HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC RES 91-491
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
23
25
26
27
28
RESOLUTION NO. 91-49
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF TUSTIN, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING
TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT FEES FOR
SPECIFIED NEW DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS.
The City Council of the City of Tustin does hereby resolve as
follows:
I. The City Council finds and determines as follows:
ae
State law establishes requirements for development
of a County-wide Congestion Management Program (AB-
1791) mandates the inclusion of a Trip Reduction
and Travel Demand Ordinance; and
Be
Various efforts underway, including the Congestion
Management Program (CMP), recognize and encourage
the use of Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
strategies within the Trip Reduction and Travel
Demand Ordinance to increase mobility and improve
the general efficiency of the transportation system
by enhancing vehicle flow and shifting demand on
existing transportation facilities; and
Ce
Implementation of TDM strategies at the local level
would provide significant public benefits by
improving air and water quality, enhancing the
effectiveness of the existing transportation
system, and reducing energy requirements.
De
Provisions of Ordinance No. 1062 provide a mechanism
for the establishment of certain review fees and
penalty fees to support the Transportation Demand
Management Program and the CMP by resolution of the
City Council.
II.
The City Council does hereby establish the following fees
for the purpose of meeting the obligations set forth in
Ordinance No. 1062:
ae
A Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Plan Review Fee in
the amount of $450.00.
Be
An Annual Compliance Report Review Fee in the
amount of $750.00.
C. A Late Submittal Fee in the amount of $580.00.
1
2
5
6
?
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
25
26
2~
Resolution No. 91-49, Page 2
De
A TDM Performance Penalty Fee in proportion to the number
of peak hour vehicle trips in excess of the performance
requirement based on the methodology described in Exhibit
A attached and incorporated herein by reference.
Ee
A request for a variance from the facility standards set
forth in Ordinance No. 1062 shall be accompanied by a fee
in the amount of $385.00.
A request for appeal of any decision made by the City
Traffic Engineer or his/her designee pertaining to
Ordinance No. 1062 shall be accompanied by a fee of
$385.00.
III. Upon receipt of any TDM performance penalty fees, the City
shall establish a separate fund set aside for special purposes
and all monies contributed from TDM performance penalty fees
shall be established in said fund. All monies deposited in
the fund shall be used for transportation system improvements
which foster the objectives of the Congestion Management
Program and efforts which encourage and promote Transportation
System Demand Management Strategies and programs.
IV.
The fees established in Section II shall be automatically
adjusted on an annual basis beginning on January 1, 1992 to
reflect inflationary cost changes for the previous calendar
year. For purposes of said automatic adjustments, the
adjustments to the previous years Consumer Price Index shall
be utilized.
Vo
If any review or penalty fee set forth in the resolution or
the application to any person or circumstance is held to be
unconstitutional or otherwise invalid by any court of
competent jurisdiction, such invalidity shall not affect any
other review fee or penalty fee or application thereof which
can be implemented without the invalid review fee or penalty
fee, or application thereof, and to this end the review and
penalty fee of this resolution are declared to be severable.
the
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Ci_ty Council of
City of Tustin, California, on the 6th day of May, 1991.
Charles E. Puckett, Mayor
Mary E. ~ynn, C~ty Clerk
EXHIBIT A
Performance Penalty Fee
',An Example"
The "ABC" Company submits a Trip Reduction/TDM Strategy Plan with a
projection of 1,500 vehicle trips based on trip generation projec-
tions of the Institute of Traffic Engineers. Thus, to meet the
Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) goal of 1.5, The "ABC" Company must
decrease vehicle trips by 500, making the performance requirement
1,000 vehicle trips. It is also determined by the City during this
initial review that the Trip Reduction/TDM program would cost
$20,000 to implement.
The Performance Penalty Fee for this project is then set at $20,000
or the cost per vehicle trip to be reduced ($20,000 divided by
500), which in this case equals $40.00, multiplied by the number of
vehicle trips in excess of the performance requirement. This
amount will adjust yearly in accordance with the previous year's
Consumer Price Index adjustment.
One year later, The "ABC" Company receives their Annual Compliance
Report Review. It has been determined that they are not complying
with the performance requirement and are notified in writing. The
"ABC" Company must then submit, within 30 days, a plan to meet the
performance requirement with 180 days. At the end of the 180 day
period, The "ABC" Company must submit a revised Annual Compliance
Report which is then reviewed by the City. Upon review, it is
determined that the performance requirement is exceeded by 327
vehicle trips. Therefore, The "ABC" Company's Performance Penalty
Fee (E in the example below) is calculated as follows:
Performance Penalty Fee Formula
The "ABC" Company
A = Cost of Trip Reduction/TDM Program
set during initial review $20,000
B = Number of vehicle trips to be
reduced 500
C = A/B = Performance Penalty Fee per
vehicle trip in excess of the
performance requirement $20,000/500 $40
D = Number of vehicle trips in excess
of performance requirement 327
E = CxD = Total Performance Penalty Fee
to be assessed $40 x 327 $13,080.00
City of Tustin
RESOLUTION CERTIFICATION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF ORANGE ) SS
CITY OF TUSTIN )
RESOLUTION NO. 91-49
MARY E. WYNN, City Clerk and ex-officio Clerk of the City Council of
the City of Tustin, California, does hereby certify that the whole
number of the members of the City Council of the City of Tustin is
five; that the above and foregoing Resolution No. 91-49 was duly and
regularly introduced, passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the
City Council held on the 6th day of May, 1991 by the following vote:
COUNCILMEMBER AYES: Puckett, Pontious, Edgar, Potts, Prescott
COUNCILMEMBER NOES: None
COUNCILMEMBER ABSTAINED: None
COUNCILMEMBER ABSENT: None
I~ ' City
Mary E. Wynn,
Clerk