Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
Ordinance 814
ORDINANCE NO. 814 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT, ESTABLISHING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CENTERS WHEREAS, the continuing growth of the City of Beaumont ("City"), combined with the expectation of high quality services by its citizens, has been a catalyst for review of City's existing and future public facilities; and WHEREAS, in recent years, the City has experienced a variety of emergencies, near -disasters and natural catastrophes that have threatened the public health and safety of its citizens, including major brush and forest fires, earthquakes, flooding, and dust storms; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the City's General Plan the City is responsible for the health and safety of its citizens with respect to disasters and other emergencies; and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Civic Center Act (Education Code, Section 38130 et school sites may be utilized for mass care and welfare shelters and disasters and other emergencies affecting public health and welfare; and WHEREAS, in order to provide care for its citizens during disasters and other emergencies, the City desires to construct sufficient mass care and welfare shelters throughout the boundaries of the City ("Emergency Preparedness Centers"); and WHEREAS, pursuant to the Civic Center Act, the City entered into an agreement with the Beaumont Unified School District ("District") for the purpose of coordinating the provision of Emergency Preparedness Centers at District -owned sites; and WHEREAS, the State of California will not fund Emergency Preparedness Centers, but state law authorizes the collection of mitigation fees for the purpose of defraying the cost of constructing such Centers; and WHEREAS, City staff, with the assistance of a consultant, conducted a study which analyzed the need for mass care and welfare shelters, and the growth and population of the City, and concluded that there is a correlation between such growth and the need for such shelters; and WHEREAS, by notice duly given and published, the City Council set the time and place for a public hearing on the fees proposed by the said study; and 1 WHEREAS, at least ten days prior to the hearing on the proposed fees, the study was made available to the public indicating the amount of funds required to provide the Emergency Preparedness Centers and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the Centers; and WHEREAS, the City Council, at the time and place set for the hearing, duly considered the data and the information contained in the study relative to the costs of the Emergency Preparedness Centers and all other comments, whether written or oral, submitted prior to the conclusion of the hearing; and WHEREAS, the City Council finds that it is necessary to adopt a schedule of fees in order to generate the funds necessary to provide the Emergency Preparedness Centers that new development warrants. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BEAUMONT DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1: Findings The City Council adopts the findings set forth in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference, as well as the provisions of the Emergency Preparedness Centers Technical Report, attached to the Staff Report dated April 17, 2001, and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 2: Code Amendments The Beaumont Municipal Code is hereby amended by adding a new Chapter 3.36, Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fees, to read as set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. Section 3: Rescission of Ordinance No. 737 Ordinance No. 737, an urgency ordinance adopting a school facilities mitigation policy, is hereby deleted in its entirety. Section 4: Publication and Posting A summary of this ordinance shall be published once within fifteen (15) days after its adoption in the "Record Gazette" a newspaper of general circulation published in the City of Beaumont, and a complete ordinance shall be posted for fifteen (15) days in the City Clerk's office within fifteen (15) days after its adoption. Section 5: Effective Date 2 This Ordinance shall be effective sixty (60) days after the date of its final passage and adoption. Section 6: Judicial Review In accordance with the California Government Code, any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside, void or annul this Ordinance shall be commenced within one hundred twenty (120) days of the date of adoption of this Ordinance. INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on August 21, 2001. ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Beaumont on September 18, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: Mayor Berg, Council Members DeForge, Dressel, Fox, and Valdivia. None. ABSENT: None. ABSTAIN: None. ATTE AN C. KAPA ty Clerk 3 ROGER BERG, May EXHIBIT "A" FINDINGS SUPPORTING ADOPTIONS OF THE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FACILITIES FEES 1. The City Council finds that as a result of increasing regional growth generally in the Inland Empire of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, and particularly in the San Gorgonio Pass Area, significant residential, commercial and industrial development is expected to occur within the City of Beaumont between now and build -out. This anticipated development, including development currently approved or submitted for approval, cumulatively will generate an increase in demand for public safety, community services and general government facilities by new residents, businesses and their employees. This increased demand will generate requests for public services which will exceed the capacity of current public facilities to provide. 2. San Gorgonio Pass Area generally, and the City of Beaumont in particular, has, in recent years, experienced several public emergencies, near -disasters and natural catastrophes, in the form of brush and forest wildfires, earthquakes, flooding and dust storms. The San Gorgonio Pass Area is nearly surrounded by huge tracts of sage and brush covered hills, and forests. The City of Beaumont overlies the intersection of the San Andreas and San Jacinto Faults and, as a result, the City has been rocked by several significant earthquakes in recent years. Scientists expect a major earthquake on this reach of the San Andreas Fault in the near future, as it is commonly believed that a major earthquake of the highest magnitude is long overdue. The San Jacinto Fault is one of the most active and most dangerous faults branching from the San Andreas. In 1999, a major fire burned through the southern reaches of the City of Beaumont, burning thousand acres for days, before a team of hundreds of firemen could bring it under control. It was one of the largest fires in the history of the City. The City is perched on an alluvial fan created by several large creeks and washes that drain the southern flank of Mt. San Gorgonio, one of the highest peaks in California. In wet years, the stony flanks of the mountain generate a tremendous cascade of stormwater that periodically produces flash flooding in the arroyos that traverse the built-up areas of the City. Last year, in 2000, a hugh dust storm drove dozens of residents from their homes as they were covered in a thick layer of finely -powdered silt and dust, rendering breathing impossible. 3. At present, the City of Beaumont with its population of about 11,000 people has only a limited capability to provide mass care and welfare shelters utilizing City facilities, such as the Beaumont Civic Center. Unless certain actions are taken, in the event a disaster or other emergency the City will be unable to provide temporary shelter for its citizens, resulting in unacceptable adverse impacts on public health and safety. The City Council finds that the cumulative impact of all new development under the General Plan (including development currently approved or submitted for approval) will result in unacceptable decreases in the City's ability to provide mass care and shelter to 1 is citizens in the event of a disaster or other emergency. To prevent these undesirable consequences, Emergency Preparedness Centers must be provided at a rate which will accommodate the expected growth in the City. 4. The City Council acknowledges that the demand for Emergency Preparedness Centers is shared by new development as well as by existing development. The proposed Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fees apportion the cost of the necessary public improvements among the different categories of new and existing users according to the reasonably estimated demand that each group of users places upon such facilities. 5. In the absence of imposing Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fees, existing and future sources of revenue will be inadequate to fund the necessary centers identified in the Emergency Preparedness Centers Master Plan, the need for which has been partially generated by new development. 6. It is the intent of the City Council to adopt a fair and equitable method of securing some of the necessary revenues to construct the Emergency Preparedness Centers to accommodate the need for public safety, to protect the public health and to provide mass care and welfare shelters in the event of disasters and other emergencies. 7. With regard to the methodology for levying the Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fees, the City Council further finds that: A. The Emergency Preparedness Centers necessary to serve existing and new residences, businesses and their employees at buildout have been cataloged in the Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study ("Fee Study") dated January 26, 2001, attached to the Staff Report dated August 21. The City Council finds that the list of facilities to be reasonably necessary to meet the future demands at buildout based upon current and projected use patterns and demands. B. The estimated costs for the Centers have been based upon current construction costs for similar facilities for which the City has recently received construction bids, or construction costs calculated on a square footage basis provided by other cities for their similar facilities. The City Council finds that these methods for estimating the costs of construction are reasonably based. C. The Land Use Element of the Beaumont General Plan specifies permitted uses of land within the City and places limits on the intensity and density of such uses. The City Council has reviewed the relationship between land uses and densities permitted under the General Plan and the rate and amount of actual development of property within the City. The City Council has identified trends in growth and development which enable the Council to project, with accuracy, the magnitude and extent of future development based upon the City's General Plan at projected buildout. 2 EXHIBIT "A" D. The City Council has also examined the extent to which different land uses generate demands for public facilities, and has taken into consideration, among other evidence, the Fee Study. The Fee Study measures demand generated by existing and projected new residents, businesses and their employees on Emergency Preparedness Centers between now and buildout. Ratios are then assigned according to an estimate of needs generated. The City Council finds that the Fee Study reflects a reasonable estimation of actual demands for such Centers between new and existing development based upon historic, current and projected demands. E. The estimated costs for the Emergency Preparedness Centers have been allocated to existing and new development, and the necessary base fee has been calculated. The base fee has been calculated according to (1) an estimated number of residents per residential unit equivalent for detached, attached and multi -family dwelling units; and (2) the estimated number of employees for 1,000 square feet of office, research and development, light manufacturing, service commercial, warehouse, retail, restaurant, and hotel and motel uses. The City Council finds that such calculation is reasonably based upon the projected numbers of residents for each new residential unit, and upon the projected number of employees for different types of commercial office and industrial uses derived from current density data. F. While the City is committed and will continue to pursue all available sources of funds to construct the Emergency Preparedness Centers, it acknowledges that based upon the reasonable cost estimates, sufficient funding is not available absent the Facilities Fees to support the demand for mass care and welfare shelters by new development. G. It is the policy of the City, as set forth in the General Plan, that new development pay for the cost of improvements necessitated by the impacts of that new development. The City Council finds that the apportionment of new development's share of the costs of the necessary Emergency Preparedness Centers fulfills this General Plan goal. 8. The Emergency Preparedness Centers which will be constructed with funds generated by the Facilities Fees will significantly benefit the contributor by mitigating adverse impacts, such as over-extended public safety facilities, insufficient community facilities leading to overcrowding, and unsafe and unsanitary mass care and welfare shelters during disasters and other emergencies. The inability or failure to reduce these adverse impacts caused by insufficient facilities will negatively impact all residents, businesses and employees of the City. 9. The City Council further finds that the Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fees to be charged pursuant to this Ordinance does not exceed the estimated reasonable costs of acquiring and constructing the facilities catalog in the Fee Study. The City Council additionally finds that the method of allocation adopted by this ordinance assurance that the applicable fee bears a fair and reasonable relationship to each development's burden on, and benefit from the Emergency Preparedness Centers to be funded by this Ordinance. 3 EXHIBIT "A" EXHIBIT "B" CHAPTER 3.36 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FACILITIES FEES Sections: Section 3.36.010 Purpose. Section 3.36.020 Terms and Definitions. Section 3.36.030 Applicability. Section 3.36.040 Amount of Fee. Section 3.36.050 Payment of Fee. Section 3.36.060 Credits. Section 3.36.070 Exemptions. Section 3.36.080 Use of Funds. Section 3.36.090 Refunds. Section 3.36.100 Appeals. Section 3.36.110 Expiration of Fee. Section 3.36.120 Supplementary Provisions. Section 3.36.130 Severability. Section 3.36.010 Purpose. City Council finds that the cumulative impact of all new development under the General Plan will result in population growth that will overwhelm the City's ability to temporarily care for and shelter victims of disasters and other emergencies. To prevent these undesirable consequences, Emergency Preparedness Centers must be provided at a rate which will accommodate the expected growth in the City. The City Council acknowledges that the demand for such Centers is shared by new development as well as by existing development. The proposed Facilities Fee apportions the cost of the necessary public improvements among the different categories of new and existing users according to the reasonably estimated demand that each group of users places upon such facilities. Section 3.36.020 Terms and Definitions. For the purposes of this Chapter, the following terms shall have the means indicated in this Section: A. "Emergency Preparedness Centers" means those improvements necessary to provide those facilities identified in the City of Beaumont General Plan, the City's Multi -hazard Functional Plan and the Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study dated January 26, 2001, and other 1 EXHIBIT "B" improvements in connection therewith, as may be determined by the City Council from time to time, which are not otherwise provided by, or required of, development within the City pursuant to BMC Title 17 (Zoning), Title 16 (Subdivisions), and Title 15 (Building and Construction). Emergency Preparedness Centers shall also include architectural, administrative, engineering, legal, planning, environmental and other services required in connection with the implementation of this Chapter and the construction of the foregoing improvements. B. "Developer" means an individual or entity submitting an application for a building permit or other entitlement for development. C. "Development" means: 1. New residential unit, including conversion of existing unit to >1 unit. 2. New commercial, office, and industrial development. 3. Additions to existing commercial, office and industrial development greater than 200 gross square feet. D. "Future growth" means the total amount of potential new development in the City permitted under the General Plan. Future growth is expressed in terms of gross square footage for industrial and commercial development, and in terms of the number of dwelling units for residential development. Section 3.36.030 Applicability. Except as otherwise expressly provided in this Chapter, the facilities fee required under this Chapter is payable with respect to each development within the City for which a building permit or other entitlement for development is issued on or after the effective date of the fee as adopted in the Master Fee Schedule. Section 3.36.040 Amount of Fee. A. The amount of the fee shall be determined by the Building Department prior to issuance of the building permit, based upon the Master Fee Schedule. B. In the event a developer is not satisfied with the calculation of the fee by the Building Department, s/he may request that the type of land use and the amount of the facilities fee required of the development be determined by the Planning Director. 2 EXHIBIT "B" C. The developer shall be notified in writing of the Planning Director's determination about the type of land use and the public facilities fee applicable to the development. Such determination shall be made within 30 days of the Planning Director's receipt of the report and any other additional materials reasonably requested to assist 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 3.36.100 of this Chapter. D. The amount of the fee shall be subject to an annual inflation adjustment on January 1 of each year based upon the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for the Los Angeles Area. E. The amount of the fee shall be reviewed at least every four years. Section 3.36.050 Payment of 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, as the case may be, for a development until the facilities fee with respect to such development required by this Chapter is paid in accordance with this Section. C. The City shall not accept prepayment of the facilities fee, unless prepayment is authorized in a development or other agreement. Section 3.36.060 Credits. If the developer desires to construct an Emergency Preparedness Center, the developer and the City may enter into an agreement regarding the credit against facilities fees due. Section 3.36.070 Exemptions. Unless a development or other agreement provides otherwise, the following projects shall be exempt, in whole or in part, from the facilities fee otherwise required by this Chapter: A. Residential development consisting of the repair or replacement, on a one-to-one basis. B. Commercial or industrial development consisting of the repair or replacement of structures, provided, that such repair or replacement does not result in any conversion or change in land use, or any enlargement of gross floor area beyond that of the previous structure. 3 EXHIBIT "B" Section 3.36.080 Use of Funds. The fees paid pursuant to this Chapter shall, except for temporary investments, be placed in a separate fund in a manner to avoid commingling of the fees with other revenues or funds of the City, and shall be used solely for the purpose of acquiring and constructing the facilities identified by the City Council in the Master Plan or facilities included in the City's capital improvement plan. Any interest income earned on the fund shall also be deposited therein and shall only be expended for the purposes set forth in this Section. Section 3.36.090 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 fee required under this Chapter has been collected; provided that the claim for such refund is filed no later than six months after the expiration date of the building permit, or any extension thereof as may have been approved by the City, as the case may be; 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 refunding by direct payment, or by providing credit towards future facilities fees, or by any other means consistent with the intent of Government Code Section 66001. Section 3.36.100 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 15 days of the date of mailing to the developer any written notice of the applicable determination. Any appeal not filed within such period shall be deemed waived. The City Council shall set the matter for hearing within 45 days of the date of receipt by the City Clerk of the notice of the appeal. Section 3.36.110 Expiration of Fee. The fees required by this Chapter shall expire when the facilities are completed and all debt service related to such public improvements are paid and satisfied. 4 EXHIBIT "B" Section 3.36.120 Supplementary Provisions. It is the intent of the City Council that the fees required by this Chapter shall be supplementary to the fees, dedications or conditions imposed upon development pursuant to the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, California Environmental Quality Act, and other state laws and City ordinances, policies or conditions which may authorize the imposition of fees, dedications or conditions thereon. Section 3.36.130 Severability. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply to any person, association, corporation or to any property as to whom or which it is beyond the power of the City to impose the fee provided in this Chapter. If any sentence, clause, section or part of this Chapter, or any fee imposed upon any person or entity is found to be unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid, such unconstitutionality, illegality or invalidity shall affect only such sentence, clause, section or part of this Chapter, and shall not affect or impair any of the remaining provisions, sentences, clauses, sections or other parts of this Chapter, or its effect on other persons or entities. It is declared to be the intention of the City Council that this Chapter would have been adopted had such unconstitutional, illegal, or invalid sentence, clause, section or part of this Chapter had not been included herein; or had such person or entity been expressly exempted from the application of this Chapter. To this end, the provisions of this Chapter are severable. 5 EXHIBIT "B" CITY OF BEAUMONT EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FEE STUDY Prepared for CITY OF BEAUMONT 550 East Sixth St. P.O. Box 158 Beaumont, CA 92223 Prepared by DAVID TAUSSIG & ASSOCIATES, INC. 1301 Dove Street, Suite 600 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 955-1500 City of Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study Table of Contents Section Page EXECUTIVE SUMMARY I A. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING I B. THE CITY 'S EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN I C. EXPECTED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT II D. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES II E. METHODOLOGY UTILIZED TO CALCULATE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FACILITIES FEE III F. FACILITIES STANDARD III G. APPORTIONMENT OF COSTS IV K CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES V I. INTRODUCTION 1 II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING 2 A. EARTHQUAKES 2 B. FLOODS 3 C. FIRES 3 III. THE CITY'S EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN 4 A. EARTHQUAKES 4 B. FLOODS 6 C FIRES 6 IV. EXPECTED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT 9 V. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES.. 10 VI. METHODOLOGY UTILIZED TO CALCULATE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FACILITIES FEE 12 A. FACILITIES STANDARDS 13 B. PROPOSED FACILITIES 14 C. APPORTIONMENT OF FACILITIES COSTS' 14 VII. CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES 20 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The City of Beaumont (the "City") is situated within the San Gorgonio Pass in the north -central section of Riverside County and currently contains approximately 6,193 housing units, with an existing population of 10,660 persons and 6,898 jobs. The City projects future growth of 24,000 new housing units by buildout, and while there are currently adequate emergency preparedness facilities for existing residential and non-residential development, additional facilities are required to accommodate this future growth in the event of a natural emergency, such as an earthquake, wildland fires, or major flooding. To determine the fees required to finance these improvements, David Taussig & Associates ("DTA") has been hired to prepare an Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study ("Fee Study"). To this end, DTA conducted an Assembly Bill 1600 Fee Justification Study to establish a rational and substantive nexus between new development and the need for Emergency Preparedness Facilities. A. Environmental Setting The City's location and environmental factors are key elements in understanding the need for additional Emergency Preparedness Facilities and the imposition of fees to pay for them. Earthquakes, fires, and floods are all natural disaster possibilities in the City, and it is important for the City to be as prepared as possible to protect the lives and safety of its citizens. Earthquakes pose the greatest danger to the City's residents and employees. Beaumont is privy to many of the dangers associated with earthquake faults in Southern California. The heart of Beaumont Pies only 3 miles southwest of the San Andreas Fault, and the City is only a few miles northeast of the San Jacinto Fault. According to the City of Beaumont Multi - Hazard Functional Plan, "An earthquake having a Magnitude (M) 8.0 or greater in Riverside County near the San Gorgonio Pass could cause thousands of casualties, extensive damage to major property, disruption to communication facilities, utilities and supply services. It could be accompanied by aftershocks and landslides, fires, hazardous materials spills, and explosions. In addition, in 1988, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP) estimated 30 year probabilities of 20% for an M7 event on the San Bernardino Valley segment of the San Jacinto fault zone." 1 Flooding and fires can also be extremely hazardous. For instance, when severe storms hit the City, flood waters can quickly build up and flash floods can occur. Furthermore, fires in the San Gorgonio Pass are a major concem as there are residential areas located near to major brush areas. During the dry seasons and times when the Santa Ana winds are strong, the City is particularly susceptible to the threat of wildland fires. The San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Mountains area is very difficult to navigate and may be accessible only to aircraft, thereby requiring fire -fighting by air. Fire is also one of the greatest secondary dangers associated with earthquakes. B. The City's Emergency Preparedness Plan Current emergency preparedness plans and facilities in the City are discussed more specifically in the City's Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, which is also known as the Emergency Plan, and more generally in the City's General Plan. These plans discuss the abovementioned major emergencies and methods for managing their harmful effects, and they satisfy a requirement of state planning law that cities and counties develop policies and implement programs that will protect public health and safety. As most Californians live near an active earthquake fault, there are important aspects of planning and readiness that can help to ensure the safety of the people who live and work in a given city. Section 65302 (g) of the City of Beaumont Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, Appendix 1-1, Page 2. City of Beaumont Page i Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 Government Code necessitates that the City must plan for the protection of the community from geologic hazards, including seismically induced hazards and fires. In addition, the General Plan's goals and objectives identify the following provisions for public safety: 1. To provide for a safe living and working environment consistent with available resources, and 2. To minimize the effects of public safety hazards through implementation of appropriate regulations and standards which maximize protection of life and property.' C. Expected Future Development In light of the City's many positive characteristics and location in thriving Riverside County, it is poised to develop, both residentially and commercially, in the future. The Emergency Preparedness Facilities are necessary in light of the 24,000 new housing units and 11,263,333 square feet of non-residential development which are expected by buildout of the City. D. Statutory Requirements to Justify Development Impact Fees The Fee Study for the City of Beaumont is intended to meet the nexus or benefit requirements of Assembly Bill (AB) 1600 (California Government Code, Section 66000), which mandates that there be a nexus between fees imposed, the use of the fees, and the development projects on which the fees are imposed. The Fee Study determines the level of fees to be collected to finance the Emergency Preparedness Facilities ("the Facilities") that will mitigate the impacts generated by proposed development in the City on existing Facilities. (See Table ES -I). Table ES -1 AB 1600 Nexus Test Identify Purpose of Fee Emergency Pr paredness Facilities Construction of new emergency preparedness facilities. Costs do not include acquisition of land. Identify Use of Fee Demonstrate how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for the public facility, the use of the fee, and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed New residential and non-residential development will generate additional residents and employees who will increase the demand for Emergency Preparedness Facilities in the event of a major emergency, such as an earthquake, wildland fires, or major flooding. Fees collected from new development will be used exclusively for this purpose. 2 City of Beaumont General Plan, VI -1. City of Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 Page ii E. Methodology Utilized to Calculate Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Based on the amount of Facilities currently serving the City's residents and employees (the "Existing Facility Standard"), DTA has determined fee amounts from residential and non-residential development which would fund the following Emergency Preparedness Facilities to the levels required by the buildout of the City: • Temporary Outdoor Housing: Sports Stadium, Recreational Play Areas, Sport Activity Areas, Parking Lots, including lighting • Multipurpose Facilities: Central Food Preparation Building, Multipurpose Indoor Buildings • Fire Suppression Water Storage: Aquatic Complex • Domestic Water: Wells The fees have been calculated employing the methodologies of "Equivalent Dwelling Units ("EDUs") and "Person Hours" to allocate benefit to residential and non-residential development based on potential hours of use of the Facilities by residents and employees. EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses in terms of their equivalence to a single family dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured in terms of relative levels of potential use or benefit. For the Facilities described herein, one EDU is equal to the number of potential hours ("Person Hours") over a one week period during which the residents of a single family dwelling unit would be within their home and in need of the Facilities should an emergency occur. F. Facilities Standard DTA coordinated with the Riverside County Emergency Services Director, the City Emergency Preparedness Director at the City Police Department, the Beaumont Unified School District and its architects, the City of Beaumont, and the California Department of Water Resources to (i) quantify the existing Emergency Preparedness Facilities in the City and (ii) determine the number of improvements required to serve projected new development in the City (the "Future Facilities Need"). The proposed Future Facility Standard per EDU is based on the Existing Facility Standard, which is considered by the Riverside County Emergency Services Director to adequately meet the City's existing emergency preparedness needs for three of the four types of Emergency Preparedness Facilities. Currently, Beaumont High School, in addition to Chavez Elementary School, Mountain View Junior High School, Palm Elementary School, Summit Elementary School, and Wellwood Elementary School possess the following total facility square footage: Temporary Outdoor Housing, 1,466,100 square feet; Multipurpose Facilities, 27,980 square feet; and Fire Suppression Water Storage, 166,000 gallons. The existing amount of a particular Facility (e.g., building square feet, gallons) was divided by the total number of existing EDUs to determine the Existing Facility Standard per EDU. This Facility Standard per EDU was then multiplied by the future number of EDUs to determine the amount of Future Facilities Need for each type of Facility. The Proposed Facility Standard per EDU was calculated to be 211 square feet of Temporary Outdoor Housing, 4 square feet of Multipurpose Facilities, and 24 gallons of Fire Suppression Water Storage. While the Proposed Facility Standard is equal to the existing Facility Standard for these three types of Facilities, a new Facility Standard had to be established for Domestic Water which has no existing standard because there are currently no wells associated with Red Cross - designated shelters. Based on input from Porter, Jensen, Hansen, and Manzagol Architects, a proposed Facility Standard of .0004 wells per EDU was established for this Fee Study. City of Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study Page iii January 26, 2001 G. Apportionment of Costs Both residents and employees within the City will benefit from the Facilities. To equitably allocate the costs between future residents and employees, the concept of "Person -Hours" was utilized as a measure of benefit. "Person -Hours" are a function of the number of hours of access to Emergency Preparedness Facilities that are required by persons utilizing a specific type of land use over a one week period. As noted above, the number of Person Hours applied to one single family dwelling unit is equivalent to one EDU. There are 452.32 Person Hours per week associated with the 2.99 residents in a typical single family dwelling unit and 135 Person Hours per week associated with the 2.7 employees working in an average 1000 square feet of non-residential development. The total number of existing EDUs in the City based on this standard is 6,956. The projected future number of EDUs at buildout of the City for residential and non-residential land uses were 24,000 and 3,362 EDUs, respectively. 'This resulted in a Future Facilities Need of 5,767,359 square feet of Temporary Outdoor Housing; 110,068 square feet of Multipurpose Facilities; 653,012 gallons of Fire Suppression Water Storage; and 11 Domestic Water Wells. Porter, Jensen, Hansen, and Manzagol Architects provided unit cost estimates for each of the four types of facilities. The total cost for the Emergency Preparedness Facilities is $30,711,118, of which $10,894,866 were allocated for Temporary Outdoor Housing, $16,510,201 was allocated for Multipurpose Facilities, $1,106,051 was allocated for Fire Suppression. Water Storage, and $2,200,00 was allocated for Domestic Water. Table ES -2 provides a summary of the Future Facilities Needs and the estimated costs of these Facilities. Detailed information regarding these calculations is presented in Table 4 of the text. Table ES -2 Future Facilities Needs Facility Type Unit Amount Unit Cost per Facility Type Total Cost of New Facilities Temporary Outdoor sq. ft. 5,767,359 $1.89 $10,894,866 Housing Multipurpose Facilities sq. ft. 110,068 $150 $16,510,201 Fire Suppression Water gallons 653,012 $1.69 $1,106,051 Storage Domestic Water wells 11. $200,000 $2,200,000 Total $30,711,118 The costs of the Temporary Outdoor Housing, Multipurpose Facilities, and Fire Suppression Water Storage were then allocated fully to future development, while the cost of the domestic water facilities was allocated between existing and future development because there are no existing wells that are used for emergency domestic water supplies in the City, so any future wells will serve both existing uses and City of Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 Page iv future development. As listed in Table ES -3, under the "Allocation of Costs" column, costs were allocated to the different land uses based on the total EDUs projected for each land use type. Table ES -3 Development Impact Fee per 1000 EDUs Facility Type Land Use Type EDU Percent Allocation of Costs Percentage of Facility Use After School Use Reduction Net Cost Financed by Development Impact Fee Number of Dwelling Units / SF Non - Residential Temporary Future 87.71% $9,556,317 63% $6,050,912 24,000 Outdoor Residential Housing Future Non- 12.29% $1,338,549 63% $847,548 11,263,333 Residential Multipurpose Future 87.71% $14,481,749 63% $9,169,620 24,000 Facilities Residential Future Non- 12.29% 2,028,452 63% $1,284,384 11,263,333 Residential Fire Future 87.71% $970,161 63% $614,291 24,000 Suppression Residential Water Storage Future Non- 12.29% $135,890 63% $86,043 11,263,333 Residential Domestic Future 87.71% $1,538,588 63% $974,210 24,000 Water Residential Future Non- 9.80% $215,509 63% $136,457 11,263,333 Residential Existing 18.05% $397,020 0% $0 6,193 Residential Existing 2.22% $48,883 0% $0 2,554,815 Non - Residential H. Calculation of Development Impact Fees As the Facilities proposed for use as Emergency Preparedness Facilities will also be utilized as school facilities by the Beaumont Unified School District, the fees assigned to new development were discounted to reflect this alternative use. On a yearly basis, it was determined that School District use covered 3,204.5 hours out of a total of 8,736 total hours in a year. This resulted in a 37% reduction in the costs required from new development for Emergency Preparedness Facilities. The reduced costs were then divided by the number of EDUs for each land use type (see Table ES -3) to determine the appropriate development impact fee for each land use type, as listed in Table ES -4. The total fee for one EDU was determined to be $700.38. Table ES -4 below, as well as Tables 5 and 7 in the text, provide a summary of the fee levels and calculations. City of Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study Page v January 26, 2001 Table ES -4 Fee per Dwelling Unit or Non -Residential Square Foot Facility Type Residential ($/dwelling unit) Non -Residential (S/SF) Temporary Outdoor Housing $252.12 $.08 Multipurpose Facilities $382.07 $.11 Fire Suppression Water Storage $25.60 $.01 Domestic Water $40.59 $.01 Total $700.38 $.21 City of Beaumont Page vi Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 1. INTRODUCTION The City of Beaumont (the "City") was incorporated as a city on November 18, 1912. Beaumont, which is named for Beaumont, Texas, the hometown of city founder, H.C. Sigler, is known for its open spaces, clean environment, and rural ambience. The City is situated within the San Gorgonio Pass in the north - central section of Riverside County and currently contains approximately 6,193 housing units, with an existing population of 10,660 persons' and 6,898 jobs.° The City projects 24,000 new housing units by buildout, and as a result, recognizes the need to generate sufficient funding for increased public facilities and infrastructure to support this growing population. In light of this projected population growth and an increased number of households in the city, it is necessary to have Emergency Preparedness Facilities ("Facilities") to accommodate this greater population in the event of a major natural emergency, such as an earthquake, wildland fires, or major flooding. Planning for emergency preparedness in the City provides an opportunity to make land use decisions which reflect the possible hazards to life and property from future earthquakes and other natural disasters and to take steps to ensure that the citizens of Beaumont are safe, prepared, and protected in the event of such an emergency and its aftermath. To this end, public safety has been included as a. component of the City's General Plan, and the City has determined that it will collect a development impact fee to fund Emergency Preparedness Facilities necessitated by future development. To assess the correct level of fees required to finance the Facilities, David Taussig & Associates ("DTA") has been hired to prepare an Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study ("Fee Study"). This study is intended to comply with Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code, which was enacted by the State of California in 1987, by identifying additional Emergency Preparedness Facilities required by new development ("Future Facilities") and determining the levels of fees that need to be imposed to pay the costs of the Future Facilities. ' www.ci.beaumont.ca.us December 8, 2000. ° Southem California Association of Governments, December 11, 2000. City of Beaurnont Page 1 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 II. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING The City's location and environmental factors are key elements in understanding the need for additional Emergency Preparedness Facilities and the imposition of fees to pay for them. The City is impacted by Interstate 10 (I-10), State Route 60 (SR -60), and the Southern Pacific Railroad. The I-10 and SR -60 interchange is located in the center of the City's business and commercial district. Beaumont is dependent on I-10 for access to the east, and the City could be isolated if this freeway experienced major damage due to a natural disaster. Beaumont is surrounded by the City of Banning to the east, the unincorporated community of Cherry Valley to the North, the City of Calimesa to the northwest, and the San Jacinto wilderness portion of the San Bernardino National Forest to the southwest and south. Beaumont encompasses 26 sq. miles of land area, and its elevation is 2,630 feet above sea level. The City's typical mild weather pattern includes light rainfall, hot summers, warm winters, and strong winds, which can contribute to the City's natural disaster possibilities and effects. A. Earthquakes The 1995 City of Beaumont Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, which is also known as the Emergency Plan for the City of Beaumont, indicates that "the City may be at risk for numerous hazards associated with natural or human caused disasters, including flood, earthquake, or wildland fire."5 Beaumont is privy to many of the dangers associated with earthquake faults in Southern California. The heart of Beaumont lies only 3 miles southwest of the San Andreas Fault, and the City is only a few miles northeast of the San Jacinto Fault. Another major fault zone in Riverside County is the Elsinore Fault, which has not been seismically active in recent years, but trenching studies currently underway may determine that there has been past movement. As shown on the Emergency Plan's Seismic and Safety Hazards map, there are two additional smaller faults which exist just to the north of the city limits: the Banning Fault and the Cherry Valley Fault. Included in the City's sphere of influence, in the area encompassing the Southern Pacific Railroad between I-10 and SR -60, there is a severe ground shaking zone which extends southeast to the central business district of the City where Beaumont High School and the I-10 and SR -60 interchanges are located. The City's sphere of influence extends south of SR -60, and this is a moderate ground -shaking zone.6 Indeed, in reference to the Land Use Element Map of the Beaumont General Plan, the area of severe ground shaking zones corresponds to low density residential, neighborhood commercial, and highway commercial land, as well as business parks.' Furthermore, according to the Multi -Hazard Plan, "The south-central segment of the San Andreas Fault is ruptured repeatedly by a characteristically large event such as the 1857 Fort Tejon earthquake, Richter magnitude 7.9, which appears to be locked and has displayed a low level rate of seismicity. Ori the basis of what is known about displacements on this segment of the San Andreas during the past 11,000 years, the probability of occurrence of 1857 -type events along the fault is currently estimated to be about 60% over the next thirty years." 8 Also, "An earthquake having a Magnitude (M) 8.0 or greater in Riverside County near the San Gorgonio Pass could cause thousands of casualties, extensive damage to major property, disruption to communication facilities, utilities and supply services. It could be accompanied by aftershocks and landslides, fires, 5 City of Beaumont Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, Page 2-3. 6 Culbertson, Adams, and Associates. Culbertson, Adams, and Associates. 8 Appendix 1-1, Page 2. City of Beaumont Page 2 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 hazardous materials spills, and explosions. In addition, in 1988, the Working Group on California Earthquake Probabilities (WGCEP), estimated 30 year probabilities of 20% for an M7 event on the San Bernardino Valley segment of the San Jacinto fault zone."9 An earthquake in any of these fault zones would be a significant danger to lives and property in Beaumont. B. Floods When flooding occurs in Beaumont, it stems from the steep mountainous areas to the north of the community, which contain sparse vegetation and are somewhat arid. When severe storms hit the city, flood waters can quickly build up and flash floods can occur. The northern areas that have experienced these floods include the following: Noble and Little San Gorgonio Creeks to the north of Cherry Valley, which borders Beaumont, and Smith and Pershing Creeks, which are located northeast in Highland Springs. Excess water runs into the City from the foothill areas of the San Gorgonio Mountains. This water collects in the 4th Street canyon west of the City. These sporadic flash floods "reach high speeds as a result of the steep terrain in the north and carry a significant amount of debris which blocks the flood channel at a slope area of 1% to 2%, causing heavy deposition. When this occurs, debris blocks flood control channels, especially where they cross under freeways and causes significant flooding in the vacant land areas within the city's area of influence. Therefore, it is imperative that mitigation measures be taken taprevent flooding in the sphere of influence areas." 10 C. Fires Fires in the San Gorgonio Pass are a major concern as there are residential areas located near major brush areas. The dry seasons and times when the Santa Ana winds are strong are particularly susceptible to the threat of wildland fires. Grassland areas predominate in the flat portions of the City, while the City's southern sphere of influence includes a series of hills known as the Badlands, which contain extensive native vegetation. The flammability of these areas can cause a moderate fire hazard. Winds in this area can sometimes exceed 80 miles per hour. The San Gorgonio and San Jacinto Mountain areas are very difficult to navigate and may be accessible only to aircraft, and therefore would require fire -fighting by air. Fire is also one of the greatest secondary dangers associated with earthquakes. For instance, 90% of the damage sustained in the 1906 San Francisco earthquake was the result of fire." Fires can be caused by numerous factors, including gas explosions, unsecured water heaters, and chemical fires, among other factors. Additional improved fire -fighting equipment is very important, as standard equipment and methods can be affected by the disaster. 9 Appendix 1-1, Page 2. 10 City of Beaumont General Plan, VI -4. II Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, 1995. City of Beaumont Page 3 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 III. THE CITY'S EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS PLAN Emergency preparedness plans and facilities in the City are discussed more specifically in the City's Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, which is also known as the Emergency Plan, and more generally in the City's General Plan. In the former, the planned response to extraordinary situations is set forth, while in the latter, the Public Safety Element of the General Plan provides a reference for City land use relating to hazardous conditions and natural disasters. Both the Multi -Hazard Functional (Emergency) Plan and the General Plan address hazards arising from earthquakes, flooding, and fires and preparedness in the event of each such emergency. Earthquake preparation is discussed in the greatest detail due to the high risk in Southern California and in the City itself as described in Section II; however, significant risks are also associated with fires and flooding, and thus, planning for these natural emergencies is also necessary. The same emergency facilities would be used for all natural disasters and emergencies. A. Earthquakes The City of Beaumont is at risk for a number of emergencies, especially earthquakes, as discussed in Section II. Indeed, earthquake preparation and preparedness are important for all of California in Light of the geological impacts on the State. California sits on the San Andreas Fault, which is crossed by many smaller fault lines. The probability of earthquakes occurring in the near future in Southern California is very high. According to the Ad Hoc Working Group on Califomia Earthquake Probabilities, "The yearly probability of a large earthquake in Southern Califomia should be about 4%." Fault structures that are likely candidates for a large earthquake include the Mojave shear zone northeast of Los Angeles, the San Bernardino Mountains and Coachella Valley segments of the San Andreas Fault, and the northern San Jacinto Fault. If an earthquake occurred along the second section listed above, large portions of Riverside County would be severely affected."' Earthquakes of large magnitude threaten severe destruction and loss of life. For example, the Task Force on Emergency Preparedness, which studied the effects of future earthquakes in Southern California, made the following conclusions: "An earthquake on the South - Central San Andreas Fault with a magnitude of 8.3 or higher on the Richter scale is probable before the end of the twentieth century; first instance property losses are estimated to be close to $20 billion; and depending on the time of day or night, this event will kill between 3,000 and 14,000 people and injure between 12,000 and 55,000 people severely enough to require hospitalization. With an earthquake of this magnitude, a high level emergency response possibly may not reach people until 72 hours after the event."O Also, the aftershocks of an earthquake of this magnitude could presumably be up to 7.0 M. It is difficult to predict precisely when such an earthquake could occur, but the best means of ensuring readiness involves taking preparedness measures which could potentially save lives. It is a requirement of state planning law that cities and counties develop policies and implement programs that will protect public health and safety. As most Californians live near an active earthquake fault, there are important aspects of planning and readiness that can help to ensure the safety of the people who live and work in a given city. Section 65302 (g) of the Government Code necessitates that the City must plan for the protection of the community from geologic hazards, including seismically induced hazards and fires. Also, sections of the California Public Resources Code state, "Through the work of the Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project, earthquake mitigation and preparedness plans, procedures 12 www.eue.com, December 8, 2000. "Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, Appendix 1-1, Page 1. City of Beaumont Page 4 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 and educational materials have been developed and used to encourage and support local jurisdictions' preparedness activities in Southern California." This Project lists as goals the following: improving regional preparedness and response capabilities and stimulating and promoting innovative preparedness planning activities by local jurisdictions. Furthermore, the projects undertaken as a part of this Project shall "promote voluntary actions by local jurisdictions and organizations that address all aspects of seismic safety, including, but not limited to, mitigation, public information and education, response, and recovery planning.i14 Indeed, recent history shows the value of earthquake preparedness efforts as discussed by the National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program: "Two recent earthquakes in the magnitude of 6.7 to 7.2 — Loma Prieta (1989) and Northridge (1994) — occurred in or near major population areas and caused relatively low casualty losses (fewer than 70 people in each case). The social and economic disruption caused by these events was far less than that experienced in recent earthquakes in many other societies....Factors in these damage differences are the seismic design and construction practices, the development of preparedness planning efforts, and increased public awareness." `5 The General Plan for the City of Beaumont does not specifically include extensive planning for shelter and care of its residents in case of a major emergency such as an earthquake, as mentioned above. However, it does recognize broader goals which encompass the emergency preparedness and planning provisions which are proposed for the future. The General Plan states that cities are required to "create and implement policies that will protect public health and safety from geologic hazards." In addition, the General Plan's goals and objectives identify the following provisions for public safety: • To provide for a safe living and working environment consistent with available resources, and • To minimize the effects of public safety hazards through implementation of appropriate regulations and standards which maximize protection of life and property.16 Section C of the General Plan contains a more detailed discussion of earthquake preparedness. Specifically, the listed policies include the following: 1. Participation in the Southern California Earthquake Preparedness Project (described above) which was created in 1985, and 2. Establishment of seismic design criteria and standards for transmission lines, water and sewage systems, bridges and highways, any structures housing necessary mobile units and support equipment, and other vital resources which would be needed following an earthquake (e.g., "back-up" power generation facilities and water storage)." The City of Beaumont Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, which was crafted in 1995, provides an extensive discussion of the City's response to many possible emergency situations of various levels of severity. It covers emergency planning and discussion of the adequacy of resources from a time period of before, during, and after the emergency event. Specifically, this involves the following periods: Pre -Emergency Period — Normal Preparedness, Increased Readiness Phase; Emergency Period — Pre -Impact Phase, 0 California Public Resources Code, Section 2810-2812. 15 www.astp.gov, December 8, 2000. 16 General Plan, VI -I. " General Plan VI -3. City of Beaumont Page 5 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 Immediate Impact Phase, Sustained Emergency Phase; Post -Emergency Period — Recovery.'a Also, the various levels of emergency management from the city level through the national level are discussed, as are the functions of various managers and organizations during emergencies. The Plan contains a checklist of responses to a major earthquake which include the following: determine condition of designated mass care facilities, mobilize care and shelter components, activate mass care facilities in reception areas, set up aid stations, determine if any evacuations are necessary, and if so, evacuate people to safe areas. Coordination for emergency care is led by the Red Cross, which provides food, water, child care, medical care, and individual case work for families that have lost their homes. The City currently has Emergency Preparedness Facilities which have been predesignated by the Red Cross as shelters in the case of an emergency, such as an earthquake. These include schools, churches, and community centers. Indeed, State law requires schools to be used as shelters. Beaumont High School is the primary facility currently utilized within the City for these purposes, followed by the middle schools and then the elementary schools. A greater reliance is placed on the high school and middle schools because they have gyms, cafeterias, and large multipurpose areas in which people can sleep. An inventory of Existing Facilities is presented in Table 1. In addition, Beaumont High School's athletic stadium is beneficial in the case of an emergency because it provides space for tents and other temporary shelter facilities, and is located below wind levels, offering protection from the elements and better security for displaced persons. Each school facility is expected to shelter a minimum of 250 people and a maximum of 500. There is currently one swimming pool, the Stewart Park Municipal Swimming Pool, which would be used for water storage for fire suppression purposes. B. Floods As mentioned above, the General Plan goals of public health and safety and the formulation of plans that mitigate their effects are also relevant in light of flood danger. Section D of the City's General Plan discusses flood hazards and includes a specific goal to provide effective and efficient flood protection. One policy described in this section suggests the provision of guidance during and after flood disaster, which is also discussed in the Emergency Preparedness Plan. The Emergency Preparedness Plan described herein includes Policy 5, which aims to "provide guidance during and after flood disaster and promote interagency assistance for persons affected."I9 C. Fires The General Plan objectives of public health, safety, and the creation and maintenance of plans and programs that lessen the harmful effects of hazards to public welfare are also dealt with in the case of fires. As mentioned earlier, the grassland areas in the vicinity of the City are very flammable, and the strong winds and climate can also exacerbate the dangers associated with fires. The Plan's policies include the following: "To encourage improvement of fire defense systems in hazardous areas; to promote increased support services in the areas of fire protection; and to improve water systems... for fire protection in wildland and remote areas." 20 In the event that a fire is caused by an earthquake, the 18 Multi -Hazard Functional Plan, 2-6. 19 General Plan, VI -5. 20 General Plan, VI -II. City of Beaumont Page 6 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 proposed plan provides for emergency water system protection and encourages improvement of fire defense systems. Furthermore, the Emergency Plan discusses the possibility that the San Gorgonio Pass area may be totally inaccessible except for aircraft in the event of a wildland fire. City of Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study Page 7 January 26, 2001 David Taussig & Associates Table 1 City of Beaumont Existing Facilities Inventory 05:18:23 PM 01/26/01 K:1Cients2/BEAUMONT.US01Fee Data.123 Facility Unit (SF or Facility T pe Location Descri • tion Gallons Temporary Outdoor Housing Beaumont High School Athletic stadium 57,600 Recreational play area 750,000 Sport activity area 125,000 Parking lot w/ lighting 93,000 Chavez Elementary School Recreational play area 33,000 Sport activity area 16,000 Parking lot w/ lighting 23,000 Mountain View Junior High School Recreational play area 45,000 Sport activity area 45,000 Parking lot w/ lighting 15,000 Palm Elementary School Recreational play area 90,000 Sport activity area 45,000 Parking lot w/ lighting 7,500 Summit Elementary School Recreational play area (minimal) Sport activity area 50,000 Parking lot w/ lighting 17,000 Wellwood Elementary School Recreational play area 40,000 Sport activity area 10,000 Parking lot w/ lighting 4,000 Total (Land Square Footage) 1,466,100 Multipurpose Facilities Beaumont High School Multipurpose 5,760 Chavez Elementary School Multipurpose 5,760 Mountain View Junior High School Multipurpose 5,760 Palm Elementary School Multipurpose 2,700 Summit Elementary School Multipurpose 8,000 Welhvood Elementary School N/A Total (Building Square Footage) 27,980 Fire Suppression Water Storage N/A Stewart Park Municipal Pool (Gallons) 166,000 Domestic Water N/A N/A WA K:1Cients2/BEAUMONT.US01Fee Data.123 IV. EXPECTED FUTURE DEVELOPMENT Several characteristics of the City of Beaumont position it for extensive growth in the future. First, Riverside County as a whole has generally lower land costs relative to Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Next, the transportation system offers great benefits to future City residents since there are a major freeway junction and a railroad line located within the City. In addition, there is currently available affordable housing, as well as more housing planned to accommodate future growth at affordable housing prices. In light of these positive characteristics, the City is poised to develop, both residentially and commercially. Pursuant to the City's General Plan, it is necessary to ensure that development "coincides with the adequacy of public services and facilities, especially where the public health, safety and welfare are concemed." The Emergency Preparedness Facilities are necessary in Tight of the 24,000 new housing units and 11,263,333 square feet of commercial / industrial development which are expected by buildout of the City. City of Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study Page 9 January 26, 2001 V. STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Prior to World War II, development in California was held responsible for very little of the cost of public infrastructure. Public improvements were financed primarily through jurisdictional general funds and utility charges. It was not uncommon during this period for speculators to subdivide tracts of land without providing any public improvements, expecting the closest city to eventually annex a project and provide public improvements and services. However, starting in the late 1940s, the use of impact fees grew with the increased planning and regulation of new development. During the 1960s and 1970s, the Califomia Courts broadened the right of local government to impose fees on developers for public improvements that were not located on project sites. More recently, with the passage of Proposition 13, the limits on general revenues for new infrastructure have resulted in new development being held responsible for a greater share of public improvements, and both the use and levels of impact fees have grown substantially. Higher fee levels were undoubtedly driven in part by a need to offset the decline in funds for infrastructure development from other sources. Spending on public facilities at all levels of govemment was $161 per capita in 1965, but it had fallen by almost fifty percent to less than $87 per capita by 1984 (measured in constant dollars). The levy of impact fees is one authorized method of financing the public facilities necessary to mitigate the impacts of new development, as the levy of such fees provides funding to maintain an agency's required Public Facility Standard for an increased service population. A fee is "a monetary exaction, other than a tax or special assessment, which is charged by a local agency to the applicant in connection with approval of a development project for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the cost of public facilities related to the development project..." (California Government Code, Section 66000). A fee may be levied for each type of capital improvement required for new development, with the payment of the fee occurring prior to the beginning of construction of a dwelling unit or retail/non-retail building (or prior to the expansion of existing buildings of these types). Fees are often levied at final map recordation, issuance of a certificate of occupancy, or more commonly, at building permit issuance. The City has identified the need to levy impact fees to pay for Future Emergency Preparedness Facilities. The fees will finance such Facilities at levels consistent with the City's Existing Facilities Standards. All new development will be required to pay its "fair share" of the cost of the new infrastructure through these fees. However, to the extent that any new infrastructure provides benefit to existing development, or deficiencies are found in existing infrastructure levels, such costs must be funded by the City through sources other than the development fee program. Assembly Bill ("AB") 1600, which created Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code, was enacted by the State of California in 1987. This Fee Study for the City of Beaumont is intended to meet the nexus or benefit requirements of AB 1600, which mandate that there be a nexus between fees imposed, the use of the fees, and the development projects on which the fees are imposed. Furthermore, there must be a relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the improvements. To impose a fee as a condition for a development project, a public agency must do the following: City of Beaumont Page 10 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 I. Identify the purpose of the fee. II. Identify the use to which the fee is to be put. If the use is financing public facilities, the facilities must be identified. III. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the fee's use and the type of development project on which the fee is imposed. IV. Determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the need for a public facility and the type of development project on which the fee is being imposed. Identifying these items will enable a fee to meet the nexus and rough proportionality requirements established by previous court cases. Current state financing and fee assessment requirements only allow new development to pay for its fair share of new facilities' costs. Any current deficiencies resulting from the needs of existing development must be funded through other sources. Therefore, a key element to establish legal impact fees is to determine what share of the benefit or cost of a particular improvement can be equitably assigned to existing development, even if that improvement has not yet been constructed. By removing this factor, the true impact of new development can be assessed and equitable fees assigned. City of Beaumont Page 11 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 VI. METHODOLOGY UTILIZED TO CALCULATE EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS FACILITIES FEE This Section describes the methodology utilized to establish a rational and substantive nexus between new development in the City of Beaumont and the improvements that will comprise the Emergency Preparedness Facilities in the City. Based on the Existing Facility Standard, DTA has determined fee amounts from residential and non-residential development which would be sufficient to fund the construction of the following Emergency Preparedness Facilities: • Temporary Outdoor Housing • Multipurpose Facilities • Fire Suppression Water Storage • Domestic Water Storage Since state law requires (and the Red Cross has designated) schools to be used as shelters, the following school areas may be jointly used as school Facilities and as Emergency Preparedness Facilities, and can be included within these four categories of Emergency Preparedness Facilities: 1. Water Wells 2. Sport Stadium 3. Aquatic Complex 4. Recreational Play Areas 5. Sport Activity Areas 6. Parking Lots, incl. Lighting 7. Central Food Preparation Building 8. Multi -Purpose Facilities Pursuant to the nexus requirement of AB 1600, a local agency is required to "determine how there is a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the public facility or portion of the public facility attributable to the development on which the fee is imposed." It is impossible to accurately determine the impact that one specific new residential unit or commercial/industrial project will have on existing facilities. Predicting specific future residents' or employees' behavioral patterns, sewer and water needs, and health and welfare requirements is extremely difficult, and involves numerous assumptions that are subject to substantial variances. Recognizing these limitations, the Legislature drafted AB 1600 to specifically require that a "reasonable" relationship be determined, not a direct cause and effect relationship. The fees have been calculated employing the methodologies of "Equivalent Dwelling Units ("EDUs") and "Person -Hours" to allocate benefit to residential and non-residential development based on potential hours of use by occupants of such development. EDUs are a means of quantifying different land uses in terms of their equivalence to a single family dwelling unit, where equivalence is measured by comparing the level of benefit received from Facilities by each type of land use. The level of benefit received by a single family dwelling unit is based on the number of potential hours ("Person Hours") that the residents City of Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study Page 12 January 26, 2001 of a dwelling unit would be within their home and in need of Facilities should an emergency occur. For the Facilities described herein, one EDU is calculated based on the number of Person Hours experienced by a typical dwelling unit. After calculating the Existing Facility Standard for each type of Facility (amount of Facility per EDU), this Standard was used to determine the total amount of needed Facilities based on all expected future EDUs. Using unit costs per Facility type, the cost of new facilities was determined and allocated to residential and non-residential land use types based on each land use's proportionate share of Person Hours, as explained below. A. Facilities Standards DTA coordinated with the Riverside County Emergency Services Director, the City Emergency Preparedness Director at the City Police Department, the Beaumont Unified School District and its architects, the City of Beaumont, and the California Department of Water Resources to (i) quantify the existing Emergency Preparedness Facilities in the City and (ii) determine the number of such facilities required to serve new development in the City (the "Future Facilities Need"). The existing amount of a particular facility (e.g., building square feet, gallons) was then divided by the total number of existing EDUs to determine the Existing Facility Standard per EDU. This Facility Standard was then multiplied by the potential future number of EDUs to determine the amount of Future Facilities Need. As described in Section III, the City currently has a Multi -Hazard Functional or Emergency Plan, and Existing Facilities in the city have been designated by the Red Cross as shelters in the case of an emergency, such as an earthquake, wildland fire, or flash flood. The sites for use, as described in Section III and detailed in Table I, include school sites in the Beaumont Unified School District, with top priority assigned to the high school, followed by the middle schools, and finally the elementary schools. Beaumont High School, for instance, has the following Facilities which can be used for Temporary Outdoor Housing: athletic stadium with 1,500 seats and a 57,600 square foot field, recreational play area containing 750,000 square feet, sport activity area consisting of 125,000 square feet, and parking lot with 93,000 square feet. The Multipurpose Facilities at the high school consist of 5,760 square feet of Facilities. Currently, Beaumont High School, as described above, in addition to Chavez Elementary School, Mountain View Junior High School, Palm Elementary School, Summit Elementary School, and Wellwood Elementary School possess the following total Facility square footage: Temporary Outdoor Housing, 1,466,100 sq. feet; Multipurpose Facilities, 27,980 sq. feet; and Fire Suppression Water Storage, 166,000 gallons. The Proposed Facility Standards per EDU were calculated to be 211 square feet of Temporary Outdoor Housing, 4 square feet of Multipurpose Facilities, and 24 gallons of Fire Suppression Water Storage, all of which are equivalent to the Existing Facility Standards currently utilized to service City residents and employees. The fourth type of Emergency Preparedness Facility, Domestic Water, has no Existing Standard because there are no wells currently associated with Red Cross -designated shelters. The Fire Suppression Water Storage figure mentioned above is derived from the amount of water in the municipal swimming pool, which would not be suitable for drinking water. Therefore, a new Emergency Facilities Standard needed to be developed which differed from the Existing Standard. Based on input from Porter, Jensen, Hansen, and Manzagol Architects, a standard of .0004 wells per EDU was established with costs to be allocated to both existing and new development. City of Beaumont Page 13 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 B. Proposed Facilities The Future Facilities to be located at various Beaumont Unified School District sites within the City (Temporary Outdoor Housing, Multipurpose Facilities, Fire Suppression Water Storage, and Domestic Water) as described in Section VI have been determined to be necessary to serve the future population of the City. Table 2 provides an inventory of the proposed Future Facilities. The location of the Future Facilities are also identified on the Exhibit Map entitled Emergency Preparedness Center Improvements. The components of the Emergency Preparedness Facilities are as follows: Temporary Outdoor Housing in the event of an emergency would be provided by an athletic stadium, recreational play areas, sport activity areas, and parking lots with lighting. The athletic stadium will provide for temporary housing because the seating provides protection from the strong winds and other elements in the City as described in the Environmental Setting section above. It will also provide greater security to individuals who are temporarily homeless. The recreational play and sport activity areas will provide space for people to set up tents in the event that they are evacuated from their homes. The parking lots could perform the same function and the lighting would be important for activities at night. The indoor Multipurpose Facilities, specifically the food preparation Facility and the general Multipurpose Facilities, will be used for mass care, welfare, and feeding of the City's residents in the event of an emergency, such as an earthquake. These Facilities will provide for the health and safety of the City's residents and employees by offering indoor protection and the capability of providing food, medical care, counseling, child care, and shelter to large numbers of people. The Fire Suppression Water Storage Facilities are necessary to set aside large quantities of water for use in putting out fires, including wildfires and fires caused by earthquakes. Firefighters could fight fires by drawing water from a pool for use by fire trucks or even helicopters. The Domestic Water Facilities, specifically the water wells, would serve to provide drinking water in the event of a major emergency and thereby ensure the health of the City's residents and employees. If an earthquake were to rupture the water mains in the city, wells could serve as a backup to ensure that residents have clean drinking water. C. Apportionment of Facilities Costs AB 1600 requires that a reasonable relationship exist between the need for public facilities and the type of development on which a fee is imposed. The need for public facilities is related to the level of service demanded, which varies in proportion to the EDUs generated by a particular land use type. For purposes of determining the fee amounts, new development in the City is classified as either residential land use or non-residential ( i.e., commercial/industrial) land use. Both residents and employees will benefit from the Facilities. To equitably allocate the costs between future residents and employees, the concept of "Person Hours" was utilized as a measure of benefit. "Person Hours" are a function of the number of hours per week that residents or employees associated with a type of land use could potentially require access to Emergency Preparedness Facilities. As noted previously, the number of Person Hours applied to one single family dwelling unit is equivalent to one EDU. City of Beaumont Page 14 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 David Taussig & Associates 05:19:20 PM 01/26/01 Table 2 City of Beaumont Future Facilities Inventory Facility Type Location Facili Unit (SF or Gallons Facili Costs Temporary Outdoor Housing New Beaumont High School 406178 52,013,536 Athletic Stadium Three Rings Ranch Elementary School 337,978 $513,636 Recreational Play Area Deutsch Elementary School #1 337,978 $513,636 Noble Creek Elementary School #1 337,978 $513,636 Sport Activity Areas Oak Valley Estates Elementary School 337,978 $513,636 Parking Lots w/ Lighting Chavez School Expansion 337,978 $513,636 Community School #1 337,978 5513,636 Noble Creek Area Junior High School 337,978 $513.636 Noble Creek Elementary School #2 337,978 $513,636 Deutsch Elementary School #2 337,978 $513,636 Rolling Hills Ranch Elementary School 337,978 $513,636 Total (Land Square Footage) 3,784,959 57,150,000 Multipurpose Facilities New Beaumont High School 20,182 53,027,273 Large indoor multipurpose evacuation and mass care area Three Rings Ranch Elementary School 5,182 5777,273 Central Food Preparation Fadlity Deutsch Elementary School #1 5,182 $777,273 Noble Creek Elementary School #1 5,182 $777,273 Oak Valley Estates Elementary School 5,182 5777,273 Chavez School Expansion 5,182 5777,273 Community School #1 5,182 5777,273 Noble Creek Area Junior High School 5,182 $777,273 Noble Creek Elementary School #2 5,182 $777,273 Deutsch Elementary School #2 5,182 5777,273 Rolling Hills Ranch Elementary School 5,182 $777,273 Total (Building Square Footage) 72,000 510,800,000 Fire Suppression Water Storage New Beaumont High School (Gallons) 738,000 51,250,000 Aquatic Complex Domestic Water New Beaumont High School 1 well 5350,000 Installation of on-site water well system Three Rings Ranch Elementary School 1 well 5175,000 Deutsch Elementary School #1 1 well 5175,000 Noble Creek Elementary School #1 1 well 5175,000 Oak Valley Estates Elementary School 1 well 5175,000 Chavez School Expansion 1 well 5175,000 Community School #1 1 well 5175,000 Noble Creek Area Junior High School 1 well 5275,000 Noble Creek Elementary School #2 1 well 5175,000 Deutsch Elementary School #2 1 well 5175,000 Rolling Hills Ranch Elementary School 1 well 5175,000 Total (Wells) 11 wells 52,200,000 Total Cost for All Facilities $21,400,000 K:\Cients2/BEAUMONT.USD\Fee Data.123 To determine the number of Person Hours associated with a single family dwelling unit or 1,000 square feet of non-residential development, the analysis utilized current employment, household, and population data and future projections compiled by the Southem California Association of Governments (SCAG), as well as place -of -work data obtained from the U.S. Census Bureau Journey -to -Work study. The following paragraphs describe the levels of Emergency Preparedness Facilities needed and the analysis undertaken to determine the Future Facilities Need and the cost apportionment according to benefit for each of the two land use types. The assumptions described in Table 3 were used to calculate the number of hours the residents of a dwelling unit or the employees working in 1,000 square feet of non-residential space would potentially need access to Emergency Preparedness Facilities. As indicated in Table 3, an average dwelling unit within the City is expected to include 2.99 residents, who in total will potentially require 452.32 Person Hours per week of access to Emergency Preparedness Facilities. A total of 1,000 square feet of non- residential development, on the other hand„ will on average provide a place of work for 2.7 employees requiring a total of 135 Person Hours per week of access to these Facilities. Therefore, if one residential dwelling unit constitutes one EDU, 1,000 square feet of non-residential development constitutes .29 EDUs (135/452.32). Utilizing these EDU equivalents, it was determined that the City of Beaumont currently includes 6,956 EDUs of development within its boundaries. As previously described in Section VI -A, an Existing Facility Standard was calculated using the amount of Facilities currently in service within the City for each of three Facility types. The exception was Domestic Water, for which a new Facility Standard was established because there are no existing Facilities of this type. The amount of Future Facilities needed was then calculated based on the projected number of 24,000 additional dwelling units and 11,263,333 additional square feet of non-residential development in the City, and the number of EDUs that this development would generate (see sections IV and V of Table 4). The projected future number of EDUs at buildout for residential and non-residential land use were 24,000 and 3,362 EDUs, respectively. This resulted in the following amounts of total needed Facilities: 5,767,359 SF of Temporary Outdoor Housing; 110,068 SF of Multipurpose Facilities; 653,012 gallons of Fire Suppression Water Storage; and 11 Domestic Water Wells. Facility costs were estimated by Porter, Jensen, Hansen, and Manzagol Architects for each of these four types of facilities. The total cost for all Emergency Preparedness Facilities was projected to be $30,711,118 in Year 2000 dollars, including $10,894,866 for Temporary Outdoor Housing, $16,510,201 for Multipurpose Facilities, $1,106,051 for Fire Suppression Water Storage, and $2,200,000 for Domestic Water. Detailed information regarding these calculations is presented in Table 4. As noted previously, the projected costs for the first three types of Facilities were allocated only to future residential and non- residential development. The number of EDUs generated by each land use type determined that residential development would be allocated 87.71% of these Facilities costs, and non-residential development would be allocated 12.29% of these costs. The cost of the Domestic Water Facilities was allocated between existing and future development because there are no existing wells that are used for domestic water emergency supplies in the City. Thus, it was determined that future residential land uses would be allocated 69.94% of Domestic Water Facilities costs, future non-residential land uses would be allocated 9.80% of the Facilities costs, existing residential land uses would be allocated 18.05% of the Facilities costs, and existing non-residential land users would be allocated 2.22 % of these costs. City of Beaumont Page 16 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001 David Taussig 8 Associates 05:20:26 PM 01/26/01 Table 3 City of Beaumont Potential Access Hours for Emergency Preparedness Facilities i. Total Number of Potential Hours of Emergency Facilities Use per week A. Beaumont Residents User Potential Hours of Emergency Potential Weekend Facility Use Potential Days of Hours of Weekend Days Hours per per Week Use per Week Use per Day per Week Day per Resident Non -Working Resident 7 24 NA NA 168 Working Resident 5 14 2 24 118 B. Beaumont Employees Potential Hours of Emergency Facility Use Potential Weekend per Week Potential Days of Hours of Weekend Days Hours per per User Use per Week Use per Day per Week Day Employee Employee 5 10 2 0 50 II. Total Number of Person Hours of Use per Residential Dwelling Unit Potential Hours of Total Person Use per Hours of Use Residents Per Person per per Dwelling User Household [1j Week Unit Non -Working Resident 1.99 168 334.32 Working Resident 1 118 118 Total 452.32 III. Total Number of Person Hours of Use per 1000 Non -Residential square feet Potential Hours per Total Person Employees per Week of Use Hours of Use 1,000 square feet per per 1,000 User [21 Employee square feet Employee 2.7 50 135 Total 135 [1] Source: Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) [2] Source: San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) K:\Cienls2/BEAUMONT.USD\Fee Data.123 3 \ 2.1 f # It }# ir q & G \ f \ %!i/ -t t if: , &.1 .2. ! ®'®! .: -§ig It ;A ; 9` .-•S In ill # w! el •| fl ` pf !: ail q|!\ #|»|g 41 !3 /\~�� ! !# a=cif°!%}q /,/,|© y�/ ! Ls s a 2{!\ =li w!q!R Ls tE.&.� w; a, 2. 2, t, @ -D i CO 2 az ! LI ��i W w David Taussq & Associates 06:05:50 PM 01/26/01 Table 4 City o/ Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Development Impact Fee ("OIF-) Analysis 1. Inventory of Existing Facilities Facility Facility Unit Amount PI fempoary Outdoor Housing ss., 8. (and) 1,486,100 Multipurpose Facilities sq. It. (bldg) 27,980 Fire Suppression Water Storage gallons 166.000 Domestic Water WA N/A 11. Edstlng Person -Hour Calculation Service Factor (City Residents and Employees) Number of Dwelling Number of Person Number or Residents / Units/ Non- Hours per DU or 1000 Total Number of Land Use Type Employees (2) Residential SFR) Non-Maldentlal SF Person -Hours Number of EDUs Residential 10.580 6,191 452,32 2601,218 6,193 Non -Residential 8,898 2.554.815 135 344.900 763 Total 3.146,119 6,956 III. Existing Facility Standard Facility Amount per Facility Ty pa Unit Amount Number of EDOs Parson -Hour Facility Amount per SOU Temporary Outdoor Housing sq. ft (land) 1488.100 6,958 0.4680 211 Multipurpose Facilities s4. S. (Md9) 27,980 6.958 0.0089 4 Fire Suppression Water Storage gallons 166,000 6,958 0.0528 24 Domestic Water WA WA WA WA WA N. Future EDU Calculation Number of Dwelling Number of Person Number of Residents / Units/ Non- Hours per DU or 1000 Thai Number of Land Use Type Employees (21 Residential SF (31 SF Person -Hours Number of EDUs Residential '71,760 24.000 452.32 10,855,680 24,000 Non -Residential 30,411 11,263,333 135 1820,550 3,362 Total 12,378,230 27,382 V. Future Facilities Needed Unit Cost per Facility Cost of New Facility Type UM Amount Type 141 Facilities Temporary Outdoor Housing sq. R (aid) 5,767.359 51.89 510,894.866 Multipurpose FacNlies so. 8. (bIdg) 110,068 5150 516.514201 Fire Suppression Water Storage gallons 653,012 51.69 51,106.051 Domestic Water wells 11 3200,000 32.200,000 530,711,118 W, Development Impact Fes per 1000 EWs DIF per Dwelling Number of Dwelling Unit/ SF Allocation or Facility Units / SF Non - Facility Type Land Use Type EDU Percent Costs Cost Burden (51 Net Cost Financed by 01F Residential Residential Temporary 0utdoorr Housing Future Residential 57.71% 39,556,317 63% 58,050,912 24,000 5252.12 Future Non -Residential 12.29% 51,338.549 63% 5847,545 11263,333 50,08 Mulepuroose Faalaes Future Residential 87.71% 314,481,749 63% 39.169.620 24,000 5382.07 Future Non -Residential 122914 52.026,452 63% 31,264,364 11,263,333 50.11 Fire Suppression Water Storage Future Residential 67,71% 5970,161 83% 5814291 24,000 325.60 Future Non -Residential 12.29% 5135,890 63% 388,043 11,263.333 50.01 Domestic Water Future Residential 6994% 31,538,588 6314 5974210 24,000 640.59 Future Non -Residential 980% 6215.509 63% 5136,457 11,263,333 50.01 Existing Residential 18.05% 5397,020 0% 50 6,193 30.00 Existing Non -Residential 222% 648,683 0% 60 2,554,615 60.00 111 Provided by Riverside County Emergency Services Director, the Red Cross, and Porter, Jensen. Hansen, and Manzagol Architects. 121 Based on dab provided by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and Pie Clty of Beaumont. Future Residential Fee per unit 3700.38 Future Non -Residential 131 Provided by City of Beaumont Planning Department. Fee per SF $0.21 (41 Provided by Porter, Jensen, Hansen, and Manage' Architects. (5) Burden of Facility casts was reduced by 37% due to use of Facilities for school and r:creaIioral purposes by the Beaumont Unified School District. K:1Clents28EAUMONTUS01Fee Daa,123 VII. CALCULATION OF DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES Following the identification of the Future Emergency Preparedness Facilities costs and the proportions of these costs that should be borne by all residential and non-residential land uses, the Fee Study calculated the specific fees to be assigned to each land use type. Prior to making this assignment, however, it was necessary to recognize that the Emergency Preparedness Facilities will also be utilized by the Beaumont Unified School District as school facilities and for recreation purposes. To the extent that the School District is able to use these Facilities for other non -Emergency Preparedness purposes, a reduction in the cost of these Facilities to be borne by new development would be in order. To determine an appropriate Facilities cost discount level and maintain consistency with the methodology utilized throughout the remainder of the Fee Study, the hours over a one-year period during which the School District would be actively utilizing the Facilities for educational and recreational purposes were compared with the hours these same Facilities would be vacant and serving only as Emergency Preparedness Facilities. As listed in Table 5, the Fee Study analysis concluded that the Facilities will be used by the School District for school purposes for 1,560 hours per year and for recreational purposes for 1,644.5 hours per year. This total of 3,204.5 hours of School District use per year represents approximately 37% of the total hours in a year, meaning that the Emergency Preparedness Facilities share of total costs which are appropriate to be paid through a development impact fee equals 63%. Applying a 37% discount to total Facilities Costs results in the Net Facilities Costs shown in Table 4. Table 5 City of Beaumont Hours for School District Usage of Facilities Usage Hours Days Weeks Total School Year Recreational Use (Weekday) 1.5 5 39 292.5 School Year Recreational Use (Weekend) 8 2 39 624.0 Non -School Year Recreational Use (All Day) 8 7 13 728.0 School Use 8 5 39 1560.0 Total 3204.5 Total Hours per Year 8736.0 Percentage of Facilities Utilized by School District 36.68% Dividing the Net Facilities Costs for each Facility Type by the number of projected EDUs applicable to each Facility Type yields the residential and non-residential fee levels listed in Table 6. City of Beaumont Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study Page 20 January 26, 2001 Table 6 Fee per Dwelling Unit / Non -Residential SF Facility Type Residential ($/dwelling unit) Non -Residential ($/SF) Temporary Outdoor Housing $252.12 $.08 Multipurpose Facilities $382.07 $.11 Fire Suppression Water Storage $25.60 $.01 Domestic Water $40.59 $.01 Total $700.38 $.21 It should be emphasized that providing a "discount" for school district use does not shift any cost burden from one land use category to another, but instead forces the City to produce altemative sources of financing to make up any shortfall. State and federal grants and loans, City general fund revenues and contributions from the School District are all potential sources of additional financing for these Facilities to supplement revenues derived from residential and non-residential development impact fees. City of Beaumont Page 21 Emergency Preparedness Facilities Fee Study January 26, 2001