HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 AB 1600 Study Session
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Study Session to review the preliminary results of the Capital Facility Fee Program
Nexus Study
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director
Phone Number: 781-7274
E-mail: xfowler@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: N/A
1.0 RECOMMENDATION
Provide input on the Draft results of the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study.
2.0 SUMMARY
The City’s Community Development, Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Police, Fire, and Utilities
departments are in the process of updating the fees charged to new development for a range of
transportation, parks and general government, public safety, and water a sewer capital facilities that
are important to the City’s future and quality of life. The economic vitality of the City is linked to
critical investment in its urban infrastructure system. While the current configuration of the existing
development impact fee programs has served an important role in funding infrastructure
improvements throughout the City over the last twenty years, changing economic circumstances, new
Specific Plans, and the City’s recently adopted public financing policies warrant an update of these
programs.
This project is a key implementation of the 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element General Plan
Update. The infrastructure identified in this study has been identified because it is necessary to
support build-out of the current General Plan. The project also builds off the City’s Economic
Development Strategic Plan and four prior study sessions held with the City Council to discuss
policies and practices for infrastructure financing. As the City Council and community review the
information contained in this report, it will be important to remember that these development impact
fees are one of a few possible sources of funding for the projects included in the fee program. For any
given project, multiple sources of funding may be necessary to ensure project feasibility (e.g. a
relatively small portion of a new police headquarters facility can and should be assigned to new
development through an impact fee).
The question of how these fees burden future development, such as new housing projects, and impact
project feasibility is a central issue for this study session. The study illustrates that the fee burden
associated with all potential impact fees may be too great when applied to a project, and that policy
decisions by the City are necessary to reduce the fee burden so that development remains feasible.
This issue is most clearly reflected in the retail fees associated with development in the southern City
fee area. Various options are available to the City to “fine tune” the fees for a given development type
and in each area to ensure that the fee program delivers important resources needed for the City to
complete these projects while making sure that the development subject to these fees is still feasible
and can still move forward.
Meeting Date: October 11, 2017
Item Number: 2
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 2
Previous study sessions with the City Council have resulted in specific recommendations and
direction to staff to keep all options on the table and pursue multiple funding sources for City
infrastructure projects. Where the City Council lands with respect to the development impact fee
program will help determine the size and scope of other funding mechanisms needed to provide
funding and deliver important City infrastructure in the future.
The studies provide the City with an opportunity to ensure that the identified set of development
impact fees generates revenue sources that will help the City to meet the demands of future growth.
The fee programs will supplement rates and other local, State, and Federal funding programs by
having new development pay a proportional share of the costs of these needed facilities. If
appropriately updated and implemented, the Capital Facilities Fee (CFF) Program and the Water and
Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program will serve as important stimulus for economic
development, providing certainty to developers about the rules and financial obligations they will
face while ensuring that adequate infrastructure will be available to support growth and enhance
competitiveness.
3.0 PLANNING COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
For the purposes of this meeting, the Planning Commission will review and provide input on the draft
Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study, focusing primarily on the policy questions identified in
Section 8 of this staff report. The Commission’s input will be considered by the City Council on
October 17, 2017, when they hold a study session on this item.
4.0 PROJECT BACKGROUND
Mitigation Fee Act
Over the last 30 years, the changing fiscal situation in California has steadily under -funded local
infrastructure. Accordingly, many cities have adopted a policy of “growth pays its own way.”
Requiring new development to fund infrastructure expansion through the imposition of public
facilities fees, also known as development impact fees.
Because of the widespread imposition of public facilities fees at the local level, the State Legislature
passed the Mitigation Fee Act (Assembly Bill 1600) in 1988. The Act, contained in California
Government Code Section 66000 et.seq., established ground rules for the imposition and
administration of impact fee programs. The Act became law in January 1989 and requires local
governments to document the following when adopting an impact fee:
1. Identify the purpose of the fee;
2. Identify the use of the fee revenues;
3. Determine a reasonable relationship between the use of the fee and the type of development
paying the fee;
4. Determine a reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development
paying the fee; and
5. Determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility
attributable to development paying the fee.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 3
In summary, a fee cannot be more than the cost of the public facility needed to accommodate the new
development paying the fee, and the fee revenues can only be used for their intended purpose.
Organization of the Report
The first step in determining an impact fee begins with the selection of a planning horizon and the
identification of projects needed to support the projected population and employment. These
projections are used throughout the analysis of various facility categories.
• General Government Facilities Impact Fee – city hall and the public works/community
development administrative facilities
• Public Safety Facilities Impact Fee – police and fire facilities
• Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee – parkland and recreational facilities
• Transportation Facilities Impact Fee – interchanges, roadways (widening & extensions),
intersections, pedestrian/bicycle, and transit
• Water and Wastewater Facility Impact Fees – capacity and connection facilities
Each category is organized under the following sections to clearly document the requirements of the
Mitigation Fee Act discussed above:
• The sections begin with a statement identifying the purpose of the fee by stating the types of
facilities that would be funded.
• The Service Population section identifies whether only residents or both residents and
businesses benefit from the facilities in the associated category. It identifies the appropriate
population figures to use in the analysis, and accounts for anticipated populations from those
developments that have vested rights. For transportation facilities, the Trip Generation section
defines the benefit relationship based on daily vehicle trips rather than on service population.
• The Facility Standards and Fee Schedule section establishes a reasonable relationship
between the need for the fee and type of development paying the fee. This section also
establishes a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility
attributable to development paying the fee. Using a common factor for facility costs per capita
or level of service, the schedule ensures that each development project pays its fair share of
total facility costs. For Transportation facilities, the Proportionate Share and Fee Schedule
sections defines the relationship based on land use types.
• The Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth section establishes a reasonable relationship
between the use of the fee revenues and the type of development paying the fee. This section
also estimates the total facility costs associated with new development over the planning
horizon. These costs equal the revenues that would be collected through the impact fee.
Programming of revenues to specific projects would be done through the City’s annual capital
improvement planning and budget process.
Geographic Fee Area
The geographic areas of the City to which the fees will apply are shown in Figure 1. This area includes
the current City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Boundary and is broken down into a North Area
and a South Area. The fee area also includes the following approved and pending projects:
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 4
• San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
• Avila Ranch Specific Plan
• Froom Ranch Specific Plan
• Downtown Concept Plan Area
• Airport Area Specific Plan
• Margarita Area Specific Plan
• Orcutt Area Specific Plan
• Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)
The fee area is anticipated to develop through the year 2035 and beyond. The Orcutt Area and LOVR
Area Specific Plans have vesting agreements with the City for payment of fees. Their contributions
are thus subtracted from the total cost of establishing a nexus, and the remainder of the cost is divided
between the new general Plan buildout projects.
Population Projections
The population estimates for the approved and pending developments were estimated by applying
density factors for the number of people per dwelling unit (DU) to each of the residential land uses.
The number of workers was estimated using density factors based on the number of building square
feet for each worker. The land use, population, and employment estimates are summarized in Table
1, Attachment 1. It estimates that the growth in the impact fee area will increase the City population
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 5
by 9,900 people and will generate about 11,100 new jobs.
Table S-1, Attachments 1-5, present a summary of the updated maximum development impact fees
for the City of San Luis Obispo in 2017 U.S. Dollars. Each facility category section provides a
detailed discussion of how these fees were calculated.
Background
The City has several approved impact and in-lieu fee programs that are currently collecting revenue,
including a transportation impact fee, water and waste water connection charges, an inclusionary
housing in-lieu fee, a public art in-lieu fee, and a park impact fee (an in lieu of dedication of parkland).
The Community Development Department is managing the process of updating the transportation
and park impact fee programs, and the development of new impact fee programs for general
government and public safety facilities.
It makes sense to develop the new fees and update the existing fees concurrently, because, if
appropriately designed and implemented, a comprehensive impact fee program can contribute to a
more holistic and systematic approach to planning for and funding future infrastructure needs. The
studies completed will build upon and reference the body of analysis prepared as part of the City’s
fee programs and infrastructure financing needs Citywide and in the City’s Specific Plan areas.
The City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan includes key policies relative to infrastructure
financing. Policy 1.3 calls on the City to analyze infrastructure plans to ensure that they are “right
sized” for the community. Policy 1.4 says that the fair-share fees applied to development should be
appropriate and established a program to work with the City Council to study this issue. Thus, study
sessions were held with the City Council and a set of recommendations was approv ed in a summary
document reviewed by the Council on August 16, 2017. One of the recommendations that came out
of the study sessions was to establish budget policies to guide decision-making around the various
type of financing mechanisms available for infrastructure. The City Council approved the following
new policies with the 2017-19 Financial Plan:
1. Public Purpose. There will be a clearly articulated public purpose in forming an assessment
or special tax district in financing public infrastructure improvements. This should include a
finding by the Council as to why this form of financing is preferred over other funding options
such as impact fees, reimbursement agreements or direct developer responsibility for the
improvements.
New development should generally be expected to “pay its own way,” (i.e., provide funding
through one mechanism or another that funds its “proportional share” of public
improvement and infrastructure costs and ongoing operations and maintenance costs).
(1) The City will consider the use of city-based funding sources to fund public facility
and infrastructure improvements that provide for the health, safety and welfare of
existing and future residents and/or provide measurable economic development and
fiscal benefits. In evaluating whether the City will use city-based funding sources,
the following evaluation criteria should be considered:
(a) Significant public benefit, demonstrated by compliance with and
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 6
furtherance of General Plan goals, policies, and programs
(b) Alignment with the Major City Goals and other important objectives in
place at the time of the application
(c) Head of Household Job Creation
(d) Housing Creation
(e) Circulation/Connectivity Improvements
(f) Net General Fund fiscal impact
(2) The City generally will not fund or offer public financing for infrastructure
improvements that confer only private benefit to individual property owners
or development projects.
(3) The City shall seek continuity (or improvements to) existing levels of
municipal service by assuring adequate funding for the City’s operation,
maintenance and infrastructure replacement costs.”
The remainder of this report focuses on the results of the project to update the City’s impact fee
structure. The fees identified are the maximum amounts that can be charged to development,
consistent with legal nexus requirements and fair-share analysis applied on a project by project basis.
However, the City Council must consider the effect of the fee program in total, and in doing so, may
provide staff with direction on the desire to incorporate other funding sources into the City’s
infrastructure financing plans so that development impact fees stay reasonable and appropriate, and
don’t impact the feasibility of new development.
5.0 CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM UPDATE
1. General Government Facilities Impact Fee
This section presents an analysis of the need for public building facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of San Luis Obispo. These public buildings include city hall and the
public works/community development administrative office facilities. A fee is presented based
on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to expand
these facilities to meet its needs.
Service Population
City Hall and Public Works/Community Development administration facilities serve both homes
and businesses citywide. Consequently, a service population that includes both residents and
workers reasonably represents the need for these facilities. As population grows with new
development, so does demand for the administrative services provided by these facilities.
Table 1, Attachment 1, shows the estimated future service population for general government
building facilities for 2035 and beyond. In calculating the service population, workers are
weighted less than residents to reflect lower per capita service demand. Non-residential buildings
are typically occupied less intensively than dwelling units, so it is reasonable to assume that
average per worker demand for services is less than ave rage per-resident demand. The 0.50-
weighting factor for workers is based on resident equivalency weighting of half an employee to
one resident.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 7
Facility Standards and Fee
Per capita facility standards are used in calculating the impact fee to ensure a reasonable
relationship exists between new development and the need for expansion of city hall and public
works/community development facilities. The costs associated with the future expansion of City
Hall and Public Works/Community Development facilities were divided by the service population
that included both residents and workers (equivalent residents) to obtain a per capita cost. The
resulting cost per resident of $274.64. The cost per worker is $137.32 (0.50 x 274.64).
The cost per capita was then multiplied by the density assumptions to determine a fee for each
land use, as shown in Table 3, Attachment-A.
Implementation
The general government facility impact fee would be collected at the time of building permit
issuance. To implement the fee the City should:
• Annually update a capital improvement plan to indicate the specific uses of fee revenues
for facilities to accommodate growth;
• Comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code 66000
et seq.; and
• Identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and allow an inflation
adjustment to the fee annually.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 8
For the inflation indexes, the City should use separate indexes for land and construction costs.
Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser every several years. The
construction cost index can be based on the City’s recent capital project experience or taken from
any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR).
2. Public Safety Fee Program
This section presents an analysis of the need for public safety facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of San Luis Obispo. A maximum fee schedule is presented based on the
cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet it s
needs.
Service Population
Public safety facilities serve both homes and businesses citywide. Consequently, a service
population that includes both residents and workers reasonably represents the need for these
facilities.
Table 3, Attachment 2, shows the estimated service population for public safety facilities for
2035 and beyond. In calculating the service population, workers are weighted less than residents
to reflect lower per capita service demand. The 0.50-weighting factor for workers is based on the
estimated number of service calls per employee compared to a resident.
Facility Standards and Fee
Per capita facility standards are used in calculating the impact fee to ensure a reasonable
relationship exists between new development and the need for new public safety facilities.
Fire Facilities
Table 1, Attachment 2, list a variety of fire safety related capital improvement projects that range
from existing fire station repairs to construction of Fire Station 5. Table 2, Attachment 2, list a
variety of fire vehicles and apparatus that will require replacement. The total funded cost for these
fire facilities is presented in Table 4, Attachment 2.
The cost associated with the future Fire public safety facilities were divided by the se rvice
population that included both residents and workers (equivalent resident) to obtain a per resident
cost of $223.40. A weight factor of 0.50 was applied to residential per capita costs to obtain the
non-residential per capita costs. The cost per worker is $111.70 90.50 x 223.40). The cost per
capita was then multiplied by the density assumptions to determine a fee for each residential land
use, as shown in Table 4, Attachment 2.
Police Facilities
Table 1, Attachment 3, list one project, the construction of a new police headquarters. Table 3,
Attachment 3, list the police vehicle cost to serve new development. The total funded cost for
these police facilities is presented in Table 4, Attachment 3.
The cost associated with the future police headquarters was divided by the service population that
included both residents and workers (equivalent resident) to obtain a per capita cost of $265.84.
A weight factor of 0.50 was applied to residential per capita costs to obtain the non-residential
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 9
per capita costs. The cost per worker is $132.92 (0.50 x 265.84). The cost per capita was then
multiplied by the density assumptions to determine a fee for each residential land use, as shown
in Table 4, Attachment 3.
Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth
As shown below in Table S-1, Attachment 2 and 3, provides an estimate of the maximum impact
fee that could be applied for public safety facilities at build-out in 2035 and beyond. The City
would maintain a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues
by funding a variety of projects to expand public safety facilities during this period.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 10
Implementation
The public safety facilities impact fee would be collected at the time of building permit issuance.
To implement the fee the City should:
• Annually update a capital improvement plan to indicate the specific uses of fee revenues
for facilities to accommodate growth;
• Comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code 66000
et seq.; and
• Identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and allow an inflation
adjustment to the fee annually.
For the inflation indexes, the City should use separate indexes for land and construction costs.
Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser every several years.
The construction cost index can be based on the City’s recent capital project experience or
taken from any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR).
3. Parkland Fee Program
This section presents an analysis of the need for parks facilities to accommodate new development
in the City of San Luis Obispo. A maximum fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these
facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Policies and Existing Conditions
The City’s 2001 Parks and Recreation Element identifies the following policies related to the
development of parks and recreational facilities:
• Policy 3.13.1 The Park System: The City shall develop and maintain a park system at the
rate of 10 acres per 1,000 residents. Five acres shall be dedicated as neighborhood park. The
remaining five acres required under the 10 acres per 1,000 residents in the residential
annexation policy may be located anywhere within the City’s park system as dee med
appropriate.
• Policy 3.15.1 Neighborhood Parks: San Luis Obispo residents shall have access to a
neighborhood park within 0.5 to 1.0-mile walking distance of their residence.
• Policy 3.15.1 Neighborhood Parks: All residential annexations areas shall provide
developed neighborhood parks at the rate of 5 acres per 1,000 residents.
• Policy 5.0.1 Facilities: The City shall continue to acquire parkland through the development
review and annexation process.
• Policy 5.0.2 Facilities: For Annexation areas, at least 10 acres of developed parkland for each
1,000 new residents shall be provided by the developer.
• Policy 5.0.4. Facilities: The City Council shall review the park in-lieu fees periodically to
ensure that they stay consistent with land acquisition and development costs.
• Policy 5.0.5. Facilities: Park on-lieu fees shall be committed to a project within two years
from collection and shall have direct benefit to area for which they were intended.
Existing Inventory of Improved Parkland
The city has a total improved park acreage of 195.4 acres. This total includes 183.2 acres of
community parks, neighborhood parks, and mini-parks; and 12.2 acres of recreational facilities
(i.e., the Ludwick Center). Based on the 2017 City population of 46,724, this represents 4.18 acres
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 11
per 1,000 residents.
Quimby Act
In addition to the Mitigation Fee Act, development impact fees for park land acquisition can be
applied under the Quimby Act (Government Code Section 66477), which requires developers set
aside land, donate conservation easements, or pay fees and/or cash - in-lieu of land for park
improvements. Revenues generated through the Quimby Act cannot be used for the operation and
maintenance of park facilities. The Quimby Act provides specific acreage/population standards
and formulas for determining the exaction, and requires that the exactions must be closely tied
(nexus) to a project’s impacts as identified through environmental review required by CEQA. The
Quimby Act is only applicable as a condition of subdivision map approval.
Service Population
Parks facilities serve both residents and workers citywide. Consequently, a service population that
includes both residents and workers reasonably represents the need for these facilities. As
population grows with new development, so does demand for recreation services provided by
these facilities. Table
Facility Standards and Fee
Per capita facility standards are used in calculating the impact fee to ensure a reasonable
relationship exists between new development and the need for new park facilities. A per capita
cost was calculated based on the estimated cost of new park facility, as shown in Table 7,
Attachment 4. This cost was then multiplied by the density assumptions to determine a maximum
fee, as shown in Table 6, Attachment 4.
This method of calculating assures that fairness exists between new and existing development and
that new development only funds expanded facilities to maintain the current level of service
standards.
Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth
As shown below in Table S-1, Attachment 4, provides an estimate of the maximum impact fee
that could be applied for parks and recreation facilities at build-out in 2035 and beyond. The City
would maintain a reasonable relationship between new development and the use of fee revenues
by funding a variety of projects to expand parks and recreation facilities during this period.
Implementation
The parks and recreation facilities impact fee would be collected at the time of building permit
issuance. To implement the fee the City should:
• Annually update a capital improvement plan to indicate the specific uses of fee revenues for
facilities to accommodate growth;
• Comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code 66000 et
seq.; and
• Identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and allow an inflation adjustment
to the fee annually.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 12
For the inflation indexes, the City should use separate indexes for land and construction costs.
Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser every several years. The
construction cost index can be based on the City’s recent capital project experience or taken from
any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR).
Table S-2, of Attachment 4, provides a comparison between the current fees and the maximum
fees that can be levied. The current fee program does not include fees for multi-family apartments,
or any non-residential uses (office, retail, hotel, etc.).
4. Transportation Fee Program
This section presents an analysis of the need for transportation facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of San Luis Obispo. These include both roadways and intersection
projects. A maximum fee schedule is presented based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that
new development provides adequate funding to meet its needs.
Trip Generation
Transportation facilities serve both homes and businesses citywide. Consequently, trip generation
rates based on both residential and non-residential land uses reasonably represents the need for
these facilities.
Different development projects impact the transportation network at different rates based on the
number of primary trips generated as indicated in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE)
Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition. The amount of daily primary trips generated by the approved
and pending projects in the Traffic Impact Fee program were obtained from the City’s
Transportation Model, the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the LUCE Update, or estimated
using trip rates from ITE.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 13
Table 3, Attachment 5, presents the average daily trips generated by the projects in the
Transportation Impact Fee program. The projects are estimated to generate approximately
257,865 average daily trips. These daily trip estimates are used in calculating fees for
interchanges, roadways, intersections, pedestrian/bicycle and transit facilities improvements.
Transportation Project Inventory
Table A-3, Attachment 5, contains the list of interchanges, roadways, intersections,
pedestrian/bicycle and transit facilities improvements projects in the CIP program. The list also
indicates which projects will or are expected to receive funding from other sources including
Regional government, grants, and developers.
Table 2, Attachment 5, summarizes the total transportation facilities improvement costs that will
be funded by the Transportation Impact Fee program, after accounting for financing costs,
regional funding sources, support existing development and/or address existing deficiencies, but
does not include adjustments for existing fee balances.
Transportation Development Impact Fee Calculations
To calculate the fee for transportation projects, the balance of the costs (approximately $79 million
for interchanges, $47 million for intersections, $38 million, $82.5 million for roadways, $58
million for pedestrian/bicycle improvements, $6.5 million for transit, and $3 million for median
and corridor improvements) were adjusted by subtracting the estimated costs to be recovered by
regional funding sources and the portion of improvement cost that support existing development
and/or address existing deficiencies. regional funding. Those costs were then divided by the total
number of trips allocated to the North and South Areas to get an average cost per trip (ADT).
These costs were then multiplied by the trip rates to determine the fee for each land use category,
as shown in Table 4, Attachment 5.
This method of calculation assures that fairness exists between new and existing development and
that new development only funds expanded facilities to maintain the current level of service
standards.
Transportation Fee Summary
Table S-1, Attachment 5, provides a summary of the maximum impact fees for interchange,
roadways, intersections, pedestrian/bicycle and transit projects that could be generated at build-
out in 2035 and beyond.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 14
Implementation
The transportation facilities impact fee would be collected at the time of building permit issuance.
To implement the fee the City should:
• Annually update a capital improvement plan to indicate the specific uses of fee revenues
for facilities to accommodate growth;
• Comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code 66000
et seq.; and
• Identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and allow an inflation
adjustment to the fee annually.
For the inflation indexes, the City should use separate indexes for land and construction costs.
Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser ev ery several years. The
construction cost index can be based on the City’s recent capital project experience or taken from
any reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR).
5. Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program
The Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program ensures that existing ratepayers
and new development equitably apportion costs related to existing and future capital expenditures.
On February 7, 2017, the City Council provided staff input on the update to what was formerly
identified as the City’s water and wastewater development impact fees. At that session, Council
supported the name change to “capacity and connection” fees to more clearly communicate what
the fees were paying for. The complete 2017 Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection
Fee Study (2017 Study), prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc., is provided as part of that staff report
for the October 17, 2017 public hearing item. Recommended fees are provided below in Table 1.
The methodology used in the 2017 Study the divides the value of existing and future water and
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 15
wastewater capital improvement costs by the estimated number of future growth units. In the 2017
Study, a “growth unit” is represented by a quantity of water demand and wastewater generation
by one residential unit. The City updated the projections for future residential and non-residential
development in “equivalent dwelling units,” or EDUs, based on a reduction in average water use
and wastewater generation, finding that 5,821 future EDUs can be accommodated in the City.
In the 2017 Study, the residential fee category was modified to add new categories to correspond
to residential units between 451 and 800 square feet and 801 square feet or more as water demand
correlates more closely to unit size than a single- or multi-family residential land use designation.
Fees for non-residential EDUs in the 2017 Study are based on water meter safe operating capacity
ratios from the American Water Works Association (AWWA) specifications.
Table 1: Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fees
Equivalent
Dwelling Unit
(EDU)
Water
Capacity and
Connection Fee
Wastewater
Capacity and
Connection Fee
Residential
(by Unit Size)
Residential Unit
(801 square feet or
more) 1.0 $15,780 $12,602
Residential Unit
(451 to 800 square feet) 0.7 $11,046 $8,821
Mobile Home 0.6 $9,468 $7,561
Studio Unit
(450 square feet or
less) 0.3 $4,734 $3,781
Non-Residential
(by Meter Size)
¾” 1.0 $15,780 $12,602
1” 1.7 $26,826 $21,423
1.5” 3.4 $53,652 $42,847
2” 5.4 $85,212 $68,051
3” 10.7 $168,846 $134,841
4” 16.7 $263,526 $210,453
6” 33.4 $527,052 $420,907
Implementation
The water and wastewater capacity and connection fees would be collected at the time of building
permit issuance. To implement the fee the City should:
• Annually update a capital improvement plan to indicate the specific uses of fee revenues for
facilities to accommodate growth;
• Comply with the annual and five-year reporting requirements of Government Code 66000 et
seq.; and
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 16
• Identify appropriate inflation indexes in the fee ordinance and allow an inflation adjustment
to the fee annually.
For the inflation indexes, the City should use separate indexes for land and construction costs.
Calculating the land cost index may require use of a property appraiser every several years. The
construction cost index can be based on the City’s recent capital project experience or taken from any
reputable source, such as the Engineering News Record (ENR).
6. Impact Fee Program Feasibility Considerations
Land use growth assumptions and development forecast – used to estimate future facility needs and
cost allocations.
Timeframe: The identification of infrastructure and capital facilities improvements must be
consistent with the timeframe under consideration in the nexus studies. The choice of timeframe was
based in part on an assessment of the accuracy and availability of land use and cost data.
Infill Development: Capturing the demand from infill development will be important to the success
of the fee programs, at least from an equity perspective.
Consolidation of related fees: The City already has a Citywide transportation fee in addition to four
Specific Plan areas fees. In some circumstances, a single combined fee may improve the City’s
flexibility in terms of how fee revenue can be spent and may ease the administration/accounting
requirements. In other circumstances, where the nexus logic does not support fee consolidation, a
system of fee zones and/or layering that vary be geography may be appropriate. The issue of whether
to have one Citywide fee or multiple fees that vary by location (or a combination of the two) will
have both technical and policy implications
Total Fee Burden
As the City considers updates to its impact fee structure, it is important to keep the total fee burden
experienced by a given development project in context. As part of the infrastructure financing
strategies identified in the City’s Economic Development Strategic Plan, a series of study sessions
have been presented to the City Council that outline the various options available for financing
important infrastructure. For example, with single-family residential development, a rule of thumb is
that the fee burden should not exceed 15 percent of the cost of the unit. This is illustrated in the
following graphic. The City’s capital facility fee program and water and sewer capacity and
connection fees will include an analysis of the overall fee burden on various types of development
projects (prototypes) to maintain overall financial feasibility. These efforts are being coordinated to
ensure consistency and compatibility across the fee program from the standpoint of fee administration
and financial feasibility.
Provided below are examples of the anticipated total fee burden for the Single Family, Multi -family
Apartments, and Retail prototypes. The industry feasibility thresholds for fee burden is shown in
green (10% of market value), yellow (15% of market value), and red (20% of market value.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 17
Please see Attachment 7 for additional examples of the total fee burden for Office/Business Park
(standalone building) and Office/Service (standalone building) prototypes.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 18
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 19
Potential Economic Impacts of New Impact Fees
The results of the impact fee nexus analysis identify the maximum legal impact fees that could be
charged on new development in San Luis Obispo. Legally, the City Council can adopt impact fees at
or below the maximum legal amounts identified. The findings of the economic feasibility analysis
show that the levels of impact fees that could be absorbed by new development in the near future, are
substantially below the maximum legal impact fees identified. Similar results occur in most
communities. Typically impact fee programs seek to balance the need for impact fee revenues with
the ability of development to pay the impact fees without affecting the pace and amount of
development.
The finding that new impact fees are at their maximum levels from an economic feasibility perspective
indicates that there could be some projects where new impact fees could delay development until other
changes in revenue or costs occur. These could include multi-family, retail and office buildings types
that can be difficult to finance and require high rents and process to achieve feasibility before the
additional costs of new impact fees. Imposing new impact fees also could affect development in
locations with lower rents and prices and limited or no market-rate development, where feasibility is
particularly sensitive to costs including the cost of new impact fees.
There are benefits associated with impact fee programs for development. Two types of benefits can
be important.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 20
• Greater certainty up front as to the impact fee amount and any other requirements can be of a
substantial benefit to a developer in saving time and costs as opposed to the situation with little
clarity and ad hoc negotiations.
• A mechanism for paying a development’s fair share of costs can be of benefit to a developer
compared to the situation where the largest project or the first project in an area must pay the
full cost of improvements serving the larger surrounding area while subsequent projects pay
less. An example is transportation impact fees to fund improvements required to mitigate
cumulative traffic impacts.
Impact Fee Comparisons Among Benchmark Cities
The analysis includes a comparative review of impacts in the cities that San Luis Obispo currently
uses as benchmarks. The focus was on impact fees assessed on the development prototypes that were
evaluated for the feasibility analysis. While impact fees in other cities are not necessarily indicative
of the level of impact fees feasible and appropriate in San Luis Obispo, the evaluation offers insight
into relevant market and feasibility considerations. Provided below are the development impact fee
comparisons for the Single Family, Multifamily Apartment, and Retail prototypes. The complete
analysis is provided in Attachment 8.
Single Family
Multifamily Apartments
Retail
6.0 PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT
Public input was gathered through a public engagement process that included a series of study sessions
with the City Council beginning in 2014, as well as a series of stakeholder meetings.
7.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
This is a study session, so staff is not recommending Council take any action on the Capital Facilities
Fee Program Nexus Study or the Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study now.
Modification of rates and charges by public agencies is statutorily exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under Section 15273 of the Public Resources Code because changes
in fees is not intended to fund expansion of capital projects not otherwise evaluated under CEQA.
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 22
8.0 FOCUSED POLICY QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION
Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate the City Council in their deliberations:
General Government Impact Fee Program
1. Is there support to implement this fee program?
Public Safety – Fire Impact Fee Program
2. Is there support to implement this fee program?
3. Is there a plan to fund the remainder of the cost need?
Public Safety – Police Impact Fee Program
4. Is there support to implement this fee program?
5. Is there a plan to fund the remainder of the cost need?
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Program
6. Is there support to use the Mitigation Fee Act to charge multifamily residential and non-
residential development?
7. Should this fee program change be implemented now or wait for the results of Parks and
Recreation Element and Master Plan Update?
Transportation Impact Fee Program
8. Is there support for the proposed consolidation of existing subarea fees, based on Specific Plan
boundaries, into a Citywide fee area that is then allocated based on geography (North and South
area)?
9. Is there support to leave the existing LOVR and OASP out of the proposed update to the fee
program?
10. Is there support to apply fee discounts to this fee program to reduce the fee burden for non-
residential land uses?
Additional or modified questions may result from the ongoing stateholder outreach and Planning
Commission review and input.
9.0 NEXT STEPS
After Planning Commission review, staff will present the Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program and the
Final Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study to the City Council during a study
session on Octber 17, 2017. The Consideration of the Final Capital Facilities Fee Program Study is
scheduled for the November 7, 2017 City Council agenda. Implementation of the new fee programs is
planned for January 1, 2018.
12.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. General Government Review Tables
2. Public Safety – Fire Review Tables
3. Public Safety – Police Review Tables
4. Parks Review Tables
Draft Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study
Page 23
5. Transportation Review Tables
6. Water and Sewer Capacity and Connection Fee - Final
7. Fee Comparison
8. Total Fee Burden Feasibility Analysis
Table S-1
Maximum Development Impact Fees: General Government
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item
Residential
Single Family $689.77 per Unit
Multifamily $496.70 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office $0.46 per Sq.Ft.
Retail $0.25 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial $0.18 per Sq.Ft.
Institutional $0.25 per Sq.Ft.
Service $0.25 per Sq.Ft.
Lodging $137.32 per Room
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Maximum Fire
Development Impact Fee
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\General Government Attachment 1
Table 1
Service Population Projections
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item 20171 2035 New Growth
Avg. Annual
Growth Rate2
Population (1% Growth)46,724 56,686 9,962 1.1%
Jobs 52,092 63,199 11,107 1.1%
Total Estimated Service Population3 72,770 88,286 15,516 1.1%
Percentage 82.4%100.0%17.6%1.1%
1 2017 population is based on estimates from the Department of Finance. Job projections are based on SLOCOG
estimates.
2 Average annual growth rate for population is slightly higher than the 1% growth policy as the projection was based
on the LUCE base year of 2013.
3 Employees weighting represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given 50 percent
the weight of residents because of more modest service demands.
Sources: Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Attachment 1
Table 2
Capital Cost Summary: General Government
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
City Hall 22,971
Public Works/ Community Development Office 17,000
Total Existing Administrative Facilities 39,971
Existing Service Population
Implied Citywide Existing Service Standard 549 Sq.Ft./1,000 Serv. Pop.
New Service Population1
Square Footage Allocated to New Growth 8,522
Average Administrative Facilities Construction Cost $500
Development Cost Allocated to New Growth
Cost per Service Population
1 See Table 1
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
$274.64
$4,261,246
Sq.Ft.
per Sq.Ft.
Sq.Ft.
Item Assumptions
72,770
15,516
Sq.Ft.
Sq.Ft.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\General Government Attachment 1
Table 3
Maximum Development Impact Fee Calculations: General Government
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item
Cost per Service Population 2 $274.64
Residential
Single Family 2.51 Persons/Unit 2.51 Persons/Unit 1.0 2.5 $689.77 per Unit
Multifamily 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.0 1.8 $496.70 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 1.7 $0.46 per Sq.Ft.
Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.9 $0.25 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.7 $0.18 per Sq.Ft.
Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.5 0.9 $0.25 per Sq.Ft.
Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.5 0.9 $0.25 per Sq.Ft.
Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room 1.0 Emp./Room 0.5 0.5 $137 per Room
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1 Non-Residential assumptions are based on the LUCE Fiscal estimates (page 7) except for Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.
2 See Table 2
Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Assumptions1 Service
Population
Multiplier
Service Pop. per Unit/
1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per Room
Maximum
Fee
Persons per Unit/
Sq.Ft./Job
Persons per Unit/ Jobs per
1,000 Sq.Ft./ per Room
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\General Government Attachment 1
Table S-1
Maximum Development Impact Fees: Fire
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item
Residential
Single Family $561.08 per Unit
Multifamily $404.03 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office $0.37 per Sq.Ft.
Retail $0.20 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial $0.15 per Sq.Ft.
Institutional $0.20 per Sq.Ft.
Service $0.20 per Sq.Ft.
Lodging $111.70 per Room
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Maximum Fire
Development Impact Fee
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Fire Attachment 2
Table 1
Capital Cost Summary: Fire
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Fire Station 1 Fire Apparatus Repair Facility (Remodel)
Fire Station 2 and 3
Fire Station 4 Remodel of Dorm and
Construction of Multi- Purpose Building (Remodel)
Fire Station 5 (New Construction)
Fire Pumper
Total
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Fire Service Master Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo
Fire Department 2009 and 2016; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Item
$14,372,037
Capital Cost
$550,000
$7,500,000
$400,000
$5,322,037
$600,000
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Fire Attachment 2
Table 2
Vehicle Summary: Fire
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Fire Department Vehicle Assigned Acquisition Replacement Number of Replacement Cost Average Total Through
Identification Description Program Year Year Units Life per Unit Annual Cost Buildout
Vehicles
Ford F150 Pickup Truck, 1/2 Ton Training Services 2002 2017 1.0 15.0 $58,000 $3,867 $69,600
Pierce Lance Fire Truck, Pumper Emergency Response 2003 2018 1.0 15.0 $624,000 $41,600 $748,800
Ford Ranger Pickup Truck, Compact Fire Administration 2005 2020 1.0 15.0 $40,000 $2,667 $48,000
Ford F550 Medium Duty Truck, w/Utility Bed Emergency Response 2008 2021 1.0 13.0 $110,000 $8,462 $152,308
Ford F550 Medium Duty Truck, w/Utility Bed Emergency Response 2008 2021 1.0 13.0 $110,000 $8,462 $152,308
Ford F150 Pickup Truck, 1/2 Ton Hazard Prevention 2008 2021 1.0 13.0 $65,000 $5,000 $90,000
International Navistar Fire Truck, Heavy Duty Emergency Response 2007 2022 1.0 15.0 $550,000 $36,667 $660,000
Chevrolet Silverado Pickup Truck, 1/2 Ton Hazard Prevention 2007 2023 1.0 16.0 $50,000 $3,125 $56,250
Chevrolet Silverado Pickup Truck, 1/2 Ton Hazard Prevention 2007 2023 1.0 16.0 $50,000 $3,125 $56,250
Ford F550 Medium Duty Truck, Crew Cab 4x4 w/Hooklift Bed Emergency Response 2001 2025 1.0 24.0 58,255 $2,427 $43,691
Toyota 4Runner SUV Emergency Response 2014 2026 1.0 12.0 $65,000 $5,417 $97,500
Toyota 4Runner SUV Emergency Response 2014 2026 1.0 12.0 $65,000 $5,417 $97,500
Chevrolet Suburban SUV, 1/2 Ton 4x4 n/a 2014 2026 1.0 12.0 $65,000 $5,417 $97,500
Onan DQHAB-750033 Generator, Stationary n/a 2009 2029 1.0 20.0 $140,000 $7,000 $140,000
Onan DGCA-5748767 Generator, Stationary n/a 2006 2026 1.0 20.0 $50,000 $2,500 $50,000
Onan DGCA-5748767 Generator, Stationary n/a 2006 2026 1.0 20.0 $50,000 $2,500 $50,000
Toyota Rav4 SUV Fire Prevention 2015 2028 1.0 13.0 $50,000 $3,846 $69,231
Toyota Rav4 SUV Fire Prevention 2015 2028 1.0 13.0 $40,000 $3,077 $55,385
Chrevrolet Suburban SUV, 1/2 Ton 4x4 Emergency Response 2016 2029 1.0 13.0 $40,000 $3,077 $55,385
Pierce Arrow Fire Truck, Tiller Quint Emergency Response 2010 2029 1.0 19.0 $120,000 $6,316 $113,684
Pierce Fire Truck, Pumper Emergency Response 2015 2030 1.0 15.0 $1,250,000 $83,333 $1,500,000
Mitsubishi FG50CN1 Forklfit, 10K Emergency Response 2015 2034 1.0 19.0 $1,000,000 $52,632 $947,368
Total Vehicle 22.0 $4,650,255 $295,931 $5,350,759
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Fire Service Master Plan Update for the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department 2009 and 2016; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Fire Attachment 2
Table 3
Service Population Projections
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item 20171 2035 New Growth
Avg. Annual
Growth Rate2
Population (1% Growth)46,724 56,686 9,962 1.1%
Jobs 52,092 63,199 11,107 1.1%
Total Estimated Service Population3 72,770 88,286 15,516 1.1%
Percentage 82.4%100.0%17.6%1.1%
1 2017 population is based on estimates from the Department of Finance. Job projections are based on SLOCOG
estimates.
2 Average annual growth rate for population is slightly higher than the 1% growth policy as the projection was based
on the LUCE base year of 2013.
3 Employees weighting represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given 50 percent
the weight of residents because of more modest service demands.
Sources: Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Attachment 2
Table 4
Capital Cost Allocations to Existing and New Growth
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item Total Existing New Growth
Allocation 1 100.0%82.4%17.6%
Improvement/ Vehicle Costs $600,000 $494,553 $105,447
Fire Capital Improvements2 $14,372,037 $11,846,222 $2,525,815
Fire Vehicles3 $5,350,759 $4,410,390 $940,370
Total $19,722,796 $16,256,612 $3,466,184
New Growth Improvement Costs $3,466,184
Service Population Growth 15,516
Cost per Service Population $223.40
1 See Table 3
2 See Table 1
3 See Table 2
Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing
Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Fire Attachment 2
Table 5
Maximum Development Impact Fee Calculations: Fire
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item
Cost per Service Population 2 $223.40
Residential
Single Family 2.51 Persons/Unit 2.51 Persons/Unit 1.0 2.5 $561.08 per Unit
Multifamily 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.0 1.8 $404.03 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 1.7 $0.37 per Sq.Ft.
Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.9 $0.20 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.7 $0.15 per Sq.Ft.
Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.5 0.9 $0.20 per Sq.Ft.
Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.5 0.9 $0.20 per Sq.Ft.
Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room 1.0 Emp./Room 0.5 0.5 $112 per Room
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1 Non-Residential assumptions are based on the LUCE Fiscal estimates (page 7) except for Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.
2 See Table 4
Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and
Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Assumptions1
Maximum
Fee
Persons per Unit/
Sq.Ft./Job
Persons per Unit/ Jobs per
1,000 Sq.Ft./ per Room
Service
Population
Multiplier
Service Pop. per Unit/
1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per
Room
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Fire Attachment 2
Table S-1
Maximum Development Impact Fees: Police
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item
Residential
Single Family $667.67 per Unit
Multifamily $480.79 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office $0.44 per Sq.Ft.
Retail $0.24 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial $0.18 per Sq.Ft.
Institutional $0.24 per Sq.Ft.
Service $0.24 per Sq.Ft.
Lodging $132.92 per Room
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Maximum Police
Development Impact Fee
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Police Attachment 3
Table 1
Capital Cost Summary: Police
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Sq.Ft.
Est. Price
/Sq.Ft.
New Police Headquarters (New Construction)1 40,000 $500 $20,000,000
1 Existing police headquarters is approximately 15,000 square feet with 59 sworn officers (254 sq.ft./sworn officer).
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Item
Capital
Cost
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Police Attachment 3
Table 2
Vehicle Summary: Police
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Formula Assumptions
Existing Police Vehicles a 44
Existing Sworn Officers b 59
Police Vehicles/Sworn Officers c=a/b 0.75
Existing Service Population d 72,770
Sworn Officers/1,000 Serv. Pop.e=b/(d/1,000)0.81
Net New Service Population f
Implied New Sworn Officers g=(e(f/1,000)12.58
Implied New Vehicles h=gc 9.38
Estimated Cost per Vehicle i $65,000
Police Vehicle Cost to Serve New Development j=i*h $609,800
1 Average cost includes range of vehicles such as tactical vehicles.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Item
15,516
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Police Attachment 3
Table 3
Service Population Projections
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item 20171 2035 New Growth
Avg. Annual
Growth Rate2
Population (1% Growth)46,724 56,686 9,962 1.1%
Jobs3 52,092 63,199 11,107 1.1%
Total Estimated Service Population3 72,770 88,286 15,516 1.1%
Percentage 82.4%100.0%17.6%1.1%
1 2017 population is based on estimates from the Department of Finance. Job projections are based on SLOCOG
estimates.
2 Average annual growth rate for population is slightly higher than the 1% growth policy as the projection was based
on the LUCE base year of 2013.
3 Employees weighting represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given 50 percent
the weight of residents because of more modest service demands.
Sources: Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Attachment 3
Table 4
Capital Cost Allocations to Existing and New Growth
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item Total Existing New Growth
Allocation for Capital Improvements 1 100.0%82.4%17.6%
Allocation for Vehicles 100.0%0.0%100.0%
Improvement/ Vehicle Costs
Police Capital Improvements2 $20,000,000 $16,485,099 $3,514,901
Police Vehicles3 $609,800 $0 $609,800
Total $20,609,800 $16,485,099 $4,124,701
New Growth Improvement Costs $4,124,701
Service Population Growth 15,516
Cost per Service Population $265.84
1 See Table 3
2 See Table 1
3 See Table 2
Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing
Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Police Attachment 3
Table 5
Maximum Development Impact Fee Calculations: Police
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item
Cost per Service Population 2 $265.84
Residential
Single Family 2.51 Persons/Unit 2.51 Persons/Unit 1.0 2.5 $667.67 per Unit
Multifamily 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.81 Persons/Unit 1.0 1.8 $480.79 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 1.7 $0.44 per Sq.Ft.
Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.9 $0.24 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.5 0.7 $0.18 per Sq.Ft.
Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.5 0.9 $0.24 per Sq.Ft.
Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.5 0.9 $0.24 per Sq.Ft.
Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room 1.0 Emp./Room 0.5 0.5 $133 per Room
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1 Non-Residential assumptions are based on the LUCE Fiscal estimates (page 7) except for Institutional and Service uses which assume the same employment density as Retail.
2 See Table 4
Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and
Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Assumptions1 Service
Population
Multiplier
Service Pop. per
Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per
Room
Maximum
Fee
Persons per Unit/
Sq.Ft./Job
Persons per Unit/ Jobs per
1,000 Sq.Ft./ per Room
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\Police Attachment 3
Table S-1
Maximum Citywide Parkland and Improvement Development Fees (outside of expansion areas)
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Quimby Act Mitigation Fee Act Mitigation Fee Act
Parkland Parkland Park Improvement
Land Use In-Lieu Fee Impact Fee Impact Fee
Residential
Single Family $3,151 $0 $2,880 $6,030 per Unit
Multifamily (Condominiums)$2,269 $0 $2,074 $4,342 per Unit
Multifamily (Apartments)$0 $1,457 $2,074 $3,530 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office $0 $1.34 $1.91 $3.25 per Sq.Ft.
Retail/ Service/ Instit.$0 $0.73 $1.04 $1.77 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial $0 $0.54 $0.76 $1.30 per Sq.Ft.
Hotel (per Room)$0 $403 $573 $976 per Room
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total
Fee
Attachment 4
Table S-2
Comparison of Estimated Maximum with Current Fees
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Existing
Land Use Fee
Residential
Single Family $5,668 $6,030 per Unit
Multifamily (Condominiums)$4,494 $4,342 per Unit
Multifamily (Apartments)$0 $3,530 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office $0 $3.25 per Sq.Ft.
Retail/ Service/ Instit.$0 $1.77 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial $0 $1.30 per Sq.Ft.
Hotel (per Room)$0 $976 per Room
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Maximum
New Fee
Attachment 4
Table 1
Existing Parks and Recreation Land
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Existing Park and Recreation Land *Acreage
Existing Parklands
Damon Garcia Sports Field, Broad @Tank Farm 22.0
Chinese Garden, Santa Rosa @ Marsh 0.3
DeVaul Park , west end of Madonna 0.9
Emerson Park, Nipomo @ Pacific 3.3
French Park, Poinsettia @ Fuller 10.0
Laguna Hills Park, San Andriano Ct.3.2
Demonstration Garden, South @ Broad 0.1
Vista lago Park, Vista del lago 0.2
Stoneridge Park, 535 Bluerock Dr 1.0
Buena Vista Park, Buena Vista Ave.0.5
Sinsheimer Park/ Sports Complex, 900 Southwood 21.7
Mitchell Park, Osos @ Bucheon 3.0
Anholm Park, Mission St 0.1
Throop Park, Cuesta @ Cerro Romauldo 3.0
Santa Rosa Park, Santa Rosa @Oak 11.0
Johnson Park, Augusta 5.0
Meadow Park, South @ Meadow 16.0
Ellsford Park, San Luis Drive near California 1.0
Osos Triangle Park, Osos @ Church 0.2
Las Praderas Park, Las Praderas and Mariposa 0.4
Priolo-Martin Park, Vista del Collados & Vista del Arroyo 0.5
Laguna Lake Park, 500 Madonna Rd 40.0
Jack House Gardens, Marsh @ Beach 0.8
Laguna Lake Golf Course, 11175 LOVR 27.0
Railroad Bike Path, Orcutt to Jennifer 10.0
Poinsettia Creek Walk, Poinsettia @ Rosemary 2.0
Total Existing Parklands 183.2
Existing Recreational Facilities
Rodriguez Adobe, Purple Sage Lane 1.4
Islay Hills Park, Tank Farm @ Orcutt 6.0
Canet Adobe, 464 Dana St.0.5
Mission Plaza, Broad @ Monterey 3.0
Ludwick Center, Santa Rosa @ Mill 1.0
Jack House, 536 Marsh St 0.1
Senior Center, 1445 Santa Rosa St 0.1
Meadow Park Center, 2333 Meadow St 0.1
Total Existing Recreational Facilities 12.2
Total Existing Parklands and Recreational Facilities 195.4
* This does not include the substantial inventory of City open space. Attachment 4
Table 2
Current Parks Provision/ Implied Service Standard
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item
2017 City Residents
2017 Jobs
2017 City Service Population (1)
2017 Park and Recreation Land 195.39 acres
Park Acres per 1,000 Residents 4.18 acres
Park Acres per 1,000 Service Population 2.69 acres
(1) Service population is a measure of relative demand between residents and employees.
Jobs/ employees are given half the weight of a resident.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; California Department of Finance (population);
SLOCOG (jobs); Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
46,724
52,092
72,770
Amount
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117 Attachment 4
Table 3
Statutory Authority and Parkland and Park Improvements Service Standards Applied
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item Land Improvements
Residential
Single Family/ Condominiums Quimby Act Mitigation Fee Act
4.18 acres/ 1,000 residents 2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.
Multi-Family Apartments Mitigation Fee Act Mitigation Fee Act
2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.
Commercial
All Types Mitigation Fee Act Mitigation Fee Act
2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117 Attachment 4
Table 4
Single Family/ Condominium Development: Parkland In-Lieu and Park Improvements Cost per Person
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item
Existing Standard 4.18 acres/ 1,000 persons 2.69 acres/ 1,000 service persons
Cost/ Acre (1)$300,000 per acre $427,000 per acre $727,000 per acre
Cost/ 1,000 persons
Cost per Person/$2,401 per Person/
per Serv. Pop.Serv. Pop.
(1) Per acre land and improvement costs provided by City staff based on recent values from the Orcutt Area.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total
$2,401,049$1,146,512
$1,147
$1,254,537
$1,255
Land (1)Improvements (1)
(Quimby Act In-Lieu)(Mitigation Fee Act)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117 Attachment 4
Table 5
Multi-Family Apartments and Non-Residential Development: Parkland and Improvement Costs per Service Population
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item
Standard 2.69 acres/ 1,000 serv. pop.2.69 acres/ 1,000 serv. pop.
Cost/ Acre $300,000 per acre $427,000 per acre $727,000 per acre
Cost/ 1,000 serv. Pop.
Cost per Serv. Pop.$1,952 per Serv. Pop.
(1) Per acre land and improvement costs provided by City staff based on recent values from the Orcutt Area.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
$805,512
$806
$1,146,512
$1,147
(Mitigation Fee Act)(Mitigation Fee Act)Total
$1,952,024
Land (1)Improvements (1)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117 Attachment 4
Table 6
Population, Employment, and Service Population Assumptions
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Persons per Unit/Persons per Unit/Service Population Service Population
Item Sq. Ft. per Job (1)Jobs per 1,000 Sq. Ft./Multiplier (2)per Unit/ 1,000 Sq. Ft./
per Room per Room
Residential (per Unit)
Single Family 2.51 2.51 1.00 2.51
Condominiums 1.81 1.81 1.00 1.81
Apartments 1.81 1.81 1.00 1.81
Non-Residential
Office 300 3.33 0.50 1.67
Retail/ Service/ Instit.550 1.82 0.50 0.91
Industrial 750 1.33 0.50 0.67
Hotel (per Room)1.0 1.00 0.50 0.50
(1) Persons per unit derived from San Luis Obispo General Plan/ LUCE growth assumptions. Square Feet per job derived from
LUCE and associated documents.
(2) Service population is a measure of relative demand between residents and employees. Jobs/ employees are given half the weight of a resident.
Sources: San Luis Obispo General Plan/ LUCE; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117 Attachment 4
Table 7
Estimates of Maximum Potential Citywide Parks Fees *
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Service Population Cost per Service Population (2)
Item per Unit/ 1,000 Sq. Ft./Land Improvements Land Improvements
per Room (1)
Residential (per Unit)
Single Family 2.51 per unit $1,255 $1,147 $3,151 $2,880 $6,030 per unit
Condominiums 1.81 per unit $1,255 $1,147 $2,269 $2,074 $4,342 per unit
Apartments 1.81 per unit $806 $1,147 $1,457 $2,074 $3,530 per unit
Non-Residential
Office 1.67 per 1,000 sq. ft.$806 $1,147 $1.34 $1.91 $3.25 per sq.ft.
Retail/ Service/ Instit.0.91 per 1,000 sq. ft.$806 $1,147 $0.73 $1.04 $1.77 per sq.ft.
Industrial 0.67 per 1,000 sq. ft.$806 $1,147 $0.54 $0.76 $1.30 per sq.ft.
Hotel 0.50 per room $806 $1,147 $403 $573 $976 per room
*Applies to all areas except those where park requirements/ fees are defined by Specific Plan/ Development Agreement.
(1) See Table 6.
(2) See Tables 4 and 5.
(3) Includes both Park In-Lieu fees under the Quimby Act and Park Development Impact Fees under the Mitigation Fee Act.
Sources: San Luis Obispo General Plan/ LUCE; City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total
Maximum Citywide Parks Fees (3)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117 Attachment 4
Maximum Transportation Development Impact Fees
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Land Use
Residential
Single Family $7,110 per Unit $12,838 per Unit
Multifamily $5,587 per Unit $10,088 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office/Service $8.65 per Sq.Ft.$15.62 per Sq.Ft.
Retail $30.53 per Sq.Ft.$55.13 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial $11.29 per Sq.Ft.$20.38 per Sq.Ft.
Institutional $8.65 per Sq.Ft.$15.62 per Sq.Ft.
Hotel $3,168 per Room $5,721 per Room
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
North Area
Table S-1
South Area
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092117New Attachment 5
NorthSantaRosa
NorthSantaRosa
California
California
Santa
Rosa
Tank Farm
Foothill
Tank Farm
TankFarmSouthHiguera
Tank Farm
F o othillS
o
u
t
hH
i
g
u
e
r
a
SouthHigueraLosOsosValley
Los
Oso
s
Valley
Santa
Rosa
W estFoothillWestFoothillL
osOsosValley
Br
o
a
d HigueraLos
Osos
Valley HigueraHigueraMadonna
Madonna MarshMarshOrcuttChorroOr
c
u
t
tMontereyHighlandJohnson
Jo
h
n
s
o
n
JohnsonCaliforniaGrand
Gr
a
n
d
IndustrialPismoChorro
Ch
o
r
r
o
Prado PismoCapito lio
Os
o
s
HighPalm
South
OrcuttPalmOs
o
s
LaurelOrcuttSantaBarbaraO'
C
o
n
n
o
r
TaftBroad
VachellM
orro
M
o
r
r
o
Murray
MeadowMillMillCol
lege
Cam pusSanLuisGranada
F ieroSuburban BishopPrefumo Canyon
AeroHooverBuckley Buckley
Buckl
e
yFroomRanchAutoParkParkerLongSacramentoUphamWalnutTo
r
o
SantaFeHooverTor
o
ElMercado
ElksCalleJoaquinPacificHighland
LaurelMontalbanSydneySouthwoo
d
ShortSantaFeSouthwoodPacific
Royal LaEntradaHind LizzieMcmillanSouthTassajaraBeebeeBuchonBuchonBridge
Meinecke
Ni
p
o
m
o
Ni
p
o
m
o
LagunaCasaPatriciaClarion
H
o
l
l
y
h
o
c
kNorthTassajaraBr
o
a
d
DescansoRamona
SacramentoOliveDali
d
i
o EllaRoyalMontereyAugusta
Ga
r
d
e
n
Augusta
AerovistaVenture
Cross ViaCarta
B
o
r
o
n
d
a
Ramona
WavertreeDexterAndre
w
sMountBishop
Pe
p
p
e
r
LincolnO
s
o
s IslayPeachPeach
Oak
Hedley BuenaVistaWoodbridge
Kerry IslayStennerGalleon
P
o
i
n
s
e
t
t
i
a
Poinsettia
KendallKingSie
r
r
a
West
Zaca
MapleGarciaAtascaderoOceanaireOceanaire ViaEstebanJeffreySpitfireBonetti
Tanglewood
Morning
Glory
T a n g le w o o d
FullerHigueraFredericks
OldWindmillDelRio
W
alker
EmpleoRoundhouse
Slack
EmpresaRicardoAirport
L
o
s
C
e
r
r
o
s
Fontana
Luneta
Le
m
o
nMonteVista
RailroadSandercock
SueldoFarmhouseFerrin
i
Mission
Je
n
n
i
f
e
r
BrookpineUni
versi
tyCreeksideVist
a
Mitchell
N
orth
C
h
orro
Mccollum
Branch
SpanishOaksChurchArcher PalmBluebellDuncanFernwoodLeffStafford
LeffChumash
Pe
r
e
i
r
a
Phillips
Las Praderas
Carm
el
Stoneridge SanLuisCarpenter HathwayBe
a
c
h
Center
DevaulRanch
DavenportCreekWestmont
HighChorroCuesta
LaVirada
EtoKentu
c
kyViewmontCoriander
Ro
bertoPolyVue
Miguelito
BasilBrook
AlicitaPine
Fixlini
WardLa CitaLosVerdes BreckThreeSisters ElPaseoPolyCanyonLo s Pal o s SmithBianchi
MutsuhitoHe
n
r
y
Ru
t
h
BottomwoodSenderoAlyssumM ou n tainCayucosCamd
e
n
MelloLakeviewRichardTolosa
RositaHumbertRougeot
SweeneyBentonThreadLawnwoodSte
p
h
a
n
i
e
Fontana
Magnol
i
a
Birch
Montecito EllenSycamoreF
a
ir
wa
y Cuyama
CalleJazminSanM ateoCastilloLa
P
o
sa
d
aVerdeAbbottFrancis EdgewoodHuttonStoryHarrisCypressPriceSydneyBin
n
s
Elm
Je
a
n ConejoS a wleaf
Old Sante Fe PerkinsElCapitanWarren
CordovaPurpl
eSageFunston
A
l
mond PhillipsLarkspur
Craig
DelCam inosSisquocSantaLuciaWestNewportM anza n itaCenter
HorizonHillcrestPalomarWilson
Cazadero
QuailMalibu
ViaSanBlas
Bougain v ille aGarnette
M
orabito
M
u
i
r
fi
el
dGarfield
Bond
To
nini
Calle Lupita
Vi
c
t
o
r
i
a
Pi
n
e
c
o
v
e
ProspectAndrewsCloverDelNorte
CalleCrotaloMountainViewFeltonSkyline
Hays
DanaHope
CoralCaudill
C e r r o Romauldo
He
l
e
n
a
B
o
y
s
e
n
San Carlos
EsperanzaJespersonV ia E
n s enada BluerockVista delCollados
Via
C
arta
LaVinedaHu
a
s
n
a
Vic
e
n
t
e
Corrida
WoodsideLoomis LoomisSerrano Heights
GatheBal
b
o
a
TiburonLawrence
R
ockvie
w
Goldenrod
EvansVillage Fl
o
r
a
Fl
o
r
a
MountBishop
B u e n a Vista
C
r
a
n
d
a
l
l
EstelitaPa
r
k
LompocElTigre
RosePrin
c
eto
n
BushnellVis
t
a
d
el
A
r
r
oyoKentwoodRafaelBayLeaf
W
ilding
AlleneRachelThelma
LomaBonita
St
a
n
f
o
r
d
Del Sur
Alder
Sunflower
Sa
n
A
d
riano
Florence
Spooner
Mirada LongviewAlbert
GaribaldiS a ntaYnezCuesta
M a r i posa BlvddelCampoCreekside
Gr
o
v
e
P
a
t
r
i
c
i
a
CorralitosP
a
s
a
tie
mp
o
VistadelLago
Ironbark
Hil
l
F
ore
m
a
nKaren
PicoOleaSolaChaplin
PortolaRichGeorgePa
r
k
l
a
n
d
JaniceSequoiaHiddenSpringsChuparrosa
K
l
a
ma
t
h
BuckeyeGerdaLilyLynnWelsh
Marlene
Daly
Deseret
RebaFletcher
ElCentro
Populu
sChurch
YarrowDeAnzaLaLunaJaliscoIrisM arig o l dDart
m
o
ut
h
Fa
r
r
i
e
r
Singletre
e GravesHendersonCapistrano
Madrone
L o b e liaSanMarcosNojoquiClearview
Cla ire LaCanadaRosemaryChristinaBoxwood
Sequoia
B
l
u
e
b
ellBrizzolaraDeerCambriaColumbine
R
a
n
c
h
o
Canyon
MarshaBrittany
VegaFrambuesaHarmony
FelMar
El
Cerrito
TulipAraliaCastaicCavalierNe
w
p
o
r
t
Partr idge LeonaBeechTr u ckee
BriarwoodSant
a
Ma
ria
Li
m
a
Maple PinnaclesHansen
Ch a p a r r a l
Ashmore
Tarragon
C y c la menI
lene CeceliaFelicia
Gr
e
t
a
Jane CampusOakridge
Su
n
s
e
t
Mason
Su
n
r
o
s
e
Venable
CrestviewTa
h
o
e
Montrose
AlritaHazelOra
n
geBarrancaCarolynMira Sol
DrakeM
ustang
C u c aracha
Hathway
MuguS
antaCl araWoodland
Swe
e
t
b
a
yAlHilLexingtonAnacapa
Gu
l
f
TwinRidge
Amb r o s ia
Huckleb
e
rryP
a
c
h
e
c
o
SeawardLawtonBedfordAva
l
o
n
WisteriaDel Mar
Snapdragon
C
o
u
per
Cachuma
Ojai
PaseoBellaMontana
SantaFeHermosaIsabella KingWoodbridgeIrisFixliniLos Verdes
LosPalosOceanaireHighland
Cerro Romauldo
Murray
Poinsettia
d
elBrisa
EarthoodDaisyCherryVioletAsterBlackberry Plum
Sage
Junipero
CantoMargaritaDiabloViaLagunaVista
Kilarney
D onegal
Arroyo Valle VistaNasellaPoa
SlenderRock
FennelLavenderWillowAttachment 5
Table 1
City Transportation Capital Improvement Projects in Fee Program
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Improvement Category Cost Percentage
Interchange1 $78,822,720 28.6%
Intersection $46,920,000 17.0%
Street Widening2 $38,231,278 13.9%
Street Extension $44,283,500 16.1%
Corridor $2,000,000 0.7%
Pedestrian/ Bicycle $58,000,000 21.0%
Transit $6,500,000 2.4%
Miscellaneous $900,000 0.3%
Total3 $275,657,498 100.0%
1 Includes financing costs for Highway 101/Prado Road Interchange and High-
way 101/LOVR Interchange
2 Includes financing costs for the Prado Road Bridge West of Higuera
3 List does not include all future projects the City may undertake.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Wallace Group; Cambridge Systematics;
and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092117New Attachment 5
Table 2
Summary of Capital Improvement Cost Allocations
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Item Total Cost
Transportation Costs of Projects (including financing)1 $275,657,498
Regional Funding Assumptions $33,115,700
Fee Account Balances $0
Existing Deficiency $66,878,472
New Growth Cost Allocation $175,663,326
1 Includes financing costs for Highway 101/Prado Road Interchange and Highway 101/LOVR
Interchange and the Prado Road Bridge West of Higuera
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Wallace Group; Cambridge Systematics; and Economic &
Planning Systems, Inc.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092117New Attachment 5
Table 3
Costs per Trip by Geography
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Average
Geography Costs Percentage Trips Percentage Cost per Trip
North Area $25,029,451 14.2%59,509 23.1%$421
South Area $150,633,875 85.8%198,355 76.9%$759
Total/ Average $175,663,326 100.0%$257,865 100.0%$681
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Total Costs to New Dev.Total Trips
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092117New Attachment 5
Table 4
Maximum Fee Calculation by Trips Generation by Land Use and by Area
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Land Use
Cost per Trip
Residential
Single Family 16.91 per unit $7,110 per Unit $12,838 per Unit
Multifamily 13.28 per unit $5,587 per Unit $10,088 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office/Service (1)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft.$8.65 per Sq.Ft.$15.62 per Sq.Ft.
Retail (2)72.60 per 1,000 sq.ft.$30.53 per Sq.Ft.$55.13 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial 26.84 per 1,000 sq.ft.$11.29 per Sq.Ft.$20.38 per Sq.Ft.
Institutional (3)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft.$8.65 per Sq.Ft.$15.62 per Sq.Ft.
Hotel (4)7.53 per room $3,168 per Room $5,721 per Room
(1) Trip generation rates based on an average of office and service trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
(2) Trip generation rates based on an average of low and medium retail trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
(3) Trip generation rates based on office/service trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
(4) Trip generation rates based on motel trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
$421 $759
Trip
Generation Rates South AreaNorth Area
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092117New Attachment 5
Table A-1
Transportation Model Growth Forecasts by Land Use and by Area
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Land Use Citywide North South Citywide North South Citywide North South
Residential (Dwelling Units)
Single Family 8,289 6,981 1,308 3,102 985 2,117 11,391 7,966 3,425
Multifamily 12,084 9,208 2,876 3,034 887 2,147 15,118 10,095 5,023
Total Residential Units 20,373 16,189 4,184 6,136 1,872 4,264 26,509 18,061 8,448
Non-Residential (Sq.Ft.)
Office/Service 2,487,603 1,607,157 880,447 3,911,560 635,783 3,275,777 6,399,163 2,242,940 4,156,223
Retail 5,290,842 1,787,679 3,503,163 1,043,493 212,494 830,999 6,334,335 2,000,173 4,334,162
Industrial 2,987,985 152,910 2,835,075 115,185 2,418 112,767 3,103,170 155,328 2,947,842
Institutional 340,771 311,607 29,165 44,439 616 43,822 385,210 312,223 72,987
Total Non-Residential Sq.Ft.11,107,201 3,859,352 7,247,849 5,114,677 851,312 4,263,365 16,221,878 4,710,664 11,511,214
Hotel (Rooms)2,183 1,601 582 651 331 320 2,834 1,932 902
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Existing Growth Buildout
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092117New Attachment 5
Table A-2
Trips Generation Associated with Growth Forecasts by Land Use and by Area
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Land Use Citywide North South Citywide North South Citywide North South
Residential
Single Family 16.91 per unit 140,131 118,019 22,113 52,441 16,652 35,789 192,573 134,671 57,902
Multifamily 13.28 per unit 160,515 122,313 38,203 40,302 11,782 28,519 200,817 134,095 66,722
Subtotal 300,647 240,331 60,315 92,743 28,434 64,309 393,390 268,766 124,624
Non-Residential
Office/Service (1)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft.51,169 33,059 18,110 80,459 13,078 67,381 131,628 46,136 85,492
Retail (2)72.60 per 1,000 sq.ft.384,089 129,777 254,313 75,753 15,426 60,326 459,842 145,203 314,639
Industrial 26.84 per 1,000 sq.ft.80,202 4,104 76,097 3,092 65 3,027 83,293 4,169 79,124
Institutional (3)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft.7,010 6,410 600 914 13 901 7,924 6,422 1,501
Hotel (4)7.53 per room 16,445 12,060 4,384 4,904 2,493 2,411 21,349 14,554 6,795
Subtotal 538,914 185,410 353,504 165,122 31,075 134,047 704,036 216,485 487,551
Total Trips 839,561 425,741 413,820 257,865 59,509 198,355 1,097,425 485,250 612,175
% of Grand Total 100.00%50.71%49.29%100.00%23.08%76.92%100.00%44.22%56%
% of Total Buildout Trips 76.50%38.79%37.71%23.50%5.42%18.07%100.00%44.22%56%
(1) Trip generation rates based on an average of office and service trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
(2) Trip generation rates based on an average of low and medium retail trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
(3) Trip generation rates based on office/service trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
(4) Trip generation rates based on motel trip rates provided by the City of San Luis Obispo.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Trip Generation Existing Growth Buildout
Rates
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092117New Attachment 5
Table A-3
Transportation Improvement List, Cost Estimates, and Preliminary Approach to Cost Allocation
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Regional Existing New Regional Existing New North South
Interchange Improvements
Project #1 Hwy 101/LOVR Interchange
Improvements
Interchange Improvements $4,926,000 0.0%0.0%100.0%8.8%91.2%$0 $0 $4,926,000 $435,025 $4,490,975
Project #1F Hwy 101/LOVR Interchange
Improvements
Financing $7,112,300 0.0%0.0%100.0%8.8%91.2%$0 $0 $7,112,300 $628,102 $6,484,198
Project #2 Hwy 101/Prado Rd Interchange Interchange Improvements $35,000,000 30.0%0.0%70.0%9.7%90.3%$10,500,000 $0 $24,500,000 $2,380,592 $22,119,408
Project #2F Hwy 101/Prado Rd Interchange Financing $31,784,420 0.0%0.0%100.0%9.7%90.3%$0 $0 $31,784,420 $3,088,397 $28,696,023
Subtotal $78,822,720 $10,500,000 $0 $68,322,720 $6,532,115 $61,790,605
Intersection Improvements
Project #3 Broad & South-Santa Barbara
Intersection Improvements
Intersection Improvements $300,000 20.0%15.0%65.0%17.7%82.3%$60,000 $45,000 $195,000 $34,539 $160,461
Project #4 Orcutt & Tank Farm Intersection
Improvements
Intersection Improvements $1,120,000 0.0%0.0%100.0%32.6%67.4%$0 $0 $1,120,000 $365,441 $754,559
Project #5 Broad & Tank Farm Intersection
Improvements
Intersection Improvements $1,500,000 15.0%0.0%85.0%9.7%90.3%$225,000 $0 $1,275,000 $123,888 $1,151,112
Project #6 Johnson & Orcutt Intersection
Improvements
Intersection Improvements $2,000,000 25.0%0.0%75.0%1.7%98.3%$500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $25,064 $1,474,936
Project #7 Higuera & Tank Farm Intersection
Improvements
Intersection Improvements $2,000,000 0.0%0.0%100.0%0.0%100.0%$0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000
Project #8 S. Broad Street Intersection Intersection Improvements $5,000,000 20.0%0.0%80.0%9.7%90.3%$1,000,000 $0 $4,000,000 $388,668 $3,611,332
Project #9 General Plan Cumulative Intersection
Control Upgrades
Intersection Improvements $15,000,000 0.0%0.0%100.0%24.4%75.6%$0 $0 $15,000,000 $3,661,049 $11,338,951
Project #10 Orcutt Rd/UPRR Grade Separation Intersection Improvements $20,000,000 10.0%68.9%21.1%17.7%82.3%$2,000,000 $13,770,499 $4,229,501 $749,144 $3,480,357
Subtotal $46,920,000 $3,785,000 $13,815,499 $29,319,501 $5,347,793 $23,971,709
Street Widening Improvements
Project #11 Higuera Widening: High St to Marsh St Street Widening $2,150,000 0.0%76.5%23.5%32.6%67.4%$0 $1,644,810 $505,190 $164,837 $340,354
Project #12 Higuera Widening: Madonna Rd to City
Limits
Street Widening $5,400,000 55.0%0.0%45.0%5.4%94.6%$2,970,000 $0 $2,430,000 $130,992 $2,299,008
Project #13 Tank Farm Road Widening Street Widening, $22,000,000 30.0%0.0%70.0%9.7%90.3%$6,600,000 $0 $15,400,000 $1,496,372 $13,903,628
Project #14 Prado Rd Bridge Widening: West of
Higuera St and Higuera & Prado
Intersection Improvements
Street Widening and
Intersection Improvements
$4,260,000 20.0%0.0%80.0%17.7%82.3%$852,000 $0 $3,408,000 $603,637 $2,804,363
Project #14F Prado Rd. Bridge W of Higuera Financing $4,421,278 0.0%0.0%100.0%17.7%82.3%$0 $0 $4,421,278 $783,112 $3,638,166
Subtotal $38,231,278 $10,422,000 $1,644,810 $26,164,468 $3,178,950 $22,985,519
Street Extension Improvements
Project #15a Santa Fe Road Extension North of Tank
Farm
Street Extension $1,080,000 60.0%0.0%40.0%9.7%90.3%$648,000 $0 $432,000 $41,976 $390,024
Project #15b Santa Fe Road Extension South of Tank
Farm
Street Extension $2,500,000 60.0%0.0%40.0%9.7%90.3%$1,500,000 $0 $1,000,000 $97,167 $902,833
Project #16 Horizon Lane Extension South of Tank
Farm
Street Extension $3,000,000 10.0%0.0%90.0%14.3%85.7%$300,000 $0 $2,700,000 $385,044 $2,314,956
Project #17 Bishop St Extension to Roundhouse Street Extension $13,200,000 5.0%72.7%22.3%43.0%57.0%$660,000 $9,593,447 $2,946,553 $1,266,046 $1,680,506
Project #18 Prado Rd Extension South Higuera to
Broad Street, including Broad Street &
Prado Extension Intersection
Improvements
Street Extension and
Intersection Improvements
$24,503,500 20.0%0.0%80.0%14.8%85.2%$4,900,700 $0 $19,602,800 $2,903,294 $16,699,506
Subtotal $44,283,500 $8,008,700 $9,593,447 $26,681,353 $4,693,527 $21,987,826
Corridor Improvements
Project #19 S. Broad Street Medians Corridor Improvements $2,000,000 20.0%0.0%80.0%9.7%90.3%$400,000 $0 $1,600,000 $155,467 $1,444,533
Project
Number Name New Cost
Estimate
First
Allocation - CitywideType
(e.g., Geographic Area of
Benefit)
Second Allocation -
New by Area
Second Allocation -
New by Area
North South
First
Allocation - Citywide
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092117New Attachment 5
Regional Existing New Regional Existing New North South
Project
Number Name New Cost
Estimate
First
Allocation - CitywideType
(e.g., Geographic Area of
Benefit)
Second Allocation -
New by Area
Second Allocation -
New by Area
North South
First
Allocation - Citywide
Subtotal $2,000,000 $400,000 $0 $1,600,000 $155,467 $1,444,533
Pedestrian/ Bicycle Improvements
Project #20 Bob Jones Trail Pedestrian/Bike Projects $11,000,000 0.0%76.5%23.5%23.1%76.9%$0 $8,415,305 $2,584,695 $596,489 $1,988,206
Project #21 Railroad Safety Trail Pedestrian/Bike Projects $12,000,000 0.0%76.5%23.5%23.1%76.9%$0 $9,180,332 $2,819,668 $650,715 $2,168,952
Project #22a Bicycle Transportation Plan
Implementation North Area
Pedestrian/Bike Projects $14,400,000 0.0%76.5%23.5%100.0%0.0%$0 $11,016,399 $3,383,601 $3,383,601 $0
Project #22b Bicycle Transportation Plan
Implementation South Area
Pedestrian/Bike Projects $20,600,000 0.0%40.0%60.0%0.0%100.0%$0 $8,240,000 $12,360,000 $0 $12,360,000
Subtotal $58,000,000 $0 $36,852,036 $21,147,964 $4,630,805 $16,517,159
Transit Improvements
Project #23 Fleet Expansion: 4 Buses Transit Projects $1,500,000 0.0%76.5%23.5%0.0%100.0%$0 $1,147,542 $352,458 $0 $352,458
Project #24 Transit Center Transit Projects $5,000,000 0.0%76.5%23.5%23.1%76.9%$0 $3,825,139 $1,174,861 $271,131 $903,730
Subtotal $6,500,000 $0 $4,972,680 $1,527,320 $271,131 $1,256,189
Miscellaneous
Project #25 Traffic Volume Count Program and
Traffic Model
Misc.$900,000 0.0%0.0%100.0%24.4%75.6%$0 $0 $900,000 $219,663 $680,337
Subtotal $900,000 $0 $0 $900,000 $219,663 $680,337
Total $275,657,498 $33,115,700 $66,878,472 $175,663,326 $25,029,451 $150,633,875
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092117New Attachment 5
Attachment 6 can be downloaded from the
City’s website at
https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/planning-
commission
Prototypes and Assumptions
Single Family (Detached Unit)
Geography South Area, SF Subdivision
Lot Size (Sq.Ft.)4,000
Unit Size (Sq.Ft.)1,675
DU/Acre 11
Applicable Zoning Category R-2
Number of Stories 2.0
Average Price (per Unit)$650,000
Example(s)Avila Ranch (Proposed Development) and Serra Meadows
Multifamily Apartment
Geography South Area
Lot Size (Acres)4.95
DU/Acre 24
Building Size (Sq.Ft.)103,944
Number of Stories 2-3
Total Number of Units 120
Average Unit Size (Sq.Ft.)930
Applicable Zoning Category R-4
Average Rent/Sq.Ft.$2.40
Capitalized Value (1)$375,000
Example(s)De Tolosa Ranch
Retail (Standalone Building of Larger Development)
Geography South Area
Lot Size (Acres)0.77
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)30%
Building Size (Sq.Ft.)10,000
Number of Stories 1.0
Average Lease Rate/Sq.Ft. (Full Service)$22.00
Capitalized Value/Sq.Ft. (2)$300
Example(s)No Recent Examples
Office/Business Park (Standalone Building of Larger Development)
Geography South Area
Lot Size (Acres)0.77
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)30%
Building Size (Sq.Ft.)10,000
Number of Stories 1.0
Average Lease Rate/Sq.Ft. (NNN)$27.00
Capitalized Value/Sq.Ft. (3)$425
Example(s)Airport Business Center (Proposed Development)
Office/Service(Standalone Building of Larger Development)
Geography South Area
Lot Size (Acres)0.77
Floor Area Ratio (FAR)30%
Building Size (Sq.Ft.)10,000
Number of Stories 1.0
Average Lease Rate/Sq.Ft. (NNN)$27.00
Capitalized Value/Sq.Ft. (3)$300
(1) Assumes 30 percent operating costs and a 5 percent capitalization rate.
(2) Assumes 30 percent operating costs and a 6 percent capitalization rate.
(3) Assumes 5 percent operating costs and a 6 percent capitalization rate.
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017
Attachment 7
Key
Single Family (Market Value at $650,000 per Unit)
15% of Market Value
10% of Market Value
20% of Market Value
$0
$20,000
$40,000
$60,000
$80,000
$100,000
$120,000
$140,000
$160,000
North Area South Area
(Non-Specific
Plan)
South Area
(Specific Plan)
Affordable Housing
School District
Sewer
Water
General Government
Public Safety
Parks
Transportation
Attachment 7
Key
5% of Market Value
10% of Market Value
15% of Market Value
$0
$10,000
$20,000
$30,000
$40,000
$50,000
Multifamily (Market Value at $375,000 per Unit)
$60,000
North Area South Area
School District
Water
Sewer
General Government
Public Safety
Parks
Transportation
Attachment 7
Key
Retail (Market Value at $300 per Sq.Ft)
10% of Market Value
5% of Market Value
$0
$10
$20
$30
$40
$50
$60
$70
$80
$90
North Area South Area
Affordable Housing
School District
Public Art
Sewer
Water
General Government
Public Safety
Parks
Transportation7.5% of Market Value Attachment 7
Key
Office/ Business Park (Market Value at $425 per Sq.Ft)
10% of Market Value
5% of Market Value
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
$40
$45
North Area South Area
Affordable Housing
School District
Public Art
Sewer
Water
General Government
Public Safety
Parks
Transportation
7.5% of Market Value Attachment 7
Key
Office/ Service (Market Value at $300 per Sq.Ft)
10% of Market Value
5% of Market Value
$0
$5
$10
$15
$20
$25
$30
$35
North Area South Area
Affordable Housing
School District
Public Art
Sewer
Water
General Government
Public Safety
Parks
Transportation
7.5% of Market Value Attachment 7
Table 1
Single Family Detached (per Unit) Development Impact Fee Comparisons
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Parks/Open Space and Recreation $6,030 $6,030
Traffic/Transportation $7,110 $12,838 $6,398 -$8,093 $4,723 -$14,175
Public Safety $1,229 $1,229 $176 -$992
Fire $561 $561
Police $668 $668
General Facilities/Government $690 $690 $228 -$2,389
*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees.
(1) Davis fees reflect ranges throughout different geographic regions of the City, including base fees and fees after Mello-Roos Credits for certain areas.
(2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fee,
North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.
(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee
Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz
Fee Category North South
$5,877 $7,854
$615
Paso
Robles
Potential SLO Fee
Davis (1)Napa (2)
$3,111 $5,588
$12,700
$1,180
$1,099
$81
$3,182
Santa
Cruz
$5,025
$3,889$7,311
$1,305
$688
$616
$157
Santa
Maria (3)
Palm
Springs
$1,500
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps Attachment 8
Table 2
Multifamily Rental (per Unit) Development Impact Fee Comparisons
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Parks/Open Space and Recreation $4,342 $4,342
Traffic/Transportation $5,587 $10,088 $3,906 -$4,942 $3,198 -$8,840
Public Safety $885 $885 $282 -$757
Fire $404 $404
Police $481 $481
General Government $497 $497 $1,662 -$1,823
*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees.
(1) Davis fees reflect base fees payable outside of City Wide Mello-Roos Districts.
(2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fee,
North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.
(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee.
Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz
Fee Category Davis (1)Napa (2)North South
$5,002
$759
Potential SLO Fee Paso
Robles
Santa
Maria (3)
$1,194
$4,835$4,486
Palm
Springs
$2,790
$382
$342
$87
$95
$3,182
$4,195 $1,000$8,752
$3,111
$724
$2,387
$1,099
Santa
Cruz
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps Attachment 8
Table 3
Retail (per Sq.Ft.) Development Impact Fee Comparisons
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Parks and Recreation $1.77 $1.77
Traffic/Transportation $30.53 $55.13 $6.68 -$8.45 $3.77 -$21.67
Public Safety $0.44 $0.44 $0.11 -$1.08
Fire $0.20 $0.20
Police $0.24 $0.24
General Government $0.25 $0.25 $0.81 -$0.93
*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees.
** City of Palm Springs does not have a retail development impact fee.
(1) Davis fee reflects "core/ AC retail" category as opposed to "other retail."
(2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue
Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.
(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee.
Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz
Fee Category Davis (1)Napa (2)North South
Potential SLO Fee
$10.82$11.48
$0.02$0.86
$0.09
$0.48
$0.48
$1.16
$0.12
$0.40
$0.52
Santa
Maria (3)
Santa
Cruz
Paso
Robles
$0.37
$8.86
$0.06
$0.43
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps Attachment 8
Table 4
Office (per Sq.Ft.) Development Impact Fee Comparisons
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Parks and Recreation $3.25 $3.25
Traffic/Transportation $8.65 $15.62 $4.10 -$5.19 $4.38 -$7.91
Public Safety $0.82 $0.82 $0.11 -$1.08
Fire $0.37 $0.37
Police $0.44 $0.44
General Government $0.46 $0.46 $0.81 -$0.93
*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees.
* City of Palm Springs does not have an office development impact fee.
(1) Davis fees reflect base fees payable outside of City Wide Mello-Roos Districts.
(2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue
Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.
(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee.
Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz
Fee Category Davis (1)Napa (2)North South
Potential SLO Fee
$0.40
$0.12
$1.16
$11.48
$0.02
$9.01
$0.09
$0.86
Paso
Robles
Santa
Cruz
$0.06
$0.37
Santa
Maria (3)
$0.52$0.17
$0.17
$5.78
$0.43
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps Attachment 8
Table 5
Industrial (per Sq.Ft.) Development Impact Fee Comparisons
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Parks and Recreation $1.30 $1.30
Traffic/Transportation $11.29 $20.38 $0.38 -$0.48 $1.92 -$7.01 $2.70 -$3.73
Public Safety $0.33 $0.33 $0.22 -$0.28
Fire $0.15 $0.15
Police $0.18 $0.18
General Government $0.18 $0.18 $0.23 -$0.24
*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees.
** City of Palm Springs does not have an industrial development impact fee.
(1) Davis fees reflect base fees payable outside of City Wide Mello-Roos Districts.
(2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano Avenue/ Orchard Avenue
Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.
(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee. Traffic/Transportation fee reflects light industrial category.
(4) Range is based on fees for manufacturing and light industrial uses which reflect a 0.7 p.m. trip generation rage and a 0.97 trip generation rate, respectively.
Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz
$0.09
$0.02
Paso
RoblesFee Category Davis (1)Napa (2)North South
$0.03
$0.03
$0.86
Potential SLO Fee
$3.23
$0.36
$0.33
$0.63
$0.03
$0.43
$0.37
$3.62
$0.06
Santa
Maria (3)
Santa
Cruz (4)
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps Attachment 8
Table 6
Hotel (per Room) Development Impact Fee Comparisons
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Parks and Recreation $976 $976
Traffic/Transportation $3,168 $5,721 $1,906 -$2,853
Public Safety $133 $133
Fire $0 $0
Police $133 $133
General Government $137 $137
*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees.
* Cities of Davis and Palm Springs do not have a hotel development impact fee.
(1) Davis does have any fees applicable for hotel development.
(2) City of Napa fee ranges include special area fees such as the Redwood Road Improvement Fee, Pear Tree Lane Service Charge, Orchard Avenue Area Park Fee, Solano
Avenue/ Orchard Avenue Traffic Mitigation Fee, North Jefferson Street Improvement Fee and Big Ranch Specific Plan Area Development Impact Fee.
(3) City of Santa Maria General Facilities/ Government fee includes a City Hall Mitigation Fee.
Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz
Fee Category Napa (2)Paso
RoblesNorthSouth
Potential SLO Fee
$549 $178
$453 $25
$96 $154
Santa
Maria (3)
Santa
Cruz
$95 $39
$10
$2,814 $2,561 $2,233
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/21/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps Attachment 8