Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager

Transcription

1 Agenda Item #5.C DATE: May 16,2016 TO: FROM: SUBJECT: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council through City Manager Scott Duiven, Senior Resolution Repealing and Replacing the Current Traffic Development Impact Fee Resolution for Future Development within the City of Petaluma, Resolution No N.C.S., Adopted December 7, 2015, to add Funding for Future SMART Station Parking and Rainier A venue Crosstown Connector Right of Way Acquisition Costs RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution Repealing and Replacing the Current Traffic Development Impact Fee Resolution for Future Development within the City of Petaluma, Resolution No N.C.S., Adopted December 7, 2015, to Add Funding for l],.j-,~~ Cl'\if A D'T' C+n+~~~ Dn.-lr~~rr nnr1 1),~"';,... Au,.1"111"' l'vf"\cctrnxr1"1 l'f"\1"11"1p.f'tf"\1' R1crht rd' w~v j_' utu.lv IJ.LV.Lrl..._l_'--_1_ ulal.tvll_..1_ cu..l\...t.t.t c.u_.lu.1.'\..u..l..l.ll.'-'.l v v.t.lu.v ~.lv\j!o.h"--' YY.J...l '-"'-'..l..u..i.'"'""'"'-'.l..~..~ ,_.~,,...,.J Acquisition Costs. BACKGROUND In 2012 the City Council adopted an updated development impact fee program to meet the City Council's goal of reducing development fees while preserving funding for planned infrastructure necessary for implementation ofthe General Plan 2025 and entitlement of projects relying on the General Plan EIR and related improvement plans for mitigation of cumulative impacts. In March of 2014, the City Council adopted updated fees largely to amend administrative changes addressing definitions, amount of the fee, fee adjustments, and time of fee payments. Later in 2014 it was determined that some of the contested bond proceeds related to dissolution of the City's former redevelopment agency could be applied to project costs that were to be funded by the Redevelopment Supplement portion of the Traffic Development Impact Fee, allowing a fmiher reduction in the fee. On July 7, 2014 the City Council amended provisions for the amount of fee related to the Redevelopment Supplement and created a new fee category for gas/service stations. On December 7, 2015 the City Council amended the provisions establishing the amount of the Traffic Impact Fee to address methodological issues pointed out in a peer review conducted by Willdan Financial Services in response to issues raised by Safeway, protesting the gas/service station fee and methodology. Later in that meeting the City Council provided direction to staff to revisit the Traffic Impact Fee with an eye toward adding costs associated with the 2nd SMART 1

2 rail station and the right-of-way acquisition and construction cost assumptions for the Rainier Crosstown Connector and Interchange project. DISCUSSION The City contracted with Willdan Financial Services to perform a nexus analysis to determine the ability to add costs to the traffic development impact fee program and the appropriate percentage of those costs applicable to future development. SMART Rail Station Infrastructure SMART is expected to begin passenger rail service by the end of As part of the project's first phase SMART is constructing rail and platfonn improvements for the Downtown Petaluma Station. SMART is not planning for parking at the Downtown Station. Petaluma's second station, planned to be located in the proximity of North McDowell Boulevard and Corona Road, was delayed to a future phase due to lower than expected revenues. The second station has been envisioned as the park-and-ride station for the Petaluma area. SMART has been worldng with a prospective developer to deliver the second station. Developer ancllor City funding support for the second station increases the likelihood that Petaluma gets its second station as part of the first phase. In an effort to help facilitate this process, based on discussions with SMART and the prospective developer, the City is looking to help fund the second SMART station by incorporating a portion of the necessary costs for parking in the Traffic Development Impact Fee. Station platform and rail improvements are not incorporated as it appears that SMART and the developer have an agreement that addresses that need without the need for City assistance. Willdan reviewed the extent to which costs associated with constructing a parking structure to support SMART ridership could be included in the fee program. Willdan determined that there is a nexus for including SMART parking in the fee and that, similar to other transit improvements cunently in the fee, 22.43% of the cost can be attributed to future development. SMART published White Paper No. 11 in February 2008 outlining the projected park and ride needs for the planned stations. A total of 350 spaces were identified for the Corona Road Station. The estimated cost for a parking structure is based on a cost per space of $30,000. Assuming 350 spaces, the cost of providing parking would be $10,500,000, of which $2,355,134 could be attributed to the Traffic Development Impact Fee. This would increase the cost per dwelling unit equivalent by $185 or 1.4%. Rainier Cost Assumptions In April of 2012, the Public Works and Utilities Department (PW&U) prepared updated calculations estimating developer contributions for the Rainier Avenue Cross-Town Connector and Interchange project to be used to modify the Traffic Development Impact Fee. The original calculations were prepared in The 2012 calculations were based on a 2009 estimate created for the draft Project Study Report. The 2012 calculations separated the roadway into segments and assumed percentages of developer dedication for right of way and construction costs. The majority of the right of way for the cross-town connector portion of the project was assumed to be 100% dedication. 2

3 In April2016, PW&U was asked to take a look at the calculation for developer contributions for the Rainier project. The overall project costs, for both construction and right of way, were unchanged from the 2009 estimate to maintain consistency with previous traffic impact fee calculations and to avoid the significant time and cost to produce a new project estimate. PW &U did, however, modify the assumed percentage of dedication, and updated the area of dedication based on the preliminary design used for the Rainier Cross-Town Connector EIR. The design developed the cut/fill lines (where the slope of the roadway embankment meets the original ground elevation) for the roadway and therefore provided more accurate areas for the needed right of way. This change only modified the relative percent of total cost and did not change the assumed total project right of way cost. The 2012 calculations assumed full interchange construction and that the area ofthe interchanges was assumed to be fully funded by the Traffic Development Impact Fee. The 2016 calculations make the same assumption, however a small portion of Rainier as a cross-town connector was added that would be needed to connect any development west of the freeway to North McDowell, Boulevard. This area is shown in red on the attached 2016 map. Additionally, the area (blue area in 2012 map) already dedicated through the Deer Creek Village project was removed from the calculations. More significant was the change fi:om a 100% dedication to a 66.6% dedication of right of way for the green and blue areas and from 100% to 50% in the yellow area as depicted on the 2016 map. It is assumed that the developer is responsible for construction of a standard two lane road vvith sidev1alk~ and bike lanes, v};1l1ich \};las estimated to be approximately two-thirds of the area needed for the full development for Rainier A venue. Will dan reviewed these assumptions and determined that the nexus and proportionality (the percentage applicable to future development) were appropriate. The current traffic fee is based on a total cost of $114,983,500 for the Rainier Crosstown Connector and Interchange project. Of that total, $84,064,004 is funded by the Traffic Development Impact Fee. Based on the discussion above, an additional $5,661,093 is proposed to be added to the fee program for a total of $89,725,097 to address the changed assumptions regarding development's portion of right of way acquisition ($4,151,383) and construction costs ($1,509,710) for the crosstown connector. This would increase the cost per dwelling unit equivalent by $443 or 3.4%. Amount of Fee Based on the above considerations, an updated Addendum to the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update has been prepared. The result is an increase of $628 per dwelling unit equivalent or 4.8% for each land use type. The Amount of Fee in Exhibit B of the attached resolution has been updated as shown in the table below. Note, the fee amounts further reflect the two annual CPI adjustments that were are not calculated in Table 3-12 of Exhibit A of the attached resolution. 3

4 TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEE Land Use Type Fee Amount Unit of Measurement Single Family Residential $14,284 Unit Multiple Family Residential $8,768 Unit Accessory Dwelling $3,960 Unit Senior Housing $3,818 Unit Office $18,867 1,000 square feet of building space Hotel/Motel $5,627 Room Commercial/Shopping $27,602 1,000 square feet ofbuilding space Industrial/Ware house $11,172 1,000 square feet ofbuilding space Education $1,406 Student Institution $5,788 1,000 square feet ofbuilding space Gas/Service Station $46,205 Fuel Position FINANCIAL IMPACTS Financial impacts beyond the staff time required to prepare this report, consultant fees, and providing public notice include additional revenue to the Traffic Development Impact Fee program to help with funding SMART station parking and funds to assist in acquiring the necessary right of way for the Rainier A venue Crosstown Connector. The changes addressed in the December 2015 traffic impact fee update resulted in a reduction in the impact fee for all land use categories with the exception of the commercial/shopping category. Combined with the fee increase associated with the additional improvements in this update there remains a significant decrease across most categories with the exception of office which has a slight increase in addition to the commercial/shopping category. ATTACHMENTS 1. Resolution Replacing the Traffic Development Impact Fee Rainier Assumptions Rainier Assumptions [:g] Items listed below are large in volume and are not attached to this repmi, but may be viewed in the City Clerk's office. 1. City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update (Fehr & Peers, August 2012) 4

5 ATTACHMENT 1 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PETALUMA REPEALING AND REPLACING THE CURRENT TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEE RESOLUTION FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF PETALUMA, RESOLUTION NO N.C.S., ADOPTED DECEMBER 7, 2015, TO ADD FUNDING FOR FUTURE SMART STATION PARKING AND RAINIER A VENUE CROSSTOWN CONNECTOR RIGHT OF WAY ACQUISITION COSTS RECITALS WHEREAS, the City of Petaluma General Plan 2025 ("General Plan") outlines future land uses within the City of Petaluma ("City") and applies to a planning area which includes the City and land outside the City in unincorporated Sonoma County which must also be considered to properly plan for the City's future; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan of the City was adopted by the Petaluma City Council ("City Council") on May 19, 2008; and, WHEREAS, an Environmental Impact Report ("EIR") was prepared for the General Plan (State Clearinghouse # ) pursuant to the Califomia Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and certified by the City Council on April 7, 2008 by Resolution No N.C.S.; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan area is shown on the land use maps contained in the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the City Council last updated the Traffic Development Impact Fee by Resolution No N.C.S., adopted December 7, 2015; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan designates a defined land use for all property within the City and, based on those uses, calculates the expected number of residents, residential units, employees, and square footage of nomesidential development that will result when all prope1iy in the City is developed as anticipated in the General Plan 2025; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan incorporates policies and programs to mitigate the impacts of such anticipated new development, including policies that require new development to pay for its propmiional fair share of the costs of acquiring and improving public facilities necessary to meet the demands of residents, employees, customers, and businesses; and, 5

6 WHEREAS, the General Plan and its EIR analyze the impacts of development under the General Plan and proposed mitigation measures, including the creation of fee programs to require new development to pay for its propmiional fair share of the cost of acquiring and improving public facilities necessary to meet the demands of new residents, employees, customers, and businesses for such facilities; and, WHEREAS, Goal 1-G-6 of Chapter 1 of the General Plan provides that the City should "Maintain a residential growth management system to ensure public infrastructure keeps pace with growth"; and, WHEREAS, Policy 1-P-48 of Goal 1-G-6 of Chapter 1 of the General Plan provides that the City should "Ensure that all new development provides necessary public facilities to suppmi the development," and includes program A which provides that the City should: "Collect proportionate fair share of long-term infrastructure improvement costs as entitlements are granted" and program B: "Initiate design of long term infrastructure improvements in a timely manner to ensure their completeness to coincide with demand"; and, WHEREAS, the General Plan includes, among others, the following principles, goals, policies and/or implementation programs regarding providing and financing the cost of traffic improvements required to accommodate new development in the City: "ensure infrastructure is strengthened and maintained" (Guiding Principle No. 12, p. i-8); "ensure the identified mobility system is provided in a timely manner to meet the needs of the community by updating the City's transpmiation impact fee program to insure that necessary citywide improvements are funded" (Policy 5-P-2, Goal 5-G-1: Mobility Framework, p. 5-9); "ensure public improvements are constructed and maintained in a manner that is economically feasible to the budgetary constraints of the City" (Policy 5- P-3, Goal5-G-1: Mobility Framework, p. 5-9); and, WHEREAS, the City retained Fehr & Peers Transpmiation Consultants (hereafter "Fehr & Peers") to determine, based in pmi on the land use designations provided by the General Plan, what roadway facility improvements would be necessary to maintain the community's level of service, as set forth in the General Plan and also discussed in the EIR, and to prepare proposed updates to the City's traffic development impact fee to fund new development's share of those facility improvements; and, WHEREAS, a study of the impacts of anticipated future development on existing traffic facilities in the City, and an analysis of the need for such new facilities required by future development was prepared by Fehr & Peers, dated August 15, 2012, entitled "Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update," ("2012 Update"), a copy of which is on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and is hereby incorporated by reference; and, WHEREAS, an Addendum to the Repmi was prepared by the City of Petaluma, dated June 2014, entitled "Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update: Addendum 1" ("2014 Addendum"); and, 6

7 WHEREAS, Willdan Financial Services conducted a Peer Review of Felu: & Peers methodology used in preparing the 2012 Update and the 2014 Addendum prepared by the City; and, WHEREAS, based on the Peer Review a revised "Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update: Addendum 1" ("2015 Addendum") had been prepared to replace and supersede the 2014 Addendum; and, WHEREAS, a revised "Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update: Addendum 1" ("20 16 Addendum") has been prepared to replace and supersede the 2015 Addendum to add costs for future SMART station parking and Rainier Avenue Crosstown Connector Right of Way acquisition in addition to the changes outlined in the Peer Review; and, WHEREAS, as used in this Resolution, "Repmi" refers to and encompasses both the 2012 Update and the 2016 Addendum; and, WHEREAS, the Repmi, the General Plan and the General Plan EIR list the street extensions, interchange and intersection improvements, traffic signal upgrades, and improvements to bicycle, pedestrian transit and other traffic facilities as defined in this Resolution that are necessary to maintain the community's level of service and thereby meet the transportation demands of new residents, businesses, employees, customers, and other users of local streets and transportation facilities through build out under the General Plan; and, WHEREAS, the Report, the General Plan and the General Plan EIR describe the impacts of contemplated future development on existing transportation facilities in the City of Petaluma and analyze the need for the new transportation facilities required by future development within the City of Petaluma, as described herein and in the Report; and, WHEREAS, the Repmi sets fmih the relationship between contemplated future development, the traffic Facilities required to serve such development, and the estimated cost of the needed traffic Facilities; and, WHEREAS, the Report estimates the cost in current dollars of those improvements, assigns the portion of those costs attributable to new development, and calculates the fees necessary to raise the revenue necessary to pay for the portion of the improvement costs attributable to new development; and, WHEREAS, the Repmi identifies a component of the cost of the Old Redwood Highway/U.S. 101 Interchange Project and the Rainier Avenue/U.S. 101 Interchange Project to which funds of the former Petaluma Community Development Commission ("PCDC") have been committed in accordance with the Community Redevelopment Law and through cooperative agreements with the Sonoma County Transpmiation Authority and CalTrans, the binding nature of which commitments has been disputed by the State 7

8 Depatiment of Finance pursuant to ABx1 26 as of the time of adoption of this Resolution; and, WHEREAS, the Report identifies the disputed funds as a "Redevelopment Supplement" of $18.8 million dollars that the Report includes in the cost of the Traffic Impact Fee program so that Traffic Fee proceeds are sufficient to fund the Old Redwood Highway and Rainier A venue interchange improvements in case the City is ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining confirmation from the State Department of Finance or the courts that the disputed funds are in fact legally binding obligations of the City as successor agency to the former PCDC; and, WHEREAS, on April 2, 2014 the City received approval from the Califomia Depatiment of Finance of its Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for the period of July through December 2014, including $8,836,001 ("Bond Proceeds"), representing the balance of the proceeds of bonds issued by the former PCDC on or before December 31, 2010; and, for construction of the Old Redwood highway Interchange. WHEREAS, the Bond Proceeds have been applied to partly satisfy the City's obligation to provide funding for the Old Redwood highway Interchange Project, permitting a reduction of the $18.8 million dollar Redevelopment Supplement that would otherwise be needed to cover the funds of the former PCDC on which the City relied to fund the Old Redwood highway and Rainier projects, and as well permitting a corresponding reduction in the Traffic Development Impact Fee, resulting in a reduction of the Redevelopment Supplement and a commensurate reduction in the Traffic Development Impact Fee from the original $18.8 million specified in the Repmi to a new total of $9,972,739, which cost of the new, reduced Redevelopment Supplement is included in the updated Traffic Development Impact Fee; and, WHEREAS, the Repmi demonstrates the appropriateness of updating the Traffic Development Impact Fee based on cu11'ent estimates of the need for and cost of transpmiation improvements needed to accommodate new development, including (1) an analysis of existing roadways, transpmiation facilities and land available for such facilities; (2) an estimate of the increase in the City's service population at build out; (3) the cost of providing the transpmiation improvements identified as necessary to meet the demands of the estimated increase in the City's service population at build out; and (4) other sources of funding, such as the Bond Proceeds, that may be applied to City transpmiation improvement projects; and, WHEREAS, The Traffic Development Impact Fee is not a "tax" as defined in Section 1, paragraph (e) of Article XIIIC of the Califomia Constitution ("Proposition 26") because such fee is imposed for a specific benefit confe11'ed or privilege granted directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable cost to the City of providing the service or product; and/or the fee is imposed for a specific government service or product provided directly to the payor that is not provided to those not charged, and which does not exceed the reasonable cost to the 8

9 City of providing the service or product; and/or the fee is imposed for the reasonable regulatory costs to the City of issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections and audits, enforcing agricultural marketing orders and the administrative enforcement and adjudication thereof; and/or the fee is imposed as a condition of property development; and, WHEREAS, the Traffic Development Impact Fee is not subject to the requirements of Article XIIIC of the California Constitution ("Proposition 218") concerning taxes because taxes as defined in the aliicle exclude charges imposed as a condition of property development, and the Traffic Development Impact Fee is a charge imposed as a condition of propeliy development; and WHEREAS, the Traffic Development Impact Fee is not subject to the requirements of Article XIIID of the California Constitution (also pati of Proposition 218) concerning property related assessments and fees pursuant to Apartment Association of Los Angeles County v. City of Los Angeles (2001) 24 Cal.4th 830, in that such fee is not applicable to incidents of property ownership, but rather to actual use of and need for City services and/or facilities; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 50076, fees and charges that do not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or regulatory activity for which the fees are charged and which are not levied for general revenue purposes are not special taxes as defined in Aliicle 3.5 of the Goverr.u.nent Code; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code section 66016, at least 14 days prior to the public meeting at which the City Council considered the adoption of this Resolution, notice of the time and place of the meeting was mailed to eligible interested paliies who filed timely written requests with the City for mailed notice of meetings on new or increased fees or service charges; and, WHEREAS, in accordance with Government Code Section 66016, the Repoli was available for public inspection, review, and comment for ten (1 0) days prior to the public meeting at which the City Council considered the adoption of this resolution; and, WHEREAS, ten (10) days advance notice of the public meeting at which the City Council considered adoption of this resolution was given by publication in accordance with Government Code Section 6062a; and, WHEREAS, on September 10, 2012, the City Council adopted Ordinance No N.C.S, which adds a new Title 19, entitled "Development Fees," to the Petaluma Municipal Code and amends, repeals and/or recodifies various provisions authorizing the City's development-related fees, including the City Facilities Development Impact Fee, Open Space Land Acquisition Fee, Park Land Acquisition Fee (Non-Quimby Act), Park Land Acquisition Fee (Quimby Act), Traffic Development Impact Fee, Water and Wastewater Capacity Fees and the Commercial Development Housing Linkage Fee; and 9

10 FINDINGS WHEREAS, the City Council finds as follows: A. After considering the Report, the testimony received at the noticed public meeting at which this resolution was considered, the accompanying staff report, the General Plan, the General Plan EIR, and all correspondence received at or prior to the public meeting (the "Record"), by adoption of this Resolution the City Council hereby approves the Repmi as previously adopted by Resolution No N.C.S. adopted August 27, 2012; and the City Council further finds that the future development in the City of Petaluma will generate the need for the Facilities, as defined below, and that the Facilities are consistent with the City's General Plan. B. By adoption of this Resolution, the City Council also approves and adopts the May 2016 Addendum replacing and superseding the December 2015 Addendum and making up part of the entire Report as defined in this Resolution and which is hereby made a part of and incorporated herein by this reference as Exhibit A. C. The City currently provides facilities to the community and the fee set forth in this resolution will be used to maintain current service levels. As such, the Traffic Development Impact Fee as it relates to development within the City is not a "project" within the meaning of CEQA (Pub. Res. Code 21080(b)(8)(D)). D. In adopting this resolution, the City Council is exercising its powers under Article XI, 5 and 7 of the California Constitution, Chapter 5 of Division 1 of the Government Code ("Mitigation Fee Act"), commencing with Section 66000, Section 54 of the City of Petaluma Charter, and Chapter of the Petaluma Municipal Code, collectively and separately. E. The Record establishes: 1. In accordance with Section 66000, subdivision a, paragraph 1 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the purpose of the City Traffic Development Impact Fee ("Fee"), set forth in this Resolution, as specified in the Repmi, is to provide funding to achieve the City's goal of maintaining existing traffic service levels and provide traffic facilities to mitigate the traffic impacts of new development within the City, consistent with the land use and transpmiation polices of the General Plan by developing an overall transportation system that will accommodate the City's expected future traffic demand. 10

11 2. In accordance with Section 66000, subdivision a, paragraph 2 of the Mitigation Fee Act, the Fee collected pursuant to this resolution shall be used to help fund circulation improvement projects necessary to accommodate future traffic demand in Petaluma as described in the Report, the General Plan and the City's budget for capital improvements. Such traffic Facilities, which are specifically described in the Report and listed in Table 3-3 of Addendum 1 to the Report, include the following: Rainier A venue Extension and interchange (locally preferred alternative) Caulfield Lane Extension Old Redwood Highway Interchange Improvements Caulfield Lane/Payran Street Intersection Improvements Petaluma Boulevard/Magnolia A venue/payran Street Intersection Construction ofnew Intersections throughout the City Traffic Signal Upgrades throughout the City Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements throughout the City Transit Improvements throughout the City Redevelopment Supplement SMART Station Parking 3. In accordance with section 66000, subdivision a, paragraph 3 of the Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the Fee's use (to pay for the construction of the Facilities) and the type of development for which the Fee is charged in that the fee will be applied to all development in the City - including residential, commercial, office, and industrial development projects, which will generate new demands for traffic facilities. As described in the Report, different types of development generate traffic with different characteristics. The calculations presented in tables 3-7 and 3-8 of the Report account for these different characteristics by applying different per-unit fee factors to each type of development. These considerations account for the differential impacts on the local transportation system generated by different development types. 4. In accordance with Section 66000, subdivision a, paragraph 4, of the Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the Facilities and the types of development projects on which the Fee is imposed in that the Fee will be applied to new development in the City of Petaluma- both residential and nonresidential. These development projects will generate new residents and employees who live, work, and/or shop in Petaluma 11

12 and who generate or contribute to the need for traffic facilities as follows: New residents and employees will add vehicle trips to transportation infrastructure, including roadways, intersections, interchanges and traffic signals. New residents and employees will add pedestrian and bicycle trips to pedestrian and bicycle facilities. New residents and employees will use City transit facilities and serv1ces. The need for the traffic facilities listed in Table 3-3 of the Report has been established through the development of the EIR, as described in Chapter 3 of the Report. The Report indicates that there are no existing deficiencies in any of the Facilities to be included in the City's Traffic Development Impact Fee program, ancl that as a result, the program will not result in imposition of the cost of addressing cmtently deficient traffic facilities on new development. All of the traffic Facilities costs allocated to new development under the Fee program are allocable to new development in accordance with the analysis in the report, either in their entirety, or according to the fair percentage allocable to new development as indicated in the Report. 5. In accordance with Section 66000, subdivision b of the Mitigation Fee Act, there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the Fee and the cost of the Facilities, or the p01iion thereof attributable to the development in the City on which the Fee is imposed in that the Fee has been calculated by apportioning the cost of the Facilities to each type of new residential dwelling unit, and to the "dwelling unit equivalent" or DUE of each nonresidential (commercial, office and industrial) use. For Facilities that are necessary solely because of future development, the full cost of the Facilities has been allocated to the Fee. For Facilities that will serve existing and future residents and employees, the costs have been allocated prop01iionally. The analysis presented in the Rep01i accounts for existing deficiencies in the local transportation system and does not include the cost of rectifying deficiencies in the fee program. The costs attributable to traffic demand generated outside the City of Petaluma are similarly excluded from the program. Thus, the City's Fee program allocates to new development only the cost of public improvements attributable to new development within Petaluma. Tables 3-9, 3-10 and 3-11 in the Rep01i provide detailed information on these calculations 12

13 6. The cost estimates set forth in the Repmi are reasonable estimates for constructing or acquiring the Facilities, and the Fees expected to be generated by future development will not exceed the projected cost of constructing and/or acquiring the Facilities. 7. The method of allocation of the Fee to a particular development bears a fair relationship and is roughly propmiional to each development's burden on and benefits from the Facilities to be funded by the Fee, in that the Fee is calculated based traffic impacts each particular development will generate. 8. The Repmi is a detailed analysis of how traffic services will be affected by development in the City and the public facilities required to accommodate that development. 9. The Fee is consistent with the General Plan and, pursuant to Government Code Section ; the City Council has considered the effects of the Fee with respect to the City;s housing needs as established in the housing element of the General Plan. 10. The Fee amounts set forth in Exhibit A include the reasonable costs of administration and compliance of the Fee program with the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act and other applicable law. The Fee program and administration cost is calculated to be approximately.74% of the total Fee as shown in Table 3-11 and Appendix C of the Repmi. ADOPTION OF FEE NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1. Definitions. a. "Accessory Dwelling" shall mean a second unit which meets the standards set forth in Section of Chapter 7, "Standards for Specific Land Uses" of the City of Petaluma Implementing Zoning Ordinance ("IZO"), as modified by any subsequent amendment or successor zoning ordinance and/or development code provision adopted by the City which defines Accessory Dwelling, second unit or second dwelling unit." b. "Commercial/Shopping" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan 2025 land use or zoning designation, as established in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, No N.C.S., or any successor ordinance, for 13

14 facilities for the purchase and sale of commodities and services and the sales, servicing, installation, and repair of such commodities and services and other uses incidental to these activities. Commercial land uses include but are not limited to: apparel and clothing stores; auto dealers and malls; auto accessories stores; banks and savings and loans; beauty salons; book stores; discount stores and centers; dry cleaners; dmg stores; eating and drinking establishments; furniture stores and outlets; general merchandise stores; hardware stores; home fumishings and improvement centers; laundromats; liquor stores; service stations; shopping centers; supe1markets; bicycle shops; cameras and photographic supply stores; convenience stores; department stores; drug stores and pharmacies; jewelry stores; luggage and leather goods stores; sporting goods and equipment stores; stationery stores; collectible stores; second hand goods stores; religious goods stores; hobby materials stores; small wares stores; plant sales; bowling alleys; coin-operated amusement arcades; dance halls, clubs and ballrooms; electronic game arcades; ice skating and roller skating establishments; pool and billiard rooms; amusement and theme parks; go-cart tracks; golf driving ranges; miniature golf courses; water slides; banks and tmst companies; credit agencies; holding companies; lending and thrift institutions; securities/commodity contract brokers and dealers; security and commodity exchanges; vehicle finance leasing agencies; restaurants, cafes and coffee shops; and movie theatres and civic theatres. c. "Developed" and "Development" shall mean the construction or alteration of or addition to, other than by the City, of any building or stmcture within the City of Petaluma. d. "Education" shall mean educational Development as defined in the Report that may lawfully be made subject to payment of the Fee. e. "Facilities" shall include those municipal public facilities as are described in the Report related to providing general traffic circulation improvements necessary to accommodate future traffic demand in Petaluma including improvements to streets, interchanges and intersections, traffic signals, bicycle, pedestrian, transit and other traffic facilities that are necessary to maintain the community's level of service and thereby meet the transportation demands of new residents, businesses, employees, customers, and other users of local streets and transportation facilities through build out under the General Plan. "Facilities" shall also include comparable alternative facilities should later changes in projections of development in the region necessitate constmction of such alternative facilities; provided that the City Council later 14

15 determines (1) that there is a reasonable relationship between development within the City of Petaluma and the need for the alternative facilities; (2) that the alternative facilities are comparable to the facilities in the Report; and (3) that the revenue from the Fee will be used only to pay new development's fair and proportionate share of the alternative facilities. f. "Fuel Position" shall mean the number of vehicles that can be fueled simultaneously at a Gas/Service Station. g. "Gas/Service Station" or "Fueling Station" shall mean a retail business selling gasoline and/or other motor vehicle fuels, and related products. A gas or fueling station may also include a convenience store, vehicle services, and restaurant facilities as ancillary uses. h. "Hotel/Motel" shall mean transient occupancy Development as defined in the Report. 1. "Industrial/Warehouse" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan 2025 land use or zoning designation as established in the Implementing Zoning Code, Ordinance No N.C.S., or any successor ordinance, for the manufacture, production, assembly, and processing of consumer goods, uses incidental to those activities, and research, development and warehousing. Industrial land uses include, but are not limited to: assembly; contractor's storage yards; fabrication; lumber yards; manufacturing; outdoor stockyards and service yards; printing; processing; warehouses and distribution centers; wholesale and heavy commercial enterprises; clothing, fabric and other product manufacturing; electronics, equipment, and appliance manufacturing; metal products fabrication, machine and welding shops; paper product manufacturing; food and beverage product manufacturing; small-scale manufacturing; lumber and wood product manufacturing; machinery manufacturing; motor vehicle and transportation equipment manufacturing; stone and cut stone product manufacturing; structured clay and pottery product manufacturing; processing of building materials, chemicals, fabricated metals, paper products, machinery, textiles, and/or equipment; and collection, sorting and processing enterprises. J. "Institution" shall mean institutional Development as defined in the Report. k. "Mixed Development" shall mean a development that includes more than one of the types of development defined in this Section 15

16 1. Mixed developments may combine residential types of development (Single Family and Multifamily), non-residential types of development (Commercial, Industrial, and Office), or a combination of residential and non-residential types of development. 1. "Multifamily Residential" shall mean any residential Development that does not qualify as detached single family dwelling unit Development as defined in the Report, as adopted by the City. m. "Office" shall mean any development constructed or to be constructed on land having a General Plan 2025 land use or zoning designation, as established in the Implementing Zoning Ordinance, Ordinance No N.C.S., or any successor ordinance, for general business offices, medical and professional offices, administrative or headquarters offices for large wholesajing or manufacturing operations, and other uses incidental to these activities. Office land uses include but are not limited to: administrative headquarters; business parks; finance offices; insurance offices; legal offices; medical and health services offices; office buildings; professional and administrative offices; professional associations; real estate offices; and travel agencies. n. "Redevelopment Supplement" shall mean $18.8 million of the cost of the Old Redwood Highway/U.S. 101 Interchange and the Rainier Avenue/U.S. 101 Interchange Projects to which funds of the former PCDC were committed in accordance with the Community Redevelopment Law and through cooperative agreements between the City and the Sonoma County Transpmiation Agency and CalTrans, the binding nature of which commitments has been disputed by the State Depmiment of Finance pursuant to ABx1-26 as of the time of adoption of this Resolution. Such disputed former PCDC funds are refened to in this Resolution and the Repmi (see, e.g., Tables 3-3 and 3-11 of the Report) as the Redevelopment Supplement, and have been included in the costs of the Traffic Development Impact Fee program to ensure that Fee proceeds are sufficient to fund the Old Redwood Highway and Rainier A venue interchange improvements in case the City is ultimately unsuccessful in obtaining confirmation from the State Department of Finance or the courts that the disputed funds are in fact a legally binding obligation of the City as successor agency to the former PCDC. On April 2, 2014 the City received approval from the Califomia Depmiment of Finance of its Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) for the period of July through December 2014, including bond proceeds of the former PCDC in the amount of $8,836,001 16

17 representing the balance of former PCDC bond proceeds issued on or before December 31, Allocation of such funds to the City's obligation to fund construction costs of the Old Redwood Highway Interchange results in a reduction of the Redevelopment Supplement and makes possible a commensurate reduction in the Traffic Development Impact Fee. Application of the former PCDC bond proceeds results in a new Redevelopment Supplement amount reduced from the original $18.8 million to a new total of $9,972,739. The cost of the new, reduced Redevelopment Supplement is included in the updated Traffic Development Impact Fee. o. "Senior Housing" shall mean semor housing Development as defined in the Report. p. "Single Family Residential" shall mean detached, single-family dwelling unit development as defined in the Report, as adopted by the City. 2. Traffic Development Impact Fee Imposed. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act and Chapter of the City of Petaluma Municipal Code, a Traffic Development Impact Fee ("Fee") shall be imposed and paid at the times and in the amounts and otherwise apply and be administered as prescribed in this Resolution on each type of development set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached to and made a part of this Resolution, including each pmiion of such Development within Mixed Development. 3. Time for Imposing Fee. In accordance with Government Code Section 65961, the Fee for residential subdivision development for which tentative or parcel maps are required pursuant to the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code Section et seq.) shall be imposed at the time of approval of the conditions that apply to the tentative or parcel map for such residential subdivision development, as applicable. Payment of the Fee shall be deemed to be a condition of all such tentative or parcel maps. Notwithstanding this Section 3, the time for payment of the Fee for all development, including Single Family Residential and Multiple Family Residentialsubdivisions, shall be as specified in Section 4, below. 4. Time for Fee Payment. a. In accordance with Government Code Section 66007, the Fee shall be charged and paid for each residential development upon the date 17

18 of final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy for such residential development, whichever is earlier; however, if the Fee is to reimburse the City for expenditures previously made, or if the City determines that the Fee will be collected for Facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the City has adopted a proposed construction schedule prior to issuance of the building permit for such residential development, then the Fee shall be charged and paid upon issuance of the building permit for such residential development. However, with respect to a residential development proposed by a nonprofit housing developer in which at least forty-nine percent (49%) of the total units are reserved for occupancy by lower income households, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section , at an affordable rent, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053, the payment procedures described in Government Code Section 66007(b)(2)(A)-(B) shall apply. b. The Fee shall be charged and paid for each non-residential Development upon issuance of the building permit for such nonresidential Development. c. The Fee shall be charged and paid for each Mixed Development upon the times specified in this Section 4 that apply to such Mixed Development. For example, if a Mixed Development includes residential Development and non-residential Development, and the Fee is to reimburse the City for expenditures previously made, or the City has made the required determination to permit requiring payment of the Fee upon issuance of the building permit, and the procedures in Government Code section 66007(b)(2)(A)-(B) do not apply, the Fee as applicable to the entire mixed development shall be paid upon issuance of the building permit for the Mixed Development. If a Mixed Development includes residential arid non-residential development, and the Fee is not to reimburse the City for expenditures previously made or the City has not made the required determination to permit requiring payment of the Fee upon issuance of the building permit, the Fee as to the residential pmtion of the mixed development shall be paid upon the earlier of the date of final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy for such residential portion, and the Fee as to the nonresidential pmiion of the Mixed Development shall be paid upon issuance of the building permit for such non-residential pmtion. 5. Amount offee. a. The amount of the Fee for residential and non-residential development shall be as set fmih in Exhibit B. 18

19 b. The amount of the Fee for Mixed Development shall be the sum of the following, as applicable: 1. The applicable amount per unit pursuant to Section 5( a), above, for each residential development within a Mixed Development. 2. The applicable amount per 1,000 square feet of Development or per other applicable unit pursuant to Section 5(a), above, for each nomesidential Development or portion of such Development within a Mixed Development. c. Any non-residential development on property on which a building or structure was demolished or on which the use of an existing structure changes to a more intensive use shall pay a prorated fee equal to the fee calculated pursuant to this resolution that is applicable to the new development or use, less the fee applicable to the prior development or use, so long as such prior use was in existence at the time of adoption of General Plan d. Any development on any parcel any pmiion of which is located within one half-mile of any portion of a parcel identified as a possible future location for a SI\1P.l..P~T Rail Station on \:vhich parcel proposed for development a building or structure was demolished or on which the use of an existing structure changes to a more intensive use shall pay a prorated fee equal to the fee calculated pursuant to this resolution that is applicable to the new development or use, less the fee applicable to the prior development or use, so long as such prior use was in existence at the time of adoption of General Plan e. In accordance with Government Code section , housing developments with common ownership and financing where not less than 50 percent of the floor space is for residential use and that satisfy all of the following characteristics will be eligible for a reduced Fee reflecting the lower rate of automobile trip generation associated with such developments, unless the City adopts findings after a public hearing establishing that a housing development would not generate a lower rate of automobile trips than housing development that does not satisfy the requirements of this provision: The housing development is located within Yz mile of a transit station as defined in Government Code section 19

20 , including planned transit stations whose construction is programmed to be completed prior to completion and occupancy of the housing development, and there is direct access between the housing development and the transit station along a battier-free, walkable pathway not exceeding Yz mile in length); Convenience retail uses, including a store that sells food, are located within Yz mile of the housing development; The housing development provides no more than the minimum number of parking spaces required by local ordinance, or not more than one onsite parking space for zero to two bedroom units, and two onsite parking spaces for three or more bedroom units, whichever is less. The reduced Fee, if any, applicable to housing developments that meet the requirements of this provision as determined by the City will be determined on a project-by-project basis. Any applicable reduced Fee amounts must be supported by a development-specific trip generation analysis acceptable to City staff that substantiates a lower trip generation rate for a housing development that meets the requirements of this provision as compared with housing developments that do not meet the requirements of this provision. 6. Designation of Developments. Nomesidential developments, other than Mixed Developments (but including non-residential developments within Mixed Developments) that are not within the definition of a use defined in this resolution shall be assigned to one of the defined use categories by the City Manager for purposes of imposition and charging of the Fee. The City Manager shall assign such categories as consistently as possible within the definitions of such categories established pursuant to this resolution or as later amended by the City Council. The City Manager may also designate Development as Multifamily or Single-Family based on the actual number of dwelling units per structure within the development. 7. Inapplicability of Fee. The Fee shall not apply to: a. Any alteration or addition to a residential structure, except to the extent that a residential unit is added to a single family residential 20

21 unit or another unit is added to an existing multi-family residential unit. b. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished, if the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished. This subsection shall not apply if the replacement or reconstruction increases the square footage of the structure by 50 percent (50%) or more. c. Any replacement or reconstruction of an existing non-residential structure that has been destroyed or demolished, if the building permit for reconstruction is obtained within one year after the building was destroyed or demolished, there is no change in the land use designation of the propetiy, and the square footage of the replacement building does not exceed the square footage of the building that was destroyed or demolished. d. Any addition to an existing non-residential structure of 500 square feet or less. e. Any public or quasi-public development on lands designated Public/Semi-Public or Education on the General Plan Land Use Map, as of the effective date of the Fee, so long as such development is intended to serve development in the City and does not itself generate a need for additional public infrastructure needed to serve new development, as in the way new residential development generates new residents requiring City services, and new non-residential development generates new employees in the City using City services. f. The City Council, in its discretion, may determine that the Fee is inapplicable to certain development constructed or to be constructed by a public entity on land having an appropriate General Plan land use designation provide tliat the City Council finds that such inapplicability is in the interest of the public health, safety and/or welfare, for reasons specified in the findings. Such reasons may include, but are not limited to, that the Fee as it would apply to such development by a public entity will be sufficiently recovered in whole or in pati from residential development, the residents of which may constitute the primary users of the public entity development. 8. Use of Fee Revenue. 21

22 The revenues raised by payment of the Fee shall be placed in a separate, interest bearing account to permit accounting for such revenues and the interest that they generate. Such revenues and interest shall be used only for the Facilities and the purposes for which the Fee was collected, which are the following: a. To pay for design, engineering, right-of-way or land acquisition and construction and/or acquisition of the Facilities and reasonable costs of outside consultant studies related thereto; b. To reimburse the City for the Facilities constructed by the City with funds from other sources including funds from other public entities, unless the City funds were obtained from grants or gifts intended by the grantor to be used for the Facilities; c. To reimburse developers who have designed and constructed any of the Facilities with prior City approval and have entered into an agreement, as provided in Section 9, below; and d. To pay for and/or reimburse costs of program development and ongoing administration and maintenance of the Fee program, including, but not limited to, the cost of studies, legal costs, and A+hoot" f'ac'itci r\f'-n-nrla+~-nn fha l{pp VU..L\..I..L VV.:JI,..Q VJ.. UJJ\.. U.... HJ...LfS l.l.j..v..l vv. 9. Credits and Reimbursement for Developer Constructed Facilities. The City and a developer may enter into an improvement agreement to allow the developer to construct certain of the Facilities. Entering such an agreement is in the City's sole discretion. Such agreement shall provide for security for the developer's commitment to construct the Facilities and shall refer to this resolution for credit and reimbursement. If the City enters into such an agreement with a developer prior to construction of one or more of the Facilities, the City shall provide the developer a credit in accordance with the following: a. Credit Amount. The credit shall be in the amount of the lowest bid received for construction of the facility, as approved by the City Engineer. However, in no event shall a credit pursuant to this provision exceed the current facility cost. For the purposes of this section, such cuitent facility cost shall be the amount listed in the Report for the particular facility, as subsequently adjusted pursuant to Sections 13 and 14 of this Resolution prior to issuance of the building permit for that facility. Once issued, credit pursuant to this section shall not be adjusted for inflation or any other factor. Credit 22

23 provided pursuant to this section is not transferable. b. Application of Credit. Developers may apply credit given pursuant to this section against the Fee applicable to a particular project until the credit is exhausted or an excess credit results. The total credit shall be divided by the number of units or square footage of building space (or combination thereof for a Mixed Use Development) to detetmine the amount of credit which can be applied against the Fee for each unit of measurement and, if the credit per unit of measure is less than the Fee per unit of measurement, the developer shall pay the difference for each residential unit or square footage ofbuilding space. c. Reimbursement for Excess Credit. 10. Standards. Reimbursement for excess credit shall only be from remaining unspent Fee revenues. Once all the Facilities have been constmcted or acquired, and to the extent Fee revenues are sufficient to cover all claims for reimbursement of Fee revenues, including reimbursement for excess credit, developers with excess credit sl1all be e11titled to reimbursement, subject to such developers certifying in writing to the City that the cost of constmcting the facility that resulted in an excess credit was not passed on to homeowners, and indemnifying the City from land-owner claims for reimbursement under the Mitigation Fee Act, and Section in particular. If remaining Fee revenues after all of the Facilities have been constmcted or acquired are insufficient to cover all claims for reimbursement of Fee revenues, such claims, including claims for reimbursement of excess credit, shall be reimbursed on a pro rata basis in accordance with applicable law. The standards upon which the need for the Facilities is based are the standards of the City, including the standards contained in the General Plan and its EIR and those City standards reflected in the Report. 11. Periodic Review. a. During each fiscal year, the City Manager shall prepare a report for the City Council, pursuant to Government Code Section 66006, identifying the balance of Fee revenues in the Fee account. 23

24 b. Pursuant to Govemment Code Section 66002, the City Council shall also review, as part of any adopted City Capital Improvement Plan each year, the approximate location, size, time of availability and estimates of cost for all Facilities to be financed with the Fee. The estimated costs shall be adjusted in accordance with appropriate indices of inflation. The City Council shall make findings identifying the purpose to which the existing Fee revenue balances are to be put and demonstrating a reasonable relationship between the Fee and the purpose for which it is charged. 12. Subsequent Analysis and Revision of the Fee. The Fee set forth herein is adopted and implemented by the City Council in reliance on the Record identified above. The City may continue to conduct further study and analysis to determine whether the Fee should be revised. When additional information is available, the City Council may review the Fee to determine that the Fee amounts remain reasonably related to the impacts of development within the City of Petaluma and areas included in the City's General Plan. The City Council may revise the Fee to incorporate findings and conclusions of further studies and any standards in General Plan and!or the General Plan EIR, as well as increases due to inflation and increased construction costs. 13. Fee Adjustments. a. Annual CPI Adjustment. The Fee established will escalate or decrease annually by the same percentage the latest "Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index-20 City Average" ("Index") annually escalates or decreases. The adjustment shall be based on a comparison of the most recent Index to the Index in the month of adoption of the Fee, or the Index used for the prior adjustment of the Fee. The Finance Director shall compute the increase or decrease in such Fee. Such adjustments will take effect each July 1st. b. Refund Applications Based on Redevelopment Supplement. In the case of any development which has incurred and paid a Fee which includes the Redevelopment Supplement, should the State Department of Finance or the coutis finally recognize the obligations of the City as successor to the former PCDC pursuant to the above-described cooperative agreements such that the Redevelopment Supplement is retained by the City as successor to the fmmer PCDC, cunent owners of development that paid development fees that included the Redevelopment Supplement may apply for a refund of the pmiion of the Fee that owner paid 24

25 which is attributable to the Redevelopment Supplement, subject to the following: 1. To be eligible for a refund, current development owners must certify in writing to the City that the owner has not recovered or is not recovering from third parties such as tenants or others the amount of the fees paid attributable to the Redevelopment Supplement. 2. Any refunds pursuant to this provision shall only be paid :fi om existing, un-obligated, unspent Fee revenue balances. The City will have no obligation to pay refunds to any owner absent sufficient existing, un-obligated, unspent Fee revenue balance available for that purpose. 3. If existing, un-obligated, unspent Fee revenue balances are insufficient to cover eligible applications for refund, such eligible applications shall be paid refunds a pro rata basis in accordance with applicable law. 14. Administrative Guidelines. The Council may, by resolution, adopt administrative guidelines to provide procedures for calculation, credit, reimbursement, or defened payment and other administrative aspects of the Fee. Such guidelines may include procedures for construction of designated Facilities by developers. 15. Effective Date. In accordance with Califomia Govemment Code section 66017, subdivision (a), this Resolution and the updates to the Fee pursuant to this Resolution (including, but not limited to, the updates to the Report), shall become effective 60 days from the date this Resolution is adopted. 16. 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 component or provisions shall be and continue to be fully effective, and the Fee shall be fully effective except as to that component that has been judged to be invalid. 17. Supersession/Repeal/Savings Clause. Resolution ;No N.C.S., adopted December 7, 2015 is hereby 25

26 repealed on the effective date of this Resolution pursuant to Section 15. In addition, all resolutions and parts thereof in conflict with the provisions of this resolution are superseded and repealed, effective on the effective date of this resolution. However, violations, rights accrued, liabilities accrued, or appeals taken, prior to the effective date of this resolution, under any chapter, ordinance, or part of an ordinance, or resolution or part of a resolution, shall be deemed to remain in full force for the purpose of sustaining any proper suit, action, or other proceedings, with respect to any such violation, right, liability or appeal. 26

27 EXHIBIT A City of Petaluma Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update ADDENDUM 1 <;;:;:;: ;-;.. ~ - ~-,!'~, ~ 'I ~ ~.zd'//.1 Prepared by City of Petaluma May

28 This addendum updates Table 3-3 and Tables 3-6 through 3-12 of the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program Update prepared by Fehr & Peers (August 2012). The revised tables incorporate updated cost figures associated with the Redevelopment Supplement of the fee program, establishes a new land use category and fee for gas/service stations, update the methodology from the 2012 fee study, and incorporate new improvement costs associated with parking for the SMART stations and increase the amount of the fee to support right of way acquisition for the Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange project. Table 3-3 provides the estimated cost of improvements provided by the City of Petaluma. The updated table amends the cost estimates for the Rainier A venue Extension and Interchange and adds the new SMART station parking to the list of improvements. Estimated Costs Improvement Total Project Cost Other Funding Net City Cost Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange- locally referred alternative 2) $114,983,500 1 $25,258,403 2 $89,725,097 Caulfield Lane Extension $63,082,240 $8,521,046 3 $54,561,194 4 Old Redwood Highway Interchange Improvements $43,115,000 $40,235,010 5 $2,879,990 Caulfield Lane/Payran Street Intersection Im Petaluma Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue- Payran Street Intersection Construction of New Intersections Throughout the C1 $500,000 $- $500,000 $500,000 $- $500,000 $2,250,000 7 $- $2,250,000 Traffic Signal Upgrades Throughout the Citi $1,885,000 $- $1,885,000 Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements Throughout the $27,389,000 $- $27,389,000 Transit rovements Throughout the C $2,500,000 $- $2,500,000 Redevelopment Supplement 8 $9,972,739 $- $9,972,739 SMART Station (350 Parking Spaces) 9 $10,500,000 $- $10,500,000 Total $276,677,479 $74,014,459 $202,663,020 Notes: 1. Covers modified diamond interchange configuration alternative (Alternative 2 of Rainier Avenue Project Study Report); based on cost estimates of Jacobs Funding includes $7.5M in former Petaluma Community Development Commission (PCDC) funds allocated by City Council and $23.4M in local roadway construction costs and dedicated ROW to be covered by development adjacent to the project. 3. Cost of local roadway construction covered by development adjacent to the site. Other funding includes $2,012,726 fair share contribution from Quarry Heights project. 4. Covers bridge only. 5. Funding includes $11.3M in former Petaluma Community Development Commission (PCDC) funds allocated by City Council and $28.9M in a combination of Measure M, SLPP, developer contributions, and Assessment District 21 funds. 6. Includes bus stop improvements, real time transit information system, and signal priority system for transit. 7. Cost reflects six intersections to be constructed. Cost estimate based on 3 signalized intersections and 3 roundabouts. 8. Represents the $18.8M in former Petaluma Community Development Commission (PCDC) agreements currently disputed 28

29 by the CA Department of Finance (see notes 2 & 5 above). The City will collect this supplement pending resolution of the status of these funds. If the PCDC agreements are recognized, as the City believes they must be, the TMF will be adjusted to remove the Redevelopment Supplement. Adjusted to $9,972,739 to reflect 2014 Bond Proceeds of $8,836, Parking needs identified in SMART White Paper No. 11 (February 2008) Source: City of Petaluma, Table 3-6 presents the growth projections used in the analysis. Compared to the projections used in the 2012 analysis, 65 accessory dwelling units, and 16 gas/service station fuel positions have been added to the growth scenario. Land Use Category Unit Total Growth % (2012 to Growth Single-Family Dwelling Dwelling Unit Unit 18,251 18,266 19,796 1,530 8% Multi-Family Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 2,558 2,820 6,380 3, % Accessory Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 65 Senior Housing Dwelling Unit 1,554 1,612 1, % Office KSF 5,820 6,044 8,676 2,632 44% Hotel/Motel Room % Commercial/Shopping KSF 4,421 4,524 7,148 2,624 58% Industrial/Warehouse KSF 5,504 5,027 5, % Education Student 18,036 18,036 23,087 5,051 28% Institution KSF 1,432 1,432 1,432 0% Gas/Service Station Fuel Position % Source: City of Petaluma,

30 Table 3-7 recalculates the dwelling unit equivalent (DUE) factors, using updated data from the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Handbook, 9th Edition, and SANDAG's Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates (July 2002). The "Percent New Trips" column need only be multiplied by the peak hour trip rate in order to estimate vehicle trips per unit. Vehicle trips per unit for each land use is then divided by the vehicle trips per single family dwelling unit to determine the DUE factor for each land use. Land Use Category Unit Peak Hour %New DUE per VT per Unie Trip Trips 2 Unit 4 Rate 1 Single-Family Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit % Multi-Family Dwelling Unit 5 Dwelling Unit % Accessory Dwelling Uniti 2 Dwelling Unit % Senior Housing 6 Dwelling Unit % Office 7 KSF % Hotel/Motel Room % Commerciai/Shopping 8 KSF % Industriai/Warehouse 9 KSF % Education 10 Student % Institution 11 KSF % Gas/Service Station 13 Fuel Position % Notes: 1. ITE Trip Generation, 8th Edition, Rates based on PM peak hour of adjacent traffic. 2. SANDAG Brief Guide of Vehicular Traffic Generation Rates, July VT (vehicle trip) per unit = peak hour trip rate*% new trips. 4. DUE per unit = VT per unit I VT per single-family dwelling unit 5. ITE Apartment rate used. 6. ITE Senior Adult Housing- Detached rate used. 7. ITE General Office Building (PM peak hour) rate used. 8. ITE Shopping Center rate used for all commercial uses. 9. ITE Industrial Park rate used for all industrial uses. 10. ITE Elementary school (PM peak hour generator) rates used for all educational uses. 11. ITE Church rate used for all general institutional uses. 12. Assuming one person on average lives in accessory unit, use ITE peak hour rate of 0.28 per person. 13. ITE Service Station w/convenience Market used. Source: Fehr & Peers, Willdan,

31 Table 3-8 recalculates the growth in DUE using the revised DUE factors from the preceding table. The growth per dwelling unit, thousand square feet, hotel room, student or fuel position is multiplied by the conesponding DUE factor from Table 3-7 to convert projected growth into DUEs. Using the revised growth scenario and revised DUE factors results in a growth in.crement of 12,772 DUEs, compared to the 9,096 calculated in the City's 2014 analysis. Total DUEs at buildout have also increased. These adjustments result in new development representing a larger share of total build out DUEs, compared to the 2014 analysis (22.43% v %). Land Use Category Single-Family Dwelling Unit Unit Total Growth 1 DUE per unie Growth Converted to DUEs Dwelling Unit 1, ,530 Multi-Fami Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 3, ,185 Accessory Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit Senior Housing Dwelling Unit Office KSF 2, ,477 Hotel/Motel Room Commercial/Shopping KSF 2, ,071 Industrial/Warehouse KSF Education Student 5, Institution KSF Gas/Service Station Fuel Position Notes: Total New Development DUEs 12,772 Total Build Out DUEs 4 56,941 Percentage of Total Build Out DUEs % 1. Table 3-6: City of Petaluma Travel Demand Model Land Use Projections 2. Table 3-7: City of Petaluma DUE Conversion Factors 3. While a growth in student enrollment is projected, no new schools are anticipated to be constructed. 4. Total Build Out DUEs = DUE per unit * 2012 land use projections (Table 3-6) + total new development DUEs 5. Percentage of Total Build Out DUEs = Total New Development DUEs I Total Build Out DUEs Source: Fehr & Peers, Willdan,

32 Table 3-9 recalculates new development's share of the intersection projects included in the TIF. Adjustments have been made to projects where the fair share is equal to the new development's share of DUEs at buildout. After the adjustments, a larger share of projects has been allocated to new development compared to the 2012 analysis ($1,668,224 v. $1,646, 472). 1 Cross-Town New Development Potential Fee Intersection Net City Cost Reliever? 2 Share Contribution Corona $300,000 Yes 100% $300,000 Rainier and Maria $450,000 Yes 100% $450,000 Caulfield and E $450,000 Yes 100% $450,000 Casa Grande I McDowell $450,000 No 22.43% $100,934 Lindberg/Lakeville $300,000 Yes 100% $300,000 South McDowell/Lakeville $300,000 No 22.43% $67,290 Total $2,250,000 $1,668,224 Notes: 1. Based on Traffic Impact Mitigation Fee Program Update Memo from the City dated 5/1/ Based on discussions with the City. Out of the six intersections encompassing the $2.25M cost, only four relieved crosstown traffic and were included 100% in the final fee contribution total. 3. See Table 3-8 City of Petaluma Growth in DUEs for calculation detail. Source: Fehr & Peers, Willdan, Table 3-10 recalculates new development's share of pedestrian/bicycle projects. The "new miles contribution" is equal to: minimum new miles for new DUE I new miles X new value. This results in an allocation of $8,978,853 worth of pedestrian and bicycle improvements to new development. Existing Bicycle Miles Existing Value 1 $48,980,000 Existing DUE Existing Bicycle Miles per DUE New DUE Minimum Miles for new DUE 21.6 New Miles New Value 1 $27,389,000 New Miles Contribution $8,978,853 % of Total Cost 33% Notes 1. City of Petaluma, Land Use (per Table 3-6 Travel Demand Model) * DUE per unit (per Table 3-7 DUE Conversion Factors) 3. See Table 3-8 Growth in DUE. 4. =Miles for new DUE/New Miles* New Value Source: Fehr & Peers, Willdan

33 Table 3-11 recalculates new development's share of circulation improvement projects based on the adjustments in the preceding tables. In total, $173.4 million in improvement costs are allocated to 12,772 DUEs of growth, resulting in a fee of$13,577 per DUE. Improvement Net City Cost New Development Share Potential Fee Contribution Rainier Avenue Extension and Interchange- locally preferred alternative Caulfield Lane Extension Old Redwood Highway Interchange Improvements Caulfield Lane/Payran Street Intersection Improvements Petaluma Boulevard/Magnolia Avenue- Payran Street Intersection Construction of New Intersections Throughout the Cityl Traffic Signal Upgrades Throughout the City 2 Pedestrian/Bicycle Improvements Throughout the City 3 Transit Improvements Throughout the Citl Redevelopment Supplement SMART Station (350 Parking Spaces) 2 Administration Costs 4 Total Projected Growth in DUEs 2 Fee Per DUE Prior Fee per DUE 5 $89,725,097 $54,561,194 $2,879,990 $500,000 $500,000 $2,250,000 $1,885,000 $27,389,000 $2,500,000 $9,972,739 $10,500, $202,663, % % % % % 74.14% 22.43% 32.78% 22.43% % 22.43% Notes: 1. See Table 3-9 Construction of New Intersections Fee Contributions for calculation detail. 2. See Table 3-8 City of Petaluma Growth in DUEs for calculation detail. 3. See Table 3-10 Pedestrian/Bicycle Contribution Calculation for detail. 4. Provided by the City of Petaluma, Based on Fee per DUE contained in 2015 Addendum 1. Source: Fehr & Peers, Willdan, City of Petaluma, $89,725,097 $54,561,194 $2,879,990 $500,000 $500,000 $1,668,224 $422,803 $8,978,853 $560,746 $9,972,739 $2,355,134 $1,278,262 $173,403,042 12,772 $13,577 $12,949 33

34 Table 3-12 presents the revised traffic impact fees. The revised fee per DUE from Table 3-11 is multiplied by the revised DUE factors from Table 3-7 to detetmine the fee per land use category. Land Use Type Unit DUE per Unit 1 Fee per DUE 2 Single-Family Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 1.00 $13,577 Multi-Family Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 0.61 $8,334 Accessory Dwelling Unit Dwelling Unit 0.28 $3,764 Senior Housing Dwelling Unit 0.27 $3,629 Office KSF 1.32 $17,933 Hotel/Motel Room 0.39 $13,577 $5,349 Commercial/Shopping KSF 1.93 $26,236 Industrial/Warehouse KSF 0.78 $10,619 Education Student 0.10 $1,336 Institution KSF 0.41 $5,502 Gas/Service Station Fuel Position 3.23 $43,919 Notes: 1. Table 3-7 City of Petaluma DUE Conversion Factors 2. Table 3-11 City of Petaluma Circulation Improvements Fee Contributions Source: Fehr & Peers, Willdan, 2015 Fee 34

35 EXHIBITB TRAFFIC DEVELOPMENT IMP ACT FEE Land Use Type Fee Amount Unit of Measurement Single Family Residential $14,284 Unit Multiple Family Residential $8,768 Unit Accessory Dwelling $3,960 Unit Senior Housing $3,818 Unit Office $18,867 1,000 square feet of building space Hotel/Motel $5,627 Room Commercial/Shopping $27,602 1,000 square feet of building space Industrial/Warehouse $11,172 1,000 square feet of building space Education $1,406 Student Institution $5,788 1,000 square feet ofbuilding space Gas/Service Station $46,205 Fuel Position 35

36

37 2012 Right of Way Dedication and Construction Cost Assumptions Attachment 2