Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item 25 Staff Report Adopt Resolution Revising Town-Wide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees (Continued from November 18, 1991 and June 1, 1992)
s/39 TOWN OF LOS GATOS COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT DATE: July 17, 1992 TO: MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL FROM: TOWN MANAGER ID SUBJECT: COUNCIL AGENDA DATE: 7/20/92 ITEM NO. ADOPT RESOLUTION REVISING TOWN -WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEES (CONTINUED FROM NOVEMBER 18, 1991 AND JUNE 1, 1992) RECOMMENDATION: 1. Open and hold the public hearing; 2. Close the public hearing; 3. Adopt Resolution amending traffic impact mitigation fees and superseding Resolution 1990-144. BACKGROUND: At its September 11, 1991 meeting, the General Plan Committee recommended that the Planning Commission forward a new formula for calculating traffic impact mitigation fees to the Council. The Planning Commission endorsed this formula at its October 9, 1991 meeting, referring the matter to Council for adoption on November 18, 1991. The existing formula uses a table of fees assessed by floor area for classes of land use. The fee for new uses is reduced by a credit based on the fee that would have been charged for the existing or former use on the property. While residential fees are calculated on a linear basis (e.g. $600 per average daily trip), commercial fees are not. Commercial uses that are high traffic generators pay less per trip than some low traffic generators. This occasionally resulted in a situation where the credit for new developments actually exceeded the fee even though the increase in traffic was fairly substantial. The General Plan Committee felt that this situation was unfair. The new formula is based on tables which assign trips to both the new and former use with the credit established by subtracting the old trips from the new trips and then assessing a fee of $600/trip for the first 10 new trips and $60/trip for the remainder. PREPARED BY: LEE E. BOWMAN Planning Director VL (Continued on Page 2) LEB:BL:JPG:cs 7/17/92 3:10 pm C22\CNCLRPTS\FEESSCH Attachments: See Page 3 for list of attachments Distribution: See Page 3 for distribution list Reviewed by: Attorney Clerk Finance Treasurer COUNCIL ACTION/ACTION DIRECTED TO: PAGE 2 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION REVISING TOWN -WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEES July 17, 1992 At the November 18, 1991 meeting, Council tabled the proposed revisions for six months to deliberate on them again in the Spring while looking at the economic situation at that time. Further, staff was asked to compare the Town's fee schedule with other communities. DISCUSSION: As directed by Council, staff compared the Town's fee schedule with those of other communities in Santa Clara County. Although the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency may consider the possibility of imposing a county wide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee and the City of Gilroy expects to institute a city wide fee by the middle of next year, the Town is currently the only agency in Santa Clara County with a comprehensive, city-wide Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee. The attached comparison of traffic fees for local agencies in Santa Clara County summarizes that research (Attachment 2). Additionally, staff obtained traffic fee information from CalTrans, summarizing a survey of 102 cities and 9 counties in the greater San Francisco Bay Region. This summary of research findings, which was published in December 1990, is provided as Attachment 3. This information was presented to the General Plan Committee at its April 8, 1992 meeting. The Committee recognized that the Town's traffic impact mitigation fees are among the highest in the bay region. The Committee continued its support for the new fee resolution because it felt that the new formula would be more equitable than the Town's current fee schedule. Additionally, the Committee passed a motion at its June 10, 1992 meeting to recommend that Council adopt a traffic credit policy for projects which incorporate strategies for reducing vehicle trips. This recommendation is consistent with the goals of the Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program. The Committee recommended that the Town grant a five percent (5%) fee reduction to any project with a strong Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program, or for a development near a rail transit station or major bus stop. The Committee also felt that credit should be granted for mixed use developments and other acceptable vehicle trip reduction strategies. Since vehicle trip reduction increases when two or more strategies are combined, the total trip reduction credit should at least equal the sum of the individual strategies, with no limit on the maximum amount of the credit. The vehicle trip reduction standards listed in Section 2.13 of the Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology (Attachment 4), prepared by Wilber Smith Associates for the Santa Clara County Congestion Program, address all of the Committee's concerns. Although these standards must be applied to all development projects that generate over 100 A.M. peak hour trips, the Town could also apply these standards to smaller projects. Chapter 15 of the Town Code, the "Town of Los Gatos Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Ordinance," established Town -wide traffic impact mitigation fees within the traffic improvement area defined as the Town limits. Section 15.70.030 of this Chapter established the method of determining the "unadjusted fee," and allowed the Town Engineer to make adjustments to the fee to make the fee reflect more accurately the inter- relationships between the land use category, traffic impacts, transportation improvement costs, the Town's General Plan and other factors. In the Spring of 1990, the Town Engineer, in conjunction with the Town Finance Manager, reviewed the 1990-91 financial data and made projections for anticipated future funding. Additionally, the Town Engineer determined the cost of constructing the Town -wide transportation improvements needed to accommodate new development and maintain acceptable levels of service at intersections within the Town. The unfunded cost of the identified Transportation Improvements (the difference between the total cost and the current and anticipated future funding) was used to establish a nexus of $600 per trip end. This did not preclude the fact that there may be other unfunded transportation improvements or other impacts associated with a project that were not included in the fee determination. As required in Section 15.70.035 of the Town Code, the specific amount of the Traffic Impact Mitigation Fees shall be established by resolution, and shall be subject to periodic review by the Town Council. PAGE 3 MAYOR AND TOWN COUNCIL SUBJECT: ADOPT RESOLUTION REVISING TOWN -WIDE TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEES July 17, 1992 CONCLUSION: Adoption of the proposed fee resolution (Attachment 1) is consistent with the objectives stated in the Town Code, and the amount of the fee that would be assessed by the proposed formula would be equal to or less than the nexus. FISCAL IMPACT: Adoption of the proposed fee resolution may result in a slight decrease in the amount of mitigation fees collected. The new fee resolution will increase the fee for most non-residential projects under 3,000 square feet, and decrease the fee for most non-residential projects with more than 3,000 square feet of floor area. However, the amount of the decrease in revenue will depend on the number and type of projects ultimately approved, which cannot be determined at this time. Further, since projects which would qualify would have built-in mitigation strategies, the need for physical, capital mitigation may be reduced. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution as recommended by General Plan Committee and Planning Commission. 2. Comparison of Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee for Local Agencies in Santa Clara County. 3. CalTrans Traffic Impact Fee Summary. 4. Section 2.13 - Vehicle Trip Reduction Standards - Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology. DISTRIBUTION: Eric J. Morley, Los Gatos -Saratoga Board of Realtors, 20454 Blauer Drive, Saratoga, CA 95070 Beverley B. Bryant, NAIOP, P.O. Box 24399, San Jose, CA 95154-4399 RESOLUTION RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AMENDING TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEES AND SUPERSEDING RESOLUTION 1990-144 RESOLVED, the Town Council hereby establishes a traffic impact fee payable pursuant to Chapter 37 of the Town Code as follows: A. The fee for residential uses shall be calculated at $600 per ADT*. B. The fee for all other uses shall be calculated at $600 per ADT* for the first ten (10) trips and $60 per ADT* thereafter. C. Exhibit A (Town Trip Generation Rates table) and Exhibit B (Land Uses Covered by Fee Categories) are included herewith and made a part of this resolution. For a use not identified on Exhibit A or Exhibit B, the most similar use from the Land Use table and Trip Generation Rates table (example: type of merchandise, operation, or service provided) will be used to calculate the fee. D. The Town Council may exempt housing developments for very low, low and moderate income residents (as defined by Town Ordinance, General Plan, or statute) from all or a portion of the traffic impact mitigation fee upon making a finding that the development provides a significant community benefit by meeting current needs for affordable housing. The exempted fees will be made up from other sources of revenue. Traffic mitigation fees paid by other developers will not be used to subsidize the exempted projects. Each year the Town will identify how much money is to be allocated in the Capital Improvement Program for traffic improvement projects. Additional revenue sources will be identified to cover exempted fees. *ADT is defined as the number of average daily trips associated with an identified land use as determined or derived from the Town of Los Gatos Trip Generation Rates table or a traffic study approved by the deciding body - whichever is less. C22\RESOS\IMPACT 6 R 1 B mLiS��yn..E r� 1' E. Traffic credit may be granted for an existing or former use. When applicable, existing or former use traffic (ADT*) shall be subtracted from the project traffic prior to calculating the fee. The first ten trips of the difference will be charged at the higher $600 per trip rate. FURTHER RESOLVED, the Town Council hereby establishes a policy to encourage development that reduces traffic congestion and improves air quality in the Town. The Santa Clara County Congestion Management Program recognizes three strategies that can be used to accomplish these goals. They are: mixed -use development (which increases internal trips), a strong transportation demand management (TDM) program, and development near transit stations. Implementation of these three strategies will cause a reduction in vehicle trips generated by development projects. Projects which incorporate these strategies into their design may take credit for the expected vehicle trip reductions caused by the strategy. The vehicle trip reduction standards listed in Section 2.13 of the Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology, prepared by Wilber Smith Associates for the Santa Clara County Congestion management Program, shall be applied to all development projects within the Town. FURTHER RESOLVED, this Resolution supersedes Resolution No. 1990-144. C22\RESOS\IMPACT 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Los Gatos, California, held on the day of 1992, by the following vote. TOWN COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ATTEST: MAYOR OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS CLERK OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS C22\RESOS\IMPACT 3 USE TOWN OF LOS GATOS TRIP GENERATION RATES A.M. P.M. A.D.T. PEAK PEAK Single Family Detached (1) 9.74 0.77 1.01 Planned Unit Development (1) 6.98 0.50 0.64 Residential Condominium /Townhouse (1) 6.62 0.54 0.70 Retirement Community (1) 3.55 0.27 0.34 Apartment (1) 6.14 0.52 0.64 Mobile Home Park (1) 5.18 0.43 0.62 Congregate Care Facility (1) 2.08 0.06 0.17 Restaurant (Quality) 97.33 0.96 7.82 Restaurant (Fast food drive-thru) 639.86 41.78 44.17 Restaurant (Fast food no drive-thru) 786.22 37.93 42.34 Restaurant (High turnover, sit-down) 212.92 19.85 16.76 Auto Sales (Dealer & Repair) 45.14 2.59 3.31 Auto Repair Center 40.00 2.00 2.54 Building Materials/Lumber Yard 30.39 2.11 3.16 Convenience Market/7-11 Store 676.66 55.73 50.64 Discount Store 66.18 1.10 6.30 General Merchandise Store 35.80 4.20 Garden Nursery 34.11 1.25 3.87 Hardware/Paint Store 51.43 1.44 4.86 Service Station (2) 131.50 9.27 15.39 Shopping Center (up to 10,000 s.f.) 143.80 4.50 14.17 Shopping Center (10,000 to 50,000 s.f.) 89.18 2.16 9.55 Shopping Center (50,000 to 100,000 s.f.) 78.34 1.62 6.56 Speciality Retail Center/commercial shops 40.34 1.35 4.05 Supermarket 127.95 2.01 13.00 Corporate Office (single user) 8.14 1.49 1.45 General Office (up to 10,000 s.f.) 21.60 3.00 2.88 General Office (10,000 to 25,000 s.f.) 18.73 2.70 2.63 General Office (25,000 to 50,000 s.f.) 17.26 2.32 2.24 Medical Office 4239 2.85 4.54 Bank (Drive-thru) 232.61 10.58 31.82 Bank (Walk-in) 148.54 5.45 16.98 Savings & Loan (Drive-thru) 72.36 1.00 8.51 Savings & Loan (Walk-in) 60.50 1.27 5.37 Motel 9.46 0.69 0.72 Bus Depot 25.00 2.25 2.00 Movie Theater (multi-plex) 78.90 0.23 6.27 Industrial/Business Park 12.79 1.77 1.53 General Light Industry (no commercial) 7.29 0.90 1.10 DV07: \ Reports \LG-TRIPS.XLS Page 1 10/14/91 10:59 EXH1flT A USE TOWN OF LOS GATOS TRIP GENERATION RATES A.M. P.M. A.D.T. PEAK PEAK Warehousing Mini -warehouse (storage) Day Care Center High School (4) Church/Synagogue Nursing Home (3) Hospital (3) (1) Per Dwelling Unit (2) Per Pump (3) Per Bed (4) Per student NOTE: Unless otherwise noted, trip generation rates are based upon 1,000 square feet of gross floor area. 5.37 0.66 0.99 2.47 0.14 0.24 74.63 13.54 14.08 1.36 0.35 0.14 12.16 0.67 0.96 2.73 0.17 0.21 13.35 1.44 1.44 Trip generation rates used in the Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology shall be from the most recent version of the Institute of Transportation Engineers' "Trip Generation Manual". In special cases (such as for unique land uses), trip generation rates from other sources may be substituted for ITE rates with CMA staff approval. Other sources include: Caltrans' "Trip Generation Studies", SANDAG "Traffic Generators Manual". Trip generation rates may be developed explicitly for use in Town Traffic studies and in the Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology. If special trip generation rates are developed, techniques in the ITE's "Manual of Traffic Engineering Studies" should be used. D V07: \ Reports \LG-TRIPS.XIS Page 2 10/14/91 10:59 LAN; SES COVERED BY FEE CATEGORIF CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL SUB -CATEGORY RESIDENTIAL RESTAURANTS RETAIL ...USES.. Apartment Congregate Care Facility Mobile Home Park Planned Unit Development Residential Condominium Retirement Community Single Family Detached Delicatessen Fast Food Restaurant High Turn -over, Sit-down Restaurant Ice Cream/Yogurt Shop Quality Restaurant Page 1 of 2 Apparel Shop Auto Parts Sales Auto Dealer (New and/or Used Car Sales and Service) Auto Repair Shop Bar/Lounge Building Materials/Lumber Yard Car Wash Convenience Market Discount Store Furniture Store General Merchandise Store Nursery/Garden Center Retail Outlets Service Station Shopping Center Specialty Stores Specialty Retail Center Supermarket Tires, Batteries, and Accessories Store Truck Stop Video Arcade Video Movie Rental Store Wholesale Market OFFICE General Office Government Office/Civic Center Insurance Office Lending Agency Medical Office Office Parks Real Estate Office State Motor Vehicle Department U.S. Post Office SERVICES Banks/Financial Institutions Financial/Lending Institutions Insurance Building Stockbroker LODGING Bed and Breakfast Hotel Motel Resort Hotel L13\XLS\LANDUSE.XLS 8/12/91 10:31 AM EXHIRIT B LANL 3ES COVERED BY FEE CATEGORIE CATEGORY SUB -CATEGORY _ USES COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION Bus Depot Park and Ride Facility RECREATION Amusement Park Bowling Alley Golf Course Health Club Indoor Sports Center Live Theatre Movie Theatre Music Theatre Outdoor Sports Complex Park Stadium Swim/Racquet Club Water Slide Park INDUSTRIAL/ AGRICULTURE BUSINESS PARKS Business Park High Tech Industrial Industrial Park Industrial Bldg. (including light and heavy industry) R & D Centers Utilities WAREHOUSE/ MANUFACTURING Manufacturing Public Storage Facility Warehousing AGRICULTURE Agribusiness Greenhouse Orchard Row Crops INSTITUTIONAL CHILD CARE Day Care Center EDUCATIONAL Elementary School High School Junior/Community College University RELIGIOUS Church Synagogue Temple HOSPITAL CONVALESCENT HOSPITAL Convalescent Hospital Nursing Home GENERAL HOSPITAL All other Hospitals, including Emergency/Outpatient and Hospital Clinics NOTE: Some of the uses listed in this table may not be applicable to the Town of Los Gatos. L13\XLS\LANDUSE.XLS 8/12/91 10:31 AM UT UT UT N w w LL Z Z O 0 p Q o � U O 1— az a Q 2to —z 0 II N LL ▪ U F • Z W LL O O < Z O a • U IZ OJ Q a¢ 20 O II- U PO 0 O O O IJ TrN N fA M M M W N iO i() N N m CO CO co m 43 43 )d CO vs (9 w w w SSESS88 in w w w w in w iy yi i 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 )0 i0 V] t0 N VT i0 N9 NM w w 6NB w to 0 0 8 88 88 w w w Q» 0 1 0 t. 88888 N N N N N 0 CO 0 OT CO CO W )0 (7 *3 C7 t7 W IA Vf M 69 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 W N VM H 69 W 88 8 88 88 CO 03 S M W N p N c c N c c 'c 'c 'c 7 7 7 7 7 C) C) 0) 0) 0) AAA' ci 0 E E 8 co Q VICO m N ggggggg C 0 c E EC O O) m 0. c ° " 2 5 c a m fn Q F J z N () O c am F d 0. 0 0 0 itr 0 m 0' F CD co F F co O) 2 L25\XLS\TRAFFIC ATTACHMENT 2 Traffic Impact Fees 0 8 (n cC i w 0 LL 0 S Z 0 0 U 0 0 U i th LL CC 0 J (i) w Ct O J U w H w ra w LL z O 0 a (n [t 3 0 C O w 0 Q 49 O N 49 0 0 N 49 0 0 0 Cu CO CO 0 N 03 a_ 3 U LL F- c 0 0 U 0 m E LL O N c 3 c O (0 O 43 a 40 69 0 0 O O 49 O O a co 4A `0 0 m 0 N m 0 an m m m A 0_ 0 >. c z z Z co 0 m c 0 Z b a m 3 O C 3 2 z Z z Z L La 0 m 0 m a 3 Z z z z z Z o m U CD (3 U c C 3 O C Z Z z Z Z m LL a O z m E w 3 Y Z Z z LL N 0 c 0 E 3 C 0 C z z Z 0 0 0 N hl 0 0 O 49 3 m >. 0 05 N N N O 4'3 M V3 0 0 co,Lri ao 43 0 0 O 49 t cn a N CO co O) a 3 T LL m 0 m m 0 0 c 3 z Z z Z Z LL F- N 0 a c 0 0 O >. z Z z Z Z LL N 0 Z 0 m a c 0 C m co a U c C a C Z 3 O c 3 O 3 c c N O O N (C) 49 3 0 c C 3 3 0 3 Y 0 O '3 O O 63 O co 49 0 0 0 O O 63 0 0 0 49 co (n rn 0 a 3 U L1 0 a c m m J (n m 0 jSoo rosolulion list 'Unknown m U c i Pv. 93. O O 9-3 w U O C) a a) 49 ((3 0: 0 49 p 6- CO O: 0 49 3 O m n m m m C C N U H T c LC) CO ('4 C') 43 O 0 ('l 4.0 cO 6F} 0 0 0 O O w m m CO m m (n m (o (3 li c 0 U U m C 0 3 O C E O U m E (n L DC co m 49 C C Y a 0 6A o 0 0 (n 49 0 0 0 (n N 49 c 3 O C 3 Y 0 3 U LL r U m z O E co N (0 O 49 O O (.3 CO n 69 0 0 N N co 0 0 0 O w m m Eco m CO CO LC) m a 3 U LL F1 a 0 0 co 3 O C 3 0 s 0 LC) N 49 0 64 To m` E m U 0 O 0 0 CI 44- (V w 0 0 t m E COCO 444 N m a 3 U LL c 0 T N N 49 0 0 O O O 49 0 CD m O 43 3 O C 3 0 c 0 0 69. C m a_ 0 0 O (n 0) 49 0 O 0 O 0 CO- 4.9 3 0 c N C E O E a 0 c c 0 0 C C - x C c ¢ Z Z 3 0 C z O O m 63 - 49 in cD 0 0) v3 z 0 63 N 0 t` 4A IC) O O N 49 - m 0 z 0 0 DC C 0 0 0 O N Q 49 z z c o a• c • 0 • ATTACHMENT C - m U C • c (q aa050)0) a 0 CO N m 0 z Traffic Impact Fees �+ tFeos vary by area, Foes subject to modificatio c N 00 O D t _' N t p• 0I © 0 ^ P c C7 O 3 ` -0 O_Ta Amts. apply to signal lee Revising GP -then TIF likely Future T.I.F.s likely _ _ D B n _ O -Z Special areas: lower lees n J Y N II D p a N _ o n .- II ?. -OQt- m- Q' L t p Z m N E N C ]. O M ro • O O m N G m.� : OQG _ta 0 CO E . rO m^ . N Y Q E N C E< peslnea uloq si aoUEutp/p euoN slot/tslp 'SSeSse eAlloe euoN ouoN �ieuetew ees :lslp ssessv • iallon nnya1l let) unit' See trans system mgt plan >, p N 'o Uz: m C Some comm. uses calc/ac I N O U '_la}-- �- 51 a) .0ro U QQ�� CI i7 N • E OTHER DEV FEES Unknown Unknown 1lnknn..,n N `a cr - ro ;E = m Unknown Unknown 'See materials Unknown 1 Inknn,.,n _ c ) o =c Y _ c 0 c aX Unknown Unknown Unknown c c . Y O _N `a - m c ro c o0o0o c ccc 0 Y C O C (rl c Y C c Y C Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown I Inknnwn c Y C Y C oc cc Y. C c c C Unknown Unknown vI is 0 - E o c m Y m (Duo CI z CD O moon o C') Lc) 49444449. m U -so m •o Lo !` $16',300/ac Unknown $1 ,250/acro N Y O _Q _Q WZZZZ a s c' Q N n 69 {A V/N $2500/.k tr N/A $1.22 N/A r Y 4 o �O a _Q _Q a Unknown 1 O O C 3� 0 _Q Y Z= Q ZZZZ a Q a C7 CO u� Q z=Z c o Y a ...• I COM-HIGH/s1 CLi 'z.:c, mom-8 ra 0 r" o fn ;; © 0 n ;] $16,300/ac $50/trip end $1,250/acro h Y QI O N a Q w Z Z a Z Q Z N • �'7 CO 491 4.4 N/A $2500/pk tr N/A CV O O iNCA- a Z ` ^ a O In w a Z a Z a a Z Z $2185/ k tr N/A Unknown 0 0 a ZZZZ a Q a O1 442. C.) I iiii N/A N/A N/A Daly City Citywide/by area Dec-88 Land use/ADTs $189.00 $189.00 $0.37 $1.04 East Palo Alto No sol T.I.F.s yet N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A COM-LOW/sl 450/ADT $150.00/lot m U CD ^CO0".Qcaaa (9wwis�Z Ll m c m 14) m U m ao zzz r. o 0 t` ww N/A $2500/pk it N/A I,_ Q�aaa ZwZZZ aQ 0 N/A N/A $680/pk Ir N/A Unknown 0 0 woo_o a<Q< ZZZZ o_ I RES-HIGH/du O 0 0 va $250.00 1 $3,260.00 C O m 0 CD w O 0 <<<<'3<I.t-< ZZZZ 00 00 Z49Z -- a. CI .Q < Z $2500/p tr a ZZZZ49Z Q a a ^' _v CO a $1,974.00 f ;- O 49ZZZ a a a N/A N/A RES-LOW/du $728.00 $150.00/lot 00 00 00 00 N AAc9 $500.00 $150/trip enc $200.00 O'lnn _Q a Z Z IN/A < Z`_ l $388.00 1 $272.00 '-' a z Y _n' 0 Lo a 49 z 0 CO p a Z I$2500/pk tr Q< Z N/A 1 N/A 11 N/A _lca' a m a IA Z $1,974.00 1 ^ O 0 w Q z a Z _Q Z N/A I Q z CALC. METHOD land use/per trip per lot Unknown size 8 acreage is focw Unknown Unit or acre/ est. cost L. use/trips generated_ N/A N/A a ' IN/A L. use/trips generated L. use/trips generated — 1-,;a z o © a Z L. use/30th pk hr tr N/A 4 0 L Y m m a a Qaa Z z I'/P/ N/A L. use/ pk hr tri N/A L. Use/traff generated Per square fool < z < z < z < zl Commercial only/sl I N/e _ 07 .- c') a O 0) r. -- CD co co ^ N f0 01 m fa N z fA co 3 N C N= C CM co co co C.0 Q Q ZZZZ a C11 rA a CO--. 0) O N 0 '-ZZZ O a C a N N O Q ZZZZZZ-z C _a Q a Q (0 O1 Cy Q ,- C O to Q zz N/A N/A +j Q z C1 m a z rtt 1 yrt T.I.F. - tour areas 'Thoroughfare Fund' m a) - >,i I.L .)I-} - cnywwe T.I.F. - cif wide Si nal fee -1 district Gen. tee + si nal fee O m 11 N rL m U m N m 0 m ZO O m N O ZZo ro lfl Nco ]v - A m N O -' m m a ., — c -C L'4 U uy ca59 T.I.F. - 2 areas Citywide tax only m m N m D r, • V_ N V_ ro— a) ?. Ll 0 4/1 N m u 4 r m f i.aatl uy case No set T.I.F.s Case by case T.I.F. - 3 areas Case b case T.I.F. - clt wide Transit Im act fee A1.. _..T 1 r• _ en N cocco- N LL LL VI ZZZ} N tl W N ' N 11 I. f.-❑ayl1Utlt area General fund only JURISDICTION Sonoma County Cloverdale Cotatl Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnen Park Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma Napa County Calistoga Napa SI. Helena Yountvlli e Marin County Belvedere Cone Madera Fairfax I nrLcr.i. a a'% vulluy Novato Ross San Anselmo m= m m m LL. Cn O o C.) c U 0 .1 ca >" c O a a t <mm`mUC c ._ m c c 0 CO a) ro C ro Traffic Impact Fees 2 'Trip Info from ITE doc 1 rJ� o I c9 .0 tL -tlZF-z<OZZC 0 a O 0 O = © N LL s T 0 C N j U ii m m t 0 W 'D - U 4a O O C. - Z d C C 0 r per0i10 ,',0 ITI C ...,J ..,..... Il. �,.�... r.na 0 0) 0 . C > .0 N 3 N i ) 11 F- n 3>- 'U.o-'=Z<ZZZ¢OZaZF `. a. 0 , .0 0 C v LL - O c N 3 •�• 0 ro C N 0 0 a' 0-0 a. L N N 0 o U m C 0 C m t!7 °0 O c O c a Cn 0 J N m 0 0 0 E p 0 U C o �. C 0 m E > a 0' CDN C co C o tL . .Oy. C "t3ayviow Traffic Imp Fund" Studying future T.I.F.s Waiting for matorlals Waiting for materials W W W Z F- 3 0 c Y C == 3 3 0 0 c c Y Y C C 3 o c Y C =}==>-=- c 3 o c Y C E m {., 0 3 o cc .. C 3 o .x c c 3 O c Y C E m N 0 c 3 o C Y C c 3 0 c Y c c c 3 3 0 0 c c .Y Y c C M�= c 3 o c Y- C c 3 c c C Unknown Sae mnInrlalc ;cc : 3 • o c ) Y ) C )=DDZ=ZZak====ZZOMZ 3 a c -Y C c 3 o c - C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c 3 0 c Y C c c 3 3 0 0 c c �C Y C C c c 3 3 0 0 c c Y Y C C ;`-zzzwzzz LL (i) = oaaamaYa m CIC O (Unknown as zz $1.05 N/A aaaaaaa zzzzz`zz O m C) 49 aaaa zzzz C) Q N 69 a z O . O 49 a¢a zzz v) CO 49 as zz N/A N/A N/A t= Z. ,.0 a 'y 2 V' - oa Uz $5.59 N/A "C -. N O ma Z.z oM) O 49 a z N 64- as zz 9 (NI Ki aaaa zzzz M {f} <<< zzz v m `A < z N/A 1 as zz v cm-- ifl, a z 0 W N/A l N/A N/A m i4 <<< zzz — Q . U a Z 0 1A a zz — N C) m a O C) 0 49 a Z 0 O N 49 a Z s Z 1D 0 N Y} < Z a Z a Z a Z CV C) `A a Z s Z N/A N 49 a Z a Z a Z a z - C) - 69 a Z O 0 iA a zzz a < to CO r a zzz a a ± C. ,i;a�am¢ CEz o O O c) C) zzz N O) O O N m CO QiQa44aaaa z o O O O 0 zz O O C) CO 0 zzzz O N. rO C) W O O O y I �aa zz OO ZZ6rS I picas NO 601 I.t.r.s N/A N/A N/A N/A Monte Serene No set T.I.F.s N/A ~N/A N/A N/A Morgan Hill Unknown Unknown Unknown N/A N/A Mountain View No set T.I.F.s N/A N/A N/A N/A Palo Alto T.I.F. - 2 areas '86 & '89 Per square foot N/A N/A San Jose No set T.I F.s N/A N/A _ N/A N/A Santa Clara T.I.F. - North Area Aug-88 Per square foot N/A N/A Saratoga • T.I.F. - N.W. Hillside 9/5/84 DU/equal share re Iota $6,184.29 $6,184.29 Sunnyvale No set T.I.F. N/A N/A N/A N/A S. Cruz County T.I F. - countywide? Unknown Unknown N/A N/A Capitola T.I.F. - 41st Ave. dist 3/28/85 Unknown $1.85/51 $1.85/sI Santa Cruz No set T.I.F. N/A N/A 'N/A N/A Scotts Valley T.I.F. - citywide Unknown Unknown N/A N/A Watsonville Citywide/by area Unknown ITE trip gen. rates N/A N/A 1 RES-LOW/du < z 0 0 o C) 1- 49 <o z — 'n t- N Q) 1N/A -- 0 O 40 O) t- 49 aOD z 0 0 o O O 4 IN/A - N/A $884 00 N/A aaa�aa44 zzz Q MO C) � 0 v 1A zz 0 O O 1--., CALC. METHOD a Z L. use/peak hr trips N/A ADTs devmt. generates a=a ZJZ a m m c m CD 0 Cl. CD 0 'Unknown as=aaaaa ZZJZZZZZ LL m Based on total buildout) a Z Unknown j L. use/trips generated W I -.to 0 'Q Z'-'z'-Z CO 0 N¢ CO m 0 O a N COC 0 N a ZZZZ 3 C a CO.- a 0 CIN a ZZZZ a a a V o m N `r a Z I uMou)uf 0 O) a }} LLF- w LL — W U.. 0-0_ Z}-:Z} la 3 N ?' LL U F- - N•` it It•-mwaletleld Area 0 N U >. 1 n N t al- :JF -f } I; I.r. - z areas N 1 -'; - N O ZOOz m m '- 0 A U >. n N m 0 N U— >. F- H 0 N LL N U.:N 0^ -ZZZzi 0 N LL U— F- F'- 0 m 'A LL tl F'- N 0 N F-. N 0 i N LL N 0 Pubilc facilities tax TI.F. - 1 area only N 1 - N o Zn1-: c 3 Y C- D -. - t. U F• LL JURISDICTION Foster CII Hall Moon Ba Hillsborou h Y Q L e0 � or c = c Portola Valley Redwood City San Bruno San Carlos San Mateo S. San Francisco W 44 oodslde S. Clare County I - a 0 '= = v O c a = - �u1uy Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos M II 1991 CMP - EXHIBIT C SANTA CLARA COUNTY CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates August 2, 1991 ATTACHMENT 4 2.13 - Vehicle Trio Reduction Standards • • A. An important goal of Santa Clara County's Congestion Management Program is to encourage development that reduces system -wide traffic congestion and improves air quality in the region. There are three particular strategies that can be used in order to encourage land development projects which accomplish these goals. They are: mixed -use development (which increases internal trips), a strong transportation demand management (TDM) program, and development near transit stations. These strategies are most effective when combined into a comprehensive program that is integrated into the project's design and operation. Implementation of these three strategies will cause a reduction in vehicle trips generated by development projects. Projects which incorporate these strategies into their design may take credit for expected vehicle trip reductions caused by the strategy. This methodology provides standards for vehicle trip reductions which could be achieved through careful project design and location. Since opti- mal vehicle trip reduction results are achieved when all three strategies are 14 - Exhibit C - August 2, 1991 combined, the standard vehicle trip reduction increases as additional strategies are included. Maximum trip reduction standards are described below and summarized in Table 2-1. It should be emphasized that standard vehicle trip generation rates include some measure of transit use and TDM programs, so trip reductions summarized in Table 2-1 may be smaller than measured transit use and TDM program participation in a given project. B. All vehicle trip reductions must be clearly explained, documented, and justified in the project's transportation impact analysis report. The CMA will develop guidelines for estimating trip reduction due to mixed -use development (internal trips), TDM programs, and transit station proximity. These trip reduction guidelines should be used to estimate reductions in project vehicle trip generation made in the transportation impact analyses.3 It must be emphasized that the vehicle trip reduction standards should be applied carefully using professional judgement. C. Mixed -use development projects that include a substantial housing component can reduce vehicle trips by increasing internal trips. A reduction in project vehicle trip generation can be made for a mixed -use project's internal trips. In no case shall the reduction be greater than ten percent (1 G%) unless special circumstances are justified in the project's transportation impact analysis. D. A reduction in project vehicle trip generation can be made for participation in a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. In no case shall the The CMA will prepare Vehicle Trip Reduction Guidelines during 1991 - 1992. Until such time as these guidelines are completed, Member Agencies should use the standards presented in this methodology and professional judgement to estimate vehicle trip reductions made in transportation impact analyses. In all cases assumptions regarding vehicle trip reduction should be fully described in the project's Transportation Impact Analysis Report. 15 -ExshibitC- August 2, 1991 reduction be greater than five percent (5%) unless special circumstances are justified in the project's transportation impact analysis. E. A reduction in project vehicle trip generation can be made for locations within one -quarter (1 /4) mile of a rail transit station or major bus stop.4 In no case shall the trip reduction be greater than ten percent (10%) including the TDM reduction unless special circumstances are justified in the project's transportation impact analysis. F. If a project includes two of the vehicle trip reduction strategies, an additional 25% trip reduction (over the sum of the two individual strategy reductions) can be taken. If a project includes all three trip reduction strategies described above it can take a 50% increase over the sum of all three strategy reductions. The maximum vehicle trip reduction for full implementation of all three strategies would be thirty percent (30%). Table 2-1 presents the maximum vehicle trip reductions that can be taken through a combination of trip reduction strategies. G. Finally, some projects will attract a large number of trips already on the system; for example, many people who would stop at a new neighborhood convenience store would do so on their way home from work; these people would not be making new trips on the system. These types of trips are called passer-by trips. Passer-by trips are generally captured by small neighborhood services such as dry cleaners, convenience stores, and video rental stores rather than large regional commercial centers. A reduction in project vehicle trip generation can be made for passer-by trips. This reduction must be clearly explained, justified, and documented in the report. 4 However, professional judgement may be exercised in application of this standard. For example, if several bus stops in the project's immediate area are served by different routes which together meet the 6 bus per hour major bus stop definition, the transit reduction may be taken. 16 -ExhibitC- August 2. 1991 In no case shall the trip reduction taken for passer-by trips be greater than thirty percent (30%) unless special circumstances are justified in the project's transportation impact analysis. The passer-by trip reduction may only be taken for commercial land uses and is not subject to any of the increases for multiple strategy implementation described in Methodology Section 2.13-F above. H. The effectiveness of mixed use development, TDM programs, and location near transit at reducing project vehicle trip generation should be monitored by Member Agencies as part of the CEQA mitigation measure monitoring process and the TDM effectiveness monitoring program. This type of monitoring data should be provided to the CMA, when available, to assist in revising the vehicle trip reduction standards set forth in this methodology. 17 - Exhibit C - August 2, 1991 Table 2-1 MAXIMUM VEHICLE TRIP REDUCTION VALUES Santa Clara County Congestion Management Agency Transportation Impact Analysis Methodology Trip Reduction Strategy Maximum Trip Reduction(') Mixed -Use Development Project 10.00% Effective TDM Program 5 00% Location Near Transit (Rail or Major Bus Line) 5.00% Two Trip -Reduction Strategy Combination(2) Mixed Use + TDM 18.75% Mixed Use + Transit 18.75% TDM + Transe 10.00% Three Trip -Reduction Strategy Combination(4) Mixed Use + TDM + Transit 30.00% (1) Project vehicle trip generation could be reduced by this percentage provided projects meet the requirements set forth in the Methodology Section 2.13. It should be noted that standard vehicle trip generation rates (e.g. ITE rates) include a basic level of transit use and TDM program; therefore, the actual vehicle trip reduction expected from projects will be higher than these reductions. (2) This consists of giving additional credit for vehicle trip reduction programs that include two of the trip reduction strategies. (The trip reduction for two strategies is 25% above the sum of the two individual strategies.) (3) Since transit use is an important component of an effective TDM program, the maximum reduction for both transit proximity and TDM is limited to 10%. (4) The trip reduction for implementing all three strategies is 50% above the sum of the three individual strategies. (5) See Methodology Section 2.13-G for discussion of passer-by trips from commercial developments. - Exhibit C - T-30.tia - August 2, 1991. July 20, 1992 Los Gatos, California HEARINGS TRAFFIC IMPACT MITIGATION FEES/HEARING (25.05&39) Mayor Carlson stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider adoption of resolution revising Town -wide traffic mitigation fees. The following person from the audience spoke regarding this subject: Beverly Bryant, Executive Director of NAIOP, association for commercial real estate developers in the valley, requested that Council not initiate this fee structure at this time and wait for further input and observe the progress of other cities in this particular area. She mentioned the encouragement of business and economics in a repressed financial environment and asked that the fees not be implemented at this time. No one else from the audience addressed this issue. Motion by Mr. Ventura, seconded by Mr. Attaway, to close the public hearing. Carried unanimously. Motion by Mrs. Benjamin, seconded by Mr. Blanton, that Council table this item for three months (amended to January of 1993) until other cities have made decisions concerning congestion management and Council has time to cooperative actions from other communities due to the fact that action on this item at this particular time may have adverse impacts on the business community at a time when the Town is trying to encourage economic activity. Motion failed by a vote of two ayes. Mayor Carlson, Mr. Attaway and Mr. Ventura voted no. Motion by Mr. Ventura, seconded by Mr. Carlson, that item B in the resolution be lowered from a fee of $600 to $400 for commercial uses. Motion failed with 2 ayes. Mr. Attaway, Mrs. Benjamin and Mr. Blanton voted no. Motion by Mr. Ventura, seconded by Mr. Attaway, that Council continue this item to September 7, 1992, giving time for Mr. Ventura and Mr. Attaway to meet with the business community. Carried unanimously. Motion by Mr. Ventura, seconded by Mr. Attaway, to reopen this public hearing to September 7, 1992. Carried unanimously. MAIN STREET W 131/RANKIN BUILDING/LE BOULANGER/APPEAL/HEARING (26.09) Mayor Carlson stated that this was the time and place duly noted for public hearing to consider appeal of a decision of the Planning Commission to approve a request for the operation of a restaurant within the Rankin Block Building in the C-2-LHP Zone; Conditional Use Permit U- 92-5; Property located at 131 West Main Street; Property Owner Dave Wilson, et al; Applicant Le Boulanger, Inc; Appellant John Lien. TC:04:MM072092 6