties (Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino. and Ventura). MuniFinancial estimated weighting factors by land use categories used in the survey to calculate average employment densities by major category (commercial, office, industrial). I Adjusted to correct for over -sampling of industrial parcels in Ventura County. Source: The Natelson Company, Inc., Employment Density Study Summary Report, prepared for the Southern Califomia Association of Govemments; October 31, 2001, Table 2-A, p. 15. MuniFinancial. Travel Demand By Land Use Category To estimate travel demand by type of land use the nexus study uses vehicle trips rather than vehicle miles traveled (VM'1) that were used in the initial SANDAC; calculation. Vehicle trips can he calculated in a consistent manner across land use categories based on population and employment estimates by land use category. This enables the impact of development to be distinguished between land use categories, a key requirement of the A4itiption Fee Act. VMT, on the other hand, is available from transportation models only for a limited number of "production and attraction" categories: home -work, home -school, home -college, home - other, and non -home. A reasonable measure of vehicle trips is weekday average daily vehicle trips ends. Because automobiles are the predominant source of traffic congestion, vehicle trips are a reasonable measure of demand for new capacity even though the measure excludes demand for alternative modes of transportation (transit, bicycle, pedestrian). The following two adjustments are made to vehicle trip generation rates to better estimate travel demand by type of land use: • Pass -by trips arc deducted from the trip generation rate. Pass -by trips are intcrtnediates stops between an origin and a final destination that require no diversion from the route, such as stopping to get gas on the way to work. • The trip generation rate is weighted by the average length of trips for a specific land use category compared to the average length of all trips on the street system. Table 3 shows the calculation of travel demand factors by land use category based on the adjustments described above. Data is based on extensive and detailed trip surveys conducted in the San Diego region by SANDAG. 'the surveys provide a robust database of trip generation rates, pass -by trips factors, and average trip length for a wide range of land uses. .Notrmter ' . 00 9 San Diego Association of Governments Table 3: Travel Demand Factors RT(JP Impact Fee Nexus.Study A R C=A•B D Trip Rate Adjustment Factor =CxD( 6.9 t G=cxf Total Average Adjust- Average Travel Primary Diverted Excluding Trip ment Daily Trip Demand Trips' Trips' Pass -by' Length' Factors Ends` Factor" Residential5 Single Family 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 10 11.10 Multi-family6 86% 11% 97% 7.9 1.11 8 8.88 Nonresidenhi l! 7 Commercial 47% 31% 78% 3.6 0.41 68 27.88 Office/Services 77% 19% 96% 8.8 1.22 20 24.40 Industrial 79% 19% 98% 9.0 1.28 8 10.24 ' Percent of total trips. Primary trips are trips with no midway stops or "inks'. Diverted trips are linked hips who..e distance adds at least one mile to the primary trip. Pass -by trips are links that do not add more than one mile to the total trip 2 In miles. 'Systemwide average trip length is 6.9 miles. Trip ends or travel demand per dwelling unit or per 1,000 building square feet. ' Single family based on 3-6 units per acre category. Multi -family based on 6-20 units per acre category. c Multi-tamlly deman factos include mobile homes. The combined average daily trip ends calculation multiplies 2002 population by average dairy trip ends for both multi-lamily and mobile homes and then weights the sum by the 2002 population. ' Commercial based on -community shopping center' category. Office/services based on 'standard commercial office' category. Industrial based on 'Industrial park (no commercialT category. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates roc the San Diego Region, July 1996; Shifting Burden of Commercial Development to Residential Development Applying the travel demand factors shown in Table 3 directly to development by land use category implicitly assumes that the cause of each vehicle trip on the transportation network is shared equally by the land use at each trip end (origin and destination). But depending on the regional economic forces affecting development in a particular area, the cause of a trip may be related more to the land use at the origin or the destination. For example, in some areas residential development may be caused by job growth, while in other areas the opposite may occur (jobs follow housing). These cause and effect relationships may change over time in the same area. Given the complexity of these regional economic and land use relationships, most transportation impact fee nexus studies make the simplifying but reasonable assumption to weight the origin and destination of a trip equally when identifying the cause of travel demand on a transportation system. However, there is one regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship that remains consistent across geographical areas and over rime.. Commercial development is to a large extent caused by the spending patterns of local residents. Commercial development follows residential development or anticipates new development occurring in the near term. This development pattern can be observed throughout metropolitan regions and is driven by the site location process followed by retailers. When seeking new locations, the most Con1mOn measure of a potential market used by site location analysts is the number of ffilNiuniFnancial ;\brember 26. 2007 10 San Diego Asioaation of Governments RTCTP Impact Pee Nexu., Study households within a reasonable driving distance for shopping trips and the median income of those households. Given this consistent regional economic and land use cause and effect relationship, it is reasonable to allocate at least some of the burden of commercial trip ends to residential development. 'Phis approach is used in impact fee nexus studies to more accurately allocate the burden of transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth.2 Not all retail spending is related to local residential development. By "local" we mean residents (or businesses) located within the area subject to the impact fee. 'There ate three major sources of retail spending: 1. Local households; 2. Local businesses; and 3. Visitors that travel to the area to shop. The RTCIP impact fee is limited to residential development so the focus of this nexus study was shifting the appropriate share of travel demand from commercial to residential development. The demand for cotntnercial development by local businesses was not identified. To determine the amount of commercial development associated with residential development we conducted an analysis of taxable retail sales data for 2004, the most recent complete year of data available from the State Board of Equalization. The analysis calculated the total spending potential of San Diego County households and estimated what portion of that spending occurred within the County. The result was that 62.6 percent of total taxable retail sales was estimated to be associated with local household spending. The remainder was associated with local business and visitor spending. Based on this analysis, residential development directly causes 62.6 percent of commercial development. Consequently, the travel demand associated with that share of commercial developmment is shifted to residential development. The results of this analysis are summarized in Table 4 and presented in detail in Appendix B. Total Travel Demand By Land Use Category Table 5 shows estimates of travel demand from existing and new development and the shares that residential and nonresidential development comprise of the total. '!'ravel demand is based on the travel demand factors calculated in Table 3 and the growth estimates in Table 1. Commercial development associated with local household spending as shown in Table 4 is included in the residential land use category. Based on this analysis new residential development will represent. about. 13 percent. of total travel demand in 2030. 2 See Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., Infrastructure Finandng Technical Repot Southwest Arne P/an, prepared for the City of Santa Rosa Department of Community Development, January 1995, p.28. See also Economic and Planning Systems, Inc., Road Impact Mitigation Fee IN.xr Study, prepared for the Calaveras Council of Goserrunents, April 28, 2004, p.20. SMuniFinarrial San Diego Association of Governments R7Y.7P Impact Fee Nexur Stably Table 4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft. in San Diego County Taxable Retail Sales (2004) Share Total Taxable Retail Spending & Commercial Sq. Ft. $ 44,470,000 100.0% Local Residential Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. 27,856,000 62.6% Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending & Sq. Ft. 16,614,000 37.4% Butldin4 Square Fee( 2002 2025 Growth 148,000 197,000 49,000 93,000 123,000 30,000 55,000 74,000 19,000 Sources. fables 1 and 8.4; MultiFinancial. Table 5: Travel Demand From Existing and New Development Land Use Category Travel Demand Factor' pevelopment Travel Demand' Total Extsling' Growth' (2002) (2002-2030) Existing (2002) Growth (2002-2030) Residential Single Family 11.10 648,000 130,000 7,193,000 1,443,000 8,636,000 Multi -family 8.88 419,000 157,000 3,721,000 1,394,000 5,115,000 Local -serving Commercial' 27.88 93,000 30,000 2,593,000 836,000 3429,000 Subtotal 1,160,000 317,000 13,507,000 3,673,000 17,180,000 Percent of Total 47,7% 13.0% 60.7% Nonresidential Other Commercial' 27.88 55,000 19,000 1,533,000 530,000 2,063,000 Office/Services 24.40 104,000 31,000 2,538,000 756,000 3,294,000 Industrial 10.24 345,000 220,000 3,533,000 _2.253,000 5,786,000 Subtotal _ 1,757,000 617,000 7,604,000 3,539,000 11,143,000 Percent of Total 26.8% 12.5% 39.3% Total 21,111,001 7,212,000 28,323,000 Percent of Total 75.0% 25.0% 100.0% Per dwelling unit for residential La,d tees and pis 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land uses. units for residential land uses and 1,000 Omitting units lest for rtonrestdential lard wts. Estimated total trip ends adjusted for the factors shown in 1 able 3. ' The multi -family travel demand facto and demand calciulatlms include mobile homes. Reposous store of tnt t commercial square feet and bevel demand associated with spending by San MIT, County households. Represents share of total commercial square feet and 'civet demand associated with spencing by San Diego Canty bu.et,ne s and visitors Sarre. Tables 1, 3 and 4; M niFinancial. FACILITIES STANDARD AND NEED FOR TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS The critical policy issue in a development impact fee nexus study is the identification of a facility standard. The facility standard determines new development's need for new facilities. The facility standard is also used to evaluate the existing level of facilities to ensure that new development cloys not fund infrastructure needed to serve Existing development. The facility standard used by this nexus analysis is average weekday vehicle hours of delay on the Regional Arterial System (RAS) in 2008. Hours of delay provide a reasonable system- wide measure of the impact of new development on congestion and mobility. SANDAG's Calla of 'mancial November 26. 2007 1 San l)iepo Association of Governments RTCIP Impact pre Nocur Study transportation forecasting model (TransCAD) demonstrates that hours of delay increase with the level of new development, and decrease with investment in additional transportation system capacity. Projected hours of delay in 2002 is used for the standard because that is the implementation date for the RTCIP, representing existing conditions at the time new development would begin contributing to transportation system improvements. The original RTCIP fee estimate was based on the need for 710 additional lane miles to complete the RAS as of -the year 2000 (see "Itutial RTCIP Impact Fee Calculation" in Chapter 1). Through 2002 the region added 73 lane miles to the RAS. This effort reduces the level of investment needed to complete the RAS to 637 lane miles. The data in Table 6 from the TransCAD model demonstrates a reasonable relationship between new development and the need for additional investment in the RAS. The table shows the projected increases in vehicle hours of delay from 2002 to 2030 and the benefits of adding 637 lane miles to the RAS. Without any investment in the RAS vehicle hours of delay will increase by 114 percent during this period. With an investment of 637 new lane miles in regional arterials vehicle hours of delay will incrcasc substantially less, by 68 percent. Table 6: Regional Arterial System Roadway Statistics Projected 2030 Existing Without With 2002 Improvements Improvements Lane Miles 2,805 2,805 3,442 Change, 2002-2030 (amount) - 637 Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 0% 23% Average Weekday Vehicle Hours of Delay 64,352 137,481 108,350 Change, 2002-2030 (amount) 73,129 43,998 Change, 2002-2030 (percent) 114% 68% Note: 2002 data interpolated based on 2000 and 2005 data provided by model output (see Source). Source: San Diego Association of Governments, TransCAD model output. New development is not the entire cause of the forecasted increase in vehicle hours of delay. As discussed above, new development is only allocated a share of RAS investment costs. The SANDAL transportation model assumes that vehicle miles traveled (V1\1'1) per capita for all existing and new development will increase 9.6 percent from 2000 to 2030 continuing recent trends.3 Thus some of the increased in vehicle hours of delay is caused by increased travel from existing development_ This trend does not affect the nexus analysis under the "average cost" approach taken by this nexus analysis (see "Initial RTCIP impact Fee Calculation" in Chapter 1). Under this approach RAS investment costs are allocated 3 Email communication from Rill McFarlane, Transportation Modeling Section, San Diego Association of Governments, March 8, 2006. lariguniAnantial November 26, 200 71 San Diego A»ociation of Governments R. CI7' Impar Fee Nexus Daily proportionately across existing and new development based on total travel demand, thus incorporating the impact of changes in travel behavior such as increased Vhf 1" per capita. FACILITY COSTS AND AVAILABLE FUNDING 'Ibis section estimates total costs associated with RAS improvements that are t.hc responsibility of new development. The need for RTCIP funding based on available revenues identified in the adopted 2005 RTP is evaluated. Finally, this section provides a current list of specific projects identified for investment in the RAS. Unit Cost Estimates and Total Facility Costs For the purposes of this nexus analysis, facility costs are estimated in 2008 dollars, the first year of implementation of the RTCIP. This subsection explains the approach taken to increase unit costs from 2002 dollars to 2008 dollars. Historically, SANDAG has assumed an annual increase of 2.6 percent for road construction costs based on the California Department of "Transportation (Caltrans) construction cost index average annual compounded rate from 1980-2004. In recent years that rate has risen significantly and grown increasing volatile. To examine this issue SANDA(3 commissioned a study in 2005 by URS, a private consulting firm, that examined a range of data on transportation capital project cost inflation since 2002. The URS study recommended use of several national highway construction cost indices to adjust transportation project cost estimates for SANDAG's financial planning purposes. 'I These rates were used in due prior version of this nexus study dated September 5, 2006. Analysis of actual costs for road construction projects in the San Diego region conducted by SANDAL staff during the past year has determined that the Caltrans highway remains the best indicator of local construction cost inflation. Indeed, the URS study recognized that California's construction costs are higher than those in national indexes.5 Consequently this nexus analysis returns to the use of the Caltrans constniction cost index to inflate unlit cost estimate from 2002 dollars to 2008 dollars. Estimates for 2008 are based on Caltrans index data through 2007. Annual Caltrans index data was available through 2006 at the time of this study. Index data for 2007 should be available by February 2008 when SANDAG will inform local agencies of the RTC1P impact fcc amount that must be adopted by July 1, 2008 (sec "Adoption By Local Agencies" in Chapter 3). For thc purposes of this study the 2007 index was estimated based on the average annual compounded growth rate in the index for the ten-year period from 1996 through 2006. A ten-year average was used because of thc high volatility of the index in recent years. The approach taken in this report is to estimate 2008 costs based on inflation through 2007. .As shown in Table 7, the cost estimate for an arterial lane mile is estimated at $10.9 million in 2008 dollars. The total compounded increase from the 2002 is 115 percent. Total costs to 4 San Diego Association of -Governments, Transportation Project Cast Analysis Qune 17, 2005) completed by URS, p. 8-1. 5 Ibid., p. 4-1. EgMuniii encial .1`o;rorber26, 2007 11 Sam Diego Association of Governments R7Y.7P Impact 1'ee Nexu.1turty complete the arterial system are esrirriated at $7.0 billion based on this revised unit cost estimate. Table 7: Estimated Arterial System Capacity Investments ($2008) Caltrans Inflation Year Index Annual Rate Cummulative Cost 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007' 142.2 148.6 216.2 268.3 280.6 305.7 NA 4.50% 45.49% 24.10% 4.58% 8.94% NA $ 4.50% 52.04% 88.68% 97.32% 114.96% 5,100,000 5,330,000 7,754,000 9,623,000 10,063,000 10,963,000 Regional Arterial Widenings & Extensions (lane miles) (2002-2030) 637 Total Regional Arterial System Capacity Investments (2002-2030) (Est. $2008) $ 6,981,238,400 ' Annual inflation rate for 2007 was estimated using the ten-year compounded annual growth rate from 1996 to 2006 for the CalTrans highway constntction annual cost index The actual rate for 2007 will be updated after the annual index data is published by CalTrans on January 30th of 2008. Sources: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appeicix 9 - Project Cost Estimates, p. 159; California Dept. of Transportation, Price Index for Selected Highway Construction items (Second Quarter Ending June 30, 2007); Table 6; MuniFinancial. Available RTP Funding To justify the need for the RTCLP impact fee, the fee should only, be imposed to the extent additional funding is needed to accommodate new development net of other anticipated funding sources. 'Me adopted 2005 RTP examined three funding and expenditure scenarios described below.6 All dollars are in $2002 and are for the planning horizon 2002 to 2030. • The Revenue Constrained scenario ($30 billion) was based on existing revenue sources and did not assume extension of the TransNet sales tax. • The Reasonably Expected scenario ($42 billion) was based on extension of the TransNet sales tax ($8 billion) plus $4 billion more from higher levels of state and federal discretionary funds and increases in state and federal gas taxes based on historical trends. • The Unconstrained Revenue scenario ($67 billion) was based on an analysis of transportation system needs to 2030 and identified potential revenue sources but did not specify which ones to implement. 6 SANI)A(;, Fina12030 Regional Traeuportation flan, MobiA 2030 (February 2005), Chapter 4, pp. 35 53. INM- Munilnandal November 26. )007 i i San Diego /bsoriatian of Gomm/nerds RICIP Impact Fee Nexus Study SANDAL adopted the Reasonably Expected scenario. Under this scenario the adopted 2005 WIT invests $24.5 billion for projects that expand system capacity. Other improvements totaling $17.5 billion would improve operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road, and transit, and related facilities. The adopted 2005 RTP expenditure plan is sutntnarized in Table 8, below. Table 8: RTP Investment Plan, 2002-2030 ($2002) $ Millions ($2002) Capacity Expansion Investments New Transit Facilities $ 8,500 20% Managed High Occupancy Vehicle Lane Facilities 7,450 18% Highway System Completion/Widening Projects 3,580 9% New Local Streets and Roads 4,430 11 % Regional Significant Arterials 500 1% Subtotal $ 24,460 58% Other Investments' 17,485 42% Total Expenditures $ 41,945 100% Includes projects that improve the operations, maintenance, and rehabilitation of highway, road, and transit, and related facilities. Source: San Diego Association of Governments, Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005), p. 44: MuniFinancial. As shown in Table 8, the adopted 2005 RTP allocates $500 million for investment in the RAS. Under the Revenue Constrained and Unconstrained Revenue scenarios the total allocation is $350 million and $700 million, respectively.' Given the need for a $6.98 billion total investment (fable 7), substantial additional resources are needed. The adopted 2005 RTP indicates that local jurisdictions need to identify matching funds for investment in the RAS because the regional funding provided through the adopted 2005 RTP: ...is intended to be matched with revenues from the local jurisdictions, which are responsible for improving regional roadways and local streets to meet their residents needs and mitigate the effects of local land use developments.8 ' Ibid, 'rabic 4.3, p. 46, Table 4.5, p. 49. 8 Ibid., p. 103. ENltnilinan ial Norember 26. 20H7..' 11, San DDiegoArmnatton of Governments KT(:IP Impact Fee NexruStudy The adopted 2005 RTP further indicates that a regional development impact fee as contemplated by the RTCIP is one of the potential revenues sources for supplementing adopted 2005 RTP resourccs.9 The funding assumptions discussed above arc based on the most recently adopted 2005 RTP because the draft 2007 RTP has not been adopted as of the date of this report. These assumptions are likely to vary in the final adopted 2007 RTP. However, the draft 2007 RTP continues to indicate that funding is needed from the RTCIP to mitigate the impacts of new development on the transportation system. Specific RAS Improvement Projects Table 9 shows the adopted 2005 RTP's initial planned improvements in the RAS. These projects represent a $700 mullion investment under the Unconstrained Revenue scenario, or 136 additional lane miles at the 2002 cost estimate of $5.1 mullion per lane mile. Linder the adopted Reasonably Expected scenario the adopted 2005 RTP allocates $500 million, sufficient to fund 98 additional lane pules in $2002. These projects are candidates for funding with RTCIP contrihutions. Funding these improvements with the RTCIP would enable RTCIP resources to expand improvements in the RAS towards full completion of the system (637 lane miles from 2002 to 2030). COST ALLOCATION AND FEE SCHEDULE The vehicle trip rates described in the Growth Projections section, above, provide a means to allocate a proportionate share of total RAS improvements to each new development project. Trip rates are a reasonable measure of each development project's demand on the regional transportation system. Ncw development's share of total RAS improvements is divided by total trips generated by new development to calculate a cost per trip. The cost per trip multiplied by the trips generated by a development project determines that project's fair share of total RAS improvements. Ncw development could contribute up to $320 per trip as shown in Table 10. This amount is based on the nexus approach taken for this analysis that allocates RAS costs to new residential development based on shares of total travel demand in 2030. This approach is based on allocating to residential development the entire burden of trips associated with commercial development that serves households within the County (see earlier discussion under "Shifting Burden of Conunercial Development to Residential Development"). 9 Ibid., p. 50. EalkiniFinancia{ Norrmher 26. 2007 L San Diega A iodation of Governments RTC7P Impaa Fee Nexus Study Table 9: Regionally Significant Planned Arterial Improvements Arterial Limits Type Jurisdiction Balboa Ave. Bear Mountain Pkwy. Black Mountain Rd. Black Mountain Rd. Cannon Rd. Cannon Rd. Cannon Rd. Citracado Pkwy. Citracado Pkwy. College Ave. College Ave. Deer Springs Rd. Del Dios Hwy. East Valley Pkwy. El Camino Real El Camino Real El Camino Real Friars Rd. Friars Rd. Genesee Ave. Genesee Ave. H Street Harbor Dr. Heritage Rd. Jarnacha Blvd. Kearny Villa Rd. Manchester Ave. Melrose Dr. Melrose Dr. Mission Ave. Oceanside Blvd. Siempre Viva Rd. South Santa Fe Ave. Torrey Pines Rd. Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Via de la Valle Vista Sorrento Pkwy. Vista Way Kearney Vdla Rd. - Ruffin Rd. Canyon Rd. - Valley Pkwy. Mercy Rd. - Mira Mesa Blvd. Emden Rd. - Caramel Valley Rd. Hidden Valley Rd. - Frost Rd. El Camino Real - Mystra Dr. Melrose Dr. - SR 78 1-15 - Scenic Trail Way Avenida Del Diablo - Vineyard Ave. Montezuma Rd. - Alvarado El Camino Real - Carlsbad Village Dr. 1-15 - Twin Oaks Valley Rd. Via Rancho Pkwy. - Valley Pkwy. East Valley Blvd. - Bear Valley Pkwy. Camino Santa Fe - El Camino Real Manchester Ave. - Tamarack Ave. Tamarack Ave. - SR 76 Colusa 5t. - Lia Las Cumbres SR-163 - Frazee Rd. 1-5 - Campus Point Dr. Osier St - Madesta Dr. Bonita Vista High - Otay Lakes Pacific Hwy. - California St. Airway Rd. - Siempre Viva Rd. Omega St. - Pointe Pkwy. SR 52 - Ruffin Rd. 1-5 - Lux Canyon Dr. Spur Ave. - N Santa Fe Ave. Aspen Way - Palomar Airport Rd. Enterprise St. - Centre City Pkwy. Oceanside Blvd. - Rancho Del Oro Heritage Rd. - La Media Rd. Mar Vista Dr. - Bosstick Blvd. Widen N. of Callan St. - S. of Carmel Valley Rd. Widen Craven Rd. - Rancho Santa Fe Rd. Extend Deer Springs Rd. - Craven Rd. Widen Camino Santa Fe - El Camino Real Widen Rose Coral Row- Sorrento Valley Blvd. Extend Emerald Dr. - Melrose Dr. Widen Widen City of San Diego Widen City of Escondido Widen City of San Diego Extend City of San Diego Extend City of Carlsbad Extend City of Carlsbad Extend County of San Diego Extend City of Escondido Extend City of Escondido Widen City of San Diego Extend City of Carlsbad Widen County of San Diego Widen City of Escondido Widen City of Escondido Widen City of San Diego Widen City of Carlsbad Widen City of Oceanside Widen City of San Diego Widen City of San Diego Widen City of San Diego Widen City of San Diego Widen City of Chula Vista Widen City of San Diego Extend City of San Diego Widen County of San Diego Widen City of San Diego Widen City of Encinitas Extend City of Oceanside Extend City of Carlsbad Widen City of Escondido Widen City of Oceanside Widen City of San Diego County of San Diego City of San Diego City of San Marcos City of San Marcos City of San Diego City of San Diego City of Vista Source: San Diego Association of Governments. Final 2030 Regional Transportation Plan, Mobikty 2030 (February 2005), Technical Appendix 9 - Project Cost Estimates, p. 160. siwkin -ina»d \o"emher 2G. 2()0; 1 x San Diego Auoeration of Governments RTCIP Impart Fee Nexus Study Table 10: Residential Cost per Trip (Estimated for $2008) Allocation of Total Costs to Residential Land Uses Total Regional Arterial System Investments ($2008) $ 6,981,238,400 New Residential Development Share of Total Trips 13.0% New Residential Development Share of Total Costs $ 907,561,000 New Residential Vehicle Trips (2002-2030) Single Family Multi -family' 1,443,000 1,394,000 Total New Residential Vehicle Trips 2 837,000 New Residential Development Cost per Trip (Est. $2008) $ 320 Multi -family travel demand factor and demand calculations include mobile fames. Tables 5 and 7; MuniFinancial. The cost per trip of $320 is estimated in 2008 dollars the first year for implementation of the RTCIP. As explained in the "Pacility Costs and Available Funding" section above this estimate is based on actual Caltrans construction cost index data through 2006 and all estimate for 2007. The RTCIP specifies that new development trust. contribute $2,000 per dwelling unit.. A single fee for all dwelling units may not adequately ensure a reasonable relationship between each new development project's proportionate share of total improvements and the amount of the fee. Separate fees by major residential land use category based on trip generation rates would more likely fulfill this statutory requirement.10 To test whether the required RTCIP contribution of $2,000 per unit is justified for different types of units, Table 11 provides a fee schedule by major residential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from Table 10. As explained above in the "Growth Projections" section mobile homes are forecast separately by SANDAG but because of the extremely limited number they have been included in the multi family land use category. The fee ranges from a low of $2,842 for multi -family units to a high of $3,552 for single family units. line average fee per dwelling unit is $3,164. The impact fcc required by the RTCIP of $2,000 per residential unit is therefore well below the amount justified under the Mitigation Fee Act for major residential land use categories. 10 Mitigation Fee At, California Government Code, §66001(1)). OjhiunFinancial .Norember26. 2007 19 San Diego Association al Governments Table 11: RTCIP Impact Fee (Estimated for $2008 RTCIP Impact tee Nexus .Study Land Use Trip Cost Per Demand Trip Factor Fee' nOW Development (dwelling units) Estimated Revenue Single Family $ 320 11.10 $ 3,552 Multi-family3 320 8.88 2,842 Total Estimated Revenue Total New Dwelling Units (2006-2030) Weighted Average RTCIP Impact Fee Per Dwelling Unit (Est. $2008) 130,000 $ 157,000 461,760,000 446,194,000 $ 907,954,000 287,000 3.164 Fee per dwelling unit. 2 Numbers may vary due to rounding. Multi -family travel demand factor and demand calculations include mobile homes. Sources: Tables 1, 3 and 10; MuniFinancial. EXTENSION OF RTCIP TO NONRESIDENTIAL LAND USES The RTCIP specifically exempts all nonresidential development. llowever, one option for increasing contributions from new development for RAS improvements would be to apply the RTCIP to nonresidential development: as well. Table 12 shows new development's total investment in the RAS that could be made under this approach. A fee schedule by major nonresidential land use category based on the calculated RTCIP cost per trip from fable 12 is shown in Table 13. Fees per 1,000 building square feet range from a low of $2,519 for industrial and $2,704 for commercial and to a high of $6,002 for office/services. aiMuniFinarui \member 26. 2007 20 .San Diego A3soliation of Gomrrnments Table 12: Nonresidential Cost per Trip (Estimated for $2008) RI CIP Impact Fee NexnsStudy Office/Services & Industrial Commercial New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Trips Commercial' Office/Services Industrial New Nonresidential Vehicle Trips (2002-2030)' Total Vehicle Trips (2030)' New Nonresidential Development Share NA 756,000 2.253.000 3,009,000 28.323.000 106% Allocation of Total Costs to Nonresidential land Uses Total Regional Arterial System Investments ($2008) $ 6,981,238,400 New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Trips New Nonresidential Development Share of Total Costs $ 740,011.000 Ngw Nonresidential Vghiclg Trips (2002-2030) Commercial' Office/Services Industrial Total Nonresidential Vehicle Trips (2030)' Cost per Trip (Est $2008) NA 756,000 -Z,253000 3.009,000 $ 246 530,000 NA NA 530,000 28,323,000 1.9% $ 6,981,238,400 1.9% $ 132,644,000 1,366,000 NA NA 1 366,000 $ 97 ' For the Nome or determining new coves dal development's tale slue of total cosh, trigs exclude Yoe assocddd with spending by lu:al (San Diego County) resdlents. Comment. trips associated wib, local ,esMmliat spendcg are used to allao,e total costs to residential development (see Table 10) r Includes local and regional rommetcial brim le would be kyradk l to idu,lly en a project-by-proiecl basis Tat p rbon of new romme.cwl development assoc,ated oNy with ren•4,e,d resIda tial spending. Therefore, l,ew ,nnmercial development's fair share of total costs ins albrated across all now commercial ercial 'N,ide tops (see TN* 3) Tulles 5 uJ 7. MuuFi„areul. Table 13: Nonresidential Impact Fee (Estimated for $2008) Land Use Cost Per Trip Trip Demand Factor Feel New Development (ksf) Estimated Revenue Commercial Office/Services Industrial $ 97 246 246 Total Estimated Revenue (Est. $2008) 27.88 $ 2,704 24.40 6,002 10.24 2,519 49,000 31,000 220,000 $ 132,496,000 186,062,000 554,180 000 $ 872,738,000 ' Fee per 1,000 square feet. Sources: Tables 1, 3 and 10: MuniFinancial. Muntinartci;a \'ortmbcr 26, :MO: 21 3. IMPLEMENTATION Local agencies need to adopt a "Funding Program" to implement the RTCIP.1 The'Funding Program must generate the funding per new residential unit required by the RTCIP. 'I7iis chapter provides guidance on use of this nexus study by local agencies to implement a Funding Progratn and comply with the RTCIP. "Local agencies" includes all cities in the County plus the County of San Diego for development in the unincorporated area. The guidance provided in this study is not a substitute for legal advice and all local agencies should consult with their legal counsel regarding compliance with the i%Iitigution Fee Act (Act). Local agencies arc hereby put on notice that the findings and guidance in this study are generalized, and were created for use as a framework to be tailored by each local agency. SANDAG disclaims any responsibility for any liability to users of this study, or any other party, for any hiss or damages, consequential or otherwise, including but not limited to time, money, or goodwill, arising from the use, operation or modification of the information in the study. In using this report, local agencies further agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless SANDAG, its officers and employees, for any and all liability of any nature arising out of or resulting from use of the study. Distribution of this study shall not constitute any warranty by SANDAG. ADOPTION BY LOCAL AGENCIES Adoption Schedule To meet the requirements of the Arland the July 1, 2008 RTCIP deadline, local agencies will need to adopt flue RTCIP impact fee by May 1, 2008. This allows for the sixty-day period required under California Government Code section 60017 of the Act between the date of adoption and the date the fee becomes effective. The same section of the Act includes certain notice and public hearing requirements as well that each local agency must follow. Legal counsel should also advise on timelines, hearings requirements, and all other actions required for fee adoption by the Act. A checklist for the initial adoption of the RTCIP with a schedule of steps required for implementation is included in Appendix C of this study. The checklist is titled, "RTCIP Impact Fee Initial Adoption - Local Agency Implementation Checklist." Ordinance, Resolution, and Nexus Study Local agencies may need to adopt an ordinance and resolution to implement the fee. The ordinance would provide the authority for the agency to impose the RTCIP impact fee. The resolution would specify the fee amount. Setting the fee by resolution avoids having to amend the local agency's municipal code whenever the fee must be adjusted, facilitating annual updates to the fee for cost inflation. 1 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet fixtention Regional Trauporiation Congestion Improvement Program, Scc. A. SjMuniWnandal Norurber A. 2007 2= San Diego Association of (Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Stutly To adopt the initial fee of $2,000 per residential wit the local agency fee resolution may reference this nexus study for documentation of the findings required by the /la. The local agency may reference this nexus st.udy to support adoption of a fce on residential development up to the maximum amounts shown in Tables 11. The adopted fee should be no higher than the levels indicated in the table by land use category. Fee revenues should only be used for the purposes described in this report. For the purposes of this study "single family" includes projects at net development densities of six or fewer units per acre (sec Table 3, footnote 5). "Multi -family" includes projects at net development densities of over six units per acre. To facilitate integration with existing fee schedules, there arc several conditions under which the local agency's fee schedule may vary while still referencing this nexus study for documentation of the findings required under the Act. • 1'he fee schedule shown in Table 11 may be applied to single family and multi- family land use categories that do not vary substantially from the definition of those categories used in this nexus study. For example the "break point" between the definition of single and multi -family may be at a different development density level. • The fee may be applied to different residential land use categories, e.g. condominiums or mobile homes, using the cost per trip calculated in the this nexus study (see "Table 10 for the cost per trip). The trip rate used to calculate the fee should reasonably reflect travel demand generated by new development within the land use category. Local agencies must conduct a separate nexus study if the conditions described above are not met. Applying Fee To Nonresidential Development The local agency may also apply an impact fee to nonresidential development to fund unprovements to the RAS. However, as mentioned above in the Nexus Analysis chapter, expansion of the RTCIP Funding Program to nonresidential developmentis not a requirement of the TransNet ordinance and is not necessary for a local agency to implement the RTCIP. if the agency chooses to apply the fee to nonresidential development and adopts the fee schedule as shown in '"'able 13, above, then the fee resolution can reference this nexus study and the local agency does not have to conduct a separate study. If the local agency adopts a different nonresidential fee schedule then the agency will need to conduct a new nexus study to justify the nonresidential fce. INFLATION ADJUSTMENT The initial RTCIP funding requirement of $2,000 per new dwelling unit will apply upon initial adoptions of the fee in 2008. The TransNet ordinance provides for an annual inflation adjustment to the RTCIP impact fee on July 1 of each year beginning in 2009.2 The inflation 2 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program, Sec. C. EiIVIumFna ciat '\ o?umber 20. 200' 2' San Diego Association of Governments RTCTP Impart Fee Nexws Study adjustment will be two percent or based on the Caltrans highway construction cost index, whichever is higher. SANDAL may choose to use a different cost index. Each local agency will need to adjust their RTCIP impact fee annually. A checklist for the annual update and a five-year update of the RTCIP fees along with a schedule of steps required for implementation is included in Appendix C. 'Ibis checklist is titled, "RTCTP Impact Fee Annual and Five -Year Update - Local Agency Implementation Checklist." COLLECTION AND ADMINISTRATION Each local agency will be responsible for the collection, administration, and expenditure of RTCIP impact fee revenues generated within its jurisdiction. Fee revenues should be placed in a separate fund and administered pursuant to the requirements of the .act. hor example, interest earnings on fund balances need to be credited to the fund. In addition, the Act requires that the local agency provide specific information regarding fee revenues and expenditures annually and every five years in a public report.3 'fhc independent 'Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC), created for the TransNet program, is responsible for reviewing local agency implementation of the RTCIP. Rach local agency roust submit their Funding Program for review by the ITOC by April 1, 2008. The ITOC must review and audit each local agency's program annually. The reporting requirements required by the Act should be sufficient to meet the Tl'OC's needs in this regard. If a local agency does not comply with the RTCIP the agency can lose TransNet sales tax funding for local roads. Local agencies and SANDAG can fund the administrative costs of the RTCIP with a charge added to the RTCIP impact fce. The RTCIP allows up to three percent of program revenues to be used for program administration.4 SANDAG anticipates adding a one percent administrative charge to the RTCIP fee to fund costs related to the ITOC. Local agencies may add up to two percent for their program administration costs. "these charges are similar to any other user fees imposed by local agencies and are not subject to the Act. These charges must be justified based on the actual program administration costs of each agency. Agencies should keep cost records and adjust the administrative charge as appropriate based on actual costs. USE OF REVENUES RTCTP impact fee revenues must be expended on improvements to the RAS in a manner consistent with the expenditure priorities in the most recent adopted RTP. Fee revenues may not be expended on road maintenance. RTCIP impact fee revenues may be used for any capital costs associated with improving the RAS including costs associated with: 3 California Government Code, §§66001(r1) and 66006(b). 4 San Diego Association of Governments, TransNet Extension Regional 1ramportatton Congestion Impartment Program, Sec. D(2). MuniFinanciat November 26. 2007 24 San Diego ilrrooiatron of Governments RTCIP Impact Pee Nexus Sts4. • Arterial wideuings, extensions, and turning lanes; • Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; • Reconfigured freeway -arterial interchanges; • Railroad grade separations; and • Expanded regional express bus service. Costs funded by the RTCiP impact fee may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. The RTC1P requires that each local agency expend revenues within seven years of receipt or have an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period.5 The Act has a similar requirement with a five years limitation unless there is an expenditure plan that justifies keeping revenues for a longer period. EXEMPTIONS llie R"1'CIP program exempts the following residential development from the impact fee:6 • New moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income residential units as defined in Health & Safety Code sections 50079.5, 50093, 50105, 50106, and by reference in Government Code section 65585.1; • Government/public buildings, public schools and public facilities; • Rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing residential unit; • Development projects subject to development agreements prior the effective date of the TransNet ordinance (May 28, 2004) that expressly prohibit the imposition of new impact fees, however if the terms of the development agreement are extended beyond July 1, 2008, the requirements of the RTCiP shall apply; • Guest dwellings; • Additional residential units located on the same parcel regulated by the provisions of any agricultural zoning; • Kennels and catterics established in conjunction with an existing residential unit; • 'llte sanctuary building of a church, rnosque, synagogue, or other house of worship eligible for property tax exemption; • Residential units that have been issued a building permit prior to July 1, 2008; and • Condominium conversions. 5 Ibid., Scc. G(4). 611M, Sec. E. (SMunifiinanciial 4. MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS Development impact fees are one-time fees typically paid when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties). To guide the widespread imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mitigation Fee Act (Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 19R7 and subsequent amendments. The Act, contained in Cal fornia Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs. The Act requires local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee. Sample text that tnav be used for the five statutory findings required for adoption of the RTCIP impact fee are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the Nexus Analysis chapter of this report. All statutory references below are to the Act. This sample framework for the mitigation fee act findings is only to provide local agencies with guidance and is not a substitute for legal advice. Local agencies should customize the findings for their jurisdiction and consult with their legal counsel prior to adoption of the RTCIP nnpact fee. PURPOSE OF FEE For the first finding the local agency trust: Identify the purpose of the fee. (666001(a)(1)) SANDAG policy as expressed through the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (Commission Ordinance 04-01) is that new development shall contribute towards the Regional Arterial System (RAS) through the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (RTCIP). The purpose of the RTCIP impact fee is to implement this policy. The fee advances a legitimate public interest by enabling SANDAG to fiind improvements to transportation infrastructure required to accommodate new development. USE OF FEE REVENUES For the second finding the local agency must: Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities shall be identified. That identification may, but need not, he made by reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be trade in other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. (566001(a) (2)) The RTCIP impact fee will fund expanded facilities ou the Regional Arterial System (RAS) to serve new development. These facilities include: • Roadway widening; • Roadway extension; • Traffic signal coordination and other traffic improvements; MunF'xwrcial :\ oiw ' ber 26. 200,' 26 San Diego Association of Government. R'I?JIP Impart Fee Nexur Study • Freeway interchanges and related freeway improvements; • Railroad grade separations; and • Improvements required for regional express bus and rail transit. Costs for planned traffic facilities are preliminarily identified in this report. Costs funded by the RTCIP impact fee may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. More detailed descriptions of planned facilities, including their specific location, if known at this time, are shown in the SANDAG's Regional "Transportation Plan and other documents. Local agencies implementing the RTCIP may change the list of planned improvements to meet changing circumstances and needs, as they deem necessary. Fee revenues will be used for the sole purpose of expanding capacity on the RAS to accommodate new development. The RTCIP impact fee 'will not be used for the purpose of correcting existing deficiencies in the roadway system. BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP For the third finding the Local agency trust: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fec's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (566001(a)(3)) The local agency will restrict fee revenues to capital projects that expand capacity on the RAS to serve new development. Improvements funded by the RTCIP impact fee will expand a region -wide arterial system accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. SANDAG has determined that the planned projects identified in this report will expand the capacity of the Regional Arterial System to accommodate the increased trips generated by new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship benvecn due use of fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of new development that will pay the fee. BURDEN RELATIONSHIP For the fourth finding the local agency must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. (c66001 (a)(4)) New dwelling units and building square footage are indicators of the demand for transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units and building square footage are created, the occupants of these structures generate additional vehicle trips and place additional burdens on the transportation system. The need for the RTCIP impact fee is based on SANDAL: transportation model projections of growth that show an increase in vehicle hours of delay on the RAS primarily as a result of new development even with planned improvements to that system. The model estimated impacts from new development based on trip generation rates that varied by land use category, providing a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the need for improvements. ISPfiuniTinanciai ,\orrerber 26. 00 7 " San Diego , is;oriation of Corxrnmenl r RTCP Impart Fee Nevi Surdy PROPORTIONALITY For the fifth finding the SANDAG must: Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fcc and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is unposed. (§66001(b)) This reasonable relationship between the RTCIP impact fee for a specific development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trips the project will add to the Regional Arterial System. The total fee for a specific residential development is based on the number and type of new dwelling units multiplied the trip generation rate for the applicable residential land use category. The fee for a specific nonresidential development is based in a similar manner on the amount of building square footage by land use category. Larger projects generate more vehicle trips and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use category. Thus, the fee schedule ensures a reasonable relationship between the RTCIP impact fee for a specific development project and the cost of the Regional Arterial System improvements facilities attributable to the project. 21MwnFinancial ;\o,ember 26.. 2007 28 APPENDIX A: REGIONAL ARTERIAL SYSTEM 'fable A.1 lists the arterials included in the Regional Arterial System by the Ke,giona! Transportation Plnn adopted in 2005. Table A.1: Regional Arterial System Arterial Limits 1st St ASt-KSt. 2nd St Greenfield Dr - Main St 30th St 32nd St National City Blvd - 2nd St Harbor Dr - Norman Scott Rd 54th St El Cajon Blvd - SR94 70th St University Ave - 1-8 Ardath Rd Avocado Ave Hidden Valley Rd -1-5 Main St - Chase Ave Avocado Blvd Balboa Ave Ballantyne St Chase Ave - SR94 Mission Bay Dr -1-15 Broadway - Main St Barham Dr La Moree Rd - Mission Rd Barnett Ave Bay Marina Way (24th St) Bear Valley Pkwy Bemardo Center Dr Beyer Blvd Black Mountain Rd Bobier Dr Bonita Rd Borden Rd Borrego Springs Rd/Yaqui Pass Rd (S-3) Bradley Ave Broadway (El Cajon) Broadway (Lemon Grove) Broadway (San Diego) Broadway (Vista) Buckman Springs Rd/Hwy 80/Sunrise Hwy (S-1) Buena Creek Rd Cabrillo Dr (SR209) Camino del Norte Camino Del Rio North Saint Charles St - Pacific Highway 1-5 - Terminal Ave East Valley Pkwy - Sunset Dr Camino Del Norte -1-15 Main St -Dairy Mart Road Del Mar Heights - Pomerado Rd Melrose Dr - E Vista Way E St - San Miguel Rd Las Posas Rd — Woodland Pkwy Palm Canyon Dr (S-22)- SR78 Marshall Ave - 2nd St SR67 - E. Main St. Spring St - College Ave C St - Main St Lincoln Pkwy/SR78 - Washington Ave SR94 - SR79 Las Posas Rd - Twin Oaks Valley Rd Cochran St - Cabrillo Monument Camino Ruiz - Pomerado Rd Camino Ruiz Camino Santa Fe Ave Mission Center Rd - Mission Gorge Rd Camino del Norte - SR56 Cannon Rd Cannon Road Sorrento Valley Blvd - Miramar Rd Carlsbad Blvd — Melrose Dr Melrose Drive - SR 78 Canon St Carlsbad Blvd EStYamFinanciat Rosecrans St - Jennings St Eaton St - La Costa Ave :\owmber 26. 2007 A- r San Dieso,4uociation of Governments RTQP Impart Nee Nexus Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits Carlsbad Village Dr 1-5 - Coast Blvd/Coast Hwy Carmel Mountain Rd Sorrento Valley Rd - El Camino Real Carmel Valley Rd North Torrey Pines Rd - El Camino Real Centre City Pkwy I-15(N) - I-15(S) Citracado Pkwy Centre City Pkwy - SR78 Clairemont Mesa Blvd 1-15 - Moraga Ave Coast Hwy (S-21) La Costa Ave - Via de la Valle College Ave Federal Blvd - Waring Rd College Blvd North River Rd - Palomar Airport Rd Community Rd Convoy St Crosby St Cuyamaca St Twin Peaks Rd - Scripps Poway Pkwy Linda Vista Rd - SR 52 1-5 - Harbor Dr Mission Gorge Rd - Marshall Ave Dairy Mart Rd SR-905 -1-5 __Deer Springs Rd Twin Oaks Valley Rd -1-15 Dehesa Road Jamacha Rd - Harbison Canyon Rd Dehesa Road` Harbison Canyon Rd — Sycuan Rd Del Dios Hwy Via Rancho Pkwy - Claudan Rd Del Mar Heights Rd (SA 710) 1-5 - Camino Del Norte Discovery St San Marcos Blvd - La Moree Rd Douglas Dr SR76 (Mission Ave) - North River Rd E St 1-5 - E Bonita Rd East H St Hilltop Dr - Mount Miguel Rd East Main St Broadway - Greenfield Dr East Valley Pkwy Lake Wohlford Rd - East Valley Pkwy East Via Rancho Pkwy Broadway - Bear Valley Pkwy East Vista Way Vista Village Dr - SR76 El Cajon Blvd Park Blvd - 1-8 El Cajon Blvd Chase Ave - Washington Ave El Camino Real Via de la Valle - Carmel Valley Rd/SR56 El Camino Real SR 56 - Carmel Mountain Rd El Camino Real (S-11) Douglas Dr - Manchester Ave El Norte Pk wy _. Woodland Pkwy -Washington Ave Encinitas Blvd First St - El Canino Real Espola Rd Summerfield Ln - Poway Rd Euclid Ave SR94 - Sweetwater Rd Fairmount Ave Faraday Ave Federal Blvd Fletcher Pkwy Friars Rd Garnet Ave Genesee Ave Gilman Dr Grand Ave ZMuniFvurcai 1-8 - El Cajon Blvd Melrose Dr - College Blvd College Ave - SR94 1-8 - SR-67 Sea World Dr - Mission Gorge Rd Balboa - Mission Bay Dr N. Torrey Pines Rd - SR163 La Jolla Village Dr -1-5 Mission Blvd to Mission Bay Dr :\ orember 26. 2007 San Diego Association o(Gooernmenb 101.1P lnrq)act tree Nexus.SSudy Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits Grape St Greenfield Dr Grossmont Center Dr H St Harbor Dr North Harbor Dr - 1-5 E Main St -1-8 1-8 - Fletcher Pkwy 1-5 - Hilltop Dr Pacific Hwy -1-5 (National City) Hawthom St Heritage Rd Hill St Hunte Pkwy Imperial Ave Jackson Dr Jamacha Blvd Jamacha Rd Kearny Villa Rd Kettner Blvd L St 1-5 - North Harbor Dr Otay Mesa Rd - Siempre Viva Rd 1-5 (Oceanside) - Eaton St Proctor Valley Rd - SR 125 Valencia Pkwy - Lisbon St Mission Gorge Rd -1-8 Sweetwater Pkwy - SR94 Main St - SR94 Pomerado Rd - Waxie Way 1-5 - India St La Costa Ave La Jolla Village Dr La Media Rd La Mesa Blvd Lake Jennings Rd Lake Murray Lake Wohlford Rd Las Posas Rd Laurel St Lemon Grove Ave 1-5 -1-805 Carlsbad Blvd - El Camino Real North Torrey Pines Rd -1-805 Telegraph Canyon Rd - SR905 University Ave - 1-8 Mapleview St -1-8 1 -8 - Navajo Rd Valley Ctr Road (N) - Valley Ctr Rd (S) Discovery St - Buena Creek Rd North Harbor Dr - 1-5 Leucadia Blvd Linda Vista Rd Lomas Santa Fe Ave Lisbon St - SR94 1st St - El Camino Real Morena Blvd - Convoy St Lytton St Main St 1-5 - Coast Hwy Rosecrans St - Saint Charles St Manchester Ave Mapleview St Mar Vista Dr Market St Marshall Ave Marshall Ave Marshall Ave Massachusetts Ave Massachusetts Ave Melrose Dr 1-5 - Hilltop Dr El Camino Real -1-5 SR67 - Lake Jennings Rd Buena Vista Dr - SR78 Harbor Dr - Valencia Pkwy Fletcher Pkwy - West Main St Cuyamaca - Fletcher Pkwy Main St - Washington Ave Broadway - University Ave Lemon Grove Ave - Broadway Ave SR76 - Rancho Santa Fe Rd Mira Mesa Blvd Miramar Rd 1-805 -1-15 Mission Ave Mission Ave Mission Ave 1-805 to 1-15 Andreason Dr - Center City Pkwy Escondido Blvd - Broadway Ave �jNMw�ifir-�rial Coast Hwy - Frazee Rd :\ nrenther 26. 200; .1-3 .Van Diego Association o, f C; t , menu Impact Fee Nexus .Study Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits Mission Bay Dr Mission Gorge Rd Mission Rd Mission Road (S-13; incl. Main St in Fallbrook) Montezuma Rd Montezuma Valley Rd/Palm Canyon Dr (S-22) Morena Blvd Grand Ave to 1-5 1-8 - Magnolia Ave Rancho Santa Fe Rd - Andreason Dr 1-15 - SR76 Fairmount Ave - El Cajon Blvd SR79 - Imperial Co Line Balboa Ave - 1-8 National City Blvd Navajo Rd Nimitz Blvd I-5 - C St Waring Rd - Fletcher Pkwy 1-8 - Harbor Dr Nobel Dr Nordahl Rd 1-5 -1-805 SR78- Nordahl Rd North Harbor Dr North River Rd North Santa Fe Ave Rosecrans St - Grape St Douglas Dr - SR76IMission Rd) SR76 - Melrose Dr North Torrey Pines Rd (S-21) Ocean View Hills Pkwy Oceanside Blvd Carmel Valley Rd - La Jolla Village Dr 1-805 - SR905 Hill St - Melrose Dr Old Highway 80 Old Highway 80 Olivehain Rd Olympic Pkwy Orange Ave Otay Lakes Rd Otay Mesa Rd SR79 - Sunrise Hwy Buckman Springs Rd -1-8 (In-ko-pah) El Camino Real - Rancho Santa Fe Rd Brandywine Ave - SR125 Palomar St - Brandywine Ave Bonita Rd - SR 94 SR905 - SR125 Otay Valley Rd Pacific Highway Palm Ave Palomar Airport Rd Palomar St Paradise Valley Rd Paseo Ranchero Plaza Blvd Poinsettia Lane Pomerado Rd Hilltop Dr - Heritage Rd Sea World Dr - Harbor Dr 1-5 -1-805 Carlsbad Blvd - Business Park Dr 1-5 - Orange Ave 8th Street - Sweetwater Pkwy East H St - Ott Mesa Rd National City Blvd - 8th St Carlsbad Blvd - Melrose Dr 1-15 (N) -1-15 (S) Poway Rd Proctor Valley Rd Questhaven Rd Rancho Bemardo Rd Rancho Del Oro Dr 1-15 - SR67 Mount Miguel Rd - Hunte Pkwy Twin Oaks Valley Rd - Rancho Santa Fe Rd _ _ 1-15 - Summerfield Ln SR78-SR76 Rancho Penasquitos Blvd Rancho Santa Fe Rd Regents Rd Rosecrans St SR56 - 1-15 Mission Rd - Olivenhain Rd Moraga Ave - Genesee Ave 1-8 - Canon St Ruffin Rd San Felipe Rd/Great S. Overland Route (S-2) Waxie Way - Balboa Ave S-22 - Imperial Co Line Noremicr 26. 2007 A-1 San IJieso Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Shrdy Table A.1: Regional Arterial System (continued) Arterial Limits San Marcos Blvd Business Park Dr - Mission Rd Scripps Poway Pkwy Sea World Dr Siempre Viva Rd Sorrento Valley Blvd Sorrento Valley Rd South Santa Fe Ave Sports Arena Blvd 1-15 -SR67 W Mission Bay Dr - Morena Blvd Heritage Rd - SR905 Sorrento Valley Rd - Camino Santa Fe Ave Carmel Mountain Rd -1-805 Broadway (Vista) - Pacific St Sea World Dr - Rosecrans St/SR209 Spring St 1-8 - SR125 SR75 Sunrise Highway No limits SR79 - 1-8 Sunset Cliffs Blvd _ 1-8 - W Mission Bay Dr Sweetwater Rd 2nd St - Willow St Sweetwater Rd 2nd St to Willow St Sweetwater Road Broadway Ave - Troy St Sycamore Avenue Ted Williams Pkwy Telegraph Canyon Rd Torrey Pines Rd South Santa Fe Avenue — S. Melrose Dr 1-15- Twin Peaks Rd 1-805 - Otay Lakes Rd Prospect PI - La Jolla Village Dr Twin Oaks Valley Rd Deer Springs Rd - Questhaven Rd Twin Peaks Rd Pomerado Rd - Espola Rd Twin Peaks Rd University Ave Valencia Pkwy Valley Center Rd Ted Williams Pkwy - Espola Rd 54th St - La Mesa Blvd Market - Imperial Ave SR76 - Lake Wohlford Rd Vandegrift Blvd Via de la Valle Via Rancho Pkwy Via Rancho Pkwy North River Rd - Camp Pendleton Hwy 101 (S-21) - El Camino Real 1-15 - Del Dios Hwy Sunset Dr -1-15 Vista Sorrento Pkwy Sorrento Valley Blvd - Carmel Mtn Rd Wabash Blvd Norman Scott Rd - 1-5 Washington Ave Washington Ave Washington St West Main St El Norte Pkwy - Center Valley Pkwy El Cajon Blvd - Jamacha Rd Pacific Hwy - Park Blvd 1-8 - Marshall Ave West Valley Pkwy _...._ Claudan Rd - Broadway West Vista Way Jefferson St/SR78 - Vista Village Dr Wildcat Canyon Rd' Willow St Mapleview Street - San Vicente Rd Sweetwater Rd - Bonita Rd Willow St Sweetwater - Bonita Rd Willows Road Winter Gardens Blvd Woodland Dr Woodside Ave 1-8 - Viejas Casino SR67 - Greenfield Dr Barham Dr - El Norte Pkwy Magnolia Ave - SR67 • Inclusion in Regional Arterial System contingent upon designation as a four -lane arterial by the County of San Diego. EaMuniFat Norrmber 26. 2007 APPENDIX B: RETAIL SPENDING AND SALES ANALYSIS This appendix presents the analysis conducted to estimate the amount of commercial development within San Diego County that is associated with spending by local (San Diego County) households. The following steps summarize the approach taken for the analysis and arc explained in more detail below. 1. Estimate total potential spending by local households based on estimates of per household spending by retail category; 2. Compare total local household spending potential with total retail sales to estimate by retail category: a. Leakage of spending by local households to retail establishments outside the County, b. Capture of sales from visitors outside the County by local retail establishments; 3. Calculate the share of retail sales associated with local household spending; and 4. Validate the estimate of total local household spending by analyzing visitor industry data. All data is from 2004 because this was the last complete year of retail sales data available from the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) at the time of this report. TOTAL HOUSEHOLD SPENDING Total spending by San Diego households is estimated by adjusting per household spending based on statewide data for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. As an initial step in the analysis, statewide taxable retail sales by category were compared with San Diego County sales to determine if any anomalies existed in San Diego sales patterns that should be accommodated in the model. As shown in Table B.1, San Diego has about $44 billion in taxable retail sales in 2004 compared to statewide sales of $500 billion. Sales patterns in the County are very similar to the statewide sales though the County has slightly more spending in retail stores compared to non -retail stores. The retail store categories that exhibit higher levels of spending compared to the state as a whole (apparel, general merchandise, specialty, and food and beverage) are associated with visitor spending, indicative of San Diego's strong tourism industry. We also conjecture that the higher levels of spending in t.hc building material category are associated with spending by Mexican visitors, though we could not find specific data to support this hypothesis. 116wtsoa;,tanan Norember 26. 2007 H-1 San Diego Artoriatinn of Governments RT(1P Impau t'ee Nexws Study Table B.1 - Taxable Retail Sales (2004) Taxable Retag Sales 2004 ($000st Percent of Category San San Diego Diego Calif- DiH- Retai Category County California County omia erence Apparel Stores Women's Apparel 420,000 4,617,000 0.9% 0,9% 0.0% Men's Apparel 107,000 1,034,000 0.2% 0.2% 0.0% Family Apparel 907,000 8,819,000 2.0% 1.8% 0.3% Shoes 210,000 2.487.000 0.5°/2 0.5% (0 0%1 Subtotal 1,644,000 16,957,000 3.7% 3.4% 0.3% General Merchandise General Merchandise 4,721,000 47,948,000 10.6% 9.6% 1.0% Drug Store 484,000 5,992,000 1.1% 1.2% (_0.1%) Subtotal 5,205,000 53,940,000 11.7% 10.8% 0.9% Speciaffv Gift, AA Goods. Novelty 167,000 1,858,000 0.4% 0.4% 0.0% Sporting Goods 353,000 3,652,000 0.8% 0.7% 0.1% Fbrists 122,000 1,0/8,000 0.3% 0.2% 0.1% Photo Equip.. and Supplies 37,000 523,000 0.1% 0.1% (0 0%) Muslcal Instruments 121,000 1,516,000 0.3% 0.3% (0.0%) Stationery and Books 356,000 4.018,000 0.8% 0.8% (0.0%) Jewelry 258.000 2,638.000 0.6% 0.5% 0.1% Office and School Supply 1,411,000 15,661,000 3.2% 3.1% 0.0% Other Specialties 1,716,000 18,018.000 3.9% 3.6% 0.3% Subtotal 4,541.000 48,962,000 10.2% 9.8% 0.4% Grocery Grocery - All Type Lq. 1,005,000 12,550,000 2.3°% 2.5% (0.2%) Grocery - All Other 732,000 7,276,000 1.6% 115% 0.2% Subtotal 1.737,000 19,826,000 3.9% 4.0% (0.1%) Food and Beverage Restaurant - No Alcohol 1,890,000 19,960,000 4.3% 4.0% 0.3% Restaurant - Bar Beer -Wine 795,000 10,792,000 1.8% 2.2% (0.4%) Restaurant - Bar -All Type Lq. 1,363,000 12,523.000 3.1% 2.5% 0.6% Subtotal 4,048,000 43.275.000 9.1% 8.7% 0.4% Household Home Furnishings 1,162,000 11,991,000 2.6% 2.4% 0.2% HousehoM Appliarw7:s 387,000 4 414 000 H.72 0.9% (0.0°) Subtotal 1,549,000 16,405,000 3.5% 3.3% 0.2% Building Material Building Material 2,649,000 25,603,000 6.0% 5.1% 0.8% Hardware Stores 231,000 3,392,000 0.5% 0.7% (0.2%) Plumbing and Elec. Supply 414,000 4,086,000 0.9% 0.8% 0.1% Paint. Glass. Wallpaper 47,000 1.074.000 0.1% QI}q (0.1%) Subtotal 3,341.000 34,155,000 7.5% 6.8% 0.7% Autoeiolive Auto Dealers - New 5,541,000 59,683,000 12.5% 11.9% 0.5% Au' Dealers - Used 551,000 5,752,000 1.2% 1.2% 0.1% Auto Supplies and Parts 421,000 5,334,000 0.9% 1.1% (0.1%) Service Stations 2,805,000 32 760,000 6.3% 6.6% (0.2%1 Subtotal 9,318,000 103,529,000 21.0% 20.7% 0.3% Other Retail Stor0 Liquor Stores 186,000 2,350,000 0.4% 0.5% (0.1%) Second-hand Merch. 66,000 534,000 0.1% 0.1% 0.0% farm Imp'. Dealers 177,000 2,976,000 0.4% 0.6% (0.2%) Farm and Garden Supply 95,000 2,386,000 0.2% 0.5% (0.3%) Fuel and Ice Dealers 9,000 321,000 0.0% 0.1% (0.0%) Mobile Home and Camper 108,000 1,453,000 0.2% 0.3% (0.0%) Boat, Motorcycle. Plane 321,000 3.104,000 0 7% 0,6°% Q.1% Subtotal 962,000 13,124,000 2.2% 2.6% (0.5%) Subtotal Retail Stores 32,345,000 350,173,000 72.7% 70.0% 2. 7% Non -Retail Store Business and Personal Services 2,147,000 22,307,000 4.8% 4.5% 0.4% All Other Outlets 9,978,000 127,597,000 22.4Ya 25 5% (3.1%) Subtotal 12,125,000 149,904,000 27.3% 30.0% (2.7%) Total 44,470,000 500,077,000 Source. Taxed* Sales In CaMoma (Sales a Usa Tar) Luny 2004, Cal,loma State eoaltl ol Ldualeaban. Mu n u1ancial ,\'oremt'cr 26. 1007 b'• _' San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fie Nexus .Study To separate out household from business spending, all household spending is assumed to occur in retail stores and all business -to -business spending is assumed to occur in non•retail stores. As shown in Table B.1, non -retail stores include "Business and Personal Services" and "All Other Outlets". Both categories are largely composed of retail establishments that sell primarily to businesses. The "All Other Outlets" category primarily includes manufacturing, warehousing and other establishments that sell primarily to businesses. There is some overlap in the source of spending (household versus business) across all retail (store and non -store) categories but this overlap is assumed to be largely offsetting between total retail store and total non -store spending. This approach is commonly used in retail spending and sales analysis to separate household from business spending. Per household spending estitnat.cs were generated based on statewide data for retail stores adjusted for the difference in median household income between the State and the County. San Diego's median income is about one percent less than the State's median income resulting in a commensurate adjustment to state per household spending patterns by retail store category. San Diego per household spending is multiplied by the number of households in San Diego to estimate total spending for 2004. As shown in Table B.2 this approach results in a total spending potential for San Diego households of $30 billion. Table B.2 - Household Taxable Retail Spending Potential (2004) Major Business Group Households Median Household Income Total Spending Per Household Spending California Householdes ($000s) State Household Spending and Sales Apparel Stores $ 16,957,000 General Merchandise 53,940,000 Specialty 48,962,000 Grocery 19,826,000 Food and Beverage 43,275,000 Household 16,405,000 Building Material 34,155,000 Automotive 103,529,000 Other Retail Stores 13,124,000 Total - Consumer $ 350,173,000 San Diego County 12,015,591 1,043,221 $ 47,493 $ 47,067 Per Household Spending $ 1,411 $ 1,399 4,489 4,075 1,650 3,602 1,365 2,843 8,616 1.092 4,449 4,038 1,635 3,569 1,353 2,817 8,539 1.082 $ 29,143 $ 28,882 Total Spending San Diego Households ($000s) $ 1,459,000 4,641,000 4,213,000 1,706,000 3,724,000 1,412,000 2,939,000 8,908,000 1 129,000 $ 30,131,000 Source: U.S. Census, Table P53; California Department of Finance, Rerpot E-5; Table A.1; MuniFinancial. �MuniFinaneial November 26. 2007 13-3 San Diego Auaciation of Governments 1{7 Z%P lm'p of Fee Nexus Study CAPTURE AND LEAKAGE Capture and leakage arc common concepts used in. retail analysis. Not all local household spending occurs in San Diego County; some spending leaks out to other areas when residents travel or are otherwise attracted to retail opportunities outside the County. Furthermore, not all retail store sales in San Diego County are generated by local households; some arc captured by stores from customers visiting the County from other locations including Mexico. Given San Diego's attractiveness as a tourist destination and its proximity to the Mexican border, one would expect that a significant share of total retail store sales would represent capture of visitor spending. Given this regional economic context, we estimated leakage rates by major store category to calculate net local household spending in San Diego County by category_ We then compared this estimate of spending with actual sales by store category and calculated the amount of outside capture that the category would need to force local household spending to equal local sales. This analysis is shown in Table B.3. The model resulted in a leakage estimate of eight percent of household spending, and capture estimate of 14 percent of retail store sales. The differences between the estimates of local spending and sales by category shown in the middle columns are due to rounding. Table B.3 - San Diego County Local Household Taxable Retail Spending & Sales (2004) C=Ax(1-8) 0=CiE E•Gx(1-F) F-1-(C/G) Potential Spending Local SpendinalSales Reconciliation Actual Sales San Diego Based on San Diego Households Spending DIN- Based on Outside County Sales Major Business Group ($000s) Leakage ($000s) erencel Sates ($000s) Capture ($000s) A B G Apparel Stores $ 1,459,000 15% $ 1,240,000 1% $ 1.233,000 25% $ 1,644,000 General Merchandise 4,641,000 15% 3,945,000 (0%) 3,956,000 24% 5,205,000 Specialty 4,213,000 15% 3,581,000 (0%) 3,587,000 21% 4,541,000 Grocery 1.706,000 0% 1,706.000 0% 1,702,000 2% 1,737,006 Food and Beverage 3,724,000 15% 3,165,000 0% 3,157,000 22% 4.048,000 Household 1,412,000 0% 1,412.000 0% 1,410,000 9% 1,549,000 Building Material 2,939,000 0% 2,939,000 (0%) 2,940,000 12% 3,341,000 Automotive 8,908,000 0% 8,908,000 (0%) 8.945,000 4% 9,318.000 Other Retail Stores 1,129.000 15°/ 960 000 j,Q"(Bj 962,000 Qt¢ 962,000 Total $ 30.131.000 8% $ 27,856,000 (0%) $ 27,892,000 14% $ 32.345,000 Leakage/Capture Total $ 2,275,000 $ 4,453.000 Utterance not equal 10 zero We to rounding Snorer, Tables A 1 oral A 2, MuniFirarxi;ul. The leakage rates in Table B.3 that determine the local spending amounts and outside capture rates were estimated based on (1) survey data of visitor spending in San Diego estimating spending by retail category, and (2) an assumptions that comparison goods such as apparel and general merchandise are likely to have higher leakage rates compared to convenience goods such as groceries. Local households are most likely to spend on comparison goods and travel related activities outside the County in the "apparel stores", "general merchandise", "specialty", and "food and beverage" categories. For these categories a leakage rate of 15 percent was estimated. For all other categories all household spending was assumed to remain local (zero leakage). The "other retail store" was a special case in that ffiMwaFinancial o,Y:!:Gtr 26. 2007 B-r San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Study it was the only category where potential local spending was greater than total sales. For this category we assumed a 15 percent leakage rate to generate a zero percent capture rate. LOCAL SPENDING SHARE OF TOTAL SALES The share of total retail sales in the County associated with spending by local residential development can be calculated from the results of Tables B.1 and B.3. As shown in Table B.4, an estimated 62.6 percent of total retail spending (store and non -store) is associated with spending by residential development (households) located in San Diego County. Table B.4: Allocation of Taxable Retail Spending in San Diego County (2004) Taxable Retail Sales (S000s) Share Total Taxable Retail Spending Local Residential Taxable Spending Local Business and Visitor Taxable Spending $ 44,470,000 100.0% 27,856,000 62.6% 16,614,000 37.4% Sources. Tables B.1, and B.3; MuniFinandal. VISITOR INDUSTRY SPENDING Visitor industry spending was analyzed to validate the estimate of retail spending associated with local households. Data regarding spending by overnight visitors from the San Diego Conventions and Visitor Bureau (SDCVB) was supplemented with research on cross -border spending by residents of Mexico (primarily day visitors) to construct a comprehensive model of visitor spending. As shown in Table B.5, visitors spent alx>ut $8.249 billion in San Diego County in 2004. Of the amount about $3.901 billion was associated with hotel accommodations, food, drugs, services, and other non -retail taxable items. 'Taxable retail spending equaled the remaining $4.348 billion split between two categories, "restaurants and dining" and "shopping". This estimate of taxable retail spending is nearly equal to the estimated $4.489 billion in capture shown at the bottom of 'Table B.3, suggesting that the model's estimates of local household spending based on the SBOE data and estimated leakage rates are reasonable. laMuniFnandal Norembe 26. 200.7 B-3 San Diego Association of Governments RTCIP Impart Fee Nexus Study Table B.5: Visitor Industry Retail Spending (2004) Total Visitor Spending Percent Amount Non-taxable Taxable Retail Retail Sales Sales Visitor Spending (Non -Mexican Visitors - see Note) Lodging 24% $ 1,324,000 $ 1,324,000 $ Restaurants & Diningl 33% 1,821,000 273,000 1,548,000 Attractions & Entertainment 10% 552,000 552,000 Shopping 23% 1,269,000 - 1,269,000 Other 10% 552,000 552.000 Subtotal 100% $ 5,518,000 2,701,000 $ 2,817,000 Visitor Spending (Mexican Visitors - see Note) Lodging2 [Incl. in "Other"] Restaurants & Dining''3 5% 137,000 Attractions & Entertainment2 [Ind. in "Other"] Shopping4 52% 1,420,000 Others 4,°/s 1,174.000 Subtotal 100% $ 2,731,000 Total Taxable Retail Visitor Spending Lodging Restaurants & Dining Attractions & Entertainment Shopping Other (primarity groceries) Total NA NA 21,000 116,000 NA NA 1,420,000 1,174,000 $ 1,195,000 $ 1,536,000 NA $ 1,664,000 NA 2,689,000 $ 4,353,000 Note: Non -Mexican visitor spending data based on San Diego Conventions & Visitor Bureau (SDCVB) estimates. Shares by category based on a 2002 visitor survey. The survey focused on overnight visitors and therefore excluded most spending by visitors from Mexico because a large majority of visits are day trips. This study assumes that the SDCVB estimates exclude all Mexican visitor spending. Mexican visitor spending is based on the Ghaddar and Brown study. 'Non-taxable retail sales represent tips for service estimated by SDCVB. Same percentage applied to estimate of visitor spending from Mexico. The Ghaddar and Brown study did not separate out this category in estimates of spending. 3Ghaddar and Brown study did not separate out this category for California estimates. Share of spending estimated at one-half of share estimated for Texas and Arizona Mexican visitors based on a higher percentage of day trips in California Slrare deducted from food and groceries category. Includes the clothing (46 percent) and appliances and furniture (six percent) from Ghaddar and Brown study. Includes groceries (32 percent) personal hygiene (five percent) and other (six percent) from Ghaddar and Brown study. Sources: San Diego Conventions & Visitor Bureau. San Diego County Visitor Industry Summary (2004), San Diego Conventions & Visitors Bureau, email horn Susan Bruinzeel, June 11, 2006; Ghaddar, Suad and Cynthia J. Brown, The Economic Impact of Mexican Visitors Along the U.S_-Mexico Border: A Research Synthesis, Center for Border Economic Studies, University of Texas - Pan American, December 2005, Table 4, Figures 1,2, and 3; MuniFinancial. The only significant discrepancy heomeen fire Visitor spending estimates based on SDCV13 and Mexican visitor survey data, and the outside capture estimates based on the SBOF data, is in the food and beverage category. The visitor spending data for restaurants and dining, substantially the same category as the SBOF. food and beverage category, resulted in an /r Mun nancial \'onwntier26. 200' 13 r; San Diego 4srnciation o f Comrnments RTCIP Impart Fee .Nexur .Sturly estimate of $1,664 mullion in taxable spending (see Table B.5). The SBOE model resulted in an outside capture estimate of $883 million (see the difference between total Sales and the local spending estimate for this category in Table B.3). The visitor spending estimate of $1,664 million would represent a significant share, about 41 percent, of total sales in the SBOF food and beverage category. Consequently, we suspect that the visitor survey data probably overestimates spending in this category. Rather than reduce estimates of total capture, the approach taken for this study assumes that the visitor survey data underestimates taxable retail spending by an equal amount across all other categories. Therefore the estimate of total retail sales associated with local household spending remains a reasonable estimate for the purposes of this analysis (shifting the burden of commercial traffic associated with local household spending to residential land uses). NrMYkrtiFinancial Narrmber16. 2007 APPENDIX C: LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLISTS This appendix presents the steps that local agencies are required to take when adopting and updating a funding program to implement the RTCIP. The first checklist describes steps for initial adoption of the RTCIP impact fee and the second checklist shows steps for the required annual and five-year updates. These checklists follow a timeline that meets the requirements established by the California Government Code section 60017 and the '1'ransNet Ordinance. aMuniF3nancial \., "tber26. 200.7• 1 San Diego Association of Gozernmentt RTI (.IP Impact Fee Nexus Study INITIAL RTCIP FEE ADOPTION - LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST Note: Local agencies with existing impact fee programs that meet the requirements of the RTCIP impact fee may not need to complete all steps outlined below. O Prepare initial Funding Programs • Estimate annual RTCIP impact fcc revenues u Identify Regional Arterial System2 improvements (location and description) and estimate costs • Estimate construction schedule and program RTCIP impact fee for identified improvements (minimum five- year planning horizon) u For improvements to be funded with RTCIP fees and other revenues, identify the anticipated source, amount, and tuning of other revenues u Work with adjacent local agencies if improvements extend beyond boundaries u Optional — Prepare local nexus study (if required to substitute for or supplement SANDAG's K7i,IP Impact Fee Nexus Study) ❑ Prepare fee adoption documents for Council action u Draft ordinance and resolution to enable local agency to impose RTCIP impact fee ❑ if using SANDAG's RTCIP Impacll'ce Nexus Study revise Funding Program based on updated fee schedule 2007 Early 2008 U Prepare for Council public hearing and fee adoption3 Before April 1, 2008 ❑ At least 14 days prior mail notice to any interested party thathas filed a written request to be notified ❑ At least. 10 days prior make nexus study, Funding Program, and fcc schedule available to public u At least 10 days prior publish notice of meeting ❑ Place public hearing and adoption of ordinance/resolution on agenda of regularly scheduled uneeung 1 The term "Funding Program" is used in the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program of the TransNet Exteruion, Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (RTCIP). The Funding Program as described herein is designed to meet certain requirements of both the RTCIP and the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000-660025). 2 The Regional Arterial System is defined by SANDAL:;. Sec San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Final2030 RegionalTranslodation Plan, illobibity 2030 (February 2005) and applicable amendments. 3 California Government (.ode Sections 6062, 66002, 66016(1), 66018, and 65090. EiMuninnanual Norember26. 2007 C-_ San Diego Association of Governments 10(J1' Impact Fee Nexus Study O Adopt RTCIP impact fcc and Funding Program at regularly scheduled Council meeting and submit to Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee` U Incorporate RTCIP impact fee and Funding Program into local agency's FY 2008-09 budget process5 u Establish separate account for collection of fee revenue ❑ Appropriate annual estimate of fee revenues and expenditures 0 Collect RTCIP impact fee ❑ Fees become effective no sooner than 60 days following adoption6 u Collect at same time as other building permit fees ❑ Deposit revenues in separate account By April 1, 2008 By July 1, 2008 By July 1, 2008 4 RTCIP, Section A(5). 5 California Government Code Section 66007(b). Adoption of the Funding Program and appropriation of fcc revenues will enable collection of the fee at building pennit issuance rather than at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy. 6 California Goverment Code Section 6 017(a). 63I11kniFina ial \otrmber 26. 2(07 C.-i San Diexo Asoeiation of Governments ICIOP 7P Impact lee Nexus .Study ANNUAL AND FIVE-YEAR RTCIP FEE UPDATE - LOCAL AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION CHECKLIST Note: Local agencies with existing impact fee programs that meet the requirements of the RTCIP impact fee will need to integrate the steps outlined below into the periodic update of their existing programs. Note: Years shown are for the first fiscal year of RTCiP implementation. Schedule would repeat annually thereafter. ❑ Receive transmittal from SANDAG of RTCIP impact fee schedule updated for cost inflation ❑ Update Funding Program? ❑ Estimate annual RTCIP impact fee revenues u Update Regional Arterial Syst.ent8 improvements (location and description) and estimated costs • Update construction schedule and program RTCIP impact fee for identified improvements (minimum five- year planning horizon) • For improvements to be funded with RTCIP fees and other revenues, identify the anticipated source, amount, and timing of other revenues u Continue to work with adjacent local agencies if improvements extend beyond boundaries u Optional -- Update local nexus study (if required to substitute for or supplement SANDAG RTCIP Impact Fee Nexus Stud)) U Prepare for Council public hearing and fee update u Draft resolution updating fee schedule n At least 14 days prior mail nonce to any interested party that has tiled a written request to he notified u At least 10 days prior make nexus study, Funding Program, and fee schedule available to public ❑ At (cast 10 days prior publish notice of meeting By Febniary 1 (2009) February (2009) March (2009) t The term "Funding Program" is used in the Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Program of the Trrm:Net iixtenrion, Ordinance and Expenditure Plan (RTCIP). The Funding Program as described herein is dcsymed to meet certain requirements of both the RTCIP and the Mitigation Fee Act (California Government Code Sections 66000-660025). 8 The Regional Arterial System is defiled by SANDAL. See San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), Final2030 RegionalTranrportation Plan, Mobility 2030 (February 2005) and applicable amendments. 9 California Government Code Sections 6062, 66002, 66016(a), 66018, and 65090. 51MunWinanci al :1 wrrnber 26. 2007 C. 4 San Diego Asioaation of Goternments R'f'C1P Impact Fee Nexws Study ❑ Adopt updated RTCIP impact fee and Funding By April 1 (2009) Program at regularly scheduled Council meeting and submit to Independent Taxpayer Oversight Committee (ITOC)10 U Update RTCIP impact fee and Funding Program as By July 1 (2009) part of local agency's annual budget process" ❑ Appropriate annual estimate of fee revenues and expenditures U Prepare Annual RTCIP report based on audited financial Fall (2009) data for prior fiscal year 12 u Brief description of the fee u Fee schedule o Fiscal year beginning and ending balance of fee account u lee revenue collected and interest earned u Identification of each improvement funded by the fee and amount of the expenditures on each improvement including the total percentage of the public improvement cost funded with fees u Identification of an approximate date by which the construction of the improvement will commence if the local agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete the improvement (may refer to adopted Funding Program) o Description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account including the public improvement on which the transferred or loaned fees will he expended, and, in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan will he repaid, and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive on the loan. u Amount of refunds made, if any ❑ Submit Funding Program and Annual RTCIP report to ITOC13 10 RTCIP, Section A(5). Fall (2009) 11 Cabfornia Government Code Section 66007(b). Adoption of the Funding Program and appropriation of fee revenues will enable collection of the fee at building permit issuance rather than at final inspection or issuance of certificate of occupancy. 12 Ca4finnia C;ovenrrnent Cole Section 66006(b)(1) and RTCIP, Section G(2). 13 (RTC P, Section G(2). This schedule may require amendment of Section G(2). �IMhuriFrtanci.�l :\member 26. 2007 (..5 San Diego Association of Gotrrnmenls RTC7P Impact Fee Nexus Study ❑ Submit Funding Program and Annual RTCIP report to Councill4 ci Make annual RTCIP report available to the public u Review annual RTCIP report at regularly scheduled Council meeting at least 15 days following issuance of report (by January 15) u At least 15 days prior to review of annual RTCIP report at regularly scheduled Council meeting mail notice to any interested party that has filed a written request to be notified 0 Prepare and submit Five -Year RTCIP Report to ITOC15 o 'I'o be done after the end of every five years following adoption of the program in FY 2008-09 ❑ Use Funding Program as basis for report ❑ Identify the purpose of the fee, i.c. improvement of Regional Arterial System to accommodate new development n Demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose of the fee by referencing the funding Program and showing that anticipated fee revenues are fully programmed to fund planned improvements ❑ Identify sources, amounts, and riming of other revenues if needed to complete planned improvements ❑ Fee revenues not committed to a planned improvement within five years of collection must be refunded to die ITOC January 1 (2010) Fall (2013) ❑ Prepare and submit Five -Year RTCIP Report to Councill6 January 1 (2014) u To he done after the end of every five years following adoption of the program in FY 2008-09 14 Ca/ifornia Government (,ode Section 66006(h)(2). 15 R'I'CII', Section G(4). This schedule may require amendment of Section G(4)- 16 Colfornia Government Code Section 660(11(d). EM niFinanciai :November ei ber 2,5. 2907 City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT EETING DATE April 1, 2008 SECOND READING AGENDA ITEM NO. 15 ( ITEM TITLE An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of National City Amending Title Four of the National City Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 4.52 Establishing and Approving a Transportation Development Impact Fee for Capital Improvement Projects Necessary to Maintain Acceptable Levels of Traffic and Transportation Service Within the City; and request of the City Council of the City of National City to set a public hearing for April 1, 2008 PREPARED BY Stephen Manganiello DEPARTMENT Engineering. EXT. 4382 EXPLANATION Please see attached. Environmental Review X N/A MIS Approval Financial Statement N/A Approved By: Finance Director Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATIO Introduce Ordinance Select Altemative A or B Set public hearing for April 1, 2008 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMEDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No. 1. Explanation 2. Ordinance — Altemative A (residential only) 3. Ordinance — Altemative B (residential and non-residential with suspension for non-residential) A-200 (Rev. 7/03) Explanation Selection of a "Preferred Alternative" for the TDIF Ordinance At the March 4, 2008 City Council Meeting staff briefed Council on the upcoming Transportation Development Impact Fee (TDIF) to fund capital improvement projects needed to maintain acceptable levels of traffic and transportation services due to new development and to satisfy the requirements of the TransNet Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Plan (RTCIP) for receipt and expenditure of TransNet funds. An Ordinance is required to provide the City the authority to impose the fee. As such, staff has coordinated with the City Attorney's Office for preparation of two alternatives for the following ordinance: "An Ordinance to the City Council of the City of National City Amending Title Four of the National City Municipal Code by Adding Chapter 4.52 Establishing and Approving a Transportation Development Impact Fee for Capital Improvement Projects Necessary to Maintain Acceptable Levels of Traffic and Transportation Service Within the City". Altemative A would allow the City to impose a TDIF on new "residential" development only. Alternative B would allow the City to impose a TDIF on new "residential" development with the following condition for new "non-residential" development: The imposition of the TDIF upon non-residential development, as set forth in Section 4.52.080, shall be suspended from being imposed until one of the following occurs: 1. SANDAG requires the City to collect a transportation development impact fee from non-residential development, the City thereafter holds a public hearing to consider whether to release the suspension, and the City determines to release the suspension; or, 2. The City Council determines, after a public hearing, that the suspension should be released based upon the public health, safety, and welfare of the City of National City; or, 3. The passage of at least two years from the date of the adoption of this Ordinance, a public hearing is held before the City Council to consider whether the continuance of the suspension of the fee upon non-residential should remain in place, and the City Council determines the suspension should be released. The advantage of Altemative B is that it gives the City the option, at a later date, to hold a public hearing to consider imposing a fee on new "non-residential" development, while still enabling the City to use the current SANDAG Impact Fee Nexus Study as a basis for the TDIF. As stated in Altemative B, only new "residential" development would be required to pay a TDIF. A TDIF would not be imposed on new "non-residential" development until such a time that the above conditions are brought forward. Should Alternative A be selected by Council as the "Preferred Altemative", the City would have to perform a new nexus study to impose a future TDIF on new "non-residential" development. Request for Public Hearing In order to meet the deadlines imposed by the TransNet Regional Transportation Congestion Improvement Plan (RTCIP) for adoption of a fee program, we are requesting that City Council set a public hearing for April 1, 2008. ORDINANCE NO. 2008 — 2310 AN ORDINANCE OF TIIE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AMENDING TITLE 4 OF TIIE NATIONAL CITY MUNICIPAL CODE BY ADDING CHAPTER 4.52 ESTABLISHING AND APPROVING A TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS NECESSARY TO MAINTAIN ACCEPTABLE LEVELS OF TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION SERVICE. WITHIN TIIE CITY BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of National City as follows: Section 1. Title 4 is hereby amended by adding Chapter 4.52 to read as follows: Chapter 4.52 GENERAL PROVISIONS Sections: 4.52.010 Title. 4.52.020 Authority. 4.52.030 Intent and purpose. 4.52.040 Findings. 4.52.050 Definitions. 4.52.060 Applicability. 4.52.070 Transportation Development Impact Fee — Residential. 4.52.080 'Transportation Development Impact Fee — Non-residential. 4.52.090 Transportation Development impact Fee — Non-residential: Suspension of imposition. 4.52.100 Annual adjustment of fee. 4.52.110 Use of fee. 4.52.120 Facilities to he financed by fee. 4.52.130 Developer construction of facilities. 4.52.140 Exemptions. 4.52.150 Fee waivers and reductions. 4.52.160 Refund of fee. 4.52.170 Statutory exemption. 4.52.180 Severahility. 4.52.010 Title. This ('hapter shall he known as the Transportation Development Impact Fee ITDIF] Ordinance and may be cited as such. 4.52.020 Authority. This Ordinance is enacted pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act, California Government Code section 66000 et seq. Ordinance No. 2008-23111 1 Transportation Development impact Fee 4.52.030 Intent and purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to make provision for assessing and collecting fees as a condition of approval of a subdivision map or prior to issuance of a development permit, including a building permit, to defray the actual or estimated costs of constructing planned transportation facilities necessary to accommodate increased traffic generated by future development consistent with §§ 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code (Mitigation Fee Act). Application of this fee will include, but is not limited to, development for residential, commercial and industrial land uses. This TDIF does not replace normal subdivision map exactions or other measures required to mitigate site specific impacts of a development project including, but not limited to, mitigation imposed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and imposed as conditions of approval upon a development project as part of the development review process; regulatory and processing fees; fees required pursuant to a development agreement; funds collected pursuant to a reimbursement agreement that exceed the developer's share of public improvement costs; or assessment district proceedings, benefit assessments, or taxes. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter are to fund identified transportation facilities, or portions thereof, that will provide increased road capacity necessitated by the cumulative impacts of future development. The transportation facilities for which these fees are collected are identified as "TDIF Facilities" in the adopted Transportation Impact Fee Program Report. Further studies, including environmental review, may show superior alternative facilities that also provide the needed increased capacity. Once such studies are completed, tees collected under this Division may he used to fund those superior alternative facilities. 4.52.040 Findings. The City Council of the City of National City, consistent with California Government Code §§66000 et seq. of the Mitigation Fee Act, finds that: A. The further development of property within the City, as detailed in the Transportation Impact Fee Program Report, will require the construction of additional transportation facilities. In addition, San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) policy as expressed through the TransNet Extension Ordinance and Expenditure Plan is that new development shall contribute towards the Regional Arterial System through the Regional "Transportation Congestion Improvement Program (R'TCIP). The RTCiP has an impact fee component to achieve its goals. Included in the Regional Arterial System are certain roadways in the City of National City, which are also part of the City's Transportation Impact Fee Program. The TDiF advances a legitimate public interest by enabling both SANDAG and the City of National City to fund improvements to transportation infrastructure required to accommodate new development. B. The fees established herein are based upon estimated costs of identified transportation facilities, or portions thereof, the costs of which have been based on relative vehicular volumes attributable to future development. The TDIF will fund expanded facilities identified in the Transportation Impact Fee Program Report, and would also include those facilities identified in the RTCIP located within the City of National City, all to serve new development. Costs for planned transportation facilities are identified in the Transportation impact Fee Program Report. Costs funded by the TDIF may include project administration and management, design and engineering, right-of-way acquisition, and construction. More detailed descriptions of planned facilities, including their location, to the extent known, are shown in the Transportation Impact Fee Program Report and other documents, such as the City's General Plan. The list of planned improvements contained in the Transportation Impact Fee Program Report may change Ordinance No. 2008-2310 2 Transportution Development Impact Pee to meet changing circumstances and needs, as the City of National City deems necessary. The TDIF will not be used to correct existing deficiencies in the roadway system. C. There is a reasonable relationship between construction of identified transportation facilities, or portions thereof and the additional vehicular trips attributable to future development. The City of National City will restrict TDIF revenues to capital projects identified on the Transportation Impact Fee Program Report to serve new development. In that report, certain improvements arc also part of the Regional Arterial System identified in the SANDAG RTCIP. Improvements funded by the TDIF will expand certain arterials within the City of National City, making them accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. The projects identified in the Transportation Impact Fee Program Report will expand the capacity of the portions of the Regional Arterial System located within the City of National City to accommodate the increased trips generated by new development. Thus, there is a reasonable relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and non-residential types of new development that will pay the TDIF. D. There is a reasonable relationship between the need for identified transportation facilities, or portions thereof, and the future development. New dwelling units and building square footage are indicators of the demand for transportation improvements needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units and building square footage are created, the occupants of these structures generate additional vehicle trips and place additional burdens on the transportation system. The need for the TDIF is based on the SANDAG transportation model projections of growth that show an increase in vehicle hours of delay on the Regional Arterial System primarily as a result of new development even with planned improvements to that system. The model estimated impacts from new development based on trip generation rates that varied by land use category, providing a reasonable relationship between the type of development and the need for improvements. E. There is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of transportation facilities, or portions thereof, attributable to future development. This reasonable relationship between the TDIF for a specific development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated vehicle trips the project will add to the Regional Arterial System. The total fee for a specific residential development is based on the number and type of new dwelling units multiplied by the trip generation rate for the applicable residential land use category. The fee for a specific non-residential development is based in a similar manner on the amount of building square footage by land use category. Larger projects generate more vehicle trips and pay a higher fee than smaller projects of the same land use category. Thus, the fee ensures a reasonable relationship between the TDIF for a specific development project and the cost of the improvements attributable to the project. F. The imposition of TDIF on all new development associated with the generation of new traffic within the City of National City is necessary in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and in order to assure effective implementation of National City's General Plan. 4.52.050 Definitions. The definitions set forth in this section shall govern the application and interpretation of this chapter: "Applicant" means developer or person seeking a development permit. "Building permit" means a permit required and issued by the City of National City. "City" shall mean the City of National City. Ordinance No. 2008-2310 3 Transportation Development Impact Fee "City of National City "Transportation Impact Fee Program" is the fee study entitled "City of National City Transportation Impact Fee Program", dated March 2008, approved and adopted by the City Council on April 1, 2008, The City of National City Transportation Impact Fee Program is maintained for public review in the Engineering Department of the City of National City. "Construction" means design, performance of estimates, environmental assessments and studies, determination of fees, acquisition of right-of-way, administration of construction contracts and actual construction. "Development permit" shall mean any permit or approval from the City of National City including, but not limited to, a general plan amendment, zoning or rezoning of property, a conditional use permit, a design permit, a coastal development permit, a variance permit, a planned development permit, subdivision map, parcel map, building permit, or any another permit for construction, reconstruction, or development. "Developer" means the owner or developer of a development seeking a development permit. "Development project" or `development" means any activity described in Section 66000 et. seq. of the California Government Code. "Industrial" means any use of land specified as an industrial use in Title 18 of this Code. "Multi -family" means any use of land specified as a multi -family use in 'Title 18 of this Code. "New Development" shall mean any development requiring a development permit. "Residential" means any use of land specified as a residential use in Title 18 of this Code. "Single-family" means any use of land specified as a residential use in Title 18 of this Code. "TDIF" means Transportation Development Impact Fee. "I'DIF facilities" means the transportation facilities, or portions thereof, identified in the City of National City Transportation Impact Fee Program, or future City approved alternatives that substantially fulfill the transportation needs identified and represented by a listed facility. "TDIF Reports" means the City of National City Transportation Impact Fee Program report dated March 2008 and approved and adopted by the City Council on April 1, 2008. This report shall be changed or periodically updated by action of the City Council pursuant to Section 4.52.100 of this Chapter. The current adopted reports are on file with the City Clerk of the City of National City. "Transportation facility project" means that project or portion of project, which involves the specified improvements in the City of National City "Transportation Impact Fee Program. 4.52.060 Apiication of chapter. This Chapter establishes the requirements for the TDIF for all new development within the City of National City. This Chapter shall apply to all new development except as exempted by state or federal law, or as specifically exempted in this Chapter. In cases where a development is specifically exempt by law from this Chapter, but that development has cumulative transportation impacts required to he mitigated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the CITY can accept TDIF payment to mitigate cumulative impacts. The TDIF is limited to providing funding in the amounts and for those improvements specified in the City of National City Transportation Impact Fee Program. Nothing in this chapter shall restrict the ability of the City to require dedication of land, payment of lees or Ordinance No. 2008-2310 4 'transportation Development Impact Fee. construction of improvements for needs other than, or in addition to, the improvements specified in the City of National City' Transportation Impact Fee Program. The requirement of this chapter shall apply to projects for which building permits are issued on or alter July I , 2008. 4.52.070 Transportation Development Impact Fee requirement — Residential. A. Commencing July I, 2008, prior to the issuance of any building permit for residential development in the City of National City, a Transportation Development Impact Fee shall be paid in the following amount based upon the use of land: Residential Land Use Fee Single Family $ 2,000 per dwelling unit Multifamily $ 2,000 per dwelling unit 1.3. The fee shall be paid before the issuance of building permits for each development project within the City of National City. No building permit shall be issued within the City of National City unless and until the TDIF has been paid in lull. In the case of discretionary permits that will not involve a building permit, but which will involve new development, payment of the fee shall be recommended as a condition of permitting to the decision -making body that would approve such permit. 4.52.080 Transportation Development Impact Fee requirement — Non -Residential. A. Commencing July 1, 2008, prior to the issuance of any building permit for commercial, office/service, or industrial development in the City of National City, a Transportation Development Impact Fee shall he paid in the following amount based upon the use of land: Non -Residential Land (Ise Fee Commercial$ 2, 704 per 1,000 square fret Office/Services $ 6,002 per 1,000 square feet Industrial: $ 2519 per 1,000 square feet Ordinance No. 2008-2310 5 Transportation Development Impact Fee B. The fee shall be paid before the issuance of building permits for each development project within the City of National City. No building permit shall be issued within the City of National City unless and until the TDIF has been paid in full. In the case of discretionary permits that will not involve a building permit, but which will involve new development, payment of the fee shall be recommended as a condition of permitting to the decision -making body that would approve such permit. 4.52.090 Transportation Development Impact Fee requirement — Non -Residential: suspension of imposition. The imposition of the TDIF upon non-residential development, as set forth in Section 4.52.080, shall be suspended from being imposed until one of the following occurs: A. SANDAG requires the City to collect a transportation development impact fee from non-residential development, the (.:ity thereafter holds a public hearing to consider whether to release the suspension, and the City determines to release the suspension; or, B. The City Council determines, after a public hearing, that the suspension should be released based upon the public health, safety, and welfare of the City of National City; or, C. The passage of at least two years from the date of the adoption of this Ordinance, a public hearing is held before the City Council to consider whether the continuance of the suspension of the fee upon non-residential should remain in place, and the City Council determines the suspension should be released. 4.52.100 Annual adjustment of fees. The TDIF shall be adjusted annually starting July 1, 2009, and on each July 1st thereafter, based on the following factors: A. The cost index used by SANDAG for the annual adjustment to the RTC1P impact fee. B. Changes in the type, size, location or cost of the transportation facilities, if any, to be financed by the TDIF, changes in land use designations in the City's General Plan, and upon other sound engineering, financing, and planning information. C. Adjustments to the TDIF resulting from review of the factors above may be made by resolution amending the fee schedule and subject to compliance with the Mitigation Fee Act. 4.52.110 Use of fee. The revenue raised by payment of the TDIF shall be placed in a separate and special account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling with other revenues and funds of the City of National City; and, such revenues, along with any interest earnings on the account or fund, shall be used solely to: A. Pay for the City's future construction of facilities described in the City of National City Transportation Impact Fee Program, or to reimburse the City for those described or listed facilities constructed by the City with funds advanced by the City from other resources; or B. Reimburse developers who have been required or permitted by Section 4.52.130 to install such listed facilities which are oversized with supplemental size, length, or capacity, relative to demand generated by the subject project; or C. Pay costs required for the administration of this Ordinance, including, but not limited to costs incurred in conducting hearings required by State law. The TDIF fund, including accrued interest, shall be subject to the all of the applicable provisions of Government Code Section 66000 et seq., including but not limited to the requirements for accounting, reporting and expenditure of the fund for the improvements specified in the City of National City "Transportation Impact Fee Program. Ordinance No. 200ti-2310 ( Transportation Development Impact Fcc 4.52.120 Transportation facilities to be linanced by the fee. A. The transportation facilities and programs to be financed by the lee established by this chapter are identified in the City of National City Transportation Impact Fee Program. B. The City Council may modify or amend the City of National City Traffic Impact Fee Program in order to maintain compliance with the circulation element of the City's General Plan. 4.52.130 Developer construction of transportation facilities. Whenever a developer of a development project would be required, as a condition of approval of a development permit, to construct or finance the construction of a portion of a transportation facility identified in the City of National City Traffic Impact Fee Program, the City Council may impose an additional requirement that the developer install the improvements with supplemental size, length or capacity in order to ensure efficient and timely construction of the transportation facilities network. if such a requirement is imposed, the City Council shall, in its discretion, enter into a reimbursement agreement with the developer. The reimbursement agreement can be for either in the form of a cash payment or a credit against the fee otherwise levied by this chapter on the development project, or some combination thereof. The determination of the form is at the sole discretion of the City. The reimbursement amount shall not include the portion of the improvement needed to provide services or mitigate the need for the facility or the burdens created by the development. A developer shall not receive cash reimbursement from the appropriate TDIF fund until all developers who have previously executed reimbursement agreements payable from the same fund have been fully reimbursed or until such agreements have expired. The maximum term of any reimbursement agreement shall be twenty- five (25) years. 4.52.:140 Exempions. The following new development shall be exempt for the application of the provisions of this Chapter: A. Public facilities, government buildings, public buildings, public schools; B. Uses with the following characteristics or activities as a principal use of land, generally described as "community purpose facility": 1. Social service activities, including such services as Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, Boys Club and Girls Club, YMCA and services for the homeless; 2. Public schools (elementary and secondary); 3. Private schools (elementary and secondary); 4. Day care (nonprofit only); 5. Senior care and recreation (nonprofit only); and, 6. Worship, spiritual growth and development. C. Condominium conversions; D. Moderate, low, very low, and extremely low income residential units as defined by Health and Safety Code sections 50079.5, 50093,50105, 50106, and be reference in Government Code section 65585.1; l . Rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing residential unit; F. Development projects subject to development agreements prior to May 28, 2004 that expressly prohibit the imposition of impact fees, however, if the terms of the development agreement are extended beyond July 1, 2008, then the requirements of this Chapter shall apply; (i. Guest dwellings; Ordinance No. 2008-2310 7 Transportation Dc\ etopment Impact Fee 1I. Additional residential units located on the same parcel regulated by the provisions of any agricultural zoning; I. Kennels and catteries established in conjunction with an existing residential unit; and J. The sanctuary building of a church, mosque, synagogue, or other house of worship eligible for property tax exemption. 4.52.150 Fee waivers and reductions. A. Temporary uscs. A development which is designed and intended as a temporary use (3 years or less) and which is conducted in facilities which are, by their nature, short-term interim facilities such as a portable or modular building (including mobile homes, trailers, etc.) may apply to the Director of Building and Safety for a waiver, reduction, or deferral. The Director of Building and Safety shall have the authority to grant such waivers, reductions, or deferrals. B. Deferrals. A deferral of the payment of the TDiF may be granted on the basis of demonstrated economic hardship on the condition that: (1) the use offers a significant public benefit; (2) the amount deferred bears interest at a fair market rate so as to constitute an approximate value equivalent to a cash payment; and (3) the amount deferred is adequately secured by agreement with the applicant. C. Fee adjustments. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Chapter, the applicant as defined in this Chapter shall, as a part of the development permit process, have the right to present evidence to the Director of Engineering to demonstrate that the fee calculation and/or amount of fee established by the City Council is incorrect or inequitable as applied in such case. The applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating any inaccuracy or inequity by serving on the Director of Engineering engineering studies and cost estimates necessary to support the applicant's contentions. If the applicant is processing an application for which the TDIF fee is a condition of approval, the studies and cost estimates must be served on the Director of Engineering no later than thirty (30) days prior to approval of the project. The Director of Engineering shall then make a recommendation regarding fee adjustment to the City hearing body. Upon review of the Director of Engineering's recommendation, the hearing body shall have the authority to change the amount of fee when it finds the amount so established is incorrect or inequitable in the specific case. The decision of the City's hearing body shall be final, and any additional appeals shall he in accordance with the City subdivision ordinance or zoning ordinance, whichever applies to the application being processed. If the applicant is seeking a ministerial permit, the appeal, required engineering studies and cost estimates can he served on the Director of Engineering anytime prior to development permit issuance. The Director of Engineering shall review the requested fee adjustment and shall have the authority to change the amount of fee when it finds the amount so established is incorrect or inequitable in the specific case. The decision of the Director of Engineering shall be final. 4.52.160 Refund of fees. If a building permit or development permit expires, is cancelled, or is voided and if any fees paid pursuant to this Chapter have not been expended and no construction has taken place pursuant to such building permit or development permit, the Director of Building and Safety Ordinance No. 2008-2310 8 Transportation i)evelopment Impact Fee shall, upon written request, refund the fee and any interest earned on the fee, less any administrative costs, to the applicant of record. 4.52.170 Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance shall not apply to any person, association, corporation or to any property as to whom or which it is beyond the power of the City of National City to impose the fee herein provided. If any sentence, clause, section or part of this Ordinance, or any fee imposed upon any person or entity is found to he unconstitutional, illegal or invalid, such unconstitutionality, illegality, or invalidity shall affect only such clause, sentence, section or part of this Ordinance, or person or entity; and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, sentences, clauses, sections or other parts of this Ordinance, or its effect on other persons or entities. It is hereby declared to he the intention of the City Council that this Ordinance would have been adopted had such unconstitutional, illegal or invalid sentence, clause, section or part of this Ordinance not been included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly exempted from the application of this Ordinance. To this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. 4.52.180 Effective date. This ordinance shall take effect July I, 2008. Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that pursuant to Public Resources Code section 21080(b)(8) the enactment of this Ordinance constitutes a project which is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. Specifically this Ordinance establishes and approves transportation development impact fees that will generate funds for capital projects which arc necessary to maintain acceptable levels of traffic and transportation service within the City. This Ordinance does not, nor is it intended to, approve or pre -determine any development project which may he proposed in the future for which a TDIF may be exacted in accordance with the Ordinance. As such it merely provides the City with the procedural authority to impose the TDIF if and when any such development project might be proposed or applied for. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Mayor ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michael R. Dalla, City Clerk George H. Eiser, 111 City Attorney Ordinance No. 2008-2310 9 Transportation Development Impact Fee City of National City COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE: April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 16 / ITEM TITLE: Request Council approval of a free city-wide clean-up and electronic waste recycling event on April 19, 2008 as part of Earth Day activities at a cost of $4,000. PREPARED BY: Kaseem Baker DEPARTMENT Community Services (619) 336-4274 j? EXPLANATION: Community Services proposes a city-wide clean-up event on April 19 as part of Earth Day activi- ties. We have partnered with Christmas in July, EDCO, and Cactus Recycling. We propose to have two general waste trash bins at the following four locations: El Toyon Recreation Center parking lot, Las Palmas Pool parking lot, 500 block of W 14th Street (outside Casa de Salud), 500 block of E 26th Street (outside of lower Sweetwater I Iigh field). Additionally, there will be a drop-off site for e- waste (TVs, computers, etc) at the Kimball Senior Center parking lot. We will NOT be accepting household hazardous waste. Residents would have to bring materials to the closest site and volunteers will monitor what is dis- posed of. Senior and disabled residents may contact us prior to April 19 to arrange for pick up. Anticipated cost of $4,000 from EDCO for use of the bins and disposal fess will be paid for from a pro- ject -related Neighborhood Councils account. Environmental Review N/A Financial Statement $4.000 to be paid from 414-213-0000 (Expert and Consultant Services). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Approve the events. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A .,TTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No. CITY OF NATIONAL CITY, CALIFORNIA CITY COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 17 ITEM TITLE Request to Initiate an Amendment to the Downtown Specific Plan to Add to the Plan Area the Half Block Located East of Roosevelt Avenue, South of 15th Street, and North of 16th Street (Applicant: Willmark Communities, Inc.) (Case File No.: SP-2005-3). PREPARED BY Raymond Pe 336-4421//DEPARTMENT Planning EXPLANATION On December 6, 2005, Council initiated Specific Plan Amendment (SP-2005-3) to consider a realignment of the Downtown Specific Plan boundary that would add to the plan the three half -blocks located along the cast side of Roosevelt Avenue between Civic Center Drive and 16th Street. The proposed amendment would move the boundary from the mid -block alley to Roosevelt Avenue. The initiation was in response to development proposals on each of the three full -blocks. After Council initiation, the project developers submitted a joint application for the Specific Plan Amendment; however, on August 16, 2007, one of the developers withdrew as a co -applicant. The remaining developer has since reduced the scope of the project to Less than half of one block and has requested that Council reinitiate the amendment to only include the half -block that includes the proposed project. The remaining half -blocks would not be considered until and unless future development proposals necessitate subsequent amendments to the specific plan. The applicant has indicated that it would be financially inequitable to continue with the environmental review process (CEQA) for the original three half -blocks since the revised de' elopment proposal would only necessitate an amendment to one half -block. However, the applicant would agree to a joint effort under an MOU with the City to amend the three half -blocks, with each party responsible for a portion of the costs involved. As a co -applicant, the City would lake the lead role in the application. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Not applicable for this action. If initiated. the environmental review will be conducted pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. FINANCIAL STATEMENT Account No. If initiated for the half -block proposal. the applicant would he responsible for all costs. If initiated for all three half -blocks, the Citys share of the costs for consultant services could range from approximately $50,000 to over $100,000 depending on the scope of the environmental review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION RCP 1) Initiate the specific plan amendment as requested by the applicant for one half -block. or 2) Direct staff to proceed under the original initiation for three half -blocks and prepare an MOU between the applicant and City for Council consideration and RH'P for CEQA consultant services. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. 1. Exhibit A Boundary Amendment Map A-200 (9/80) 1=i I 7--1- G ,/1/1 r- ; ,1 L j i JL r--Jr `ice _- — 0co _ E1-1 r �n -rl-L 1 —'--fir'-i -r m _ -•r ��-� f ii.— Civ c Center Dr II 10 E--11'---'1 p __ '— coir- i I `t. ft--.y ..4 + i 2nd St• L_1 r F _JL__ 3rd St r1� 1 , 4th St l__{ , i 5th St Ir-.. , S___i__ N r__. i riv - 1� 7th St 11-r 8th St I 11 LIJ_ 1st St 001,14V7- LJ. _ Division St O SpFC i! r i + J t-• 4_I L --i'� , C"I--,,-T- iLI_Li I ) 1 1__:1J_L..J i I T r?TT ) T11 -r it 1, Li L_, Fri 6th St Ir- J J -a � W I--"---a7r�- i_ ir'-1 I r_.. 1(� - --,,--, Ir , ;I ri I{ izr— + L I -J i I Wi t I ; 1 JTLr__I i r-- I i - r t �fL= ml mri Imr I __I I i ' '„ � C( f j� g , i 9th St --,R'Pp i t---fi__ F +,, Plaza 81 1 __f __L__J r11th St LL i r � 122tth St City Nati r F1':I r�_, fi1 i-__ -_ 14th((j�S_IJ 15th St 16th St • r ,--- I Fire 4 I ?L !P-1 I _Station _ J1 I �; r' 1 _. J_ :_.J_ — ? i i ! Seoior Center \ ,l \ TOker , \, 4/Organ 1i—'-- 9an T r, s---�t- °firer l r ; r 1-- r-fit--a Ir- r r- Library _ I + I__' n r I ) 1 - 1---I f I i l 1 --1 bj--I-; 4 DF_.. it t 4--1.<4' 1 ---1 --a --t - - Arts Center Kirtiball park r i T--, --r 1 City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT FETING DATES April I, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 18 (ITEM TITLE Establishing Criteria for Proposed City Council Policy for Naming City Facilities, Parks r and Amenities. PREPARED BY Leslie Deese DEPARTMENT Asst. City Manager (336-4240) EXPLANATION Please see attached report. City Manager Environmental Review ✓ N/A Financial Statement Account No. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting conceptual approval by the City Council of the criteria for a policy for naming City facilities, parks and amenities. Additionally, the outlined criteria does not include the naming and renaming of public streets and other rights -of -way. As such, Council may choose to direct staff to develop a policy to assist in the selection and BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION approval of street names and other rights -of -way within the City. ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below) Resolution No. Staff report. A-200 (9/80) RE: Establishing Criteria for Proposed City Council Policy for Naming City Facilities, Parks and Amenities Over the years, the City Council has initiated and received requests to name new and existing City facilities in honor of individuals who have made significant contributions to the community. In most cases, the City has responded to the requests by approving them without the benefit of a City Council -approved policy to guide consideration of the requests. As a result, the process associated with the consideration and approval of these requests has not been consistently applied and the process was not guided by a policy. The names for City facilities were therefore approved in a manner that did not establish a precedent or procedure for considering future naming opportunities and requests. Background National City has lacked a uniform policy to assist the City Council and to guide staff in the naming and dedicating of City facilities, including parks and open space areas, buildings, and other public amenities. Although National City has no formal policy for naming public facilities and sites in honor of persons, there are precedents. Kimball Park is named for a City founder; Morgan Towers, the George H. Waters Nutrition Center and the Camacho Gymnasium were all named for former Mayors and/or Councilmembers; and the Martin Luther King, Jr. Community Center was named for a national civil rights leader. Robles Field in Kimball Park was dedicated in memory of Junior Robles who died tragically in a plane crash in Poland as part of a U.S. amateur boxing team. The Kimball Park score shack on the major's ball field was dedicated in 1975 in memory of Ray Hemandez, a National City resident who volunteered countless hours to the National City Little League. More recently, the Casa de Salud Recreation Center was named in honor of Manuel Portillo who dedicated many years of services to the Center and its youth. Policy Considerations Should the City Council choose to develop a naming policy, certain criteria should be considered. ❑ Whether the policy encompasses the naming or renaming of all public facilities or only park and recreation facilities. ❑ Whether we expand the policy to include the naming or renaming of public streets. o O Include all or some of the following naming criteria: o Geographic Location o Community Significance o Historic Significance , o School Name; when adjacent to a school o Individual Person(s) who has made a significant contribution to the City or the region o Others? ❑ Naming a facility after an individual whether living or deceased. ❑ If a facility is proposed to be named in memory of a person who is deceased, what is the appropriate amount of time that should pass before the naming process can be initiated? O Recognition to sitting elected officials; if not, the appropriate length of time after term of office ends. Staffs review of other city policies range from 6 months up to 7 years of time that should pass. ❑ Recognition for financial contributions and donations. Additional Criteria for Council Consideration: The National Recreation and Parks Association conducted a survey of agencies on naming policies. Twenty-five agencies responded to the survey. The following policy parameters are based on the consensus from the survey: • Naming facilities should be the responsibility of the City Council and action should be by Council resolution. • Major facilities are described as: City -owned facilities that house employees, used to conduct city business or citywide community facilities based on size and significance to the community, such as community centers, athletic complexes, community parks, etc. • Minor facilities are described as: rooms within facilities, or support or adjacent facilities. Examples include fields within a park and support facilities for major facilities. • A Council subcommittee, appointed committee or commission should make recommendations to the City Council for official approval. • The City Manager should recommend the committee or commission fro each naming request. • Naming a facility after a person or organization requires a major contribution to the community either in deed or monetary contribution. • No city -owned facility should be named after a seated elected or appointed official. • The following classifications should be considered when naming facilities: o Places and Features (geographic location, nearby street, schools, natural features) o Historic Sites o Descriptive Name o Deceased People o Living People and Organizations • Renaming parks and facilities should be strongly discouraged. Prior to renaming an existing city facility, careful consideration should be given as to whether changing a name would diminish the historical significance of the facility of land and/or confuse community members who are familiar with the existing name and location of a particular facility. • The name should, in most instances, preserve the geographic, environmental (relating to natural or physical features) historic or landmark connotation of particular significance to the area in which the land or facility is located, or for the city as a whole. • Contributions for Major Facilities: consideration may be given to naming the city -owned land or major facility after an individual (or a maximum of 2 donors or 1 family) or organization when at least 51 % of the land or facility construction or renovation costs are donated, or when otherwise warranted by some contribution or service which is deemed to be of major and lasting significance to the acquisition of that piece of land, or planning, development, construction or renovation of that particular facility. • Contributions for Minor Facilities: consideration may be given to naming minor facilities after an individual or organization when 15% or more of the land or facility construction of renovation costs are donated, or when otherwise warranted by some contribution of service which is deemed to be of major and lasting significance to the cp acquisition of that piece of land, or planning, development, construction or renovation of that particular facility. • Donation of land or resources shall not constitute an obligation by the city to name the land or facility or any portion thereof, after an individual, family or organization. • In the event the city -owned land or facility was formerly school property or had other ownership such that the name of the school, building or site has community significance or community recognition, consideration should be given to preserving that name. • The city should encourage naming which reflects the city's ethnic and cultural diversity. Staff Recommendation: Staff is requesting conceptual approval by the City Council of the criteria for a policy for naming and renaming city parks, facilities and amenities. The policy will return to Council at a later date in policy/procedure format. Additionally, the outlined criteria do not include the naming and renaming of public streets and other rights -of -way. As such, it is recommended Council direct staff to develop a policy to assist in the selection and approval of street names and other rights -of -way within the City. City of National City, California COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 19 (ITEM TITLE Warrant Register for the period of 02/29/08 through 03/13/08 in the amount of $941,266.98 PREPARED BY Rizza Dela Cuadra Accountant EXPLANATION The Finance Department has implemented a policy to provide explanation of all warrants above $50,000.00. Vendor Healey Construction Co_ CDC Payroll Various owners See attached report. Check# 17834 various various DEPARTMENT Finance Jeanette Ladrido (619) 336-4331 Amount $63,856.10 $77,449.79 Explanation Construction Services—Foodland Facade Payroll for PPE 02/26/08 $614,183.51 Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Environmental Review ✓ NIA Financial Statement Approved by: Janette Ladrido, Finance Director Account No. N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION Ratification of warrants in the amount of $941,266.98 BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION N/A ATTACHMENTS ( Listed Below ) Resolution No. Ratification of Expenditures for the period 02/29/08 THROUGH 03/13/08 A-200 (9/80) Payee REDEVELOMENT FUND. • ALPHA FENCE COMPANY NORMITA ATANG AN ("ALIEORNIA CLNTERS MAGAZINE CORPORAL E EXPRESS INC ( FAR REALTY INFORMATION, INC DEP I OF ENVIRONMENTAL I fEALTII DPRA INC. ECONOM I( z. PI .ANNING SYSTEM ESSENTIA M A N A( iEM ENT SERVICES FEDEX GE CAPITA!. ILARRIS & ASSOCIATES I lEALEY CONSTRUCTION (11 INTERNATIONAL COUNCIL OF JEFF KATZ ARCIIITECTURE KEYSER MARSTON ASSOCIATES. INC KLEINEELDER, INC. NALGEP NAIlONAl. CONSTRUCTION RENTALS JACQI +FINE REINOSO RICK ENGINEERING COMPANY SAN DIEGO CLIPPING SERVICE SAN DIEGO FI ECTRI(" KA I I .W A Y SAN DIEGO GAS & ELEA:FRI( ' VERONICA TAM & ASSO( AI.DREDO YBARRA C IRISTM AS IN JULY PUBLIC EMPLOYEESRET. SYSIEM ASARO, KEAGY, FREELAND & BEST BEST & KRIEGER CHIUSI NI AS IN JULY COMMUNITY YOL"TII ATI ILETIC CENTER COPY POST PRINTING ?MIL DESROCHF.RS 1/1111SC:11E BANK DB TRUST EM Pl.( WM ENT DEVELOPMENT DEPT. I/01.EN & 1 ARDNER LAW OFFICE OF L/UN DEIISCH I51("K ENNA LONG & ALDRIDGE MICH AI. PIASECKI CONS111.TING OPPER & V A R( "() TIP STATE COMPF"NSATION INSURANCE VERIZON WIRELESS %VEILS FARGO FOR MEETING OF APRIL 1,2008 WARRANT RE:GISTER FOR PERIOD: 02/29 - 03/13/08 Description INS -FALL FENCE AT PURPLE COW REIMBURSEMENT OF OFFICE SUPPLIES SI IBM:RIP IION RENEWAL OFFICE SUPPLIES RE:Al. ESTATE INFORMATION SERVICES VOI I :N FAN',' ASSISTANCE PROGRAM EI'A GRANT PROFESSIONAI SERVICES - HARBOR DISTRICT PROFESSIONAL SERVI( 'ES WES'ISII)E. NEIGIIBORHOODiBROWNFIELD SI UPPING CILARGES - CONSTH .1 A noN EQUIP RENTAL - REDEVELOPMENT PROFESSIONAL SERVICES- TRAFFIC ENGG 811.1 S1 151( "12 D AVF. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - FOODI.AND FACADE MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL PR( )I. ESSIONAL SERVICES - PLAIIIOUSEFORNIER LIBRARY PROFESSION AI SERVICES - HABITAT FOR IIUMANITY PROFESSIONAL SER I( :ES NCB 2ND 10 12TH STREETSCAPE M FM BERSEIIP-2008 ( /11N(i & P. BEARD FENCE AT 1640 1.11'1.A/A MILEAGE 12131MBURSEMEN1 I( 'S( ' SO CA IDEA PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - BAY MARINA 7,78 - 8/31,07 CLIPPING SERVICE MAINTENANCE ON 922 W 23RD I DILUTES - 921 A AVENUE IDIS SET UP H( /USING CONSULTANT 2 16-229,08 CI IM 312134111 Q FR 01. 2006-2007 REM! 1'1 AN( 1-1 FOR PPE 02/25;08 CDC VS EA 1I- RN AI. ORDER 01- EAGLES PROFESSIONAI SERVICES - ( "OM 151 (11N1 1Y Y011111 A I FILETIC CENTER RENTAL FEES - 7012 B AVE SERVICES - 12'07, 01,08 & 02 08 PRINTING SERVICES STATE OE 111E. ("lit" RETIREMENT BENEFIT - 03'08 ADMIN FEE NC 2005 TAX Al I (X'ATION FAX FOR 3RD QTR '06/3RD QTR '07 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CONSTELLATION PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - I CENSCI LEL JOINT POWERS AUTIIORITY ADVICE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CRYSTAL REPORTS UPDATES PROFESSIONAL SERVICES - CLEVELAND ASSOC WORKERS' COMPENSATION INSURANCE - 0208 ("El I I ILAR CHARGES - 01/24 - 02/23,08 I RAINING AND IRA VI-11 EXPENSES SUB 10 IAL - REDEVELOPMENT Chk No Amount 17819 2.755.00 17821 38.05 I /2(23 195.00 17824 178.74 17825 575.85 I /826 644.00 17827 525.94 17828 16.148 97 17829 9.574.47 17830 21 28 17831 209.48 17833 3,152.50 171334 63,856.10 171115 100.00 17/236 3,851 00 17837 551 RR 17838 706.75 17841 225.00 17842 177 08 17844 203.28 17845 880.00 17846 128.10 17847 900.00 17848 161.32 17852 325.00 17853 1,000 00 17854 34.368 56 17856 10,743 21 17857 13,099.02 17858 32,164.33 17859 1.500.00 17860 12,500.01 17861 154.59 17862 110.00 17863 2,400.00 1 /8(91 1002.68 171165 247.50 17866 6,9(11 82 17867 517.50 17868 1,710.00 17869 945.26 17870 1,952.59 17871 168.57 17872 2,215.30 S 231,985.73 I'AYROLI. PPE 02:26/08 S 77,449.79 SUBTOTAL - ADNIINISTRATIVF: REVOLVING FUND S 77,449.79 4FT9ERAi. tiFUND-INCNki r- IIELEN SARMIENTO Al SYSTEMS WEST. INC. (1251.1FORNIA BAKING CO. HAM I I :FON MEATS & PROVISIONS MCGUIRE: HON MISSION 1 INIEORM SER VI( '8 PADRE JANITORIA I. SI TPTIFIS, INC SIERRA SPRINGS INGRID SI EMMEN SYSCO SAN DIEGO 10SEPII WHIR F(1)DS 10 ASSIS FANCE PAYMENT S ;MA( CTII ITIES XEROX CORPORATION CORPORATE EXPRESS INC STATE COMPENSATION INSI 'RANCE VI-2170N WIRE! ESS REIMBURSEMENT OE NCNP SUPPLIES ARMORED TRUCK SERVICES - 12/07 NCNP FOOD.CONSUMADLES NCNP FOOD:CONSUMABLES NCNP FOOD/CONSUMABLES I INFN SUPPLIES IANHORIA I. SI +PLIES NCNP 1-00LYCO:SUMAI3L ES R1.11511111RSEIMEN1 OF EXPENSES FOR EMPLOYEE RI-AI/GNU ION N('NP FOO),CONSI;MAI-11 NCNP E(H )YCONSI Mil ES SUITI 0 FAL - NUNP MANIIAL PAYMEN IS 11'111,1TIES • 12,07 & I /08 EQUIPMENT R ENTA I SA OFFICE SUPPLIES WORKERS' COMPENSATION LNSUltANCE - 02/08 CELI 151. AR CHARGES - 01/24 - 02'23/08 SUBTOTAL - SECTION 8 17818 17820 17822 17832 17839 17840 17843 17849 17850 17851 17855 10441 10442 10443 10444 10445 49 01 13.12 355.20 1,78 /.90 866.65 103.75 1,062.41 30.00 330 03 2,690 56 11,557,511 S 15,846.21 S 614,183.51 522.55 529.46 149.92 431.24 168.57 5 615,985.25 TOTAL OF ALL FUNDS: S 941 266.9% City of National City, California COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 20 AGENDA ITEM NO. ITEM TITLE A resolution appropriating $382,998.08 deposited by Marina Gateway Development Company for reimbursement to the California Integrated Waste Management Board for site improvements as part of the "North Fill Bank Project". PREPARED BY Patricia Beard ext 4255 Redevelopment Manager DEPARTMENT Redevelopment Divisio� EXPLANATION To prepare for the redevelopment of the sites at 2501 and 2510 Cleveland Avenue into the Marina Gateway Plaza hotel and commercial project, significant environmental remediation was required. The CDC was awarded a grant by the California Integrated Waste Management Board ("CIWMB") of in kind services to complete the remediation. To cap the remediated site CIWMB constructed a portion of the parking lot, lighting infrastructure and walking path for the hotel project — improvements for which, per terms of the CIWMB grant agreement, the developer was to pay. These funds were added to the purchase price for the property when title transferred earlier this year. Staff is requesting to reimburse the state per the terms of the grant agreement using funds provided by the developer. The total value of the remediation was $2,127,122.03. Environmental Review Not applicable. Financial Statement Marina Gateway Development Company paid $?1,634,143.08 to CDC for the Plaza site, of which $382,998.08 was to be reimbursed to CIWMB for the developer's share of remediation costs. Account No 9 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Closing statement from Stewart Title Resolution No. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY APPROPRIATING $382,998.08 DEPOSITED BY MARINA GATEWAY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE CALIFORNIA INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT BOARD FOR SITE IMPROVEMENTS AS PART OF THE "NORTH FILL BANK PROJECT" WHEREAS, on March 1, 2004, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC"), the City of National City, and the California Integrated Waste Management Board ("CIWMB") entered a Participation Agreement to remediate a portion of the National City Dump known as the North Fill Bank ("Site"); and WHEREAS, on June 19, 2007, the CDC and Marina Gateway Development Company ("Developer") approved the Sixth Amendment to the Disposition and Development Agreement, including Section 17 requiring Developer to pay $382,998.08 as reimbursement for site improvements made by CIWMB; and WHEREAS, on August 3, 2007, the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health issued a Certificate of Completion related to CIWMB's remediation of the site; and WHEREAS, on January 11, 2008, Developer purchased the site from the CDC, and paid $382,998.08 in addition to the purchase price in order to reimburse CIWMB as agreed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission of the City of National City hereby appropriates $382,998.08 deposited by Marina Gateway Development Company for reimbursement of the California Integrated Waste Management Board for site improvements as part of the North Fill Bank project. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Raulston, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III Legal Counsel ATTACHMENT 1 Estewa rt ► title & escrow . solutions STEWART TITLE OF CALIFORNIA, INC. SAN DIEGO COMMERCIAL DIVISION 7675 Mission Valley Road, San Diego, CA 92108 Phone: (619) 692-1600 Fax: (619) 398-8141 Final Closing Statement Seller: Community Development Commission of the City of National City Escrow No: 48165 Close of Escrow: January 11, 2008 Property: approx 5.15 acres of vacant land on the Officer: I.,aura Taylor Southeast corner of Bay Marina Drive and Harrison Avenue, National City, CA DEBIT CREDIT Total Consideration - 2,241,320.00 Prorates NONE - - Payoff to Sweetwater for use of QCD, portion to be paid by Seller 26,400.00 Credit from Buyer towards the payoff to Sweetwater, 4,400.00 Pursuant to Section 17 of 6th Arnendment, Credit from Buyer to Seller for CIWMB site work 382,998.08 Credit from Seller to Buyer for Slab Removal 51,797.00 Payoff to SD&AE for use of QCD, portion to be paid by Seller 293,163.00 Credit from Buyer towards the payoff to SD&AE 47,148.00 Payoff Existing Loan - - 1st TD P/O Lender: FREE & CLEAR - - Misc. Disbursements - - Title & Escrow Fees - CLTA Owner's Policy 4,860.00 - ALTA Portion of Owner's Policy 845.00 Documentary Transfer Tax 2,465.65 - Tax Service (6 APN's) 45.00 Personal Property Tax Liens 1,791.65 - Escrow Fee 2,000.00 - Messenger Fees, Fed Ex., Etc. 50.00 - SUBTOTAL 383,417.30 2,675,866.08 Amount due to SELLER TOTALS 2,292,448.78 2,675,866.08 2,675,866.08 City of National City, California COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April, 1, 2008_ AGENDA ITEM NO. 21 (If M TI"I1,E Resolution of the Community Development Commission authorizing the Chairman to execu an Amendment to the Community Development Commission Facade Improvement Agreement with Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo ("Property Owner") and Foodland, Inc. ("Participant") for the purpose of increasing the amount of the Loan to Property Owner from $347,320 to $542,349 and authorizing the reconveyance of the current Deed of Trust to record a new Deed of Trust for $542. 349 with the County of San Diego. PREPARED BY Jacqueline Reynoso (ext. 4293) Community Development Coordinator EXPLANATION On September 18, 2006, The CDC entered into a Facade Improvement Agreement with the Property Owner and the Participant for $347,320 to rehabilitate the Facade at 303 Highland Avenue. On September 4, 2007, the CDC Board approved an increase in the project budget to $542,349. Staff suggests that the Board approve the proposed resolution to protect CDC's interest. 1 Environmental Review N/A 1> Financial Statement DEPARTMENT Economic Development Division Project Account Number 900731 Strategic Action Plan 9d STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. ATTACHMENTS • I. Staff Report 4. Resolution '. Amendment to Agreement L3. Agreement / Deed of Trust Resolution No. A-200 (9/80) RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF NATIONAL CITY (CDC) AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE AN AMENDMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION FACADE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT WITH MIKE N. DALLO AND MONA DALLO AND FOODLAND, INC. FOR THE PURPOSE OF INCREASING THE AMOUNT OF THEIR LOAN FROM THE CDC FROM $347,320 TO $542,349, AND AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A RECONVEYANCE OF THE CURRENT DEED OF TRUST IN ORDER TO RECORD A NEW DEED OF TRUST FOR $542,349 WHEREAS, on or about September 18, 2006, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC"), Mike N. Dello and Mona Dallo ("Property Owners") and Foodland, Inc. ("Participant") executed the Facade Improvement Agreement for purposes of rehabilitating the facade at 303 Highland Avenue, which was funded by a loan from the CDC to the Property Owners in the amount of $347,320; and WHEREAS, on or about September 18, 2006, the Property Owners executed a Deed of Trust for the purpose of securing payment of the indebtedness, in the principal sum of $347,320.00; and WHEREAS, on September 4, 2007, the CDC Board approved an increase in the budget for the project to $542,349; and WHEREAS, the facade improvement costs have exceeded the original loan amount, and the Property Owners have requested that the CDC increase the amount loaned to them to pay for those increased costs, which would result in a new total loan amount of $542,349; and WHEREAS, in order to increase the loan amount, it is proposed that the Facade Improvement Agreement be amended to provided that the amount of the CDC loan to the Property Owners increase from $347,320 to $542,349, and that a new Deed of Trust be executed by the Property Owners to secure the payment of $542,349, with all other provisions of the Facade Improvement Agreement to remain in full force and effect. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission of the City of National City hereby authorizes the Chairman to execute an Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement with Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dello and Foodland, Inc. to increase the loan amount for the Foodland Facade Improvement Agreement Project from $347,320 to $542,349. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman is authorized to execute a Reconveyance of the current Deed of Trust, and the City Clerk is directed to record the new Deed of Trust securing the payment of $542,349. --- Signature Page to Follow --- Resolution No. 2008 — April 1, 2008 Page 2 PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Raulston, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III Legal Counsel Staff Report: Amendment to Facade Improvement Agreement & Ncw Deed of Trust Record On September 18, 2006, The Community Development Commission of the City of National City (CDC) entered into a Facade Improvement Agreement with Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo, referred to as the "Property Owner" and Foodland Inc., referred to as the "Participant," located at 303 Highland Avenue, National City, CA 91950. Per the Agreement, the Participant is defined as the Property and/or business owner of the said property in which the Facade improvements are made. Property Owner is defined as the person(s) on Title of the property as shown on the records of the San Diego County Recorders Office and identified on the Certificate of Ownership form. Per the Agreement, the CDC made a loan in the amount of $347,320 to the Property Owner for the purpose of rehabilitating the Facade at 303 Iighland Avenue. Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo, Trustor, whose address is 5075 Federal Blvd., San Diego, CA 92102, signed a Deed of Trust on September 18, 2006, to Chicago Title Company, a California corporation ("Trustee"), for the benefit of the CDC ("Beneficiary"), whose address is 1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950. The purpose of the Dced of Trust is for securing payment of the indebtedness evidenced by the promissory note dated September 18, 2006 in the principal sum of $347,320, recorded under Document no. 2006-0792087, in the San Diego County Official records. On September 4, 2007, the CDC Board approved an increase in the project budget to $542,349 from $347,320. The CDC has prepared for the Board's consideration, a Resolution Authorizing the Chairman to execute an Amendment to the CDC Facade Improvement Agreement with the Property Owner and the Participant for the purpose of increasing the amount of the Loan to Property Owner from $347,320 to $542,349. In addition to the Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement, if passed, this resolution would include the authorization to sign and record a need Dced of Trust reflecting the $542,349 and rescinding the earlier Deed of Trust. Thee new Dced of Trust will secure payment of the Property Owner indebtedness to the CDC under the terms of the Amended Agreement. Except for the changes noted in this report and in the Amendment to the Agreement, all of the terms and conditions of the Facade Improvement Agreement, dated September 18, 2006, shall remain in full force and effect. Sunrise Bank of San Diego contacted the CI)C on February 21, 2008. Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo are clients of Sunrise Bank and are pursuing a $3.5M loan for working capital for improvements and equipment upgrades at the Borrower's existing grocery stores, which includes the Foodland on Highland Avenue in National City and other locations outside of National City. The Dallo's original loan of $$1,283,000has been paid, thus the CDC's loan and deed of trust have moved into the first position. Sterling Rank is a Secondary Market Lender (capital market lender) of Sunrise Bank, and is a lending service provided by Sunrise Bank to high net worth clients with complex banking needs. Sunrise Bank requests that the CDC enter into a Subordination Agreement with Sterling Bank, the Lender, to allow the Property Owner, the Borrower, to access the equity in the subject property. Sunrise Bank will underwrite the Sterling Bank loan to the Borrower. The Subordination Agreement follows this item on the agenda. Staff recommends that the Board approve the proposed resolution authorizing the signature and recordation of the Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement and the Deed of Trust to protect CDC's interest. ��l AMENDMENT TO FACADE IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT TO INCREASE THE LOAN AMOUNT FROM $347,320 TO $542,349 This Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement to Increase the Loan Amount from $347,320 to $542,349 ("Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement") is made as of April 1, 2008, by and between the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC"), Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo ("Property Owner"), and Foodland, Inc. ("Participant") located at 303 Highland Avenue in National City, California. Recitals WI IEREAS, on or about September 18, 2006, the CDC, Property Owner and Participant executed the Facade Improvement Agreement, attached as Exhibit "A" and fully incorporated herein by reference, for purposes of rehabilitating the facade at 303 Highland Avenue which was funded by a loan from the CDC to the Property Owner; WI IEREAS, on or about September 18, 2006, the CDC and Property Owner executed a Deed of Trust, for the purpose of securing payment of the indebtedness by the Property Owner to the CDC, in the principal sum of Three Hundred Forty Seven Thousand Three Hundred 'Twenty and No/100 Dollars ($347,320.00); WHEREAS, the CDC has previously loaned Property Owner $347,320 to perform facade improvements; WHEREAS, the facade improvement costs have exceeded the original loan amount thus the CDC increased the amount loaned to Property Owner to pay for those increased costs, resulting in a new total loan amount of $542,349; WHEREAS, the purpose of this amendment is to increase the loan from the CDC to the Property Owrier from $347,320 to $542,349 and to secure that loan through a deed of trust; WHEREAS, the CDC, the Property Owner, and the Participant agree that all provisions of the Facade Improvement Agreement remain in full force and effect, except that the amount of the CDC loan to Property Owner will increase from $347,320 to $542,349 and the Deed of Trust will record payment of indebtedness by Trustor, Property Owner, in the principal sum of Five l lundred Forty Two Thousand Three Ilundred forty Nine and No/100 Dollars ($542,349). Agreement NOW TIIEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and mutual covenants and conditions set forth herein, and for good and valuable consideration the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the ('DC, Property Owner, and Participant agree to the following: 1 0 1. The Recitals set forth above are true and correct, and fully incorporated and agreed to herein. 2. Section V. entitled "Loan to Property Owner' is hereby amended to read as follows: The CDC hereby makes a Loan in the amount of $542,349 to the PROPERTY OWNER, MIKF, N. DAI1 O AND MONA DALLO, for the purpose of rehabilitating the facade at 303 Ilighland Avenue (the PROPERTY). Said Loan is subject to be immediately repayable to the CDC if the PROPERTY is sold, leased, conveyed, refinanced, vacated, transferred, assigned, alienated, or hypothecated within five (5) years from the Completion Date of the improvements as defined and that option of the CDC. 3. Section X. entitled `Project Funding" is modified by changing the phrase "not to exceed $347,320" in the second sentence of that paragraph to "not to exceed $542,349", which reflects the new loan amount commensurate with the increased cost expenditure. 4. This Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement fully expresses the final and complete understanding of the Parties concerning the matters covered herein. No change, alteration, or modification of the terms or conditions of this Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement, and no verbal understanding of the Parties, their officers, agents, or employees, shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by each Parties' duly authorized representatives. All prior negotiations and agreements concerning the matters covered herein are merged into this Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement. 5. Other than the specific amendments to the Facade Improvement Agreement stated herein, all terms and conditions of the Facade Improvement Agreement remain in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WIIEREOF, the Parties agree to abide by the terms of this Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement, and hereby execute the same by and through their duly authorized representatives. TIIE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OI}"FHE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY Date: By Ron Morrison, Chairman 2 Approved as to form and legality: Date: By George Eiser, City Attorney PROPERTY OWNER: Date: By Mike N. Dallo By Mona Dallo FOODI,AND, INC. (PAR'I'ICIPAN'I'): Date: By Chris Dallo, Secretary 3 FACADE InlifE(MAIEN1T A TI1S AonroZoorr, is made between the -Community . National City hereafter refenedto as the "CDC', and. DtkL1.01 hereafter relent(' to as the "Property Ownee refentd to as the "Participant", located at onOf the Cily Of Wristlet 1. The CDC desires to stimulate .private investment -in the City's C,-ottunecial Districts. 2. Th CDC believes that investment on TmapInifenrents visible to cuarprnm, 04gbboring merchants, and residents will beautifythe conimettial conidert and. Melee:idthe volume of business bymaking the districts and individ*-businesses moreLattraCtive. 3. The CDC has adopted and txstablishedo:Conniiercial Facade Impmvernent_Program (The Program) tO-a8sist property and business owners to improve their prOpertieS.Ineated in designated areas of the City of National City. 4. The desigeated areas of the City of National City teem* commercial streets in the Redevelopment Area. 5.. The parties acknowledge that in utilOtigThe Pcortni to make imptoytments to the property, the participant May be reqiiiie*rotiew State Prevailing:WateRintes Requirements. 6. The DC and the City of National City havetletermined that the,prw9ay subject to this Agreernent is located in the Redevelopment -Area and is eligiblele-Ortitirate in the Program. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration Oftherecit4s4)10ffie mulnel'ObligOons of-thweartit*as herein expressed, the CDC and the PropertY Ovitier, agseeasfollows: AcifultimPsfr I. DF.F1N1TIONS The following terms shall have the following meapiegs whenever used in this Agreement, except where the context clearly indicates otherwise. Any ambiguity as to the intended •meaning tit- scope of the terms set forth below will be resolved solely by the CDC through its.deSignated representative I . Completion Date is defined as the date that the contractor has finished the physical improvements per the Contractor's agreement and Scope of Work and to eage i of 8 the satisfaction of the CDC, as evidenced by final inspection and sign off by a City's building inspector. 2. Facade.is defined as the exterim- of a COIIIIMIVial building visible from the public street, and excludes all else, unless otherwise determined by the Economic Development Managr. 3. The Property is defined as the unit of real property as identified within tbe County Recorder's documerits which will be improved pursuant to this. agreement. For purposes of this agreement, the Property is that real property commonly known as 303 Highland Avenue, National City. 4. Program lvIrmager is defined as the CDC's designated representative for the Commercial Facade httprovemern PrOgrani. 5. Proiect is defined.as the total improvements made to whim, property outlined in the'Contractor's Scope of Work and approved by the Program. Manager. G. Total Cost Expenditure is defined as the total actual costs incurredby and paid for completing the project. 7. Contractor is *fined as a California License‘Gcnorld Contmetorselected through the bidding process to complete the improved at the ovieet adthets. Contractor is toprevide proof of license- artrilOurance to the City at time of the bid process. 8. Participant is defined as the Property and/or -Business Owner of the said property in which the Facade improvements arc made. 9. Property Own et is defined as the person(s).on Title of gre-property as r shown on the record t of the San Diego County Recorders Office and identified on the Certifteroe of Ownership fohn (Ethibitio. 10. Request for Proposal (RPP) is defined as ali.City, Contractor, and Architect documents Which detail the improvements on the subject property. II. CERTIFICATP The Property Owner of the Property agrees to the improvements to the PropettyptirSuant to this Agreement and has signed the Certificate of OWYlership, attached as Whit* A aadby this reference made a part of this Agreement. 111 CONSENT OF PAIZT1CIPANI. Rage 2 of 8 'I'he Participant consents to the construction of improvement on the Property which are contemplated by this Agreement. IV. PROPERTY OWNER'SRESPONSII3J TI1hS 1. The Property Owner shall submit an application form to the Program Manager. 2. The Property Owner shall meet with the Program Manager and the architect designated by the Program Manager to discuss the design for the facade improvements. 3. The Property Owner shall sign the architectural rendering prepared by the designated architectand, by signing, accept the design for the facade improvements. The architectural rendering is and by this reference made part of this Agreement. 5. For those projects which may qualify as Historic Preservation Projects, Property Owner shall provide all documentation requested by the Program A±tager to make such a determination. Property Owner, must have been designated by the Historie Resources Bawd as owning a designated struture or classified as a eQntributing structure, or be inehtitkri on a locally .ue f t*me building inventory in a designated historic district, and diet any impr-ovements be consistent with the historical character of the property. 6. The Property Owner:agrees to maintain the improvements lit ,:paisuartt to this agrccrncnt in good -condition,. and torrepair or replace any.daitage Which occurs to the improvements, for a period of five (5) years following the completion date of the improvements as agreed upon by the CDC. 7. The Property Owner agrees ea not inerease ttte•rr nt to the tenants for Period of five (5) years following the completion date of the improvements. V. WAN TO PROPERTY OWNER . The CDC hereby makes a Loan in the amount of $347,320 to the PROPERTY OWNER, MIKE N. DALLO AND MONA DAI,LO for the purpose of rehabilitating the Facade at 303 Highland Avenue (the PROI BR.TY). Said. Loan is subject to be immediately repayable to the CDC if the PROPERTY is sold, leased, conveyed, refinanced (except for refinances involving existing secure debt which is in a superior position to the CDC Loan secured by this Agreement), vacated, transferred, assigned, alienated, or hypothecated within five (5) years from the Completion Date of the improvements as defined and at the option of the CDC. Page.3 of 23 VI. CONDrr•1 :O -LOAN ,- LIEN 2. The Property Owner and CDC agree that if the improvements deiagad in the awarded "Contractor's Agreement and Scope of Work" onthe PROPERTY•comtnoiity known as Foodland Market Located at 303 highland Avenue is the City of National City, are maintained for at least five (5) years from the Completion :Date of the-itti r'ovements; the Loan yid fire: forgiven and the ProfertY P n r shall np . :repay Attie loan to t e OX However, should Ole PROPEkTY be sQItl h «._ vacated, lea' M tratsferred, assigned, or alienated, or if it is determined by OPC that the facade improvements describe hereinabove are not maintained per this agitrernent for at least five (5) years from the Co riplction Date of the iMprovemeafs. diet. this Loan shall be repayable in fall by the Property Owner to CDC, upon .detnand, with, interest. Interest shall be 5% per annurn snnple interest tetmaetive:to the:Olit*Eittlie Lban. Any payments received shall first be applied first to accrued interest then to the principal. VII. RECORDATION OF AG' q t,NT 3. The Property Owner and the CDC agree that this. Facade Improvement Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder and shall oolistttUe constructive notice to the public that upon sale, hypothecation, assigtimeht, lease, transfer, or alienation less than five (5) yeasts from Ibe Complettcnt aie o tho Improvements, tho Loan shall be repayable with interestrettocti Te,iQ thethite of die 1. Sian. 4. If the improvements detailed in the awarded "Conn -actor's Agr nt'andStoveof Work" on the PROPERTY commonly known as Poodiantd Matket loca. at 303 • Highland Avenuein the City of National City,areare-ittaintalnerkfor. at least five (.5) years from the Completion Date of the improves**y a�,d�it�tl by'thc tom; then the Loan as referenced'• herein, shall have no fuither force and effect opal the PROPERTY and the CDC shallettectite and 1± of the title arty and all documents necessary *clear title to the PILOP1 .,l upo t the request of the Property Owners. V III. CDC'S RESPONSIBILITIES l . The Economic Development Manager shall meet with the architect and the Property Owner to discuss • designs for the facade improvements. 2_ The CDC. shall be responsible for hiring the Contractor from the R'PP process licensed by the California Contractors State License. Board to complete the improvement work, as .identified by the 12FP. Pale a of 8 C�� 3. The CDC shall be responsible for all payments to. the Contractors or other third patties. The sole source of funding for such ,payments -shall be' theLoait/Grant referred to hercinabovc. 4. The Economic Development i Tanager shaltensure that the improvements were completed in accordance with the architectural tendering. S. The Economic Development Manager shall review the final bilk and receipts submitted by the Contractor and,.if ail the obligations under this 4gritementhave been met, shall issue full payment within thirty days of receipt. IX. TIME OF PERMANCE The parties anticipate that the Contractor shall complete the facade improvements within MON.'I'l S of the date of this agreement and that the Contractor shall submit final bilis.and receipts to the Economic Development Manager nalater,:tbap thirty days after the Completion Date. X. PROJECT .PUNI MNG The .CDC has determined that this Project cpnidiEeS.for Redevei Fuel The -CDC agrees to pay the Total CQSt Expenditure net tle exeeed-43 i,3 pursuant to tttirtsxranl# aznt referred to herci.nabovc, provided that the Property Owner compIies with theconditions ottee loan set foith in Section VI, herein. XI. ORAL, REPRESENTATTONS; InEORATION This Agreement and the exhibits and referenees‘incilvoratett into this Agte . dnt fully eras all understandings of the parties concerning -Me Minters covered *this ittiiireenitlittr..NOchange; alteration, or modification of the terms of this Agreement, and no verbal vndbrstandi ag:of-the parties, their officers, agents, or employees shill be valid unless made in the form of a women change agreed to in writing by both -patties or an amendment tothis,Agicement+tgreedto by both Parties in writing. All prior negotiations and agreements are merged into this Agreement. XII. CHANCES OR AMENDMENTS TO:AGREEMENT Alt amendments to this Agreement shall be in writing signed by the Property Owner, Participant and the CDC. P,Ag + of This Agreement is executed by The Community Development Commission (CDC) of the City of National City acting by and through its Commissioners, and by the Property Owners and the Participant. Dated this rd'iay of D! kibc 2006. 1 APPROVE the form and legality of this Agreement this 3rd day of October, 2006. GEORGE EEIISER, City Attorney gg71t.Z Dated this %t day of Sf , 2006.. Dated this % $ day of ''411" • , 2006. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SION (OWNER) NER) B Nick rnT.= = L, tayoi cic PROPERTY By Print. Name: {1 f 1 G. DA L L. By irlotol Print Name: ALP/VA- NI -LW FOODLAND, Inc.(I'articipant): By Print Nance: Cr:4** t S Officer Title: SE C:eirT r By Print Name: Officer Title: Page 6tit 8 A - Certificate of Ownership B - Deed of Trust C - Note EXHIBITS: Page 7 of 8 411fOr the *TOP 1‘44146Y /heerithe$)on die aunt). Sair• (se:the basis efl exec StittO of Califmtia ) ss: County of giskDiego • 410!:.ffiet the un' evidence, atitiaitizett inStrtheent the:petson(s), or the entityupon be( ' '001;etttho instrument. Witness city hand and 'official seal. (Ust a}1.os; cvi�+t Cry, f. uer�s , iu certify 1 ` -the or carteht cac1 c ett►eflt ? 'ti0sls p` ga a t t et j u r.genatty of {e�r. rq laws !Mc deck �e the We 44.trtie-and core 3 Exhibit A NO CHARGE ON, IRIS DOCUMENT FOR THE BENtor r OF 1 STATE AGENCY FORMED -BY T}IE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY RecordilBy.. Community Denekomini CumUnissign The City of National C Ec nroi a v)op ti m plyisiati 1243 Natiotiat City Blv 1 National ty, CA; 4)4 0 Anil;Wheb ceded 1 Ill Tor. Cortinumity,peyolop*ut Commission ofthc'City of Na nai,City E nomic Dev_eio ent Division 1 3 Nittional y$lvd. National City, 9ft350 DA AN MON . D (`'° ' st '), W 04irei is 1243 iMmItity desert' FOR TIM PUIWoSE:t (1) odkSett*Ismt by Trustar, inticp int pa stir QITffi #Z HUNDRED TWENTY ANA At4J modification of the promissory note (the "NOte'); (2) Any 0,300katouns 413d ipterest tb4, **afro*: ,tot4, Property hr)-)erieficlary, when evideneed-* Other tta**,', „ Wci secured; and owner of tho ire so (3) The performance of each agreenient-cOntainediwthis thted-.4TrOst: A.. TC)..PROTKTTHESECURITY-Otr, 10*P 111,M*147TRISIVR kttrEat, Moh*vgige 0:00.114*Ii• (1) To*f,epthe property in god condaion and repair; not to tenicoO'PE, on the property;:toeoropiete orreatore,prompt4i/diatkostatd-worIcalattaXe PaNakng rkatrnayhefli-tc4;.dohagotti,ot..4ot*o*00*#:S;i*i-64T!o:-i*Y: Vamit:ft0bOr raft:00,W agdotateriakfittnishod,rotfieftp,*t.t6A,icopky.,,***11:htit4- reqUiring anyatterntitnii-oritnprOvernenta it0.00440.0aiht-,htttta i4/4ste- ..• of thotrop6ttynot:to ennanni suffer; Or per/nit-Any adtitiOnAifinpartyia*irotattnnor kiworat to cultivate, maintain the landscaping, and 'do all other acts thatfrnrn ihe chanicter or use ef. the Property Triy.'be reasonably necessary. payable ro .; as its iflt in 4itticcp*ii.-04i* tA0P14, and*-4.11Y (010-'0*.$0,4.10* - coile.4tod-Or „anYrp • )tiaii6 a*OrAffir ttal'Otia? 2.4r# t.4404$;-. , Fiee 40ra/ice to44por : Or,:ecpt I te-: -:**elik• Defense Of &entity 4 r WThst tti) (3) To appear in and defend any action or,pf„f00e0413t0n1Uect hty-9f this Deed Of 'nu's-tor* rig or powers ott eflttfiOarZ:6r-tivt* 36.4*10. d. inekutiag cost olt:"aYAteti4e of title and*OrneYeff* is a reasonable proceeding in- whidtAjeneficiary or Thoijcetnatali*wentOn any Snit b oujndry to foreclose this. Deed of 'Oust Payment itt- titbit:a* Taxes (4) To pay, at least ten (10) days bettiwt elitagtettcy, all taxes an assOstr tis- tteee Property, including asssessztients an appurtenarf r stock an e i t t:es, charges,an3;l ts� with;intereat. on the''Property or any part of'th P`T iperty; tch appcai'.t .r sr ot� to this Deed of Trust; and all costs; fears, and expentiO of Ibis. moist. If Trustot fails to maltepayment ar to do:any rtot as proms l3etieiieiary or Trustee may (but is nt r og♦ -1 'the;; .y tit or_ manila and to tie extent deemed awry :Bane o rT stee w Deed.of Tmust. The performance, y Bay t 246it.n act or rani u ,on Ts toxat d,.ahall not r�ele - tot y obhi; any ac. floneAciaty o Trustee atoll,also 1taves t ? Property for thelforat011 g'pWposes3 to a affect -the s #ty lJ of trash purchase, contest, orcompromise- appears to be prior ,or,a t5r td this expenses and costs; ncludrng attor eye ' fees, -1410:dousions pots .(5) To pay ,bunwitutcfly ands *ithmnt pursuant to thh T at trust, in 'effect at' the tat of this i3et d of , a s sa iteficiary trap to t m ltrO al i ii lea staternentre4iistedbyTttfstor it t Qtherl e: rega hug the °wow secure: tby ttetof (6)' Piet l tv%lf; c p nci t of st ti than tee wse far v h cj� the same was lrktCnded; (7). TF E i AgadOlitiprciveitterit,:A�- ref*nceand deappan'.of this = of. t8).. Tay pa ortrr; n. attmtetg , eac and alt notes, loanssnd dp of trust thatare`senion ony ofthese o at 30yond anty applicat'te of `past. Y el? r tatt � l,s3tal)totSstfittteas. „ of Trash, then tattr rlitattortmany tiset1 B. TRUSTQR AGES TAT: (1) Any .award of dates in conection-w, Preperty by reason of.pAltre ttae, or tr' Vie; herby igned� be;pt,taB9frys obligations scci '1bythisrifted* Trust .e* injury to the Trc9tItY or tlte.a0t4, allow for the repair and on. ( and:Se ly'possible 3 n. Tic • r r andfor *Ogaden, , ip fttsecttrrty, c a -t1413ited of Tnist far waiver or Latetayiniiiii- (2) By aeeePtio$,P20104 of.aaY s '?ties not waive its rips *OW defsultfrrr�faMittc ? : Upon vrtuen orrvey all Orlin 1, map or plat of all or jOfl tri or cor>5� a o � oftls Dee+ thzfor ng ctj 1s Tie eofar+yofl i .. terrtasri lstrsp tg! f3+ ' Fus:ibennvtionco, (4) Upon written request of Beriefic a ystatingthatalb i have been:perforated in full. surrender of this 040 of ,;: to: the Tiustco for cancellation shalt reconvcy, .without warranty, the. oixtyr y.then ad • rec error, the itals in,t a reconveyanae l be Rude s; Tt c graves in the onxeyanice may be describes Five years after issuance of the full reaecuaveyance, TeustTrusteern Trust, unless directed in the request to miain thern. �T9 a gation »y note; tTh ay destroyAbels4Olt and this Deed of tits ot6!Aettaii iaty ssoseetti dorto (a) u arty P ecty,;vr%(d) 31i bran , any & 'Way` :pease foi- 3i sidle Deed. of Tiv&t X this Deed ofTrust & and charges, Trustee ' . Ab1c4t manifest ass n the recitals. �ti orpesstini eg tled thcr to" Astmt of Refits! (5) As 14:04hfibrat se n y. Trustor hcrcby gives to and eoo fer�s upui :Beueiciaz + the. right. power' c�?iit autlicoity:dur:ng th .cd ltinuanee.of these:Trtuit3, tct ollect the rents, issues, and-prc itts of the Property, bi t reserve the fight, prior to any default by Trustor in payment of any indebtedness secu d bye thisl Hof Trust 9r an the pe f rman Y. any 9 ' `uit tlils iced ofTaut; tp collect and i aati the$e rents, suck ,and profits •as; they income dire and payable. Upon. any such defy Alt f r which• syu �<P within tlritiy (3Q)`days andthe afterco 04i, Be flei411 har, without n attd w.tthotu regard to the adec}ttaoy ofthe 5 t r tht� iliiiEl s-sesJut yt ?e f Test, eitbar petsanally orby agent or cou - it d ry. do'thi follow tig enter and ce_,{ro t0rtof eT,rapertyaracarte fj, ny .Property; sire€or Qr ottterwisecolleet all roars; issues, and r' fits, €nCludlug, those past -due. at d uttpai4 arid` apigy three resits, sacs, and profits, leas costs a. oxpe tses ©f�:operation. and egl1eot on (indudingg. re 5 abie torneys' ems), upon arty indebtedness'sectm d. by this; Deed of _Trust;. sn arty: coodeter�d by Gene iciary ''� eat o .ihe foregoing ri0a by,B'cneft`c'tary shall not cute or •wat,v4.4bYtie itoxs dceof atlt;un erthisDee4ofTrustorrnval� cc -any actclon gutsr�atnt such<:a n it ttit tti:Foi,dosure Iponderea .b:!I finis izt t e p t o any hide esssecured i thisi i perfbnriance of any :o Ml tton cycler dais of. Trust for �vhach cure rtpt:it ti;. p1eted I l y 1 is'D ed. of 44411 ediatefv due $rid liayAbti by tielky4440p Ttt a Ben . dpjc*Ots larat�ion':cat d ,. 'foist a Shari , t u sl all deposrt wit . - dencirig sylil#gationa ari ntdef wftt lion l' td�nlrsale d a tvniteii nod olase ;tom nt ice of si €rdult i tttd eleciaoat tP }I fb lut ram; to tii s D• eed of rust, a copy.ofthe Ag merit; an at3 t +r mitred by this Deed of Trust_ • Iotrip r 4latton the,noti of 1awwr,ng` rushee,`+ iihtlstdeinof. ar dyon;T's tt the4 otico-nf saLe, e t as; a' at he auction iQ the h -T� �,r 1 r7 , > t .coney, tzf tfae Unt ire , p ` ' titter of sale 't7aslee niav pdatpone sale lotion d 't e•Prtrge yi p c.~arnrt t.at fhe tf c .pt Qf sale, time o> + y t ssle public announcement atthe°titre faxed k r,t e.p rig. n it. Tt ustee sh ll l ver o the p t n the auction its de ci veyin ; Pr }p r y sok1. t tit ...Aga any covenant ©z vwat+ fy, cxp sits o implied..1Absent.manife�st error to recite in the. deed ri.. arty matter of fact shall [ oo tsiye proof of the truthfulnesst? sh recital:; Any t Son. int lauding Trustor, Trustee, or l3 teficia riay purctaase at` the satez Afterxleducting- all costs,fees and expt<nsesofTrustee ;attci$ efici4ry tirltieT tbiOaraggph, ►nclitt r+g00stsafpregt tgevidutiue:trf.44.t-inotined-inconneeticenwld ale/F tee::slaliapplythe ptocee .of ale to tiaytiient vi ail suowex'pended:under the terms Ufthis• Deed of '1`i isi, not then repaid, with accrued it►iex t i tlic air -G ail ether sumsihen"recur +i xs R legally entitled tst:#ie refda sing proceeds. Futthot a+ (7) ould tl sior . fo- or encumbertheft"} PYt or: obtaining-tho written', eont•,Ct of the; maybe :acl�# e.att eopuo undutScctict $t pf the i has d vned in not,conststu a tt ver taftl a right t% u n consttftt (8) eti applies 10 tc �� h ,'i ; devises'ttat, � ..yanr yeYts. a teattn] suet { " Bcncf ciary � „ me rn the,. :Co muni iWTr�VJ�,L :ol t'_� and the irs, tcgat s, de iisce , of t istrawrs, ek' c ; and Ded, when a ie Conte ct:sareg i asr I. aadhes'. Umber, in 1. taw itt*feet CI S thit d r iw cst; •ansler tt1!, 064.61300042,S () recBilicsodasp Ren „ ,sate tied :r any f cja ? r "Fi ifitecsh Frei i s_.• _et4 ;s ilk -sue of- coo the Trust€o Ct ntiia0vorowers d orate r sa�ah pe s nit `andfoi ne( (11), 'I't paw, it n di g9Iffetfe4ie. is ds strtretonue%senrazid.ct other rights -end -remeds• pled: iein this butt of. Trust: of. } i--+ i• by 114. t a aid and remedies may be exercised singly, successiVely., ortoget r .aottos.Ofte xs7itearovi;necessary. (12) The a eeltt's rt aia a un any>3eOt YeAtik e, Steve,.or a4iati.ittothAintatexectire0 by. the Trustee. troth -bane to trine under the i 3f il}its n . • of Tut 4 tl a exetcisc of Sts powers or the perfou is c of its dui* tinder thislhedikTrusti ebia ie nOneittgVe evidence of their ,truth, whetitetstated as specific and . icu t rietk-kfiigcnbra statements o r rcnc usions absent manffekt tree . Iuitlier, die recitals shalklit binditig and eoinelusivc rtpp`n the Ttutitor, its heirs; exectiters;:edindinstrators, siaecensors; andr" g s, a altorler-persons: 4ttoriiileFees" (13) tfanyr-acton bring for Ow fOre0 is. provision ca *pod ed of it (whether dr ft, =is fi expenses of lei* antiTrust* including r` le • secured by. this Deed ofTrust. (14) Iftwoc o sde4 granted in this'l pf�3b Tm the or pis utta • f ty tea by:any ofxh (t 5) In aegoi Q, y: of an ihe'stor.i NOTICE; rany, notice of Wail,t address coif r t is recordeir t. I, rdetl. a1; abets, and i` •s►ims'sh*il ire �e€ y+tti The nndersi c Tr astt►riegdests that a copyc f any hodnebtdefauit and of any t+i ro "se this Deed of Tx t j _i vd°to Trustor at the.,addrtss'-af Thxstor set forthabove. the: tie under able 'agingInn (17) Tnistor shallOonnit BO1e>Ptcl + and.*ate--` j 611 any and,all reasonable braes, �es, wa t 01rs so as:1144 10 ii tut#e : With C11e• IL*40161113 its .ls (18) For putt. test, `110ls toxic or tlaltg swa , autie ox rnatedat ti rat ti ie'mitiiitils, beetos, haaardntts. wagte',4**4 ' defined as ttazavdous matenai`s, hazatdtus sgbsl eesor to cics,. et seq.). Resour C a sub +ces defined .ha d,aus wa in haz ous subsstancess in §253`16 of promulgated,under sitter such la w-,.any , fee ai; state:or local ate, lave, ordz nee, c � :. mill liati dangex tv , subsiffi (19)` Irt'a the, Ikea' liazardoua eau of yy� at of�ih Pelt"Or � Y for AIRY (b) .s�bX anti agents,,` agarlst city 1tiSss, l rub ities,ti�ai kiucl der .err b �ouffd strip + , ewt#rai s toes it is fc�r,. ttli il" or use, tu�ratipn..std e. ieIase, Linea r the Property •or the s..lvfals from Lila Prop (atslt daxriages, inju!i, st�ts,� expenses or `"Superfund'' or ttip rttert" law, or any dtler llBd8r44 Mate rule, regulation, order.,or decree regulatt rel ttg to. for to the Propoty at Y`h�S, bie *dyes, � � ` nlatc4ahsfer substances jtt$fxr pulses of) the -, all. Sy d ogle ql' its Qiegt4X ations rifari;,t. n4''.regulating, 7 toxic + or set4'itia reaped to ;;has ever ,Uontractois F4iniessironrand of gay and.exery � its © it s, .i! h� � 1 tt 311eInee rx eiet',kr`; ilit1norw*der eltztstt or release of any IOW, iEfSR. , liahitities, ,A:, any so -vaned or tocal-*e, law, ordinance:, code, iiiigliabilk Or stand? tit's of -conduct concerting any i:Ta7ardousMaterials) regar<iiessefwhcther.ornotcausedbyorwifhintl+te centrol of Trt stor. Notwithstanding the foregoing, Trus'tar'S obligatibnssuucler this se 1 oit shall not apty to any losses, iiabilit es, damn , injuries, costsnses, , ez : or datms $� ,! Pe ��. aim Wit- of or friars to tfapardous Materials which are generated, released or stored on' bite Property after the date that. Beneficiary takes possessiOn thereof. (c) Rotor has not received any nears or (i) the kt 'involving t e use, t pillage. discharge. Or cle anup of any HaZm'dbtUS.Materiats ("HazatdouS Dischat ").affec ling: 'trot* or the Property or(ii) any mplaint, order;, citation or notice with.reigard,to air emissions; waterdischarges, noise etnissions or any Other enitirOnprental,..health or steely matter affecting. Truster or the arty ergivireinnentat Complaint") from"aitype ar , noiud1ng,.without limrtatio►n, the United States Enviroiunenta oiection 400 ("EPA").VIiivicir.giteives thy such notice after the d hetf, then Truster will g ve. within.seve (7):t u mess t Y& thereafter. orai-and written aetieefetaame-to> t nclicia . (d)-Without Hrn tatlon of Benefi aiy's tights under this-D'eed of Trost, Beneficiaiy shall haveAthe right, but' not the' sbligation. to enter' onto the Oroperty dk—to take Such other actions as it deemsnecessaryor,advt�le to eiean up, remove,salve or ntltiimizeihetactof °or otherwise: deaf with, any stth }laz&dous MattAfat. nvixontnental C ompl upon its.t iptofany notice frog t.any person ar minty, .includ ng witiVot hmitarlon, the A, asserting the eltof any tiazardous,Mate ieJsgran Btty{ram ttal Colt on or. tiainingto ttae P >gpextir wlt).ch, if trim*. eoitttl t soft-itr an ar C, 5tut other aetion aga►n t Truaiof tffecig0Y la y•any governments), age yi o Ql at s whlsh, in tit sole o¢inort of tcia c1d e'its secu� t�thss��f' 't Ailrea.scar_abiccsts,and enses4f4:00dbyB cis r the exercise elf any s+. t•rigfhts:shall be:secured'by 3 is deed' of Trust aria shy• le by Trash` upon laiuttogetherrwith interest therebti'at a rate cgttal io`rite hi lest tesp yabtn t r:the taste err herby. The,„fo'r t g tttatH t, cbv iaats,•ittdemnt txu :iO4o wti ,pe to tbe$ to by li t oP in *e h S he esent ans, covenants, snde tas and- 4rfa. ,Successor' vile s (20) 'ea,0sOrowntit anti interestinn the l operty other t}iaf tttrcrti lOreclesure ordeeddn lien , 'foreclasune snail take its interest sttls ct to this dcif• Trust es shall #ie,• this; oteclasttts or action in ifs. _.. tia"sbatt slt�+risi,�slitll,�le�E. Governing 'Law (21) This Deed of Trust shall be governed by atdconstrued in accordance with the laws of the State of Coli& rtiia: tlEGINktiNG AT ,AI � o yT-064.1.. 4 . *' .. rX FARM 2: y 4.0_, �'N its A slide OF per1�p1-- O .LL,LLLp114 �� • Ac 4 O,V,Vat Pr� VABEGIN I "ON birp C OF Tat INNING itt: } S1+MA LA. City of National City, California COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 22 /ITEM TITLE ' .RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF NATIONAL CITY (CDC) AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH STERLING BANK TO PLACE THE CDC FAQADE LOAN AGREEMENT WITH MIKE N. DALLO AND MONA DALLO IN A SECOND TRUST DEED POSITION. PREPARED BY Jacqueline Reynoso (ext. 4293) Community Development Coordinator DEPARTMENT Economic Development Division EXPLANATION On September 18, 2006, The Community Development Commission of the City of National City (CDC) entered into a Facade Improvement Agreement with Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo (Property Owner) to provide improvements to the Foodland Property. When the loan Agreement and Deed of Trust were executed between the CDC and the Property Owner, the CDC was in a second position; Union Bank of Califomia had 4 first "Trust Deed on the said property. CDC moved into a first position when the Property Owner paid off thei total debt with Union Bank of California. The Property Owner would like to borrow $3.5M from Sterling Bank to improve the said property and expand business operations. tinder the proposed Subordination Agreement, all indebtedness of Borrower (Property Owner) to Creditor CDC) shall be subordinated to the loan by Borrower to Lender (Sterling Bank), including without limitation, Creditor's Subordinated Interests. The alternative to entering into a Subordination Agreement between the CDC and Sterling Bank would be to have the Property Owner payoff the CDC loan. Requiring the Property Tier to payoff the CDC loan would negate the purpose of the Facade program at this time. r Environmental Review N/A Financial Statement STAFF RECOMMENDATION CDC Board adopt the resolution. rATTACHMENTS I. Staff Report 2. Resolution 3. Subordination Agreement Resolution No. A-200 (9/80) RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO EXECUTE A SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT WITH STERLING BANK TO PLACE THE CDC FACADE LOAN AGREEMENT WITH MIKE N. DALLO AND MONA DALLO IN A SECOND TRUST DEED POSITION WHEREAS, on September 18, 2006, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("CDC") entered into a Facade Improvement Loan Agreement and Deed of Trust with Mike Dallo and Mona Dallo (the "Property Onwers"), the Owners of the Foodland Property ("Property"), which was approved by the adoption of Resolution 2006-216 on October 3, 2006; and WHEREAS, the Facade Improvement Agreement and Deed of Trust placed the Union Bank of California as the first Trust Deed on the Property, and the CDC was in second position; and WHEREAS, the CDC moved into first position when the Property Owners paid off their total debt to Union Bank of California; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2008, the CDC and the Property Owners executed an amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement, which increased the amount of the CDC's loan to the Property Owners from $347,320 to $542,349; and WHEREAS, at this time, the Property Owners desire to borrow $3.5 Million from Sterling Bank to improve the Property and expand business operations; and WHEREAS, in order to facilitate a loan to the Property Owners by Sterling Bank, the Bank has requested that the CDC enter into a Subordination Agreement with the Bank, whereby all indebtedness of the Property Owners to the CDC shall be subordinated to the loan by the Bank to the Property Owners, including, without limitation, the CDC's Subordinated Interests. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission of the City of National City hereby authorizes the Chairman to execute a Subordination Agreement with Sterling Bank to place the Facade Improvement Agreement with Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo in a Second Trust Deed position. Said Subordination Agreement is on file in the Office of the City Clerk. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Chairman ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Brad Raulston, Secretary George H. Eiser, III Legal Counsel Staff Report: CDC Subordination Agreement with Sterling Bank On September 18, 2006, The Community Development Commission of the City of National City (CDC) entered into a Facade Improvement Agreement with Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo, referred to as the "Property Owner" and Foodland Inc., referred to as the "Participant," located at 303 Ilighland Avenue, National City, CA 91950. Per the Agreement, the Participant is defined as the Property and/or business owner of the said property in which the Facade improvements are made. Property Owner is defined as the person(s) on Title of the property as shown on the records of the San Diego County Recorders Office and identified on the Certificate of Ownership form. Per the Agreement, the CDC made a loan in the amount of $347,320 to the Property Owner for the purpose of rehabilitating the Facade at 303 Highland Avenue. Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo, Trustor, whose address is 5075 Federal Blvd., San Diego, CA 92102, signed a Dced of Trust on September 18, 2006, to Chicago Title Company, a California corporation ("Trustee"), for the benefit of the CDC ("Beneficiary"), whose address is 1243 National City Blvd., National City, CA 91950. The purpose of the Deed of Trust is for securing payment of the indebtedness evidenced by the promissory note dated September 18, 2006 in the principal sum of $347,320, recorded under Document no. 2006-0792087, in the San Diego County Official records. On September 4, 2007, the CDC Board approved an increase in the project budget to $542,349 from $347,320. The CDC has prepared for the Board's consideration, a Resolution Authorizing the Chairman to execute an Amendment to the CDC Facade Improvement Agreement with the Property Owner and the Participant for the purpose of increasing the amount of the Loan to Property Owner from $347,320 to $542,349. If passed, this resolution would also authorize the reconveyance of the current Deed of Trust to record a new Dced of Trust for $542,349. The new Deed of Trust will secure payment of the Property Owner indebtedness to CDC under the terms of the Amended Agreement. Per the Loan Agreement, the loan is forgivable and the Property Owner shall not be required U�` to repay the loan to the CDC if the improvements detailed in the "Contractor's Agreement and Scope of Work" arc maintained for at least five (5) years from the completion date of the improvements. IIowever, should the property be sold, hypothecated, vacated, leased, transferred, assigned, or alienated on or before 5 years from the completion date of the improvements to the subject property, then the loan shall be repayable in frill by the Property Owner to the CDC, with interest. Interest shall be 5"/o per annum simple interest retroactive to the date of the Loan. When the loan Agreement and Deed of Trust were executed between the CDC and the Property Owner, the CDC was in a second position; Union Rank of California had a first Tn►st Deed on the said property. CDC moved into a first position when the Property Owner paid off their total debt, in the amount of $1,283,000, to Union Bank of California. Sunrise Bank of San Diego contacted the CDC on February 21, 2008. Mike N. Dallo and Mona Dallo are clients of Sunrise Bank and are pursuing a $3.5M loan for cash out for working capital for improvements and equipment upgrades at the Borrower's existing grocery stores, including Foodland on Ilighland Avenue in National City. Sterling Rank is a Secondary Market Lender (capital market lender) of Sunrise Bank, and is a lending service provided by Sunrise Bank to high net worth clients with complex banking needs. Sunrise Bank requests that the CDC enter into a Subordination Agreement with Sterling Bank, the Lender, to allow the Property Owner, the Borrower, to access the equity in the subject property. Sunrise Bank will underwrite the Sterling Bank loan to the Borrower. According to a recent Appraisal Review report of the subject property submitted by Sunrise Bank of San Diego, dated January 9, 2008, the current "As -Is" market value of the property is $5,400,000. The same report cites the Insurable value of the subject property as $2,605,000. Sterling Bank's commitment to lend is based on a Loan to Value (LTV) of 65%. The property is currently free and clear. The Lender has stated that they will only complete the loan to the Property Owner if the Subordination Agreement is executed and the Subordinated Interests are subordinated. ) Under the proposed Subordination Agreement, all indebtedness of Borrower (Property Owner) to Creditor (CI)C) shall he subordinated to the loan by Borrower to Lender (Sterling Bank), including without limitation, Creditor's Subordinated Interests. The Lender would be allowed to modify the terms of the loan, as long as the Lender does not increase the amount due on the loan without prior written approval from Creditor. the Subordination Agreement shall he construed under the laws of the State of California. Moreover, if approved, the Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement will only change the Creditor's loan to borrower from $347,320.00 to $542,349.00. All other terms and conditions of the Facade Improvement Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. The alternative to entering into a Subordination Agreement between the CDC and Sterling Bank would be to have the Property Owner payoff the CDC loan immediately. Requiring the Property Owner to payoff the loan at this time would negate the purpose of the tacade program at this time. The CDC has complete discretion in whether to approve the Subordination Agreement, as the Facade Improvement Agreement allows the CDC to demand repayment of the loan should the borrower refinance the property (other than refinancing the original loan). Contingent on approval of the Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement and the new Deed of Trust recording a CDC Loan to Property Owner of $542,349, staff recommends that the CDC enter into a Subordination Agreement with Sterling Bank. This would allow the said Property Owner to obtain a loan and access the equity in the subject property. The loan would allow the Property owner to improve the said property and enhance business operations. NOTE SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT TIIIS SUBORDINATION AGREEMENT ("AGREF,M.ENT") is made as of APRIL 1, 2008 by and between Sterling Bank ("Lender"), Community Development Commission of the City of National City ("Creditor ") and Mike N. Dallo and Mona M. Dallo("Borrower", whether one or more) (wherein Lender, Creditor and Borrower may also collectively be referred to as the "Parties"). WITNESSE'l'H: WHEREAS, Borrower intends to obtain financing from Lender secured by the real property located at 303 Highland Avenue, National City, CA 91950 and more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto; ("Property"); and WHEREAS, Lender has agreed, subject to certain covenants and conditions, to make a loan in the principal amount of $3,500,000.00 (the "Loan") to Borrower; and WHEREAS, Borrower and Creditor have previously entered into a Facade hnprovement Agreement dated September 18, 2006, which resulted in Creditor providing Borrower a loan to make facade improvements to the Property, which agreement remains in full force and effect, and which is not modified by this Subordination Agreement; and WHEREAS, on April 1, 2008, Borrower and Creditor executed an Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement, which reflected the increase in Creditor's loan to Borrower from $347,320.00 to $542,349.00. All other terms and conditions of the Facade Improvement Agreement remain in full force and effect; and WHEREAS, as of the date of this Agreement, Borrower is indebted to Creditor for sums of money pursuant to the Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement dated April 1, 2008, in the original principal amount of $542,349.00 and secured by a Deed of Trust dated April 1, 2008; and WHEREAS, Lender and Borrower have represented to Creditor that the Property has been appraised currently at $5,400,000 and Creditor has relied on that appraised value in agreeing to subordinate its Subordinated Interests to Borrow to the Loan; and WHEREAS, Borrower and Creditor all agree that the Loan will directly and/or indirectly benefit Borrower and has agreed to subordinate their Subordinated Interests to the obligations owed by Borrower to bender and to Lender's security interest and liens; and WIIEREAS, Borrower and Lender have represented, and Creditor has relied on their representations, that the Loan shall be used for cash out for working capital for improvements and equipment upgrades at the Borrower's existing grocery stores; and WI-TFRF.AS, Lender will only complete its Loan if this Agreement is executed and the Creditor's loan to Borrow is subordinated. NOW THEREFORE, for good and valuable consideration, the amount and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged by Borrower and Creditor and to induce Lender to make. in consideration of the recitals above which are incorporated herein as part of the agreement, and in consideration of the making by bender of all, or any part of the Loan to Borrower, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Subordination: Creditor's loan to Borrower is and shall he subordinated in all respects to the Loan, including, without limitation, the liens pursuant to the Deed of Trust dated April 1, 2008. 2. Lender, in its sole discretion, may take any action without affecting this Agreement, including but not limited to the following: a. Modify the terms of Lender's Loan, as long as the Lender does not increase the amount due on the Loan without the Creditor's prior written approval, except for expenses associated with the preservation and enforcement of Lender's lien position; h. Grant an extension or renewal of Lender's Loan, as long as the Lender does not increase the amount due on the Loan without the Creditor's prior written approval, except for expenses associated with the preservation and enforcement of Lender's lien position; c. Defer payments or enter into a workout agreement on Lender's Loan, as long as the Lender does not increase the amount due on the Loan without the Creditor's prior written approval, except for expenses associated with the preservation and enforcement of Lender's lien position; d. Release or substitute collateral securing Lender's Loan; e. Forbear from collecting on existing collateral or requiring additional collateral; f. Declare a default on Lender's Loan. Lender shall notify Creditor in writing within ten (10) days of declaring default; and Agree to release, compromise, or settlement of Lender's Loan. g. 3. Termination of Agreement: This Agreement shall continue in full force and effect until the Loan is paid in full; including any extensions, modifications and/or renewals thereof or this Agreement is released in writing by Lender's authorized officer. If Borrower or Creditor becomes insolvent or bankrupt. this Agreement shall remain in frill force and effect. 4. Miscellaneous: This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and be binding upon the parties hereto and their respective heirs, personal representatives, successors and assigns. It may only be modified in writing, signed by each party to be charged with such change. This Agreement shall be construed under the laws of the State of California. Venue shall he appropriate in the County of San Diego, State of California. In the event of any action being instituted on this Agreement to enforce or interpret its terns, the prevailing party shall he entitled to reasonable legal fees and costs. This Agreement applies to any successor to Creditor or assignee of this Agreement or of the Subordinated Interests, including any bankruptcy trustee or receiver or guarantors or sureties of Creditor. 5. The terms and conditions of the Facade Improvement Agreement, dated September 18, 2006 and the Amendment to the Facade Improvement Agreement, dated April 1, 2008, both entered into by the Borrower and Creditor, remain in full force and effect. Should there be a conflict between the Facade Improvement Agreement and this Subordination Agreement, the Facade Improvement Agreement shall control. Lender may record any document necessary to perfect the subordination contained herein. IN WITNESS WIHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the date first written herein above. BORROWER: CREDITOR Mike N. Dallo Community Development Commission of the City of National City Mona M. Dallo LENDER Sterling Bank By: Steve Rife Senior Vice President By: Ron Morrison Chairman State of California ) County of ) On _ before me, _ , personally appeared Mike N. hallo who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above State of California ) County of ) On before me, , personally appeared Mona M. Dallo who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signatur(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. l certify under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above STATE OF TEXAS § COUNTY OF HARRIS § On , 2008 before me, personally appeared Steve Rife personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument. WITNESS my hand and official seal. Signature of Notary Public Place Notary Seal Above City of National City, California COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 23 AGENDA ITEM NO 1- ITEM TITLE A resolution opposing California Proposition 98- the Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act. PREPARED BY DEPARTMENT Patricia Beard DJ' Community Development Commissio Redevelopment Manager EXPLANATION Two Propositions to restrict the use of eminent domain will decided by California's June 2, 2008 election — Proposition 98 and Proposition 99. Upon the request of Mayor Morrison, staff has reviewed both measures and requests that the City Council/Community Development Commission consider opposing Proposition 98 — the Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act. This measure threatens local land use control including adoption and implementation of the Westside Specific Plan, eliminates rent control provisions, and jeopardizes affordable housing projects. If approved, the cost and process of completing public projects such as roads, parks, fire and police facilities, libraries and the like would be dramatically increased. The measure is drafted to protect large landholders and absentee property owners. A wide variety of organizations opposes Proposition 98 including environmental groups, water authorities, affordable housing advocates and tenant organizations. (Please see attached Background Report.) Environmental Review Not applicable. Financial Statement Not applicable. Account No STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. BOARD I COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS 1. Background report 2. Summary of Proposition 98 Resolution No. RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY OPPOSING PROPOSITION 98 — THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND FARMLAND PROTECTION ACT — WHICH WILL APPEAR ON THE JUNE 2, 2008 PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT WHEREAS, two alternative measures to restrict the use of eminent domain will appear on the ballot for the Primary Election on June 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City (CDC) has analyzed both measures and believes Proposition 98 — The Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act — would prohibit and define "damage" to private property in ways that would reduce the community's ability to revitalize neighborhoods through local land use and zoning decisions; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 would prohibit important affordable housing activities such as rent controls and establishing affordable rents and purchase prices so that very low, low and moderate income families can obtain housing; and WHEREAS, Proposition 98 would place an undue burden of process and expense on public projects that include the use of eminent domain. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission of the City of National City hereby opposes Proposition 98 — The Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act — which will appear on the June 2, 2008 Primary Election ballot. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Raulston, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III Legal Counsel ATTACIIMENT 1 BACKGROUND REPORT Proposition 98, called the California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, is an initiative by the Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights. The measure focuses on increasing private property rights, whether owner occupied or operated or absentee owner investment properties. It would prohibit state and local govemment from condemning or "damaging" private property for private uses. "Damaging" private property includes such actions as changing land uses in some cases. One possible consequence of the Proposition would be to effectively prohibit (by rendering unfeasibly expensive) changing land use designations designed to remove incompatible uses from Old Town or other areas of National City. Public projects on properties acquired by eminent domain could also be made unfeasibly expensive if the Proposition becomes law. A provision of 98 is that changes to the originally planned public uses of a private property require the City to go back to the former owner and offer to sell back the property at the original purchase price. Changes to the precise uses and/or footprint of construction projects, both private and public, are a normal part of development. Having to revalue and reacquire properties because the City, for example, decides to add or subtract a conference room to/from a library would severely curtail the ability to plan or develop such projects. It also may allow indirectly affected property owners to seek compensation from the City if a public project "damages" private property through impacts such as noise or increased traffic. The proposition defines the term "taking" regarding property to include the City participating in establishing rental and/or purchase prices on private property. This would prohibit rent control and jeopardizes the Redevelopment Agency's ability to negotiate affordable housing agreements that restrict prices and rents so that very low, low and moderate income families can obtain housing. The proposition would also prohibit water authorities from using eminent domain to acquire and develop needed water resources. A diverse range of organizations are publicly opposing Proposition 98 Among groups opposing the measure are Association of California Water Agencies, Golden State Manufactured -home Owners League, Coalition for Economic Survival (Los Angeles), San Francisco Tenants' Union, National Multi -Housing Council, Santa Mohicans for Renters Rights, National Wildlife Federation, California League of Conservation Voters, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense, the Planning and Conservation League, the Western Center on Law and Poverty, the League of Califomia Homeowners, the Consumer Federation of California, the California Black Chamber of Commerce, the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, the Western Growers Association, the League of California Cities and the California League of Conservation Voters. Attachment 2 Summary of California Property Owners and Farmland Protection Act, Proposition 98 The Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, the California Farm Bureau Federation and the California Alliance to Protect Private Property Rights are sponsoring Proposition 98 on the June 2008 ballot, which would make major changes to laws governing use of property, including use of eminent domain and regulation of land use. Governmental Regulations Affecting the Price of Private Property 'l'he initiative provides that a government regulation that limits the price a private owner may charge another person to purchase, occupy or use his or her real property requires the payment of just compensation. This includes rent control ordinances' and inclusionary housing ordinances. Limitation on Use of Eminent Domain for Consumption of Natural Resources The initiative would prohibit the use of eminent domain to "transfer the ownership, occupancy or use of private property...to a public agency for the consumption of natural resources..." This provision can be read, for example, to prohibit the use of eminent domain by a city to acquire new drinking water resources. The initiative would also prohibit the use of eminent domain if the public agency would use the property for "the same or substantially similar use as that made by the private owner." This provision would likely eliminate eminent domain as a tool to acquire conservation and open space easements. Land Use Regulations The initiative prohibits a public agency from regulating the use of private property if the regulation transfers an economic benefit from the regulated property owner to another private property owner. Nearly all traditional land use regulations economically benefit some properties while burdening others. Read literally, this provision would make unconstitutional virtually all regulation of land use. Changes to the use of Eminent Domain • Property may not be taken and then transferred to a private party. This would end the use of eminent domain by redevelopment agencies except for public works projects and prevent its use by other public agencies that wish to establish a public -private partnership for facilities such as toll roads and prisons. • The definition of "lust compensation" is chanced. The existing law provides reasonable certainty to both the public agency and the private property owner thereby reducing the need to go to court to determine "just compensation." The initiative will likely require more frequent recourse to the courts to understand how to apply the new definition. In addition, the initiative requires a public agency to pay the property owner's attorney's fees if the jury awards one dollar more than the amount offered by the public agency. It also includes ► Rent controlled units as of January 1, 2007, would be grandfathered, but only for so long as at least one of the tenants continues to live in the unit as their principal place of residence. 1 elements not currently recognized such as temporary business losses in the calculation of "just compensation." • Acquiring immediate possession of property made more complicated. Under existing law, a public agency may deposit the estimated just compensation and gain immediate possession of the property. The property owner is limited to challenging what constitutes "just compensation" if the deposit is withdrawn. Under the initiative, the property owner will also be able to challenge whether the public agency has a right to take the property. This means that it would be possible for a public agency to take immediate possession of the property and for a court to subsequently rule that the public agency had no underlying right to acquire the property at all. • Balance of power shifted to courts. When a public agency makes findings explaining the need to exercise eminent domain, those findings are entitled to a strong presumption of validity when challenged in court. In addition, the court is limited to reviewing the administrative record that was before the public agency. The initiative changes this balance of power between the legislative and judicial branches of government by removing the presumption of validity and allowing the property owner to introduce evidence to the court that was not previously a part of the administrative record before the public agency. 2 City of National City, California COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 24 ITEM TITLE A resolution endorsing California Proposition 99- the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act. PREPARED BY Patricia Beard Redevelopment Manager DEPARTMENT Community Development Commission EXPLANATION Two Propositions to restrict the use of eminent domain will decided by California's June 2, 2008 election — Proposition 98 and Proposition 99. Upon the request of Mayor Morrison, staff has reviewed both measures and requests that the City Council/Community Development Commission consider endorsing Proposition 99 — the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act. Staff believes the threat to local land use control and the elimination of rent controls of the alternative measure (Prop 98) may be detrimental to the citizens of National City. Proposition 99 would prohibit condemnation of owner -occupied single family homes (including condominiums and townhomes) for transfer to a private party for development. National City's Redevelopment Plan exceeds this restriction by prohibiting any condemnation of lawful housing units for purposes of private. development. Proposition 99 provides appropriate restrictions for the use of eminent domain while not threatening local authority over land use decisions. The measure is supported by a wide variety of citizen activist groups. / Environmental Review Not applicable. Financial Statement Not applicable. Account No STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt the resolution. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. ATTACHMENTS Resolution No. I . Summary of Proposition 99 RESOLUTION NO. 2008 — RESOLUTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF NATIONAL CITY ENDORSING PROPOSITION 99 — THE HOMEOWNER AND PRIVATE PROPERTY PROTECTION ACT, WHICH WILL APPEAR ON THE JUNE 2, 2008 PRIMARY ELECTION BALLOT WHEREAS, two altemative measures to restrict the use of eminent domain will appear on the ballot for the Primary Election on June 2, 2008; and WHEREAS, the Community Development Commission of the City of National City (CDC) has analyzed both measures and believes Proposition 99 — The Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act — applies appropriate restriction by prohibiting the condemnation of owner -occupied single family homes, including condominiums and townhomes, for transfer to a private party for development; and WHEREAS, Proposition 99 does not reduce the ability of local governments to make land use decisions, which are necessary to protect their communities' quality of life. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Community Development Commission of the City of National City hereby endorses Proposition 99 — The Homeowners and Private Property Owners Protection Act — which will appear on the June 2, 2008 Primary Election ballot. PASSED and ADOPTED this 1st day of April, 2008. Ron Morrison, Chairman ATTEST: Brad Raulston, Secretary APPROVED AS TO FORM: George H. Eiser, III Legal Counsel ATTACHMENT 1 Summary of the Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act, Proposition 99 The Homeowners and Private Property Protection Act is an initiative constitutional amendment supported by substantially the same coalition of local government, environmental and business interests that opposed Proposition 90 in 2006. It will be on the June 2008 ballot as Proposition 99. The initiative would make the following changes to existing law: Restrictions on the Use of Eminent Domain Under existing law, a redevelopment agency may acquire a privately owned single-family home and resell it to a private developer for redevelopment in order to eliminate blight. In direct response to public concerns raised following the United States Supreme Court's decision in Kelo vs. City of New London, the initiative would amend the California Constitution to prohibit a redevelopment agency, the State, or any local government from using eminent domain to acquire an owner -occupied, single-family residence and resell it to a private person. "Owner -occupied, single-family residence" is defined as real property improved with a single-family residence (including a condominium or townhouse) that is the owner's principal place of residence for at least one year prior to the State or local government's initial written offer to purchase the property. Exceptions The prohibition on using eminent domain to acquire an owner -occupied, single-family home for resale to a private party would not apply if the acquisition is for a public work or improvement. A "public work or improvement" is defined to include what have been traditionally viewed as public facilities, including those that may be constructed or operated as public/private partnerships (e.g., toll roads). The initiative would also not apply if the acquisition was to abate a nuisance, protect public health and safety from building, zoning or other code violations, prevent serious, repeated criminal activity, respond to an emergency, or remediate hazardous materials. Effective Date If passed, the measure would take effect the day following the election on June 3, 2008. The amendments made by this initiative shall not apply to the acquisition of real property if the initial written offer to purchase the property was made on or before the date on which it becomes effective, and a resolution of necessity to acquire the real property by eminent domain is adopted on or before 180 days after that date. Construction with Other Measures The initiative provides that if it appears on the same ballot with another initiative measure dealing with the same or similar subject and both measures pass, this measure will prevail City of National City, California COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION AGENDA STATEMENT MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 25 (ITEM TITLE UPDATE ON AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROGRAMS AND PROJECTS PREPARED BY Alfredo Ybarra (Ext. 4279) Housing EXPLANATION DEPARTMENT Housing Division The City of National City faces important challenges in its planning for sufficient housing, obtaining resources for affordable housing, and implementing housing programs for City residents. Fluid conditions require that the City continue to develop an approach and strategy to produce housing that attempts to meet the needs of existing and future residents of the City. On January 24, 2008, the California Department of Housing and Community Development certified that National City's adopted Housing Element (2005-2010) is in compliance with State housing element law. The Housing Element captures a wide range of housing needs and states the City's goals, quantified objectives, and policies relative to the maintenance, preservation, improvement, and development of housing. Environmental Review . NIA Financial Statement N/A Approved By. Account No. Finance Director STAFF RECOMMENDATION 1. Direct staff to pursue reinstatement of First -Time Homebuycr Program. 2. Direct staff to pursue reinstatement of Owner and Rental Rehabilitation Programs. 3. Direct staff to continue supporting Christmas in July National City. 4. Direct staff to set aside funds for New Constriction and Acquisition/Rehabilitation. 5. Direct stallto develop Request for Proposal to conduct a Housing Stock Survey. 6. Direct staff to develop a strategy to implement a HOME Tenant Based Rental Assistance Program. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION r I ATTACHMENTS (Listed Below) Resolution No. Background Report A-200 (9/99) Affordable Housing Programs Background The purpose of this Housing Update is to provide links to the Housing Element and the opportunity for the Board to provide direction on affordable housing programs and housing projects it desires to fund and implement during the upcoming 2008-2009 and 2009-2010 fiscal years. The City's overall affordable housing program strategy has been defined according to the following goats: • preserve and maintain the condition of existing housing and neighborhoods; • assist in the conservation, preservation, and provision of affordable housing; • provide adequate sites to accommodate a variety of housing types for all income levels, and • assist in the development of affordable housing. As an older and primarily built out community, the City's priority housing goal is to preserve the existing housing stock and to avoid a degree of physical decline that will require a larger rehabilitation effort to restore quality and value. Given the large proportion of lower income households in the City and age of the housing stock, conservation of affordable housing units in the community is important to maintain adequate housing opportunities for all residents. PROGRAM FUNDS National City is a Housing and Urban Development (HUD) participating jurisdiction, which receives HOME Investment Partnership (HOME) Program funds on an annual basis. In addition, the city receives twenty percent of the tax increment revenues from the Community Development Commission for housing purposes. These two programs annually provide approximately $3.4 million to the city and may offer an array of affordable housing services that assist low and moderate -income persons. HOME and Tax Increment funds must be used to increase housing opportunities for low-income residents living in National City. HOME FUNDS For Fiscal Year 2008-2009, the City has been notified that the HOME grant will be $593,067. There is also approximately $1,515,878 in prior year's HOME funds and program income funds being budgeted in 2008-2009 with projected expenditures of $534,693. Therefore, the total amount available in HOME Funds for 2008-2009 is $1,574,252. Of the current grant amount, ten percent (10%) is to be allocated for administration and a minimum of fifteen percent (15%) is required to be allocated for a Community Housing Development Organization (CHDO). TAX INCREMENT SET -ASIDE FUNDS For Fiscal Year 2008-2009, the Community Development Commission projected revenue for the Housing Tax Increment Set -Aside budget will be $2,955,000 and will 1 include an additional $4,065,338 in prior year's undesignated fund balance. It is also projected that administrative expenses will total approximately $2,000,000. As a result, the total amount of available Tax Increment Set -Aside is $ 5,020,338 for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES The following table identifies affordable housing programs and activities in the City's 2005-2010 Housing Element, including status, type of activity, five- and one-year goals, current production, program status, previous year allocation, and estimated costs per unit. Owner Occupied Rehabilitation Program Housing Stock Preservation 125 25 0 Unfunded Program No Allocation $30,000 Paint Program Housing Stock Preservation 200 40 0 Unfunded Program No Allocation $250 Rental Rehablitation Program Housing Stock Preservation 50 10 0 Unfunded Program No Allocation $12,500 Christmas in July .Housing Stock Preservation 75 15 20 Funded - Tax Increment $100,000 $5,000 Healthy Homes Program Housing Stock Preservation 480, 3 year goal Work In Progress Funded - Federal Grant $1 Million 3 Year Grant, Requesting Extension $1,500, Const. only Lead Hazard Control Program Housing Stock Preservation 410, 3 year goal 118 Funded - Federal Grant $3 Million, 3 Year Grant ending 3/08 $500, Const only Housing Stock Condition Survey Estimate housing rehabilitation and replacement needs Complete Survey and update annually thereafter. NA Unfunded Activity 0 $25,000 First -Time Homebuyer Program Increase Owner Occupancy 25 5 0 Unfunded Program 0 $15,000 Section 8 Rental Assistance Provide decent, safe and sanitary housing in privately owner rental units. 911 Vouchers, plus 133 for Kimball Towers Lease Rate HUD, funds through annual contributions contracts. $8,801,320 $8,430 Acquisition/Rehabilitation Housing Stock Preservation 100 20 0 First come, first serve (HOME or Tax Increment) No Allocation $75,000 to $150.000 New Construction Produce New Affordable Housing Units 117 24 0 First come, first serve (HOME or Tax Increment) No Allocation $150,000 to $250,000 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS IN PROGRESS A number of affordable housing projects are currently in the conceptual stage, application review, planning, or construction phase. The following table shows 14 such projects. These projects provide for economic levels; from extremely low income to market rate. 2 Pacific View Estates, National Housing Fund, Inc, Fig Court and Division Street Single Family New Construction, For Sale 49/5 @t 80% AMI, 44 @ Market $810,000 $1 b2,UW t;onsrmcrron uompreron — Nov 2008 Sales — Jan 2009 80/80 64- 1 bdrm, 4 units at 30%, 12 units @ 45% AMI, 40 units 0 50% AMI, and 8 units 0 60%AMI 16- 2 bdrms, 4 units 0 30%AMI, 12 units 60% AMI $2,700,000 $33,750 Estimated Completion May, 2008 Grand Opening —June 2008 Plaza Clty Apartments, Willow Partners, 1535 E. Plaza Boulevard. Rental New Construction, Seniors Habitat for Humanity, 1441 Harding = Single Family New Construction, For Sale 2/2 at 60% AMI $597,000 proposed $298,500 Submission of Tentative Map — March 2008 Execution of DDA—April 30, 2008 = Habitat tor Humanity, 1820 G Avenue Single Family, New Construction, For Sale 8/8 at 60% AMI $1,709,000 proposed $213,625 Submission of Tentative Map — March 2008 Execution of DDA — April 30, 2008 Casa Familiar, Inc, 1101- 19 E Avenue and 1111 D Avenue ti Acquisition/Rehab, Rental 18/18 10- 1 bdrms, 3 fP 50% AMI, 7 @ 60% AMI 8- 2 bdrms, 3 ra' 50% AMI, 5 0 60% $1,780,000 proposed $98,889 City Funding Consideration — April 2008. Canyon Ridge, Rachael Avenue and Blueridge Street Single Family New Construction, For Sale Unknown 0 Unknown Preliminary discussions Days Inn Site, 1640 E. Plaza Blvd. New Construction, Rental Unknown 0 Unknown Conceptual Grove Avenue, 2121 Grove New Construction, Single Family, Density Bonus 9/1 NA 0 Tentative Subdivision Map ' Constellation Amerland Partners, LLC , 1105-1125 National City Boulevard and 41-43 East 12th Mixed Use - Condos and Hotel Unknown 0 Unknown Concept Meeting Paradise Walk, 8 and Euclid Residential, Townhomes Unknown 0 Unknown Preliminary discussions Public Works Yard TOD, Rental New Construction Unknown 0 Unknown ULI Technical Advisory Panel. • i Purple Cow Site, 249 Hi. land Avenue Multi -Family Unknown 0 Unknown Request for Proposal to Dev:.. Site. Truestone Development, Single Family New 817-29 C Street Construction, For Sale 8/2 0 Unknown Waiting for Proposal. Westside Housing Site, New Construction, 405-419 W. 18"' Street Rental 3 0 Unknown Vacant Parcel Tonight's Affordable Ilousing Update and presentation to the Commission provides an opportunity to discuss and identify affordable housing programs and activities that will benefit National City residents during Fiscal Year 2008-2009 and into the future. 3 City of National City, California COUNCIL AGENDA STATEMENT 26 MEETING DATE April 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM NO ITEM TITLE A report on a Maritime Transition Zone proposed by the Port Tenants Association. PREPARED BY DEPARTMENT Patricia Beard (4255) Redevelopment Division Redevelopment Manager City Attorney Claudia Silva (4222) Senior Assistant City Att ney EXPLANATION On December 11, 2007, the Port Tenants Association and Working Waterfront Group appeared before the Board of Port Commissioners for San Diego, requesting consideration of imposing a Transition Zone between Maritime Industrial and other land uses in the Cities of San Diego and National City. Advocates for the zone are seeking to protect industrial uses from "gentrification" such as occurred in the vicinity of Petco Park and also to create a residential buffer to impacts such as diesel exhaust between shipping operations. At the meeting, the Port Commission directed the Working Waterfront to meet with the impacted Cities to craft a Transition Zone that respects local interests. Mayor Morrison and staff participated in meetings for National City and crafted the attached language and map for consideration by the City Council. The six planning principles adopted in 2005 by the City Council and Port are attached on the accompanying background report. The Port is expected to address this topic at it April 8, 2008 meeting. � 1 Environmental Review Not applicable. Financial Statement None. Account No STAFF RECOMMENDATION Adopt a motion, providing direction to the Mayor and staff reaardina the Transition and Distribution Center Zones. BOARD / COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. J ATTACHMENTS I. Joint Planning Principles 2. Draft Transition, Distribution Center language 3. Draft man Resolution No. ATTACHMENT 1 BACKGROUND REPORT The six joint planning principles proposed by National City and approved by the Port of San Diego on December 6, 2005 are: • Protection of maritime uses • Enhancement of the Working Waterfront group effort • Environmental compliance • Building of public amenities/visitor serving development compatible with the Marina, Marina Gateway and Aquatic Center projects • Public participation with the City ATTACHMENT 2 Working Waterfront Group Concept for Transition Zone and Distribution Zone Policy Ilnder the Port Act, the mission of the San Diego Unified Port District includes the sustainment of regional maritime capacity and mandated service as the environmental steward of the tidelands. Today, we have the opportunity to effectively integrate our long term planning and land use objectives with the goals developed by the adjacent neighborhood community groups and residents. The Residents and Community Stakeholders adjacent to our Port industrial properties deserve our utmost consideration as we formulate long-term strategies for the preservation of our waterfront jobs base and maritime economic engine. With environmentally sensitive planning, residential neighborhoods, green spaces and transportation corridors can he created and enhanced to achieve quality of life improvements for those that live and work in our tidelands community. Further, the opportunity exists to create gracefut transitions between historic residential areas and the waterfront industrial zones that provide training and sustaining jobs to 42,000 families within the region. In recognition of the need to preserve the thousands of jobs provided by those businesses in the waterfront industrial zones, we must achieve a balance between the needs of business, residential and recreational users of the waterfront. It is imperative that we prevent, as much as possible, conflicts that might result from incompatible land uses. A transition zone would provide the needed balance while promoting the goals and objectives of adjacent community planning activities. To accomplish these objectives, the Unified Port of San Diego and the cities of National City and San Diego should establish transition zones between industrial land and residential neighborhoods. A properly planned transition zone is critical to the sustained growth and health of all the constituencies that make up the working waterfront. In furtherance of these objectives, the Unified Port of San Diego and the City of National City should also establish a distribution zone to address the area commonly known as the National Distribution Center. The primary purpose in developing this long-term strategy is to create the balance necessary to protect the neighboring residential areas from the impacts of industrial uses. Striking this balance benefits the working waterfront by providing greater certainty over the future uses, and benefits the residences by providing greater protection to their quality of lite. The development of transition zones for various areas within the cities of National City and San Diego will individually recognize the particular factors relevant to each city. All parties recognize the unique considerations applicable to the City of National City, and will account for these considerations in developing that particular transition zone and distribution zone. Accordingly, the parties acknowledge the importance of preserving residential neighborhoods by preventing industrial creep, allowing the continuance of existing businesses that benefit the City of National City, enhancing economic opportunity and revenue generation which includes the opportunity, for large-scale economically beneficial businesses to establish themselves within the transition zone area of the City of National City, and, most importantly, enhancing the quality of life for residents of the City of National City by providing greater resident and visitor serving areas along or near the bay. These factors will drive the 'Urination of both the transition zone area and distribution zone area liar the City of National City. Definition of Transition Zone The Working Waterfront Group proposes that the Port, the City of San Diego, the City of National City and community stakeholders develop land use guidelines and community or specific plans that create transition zones from the Port's industrial properties to the bordering residential neighborhoods. The specific area under consideration should include those lands from the northern boundary of the Tenth Avenue Marine Terminal south to the Sweetwater Channel. hounded on the west by the Port tidelands. extending east from the existing tidelands to the adjacent residential neighborhoods. The transition zone is defined in maps developed by the San Diego Unified Port District. The width of the Transition Zone shall vary to accommodate community plans, city development plans, existing structures, and zoning, forming an in-egular, tailored eastern boundary. The transition zone should be a sequence of graduated land uses that serve to insulate and protect the integrity and environmental health of residential areas and concurrently preserve the maritime industrial jobs cluster. Typically this could be accomplished by a "transition zone" comprised of uses including but not strictly limited to, office space and greenbelt area adjacent to residential areas, bordering streets, transit corridors and boulevards, parking and high -quality maritime administrative office facilities. in regard to the City of National City, the factors identified in the above section will drive the uses in the transition zone. Use of those factors will achieve the objectives of the Working Waterfront Group, protect National City residents, and enhance the economic sustainability and quality of life for National City. The transition zone areas are delineated on the maps attached as Exhibits A (San Diego) and B (National City). These maps delineate the intended boundaries of the transition zones and shall not be affected by land purchases by the Port within these zones. Definition of Distribution Zone The Working Waterfront Group proposes that the Port, the City of National City and community stakeholders develop land use guidelines and land use plans that create a distribution zone for that property commonly known as the National Distribution Center. The specific area under consideration should include the following uses, which strives to balance the needs of the Working Waterfront Group, the Port, the City of National City, and National City residents: tourist and visitor serving, retail, commercial, recreational, maritime industrial staging, intcrmodal transfer, warehousing, and cargo assembly, The distribution zone area is delineated on the map attached as Exhibits B (National City). This map delineates the intended boundaries of the distribution zone. Kev Principles A transition zone policy should adhere to the following key principles: • Transition zones should provide mandated separation between industrial and residential land uses, safeguarding the environmental health of the regional neighborhoods and residents. • Transition zones should protect and enhance the existing and prospective operations of the businesses governed by City plans, Community Group plans, and the Port Master Plan to include visitor serving, commercial, retail, industrial, working -waterfront, and maritime - related, job -producing industries. • Transition zones should only permit uses that do not pose a health risk to sensitive receptor land uses adjacent to or in the near proximity. • Transition zones should incentivize measures that reduce health risks, noise, traffic, and non- renewable energy consumption. • Transition zone development in San Diego should be limited to the following uses: parking, office buildings and greenbelt areas. • The Transition Zone areas of National City may also include existing industrial areas, existing businesses, and other appropriate land use designations including retail/commercial businesses, recreational areas and visitor serving business uses designated by the City of National City. • Consistent with the above principles, transition zones should make the highest and best use of land. A distribution zone policy should adhere to the following key principles: • The distribution zone area should include the following uses: tourist and visitor serving, retail, commercial, recreational, maritime industrial staging, intermodal transfer, warehousing, and cargo assembly. The distribution zone should only permit uses that do not pose a health risk to sensitive receptor land uses adjacent to or in the near proximity. Areas of Enenement The Working Waterfront Group's primary strategy is to work with Port cities to establish zoning regulations and planning policies that incorporate the stated transition zone and distribution zone principles. While this document is not a land use planning document, the Working Waterfront Group does seek to encourage the adoption of land use policies and plans consistent with this document. In addition. the Working Waterfront Group's proposed policy is limited to those areas specifically discussed in this document, and does not propose to affect or modify those areas outside of the transition zone or distribution zone. Specifically, the W W(i will participate in the following decision making bodies and processes: • Request that the Board of Port Commissioners adopt the concept stated in this white paper. • Request that language he added to the San Diego General Plan Update to institutionalize the principles outlined above. • Request that community or specific plan updates for neighborhoods near the working waterfront reflect these principles. • Request that the Air Pollution Control District consider these principles in its decision making process. • Request that the California Air Resources Board consider these principles in its decision making process. • Meet with city council members from Port member cities to brief them on the transition zone policy. The Port is encouraged to secure parcels within the desired transition zones with the concurrence of the affected cities and apply the standards inherent to the Port's Charter, thereby allowing not only sustained maritime use on existing Port lands but promoting development that will constitute environmentally compatible, non-residential land uses from the industrial zone to the eastern boundary of the transition zone. The San Diego Unified Port District shall encourage public / private partnerships in order to secure and develop these parcels. National City Harbor District ATTACHMENT 3 Mean High Tide Line allift Transition Zone 4.M City Boundary BNSF Distribution Zone Not Part of this Policy Document 0\1\ctee