HomeMy WebLinkAbout1/9/2018 Item 12, Peck
San Luis Obispo City Council
900 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Re: Proposed City AB1600 Fees
Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed impact fees. These comments augment
our comments from October of last year. We commend the City for reviewing these at one time so that
and other development goals. Over time, special obligations have
been placed on development in Expansion Areas such as parks, affordable housing and infrastructure
requirements that are beyond their fair share, and multiples of the requirements elsewhere in the City.
For example, parks are to be provided at a rate of 10 acres per thousand persons in Expansion Areas
(where most new housing is to be located), compared to 5 acres per thousand persons everywhere else
in the City. Similarly, the affordable housing requirement in Expansion Areas is three times that of other
areas of the City15% compared to 5% of constructed units. The result has been that development
costs are highest in the areas most able to provide missing middle housing.
th
As demonstrated in the October and January 9 Council packets the above requirements place a
significant burden on development and a challenge to provide smaller housing units that should be the
focus of those development areas. When special infrastructure requirements (fixing existing problems
or financing community wide infrastructure) are added to the list of requirements, projects are
challenged to provide housing except at the highest end of housing price spectrum. The feasibility
tables in the council packet clearly show that even the $750,000+ houses in the Avila Ranch project
exceed the maximum infrastructure burden that is considered feasible.
typical $650,000 home is above the feasibility level, and the burden on an 1,100-SF 2BR 1 bath home
with a one-car garage home with an assumed selling price of $525,000 is close to 20 percent, well above
any level deemed feasible (the actual burden is probably higher since the market rate for these 1,100-SF
units is more likely in the low- to mid-$400s).
local housing market.
twofold: first, it must identify what improvements are necessary and
appropriate to support development, and second, it must apportion those costs based on the demand
created by the different kinds of development in the community. As described in your staff report, you
must determine if there is a reasonable relationship between the use of the proposed fee and the type
of development paying the fee (e.g., commercial, apartments, large lot residential, etc.), determine a
reasonable relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee, and
determine a reasonable relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility
attributable to development paying the fee. In plainer terms, a development can only be required to pay
its fair share of the improvements needed to support it. If a commercial and residential development
create the same need, they are to pay the same fee; conversely if a commercial development creates 50
percent more need for infrastructure, it must pay 50 percent more. And, if there is a desire to reduce
the fee on one type of use, similar reductions must be provided to other uses to preserve the
And, of course, the fee program must generate adequate revenues to support the kinds of
growth prescribed in the General Plan. A fee program that makes certain types of desired land uses
infeasible cannot be found to be consistent with the General Plan, wont be built, and will therefore not
generate adequate revenues. And, a well-planned program will generate sufficient funds to allow the
city to adequately fund capital needs, and a poorly planned fee will result in the collection of too little
money (either because it is underfunded, or that development that is assumed to occur cannot occur
because the fees place too high a burden on development), or will discourage development that is
consistent with City policies and goals.
Within the above context, the following observations are made on the proposed fees.
General Observations
1. Several of the fees are overdue, such as police/fire or combined public safety. Most cities levy these
fees to ensure new development pays its way. A General Government Fee is less common, but still
the norm at some level.
2. The proposed City park fees (outside the Expansion Areas) are fairly customary. Most cities have
similar park requirements (5 acres/1,000 persons). From a practical standpoint, the fee in the non-
Expansion Areas or non-Specific Plan Areas will go for enhancements to existing facilities, or for
smaller scale facilities that can be tucked into existing neighborhoods. Some immediate fine turning
is probably appropriate, but the results of the Park and Recreation Element update will determine
the project list and the appropriate level of fees. Too, most cities cannot make a nexus between
parks and non-residential uses, and the City may wish to consider studying this matter more closely
in the Park and Recreation Element, and not applying the non-residential fee now.
3. -
contained benefit areas. This has resulted in similarly located properties and uses being charged
vastly different fees based strictly on which side of the street that they may be located. Even with
the north/south division proposed by staff in October, uses directly across the street from one
another would have different fees. This approach has resulted in the delay of needed infrastructure
since community wide needs have been dependent on the development of several, sometimes an
individual, property. The City has made good strides to dissolve some of these, and needs to go
further. We have tried the other way for 25 years; a more conventional approach has worked in
most other communities and can work as well in SLO. This approach has also resulted in fees that
do not meet the required proportionality test.
4. includes a feasibility analysis that the City Council
fees that creates a
it likely will never be paid. The City needs to develop a fee program that is feasible to all uses, not
just the average use.
_________________________________________
Comments on AB1600 Fees Page | 2
January 8, 2018
5.
different kinds of land uses. There is no virtue i. Residential uses vary widely
in trip generation and other infrastructure demand factors, with some residential uses having trip
generation rates 90%-100% above (or below) others. There are established and published facility
demand factors that need to be used. There should be no deviation from these without a full and
thorough involvement of those affected by the change. There should also be an acknowledge of
(and fee credits for) special design features and mitigations; these work to reduce facility demand
(as they are supposed to do). Special rates and fees should be applied to areas that have
demonstrably lower impactsuch as lower trip generation in the downtown area, or neighborhood-
serving commercial areas in planned neighborhoods.
Fee-Specific Observations
Water and Wastewater
1. Staff has researched usage rates for small units and concluded that smaller units have lower
demand. And, they have created a new 800 SF to 1,200 SF fee category, for the
on is based on actual usage data pulled out of the Utility
that are needed to support existing residents and future growth in the community. The backup fee
study was also well documented and highly transparent. The City ought to look at placing at least
some of the infrastructure expense on the rate schedule to allow revenue-bond debt financing.
2. Although fees are a very significant increase over a short period of time, there appears to be
adequate justification. We support these fees as revised.
Police, Fire and General Government
1. The public safety fees are way overdue and should be passed. There is still some skepticism about
what the Police and General Government fees are intended for since there is no adopted police
master plan, and no adopted General Government/Public Facility master plan to inform how these
fees are to be spent. The Fire fee, in contrast, is thoroughly supported by the Fire Master Plan.
Parks and Recreation
1. The City is in the process of updating its Park and Recreation Element and will soon develop a list of
needed improvements. The Specific Plan areas have developed their own project lists, but it is
unclear how and where money spent outside of the Specific Plan will be applied. Are there
adequately sized parcels that can be acquired for new parks in existing neighborhoods, or are the
parks?
Traffic/Circulation
_________________________________________
Comments on AB1600 Fees Page | 3
January 8, 2018
This fee is still not completely resolved or ready to go. It is unclear what specific projects are
to lack
documentation, and the City has in
rates or the rates contained in foundational environmental documents for project should be avoided
unless fully discussed, explained and documented. Although there are numerous tables to arrive at the
various fee rates for the various areas, there is no narrative or the customary written report to support
many of the allocations and key data points. It is obvious that much work has been done in this area, as
some progress towards deleting some un-necessary fee areas, but the overall analysis and methodology
lacks transparency. The Mitigation Fee Act is based on a show me approach, not a trust me
approach.
Many of the tables are incomplete or misleading (and the base tables to support the staff report
were excluded). For example, Table 1 shows the citywide traffic fees for the LOVR subarea (where Avila
Ranch is located), but the LOVR add-on fees for the LOVR area have been excluded. Single family fees in
the LOVR area are close to $15,000 per single family dwelling unit (including the smallest dwelling units
in the project) rather than the $8,683 shown in the table. The project list is helpful, but some items on
the list are shown in sufficient detail, and others are not. There is no documentation of the allocation
Mitigation Fee Act, there needs to be a clear relationship between the use of the proposed fee and the
type of development paying the fee (e.g., commercial, apartments, large lot residential, etc.), the
relationship between the need for the fee and the type of development paying the fee, and the
relationship between the amount of the fee and the cost of the facility attributable to development
paying the fee.
The rationale for keeping some of the sub-fee areas remains unclear, and the report is unclear
about where these fee areas specifically are, and which ones are to remain. We surmise that there will
be an LOVR fee area (which includes Avila Ranch), a San Luis Ranch fee area (because of special funding
obligations), the Orcutt area will remain, and the portion of the Airport Area Specific Plan outside of the
LOVR subarea, and the Margarita Areas will be merged into the rest of the community into a combined
Citywide area. This will result in similarly situated properties paying different fees even though their
impacts will be the same. In particular, a housing unit or business in the LOVR subarea will pay
significantly higher fees than the exact same unit across the street or within a couple blocks. Will a
business or a housing unit in the AASP have any more or less traffic generation than the exact same
project inside Avila Ranch (which is inside of the LOVR subarea)?
Specific Circ Fee Questions and Concerns
1. Not clear how many fee areas will be created as a result. North, South, Orcutt, Los Osos Valley
Road? Report has no map or justification for where the boundaries may be drawn.
2. There are significant positive fund balances in several of the traffic funds totaling between $7.5
million and $8.0 million (See attached portion of AB1600 Status Report on the 1/9/2018 City Council
agenda) or credited. If so, where?
_________________________________________
Comments on AB1600 Fees Page | 4
January 8, 2018
3. The trip generation rates are far too general (at least for residential uses), and do not represent the
substantial variation in trip generation across different residential uses. This approach penalizes any
effort to reduce trip generation by using smaller units. All of the trip gen rates look higher than
published average rates. The graph below shows the comparison of the trip generation rates used
in the fee study (16.9 trip per day for single family and 13.28 trips per day for multiple family)
and those documented in the Avila Ranch EIR. The tall black bar shows the trip generation rates
from the fee ates (before any adjustments) for
Avila Ranch
mix of uses, the mode shift to pedestrian and bicycle modes from onsite and offsite improvements,
and the beneficial affect of Avil
existing employees in the City. Granularity needs to be added to reflect the trip generation rate for
smaller units, larger units and everything in between.
4. The inclusion of Avila Ranch in the LOVR area (and not the Citywide or Airport Area) results in
charging it twice its fair share for LOVR improvements. Avila Ranch will generate about 20 percent
of the new/additional trips that will go through the LOVR/101 intersection after its recent
improvement.
this is the allocation before any mitigations are factored in. The proposed fee allocates twice that
amount--$3.97 millionto Avila Ranch, another $2,800 per dwelling unit which would necessitate
increasing the size (and the price) of the houses to support it.
5. Usage of many sub fee areas will perpetuate the current inequities and lack of the required
proportionality that exists in the current fee system. Roads are true public goods, and the effort to
_________________________________________
Comments on AB1600 Fees Page | 5
January 8, 2018
decisions, and different kinds of inequities.
6. There is also a lack of attention to special geographic areas that have lower trip rates. Several of the
newer specific plan areas (including Avila Ranch) have features that reduce trips. They are also
located much closer to commercial goods and services than most other residential areas (San Luis
Ranch to Madonna Plaza, and Avila Ranch to Higuera Plaza), are located next to major employment
centers, and have onsite commercial. There is also no mention of the special trip generation
features for the downtown area. Downtowns typically have substantially lower trip generation rates
downtown with the higher rates at outlying centers?
7. one correctly and
transparently. However, this requires a fairly sophisticated, well documented model that accounts
compared to all uses. There is no apparent documentation for that analysis. This would be
necessary to establish a reliable, scientific nexus for fee allocations. It has been done successfully
with public support in other jurisdictions, but requires documentation and transparency. Again, the
Mitigation Fee Act requires a show me approach, not a trust me approach.
Sincerely,
Stephen J. Peck, AICP
For Avila Ranch LLC
Attachments
SLO Impact Fees Issues and Concerns (updated from October 2017)
Comparison Graph of Avila Ranch Trip Generation and Fee Study Assumed Trip Generation
Example of Trip Generation Factor Calculation (City of Visalia 2015, TJKM and Wildan)
City of SLO AB1600 Status Report
_________________________________________
Comments on AB1600 Fees Page | 6
January 8, 2018
Note: Costco fee for LOVR Interchange was $910,000.
Comment
This metric is new and is not an ADT measure. This metric is new and is not an ADT measure. This metric is new and is not an ADT measure. This metric is new and is not an ADT measure.
This metric is new and is not an ADT measure. This metric is new and is not an ADT measure.
16.9016.9016.9013.2813.2813.28
City Fee Study
Trip Gen Factor
5.963.173.173.683.683.68
SLO Impact Fees Issues and Comments
Trips
New Vehicle
w/Mitigation
Disproportionate Impact on Avila Ranch Project; Comments
9.535.075.075.895.895.89
ЌͲВАЋͲЏАЏ Study
Per Traffic
Net Trip Gen
υ
Propopsed Fee
5.565.566.466.466.46
10.46
PFFP
ЋͲЉЌЍͲБЎБ
Fair ShareLast AASP
υ
5.525.526.476.476.47
10.86
ЋЋ͵Њі
Avila Traffic Study Gross
Impact in EIR
Fair Share per
825
2,3001,8501,2001,8001,250
Avg
1. Existing deficiencies to be funded by existing community.2. Planned facilities often serve a population/units well beyond the planning period.3. Are all facilities needed to serve
growth included in the project list?4. Are there some that are desired or not needed?5. Are the project list and costs appropriate? Are there opportunities for deferral or reduction
in scope?6. Is the allocation fair and proportional, considering significant variations between different uses?7. Does the fee structure introduce incentives/disincentives that are
inconsistent with GP Goals and Objectives?8. Does the application of the fee structure fully fund what is needed (or are there "discounts" that result in shortfalls)?9. Are the fees
on some uses inflated to reduce the costs on others (which would make them a tax)?10. Are the fees based on the "costs" per the Mitigation Fee Act and City GP policies?
Traffic
Capital Facilities Programs Should Fully Fund the Facilities Needed for GrowthAllocation of Capital Facilities Costs Should be Proportional to Impact/Demand\[hw LƓƷĻƩĭŷğƓŭĻ Wastewater
ExpansionWater ExpansionR-1R-2R-2 (Pocket)R-3 DuplexR-3 TowhomeR-4 Comments:1. Small units are being charged the same as large units, even though the impact is less.2. Some multifamily
units now charged a single family rate.3. The trip generation factor is a new concept for SLO (used elsewhere though) that requires documentation and vetting.4. Non-residential rates
(not shown here) are very high, and uses are lumped together in broad categories that don't reflect their actual impact.5. North-south rate split is a mistake. SLO is not so big that
a trip on the north side costs less than a trip on the south side. We all use the same roads. 6. LOVR Overlay application to only a few parcels is inequitable.7. There are many projects
on the project list that are not needed (or will not be built); there are some that are missing.8. There are opportunities to significantly reduce the costs being allocated.9. Avila
Ranch is putting in unprecedented mitigations and features (SLO Workers First, Bike Trails, Car Sharing, etc.) with no acknowledged Effectiveness.10. Mitigation includes car share,
bike/ped improvements (7.5%); SLO Workers First (existing trip capture@30%), and onsite retail (10%).
134.00134.00134.00134.00134.00134.00
Fee Study
Current City
134.00134.00134.00134.00134.00134.00
Fee Study
Current City
150.00150.00150.00150.00150.00120.00150.00150.00150.00150.00150.00120.00
DUDU
Current Current
Average City Average City
0.820.730.580.580.580.580.760.700.560.670.630.57
EDU
Actual EDU
97.7077.6077.6077.6077.6093.2374.5889.8484.7576.28
110.00 101.70
Supply Supply
outdoor)
Avila Water (indoor and Avila Water
Assessment Assessment
(Indoor Only)
825825
2,3001,8501,2001,8001,2502,3001,8501,2001,8001,250
Size
Average Unit
Water Demand (Potable Water Demand)Wastewater Demand
R-1R-2R-2 (Pocket)R-3 DuplexR-3 TowhomeR-4 Comments:1. Water usage has declined over the past 10 years. How much expansion is needed?2. SLO has adequate water supplies for well beyond
2035. Should 2035 population divvy up the full cost, or should it be banked for future growth?3. Avila water use is 35% below current averages, but are charged for more than their
actual use (rates are set at average city indoor water use with regard to outdoor).4. If there is not a special rate for Avila Ranch, there should be at least more granularity in rate
structure: 800-1,300 SF @ 0.7 EDU; 1,301-1,750 @ 0.8 EDU, etc.5. What is the "cost" per gallon compared to the "value" per gallon?R-1R-2R-2 (Pocket)R-3 DuplexR-3 TowhomeR-4 Comments:1.
What are the actual additional "costs"?2. Smaller households=less wastewater generation.3. Avila wastewater is less than current averages, but are charged for more than their actual
use (rates are set at average city average without regard to special fixtures or unit size).4. If there is not a special rate for Avila Ranch, there should be at least more granularity
in rate structure: 800-1,300 SF @ 0.8 EDU; 1,301-1,750 @ 0.9 EDU.5. Future growth will use less WW than existing users. Fees do not reflect that.6. Is 100% of plant upgrade attributable
solely to future growth (Table S-3 shows Existing+Future Plant $/EDU=$5,391, one-third of proposed fee.
General Comments
Requests and Recommendations
, what is the minimum that is needed?
needed
1. The proposed fees will skew new residential units to higher price points and square footages to absorb the burden. Projects are already saturated.2. The proposed fees are not proportional
to the actual impacts; greater detail is needed to be fair and proportional. 3. The "feasibility" analysis does not include other burdens such as mitigation fees, unreimbursed offsites,
etc.;4. The north-south fees in the traffic fees should be eliminated. One town, one fee. (Or do we live in the south and shop in the north.)5. Proposed fees are inconsistent with
GP objectives re: what we should be building. They will (un-necessarily) incentivize the wrong kind of development.6. Uncertain whether the project lists are the "costs" of growth
or a wish list driven by community wants (especially for traffic)7. Should we "right-size" the fees to General Fund's capacity and growth's capacity to fund, or right-size development
to the fees? Are the fees "affordable" and "supportable"?8. Basic questions are what is the maximum that is 1. Right size the project list. Include "costs" that are needed to support
growth.2. Delete items that are infeasible or un-necessary in the short term, or which are practically infeasible.3. Add granularity to the use categories to reflect variations in impact.
Provides reductions/credit for effective mitigations.4. Reduce the scope of improvements and costs, where possible. Tank Farm, Prado.5. Merge traffic into one citywide fee, with
a special rate for downtown because of demonstrably lower trip gen rates. This should include LOVR overlay.6. Use the allocation factors that can be documented and enforced, such as
trip gen, water and wastewater in the Specific Plan projects.7. That you NOT arbitrarily reduce fees on some uses and not others (or shift the burden between uses).
331,710.41518,486.30399,580.96253,541.22531,806.44
2,035,125.34
$ $ $ $ $ $
344.73,2841,7462,0282,02835.45
5,904.00
$ $ $ $ $ $
Fee/Unit
601.52 940.22 724.60 459.77
with
1,543.004,269.11
Mitigation
Total Trips
962.44735.63
1,504.351,159.361,543.005,904.78
without
Mitigation
Total Trips
16.9016.9013.2813.28
Study
Trips in Fee
Note: Costco paid $910,000.
5.9563.1663.6783.678
with
Net Trip
Mitigation
Generation
0.10
9.5295.0655.8855.885
43.2%
FeesRate
Net Trip
Based on
Approved
Fair Share
Fair Share=$1,145,711Net Avila Trips=Assessment per Trip
556
5.566.466.460.13
3.17%
3,88010.46
22.1%
291,593
CUM
ЋͲЉЌЍͲБЎБ
w/Project
$ υ
Gross Trip Rates
556
3.07%22.1%
4,003
282,633623,170798,441506,625211,950
Total
1,832,490
ЌͲВАЋͲЏАЏ
w/Project
Near Term
υ
$ $ $ $ $ $
1
101297197125
3.57%
3,447
15,000
328,222
Units
$
Existing+Project
123
6,1706,1704,0534,05314.13
Project
Current
Fees per $ $ $ $ $
Schedule
927569
6.60
3,324
750,000
7,435,0001,500,0002,183,2181,750,0001,500,0005,080,0009,198,218
(Costco
Schedule
EIR) (2015)
Existing (Avila
Fees per 2005
$ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Reimbursement $ $ $
2375
LUCE
1,900
(Dalidio EIR)
Existing 2003
LOVR SharePM Peak Hour (All Approaches)AdditionalProject Percent of Total Project Percent of Additional Local Share based on total borrowedPayments to Date from TIF (15.5%)Calle San
Joaquin ReimbursementsGF Discount to RetailPerfumo Creek DevelopmentOther Payment from LOVR SubareaInterest on 2014 LOVR BondNet RemainingProject Fees per Fee ScheduleR-1R-2R-3R-4CommercialTotalNote
s:LOVR Subarea Fee Established in 2003 @ $2,168 per PM Peak Hour Trip assuming $5.1M to LOVR Subarea and $2.9M to Citywide. Grants+$16MFinal amount=$9.4M Subarea and $5.5M citywide in
2005 report based on "moderate build"Final amount=$7.4 for citywide and subarea and $16M grants.
13.28
3.68
R-4
5.89
6.46
6.47
13.28
3.68
Net Trip Gen Per Traffic Study
5.89
6.46
R-3 Towhome
6.47
13.28
3.68
5.89
R-3 Duplex
6.46
6.47
16.90
Housing Type
3.17
5.07
Last AASP PFFPCity Fee Study Trip Gen Factor
5.56
R-2 (Pocket)
5.52
Avila Ranch
16.90
3.17
(Avila Ranch TIS and City Fee Study)
R-2
5.07
5.56
5.52
Comparison of Actual and Assumed Trip Generation
16.90
5.96
R-1
9.53
Avila Traffic Study GrossNew Vehicle Trips w/Mitigation
10.46
10.86
-
9.00 8.00 7.00 6.00 5.00 4.00 3.00 2.00 1.00
18.00 17.00 16.00 15.00 14.00 13.00 12.00 11.00 10.00
Daily Vehicle TripsAverage
5
7.433.856.494.713.331.611.717.976.00
10.58
26.1217.4249.7611.6730.2450.37
Trip
Facto
9
Page
4
.57
93.482.621.261.349.11
6.724.24
6.9
42.9411.0133.8768.9314.15
64.41
Trips
168.56
Daily
March 16, 2015
-
10
Building
StudyStudy
(220)
Station
Office
(150)(560)
9
Motel
Building
(720)
7
Shopping
8
/
(252)
(820)
Housing
(210)
Detached
Industrial
(multiple)
Shopping
Office
TrafficTraffic
(710)Dental
(730)
Office
(320)
-
(310)
Church
Center
Adult
Building
(110/120)
Apartment
Family
Center
LocalLocal
Category/Source
Housing
Attached Schools
Regional
Warehousing
asoline/Service
Hotel
Medical
Light/Heavy
General
G
Senior
overnment
ITE
Single
Neighborhood
G
3
1.111.271.271.270.56
1.111.110.410.410.940.301.060.840.731.110.66
Factor
ors
2
Trip 1.141.141.140.520.521.100.411.100.930.871.301.301.301.300.640.74
LengthFactor
1
by
-
72%98%98%98%88%89%
97%97%97%78%78%85%96%90%84%85%
Total
Pass
1
: Trip Demand Fact
5%
2
51%19%19%19%23%25%
11%11%11%31%31%35%19%30%34%
Trips
Table
1
86%86%50%21%60%80%79%79%79%65%64%
86%47%47%77%50%
Trip
KSF)KSF)
position)
100100
KSF)KSF)
(<(>
(per
room)
125125
Office
Commercial
Office
(<(>
(per
Office
Station
Familyfamily
-
-Storage
Retail Retail
School
Church
Multi
Single
Mini
Use
General
Senior/Assisted
Government
Medical/Dental
us Study in the City of Visalia
Hotel/Motel
GeneralGeneral
Industrial/Service
Land
Warehouse/DistributionWarehouse/Distribution
Gasoline/Service
6
-
Non
Residential
Traffic Impact Fee Update Nex
TJKM
Consultants
Transportation
10
Page
March 16, 2015
us Study in the City of Visalia
Traffic Impact Fee Update Nex
TJKM
Consultants
Transportation