The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCC Res 3262 1983-04-25 I RESOLUTION NUMBER ~~~2: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH. ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR THE LOCATION OF PUBLIC BUILDINGS CONSISTENT WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF SENATE BILL 489 OF 1979 (CHAPTER 718, STATS, 1979) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SEAL BEACH DOES HEREBY RESOLVE: WHEREAS, The Clty of Seal Beach is located in a standard metropolitan statlstlcal area (SMSA) wlth a populatlon of 250,000 or more WhlCh lS served by a public translt operator, as deflned In Section 99210 of the Health and Safety Code; and WHEREAS, Sectlon 25351" 25351,1, 25351,15, 37352,1 and 37352,2 of the Government Code, added by Senate Bill 489 of 1979 (Chapter 718, Stats, 1979) requlre that the board or leglslatlve body of a county or Clty so sltuated give consideratlon to the location of eXlstlng public translt corrldors In the constructlon, purchase, or leaslng (for flve or more years) of public buildings; and WHEREAS, a transit corrldor, as defined by Sectlon 50093,5 of the Health and Safety Code, represents that area withln one- quarter mlle of a translt route on WhlCh the level of serVlce lS at or above the average for the translt system as a whole; and I WHEREAS, the City Council lS the duly authorized legislatlve body of the Clty of Seal Beach, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that all future publlc bUlldlngs wlll be located In corridors served by public transit serVlce at or above avera~e serVlce levels for the area unless a flndlng lS made elther that lt is not feaslble to locate the public bUlldlng In such a transit corrldor, as determlned from applicatlon of criterla dlS- cussed In Exhlblt A, or that the affected local translt operator wlll provlde serVlce to the publlc bUlldlng, or that the purpose of the public bUllding does not require translt access, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the procedure for maklng these findlngs wlll lnclude requestlng the asslstance of the local translt operator In maklng a determinatlon of infeaslblllty and formally notlfYlng the Dlstrict as to the ultimate location decislon, Exceptlon to thlS procedure wlll be permltted for public bUlldings that do not require translt access, WhlCh are those publlc bUlldlngs generating less than 200 trip ends dally unless that public bUllding serves a dlsabled or otherwlse translt dependent populatlon, and those publlC bUlldings descrlbed In Exhlblt B of thlS resolutlon, I PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Councll Beach at a meetlng thereof h 1d on the ~I/:! 1983 by the followlng vote: ~~ Co '- -ir'" .:- 0 -.. t 8~"11 ;~~",-ro .o~..'ft""'1. ffr.;l'~ "o\~"i l*! ~~...~ ~ 0 : - : ct~ . . -:,,:- ~7A.C o.:~!: ,'F ..,..... ....4:1:: ~11~Q:;'~~f# 27. ''''~~/~o.! 'fl ,.. ...a.... Pt...~ #' Il~ OIlNt't .c.::..~ AYES: Councllmembers NOES: Councllmembsrs ABSENT: Counclimembars .~TTEST: ~~..:OJ/ .~ u ity erk Resol ution Number .s.:U...::? . EXHIBIT A , CRITERIA FOR FINDING IT IS INFEASIBLE TO LEASE. PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCT A PUBLIC BUILDING IN A TRANSIT CORRIDOR There are two primar,y criteria for a finding that it is not feasible to locate a publiC building in a transit corridor. These are: the unavail- abili~ of appropriate sites or space within a reasonable time frame. and excessive cost differentials between sites that are and are not in transit corridors. respectively. Site or space availability is relatively easy to detenuine. For construc- tion of a new building. the availability of appropriate vacant sites within transit corridors would be the measure. An exception would be a major mid- or high-rise building that could use a site alreadY developed but substantially under-utilized. Appropriate vacant sites would consider zoning and land use compatibility. A single family residential neighbor- hood would not be the appropriate location for a city hall or courthouse despite availability of vacant land. For space to be purchased or leased. the availability of appropriately sized buildings within the service area of the building would be the measure. If space is absolutely not avail- able within a transit corridor. such a finding should be ..de and docu- lllented IS the basis for selecting a site or space outside those corridors served by average or better levels of trans it service. Excessive cost differentials are difficult to define in the abstract. so there is no single formula for cost difference that can be utilized to justify a ~1nding Of infeasibility based on cost. The critical amount , would depe..w upon the Jurisdiction or agency. but a one-two percent differ- ence clearly would not be significant. while a four or five percent differ- ence mayor may not be. A significant or excessive cost differential must be considered in light of overall facility construction and operating costs. not just rent per square foot or land cost. In a typical office environment with each staff person utilizing 200-225 square feet. the cost of leasing office space is likely to be only 10 percent of labor costs when benefits are included. Even excluding other cost items such IS materials. supplies. and utilities. a doubling of rent levels would account for only a 10 percent increase in operating costs. As a more realistic example. a 20 to 40 percent rent differential. the largest amount likely to be associated with differences ~f transit access. would only represent a 2 to 4 percent differ- ential in total costs. Other factors could well offset tbfs minor differ- ence. such as a savings in number of parking spaces required or increased employee efficie~ resulting from a convenient and accessible location. Good transit service could reduce parking required by 20 to 50 percent. In evaluating cost differentials. consideration should be given to private (personal automObile) costs imposed on staff or clientel by a decision to locate a publiC building outside a transit corridor. Other considerations should include opportunity costs resulting from land productivity lost to parking facilities that might not otherwise be necessar,y. or the maintenance costs of parking (security. lighting. cleaning) required because of lack of trans it access. I I The intent of the legislation and the goals of the Southern California Association of Governments are to avoid the substitution of short-run cost considerations for proper long-term planning. Cost differences in the purchase of a site or a building must be amortized over the life-cycle of the building. not considered only in year of purchase. In conclusion. I cost differential of significant proportions is I legiti- I mate reason for a finding that it is not feasible to locate a public building in a transit corridor. but differences must be real and not offset by other slvings associated with a transit Iccessible site. . I I I . Resolution [lumber ..5'.::i&:.~ EXHIBIT B -, (~, PURPOSE OF A PUBlIC BUILDING DOES NOT REQUIRE TRANSIT ACCESS There are certain publiC buildings that by their nature may not be compa- tible with or benefit from a location in a transit corridor. This MOuld include: public buildings generating an insignificant number of public or employee vehicular or transit trips. public buildings incompatible with land uses normally found in major transit corridors. and public buildings that IlUst be located in particular service areas regardless of the quality of transit access. ,Particular types of public buildings may be exempted or excluded from review for several of the above reasons. Examples are easily visualized. These would include public buildings that represent extensive rather than intensive use of the land. such as ware- houses. sewage plants. vehicle maintenance yards. etc. Such uses. apart from generating relatively few trips that could be served by transit. .auld also be incompatible land uses ~th the residential. retail. or office commercial uses often found along the major arterial routes that receive high levels of transit service. Other uses that MOuld generate few trips that could be served by transit include uses such as fire sta- tions. police stations. anima~ pounds. etc. Few publiC trips are associated with a fire station or police station. and trips to an animal pound or shelter generally require the, use of an automobile since pe~s are discouraged or prohibited on buses. Public buildings that are oriented to serving a neighborhood such as a small park or tot lot are Clearly not concerned with regional access nor do t~ generate a large number of vehicle trips. In contrast. a major youth recreation facility or senior citizen center that draws from a larger area and serves a more transit dependent client group MOuld represent the types of public buildings that should be located in a corridor with average or above average levels of transit service. Based upon the expectation that such public buildings do not require transit access. a list of public buildings that typically MDuld be exempted from compliance ~th this legislation is presented below. A list of those public buildings that normally MDuld be expected to comply ~th this legislative IIIndate is also presented. These lists are not intended to be exhaustive but rather to denote the type of public buildings that MOuld and would not require review. Public Buildings Which Do not ReQuire Compliance Fire stations Police stations Vehicle maintenance or storage facility Warehouse or storage facility Animal pound Neighborhood park or tot lot Wilderness park or camp Sewage treatment facility Waste disposal site Public Buildings Which Require Compliance MuniCipal or county administrative offices (city halls. etc.) Health agencies or clinics Courts Social service agencies Senior citizen centers Libraries Community center or recreation faCility Community or sub-regional park oJails A suggested criterion for determining if other types of public buildings are required to locate in I transit corridor (including those on the list of public buildings normally requiring compliance) would be a minimal trip generation level of 200 persons per d~. Table 1 presents a matrix of trip generation "er emplQyee and per 1.000 square feet for various types of facilities'. ~ata based on surv~s by Caltrans and other agencies. Larger buildings could be excluded as well if the applicant could demonstrate to the transit operator that lower trip generation rates were appropriate. -" . . Resolution Number~-'4 TABLE 1. PUBLIC BUILDINGS TYPICALLY GENERATING 200 TRIPS DAILY Facl1 ity Type and Measure Trips. Average Range Factl ity Si ze Generating 200 Trips Govarnmental Office Building - per empl ayee - per 1.000 sq. ft. 10 33 6-12 20 - employees 25-69 6.000 - square feet I 37-82 4 - employees 29-88 5.000 - square feet Library - per employee - per 1.000 sq. ft. so 45 Hospital - per employee - per bed 5.5 12 3-11 3-033 3& - employees 17 - beds · employees and visitors. Sou~e: Michael Fajane. derived from following publications: , Ar Jna Department of Highw~s. Trip Generation Intensity Factors. 1976. California Department of Transportation (District 4). 12th Program Report--Trip Ends Generation Counts. December 1979. Institute of Transportation En9ineers. Trip Generation Handbook. 1979. I STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF OR~~CE ) SS CITY OF SEAL e[~CH ) I. ,lnanne rl. Yeo, City Clerk of the City of Seal ~eac"~ ~aliforn;a. dr. her.ery certify tl'at the forenoin~ resolution is tile or:(]1nal cony of Resolution I~umber 82.'% on file in the office of t~lE) Clty Clerk, passec', approved and adopted by the City Coun!:i]. ~f the City C1J.al, Beach a;;,,~., reQuiar neeting thereof held on the~$!C (jay of '/r.t..{ , L._. I