HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-01-18 City Council (8)o An identification of each public improvement on which fees were expended
and the amount of the expenditure on each improvement, including the total
percentage of the cost of the public improvement that was funded with fees.
o An identification of an approximate date by which the construction of a
public improvement will commence, if the local agency determines that
sufficient funds have been collected to complete financing on an
incomplete public improvement.
o A description of each interfund transfer or loan made from the account or
fund, including the public improvement on which the loaned funds will be
expended, and in the case of an interfund loan, the date on which the loan
will be repaid and the rate of interest that the account or fund will receive
on the loan.
o The amount of any refunds made due to inability to expend fees within the
required time frame.
This report must also be reviewed by the City Council at a regularly scheduled public
meeting not less than 15 days after the information is made available to the pUblic. In
addition, notice of the time and place of the meeting shall be mailed at least 15 days prior
to the meeting to any interested party who files a written request with the local agency for
such a mailed notice.
The law also provides that,' for the fifth fiscal year following the first deposit into the
fund and every five years thereafter, the local agency shall make findings with respect to
any portion of the fee remaining unexpended, whether committed or uncommitted. No
five-year report is necessary at this time.
If the agency no longer needs the funds for the purposes collected, or if the agency fails
to make required findings, or perform certain administrative tasks prescribed by AB
1600, the agency may be required to refund, on a prorated basis to owners of the
properties upon which the fees for the improvement were imposed, the monies collected
for that project and any interest earned on those funds. No refunds are required to be
made.
CMR:I09:05 Page 2 of4
",
DISCUSSION
The City of Palo Alto development fees covered by AB 1600, and documented in Exhibit
A, include the following:
o Stanford Research ParklEl Camino Real traffic impact fees (PAMC Ch. 16.45).
Fee for new nonresidential development in the Stanford Research ParklEl Camino
Real Service Commercial zone, to fund capacity improvements at eight
intersections.
o San Antonio/West Bayshore Area traffic impact fees (P AMC Ch. 16.46).
Fee for new nonresidential development in the San Antonio/West Bayshore area to
fund capacity improvements at four intersections.
o Housing impact fees imposed on commercial developments (P AMC Ch. 16.47).
Fee on large commercial and industrial development to contribute to programs that
increase the City's low income and moderate-income housing stock.
o Parking in-lieu fees for University Avenue Parking District (PAMC Ch. 16.57).
Fee on new nonresidential development in the University Avenue Parking
Assessment District in lieu of providing required parking spaces.
o Developer impact fees (PAMC Ch. 16.58).
Fee on new residential and non-residential housing developments to provide
community facility funds for parks, community centers and libraries.
Additional fees include residential housing in-lieu fees paid to the City, at the developer's
election, by residential developers in fulfillment of obligations under the City's
inclusionary zoning (Below-Market Rate Housing) program. While these fees do not
necessarily fit within the definition of development fees subject to AB 1600 reporting
requirements, staffhas included them in this report for informational purposes.
Staff examined the accounts to determine if it is necessary to make findings pursuant to
Section 66001 (d) with respect to any development fees remaining unexpended five years
or more after receipt. The San Antonio/West Bayshore Fund and Stanford Research
ParkiEI Camino Real Fund contain development impact fees collected on or before June
30, 1999 that remain unexpended. In fiscal year 2002-03 (CMR:113:04), the City
Council made the required findings that there was a continued need for the San
Antonio/West Bayshore funds for the San Antonio on-ramp project. Council also found a
CMR:I09:05 Page 3 of4