2003-0219 - Consideration of the Transportation Strategic Program Impact Fee.

Jack Witthaus, Transportation and Traffic Manager, introduced Gary Black, Hexagon Consulting, who assisted staff in the preparation of the of the staff report. He also thanked Vice Chair Moylan who participated in the ad hoc committee. Mr. Witthaus presented the staff report. He provided a summary of the study issue and the objective of meeting the Comprehensive Funding Program of the General Plan Transportation Needs. He noted the purpose of the strategic transportation program, the key components, future transportation needs, the deficiencies and improvement programs to city intersections, bike, sidewalk improvements, the Lawrence Expressway, Mathilda/237 and the overall funding strategy, the impact characteristics, expressway improvement funding strategy, Mathilda/237 strategy. He provided discussed the proposed transportation impact fee for South of Route 237, Moffett Park and the relationship to the Moffett Park Specific Plan. Mr. Witthaus provided the Commission the next steps for the Transportation Strategic Program and its implementation. City Council will be considering the item on August 28. He further noted that the public input will be concluded on Thursday, July 31 at 10AM at the Sunnyvale Community Center. He commented that there have been extensive public outreach efforts. He also noted that staff is looking forward to the completion of the joint VTA City Study and programming of 237/Mathilda and improvement in the regional transportation plan. He added that after a year or so following the adoption of the fee, staff is looking forward to the implementation of the citywide deficiency plan and support of the Moffett Park Specific Plan. 

Comm. Simons asked Mr. Witthaus what is the rationale for charging per unit for residential rather than per square feet. Mr. Witthaus responded that it was based a fee per trip, on correlation to land use per trip generation to the number of units.

Comm. Simons commented that there seem to be disproportionate fee with different square feet relative to the number of units. Mr. Witthaus responded that there is some discretion but staff is not proposing two types of housing units but rather by single family to multi-family based on trip generation.

Comm. Simons asked staff if there is any consideration or incentives to encourage developers to develop near or use alternative transportation to gain reduced transportation impact fees. Mr. Witthaus responded that there were discussions and recommended measures based on reduction of trip generation. He added that if the project is conditioned, then a reduction of fee could be assessed. He added that discussions on the Moffett Park Specific Plan, it was discussed to mandate a 20% TDM requirement for the entire park and has been included in the recommended fee level for the Moffett Park Area.

Comm. Simons further asked if there is a follow-through for developers with required TDM program and impose penalties for non-compliance. Staff responded that TDM program requires an annual reporting and penalties are imposed for non-compliance.

Comm. Simons noted that the Commissioners received an e-mail from Ms. Jane Vaughan making recommendations to reduce the proposed transportation strategic program and asked if staff received a copy. Mr. Witthaus Staff responded that he did not receive a copy, however, he noted, that Ms. Vaughan participated in the committee that assisted in the study.

Comm. Simons expressed his concerns with the cost estimates and suggested deferring the fees for developments that have been approved but not yet built. Staff responded that the cost estimates are sufficient and reliable to propose the fee structure and the crucial part of implementing the impact fee levels. He added that there is an annual review of impact fees and that there is an ability to adjust these fees based on changing conditions.

Comm. Simons further asked staff about the Maude intersection at on Mary on how to reduce the level of service (LOS) as well as the Central and Caltrain and whether there were any considerations for the development of the bypass on the LOS. Mr. Witthaus responded that the study that is currently underway has taken into consideration this intersection and the entire citywide modeling effort that the improvements to Maude/Mary Avenue intersection affect the entire city.

Vice Chair Moylan asked staff about the rationale for the proposed retail fee at Moffett Park. He Mr. Witthaus clarified the reason is the trip generation and that retail establishment generate a higher traffic according to the model be used. Comm. Moylan argued that retail establishment at Moffett Park would not generate the same traffic as with a retail establishment as it would be different from the ones located south of 237. He added that consideration should be afforded to retail establishment located at Moffett Park.

Comm. Swegles asked staff if any consideration to small stores such as sandwich shops or small retail to keep people in the are and whether the fee applies to all retail. Mr. Witthaus responded that the fee is for overall view based on the retail trip generation used in the model used. He suggested looking at this option.

Comm. Swegles suggested that if residential areas are determined to be feasible at Moffett Park and the location is closer to multi-modal, appropriate impact fees should be assessed. Mr. Witthaus responded that the impact fee on Moffett Park is determined based on trip generation and that there is opportunity to reduce fees where appropriate on an annual basis.

Comm. Chu asked staff to clarify the cost difference in the Mary Avenue as he thought re collect the estimated amount was at $80 million to $100 million rather than $50 million. K and whether it is because of revenue sharing. Mr. Witthaus responded that the estimate has always been at $50 million and that maybe the figure hbe remembered referred to the citywide improvement program.

Comm. Chu further asked whether there are possible changes to the Fair Oaks/237 interchange and improvement to Fair Oaks/101 interchange. Mr. Witthaus responded yes.

Comm. Chu asked staff how much revenue is expected for the proposed fees. Mr. Witthaus responded $85 million. Comm. Chu further asked how much of which is from sSouth of Moffett Park. Mr. Witthaus responded $38 million from for Moffett Park and the remainder is from sSouth of Moffett Park.

Comm. Chu asked for the traffic mitigation fund balance to date. Mr. Witthaus responded cumulatively to be approximately $6 million.

Chair Babcock asked staff what is the current cost on an average development done in the last three years translated to square feet and what is the fee per trip generation causing the fee to doubled or tripled. Mr. Witthaus responded that it would be difficult to compare projects to projects since there are some projects that were not subject to the transportation impact fee and there are some that were assessed based on square footage. He concluded that the proposed transportation impact fees are in the range of the cumulative mitigation applied to larger projects and that vast majority of development in the city currently does not pay fees.

Chair Babcock inquired about Juniper Network project where the proposed impact fee would be considerably higher than the fee they were originally assessed. Mr. Witthaus responded that there are different rationales, square footage, set of circumstances that will be applied.

Chair Babcock further asked staff whether during the public outreach meetings, if there were any discussions about whether the impact of the proposed transportation impact fees would may discourage developers from coming to come to Sunnyvale. Mr. Witthaus responded that the fees are not inordinately high but are reasonable and at least close to those imposed in neighboring cities. if not median. He added that it would be difficult to compare from city to city since some continue to charge on a project specific basis. He further added that there is general understanding in the development community of for the need of for the transportation infrastructure fees and a uniform impact fee is warranted, reasonable and justified by the forecast and improvement needs.

Further, Chair Babcock asked about the reduction for the implementation of a TDM and whether there would be any reduction of fees for developers that haves a TDM plan that reduces trips above the proposed 20% reduction. Mr. Witthaus responded that if the TDM is higher than 20% and is achievable and enforceable, there is an ability and the flexibility to adjust the impact fees.

Chair Babcock opened the public hearing.

There was no one in the public to speak on the item.

Chair Babcock closed the public hearing.

Motion died due to lack of second.

Comm. Swegles offered a friendly amendment to have a two-tier retail establishment from small to large retail stores for impact fee at Moffett Park. Accepted by the maker.

Comm. Swegles agreed with the square footage assessment for residential units and encouraged staff to look at the feasibility of residential development along Java Street and provide incentive.

Comm. Chu recommended an incentive such as lowering the fee for buildings located next to a multimodal transit. . Comm. Simons asked Mr. Chu if there would be a requirement if construction would be supportive of alternative mode and just because the building is located 1200 feet to the location. Mr. Chu recommended that by location to keep is simple and that it is an appropriate incentive. Comm. Simons asked staff if the recommendation is implementable. Mr. Witthaus responded that staff would look into what is an appropriate adjustment might would be and whether there is a realistic expectation ofn lower trip generation based on proximity to transit. and link it to some factual data. He added that the City Council has the discretion to make the decision.

Vice Chair Moylan asked Comm. Simons to clarify the motion what is the recommended alternative. Comm. Simons responded that he is recommending Alternative #4 directing staff to pursue modified set of financing strategies taking the standard set of fees as the basis for modifications.

Chair Babcock offered a friendly amendment that the fees for north and south oof Mathilda/237 to be no more than double the fees for the rest of the city. impose to north of 237She felt that the proposed fees appear to be penalizing the businesses located segments on north of Mathilda/237.

Comm. Simons asked staff if the fee is reduced for north 237 would it be necessary to increase the fee for south of 237 to meet the required funding. Mr. Witthaus responded that he would look into for outside matching funds for Mary Avenue Extension. Currently, 50% of the match is from outside sources and maybe ask VTA to program a larger share.

He noted VTA matching program region-wide.

The friendly amendment was accepted by the maker and the second.

Comm. Simons commented that the study issue is a complicated issue. He expressed his concerns about north and south corridor of Sunnyvale and that he shares the concerns expressed by the developers about the viability of some of the projects. He concluded that the recommendation could move forward even with his reservations but to encouraged supporting the businesses and residents in the City.

FINAL MOTION:

Ms. Caruso noted that the study issue will be considered by City Council on August 26.

Return to Agenda, Reports & Minutes