HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-08-11_GP-LCP IC Agenda Meeting PacketAGENDA
General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee
August 11, 2010
3:30 p.m.
City Council Chambers
1. Approve Draft Action Minutes from April 21, 2010
Attachment No. 1
2. General Plan/LCP Implementation - Master Task List
Update From Staff (list to be distributed at meeting)
3. Fair Share Fee Update
Attachment No. 2
Attachment No. 3
4. Items for Future Agenda & Future Meeting Dates
5. Public Comments on non -agenda items
6. Adjourn
Attachment:
1. Draft Action Minutes from April 21, 2010
2. Fair Share Fee Update Materials
3. Business Coalition Comment Letter
3:30-3:35pm
3:35-3:50pm
3:50-5:00pm
5:00-5:10pm
5:10-5:20pm
CITY OF NEWPORT BEACH
GENERAL PLAN/LCP IMPLEMENTATION
COMMITTEE
DRAFT ACTION MINUTES
Action Minutes of the General Plan/LCP Implementation Committee held at the Central
Library (Friends Room), City of Newport Beach, on Wednesday, April 21, 2010
Members Present:
X
Ed Selich, Mayor, Chairman
X
Leslie Daigle, Council Member
X
Don Webb, Council Member
X
Barry Eaton, Planning Commissioner
X
Robert Hawkins, Planning Commissioner
X
Michael Toer e, Planning Commissioner
Advisory Group Members Present:
Mark Cross
Larry Frapwell
William Guidero
X Ian Harrison
Brion Jeannette
Don Krotee
Todd Schooler
Kevin Weeda
Dennis Wood
Staff Representatives:
X
Sharon Wood, Assistant City Manager
E
David Le o, Planning Director
E
Leonie Mulvihill, City Attorney
E
James Campbell, Principal Planner
X
GreggRamirez, Senior Planner
E
Melinda Whelan, Assistant Planner
X
Rich Edmonston, Consultant
E = Excused Absence
Committee Actions
1. Agenda Item No. 1 —Approval of minutes for March 31, 2010.
Action: The following revision to the draft minutes was proposed by Committee
Member Hawkins: for agenda item No. 2 insert the Action statement to 'The
Committee reviewed Committee member's and other comments and took the
following action:"
Vote: Consensus
2. Agenda Item No. 2 — Draft Zoning Code Review and Processing
Action: The Committee reviewed Committee member's, staff and public
comments provided by Carol Hoffman and CAA Planning. The
Committee directed staff to make the following changes for inclusion
into the fourth draft of the code which, will be forwarded to the
Planning Commission:
• Pg. 4-29, Section 20.48.170C.5, delete entire section.
• P. 2-36, Table 2-10, revise MU -W1 zoning district table to
stipulate that residential uses are only permitted above the first
floor, to be consistent with the CLUP.
• Pg. 5-22 Section 20.52.050, add retaining wall height to the list
items that are eligible for relief through review and approval of
a modification permit.
• Pg. 3-21 S3ection 20.30.070 replace entire Outdoor Lighting
section with language recommended by staff in the April 14,
2010 memo to the Committee.
• Pg. 3-80, Section 20.40.040 — Table 3-10, for multi -unit
dwellings, replace garage space requirement with a covered
space requirement consistent with the existing code
provisions.
• Pg. 3-86, Section 20.40.070C, Add Note 13 (structural element
encroachment) from Public Works Standard Plan 805 -L -B.
Ensure all drive aisle and parking aisle dimensions are
consistent with Public Works requirements.
• Pg. 3-149, Section 20.44.050E, change text as follows:
Rideshare vehicle loading area. A rideshare loading are shall
be designated at a location approved by the City Traffic
Engineer. The area shall accommodate a minimum of 2
passenger vehicles. Additional loading area may be required
by the City Traffic Engineer based on the total number of
anticipated employees.
Pg 5-41, Section 20.54.030 (Effective Date of Permits), revise
section to indicate that the 15 day time period only applies to
discretionary permits.
E Pg. 7-44, add Hearing Officer to definition of Review Authority.
• Part 8 - Map H-1, change high rise height limit to 300 for
consistency with height section.
• Pg. 3-7, Section 20.30.020B, delete reference to Section
20.48.140 and include screening provisions here.
• Pg. 3-111 through 3-117, Section 20.42.070, revise sign
standards tables to eliminate duplicate entries.
• P. 3-112, Section 20.42.070, Revise table for consistency with
provisoins on page 3-120; maximum height 8 feet, average
maximum height 6 feet for freestanding monument signs.
3. Agenda Item No. 3 — Fair Share Fee Update
Action: The Committee Discussed the Fair Share Fee Calculation and Nexus
Report prepared by Revenue and Cost Specialists (RCS) and Rich
Edmonston. Written and/or verbal public comments were provided by
Bryan Starr (BIA), Kate Klimow (OCBC) Dennis O'Neil (Hoag), Marty
Stradlin (NAIOP) and Carol Hoffman. Following the discussion, the
Committee directed staff to complete the following before scheduling
the next meeting:
• Re-evaluate inclusion of Banning Ranch road costs,
considering the possibility that City will need to construct some
road infrastructure if property is not developed
• Re-evaluate soft costs — 55% is too high
• Re-evaluate right-of-way costs, especially through Mariners'
Mile
• Re-evaluate whether grade separation at MacArthur and
Jamboree should be included in cost study
• Re-evaluate changes in construction costs since RBF
estimates were done
• Provide options for how fee increases can be phased in
Vote: Consensus
4. Agenda Item No. 4 — Future meeting dates
The next meeting date will be scheduled when the Fair Share Fee update study has
been revised.
Vote: Consensus
5. Agenda Item No. 5 — Items for future agenda
None.
6. Agenda Item No. 6 — Public Comments on non -agenda items
Orem
7. Agenda Item No. 7 — Adjourn - Meeting adjourned at 5:00 p.m.
GENERAL PLAN(LOCAL COASTAL PROGRAM
IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE
July 28, 2010
TO: MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE
FROM: Public Works Department
Stephen Badum, Public Works Director
949-644-3311
Richard M. Edmonston, PE, Consultant
949-270-8136
SUBJECT: FAIR SHARE FEE UPDATE
BACKGROUND
The Committee requested staff to prepare options on a number of components to the
proposed Fair Share Fee Update at their meeting of April 21, 2010. The April 21st staff report
and attachments are available online at http://newportbeachca.gov/index.aspx?page=791. The
requests resulted from questions raised by the Committee members and various stakeholders.
Those areas discussed by the Committee are presented below with the corresponding options
and the percentage change in the Fair Share Fee (FSF) that would result from each option.
There is a summary table listing each of the options and its impact on the FSF following the
discussion.
After the Committee selects the options they wish to recommend to the City Council, a final
report will be prepared by the fee consultant, Revenue & Cost Specialists, incorporating those
recommendations. The revised RCS report, including the proposed fees, will be presented to
the City Council for adoption.
Banning Ranch - Three issues were identified that relate to the improvements located on the
Banning Ranch property.
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST - Right-of-way (r/w) is the most cost -significant aspect of the roadway
improvements on Banning Ranch. The recent version of the RCS report used $50/sf for land
cost on Banning Ranch compared with the earlier versions which used $100/sf. Subsequent to
the Committee meeting, it was realized that the 55% cost markup value was still based upon
1
$100/sf for right-of-way because RCS was not aware that additional markups for design,
administration, and contingency costs had been applied to the base right-of-way estimates.
Correcting this markup error would reduce the cost of the entire program by over
$105,000,000.
OPTIONS:
A. Revise the cost projections for right-of-way on Banning Ranch roadways to be
calculated on a value of $50/sf plus a 5% management fee and deleting all other
markups. The Fair Share Fee (FSF) would be reduced by roughly 38% with this revision.
B. Retain the 55% markup charge for right-of-way and revise the cost projections using a
base right-of-way cost of $50/sf. This would reduce the Fair Share Fee Program costs by
approximately 12%.
Note: Right-of-way costs for projects that are not on the Banning Ranch as well as the 55%
markup on are discussed later in this report.
DEDICATIONS—The issue was raised as to why right-of-way on Banning Ranch would have to be
purchased rather than dedicated by the developer. Chapter 19.40 of the Newport Beach
Municipal Code provides that "the City may require the subdivider to dedicate or make an
irrevocable offer to dedicate to the public ... all real property, both on-site and off-site, required
for public use or benefit including, but not limited to, streets, highways, alleys" (emphasis
added). Thus dedication is not a mandatory requirement of the Municipal Code. The current
RCS report uses 25% as the amount of right-of-way that would have to be funded by the Fair
Share Fee with the exception that the enlarged future intersections on West Coast Highway at
Bluff Road and 15'h Street would have 50% of the right-of-way cost borne by the Fair Share Fee.
Because the Municipal Code does not mandate full dedication and because the Banning Ranch
project itself likely will not require four lane roadways it is assumed that Banning Ranch would
bear 50% of the r/w costs, regional traffic's share would be 25%, and the remaining 25% would
be raised by the Fair Share Fee. The two intersections at West Coast Highway are required to
be larger than standard intersections due to regional traffic so a 50% share of those dedication
costs are assigned to the FSF.
OPTIONS:
A. Retain the present assignment of 25% of the right -of --way costs to the Fair Share Fee
Program with the exception of 50% of the land costs for the two expanded intersections
at Coast Highway. This would result in no change to the proposed FSF.
B. Revise the cost projections to delete all right-of-way costs for roadways in the
Banning Ranch area. This option would reduce the overall costs of the improvement
program and the Fair Share Fee by 12%.
Iii
If development is approved on the Banning Ranch, the City will need to review the dedications
anticipated in deriving the Fair Share Fee and amend the FSF if different dedications occur.
ROADWAY NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS — The City's Master Plan of Streets and Highways shows
roughly 2.5 miles of 4 -lane arterial roadways on Banning Ranch, not including the extension of
191h Street, which would be around another 0.6 miles of which two lanes, appear to be on
Banning Ranch property. Several persons have questioned the reasonableness of assuming
that all of these roadways would need to be constructed if Banning Ranch were to be
developed and whether any roadways would be needed if the area were purchased for Open
Space. One consideration for the City is how to pay for whatever r/w is needed for regional
roadways and local access if Banning Ranch is acquired for Open Space.
The consultant that prepared the General Plan Update Traffic Studies identified the extension
of 19th Street as a necessary project, thus, at a minimum a share of this improvement's cost
should be included in the Fair Share Fee Program. The same Traffic Studies also determined
that at least one new roadway (likely Bluff Road) connecting West Coast Highway with an inland
east -west street such as 17th Street will be required for regional connectivity even if Banning
Ranch is acquired for open space. Otherwise an additional lane in both directions will be
necessary at the West Coast Highway intersection with Balboa Ave -Superior Avenue. Such an
improvement has not been included in the future network or in the Fair Share Fee calculations.
OPTIONS:
A. Leave report as currently written which includes 25% of the construction costs for the
roadways on Banning Ranch and the extension of 19th Street in the Fair Share Fee
Program. This option would not change the proposed FSF.
B. Revise the construction estimates to delete costs associated with constructing
roadways on Banning Ranch, but leaving 25% of the costs for the 19th Street
extension in the Fair Share Fee Program. This option would reduce the program
costs and the FSF by roughly 9%.
Again, the City will need to amend the Fair Share Fee program if a development is approved for
Banning Ranch that includes a different roadway network than anticipated at the time the
updated FSF is adopted.
Other Right -of -Way Considerations — Questions have been raised regarding other aspects of
the RBF estimates for right-of-way costs. Some have questioned the inclusion of right-of-way
costs in the project to widen West Coast Highway through Mariners Mile. The other is the
application of various overhead costs more typically associated with construction to the base
right-of-way estimates.
WEST COAST HIGHWAY — Some stakeholders assert that most, if not all, of the required area
would be dedicated to the City in conjunction with development. The Municipal Code provides
3
that on properties fronting a State Highway dedication of right-of-way cannot be required
unless the proposed development meets three requirements including more than 25,000
square feet of additional gross floor area, the project generates more than three hundred (300)
average daily trips, and the project contributes to the need to widen the adjacent roadway to
Master Plan standards.
In reviewing the existing properties along Mariners Mile, it appears there are only three that
potentially will meet the above requirements considering that all of the additional right-of-way
is planned to come from properties on the north or inland side of the road. The two groups of
parcels located between McDonalds Restaurant and Dover Drive may meet the listed criteria
and may not due to the limited depth of the lots. The large area devoted to boat sales located
just westerly of Rocky Point and the Pelican Wall appears likely to meet the criteria for
requiring dedication. The estimated cost of the right-of-way from these three areas is
$2,809,000.
OPTIONS:
A. Leave right -of way costs for the widening of Coast Highway through Mariners Mile in
the cost estimates for the Fair Share Fee Program.
B. Delete the right-of-way costs for the three properties noted above. This would result
in a reduction of the FSF on the order of 0.2%.
RIGHT-OF-WAY OVERHEAD COSTS
The cost estimates prepared by RBF included a 5% management fee added to the base right-of-
way costs. Additionally, the right-of-way costs were added to the construction prior to adding
the fees for various phases of engineering support plus a contingency amount of twenty (20)
percent. The total of these markups is 55%. Several stakeholders questioned the application of
these markups to the right-of-way cost since they are more typically applied to just the
construction costs. Staff has reviewed the right-of-way costs of the individual projects and
believes the management fee of 5% is a reasonable estimate of the total administrative costs of
acquiring property from the landowners.
OPTIONS:
A. Eliminate the markups on the cost of right-of-way with the exception of the 5%
management fee. This would reduce program costs by approximately 2.7%.
B. Keep the current 55% markup on right-of-way. This would not result in a change to
the proposed Fair Share Fee.
Payment of Fees — A question was raised about changing when the FSF is paid from at the time
the grading or building permit is issued to later in the development process. Several cities were
contacted and the practices are varied. Some require it at the permit stage and others require
it prior to the final inspection or certificate of occupancy. Some like Costa Mesa use a
combination and require additions, remodels and changes in use to pay the fee at permit
issuance while allowing new projects to pay just prior to issuance of the Certificate of
Occupancy. Huntington Beach requires payment at the permit stage for commercial projects
and prior to the final inspection for residential projects. In the Irvine Business Complex the fees
are paid prior to issuance of permits.
The California Government Code includes a provision that impact fees on residential projects
can be deferred. The Code also requires a contract be executed by the City and the property
owner if the fee payment is deferred to the time of the final inspection or certificate of
occupancy.
The only issue staff has identified with delaying the fee until final inspection or certificate of
occupancy, is that it can, in some cases, result in considerable pressure on staff and City
management to grant exceptions. Requiring the fee prior to permit issuance has worked well
for the City over the past 25 years, and the City Council has the ability to approve a different
payment schedule for any project that has a development agreement. However, the
Committee may wish to revise this in light of current economic circumstances. Neither of the
options listed would affect the amount of the Fair Share Fee for any project.
OPTIONS:
A. Require payment of Fair Share Fees at issuance of the first building or grading
permit as is currently mandated by the Municipal Code, unless different provisions
are included in a development agreement.
B. Direct staff to develop a program for the payment of some or all Fair Share Fees at
the time of final inspection or issuance of Certificate of Occupancy.
MacArthur Blvd/jamboree Road Interchange — Comments were made about the fact that the
General Plan Update Traffic Study did not identify this as a location requiring mitigation based
upon the Level of Service (LOS) criteria. Others commented that there were other, less costly
improvements that would improve the operation of this intersection.
The General Plan Traffic Study forecast an ICU value at Build -out of 0.985 during afternoon peak
hour. While this met the new requirement for intersections shared with the City of Irvine of
LOS E (ICU of 0.90-1.00) it was very close to the upper limit during the afternoon peak when the
ICU value was forecast to be 0.985. The engineering firm of RBF evaluated a number of
roadway configurations to improve the operation of the intersection. These configurations
included several at -grade solutions as well as the grade separation. The only two
improvements that would result in LOS D, or better, operation were the grade separation and
an alternative providing for a third westbound left turn lane on Jamboree Road and a forth
eastbound through lane. The grade separation was estimated to cost $54,052,000 and the at -
grade improvements were estimated at $7,987,000.
5
It is noted that the at -grade solution requires widening along the easterly side of Jamboree
Road on both sides of MacArthur Blvd and that some of this area may encroach on a wetlands
and some would be in the City of Irvine on a parcel which has previously had a widening that
required a substantial retaining wall and further widening in this area may be very difficult to
accomplish.
This intersection is a key entry point for the eastern portion of the City with three of the four
approaches being in Newport Beach. Adjacent intersections in the City must meet LOS D and
staff believes improving this location to LOS D is appropriate and in keeping with the City's
overall goals for the roadway system. Accordingly, three options have been identified for
addressing future congestion at this location.
OPTIONS:
A. Leave the grade separation in the Fair Share Fee program. This would have no
impact on the proposed FSF.
B. Replace the grade separation with the at -grade improvements necessary to achieve
LOS Din the Fair Share Fee program. This option would reduce the FSF by 11%.
C. Do not include any improvements at the MacArthur Blvd/Jamboree Road
Intersections in the Fair Share Fee program. This option would reduce the FSF by
12%.
Changes in Construction Costs — It has been pointed out that recent changes in the economy
have led to construction costs that have gone down since the cost estimates were prepared in
2007 based upon 2006/2007 bid prices. Staff originally proposed a five-year rolling average of
changes in the Construction Cost Index (CCI) prepared by Caltrans in order to smooth large
changes from year to year. Using this approach leads to a current increase of 1.2% per year.
RBF's estimates were prepared in mid -2007 so staff has looked at shorter term rolling average
rates to determine how that might affect setting the initial fees in the Fair Share Fee program.
Since either a three-year or four-year average would fit the timeframe between when the
estimates were prepared and the present time, these two averages and the total resulting
adjustment to the RBF cost estimates are as follows:
a. Three-year rolling average= -7.6% per year for a total of -22.8%
b. Four year rolling average= -4.6% per year for a total of -18.4%
It should be noted that if one of these reductions is applied to the RBF estimates, the same
number of years should be specified for calculating the rolling average going forward in the Fair
Share Implementation Resolution. It should also be recognized that with a rolling average, the
fee will lag actual changes in construction costs and hence will continue go down for some
number of years after the economy begins to improve before any increase in the fee becomes
effective.
3
Use of the four-year rolling average would result in a reasonable adjustment to the initial RBF
estimates and offer most of the smoothing of future changes in the Fair Share Fee provided by
a five-year rolling average.
OPTIONS:
A. Use five-year rolling average of CCI to determine initial Fair Share Fee and future
annual increases. This would have no impact on the initial FSF and would provide the
slowest rise in Fair Share Fees as construction costs begin increasing.
B. Use four-year rolling average of CCI to determine initial Fair Share Fee and future
annual increases. This option would reduce the initial FSF by 18% but fees would rise
more quickly as construction costs increase when compared to using a five-year
rolling average.
C. Use three-year rolling average of CCI to determine initial Fair Share Fee and future
annual increases. This option would reduce the initial FSF by 23% but fees would rise
even more quickly as the economy improves and construction costs rise.
Phasing of Fee Changes — The topic of phasing in changes to the Fair Share Fee was discussed
because of the sizeable increase in fees for some land uses listed in the April report. The
correction of the Banning Ranch right-of-way calculation mentioned above will reduce the
proposed fee by approximately thirty-eight percent (38%). Other options listed in this report
could reduce the proposed fee further. The use of a rolling average for annual adjustments will
mean that the Fair Share Fee likely will be adjusted downward for the next few years due to
negative changes in prior years. These two considerations may address the concerns that led to
consideration of phasing in initial increases. The financial impact to developers and the City
due to phasing of fee changes would depend on the timing of projects and the specifics of the
phasing plan that is adopted.
OPTIONS:
A. Determine that the level of fee increase does not warrant a phasing of the increase
over a period of time.
B. Direct staff to include a phasing period for implementation of the new recommended
Fair Share Fee schedule.
Sources of Additional Funds — In determining the Fair Share Fee the City must include funding
from other sources as the City must be able to show that the Fee is required in addition to
other predictable highway funding sources. As indicated in the April 215t staff report to the
GP/LCP Implementation Committee, the Fair Share Fee is anticipated to raise approximately
32% of the total funds needed to complete the improvements listed in the Master Facilities
Plan. The City receives highway revenues from three sources including the State Highway Users
Tax, OCTA Measure M turnback funds, and funds awarded on a competitive basis from OCTA.
The first two of these are somewhat predictable and competitive funds are getting more and
more difficult to acquire. The State will replace most of the Gas Tax with an Excise Tax on July
7
1, 2010 which allows them more flexibility in how and when they pass the City's share along.
Measure M has some uncertainty associated with it since it is based upon sales tax revenues.
The Highways Users Tax revenue to the City is estimated at $1,343,187 this fiscal year and
$2,179,232 next fiscal year including payment of $842,019 of Excise Tax to replace suspended
payments from Proposition 42. Measure M is anticipated to provide an average of just over
$1,400,000 per year for the next five years.
The City is currently using all of its Gas Tax and Measure M turnback funds for maintenance of
roadways and has been supplementing those sources with an additional $1-2 Million of General
Fund monies each year. Based upon historic usage of the Gas Tax and Measure M funds, none
of these monies will be available to complete the improvements in the Master Facilities Plan.
The City will need to aggressively seek competitive funds from OCTA and other sources to
supplement those from the Fair Share Fee in order to construct the improvements included in
the Master Facilities Plan. Because these funding sources are programmed for maintenance
work, none were assumed available to help fund future roadway improvements.
OPTIONS:
A. Direct staff to assume that no turn back funds are available from either OCTA or the
State Highway Uses Taxes for the purpose of offsetting the portion of costs in the
Master Facilities Plan assigned to the Fair Share Fee program. No change in the
proposed FSF would result from this option.
B. Recommend a specific proportion of Measure M and State Highway Users turnbock
funds be allotted to offset the costs of the Master Facilities Plan assigned to the Fair
Share Fee program. The financial impact of this option would depend upon the level
of funds that the City Council decides to apply toward the Master Facilities Plan.
Impact of Options on Fair Share Fee
The following Schedule 1 shows the proposed Fair Share Fees for various land uses from the
recent RCS report. Following that is the current fee schedule as of July 1, 2010. Lastly, there is
Table A, the Summary of Options and the corresponding reductions in fees from Schedule 1.
I
Schedule 1
FAIR SHARE FEE SUMMARY TABLE'
Fair Share Fee Per Trip -Mile $371.47
Land Use
UNIT
Trip -Mile Rate Fee/Unit
Res -Low (SFD)
DU
27.1 $10,067
Res -Medium SFA
DU
20.4 $7,578
Apartment
DU
19.4 $7,207
Elderly Residential
DU
17.7 $6,575
Mobile Home
DU
14.7 $5,461
Motel
Room
17.8 $6,612
Hotel
Room
22.2 $8,247
Regional Commercial
TSF
43.7 $16,233
General Commercial
TSF
43.0 $15,973
Commercial/Recreation
TSF
73.0 $27,117
Restaurant
TSF
83.6 $31,055
Fast Food Restaurant
TSF
102.5 $38,076
Auto Dealer/Sales
TSF
22.7 $8,432
Yacht Club
TSF
44.7 $16,605
Health Club
TSF
62.4 $23,180
Tennis Club
Court
56.9 $21,137
Marina
Slip
5.4 $2,006
Theater
Seat
0.6 $223
Newport Dunes
Acre
45.1 $16,753
General Office
TSF
42.2 $15,676
Medical Office
TSF
48.1 $17,868
R & D
TSF
35.9 $13,336
Industrial
TSF
21.8 $8,098
Mini-Storage/Warehouse
TSF
18.4 $6,835
Pre-School/Day Care
TSF
55.3 $20,542
Elementary/Private School
STU
2.5 $929
Hospital
Bed
49.8 $18,499
Nursin /Conv. Home
Bed
7.3 $2,712
Church
TSF
13.7 $5,089
' Based upon RCS report dated March 2010
2 Fee Table effective July 1, 2010
10
FAIR SHARE FEE SUMMARY TABL'
Fair Share Fee Per Trip
$184.12
USE
GEN RATE
UNIT
FEE/UNIT
1
Res-Low(SFD)
11.00
DU
$2,025
2
Res-Medium SFA
8.60
DU
$1,583
3
Apartment
6.50
DU
$1,197
4
Elderly Residential
4.00
DU
$736
5
Mobile Home
6.00
DU
$1,105
6
Morel
10.10
ROOM
$1,860
7
Hotel
10.50
ROOM
$1,933
8
Resort Hotel
6.00
ROOM
$1,105
9
Regional Commercial
22.00
TSF
$4,051
10
General Commercial
40.00
TSF
$7,365
11
Comm./Recreation
40.00
ACRE
$7,365
12
Resort Commercial
35.00
TSF
$6,444
13
Restaurant
66.90
TSF
$12,317
14
Family Restaurant
177.87
TSF
$32,749
15
Fast Food Restaurant
142.00
TSF
$26,144
16
Auto Dealer/Sales
47.91
TSF
$8,821
17
Yacht Club
50.00
TSF
$9,206
18
Health Club
40.00
TSF
$7,365
19
Tennis Club
44.30
CRT
$8,156
20
Marina
0.50
SLIP
$92
21
Theater
1.50
SEAT
$276
22
Newport Dunes
5.70
ACRE
$1,049
23
General Office
13.00
TSF
$2,394
24
Medical Office
45.00
TSF
$8,285
25
R&D
9.50
TSF
$1,749
26
Industrial
5.00
TSF
$921
27
Mini-Storage/Warehouse
2.61
TSF
$481
28
Pre-School/Day Care
67.00
TSF
$12,336
29
Element /Private School
1.00
STU
$184
30
Junior/High School
1.40
STU
$258
31
Civic Center/Museum
32.00
TSF
$5,892
32
Library
41.80
TSF
$7,696
33
Post Office
86.80
TSF
$15,981
34
Hospital
11.40
BED
$2,099
35
Nursing/Conv. Home
2.70
PAT
$497
36
Church
7.70
TSF
$1,418
37
Youth Cu/Service
4.00
TSF
$736
38
Park
6.00
ACRE
$1,105
39
Regional Park
5.00
ACRE
$921
40
Golf Course
6.00
ACRE
$1,105
41 1
Resort Golf Course
3.00 1
ACRE 1
$552
2 Fee Table effective July 1, 2010
10
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
TOPIC AND OPTIONS FEE CHANGE
1-7_1►IzIIki H:L•1Z[ya
A. Right -of -Way Costs
- Eliminate construction markup -38%
- Keep 55% markup, using $50/sf -12%
B. Right -of -Way Dedication
- Delete all right-of-way costs -12%
- Retain 25% of right-of-way costs No Change
C. Roadway Construction Cost Assumptions
- Delete construction costs for all roadways except 19th St. _9%
- Keep 25% of construction costs in the FSF No Change
I kh F-11 N I ki I =I *2 ih I I I =1111 0 M: 111591=7/_\'/
- Assume right-of-way dedication from 3 largest parcels -0.2%
- Retain cost of all Coast Hwy right-of-way in FSF No Change
I11hTt1101exelmaMimi alvdJtlZIOki
- Defer fee payment to final inspection No Change
- Direct staff to develop a fee deferment program No Change
MACARTHUR/JAMBOREE INTERSECTION
- No improvements -12%
- At grade improvements - 11%
- Include grade separation in the Fair Share Fee program No Change
ROLLING AVERAGE TIME FRAME FOR
UPDATING CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES
- Use five-year rolling average No Change
- Use four-year rolling average -18%
- Use three-year rolling average -23%
Table A - page 1
11
SUMMARY OF OPTIONS
TOPIC AND OPTIONS
PHASING OF FEE CHANGES
Include no phasing of fees in the FSF Update
Direct staff to develop a program to phase fee changes
SOURCES OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS
Assume no turnback funds are available
Determine a proportion of turnback funds to apply to the FSF
Table A — page 2
12
FEE CHANGE
No Change
Unknown
No Change
Unknown
orange county
OCAM
automobile dealers zi 5 latlon
J'arrortin'r lire 9nrtinf) for Mare ?tion 7o Venn
August 4, 2010
Honorable Edward Selich
Council Member / Chair
100
NEWPORT BEACH
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Business and Community Resource
General Plan / Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Newport Beach "Circulation System Master Facilities Plan and Fair Share Fee (FSF)
Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Newport Beach"
Chairman Selich,
We are writing on behalf of a broad coalition of business groups to formally submit our members'
comments relative to the City's proposed FSF program update (dated August 11, 2010). We are grateful
that staff has taken a number of our previous comments into account as they drafted the options
presented to your committee in the updated staff report. While not all of our previous comments have
been addressed, we would like to provide input on those that were addressed in the current report.
Bannine Ranch Issues
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST — We feel that Option A is most appropriate for this issue. The reduced ROW
value is much more appropriate than the original value assumption and we feel strongly, as stated in our
previous letter, that the 55% for soft costs is not appropriate to be applied to the cost of ROW
acquisition.
DEDICATIONS — Option B, to us, is the appropriate option presented for this issue as it better reflects
the City's typical requirement that development projects dedicate the half -section ROW for roadways
adjacent to a project's frontage.
Business
1h
NAI OP
Properties
g' p
COMTE
DEVELOPMENT 'ASSOCIATERCIAL REAL ION
�1
Association
S.CAL CHAPTER
ORANGE COUNTY
FM7
�•��
SOUTH
NTSASSOCIATION
•���0
BUSINESS COUNCIL
`APARTM
A Chapter or Ne Calllomla Apartment Auodation
Serving Orange and southern Los Angeles Counties
orange county
OCAM
automobile dealers zi 5 latlon
J'arrortin'r lire 9nrtinf) for Mare ?tion 7o Venn
August 4, 2010
Honorable Edward Selich
Council Member / Chair
100
NEWPORT BEACH
CHAMBER OF COMMERCE
The Business and Community Resource
General Plan / Local Coastal Program Implementation Committee
City of Newport Beach
3300 Newport Blvd.
Newport Beach, CA 92663
Re: Newport Beach "Circulation System Master Facilities Plan and Fair Share Fee (FSF)
Calculation and Nexus Report for the City of Newport Beach"
Chairman Selich,
We are writing on behalf of a broad coalition of business groups to formally submit our members'
comments relative to the City's proposed FSF program update (dated August 11, 2010). We are grateful
that staff has taken a number of our previous comments into account as they drafted the options
presented to your committee in the updated staff report. While not all of our previous comments have
been addressed, we would like to provide input on those that were addressed in the current report.
Bannine Ranch Issues
RIGHT-OF-WAY COST — We feel that Option A is most appropriate for this issue. The reduced ROW
value is much more appropriate than the original value assumption and we feel strongly, as stated in our
previous letter, that the 55% for soft costs is not appropriate to be applied to the cost of ROW
acquisition.
DEDICATIONS — Option B, to us, is the appropriate option presented for this issue as it better reflects
the City's typical requirement that development projects dedicate the half -section ROW for roadways
adjacent to a project's frontage.
ROADWAY NETWORK ASSUMPTIONS — Option B is the appropriate option for this issue since,
like the previous issue, it best reflects the City's typical requirements relative to adjacent development.
Other Right-of-Wav Considerations
WEST COAST HIGHWAY — Option B is the best option presented relative to this issue as, like the
prior issues, it best reflects the City's typical practice of requiring the dedication of ROW necessary to
complete the full roadway half -section along the frontage of proposed projects.
RIGHT-OF-WAY OVERHEAD COSTS — We feel that Option A is clearly the appropriate choice for
this issue since, as previously stated, we feel strongly that it is not appropriate to apply these soft -cost
markups to the ROW acquisition process.
Payment of Fees
We feel strongly that Option B is most appropriate during these troubled economic times. Such a delay
in paying impact fees is an issue the BIA has taken up successfully with many jurisdictions over the past
year as a means of trying to encourage the start of new projects that bring jobs and economic growth.
Deferment of impact fee collection should not be limited to residential uses, but should include all land
use designations.
MacArthur Boulevard / Jamboree Road Interchange
Though the General Plan Traffic Study seemed to indicate that neither of the improvement programs
proposed were necessary to meet the established operational criteria, we support the selection of
Option B, where the improvements are limited to an at -grade solution.
Changes in Construction Costs
We feel strongly, as stated in our previous letter, that the five-year rolling option is inappropriate as that
longer period covered up the very real drop in construction costs that has occurred since the project
cost estimates were prepared. In that light, we can support Option B, which does reflect the drop in
construction costs that has been experienced.
Phasing of Fee Chances
Depending on the outcome of the previously discussed issues, Option A can be supported. This position
assumes that the majority of the previous issues were resolved in accordance with our stated positions
(which we feel best reflect past city practices and the requirements included in the current Fair Share
Ordinance).
Sources of Additional Funds
Given the many issues affecting the availability of outside funds from governmental -related sources, it
is probably best to not modify the assumptions currently reflected in this program.
Finally, we do want to indicate our disappointment that not all the issues raised in our prior letter were
addressed in the current report. In particular, it seems appropriate to address the concern raised
regarding the seven projects included in the program that were acknowledged in the General Plan as,
"are the result of growth in regional traffic and are not attributable to implementation of the proposed
General Plan Update" (point 5 from our previous letter). Another issue not directly addressed was our
concern regarding the treatment of "Frontage Improvements". Frontage improvements are referenced in
the Fair Share Study, but do not appear to be adequately reflected in the fee calculations.
Thank you for your consideration of our input on these issues.
Sincerely,
Kristine E. Thalman
CEO
BIA Orange County
Richard Luehrs
CEO
Newport Beach Chamber of Commerce
Vickie Talley (/
Director of Legislative Affairs
NAIOP SoCal
Commercial Real Estate Development Association
P // /L -�—
John Sackrison
Executive Director
OC Automobile Dealers Association
Cc: GPI/LCP Committee Members
David Kiff, City Manager
Sharon Wood, City Consultant
Richard Edmonston, City Consultant
Kate Klimow
VP of Government and Community Affairs
Orange County Business Council
Rex Hime
President and CEO
CA Business Properties Association
Judith A. Legan
Executive Vice President
South Coast Apartment Association
GENERAL PLAN IMPLEMENTATION TASKS
Interim Zoning Resolution (including ability to require development
agreements)
Staff, January 9, 2007 - Complete
2. Procedures to implement single- and two-family design policies
Staff, March 27, 2007 - Complete
3. Zoning Code and Specific Plan rewrite
Consultant, with staff input and review, December 2010
• City Council hearings to begin September 14, 2010
4. CLUP amendment
Staff, Consultants - Complete
5. Housing Element certification by HCD
Planning Department Staff, December 2010
• Staff working on response to HCD comments and revisions to site
inventory information. Resubmitted to HCD expected by September
1, 2010
6. Park Dedication Fee (Quimby Act)
Staff, April 10, 2007- Complete
7. ED Strategic Plan
Staff, ADE and EDC, July 10, 2007 - Complete
8. Fair Share Fee update
Consultants, October 2010
• GP/LCP Committee to consider revisions August 11, 2010
9. Airport Area infrastructure study and fee(s)
ROMA and Fair Share Consultant, TBD
• .Proposed infrastructure plan to Committee, August 2010?
10. Inclusionary Housing Ordinance and In -lieu fee
Consultant
• City Council adopted inclusionary housing ordinance, May 11, 2010
— Complete
11. Parking Requirements and Management
Staff, EDC, Consultants
■ Parking requirements recommendations from Walker Parking
Consultants included in Zoning Code recommended by Planning
Commission
08/11/2010
Draft parking management plans prepared for Balboa Village and
Corona del Mar; City Council consideration of implementation, Fall
2009
• Parking management plan for Lido/Canner/McFadden to begin
summer 2009
12. LCP Implementation Plan
Staff, concurrent with/trailing Zoning Code rewrite
• Implementation Plan deleted from draft Zoning Code
13. City Council Ordinance on development agreements
Staff, February 27, 2007 —Complete
14.Traffic signal synchronization
Consultant and Public Works staff
• Phase 1 — Complete
• Phases 2 &3 — Complete
• Phases 4 &7 Under construction
Phase 5 —Design to begin September 2010; Construction to begin July
2011
15. PC rewrite/revisions
Property owners for major ones, their schedule
Staff or consultant for smaller ones, with Zoning rewrite or second phase,
TBD
16. Banning Ranch Pre -Annexation and Development Agreement
City Council, staff and property owners, TBD
• City Council committee in negotiations with property owners
17. Harbor Area Management Plan
Consultants, staff and Harbor Commission, July 2009
• City Council review and comments, Fall 2009
• City Council reconsideration, October 2010
18. Run-off and Pollution Reduction Plan
Coastal/Bay Water Quality Committee and staff, ongoing
19. Database refinements and maintenance
Staff, refinements TBD, maintenance ongoing
20. Fiscal Impact Model training
ADE and staff, March 29, 2007- Complete
21.Traffic Phasing Ordinance revision re: NBTAM
Staff, July 24, 2007- Complete
08/11/2010
22. Measure S Guidelines revision re: variable FAR
Staff, August 11, 2009 - Complete
Lower Priority
• Municipal Code amendments re: property maintenance standards
• Building Code amendments re: green buildings
Building staff, December 2010
• Amend City Council Policies on historic, archaeo and paleo resources
• Funding and priority program for construction of noise barriers along
arterials
08/11/2010