HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/23/2003 B A K E R S F I E L D
David-Couch, Chair
Sue Benham
Mike Maggard
Staff: John W. Stinson
SPECIAL MEETING NOTICE
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMI'R'EE
of the City Council - City of Bakersfield
Wednesday, July 23, 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 MAY 5, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding Transportation Development
Fees- Rojas
5. NEW BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding GEM Electric Vehicles -
Rojas
B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding rescheduling the August 4,
2003 committee meeting - Stinson
6. COMMI'I'rEE COMMENTS
7. ADJOURNMENT
$:~JOHN\Council Committees\Urban Development 2003\ud03ju123.doc
DRAFT
B A K 1~ R $ ~ I E L D
/~ {~ ~'~ David Couch, Chair
Alan Tandy, City Manager Sue Benham
Staff: John W. Stinson Mike Maggard
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
Monday, May 5, 2003, 1:00 p.m.
City Manager's Conference Room - City Hall
1. ROLL CALL
The meeting was called to order at 1:10 p.m.
Present: Councilmembers David Couch, Chair; Sue Benham and Mike Maggard
(Councilmember Benham had to leave at 1:45 p.m. to attend an Air Quality
Summit at Cai State Bakersfield).
2. ADOPT APRIL 7, 2003 AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
Adopted as submitted.
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS
Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club, thanked staff for putting the Committee agenda and
calendar on the webpage.
4. DEFERRED BUSINESS
A. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding northeast bluffs
steep-slope issues
Development Services Director Jack Hardisty spoke about setbacks and the
application of standards to the steep slopes and bluffs. A handout was provided with
examples (pictures) of property and setback information.
Assistant Building Director Jack Leonard gave an analysis of how the requirements for
setbacks in the California Building Code would be applied to examples of properties
existing in the bluffs area. Setbacks will also be increased to allow access for the fire
department and fire breaks if needed. Developments built on steep slopes require an
engineering analysis study of the soil for stability and type, which may also affect the
required setback.
Tom Camsella, northeast property owner, spoke regarding how the existing codes
seem to address the issues of concern that have been brought to the Committee.
D AFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, May 5, 2003
Page 2
Clay Maynard, northeast property owner, spoke about how the development of
property with houses and landscaping will ultimately reduce dust and improve the
northeast and requested the Committee to go with the existing ordinances and
building codes. '
Craig Smith, Bakersfield Bluffs and Open Space, spoke regarding their issues not
being limited to setbacks for structures, but had concerns regarding 'lot lines and
fences, which he feels have not been addressed.
Michelle Beck, Bakersfield Bluffs and Open Space, expressed concerns about lot lines
and soil erosion from irrigation and drainage when houses become occupied.
Assistant Building Director Jack Leonard explained code enforcement as it relates to
grading, lot lines, and irrigation and drainage requirements.
Gordon L. Nipp, Sierra Club, spoke regarding the beauty of the bluffs, the esthetics of
the area, and the need for a view shed ordinance. He also spoke regarding light
pollution by street lights, using the soccer field lighting in the northeast as an example.
Robert Kapral, General Holdings Inc., spoke regarding setbacks for property lines
already being addressed in the City's hillside zoning ordinance.
Committee Member Maggard explained one set of development standards cannot be
used for the entire area. Due to the differences in topography from one property to the
next, developments will require different setbacks. He also explained the City is in the
process of holding meetings on park and trail sites, so those locations have not been
established.
There was discussion on the street lighting standards used by the City. Different types
of lighting are recommended for public right-of-ways versus parking lots. The
Committee requested staff to come back to the Committee with a report on the types
of softer lighting, which could be used in the northeast bluffs'area. (Councilmember
Benham absent.)
B. Discussion and Committee recommendation regarding leaf blOwers
(This item heard first.)
Trudy Slater reported, as requested by the Committee at its last meeting, staff has
met with local gardeners. Essentially, the gardeners expressed they liked the
educational program the City has done in the past and would like to try more
educational programs in English and Spanish. There was a general consensus of
those in attendance that there could be some restriction on times and/or days for the
use of leaf blowers. Other issues discussed by the gardeners: dust occurs even if
brooms and rakes are used; vacuums are equally noisy and cannot access some
areas; other power equipment used in neighborhoods is equally noisy, using water
would be about the best alternative to leaf blowers; and leaf blowers take
approximately 5 - 7 minutes per house.
DRAFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, May 5, 2003
Page 3
Bill Hoy, Bill's Lawn Service, spoke regarding leaf blowers and wanted to know what
the City's position is going to be.
Larry Jack, Grass Masters, spoke regarding the large number of unlicensed
gardeners. The licensed gardeners who try to do everything legally would be
financially hurt if the City bans leaf blowers.
Javier Ortega, Ortega's Yard Care, spoke in support of continuing to allow leaf
blowers.
Jack Rademacher, Coalition Ad Hoc Residential Health and Welfare, spoke in favor
of banning leaf blowers due to noise and air pollution caused by the use of leaf
blowers.
Roger Hartley spoke in favor of banning leaf blowers due to noise and particulate
matter.
Committee Chair Couch explained there is no documented scientific evidence, study
or data available that quantifies there is a significant health impact from the use of
leaf blowers for the Committee to use in the decision making process, although a
nexus could be made because leaf blowers stir up dust (PMIO). The Committee
would like staff's meetings with the gardeners to yield ideas of how the gardeners
might be able to find ways to reduce noise and dust through the reduced use of leaf
blowers (hours and times of year), a different method of using blowers or alternate
types of equipment.
Chris Parker, Parker's Landscape Service, spoke in support of using leaf blowers and
discussions regarding days and hours of operation, possible restrictions on Sundays,
and limiting hours from 7:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. on weekdays.
City Attorney Bart Thiltgen explained there are no specific time restrictions in the
Municipal Code on hours for operating leaf blowers.
Terry Davis, Golden Eagle Distributing, distributor for Echo Manufacturing garden and
lawn equipment spoke regarding leaf-blower noise caused by the fan. Newer
equipment is being manufactured and Echo, along with other companies, has
achieved about a 75% reduction in noise. He stated he would be willing to work with
the City on an educational program. They have also achieved significant reductions in
emissions from exhaust.
The gardeners expressed concerns banning leaf blowers would make their
businesses unprofitable because of the extra time and man-power involved to rake or
hose the yards. They would not have time to service enough customers to be able to
make a profit.
Anne Stephens, Kern River Power Equipment, spoke in support of the use of leaf
blowers.
DRAFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, May 5, 2003
Page 4
The City Attorney stated the City could set standards for noise and emissions from
leaf blowers, which would only allow the sale and use of leaf blowers that have quiet
fans with fewer emissions.
The City Manager explained enforcement may be difficult with 4,000+ gardeners
moving around from location to location.
Committee Member Maggard expressed he would rather the gardening industry
control its own destiny to stay in business as long as possible before the EPA, the
State and/or the Air Pollution Control Board decide to ban leaf blowers due to dust.
He was hopeful staff's meetings with the gardeners could find some balance between
leaf-blower complaints and the gardeners' issues, at least locally.
The Committee requested staff to meet with the Gardeners Association again to find
ways to significantly address the hours of use, non-use in off-seasons, noise
standards and dust/pollution and report back. (Councilmember Benham absent.)
It was discussed only 500 of the gardeners have a City license. The Committee
requested staff to research enforcement mechanisms. (Councilmember Benham
absent.)
5. NEW BUSINESS
None.
6. COMMITTEE COMMENTS
Committee Chair Couch reported the High Speed Rail Authority is supposed to make
a decision this year in September or October. Kern COG will have a report at its
June 19th meeting and Kern COG Director Ron Brummett had suggested the City and
County should get together on a location for the High Speed Rail Station. Since the
next Joint City/County meeting is not until September, Committee Chair Couch
suggested Council may want to consider another forum to meet with the County on
this issue.
7. ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 3:45 p.m.
Attendance - staff: City Manager Alan Tandy; Assistant City Manager John W. Stinson;
City Attorney Bart Thiltgen; Development Services Director Jack Hardisty; Planning
DireCtor Stan Grady; Administrative Analyst Trudy Slater; Recreation and Parks Director
Stan Ford; and Parks Supervisor Ed Lazaroti.
DRAFT
AGENDA SUMMARY REPORT
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING
Monday, May 5, 2003
Page 5
Attendance - others: Lorraine Unger, Sierra Club; Roger Hartley; Jack Rademacher,
Coalition Ad Hoc Residential Health & Welfare; James Burger, reporter, The Bakersfield
Californian; Mark Howell, KUZZ; Bill Hoy, Bill's Lawn Service; Larry Jack, Grass Masters;
Javier Ortega, Ortega's Yard Care; Anne Stephens, Kern River Power Equipment; Terry
Davis, Golden Eagle Distributors; Efren Calaustro, gardener; Brandon Ferguson, gardener;
Chris Parker, Parker's Landscape Service; 'Gordon L. Nipp, Sierra Club; Craig Smith, open
space/bluffs; Michelle Beck, open space/bluffs; Robert Kapral, General Holdings; Clay
Maynard, northeast property owner; Matt Marte, Talley Comrn/Solar; Tom Carosella,
northeast property owner; Patricia Bernal, northeast property owner; B. L. Dickinson,
northeast property owner; Jerry Mulder.
cc: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers
S:~JOHN~Council Committees\Urban Development 2003\ud03may05summary. doc
· B A .K E R :S 'F I E L ~'D
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
TRAFFIC ENGINEERING MEMO
DATE: July 18, 2003
TO: RAUL M. ROJAS, PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR
FROM: STEPHEN L. WALKER, TRAFFIC ENGINEER
SUBJECT: INFORMATION ON GEM VEHICLES FOR URBAN DEVELOPMENT
COMMITTEE MEETING OF JULY 23, 2003
I have researched for information on the GEM vehicles and their possible use on City
streets such as Arterial streets or in bike lanes.
A GEM vehicle is a trade name for a Iow speed vehicle, also generically called a
Neighborhood Electric Vehicle made by the DaimlerChrysler Company Global Electric
Motorcar Division. The vehicles are not golf carts. The vehicles are designed for a
maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. Vehicle Code Section 385.5 defines a Iow speed
vehicle as being a vehicle with an unladen weight of less than 1,800 pounds, with 4
wheels, capable of propelling itself at a minimum speed of 20 miles per hour and a
maximum speed of 25 miles per hour. The GEM vehicle meets these definition
requirements. The City operates a few of these vehicles for use by maintenance crews,
such as in the Parks Department. The vehicles are priced from about $7000 to $9000. A
brochure about the vehicles is attached. Similar Iow speed, neighborhood electrical
vehicles are also made by other manufactures.
Per the California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 21251.1, such Iow speed vehicles, and
the driver, are subject to all the applicable provision of the Vehicle Code in California.
Per CVC Section 21260, the vehicle is prohibited from use on any road with a speed
limit of 35 miles per hour, or greater. The intent is for the vehicle to used on
neighborhood streets in residential areas where the speed limit is 25 miles per hour.
The CVC also allows local jurisdictions to restrict or prohibit the use of Iow speed
vehicles such as the GEM on streets that the CVC would otherwise allow the use.
Section 21209 of the CVC prohibits any motorized vehicle, including Iow speed
electrical vehicles, from using a bicycle lane.
GEM vehicles, or other similar Iow speed neighborhood electrical vehicles are
prohibited by the CVC from use on the City's arterial streets and bike lanes and would
be restricted to use only on residential neighborhood streets.
C:~)ocuments and Settings\jparks. BAKERSFIELD\Local Settings\Temp\GEM Vehicle Usage.DOC
GEM
Ne)ghborhood Electric Yehic[es
A new concept in community neighborhood electric vehicl,e has a top
transportation, fun and practical. GEM speed of 25 mph and the abil,ity to drive
offers an exciting new way to get around on roads with posted speed [limits of 35
town...for just pennies per mil,e! mph or l,ess. Its minivan-l,ike driving
It's perfect for those short trips you make height enhances safety while its
every day to the market, to downtown, or compact size makes parking and
to school,...trips that simply don't require maneuvering a breeze.
a ful,l, feature, ful.[ size vehic[le. In a work The GEIvl is surprisingl,y affordabl,e.
situation, the GEM can quietl,y function in Combined with [low operation cost and
virtua[ll.y any environment incl,uding minima[l maintenance, it's a package
indoors, because it has no emissions, that's hard to resist. Six bril,[liant co[ors
Designed and bui[lt to meet aU. federal and a variety of functiona[l option
safety regu[lations by a subsidiary of the packages alii,ow customizing a GEM to fit
Daiml,erChrys[er Corporation, the GEIVl your needs and tastes.
~O~J Global Electric Motorcars, LLC
GEM' DaimlerChryslerCompany
a sophisticated yet
simple electric vehicte
Avai[abte in four modets:
E~825 Passenger
E-825/4 Passenger
E-825 Short-back NEV
E-825 Long-back NEV
a Aluminum welded space frame a Automotive safety features, including:
construction - Safety seat be[ts
a Structural composite and - Halogen headlights
thermoplastic body panels - Front and rear turn signals
a Front-wheel. drive with direct-coup[ed - Tail[amps and high-mounted
Dana Spicer differentia[ stop [amp
[] Efficient GE 72-voit DC motor with - Tinted automotive safety gl. ass
microprocessor control, windshietd
,* Etectronicatty governed 25 mph - Windshietd wiper
top speed - Rear and side reflectors
- Turf switch reduces maximum speed - Adjustabte rear view and duat
to 15 mi[es-per-hour exterior mirrors
a Range of up to 30 mites on a fu[t - Parking brake
charge [] Contoured seating with
[] Easy recharging using standard integrated headrests
110-voit out[et [] Buat safety handtes
. Integrated on-board charger with [] Rubber floor mat
charge status LED [] Horn
[] 72-voit tow-maintenance industriat · License prate frame
battery system [] Six optional, co[ors
[] Rack-and-pinion steering [] Ful.[ factory 12-month
[] Independent front suspension bumper-to-bumper warranty
[] Traiting arm rear suspension [] Eligible for federal, tax credits
[] Regenerative braking system
~, Four-wheel hydraul.ic brakes Avaitab[e in six exciting co[ors
[] 12 inch, 2-ply street rated tires Street legal on any street with posted
[] Tat[ body profile enhances visibitity speed limit up to 35 mph*
and safety Certified as a zero emission vehicle by
[] Easy-to-dean interior the state of California
Eligible for 10% Federal income
tax credit
12 month warranty [parts and [aborl
Manufactured in the USA
· Subject to license ability in your state
~/O~j Global F.~c Motorcars, LLC 3601 ?TH AVENUE NW, FARGO, ND 58102
GEM TM A DaimlerChrysler Company 1.888.871.4367 www. gemcar, com
B A K E R S F I E L D
CITY OF BAKERSFIELD
MEMORANDUM
July 17, 2003
TO: Urban Development Committee
FROM: Raul M. Rojas, Public Works Director ~
SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Fee Update- Phase III Fee
In April, staff presented a preliminary fee schedule to the Urban Development
Committee. Since then, City and County staff have been working on finalizing the
facilities list and associated costs. Additionally, staff has met twice with the
representatives of the Building Industries Association to review the updated
information. Their input has been valuable, and has included a request to add
some facilities in the northeast. Several of these facilities (collectors and signals)
have been added to the list.
Attached is a package containing the following items:
o Transportation Impact Fee Facilities List
o Map of the projects on the Facilities List
o Several options for the fee schedule
o Nexus Document
o Draft Resolution Adopting the 2003-2024 Regional Transportation
Capital Improvement Plan Phases I, II and III
Once the Urban Development Committee indicates a preference for one of the fee
schedule options, staff can finalize the Agenda package. The County staff will be
meeting individually with the Supervisors on this updated program and will be getting
their input as to their preferred option as well. This could possibly be presented at
the joint City/County meeting in September as an action item. A public hearing and
notice as per Government Code Section 66018 is required prior to the adoption of
the fees, and a 60 day period must elapse between the adoption of the fees and the
date the fees go into effect.
S:\PROJECTS\TI~Phase 3\UrbDevPhaselll TIF 7-17-03.doc
PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSI"IJK IATION FACILI Ile~ LIST ' Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee PrOjjlram - phase I1!
Airport Drive ~lords Road Expand Intersection $750r000 $750~000 SC SC $1 r 50~)rOOC $1,500~000
Airport Ddve 3live Ddve n/o~tata Road 0.69 4 6 2 Add 2 lanes/Expand Intersection $0 $2,275,492 SC St $2,275,492 $2,275,,t
Airport Ddve ~P RR Widen RR Bdd,~e $0 $0 St $ 11000100C $1 T000100{} $1 t0001000
44! Akers Road ~lcKee Road l'aff Hiphwa¥ 0.50 0 4 2 Consauct 2 lanes $99~000 $154,831 SC SC $253,831 $253;831
45( Akers Road =acheco Road Install Signal $0 $0 $130t00C $i} $130~000 $130t00C
45; Akers Road ~/hite Lane ~acheco Road 0.25 0 4 2 Construct 2 lanes $118~800 $77~416 SC $196~215 $196~21~
45: Akers Road 9J RR New at J:Jrade crosslr,~, & culvert $0 $0 SC $2351009 $2351000 $235r00C
54! Alfred Harrell Hwy Roberts Lane .~hina Grade Loop 3.00 0 4 4 Extend Expressway- Study $0 $0 SC $250,00a $250~000 $250~00C
54( Alfred Harmll Hw¥ /Vest end Hart Park S8178 5.50 2 4 2 Add 2 lanas $0 $21387r601 SC $500100(] $2~887T601 $218871601
41Allen Road Bdmhal] Road Sthckdale Highway 1.00 2 6 2 Add 2 lanes $624t970 $459,154 SC $0 $1,084~124 $1~084~124
5JAllen Road Yam pus Park Install Signal $0 $0 $130,00C $0 $130,000 $130,00(~
r Allen Road 3,hambor Boulevard Install Signal $0 $0 $130~00(~ $0 $130t000 $130~0~a
Allen Road 3ross Valley Canal Construct Canal Bridge (Cross Valley Canal) $0 $0 Sti $500r000 $500~000 $500~0n~1
Allen Road @oose Lake Sk)ugh Construct new Culvert ~, Sta. 236+60 (Goose Lake) $0 $180~000 Sa $0 $180,000 $180,00a
Allen Road Harris Road Install Signal $0 $0 $130~00(} $0 $130~000 $130~00~
1{Allen Road Kern River Construct Bddge (Kern River) $0 $0 $(} $4,000,000 $4,000,000
1'Alien Road KernRiverCanal Construct canal bddge at Sra. 150+00 (River Canal) $0 $0 $9 $180~000 $180,000 $180~00(}
12! Allen Road Kratzmeyer Road Install Signal $0 $0 $130,000 $0 $130,000 $1
13Allen Road Meacham Road Install Signal $0 $0 $130t000 $0 $130~000 $130~00~1
14Allen Road Ming Avenue Stockdale HiclhwaY 1.00 0 2 2 Construct 2 lanes $266,667 $459,154 $0 $0 $725,821 $725,821
15Allen Road Node,qa Road Hageman Road 0.38 2 2 I NB only $28,543 $165,738 $0 $500,000 $694,281 $694,281
16Allen Road Noriega Road Install Signal $0 ${ $130t000 $0 $130~000 $130~00~
17Allen Road Palm Avenue Install Signal $0 $( $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130,00(~
18Allen Road Panaroa Lane Ming Avenue 3.00 0 2 2 Construct 2 lanes $800~000 $1~377t462 $0 $0 $2t177,462 $2t 177,462
19' Allen Road Re(ha Road Install Signal $0 $( $130~000 $0 $130t000 $130~00(~
20Allen Road Snow Road Install Signal $0 SC $130;000 $0 $130,000
21Allen Road SP RR Improve grade crosslr~, at Sta. 52+80 $0 $( $0 $100t000 $100~000 $100~00(~
2:~ Allen Road SR 58 Brimhall Road 1.00 2 6 2 Add 2 lanes $648r739 $459115z $0 $0 $1 r1071893 $1 r1071893
23Ashe Road Harris Road SJ RR 0.50 2 4 2 Widen ASbo Road $0 $175~00( $0 $0 $175;000 $175~000
24Ashe Road Berkshire Road Install Signal $0 $( $130,000 $0 $130~000 $130~009
25j Ashe Road Hosking Avenue Install Signal $0 SC $130~000 $0 $130~000 $130,009
541 Ashe Road Panama'Lane l'aff Highway 2.00 2 6 2 Add 2 lanes $609~400 $1,467~42( $0 $0 $2t076,828 $2t076rgg~
261 Ashe Road ~lcKee Road Install Si,~nal $0 SC $130r000 $0 $130~000 $130r000
454 Berkshire Road Akers Road Install Signal $0 SC $130t000 $0 $130~000 $130~000
455J 3erkshire Road Buena Vista Road Install Signal $0 SC $130r000 $0 $130,000 $130,000
456 Berkshire Road k4tn Ridge Drive Install Signal $0 SC $130t000 $0 $130~000 $130~009
2;Berkshire Road Kern Island Canal Widen canal bridge (Kem Island) $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000
2~Berkshire Road Monitar Street Install Signal $0 Sc $130t000 $0 $130~000 $130~009
45; ~erkshire Road ~.lountain Vista Road Install Signal $0 SC $130t000 $0 $130~000 $130,000
45~ Berkshire Road Reliance Drive install Signal $0 SC $130T000 $0 $130~000 $130~000
2~~erkshire Road South H Street Install Signal $0 St $130~000 $0 $130~000 $130~000
3(Berkshire Road South Union Avenue Install Signal $0 $£ $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130~009
45~ Berkshire Road ~uena Vista Road ,'Vible Road 5.00 0-2 4 2 Add 2 lanas $213761000 $1T548i31£ $0 $0 $3r924T310 $31924T31 g
3 Bernard Street Haley Street Install Signal $0 $370r00C $130r000 $0 $500t000 $500t00g
32: Breckenddge Road Mominq Drive ¢ineiand Road 1.00 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $158~400 $309,66'; $0 $0 $468,062 $468,0~?
33Breckenrid,cje Road ¢ineiand Road Edison Road 1.00 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $158r400 $4591154 $0 $0 $617~554 $6171554
34Bdmhall Road Allen Road Did Farm Road 0.50 2 4 I Add 1 lane $133,333 $114~78~c $0 $0 $248~122 $248~177
35Srimha[I Road Galloway Ddve 3offee Road 1.00 2 4 1 Add 1 lane $113r098 $29t577 $0 $0 $142,67.; $142~678
36Brimhall Road galloway Drive3.offee Road Widen Bdrnhall - (Coffee Road to Wind.song North Side) $20,000 $175,00C $0 $25~000 $220,000 $220,000
37Brimhall Road Jenkins Road Install S~nal $0 SC $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130,000
38Bdmhall Road Jewet~a AvenueVerdugo Lane 0.50 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $30t303 $229t577 $0 $0 $259,8801 $259,88~
39Brimhstl Road Old Farm Road Jewetta Avenue 0.50 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $133~333 $229t577 $0 $0 $362,910 $362,910
40Brimhall Road Old Farm Road Install Signal $0 SC $130~000 $0 $130,000 $130,00f~
41Bdmhall Road Renfre Road Allen Road 1.00 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $75t316 $459t154 $0 $0 $534~470' $534~47~
428rimhall Road Verdugo Lane 3alloway Drive 0.50 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $30~303 $229~577 $0 $0 $259,880 $259,880
43Bdmhall Road Verdu~j, o Lane Install Signal $0 SC $130T000 $0 $1301000 $1301009
44Brundage Lane Quantico Avenue Install Signal $0 SC $130~000 $0 $130t000' $130~001~
45Brundage Lane SR 58 W/B Off Ramp to Cottonwood Road Install Signal $0 SC $130t000 $0 $130,000 $130~000
46Brundage Lane Sterling Road Install Si,cjnal $0 SC $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130,000
47Brunda~e Lane ~ashim:j~ tan Avenue Install Signal $0 SC $130T000 $0 $1301000 $1301009
4aBuena Vista Road Sampus Park DAve Install Siqnal $0 SC $130~000 $0 $130,000 $130,009
49Buena Vista Road Harris Road Install Signal $0 SC $130t000 $0 $130,000 $130,000
50Buena Vista Road Kern River Canal Widen canal box culvert at Sta. 175+60 (River Canal} $( SC $0 $40j000 $40t000! $40~000
~2Buena Vista Road Panama Lane raft Highway 2.00 2 2 2 Replace number one lanes $586~40( $1~467,42ti $0 $0 $2~053,828 $2,0537P~
51Buena Vista Road Pacheco Road ~anama Lane 1.00 2 2 2 Replace number one lanes $0 $752~329 $0 $0 $752t329 $752;329
52Buena Vista Road Pacheco Road /V~te Lane 1.00 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $132,00[ $459,154 $0 $0 $591,15z $591~154
53Buena Vista Road SJ RR Imj~reve ?jrade cresslr',~j, at Sta. 52+80 $( SC $0 $100r000 $100r00( $1001000
52California Avenue Edison Highway Install Signal $( SC $130j000 $0 $130,00C $130t009
55California Avenue ~)ak Street A Street 0.50 3 4 I Widenil~ south side $52~80( $114r78~ $0 $0 $167158~. $1671589
58galloway Drive Meacham Road SR 58 0.50 4 6 2 Add 2 lanes $325,07( $229~577 $0 $0 $554,65( $554~658
59galloway Drive NoAega Road Install Signal (50% Funded) $( SC $130,000 $0 $130,00( $60,000
60galloway Drive Norris Road 3live Drive 0.50 2 6 2 only additional RW and improvements $6t075 $36,831 $0 $0 $42~906 $42;906
61galloway Drive Seventh Standard Road "lageman Road 3.00 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $444~131 $1~377~462 $0 $0 $1 t821 ~59~ $1 ~821 ~593
62galloway Ddve SR 58/Rosedale Hi~hw; Brimhall Road 1.00 2 6 4 City's portion - $951000 $11250r00( $918r30i~ $0 $0 $21168r30( $95r000
63Casa Loma DAve 3.25 mi e/o Madison Street Widen canal culvert at Sta. 38+50 $( Sti $0 $40~000 $40~00( $40~000
64Casa Loma DAve .?.ottonwood Road :aiffax Road 3.00 0 2 2 Construct 2 lanes $993,16; $1~377~462 $0 $0 $2~370~63( $2,370~630
65Sasa Loma Drive 3ottonwood Read Install Signal/Construct Expanded Intersection SC $1,500,00ti $130,000 $0 $1,630~00( $1 ~6301000
663.asa Loma Drive South Union Avenue 3ottonwood Road 1.00 2 4 2 Improve grade crossin,q at Sta. 1+42 $264~00( $459~15~ $0 $100t000 $823~154 $823,15,1
67~.asa Loma Drive South Union Avenue Signal MedificatJon $0 SC $130r000 $0 $1301000 $130r00£
6~2entan~iaJFreeway B899 ~8178 2.00 0 8 8 ConstnJct 8 lanes $0 $3r673123,~ $0 $201000~000 $23T6731232 $2316731232
461 Chamber Boulevard Windermere Street Install Signal $0 $( $130t009 $(] $13Ol0gg $'t30109c
?cChester Avenue At Kern River Widen bnd,cje $0 $0 SC $11920100C $1 t920100C $119201000
71China Grade Loop Manor Street Round Mountain Road 2.40 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $407~287 $1,101~970 SC SC $1t509~257 $1~509,257
7~China Grade Loop Round Mountain Road Install SiJjnal $0 $0 $130~00C ${: $130r00C $1301000
74Coffee Road Downing Avenue Install Signal (50% Funded} $0 $0 $130t00C SC $130,00C $60~000
7.; Coffee Road Seventh Standard Road Norris Road 1.50 2 6 2 Add 2 lanes $322r845 $688r731 SC SC $1t011157( $11011~576
7eCollege Avenue 600ftw/oFairfaxRoad FairfaxRoed 0.11 2 4 2 Widen north side of road $26~136 $34,063 St SC $60~19c. $60t199
548 College Avenue Monico Street Install Signal $130~00C SC $130t00C $130~000
PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACIUTIES LIST. Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Pro~lram, phase III
462 Colle,qe Avenue Fairfax Road Momin,q Ddve 1.00 0 4 2 3onstruct 2 Lanes $475,20( $619,324 $0 $0 $1,094,524 $1r094,524
547 Colle,qe Avenue Momin~:l, DdveMonica Street 0.50 0 4 2 2.onstruct 2 Lanes $237,60£ $309,662 $0 $0 $547,262 $547,262
463 College Avenue Momin~ Ddve nstall Si,~nal $( $0 $1301000 $0 $130T000 $1301000
9~Fairfax Road Redbank Road SR 58 0.75 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $198,00C $344,366 $0! $¢ $542,368 $542,366
93Fairfax Road SR 178 Const. Int. ~i~ SR 178 SC $0 $0 $1,700,00( $1,700,00C $1,700,000
9~Fairfax Road SR 178 PSR SC $0 $0 $157,00( $157,00C $157,000
9~Fairfax Road SR 58 Off Ram~3s Install Signals SC $0 $2601000 SC $260100C $2601000
91Fairview Road Monitor StreetSouth Union Avenue 0.50 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $11=28C $154~831 $0 $£ $166~117 $166~117
98Fruitvale Avenue 600' s/o Snow Road Widen Culvert ~,, Beardsley Canal SC $0 $0 $100~00( $100,008 $100,000
472 Mtn Ridge Ddve Panama Lane Taft Highway 2.00 0 4 2 Construct 2 lanes $950140C $6191324 $0 $1~5691724 $115691724
1o4 Gosford Road Harris Road Install Signal SC $0 $130,000 SC $130,008 $130,000
lO~ Gosford Road McKee Road Install Signal SC $0 $130t000 SC $130r00C $1301000
I t 1 Ha,qeman Road Jewetta AvenueVerdu,qo Lane 0.50 2 6 4 only additional RW and improvements $35~775 $367,855 $0 i $250~000 $653,630 $653~630
11; -{apeman Road }ewetta Avenue Install Si,qnal SC $0 $130.000: SC $130,00C $130,000
12tl '{a~eman Road VerduAo Lane .~allowa¥ DHve 0.50 2 6 4 Add 4 lanes $52T104 $459T154 $0 $( $511~25~ $511T258
47! ~i~hland Knolls DdveVlomin~ Ddve Install Si,~nal SC $0 $1301000 $0 $130T00( $1301000
134 "toskin~, Avenue ~lonitor Street Install Si,qnal SC $0 $130,000 $0 $130,00{ $130~000
PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPOA¥ATION FACIUTIES LIST ~ Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee program. Phase III : ·
180 Mount Vernon Avenue ~R 58 W/B Ramp Instal S ~na SC $0 $260~050001 SC $260100C $2601000
PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILI ! IE~i LIST - Metropolitan Bakemfieid Transportation Impact Fee pro,ram. Phase III
2~:)Id River Road SJ RR improve ,tirade c~ossin,q at Sta. 52+80 $0 $0 $0 $172,000 ~ $172r00( $172~000
20( :)id River Read SR 119 Pap~ma Lane 2.00 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $2741354 $918~308 $0 $0 $1.192~66~. $1~192~667
2o~ 3Id Stine Read Vlir~l' Avenue5elta Terrace 0.50 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $330~000 $154~831 $( $£ $484~831 $484~831
22111 :3live Ddve 3allowa¥ Drive Install Si,qnal $0 $0 $130,00[ Sti $130,00(} $130,00(
510 ;)live Ddve Old Farm Road Insta I Si,~na $0 $0 $130r00C $0 $130~000 $130,00ti
220 Olive Ddve SP RR Grade Separation $0 $0 $0 $7,500r000 $7~500,000 $3r000~0h~
221 Olive Ddve SR 99 Beardsley Canal 0.80 4 6 2 Widen SR 99 InterchanRe; Widen Beards ey Cana Cu vert $1~320,000 $367,323 $0 $470,000 $2~157~323 $2~157r373
224 Oswell Street ~/ir~inia Avenue Install Signal $0 $0 $1301000 $0 $1301000 $130100(3
514i =acheco Road Windermere Street Insta S c~na $0 $( $1301000 $0 $1301000 $130100N
2371 =aladino Ddve V~ ....... Street Alfred Hah'ell H',~hwa¥ 1.00 0 4 2 ConstnJct 2 lanes $435~600 $459,15~ $0 $0 $894~754 $894~754
2511 3alma ..... ~teath Road ~enfro Road 0.50 2 4 2 only at undeveloped SR .... $70~900 $134,81~. $0 $0 $205~719 $205~71~
Pa~ama Lane Ashe Read Install Si,qnal $0 SC $130~000 $0 $130,00( $130F000
249 Panama Lane Buena Vista Road Install Si,clna $0 $C $130,000 $0 $130~000 $130,00{1
257 Panama Lane Allen Road A~indermera Relocate canal parallel w/so. r/w - 2165' $( Sti $0 $569,000 $569~00( $569,00(~
259 Panama Lane South Union Avenue Si,qoal Modiflca ion $( Sti $80,000 $0 $80~00( $80,00R
261 Panama Lane Sunset RR Improve ,~rade croasin~ a Sta 186+70 (Sunse) $0 $0 $0 $100T000 $100T000 i $1001000
279 Patton Way Meany Avenue Install Signal $0 $( $130100O $(} $1301000 $1301000
554 Queen Street Panorama Ddve rnstall Signal $0 $( $130T00ti $(} $130,00(} $1301000
PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORYA¥iON FACIUTIES LIST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee Prol~lram, Phase Iii
522 Reina Road Renfro Road Jewetta Avenue 1.50 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $118r800 $4641493 $C $C $583r293 $.5831293
523 Reliance Drive Panama Lane Taft Highway 2.00 0 4 2 Construct 2 lanes $950i400 $619~324 $£ $C $1i5691724 $11569T724
524 Renfro Road Olive Ddve Reina Road 0.50 0 4 2 Construct 2 lanes $290~400 $154,8311 $(} $0 $445~231 $445,231
29( Renfro Road Reina Road Johnson Road 3.70 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $792,000 $1~698~87( $0 $0 $2,490,870 $2~490r870
29~ Rudd Road (West Bellway) HaReman Road Install SiAnal $0 $( $130,000 $0 $130;000 $130,000
29.~ Rudd Road (West Beltway) ~Olive Ddve, Santa Fe Way Railroad Grade Separation $0 $( $0 $9,000,000 $9,000,000 $5,000,000
30( Rudd Road {West BeltwayI ~R 58/Rosedale Hi~hw; Install Signal $0 SC $130,000 $0 $130r000 $1301000
30; ~eventh Standard Road V~cCra¥ Street Install Signal $0! $C $130,000 $0 $130r00( $130~009
30( ~eventh Standard Road ~R99 ~R65 0.50 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $( $229~577 $0 $0 $229,57; $229,577
31( ~eventh Standard Road SR 99 NIB off Ramp Install Si~lnal $( SC $130,000 $0 $130,00( $130,000
321 Snow Road 'Fruitvale Avenue Install Si.~nal ${ $0 $130,000 $( $130,00( $130~000
3~: ~r,o~ P.O~,~ Jenkins Road \lien Road 0.50 0 6 2 Construct 2 lanes $310~750 $333~577 $0 $224,444 $868,771 $868,771
325 Snow Road Did Farm Road )ewe0a Avenue 0.50 2 6 4 3 on north side, I on south side $69,935 $828,200 $0 $0 $898,135 $898,135
32; Snow Road :~uail Creek .~offee Road 0.50 2 6 4 Add 4 lanes $272,850 $293~414 $0 $500~000 $1,066~264 $1~066~264
33[ Snow Road ~/erduRo Lane 0.50 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $60,60( $229~577 $0 $( $290,18." $290,183
33; South H Street ~.t Kemlsland Canal(SR 119toWhiteLane) Relocate Canal $( $0 $0 $1~584~0001 $1~584~00£ $1,584~000
33~ ISouth H Street ITaft Hi~hwa'( Husk np Avenue 1.00 2 4 2 Add 2 lanes $128166( $459,154 $0 $0 $5871814 $5871814
34( SR 119 Buena Vista Road SR 99 5.90 2 4 2 RJW & Constr. Cost Based on Proflram Unit Costs $3,115,20( $2,772,009 $0 ~i $5,887,20.c $5,887,209
341 SRl19 Buena Vista Road Install Signa[ SC $0 $130,000 $0 $130,00C $130,000
34.. SR 119 SR 99 Improve Intarchan~. e $C $0 $0 $6~000,00( $6~000~00( $61000~000
34~ SR 119 Wible Road Install S~3na $( $0 $130.000 $0[ $130100( $1301000
PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES LIST * Metro~Olitan Bake;s;;e;d Transportation Impact Fee Program - Phase III
364 SR 184 SP RR Construct ,qrade separation at Sta. 335+40 $0 Si $0 $7t500,000 ,~7~5(~0r(~
368 SR 184 Wilson Road Install Signal $( $£ $130,000 $0 $130,000 $130~00n
377 SR 58tRosedale HiphwaY AT&SF RR Improve RRX ~ AT&SF (W/o Landco Ddve) $0 $0 $0 $100,00( $100,000 $100,000
379 SR 58/Rosedale Hiphway Calloway Drive Sipna Mod fica on $0 $0 $130,00( $¢ $130,000 $130~00(
3~1 SR 58/Rosedale Hi.qhway Jewetta Avenue A~orms $0 $60,000 Si $60,000 $120,000 $120,00(
392 SR 58/Rosedale Hi,cjhwa¥ Old Farm Road nstall Si,~nal $0 $0 $130,00( $0 $130,000 $130,00(
405 Stockdale H Rhway Nord Road Insta S Rna $0 $0 $130~000 $0 $130~000 $130~0tal
408 Stockdale H'.lphwa¥ SP RR Improve RRX (~ Buttonwillow $0 $( $0 $100T000 $100~000 $100~0bU
531 Taft H ,qhway Akers Road Install Si§hal $0 $( $130,000 $0 $130,000
413 UniversityAvenue Panorama Drive Insta S~na $0 Si $1301000 $0 $130T000 $130100U
426 ¢/estaide Parkway ~enfro Road 5R 99 7.00 0 4-8 4-8 Cons. Cost from Cit~/Count~(10% fuoded}-$45 Mil. in STIP for $( $196r0001000 $0 $0; $1961000100( $19t600r000
PROPOSED REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES UST - Metropolitan Bakersfield Transportation Impact Fee program. Phase III
444 Beltway Plannin~ ~dvance Planning./Studies SC $0 $0 $10~OOO,000 $10,000,000 $1O,OO0~00O
445
446 Administration 3omputer Trackin.~ System {City & County) SC SC $0 $100~000 $100,000 $100~00~
TOTALS $107~651~447 $368~348~169 $321425~000 $216~528~294 $724~561~205 I$531~860~597
S:~ROJECTS~TIFtPhase 3~_Pt,~s e III Facilib/7-14~)3,XLS Page 7 ef 7 7117/2003
EXISTING
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEES - PHASES I AND II
Schedule
· ransportat~on~mpaczree , ,,,,,,,,,,,,~,
' Phase I Phase II Phase II ' Phase iI
Fee Per Fee per Fee per Fee per
Land Use Type Type No. Unit Unit Unit Unit
Single Family, Detached 1 $1,179 $2,197 $2,346 $2,466
Multi-Family 2 $828 $1,471 $1,571 $1,651
Heavy/Service Industrial 3 $87 $87 $93 $98
Light Industrial 4 $38 $38 $41 $43
OFFICE COMMERCIAL
Under 100,000 sq.ft. 5 $33 $33 $35 $37
100,000 - 199,999 sq.ft. 6 $39 $39 $42 $44
200,000 sq.ft. & over 7 $41 $41 $44 $46
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
Under 10,000 sq.ft. 8 $39 $35 $37 $39
10,000 - 49,999 sq.ft. 9 $25 $45 $48 $51
50,000 - 99,999 sq.ft. 10 $28 $60 $64 $67
100,000 - 199,999 sq.ft. 11 $31 N/A N/A N/A
200,000 - 299,999 sq.ft. 12 $35 N/A N/A N/A
300,000 - 399,999 sq.ft. 13 $44 N/A N/A N/A
400,000 - 499,999 sq.ft. 14 $53 N/A N/A N/A
500,000 - 999,999 sq.ft. 15 $64 N/A N/A N/A
1,000,000 sq.ft. & over 16 $71 N/A N/A N/A
Effective Date 06108192 02/10/97 07/08/02 08/25/03
fee schedule.XLS 7/18/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY- PHASE III
FEE PROJECTED
LAND USE TYPE PER UNIT INCOME
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 0.05 14 41
'SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED $7,089 $339,435,530 Total Trips 15 350 2050
MULTI-FAMILY Fee Per Trip $261 $99 $180
Total Fee $3,907.68 $34,649.50 $368,188.41
HEAVY/SERVICE INDUSTRIAL $261 I $1,214,227
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL $114 I $11,546,142
OFFICE COMMERCIAL Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
Under 100,000 sq, ft, $99 I $6,567,994 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. $117 I Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
200,000 sq, ft. &,over $123 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
RETAIL COMMERCIAL Fee Per Trip $180 $105 $105
$105 I
Under 10,000 sq, ft.
,10,000-49,999 sq. ft, $135 $104,262,087 Total Fee $1,418,872.39 $115,572.87 $66,522.82
50,000-99,999 sq. ft. $180 I
100~000sq. ft. & over Individual study I
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
Triple NonRes Fee examples.xls 7/18/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY- PHASE III
FEE PROJECTED
LAND USE TYPE PER UNIT INCOME
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 0.05 14 41
SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED $9,235 $442,188,548 Total Trips 15 350 2050
Fee Per Trip $0 $0 $0
Total Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
H~VYISERVICE INDUSTRIAL II $0 I $0
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL II $0 I $0
OFFICE COMMERCIAL Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
Under 100,000 sq? ft~ $0 I $0 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
100,000.199,999 sq. ft. $0I Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
200~000, sq. ft. & over $0 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
RETAIL COMMERCIAL Fee Per Trip $0 $0 $0
Under 10,000 sq. ft. $0
10,000-49,999 sq, ft, $0 $0 Total Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
50,000-99,999 sq. ft. $0
100~000 sq. ft. & over , .. Individual study ,
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\UDC 7 23 03~AII Residential Fee & examples.xls 7/18/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY- PHASE III
FEE PROJECTED
LAND USE TYPE PER UNIT INCOME
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 0.05 14 41
Total Trips 15 350 2050
Fee Per Trip $174 $66 $120
Total Fee $2,606.21 $22,957.13 $246,211.76
$174
$76
OFFICE COMMERCIAL Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
Under 100,000 sq. ft. $66 I $4,351.644 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. $78I Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
200~000 sq; ft. & over .. $82 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
COMMERCIAL Fee Per Trip $120 $70 $70 :
Under 10,000 sq. ft, $70 .
10,000-49,999 sq. ft. $90 $69,481,676 Total Fee $948,815.82 $76,548.83 $44,060.89
50,000.99,999 sq. ft, $120
100,000 sq. ft. & over Individual study
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,866,597
Double NonRes Fee examples 7/18/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY- PHASE III
FEE PROJECTED
LAND USE TYPE PER UNIT INCOME
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 0.05 14 41
SINGLE FAMILY, DETACHED $8,521 $408,004,307 Total Trips 15 350 2050
MULTI-FAMILY $5,231 $82,739,778 Fee Per Trip $87 $33 $60
Total Fee $1,391.56 $11,647.60 $122,735.78
$87 $404,412
$38 $3,840,183
:IAL Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
"'Under t00,000 sq. ft. $33 $2,207,863 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. $39 Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
200~000 sq. ft. & over $41 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
RETAIL COMMERCIAL Fee Per Trip $60 $35 $35
$35
Under 10,000 sq, ft. $45
10,000-49,999 sq. ft, $34,664,054 Total Fee $472,981.77 $38,298.62 $22,044.38
50,000,99,999 sq. ft. $60
100,000 Sq. fl. & over In(:livi~ual study
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\UDC 7 23 03\Hold Current NonRes Fee & examples.xls 7/18/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY- PHASE III
FEE PROJECTED
LAND USE TYPE PER UNIT INCOME
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 0.05 14 41
SINGLE FAMILY $0 $0 Total Trips 15 350 2050
$0 $0 Fee Per Trip $5,062 $2,259 $318
Total Fee $75,934.74 $796,771.36 $652,322.74
HEAVY/SERViCE INDUSTRIAL $5,062 $23,595,050
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL $1,493 $150,940,458
COMMERCIAL Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
under t00,000 sq; ft. $2,259 $149,894,853 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
100,000-t99,999 sq. ft. $1,486 Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
ft. & over $1,429 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
COMMERCIAL Fee Per Trip $318 $222 $222
Under 10,000 sq. ft. $222
10,000-49,999 sq. ft. $268 $207,430,236 Total Fee $2,513,829.08 $243,763.70 $140,308.43
50,000-99,999 sq. ft. $318
ft. & over
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
No Residential Fee examples 711812003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY- PHASE III
FEE PROJECTED
LAND USE TYPE PER UNIT INCOME
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 0.05 14 41
FAMILY, DETACHED $5,206 $249,262,435 Total Trips 15 350 2050
- , $50,548,287 Fee Per Trip $2,209 $986 $139
Total Fee $33,130.20 $345,012.20 $284,607.30
HEAVY/SERVICE INDUSTRIAL I $2,209 $10,294,480
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL / $651 $65,855,065
Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
Under 100,000 sq. ft. $986 $65,398,870 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. $648 Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
. ft. & over $623 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
Fee Per Trip $139 $97 $97
Under 10,000 sq. ft. $97
10,000-49,999 sq. ft. $117 $90,501,460 Total Fee $1,096,779.36 $106,353.69 $61,216.33
50,000-99,999 sq. ft. $139
, ft. & over
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
50-50 Fee examples 7/18/2003
Transpo~ation impact Fee- Phase
Fee Update Background
July 18~ 2003
Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!!
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 2010 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 2010 General Plan in effect on December 4, 1997 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\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc
7/18/2003 Page 2 of 11
Transportation Impact Fee - Phase ill
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 Bakersfiel.d 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 a traffic model 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 many
iterations. 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 !II 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. If the land use is Ag, get the full right-of-way for the collector or arterial.
:7-:. If the land use is Residential and the land is undeveloped or unoccupied, get the
additional right-of-way.
8. If the land is Residential and is developed with homes, and the improvements or
right-of-way are not in place, then add both right-of-way and the full
improvements, including the expanded right-of-way if it applies.
S:\PROJECTS\TIFXPhase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc -
7/18/2003 Page 3 of 11
Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!!
Fee Update Background
9. If the link already has lanes on the Phase II list, keep the "old fee" lanes on this
segment and update the "old fee" construction cost and, where applicable, the
right-of-way and other costs (unless noted otherwise).
10. If an intersection has been recently constructed in the County (including curb and
gutter), and the intersection is not expanded, leave it as is.
11. If the land is Industrial or Commercial and the full improvements are not in place,
get right-of-way and additional travel lanes (if necessary), but not the remaining
improvements (curb, gutter, sidewalk, parking lane) - businesses must pay their
own way 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 just purchase the
additional right-of-way at the above cost. If the home cannot meet the minimum
setback, then buy 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
b. Collector $145,000 per lane mile x 1.0678
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 equation used to determine the Transportation Impact Fee
Schedule and the development of the various constants and variables. For an in-depth
discussion, see "Metropolitan Bakersfield - TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT
FEE - Final Report" by Omni-Means Engineers Planners dated February, 1991.
S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc
7/18/2003 Page 4 of 11
Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!!
Fee Update Background
From page 46 of the Omni-Means Report:
Attributable New Travel - [(Trips Per Peak Hour 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 Cost Per Lane Mile Of Road
Credits - {[(Attributable Travel X Days Per Year) / Miles Per Gallon] X Capital Portion
of Motor Fuels Tax} x Present Value Factor
Present Value Factor - sum from 1 to 20 of(1 / (1.08n), where n is the year from I to 20
Net Cost = Total Cost - Credits
Impact Fee - Net Cost
Credits can be eliminated due to Senate Bill 45, therefore:
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\TI~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc
7/18/2003 Page ,5 of 11
Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!!
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 Gene.ration", 6tl~ 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:
PEAK
TRIP
LAND USE TYPE RATE
MULTI-FAMILY
HEAVY/SERVICE INDUSTRIAL 1.5 0.88
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 6.97 0.98
OFFICE COMMERCIAL I 67
Under 100,000 sq, ft. 5 16.17 3.44
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 12.29 1.72
2.00,000 scI. ft. & over 11.3 1.52
RETAIL COMMERCIAL 8 155.09
Under 10,000 sq. ft. 13.74
10,000-49,999 sq. ft. 9 I 112.56I 10.11
50,000-99,999 sq. ft. 10 I 76.55[ 7.01
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 11 I 60.7 I 5.62
~200,~000-~299~9~99~q. ff._ 12 I 49.64I 4.64
' 300;000:399;999 sq. ft.~ i 13 I 43.8 I 4.12
400,000-499,999 sq. ft. 14 1 39.97/ 3.78
500,000-999,999 sq. ft. 15 I 33.65 [ 3.20
. .1,000,000sq, ft.&over 16 I 29.96 / 2.87
S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc
7/18/2003 Page 6 of 11
Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!!
Fee Update Background
"Average Trip Length"
The average trip length is determined from the Kern 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 are 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\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc
7/18/2003 Page 7 of 11
TranspOrtation Impact Fee - Phase !!!
Fee Update Background
Table below. Both of these adjustments are ultimately made in 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. The only trip lengths that were adjusted were those
associated with commercial/retail trips. The trip lengths were adjusted so that the
average trip length is associated with the 200,000 to 299,999 square foot range; the
"under 10,000 square feet" retail establishments is approximately 50% of the average and
the larger commercial centers have a trip length 25% greater that the average.
AVG.
TRIP
LAND USE TYPE LENGTH
HEAVY/SERVICE INDUSTRIAL 8.90
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 8.90
Under 100,000 sq. ft. 5 8.90
!00'000'!99"999 ~q~ ~'~' ...... I 67 8.90 80%
200,000 sq. 'ft. & over 8.90 80%
RETAIL COMMERCIAL 50%
Under 10,000 sq. ft. 8 3.36
10,000-49,999 sq. ft. 9 4.00 50%
5,0~000'?~,~99.sq~ ff. ......... 10 4.48 52%
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 11 5.98 53%
200,000-299,999 sq, ft. 12 6.85 55%
300,000.399,999 sq. ft. 13 7.70 57%
400,000-499,999 sq. ft. 14 8.55 59%
500,000'999,999 sq. ft. 15 8.55 65%
1,000,000 sq. ft. & over 16 8.55 70%
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\TIRPhase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc
7/18/2003 Page 8 of 11
Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!!
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 157'.22 23.74% 1424.4 142.4
Arterial 8000 375.04 56.63% 4530.5 453.0
Expressway 12000 35.57 5.37% 644.6 64.5
Freeway 15000 94.42 14.26% 2138.5 213.9
Totals 662.25 100.00% 8738.0 873.8
NOTE: These values will change as the facilities list is refined.
"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 SF" or "Peak trips/1000
SF" units. The number of 1000's SF for non-residential uses are derived as follows:
S:\PROJECTS\TI~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc
7/18/2003 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
Service Industrial: 21%: 13,109 jobs
Light Industrial = 7%: 4,370 jobs
Heavy Industrial = 6%: 3,745 jobs
(Service Industrial and Light Industrial are combined into Light Industrial (17,479 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
Light Industrial = [17,479 jobs / (10.5 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 20% bldg:
14,502,576 Sq. Feet
Heavy Industrial: [3,745 jobs / (10.5 jobs/acre)] x 43,560 sq. feet/acre x 20% bldg =
3,107,280 Sq. Feet
S:\PROJECTS\TIFSPhase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc
7/18/2003 Page 10 of 11
Transportation Impact Fee - Phase !!!
Fee Update Background
These figures are summarized in the following table:
Units
or SQFT
HEAVY/SERVICE INDUSTRIAL 3107280
LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 4 14502575
OFFICE COMMERCIAL
Under 100,000 sq. ft. 5
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 6 5398237
.... 200,000 sq. ft. & over 7
RETAIL COMMERCIAL
Under 10,000 sq. ft. 8
10,000-49,999 sq. ft. 9
50,000-99,999 sq. ft. 10
100,000-199,999 sq. ft. 11
200,000-299,999 sq. ft. 12 15595121
300,000-399,999 sq. ft. { 13
400~00049~,999 sq. ft. I 14
500,000-999,999 sq. ft. I 15
1,000,000 sq. ft. & over I 16
S:\PROJECTS\TIF~Phase 3\Supporting Data\Fee Update Backgrounddraft7 03 03.doc
7/18/2003 Page 11 of 11
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
BAKERSFIELD ADOPTNG THE 2003-2024 REGIONAL
TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
PHASES I, II AND III
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 programhave been re-evalUated to inclUde a neTM planning horizon year of
2020 and the tranSpo~ation network has been updated to include the latest
development and land .use trends; and
wHEREAS, all developmentS-which vestafter the adoption of this Resolution will
be subject to the 'Phase ,111 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, a public hearing before the City Council was advertised and held
XXXXXX, 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.
-Page I of 3 Pages -
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 Capital Improvement Plan, 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.
4. That the fee schedule for Phases I, .11 and III set forth in Exhibit "D" is hereby
approved and adopted.
............ 000 ..... ~ ......
- Page 2 of 3 Pages -
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. HALE
Mayor
APPROVED AS 'FO FORM: .
BART J, THILTGEN
City,Att0rney
By
ALAN D.~DANIEL
Deputy City Attorney
raps
S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\RESOLUTION.DOC Page 3 or'2
The following documents pertain to the:
URBAN DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE
meeting of Wednesday, July 23, 2003
at 1:00 PM.
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - PHASE III
Development Type:
Single Family Residential $2,466 $974 $6,676 $3,292 $5,075 $1,440 $3,321
Multi-Family Residential $1,651 $487 $3,312 $2,403 $6,344 $1,200 $2,566
Mini-Warehouse $88,200 $111,846 $110,400 $450,099 $1,456,474 $144,000 $393,503
Office $12,950 $111,846 $125,325 $95,630 $97,098 $45,000 $81,308
Specialty Retail $137,350 $18,641 $235,600 $196,684 $194,197 $570,000 $225,412
Retail $529,295 $37,282 $460,795 $416,574 $388,389 $551,994 $397,388
Mini-Mart $42,822 $1,118 $15,258 $24,799 $84,592 $11,520 $30,018
Fast Food $24,648 $746 $10,172 $19,768 $84,592 $60,000 $33,321
Fresno Charges per acre, irrespective of trip generation. Has multiple zones with differing fees. ~ ~
Modesto Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Stockton Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Clovis Carges per acre, with fees set for building use. Has 3 zones with differing fees,
Huntington Beach Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use.,,,. Charges are uniform city-wide. ~~ ~
S:\PROJECTS\TIF\Phase 3\Supporting Data\8-25-03 Fee and Jurisdiction Fee Comparison.xls~' ~ .... _ ........ 7/23/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - PHASE III
Development Type:
Sin~lle Family Residential $7,089 $974 $6,676 $3,292 $5,075 $1,440 $4,091
Multi-Family Residential $4,352 $487 $3,312 $2,403 $6,344 $1,200 $3,016
Mini-Warehouse $234,900 $111,846 $110,400 $450,099 $1,456,474 $144,000 $417,953
Office $34,650 $111,846 $125,325 $95,630 $97,098 $45,000 $84,925
Specialty Retail $369,000 $18,641 $235,600 $196,684 $194,197 $570,000 $264,020
Retail $1,421,986 $37,282 $460,795 $416,574 $388,389 $551,994 $546,170
Mini-Mart $115,290 $1,118 $15,258 $24,799 $84,592 $11,520 $42,096
Fast Food $66,360 $746 $10,172 $19,768 $84,592 $60,000 $40,273
Fresno Charges per acre, ~rrespective of trip generation. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Modesto Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Stockton Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Clovis Carges per acre, with fees set for building use. Has 3 zones with differing fees.
Huntington Beach Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Comparison with Triple NonRes Fee 7~23~2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - PHASE III
Development Type:
Sin~]le Family Residential $9,235 $974 $6,676 $3,292 $5,075 $1,440 $4,449
Multi-Family Residential $5,669 $487 $3,312 $2,403 $6,344 $1,200 $3,236
Mini-Warehouse $0 $111,846 $110,400 $450,099 $1,456,474 $144,000 $378,803
Office $0 $111,846 $125,325 $95,630 $97,098 $45,000 $79,150
Specialty Retail $0 $18,641 $235,600 $196,684 $194,197 $570,000 $202,520
Retail $0 $37,282 $460,795 $416,574 $388,389 $551,994 $309,172
Mini-Mart $0 $1,118 $15,258 $24,799 $84,592 $11,520 $22,881
Fast Food $0 $746 $10,172 $19,768 $84,592 $60,000 $29,213
Fresno Charges per acre, irrespective of trip generation. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Modesto Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Stockton Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Clovis Carges per acre, with fees set for building use. Has 3 zones with differing fees.
Huntington Beach Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Comparison with All Residential Fee 7/1
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - PHASE III
Development Type:
Single Family Residential $7,806 $974 $6,676 $3,292 $5,075 $1,440 $4,211
Multi-Family Residential $4,792 $487 $3,312 $2,403 $6,344 $1,200 $3,090
Mini-Warehouse $156,600 $111,846 $110,400 $450,099 $1,456,474 $144,000 $404,903
Office $23,100 $111,846 $125,325 $95,630 $97,098 $45,000 $83,000
Specialty Retail $246,000 $18,641 $235,600 $196,684 $194,197 $570,000 $243,520
Retail $947,991 $37,282 $460,795 $416,574 $388,389 $551,994 $467,171
Mini-Mart $76,860 $1,118 $15,258 $24,799 $84,592 $11,520 $35,691
Fast Food $44,240 $746 $10,172 $19,768 $84,592 $60,000 $36,586
Fresno Charges per acre, irrespective of tdp generation. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Modesto Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Stockton ,,Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Clovis Carges per acre, with fees set for building use. Has 3 zones with differing fees.
Huntington Beach Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Comparison with Double NonRes Fee 7~23~2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - PHASE III
Development Type:
Single Family Residential $8,521 $974 $6,676 $3,292 $5,075 $1,440 $4,330
Multi-Family Residential $5,231 $487 $3,312 $2,403 $6,344 $1,200 $3,163
Mini-Warehouse $78,300 ~ $111,846 $110,400 $450,099 $1,456,474 $144,000 $391,853
Office $11,550 $111,846 $125,325 $95,630 $97,098 $45,000 $81,075
Specialty Retail $123,000 $18,641 $235,600 $196,684 $194,197 $570,000 $223,020
Retail $473,995 $37,282 $460,795 $416,574 $388,389 $551,994 $388,172
Mini-Ma~ $38,430 $1,118 $15,258 $24,799 $84,592 $11,520 $29,286
Fast Food $22,120 : $746 $10,172 $19,768 $84,592 $60,000 $32,900
Fresno Charges per acre, irrespective of trip generation. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Modesto Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Stockton Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Clovis Carges per acre, with fees set for building use. Has 3 zones with differing fees.
Huntington Beach Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Comparison with Hold Current NonRes Fee 7/23/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - PHASE III
Development Type:
Sin~lle Family Residential $0 $974 $6,676 $3,292 $5,075 $1,440 $2,910
Multi-Family Residential $0 $487 $3,312 $2,403 $6,344 $1,200 $2,291
Mini-Warehouse $4,555,800 $111,846 $110,400 $450,099 $1,456,474 $144,000 $1,138,103
I
!Office $790,650 $111,846 $125,325 $95,630 $97,098 $45,000 $210,925
Specialty Retail $651,900 $18,641 $235,600 $196,684 $194,197 $570,000 $311,170
Retail $2,512,175 $37,282 $460,795 $416,574 $388,389 $551,994 $727,868
Mini-Mart $243,756 $1,118 $15,258 $24,799 $84,592 $11,520 $63,507
Fast Food $140,304 $746 $10,172 $19,768 $84,592 $60,000 $52,597
Fresno Charges per acre, ~rrespective of trip generation. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Modesto Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Stockton 'Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Clovis Carges per acre, with fees set for building use. Has 3 zones with differing fees.
Huntington Beach Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Comparison-with No Residential Fee 7/2312003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE - PHASE III
Development Type:
Sin~lle Family Residential $5,206 $974 $6,676 $3,292 $5,075 $1,440 · $3,777
Multi-Family Residential $3,196 $487 $3,312 $2,403 $6,344 $1,200 $2,824
Mini-Warehouse $1,988,100 $111,846 $110,400 $450,099 $1,456,474 $144,000 $710,153
Office $345,100 $111,846 $125,325 $95,630 $97,098 $45,000 $136,666
Specialty Retail $284,950 $18,641 $235,600 $196,684 $194,197 $570,000 $250,012
Retail $1,098,089 $37,282 $460,795 $416,574 $388,389 $551,994 $492,187
Mini-Mart $106,506 $1,118 $15,258 $24,799 $84,592 $11,520 $40,632
Fast Food $61,304 ~ $746 $10,172 $19,768 $84,592 $60,000 $39,430
Fresno Charges per acre, irrespective of trip generation. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Modesto Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Stockton ~Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Has multiple zones with differing fees.
Clovis Carges per acre, with fees set for building use. Has 3 zones with differing fees.
Huntington Beach Charges per 1,000 SF with fees set for building use. Charges are uniform city-wide.
Comparison with 50-50 Fee 7/23/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY - PHASE III
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 3 14 41
Total Trips 900 350 2050
Fee Per Trip $261 $99 $180
Total Fee $234,461.09 $34,649.50 $368,1S5.41
$261 $1,214,227
$114 $11,546,142
~EFIC~,COMMERCi~E%!~i~?~I Dev. Type Retail Mini Ma~ Fast Food
~m~n~e~$00~000~s~:::::;~:~;;~'~;*~ $99 I $6,567,994 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
.... ~,~ :. ~,~ ....... ~..: . ~ ,~ ~ $11 Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
00;sq~~r?~,:~ ;~ $123 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
~R~E~.OOMMERCtAE~;~?¢ ~,~ ~;:~ ~,~ JJ Fee Per Trip $180 $105 $105
:~t 0~000~9 ~;~ :?~ .... $135 $104,262,087 To~l Fee $1,418,872.39 $115,572.87 $66,522.82
Individual stud~
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597 ~ ~~
lriple ~on~es Fee & examples 07123/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE ,
PRELIMINARY - PHASE III
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 3 14 41
Total Trips 900 350 2050
Fee Per Trip $0 $0 $0
Total Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
$0 $0
$0 $0
Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
$0 $0 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
$0 Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
$0 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
,~.RE~AI~QMMER¢IAE Fee Per Trip $0 $0 $0
~lO;uO, O~9~'~ ,S , ........................................ $0 $0 To~l Fee $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
~9~ ~S' "~ff~,& 'b~e~? ~ ~:~ ~'~ Individual study
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
All Residential Fee & examples 07/23/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY - PHASE III
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 3 ~ 14 41
Total Trips 900 350 2050
Fee Per Trip $174 $66 $120
Total Fee $156,372.74 $22,957.13 $246,211.70
$174 $809,823
$76 $7,653,069
Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
$66 $4,351,644 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
$78 Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
$82 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
Fee Per Trip $120 $70 $70
$70
$90 $69,481,676 Total Fee $948,815.82 $76,548.83 $44,060.89
$120
Individual stud,
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
Double NonRes Fee & examples 07~23~2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY - PHASE III
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 3 14 41
Total Trips 900 350 2050
Fee Per Trip $87 $33 $60
Total Fee $78,089.82 $11,647.60 $122,735.78
$87 $404,412
$38 $3,840,183
Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
$33 $2,207,863 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
$39 Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
$41 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
Fee Per Trip $60 $35 $35
$34,664,054 Total Fee $472,981.77 $38,298.62 $22,044.38
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
Hold Current NonRes Fee & examples 07/23/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY - PHASE III
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 ~ 50,0_,00
Trips per 1000 SF 3 14 41
Total Trips 900 350 2050
Fee Per Trip. $5,062 $2,259 $318
Total Fee $4,556,084.39 $790,771.36 $652,322.74
$5,062 $23,595,050
$1,493 $150,940,458
.Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
$2,259 $149,894,853 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
$1,486 Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
$1,429 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
[~i~IE~GOMME~I~E~~?~, Fee Per Trip $318 $222 $222
~9~;~.~ ~ $222
$268 $207,430,236 Total Fee $2,513,829.08 $243,763.70 $140,308.43
~ ............... ~. ~ ~ $318
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
No Residential Fee & examples 07/23/2003
TRANSPORTATION IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE
PRELIMINARY - PHASE III
Dev. Type Mini Warehouse Office Specialty Retail
Square Footage 300,000 25,000 50,000
Trips per 1000 SF 3 14 41
Total Trips 900 350 2050
Fee Per Trip $2,209 $986 $139
Total Fee $1,987,811.88 $345,012.20 $284,607.30
$2,209 $10,294,480
$651 $65,855,065
Dev. Type Retail Mini Mart Fast Food
$986 $65,398,870 Square Footage 100,000 3,000 2,000
$648 Trips per 1000 SF 79 366 316
$623 Total Trips 7900 1098 632
Fee Per Trip $139 $97 $97
$97
$11 $90,501,460 Total Fee $1,096,779.36 $106,353.69 $61,216.33
TOTAL PROGRAM COST $531,860,597
50-50 Fee & examples 07/23/2003