RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO THE CITY'S

Similar documents
RESOLUTION NO

RESOLUTION NO. C. No other public utility facilities are in use on the Easement and no facilities would be affected by the vacation.

RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, The City of Santa Clara is the Government entity responsible for providing public

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SIGNAL HILL, CALIFORNIA, DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

ORDINANCE NO

WHEREAS, on October 24, 2014 the City Council of the City of Redwood City

RESOLUTION NUMBER 4238

IRVINE UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT RESOLUTION NO

1 #N7 AMX42TOD4BVTv1

City of Calistoga Staff Report

CITY COUNCIL FEBRUARY 16, 2016 NEW BUSINESS

ORDINANCE NO. 875 (AS AMENDED THROUGH 875

CITY OF SIGNAL HILL SUBJECT: RESOLUTION APPROVING SOLID WASTE COLLECTION SERVICE RATE ADJUSTMENT

TRUCKEE FIRE PROTECTION DISTRICT ORDINANCE

CITY OF PALMDALE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA RESOLUTION NO. CC

RESOLUTION NO

Agenda Item No. 6B January 23, Honorable Mayor and City Council Attention: Jeremy Craig, City Manager

Staff Report. Victoria Walker, Director of Community and Economic Development

- CITY OF CLOVIS - REPORT TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION

BEFORE THE GOVERNING BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE TULARE CITY SCHOOL DISTRICT TULARE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

RESOLUTION NUMBER 4678

ADOPT A RESOLUTION REGARDING

RESOLUTION NUMBER 3970

JOEL ROJAS, COMMUNITY DE'WPfiENT DIRECTOR ACCEPTANCE OF A SEWER EASEMENT DEED TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL EASEMENT AREA TO ALLOW

Recommendation: The Public Works Director-Engineering recommends adoption of the following resolution.

San Carlos Wheeler Plaza Project, Disposal of Former Redevelopment Agency Property and Entry into Related Compensation Agreement

EXHIBIT G. Exhibit G - Page 1 RVPUB/MO/655751

CITY OF LOS ALTOS CITY COUNCIL MEETING June 9, 2015

NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN MATEO, CALIFORNIA, ORDAINS that:

IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOUR BOARD, ACTING AS THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES:

Item 10C 1 of 69

RESOLUTION NO xx

ORDINANCE NUMBER WHEREAS, the regulation of development in single-family residential districts is within the police powers of the City; and,

CITY OF WILDOMAR PLANNING COMMISSION Agenda Item #2.3 PUBLIC HEARING Meeting Date: January 6, 2016

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

ORDINANCE NUMBER 1154

Councilmember Heilman, Mayor Pro Tempore Meister, and Mayor Horvath. Councilmember Duran. Councilmember D'Amico. None.

RESOLUTION NO. PC 18-14

ORDINANCE WHEREAS, this title is intended to implement and be consistent with the county comprehensive plan; and

ORDINANCE NO. 17- WHEREAS, Ordinance No , by law, is effective for only 10 months and 15 days and expires on January 26, 2017; and

Staff Report. Victoria Walker, Director of Community and Economic Development

RESOLUTION NO

CITY OF YUBA CITY STAFF REPORT

MEMORANDUM CITY COUNCIL TERESA MCCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR ROBIN DICKERSON, CITY ENGINEER

PROPOSED INCLUSIONARY ORDINANCE

CITY OF PALMDALE. REPORT to the Mayor and Members of the City Council from the City Manager

CITY OF PISMO BEACH PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF MARGATE, FLORIDA PRELIMINARY RATE RESOLUTION

TOWN OF WINDSOR TOWN COUNCIL

AMENDMENT AND EXTENSION OF PARKING EASEMENT

RESOLUTION NO. CC

PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA FINAL SURFACE WATER RATE RESOLUTION

Felicia Newhouse, Public Works Administrative Manager Russ Thompson, Public Works Director

RESOLUTION EXTENDING THE SUNSET DATE FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY FEE DEFERRAL PROGRAM TO DECEMBER 31, 2016; AND

RESOLUTION NUMBER 5059

PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT. 17-CA-02 Accessory Dwelling Unit Ordinance. Jon Biggs, Community Development Director

TOWN OF AVON, COLORADO ORDINANCE NO SERIES OF 2014

RESOLUTION NO A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ELK GROVE ADOPTING AND LEVYING REVISED ROADWAY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

RESOLUTION NO. WHEREAS, the Signal Hill Gateway Center has been developed in phases. overtime; and

City of Scotts Valley INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY. Resolution No : 2017/18 Community Development Fee Schedule

AGENDA REPORT SUMMARY. Express Short-Term Rental Prohibition. Jon Biggs, Community Development Director and the City Attorney s Office

ORDINANCE NO. THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES DO ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SAN RAFAEL CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

CITY OF LOMITA CITY COUNCIL REPORT

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ORDINANCE NO. _ _

RESOLUTION NO. (ANNEXATION AREA NO. 2)

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

HONORABLE MAYOR AND MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL TITO HAES, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER/PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR

BEVERLY HILLS AGENDA REPORT

ORDINANCE NO

CITY OF ELK GROVE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT

Agenda Item No. 6E May 23, Honorable Mayor and City Council Attention: Jeremy Craig, Interim City Manager

RESOLUTION NUMBER 3992

BUTTE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION (LAFCO) EXECUTIVE OFFICER S REPORT. LAFCo File City of Chico Extension of Services 716 Oak Lawn Avenue

ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 659 ESTABLISHING A DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM

PAMELA ARENDS -KING, FINANCE DIRECTOR /CITY TREASURER ADOPT RESOLUTION NO APPOINTING CERTAIN PARTIES TO

City of Lafayette Staff Report

THE CITY OF LAKE FOREST ORDINANCE NO. AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE LAKE FOREST CITY CODE TO ESTABLISH A HOUSING TRUST FUND BOARD

yjryly AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: November 20, 2018 Item Number: To: From:

Community Development Department Planning Division 1600 First Street + P.O. Box 660 Napa, CA (707)

RESOLUTION NUMBER 3968

TOWN OF WOODSIDE. Report to Town Council Agenda Item 6 From: Susan George, Town Manager July 26, 2011

RESOLUTION NO

CITY OF LOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA ANTONIO R. VILLARAIGOSA MAYOR. The City Council adopted the action(s), as attached, under Council File No.

CITY OF YUBA CITY STAFF REPORT

ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING A REPLACEMENT HOUSING PLAN FOR 1855 AND 1875 CLAYTON ROAD

Resolution #07-5. THIS RESOLUTION is adopted with reference to the following facts and circumstances:

STAFF REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL

CITY OF LARKSPUR Staff Report

NOTICE OF A REGULAR MEETING

Stenberg Annexation Legal Diagram Exhibit "B" W Subject Property Annexed to the City of Red Bluff VICINITY MAP "1:3:

CITY COUNCIL SUMMARY REPORT. Agenda No. (,.J Key Words: Southwest Dixon, General Plan, Specific Plan Rezone Meeting Date: May 18, 2016

CITY COUNCIL CONSENT CALENDAR SUBJECT:

STAFF REPORT TO THE (CITY COUNCIL, AGENCY, ETC.) The Mayor and Members of the City Council

PISMO BEACH COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

Felicia Newhouse, Public Works Administrative Manager Russ Thompson, Public Works Director SUBJECT: WILDWOOD GLEN LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT C-91

Transcription:

RESOLUTION NO. 2015-07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE TO IMPLEMENT THE DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 949. WHEREAS, the City of Rosemead adopted Ordinance No. 949 establishing the authority for imposing and charging Citywide Development Impact Fees (DIF) to new residential development and new commercial and industrial development within the City to mitigate the impacts on availability and condition of public facilities caused by this development, subject to the adoption of an implementing resolution and fee schedule; and WHEREAS, the City completed a Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study Impact Fee Study), dated April 21, 2015, which is on file with the City Clerk. The Impact Fee Study identifies the need for and calculates the amount of the development impact fees to pay for the necessary public facility improvements, which are needed to serve and mitigate the impacts of new development; and WHEREAS, it is the intent and purpose of the DIF to ensure that new development will not burden the existing service population with the cost of traffic, public safety, general government, and park facilities required to accommodate growth. The fees advance a legitimate City interest by enabling the City to provide municipal services to new development, and WHEREAS, the City Council makes the following findings 1) The fees collected shall be used fund expanded facilities to serve new development by the purchase of land, the construction or expansion of buildings and public facilities, purchases of vehicles and equipment, and the construction of roadway improvements, as more specifically described in the Impact Fee Study. Fees will be used to provide facilities in the following categories: traffic, general government, public safety, and parks. Facilities funded by these fees are designated to be located within the City. 2) The City will restrict fee revenue to the acquisition of land, construction of facilities and buildings, and purchase of related equipment, furnishings, vehicles, and services used to serve new development. Facilities funded by the fees are expected to provide a citywide network of facilities accessible to the additional residents and workers associated with new development. Fees are not intended to fund planned facilities needed to correct existing deficiencies. Thus, a reasonable relationship can be shown between the use of fee revenue and the new development projects that will pay the fees. i

3) Facilities need is based on a facility standard that represents the demand generated by new development for those facilities. For each facility category, demand is measured by a single facility standard that can be applied across land use types to ensure a reasonable relationship to the type of development. For most facility categories service population standards are calculated based upon the number of residents associated with residential development and the number of workers associated with nonresidential development. To calculate a single, per capita standard, one worker is weighted less than one resident based on an analysis of the relative use demand between residential and nonresidential development. The estimated demand for traffic facilities is based on the average number of vehicle trips generated by each type of development, adjusted for variations trip length and pass -by trips. Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts of the Impact Fee Study provides a description of how service population and growth forecasts are calculated. Facility standards are described in the Facility Standards sections of each facility category chapter of the Impact Fee Study. 4) The reasonable relationship between each facilities fee for a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated new development growth the project will accommodate. Fees for a specific project are based on the project's size. Larger new development projects can result in a higher service population resulting in higher fee revenue than smaller projects in the same land use classification. Thus, the fees ensure a reasonable relationship between a specific new development project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project. See Chapter 2, Growth Forecasts, or the Service Population or Trip Demand from New Development sections in each facility category chapter for a description of how service populations or other facility demand factors are determined for different types of land uses. See the Fee Schedule section of each facility category chapter of the Impact Fee Study for a presentation of the proposed facilities fees. WHEREAS, the establishment of DIF is statutorily exempt under California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) Section 15273 ( a)( 1) Rates, " Tolls, Fairs and Charges," as well as Sections 15061 (b)( 3) and 15378 (b)( 4), and WHEREAS, on May 26, 2015 the City Council heard public testimony and considered evidence in a public hearing held and noticed in accordance with Government Code 66016 and 66018. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DOES HEREBY RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: ROSEMEAD SECTION 1. Adoption of Rosemead Development Impact Fee Study. The Impact Fee Study and its appendices are hereby adopted and fully incorporated into this Resolution by this reference. 2

SECTION 2. Schedule of Development Impact Fees (DIF). The Rosemead City Council hereby imposes the following development impact fees to be charged pursuant to Title 17 ( Chapter 17.170) of the Rosemead Municipal Code and in accordance with the following phasing plan: DIF Phase -in Schedule for Single Use Zones and Mixed Use Zones Fee Schedule for Single Use Zones Residential Fee Schedule for Single Use Zones Effective Date of DIF July 1, 2016 July 1, 2017 Proposed Fee 1st Year of Phase -in 2nd Year of Phase in - 3rd Year of Phase in - Single Family 6,500 $ 2,167 $ 4,333 6,500 Multi - family 5,197 $ 1,732 $ 3,465 5,197 Nonresidential Retail Retail $. $. 1,365 _$. 455.$.. 910 910 ',. $ ',.... $... 1,365 Office $. 1,997 $. 666 $. 1,331 $. 1,997 Industrial Industrial $ $ 1,250 '$ 417 $ 833 $ 1,250 Note: Note: Fees Fees are are expressed expressed per per dwelling dwelling unit unit for for residential residential or per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land use. Fee Schedule for Mixed Use Zones Fee Schedule for Mixed Use Zones Residential Residential Multi Multi - - family family L $. $. Effective Date of DIF July 1, 2016 July 1, 2017 Proposed Fee bst Year ofphase-in 2nd Year of Phase -in 3rd Year ofphase in - Single Family 6,388 $ 2,129 $ 4,259 6,388 5,126 $ 1,709 $ 3,417 5,126 Nonresidential Retail _... 1,242 $ 414 $ 828 1,242 Office 1,812 $_ 604 $.. 1,208 1,812.. Industrial 1,127 $ 376 $ 751 1,127 Note: The fees in this table are for Residential Commercial Mixed -Use development projects. Fees are expressed per dwelling unit For residential or per 1,000 square feet for nonresidential land use. DIF DIF Application Application Fees Fees Application Application requests requests for for DIF DIF adjustments adjustments in in accordance accordance with with Rosemead Rosemead Municipal Municipal Code Code Title Title 17, 17, Article Article 7, 7, Chapter Chapter 17.170, Section Section 17.170. 070: 170.070:

Fee: Same as "Appeals Filing Fees (City Council)" in Comprehensive Schedule of Fees and Charges Adopted by the Rosemead City Council (Community Development/Planning Fees). Filing an Appeal of DIF in accordance with Rosemead Municipal Code Title 17, Article 7, Chapter 17.170, Section 17.170. 050: Fee: Same as "Appeals Filing Fees (City Council)" in Comprehensive Schedule of Fees and Charges Adopted by the Rosemead City Council (Community Development/Planning Fees). SECTION 3. Fee Adjustment. Unless otherwise revised, the fees established by this Resolution shall be adjusted annually each fiscal year beginning on July 1, 2018 by a percentage equal to the percentage increase, if any, in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Price Index for the Los Angeles County Area. SECTION 4. Effective Date of this Resolution. This Resolution will become effective sixty days following the second reading of Ordinance No. 949 on DATE 2015. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this resolution and hereafter the same shall be in full force and effect. PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rosemead, County of Los Angeles of the State of California on the 9 day of June, 2015. 22 Margaret Vark, Mayor City of Rosemead, California ATTEST: kal Lai ' Gloria Molleda, City Clerk City of Rosemead, California: APPROVED AS TO FORM achel H. Rich City Attorney Burke, Williams & Sorensen, LLP 12

STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) CITY OF ROSEMEAD ) SS. I, Gloria Molleda, City Clerk of the City of Rosemead, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2015-07 being: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROSEMEAD, CALIFORNIA, ADDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE FEE SCHEDULE TO IMPLEMENT THE DEVELOPMENT FEE PROGRAM ESTABLISHED BY ORDINANCE NO. 949 was duly and regularly approved and adopted by the Rosemead City Council on the gch 2015, by the following vote to wit: of June, Yes: No: Alarcon, Armenta, Clark, Low, Ly None Abstain: None Absent: None loria Molleda City Clerk Q,