HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-17-2017 Item 01 - Preliminary Results of the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study and the Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program Study: Study Session
Meeting Date: 10/17/2017
FROM: Michael Codron, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director - Long Range Planning
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY RESULTS OF THE CAPITAL FACILITIES FEE PROGRAM
NEXUS STUDY AND THE WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY AND
CONNECTION FEE PROGRAM STUDY: STUDY SESSION
RECOMMENDATION
1. Participate in a study session and receive a presentation on the preliminary results of the
Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study and the Water and Wastewater Capacity and
Connection Fee Program Study; and
2. Receive public input and provide guidance to staff regarding fee options (questions for
discussion are provided at the conclusion of this report); and
3. Direct staff to return on November 7, 2017, with applicable ordinances and resolutions to
implement the updated Capital Facilities Fee Program as directed by City Council.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
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, general government, public safety, and water and 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
Packet Pg 9
1
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 capital facilities 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.
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.
DISCUSSION
Mitigation Fee Act
With the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978, which resulted in the decline of local government
revenues, local governments increasingly relied on impact fees to mitigate the impacts created by
new development. In response, developers lobbied the State Legislature to curtail the growing
use of impact fees. Because of the widespread imposition of public facilities fees at the local
level and in response various exactions cases from the California courts and U.S. Supreme Court,
the State Legislature passed the Mitigation Fee Act (Assembly Bill 1600) in 1987. The Act,
contained in California Government Code Section 66000 et.seq., established constitutional limits
and “ground rules” for the imposition and administration of impact fee programs. The Act
became law in January 1988 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.
Packet Pg 10
1
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 r evenues can only be used for their intended
purpose.
Development Impact Fee Program Considerations
Creating an impact fee program can be a costly and labor -intensive process that should not be
undertaken more often than necessary. A well-planned fee program can generate sufficient funds
to allow the city to adequately mitigate capital need impacts created by new development.
Conversely, a poorly planned fee can result in the city either collecting to little money and being
forced to close the funding gap through alternative funding sources, or collecting too much
money based on an unsupported fee program, thus exposing the city to a fee challenge. The
following principles guided staff and the consultant team through the creation of the Capital
Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study work effort:
• Plan for future development. Utilize a recently updated General Plan as a guide to
anticipating where and how growth will occur the city. If most of the new development
is projected to occur in concentrated areas geographically, which are not necessarily
separated from existing development, a mix of new, stand-alone facilities, such as a fire
station, and expansion of existing facilities, such as a city hall, may be needed to support
the anticipated growth. This will have an impact on the cost of new infrastructure and, of
course on the uses to which the resulting fee revenues may be devoted. To address this, a
fee program that is based on a geographic area within the city, should be considered to
address that area’s specific needs.
• Don’t try to fix every problem with one fee. It is important to tailor each fee to address
an impact. Broad-brush fees are subject to legal challenge under AB 1600. Each fee must
bear a reasonable relationship to the impact it is intended to mitigate. There must be
clear accounting for each fee collected. However, creating too many fee categories can
create administrative difficulties in implementing and accounting for fees once they are
collected.
• Decide what level of service the city wants to provide. Fees should be designed to
collect sufficient funds to provide public facilities and infrastructure at a certain level of
service. The General Plan specifies the size and level of service at which certain types of
public infrastructure must be maintained. While a City cannot require new development
to pay for existing deficiencies, it can require new development to provide an acceptable
level of service. When considering new fees, the City should decide whether it wants to
raise the current level of service for public facilities. If so, the city could raise the level
of service for existing development through expenditures from the general fund, while
requiring new development to pay for a level of service above what is currently in place.
• Don’t try to make new development pay more than its fair share. New development
cannot be required to pay for existing deficiencies, and the amount of any impact fee
must bear a reasonable relationship to the actual cost of providing the public services
demanded by the new development on which the fee is imposed.
Packet Pg 11
1
• Keep Council informed. At the beginning of the process to enact fees, it is important to
ensure that the City council understands the nexus requirement. When a jurisdiction is a
slow-growth community, it is important to explain that new development cannot be
required to mitigate current deficiencies. When a jurisdiction is pro-growth, it is
important to explain that undercharging new development may mandate that general
fund monies be used to maintain required service levels.
• Too many exactions might hurt, rather than help, the city’s economy. Although
California has seen a robust economy during the last five years, the reality is that
development can only absorb so many fees before development doesn’t “pencil out”.
Before a city starts creating multiple layers of fees, it should consider what types of
developments are most affected by high impact fees and whether the kinds of
development the city wants to encourage will be helped or hindered by new fees. For
example, housing advocates often argue that impact fees on residential projects can price
many low- and moderate-income wage earners out of the local housing market and
encourage developers to construct larger, more expensive homes because high -end
occupants can more easily absorb higher impact fees.
o Similarly, business groups argue that imposing fees on commercial development
may prevent that city from attracting businesses into the city. If the city is
interested in revitalizing its downtown area, high impact fees for commercial
development may drive commercial tenants to a neighboring city or into an
unincorporated area that has lower fees.
o One way to address such issues is to provide fee waivers/discounts for certain
types of development. For example, the City’s current fee program applies a 50%
reduction of the Transportation Impact Fee to retail projects. Such waivers should
be included in whatever fee legislation the city adopts. However, it is important
to note that waivers/discounts cannot be funded with fee revenues, as this cross-
subsidy would prove that fee payers are over charged. Other local government
revenues must be relied upon to backfill revenues that are lost due to fee
waivers/discounts.
• Consider use of development agreements as appropriate. Agreements to pay fees or to
construct infrastructure, which are contained in development agreements evidence
contractual agreements between government and the developer, and are not constrained
by AB 1600 requirements. To be safe, include a provision in your development
agreement whereby the developer waives any right to contest fees under AB 1600 protest
provisions.
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
Packet Pg 12
1
• 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 pa ying 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 transportation impact fees could be applied are
shown in Figure 1. These areas include the current City of San Luis Obispo General Plan
Boundary, which is further divided into a North Area and a South Area based on the proportional
growth that is anticipated to occur in the expansion or special focus areas identified in the Land
Use Element of the General Plan through the year 2035 and beyond. Those fee areas would
include the following approved and pending projects:
• San Luis Ranch Specific Plan
• Avila Ranch Specific Plan
• Froom Ranch Specific Plan
Packet Pg 13
1
• Downtown Concept Plan Area
• Airport Area Specific Plan
• Margarita Area Specific Plan
• Orcutt Area Specific Plan
• Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR)
It should be noted that the Orcutt Area and LOVR Area specific plans have vesting agreements
with the City for payment of fees. Their contributions must therefore be subtracted from the total
cost of establishing a nexus, leaving the remainder of the cost to be divided between the
remaining General Plan buildout projects.
Figure 1: City of San Luis Obispo, North and South Transportation Fees
Packet Pg 14
1
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 A. It assumes that the growth in the impact
fee area will increase the City population by 9,900 people and will generate about 11,100 new
jobs.
Table S-1, Attachments A-E, 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 development impact fees and in-lieu fee programs that are
currently collecting revenue. The City’s existing development impact fee programs include a
transportation impact fee, a park improvement impact fee (for single family and condominium
developments only), and water and wastewater capacity and connection charges. The City’s
existing in-lieu fee programs include an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee, a public art in-lieu fee,
and a parkland in-lieu fee (Quimby Act only). Unlike the development impact fee programs that
are allowed under the Mitigation Fee Act, with in-lieu fee programs a developer has the option to
provide the asset instead of paying the in-lieu fee.
The Mitigation Fee Act allows the City to establish more development impact fee programs than
are currently in place within the City today. Therefore, t his is why the Capital Facilities Fee
Program Nexus Study includes both updates to the existing impact programs (for transportation
and park improvements) and identifies new impact fee programs for general government and
public safety facilities.
It makes sense to evaluate and/or develop new fee programs 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
approved in a summary document reviewed by the Council on August 16, 2016, which can be
reviewed in Attachment-I. One of the recommendations that came out of the study sessions was
to establish fiscal and 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:
Packet Pg 15
1
1. Public Purpose. There will be a clearly articulated public purpose in forming an
assessment or special tax district in financing public infrastructur e 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
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 develop ment
based on the improvements identified or the service level desired, 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.
Packet Pg 16
1
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 A, 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 average per-
resident demand. The 0.50-weighting factor for workers is based on resident equivalency
weighting of half an employee to one resident.
Packet Pg 17
1
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.
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
its 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-B, 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.
a. Fire Facilities
Table 1, Attachment-B, 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-B, 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-B.
The cost associated with the future Fire public safety facilities were divided by the service
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 (0.50 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-B.
Packet Pg 18
1
b. Police Facilities
Table 1, Attachment-C, list one project, the construction of a new police headquarters.
Table 3, Attachment-C, list the police vehicle cost to serve new development. The total
funded cost for these police facilities is presented in Table 4, Attachment-C.
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 per capita costs. The cost per worker is $132.92 (0.50 x 265.84). The co st per
capita was then multiplied by the density assumptions to determine a fee for each residential
land use, as shown in Table 4, Attachment-C.
Facility Costs to Accommodate Growth
As shown below in Table S-1, Attachment-B and -C, 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.
Packet Pg 19
1
3. Parkland Fee Program
This section presents an analysis of the need for parks and park facilities to accommodate
new development in the City of San Luis Obispo. A maximum fee schedule is presented
based on the cost to require that new development provides funding to meet its needs.
Policies and Existing Conditions
The City’s 2001 Parks and Recreation Element identifies the policies listed below related to
the development of parks and recreational facilities. Unfortunately, this is a document that
was drafted in the 1990s and was based upon then identified needs. It is outdated and does
not reflect many of the more recent planning initiatives that were adopted as part of the
City’s General Plan when the Land Use and Circulation Elements were updated in 2014.
With the adoption of the 2017-19 Financial Plan, the City Council allocated funding for an
update of the Parks and Recreation Element and creation of a Master Plan for future parks
and facilities in support of recreation activities in the City. Staff will be bringing a project
plan and request for proposals to Council in November 2017. Upon completion of that work
effort, the approved Master Plan will provide Council with a prioritized list of future parks
and recreational facility needs. As such, it is anticipated that the fees for parks and park
facilities will in the future need adjustment with the update of the list of projects. The
policies in the updated element of course will continue to be consistent with the Quimby Act
and are anticipated to aligned with existing policy as well.
• 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
Packet Pg 20
1
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 deemed 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, SLO Swim Center, and so on). Based on the 2017 City
population of 46,724, this represents 4.18 acres 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
The City’s parks, recreational facilities, and recreational programs are widely used by a
diverse population and serve both residents, non-residents, and employees of local
businesses. Many employees of local businesses use the City’s parks (such as eating lunch in
a park, walking on the paths at Meadow Park, taking an aqua aerobics class at the SLO Swim
Center, playing Adult Soccer and Softball and more) daily. Consequently, a service
population that includes both residents and workers reasonably represents the true need for
these facilities. As population grows with new development, so does demand for recreation
services provided by these facilities. Table 6, Attachment D, shows the service population
assumptions that were used to calculate the maximum fee.
Packet Pg 21
1
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 parks and park facilities.
A per capita cost was calculated based on the estimated cost of new park facility, as shown in
Tables 4 & 5, Attachment-D. This cost was then multiplied by the density assumptions to
determine a maximum fee, as shown in Table 7, Attachment-D.
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-D, 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.
Table S-2, of Attachment D, 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 multimodal projects such as
intersection & corridor improvements, protected bikeways, buses and transit facilities. A
Packet Pg 22
1
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 trips they generate. The amount of daily and peak hour 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.
Table 3, Attachment-E, 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-E, 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-E, 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-E.
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-E, provides a summary of the maximum impact fees for
Packet Pg 23
1
interchange, roadways, intersections, pedestrian/bicycle and transit projects that could be
generated at build-out in 2035 and beyond.
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 in
Attachment F. Recommended fees are provided in Table 2.
The methodology used in the 2017 Study the divides the value of existing and future water and
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.
Packet Pg 24
1
Table 2: 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
Alternative Fee Considerations
As part of item PH2 of this agenda, the City Council is presented with a recommendation to
adopt a fee program for water and wastewater capacity and connection fees. The current staff
recommendation for this fee is to use Water Option 2 and Wastewater Option 4, with represents
the maximum charge for “cost-based capacity and connection fees” based on development’s fair
share of existing infrastructure and future capital improvements needed to serve future
development. Using the maximum charge for these options puts the lowest upward pressure on
rates. If the Council is interested in reducing these development impact fees, it should provide
direction to staff to evaluate the potential impact on rates if the maximum fees are not charged.
Implementation Considerations
The facility and infrastructure impact fees for general government, public safety, parks and
recreation, transportation, and water and wastewater capacity and connection would be collected
at the time of building permit issuance. To implement any of those fees the City will need to:
• 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
Packet Pg 25
1
• 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).
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
is also based in part on an assessment of the accuracy and availability of land use and cost data.
In this case, the projects evaluated in the fee program are those needed to implement the 2014
General Plan update, or through 2035.
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 ma y 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, for a single-family residential
development, under current market conditions, the general rule of thumbs that the fee burden
should not exceed 15 percent of the cost of the unit. This is illustrated in the following graphic.
The analysis of City’s Capital Facilities Fee Program and Water and Wastewater Capacity and
Connection Fee Program considers 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.
Please see Attachment-G for examples of the anticipated total fee burden for the Single Family,
Multi-family Apartments, Office/Business Park (standalone building), Office/Service
(standalone building), and Retail prototypes. The industry feasibility threshold s for fee burden is
shown in green (10% of market value), yellow (15% of market value), and red (20% of market
value.
Packet Pg 26
1
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.
• 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. The complete
analysis of the development impact fee comparisons for the Single Family, Multifamily
Apartment, Office and Retail prototypes is provided in Attachment-H.
CONCURRENCES
The proposed update to the City’s development impact fee programs combined sound technical
analysis with a collaborative, iterative, and informed decision-making process. The technical
analysis was grounded in legally defensible nexus arguments, with ongoing policy direction from
various stakeholders, including City staff, advisory bodies, the local public, and the development
Packet Pg 27
1
community. To help achieve politically and economically acceptable fees, the ultimate objective
was the establishment of a revised set of development impact fees that strike a mutually
enforcing balance between infrastructure and parks and new residential and economic
development in the City.
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.
FISCAL IMPACT
This is a study session, therefore there is no direct fiscal impact associated with it. However,
there will be fiscal impacts associated with any action the City Council takes when it considers
the Final Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Study on October 17 th and the
Final Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study on November 7 th. The following is a summary
of the alternative funding sources that could be used to fund the infrastructure and facilities that
will be impacted because of new development:
• Existing or new General Fund revenues
• Existing or new general purpose taxes
• New special purpose taxes (any new special purpose tax would require two -thirds voter
approval)
• Existing or new assessments (any new assessments or property-related charge would
require majority property owner approval)
• Grants where the use of the funds are restricted for eligible capital facilities improvement
projects
However, the City has specific policies in place that discourage earmarking general-purpose
revenues, whether in the General Fund or Enterprise Funds. It is also the City’s policy that new
development should pay its fair share of the cost of constructing the community facilities needed
to serve it. For this reason, the City has established development impact fees for water,
wastewater, and transportation improvements. The City has also adopted in-lieu fees for
parking, parkland dedication (consistent with the Quimby Act), and “inclusionary moderate and
low-income housing” requirements. This allows developers to pay in-lieu fees instead of
providing the required asset.
NEXT STEPS
The following objectives are the most important factors in establishing new development impact
fees for transportation, water and wastewater capacity and connection, park land acquisition and
improvement, general government administration, and public safety:
Packet Pg 28
1
1. The fees must be legally defensible. The fee should be developed and implemented in a
fashion that unambiguously complies with applicable State law. The fees should be based
on explicit growth and cost assumptions and sound nexus arguments that ensure the types
of improvements and facilities and the costs of the improvements and facilities are
directly attributable to benefiting land uses.
2. The fees must be financially effective. The fees developed should provide sufficient
means for successfully funding the new improvements and required capital facilities
targeted by the program. Given that fee revenues are likely to represent only one, albeit
important, funding source for transportation, capital facilities and parks improvements,
the development impact fee program must be effectively integrated with other programs
and resources to ensure stakeholders (and developers who pay the fees) that the facilities
will ultimately be built.
3. The fees must be politically and economically viable. The fees developed in this
process should reflect input from key stakeholders in the community to ensure that they
receive broad support. Although the technical steps provide the basis for completing the
impact fee study, it is recognized that ultimate approval will require compromise and
policy choices. To this end, it will be important to work closely with stakeholders. In
addition, it will be important to understand and monitor the economic implications of the
fee program to ensure that financial burdens on development are reasonable and do not
hinder growth.
The consideration of the Final Capacity and Connection Fee Study is on the Council Agenda for
October 17,2017, and the Final Capital Facilities Fee Program Study is on the Council Agenda
for November 7, 2017. Implementation of the new fee programs is planned for January 1, 2018.
FOCUSED QUESTIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION
Staff has provided the following focused questions to facilitate City Council Direction to help
guide the City Council in their deliberations:
General Government Impact Fee Program
1. Is there support to implement a new General Government fee program?
2. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider
making some policy-based reductions?
Public Safety – Fire Impact Fee Program
3. Is there support to implement a new public safety fee program to support costs for Fire
Department facilities and equipment?
4. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider
making some policy-based reductions?
Public Safety – Police Impact Fee Program
5. Is there support to implement a new public safety fee program to supports costs for Police
Packet Pg 29
1
Department facilities and equipment?
6. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider
making some policy-based reductions?
Parks and Recreation Impact Fee Program
7. Should changes to the Parks and Recreation Impact Fee program be implemented now, or
should they be delayed until the adoption of the Parks and Recreation Element and
Master Plan Update?
8. Does Council agree that multifamily and apartment residential developments have
impacts on existing parks and recreational facilities and create the need for more parks
and recreational facilities?
9. Is there support to use the Mitigation Fee Act to charge multifamily and apartment
residential development impact fees for parks and recreational facilities?
10. Does Council agree that non-residential developments, with employees and/or hotel
guest, have impacts on existing parks and recreational facilities and create the need for
more parks and recreational facilities?
11. Is there support to use the Mitigation Fee Act to charge for non-residential development
impact fees for parks and recreational facilities?
12. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider
making some policy-based reductions?
Transportation Impact Fee Program
13. 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)?
14. Is there support to leave the existing LOVR and OASP out of the proposed update to the
fee program?
15. Should the fee be set at the maximum, or is this an area that the staff should consider
making some policy-based reductions? Currently, a 50% reduction is applied to the
Transportation Impact Fee for retail land uses.
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program
16. Is the Council comfortable with charging the maximum fee applicable to new
development, or should increasing rates be considered as an available alternative to
address the costs identified in the fee program?
Packet Pg 30
1
Attachments:
a - General Government Review Tables
b - Public Safety: Fire Review Tables
c - Public Safety: Police Review Tables
d - Parks Review Tables
e - Transportation Review Tables
f - Council Reading File: Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee -Final
Study
g - Fee Comparisons with Benchmark Communities
h - Total Fee Burden Feasibility Analysis
i - Council Reading File: Public Financing Framework and Draft Policies
Packet Pg 31
1
General Government
Packet Pg 32
1
Table S-1Maximum Development Impact Fees: General GovernmentSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemResidential Single Family$689.77 per UnitMultifamily$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 RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Maximum General GovernmentDevelopment Impact FeeEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\General GovernmentPacket Pg 331
Table 1Service Population ProjectionsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Item2017 (1)2035 New GrowthAvg. Annual Growth Rate (2)Population (1% Growth)46,724 56,686 9,962 1.1% Jobs52,092 63,199 11,107 1.1% Total Estimated Service Population (3)72,770 88,286 15,516 1.1%Percentage82.4% 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 is based on the LUCE base year of 2013. (3) Employee weighting represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given 50 percentthe weight of residents because of reduced service demands.Sources: Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Packet Pg 341
Table 2Capital Cost Summary: General GovernmentSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187City Hall22,971Public Works/ Community Development Office17,000Total Existing Administrative Facilities39,971Existing Service Population (1)Implied Citywide Existing Service Standard549 Sq.Ft./1,000 Serv. Pop. New Service Population (1) Square Footage Allocated to New Growth 8,522Average Administrative Facilities Construction Cost $500Development Cost Allocated to New GrowthAverage Cost per New Service Population(1) See Table 1Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.$274.64$4,261,246Sq.Ft.per Sq.Ft.Sq.Ft.ItemAssumptions72,770 15,516 Sq.Ft.Sq.Ft.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\General GovernmentPacket Pg 351
Table 3Maximum Development Impact Fee Calculations: General GovernmentSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemAverage Cost per New Service Population (2)$274.64Residential Single Family2.51 Persons/Unit 2.51 Persons/Unit1.02.5$689.77 per UnitMultifamily1.81 Persons/Unit 1.81 Persons/Unit1.01.8$496.70 per Unit Non-Residential Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.51.7$0.46 per Sq.Ft. Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.9$0.25 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.7$0.18 per Sq.Ft.Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.25 per Sq.Ft.Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.25 per Sq.Ft.Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room1.0 Emp./Room0.50.5$137.32 per Room(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 2Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Assumptions (1)Service Population MultiplierService Pop. per Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per RoomMaximum FeePersons per Unit/ Sq.Ft./JobPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq.Ft./ per RoomEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\General GovernmentPacket Pg 361
Fire
Packet Pg 37
1
Table S-1Maximum Development Impact Fees: FireSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemResidential Single Family$561.08 per UnitMultifamily$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 RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Maximum Fire Development Impact FeeEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 381
Table 1Cost Summary: Fire Capital ImprovementsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Fire Station 1 Fire Apparatus Repair Facility (Remodel) Fire Station 2 and 3Fire Station 4 Remodel of Dorm and Construction of Multi- Purpose Building (Remodel)Fire Station 5 (New Construction)Fire PumperTotalSources: 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$14,372,037Capital Cost$550,000$7,500,000$400,000$5,322,037$600,000Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 391
Table 2Cost Summary: Fire VehiclesSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Fire DepartmentVehicle Assigned Acquisition Replacement Number of ReplacementCost Average Total ThroughIdentificationDescriptionProgramYearYearUnitsLifeper Unit Annual Cost BuildoutVehiclesFord F150Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonTraining Services200220171.015.0$58,000$3,867$69,600Pierce LanceFire Truck, PumperEmergency Response 200320181.015.0$624,000 $41,600$748,800Ford RangerPickup Truck, CompactFire Administration200520201.015.0$40,000$2,667$48,000Ford F550Medium Duty Truck, w/Utility Bed Emergency Response 200820211.013.0$110,000$8,462$152,308Ford F550Medium Duty Truck, w/Utility BedEmergency Response 200820211.013.0$110,000$8,462$152,308Ford F150Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonHazard Prevention200820211.013.0$65,000$5,000$90,000International Navistar Fire Truck, Heavy DutyEmergency Response 200720221.015.0$550,000 $36,667$660,000Chevrolet Silverado Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonHazard Prevention200720231.016.0$50,000$3,125$56,250Chevrolet Silverado Pickup Truck, 1/2 TonHazard Prevention200720231.016.0$50,000$3,125$56,250Ford F550Medium Duty Truck, Crew Cab 4x4 w/Hooklift Bed Emergency Response 200120251.024.0$58,255$2,427$43,691Toyota 4RunnerSUVEmergency Response 201420261.012.0$65,000$5,417$97,500Toyota 4RunnerSUVEmergency Response 201420261.012.0$65,000$5,417$97,500Chevrolet Suburban SUV, 1/2 Ton 4x4n/a201420261.012.0$65,000$5,417$97,500Onan DQHAB-750033 Generator, Stationaryn/a200920291.020.0$140,000$7,000$140,000Onan DGCA-5748767 Generator, Stationaryn/a200620261.020.0$50,000$2,500$50,000Onan DGCA-5748767 Generator, Stationaryn/a200620261.020.0$50,000$2,500$50,000Toyota Rav4SUVFire Prevention201520281.013.0$50,000$3,846$69,231Toyota Rav4SUVFire Prevention201520281.013.0$40,000$3,077$55,385Chrevrolet Suburban SUV, 1/2 Ton 4x4Emergency Response 201620291.013.0$40,000$3,077$55,385Pierce ArrowFire Truck, Tiller QuintEmergency Response 201020291.019.0$120,000$6,316$113,684Pierce Fire Truck, PumperEmergency Response 201520301.015.0$1,250,000 $83,333 $1,500,000Mitsubishi FG50CN1 Forklfit, 10KEmergency Response201520341.019.0$1,000,000$52,632$947,368Total Vehicles 22.0 $4,650,255 $295,931 $5,350,759Sources: 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. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 401
Table 3Service Population ProjectionsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Item2017 (1)2035 New GrowthAvg. Annual Growth Rate (2)Population (1% Growth)46,724 56,686 9,962 1.1% Jobs52,092 63,199 11,107 1.1% Total Estimated Service Population (3)72,770 88,286 15,516 1.1%Percentage82.4% 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 is based on the LUCE base year of 2013. (3) Employee weighting represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given 50 percentthe weight of residents because of reduced service demands.Sources: Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Packet Pg 411
Table 4Capital Cost Allocations to Existing and New GrowthSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemTotal Existing New Growth Allocation (1)100.0%82.4%17.6%Improvement/ Vehicle CostsFire Capital Improvements (2) $14,372,037 $11,846,222 $2,525,815Fire Vehicles (3)$5,350,759$4,410,390$940,370Total$19,722,796 $16,256,612 $3,466,184New Growth Improvement Costs $3,466,184New Service Population (1)15,516Average Cost per New Service Population$223.40(1) See Table 3(2) See Table 1(3) See Table 2Sources: 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. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 421
Table 5Maximum Development Impact Fee Calculations: FireSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemAverage Cost per New Service Population (2)$223.40Residential Single Family2.51 Persons/Unit2.51Persons/Unit1.02.5$561.08 per UnitMultifamily1.81 Persons/Unit1.81 Persons/Unit1.01.8$404.03 per Unit Non-Residential Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.51.7$0.37per Sq.Ft Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.9$0.20 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.7$0.15 per Sq.Ft.Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.20 per Sq.Ft.Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.20 per Sq.Ft.Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room1.0 Emp./Room0.50.5$111.70 per Room(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 4Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Assumptions (1)Maximum FeePersons per Unit/ Sq.Ft./JobPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq.Ft./ per RoomService Population MultiplierService Pop. per Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per RoomEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\FirePacket Pg 431
Police
Packet Pg 44
1
Table S-1Maximum Development Impact Fees: PoliceSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemResidential Single Family$667.67 per UnitMultifamily$480.79 per UnitNon-ResidentialOffice $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 RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Maximum PoliceDevelopment Impact FeeEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 451
Table 1Service Population ProjectionsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Item2017 (1)2035 New GrowthAvg. Annual Growth Rate (2)Population (1% Growth)46,724 56,686 9,962 1.1% Jobs (3)52,092 63,199 11,107 1.1% Total Estimated Service Population (3)72,770 88,286 15,516 1.1%Percentage82.4% 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 is based on the LUCE base year of 2013. (3) Employee weighting represents a measure of public service demand in which employees are given 50 percentthe weight of residents because of reduced service demands.Sources: Department of Finance; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Packet Pg 461
Table 2Cost Summary: Police Capital ImprovementsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Sq.Ft.Est. Cost/Sq.Ft.New Police Headquarters (New Construction) (1)40,000 $500 $20,000,000Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.ItemTotal Capital Cost(1) Existing police headquarters is approximately 15,000 square feet and serves 59 sworn officers (254 sq.ft./sworn officer). Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 471
Table 3Cost Summary: Police VehiclesSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Formula AssumptionsExisting Police Vehiclesa44 Existing Sworn Officersb59 Police Vehicles/Sworn Officersc=a/b0.75 Existing Service Populationd72,770 Sworn Officers/1,000 Serv. Pop.e=b/(d/1,000)0.81 Net New Service PopulationfImplied New Sworn Officersg=(e(f/1,000))12.58 Implied New Vehicles (1)h=gc9.38 Estimated Cost per Vehiclei$65,000Police Vehicle Cost to Serve New Developmentj=i*h$609,800.26(1) Average cost includes range of vehicles such as tactical vehicles.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Item15,516 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 481
Table 4Capital Cost Allocations to Existing and New GrowthSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemTotal Existing New GrowthAllocation for Capital Improvements (1) 100.0% 82.4% 17.6%Allocation for Vehicles100.0% 0.0% 100.0%Improvement/ Vehicle CostsPolice Capital Improvements (2) $20,000,000 $16,485,099 $3,514,901Police Vehicles (3) $609,800$0$609,800Total$20,609,800 $16,485,099 $4,124,701New Growth Improvement Costs$4,124,701Service Population Growth15,516Average Cost per New Service Population$265.84(1) See Table 3(2) See Table 1(3) See Table 2Sources: 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. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 491
Table 5Maximum Development Impact Fee Calculations: PoliceSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemAverage Cost per New Service Population (2)$265.84Residential Single Family2.51 Persons/Unit2.51Persons/Unit1.02.5$667.67 per UnitMultifamily1.81 Persons/Unit1.81 Persons/Unit1.01.8$480.79 per Unit Non-Residential Office 300 Sq.Ft./Emp. 3.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.51.7$0.44 per Sq.Ft. Retail 550 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.9$0.24 per Sq.Ft.Industrial 750 Sq.Ft./Emp. 1.33 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft. 0.50.7$0.18 per Sq.Ft.Institutional 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.24 per Sq.Ft.Service 550 Sq.Ft./Emp.1.82 Emp./1,000 Sq.Ft.0.50.9$0.24 per Sq.Ft.Lodging 1.0 Emp./Room1.0 Emp./Room0.50.5$132.92 per Room(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 4Sources: 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update: LUCE Fiscal Impact Analysis and Public Financing Plan; City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Assumptions (1)Service Population MultiplierService Pop. per Unit/ 1,000 Sq.Ft./ Per RoomMaximum FeePersons per Unit/ Sq.Ft./JobPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq.Ft./ per RoomEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Model\PolicePacket Pg 501
Parks
Packet Pg 51
1
Table S-1Maximum Citywide Parkland and Improvement Development Fees (Outside of Expansion Areas)San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Quimby Act Mitigation Fee Act Mitigation Fee ActParklandParkland Park ImprovementLand UseIn-Lieu FeeImpact FeeImpact FeeResidentialSingle Family$3,150.85$0$2,879.53$6,030.38 per UnitMultifamily (Condominiums)$2,268.91$0$2,073.54$4,342.44 per UnitMultifamily (Apartments)$0$1,456.82$2,073.54$3,530.35 per UnitNon-ResidentialOffice$0$1.34$1.91$3.25 per Sq.Ft.Retail/ Service/ Institutional$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 RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. MaximumNew FeePacket Pg 521
Table S-2Comparison of Estimated Maximum with Current FeesSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Existing Land UseFeeResidentialSingle Family$5,668.00$6,030.38 per UnitMultifamily (Condominiums) $4,494.00$4,342.44 per UnitMultifamily (Apartments)$0$3,530.35 per UnitNon-ResidentialOffice$0$3.25 per Sq.Ft.Retail/ Service/ Institutional$0$1.77 per Sq.Ft.Industrial$0$1.30 per Sq.Ft.Hotel (per Room)$0$976.01 per RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.MaximumNew FeePacket Pg 531
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.
Packet Pg 54
1
Table 2Current Parks Provision/ Implied Service StandardSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Item2017 City Residents2017 Jobs2017 City Service Population (1)2017 Park and Recreation Land195.39 acresPark Acres per 1,000 Residents4.18 acresPark Acres per 1,000 Service Population2.69 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.46,72452,09272,770AmountEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 551
Table 3Statutory Authority and Parkland and Park Improvements Service Standards AppliedSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemLandImprovementsResidentialSingle Family/ Condominiums Quimby ActMitigation Fee Act4.18 acres/ 1,000 residents2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.Multifamily ApartmentsMitigation Fee ActMitigation Fee Act2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop. 2.69 acres/ 1,000 service pop.Non-ResidentialAll TypesMitigation Fee ActMitigation Fee Act2.69 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. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 561
Table 4Single Family/ Condominium Development: Parkland In-Lieu and Park Improvements Cost per PersonSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemExisting Standard 4.18 acres/ 1,000 persons 2.69 acres/ 1,000 serv. pop.Cost/ Acre (1) $300,000 per acre $427,000 per acre $727,000 per acreCost/ 1,000 persons$2,401.05 per Service Populationper 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.Cost per Person/TotalLand (1)Improvements (1)(Quimby Act In-Lieu)(Mitigation Fee Act)$1,254,537$2,401,049$1,254.54 $1,146,512$1,146.51 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 571
Table 5Multi-Family Apartments and Non-Residential Development: Parkland and Improvement Costs per Service PopulationSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemStandard 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 acreCost/ 1,000 Service Population$1,952.02 per Service Population(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.Land (1)Improvements (1)Average Cost per New (Mitigation Fee Act)(Mitigation Fee Act)Total$805,512$805.51$1,146,512$1,146.51$1,952,024Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 581
Table 6Population, Employment, and Service Population AssumptionsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Persons per Unit/Service PopulationPersons per Unit/ Jobs per 1,000 Sq. Ft./ Service Population per Unit/ 1,000 Sq. Ft./ItemSq. Ft. per Job (1)per RoomMultiplier (2)per Room Residential (per Unit)Single Family 2.51 2.51 1.00 2.51Multifamily (Condominiums)1.81 1.81 1.00 1.81Multifamily (Apartments)1.81 1.81 1.00 1.81Non-ResidentialOffice300 3.33 0.50 1.67Retail/ Service/ Institutional550 1.82 0.50 0.91Industrial 750 1.33 0.50 0.67Hotel (per Room)1.01.000.500.50(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. 9/25/2017P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 591
Table 7Estimates of Maximum Potential Citywide Parks Fees *San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemLand Improvements Land Improvements Residential (per Unit)Single Family 2.51 per unit $1,254.54 $1,146.51 $3,150.85 $2,879.53$6,030.38 per unit Multifamily (Condominiums)1.81 per unit $1,254.54 $1,146.51 $2,268.91 $2,073.54$4,342.44 per unit Multifamily (Apartments)1.81 per unit $805.51 $1,146.51 $1,456.82 $2,073.54$3,530.35 per unit Non-ResidentialOffice1.67 per 1,000 sq. ft. $805.51 $1,146.51 $1.34 $1.91$3.25 per sq.ft.Retail/ Service/ Institutional0.91 per 1,000 sq. ft. $805.51 $1,146.51 $0.73 $1.04$1.77 per sq.ft.Industrial0.67 per 1,000 sq. ft.$805.51$1,146.51$0.54$0.76$1.30 per sq.ft.Hotel 0.50 per room $805.51 $1,146.51 $403 $573$976.01 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.Totalper Room (1)per Unit/ 1,000 Sq. Ft./Service PopulationCost per Service Population (2)Maximum Citywide Parks Fees (3)Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Parks\Park_Fee_Calculations_092117Packet Pg 601
Transportation
Packet Pg 61
1
Maximum Transportation Development Impact FeesSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Land UseResidential Single Family $6,858.67 per Unit $12,383.75 per UnitMultifamily$5,389.06 per Unit $9,730.28 per Unit Non-Residential Office/Service $8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.Retail $29.45 per Sq.Ft.$53.18 per Sq.Ft.Industrial$10.89 per Sq.Ft.$19.66 per Sq.Ft.Institutional $8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.Hotel $3,056.15 per Room $5,518.07 per RoomSources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.North AreaTable S-1South AreaEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 621
North
Sa
nta
R
o
s
a
N
orth
Sa
nta
R
o
s
a
C
alif
o
rnia
C
a
lif
o
r
n
i
aS
a
n
t
a
R
o
s
a
Tank Farm
Foothill
Tank Farm
T a n k Far mSouthHiguera
TankFarm
Fo o t h i l lSouth
Hi
gueraSouthHigueraL
os
O
so
s
V
alle
y
L
o
s
Os
o
s
Va
lle
y
S
a
n
t
a
Ro
s
a
We s t F o o t h il lWestFoothillLos
O
sosValley
B
r
o
a
d
Hi gu eraL
o
s
Os
os
Va
ll
e
y HigueraHigueraMa d onn a
Ma donn a
Ma rsh
M arsh
Orc
u
t
tChorroOrc
u
t
t
M o n ter eyHighlandJ
o
h
n
s
o
n
J
o
h
ns
o
n
JohnsonCaliforniaGrand
Gr
a
n
d
Indus tri al
Pism
o
C
h
o
rr
o
C
h
o
r
r
o
Prado Pismo
C a p it o li oOs
o
s
High
Pal m
South
Orcutt
Pal m
Os
o
s
LaurelOrcuttSantaBarbaraO'Conn
o
r
TaftBroad
VachellMo
rr
o
Mo
rr
o
Murray
MeadowMill
Mi llCollegeC a m p u s
SanLuisGranada
F i e r oSuburbanBishopPrefumoCanyon
Ae roHooverBuckley
Buckley
Bu
c
kley
F ro om R a n c h
A u t o P a rkParkerLongSac
ra
me
n
t
o
Uph am
Wal n u tT
o
r
o
SantaFeHo ov er
To
ro
El
Merca
d
o
ElksCalleJoaquinP ac ificHighland
LaurelMontal
b
a
n
Syd n ey
Southwood
ShortSantaFeSouthwood
Pacif icRoyal LaEntradaHind
L iz zi e
McmillanSouthTassajaraBeebeeBuc ho n
Buc ho n
Bridge
Meinecke
Ni
p
om
oNip
om
o
LagunaCasaPatriciaClarion
H
o
ll
y
ho
c
kNorthTassajaraB
r
o
a
d
DescansoRamona
SacramentoO live
D
a
l
idi
o
E lla
RoyalM on te rey
A
u
g
u
st
aGa
r
d
e
n
Augusta
Aer ov istaVenture
Cross ViaCarta
Bor
onda
Ramona
WavertreeDexterAndrew
sMountBishop
P
e
p
p
e
r
L in co ln
Os
o
s IslayPeachPeach
Oak
H
e
dley BuenaVistaWoodbridge
K
erry IslayStennerG
alle
o
n
Poi
ns
et
t
i
a
P
oinsettia
Ken dallKingSi
er
ra
West
Zaca
Ma
ple
Garci
a
A t a s c a d e r o
Ocea
n
air
e
OceanaireVia Es te b a nJeffrey
Sp itfire
Bonetti
Tanglewood
Mornin
gG
lo
r
y
Tangl ew ood
F u ll e r
H igueraFredericks
OldWindmillD
el
Rio Walk
e
r
EmpleoRoundhouse
Slack
EmpresaRica rdoAirportLosCerrosFontana
Luneta
L
e
mo
n
M o n t e Vi sta
RailroadSandercock
SueldoFarmhouseFerrini
Mission
Je
n
n
if
e
r
BrookpineUni
versityCreeksideVista
MitchellNo
rt
hC
ho
r
r
oMccollum
Branch
SpanishOa k sCh urc h
A
r
c
h
e
r
P alm
Blu ebe llDuncanF e r n w o o d
Le ffStafford
Le ffChumash
P
e
re
ir
a
Phillips
Las Praderas
C
a
r
mel
Stoneridge SanLuisCar
p
enter
Hath
w ayB
e
a
c
h
Center
D
e
v
a
ul
R
a
n
c
h
DavenportCreekWestmont
HighChorroCuesta
La
Virad
a
EtoK
e
n
t
uckyVi ew mont
Coriander
Ro
bert
o
P oly Vue
Mig
u
elit
o
BasilBrook
AlicitaPine Fi
xli
ni
WardLa CitaLosVerdes
Breck
Three
Sisters ElPaseoPolyCan yo n
Los Palos
Sm ith
Bianchi
Mutsu hit o
H
e
n
ry
R
u
t
h
BottomwoodSenderoAlyssumMount ainC ay u co sCa
md
e
n
MelloL a k e view RichardTolosa
RositaH um bert
Rougeot
Sween
e
yBenton
ThreadLawnwoodSte
ph
a
n
i
e
Fontana
Mag
n
o
l
i
a
Birch
Montecito EllenSycamoreF
ai
rway Cuyama
CalleJazminSan M a t e oCastilloL
aPos
adaVerdeAbbott
Fra ncis
EdgewoodHuttonStoryHarrisCypressPriceSydneyBi
n
n
s
Elm
J
e
a
n ConejoSawleaf
OldSanteFe
Per k ins
E l C a p ita n
Warren
Cordo
va
Purpl
eSageFunstonAlmon
d
P h illip sLarkspur
Craig
Del C a min o sSisquocSantaLuciaWestNewport M a nz anitaCenter
HorizonH illcre stPalomarWilson
Cazadero
Q u ailMalibu
ViaSanBlas
B ou g a invill eaGarnette
Mor
a
b
itoMuirf
i
el
dGarfield
Bond
T
o
nini
CalleLupita Vic
t
ori
a
Pi
n
e
c
o
v
e
ProspectAndrews
Cl ov er
DelNorte
C a lle C ro ta lo
M o u n ta in V i e w
FeltonSkyline
Hays
Dana
Hope
Cor a l
Caudill
CerroRomauldo
Hel
e
n
a
B
o
y
s
e
nSanCarlos
EsperanzaJespersonV ia E ns enada Blu e rock
VistadelColla
d
os Vi
a
Ca
rt
aLa V ine d a
H
u
a
s
n
a
Vic
e
n
t
e
Corrida
Woodsid e
Loomis LoomisSerranoHeights
GatheB
alb
oa
TiburonLawrence
R
o
c
k
vie
wGoldenrod
Evans
V i llage
Fl
o
r
a
Fl
o
r
a
MountBishop
Buena VistaCrandall
EstelitaP
a
r
k
LompocE
l
Tig
r
e
Ro
sePrinc
e
t
onBushnellVi
s
t
adel
ArroyoKentwoodRafaelBayLeafWilding
AlleneRachelThelma
LomaBonita
S
t
a
nf
o
r
d
DelSur
Alde
r
S
u
nflo
w
er
S
a
n
Adri
an
o
Florence
S
p
o
o
n
erMirad
a LongviewAlbert
GaribaldiSantaYnezCuesta
M ariposa BlvddelCampoCreekside Gr
o
v
ePat
r
ic
i
aCorralitosP
as
ati
empoVista
d
elLago
IronbarkHill
F
or
e
manKare
n
P icoOleaSola
Chaplin
PortolaR ich
Georg
e
P
a
r
kl
a
n
d
Jan iceSequoiaHiddenSpringsChuparrosa Kl
ama
t
hBuckeyeGer da
L ilyLynnWelsh
Marlene
Daly
Deseret
RebaFletcher
ElCentro
Popul
us
Chu rch
Yarrow
D eA nzaLaLun aJaliscoIris
M a r i goldDa
rt
mout
hF
a
r
r
i
e
r
Sin
gle
tre
e GravesHendersonCapistrano
Madro
ne
Lo belia
S an
M a rco s
NojoquiClearvie
w
Claire LaCanadaRosem aryChristina Boxwood
S
e
q
u
oia
Bl
uebellBrizzolaraDeerCambriaColumbineRanc
ho
Canyon
Ma rshaBritt
a
ny
V e gaFrambuesa
Harmony
FelMar
El
C
errito
Tulip
AraliaCastaicCavalierN
ew
p
ort
P a r tridge LeonaBeechTruckee
BriarwoodSantaMari
a
Li
ma
Map
l
e PinnaclesHansen
C haparral
Ashmore
Tarragon
C y c la m e n
Il
eneCec e lia
Felicia
G
r
et
a
JaneCa mpusOakridge
S
u
n
s
e
t
Mason
S
u
n
r
o
s
e
Venable
CrestviewT
a
h
oe
Montrose
AlritaHaz elOr
a
ngeBa rrancaCarolynMiraSol
DrakeMu
sta
n
g
Cucaracha
Hathway
MuguS
antaCla ra
Woodland
S
w
ee
t
b
a
yAlHilLexingtonAnacapaGul
f
T
win
Rid
ge
Ambrosia
Huckle
berryPa
c
hec
oSea ward LawtonBedfordAv
a
lo
n
W isteriaDel Mar
Snapdragon
C
o
u
p
er
Cachuma
Ojai
PaseoBellaMontana
SantaFeHe rm osa
Isabella KingWoodbridgeIris
F ix lin iLosVerdes
LosPalosOceanaireHighland
CerroRomauldo
Murray
PoinsettiadelBrisa
EarthoodDaisyCherryVioletAsterBlackberry Plum
Sage
Junipero
CantoMargarita
Di abloViaLagu
naVista
Kila
rn
e
y
Donegal
Arroyo Valle VistaNasellaPoa
SlenderRock
FennelLavenderWi llow
Figure 1: City of San Luis Obispo, North and South Area
aliiff
oo
fff
rrnnniiiaaaa
ttt
aaa
HHH yyhhh
ooooo
rr
o nLLLuiisLL iinn ccc ooo lllnn
HHHH iigggguueeerrraaalll North N trNorotNNootrthoNorhhhtrorthNooortrtoohthrNhhoNtooNthooNototNothrotrohorNtotNthoortNohothhoohhorthtorotoohNNotrthNrhaaRRRRRooo
ssssss
aaaa
CCCCCC
hhhhhhhhhhh
o OOOOOOss
oo
ss
MMoooooo
rrrrrrrrrrrr
oooo ArearAAAraaeAaAAreaArAAaAAaAeArearaAAAAAareAaAeaAaAAeAaAArereAaeAreeeeaArearaeAaArArAerAAAeareAHHHHHHiiiiiggguuuuuueeeeeerrrrrraaaaaarrrrrrrrMMMMMMMMMMoooooooooonnnntttteeeeerreeyyHHHH
G dZ EEEmmmrrreeSSuueelllddSouthSSShuoouthtShthuthououSouth AreaAreaeArAAAAeAAAaeAaAraAAaAAAAAAAreAAAaarAeaAaAaAaAAreBBBoooonnnneeeettttttttttiiimmmmmmpppplllleeeeoooEEEEEEmmppprrrddddoooo
Packet Pg 63
1
Table 1Summary of Transportation Capital Improvement Projects in Fee Program San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Improvement CategoryCostPercentageInterchange (1)$78,822,72028.6%Intersection $46,920,00017.0%Street Widening ( 2)$38,231,27813.9%Street Extension$44,283,50016.1%Pedestrian/ Bicycle$58,000,00021.0%Transit$6,500,0002.4%Other (3)$2,900,0001.1%Total (4)$275,657,498100.0%(1) Includes financing costs for Highway 101/Prado Road Interchange and Highway 101/LOVR Interchange.(2) Includes financing costs for the Prado Road Bridge West of Higuera.(3) Other includes South Broad Street medians corridor improvements and the traffic volume count program and traffic model.(4) List reflects new projects needed to serve anticipated new development and 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. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 641
Table 2 Summary of Capital Improvement Cost AllocationsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187ItemCost % Total Transportation Costs (including financing)1$275,657,498 100%Regional Funding2$33,115,700 12%Existing Development3$66,878,472 24%New Growth Cost Allocation4$175,663,326 64%1 Includes financing costs for Highway 101/Prado Road Interchange and Highway 101/LOVR Interchange and the Prado Road Bridge West of Higuera that sum to $43.3 million.2 Represents estimate of costs to be covered by regional funding sources.3 Represents portion of improvement costs that support existing development and/oraddress existing deficiencies.4 Does not include adjustments for existing fee balances.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Wallace Group; Cambridge Systematics; and Economic &Planning Systems, Inc.Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 651
Table 3Costs per Trip by GeographySan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Average CostGeographyTotal Costs Percentage Net Costs1Trips (ADT) Percentageper Trip (ADT)North Area$25,029,451 14.2% $24,143,02059,509 23.1%$405.70South Area$150,633,87585.8%$145,299,097198,35576.9%$732.52 Total/ Average $175,663,326 100.0% $169,442,117 257,865 100.0% $657.102 New trips represents new Average Daily Trips (ADT) associated with the City's new growth capacity.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.New Trips2Cost Allocations to New Development1 Removes existing transportation impact fee fund balances from the total costs allocated to new growth. Latest fee balances available from City (June 30, 2016) indicate a total fee balance of about $6.22 million, including $5.14 million in Citywide Transportation Impact Fee fund and $1.08 million in Airport Area Impact Fee Fund. Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 661
Table 4 Maximum Fee Calculation by Trips Generation by Land Use and by AreaSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Land UseAverage Cost per TripResidential Single Family16.91 per unit$6,858.67 per Unit$12,383.75 per UnitMultifamily13.28 per unit$5,389.06 per Unit$9,730.28 per Unit Non-Residential Office/Service (1)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft.$8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.Retail (2)72.60 per 1,000 sq.ft. $29.45 per Sq.Ft.$53.18 per Sq.Ft.Industrial26.84 per 1,000 sq.ft. $10.89 per Sq.Ft.$19.66 per Sq.Ft.Institutional (3)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft.$8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.Hotel (4)7.53 per room$3,056.15 per Room$5,518.07 per Room(1) Trip generation rates based on an average of office and service trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(2) Trip generation rates based on an average of low and medium retail trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(3) Trip generation rates based on office/service trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(4) Trip generation rates based on motel trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Cambridge Systematics; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.$405.70$732.52Trip (ADT)Generation RatesSouth AreaNorth AreaEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 671
Table A-1 Transportation Model Growth Forecasts by Land Use and by Area (1)San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Land UseCitywide North South Citywide North South Citywide North SouthResidential (Dwelling Units)Single Family 8,289 6,981 1,308 3,102 985 2,117 11,391 7,966 3,425Multifamily 12,0849,2082,8763,0348872,14715,11810,0955,023Total Residential Units20,373 16,189 4,184 6,136 1,872 4,264 26,509 18,061 8,448 Non-Residential (Sq.Ft.)Office/Service2,487,6031,607,157 880,447 3,911,560 635,783 3,275,777 6,399,163 2,242,940 4,156,223Retail5,290,842 1,787,679 3,503,163 1,043,493 212,494 830,999 6,334,335 2,000,173 4,334,162Industrial2,987,985 152,910 2,835,075 115,185 2,418 112,767 3,103,170 155,328 2,947,842Institutional340,771311,60729,16544,43961643,822385,210312,22372,987Total 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 11,511,214Hotel (Rooms)2,183 1,601 582651 331 320 2,834 1,932 902(1) Transportation model growth forecasts based on growth capacity. As a result, growth forecasts are greater than the General Plan growth forecasts that focus on potential growth through 2035. Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.ExistingGrowthBuildoutEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 681
Table A-2 Trip Generation Associated with Growth Forecasts by Land Use and by AreaSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Land UseCitywide North South Citywide North South Citywide North SouthResidential Single Family16.91 per unit140,131 118,019 22,11352,441 16,652 35,789192,573 134,671 57,902Multifamily13.28 per unit160,515122,31338,20340,30211,78228,519200,817134,09566,722Subtotal300,647 240,331 60,31592,743 28,434 64,309393,390 268,766 124,624 Non-Residential Office/Service (1) 20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft. 51,169 33,059 18,11080,45913,078 67,381131,628 46,136 85,492Retail (2)72.60 per 1,000 sq.ft. 384,089 129,777 254,31375,753 15,426 60,326459,842 145,203 314,639Industrial26.84 per 1,000 sq.ft. 80,202 4,104 76,0973,09265 3,02783,293 4,169 79,124Institutional (3)20.57 per 1,000 sq.ft. 7,010 6,410600914139017,924 6,422 1,501Hotel (4)7.53 per room16,44512,0604,3844,9042,4932,41121,34914,5546,795Subtotal538,914 185,410 353,504165,122 31,075 134,047704,036 216,485487,551Total Trips839,561 425,741 413,820257,865 59,509 198,355 1,097,425 485,250 612,175% of Citywide100.00% 50.71% 49.29%100.00% 23.08% 76.92%100.00% 44.22% 55.78%% of Total Buildout Trips76.50% 38.79% 37.71%23.50% 5.42% 18.07%100.00% 44.22% 55.78%(1) Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation rates based on an average of office and service trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(2) Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation rates based on an average of low and medium retail trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(3) Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation rates based on office/service trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.(4) Average Daily Trip (ADT) generation rates based on motel trip rates provided by City staff/ Cambridge Systematics.Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Cambridge Systematic; Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.Trip Generation ExistingGrowthBuildoutRatesEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 691
Table A-3Transportation Improvement List, Cost Estimates, and Preliminary Approach to Cost AllocationSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Regional ExistingNewRegionalExistingNewNorthSouthInterchange ImprovementsProject #1Hwy 101/LOVR Interchange ImprovementsInterchange Improvements$4,926,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 8.8% 91.2% $0 $0 $4,926,000 $435,025 $4,490,975Project #1FHwy 101/LOVR Interchange ImprovementsFinancing$7,112,300 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 8.8% 91.2% $0 $0 $7,112,300 $628,102 $6,484,198Project #2Hwy 101/Prado Rd InterchangeInterchange Improvements$35,000,00030.0%0.0%70.0%9.7%90.3% $10,500,000$0 $24,500,000$2,380,592 $22,119,408Project #2FHwy 101/Prado Rd Interchange Financing$31,784,4200.0%0.0%100.0%9.7%90.3%$0$0$31,784,420$3,088,397$28,696,023Subtotal$78,822,720$10,500,000 $0 $68,322,720 $6,532,115 $61,790,605Intersection ImprovementsProject #3Broad & South-Santa Barbara Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$300,000 20.0% 15.0% 65.0% 17.7% 82.3% $60,000 $45,000 $195,000 $34,539 $160,461Project #4Orcutt & Tank Farm Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$1,120,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 32.6% 67.4% $0 $0 $1,120,000 $365,441 $754,559Project #5Broad & Tank Farm Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$1,500,000 15.0% 0.0% 85.0% 9.7% 90.3% $225,000 $0 $1,275,000 $123,888 $1,151,112Project #6Johnson & Orcutt Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$2,000,000 25.0% 0.0% 75.0% 1.7% 98.3% $500,000 $0 $1,500,000 $25,064 $1,474,936Project #7Higuera & Tank Farm Intersection ImprovementsIntersection Improvements$2,000,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 0.0% 100.0% $0 $0 $2,000,000 $0 $2,000,000Project #8S. Broad Street IntersectionIntersection Improvements$5,000,00020.0%0.0%80.0%9.7%90.3%$1,000,000$0 $4,000,000$388,668$3,611,332Project #9General Plan Cumulative Intersection Control UpgradesIntersection Improvements$15,000,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 24.4% 75.6% $0 $0 $15,000,000 $3,661,049 $11,338,951Project #10Orcutt Rd/UPRR Grade Separation Intersection Improvements$20,000,00010.0%68.9%21.1%17.7%82.3%$2,000,000$13,770,499$4,229,501$749,144$3,480,357Subtotal$46,920,000$3,785,000 $13,815,499 $29,319,501 $5,347,793 $23,971,709Street Widening ImprovementsProject #11Higuera 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 $340,354Project #12Higuera Widening: Madonna Rd to City LimitsStreet Widening$5,400,000 55.0% 0.0% 45.0% 5.4% 94.6% $2,970,000 $0 $2,430,000 $130,992$2,299,008Project #13Tank Farm Road WideningStreet Widening, $22,000,00030.0%0.0%70.0%9.7%90.3%$6,600,000$0 $15,400,000$1,496,372 $13,903,628Project #14Prado Rd Bridge Widening: West of Higuera St and Higuera & Prado Intersection ImprovementsStreet Widening and Intersection Improvements$4,260,00020.0%0.0%80.0%17.7%82.3%$852,000$0 $3,408,000$603,637 $2,804,363Project #14FPrado Rd. Bridge W of HigueraFinancing$4,421,2780.0%0.0%100.0%17.7%82.3%$0$0$4,421,278$783,112$3,638,166Subtotal$38,231,278$10,422,000 $1,644,810 $26,164,468 $3,178,950 $22,985,519Street Extension ImprovementsProject #15aSanta Fe Road Extension North of Tank FarmStreet Extension$1,080,000 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 9.7% 90.3% $648,000 $0 $432,000 $41,976 $390,024Project #15bSanta Fe Road Extension South of Tank FarmStreet Extension$2,500,000 60.0% 0.0% 40.0% 9.7% 90.3% $1,500,000 $0 $1,000,000 $97,167 $902,833Project #16Horizon Lane Extension South of Tank FarmStreet Extension$3,000,000 10.0% 0.0% 90.0% 14.3% 85.7% $300,000 $0 $2,700,000 $385,044 $2,314,956Project #17Bishop 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 $1,680,506Project #18Prado Rd Extension South Higuera to Broad Street, including Broad Street & Prado Extension Intersection ImprovementsStreet Extension and Intersection Improvements$24,503,50020.0%0.0%80.0%14.8%85.2%$4,900,700$0$19,602,800$2,903,294$16,699,506Subtotal$44,283,500$8,008,700 $9,593,447 $26,681,353 $4,693,527 $21,987,826Project NumberNameNew Cost EstimateFirst Allocation - CitywideType (e.g., Geographic Area of Benefit)Second Allocation - New by AreaSecond Allocation - New by AreaNorthSouthFirst Allocation - CitywideEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 701
Regional ExistingNewRegionalExistingNewNorthSouthProject NumberNameNew Cost EstimateFirst Allocation - CitywideType (e.g., Geographic Area of Benefit)Second Allocation - New by AreaSecond Allocation - New by AreaNorthSouthFirst Allocation - CitywidePedestrian/ Bicycle ImprovementsProject #19Bob Jones TrailPedestrian/Bike Projects$11,000,0000.0%76.5%23.5%23.1%76.9%$0 $8,415,305 $2,584,695$596,489 $1,988,206Project #20Railroad Safety Trail Pedestrian/Bike Projects$12,000,0000.0%76.5%23.5%23.1%76.9%$0 $9,180,332 $2,819,668$650,715 $2,168,952Project #21aBicycle Transportation Plan Implementation North AreaPedestrian/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$0Project #21bBicycle Transportation Plan Implementation South AreaPedestrian/Bike Projects$20,600,0000.0%40.0%60.0%0.0%100.0%$0$8,240,000$12,360,000$0$12,360,000Subtotal$58,000,000$0 $36,852,036 $21,147,964 $4,630,805 $16,517,159Transit ImprovementsProject #22Fleet Expansion: 4 BusesTransit Projects$1,500,0000.0%76.5%23.5%0.0%100.0%$0 $1,147,542$352,458$0$352,458Project #23Transit CenterTransit Projects$5,000,0000.0%76.5%23.5%23.1%76.9%$0$3,825,139$1,174,861$271,131$903,730Subtotal$6,500,000$0 $4,972,680 $1,527,320 $271,131 $1,256,189OtherProject #24Traffic Volume Count Program and Traffic ModelMisc.$900,000 0.0% 0.0% 100.0% 24.4% 75.6% $0 $0 $900,000 $219,663 $680,337Project #25S. Broad Street MediansCorridor Improvements$2,000,00020.0%0.0%80.0%9.7%90.3%$400,000$0$1,600,000$155,467$1,444,533Subtotal$2,900,000$400,000 $0 $2,500,000 $375,130 $2,124,870Total$275,657,498$33,115,700 $66,878,472 $175,663,326 $25,029,451 $150,633,875Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Transportation\TransportationFee_092217NewPacket Pg 711
Fee Comparisons
Packet Pg 72
1
Table 1Single Family Detached (per Unit) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Quimby Act Park Dedication Requirements Yes YesAdd'l Parks/Open Space/ Recreation Fees $2,880 $2,880Traffic/Transportation$6,859 $12,384 $6,398 - $8,093 $4,723 - $14,175Public Safety$1,229 $1,229 $176 - $992Fire$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(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa CruzYes YesFee Category NorthSouth $5,877 $615YesYesPaso RoblesMaximum SLO FeeDavis (1)Napa (2)$3,111No$5,588$12,700$1,180$1,099$81$3,182Santa Cruz $3,889$7,311$1,305$688$616 $157Santa Maria (3)Palm Springs (4)$1,837YesEconomic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 731
Table 2Multifamily Rental (per Unit) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks/Open Space and Recreation$3,530 $3,530Traffic/Transportation$5,389 $9,730 $3,906 - $4,942 $3,198 - $8,840Public Safety$885 $885 $282 - $757Fire$404 $404Police$481 $481General 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.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa Cruz$1,277$5,002Santa Maria (3)Fee Category Davis (1) Napa (2)NorthSouth$759 Maximum SLO FeePaso Robles$1,194 $4,486Palm Springs (4)$2,790$382$342$87$95$3,182$4,195$8,752$3,111$724$2,387 $1,099Santa Cruz Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 741
Table 3Retail (per Sq.Ft.) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks and Recreation$1.77 $1.77Traffic/Transportation$29.45 $53.18 $6.68 - $8.45 $3.77 - $21.67Public Safety$0.44 $0.44 $0.11 - $1.08Fire$0.20 $0.20Police$0.24 $0.24General Government$0.25 $0.25 $0.81 - $0.93*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees. (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.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa CruzPalm Springs (4)$5.68$0.02$10.82Fee Category Davis (1)Napa (2)NorthSouthMaximum SLO Fee$11.48$0.86 $0.09$0.48$0.48 $1.16$0.12$0.40$0.52Santa Maria (3)Santa CruzPaso Robles $0.37$8.86 $0.06 $0.43 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 751
Table 4Office (per Sq.Ft.) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks and Recreation$3.25 $3.25Traffic/Transportation$8.35 $15.07 $4.10 - $5.19 $4.38 - $7.91Public Safety$0.82 $0.82 $0.11 - $1.08Fire$0.37 $0.37Police$0.44 $0.44General Government$0.46 $0.46 $0.81 - $0.93*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.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF).Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa CruzPalm Springs (4)$5.19Fee Category Davis (1)Napa (2)Maximum SLO Fee$0.40$0.12$1.16$11.48$0.02$9.01$0.09NorthSouth $0.86Paso Robles Santa Cruz$0.06$0.37 Santa Maria (3)$0.52$0.17$0.17 $5.78$0.43 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 761
Table 5Industrial (per Sq.Ft.) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks and Recreation$1.30 $1.30Traffic/Transportation$10.89$19.66 $0.38 - $0.48 $1.92 - $7.01$2.70 - $3.73Public Safety$0.33 $0.33 $0.22 - $0.28Fire$0.15 $0.15Police$0.18 $0.18General Government$0.18 $0.18 $0.23 - $0.24*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. Traffic/Transportation fee reflects light industrial category.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF).(5) 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 CruzPalm Springs (4)$1.03$0.09$0.02Paso RoblesFee Category Davis (1) Napa (2)NorthSouth $0.03 $0.03$0.86Maximum SLO Fee $3.23$0.36$0.33$0.63$0.03$0.43$0.37 $3.62$0.06Santa Maria (3) Santa Cruz (5)Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 771
Table 6Hotel (per Room) Development Impact Fee ComparisonsSan Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187Parks and Recreation$976 $976Traffic/Transportation$3,056 $5,518 $1,906 - $2,853Public Safety$0 $0Fire$0 $0Police$0 $0General Government$0 $0*The City of Santa Barbara does not have any development impact fees. (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.(4) City of Palm Springs' traffic/transportation fee reflects regional Coachella Valley Association of Government's (CVAG) Transportation Uniform Mitigation Fee (TUMF). Source: Cities of Davis, Napa, Paso Robles, Santa Maria, Palm Springs, Santa Barbara and Santa CruzPalm Springs (4)$449Fee Category Napa (2)Paso RoblesNorthSouthMaximum SLO Fee$549$178$453$25$96$154 Santa Maria (3)Santa Cruz $95$39$10 $2,814$2,561$2,233Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017 P:\161000s\161187SLO_CFF\Data\Fee Comparison\FeeComps_Revised_92517Packet Pg 781
Feasibility
Packet Pg 79
1
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
Capitalized Value $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
Capitalized Value/Sq.Ft.$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
Capitalized Value/Sq.Ft.$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
Capitalized Value/Sq.Ft.$300
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. 9/25/2017
Packet Pg 80
1
Key 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$160,000North Area South Area(Non-SpecificPlan)South Area(Specific Plan)Affordable HousingSchool DistrictSewerWaterGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationSingle Family (per Unit) Assumptions Market Value: $650,000 Unit Size: 1,675 Sq.Ft. Packet Pg 811
Key 5% of Market Value 10% of Market Value 15% of Market Value $0$10,000$20,000$30,000$40,000$50,000$60,000$70,000$80,000North Area South AreaSchool DistrictWaterSewerGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationMultifamily (per Unit) Assumptions Market Value: $375,000 Unit Size: 930 Sq.Ft.Packet Pg 821
Key 10% of Market Value 5% of Market Value $0$10$20$30$40$50$60$70$80$90$100North Area South AreaAffordable HousingSchool DistrictPublic ArtSewerWaterGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationRetail (per Sq.Ft) Assumptions Market Value: $300/Sq.Ft. Size: 10,000 Sq.Ft. 7.5% of Market Value Packet Pg 831
10% of Market Value 5% of Market Value $0$10$20$30$40$50$60North Area South AreaAffordable HousingSchool DistrictPublic ArtSewerWaterGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationKey Office/ Business Park (per Sq.Ft) 7.5% of Market Value Assumptions Market Value: $425/Sq.Ft. Size: 10,000 Sq.Ft. Packet Pg 841
10% of Market Value 5% of Market Value $0$5$10$15$20$25$30$35$40$45$50North Area South AreaAffordable HousingSchool DistrictPublic ArtSewerWaterGeneral GovernmentPublic SafetyParksTransportationKey Office/ Service (per Sq.Ft) 7.5% of Market Value Assumptions Market Value: $300/Sq.Ft. Size: 10,000 Sq.Ft. Packet Pg 851
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 86
1
Oakland Sacramento Denver Los Angeles
October 17, 2017
San Luis Obispo Capital
Facilities Fee Update
presented to
San Luis Obispo City Council
presented by
Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
1San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
1. Introduction/Background
2. Study Scope and Objectives
3. Fee Programs
4. Fee Comparison
5. Feasibility Considerations
6. Discussion and Questions
2San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Costs of Growth -LUE Policy 1.13.9
•The City shall require the costs of public facilities and
services needed for new development be borne by the
new development, unless the community chooses to
help pay the costs for a certain development to obtain
community-wide benefits. The City shall consider a
range of options for financing measures so that new
development pays its fair share of costs of new service
and facilities which are required to serve the project and
which are reasonably related to the new growth
attributable to the development.
General Plan Implementation
3San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖EDSP 1.4
•Ensure that the fair-share structure includes appropriate
percentages for each party bearing a portion of the
infrastructure costs.
•Utilize a consultant to lead a series of study sessions
with the City Council on the City’s impact fee
structure guided by existing policies and options for
the City to consider related to how impact fees are
determined, calculated, and applied.
Economic Development Strategic Plan
4San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
1.Incremental evolution of the fee program has created an
overly complex system that warrants reconsideration.
2.Geographic overlaps cause significant differences in fee
levels in various parts of the City.
3.Some specific fees appear high by industry standards.
4.Inconsistency between land use categories used to
compute fees in different programs.
5.Fees do not contain cost component for administration and
updates.
6.Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index is a
better index than CPI.
7.The City does not charge for all municipal infrastructure
categories, though this may be appropriate in the context
of other concerns about the fee program.
Study Session Key Findings
5San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Council directed staff to proceed with the update of the
City’s development impact fees, to integrate fees into and
prioritize projects in the City’s Capital Improvement
Program, and also to explore new infrastructure funding
strategies to support the objectives of the EDSP.
❖Some funding strategies discussed included:
•Community Investment Bond
•Economic Development Direct Investment
✓$250,000 current balance
•Land Secured Bonds for Area-Specific Infrastructure
✓First CFD initiated for Avila Ranch
Study Session #3 Direction
6San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
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
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
Budget Policies Updated
7San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
A.Reduce fees by reducing infrastructure investments
B.Reduce fees and identify alternative funding sources
C.Change transportation cost allocations (and fees)
D.Fee timing/implementation options
OPTIONS TO REDUCE FEE LEVELS
8San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
INTRODUCTION/
BACKGROUND
9San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
ECONOMIC & PLANNING SYSTEMS (EPS)Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) is a land economics consulting
firm with over 30 years of experience in the full spectrum of services related to
real estate development, the financing of public infrastructure and government
services, land use and conservation planning, and government organization.
•Open Space and Resource
Conservation
•Reuse, Revitalization, and
Redevelopment
•Government Organization
•Housing Development Feasibility and
Policy
•Transportation Planning and Analysis
•Real Estate Market and Feasibility
Analysis
•Regional Economics and Industry Analysis
•Public Finance
•Land Use Planning and Growth
Management
•Fiscal and Economic Impact Analysis
Areas of Expertise
Located in Oakland, Los Angeles, and Sacramento, California; and Denver, Colorado
www.epsys.com
10San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Impact fees are “one-time” charges to new development
that can fund capital improvements required to serve new
development
❖What can they fund?
•Funds only infrastructure, capital facilities, and other
capital items (e.g., police vehicles)
•Funds only proportionate share of costs associated
with new development (“nexus”)
•Non-fee funded portion must be funded through other
sources
•Cannot fund ongoing services or operating costs
❖Part of City’s overall infrastructure financing program
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
11San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Impact fees must be adopted consistent with the Mitigation
Fee Act (Government Code Section 66000)
❖New development impact fees are adopted pursuant to a
technical nexus study that must address:
•Purpose of the fee
•Use of the fee revenue
•Relationship between new development and new capital
facilities
•Need for new capital facilities
•Proportionality between costs of facilities required to
serve new development and fee levels
MITIGATION FEE ACT
12San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
STUDY SCOPE AND
OBJECTIVES
13San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
STUDY SCOPE
Update
Transportation
Parks
New
General
Government
Police
Fire
14San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Consistent with General Plan Policy 1.13.9, ensure that new
development pays its proportionate share of infrastructure
costs
❖Generate revenue to pay for infrastructure needed to
mitigate the effects of new development
❖Simplify existing fee programs where possible (e.g., reconcile
land use categories, reduce geographic fee level variations)
❖Track and coordinate pending development applications,
existing commitments, reimbursement obligations
❖Manage development feasibility implications
❖Ensure process is transparent
❖Reflect stakeholder outreach
❖Consider ease of administration
STUDY GOALS AND PRINCIPLES
15San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Fees are investments in necessary infrastructure and
contribute to the City’s quality of life
❖Impact fees provide certainty to developers in terms of City
infrastructure/ capital requirements
❖Impact fees add to the cost of new construction and can affect
development feasibility
❖Aggregate fee burdens are sometimes moderated to provide
funding for necessary capital facilities while balancing
development feasibility
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS OF FEES
16San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
FEE PROGRAMS
17San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
New Fee to help fund future civic facility space
needs, including construction of a new City Hall and
Public Works/ Community Development office
space.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT: Objective
18San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Fee Summary
GENERAL GOVERNMENT: Results
Generates total
revenue of
$4.26 Million
Land Use
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
Maximum
General Government
Development Impact Fee
19San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
New Fee to help fund costs related to future capital
improvements identified in the Fire Master Plan,
including vehicles.
FIRE: Objective
20San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Fee Summary
FIRE: Results
City,
$16,256,612
Fee
Program,
$3,466,184
Generates total
revenue of
$3.47 Million
Land Use
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
Maximum Fire
Development Impact Fee
21San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
New Fee to help fund costs related to future capital
improvements, such as the Police Headquarters
facility and vehicles.
POLICE: Objective
22San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Fee Summary
POLICE: Results
City,
$16,485,099
Fee
Program,
$4,124,701
Generates total
revenue of
$4.12 Million
Land Use
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
Maximum Police
Development Impact Fee
23San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Expanded Fee Program to help fund parkland
acquisition and park improvement costs.
New Fee for multifamily rental and commercial
development to help fund parkland acquisition and
park improvement costs.
PARKS AND RECREATION: Objective
24San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
PARKS AND RECREATION: Results
Land Use
Residential
Single Family $6,030.38 per Unit
Multifamily (Condominiums)$4,342.44 per Unit
Multifamily (Apartments)$3,530.35 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office $3.25 per Sq.Ft.
Retail/ Service/ Institutional $1.77 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial $1.30 per Sq.Ft.
Hotel (per Room)$976.01 per Room
Maximum
New Fee
❖Fee Summary
New Fees
Generates total
revenue of
$33.8 Million
_____
h
$15.0 Million
from new fees
25San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Updated Fee to help fund future multimodal
transportation improvements.
TRANSPORTATION: Objective
26San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
TRANSPORTATION: Existing Geography
27San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
TRANSPORTATION: Proposed Geography
28San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
TRANSPORTATION: Growth Allocation
Citywide Buildout 100%Existing Development
77%
Future Development
23%
North Area
22%
South Area
78%
29San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
TRANSPORTATION: Costs by Category
Improvement Category Cost Percentage
Interchange $78,822,720 28.6%
Intersection $46,920,000 17.0%
Street Widening $38,231,278 13.9%
Street Extension $44,283,500 16.1%
Pedestrian/ Bicycle $58,000,000 21.0%
Transit $6,500,000 2.4%
Other $2,900,000 1.1%
Total $275,657,498 100.0%
* Includes financing costs for Highway 101/ Prado Road Interchange, Highway 101/LOVR Interchange, and Prado Road Bridge W. of Higuera
30San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
TRANSPORTATION: Cost Allocation
Total Project Costs $275.7 MillionRegional Funding:
$33.1 Million
Existing Development:
$66.9 Million
New Development:
$175.7
Less Fees Collected:
$169.4 Million
North Area:
$24.1 Million
South Area:
$145.3 Million
Fee Program:
$169.4 M
City:
$66.9 M
Regional Funding:
$33.1 M
Fees Collected:
$6.3 M
31San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Fee Summary
TRANSPORTATION: Results
Land Use
Residential
Single Family $6,858.67 per Unit $12,383.75 per Unit
Multifamily $5,389.06 per Unit $9,730.28 per Unit
Non-Residential
Office/Service $8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.
Retail $29.45 per Sq.Ft.$53.18 per Sq.Ft.
Industrial $10.89 per Sq.Ft.$19.66 per Sq.Ft.
Institutional $8.35 per Sq.Ft.$15.07 per Sq.Ft.
Hotel $3,056.15 per Room $5,518.07 per Room
North Area South Area
Generates total
revenue of
$169.4 Million
32San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
TRANSPORTATION: Current vs. Maximum
$3,700
$6,900 $13,100
$12,400
Single Family Unit in the North Area Single Family Unit in the MASP
33San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
FEE COMPARISON
34San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
HOW DOES SLO COMPARE?
Davis Napa Palm
Springs
Paso
Robles
Santa
Cruz
Santa
MariaBenchmark Cities:
General
Government •Consistent
Public Safety •Consistent
Parks •Residential: lower end
•Non-Residential: highest
Transportation •North Area: upper end
•South Area: highest
35San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
FEASIBILITY
CONSIDERATIONS
36San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Single Family (per Unit)
*reflects Staff recommendation
*
*
10 % of Market Value
15 % of Market Value
20 % of Market Value
37San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Multifamily (per Unit)
*
*
*
*reflects Staff recommendation
38San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Office/ Business Park (per Sq.Ft)
*
*reflects Staff recommendation
*
*
39San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Office/ Service (per Sq.Ft)
*
*reflects Staff recommendation
*
*
40San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Retail (per Sq.Ft)
*
*reflects Staff recommendation
*
*
41San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
NEXT STEPS
42San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Preliminary fee calculations
❖Feasibility testing and fee comparisons (iterative!)
❖Policy-based adjustments (e.g., retail and hotel discounts)
❖Final fee recommendations
❖Implementation/Administration: oversizing –fee credits and
reimbursements
PROCESS AND STATUS
43San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
OPTIONS TO REDUCE
FEES
44San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
A.Reduce fees by reducing infrastructure investments
B.Reduce fees and identify alternative funding sources
C.Change transportation cost allocations (and fees)
D.Fee timing/implementation options
OPTIONS TO REDUCE FEE LEVELS
45San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
A. REDUCE FEES BY REDUCING
INFRASTRUCTURE INVESTMENTS
Fee Program:
$169.4 M
City:
$66.9 M
Fees Collected:
$6.3 M
Regional Funding:
$33.1 M
Total Project Costs: $275.7 Million Total Project Costs: $200.0 Million
•27.5% reduction in overall investment
•24.7% reduction in fees
City:
$48.5 M
Fee Program:
$127.5 M
Regional Funding:
$24.0 MFees Collected:
$6.3 M
46San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
B. REDUCE FEES AND IDENTIFY ALTERNATIVE
FUNDING SOURCES
Fee Program:
$169.4 M
City:
$66.9 M
Fees Collected:
$6.3 M
Regional Funding:
$33.1 M
Total Project Costs: $275.7 Million Total Project Costs: $275.7 Million
•Shifts $42 M to “City”
City:
$108.8 M
Fee Program:
$127.5 M
Regional Funding:
$33.1 MFees Collected:
$6.3 M
47San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
C. CHANGE COST ALLOCATIONS (AND FEES)
Fee Program:
$169.4 M
City:
$66.9 M
City:
$136.3 M
Fee Program:
$100.0 M
South
Area
North
Area
Example:
Single Citywide Fee
Example:
Reduced Fee for
Smaller Homes
Example:
Reduce Retail Trip Rate
Retail
Fee
All
Other
Fees
Smaller
Homes
Larger
Homes
48San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
D. FEE TIMING IMPLEMENTATION CHOICES
Fee Program:
$169.4 M
City:
$66.9 M
City:
$136.3 M
Fee Program:
$100.0 M
Example:Example:
Phase-in
Fees
Reduced
Revenue
Need to Identify
Alternative Funding
Fee Deferral
Same
Revenue -
Comes Later
49San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
DISCUSSION AND
QUESTIONS
50San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Feasibility and Fee Levels
•Is there direction to explore options for lower fee levels?
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS FOR DISCUSSION
51San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Is there support to adopt and implement the following new fee
programs:
•General Government?
•Fire and Police?
o Presumes other funding is/will be available for remainder
of costs.
❖Parks
•Is there support to use the Mitigation Fee Act to charge
parkland and park improvement fees on multifamily
residential and commercial development?
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CONTINUED
52San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Transportation
•Should the transportation project list be scaled back to
reduce transportation fees?
•Is there support to simplify the geographic zones?
o Should North Area and South Area be created to reflect
higher growth or one consolidated citywide?
o Should LOVR IC be spread into the South Area fee
program or stay as is?
•Should adjacent properties pick up more project cost to
reflect project specific needs? (e.g., Prado Road Extension)
POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: CONTINUED
53San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
TECHNICAL SLIDES FOR
REFERENCE (ONLY IF
NEEDED)
54San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
NEXT STEPS
Task/Description
Phase I - Study Implementation Plan
Task 1:Project Initiation and Project Management M
Task 2:Stakeholder Outreach Strategy S S
Task 3:Develop Critical Fee Study Parameters and
Assumptions M D
Task 4: Consider Policy and Implementation Issues M D
Phase II - Technical Analysis
Task 1:Develop Transportation Component of the CFF
Program M D M D
Task 2:Develop the Parks/Recreation Fee Program M D
Task 3:Develop General Government and Public Safety Fee
Programs M D
Task 4: Nexus Analyses and Preliminary Fee Calculations D
Phase III - Fee Implementation
Task 1:Economic Analysis M D
Task 2:Draft Nexus Studies and Ordinance/Resolution
Support D
Task 3:Council Review and Approval Process H H
Task 4:Final Nexus Studies D +H
D indicates project deliverables.
May June
201720172017
July August
2017
NovemberSeptemberOctober
S indicates Stakeholder Outreach meeting.
H indicates a public hearing (Planning Commission or City Council).
2017 2017 2017
M shows meetings with City staff.
55San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
❖Time Horizon
•General Plan Buildout (2035) and Development Capacity
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
❖Land Use Categories
•Single Family
•Multifamily
•Office
•Service
•Retail
•Industrial
•Institutional
•Hotel
56San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
GENERAL GOVERNMENT: Approach
Current General
Government
Facility Space
City Hall:
22,971 Sq.Ft.
Public
Works/Community
Development:
17,000 Sq.Ft.
Total
39,971 Sq.Ft.
Current Service
Population
46,724 Residents
a
52,092 Employees
b
72,770 Service
Population
c = a + b (0.5)
Current Level of
Service
549 Sq.Ft. per 1,000
Service Population
Development
Cost per Sq.Ft.$500 per Sq.Ft.
Cost per New
Service
Population
$275 per New Service
Population
Translated to land use
categories based on
resident and employee
densities
57San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
FIRE: Approach
Capital
Improvement
Needs
Facility Needs
$14.4 Million
Vehicle Needs
$5.4 Million
Current Service
Population
46,724
Residents
a
52,092
Employees
b
72,770 Service
Population
c = a + b (0.5)
82.4%
Future Service
Population
56,686
Residents
a
63,199
Employees
b
88,286 Service
Population
c = a + b (0.5)
17.6%
Costs Allocated
to New Growth $3.5 Million
Cost per New
Service
Population
$223 per New
Service
Population
Translated to land
use categories based
on resident and
employee densities
58San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
POLICE: Approach
Capital
Improvement
Needs
Facility Needs
$20 Million
Current
Service
Population
46,724
Residents
a
52,092
Employees
b
72,770 Service
Population
c = a + b (0.5)
82.4%
Future Service
Population
56,686
Residents
a
63,199
Employees
b
88,286 Service
Population
c = a + b (0.5)
17.6%
Vehicle Needs
Current
Service
Standard
$610,000 –all
to new growth
Costs
Allocated to
New Growth
$4.1 Million
Cost per New
Service
Population
$265 per New
Service
Population
Translated to land use
categories based on
resident and employee
densities
59San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
PARKS AND RECREATION: Approach
Current Park
Acreage 195 Acres
Current Service
Population
46,724
Residents
a
52,092
Employees
b
72,770 Service
Population
c = a + b (0.5)
Current Level of
Service
Quimby: 4.18
Acres per 1,000
Residents
MFA: 2.69 Acres
per 1,000 Service
Population
Cost per Acre $300,000 per
Acre for Land
$427,000 per
Acre for
Improvements
Cost per Service
Population
Land
Quimby: $1,255
MFA: $806
Improvements
Quimby/MFA:
$1,147
Translated to land use
categories based on
resident and employee
densities
60San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
PARKS AND RECREATION: Program Structure
Land Use
Residential
Single Family/ Condominiums Quimby Act Mitigation Fee Act
Multi-Family Apartments Mitigation Fee Act Mitigation Fee Act
Non-Residential
All Types Mitigation Fee Act Mitigation Fee Act
Land Improvements
61San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
FEE COMPARISON
62San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Comparable City Fee Comparisons: Parks
Comparable Cities w/o Parks Fees
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Paso Robles
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Paso Robles
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Paso Robles
-Napa
-Davis
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Paso Robles% Above Base% Below BaseKEY
63San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Comparable City Fee Comparisons: General Government
Comparable Cities w/o General Government Fees
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Davis
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz% Above Base% Below BaseKEY
64San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
KEY
Comparable City Fee Comparisons: Public Safety
Comparable Cities w/o Public Safety Fees
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz
-Napa
-Davis
-Palm Springs
-Santa Cruz% Above Base% Below Base
65San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Update
Comparable City Fee Comparisons: Transportation
Comparable Cities w/o Transportation Fees
-Davis% Above Base% Below BaseKey