HomeMy WebLinkAbout19-Public Works
J /
File No. 4.01
CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO - REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION
From: qOGER G. HARDGRAVE
Subject: ADproval of Traffic Systems Fee
-- $12 per trip, Generated by
New Developments or Redevelopment
Dept: Pub li cWo r k s / E n gin e e ri n 9
Date: 02-15-88
Synopsis of Previous Council action:
None.
Recommended motion:
That a public hearing be set at 9:30 a.m. on
to consider the establishment of a Traffic Systems Fee
in the amount of $12.00 per trip generated by a
development.
Adopt Resolution and Ordinance.
cc: Ray Schweitzer
Jim Penman
Ann Siracusa
Mark Sutton
~ cL;~
Signature
Supporting data attached:
Gene Klatt
Staff Report, Ordinance
& Resolution
Phone:
51.25
Contact person:
Ward:
ALL
FUNDING REQUIREMENTS:
Amount:
N/A
Source: (Acct. No.)
(Acct. DescriPtion)
Finance:
Council Notes:
75-0262
Agenda Item No.
/9
r
RESO: ESTABLISHIN< 'HE AMOUNT OF
AFFIC SYSTEMS FEE
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
SECTION 2. This resolution shall be effective
I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was duly
Bernardino, at a
adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
meeting held on the
day of
to-wit:
, 1988, by the following vote,
AYES:
Council Members
9
10 NAYS:
11 ABSENT:
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CITY CLERK
The foregoing Resoulution is hereby approved on the
day of
, 1988.
Evlyn Wilcox, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
Approved as to form and legal content:
^ "
! .
." /
.\-('"2'1. '7~1-.t;~ )r' ,/ t.~,}.A"-l.,..y__
<;.:i/ty Attorney
JFW: s s
3-24-8R
- 2 -
1 ORDINANCE NO.
2 ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO ADDING CHAPTER 3.26
TO THE SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO ESTABLISH A TRAFFIC
3 SYSTEMS FUND AND TO IMPOSE A TRAFFIC SYSTEMS FEE.
4
SECTION 1. RECITALS. WHEREAS, because of new
5 development and the change in use of existing development, there
6 exists a need in the City of San Bernardino for additional
7 traffic control devices, traffic related improvements and
8 upgrades of the existing transportation system, and
9 ~VHEREAS, the new systems and improvements to meet such
10 needs are set forth in the Five Year Capital Improvement
11 Plan, the Regional Transportation Improvement Program (RTIP),
12 and the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and,
13 WHEREAS, the Public Work::; Department has completed a study
14 supporting the need for such additional transportation systems,
15 traffic control devices and traffic system improvements and
16 determining the cost thereof, and
17
WHEREAS, this need is created by: growth throughout the
18 City, increases in vehicle loading of the existing systems,
19 and a public demand for safer, more effective transportation
20 networks,
21 NOW, THEREFORE, the Mayor and Common Council do ordain
22 as follows:
23 SECTION 2. Chapter 3.26 is added to the San Bernardino
24 Municipal Code to read as follows:
25 3.26.010. All public streets and highways under
26 jurisdiction of the City of San Bernardino and all traffic
27 control devices thereon are hereby declared to be a single
28 transportation network. This includes all dedicated streets
JFW: ss
3-2.5-88
- 1 -
ORD: ADDING CHAPTER 3.26 TO SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH A TRAFFIC SYSTEMS FUND TO IMPOSE A TRAFFIC SYSTEMS
FEE
1 either existing or planned.
2
3
3.26.020 Fund Established
A Traffic Systems Fund is hereby established. The
4 Traffic Systems Fund is a fund for payment of the actual or
5 estimated costs of the design, upgrading or improvement of
6 the traffic network.
7 3.26.030 Traffic Systems Fee
8
A. There is hereby imposed a Traffic Systems Fee on all
9 new development and any substantial improvement, which results
10 in a net increase in the number of vehicle trips generated by
11 a development as determined by a traffic study or by average
12 trip estimates as published In the "Trip Generation", An
13 Information Report (Current Edition) of the Institute of
14 Transportation Engineers and accepted by the Director of Public
15 WorkslCity Engineer. The amount of said fee shall be as
16 established by Resolution of the Mayor and Common Council;
17 however, in no event shall such fee exceed the pro-rata share
18 of such development for the cost of any traffic system
19 improvements to which such fee shall be applied. All Traffic
20 Systems Fees collected shall be deposited in the Traffic
21 Systems Fund.
22 B. The number of vehicle trips shall be calculated based
23 on the total square foot area of the development or
24 substantial improvement in accordance with the average trip
25 rate as contained in the publication "Trip Generation"
26 (Current Edition) An Information Report, as prepared by the
27 Institute of Transportation Engineers.
28 III
JFW:ss
3-25-88
- 2 -
ORD: ADDING CHAPTER 3.26 TO SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH A TRAFFIC SYSTEMS FUND AND TO IMPOSE A TRAFFIC SYSTEMS
FEE
1
C. Capture rates or reductions in the number of trips
2 shall not be applied towards a reduction in the Traffic Systems
3 Fee to be paid.
4
3.26.040 Disposition of Funds
5 A. All monies in the Traffic Systems Fund not immediately
6 required for cons~ruction of traffic system improvements shall
7 be invested in a manner provided by law of the State of
8 California, and all interest paid on such investment shall
9 accrue to said fund. These monies shall thereafter be
10 accounted for as required by California Government Code
11 Section 66001 subsections (c) (d) and (e).
12 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Ordinance was duly
13 adopted by the Mayor and Common Council of the City of San
14 Bernardino at a
meeting thereof, held on the
15 day of
16 to-wit:
17 AYES:
18
, 1988, by the following vote,
Council Members
19 NAYS:
20 ABSENT:
21
22
23 III
24 I I I
25 III
26 I I I
27 I I I
28 - 3 -
CITY CLERK
JFW:ss
3-25-88
ORD: ADDING CHAPTER 3.26 TO SAN BERNARDINO MUNICIPAL CODE TO
ESTABLISH A TRAFFIC SYSTEMS FUND AND TO IMPOSE A TRAFFIC SYSTEMS
FEE
1 The foregoing Ordinance is hereby approved this
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
day of
, 1988.
Evlyn Wilcox, Mayor
City of San Bernardino
APB~oved as to form and legal content:
",:, :7 r>"
v ~ i---~,)' /7 {,' ....'-y" - ,.;---.
city Attorney
JFW:ss
3-24-88
- 4 -
-,
s.a.......
C1yd~ E. S~~~t Jr.
2459 C~"""'~~~ Dri~~
B~r........ardi.......~. CA 92404-4210
714-882-7802
"j '":'....
.;
!'~.
<.. It"'
'-
March 25, 1988
Honorable Mayor and Members
of the City Council
City of San Bernardino
300 N. "D" Street
San Bernardino, CA 92418
SUBJECT: TRAFFIC SYSTEMS FEE
Dear Mayor and Council:
I see and understand the need for additional funds for
I have,
improving the transportation network in the City.
however, some technical comments on how the proposed fee
should be calculated and applied.
TRAFFIC SYSTEMS FEE
FIRST:
impact that a development has on the transportation network.
SECOND: This new fee should be calculated on the same basis
Any new fee should be proportionate to the amount of
for all classes of development: residential, commercial,
industrial, etc.
THIRD: NEW vehicle trips can be a consistent and correct
Trips from new residences are
way of applying the fee.
considered new trips and most industrial trips end up being
new trips. Commercial trips require a traffic professional,
experienced in traffic planning, to estimate the proportion
of new trips.
~OUBT~: The amount of the fee, $12.00 per vehicle trip,
should be $12.00 per NEW vehicle trip.
FIf~H: The calculation of the NEW vehicle trips for the fee
application should be based on the results of a traffic
1-
/9
study done by a professional traffic engineer with
experience in traffic planning. In the absence of a traffic
study, total trip figures from generally accepted
information sources could be used.
SI~.!.!::!.: The above methodology provides for differences in
NEW trip generation by type of development and by location
in the City.
~~~~~TH: I would want the Council to reV1ew the fee each
year; it should not be automatically adjusted by any index
or interpretation of some regional cost index.
COMMENTS ON THE STAFF PROPOSAL
The 2/15/88 version of the fee ordinance and resolution
(the one available to the public from the City Clerk on
3-25-88) displays considerable ignorance of trip generation
and traffic analysis. The following criteria are not my
opinion, they are nationally adopted ITE criteria.
1. ~~s..!.pen~?:._~~.J:.y_...9.~IJ...e;:r..~!_~.9-.-!:I.2.P..~ are NOT cal cuI ated on the
square foot area of the development, they ARE almost always
calculated based on the number of dwelling units.
2. g"l?.!.!Imers..! a!._~'l-9..~n~r.::.~_!:..~_<:!...J::!."~s are NOT cal cuI ated on the
total square foot of the development, they ARE calculated on
the gross leasable square feet of building area.
3. Industrial and o~fic~ generated trips are NOT normally
calculated on the total square foot area of the development;
they ARE calculated on the gross building area.
The staff proposal also calls for the use of the ITE
Trip Generation Report to serve as the source of the trip
generation rates. This is an unprofessional use of this
informational report. The preparer of the report, Mr. Carl
Buttke, states that "Extreme Care" should be taken when
applying the rates and that local adjustments should be made
to these rates.
2
Wide use is made of the ITE and other published trip
rates, but they have no place in a City fee generation
document. If there is no traffic study data, then by all
means one should use an available average. However, this
should be left to the judgement of the traffic professional
conducting the analysis or the study. If a particular
developer chooses not to have a traffic study, then the ITE
or other locally adapted rates would then be used.
It is my opinion that the staff proposal is an
incorrect application of trip rates from any generally
available trip rate source. The total reliance on published
trip rates strongly indicates ignorance of trip generation
and is an unprofessional attempt to make traffic engineering
estimating into a cook-book exercise.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS
The 1987 Nollan v. California Coastal Commission case
is cited ty Attorney Nancy Stroud. The case results in a
Federal Constitutional requirement for a close nexus between
the fee and the purpose it serves. As I understand it, the
California courts have found that new development is what
creates the need for added capital improvements. Not being
an attorney, I can only go by what I read. But, it appears
to me that only the new trips would meet the fair cost
apportionment test and that the method of calculating those
trips cannot be delegated to an informational report in
which the author urges "Extreme Care" in its application.
REQUEST
I am asking that the fee ordinanace and resolution be
written to respond to the points in this letter so that the
method of calculation i~ done in a correct and professional
manner.
7.
w
I am sorry that my employment will probably keep me
from being present during the Council Sessions, but I am
very concerned about this particular issue and the correct
application of traffic engineering methods wherever they are
used.
Respectfully submitted,
~~ ~M),
Registered Traffic Engineer, California TR0205
Registered Civil Engineer, California CE26690
Over 25 years in Transportation
Resident of San Bernardino, over 14 years
4
NON-RESIDENTIAL TRIP GENERATION
POSITION STATEMENT
Accurate trip generation is not a simple case of
applying a trip rate to the land use and applying that same
traffic to the street system. Trip generation rates for
non-residential uses only provide an estimate of the
driveway traffic which may use the particular land use in a
single or a multiple-use development. The amount of traffic
which is actually added to the street system is almost
always a smaller number.
In non-residential use developments, there are three
general components of the traffic: Existing traffic,
Duplicate trip traffic, and Newly-attracted traffic.
Newly-attracted traffic consists of Totally-new and/or
Diverted traffic, depending upon the particular development.
Existing traffic is the traffic which is already ~n.the
street or proposed to be on the street at a future time for
which estimates are available.
Duplicate trip traffic has two components: one
consists of the trips which may use two or more of the land
uses in a mixed use development during one visit; the
second component is the existing traffic (sometimes called
passing-by traffic) that will use the new development.
Vehicle trips must only be counted once when the trips are
generated for the site entrance(s) and also when applied as
added traffic to the street system.
One example of duplicate trips is a motel next to a
restaurant. A second example would be an auto-center
consisting of multiple automobile dealerships with competing
vehicle types next to retail facilities. The second example
1
contains duplicate trips between dealers as well as between
the dealers and the retail facilities. The existing traffic
on the adjacent streets will also provide trips that will
use the dealerships and/or the retail facilities.
Newly-attracted trips are the traffic which can be
attracted to the site from traffic that is not currently in
the existing or proposed traffic stream. This traffic may
be diverted from another traffic facility, if this is
possible, or it may be totally-new traffic attracted to the
site from another area. Totally-new traffic would only be
generated by significant developments, such as a major
discount store, a new regional shopping center or similar
attractors; this traffic would consist of trips to the
development that would not normally travel on the immediate
area streets without the existance of the new development.
Diverted traffic is difficult to determine, but it is
better to estimate carefully based on studies and experience
than to artificially add traffic to the street system that
may technically cause a decrease in the street system level
of service, but, in actuality, it can never exist to have
any effect on the street system at all.
It has been found that trip generation is most
accurately portrayed when using the most recent sample
and/or average trip rate data available and then adjusting
this to fit the local situation. Even when consider~ng the
environmental worst case or maximum land use intensity for
developing the site traffic, it is essential to be as
accurate as possible. It is necessary tq examine the
proposed development as completely as possible (and in as
much detail as possible) before accepting the average in any
of the samples (trip rate averages) for trip generation use.
The trip rate examination is particularly important
when the sample rates being considered for use have been
2.
gathered over a long period of time under changing land use
regulations and building requirements. These changing land
regulation differences can produce highly exaggerated trip
generation figures unless they are evaluated by a currently
experienced traffic professional before being applied to a
current project. Only a professional who regularly conducts
traffic generation and impact studies and analyses is able
to evaluate trip generation rates for an area. Others will
have to follow available averages with no way of judging the
applicability of the trip generation rates.
It is suggested that the cautions stipulated in the use
of the I.T.E. Trip Generation Manual rates, as printed in
the Manual, be followed. Page 11 of the 1983 Manual states:
"Variations in generation rates for the same building or
land-use type exist and have been identified in the report.
Because of these variations, sample size and special
characteristics of a site being analyzed, extreme care must
be made in the use of the rates. ... At specific sites, the
traffic and transportation engineer may wish to modify the
generation rate presented in this report because of
.....special characteristics of the site or the surrounding
area."
A caution is also emphasized in the 1987 ITE Manual, on
page 1. "Variations in trip generation characteristics for
a land use type exist and have been identified in the
report. Because of these variations, the sample size, and
the special characteristics of the site being analyzed,
extreme care must be made in the use of the data. The San
Diego Traffic Generators book also states that it is a guide
subject to change.
Some examples of trip generation can be cited.
3-
1. For mini-marts with gasoline sales and local
convenience stores, current studies show that about 99
percent of the trips generated are already on the adjacent
streets.
2. A published study of regional shopping center
traffic showed the following:
Diverted Traffic from another route: 40%
Newly Attracted traffic, not using adjacent traffic
facilities: 35%
Existing or passing-by traffic: 25%
Where diverted traffic is not possible, the draw from
existing or passing traffic increases to about 60 percent.
3. Small to medium shopping centers appear to attract
from 40 to 60 percent of the total traffic from vehicles not
now on the adjacent streets; the percentage selected
requires a thorough examination and depends upon the
particular site under development.
OBSERVATIONS
It is very easy for anyone to challenge the application
of the experience of traffic professionals, if they so
desire, by singling out some perceived or personal
experience in order to disprove a particular traffic
estimate. This is an emotional or a personal ego approach
to the problem. It may also be a reaction to some
preconceived decision about the situation - otherwise known
in the press as "playing politics" - or just pushing
personal desires over reality.
Representatives of Government may also wish to reduce
trip generation to a cook-book approach so that they have
less work to do and also so they do not have to accept the
experience of another professional unless it fits their
4-
experience. Government representatives may also wish to
control the application of the traffic figures to protect
some particular plan or conception of how things should be.
Traffic estimation is an "art" best left to the
currently experienced in the field, even if it does leave
open the possibility of some error. Overkill to be
always-on-the-safe-side is a greater error and is unfair to
everyone; it is basically dishonest unless there is a
stated reason for using ultra-liberal traffic figures in a
particular situation. It is very easy to look up an average
number in a guideline or a reference book and insist on
using that number as "the best one we have." This is the
same thing as challenging every step a person makes and
requiring proof of each asumption used, ignoring the fact
that years of cumulative experience is what the traffic
professional is all about. Reducing traffic estimating to a
simplistic cook-book approach makes it possible for anyone
to be a traffic estimator, without any experience, and it is
also absolutely wrong.
Incorrectly done trip generatian studies may cause
incorrectly applied traffic measures, unnecessary increases
in infrastructure costs, and they can decrease considerably
the confidence of citizens in the ability of government to
provide adequately for future traffic conditions. Somewhere
along the line, we have to look at the ultimate cost of
simplifying everything or of making everything so safe and
conservative that no one can afford to do anything.
5