Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09/08/2003 B A K E R S F I E L D David Couch, Chair Sue Benham Mike Maggard Staff: John W. Stinson MEETING NOTICE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMI'I-rEE of the City Council - City of Bakersfield Monday, September 8, 2003 1:00 p.m. City Manager's Conference Room, Suite 201 Second Floor - City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue, Bakersfield, CA AGENDA 1. ROLL CALL 2. ADOPT JULY 23, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees - Rojas 5. NEW BUSINESS 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS 7. ADJOURNMENT S:~lOHN~Council Committees~p&d03sept08.doc DRAFT B .,~. K 'E ~. S ~' '[ E ..T~., D (~ ~ ~"'- David Couch, Chair Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benham Staff: dohn W. Stinson Mike Maggard AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, July 23 2003, ~ :00 p.m. Council Chamber - City Hall 1. ROLL CALL The meeting was called to order at 1:13 p.m. Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham .and Mike Maggard 2. ADOPT MAY 5, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Adopted as submitted. 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS Mary Helen Barro spoke regarding PG&E trimming her sycamore trees under the power lines and cutting 40% of the canopy, which causes her trees to suffer from stress. Committee Member Benham requested staff to meet with the City's Urban Forester and the Tree Foundation to form a united approach and report back to the Urban Development Committee with a strategy. She also requested the City Attorney to provide jurisdictional information. 4. DEFERRED BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development Fees Public Works Director RauI Rojas explained this process has taken a long time and thanked Marian Shaw of his staff and County staff who have worked very diligently. This plan to pay for future transportation needs was a process of assessing where growth and development will occur and the infrastructure that will be required to uphold our living standards. Comparisons 'were done with the Kern COG Traffic Model to define the list of needed facilities. The Public Works Director provided an overview of the current fees. These fees are a one-time charge on new development to pay for the impact on traffic and the need AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Page 2 for new roadways, adding lanes, traffic signals, bridges, etc. The current fee after adjustment with the construction cost index for single-family homes is $2,466 per unit and multi-family is $1,651 per unit. The fees for non-residential, which include heavy industrial, light industrial and commercial are based on average daily trips generated per each business. In order to provide for the growth of new development in the City and have needed transportation facilities, staff has projected the revenue needed for the proposed Phase III Facilities List and associated costs to be $531,860,597. It was discussed in order for this plan to work, a Transportation Impact Fee Plan for Bakersfield and the Metropolitan area needs to be agreed upon and adopted by the City Council and the Board of Supervisors. Otherwise, leapfrogging of development. will cause urban sprawl to occur if there are higher transportation impact fees in the City. However, it was noted some .industrial/commercial development may locate in other outlying cities in Kern County, as some cities have very Iow and others do not have transportation fees because new development does not affect traffic flow in smaller cities, as it does in larger cities with heavy traffic. The Public Works Director provided charts showing different options for the Committee to review and the costs if the burden were all placed on residential development, or if the burden were all placed on industrial and commercial development, or some balance between residential, industrial and commercial. Charts showing comparisons of current and proposed transportation-related fees for Bakersfield, Fresno, Modesto, Stockton, Clovis, and Huntington Beach were reviewed. The Public Works Director recommended two options to the Committee for consideration: Alternative "A" with residential sharing more of the cost than industrial and commercial, or the Alternative of sharing the costs 50-50. Of the two, staff preferred Alternative "A" so as not to discourage industrial growth and job creation. Alternative "A' Transportation Impact Phase III Fees RESIDENTIAL PER LIVING UNIT PROJECTED INCOME Single Family Unit, Detached $ 7,089 $ 339,435,530 Multi-Family Unit 4,352 68,834,618 NON RESIDENTIAL PER AVERAGE DAILY TRIP Heavy Service Industrial 261 1,214,227 Light Industrial 114 11,546,142 Office Commercial Under 100,000 sq. ft. 99 6,567,994 100,000 - 199,999 117 200,000 sq. ft. and over 123 Retail Commercial Under 10,000 sq. ft. 105 10,000-49,999 sq. ff. 135 104,262,087 50,000-99,999 sq. ff. 180 100,000 sq. ft. & over Individual study TOTAL PROGRAM COSTS: $ 531,860,597 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT DRAFT Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Page 3 Pauline Larwood, Smart Growth Coalition of Kern County, expressed appreciation to staff for getting this project to this stage so quickly because them is a need to get this adopted as expeditiously, as possible for needed transportation infrastructure; new development should pay for itself. She also encouraged the Committee to keep. the traffic'service level of "C" as a goal to help with air pollution. John Cicerone, representing property owners in northeast Bakersfield, spoke regarding adding other roads and signals not on the list: Vineland from Panorama to Highway 178; Valley Lane from Paladino .to Panorama; and south of Highway 178, between Masterson and Comanche where there is nothing. Peter Belluomini spoke on behalf of the Kern County Farm Bureau and commended staff and the Committee and encouraged moving forward with the fee structure to get infrastructure in place before development occurs. Marvin Dean, Southeast Bakersfield Property Owners Association, spoke regarding Kern County being an affordable place to live and the proposed fee being higher than some of the cities on the comparison list. He had concerns that there are other fees to pay on a new house and total fees are currently $8,500. The Committee discussed incentives for infill projects in the downtown. Staff explained when the project is being reviewed if a study is done and the infrastructure is already in place, there would be no fee or a very small fee. The Committee requested staff to take a look at in,fill projects where a single house is being built and see if there is a way to mitigate the transportation impact fee without a study, as studies are too costly when building a single home. Terrie Stoller, Sunridge Nursery, spoke about the area between Vineland Road and Comanche and Breckenridge Road and Edison Highway that is still in agriculture. This area has high-dollar crops, trees and vines, and they would like to keep the area preserved for farming and separate from residential without building collectors through it. Lorraine Unger spoke in favor of the Transportation Impact Fees and liked the 50-50 proposal, but would like lower fees on industrial development and higher fees on commercial as it is overbuilt. Ron Sprague had concerns with the Transportation Impact Fees and putting a fee on new development and not spreading the fee across the board with existing housing, industrial and commercial, perhaps with a parcel tax. If there is a $7,000 fee on an entry-level home, the home may be outside the purchase power of the entry-level customer. Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle explained the proposed impact fee is to mitigate the effects from new traffic only. It is not to fix traffic problems prior to the time the City had an impact fee. Arthur Unger, Sierra Club, spoke in favor of traffic fees. DRAFT URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING Wednesday, July 23, 2003 Page 4 John Cicerone in response to a question from the Committee explained Brian Todd, Building Industry Association of Kern County (BIA), and Roger Mclntosh were unable to attend today's meeting, and the BIA Board has not taken a formal position on the fees as yet. Committee Chair David Couch thanked City and County staffs for their long and diligent work. He expressed the 50-50 Alternative could have an undesired effect. If industrial and commercial fees are set too high, the City and Metropolitan area may not be able to compete with the smaller cities in Kern County. It would be more prudent to keeP the fees for industrial/commercial uses Iow to provide employment. He stated he would support Alternative "A.' Pat Ebel with Kern County Roads Department spoke regarding County staff working side by side with City staff to come .up with the facilities list, a dollar amount and plan alternatives. County staff will not be making a recommendation prior to this going to Board of Supervisors for review. She suggested the adoption of the fees could occur at the Joint City Council/Board of Supervisors meeting on September 15th. The Committee discussed the requirements for a public hearing, how to move the fees forward to Council and provide the Board of Supervisors time and flexibility to suggest changes. A Public Hearing requires a Notice with the exact fees we will be expecting to levy. After adoption by both bodies, it will be 60 days before the fees will be effective and will not affect any project, building or vested map currently being' reviewed. It is imperative to move this along as each month we delay, money for needed infrastructure is being lost. Committee Member Maggard expressed he wanted to share with the community that we are not raising more money than is needed. We are only trying to pay for the transportation needs of new development and new people moving to Bakersfield in order to keep the quality of life we have here. It will take 60 days after the impact fees are adopted before the fees go into effect. Developers that have vesting tentative maps already on the table are statutorily protected by State Law at the fee in effect at the time the application is complete. Marian Shaw explained new maps that vest after the date the fees go into effect are subject to increases or decreases in the cost of construction index. Sometimes it takes 10 years before a development is built, but the date an application is complete sets the fee in place at that time per State Law. The Committee requested staff to prepare a ~hite paper on how the City Council could achieve the ability to have lower fees or an incentive credit in special areas, for example in the downtown to encourage in:fill and development. The Committee also requested Public Works staff to research the request from John Cicerone to add arterials to the fees list. AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT Wednesday, July 23, 2003 · Page 5 Committee Chair Couch requested the Public Works. Director to ensure administratively when a developer gets a credit back, it is Credited at the fee level in place for the project when it was vested. Committee Chair Couch made a motion to forward a Committee Rep~o~ on the Transportation Impact Fee Phase III program to the City Council on July 30 with the Committee's recommendation of Alternative "A' as the Committee's preferred fee levels for the Council's consideration; 2) approval to set a Public. Hearing and establish the Council's preferred Alternative at the Council meeting of August 27th; and 3) approval to place the Transportation Impact Fee Phase III program on the City Council/Board of Supervisors Joint meeting on September 15th for adoption by both bodies. The Committee unanimously approved the motion. 5. NEW BUSINESS A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding GEM Electric Vehicles Committee Chair Couch stated he had read the materials in the packet. The vehicle has a maximum speed of 25 miles per hour and has the ability to drive on roads with posted speed limits of 35 miles per hour. It may not be used on bicycle lanes per the California Vehicle Code. He requested staff to report back to the Committee on any ideas how these vehicles might be utilized throughout the City. B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding rescheduling the August 4, 2003 committee meeting The Committee agreed to cancel the August 4th meeting due to scheduling conflicts. The next scheduled meeting is September 8th. Committee Member Benham requested the meeting on October 13th be rescheduled to October 6th. Staff will check the schedule and calendars .and reschedule if there are no conflicts. 6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS Committee Member Maggard requested Assistant Public Works Director Jack LaRochelle, as there was no staff present from the Water Department, to check on the water pressure in the northeast area near Eissler Elementary and Chipman Junior High School and report back to him. He has received a second call about the water pressure deviating and varying significantly. 7. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 3:52 p.m. ' cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers S:~lOHN~Council Committees\Urban Development 2003~ud03ju123summary.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT I MEETING DATE: September 10, 2003 I AGENDA SECTION: Hearings I ITEM: TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council APPROVED FROM: Raul' M. Rojas, Public Works Director DEPARTMENT HEAD DATE: September 2, 2003 CITY ATTORNEY CITY MANAGER SUBJECT: Metropolitan Bakersfield Regional Transportation Impact Fee, Phase III (All Wards) 1. A Resolution of the City of Bakersfield Adopting the 2003-2024 Regional Transportation Capital Improvement Plan and Facilities List Phases I, II and III and certifying that a Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines. 2. An Ordinance Amending Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code Relating to a Transportation Impact Fee on New Development. 3. Nexus Report: 'q'ransportation Impact Fee - Phase III, Fee Update Background" RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends discussion of Transportation Impact Fee and the resolution certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report for the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update and opening the public hearing, first reading of the ordinance and continuing the hearing to the Joint City/County meeting on September 15, 2003, and receive and file the nexus report. BACKGROUND: The purpose of revising the current program is to address the traffic impacts identified in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Environmental Impact Report. This document was adopted by this Council in December 2002, and is proposed to be used as the environmental document for this fee program. The General Plan addresses growth in the Metropolitan Bakersfield area through the year 2020. City and County staff have performed a comprehensive study of the planned growth and have developed a transportation system to try to accommodate this growth and provide a funding mechanism for this transportation network. New facilities that are required to maintain a LOS "C", or not degrade the existing levels of service, have been added to the new Facilities List. Another issue adding to the cost of the program was the passage of Senate Bill 45 (SB 45), ~which defined the funding stream dedicated to Metropolitan Bakersfield for regional improvement projects. In the past, it was assumed that Caltrans would be responsible for funding and construction of these types of facilities. This is no longer the case. There is not enough money dedicated to the region to construct these necessary projects, some of which include the Westside Parkway, the 24th Street Corridor and the Hageman Flyover. This proposed fee includes the unfunded portion of the regionally significant projects made necessary by new development. MPS_Subdivisions September 5, 2003, 8:12AM H:~2003\09-10\TIF IIl_Ord.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 2 The Facilities List before you differs from the one presented to you at the July 30, 2003 meeting in the total cost- from $531 million to $406 million. The cost of the needed 2020 facilities remains the same, but the cost funded by the impact fee has been reduced. This reduction in cost was accomplished by shifting a portion of the costs directly to the developers. First, much of the right-of-way component of the facility cost was eliminated - approximately $40 million. Dedication of rights-of-way without compensation is an obligation under the subdivision regulations. Since these dedications can be required of the developer, elimination of the right-of-way component shifts the burden onto the developers, who are obligated to provide it anyway. However, because sometimes the City is required to construct a project in a gap between subdivisions where the right-of-way has not been dedicated, funding has been left in to pay for these "gaps." Second, many of the collector streets and many developer-requested projects have been removed from the list - approximately $77 million worth. These streets must be constructed by the developer anyway. Elimination of these projects from the list reduces the total dollars needing to be raised, thereby reducing the amount of the fee, but not reducing the rate at which streets are constructed to keep pace with growth. FinallY, there was approximately $8 million in miscellaneous changes to projects - revising freeway funding levels to provide the 10% match, and recognizing that the West Beltway need not be constructed until after 2020. It is the opinion of staff that these deletions in dollar amounts will not negatively impact the ability of the City and County to respond in a complete and timely way to meet road needs since the deductions and contributions will be provided by developers. Additionally, staff has attached for your consideration two options for the Phase III Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. One is similar to the format we have used in the past - one set fee for all areas of the City. The second option gives consideration to the "Core" area of town - that portion of town where most of the improvements are already in and there are few regional projects needed by the year 2020. This option has two fee schedules - one for the "Core" area and one for the "Non-Core" area. The proposal with the lower fee in the Core area.is fairer as it relates to actual needs for streets. In the Core, most needs are already built out. The cost of the facilities needed in the Core area is $70.8 million; the cost of the facilities needed in the Non-Core area is $335.4 million for a total of $406 million. The establishment of a lower fee within the "Core area" encourages in-fill development and represents a "smart growth" policy. One major difference between the proposed ordinance amendment and the existing ordinance is the proposed ordinance will no longer allow traffic studies to be done to justify a different fee. The Transportation Impact Fee is based upon a series of average factors for the various types of development - trip generation, peak hours of operation, the number of projects within an effective radius of the project, etc. Staff's experience with fee related traffic studies has been that they are only presented to the City when the developer is sure that the fee determined by this study will be lower than that required by the ordinance and resolution - the projects that have a higher impact as would be determined by a traffic study never apply to have their fee raised to the appropriate level, thereby causing a shortfall in the total dollar amount raised by the fee. The Building Industries Association has requested that the rates be revisited whenever an additional funding source becomes available for the projects on the facilites list. This is a reasonable request and the amended ordinance will reflect this. The BIA representative has also requested that the fee schedule be revised to show six different areas of benefit, not two. Staff feels that the "Core Area" concept addresses their concerns sufficiently. MPS_Subdivisions September 5, 2003, 8:12AM H:~003\09-10\TIF IIl_Ord.doc ADMINISTRATIVE REPORT Page 3 The new fee and facilities list becomes effective 60 days after adoption by both jurisdictions. The adoption of this fee will not affect any project, building or subdivision currently being reviewed by the City. The new Phase III fee will only affect those projects, buildings and subdivisions that are started after the effective date of the fee. MPS_Subdlvislons September 5, 2003, 8:12AM H:~003\09-10\TIF IIl_Ord.doc "Core" Area Option RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADOPTNG THE' 2003-2024 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND FACILITIES LIST, PHASES I, II AND III, ADOPTING THE NEXUS REPORT AND CERTIFYING THAT A FINAL EIR HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. WHEREAS, Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code implemented a Transportation Impact Fee program for new development in order for new development to bear a proportionate share of the cost of the new or expanded transportation facilities required by such development; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code requires that the City Council annually update the capital improvement plan for road construction funded by the impact fee program and adopt a proposed fee schedule; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code further requires that the fee schedule adopted by the City Council be adjusted annually by the Construction Cost Index; and WHEREAS, both the Facilities List and the Fee Schedule of the Transportation Impact Fee program have been re-evaluated to include a new planning horizon year of 2020 and the transportation network has been updated to include the latest development and land use trends; and WHEREAS, all developments which vest after the adoption of this Resolution will be subject to the Phase III Transportation Impact 'Fee; and WHEREAS, those vesting maps which vested prior to February 10, 1997 and those non-vesting maps which had their local mitigation measures determined by the Planning Commission prior to February 10, 1997 are subject to the rates in effect prior to Resolution 140-96, called the Phase I rates; and WHEREAS, existing vesting maps which have their vesting date prior to the adoption date of this Resolution are subject to the rates in effect prior to this Resolution, called the Phase II rates; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield determined that the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report approved and certified on December 11, 2002 adequately covers the environmental analysis and CEQA requirements for this project; and WHEREAS, the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Report was noticed in the Bakersfield Californian; and WHEREAS, the environmental record prepared in conjunction with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update FEIR includes the following: 1. The Notice of Preparation, the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 2. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, minutes of meetings, and other documents prepared by the consultant 'relating to .the project; and 3. All testimony, documents, and evidence presented by the City of Bakersfield relating to the project; and 4. The proceedings befOre the City Council relating to the project and Final Environmental Impact Report including testimony and documenting evidence introduced at the public heaFings; and WHEREAS, a public hearing before the City Council was advertised and held September 10, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein. 2. That the Capital Improvement Plan, Phase I set forth in Exhibit "A" is hereby approved and adopted for all developments that vested prior to February 10, 1997. 3. That the Capital Improvement Plan, Phase II set forth as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved and adopted for all developments other than those which vested prior to February 10, 1997. 4. That the Regional Facilities List, Phase III set forth in Exhibit "C", is hereby approved and adopted for all developments other than those which vested prior to the date of this Resolution. 5. That the map of the Core Area shown in Exhibit "D" is hereby approved and adopted. 6. That the fee schedule for Phases I, II and III set forth in Exhibit "E" is hereby approved and adopted. 7. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project.has been completed in compliance with CEQA. 8. The City Council hereby certifies that it has received, reviewed, evaluated and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for GPA 01-0973 and has found the analysis and mitigation adequate for this project. 9. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for GPA P01-0973 reflects the City Council's independent judgement and analysis for the necessary environmental analysis for this project. 10. That the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been followed. 11. That the City Council approves the Statement of Facts and Findings (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091), Statement of Overriding Considerations (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093) as shown in attached Exhibit "F". 12. The Planning Division of the Development Services Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Kern County, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto and a Certificate of Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 711.4 (c)(2)(b) of the State of California Department of Fish and Game Code. 13. The nexus report as set forth in Exhibit "G" is hereby approved and adopted. 14. This Resolution will become effective-60 days after it's adoption by both the City and the County, whichever is later. ............ oOo ............ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adoPted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER COUCH, BENHAM, CARSON, HANSON, MAGGARD, SALVAGGIO, SULLIVAN NOES: COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER CITY CLERK and Ex OffiCio Clerk of the Council of the City of 'Bakersfield APPROVED By HARVEY L. HALL Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART J. THILTGEN City Attorney By ALAN D. DANIEL Deputy City Attorney Exhibits: (Attached) A B C D E F G S:\PROJECTS\TI~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Core Trans Impact Fee res.doc mps CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1997 - 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan - Phase I PROJECTS ~ . YEAR ($1,000's of TDF Funds) Other FREEWAY PROJECTS TOTAL COST 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 196-97 ' i 97.98 * ' 98-2001 2001-20t6 Funding West Beltway ~ Seventh Standard to South Beltway . $4,908,000 * $4,908 Crosstown Freeway - S.R. 99 to S.R: 178 $169,653,000 ...... $169,653 Kern River Freeway - Stockdale Hwy to S. H. 99 $196,000,000 $1,285 $60 * * $40 $90 $300 $149,355 $45,000 South Beitwa¥ - West Beltwa¥ to Cottonwood $108,796,000 $250 $250 $40 * * $108,256, S.H. 178 - Oswell Street to Alfred Harrel Hwy $1,913,000 * $18 $40 $158 * $1,697 S. 'H. 99 - Ming Avenue to S. H. 204 $13,230,000 ..... $2,812 $10,418 S. H. 58 - Real Road to Cottonwood Road $18,169,000 * * * $18,169 MAJOR IMPROVEMENTS YEAR ($1,000's Of TDF Funds) ' ' '~'; ' ' ' '- Other ~' · KERN RIVER BRIDGES '- TOTAL COST 92~93 93-94 94.95' !95-96 96;97 97-98 98-2001 · i 2001~2016 ' Funding Allen Road I~ Kern River $3,000,000 $3,000 Calloway Drive (~ Kern River w/Roadway between dikes $6,626,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,626 Mohawk street ~ Kern River $3,500,000 $25 $3,475 $0 Chester Avenu~e i~1 Kern' River (widen) - City/County $1,920,000 $1,920 ' Mano~ street ~ Kern River (widen), City/County $1,610,000 $1,610 ' Morning Drive t~l Kern River County $0 SUbtOtal ? Ken3 River Brid~es $16,656,000 $13,156 $0 CANA['BRIDGES ' ' . panama Lane l~'Arvin Edison west (widen) $360,000 $360 $0 · S~ H~ 58 I~ Friant Kern (widen) $400,000 $40 $396 ($36) S. H:"58'~ Calloway west (widen) County $0 · S. H. 58'l~'Calloway east (widen) . County $0 Allen Road ~.CrOSs Valley $500,000 $500 · CallOway Drive ~1 Cross Valley $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 'Akers Road ~ A~vin Edison $205,000 $205 $0 Mohawk Street {~! Cross Valley $500,000 $500 Mohawk Street ~1 Callowa¥ ' County $0 Stine Road ~ Arvin Edison (widen) $320,000 ,$320 $0 v Manor Street ~ Carrier $270,000 $55 $0 $215 South H Street ~ Arvin Edis°n (widen) $320,000 $320 $0 -' No~h Chester Avenue ~1 Beardsley (widen) County $0 Oswell Street ~1A~vln Edison County $0 Wlble ROad ~ Arvin Edison (widen) $320,000 $320 $0 o~ive Drive ~ Calleway $500,000 $500 Olive Ddve (~ Fdant-Kern $500,000 $500 Subtotal - Canal Bdd~es $5,195,000 $2,464 $215 · Funds to be made available for protection of rights of way, as needed, for each freeway alignment. · 'Total Costs for projects have been adjusted to reflect more accurate cost estimates. As projects are completed, they will be removed from the list. Other funding is shown only for those budgeted projects where an alternate funding source has been identified. S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9_ 10_03\Exhibit A Phase I TIF CIP.XLS Exhibit "A" Page 1 of 4 8/29/2003 CITY Of BAKERSFIELD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Re~ Facilities List PROJECTS YEaR ($1,000'~ of TDF Funds) Other CANAL CULVERTS TOTAL COST 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 9697 97-98' 98-2001 2001-2016 Funding Taft Highway (S.R. 119) ~ Farmer's (widen) County $0 Panama Lane (~ Buena.vista (widen) $100,000 $17 $0 $83 Panama Lane ~ Farmer's (widanI $100,000 $100 $0 Panama Lane (~ Kern Island (central branch) $180,000 $180 Panama Lane ~ Arvin Edison $200,000 $200 $0 Pacheco Road ~1 Buena Vista (widen) $35,000 $35 Pacheco Road ~1 Farmer's (widen) $80,000 $80 Pacheco Road ~ Kern Island (widen) $80,000 $20 $0 $60 White Lane ~l Kern Island (widen) $100.000 $10 $90 $0 White Lane (~t Kern Island Central Br. (widen) $40,000 $43 ,($3I Muller Road (~ Easteide County $0 Ming Avenue ~ River Canal $180,000 $180 Ming Avenue ~ James $80,000 $80 Casa Loma Drive ~ Kern Island County $0 Stockdale Hi~hwa)/(~ River Canal $180,000 $180 · Olive Drive ~1 Beardsle)'~ County $0 Ranfro Road ~ James County $0 Renfro Road ~ River Canal Count), $0 Allen Road ~ Buena Vista '~ $80,000 $80 Allan Road ~ James $80,000 $80 Allen Road ~ River Canal $180,000 $180 Allen Road (~ Goose Lake Slough (widen) $40,000 $12 $0 $28 Buena Vista Road {~ Buena Vista (widen)· $100,000 $100 ' ' Buena Vista Road ~l'River Canal (wideh) $100,000 $100 Fruitvale Avenue ~ Beardsla~/(widen) ' County $0 New Sflne Road ~ Stine (widen) $100,000 $100 , Haley Street ~ Easteide (widen) $100,000 $100 Falrfax Road ~1 Eastslde (widen) County $0 S; H; 184 ~1Easteide (widen) County $0 Subtotal ;Canal Culverte $2,135,000 $1,472 $171 CANAL RELATED PROJECTS Panama Lane ~ Farmer's $48,000 $17 $31 $48 Panama Lane ~ Arvin Edison - road realignment $460,000 $460 $0 South H Street (~ Kern Island (S.R. 119 to White)- road reali~]nment $2,300,000 $2,300 S. H. 184 ~ Eastside County $0 Subtotal - Canal Related Projects $2,808,000 $2,300 $0 S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9_10_03\Exhibit A Phase I TIF CIP.XLS Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 4 8/29/2003 CiTY OF BAKERSFIELD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Re¢ Facilities List PROJECTS YF.~ ($1,000'~ of TDF Funds) ' Other DRAINAGE CULVERTS, BRIDGES AND DITCHES TOTAL COST 92-93 93-94 194-95 95-96 96-97 '~ 97-98 98-2001 200i-20i6 Funding East Panama Road ~ Caliente Creek Bypass County $0 Shalane Avenue Box Culverts (10 Ioca§ons) County $0 Shalane Avenue Bridges (3 locations) County $0 College Avenue Box Culverts (Valencia Dr. to Kern Canyon Road) $520,000 $520 Paladino Drive Box Culverts (Fairfax to AIf. Harrell) $325,000 $325 Alfred Harrel ~ Box Culverts (Fairfax to S.R. 178) $560,000 $560 Morning Drive Box Culvert (1 location - S.R.178 to AIf. Harrell) $80,000 $80 Morning Drive Bridge (1 large & 1 small) " $580,000 $580 _Fd__l~n_. 'Roed__ Box Culverts {4 locations - S.R.58 to AIf. Harrell) $320,000 $320 Edi _~.'t Road Bridges (2 locations - S.R. 58 to Afl. Harrell) $1,000,000 $1,000 S~_h!otal - Drainage Culverts, Bridges and Ditches .'. $3,385,000 . $3,385 STATE HVVY BRIDGES/INTERCHANGES Taft Highway ~ S. H. 99 (widen) County $0 Panama Lane ~l S. H. 99 (widen) $3,250,000 $250 $2,800 $0 $200 'White Lane (~ S. H. 99 (widen) $1 475 000 $150 $1,200 $125 Olive Drive (~ S. H. 99 (widen) County $0 7th Standard Road (~ S. H. 99 (widen) County $0 Fairfax Road ~ S. H. 58 {widen) County $0 Fairfax Road ~ S. H. 178 (interchange) -City/State $6,000,000. $354 $5,646 FairfaxRoad i~ Alfred Harrel H~ (widen) Count~/ $0 Morning Drive ~ Alfred Harrel Hw~ (interchange) County $0 Morning Ddve ~ S.H. 178 (interchange) - City/State $6,000,000 $6,000 H°Sking~Overcrossing ~ S. H. 99 (widen) $1,500,000 $1,500 McKee Overc, rossing@ S. H. 99 $1,400,000 $1,400 Subtotal - State HW~. Brid~es/Interchan~es $19,625,000 $19,425 $200 RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATIONS , $0 ... S. H. 58 (~A. T. &S. F. R.R.(widen) county $0 Olive Drive I~l S. P. R. R, County $0 7th Standard Road (~ S. P. R.R. !County $0 Calloway Drive ~ A. T, & S, F. R. R, County $0 Coffee Road ~! A. T. & S. F. R. R.- City/State/Railroad $9,125,000 $13 $90 $250 $1,600 $1,000 $4,000 $0 $2,172 Mohawk Street ~ A. T. & S. F. R. R. - City/County $7,500,000 $7,500 Oswell Street ~ A, T. & S. F.IS. P. R.R. Count}, $0 Morning Drive ~ A. T, & S, F./S. P. R.R.* County $0 Mt. Vernon Avenue ~ A: T, & S. F./S. P. R.R.(widen) County $0 Subtotal ? Railroad Grade SeParations $16,625,000 $7,500 $2,172 S!\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit A Phase I TIF CIP.XLS Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 4 8/29/2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN pROJECTS YEaR ($1,000'~ of TDF Funris} ~ IMPROVE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS TOTAL COST 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 )6-97 =97~98 98-2001 2001-2016 Fundin~ Panama Road {~ Arvin Branch (A. T. & S. F. R.R.) County $0 Panama Lane (~ Sunset Branch (S. P. R.R.) $100,000 $100 Pacheco Road (~ Sunset Branch (S. P. R.R.) $100,000 $100 Mulla' Road (~ Arvin Branch (A. T. & S. F. R.R.) County $0 Casa Loma Drive ~ S. P. R. R. Branch County $0 Stockdale Highway ~ S. P. R. R. Branch County $0 S. H. 58 {~ A. T. & S. F./S. P. R. R. Connection (West of Landco) County $0 Hageman Road (~ A. T. & S.F. County $0 NooIs Road ~ S. P, R. R. Spur County $0 Norris Road ~ S. P. R. R. Spur County $0 Renfro Road ~ S. P. R. R. Branch County $0 'Allen Road ~ S.=P."R. R. Branch ,. Count}, $0 Buena V!sta Road (~ S. P. R, R. Branch $100,000 $100 Old River (~1 S. P. R. R. Branch $100,000 $100 South Chester'Avenue ~ S. P. R. R. Branch . $100,000 $100 Nodh'Chestar Avenue ~ S. P. R: R. Spur County $0 Union Avenue ~ S. P: R: R. Branch County $0 Subtotal - Improve Railroad Grade Crossings $500,000 $0 TRAFFIC SIGNALS New Installations (66 locations) ' $7,807,000 $34 $65 $603 $7,105 Upgrades (9 locations} $1,080,000 $60 $1,020 Subtotal - Traffic Sinals $8,887,000 ! $8,125 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS S. H. 119 - Stine Rued to South H Street $5,093,524 $5,094 Stockdale ,Hwy - Metro Boundary to Allen Road $3,757,429 $100 $3,657 Stockdale Hw~; Allen Road to Oak Street . $1,165,400 $200 $40 $658 $307 S. H. 58 - Enos Lane to Allen Road · $11,700,000 $11,700 S. H. 58 - Allen Road to S. H. 99 $18,997,500 $18,998 S, H. 184 - Morning Drive to Edison Road $2,573,900 $2,574 Union Avenue - Taft Hi~hw~ to S.R. 58 $1,403,048 $1,403 ' 23rd & 24th Street Improvements $4,500,000 $4,500 Callowa~/Drive - Brimhall Road to Stockdale Highway $1,500,000 $376 $11124 $0 Callowa¥ Ddve - Brimhall Road to Rosedale H~hwa¥ $3,050,000 $50 $2,000 $1,000 $0 County California Avenue - Widening Oak St. to "A" St. $350,000 $150 $72 $128 HOSkir~ Road ~ Wible to StJne $430,000 $430 $0 Truxtun Avenue - Widening (~ Oak St. $400,000 $200 $104 $96 S. H.'178 - Mesa Marin to Mira Monte (4 lanes)' $968,000 $968 SlJ~¥OYAL - ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS TRANSIT IMPROVEMENTS S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9_lO_03\Exhibit A Phase I TIF CIP.XLS Exhibit "A" Page 4 of 4 8/29/2003 M)OPTED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACIUTIES LIST. Metropolitan Bakerafield Tranaportatlon Impact Fee Pro~lram. phase II. FY 2003-2024 . M)OPTED REGIONAL TRANspoRTATION FACILITIES UST - Metropolitan Bakelifleld Tran$ mrtatlon Impact Fee Pr°~ram · Phase II - FY 2003-2024 ~DOPTED R_;_r__-~:)_ NAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES UST - Metre_~__!_~an Bakersfield Trans ~ortatlon Impact Fee Pro,ram - Phase II - FY 2003-2024 ~ ,.~,~o~crs,;,F,P~.~,~c ~, ,o o,;.E~, a ~',F ,, ~,,,,., L., °3;, ~ EXHIBIT "B" ADOPTED REGIONAl. TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES UST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transpmtation Impact Fee Pro~ram. Phase II - FY 2003-2024 ADOPTED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES UST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Pro, ram · Phase II - FY 2003-2024 .,.~,,~,~.. ~,.:,:. ,,~ ,~.,~-.~,.,. ,,~- ,, f.,,.,.. ,,., o~. ~,~ EXHIBIT "B" ~,~,.,,~, ~ ~,,., .A_ _~tPTED p~P_-!OH_~_ TRANSPORTATION FACIUTIES LIST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Pro~ram - Phase II - FY 2003-2024 $o Corn Projects. Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program. Phase III . TolaJ of Core Projects $70,800,525 PROPO$~_P REI31ONAL TRANSPORTATION 'FACILITIES LIST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Pro ]ram - Phaae III - Non Core Area PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES LIST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Pre ~rsm ~ Phase III - Non Core Area UMIT8 mf~/~tl~ NUMBER~UMBEI LANE~ cO~rESTmlAT~ ~ Fn=~ ro uu8 sm~.~ ~:~os~ bvF';" NOT~" ~ CONSTRUCT. co~T CO~T ~ Ha~eman Road Mohawk Street install Signal ~00 $0 S 130,000 $0 $130,000 $130.000 PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES LIST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Pro~lram - Phase III - Non Core Area ~o~nmR. Drive Alfred Harrell Hi,cil~way Construct Inlerchan,cje $0 $0 i $0 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 $1,700,000 3id River Roacl Harris Road Install Si,clnal $0 $0 $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130,000 Old River Roacl SR 119 Panama Lane 2.00 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $0 $918,308 $0 $0 $918,308 $918,308 Olive Drive Jewetla Avenue Calioway Drive 1.20 0 2 2 Construct 2 lanes $0 $550t985 $0 $0 $550r985 $550,985 i Olive Drive Patton Way Install Si,cJnal $0 $0 $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130,000 Olive Drive Rivertakes D.ve Coffee Road 0.25 4 6 I Add 1 lane $0 $57r394 $0 $0 i $57,394 $57,394 Olive Drive Riverlakes Drive Install Si,qnal $0 $0 $130,000 $0 I $130,000 $130,000 Paladino Drive Masterson Stree~ Inslall Si,~nal $0 $0 $130r000 $0 $130.000 $130,000 Paladino Ddve Momm,cj Drive Install Si.~nat $0 $0 $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130,000 PROPOSED REi31ONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES LIST- Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Pro ;~rsm - phase III - Non Core Area Panama Lane South Union Avenue Si,qnal Mo(]ification $0 $0 $80,000 $0 $80,000 $80.000 Panama Lane Sunsel RR Improve ~rade crossin~ at Sla, 186+70 (Sunset~ $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Panorama Drive V~o~nin,c~ Drive nstall Si,~nal $0 $0 $130r000 $0: $130,000 $130,000 Renfro Road ~eina Road Johnson Road 3.70 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $0 $1~698,870 $0: $0 $1,698~870 $1,698,870 Rudd Road (West Beltv, ay) -la,qeman Road SR 58/Rosedale Hi~hwa~ 1 00 2 6 0 Build Beltway as arterial lincludes .(:Fade seD, al Meacham Roa¢ $224,400 $0 $0 $0 $224,400 $224,400 Rudd Road (Wast Betlway) 3hve Drive, Santa Fe Way Railroad Grade Separation . $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5.000,000 Seventh Standard Road3oflea Road Ins all SiRnal $0 $0 $130~000 $0 $130~O00 $130tO00 ~R 119 Asne Road Install Si,qnal $0 $0 $130000[ $0I $130,000 $130r000 PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES LIST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Pro ]ram - Phase III - Non Core Area SR 119 vim Ridqe Drive Install Siclnal $0 $0 $130,000 $0 S 130,000 $130,000 SR 119 Nible ROad nslall Signal $0 $0 $130.000 $0 $130.000 $1301000 SR 178 v~ornin,q Drive Rancheria Road 5.00 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $0 $5,500,000 $0 $0 $5.500,000 $5,500,000 SR 184 ~R 50 EIB & W/B Ram ps Inslall Signal S0 $0 $130r000 $0 $130,000 $130,000 SR 58/Rosedale Highway ~,T&SF RR Improve RRX ~,, AT&SF (Wlo Landco Ddve} $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100.000 $100,000 SR 50/Rosedale .,RhwaY .~allowa¥ Drive Si.qnal Modification $0 I $0 $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130,000 SR 58/Rosedale Hi.cjhway 3ibson Street SR 99 Widen SR 58/Rosedale HiclhwaY $0 $300r000 $0 $0 $300~000 $150,000 SR 58/Rosedale Hi.cjhwa¥ Jew~tta Avenue W~-ms $0 $60~000 $0 $60,000 $120,000 $120,000 SR 58/Rosedale Hi,qhway .andco Drive SiRnal Modification $0 $0 $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130,000 SR 58/Rosodale Hi.cihway Nord Road ns al Si,cjnal $0 $0 $130,000 $0 S130~000 S130r000 Tar Hi.(:jhway Akers Road Install Si,cjnal $0 $0 $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130,000 Verdu,~o Lane Meacham Road Install Si,qnal $0 $0 $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130~000 Wes~side Parkway Renfro Road ~R 99 7.00 0 4-8 4-8 Cons. Cost Irom Cily/Counly{10% funded~-$45 Mil. in STIP for t $0 $37.240,000 $0 I $0, $5,000.000 $4525.000 PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANBPORTATION FACILITIES LIST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Pro~lram ~ Phase III - Non Core Area ~l. lmT8 mP~WEME NUMRER IUMBEf~ LAHES CC'~FP-ST~dAI~ BeLt~ay PlaflniflcI Advance Planflin.qlStudies $0 $0 $0 ' $2~600r000 $2,009.000 $2.000.000 Ri.~hl o! Wall f~' gap p~'oiects $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3.673.232 Freeways Fwy R/W $9.318.072 $0 $0 $0 $9.318.072 $9.318.072 TOTALS $34,422,721$1571749,872 $27,095,000$161,290,194$348,157,083$335,459,t40 ....... ~ COLLEGE AVE PIONEER DR .,: 58 FWY i WHITE LN Transportation Impact Fee Phase III Core Area Map !-- I I Exhibit O TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE Phase I Phase II Phase II phasell Phase III Phase III TYPE FEE FEE', ., · FEEl FEE: FEE FEE LAND USE TYPE N°. PER UNIT PER UNIT · pER uNiT . PER-UNiT PER UNIT PER UNIT " ~ "~'~*' ' CORE' NON-CORE SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED 1 $1,179 $2,197 $2,346 $2,466 $2,882 $5,813 MULTI-FAMILY 2 $828 $1,471 $1,571 $1,651 $1,383 $2,790 IIIIII / 1 1 1 1 1 1 HEAVY/SERVICE INDUSTRIAL 3 $87 $87 $93 $98 $73 $148 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 4 $38 $38 $41 $43 $73 $148 OFFICE, COMMERCIAL Under 100,000 sq, ft.. 5 $33 $33 $35 $37 $53 $107 100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 6 $39 $39 $42 $44 $63 $128 200~000 sq. ft. & over 7 $41 $41 $44 $46 $71 $143 RETAIL.COMMERCIAL ~ Under 10,000 sq~ ft. 8 $39 $39 $37 $39 $27 $55 10,000-49,999 sq. ft.' 9 $25 $25 $48 $51 $43 $87 50,000.99,999 sq. ft. 10 $28 $28 $64 $67 $61 $122 100~,000sq. ft. & over Individual study Individual study I[~dividual studyIndividual study Individual study Individual study Effective Date 06/08/92 02/10/97 07/08/02 08/25/03 60 days after 60 days after joint adoption joint adoption S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9_10_03\Exhibit E Core Fee Schedule.xls Exhibit E 8/29/2003 EXHIBIT "G" Transportation Impact Fee- Phase I!! Fee Update Background August 27, 2003 Transportation-Impact Fee - Phase !il Fee Update Background Backqround The Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee was adopted by both, the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors, in 1992. The original impetus for this Transportation Impact Fee Program is the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 General Plan Circulation Policy Statement No. 39: "Require new development and expansion of existing development to pay or participate in it's pro rata share of the costs of expansions in area-wide transportation facilities and services which it necessitates." This Impact Fee is a development fee and the procedures laid out by the State of California in Government Code Section 66000 et.seq, were followed in the adoption process. The fee program consists of an ordinance to implement the fee on new development, and a Resolution adopting the Regional Transportation Facilities List and a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. The Facilities List included some of the facilities needed to maintain a Level of Service of "C" or better for new growth or to prevent the degradation of roads which are currently below Level of Service "C" as shown in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element. The Fee Schedule set forth the fees to be collected from new development to mitigate the need for the facilities. When first adopted, the .facilities list included only those projects, which were considered too large for individual developers to fund and construct on their own. However, some additional mitigation was needed on a case-by-case basis to account for the local component of the traffic needs. The fee program was updated in 1997 to eliminate the need for individual traffic studies to determine the local component of the traffic needs, and the facilities list was expanded to include many roadway segments and traffic signals. The funding of these items was the most common requirement of the local traffic studies, and their inclusion in the facilities list eliminated the need for these studies. The Transportation Impact Fee pays for the construction of both regional and local facilities that are required to maintain a Level of Service "C" for the Metropolitan Bakersfield transportation system. Only those facilities required by new development as allowed by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in effect on December 3, 2003 are covered by this Transportation Impact Fee Program. The fee schedule was updated in 2002 to account for the increase in the Construction Cost Index from the time of initial adoption through 2001. The fee schedule has been developed based upon the fact that different types of land use types will place different demands on the regional transportation system. Those types of uses whose impact on the road system is greater will pay a higher fee. These fees are imposed on new development through the application of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and are collected at the building permit stage for any development that produces additional vehicular trips over that attributable to the land being developed before the new development is in place. S:\PROJECTS\TI~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 2 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !il Fee Update Background The fees are placed in a separate interest bearing account, per the requirements of GC 66000 et seq, are only used to construct those facilities that are listed on the Facilities List. Currently, both City and County staff have been tasked with a comprehensive update of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee program to extend the program out to a new horizon year- 2020. In doing so, the socioeconomic data for'the updated- model has been thoroughly reviewed and updated for the base year of 1998 and the horizon year of 2020 have been performed by the Kern Council of Governments (KCOG). The Land Use base map used was the Land Use adopted for the 2010 General Plan Update. The new facilities that are required to maintain a Level of Service of"C" or better have been determined and added to a new Facilities List. The various components that go into the computation of the fee schedule have been reviewed and updated. This paper documents the assumptions, equations, and values necessary to update both the facilities list and the fee schedule. Facilities List The transportation network needed for the horizon year of 2020 was derived after much iteration. Assumptions were made as to which of the lanes for the roadways were going to be complete by the horizon year, and the traffic model was used to determine which of those additional lanes was necessary to maintain a Level of Service "C". The criteria as to whether to add'a segment to the facilities list were as follows: 1. If the LOS on anY link is C or better in 1998, and is also C or better in 2020, do not add any lanes to the Phase III list unless the existing lanes are in the wrong location - i.e. 24' of existing paving on an arterial does not allow for the median and the existing pavement is usually entirely removed with the installation of a median. In this case, add the cost to remove the existing pavement and dispose of it and replace with topsoil. 2. 'If the LOS on any link is C or better in 1998 and is less than C in 2020 - add the necessary lanes to bring the LOS in 2020 to C or better. 3. If the LOS is less than C on any link in 1998, add lanes as necessary to' keep the same LOS in 2020. 4. If no road exists on the link in 1998, and 2020 shows 2 or more lanes needed for LOS C or better, add the appropriate lanes. 5. If the adjoining parallel arterials are LOS C or worse in 2020, add 2 lanes to the intermediate collector. 6. The dedication of rights-of-way is a requirement under the City and County subdivision and development ordinances. Therefore, only certain rights-of-way will be included in the facilities list. Where "gap" projects that the City or County will be required to construct, and money needs to be available to pay for the additional right-of-way that may be required, a line item will be added to cover these costs. S:\PROJECTS\TII~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc 9~4~2003 Page 3 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!1 Fee Update Background 7. If the link already has lanes on the Phase II list, keep the Phase II lanes on that segment and update the Phase II construction cost and, where applicable, the right-of-way and other costs (unless noted otherwise). 8. If an intersection has been recently constructed in the County (including curb and gutter), and it was not expanded, leave it as is. 9. If the land is Industrial or Commercial and the full improvements are not in place, get additional travel lanes (if necessary), but not the remaining improvements. (curb, gutter, sidewalk, parking lane) - businesses must pay for their frontage improvements. The cost assumptions are as follows: I. Land Costs per square foot: a. Residential $1.00 b. Commercial - Undeveloped $ 3.00 c. Commercial - Developed $10.00 d. Industrial - Undeveloped $ 0.57 e. Industrial - Developed $ 2.50 2. Existing Residences: If the existing home will meet the minimum setback requirement after the ultimate right-of-way is in place, then purchase the additional right-of-way at the above .cost. If the home cannot meet the minimum setback, then purchase the home and lot for $250,000 (blended price for all of Bakersfield). 3. Road Construction Costs: a. Arterial $215,000 per lane mile x 1.0678 (Construction Cost Index) b. Collector $145,000 per lane mile x 1.0678 (Construction Cost Index) c. Removal of both existing arterial lanes in the wrong position (no median allowance): $25/CY for roadway excavation to a depth of 2 feet (including disposal) and replace with topsoil at $10/CY - 20' x 2' x 1' x $35/CY assume $52/LF 4. Miscellaneous Costs: a. Railroad Grade Separation (City/County contribution only): $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 Ea. b. Collector Grade Separation: $2,000,000 Ea. (At West Beltway) c. Traffic signal $ 130,000 Ea. d. At-grade RR Crossing $ 250,000 Ea. e. Curb, gutter and Sidewalk $ 29.25 / LF f. Additional Paving $ 2.50 / SF Fee Equation This is a brief outline of the modified equation used to determine the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule and the development of the various constants and variables. For an in-depth discussion of the unmodified equation (Gas Tax version), see" Metropolitan S:\PROJECTS\TIF1Phaso 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 4 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background Bakersfield - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE - Final Report" by Omni- Means Engineers Planners dated February, 1991. The equation is as follows: Attributable New Travel = [(Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) X Average Trip Length) / 2] X % New Trips' New Lane Miles of Roads = Attributable Travel / Capacity Per Lane Total Cost = New Lane Miles Of Road X Total Program Costs/Number of Lane Miles Impact Fee = Total Cost The constants and variables for the equation are the "Trips Per Peak Hour", the "Average Trip Length", the "% New Trips", the "Capacity Per Lane" and the "Cost per Lane Mile of Road". Also needed to develop the total number of trips for each land use category is the number of new units (or square footage) from the base year of 1998 to the design year of 2020. S:\PROJECTS~TIF~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 5 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !11 Fee Update Background "Trips Per Peak Hour" The constants for "trips per peak hour" are determined from the data in the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip .Generation", 6th Edition for each of the land use types in the fee schedule. These land use types are: 1. Single Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210) 2. Apartment (Land Use 220) 3. General Heavy Industrial (Land Use 120) - used for Service Industrial also 4. General Light Industrial (Land Use 110) 5. General Office Building (Land Use 710) - generalized as Office Commercial 6. Shopping Center (Land Use 820) - generalized as 'Retail Commercial The peak trip rate in all cases is assumed to be the PM Peak of the adjacent street as the PM peak hour commute in Bakersfield is generally the most congested. Attached are excerpts from the Trip Generation manual for the various land uses. The following table summarizes the trip rates: 4.24 11.57 11.01 7.72 155.09 112.56 76.55 Individual Study S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc . 91412003 Page 6 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!1 Fee Update Background "Average Trip Length" The average trip length is determined from the Kem Council of Government's traffic model. The model provides estimates of average trip length in minutes by trip purpose and the average speed of system-wide trips. The trip rate times the trip length in minutes divided by the average speed yields the trip length in miles. "% New Trips" The following is excerpted from the~ Omni-Means report: Many land uses, while attracting traffic, generate little if any new traffic (other than attracting traffic to a particular location). There are several reasons for this. First, the multiple purpose trip will tend to attract traffic to particular locations without generating new traffic. Second, the capturing of an existing trip, such as stopping for a quart of milk on the way home from work, will not result in additional travel. Third, diverting a trip which already existed (such as taking the long way home from work to shop) will place limited new travel on the road system. Take, for example, the convenience store and the service (gas) station. The typical visit to these establishments is not a primary trip, especially during the peak hour, but rather are trips made by individuals who are going elsewhere, such as home or work. An example may help. Let's assume there is an individual driving from work to home. Assume that this individual stops at the day care center to pick up a child, a convenience store to get milk and a service station for gasoline. How many trips have been made? According to the standard methodology of transportation engineering, a total of four (4) trips have been made, with eight (8) trip ends. o Leaving work o Entering the day care center o Leaving the day care center o Entering the convenience store o Leaving the convenience store o Entering the service station o Leaving the service station o Arriving home If we were to apply an average trip length of 7.1 miles to these trips, the result would be 28.4 miles of travel, a vast over-statement of actual travel. This over-statement is corrected in impact fee analysis in two ways. First, a percentage reduction factor (% new trips), for trips to particular land uses which do not place additional travel on the roads, and second, to adjust the trip lengths for non-residential land uses which more accurately reflect the travel patterns of trips visiting those land uses. The first, % new trips, is included in the Table below. The second, adjusted trip lengths, are also included in the S:\PROJECTS\TI~Phase 3\CC 9_10_03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 7 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background Table below. Both of these adjustments are ultimately made on the basis of professional judgment. Such judgments, however, are based upon information provided in Trip Generation, several articles in the "ITE Journal" and specifically upon an article which appears in the May, 1984, issue of "Public Works". These articles were guides to the establishment of the % new trips. 6.50 20% 6.50 25% 6.50 40% 0.50 10% 2.0 15% 2.0 20% Individual Study A search of recent literature has not resulted in any new information to be added to that used in the Omni-Means report, and a review of the KCOG model has indicated that these trip figures are still reasonably accurate. S:\PROJECTS~TII~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc 9/4/2OO3 Page 8 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase I!! Fee Update Background "Capacity Per Lane" This constant is derived in part from the facilities list, and can be considered iterative until the final list is dctem'fined. The average daily per lane capacity of each of roadway types for a Level of Service C is w¢igJ~tcd by thc number of lane miles of each type of facility. Thc capacity per lane is as follows (per" Metropolitan Bakersfield - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FFE - Final Report" by Omni-Means Engineers Planners dated Fcbrua~, 1991, page 17): l. Freeways 15,000 per lane (18,750 capacity) 2. Expressway 12,000 per lane (15,000 capacity) 3. Arterials 8,000 per lane (10,000 capacity) 4. Collectors 6,000 per lane (7,500 capacity) The number of lane miles for each of the roadway types is determined from the facilities list. The capacity per lane is shown in the following table: Roadway Per Lane Lane Miles % Lane Miles Weighted Peak Type Capacity Average Weighted Average Collector 6000 28.28 5.37% 322.0 32.2 Arterial 8000 376.9 71.52% 5721.8 572.2 Expressway 12000 34.8 16.51% 2476.1 247.6 Freeway 15000 86.99 6.60% 792.5 79,2 Totals 526.97 100.00% 9312.4 931.2 "Number of Units" Residential trip generation constants are-in "ADT/unit" or "Peak trip/unit" units. Thc number of units for single family residential and multi family residential categories come from the KCOG data for the socioeconomic input for the traffic model. The number of new units in the period from 1998 to 2020 are 47,882 single family residences and 15,818 multi-family residences. The non-residential trip generation constants are in "ADT/1000 S F" or "Peak trips/1000 SF" units. The number of 1000's SF for non-residential uses are derived as follows: S:\PROJECTS\TIRPhase 3\CC 9_10_03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 9 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background Assumption # 1 The increase in total employment (jobs) in Metropolitan Bakersfield between 2000 and 2020 from the Kern COG Model was used to determine the number of future jobs. This increase is anticipated to be 62,424 total jobs. Assumption #2 The percentages of growth in each employment category (retail, office commercial, service industrial, light industrial, heavy industrial) was determined from the percentages of jobs in each category County wide for 2002 as shown on the County Snapshots of the Labor Market Information Division of California Employment Development Department (EDD). This gave the following percentages: Retail = 39% = 24,345 jobs Office Commercial = 27% = 16,854 jobs Industrial = 34% = 21,224 jobs (Service, Light, and Heavy Industrial were combined into Industrial (21,224 jobs) for our purposes.) Assumption #3 The original assumptions regarding employees per acre and percent building per acre (from City Planning Department) were used to determine future square footage to be built by employment type. These assumptions are as follows: Type Employees/Acre % building Retail 17 25 Office Commercial 34 25 Industrial 10.5 20 These factors were then used as follows: Retail = [24,345 jobs / (17 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 25% bldg: 15,595,121 Sq. Feet Office Commercial =[16,854 jobs / (34 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 25% bldg =5,398,237 Sq. Feet Industrial = [21224 jobs / (10.5 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 20% bldg = 17,609,856 Sq. Feet S:\PROJECTS\TI~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 10 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!1 Fee Update Background These figures are summarized in the following table: 4158698.9 7277723.1 2079349.5 S:\PROJECTS\TIRPhase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit G Nexus.doc 9/4/2OO3 Page 11 of 11 "Non-Core" Metro Area Option RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD ADOPTNG THE 2003-2024 REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN AND FACILITIES LIST, PHASES I, II AND III, ADOPTING THE NEXUS REPORT AND CERTIFYING THAT A FINAL EIR HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN'COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT GUIDELINES. WHEREAS, Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield -Municipal Code implemented a Transportation Impact Fee program for new development in order for new.development to bear a proportionate share of the cost of the new or expanded transportation facilities required .by such development; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code requires that the City Council annually update the capital improvement plan for road construction funded by the impact fee program and adopt a proposed fee schedule; and WHEREAS, Chapter 15.84 of the Bakersfield Municipal Code further requires that the fee schedule adopted by the City Council be adjusted annually by the Construction Cost Index; and WHEREAS, both the Facilities List and the Fee Schedule of the Transportation Impact Fee program have been re-evaluated to include a new planning horizon year of 2020 and the transportation network has been updated to include the latest development and land use trends; and WHEREAS, all developments which vest after the adoption of this Resolution will be subject to the Phase tll Transportation Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, those vesting maps which vested .prior to February 10, 1997 and those non-vesting maps which had their local mitigation measures determined by the Planning Commission prior to February 10, 1997 are subject to the rates in effect prior to Resolution 140-96, called the Phase I rates; and WHEREAS, existing vesting maps which have their vesting date prior to the adoption date of this Resolution are subject to the rates in effect prior to this Resolution, called .the Phase II rates; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield determined that the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update Final Environmental Impact Report approved and certified on December 11, 2002 adequately covers the environmental analysis and CEQA requirements for this project; and WHEREAS, the availability of the Final Environmental Impact Report was noticed in the Bakersfield Californian; and WHEREAS, the environmental recOrd prepared in conjunction with the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Update FEIR includes the following: 1. The Notice of Preparation, the Draft Environmental Impact Report, and the Final Environmental Impact Report; and 2. All staff reports, memoranda, maps, letters, minutes of meetings, and other documents .prepared by the consultant relating to the project; and 3. All testimony., documents, and evidence presented by the City of Bakersfield relating to the project; and 4. The 'proceedings before the City Council relating to the project and Final Environmental Impact Report including testimony and documenting evidence introduced at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, a public hearing before the City Council was advertised and held September 10, 2003. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Bakersfield as follows: 1. The above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein. 2. That the Capital Improvement Plan, Phase I set forth in Exhibit "A" is hereby approved and adopted for all developments that vested prior to February 10, 1997. 3. That the Capital Improvement Plan, Phase II set forth as Exhibit "B", is hereby approved and adopted fOr all developments other than those which vested prior to February 10, 1997. 4. That the Regional Facilities List, Phase III set forth in Exhibit "C", is hereby approved and adopted for all developments other than those which vested prior to the date of this Resolution. 5. That the fee schedule for Phases I, II and III set forth in Exhibit "D" is hereby approved and adopted. 6. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for this project has been completed in compliance with CEQA.' 7. The City Council hereby certifies that it has received, reviewed, evaluated and considered the information contained in the Final Environmental Impact Report for GPA 01-0973 and has found the analysis and mitigation adequate for this project. 8. The City Council hereby certifies that the Final Environmental Impact Report for GPA P01-0973 reflects the City Council's independent judgement and analysis for the necessary environmental analysis for this project. 9. That the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) have been followed. 10. That the City Council approves the Statement of Facts and Findings (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15091), Statement of Overriding Considerations (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15093) as shown in attached Exhibit "E". 11. The Planning Division of the Development Services Department is hereby directed to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of Kern County, pursuant to the provisions of Section 21152 of the Public Resources Code and Section 15094 of the CEQA Guidelines adopted pursuant thereto and a Certificate of Fee Exemption pursuant to Section 711.4 (c)(2)(b) of the State of California Department of Fish and Game Code. 12. The nexus report as set forth in Exhibit "F" is hereby approved and adopted. 13. This Resolution will become effective 60 days after it's adoption by both the City and the County, .whichever is later. ............ 000 ............ I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at a regular meeting thereof held on , by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBER COUCH, BENHAM, CARSON, HANSON, MAGGARD, SALVAGGIO, SULLIVAN NOES: COUNCIL MEMBER ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBER ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBER CITY CLERK and Ex Officio Clerk of the Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED By HARVEY L. HALL Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: BART .J. THILTGEN City Attorney By ALAN D. DANIEL Deputy City Attorney Exhibits: (Attached) A B C D E F S:\PROJECTS\TIRPhase 3\CC 9 10 03\Trans Impact Fee res.doc raps 4 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD 1997 - 2016 Regional Transportation Improvement Plan - Phase I PROJECTS ..... YEAR ($1~000'S of TDF Funds) · FREEWAY PROJECTS TOTAL COST t2-93 93-94 94-95' 95-96 ·' 98~97 ' 97-98 ' ~ 98-2001 !00i;2016 ' Funding West Beltway -'Seventh Standard to South Beltway $4,908,000 ...... $4,908 "' ~ FreeWa)~ -'S:R: 99 to S.R. 178 $169,653,000 .... $169,653 Kem River Freeway. St_r~_~de~ Hw~ to S. H. 99' $196,000,000 $1,285 $60 * * $40 $90 $300 $149,355 $45,000 "South'_me~¥~WestBeltwayto~Cottonweed ' ' $108,796,000 $250 $250 $40 * * $108,256 S.' H. 178. OswellStreet to AJfred Harrel Hwy ~' $1,913,000 * $18 $40 $158 * $1,697 S. H. 99. Ming Avenue to S. H. 204 $13,230,000 ..... $2,812 $10,418 S. H. 58 - Real Road to Cottonwood Rn.~d $18,169,000 .... $18,169 _~_~jOR IMPROVFMFNTS KERN RIVER BRID~F.~ TOTAL COST 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96' ' 96;.97 97-98 98~2001 2001.2016' Funding Allen 1~,~4 ~ Kern River $3,000,000 $3,000 Callowa¥ Drive (~ Kern River wi Roadway between dikes $6,626,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,626 Mohawk Street ~ Kern River $3,500,000 $25 $3,475 $0 C _he_~er_ Avenue (~l Kern River (widen)'- Cit~lC0UntY $1,920,000 $1,920 · Manor'Stree! (~' Kern River (widen) - Cit~/County $1,610,000 $1,610 ' Morning Ddve I~ Kern River County $0 Subt _~_~!; Kern River Brl~es · $16,656,000 $13,156 $0 CANAE BRIDGES '. Panama Lane ~ Arvin Edison west(widen) ." ~' $360,000 $360 $0 "S. H; 58 (~1 Fdant Kern (widen) $400,000 $40 $396 ($36) ' S. H.'58 (~ Calloway west (widen) County $0 S. H. 58 t~1Callowa¥ east (widen). !Count), $0 ' Alleri Road ~ Cross Valle), $500,000 $500 CalloWa¥ Ddve ~1 Cross Valle)/ . $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000 ' Akers Road (~ .Nvin EdiSon $205,000 $205 $0 · Mohawk Street (~ Cross Valle)/ $500,000 $500 $0 Mohawk Street I~l'Callowa¥ County $0 ' Stine Road ~ An~in Edison (Widen) $320,000 $320 $0 iMaher. street ~ Carrier , $270,000 $55 $0 $215 · South H Street ~ ~ Edison (widen) $320,000 $320 $0 ' No~i CheSter Avenue ~1Beardsle~ (widen) County $0 Oswell Street ~'Arvin Edison .' Count), $0 ~ '~Wible'Road ~ Arvin Edls0n (widen) $320,000 $320 $0 Olive Drive t~1 Call°way ' $500,000 $500 Olive Drive ~ Fdant-Kern $500,000 $500 iSubtotal ~ canal Brid~es $5,195,000 $2,464 $215 *Funds to be made available for protection of rights of way, as needed, for each freeway alignment. · 'Total Costs for projects have been adjusted to reflect more accurate cost estimates· As projects are completed, they will be removed from the list· Other funding is shown only for those budgeted projects where an alternate funding source has been identified. S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit A Phase I TIF ClP.XLS Exhibit "A" Page I of 4 8/29/2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Rec Facilities List PROJECTS YEaR ($1,000'~of TDF Funds) Other ' CANAL CULVERTS TOTAL COST 92-93 93-94 94-95 95-96 96-97 . 91.98 98'2001 2001-2016 Funding Taft Highway (S.R. 119) ~ Farmer's (widen) County $0 Panama Lane ~ _Rue~a Vista (widen) $100,000 $17 $0 $83 Panama Lane ~ Farmer's (widen) $100,000 $100 $0 Panama Lane ~ Kern Island (central branch) $180,000 $180 Panama Lane ~ Arvin Edi__e,3n $200,000 $200 $0 Pacheco Road ~ Buena Vista (widen) $35,000 $35 Pacheco Road ~ Farmer's (widen) $80,000 $80 Pacheco Road ~1 Kern Island (widen) $80,000 $20 $0 $60 White Lane ~1 Kern Island (widen) $100,000 $10 $90 $0 White Lane ~ Kern Island Central Br. (widen) $40,000 $43 ($3) Muller R_nad__ ~ I=~t~irl~ County $0 Ming Avenue ~) River Canal $180,000 $180 Ming Avenue ~ James $80,000 $80 ;' r'_.e_--~-roma Drive ~! Kern Island County $0 StockrL~!e Highway ~ River Canal $180,000 $180 Olive Drive (~ _l~e_~_rdsle¥ , ' County $0 Renfro R_n~d__ ~ James County $0 Renfro R_,~e_d ~ River Canal County $0 Allen Rn~d ~ Buena Vista $80,000 $80 Allen'R_r~_d ~ ;James ~ , ' $80,000 $80 Allen ' R__,,~LI_ _ :t~ River Caned -. $180,000 $180 Allen Road ~l Goose Lake'Slou~h (widen) $40,000 $12 $0 $28 Buena Vista Road ~ Buena Vista (widen) $100,000 $100 !. Buena Vista Road ~ River Canal (widen) $100,000 $100 Fruitvala Avenue ~ Beardsley (widen) County $0 New SUne R_nad__ ~1 StJne (widen) $100,000 $100 Hale¥ Street ~t Eestslde (widen) $100,000 $100 FairMx Road ~ Eastside (widen)' " County $0 S. H. 184 ~ Eastaide (widen) County $0 SubtOtal-'Canal CUlverts $2,135,000 $1,472 $171 CANAL RELATED PROJECTS Panama Lane ~ Farmer's $48,000 $17 $31 $48 Panama Lane ~ Arvin Edison - road realignment $460,000 $460 $0 Soulh H Street ~1 Kern Island (S;R. 119 to White). road realignment $2,300,000 $2,300 S~ H. 184'~ Eastalde County $0 Subtotal - Canal Related Projects $2,808,000 $2,300 $0 S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9_10_03\Exhibit A Phase I TIF CIP.XLS Exhibit "A" Page 2 of 4 8/29/2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Re( n Facilities List PROJECTS YF_.~R ($1,000'~ of TDF Funds Other DRAINAGE CULVERTS, BRIDGES AND DITCHES TOTAL COST 92-93 193-94 14-95 95-96 96-97 · 97.98 '198-2001 2001-2016 Funding East Panama Road ~ Caliente Creek Bypass County $0 Shalane Avenue Box Culverts (10 locations) County $0 Shalane Avenue Bridges (3 locations) County $0 C_-~.!_~'~.e Avenue Box Culverts (Valencia Dr. to Kern Can)on Road) $520,000 $520 P~_._lad_i~o Drive Box Culverts (Fairfax to AIf. Harrell) $325,000 $325 Alfred Harrel Hw~ Box Culverts (Fairfax to S.R. 178) $560,000 $560 Morning Drive Box Culvert (1 location - S.R. 178 to AIf. Harrell) $80,000 $80 Momln~ Drive Bridge (1 large & 1 small) " $580,000 $580 Ed _i~on Road Box Culverts (4 locations - S,R.58 to AIf. Harrell) $320,000 $320 Edison Road Bridges (2 locations - S.R. 58 to Alt'. Harrell) $1,000,000 ! $1,000 Subtotal - Drainage Culverts, Bridges and Ditches ,., $3,385,000 $3,385 STATE HVVY BRIDGES/INTERCHANGES Taft Highway ~ S. H. 99 (widen) County $0 Panama Lane ~i S. H. 99 (widen) $3,250,000 $250 $2,800 $0 $200 'White Lane ~ S. H, 99 (widen) $1,475,000 $150 $1,200 ' $125 Olive Drive ~ S. H. 99 (widen) County $0. 7th Standard Road ~ S. H. 99 (widen) County $0 Fairfax Road (~ S. H. 58 (widen) County $0 Fairfax Road ~ S, H. 178 (interchange) - City/Stata $354 Fairfax Road ~1 Alfred Harrel Hw~ (widen) county $6,000,000 $5,64650 Morning Drive ~ Alfred Harrel Hwy (interchange) County $0; Morning Drive ~ S.H. 178 (interchange) - City/State $6,000,000 $6,000 Hosking Overcrossing ~ S. H. 99 (widen) $1,500,000 $1,500 · McKe® Overcrosslng ~ S, H, 99 $1,400,000 $1,400 Subtotal - State Hw~. Bridges/Interchan~les $19,625,000 $19,425 $200 RAILROAD GRADE SEPARATIONS $0 "S.H. 58 (~ A. T. & S. F.R.R.(widen) County $0 Olive Drive I~ S. P. R.R. County $0 7th Standard Road ~) S. P. R.R. County $0 Calloway Drive ~ A. T. & S. F. R.R. County $0 Coffee Road (~t A. T. & S. F. R. R.- City/State/Railroad $9,125,000 $13 $90 $250 $1,600 $1,000 $4,000 $0 $2,172 Mohawk Street ~ A. T. & S. F. R. R. - CH/County $7,500,000 $7,500 Oswell Sb'eet (~ A. T. & S. F.IS. P. R.R. County $0 Moming Drive ~ A. T. & S. F./S. P. R.R.*' County $0 Mt. Vernon Avenue ~ A. T. & S. F.IS. P. R.R.(widen) County $0 Subtotal - Railroad Grade Separations $16,625,000 $7,500 $2,172 S:~PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9_ 10_03\Exhibit A Phase I TIF CIP.XLS Exhibit "A" Page 3 of 4 8/29/2003 CITY OF BAKERSFIELD CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN Re( PROJECTS YF-.~R ($1,000'~ of TDF Funds) Other IMPROVE RAILROAD GRADE CROSSINGS TOTAL COST 92-93 93-94 94-95 ,95-96 96-97 97-98 96-2001 2001-2016 Funding Panama R_~__d_ (~ Arvin Branch (A. T. & S. F. R.R.) County $0 Panama Lane (~l Sunset Branch (S. P. R.R.) $100,000 $100 Pacheco Road ~ Sunset Branch (S. P. R.R.) $100,000 $100 Muller Road ~ Arvin Branch (A. T. & S. F. R.R.) County $0 Ce_~__ Loma Drive ~ S, P. R. R. Branch County $0 Stc',~_.__r~_!e Highway (~ S. P. R. R. Branch County $0 S. H. 58 (~ A. T. & S. F.IS. P. R. R. Connection (West of Landco) County $0 H_~_man Road ~ A. T. & S.F. County $0 Norris Road ~l S. P. R. R. Spur County $0 No~'is R__r~ ~! S. P. R. R. Spur County $0 Renfro Road ~ S. P. R. R. Branch County · $0 Allen Road (~ S, P. R. R. Branch "- County $0 Buena Vista Road ~! S. P. R. R. Branch $100,000 $100 Old River (~1S. P. R. R. Branch $100,000 $100 South Chester Avenue (~ S. P. R. R. Branch $100,000 $100 Norlh Chester Avenue ~1 S. P. R. R. Spur County $0 Union Avenue ~ S. P. R. R. Branch County $0 Subtotal - Improve Railroad Grade Crossings $500,000 $0 TRAFFIC SIGNALS New Installations (66 IocaUons) $7,807,000 $34 $65 $603 $7,105 Upgrades (9 locations) $1,080,000 $60 $1,020 Subtotal - Traffic Signals $8,887,000 $8,125 ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS -' S. H. 119 - SUna Road to South H Street $5,093,524 $5,094 - Stockdale Hw~. Metro Boundar~ to Allen Road $3,757,429 $100 $3,657 ' Stockdale Hw~/- Allen Road to Oak Street $1,165,400 i $200 $40 $658 $307 S. H. 58 - Enos Lane to Allen Road $11,700,000 $11,700 - S. H. 58 ~ Allen Road to S. H. 99 $18,997,500 $18,998 S. H. 184 - Morning Drive to Edison Road $2,573,900 $2,574 Union Avenue - Taft Highw~ to S.R. 58 $1,403,048 $1,403 23rd & 24th Street Improvements $4,500,000 $4,500 Callowa¥ Drive - Bdmhall Road to Stockdale Highway $1,500,000 $376 $1,124 $0 Caliowa¥ Drive - Brlmhall Road to Rosedale Highway $3,050,000 $50 $2,000 $1,000 $0 County California Avenue - Widening Oak St. to "A" St. $350,000 $150 $72 $128 Hosking Road - Wible to Sflne $430,000 $430, $0 Truxtun Avenue - Widening (~! Oak St. $400,000 $200 $104 $96 S. HJ 178 - Mesa Madn to Mira Monte (4 lanes) $968,000 ! $968 SUBTOTAL - RO.~._nWAY IMPROVEMENTS IMPROVEMENTS ..... S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9_10_03\Exhibit A Phase I TIF CIP.XLS Exhibit "A" Page 4 of 4 8/29/2003 ADOFTED P_m~_-_ _uLq~AL TRANSPORTATION F.6.C!UTIES UST - Metropolitan Bakerafleld Transportation Impact Fee F rogram - Phase II - FY 2003-2024 ADOPTED ~-r-G--. -E'tNAL TRANSPORTATION FACIUTIES UST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee F ro~lram - phaSe II - FY 2003.2024 ADOPTED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FAr_*!LrflE$ UST - Metre~-~_!~an _~-_ke~fleld Tranepo;taflon Im ct Fee Program. Phase II - FY 2003-2024 EXHIBIT "B" I~DOPTED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACIMTIES LIST - Metropolitan Bakerafield Trane x)ltation Impact Fee Pro,ram. Phase II - FY 2003-2024 ~ I~ ~ TOT~L~ o H St. Union Ave Niden aeflc~enl section on~ S365,703 S386.226 S0 S386 226 $386,226 iM)OPTED P_;G!ONAL TRANSPORTATION FACIUTIES UST * Metropolitan B=_~ersfleld Trans ~ortatlon Impact Fee Pro~lram - Phase II - FY 2003-2024 EXHIBIT "B" ADOPTED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FAcIUTIES UST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Program - Phase II - FY 2003-2024 ~~,h~l ~ Jewefia Ave~ /m~ Lane 0~ ~ 4 1 ~ 2 lanes S~r30~ Sl14 78~ ~ $0 ~145,092 N;~na Vlsla ~ )a=~a I a~m raft Hi.way 2 ~ ~ 2 ~ Re~e ~ml~r mm lanes ~ $1,461r42E $( $[ $1 467,428 $1 $918308 .... ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ __ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ H' ~a{i Ro~ 2~ ~ ~ -- ~ ~ 2 lanes $0 $918,308 ~ Sevenm Sla~ SR99 -5 ~ ; ~ ~ -u ~ ~ o~~ ~ ~o~o~,~,io, ~o ~3~,~;3° .~-n ;"~C'~"' -'~qAL' TR.~_~-?~RTATION FA~..,lUTI~..$ U~. MO~ ~+~e;~ Tm~¢~ ;~C~ F~ FF~ , m,, - F~ III ~ ~ ~d~ ~ .,w~ ~ R~ ~ ~,~w,~ ~ s( s~.o~ s~.~ s~ ~ TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE phase I Phase II Phase II .' ~' Phase II :. Phase III TYPE FEE .... FEE' ~.. FEE' ~"~/'. '-FEE' , ' 'FEE LAND USE TYPE NO. PER UNIT ' "pER'uNIT ' 'i 'PER UNIT ,:.:~:~ ;:':,PER UNIT.., ' PER UNIT SINGLE .FAMILY, DETACHED $1,179 $2,197 $2,346 $2,466 $5,233 MULTI-FAMILY · · : . : $828 $1,471 $1,571 $1,651 $2,511 $87 $93 $98 $133 4 $38 $38 $41 $43 $133 ' Under t00,000 sq. ft. 5 $33 $33 $35 $37 $97 100,000.199;999sqi ft. ' ' · $39 $39 $42 $44 $115 200~000 sq.'ft. &.over $41 $41 $44 $46 $129 RETAIL COMMERCIAL. 89l] I I "Under:10,000~sq;fL .:" .:. . $39 $39 $37 $39 $50 50,000-99,999 sq. ft; 10 $28 $28 $64 $67 $110 100,000s~. ft. & Over Individual study Individual study Individual study Individual study Individual study Effective Date 06/08/92 02/10/97 07/08/02 08/25/03 60 days after joint adoption S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit D Fee Schedule.xls Exhibit D 8/29/2003 EXHIBIT "F" Transportation Impact Fee- Phase !II Fee Update Background August 27, 2003 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase ill Fee Update Background Back round The Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee was adopted by both, the City Council and the County Board of Supervisors, in 1992. The original impetus for this Transportation Impact Fee Program is the Bakersfield Metropolitan 2010 General Plan Circulation Policy Statement No. 39: "Require new development and expansion of existing development to pay or participate in it's pro rata share of the costs of expansions in area-wide transportation facilities and services which it necessitates." This Impact Fee is a development fee and the procedures laid out by the State of California in Government Code Section 66000 et.seq, were followed in the adoption process. The fee program consists of an ordinance to implement the fee on new development, and a Resolution adopting the Regional Transportation Facilities List and a Transportation Impact Fee Schedule. The Facilities List included some of the facilities needed to maintain a Level of Service of "C" or better for new growth or to prevent the degradation of roads w. hich are currently below Level of Service "C" as shown in the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan Circulation Element. The Fee Schedule set forth the fees to be collected from new development to mitigate the need for the facilities. When first adopted, the facilities list included only those projects, which were considered too large for individual developers to fund and construct on their own. However, some additional mitigation was needed on a case-by-case basis to account for the local component of the traffic needs. The fee program was updated in 1997 to eliminate the need for individual traffic studies to determine the local component of the traffic needs, and the facilities list was expanded to include many roadway segments and traffic signals. The funding of these items was the most common requirement of the local traffic studies, and their inclusion in the facilities list eliminated the need for these studies. The Transportation Impact Fee Pays for the construction of both regional and local facilities that are required to maintain a Level of Service "C" for the Metropolitan Bakersfield transportation system. Only those facilities required by new development as allowed by the Metropolitan Bakersfield General Plan in effect on December 3, 2003 are covered by this Transportation Impact Fee Program. The fee schedule was updated in 2002 to account for the increase in the Construction Cost Index from the time of initial adoption through 2001. The fee schedule has been developed based upon the fact that different types of land use types will place different demands on the regional transportation system. Those types of uses whose impact on the road system is greater will pay a higher fee. These fees are imposed on new development through the application of the Transportation Impact Fee Ordinance and are collected at the building permit stage for any development that produces additional vehicular trips over that attributable to the land being developed before the new development is in place. S:\PROJECTS\TI~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 2 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!i Fee Update Background The fees are placed in a separate interest bearing account, per the requirements of GC 66000 et seq, are only used to construct .those facilities that are listed on the Facilities List. Currently, both 'City and County staff have been tasked with a comprehensive update of the Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee program to extend the program out to a new horizon year- 2020. In doing so, the socioeconomic data for the updated model has been thoroughly reviewed and updated for the base year of 1998 and the horizon year of 2020 have been performed by the Kern Council of Governments (KCOG). The Land Use base map used was the Land Use' adopted for the 2010 General Plan Update. The new facilities that are required to maintain a Level of Service of"C" or better have been determined and added to a new Facilities List. The various components that go into the computation of the fee schedule have been reviewed and updated. This paper documents the assumptions, equations, and values necessary to update both the facilities list and the fee schedule. Facilities List The transportation network needed for the horizon year of 2020 was derived after much iteration. Assumptions were made as to which of the lanes for the roadways were going to be complete by'the horizon year, and the traffic model was used to determine which of those additional lanes was necessary to maintain a Level of Service "C". The criteria as to whether to add a segment to the facilities list were as follows: 1. If the LOS on any link is C or better in 1998, and is also C or better in 2020, do not add any lanes to the Phase III list unless the existing lanes are in the wrong location - i.e. 24' of existing paving on an arterial does not allow for the median and the existing pavement is usually entirely removed with the installation of a median. In this case, add the cost to remove the existing pavement and dispose of it and replace with topsoil. 2. If the LOS on any link is C or better in 1998 and is less than C in 2020 - add the necessary lanes to bring the LOS in 2020 to C or better. 3. If the LOS is less than C on any link in 1998, add lanes as necessary to .keep the same LOS in 2020. 4. If no road exists on the link in 1998, and 2020 shows 2 or more lanes needed for LOS C or better, add the appropriate lanes. 5. If the adjoining parallel arterials are LOS C or worse in 2020, add 2 lanes to the intermediate collector. 6. The dedication of rights-of-way is a requirement under the City and County subdivision and development ordinances. Therefore, only certain rights-of-way will be included in the facilities list. Where "gap" projects that the City or County will be required to construct, and money needs to be available to pay for the additional right-of-way that may be required, a line item will be added to cover these costs. S:\PROJECTS\TIRPhase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 3 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!I Fee Update Background 7. If the link already has lanes on the Phase II list, keep the Phase l! lanes on that segment and update the Phase Il construction cost and, where applicable, the right-of-way and other costs (unless noted otherWise). 8. If an intersection has been recently constructed in the County (including curb and gutter), and it was not expanded, leave it as is. 9. If the land is Industrial or Commercial and the full improvements-are not in place, get additional ~travel lanes (if necessary), but not the remaining improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, parking lane.) - businesses must pay for their frontage improvements. The cost assumptions are as follows: 1. Land Costs per square foot: a. Residential $1.00 b. Commercial - Undeveloped $ 3.00 c. Commercial-Developed $10.00 d. Industrial - Undeveloped $ 0.57 e. Industrial - Developed $ 2.50 2. Existing Residences: If the existing home will meet the minimum setback requirement after the ultimate right-of-way is in place, then purchase the additional right-of-way at the above cost. If the 'home cannot meet the minimum setback, then purchase the home and lot for $250,000 (blended price for all of Bakersfield). 3. Road Construction Costs: a. Arterial $215,000 per lane mile x 1.0678 (Construction Cost Index) b. Collector $145,000 per lane mile x 1.0678 (Construction Cost Index) c. Removal of both existing arterial lanes in the wrong position (no median allowance): $25/CY for roadway excavation to a depth of 2 feet (including disposal) and replace with topsoil at $10/CY - 20' x 2' x 1' x $35/CY assume $52/LF 4. Miscellaneous Costs: a. Railroad Grade Separation (City/County contribution only): $3,000,000 to $5,000,000 Ea. b. Collector Grade Separation: $2,000,000 Ea. (At West Beltway) c. Traffic signal $ 130,000 Ea. d. At-grade RR Crossing $ 250,000 Ea. e. Curb, gutter and Sidewalk $ 29.25 / LF f. Additional Paving $ 2.50 / SF Fee Equation This is a brief outline of the modified equation used to determine the Transportation Impact Fee Schedule and the development of the various constants and variables. For an in-depth discussion 'of the unmodified equation (Gas Tax version), see "Metropolitan S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phaso 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 4 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!i Fee .Update Background Bakersfield - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE - Final Report" by Omni- Means -Engineers Planners dated February, 1991. The equation is as follows: · Attributable New Travel = [(Annual Average Daily Traffic (ADT) X Average Trip Length) / 2] X % New Trips New Lane Miles of Roads = Attributable Travel / CaPacity Per Lane Total Cost - New Lane Miles Of Road X Total Program Costs/Number of Lane Miles Impact Fee = Total Cost The constants and variables for the equation are the "Trips Per Peak Hour", the "Average Trip Length", the "% New Trips", the "Capacity Per Lane" and the "Cost per Lane Mile of Road". Also needed to develop the total number of trips for each land use category is the number of new units (or square footage) from the base year of 1998 to the design year of 2020. S:\PROJECTS\TIFAPhase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2OO3 Page 5 of 11 Transportation. Impact Fee - Phase !ii Fee Update Background "Trips Per Peak Hour" The constants for ~'trips per peak hour" are determined from the data in the Institute of Transportation Engineers "Trip Generation", 6th Edition for each of the land use types in the fee schedule. These land use types are: 1. Single Family Detached Housing (Land Use 210) 2. Apartment (Land Use 220) 3. General Heavy Industrial (Land Use 120) - used for Service Industrial also 4. General Light Industrial (Land Use 110) 5. General Office Building (Land Use 710) - generalized as Office Commercial 6. Shopping Center (Land Use 820) - generalized as Retail Commercial The peak trip rate in all cases is assumed to be the .PM Peak of the adjacent street as the PM peak hour commute in Bakersfield is generally the most congested. Attached are excerpts from the Trip Generation manual for the various land uses. The following table summarizes the trip rates: :LAND USE TYPE 4.24 OFFICE COMMERCIAL' .... .' Under 100,000 sq. ft. -' : ~' "-~.: !~.'.,: 4 11.57 -' ~'00,000 .q. ft. &over,,;:! ., '. :',: ,:.'~ .~'~ 7.72 RETAIL COMMERCIAJ~· ¶O,iJOO~-4g,~99'~:.fL':~i~:;': *~":' '-:J?:.(:;':'",:"':!'?:?:i~i":I 8 I 112.56 I ioo,60¢ ,~; ~'~ ove~; ::. ' ::..;,~:.,:::, ', :- ;; ~5:,~ I lO I Individual Study S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 6 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background "A vera_ e Trip Length" The average trip length is determined from the .Kem Council of Government's traffic model. The model provides estimates of average trip length in minutes by trip purpose and the average speed of system-wide trips. The trip rate times the trip length in minutes divided by the average speed yields the trip length in miles. "% New Trips" The following is excerpted from the Omni-Means report: Many land uses, while attracting traffic, generate little if any new traffic (other than attracting traffic to a particular location). There are several reasons for this. First, the multiple purpose trip will tend to attract traffic to particular locations without generating new traffic. Second, the capturing of an existing trip, such as stopping for a quart of milk on the way home from work, will not result in additional travel. Third, diverting a trip which already existed (such as taking the long way home from work to shop) will place limited new travel on the road system. Take, for example, the convenience store and the service (gas) station. The typical visit to these establishments is not a primary trip, especially during the peak hour, but rather are trips made by individuals who are going elsewhere, such as home or work. An example may help. Let's assume there is an individual driving from work to home. Assume that this individual stops at the day care center to pick up a child, a convenience store to get milk and a service station for gasoline. How many trips have been made? According to the standard methodology of transportation engineering, a total of four (4) trips have been made, with eight (8) trip ends. o Leaving work o Entering the day care center o Leaving the day care center o Entering the convenience store o Leaving the convenience store o Entering the service station o Leaving the service station o Arriving home If we were to apply an average trip length of 7..1 miles to these trips, the result would, be 28.4 miles of travel, a vast over-statement of actual travel. This over-statement is corrected in impact fee analysis in two ways. First, a percentage reduction factor (% new trips), for trips to particular land uses which do not place additional travel on the roads, and second, to adjust the trip lengths for non-residential land uses which more accurately reflect the travel patterns of trips visiting those land uses. The first, % new trips, is included in the Table below. The second, adjusted trip lengths, are also included in the S:\PROJECTS\TIF1Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2OO3 Page 7 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !11 Fee Update' Background Table below. Both of these adjustments are ultimately made on the basis .of professional judgment. Such judgments, however, are based upon information provided in Trip Generation, several articles in the "ITE Journal" and specifically upon an article which appears in the May, 1984, issue of "Public Works". These articles were guides to the establishment of the % new trips. :..::: ~,-,=~..~::~'~ ~ ,.~:= ~ ........ . ' ..~,* ..... , ' 'TRIP N ' · SINGLE , ~=;;~:'=:'::;:: '~ 1 8.90 MULTI, FAMILY,,.¥-:.' ' ....... "~:':~::": :%?' .... ::~-.,' ;;",, 2 8.90 ' * " · ::' OFFICE COMMERCIAL;~: Under 100,000 sci: ft. ~::,~,' -)!:/~ ::,:,:: ~f'3:~:i::::!i ,.':':'J 4 6.50 200,000 sq: ~ &'Over' :~: .,.....: ' :'~ ~." ':'{~'.'~:~::~..~ "-?~;'"1 6.50 40% Under 10,000 Sq:'~ ' :?. · ? ' :::.::: :~.'?;';;:;: :~ 170 0.50 10% 10,00049,999 sq~ .'... -=..../. ::¥:;)j...;;:.:. . 15% 2.0 20% 100,000 sq. fl. & ~ver ' '"' : Individual Study ,4 search of recent literature has not resulted in any new information to be added to. that used in the Omni-Means report, and a review of the KCOG model has indicated that these trip figures are still reasonably accurate. S:\PROJECTS\TIRPhase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 8 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!i Fee Update Background "Capacity Per Lane" This constant is derived in part from the facilities list, and can be considered iterative until the final list is determined. The average daily per lane capacity of each of the roadway types for a Level of Service C is weighted by the number of lane miles of each type of facility. The .capacity per lane is as follows (per" Metropolitan Bakersfield - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT FEE - Final Report" by Omni-Means Engineers Planners dated February, 1991, page 17): 1. Freeways 15,000 per lane (18,750 capacity) 2. Expressway 12,000 per lane ( 15,000 capacity) 3. Arterials 8,000 per lane (10,000 capacity) 4. Collectors 6,000 per lane (7,500 capacity) The number of lane miles for each of the roadway types is determined from the facilities list. The capacity per lane is shown in the following table: Roadway Per Lane Lane Miles % Lane Miles Weighted Peak Type Capacity Average Weighted Average Collector 6000 28.28 5.37% 322.0 32.2 Arterial 8000 376.9 71.52% 5721.8 572.2 Expressway 12000 34.8 16.51% 2476.1 247.6 Freeway 15000 86.99 6.60% 792.5 79.2 Totals 526.97 100.00% 9312.4 931.2 "Number of Units" Residential trip generation constants are in "ADT/unit" or "Peak trip/unit" units. The number of units for single family residential and multi family residential categories come from the KCOG data for the socioeconomic input for the traffic model. The number of new units in the period from 1998 to 2020 are 47,882 single family residences and 15,818 multi-family residences. The non-residential trip generation constants are in "ADT/1000 S F" or "Peak trips/1000 SF" units. The number of 1000's SF for non-residential uses are derived as follows: S:\PROJECTS\TIRPhase 3\CC 9_10_03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 9 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background Assumption # 1 The increase in total employment (jobs) in Metropolitan Bakersfield between 2000 and 2020 from the Kem COG Model was used to determine the number of future jobs. This increase is anticipated .to be 62,424 total jobs. Assumption #2 The percentages of growth in each employment category (retail, office commercial, service industrial, light industrial, heavy industrial) was determined from the percentages of jobs in each category County wide for 2002 as shown on the County Snapshots of the Labor Market Information Division of California Employment Development Department (EDD). This gave the following percentages: Retail = 39% = 24,345 jobs Office Commercial = 27% = 16,854 jobs Industrial = 34% = 21,224 jobs (Service, Light, and Heavy Industrial were combined into Industrial (21,224 jobs) for our purposes.) Assumption #3 The original assumptions regarding employees per acre and percent building per acre (from City Planning Department) were used to determine future square footage to be built by employment type. These assumptions are as follows: Type Employees/Acre % building Retail 17 25 Office Commercial 34 25 Industrial 10.5 20 These factors were then used as follows: Retail: [24,345 jobs / ( 17 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 25% bldg = 15,595,121 Sq. Feet Office Commercial :[16,854 jobs / (34 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 25% bldg -5,398,237 Sq. Feet Industrial = [21224 jobs / (10.5 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 20% bldg: 17,609,856 Sq. Feet S:\PROJECTSWIRPhase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 10 of 11 Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!! Fee Update Background These figures are summarized in the following table: 1 47882 · :":'i'::ii??~ 2 15818 17,609,856 OEFiC~E COMM~RCIAL: ":': ' "1 100,000-199,999 Sq. ft. ;';: ' ' ':" I 5 1349559.3 200,000 sq:. ft.'&:Over '::. ::!.: :1 6 I 809735.55 RETAIL COMMERCIAL".:, ' . J i:U~a~,~.~o, ooO,q; ft. ~i-:.i~..:. ':'t 7 4158698.9 .¢;000-49,999 sq. ft..'.~: ;. I 8 1 7277723.1 50,000~99,999=q. ft. :-:;? :'19 2079349.5 '~00,000 sq. ft.'& o¥or ~:~ :. I 10 S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\CC 9 10 03\Exhibit F Nexus.doc 9/4/2003 Page 11 of 11 B A K E R S F I E L D CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MEMORANDUM September 5, 2003 TO: Planning and Development Committee FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director~~...._.~.__~ SUBJECT: BIA Comments and Responses Transportation Impact Fee Phase III In a Bakersfield Californian article dated September 5, 2003, the Building Industries Association (BIA) stated that they had four items that they want changed in the current proposed traffic impact fee. Roger Mclntosh, speaking on behalf of the BIA, spoke of the following items: 1. Pull all of the projects that are not on the Kern Council of Governments (KernCOG) traffic model off of the list. 2. Reduce the cost of the impact fee to developers when other sources of funding become available. 3. Keep the ability to do independent traffic studies to determine the amount of the fee. 4. Phase the increase in over the next three to five years. Staff's responses are as follows: 1. There are very few projects on the Facilities list that are not on the KernCOG model. Two examples are Rudd Road, which will be developed as the West Beltway, and Alfred Harrell Highway from Roberts Lane and China Grade Loop, which is being studied as the "North Beltway". The West Beltway is not expected to be needed until beyond the year 2020, but money is included in this fee program to preserve the right-of-way. Similarly, only study money is included for the Alfred Harrell Highway link as this connection is not anticipated to be needed until after 2020. S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\PDC 9_8_03\BIA comment responses.doc At the Kern County Board of Supervisors meeting of August 26, 2003, Mr. Mclntosh, again speaking for the BIA, referred to the interchange at 7th Standard and SR99 as "not in the model". The connection between Seventh Standard and SR 99 is in the model; the model does not analyze the network down to the intersection level, but it is anticipated that the interchange will have to be widened to operate properly in the year 2020. There are a few other links that are not on the early model runs that have been included in the program for circulation purposes - for instance, Casa Loma is shown as ending at Mt. Vernon and picking up again at Fairfax -leaving a two mile gap in the southeast. Similarly, there is a three mile gap in White Lane/Muller Road. Without these roads, the only east west roads would be Brundage Lane, SR 178 and Panama Lane - a gap of four miles. These roads were included for circulation purposes. (Note: White Lane has been in the program since 1997) Finally - the traffic model is a tool. It is not a bible, it is not a rule. The traffic model is used as an aid to predict future traffic flows, but there are other aids as well - not the least of which is engineering judgment and common sense. To restrict the facilities list to only those projects that show up in a computer generated model is short-sighted, and would result in the elimination of roadways needed for circulation, such as Paladino east of Masterson. 2. The ordinance allows this through Chapter 15.84.050E: "E. Each fiscal year, the administrator shall present to the city council a proposed fee schedule as defined in Section 15.84.030. The fee schedule shall be adjusted annually by the annual Construction Cost Index. Also, the fee schedule shall be evaluated to account for changes in the Regional Transportation Facilities List, changes in cost estimates for the various projects on the list, and any other item which would chan.qe new development's proportionate share of the cost of the Re.qional Transportation Facilities List. This fee schedule shall be adopted by a resolution of the city council following a noticed public hearing." The highlighted item will allow the City to make an adjustment when other funding becomes available for any of the projects on the Facilities List. 3. The Transportation Impact Fee is based upon a series of average factors for the various types of development - trip generation, peak hours of operation, the number of projects within an effective radius of the project, etc. Staff's experience with fee related traffic studies has been that they are only presented to the City when the developer is sure that the fee determined by this study will be lower than that required by the ordinance and resolution - the projects that have a higher impact as would be determined by a traffic study never apply to have their fee raised to the appropriate level, thereby causing a shortfall in the total dollar amount raised by the fee. 4. City and County staff have established a nexus between new growth and the $406 million Facilities List. The fees are based upon the expected twenty year growth - that is, the collection of these fees from the new growth projects over the S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\PDC 9 8 03\BIA comment responses.doc next 20 years will meet the 20 year need. There is a CEQA issue if we phase in the fee for the three or five years, as it will never collect the needed funds. Unless we raise the fee higher than it is now proposed to be in the out year to make up for the shortfall in the earlier years, of course. S:\PROJECTS\TI~Phase 3\PDC 9 8 03\BIA comment responses.doc Transportation Impact Fee - Phase III FEE COMPARISON - TYPICAL PROJECTS 16 SCREEN THEATER (assume 300 seats per screen) CURRENT FEE $440,640 1.8 trips per seat x $51 METRO FEE $673,920 1.8 trips per seat x $78 CORE AREA FEE $371,520 1.8 trips per seat x $43 NON-CORE AREA FEE $751,680 1.8 trips per seat x $87 GROCERY CURRENT FEE $412,720 55,000sq ft x 112 trips/1000sq ft x $67 METRO FEE $677,600 55,000sq ft x 112 trips/1000sq ft x $110 CORE AREA FEE $375,760 55,000sq ft x 112 trips/1000sq ft x $61 NON-CORE AREA FEE $751,520 55,000sq ft x 112 trips/1000sq ft x $122 STATE FARM CURRENT FEE $299,000 500,000 sq ft x 13 trips/1000 sq ft x $46 METRO FEE $838,500 500,000 sq ft x 13 trips/1000 sq ft x $129 CORE AREA FEE $461,500 500,000 sq ft x 13 trips/1000 sq ft x $71 NON-CORE AREA FEE $929,500 500,000 sq ft x 13 trips/1000 sq ft x $143 MARKET PLACE CURRENT FEE $974,850 291,000 sq ft x 50 trips/1000sq ft x $67 METRO FEE $1,600,500 291,000 sq ft x 50 trips/1000sq ft x $110 CORE AREA FEE $887,550 291,000 sq ft x 50 trips/1000sq ft x $61 NON-CORE AREA FEE $1,775,100 291,000 sq ft x 50 trips/1000sq ft x $122 Note: Current Fee rates are as of 8~25~03 Metro Fee, Core Area Fee, and Non-Core Area Fee rates are per Admin for 9/10/03 Council meeting S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\PDC 9 8 03\fee increase proposal.xls 9/5/2003 ~ ~ Z ~ ~ ~ E Z Z Z ~ ~ ~ c® ° ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ o 0 z Z 0 0 0 ©