SR-111108-8AAgenda Item: '{~
To: Mayor and City Council
From: P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager
Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Previous Work On Transportation Impact Fee
Recommended Action
Staff recommends that the City Council review the information contained in this report
and provide any necessary direction to staff.
Executive Summary
Council directed the Gity Manager and City Attorney to conduct a review of City records
to determine what work was done pursuant to the Council's adoption, in 1991, of
Ordinance No. 1604(CCS), creating a transportation impact fee. Staff has already
provided an Information Item listing the documents which were located and briefly
summarizing their contents. The documents listed and summarized in that Item show
that the contractor, Meyer, Mohaddes Associates (MMA), began work on a nexus study
relating to the fee in 1992 and that a draft nexus study was finally submitted to the City
in December of 1996. The documents that have been located do not reflect work on the.
project afterthat date. Nor do they explain why the project was apparently not pursued
after that.
Background
In November of 1991, the City Council adopted Ordinance 1604 (CCS), creating a
transportation impact 'fee. However, no fee was ever set by Council. Recently
questions have arisen as to .what steps were taken to implement the ordinance and
opinions have been expressed as to how much might have been collected. in impact
fees had the ordinance been implemented through the establishment and collection of a
fee. In response to these concerns, Council directed the staff to search for and review
documents to learn what was done in the 1990's to implement the. fee.
1
Discussion
Documents located in response to the Council's direction are listed in the Information
Item previously posted and attached to this report for convenience's sake. The.
documents have also been provided in response to a Public Records Act request.
The listed documents show that, after the fee was created in November of 1991, the
City contracted with MMA to prepare a nexus study that would provide the basis for
setting the amount of the fee. Memoranda between City staff and MMA and amongst
City staff show that MMA worked on the project for the next few years. In February of
1993, MMA wrote to the City, reporting on the status of the project and explaining
delays. In September of 1993, the Planning Commission held a study session on the
nexus study. In November of 1993, the contract with MMA was modified to extend its
term for a year.
The work continued into 1994. In January, staff sent a memorandum to MMA adding
certain proposed improvements to the project. Communications sent in the next couple
of months .reflect consideration of rail alternatives and questions as to whether
developers could be charged costs associated with such improvements. No documents
were located reflecting work done duririg the two years following April of 1994.
The files containing documents relating to the nexus study work also. contained a
memorandum, dated May 14, 1996, sent by staff to the Planning Commission
transmitting a joint comment letter from Westside cities on an EIR for the West LA
Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Program.
The next document in the file is a December 24, 1996 memorandum from MMA to .City
staff summarizing MMA's conclusions and explaining that recent developments in the
law would make it very. difficult to impose a fee including a substantial share of costs
related to transit system improvements. The memorandum serves as the cover to the
draft nexus study which was apparently sent to staff with the memorandum on that date.
2
On September 8, 2008, an email was forwarded to the Mayor and Council by the City
Manager. The email stated-that any estimate of fees that might have been collected
should start with the year 1996. This particular year was suggested as the starting point
because at that time he believed that was when the ordinance was originally adopted.
In fact, the 1996 ordinance was the second ordinance. The first was adopted in 1991.
The City Manager has acknowledged this mistake. However, it should be noted that the
draft nexus study, which is required in implementing a fee, was not completed until the
end of 1996. Therefore, any estimate of fees that could have been collected, would not
have been possible until after that date.
Conclusion
No documents dated after December 24, 1996 were located. It is not clear from the
documents why work on the nexus study and fee apparently stopped at the end of
1996. Based on our .review of available records, any attempts at drawing conclusions
would be speculative at best.
In any event, Council has recently directed staff to proceed with the work necessary to
impose a transportation fee and- that work is ongoing.
Prepared by: Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Approved:
Forwarded to Council:
Marsh Jones .out ie ~2
City Attorney
P. t_a ont Ewell `--'
City ~anager
Attachment: October 9, 2008 Information Item regarding Traffic Fees
3
~~
~,~Yar Information Item
Santa iFloniea°
Date: October 9, 2008
To: Mayor and City Council
From: P. Lamont Ewell, City Manager
Marsha Jones Moutrie, City Attorney
Subject: Traffic Fees
Discussion
Council directed the City Manager and City Attorney to conduct a review of City records
to determine what work was done pursuant to the Council's adoption, in 1991 of
Ordinance No. 1604 (CCS), creating a transportation impact fee.
Records have been located by the Planning Department, and the Offices of the City
Clerk and City Attorney. Consistent with their record retention schedules, no records
are available from either the Finance Department or Information Systems. This
Information Item lists the records that were located and briefly notes their content.
In addition to the direction from Council, City staff also received and processed a Public
Records Act request, dated September 24, 2008, for documents relating to work on the
transportation impact-fee. That request has been processed, and the documents were
supplied.
1
The following documents were located and are listed here in chronological order with
brief descriptions:
11/21/91 -Ordinance 1604(CCS), creating a transportation impact fee;
5/12/92 -Contract No. 5833 between the City and Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
(MMA) for the preparation of a nexus study to support and set the amount of the
fee;
12/11/92 -Memorandum from MMA summarizing MMA's work to that date on
project;
12/15/92 -Memorandum from planner to MMA distributing attached copy of
MMA's 12/11/92 memorandum to other staff;
12/22/92 -Memorandum from MMA to planner conveying comments from Recht,
Hausrath & Associates;
12/30/92 -Memorandum from planner distributing the Recht comments to-other
staff;
2/5/93 -Letter from MMA to planner, explaining delays and project status;
9/29/93 -Memorandum from MMA to planner re "Comparison of SM Commercial
Development Standards Alternative 12 to Demographic Totals from Citywide
Study';
9/29/93 -Report from Planning staff to Planning Commission on "Transportation
Management Plan Nexus Study'; Planning Commission agenda showing study
session; meeting minutes reflecting study session;
10/7/93 -Memorandum from MMA to planner re growth projections for use in
study;
11/3/93 -Memorandum from MMA to planner re Capital Improvement Program
to be used in study;
11/23/93 -Modification to Contract No. 5833 extending its term for one year
through 11/94;
12/14/93 -.Memorandum from MMA to planner covering tables on intersections,
improvements, trip generation, and peak hour trips;
2
12/21/93 -Memorandum from MMA to City traffic engineer re intersection
forecasts;
12/22/93 -Memorandum from MMA to planner re intersection impacts, with table;
1/10/94 -Memorandum from planner to MMA re improvements to be added to
study;
2/8/94 -Memorandum from MMA to City traffic engineer re MTA work on rail
right of way;
4/12/94 -FAX from planner to MMA covering comments on study dated 3/25/94;
5/14/96 -Memorandum from Planning staff to Planning Commission transmitting
joint comment letter from Westside cities on LA's Environmental Impact Report
on the West LA Transportation Improvement and Mitigation Program; and
12/24/96 -Memorandum from MMA to planner summarizing MMA's conclusions,
commenting on attached Draft Traffic Congestion Mitigation Fee Evaluation, and
explaining that recent developments in the law would make it very difficult to
impose a fee. including a substantial share of costs related to transit system
improvements.
Thus, the documents show that MMA and City staff worked on the nexus study for
about two and a half years. The scarcity of City documents relating to this project after
January of 1994 may reflect a shift in Planning Department priorities following the 1994
earthquake, increased focus upon transit system options, staffing changes, or
something else; but this is speculation. Whatever the cause, the documents do not
reflect work after the draft "fee evaluation" was submitted at the end of 1994.
Prepared By: Marsha Moutrie, City Attorney
3