Laserfiche WebLink
17 <br /> <br />did not include affordable units. In FY 2015/2016 however, the Council adopted a DTPP <br />amendment reserving 15% of the housing development cap for affordable units. The <br />Council also adopted an affordable housing impact fee that applies to market rate <br />development. Since that time, more than 200 affordable units have been proposed <br />under the DTPP. Under full implementation of the DTPP, at least 375 units will be <br />affordable. <br /> <br />Before Amendment After Amendment <br />Market Rate Affordable Market Rate Affordable <br />1513 4 583 222 <br /> <br />The project complies with the Affordable Housing Ordinance as noted later in this <br />report. Also, in establishing an Affordable Housing Impact Fee, the City deliberately <br />chose to impose a lower fee than the maximum so that it does not discourage <br />development and for consistency with similar fees in nearby jurisdictions. <br /> <br />Third, the models for studying traffic, including ITE standard trip generation, do not <br />show different trip rates based on socio-economic characteristics of households. In <br />other words, the rate of development and socio-economic issues are not causing any <br />significant impacts or substantial increases in previously identified significant impacts. <br />Moreover, as discussed further below, the evidence shows the absence of such traffic- <br />related or other impacts. <br /> <br />(c) Appellant’s Contention: The scope of the City’s traffic review was intentionally <br />narrow, the traffic study omitted key intersections, and the analysis of <br />intersections outside of the DTPP area was faulty. (Appeal, pp. 12, 15.) <br /> <br />City Response: The City’s standard practice is to review traffic studies completed <br />by qualified transportation planning and engineering consultants on behalf of individual <br />projects. This review includes commenting on the adequacy of the analysis (in scope <br />and in methodology). Staff followed this procedure for the project, which included <br />reviewing and commenting on the traffic studies completed by Hexagon Transportation <br />Consultants, Inc. The Hexagon traffic studies compared the project’s contribution of <br />trips to study intersections and to the cumulative number of trips assumed to be created <br />by the full development of the DTPP. They also assessed the project’s relative <br />contribution to the cumulative intersection LOS based on the number of project trips and <br />the intersection LOS. For study intersections that are expected to operate at LOS E or F <br />in the cumulative scenario and that had more than 20 peak-hour projects trips, the <br />project’s contribution to that LOS was characterized as “moderate”. The effect was <br />characterized as being “minimal” under the following conditions: <br />· Cumulative LOS is E or F and project adds fewer than 20 peak-hour trips, or <br />· Cumulative LOS is A, B, C, or D and project adds fewer than 40 peak-hour trips. <br /> <br />Staff found the methodology and analysis from Hexagon to be acceptable for the <br />purpose of determining whether the project would generate any new impacts (or <br />8.A. - Page 17