Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 6.1 Transportation Impact Fee STAFF REPORT CITY CLERK File #600-70 CITY COUNCIL DATE:February 16, 2016 TO: Honorable Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Christopher L. Foss, City Manager SUBJECT: Update to the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (formerly known as “Downtown Traffic Impact Fee”) and Update to the City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Prepared by Obaid Khan, Transportation and Operations Manager EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The City Council will consider an update to the City’s Downtown Traffic Impact Fee, including related amendments to ensure consistency with the City’s Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines. Additionally, the update will include a new name, the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, reflecting the fact that the fee is applicable to all of the areas of Dublin west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail. This item was continued from the January 19, 2016 City Council meeting to provide staff time to respond to two comment letters that were received on the day of the City Council meeting. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (WDTIF) will be used to finance public facilities and improvements needed to mitigate traffic-related impacts caused by new development in the Western Dublin area. The total estimated cost of the needed improvements is $12,966,000 and the WDTIF has been sized to collect $10,583,500 based on projected new land uses in the Western Dublin area. Grants and other funding sources will be sought to meet the full funding needs of projects. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the City Council conduct the public hearing, deliberate, and adopt the Resolution Updating the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee for Future Developments within the Western Dublin Area, Renaming it the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, and Updating the City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Submitted By Reviewed By Public Works Director Assistant City Manager DESCRIPTION: ITEM NO. 6.1 Page 1 of 6 On October 19, 2004, the Dublin City Council adopted (by Resolution 210-04) a Downtown Traffic Impact Fee program to fund a number of important transportation investments planned in the area of the City located west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail. The geographic area covered by this program is shown in Exhibit A to Attachment 1. The program has been successfully implemented and the funds generated have been used to construct several improvements to transportation infrastructure in the affected area, such as the intersection improvements at Dublin Boulevard and Dougherty Road, Golden Gate Drive, as well as the extension of St. Patrick Way. Over the past 11 years, there have been a number of changes that affect the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee area, including updates to the City’s General Plan, adoption of the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP), adoption of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), and construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. To better reflect these changes, the City determined that the fee program should be updated and renamed in alignment with the program’s full scope and intent. The program is proposed to be known as the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (WDTIF). The boundary of the WDTIF area has not been changed and remains as it was defined in the City Council action on October 19, 2004. The update process, as documented in the WDTIF Update, Final Report, dated February 2016, (Exhibit F to Attachment 1), included updating the list of capital improvement projects to be included in the WDTIF program, updating the growth projections in the geographic area covered by the WDTIF, and updating the fee calculations. The Final Report also describes the approach to establishing the fee nexus, or the relationship between the impacts of new development and the fees that could justifiably be charged to construct transportation improvements that mitigate the impacts of new development. Proposed WDTIF Projects: The projects on the updated WDTIF list are primarily intended to improve the operations of the roadway system for users of all travel modes, and have been identified in order to implement the City’s General Plan, the DDSP, and the BPMP. The projects involve elements such as adding or modifying turn lanes, adding bicycle lanes, widening sidewalks, and improving pedestrian safety by adding crosswalks or changing traffic signal phasing. Attachment 2 contains the WDTIF project list and Attachment 3 identifies project locations. Proposed Project Cost Estimates For the purposes of the WDTIF, it is essential to have an estimate of the cost to implement each of the capital improvement projects on the WDTIF project list. Cost estimates were drawn from the most recent plans for each project, or in some cases were developed specifically for this WDTIF study. The estimated cost of each project is shown on Attachment 2. New Development and Land Use: An important step in quantifying the nexus relationship is to determine the amount of new development that is anticipated in the planning horizon of the study. Staff developed the numbers of households and jobs in the WDTIF area based on the General Plan, under both current and future conditions (year 2040). New development in the area is anticipated, particularly in the core downtown area, which is generally bounded by I-580, San Ramon Road, Amador Valley Boulevard, and I-680. The number of jobs in the WDTIF area could increase by about 1,900 over current conditions, and the number of housing units could increase by almost Page 2 of 6 2,400, with the majority of potential new residential units located on near the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. These projections were incorporated into the City of Dublin travel model to identify their impacts on the transportation system. Trip Generation: Once the land use assumptions were established, the trip generation associated with those land uses was analyzed. The MXD+ tool, developed by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants with data from the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) was applied to estimate the trip generation. This tool was selected because traditional methodologies, such as application of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation manual, are primarily based on data collected at single-use, freestanding sites located in suburban areas with very little accessibility by transit, bicycling or walking. These defining characteristics limit the data’s applicability to mixed-use or multi-use development projects in more pedestrian-friendly and transit-accessible places, such as Dublin’s Downtown area. Detailed studies conducted by the EPA showed that the amount of traffic generated by each site is affected by a wide variety of factors including the mix of jobs and residents at the site, the overall size and density of the development, the availability of convenient internal connections for walking or driving between nearby uses, the availability of transit service to the site, and the surrounding trip destinations within the immediate area. None of these factors is explicitly accounted for in the traditional application of the ITE Trip Generation manual method. It should be noted that the neighborhoods outside of the DDSP area tend to be lower-density areas of predominantly residential land uses, and are somewhat removed from high-capacity transit options. For those reasons, application of the MXD+ technique would not be appropriate in those areas. However, the large majority of the projected growth in the WDTIF area is anticipated to occur in the DDSP area, so for the purposes of the WDTIF calculations the MXD+ technique can appropriately be applied. Table 1 shows the results of comparing the MXD+ results with the ITE rates. Table 1: Trip Generation Results in WDTIF Area from Application of MXD+ Existing 2040 ITE MXD+ ITE MXD+ Time Periods Trips Trips Comparison Trips Trips Comparison Daily 64,812 54,858 -15% 88,633 71,603 -19% AM Peak Hour 2,114 1,849 -13% 3,817 3,144 -18% PM Peak Hour 6,344 5,059 -20% 8,801 6,777 -23% For the update of the WDTIF, PM peak hour trips are the focus. This is a change from the current application of the fee program, which uses daily trips as the basis for the fee calculations. Most transportation facilities are designed to accommodate usage during peak periods, and the PM peak is the time period during which all of the land uses in the WDTIF area will be active, so it is the time period that will best capture the full range of travel effects caused by the anticipated future development. As shown in Table 2, the ITE trip generation procedure result in higher new PM peak hour trips as compared to the MXD+. The total number of new PM peak hour trips estimated through the MXD+ application is used to calculate the WDTIF fee per new peak hour trip. Page 3 of 6 Table 2: Comparison of WDTIF Area PM Peak Hour Trip Generation Estimates Potential Growth Source Existing Future (Future-Existing) ITE Trip Generation Manual 6,323 8,801 2,478 ITE with MXD+ Adjustments 5,059 6,777 1,718 WDTIF Projects Responsibility: As described earlier, the land use projections for the year 2040 were incorporated in the City of Dublin travel model, which was applied to generate estimates of travel patterns and volumes in the future. A common modeling technique called a “select zone analysis” was applied to identify the amount of future traffic volume on each roadway link that is generated by land uses in the WDTIF area. On each link that represents the location of a WDTIF project, the future traffic volume attributable to the WDTIF area was compared to the overall future traffic volume, thereby calculating the share of the usage of that link that can be attributed to the land uses in the WDTIF area. These usage percentages are shown in Table 3. The percentages were applied to the cost of each WDTIF infrastructure project, and the resulting amount represents the portion of project cost that will be included in the WDTIF program. As shown in the Table 3, the WDTIF program would capture about 82% of the total project costs, while other funding sources (such as from grants, County Measure BB funds, or other sources) would be needed to cover the remainder. This means that about 82% of the usage of these facilities comes from residents and employees in the WDTIF area, while the remainder comes from travelers who use these facilities but do not live or work in the WDTIF area. Table 3: FUTURE DEVELOPMENT RESPONSIBILITY FOR WDTIF Project Estimated WDTIF No. Project Name Cost Downtown % Amount Dublin Boulevard/Amador Plaza Road Intersection 1 Improvements $1,067,400 75% $800,400 Dublin Boulevard/Golden Gate Drive Intersection 2 Improvements $1,141,000 71% $806,200 Dublin Boulevard Complete 3 Streets Project $1,117,500 70% $782,900 Amador Plaza Road 4 Complete Streets Project $3,770,200 83% $3,141,000 Village Parkway Complete 5 Streets Project $770,500 52% $404,100 Dublin Blvd/San Ramon Road Intersection 6 Improvements $788,800 61% $481,400 Dublin Blvd/Village Parkway 7 Intersection Improvements $336,000 71% $238,800 8 St Patrick Way Extension $3,724,600 100% $3,724,600 9 Traffic Signal Upgrades $250,000 82% $204,100 Totals $12,966,000 82% $10,583,500 Page 4 of 6 Fee Calculation: A fee calculation was generated based on the figures described above. Starting from the amount of project costs eligible to be included in the WDTIF program (approximately $10.6 million), Staff subtracted the current fund balance (as of September 30, 2015) in the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee program (approximately $1.6 million), and the result is divided by the number of new PM peak hour vehicle trips estimated to be generated by new development in the WDTIF area (1,718 trips). Table 4 shows the results of the calculation. Table 4: WDTIF Calculation Calculation Value Total Eligible Project Cost in WDTIF Program $10,583,500 Less Current DTIF Fund Balance ($1,593,000) Number of New PM Peak Hour Trips 1,718 Fee per New PM Peak Hour Trip $5,234 Fee Schedule: Using the maximum fee per new PM peak hour trip calculated above as a basis, the number of PM peak hour trips associated with a representative sample of land use categories was estimated and the associated fee amount calculated. Attachment 4 shows the results of those calculations, along with an informational comparison of the proposed fees to the fee rates currently in effect. The following table summarizes these proposed and existing fees by a few sample land uses: Current Proposed Category Unit* Fee per Unit Fee per Unit Single-Family Residential DU $2,615 $4,030 Medium Density Residential DU $1,832 $2,499 High Density Residential DU $1,568 $2,096 Hotel Room $2,610 $2,418 General Office KSF $5,220 $6,005 Restaurant Sit-down, high- turnover KSF $27,144 $25,804 Community shopping center KSF $12,006 $9,719 Supermarket KSF $25,578 $24,834 DU = Dwelling Unit KSF = Thousand Square-Feet Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Adoption of the updated WDTIF results in the need to update the existing Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines (Exhibit G to Attachment 1). The updated Guidelines incorporate various impact fee resolutions already adopted by the City Council, minor changes to the text to clarify impact fee calculation process, and a new format for ease of use. Page 5 of 6 NOTICING REQUIREMENTS/PUBLIC OUTREACH: In accordance with Government Code Sections 66016 and 66017, notice of this public hearing was mailed to those requesting such notice 14 days before this public hearing. In addition, the attachments to this Staff Report and the background documents were made available for public review 10 days prior to this public hearing. As part of the update process, Staff conducted three community engagement meetings to allow interested parties to provide input and ask questions about the fee program and proposed update. The meetings were held on September 8, October 6, and November 3, 2015. Representatives from different organizations attended these community outreach forums. Staff received some clarifying questions from the attendees. On January 19, 2016, staff received letters from George B. Speir of Miller Starr Regalia and Stephen C. Abrams (Attachment 5) providing comments on the proposed fee update. Attachment 6 provides responses to these comments. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution Updating the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee For Future Developments Within the Western Dublin Area, Renaming it the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, and Updating the City of Dublin Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Exhibit A - WDTIF Area Map Exhibit B - Downtown Dublin Traffic Fee Report - 11/02 Exhibit C - Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Memorandum - 09/04 Exhibit D - Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Cost Estimate and Diagrams - 07/04 Exhibit E - City of Dublin Resolution 210-04 Exhibit F - WDTIF Update, Final Report, February 2016 Exhibit G – Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines Appendix B1 – Resolution 111-15 Appendix B2 – Resolution 11-12 Appendix B3 – Resolution 10-12 Appendix B4 – Resolution 134-15 Exhibit H - Example WDTIF Fee Calculation by Land Use Category 2. WDTIF Project List and Cost Estimates 3. WDTIF Area Map 4. Comparison of Proposed Fee with Existing Fee by Land Use Category 5. Comment Letters – January 19, 2016 6. Response to Comment Letters Page 6 of 6 RESOLUTION NO. ___- 16 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DUBLIN * * * * * * * * * UPDATING THE DOWNTOWN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN THE WESTERN DUBLIN AREA, RENAMING IT THE WESTERN DUBLIN TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, AND UPDATING THE CITY OF DUBLIN CONSOLIDATED IMPACT FEE ADMINISTRATIVE GUIDELINES WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Dublin has adopted Chapter 7.82 of the Dublin Municipal Code which creates and establishes the authority for imposing and charging impact fees; and WHEREAS, the areas within the City of Dublin located west of Dougherty Road and the Iron Horse Trail, as shown on Exhibit A hereto, are referred to in this resolution as the “Western Dublin Area”; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted a General Plan; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan, for certain areas within the Western Dublin Area (the “Specific Plan”); and WHEREAS, the City conducted the appropriate level of environmental review for the Specific Plan and adopted an Environmental Impact Report (“EIR”) on February 1, 2011, by Resolution No. 08-11; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, for the City of Dublin (the “Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan”); and WHEREAS, the City conducted the appropriate level environmental review for the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan and adopted a Negative Declaration (“ND”) on October 7, 2014, by Resolution No. 169-14; and WHEREAS, the General Plan, the Specific Plan, and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan (collectively, the “Plans”) provide specific detailed goals, policies and action programs for land and transportation within the Western Dublin Area, and show future uses in the Western Dublin Area; and WHEREAS, the EIR and ND considered and describe certain transportation improvements necessary for implementation of the Specific Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, the EIR describes the impacts of contemplated future development on existing public facilities in the areas of the Western Dublin Area included within the Specific Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan through the year 2035, and contains an analysis of the need for new public facilities and improvements to mitigate future development within such areas of the Western Dublin Area; and WHEREAS, the EIR assumes that certain transportation improvements would be made and that development within the Western Dublin Area would pay its proportionate share of such improvements; and WHEREAS, in November of 2002, a study was prepared for the City of Dublin by TJKM Transportation Consultants to analyze funding roadway improvements necessitated by development in the Western Dublin Area, titled “Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee” (hereafter “Study”), which is attached hereto as Exhibit B; and WHEREAS, in September of 2004, the City Traffic Engineer provided an update memorandum to the Study (hereafter “Memorandum”), attached hereto as Exhibit C, wherein he reviewed the Study for continuing accuracyand assessed the metrics underlying itscalculations regarding the impact fee per daily automobile trip to be imposed on developers; and WHEREAS, a report was prepared by the City of Dublin in a document dated July 2004 titled “Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Improvements, Cost Estimates and Diagrams” (hereafter “Report”) which detailed each traffic improvement project that Dublin would undertake using the impact fee and is attached hereto as Exhibit D; and WHEREAS, in order to mitigate the effects of future development on Dublin’s automobile infrastructure in the Western Dublin area, the City of Dublin established a Downtown Traffic Impact Fee in 2004 pursuant to Resolution 210-04, which is attached hereto as Exhibit E; and WHEREAS, the City’s original analysis of transportation in Downtown Dublin, contained in the Study, Memorandum, and Report, focused exclusively on automobile traffic, and did not adequately consider the impact of development on bicycle and pedestrian transportation as reflected in the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; and WHEREAS, as part of the City’s obligation to the community and the environment to ensure sufficient transportation infrastructure for all modes of transportation, Dublin determined that the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee should be updated to reflect the growing prominence of bicycle and pedestrian traffic, as well as construction of the West Dublin/Pleasanton BART station and other improvements; and WHEREAS, in February 2016, a report was prepared by Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultant entitled “Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Nexus Report” (hereafter “Revised Report”) which assessed updating the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee to reflect recent changes to the Plans and utilized a new metric for analyzing trip generation, and is attached hereto as Exhibit F; and WHEREAS, the Study, Memorandum, Report, Revised Report, and the Plans set forth the relationship between future development in the Downtown Area, the needed improvements and facilities, and the estimated costs of those improvements and facilities; and WHEREAS, the Study, Memorandum, Report, Revised Report, and the Plans were available for public inspection and review for ten (10) days prior to this public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee is referenced in numerous documents, including the Master Fee Schedule, Consolidated Impact Fee Guidelines, and Plans; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to update the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee to better implement the goals contained in the Plans, including updating the fee amount and the projects to be constructed with the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to update the guidelines applicable to the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee to better implement the goals contained in the Plans, including clarifying the exceptions applicable to various fees and the procedures surrounding fee credits; and WHEREAS, the City wishes to re-title the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee as the “Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee” (the “Fee”) to more accurately reflect the geographic area and the multi-modal focus of the Fee, as well as correspondingly update all references to the Fee in the Plans and other related documents; and FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. The purpose of the Fee is to finance public improvements and facilities needed to mitigate the transportation-related impacts caused by future development in the Western Dublin Area. The public improvements and facilities are listed in Table 1 of the Revised Report and are hereafter defined and referred to as “Improvements.” The Improvements are needed to accommodate new development projected within the Western Dublin Area and development within the Western Dublin Area will pay its fair and proportional share of such Improvements with the implementation of this Fee. B. The Fees collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to finance the Improvements. C. After considering the Memorandum, the Study, the Report, the Revised Report, the EIR and ND, the Plans, the record as defined in Resolution No. 210-04, and all correspondence received and the testimony received at the noticed public hearing held on February 16, 2016 (hereafter the “Record”), the City Council approves and adopts the Memorandum, the Study, the Report, and the Revised Report and incorporates each herein, and further finds that future development in the Western Dublin Area will generate the need for the Improvements and the Improvements are consistent with the Plans. D. That the City’s transportation system is currently adequate for the existing level of development in the Downtown Area. E. That the Fee will be used to acquire funds for capital projects necessary to maintain services within existing service areas; that the City currently provides transportation infrastructure to the Western Dublin Area; that the Fee will be used to maintain acceptable multimodal circulation and access with additional traffic from new development; and that no existing deficiencies have been found to exist by the Revised Report (see Revised Report, Table 4). As such, the Fee as it relates to development within the Western Dublin Area is not a “project” within the meaning of CEQA (Public Resources Code § 21080(b)(8)(D)). F. The record establishes: 1. That there continues to be a reasonable relationship between the need for the Improvements and the impacts of the types of development for which the corresponding Fee is charged in that new development in the Western Dublin Area, both residential and non-residential, will generate increased vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic which contributes to the need for the Improvements; and 2. That there continues to be a reasonable relationship between the Fee’s use (to pay for the cost of the Improvements) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that all development in Western Dublin Area, both residential and non-residential, generates or contributes to the need for the Improvements; and 3. That there continues to be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Improvements or portion thereof attributable to development in the Western Dublin Area in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of trips projected to be generated by specific types of land uses in excess of the number of existing trips, the total cost to construct the Improvements, and the percentage by which development within the Western Dublin Area contributes to the need for the Improvements; and 4. That the cost estimates set forth in the Revised Report are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Improvements and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected costs of constructing the Improvements; and 5. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development continues to bear a fair and reasonable relationship to each development’s burden on, and benefit from, the Improvements to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based on the number of vehicle trips each particular development will generate. NOW, THEREFORE,DOES RESOLVE the City Council of the City of Dublin as follows: 1. Land Uses Defined Definition of various land uses for the purpose of calculating the Fee shall be as per the current General Plan or the Specific Plan, as applicable. 2. Traffic Impact Fee Retitled The Downtown Traffic Impact Fee shall henceforth be known as the “West Dublin Transportation Impact Fee.” All references to the Downtown Dublin Traffic Impact Fee in the Plans and other official City documents are deemed to be references to the West Dublin Transportation Impact Fee, unless the context otherwise requires, and all future documents will refer to the Fee by its new title. 3. Amount of Fee The amount of the Fee shall be recalibrated as set forth in the updated Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines attached hereto as Exhibit G and hereby adopted, and the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Schedule with example land uses attached hereto as Exhibit H and incorporated by reference. 4. Use of Fee Revenues A. The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall continue to be placed in the Downtown Traffic Impact Fee Fund, which will henceforth be known as the Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee Fund (“Fund”). The Fee revenues (and interest) will continue to be used for the following purposes: 1. To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way acquisition and construction of the Improvements and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; 2. To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed Improvements, the cost of which is greater than their applicable Transportation Impact Fee; and 3. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development, program updates, and ongoing administration of the Fee program. B. Fees in the Fund account shall be expended only for the Improvements and only for the purpose for which the Fee was collected. 5. Minimum Cash Payment The minimum cash payment for the Fee shall be 11% of the total Fee due. Developers may utilize credits for the remainder of the Fee, if authorized by the Consolidated Impact Fee Administrative Guidelines. 6. No Existing Deficiencies The City Council determines that there are no existing deficiencies within the Western Dublin Area and that the need for the Improvements in the Revised Report is generated entirely by new development within the Western Dublin Area, and therefore, the Revised Report has determined the proportionate share of the cost of the Improvements for which development within the Downtown Area is responsible. 7. Periodic Review A. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall continue to prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, identifying the balance of the Fund. B. Pursuant to Government Code Section 66002, the City Council shall continue to review, as part of any adopted Capital Improvement Program each year, the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Improvements to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall continue to make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged. 8. Subsequent Analysis of the Fee The City will continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council shall review the Fee to determine that the amounts are reasonably related to the impacts of development within the Western Dublin Area. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate the findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in the Plans, as well as increase due to inflation and increased construction costs. The City will evaluate land values through an appraisal at least every three (3) years. 9. Automatic Increase in Fees The purpose of this Section is to provide for annual adjustments of the Fee for inflation, beginning July 1, 2016 and each July thereafter. The amount of the adjustment will be based on the changes in the appraised value of land (which represents 27.50% of the fee) and increases in the Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the San Francisco Bay Area (which represents 72.50% of the fee), as reported annually in the Engineering News Record (ENR). 10. Effective Date This resolution shall become effective immediately. The alterations to the Fee provided in Section 2 of this resolution shall be effective sixty (60) days from the effective date of the resolution. 11. Severability Each component of the Fee and all portions of this resolution are severable. Should any individual component of the Fee or other provision of this resolution be adjudged to be invalid and unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that portion that has been judged to be invalid. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of February, 2016. AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ________________________________________ Mayor ATTEST: _______________________________________ City Clerk \\fpainc.local\Dfs-ent-data\Walnut Creek N Drive\PROJECTS\_WC14\WC14-3135.00_Downtown_Dublin_TIF\GIS\MXD\fig01_StudyArea.mxd XD\fig02_ImpactFeeProjectLocations.mxdOJECTS\_WC14\WC14-3135.00_Downtown_Dublin_TIF\GIS\M\\fpainc.local\Dfs-ent-data\Walnut Creek N Drive\PR Response to January 19, 2016 Letter from Bill Speir of the law firm Miller Starr Regalia opposing the Proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (WDTIF) This responds to various concerns raised in the January 19, 2016 letter from Bill Speir of the law firm Miller Starr Regalia to the City Council opposing the Proposed Western Dublin Transportation Impact Fee (WDTIF). The letter indicates that “we” oppose the adoption of the proposed WDTIF and maintain that the fees do not comport with the Mitigation Fee Act (the “Act”) and federal and state constitutions. Mr. Speir’s letter does not identify a client that he or the firm is representing. It was accompanied by a letter from Stephen Abrams to Mr. Speir, dated January 18, 2016 (“the Abrams Report”), to which the City has prepared a separate response. The letter generally states that the WDTIF Fee Update does not meet the requirements of the Act because: (a) the City has failed to demonstrate the nexus or reasonable relationship between the fee’s use (i.e. public improvements identified in the study) and new development in the area; (b) the City has failed to demonstrate that a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the proposed public improvements and new development in the area; and (c) the fee amounts exceed the cost of new development’s proportionate share of the proposed improvements. The City’s review of the letter and the Abrams Report on which it relies reveals that the letter writer failed to account for various key analytical and technical features of the Fee Update. Background The Act authorizes public agencies to impose fees on development projects to defray some or all of the costs of public improvements related to those projects (Gov. Code § 66000 et seq.). The Act requires an agency imposing a development fee to make the following findings: (1) identify the purpose of the fee; (2) identify the use of the fee, meaning what use the fee will be put to, including what public improvements will be financed by the fee; (3) determine whether a reasonable relationship exists between the fee’s use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed; and (4) determine whether a reasonable relationship exists between the need for the use or public facility, and the type of development project on which the fee will be imposed. (Gov. Code § 66001(a)(1).) An agency imposing a fee must also determine that a reasonable relationship exists between the amount of the fee imposed and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed (i.e. fee amount does not exceed the reasonable cost of the project’s proportionate share of the proposed facilities) (Gov. Code § 66001(b)). As noted in the Introduction of the WDTIF, the City has adopted a policy of creating a transportation system that “promotes transportation options, and independent mobility, minimizes impacts to climate change from vehicle emissions, and supports greater social interaction and community identity” over the past eleven years. This policy is evinced and implemented through various plans and projects such as the City’s General Plan, the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan (DDSP), the City’s Bike and Pedestrian Master Plan (BPMP), and the Western Dublin/Pleasanton BART station. Each of these contributes to the establishment of a multimodal transportation system in the City. A comprehensive transportation system that increases access and mobility for vehicles, public transit, bicycles and walking, requires the construction of transportation improvements to support all of these modes of travel. The capital improvement projects under this system differ from those of past transportation fee programs in that pedestrian and bicycle related improvements are equally prioritized with traditional roadway improvements. These new types of capital improvements are integral to accommodating and mitigating the various modes of traffic generated by new development. The improvements funded by the WDTIF are necessary to accommodate development in the WDTIF area. The DDSP and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan all acknowledge the need to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety in order to accommodate all modes of travel as the DDSP area transition to a medium-density, mixed use downtown area (See General Plan section 5.2.2, policy A.6, section 5.2.5; DDSP, Sections 5.1, 5.2.). This need is created by additional vitality created by mixed- use development in the area that will surround a BART station. The following is the City’s response to the items raised in the letter. City’s Response to: “2. There is no demonstrated nexus or reasonable relationship between the need for these improvements and growth in Western Dublin.” The letter writer asserts that the improvements are predominantly bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements and related roadway beautification and have the effect of reducing the flow of traffic. The letter writer then asserts that the improvements are not made necessary by growth. The City’s General Plan, DDSP and BPMP, establish a reasonable relationship between the need for the proposed projects and the projected development and growth in Western Dublin. The City’s General Plan, DDSP and BPMP, establish development standards in the WDTIF area that support high-density, pedestrian-friendly, and transit- oriented development. The projected development necessitates the construction of improvements that create a comprehensive transportation system to accommodate all modes of transit, including bicycles, pedestrians, and public transit. As noted in the letter, these projects correspond with those previously identified in the BPMP. The BPMP establishes the City’s overall bicycle and pedestrian traffic network. The proposed projects in the BPMP included in the WDTIF are specifically tailored to create a bicycle and pedestrian traffic network in West Dublin that is consistent with new land uses thereby establishing a nexus between the proposed projects and the new development in the area. These projects also provide a consistent and complete bicycle and pedestrian network which is necessary in creating a safer biking and walking environment. BPMP has provided a detailed discussion in Chapter 5 (page 81) on how critical it is to maintain the network integrity. It also discusses one of the key criteria - Comfort and Level of Stress for the bicyclists of all ages – which is imperative in maintaining a safer bike network. DDSP went further to explain how the City is going beyond the practices and standards outlined in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual’s (HDM) Chapter 1000 standards on bicycle infrastructure to maintain and enhance the safety for all users of the system. On page 81, DDSP discusses the creation of expanded classification of a bikeway called Buffered Bike Lanes (Class IIB), which did not exist in the Caltrans HDM. This type of bikeway provides increased safety for bicyclists riding in a bike lane. Additionally, the DDSP included Bicycle and Pedestrian Design Guidelines which are also a significant improvement on commonly used standards in other jurisdictions and/or the HDM’s standards for bicycle infrastructure. For example, the City has established a minimum recommended sidewalk width (page 4 to 39 - Design Guidelines) and turning radii at intersections, as well as a new type of crosswalk markings that are geared towards enhancing pedestrian safety. Similarly, the DDSP (Design Guidelines page 53) has recommended the bike lane width to be a minimum of 6 feet which is more than the HDM standard width of 5 feet on streets with gutter pan and 4 feet without a gutter pan. Contrary to the letter writer’s contention, the proposed St. Patrick Way Extension project is reasonably related to the projected land use growth in Western Dublin. The St. Patrick extension will serve as the alternate route to Dublin Blvd and will provide access to Regional Street and properties beyond up to San Ramon Road. Also, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies St. Patrick Way as the key link in the Downtown Connectivity Project’s regional east-west bicycle access, as it would provide Class IIA bicycle lanes that cannot be accommodated on Dublin Boulevard (See BPMP, p. 129). The projects in the “Downtown Connectivity” work in tandem to ensure connectivity and bicycle network integrity. City’s Response to: “3. The WDTIF Report is based on the false conclusion that projects to be financed are not currently needed.” The letter writer argues that the Fee Update fails to demonstrate that the proposed bicycle and pedestrian safety improvements are not necessary to serve existing development, as is required by Government Code section 66001(g). The letter writer is of course correct that development cannot be required to fund existing deficiencies. The Fee Update includes an analysis of the existing conditions using the most recent information regarding existing traffic conditions in Western Dublin. The analysis indicates that the most recently available data, from the 2011 DDSP EIR, indicates that all of the intersections are operating at LOS D. The Fee Update therefore concludes that “this level of operation met the City’s standards prior to the adoption of the DDSP, thus indicating that these locations were not deficient at the time the City changed its policy.” Contrary to what the commenter stated, the City used the most current LOS analysis; it is important to note that the 2014 DDSP amendment did not conduct an LOS analysis. The City has revised the Fee Update to better explain existing conditions relative to bicycle and pedestrian safety. The revisions note the conclusions of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan that the California Office of Traffic Safety data indicates that the City’s bicycle and pedestrian safety collision data is better than average within its cohort (p. 48). Therefore, the revised Fee Update concludes that the there is no indication that there are any existing deficiencies related to bicycle and pedestrian safety. The letter writer’s unsubstantiated assertion that the bicycle and pedestrian projects are identified in “other City reports” as “currently needed” is wrong. Presumably, the letter writer refers to the City General Plan, DDSP, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan, and the City’s Capital Improvement Plan. These plans highlight the needs for future conditions, and none of them identify any of the improvements as being currently needed based on existing conditions. The letter writer also asserts in this section—with respect to the Amador Plaza Road Bicycle and Pedestrian Improvements—that it is inappropriate to require new development to fund the replacement of street trees that have reached the end of their useful life. While the City would agree with that principle, it is not the case that the improvement will fund street tree replacement. The letter writer is correct that there are approximately 55 trees that the BPMP indicates “appear” to have reached their end of life. Nowhere, however, do either the BPMP or the Fee Update indicate that those improvements will include replacement of existing trees that have reached the end of their life. The improvements may necessitate the removal of such trees if necessary to accommodate the project. City’s Response to: “4. The proposed revisions to the Downtown Dublin Traffic Fee will not meet the City’s stated purpose of mitigating traffic impacts of new development.” This item once again ignores key technical and analytical features of the Fee Update which lead to the letter writer’s divergent understanding of the Fee Update. As stated above and in the response to the Abrams Report, the City’s comprehensive transportation system consists of various modes of transportation that create a multimodal network of options. This transportation system and the land uses in West Dublin will generally result in an overall in the volume of vehicular trips decrease generated by new development (i.e., lower impact on vehicular traffic), while likely the use of alternative transportation modes (i.e., increased impact on public increasing transit, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic). The City’s stated purpose under the West Dublin TIF is to mitigate and accommodate the impacts of new development on transportation facilities which can be accomplished by a wide array of methods beyond those traditionally seen in vehicle-centric transportation systems that generally only focus on reducing vehicular congestion. City’s Response to: “5. The proposed new fee is grossly excessive.” The assertions in this section are addressed in the City’s response to the Abrams Report. Response to January 18, 2016 Abrams Associates Review of West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update This responds to various concerns raised about the West Dublin Traffic Impact Fee Update (“the Fee Update”) raised in the letter from Stephen Abrams to Bill Speir, dated January 18, 2016, that was transmitted to the City on January 19, 2016. The response tracks the letter’s numbering and headings. “(1) The cumulative traffic growth stated to be generated by the WDTIF area is grossly underestimated and is inconsistent with the assumptions in the [Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (DDSP EIR)].” The commenter’s conclusion is incorrect. The discrepancy pointed out by the commenter reflects the fact that the City used different approaches to evaluating trip generation in the DDSP EIR and the Fee Update. Consistent with typical CEQA practice and in the interests of presenting a conservative analysis that would capture all potential significant impacts, the DDSP EIR applied typical ITE trip generation assumptions. By contrast, at pages 9-11, the Fee Update carefully explains its use of the MXD+ technique, which is used to more accurately estimate trip generation from mixed-use development like that in Downtown Dublin. As the Fee Update notes, the more typically used ITE trip generation standards are “primarily based on data collected at single-use, freestanding sites located in suburban areas with very little accessibility by transit, bicycling or walking.” The MXD+ technique is used to adjust for the fact that Downtown Dublin is transitioning to a medium-density, mixed use area with access to transit surrounding a BART station. The City believes that this technique, which is described in the Fee Update and is reflected in the fee schedule (see Exhibit H to the proposed Fee Resolution), accurately estimates impacts from anticipated development in the Western Dublin TIF area. Note that the fee schedule details the MXD+ adjustment and pass-by adjustment used for various types of land uses In any event, the ultimate conclusion of the commenter that the differences in trip generation rates results in an “overstated” fee is incorrect. The rates shown in the Fee Update will be used consistently throughout the fee program, both in the calculation of the “per trip fee” in the application of that fee to individual development projects and when they obtain building permits. To better understand the logic of this approach, consider the repercussions of an alternate scenario: Say that the per trip fee had been calculated using the typical ITE trip generation rates used in the DDSP EIR, without any accounting for the trip-reducing effects of having mixed-use development occurring in a transit-served area in proximity to a BART station. In that case, the total number of trips estimated to be generated in the WDTIF area would be larger, so the per-trip fee would be lower. Then, when a development project submits an application, the traffic study conducted as part of that application would almost certainly conclude that the project’s trip generation is lower than typical ITE rates would indicate, because the project is located in a pedestrian-friendly downtown area with good transit accessibility. If the City were to accept that conclusion, the fee paid by that project would be based on its reduced number of trips and thus would be lower than the nexus study anticipated for a project of that size. Over time the City would find itself in a situation where the fee revenue generated by the program would fall short of the nexus study’s projections. The only way to avoid this outcome is to ensure that the trip generation assumptions used in calculating the per-trip fee are consistent with those that will be used to calculate the actual fee charged to each individual development project. The Fee Update is set up in that way. “(2) The cumulative traffic growth stated to be generated by the WDTIF area is totally inconsistent with comparable forecasts using standard Institute of Transportation Engineers procedures and trip generation data.” As was noted in the previous response, the Fee Update uses the MXD+ technique to adjust for the specific type of mixed use development anticipated in the WDTIF area. The City agrees with the commenter that the trip generation analysis uses more site specific (i.e. Downtown) approach than simply applying ITE standards, and it explains in detail why the City has chosen to use a different trip generation analysis. The commenter has not offered any reasoning for why it believes that it is inappropriate to use the MXD+ under the specific circumstances in the WDTIF area. “(3) Based on a comparison to the ITE forecasts it appears that the WDTIF calculations erroneously assumed the future employment growth would consist entirely of office jobs with little or no retail employment growth.” The commenter concludes that the Fee Update assumed that all future employment growth would come from office jobs. The City is unclear of the logic that led to this conclusion, but it seems to be based on an erroneous assumption that a 35% pass-by reduction was applied to all traffic associated with employment growth. As the Fee Update shows in Table 7 and the fee schedule (Exhibit H to the Proposed Resolution) makes clear, the 35% pass-by trip reduction is to be applied only to those land uses where it is appropriate to do so (i.e., retail uses). “(4) Based on an analysis of the growth projections contained in the WDTIF Final Report approximately 27% of the future traffic growth forecast for the WDTIF area would occur outside of the Downtown Specific Plan Area.” The commenter has prepared his own analysis of the trip generation from within and without the Downtown Dublin Specific Plan Area to challenge the Fee Update’s conclusion that it is appropriate to apply the MXD+ reduction to the entire WDTIF area because “almost all” of the anticipated development is within the DDSP area. The commenter continues to make the erroneous assumptions that the pass-by reduction would be applied to all commercial land uses and that commercial development would consist entirely of office uses. More fundamentally, though, the commenter mistakenly inflated the trip generation assumed to occur outside the DDSP area by failing to include Transportation Analysis Zone 1502 in the DDSP category. Roughly half of the geographic area covered by TAZ 1502, including all of its development potential, is contained within the DDSP. So, even if one were to use the erroneous assumptions used by the commenter, the result would show that 89% of the new trips would be from inside the DDSP area. To address this topic more accurately than presented by the commenter, a row has been added to Table B-1 in the Fee Update to show the amount of growth occurring specifically in the DDSP area, which makes up over 90% of the total amount of growth throughout the entire WDTIF area. “(5) An evaluation of the cumulative traffic forecasts in the DDSP EIR proves that the WDTIF Final Report used erroneous assumptions resulting in substantially lower forecasts of traffic growth than the DDSP EIR.” In this comment, the commenter is attempting to combine disparate information from two different sources. The commenter takes the forecasted traffic volumes at specific intersections from the DDSP EIR and applies the WDTIF responsibility percentages from Table 5 of the Fee Update to those volumes, and notes that the results exceed the total number of trips associated with WDTIF. Based on this, he asserts that the Fee Update overestimates WDTIF’s responsibility for various improvements. The WDTIF percentage responsibility shown in Table 5 is not intended to specify the number of vehicles at specific locations, but rather it is intended to show the relative proportions of vehicles coming from different geographic areas. In the case of this fee study (and as described on page 13 of the Fee Update), the question is what proportion of the usage of each project comes from within the WDTIF area, versus coming from outside the area. The WDTIF encompasses a large geographic area and most of the WDTIF projects are located near the center of that area, so it is not surprising that the majority of the project usage would come from travelers who live, work, shop, or otherwise accomplish some of their daily activities in the WDTIF area. As shown in Table 5, the WDTIF percent for the project on Village Parkway is the lowest of the group, while the percentages for Amador Plaza Road and St Patrick Way are much higher. Again, this makes sense given that Village Parkway leads directly into San Ramon and thus will have greater levels of usage by travelers from outside the WDTIF area, while Amador Plaza Road and St Patrick Way predominantly serve local travel inside the WDTIF area. Thus, the percentage responsibility shown in Table 5 is reasonable in light of the intended purpose of these figures. “(6) The WDTIF Report does not demonstrate a reasonable relationship between the proposed fee and developments on which the fee would be imposed.” The commenter argues that because of the elimination of the intersection level of service standard the City cannot demonstrate the new development creates the need for the improvements funded by the WDTIF. The General Plan, DDSP and the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan all acknowledge the need to improve bicycle and pedestrian safety and connectivity in order to accommodate all modes of travel to support the DDSP area’s transition to a medium-density, mixed use downtown area. (See General Plan section 5.2.2, policy A.6, section 5.2.5; DDSP, Sections 5.1, 5.2) The Fee Update has been revised to more clearly reflect the relationship between the City’s policies and plans and the WDTIF projects, as well as the relationships of these projects to improving multi-modal connectivity through the DDSP area. Contrary to the commenter’s suggestion, there are no existing traffic models that could be used to allocate project costs based on development’s bicycle and pedestrian demand. Finally, the author’s reference to the reduction in travel speeds during peak hours for transit is incorrect. The City applies transit priority at traffic signals and transit queue jump to allow buses to move through intersections more efficiently, which would not be reflected in the 2010 HCM arterial LOS methodology relied upon by the commenter. “(7) An evaluation of the future operations for several key WDTIF projects indicates there is no evidence that pedestrian and bicycle safety will be improved while there is extensive evidence that transit speeds could be significantly impacted by the implementation of the proposed WDTIF projects.” As noted above, the Fee Update has been revised to include a more detailed discussion of the pedestrian and bicycle safety improvements arising from the proposed improvements. The topic of transit speeds is discussed in the response to comment (6) above; the City applies a variety of strategies (such as transit signal priority) to allow buses to move through intersections efficiently and those strategies are not reflected in the commenter’s analysis. The commenter’s evaluation of future operations is based on the DDSP EIR. The comments seem primarily focused on the impacts associated with delay and driver frustration accompanying it. The assertion that delay and driver frustration will endanger bicyclists and pedestrians is not supported by the data. Research has consistently demonstrated that as vehicle speeds increase, the frequency and severity of collisions also increase, and that reducing speeds through better integration of all modes of transportation access is a key element of improving safety outcomes. (An example of research on this topic can be found at: http://nacto.org/docs/usdg/relationship_between_speed_risk_fatal_injury_pedestrians_a nd_car_occupants_richards.pdf) Even if the commenter’s analysis were true, it would not change the fact that the City has made a policy decision to eliminate the LOS standard within the DDSP area in order to encourage the move toward a medium- density, mixed use development centered around the BART station. This necessitates the creation of a transportation network that balances all modes of travel, rather than solely focusing on vehicle travel, in order to accommodate development in the DDSP. “(8) The inclusion of pedestrian and bicycle improvements appears to violate the requirements of AB 1600. There is no reasonable relationship between the need for these facilities and the forecast growth in the WDTIF area.” Contrary to what the commenter asserts, the City used the most current LOS analysis from the 2011 DDSP EIR. It is important to note that the 2014 DDSP did not conduct an LOS analysis, so the 2011 analysis is the most recent. As the commenter notes, the issues raised in this comment had been previously addressed. See response to comment (1) and comment (6). The commenter’s suggestion that California Highway Patrol Statewide Integrated Traffic Records information demonstrates that there are existing deficiencies surrounding bicycle and pedestrian safety is incorrect. Significant additional analysis would be required to attribute the cause of any particular accident to specific deficiencies in the existing transportation network. In fact, as the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan discusses at pages 45-48, the City ranks better than the statewide average for cities of similar sizes in terms of the number of pedestrian-auto and bicycle-auto collisions. Thus, the evaluation of existing conditions (which has been updated in the Fee Update) does not suggest that there are existing deficiencies in terms of bicycle- and pedestrian-related safety outcomes. “(9) Some of the projects selected for inclusion in the WDTIF, such as the St. Patrick Way extension, would clearly serve only the immediate surrounding areas and would primarily be required by adjacent developments.” The commenter is incorrect that St. Patrick Way will serve only the immediate surrounding area. The St. Patrick extension will serve as the alternate route to Dublin Blvd and will provide access to Regional Street and properties beyond up to San Ramon Road. Also, the Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan identifies St. Patrick Way as the key link in the Downtown Connectivity Project’s regional east-west bicycle access, as it would provide Class IIA bicycle lanes that cannot be accommodated on Dublin Boulevard (See BPMP, p. 129). The projects in the “Downtown Connectivity” work in tandem to improve connectivity and integrity of the entire downtown bicycle network.