Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAboutOrdinances 1077-1099ORDINANCE NO. 1077 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AND LV HEARTLAND LLC (PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTIONS 65864 - 65869.5) WHEREAS, in order to strengthen the public planning process, to encourage private participation in comprehensive planning, and to reduce the economic risks of development, the Legislature of the State of California has adopted sections 65864 through 65869.5 of the Government Code which authorize the City of Beaumont (hereinafter referred to as the "City") to enter into a Development Agreement. WHEREAS, the City, by adopting Resolution No. 1987-34, has adopted rules and regulations establishing procedures and requirements for the consideration of development agreements. WHEREAS, Heartland Beaumont California L.T.D. ("Original Developer") and the City previously entered into that certain Development Agreement with respect to the Property, as defined therein, which was adopted by the City on October 11, 1993, pursuant to Ordinance No. 726, and which became effective in accordance with its terms on December 9, 1993 (the "Original Development Agreement"). WHEREAS, the Original Development Agreement was recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County, California (the "Official Records") on December 9, 1993, as Instrument Number 490898. All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Original Development Agreement. WHEREAS, Temecula Valley, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as successor -in - interest to Original Developer, assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the Original Development Agreement to SunCal Heartland LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("SunCal"), pursuant to that certain Assignment of Development Agreement dated May 26, 2005, and recorded in the Official Records on May 26, 2005, as Instrument Number 2005- 0419668 (the "SunCal Assignment"). WHEREAS, SunCal, through its Chapter 11 bankruptcy estate, subsequently assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the Original Development Agreement to Owner, as designee of SunCal's creditor Lehman ALI Inc., a Delaware corporation, pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated April 27, 2012 (the "Bankruptcy Court Assignment"). The Original Development Agreement is listed as item 1 of Exhibit A to the Bankruptcy Court Assignment, under the heading "Assumed Executory Contracts." WHEREAS, the applicant proposed and submitted and City Staff has reviewed and negotiated an Amendment to Development Agreement ("Amendment") between the City and the Owner to govern development of the Property. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of Beaumont by its recommendation of approval of said Development Agreement adopted on October 27, 2016, has made the following findings relative to the proposed Development Agreement between the City and the Owner of the Property: 1. The proposed Amendment is consistent with the objectives, policies, general land uses and programs specified in the General Plan; 2. The proposed Amendment facilitates land uses which are compatible with the uses authorized in, and the regulations prescribed for, the land use districts in which the real property is located; 3. The proposed Amendment is in conformity with public convenience, general welfare and good land use practice; 4. The proposed Amendment will not be detrimental to the health, safety and general welfare; 5. The proposed Amendment will not adversely affect the orderly development of Property or the preservation of property values; 6. The proposed Amendment will facilitate quality master planned development which will aid in the economic development of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Beaumont has reviewed the reasons for the recommendation of approval by the Planning Commission as included in the materials submitted by them to the City Council accompanying said recommendation; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing as required by law was conducted by the Planning Commission of the City of Beaumont on October 27, 2016, and a duly noticed public hearing as required by law was conducted by the City Council of the City of Beaumont on November 1st 2016; THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION I: It has been determined that: A. The provisions of the Amendment between the City of Beaumont and the applicant are consistent with the General Plan; and B. The Amendment complies with all applicable zoning, subdivision and building regulations and with the General Plan of the City of Beaumont; and C. The Amendment states the duration of the Amendment to be a period not to exceed ten years with a possible option to extend for an additional five years, sets forth the uses of the property, and the density and intensity of use, and sets forth the maximum height and size of proposed buildings and provides for the reservation, dedication and improvement of land for public facility uses. SECTION 2: The Amendment to Development Agreement between the City of Beaumont and LV Heartland, LLC is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is approved and the Mayor of the City of Beaumont is authorized and directed to execute said Amendment to Development Agreement on behalf of the City of Beaumont on or after the date when by law this Ordinance shall take effect SECTION 3: This Ordinance shall take effect thirty (30) days after its final passage and within fifteen (15) days after its passage the City Clerk shall cause a summary to be published in the Press Enterprise, a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City of Beaumont in the manner prescribed by law for publishing of ordinances of said City. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 1st day of November, 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Orozco, Knight, Condon, White, Lara NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 15th day of November, 2016. AYES: Orozco, Knight, Condon, White, Lara NOES: None ABSENT: None AB T: 1 • one L Ike ayor (Seal) Attest: RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Beaumont Attention: City Clerk 550 East 6th Street Beaumont, CA 92223 (SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE) APNs: 414-380-001 THROUGH 414-380-069; 414-390-001 THROUGH 414-390-059; 414- 400-001 THROUGH 414-400-084; 414-410-001 THROUGH 414-410-073; 414-110-048; 414- 420-001 THROUGH 414-420-072; 414-430-001 THROUGH 414-430-063; 414-440-001 THROUGH 414-440-083; 414-450-001 THROUGH 414-450-062; 414-460-001 THROUGH 414-460-040; 414-470-001 THROUGH 414-470-072; 414-480-001 THROUGH 414-480-081; 414-490-001 THROUGH 414-490-066; 414-500-001 THROUGH 414-500-067; 414-110-056 THROUGH 414-110-064; 414-100-039; AND 414-100-040. FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT This FIRST AMENDMENT TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (hereinafter this "Amendment") is entered into as of November 15 , 2016 (the "Effective Date"), by and between THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA (the "City"), and LV HEARTLAND LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (the "Owner"). This Amendment is entered into with reference to the following Recitals: RECITALS A. Owner owns in fee that certain unimproved real property consisting of approximately four hundred seventeen (417) acres located in the City of Beaumont, County of Riverside, State of California, which property is more fully described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein (the "Property"). B. Heartland Beaumont California L.T.D. ("Original Developer") and the City previously entered into that certain Development Agreement with respect to the Property, which was adopted by the City on October 11, 1993, pursuant to Ordinance No. 726, and which became effective in accordance with its terms on December 9, 1993 (the "Original Development Agreement"). The Original Development Agreement was recorded in the Official Records of Riverside County, California (the "Official Records") on December 9, 1993, as Instrument Number 490898. All capitalized terms used but not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings ascribed to such terms in the Original Development Agreement. C. Temecula Valley, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, as successor -in - interest to Original Developer, assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the Original Development Agreement to SunCal Heartland LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ("SunCal"), pursuant to that certain Assignment of Development Agreement dated May 26, 2005, and recorded in the Official Records on May 26, 2005, as Instrument Number 2005- 0419668 (the "SunCal Assignment"). D. SunCal, through its Chapter 11 bankruptcy estate, subsequently assigned all of its right, title, and interest in the Original Development Agreement to Owner, as designee of SunCal's creditor Lehman ALI Inc., a Delaware corporation, pursuant to that certain Assignment and Assumption Agreement dated April 27, 2012 (the "Bankruptcv Court Assignment"). The Original Development Agreement is listed as item 1 of Exhibit "A" to the Bankruptcy Court Assignment, under the heading "Assumed Executory Contracts." E. SunCal, through its Chapter 11 bankruptcy estate, and the City entered into that certain Memorandum of Understanding dated April 7, 2009 (the "Original Memorandum of Understanding"), which, among other things, contemplated that the City would acquire bridge materials from the Chapter 11 estate, and perform the environmental mitigation project. F. Contemporaneously with entering into this Amendment the City and Owner are entering into that certain Settlement, Waiver, and Release Agreement (the "Settlement Agreement") whereby the parties release one another from certain claims as provided therein. 2 102109139.10 G. Contemporaneously with entering into this Amendment the City and Owner are also entering into that certain Memorandum of Understanding (the "New Memorandum of Understanding") to, amongst other things, terminate the Original Memorandum of Understanding, as defined therein. H. City and Owner now desire to amend the Original Development Agreement to, among other terms, extend the term of the Original Development Agreement, cooperate in the formation of a new community facilities district, and provide for payment to the City as provided therein. I. Prior to entering into this Amendment, the City complied with all legal requirements for notice, public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters necessary as a condition precedent to entering into this Amendment with Owner, including without limitation the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above Recitals and of the mutual covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby agree as follows: 1. No Default. The City hereby confirms that (a) the Original Development Agreement, as assigned pursuant to the SunCal Assignment and the Bankruptcy Court Assignment and as amended by this Amendment (collectively, the "Development Agreement"), is in full force and effect and (b) to the best of City's knowledge no breach or default exists under the Development Agreement, nor has any act or omission occurred which, solely as a result of the giving of notice or passage of time, or both, would constitute a breach or default under the Development Agreement. 2. "Owner" Defined. (a) Section 1.1.17 of the Original Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "Owner" means LV Heartland LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, and its successors in interest to all or any part of the Property. (b) Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in Section 2.7 of the Original Development Agreement, all notices to Owner shall be delivered as follows: LV Heartland LLC c/o Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. 3121 Michelson Drive, Suite 200 Irvine, California 92612 Attention: Eric Hoffman E-mail: eric.hoffnian@lehmanholdings.com with a copy to: 102109139.10 3 LV Heartland LLC c/o Lehman Brothers Holdings Inc. 1271 Avenue of the Americas, 40th Floor New York, New York 10020 Attention: Peter Campbell E-mail: peter.campbell@lehmanholdings.com with a copy to: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP 333 South Grand Avenue, Suite 4900 Los Angeles, California 90071 Attention: Douglas M. Champion, Esq. E-mail: dchampion@gibsondunn.com 3. "Property" Defined. Exhibit "A" of the Original Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 4. Term. Section 2.3 of the Original Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "Term. The term of this Agreement (the "Term") shall commence on the Effective Date and shall expire on December 9, 2028 (the "Expiration Date"). The Expiration Date shall be subject to a single option to extend the Expiration Date by an additional term of five (5) years provided that Owner has obtained building permits for at least five hundred (500) residential lots within the Project prior to the initial Expiration Date. 5. Exactions. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary set forth in the Original Development Agreement, including without limitation Section 3.7.1(d) therein, the Project shall be subject to all Development Exactions levied by the City against the Project and those imposed by the City on behalf of any other public agency including, but not limited to Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fees ("TUMF") and Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP") fees, at the rate as required at the time such fees are due and payable, which shall be at the time of issuance of building permits, or otherwise as specified by applicable law. 6. Consideration. In consideration of the mutual covenants, conditions, and agreements in this Amendment, Owner shall remit to City a fee of three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) which shall be due and payable at the earlier to occur of (a) the time of the close of escrow of the sale of the Property by Owner to a third -party purchaser ("Buyer"), and (b) February 28, 2017. City hereby consents to the transfer of the Property to Buyer to the extent such consent is required by the terms of the Original Development Agreement. City further consents to the assignment by Owner to Buyer or its designee of that certain Deposit Agreement for Expenses 4 102109139.10 Incurred, dated May 13, 2014, by and among Riverside -Corona Resource Conservation District, City, and Owner. Notwithstanding the forgoing provisions of this Section 6, if City has not timely received the sum of three million dollars ($3,000,000.00) from Owner as provided in this Section 6, this Amendment, the Settlement Agreement and New Memorandum of Understanding will not take effect, and shall be deemed null and void ab initio. 7. Water Well. Section 4.3.1 of the Original Development Agreement is hereby deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: "The City acknowledges that Owner's predecessor -in -interest previously executed a Bill of Sale for a water well ("Well") located on the Property which Owner believes currently exists on Parcel 14 of Parcel Map 34880. However, City makes no representation or warranty regarding the legal status or effect of such Bill of Sale as it pertains to the ownership and title to the Well or the underlying water rights. The Owner may only make use of the Well for irrigation and construction water on the Property and any habitat mitigation land associated with the Project and not for any other or offsite use. Concurrent with Owner's payment of the amounts set forth in Section 6, the City agrees, at no cost to City, to execute a Bill of Sale to convey whatever title is held by the City to the Well back to Owner in its "AS IS, WHERE IS" condition, and to cooperate with Owner, at no cost to City, in Owner's efforts to make such use of the Well and, to that end, shall cooperate with the Owner, at no cost to City, in good faith in Owner's efforts with any requisite public agencies with jurisdiction over the Well, including but not limited to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife ("CDFW"), the Beaumont Cherry Valley Water District ("BCV WD"), and any other public agencies having jurisdiction over such matters, as applicable. Owner agrees to hold harmless and release City from and against any claims, actions, liability, or costs associated with conveying whatever title is held by the City in the Well to Owner." 8. Relinquishment of Offer of Dedication. The Parties acknowledge that Parcel Map 34880 contains offers of dedication to the City for part or all of Parcel 15 and Parcel 17. The City has not accepted this offer of dedication, and hereby relinquishes its right to do so provided that Owner conveys Parcel 15 and Parcel 17 for conservation purposes as required by CDFW and in compliance with all land use entitlements and conditions of approval applicable to the Property. 9. Assumption of Mitigation Obligation. (a) City assigns, and Owner assumes, any remaining habitat mitigation obligations under that certain Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Heartland Project dated November 20, 2006 (as amended, the "HMMP") subject to the approval of CDFW. Promptly following the execution of this Amendment, the City and Owner shall diligently pursue approval by CDFW of an assignment and assumption agreement whereby the City assigns, and Owner assumes, any remaining obligations, including, but not limited to, habitat mitigation obligations under the HMMP. The form of such documentation shall be reasonably acceptable to both City and Owner. In the event that CDFW does not so approve the assignment and assumption by Owner of the HMMP and/or during the period while the assignment and assumption of the HMMP is pending with CDFW, City shall not be obligated to comply with the terms of the HMMP unless Owner advances the costs of compliance with the terms of the 5 102109139.10 HMMP to the City or undertakes such compliance efforts on behalf of the City subject to its reasonable approval. (b) In the event that part of the Property is transferred and the Property is held by two or more parties (other than residential purchasers) all of the parties shall be jointly and severally liable under the Development Agreement. 10. Formation of New Community Facilities District. The provisions set forth in Exhibit "B" attached hereto are incorporated herein by reference. All terms and conditions regarding the New CFD (as defined in Exhibit "B") shall be governed by Exhibit "B". References in the Development Agreement to the "CFD" refer to CFD No. 93-1 only and shall not affect the provisions regarding the New CFD in Exhibit "B". 11. HOA Maintenance Obligations. In connection with Owner or its successors and assigns entering into a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions for the Property ("CC&Rs") as and when required by the conditions of approval of the Heartland Specific Plan, the residential property owners' association described in such CC&Rs (the "Association") shall assume responsibility, at the Association's sole cost and expense, for all of the onsite maintenance obligations for the Project including but not limited to those set forth on Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference (the "Assumed Maintenance Obligations"). The Assumed Maintenance Obligations shall be expressly set forth in the CC&Rs, and the provision of the CC&Rs related to such Assumed Maintenance Obligations shall be subject to the prior written approval of the City Planning Director, in consultation with the City Attorney, and not be amended without the written consent of the City Planning Director, such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, conditioned, or delayed. 12. Lien Contracts. City agrees that Owner and its successors and assigns may utilize lien contracts pursuant to California Government Code Section 66499(a)(4) in lieu of bonds as security under the Subdivision Improvement Agreements executed in connection with the Project. Such lien contracts shall provide that prior to obtaining any ministerial permit for the Project, including a grading or building permit, or prior to commencing the installation and construction of any portion of the Improvements required by a Subdivision Improvement Agreement, Owner shall deposit any application or inspection fees, if any such fees are required under City regulations, applicable law, or ordinance, and Owner shall substitute payment and performance bonds within the entirety of the applicable Tract, for any other improvements which are needed for ingress and egress to the Tract and improvements which are amenities, utilities and other improvements which are related to such Tract in amounts satisfactory to the City in place of the lien contract, and at such time the City shall release the applicable lien contract and the City's lien associated therewith. The lien contracts shall be recorded in a first position ahead of any other mortgage, deed of trust, lien or encumbrance other than the lien for taxes and assessments not yet due and payable. The City shall not be required at any time to subordinate the lien contracts to any mortgage, deed of trust or other lien or encumbrance. 13. Recordation of Amendment: Runs with the Land. This Amendment shall be recorded in the Official Records by City. This Amendment shall run with the land and bind the successors and assigns of Owner. 6 102109139.10 14. Severability . If any term, provision, covenant or condition of this Amendment shall be determined invalid, void or unenforceable, the remainder of this Amendment shall not be affected thereby to the extent such remaining provisions are not rendered impractical to perform taking into consideration the purposes of this Amendment. 15. Interpretation and Governing Law. This Amendment and any dispute arising hereunder shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Amendment shall be construed as a whole according to its fair language and common meaning to achieve the objectives and purposes of the parties hereto, and the rule of construction to the effect that ambiguities are to be resolved against the drafting party shall not be employed in interpreting this Amendment, all parties having been represented by counsel in the negotiation and preparation hereof. 16. Section Headings. All section headings and subheadings are inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this Amendment. 17. Singular and Plural. As used herein, the singular of any word includes the plural. 18. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of the provisions of this Amendment as to which time is an element. 19. Waiver. Failure by a party to insist upon the strict performance of any of the provisions of this Amendment by the other party, or the failure by a party to exercise its rights upon the default of the other party, shall not constitute a waiver of such party's right to insist and demand strict compliance by the other party with the terms of this Amendment thereafter. 20. No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Amendment is made and entered into for the sole protection and benefit of the parties and their successors and assigns. No other person shall have any right to action based upon any provision of this Amendment. 21. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed by the parties in counterparts, which counterparts shall be construed together and have the same effect as if all of the parties had executed the same instrument. 22. Approval. This Amendment shall not become effective until it has been approved by both parties and executed by their duly authorized representatives. In the case of City, approval requires compliance with the Development Agreement amendment process contained in Government Code Sections 65867, 65867.5 and 65868 including a notice of intent, public hearing and adoption by an ordinance. 23. Interpretation. Except as specifically amended by this Amendment, the Original Development Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. To the extent of any inconsistency between this Amendment and the Original Development Agreement, this Amendment shall control. The Recitals to this Amendment are hereby incorporated herein by reference. [signatures on following page] 7 102109139.10 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment on the day and year first set forth above. CITY? CITY OF BEAUMONT OWNER: 102109139.10 Attest: LV HEARTLAND LLC By: LV M/H Ventures LLC, a DE LLC, its managing member By: Name: Title: 8 lonat a' C31var` Authorized WOW/ STATE OF NEW YORK ) ) ss.: COUNTY OF NEW YORK ) On the o2.5 ' dzy of�i lrl ,�L I in the year 2016 before me, the undersigned, personally appeared ,JOY f gird fl , personally known to me or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the individual whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she executed the same in his/her capacity, and that by his/her signature on the instrument, the individual, or the person or entity upon behalf of which the individ . acted, executed the instrument. Signature and Offic individual taking acknowledgm• nt CHRISM NEBRONII NOTARY PUBLIC, STATE OF NEW YORK NO.0INE6327770 QUALIFIED IN QUEENS COUNTY MY COMMISSION EXPIRES JUL 13, 2019 EXHIBIT A Legal Description THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: PARCEL 1: (414-380-001 THROUGH 414-380-069) LOTS 1 THROUGH 69, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH F, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-1, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 443, PAGES 95 THROUGH 99, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 2: (414-390-001 THROUGH 414-390-059) LOTS 1 THROUGH 59, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-2, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 443, PAGES 100 THROUGH 104, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 3: (414-400-001 THROUGH 414-400-084) LOTS 1 THROUGH 84, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH F, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-3, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 444, PAGES 1 THROUGH 5, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 4: (414-410-001 THROUGH 414-410-073) LOTS 1 THROUGH 73, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH F, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-4, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 444, PAGES 6 THROUGH 9, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 5: (414-110-048) LOTS 1 THROUGH 127, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH J, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-5, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 448, PAGES 58 A-1 THROUGH 63, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, 1N THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 6: (414-420-001 THROUGH 414-420-072) LOTS 1 THROUGH 72, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH E, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-6, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 444, PAGES 10 THROUGH 14, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 7: (414-430-001 THROUGH 414-430-063) LOTS 1 THROUGH 63, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH E, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-7, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 444, PAGES 15 THROUGH 19, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 8: (414-440-001 THROUGH 414-440-083) LOTS 1 THROUGH 83, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH G, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-8, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 444, PAGES 20 THROUGH 24, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 9: (414-450-001 THROUGH 414-450-062 AND 414-460-001 THROUGH 414-460- 040) LOTS 1 THROUGH 102, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH F, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-9, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 444, PAGES 25 THROUGH 30, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 10: (414-470-001 THROUGH 414-470-072 AND 414-480-001 THROUGH 414-480- 081 LOTS 1 THROUGH 153, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH J, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-10, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 444, PAGES 31 THROUGH 36, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 11: (414-490-001 THROUGH 414-490-066) A-2 102109139.10 I LOTS 1 THROUGH 66, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH D, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-11, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 444, PAGES 37 THROUGH 40, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 12: (414-500-001 THROUGH 414-500-067) LOTS 1 THROUGH 67, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A THROUGH E, INCLUSIVE, OF TRACT NO. 27971-12, IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP FILED IN BOOK 444, PAGES 41 THROUGH 44, INCLUSIVE, OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. PARCEL 13: (414-110-056 THROUGH 414-110-064 AND 414-100-039 AND 414-100-040) PARCELS 13 THROUGH 23, INCLUSIVE, AND LETTERED LOTS A, C, F, G, H, I, AND X ALL OF PARCEL MAP NO. 34880, RECORDED IN BOOK 237 OF PARCEL MAPS, PAGES 67 THROUGH 76, INCLUSIVE, RECORDS OF RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA. 102109139.10 A-3 EXHIBIT B Community Facilities District Financing Provisions 1.1 Formation of New CFD (a) Background. Owner desires to form a New CFD (as defined below) to develop over time approximately two hundred twenty-eight acres of the Property as approximately 981 single-family residential lots (the "CFD Property"), and to finance various infrastructure improvements through such New CFD. (b) Formation. City shall, upon the petition of the Owner described below, take the steps to establish a community facilities district ("New CFD") pursuant to the Mello - Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the "CFD Act") in the manner described in this Section 1.1. (c) Petition. At any time, Owner may petition City under the CFD Act to establish the New CFD over the CFD Property. In its petition, Owner may include proposed specifications for the New CFD, including special tax rates ("Special Taxes"), New CFD boundaries and any proposed tax zones, the total tax burden that will result from the imposition of the special taxes (subject to the 2.00% Limitation (as defined below) for residential units), and other provisions. Owner's proposed specifications will be based on Owner's development plans, market analysis, and required preferences, but in all cases will be subject to the Development Agreement and the CFD Goals (as defined herein). The City shall have the right to review and object to any market analysis or home price assumptions it believes to be unreasonable. The City reserves the right to hire an independent pricing analyst to review and verify the Owner's projected pricing. The City's obligation to form the New CFD shall be subject to the provisions of the Development Agreement, the CFD Goals, and the reasonable exercise of the City Council's legislative discretion. (d) Commencement of Formation of New CFD. Within ninety (90) days following City's receipt of a petition and a deposit of $50,000.00, the City Council shall adopt a resolution of intention to form the New CFD consistent with the petition. The New CFD shall have a rate and method of apportionment of special tax (the "RMA"), authorization to issue one or more series of special tax bonds ("CFD Bonds"), and an appropriations limit. A notice of special tax lien required by Section 3114.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code (the "Notice of Special Tax Lien") shall be recorded against each taxable parcel within the New CFD upon completion of formation of the New CFD. (e) Authorized Financing. The New CFD shall be authorized to finance both of the following: (i) Refunding of all outstanding bonds of Improvement Area No. 5 of City of Beaumont Community Facilities District No. 93-1 that encumber the CFD Property (the "Refunding"); and B-1 102109139.10 (ii) The Facilities (as defined in Section 1.2 below), irrespective of the geographic location of the improvements financed. (0 Service Special Taxes. The New CFD shall include special taxes to pay for police, fire, and paramedics and other emergency services ("Public Safety Services") of $419 annually escalating by the greater of 5% or CPI. Such special tax rate shall escalate commencing in Fiscal Year 2018. (g) Joint Community Facilities Agreements. Under the CFD Act, City may be required to enter into one or more joint community facilities agreements with other governmental entities that will own or operate any of the Facilities to be financed by the New CFD. The City and Owner agree that they will take all reasonable steps to procure the authorization and execution of any required joint community facilities agreements with other governmental entities before the issuance of any CFD Bonds that will finance the construction or acquisition of Facilities that will be owned or operated by such other governmental entities. Owner acknowledges and agrees that the ability of the City to enter into joint community facilities agreements is subject to the discretion of the other governmental entities. 1.2 Scope of CFD -Financed Costs (a) Facilities. The New CFD shall be authorized to finance all or any portion of the items described in Section 53313.5 of the CFD Act, in each case to the extent agreed upon by the City and Owner at the time of formation of the New CFD (collectively, the "Facilities"). Under no circumstances shall the New CFD be obligated to finance capital improvement fees in lieu of facilities. 1.3 Parameters of CFD Formation (a) Cooperation. Owner and City agree to cooperate reasonably in developing the RMA to be used in the New CFD. Owner and City will each use good -faith reasonable efforts at all times to furnish timely to the other, or to obtain and then furnish to the other, any information necessary to develop the RMA, such as Owner's plans for the types, sizes, numbers, and timing for construction of buildings within the New CFD. (b) Maximum Special Tax Rates for Developed Property. The RMA for the New CFD will specify the maximum Special Tax rates for "Developed Property" (property for which a building permit has been issued) within the New CFD (the "Maximum Special Tax Rates"). The Maximum Special Tax Rates for Developed Property may vary based on sizes, densities, types of buildings to be constructed, and other relevant factors. The RMA will establish Maximum Special Tax Rates assuming that any CFD Bonds issued will have a minimum debt service coverage -ratio of one hundred ten percent (110%) plus administrative expenses of the City. The Maximum Special Tax Rates shall include a special tax to pay for Facilities (a "Facilities Special Tax") and a special tax to pay for Public Safety Services. (c) Total Tax Obligation. The Maximum Special Tax Rates which shall include the special taxes levied for Facilities and Public Safety Services will be set so that the Total Tax Obligation (as defined below) on any residential unit within the New CFD at the time of formation of the New CFD will not exceed two percent (2.00%) of the anticipated sales price B-2 102109139.10 of that residential unit (the "2.00% Limitation"). The anticipated sales price of a residential unit may be based on reasonable projections of value over time or at the City's sole discretion a market price study prepared by an independent consultant and paid for by the Owner. (i) For purposes of this Section 1.3, the term "Total Tax Obligation" means, with respect to a residential unit at the time of calculation, the sum of: (a) the ad valorem taxes actually levied or projected to be levied if the residential unit were developed at the time of calculation; (b) the Maximum Special Tax Rates levied or projected to be levied if the residential unit were developed at the time of calculation; and (c) all other special taxes (based on assigned special tax rates) or assessments collected on the secured tax roll by the County and secured by a lien on the residential unit levied or projected to be levied if the residential unit was developed at the time of calculation. Homeowners' association fees shall not be included in the calculation of the Total Tax Obligation. (d) No Escalation of Facilities Special Tax Rates. The Special Tax Rates for Facilities shall not escalate. The Special Tax Rates for Public Safety Services shall escalate as provided in Section 1.1(f) hereof. (e) Use of Special Taxes for Direct Payment of Facilities. Owner and City agree that the RMA and the New CFD formation proceedings shall provide that Facilities may be financed directly from Facilities Special Taxes prior to the issuance of the first series of CFD Bonds but there shall be no obligation of the New CFD to levy Facilities Special Taxes directly for Facilities after the issuance of the first series of Bonds. The RMA will contain a provision that levies and apportions the Facilities Special Taxes at the maximum amount on all parcels of Developed Property regardless of debt service until the first series of CFD Bonds are issued, and all Facilities Special Taxes collected that remain after paying administrative expenses shall be used to finance Facilities. (f) Prepayment. The RMA will include provisions allowing an Owner within an Improvement Area that is not in default of its obligation to prepay the Owner's Special Tax obligation related to the Facilities. The Special Taxes related to Public Safety Services shall not be subject to prepayment. Prepaid Special Taxes will be placed in a segregated account in accordance with the applicable Indenture (defined below). The RMA and the Indenture will specify the use of prepaid Special Taxes. Before CFD Bonds are issued, all prepayment amounts other than those required for administrative expenses shall be used to finance Facilities ("Prepaid Special Taxes"). 1.4 Issuance of CFD Bonds (a) Issuance. City, on behalf of the New CFD, intends to issue one or more series of CFD Bonds secured by the maximum Facilities Special Tax in the RMA for purposes of financing the Facilities. Provided that at least twenty percent (20%) of the residential units anticipated for the CFD Property have been closed to homeowners, the Owner may submit a written request that City issue CFD Bonds, specifying requested issuance dates, amounts, and main financing terms. Following Owner's request, Owner and City will meet with City's public financing consultants to determine reasonable and appropriate issuance dates, amounts, and main financing terms that are consistent with the Development Agreement and the CFD B-3 102109139.10 Goals. CFD Bonds shall be issued pursuant to an indenture, trust agreement, or fiscal agent agreement (however denominated, an "Indenture") between the New CFD and a fiscal agent or trustee (however denominated, the "Fiscal Agent"). Owner acknowledges that the City is currently under investigation by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and may not have access to the public capital markets to issue CFD Bonds in accordance with this Section 1.4 until such investigation is concluded, and such delay shall in no way constitute a default hereunder. (b) Term. Each issue of CFD Bonds will have a term of not less than thirty (30) years and not more than thirty-five (35) years unless Owner and City agree otherwise; provided that in no event shall the term of the CFD Bonds exceed the term of the Special Tax for Facilities. (c) For each series of CFD Bonds, the underwriter's discount shall not exceed 1% of the principal amount of such series of CFD Bonds, and the costs of issuance and incidentals for each series of CFD Bonds shall be not in excess of $300,000. 1.5 CFD Goals (a) CFD Goals. Under Section 53312.7 of the CFD Act, prior to formation of the New CFD, the City must consider and adopt local goals and policies concerning the New CFD (the "CFD Goals"). To the extent that CFD Goals have not previously been adopted, the City Council will, on or before initiating formation of the New CFD, adopt CFD Goals consistent with this Section 1.5. The CFD Goals shall apply to the CFD Property in the New CFD on the date of formation. Future amendments to the CFD Goals shall not be applicable to the New CFD or the CFD Property unless required under the CFD Act or other controlling State or federal law. In particular, the CFD Goals include the following provisions, each of which the Owner is relying on: (i) Value -to -Lien Ratio. The appraised or assessed value -to -lien ratio required for each CFD Bond issue (including all relevant overlapping liens) will be three to one (3:1) or such higher ratio that is (A) required by bond market conditions at the time of bond issuance, or (B) required by the CFD Act. (ii) Coverage Ratio. An issue of CFD Bonds will not have a debt service coverage -ratio (including all overlapping and outstanding CFD Bonds) of less than one hundred ten percent (110%) plus reasonable administrative expenses, unless otherwise agreed to by the Owner and the City. (iii) Letter of Credit. If the City reasonably determines that a letter of credit is required in order to issue the CFD Bonds, each landowner that owns property responsible for 20% or more of the Special Taxes for Facilities (a "Large Landowner") shall provide a letter of credit in a stated amount not in excess of the Special Taxes expected to be levied on the portion of the CFD Property then -owned by a Large Landowner in the first year of the term of the CFD Bonds. Each letter of credit shall be reduced as portions of the CFD Property are sold to homeowners and may be terminated when the property owned by the Large B-4 102109139.10 Landowner is no longer responsible for 20% or more of the Special Taxes for Facilities. Under no circumstances shall a homeowner or a model home financing company be required to provide a letter of credit. 1.6 Miscellaneous CFD Provisions (a) Reserve Fund Earnings. The Indenture for each issue of CFD Bonds will provide that earnings on any reserve fund that are not then needed to replenish the reserve fund to the reserve requirement will be transferred to: (i) the project fund for the CFD Bonds for allowed uses until it is closed in accordance with the Indenture; then (ii) the debt service fund held by the Fiscal Agent under the Indenture. Notwithstanding the forgoing, if the Project Fund has not closed within three (3) years of the CFD Bond Issuance the City may at its sole discretion direct the reserve fund earnings to the debt service fund. (b) Authorization of Reimbursements. City will take all actions necessary to satisfy section 53314.9 of the Government Code or any similar statute subsequently enacted to use CFD Bond proceeds and Facilities Special Taxes to reimburse Owner for: (i) New CFD formation and CFD Bond issuance deposits; and (ii) advance funding of Facilities or costs. (c) Acquisition Agreement. Contemporaneously with the formation of the New CFD, Owner and City will execute an acquisition and funding agreement (the "Acquisition Agreement") that will apply to the acquisition and construction of the Facilities for the New CFD. The Acquisition Agreements shall contain an acknowledgment by the City and Owner as to the following: (i} Owner may be constructing Facilities before CFD Bond proceeds, Facilities Special Taxes, and Prepaid Special Taxes (herein, "Funding Sources") that will be used to acquire them are available; (ii) The City will inspect Facilities and process payment requests even if Funding Sources for the amount of pending payment requests are not then sufficient to satisfy them in full; (iii) Facilities may be conveyed to and accepted by the City or other governmental entity before the applicable payment requests are paid in full; (iv) If the City or other governmental entity accepts Facilities before the applicable payment requests are paid in full, the unpaid balance will be paid when sufficient Funding Sources become available, and the Acquisition Agreement will provide that the applicable payment requests for Facilities accepted by the City or other governmental entity may be paid: (A) in any number of installments as Funding Sources become available; and (B) irrespective of the length of time payment is deferred; (v) Owner's conveyance or dedication of Facilities to the City or other governmental entity before the availability of Funding Sources to acquire the Facilities is not a dedication or gift, or a waiver of Owner's right to payment of Facilities under the Development Agreement or the Acquisition Agreement; and B-5 102109139.10 (vi) City will have no obligation to acquire the Facilities or reimburse Owner with any moneys other than the Funding Sources. (d) the Owner acknowledges that in accordance with Section 53313.5 of the CFD Act, that the CFD may only finance the purchase of Facilities completed after the adoption of the resolution of the formation if the facility was constructed as if it had been constructed under the direction and supervision, or under the authority of the local agency that will own or operate the facility, and the Acquisition Agreement will contain the terms necessary to satisfy this condition. (e) Initial and Continuing Disclosure. In connection with each issue of CFD Bonds, the Owner shall provide customary disclosure about the Owner and its development and financing plans including opinions of counsel and certificates and representations as may be reasonably and customarily required by the City and/or the underwriter of the CFD Bonds. In addition, Owner shall comply with all of its obligations under any continuing disclosure agreement it executes in connection with the offering and sale of any CFD Bonds. Owner acknowledges that a condition to the issuance of any CFD Bonds may be Owner's execution of a continuing disclosure agreement. (f) No Other Land -Secured Financings. Other than the New CFD and any community facilities district initiated by the City as the result of a qualified petition of registered voters residing in the New CFD, City shall not form any additional community facilities district over any portion of the property in the Project without Owner's written consent which may be given in its sole discretion. The City shall not form any additional land -secured financing district over the property in the New CFD unless the property in the New CFD is found to have special benefit from the improvements being financed; provided, however, under no circumstances may an additional land -secured financing district be formed over the property in the New CFD to pay for any part of the costs of the Potrero Interchange improvements (it being understood and agreed by the City and the Owner that the Property shall have no obligation to fund such Potrero Interchange improvements). Notwithstanding that any such additional land -secured financing district qualifies under the preceding sentence, the Owner reserves the right to oppose or vote against any such formation or levy. (g) Prevailing Wages. As a condition of the acquisition of Facilities financed through the New CFD, the Owner shall require, and the specifications and bid and contract documents shall require, all contractors engaged to perform work on the Facilities to pay prevailing wages and to otherwise comply with applicable provisions of the California Labor Code. (h) Disclosure to Property Owners. Owner agrees to provide, or cause to be provided, the disclosure to purchasers of property in the New CFD in the manner and at the time required by the CFD Act. (i) Attorneys' and Consultants' Fees. Owner agrees to enter into a deposit agreement whereby it advances the City's attorneys' and consultants' fees associated with implementing the New CFD. The deposit agreement shall provide that any costs so advanced by the Owner may be reimbursed to the Owner out of the proceeds of the CFD Bonds. B-6 102109139.10 EXHIBIT C HOA Maintenance Obligations 1. Landscape and Tree Maintenance: Lot BB of Parcel Map 34880; Lots 68 and 69 of Tract No. 27971-1; Lots 58 and 59 of Tract No. 27971-2; Lots 83 and 84 of Tract No. 27971-3; Lot 73 of Tract No. 27971-4; Lots 125 through 127, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-5; Lots 71 and 72 of Tract No. 27971-6; Lots 60 through 63, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-7; Lots 81 through 83, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-8; Lots 101 and 102 of Tract No. 27971-9; Lots 152 and 153 of Tract No. 27971-10; Lots 59 through 66, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-11; and Lots 62 through 67, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-12 2. Community Walls and Monuments 3. Street Lights 4. Street Sweeping and Maintenance: Lots A through Z, inclusive; lots AA and CC of Parcel Map 34880; lettered lots A through F, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-1; lettered lots A through G, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-2; lettered lots A through F, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-3; lettered lots A Through F, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-4; lettered lots A through J, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-5; lettered lots A through E, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-6; lettered lots A through E, inclusive, of tract No. 27971-7; lettered lots A through G, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-8; lettered lots A through F, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-9; lettered lots A through J, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-10; A through D, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-11; lettered lots A through E, inclusive, of Tract No. 27971-12 5. Parks Maintenance: Parcels 14, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23 of Parcel Map 34880 6. Mitigation Open Space (to be transferred to 3rd party entity): Parcels 15 and 17 of Parcel Map 34880 7. Trails Maintenance: Parcels 14, 19, 21 and 23 and Lot BB of Parcel Map 34880 8. Graffiti Abatement 9. Drainage Improvements: Parcels 16 and 18 of Parcel Map 34880 10. Water Well: Parcel 14 of Parcel Map 34880 A-1 102109139.10 ORDINANCE NO. 1078 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA ADDING SECTION 5.51 "ROTATIONAL NON CONSENSUAL TOWING SERVICES," TO CHAPTER 5 OF THE BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to 15061(b)(3), CEQA review is not required because there is no possibility that this Ordinance may have a significant effect upon the environment and the proposed text addition constitute a minor alteration in a land use limitation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, and such a land use limitation is a permissible exercise of the City's zoning powers. SECTION 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance enforced. SECTION 3. Prosecution of Prior Ordinances. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution of any violation of any City ordinance or provision of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code, committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adds Title 5.51, entitled "ROTATIONAL NON CONSENSUAL TOWING SERVICES" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as specifically set forth in Exhibit "A", which Exhibit is attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves an addition to the City Code. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 15th day of November, 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Orozco, Knight, Condon, White, Lara NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 6th day of December, 2016. AYES: Orozco, Knight, Condon, White, Lara NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None Mike Lara, Attest: Julio Si JIM ez, Approved as to form: John O. Pinkney, City Attorney EXHIBIT A Chapter 5.51 ROTATIONAL NON-CONSENSUAL TOWING SERVICES Sections: 5.51.010 Purpose. 5.51.020 Definitions. 5.51.030 Non-consensual towing without city contract - prohibited. 5.51.040 Rules and specifications. 5.51.050 Selection of number of authorized towing contractors. 5.51.060 Selection of authorized towing contractors. 5.51.070 Rotation list. 5.51.080 Execution of towing service agreement. 5.51.090 Authority for city to provide its own non-consensual towing services and vehicle storage facilities. 5.51.100 Penalties. 5.51.010 Purpose. (A) The purpose of this chapter is to establish towing regulations to govern the provisions of non-consensual towing services to the city's Police Department, consistent with state and federal laws, as well as the public health, safety and welfare. A further purpose is to insure that the best possible towing operators are selected to participate in the city's rotational tow program to assist the Police Department in conducting efficient police investigations and provide the citizens of Beaumont with prompt, safe and comprehensive towing services. (B) These regulations are not intended to govern situations where towing has been requested by vehicle owners or private property owners, except as may be permitted by law. Instead, these regulations, along with the rules and specifications to be promulgated by the Police Chief in conjunction with this chapter, are intended to provide a fair and objective method of selecting towing operators from among qualified towing companies to insure that selected towing operators and tow drivers provide the Police Department and the public with prompt, safe, reliable and responsive towing services using quality towing technology and vehicle towing and storage safety. 5.51.02.0 Definitions. Unless the context of a particular provision otherwise requires, the definitions provided in this section shall govern the construction, meaning and application of words and phrases used in this chapter. (A) "Authorized towing contractor" shall mean a towing company that provides non- consensual towing service to the city pursuant to a towing service agreement. (B) "Business license" shall mean a license issued by the city's Finance Department upon payment of a tax by an authorized towing contractor selected to provide nonconsensual towing services to the city's Police Department pursuant to this chapter. (C) "City" shall mean the City of Beaumont. (D) "City Manager" shall mean the City Manager of the City of Beaumont or his or her designee. (E) "Non-consensual towing service" shall mean towing services lawfully ordered or requested by an employee of the city's Police Department or other city department who is duly authorized by law to remove, impound or store vehicles. (F) "Police Chief" shall mean the Chief of Police of the City of Beaumont or his or her designee. (G) "Police Department" shall mean the Beaumont Police Department. (H) "Rotation list" shall mean the city's list of authorized towing contractors that have executed a towing service agreement with the city and may be called upon by the Police Department to provide non-consensual towing service, as needed, on a rotational, call -by - call basis. (I) "Rules and specifications" shall mean the city's Rules and Specifications for Towing Services and Vehicle Storage Facilities promulgated by the Police Chief, as further described in § 5.51.040. (J) "Tow driver" shall mean the driver of a tow vehicle used for providing non-consensual towing services to the city. (K) "Tow vehicle" shall mean a motor vehicle owned by an authorized towing contractor, which has been altered or designed or equipped for and exclusively used in the business of towing vehicles by means of a crane, tow bar, tow line, dolly or a roll -back carrier or is otherwise used to render emergency assistance to disabled and other vehicles. (L) "Towing company" shall mean a company that provides towing services and the owner(s) and/or managing employee(s) of said company. (M) (N) "Towing service" shall mean roadside assistance, as well as the removal, towing, storing, or related services for a vehicle. Towing service shall include the removal, transport, and disposal all debris and fluids, including oil and gasoline, in compliance with all applicable federal, state and local regulations concerning hazardous materials. "Towing service agreement" shall mean the agreement described in § 5.51.080 that each authorized towing contractor selected to provide non-consensual towing services to the city is required to execute pursuant to this chapter. (0) "Vehicle storage facility" shall mean a garage, parking lot, storage lot, or any type of facility where vehicles are stored. 5.51.030 Non-consensual towing without city contract - Prohibited. No person, including, without limitation, a towing company shall perform or provide non-consensual towing services in the city unless the person has entered into a towing service agreement with the city to perform or provide such services. 5.51.040 Rules and specifications. The Police Chief shall promulgate written rules and specifications for non-consensual towing services, authorized towing contractors, tow drivers and vehicle storage facilities. The rules and specifications may be modified from time to time as deemed appropriate by the Police Chief. The rules and specifications shall include reasonable provisions respecting the character, extent, quality and standards governing non-consensual towing services and vehicle storage facilities that are provided and used by the authorized towing contractors. The rules and specifications may also require the payment of fees in an amount established by resolution of the City Council to cover the city's costs associated with the implementation of this chapter, including, without limitation, the review of proposals submitted by towing companies, background checks and fingerprinting, inspection of a towing company's vehicles, equipment and facilities and audits of a towing company's records. 5.51.050 Selection of number of authorized towing contractors. (A) Timing. At least every five (5) years, the Police Chief shall determine the number of authorized towing contractors needed to provide non-consensual towing services to the city. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this chapter, the Police Chief may review the number of authorized towing contractors needed to provide non-consensual towing services to the city more frequently than every five (5) years and may make a determination that fewer or additional authorized towing contractors are needed. (B) Criteria. The Police Chief's determination shall be based upon the appropriate number of authorized towing contractors that may be required by the public convenience and necessity and for the efficient operation of the Police Department. In determining the required number of authorized towing contractors, the Police Chief shall consider the following factors: (1) The operational needs of the Police Department; (2) The population of the city; (3) The current land area of the city; (4) The number of current authorized towing contractors and their average response times; (5) The administrative burdens created by the number of authorized towing contractors to be included on the rotation list; and (6) Other relevant, objective factors as determined by the Police Chief. (C) Determination by Police Chief. The Police Chief's determination shall be made in writing and shall include the number of authorized towing contractors to be selected and a brief statement as to reasons for the Police Chief's determination. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in this chapter, the Police Chief may also determine that the current number of authorized towing contractors is sufficient to serve the city for an additional period of time to be determined by the Police Chief. If the Police Chief determines that the current number of authorized towing contractors is sufficient or that fewer authorized towing contractors are needed, the Police Chief is not required to complete the request for proposal process set forth in § 5.51.060 and may extend the existing towing service agreements of all or some of the current authorized towing contractors. (D) Notice. The Police Chief's written determination shall be attached to the rules and specifications and shall be posted for a period of ten days in the same manner that city meeting agendas are posted. (E) Appeal to City Manager. Within ten calendar days of such determination and posting, any interested person may submit a letter to the City Clerk requesting that the City Manager review the Police Chief's determination regarding the number of authorized towing contractors to be selected. The letter shall include information demonstrating why the public convenience and necessity require selecting additional or fewer authorized towing contractors, and shall be based upon the factors contained in division (B) above. Within 30 calendar days of receipt of the letter, the matter shall be set for an appeal hearing before the City Manager. The City Manager, in his sole discretion, may refer such appeal hearing and decision to an impartial hearing officer, provided the hearing officer follows all provisions of this chapter for the conduct of the hearing. All existing authorized towing contractors shall be notified by letter at least five days prior to any such hearing. No change in the number of authorized towing contractors shall be implemented until the City Manager or hearing officer have heard the appeal and rendered a decision. The decision of the City Manager or hearing officer shall be in writing and shall be final. (F) Appeal criteria. In determining whether to uphold the Police Chief's determination, the City Manager or hearing officer shall consider the factors contained in division (A) above. (G) Change in numbers at other times. Nothing in this section shall prohibit the Police Chief, City Manager or hearing officer from determining at any time that the public convenience and necessity require the selection of additional authorized towing contractors or the extension of existing towing service agreements between the city and current authorized towing contractors, upon finding that circumstances and conditions exist that necessitate the selection of additional authorized towing contractors or the extension of existing towing service agreements for the efficient operations of the Police Department. 5.51.060 Selection of authorized towing contractors. (A) Request for proposals. Unless a determination has been made pursuant to § 5.51.050(C) that the current number of authorized towing contractors is sufficient or that fewer authorized towing contractors are needed and thus the towing service agreements with some or all of the existing authorized towing contractors are extended, once the Police Chief, or the City Manager or hearing officer in the case of an appeal, has determined the appropriate number of authorized towing contractors needed to provide non-consensual towing services to the city, the Police Chief shall prepare and advertise a request for proposals for qualified towing companies to perform and provide non-consensual towing services to the city. The content of the request for proposals, the process for selecting qualified towing companies and the process for awarding a towing service agreement to qualified towing companies shall be set forth in the rules and specifications. The Police Chief may select one or more qualified towing companies as authorized towing contractors in accordance with the procedures set forth in the rules and specifications. (B) Appeal to City Manager. The Police Chief's decision with respect to the selection of one or more authorized towing contractors may be appealed in writing to the City Manager within ten calendar days of the decision. The appeal shall contain a statement of the reasons for the appeal. Upon receipt of a timely appeal, the City Manager shall review the statement of reasons contained in the appeal and hold an appeal hearing to determine whether the Police Chief's decision comports with all requirements for selection contained in the rules and specifications. The City Manager, in his sole discretion, may refer such appeal hearing and decision to an impartial hearing officer, provided the hearing officer follows all provisions of this chapter for the conduct of such hearing. All existing authorized towing contractors shall be notified by letter at least five days prior to any such hearing. No selection of authorized towing contractors shall be implemented until the City Manager or hearing officer have heard the appeal and rendered a decision. The City Manager or hearing officer shall render a written decision within ten calendar days of the receipt of an appeal. The City Manager's or hearing officer's decision shall be in writing and shall be final. (C) Commencement of services. All towing companies selected to be authorized towing contractors shall assume such duties on January 1 of the year following the year in which they are selected, or as otherwise determined by the Police Chief and set forth in the towing service agreement. 5.51.070 Rotation list. All authorized towing contractors shall abide by the towing rotation policy section of the rules and specifications. The rotation list may be amended from time to time as part of the Police Chief's promulgation or modification of the rules and specifications. 5.51.080 Execution of towing service agreement. (A) Form of agreement; execution. Any towing company selected to be an authorized towing contractor shall enter into a towing service agreement with the city. The towing service agreement shall be in a form approved by the City Attorney and shall be attached to any request for proposals issued pursuant to § 5.51.060. Each authorized towing contractor shall execute the towing service agreement, in the form approved by the City Attorney within 30 calendar days after selection as an authorized towing contractor. By submitting a proposal, each towing company shall be deemed to have agreed to execute the towing service agreement in the form attached to the request for proposals. The Police Chief is authorized to execute towing service agreements on behalf of the city. (B) Terms of agreement. The towing service agreement shall incorporate the terms and conditions of this chapter and the rules and specifications, and shall include, without limitation, at least the following provisions: (1) Minimum requirements and performance standards for tow vehicles and other equipment, vehicle storage facilities, tow drivers and other personnel, and non-consensual towing services. (2) Procedures for handling and protecting vehicles in the authorized towing contractor's care, custody or control. (3) Conditions for releasing vehicles. (4) A provision requiring the authorized towing contractor to defend, indemnify, and hold the city harmless of any liability arising from the alleged acts, errors or omissions of the authorized towing contractor in connection with the non- consensual towing services or the towing service agreement. (5) Minimum insurance coverages and amounts, satisfactory to the city's risk manager. (6) The term of the agreement and grounds for its suspension, termination or cancellation. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this chapter or in the rules and specifications, the Police Chief shall have the right to terminate any authorized towing contractor at any time and without cause by giving written notice before the effective date of such termination. 5.51.090 Authoritv for city to provide its own non-consensual towing services and vehicle storage facilities. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to restrict or prohibit the city from conducting or providing its own non-consensual towing service or maintaining its own vehicle storage facilities, either in lieu of, or in addition to, any non-consensual towing services provided by an authorized towing contractor pursuant to this chapter, the rules and specifications or a towing service agreement. 5.51.100 Penalties. Any person, including, but not limited to, any authorized towing contractor, tow driver or towing company who violates any provision of this chapter shall be guilty of a misdemeanor. In addition, any authorized towing contractor or tow driver that violates any provision of the rules and specifications shall be subject to the suspension and termination provisions contained in the towing services agreement and/or the rules and specifications. ORDINANCE NO. 1079 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING PORTIONS OF CHAPTER 15 "BUILDINGS AND CONSTRUCTION," OF THE BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEOA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to 15061(b)(3), CEQA review is not required because there is no possibility that this Ordinance may have a significant effect upon the environment and the proposed text amendments constitute a minor alteration in a land use limitation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, and such a land use limitation is a permissible exercise of the City's zoning powers. SECTION 2. Severability°. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance enforced. SECTION 3. Prosecution of Prior Ordinances. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution of any violation of any City ordinance or provision of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code, committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.03, entitled "Administration" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as specifically set forth in Exhibit "A", which Exhibit is attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.04, entitled "Building Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as specifically set forth in Exhibit "B", which Exhibit is attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.08, entitled "Building Fees" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Chapter 15.08 BUILDING FEES Sections: 15.08.010 15.08.020 Permit Issuance Fees Additional Fee 15.08.010 Permit Issuance Fees. The following fees, the amount of which shall be established from time -to -time by action of the City Council, shall be collected prior to the issuance of a permit: A. Plan Check Fees and Deposits. B. Permit Fees. C. Re -inspection Fees. D. Special Inspection Fees 15.08.020 Additional Fee. In addition to the permit fees, the following fee is to be collected prior to the issuance of a permit: Strong Motion Instrumentation Program (SMIP), 0.007 percent per thousand dollars of valuation with a minimum of fifty cents for each permit. (S.B. 1374 Chapter 1152 ALQUIST). SECTION 7. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.10, entitled "Elevator Safety Construction Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Chapter 15.10 ELEVATOR SAFETY CONSTRUCTION CODE Sections: 15.10.010 Adoption of 2016 California Elevator Safety Construction Code 15.10.020 Violation --Penalty 15.10.010 Adoption of 2016 California Elevator Safety Construction Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Elevator Safety Construction Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 7, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the City Elevator Safety Construction Code. 15.10.020 Violation—PenaltN . A. Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Elevator Safety Construction Code is an infraction. 2 SECTION 8. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.11, entitled "Historical Building Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Chapter 15.11 HISTORICAL BUILDING CODE Sections: 15.11.010 Adoption of California 2016 Historical Building Code 15.11.020 Violation—Penalty 15.11.010 Adoption of 2016 California Historical Building Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Historical Building Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 8, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the City Historical Building Code. 15.11.020 Violation—Penal`. Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Historical Building Code is an infraction. SECTION 9. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.12, entitled "Electrical Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Chapter 15.12 ELECTRICAL CODE Sections: 15.12.010 Adoption of California 2016 Electrical Code 15.12.020 Violation—Penalty 15.12.010 Adoption of 2016 California Electrical Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Electrical Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 3, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the City Electrical Code. 15.12.020 Violation—PenaltN A. Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Electrical Code is an infraction. B. It shall be a violation of this Chapter, punishable as an infraction, for any person, firm or corporation to make connection from a source of electrical energy to an installation for which a permit is required, unless such person, firm or corporation has obtained a certificate of approval from the building inspector that such wiring devices, appliances or equipment are in conformity with all the requirements of this code. SECTION 10. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.13, entitled "California Existing Building Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: 3 Chapter 15.13 CALIFORNIA EXISTING BUILDING CODE Sections: 15.13.010 Adoption of California 2016 Existing Building Code 15.13.020 Violation—Penalty 15.13.010 Adoption of 2016 California Existing Building Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Existing Building Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 10, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the City Existing Building Code. 15.13.020 Violation—Penalti . Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Existing Building Code is an infraction. SECTION 11. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.15, entitled "Residential Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Sections: 15.15.010 15.15.020 Chapter 15.15 RESIDENTIAL CODE Adoption of the 2016 California Residential Code Violation – Penalty 15.15.010 Adoption of the 2016 California Residential Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Residential Code, Title 24 California Code of Regulations, Part 2.5, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the City Residential Code. 15.15.020 Violation -Penalty. Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Residential Code is an infraction. SECTION 12. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.16, entitled "Plumbing Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Chapter 15.16 PLUMBING CODE Sections: 15.16.010 Adoption of 2016 California Plumbing Code 15.16.020 Violation—Penalty 4 15.16.010 Adoption of California 2016 Plumbin2 Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Plumbing Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 5, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the Plumbing Code of the City. 15.16.020 Violation—Penalty . Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Plumbing Code is an infraction. SECTION 13. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.17, entitled "Mechanical Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Chapter 15.17 MECHANICAL CODE Sections: 15.17.010 Adoption of California 2016 Mechanical Code 15.17.020 Violation—Penalty 15.17.010 Adoption of 2016 California Mechanical Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Mechanical Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 4, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the Mechanical Code of the City. 15.17.020 Violation—Penalty. Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Mechanical Code is an infraction. SECTION 14. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.19, entitled "Energy Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Chapter 15.19 ENERGY CODE Sections: 15.19.010 Adoption of 2016 California Energy Code 15.19.020 Violation—Penalty 15.19.010 Adoption of 2016 California Energy Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Energy Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 6, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the City Energy Code. 15.17.020 Violation—Penalt. Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Energy Code is an infraction. SECTION 15. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.20, entitled "Fire Code" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Chapter 15.20 FIRE CODE 5 Sections: 15.20.010 Title 15.20.020 Adoption of 2016 Fire Code 15.20.030 Violation—Penalty 15.20.010 Title. This Chapter shall be cited as the "Fire Code" of the City, and any reference in the Beaumont Municipal Code or any Chapter thereof to the Fire Code refers to and applies to this Chapter and the Fire Code adopted by reference in accordance with this Chapter. 15.20.010 Adoption of 2016 Fire Code. Subject to the particular additions, amendments and deletions set forth in this Chapter, all of the rules, regulations, provisions and conditions set forth in that certain document being marked and designated as "An Ordinance of the County of Riverside Amending Ordinance No. 787 and Adopting the 2016 California Fire Code as Amended", certified copies of which are on file in the office of the City Clerk, are hereby adopted as the Fire Code of the City, and each and all of the rules, regulations, provisions and conditions thereof are hereby referred to, adopted and made part of this Chapter as though fully set forth at length herein. (Ord. 1042, 2.4.14) 15.20.030 Violation—Penalty. In the discretion of the Enforcement Officer, any person violating the provisions of this Chapter shall be issued an Administrative Citation pursuant to Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 1.17 or shall be guilty of an infraction pursuant to Beaumont Municipal Code Chapter 1.16. In either case, the amount of the fine shall be the appropriate amount set forth in Section 1.16.030 of this Code. Each such violation shall be deemed a separate offense as specified in Section 1.16.040. Notwithstanding the above, a first offense may be charged and prosecuted as a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine of $1,000.00 or 6 months in jail, or both. In addition to the penalties provided in this Section, any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provision of this Chapter shall constitute a public nuisance and may be abated by the City by civil process by means of a restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisance. All remedies herein are cumulative and non-exclusive. SECTION 16. The City Council hereby amends Title 15.22, entitled "Green Building Standards" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as: Chapter 15.22 GREEN BUILDING STANDARDS CODE 6 Sections: 15.22.010 Adoption of 2016 California Green Building Standards Code 15.22.020 Violation -Penalty 15.22.010 Adoption of 2016 California Green Building Standards Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Green Building Standards Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 11, including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the City Green Building Code. 15.22.020 Violation- Penalty. Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Green Building Code is an infraction. SECTION 17. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves an amendment to the City Code. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 15TH day of November, 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Orozco, Knight, Condon, White, Lara NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 6th day of December, 2016. AYES: Orozco, Knight, Condon, White, Lara NOES: None ABSENT: Non ABSTAIN: o 7 Attest: lily Julio Marti r ty Clerk Approved as to z orm: John 0/' inkne ' ity Attorney 8 Sections: 15.03.010 15.03.015 15.03.020 15.03.025 Exhibit A Chapter 15.03 ADMINISTRATION Adoption of 2016 Chapter I, Division II Scope and Administration Department of Building and Safety Duties and Powers of Building Official Amendments to Chapter I, Division II Scope and Administration 15.03.010 Adoption of 2016 Chapter I, Division II Scope and Administration Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Building Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2, Volume 1, Chapter 1, Division II, "Scope and Administration," including any and all amendments thereto that may hereafter be made and adopted by the State of California, is hereby adopted as the Administrative Code of the City. This administrative chapter shall apply to all codes listed in this title. 15.03.015 Department of Building and Safety The Department of Building Safety is hereby created and the official in charge thereof shall be known as the building official. The building official shall be appointed by the City Manager. With the concurrence of the City Manager, the building official shall have the authority to appoint a deputy building official, the related technical officers, inspectors, plan examiners and other employees. Such employees shall have powers delegated by the building official. 15.03.020 Duties and Powers of Building Official The building official is authorized and directed to enforce the provisions of this code. The building official shall have the authority to render interpretations of this code and to adopt policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies and procedures shall be in compliance with the intent and purpose of this code. Such policies and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided for in this code. 15.03.025 Amendments to Chapter I, Division II Scope and Administration The Administrative code is amended in part as follows: 105.3.2 Time limit of application. Applications for which no permit is issued within 180 days following the date of application shall expire by limitation, and plans and other data submitted for review may thereafter be returned to the applicant or destroyed by the building official. The building official may extend the time for action by the applicant for a period not exceeding 90 days upon request by the applicant. The extension shall be requested in writing and justifiable cause demonstrated showing that circumstances beyond the control of the applicant which has prevented action from being taken. No application shall be extended more than once. In order to renew action on an application after expiration, the applicant shall resubmit plans and pay a new plan review fee. 105.5.1 Expiration of Permit regarding Nuisance Abatement 9 Building permits issued to repair under Nuisances Chapter 8.32 of this code shall expire in sixty (60) days from the date such permit is issued unless authorized by the Chief Building Official that a longer period of time is needed to complete the work in which event such permit will expire at the end of such longer period of time. Section 109, Fees is amended to read as follows: 109.1.1 Plan Review Fees When submittal documents are required by Section 109.3.2, a plan review fee shall be paid at the time of submitting the submittal documents for plan review. The plan review fees specified in this section are separate fees from the permit fees specified in Section 109.2 and are in addition to the permit fees. When submittal documents are incomplete or changed so as to require additional plan review or when the project involves deferred submittal items as defined in Section 107.3.4.2, an additional plan review fee shall be charged at the rate established by the Building Official. 109.4 Work commencing before permit issuance Whenever any work for which a permit is required by this code has been commenced without first obtaining said permit, a special investigation shall be made before a permit may be issued for such work. 109.4.1 Investigation fee An investigation fee, in addition to the permit fee, shall be collected whether or not a permit is then or subsequently issued. The payment of such investigation fee shall not exempt any person from compliance with all other provisions of this code nor from any penalty prescribed by law. 109.6 Fee Refunds The building official may authorize refunding of any fee paid hereunder which was erroneously paid or collected. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the permit fee paid when no work has been done under a permit issued in accordance with this code. The building official may authorize refunding of not more than 80 percent of the plan review fee paid when an application for a permit or which a plan review fee has been paid is withdrawn or canceled before any plan reviewing is done. 10 The building official shall not authorize refunding of any fee paid except on written application filed by the original permittee not later than 180 days after the date of fee payment. 109.7 Re -inspections A re -inspection fee may be assessed for each inspection or re -inspection when such portion of work or which inspection is called is not complete or when corrections called for are not made. This section is not to be interpreted as requiring re -inspection fees the first time a job is rejected for failure to comply with the requirements of this code, but as controlling the practice of calling for inspections before the job is ready for such inspection or re -inspection. Re -inspection fees may be assessed when the inspection record card is not posted or otherwise available on the work site, the approved plans are not readily available to the inspector, for failure to provide access on the date for which inspection is requested, or for deviating from plans requiring the approval of the building official. To obtain a re -inspection, the applicant shall pay the re -inspection fee in accordance with the fee schedule adopted by the jurisdiction. In instances where re -inspection fees have been assessed, no additional inspection of the work will be performed until the required fees have been paid. Section 110 Inspections is amended to read as follows: 110.3.5 Lathe and gypsum board inspections The exception is deleted in its entirety. 11 Exhibit B Chapter 15.04 BUILDING CODE Sections: 15.04.010 Adoption of 2016 California Building Code 15.04.020 Amendments to the California Building Code 15.04.030 Violation—Penalty 15.04.010 Adoption of 2016 California Building Code. Except as otherwise provided in this Chapter, the California Building Code, Title 24, California Code of Regulations, Part 2, Volumes 1 and 2, including, Appendix C, Group U -"Agricultural Buildings", Appendix F "Rodent Proofing", Appendix I "Patio Covers", and Appendix J "Grading", is hereby adopted by this reference as the Code for the City for regulating the erection, construction, enlargement, alteration, repair, moving, removal, demolition, conversion, occupancy, equipment, use, height, area and maintenance of all buildings or structures in the City providing for the issuance of permits and collection of fees therefore; and each and all of the amendments to such Building Code as may hereafter be adopted by the State of California shall be made a part of this Chapter without further action by the City Council. 15.04.020 Amendments to the California Building Code. The Building Code is amended in part as follows: Chapter 18: SOILS AND FOUNDATIONS, Section 1801.1 is amended to add: "Where relevant to grading, drainage and soil investigation, `Building Official' shall also mean and include City Engineer/Director of Public Works or his/her designee." Appendix "J" GRADING, Section J103.1 is amended by adding: "Wherever the word `Building Official' is used, it shall also mean and include City Engineer/Director of Public Works or his/her designee." Section J109.4 is amended to read: "Drainage across property lines. All graded lots shall drain to the street or publicly maintained facility. Cross lot drainage may be allowed at the sole discretion of the City Engineer/Director of Public Works. Drainage across property lines shall not exceed that which existed prior to grading. Excess or concentrated drainage shall be contained onsite or directed to an approved drainage facility. Erosion of the ground in the area of discharge shall be prevented by the installation of nonerosive down drains or other devices acceptable to the City Engineer." Section J110 -Erosion Control – first paragraph is amended to read: 12 "General. The faces of cut and fill slopes and graded surfaces shall be prepared and maintained to control erosion. This control shall be permitted to consist of effective planting and other practicable means." 15.04.030 Violation—Penaltd . Violation of the provisions of this Chapter or failure to comply with any of the requirements of the Building Code is an infraction. 13 ORDINANCE NO. 1080 AN URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA REPLACING SECTION 17.03.060D AND ADDING SECTION 17.03.070G TO THE BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to 15061(b)(3). CEQA review is not required because there is no possibility that this Ordinance may have a significant effect upon the environment and the proposed text amendments constitute a minor alteration in a land use limitation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, and such a land use limitation is a permissible exercise of the City's zoning powers. SECTION 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance enforced. SECTION 3. Prosecution of Prior Ordinances. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution of any violation of any City ordinance or provision of the Beaumont Municipal Code, committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby repeals Section 17.03.060D, entitled "Second Units" to the Beaumont Municipal Code, and replaces it to read as follows: "D. Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory dwelling units are limited to one per Single -Family residence within a Single -Family Zone. 1. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Detached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 50% of the floor area of the main unit or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less. The height of the accessory unit shall not exceed the height of the main unit. In addition, the detached accessory dwelling unit must be connected to sewer and shall be provided with individual sewer connections. Detached accessory dwelling units shall be detached from the main unit by a minimum distance of ten (10) feet and shall have a minimum distance of fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line. Detached accessory dwelling units may be located in an existing structure, without consideration to setbacks. The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be located in such a fashion so that it is concealed from public view and shall have matching colors and materials as the main unit. The main unit must meet current requirements for parking prior to or in conjunction with the detached accessory dwelling unit approval. 2. Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. Attached accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 50% of the floor area of the main unit or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less. The height of the attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the height of the main unit. Setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone unless within an existing structure or unless the attached accessory dwelling unit is created from an existing living space in a single-family home. The attached accessory dwelling unit shall be located in such a fashion so that it is concealed from public view (specifically the entrance) and shall have matching colors and materials as the main unit. The main unit must meet current requirements for parking prior to or in conjunction with the attached accessory unit approval. 3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 500 square feet, shall consist of one bedroom and a limited kitchen, and have access to both interior access to the main unit and an exterior door. A junior accessory dwelling unit is not considered a separate dwelling unit. The height of the junior accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the height of the main unit. Setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone unless within an existing structure. The junior accessory dwelling unit kitchen may only have a wet bar or efficiency kitchen (a single basin sink with a maximum waste line diameter of 1.5 inches and cooking facility with appliances that can run on standard 120 volt outlets or natural or propane gas). The kitchen may include a small refrigerator (maximum of 6 cubic feet), microwave, and small cooktop (max two elements). The owner must occupy either the main unit or the junior accessory dwelling unit. Owner -occupancy shall not be required if the owner is another governmental agency, land trust, or housing organization. The junior accessory dwelling unit shall be located in such a fashion so that it is concealed from public view so as not to look like a duplex. The entry to the junior accessory dwelling unit shall face the side- or back -yard area. A junior accessory dwelling unit shall have matching colors and materials as the main unit. The main unit must meet current requirements for parking prior to or in conjunction with the junior accessory dwelling unit approval. " SECTION 5. The City Council hereby adds Section 17.03.070G, entitled "Accessory Dwelling Units", to the Beaumont Municipal Code, to read as follows: "D. Accessory Dwelling Units. Accessory dwelling units are limited to one per lot with a Single -Family residence within the Multiple -Family Zone. 1. Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit. Detached Accessory Dwelling Units shall not exceed 50% of the floor area of the main unit or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less. The height of the detached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the height of the main unit. In addition, the detached accessory dwelling unit must be connected to sewer and shall be provided with individual sewer connections. Detached accessory units shall be detached from the main unit by a minimum distance of ten (10) feet and shall have a minimum distance of fifteen (15) feet from the rear property line. Detached accessory dwelling units may be located in an existing structure, without consideration to setbacks. The detached accessory dwelling unit shall be located in such a fashion so that it is concealed from public view and shall have matching colors and materials as the main unit. The main unit must meet current requirements for parking prior to or in conjunction with the detached accessory dwelling unit approval. 2. Attached Accessory Dwelling Units. Attached Accessory Dwelling Units shall not exceed 50% of the floor area of the main unit or 1,200 square feet, whichever is less. The height of the attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the height of the main unit. Setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone unless within an existing structure unless the unit is created from an existing living space in a Single -Family home. The attached accessory dwelling unit shall be located in such a fashion so that it is concealed from public view (specifically the entrance) and shall have matching colors and materials as the main unit. The main unit must meet current requirements for parking prior to or in conjunction with the attached accessory dwelling unit approval. 3. Junior Accessory Dwelling Units. Junior accessory dwelling units shall not exceed 500 square feet, consist of one bedroom and a limited kitchen, and have access to both interior access to the main unit and an exterior door. Junior accessory dwelling units are not considered a separate dwelling unit. The height of the junior accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed the height of the main unit. Setbacks shall meet the requirements of the zone unless within an existing structure. The junior accessory dwelling unit kitchen may only have a wet bar or efficiency kitchen (a single basin sink with a maximum waste line diameter of 1.5 inches and a cooking facility with appliances that can 3 run on standard 120 volt outlets or natural or propane gas). The kitchen may include a small refrigerator (maximum of 6 cubic feet), microwave, and small cooktop (maximum of two elements). The junior accessory dwelling unit shall be located in such a fashion so that it is concealed from public view so as not to look like a duplex, for example. The entry to the junior accessory dwelling unit shall face the side- or back -yard area. Junior accessory units shall have matching colors and materials as the main unit. Main unit must meet current requirements for parking prior to or in conjunction with the junior accessory dwelling unit approval." SECTION 6. Urgencv Clause. The City finds and declares that this Ordinance is required for the immediate protection of the public peace, health, and safety for the following reasons: In order to allow the City to promulgate ordinances that create secure income for homeowners and secure housing for renters at the earliest possible time, it is necessary for this act to take effect immediately. A housing option that is currently available and affordable for many in the City are accessory dwelling units. Immediate action is necessary to bring the City's regulations into compliance with state law to allow for the development of junior accessory dwelling units and the clarification of existing regulated development of accessory dwelling units, generally, as set forth in Government Code Section 36937 and AB -2406, approved by the Governor on September 27, 2016. SECTION 7. Effective Date and Publication. This Ordinance is an Urgency Ordinance enacted under California Government Code 36934 and 36937(b). This Urgency Ordinance is effective upon adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. Within fifteen (15) days after the passage of this Ordinance, the City Clerk shall cause this Ordinance or a summary thereof to be published once, with the names of those City Councilmembers voting for or against it in a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Beaumont, as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves an amendment to the City Code. INTRODUCED AND DULY ADOPTED by at least a four-fifths vote of the City Council at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 20th day of December, 2016. AYES: Martinez, Orozco, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None 4 Lldyd it/4/e, Mayor Attest: Dep City Clerk Approved as to form: . Pinkney, Cit ttorney r 5 ORDINANCE NO. 1081 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF BEAUMONT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2016-2, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findin. 2 s. A. On September 6, 2016, the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Beaumont (the "City") adopted Resolution No. 2016-33 declaring its intention to form City of Beaumont Community Facilities District No. 2016-2 (the "Community Facilities District") pursuant to the Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, comprising Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act"), and adopted Resolution No. 2016-34 declaring its intention to incur bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District; and B. On October 18, 2016, after providing all notice required by the Act, the City Council continued a public hearing required by the Act relative to the formation of the Community Facilities District, the proposed levy of special taxes within the Community Facilities District to finance certain public improvements and services described in Resolution No. 2016-33 and to secure the payment of any bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District in an amount not to exceed $14,000,000; and C. Such public hearing was continued to February 7, 2017; and D. At the public hearing, all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the Community Facilities District, the proposed levy of the special tax within the Community Facilities District to finance the public facilities, incidental expenses and services described in Resolution No. 2016-33 and the proposed issuance of bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District were heard and a full and fair hearing was held; and E. On February 7, 2017, following the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing the Community Facilities District (the "Resolution of Formation") and a resolution determining the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District (the "Resolution to Incur Bonded Indebtedness") each of which called a consolidated special election on February 7, 2017 within the Community Facilities District on three propositions relating to the levying of special taxes, the incurring of bonded indebtedness and the establishment of an appropriations limit for the Community Facilities District; and F. On February 7, 2017, a special election was held within the Community Facilities District at which the qualified electors approved by more than a two thirds vote Propositions A, B and C authorizing the levy of a special tax within the Community Facilities District for the purposes described in the Resolution of Intention and Resolution of Formation and the issuance of bonded indebtedness for the Community Facilities District as described in the Resolution to Incur Bonded Indebtedness. Section 2. Ordinance: Authorizing the Levy of a Special Tax within the Community Facilities District. A. The above recitals are all true and correct. B. By the passage of this Ordinance, the City Council authorizes the levy of the special taxes within the Community Facilities District at the maximum rates and in accordance with the rates and methods of apportionment set forth in Exhibit C to Resolution No. 2016-33, which rate and method of apportionment for the Community Facilities District is incorporated by reference herein (the "Rate and Method"). C. The Finance Director of the City is hereby further authorized and directed each fiscal year, on or before August 10 of each year, or such later date as is permitted by law, to determine the specific special tax rates and amounts to be levied for the next ensuing fiscal year for each parcel of real property within the specific special tax rate and amount to be levied on each parcel of land in the Community Facilities District pursuant to the Rate and Method. The special tax rate to be levied pursuant to the Rate and Method shall not exceed the applicable maximum rates set forth therein, but the special taxes may be levied at a lower rate. D. Properties or entities of the state, federal or other local governments shall be exempt from the special taxes, except as otherwise provided in Sections 53317.3 and 53317.5 of the Act and the Rate and Method. No other properties or entities are exempt from the special taxes unless the properties or entities are expressly exempted in the Resolution of Formation, or in a resolution of consideration to levy a new special tax or special taxes or to alter the rate or method of an existing special tax as provided in Section 53334 of the Act. E. All of the collections of the special taxes pursuant to the Rate and Method shall be used as provided for in the Act and the Resolution of Formation. The special taxes shall be levied within the Community Facilities District only so long as needed for the purposes described in the Resolution of Formation. F. The special taxes levied pursuant to the Rate and Method shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale and lien priority in case of delinquency as is provided for ad valorem taxes (which such procedures include the exercise of all rights and remedies permitted by law to make corrections, including, but not limited to, the issuance of amended or supplemental tax bills), as such procedure may be modified by law or by this City Council from time to time. G. As a cumulative remedy, if any amount levied as a special tax for payment of the interest or principal of any bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District, together with any penalties and other charges accruing under this Ordinance, are not paid when due, the City Council may, not later than four years after the due date of the last installment of principal on the bonds issued by the Community Facilities District, order that the same be collected by an action brought in the superior court to foreclose the lien of such special tax. 2 H. The specific authorization for adoption of this Ordinance is pursuant to the provisions of Section 53340 of the Act. I. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to transmit a certified copy of this ordinance to the Riverside County Assessor and Treasurer Tax Collector, and to perform all other acts which are required by the Act, this Ordinance or by law in order to accomplish the purpose of this Ordinance. Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from its adoption. Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it, or a summary of it, to be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the City of Beaumont, pursuant to all legal requirements. 3 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 2017. I, Nicole Wheelwright, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont held on the 7th day of February, 2017, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on the 21st day of February, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Orozco, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: yi-?,4.06cct._ Andreanna Pfeiffer, City C 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1082 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF BEAUMONT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2016-3, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findin s. A. On September 20, 2016, the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Beaumont (the "City") adopted Resolution No. 2016-36 declaring its intention to form City of Beaumont Community Facilities District No. 2016-3 (the "Community Facilities District") pursuant to the Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, comprising Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act"), and adopted Resolution No. 2016-37 declaring its intention to incur bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District; and B. On November 1, 2016, after providing all notice required by the Act, the City Council continued a public hearing required by the Act relative to the formation of the Community Facilities District, the proposed levy of special taxes within the Community Facilities District to finance certain public improvements and services described in Resolution No. 2016-36 and to secure the payment of any bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District in an amount not to exceed $22,000,000; and C. Such public hearing was continued to February 7, 2017; and D. At the public hearing, all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the Community Facilities District, the proposed levy of the special tax within the Community Facilities District to finance the public facilities, incidental expenses and services described in Resolution No. 2016-36 and the proposed issuance of bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District were heard and a full and fair hearing was held; and E. On February 7, 2017, following the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing the Community Facilities District (the "Resolution of Formation") and a resolution determining the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District (the "Resolution to Incur Bonded Indebtedness") each of which called a consolidated special election on February 7, 2017 within the Community Facilities District on three propositions relating to the levying of special taxes, the incurring of bonded indebtedness and the establishment of an appropriations limit for the Community Facilities District; and F. On February 7, 2017, a special election was held within the Community Facilities District at which the qualified electors approved by more than a two thirds vote Propositions A, B and C authorizing the levy of a special tax within the Community Facilities District for the purposes described in the Resolution of Intention and Resolution of Formation and the issuance of bonded indebtedness for the Community Facilities District as described in the Resolution to Incur Bonded Indebtedness. Section 2. Ordinance: Authorizing , the Lev v of a Special Tax within the Community Facilities District. A. The above recitals are all true and correct. B. By the passage of this Ordinance, the City Council authorizes the levy of the special taxes within the Community Facilities District at the maximum rates and in accordance with the rates and methods of apportionment set forth in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Formation, which rate and method of apportionment for the Community Facilities District is incorporated by reference herein (the "Rate and Method"). C. The Finance Director of the City is hereby further authorized and directed each fiscal year, on or before August 10 of each year, or such later date as is permitted by law, to determine the specific special tax rates and amounts to be levied for the next ensuing fiscal year for each parcel of real property within the specific special tax rate and amount to be levied on each parcel of land in the Community Facilities District pursuant to the Rate and Method. The special tax rate to be levied pursuant to the Rate and Method shall not exceed the applicable maximum rates set forth therein, but the special taxes may be levied at a lower rate. D. Properties or entities of the state, federal or other local governments shall be exempt from the special taxes, except as otherwise provided in Sections 53317.3 and 53317.5 of the Act and the Rate and Method. No other properties or entities are exempt from the special taxes unless the properties or entities are expressly exempted in the Resolution of Formation, or in a resolution of consideration to levy a new special tax or special taxes or to alter the rate or method of an existing special tax as provided in Section 53334 of the Act. E. All of the collections of the special taxes pursuant to the Rate and Method shall be used as provided for in the Act and the Resolution of Formation. The special taxes shall be levied within the Community Facilities District only so long as needed for the purposes described in the Resolution of Formation. F. The special taxes levied pursuant to the Rate and Method shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale and lien priority in case of delinquency as is provided for ad valorem taxes (which such procedures include the exercise of all rights and remedies permitted by law to make corrections, including, but not limited to, the issuance of amended or supplemental tax bills), as such procedure may be modified by law or by this City Council from time to time. G. As a cumulative remedy, if any amount levied as a special tax for payment of the interest or principal of any bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District, together with any penalties and other charges accruing under this Ordinance, are not paid when due, the City Council may, not later than four years after the due date of the last installment of principal on the bonds issued by the Community Facilities District, order that the same be collected by an action brought in the superior court to foreclose the lien of such special tax. 2 d H. The specific authorization for adoption of this Ordinance is pursuant to the provisions of Section 53340 of the Act. I. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to transmit a certified copy of this ordinance to the Riverside County Assessor and Treasurer Tax Collector, and to perform all other acts which are required by the Act, this Ordinance or by law in order to accomplish the purpose of this Ordinance. Section 3. Severability. If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from its adoption. Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it, or a summary of it, to be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the City of Beaumont, pursuant to all legal requirements. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 2017. I, Nicole Wheelwright, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont held on the 7th day of February, 2017, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on the 21st day of February, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Orozco, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: r`lia_ Andreanna Pfeiffer, 4 ty ORDINANCE NO. 1083 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, ACTING IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE LEGISLATIVE BODY OF CITY OF BEAUMONT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 2016-4, AUTHORIZING THE LEVY OF A SPECIAL TAX WITHIN THE COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Findin«s. A. On October 18, 2016, the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Beaumont (the "City") adopted Resolution No. 2016-39 declaring its intention to form City of Beaumont Community Facilities District No. 2016-4 (the "Community Facilities District") pursuant to the Mello Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended, comprising Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5 of the Government Code of the State of California (the "Act"), and adopted Resolution No. 2016-40 declaring its intention to incur bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District; and B. On December 6, 2016, after providing all notice required by the Act, the City Council opened a public hearing required by the Act relative to the formation of the Community Facilities District, the proposed levy of special taxes within the Community Facilities District to finance certain public improvements and services described in Resolution No. 2016-39 and to secure the payment of any bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District in an amount not to exceed $5,000,000; and C. Such public hearing was continued to February 7, 2017; and D. At the public hearing, all persons desiring to be heard on all matters pertaining to the formation of the Community Facilities District, the proposed levy of the special tax within the Community Facilities District to finance the public facilities, incidental expenses and services described in Resolution No. 2016-39 and the proposed issuance of bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District were heard and a full and fair hearing was held; and E. On February 7, 2017, following the close of the public hearing, the City Council adopted a resolution establishing the Community Facilities District (the "Resolution of Formation") and a resolution determining the necessity to incur bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District (the "Resolution to Incur Bonded Indebtedness") each of which called a consolidated special election on February 7, 2017 within the Community Facilities District on three propositions relating to the levying of special taxes, the incurring of bonded indebtedness and the establishment of an appropriations limit for the Community Facilities District; and F. On February 7, 2017, a special election was held within the Community Facilities District at which the qualified electors approved by more than a two thirds vote Propositions A, B and C authorizing the levy of a special tax within the Community Facilities District for the purposes described in the Resolution of Intention and Resolution of Formation and the issuance of bonded indebtedness for the Community Facilities District as described in the Resolution to Incur Bonded Indebtedness. Section 2. Ordinance: Authorizing, the Levy of a Special Tax within the Community Facilities District. A. The above recitals are all true and correct. B. By the passage of this Ordinance, the City Council authorizes the levy of the special taxes within the Community Facilities District at the maximum rates and in accordance with the rates and methods of apportionment set forth in Exhibit B to the Resolution of Formation, which rate and method of apportionment for the Community Facilities District is incorporated by reference herein (the "Rate and Method"). C. The Finance Director of the City is hereby further authorized and directed each fiscal year, on or before August 10 of each year, or such later date as is permitted by law, to determine the specific special tax rates and amounts to be levied for the next ensuing fiscal year for each parcel of real property within the specific special tax rate and amount to be levied on each parcel of land in the Community Facilities District pursuant to the Rate and Method. The special tax rate to be levied pursuant to the Rate and Method shall not exceed the applicable maximum rates set forth therein, but the special taxes may be levied at a lower rate. D. Properties or entities of the state, federal or other local governments shall be exempt from the special taxes, except as otherwise provided in Sections 53317.3 and 53317.5 of the Act and the Rate and Method. No other properties or entities are exempt from the special taxes unless the properties or entities are expressly exempted in the Resolution of Formation, or in a resolution of consideration to levy a new special tax or special taxes or to alter the rate or method of an existing special tax as provided in Section 53334 of the Act. E. All of the collections of the special taxes pursuant to the Rate and Method shall be used as provided for in the Act and the Resolution of Formation. The special taxes shall be levied within the Community Facilities District only so long as needed for the purposes described in the Resolution of Formation. F. The special taxes levied pursuant to the Rate and Method shall be collected in the same manner as ordinary ad valorem property taxes are collected and shall be subject to the same penalties and the same procedure, sale and lien priority in case of delinquency as is provided for ad valorem taxes (which such procedures include the exercise of all rights and remedies permitted by law to make corrections, including, but not limited to, the issuance of amended or supplemental tax bills), as such procedure may be modified by law or by this City Council from time to time. G. As a cumulative remedy, if any amount levied as a special tax for payment of the interest or principal of any bonded indebtedness of the Community Facilities District, together with any penalties and other charges accruing under this Ordinance, are not paid when due, the City Council may, not later than four years after the due date of the last installment of principal on the bonds issued by the Community Facilities District, order that the same be collected by an action brought in the superior court to foreclose the lien of such special tax. 2 H. The specific authorization for adoption of this Ordinance is pursuant to the provisions of Section 53340 of the Act. I. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to transmit a certified copy of this ordinance to the Riverside County Assessor and Treasurer Tax Collector, and to perform all other acts which are required by the Act, this Ordinance or by law in order to accomplish the purpose of this Ordinance. Section 3. Severability . If any provision of this ordinance or the application thereof to any person or circumstance is held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect other provisions or applications of this Ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days from its adoption. Section 5. Publication. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and cause it, or a summary of it, to be published in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published within the City of Beaumont, pursuant to all legal requirements. 3 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 2017. I, Nicole Wheelwright, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont held on the 7th day of February, 2017, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on the 21st day of February, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Orozco, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: } qrli7 t`Ct-r'.r 1 CCS Andreanna Pfeiffer, C 4 C ORDINANCE NO. 1084 AN UNCODIFIED ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING A ZONE CHANGE TO PRE -ZONE APPROXIMATELY .23 ACRES OF LAND FROM COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE W-2 (CONTROLLED DEVELOPMENT) TO CITY OF BEAUMONT RC (RECREATION AND CONSERVATION) (16 -PZ -01) WHEREAS, CV Communities, who has a vested interest, has requested that the City of Beaumont ("City") initiate the annexation of approximately 200 -acre unincorporated area pursuant to the Cortese -Knox -Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 ("Act"), as amended, and said Act requires that properties which are to be annexed to a City shall be pre -zoned prior to annexation; and WHEREAS, the property is located east of Interstate 10 and north of Brookside Avenue ("Subject Site") as described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and by this reference incorporated, and is presently uninhabited as defined in State law related to annexations with a current zoning designation of W-2 (Controlled Development) by the County of Riverside; and WHEREAS, duly noticed public hearings were conducted on this matter as required by law by the Planning Commission on January 10, 2017, and the City Council on February 7, 2017, and the Planning Commission, at its public hearing, recommended that the City Council approve the proposed pre -zoning; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined there is no possibility a significant effect on the environment would occur from approval of the proposed General Plan Amendment. This action then qualifies as CEQA exempt under 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. Specifically, the activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1: Upon the effective date of the annexation to the City, the Official Zoning Map of the City is hereby amended to designate the Subject Site legally described in attached Exhibit "A" with the following zoning designation: RC (RECREATION AND CONSERVATION) SECTION 2: Based upon the entire record before the City Council, including all written and oral evidence presented to the City Council, the City Council hereby makes and adopts the following findings: 1. That the proposed change of zone or zoning ordinance text amendment is consistent with the goals, policies, and objectives of the General Plan; and 2. That the proposed change of zone or zoning ordinance text amendment will not adversely affect surrounding properties; and 3. That the proposed change of zone or zoning ordinance text amendment promotes public health, safety, and general welfare and serves the goals and purposes of this zoning Ordinance. SECTION 3: The City Council has determined that this action then qualifies as CEQA exempt under 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines. SECTION 4 Said pre -zoning designation is approved in anticipation of annexation of the Subject Site and shall become effective on the effective date of the annexation of the Subject Site to the City by the Riverside County Local Agency Formation Commission. SECTION 5: Within fifteen (15) days after its passage the City Clerk shall cause a summary to be published in a newspaper of general circulation, printed and published in the City of Beaumont, in a manner prescribed by law for publishing of ordinances of said City. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves an amendment to the City Code. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 7th day of February, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Orozco, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 21st day of February, 2017. AYES: Martinez, Orozco, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: No i e -/7 Attest: 46,d),," r gt} City Clerk Approved as to form: Pinkne ity Attorney 4744 EXHIBIT "A" LEGAL DESCRIPTION PARCEL 1 1 (APN: 400-010-008) THAT PORTION OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 1 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO MERIDIAN AS SHOWN BY UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT SURVEY IN THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF BROOKSIDE AVENUE WITH THE NORTHWESTERLY PROLONGATION OF COURSE 2 AS DESCRIBED IN DEEDS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECORDED DECEMBER 19, 1962, IN BOOK 3277, PAGES 241 AND 252 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY; THENCE ALONG SAID PROLONGATION SOUTH 51°44'00" EAST, 111.58 FEET TO THE INTERSECTION THEREOF WITH THE WESTERLY CONTINUATION OF THAT CERTAIN NON -TANGENT CURVE, CONCAVE SOUTHERLY, WITH A RADIUS OF 2250.00 FEET AS SHOWN ON DETAIL MAP OF RELINQUISHMENT, FILED FOR RECORD MARCH 19, 1965 IN STATE HIGHWAY MAP BOOK 3, PAGE 103; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CONTINUATION AND SAID CURVE, FROM A TANGENT BEARING NORTH 68°33'45" EAST, THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 05°41'41", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 223.70 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID BROOKSIDE AVENUE; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, SOUTH 89°35'00" WEST 299.55 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. Page 1 of 2 I:\80338\MAPPING\Annexation\APN 400-010-008 LEGAL.docx CONTAINING 10,031 SQUARE FEET, MORE OR LESS. AS SHOWN ON EXHIBIT "B" ATTACHED HERETO AND MADE A PART HEREOF. PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: o -D'- i'/7 JOSEPH PADILLA, PLS 7557 DATE Page 2 of 2 I:\80338\ MAPPING \Annexation'APN 400-010-008 LEGAL.docx SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE PREPARED UNDER E SUPERVISION OF: OSEPH PADILLA LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 7557 EXHIBIT "B" SHEET 1 OF 1 PLS 7557 EXPIRES: 12-31-17 PROPERTY] ._ cid LOCATION , 'BROE' cifl CITY OF BEAUMONT `ms`s-, VICINITY MAP APN: 407-230-027 NOT TO SCALE PARCEL 6, PARCEL MAP NO. 12218, PMB 85/66 P.O.B. CE BROOKSIDE AVENUE (OLD) S8915'001N 299.55' NN /0 NNNN> NNNN 00e 8• •41' ik000t 00- s't* 50 25 0 50 SCALE: 1' = 50' SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE PREPARED UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF: EXHIBIT "C" SHEET 1 OF 1 JOSEPH PADILLA LICENSED LAND SURVEYOR NO. 7557 0/-0 PLS 7557 EXPIRES: 12-31-17 PROPER7Y1 ,00°.LOCATION 1 BROOKSIDE AVE. CITY OF BEAUMONT F krsr VICINITY MAP APN: 407-230-027 NOT TO SCALE PARCEL 6, PARCEL MAP NO. 12218, PMB 85/66 P.O.B. BROOKSIDE AVENUE (OLD) S89'35'00"W 299.55' M 8• 41� q1 41, 41 Q. R�K�o� LEGEND: ZONING DESIGNATION RECREATION CONSERVATION 50 25 0 50 SCALE: 1 = 50' ORDINANCE NO. 1085 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, DISSOLVING IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 7E OF CITY OF BEAUMONT COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT NO. 93-1 AND ORDERING THE RECORDATION OF A NOTICE OF CESSATION OF SPECIAL TAX LIEN TO IMPROVEMENT AREA NO. 7E WHEREAS, in 1993, the City Council (the "City Council") of the City of Beaumont (the "City") initiated proceedings pursuant to the Mello -Roos Community Facilities Act of 1982, as amended (the "Mello -Roos Act"), Chapter 2.5 of Part 1 of Division 2 of Title 5, commencing with Section 53111 of the California Government Code, to form a community facilities district designated as City of Beaumont Community Facilities District No. 93-1 (the "District"); and WHEREAS, on August 11, 1993, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 721 (the "Ordinance of Formation") thereby forming the District; and WHEREAS, Improvement Area No. 7E of the District ("Improvement Area No. 7E") was formed in 2005 and annexed into the District pursuant to Ordinance No. 885 adopted by the City Council acting as the legislative body of the District (the "Improvement Area Ordinance"); and WHEREAS, Improvement Area No. 7E was formed for the purpose of financing certain facilities (the "Facilities") and certain services to be provided within Improvement Area No. 7E (the "Services"); and WHEREAS, the Improvement Area Ordinance authorized the levy of special taxes commencing in Fiscal Year 2006-07 in Improvement Area No. 7E to finance the Facilities and Services and/or to pay debt service on bonds authorized to be issued for Improvement Area No. 7E for financing the Facilities; and WHEREAS, a Notice of Special Tax Lien was recorded on April 7, 2005 as Document No. 2005-0274399 (the "Notice of Special Tax Lien") in the office of the Assessor, County Clerk, and Recorder of the County of Riverside against the property within Improvement Area No. 7E of the District imposing a lien on such property to secure the payment of the special taxes to be levied within Improvement Area No. 7E; and WHEREAS, no bonds have been issued by the District with respect to Improvement Area No. 7E; and WHEREAS, K. Hovnanian's Four Seasons at Beaumont, LLC (the "Owner"), the current owner of all of the property within Improvement Area No. 7E of the District, has, on behalf of itself and its successors and/or assigns, submitted a request to the District (the "Request") in which the Owner: (a) requested that the City form the City of Beaumont Community Facilities District No. 2016-4 with the same boundaries as Improvement Area No. 7E, (b) requested that the City Council undertake proceedings pursuant to the Mello - Roos Act to dissolve Improvement Area No. 7E of the District, (c) voluntarily and knowingly waived its rights, if any, to have the cost of the Facilities, or any portion thereof, paid on behalf of the Owner or reimbursed to the Owner by the City, the District, or both of them, from the proceeds of bonds or special taxes; (d) voluntarily and knowingly waived the obligation, if any, of the City, the District, or both of them, to issue bonds or levy special taxes within Improvement Area No. 7E of the District; (e) voluntarily and knowingly waived any protest, complaint or legal action of any nature whatsoever against the City, the District, or both of them, pertaining to the dissolution of Improvement Area No. 7E of the District and any liens established by the recordation of the Notice of Special Tax Lien, the failure to issue bonds or levy special taxes; and (f) acknowledged and understood that the making of this request to dissolve Improvement Area No. 7E, and the subsequent dissolution of Improvement Area No. 7E, and of any liens established by the recordation of the Notice of Special Tax Lien, does not in any way whatsoever absolve, terminate, extinguish, reduce or otherwise modify the obligation of the Owner or any successor or assign of the Owner as the owner of all property in Improvement Area No. 7E with respect to the Facilities required by the City or any other public agency as a condition of approval of the development of the Owner's property within Improvement Area No. 7E; NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Beaumont does ordain as follows: Section 1. Recitals. The above recitals are true and correct, and are incorporated herein as if set forth in full. Section 2. Findithl s. The City Council acting as the legislative body of the District hereby finds and determines that: A. No bonds have been issued by the District on behalf of Improvement Area No. 7E and the District is not obligated to pay any outstanding debt on behalf of Improvement Area No. 7E; B. The Special Tax is no longer needed to pay principal and interest on debt incurred in order to construct facilities under the authority of the Mello -Roos Act, to pay the costs and incidental expenses of services or to pay the costs of the Services, and, based on the Request, is no longer needed to pay for the construction of facilities or the financing of Services authorized by the Mello -Roos Act; and C. Accordingly, the Special Tax shall cease to be levied within Improvement Area No. 7E and the District has no authorization to levy any special tax on behalf of Improvement Area No. 7E. Section 3. Dissolution. A. The City Council hereby dissolves Improvement Area No. 7E of the District pursuant to Government Code Section 53338.5. 2 B. The City Council hereby orders the City Clerk to file or cause the filing of Notice of Cessation of Special Tax pursuant to Government Code Section 53330.5, which shall also be considered an addendum to the Notice of Special Tax Lien pursuant to Government Code Section 53338.5, which Notice of Cessation of Special Tax shall state that the obligation to pay the special tax has ceased and that the lien imposed by the Notice of Special Tax Lien recorded as Document No. 2005-0274399 in the records of the office of the Assessor, County Clerk, and the Recorder of County of Riverside, State of California, is extinguished and that Improvement Area No. 7E and all associated liens have been dissolved, and shall additionally identify that the boundary map of the Improvement Area No. 7E of the District has been recorded in the County of Riverside, book 61, page 3 of the Book of Maps of Assessments and Community Facilities Districts. C. The Improvement Area Ordinance is hereby amended to repeal the authority of the District to levy special taxes within Improvement Area No. 7E of the District. The Improvement Area Ordinance shall otherwise remain unchanged. Nothing herein shall affect the authorization to levy special taxes within the other Improvement Areas of the District. Section 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective (30) days from and after its adoption. Section 5. Severability. If any part of this Ordinance is held invalid for any reason, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portion of this Ordinance, and this City Council hereby declares that it would have passed the remainder of this Ordinance if such invalid portion thereof had been deleted. Section 6. Adoption. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance, publish a summary of this Ordinance and post a certified copy of the full Ordinance in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to the adoption of the proposed Ordinance; and within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of the Ordinance, the City Clerk shall publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of the council members voting for and against the Ordinance. 3 PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 2017. I, Nicole Wheelwright, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont held on the 7th day of February, 2017, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on the 21st day of February, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Orozco, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAINED: None ATTEST: 16././ i L ?-6,1Cl Andreanna Pfeiffer, Citytle 4 ORDINANCE NO. 1086 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, ENACTING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR NEW AND RELOCATED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAYS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Under Public Utilities Code § 7901.1, a municipality can adopt reasonable time, place and manner regulations with respect to the manner in which public rights-of-way may be accessed by telephone companies, including wireless communication companies which have been granted state authorization permitting the construction of facilities in public rights-of-way. B. Title 47, United States Code § 332 appears to authorize municipalities to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless telecommunication facilities, subject to specified limitations. C. As used in this ordinance, "Wireless Facilities" means all equipment installed for the purpose of providing wireless transmission of voice, data, images or other information including, but not limited to, cellular telephone service, personal communications services and paging services, consisting of equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations and emergency power systems. "Wireless Facilities" shall not be deemed to include facilities constructed by and operated by suppliers of electric, gas or water utilities. 1 D. The BEAUMONT Municipal Code (BMC) is silent with respect to the development, siting, installation, and operation of Wireless Facilities within City rights-of- way. E. State and federal law addressing the scope and manner of local regulation of Wireless Facilities continues to develop and evolve as evidenced by the following cases and rule changes: i. In Sprint Telephone PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego (2008) 543 F.3d 571 ("Sprint Telephone"), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled seven years of Ninth Circuit jurisprudence relating to 47 U.S.C. § 253, a provision of Federal Telecommunications Act that, until this case was decided, had been interpreted to severely limit local authority to regulate Wireless Facilities. ii. In Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (2009) 583 F.3d 716 ("Sprint PCS"), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set out significant new standards establishing how municipalities may consider and decide applications for Wireless Facilities to be located within the public right-of-way. iii. On February 22, 2012, section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 ("Act") was enacted and changed how co -located Wireless Facilities must be evaluated, and in some cases must be approved, changing more than a decade of national jurisprudence relating to 47 U.S.C. § 332 that, until the passage of the Act allowed local governments wide latitude and discretion in considering co -location of Wireless Facilities in the public right-of- way, and on public and private property. iv. On October 17, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") issued a Report and Order updating its rules and procedures governing new and modified Wireless Facilities, which includes clarifications on local zoning powers with respect to Wireless Facilities and the procedures for the review of siting applications. 2 v. The case of T -Mobile West, LLC et al. vs. City and County of San Francisco et al. 3 Cal.App.5th 999 (2016) the court upheld the legal authority of municipalities to regulate timing, location and manner of construction of Wireless Facilities. F. The City has recently received and anticipates receiving additional requests by telecommunications providers to establish new or expanded Wireless Facilities within the City. However, as noted above, the existing provisions of the BMC are inadequate and time is needed to review, study and revise the BMC to fully take into account the impacts related to the timing, location and manner of construction of Wireless Facilities by multiple telecommunication providers within the public rights-of-way as well as other public and private property, including the public health, safety and welfare concerns of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. G. In addition to detracting from public views and neighborhood character, unsightly Wireless Facilities and their related visual clutter can lead to or exacerbate public safety hazards such as distracted driving. This poses a safety concern in Beaumont where members of the public, including children, commonly walk along public right-of-ways. For these reasons, the City Council finds that it must consider regulating the appearance and location of Wireless Facilities within the public right-of-ways in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare. H. The BMC must be updated in order to protect the public against the potential threats to the health, safety and welfare of the public arising from telecommunication providers constructing Wireless Facilities throughout the City. The City requires additional time to prepare, evaluate and adopt reasonable regulations regarding the use of the public rights-of-way and other public and private property within the City for Wireless Facilities. I. The absence of this ordinance would impair the orderly and effective implementation of contemplated amendments to the BMC, and any further authorization to construct Wireless Facilities in the City's rights-of-way or other public or private property within the City during the period of this moratorium may be in conflict with or may frustrate the contemplated updates and revisions to the BMC. 3 J. Without the enactment of this ordinance, multiple telecommunication providers could quickly receive permits to install Wireless Facilities that pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. For example, without this ordinance, Wireless Facilities could: i. Create land use conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height of poles and towers; ii. Create visual and aesthetics blights and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of Wireless Facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment boxes and power generators; iii. Create unnecessary visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalize on collocation opportunities; iv. Cause substantial disturbances to rights-of-way through the installation and maintenance of Wireless Facilities; v. Create traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of Wireless Facilities; and vi. Negatively impact the unique quality and character of the City. K. The City Council further finds that this moratorium is a matter of local and City- wide importance and is not directed towards any particular telecommunication provider that currently seeks to establish a Wireless Facility. L. Government Code §§ 36937 and 65858 authorize the adoption of an urgency ordinance to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prohibit certain land uses that may conflict with land use regulations that the City's legislative bodies are considering or intend to study within a reasonable time. M. The City Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare based on the above findings, and upon that basis has determined that an urgency ordinance prohibiting the issuance of new permits or approvals for new Wireless Facilities in public rights-of-way within the City is warranted. 4 SECTION 2. Applicability. This ordinance applies to all applications for the installation of new, and the relocation of existing, Wireless Facilities within any public right- of-way in any zone within the City of Beaumont. SECTION 3. Moratorium on New Wireless Facilities. A. Except as provided in Section 4 below, for a period of forty-five (45) days from the date of adoption of this ordinance, permits or other approvals for any new or incomplete applications after the date of this ordinance, may not be issued for any: I. Installation of a new Wireless Facility in a public right-of-way; or 2. Relocation of an existing Wireless Facility in a public right-of-way. B. For new applications for Wireless Facility installations and relocations received after the effective date of this ordinance, any time limits or mandatory approval time frames relative to the processing or action upon permit applications for any Wireless Facilities described in Section 3(A) are tolled during the term of this moratorium. The City Council intends to terminate this moratorium as soon as reasonably feasible within a timeframe to allow the adoption of new local regulations with respect to Wireless Facilities, to the extent reasonably advisable by staff following its study. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City staff may deny any application for a permit which prohibited from being issued under this ordinance. SECTION 4. Exceptions. The provisions of this ordinance shall not be construed to prohibit the issuance of permits or approvals for the following: A. The collocation of new antennas and other equipment on an existing Wireless Facility, provided that the exterior physical dimensions of the existing Wireless Facility are not substantially changed or increased; B. The maintenance, updating, repair or improvement of an existing Wireless Facility, provided that the physical dimensions of the Wireless Facility are not substantially changed. The determination of whether the physical dimensions will be substantially changed shall be in accordance with criteria stated in the FCC Report and Order dated October 17, 2014. SECTION 5. Report. The City Manager or his designee is authorized and directed to prepare and issue, on behalf of the City Council, a written report describing the measures taken by the City to alleviate the conditions which have led to the adoption of this ordinance, at least ten (10) days prior to the expiration of this ordinance. A copy of the same shall be subsequently provided to the City Council for review. SECTION 6. CEQA Review. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15060(c)(2) [the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment], 15060(c)(3) [the activity is not a project as defined by CEQA], and 15061(b)(3) [there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment]. These findings are premised on the fact that the adoption of this urgency interim ordinance will maintain existing environmental conditions arising from the City's current land use regulations without significant change or alteration. The City Manager is hereby directed to ensure that a Notice of Exemption is filed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15062 [14 C.C.R. § 15062]. SECTION 7. No Liability. The provisions of this ordinance shall not in any way be construed as imposing any duty of care, liability or responsibility for damage to person or property upon the City of BEAUMONT , or any official, employee or agent thereof. 6 SECTION 8. Pending Actions. Nothing in this ordinance or in the codes hereby adopted shall be construed to affect any suit or proceeding pending or impending in any court, or any rights acquired, or liability incurred, or any cause or causes of action acquired or existing, under any act or ordinance or code repealed by this ordinance, nor shall any just or legal right or remedy of the City of any character be lost, impaired or affected by this ordinance. SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Beaumont hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 10. Construction. The City Council intends this ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. To the extent the provisions of the Beaumont Municipal Code as amended by this ordinance are substantially the same as provisions in the Beaumont Municipal Code existing prior to the effectiveness of this ordinance, then those amended provisions shall be construed as continuations of the earlier provisions and not as new enactments. SECTION 11. Urgency; Effective Date; Duration and Publication. This ordinance is adopted by the City Council pursuant to the California Constitution, article XI, section 7 and Government Code section 65858 by a four-fifths (4/5) or greater vote, as an urgency measure to protect the public health, safety and 7 welfare, and shall take effect immediately. The reasons for such urgency are set forth in Section 1 above. This ordinance shall expire and be of no further force or effect forty-five (45) days after its adoption, unless it is extended pursuant to Government Code section 65858. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage hereof a certified copy of this ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk pursuant to Government Code section 36933(c)(1) and a summary shall be published once in the Press Enterprise, a newspaper printed and published in the City of BEAUMONT , State of California, together with the names of the Council members voting for and against the same. AYES: White, Carroll, Lara, Martinez NOES: None ABSENT: Orozco ABSTAIN: None Llo : White, Mayor Attest: Deputy City Clerk Approved as to form: Pinkney, r Attorney 8 ORDINANCE, NO. 1087 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 13.08.250 BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Section 13.08.250 of City of Beaumont Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: "13.08.250. The following sewage disposal facility charges shall be based on the intended use of the property and shall be calculated as follows: (a) For permanent single family residence (SFR) the sewer connection/capacity fee shall be a fixed rate per Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU) as established.by resolution of the City Council. (b) The connection/capacity fee for new non -SFR customers connecting to the City's sewer system, shall be calculated based on a multiple of EDUs based on the individual flow and strength characteristics of the new customer pursuant to a resolution of the City Council." MOVED AND PASSED upon first reading this 6th June, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: White, Carroll, Lara, Martinez NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Orozco MOVED, PASSED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of June, 2017, upon second reading by the following roll call vote: AYES: White, Carroll, Lara, Martinez NOES: ATTEST: City Clerk, Andreann j'Pfei err ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Orozco CITY OF BEAUMONT By 6,9 Ma r, Alf - d oyd White ORDINANCE NO. 1088 TEN MONTH AND FIFTEEN DAY EXTENSION OF ORDINANCE NO. 1086 BEING AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, ENACTING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ISSUANCE OF ANY PERMITS FOR NEW AND RELOCATED WIRELESS TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES WITHIN PUBLIC RIGHT-OF- WAYS, PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings. The City Council finds and declares as follows: A. Under Public Utilities Code § 7901.1, a municipality can adopt reasonable time, place and manner regulations with respect to the manner in which public rights-of-way may be accessed by telephone companies, including wireless communication companies which have been granted state authorization permitting the construction of facilities in public rights-of-way. B. Title 47, United States Code § 332 appears to authorize municipalities to regulate the placement, construction and modification of wireless telecommunication facilities, subject to specified limitations. C. As used in this ordinance, "Wireless Facilities" means all equipment installed for the purpose of providing wireless transmission of voice, data, images or other information including, but not limited to, cellular telephone service, personal communications services and paging services, consisting of equipment and network components such as towers, utility poles, transmitters, base stations and emergency power systems. "Wireless Facilities" shall not be deemed to include facilities constructed by and operated by suppliers of electric, gas or water utilities. D. The BEAUMONT Municipal Code (BMC) is silent with respect to the development, siting, installation, and operation of Wireless Facilities within City rights-of-way. 1 E. State and federal law addressing the scope and manner of local regulation of Wireless Facilities continues to develop and evolve as evidenced by the following cases and rule changes: i. In Sprint Telephone PCS, L.P. v. County of San Diego (2008) 543 F.3d 571 ("Sprint Telephone"), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overruled seven years of Ninth Circuit jurisprudence relating to 47 U.S.C. § 253, a provision of Federal Telecommunications Act that, until this case was decided, had been interpreted to severely limit local authority to regulate Wireless Facilities. ii. In Sprint PCS Assets, LLC v. City of Palos Verdes Estates (2009) 583 F.3d 716 ("Sprint PCS"), the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals set out significant new standards establishing how municipalities may consider and decide applications for Wireless Facilities to be located within the public right-of-way. iii. On February 22, 2012, section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012 ("Act") was enacted and changed how co -located Wireless Facilities must be evaluated, and in some cases must be approved, changing more than a decade of national jurisprudence relating to 47 U.S.C. § 332 that, until the passage of the Act allowed local governments wide latitude and discretion in considering co -location of Wireless Facilities in the public right-of-way, and on public and private property. iv. On October 17, 2014, the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") issued a Report and Order updating its rules and procedures governing new and modified Wireless Facilities, which includes clarifications on local zoning powers with respect to Wireless Facilities and the procedures for the review of siting applications. v. The case of T -Mobile West, LLC et al. vs. City and County of San Francisco et al. 3 Cal.App.5th 999 (2016) the court upheld the legal authority of municipalities to regulate timing, location and manner of construction of Wireless Facilities. F. The City has recently received and anticipates receiving additional requests by telecommunications providers to establish new or expanded Wireless Facilities within the City rights of way. However, as noted above, the existing provisions of the BMC are inadequate and 2 time is needed to review, study and revise the BMC to fully take into account the impacts related to the timing, location and manner of construction of Wireless Facilities by multiple telecommunication providers within the public rights-of-way as well as other public and private property, including the public health, safety and welfare concerns of pedestrian and vehicular traffic. G. In addition to detracting from public views and neighborhood character, unsightly Wireless Facilities and their related visual clutter can lead to or exacerbate public safety hazards such as distracted driving. This poses a safety concern in Beaumont where members of the public, including children, commonly walk along public right-of-ways. For these reasons, the City Council finds that it must consider regulating the appearance and location of Wireless Facilities within the public right-of-ways in order to promote the public health, safety and welfare. H. The BMC must be updated in order to protect the public against the potential threats to the health, safety and welfare of the public arising from telecommunication providers constructing Wireless Facilities throughout the City in the rights of way. The City requires additional time to prepare, evaluate and adopt reasonable regulations regarding the use of the public rights-of-way and other public and private property within the City for Wireless Facilities. I. The absence of this ordinance would impair the orderly and effective implementation of contemplated amendments to the BMC, and any further authorization to construct Wireless Facilities in the City's rights-of-way or other public or private property within the City during the period of this moratorium may be in conflict with or may frustrate the contemplated updates and revisions to the BMC. J. Without the enactment of this ordinance, multiple telecommunication providers could quickly receive permits to install Wireless Facilities that pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare. For example, without this ordinance, Wireless Facilities could: i. Create land use conflicts and incompatibilities including excessive height of poles and towers; ii. Create visual and aesthetic blight and potential safety concerns arising from excessive size, heights, noise or lack of camouflaging of Wireless Facilities including the associated pedestals, meters, equipment boxes and power generators; 3 iii. Create unnecessary visual and aesthetic blight by failing to utilize alternative technologies or capitalize on collocation opportunities; iv. Cause substantial disturbances to rights-of-way through the installation and maintenance of Wireless Facilities; v. Create traffic and pedestrian safety hazards due to the unsafe location of Wireless Facilities; and vi. Negatively impact the unique quality and character of the City. K. The City Council further finds that this moratorium is a matter of local and City- wide importance and is not directed towards any particular telecommunication provider that currently seeks to establish a Wireless Facility. L. Government Code §§ 36937 and 65858 authorize the adoption of an urgency ordinance to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and to prohibit certain land uses that may conflict with land use regulations that the City's legislative bodies are considering or intend to study within a reasonable time. M. On June 6th, 2017 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 1086 whereby it imposed a moratorium on the issuance of new permits or approvals for new Wireless Facilities in public rights-of-way within the City which is valid until July 21St, 2017 under Government Code Section 65858. N. On June 20th, 2017 the City Council issued a written report describing the measures taken at that time to alleviate the condition which led to the adoption of the ordinance and on July 9th the City Manager issued another such report. O. On July , 2017 notice was published pursuant to Government Section 65090 and 6061 at least ten days before the date of the public hearing and adoption of this ordinance. P. On July 18th, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public hearing regarding this ordinance. At the hearing, all interested persons were given an opportunity to be heard. The City Council received and considered the staff report and all information, evidence, and testimony presented in connection with this proposed ordinance; and The City Council finds that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare based on the above findings, and upon that basis has determined that an urgency ordinance prohibiting the issuance of new permits or approvals for new Wireless Facilities in public rights-of-way within the City is warranted. 4 SECTION 2. Applicability. This ordinance applies to all applications for the installation of new, and the relocation of existing, Wireless Facilities within any public right-of-way in any zone within the City of Beaumont. SECTION 3. Extended Moratorium on New Wireless Facilities for Ten Months and Fifteen Days. A. Except as provided in Section 4 below, for a period of ten months and fifteen days from the date of adoption of this ordinance, permits or other approvals for any new or incomplete applications may not be issued for any: I. Installation of a new Wireless Facility in a public right-of-way; or 2. Relocation of an existing Wireless Facility in a public right-of-way. B. For new applications for Wireless Facility installations and relocations received after the effective date of this ordinance, any time limits or mandatory approval time frames relative to the processing or action upon permit applications for any Wireless Facilities described in Section 3(A) are tolled during the term of this moratorium. The City Council intends to terminate this moratorium as soon as reasonably feasible within a timeframe to allow the adoption of new local regulations with respect to Wireless Facilities, to the extent reasonably advisable by staff following its study. Notwithstanding the foregoing, City staff may deny any application for a permit which prohibited from being issued under this ordinance. SECTION 4. Exceptions. The provisions of this ordinance shall not be construed to prohibit the issuance of permits or approvals for the following: A. The collocation of new antennas and other equipment on an existing Wireless Facility, provided that the exterior physical dimensions of the existing Wireless Facility are not substantially changed or increased; B. The maintenance, updating, repair or improvement of an existing Wireless Facility, provided that the physical dimensions of the Wireless Facility are not substantially changed. The determination of whether the physical dimensions will be substantially changed shall be in accordance with criteria stated in the FCC Report and Order dated October 17, 2014. SECTION 5. Report. The City Manager or his designee is authorized and directed to prepare and issue, on behalf of the City Council, a written report describing the measures taken by the City to alleviate the conditions which have led to the adoption of this ordinance, at least ten 5 (10) days prior to the expiration of this ordinance. A copy of the same shall be subsequently provided to the City Council for review. SECTION 6. CEQA Review. The City Council hereby finds that this ordinance is not subject to review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines sections 15060(c)(2) [the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment], 15060(c)(3) [the activity is not a project as defined by CEQA], and 15061(b)(3) [there is no possibility the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment]. These findings are premised on the fact that the adoption of this urgency interim ordinance will maintain existing environmental conditions arising from the City's current land use regulations without significant change or alteration. The City Manager is hereby directed to ensure that a Notice of Exemption is filed pursuant to CEQA Guidelines section 15062 [14 C.C.R. § 15062]. SECTION 7. No Liability. The provisions of this ordinance shall not in any way be construed as imposing any duty of care, liability or responsibility for damage to person or property upon the City of BEAUMONT , or any official, employee or agent thereof. SECTION 8. Pending Actions. Nothing in this ordinance or in the codes hereby adopted shall be construed to affect any suit or proceeding pending or impending in any court, or any rights acquired, or liability incurred, or any cause or causes of action acquired or existing, under any act or ordinance or code repealed by this ordinance, nor shall any just or legal right or remedy of the City of any character be lost, impaired or affected by this ordinance. SECTION 9. Severability. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of this ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Beaumont hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof be declared invalid or unenforceable. SECTION 10. Construction. The City Council intends this ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this ordinance shall be 6 construed in light of that intent. To the extent the provisions of the Beaumont Municipal Code as amended by this ordinance are substantially the same as provisions in the Beaumont Municipal Code existing prior to the effectiveness of this ordinance, then those amended provisions shall be construed as continuations of the earlier provisions and not as new enactments. SECTION 11. Urgency; Effective Date; Duration and Publication. This ordinance is adopted by the City Council pursuant to the California Constitution, article XI, section 7 and Government Code section 65858 by a four-fifths (4/5) or greater vote, as an urgency measure to protect the public health, safety and welfare, and shall take effect immediately. The reasons for such urgency are set forth in Section 1 above. This ordinance shall expire and be of no further force or effect ten months and fifteen days after its adoption, unless it is extended pursuant to Government Code section 65858. Prior to the expiration of fifteen (15) days from the passage hereof a certified copy of this ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk pursuant to Government Code section 36933(c)(1) and a summary shall be published once in the Press Enterprise, a newspaper printed and published in the County of Riverside and distributed in the City of BEAUMONT, State of California, together with the names of the Council members voting for and against the same. PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 2017. 7 I, Nicole Wheelwright, Assistant City Clerk of the City of Beaumont, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont held on the 18th day of July, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: White, Lara, Martinez NOES: ABSENT: Orozco, Carroll ABSTAINED: Approved as to form: i . Pinkney y Attorney ATTEST: / .4 'g 8 Andreanna Pfeiffer, C ORDINANCE NO. 1089 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA ADDING SECTION 15.48 OF THE BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE ENTITLED "ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS" BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), pursuant to 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3) and 15061(b)(3) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. CEQA review is not required because the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, the activity is not a project as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 and there is no possibility that this Ordinance may have a significant effect upon the environment and the proposed text amendments constitute a minor alteration in a land use limitation under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305, and such a land use limitation is a permissible exercise of the City's zoning powers. SECTION 2. Severability . The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance enforced. SECTION 3. Prosecution of Prior Ordinances. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution of any violation of any City ordinance or provision of the Beaumont Municipal Code, committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 4. The City Council hereby adds Section 15.48, entitled "Electric Vehicle Charging Station Streamlined Permitting Process" to the Beaumont Municipal Code to read as specifically set forth in Exhibit "A", which Exhibit is attached hereto and made a part hereof. SECTION 5. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves an amendment to the City Code. 1 INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 1st day of August, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: White, Carroll, Lara, Martinez NOES ABSENT: Orozco ABSTAIN PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 15th day of August, 2017.. AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: ABSENT: Orozco ABSTAIN: Alfred 1 Attest: y te, Mayor Andreanna Pfeifferlerk Approved as to form: Joie n .««Pinkney, Ci orney 2 Exhibit A Chapter 15.48 ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION STREAMLINED PERMITTING PROCESS Sections: 15.48.010 Purpose. 15.48.020 Applicability. 15.48.030 Definitions. 15.18.040 Requirements. 15.48.050 Application and Documents. 15.48.060 Permit Review Requirements. 15.48.070 Fees. 15.48.010 Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to create an expedited, streamlined Electric Vehicle Charging Station permitting process that complies with Government Code section 65850.7 to achieve timely and cost-effective installations of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. 15.48.020 Applicability. a. This chapter applies to the permitting of all Electric Vehicle Charging Stations in the City. b. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations legally established or permitted prior to the effective date of this ordinance are not subject to the requirements of this ordinance unless physical modifications or alterations are undertaken that materially change the size, type, or components of an Electric Vehicle Charging Station in such a way as to require a new permit. 15.48.030 Definitions. a. For the purpose of this Chapter, words and terms shall be defined as set forth in this Section. Where terms are not defined in this Code and are defined in other codes, such terms shall have the meanings ascribed to them as in those codes. Where terms are not defined through the methods authorized by this Section, such terms shall have ordinary accepted meanings such as the context implies. b. An "Electric Vehicle Charging Station" means the following: i. Any level of electric vehicle supply equipment station that is designed and built in compliance with Article 625 of the California Electrical Code, as it reads on the effective date of this section, and delivers electricity from a source outside an electric vehicle into a plug-in electric vehicle. c. "Electronic Submittal" means the utilization of the following: i. Any computer based electronic plan review software maintained, operated, and utilized by the City while receiving applications through the internet. d. "Specific Adverse Impact" means the following: 3 i. A significant, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impact, based on objective, identified, and written public health or safety standards, policies or conditions as they existed on the date the application was deemed complete. 15.48.040 Requirements. a. All Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall meet all applicable health and safety standards and the requirements imposed by the state and the City, local fire department and utility provider. b. Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall meet all applicable safety and performance standards established by the California Electrical Code, the Society of Automotive Engineers, the National Electrical Manufacturers Association, and accredited testing laboratories such as Underwriters Laboratories and, where applicable, rules of the Public Utilities Commission regarding safety and reliability. 15.48.050 Application and Documents. a. All documents required for the submission of an expedited Electric Vehicle Charging Station application shall be made available on the publicly accessible City website. b. Electronic Submittal of the required permit application and documents through City utilized computer based software shall be made available to all Electric Vehicle Charging Station permit applicants. c. An applicant's electronic signature shall be accepted on all forms, applications, and other documents in lieu of a wet signature. d. The Building and Safety Division shall adopt a checklist of all requirements with which Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall comply to be eligible for expedited review. e. The Building and Safety Division may refer to the recommendation contained in the most current version of the Plug -In Electric Vehicle Infrastructure Permitting Checklist and the Zero -Emissions Vehicles in California: Community Readiness Guidebook published by the Governor's Office of Planning and Research, when adopting the electric vehicle charging permit process and checklist. f. If the Building Official determines, based on substantial evidence, that the Electric Vehicle Charging Station could have a specific, adverse impact upon the public health and safety, the Building Official shall make written findings to support this determination and may require the applicant to apply for a conditional use permit pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.02.100 of the Beaumont Municipal Code or an administrative use permit should one be adopted in the future for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. The decision of the Building Official on an application for an Electric Vehicle Charging Station becomes final unless the decision is appealed to the Planning Commission pursuant to the provisions of Section 17.020.030 of this Code. 15.48.060 Permit Review Requirements. a. The Building Official shall implement an administrative review process to expedite approval of Electric Vehicle Charging Stations. Where the application meets the requirements of the approved checklist and standards and there are no specific, adverse impacts upon public health or safety, the Building and Safety Division shall complete the building permit 4 approval process, which is nondiscretionary. Review of the application for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations shall be limited to the Building Official's review of whether the application meets local, state, and federal health and safety requirements. It shall be unlawful for any person to install, operate, or maintain an Electric Vehicle Charging Station without such a permit for such work, and the permit shall be secured from the Building Official by the owner or the owner's agent. b. If a permit application is deemed incomplete, a written correction notice detailing all deficiencies in the permit application and any additional information or documentation required to be eligible for expedited permit issuance shall be sent to the applicant for resubmission. c. Any condition imposed on an application shall be designed to mitigate the specific, adverse impact upon health and safety at the lowest possible cost. d. A feasible method to satisfactorily mitigate or avoid the specific, adverse impact includes, but is not limited to, any cost-effective method, condition, or mitigation imposed by the city on another similarly situated application in a prior successful application for a permit. e. Any permit approvals, which are granted pursuant to the provision of this Chapter, shall not authorize an applicant to connect the Electric Vehicle Charging Station to the electricity grid of the public utility. Any such connection shall be governed by the rules and regulations of the public utility. f. The Building Official shall have access to the premises described in a permit for the Electric Vehicle Charging Station in order to inspect the progress of the work. 15.48.070 Fees. The City Council may establish by resolution fees that shall be charged for permits issued under this chapter. 5 ORDINANCE NO. 1090 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AMENDING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 5.62 OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE TO REGULATE THE PERSONAL, MEDICAL, AND COMMERCIAL USE OF MARIJUANA; AND AMENDING TITLE 5, CHAPTER 5.70 PROHIBITING MOBILE MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND DELIVERY WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana (the "AUMA"); and WHEREAS, some of the provisions of the AUMA took effect on November 9, 2016. The AUMA immediately legalized possession, transport, purchase, use, and transfer of recreational marijuana for individuals 21 years of age or older; and WHEREAS, under the AUMA, adults can possess up to 28.5 grams of marijuana, up to 8 grams of marijuana in the form of concentrated cannabis, which may be present in marijuana products such as edibles, and up to six living marijuana plants and any marijuana produced by those plants; and WHEREAS, the AUMA legalizes the cultivation of marijuana, marijuana delivery services, and recreational marijuana retail services; and WHEREAS, to regulate commercial use of marijuana, the AUMA adds Division 10 (Marijuana) to the Business & Professions Code, which grants state agencies the "exclusive authority to create, issue, renew, discipline, suspend, or revoke" licenses for Marijuana businesses, including the transportation, storage, distribution, sale, cultivation, manufacturing, and testing of marijuana; and WHEREAS, the AUMA provides that state agencies shall promulgate rules and regulations and shall begin issuing licenses under Division 10 by January 1, 2018; and WHEREAS, the AUMA states that a local jurisdiction shall not prevent transportation of marijuana or marijuana products on public roads by a licensee transporting marijuana or marijuana products in compliance with Division 10; and WHEREAS, the AUMA authorizes cities to "reasonably regulate" without completely prohibiting the cultivation of marijuana inside a private residence or inside an "accessory structure to a private residence located upon grounds of a private residence that is fully enclosed and secure"; and WHEREAS, the AUMA authorizes cities to completely prohibit outdoor cultivation on the grounds of a private residence, up to an until a "determination by the California Attorney General that nonmedical use of marijuana is lawful in the State of California under federal law"; and WHEREAS, the AUMA authorizes cities to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of any State -licensed Marijuana business; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the interests of the public health, safety and welfare of the City and its residents to have a strong and effective regulatory and enforcement system prohibiting Commercial Marijuana Activity to the extent authorized by State law ; and WHEREAS, in light of the AUMA, the City Council now desires to amend sections of the City Code to regulate indoor Personal Cultivation of Marijuana consistent with applicable law; completely ban outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana to the extent authorized by law; and completely prohibit Commercial Marijuana Activity—whether medical or recreational—within the City. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findinus. The City Council finds and determines as follows: 1. The dispensing, cultivation, manufacture, transportation, and distribution of marijuana can create problems related to public health, safety and welfare, increased crime, and energy consumption; and 2. Marijuana can create nuisance activity such as loitering and criminal activity in business and residential districts; and 3. Mobile delivery can create issues relating to responsibility and resources to monitor and enforce State law, questions of patient qualifications, and risks relating to the high use of large sums of cash for mobile transactions; and 4. Indoor cultivation of marijuana has potential adverse effects on the health and safety of occupants, including structural damage to the building due to increased moisture and excessive mold growth which can occur and can pose a risk of fire and electrocution, and chemical contamination due to the use of pesticides and fertilizers within the structure; and 5. Based on the experiences of other cities, these negative effects on the public health, safety, and welfare are likely to occur, and continue to occur, in the City due to the establishment and operation of marijuana dispensary, cultivation, processing, manufacturing, transportation and distribution uses. SECTION 2. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. SECTION 3. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences, or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance enforced. SECTION 4. Violation of Prior Ordinances. Neither the adoption of this Ordinance nor the repeal of any other ordinance of this City shall in any manner affect the prosecution of any violation of any City ordinance or provision of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code, committed prior to the effective date hereof, nor be construed as a waiver of any penalty or the penal provisions applicable to any violation thereof. SECTION 5. The City Council hereby amends Title 5 (Business Taxes, Licenses, and Regulations), Division II, Chapter 5.62 to read in its entirety as follows: Chapter 5.62 PROHIBITION AND REGULATION OF PERSONAL MARIJUANA USE AND CULTIVATION AND COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA ACTIVITY Sections: 5.62.010 Purpose. 5.62.020 Definitions. 5.62.030 Personal Use and Cultivation. 5.62.040 Commercial Marijuana Activity. 5.62.050 Violation and Enforcement. 5.62.010 Purpose. It is the purpose and intent of this Chapter to: (1) regulate indoor personal Cultivation of Marijuana to the fullest extent permitted by State law; (2) completely prohibit outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana; and (3) completely prohibit Commercial Marijuana Activity— whether medical or recreational within the City of Beaumont, to the fullest extent permitted by law. 5.62.020 Definitions. A. "Marijuana" shall mean all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds, or resin. "Marijuana" also means the separated resin, whether crude or purified, obtained from marijuana. "Marijuana" also means marijuana as defined by Section 11018 of the Health and Safety Code. For the purposes of this Chapter, "Marijuana" does not mean "industrial hemp" as defined by Section 81000 of the Food and Agriculture Code or Section 11018.5 of the Health and Safety Code, or the weight of any other ingredient combined with marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product B. "Commercial Marijuana Activity" includes the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, transportation, and/or sale of Marijuana and/or Marijuana products. Commercial Marijuana Activity expressly includes Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries and Delivery, as defined in City Code Chapter 5.70. Commercial Marijuana Activity does not include: (1) The Activity of a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver as defined in Business and Professions Code Section 19319; or (2) A person 21 years of age or older who, in strict accordance with State law and/or regulations, as may be amended from time to time: (i) possesses, processes, transports, purchases, obtains, or gives away to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever, no more than 28.5 grams of Marijuana not in the form of concentrated cannabis; or (ii) possesses, processes, transports, purchases, obtains, or gives away to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever, not more than eight grams of Marijuana in the form of concentrated cannabis, including as contained in Marijuana products; or (iii) possesses, plants, cultivates, harvests, dries, or processes not more than six living Marijuana plants and possess the Marijuana produced by those plants; or (iv) smokes or ingests Marijuana or Marijuana products; or (v) possesses transports, purchases, obtains, uses, manufactures, or gives away Marijuana accessories to persons 21 years of age or older without any compensation whatsoever. C. "Cultivation" means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying curing, grading, or trimming of Marijuana, whether within a structure completely or partially enclosed, or outdoors. D. "Person" means any individual, firm, corporation, association, collective, cooperative, dispensary, club, society, or other organization or group acting as a unit. The term Individual shall include any owner, manager, proprietor, employee, volunteer, salesperson, primary caregiver or qualified patient. E. "Private residence" means a house, an apartment unit, a mobile home, or any other similar dwelling. 5.62.030 Personal Use and Cultivation. A. For purposes of this subsection, personal use, possession, process, purchase, transport, and/or dissemination of Marijuana shall be considered unlawful in all areas of the City to the extent it is unlawful under State law. B. Outdoor Cultivation. No person may plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process Marijuana plants outdoors in any zoning district of the City. No permit or any other license or entitlement for use, nor any business license, shall be approved or issued for the opening, establishment, maintenance or operation of any such use or activity. In the event of a determination by the California Attorney General that nonmedical use of marijuana is lawful in the State of California under federal law, outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana shall be prohibited and/or regulated to the fullest extent permitted by State law. C. Indoor Cultivation. No Person, including a Qualified Patient or Primary Caregiver, may plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process Marijuana plants except inside a private residence or accessory structure to a private residence located upon the grounds of a private residence, and only in strict accordance with State law and/or regulations, and the City Code, as may be amended from time to time. This provision shall not be construed to authorize, regulate, permit, license, or otherwise allow indoor cultivation for commercial use. Such activity is expressly prohibited in all zones throughout the City. 5.62.040 Commercial Marijuana Activity The opening, establishment, maintenance or operation of any business for the purpose of conducting Commercial Marijuana Activity, whether for medical or recreational use, is prohibited in all zones throughout the City. No permit or any other license or entitlement for use, nor any business license, shall be approved or issued for the establishment, maintenance, or operation of any business engaged in Commercial Marijuana Activity. 5.62.060 Violation and Enforcement. 1. Any condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any provisions of this Chapter, the City Code, or State or City law is declared a public nuisance and may be abated by the City either pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of the Beaumont Municipal Code or any other available civil and/or criminal remedy, including but not limited to a restraining order, temporary and permanent injunctive relief, and other relief set forth in this Chapter, City Code and/or State Law. 2. Any person found to be in violation of or in non-compliance with any of the requirements of this Chapter or applicable provisions of the Beaumont Municipal Code shall be subject to any enforcement remedies available under the law and/or the Beaumont Municipal Code including, but not limited to, Chapter 1.17 and Chapter 8.32. 3. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter or any provisions or part hereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day per violation or by imprisonment for a period of not more than six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. No civil action shall prevent criminal prosecution for any violation of the provisions of this Chapter, City Code and/or State law, 4. In lieu of issuing a misdemeanor citation, the City , may reduce the penalty to an infraction or issue an administrative citation, and/or assess an administrative fine up to the maximum amount(s) permitted by law and the Code. 5. Each violation of this Chapter shall constitute a separate violation and each violation may be charged as a separate count in the event of administrative or criminal enforcement action. SECTION 6. The City Council hereby amends Title 5 (Business Taxes, Licenses, and Regulations), Division II, Chapter 5.70 "Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries" to read in its entirety as follows: CHAPTER 5.70 MOBILE MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND DELIVERY Sections: 5.70.010 Definitions. 5.70.020 Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries Prohibited. 5.70.030 Marijuana Delivery Prohibited. 5.70.040 Public Nuisance Declared. 5.70.050 Violations. 5.70.010 Definitions. The following words and phrases shall, for the purposes of this Chapter, have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section, as follows: "Delivery" means the commercial transfer of Marijuana or Marijuana products to a customer of a business engaged in Commercial Marijuana Activity (as defined in City Code Section 5.62.020). "Delivery" also includes the use by a retailer of any technology platform owned and controlled by a retailer, or independently licensed under State law, that enables customers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer by a licensed retailer of Marijuana or Marijuana product. "Mobile Marijuana Dispensary" means any clinic, cooperative, club, business or group which transports or delivers, or arranges the transportation or Delivery, of marijuana to a Person for any medical or recreational use. "Person" means any individual, firm, corporation, association, collective, cooperative, dispensary, club, society, or other organization or group acting as a unit. The term Individual shall include any owner, manager, proprietor, employee, volunteer, salesperson, primary caregiver or qualified patient. "Operation" means any effort to locate, operate, own, lease, supply, allow to be operated, or aid, abet or assist in the operation of a Mobile Marijuana Dispensary. 5.70.020 Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries Prohibited. To the fullest extent permitted by State law, Mobile Marijuana Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones in the City of Beaumont. No person shall locate, operate, own, suffer, allow to be operated or aide, abet or assist in the operation of any Mobile Marijuana Dispensary within the City. 5.70.030 Marijuana Delivery Prohibited. To the fullest extent permitted by State law, Delivery of Marijuana is prohibited in all zones in the City of Beaumont 5.70.040 Public Nuisance Declared. Operation of any Mobile Marijuana Dispensary or Delivery service within the City is hereby declared a public nuisance and shall be abated pursuant to all available civil and/or criminal remedies, including but not limited to a restraining order, temporary and permanent injunctive relief, and other relief as set forth in this Chapter, the City Code and/or State law. 5.70.050 Violations. Violations of this Chapter may be enforced in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 1.17 of this Code. Notwithstanding any other provision of the Code, a violation of this Chapter is not subject to criminal penalties. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Chapter or any provisions or part hereof, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction thereof shall be punishable by a fine of up to one thousand dollars ($1,000.00) per day per violation or by imprisonment for a period of not more than six (6) months, or by both such fine and imprisonment. No civil action shall prevent criminal prosecution for any violation of the provisions of this Chapter, City Code and/or State law. In lieu of issuing a misdemeanor citation, the City , may reduce the penalty to an infraction or issue an administrative citation, and/or assess an administrative fine up to the maximum amount(s) permitted by law and the Code. Each violation of this Chapter shall constitute a separate violation and each violation may be charged as a separate count in the event of administrative or criminal enforcement action. SECTION 7. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves an amendment to the City Code. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 1st day of August, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: White, Carroll, Lara, Martinez NOES: ABSENT: Orozco ABSTAIN: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 15th day of August, 2017. AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: ABSENT: Orozco AB STAIN: Lloyd ite, Mayor Attest: Andreanna Pfeiffer, City Approved as to form: Joh I* " inkney, Ci torney ORDINANCE NO. 1091 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT ADOPTING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE (TUMF) PROGRAM BY ADDING CHAPTER 3.31 TO THE BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE Section 1. The City Council of the City of Beaumont, California "(City") ordains that a new Chapter 3.39 is added to the Beaumont Municipal Code to read as follows: Section 010. Title. This Ordinance shall be known as the "Western Riverside County Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance of 2017" ("Ordinance"). Section 020. Findings. A. The City is a member agency of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG"), a joint powers agency comprised of the County of Riverside and 18 cities located in Western Riverside County. Acting in concert, the WRCOG Member Agencies developed a plan whereby the shortfall in funds needed to enlarge the capacity of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials in Western Riverside County (the "Regional System") could be made up in part by a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee ("TUMF") on future residential, commercial and industrial development. A map depicting the boundaries of Western Riverside County and the Regional System is attached here as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein. B. WRCOG, with the assistance of TUMF Participating Jurisdictions, has prepared an updated nexus study entitled "Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Nexus Study: 2016 Update" ("2016 Nexus Study") pursuant to California Government Code sections 66000 et seq. (the Mitigation Fee Act), for the purpose of updating the fees. On July 10, 2017, the WRCOG Executive Committee reviewed the 2016 Nexus Study and TUMF Program and recommended TUMF Participating Jurisdictions amend their applicable TUMF ordinances to reflect changes in the TUMF network and the cost of construction in order to update the TUMF Program. C. The City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the Regional System is not enlarged and unless development contributes to the cost of improving the Regional System, the result will be substantial traffic congestion in all parts of Western Riverside County, with unacceptable Levels of Service. Furthermore, the failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the Regional System will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond and, thus, adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. Therefore, continuation of a TUMF Program is essential. D. The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the TUMF and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development in which the TUMF will be levied. E. »'The City Council finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the Regional System and the type of development projects on which the TUMF is imposed because it will be necessary for the 20323.00004\29964747.2 residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the Regional system. Such development will benefit from the Regional System improvements and the burden of such developments will be mitigated in part by payment of the TUMF. F. The City Council finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the new 2016 Nexus Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the Regional System improvements and the facilities that compromise the Regional System, and that the amount of the TUMF expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. G. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall be used to help pay for the design, planning, construction of and real acquisition for the Regional System improvements and its facilities as identified in the 2016 Nexus Study. The need for the improvements and facilities is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic and creates the demand for the improvements. H. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the 2016 Nexus Study and the fees proposed thereunder and at least ten (10) days prior to this hearing, the City Council made the 2016 Nexus Study available to the public. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered data and information provided by the public relative to the cost of the improvements and facilities for which the fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing. J. The City Council finds that the 2016 Nexus Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements and facilities to the Regional system. K. The City Council hereby adopts the 2016 Nexus Study and its findings. The 2016 Nexus Study is attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "B." Section 030. Definitions. For the purpose of this Ordinance, the following words, terms and phrases shall have the following meanings: A. "Class 'A' Office" means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, on site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class 'A" Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of three stories (exception will be made for March JPA, where height requirements exist); (ii) minimum of 10,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/ exits for commercial uses within the building. B. "Class `B' Office" means an office building that is typically characterized by high quality design, use of high end building materials, state of the art technology for voice and data, 20323.00004\29964747.2 on site support services/maintenance, and often includes full service ancillary uses such as, but not limited to a bank, restaurant/office coffee shop, health club, printing shop, and reserved parking. The minimum requirements of an office building classified as Class `B" Office shall be as follows: (i) minimum of two stories; (ii) minimum of 15,000 square feet per floor; (iii) steel frame, concrete or masonry shell construction; (iv) central, interior lobby; and (v) access to suites shall be from inside the building unless the building is located in a central business district with major foot traffic, in which case the first floor may be accessed from the street to provide entrances/exits for commercial uses within the building. C. "Development Project" or "Project" means any project undertaken for the purposes of development, including the issuance of a permit for construction. D. "Gross Acreage" means the total property area as shown on a land division of a map of record, or described through a recorded legal description of the property. This area shall be bounded by road rights of way and property lines. E. "Habitable Structure" means any structure or part thereof where persons reside, congregate or work and which is legally occupied in whole or part in accordance with applicable building codes, and state and local laws. F. "Industrial Project" means any development project that proposes any industrial or manufacturing use allowed in the following Ordinance No. 1016 zoning classifications: I -P, M, M -S -C, M -M, M -H, M -R, M -R -A, A-1, A -P, A-2, A -D, W -E, or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone. G. "Low Income Residential Housing" means "Residential Affordable Units": (A) for rental housing, the units shall be made available, rented and restricted to "lower income households" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50079.5) at an "affordable rent" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50053), ). Affordable units that are rental housing shall be made available, rented, and restricted to lower income households at an affordable rent for a period of at least fifty-five (55) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for new residential development. and (B) for for -sale housing, the units shall be sold to "persons or families of low or moderate income" (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50093) at a purchase price that will not cause the purchaser's monthly housing cost to exceed "affordable housing cost (as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 50052.5) Affordable units that are for -sale housing units shall be restricted to ownership by persons and families of low or moderate income for at least forty-five (45) years after the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the new residential development. H. "Multi -Family Residential Unit" means a development project that has a density of greater than eight (8) residential dwelling units per gross acre. "Non -Residential Unit" means retail commercial, service commercial and industrial development which is designed primarily for non -dwelling use, but shall include hotels and motels. J. "Recognized Financing District" means a Financing District as defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan as may be amended from time to time. K. "Residential Dwelling Unit" means a building or portion thereof used by one (1) family and containing but one (1) kitchen, which is designed primarily for residential occupancy 20323.00004\29964747.2 including single-family and multi -family dwellings. "Residential Dwelling Unit" shall not include hotels or motels. L. "Retail Commercial Project" means any development project that proposes any retail commercial activity use not defined as a service commercial project allowed in the following Ordinance No. 1016 classifications: R-1, R -R, R -R -O, R -1-A, R -A, R-2, R -2-A, R-3, R- 3 -A, R -T, R -T -R, R-4, R-5, R-6, C-1 /C -P, C -T, C -P -S, C-R, C -O, R -V -C, C -V, W-2, R -D, N -A, W- 2 -M, W-1, CC, CG or SP with one of the aforementioned zones used as the base zone, which can include any eating/dining facility residing on the retail commercial development premises. M. "Service Commercial Project" means any development project that is predominately dedicated to business activities associated with professional or administrative services, and typically consists of corporate offices, financial institutions, legal, and medical offices eating/dining facilities, and other uses related to personal or professional services. N. "Single Family Residential Unit" means each residential dwelling unit in a development that has a density of eight (8) units to the gross acre or less. O. "TUMF Participating Jurisdiction" means a jurisdiction in Western Riverside County which has adopted and implemented an ordinance authorizing participation in the TUMF Program and complies with all regulations established in the TUMF Administrative Plan, as adopted and amended from time to time by the WRCOG. P. "Disabled Veteran" means any veteran who is retired or is in process of medical retirement from military service who is or was severely injured in a theatre of combat operations and has or received a letter of eligibility for the Veterans Administration Specially Adapted Housing (SAH) Grant Program. Q. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities means any owned and operated facilities by a government entity in accordance with Section G. Exemptions, Subsection 2. of this Ordinance. A new development that is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency for government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities shall apply only if all of the following conditions are met: (a) The new development being constructed is subject to a long-term lease with a government agency. (b) The project shall have a deed restriction placed on the property that limits the use to government/public facility for the term of the lease, including all extension options, for a period of not less than 20 years. Any change in the use of the facility from government shall trigger the payment of the TUMF in effect at the time of the change is made. (c) No less than ninety percent of the total square footage of the building is leased to the government agency during the term of deed restriction the long term and any extensions thereof. (d) The new development is constructed at prevailing wage rates. (e) A copy of the lease is provided to the applicable jurisdiction and to WRCOG. (f) Based on the facts and circumstances WRCOG determines that the intent of the lease is to provide for a long-term government use, and not to evade payment of TUMF. 20323.00004\29964747.2 R. "Non-profit Organization" means an organization operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial port of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, the non-profit may be a 501(c) (3) charitable organization as defined by the Internal Revenue Service. S. "Long -Term Lease" as used in the TUMF Program, a "long-term lease" shall mean a lease with a term of no Tess than twenty years. T. "Mixed -Use Development" as used in the TUMF Program, means Developments with the following criteria: (1) three or more significant revenue-producing uses, and (2) significant physical and functional integration of project components. U. "Guest Dwellings" and "Detached Second Units" according to the State of California legal definition as following: 1) The second unit is not intended for sale and may be rented; 2) The lot is zoned for single-family dwellings; 3) The lot contains an existing single- family dwelling; 4) The second unit is either attached to the existing dwelling and located within the living area of the existing dwelling or detached from the existing dwelling and located on the same lot as the existing dwelling; and 5) Are ministerially amended by each jurisdiction's local codes. .V. "TUMF Administrative Plan" means that the TUMF Administration Plan adopted by the WRCOG Execution Committee May 5, 2003, as amended, setting forth detailed administration procedures and requirements for the TUMF program. Section 040. Establishment of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee. A. Adoption of TUMF Schedule. The City Council shall adopt an applicable TUMF schedule through a separate resolution, which may be amended from time to time. B. Fee Calculation. The fees shall be calculated according to the calculation methodology fee set forth in the WRCOG TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. In addition to data in the Fee Calculation Handbook, WRCOG Staff and the local agency may consider the following items when establishing the appropriate fee calculation methodology: • Underlying zoning of the site • Land -use classifications in the latest Nexus Study • Project specific traffic studies • Latest Standardized reference manuals such as the Institute of Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Manual • Previous TUMF calculations for similar uses • WRCOG staff shall approve final draft credit / reimbursement agreement prior to execution WRCOG shall have final determination regarding the appropriate methodology to calculate the fee based on the information provided. In case of a conflict between the applicant, WRCOG, 20323.00004\29964747.2 and/or the local agency regarding the fee calculation methodology, the dispute resolution process in the TUMF Administrative Plan will apply. C. Fee Adjustment. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the WRCOG Executive Committee. By amendment to the Resolution referenced as subsection A, above, the fees may be increased or decreased to reflect the changes in actual and estimated costs of the Regional System including, but not limited to, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance, as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to construct the Regional System. WRCOG shall review the TUMF Program no less than every four (4) years after the effective date of this Ordinance. D. Purpose. The purpose of the TUMF is to fund those certain improvements to the Regional System as depicted in Exhibit "A" and identified in the 2016 Nexus Study, Exhibit "B." E. Applicability. The TUMF shall apply to all new development within the City, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following types of new development shall be exempt from the provisions of this Ordinance and in TUMF Administrative Plan: 1. Low income residential housing as described in Section 3 Definitions, Subsection G of this Ordinance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. 2. Government/public buildings, public schools, and public facilities as described in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection Q. of this Ordinance and in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Airports that are public use airports and are appropriately permitted by Caltrans or other state agency. 3. Development Projects which are the subject of a Public Facilities Development Agreement entered into pursuant to Government Code section 65864 et seq, prior to the effective date of Ordinance No. 839, wherein the imposition of new fees are expressly prohibited, provided that if the term of such a Development Agreement is extended by amendment or by any other manner after the effective date of Ordinance No. 839, the TUMF shall be imposed. 4. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any habitable structure in use on or after January 1, 2000, provided that the same or fewer traffic trips are generated as a result thereof. 5. Guest Dwellings and Detached Second Units as described in this Ordinance in Section 3. Definitions, Subsection U. and in the Administrative Plan 6. Kennels and Catteries established in connection with an existing single family residential unit. 7. Any sanctuary, or other activity under the same roof of a church or other house of worship that is not revenue generating and is eligible for a property tax exemption (excluding concert venues, coffee/snack shops, book stores, for-profit pre- school day -cares, etc., which would be assessed TUMF.) 8. Any nonprofit corporation or nonprofit organization offering and conducting full-time day school at the elementary, middle school or high school level for students between the ages of five and eighteen years. 20323.00004\29964747.2 9. New single-family homes, constructed by non-profit organizations, specially adapted and designed for maximum freedom of movement and independent living for qualified Disabled Veterans." 10. Other uses may be exempt as determined by the WRCOG Executive Committee as further defined in the TUMF Administrative Plan. G. Credit. Regional System improvements may be credited toward the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan and the following: Regional Tier Arterial Credits: If a developer constructs arterial improvements identified on the Regional System, the developer shall receive credit for all costs associated with the arterial component based on approved Nexus Study for the Regional System effective at the time the credit agreement is entered into. WRCOG staff must pre -approve any credit agreements that deviate from the standard WRCOG approved format. ii. Other Credits: In special circumstances, when a developer constructs off-site improvements such as an interchange, bridge, or railroad grade separation, credits shall be determined by WRCOG and the City in consultation with the developer. All such credits must have prior written approval from WRCOG. The amount of the development fee credit shall not exceed the maximum amount determined by the Nexus Study for the Regional System at the time the credit agreement is entered into or actual costs, whichever is Tess. Local Tier The local jurisdictions shall compare facilities in local fee programs against the Regional System and eliminate any overlap in its local fee program except where there is a Recognized Financing District has been established. ii. If there is a Recognized Financing District established, the local agency may credit that portion of the facility identified in both programs against the TUMF in accordance with the TUMF Administrative Plan. Section 050. Reimbursements. Should the developer construct Regional System improvements in excess of the TUMF fee obligation, the developer may be reimbursed based on actual costs or the approved Nexus Study effective at the time the agreement was entered into, whichever is less. Reimbursements shall be enacted through an agreement between the developer and the City, contingent on funds being available and approved by WRCOG. In all cases, however, reimbursements under such special agreements must coincide with construction of the transportation improvements as scheduled in the five-year Zone Transportation Improvement Program's adopted annually by WRCOG. Section 060. Procedures for the Levy, Collection and Disposition of Fees. A. Authority of the Building Department. The Director of Building & Safety, or his/her designee, is hereby authorized to levy and collect the TUMF and make all determinations required by this Ordinance in a manner consistent with the TUMF Administrative Plan. 20323.00004\29964747.2 B. Payment. Payment of the fees shall be as follows: The fees shall be paid at the time a certificate of occupancy is issued for the Development Project or upon final inspection, whichever comes first (the "Payment Date"). However this section should not be construed to prevent payment of the fees prior to issuance of an occupancy permit or final inspection. Fees may be paid at the issuance of a building permit, and the fee payment shall be calculated based on the fee in effect at that time, provided the developer tenders the full amount of his/her TUMF obligation. If the developer makes only a partial payment prior to the Payment Date, the amount of the fee due shall be based on the TUMF fee schedule in place on the Payment Date. The fees shall be calculated according to fee schedule set forth in the Ordinance and the calculation methodology set forth in the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time. ii. The fees required to be paid shall be the fee amounts in effect at the time of payment is due under this Ordinance, not the date the Ordinance is initially adopted. The City shall not enter into a development agreement which freezes future adjustments of the TUMF. If all or part of any development project is sold prior to payment of the fee, the property shall continue to be subject to the requirement for payment of the fee. The obligation to pay the fee shall run with the land and be binding on all the successors in interest to the property. iv. Fees shall not be waived. C. Disposition of Fees. All fees collected hereunder shall be transmitted to the Executive Director of WRCOG along with a corresponding Remittance Report by the tenth (10) day of the close of the month for the previous month in which the fees were collected for deposit, investment, accounting and expenditure in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance, TUMF Administrative Plan, and the Mitigation Fee Act. D. Appeals. Appeals shall be filed with WRCOG in accordance with the provisions of the TUMF Administrative Plan. Appealable issues shall be the application of the fee, application of credits, application of reimbursement, application of the legal action stay and application of exemption. E. Reports to WRCOG. The Director of Building and Safety, or his/her designee, shall prepare and deliver to the Executive Director of WRCOG, periodic reports as will be established under Section 7 of this Ordinance. Section 070. Appointment of the TUMF Administrator. WRCOG is hereby appointed as the Administrator of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee Program. WRCOG is hereby authorized to receive all fees generated from the TUMF within the City, and to invest, account for and expend such fees in accordance with the provisions of this Ordinance and the Mitigation Fee Act. The detailed administrative procedures concerning the implementation of this Ordnance shall be contained in the TUMF Administrative Plan. Furthermore, the TUMF Administrator shall use the Fee Calculation Handbook adopted July 14, 2003, as amended from time to time, for the purpose of calculating a developer's TUMF obligation. In addition to detailing the methodology for calculating all TUMF obligations of different categories of new development, the purpose of the Fee Calculation Handbook is to 20323.00004\29964747.2 clarify for the TUMF Administrator, where necessary, the definition and calculation methodology for uses not clearly defined in the respective TUMF ordinances. WRCOG shall expend only that amount of the funds generated from the TUMF for staff support, audit, administrative expenses, and contract services that are necessary and reasonable to carry out its responsibilities and in no case shall the funds expended for salaries and benefits exceed one percent (1 %) of the revenue raised by the TUMF Program. The TUMF Administrative Plan further outlines the fiscal responsibilities and limitations of the Administrator. Section 080. Effect. No provisions of this Ordinance shall entitle any person who has already paid the TUMF to receive a refund, credit or reimbursement of such payment. This Ordinance does not create any new TUMF. Section 090. Severability. If any one or more of the terms, provisions or sections of this Ordinance shall to any extent be judged invalid, unenforceable and/or voidable for any reason whatsoever by a court of competent jurisdiction, then each and all of the remaining terms, provisions and sections of this Ordinance shall not be affected thereby and shall be valid and enforceable. Section 100. Judicial Review. In accordance with State law, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within ninety (90) days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. Section 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect sixty (60) days after its passage in accordance with Government Code Section 66017. INTRODUCED and READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 15th day of August, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES ABSENT: Orozco ABSTAIN 20323.00004\29964747.2 PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 5th day of September, 2017. AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: ABSENT: Orozco ABSTAIN: AIfrite, Mayor Attest: Andreanna Pfeiffer, C' Approved as to form: John e. P'- ney, City •rney 20323.00004\29964747.2 EXHIBIT "A" MAP OF REGIONAL SYSTEM 20323.00004\29964747.2 X M IX co75 co c co o- w V- • O '� to •� D1 OM O ,o test � o To c 0) EXHIBIT "B" NEXUS STUDY 20323.00004\29964747.2 WRCOG TRANSPORTATION UNIFORM MITIGATION FEE NEXUS STUDY 2016 UPDATE FINAL REPORT Prepared for the Western Riverside Council of Governments In Cooperation with The City of Banning The City of Beaumont The City of Calimesa The City of Canyon Lake The City of Corona The City of Eastvale The City of Hemet The City of Jurupa Valley The City of Lake Elsinore The City of Menifee The City of Moreno Valley The City of Murrieta The City of Norco The City of Penis The City of Riverside The City of San Jacinto The City of Temecula The City of Wildomar The County of Riverside Eastem Municipal Water District March Joint Powers Authority Morongo Band of Mission Indians Riverside County Superintendent of Schools Riverside Transit Agency Western Municipal Water District Prepared by WSP s adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee, July 10, 2017 Vt Si ) TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF TABLES ES.0 Executive Summary ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study ES.2 Future Growth vi ES.3 Need for the TUMF vi ES.4 The TUMF Network viii ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis x ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation ES.7 Conclusions xi 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1 1.1 Background 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History 2 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process 4 1.3.1. Establish the TUMF Network Project List 6 1.3.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs 7 1.3.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component 8 1.3.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments 8 1.3.5. Computing the Fee for Non -Residential Developments 9 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 12 2.1 Recent Historical Trend 12 2.2 Available Demographic Data 12 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis 13 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF 19 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels 19 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels 22 3.3 The TUMF Concept 23 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK 25 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network 25 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network 28 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs 31 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System 36 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding 39 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs 39 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost 41 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation 51 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS 53 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements 53 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components 54 53 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments 57 6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION 58 6,1 Residential Fees 58 6.2 Non -Residential Fees 59 7.0 CONCLUSIONS 61 8.0 APPENDICES 62 1 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update i Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 LIST OF TABLES Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County xii Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Westem Riverside County 13 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 15 Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) 16 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No -Build) 20 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction 34 Table 42 - Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County 34 Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures 38 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates 44 Table 4.5 - TUMF Transit Cost Estimates 51 Table 4.6 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario) Table 5.1 - 2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone Table 5.2 - 2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone Table 5.3 - Backbone -Secondary Network Share Calculation Table 5.4 - Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2012 2040) 57 Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share 59 Table 6.2 - Fee Calculation for Non -Residential Share 60 Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County 61 18 52 55 55 56 LIST OF FIGURES Figure ES.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) vii Figure ES.3 Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network Improvements ix Figure 1.1 - Flowchart of Key Steps in the TUMF Nexus Study Process 5 Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 14 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County 15 Figure 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040 17 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 18 Figure 4.1 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County 27 Figure 4.2 - The Backbone Network of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County 29 Figure 4.3 - Western Riverside County Area Planning Districts (TUMF Zones) 30 Figure 4.4 - Regional System of Highways and Arterials-TUMF Network improvements 43 v WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update li July 10, 2017 ES.O EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ES.1 Introduction and Purpose of the Nexus Study Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2,100 square miles. Through the rnid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000's, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, has slowed this rate of growth, the region is expected to rebound and the projected growth in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for southwest Riverside County. In August 2000, the concept was expanded to include the entire WRCOG sub- region. The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastern and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future development will contribute toward addressing the impacts of new growth on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used to construct transportation improvements that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their "fair share" toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Draft Nexus Study is intended to satisfy the requirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development Projects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act) which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. The results of the first review of the Program were WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update III July 10, 2017 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006. A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is illustrated in Figure ES.1. Each technical step is denoted with a number on the flow chart with the numbers correlating to the detailed description of each step provided in Section 1.3 of the Nexus Study Report. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM), steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in the Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. This version of the document also incorporates revisions in response to comments received during the 45 day review of the earlier Draft TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update iv Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 1 a ES.2 Future Growth For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG). Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for. Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Governments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for the Riverside County Traffic Analysis Model (RivTAM). RCCDR data was used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As directed by the WRCOG Executive Committee, the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographics forecasts were utilized as the basis for this 2016 Update of the TUMF Nexus Study. A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting,network review and fee calculation. The population of Western Riverside County is projected to increase by 37% in the period between 2012 and 2040. During the same period, employment in Western Riverside County is anticipated to grow by 87%. Figure ES.2 illustrates the forecast growth in population, household and employment for Western Riverside County. ES.3 Need for the TUMF The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Western Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the TUMF study area included total vehicle miles of travel (VMT), total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure; particularly the arterial roadways, with the peak period VMT on the TUMF Network estimated to increase by 63% between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57% of the total VMT on the TUMF Network is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing peak period LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on the TUMF Network will increase over 4:9% per year. The need to improve these roadways and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the travel demand. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMT Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update vi July 10, 2017 Figure ES.2 - Population, Households and Employment In Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) Household Type: L] Single -Family ©Multi -Family Employment Sector: Otnduslrial DRetail QService UGovemment As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. Weekday system ridership for RTA bus transit services is approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on this rate of ridership growth, weekday ridership is estimated to increase by 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute equally to paying the cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer -distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee should be used to improve transportation facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (primarily arterial roadways) as well as the infrastructure for public transportation. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update vil July 10, 2017 The fee should be assessed proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each use on the transportation system. E$.4 The TUMF Network The Regional System of Highways and Arterials (also referred to as the TUMF Network) is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied select performance guidelines were identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. This framework was reviewed by representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions and private sector stakeholders, and endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The TUMF Network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance". The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the Regional System of Highways and Arterials for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system and on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. Figure ES.3 illustrates the TUMF improvements to the Regional System of Highways and Arterials. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Accounting for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat, while $112.2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update vili Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10,2017 ES.5 TUMF Nexus Analysis There is a reasonable relationship between the future growth and the need for improvements to the TUMF system. These factors include: A Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. • Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. > The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Westem Riverside County. ➢ Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. > Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. > Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle travel that is relatively local (between adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of peak period trips between zones. The overall result is that 50.7% of the regional travel is attributable to the backbone network and 49.3% is assigned to the secondary network. In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, peak period growth in VMT between 2012 and 2040 was derived from RivTAM and aggregated by trip purpose. It was concluded that home-based person trips represent 71:0% of the total future person trips, and the non -home-based person trips represent 29.0% of the total future person trips. ES.6 Fair -Share Fee Calculation The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update x July 10, 2017 costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% 42.10 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. ES.7 Conclusions Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be demonstrated that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the proposed TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include: A Western Riverside County is 'expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. • Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways; • The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Western Riverside County; • Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development; • Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program; ➢ Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automotive travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources. The fair share fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table ES.1. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Cornmlitee TUMF Nexus Study- 2016 Program Update xi July 10, 2017 Table ES.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Change Fee Per UnitI ` Total Revenue ($million) Single Family Residential DU 173,043 ;,14T $1,629.8 Multi Family Residential . DU 77,039 :` $4,4 $472.5 Industrial SF GFA 64,710,138t 1f- 77.. _..: $114.8 Retail SF GFA 17,920,500X72:31`: $220.5 Service SF GFA 105,211,915 $4 $480.0 Government/Public SF GFA 2,696,349 51 .08E $43.4 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE $2,961.0'' WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update xii July 10, 2017 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE OF THE NEXUS STUDY 1.1 Background Western Riverside County includes 18 incorporated cities and the unincorporated county covering an area of approximately 2100 square miles. Through the mid 2000's, this portion of Riverside County was growing at a pace exceeding the capacity of existing financial resources to meet increasing demand for transportation infrastructure. Although the economic recession of the late 2000's, and the associated crises in the mortgage and housing industries, slowed this rate of growth, the regional economy is continuing to rebound and the projected rate of development in Western Riverside County is expected to increase. This increase in growth could significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial roadways of regional significance, since traditional sources of transportation funding (such as the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the needed improvements. Development exactions only provide improvements near the development site, and the broad-based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. In anticipation of the continued future growth projected in Riverside County, several county -wide planning processes were initiated in 1999. These planning processes include the Riverside County General Plan Update, the Community Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) and the Multi -Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Related to these planning processes is the need to fund the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development. Regional arterial highways in Western Riverside County are forecast to carry significant traffic volumes by 2040. While some localized fee programs exist to mitigate the local impacts of new development on the transportation system in specific areas, and while these programs are effective locally, they are insufficient in their ability to meet the regional demand for transportation infrastructure. Former Riverside County Supervisor Buster recognized the need to establish a comprehensive funding source to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on regional arterial highways. The need to establish a comprehensive funding source for arterial highway improvements has evolved into the development of the Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF) for Western Riverside County. In February 1999, the cities of Temecula, Murrieta and Lake Elsinore, the Western Riverside Council of Governments (WRCOG), the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) and the Building Industry Association (BIA) met to discuss the concept of a TUMF. The intent of this effort was to have the southwest area of Western Riverside County act as a demonstration for the development of policies and a process for a regional TUMF Program before applying the concept countywide. From February 1999 to September 2000, the Southwest Area Transportation Infrastructure System WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Funding Year 2020 (SATISFY 2020) Program progressed with policy development, the identification of transportation improvements, traffic modeling, cost estimates, fee scenarios and a draff Implementation Agreement. In May 2000, Riverside County. Supervisor Tavaglione initiated discussions in the northwest area of Western Riverside County to determine the level of interest in developing a TUMF for that area of the county. Interest in the development of a northwest area fee program was high. In August 2000, the WRCOG Executive Committee took action to build upon the work completed in the southwest area for the SATISFY 2020 program and to develop a single consolidated mitigation fee program for all of Western Riverside County. This action was predicated on the desire to establish a single uniform mitigation fee program to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the regional arterial highway system, rather than multiple discrete and disparate fee programs with varying policies, fees and improvement projects. A TUMF Policy Committee comprising regional elected officials was formed to recommend and set policies for staff to develop the TUMF Program and provide overall guidance to all other staff committees. While the TUMF cannot fund all necessary transportation system improvements, it is intended to address a current transportation funding shortfall by establishing a new revenue source that ensures future new development will contribute toward addressing its indirect cumulative traffic impacts on regional transportation infrastructure. Funding accumulated through the TUMF Program will be used , to construct transportation improvements such as new arterial highway lanes, reconfigured freeway interchanges, railroad grade separations and new regional express bus services that will be needed to accommodate future travel demand in Western Riverside County. By levying a fee on new developments in the region, local agencies will be establishing a mechanism by which developers and in turn new county residents and employees will effectively contribute their"fair share toward sustaining the regional transportation system. This TUMF Nexus Study is intended to satisfy therequirements of California Government Code Chapter 5 Section 66000-66008 Fees for Development ProLects (also known as California Assembly Bill 1600 (AB 1600) or the Mitigation Fee Act), which governs imposing development impact fees in California. The Mitigation Fee Act requires that all local agencies in California, including cities, counties, and special districts follow two basic rules when instituting impact fees. These rules are as follows: 1) Establish a nexus or reasonable relationship between the development impact fee's use and the type of project for which the fee is required. 2) The fee must not exceed the project's proportional "fair shore" of the proposed improvement and cannot be used to correct current problems or to make improvements for existing development. 1.2 TUMF Nexus Study History The TUMF Program is implemented through the auspices of WRCOG. As the council of governments for Western Riverside County, WRCOG provides a forum for WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 representatives from 18 cities, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors, the Eastem and Western Municipal Water Districts, the Riverside County Superintendent of Schools, the March Joint Powers Authority, the Riverside Transit Agency and the Morongo Band of Mission Indians to collaborate on issues that affect the entire subregion, such as air quality, solid waste, transportation and the environment. A current list of the standing WRCOG TUMF related committees and committee membership is included in Appendix A. The initial WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study was completed in October 2002 and adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee in November 2002. Its purpose was to establish the nexus or reasonable relationship between new land development projects in Western Riverside County and the proposed development impact fee that would be used to improve regional transportation facilities. It also identified the proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to new development. Consistent with the provisions of the Mitigation Fee Act, the WRCOG Executive Committee has established that the TUMF Nexus Study will be subject of a comprehensive review of the underlying program assumptions at least every five years to confirm the Nexus. Acknowledging the unprecedented and unique nature of the TUMF Program, the Executive Committee determined that the first comprehensive review of the Program should be initiated within two years of initial adoption of the Program primarily to validate the findings and recommendations of the study and to correct any program oversights. The results of the first review of the Program were documented in the TUMF Nexus Study 2005 Update adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on February 6, 2006, A second comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2008 and 2009 in part to address the impacts of the economic recession on the rate of development within the region and on transportation project costs. The findings of the 2009 review of the program were adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on October 5, 2009. A third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program was conducted in 2014 and 2015 leading to a Draft Nexus Study document being distributed for review in August 2015. The WRCOG Executive Committee subsequently considered comments related to the Draft Nexus Study 2015 Update at the meeting held on September 14, 2015 where it was resolved to "delay finalizing the Nexus Study for the TUMF Program Update until the 2016 Southern California Association of Governments' 2016 Regional Transportation Plan / Sustainable Communities Strategy growth forecast is available for inclusion in the Nexus Study". The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted the 2016- 2040 Regional Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy (2016 RTP/SCS) on April 7, 2016 enabling WRCOG staff to proceed with finalizing the update of the TUMF Nexus Study. This version of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study Report documents the final results of the third comprehensive review of the TUMF Program to incorporate the revisions completed during 2016. The findings of this report were ultimately adopted by the WRCOG Executive Committee on July 10, 2017. To ensure new development continues to contribute a fair share of the cost to mitigate its cumulative regional transportation impacts in the period between the comprehensive review of program assumptions completed at least every five years, the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 3 Adopted WRCOG Executive .Committee July 10, 2017 WRCOG Executive Committee has also established that the TUMF Schedule of Fees will be reviewed annually, and adjusted, as needed, on July 10 to reflect current costs. The revised schedule of fees will be recalculated in February of each year based on the percentage increase or decrease in the Engineering News Record (ENR) Construction Cost Index (CCI) for the twelve (12) month period from January of the prior year to January of the current year, and the percentage increase or decrease in the National Association of Realtors (NAR) Median Sales Price of Existing Single Family Homes in the Riverside/San Bernardino Metropolitan Statistical Area for the twelve (12) month period from the 3rd Quarter of the second year prior to the 3rd Quarter of the prior year (to coincide with the publication of the most recently updated index). If approved by the Executive Committee, the resultant percentage change for each of the indices will be applied to the unit cost assumptions for roadway and bus transit costs, and land acquisition costs, .respectively, to reflect the combined effects of changes in eligible project costs on the resultant per unit fee for each defined land use category. 1.3 TUMF Nexus Study Process In coordination with WRCOG, city and county representatives, developers, and other interested parties reviewed and updated the underlying assumptions of the Nexus Study as part of this comprehensive program review. In particular, the most recent socioeconomic forecasts developed by SCAG as the basis for the 2016 RTP/SCS were incorporated, as resolved by the WRCOG Executive Committee at the September 14, 2015 meeting. This use of the most recent SCAG forecasts resulted in a shift of the program base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as a shift in the program horizon year from 2035 to 2040. Furthermore, the TUMF Network was re-examined in detail based on travel demand forecasts derived from the most recent version of the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM) to more accurately reflect future project needs to address the cumulative regional impacts of new development in Western Riverside County as well as eliminating those projects having been completed prior to the commencement of the Nexus review in 2016 The subsequent chapters of this Nexus. Study document describe the various assumptions, data inputs and analysis leading to the determination of each major variable in the TUMF calculation, and ultimately leading to the determination of the TUMF Schedule of Fees that indicates the maximum "fair share" fee for each of the various use types defined in the TUMF program. The overall process for establishing the TUMF nexus is summarized in this section, including the flow chart in Figure 1.1 that illustrates the various technical steps in this fee calculation process. Each technical step that was followed to determine the TUMF Schedule of Fees and establish the program nexus is summarized below, with the numbers denoted on the flow chart correlating to the steps described. The flow chart also incorporates color coding of the steps to indicate those steps that involved the application of RivTAM, steps that utilized other input data, steps that are computations of various inputs, and steps that required specific actions of the various WRCOG committees to confirm major variables. Where appropriate, the flow chart also includes specific cross references to the sections or tables included in this Nexus Study document that correlate to the particular step. WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10. 2017 0 f NV0 X11 a r p 11.1 f Fir N 11 1.11. Establish the TUMF Network Project List The roadway network in Western Riverside County must be evaluated to determine how new development activity will impact the performance of the network, and how the resultant traffic impacts can be mitigated by completing various roadway improvements. The following steps integrate the latest SCAG socio-economic forecasts into RivTAM as the basis for determining future roadway deficiencies and identifying the list of eligible improvements to address these future deficiencies. The rational and methodology for accomplishing these steps is further explained in Chapters 2 and 3 of this report, with the resultant TUMF Network described in Chapter 4. 1) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2012 as its base year. This officially -adopted dataset was updated for the base for the TUMF 2016 Nexus Update, including redistribution of the SCAG data to correspond to the RivTAM TAZ structure. 2) The RivTAM model; has datasets available that represent the capacity of the different facilities in the road network for several different study years. For this nexus update, the RivTAM 2012 base network that was developed following the adoption of the SCAG 2012 RTP was selected as the one most closely resembling current conditions. This network was subsequently reviewed and updated, including a detailed review by WRCOG and participating jurisdictions, as well as partner entities, including BIA, to identify projects that were completed on the arterial network in the period between 2012 and December 2015. The arterial network was then recoded to reflect the changes to the TUMF Network to create a 2015 existing network as the basis for analysis. 3) RivTAM was run using the 2012 socio-economic data (SED) and the 2015 road network to produce the baseline volumes on the roads in the TUMF Network. 4) The baseline volume -to -capacity (V/C) ratio was then determined. The target LOS for TUMF facilities is "D", meaning that facilities with LOS "E" or "F", i.e. those with a V/C ratio of 0.9 or higher, are deemed to have inadequate capacity. The result of this step is a list of roads that have existing capacity deficiencies. 5) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS was developed using housing and employment data for 2040 as its forecast horizon year. This officially -adopted dataset was also used as the future base year for the TUMF update calculation. 6) RivTAM was run using the arterial road network for 2015 with the land use assumptions for 2040. This "No Build" scenario was used to determine where 1 The macro -level traffic forecasting was conducted using the Riverside County Transportation and Analysis Model (RivTAM). RivTAM is a version of SCAG's six -county model with additional detail (traffic analysis zones and local roads) added within Riverside County. It was developed for use in traffic studies in Riverside County as a replacement for several older models that covered different portions of the county. RivTAM has both the geographic scope needed to analyze all TUMF facilities and conformity with regional planning assumptions. There is a memorandum of understanding among the jurisdictions of Riverside County that encourages the use of the RivTAM model for use in traffic studies. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 6 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 deficiencies would occur in the roadway system if development occurred as expected but no roadway improvements were implemented. 7) Comparing the existing capacity deficiencies with the future deficiencies showed where new deficiencies would occur that are entirely attributable to new development. Comparing the existing and future traffic volume to capacity ratio on the roads that are currently deficient shows the portion of the future deficiency that is attributable to new development. 8) It is generally acknowledged that the TUMF program cannot and should not attempt to fund every roadway improvement needed in Western Riverside County. WRCOG has adopted a set of selection criteria that was used to choose which roadway improvements would be eligible for TUMF funding. 9) The selection criteria were applied to the forecast deficiencies to identify projects for the TUMF Project List. The project list was subsequently reviewed to confirm the eligibility of proposed projects, including projects previously included in the TUMF program, as well as additional projects requested for inclusion as part of the current update. The project list was then subsequently updated to reflect those projects considered eligible for TUMF funding as part of the 2016 Nexus. 1.1.2. Determine the TUMF Network Project Costs The estimated costs of proposed improvements on the TUMF Network are calculated based on the prices of construction materials, labor and land values for the various eligible project types included as part of the TUMF program. The approach and outcomes of the following steps is described in Chapter 4 of this report. 10) The TUMF program has design standards covering the road project components that are eligible for TUMF funding. This ensures that projects in jurisdictions with different design standards are treated equally2. 11) The unit costs for the various construction components were updated based on the current cost values for labor and materials such as cement, asphalt, reinforcing steel, etc., as derived from Caltrans cost database, RCTC and other sources, effective March 2016. Additionally, the ROW cost components per square foot for various land use types were also updated based on current property valuations in Riverside County as researched by Overland, Pacific and Cutler in March 2016. 12) The design standards and the unit costs were combined to create conceptual engineering cost estimates for different eligible project types (road costs per lane -mile, typical costs per arterial -freeway interchange, bridge costs per linear foot, etc.). The unit costs from the previous step were then applied to the project list to estimate the costs of the improvements on the TUMF project list. 2 A jurisdiction may choose to design to a higher standard, but if it does so TUMF will only fund up to the equivalent of what costs would have been had the TUMF design standards been followed. WRCOG 7 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 13) The percentage of each project that was attributable to new development was then applied to the costs of TUMF road projects to find the total road project cost that is attributable to new development. 1.1.3. Determine the TUMF Transit Component A portion of the TUMF funding is made available for transit services that provide an alternative to car travel for medium -to -long distance intra -regional trips. The eligible transit projects and their associated costs are determined using the following steps, with additional explanation provided in Chapter 4 of this report. 14) The Riverside Transit Agency (RTA) commissioned a Comprehensive Operational Analysis (COA) that was completed in January 2015. This analysis looked at existing and future ridership and identified potential projects to expand and improve transit service in Riverside County. 15) The COA's ridership figures for 2015 and 2025 were extrapolated to 2012 and 2040 to match the analysis years used for TUMF road projects. 16) The growth in ridership between 2012 and 2040 was compared to total ridership in 2040 to determine the portion of 2040 ridership that is attributable to existing passengers and the portion attributable to new growth. 17) As was the case for road improvements, possible transit projects from the COA were screened using a set of criteria to determine whether they should receive TUMF funding. The COA project list was then reviewed by WRCOG and RTA staff to confirm the validity of the project list and to reflect any changes in RTA project recommendations established since the adoption of the COA to establish a final recommended transit project list to be included as part of the program. The result was the TUMF Transit Project List. 18) RTA provided information on current costs for transit infrastructure. 19) The cost information was then used to determine the cost of the items on the TUMF Transit Project List. 20) The percent attribution from Step 21 was applied to the project cost estimates from Step 24 to determine the cost of transit improvements that are attributable to new development. 21) The costs for road and transit projects that are attributable to new development are then combined along with information on other (non-TUMF) funds to determine the total cost for TUMF projects that is to be cover by new development through the imposition of the fees. The available alternate funding sources were reviewed as part of the Nexus update, specifically including the completion of a detailed review of available federal, state and local funding sources administered by RCTC. 1.1.4. Computing the Fee for Residential Developments Having determined the total project costs to be covered by new development under the TUMF program, it is necessary to divide these costs among different types of WRCOG 8 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 developments roughly in proportion to their expected traffic impacts. The following steps described the process for determining the proportion attributable to new residential development. These approach for accomplishing these steps along with the findings of this analysis are described in detail in Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report. 22) California legislation encourages the use of vehicle miles of travel (VMT) as the primary indicator of traffic impacts because it takes into account both to the number of vehicle trips and the average length of those trips to reflect the proportional impact to the roadway network. As a result, the methodology for determining the relative distribution of traffic impacts between residential and non-residential uses for the purposes of TUMF was revised from a trip based approach used in the earlier nexus studies to a VMT based approach for the 2016 update. The RivTAM 2012 existing and 2040 no -build model runs were examined to determine the VMT of various trip types that would take place in Western Riverside County (excluding through trips). The results were compared to determine the growth in VMT for each trip type. Per WRCOG policy (based on National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) recommended practice) trips originating in or destined for a home are attributed to residential development while trips where neither the origin nor the destination are a home are attributed to non-residential development. 23) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio-economic forecasts were used to estimate the number of single-family and multi -family dwelling units that will be developed during the 2012 to 2040 period. 24) The Institute of Transportation Engineers' (ITE's) trip generation rates, which come from surveys of existing sites for various development types, were then used to estimate the daily number of trips that will be generated by future single- and multi -family developments that will occur in the region from 2012 to 2040. 25) The cost to be covered by residential development was divided into the portion attributable to new single-family dwellings and portion attributable to new multi- family development to calculate the cost share for each use. 26) The cost share for single-family dwellings and multi -family dwellings was divided by the number of dwellings of each type to determine the fee level required from each new dwelling unit to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 1.1.5. Computing the Fee for Non -Residential Developments A process similar to that used for residential units was used to determine the fee level for non-residential development. However, the determination of fees for non-residential development involves additional steps due to the additional complexity of accounting for a greater variety of development types within each use category. Chapter 5 and Chapter 6 of this report provide additional explanation regarding the methodology for accomplishing these steps along with the results of this analysis. 27) Like most impact fee programs, TUMF groups similar development projects together into general use categories in order to simplify the administration of the program. TUMF groups the various land use categories found in ITE's Trip WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Generation Manual into four non-residential categories (industrial, retail, service, and government/public sector) based on the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), which is also used by the U.S. Census Bureau and SCAG for demographic classifications, and is the basis for such classifications in the SCAG Regional Travel Demand Model as well as and the RivTAM model. The ITE trip generation rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. The median value for the trip - generation rates for all uses within each category was used in the nexus study to represent the trip -generation characteristics for the category as a whole. 28) The trip -generation rates of retail uses and service uses were adjusted to take into account the share of pass -by trips these uses generate. Pass by trip rates for various retail and service uses were derived from the ITE Trip Generation Manual to determine the median value of all uses as the basis for the adjustment. The ITE pass by trip rates for all uses were reviewed for accuracy and updated to reflect the most current ITE published rates. 29) The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socio economic forecasts included non-residential employment for 2012 and 2040. These forecasts were used to estimate the growth in employment in each of the four non-residential uses. 30) The SCAG employment forecasts are denominated in jobs while development applications are typically denominated in square feet of floorspace. The ratio of floorspace per employee was determined as a median value derived from four studies, including a comprehensive study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties conducted in 1990, an OCTA study conducted in 2001, a SCAG study (including a specific focus on Riverside County) conducted in 2001, and the Riverside County: General Pian adopted in 2015. It should be noted the SCAG study and Riverside Countv'General Plan were identified and included as part of the 2016 Nexus Update in response to a recommendation made during the review of the prior draft 2015 Nexus Study. 31) The forecast growth in employees was multiplied by the floorspace per employee to produce a forecast of the floorspace that will be developed for each of the four non-residential use types. 32) The trip -generation rate for each of the four uses was multiplied by the forecast of new floorspace to estimate the number of trips generated by each use. 33) The amount of project costs to be covered by non-residential development was split between the four non-residential uses to determine the TUMF cast share for each. 34) The TUMF cost share for each of the four non-residential uses was divided by the forecast growth in floorspace to determine the fee level required from each new square foot of non-residential development to cover their fair share of the cost to mitigate the impacts of new developments. 35) WRCOG has adopted a TUMF Fee Calculation Handbook that allows for fee adjustments to be made to account for unusual circumstances for certain types of residential and non-residential development (fuel filling stations, golf courses, high -cube warehouses, wineries, electric charging stations, etc.) These WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 10 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 70, 2077 adjustments are intended to calculate a fairer proportional fee based on the unique trip generation characteristics of these particular development types. The outcome of this process is a schedule of fees for the various use categories identified as part of the TUMF program. The study conclusions including the Schedule of Fees is presented in Chapter 7 of this report. The schedule of fees represents the maximum fee permissible under California law for the purposes of the TUMF program. The WRCOG Executive Committee has the option to adopt lower fees, however, in doing so each use category subject to a lower fee would not be contributing a fair share of the cost of their impacts. This would in turn create a funding gap for the program that would necessitate identifying additional project funding from some other source in order to ensure the cumulative regional impacts of new development are being mitigated fully in accordance with the program. WRCOG 11 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 2.0 FUTURE GROWTH 2.1 Recent Historical Trend Western Riverside County experienced robust growth in the period from the late 1990's to the mid 2000's, The results of Census 2000 indicate that in the year 2000, Western Riverside County had a population of 1.187 million representing a 30% increase for 2.7% average annual increase) from the 1990 population of 912,000. Total employment in Western Riverside County in 2000 was estimated by the SCAG to be 381,000 representing a 46% increase (or 3.9% average annual increase) over the 1990 employment of 261;000. Despite the impacts of the Great Recession and the associated residential mortgage and foreclosure crisis, Western Riverside County continued to grow due to the availability of relatively affordable residential and commercial property, and a generally well-educated workforce. By 2010, the population of the region had grown to 1.742 million, a further 47% growth in population from 2000. Similarly, total employment in the region had also grown from 2000 to 2010 with 434,000 employees estimated to be working in Western Riverside County. This represents a 12% increase from the 381,000 employees working in the region in 2000. 2.2 Available Demographic Data A variety of alternate demographic information that quantifies future population, household and employment growth is available for Western Riverside County. For earlier versions of the TUMF Nexus Study, the primary available source of consolidated demographic information for Western Riverside County was provided by SCAG. SCAG is the largest of nearly 700 Councils of Government (COG) in the United States and functions as the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for six counties in Southern California including Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino; Riverside, Ventura and Imperial. SCAG is mandated by the federal government to research and plan for issues of regional significance including transportation and growth management. As part of these responsibilities, SCAG maintains a comprehensive database of regional socioeconomic data and develops demographic projections and travel demand forecasts for Southern California. Recognizing the need to develop a more comprehensive source of socioeconomic data for Riverside County, the Riverside County Center for Demographic Research (RCCDR) was established under the joint efforts of the County of Riverside, the Western Riverside Council of Governments, the Coachella Valley Association of Govemments, and the University of California, Riverside in 2005. RCCDR was responsible for establishing and maintaining demographic information and ensuring data consistency through a centralized data source of demographic characteristics. RCCDR provided demographic estimates and forecasts for Riverside County as input to the SCAG regional forecasts as well as providing the demographic basis for RivTAM. RCCDR forecasts were utilized as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 12 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 The functions of the RCCDR have been subsequently integrated into the Riverside County Information Technology - Geographic Information Systems (RCIT-GIS) group, and their role in the development and distribution of SED has recently diminished. Although RCIT-GIS, WRCOG and other regional partners participated in the process to develop regional demographic forecasts as part of the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS, SCAG remained the lead agency in the compilation and dissemination of the forecasts that were ultimately adopted in 2016, including those specific to Western Riverside County. For this reason, the SCAG forecasts adopted for the 2016 RTP/SCS were used as the basis for the TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Update, with the adopted SCAG data being disaggregated to correlate to the traffic analysis zone (TAZ) structure utilized for RivTAM. 2.3 Demographic Assumptions Used for the Nexus Study Analysis A major distinction between RCCDR data used for the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. and the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data used for this 2016 Update is the change in the base year from 2007 to 2012, as well as the change in the horizon year from 2035 to 2040. This shift in the base year and horizon year demographic assumptions of the program carries through all aspects of the nexus analysis, including the travel demand forecasting, network review and fee calculation. The SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS data were compared to the RCCDR 2007 data used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update. As can be seen in Table 2.1 and Figure 2.1, the 2012 data reflects a modest increase in population, a very slight decline in households, and a modest decline in overall employment, with a notable shift in employment away from industry and govemment/public sector to retail. These changes reflect a restructuring of the regional economy in response to the influences of the Great Recession during this time. Table 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside. County SED Type 2009 Update (2007) 2016 Update (2012) Change Percent Total Population 1,569,393 1,773,935 204,542 13! Total Households 530,289 395,409 525,149 366,588 158,561 _ -5,140 -28,821 23,681 -i% -7%_ 18% Single -Family Multi -Family 134,880 Total Employment 515,914 460,787 ' -55,127 -11% industrial 175,571 120,736 -54,835 -31 % Retail 39.576 65,888 26,312 66% Service 256.81.3 253,372 -3,441 -1% Government/Public Sector 43,954 20.791 , -23,163 -53% Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008; SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 13 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Figure 2.1 - Base Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County Household Type: O Single -Family O Multi -Family Employment Sectors: OIndustrial ®Retail OServlce OGovernment Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2 compare the socioeconomic forecasts for the program horizon year of 2035 used in the TUMF Nexus Study 2009 Update and 2040 for this study. The most recent forecasts reflect a reduction in the horizon year population, households and overall employment in Western Riverside County, as well as shifts in the projected growth in employment sectors away from government/public sector and service towards retail. These changes are considered to be consistent with the influence of the economic recession on the rate of growth in Western Riverside County. WRCOG 14 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County SED Type 2009 Update (2035) 2016 Update (2040) Change Percent Total Population 2,537,583 2,429,633 -107,950 -4% Total Households 881,968 775,231 -106,737 -12% Single -Family 552,154 539,631 -12.523 -2% Multi-Famil 329,814 235,600 -94,214 -29% Total Employment 1,090,833 861,455 -229,378 -21% TUMF Industrial 276,782 201,328 103,729 _ -75,454 -27% TUMF Retail 87,170 , 14,559 17% 1 TUMF Service 595.039 528,092 -66,947 -11% TUMF Govemment/Public Sector 131,842 30,306 -1.01,536 -77% Source: Riverside County CDR. Mav 2008: SCAG 2016 RTP: WSP, April 2016 Figure 2.2 - Horizon Year Socioeconomic Estimates for Western Riverside County `s. a�, 4°4 QoQ 0* eY , Household Type: 0 Single -Family 0 Multi -Family Employment Sectors: OIndustrial O Retail OService OGovemment WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 15 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 2.3 and Figure 2.3 summarize the socioeconomic data obtained from SCAG and used as the basis for completing this Nexus Study analysis. The SCAG employment data for 2012 and 2040 was provided for thirteen employment sectors consistent with the California Employment Development Department (EDD) Major Groups including: Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Retail Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities; Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service; and Government. For the purposes of the Nexus Study, the EDD Major Groups were aggregated to Industrial (Farming, Natural Resources and Mining; Construction; Manufacturing; Wholesale Trade; Transportation, Warehousing and Utilities), Retail (Retail Trade), Service (Information; Financial Activities; Professional and Business Service; Education and Health Service; Leisure and Hospitality; Other Service) and Government/Public Sector (Government). These four aggregated sector types were used as the basis for calculating the fee as described in Section 6.2. Appendix B provides a table detailing the EDD Major Groups and corresponding North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) Categories that are included in each non- residential sector type. Table 2.3 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) SED Type 2012 ' 2040 Change Percent Total Po. ulation 1,773,935 2,429,633 655,698 37% Total Households 525,149 775,231 250,082 48% Single -Family___ 366,588 539,631 173,043 47% 49% Multi -Family 154561 235.600 _ 77,039 Total Employment 460,787 120,736 861,455 201,328 400,668 80,592 87% TUMF Industrial 67% TUMF Retail 65,888 101,729 35,841 54% TUMF Service 253,372 528,092 274,720 108` TUMF Govemment/Public Sector 20,791 30,306 9,515 46% Source: SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 16 Adopted WRCOG Executive Commltee July 10, 2017 Figure 2.3 Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (2012 to 2040) Household Type: a Single -Family D Multi -Family Employment Sector. Olndusidal ®Retail Service tlGovemment The combined effects of the changes in the base year and .horizon year socioeconomic data is a notable reduction in the total growth in population, households and employment for the current Nexus Update compared to the 2009 Nexus Update. Table 2.4 and Figure 2.4 provide a comparison of the changes in population, households and employment between the 2016 Nexus Update and the 2009 Nexus Update. The table and figure clearly illustrate the reduction in the rate of growth in Western Riverside County largely attributable to the effects of the economic recession. This reduced rate of growth in the region will serve as the basis for reevaluating the level of impact of new development on the transportation system in the next section, as well as providing the basis for the determination of the fair share fee for each land use type. WRCOG 17 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) SED Type 2009 Update 2015 Update (2012-2040) Difference Percent(2007-2035) Total Population 968,190 655498 ` -312,492 -32% -29% 10% Total Households 351,679 250.082 -101.597 Single -Family 156,745 173,043 16,298 Multi -Family 194.934 77,039 -117,895 -60% Total Employment 574,919 101,211_ 400,668 80,592 -174,251 -20,619 -30% -20% TUMF Industrial TUMF Retail 47,594 35,341 -11,753 -25% -19% TUMF Service 338,226 274,720 -63,506 TUMF Govemment/Public. Sector 87,888 9,515 ; -78,373 -89% Source: Riverside County CDR, May 2008; SCAG 2016 RTP; WSP, April 2016 Figure 2.4 - Population, Households and Employment in Western Riverside County (Existing to Future Change Comparison) 1.000,000 900.000 800.000 700,000 600,000 500,000 400,000 300,000 200.000 100,000 0 y�4� �,b�® �0+ BOSS b i,c9 row # Y'� ,I,o`�' OJS�' tae if hoc ,40 Qoe oQ Q Household Type: fl Single -Family D MuI1i-Family Employment Sector: D Industrial 0 Retail ®Service 0Govemment WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 18 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 3.0 NEED FOR THE TUMF All new development has some effect on the transportation infrastructure in a community, city or county due to an increase in travel demand. Increasing usage of the transportation facilities leads to more traffic, progressively increasing VMT, traffic congestion and decreasing the level of service (LOS)3. In order to meet the increased travel demand and keep traffic flowing, improvements to transportation facilities become necessary to sustain pre -development traffic conditions. The projected growth in Western Riverside County (37% growth in population and 87% growth in employment in under 30 years) and the related growth in VMT can be expected to significantly increase congestion and degrade mobility if substantial investments are not made in the transportation infrastructure. This challenge is especially critical for arterial highways and roadways that carry a significant number of the trips between cities, since traditional sources of transportation improvement funding (such cis the gasoline tax and local general funds) will not be nearly sufficient to fund the improvements needed to serve new development. Development exactions generally provide only a fraction of the improvements with improvements confined to the area immediately adjacent to the respective development, and the broad-based county -level funding sources (i.e., Riverside County's half -cent sales tax known as Measure A) designate only a small portion of their revenues for arterial roadway improvements. This section documents the existing and future congestion levels that demonstrate the need for future improvements to the transportation system to specifically mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. It then describes the TUMF concept that has been developed to fund future new developments' fair share of needed improvements. The forecast of future congestion levels is derived from Year 2040 No -Build travel demand forecasts for Western Riverside County developed using RivTAM. The Year 2040 No -Build scenario evaluates the effects of 2040 population, employment and resultant traffic generation on the 2015 existing arterial highway network. 3.1 Future Highway Congestion Levels To support the evaluation of the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the existing arterial highway system in Western Riverside County, existing (2012) and 3 The Hicjhwav Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2010, pp 2-2 2-3) describes LOS as a "quality measure describing operational conditions within a traffic stream, generally in terms of such service measures as speed and travel time, freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience." Letters are used to designate each of six LOS (A to F), with LOS A representing the best operating conditions and LOS F representing the worst. According to the Highway Capacity Manual, LOS C or D is typically used in planning efforts to ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users. Therefore, LOS E represents the threshold for unacceptable LOS. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 19 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 future (2040) SED were modeled on the existing (2015) arterial highway network using RivTAM. To quantify traffic growth impacts, various traffic measures of effectiveness were calculated for the AM and PM peak periods for each of the two scenarios. The WRCOG TUMF study area was extracted from the greater regional model network for the purpose of calculating measures for Westem Riverside County only. Peak period performance measures for the Western Riverside County TUMF study area included total VMT, total vehicle hours of travel (VHT), total combined vehicle hours of delay (VHD), and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E). These results were tabulated in Table 3.1. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix C. Total Arterial VMT, VHT, VHD and LOSE Threshold VMT were calculated to include all principal arterials, minor arterials and major connectors, respectively. Regional values for each threshold were calculated for a total of all facilities including arterials, freeways, freeway ramps and High -Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes. Table 3.1 - Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline to 2040 No -Build) Measure of Performance Peak Periods'Totalj, 2012 19,532,437 2040 29,277,587 % Change 50% % Annual 1.5% VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES VMT - FREEWAYS 11,019,155 14,487,570 31% 1.0% VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 8,513,282 14,790,016 74% 2:0% TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585,202 9,089,495 63% I.$% VHT - TOTAL ALLFA_ CILITIES 575,154 1,361;907 137% 3 I% VHT - FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433 148% 3.3% VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 278,611 625,474 124% 2.9% 2.8% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT. 181,151 396,981 119% VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 175,765 739,075 320% 5.3% VHD - FREEWAYS : 1.17,430 502,549 328% 305% 5.3%. 5.1% 4.9% VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236;527 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 172,944 284% VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6;188,644 16,966;992 174% 3.7% VMT • 4,532,703 10,156.363 124% ' 2.9% VMT 0 1,655,941 6,810,629 311% 5.2% TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1,462,061 5,160,911 253% 4.6% % of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 26% 57% * Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016: NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios). LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 20 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 The following formulas were used to calculate the respective values: VMT = Link Distance * Total Daily Volume VHT = Average Loaded (Congested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume VHD = VHT (Free-flow (Uncongested) Link Travel Time * Total Daily Volume) VMT LOS E or F = VMT (on links where Daily V/C exceeded 0.90) Note: Volume to capacity (v/c) ratio thresholds for LOS E are based on the Transportation Research Board 2010 Edition of the Hiahwav Capacity Manual (HCM 2010) LOS Maximum V/C Criteria for Multilane Highways with 45 mph Free Flow Speed (Exhibit 14-5, Chapter 14, Page 14-5). The calculated values were compared to assess the total change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build, and the average annual change between 2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build. As can be seen from the RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1, the additional traffic generated by new development will cause VMT on the arterial highway network to increase by approximately 74% by the year 2040 (approximately 2.0% per year). In the absence of additional improvements to the transportation network in Western Riverside County, the growth in VMT will cause congestion on the highway system to increase almost exponentially, with the most significant increase in congestion observed on the arterial highway system that includes the TUMF Network. Many facilities will experience a significant increase in vehicle delay and deterioration in LOS to unacceptable levels as a result of new development and the associated growth in traffic. According to the Highway Capacity Manual (Transportation Research Board, 2010), LOS C or D are required to "ensure an acceptable operating service for facility users." LOS E is generally recognized to represent the threshold of unacceptable operating service and the onset of substantial systemic traffic congestion. The Congestion Management Program for Riverside County (CMP) published by the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) in 2011 designates LOS E as the "traffic standards must be set no lower than LOS E for any segment or intersection along the CMP System of Highways and Roadways" in Riverside County. "The intent of the CMP is to more directly link land use, transportation, and air quality, thereby prompting reasonable growth management programs that will effectively utilize new transportation funds, alleviate traffic congestion and related impacts, and improve air quality." 4 The CMP provides a mechanism for monitoring congestion on the highway system and, where congestion is observed, establishes procedures for developing a deficiency plan to address improvement needs. The reactive nature of the CMP to identify and remediate existing congestion differs from the proactive nature of the TUMF program to anticipate and provide for future traffic needs. For this reason, the TUMF program follows the guidance of the Highway Capacity Manual in establishing LOS E as the threshold for unacceptable level of service, and subsequently as the basis for measuring system performance and accounting for existing needs. This approach ensures a more conservative accounting of existing system needs as part of the 4 Conoestion Manaement Proaram for Riverside County Executive Summary (Riverside County Transportation Commission, 2011) Page ES -3, ES -1 WRCOG TUMF Nexus .Study — 2016 Program Update 21 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 determination of the "fair share" of mitigating the cumulative regional impacts of future new development on the transportation system. The continuing need for a mitigation fee on new development is shown by the adverse impact that new development will have on Western Riverside County's transportation infrastructure, and in particular, the arterial highway network. As a result of the new development and associated growth in population and employment in Western Riverside County, additional pressure will be placed on the transportation infrastructure with the total VMT on the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials (RSHA; also referred to as the TUMF Network) estimated to increase by approximately 63% or 1.8% compounded annually. As shown in Table 3.1, the VMT on arterial facilities within the TUMF Network experiencing LOS of E or worse will increase by approximately 253% or 4.6% compounded annually in Western Riverside County in the period between 2012 and 2040. By 2040, 57% of the total VMT on the TUMF arterial highway system is forecast to be traveling on facilities experiencing daily LOS E or worse. Without improvements to the TUMF arterial highway system, the total vehicle hours of delay (VHD) experienced by area motorists on TUMF arterial highways will increase by approximately 4.9% per year. The combined influences of increased travel demand and worsened LOS that manifest themselves in severe congestion and delay highlight the continuing need to complete substantial capacity expansion on the TUMF arterial highway system to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development. The RivTAM outputs summarized in Table 3.1 clearly demonstrate that the travel demands generated by future new development in the region will lead to increasing levels of traffic congestion, especially on the arterial roadways. The need to improve these roadways to accommodate the anticipated growth in VMT and relieve future congestion is therefore directly linked to the future development which generates the additional travel demand. 3.2 Future Transit Utilization Levels In addition to the roadway network, public transportation will play a role in serving future travel demand in the region. Transit represents a critical component of the transportation system by providing an alternative mode choice for those not wanting to use an automobile; and particularly for those who do not readily have access to an automobile. As population and employment in Western Riverside County grows as a result of new development, demand for regional transit services in the region is also expected to grow. While some future transit trips will be accommodated by inter -regional transit services such as Metrolink, a substantial number of the trips within Western Riverside County will be served by bus transit services and for this reason the provision of regional bus transit service is considered integral to addressing the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new developments. Regional bus transit services within Western Riverside County are primarily provided by RTA. To support the evaluation of regional bus service WRCOG Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 needs to accommodate new development, daily transit trip forecasts were derived from the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analvsis5. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025 were interpolated to 2012 and 2040 to represent existing and future transit trips consistent with the analysis of highway trips described in Section 3.1. The interpolated year 2012 and year 2040 existing and future transit ridership were compared in order to assess the impact of new development on transit demand. The weekday projected system ridership indicates that RTA bus transit services accommodate approximately 31,016 riders per day in Western Riverside County in 2015. By 2025, bus transit services are forecast to serve approximately 46,572 riders per weekday. This represents an increase in projected weekday ridership of 15,556 between 2015 and 2025, or an average increase of 1,414 weekday riders each year. Based on these projected weekday ridership levels and rate of ridership growth each year, the interpolated weekday ridership for 2012 is 26,773 while the interpolated weekday ridership for 2040 would be 67,785. This translates into an increase of 41,011 riders per weekday between 2012 and 2040. Weekday projected system ridership for 2015 and 2025, as presented in Table 7 of the RTA Comprehensive pperational Analysis Executive Summary, along with the interpolated weekday system ridership in 2012 and 2040 are included in Appendix D. The significant future growth in demand for public transit services is reflective of the cumulative regional impacts of new development; and the associated increase in demand for all types of transportation infrastructure and services to accommodate this growth. Furthermore, bus transit ridership is expected to grow as the improved services being planned and implemented by RTA attracts new riders and encourages existing riders to use transit more often as an alternative to driving. Attracting additional riders to bus transit services contributes to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development by reducing the number of trips that need to be served on the highway system. The need to provide additional bus transit services within Western Riverside County to satisfy this future demand is therefore directly linked to the future development that generates the demand. 3.3 The TUMF Concept A sizable percentage of trip -making for any given local community extends beyond the bounds of the individual community as residents pursue employment, education, shopping and entertainment opportunities elsewhere. As new development occurs within a particular local community, this migration of trips of all purposes by new residents and the new business that serve them contributes to the need for transportation improvements within their community and in the other communities of Western Riverside County. The idea behind a uniform mitigation fee is to have new development throughout the region contribute uniformly to paying the fair share cost of improving the transportation facilities that serve these longer -distance trips between communities. Thus, the fee is intended to be used primarily to improve transportation 5 Riverside Transit Agency (RTA), Comorehensiye Operational Analysis Executive Summar January 2015, Table 7 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study -2016 Program Update 23 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 facilities that serve trips between communities within the region (in particular, arterial roadways and regional bus transit services). Some roadways serve trips between adjacent communities, while some also serve trips between more distant communities within the region. The differing roadway functions led to the concept of using a portion of the fee revenues for a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve the longer -distance trips (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the entire region), while using a second portion of the fee revenues for a secondary system of arterials that serve inter -community trips within a specific subregion or zone (i.e. using TUMF revenues from the communities most directly served by these roads - in effect, a return -to -source of that portion of the funds). Reflecting the importance of public transit service in meeting regional travel needs, a third portion of fee revenues was reserved for improvements to regional bus transit services (i.e, using TUMF revenues from the entire region). Much, but not all, of the new trip -making in a given area is generated by residential development (i.e. when people move into new homes, they create new trips on the transportation system as they travel to work, school, shopping or entertainment). Some of the new trips are generated simply by activities associated with new businesses (i.e. new businesses will create new trips through the delivery of goods and services, etc.). With the exception of commute trips by local residents coming to and from work, and the trips of local residents coming to and from new businesses to get goods and services, the travel demands of new businesses are not directly attributable to residential development. The consideration of different sources of new travel demand is therefore reflected in the concept of assessing both residential and non-residential development for their related transportation impacts. In summary, the TUMF concept includes the following: ➢ A uniform fee that is levied on new development throughout Western Riverside County. ➢ The fee is assessed roughly proportionately on new residential and non-residential development based on the relative impact of each new use on the transportation system. ➢ A portion of the fee is used to fund capacity improvements on a backbone system of arterial roadways that serve longer -distance trips within the region; a portion of the fee is returned to the subregion or zone in which it was generated to fund capacity improvements on a secondary system of arterial roadways that Zink the communities in that area; and a portion of the fee is used to fund improvements to regional bus transit services that serve longer -distance trips between the communities within the region. WRCOG 24 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 4.0 THE TUMF NETWORK 4.1 Identification of the TUMF Roadway Network An integral element of the initial Nexus Study was the designation of the Western Riverside County Regional System of Highways and Arterials. This network of regionally significant highways represents those arterial and collector highway and roadway facilities that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional freeway system. As a result, this system also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Network does not include .the freeways of Western Riverside County as these facilities primarily serve longer distance inter -regional trips and a significant number of pass-through trips that have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County6. The TUMF Network is the system of roadways that serve inter -community trips within Western Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The RSHA for Western Riverside County was identified based on several transportation network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Arterial highway facilities proposed to have a minimum of four lanes at ultimate build -out (not including freeways). 2. Facilities that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities both within and adjoining Westem Riverside County. 3. Facilities with forecast traffic volumes in excess of 20,000 vehicles per day in the future horizon year. 4. Facilities with forecast volume to capacity ratio of 0.90 (LOS E) or greater in the future horizon year. 5. Facilities that accommodate regional fixed route transit services. 6. Facilities that provide direct access to major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Appendix E includes exhibits illustrating the various performance measures assessed during the definition of the RSHA. Transportation facilities in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were initially identified, and a skeletal regional transportation framework evolved from facilities where multiple guidelines were observed. Representatives of all WRCOG constituent jurisdictions reviewed this framework in the context of current local transportation plans to define the TUMF Network, which was 6 Since pass -though trips have no origin or destination in Western Riverside County, new development within Westem Riverside County cannot be considered responsible for mitigating the impacts of pass through trips. The impact of pass- through trips and the associated cost to mitigate the impact of pass through trips (and other inter -regional freeway trips) is addressed in the Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) Western Riverside County Freeway Stratecic Pion Phase II - Detailed Evaluation and Impact Fee Nexus Determination. Final Report dated May 31; 2008. WRCOG 25 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, TUMF Policy Committee and the WRCOG Executive Committee. The RSHA is illustrated in Figure 4.1. As stated previously, the RSHA represents those regional significant highway facilities that primarily serve inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and therefore also represents the extents of the network of highways and roadways that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. Consistent with the declining rate of new development forecast for Western Riverside County post the Great Recession, the TUMF Network was reviewed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to ensure facilities generally still met the previously described performance guidelines, and/or that the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network were roughly proportional to the impacts needing to be mitigated. This review process resulted in the removal of various facilities from the TUMF Network, as well as various changes in the scope and magnitude of specific improvements to the TUMF Network are discussed in Section 4.3 of this report. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 26 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee r' 4.2 Backbone Network and Secondary Network As indicated previously, the TUMF roadway network was refined to distinguish between facilities of "Regional Significance" and facilities of "Zonal Significance." Facilities of Regional Significance were identified as those that typically are proposed to have a minimum of six lanes at general plan build-out7, extend across and/or between multiple Area Planning Districts$, and are forecast to carry at least 25,000 vehicles per day in 2040. The Facilities of Regional Significance have been identified as the "backbone" highway network for Western Riverside County. A portion of the TUMF fee is specifically designated for improvement projects on the backbone system. The backbone network is illustrated in Figure 4.2. Facilities of Zonal Significance (the "secondary" network) represent the balance of the RSHA for Western Riverside County. These facilities are typically within one zone and carry comparatively lesser traffic volumes than the backbone highway network, although they are considered significant for circulation within the respective zone. A portion of the TUMF is specifically designated for improvement projects on the secondary network within the zone in which it is collected. The WRCOG APD or zones are illustrated in Figure 4.3. 7 Although facilities were identified based on the minimum number of lanes anticipated at general plan buildout, in some cases it was determined that sufficient demand for all additional lanes facilities may not exist on some facilities until beyond the current timeframe of the TUMF Program (2040). As a result, only a portion of the additional lanes on these facilities have currently been identified for funding with TUMF revenues, reflecting the cumulative impact of new development through the current duration of the TUMF Program. 8 Area Planning Districts (APD) are the five aggregations of communities used for regional planning functions within the WRCOG area. Area Planning Districts are interchangeably referred to as TUMF Zones. WRCOG 28 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 I , if c ITU 0 () ss c) c e E a`) to 2 . 63 3- a) 0 aL c < o N o t0 c a' CO 20 t4 0 � c o co INPL a c o co s ' X 1 ! 1 1; 9 l i e 0) 0 N C) 01 LL4.1 co ct C CL 03 c0. co co.m C �C O o toat if N bt E .1..r 0) 4.3 Future Roadway Transportation Needs For the purpose of calculating a "fair share" fee for new development, it is necessary to estimate the cost of improvements on the TUMF system that will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future transportation: demands created by new development. Estimates of the cost to improve the network to mitigate the cumulative impacts of new development were originally developed based on unit costs prepared for the Coachella Valley Association of Governments (CVAG) Regional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE)', and the WRCOG Southwest District SATISFY 2020 Summary of Cost. Estimates1° (TKC/WRCOG 2000). The RACE cost estimates were developed based on a summary of actual construction costs for projects constructed in Riverside County in 1998. The initial unit cost estimates for the TUMF (based on inflated RACE cost estimates) were reviewed in the context of the SATISFY 2020 Draft Cost Estimates and were consolidated to provide typical improvement costs for each eligible improvement type. The refinement of unit costs was completed to simplify the process of estimating the cost to improve the entire TUMF network. Based on RACE and SATISFY 2020, consolidated cost estimates included typical per mile or lump sum costs for each of the improvement types eligible under the TUMF Program. The resultant revised unit cost estimates were used as the basis for estimating the cost to complete the necessary improvements to the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development. Variations in the consolidated cost estimates for specific improvement types were provided to reflect differences in topography and land use across the region. Unit costs for roadway construction were originally varied to account for variations in construction cost (and in particular, roadway excavation and embankment cost) associated with construction on level (code 1) rolling {code 2) and mountainous (code 3) terrain, respectively. Right-of-way acquisition costs which originally included consideration for land acquisition, documentation and legal fees, relocation and demolition costs, condemnation compensation requirements, utility relocation, and environmental mitigation costs were also varied to account for variations in right-of-way costs associated with urban (developed commercial/residential mixed uses code 1), suburban (developed residential uses - code 2) and rural (undeveloped uses - code 3) land uses, respectively. Lump sum costs for interchange improvements were originally varied to account for variations in cost associated with new complex, new standard (or fully reconstructed), or major for partially reconstructed) or minor (individual ramp improvements) interchange improvements. As part of the 2016 TUMF Nexus Update, the original unit cost categories were revised to generate entirely new unit cost values based on the most recent available construction cost, labor cost and land acquisition cost values for comparable projects within ' Parsons Brinckerhoff/Coachella Valley Association of Governments, 1999, Reaional Arterial Cost Estimate (RACE) 10 TKC/Western Riverside Council of Governments, 2000, SATSFY 2020 Summary of Cost Estimates WRCOG 31 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10. 201 7 Riverside County. The recalculation of the TUMF unit cost components was completed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update to reflect the effects of the ongoing recovery from the economic recession that has seen the costs of materials, labor and land acquisition in California rebound from relative historical lows. Appendix F provides a detailed outline of the assumptions and methodology leading to the revised TUMF unit cost assumptions developed as part of the 2016 Nexus Update: In addition, supplemental categories were added to the cost assumptions to better delineate the need to mitigate the cumulative multi -species habitat impacts of TUMF arterial highway improvements in accordance with the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), and to account for the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. Section 8.5.1 of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) MSHCP adopted by the Riverside County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003 states that "each new transportation project will contribute to Plan implementation. Historically, these projects have budgeted 3% - 5% of their construction costs to mitigate environmental impacts." This provision is reiterated in the MSHCP Final Mitiaation Fee Nexus Report (David Taussig and Associates, Inc., July 1, 2003) section 5.3.1.2 which states that "over the next 25 years, regional infrastructure projects are expected to generate approximately $250 million in funding for the MSHCP" based on mitigation at 5% of construction costs. To clearly demonstrate compliance with the provisions of the MSHCP; the TUMF Program will incorporate a cost element to account for the required MSHCP contribution to mitigate the multi -species habitat impacts of constructing TUMF projects. In accordance with the MSHCP Nexus Report, an amount equal to 5% of the construction cost for new TUMF network lanes, bridges and railroad grade separations will be specifically included as part of TUMF Program with revenues to be provided to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation. Authority (RCA) for the acquisition of land identified in the MSHCP. The relevant sections of the MSHCP document and the MSHCP Nexus Report are included in Appendix F. Table 4.1 summarizes the unit cost estimate assumptions used to develop the TUMF network cost estimate as part of the current Nexus Update. Table 41 also includes a comparison of the original TUMF unit cost assumptions, and the 2009 Nexus Update unit cost assumptions. Cost estimates are provided in current year values as indicated. To estimate the cost of improving the regional transportation system to provide for future traffic growth from new development, the transportation network characteristics and performance guidelines (outlined in Section 41) were initially used as a basis for determining the needed network improvements. The initial list of improvements needed to provide for the traffic generated by new development was then compared with local General Plan Circulation Elements to ensure that the TUMF network included planned arterial roadways of regional significance. A consolidated list of proposed improvements and the unit cost assumptions were then used to establish an initial estimate of the cost to improve the network to provide for future traffic growth associated with new development. This initial list of proposed improvements has since been revised and updated as part of each subsequent Nexus Update to reflect the changing levels of new development and the associated travel demand and transportation system impacts to be mitigated as part of the TUMF program. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 32 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 As discussed in Section 2.3, the effects of the economic recession since the 2009 Nexus Update have included a reduction in the rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County. As indicated in Table .2.4 and Figure 2.4, the anticipated rate of forecasted growth in Western Riverside County has been reduced overall by 32% for population, 29% for households and 30% for employment. This reduced rate of socioeconomic growth is reflected in a reduction in the forecast horizon year population, households and employment depicted in Table 2.2 and Figure 2.2, with the 2040 forecasts used as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update being reduced by 4% for population, 12% for households and 21% for employment compared to the 2035 horizon year forecasts used as the basis for the 2009 Nexus Update, despite the horizon year being extended out by 5 years in the most recent SCAG forecasts. This reduced rate of forecasted socioeconomic growth has a commensurate impact on the forecasted daily traffic in the region as demonstrated by the 2009 Nexus Update VMT compared to the 2016 Nexus Update VMT in Table 4.2. As shown in the table, the forecast daily traffic is reduced by about 7% in the year 2040 as the basis for the 2016 Nexus Update compared to the year 2035 as used for the 2009 Nexus Update. As a result of the reduced traffic growth in the region, it is anticipated that the cumulative regional impacts of new development on the arterial highway and transit systems in the region is also reduced necessitating a reduction in the projects identified on the TUMF Network to mitigate the impacts of new development. WRCOG 33 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update. July 10, 2017 Table 4.1 - Unit Costs for Arterial Highway and Street Construction Component Type Original Cost Assumptions as published October 18; 2002 Cost Assumptions per 200.9 Nexus Update October 5, 2009 Cost Assumptions per 2016 Nexus Update Description Terrain 1 $550,000 $628,000 $692,000 Construction cost per lane mile - level terrain Terrain 2 $850,000 $761,000 5878,000 , ' z Construction cost per lane mile - rolling terrain Terrain 3 $1,150,000 $895,000 -° • $1,06^1,QOf Construction cost per lane mile - mountainous terrain Landuse 1 $900,000 $1,682,000 52,509,000 R, "- ROW cost factor per lane mile - urban areas Landuse 2 $420,000 $803,000 $2,263,000` ," : ROW cost factor per lane mile -suburban areas Landuse 3 $240,000 $237,000 $287,000 ROW cost factor per lane mile - rural areas Interchange 1 No $43,780,000 50.032,000 _ --'° _, $25458,000 °` Complex new interchangepnterchange modification cost New interchange/interchange modification total cost Interchange 2 $20,000,000 $22,280,000 Interchange 3 $10,000,000 $10,890,000 $12.343.000 Major interchange improvement total cost Bridge 1 $2,000 $2,880 MO Bridge total cost per lane per linear foot RRXing 1 $4,500,000 $4,550,000 56,376 `' New Rail Grade Crossing per lane RRXIng 2 $2,250,000 $2,120,000 '.$2, .000 Existing Rail Grade Crossing per lone Planning 10% 10% 10% Planning, preliminary engineering and environmental assessment costs based on construction cost only: Engineering 25% 25% 25% 1 1 O Project study report, design, permitting and construction oversight costs based on construction cost only Contingency costs based on total segment cost: Contingency 10% 10% Administration 3% 4" TUMF program administration based on total ., `TUMF eligible network cost MSFICP ° g ` = TUMF component of MSHCP based on total TUMF. eligible construction cost Table 4.2 — Forecasted Daily Traffic in Western Riverside County Measure of Performance 2016 Nexus Update 2009 Nexus Update Daily Daily 2012 Baseline 2040 No -Build 2007 2035 VMT - Total ALL FACILITIES 36,844,082 56,574,656 39,187,718 60,772,353 VMT - FREEWAYS 21,798,155 30,678,958 24,056,704 32,920,502 VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 15,045,927 25,895;698 15;131,014 27,851,851 TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 10,059,547 16,515,642 Source: Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016; RivTAM provided by Iteris (2008) WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 34 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 A peer review process utilizing real world experience and perspectives from both the private and public sectors was critical in developing a realistic network of proposed improvements to mitigate the additional traffic resulting from future development in Western Riverside County. Representatives of private development firms and the BIA have continued to participate in the process of developing and updating the TUMF Program. This involvement has included active participation of private developer staff at various workshops conducted at critical milestone points in the process of completing the Nexus update, as well as a formal review of the TUMF Network and associated elements of the Nexus Study by the BIA and their hired consultant staff. As part of the 2015 Nexus Update, the list .of proposed improvements included in the initial Nexus Study and validated during the subsequent Nexus updates was reviewed for accuracy and, where necessary, amended to remove or modify projects that have changed in need to mitigate impacts based on changes in the patterns of growth and travel demand within the region. Projects completed since the adoption of the 2009 Nexus Update were also removed from the network to reflect the fact that mitigation at these locations is no longer required. The specific network changes were screened by the WRCOG Public Works Committee for consistency with TUMF network guidelines including travel demand and traffic performance, and were subsequently reviewed by representatives of the public and privates sectors at a series of workshop meetings conducted between November 2014 and January 2015. In response to the release of the 2015 Nexus Update draft study document, the TUMF Network was further reviewed by a consultant team hired by the BIA, with findings and recommendations provided in a letter dated August 8, 2015. A final review of the TUMF Network and associated improvements was conducted by WRCOG staff in cooperation with the Public Works Committee during the summer and fall of 2016 specifically in conjunction with the 2016 Nexus Update to include consideration of the revised travel forecasts based on the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS demographic forecasts. Based on the findings of the network screening, workshop meetings and other reviews, elements of specific projects were revised to reflect necessary network corrections and modifications to project assumptions. Matrices summarizing the disposition of the requests received as part of both the 2015 and 2016 TUMF Nexus Updates were developed and are included in Appendix G. Eligible arterial highway and street improvement types to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development on Network facilities include: 1. Construction of additional Network roadway lanes; 2. Construction of new Network roadway segments; 3. Expansion of existing Network bridge structures; 4. Construction of new Network bridge structures; 5. Expansion of existing Network interchanges with freeways; 6. Construction of new Network interchanges with freeways; 7. Grade separation of existing Network at -grade railroad crossings; WRCOG 35 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 All eligible improvement types provide additional capacity to Network facilities to accommodate future traffic growth generated by new development in Western Riverside County. Following the comprehensive update of the TUMF Program, the estimated total cost to improve the RSHA for Western Riverside County is $3.45 billion with this cost including all arterial highway and street planning, engineering, design, right-of-way acquisition and capital construction costs, but not including transit, MSHCP or program administration costs that will be subsequently described. It should be noted that the full cost to improve the TUMF Network cannot be entirely attributed to new development and must be adjusted to account for the previous obligation of other funds to complete necessary improvements and unfunded existing needs. Sections 4.Z and 4.6 describe the adjustments to the total TUMF Network improvement need to account for existing needs and obligated funds. In addition to the arterial highway and street improvement costs indicated above, the TUMF Nexus Update included specific consideration for the TUMF Program obligation to the MSHCP program to mitigate the impact of TUMF network improvements on species and habitat within Western Riverside County. The TUMF obligation to MSHCP was calculated at a rate of 5% of the total construction (capital) cost of new lane segments, bridges and railroad grade separations on the TUMF Network. The total obligation to the MSHCP as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $45.4 million, although the total obligation specific to the TUMF program is reduced to account for MSHCP obligations associated with improvements addressing existing needs and therefore excluded from TUMF. The TUMF 2016 Nexus Update similarly includes specific consideration of the costs associated with WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program. The average cost for WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program was calculated at a rate of 4% of the total eligible cost of new lane segments (including interchanges, bridgesand railroad grade separations) on the TUMF Network and new transit services. Administration costs incurred by WRCOG include direct salary, fringe benefit and overhead costs for WRCOG staff assigned to administer the program and support participating jurisdictions, and costs for consultant, legal and auditing services to support the implementation of the TUMF program. The total cost for WRCOG administration of the TUMF Program as indicated in the TUMF Network cost fee table is approximately $112.2 million. The detailed TUMF network cost calculations are provided in Section 4.7, including each of the individual segments and cost components considered as part of the TUMF Program, and the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment following adjustments for obligated funding and unfunded existing needs as described in subsequent sections. 4.4 Public Transportation Component of the TUMF System In addition to the roadway network, public transportation plays a key role in serving future travel demand in the region. Public transportation serving inter -community trips is generally provided in the form of public bus transit services and in particular express bus WRCOG 36 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 or other high frequency services between strategically located community transit centers. In Western Riverside County, these bus transit services are typically provided by RTA. Transit needs to serve future regional travel in Western Riverside County via bus transit include vehicle acquisitions, transit centers, express bus stop upgrades, maintenance facilities and other associated capital improvements to develop express bus or other high frequency inter -community transit bus services within the region. Metrolink commuter rail service improvements were not included in the TUMF Program as they typically serve longer inter -regional commute trips equivalent to freeway trips on the inter -regional highway system. The network of regionally significant bus transit services represents those express bus and other high frequency transit bus services that primarily support inter -community trips in Western Riverside County and supplement the regional highway system and inter- regional commuter rail services. As a result, this portion of the bus transit system also represents the extents of the network of bus services that would be eligible for TUMF funded improvements. The TUMF Bus Transit Network is the system of bus services that serve inter -community trips within Westem Riverside County and therefore are eligible for improvement funding with TUMF funds. The Bus Transit Network for Westem Riverside County was identified based on several transit network and performance guidelines as follows: 1. Bus transit routes (or corridors comprised of multiple overlapping routes) proposed to have a frequency of greater than three buses per direction during peak hours at ultimate build out. 2. Routes or corridors that serve multiple jurisdictions and/or provide connectivity between communities, both within and adjoining western Riverside County. 3. Routes or corridors with forecast weekday bus ridership in excess of 1,000 person trips per day by 2040. 4. Routes or corridors that are proposed to provide timed interconnections with at least four other routes or corridors at ultimate build out. 5. Routes or condors that utilize the majority of travel along the TUMF RSHA. 6. Routes or corridors that provide direct access to areas of forecast population and employment growth, major commercial, industrial, institutional, recreational or tourist activity centers, and multi -modal transportation facilities (such as airports, railway terminals and transit centers). Express bus routes and other high -frequency bus transit routes and corridors in Western Riverside County that generally satisfied the respective guidelines were identified by RTA based on service information developed as part of the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis completed in January 2015. The TUMF Bus Transit Network was subsequently endorsed by the WRCOG Public Works Committee, WRCOG Technical Advisory Committee, and the WRCOG Executive Committee as the basis for the transit component of the 2016 Nexus Update. Updated cost estimates for improving the infrastructure serving public transportation, including construction of transit centers and transfer facilities, express bus stop upgrades, and capital improvements needed to develop express bus and other high WRCOG 37 Adopted WRCOG Execuftve Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 frequency bus transit service within the region were provided by RTA. The updated transit unit cost data provided by RTA are shown in Table 4.3. Table 4.3 - Unit Costs for Transit Capital Expenditures Component Type Cost Assumptions as published October 18, 2002 Cost Assumptions per 2009 Nexus Update October 5, 2009. Cost Assumptions per 2015 Nexus Update Description Transit Center 1 $6,000,000 $5,655,000 $6, Relocation/expansion of existing Regional Transit Center with up to 14 bus bays: and parkand ride Transit Center 2 $9000.000 New Regional Transit Center with upeto 14 bus bays and park and d Transfer Facility $10,000 $27,000 $1,000,000 Multiple route transfer hub 0 & M Facility Bus Stop $30.000, . _ 9 =. Regional Operations and Maintenance Facility Bus Stop Amenities Upgrade on TUMF Network ; ' BRT Service Capital $540,000 $550,000 $bO�4Q0 BRT/Limited Stop Service Capital r sto. ** Vehicle Fleet 1 $ ... _ � , Medium Sized Bus Contract 0peated Vehicle Fleet 2 $$25,125 $550,000 Large 5 :000 r; Oper Sized Bus Directly — Operated COA Study .,a .. Comprehensive Operational $95Ct.0130. Analysis Study component of ¢° . Nexus Study Update * Transit Cost Component Types were restructured as part of the 2015 Nexus Update in accordance with the RTA Comprehensive Operational Analysis {January 2015) BRT Service Capital Cost Assumption was based on a per mile unit in 2009 Nexus Update. 2016 Nexus Update uses aper stop unit cost for BRT Service Capital The estimated total cost for future RTA bus transit services to accommodate forecast transit demand is approximately $153.1 million with this cost including all planning, engineering, design and capital improvement costs. Detailed transit component cost estimates are included in Section 4.7. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 38 Adopted WRCOG Executive Commiffee July 10, 2017 4.5 Existing Obligated Funding For some of the facilities identified in the TUMF network, existing obligated funding has previously been secured through traditional funding sources to complete necessary improvements, including most recently California Senate Bill (SB) 1 Transportation Funding approved by Governor Brown on April 28, 2017. Since funding has been obligated to provide for the completion of needed improvements to the TUMF system, the funded cost of these improvements will not be recaptured from future developments through the TUMF Program. As a result, the TUMF network cost was adjusted accordingly to reflect the availability of obligated funds. To determine the availability of obligated funds, each jurisdiction in Western Riverside County (including the County of Riverside, the participating cities, and RCTC) was asked to review their current multi-year capital improvement programs to identify transportation projects on the TUMF system. A detailed table identifying the obligated funds for segments of the TUMF network is included in Appendix H. A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. The estimated TUMF network cost was subsequently reduced by this amount. 4.6 Unfunded Existing Improvement Needs A review of the existing traffic conditions on the TUMF network (cis presented in Table 3.1) indicates that some segments of the roadways on the TUMF system currently experience congestion and operate at unacceptable levels of service. In addition, demand for inter -community transit service already exists and future utilization of proposed inter -community transit services will partially reflect this existing demand. The need to improve these portions of the system is generated by existing demand, rather than the cumulative regional impacts of future new development, so future new development cannot be assessed for the equivalent cost share of improvements providing for this existing need. In the initial TUMF Nexus Study, the cost of existing improvement needs was estimated by identifying the roadway segments on the TUMF network that operate at LOS E or F according to the modeled 2000 base year volumes. The application of the LOS E threshold is consistent with national traffic analysis guidance that stipulates LOS D as the minimum acceptable LOS for arterial roadway facilities. The cost to improve these roadway segments with existing unacceptable LOS was calculated using the same method applied to estimate the overall system improvement cost. This method estimated the share of the particular roadway segment (including all associated ROW, interchange, structure and soft costs) that was experiencing unacceptable LOS, and reduced the estimated cost to reflect the relative share. The adjusted value reflected the maximum eligible under the TUMF Program to improve only those portions of the segment (and the relative share of associated improvement costs) that were not experiencing an existing need and were therefore considered to be exclusively addressing the cumulative impacts of new development. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 39 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 By the application of this methodology, the initial TUMF Nexus Study did not account for the incremental cumulative impact of new development on those segments with an identified existing need. For this reason, the methodology to account for existing need was reviewed .as part of the TUMF 2005 update to provide for the inclusion of incremental traffic growth on those segments with existing need, As part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the methodology to account for existing need on arterial segments was further refined to utilize peak period traffic conditions as the basis for the calculation, rather than daily traffic conditions. Peak period performance measures typically reflect the highest level of demand for transportation facilities and therefore are typically utilized as the basis for project design making peak period a more appropriate basis for determining existing need (and future mitigation needs) as part of the TUMF program. The existing need methodology for the 2016 Nexus Update was also expanded to include spot improvements on the TUMF Network (including interchanges, bridges and railroad crossings). Due to limitations in previously available traffic forecast data, prior versions of the TUMF Nexus Study only determined existing need for arterial segments and did not explicitly include existing need for spot improvements. To account for existing need in the TUMF Network as part of the 2016 Nexus Update, the cost for facilities identified as currently experiencing LOS E or F was adjusted. This was done by identifying the portion of any TUMF facility in the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario with a volume to capacity (v/c) ratio of greater than 0.9 (the threshold for LOS E), and extracting the share of the overall facility cost to improve that portion. This cost adjustment provides for the mitigation of incremental traffic growth on those TUMF segments with an existing high level of congestion. The following approach was applied to account for incremental traffic growth associated with new development as part of the existing need methodology: 1. Facilities with an existing need were identified by reviewing the RivTAM 2012 Baseline scenario assigned traffic on the 2015 existing network and delineating those facilities included on the TUMF Cost Fee Summary Table that have an average directional v/c exceeding 0.90. a. Weighted directional v/c values were used to determine existing need for network segments, which was calculated by: i. Determining the length for the portion of each segment (model link), and calculating the ratio of link length to the overall segment length ii. Generating the average directional v/c for each link, for both directions in AM and PM periods, and multiplying by link/segment length ratio iii. Determining the maximum peak -period peak -direction v/c for each Zink, representing the highest directional v/c in either AM or PM iv. Calculating weighted average v/c for each TUMF segment, based on the sum of all weighted max v/c values of each link within a segment WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 40 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 b. A similar method was used to determine existing need for spot improvements including interchanges, railroad crossings and bridges. However, no weighting was used in the calculation of existing need for spot improvements. For these facilities, the peak -period peak -direction v/c values (highest directional v/c in either AM or PM) were utilized in the existing need calculation. This was based on the individual link within a network segment where a bridge or railroad crossing is located, or on- and off -ramps in the case of interchanges. 2. Initial costs of addressing the existing need were calculated by estimating the share of a particular roadway segments "new lane" cost, or individual spot improvement cost (including all associated ROW and soft costs). 3. Incremental growth in v/c was determined by comparing the average directional base year v/c for the TUMF facilities (delineated under step one) with the horizon year v/c for the corresponding segments and spot improvements calculated based on the RivTAM 2040 No -Build scenario assigned traffic on the 2012 existing network using the same methodology as the base year v/c. 4. The proportion of the incremental growth attributable to new development was determined by dividing the result of step three with the total 2040 No -Build scenario v/c in excess of LOS E. 5. For those segments experiencing a net increase in v/c over the base year, TUMF will 'discount' the cost of existing need improvements by the proportion of the incremental v/c growth through 2040 No -Build compared to the 2012 Baseline v/c (up to a maximum of 100%). The unfunded cost of existing highway improvement needs (including the related MSHCP obligation) totals $431.7 million. Appendix H includes a detailed breakdown of the existing highway improvement needs on the TUMF network, including the associated unfunded improvement cost estimate for each segment and spot improvement experiencing unacceptable LOS. For transit service improvements, the cost to provide for existing demand was determined by multiplying the total transit component cost by the share of future transit trips representing existing demand. The cost of existing transit service improvement needs is $60.5 million representing 39.5% of the TUMF transit component. Appendix 11 includes tables reflecting the calculation of the existing transit need share and the existing transit need cost. 4.7 Maximum TUMF Eligible Cost A total of $303.5 million in obligated funding was identified for improvements to the TUMF system. Since these improvements are already funded with other available revenue sources, the funded portion of these projects cannot also be funded with TUMF revenues. Furthermore, the total cost of the unfunded existing improvement need is WRCOG 41 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 $492.2 million. These improvements are needed to mitigate existing transportation deficiencies and therefore their costs cannot be assigned to new development through the TUMF. Based on the estimated costs described in Sections 4.3 and 4.4, the total value to complete the identified TUMF network and transit improvements, and administer the program is $3.76 billion. Having accounted for obligated funds and unfunded existing needs as described in Sections 4.5 and 4.6, respectively, the estimated maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program is $2.96 billion. The maximum eligible value of the TUMF Program includes approximately $2.71 billion in eligible arterial highway and street related improvements and $92.6 million in eligible transit related improvements. An additional $43.3 million is also eligible as part of the TUMF Program to mitigate the impact of eligible TUMF related arterial highway and street projects on critical native species and wildlife habitat; while $112:2 million is provided to cover the costs incurred by WRCOG to administer the TUMF Program. Figure 4.4 illustrates the various improvements to the RSHA included as part of the TUMF network cost calculation. Table 4.4 summarizes the TUMF network cost calculations for each of the individual segments. This table also identifies the maximum eligible TUMF share for each segment having accounted for obligated funding and unfunded existing need. A detailed breakdown of the individual cost components and values for the various TUMF Network segments is included in Appendix H. Table 4.5 outlines the detailed transit component cost estimates. It should be noted that the detailed cost tables (and fee levels) are subject to regular review and updating by WRCOG and therefore WRCOG should be contacted directly to obtain the most recently adopted version of these tables (and to confirm the corresponding fee level). WRCOG 42 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee WMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates 'AREAPIAN Duro Y ,-STREINAME Central - :Menifee-Elhanoc Centro! Manilas Ethanac =Central'Minnie Efihonac 'Central Menliee Ethanac Central Menifee Ethanac Central Menifee Menifee 'Centra! Menifee ideates lMenifee Mentree Central Menifee Menifee Centml Murifee 'Menifee Ce, :Menifee, 'Menifee 'Central MenifeMennee Central 'Menifee :Menifee/Whltewood Central 'Mamie° Newport . . 'Central :M rhes Newport Central Menifee .Newport Central Menifee Newport Central Menifee 'tdewpart Central Medtee -:Scott Camra! ::Mantles; Scott Central Menifee Scott Central .Menifee 'Scott .Centre): SMeNfe SR -74 Centro! Moreno Valley 'Alessandra Central Moreno Valley Alessandro 'Central Morenovaley •Alessandro �Centrol Moreno Valley Alessandro Central Moreno Valley .Almon dings :Control -.Moreno Wiley Gilman Springs Cenlrot -Moreno Wiley Pends ... Central Moreno ValeyPenh Central Morenobohey Penis Centrad. Morena Valley Pen's Cenhot Moreno Valley Perris Central Moreno Velmey Re he Vista :Central -Perris '111h/Case Central Perils .Case Cenfrai Pestis Central Penis Central Perris Central 'Penis Central .Penh Central ,Penis Central Perris Cartrol Perris ,Central 'Penis -Central .Peat* :Cerwral Perris 'Cenirnl Perris Cenlydl Penis Central PMNs Centro) •PerAi Cenfmi Pen10 Central PeiTIs Central .Penis Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Central Centrad Central Northwest ihorthwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Northwest Case Ethanoc Ethanac Elhame -Goetz Goetz :Mid -County (Placentia) Md.COunty (Pbcenllo( MdCounty Mid.County Paris Perris Perm 'Perlis Ramona Ramona Ramona Palls Ramona Perris SR -74 (4th) t34ncorporated Eltwnec UNnccrporaled GOman Springs tlninc osporoled Menitee Unincaporaled N6d-County thdncapaated Md.County(Ramona) Untncxcporaled nrtdCounty (Ramona) 4inincospwafed NI1-C90My (Romano) tis sncorparated Rerhe Canyon Unincorporate'Retie Mato ikilncorporolee Soott urdrscorporated SR -74 Corona Cajolco corona Ca)alco Conan Foothil Corona 900001) Corona Foothill Corona 90011!61 Corona Green River Corona Green River Corona Green River Eattvole Schleisrnon Eastvahe Schlelsman ErisMvale 5d4&sman Northwest &stack Sddesman Northwest Eostvete Schfetsman Nadihviest Eastvole Sddetsman Northwest Eastvale Sddeisman Northwest Junipcs Volley Van Steen Northwest Jurupa Volley Von Buren ' SfGAIENTFROM - iSEGNENf O . -Goetz.-.'mm10a ,M sIeta 4215 -215 interchange Strainer Matthews BNSP San Jacinto launch misread aosong :SR-74{Pmacati Simpson ScltCreek bridge Sknpson %idergate Mdergate .Newport Newpcet HOSand Holland Grsbard Garbar* Scott ;Scott kneetoCity welt .Goetz Mmiatc Meseta 4216 1415 Menitee Menifee UMdenberger_ Leidenberger SR -79 (Winchester) 1215. ,&198x. 1-iiilMerdsange Sunset 'Mes M,grieio 'F21Seta maniieas Ikiggs 1-.215 :Pena Perris - 1Neson NasonMrsrorm Beach Moreno Beach GYsnoii Springs SR.60 - - ;Nesxaldno... 56.60 Interchange Reche Vista : tromvaod convood Suixrymecd 5R�0 iiterctwnge Sunnymead, Cactus Cactus 1(adeyKeox Moreno volley any Umlt .Neaeock Perris ' Goeti Goetz 1,215 ,San Jadnto River bridge -Keystone Goetz Son Jodnto River ;bridge °:1-215 ' :Sherman Gose - Ethorwc .San Jodnfo River 'Ixldge F215 Part15 `1-215 intachong0 Pests Valley Storm Channel bridge 'HarleyKnox Rom_ono Ramona Citrus Nueva 'i,21S overaosshxj 1.216` 1.215 Penis Evart Bus 56-74 Alessandro Nuevo Evans 'Ramona (2,000ft E of Rider) Pico Avenue San Jacinto Myer San Bernardino County Recta Canyon Rigg Ethanac 1-15 1-15 Paseo Grande wardlow Wash Lincoln C01'rfondo Dominguez Ranch Potlsades .Son bemardlno County Cucamonign Creek 600' ere Cucamonga Creek Harrison Sumner Scholar ASiieef SRO Rellegrove iluevo .11th bridge Peds Interchange Evans ied•County (2.803 E of Rider) 1.215 - Keystone BridDe .... 51544 (Pinacate) 'Ramona (2800 0 E of Side() Pico Avenue Bridge bridge Retie 95550 Moreno VaOey City Limit SR -79 (W6rchestert LTRs Temescal Canyon Interchange Lfncoki bdage California 5-15 Dominguez Ranch Palisades Paseo Grande 600' e/o Cucamonga Creek bndge Harrison Sumner Scholar A Street Hamner Bellegrave Santa And River MLES :-. .TOTAL COSI _ MAXIMUM1UMFSHARE.. 0.99. - -,..So so .. 0.90 40 40 $15,764000 $1.617.000 433,018000 40 40 50 40 $0 40 42435,000 0.00 0.61 0.00 2.49 0.00 0.64: o.9s 1.07 1.03 I.l1D 0.53` 1.81 2.05 0.95 0.77 3.58 204' 000" 1.01 1.94 1.89 3.52 200 0.99 4.13 1.67 0.00 2.09 0.52 060, 2o0 340. 044 0.30 2.36. 0.00 2.24 0.03" 0.35 2.00 0.00 0.87 0.00 1.57 0.00 1.03 2.49: 0.50 1.75 0:00' 1:47 0.00' 1.03 2.62 2.29 5.07 4.98. 4.07 0.77 0.44 5.95 0.00` 3.35 1.22 3.04. 2.68 0:66 0.00 2.60 0.00' 2.81: 0.89 642 0.56 2.01 o,'as. o.00' 0.87 0.50 0.50 0.31 0.27 1.43 3.60 417,897,000 41417.000 136,980000 *0 46 40 40 40 40 42635,006 40 so 35.405.000 SO 40 40 $0 437.060.000 {2651.000:. 410.254,000' 44994.000: 46.394.000: 422,832.000 46.922,000 $10,902000. 44.017;000 $17,897,000 *0 40. 417497.000 40: 43,310,006 42.100,000 416,486400' 41,126,000., 47.327.620' 42435.000. 45,267.000 *3,68&000 413.127.000 137,060.000 4329022.000 45299.000 40 $6.578.000' 40 412206030.. *2767.000 42,769.000 417,897,000 10 40 45,646,000 515,815600 410.737.000 48.587.000 4.1,161600 441,413.000 423,978.000 $12,457.000.. 19.180.000 414042000' s0 12.904000 4724465000 419.330,000 45.534000 40 46.207,030 43.624:000 44.214,600 49 $2.271,000 $923,000 40 40 43,493.00 40 40 49.976.000 425..115000 50 15,405,000 40 40 *0 49' 437.060000, 42654.000. 410.254,000. 44994.000 6,394000 4zi63zuon. 46,922000 11Q90Z000. 4$724400 417,897,000' 40. 50; *0 10 10 41.705.000 42,100.000. 413.530.000: 4195.000 17.327,000 17.378,000 41.945.000 42.506.000 41,925,000 412.627.000 $12354.030 *32902500: *8.299.000 56.576.030 50 49.034.000: 41,356,000' *2769.000 15.965.0 10 40 $0 55.646.000. 48.105.000. 410.737.000 48.587.000 41.161.600 425.287.000 415.835.000; *9.429.000 44.729,000 40. 50 *2306.000 $44.251,000 47.282000' 40 44.304.000 11,000 11.639.000 40 42271.000 4923.000 40 50 13,493,000 50 00 13.628,000 47.444,000 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 44 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) rARPA PLAN DISI COY..... 'SIREETNRNE Northwest Riverside Alessandro 'Northwest Riverside Arlington 'Notthwesl Riverside , Aninglon 'Northwest Riverside Van Buren Northwest Riverside .Van SLwers Northwest Riverside Von Buren • Northwest Riverside - Van Buren Northwest Unincorporated •Alessandro Nodhwest. trdncorpotated Alessandro Northwest tkfncorporated •Cajoloo Northwest Urilncorporated `Cojolco Northwest Irsincorporated Cojolco 'Northwest Unindolporolod • Cajotco (Northwest Unincorporated-Cajatco .Noahwesj Ilrrincmporated :Ca)alco Northwest Unincorporated Nan Buren LMorthWest tThlncorporated Van Buren Pass - Beaumont Beaumont Pass _Beaumont ;.Potrero 'Paw. Beaumont (Potrero Pass Beaumont ;Potrero ,Pass Beaumont l'otrero .Pass Beaumont (Potrero Pass Beaumont =SR:79 (Beaumont) `Pass - Beoumont ;SR -79 (Beaumont) Pass Unincorporated 'S1679 (Beaumont) ;Pass Unincorporated ,SR-79(LamlbCanyon) San Jacinto Hemet •Domentgor4 SanJac:Hornet :DomenIgon Jacinto ) . 'San Jacinto Hemel 9R-74 !San Jaa irrto Son Jodnto 'Fria -County (Romono) :San joantO San Jacinto 4d -County (Ramona) San Jodnto San -Ramona ' {San Jacinto San Jadnto Romona :San Jacinto San JoClnte %Romona SonJacinto SanJodnto Raa mona San Jaaanto tMncor)oraled Domerdgoni ;San Jacinto iklincorporated '1'JOrninigant San Jacinto Unincorporated Gilman Sp4ngs San Jacinto Uincorporoled 15d -County (Romona) San Jacinto 1)iiincorporated SR:74 San Jacinto UNncorporated 91679 (Hemel Bypass) 'San Jacinto (Atincorporoted a-79 (Hemel $ypossl '.San Jacinto Unincorporated SR 79 )Hemel Bypass) -Domenlgonl • Son ladnto Unincorporated SR -79 (San Jacinto Byposs) ..7vldCountyIRamona) 'San Jacinto Unincorporated SSR 79 ISandersoiil - tltlman Spring San Jacinto Unincorporated 5879 (Sanderson) San JoeInto tk* eaporeted 59-79 (WInebester) ,Southwest Canyontoke 'Goetz ... Southwest Canyon Lake .Ralkoad canyon •Southwest Lake Elsinore Ralkead Canyon Southwest Loke &inore ,Rot oad Canyon Southwest cake Bnlnoro ;51674 :Southwest Munleta : Clinton Kelth Southwest Murrieta 'Clinton Keith `Saulliwest Munieto .Clinton Keith. 'Southwest Munteta Trends Vatey(Date) Southwest Murrieta Trench Valley (Oafs) 'Southwest Mwrieta WMievood.. Southwest Marteto Whitewood :Southwest Teniecuto 9-endtvawey(Date) .Southwest 94.r44•044 -French vow mate) Southwest Temecula +.Fretcil Valley (Date) Southwest Temecula. :trench Valey (Che®ry):Southwest Temecula FrenrihVoley(Chgry) :Southwest TemeOul0. Western Bypass (Diaz).. Cheny Southwest !eines:trio Western Bypat65 (Anoint Mian Rancho Catfomto Southwell Temecula .Wellen Bypass (Vincent Mor.I.15 Southwest Temeciiia Westem Bypass )Vincent Mon Mmleta Creek Southwest Temecula 59-79 Winchester) -.. `MWieta Hot Springs Southwest Temeculo ER -79 (Wine/leiter) 115 -! o Southwest Unincorportte0. Benton 'Sauthwert Unincorporated Clinton Keith Southwest -Unincorporated Clinton Keith Southwest Unincorporated .s8-74 5outhvest Unincorporated . 5849 Winches* Southwest lydncorporated SR79.(Wfricnesfer) Southwest UNnaorporoted -5R-79 Moot'inter) Southwest t7Nncorporotei SR -79 (Winchester) 'SEGMEN1FROM Arington North Magnolia -Santa Ma River SR -91. Wood '&autwein Traulwein .Vito Grande .EI Sobrante ,Hodeyiohn Halve 'Temeseol Canyon Te nescal Wash La Siena. Modcingbkd.Canyon ••Orange Terrace Oak Volley (14th) _ 1-10 Oak Valley *San iimoteo CarSR60 5R-60 interchange Oprm'koad crossing :Noble Creek bridge SR -60 41h. 110 .M1Uow '110 interchange Mellow California :California Gilman Springs •Warren Sanderson .Sanderson State Winchester Wares Waren Sanderson Sanderson -PR -79 (Hemet 8ypcinterchange 'Sanderson 'State ;State Main -SEGMEHTTO Tral twein Mognota Alessandro S9-91 Mockingbird Canyon .Trpirtwetn Orange Terrace .Villa Grande 1.215 HoileyJohn HaNB 1.215 Le Stem .64,0.90 01 .Sobro me Wood 1-215 '-Mout .Cella Cedar Alt 79 (Winchester)_ San Diego Aqueduct 69.9 � 't <31-74 (Florida) San Diego Aqueduct =Son Jodnto River '�Domentgonl RaBrood Canyon Can an Hills %1-15 I-15 'F15 Copper Craft :Toulon '1215 MYerlele Hot Springs V Wlnctseater Creek Merlibee Cify LImll r:Keter _. Mksigattla 'Ynez. •Jelterson 615. inter range Jeltmson Diaz : se niefo Creek bridge Rancho Callemba SR79 )Front) interchange bridge Jefferson Interchange Eastern Bypass 'SR -79 bridge Ethanac Thompson La Alba Hunter M pieta Hot Springs Monte Vista Sunset interchange 115 Copper Craft $R-74 warren afidge Sanderson Warren 59-79 (Wlncieier) •Domenigoni bridles Winchester SO4 (r.!°°00) Ramona bridge Kele Newport Goetz 'Canyon Hills rdercharrge ritemhange Toulon 1-215 Whitewood Winchester Creek Margalta Keller Croton Keith 559-79 Whitewood Warm Springs Creek '115 Keller -Thompson La Alto Hunter :Southwest Wildomar BundyCanyon 1-15 Southwest Wiidomor Bundy Canyon Southwest Wlldomar luny Canyon Southwest Wildoma Clinton Keith 'Southwest. Widmer Clinton Kelfh Subtotal Monte vista 615 Paloma 1-15 .MBS OTAL COST 221 .592 2.02, 3.44 3.10 043. 1.27 1.22 1.26' 0.76 5.79• 0.28 3.21 0.00 3.14.411. 1J39 1.37 0.72 090. 0.00 0.00 0.45 0.90 0.00 0.38 4.87 1.77 2.14 2.59 1.73 0.00 239- 266 203 1.10 3.10 0.00 2.95 235 3.53. 3.22 0.00 1.50 450 1.92 0.00 4.90 0.50 1.95 2.229 0.00 0.00 0.83 0.83 0.75 0.24 t 0.61' 0.55' 2.00; 0.91 0.78 0.00' 0.56 0.00 2.14 1.48 9.00 090 2.70 0:00' 2.40 2.54 0.00° 4.89 2.47 1.81 0.50 1.14. 032' 3.10. 0.55 2.48 25.5.28r- 90. *7.031,811 #13;957,000' *7.456,000 50 - *3,470,000 ;0: 10: $4.806,000 580.889.000. 8749.000 *22.864,000 83,229.000' *45421.000. *30.785.000 SO ;7,637 000 81,615900' *37.060000-- $7,927.000 *2306.000, 92374000 10 *17:897.000 So 50 $4.674.000 50 *16085.000 912.062070 937.0.60.071 10 911,622000 *0 $8,173,000. 52767.000 $7.787,000 912396000 99,30 ,900 916,990900. 85.534,000 ;7.914.000 534.296,090 95960,000 9129100000 *0 80 *0 13.021.000. *72,546,000: 287.060.000 40 52587000 90 $3.352900 50 10 82111.000 40. *10.199,000. 97254,000 55.711.000, *7.746.000 85,382000. 821961.000 *87.060.000 0,534,000. 50 917.897.000 *0 920,104,000 *33.200.000 513.064900 $17,220,000. 912652002 33,514000 9513.000 4793.002 59,850000 - .$9.850.000 917,897,000 57,159,000 90 10 4627,000. *4275.000 MA70MUMIUMF SHARE' 57,031,0 $10 o01.000 0,456.000 *10,80.000 80. 13470,000: 10 *3,465900. *6602000 i749,do0 *23.864,000.; ;a229A00 146,421,000 **309.00. $7.687900 91,415,000 *23.760000. 97,927,000 *2,306.006.. *2.874000. So; *5.369900 50: *4,674,000: 1D 114085,00. 112064009 *37960.000; $0 *o 511.139.000 *4 $8,173,0' 92767.000 97.782900 111.045.02. 99.901900. $16.990.000. *5.534.000 17,914000 *30.076900. 54.376.000 s4100:000 49. 0.021.000 928,636,000; 917,725,000 30 $2187,1100 50 *3,352000 91: 90 9211,000 $0. 510.199.000. 155.760.000 $5.711,000. 92944000 $5.382000 121.941.000' 92o:482A50 *5534000 95,442000' $3.604,000 527,052.000 $18064,000 $17.220.000. $12652000 12771.000 $513:000 9793,000 1..642525,i700 i 227955.000. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN DISI CRY - ' 131REETNANE - SEGMENTf8OM:.. ;SEGMENTTO... ]Central -.:Menifee.. - `ltsriggs entrol Menefee 'Goetz !Juanita •Central. Menttee .'Goetz Newport' Central Menifee - iHoiland Central Menifee 'Holland Central iMe 'tee - - !McCall Central Menifee 'McCall Central. - Menifee - +McColl -__jAspei Central Merillee imurrieto iCenfrai_ Menifee iMuMeta 'Ce - - niral Menifee !Mk4rleta Central - !Moreno Val ey .Cactus !Central !Moreno Vol ey !Cactus Central Val ey !Day ( Mareno Val ey !Day Central ---LMoreno valley 'Pay 58-60. 'Central���rrrrano Val ey :Eucalyptus - - 1-215 ifc��e��n_irai rano Valley !Eucalyptus - Towngote -Central Moreno Vd ey ,Eucalyptus Frederick 'Central Moreno. Vol ey 'Eucalyptus Central -Moreno Val ey 1Paicdyphn rCenfrol Moreno Valley_Eucaly�ius Central Moreno Val ey Frederick Central Moreno Valley 16Heocock -Central Moreno Vol ey. , Heocock Genital Moreno Valley-!Heocock Central Moreno Val ey jlronwood Central Moreno Vol ey1kom+aod Central Moreno Vol ey )Lassdle Centra_ Moreno Valley.. lLdedIe Centra Moreno Volley : 'Moreno Beach Centro Moreno Valley !Moreno Beach Centro Moreno Valley rNason Centra Moreno Valley !Pigeon Pass Antelope 1215 overcrosdng lF215 1215 Ethanac McCall Newport 1215 .215 •lonwood SR -60 TOTALCU51 . ' MA7CMAUMTISVIF SHARE . _....•:$Di 'lesser Lane 261 $6,884.0001^- $6:591000; !Juanita r i l.3�d v�,yJ - moi 'Noun 1.007 $13,971.096;. - $13,971,000! {bridge- - _ 0.00 .. M6,455,OW 455,000; lel mterchonge 0.06. $17,897,Orm ,930,005 _Mtsnifee 0:95 $2517.000, .$2517.0001 ,Ma:Coll l - 1,95 '- - -_Newer--- - �.. 203 .:.... Bundy Canyon _ 3.00 1HeacriCk �� 1.81!-.$2.022.0 04 !SRfiOinterchange 0.0.01- $37,060,000 $37,060,000:. f 0.28 - $ol;i llntercharje_ 1 0.00 - $17,897.000 41311717000 !Eucalyptus ,iiTowngote - ikededdr 1.00 .. :. $Oi SOa SOt o°n so ; .1 $4,0._50,00�0�, $4.050.000 0.87 tui S0i cock. _Latching - f 1.01 1. of 0l.60Kitching :_, - 'Moreno Beach 2.42 �"" $339�.000 _ _ =0! Moreno Beach' Theodore 228-- -- 518,882,000' 18882! �-60 Nessandro _ 1.55 '�- _Cactus 'San M•Lchele 279 $4,4''20001 $4 482000', Roche Yato Ci a' •1.73 $o§ _ li 'San MNchele Harley Knox 0.74. .�i,958,000r53200Df 'SR -60 - 'Day l: 1.33 $2495,0007• $2895,00(1' Day - 1.14w/cock 2.01. $21 --.7,-(, .Alessandro - ° John f Kennedy ` 1.00 JohnPKennedy 1" leantla - 3.14 ` - 550, - IReche Canyon - - !SR -60 ISR -60 overcrossing `bridge ISR -60 ',Alessandro_ .. 'Ironwood sSR-60. Neacodk 1.0 Centre Moreno Va11ey_IPIgeonPoss/CETAP Corridor Cantarinl - :Ironwood Central - Moreno Volley ';Roche Canyon (Moreno Volley City Limit !Locust Centro Moreno Valley ;Redlands +Locust-'Aleaottra Centro) - Moreno Valley :Redlands '�i'S�R-60 Centro ' � _ reno Valley 'Theodore - T-60 y Centro Moreno Valley 'Theodore ,5860 Centro - Penis ;Evam !Oleander Iselin, JPenis ,Evans Ramona Centra !Penis ;Evans .RMiderorgan Central [Perris !Evans .- . !Central Penis )Evans iflacentio �Nvevo Central Perris - Evans -'Nuevo - - - 1215 Central 'Penis !Evans San Jacinto Riva -bridge Central Perris 'Goetz ILeooer - - -River._ Central. Perris -Haley Knox - 11.215 1lndlan.- 153' Central Penis ;HtaleyKnox 1215 - ?interchange 0.00 -417.897,111. - 17.110.000; Centrcl Jerrie !Hciley Knox. Ilntlian Penis 0.521 401 1 Central Perris i i i 'I1nox ?Penis kedonds i Di50� $p- ! C� antral Perris !Nuevo - 11215 _ 1MUnfeta 1.36 49.4930501 49.480,OfA; Central Penis Nuevo 11215 'interchange 0.0oy. 417.097,900! $17,8177,0 0 Central Perris. - ^I Nuevo Murrieta _,.[Dunlap.'- # 100 -52.033000r$2035,000; Central Penis Nuevo - Pen's ValleyStorm Channel !bridge 0,ODi ,42767_000 - $2767,000; 'Central - Terris 1SR-74 (Matthews) $215 ?Ethanoc # 1.25 40 Central Perris - �lSR-74 tM4aiftrewsl jjj`1-215 _ ,interchange 1 000J -. $17.897' ;515.000 Central .. 'Unincorporated !Briggs 158.74_ (Permeate) ',Simpson 1.92htral. Unincorporated .'Briggs ' :Simpson - - Newport Central: Unincorporated 1ggs Soh -Creek ;Bridge:. 1 0,001 $0! - SO'+ Central Unincar orated 'Center (Main) 11215 - Mt Vernon ` 7.50' - 11-215 interchange - 0.00'$0• Central Unincorporated Center (Malta i 317,897,' :Central Unincorporated Center (Main) BNSF rdlroad aosen ! p (0 :L...'41477.,.92198;977.:001100.,,i,_ s _ ... 9. _ $7 927000' }Central Unincorporated lBlis !Most... .. 5574 2651 $8959800' .n.__.._ ted IMO _.Y.�_-.____.$:91::._2_5899:210c00002:1___ �. _._.. :Central Unincorporated -fMouni Vemon/CETAP Cotdd Center _ ,Pigeon Pea 0.61' $2252, -- !Central • - Unincorporated Nuevo !Dunlap - =Menifee 200 45.273.0001 45,37$0W( Central Unincorporated-iNuevo 5an Jacinto River ',bridge_ 099( $g,688 �, 3 Central Unincorporated !Pigeon Pass/CETAP Corridor )Canfarinl ;Mount Vernon 9.38' $25.146.000 Central Unincorporated !Post :Santa Rosa Mone iE10s 0 $25,148000' {Central Unincorporated 1Reche Canyon 1Reche Vista }Moreno Valley City Umlf • - 320 CCentral �Unlncorporated -"Redlands (San Tlmoteo Canyon - yWcusl - 2.60 9nierCbcnge yEeWl tus... interchange Ramona {Morgan ]Rider • Piocentia $9,548.0001 $9,548,1001 0. 42.306:0015 1.51 •- $230&0001 $0; 0.43,401:.! 3231_ _. _ - 40,. 2681 - $18,721.006 - $18013000; $0017,060.01 437 060.OIX1? 0261' $L817OOD. $1,B1Z000; 13,rr 437,060,0906 $19.096,0001 $0' $o: 0.99 0.590.491 $1 562000° 41562000, 4-91 1.501 $1,347,000. 51.347,000, 1.991 $10,52',•$10,521,000! f.. 0.001- 47,379,"''''..------r111i11 $7.373000`; 1,04 $2,745,.1' $1.2380001. $6,59803%. - $6,598,000' l:x�tr sot 40! .44 �-!_ - i0 501 $0e WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 46 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA PLAN MOW , ,•S1REEINAME. Northwest. Corona Northwest Corona Auto Center Northwest Corona Caldco Northwest Corona Hidden Volley Northwest Corona �i.lnoaln .. Northwest Corona MognaSa Northwest Corona .Magnofa 'Northwest Corona -.N.1°511'545! Northwest Corona :Magnolia Northwest Corona Maln Northwest Corona ,Main Northwest Corona 'Main 't4orthwesl ..Corona Main Northwest Corona Main Northwest Corona 'MeKNey. Nodhwesl -Corona MCKI6ey Norttswed Corona McKinley t4orthweM Corona .Mc06r68y Northwest Corona McKinley Northwest Corona Ontario Nordhweo Coiorw .Ontaio . Northwesi 'Corona .Ontario Northwest Corona Ontario .Northwest Corona .Onto NOrthwlst Corona Ontario Northwest Corona %niario Northwest Corona Ratkood Northwest Corona Rallioad Northwest Corona `Rail -dad Northwest Corona River NorthSer west Corona res Club 'Northwest Eastvale Arcfsibold Northwest Easivole Hamm 'Northwest Ealivale Hamner Northwest Eastvole 1lamner NOilhweit Eaistvole 'Hamner ort Nhwest Eastvale Hamner .Northwest Eastvate Umonite Northwest Eastvale Vmonfe Northwest Eastvale limonite Northwest Eastvale Umonite .Northwest tastvole Limonite Northwest Eastvale 'Limonite Northwest Eastvale Limonite Northwest Eastvale limonite Northwest Jurupa Valley Armstrong Northwest Jlrrupa Valley Bdiegrave Northwest Junrpa Valley. CantvGa8eano Ranch Northwest Jurupa Valley • Etiwanda Northwest Junod Valley Etiwanda 'Northwest Junod Valley limonite 'Northwest Jacopo Volley Umordte Northwest Nampo Volley Limonite Northwest Jurupa Valley Iimontie Northwest Nampa Valley limonite ',NorthwestNampa Valley Market Northwest Jwvp0 Volley Market .Northw*tie o Volley iMssion Northwest Juniper Valley-Mlsyon Northwest haupo Valley Riverview Northwest Jurupa valley Rubidows Northwest Juiupi Yaw Rubidoux 'Northwest Jurupa Valley -Valley •Northwest Norco lit' 'Northwest Norco 1st Northwest Norco .lid Northwest Norco bit) Northwest Norco 6th Northwest Notco 'Mtngton Northwest Norco Caffomid Northwest Norco Corydon Northwest Marco Hamner Northwest Norco Hamner Northwest Norco Hidden Volley Northwest Norco Hidden Valley Northwest Norco -Nora° Northwest Norco North Northwest Norco River .5EGMENIFROM...: 5R-91 RaBroad Bedford Canyon `:Norco Hllis _ 'PalRddgo .6th Temescal Creek :Shwbom BAdge �Rlmpau KYand Onlmio :Hidden Valley Porkrtdge tSR91 Hidden Valley 83 9 Proenade m1 Arlington Channel ',11N -SF 1-15 Ilnaoln Bvdie Vista Main Kellogg _ •wtierton Rimpau :/wio Chit, BNSF =Buena Viiig !Corydon _ 5101 San 8errwdtno County Mission ;6esegrave Ambahill --':IkrronIte 'sat-Osmab 1.15 1-15 :East Center -Hamner 'Sumner Hairison, Ardilbatd Cuaamorgo Pie* •San 8emardino County Cantu-Gal:eano Ranch Ue "S0nVinev.8ernadino County SR -60 . N5' wlnevike Etiwanda Van Buren Clay Rubldoux Sonto Ana River SRS . ,Limonite Son Bemordino Counly 28-60 Mgshong Partridge .Mduntatn River Hamner 1-15 North -Ming-ton River, Santa Ma River Santa Ma River 1-15 Hamm Corydon costomia Archibald .5EGMEMUO Magnolia SR -91 I-18 `Mccr#00y Ontario sherborn Bridge bridge . Rimpar Ontario Ontag- o Foothill Po laidge ;sR91 S. Grand Promenade 5891 Mognata bridge road dossing 8 Cerrito Buena Vida ,Main Kelbgg Fullerton Rpnpau .1.15. Buena Vista .railroad crossing 'Male (at Grand) 64oin Green River River BeNeOrrn;e Ambertdll Umontte Scisleisirlan Santo Ma River taut Center Interchange Hamner Sumner Harrison Archibald Hetmon 1KeEer SBD Co.) bridge 'Volley .Van Loon eelegrove 52. Umonite WMevISe Etiworida Van Boren Clay,' Rivervlew Saria Ano River brldge 54.60 Santa Mo River •Missi n '6Ns8on interchange .vision Mountain Hamner 4-15 California interchange Arlington 615 Sih bridge Hidden Valley Norco Hilts 145 Hamner Miingten Corydon ....MLES.. ..TOTAL C051. '11AXIMUMIUMF SHARE• 4.50 _ 30. *0 ,50 0 0,15- #1.049.000, #1.049,000 0.59. ;0' 30, 3.20 Sp: 19 0.4751,283,000' 55,289,000 o. 52747,000 52.767.000 0.52 ser. 50 .1.17 40' Sn 0.88 32.325,000; 8575,660. 0.89 So 30. 0.35 *2.427.000- #1.912000 0.86 So 30. 0.86 30 $0: 0.40 #0: 50. 0.31 30. - SO 0.31' 32,34.6.000` 52,34x.0 0.00 39230004 $923;000 0:110. 1554 2.000' ': S0: 0.89.56.217.000, #4,924.000; 0.32 322422.000: 41,885003 0.65' S0. ..S0. 0.78 30 50 0.322 $$410,000: 3l.785.000 0.42: 50-' - 50 0.40: 10. S0. 245 ;0 ip. 0.00. #15.851,006 0.58 #4.053.000 33,203,000 #15.851,000 227: i0' Sp. 0.96 50 3p; 3,63 51.725•o0d. $1,72sago 3.03 521'x,000. 52ls9,a00 030: 3528,000: 3328.000:. 0.71 53.222000 33.222,000 TAO S0 *5 1A0 52638.000.. .52.638,000. 0.95. 50 SQ 0.00 317,897,000? ;0. 037 1.00. .3� 00, 51,319,000 31,919,000. 0.50 30 S0 0.49. #1.293.000 $1,293.000 1.12 55,910,000. #5,910,000. 0.00 53,688,010 $3,698.000 1.53.$1.601.000 #1.601.000 0.29 *759,000 3759.000- i82' 82406000 32.400.000. 1.bo 30 S0. 3.00 *0 S0 0.40 3o. SO' 0.99 54 3272 514.345.000 312319.000' 0.79- 81672000 51.672000: 245 50' 30 1.74. 54,605.000. 54.314,000; eco' 59,222000: 57.849.000 1.61 .30. 746 .39 ;0 50: 0.95 *0 10 263 3o' 30 0.00' 517,897.000 384948,000. 0.48 30 ' '$D 0.26 367.7.000 5677.000 0.26 Ser. ....$0 1.44 *3.789.000. $3.789,000 1.71 *0 30 690' $17.897,000 35.593.000 0.97 52.S70.W0 $2,570.000. 0.98 56,848,0110 56,846.002 1.46 50. 50. 0.00 322.132000 30 305 32l,325.000 521.325.002 1.42 Sp. So: 0.13 50,' 50 .1.20 30 50: 0.81 S0 So 1.14 31.114.000 3603,000. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 47 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - MAP Network Cost Estimates (continued) .AREA PLAN .DIS1COT- Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest •10yergde Northwest Riverside Northwest RNBIde Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest 'Riverside -Northwest Riverside .Northwest Riverside. Northwest Riverside 'Northwest Riverajde 'Norlhwed Riverside Northwest - Riverside Nerthweit Riverside 'Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside :Northwest Riverside 'Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside -Northwest Riverside :Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside .Nodhwest Riverside NOrthwest Riverside :Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside 'Northwest Riverside 'Northwest Rivriside ;Magnolia Nonhwesi Riverside Mognotsn Northwest Riverside NertnwesfRiverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Rivede - Nonhwest Riverside Northwest iiverside Northwest Riverside Northwest override Northweit Riverside Northwest. Riverside Northwest Riverside Northwest itiverside 'Northwest -Riverside NorthwestRiverside Northwest Riverside Northwest Riverside 'Northwest Riverside iSTREETNAME. 14th ,tat 3rd 3rd Adams Adorns 'Adams &sena Vista Corsyon Crest Canyon Crest :Canyon Crest Canyon Crest :Central :Central ;Central CentraI CI cago :Columtite COlumbio towa Iowa lowa -JFK La ti aro Le Sierra la sierra lemon {NB One way) O600$1 In Unmlrs lncoks Madison Madison Mdgnota Magnolia Main h tcekel ,Morfin Luther King Mission inn .Redwood jSS One way) Trautweln for iyter $tier. ,Tyle tmlverity • University •victoria .Vlctoda Washington wood' Wood Wood Northwest Iinlncosporated CaniuGalteono Ranch Northwest Unincorporated Dos Lagos IWekIck) Northwest Usincdrporoted ':9 Celdto Northwest Unincorporated .9 Sobrante Northwest oro9o49poroted NrsteyJohn tlateyJahn :I a Serra • is Serra :Northwest Unincorporated 'Moddnglbird Canyon •Northwest Unincaeorated Temescal Canyon Northwest Unirscorporaied Ternesool Canyon Northwest Unincorporated :Temescal Canyon Northwest UnIncorpora1ed Temescot canyon Northwest L411ncerporated Northwest Unincorsoraled 14.00W4i IJnMnco!Poratcd Northwest ttrmaorporated Northwest Unincorporated :Northwest Unincorporated Northwest lirslncorperated Northwest Unincorporated :Northwest Unincorporated ieinescal Canyon lernescol Cdnyvn Temescai Canyon Temescai Canyon Washington Wood .SEGh11RROM Market: .Market 5R-91 (NSF .Mngton SR -91 SR -91 Santa Arra River Martin Luther King Central CountryClub Yw Vista Chicago 5891 Alessandro. Van Buren Al ondro Spruce :Wain 1-215 'Center Lkrive city Traoiwein Aslingion 'SR+91 Bidtarra Mubn kin van Buren 'Jefersen Wa0199ton ,8041 5NSF -.BNSF Ratyoad 7yi 'Hwdson ;1st 14th '14th 'Redwood f8don R1n Aiessandro 3891 5891 :Magnolia ;Hole iNlells Redwood 'S1A1' tlriceln Madison Victoria t�IC Von Buren '8ergamont „Ternescal Canyon 1-15 Mockingbird Canyon •Wastdngton Scottsdale Victoria E1 Sobronte Von Buren Cntpdo. Tuscany Dos Lagos Leroy Dawson Canyon I-15 }15 Park Canyon Hermosa Kromerlo •Marler lather Krog Moira 1.215 'regioad crossing SR -91 Uncoin -interchange Redwood Centrd CounlryClub Via Vista Alessandro 4215/58-60 Magnolia 38 91 heapna Spruce Coiumblc Iowa inierdange. •Sid 'Untverslly Martin LutheKing •Wood. _... .. '5891 Malan° ' Vrratoria University Jettrspn Washington victoria _Vletaito railroad crossing user raRroad crossing Mention 14th' San Bemisdno County Santa Ano River I-215/SRSa Lemon 1Jrwersily von Buren MagnoOa . Interchange welts .VBngton 5891 1215/48.60 Arlington Washington Hermosa Van Bur: Bergamont Ktameiio ' W inevBia 1-15 Ontario Cajarco Scottsdale Cojataa 9 Sabmnte Cojolcu 81 Sobrante Tuscany Dos Lagos Leroy Dawson Canyon 1-15' Interchange Pork Canyon Indian truck Trail Holey John Cajal= -::MILES_ :TOTAL COST _. .'MAXIMUM TUMF .SHARE 0.89 0.08 50 1.34 30 0.00 536,980.000' 1.56 ' $9 0.54 $0. 0.00 $17.897,000 0.30 ... 50. 0.95 $0 0.59 50 0.94 42.990000 0.48 - ' $0. 2.15 40; 0.76 40 2.05 $0: 3.53 40 a42. 40 0.7s 4o' 1.09 $0 0.00 517,897,000- 225 $13.815000. 0.51 10: 0.51 $3,530.9c9 - 0.4e 50 3.56- - - 50.. 0.19 ;0 0.78 $0 a -B o a.0o 40: 1.60 54.331.000; 1.49 sB.19300 0.86. ,..=0. 0.00 515.851.000 2.70 $9 0.00 $15,851,000. 0.65 $0 5.98 ;0 2.19 30, 2.03 $g 2.11 56,340,000 0.79 40. 0.08 4p 2.19 ;0 043, 50 O40' 537,066000' $9 $0. SO $36,eao,0o0 50 10' 517,897,000. 50 10. $D. $1,855,000 40 $D. 50 80 40 40- 40: 517,897.000 S13,815,000: 50. $3.265,000 to SO $D to. S0 to. S4,331A00 $8.193.000 50 510.851.000 S0. sit.asl.000 50 to $D 56.340.000 50. 40 to s. 53.089.000, b.2?: *0 - 50 1.6640' 40 1,35 $9,443.000' $9.449,000 0:86 s0 _30 201 so SO 0.16' $0' $0. 0.52 40 50' 2.05 514.352000: $14352000 0.70 8923,000' - 4923AD0- 0.11 40 10. 0.39 $0 50 0.94 40 10.: 0.21' $0. 40. 0:56 40. =o; 1.05 43.337,000. $3.226000' 0.12 $6- ' 4o 1.19 53.134.000: $3.134.000 2.22 $0 $0 2.36 30 10 3.29 516454,000; 59.003,000 0.65.. 51.444,000 5740060 0.91 50 50 1.10 53.507.000 53.507.000. 1.09 59,994600. *5994,000 0.28 4o .. .S. 0.00' 317.897600. 117.897,060 3.41 $i2661,000: 112661,000 2.5.5 16.094,000" 58694,000 3.96. 57.840.000 57.840,000 2.99 $7,880,003 17.880,550 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update Adopted WttCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) AREA NAN D1S1C11Y .STREETNAIVE Toss Banning SIh Pass Bortning itighland Spfin KM gs Banning Highiand Springs f;aa d tanning .. -HighlanSprings Pasi Banning . . 'HIghland Springs Pass Banning 1-10 Byposs South' Pass Banning po smris South Pass. ealiannl..N 1-10 Bypass Sauth Pass nning1-184poisSouitt . , Pass banning Lincoln Pda. Banning Ramsey 'Pass Banning .Ramsey Pan Banning :5R-24. 3. Para Banning Banning :Sun Lakes Pass San Lakes Pan .11annIng San Lakes - .Pass Banning Sunset . _ Pass Banning sunset .... ...._ i,asssoti Barining Wit Peiss Banning Mon Pass Beaumont ' lst Pais Beaumont > is! .. Beaumont 6th Nisi Beaumont . beset lawn Pass Beaumont :disk valley tletts) -PaBeaumont Pas Oak %jogai (ligs) OakVeieyllith) Peas irsouniont Pon Beaumont :Oak' Valley114M) • , „ Pass Beaurnarit Oak iersSey 00 . _i'ass-Beaumont . Gate iresSeyisiC) Pais _ .. ... ,. Beaumont Pann41;ern11 .. Pon Beaumont Pennsylvimia Pass Cohnesa'Ev Pon disiraisa Callmesa - . . . . _ .. -Pass casmesa earneso. . , . Pass Caimans iukWei Canyon Pees Colmeso Cairn* Une Pass Caimesa County Une Ows Caimesa Desai Lawn .Poss Callinesa Singleton Pass cetinesa -Sngieten Pais Cafinesei Singleton Pass .uninPargdnited . .c..,hfii,7,*illPT pass .Uninorporated 'charts/ vagey ,Bast. rildr1oPiPitrPhid 'c!'errY va_tloY -Pan linInearporoteel .1.1ve oae Canyon Pass Unincorporated ,Oesk Vieley pc) PasUninciarporiated Oak Valley (SIC) Pass Unincorporated Chivy' Valley Kai iiiiineorpisiiirea Chen'Valley sanlricinto Hemet Sanderson .- .,... . . - San Jacinto Hemel ... „ 'Sanderson Ban Jadnto Hemel Sanderson ;San Jacinto Hemel San Jocirito Hemel '.saaiacliito !times Herne! San Jadnto Hemel Sonjadnto 'kernel San Jacinto Hemet San JaailliP Hemel -San iddriirs Minot son Jacliars Hemet San Jacinto Hemet 'San Jadnto kernel „Bin Jadnto Hemet San Jacinto San Jadnto 'San Jadnto San JaaInta San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jadnto San Jadnto San jacinth -kin JadtotO San Jadnto Sop Jacinto San Jacinto 'San Jciarito -San Jacinto San Jacinto San Jadnto Son Jacinto San Jadnto San jaanto San Jacinto tan Jacinto San Jac1to San ..letalnto San Jacinto Unincorporated San Jacinto Unincorporated San icianto unincoraorsiea .r3deaar sonaerson SR -74 Merida) SE -74./511-79 (Ramo) State Ston State stole s*too .Stetson WsITen Warren Esplanade Esplanade "Esplanade Sanderion AR -79 (Werth Ramona) SR -79 Pan Jacinto) SR -79 pan Jacinto) State Steil!) State Statia Warren asiiion Springs .G1lnian Springs .SE -79 (Winchester) -SEG118961FROM -Wilson - Wilson (13th) 1-10 Ock Volley 1140 Cherry valley 1-10 1-10 San Gorgonio LE' Sunset 1-10 8th 1-10 . Highland home 'Smith Creek Alghlohd Sinlings Ramsey 1-10 Highland Horne 1419PIPPd iPthies 'row PViwo$IvqPIP 1-10 Champlans Highland Spdrigs Perinsyhnsnica Oak View 1-10 Beaumont CityLimIts mein/ wit* IJSI /Central 6th 1-10 County fine cadinTlin'e I-10' Roberts Roberts 1-10 'Palmer Avenues Condi .1 -la Noble 1-i0 .Son imoteo Wash oak Valley(STC) San Bernardino County Bellflower HtgtilandSpdngi 'Acado tranSenigoni RR dossing StelsOn Menlo Warren - 'Columbia Cowiton Donter)gonl CHarriberi timid° stetson eaSyston Wanon Esplanade 'Salt Creek Ramona Naixitain State Ramona State ,North Ramona Blvd 71,1 R01110110 Oilman Springs San Jadnto River .Quandt Rancls Ramona Satiderian Massacre aanTan Wall, '?4 -3R-74 &Mal -SEGMENT* (MILES . -TOTAL COST ' MAYJMUMTUMFSHARE• 1-10 054 -tun Lakes 0.76 0.153 424,61,000 $17,697.000 454:6 6 ft 9 71 ...whdasendion. dothitg... 7. 0.73. 4,5,128,000 1:53 --43 $5.128.000' 06k Vasty (1911h) 30 329 422.957400' :maroorIP Tron (..Pactle 'll'aln rk:Igo We:Change 0.05 0.60 000 $ ,5 * '2 ;1787 . 4. 87:607, - 0 0 0: 0 °0 b Dt) $52:i7.iiii7965:0c0.006°3D. 4RntAiroad crossirtg 2.01 30 49 518490,030 .11th 1.70 50 SP hIghiancl springs..55 30 40 Wesley 03..,62 SO50 Baniet 1.03 $13,971.000 413.971.000 bride 0.00 $3,689.000 43,688,030 >Highland Hanr 1..ii $0, 40. iii1COili 6.2s to . so :inteiohOoge 0.00 41/897,003 417,897,030 isth 2.51 50 0 40ahiand ilotive 1.01. SP SO Oinrisgvania 1.28 40 40: 01040hd..s.ndrliis 'Montana *ein, kidoy (STC) 2.240.99 4912,603$63040 40 ook i 1.1b 1.18 40 *912000 50 4,.ditilok vie:,-; ., poiltolivtgio 140 oAs. 42270,000 . 3 49 $2.11,6700ocli c i -to .,therriveuiey y st / Central r3ver 848 interchange i 0.00 147 . $37,060,003 39 30. 05 33,018.000.8° 1st ' 0.53 43,018,6 ta. 'Y'hanhlirgd 0.00 $8.949,805 0.38 $0 30 Avenue L Mtiichange 1-10 050 0.110 $0 obSr°0:. S37.6stioco. sa4os Fidareir Inteichange istiont 0.00 o.sb Liss 411 ::9977::1'01 : *7i6.:894I.0,0c;:ti ... , , .. 'Champions 1.42, 40. 40, Condit •itaii.arli 0.68 So 41 iS31,001: 1.86 311,834.000: interchange 0.00 sp.osb000' $37.060.000 la*hafilif ,..rreucii....,,,ic6diii::619eBema. 1:cioniwtellnimityonaCilinannits19 cioo 0.00 2.81 5.65 000 so 137M0.000.09;.. 50' $38617,030 40: io. 40 3.40 30 to siii.macoo: 4.14A40000 Noble 1.47 f-7.0.02?. 47.757,000 Bellflower 0.44 4.: 40 iienio o!s So 50 teisan 1.68 50 19 A0000 042 042 40 56)058 49 40 Esplanade 1.00 $5 SO Craw stori 1.02, lb' 00 Raracito 2.58- 40-- SP Columbia 4.03 40 10 Charn-bers 1.31 $3 30 Vahan 0.5i SO .40.,_ Esplanade iioriiia 1.25 $9.377003 1/4 $0 30' Slate Worsen Mountain 0.20 235 3.53 4$:;320:74461.Z: 42.794.000 50 State 2.52 50 cawston 1.00 $2.635.000 4.99 $2.635,0�. tvaineiteioni '.61bilge 0:00r 552.13..716763:0%D: 513.163,006 $2.490,000 $9,320,000 Esplanade San Jacinto 1:02 50 1 0.25 31,722020 40 3.55. 40.40 58-74 2.2540 $1,722.100 Quandt Bands Barnana. 'Esplanade bolloi ctn. boa' 0.70 3.47 4$ 44::°: , 5 61 71 ." 970 i 0:0 40 41.138000' 43.162.000 40' 1.99 $0 Lvidge 0.062...5.4..: 3570,000 • EHAarnAd State $6,7144503 449341140030 .Dorninigonl 3.23" $923,0 *570.000 Sb WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 49 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.4 - TUMF Network Cost Estimates (continued) Southwest 'Lake Elsinore .Corydcris Southwest Lege Eldnore Diamond Southwest Lake Elsinore Franklin iintegrol to Railroad Southwest take Elsinore -Grand SOUthsVest Lake Elsinore .Grand ;Southwest Lake Elsinore Lakes Southwest lake estriOre Lake 'Tontine/id Lake Eidnore talc's Southwed Lake kisinote Mission Southwest Lake Eiffiere Nichols :Southwest Lake Bsinore Nichols -Southwest lake 1311nere $R-74 (Calliegitiveride) Southwest Lai Elsinore! SR -7 74 (Oka: nd) Saviliwest Lige Elsinore 50-74 ventiele) ..Soulliwesst Lake Elsinore ,Tenvisccl Canyon .SOuthwest Lake Eistaoie -Tam: "cal Canon Southwest Waist° "'California Oaks .8Ou'-ityMest Midge ".Caiikariiia Crake Souttnvest hiserieto Catiffxrda Oak, „ -Southwest MioIeIo ',Jackson Southwest Murata Allmon 'Southwest 'Munieto ,jettarson ;312tinrisii MmIeto Jelierson SOSATisneit .Artnineto .teeder :SOuthweil druntito 71chgei ',$OUthOitel MJnl&o Lo1 Alamos iciattivrest Montero *uthwed TAirrieta :Idurrleta Hot Springs Southwest Mjnieto 1;4°,115,i°"°t Springs SOUttiSvest i,turfeta Nutmeg ickirthwiet ...Wn15t°. 'Whitewoad Sksititnevist :keunieta Wlitewood •.Sctirthwesi .6isedein WhliewOod Iotahwest Mmteta lhm itoaltiveast 'Ternacukt Jefferson S.Outinkrint 'Toil -acute; .motacotto i-.foutnweit Town Front .Sosithwest Temecula -Pectsango Pkwy Southwest Teinecuto Pecisarigci Pkwy 'Sesuthwest Terneculo Randle California ;SotiffiiVest Temecula Rancho California :ScuithWesi Temetulo Rancho California SouthWest Temecula Rancho California ;Southwest Temecula Sk-79 (Temecula Pksvy) Southwest Temecula SR -79 (Temecula Pkwy) ;SoRimed' Unincorporated: Briggs . . Southwest Unincorporated Butterneld Siege SOuthWest Unincorperoted Outtertielri,Dage Southwest Unincomanated age ISOutinVest tirilnaoroorotio ;Butterfield Stage Southwesl Unincorporated Soathwasi Unincorporated 'SoirthWest Unincorporated Sothwett Unineurporated SauthWeit iinliteorporafed ,Sonitswesi Unincorporated • Southwest UninCamorateil !Seal:Iv-Mit Unincorporated thyrest Unincorporated Seviinvest ffnincoroorested -3Ossinv;ist aritriderperideO kiutttwest itrIldoinar "Southwest My:lomat ,Southwest Wlidorna ,Soulhwest sigdornar Southwest Melons," Southwest iffidemor SOuthwest Wildornar Southwest Witdomar Southwest Widioniar :idiatiwred Wiidomat iSublatal Totals Network Tiandt Administration MSHCP Total 'Butterfield Stage Butterfield Stage sidterfliaci gage Battindeld taw -tiorsetiffet donyon tricitairs Track Trad misureta 1101 *kV' Pale Teniescal Canyon. Temescal Canyon TeMescal Canyon Sager 1103der ' IleindiCanyon .Central Central crone Grand MoIon Palomar ?clamor. 64Ission 5-1 Uncein Tait -1-15 :S15 Temeseal Wash ;Railreixt Canyon 145 :1-15 1-15 'Rfr.50911.1 Lakeshore 1-15 Temescal Wash 'Jefferson J-15 1.1aalcson ;Sviiiteitrood Paternal' '.',8;kerieto Hot gitings 1-215 5-255 ieflerson 5-215 !Jefferson lantern Keith Los Aiarnoi Hat Springs htwhi :mledeta Hot ffartivs Roach° taiOinio SR -79 (Temiseutar Pkwy) .JefferIon ..Y.5srgerito 656 59050 1-15 r.5qhcng° Pkwy Scatisksidet -taliot Springs Cci.ffe:cffoaos LaSereno Rancho California POO° t50^Phest51 Avid '1'1:m4:got° creek ,Temesciii canyon Temescal Canyon 5R-79 (Winchester) Pechanga itorsetilef Canyon Wash Indian Truck Trail Wash 145 l -i$ HustonBaxter. Grand Ortega Condon wmiKc0,61on Clinton Keith . . Grand 1-15 MiMandhge So -44 :Lincoln :inie'n4iOnqe .060 Cpyon Lake Interchange ***cite SR -74 (rtega) IbraftT.1 lake *ridge 815 celtson .EiritOn Keith Ynaz '',1;46ff,C0 Munieto Hot Springs WhiSeWaorf Interchange :1:215 1-215 m..4011° • S$49 i.W.ti,.°115051) linfort Keith Los i*airial Murrieta Hot Springs 'Jadtson 1514.9 iYolnOestF1 .R0h0hP chrIM110 55-79 rTM1401_51.PkwY1....... 1-15/511-79 iTernemfict meow Via Gilberto Pitehango Pkwy Momenta interchange BUitertild Stage Glen dal° ' 56°113°1Tikr 3/Barfield Stage S849 (ilisainisteo :Calle Chagos o SerenoRancho C.aktarnla Prisiha $09 00!Fmkt. PhvY) Audi -idantota Not Springs bridge1:13 .1-15 _ San Diego County bridge 1-15 61* P�olnar iitanistiaige .1-15 Pdomar Palomar Corydon Cential Pt:Komi:ft Jefferson 'ClintonKeith MILES TOTAL COST MAXIMUM1Lituf SHARE. 1.5.3 $2,019,000 $2.019.000 0.24 0.00 1.29 0.88. 3.10 0.00 0.00 2.39 Leo 0.00. 2.10 6.34 1.74 1.21. 0.00. 0.32 ,. 0.50 1.76. 942 1.02 2.37 2.26 0.75 0.00 i.77 1.11 tee 1.01" 1.97 2.01' 1.93 asoi 1:22 2.27 7.88 1.45 1.32 1.44 1.89 56.824.000 56.874000 0.00 $12897.000 51269,060 1.96 $0 $0 4.26 532.064.000 532494.030, 0.64 51,692,000 51,576.000 3.08 $0'00 $3950.080 58,950,020 So So, So to S2440.9°°,... =Saw.° 13. $0 1.69 5269,000 5269,000 2.28 57.245.000 17.245000. 2.23, 51 4.173,028 514.172000 o.00' 33.688,000 sasas000, 0.17 So SO 0.16 SO 50 1.75 $0 $0 1.34 50 $0. 0.00 42,214.o02 $2,214,000 2.57 $3166,020 50.1 66000 0.02 594i.000 $941,000 0.37. $974.000 $511,000 0.00" $17.897,000 57.159.002 0.94 56,537.000 56.5374003 0.74 s5..143.O00. 45.143.006 o.it $357000 $3.570.000. 4.96 534.648,008 025,011.000 2.02' 52 13 0.84 50 10 0.74 $1.941,000 $1,691,000' 2.79 $zsat000 nossoio 473.09 01,503.495,000 51,484,910120 72337 $ 3,446320.020 5 2,712,871,000 $ 153.170.0005 92.639.020 5 11 2,220.430 ; 112220,400 5 45,401.020 . 5 43,308000 $ ' 3;766331T4110 - $ ' 2.961,3383001 537.060,000 414.e19300 SD si.3.57,000 51.357,000 514,794,000 $13,592000 417,897,000 57,191300 $1.973006 58=000 1.50 $0 53,373.000 53,324300 0746t.= S37.060000 329,357.030 528,315000 13392.000 57495,000 $21.830,000 521.830.000 52846.000 *3.616,00- 52.270,002 42.270000 $655.200 5SSS000 $0 30 50 $0 O $0 32.691,000 $2,691300 421.520065 $21.520.000. $0 $0 $1.571,003 51,571300 $17397.000 $17397.000 40 So' 50 30 50 52.660.000 32.660000 30 30 30 50 30 30. $6,064002 $8,066,000 SO $0 So 30 30. S0 so 40. 30 So So So 3.39 0.82 370 0.90 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 50 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.5 - TUMF Transit Cost Estimates AREA PLAN DIST LEAD ,AGENCY PROJECTNAME LOCATION UNriS (rnrrrtber� length in m8es). UNITCOST .. tOTA. - MA%Uv9JMliih� SHARE Northwest RTA Riverside Mobility Hub at Vine Street Riverside __ ....: Moreno yoke,' - 1 1 ... ,2 O o.oay $9,OOO,UgQ ..:'..$6.000 .., -....$9.000,+r+ - --' 33,630000 ' $5.445,000 $5445.000 ' $5.445300 55 445,0001 $5445000 .$5345300 ..m , $5,445,000 -36050P3 $30;251,007 - $7318300 ;1,525,f>00 - . Central... RTA. - ' .... Moreno ,VaibyMobilHyNub Northwest RTA Jurvpo Volley Hub Ju aper Valley T $9,030403 $9,000.+•• Pass RTA Bonning Mobi$ty Hub -._ . Banning ;- � ... 1 -" -.$9,000.000 9.000,•.+ Southwest . . RTA Lake Bnnare/Conyon Lake Mobility Hb - - Lake Elsinore 1 $9,000;00:kk - . $9,000 +.-; outhwest RTA - Temewia/Mudeta Mobility Hub -. Temecula ,. ,1` x,000.000 ;9,000.000 59.000.++., 59.000.,» Son Jacinto RTA - Hemet Mobility Hub - ': Hemet 1 San Jacinto RTA San Jacinto MobiSty Hub San Jacinto - - 1 $9,000 0TO x$9,000., .. Son Jacinto. RTA , ma. Son Jo to College Mob11ltyHub - San Jacinto 1 _ " $1,000.000 - .$1000, r+, Regiond RTA Regional Operations and Maintenance Fodlt Riverside.... - - 1 $50,000,000 ;;Spfl00,, , • Regional RTA Annual Transit Enhancements Program . Vortaus locations region wid -_' 290 .7 $400401 ;60,00 $155,000 511.600 , • +: }2,52),•• 51,085 ... Central RTA RTA Central Corridor RapidUnkImplementation Vehicle fleet Medium Buses .,, ... OCR, Riverside to Penis Various locations legionwid Regional Regional ; . RTA VeNcle fleet Large Buses Various locations region wid - 29 $588.000 '- $16.965 .: 510264,000 Regional RTA- ' Comprehensive Operational Anollse Study ` Various locations region wid - ' - 1 - - $95Q000 ' 5950... $576360 4.=$�7#Ilirge' Total ... - :_ .. .. _ _ - -$1'�. b" 4.8 TUMF Network Evaluation To assess the effectiveness of the proposed TUMF Network improvements to mitigate the cumulative regional impact of new development in Western Riverside County, the proposed network improvements were added to the 2015 existing network in RivTAM and the model was run with 2040 socioeconomic data to determine the relative impacts on horizon year traffic conditions. To quantify the impacts of the TUMF Network improvements, the various traffic measures of effectiveness described in Section 3.1 for the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build scenarios were again calculated for the 2040 TUMF Build scenario. The results for VMT, VHT, VHD, and total VMT experiencing unacceptable level of service (LOS E) were then compared to the results presented in Table 3.1 for the no -build conditions. The 2040 TUMF Build comparison results are provided in Table 4.6. Plots of the Network Extents are attached in Appendix H. As shown in Table 4.6. the 2040 VMT on arterial facilities experiencing LOS of. E or worse will decrease with the addition of the TUMF Network improvements while the share of VMT on the regional arterial highway system experiencing daily LOS E or worse will be reduced to 38% (which is still above the level experienced in 2012). It should be noted that the total VMT on the arterial system increases as a result of freeway trips being diverted to the arterial system to benefit from the proposed TUMF improvements: Despite a greater share of the total VMT in 2040, the arterial system is able to more efficiently accommodate the increased demand with the proposed TUMF improvements. Although VMT on the TUMF improved arterial system increases by approximately 9% in 2040 compared to the No Build condition, VHT on the arterial system decreases by approximately 11% indicating traffic is able to move more efficiently. Additionally, a notable benefit is observed on the freeway system with VMT and VHT being substantially reduced following TUMF Network improvements. By completing TUMF improvements, the total VHD experienced by all area motorists would be reduced by over one third from the levels that would be experienced under the 2040 No -Build scenario. These results highlight the overall effectiveness of the TUMF Program to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new development commensurate with the level of impact being created. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 51 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 Table 4.6- Regional Highway System Measures of Performance (2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build Scenarios to 2040 TUMF Build Scenario) Measure of Performance` Peak Periods/Total) 2012 Baseline 2040 No -Build 2040 Build VMT - Tata! ALL FACILITIES 19,532,437 29,277,587 31,022,272 VMT - FREEWAYS 11,019,155 14,487,570 13,411.,377 VMT - ALL ARTERIALS 8,513282 14,790,016 17,610,895 TOTAL - TUMF ARTERIAL VMT 5,585,202 9,089,495 9,902,433 VHT -TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 575,154 1361,907 1;180,647 VHT - FREEWAYS 296,542 736,433530,849 VHT - ALL ARTERIALS 278;611. 625,474 649,797 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHT 181,151 396,981 354,639 VHD - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 175,765;. 739,075 489,238 VHD - FREEWAYS 117,430 502,549 312669 VHD - ALL ARTERIALS 58,334 236,527 176,569 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VHD 45,080 ' 172,944 114,833 VMT LOS E - TOTAL ALL FACILITIES 6,188444 ' 16,966,992 - 14,299,498 VMT LOSE - FREEWAYS 4,532,703; 10 156,363 8,982566 VMT LOSE 8 F -ALL ARTERIALS 1,655,941 6,810,629 5,316,932 3,735,762 TOTAL TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 1,462,061 5,160,911 of TUMF ARTERIAL VMT w/ LOS E or worse 26% 57% 38% * Based on RivTAM 2012 network provided by Riverside County Transportation Department and SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS SED with updated 2015 arterial network completed by WSP, September 2016. NOTES: Volume is adjusted by PCE factor VMT = vehicle miles of travel (the total combined distance that all vehicles travel on the system) VHT = vehicle hours of travel (the total combined time that all vehicles are traveling on the system) VHD = vehicle hours of delay (the total combined time that all vehicles have been delayed on the system based on the difference between forecast travel time and free-flow (ideal) travel time) LOS = level of service (based on forecast volume to capacity ratios). LOS E or Worse was determined by V/C ratio that exceeds 0.9 thresholds as indicated in the Riverside County General Plan. WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 52 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 5.0 TUMF NEXUS ANALYSIS The objective of this section is to evaluate and document the rational nexus (or reasonable relationship) between the proposed fee and the transportation system improvements it will be used to help fund. The analysis starts by documenting the correlation between future development and the need for transportation system improvements on the TUMF network to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of this new development, followed by analysis of the nexus evaluation of the key components of the TUMF concept. 5.1 Future Development and the Need for Improvements Previous sections of this report documented the projected residential and employment growth in Western Riverside County, the expected increases in traffic congestion and travel delay, and the identification of the transportation system improvements that will serve these future inter -community travel demands. The following points coalesce this information in a synopsis of how the future growth relates to the need for improvements to the TUMF system. D Western. Riverside County .is expected to continue growing. Development in Western Riverside County is expected to continue at a robust rate of growth into the foreseeable future. Current projections estimate the population is projected to grow from a level of approximately 1.77 million in 2012 to a future lever of about 2.43 million in 2040, while employment is projected to grow from a level of about 461,000 in 2012 to approximately 861,000 in 2040 (as shown in Table 2.3). D Continuing growth will result in increasing conaiestikn on arterial roadwau Traffic congestion and delay on arterial roadways are projected to increase dramatically in the future (as shown in Table 3.1). Without improvements to the transportation system, congestion levels will grow rapidly and travelers will experience unacceptable travel conditions with slow travel speeds and lengthy delays. D The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to future development in Western Riverside County. Traffic using arterial roadways within Western Riverside County is virtually all generated within or attracted to Western Riverside County, since longer -distance trips passing through the region typically use the freeway system, not arterial roadways. Therefore, the future recurring congestion problems on these roadways will be attributable to new trips that originate in, terminate in, or travel within Western Riverside County. > Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to alleviate the future congestion caused by new development. To maintain transportation service at or near its current levels of efficiency, capacity enhancements will need to be made to the arterial roadway system. These enhancements could include new or realigned roads, additional lanes on existing WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study 2016 Program Update 53 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 roads, new or expanded bridges, new or upgraded freeway interchanges, or grade separation of at -grade rail crossings. The completion of improvements to the arterial roadway system would enhance regional mobility, and reduce the total peak period vehicles hours of travel (VHT) by approximately 13%, reduce peak period vehicle hours of delay (VHD) by approximately 34%, and reduce the share of traffic experiencing congestion in the peak periods by 16% (as shown in Table 4.6). The specific needs and timing of implementation will depend on the location and rate of future development, so the specific improvements to be funded by the TUMF and their priority of implementation will be determined during future project programming activities as improvement needs unfold and as TUMF funds become available. ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are thejacilities that merit improvement through this fee program. The criteria used to identify roads for the TUMF network (future number of lanes, future traffic volume, future congestion level, and roadway function linking communities and activity centers and serving public transportation) were selected to ensure that these are the roadways that will serve inter -community travel and will require future improvement to alleviate congestion. Improvements to the public transportation system will be , needed to ;provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an altemative to automobile travel. Since a portion of the population does not own an automobile and depends on public transportation for mobility, the public transportation infrastructure and service will need to be enhanced and expanded to ensure continued mobility for this segment of the population. In addition, improvements to the public transportation system will be required to ensure that transit service can function as a viable option for future new Westem Riverside County residents and employees who choose to avoid congestion by using public transportation. For the reasons cited above, it can be readily concluded that there is a rational nexus between the future need for transportation improvements on the TUMF system and the future development upon which the proposed TUMF would be levied. The following sections evaluate the rational nexus in relation to the system components and the types of uses upon which the fee is assessed. 5.2 Application of Fee to System Components As noted in Section 3.2, the TUMF concept includes splitting the fee revenues between the backbone system of arterials, the secondary system of arterials, and the public transportation system. This section evaluates the travel demands to determine the rational nexus between the future travel demands and the use of the fee to fund improvements to the future system components. The split of fee revenues between the backbone and secondary highway networks is related to the proportion of highway vehicle trips that are relatively local (between WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 54 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 adjacent communities) and longer distance (between more distant communities but still within Western Riverside County). To estimate a rational fee split between the respective networks, the future combined AM and PM peak period travel forecast estimates were aggregated to a matrix of trips between zones to show the percentage of trips that remain within each zone in relation to the volume that travels to the other zones. This analysis was completed using the Year 2040 No -Build scenario trip tables from RivTAM. The first step in the analysis was to create a correspondence table between the TAZs in the model and the five WRCOG TUMF zones (i.e. Northwest, Southwest, Central, Hemet/San Jacinto and Pass). The TAZs were then compressed into six districts (the five WRCOG zones and one for the rest of the SCAG region). Table 5.1 shows the estimated peak period vehicle trips within and between each of the zones. Table 5.2 shows the percentage of peak period vehicle trips within and between the respective zones. Appendix 1 includes the detailed RivTAM outputs used to develop the regional trip distribution profile shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2. Table 5.1 - 2040 Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 285,556 15,102 60,146 6,274 34,821 41,799 443,699 Hemet/San Jacinto 14,876 190,792 7,396 5,256 17,138 13,851 249,310 Northwest 64,066 8,082 742,299 6,569 25,648 211,686 1,058,350 Pass 6,721 5,563 6,536 1 103,901 1,791 32,830 157,341 Southwest 34,785 17,514 24,135 1,785 452,345 28,424 558,988 Outside WRCOG 43,352 14,690 212,699 33,337 29,242 333,320 TOTAL 449,357 251,743 1,053,210 157,123 560,984 326470 2,801,008 Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No -Build scenario Table 5.2 - 2040 Percent Peak Period Vehicle Trips By WRCOG Zone To From Central Hemet/San Jacinto Northwest Pass Southwest Outside WRCOG TOTAL Central 64.4% 3.4% 13.6% 1.4% 7.8% 9.4% 100% Hemet/San Jacinto 6.0% 76.5% 3.0% 2.1% 6.9% 5.6% 100% Northwest 6.1% 0.8% 70.1% 0.6% 2.4% 20.0% 100% Pass 4.3% 3.5% 4.2% 66.0% 1.1% 20.9% 100% Southwest 6.2% 3.1% 4.3% 0.3% 80.9% 5.1% 100% Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No -Build scenario WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 55 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee .Duly 10, 2017 Table 5.3 summarizes the calculation of the split between the backbone and secondary highway networks as derived from the peak period trip values provided in Table 5.1. Peak period vehicle trips to and from areas outside Western Riverside County were subtracted from the calculation, on the presumption that most of their inter- regional travel would occur on the freeway system. Peak period trips between zones (regional) were assigned to the backbone network, since these trips are primarily served by the arterial roadways that provide connections between the zones. Peak period trips within zones (local) were split between the backbone network and the secondary network in proportion to their Zane -miles, since roadways on both networks serve intra zonal trips. The backbone network Includes approximately 40.5% of the lane -miles on the future TUMF system, and the secondary network includes approximately 59.5% of the lane -miles. The backbone network is therefore assigned all of the inter -zonal peak period trips plus 40.5% of the intra -zonal peak period trips. The secondary network is assigned 59.5% of the intra -zonal peak period trips and none of the inter -zonal peak period trips. The overall result is that 50.7% of the regional travel is assigned to the backbone network and 49.3% is assigned to the secondary network. Table 5.3 - Backbone -Secondary Network Share Calculation alculation Value Description Input Values Backbone Backbone Secondary Secondary Value Share Value Share otal Western Riverside County Peak Period Vehicle Tri• s Less Internal/External Peak Period ehicle Tris otal Peak Period Vehicle Trips internal to Western Riverside oun 2'801 `008 _ =_ .._ ......�_.,i' 1,277.7 40.5% , 1,873.4 59.5% -X61.910 2,139,098 Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between UMF Zones 364'205 Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within UMF Zones 1,774.893 UMF Future Network Lane -Miles 3,151.1 Peak Period Vehicle Trips Between UMF Zones 364205 364205 100.0% 0 0.0% Peak Period Vehicle Trips Within UMF Zones (as share of intra- r anal tri 5 1,774,893 719,679 40.5% 1,055,214 59.5% otal Peak Period Vehicle Trips ssi nod 2,139,098 1,083,884 50.7% 1,055,214 49.3% Based on RivTAM Year 2040 No -Build scenario; TUMF Nexus Study Exhibit H-2 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 56 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 5.3 Application of Fee to Residential and Non -Residential Developments In order to establish the approximate proportionality of the future traffic impacts associated with new residential development and new non-residential development, the growth in peak period VMT between the 2012 Baseline and 2040 No -Build Scenarios from RivTAM were aggregated by trip purpose. RivTAM produces person trips (irrespective of mode choice) on the basis of five trip purposes: home -based -work (HBW), home -based -other (HBO), home -based -school (HBSC), work -based -other (WBO), and other -based -other (OBO). NCHRP Report #187 Quick Response Urban Travel Estimation Techniques and Transferable Parameters User's Guide (Transportation Research Board, 1978) details operational travel estimation techniques that are universally used for the travel demand modeling. Chapter 2 of this report, which details trip generation estimation, states that "HBW (Home Based Work) and HBNW (Home Based Non Work) trips are generated at the households, whereas the NHB (Non -Home Based) trips are generated elsewhere." In accordance with NCHRP Report # 187, growth in peak period VMT was aggregated into home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the first three purposes: HBW, HBO, HBS) and non -home-based growth in peak period VMT (combining the last two purposes: WBO, OBO). The home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 71.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak periods, and the non -home-based growth in peak period VMT represent 29.0% of the total future growth in VMT in the peak period as shown in Table 5.4. Appendix J includes the RivTAM outputs used to develop the trip purpose summary in Table 5.4. Table 5.4 - Peak Period VMT Growth by Trip Purpose for Western Riverside County (2012 - 2040) VEHICLE TRIP PURPOSE 2012 BASELINE PEAK PERIOD VMT 2040 NO -BUILD PEAK PERIOD VMT PEAK PERIOD VMT GROWTH PEAK PERIOD VMT GROWTH SHARE Home -Based -Work 5,849,895 8,331,921 2,482,026 52.9% Home -Based -Other 2,214,102 2932,929 718,827 15.3% Home -Based -School (K-12) 413,303 542,911 129,608 2.8% Work -Based -Other 945,539 1,583,034 637,496 13.6% Other -Based -Other 1,772,020 2,493467 721,647 15.4% TOTAL _ 11,194,859 15.884,463 4,689,605 100.00% Home -Based Trips (Residential Uses)_ 3,330,462 71.0% Non -Home -Based Trips jNon-Residential Uses) 1,359,143 29.0% Based on RivTAM Year 2012 Baseline Scenario, September 2016 and RivTAM Year 2040 No Build Scenario, September 2016 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study — 2016 Program Update 57 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 6.0 FAIR -SHARE FEE CALCULATION The fee amounts, by type of development, that are justified to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development on transportation facilities in Western Riverside County are quantified in this section. The total cost of improving the TUMF system is $3.76 billion. Existing funding obligated for improvements to the TUMF system totals $303.5 million while unfunded improvement needs generated by existing development represent $492.2million of the total cost. The balance of the unfunded TUMF system improvement needs is $2.96 billion which is the maximum value attributable to the mitigation of the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new development in the WRCOG region, and will be captured through the TUMF Program. By levying the uniform fee directly on future new developments (and indirectly on new residents and new employees to Western Riverside County), these Transportation system users are assigned their "fair share" of the costs to address the cumulative impacts of additional traffic they will generate on the regional transportation system. Of the $2.96 billion in unfunded future improvement needs, 71.0% ($2.10 billion) will be assigned to future new residential development and 29.0% ($858.7 million) will be assigned to future new non-residential development. 6.1 Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new residential development through the TUMF is $2.10 billion. Since this future transportation system improvement need is generated by new residential development anticipated through the Year 2040, the fee will be spread between the residential developments projected to be constructed between 2012 and 2040. The projected residential growth from year 2012 to 2040 is 250,082 households (or dwelling units) as is indicated in Table 2.3. Different household types generate different numbers of trips. To reflect the difference in trip generation between lower density "single-family" dwelling units and higher density "multi -family" dwelling units, the TUMF was weighted based on the respective trip generation rates of these different dwelling unit types. For the purposes of the TUMF Program, single family dwelling units are those housing units with a density of less than 8 units per acre while multi -family units are those with a density of 8 or more units per acre. According to the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS forecasts included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B, single family dwelling units (including mobile homes) are forecast to constitute 69.2% of the growth in residential dwelling units in the region between 2012 and 2040. Data provided in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trir, Generation Manual, Ninth Edition (2012) show that, on average, single-family dwelling units generate 9.52 vehicle trips per dwelling unit per day, whereas apartments, condominiums and townhouses (considered to be representative of higher density multi -family dwelling units) generate a median of 6.20 vehicle trips per unit per day. The growth in dwelling units for single-family and multi -family, respectively, were multiplied by the corresponding trip generation rates to determine the weighted proportion of the WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 58 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 change in trips attributable to each use type as the basis for determining the per unit fee required to levy the necessary $2.10 billion to mitigate the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future new residential development. Table 6.1 summarizes the calculation of the fee for single-family and multi -family dwelling units. Appendix K includes worksheets detailing the calculation of the residential (and non-residential) TUMF for Western Riverside County. Table 6.1 - Fee Calculation for Residential Share Residential Sector 2012 Dwelling Units 2040 Dwelling Units Dwelling Unit Cha -e hip Generation Rate Trip Change Percentage _ of Trip of Fee/DU Single-Family 366,588 539,631 173,043. 9.52 1,647,369 77.5% S9 1 Aunt -Family 158,561 235,600 i 77,039 6.20 477,642 22.5% x.13+1 Total 525.149 775,231 250,082 2,125,011 100.0% Household data based on SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS and WSP, April 2016: Trip Generation based on ITE Trip Generation (2012). 6.2 Non -Residential Fees The portion of the unfunded future improvement cost allocable to new non-residential development through the TUMF is $858.7 million, Estimates of employment by sector were obtained from the SCAG 2016 RTP/SCS socioeconomic data included in Table 2.3 and Appendix B. From the 2040 employment forecast, the amount of employee growth in each sector was calculated. The employment figures were then translated into square footage of new development using typical ratios of square feet per employee derived from four sources including: Cordoba. Corporation/Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas (PBQD), Land Use Density onversion Factory For Long Range Corridor Study San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, August 20, 1990; Orange County Transportation Authority (OCTA), Oranae County Subarea Model Guidelines Manual, June 2001; SCAG, Employment Density Study, October 31, 2001; and the County of Riverside, General Plan, As Amended December 15; 2015. Worksheets showing the development of the TUMF employee conversion factors and the application of the conversion factors to calculate the square footage of future new non-residential development in Western Riverside County are included in Appendix L. To account for the differences in trip generation between various types of non- residential uses, the new non-residential development was weighted by trip generation rate for each sector. Typical trip generation rates per employee were obtained from the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation - Ninth Edition (2012), and were weighted based on a calculated value of trips per employee as derived from the employee conversion factors and ITE typical trip generation rates per square foot of development, before being assigned to the non-residential categories as follows: Industrial - 3.8 trips per employee, Retail - 16.2 trips per employee, Service - 4.6 trips per WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 59 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee employee, and Government/Public - 12.0 trips per employeen. These rates were applied to the employment growth in each sector to determine the relative contribution of each sector to new trip -making, and the $858.7 million was then allocated among the non-residential categories on the basis of the percentage of new trips added. This proportionate non-residential fee share by sector was then divided by the estimated square footage of future new development to obtain the rate per square foot for each type of use. The calculation of the non-residential fee by sector is shown in Table 6.2. Table 6.2 - Fee Calculation for Non -Residential Share Non -Residential Sector — Employment Change Trip Generation Rate per Employee Trip Change Percentage of Trip Change Change in Square i Feet of Gross Floor _ Area Fee/SF Industrial 80,592 3.8 302,220 13.4% 64,710,138 n St7 .: Retail 35,841 16.2 580,624 25.7% 17,920,500 ' $12.314' Service 274,720 4.6 1,263,712 55.9% 105,211,915 government/Public 9,515 400,668 12.0 114,180 2,260,736 i 5.1% 100.0% 2,696,349 190,538,901 s1b Total Employment Change data based on SCAG 20 6 RTP/SCS; Trip Generation based on ITE (2012); Change in Square Feet conversion factor based on Cordoba (1990), OCTA (2001), SCAG (2001) and County of Riverside (2015). 11 The median trip generation rate for 'Retail' and 'Service' was reduced to reflect the influence of pass -by trips using the weekday PM peak median pass -by trip rate for select uses as derived from the ITE Trip Generation Handbook (June 2004). WRCOG 60 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update July 10, 2017 7.0 CONCLUSIONS Based on the results of the Nexus Study evaluation, it can be seen that there is reasonable relationship between the cumulative regional transportation impacts of new land development projects in Westem Riverside County and the need to mitigate these transportation impacts using funds levied through the ongoing TUMF Program. Factors that reflect this reasonable relationship include; A Western Riverside County is expected to continue growing as a result of future new development. • Continuing new growth will result in increasing congestion on arterial roadways. > The future arterial roadway congestion is directly attributable to the cumulative regional transportation impacts of future development in Westem Riverside County. > Capacity improvements to the transportation system will be needed to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of new development. ➢ Roads on the TUMF network are the facilities that merit improvement through this fee program. • Improvements to the public transportation system will be needed to provide adequate mobility for transit -dependent travelers and to provide an alternative to automobile travel. The Nexus Study evaluation has established a proportional "fair share" of the improvement cost attributable to. new development based on the impacts of existing development and the availability of obligated funding through traditional sources: Furthermore, the Nexus Study evaluation has divided the fair share of the cost to mitigate the cumulative regional impacts of future new development in Western Riverside County in rough proportionality to the cumulative impacts of future residential and non-residential development in the region. The respective fee allocable to future new residential and non-residential development in Western Riverside County is summarized for differing use types in Table 7.1. Table 7.1 - Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee for Western Riverside County Land Use Type Units Development Change Fee Per Unit Total Revenue ($ million) Single Family Residential DU 173,043 .°: ` $9,418 $1,629.8 Multi Family Residential DU 77,039 4$6,13/1', $472.5 Industrial SF GFA 64,710,138 .$ ,$1.77. - 5114.8 Retail SF GFA 17,920,500 .` $12:31. ' 5220.5 Service SF GFA 105.211,915 -e $4.56s $480.0 Government/Public SF GFA 2,696,349$1608• $43.4 MAXIMUM TUMF VALUE 52,961.0 WRCOG TUMF Nexus Study - 2016 Program Update 61 Adopted WRCOG Executive Committee July 10, 2017 ORDINANCE NO. 1092 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT ESTABLISHING THE BEAUMONT LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM AND AMENDING CHAPTER 3.22 OF THE BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE The City Council of the City of Beaumont does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: Title This Ordinance shall be known as the "Beaumont Local Transportation Facility Mitigation Fee Program Ordinance." Section 2: Findings A. The Beaumont City Council has been informed and advised, and hereby finds, that future development within the City of Beaumont will result in traffic volumes exceeding the capacity of the local roadway network as it presently exists. B. The Beaumont City Council has been further informed and advised, and hereby finds, that if the capacity of the local transportation system is not enlarged, the result will be further substantial traffic congestion, with unacceptable levels of service throughout the City of Beaumont. C. The Beaumont City Council has been further informed and advised, and hereby finds, that funds will be inadequate to construct the transportation system needed to avoid the unacceptable levels of traffic congestion and related adverse impacts. Absent the Beaumont Local Transportation Facility Mitigation Fee ("Facility Fee"), existing and known future funding sources will be inadequate to provide the necessary improvements to the transportation system, resulting in unacceptably high level of traffic congestion within and around Beaumont. D. The City Council has caused to be prepared, and has reviewed, the City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study ("Fee Study"), attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and hereby finds that future development within the City will result in inordinate levels of congestion, and that unless such development contributes to the cost of improving the transportation system, the system will operate at unacceptable levels of service. E. The City Council hereby finds and determines that failure to mitigate growing traffic impacts on the transportation system within the City will substantially impair the ability of public safety services (police and fire) to respond. The failure to mitigate impacts on the transportation system will adversely affect the public health, safety and welfare. F. The City Council further finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the use of the Facility Fee and the type of development projects on which the fees are imposed because the fees will be used to construct the transportation improvements that are necessary for the safety, health and welfare of the residential and non-residential users of the development projects on which the Facility Fee will be levied. G. The City Council further finds and determines that there is a reasonable and rational relationship between the need for the improvements to the transportation system and the type of development projects on which the Facility Fee is imposed because it will be necessary for the residential and non-residential users of such projects to have access to the transportation system. Such development will benefit from the transportation system improvements and the burden of such development will be mitigated in part by the payment of the Facility Fee. H. The City Council further finds and determines that the cost estimates set forth in the Fee Study are reasonable cost estimates for constructing the transportation system improvements, and that the amount of the Facility Fee expected to be generated by new development will not exceed the total fair share cost to such development. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall be used to help pay for the construction and acquisition of the transportation system improvements identified in the Fee Study. The need for improvements is related to new development because such development results in additional traffic thus creating the demand for the improvements. J. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the Fee Study and the Facility Fee proposed thereunder, and at least ten days prior to the hearing, the City made the Fee Study available to the public. K. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered the data and information provided by the public relative to the costs for which the Facility Fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing. L. The City Council finds that the Fee Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of improvements to the transportation system. M. The City Council hereby adopts the Fee Study and findings incorporated therein, which Fee Study is attached hereto as Exhibit "A", and incorporates it herein as though set forth in full. Section 3: Establishment of the Beaumont Local Transportation Facility Mitigation Fee A. Adoption. The Facility Fees authorized by this Ordinance shall be implemented by resolution of the City Council and may be amended from time to time as determined by this Ordinance and by resolution of the City Council. B. Fee Calculation. The Facility Fees authorized by this Ordinance shall be calculated as provided in this Ordinance, the Fee Study and by resolution of the City Council. C. Fee Adjustment. The amount of the Facility Fee shall be automatically adjusted at the beginning of each fiscal year by an amount equal to the cumulative percentage increases in the Construction Cost Index of the Engineering News Record Index published for the month nearest the effective date of the adjustment as compared with the amount of the same in effect at the time of the nearest prior to the adoption of this Ordinance or the previous adjustment, as appropriate. The fee as revised annually, shall be calculated by the City Manager or his or her designee and shall be included in a report to the City Council. ii. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the City Council by resolution. The fees may be increased or decreased to reflect changes in actual and estimated costs of the facilities, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the transportation system facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to design construct the transportation system. D. Purpose. The purpose of the Facility Fee is to fund those certain improvements to the transportation system and other expenses identified or referred to in the Fee Study, Exhibit "A" and this Ordinance. E. Applicability. The Facility Fee shall apply to all new development within the City, attached hereto and made a part hereof, unless otherwise exempt hereunder. F. Exemptions. The following new development shall be exempt from the Facility Fee: i. Low income residential housing. ii. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal, residential structure and/or the replacement of a previously existing dwelling unit. iii. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any non-residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage. Any increase in square footage shall pay the current applicable rate. iv. Residential projects that have been issued a building permit prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. v. Non -Residential projects that have been issued a building permit prior to the effective date of this Ordinance. Section 4: Amendment of the Municipal Code: A. Chapter 3.22, entitled Beaumont Local Transportation Facility Mitigation Fee, to read as set forth in Exhibit "B" is hereby added to the Beaumont Municipal Code. This new Chapter 3.22 shall replace existing Chapter 3.22 of the Municipal Code. B. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in "The Record -Gazette," a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Beaumont, and shall be posted for fifteen (15) days in the City Clerk's office within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Section 5: CEQA. The fees adopted hereunder are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Section 21080 (b) for the reason that the fees are imposed for the purpose of purchasing materials and for obtaining funds necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. Section 6: Effective Date A. This ordinance shall be effective sixty (60) days after the date of its final passage and adoption. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on August 15, 2017. ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on September 5, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: Orozco ATTEST: Andreanna Pfeiffer, Al ; ed Lloyd White, Mayor EXHIBIT "A" FEE STUDY EXHIBIT "A" FEE STUDY City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study August 15, 2017 4 0 Colgan Consulting Corporation 3308 El Camino Avenue, Suite 300-212 Sacramento, CA 95821 www.colgan-consulting.com City of Beaumont — Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Tab/e of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary Organization of the Report How Impact Fees Are Calculated in this Report Impact Fee Summary Recovery of Administrative Costs Chapter I. Introduction Purpose Legal Framework for Impact Fees Impact Fee Calculation Methodology Facilities Addressed in This Study Chapter 2. Development Data Population Growth Study Area and Time Frame Development Types Demand Variable Demand Factors Development Data Growth Potential Chapter 3. Street and Bridge Impact Fees Demand Variable Service Area Level of Service Methodology Improvement Costs Average Cost per Peak -Hour Trip Impact Fees per Unit of Development Projected Revenue Updating the Fees Nexus Summary (Table of Contents Continued on the Next Page) S- I 5-1 S-1 5-2 S-2 2-1 2-1 2-1 2-2 2-2 2-3 2-3 2-6 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-3 3-3 3-4 3-5 3-5 August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page i City of Beaumont - Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Tab/e of Contents Chapter 4. Traffic Signal Impact Fees Demand Variable Service Area Level of Service Methodology Traffic Signal Costs Average Cost per Peak -Hour. Trip Impact Fees per Unit of Development Projected Revenue Updating the Fees Nexus Summary Chapter 5. Railroad Crossing Impact Fees Demand Variable Service Area Level of Service Methodology Improvement Costs Average Cost per Peak -Hour Trip Impact Fees per Unit of Development Projected Revenue Updating the Fees Nexus Summary Chapter 6. Implementation Adoption Administration Training and Public Information Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-3 4-3 4-4 4-4 5-I 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-2 5-3 5-3 5-4 5-4 6-I 6-1 6-2 6-7 6-8 August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page II City of Beaumont - Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Executive Summary Executive Summary The City of Beaumont has retained Colgan Consulting Corporation to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of development on the City's transportation facilities and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study are intended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution, the California Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code Sections 66000 et seq.). Organization of the Report Chapter 1 of this report provides an introduction and overview of impact fees. It dis- cusses legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees, as well as meth- ods that can be used to calculate impact fees. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis. It forecasts an increase of approximately 82% in residential dwelling units, 233% in commercial/industrial building area, and 115% in peak hour trips per day be- tween 2017 and buildout of development envisioned in the General Plan. Chapter 3 calculates impact fees for street improvements and bridges needed to mit- igate the impact of development -related increases in traffic volumes on the City's transportation system. Chapter 4 calculates impact fees for traffic signals needed to mitigate the impact of development -related increases in traffic volumes on the City's traffic control system. Chapter 5 calculates impact fees for railroad crossing grade separations needed to mitigate the impact of development -related increases in traffic volumes on the City's transportation system. Chapter 6 presents recommendations for implementation of the impact fee program to meet the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 6600o-66024) How Impact Fees Are Calculated in this Report In the impact fee analysis, the impact of development on street and bridges, traffic signals and railroad crossings is represented by the increase in peak hour vehicle trips resulting from forecasted new development. Cost estimates for the street and bridge improvements, traffic signals and. railroad crossing improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of future development on the City's transportation system are summarized in this report. They are based pri- marily on the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Consulting. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page S-1 City of Beaumont — Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Executive Summary For each type of improvement, shares of estimated costs are allocated to the City's impact fee program and to other funding sources such as the WRCOG TUMF pro- gram, direct developer contributions and/or grants. To calculate impact fees in this report, the cost allocated to the City's impact fee pro- gram is divided by the number of peak hour trips that will be added by new develop- ment to get an average cost per peak hour trip. Then, for each type of development, the cost per peak hour trip is multiplied by a peak hour trips -per-unit factor to get the impact fee per unit. Because peak hour trip generation rates are vary substantially among different types of non-residential development, and because it isn't possible to anticipate the precise mix of development that will occur in the future, forecasts of added peak hour trips are based on fairly broad categories of commercial and industrial development and the average peak hour trip generation rates for those categories. Impact fees per unit are calculated for those broad categories of development. The City may choose to adjust impact fees for a specific development project based on traffic studies or the specific characteristics of the project. Impact Fee Summary Impact fees per unit calculated in this report are summarized in Table S.i. Table 5.1: Summary of Transportation Facilities Impact Fees Calculated in This Study Development Dev Streets/ Traffic Railroad Type Unit' Bridges Signals Crossings Total Residential - Single Family DU $ 2,440.30 $ 268.03 $ 288.04 $ 2,996.37 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 1,642.98 $ 180.46 $ 193.93 $ 2,017.36 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 1,425.52 $ 156.57 $ 168.26 $ 1,750.36 Commercial (Inc' Office Uses) KSF $ 3,020.18 $ 331.72 $ 356.48 $ 3,708.38 Industrial/Business Park KSF $ 2,077.88 $ 228.23 $ 245.26 $ 2,551.37 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF $ 289.94 $ 31.85 $ 34.22 $ 356.00 ' DU = dwelling unit; KSF =1,000 square feet of building area Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs Administration of an impact fee program to comply with the requirements of the Mit- igation Fee Act imposes costs on the City for prepare capital budgeting, fee adjust- ments, mandated annual reports and 5 -year reviews of the impact fee program, as well as periodic impact fee update studies. It is common practice in California for cit- ies to add a small administrative charge to impact fees to cover those costs. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-2 City of Beaumont — Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Executive Summary Many cities apply a 2% or 2.5% administrative charge to their impact fees. However, because of the substantial amount of impact fee revenue collected by the City of Beaumont, we estimate that a smaller fee would be adequate. Estimating the correct percentage is complicated because of pending changes in the structure of Beaumont's transportation facilities impact fees. In recent years, Beau- mont has not participated in the WRCOG TUMF program, and has collected impact fees for regional transportation projects as part of the City's impact fee program. The fees calculated in this report assume that Beaumont will resume funding regional transportation improvements through TUMF fees, which means that in the future, total revenue from the City's own transportation facilities impact fees will be reduced in a major way. For that reason, it is difficult to estimate the percentage by which the fees would have to be increased to cover the costs of administration and impact fee study updates. In fiscal year 2016 the City's transportation facilities impact fees generated around $3.2 million. With much of that revenue going into the TUMF program in the future, revenue from the City's transportation facilities impact fees could be reduced by at least two-thirds. If the program generates $1.1 million per year in the future, a 1% ad- ministrative charge would produce $ii,000 in administrative fees for the transporta- tion facilities impact fee program. That is about half of the amount we estimate would be required to administer the overall impact fee program. However, the re- maining costs could be recovered through a similar administrative charge on the City's other impact fees, which are not addressed in this study. Table S.2 shows the amount of the impact fees from Table S.1 with a 1% administrative charge added. If the City Council chooses to recover the cost of this study through a 1% administrative charge on the transportation facilities impact fees, those fees should be adopted as shown in Table S.2 Table 5.2: Summary of Transportation Facilities Impact Fees Including Admin Charge Development Dev Streets/ Traffic Railroad Type Unit' Bridges Signals Crossings Total Residential - Single Family DU $ 2,464.71 $ 270.71 $ 290.92 $ 3,026.34 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 1,659.41 $ 182.26 $ 195.86 $ 2,037.53 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 1,439.78 $ 158.14 $ 169.94 $ 1,767.86 Commercial (Inc! Office Uses) KSF $ 3,050.38 $ 335.04 $ 360.04 $ 3,745.47 Industrial/Business Park KSF $ 2,098.66 $ 230.51 $ 247.71 $ 2,576.88 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF $ 292.84 $ 32.16 $ 34.56 $ 359._ ' DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page S-3 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on the City's transportation facilities, and to calculate development impact fees based on that analysis. This report documents the data and methodology used in the impact fee analysis and presents step-by-step impact fee calculations. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all le- gal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). Legal Framework for Impact Fees This brief summary of the legal framework for development impact fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney, and should not be treated as a legal opinion. U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against "regulatory takings." A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably de- prive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest, and must not deprive the owner of all economically viable use of the property. In the case of impact fees, the government's interest is in protecting public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality and availability of essential public services provided to the community at large. Legislatively -enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the same level of judicial scrutiny as exactions involving the dedication of land or an interest in land, or fees imposed as a condition of approval on a single development project. In those cases, heightened scrutiny applies, and a higher standard must be met. The U. S. Supreme Court has found that a government agency must demonstrate an "es- sential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). The agency must also demonstrate that the August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-1 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Introduction exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994). Local legislative bodies are accorded considerable discretion by the courts when en- acting impact fees that apply broadly to development projects within its jurisdiction. But even where heightened scrutiny does not apply, an agency enacting impact fees should take care to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in the calcula- tion of its fees. California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to lo- cal governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIIA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees exceed the cost of providing capital facilities needed to serve new development. If that were the case, then the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIII D, added by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some "property -related fees," but exempt "the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development." The Mitigation Fee Act. California's impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the "Mitigation Fee Act." Unless otherwise noted, code sec- tions referenced in this report are from the Government Code. The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, other provisions of the Government Code (see Section 65913.8) prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance or oper- ating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only. The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term "mitigation fee" except in its official title. Nor does it use the more common term "impact fee." The Act simply uses the word "fee," which is defined as "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special as- sessment... that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with ap- proval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ...." August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-2 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Introduction To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely -accepted terms "impact fee" and "development impact fee" which both should be understood to mean "fee" as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and impos- ing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re- evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report. Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is im- posed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. (Applies when fees are imposed on a specific project.) Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below. Identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study is to fund construction of cer- tain capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public ser- vices as the City grows. This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development. Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 6600i, if a fee is used to fi- nance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public documents. In this case, we recom- mend that the City Council adopt this report as the public document that identifies the facilities to be funded by the fees. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-3 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Introduction Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demon- strated between: 1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; 2. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and, 3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment on which the fee is imposed. These three reasonable relationship requirements, as defined in the statute, mirror the nexus and proportionality requirements often cited in court decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees. The term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The "duality" of the nexus refers to (1) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees. Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case, and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus. Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development -related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for public facilities, based on applicable level -of -service standards. This re- port contains all of the information needed to demonstrate this element of the nex- us. Demonstrating a Benefit. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic re- quirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the develop- ment paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or Cali- fornia law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclu- sively to developments paying the fees. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-4 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Introduction Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended expeditiously or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that devel- opments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, pro- cedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus. Demonstrating Proportionality. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development -related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard. Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for ex- isting facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional de- velopment and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Sec- tion 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477). Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees "shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities,..." The legislature's intent in adopting this amend- ment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the Holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (1989), Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989), and Shapell Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (1991). That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely under- stood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies. However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees "may include the costs at- tributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the de- velopment project in order to (1) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the gen- eral plan." (Emphasis added.) August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-5 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Introduction Impact Fee Calculation Methodology Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. Each method has ad- vantages and disadvantages in a particular situation. To some extent they are inter- changeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Reduced to its essence, the process of calculating impact fees involves two steps: (i) determining the cost of development -related capital improvements, and (2) allocat- ing those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many fac- tors affecting the relationship between development and the need for facilities. Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is measured by some attribute of de- velopment such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the im- pacts created by different types and amounts of development. This report uses the term "demand variable" to refer to such attributes. Different demand variables are used in analyzing different types of facilities. Specific demand variables used in this study are discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters. The following paragraphs discuss three general approaches to calculating impact fees and how they can be applied to various types of facilities. Plan -Based or Improvements -Driven Method. Plan -based impact fee calculations are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development. The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan, while the development is identified in a land use plan that forecasts potential development by type and quantity. The plan -based method is used in this study. Using this method, facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the amount of development and the relative intensity of demand created by each type of development. To calculate plan -based impact fees, it is nec- essary to determine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of additional development. With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by the total units of ad- ditional demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand (e.g. a cost per peak hour trip for street improvements). Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by factors representing demand per unit of development (e.g. peak hour trips per unit) to arrive at a cost per unit of development. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-6 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Introduction This method is somewhat inflexible in that it is based on the relationship between a specific facility plan and a specific land use plan. If either plan changes significantly, the fees will have to be recalculated. Capacity -Based or Consumption -Driven Method. This method calculates a cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship between total cost and total capacity of a system. It can be applied to any type of development, provided the capacity required to serve each increment of development can be estimated, and the facility has ade- quate capacity available to serve the development. Since the cost per unit of de- mand does not depend on the particular type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans. In this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. Capaci- ty -based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems, where the cost of a system component is divided by the capacity of that component to de- rive a unit cost. However, a similar analysis can be applied to other types of facilities. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of non-residential building area), the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity required to serve a typical unit of development in each of several land use categories. Standard -Based or Incremental Expansion Method. Standard -based fees are calcu- lated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of ser- vice units to be provided for each unit of development. The standard can be estab- lished as a matter of policy or it can be based on the level of service being provided to existing development in the study area. Using the standard -based method, costs are defined on a generic unit -cost basis and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. Park in -lieu and impact fees are commonly calculated this way. The level of service standard for parks is typically stated in terms of acres of parks per thousand resi- dents. A cost -per -acre for park land or park improvements can usually be estimated without knowing the exact size or location of a particular park. The ratio of park acreage to population and the cost per acre for parks can be used to calculate a cost per capita. The cost per capita can then be converted into a cost per unit of devel- opment based on the average population per dwelling unit for various types of resi- dential development. This approach can also used for facilities such as libraries and administrative build- ings, where it is possible to estimate a generic cost per square foot before a building is actually designed. One advantage of the standard -based method is that a fee can be established without committing to a particular size of facility, and facility size can be adjusted based on the amount of development that actually occurs. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 1-7 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Introduction Buy -In or Recoupment Fees. Buy -in fees can be calculated using either the plan -based method or the capacity -based method described above. The difference is that this type of fee is intended to recover a portion of the cost of existing facilities rather than facilities to be built in the future. Buy -in fees are widely used for water and sewer facilities which must be constructed before development can occur. But they can also be used for other types of facilities, assuming such facilities are available to serve future development and have the ca- pacity to do so. Facilities Addressed in this Study Impact fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report: • Streets and Bridges • Traffic Signals • Railroad Crossing Grade Separations The next chapter, Chapter 2, contains data on land use and development in the City. The impact fee calculations for streets and bridges, traffic signals, and railroad cross- ings are presented in separate chapters of this report, beginning with Chapter 3. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 1-8 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Development Data Chapter 2 Development Data This chapter presents development data that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze fa- cility needs, and/or allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new development. Population Growth The graph at right shows the Cali- fornia Department of Finance (DOF) January 1 population esti- mates for the City of Beaumont for the years from 2007 through 2017. Beaumont has been among the fastest growing cities in California over the last decade. The City's population has increased by 64% from 28,217 in 2007 to 46,179 in zo17. That is an average of over 5% per year. 50,000 Beaumont Population 2007-2017 40,000 - 0 '� 30,000 - d20,000 -11. 10,000 0 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year The population figures shown above reflect the City's total population, including both household population and population in group quarters such as nursing homes, college dormitories and correctional facilities. Beaumont's population in group quar- ters is roughly 1% of the City's total population. For purposes of assessing the impacts of residential development, this report will focus on household population. Study Area and Time Frame The study area for the impact fee analysis includes the City and its sphere of influence as reflected on the General Plan land use map adopted in 2007. No time frame is assumed for the future development projected in this study. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study do not require assumptions re- garding the rate or timing of development. Where projections of future development are used in the fee calculations, they are based on General Plan Buildout. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 2-1 Development Data City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Development Types The development types used in this study are intended to reflect actual land uses ra- ther than zoning or general plan land use designations. Existing and future development is broken down into the following categories in this study: • Residential - Single Family • Residential - Multi -Family • Residential Mobile Home • Commercial (Including Office Uses) • Industrial/Business Park • Industrial/High-Cube • Public Facilities • Public Schools • Parks and Golf Courses Demand Variable In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of de- velopment are used as "demand variables" in those formulas to represent the impact of different types of development on the demand for particular public services and the facilities supporting them. Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service de- mand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably cor- related with that demand. All of the facility types addressed in this study are impacted primarily by increases in vehicular traffic. The relationship between capacity and traffic volumes tends to be most critical during the p.m. peak -hour, the one-hour period with the highest traffic volume between 4 p.m. and 6 p.m. on weekdays. Consequently, p.m. peak -hour trip generation is used as the demand variable for all of the facility types addressed in this study. A peak -hour trips -per-unit rate is estimated for each type of development defined in this study. Those rates are shown in Table 2.1 on the next page. The peak -hour trip generation rates used in this study are based on the Institute of Transportation Engineers manual, Trip Generation, 7th Edition. For residential devel- opment, the rates for different types of dwelling units are fairly standard. However, commercial and industrial development can involve a wide range of business types with quite different trip generation rates. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-2 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Development Data The rates estimated for commercial and industrial categories in this study are intend- ed to represent an average rate for the mix of development types expected in the local area. In applying the impact fees calculated in this study, the City can choose to customize rates based on traffic studies for individual development projects, using the average cost per peak -hour trip calculated in each of the following chapters. Demand Factors Table 2.1 shows peak -hour trips -per-unit factors for each type of development de- fined in this study. Table 2.1: Demand Factors Used in This Study Development Dev Pk Hr Trips Type Units' per Unit 2 Residential - Single Family DU 1.01 Residential - Multi -Family DU o.68 Residential - Mobile Home DU 0.59 Commercial (Inc' Office Uses) KSF 1.25 Industrial/Business Park KSF o.86 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 0.12 Public Facilities Acre 6.50 Public Schools Acre 7.15 Parks/Golf Courses Acre 0.40 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit;. acre = net developable acre; KSF =1,000 gross square feet of building area. 2 Peak hour trips per unit of development based on data from the Inst. of Transportation Engineers (ITE) publication Trip Generation , 7th Ed.; the commercial rate is estimated by the Beaumont Community Devel- opment Department based on local conditions; the rate for schools is based on ITE peak hour trips -per -student and students -per -acre data for Beaumont schools Development Data Tables 2.2 through 2.4 on the following pages show data for existing and future de- velopment in the City in terms of developed acres, residential units and commercial and industrial building area (in thousands of square feet, or KSF). Those tables also show the number of peak -hour trips generated by existing development and new de- velopment in each category. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-3 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Development Data Table 2.2: City of Beaumont - Existing Development -July 12017 Development Dev Est Dev Est Res Est Comm/ Est Pk Types Unit' Acres 2 Units 3 Ind KSF 4 Hr Trips 5 Residential - Single Family DU 3,272.3 13,089 13,220 Residential - Multi -Family DU 147.8 1,848 1,257 Residential - Mobile Home DU 62.8 523 309 Commercial (Incl Office Uses) KSF 128.0 1,393.9 1,742 Industrial/Business Park KSF 97.0 1,267.6 1,090 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 112.0 1,950.0 234 Public Facilities Acre 10.0 65 Public Schools Acre 137.3 982 Parks/Golf Courses Acre 562.0 225 Total 4,529.2 15,460 4,612 19,124 'Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; acre = net developable acre; KSF =1,000 gross square feet of building area. 2Acres of residential development estimated from the number of residential units; acres of non- residential development estimated by the City of Beaumont Community Development Dept. 3 Estimated existing residential units for 7/1/17 extrapolated from the 1/1/17 Department of Finance E-5 Report based on recent trends 4 Estimated commercial/industrial building area (KSF) by the Beaumont Commmunity Develop- ment Department 5 Estimated peak hour trips = estimated units X peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 Table 2.3 on the next page shows potential new development to buildout, as well as added peak -hour trips by development type. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 2-4 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Development Data Table 2.3: City of Beaumont - Potential Development to Buildout Development Dev New Dev New Res New Comm/ Added Pk Types Unit' Acres 2 Units 3 Ind KSF 4 Hr Trips 5 Residential - Single Family DU 2,788.5 11,154 11,265 Residential - Multi -Family DU 124.0 1,550 1,054 Residential - Mobile Home DU o.0 0 0 Commercial (Incl Office Uses) KSF 572.0 6,229.1 7,787 Industrial/Business Park KSF 53.8 703.1 605 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 220.0 3,834.8 460 Public Facilities Acre 5.0 33 Public Schools Acre 120.1 858 Parks/Golf Courses Acre 73.1 29 Total 3,956.5 12,704 10,767 22,091 'Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; acre = net developable acre; KSF =1,000 gross square feet of building area. 2 New developed acres = total developed acres from Table 2.4 - existing developed acres from Table 2.2 3 New residential units = total residential units from Table 2.4 - existing residential units from Table 2.2 4 New commercial/industrial building area'(KSF) = total building area from Table 2.4 - existing building area from Table 2.2 5 Added peak hour trips to buildout = total peak hour trips from Table 2.4 - existing peak hour trips from Table 2.2 Table 2.4 on the next page shows total development at buildout, as well as total peak -hour trips at buildout by development type. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-5 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Development Data Table 2.4: City of Beaumont - Buildout Development Based on General Plan Development Dev Total Dev Total Res Total Comm/ Total Pk Types Unit' Acres 2 Units 3 Ind KSF 4 Hr Trips 5 Residential - Single Family DU 6,060.8 24,243 24,485 Residential - Mufti -Family DU 271.8 3,398 2,311 Residential - Mobile Home DU 62.8 523 309 Commercial (Inc! Office Uses) KSF 700.0 7,623.0 9,529 Industrial/Business Park KSF 150.8 1,970.7 1,695 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 332.0 5,784.8 694 Public Facilities Acre 15.0 98 Public Schools Acre 257.4 1,840 Parks/Golf Courses Acre 65 254 Total 8,485.7 28,164 15,378 41,215 ' Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; acre = net developable acre; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of building area. 2 Total acres of residential development estimated from the number of residential units; acres of non-residential development estimated by the City of Beaumont Community Development Dept. 3 Total residential units at buildout estimated by the Beaumont Community Development Dept. 4 Total commercial/industrial building area (KSF) at buildout estimated by the Beaumont Commu- nity Development Department 5 Total peak hour trips at buildout = total units X peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1 Growth Potential The added development shown in Table 2:3 reflects an increase of 82% in residential units, 233% in commercial/industrial building area, and 115% in peak -hour trips between now and buildout. The impact fees calculated in this report will provide funding for additional transportation facilities to support that growth. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-6 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Street and Bridge Impact Fees Chapter 3 Street and Bridge Impact Fees This chapter calculates impact fees for street and bridge improvements needed to accommodate increased traffic generated by planned new development in Beau- mont. Impact fees for traffic signals and railroad crossing grade separations are calcu- lated in subsequent chapters of this report. The improvements and estimated costs used to calculate those fees were identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Con- sulting. A summary of those improvement costs is shown in Table 3.1 below. A de- tailed project list with cost estimates is available from the City of Beaumont Commu- nity Development Department. Demand Variable As indicated in Chapter 2, the demand variable used in this study to represent the im- pact of development on the need for transportation improvements in the City is peak -hour trip generation. The peak -hour trip generation rates by development type used in this study are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 and in Table 3.3 later in this chapter Service Area The street and bridge improvements identified in this chapter will serve the entire area covered by the City of Beaumont General Plan land use map, so impact fees for those improvements will apply to all new development in the City and any portion of the sphere of influence annexed into the City. Level of Service The street and bridge improvements needed to serve the City at buildout are identi- fied in the Circulation Element of the Beaumont General Plan. Those improvements are needed to achieve an acceptable level of service and safety in the City's transpor- tation system. Policy 10 of the Circulation Element stipulates level of service (LOS) D as a target standard and LOS E as a threshold standard. Those levels of service are defined in the Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual. LOS A is the highest level of service, characterized by free flowing traffic. LOS F is the lowest level of service, characterized by serious congestion and long delays at intersections. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-1 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Street and Bridge Impact Fees Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan -based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method allocates costs for a set of improvements to the planned future development that creates a need for those improvements. To calculate impact fees in this chapter, the share of improvement cost to be recov- ered through impact fees (see Table 3.1) is divided by the projected number of peak - hour trips added by new development (see Table 3.2). The result is an average cost per peak -hour trip. The impact fee per unit for a particular type of development is calculated as the cost per peak -hour trip multiplied by the number of peak -hour trips per unit generated by that type of development. The calculation of impact fees per unit is shown in Table 3.3. Improvement Costs Table 3.1 on the next page summarizes the estimated costs for street and bridge im- provements needed to serve future development in Beaumont. Costs shown in that table are taken from the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Consulting. See that report for a detailed project list and cost esti- mates for individual improvements. Only a portion of the total cost of those improvements will be recovered through im- pact fees. The costs covered by the City's impact fee program are for additional lanes, intersection improvements and bridges that are impacted by new develop- ment generally, rather than localized impacts of development at a specific location. Other sources of funding for those costs, as shown in Table 3.1, include direct devel- oper contributions, grants and the WRCOG Regional TUMF program. Funding for some costs not shown in Table 3.1 will be provided by the City of Beaumont, the City of Banning and Riverside County. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-2 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Street and Bridge Impact Fees Table 3.1: Street Improvements and Bridges Improvement Developer/Grant TUMF Impact Fee Type Funded Impr' Contribution 2 Cost Share 3 Total Street Improvements $ Bridges $ Total $ % of Total 129,442,458 $ 28,532,666 $ 43,424,876 $ 201,400,000 54,103,240 $ 74,979361 $ 1950,149 $ 139,032,750 183,545,698 $ 103,512,027 $ 53,375,025 $ 340,432,750 53.9% 30.4% 15.7% loo.o% Source: The City of Beaumont Community Development Department and NAI Consulting; see the NAI Cost Analysis for a detailed breakdown; costs shown in this table do not include the City's direct costs or costs to be funded by the City of Banning or Riverside County 'Cost of improvements to be funded directly by developers and/or by grants 2 Costs to be funded by the WRCOG regional TUMF program 3 Costs to be funded by City of Beaumont impact fees Average Cost per Peak -hour Trip Table 3.2 calculates the average cost per added peak -hour trip using the impact fee share of improvement costs from Table 3.1 and the added peak -hour trips from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2. Table 3.2: Cost per Peak Hour Trip - Streets and Bridges Impact Fee Added Peak Cost per Peak Cost Share' Hour Trips 2 Hour Trip 3 $53,375,025 22,091 $2,416.14 1 See Table 3.1 2 See Table 2.3 3 Cost per peak hour trip = impact fee cost share / added peak hour trips Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 3.3 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by develop- ment type for street and bridge improvements. Those fees are calculated using the average cost per peak -hour trip from Table 3.2 and the peak -hour trips per unit from Table 2.1. It should be noted that a proportionate share of costs for these improvements are allocated to public facilities, public schools and parks in the impact fee calculations. However, no impact fees are shown for those types of development because the City either has no authority to collect such fees, or would be paying the fees itself. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-3 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Street and Bridge Impact Fees Table 3.3: Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Streets and Bridges Development Pk Hr Trips Cost per Impact Fee Type Units' per Unit 2 Pk HrTrip 3 per Unit 4 Residential - Single Family DU 1.01 $2,416.14 $ 2,440.30 Residential - Multi -Family DU 0.68 $2,416.14 $ 1,642.98 Residential - Mobile Home DU 0.59 $2,416.14 $ 1,425.52 Commercial (Inc! Office Uses) KSF 1.25 $2,416.14 $ 3,020.18 Industrial/Business Park KSF 0.86 $2,416.14 $ 2,077.88 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 0.12 $2=416.14 $ 289.94 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area 2 See Table 2.1 3 See Table 3.2 4 Impact fee per unit = peak hour trips per unit X cost per peak hour trip Projected Revenue Table 3.4 shows projected revenue from impact fees calculated in this chapter. Po- tential revenue is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 3.3 to added units of development from Table 2.3. Table 3.4: Projected Revenue - Streets and Bridges Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected Type Units' per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family DU $ 2,440.30 11,154 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 1,642.98 1,550 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 1,425.52 0 Commercial (Incl Office Uses) KSF $ 3,020.18 6,229.1 Industrial/Business Park KSF $ 2,077.88 703.1 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF $ 289.94 3,834.8 Total ' DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area 2 Impact fee per unit; see Table 3.3 3 Added units; see Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X added units 27,219,161 2,546,615 0 18,812,939 1,460,873 1111,842 $ 51,151,430 The total revenue projected in Table 3.4 represents approximately 96% of the amount allocated to the City's impact fees in Table 3.1. The balance is the amount allocated to public facilities, public schools and parks. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 3-4 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Street and Bridge Impact Fees Updating Costs The costs shown in this chapter are in current dollars. Impact fees calculated using those costs should be adjusted periodically to keep pace with changes in construc- tion costs. A common practice is to update such costs annually, using an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR -CCI) or the CalTrans cost index. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act re- quires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see "Legal Framework for Im- pact Fees" in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter sat- isfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees for streets and bridges is to help mitigate the impact of development -related traffic increases on the City's transporta- tion infrastructure. Use of the Fee: These impact fees will be used to pay for a portion of the transporta- tion infrastructure improvements needed to serve increased volumes of traffic gen- erated by additional development in the City. Those improvements are identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Con- sulting and are needed to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, those fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-5 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Street and Bridge Impact Fees Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed: All new development in the City generates additional traffic which impacts the City's transportation infrastructure. The improvements funded by the impact fees calculated in this chapter will provide additional capacity needed to serve future development in the City. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Devel- opment on Which the Fee Is Imposed: The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the impact of each type of new development as measured by its associated increase in peak -hour trips. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost At- tributable to the Development Project: The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the cost of maintaining an acceptable level of service as defined in the Gen- eral Plan. The amount of the impact fee to be imposed on a particular development project depends on the increase in peak -hour trips associated with that project. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-6 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Trac Signal Impact Fees Chapter 4 Traffic Signal Impact Fees This chapter calculates impact fees for traffic signals and signal upgrades needed to accommodate increased traffic generated by planned new development in Beau- mont. The traffic signal projects and estimated costs used to calculate those fees were identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Consulting. A summary of those costs is shown in Table 4.1 below. A detailed list of traffic signal projects with cost estimates is available from the City of Beau- mont Community Development Department. Demand Variable As indicated in Chapter 2, the demand variable used in this study to represent the im- pact of development on the need for transportation improvements in the City is peak -hour trip generation. The peak -hour trip generation rates by development type used in this study are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 and in Table 4.3 later in this chapter Service Area The traffic signals to be paid -for by impact fees calculated in this chapter will serve the entire area covered by the City of Beaumont General Plan land use map, so im- pact fees for those signals will apply to all new development in the City and any por- tion of the sphere of influence annexed into the City. Level of Service The traffic signals addressed in this chapter are needed to implement the Circulation Element of the Beaumont General Plan and to achieve an acceptable level of service and safety in the City's transportation system. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan -based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method allocates costs for a set of improvements to the planned future development that creates a need for those improvements. To calculate impact fees in this chapter, the share of traffic signal costs to be recov- ered through impact fees (see Table 4.1) is divided by the projected number of peak - hour trips added by new development (see Table 4.2). The result is an average cost per peak -hour trip. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-1 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities /mpact Fee Study Traffic Signa/ /mpact Fees The impact fee per unit for a particular type of development is calculated as the cost per peak -hour trip multiplied by the number of peak -hour trips per unit generated by that type of development. The calculation of impact fees per unit is shown in Table 4.3. Traffic Signal Costs Table 4.1 summarizes the estimated costs for traffic signals needed to serve future development in Beaumont. Costs shown in that table are taken from the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Consulting. See that report for a detailed list of signal locations and cost estimates. Only a portion of the total cost of those traffic signal projects will be recovered through impact fees. The costs covered by the City's impact fee program are based on the impacts on traffic signal needs created by added traffic generally, rather than localized impacts of development at a specific location. As shown in Table 4.1, in addition to impact fees, a portion of the cost of needed traf- fic signals will come from direct developer contributions and/or grants. Funding for some costs not shown in Table 4.1 will be provided by the City of Beaumont, the City of Banning and Riverside County Table 4.1: Traffic Signals Improvement Type Traffic Signals % of Total Developer/Grant Funded Impr1 $3,675,000 38.5% TUMF Impact Fee Contribution 2 Cost Share 3 $0 $52_862,500 0.0% 61.5% Total $9,537,500 loo.o% Source: The City of BeaumontTCommunity Development Department and NAI Consulting; see the NAI Cost Analysis for a detailed breakdown; costs shown in this table do not include the City's direct costs or costs to be funded by the City of Banning or Riverside County 1 Cost of improvements to be funded directly by developers and/or by grants 2 No traffic signal costs will be funded by the WRCOG regional TUMF program 3 Costs to be funded by City of Beaumont impact fees Average Cost per Peak -hour Trip Table 4.2 calculates the average cost per added peak -hour trip using the impact fee share of traffic signal costs from Table 4.1 and the added peak -hour trips from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-2 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Traffic Signa/ Impact Fees Table 4.2: Cost per Peak Hour Trip - Traffic Signals Impact Fee Cost Share' Added Peak Hour Trips 2 Cost per Peak Hour Trip 3 $5,862,500 22,091 $265.38 'See Table 4.1 2 See Table 2.3 3 Cost per peak hour trip = impact fee cost share /added peak hour trips Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 4.3 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by develop- ment type for traffic signals. Those fees are calculated using the average cost per peak -hour trip from Table 4.2 and the peak -hour trips per unit from Table 2.1. It should be noted that a proportionate share of costs for these traffic signals are al- located to public facilities, public schools and parks in the impact fee calculations. However, no impact fees are shown for those types of development because the City either has no authority to collect such fees, or would be paying the fees itself. Table 4.3: Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Traffic Signals Development Pk Hr Trips Cost per Impact Fee Type Units' per Unit 2 Pk HrTrip 3 per Unit 4 Residential - Single Family DU 1.01 $265.38 $ 268.03 Residential - Multi -Family DU o.68 $265.38 $ 180.46 Residential - Mobile Home DU o.59 $26538 $ 156.57 Commercial (Incl Office Uses) KSF 1.25 $265.38 $ 331.72 Industrial/Business Park KSF o.86 $265.38 $ 228.23 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 0.12 $265.38 $ 31.85 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area 2 See Table 2.1 3 See Table 4.2 4 Impact fee per unit = peak hour trips per unit X cost per peak hour trip Projected Revenue Table 4.4 on the next page shows projected revenue from impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 4.3 to added units of development from Table 2.3. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-3 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Traffic Signal Impact Fees Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - Traffic Signal Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected Type Units' per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family DU $ 268.03 11,265 $ 3,019,396 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 180.46 1,054 $ 190,203 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 156.57 0 $ o Commercial (Inc! Office Uses) KSF $ 331.72 6,229.1 $ 2,066,338 Industrial/Business Park KSF $ 228.23 703.1 $ 160,457 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF $ 31.85 3,834.8 $ 122,120 Total $ 5,558,514 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF =.1,000 square feet of building area 2 Impact fee per unit; see Table 4.3 3 Added units; see Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X added units The total revenue projected in Table 4.4 represents approximately 95% of the amount allocated to the City's impact fees in Table 3.1. The balance is the amount allocated to public facilities, public schools and parks. Updating Costs The costs shown in this chapter are in current dollars. Impact fees calculated using those costs should be adjusted periodically to keep pace with changes in construc- tion costs. A common practice is to update such costs annually, using an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR -CCI) or the CalTrans cost index. However, in the case of traffic signals, it may be more appropriate to up- date the actual cost estimates for the signals addressed in this chapter. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act re- quires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-4 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Traffic Signa/ Impact Fees c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see "Legal Framework for Im- pact Fees" in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter sat- isfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees for traffic signals is to help miti- gate the impact of development -related traffic increases on the City's traffic control system. Use of the Fee: These impact fees will be used to pay for a portion of the cost of traf- fic signals needed to needed to control increased volumes of traffic generated by ad- ditional development in the City. Those traffic signals are identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Consulting, and are needed to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, those fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed: All new development in the City generates additional traffic which impacts the City's transportation system. Traffic signals funded by the impact fees calculated in this chapter will enhance the City's traffic control system to serve future development in the City. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Devel- opment on Which the Fee Is Imposed: The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the impact of each type of new development as measured by its associated increase in peak -hour trips. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost At- tributable to the Development Project: The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the cost of maintaining an acceptable level of service as defined in the Gen- eral Plan. The amount of the impact fee to be imposed on a particular development project depends on the increase in peak -hour trips associated with that project. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-5 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Railroad Crossing Impact Fees Chapter 5 Railroad Crossing Impact Fees This chapter calculates impact fees for railroad crossing grade separations needed to accommodate increased traffic generated by planned new development in Beau- mont. The improvements and estimated costs used to calculate those fees were identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Con- sulting. A summary of those improvement costs is shown in Table 5.1, below. Demand Variable As indicated in Chapter 2, the demand variable used in this study to represent the im- pact of development on the need for transportation improvements in the City is peak hour trip generation. The peak hour trip generation rates by development type used in this study are shown in Table 2.1 in Chapter 2 and in Table 5.3 later in this chapter Service Area The railroad crossing improvements identified in this chapter will serve the entire ar- ea covered by the City of Beaumont General Plan land use map, so impact fees for those improvements will apply to all new development in the City and any portion of the sphere of influence annexed to the City. Level of Service The railroad crossing improvements listed in Table 5.1 are needed to implement the Circulation Element of the Beaumont General Plan and maintain an acceptable level of service and safety for the City's transportation system. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the plan -based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method allocates costs for a set of improvements to the planned future development that creates a need for those improvements. To calculate impact fees in this chapter, the share of improvement cost to be recov- ered through impact fees (see Table 5.1) is divided by the projected number of peak hour trips added by new development (see Table 5.2). The result is an average cost per peak hour trip. The impact fee per unit for a particular type of development is calculated as the cost per peak hour trip multiplied by the number of peak hour trips per unit generated by that type of development. The calculation of impact fees per unit is shown in Table 5.3. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-1 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Railroad Crossing Impact Fees Improvement Costs Table 5.1 summarizes the estimated costs for railroad crossing grade separations that will be needed as a result of development -related increases in traffic volumes in Beaumont. Costs shown in that table are taken from the 2017 City of Beaumont Trans- portation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Consulting. See that report for a de- tailed project list and cost estimates for individual improvements. Only a portion of the total cost of those improvements will be recovered through im- pact fees. Other sources of funding for those costs, as shown in Table 5.1, include di- rect developer contributions, grants and the WRCOG Regional TUMF program. Table 5.1: Railroad Crossing Grade Separations Segment California Avenue Pennsylvania Avenue Potrero Boulevard Total % of Total Type Under RR Under RR Over RR Developer/Grant Funded Impr' $ 17,000,000 $ 23,000,000 $ 2,000,000 $ 42,000,000 8o% TUMF Contribution 2 $ 0 $ o $ 3,967,163 $ 3,967,i63 8% Impact Fee Cost Share 3 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 300,000 $ 6,300,000 12% Source: The City of Beaumont Community Development Department and NAI Consulter 'Cost of improvements to be funded directly by developers and/or by grants 2 Costs to be funded by the WRCOG regional TUMF program 3 Costs to be funded by City of Beaumont impact fees Average Cost per Peak Hour Trip Table 5.2 calculates the average cost per added peak hour trip using the impact fee share of improvement costs from Table 5.1 and the added peak hour trips from Table 2.3 in Chapter 2. Table 5.2: Cost per Peak Hour Trip - Railroad Crossings Impact Fee Cost Share' Added Peak Hour Trips 2 Cost per Peak Hour Trip 3 $6,3.00,000 22,091 $285.18 'See Table 5.1 2 See Table 2.3 3 Cost per peak hour trip = impact fee cost share / added peak hour trips August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-2 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Railroad Crossing Impact Fees Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 5.3 shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of development by develop- ment type for the railroad crossing grade separation improvements. Those fees are calculated using the average cost per peak hour trip from Table 5.2 and the peak hour trips per unit from Table 2.1. It should be noted that a proportionate share of costs for these improvements are allocated to public facilities, public schools and parks in the impact fee calculations. However, no impact fees are shown for those types of development because the City either has no authority to collect such fees, or would be paying the fees itself. Table 5.3: Impact Fees per Unit of Development - Railroad Crossings Development Pk Hr Trips Cost per Impact Fee Type Units' per Unit 2 Pk HrTrip 3 per Unit 4 Residential - Single Family DU 1.01 $285.18 $ 288.04 Residential - Multi -Family DU 0.68 $285.18 $ 193.93 Residential - Mobile Home DU 0.59 $285.18 $ 168.26 Commercial (Inc! Office Uses) KSF 1.25 $285.18 $ 356.48 Industrial/Business Park KSF 0.86 $285.18 $ 245.26 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 0.12 $285.18 $ 34.22 1 DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area 2 See Table 2.1 3 See Table 5.2 4 Impact fee per unit = peak hour trips per unit X cost per peak hour trip Projected Revenue Table 5.4 on the next page shows projected revenue from impact fees calculated in this chapter. Potential revenue is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 5.3 to added units of development from Table 2.3. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-3 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Railroad Crossing Impact Fees Table 5.4: Projected Revenue - Railroad Crossing Impact Fees Development Impact Fee Added Projected Type Units' per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family DU $ 288.04 11,154 $ 3,212,752 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 193.93 1,550 $ 300,584 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 168.26 0 $ o Commercial (Ind Office Uses) KSF $ 356.48 6,229.1 $ 2,220,543 Industrial/Business Park KSF $ 245.26 703.1 $ 172,431 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF $______34. Total $ 6,037,543 ' DU = dwelling unit; KSF = i,000 square feet of building area 2 Impact fee per unit; see Table 5.3 3 Added units; see Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X added units The total revenue projected in Table 5.4 represents approximately 96% of the amount allocated to the City's impact fees in Table 5.1. The balance is the amount allocated to public facilities, public schools and parks. Updating Costs The costs shown in this chapter are in current dollars. Impact fees calculated using those costs should be adjusted periodically to keep pace with changes in construc- tion costs. A common practice is to update such costs annually, using an index such as the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (ENR -CCI) or the CalTrans cost index. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act re- quires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-4 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Railroad Crossing Impact Fees c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see "Legal Framework for Im- pact Fees" in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter sat- isfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees for railroad crossing improve- ments is to help mitigate the impact of development -related traffic increases on the City's transportation infrastructure. Use of the Fee: These impact fees will be used to pay for a portion of the transporta- tion infrastructure improvements needed to serve increased volumes of traffic gen- erated by additional development in the City. Those improvements are identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Infrastructure Needs Analysis by NAI Con- sulting and are needed to implement the Circulation Element of the General Plan. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, those fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed: All new development in the City generates additional traffic which impacts the City's transportation infrastructure. The improvements funded by the impact fees calculated in this chapter will provide the additional capacity needed to serve future development in the City. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Devel- opment on Which the Fee Is Imposed: The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the impact of each type of new development, as measured by its associated increase in peak hour trips. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost At- tributable to the Development Project: The impact fees calculated in this chapter are based on the cost of maintaining an acceptable level of service as defined in the Gen- eral Plan. The amount of the impact fee to be imposed on a particular development project depends on the increase in peak hour trips associated with that project. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-5 City of Beaumont - Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Implementation Chapter 6 Implementation This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administra- tion of impact fees, and for the interpretation and application of the transportation facilities impact fees calculated in this study. Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). Adoption The form in which development impact fees are enacted, whether by ordinance or resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Ordinarily, it is desirable that specific fee amounts be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments. Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6o62a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice dur- ing the to -day notice period. Government Code Section 66017 provides that fees sub- ject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the governing body. Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Government Code Section 66001 and discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report. Establishment of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Section 66001(a)), when the City establishes fees to be imposed as a condition of development approval, it must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-1 City of Beaumont — Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Implementation Examples of findings that could be used for impact fees calculated in this study are shown below. The specific language of such findings should be reviewed and ap- proved by the City Attorney. A more complete discussion of the nexus for each fee can be found in individual chapters of this report explaining how the impact fees are calculated. Sample Finding: Purpose of the Fee. The City Council finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted is to prevent new development from ad- versely impacting the level of service and safety of the City's transportation system by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of improve- ments needed to increase the capacity of that system. Sample Finding: Use of the Fee. The City Council finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted will be used to construct street improvements, bridges, traffic signals and railroad crossing improvements to mitigate the im- pact of development -related traffic increases on the City's transportation sys- tem. Those improvements are identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Trans- portation Facilities Impact Fee Study prepared by Colgan Consulting Corpora- tion. Sample Finding: Reasonable Relationship: Based on analysis presented in the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study prepared by Colgan Consulting Corporation, the City Council finds that there is a reasona- ble relationship between: a. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; and, b. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. Administration The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.) man- dates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code. ' According to Gov't Code Section 66001 (a) (2), the use of the fee may be specified in a capital im- provement plan, the General Plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. The findings recommended here identify this impact fee study as the source of that information. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-2 City of Beaumont - Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Implementation Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Section 6600i(a)), when the City imposes an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make essen- tially the same findings adopted upon establishment of the fees to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed Per Section 66001 (b), at the time when an impact fee is imposed on a specific devel- opment project, the City is also required to make a finding to determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project on which it is imposed. In addition, Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." In this case, the fees will be used to pay for improvements identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study prepared by Colgan Consulting Corporation. Section 66020 (d) CO requires that the City, at the time it imposes an impact fee pro- vide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a 90 -day pe- riod during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest im- position of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to sub- sequent legal challenge. Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment. The City should develop procedures for imposing fees that satisfy those require- ments for findings and notice. Collection of Fees. Section 66007 (a), provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspec- tion, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "util- ity service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, Section 66007 (a) August 15, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 6-3 City of Beaumont - Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Implementation allows the agency to choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwell- ing unit completed. Section 66007 (b) provides two exceptions when the local agency may require the payment of fees from developers of residential projects at an earlier time: (1) when the local agency determines that the fees "will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy" or (2) the fees are "to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made." Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non- residential development. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sections 66007 (c) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be deposited "with other fees for the improvement" in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other reve- nues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital ac- count and used for the same purpose. The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improve- ments (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any municipality that has in- terpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual pro- jects. As a practical matter, that approach would be unworkable in any event because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be constructed until all benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improve- ments), but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-4 City of Beaumont - Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Implementation Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. If a project has characteristics that indicate its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system will be significantly and permanently smaller than the average impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced accord- ingly. Per Section 66001 (b), there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not propor- tional to the impact of the development on relevant public facilities. In some cases, the City may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction may not result in in- creased costs to other development projects, and are allowable only if the City off- sets the lost revenue from other fund sources. Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer as a condition of project approval to dedicate land or construct facilities or improve- ments for which impact fees are charged, the impact fee imposed on that develop- ment project for that type of facility must be adjusted to reflect a credit for such ded- ication or construction. In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such of- fers, and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted. Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for rele- vant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that particular impact fee. Reporting. Section 66006 (b) (i) requires that once each year, within 18o days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the follow- ing information for each separate account established to receive impact fee reve- nues: 1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund; 2. The amount of the fee; 3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-5 City of Beaumont - Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Implementation 4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned; 5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees; 6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; 7. A description of each inter -fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the im- provement on which the transfer or loan will be expended; 8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f). That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not Tess than 15 days after the statements are made public, per Section 66006 (b) (2). Refunds. Prior to 1996, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit impact fee revenue within five years, or make findings to justify a contin- ued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that require- ment in material ways. Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first de- posit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or un- committed: 1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put; 2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; 3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used; 4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-6 City of Beaumont - Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Implementation Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 66001, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund, per Section 66001 (d). Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an incomplete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 18o days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which con- struction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d). Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 (b) provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative, per Section 66001 (a) (2) is to iden- tify improvements by applicable general or specific plans or in other public docu- ments. In most cases, the CIP identifies projects for a limited number of years and may not include all improvements needed to serve future development covered by the impact fee study. We recommend that this development impact fee study be identified_ by the City Council as the public document on which the uss of the fees is based. Indexing of Impact Fees. Where impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs, those costs should, if possible, be adjusted at least annually to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capita assets that will be funded by the impact fees. That adjustment is intended to account for future escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles, etc. We recommend the Engineering News Record Build- ing Cost Index as the primary basis for indexing construction costs. Where land costs make up a significant portion of the costs covered by a fee, land costs should be ad- justed relative to changes in local land prices. Training and Public Information Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-7 City of Beaumont - Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study Implementation It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particu- lar impact fees should be made clear. Finally, anyone who is responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project man- agement for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. Some fees recommended in this report are tied to specific improvements and cost estimates. Fees must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly ex- pended. Recovery of Study Costs and Administration Costs To recover the cost of periodic impact fee update studies and ongoing staff costs for managing those updates and preparing annual reports and five-year updates re- quired by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66006 (b) (1) and 66001 (d)), an administrative fee may be added to the impact fees calculated in this report. Calculation of a proposed administrative fee provided in the Executive Summary of this report. August 15, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-8 CITY OF BEAUMONT General Plan LEGEND D are BOUNDARY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS I-1 RURAL RESIDENTIAL LJ SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL E. GENERAL COMMERCIAL INE COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL MIINDUSTRIAL L.;COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY 1-7 URBAN VILLAGEOVERIAY BEAUMONT AREA OVERLAY PUBLIC FACILITIES RECREATIONAND CONSERVATION 0 1,96) mpro ORD 12,000 rxei EXHIBIT "B" Chapter 3.22 LOCAL TRANSPORTATION FACILITY MITIGATION FEE PROGRAM Sections: 3.22.010 Purpose. 3.22.020 Terms and Definitions. 3.22.030 Adoption of the Facility Fee. 3.22.040 Applicability. 3.22.050 Amount of the Fee. 3.22.060 Payment of the Fee. 3.22.070 Credits and Reimbursements. 3.22.080 Exemptions. 3.22.090 Use of Funds. 3.22.100 Refunds. 3.22.110 Appeals. 3.22.120 Expiration of the Fee. 3.22.130 Supplementary Fee. 3.22.140 Severability. 3.22.010 Purpose. The City Council finds that the cumulative impact of all new development permitted under the General Plan will result in traffic volumes exceeding the capacity of the local roadway network as it presently exists causing unacceptable decreases in transportation service levels. To prevent these undesirable consequences, improvements to the local roadway network must be provided at a rate which will accommodate the expected growth in the City. The City Council acknowledges that the demand for transportation facilities varies by types of development. The Local Transportation Facility Mitigation Fee apportions the cost of the necessary improvements among the different types of new development according to the reasonably estimated demand that each type of development places upon transportation facilities. 3.22.020 Terms and Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated in this section: "Public Facilities" means those certain public facilities identified in that certain " City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study " dated , 2017, as it may hereafter be amended, which are necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare as may be determined by the City Council from time to time and which are not otherwise provided by, or required of new development within the City. Public Facilities shall also include architectural, administrative, engineering, legal, planning, environmental, plan check, inspection, surveying, construction management and other services required in connection with the implementation of this Chapter and the construction of the Public Facilities. "Developer" means an individual or entity submitting an application for a building permit or other entitlement for development. "Facility Fee" means the Local Transportation Facility Mitigation Fees developed pursuant to the "City of Beaumont Transportation Facilities Impact Fee Study " dated August , 2017, as it may hereafter be amended, and adopted, from time to time, pursuant to this Ordinance or by resolution of the City Council pursuant to Section 3.22.030. "Development" means: 1. A new residential unit, including conversion of an existing unit to more than one residential unit. 2. New commercial, office, and industrial development. "Fee Schedule" means the list of Facility Fees adopted by resolution of the City Council pursuant to Section 3.22.040 of this Chapter. 3.22.030 Adoption of the Facility Fee. There is hereby adopted the "City of Beaumont Road and Bridge Facility Fee" to be levied and collected as provided in this Chapter. The amount of the Facility Fee shall be established by this ordinance and, from time -to -time, by resolution of the City Council. 3.22.040 Applicability. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter, the Facility Fee is payable with respect to each development within the City for which a building permit is issued. 3.22.050 Amount of the Fee. A. The amount of the Facility Fee shall be automatically adjusted at the beginning of each fiscal year by an amount equal to the cumulative percentage increases in the Construction Cost Index of the Engineering News Record Index published for the month nearest the effective date of the adjustment as compared with the amount of the same in effect at the time of the nearest prior to the adoption of this Ordinance or the previous adjustment, as appropriate. The fee as revised annually, shall be calculated by the City Manager or his or her designee and shall be included in a report to the City Council. B. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the City Council by resolution. The fees may be increased or decreased to reflect changes in actual and estimated costs of the facilities, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the transportation system facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to design construct the transportation system C. The amount of the Facility Fee shall be calculated by the Building Department prior to issuance of the building permit, based upon the then -current fee schedule adopted by this Ordinance and by resolution of the City Council pursuant to this Chapter. D. In the event a developer does not agree with the calculation of the Facility Fee by the Building Department, he or she may within five (5) business days of the date of the calculation of the fee appeal the calculation of the fee to the Planning Director. E. The developer shall be notified in writing of the Planning Director's determination. Such determination shall be made within thirty (30) days of the Planning Director's receipt of the appeal. The developer may provide additional information to assist the Planning Director in making the determination. The developer may appeal the determination of the Planning Director to the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.22.110 of this Chapter. 3.22.060 Payment of the Fee. A. The full amount of the Fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit. B. No City official may issue a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or certify a final inspection for a development until the Fee required by this Chapter is paid. C. The City shall not accept prepayments of the Facility Fee unless prepayment is authorized in a development or other agreement or is otherwise approved by the City Council. 3.22.070 Credits and Reimbursements. If the developer desires to construct a Public Facility, the developer and the City Council may enter into an agreement regarding a credit or reimbursement of Facility Fees due or paid. 3.22.080 Exemptions. Unless a development or other agreement provides otherwise, the following projects shall be exempt, in whole or in part, from the Facility Fee otherwise required by this Chapter: A. Low income residential housing. B. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal residential dwelling unit and/or the replacement of an existing dwelling unit. C. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any non-residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage. Any increase in square footage shall pay the then -current Facility Fee. 3.22.090 Use of Funds. The fees collected pursuant to this Chapter shall, except for temporary investments or capital expenditures, shall be placed in the Local Transportation Facility Fee Fund and managed to prevent commingling of the fees with operating revenues or other funds of the City, and shall be used solely for the purposes of designing, acquiring and constructing the Public Facilities identified in the Fee Study and as provided in this Ordinance. Any interest income earned on the Fund shall only be expended for the purposes set forth in this Chapter. 3.22.100 Refunds. Refunds may be made where: A. Development has ceased, the building permit has expired and no extensions have been granted, or if granted, the extension(s) has expired; as to a development for which the Facility Fee required under this Chapter has been collected; provided that the claim for such a refund is filed no later than sixty (60) days after the expiration date of the building permit or any extension thereof as may have been approved by the City; or B. A refund is specifically authorized by resolution of the City Council adopted pursuant to Government Code section 66001 (d). Such amounts shall be refunded by the City to the then - current record owners of the development on a prorated basis. The City may effect such refund by direct payment, or by providing credit towards future Facility Fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of Government Code section 66001. 3.22.110 Appeals. A developer may appeal to the City Council any determination made pursuant to this Chapter. All appeals shall be in a form prescribed by the Planning Director and shall be filed within fifteen (15) days of the date of determination. Any appeal not filed within such period shall be deemed waived. The City Council shall set the matter for hearing within forty-five (45) days of the date of receipt by the City Clerk of the notice of the appeal. ORDINANCE NO. 1093 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 13.24 CONCERNING STORMWATER/URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROLS OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. SECTION 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance enforced. SECTION 3. Chapter 13.24 is hereby amended and restated in full to read as attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 4. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937. 1 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves this amendment to the City Code. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 19TH day of September, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Orozco PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 3rd day of October, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES ABSENT: Orozco ABSTAIN Attest: x. .;r- -4 City f/erk'� Approved as to form: Jol . Pinkney, City Attorney 2 Lloyd A. White, Mayor EXHIBIT "A" Chapter 13.24 STORMWATER/URBAN RUNOFF MANAGEMENT AND DISCHARGE CONTROLS 13.24.010 Purpose and intent. 13.24.020 Definitions. 13.24.030 Responsibility for administration. 13.24.040 Regulatory consistency. 13.24.050 Reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff. 13.24.060 Illicit connections or discharges. 13.24.070 Non-stormwater discharges. 13.24.080 Discharges in violation of permit. 13.24.090 Permits and approvals. 13.24.100 City authority to sample, inspect and monitor. 13.24.110 Establishment of a fee. 13.24.120 Orders by the city engineer. 13.24.130 Notice of violation. 13.24.140 Violations—Misdemeanors or infractions. 13.24.150 Penalty for violation. 13.24.160 Separate offenses. 13.24.170 Violations deemed a public nuisance. 13.24.180 Administrative enforcement powers. 13.24.190 Civil actions. 13.24.200 Severability. 13.24.010 Purpose and intent. A. The purpose of this chapter is to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public by: 1. Reducing pollutants in stormwater discharges to the maximum extent practicable; 2. Regulating illicit connections and discharges to the storm drain system; and 3. Regulating non-stormwater discharges to the storm drain system. B. The intent of this chapter is to protect and enhance the water quality of watercourses, water bodies, groundwater and wetlands in a manner pursuant to and consistent with the Federal Clean Water Act, the State Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and the conditions of any NPDES permit applicable to the city. 13.24.020 Definitions. The terms as used in this chapter shall have the following meanings: 3 "Best management practices (BMPs)" mean any activities, prohibitions, practices, procedures, programs or other measures designed to prevent or reduce the discharge of pollutants directly or indirectly into waters of the United States. BMPs mean and include, but are not limited to, those measures specified in the California Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbooks for municipal, industrial/commercial, new development and redevelopment and construction activity and other measures approved by the city engineer. "City" means the city of Beaumont. "City engineer" means the city engineer of the city. "Discharge" means, when used as a verb, to allow pollutants to directly or indirectly enter stormwater, or to allow stormwater or non-stormwater to directly or indirectly enter the MS4 or receiving waters from an activity or operation. When used as a noun, "discharge" means the pollutants, stormwater and non-stormwater that are discharged. "Discharger" shall mean any person engaged in activities or operations, or owning facilities, which may result in pollutants entering stormwater, the MS4 or receiving waters. Dischargers include, but are not limited to, real property owners, occupants, tenants, lessees, contractors, developers, managers and employees. "Green infrastructure" shall mean an array of products, technologies, and practices that use natural or engineered systems that mimic natural processes to enhance overall environmental quality. As a general principal, green infrastructure techniques use soils and vegetation to infiltrate, evapotranspirate, and/or recycle stormwater runoff "Illicit discharge" shall mean any discharge to the MS4 that is not composed entirely of stormwater runoff except discharges made pursuant to a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit or as otherwise authorized by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. "Illicit connection" shall mean any physical connection to a MS4 which has not been permitted by the city, the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District or other appropriate public agency. "Low impact development (LID)" shall mean any ecosystem -based approach to designing a hydrologically functional site that mimics predevelopment conditions. "Low volume road" shall mean roads with traffic indexes less than or equal to six (6.0). "Municipal NPDES permit" shall mean an area -wide NPDES permit issued to a 4 government agency or agencies for the discharge of stormwater from a MS4. "Municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4)" shall mean any facility within the city limits by which stormwater may be conveyed to waters of the United States. MS4 includes, but is not limited to, any roads with drainage systems, streets, curbs, gutters, catch basins, natural and artificial channels, ditches, aqueducts, storm drains, inlets, conduit or other drainage structure. "National pollutant discharge elimination system (NPDES) permit" shall mean a stormwater discharge permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board or the State Water Resources Control Board in compliance with the Clean Water Act. "Non-stormwater discharge" shall mean any discharge to the MS4 that is not entirely composed of stormwater. "Person" shall mean any natural person, firm, association, club, organization, corporation, partnership, business trust, company or other entity which is recognized by law as the subject of rights or duties. "Pollutant" shall mean anything which causes the deterioration of water quality such that it impairs subsequent and/or competing uses of the water. Pollutants may include, but are not limited to, paints, oil and other automotive fluids, soil, rubbish, trash, garbage, debris, refuse, waste, fecal matter, heavy metals, hazardous waste, chemicals, fresh concrete, yard waste from commercial landscaping operations, animal waste, materials that result from the process of constructing a building or structure, nauseous or offensive matter of any kind. "Premises" shall mean any building, lot, parcel of land, land or portion of land whether improved or unimproved. "Stormwater runoff' shall mean surface runoff and drainage associated with rainstorm events and snow melt. 13.24.030 Responsibility for administration. This chapter shall be administered for the city by the city engineer. The city engineer may appoint and authorize one or more members of the city staff to act as his/her designee(s) to administer or enforce this chapter. In the context of this chapter, the phrase "city engineer" includes each and all persons designated by the city engineer to assist in the administration and enforcement of this chapter, as limited by the terms of the delegation. 13.24.040 Regulatory consistency. This chapter shall be construed to assure consistency with the requirements of 5 the Clean Water Act, the Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act and acts amending or supplementary thereto, applicable implementing regulations and any existing or future municipal NPDES permits and any amendments or revisions thereto or reissuance thereof 13.24.050 Reduction of pollutants in stormwater runoff. A. In General. It is a violation of this chapter to throw, deposit, leave, maintain, keep or permit to be thrown, deposited, placed, left or maintained, any pollutant in or upon any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, conduit or other drainage structures, business place or upon any public or private plot of land in the city. The only exception is where such pollutant is temporarily placed in an appropriate container with a spill containment system for later collection and removal. It is a violation of this chapter to cause or permit any dumpster, solid waste bin or similar container to leak such that any pollutant is discharged into any street, alley, sidewalk, storm drain, inlet, catch basin, conduit or other drainage structures, business place or upon any public or private plot of land in the city. B. Construction Sites. Any person performing construction work in the city shall comply with the provisions of the ordinance codified in this chapter and other city ordinances for erosion and sediment control. C. New Development and Redevelopment. New development or redevelopment projects shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The city engineer shall identify the BMPs that shall be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. The BMPs may include, but are not limited to, the following and may, among other things, require new developments or redevelopments to do any of the following: 1. Increase permeable areas by leaving highly porous soil and low lying areas undisturbed; by incorporating landscaping, green roofs and open space into the project design; by using porous materials for or near driveways, drive aisles, parking stalls and low volume roads and walkways; and by incorporating detention ponds and infiltration pits into the project design. 2. Direct runoff to permeable areas by orienting it away from impermeable areas to swales, berms, green strip filters, gravel beds, rain gardens, pervious pavement or other approved green infrastructure and french drains; by installing rain -gutters oriented towards permeable areas; by modifying the grade of the property to divert flow to permeable areas and minimize the amount of stormwater runoff leaving the property; and by designing curbs, berms or other structures such that they do not isolate permeable or landscaped areas. 3. Maximize stormwater storage for reuse by using retention structures, subsurface areas, cisterns, or other structures to store stormwater runoff for reuse or 6 slow release. 4. Rain gardens may be proposed in -lieu of a water quality basin when applicable and approved by the city engineer. D. Existing Development. Existing development shall control stormwater runoff so as to prevent any deterioration of water quality that would impair subsequent or competing uses of the water. The city engineer shall identify the BMPs that may be implemented to prevent such deterioration and shall identify the manner of implementation. 13.24.060 Illicit connections or discharges. It is a violation of this chapter to establish, use, maintain or continue illicit connections to the storm drain system, or to commence or continue any illicit discharges to the storm drain system. This prohibition against illicit connections and discharges is expressly retroactive and applies to connections and discharges made in the past, regardless of whether permissible under the law or practices applicable or prevailing at the time of the connection or discharge. 13.24.070 Non-stormwater discharges. The discharge of non-stormwater into the storm drain system is a violation of this chapter except as specified below. A. The discharge prohibition shall not apply to any discharge regulated under an NPDES permit or waiver issued to the discharger and administered by the state of California under the authority of the EPA, provided that the discharger is in full compliance with all requirements of the permit or waiver and other applicable laws or regulations. B. Discharges from the following activities will not be considered a violation of this chapter when properly managed: water line flushing and other discharges from potable water sources, landscape irrigation and lawn watering, irrigation water, diverted stream flows, rising groundwaters, infiltration to separate storm drains, uncontaminated pumped groundwater, foundation and footing drains, water from crawl space pumps, air conditioning condensate, springs, individual residential car washing, flows from riparian habitats and wetlands, swimming pool discharges or flows from fire fighting. 13.24.080 Discharges in violation of permit. A. Municipal NPDES Permit. Any discharge that would result in or contribute to a violation of an existing or future municipal NPDES permit(s) or any amendment or revision thereto or reissuance thereof, either separately considered or when combined with other discharges, is a violation of this chapter and is 7 prohibited. Liability for any such discharge shall be the responsibility of the person(s) causing or responsible for the discharge, and such persons shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the city in any administrative or judicial enforcement action relating to such discharge. B. NPDES Permit for Industrial/Commercial and Construction Activity. Any industrial discharger, discharger associated with construction activity or other discharger subject to any NPDES permit issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the State Water Resources Control Board, or the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board, shall comply with all requirements of such permit. Such discharges shall specifically comply with the following permits: the industrial stormwater general permit, and the dewatering general permit. Proof of compliance with said NPDES general permits may be required in a form acceptable to the city engineer prior to issuance of any city grading, building, or occupancy permits. 13.24.090 Permits and approvals. Compliance with this chapter shall be a condition of every permit, license or approval granted or issued by the city. Failure to comply with the chapter shall be grounds for revocation of any such permit, license or approval. 13.24.100 City authority to sample, inspect and monitor. A. Regulatory Inspections. The city engineer may inspect the premises of any discharger at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner to carry out the purposes of this chapter. If a discharger refuses to allow entry for inspection, an inspection warrant shall be obtained prior to inspection. B. Scope of Inspections. Inspections may include all actions necessary to determine whether any illicit discharge/connection exist, whether the BMPs installed and implemented are adequate to comply with the chapter, whether those BMPs are being properly maintained and whether the discharger complies with other requirements of this chapter. This may include sampling, metering, monitoring, visual inspections and records review. Records, reports, analyses or other required information may be inspected and copied, and photographs may be taken for purposes of enforcement of this chapter. 13.24.110 Establishment of a fee. The city council may establish a fee by resolution to recover the cost of inspection, sampling, metering and monitoring by the city engineer. 13.24.120 Orders by the city engineer. The city engineer is authorized to issue cease and desist orders or stop -work orders to any person who is in violation of this chapter. Failure to comply with a written order of the city engineer shall be a violation of this chapter and shall be grounds for the imposition of civil penalties described in this chapter. 13.24.130 Notice of violation. A. Whenever the city engineer finds that a person has violated a prohibition or failed to meet a requirement of this chapter, the city engineer may order compliance by written notice of violation to the responsible person. Such notice may require without limitation: 1. The performance of monitoring, analyses and reporting; 2. The elimination of illicit connections or discharges; 3. That violating discharges, practices or operations cease and desist; 4. The abatement or remediation of stormwater pollution or contamination hazards and the restoration of any affected property; 5. Payment of a fine to cover administrative and remediation costs; and 6. The implementation or maintenance of source control and treatment control BMPs. B. If an abatement of a violation and/or restoration of affected property is required, the notice shall set forth a deadline within which such remediation or restoration must be completed. The notice shall further advise that, should the violator fail to remediate or restore within the established deadline, the work will be done by the city or a contractor designated by the city engineer and the expense thereof shall be charged to the violator pursuant to Chapter 8.32 of this code. A notice issued under this chapter shall identify the provisions of this chapter which have been violated and shall state the recipient has a right to appeal as set forth in Chapter 1.17 of this code. C. The notice shall be served upon the recipient as set forth in Chapter 1.17 of this code. 13.24.140 Violations—Misdemeanors or infractions. A violation of any provision of this chapter, or failure to comply with any of the mandatory requirements of this chapter, shall constitute an infraction. Repeated violations may be prosecuted as misdemeanors at the discretion of the city attorney. 13.24.150 Penalty for violation. 9 Upon conviction of a misdemeanor for violating any provision of this chapter, a person shall be subject to payment of a fine, or imprisonment, or both, not to exceed the limits set forth by law. Upon conviction of an infraction for violating any provision of this chapter, a person shall be subject to payment of a fine, not to exceed the limits set forth by law. 13.24.160 Separate offenses. A person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this chapter is committed, continued or permitted. 13.24.170 Violations deemed a public nuisance. The city council hereby declares that any violation of this chapter is a threat to the public health, safety and welfare, and is therefore a public nuisance which may be summarily abated. The cost of such abatement shall be borne by the owner of the premises and the cost thereof may be imposed as a lien upon the premises, and such lien shall continue in existence until it is paid. 13.24.180 Administrative enforcement powers. In addition to any other enforcement powers and remedies established by this chapter, an authorized enforcement officer has the authority to issue administrative citations and fines for violations of this chapter pursuant to Chapter 1.17 of this code. 13.24.190 Civil actions. In addition to any other remedies provided in this chapter, any violation of this chapter may be enforced by civil action brought by the city. In any such action, the city may seek, and the court may grant, as appropriate, any or all of the following remedies: A. A temporary and/or permanent injunction; B. Assessment of the violator for the costs of any investigation, or monitoring survey which led to the establishment of the violation, and for the reasonable costs of preparing and bringing legal action under this subsection including, but noit limited to, atttorneys' fees; C. Costs incurred in removing, correcting or terminating the adverse effects resulting from the violation; or D. Compensatory damages for loss or destruction to water quality, wildlife, fish 10 and aquatic life. 13.24.200 Severability. If any provision, clause, sentence or paragraph of the ordinance codified in this chapter or the application thereof to any person, establishment or circumstances shall be held invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions or application of that ordinance which can be given effect without the invalid provision or application, and to this end, the provisions of this chapter are hereby declared to be severable. 11 ORDINANCE NO. 1094 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTER 13.20 OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE, REGULATING THE DISCHARGE OF WASTES INTO THE PUBLIC SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS IN THE CITY OF BEAUMONT AND REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 627 THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT does hereby ordain as follows: Chapter 13.20 of the City of Beaumont Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows: SECTIONS: I. PREAMBLE 13.20.100 Purpose and Policy 13.20.105 Definitions and Abbreviations II. GENERAL PROVISIONS 13.20.200 Administration 13.20.201 Permit Required 13.20.202 Design and Construction of Sewer Service Laterals 13.20.203 Responsibility for Sewer Service Lateral Installation, Maintenance, and Replacement 13.20.204 Responsibility for Removal of Obstructions in Sewer Service Laterals 13.20.205 Authorization for New or Increased Pollutant Discharge or Changes in the Nature of Pollutant Discharges 13.20.207 Record Keeping 13.20.210 General Discharge Prohibitions 13.20.211 Specific Discharge Prohibitions 1 13.20.215 Prohibitions Against Discharging Solid or Fluid Materials to Watercourse 13.20.220 Prohibitions Against Discharging Pollutants to the Ground 13.20.222 Point of Discharge Limits 13.20.223 Prohibition Against Dilution 13.20.225 Special Restrictions, Vehicle Servicing Facilities 13.20.230 Restrictions on Water-Softening Wastes 13.20.235 Special Restrictions, Food Processing Facilities 13.20.237 Conditional Waivers 13.20.240 Specific Local Discharge Limits 13.20.242 Prohibition on Disposal of Spent Solutions and Sludges 13.20.243 Prohibition on Discharge of Medical Waste 13.20.245 Categorical Pretreatment Standards 13.20.247 Mass Emission Rates 13.20.250 Pretreatment 13.20.252 Prohibited Discharge of Recovered Pretreatment Wastes 13.20.253 Gravity Separation Interceptor 13.20.255 Monitoring Facilities 13.20.257 Flow Metering Facilities 13.20.260 Inspection and Sampling 13.20.262 Sampling and Analysis - Fee - Billing 13.20.265 Confidential Information 13.20.267 Industrial User Survey 13.20.270 Reporting Changes in Discharge, Slug Loading, and Potential Problems 13.20.272 Notification of Bypass 2 13.20.275 Annual Public Notice of Significant Non-compliance 13.20.280 Damage to City's Equipment or Facilities 13.20.282 Compensation for Unauthorized Discharges 13.20.284 Charges 13.20.286 City's Right of Revision 13.20.295 Interpretation 13.20.296 Severability III. PERMITS 13.20.300 Wastewater Discharge Permits 13.20.305 Permit Applications 13.20.310 Permit Modifications 13.20.315 Permit Contents 13.20.320 Permit Duration and Duty to Reapply 13.20.325 Permit Transfer 13.20.330 Reporting Requirements 13.20.335 Spill Containment Facilities 13.20.340 Signatory and Certification Requirements IV. ENFORCEMENT 13.20.400 General Enforcement 13.20.401 Notification of Violation (NOV) 13.20.402 Compliance Time Schedule (CTS) 13.20.403 Administrative Orders (AO) 13.20.404 Compliance Orders 13.20.405 Cease and Desist Orders 13.20.406 Determination of Non -Compliance with Discharge Limits 13.20.407 Non -Compliance Monitoring Program 3 13.20.408 13.20.410 13.20.415 13.20.416 13.20.417 13.20.419 13.20.420 13.20.425 13.20.427 13.20.428 13.20.430 13.20.440 13.20.445 13.20.450 13.20.460 13.20.470 Permit Suspension or Revocation Termination of Service Emergency Suspension of Service Public Nuisance Criminal Penalties Search or Inspection Warrants Legal Action Civil Penalties Appeals to the City Council Financial Security/Amendments to Permit Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) Notice of Discharge Prohibition Industrial Waste Pass Through or Interference Publication of Violation Recovery of Costs Incurred by the City Judicial Review V. ADOPTION 13.20.500 Effective Date — Annexations 13.20.505 Effective Date 13.08.510 Conflicts I. PREAMBLE: 13.20.100 Purpose and Policy. This Chapter sets forth uniform requirements for all Users of the Beaumont wastewater collection and treatment system, which serves the City and certain unincorporated areas of Riverside County. Capitalized terms as used in this Chapter are defined in Section 13.25.105. The City discharges treated effluent from the Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant (hereinafter "Plant") into permeable soil structures and surface waters of the State. The chemical nature of this effluent affects the quality of water flowing in the receiving stream as well as the quality of underground waters in the vicinity. 4 The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region, (hereinafter the "Regional Board") has established discharge limitations for the chemical content of sewage effluent discharged by the City. These limitations are set forth from time to time in duly enacted Resolutions and Orders of the Regional Board. In order to conform to such sewage effluent discharge limitations and requirements, the City must regulate the discharge of waste to the Publically Owner Treatment Plant or "POTW" and the flow of waste into its storm drain system. This Ordinance shall allow the City to comply with all applicable State and Federal laws required by the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.0 1251 et. seq.) and the General Pretreatment Regulations (40 CFR 403). The objectives of this Ordinance are: A. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the Wastewater system which may interfere with the operation of the system, including but not limited to blockages caused by solids or Fats, Oils, and Grease "FOG" or pollutants that contaminate the resulting sludge; B. To prevent the introduction of pollutants into the Wastewater system which may pass through the system, inadequately treated, into surface waters, groundwaters, the atmosphere, or otherwise be incompatible with the system; C. To ensure the quality of sludge to allow its disposal in compliance with statutes and regulations; D. To protect the general public and POTW personnel; E. To improve the opportunity to recycle and reclaim wastewater and sludge; F. To provide equitable distribution of costs of operation, maintenance, and improvement of the POTW; and G. To enable the POTW to comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permit conditions, sludge use and disposal requirements and any other Federal or State laws. 5 This Ordinance shall apply to all Users of the POTW. The Ordinance provides for regulation through issuance of Permits to certain non-domestic Users and enforcement of general requirements for the other Users. The Ordinance also authorizes monitoring, compliance and enforcement activities, requires User reporting, establishes administrative review procedures, and provides for the setting of fees for the equitable distribution of costs for sewer service. 13.20.105 Definitions and Abbreviations. Unless the context specifically indicates otherwise, the following terms and phrases used in this Ordinance shall have the meanings hereinafter designated: 1. Act or "the Act". The Federal Water Pollution Control Act, also known as the Clean Water Act, as amended, 33 U.S.C. 1251, et seq. Pursuant to California Water Code §13370 et seq., the State is authorized to implement the provisions of the Act. 2. Approved Analytical Methods. The sampling referred to in 40 CFR Part 403, Appendix E, and analysis of samples so collected, shall be performed in accordance with the techniques prescribed in 40 CFR Part 136 and amendments thereto. Where 40 CFR Part 136 does not contain sampling or analytical techniques for the pollutant in question, or where the EPA determines that the Part 136 sampling and analytical techniques are inappropriate for the Pollutant in question, sampling and analysis shall be performed using other sampling and analytical procedures approved by the City and the EPA. 3. Approval Authority. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 4. Approved Pretreatment Program. Shall mean a program administered by a POTW that meets the criteria established in 40 CFR403.8 and 403.9 and which has been approved by a Regional Administrator or State Director in accordance with 40 CFR403.11. 5. Authorized Representative of Industrial User. An Authorized Representative of an Industrial User means: 6 a. A responsible corporate officer, if the User submitting required reports is a corporation; b. A general partner or proprietor if the User submitting the required reports is a partnership or sole proprietorship respectively; c. The person in responsible charge, if the User is a governmental agency; or d. An individual responsible for the overall operation of the facility from which the discharge originates. If authorization under this definition is no longer accurate because a different individual or position has responsibility for the overall operation of the facility, or overall responsibility for environmental matter for the company, a new authorization satisfying the requirements of these definitions shall be submitted to the City prior to or together with any reports to be signed by the new authorized representative. 6. Best Management Practices. The schedule of activities, prohibition of practices, maintenance procedures, and other management practices to implement the prohibitions listed in 40 CFR 403.5 (a) (1) and (b). BMPs also include treatment requirements, operating procedures, and practices to control site runoff, spillage or leaks, sludge or waste disposal, or drainage of raw materials storage. 7. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD). The quantity of oxygen (expressed in mg/L), required to biochemically oxidize the organic material in a Wastewater sample over a five-day period at 20 degrees centigrade. 8. BMR. Baseline Monitoring Report. This is the first report required by an Industrial User that determined to be subject to a Categorical Pretreatment Standard. The purpose of the BMR is to provide information to the Control Authority to document the industrial user's current compliance with a Categorical Pretreatment Standard. 9. BOD. Biochemical Oxygen Demand (five-day). See definition under "Biochemical Oxygen Demand." 7 10. Bypass. The intentional diversion of wastestreams from any portion of an Industrial User's pretreatment facilities. 11. Categorical Industrial User. An Industrial User who is subject to any promulgated Categorical Standard. 12. Categorical Pretreatment Standard or Categorical Standard. Any regulation containing Pollutant discharge limits promulgated by EPA in accordance with sections 307 (b) and (c) of the Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1317) which apply to a specific category of Users and which appear in 40 CFR Chapter 1, Subchapter N, Parts 405-471, as it exists and as it may be amended. 13. CFR. Code of Federal Regulations. 14. Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD). The quantity of oxygen (expressed in mg/L) required to chemically oxidize the contents of a Wastewater sample under specific conditions of oxidizing agent, temperature, and time. 15. City. The City of Beaumont or the City Council of the City of Beaumont. 16. Class 1 User. A Categorical Industrial User. 17. Class II User. A Non -Categorical Significant Industrial User. 18. Class III User. A Non -Significant Industrial User, including a Non -Significant Categorical Industrial Users (NSCIU). 19. Class IV User. A Temporary Industrial User. 20. Class V User. A Wastehauler. 21. COD. Chemical Oxygen Demand. See definition under "Chemical Oxygen Demand." 22. Compliance Time Schedule (CTS). A formal timetable issued by the Director for Users to achieve compliance with the provisions of this Chapter and/or a Wastewater Discharge Permit. Each Compliance Time Schedule shall contain milestone dates as well as a final compliance date. 8 23. Composite Sample. A sample which is collected from a Wastewater discharge at selected intervals over a time period of twenty-four hours. A composite sample may be collected using automatic continuous or discrete sampling equipment, or by manually collecting a minimum of four grab samples. When specified by the Director, composite samples shall be collected in a manner which is proportional to the flow rate of the discharge. 24. Constituent. Any physical, chemical, or microbiological component or parameter of water or Wastewater which can be quantified using Approved Analytical Methods. 25. Control Authority. The term Control Authority refers to: a. The POTW if the POTW's Pretreatment Program Submission has been approved in accordance with the requirements of 40 CFR 403.11; or b. The Approval Authority if the Submission has not been approved. 26. County. The County of Riverside or the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside. 27. Daily Maximum Limit. The term means the maximum allowable discharge limit that may be discharged during a calendar day and may be expressed as a concentration and/or lbs/day limit. 28. Director. The Public Works Director/City Engineer for the City of Beaumont or his authorized representative, agent or deputy. 29. Discharge: Shall mean the introduction of pollutants into a POTW from any non- domestic source regulated under section 307(b), (c) or (d) of the Clean Water Act. 30. Discharger. Any person who, directly or indirectly, causes or contributes to a discharge into the POTW. 31. Discharge to the Ground. The discharge of wastewater to or into the soil which is not contained in an impermeable facility approved by the Director. 32. Domestic Wastewater. Water bearing wastes from residences and other premises resulting from personal use of water for ordinary living processes of humans and of 9 such a character as to permit satisfactory disposal, without special treatment, into the POTW. The typical strength shall be considered from 250-300 mg/L each for Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD) and for Total Suspended Solids (TSS). 33. Effluent. The treated Wastewater flowing from the Wastewater Treatment Facilities, or the Non -Domestic Wastewater discharged by an Industrial User, to the POTW. 34. Enforcement Response Plan (ERP).. A plan that details the progressive responses to escalating non-compliance issues related to violation(s) of a wastewater discharge permit or any section of this Ordinance. 35. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) or, where appropriate, the term may also be used as a designation for the Administrator or other duly authorized official of the agency. 36. Exchange -Type Water Conditioning Equipment. Water conditioning equipment that is removed for regeneration from the premises at which it is normally operated to a commercial regeneration facility. 37. Fats, Oils, and Grease (FOG). Organic polar compounds derived from animal and/or plant sources that contain multiple carbon chain triglyceride molecules. These substances are detectable and measurable using analytical test procedures established in 40 CFR 136, as may be amended. 38. Federal Regulations. Any applicable provision of the Act as amended and any regulation promulgated by the EPA under Title 40 CFR implementing the Act. 39. Food Processing Facilities. Those wholesale or retail facilities which handle, process or prepare food intended for human and/or animal consumption. 40. Grab Sample. A sample which is collected from a Wastewater discharge, without regard to the flow in the wastestream, over a period of time not exceeding fifteen minutes. 41. Gravity Separation Interceptor (or Grease Interceptor). A detention chamber designed to remove oil and grease, and solids from Wastewater before discharge to the 10 POTW and which detention chamber is acceptable to the Director. 42. Grease. See definition under "Oil and Grease." 43. Hazardous Substance. Any substance which is toxic, explosive, corrosive, flammable or an irritant, or which generates pressure through heat or decomposition including but not limited to, any substances determined to be a toxic or hazardous substance pursuant to Section 307 and 311(b)(2) of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C., Section 1251, et seq., or its implementing regulations at 40 CFR Parts 116 and 129; any substance classified as a hazardous substance pursuant to California Water Code Section 13050(p) and; any imminently hazardous chemical substance subject to regulation under the Toxic Mixtures or Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C., Section 2601, et seq. 44. Hazardous Waste. Any Hazardous Substance which is either the resultant and/or intermediate or final by-product of any process. 45. Indirect Discharge. See Discharge. 46. Industrial User (IU). Any Non -Residential User who discharges Non -Domestic Wastewater to the POTW. 47. Instantaneous Maximum Allowable Discharge Limit. The maximum concentration of a Pollutant allowed to be discharged at any time, determined from the analysis of any discrete or composited sample collected independent of the Industrial flow rate and duration of the sample event. 48. Interference. Shall mean a discharge which, alone or in conjunction with a discharge or discharges from other sources, both: a. Inhibits or disrupts the POTW, its treatment processes or operations, or its sludge processes, use or disposal; and b. Causes a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation) or of the prevention of sewage sludge use or disposal in compliance with the following statutory 11 provisions and regulations or permits issued thereunder (or more stringent State or local regulations): Section 405 of the Clean Water Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act (SWDA) (including Title II, more commonly referred to as the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), and including State regulations contained in any applicable State sludge management plan prepared pursuant to Subtitle D of the SWDA), the Clean Air Act, the Toxic Substances Control Act, and the Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act. 49. L. Liter 50. LEL. (Lower Explosive Limit). See definition under "Lower Explosive Limit." 51. Local Limits. Discharge limits developed and enforced by the City upon industrial or commercial facilities to implement the general and specific discharge prohibitions listed in 40 CFR 403.5(a)(1) and (b). 52. Lower Explosive Limit ( LEL). The minimum concentration of a combustible gas or vapor in the air which will ignite if an ignition source is present. 53. Mass Emission Rate. The mass of material discharged to the POTW during a given time interval. Unless otherwise specified, the mass emission rate shall be expressed in pounds per day of a particular constituent or combination of constituents. 54. May is permissive. 55. MBAS. Methylene Blue Activated Substances. 56. Medical Waste. Isolated wastes, infectious agents, human blood and blood products, pathological wastes, sharps, body parts, formites, etiologic agents, contaminated bedding, surgical wastes, potentially contaminated laboratory wastes, dialysis wastes, hypodermic needles, syringes, instruments, utensils or any other paper or plastic items of disposable nature used for medically related purposes. The term "Medical Waste" shall exclude de minimus amounts of wastes, human blood and paper items of a disposable nature associated with Domestic Wastewater discharges. 12 57. Mme. Milligrams. 58. Milligrams per liter (mg/LI. Shall mean unit of the concentration of water or Wastewater constituent. It is 1 gram of the constituent in 1,000 liters of water. 59. Monthly Average Limit. Shall mean the highest allowable average of daily discharges over a calendar month, calculated as the sum of all daily discharges measured during a calendar month divided by the number of daily discharges measured during that month 60. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. The permit issued pursuant to Section 402 of the Act (33 U.S.C. 1342) for the City's POTW treatment plant. 61. New Source. Is defined in 40 CFR 403.3 and shall mean any building, structure, facility or installation from which there is or may be a Discharge of pollutants, the construction of which commenced after the publication of proposed Pretreatment Standards under section 307(c) of the Act which will be applicable to such source if such Standards are thereafter promulgated in accordance with that section, provided that: a. The building, structure, facility or installation is constructed at a site at which no other source is located; or b. The building, structure, facility or installation totally replaces the process or production equipment that causes the discharge of pollutants at an existing source; or c. The production or wastewater generating processes of the building, structure, facility or installation are substantially independent of an existing source at the same site. In determining whether these are substantially independent, factors such as the extent to which the new facility is integrated with the existing plant, and the extent to which the new facility is engaged in the same general type of activity as the existing source should be considered. 13 62. Non -Categorical Significant Industrial User. A Significant Industrial User who is not subject to promulgated Categorical Standards. 63. Non -Contact Cooling or Heating Water. Water discharge from any use which has no direct contact with any raw material, intermediate or final product, and to which the only Pollutant added is heat. 64. Non-domestic Wastewater. All Wastewater except Domestic Wastewater and Unpolluted Water as defined herein. Non-domestic Wastewater shall include, but not be limited to, Wastewater resulting from Industrial, commercial, producing, manufacturing, processing, institutional, governmental, and agricultural operations, and brine Wastewater resulting from the regeneration of water conditioning devices. All liquid Wastewater hauled by truck, rail, or any other means shall also be considered as Non -Domestic Wastewater, regardless of the original source of the wastes. 65. Non -Significant Categorical Industrial User (NSCIU) A Categorical Industrial User that meets all of the following requirements: (a) never discharges more than 100 gallons per day of a total categorical wastewater (excluding sanitary, non -contact cooling and boiler blowdown wastewater, unless specifically included in the applicable Pretreatment Standard); (b) if an existing facility has consistently complied with all applicable categorical Pretreatment Standards and requirements; (c) annually submits the certification statement required in §403.12(q) together with any additional information necessary to support the certification statement; (d) never discharges any untreated concentrated wastewater; and (e) is found by the Director to have no reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or for violating any Pretreatment Standard or requirement. 66. Non -Significant Industrial User (NSIUL Any Industrial User who is not a Significant Industrial User, including without limitation any NSCIU. 67. NPDES. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System. 68. NPDES PERMIT. National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit. See 14 definition under "National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit." 69. Oil and Grease. Any of the following in part of in combination: a. Petroleum derived products, e.g., oils, fuels, lubricants, solvents; b. Vegetable derived products, e.g., oils, shortenings, soluble cutting oils; c. Animal derived products, e.g., fats, greases, oils, lard. 70. Pass Through. A discharge which exits the POTW into waters of the United States in quantities or concentrations which, alone or in conjunction with other discharges, causes a violation of any requirement of the POTW's NPDES permit (including an increase in the magnitude or duration of a violation). 71. Permittee. Any User or group of Users which are issued a Permit to discharge to the POTW pursuant to Sections 13.08.300 et seq. of the Beaumont Municipal Code. The Permit may be an individual (for a specific Industrial User) or group (general) permit as deemed appropriate by the Director to control wastewater discharges to the POTW. 72. Person. Any individual, partnership, co -partnership, firm, company, corporation, association, joint stock company, trust, estate, governmental entity or any other legal entity, or their representatives, agents, or assigns. 73. The logarithm (base 10) of the reciprocal of the concentration of hydrogen ions, as analyzed in accordance with Approved Analytical Methods. pH represents both acidity and alkalinity on a scale ranging from 0 to 14 where 7 represents neutrality, numbers less than 7 increasing acidity and more than 7 increasing alkalinity. 74. Plumbing Official. Plumbing Official shall mean the Director of Community Development of the City or his authorized representative or deputy. 75. Pollutant. Any constituent or characteristic (including but not limited to pH, temperature, TSS, turbidity, color, BOD, COD, toxicity or odor) of Wastewater on which a discharge limit may be imposed either by the City or regulatory bodies empowered to regulate the POTW; and any dredged spoil, solid waste, incinerator residue, filter backwash, sewage, 15 garbage, sewage sludge, munitions, Medical Wastes, chemicals wastes, biological materials, radioactive materials, heat, wrecked or discharged equipment, rock, sand, cellar dirt, and Industrial, municipal, and agriculture wastes. 76. Pollution. The man-made or man -induced adverse alteration of the chemical, physical, biological, or radiological integrity of water. 77. POTW. Publicly Owned Treatment Works. See definition under "Publicly Owned Treatment Works." 78. POTW Treatment Plant. The portion of the POTW designed to provide treatment to Wastewater. 79. Pretreatment or Treatment. The reduction of the amount of Pollutants, the elimination of Pollutants, or the alteration of the nature of Pollutant properties in Wastewater to a less harmful state prior to or in lieu of discharging or otherwise introducing such Pollutants into a POTW. The reduction or alteration can be obtained by physical, chemical, or biological processes, or process changes of other means, except, as prohibited by 40 CFR Section 403.6(d), with the use of dilution. 80. Pretreatment Requirements. Any substantive or procedural pretreatment requirement, other than a Pretreatment Standard, imposed on an Industrial User. 81. Pretreatment Standard. Any regulation containing Pollutant discharge limits or prohibitions promulgated by EPA or the City, applicable to Industrial Users, including promulgated Categorical Standards; National Prohibitive Discharge Standards developed pursuant to Section 307(b) of the Act and 40 CFR 403.5, general discharge prohibitions contained in Section 13.20.210 herein; and any specific local discharge limits established by the City. 82. Pretreatment Wastes. All wastes liquid or solids, removed from a waste stream or discharge by physical, chemical or biological means. 83. Process Wastewater. means any water which, during manufacturing or 16 processing, comes into direct contact with or results from the production or use of any raw material, intermediate product, finished product, by-product, or waste product. 84. Public Sewer. Any sewer located in or maintained by the City of Beaumont. The term as used herein does not include storm drains or channels for conveyance of natural surface waters. 85. Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTW). The Beaumont Wastewater Treatment Plant and any other devices or systems used by the City in the storage, conveyance (including all sewers, pipes, lift stations, and other conveyances which convey Wastewater to the Wastewater treatment plant), treatment, recycling, and reclamation of municipal sewage. 86. RCRA. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq.) as amended or revised. 87. Regional Board. The California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. 88. Responsible Corporate Officer. a. A president, secretary, treasurer, or vice president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for the corporation. b. The Manager of one or more manufacturing, production, or operation facilities employing more than 250 persons or having gross annual sales or expenditures exceeding $25 million (in second-quarter 1980 dollars), if authority to sign documents has been assigned or delegated to the Manager in accordance with corporate procedures. 89. Restaurants. Restaurants shall include, but not be limited to, retail establishments selling prepared foods and drinks for consumption or off the premises. 90. Sample Point. A location approved by the Director from which Wastewater that 17 is representative in content and consistency of the entire flow of Wastewater being sampled can be collected. 91. Septic Waste. Any sewage from holding tanks such as vessels, chemical toilets, campers, trailers, septic tanks and vacuum pump trucks. 92. Service Area. The area in which discharges to the Sewerage System flow to, or are intended by the City to flow to, the POTW. 93. Sewage. Human excrement and gray water (household showers, dishwashing operations, etc.). 94. Sewer Collection System. All facilities, owned and maintained by the City, that are used for collecting, conveying, pumping, treating and disposing of wastewater, excluding sewer service laterals. 95. Sewer Service Lateral. The wastewater collection pipe extending from the structure where the wastewater is generated up to and including the connection to the City's sewer collection system. 96. Shall is mandatory. 97. SIC. Standard Industrial Classification. 98. Significant Industrial User (SIU). An Industrial User of the POTW who (1) is subject to categorical standards, or (2) has an average daily discharge of twenty-five thousand gallons or more of process wastewater (excluding sanitary waste, unpolluted water, and boiler/cooling tower blowdown discharges), or (3) has a discharge which makes up five percent or more of the average dry -weather hydraulic or organic capacity of the wastewater treatment facilities receiving the wastewater, or (4) has in its wastes toxic pollutants as defined pursuant to Section 307 of the Act, or (5) is designated by the Director to have a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or violating any applicable pretreatment standard, requirement or discharge limit set forth in this Chapter. 99. Significant Non -Compliance (SNC). Violations of pretreatment standards or 18 requirements, which include violations of effluent limits, sampling violations, analysis violations, reporting violations, compliance schedule and regulatory deadline violations, which satisfy one or more of the following criteria: a. Violations of wastewater discharge limits: i. Chronic Violations. Sixty-six percent or more of all the measurements taken for the same pollutant parameter during a six-month period exceed (by any magnitude) a numeric Pretreatment Standard or Requirement, including instantaneous limits, as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(1); ii. Technical Review Criteria (TRC) Violations. Thirty-three percent or more of all the measurements for the same pollutant parameter during a six-month period exceed (by any magnitude) a numeric Pretreatment Standard or Requirement including instantaneous limits, as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(1) multiplied by the applicable TRC (TRC=1.4 for BOD, TSS, fats, oil, and grease, and 1.2 for all other pollutants except pH); iii. Any other violation of a Pretreatment Standard or Requirement as defined by 40 CFR 403.3(1) (daily maximum or long-term average, instantaneous limit, or narrative standard) that the Director determines has caused, alone or in combination with other discharges, interference or pass through (including endangering the health of the POTW personnel or the public). iv. Any discharge of a pollutant that has caused imminent endangerment to human health or welfare or to the environment or has resulted in the POTW's exercise of its emergency authority to halt or prevent such a discharge. v Failure to meet, within ninety days after the schedule date, a compliance milestone contained in a local control mechanism or enforcement order for starting construction, completing construction, achieving final compliance; 19 vi. Failure to provide, within 45 days after the due date, required reports such as baseline monitoring reports, 90 -day compliance reports, periodic self- monitoring reports, and reports on compliance with compliance schedules; vii. Failure to accurately report noncompliance. viii. Any other violation or group of violations, which may include a violation of Best Management Practices, which the Director determines will adversely affect the operation or implementation of the Pretreatment Program. 100. Single pass non -contact cooling or heating water. Water used solely for the purpose of cooling or heating, which has no direct contact with any raw material, or any intermediate, final or waste product, and which is used only once and then discarded. 101. SIU. See definition under "Significant Industrial User." 102. Slug Discharge Control Plan. A plan submitted to the City by a User pursuant to Section 13.08.330 D of this Chapter, which specifies to the Director's satisfaction the potential pollutants used and/or stored at the User's facility; potential pathways of entry of the potential pollutants into the POTW; and facilities and procedures for preventing or controlling the occurrence of slug loading. 103. Slug Loading (slug discharaeJ. The discharge of any pollutant, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.), which is released at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which may cause pass through of or interference with the POTW. 104. SNC. Significant Non-compliance. See definition under "Significant noncompliance." 105. Solvent Management Plan (Toxic Organic Management Plan). A plan submitted to the City by an Industrial User pursuant to Section 13.20.330 C of this section, which specifies to the Director's satisfaction the solvents and other toxic organic compounds used and stored; the methods of delivery, storage, and disposal used; and procedures for assuring that solvents and other toxic organics do not routinely spill or leak into the POTW or ground. 20 106. Specific Compliance Plan. A plan submitted to the City by an Industrial User pursuant to Section 13.08.330 E of this section, which specifies to the Director's satisfaction the cause of noncompliance, the corrective actions which will be taken to prevent recurrence of the noncompliance, and, if required by the Director, a proposed compliance time schedule. 107. Spent Solutions. Any concentrated Non-domestic wastewater (Le., plating solutions and static rinses), which contains concentrations of pollutants, the discharge of which may cause interference, pass through or a violation of any pretreatment standard or requirement. 108. Spill containment. A protection system to prevent the discharge of noncompliant pollutants to the sewerage system. 109. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC). A classification pursuant to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual issued by the Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, 1987 or latest edition thereof. 110. Standard Methods. "Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater," latest edition, prepared and published by the American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, and Water Environment Federation, which specifies accepted procedures used to assess the quality of water and wastewater. 111. State. State of California. 112. State Water Board. The state of California Water Resources Control Board. 113. Stormwater. Any flow of water resulting from natural precipitation. 114. Stormwater System. All stormwater conveyance and treatment facilities located within the City including, but not limited to storm drains, catch basins, storm drain manholes, and storm water pumping facilities. 115. SWDA. Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. 6901 et seq. 116. TDS. Total Dissolved Solids. See definition under "Total Dissolved solids." 117. Temporary Industrial User. Any Industrial User who is granted temporary 21 permission by the Director to discharge unpolluted water or wastewater to the POTW. Such temporary permission shall not be granted to Industrial Users subject to promulgated categorical standards. 118. TFR. Total Filterable Residue. See definition under "Total Suspended Solids." 119. Total Dissolved Solids (TDS). The quantity of nonvolatile substances remaining after filtration through a standard filter and drying to constant weight at 180 degrees C, expressed in terms of milligrams per liter (mg/I) and analyzed in accordance with approved analytical methods. TDS is synonymous with total filterable residue (TFR). 120. Total suspended solids. The concentration of nonfilterable residue determined in conformance with standard methods procedures 121. Total Toxic Organics (TTO). The sum of the concentrations for each of the toxic organic compounds regulated by applicable categorical standards which are found in the User's discharge at a concentration greater than 0.010 mg/L, and analyzed in accordance with approved analytical methods. The local limit TTO constituents shall be defined in the local limit resolution. 122. Toxic pollutant. Any pollutant or combination of pollutants listed as toxic in 40 CFR 401.15 or 40 CFR 403, Appendix B. 123. TRC. Technical Review Criteria. 124. TSS. Total Suspended Solids. 125. Unpolluted water. Non-contact cooling or heating water, air conditioning condensate, ice melt, condensate, rain water, or uncontaminated groundwater, surface water, stormwater or other water to which no pollutant has been added either intentionally or unintentionally. 126. U.S.C. United States Code. 127. User. Any person who contributes, causes, or permits the contribution of wastewater into the POTW. 22 128. Wastehauler. Any person engaging in vehicular transport of waste, as part of or incidental to any business, for the purpose of discharging the transported waste to the POTW. 129. Wastewater. The liquid and water -carried domestic wastes or non-domestic wastes from dwellings, commercial buildings, Industrial facilities, and institutions, together with any groundwater, surface water, and stormwater that may be present, whether treated or untreated, which is contributed into or permitted to enter the POTW. 130. Wastewater Discharge Permit or Permit. The regulatory procedure established and enforced by the Director to control the flow and quality of wastes discharged into the POTW. 131. Wastewater Treatment Facilities. The structures, equipment, and processes maintained by the City which accept untreated sewage from the public sewer and which treat and dispose of domestic and non-domestic wastewater. 132. Water conditioning equipment. Any device or apparatus used to soften or otherwise condition water, including zeolite or resinous anion or cation exchange softeners, demineralizers or any other like device. 133. Waters of the States. All streams, lakes, ponds, marshes, watercourses, waterways, well, springs, reservoirs, aquifers, irrigation systems, drainage systems, and all other bodies or accumulations of water, surface or underground, natural or artificial, public or private, which are contained within, flow through, or border upon the state or any portion thereof. Words used in this Chapter in the singular may include the plural and the plural the singular. Use of masculine shall include feminine and the use of feminine shall include masculine. II. GENERAL PROVISIONS: 13.20.200 Administration. Except as otherwise provided, the Director shall administer, implement, and enforce the provisions of this Chapter. Any powers granted to or 23 duties imposed upon the Director may be delegated by the Director to other persons acting in the beneficial interest of or in the employ of the City. 13.20.201 Permit Required. It shall be unlawful for any person to connect any pipe on private property with any pipe that is connected with the public sewer, without first obtaining a permit to do so from the City. 13.20.202 Design and Construction of Sewer Lateral Connections. All connections (sewer laterals) shall be designed and constructed in accordance with established City standards. 13.20.203 Responsibility for Installation, Maintenance and Replacement. The costs for installation, maintenance, and replacement of the sewer service lateral as defined in Section 13.20.105, shall be the responsibility of the property owner. 13.20.204 Responsibility for Removal of Obstructions in Sewer Service Laterals. The City is not responsible for maintaining the sewer service lateral as defined in Section 13.20.105. When necessary, to mitigate a sanitary sewer overflow caused by a sewer service lateral blockage, the property owner shall pay to the City all costs associated with the remediation of such obstruction including cleanup. 13.20.205 Authorization for New or Increased Pollutant Discharges or Changes in the Nature of Pollutant Discharges. It is unlawful to commence, increase, or substantially change any discharge of wastewater to the POTW except as authorized by the Director in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. The City may deny or condition new or increased contributions of pollutants, or changes in the nature of pollutants, to the POTW by Industrial Users where such contributions do not meet applicable Pretreatment Standards and Requirements or where such contributions would cause the POTW to violate its NPDES permit 24 13.20.207 Record Keeping. Each permittee shall retain records of all monitoring activities, including documentation associated with best management practices. Such records shall include for all samples: a. the date, exact place, method, time of sampling and the name of person or persons taking the samples; b. the dates analyses were performed; c. who performed the analyses; d. the analytical techniques or methods used; and e. the results of the analyses. All calibration and maintenance records and all original chart recordings for continuous monitoring instrumentation, copies of all reports required by the permit, and records of all data used to complete the application for the permit, for a period of at least three (3) years from the date of the sample, measurement, report or application. This period may be extended by request of the Director at any time. All records that pertain to matters that are the subject of special orders or any other enforcement or litigation activities brought by the City shall be retained and preserved by the permittee until all enforcement activities have concluded and all periods of limitation with respect to any and all appeals have expired. 13.20.210 General Discharge Prohibitions. No person shall contribute or cause to be contributed, directly or indirectly, any pollutant or wastewater which causes pass through or interference with the operation or performance of the POTW. 13.20.211 Specific Discharge Prohibitions. No person shall contribute or cause to be contributed into the POTW the following pollutants, substances or wastewater: A. Any liquids, solids, or gases which by reason of their nature or quantity are, or may be, sufficient, either alone or by interaction with other substances, to cause fire, explosion, or in any other way be injurious to the POTW or to operation of the POTW 25 including, but not limited to, wastestreams with a closed cup flashpoint of less than one hundred forty degrees (140°) Fahrenheit or sixty degrees (60°) Centigrade; B. Any solids or viscous substance of such size or character, or in such quantity that they may cause obstruction to flow in the collection system or be detrimental to proper wastewater treatment plant operations; C. Any wastewater having a pH less than 5.0 or greater than 11.5, or wastewater having any other corrosive property capable of causing damage or hazard to structures, equipment, and/or personnel of the POTW; D. Any wastewater containing hazardous substances or toxic pollutants, in sufficient quantity, either singly or by interaction with other pollutants, to injure or interfere with any wastewater treatment process including sludge disposal, constitute a hazard to human or animals, or create a hazardous effect or acute or chronic toxicity in the receiving waters of the POTW; E. Any noxious or malodorous liquids, gases, or solids which either singly or by interaction with other wastes are sufficient to create a public nuisance or hazard to life or are sufficient to prevent entry into the sewers for maintenance and repair; F. Any substance which may cause the POTW's effluent, or any other product of the POTW such as residues, sludges, or scums, to be unsuitable for reclamation and reuse. In no case shall a substance discharged to the POTW cause the POTW to violate applicable sludge use or disposal regulations developed under Section 405 of the Act or any criteria, guidelines, or regulations affecting sludge use or disposal developed pursuant to the Solid Waste Disposal Act, Clean Air Act, Toxic Substances Control Act, Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, or state regulations; G. Any wastewater which imparts color which cannot be removed by the treatment process, such as, but not limited to, dye wastes and vegetable tanning solutions; 26 H. Any wastewater having a temperature greater than sixty degrees Centigrade (one hundred forty degrees Fahrenheit), or which will inhibit biological activity in the POTW treatment plant resulting in interference, but in no case wastewater which causes the temperature at the introduction into the POTW treatment plant to exceed 40 degrees Centigrade (104 degrees Fahrenheit); I. Any pollutants, including oxygen demanding pollutants (BOD, etc.), released at a flow rate and/or pollutant concentration which will cause interference, pass through, or otherwise cause violation of the NPDES permit or receiving water quality standards; J. Any wastewater containing any radioactive wastes or isotopes except in compliance with applicable state or federal regulations; K. Any discharge which may, alone or in combination with other waste substances, result in the presence of toxic or poisonous solids, liquids, gases, vapors, or fumes in the POTW in such quantities that would create a hazard, public nuisance, or acute worker health and safety problems; L. Any stormwater, groundwater, well water, street drainage, sub -surface drainage, roof drainage, yard drainage, water from yard fountains, ponds, lawn sprinklers, or any type of surface water or unpolluted water. The Director may approve, on a temporary basis, the discharge of such waters to the POTW when no reasonable alternative method of disposal is available, subject to the payment of all applicable User charges and fees by the discharger. Water from swimming pools, wading pools, and therapy pools may be discharged to the sewerage system between 8:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., unless specifically prohibited by the Director; M. Any wastewater, sludge or septic waste removed from a cesspool, septic tank, chemical toilet or similar waste holding device, except such wastes which are discharged to the POTW in accordance with a wastewater discharge permit issued by the City. No 27 wastehauler discharging septic waste to the POTW shall discharge constituents in excess of the limits for wastehaulers set forth by Resolution of the City and amended from time to time; N. Any trucked or hauled pollutants or wastewater, except at such place and in such manner as authorized by a wastewater discharge permit issued by the City; O. Any pesticides or fertilizers in amounts which may cause interference or pass through; P. Any non -biodegradable cutting oil, petroleum oil, refined petroleum products, or products of mineral oil origin in amounts which could cause interference or pass through; Q. Any substances containing polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). PCBs include, but are not limited to, the following. Aroclors 1016, 1221, 1228, 1232, 1242, 1248, 1254, 1260 and 1262; R. Any excessive quantities of dispersed biodegradable oils or fats such as lard, tallow, or vegetable oil or any other substances that may precipitate, solidify, or become viscous at temperatures between forty and one hundred degrees Fahrenheit; S. Any pretreatment wastes. All pretreatment wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county, and other local laws and regulations. 13.20.215 Prohibition Against Discharging Solid or Fluid Material to Watercourse. No person shall discharge or cause to be discharged into any storm drain, stormwater channel, or natural watercourse, whether currently carrying water or not, or into any pipe, parking lot, street, gutter, or waterway leading to such drain, channel, or watercourse, any solid or fluid material which will impair the useful functioning of such drain, channel, or watercourse, or which will cause expense to the City, or other public agency, in maintaining the proper functioning of same, or which will cause or threaten to cause a public nuisance, public hazard, or pollution of waters of the state. 13.20.220 Prohibition Against Discharging Pollutants to the Ground. No person shall deposit or discharge, or cause to be deposited or discharged, into any sump which is not 28 impermeable, or into any pit or well, or onto the ground, or into any storm drain or watercourse, any material which, by seeping underground or by being leached or by reacting with the soil, can pollute usable groundwaters. 13.20.222 Point of Discharge Limits. No person, excluding authorized City personnel involved in maintenance of POTW facilities, shall discharge any wastewater directly into the POTW other than through an approved building sewer, unless written permission for the discharge has been granted by the Director. 13.20.223 Prohibition Against Dilution. No person shall increase the use of process water or, in any way attempt to dilute a discharge as a partial or complete substitute for adequate treatment to achieve compliance with categorical standards, the discharge limits contained in this Chapter or in any wastewater discharge permit, or any other pollutant limit developed by the City. 13.20.225 Special Restrictions, Vehicle Servicing Facilities. A. Any facility maintained for the servicing, repair, washing, or cleaning of any vehicles or roadway machinery, including car and truck washes, which discharges non- domestic wastewater, shall install and maintain a gravity separation interceptor in accordance with Section 13.20.253. Wastewater from toilets shall not be allowed to pass through the interceptor, but all wastewaters arising from the servicing, repair, washing or cleaning of vehicles shall pass through the interceptor before discharge to the POTW. 1. If the vehicle servicing facility is only capable of serving one vehicle at a time, the interceptor shall have a fluid detention capacity of at least 100 gallons. 2. If the vehicle servicing facility has facilities for servicing, repair, washing, or cleaning more than one vehicle at a time, the interceptor shall be as large as necessary so that seven (7) -day accumulation of sand and oil will not together fill more than 25 percent of the fluid capacity, and shall have a fluid detention capacity of at least 750 gallons. The 29 interceptor shall be designed so as to retain any oil and grease which will float and any sand which will settle. B. Any interceptor legally and properly installed at a vehicle servicing facility before June 2, 1990 shall be acceptable as an alternative to the interceptor specified in Subsection A of this section provided such interceptor is properly maintained, effective in removing sand and oil, and designed and installed so that it can be inspected. C. The plumbing official shall not approve the plumbing of a vehicle servicing facility which is designed to accommodate the discharge of non-domestic wastewater if it does not have a gravity separation interceptor meeting the requirements of this section. 13.20.230 Restrictions on Water -Softening Wastes. A. It is unlawful to install, replace, or enlarge apparatus for softening all or any part of the water supply to any residential premises when such apparatus is an ion exchange softener or demineralizer of the type that is regenerated on the site of use, except as otherwise authorized by the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Sections 116775 through 116795, inclusive, and any amendment thereto. B. This section shall not apply to existing units nor to apparatus of the type which is regenerated off-site by a water conditioning company. C. This section shall not apply to any type of commercial or Industrial softening apparatus which will be considered individually in connection with non-domestic wastewater controls. 13.20.235 Special Restrictions -Food Processing Facilities. All food processing facilities, including restaurants, which discharge food processing wastes to the POTW, shall direct all wastewater from floor drains and sinks in the food processing area, waste container wash racks, and dishwashers through a minimum of 100 -gallon gravity separation interceptor in accordance with Section 13.20.253. All domestic wastewaters from restrooms, showers, mop sinks, and drinking fountains shall be kept separate until the previously specified wastes 30 have passed through the interceptor. Sizing of interceptor shall be determined as described in the latest version of Uniform Plumbing Code, as adopted by the City except that the capacity of the interceptor shall not be less than 100 gallons, unless a conditional waiver is granted pursuant to Section 13.20.237. 13.20.237 Conditional Waivers. Conditional waivers modifying or waiving the gravity separation interceptor requirements may be granted by the Director for those restaurants and other food processing facilities determined not to have the potential to adversely affect the POTW. Conditional waivers may be revoked for the following reasons: A. Changes in types of food prepared or served; B. Falsification of information submitted to the City; C. Changes in operating hours; D. Changes in equipment used. 13.20.240 Specific Local Discharge Limits. A. Except as specifically allowed by the Director on a temporary basis or as provided herein, no Class I or Class II User shall discharge or cause to be discharged to the POTW any wastewater unless it conforms to all the applicable local discharge limits as set forth by Resolution of the City and amended from time to time as needed to protect the POTW and comply with current and future state and federal regulatory requirements. The local discharge limits apply at the point where the wastewater is discharged to the POTW. The Director may impose average daily, monthly and/or mass limits in addition to the instantaneous concentration based limits set forth by Resolution of the City. Further, the City may establish Best Management Practices (BMPs) for certain industries as needed to control discharges to the wastewater system. B. Specific Local Pollutant Mass Emission Rate Limits. The Director may authorize the discharge of non-domestic wastewater to the POTW which contains pollutants in concentrations exceeding the specific local pollutant concentration limits contained herein, 31 when said concentrations, in combination with the measured discharge flow rate, do not exceed specific local mass emission rate limits which are computed for the individual discharger on the basis of the specific local pollutant concentration limits and the discharger's permitted discharge flow rate limit, and which are issued to the discharger as part of the discharger's permit. 13.20.242 Prohibition on Disposal of Spent Solutions and Sludges. No User shall discharge to the POTW spent solutions, sludges, or any other materials of a quantity or quality in violation of or prohibited by this Chapter or any permit issued pursuant to this Chapter. All waste manifests for such materials shall be retained for a minimum of three (3) years, and made available to the City upon request. 13.20.243 Prohibition on Discharge of Medical Waste. A. No person shall discharge to the POTW medical wastes from hospitals, clinics, offices of medical doctors, convalescent homes, medical laboratories, other medical facilities or any other locations except where prior written authorization for such discharges is given by the Director following the Director's determination that the discharge will not, alone or in conjunction with other discharges, adversely affect the operation and maintenance of the POTW. If written authorization for such a discharge is given, the Director shall have the authority to require that any discharge of an infectious waste to the sewer be rendered noninfectious prior to discharge if the infectious waste is deemed to pose a threat to the public health and safety, or will result in any violation of applicable waste discharge requirements. 13.20.245 Categorical Pretreatment Standards. Promulgated National Categorical Pretreatment Standards, located in 40 CFR Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 405- 471, are incorporated into this Chapter. Upon the promulgation of new or revised categorical pretreatment standards for a particular Industrial subcategory, the new or revised categorical pretreatment standards shall immediately be deemed incorporated herein. The Director shall 32 notify affected Users of applicable reporting requirements under 40 CFR, Chapter I, Subchapter N, Parts 401, et seq. No User subject to categorical pretreatment standards shall discharge or cause to be discharged to the POTW any wastewater which is not in conformance with the discharge limits set forth in the categorical pretreatment standards, including any revisions thereof. Notwithstanding the foregoing, a User may obtain a variance from a categorical pretreatment standard in accordance with the provisions of 40 CFR 403.13 and by establishing to the satisfaction of the Director, that the discharge will not adversely affect POTW operation and maintenance. If a categorical pretreatment standard establishes a discharge limit which conflicts with a local discharge limit, the more stringent discharge limit shall apply. 13.20.247 Mass Emission Rates. A. Mass emission rates for pollutants that are present or anticipated in a User's wastewater discharge may be set for each User and made an applicable part of each User's permit. These rates shall be based on specific local wastewater discharge limits as adopted by Resolution of the City and amended from time to time or categorical pretreatment standards, and the User's average daily wastewater discharge for the past three years, the most recent representative data, or other data acceptable to the Director. B. To verify the User's operating data, the Director may require a User to submit an inventory of all wastewater streams and/or records indicating production rates. C. The Director may revise limits or mass emission rates previously established in the User's permit at any time, based on: (1) current or anticipated operating data of the discharger or the City; (2) the City's ability to meet NPDES limits; or (3) changes in the requirements of regulatory agencies. D. The excess use of water to establish an artificially high flow rate for mass emission rate determination is prohibited. 33 13.20.250 Pretreatment. Users shall provide necessary wastewater treatment as required to comply with this Chapter and shall achieve compliance with all applicable, promulgated categorical standards within the time limitations specified therein. Any facilities required to pretreat wastewater to meet applicable discharge limits shall be constructed, operated, and maintained in proper operating condition at the User's expense. Upon request by the Director, Users shall provide to the City detailed construction drawings and plumbing plans showing existing process equipment, pretreatment facilities, spill containment facilities, monitoring facilities, metering facilities, and a description of existing operating procedures. Prior to construction of new or modified facilities, Users shall submit to the Director for review and acceptance, detailed construction plans and a description of proposed operating procedures for any new equipment or facilities. Users shall submit any subsequent changes in operating procedures of the equipment or facilities to the Director for review and acceptance prior to initiation of the changes. The review and acceptance of such drawings and operating procedures by the Director shall not relieve the User from the responsibility of modifying the equipment or facilities as necessary to produce an effluent in compliance with all provisions of this Chapter. 13.20.252 Prohibited Discharge of Recovered Pretreatment Wastes. No person shall discharge wastes recovered from pretreatment devices into any sewer or storm drain opening, any drains or other openings leading to any sewer or storm drain, parking lot, street, curb and gutter, or the ground. All recovered pretreatment wastes shall be disposed of in accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and local laws and regulations. 13.20.253 Gravity Separation Interceptor. Any person so required by the Director, shall install and maintain a gravity separation interceptor. Domestic wastewater shall not be allowed to pass through this interceptor. This interceptor shall have an operational fluid capacity of not Tess than 100 gallons and shall be designed to retain any material which will float and any material which will settle. The interceptor shall be watertight, structurally sound, 34 and durable. Interceptors of Tess than 750 gallons capacity and interceptors for restaurants and food processing facilities shall have no less than two compartments. Interceptors of 750 gallons or larger shall conform to the City's most current approved standard drawings for gravity separation interceptors. A. Interceptor Requirements. 1. All interceptor chambers shall be immediately accessible at all times for the purpose of inspection and cleaning. At no time shall any material, debris, obstacles or obstructions be placed in such a manner so as to prevent immediate access to the interceptor. 2. All interceptors of 300 gallons capacity or larger shall be equipped with a sample chamber located at the downstream end of the interceptor. The sample chamber shall have a 24-inch square, or 24-inch diameter, clear opening for the temporary installation of the City's portable automatic sampling equipment. Any sample chamber legally and properly installed before the effective date of the Ordinance codified in this Chapter shall be acceptable as an alternative to the sample chamber specified herein, provided such sample chamber is so designed and installed that the City's portable automatic sampling equipment may be readily installed therein, or the owner provides a secure and protected location for installation of such sampling equipment within an eight-foot radius of the sample chamber. 3. Any interceptor legally and properly installed before the effective date of the Ordinance codified in this Chapter shall be acceptable as an alternative to the interceptor specified herein, provided such interceptor is effective in removing floatable and settleable material and is so designed and installed that it can be inspected and properly maintained. 4. If the Director finds that an interceptor is incapable of adequately retaining the floatable and settleable material in the wastewater flow or is structurally incomplete, he shall notify the owner that it does not meet the requirements of this section and shall require the User to install, at the User's expense, an acceptable interceptor B. Interceptor Approval. 35 If a gravity separation interceptor is required, the plumbing official shall only approve plumbing plans which include an interceptor which meets the requirements of this section. C. Interceptor Maintenance. Any person who owns, operates, or maintains a gravity separation interceptor shall maintain it properly. It shall be cleaned as often as is necessary to ensure that sediment and floating materials do not accumulate to impair the efficiency of the interceptor. The use of chemicals to dissolve grease is specifically prohibited. When an interceptor is cleaned, the accumulated sediment and floating material shall be removed and legally disposed of otherwise than to the sewer. An interceptor is not considered to be properly maintained if for any reason it is not in good working condition or if the operational fluid capacity has been reduced by more than 25 percent by the accumulation of floating and settling solids, oils and grease. The owner of any facility required to install an interceptor, the lessee and sublessee, if there be such, and any proprietor, operator or superintendent of such facility are individually and severally liable for any failure of proper maintenance of such interceptor. If the interceptor is not properly maintained under the conditions of use, the Director may require that the interceptor be resized and replaced. 13.20.255 Monitoring Facilities. The City may require, at the User's expense, installation and operation of monitoring facilities to allow inspection of discharges to the POTW, monitoring of wastewater quality, and collection of wastewater samples. The monitoring facilities, including sampling and monitoring equipment, shall be maintained at all times in a safe and proper operating condition at the expense of the User. The City may require that the monitoring facilities include a security enclosure that can be locked with a City provided hasp lock, or similar device, during monitoring or upon termination of service. Monitoring facilities shall normally be situated on private property, but the City may, when such a location would be impractical, allow the facilities to be constructed in public right- of-way. 36 There shall be ample room in or near any monitoring facility to allow installation of portable sampling and monitoring equipment by the Director. Construction drawings for proposed monitoring facilities shall be submitted to the Director for review prior to construction. The sampling and monitoring facilities shall be constructed in accordance with the City's requirements and all applicable local construction standards and specifications. Construction shall be completed within ninety days following written acceptance by the Director. 13.20.257 Flow Metering Facilities. The Director may require any Class I or Class II User to install a flow meter capable of measuring, recording, and totalizing the discharge to the POTW on a continuous basis. The flow measuring equipment shall conform to the requirements of the Director. 13.20.260 Inspection and Sampling. The Director shall have the right to enter the premises of any User where non-domestic wastewater is created or discharged during all times that the User's facility is open, operating or at any other reasonable time to determine whether the User is complying with all requirements of this Chapter and any wastewater discharge permit or administrative order issued hereunder. The Users or the occupants of such premises shall allow the Director ready access to all parts of the premises for purposes of inspection, sampling, examination and copying of records, and any other activities related to determining compliance with this Chapter. Unreasonable delay in allowing the Director access to the User's premises shall constitute a violation of this Chapter. The Director shall inspect the facilities of each Class I and Class II User a minimum of once each year, and shall sample the discharge of each Class I and Class II User a minimum of once each year. The Director shall have the right to set up on the User's property such devices as are necessary to conduct sampling inspection, compliance monitoring, and/or metering operations. Where a User has security measures in force, which would require proper 37 identification and clearance before entry into their premises, the User shall make necessary arrangements with their security guards so that upon presentation of suitable identification, the Director will be permitted to enter, without delay, for purposes of performing the functions described in this section. All sampling and reporting of monitoring results shall comply with 40 CFR 136 and 40CFR 403.12(g). In making a demonstration that a pollutant is not present, the Industrial User must provide data from at least one sampling of the facility's process wastewater prior to any treatment at the facility that is representative of all wastewater from all processes. 13.20.262 Sampling and Analysis-Fee-Billing. A. Sampling and analysis shall be at the expense of the User. The actual cost for laboratory analyses and reports and an administrative fee, shall be the obligation of the occupants of the premises where the wastewater is created or discharged. B. The administrative fee shall be fixed by the City Manager based on the City's current overhead cost allocation percentage. C. The expense to be paid by the User shall be billed and be payable the same as for other sewer-use charges. 13.20.265 Confidential Information. Information and data regarding a User, obtained from reports, questionnaires, permit applications, permits and monitoring programs, and from inspections, shall be available without restriction to the EPA, the State Water Board, and the regional board. Such information shall also be available to the public or other governmental agencies without restriction unless the User specifically requests and is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Director that the release of such information would divulge information, processes, or methods of production entitled to protection as trade secrets of the User. Any such request shall be asserted at the time of submission of the information or data and marked "Confidential Business Information" by the User on each page containing information asserted to be trade secrets. The demonstration of the need for 38 confidentiality made by the User must meet the burden necessary for withholding such information from the general public under applicable state and federal law. Wastewater constituents and characteristics and other effluent data as defined in 40 CFR 2.302 shall not constitute confidential information and shall be available to the public without restriction. Information which a User demonstrates to constitute a trade secret shall not be made available for inspection by the public without prior notification to the User, but shall be made available to the EPA, the State Water Board, and the Regional Board, and upon written request, to other governmental agencies for uses related to this Chapter, the NPDES permit, or other state regulations. Such information shall also be available for use in judicial review or enforcement proceedings involving the User furnishing the information. 13.20.267 Industrial User Survey. The Director shall prepare and maintain a current list of Industrial Users subject to the requirements of this Chapter. Each Industrial User listed shall be identified by class. Class I Industrial Users shall be further identified by a citation of the applicable, promulgated categorical standards. At least once every two years, the Director shall conduct a survey of facilities located within the POTW service area to identify any facilities which should be added to the list of Industrial Users. 13.20.270 Reporting Changes in Discharge, Slug Loading, and Potential Problems. All Industrial Users shall promptly notify the City in advance of any substantial change in the volume or character of pollutants in their discharge. If any routine or special sampling or monitoring by an Industrial User indicates that, for any reason, pollutants are discharged at a rate or concentration which may cause pass through or interference with the POTW, a violation of categorical standards or permit limits, violation of Sections 13.20.211 or 13.20.240, or a hazard to City, POTW personnel and/or the public, the User shall verbally notify the Director and POTW staff immediately. If the discharge to the sewerage system has the potential to cause a fire or explosion hazard, the Industrial User shall also immediately notify the fire department. The verbal report to the City shall be followed by a written report 39 submitted to the Director within 24 hours describing the cause of the incident and corrective action taken by the User. The User shall also collect a representative repeat sample of the discharge and submit the analysis to the City within 30 days after becoming aware of the violation to determine whether compliance has been achieved. The notification provided pursuant to this section shall not relieve the User of any expense, loss, damage or other liability which may be incurred pursuant to this Chapter or other applicable law. 13.20.272 Notification of Bypass. A. Bypass of Non-domestic wastewater to the sewerage system is prohibited. The City may take enforcement action against the User unless: 1 Bypass was unavoidable because it was done to prevent loss of life, personal injury, or severe property damage; 2. There were no feasible alternatives to the bypass, such as the use of auxiliary treatment facilities, retention of untreated wastes, elective slow -down or shut -down of production units or maintenance during periods of production downtime. This condition is not satisfied if adequate backup equipment could have been feasibly installed in the exercise of reasonable engineering judgment to prevent a bypass which occurred during normal periods of equipment downtime or preventative maintenance; and 3. The permittee submitted notices as required under subsection B of this section. 4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the User shall be liable to the City for any expenses or costs incurred by the City as a result of a bypass. B. If a permittee knows in advance of the need for a bypass, it shall submit a written request to allow the bypass to the Director, if possible, at least ten (10) days before the date of the bypass. 40 C. The Director may approve an anticipated bypass at his sole discretion after considering its adverse effects, and the Director determines that the conditions listed in subsection (A)(1) to (3) are met. D. A permittee shall provide telephone notification to the City of an unanticipated bypass that exceeds its permitted discharge limits within four (4) hours from the time the permittee becomes aware of the bypass. A written report shall also be provided within five (5) days of the time the permittee becomes aware or could reasonably have been aware of the bypass. The report shall contain a description of the bypass and its cause; the duration of the bypass, including exact dates and times, and, if the bypass has not been corrected, the anticipated time it is expected to continue; and steps taken or planned to reduce, eliminate, and prevent recurrence of the bypass. Failure to submit oral notice or written report may be grounds for permit revocation. 13.20.275 Annual Public Notice of Significant Non-compliance. Each year, the Director shall publish in the largest daily newspaper published in the service area, a list of all Industrial Users determined to have been in significant noncompliance with applicable pretreatment standards or requirements during the previous twelve months. 13.20.280 Damage to City's Equipment or Facilities. Any unauthorized entering, breaking, damaging, destroying, uncovering, defacing, or tampering with any temporary or permanent structure, equipment, or appurtenance which is part of the POTW shall be a violation of this Chapter. 13.20.282 Compensation for Unauthorized Discharges. Any User who discharges wastewater which impairs, interferes with or damages the POTW, its operations or monitoring equipment, detrimentally affects the wastewater treatment process, significantly increases POTW operation costs, requires non -routine inspection and/or sampling, or results in any other damages, costs or expenses, including the imposition of fines or penalties on the City, shall be liable to the City for all damages, costs and expenses occasioned thereby. An 41 administrative fee, which shall be fixed by the City Manager based on the City's current overhead cost allocation percentage, shall be added to these charges. The City's total expenses shall be payable within 30 days of invoicing by the City. 13.20.284 Charges. Charges for sewer use shall be established and revised periodically by Ordinance or Resolution, as appropriate, of the City Council. 13.20.286 City's Right of Revision. The City reserves the right to amend this Chapter to impose more stringent discharge limits or requirements if deemed appropriate to advance the objectives presented in Section 13.20.100 of this Chapter. 13.20.295 Interpretation. The provisions of this Chapter are to be reasonably interpreted. It is the intent herein to recognize that there are varying degrees of hazard to surface and underground waters and to apply the principal that the degree of protection should be commensurate with the degree of hazard. 13.20.296 Severability. If any provision, paragraph, word, section, or article of this Chapter is invalidated by any court of competent jurisdiction, the remaining provisions, paragraphs, words, sections, and articles shall not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. 11I. PERMITS: 13.20.300 Wastewater Discharge Permits. All Class I, Class II, Class IV and Class V Users and those Class III Users so notified by the Director, which propose to connect or to discharge to the POTW, shall obtain a wastewater discharge permit before connecting to or discharging to the POTW. Obtaining a wastewater discharge permit shall not relieve a permittee of its obligation to comply with any other applicable requirements of federal, state and/or local law. Class I, Class II, Class IV and Class V Users are issued individual or site- specific permits. Class III User permits may be either individual or group (general) permits as deemed appropriate by the Director. In general, when it has been established that a group of similar type businesses (i.e. restaurants, photo processing, car washes, and automotive 42 repair, etc.) are better regulated using Best Management Practices (BMPs), a general permit will be issued with conditions and BMP requirements that have been established for a specified business group. 13.20.305 Permit Applications. Users required to obtain a permit shall complete and file with the Director an application in a form prescribed by him and submit any required application, filing, or permit fee. Applicable permit fees shall be established by separate Ordinance or Resolution of the City. Users for whom permits are mandatory must make application for and obtain a permit which shall govern each wastewater connection to the City's wastewater system. Said Users include existing connections, new connections, and extra -jurisdictional users New Class I and Class II Users shall apply for a permit at least 90 days prior to connecting to or discharging to the POTW. Class III Users shall apply for a permit within 30 days after receiving notification to apply from the Director. Class IV Users shall apply for a permit at least 10 days prior to the proposed discharge. Class V Users shall apply for a permit at least 5 days prior to the proposed discharge. The following information may be required with the permit application: A. Name, address, and location of the facility (if different from the address); B. Names and addresses of the operator and owner, if different than above; C. Name and address of all principals, owners, major shareholders of company, articles of incorporation; business license (if applicable); D. Name and address of property owners, landlord and/or property manager of the facility site; E. SIC number according to the Standard Industrial Classification Manual, Bureau of the Budget, 1987, as amended; F. Wastewater constituents and characteristics of the proposed discharge, as determined by a state certified analytical laboratory using approved analytical methods and 43 sampling procedures in accordance with 40 CFR 136 and 40 CFR 403.12(g)(3), and other EPA approved analytical methods; G. Time, volume and duration of proposed discharge(s); H. Average daily, peak daily, and fifteen -minute peak wastewater flow rates, including daily, monthly, and seasonal variations, if any; Site plans, floor plans, mechanical and plumbing plans, including details showing all sewers, sewer connections, treatment facilities, and appurtenances by the size, location and elevation. If required by the Director, such plans shall be certified by a civil engineer registered in the state of California; J. A process flow schematic diagram. If required by the Director, the diagram shall be certified by a civil engineer registered in the state of California; K. Descriptions of activities, facilities, operations and planned processes on the premises including all materials which are or could be discharged; L. Number and type of employees, and hours of plant operation, and proposed or actual hours of pretreatment system operation; M. The categorical pretreatment standards applicable to each regulated process; N. A time schedule for compliance with any categorical standards or provisions of this Chapter for which immediate compliance is not possible; 0. A list of any environmental control permits held by or for the User's facility, and a copy of the Riverside County "Business Plan" which addresses the location, type, and quantity of hazardous materials handled by the User; P. Water supplier and water account numbers; Q. Volume of cooling tower capacity, if applicable; R. Waste minimization and water conservation practices; S. Production records, if applicable; T. Waste manifests, if applicable; 44 U. EPA hazardous waste generator number, if applicable; V. Additional information may be required of Wastehaulers, including the following: 1. A description of the industries and clients using the applicant's services; 2. Name and address of leaseholder of the vehicle or trailer, if applicable; 3. Number of trucks and trailers used and the license numbers and tank hauling capacity of each; 4. A copy of the applicant's Riverside County Health Department permit. 5. Any other information as may be deemed by the Director to be appropriate to evaluate the discharge to the POTW. After evaluation and acceptance of the data, the Director may issue a wastewater discharge permit subject to terms and conditions provided in this Chapter. 13.20.310 Permit Modifications. Within three (3) months of the promulgation of a categorical standard, permits for Users subject to the categorical standards shall be revised to require compliance within the time frame prescribed by the new standard. Where an affected User has not previously submitted an application for a permit as required by Section 13.20.305, the User shall apply within one 180 days after the promulgation of the applicable categorical standard. In addition, Users with existing permits shall submit to the Director, within 180 days after the promulgation of an applicable categorical standard, a time schedule for compliance with the categorical standard. The terms and conditions of any permit may be subject to modification by the Director during the term of the permit if discharge limits or requirements, as referenced in Sections 13.20.210 and 13.20.240, are modified or other good cause exists. The User shall be informed of any proposed changes in the permit at least 30 days prior to the effective date of change. Any changes or new conditions in a permit shall include a reasonable time schedule for compliance. Good cause for permit modification includes, but is not limited to, the following reasons: 45 A. To incorporate new or revised categorical standards or to incorporate other new or revised federal, state or local standards or requirements; B. To address significant alterations or additions to the User's operation, processes, or wastewater volume or character since the time of permit issuance; C. A change in the POTW operations that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or elimination of the authorized discharge; D. Information indicating that the permitted discharge poses a threat to the POTW, City employees, the public or the receiving waters; E. The User's actual discharge is significantly different than the proposed discharge identified in the User's permit application; F. Changes in the requirements of regulatory agencies which affect the City; or G. A determination by the Director that modification is appropriate to further the objectives of this Chapter. The Director may at any time rescind the requirement that any NSIU obtain and maintain a Class III permit, at the Director's discretion. With respect to any User that was designated as an SIU solely because of the Director's designation under 13.20.105(90), the Director may terminate said User's designation as an SIU and Class II permittee on the Director's later determination that the User no longer has a reasonable potential for adversely affecting the POTW's operation or violating any applicable pretreatment standard, requirement, or discharge limit set forth in this Chapter. 13.20.315 Permit Contents. Wastewater discharge permits shall be expressly subject to all provisions of this Chapter and all other applicable regulations, and such charges and fees established, as appropriate, by City Resolution or Ordinance. A. Class I and Class II permits shall contain at least the following: 1. Statement of permit duration; 2. Statement of permit nontransferability; 46 3. Discharge limits based on applicable pretreatment standards and/or local limits, including but not limited to discharge limits on the average and/or maximum wastewater constituents and characteristics and Best Management Practices; 4. Specifications for self-monitoring programs which may include: pollutants to be monitored; sampling location(s); frequency of sampling; sample type(s); number, types and standards for tests; and a reporting schedule for submitting to the City reports, data and records relating to production levels and Wastewater discharges to the POTW; 5. Recordkeeping requirements for operational activities including but not limited to hauled waste, spill events, equipment maintenance, and training. 6. Statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of pretreatment standards and requirements; 7. Compliance time schedule(s) where required; 8. Statement that all SIUs must comply with slug Toad control programs and reporting requirements in compliance with 40 CFR 403.8. SIUs will be evaluated at least once every two years for the need to develop and implement an approved slug load control plan a) The evaluation and results of said evaluation must be available for review by the Approval Authority upon request; and 9. Statement of Permit Revocation/Termination B. Permits may also contain the following: 1. The unit charge or schedule of User charges and fees for the wastewater discharged to the POTW; 2. Schedule of penalty fees for noncompliance; 3. Limits on the average and/or maximum discharge, time of discharge, and/or requirements for flow regulation and equalization. 4. Instantaneous concentration discharge limits and/or mass emission discharge limits. 47 5. Requirements for installation and maintenance of inspection and sampling facilities; 6. Requirements for the installation of pretreatment technology, pH control equipment, flow monitoring facilities, sampling facilities, development of pollution control plans and/or other special conditions including management practices appropriate to prevent accidental, unanticipated or non -routine discharges; 7. Requirements for development and implementation of waste minimization plans to reduce the amount of pollutants discharged to the POTW. 8. Requirements for installation and maintenance of spill containment systems; 9. Requirements for submission of technical or discharge reports including but not limited to a demonstration of compliance with discharge limits including Best Management Practices or pollution prevention alternatives when the alternatives are part of the categorical standard; 10. Requirements for maintaining and retaining plant records relating to the wastewater discharge as specified by the Director; 11. Requirements for notification of slug or accidental discharges, and/or discharges of hazardous waste; 12. Requirements for submittal of slug discharge control plans and/or solvent management plans; 13. Requirements to submit tax and water bills; 14. Requirements for maintaining and submitting waste manifests and/or waste hauling records; 15. Requirements to develop and implement Best Management Practices; 16. Other conditions as deemed appropriate by the Director to ensure protection of the POTW and compliance with this Chapter 48 13.20.320 Permit Duration and Duty to Reapply. Permits shall be issued for a specified time period, not to exceed Two (2) years for Class I and Class II permits, and shall identify the permit expiration date. The User shall apply for a permit reissuance a minimum of 90 days prior to the expiration of the User's existing permit. Permits shall be issued for a time period not to exceed five years and shall be stated to expire on a specific date. The User shall have the duty to reapply a minimum of ninety days prior to the expiration of the said User's existing permit 13.20.325 Permit Transfer. Permits are issued to a specific User for a specific operation. A permit shall not be reassigned, transferred, or sold to a new owner or User, different premises, or a new or changed operation. 13.20.330 Reporting Requirements. In addition to reporting potential problems (see Sections 13.20.270 and 13.20.272), Industrial Users, at their sole expense, may be required to submit one or more of the following types of reports to the City: A. Self-Monitoring Reports: The Director may require a permittee to submit periodic self-monitoring reports containing a description of the (1) nature, concentration, and flow of pollutants; (2) the time, date, and place of sampling; (3) methods of analysis; and (4) other information reasonably related to ensuring compliance with this Chapter. Sampling for self-monitoring reports shall be performed by the User as the Director specifies. All required analyses shall be performed by a state-certified laboratory using approved analytical methods. Class I and Class II Users shall submit self-monitoring reports at least once every six (6) months. Each sample report shall be accompanied by an approved chain of custody that ensures proper handling and integrity of the sample from collection, preservation, holding times, approved analytical methods, and storage. All monitoring data collected from the approved sample location(s) must be submitted. B. Compliance Reports: 49 Class I Users shall submit initial baseline monitoring reports (BMRs) and periodic compliance reports, and, if applicable, compliance schedule reports and final compliance reports. 1. Initial baseline monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City within 180 days after the effective date of the categorical standard, which will facilitate evaluation of initial compliance status and any modifications or conditions necessary to achieve full compliance with categorical standards. Baseline monitoring reports shall include: a) All information listed in Section 13.20.305; b) The results of sampling and analysis identifying the nature and concentration, where required by the applicable categorical standard or the Director, of regulated pollutants in the discharge from each regulated process. Instantaneous, daily maximum and Tong -term average concentrations, or mass, where required, shall be reported; and c) A statement, reviewed by an authorized representative of the Industrial User, and certified as to accuracy by a qualified professional, indicating whether pretreatment standards are being met on a consistent basis, and, if not, whether additional operation and maintenance and/or additional pretreatment is required for the Industrial User to meet the pretreatment standards and requirements. New sources shall submit a baseline monitoring report at least ninety days prior to commencement of discharge. If immediate compliance with the categorical standard is not possible and additional pretreatment or operation and maintenance is necessary, the report must specify the shortest time necessary to achieve compliance. The completion date must not be later than that specified in the applicable categorical standards. New sources shall achieve compliance with all applicable pretreatment standards within 90 days of commencing discharge. 50 2. Compliance schedule reports shall be submitted to the City, if necessary, to demonstrate compliance with conditions of a time schedule requiring full compliance with categorical standards and/or other applicable discharge limits set forth in this Chapter by a specific date. Compliance schedule reports shall contain dates for commencement and completion of major events leading to construction and operation of additional pretreatment equipment, including but not limited to dates for pretreatment equipment design completion, building permit submittal, construction commencement, construction milestones, progress reports, construction completion, employee training completion, and final compliance. Samples shall be collected and analyzed to demonstrate compliance. The samples shall be taken in accordance with 40 CFR 136 and 40 CFR 403.12(g)(3). Compliance schedule reports shall be submitted at the completion of all major events necessary to achieve full compliance with categorical standards or discharge requirements, but not less frequency than thirty days. Compliance schedule reports shall be submitted within fourteen days of a milestone date. Absent unusual circumstances, the duration of a compliance schedule shall not exceed nine months. 3. Final compliance reports shall be submitted to the City by any User subject to categorical pretreatment standards within 90 days following the date for final compliance with applicable, categorical pretreatment standards, or in the case of a new source, within 90 days following commencement of the introduction of wastewater into the POTW, to demonstrate that full compliance with categorical standards has been achieved. Final compliance reports shall include all information contained in a baseline monitoring report. 4. Periodic compliance reports shall be submitted to the City to demonstrate continued compliance with categorical standards. Periodic compliance reports shall include all monitoring data specified in the applicable categorical standard, and any additional monitoring data obtained by the User during the period covered by the report. 51 Sampling for periodic compliance reports shall be performed during the period covered by the report. Analyses shall be performed by a state -certified laboratory using approved analytical methods. The Control Authority shall require that frequency of monitoring necessary to assess and assure compliance by Industrial Users with applicable pretreatment standards and requirements. Grab samples must be used for pH, cyanide, total phenols, oil and grease, sulfide, and volatile organic compounds. For all other pollutants, 24-hour composite samples must be obtained through flow -proportional composite sampling techniques, unless time - proportional composite sampling or grab sampling is authorized by the Control Authority. Where time -proportional composite sampling or grab sampling is authorized by the Control Authority, the samples must be representative of the Discharge and the decision to allow the alternative sampling must be documented in the Industrial User file for that facility or facilities. Using protocols (including appropriate preservation) specified in 40 CFR part 136 and appropriate EPA guidance, multiple grab samples collected during a 24-hour period may be composited prior to the analysis as follows: For cyanide, total phenols, and sulfides the samples may be composited in the laboratory or in the field; for volatile organics and oil & grease the samples may be composited in the laboratory. Composite samples for other parameters unaffected by the compositing procedures as documented in approved EPA methodologies may be authorized by the Control Authority, as appropriate. Periodic compliance reports shall be submitted every six (6) months in June and December of each year, unless required to be submitted more frequently by the . Director. Periodic compliance reports may be combined with self-monitoring reports pursuant to subsection A of this section. C. Solvent Management Plans. All Industrial Users subject to promulgated categorical standards which include a total toxic organic (TTO) limitation shall be required to file a solvent management plan. The Director may also require other Users to submit solvent 52 management plans where, in his judgment, a plan is necessary to assure proper containment and disposal of solvents. D. Slug Discharge Control Plans. All Industrial Users so required by the Director shall develop and file with the Director and implement a slug discharge control plan. The plan shall contain at least the following elements: 1. Description of discharge practices, including non -routine batch discharges; 2. Description of stored chemicals; 3. Procedures for prompt verbal notification to the City of slug discharges, including any discharge that would violate a specific prohibition under Sections 13.20.210 or 13.20.240 of this Chapter or 40 CFR 403.5(b), and procedures for follow-up written notification to the Director within 24 hours; 4. If required by the Director, the plan shall include procedures to prevent adverse impact from accidental spills, including inspection and maintenance of storage areas, handling and transfer of materials, loading and unloading operations, control of plant site run-off, worker training, building of containment structures or equipment, measures for containing toxic organic pollutants (including solvents), and/or measures and equipment for emergency response; and 5. If required by the Director, the plan shall include follow-up practices to limit the damage suffered by the POTW or the environment. E. Specific Compliance Plans. All Industrial Users so required by the Director shall file a specific compliance plan. The plan shall indicate the cause of noncompliance, the corrective actions which will be taken to prevent recurrence of the noncompliance, and, if required by the Director, a proposed compliance time schedule indicating the dates those corrective actions will be completed. F. Notification of Hazardous Waste Discharge. Any User shall notify the City, the EPA Regional Waste Management Division, State, and/or local hazardous waste authorities in 53 writing of any discharge by the User into the POTW of a substance, which, if otherwise disposed of, would be classified a hazardous waste pursuant to 40 CFR Part 261, as revised. Such notification shall include the name of the hazardous waste as set forth in 40 CFR Part 261, the EPA hazardous waste number, and the type of discharge (continuous, batch, or other). If the User discharges more than one hundred kilograms of such waste per calendar month to the POTW, the notification shall also contain the following information to the extent such information is known and readily available to the User: an identification of the hazardous constituents contained in the wastes, an estimation of the mass and concentration of such constituents in the wastestream discharged during that calendar month, and an estimation of the mass of constituents in the wastestream expected to be discharged during the following twelve months. Users shall provide notification no later than one hundred eighty days after the discharge of the hazardous waste. Any notification under this section need be submitted only once for each hazardous waste discharge. However, notifications of changed discharges must be submitted in accordance with 40 CFR 403.12(j). The hazardous waste discharge notification requirements specified herein do not apply to pollutants already reported under the self-monitoring requirements of subsections A and B of this section. Users are also exempt from the above requirements during a calendar month in which they discharge no more than fifteen kilograms of hazardous wastes, unless the wastes are acute hazardous wastes as specified in 40 CFR 261.30(d) and 261.33(e). Discharges of more than fifteen kilograms of non-acute hazardous wastes as specified in 40 CFR 261.30(d) and 261.33(e), require a one-time notification. Additional notification is not required for subsequent months during which the User discharges additional quantities of the same non-acute hazardous waste. 54 In the case of new federal regulations under Section 3001 of RCRA identifying additional characteristics of hazardous waste or listing any additional substance as a hazardous waste, the User shall notify the City, the EPA Regional Waste Management Division Director, and state hazardous waste authorities of the discharge of such substance within ninety days of the effective date of such regulations. In the case of any notification made under these requirements, the User shall certify that it has a program in place to reduce the volume or toxicity of hazardous wastes generated to the degree it has determined to be economically practical. G. Any other reports required by California State Law; including such reports as are required by Chapter 6.95 of Division 20 of the California Health and Safety Code. Users shall be responsible for compliance with all milestone dates established pursuant to the reports required pursuant to this Chapter. 13.20.335 Spill Containment Facilities. All Industrial Users shall provide spill containment for protection against the unauthorized discharge of prohibited materials or other wastes regulated by this Chapter. Such protection shall be designed to prevent such materials and wastes from entering into the sewerage system in accordance with reasonable engineering standards. Such facilities shall be provided and maintained at the Industrial User's expense. 13.20.340 Signatory and Certification Requirements. All permit applications, reports and plans submitted to the City by Industrial Users pursuant to Sections 13.20.270, 13.20.272, 13.20.305, 13.20.310, and 13.20.330 shall be signed and dated by an authorized representative of the User. The signature shall accompany the following certification statement: "I certify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that this document and all attachments were prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gather and evaluate the 55 information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person or persons who manage the system, or those persons directly responsible for gathering the information, the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are significant penalties for submitting false information, including the possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations." Analytical reports submitted directly to the City by a certified analytical laboratory at the request of the User for samples of wastewater collected at User facilities may be signed, dated, and certified by the laboratory manager in lieu of an authorized representative of the User; however, such reports shall be accompanied by a statement, signed, dated, and certified by an authorized representative of the User, as above, which verifies that the sample identified in the analytical report was collected on the date and time indicated at the location indicated, and using the method indicated on the analytical report. This signed, dated, and certified statement may be included as part of the chain -of -custody form for the sample. IV. ENFORCEMENT: 13.20.400 General Enforcement. Whenever any person violates any provision of this Chapter, a wastewater discharge permit or administrative order issued hereunder, the violation constitutes a violation of this Chapter and is immediately actionable. Enforcement responses shall consider the intent, nature of the violation, history of non-compliance, the magnitude and duration of the violation when considering the enforcement action. The Director may take any, all or any combination of these actions in accordance with progressive enforcement response procedures as contained in the City's Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) against a noncompliant User. The Director may immediately proceed with any one or more of the enforcement remedies set forth in this Chapter. 13.20.401 Notification of Violation (NOV). Whenever the Director finds that any User has violated any discharge limit, reporting requirement or other requirement contained in 56 this Chapter or a wastewater discharge permit, the Director may serve upon such User a written notice stating the nature of the violation and the penalties for continued noncompliance. Within a prescribed period specified in the notice, the User shall submit to the Director a specific compliance plan pursuant to Section 13.20.330 E. 13.20.402 Compliance Time Schedules (CTS). The Director may issue a compliance time schedule submitted by a User, or may issue a revised compliance time schedule if, in the judgment of the Director, the User's proposed compliance time schedule is insufficient to achieve timely compliance with this Chapter. The Director will notify the User of the compliance time schedule established by the Director in a timely manner. 13.20.403 Administrative Orders (AO). The Director may direct compliance with any prohibition, discharge limit, or requirement of this Chapter or the provisions of a wastewater discharge permit by issuing one or more of the following administrative orders: A. Consent order B. Compliance order; C. Cease and desist order; D. Termination of service order; E. Immediate termination of service order. Any User served with an administrative order shall be subject to noncompliance fees which may be established by City Ordinance or Resolution, as appropriate. The City may also bring a court action to enforce any administrative order issued pursuant to this Chapter. 13.20.404 Compliance Orders. When the Director finds that a User has violated or threatens to violate any prohibition, discharge limit or requirement of this Chapter or the provisions of a wastewater discharge permit, the Director may issue a compliance order and direct the User to: A. Comply immediately; or B. Comply in accordance with a specific compliance time schedule. 57 A compliance order may establish a noncompliance monitoring program, or modify an existing noncompliance monitoring program. A compliance order may also include, but is not limited to, modifications in the frequency and extent of monitoring, sampling and analysis, submission of self-monitoring reports and directives to institute management practices designed to minimize the amount of pollutants discharged to the sewerage system. 13.20.405 Cease and Desist Orders. When the Director finds that a User has violated or threatens to violate any prohibition, discharge limit, provision of this Chapter, wastewater discharge permit, or administrative order, the Director may issue a cease and desist order and direct the User to: A. Comply immediately; or B. Take appropriate remedial or preventative action, including, if necessary, halting operations or terminating the discharge, to prevent the recurrence of a violation or a threatened violation. A cease and desist order may establish a noncompliance monitoring program or modify an existing noncompliance monitoring program. A cease and desist order may also include, but is not limited to, modifications in the frequency and extent of monitoring, sampling and analysis, and submission of self-monitoring reports. 13.20.406 Determination of Non-compliance with Discharge Limits. A. Sampling procedures. 1. Sampling of all Users shall be conducted in the time, place, manner, and frequency determined at the sole discretion of the City. 2. Noncompliance with mass emission rate limits, concentration limits, permit discharge conditions, or any discharge provision of this Chapter may be determined by an analysis of a grab or composite sample of the effluent of a User. Noncompliance with mass emission rate limits shall be determined by an analysis of a composite sample of the User's effluent, except that a grab sample may be used to determine compliance with mass emission 58 rate limits when the discharge is from a closed (batch) treatment system in which there is no wastewater flow into the sewerage system when the discharge is occurring, the volume of wastewater contained in the batch system is known, the time interval of discharge is known, and the grab sample is homogeneous and representative of the discharge. 3. Any sample taken from a sample point shall be deemed to be representative of the discharge to the POTW. B. Waste hauler noncompliance with Discharge Limits. A waste hauler's noncompliance with discharge limits shall be determined by an analysis of a sample of the discharge for any constituent or conditions specified in the waste hauler's wastewater discharge permit or this Chapter. If the discharge of a waste hauler is found by the analysis to be in excess of the concentration limits specified in the waste hauler's wastewater discharge permit or in this Chapter, the waste hauler shall, upon receiving a demand from the City, identify in writing all sources of the discharge. Even if it is established to the satisfaction of the Director that the origin of the discharge is septic waste or sanitary waste, the City may still elect not to accept waste from that particular source. 13.20.407 Non-compliance Monitoring Program. A. Repeat Sampling. If any sample analysis indicates that the User is discharging wastewater with pollutant concentrations or levels exceeding discharge limits contained in this Chapter or contained in User's permit, then the User shall notify the City of the violation within 24 hours of becoming aware of the incident. The User shall also collect and analyze a follow-up sample or samples (as directed by the Director using approved analytical methods). The User shall submit the completed follow-up sample analysis to the City within 30 days of becoming aware of the violation. B. Initiation of Noncompliance Monitoring Program. 59 If the follow-up sample indicates continued noncompliance, the User may be ordered by the Director to immediately initiate a noncompliance monitoring program requiring additional sampling and reporting by the User in accordance with a schedule issued by the Director. During the program, the User may be subject to noncompliance fees established by City ordinance or resolution, as appropriate. C. Termination of Noncompliance Monitoring Program. The noncompliance monitoring program may be terminated by the City upon the User's demonstration of a return to consistent compliance. To demonstrate consistent compliance, the User must either: 1. Terminate the discharge; or 2. Provide analyses (which have been analyzed using approved analytical methods), which show discharge levels in consistent compliance over a period of not Tess than 30 days or as specified in the program. D. Non-compliance Fees. The payment of non-compliance fees by Users shall not bar the City from undertaking any other enforcement, civil, or criminal proceedings. The purpose of noncompliance fees is to compensate the City for costs of additional sampling, monitoring, laboratory analysis, treatment, disposal and administrative processing incurred because of non-compliance. Non- compliance fees are established by City Resolution and are amended from time to time to reflect the cost of providing additional oversight to remedy non-compliance with the provisions of this Ordinance or wastewater discharge permit. 13.20.408 Permit Suspension or Revocation. A. Grounds. The Director may suspend or revoke any permit when it is determined that a permittee: 1. Knowingly provides a false statement, representation, record, report, or other document to the City; 60 2. Refuses to provide records, reports, plans, or other documents required by the City to determine permit terms, conditions, or limits, discharge compliance, or compliance with this Chapter; 3. Falsifies, tampers with, or knowingly renders inaccurate any monitoring device or sample collection method; 4. Fails to report significant changes in operations or wastewater constituents and characteristics; 5. Fails to comply with the terms and conditions of an administrative order issued pursuant to this Chapter; 6. Discharges effluent to the POTW while its permit is suspended; 7. Refuses reasonable access to the Permittee's premises for the purpose of inspection and monitoring; 8. Does not make timely payment of all amounts owed to the City for fees imposed pursuant to this Chapter; 9. Causes interference with the City's collection, treatment or disposal system; 10. Fails to submit oral notice or written report of bypass occurrence; 11. Violates any condition or limit of its discharge permit or any provision of this Chapter. B. Notice/Hearinci. When the Director has reason to believe that grounds exist for the suspension or revocation of a permit, he shall give written notice by personal service or certified mail thereof to the permittee setting forth a statement of the facts and grounds deemed to exist together with the time and place where the charges shall be heard by the Director's designee. The hearing date shall be not Tess than 15 calendar days nor more than 45 calendar days after the mailing of such notice. 1. At the hearing, the permittee shall have an opportunity to respond to the allegations set forth in the notice by presenting written or oral evidence. The suspension or 61 revocation hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures established by the Director and approved by counsel for the City. 2. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Director's designee shall submit a written report to the Director setting forth a brief statement of facts found to be true, a determination of the issues presented, conclusions, and a recommendation. Upon receipt of the written report, the Director shall make his determination and should he find that grounds exist for suspension or permanent revocation of the permit, he shall issue his decision and order in writing within thirty calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing by his designee. The written decision and order of the Director shall be served personally or by certified mail on the permittee or its legal counsel/representative. In the event the Director determines to not revoke the permit, he may order other enforcement actions, including, but not limited to, a temporary suspension of the permit, under terms and conditions that he deems appropriate to further the purposes of this Chapter. C. Effect. 1. Upon an order of suspension or revocation by the Director becoming final, the permittee shall lose all rights to discharge any non-domestic wastewater directly or indirectly to the POTW in accordance with the order. All costs for physical termination shall be paid by the permittee. 2. Any owner or responsible management employee of the permittee shall be bound by the order of suspension or revocation. 3. Any future application for a permit at any location within the POTW's service area by any person subject to an order of revocation will be considered by the City after fully reviewing the records of the revoked permit, which records may be the basis for denial of a new permit. 4. An order of permit suspension or revocation issued by Director shall be final in all respects on the 31st day after it is served personally or by certified mail on the permittee 62 unless a notice of appeal is filed with the City pursuant to Section 13.20.427 no later than 5:00 p.m. on the 30th day following such mailing. 13.20.410 Termination of Service. When the Director finds that any User has done any of the following acts, the Director may terminate sewer service to that User upon serving appropriate notice to the User: A. Violate a cease and desist order; B. Fail to accurately report the wastewater constituents and characteristics of its discharge; C. Fail to report significant changes in operations, or wastewater volume, constituents and characteristics prior to discharge; D. Refuse to allow reasonable access to the User's premises for the purpose of inspection, monitoring or sampling; E. Violate any pretreatment standard. The procedures set forth in Section 13.08.408.B shall apply to termination of service proceedings. The User shall be liable for all costs for termination of sewer service incurred by the User and the City. This provision is in addition to other statutes, rules, or regulations authorizing termination of service for delinquency in payment, or for any other reason. Sewer service may be re -instituted if the Director is satisfied that the User has remedied all aspects of noncompliance with this Chapter and that the User has the capability to and will remain in compliance in the future. The User shall be liable for all costs for re -institution of sewer service. 13.20.415 Emergency Suspension of Service. A. The Director may suspend sewerage service or wastehauler discharge service, after informal notice to the User, when the Director determines that such suspension is necessary to stop an actual or impending discharge which presents or may present an imminent or substantial endangerment to the health and welfare of persons, or to the 63 environment, may cause pass through of or interference with the POTW, or may cause the City to violate any state or federal law or regulation. Any User notified of and subject to an emergency suspension order shall immediately cease the discharge of all non-domestic wastewater to the sewerage system. If a User fails to immediately comply with an emergency suspension order, the Director shall take steps as deemed necessary, including immediate severance of the sewer connection, to prevent the continued discharge of non-domestic wastewater to the POTW. The User shall be liable for all costs incurred by the City in terminating sewer service. B. As soon as reasonably practicable following the issuance of an emergency suspension order and informal notice to the User of the time and location for a hearing, but in no event more than five (5) days following the issuance of such order, the Director shall hold a hearing to provide the User the opportunity to present information in opposition to the issuance of the emergency suspension order. Such a hearing shall not stay the effect of the emergency suspension order. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with procedures established by the Director and approved by counsel for the City. The Director shall issue a written decision and order within two (2) business days following the hearing, which decision shall be served personally or by certified mail on the User or the User's legal counsel. The decision of the Director following the hearing shall be final and not appealable. C. Upon a demonstration by the User to the satisfaction of the Director that the period of endangerment has passed and will not recur, the Director may allow the User to recommence its discharge to the POTW, unless the Director proceeds with permit revocation or termination of service pursuant to Sections 13.20.408 or 13.20.410. 13.20.416 Public Nuisance. Discharge of wastewater in any manner in violation of this Chapter or of any administrative order issued pursuant to this Chapter, is declared a public nuisance and shall be corrected or abated as directed by the Director. Any person creating a public nuisance is guilty of a misdemeanor 64 13.20.417 Criminal Penalties. Any person who violates any provision of this Chapter, is guilty of a misdemeanor, which is punishable by a fine of at least $1,000 for each violation per day, or by imprisonment for a period of not more than six (6) months, or both. Each such person shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for every day during any portion of which any violation of any provisions of this Chapter has been committed or continued. 13.20.419 Search or Inspection Warrants. If the Director has been refused access to a building or property, or any part thereof, or determines that a search or inspection warrant is appropriate to investigate in furtherance of the purposes of this Chapter, the Director may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for the issuance of a search or inspection warrant. 13.20.420 Legal Action. If any person, firm or corporation violates or has the reasonable potential to violate any provision of its wastewater discharge permit, this Chapter, federal or state pretreatment standards or requirements, or any administrative order issued pursuant to this Chapter, the City Attorney may petition a court of competent jurisdiction for appropriate legal, equitable or injunctive relief including, but not limited to, issuance of a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, permanent injunction, and/or any other relief that may be appropriate to restrain the continued violation or prevent threatened violations by the User. In addition to the penalties provided herein, the Director may recover reasonable attorney fees, court costs, court reporter's fees, and other expenses of litigation by appropriate suit of law against the person found to have violated any of the provisions of this Chapter or the orders, rules, regulations, and permits issued thereunder. 13.20.425 Civil Penalties. A. Authority. All Users of the POTW are subject to enforcement actions administratively or judicially by the City, EPA, Regional Board, and/or the County of Riverside 65 District Attorney. The actions may be taken pursuant to the authority and provisions of several laws, including but not limited to: (1) Federal Water Pollution Control Act, commonly known as the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq.); (2) California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (California Water Code Section 13000 et seq.); (3) California Hazardous Waste Control Law (California Health and Safety Code Section 25100 et seq.); (4) Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (42 U.S.C. Section 6901 et seq.); and (5) California Government Code, Sections 54739 et seq. B. Recovery of Fines or Penalties. In the event the City is subject to the payment of fines or penalties pursuant to the legal authority and actions of other regulatory or enforcement agencies based on a violation of law or regulation or its permits, and the violation can be established by City as caused by the discharge of any User of the POTW which is in violation of any provision of this Chapter, the User's permit, or an administrative order issued pursuant to this Chapter, City shall be entitled to recover from the User all costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, the full amount of said fines or penalties to which it has been subjected. C. Ordinance. Pursuant to the authority of California Government Code Sections 54739-54740, any person who violates any provision of this Chapter; any permit condition, prohibition or effluent limit; or any suspension or revocation order shall be liable civilly for a sum not to exceed thirty seven thousand five hundred dollars ($37,500) per violation for each day in which such violation occurs. Pursuant to the authority of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. Section 1251 et seq., any person who violates any provision of this Chapter, or any permit condition, prohibition, or effluent limit shall be liable civilly for a sum not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per violation for each day in which such violation occurs. Counsel for the City, upon order of the Director, shall petition a court of competent jurisdiction to impose, assess, and recover such penalties, or such other penalties as the City may impose, assess, and recover pursuant to federal and/or state legislative authorization. 66 D. Administrative Civil Penalties. 1. Pursuant to the authority of California Government Code Sections 54740.5 and 54740.6, the City may issue an administrative complaint to any person who violates: (a) any provision of this Chapter; (b) any permit condition, prohibition, or effluent limit; or (c) any suspension or revocation order. 2. The administrative complaint shall be served by personal delivery or certified mail on the person and shall inform the person that a hearing will be conducted, and shall specify a hearing date within sixty (60) days following service. The administrative complaint shall allege the act or failure to act that constitutes the violation of the City's requirements, the provisions of law authorizing civil liability to be imposed, and the proposed civil penalty. The matter shall be heard by the Director or his designee. The person to whom an administrative complaint has been issued may waive the right to a hearing, in which case a hearing will not be conducted. 3. At the hearing, the person shall have an opportunity to respond to the allegations set forth in the administrative complaint by presenting written or oral evidence. The hearing shall be conducted in accordance with the procedures established by the Director and approved by the Counsel for the City. 4. After the conclusion of the hearing, the Director's Designee shall submit a written report to the Director setting forth a statement of the facts found to be true, a determination of the issues presented, conclusions, and a recommendation. 5. Upon receipt of the written report, the Director shall make his determination and should he find that grounds exist for assessment of a civil penalty against the person, he shall issue his decision and order in writing within thirty calendar days after the conclusion of the hearing by his designee. 67 6. If, after the hearing or appeal, if any, it is found that the person has violated reporting or discharge requirements the Director or City Council may assess a civil penalty against that person. In determining the amount of the civil penalty, the Director or City Council may take into consideration all relevant circumstances, including but not limited to the extent of harm caused by the violation, the economic benefit derived through any noncompliance, the nature and persistence of the violation, the length of time over which the violation occurs, and corrective action, if any, attempted or taken by the person involved. 7. Civil penalties may be assessed as follows: (a) In an amount which shall not exceed $2,000 for each day for failing or refusing to furnish technical or monitoring reports; (b) In an amount which shall not exceed three thousand dollars ($3,000) for each day for failing or refusing to timely comply with any compliance schedules established by the City; (c) In an amount which shall not exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000) per violation for each day of discharge in violation of any waste discharge limit, permit condition, or requirement issued, reissued, or adopted by the City; (d) In any amount which does not exceed ten dollars ($10) per gallon for discharges in violation of any suspension, revocation, cease and desist order or other orders, or prohibition issued, reissued, or adopted by the City. 8. An order assessing administrative civil penalties issued by the City shall be final in all respects on the 31st day after it is served on the person unless a notice of appeal is filed with the City Council pursuant to Section 13.20.427 no later than the thirtieth day following such mailing. An order assessing administrative civil penalties issued by the City Council shall be final upon issuance. 9. Copies of the administrative order shall be served on the party served with the administrative complaint, either by personal service or by registered mail to the person at his 68 business or residence address, and upon other persons who appeared at the hearing and requested a copy of the order. 10. Any person aggrieved by a final order issued by the City council, after granting review of the order of the Director, may obtain review of the order of the City Council in the superior court, pursuant to Government Code Section 54740.6, by filing in the court a petition for writ of mandate within thirty days following the service of a copy of the decision or order issued by the City Council. 11. Payment of any order setting administrative civil penalties shall be made within thirty (30) days of the date the order becomes final. The amount of any administrative civil penalties imposed which have remained delinquent for a period of sixty (60) days shall constitute a lien against the real property of the discharger from which the discharge resulting in the imposition of the civil penalty originated. The lien shall have no effect until recorded with the county recorder. The City may record the lien for any unpaid administrative civil penalties on the ninety-first (91st) day following the date the order becomes final. 12. No administrative civil penalties shall be recoverable under subsection D of this section for any violation for which the City has recovered civil penalties through a judicial proceeding filed pursuant to Government Code Section 54740. 13.20.427 Appeals to the City Council. A. General. Any User, permit applicant, or permittee adversely affected by a decision, action, or determination made by the Director may file a written notice of appeal requesting a hearing before the City Council, which notice shall be accompanied by an appeal fee in the amount established by a separate resolution of the City Council. The notice of appeal shall be filed within thirty (30) days of the service on the appellant of notice of the decision, action or determination of the Director. The notice of appeal shall set forth in detail all the issues in dispute for which the appellant seeks determination and all facts supporting appellant's request. 69 No later than sixty (60) days after receipt of the request for hearing, the City council shall either set the matter for a hearing, or deny the request for a hearing in accordance with subsection B of this section. Upon receipt of a timely notice of appeal, a hearing shall be held by the City Council within sixty-five (65) days, unless a later date is agreed to by the appellant and the City Council. If the matter is not heard within the required time, due to actions or inactions of the appellant, the Director's order shall be deemed final. As the ordinance codified in this Chapter constitutes a legislative enactment, except as expressly authorized under this Chapter, there are no provisions for waiver or variance from the terms of said ordinance. B. Granting Request for Hearing. The City Council shall grant all requests for a hearing on appeals concerning an award of civil penalties, or orders of permit suspension, revocation, or denial. Whether to grant or deny the request for a hearing on appeals of other decisions of the Director shall be within the sole discretion of the City Council. C. Appeal Fee Refund. The appeal fee shall be refunded if the City Council denies a hearing or reverses or modifies, in favor of the appellant, the order of the Director. The fee shall not be refunded if the City Council denies the appeal. D. Written Determination. After the hearing, the City Council shall make a determination whether to uphold, modify, or reverse the decision, action, or determination made by the Director. The decision of the City Council shall be set forth in writing within sixty-five (65) days after the close of the hearing and shall contain findings of the facts found to be true, the determination of issues presented, and the conclusions. The written decision and order of the City Council shall be served personally or by certified mail on the appellant or its legal counsel/ representative. 70 The order of the City Council shall be final upon its adoption. In the event the City Council fails to reverse or modify the Director's order, it shall be deemed affirmed. 13.20.428 Financial Security/Amendments to Permit. A. Compliance Deposit. Permittees that have been subject to enforcement and/or collection proceedings may be required to deposit with the City an amount determined by the Director as necessary to guarantee payment to City of all charges, fees, penalties, costs and expenses that may be incurred in the future, before permission is granted for further discharge to the sewer. B. Delinquent Accounts. The City may require an amendment to the permit of any permittee who fails to make payment in full of all fees and charges assessed by the City or otherwise incurred by permittee. C. Bankruptcy. Every permittee filing any legal action in any court of competent jurisdiction, including the United States Bankruptcy Court, for purposes of discharging its financial debts or obligations or seeking court-ordered protection from its creditors, shall, within ten days of filing such action, apply for and obtain the issuance of an amendment to its permit. D. Permit Amendments. The City shall review and examine permittee's account to determine whether previously incurred fees and charges have been paid in accordance with time requirements prescribed by this Chapter. The City may thereafter issue an amendment to the User's permit in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter. E. Security. An amendment to a waste discharge permit issued pursuant to subsections B, C and/or D of this section, may be conditioned upon the permittee depositing financial security in an amount equal to the average total fees and charges for two calendar quarters during the preceding year. The deposit shall be used to guarantee payment of all fees and charges incurred for future services and facilities furnished by City and shall not be 71 used by the City to recover outstanding fees and charges incurred prior to the permittee filing and receiving protection from creditors in the United States Bankruptcy Court. F. Return of Security. In the event the permittee makes payment in full within the time prescribed by this Chapter of all fees and charges incurred over a period of two years following the issuance of an amendment to the permit pursuant to subsections B, C and/or D of this section, the City shall either return the security deposit posted by the permittee or credit his account. 13.20.430 Enforcement Response Plan (ERP). The Director shall prepare, implement, and, if necessary, periodically update an Enforcement Response Plan (ERP) in conformance with EPA guidance contained in 40 CFR 403.8(f)(5). 13.20.440 Notice of Discharge Prohibition. The Director may serve a written notice of discharge prohibition on any person(s) engaged in any activity or activities which, while not resulting in a discharge of non-domestic wastewater to the POTW at the time, may, in the Director's judgment, result in a discharge of non-domestic wastewater at some time in the future. A notice of discharge prohibition shall include at least the following: A. A list of general discharge restrictions and prohibitions; B. A list or citation of any categorical standards that would be applicable upon commencement of non-domestic wastewater discharge; C. A requirement to apply for and obtain a wastewater discharge permit prior to commencing discharge of non-domestic wastewater to the POTW; D. A requirement for notification of slug or accidental discharges; and E. A statement of applicable civil and criminal penalties for violation of pretreatment standards and requirements. A notice of discharge prohibition may also contain one or more of the following: 1. A requirement to prepare and submit a slug discharge control plan; 2. A requirement to install and maintain one or more spill containment systems; 72 3. A requirement for maintaining and retaining plant records relating to wastes removed from the facility; 4. A requirement to submit an annual written statement to the Director certifying that no non-domestic wastewater has been discharged to the POTW during the previous year other than discharges of which the Director was properly notified, and that no non-domestic wastewater will be discharged during the forthcoming year without proper notification and/or obtaining a wastewater discharge permit. 13.20.445 Industrial Waste Pass Through or Interference. Any person whose discharge results in a pass through or interference event affecting the POTW shall be liable for all costs associated with the event, including treatment costs, regulatory fines, penalties, assessments, and other indirect costs. The User shall submit to the City plans to prevent future recurrences to the satisfaction of the Director. 13.20.450 Publication of Violation. Upon a determination in a permit suspension, permit revocation, or civil penalty proceedings that a User has discharged in violation of its permit or any provision under this Chapter, the City may require that the User notify the public and/or other Users of the POTW of such violation, of actions taken to correct such violation, and of any administrative or judicial orders or penalties imposed because of such violation. 13.20.460 Recovery of Costs Incurred by the City. In the event a permittee fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions of this Chapter, an administrative order, compliance schedule or a permit issued hereunder, the City shall be entitled to reasonable attorney fees and costs which may be incurred to enforce any of the terms and conditions, with or without filing proceedings in court. 13.20.470 Judicial Review. A. Purpose and Effect. Pursuant to Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, the City enacts this section to limit to ninety days following final decisions in 73 adjudicatory administrative hearings the time within which an action can be brought to review such decisions by means of administrative mandamus. B. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms and words shall have the following meanings: 1. Decision shall mean and include adjudicatory administrative decisions that are made after hearing, and after an award of civil penalties pursuant to Section 13.20.425, after revoking, suspending, or denying an application for a permit or a license, or after other administrative hearings taken to enforce this Chapter. 2. Complete record shall mean and include the transcript, if any exists, of the proceedings, all pleadings, all notices and orders, any proposed decision by the Director, and the final decision, all admitted exhibits, all rejected exhibits in the possession of the City or its officers or agents, all written evidence, and any other papers in the case. C. Time Limit for Judicial Review. Except as set forth in subsection G of this section, judicial review of any decision of the City or its officer or agent may be made pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure only if the petition for writ of mandate is filed not later than the ninetieth day following the date on which the decision becomes final. If there is no provision for reconsideration in the procedures governing the proceedings or if the date is not otherwise specified, the decision is final on the date it is made. If there is a provision for reconsideration, the decision is final upon the expiration of the period during which such reconsideration can be sought; provided that if reconsideration is sought pursuant to such provision, the decision is final for the purposes of this section on the date that reconsideration is rejected. D. Preparation of the Record. The complete record of the proceedings shall be prepared by the City officer or agent who made the decision and shall be delivered to the petitioner within ninety days after a written request is filed by said petitioner and received by 74 the City. The City may recover from the petitioner its actual costs for transcribing and otherwise preparing the record. E. Extension. If the petitioner files a request for the record within ten (10) days after the date the decision becomes final, the time within which a petition, pursuant to Section 1094.5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, may be filed shall be extended to not later than the thirtieth (30th) day following the date on which the record is either personally delivered or mailed to the petitioner or the petitioner's attorney of record, if appropriate. F. Notice. In making a final decision, the City shall provide notice to the person(s) subject to the administrative decision that the time within which judicial review must be sought is governed by Section 1094.6 of the Code of Civil Procedure. G. Administrative Civil Penalties. Notwithstanding the foregoing in Section 13208.470, and pursuant to Government Code Section 54740.6, judicial review of an order of the City Council imposing administrative civil penalties pursuant to Section 13.20.425.D may be made only if the petition for writ of mandate is filed not later than the thirtieth day following the day on which the order of the City Council becomes final. V. ADOPTION: 13.20.500 Effective Date - Annexations. Wherever in this Chapter time limits are established or periods of compliance or extensions thereof are specified, the commencement date for computing such periods of time limits for areas annexed to the City subsequent to enactment of the ordinance codified in this Chapter shall be the official annexation date. This section shall have no application to firms or industries established in annexed areas subsequent to the annexation date. 13.20.505 Effective Date. The mayor will sign the ordinance codified in this Chapter and the City Clerk shall attest thereto, and said ordinance shall become effective in the City of Beaumont. 75 13.20.510 Conflicts. All ordinances or portions of ordinances in conflict herewith, and specifically Ordinance No. 627 are hereby repealed. Section 7: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective thirty (30) days after the date of its final passage and adoption. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on October 17th, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on November 7, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: None ABSTAIN: None ABSENT: None ATTEST: ‘14d4fralt City Clerk Approved as to fo ./(/*" Lloyd . White, M Mayor z ., John 0. Pinkney, City Attorney 76 ied-r or ORDINANCE NO. 1095 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT ESTABLISHING THE 2017 DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEE PROGRAM The City Council of the City of Beaumont does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1: Title This Ordinance shall be known as the "2017 Beaumont Development Impact Fee Program Ordinance." Section 2: Findings A. Section 66000 et seq. of the California Government Code authorizes the City to levy fees upon development projects to defray all or a portion of the costs of public facilities and other amounts related to the development project. Such fees are commonly known as "development impact fees." B. The City currently imposes development impact fees to fund the costs that will be covered by this Ordinance under the following: Fire Station: Ord. 795 updated by Reso. 2015-004; Regional Parks: Reso. 2005-40 C. The City has commissioned a study by Colgan Consulting Corporation to set and establish park, recreation, police, fire and civic facilities fees at amounts appropriate to the current costs associated with development in the City of Beaumont. D. Purpose of the Fee. The City Council finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted ("Fees") is to prevent new development from adversely impacting the level of service for public facilities in Beaumont by requiring new development to contribute to the cost of improvements needed to meet the needs of new development. E. Use of the Fee. The City Council finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted will be used to acquire land and equipment and construct new facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Those improvements are identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study ("Fee Study") prepared by Colgan Consulting Corporation, a copy of which is attache& hereto and made a part hereof as Exhibit "A". F. Reasonable Relationship: Based on analysis presented in the 2017 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study prepared by Colgan Consulting Corporation, which is incorporated herein by this reference, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable relationship between: 1 1. The use of the Fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; and 2. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the Fees are imposed. G. By notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the Fee Study and the Fees proposed thereunder, and at least ten days prior to the hearing, the City made the Fee Study available to the public. H. At the time and place set for the hearing, the City Council duly considered the data and information provided by the public relative to the costs for which the Fees are proposed and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing. I. The City Council finds that the Fee Study proposes a fair and equitable method for distributing a portion of the unfunded costs of the improvements and facilities as provided therein. J. The City Council hereby adopts the Fee Study and findings incorporated therein, and incorporates it herein as though set forth in full. Section 3: Establishment of the Development Impact Fees A. Adoption. The Fees authorized by this Ordinance shall be implemented by resolution of the City Council and may be amended from time to time as determined by this Ordinance and by resolution of the City Council. B. Fee Calculation. The Fees authorized by this Ordinance shall be calculated as provided in this Ordinance, the Fee Study and by resolution of the City Council. Section 4: Adoption of Development Impact Fees: A. Adoption of the Fees. There is hereby adopted the "2017 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fees" ("Fee(s)") to be levied and collected as provided in this Ordinance. The amount of the Fee shall be established by this ordinance and, from time -to -time, by resolution of the City Council. B. Applicability. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter, the Fees shall be payable with respect to each development within the City for which a building permit is issued. C. Adjustment of the Fees. The amount of each of the Fees shall be automatically adjusted at the beginning of each fiscal year by an amount equal to the cumulative percentage increases in the applicable Building Cost Index or Construction Cost Index of the 2 Engineering News Record Index published for the month nearest the effective date of the adjustment as compared with the amount of the same in effect at the time of the nearest prior to the adoption of this Ordinance or the previous adjustment, as appropriate. The fees as revised annually, shall be calculated by the City Manager or his or her designee and shall be included in a report to the City Council. D. The fee schedule may be periodically reviewed and the amounts adjusted by the City Council by resolution. The fees may be increased or decreased to reflect changes in actual and estimated costs of the facilities, debt service, lease payments and construction costs. The adjustment of the fees may also reflect changes in the improvements and facilities required to be constructed, in estimated revenues received pursuant to this Ordinance as well as the availability or lack thereof of other funds with which to design construct the improvements and facilities. E. Calculation of Fee. The amount of the Fees shall be calculated by the Building Department prior to issuance of the building permit, based upon the then -current fee schedule adopted by this Ordinance and by resolution of the City Council pursuant to this Ordinance. F. Appeal. In the event a developer does not agree with the calculation of the Fee by the Building Department, he or she may within five (5) business days of the date of the calculation of the fee appeal the calculation of the fee to the Planning Director. The developer shall be notified in writing of the Planning Director's determination. Such determination shall be made within thirty (30) days of the Planning Director's receipt of the appeal. The developer may provide additional information to assist the Planning Director in making the determination. The developer may appeal the determination of the Planning Director to the City Council in accordance with the provisions of Section 3.22.110 of the Beaumont Municipal Code. G. Payment of the Fee. The full amount of the Fee shall be paid at the time of issuance of the building permit except as otherwise provided in Government Code Section 66007. No City official may issue a building permit, certificate of occupancy, or certify a final inspection for a development until the Fee required by this Ordinance is paid. The City shall not accept prepayments of the Fee unless prepayment is authorized in a development or other agreement or is otherwise approved by the City Council. H. Credits and Reimbursements. If the developer desires to construct a public facility, the developer and the City Council may enter into an agreement regarding a credit or reimbursement of Fees due or paid. I. Exemptions. Unless a development or other agreement provides otherwise, the following projects shall be exempt, in whole or in part, from the Fees otherwise required by this Chapter: 1. Low income residential housing. 3 2. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any legal residential dwelling unit and/or the replacement of an existing dwelling unit. 3. The rehabilitation and/or reconstruction of any non-residential structure where there is no net increase in square footage. Any increase in square footage shall pay the then -current Fees. J. Use of Funds. The fees collected pursuant to this Ordinance shall, except for temporary investments or capital expenditures, shall be placed in the appropriate account or fund and managed to prevent commingling of the fees with operating revenues or other funds of the City, and shall be used solely for the purposes of designing, acquiring and constructing the public facilities identified in the Fee Study and as provided in this Ordinance. Any interest income earned on the Fund shall only be expended for the purposes set forth in this Ordinance. K. Refunds. Refunds may be made where: 1. Development has ceased, the building permit has expired and no extensions have been granted, or if granted, the extension(s) has expired; as to a development for which the Fees required under this Chapter has been collected; provided that the claim for such a refund is filed no later than sixty (60) days after the expiration date of the building permit or any extension thereof as may have been approved by the City; or 2. A refund is specifically authorized by resolution of the City Council adopted pursuant to Government Code section 66001(d). Such amounts shall be refunded by the City to the then -current record owners of the development on a prorated basis. The City may effect such refund by direct payment, or by providing credit towards future Fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of Government Code section 66001. L. Appeals. A developer may appeal to the City Council any determination made pursuant to this Chapter. All appeals shall be in a form prescribed by the Planning Director and shall be filed within fifteen (15) days of the date of determination. Any appeal not filed within such period shall be deemed waived. The City Council shall set the matter for hearing within forty-five (45) days of the date of receipt by the City Clerk of the notice of the appeal. M. Supersession of Other Fees. The Fees established by this ordinance shall supersede and replace those fees previously established and applicable under Basic Services: Ord. 506, Fire Station: Ord. 795 updated by Reso. 2015-004; Regional Parks: Reso. 2005- 40 on and after the date that this ordinance takes effect. Section 5: CEQA. The fees adopted hereunder are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code, Section 21080 (b) for the reason that the fees are 4 imposed for the purpose of purchasing materials and for obtaining funds necessary to maintain service within existing service areas. Section 6. Publication. This Ordinance shall be published once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in "The Record -Gazette," a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Beaumont, or a summary shall be published ten (10) days prior to its introduction and public hearing and once again five (5) days prior to its adoption and shall be posted for fifteen (15) days in the City Clerk's office within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Section 7: Effective Date. This ordinance shall be effective sixty (60) days after the date of its final passage and adoption. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 7th day of November, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Santos, Martinez, Carroll NOES: Lara, White ABSENT: ABSTAIN PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 21st day of November, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Lara, White, Carroll NOES ABSENT: Santos ABSTAIN Attest: /IAW4W 4 Andreanna Pfeiffti, C'J Clerk Approved as to form: JolPinkney, City Attorney 5 ed Ll . d hite, Mayor EXHIBIT "A" 6 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Report Final Report November 16, 2017 40 Colgan Consulting Corporation 3308 EI Camino Avenue, Suite 300-212 Sacramento, CA 95821 www.colgan-consulting.com Revision Notes November 16, 2017 Revision: The population per dwelling unit factor for mobile home de- velopment was adjusted lower to reflect more recent data from the Census Bureaus American Community Survey, Single family residential units were increased slightly so that the projected buildout population remained unchaned. The result is lower impact fees for mobile hone developments compared with the September 24, zov draft report. This change results in little or no change in the impact fees for other types of development. Some existing parks that were omitted from the September. 26„ zoi7 draft report were added to Table 3.1, Chapter 3.. The result was an increase in existing park acmes% which resulted in a modest increase in park land acquisition in-lieutim,pact fees and park im- provement impact fees. City of Beaumont — Development Impact Fee Study Tab/e of Contents Table of Contents Executive Summary ES- 1 Organization of the Report 5-1 How Impact Fees Are Calculated in this Report S-1 Impact Fee Summary 5-2 Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs S-3 Chapter 1. Introduction 1-1 Purpose 1-1 Legal Framework for Impact Fees 1-1 Impact Fee Calculation Methodology 1-6 Facilities Addressed in This Study 1-8 Chapter 2. Development Data 2-1 Population Growth 2-1 Study Area and Time Frame 2-1 Development Types 2-2 Demand Variables 2-2 Demand Factors 2-4 Development Data 2-4 Growth Potential 2-7 Chapter 3. Park Facilities Impact Fees and In -Lieu Fees Demand Variable Service Area Level of Service Methodology Existing Parks Existing Level of Service Cost per Capita Fees per Unit of Development Park Impact Fee Summary Projected Revenue Updating the Fees Nexus Summary November 16, 2017 (Table of Contents Continued on the Next Page) 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-1 3-2 3-2 3-4 3-4 3-5 3-7 3-7 3-8 3-8 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page i City of Beaumont - Development Impact Fee Study Tab/e of Contents Chapter 4. Recreation Facilities Impact Fees Demand Variable Service Area Level of Service Methodology Level of Service Existing Facilities Cost per Capita Impact Fees per Unit of Development Projected Revenue Updating the Fees Nexus Summary Chapter 5. Fire Facilities Impact Fees Demand Variable Service Area Methodology Level of Service Planned Future Fire Stations Cost per Acre Impact Fees per Unit of Development Projected Revenue Updating the Fees Nexus Summary 4-I 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-1 4-2 4-2 4-2 4-3 4-3 4-4 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-1 5-2 5-2 5-2 5-3 5-4 5-4 5-4 Chapter 6. Police Facilities Impact Fees 6-1 Demand Variable 6-1 Service Area 6-1 Methodology 6-1 Level of Service 6-2 Planned New Police Facility 6-2 Cost per Capita 6-3 Impact Fees per Unit of Development 6-3 Projected Revenue 6-3 Updating the Fees 6-4 Nexus Summary 6-4 November 16, 2017 (Table of Contents Continued on the Next Page) Colgan Consulting Corporation Page // City of Beaumont — Development Impact Fee Study Table of Contents Chapter 7. Public Facilities Impact Fees Demand Variable Service Area Methodology Level of Service Planned Future Public Facilities Cost per Capita Impact Fees per Unit of Development Projected Revenue Updating the Fees Nexus Summary 7-1 7-1 7-1 7-2 7-2 7-2 7-3 7-3 7-3 7-4 7-4 Chapter 8. Implementation 8-1 Adoption 8-1 Administration 8-2 Training and Public Information 8-7 Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs 8-8 November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page iii City of Beaumont - Development impact Fee Study Executive Summary Executive Summary The City of Beaumont has retained Colgan Consulting Corporation to prepare this study to analyze the impacts of development on several types of City facilities and to calculate impact fees based on that analysis. The methods used in this study are in- tended to satisfy all legal requirements of the U. S. Constitution, the California Con- stitution, the California Mitigation Fee Act (Govt. Code Sections 66000 et seq.), and where applicable the Quimby Act (Govt. Code Section 66477). Organization of the Report Chapter 1 of this report provides an introduction and overview of impact fees. It dis- cusses legal requirements for establishing and imposing such fees, as well as meth- ods that can be used to calculate impact fees. Chapter 2 contains data on existing and future development used in the impact fee analysis. It forecasts an increase of approximately 87% in population and 95% in ser- vice population between 2017 and buildout of development envisioned in the General Plan. Chapter 3 calculates park facilities impact fees and park land acquisition fees. Chapter 4 calculates impact fees for recreation facilities. Chapter 5 calculates impact fees for fire protection facilities. Chapter 6 calculates impact fees for police facilities. Chapter 7 calculates impact fees for public facilities including City Hall and the corpo- ration yard. Chapter 8 presents recommendations for implementation of the impact fee program to meet the requirements of the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 6600o-66024) How Impact Fees Are Calculated in this Report In general, the first step in calculating impact fees is to estimate the cost of additional facilities that will be needed to serve the additional demand created by new devel- opment. Then, those costs are allocated to various types of new development based on their impact on a particular type of facility. The impact of development on facilities addressed in this report is quantified in fee calculation formulas using "demand variables." A demand variable is some attribute of development that represents the increase in service demand resulting from new development. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page S-1 City of Beaumont - Development Impact Fee Study Executive Summary For example, the need for additional parks and recreation facilities is driven by the increase in population associated with new residential development. So impact fees per dwelling unit for parks and recreation facilities are based on the number of new residents per dwelling unit associated with a particular type of residential develop- ment. The number of fire stations needed to serve the City is strongly related to the physi- cal size of the service area, so impact fees for fire protection facilities are based on the amount of acreage occupied by new development. For police facilities and public facilities, which serve both residential and non- residential development, this study measures the impact of development using "ser- vice population." Resident population only represents the impact of residential development. Service population includes both residents of the City and employees of businesses in the City. Employees are used to represent the impact of non-residential development, and the employee component of service population is weighted to reflect the fact that non-resident employees do not have the same impact as residents on the need for public services and facilities provided by the City. Service population is discussed in more detail in Chapter i of this report. The procedure used to calculate impact fees in chapters 3 through 7, generally in- volves estimating the cost of new facilities that will be needed to serve future devel- opment, and allocating those costs in proportion to the impacts created by various types of development. For example, in the case of fire protection facilities, the total estimated cost of new fire stations is divided by the number of acres of new devel- opment to be served, and the result is a cost per acre. That cost per acre can be con- verted into an impact fee per unit for each type of development depending on the expected number of units per acre for that type of development. The exact method used to calculate a particular type of impact fee depends on a number of factors. Each type of impact fee calculated in this report is discussed in detail in a separate chapter. Impact Fee Summary Impact fees per unit calculated in this report are summarized in Table SA on the next page. This report calculates separate fees for neighborhood and community parks. The fees shown for each of those categories in the following table is the sum of a park land acquisition fee and a park improvement fee. See Chapter 3 for more detail. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-2 City of Beaumont - Development Impact Fee Study Executive Summary Table S.1: Summary of Development Impact Fees Calculated in This Study Development Dev Nbhd Comm Recr Fire Police Public Type Unit' Parks2 Parks2 Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Total Residential -Single Family DU $ 2,815 $ 2,326 $ 708 $ 563 $ 486 $ 414 $ 7,314 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 2,368 $ 1,957 $ 596 $ 180 $ 409 $ 349 $ 5,859 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 2,619 $ 2,164 $ 659 $ 270 $ 452 $ 386 $ 6,549 Commercial (Incl Office Uses) KSF $ 207 $ 108 $ 92 S 407 Industrial/Business Park KSF $ 172 $ 76 $ 64 $ 312 Industrial/HO-Cube Whse KV$ 12q $ ? $ 7 $ ao ' DU = dwelling unit; KSF =1,000 square feet of building area 2 Includes both park land acquisition fees and park improvement impact fees; see Chapter 3 for more detail Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs Administration of an impact fee program to comply with the requirements of the Mit- igation Fee Act imposes costs on the City for capital budgeting, fee adjustments, mandated annual reports and 5 -year reviews of the impact fee program, as well as periodic impact fee update studies. It is common practice in California for cities to add a small administrative charge to impact fees to cover those costs. Many cities apply a 2% or 2.5% administrative charge to their impact fees. However, because of the substantial amount of impact fee revenue collected by the City of Beaumont, we estimate that a smaller fee would be adequate. The City has previously adopted Transportation Facilities Impact Fees, which were calculated in a separate study, and which included a 1% administrative fee. In propos- ing that administrative fee, Colgan Consulting recognized that the cost of administer- ing Beaumont's impact fee program would be shared between the Transportation Facilities Impact Fees and the Development Impact Fees calculate in this report. At the time, we estimated that a 1% administrative fee on the Transportation Facilities Impact Fees would cover approximately one-half of the City's annual administrative costs for the overall impact fee program. We estimated that the remaining costs could be recovered through a similar 1% administrative charge on the Development Impact fees calculated in this study. Therefore, we recommend that the City add a 1% administrative fee to the impact fees calculated in this report. Table 5.2 on the next page shows the amount of the impact fees from Table SA with a t% administrative charge added. if the City Council chooses to recover the cost of this study through a 1% administrative charge on these impact fees, the fees should be adopted as shown in Table S.2 November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page S-3 C/ty of Beaumont - Development Impact Fee Study Table S.z: Summary of Development Impact Fees Including t%Administrative Charge Executive Summary Development Dev Nbhd Comm Recr Fire Police Public T Unit' Parks 2 Parks 2 Facilities Facilities Facilities Facilities Total Residential - Single Family DU $ 2,843 $ 2,350 $ 715 $ 569 $ 491 $ 419 $ 7,387 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 2,392 $ 1,977 $ 602 $ 182 $ 413 $ 352 $ 5,918 Residential -Mobile Home DU $ 2,645 $ 2,185 $ 666 $ 273 $ 457 $ 389 $ 6,615 Commercial (Incl Office Uses) KSF$ 209 $ 109 $ 93 $ 411 Industrial/Business Park KSF $ 174 $ 76 $ 65 $ 316 Industrial/HU h.Cube Whse KSF $ 1 1 $ 44 $ 7 $ 211 ' DU = dwelling unit; KSF =1,000 square feet of building area 'Includes both park land acquisition fees and park improvement impact fees; see Chapter 3 for more detail November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page S-4 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Introduction Chapter 1 Introduction Purpose The purpose of this study is to analyze the impacts of development on several types of City capital facilities, and to calculate development impact fees based on that anal- ysis. This report documents the data and methodology used in the impact fee analy- sis and presents step-by-step impact fee calculations. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study are intended to satisfy all le- gal requirements governing such fees, including provisions of the U. S. Constitution, the California Constitution and the California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.), and where applicable the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), Legal Framework for Impact Fees This brief summary of the legal framework for development impact fees is intended as a general overview. It was not prepared by an attorney, and should not be treated as a legal opinion. U. S. Constitution. Like all land use regulations, development exactions, including impact fees, are subject to the Fifth Amendment prohibition on taking of private property for public use without just compensation. Both state and federal courts have recognized the imposition of impact fees on development as a legitimate form of land use regulation, provided the fees meet standards intended to protect against "regulatory takings." A regulatory taking occurs when regulations unreasonably de- prive landowners of property rights protected by the Constitution. To comply with the Fifth Amendment, development regulations must be shown to substantially advance a legitimate governmental interest, and must not deprive the owner of all economically viable use of the property. In the case of impact fees, the government's interest is in protecting public health, safety and welfare by ensuring that development is not detrimental to the quality and availability of essential public services provided to the community at large. Legislatively -enacted impact fees that apply to all development in a jurisdiction are not subject to the same level of judicial scrutiny as exactions involving the dedication of land or an interest in land, or fees imposed as a condition of approval on a single development project. In those cases, heightened scrutiny applies, and a higher standard must be met. The U. 5. Supreme Court has found that a government agency must demonstrate an "es- sential nexus" between such exactions and the interest being protected (See Nollan November 16, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 1-1 City of Beaumont Development impact Fee Study Introduction v. California Coastal Commission, 1987). The agency must also demonstrate that the exaction imposed is "roughly proportional" to the burden created by development. (See Dolan v. City of Tigard, 1994). Local legislative bodies are accorded considerable discretion by the courts when en- acting impact fees that apply broadly to development projects within its jurisdiction. But even where heightened scrutiny does not apply, an agency enacting impact fees should take care to demonstrate a nexus and ensure proportionality in the calcula- tion of its fees. California Constitution. The California Constitution grants broad police power to lo- cal governments, including the authority to regulate land use and development. That police power is the source of authority for local governments in California to impose impact fees on development. Some impact fees have been challenged on grounds that they are special taxes imposed without voter approval in violation of Article XIIiA. However, that objection is valid only if the fees exceed the cost of providing capital facilities needed to serve new development. If that were the case, then the fees would also run afoul of the U. S. Constitution and the Mitigation Fee Act. Articles XIIIC and XIIID, added by Proposition 218 in 1996, require voter approval for some `property -related fees," but exempt "the imposition of fees or charges as a condition of property development." The Mitigation Fee Act. California's impact fee statute originated in Assembly Bill 1600 during the 1987 session of the Legislature, and took effect in January, 1989. AB 1600 added several sections to the Government Code, beginning with Section 66000. Since that time the impact fee statute has been amended from time to time, and in 1997 was officially titled the "Mitigation Fee Act." Unless otherwise noted, code sec- tions referenced in this report are from the Government Code. The Mitigation Fee Act does not limit the types of capital improvements for which impact fees may be charged. It defines public facilities very broadly to include "public improvements, public services and community amenities." Although the issue is not specifically addressed in the Mitigation Fee Act, other provisions of the Government Code (see Section 65913.8) prohibit the use of impact fees for maintenance or oper- ating costs. Consequently, the fees calculated in this report are based on the cost of capital assets only. The Mitigation Fee Act does not use the term "mitigation fee" except in its official title. Nor does it use the more common term "impact fee." The Act simply uses the word "fee," which is defined as "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special as- sessment... that is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with ap- proval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project ...." November 16, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 1-2 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Introduction To avoid confusion with other types of fees, this report uses the widely -accepted terms "impact fee" and "development impact fee" which both should be understood to mean "fee" as defined in the Mitigation Fee Act. The Mitigation Fee Act contains requirements for establishing, increasing and impos- ing impact fees. They are summarized below. It also contains provisions that govern the collection and expenditure of fees and requires annual reports and periodic re- evaluation of impact fee programs. Those administrative requirements are discussed in the implementation chapter of this report. Required Findings. Section 66001 requires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type ora which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is im- posed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project. (Applies when fees are imposed on a specific project.) Each of those requirements is discussed in more detail below. identifying the Purpose of the Fees. The broad purpose of impact fees is to protect public health, safety and general welfare by providing for adequate public facilities. The specific purpose of the fees calculated in this study iis to fund construction of cer- tain capital improvements that will be needed to mitigate the impacts of planned new development on City facilities, and to maintain an acceptable level of public ser- vices as the City grows. This report recommends that findings regarding the purpose of an impact fee should define the purpose broadly, as providing for the funding of adequate public facilities to serve additional development. Identifying the Use of the Fees. According to Section 66001, if a fee is used to fi- nance public facilities, those facilities must be identified. A capital improvement plan may be used for that purpose, but is not mandatory if the facilities are identified in a General Plan, a Specific Plan, or in other public do=cuments. In this case, we recom- mend that the City Council adopt this report as the public document that identifies the facilities to be funded by the fees. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-3 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Introduction Reasonable Relationship Requirement. As discussed above, Section 66001 requires that, for fees subject to its provisions, a "reasonable relationship" must be demon- strated between: 1. the use of the fee and the type of development on which it is imposed; z. the need for a public facility and the type of development on which a fee is imposed; and, 3. the amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment on which the fee is imposed. These three reasonable relationship requirements, as defined in the statute, mirror the nexus and proportionality requirements often cited in court decisions as the standard for defensible impact fees. The term "dual rational nexus" is often used to characterize the standard used by courts in evaluating the legitimacy of impact fees. The "duality" of the nexus refers to (t) an impact or need created by a development project subject to impact fees, and (2) a benefit to the project from the expenditure of the fees. Although proportionality is reasonably implied in the dual rational nexus formulation, it was explicitly required by the Supreme Court in the Dolan case, and we prefer to list it as the third element of a complete nexus. Demonstrating an Impact. All new development in a community creates additional demands on some or all public facilities provided by local government. If the supply of facilities is not increased to satisfy the additional demand, the quality or availability of public services for the entire community will deteriorate. Impact fees may be used to recover the cost of development -related facilities, but only to the extent that the need for facilities is related to the development project subject to the fees. The Nollan decision reinforced the principle that development exactions may be used only to mitigate impacts created by the development projects upon which they are imposed. In this study, the impact of development on facility needs is analyzed in terms of quantifiable relationships between various types of development and the demand for public facilities, based on applicable level -of -service standards. This re- port contains all of the information needed to demonstrate this element of the nex- us. Demonstrating a Benefit. With respect to the benefit relationship, the most basic re- quirement is that facilities funded by impact fees be available to serve the develop- ment paying the fees. A sufficient benefit relationship also requires that impact fee revenues be segregated from other funds and expended in a timely manner on the facilities for which the fees were charged. Nothing in the U.S. Constitution or Cali- fornia law requires that facilities paid for with impact fee revenues be available exclu- sively to developments paying the fees. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-4 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study introduction Procedures for earmarking and expenditure of fee revenues are mandated by the Mitigation Fee Act, as are procedures to ensure that the fees are either expended expeditiously or refunded. Those requirements are intended to ensure that devel- opments benefit from the impact fees they are required to pay. Thus, over time, pro- cedural issues as well as substantive issues can come into play with respect to the benefit element of the nexus. Demonstrating Proportionality. Proportionality in impact fees depends on properly identifying development -related facility costs and calculating the fees in such a way that those costs are allocated in proportion to the facility needs created by different types and amounts of development. The section on impact fee methodology, below, describes methods used to allocate facility costs and calculate impact fees that meet the proportionality standard. Impact Fees for Existing Facilities. Impact fees may be used to recover costs for ex- isting facilities to the extent that those facilities are needed to serve additional de- velopment and have the capacity to do so. In other words, it must be possible to show that fees used to pay for existing facilities meet the need and benefit elements of the nexus. Development Agreements and Reimbursement Agreements. The requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act do not apply to fees collected under development agreements (see Govt. Code Section 66000) or reimbursement agreements (see Govt. Code Sec- tion 66003). The same is true of fees in lieu of park land dedication imposed under the Quimby Act (see Govt. Code Section 66477). Existing Deficiencies. In 2006, Section 66001(g) was added to the Mitigation Fee Act (by AB 2751) to clarify that impact fees "shall not include costs attributable to existing deficiencies in public facilities,..." The legislature's intent in adopting this amend- ment, as stated in the bill, was to codify the Holdings of Bixel v. City of Los Angeles (989), Rohn v. City of Visalia (1989), and Shape!! Industries Inc. v. Governing Board (991). That amendment does not appear to be a substantive change. It is widely under- stood that other provisions of law make it improper for impact fees to include costs for correcting existing deficiencies. However, Section 66001(g) also states that impact fees "may include the costs at- tributable to the increased demand for public facilities reasonably related to the de- velopment project in order to (i) refurbish existing facilities to maintain the existing level of service or (2) achieve an adopted level of service that is consistent with the gen- eral plan." (Emphasis added.) November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 1-5 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Introduction Impact Fee Calculation Methodology Any one of several legitimate methods may be used to calculate impact fees. The choice of a particular method depends primarily on the service characteristics of, and planning requirements for, the facility type being addressed. Each method has ad- vantages and disadvantages in a particular situation. To some extent they are inter- changeable, because they all allocate facility costs in proportion to the needs created by development. Reduced to its essence, the process of calculating impact fees involves two steps: (i) determining the cost of development -related capital improvements, and (2) allocat- ing those costs equitably to various types of development. In practice, though, the calculation of impact fees can become quite complicated because of the many fac- tors affecting the relationship between development and the need for facilities. Allocating facility costs to various types and amounts of development is central to all methods of impact fee calculation. Costs are allocated by means of formulas that quantify the relationship between development and the need for facilities. In a cost allocation formula, the impact of development is measured by some attribute of de- velopment such as added population or added vehicle trips that represent the im- pacts created by different types and amounts of development. This report uses the term "demand variable" to refer to such attributes. Different demand variables are used in analyzing different types of facilities. Specific demand variables used in this study are discussed in more detail in subsequent chapters. The following paragraphs discuss three general approaches to calculating impact fees and how they can be applied to various types of facilities. Plan -Based or Improvements -Driven Method. Plan -based impact fee calculations are based on the relationship between a specified set of improvements and a specified increment of development. The improvements are typically identified in a facility plan, while the development is identified in a land use plan that forecasts potential development by type and quantity. The plan -based method is used in this study. Using this method, facility costs are allocated to various categories of development in proportion to the amount of development and the relative intensity of demand created by each type of development. To calculate plan -based impact fees, it is nec- essary to determine what facilities will be needed to serve a particular increment of additional development. With this method, the total cost of eligible facilities is divided by the total units of ad- ditional demand to calculate a cost per unit of demand (e.g. a cost per peak hour trip for street improvements). Then, the cost per unit of demand is multiplied by factors representing demand per unit of development (e.g. peak hour trips per unit) to arrive at a cost per unit of development. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 1-6 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Introduction This method is somewhat inflexible in that it is based on the relationship between a specific facility plan and a specific land use plan. If either plan changes significantly, the fees will have to be recalculated. Capacity -Based or Consumption -Driven Method. This method calculates a cost per unit of capacity based on the relationship between total cost and total capacity of a system. It can be applied to any type of development, provided the capacity required to serve each increment of development can be estimated, and the facility has ade- quate capacity available to serve the development. Since the cost per unit of de- mand does not depend on the particular type or quantity of development to be served, this method is flexible with respect to changing development plans. In this method, the cost of unused capacity is not allocated to development. Capaci- ty -based fees are most commonly used for water and wastewater systems, where the cost of a system component is divided by the capacity of that component to de- rive a unit cost. However, a similar analysis can be applied to other types of facilities. To produce a schedule of impact fees based on standardized units of development (e.g. dwelling units or square feet of non-residential building area), the cost per unit of capacity is multiplied by the amount of capacity required to serve a typical unit of development in each of several land use categories. Standard -Based or Incremental Expansion Method. Standard -based fees are calcu- lated using a specified relationship or standard that determines the number of ser- vice units to be provided for each unit of development. The standard can be estab- lished as a matter of policy or it can be based on the level of service being provided to existing development in the study area. Using the standard -based method, costs are defined on a generic unit -cost basis and then applied to development according to a standard that sets the number of service units to be provided for each unit of development. Park in -lieu and impact fees are commonly calculated this way. The level of service standard for parks is typically stated in terms of acres of parks per thousand resi- dents. A cost -per -acre for park land or park improvements can usually be estimated without knowing the exact size or location of a particular park. The ratio of park acreage to population and the cost per acre for parks can be used to calculate a cost per capita. The cost per capita can then be converted into a cost per unit of devel- opment based on the average population per dwelling unit for various types of resi- dential development. This approach can also used for facilities such as libraries and administrative build- ings, where it is possible to estimate a generic cost per square foot before a building is actually designed. One advantage of the standard -based method is that a fee can be established without committing to a particular size of facility, and facility size can be adjusted based on the amount of development that actually occurs. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 1-7 City of Beaumont Development lmpad Fee Study Introduction Buy -In or Recoupment Fees. Buy -in fees can be calculated using either the plan -based method or the capacity -based method described above. The difference is that this type of fee is intended to recover a portion of the cost of existing facilities rather than facilities to be built in the future. Buy -in fees are widely used for water and sewer facilities which must be constructed before development can occur. But they can also be used for other types of facilities, assuming such facilities are available to serve future development and have the ca- pacity to do so. Facilities Addressed in this Study Impact fees for the following types of facilities are addressed in this report: Park Land and Improvements • Recreation Facilities • Fire Protection Facilities • Police Facilities • Public Facilities The next chapter, Chapter 2, contains data on land use and development in the City. The impact fee calculations for streets and bridges, traffic signals, and railroad cross- ings are presented in separate chapters of this report, beginning with Chapter 3. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 1-8 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Development Data Chapter 2 Development Data This chapter presents development data that will be used to calculate impact fees in subsequent chapters of this report. The information in this chapter may be used to establish levels of service, analyze fa- cility needs, and/or allocate the cost of capital facilities between existing and future development and among various types of new development. Population Growth The graph at right shows the Cali- fornia Department of Finance (DOF) January 1 population esti- mates for the City of Beaumont for the years from 2007 through 2017. Beaumont has been among the fastest growing cities in California over the last decade. The City's population has increased by 64% from 28,217 in zoo? to 46,179 in 2017. That is an average of over 5% per year. Beaumont Population 2007-2017 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Year The population figures shown above reflect the City's total population, including both household population and population in group quarters such as nursing homes, college dormitories and correctional facilities. Beaumont's population in group quar- ters is roughly 1% of the City's total population. For purposes of assessing the impacts of residential development, this report will focus on household population. Study Area and Time Frame The study area for the impact fee analysis includes the City and its sphere of influence as reflected on the General Plan land use map adopted in 2007. No time frame is assumed for the future development projected in this study. The methods used to calculate impact fees in this study do not require assumptions re- garding the rate or timing of development. Where projections of future development are used in the fee calculations, they are based on General Plan Buildout. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-1 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Development Data Development Types The development types used in this study are intended to reflect actual land uses ra- ther than zoning or general plan land use designations. Residential Development. The following development types used in this study: • Residential - Single Family • Residential — Multi -Family • Residential — Mobile Home Commercial (Including Office Uses) Industrial/Business Park • Industrial/High-Cube • Public Facilities • Public Schools • Parks and Golf Courses Demand Variables In calculating impact fees, the relationship between facility needs and development must be quantified in cost allocation formulas. Certain measurable attributes of de- velopment (e.g., population) are used as "demand variables" in those formulas to represent the impact of different types of development on the demand for particular public services and the facilities supporting them. Demand variables are selected either because they directly measure the service de- mand created by various types of development, or because they are reasonably cor- related with that demand. For example, the level -of -service standard for parks in a community is typically de- fined as a ratio of park acreage to population. As population grows, more parks are needed to maintain the relevant standard. Logically, then, the increase in population related to new residential development is an appropriate yardstick, or demand varia- ble, for measuring the impact of development on the need for additional parks. Each demand variable has a specific value for each type of development defined in this study. Those values may be referred to as "demand factors." So, if the demand variable is population, the demand factor for single-family residential development would be the average population per dwelling unit for that type of development. Specific demand variables used in this study are discussed below. Developed Acres. Developed acreage applies to all types of development. In this study, developed acreage is defined as net acreage. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-2 City of Beaumont Development impact Fee Study Development Data Population. Resident population is used in this study to represent the need for facili- ties such as parks and recreation facilities, which are intended to serve primarily resi- dents of the City and are not impacted substantially by other types of development. Service Population. For some facilities that serve both residential and non-residential development, service population is used as the demand variable for impact fee calcu- lations in this study. Service population is a composite variable that includes both residents of the City and employees of businesses in Beaumont. Residents are included to represent the im- pacts of residential development and employees are included to represent the im- pacts of non-residential development. Because the impact of one new resident is not necessarily the same as the impact of one new employee, employee numbers are weighted to reflect the difference. In es- timating those weights, residents are assigned a weight of 1.0. The weight assigned to employees is relative to the residential weight of i.o. The most common method of assigning a weight to employees in a service popula- tion is based on the number of hours per week employees are likely to be present in the service area compared with residents. The total number of hours in a week is 168. Assuming a typical employee of a busi- ness in Beaumont works eight hours a day, five days a week, and takes one hour for lunch each day, that employee would be present for at least 45 hours per week. Adding three hours per week for in -town commuting, shopping, etc. brings the total to 48 hour per week. While many residents, including school children and retirees may spend a high per- centage of their time in Beaumont, working adults spend a significant share of their time at their places of employment, which may be outside the City. If they work in Beaumont, they are counted as both residents and employees. Resi- dents who commute to work outside the City should not be counted in the service population during the hours they spend outside the City. According to data from the Southern California Association of Governments (SLAG), only about 1o% of employed Beaumont residents work in the City. Data from the Census Bureau's American Community Survey (5 -year estimates, 2011- 2015) indicate that 56.8% of Beaumont residents are employed. If those employed res- idents spend an average of 115 hours per week in the City (assuming 53 hours per week commuting and working outside the City) and the remainder the population spends 168 hours per week in the City, the average for all residents is about 138 hours per week. So, at 48 hours per week, the average employee spends 35% as much time November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-3 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Development Data in town as the average resident. This study will use a service population weight of 0.35 for employees. Demand Factors Table 2.1 shows the values by development type for demand factors used in this study. Table 2.1: Demand Factors Used in This Study Development Dev Population Employees Svc Pop Type Units' per Unit 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential - Single Family DU 3.15 3.15 Residential - Multi -Family DU 2.65 2.65 Residential - Mobile Home DU 2.93 2.93 Commercial (Ind Office Uses) KSF 2.00 0.70 Industrial/Business Park KSF 1.40 0.49 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF o.80 0.28 Public Facilities Acre 24.00 8.40 Public Schools Acre 2.90 1.00 Parks/Golf Courses Acre 0.20 0.10 'Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 square feet of building area; acre = net developable acre 2 Population per unit estimated by Colgan Consulting using data from the 2015 U. 5. Census Bureau American Community Survey 5 -Year estimate for Beaumont 3 Employees per unit factors based on data from an employment density study for the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) by the Natelson Co.; the factor for public schools is based on actual employment at Beaumont schools 4 Service population per unit =1.o X population per unit for residential development and 0.35 X employees per unit for non-residential development (see discussion of weighting in text) Development Data Table 2.2 on the next page shows existing development in the City as of July 1, 2017, including developed acres, residential units, population (residential development), employees (non-residential development), and service population. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-4 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Development Data Table 2.2: City of Beaumont - Existing Development -July 12017 Development Dev Est Dev Est Res Est HH Est Comm/ Est Est Types Unit' Acres ? Units 3 Popo Ind KSF 5 Em!16 Svc Pop 7 Residential - Single Family DU 3,295.3 13,181 40,275 40,275 Residential - Multi -Family DU 147.8 1,848 4,750 4,750 Residential - Mobile Home DU 62.8 523 1,486 1,486 Commercial (Incl Office Uses) KSF 128.0 1,394 2,788 976 Industrial/Business Park KSF 97.0 1,268 1,775 621 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 112.0 1,950 1,560 546 Public Facilities Acre 10.0 240 84 Public Schools Acre 137.3 398 137 Parks/Golf Courses Acre 62.0 112 ;6 Total 4,552.2 15,552 46,511 4,612 6,873 48,931 ' Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; acre = net developable acre; KSF =1,000 gross sq. ft. of bldg. area 2 Acres of residential development estimated from the number of residential units; acres of non-residential development estimated by the City of Beaumont Community Development Department 3 Estimated existing residential units for 7/1/17 extrapolated from the 1/1/17 Department of Finance E-5 Report based on recent trends 4 Estimated household population (not including group quarters) = estimated existing residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 adjusted for a 3% vacancy rate 5 Existing commercial/industrial bldg. area (KSF) estimated by the Beaumont Community Development Dept. 6 Estimated employees = estimated non-residential units X employees per unit from Table 2.1 7 Estimated service population = estimated units X service population per unit from Table 2.1 Table 2.3 on then next page shows potential new development to buildout of the Beaumont General Plan, including additional developed acres, added residential units, added population and employees, and added service population. The figures in Table 2.3 represent the difference between existing development, as shown in Table 2.2, and buildout development, as shown in Table 2.4. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-5 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Development Data Table 2.3: City of Beaumont - Potential Development to Buildout Development Dev New Dev Types Unit' Acres 2 New Res Units 3 New HH Pop. 4 New Comm/ Ind KSF 5 New New EmpI6 Svc Pop 7 Residential - Single Family DU 2,788.5 11,154 36,389 36,389 Residential - Multi -Family DU 124.0 1,550 4,255 4,255 Residential - Mobile Home DU o.0 0 46 46 Commercial (Ind Office Uses) KSF 572.0 6,229 12,458 4,360 Industrial/Business Park KSF 53.8 703 984 344 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 220.0 3,835 Public Facilities Acre 5.0 120 42 Public Schools Acre 120.1 348 120 Parks/Golf Courses Acre 7 3.1 15 Total 3,956.6 12,704 40,690 10,767 13,925 45,564 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; acre = net developable acre; KSF =1,000 gross sq. ft. of bldg. area New developed acres = total developed acres from Table 2.4 - existing developed acres from Table 2.2 3 New residential units = total units from Table 2.4 - existing units from Table 2.2 4 New household population to buildout = total population from Table 2.4 - existing population from Table 2.2 5 New commercial/industrial building area (KSF) = total building area from Table 2.4 - existing building area from Table 2.2 6 New employees = total employees from Table 2.4 -existing employees from Table 2.2 7 New service population = total service population from Table 2.4 - existing service population from Table 2.2 Table 2.4 on the next page shows buildout development consistent with the General Plan, including developed acres, residential units, population, employees and service population. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-6 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Development Data Table 2.4: City of Beaumont - Buildout Development Based on General Plan Development Dev Total Dev Total Res Total HH Total Comm/ Total Total Types Unit' Acres 2 Units 3 Pop 4 Ind KSF 5 Empl 6 Svc Pop 7 Residential -Single Family DU 6,083.8 24,335 76,664 76,664 Residential - Multi -Family DU 271.8 3,398 9,005 9,005 Residential -Mobile Home DU 62.8 523 1,532 1,532 Commercial (Inc! Office Uses) KSF 700.0 7,623 15,246 5,336 Industrial/Business Park KSF 150.8 1,971 2,759 966 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF 332.0 5,785 4,628 1,620 Public Facilities Acre 15.0 360 126 Public Schools Acre 257.4 747 257 Parks/Golf Courses Acre 6.35 127 64 Total 8,508.7 28,256 87,201 15,378 23,866 95,569 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit; acre = net developable acre; KSF =1,000 gross sq. ft. of bldg. area 2 Acres of residential development estimated from the number of residential units; acres of non-residential development from the City of Beaumont Community Development Department 3 Total residential units at buildout - forecasted by the Beaumont Community Development Department 4 Total household population at buildout = total residential units X population per unit from Table 2.1 5 Total commercial/industrial bldg. area at buildout estimated by the Beaumont Community Development Dept. 6 Total employees at buildout = total non-residential units (K5F) X employees per unit from Table 2.1 Total service population at buildout = total units X service population per unit from Table 2.1 Growth Potential The added development projections shown in in Table 2.3 reflect an increase of 88% in developed acres and population, 247% in employment and 95% in service popula- tion in the City between now and buildout. The impact fees calculated in this report will provide funding for additional facilities to support that growth. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 2-7 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Park Facilites Impact Fees and In -Lieu Fees Chapter 3 Park Facilities Impact Fees and In -Lieu Fees Two types of park fees are calculated in this chapter: fees in lieu of park land dedica- tion as authorized by the Quimby Act, and impact fees for park improvements. In -lieu fees are charged to residential subdivisions as an alternative to actual dedication of land for parks. Parkfacilities impact fees cover the cost of park improvements. The park land acquisition fees can be imposed as impact fees on residential development projects that do not involve a subdivision of land, since those projects are not subject to in -lieu fees under the Quimby Act. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to represent the im- pact of development on a particular type of facility. The need for parks is almost uni- versally defined in terms of the population to be served, so the demand variable used to calculate in -lieu fees and impact fees in this chapter is added population. See Chap- ter 2 for a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. Because the impact of development on the need for parks is created by an increase in population associated with new residential development, the fees calculated in this chapter will apply only to new residential development. Service Area Beaumont's parks serve the entire area covered by the City of Beaumont General Plan land use map, so in -lieu fees and impact fees for those parks will apply to all new residential development in the City and any portion of the sphere of influence an- nexed into the City. Level of Service The Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477) authorizes municipalities to re- quire that projects involving a residential subdivision or parcel maps either dedicate land for parks or pay a fee in lieu of park land dedication. Those requirements must be based on the existing ratio of park acreage to population if that ratio is between 3.o acres per thousand and 5.o acres per 1,000 residents. If the current ratio is lower than 3.o acres per 1,000, land dedication and/or in lieu fees may be based on 3.o acres per thousand. The maximum ratio allowed for park land dedication and in -lieu fees under the Quimby Act is 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-1 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Park Facilites Impact Fees and /n -Lieu Fees Beaumont's current ratio is somewhat above 3.o acres per 1,000, so the existing ra- tio, shown in Table 3.2, will be used in this chapter to calculate in in -lieu fees and im- pact fees for park land acquisition, as well as impact fees for park improvements. Methodology The method used to calculate in -lieu fees and impact fees in this chapter is the stand- ard -based method discussed in Chapter 1. The fee calculations are based on the City's existing ratio of park acreage to population. Applying a cost per acre to that ratio re- sults in a cost per capita, which is multiplied by a population per dwelling unit to cal- culate per-unit fees for various types of residential development. Those calculations are shown in subsequent tables. Existing Parks Table 3.1 fists Beaumont's existing parks and their acreages, including total acreage and improved acreage for each park. Table 3.1 also includes an acreage credit for the balance in the City's park impact fee fund. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 3-2 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Park Facilites Impact Fees and In -Lieu Fees Table 3.1: Existing Parks Park Total improved Name Acres Acres De Forge Park Nicklaus Park Beaumont Sports Park Stewart Park Three Rings Ranch Park Fallen Heroes Park Mountain View Park Palmer Park Rangal Park Seneca Springs Park Shadow Hills Park Stetson Park Sunny Hills Park Sundance Bowl Trevino Park Veteran's Park Wild Flower Park Tournament Hills 2 Park Solera Parks and Trails Sundance PA 51 Sunshine Park Acreage Credit for Park Impact Fee Fund Balance' Total 15.10 18.06 22.66 13.21 6.01 16.61 5.00 3.62 1.58 2.14 3.90 11.68 0.32 16.51 5.36 0.13 2.97 3.12 16.68 1.40 0.09 15.10 18.o6 22.66 13.21 6.01 16.61 5.00 3.62 1.58 2.14 3.90 11.68 0.32 16.51 5.36 0.13 2.97 3.12 16.68 1.40 0.09 3.51 .51 169.66 169.66 Source: City of Beaumont Community Development Department 'Park impact fee fund balance as of June 30, 2016 = $1,230,000; acreage credit = fund balance J cost per acre for neighborhood park land acquisition and improvements from Table 3.3 In this chapter, fees are calculated separately for neighborhood and community parks because there is a very substantial difference in the cost of improving the two types of parks. The City's does not specifically classify its existing parks by type. Most of Beaumont's parks are neighborhood parks. Stewart Park and the Beaumont Sports Park are dear- ly community parks because they include facilities that serve the entire City. DeForge Park and Nicklaus Park can be seen as functioning in both categories. For purposes of this study, we estimate that 70% of the City's existing parks are neighborhood parks and 30% are community parks. That allocation will be used in the impact fee calcula- tions that follow. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-3 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Park Facilites impact Fees and /n -Lieu Fees Existing Level of Service Table 3.2 shows the existing ratios of park land to population for both neighborhood and community parks. Table 3.2: Existing Level of Service - Parks Park Existing Existing Acres per Acres per % of Types Acres' Population 2 Capita 3 1,000 4 Total Neighborhood Parks 118.77 46,5111 0.00255 2.553 70% Community Parks 50.90__ 46,311 0.00109 1.094 30% Total 169.6646,5111 0.00365 3.648 l00% ' See Table 3.1 2 See Table 2.2 3 Acres per capita = existing acres / existing population 4 Acres per 1,000 population = acres per capita X 1,000 Cost per Capita Neighborhood Parks. Table 3.3 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition and park improvements for neighborhood parks, based on the ratio of park acreage to population shown in Table 3.2 and estimated costs per acre for park land and im- provements. The cost per capita will be used to calculate in -lieu fees and impact fees per unit of development for neighborhood parks in the next section. Table 3.3: Cost per Capita - Neighborhood Parks Cost Cost per Acres per Cost per Component Acre' Capita 2 Capita 3 Land Acquisition $ 175,000 0.00255 $ 446.86 Park Improvements $ 175,000 0.00255 $ 446.86 Total $ 35o,000 0.00255 $ 893.72 Cost per acre estimated by the City of Beaumont 2 See Table 3.2 3 Cost per capita = cost per acre X acres per capita Community Parks. Table 3.4 calculates the cost per capita for park land acquisition and park improvements for community parks, based on the ratio of park acreage to population shown in Table 3.2 and estimated costs per acre for park land and im- provements. The cost per capita will be used to calculate in -lieu fees and impact fees per unit of development for community parks in the next section. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-4 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Park Facilites Impact Fees and In -Lieu Fees Table 3.4: Cost per Capita - Community Parks Cost Cost per Acres per Cost per Component Acre' Capita 2 Capita 3 Land Acquisition $ 1i5,000 0.00109 $ 191.51 Park Improvements $ 500,000 0.00109 $ 547.00 Total $ 675,000 0.00109 $ 738.51 ' Cost per acre estimated by the City of Beaumont 2 See Table 3.2 3 Cost per capita = cost per acre X acres per capita Fees per Unit of Development This section shows the calculation of fees per unit of development for park land ac- quisition and park improvements for both neighborhood and community parks. In the case of residential subdivisions, the park land acquisition fees would be imposed as in -lieu fees under the Quimby Act. Because the Quimby Act applies only to subdivi- sions, the park land acquisition fees can be imposed as impact fees for residential projects that do not involve a subdivision, and for which no in -lieu fee has previously been paid. Neighborhood Parks. Table 3.5 calculates park land acquisition fees per unit for neighborhood parks. Table 3.5: Park Land Acquisition Fees per Unit - Neighborhood Parks Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Type Units' Can 2 per DU 3 per Unit 4 Residential -Single Family DU $ 446.86 3.15 $ 1,407.61 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 446.86 2.65 $ 1,184.18 Residential -Mobile Home DU $ 446.86 2.93 $ 1„09.30 'Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.3 3 See Table 2.1 4 In -lieu fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Table 3.6 on the next page calculates park improvement impact fees per unit for neighborhood parks. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-5 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Park Facilites Impact Fees and In -Lieu Fees Table 3.6: Park Improvement Fees per Unit - Neighborhood Parks Development Type Cost per Population Impact Fee Units' Capita 2 per DU 3 per Unit 4 Residential -Single Family DU $ 446.86 3.15 $ 1,407.61 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 446.86 2.65 $ 1,184.18 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 446.86 2.93 $ 1,309.30 1 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.3 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Community Parks. Table 3.7 calculates park land acquisition fees per unit for commu- nity parks. Table 3.7: Park Land Acquisition Fees per Unit Community Parks Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Type UnitsCaptta2 perDU3 perUnit4 Residential - Single Family DU $ 191.51 3.15 $ 603.26 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 191.51 2.65 $ 507.50 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 191.51 2.93 $ 561.12 'Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.4 3 See Table 2.1 4 to -lieu fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Table 3.8 calculates park improvement impact fees per unit for community parks. Table 3.8: Park Improvement Fees per Unit - Community Parks Development Cost per Population Type Units' Capita 2 p er DU 3 Residential - Single Family DU $ 547.0o Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 547.00 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 547.00 3.15 2.65 2.9", Impact Fee :er Unit 4 $ 1,723.05 $ 1,449.55 1.602.71 'Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 3.4 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit November 76, 2077 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-6 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Park Facilites Impact Fees and In -Lieu Fees Park Impact Fee Summary Table 3.9 summarizes the park in-lieu/impact fees per unit from the previous four ta- bles for each type of residential development. Table 3.9: Summary of Park In -Lieu and Impact Fees Development Nbhd Park Nbhd Park Comm Park Comm Park Type Units' Land Fee 2 Impr Fee 3 Land Fee 4 Impr Fee 5 Total Residential - Single Family DU $ 1,407.61 1,407.61 $ 603.26 $ 1,723.05 $ 5,141.52 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 1,184.18 1,184.18 $ 507.50 $ 1,449.55 $ 4,325.41 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 1,30q.30 1,309.30 $ 561.12 $ 1,602.71 $ 4,782.43 'Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 Park land acquisition in-lieu/impact fee for neighborhood parks from Table 3.5 3 Park improvement impact fee for neighborhood parks from Table 3.6 4 Park land acquisition in-lieu/impact fee for community parks from Table 3.7 5 Park improvement impact fee for community parks from Table 3.8 Projected Revenue Neighborhood Parks. Table 3.10 projects potential revenue from the park land acqui- sition fees and the park improvement fees for neighborhood parks using projections of added residential units from Table 2.3. Table 3.10: Projected Revenue - Neighborhood Park Land & Improvements Development Dev Impact Fees Future Projected Type Units' per Unit 2 Units 3 Revenue 4 Residential - Single Family DU $ 2,815.22 11,154 $ 31,400,942 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 2,368.36 1,550 $ 3,670,955 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 2,618.60 0 $ 0 Total $ 35,071,896 'Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Tables 3.5 and 3.6 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fees per unit X future units Community Parks. Table 3.10 projects potential revenue from the park land acquisi- tion fees and the park improvement fees for community parks using projections of added residential units from Table 2.3. November Tb, 2077 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-7 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Park Facilites Impact Fees and In -Lieu Fees Table 3.11: Projected Revenue - Community Park Land & Improvements Development Type Dev Impact Fees Future Unitsper Unit 2 Units 3 Projected Revenue Residential - Single Family. Residential - Multi -Family Residential - Mobile Home Total DU DU DU $ 2,326.31 $ 1,957.05 $ 2,163.83 11,154 1,550 0 $ 25,947,623 $ 3,033,430 $ o $ 28,9$1,053 ' Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Tables 3.7 and 3.8 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fees per unit X future units Based on the costs shown in this chapter, the revenue projected in Tables 3.10 and 3.11 could be used to provide approximately 10o acres of new neighborhood parks and 43 acres of new community parks to the City. Updating the Fees The fees calculated in this chapter are based on current costs. We recommend that these fees be reviewed annually and updated as necessary based on changes in the cost of park land and park improvements. Construction costs are often adjusted using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (ELVR -BCI). Adjustments to land cost should be based on local data. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act re- quires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment project. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-8 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Park Facilites Impact Fees and /n -Lieu Fees Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see "Legal Framework for Im- pact Fees" in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calcu- lated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the in -lieu and impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for parks in Beaumont. Use of the Fee. The in -lieu and impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to acquire park land and construct park improvements needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. As indicated earlier in this chapter, separate fees are calculated for neighborhood parks and community parks. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The in -lieu and impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide additional parks needed to mitigate the impacts of added population as- sociated with new residential development in Beaumont. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Devel- opment on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the City's population, which creates a need for additional parks to maintain the existing level of service, as defined by the ratio of park acreage to population. Without the provision of additional parks, new development would result in a reduction in the level of service provided to all residents of the City. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost At- tributable to the Development Project. The amount of the park in -lieu and impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the number and type of dwell- ing units in that project. The fees per dwelling unit calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the average population per dwelling unit for that type of dwelling in Beaumont. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the number of new residents expected to be added to the City's pop- ulation by that project. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 3-9 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Recreation Facilities Impact Fees Chapter 4 Recreation Facilities Impact Fees This chapter calculates impact fees for recreation facilities needed to serve additional development in Beaumont. At present, the City's principal recreation facility is the Albert A. Chatigny Sr. Community Recreation Center which opened in 2009. Beau- mont also uses space in the Civic Center building for recreational activities, but that space is not treated as an existing recreational facility in this analysis. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used to represent the im- pact of development on a particular type of facility. The need for recreation facilities is almost universally defined in terms of the population to be served, so the demand variable used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is added population. See Chap- ter 2 for a general discussion of demand variables and demand factors. Because the impact of development on the need for recreation facilities is created by an increase in population associated with new residential development, the fees cal- culated in this chapter will apply only to new residential development. Service Area Beaumont's recreation facilities serve the entire area covered by the City of Beau- mont General Plan land use map, so impact fees for those facilities will apply to all new residential development in the City and any portion of the sphere of influence annexed into the City. Level of Service The level of service used to calculate impact fees for recreation facilities in this chap- ter is Beaumont's existing level of service, defined as the City's current per -capita capital investment in recreation facilities. The fees calculated in this chapter are in- tended to maintain that existing level of service. Methodology The method used to calculate impact fees in this chapter is the standard -based method discussed in Chapter 1. That method calculates impact fees using a level -of - service standard (discussed above) and the estimated cost of new facilities needed to maintain that standard. Since population is used as the demand variable in this analy- sis the standard is defined as a cost per capita. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-1 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Recreation Facilities Impact Fees Existing Facilities Table 4.1 shows the estimated replacement cost for the Albert A. Chatigny, Sr. Com- munity Recreation center. Replacement cost of the existing community recreation center is used here to establish the City's current investment per capita in recreation facilities. That per capita cost is used as the level of service standard in calculating impact fees for new recreation facilities. Table 4.1: Existing Recreation Facilities Facility Est Bldg Site Site Facility Repl CostAcres Z Value 3 Repl Costo Community Recreation Center $9.900,000 3.2o $56o,000 $10,460,000 'Estimated buiding replacement cost provided by the City of Beaumont Community Services Department 2 Site acres estimated by Colgan Consulting 3 Site value assumes a per -acre value of $175,000 per acre A Facility replacement cost = building replacement cost + site value Cost per Capita Table 4.2 calculates an average cost per capita using the estimated replacement cost for the existing recreation center and the existing population of the City. Table 4.2,: Cost per Capita - Recreation Facilities Facility Replacement Cost' Existing Cost per Population 2 Capita 3 $10,460,000 46,511 $224.89 ' Value of existing recreation facilities; see Table 4.t : See Table 2.2 3 Cost per capita = facility replacement cost / existing population Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 4.3 on the next page shows the calculation of impact fees per unit of develop- ment by development type for recreation facilities. Those fees are calculated using the cost per capita from Table 4.2 and the population per unit from Table 2.1. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-2 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Recreation Facilities Impact Fees Table 4.3: Recreation Facilities Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Population Impact Fee Type Units' Capita 2 per DU 3 per Unit 4 Residential - Single Family DU $224.89 3.15 $ 708.41 Residential - Multi -Family DU $224.89 2.65 $ 595.97 Residential - Mobile Home DU $224.89 2.93 $ 658.94 ' Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 4.2 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X population per dwelling unit Projected Revenue Table 4.4 shows projected revenue from the recreation facilities impact fees calculat- ed in this chapter. Potential revenue is projected by applying the impact fees per unit from Table 4.3 to added units of development from Table 2.3. Table 4.4: Projected Revenue - Recreation Facilities Impact Fees Development Type Dev Units' Impact Fee per Unit 2 Future Units 3 Projected Revenue4 Residential - Single Family DU $ 708.41 11,154 $ 7,901,639 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 595.97 1,550 $ 923,748 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 658.94 0 $ o Total $ 8,825,387 ' Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 4.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units Updating the Fees The costs shown in this chapter are based on current facility replacement costs. We recommend that these fees be reviewed annually and updated as necessary based on changes in the cost of land and construction. Construction costs are often adjusted using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (ENR -BCI). Adjustments to land cost should be based on local data. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-3 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Recreation Facilities Impact Fees Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act re- quires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see "Legal Framework for Im- pact Fees" in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calculated in this chapter sat- isfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee: The purpose of the impact fees for s is to mitigate the impact of new residential development on the need for recreation facilities in Beaumont. Use of the Fee. impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to provide addi- tional recreation facilities in Beaumont to mitigate the impacts of new development. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pro- vide recreation facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of added population associ- ated with new residential development in Beaumont. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Devel- opment on Which the Fee Is Imposed. New residential development increases the City's population, which creates a need for additional recreation facilities to maintain the existing level of service, as described earlier in this chapter. Without additional recreation facilities, new development would result in a reduction in the level of ser- vice provided to all residents of the City. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-4 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Recreation Facilities Impact Fees Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost At- tributable to the Development Project. The amount of the recreation facilities impact fees charged to a development project will depend on the number and type of dwell- ing units in that project. The fees per dwelling unit calculated in this chapter for each type of residential development are based on the average population per dwelling unit for that type of dwelling in Beaumont. Thus, the fee charged to a development project reflects the number of new residents that project is expected to add to the City's population. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 4-5 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees Chapter 5 Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees This chapter calculates impact fees for fire protection facilities and equipment need- ed to serve future development in Beaumont. The City has contracted with the Riv- erside County Fire Department for fire protection and emergency services since 1978. The Riverside County Fire Department, in turn, contracts with the California Depart- ment of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) to provide those services. At present, the City of Beaumont is served by one City -owned fire station (Station 20), one fire station that is shared by Beaumont and Banning (Station 89), and a County fire station in Cherry Valley (Station 22). Plans call for three additional fire sta- tions to serve additional development in Beaumont to buildout. One of those fire sta- tions is expected to be jointly funded by the Cities of Beaumont and Banning, so only one-half of the cost is used in the impact fee calculations. Demand Variable A demand variable is an attribute of development that is used in impact fee calcula- tions to allocate costs in proportion the impact of development on a particular type of facility. Developed acreage will be used in this chapter as the demand variable in calculating impact fees for fire protection. The use of developed acreage as the demand variable in this chapter is reasonable because capital costs related to fire protection and emergency services depend heav- ily on the number of fire stations required, and that number is strongly correlated with the size of the area to be served. Developed acreage is the best available indica- tor of the impact of new development on the need for additional fire protection facil- ities and equipment in Beaumont. Service Area The City's fire protection responsibility applies to all development in the City, so im- pact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all types of new private development in the existing City and any areas annexed to the City in the future. Methodology The method used to calculate fire protection impact fees in this chapter is the plan - based method discussed in Chapter 1. The cost of facilities needed to serve additional development is allocated to various types of new development based on the amount of developed acreage added by a project. November 16 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 5-1 City of Beaumont Development impact Fee Study Fire Protection Facilities impact Fees Level of Service The need for fire protection facilities in the City is determined largely by the desired response time for emergency calls, which translates into travel distance from a fire station to the location of a call. The number of fire stations needed to achieve the de- sired response time depends to a large extent on the size of the service area. How- ever, the street pattem and barriers such as elevated roadways, railroad tracks and water bodies also play a role. Planned Future Fire Stations The City of Beaumont and the Riverside County Fire Department have identified a need for three new fire stations to serve the City. One of those stations, north of I-10 and east of Beaumont Avenue, would be shared with the City of Banning, so in the following analysis only one-half of the cost of that station is included in the impact fee analysis. The estimated cost of fire stations shown in Table 5.1 below includes the apparatus, support vehicles and equipment needed to put them into service. Table 5.1 also shows a credit for the existing balance in Beaumont's Fire Impact Fee Fund. Table 5.1: Future Fire Station and Equipment Costs Station Est Bldg Est Land Est Equip Apparatus/ Est Total Beaumont impact Fee Location Cost' CostCost' Vehicle Cost' Cost' Share Cost 3 5 of I -10/N of SR 60 $ 3,123,750 $ 919,116 $ 110,000 $ 535,000 $ 4,687,866 100% $ 4,687,866 N of I -10/E of Beaumont Av $ 3,123,750 $ 919,116 $110,000 $ 535,000 $ 4,687,866 50% $ 2,343,933 5 of I -10/E of Beaumont Av $ 3,123,750 $ 919,116 $110,000 $ 535,000 $ 4,687,866 l00% $ 4,687,866 Impact Fee Fund Balance a $ {2,808,632/ t00% $ (2.808,6 z1 Net Cost $ 11,254,966 99% $ 8,911,033 ' Facility and equipment costs estimated by the City of Beaumont and CAL FIRE r Percentage of cost to be funded by the City of Beaumont 3 Cost to be funded by City of Beaumont impact fees = estimated total cost X Beaumont share (%) 4 impact fee fund balance as of 6/30/2016 Cost per Acre Table 5.2 calculates the cost per developed acre for fire protection facilities, using the costs shown in Table 5.1 and the additional developed acreage from Table 2.3. The cost per developed acre from Table 5.2 will be used to calculate fire protection im- pact fees per unit of development in the next section. November 16 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-2 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees Table 5.2: Cost per Developed Acre - Fire Stations/Equipment Estimated Impact Fee Cost' $8,911,033 Added Dev Cost per Acreage 2 Dev Acre 3 3,957 $2,252.22 'See Table 5.1 2 See Table 2.3 3 Cost per developed acre = estimated impact fee cost / added developed acreage Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 5.3 calculates fire protection impact fees per unit for each type of private de- velopment defined in this study. The cost per acre from Table 5.2 is converted into an impact fee per unit for each type of development so these impact fees can be sum- marized on the same basis as the other impact fees calculated in this report. For residential development types, per -acre fees are converted into fees per dwelling unit. That conversion assumes an average density (acres per unit) for each type of residential development. For non-residential impact fees, per -acre fees are converted into fees per i,000 square feet of building area (KSF) using estimated average floor area ratios. .1n implementing these impact fees, the City may choose to apply the per -acre impact fee to development projects instead of the per-unit impact fees shown in Table 5.3. Table 5.3: Fire Protection Impact Fees per Unit of Development Development Ties Residential - Single Family Residential - Multi -Family Residential - Mobile Home Commercial (Ind Office Uses) Industrial/Business Park Industrial/High-Cube Whse Dev Units' Cost per Dev Acre 2 Dev Acres per Unit 3 Impact Fee per Unit 4 DU $ 2,252.22 0.250 $ 563.05 DU $ 2,252.22 0.080 $ 180.18 DU $ 2,252.22 0.120 $ 270.27 KSF $ 2,252.22 0.092 $ 206.81 KSF $ 2,252.22 0.077 $ 172.35 KSF $ 2,252.22 0.057 $ 12" .26 'Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of bldg area 2 See Table 5.2 3 Estimated residential densities by the Beaumont Community Development Dept; Non-residential acres per unit based on the following ratios of floor area to acres: commercial = 0.25; Industrial/Business Park = 0.3; Industrial/High-Cube Whse = 0.4 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X developed acres per unit November 16 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-3 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Fire Protection Facilities Impact Fees Projected Revenue Table 5.4 projects potential revenue from the fire protection facilities impact fees us- ing the impact fees per unit from Table 5.3 and projected future development from Table 2.3. Table 5.4: Projected Revenue - Fire Protection Impact Fees Development Type Residential - Single Family Residential - Multi -Family Residential - Mobile Home Commercial (Inc' Office Uses) Industrial/Business Park Industrial/High-Cube Whse Total Dev Units DU DU DU KSF KSF KSF Impact Fee per Unit 2 $ 563.05 $ 180.18 $ 270.27 $ 206.81 $ 172.35 $ 129.26 Added Units 3 11,154 1,550 0 6,229.1 Projected Revenue4 $ 6,280,302 $ 279,275 $ 0 $ 1,288,267 703.1 $ 121,169 3,834.8 $ 415,680 $ 8,464,693 ' Units of development; DU = dwelling unit; KSF = 1,000 gross square feet of bldg area 2 See Table 5.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units The projected revenue total in Table 5.4 represents approximately 95% of Beaumont's share of the net cost of fire stations, equipment and apparatus shown in Table 5.1. The remaining costs were allocated to public facilities such as schools that are served by those facilities but do not pay impact fees for fire protection facilities. Updating the Fees The fees calculated in this chapter are based on current costs. We recommend that these fees be reviewed annually and updated as necessary based on changes in the cost of land, fire protection facilities, apparatus and vehicles. Construction costs are often adjusted using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (ENR -BCI). Costs for apparatus and vehicles should track actual cost changes and adjustments to land cost should be based on local data. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act re- quires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; November 16 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-4 City of Beaumont Development impact Fee Study Fire Protection Facilities impact Fees 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see "Legal Framework for Im- pact Fees" in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calcu- lated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for fire protection facilities in Beaumont. Use of the Fee. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to acquire land, construct fire stations, and purchase apparatus and vehicles described in Table 5.1. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pro- vide additional fire protection facilities to mitigate the impacts of added develop- ment to the City's fire protection needs. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Devel- opment on Which the Fee is Imposed. All new development has an impact on the need for fire protection facilities in Beaumont. Without additional fire protection fa- cilities, portions of the City would not have an adequate level of fire protection. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost At- tributable to the Development Project. The number of fire stations required to serve the City is reasonably related to the amount of developed acreage in the City. The amount of the fire protection impact fees charged to a development project will de- pend on the amount of acreage in that project. The impact fees per unit calculated in this chapter are based on the average cost per developed acre to provide adequate fire protection to new development in the City. Thus, the fee charged to a develop- ment project reflects the need for fire protection facilities created by that project. November 16 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 5-5 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Police Facilities Impact Fees Chapter 6 Police Facilities Impact Fees This chapter calculates impact fees for police facilities needed to serve future devel- opment in Beaumont. Additional space in the police facility will be needed to serve new development as the City grows, and the City expects to construct an entirely new police building to serve both existing and future development. Demand Variable As explained in chapter two, a demand variable is an attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculations to allocate costs in proportion the impact of devel- opment on a particular type of facility. Service population will be used in this chapter as the demand variable to calculate impact fees for police facilities. Resident population is useful in calculating impact fees for facilities like parks that are intended to serve residents of the City and population growth is driven by residential development. But demand for law enforcement services is impacted by both residen- tial and non-residential development. Service population is a composite variable designed to represent the impacts of both residential and non-residential development. It includes population to represent the impact of residential development and employees to represent the impact of non- residential development. But because non-resident employees have a smaller impact on the demand than residents for public services like policing, employees are given a lower weight in the service population. A more detailed discussion of service popula- tion can be found in Chapter 2. The service population factors used in this chapter for various types of development are from Table 2.1. Service Area The City's law enforcement services are impacted by all development in the City, so impact fees calculated in this chapter are intended to apply to all types of new pri- vate development in the existing City and any areas annexed to the City in the future. Methodology The method used to calculate police facilities impact fees in this chapter is the plan - based method discussed in Chapter 1. The cost of facilities needed to serve additional development is allocated to various types of new development based on the amount of service population added by a project. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 6-1 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Police Facilities Impact Fees Because the estimated facility cost used in this chapter is based on the cost of a facili- ty that will serve both existing and future development, those costs are allocated to both existing and future service population. Consequently, the impact fees calculated here will cover only future development's share of the cost of that facility. Level of Service The size of the new facility envisioned by the Beaumont Police Department is based on the expected size of the department needed to serve the City at buildout of the General Pian rather than on any formal level of service standard. Planned New Police Facility The Police Department anticipates a need for a new building of approximately 35,000 square feet to serve the entire City at buildout. The cost shown in Table 6.1 is based costs for similar -sized police facilities constructed in Southern California. Table 6.1: Planned New Police Facility Estimated Facility BuildinE_Cost' Site Acres 2 Site Cost 3 Facility Cost 4 Police Facility $14,400,000 2.00 $350,000 $ 14,750,000 ' Estimated cost for a new 35,00o SF Police Department facility including site development, parking and security 2 Site acres estimated by Colgan Consulting 3 Site cost assumes a per -acre cost of $175,000 per acre 4 Facility cost = building cost + site cost Cost per Capita Table 6.2 calculates a cost per capita of service population using the facility cost from Table 6.1 and the buildout service population from Table 2.4. Table 6.2: Cost per Capita - Police Department Facility Police Facility Cost Buildout Service Population 2 Cost per Capita 3 $14,750,000 25,562 $154.34 ' Estimated cost of new police facility; see Table 6.1 2 See Table 2.4 3 Cost per capita = police facility cost ( buildout service population November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-2 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Police Facilities Impact Fees Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 6.3 calculates police facilities impact fees per unit for each type of private de- velopment defined in this study using the cost per capita of service population from Table 6.2 and the service population per unit from Table 2.1. Table 6.3: Police Facilities Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Service Pop Impact Fee T., pe Units' Ca.,ita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential - Single Family DU $154.34 3.15 $ 486.17 Residential - Multi -Family DU $154.34 2.65 $ 409.00 Residential - Mobile Home DU $154.34 2.93 $ 452.21 Commercial (Ind Office Uses) KSF $154.34 0.70 $ 108.04 Industrial/Business Park KSF $154.34 0.49 $ 75.63 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF $154.=4 0.28 $ 4..21 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 6.2 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit Projected Revenue Table 6.4 projects potential revenue from the police facilities impact fees using the impact fees per unit from Table 6.3 and projected future development from Table 2.3. Table 6.4: Projected Revenue - Police Facilities Impact Fees Development Dev Impact Fee Future Projected Tvp.e Units' ,erUnit 2 Units3 Revenue4 Residential - Single Family DU $ 486.17 11,154 $ 5,422,685 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 409.00 1,550 $ 633,944 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 452.21 0 $ o Commercial (Ind Office Uses; KSF $ 108.04 6,229 $ 672,969 Industrial/Business Park KSF $ 75.63 703 $ 53,169 Industrial/Hi;h-Cube Whse KSF $ 43.21 3,8;5 $ 165,718 Total $ 6,948,486 ' Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 6.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-3 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Police Facilities Impact Fees The projected revenue total in Table 6.4 represents approximately 47% of the total estimated cost of the police facility shown in Table 6.1. Most of the remaining cost is attributable to existing development, but a very small percentage (less than o.5%) represents costs allocated police service demand created by new public facilities that do not pay impact fees. Updating the Fees The fees calculated in this chapter are based on current costs. We recommend that these fees be reviewed annually and updated as necessary based on changes in the cost of land and construction. Construction costs are often adjusted using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (ENR -BCI). Land cost should be based on local data. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act re- quires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2, Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see "Legal Framework for Im- pact Fees" in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calcu- lated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for police facilities in Beau- mont. Use of the Fee. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to acquire land and construct the new police facility described in Table 6.1. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-4 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Police Facilities Impact Fees As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pro- vide additional police facilities to mitigate the impacts of added development to the City's law enforcement needs. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Devel- opment on Which the Fee Is Imposed. All new development has an impact on the demand for law enforcement services in Beaumont. If additional space is not provid- ed to support its operations, the Police Department would be unable to carry out its operations efficiently and effectively. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost At- tributable to the Development Project. The need for space in the City's police facility will increase as the City grows. This study measures the demand for law enforcement services in terms of service population, and the impact fees calculated in this chapter depend on the service population associated with new development projects. The impact fee charged to a development project will reflect the service demand created by the project and the police facilities needed to support that demand. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 6-5 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Public Facilities Impact Fees Chapter 7 Public Facilities Impact Fees This chapter calculates impact fees for public facilities needed to serve future devel- opment in Beaumont. Those facilities are City Hall and public works facilities at the corporation yard. Additional capacity in those facilities will be needed to serve new development as the City grows. The City plans to construct an entirely new City Hall to serve both existing and future development. Plans also call for construction of a new public works building at the corporation yard and extensive improvements to the yard area. An estimated 5o% of the new building and yard facilities will be occupied by the City's sewer utility. That share will not be funded by the impact fees calculated in this chapter. The fees calculated here are in- tended to cover only the share of cost related to City community service and public works operations. Demand Variable As explained in chapter two, a demand variable is an attribute of development that is used in impact fee calculations to allocate costs in proportion the impact of devel- opment on a particular type of facility. Service population will be used in this chapter as the demand variable to calculate impact fees for public facilities. Resident population is useful in calculating impact fees for facilities like parks that are intended to serve residents of the City, and population growth is driven by residential development. But demand for services supported by City Hall and corporation yard facilities is impacted by both residential and non-residential development. Service population is a composite variable designed to represent the impacts of both residential and non-residential development. It includes resident population to repre- sent the impact of residential development and employees to represent the impact of non-residential development. But because non-resident employees have a smaller per -capita impact than residents on the demand for public service, employees are given a lower weight in the service population. A more detailed discussion of service population can be found in Chapter 2. The service population factors used in this chapter for various types of development are taken from Table 2.1. Service Area The City's administrative departments, community services department and public works operations are impacted by all development in the City, so impact fees calcu- lated in this chapter are intended to apply to all types of new private development in the existing City and any areas annexed to the City in the future. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 7-1 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Public Facilities Impact Fees Methodology The method used to calculate public facilities impact fees in this chapter is the plan - based method discussed in Chapter 1. The cost of facilities needed to serve additional development is allocated to various types of new development based on the amount of service population added by a project. Because the estimated facility cost used in this chapter is based on the cost of a facili- ty that will serve both existing and future development, those costs are allocated to both existing and future service population. That means the impact fees calculated here will cover only future development's share of the cost of that facility. Level of Service The new public facilities planned for Beaumont are sized to accommodate the ex- pected future space needs of relevant City departments rather than on any formal level of service standard. Planned New Public Facilities The City anticipates a need for a new City Hall building of approximately 25,000 square feet to serve the entire City at buildout. And plans call for a new 10,000 square foot public works building and extensive yard improvements at the corpora- tion yard. The building costs shown in Table 7.1 are based on estimated costs per square foot for those building types. The cost shown for the public works building and corporation yard improvements in Table 7.1 is one-half of the total cost. The re- maining cost will be funded by the City's sewer utility. Table 7.1: Planned New Public Facilities Facility Estimated Building Cost' Site Acres 2 Site COSt 3 Facility Cost 4 City Hall Pw Bldg and Corp Yard $z,5o0 000 2.00 $350,000 $ 2,850,000 Totals $11,875,000 $700,000 $ 12,575,000 $9,375,000 2.00 $350,000 $ 9,725,000 Estimated cost for a new 25,000 square foot Civic Center building and one-half of the cost of a new 10,00o square foot public works building and yard improvements at the City's corporation yard 2 Acreage requirements estimated by the City of Beaumont; site acres shown for the public works building and corporation yard = half the total site acreage 3 Site cost assumes a per -acre cost of $175,000 4 Facility cost = building cost + site cost November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 7-2 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Public Faci/ities Impact Fees Cost per Capita Table 7.2 calculates a cost per capita of service population using the facility cost from Table 7.1 and the buildout service population from Table 2.4. Table 7.2: Cost per Capita - Public Facilities Public Buildout Cost per Facilities Cost Service Population 2 Capita 3 $12.57. 000 q ,569 $131.58 ' Estimated cost of new public facilities; see Table 7.1 2 See Table 2.4 3 Cost per capita = public facilities cost / buildout service population Impact Fees per Unit of Development Table 7.3 calculates public facilities Impact fees per unit for each type of private de- velopment defined in this study using the cost per capita of service population from Table 7.2 and the service population per unit from Table 2.1. Table 7.3: Public Facilities Impact Fees per Unit Development Cost per Service Pop Impact Fee Type Units' Capita 2 per Unit 3 per Unit 4 Residential - Single Family DU $131.58 3.15 $ 414.48 Residential - Multi -Family DU $131.58 2.65 $ 348.69 Residential - Mobile Home DU $131.58 2.93 $ 385.53 Commercial (Incl Office Uses) KSF $131.58 0.70 $ 92.11 Industrial/Business Park KSF $131.58 0.49 $ 64.47 industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF $1 X1.58 0.28 $ ;6.84 Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 7.2 3 See Table 2.1 4 Impact fee per unit = cost per capita X service population per unit Projected Revenue Table 7.4 on the next page projects potential revenue from the public facilities impact fees using the impact fees per unit from Table 7.3 and projected future development from Table 2.3. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 7-3 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Public Facilities Impact Fees Table 7.4: Projected Revenue - Public Facilities Impact Fees Development Dev Impact Fee Future Projected Type Units' perUnit2 Units3 Revenue4 Residential - Single Family DU $ 414.48 11,154 $ 4,623,069 Residential - Multi -Family DU $ 348.69 1,550 $ 540,464 Residential - Mobile Home DU $ 385.53 0 $ o Commercial (Inc! Office Uses; KSF $ 92.11 6,229 $ 573,735 Industrial/Business Park KSF $ 64.47 703 $ 45,329 Industrial/High-Cube Whse KSF $ 36.84 3,835 $ 141,282 Total $ 5,923,879 'Units of development: DU = dwelling unit 2 See Table 7.3 3 See Table 2.3 4 Projected revenue = impact fee per unit X future units The projected revenue total in Table 7.4 represents approximately 47% of the total estimated cost of public facilities shown in Table 7.1. Most of the remaining cost is attributable to existing development and would have to be funded from non -impact fee sources of revenue. A very small percentage (less than 0.5%) represents costs al- located to demand created by new public facilities like schools which do not pay im- pact fees. Updating the Fees The fees calculated in this chapter are based on current costs. We recommend that these fees be reviewed annually and updated as necessary based on changes in the cost of land and construction. Construction costs are often adjusted using the Engineering News Record Building Cost Index (ENR -BCI). Land cost should be based on local data. Nexus Summary As discussed in Chapter 1 of this report, Section 66001 of the Mitigation Fee Act re- quires that an agency establishing, increasing or imposing impact fees, must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and, 3. Determine that there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the development type on which it is imposed; November 76, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 7-4 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study Public Facilities Impact Fees b. The need for the facility and the type of development on which the fee is imposed; and c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the develop- ment project. Satisfying those requirements also ensures that the fees meet the "rational nexus" and "rough proportionality" standards enunciated in leading court decisions bearing on impact fees and other exactions. (For more detail, see "Legal Framework for Im- pact Fees" in Chapter 1.) The following paragraphs explain how the impact fees calcu- lated in this chapter satisfy those requirements. Purpose of the Fee. The purpose of the impact fees calculated in this chapter is to mitigate the impact of new development on the need for public facilities in Beau- mont, specifically City Hall and the corporation yard. Use of the Fee. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pay for a portion of the cost of the new public facilities described in Table 7.1. As provided by the Mitigation Fee Act, revenue from impact fees may also be used for temporary loans from one impact fee fund or account to another. Reasonable Relationship between the Use of the Fee and the Development Type on Which It Is Imposed. The impact fees calculated in this chapter will be used to pro- vide additional public facilities to mitigate the impacts of added development on Beaumont City Hall and the corporation yard. Reasonable Relationship between the Need for the Facilities and the Type of Devel- opment on Which the Fee Is Imposed. All new development has an impact on the need for City Hall and corporation yard facilities in Beaumont. If additional facilities are not provided to meet the needs created by additional development, the City's administrative departments and public works department will be unable to operate efficiently and effectively in the future. Reasonable Relationship between the Amount of the Fee and the Facility Cost At- tributable to the Development Project. The need for space in City Hall and public works facility will increase as the City grows. This study measures the demand for general government services in terms of service population, and the impact fees cal- culated in this chapter depend on the service population associated with new devel- opment projects. The impact fee charged to a development project will reflect the service demand created by the project and the public facilities needed to support that demand. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 7-5 City of Beaumont - Development Impact Fee Study Implementation Chapter 8 Implementation This chapter of the report contains recommendations for adoption and administra- tion of impact fees, and for the interpretation and application of the development impact fees calculated in this study. Statutory requirements for the adoption and administration of fees imposed as a condition of development approval are found in the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66000 et seq.). Requirements for park land dedication and fees in lieu of dedication are governed by the Quimby Act (Government Code 66477). Ad option The form in which development impact fees are enacted, whether by ordinance or resolution, should be determined by the City Attorney. Ordinarily, it is desirable that specific fee amounts be set by resolution to facilitate periodic adjustments. Procedures for adoption of fees subject to the Mitigation Fee Act, including notice and public hearing requirements, are specified in Government Code Sections 66016 and 66018. It should be noted that Section 66018 refers to Government Code Section 6o62a, which requires that the public hearing notice be published at least twice dur- ing the io-day notice period. Govemment Code Section 66017 provides that fees sub- ject to the Mitigation Fee Act do not become effective until 60 days after final action by the goveming body. Actions establishing or increasing fees subject to the Mitigation Act require certain findings, as set forth in Govemment Code Section 66001 and discussed below and in Chapter 1 of this report. Establishment of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Section 66001(a)), when the City establishes fees to be imposed as a condition of development approval, it must make findings to: 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; z. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-1 City of Beaumont — Development Impact Fee Study Implementation Examples of findings that could be used for impact fees calculated in this study are shown below. The specific language of such findings should be reviewed and ap- proved by the City Attorney. A more complete discussion of the nexus for each fee can be found in individual chapters of this report explaining how the impact fees are calculated. Sample Finding: Purpose of the Fee. The City Council finds that the purpose of the impact fees hereby enacted is to prevent new development from ad- versely impacting the level of service for public facilities in Beaumont by re- quiring new development to contribute to the cost of improvements needed to meet the needs of new development. Sample Finding: Use of the Fee. The City Council finds that revenue from the impact fees hereby enacted will be used to acquire land and equipment and construct new facilities needed to mitigate the impacts of new development. Those improvements are identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study prepared by Colgan Consulting Corporation. Sample Finding: Reasonable Relationship: Based on analysis presented in the 2017 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study prepared by Colgan Consulting Corporation, the City Council finds that there is a reasonable rela- tionship between: a. The use of the fees and the types of development projects on which they are imposed; and, b. The need for facilities and the types of development projects on which the fees are imposed. Administration The California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 6600o et seq.) man- dates procedures for administration of impact fee programs, including collection and accounting, reporting, and refunds. References to code sections in the following paragraphs pertain to the California Government Code. Imposition of Fees. Pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act (Section 6600i(a)), when the City imposes an impact fee upon a specific development project, it must make essen- tially the same findings adopted upon establishment of the fees to: ' According to Gov't Code Section 66001 (a) (2), the use of the fee may be specified in a capital im- provement plan, the General Plan, or other public documents that identify the public facilities for which the fee is charged. The findings recommended here identify this impact fee study as the source of that information. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-2 City of Beaumont - Development Impact Fee Study Implementation 1. Identify the purpose of the fee; 2. Identify the use of the fee; and 3. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: a. The use of the fee and the type of development project on which it is imposed; b. The need for the facility and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed Per Section 66001 (b), at the time when an impact fee is imposed on a specific devel- opment project, the City is also required to make a finding to determine how there is a reasonable relationship between: c. The amount of the fee and the facility cost attributable to the development project on which it is imposed. In addition, Section 66006 (f) provides that a local agency, at the time it imposes a fee for public improvements on a specific development project, "... shall identify the public improvement that the fee will be used to finance." In this case, the fees will be used to pay for improvements identified in the 2017 City of Beaumont Development Impact Fee Study prepared by Colgan Consulting Corporation. Section 66020 (d) (1) requires that the City, at the time it imposes an impact fee pro- vide a written statement of the amount of the fee and written notice of a go -day pe- riod during which the imposition of the fee can be protested. Failure to protest im- position of the fee during that period may deprive the fee payer of the right to sub- sequent legal challenge. Section 66022 (a) provides a separate procedure for challenging the establishment of an impact fee. Such challenges must be filed within 120 days of enactment. The City should develop procedures for imposing fees that satisfy those require- ments for findings and notice. Collection of Fees. Section 66007 (a), provides that a local agency shall not require payment of fees by developers of residential projects prior to the date of final inspec- tion, or issuance of a certificate of occupancy, whichever occurs first. However, "util- ity service fees" (not defined) may be collected upon application for utility service. In a residential development project of more than one dwelling unit, Section 66007 (a) allows the agency to choose to collect fees either for individual units or for phases upon final inspection, or for the entire project upon final inspection of the first dwell- ing unit completed. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consu/ting Corporation Page 8-3 City of Beaumont — Development Impact Fee Study Implementation Section 66007 (b) provides two exceptions when the local agency may require the payment of fees from developers of residential projects at an earlier time: (0) when the local agency determines that the fees "will be collected for public improvements or facilities for which an account has been established and funds appropriated and for which the local agency has adopted a proposed construction schedule or plan prior to final inspection or issuance of the certificate of occupancy" or (2) the fees are "to reimburse the local agency for expenditures previously made." Statutory restrictions on the time at which fees may be collected do not apply to non- residential development. In cases where the fees are not collected upon issuance of building permits, Sections 66007 (c) (1) and (2) provide that the City may require the property owner to execute a contract to pay the fee, and to record that contract as a lien against the property until the fees are paid. Earmarking and Expenditure of Fee Revenue. Section 66006 (a) mandates that fees be deposited "with other fees for the improvement" in a separate capital facilities account or fund in a manner to avoid any commingling of the fees with other reve- nues and funds of the local agency, except for temporary investments and expend those fees solely for the purpose for which the fee was collected. Section 66006 (a) also requires that interest earned on the fee revenues be placed in the capital ac- count and used for the same purpose. The language of the law is not clear as to whether depositing fees "with other fees for the improvement" refers to a specific capital improvement or a class of improve- ments (e.g., street improvements). We are not aware of any municipality that has in- terpreted that language to mean that funds must be segregated by individual pro- jects. As a practical matter, that approach would be unworkable in any event because it would mean that no pay-as-you-go project could be constructed until al! benefiting development had paid the fees. Common practice is to maintain separate funds or accounts for impact fee revenues by facility category (i.e., streets, park improve- ments), but not for individual projects. We recommend that approach. Impact Fee Exemptions, Reductions, and Waivers. In the event that a development project is found to have no impact on facilities for which impact fees are charged, such project must be exempted from the fees. If a project has characteristics that wilt make its impacts on a particular public facility or infrastructure system will be significantly and permanently smaller than the aver- age impact used to calculate impact fees in this study, the fees should be reduced November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-4 City of Beaumont - Development Impact Fee Study Implementation accordingly. Per Section 66001 (b), there must be a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility attributable to the develop- ment on which the fee is imposed. The fee reduction is required if the fee is not pro- portional to the impact of the development on relevant public facilities. In some cases, the City may desire to voluntarily waive or reduce impact fees that would otherwise apply to a project as a way of promoting goals such as affordable housing or economic development. Such a waiver or reduction may not result in in- creased costs to other development projects, and are allowable only if the City off- sets the lost revenue from other fund sources. Credit for Improvements Provided by Developers. If the City requires a developer as a condition of project approval to dedicate land or construct facilities or improve- ments for which impact fees are charged, the impact fee imposed on that develop- ment project for that type of facility must be adjusted to reflect a credit for such ded- ication or construction. In the event that a developer voluntarily offers to dedicate land, or construct facilities or improvements in lieu of paying impact fees, the City may accept or reject such of- fers, and may negotiate the terms under which such an offer would be accepted. Credit for Existing Development. If a project involves replacement, redevelopment or intensification of previously existing development, impact fees should be applied only to the portion of the project that represents a net increase in demand for rele- vant City facilities, applying the measure of demand used in this study to calculate that particular impact fee. Reporting. Section 66006 (b) (1) requires that once each year, within 18o days of the close of the fiscal year, the local agency must make available to the public the follow- ing information for each separate account established to receive impact fee reve- nues: 1. A brief description of the type of fee in the account or fund; 2. The amount of the fee; 3. The beginning and ending balance of the account or fund; 4. The amount of the fees collected and interest earned; 5. Identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended and the amount of the expenditures on each improvement, including the percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees; November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-5 City of Beaumont - Development Impact Fee Study . Implementation 6. Identification of the approximate date by which the construction of a public improvement will commence, if the City determines sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing of an incomplete public improvement; 7. A description of each inter -fund transfer or loan made from the account or fund, including interest rates, repayment dates, and a description of the im- provement on which the transfer or loan will be expended; 8. The amount of any refunds or allocations made pursuant to Section 66001, paragraphs (e) and (f). That information must be reviewed by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled public meeting, but not less than 15 days after the statements are made public, per Section 66006 (b) (2). Refunds. Prior to 1996, a local agency collecting impact fees was required to expend or commit impact fee revenue within five years, or make findings to justify a contin- ued need for the money. Otherwise, those funds had to be refunded. SB 1693, adopted in 1996 as an amendment to the Mitigation Fee Act, changed that require- ment in material ways. Now, Section 66001 (d) requires that, for the fifth fiscal year following the first de- posit of any impact fee revenue into an account or fund as required by Section 66006 (b), and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make all of the following findings for any fee revenue that remains unexpended, whether committed or un- committed: 1. Identify the purpose to which the fee will be put; 2. Demonstrate the reasonable relationship between the fee and the purpose for which it is charged; 3. Identify all sources and amounts of funding anticipated to complete financing of incomplete improvements for which impact fees are to be used; 4. Designate the approximate dates on which the funding necessary to complete financing of those improvements will be deposited into the appropriate account or fund. Those findings are to be made in conjunction with the annual reports discussed above. If such findings are not made as required by Section 6600i, the local agency could be required to refund the moneys in the account or fund, per Section 66001 (d). November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-6 City of Beaumont - Development impact Fee Study Implementation Once the agency determines that sufficient funds have been collected to complete an incomplete improvement for which impact fee revenue is to be used, it must, within 18o days of that determination, identify an approximate date by which con- struction of the public improvement will be commenced (Section 66001 (e)). If the agency fails to comply with that requirement, it must refund impact fee revenue in the account according to procedures specified in Section 66001 (d). Annual Update of the Capital Improvement Plan. Section 66002 (b) provides that if a local agency adopts a capital improvement plan to identify the use of impact fees, that plan must be adopted and annually updated by a resolution of the governing body at a noticed public hearing. The alternative, per Section 66001 (a) (2) is to iden- tify improvements by applicable general or specific plans or in other public docu- ments. In most cases, the CIP identifies projects for a limited number of years and may not include all improvements needed to serve future development covered by the impact fee study. We recommend that this development impact fee study be identified by the City Council as the public document on which the use of the fees is basedt Indexing of Impact Fees. Where impact fees calculated in this report are based on current costs, those costs should, if possible, be adjusted at least annually to account for changes in the cost of facilities or other capita assets that will be funded by the impact fees. That adjustment is intended to account for future escalation in costs for land, construction, vehicles, etc. We recommend the Engineering News Record Build- ing Cost index as the primary basis for indexing construction costs. Where land costs make up a significant portion of the costs covered by a fee, land costs should be ad- justed relative to changes in Local land prices. Training and Public Information Effective administration of an impact fee program requires considerable preparation and training. It is important that those responsible for collecting the fees, and for explaining them to the public, understand both the details of the fee program and its supporting rationale. Before fees are imposed, a staff training workshop is highly desirable if more than a handful of employees will be involved in collecting or accounting for fees. It is also useful to pay close attention to handouts that provide information to the public regarding impact fees. Impact fees should be clearly distinguished from other fees, such as user fees for application processing, and the purpose and use of particu- lar impact fees should be made clear. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-7 City of Beaumont — Development Impact Fee Study Implementation Finally, anyone who is responsible for accounting, capital budgeting, or project man- agement for projects involving impact fees must be fully aware of the restrictions placed on the expenditure of impact fee revenues. Some fees recommended in this report are tied to specific improvements and cost estimates. Fees must be expended accordingly and the City must be able to show that funds have been properly ex- pended. Recovery of Study Costs and Administrative Costs To recover the cost of periodic impact fee update studies and ongoing staff costs for managing those updates and preparing annual reports and five-year updates re- quired by the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code Sections 66o06 (b) (1) and 66001 (d)), an administrative fee may be added to the impact fees calculated in this report. Calculation of a proposed administrative fee provided in the Executive Summary of this report. November 16, 2017 Colgan Consulting Corporation Page 8-8 CITY OF BEAUMONT General Plan LEGEND Dcm BOUNDARY SPHERE OF INFLUENCE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATIONS n RURAL RESIDENTIAL F-1 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL –1 MULTI -FAMILY RESWENTIAL -71 GENERAL COMMERCIAL COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL - INDUSTRIAL 1 COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL OVERLAY URBAN VILLAGE OVERLAY NW BEAUMONT AVENUE OVERLAY LJ PUBLIC FACILITIES 1.11 RECREATION AND CONSERVATION 1.W0 _ 8.000 0..000 0.000 12.000 Fwt ORDINANCE NO. 1096 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 3.02 CONCERNING PROCUREMENT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. SECTION 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance enforced. SECTION 3. Chapter 3.01 are hereby amended and restated in full to read as attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 4. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves this amendment to the City Code. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 7th day of November, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Santos, Martinez, Lara, White, Carroll NOES ABSENT: ABSTAIN PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 21st day of November, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Santos, Martinez, Lara, White, Carroll NOES ABSENT: ABSTAIN Attest: Andreanna Pfeiffer, Ci Chapter 3.02.000 - Procurement of Professional Services fred Llid bite, Mayor Chapter 3.02.000 - Procurement of Professional Services Sections: 3.02.010 Purpose and Policy. 3.02.020 Purchasing Officer -Office Created. 3.02.030 Purchasing Officer -Duties. 3.02.040 Competitive Procurement Procedures. 3.02.050 Exemptions to Competitive Procurement Procedures. 3.02.060 Award of Contract. 3.02.070 Term of Professional Services. 3.02.080 City Council Discretion. 3.02.090 Contracts Under Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). 3.02.010 Purpose and Policy. It shall be the policy of the City that the procurement of professional services, including engineering, architectural, landscape architectural, environmental, land surveying, or construction project management services shall be on the basis of demonstrated competence and on the professional qualifications necessary for the satisfactory performance of the services required, and on the fairness and reasonableness of the costs of services to the City, but shall not be awarded solely on the basis of cost. 3.02.020 Purchasing Officer -Office Created. There is created the position of Purchasing Officer. The duties of the Purchasing Officer shall be administered by the City Manager or such person as he or she may designate. 3.02.030 Purchasing Officer -Duties. The duties of the Purchasing Officer shall be: A. The promulgation of administrative regulations and the adoption of such other rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the City Manager and approved by the City Council. Such regulations shall specifically prohibit practices which might result in unlawful activity including, but not limited to, rebates, kickbacks, or other unlawful consideration, and shall specifically prohibit City employees from participating in the selection process when those employees have a relationship with a person or business entity seeking a contract under this Section which would subject those employees to the prohibitions of the conflict of interest laws. B. The negotiation and recommendation of execution of contracts for professional services. 3.02.040 Competitive Procurement Procedures. The Purchasing Officer shall comply with the following procedure for the procurement of professional services: A. Request for Proposal: Prepare a request for proposal outlining services desired. The request for proposal shall identify all significant evaluation factors, including price or costs when required, and their relative importance. B. Solicitation of Proposal: The request for proposals shall be publicized and disclosed publically on the City website. Any properly qualified firm or professional shall be permitted to timely submit a responsive proposal for consideration. C. Evaluation: The Purchasing Officer shall develop mechanisms for the technical evaluation of proposals received, and shall conduct discussions with the proposers regarding anticipated concepts and the relative utility of alternative methods of approach for furnishing the required services. D. Compilation: The Purchasing Officer shall compile the proposals for consideration by the City Council. 3.02.050 Exemptions to Competitive Procurement Procedure. Upon obtaining approval from the City Council, the Purchasing Officer may engage services of a professional firm or individual without complying with the Competitive Procurement Procedures in the following circumstances: A. The services are available only from a single source; or B. Public exigency or emergency will not permit delay; or C. State or federal grant or loan requirements authorize noncompetitive procurement of such services; or D. After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is deemed inadequate. In circumstances of public exigency or emergency where prior approval of the City Council cannot be reasonably obtained, the City Manager may engage services of a professional firm or individual. The professional services contract shall be submitted to the City Council at the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting. 3.02.060 Award of Contract. City Council approval is required for all contracts for professional services when the cost of the services is twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) or more. The contract shall clearly state the names of the professionals that will provide services under the contract, along with their hourly rate. The contract shall also state a "not to exceed" sum. The professional shall not exceed the "not to exceed" sum without the City Council's prior approval. Contracts awarded to any firm shall not exceed an aggregate amount of twenty five thousand ($25,000) in a fiscal year without approval by the City Council. 3.02.070 Term of Professional Services. The term of any professional services contract awarded shall be a maximum of five (5) years. Contracts shall be submitted to the City Council annually for approval, renewal, termination, non -renewal or extension. Extension of a contract beyond the initial term shall be approved by four fifth (4/5) vote of the City Council. Professional services contracts shall not contain "evergreen" type clauses that allow for automatic renewal without City Council approval. 3.02.080. City Council Discretion. The award of a contract for professional services shall be within the City Council's discretion. The City Council may, in its discretion, modify or extend a request for proposal for professional services. The City Council reserves the right to reject any and all proposals. 3.02.090 Contracts Under Twenty Five Thousand Dollars ($25,000). Professional services contracts under twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) may be awarded by the Purchasing Officer without a formal bidding procedure. Professional services contracts shall not be divided into smaller contracts or subcontracts to avoid the competitive procedures set forth in section 3.01.040 and 3.01.060. ORDINANCE NO. 1097 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA AMENDING CHAPTER 3.00 AND 3.01 CONCERNING BIDDING, CONTRACTING FOR PUBLIC PROJECTS, GOODS AND SERVICES OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. CEQA. The City Council finds that the actions contemplated by this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. SECTION 2. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that if any provision, section, paragraph, sentence, or word of this Ordinance is rendered or declared to be invalid or unconstitutional by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction, or by reason of any preemptive legislation, such invalidity shall not affect the other provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this Ordinance, and to this end the provisions of this Ordinance are severable. The City Council declares that it would have adopted this Ordinance irrespective of the invalidity of any particular portion thereof and intends that the invalid portions should be severed and the balance of the Ordinance enforced. SECTION 3. Chapters 3.00 and 3.01 are hereby amended and restated in full to read as attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 4. Effective Date and Publication. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves this amendment to the City Code. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 7th day of November, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Santos, Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 21st day of November, 2017, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Martinez, Lara, Carroll, White NOES: ABSENT: Santos ABSTAIN: Attest: Andreanna Pfeiffer erk V. White, Mayor Chapter 3.00 - General Provisions for Bidding, Contracting and Purchases Sections: 3.00.010 - Purpose and Policy. 3.00.020 - Purchasing Officer 3.00.030 - Purchasing Officer's Duties. 3.00.040 - Adoption of Purchasing System. Chapter 3.01— Specific Provisions for Bidding, Contracting and Purchases Sections: 3.00.010 - Definitions. 3.01.020 - General Purchasing Policies and Procedures. 3.01.030 - Bidding Requirements for Public Projects. 3.01.040 - Bidding Requirements for Maintenance and General Services. 3.01.050 - Bidding Requirements for Materials, Supplies and Equipment. 3.01.060 - Formal Bidding Procedure for Public Projects. 3.01.070 - Informal Bidding Procedure for Public Projects. 3.01.080 - Formal Bidding Procedure for Non -Public Projects. 3.01.090 - Informal Bidding Procedure for Non -Public Projects. 3.01.100 - Exceptions to Competitive Bidding for Public Projects. 3.01.110 - Exceptions to Competitive Bidding for Non -Public Projects. 3.01.120 - City Manager Authorization to Execute Contracts. 3.02.000 Procurement of Professional Services Sections: 3.02.010 Purpose and Policy. 3.02.020 Purchasing Officer -Office Created. 3.02.030 Purchasing Officer -Duties. 3.02.040 Competitive Procurement Procedures. 3.02.050 Exemptions to Competitive Procurement Procedures. 3.02.060 Award of Contract. 3.02.070 Term of Professional Services. 3.02.080 City Council Discretion. 3.02.090 Contracts Under Forty Five Thousand Dollars ($45,000.). 3.00.010 Purpose and Policy. In order to establish efficient procedures for the purchase of supplies and equipment at the lowest possible cost and to assure the quality of purchases, a purchasing system is hereby adopted. 3.00.020 Purchasing Officer. There is created the position of Purchasing Officer. The duties of this Officer shall be administered by the City Manager or such person as he or she may designate. 3.00.030 Purchasing Officer's Duties. The duties of the Purchasing Officer may be combined with those of any other office or position. Subject to the policies of this Chapter and the supervision of the City Manager, the Purchasing Officer shall have the authority to: A. Purchase or contract for supplies, services and equipment required by the City; B. Negotiate and recommend to the City Council execution of contracts for the purchase of supplies, services and equipment; C. Prepare and implement policies and procedures governing the bidding, contracting, purchasing, storing, distribution and disposal of supplies, services and equipment for the City; D. Prescribe and maintain such forms as may be reasonably necessary to the implementation of this chapter and any other policies and procedures approved by the City Manager consistent with this chapter; E. Review the working details, drawings, plans and specifications for any projects or purchases requiring such review in this chapter; F. Inspect or supervise the inspection of purchased supplies, services and equipment to ensure conformity with any specifications established or required by the City; G. Transfer among departments any supplies, services and equipment not needed by one such department, but which are necessary for the operation of one or more other departments; H. Develop and maintain any bidder's list, contractor's list or vendor's catalog file necessary to the operation of this chapter and any other policies and procedures approved by the City Manager consistent with this chapter, chapter 3.01 and 3.02. 3.00.040 - Adoption of Purchasing System and Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act. The purpose of this chapter is to establish efficient procedures for the purchase of supplies, services and equipment at the lowest possible cost commensurate with quality needed, to exercise positive financial control over purchases, to clearly define authority for the purchasing function and to assure the quality of purchases. Therefore, a centralized purchasing system is hereby adopted and vested with the authority for the purchase of all city supplies, services and equipment. In addition, this chapter, chapter 3.01, chapter 3.02 and the purchasing system they establish are designed to provide appropriate procedures to implement the City's participation in the Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act pursuant to California Public Contract Code, Section 22000 et seq. Chapter 3.01— Specific Provisions for Bidding, Contracting and Purchases of Supplies 3.01.010 - Definitions Unless otherwise indicated, the following definitions shall apply to all provisions of this chapter: "Alternative Procedure" means purchasing supplies, services or equipment by negotiated contract, purchase order or any other procedure outlined in the City's purchasing and bidding policies and procedures manual approved by the City Manager and consistent with this chapter. A type of Alternative Procedure may include, but is not limited to, what will be referred to as a "simplified pricing procedure" wherein the Authorized Contracting Party, or his or her designee, obtains oral price quotes from one or more potential contractors or suppliers, and accepts the quote which is determined to be in the best interests of the City. "Authorized Contracting Party" means the city official or body provided with authority under this chapter by the City Manager to approve a contract or to make a purchase. "City Manager" means the City Manager or person designated by the City Manager to perform all or some of the duties prescribed in this chapter. "Commission" means the California Uniform Construction Cost Accounting Commission created by Division 2, Part 3, Chapter 2, Article 2 of the California Public Contract Code (Section 22000 et seq). "Emergency" for purposes of Public Projects shall have that meaning provided in California Public Contract Code Sections 22035 and 22050. Emergency for all other purchasing or contracting purposes means a situation which makes competitive bidding, either formal or informal, impractical or not in the best interests of the City. "Facility" means any plant, building, structure, ground facility, utility system (subject to the limitation found in California Public Contract Code Section 22002, Subdivision (c)(3)), real property, streets and highways, or other public work improvement. "General Services" means all services performed by persons not in a professional occupation, including, but not limited to, contract services for park, electrical and computer repair, building, facility and vehicle maintenance, recreation programs and other similar services which are not professional services. "Maintenance Work" shall have that meaning provided in Section 22002(d) of the Public Contract Code, as that section may be amended from time to time. In addition and to the extent not inconsistent with Section 22002(d), Maintenance Work shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: A. Routine, recurring and usual work for the preservation or protection of any publicly owned or publicly operated Facility for its intended purposes; B. Minor repainting; C. Street and highway maintenance, including utility patching, skin patching, crack filling, filling of pot holes, slurry sealing, edge grading, street striping, resurfacing of streets and highways at less than one -inch, sign replacement, sidewalk repair and replacement, curb and gutter repair and replacement, and street and traffic light repair and replacement. Maintenance Work shall not include striping of a new street or highway; D. Sewer maintenance, including foaming, videotaping, cleaning and manhole restoration; E. Traffic signal maintenance. Maintenance Work shall not include installation of new traffic signals; F. Storm drain related maintenance; G. Landscape maintenance, including mowing, watering, trimming, pruning, planting, tree and plant replacement, irrigation and sprinkler system servicing, retrofit and repair and landscape rehabilitation; H. Maintenance of Facilities, including roof repairs or replacements, heating and air conditioning repairs and electric repairs; I. Vehicle and equipment maintenance and repairs; J. Work performed to keep, operate, and maintain publicly owned waste disposal systems, including, but not limited to dams, reservoirs and waste treatment systems. "Professional Services" means all services performed by persons in a professional occupation, including, but not limited to, consulting and performance services for legal services, accounting, auditing, computer hardware and software support, engineering, architectural, planning, environmental, redevelopment, financial, economic, personnel, social services, animal control, management, solid waste, cable television, communication and other similar professional functions which may be necessary for the operation of the City. Professional Services are governed by chapter 3.02. "Public Project" shall have that meaning provided in Section 22002(c) of the Public Contract Code, as that section may be amended from time to time. A Public Project shall not include Maintenance Work. In addition and to the extent not inconsistent with Section 22002(c), Public Project shall include, but shall not be limited to, the Following: 1. Construction, reconstruction, erection, alteration, renovation, improvement, demolition and repair work involving any publicly owned, leased or operated Facility; 2. Street or sewer work except maintenance and repair; 3. Painting or repainting of any publicly owned, leased or operated Facility; and 4. In the case of a publicly owned utility system, Public Project shall include only the construction, erection, Improvement, or repair of dams, reservoirs and wastewater treatment plants. "Public Project Formal Bidding Procedure" means the procedure provided for in section 3.01.060 which meets the requirements of state and local law, including Public Contract Code Section 22037, this chapter and any policies and procedures approved by the City Manager consistent with this chapter. "Public Project Informal Bidding Procedure" means a procedure provided for in section 3.01.070 which meets the requirements of state and local law, including Public Contract Code Section 22034, this chapter and any policies and procedures approved by the City Manager consistent with this chapter. "Purchasing Officer" means the City Manager or his or her designee(s) as provided in section 3.00.020. Pursuant to section 3.00.020, the City Manager may change his or her designation at any time. "Non -Public Project Formal Bidding Procedure" means the procedure provided for in section 3.01.080 which meets the requirements of state and local law, including the Public Contract Code, this chapter and any policies and procedures approved by the City Manager consistent with this chapter. "Non -Public Project Informal Bidding Procedure" means the procedure provided for in section 3.01.090 which meets the requirements of state and local law, including the Public Contract Code, this chapter and any policies and procedures approved by the City Manager consistent with this chapter. 3.01.020 - General Purchasing Policies and Procedures. A. The City shall secure supplies, services and equipment at the lowest total cost commensurate with the quality and scope needed, and subject to any limitations imposed by state law. B. The Purchasing Officer shall develop, for approval by the City Manager, such policies and procedures as are necessary to implement the provisions of this chapter. The policies and procedures shall be written and implemented in such a way to encourage open and competitive bidding, where appropriate, provide equal opportunity based on merit, make each selection process free of invidious discrimination, provide for efficient and timely acquisition of needed supplies, services and equipment, and provide effective fiscal controls. C. In purchasing, supplies, services and equipment, the City shall make use of competitive bidding, both formal and informal, whenever required by law, this chapter or any policies and procedures approved by the City Manager consistent with this chapter. D. Formal and informal competitive bidding is not required, for instance, when an Emergency is declared pursuant to this chapter. E. Except in cases of Emergency or unless specifically authorized by resolution or minute order of the City Council, the Purchasing Officer shall not issue a purchase order for supplies, services or equipment involving any project or purchase unless there exists an unencumbered appropriation in the fund account against which such purchase is to be charged. F. The City shall comply with all federal and state bidder's security and bonding requirements and all prevailing wage laws applicable to each contract or purchase. G. The Purchasing Officer, with approval of the City Manager, may provide written authorization to any department director to conduct a bidding process outside of the centralized purchasing system; provided, however, that such bidding process and the resulting contract or purchase shall otherwise comply with the requirements of this chapter. The Purchasing Officer, with approval of the City Manager, may rescind such authorization in writing at any time and for any or no reason. 3.01.030 - Bidding Requirements for Public Projects. A. Alternative Procedure (up to $25,000) (Administrative Approval). Public Projects with cost estimates of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less may be awarded by the City Manager, upon recommendation of the director of the department responsible for the Project, by any Alternative Procedure as defined in section 3.01.010. B. Alternative Procedure (more than $25,000 - $45,000) (City Council Approval). Public Projects with cost estimates of more than twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000), but less than, or equal to forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000)may be awarded by the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, by any Alternative Procedure as defined in section 3.01.010. C. Informal Procedure (more than $45,000 — less than $175,000). Public Projects with cost estimates of more than forty five thousand dollars ($45,000), but less than, or equal to, one hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000) shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter or the Public Contract Code, be awarded by the City Council pursuant to the Public Project Informal Bidding Procedure in section 3.01.070. If all bids received are over one hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000), the City Council may, with the approval of a four-fifths vote of those members present, award the contract in an amount not exceeding one hundred eighty seven thousand five hundred dollars ($187,500) to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder, so long as the City Council also determines that the City's cost estimate for the project was reasonable. D. Formal Procedure (more than $175,000). Public Projects with cost estimates of more than one hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000) shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter or the Public Contract Code, be awarded by the City Council pursuant to the Public Project Formal Bidding Procedure in section 3.01.060. E. City Engineer Review. The City Engineer or his designee shall review the working details, drawings, plans and specifications prepared for every maintenance project and other General Services project which may affect the design or operation of public improvements and which may bring into question the City's liability for dangerous condition of public property. F. City Council Approval. The City Council shall review and approve the working details, drawings, plans and specifications prepared for every Public Project of more than one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000). G. Award. Contracts for Public Projects of forty five thousand dollars ($45,000) or less, may be awarded in the best interests of the City. Contracts for Public Projects of more than forty five thousand dollars ($45,000), if awarded, shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. If two or more bids are the same and the lowest, the Authorized Contracting Party may accept the one it chooses in his or her sole and absolute discretion. H. Dollar Limits and Change Orders or Amendments. The dollar limits indicated herein shall apply to the original contract and to any amendments or change orders. To this end, therefore, unless an exception provided in section 3.01.100 applies, any contract amendment or change order which would increase the contract amount above any threshold stated herein shall comply with the requirements applicable to the increased contract amount. I. No Bid Splitting. The City shall not split a project, work, service or purchase into smaller projects, works, services or purchases for the purpose of avoiding any bidding or contracting requirements of this Code. 3.01.040 - Bidding Requirements for Maintenance and General Services. A. Alternative Procedure (up to $25,000) (Administrative Approval). Maintenance Work and other General Services Projects with cost estimates of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less may be awarded by the City Manager, upon recommendation of the director of the department responsible for the Project, by any Alternative Procedure as defined in section 3.01.010. B. Alternative Procedure (more than $25,000 - $45,000) (City Council Approval). Maintenance Work and other General Services Projects with cost estimates of more than twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000), but less than, or equal to forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) may be awarded by the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, by any Alternative Procedure as defined in section 3.01.010. C. Informal Bidding Procedure (more than $45,000 — up to $175,000). Maintenance Work and other General Services projects with cost estimates of more than forty five thousand dollars ($45,000), but less than or equal to one hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000) shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, be awarded by the City Council pursuant to the Non -Public Project Informal Bidding Procedure contained in in section 3.01.090. D. Formal Bidding Procedure (more than $175,000). Maintenance Work and other General Services projects with cost estimates of more than one hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000) shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, be awarded by the City Council pursuant to the Non -Public Project Formal Bidding Procedure contained in section 3.01.080. E. City Engineer Review. The City Engineer or his designee shall review the working details, drawings, plans and specifications prepared for every maintenance project and other General Services project which may affect the design or operation of public improvements and which may bring into question the City's liability for dangerous condition of public property. F. Purchasing Officer Approval. The Purchasing Officer, or his or her designee, shall review and approve the working details, drawings, plans and specifications prepared for every Maintenance Work and other General Services project. G. City Council Approval. The City Council shall review and approve the working details, drawings, plans and specifications prepared for every Maintenance Work and other General Services project of more than forty five thousand dollars ($45,000). H. Award. Contracts for Maintenance Work and other General Services projects of forty five thousand dollars ($45,000) or less, if awarded, may be awarded in the best interests of the City. Contracts for Maintenance Work and other General Services projects of more than forty five thousand dollars ($45,000), if awarded, shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. If two or more bids are the same and the lowest, the Authorized Contracting Party may accept the one it chooses. I. Subsequent Contract Awards, Amendments, Extensions or Renewals. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the City Manager shall not award a subsequent contract to the same individual or entity for the same or similar services on the same project, or amend, extend or renew such a contract, without City Council Approval, when the award, amendment, extension or renewal will result in the City paying an aggregate amount of more than forty five thousand dollars ($45,000) to the individual or entity in any given fiscal year. For purposes of this section, the phrase "same project" shall include an on-call or as -needed contract. J. Term Limitation. No Maintenance Work or other General Services contract, except for contracts for solid waste services, may extend for longer than a three (3) year initial term with a maximum of two (2), one (1) year extensions each of which must be approved by the City Council. K. No Bid Splitting. The City shall not split a project, work, service or purchase into smaller projects, works, services or purchases for the purpose of avoiding any bidding or contracting requirements of this Code. 3.01.050 - Bidding Requirements for Materials, Supplies and Equipment. A. Alternative Procedure (up to $25,000) (Administrative Approval). Purchases of materials, supplies and equipment of twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less may be awarded by the City Manager, upon recommendation of the director of the department responsible for the Project, by any Alternative Procedure as defined in section 3.01.010. B. Alternative Procedure (more than $25,000 - $45,000) (City Council Approval). Purchases of materials, supplies and equipment of more than twenty five thousand dollars ($25,000), but less than, or equal to forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) may be awarded by the City Council, upon recommendation of the City Manager, by any Alternative Procedure as defined in section 3.01.010. C. Informal Bidding Procedure (more than $45,000 - less than $175,000). Purchases of materials, supplies and equipment of more than forty five thousand dollars ($45,000), but less than or equal to one hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000) shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, be awarded by the City Council pursuant to the Non -Public Project Informal Bidding Procedure provided for in section 3.01.090. D. Formal Bidding Procedure ($175,000 or more). Purchases of materials, supplies and equipment of more than one hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000) shall, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, be awarded by the City Council pursuant to the Non -Public Project Formal Bidding Procedure provided for in section 3.010.080. E. Department Director Approval. The director of the appropriate department shall review and approve the specifications prepared for every purchase of materials, supplies and equipment. F. Purchasing Officer Approval. The Purchasing Officer, or his or her designee, shall review and approve all contracts for the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment. G. City Council Approval. The City Council shall review and approve the specifications prepared for every purchase of materials, supplies and equipment of more than forty five thousand dollars ($45,000). H. Award. Contracts for the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment of forty five thousand dollars ($45,000) or less, if awarded, may be awarded in the best interests of the City pursuant to Section 3.01.040.G. Contracts for the purchase of materials, supplies and equipment of more than forty five thousand dollars ($45,000), if awarded, shall be awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder pursuant to section 3.010.040.G. If two or more bids are the same and the lowest, the Authorized Contracting Party may accept the one he or she chooses in his or her sole discretion. I. Local Bidder Preference. In order to promote the economic health of the City and to encourage local participation in the procurement of materials, supplies and equipment, the City may take into consideration the sales tax to be returned to the City as a result of an award in determining the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. This section shall not be effective unless and until the City Manager adopts a written policy to implement its provisions. J. No Bid Splitting. The City shall not split a project, work, service or purchase into smaller projects, works, services or purchases for the purpose of avoiding any bidding or contracting requirements of this Code. 3.01.060 Formal Bidding Procedure for Public Projects. A. Uses of Formal Bidding Procedure. This Formal Bidding Procedure shall be used whenever formal bidding is required for a Public Project. B. Required Process. The formal competitive bidding procedure shall comply with all aspects of state and local law governing formal competitive bidding, including, but not limited to, the California Public Contract Code, California Government Code, California Labor Code, resolutions of the City Council as may be adopted from time to time, and policies and procedures as the City Manager may approve from time to time. C. Notice Inviting Formal Bids. Notice inviting formal bids shall be provided. The notice inviting formal bids shall comply with Public Contract Code Section 22037, as such section may be amended from time to time. Notices shall state the time and place for the receiving and opening of sealed bids and distinctly describe the project. At a minimum, the notice inviting formal bids shall: 1. Describe the project; 2. State how to obtain more detailed information about the project; 3. State the date, time and place for the submission of sealed bids; and 4. Include any other information required by state or local law, as determined by the City Attorney. D. Published Notice. The notice shall be published at least fourteen calendar days before the date of opening the bids in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City, or, if there is no such newspaper, in a newspaper of general circulation which is circulated in the City. E. Distribution of Notice Inviting Formal Bids. The notice inviting formal bids shall also be sent to those construction trade journals specified in Public Contract Code Section 22036 at least thirty calendar days before the date of bid opening. F. Additional Notice. The City shall also provide any additional notice as it deems proper. G. Contents of Remaining Bid and Contract Documents. The contents and form of the bid and contract documents shall be approved by the director of the appropriate department, as well as the City Attorney. H. City's Authority. The City may reject any or all bids received, and may waive any minor irregularities in each bid received. I. No Bids Received. If no bids are received, the Authorized Contracting Party may award the contract by any Alternative Procedure. J. Award of Contract. The contract shall be awarded in accordance with section 3.01.030. If two or more bids are the same and the lowest, the City may accept the one it chooses in its sole and absolute discretion. K. Rejection of Bids. The City may, in its sole and absolute discretion, reject any bids presented. If after the first invitation of bids all bids are rejected, after reevaluating its cost estimates for the project, the City shall have the option of any of the Following: 1. Abandon the project; or 2. Re -advertise for bids in the manner described in this chapter; or 3. By passage of a resolution by a four-fifths vote of the City Council, declare that the project can be performed more economically by the employees of the City and have the project done by force account. 3.01.070 - Informal Bidding Procedure for Certain Public Projects. A. Uses of Public Project Informal Bidding Procedure. This Informal Bidding Procedure shall be used when a Public Project is involved and informal bidding is permitted by this chapter. B. Distribution of Notice Inviting Informal Bids to Contractor List. The Purchasing Officer shall provide a notice inviting informal bids not less than ten calendar days before the bids are due. The notice inviting informal bids shall be mailed or provided to all construction trade journals specified in Public Contract Code Sections 22034 and 22036. C. Contents of Notice Inviting Informal Bids. At a minimum, the notice inviting informal bids shall: 1. Describe the project in general terms; 2. State how to obtain more detailed information about the project; 3. State the date, time and place for the submission of sealed bids; and 4. Include any other information required by state or local law, as determined by the City Attorney. D. Proprietary Projects or Products. If the director of the appropriate department certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge, the product or service is proprietary in nature and can be obtained only from a limited number of contractors, and that no equivalent products or services are available, the notice inviting informal bids may be sent exclusively to such contractor or contractors. E. Contents of Remaining Bid and Contract Documents. The contents and form of the remaining bid and contract documents shall be approved by the director of the appropriate department, as well as the City Attorney. F. City's Authority. The City may reject any or all bids received, and may waive any minor irregularities in each bid received. G. No Bids Received. If no bids are received, the Authorized Contracting Party may award the contract by any Alternative Procedure. H. Award of Contract. The contract shall be awarded in accordance with Section 3.010.030.F. If two or more bids are the same and the lowest, the City may accept the one it chooses in its sole and absolute discretion. 3.01.080 - Formal Bidding Procedure for Non -Public Projects. A. Uses of the Non -Public Project Formal Bidding Procedure. A formal bidding procedure shall be used whenever formal bidding is required by this chapter and the project does not involve a Public Project. B. Distribution of Notice Inviting Formal Bids or Request for Proposals. A notice inviting formal bids or a request for proposals, as appropriate, shall be published at least fourteen calendar days before the date of opening the bids or proposals in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in the City, or, if there is no such newspaper, in a newspaper of general circulation which is circulated in the City. The notice inviting formal bids or request for proposals may also be provided directly to vendors or contractors. The City shall endeavor to receive formal bids or proposals from at least three vendors or contractors. A notice inviting bids shall be used whenever the project or purchase must be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. A request for proposals may be used whenever the project or purchase is not required to be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. If the Purchasing Officer and the director of the appropriate department certify that, to the best of their knowledge, there is no local source or local provider available for the project, the notice inviting bids or the request for proposals, as appropriate, may be distributed to a list of qualified vendors maintained by the Purchasing Officer and/or published in a trade journal appropriate to the project, in lieu of publication in a newspaper of general circulation. C. Contents of Notice Inviting Formal Bids or Request for Proposals. At a minimum, the notice inviting formal bids or request for proposals shall: 1. Describe the project or purchase in general terms; 2. State how to obtain more detailed information about the project or purchase; 3. State the date, time and place for the submission of bids or proposals; and 4. Include any other information required by state or local law, as determined by the City Attorney. Bids for purchases of more than one hundred seventy five thousand dollars ($175,000) shall be sealed bids. D. Proprietary Projects or Sole Source Products. If the director of the appropriate department certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge, the product or service is proprietary in nature and can be obtained only from a limited number of vendors or contractors, and that no equivalent products or services are available, the notice inviting formal bids or request for proposals may be sent exclusively to such vendor(s) or contractor(s). E. Contents of Remaining Bid and Contract Documents. The contents and form of the remaining bid and contract documents shall be approved by the director of the appropriate department, as well as the City Attorney. F. City's Authority. The City may reject any or all bids or proposals received, and may waive any minor irregularities in each bid or proposal received. G. No Bids Received. If no bids are received, the Authorized Contracting Party may award the contract by any Alternative Procedure. 3.01.090 - Informal Bidding Procedure for Non -Public Projects. A. Uses of Non -Public Project Informal Bidding Procedure. This informal Bidding Procedure shall be used whenever informal bidding is allowed for a purchase which does not involve a Public Project. B. Distribution of Notice Inviting Informal Bids or Request for Proposals. A Notice inviting informal bids or request for proposals, as appropriate, shall be provided. The notice inviting informal bids or requests for proposals shall be provided to at least three vendors or contractors, and the City shall endeavor to receive informal bids or proposals from at least three vendors or contractors. A notice inviting bids shall be used whenever the project or purchase must be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. A request for proposals may be used whenever the project or purchase is not required to be awarded to the lowest responsible and responsive bidder. C. Contents of Notice Inviting Informal Bids or Request for Proposals. At a minimum, the notice inviting informal bids or request for proposals shall: 1. Describe the project or purchase in general terms; 2. State how to obtain more detailed information about the project or purchase; 3. State the date, time and place for the submission of bids or proposals; and 4. Include any other information required by state or local law, as determined by the City Attorney. Bids for purchases of more than forty-five thousand dollars ($45,000) shall be sealed bids. D. Proprietary Projects or Products. If the director of the appropriate department certifies that, to the best of his or her knowledge, the product or service is proprietary in nature and can be obtained only from a limited number of vendors or contractors, and that no equivalent products or services are available, the notice inviting informal bids or request for proposals may be sent exclusively to such vendor(s) or contractor(s). E. Contents of Remaining Bid and Contract Documents. The contents and form of the remaining bid and contract documents shall be approved by the director of the appropriate department, as well as the City Attorney. F. City's Authority. The City may reject any or all bids or proposals received, and may waive any Minor irregularities in each bid or proposal received. G. No Bids or Proposals Received. If no bids or proposals are received, the Authorized Contracting Party may award the contract by any alternative purchasing procedure. 3.01.100 - Exceptions to Competitive Bidding on Public Projects. In addition to the situations described in section 3.01.030, competitive bidding, either formal or informal, is not required for Public Projects in the situations provided for in this section. Under such conditions, the Alternative Procedure may be used. A. Emergencies. In situations determined by the City Manager to constitute an Emergency for repair or replacement of a Public Project pursuant to Public Contract Code Section 22035 and Public Contract Code Section 22050, the City Council hereby delegates to the City Manager the power to declare a public emergency and take any directly related and immediate action required by the emergency, up to a total of one hundred thousand dollars ($100,00), pursuant to California Public Contract Code Section 22035 and California Public Contract Code Section 22050. Emergency expenditures of more than one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000) shall first be approved by the City Council. Work may be performed without the benefit of competitive bidding, either formal or informal, only so long as necessary under those sections. For projects of more than twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000), a report on the Emergency and work performed shall be provided at the next regular meeting of the City Council, and then at every meeting thereafter required by California Public Contract Code Section 22050. At such meetings, the City Council shall determine, by a four-fifths vote, that there is a need to continue the action without the benefit of informal or formal competitive bidding in accordance with California Public Contract Code Section 22035 and California Public Contract Code Section 22050. The City Council shall terminate the Emergency action at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant, so that the remainder of the Emergency action may be completed pursuant to a Formal Bidding Procedure or other applicable procedure. For projects of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) or less, the City Manager shall determine, on his or her own as the action continues, whether there is a need to continue the action without the benefit of the applicable bidding procedure. The City Manager shall terminate the Emergency action at the earliest possible date that conditions warrant, so that the remainder of the Emergency action may be completed pursuant to the applicable bidding procedure. B. No Competitive Market. When the City Council determines, in accordance with applicable law, that a competitive market does not exist and that no competitive advantage will be gained by the public bidding process. C. No Bids Received. When no bids are received pursuant to either the Public Project Informal Bidding Procedure or the Public Project Formal Bidding Procedure the Purchasing Officer may proceed by the Alternative Procedure. D. Otherwise Authorized. When otherwise authorized by this chapter or applicable law including, but not limited to Public Contract Code Section 22160 et. seq. concerning design build. 3.01.110 - Exceptions to Competitive Bidding on Non -Public Projects. In addition to the situations described in sections 3.01.090 through 3.01.100, competitive bidding, either formal or informal, is not required for Non -Public Projects in the situations provided for in this section. Under such conditions, any alternative procedure, including no bidding, may be used with the City Manager's approval. A. Emergencies. In situations determined by the Authorized Contracting Party to constitute an Emergency, as defined in section 3.01.010. B. No Competitive Market. When the City Council determines, in accordance with applicable law, that a competitive market does not exist and that no competitive advantage will be gained by the public bidding process. C. Competitive Bidding Already Completed. When the Authorized Contracting Party determines that a competitive bid procedure has been conducted by another public agency (e.g. through CMAS or GSA) and the price to the City is equal to or better than the price to that public agency. D. State Purchase. When the purchase is made on behalf of the City by the State Department of General Services. E. Purpose of Bidding is Otherwise Accomplished. When the City Manager determines that it is in the best interest of the City and its administrative operations to dispense with public bidding for Non -Public Projects under this chapter. Prior City Council concurrence with the City Manager's determination shall be required for Non -Public Project purchases over one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000). F. No Bids Received. When no bids are received Non -Public Project formal or informal bidding procedures. G. Expenses. The reimbursement or payment of travel expenses and other employee expenses. H. Insurance. The payment of any insurance premiums or claims, including employee medical payments. I. Real Property. The purchase or lease of real property with City Council approval. J. Banking. Banking services. K. Otherwise Authorized. When otherwise authorized by this chapter or applicable law. 3.01.120 - City Manager Authorization to Execute Contracts. Pursuant to the California Government Code, the Mayor must execute all contracts on behalf of the City, unless another City officer or employee is authorized to do so. The City Manager and his or her designees, as explicitly set forth in this chapter and the administrative policies implementing this chapter, are hereby authorized to execute contracts on behalf of the City. ORDINANCE NO. 1098 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, CALIFORNIA RELINQUISHING RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE MOBILEHOME PARKS ACT AND RELATED REGULATIONS TO THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WHEREAS, pursuant to California Health and Safety Code section 18300(b), local agencies may assume the responsibility for the enforcement of the Mobilehome Parks Act (Health and Safety Code Section 18220, et seq.), the Special Occupancy Parks Act (Health and Safety Code Section 18860, et seq.) and the regulations adopted by the California Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") thereto; and WHEREAS, by Ordinance No. 816, adopted November 20, 2001, the City of Beaumont ("City") assumed and delegated to the City's Department of Building and Safety responsibility for the enforcement of Division 13, Part 2.1 of the California Health and Safety Code (Sections 18200 through 18700) and related administrative regulations (Title 25 of the California Code of Regulations (hereinafter the "Mobilehome Parks Act"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 18300(e) and 18865(e), a city may cancel is assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of both the Mobilehome Parks Act and the Special Occupancy Parks Act; and WHEREAS, the City Council now desires to relinquish and cancel the City's assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of the Mobilehome Parks Act and the Special Occupancy Park Act, and return enforcement authority to the HCD for those mobilehome parks subject to these laws and regulations; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds and determines that it is in the public interest to transfer responsibility for the enforcement of the Mobilehome Parks Act and the Special Occupancy Park Act back to the HCD. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. The foregoing recitals are true and correct and incorporated by this reference. SECTION 2. City of Beaumont Ordinance No. 816 adopted November 20, 2001, is hereby repealed in its entirety. SECTION 3. Pursuant to Health and Safety Code Sections 18300(e) and 18865(e), the assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of the Mobilehome Parks Act, the Special Occupancy Act, and the regulations adopted thereto, is hereby cancelled and relinquished and returned to the California Department of Housing and Community Development. 1 SECTION 4. The City of Beaumont shall forthwith provide written notice to the Department of Housing and Community Development of the City's cancellation of assumption of responsibility for the enforcement of the Mobilehome Parks Act, the Special Occupancy Act, and the regulations adopted thereto and remit any appropriate fees. The City Manager of the City of Beaumont is authorized to sign such written notice of cancellation on behalf of the City of Beaumont. SECTION 5. The City Clerk is authorized to transmit a certified copy of the ordinance to the Department of Housing and Community Development. SECTION 6. Provided the applicable provisions for cancellation of responsibility contained in the Mobilehome Parks Act and the Special Occupancy Act have been met, this ordinance shall become effective 90 days after receipt by the Department of Housing and Community Development of notice of cancellation of the City's enforcement authority. INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 2nd day of January, 2018, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Mayor Carroll, Council Members Lara, Martinez, Santos and White NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 16th day of January, 2018, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Lara, White, Martinez, Carroll NOES ABSENT: Santos ABSTAIN Attest: City Clerk Approved as to form: John y,`tfy, Attorney �O: inkne 2 ORDINANCE NO. 1099 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT ADDING CHAPTER 16.68 TITLED "DEDICATION OF LAND FOR PARK AND RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND PAYMENT OF IN - LIEU FEES" TO TITLE 16 SUBDIVISIONS OF THE BEAUMONT MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the Quimby Act (the "Act", Government Code section 66477) applies to the provision of community and neighborhood parks with respect to subdivisions; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that the City Council may, by ordinance, require the dedication of land or impose a requirement of the payment of fees in lieu thereof, or a combination of both, for park and recreational purposes as a condition to the approval of a tentative map or a parcel map; and WHEREAS, the Act provides that, prior to adoption of such an ordinance, the City Council must have adopted a general plan or specific plan containing policies and standards for parks and recreational facilities, and the park and recreational facilities are in accordance with definite principles and standards; and WHEREAS, The General Plan Section 4.3 contains policies and standards for parks and recreational facilities; and WHEREAS, the adoption of this ordinance complies with the California Environmental Quality Act. NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. TITLE This ordinance shall be known as the "Quimby Act Ordinance." Section 2. ADDING CHAPTER 16.68 TO THE MUNICIPAL CODE 1 Chapter 16.68 "Dedication of Land for Park and Recreational Purposes and Payment of In -Lieu Fees" shall be added to Title 16 "Subdivisions" of the Beaumont Municipal Code and shall read as provided in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and made a part hereof by this reference. Section 3. ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS The City has complied with the California Environmental Quality Act in the approval of the subject regulations in that the adoption of this Ordinance establishing regulations for the payment of fees for park and recreational purposes creates and/or modifies a government funding mechanism which is not a physical change in the environment and therefore, is not a project under CEQA. 14 Cal. Code of Regulations §§ 15378(b)(4). Section 4. SEVERABILITY The City Council declares that, should any provision, section, paragraph, sentence or word of this ordinance be rendered or declared invalid by any final court action in a court of competent jurisdiction or by reason of any preemptive legislation, the remaining provisions, sections, paragraphs, sentences or words of this ordinance as hereby adopted shall remain in full force and effect. Section 5. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS All the provisions of the Beaumont Municipal Code as heretofore adopted that are in conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 6. EFFECTIVE DATE AND PUBLICATION. The Mayor shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the passage of this Ordinance and cause the same or a summary thereof to be published within 15 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36933. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after adoption in accordance with Government Code Section 36937. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED that the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, approves this amendment to the City Code. 2 INTRODUCED AND READ for the first time and ordered posted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 2nd day of January, 2018, by the following roll call vote: AYES: Santos, White, Lara, Martinez, Carroll NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont, California, held on the 16th day of January, 2018, by the following roll call vote: AYES: White, Lara, Martinez, Carroll NOES ABSENT: Santos ABSTAIN Attest: Andreanna Pfeiffer, ity ► erk Approved as to form: O. Pinkn=a ity Attorney 3 EXHIBIT "A" CHAPTER 16.68 Dedication of Land for Park and Recreational Purposes and Payment of In -Lieu Fees 16.68.000 Authority, Purpose and Intent This chapter is enacted pursuant to the authority granted by California Government Code section 66477 (the "Quimby Act") which specifically authorizes the City to require dedication of parkland or the payment of fees in -lieu of such dedication in set amounts to meet the needs of the citizens of the community for parkland and to further the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The purpose of this chapter is to establish the procedures for requiring the dedication of land, the payment of fees in -lieu thereof (or a combination of both) to serve new subdivisions in accordance with the requirements of the City's General Plan, and applicable portions of the City of Beaumont Development Fee Impact Fee Study dated September 28, 2017, or any amended or subsequent fee study and the requirements of the Quimby Act. 16.68.010 Definitions For the purpose of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, the following terms, phrases, words and their derivations shall have the meanings respectively ascribed to them by this section: "Act" means the Quimby Act, Government Code section 66477. "Common Interest Development" means the type of development project defined at section 4000 et seq of the California Civil Code. "Community Park" means a park that generally services an area within a five mile radius and is usually twenty acres or larger. This type of park will generally allow for a greater variety of passive and active recreation opportunities and areas or buildings for community festivals and civic events, as well as for organized indoor sport and athletic competitions. 4 "Dwelling Unit" means each single-family dwelling, each dwelling unit in a duplex, apartment house or dwelling, condominium, mobile home unit, and any other place designed, occupied or intended for occupancy as a separate living quarter by one or more persons for living, sleeping, cooking and eating. "Fair Market Value" means the fair market value of undeveloped residential real property as applicable for the density classifications established by the City Council for the implementation of this chapter. "Neighborhood Park" means a park that generally services an area within a one and one-half mile radius and is generally five to ten acres. This type of park is designed for a variety of active and passive recreation opportunities. "Park" means a parcel or contiguous parcels of land that provides recreational land and facilities for the benefit and enjoyment of the residents and visitors of the City. "Recreational Facilities" means those improvements to parks which provide a recreational opportunity for the user, including, but not limited to, ball fields, lighting, swimming pools, tennis courts, picnic shelters, trails, play/tot lots, and community buildings. "Subdivider" means a person, firm, corporation, partnership or association who proposes to divide, divides or causes to be divided real property into a subdivision for himself herself or for others. "Subdivision" means that definition contained in Government Code Section 66424 and shall include any division of land governed by the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act (commencing with Government Code Section 66410). 16.68.020 Applicability; Exceptions A. Every subdivider who subdivides land for residential purposes shall dedicate a portion of such land, pay a fee, or a combination of both, at the option of the City as set forth in this chapter. 5 B. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to industrial and commercial subdivisions, or to condominium projects or stock cooperatives that consist of the subdivision of air space in an existing apartment building that is more than five years old when no new dwelling units are being added. C. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to subdivisions containing less than five parcels and not used for residential purposes; provided however, that a condition may be placed on the approval of a parcel map, that if a building permit is requested for the construction of a residential structure, or structures, on one or more of the parcels, within four years, the fee may be required to be paid by the owner of each such parcel as a condition to the issuance of the permit. 16.68.030 Park Acreage Standard The public interest, convenience, health, welfare, and safety require that three point three five (3.35) net acres of useable parkland for each one thousand (1,000) persons residing within a subdivision shall be devoted to parks. 16.68.040 Subdivider's Notice to Dedicate Land, Pay In -lieu Fee, or Both A At the time of filing a tentative tract map or parcel map subject to this ordinance, the subdivider of the property shall indicate whether he or she desires to dedicate property for park and recreational purposes, pay the in -lieu fee or a combination of both dedication and payment. B. If the subdivider desires to dedicate land within the subdivision pursuant to this chapter, the location of the land proposed to be dedicated shall be indicated on the map. C. If the subdivider desires to dedicate land outside of the subdivision pursuant to this chapter, at the time of filing the tentative tract or parcel map, the subdivider of the property shall submit the following to the City: 1. An environmental assessment for the land proposed to be dedicated prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and as required by the Planning Director. 2. A schematic site plan, which shall include but not be limited to, identifying the boundaries of the dedicated land, site access and improvements. 6 16.68.050 Dedication of Land or Payment of Fees or a Combination of Both A. Upon consideration of a tentative parcel map or a tentative tract map involving fifty or fewer parcels, a condition of approval shall be placed on the map that the subdivider shall pay an in -lieu fee for park or recreational purposes pursuant to this chapter. B. Upon consideration of a tentative tract map involving more than fifty (50) parcels, a condition of approval shall be placed on the map that the subdivider shall do one of the following: 1. Dedicate land for park or recreational purposes pursuant to this chapter; 2. Pay an in -lieu fee for park or recreational purposes pursuant to this chapter; or 3. Both dedicate land and pay an in -lieu fee for park or recreational purposes pursuant to this chapter. C. The Planning Director shall base his or her recommendation under this section upon the following: 1. The requirements of the Quimby Act. 2. The City's General Plan; 3. The topography, geology, access, and location of the land in the subdivision available for dedication; 4. The size and shape of the subdivision and the land available for dedication; 5. The location of existing or proposed park sites and recreational facilities; and 6. The desirability of developing the land proposed for dedication for park and recreational purposes as determined by a schematic site plan submitted by the subdivider. D. The determination of the Planning Director as to whether the subdivider shall dedicate land, pay the in -lieu fee or a combination thereof, shall be final and conclusive but may be appealed pursuant to the appeals procedure contained in Section 16.24.060. 16.68.060 Timing, Standards and Formula for Land Dedication; Required Improvements The following shall apply when a subdivider is conditioned to dedicate land pursuant to this chapter. A. As condition of approval of a final subdivision tract map or final parcel map, the subdivider shall dedicate all required lands and improvements to the City pursuant to section 7 16.68.070. The amount of land to be dedicated by a subdivider shall be determined as follows: 1. The Planning Director shall determine the number of dwelling units per gross acre to be constructed. The City shall determine the average number of persons per dwelling unit, which shall be based upon the average household size for the dwelling units to be constructed, as disclosed by the most recent available Federal census figures. 2. The amount of land to be dedicated shall be computed by multiplying the product of (i) the number of proposed dwelling units, (ii) the average number of persons per dwelling unit within the density classification appropriate for the subdivision in question, and (iii) the park acreage standard of three point three five (3.35) net acres per 1,000 residents of the subdivision. 3. The following formula demonstrates the method of calculating the amount of land to be dedicated: Number of Dwelling Average Number 3.35 Acres Number of Units Based on x of Persons Per x 1,000 residents of = acres to be Proposed Map Dwelling the subdivision dedicated B. The conditions of approval for land dedication under this chapter shall be based on the following: 1. The natural features of the area, including the topography and geology; 2. The availability of access; 3. The location; 4. The size and shape of the subdivision; 5. The land available to dedication and the feasibility of dedication; 6. The availability of park sites for acquisition, development, improvement, or rehabilitation, in case land dedication is considered not feasible; 7. The location of existing and proposed park sites; 8. The suitability for patrol, supervision and maintenance; and 8 9. The compatibility of dedication with the City's general plan and other adopted plans pertaining to parks and recreation. C. When the Planning Director has required the dedication of land pursuant to this chapter, the subdivider shall, without credit, as a further condition of such approval, construct and install the following public improvements within the dedicated land and adjoining public rights-of- way, which are in addition to any parks and recreation facilities and improvements impact fees imposed upon the project: 1. Full street improvements and utility connections including, but not limited to, curbs, gutters, relocation of existing public utility facilities, street paving, traffic control devices, street trees, and sidewalks to the dedicated land. 2. Fencing consistent with City improvement standard along the property lines that are contiguous to the park. 3. Improve the drainage through the park site. 4. Minimal physical improvements, not including recreational facilities, building or equipment, which the City determines are necessary for acceptance of the land for park and recreational purposes. 5. Access from the park and recreational facilities to an existing or proposed public street, unless the city determines that such access is unnecessary for maintenance of the park area or use of the park. 6. Water, sewer, grading and drainage improvements, in addition to those grading, drainage, irrigation and planting improvements required under other City ordinances. 7. Any other public improvements that the City determines are necessary in order to make the dedicated land suitable for development as a park or recreation facility. 16.68.070 Dedication of Land A. The dedication of land to the City pursuant to this chapter shall be accomplished in accordance with the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act. B. Real property dedicated to the City pursuant to the provisions of this chapter shall be: 1. Conveyed by grant deed in fee simple or irrevocably offered for 9 dedication to the City by the subdivider free and clear of all encumbrances, except those which are not monetary liens, those which will not interfere with the use of the property for park and recreational purposes and which the City agrees to accept; 2. Restricted to park and recreational purposes; and 3. Permanently devoted or dedicated to use by the general public, unless a satisfactory substitute is approved by the Planning Director. Where fees are required, they shall be deposited with the City at the time prescribed by Section 16.68.080, paragraph A. 16.68.080 Timing, Standards and Formula for Payment of In -Lieu Fee The following shall apply when a subdivider is conditioned to pay the in -lieu fee proposed by this chapter. A. As a condition of approval of a final subdivision tract map or final parcel map, the subdivider shall pay the full amount of the in -lieu fee. B. follows: The amount of the fee the subdivider shall pay shall be determined as Number of Dwelling x Average Number x 3.35 Acres per 1,000 x Land = Total in - Units Based on of Persons per residents of the acquisition lieu Proposed Map Dwelling subdivision costs per acre fees 16.68.090 Timing, Standards and Formula for Combination of Dedication of Land and Payment of In -Lieu Fee for Subdivisions of Fifty or More Parcels When only a portion of the land needed to satisfy the dedication requirement meets the minimum park standards and is acceptable to the City as a park site and is located within the proposed subdivision, such portion shall be dedicated for park purposes and a fee, computed pursuant to section 16.68.080 shall be paid for the additional land that would have been required to be dedicated pursuant to section 16.68.070. 16.68.100 Use of Dedicated Land and In -Lieu Fees; Development Schedule A. Land dedicated to and accepted by the City pursuant to this chapter shall be used for the purpose of developing parks and recreational facilities which serve the residents of the 10 subdivision in accordance with a development schedule adopted by the City Council. Said schedule shall specify how and when such land will be used for the development of neighborhood or community park facilities. B. In -lieu fees paid pursuant to this chapter shall be used for the acquisition of land suitable for park and/or recreational use and the development of new and existing park and recreational facilities. 16.68.110 Refunds. Fees paid to the City and deposited into the park acquisition and development fund shall be committed within five years after payment of such fees or the issuance of building permits on one-half of the lots created by the subdivision, whichever occurs later. If the fees are not committed, they shall be distributed and paid without any deductions to the then record owners of the subdivision in the same proportion as the size of their lot bears to the total area of all lots within the subdivision. 16.68.120 Disposition of Proceeds -Fund Created. A. All proceeds from the fees collected under this chapter shall be paid into a special fund of the City entitled "Park Acquisition and Development Fund" which fund is hereby created. All sums collected pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, together with any interest income earned thereon, shall be used only for the purpose of acquiring, building, improving, expanding and/or developing City parks in accordance with the requirements of this chapter. B. In the event that bonds or similar debt instruments are issued for the advanced provision of park and recreational facilities for which in -lieu fees may be expended, such fees may be used to pay debt service on such bonds or similar debt instruments to the extent that the facilities provided are of the type to which the fees involved relate. C. Funds may be used to provide refunds as described in Section 16.68.110. D. The Director of Finance shall maintain records specifically identifying the origin of the funds used for any project or improvement funded, in whole or in part, by the Park Acquisition and Development Fund. Such records shall enable the Director of Finance to trace the fees from new residential subdivisions to specific projects funded by each subdivision. Any interest accruing on account of time deposit of the fund, or otherwise, shall be deposited to the credit of the fund. 11 E. Upon receipt of a written application from the Planning Director for disbursement of monies from the Park Acquisition and Development Fund on account of expenditures made or proposed for the benefit or use of parks or recreational facilities, the Director of Finance shall immediately advise the City Manager (or his or her designee) and provide him or her with copies of any accompanying documents or papers that might have been submitted in support of the application. Within ten days after receipt of such notice, the City Manager shall advise the Director of Finance whether the disbursement made or proposed is consistent with this chapter. If the City Manager fails to so certify within ten days, it shall be presumed that he or she has made a positive finding therein. Within five days thereafter, the Director of Finance shall, if a positive finding has been made or presumed, approve payment as requested. 16.68.130 Controlling State Law. The provisions of this chapter and any resolution adopted pursuant hereto shall at all times be subject and subordinate to the provisions of the Quimby Act, as the same presently exists or may hereafter be amended from time to time, to the extent the same are applicable. In the event of any conflict between the provisions of this chapter and state law, the latter shall control. 16.68.140 Implementation of Dedications and Fees. The fees and dedications required by this Chapter shall be implemented by the City Council through the adoption of an appropriate resolution. 12