Agenda Item D.1 DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM Meeting Date: April 7, 2015

Similar documents
Agenda Item C.1 DISCUSSION /ACTION ITEM Meeting Date: June 17, 2014

RESOLUTION NO

REPORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL PROPOSED REVISIONS TO MOBILHOME RENT STABILIZATION ORDINANCE

CITY OF HEALDSBURG RESOLUTION NO

RESOLUTION NO. A. In 2008, Los Angeles County voters approved Measure R, a sales tax based transportation improvement program.

MEMORANDUMM TO: FROM: FOR DATE: Providing for IMPACT. upgrade. No (Fire. Item 9.c. - Page 1

RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Signal Hill Safety Element was last updated in 1986; and

Agenda Item C.1 PUBLIC HEARING Meeting Date: April 21, 2015

CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY REPORT. Agenda No Key Words: Council Compensation Meeting Date: December 9, 2014 PREPARED BY:

CITY OF SIGNAL HILL Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA 90755

TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND. FROM: Toni J. Taber, CM1 SUBJECT: SEE BELOW. DATE: November 5, Approval of Adjusted Campaign Contribution Limits.

Council Agenda Report

RESOLUTION NO

ORDINANCE NUMBER 1174

Richard Pearson, Community Development Director Tim Tucker, City Engineer

ORDINANCE NUMBER 1104

MEMORANDUM DEBORAH MALICOAT, DIRECTOR OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES

Staff Report. Elia Bamberger, Director of Human Resources

Agenda Item B.5 CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Date: November 19, 2013

CITY OF GOLETA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2014

Section 15085, the City prepared a Notice of Completion of the DEIR that was filed by mail with the State Office of

Solano Local Agency Formation Commission 675 Texas St. Ste Fairfield, California (707) FAX: (707)

Agenda Item B.8 CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Date: May 19, 2015

RESOLUTION WHEREAS, on July 24, 2017 a Scoping Meeting was noticed and held pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15083; and,

RESOLUTION NO. RES

REPORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

RESOLUTION NO

City of Placerville M E M O R A N D U M BIENNIAL CONFIRMATION OF THE CITY OF PLACERVILLE S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

ORDINANCE NO. 17-O-2 NORTHBROOK PARK DISTRICT * * *

Item No. 14 Town of Atherton

ADOPT A RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A SUBORDINATION POLICY FOR THE BELOW MARKET PRICE (BMP) HOUSING PROGRAM

CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY REPORT. Agenda No. Key Words: Marijuana Tax Meeting Date: April 26, 2016 PREPARED BY: Douglas L. White, City Attorney

may be authorized by law, to defray all expenses and liabilities of the Park District, be

CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY. Fiscal Year Operating Budget and Fiscal Year Capital Improvement Plan

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF GLENDALE SETTING FORTH RATES AND CHARGES FOR GLENDALE WATER AND POWER ELECTRIC SERVICE

RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF REDLANDS ADOPTING THE MEASURE I FIVE-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN

DOUGLAS S. STACK, DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS /CITY ENGINEER ADVERTISEMENT FOR BIDS FOR THE MOFFETT DRIVE ( CIP 70224)

Barton Brierley, AICP, Community Development Director (Staff Contact: Tyra Hays, AICP, (707) )

ORDINANCE NO OF THE CITY OF COLBY, KANSAS

REPORT TO MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Council Agenda Report

RESOLUTION NUMBER RDA 292

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL. Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

Item No. 29 Town of Atherton

NOTICE AND CALL OF SPECIAL MEETING OF THE KERMAN CITY COUNCIL. The sole business to be conducted is as follows:

REVENUE BOND Policies & Procedures

THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 39 OF THE LAKE FOREST CITY CODE TO ADOPT A DEMOLITION TAX

Impartial Analysis of City Attorney Regarding Measure

Agenda Cover Memorandum

City of La Palma Agenda Item No. 5

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

M E M O R A N D U M. Administration Department

CITY OF GOLETA Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2015

ORDINANCE NO N.S.

Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2012 Goleta, California

THE VILLAGE OF SAUK VILLAGE COOK AND WILL COUNTIES, ILLINOIS ORDINANCE NUMBER

( Council Agenda Report

CITY OF GLENDALE CALIFORNIA JOINT REPORT TO THE GLENDALE CITY COUNCIL, THE GLENDALE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND THE GLENDALE HOUSING AUTHORITY

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

CA: RMM: rmd254/hpca City Council Meeting Santa Monica, California RESOLUTION NUMBER 7231(CCS) (City Council Series)

Heather Hafer, Senior Management Analyst Kate Whan, Public Works Administrative Manager SAN PABLO SUBDIVISION LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING DISTRICT A-03

ORDINANCE NO ORDINANCE LEVYING AND ASSESSING TAXES OF LISLE-WOODRIDGE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT DUPAGE AND WILL COUNTIES, ILLINOIS FOR 2016

ADOPTION OF AN UPDATED CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

RESOLUTION NO

City of Palo Alto (ID # 7553) City Council Staff Report

CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: MAY 2, 2018 PUBLIC HEARING

ORDINANCE NUMBER:

RESOLUTION APPROVING THE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE COUNTYWIDE NON-DISPOSAL FACILITY ELEMENT OF THE COUNTYWIDE INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN

FILE NO RESOLUTION NO [Issuance of General Obligation Bonds- Proposition A, 19921Proposition C, Not to Exceed $260,684,550] 2

RESOLUTION ELECTING TO ESTABLISH A HEALTH BENEFIT VESTING REQUIREMENT FOR FUTURE RETIREES UNDER THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES MEDICAL AND HOSPITAL CARE ACT

Eff.: 7/17/2018 Subject to Voter Approval ORDINANCE NO. 18-3,904

AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT FOR CITY ATTORNEY SERVICES CITY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT Paul Arevalo, City Manager

February 23, 2016 Agenda Item XI.1: Page 1

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

CITY COUNCIL Quasi-Judicial Matter

Executive Summary Planning Code Text Change HEARING DATE: MAY 8, 2014

ORDINANCE NO Section 1. The City Council finds the above recitals are true and correct and incorporated herein by this reference.

VILLAGE OF DOWNERS GROVE Report for the Village Council Meeting

BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION ORDINANCE FISCAL YEAR ORDINANCE NO.

CITY OF SIGNAL HILL Cherry Avenue Signal Hill, CA

21)14 SEP 25 AM II: 07 AGENDA REPORT

#17. July 27, 2010 MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS

PUBLIC HEARING: AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL FEE SCHEDULE TO INCREASE REFUSE COLLECTION FEES AND SOLID WASTE FRANCHISE FEE

Carla Hansen, Management Analyst II Peggy Flynn, Public Communications Coordinator Cathy Capriola, Assistant City Manager

2018 Property Tax Levy $28,699, Estimated Property Tax Levy $30,200,000 FINANCIAL IMPACT:

SAN FRANCISCO MUNICIPAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCY

CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF NOVATO

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF HUMBOLDT, STATE OF CALIFORNIA Certified copy of portion of proceedings, Meeting of November 14,2017

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

City of South Lake Tahoe

City Manager's Office

ORDINANCE NO. 511 THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ALTURAS DO HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

ORDINANCE NO

. Agenda Item B.6 CONSENT CALENDAR Meeting Date: December 4, Rosemarie Gaglione, Capital Improvement Program Manager

RESOLUTION NUMBER 3415

[Business and Tax Regulations, Planning Codes - Central South of Market Housing Sustainability District]

ORDINANCE NO VOTE: Passed on a roll call vote. Voting aye: Trustees Tymick, Allen, Gallagher, and Horvath. Voting nay: Trustees Glowiak and

Transcription:

Agenda Item D.1 CPMS DISCUSSION ACTION ITEM Meeting Date: April 7, 2015 TO: FROM: Mayor and Councilmembers Rosemarie Gaglione, Public Works Director CONTACT: Tim Giles, City Attorney SUBJECT: Transportation Impact Mitigation Fee Calculation Methodology RECOMMENDATION: Adopt Resolution No. 15- entitled A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California, Interpreting and Clarifying the Methodology for Calculating Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees. BACKGROUND: The City Council has approved a number of private developments for construction. Developments pay the City development impact fees ( DIFs ). Many of these DIFs are codified within the Goleta Municipal Code ( GMC.) DIFs paid in accordance with the Goleta Traffic Impact Mitigation Program ( GTIP ), however, are not part of the GMC. Rather, the City Council has adopted a series of resolutions establishing the GTIP DIFs in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000, et seq.) with reference to the Santa Barbara County Code of Ordinances ( SBCO ). Some developers are questioning staff s calculation of the GTIP DIFs. City Council clarification of the methodology for calculating the GTIP DIFs will aid in the efficient implementation of the GTIP. The draft resolution provides such guidance. DISCUSSION: The Mitigation Fee Act requires certain DIFs to be established and collected in a prescribed manner. The Mitigation Fee Act requires such DIFs to be adopted by the City Council and requires the fees to be reasonable. Although jurisdictions frequently adopt fees by ordinance based upon engineering studies, this is not required by the Mitigation Fee Act. The City of Goleta collects a GTIP fee on development based upon its impact on the transportation system, currently $16,151 per each additional peak hour trip. Santa Barbara County (Ordinance 4207) originally adopted the GTIP and the Fee Study that the GTIP on which the GTIP was based. On February 1, 2002, the City Council adopted 1

Meeting Date: April 7, 2015 an ordinance adopting all of the Santa Barbara County ordinances by reference as City ordinances. Subsequent City Council ordinances adopted on April 22, 2002 and June 17, 2002 reaffirmed that action. This included Ordinance 4207. In 2009, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 09-14 which codified the GMC. While many regulations governing DIFs were included in the GMC, the GTIP DIFs were not included in the codification but were adopted by Council Resolution. The GTIP was originally adopted by the City Council by Resolution on October 4, 2002 (Reso. No. 04-45.) The current GTIP was adopted by the City Council on November 17, 2014 (Reso. No. 14-61.) Questions regarding the method for calculating GTIP DIFs have plagued a number of private development projects that the City Council approved. It seems prudent, therefore, for the City Council to resolve some of these issues by adopting the draft resolution to interpret and clarify the legislative intention behind the Council's GTIP, specifically clarifying the authority of staff to calculate GTIP DIFs. Existing law - including the Mitigation Fee Act - provides that a City may reasonably impose GTIP DIFs utilizing calculations identified by the Public Works Director. The draft resolution clarifies methods that the Public Works Director should use when calculating the total amount of GTIP DIFs owed by each project. This will help ensure objective and uniform application such calculations to all development projects. As stated in the draft resolution, the Public Works Director should use an objective document for calculating the number of vehicle trips associated with a project (for example, a traffic study prepared for that project). A credit would be provided for the number of vehicle trips associated with the existing land use on a subject property. Once the total number of vehicle trips are identified, the Public Works Director would multiply that number with the GTIP DIF then in effect. The sum would constitute the total amount of GTIP DIFs owed to the City for a project. For example, if a retail use is being installed, the traffic study might determine that the use will generate 120 trips. However, if an existing office use is being removed, there might be 20 trips that are eliminated. In that example, GTIP would apply to the 100 total new trips (120-20=100 trips x $16, 151 fee rate = $1,615, 100 total GTIP DIF.) To ensure that there are no misunderstandings regarding the City Council's intent, the draft resolution would apply retroactively to all GTIP DIFs calculated since 2009. Finally, the draft resolution would adopt the current version of the ITE Traffic Manual (the 9th Edition) starting January 1, 2015. This determination is important when calculating GTIP DIFs since the ITE Traffic Manual provides objective traffic counts associated with various land uses. Future ITE Manual editions (as they become available) could be designated by the City Manager, or designee. Submitted By: Reviewed By: TimW. Giles City Attorney Michelle Greene City Manager Page 2 of 3 2

ATTACHMENTS: Resolution No. 15- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California Interpreting and Clarifying the Methodology for Calculating Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees. 3

ATTACHMENT 1 Resolution No. 15- A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Goleta, California Interpreting and Clarifying the Methodology for Calculating Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees. 4

RESOLUTION NO. 15- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GOLETA, CALIFORNIA INTERPRETING AND CLARIFYING THE METHODOLOGY FOR CALCULATING TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEES. The City Council of the City of Goleta does resolve as follows: SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares that: A. On February 1, 2002, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 02-01; adopted Ordinance No. 02-17 on April 22, 2002; and adopted Ordinance No. 02-22 on June 17, 2002 (collectively, the Incorporation Ordinances ). The Incorporation Ordinances adopted all Santa Barbara County codified and uncodified ordinances by reference as City ordinances; and B. On October 4, 2004, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 04-45, establishing a traffic impact mitigation fee (the Fee ) in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000, et seq.) with reference to Santa Barbara County Ordinance No. 4207 as originally codified at Santa Barbara County Ordinance Code ( SBCO ) Chapter 23C; and C. On November 17, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-61, established the currently applicable GTIP Fee program in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code 66000, et seq.) with reference to Santa Barbara County Ordinance No. 4207 as originally codified at Santa Barbara County Ordinance Code ( SBCO ) Chapter 23C; and D. The City Council may interpret its own regulations as recognized in California law including, without limitation, Yamaha Corp. of Am. v State Bd. of Equalization (1998) 19 Cal.4 th 1 and State Farm Mutual Auto Ins. Co. v Quackenbush (1999) 77 Cal.App.4 th 65; and E. The City Council recognizes that California law, including, without limitation, Melton v. City of San Pablo (1967) 252 Cal.App.2d 794 and In re Cindy B. v. Eugene B. (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 771, allows legislative interpretations to be retroactively applied when the legislative intent for such retroactivity is clear; and 5

F. The City Council s intent in adopting this Resolution is to interpret the legislative intention of the Fee adopted by the City Council and to clarify the methodology for calculating the Fee since February 2, 2002 and provide direction to the Public Works Director, or designee, for making such calculations prospectively. SECTION 2: Fee Calculations. As set forth in Government Code 66001, the Fee calculation must be reasonable. SBCO 23C-8 provided that the methodology for calculating all fees due, or exemptions allowed are determined by the Public Works Director, or designee (the Public Works Director ). To assist in formulating the Fee Calculation, the City Council finds that the Public Works Director utilizes the following formula when determining Fee calculations: A. Fee Amounts. The total amount of Fees for a new development will be calculated through any reasonable means as determined by the City Manager, or designee, including, without limitation, the following: 1. Identify the number of vehicle trips associated with new development ( A ) as determined by an objective source including, without limitation, the Traffic Engineering Handbook published by the Institute of Traffic Engineers (the ITE Manual ); a traffic study analyzing the vehicle traffic associated with a new development; a document prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA ); or any combination of such documents; 2. Identify the current Fee established by City Council resolution ( B ); and 3. Utilize the formula of A * B = [Total Fee]. B. Fee Credits. 1. New development that, through demolition or conversion, will eliminate existing development is entitled to a fee credit if the existing development is a lawful use under the Goleta Municipal Code ( GMC ), including a nonconforming use. 2. New development that will replace development that was partially or totally destroyed by fire, flood, earthquake, mudslide, or other casualty or act of nature, is entitled to a Fee credit if the development that was partially or totally destroyed was a lawful use under the GMC, including a nonconforming use, at the time thereof. 6

3. Credit for such eliminated development or development that was partially or totally destroyed (as above specified) will be calculated by the city manager, or designee, in accordance with the Fee schedule established by City Council resolution and must be applied to new development on the same site. SECTION 3: Fee Findings. The City Council finds that the Fee calculations in Section 2 are reasonable and that the course and conduct of the City Public Works Director in making Fee calculations as set forth in Section 2 represents the City Council s intention in adopting the Fee. SECTION 4: ITE Manual. Commencing on January 1, 2015, the City will utilize the 9 th Edition ITE Manual for calculating the Fees. The City Manager, or designee, is authorized to designate subsequent ITE Manual Editions upon an administrative determination memorialized in writing. SECTION 5: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption. The City Council specifically intends that this Resolution be retroactively effective since October 6, 2009 and will remain effective until superseded by a subsequent resolution. SECTION 6: This Resolution is the City Council s final decision and will become effective immediately upon adoption. SECTION 7: The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 7 th day of April, 2015. PAULA PEROTTE, MAYOR ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM: DEBORAH S. LOPEZ CITY CLERK TIM W. GILES CITY ATTORNEY 7

STATE OF CALIFORNIA) COUNTY OF SANTA BARBARA ss. CITY OF GOLETA) I, DEBORAH S. LOPEZ, City Clerk of the City of Goleta, California, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution No. 15- was duly adopted by the City Council of the City of Goleta at a regular meeting held on the 7 th day of April, 2015, by the following vote of the Council: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: (SEAL) DEBORAH S. LOPEZ CITY CLERK 8