CC RESOLUTION 4443RESOLUTION NO. 4443
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING TRAFFIC CONGESTION
MITIGATION FEES IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 15 CHAPTER
27A OF THE EL SEGUNDO MUNICIPAL CODE.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of El Segundo as follows .
SECTION 1 The City Council finds and declares as follows
A This Resolution is adopted pursuant to Title 15 Chapter 27A of the
El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") for the purpose of calculating
development impact fees,
B The findings set forth in Ordinance No1389 are incorporated by
reference into this Resolution as if fully set forth,
C This Resolution relies upon the documentary and testimonial
evidence submitted to the City during the public hearing held on
November 15, 2005 in addition to such additional information that
may be in the administrative record,
D The report entitled 'Traffic Impact Fee Study Update," dated
November 2, 2005 and drafted by MuniFinanaal ( "Fee Report"),
sets forth reasonable methodology and analysis for the
determination of the impact of new development on the need for
and costs for additional capital facilities improvements in the City
The Fee Report is attached as Exhibit "A," and incorporated by
reference, and
E This Resolution relies upon the calculations and traffic modeling set
forth in the Report in addition to all other matters in the City's
records
SECTION 2 Calculation of Traffic Improvement Fees
A The Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee amount is set in accordance
with the Fee Report The Fee is applicable to all new development
as set forth in the El Segundo Municipal Code ( "ESMC ") utilizing
the following unit rates for projects with a prepared traffic study and
trip generation projections from an engineer
Page 1 of 6
Rate per P.M. Peak
AREA Hour Generated Trip
Zone 1 $2,564
Zone 2 $105
Zone 3 $116
Projects that lack specific trip generation projections may use the
fees per dwelling unit for residential developments and per square
foot for nonresidential uses
Traffic Facilities Fee Zone 1
Land Use Fee / Sq. Ft.
Commercial $961
Office $382
Industrial $251
Traffic Facilities Fee Zone 2
Land Use Fee / Unit
Single Family $105
Multi - Family $63
Land Use
Fee / Sq. Ft.
Commercial
$039
Office
$016
Industrial
$010
Traffic Facilities Fee Zone 3
Land Use Fee / Unit
Single Family $116
Multi -Family $69
Land Use
Fee / Sq. Ft.
Commercial
$043
Office
$017
Industrial
$011
Page 2 of 6
B Each land use category has its own trip generation factor based
upon a designated measurement unit The actual computation of
the P M peak trips can be determined by a traffic study
For example, a single family home in Zone 3 is projected to
produce 1 01 P M. peak trips The Traffic Improvement Fee for a
single family home would therefore be $117 ($116 x 1 01 PM)
C Definitions Unless the contrary is stated or clearly appears from
the context, the following definitions will govern the construction of
the words and phrases used in this section
"Development" means any discretionary or ministerial action
by the city resulting in the issuance of grading, building,
plumbing, mechanical, or electrical permits, conditional use
permits, other land use entitlement permits or certificates of
occupancy issued by the city to construct, change, or make
lawful the use of a building or property
2 "Future growth" means the level of new development
anticipated in El Segundo consistent with the general plan
and will be expressed in terms of square footage for
commercial and industrial uses and in terms of dwelling units
for residential uses
3 "Level of service" means the different operating conditions
which occur at an intersection or on a roadway when
accommodating various traffic volumes It is a qualitative
measure of the effect of traffic flow factors, such as speed
and travel time, interruptions, freedom to maneuver and
driver comfort and convenience
4 " Passby trip" means a trip end that is actually a stopping off
point along a trip on the way to another destination Passby
trips are not included in the calculation of traffic mitigation
fees
5 'Roadway improvements" means those improvements
necessary to implement the traffic circulation improvement
plan, including but not limited to, paving, grading, roadway
substructure, curb and gutter, sidewalks, medians with
landscaping, drainage facilities, bridges, traffic signals, street
lighting, signing, striping, noise walls, utility relocations,
rights -of -way and other improvements or actions necessary
to mitigate adverse environmental impacts
Page 3 of 6
6 "Select link model run" means the computerized accounting
program, developed by the city's traffic engineering
consultant and adopted by legislative action of the city
council, which traces trip ends from each category of land
use of new development to a traffic impact, excluding passby
trips, and then determines the pro rata share of each impact
attributable to the new development
7 "Traffic circulation improvement plan" means the program for
maintaining and upgrading the city's traffic circulation system
consistent with the general plan The plan will contain the
improvements necessary to construct the traffic circulation
system and all estimated associated costs, including byway
of example, and without limitation, engineering, right -of -way
acquisitions, and necessary legal fees The traffic circulation
improvement plan will be adopted by city council resolution,
and be revised as necessary
8 "Trip" means a one - direction vehicular movement with an
origin, destination, and no stops in between
9 "Trip end" means the beginning or ending point of a trip
D Traffic mitigation fees will be calculated in accordance with the
following procedures
The computerized traffic modeling study will be used to
identify future traffic volumes and the resulting future traffic
impacts based on the build -out of the City's General Plan,
A traffic facilities plan will be established for mitigating the
traffic impacts identified by the computerized traffic modeling
study,
An estimate will be made of the costs associated with the
traffic facilities plan,
4 An estimate will be made of the current and anticipated
funding available to finance the improvements identified in
the traffic facilities plan,
5 A determination will be made of the difference, if any,
between the estimated costs and estimated funding,
Page 4 of 6
6 The extent to which the estimated cost exceeds the
estimated funding will be the unfunded costs of the
improvements to be funded by the traffic mitigation fee,
7 Traffic mitigation fee zones ( "zones ") will be established by
City Council resolution based on geographic areas within the
city where new development generally impacts the same
locations,
8 The Traffic Impact Fee Study Update will be used to
determine the share of each impact caused by each new
development in each district,
9 The unfunded traffic improvement costs for each
improvement will then be distributed to each land use
category of new development in each district in accordance
with the same pro rata share developed by the Traffic Impact
Fee Study Update in determining the percentage of impact
attributable to that land use category of new development,
E New Mixed Use Buildings Where there are multiple uses within a
new budding (mixed use building), the following applies
For each new mixed use building where there are multiple
uses proposed, the traffic mitigation fee will be in an amount
equal to the combined total of the traffic mitigation fees for
each of the uses proposed within the building
F Change in Use
For any change in use or uses, if the new use or uses are in
a traffic mitigation fee category that has fee amounts greater
than the existing use or uses, then the additional traffic
mitigation fee will be an amount equal to the difference
between the traffic mitigation fee for the new use or uses
and the traffic mitigation fee for the former use or uses
For any of the uses that cannot clearly be segregated into
separate categories, the traffic mitigation fee for the
unsegregative uses will be based on the mixed use traffic
mitigation fee formula
SECTION 3 Schedule of Development Impact Fees. Based upon the
foregoing calculations, the Traffic Improvement Fees are established as set forth
in the Fee Report. Trip Generation Factors are provided on Table 8A — 8C of
Exhibit "A "
Page 5 of 6
SECTION 4 Exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. This
Resolution is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act
(Cal Pub Res Code §§ 21000, et seq., "CEQA ") and CEQA regulations (Cal
Code Regs Title 14, §§ 15000, et seq.) because it establishes, structures, and
approves rates and charges to obtain funds for capital projects needed to
maintain service within existing service areas This Resolution, therefore, is
categorically exempt from further CEQA review under Cal Code Regs Title 14, §
15273
SECTION 5 Effective Date of this Resolution. The effective date of this
Resolution will coincide with the effective date of Ordinance N01389, and will
remain in effect unless repealed or superseded
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 119
ATTT�,E SAT y�
l�l7a[a1 ��7/Ii{LtfN1/t^ .d1�
Cindy Wrtesen,
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM
Mark D Henslaw -Ci�v Atto;
Karl H Bergor,
Assistant City Attorney
Page 6 of 6
TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE STUDY UPDATE
CITY OF EL SEGUNDO
FINAL
NOVEMBER 2, 2005
MuniFinancial
A WILLDAN COMPANY
Oakland Office
1700 Broadway Anaheim, CA Phoenix, AZ
6'" Floor Industry, CA San Diego, CA
Oakland, California 94612 Jacksonville, FL Seattle, WA
Tel (510) 832 -0899 Lancaster, CA Temecula, CA
Fax (510) 832 -0898 Oakland, CA Washington, DC
www muni.com
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TRAFFIC CONGESTION MITIGATION FEE UPDATE 1
Purpose of Study 1
Public Facilities Financing In California 2
Approach 3
MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS 5
Purpose of Fee 5
Use of Fee Revenues 5
Benefit Relationship 6
Burden Relationship 6
Proportionality 7
TRAFFIC DEMAND FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT 1 8
Facilities Standards
8
Land Use Scenario
8
Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth
9
Allocation of Fee Responsibility
11
Existing Agreements
15
Fee Schedule
16
Implementation
19
MuniFxnanctal i
City WEl Segundo Traffic Mitigation Fee Report
TRAFFIC CONGESTION MITIGATION FEE UPDATE
This report is an update to the Traffic Impact Fee report dated March 19, 1996. The
purpose of this update is to adjust the fee to reflect changes in project costs, project
phasing, updated land -use projections and modified traffic fee zones These changes, are
prompted, in part, by a revised and updated Circulation Element adopted by the City in
September, 2004 This updated element of the General Plan helps to inform and guide the
future traffic improvements in the City
This fee update is based on a 20 -year planning horizon for the roadway system in the City
of El Segundo Planned facilities to meet development needs over the next 20 years are
shown in Table E.
Table E: Planned Traffic Facilities
Project Description
1) Widening of Aviation Boulevard - Rosecrans to Imperial Highway (Add one lane in each direction)
2) Douglas Street Extension - Park Place to Alaska
3) Convert Nash /Douglas - Two -Way operating between Imperial and El Segundo Boulevard
4) Grand Extension - Duley to Douglas
5) Park Place Extension
6) Miscellaneous Signalization, Widening and Intersection improvements
Sources Kimley -Horn and Assoc, City of El Segundo, MuniFinancial
PURPOSE OF STUDY
The purpose of this update is to adjust the fee to reflect changes in project costs, project
phasing, updated land -use projections and modified traffic fee zones in response to a
revised and updated Circulation Element, as adopted by the City in September, 2004
This updated element of the General Plan helps to inform and guide the future traffic
improvements in the City
The primary policy objective of a development impact fee program, also known as a
public facilities fee program, is to ensure that new development pays the capital costs
associated with the facilities needed to serve the population growth caused by that new
development. To fulfill this objective, public agencies should periodically review the need
for public facilities fees to serve future growth
MuniFinancial 1
City ojEl Segundo Traffic Mzggation Fee Report
The primary purpose of this fee analysts report is to develop and recommend fees to
facilitate the construction of traffic facilities needed to serve a 2025 population for the City
of El Segundo. A planning horizon of 2025 was selected, as that year is soon enough to
provide reasonable growth projections, yet far enough into the future to provide the City
with the flexibility to adjust fees should actual growth either exceed, or be lower than, the
growth projections used in this report
The City can impose fees under authority granted by the Mitigation Fee Act contained in
California Government Code § §66000 - 66025 This report provides the necessary
findings required by the Act for adoption of the fees presented in the tables contained
herein. The five statutory findings required for adoption of the proposed fees in
accordance with the Act are summarized in the following section
The determination of fees begins with the selection of a planning horizon and
development of projections for population, workers and vehicular trips These
projections assist in determining a master plan and related facility standards necessary for
determining fees for necessary facilities. These growth projections are shown in Table 1.
Imposed fees are set for the following use classifications: Single Family, Multi- Family,
Commercial, Office, and Industrial, based on industry- standard density and traffic
generation standards
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING IN CALIFORNIA
The changing fiscal landscape in California during the past 30 years has steadily undercut
the financial capacity of local governments to fund infrastructure Three dominant trends
stand out
• The passage of a string of tax limitation measures, starting with Proposition 13 in
1978 and continuing through the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996,
• Declining popular support for bond measures to finance infrastructure for the
next generation of residents and businesses; and
• Steep reductions in federal and state assistance
Faced with these trends, many cities and counties have had to adopt a policy of "growth
pays its own way" This policy shifts the burden of funding infrastructure expansion from
existing rate and taxpayers onto new development This funding shift has been
accomplished primarily through the imposition of assessments, special taxes, and
development fees also known as public facilities fees. Assessments and special taxes
require approval of property owners and are appropriate when the funded facilities are
directly related to the developing property Development fees, on the other hand, are an
MuniFinancial 2
City ofEl Segundo Traffic Af... uon Fee Deport
appropriate funding source for facilities that benefit all development jurisdiction -wide
Development fees need only a majority vote of the legislative body for adoption
UMMEE ■i
Public facilities fees are calculated to fund the cost of facilities required to accommodate
growth The four steps followed in any development impact fee study include
1 Prepare growth projections;
2. Identify facility standards,
3 Determine the amount and cost of facilities required to accommodate new
development based on facility standards and growth projections,
4 Calculate the public facilities fee by allocating the total cost of facilities per unit
of development
Between steps #1 and #2 planned facilities are identified to serve new development These
data provides a basis for the facility standards used in this study. Fee revenues alone are
insufficient to fully fund all planned facilities The City of El Segundo will need to
identify other sources of funding including but not limited to. local taxes, general fund
revenues, regional, State, and federal transportation funds
TYPES OF F-AC /L /TY STANDARDS
The key public policy issue in development impact fee studies is the identification of
facility standards Facility standards determine new development's total need for new
facilities and each development project's fair share of those needs Standards also ensure
that new development does not fund deficiencies associated with existing development
The types of standards that may be used in a development impact fee study include.
• Demand standards determine the amount of facilities required to accommodate
growth, for example park acres per thousand residents, traffic level of service,
or gallons of water per day per dwelling unit
• Desagn standards determine how a facility should be designed to meet expected
demand, for example park improvement requirements, street intersection
design, and water storage needs.
• Cost standards determine the cost per unit of demand based on the estimated cost
of facilities, for example cost per capita, cost per vehicle trip, or cost per gallon
of water per day
MuniFznancial 3
City ofEl Segundo Traffic Mztigatzon Fee Report
DETERAwN/NG F-AaiuTy STANDARDS
The most commonly accepted approaches to determining a facility standard are described
below
• The existing inventory method uses a facility standard based on the ratio of
existing facilities to the existing service population Under this approach new
development funds the expansion of facilities at the same standard currently
serving existing development. By definition the existing inventory method
results in no facility deficiencies attributable to existing development This
method is often used when a long -range plan for new facilities is not available.
Only the initial facilities to be funded with fees are identified in the fee study.
Future facilities to serve growth are identified through an annual capital
improvement plan and budget process
• The master plan or system method calculates the standard based on the ratio of
all existing plus planned facilities to total future demand (existing and new
development). This method is used when (1) the local agency anticipates
increasing its facility standard above the existing inventory standard discussed
above, and (2) planned facilities are part of a system that benefit both existing
and new development. Using a facility standard that is higher than the existing
inventory standard creates a deficiency for existing development. The
jurisdiction must secure non -fee funding for that portion of planned facilities
required to correct the deficiency
• The planned facilities method calculates the standard solely based on the ratio
of planned facilities to the increase in demand associated with new development
This method is appropriate when planned facilities only benefit new
development, such as a sewer trunk line extension to a previously undeveloped
area This method also may be used when there are specific engineering reports
and studies that support the nexus between new development and the need for
the facility
In this report, the planned facility method is utilized for traffic fees in the City of El
Segundo
MunzFinancial 4
City ofEl Segundo Tragic Mztzgation Fee Repon
MITIGATION FEE ACT FINDINGS
Traffic facilities fees, also referred to as public facility fees, are one -time fees typically paid
when a building permit is issued and imposed on development projects by local agencies
responsible for regulating land use (cities and counties) To guide the widespread
imposition of public facilities fees, the State Legislature adopted the Mingatton Fee Act (the
Act) with Assembly Bill 1600 in 1987 and subsequent amendments The Act, contained in
California Government Code Sections 66000 through 66025, establishes requirements on
local agencies for the imposition and administration of fee programs The Act requires
local agencies to document five findings when adopting a fee
The five statutory findings required for adoption of the maximum justified public facilities
fees documented in this report are presented in this chapter and supported in detail by the
report that follows. All statutory references are to the Act
PURPOSE OF FEE
For the first finding the City must.
Identify the purpose of the fee ( §66001(a)(1))
The policy of the City of El Segundo is that new development will not burden existing
development with the cost of public facilities, including traffic facilities, required to
accommodate growth The purpose of the public facilities fee is to implement this policy
by providing a funding source from new development for capital improvements to serve
that development The fee advances a legitimate interest of the City by enabling the City
to provide municipal services to new development
USE OF FEE REVENUES
For the second finding the City must
Identify the use to which the fee is to be put If the use is financing public facilities,
the facilities shall be identified That identification may, but need not, be made by
reference to a capital improvement plan as specified in Section 65403 or 66002, may
be made in applicable general or specific plan requirements, or may be made in
other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is
charged ( §66001(a)(2))
The traffic facilities fee will fund expanded facilities to serve new development All
planned facilities will be located within the City of El Segundo. These facilities included
in the findings presented here include•
MuniFinancial
City of El Segundo Traffic Mitigation Fee Report
• Roadway widening,
• Roadway extension;
• Intersection signalization, and,
• Other roadway improvements in the City of El Segundo
Planned traffic facilities are identified in this report. This report provides the size and cost
estimate for each planned facility. More detailed descriptions of certain planned facilities,
including their specific location, if known at this time, are included in various City
planning documents including the General Plan Circulation Element and other studies.
The City may change the list of planned traffic facilities to meet changing circumstances
and needs, as it deems necessary The fee program should be updated if these changes
result in a significant change in the fair share cost allocated to new development Planned
facilities to address existing deficiencies in the roadway system represent approximately
5% of the total project costs It is estimated that 35% of project costs will be funded from
non -fee revenue. Therefore, development impact fees will not be used for the purpose of
correcting existing deficiencies in the roadway system
BENEFIT RELATIONSHIP
For the third finding the City must-
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the
type of development project on which the fee is imposed. ( §66001(a)(3))
The City will restrict fee revenues to the acquisition of land, construction of traffic
facilities, and purchase of related equipment to serve new development Public facilities
funded by the fee will provide a citywide network of services accessible to the additional
residents and workers associated with new development Thus, there is a reasonable
relationship between the use of fee revenues and the residential and nonresidential types of
new development that will pay the fee
The planned facilities that will be funded by the fee are described in the following chapter.
BURDEN RELATIONSHIP
For the fourth finding the City must.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public
facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed
( §66001(a) (4))
MuniFinancial 6
City o {El Segundo Traflic Muagation Fee Report
New dwelling units and building square footage are indicators of the demand for traffic
facilities needed to accommodate growth. As additional dwelling units and building
square footage are created, the occupants of these structures will place additional burdens
on the traffic facilities The need for the fee is based on traffic engineering reports
prepared by the City that quantify the expected traffic impacts of new development
PROPORTIONALITY
For the fifth finding the City must.
Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee
and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to
the development on which the fee is imposed ( §66001(b))
This reasonable relationship between the traffic impact fee for a specific development
project and the cost of the facilities attributable to that project is based on the estimated
vehicle trips the project will add to public roadways. The City has been divided into three
fee zones. These three zones are the subject of a computer traffic model to determine the
expected impacts of each zone on the traffic network and the need for new facilities The
total fee for a specific project is based on number of new dwelling units for residential
development and building square feet for commercial development The fee schedule
converts the units or estimated square footage of a development project into a fee based on
the size of the project and the fee zone in which it resides. Larger projects of a certain
land use type will have a higher trip generation and pay a higher fee than smaller projects
of the same land use type Thus, the fee schedule ensures a reasonable relationship
between the traffic impact fee for a specific development project and the cost of the
facilities attributable to that project
MuniFznancial 7
City of El Segundo Traffcmitigation Fee Report
TRAFFIC DEMAND FROM NEW DEVELOPMENT
This chapter summarizes an analysis of the need for traffic improvement facilities that
include roadway and intersection improvements, to accommodate new development The
chapter documents a reasonable relationship between new development and the impact fee
for funding of these facilities
FACILITIES STANDARDS
The City's traffic facility standards are based on a measure of congestion commonly used
in traffic planning and known as "level of service" (LOS). LOS is calculated based on the
volume of traffic on a roadway or at an intersection compared to the capacity of the
roadway or intersection. LOS "A," `B," and "C" suggest that delays are insignificant to
acceptable LOS "D" suggests tolerable delays though traffic is high and some short-term
back -ups occur. LOS "E" and "F" suggest restricted speeds and significant delays as traffic
volumes meet or exceed the capacity of the facility
The following policies present the performance standards acceptable to the City of El
Segundo
• Strive to maintain level of service (LOS) "D" or better on the City's arterials
• LOS "E" or "F" are not considered acceptable
Prevailing traffic conditions in the City were analyzed in conjunction with an updated
Circulation Element in September 2004 The study found that most roadways in the City
operate at LOS "C" or better Roadway segments currently at the standard LOS "D" and
"E" numbered four and two respectively. No roadway segments operate at LOS "F" A
number of intersections operate at LOS "E" and "F " Five intersections on Sepulveda
Boulevard operate at less than LOS "D," one on Rosencrans Avenue and one on Avaition
Boulevard
Existing roadways and intersections that do not meet City LOS standards are considered
existing deficiencies. For the purpose of this study, the planned facility approach has been
utilized to determine facility needs Because development impact fees may only be used to
fund the impacts of new development, existing deficiencies must be funded by other
funding sources Existing deficiencies are discussed later in this chapter and listed in Table
5.
LAND USE SCENARIO
The City of El Segundo General Plan is the basis for estimating future trips in this study
Based on the best available determination from the City of El Segundo, overall land use is
MuniFinancial 8
City of El Segundo Tragic Mitigation Fee Report
projected to reach 80 %O of remaining build out through the year 2025. Table 1 lists the
existing and projected land uses based on General Plan build out. Also shown are trip
forecasts by land use for both existing and buildout conditions. "P.M Trip Rate" refers to
the number of afternoon, peak - period trips generated by residential uses per unit and non-
residential uses per 1,000 square feet. The values used are industry standards derived by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers.
Table 1 Land Use Scenario and Total P M Peak Trips Citywide
P M Trip
Residential (Units)
Single Family 101
2,590
2,616
2609
2,635
19
19
Multi Family' 052
4,881
2,538
4,910
2,553
29
15
7471
5154
7,519
5,188
48
34
Non - Resual l (1,000 So Et)
Commercial Retail 375
1,172,267
4,396
2,708,800
10,158
1,536,533
5,762
Office' 149
16,436,913
24,491
24,802,013
37,104
8,465101
12,613
Light industrial 098
1,019,388
999
2,651,020
2,598
1,631,633
1599
Manufacturing 074
13117,568
9,707
12552,703
9,289
(564,865)
(418)
Warehousing 047
1106,383
520
1,251,064
588
144,681
68
32852518
40113
44065,600
59,737
11,213,083
19,624
Total P M Peak Trips'
32,859,989
46,105
44,073,119
65,763
11,213,130
19,668
Indudee aparlmeMS im wTiU no igroeM is projected in
the General Plan bufidW
2 Includes Commerce; Office Office and Mused Use
a The fddaxng non reaidendal land uses are dready at full
bindd-cu1 and are not listed
individually but inducted
in totals Govemment Once
School Pal Pest Once
Hom /MOtM Church Club or Lodge These lead uses represent 838 hot
Note TAZ 825 has been removed from the land use scenaou
above resulting in lower
office and munti
family Inns 1000 000 square feet of office is added due to die
Corporate Cell Pro, of
Sources Kimley Hine and Assoc June 8, 2005 Memo El Segundo General Plan City of 2 Segundo
FACILITY COSTS To ACCOMMODATE GROWTH
This update includes six projects to accommodate development in the City of El Segundo
through 2025 These projects are shown in Figure 1 and listed in Table 2 Project costs
are shown net of other available funds and existing fund balances.
Mun2F2nancial 9
Cate of El Segundo Traffic Mahgat:on Fee Report
C-10
9
F
I'
7
u
0
F-
a
Q
T O
W 2
CC
D 2
Q
I
E
Note. Transportation Improvement Projects shown are components of the adopted
Circulation Element.
MunzFinanczal Ip
City of Segundo Traffic Mitigation Fee Report
Table 2. Planned Traffic Facilities
Less Other Less Fund
Total 1996 Estimated Funding Balance Adjusted
Protect Description Cost 1 2005 Cost' Sources' Allocation Project Cost
Widening of Aviation Boulevard - Rosecrans to Imperial
Highway (Add one lane In each direction) $ 4,600,000 $ 12 000 000 $ 5,867,000 $ 397,201 $ 5 735 799
Widening of Sepulveda Boulevard - Rosecrans Avenue to
EI Segundo Boulevard (Add one lane In each direction) -
PROJECT COMPLETE 870,000 - - - -
Douglas Street Extension - Park Place to Alaska 9500,000 32,543,000 16,681,000 1 027 294 14 834 706
Convert Nash /Douglas - Two-Way operating between
Imperial and E/ Segundo Boulevard
Huges Way Extension - f E of Allred Way to Douglas
Street/Cora/ Circle Intersection - PROJECT REMOVED
Laapon Extension - Maple to Walnut - PROJECT
REMOVED'
Grand Extension - Duley to Douglas
500,000 1,900,000 1255,000 41773 603227
7,168 000 35,000 000
1,465,250 18,000,000 - -
3,678,000 7,200,000 6,200 000 64,764 935,236
Park Place Extension N/A 17,000,000 - 1,100,996 15,899,004
Miscellaneous Stgnali atlon, Widening and Intersection
Improvements 400,000 2185.000 - 141,510 2,043,490
Subtotal $ 28,181,000 $125,828,000 $ 30,003,000 $ 2,774,000 $ 40,051,000
Based on prior traffic impact fee report dated Marion 19 19%
z Coat estimates prorded by Me City of El Segundo Public Wodcs and Engineenng Department
3 Other sources of funding include regional State and Federal giants and other prefect- speagc allocabons
4 Proii removed from fee program based on City of El Segundo detmminabon that faahbea vnll not be required dunng be planning honoon of this fee program
Removed prelects represent 42% of the total gross fee costs
Note Exulting fund balance as of July 2005 allocated to all pmlects $ 2 773 539
Total, may not add due to munding
Sources, Evaluation of a Trablo Congestion Mulgat on Fee Report March 19 19% City of El Segundo Public ti I4mley Hom and Assoc
ALLOCATION OF FEE RESPONSIBILITY
In the process of creating the Circulation Element of the General Plan, the City of El
Segundo created a Traffic Model The Traffic Model was used to develop an approach for
allocating Traffic Mitigation Fee responsibility amongst future development The build -
out land use and network assumptions in the City's current Traffic Model are up to date,
as a result of the recently completed Circulation Element update effort by Kimley -Horn
and Associates The "No Land Use Change" alternative was used, which reflects General
Plan Build -out according to the land uses and Floor Area Ratios (FAR) allowed by current
zoning Only trips expected from future development in the City of El Segundo will be
subject to the fee program.
Select Link runs of the model were conducted for each of the improvement projects
included in the Fee Program A Select Link run allows isolation of the traffic on a
roadway segment where an improvement is planned, and to identify where the traffic that
Mun¢F2nancial 11
City ofEl Segundo TrafcMitiganon Fee Report
will be using each link is coming from With this information, the cost of the
improvement can be fairly apportioned according to which future developments will
benefit the most from it
For fee assignment purposes, there are four types of trips identified through each Select
Link process.
1 Trips that both start and end in the City of El Segundo
2 Trips that have an origin in the City of El Segundo, and a destination outside
the City,
3 Trips that have an origin outside the City of El Segundo, and a destination in
the City;
4 Trips that have neither an origin nor a destination in the City of El Segundo,
but are using a City street to pass through the City
Trip types that fall into Category 4 are "through" trips, and are not subject to the fee
program Although these through trips take up capacity on the roadway and thereby
contribute to the need for the improvement, local development cannot be held responsible
for the impact of through traffic on the transportation system.
The proportion of trips on the selected link that have neither an origin nor a destination
in the City will be applied to the cost of the improvement, and that portion of the
improvement cost will not be subject to the Traffic Mitigation Fee Program The portion
of the Fee Program that cannot be funded by local development will be the City's
responsibility, to be covered with other funding sources, such as local, state, and federal
grants, and local gas tax allocations
All other trip types with either an origin or destination or both in the City of El Segundo
are subject to the fee program Only trips expected from future development in the City
of El Segundo will be subject to the fee program Output from the Select Link process
was used to identify the proportion of each improvement that should be assigned to each
fee zone Area in the City, based on the number of trips from each future development
that uses the selected link. The final fee structure for each fee zone area is based on the
average of the proportioned fees for each of the Fee Program improvements Fee zones in
the City of El Segundo are shown in Figure 2.
MunzFinancial 12
City of El Segundo Tragic Mitigation Fee Report
0
s
m
W
H
cn
}
W
J
a
z
O
N
co
M
J
Q
z
Q
W
N
�0
�CL
MuntFinancial 13
E
City of El Segundo Traffic Mitigation Fee Report
Based on the methodology discussed above, protect costs were allocated to the fee zones as
shown in Table 3.
Table 3 Allocation of Internal Trips by Project by Zone
Park Place Extension 15 899 004 100% 0% 15 899 004 9998% 000% 002%
Miscellaneous Signaitzatlon Widening and
Intersection improvements 2.043.490 80% 20% 1.634.792 10000% 000% 000%
Subtotal $ 40,051,000 $35,735,000
Alocalmns and trip shares based on here model output papered by Klmley Horn and Assoc Sed.orter 2005
Note Totals may not add due to rouni
sources Tades t & 2 Kvfya -Homo aM Assoc day of El Seputpo MumFlnanual
Based on the allocations provided by the Select Link model run, Table 4 lists the
distribution of project costs to fee zones
Table 4: Allocation of Project Costs by Zone
Allocation of Project Costs by Zone
Project Cost
Subject to
Fee Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Widening of Aviation Boulevard - Rosecrans to
Imperial Highway (Add one lane In each direction)
$ 3,000,160
Douglas Street Extension - Park Place to Alaska
Allocation of New Internal Trips by Zone'
Convert Nash /Douglas - Two-Way operating
between Imperial and El Segundo Boulevard
577,403
Project Cost
849,965
Park Place Extension
15,899,004
Miscellaneous Slgnalizatlon, Widening and
Adjusted
Internal
External
Subject to
$35,735,000
Protect D riptl
Project Cost
Share'
Share'
Fee
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Widening of Aviation Boulevard - Rosecrans to
Imperial Highway (Add one lane in each direction)
$ 5735799
52%
48%
$ 3000160
9995%
003%
003%
Douglas Street Fxtension - Park Place to Alaska
14 834 706
93%
7%
13 773 996
9998%
000%
002%
Convert Nash /Douglas - Two-Way operating
between Imperial and El Segundo Boulevard
603227
96%
4%
577,403
9997%
001%
001%
Grand Eclenslon - Daley to Douglas
935236
91%
9%
849965
9980%
002%
017%
Park Place Extension 15 899 004 100% 0% 15 899 004 9998% 000% 002%
Miscellaneous Signaitzatlon Widening and
Intersection improvements 2.043.490 80% 20% 1.634.792 10000% 000% 000%
Subtotal $ 40,051,000 $35,735,000
Alocalmns and trip shares based on here model output papered by Klmley Horn and Assoc Sed.orter 2005
Note Totals may not add due to rouni
sources Tades t & 2 Kvfya -Homo aM Assoc day of El Seputpo MumFlnanual
Based on the allocations provided by the Select Link model run, Table 4 lists the
distribution of project costs to fee zones
Table 4: Allocation of Project Costs by Zone
Allocation of Project Costs by Zone
Project Cost
Subject to
Fee Zone 1 Zone 2 Zone 3
Widening of Aviation Boulevard - Rosecrans to
Imperial Highway (Add one lane In each direction)
$ 3,000,160
Douglas Street Extension - Park Place to Alaska
13,773,996
Convert Nash /Douglas - Two-Way operating
between Imperial and El Segundo Boulevard
577,403
Grand Extension - Duley to Douglas
849,965
Park Place Extension
15,899,004
Miscellaneous Slgnalizatlon, Widening and
Intersection Improvements
1.634.792
Subtotal
$35,735,000
may
Sources Tables 1 2 & 3 Klmley -Hom and Assoc City of El Segundo MuniFlnanolal
$ 2,998,550 $ 805 $ 805
13,771,363 - 2,634
577,237 83 83
848,297 196 1,472
15,896,390 - 2,614
1.634.792 -
$ 35,727,000 $ 1,000 $ 8,000
MuniFinanczal 14
City ofEl Segundo Traffic Mitigation Fee Report
The preceding tables demonstrate the methodology utilized to allocate costs of the
planned facilities to the fee program and each of the three zones Table 5 addresses the
allocation of project cost attributable to new development.
Table 5: New Development Contribution to Planned Traffic
Facilities
Protect Costs
Gross Project Costs 72,828,000
Project Cost Subject to Fee Program 35,735,000
Existing Fund Balance 2,774,000
Subtotal 38,509,000
Percentage of Costs Paid by New Development 53%
Protects Addressing Existing Deficiencies
Aviation Boulevard Widening - Estimated 15% of project
attributable to deficiency $ 1,800,000
Miscellaneous Slgnallzatlon, Widening and Intersection
Improvements 2,185,000
Subtotal $ 3,985,000
Percentage of Costs Attributable to Existing Deficiencies 5%
Note Totals may not add due to rounding
Sources Tables 2, 3 & 4, Kimley -Horn and Assoc, City of El Segundo Circulation Element,
MuniFinancial
As shown in the table above, new development is paying approximately 53% of project
costs through impact fees The remainder of funds will come from City general revenues,
regional, State, and federal funding sources
As discussed earlier, the City of El Segundo has identified existing roadway deficiencies in
the Circulation Element of the General Plan. Development impact fees may not be used
to fund these "existing deficiencies." As shown in the table above, these deficiencies
represent approximately 5% of the total project costs and are fully covered by funding
sources other than development impact fees
EXISTING AGREEMENTS
The City of El Segundo entered into development agreements with a number of
developers who are entitled to build large development projects within the City
Development Agreements are commonly used by cities throughout the State to better
MunzFinancial 15
City of El Segundo Trafric mitigation Fee Report
plan and set the terms for large developments within the land use jurisdiction of the City
Because these agreements are in place prior to the adoption of a traffic mitigation fee, these
developments will not be subject to the fee It is necessary, therefore to adjust both future
trips and project costs to reflect these agreements. Known development agreements in the
City of El Segundo are shown in Table 6
Table 6: Existing Development Agreements in Zone 1
Fee P.M. Peak
Existing Development Agreement Contribution Trips
El Segundo Corporate Campus
Mattel North @ Continental Way
Mattel North @ Grand Avenue
Subtotal
$ 2,386,385 2,795
433,164 447
298,783 260
$ 3,118,000 3,502
Note Fee contributions and trip assumptions are based on development agreements executed between
the City of El Segundo and the parties listed above Totals may not add due to rounding
Sources Kimley -Horn and Assoc, City of El Segundo, MuniFinancial
FEE SCHEDULE
Table 7 shows the calculated equity (cost) per P.M. peak trip. For projects with a prepared
traffic study and trip generation projections from an engineer, the fee can be calculated by
multiplying the equity per trip by the number of trips that will be generated The
subsequent tables, Tables 8A, B, and C, show fees per dwelling unit for residential
developments and per square foot for nonresidential uses. These values will be useful for
projects that lack specific trip generation projections.
The fee also includes an administrative charge of 10 percent to fund.
• A standard overhead charge for legal, accounting, and other departmental and
citywide administrative support,
• Capital planning, programming, project management costs associated with the
share of projects funded by the impact fee; and
• Impact fee program administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue
and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee justification analyses
MuniFinanctal 16
City ofEl Segundo Traffic Matigation Fee Report
Table 7: Equity Per Trip
Equity Per P M Peak Trip
Administrative Fee of 1 %3
Total Equity per Trip
$ 2,539 $ 104 $
25
$ 2,564 $
115
1 1
105 $ 116
'Total P M Peak Trips based on City of El Segundo General Plan Circulation Element Allocation among zones based on
Kimley -Horn Associates traffic model
i New trips in Table 1 represent total new trips at General Plan Buildout Based on 20 year time horizon, study assumes
80% of General Plan Buildout based on City of El Segundo planning estimates
3 Administration fee equal to 1 0 percent of base fee to fund (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for
legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, protect
management costs associated with the share of protects funded by the impact fee, and (3) impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee
justification analyses
Sources Tables 1, 4 and 6, Kimley -Horn and Assoc, City of El Segundo
Based on the equity per trip calculated above, Tables 8 A, B, and C show the traffic impact
fee for the three respective zones
Table 8A: Traffic Facilities Fee Zone 1
Equity Per P M. Trip
Land Use Trip Rate Fee Fee / Sq. Ft.
Nonresidential (per 1 000 square feet)
Commercial $ 2,564 375 $ 9,615 $ 961
Office 2,564 1 49 3,820 382
Industrial 2,564 098 2,513 251
Sources Table 7, ITE Manual, Kimley -Horn Assoc, City of El Segundo, MuniFinanaal
MuniFinanczal 17
Zone 1
Zone 2
Zone 3
Total
TnpS
New P M Peak Trips at Buildout
19,559
12
87
19,658
Less Existing Agreements
(3,502)
-
(3,502)
Subtotal
16,057
12
87
16,156
New Trips at 80% Buildout 2
12,846
10
70
12,925
Fee Program Protect Costs
Allocated Project Costs
$ 35,727,000 $
1,000 $
8,000
$ 35,736,000
Less Existing Agreements
(3,118,000)
-
(3,118,000)
Subtotal
$ 32,609,000 $
1,000 $
8,000
$ 32,618,000
Equity Per P M Peak Trip
Administrative Fee of 1 %3
Total Equity per Trip
$ 2,539 $ 104 $
25
$ 2,564 $
115
1 1
105 $ 116
'Total P M Peak Trips based on City of El Segundo General Plan Circulation Element Allocation among zones based on
Kimley -Horn Associates traffic model
i New trips in Table 1 represent total new trips at General Plan Buildout Based on 20 year time horizon, study assumes
80% of General Plan Buildout based on City of El Segundo planning estimates
3 Administration fee equal to 1 0 percent of base fee to fund (1) a standard overhead charge applied to all City programs for
legal, accounting, and other departmental and citywide administrative support, (2) capital planning, programming, protect
management costs associated with the share of protects funded by the impact fee, and (3) impact fee program
administrative costs including revenue collection, revenue and cost accounting, mandated public reporting, and fee
justification analyses
Sources Tables 1, 4 and 6, Kimley -Horn and Assoc, City of El Segundo
Based on the equity per trip calculated above, Tables 8 A, B, and C show the traffic impact
fee for the three respective zones
Table 8A: Traffic Facilities Fee Zone 1
Equity Per P M. Trip
Land Use Trip Rate Fee Fee / Sq. Ft.
Nonresidential (per 1 000 square feet)
Commercial $ 2,564 375 $ 9,615 $ 961
Office 2,564 1 49 3,820 382
Industrial 2,564 098 2,513 251
Sources Table 7, ITE Manual, Kimley -Horn Assoc, City of El Segundo, MuniFinanaal
MuniFinanczal 17
City o {El Segundo Traffic Mitigation Fee Report
Table 8B: Traffic Facilities Fee Zone 2
Equity Per P.M. Trip
Land Use Trip Rate Fee Fee / Sq. Ft.
Residential (oer dwellina unit
Single Family
$ 104
1 01 $
105
Multi - family
104
060
63
Nonresidential (per
1 000 square feet)
Commercial
$ 104
375 $
391 $ 039
Office
104
149
155 016
Industrial
104
098
102 010
Sources Table 7, ITE Manual, Kimley -Horn Assoc , City of El Segundo, MuniFinancial
Table 8C: Traffic Facilities Fee Zone 3
Equity Per P.M. Trip
Land Use Trip Rate Fee Fee I So. Ft.
Residential (oer dwellina unit
Single Family
$ 115
1 01 $
116
Multi - family
115
060
69
Nonresidential (per
1,000 square feet)
Commercial
$ 115
375 $
431 $ 043
Office
115
149
171 017
Industrial
115
098
113 Oil
Sources Table 7, ITE Manual, Kimley -Horn Assoc, City of El Segundo, MuniFinancial
MuniFinancial 18
Cary o %El Segundo Traffic Af --lzon Fee Report
IMPLEMENTATION
This section identifies tasks that the City should complete when implementing the fee
programs
COLJNC /L ADOPT /ON
The City Council should adopt the proposed fee schedule in compliance with California
Government Code Sections 66016 through 66018. The City should•
• Send a notice of a public hearing at least 14 days prior to the hearing to any party
that has submitted a written request for such a notice Have this report and all
supporting documentation such as the updated facility master plans available
for review by the public at least 10 days prior to the hearing;
• Hold the public hearing to consider adoption of the fee schedule,
• Adopt an implementing ordinance to establish the City's authority to impose the
proposed fee and automatically adjust the fee annually for inflation, and adopt a
resolution to set the fee based on the proposed fee schedule,
• Begin collecting the fee no sooner than 60 days following adoption of the
ordinance and resolution.
FEE ACCL7LIN7-1NG
The City should deposit fee revenues into existing restricted fee accounts for each traffic
facility zone Interest earned on fund balances should be credited to the fund
PRO&RAMM/NL3 REVENLJES
The City should annually update the plan to program all existing fund balances and
projected fee revenue to specific capital projects The City should only use fee revenues
for projects that expand the City's ability to expand traffic facilities to accommodate new
development Use of the fees in this manner documents a reasonable relationship between
new development and the use of fee revenues Programming all fund balances and fees to
specific projects also ensures that the City will not violate the statutory limitation against
holding undesignated fee revenues longer than five years
The City should update its facility master plans as its needs change The City may alter
the scope of the planned projects, or substitute new projects as long as the project
continues to represent an expansion of the City's general public facility capabilities If the
total cost of all planned projects varies from the total cost used as a basis for the fee, the
City should revise the fee accordingly.
MunzFinanctal 19
Cary of El Segundo Taff IC Matagataon Fee Report
/DENT /FY NON-FEE REVENUE SOURCES
The City should identify non -fee revenue sources necessary to fully fund the program.
The City should take any actions necessary to secure those funds The City will need to
identify the source and tinung of these revenues every five years as part of statutory
reporting requirements (see Reporting Requirements, below)
/NFLAT /ON AO✓USTMENT
The City should adjust the fee annually for inflation in the cost of projects to be funded
by the fee. A construction cost index should be based on a reputable and easily
identifiable source such as the Engineering News Record.
REPORT /N[3 REQU/REMENTS
The City should comply with the annual and five -year reporting requirements of
Government Code 66000 et seq Annually the City must identify the fee revenues received
and for what purposes they were expended For facilities to be funded with a combination
of impact fees and other revenues, every five years the City must identify the source and
amount of the other revenues The City must also identify when the other revenues are
anticipated to be available to fund the project
MuniFinancial 20