HomeMy WebLinkAboutCouncil Reading File - 01-09-2018 Item 12 Preliminary Results of the Capital Facilities Fee PrograMeeting Date: 1/9/2018
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: STUDY SESSION #2
RECOMMENDATION
1. Participate in a study session and receive a presentation on the revised 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 and policy
considerations for implementation; and
3. Direct staff to return on March 6, 2018, with applicable ordinances and resolutions to
implement the updated Capital Facilities Fee Program based on the options endorsed by City
Council.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
On October 17, 2017, the City Council participated in a study session on the preliminary results
of the Capital Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study and the Water and Wastewater Capacity and
Connection Fee Program Nexus Study. The preliminary results presented at that hearing
represented the maximum fees that could be charged to development 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. The Council considered the effect of implementing
a maximum fee program and provided staff with guidance regarding policy considerations. The
Council then directed staff to return with more analysis of the fee burden with respect to project
feasibility for specific development prototypes, impacts to affordable housing objectives,
identification of alternative infrastructure funding sources, refinement of the project
transportation improvement lists, development of an anticipated park and recreation project list,
implementation phasing, and to engage additional community outreach.
In response to Council direction, staff and the consultant team completed the following tasks:
1. Re-evaluated Development Feasibility for development prototypes and active
development projects
2. Re-evaluated and Recalculated the Transportation Impact Fee
3. Re-evaluated the Parkland, Fire and General Government Impact Fees
4. Developed Fee Level Recommendations
5. Conducted Additional Community Outreach
A summary of these items is further discussed in this report and in Attachment A. The
consideration of the Final Capacity and Connection Fee Study and the Final Capital Facilities
Fee Program Study is on the Council Agenda for March 6, 2018. Implementation of the new fee
programs is planned for March/April 2018.
Packet Pg 305
12
BACKGROUND
General Plan Policies
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, Land Use Element Policy 1.13.9., Costs of Growth, states
the following:
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 services and
facilities which are required to serve the project, and which are reasonably related to the new
growth attributable to the development.
Mitigation Fee Act
The Mitigation Fee Act (Assembly Bill 1600) is contained in California Government Code
Section 66000 et.seq., and 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.
In summary, a fee cannot be more than the cost of the public facility needed to accommodate the
new development paying the fee, there needs to be a nexus between the project and fee, and the
fee revenues can only be used for their intended purpose.
Development Impact Fee Program Policy Considerations
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 too little money and being forced to close the funding gap through
alternative funding sources, collecting too much money based on an unsupported fee program,
thus exposing the city to a fee challenge, or discouraging development that is consistent with
City policies and goals.
Prior Council Direction
The following is a summary of Council’s discussion points and direction during City Council
Study Session #1:
Packet Pg 306
12
1. Development Feasibility.Feasibility is a concern. The Council expressed support for
the development projects in the pipeline and wants to avoid the creation of major
feasibility hurdles through the adoption of updated development impact fee programs.
Council expressly supports the development of affordable workforce housing and
does not want the fee program to discourage the provision of this type of housing, nor
the type of commercial development that supports residential uses. Council requested
to see additional development feasibility analysis of smaller homes and industrial
prototypes among others, as well as project-specific analysis whereby project-specific
infrastructure burdens can also be incorporated into the analysis of the total fee
burden.
2. Parkland Investment. Council requested more information about how the parks fee
revenue would be spent (e.g., identification of priority projects/expenditures) to
determine whether the whole fee should be changed at this time or if any changes to
the fee program should wait for the completion of the pending Parks and Recreation
Master Plan.
3. Fee Reduction Options.Council directed staff and the consultant team to look for
strategies to reduce fees and test the effects of implementing those strategies,
consistent with the options presented by the consultant team:
a) Reduce fees by reducing infrastructure investments. Council provided
direction to review the transportation project list and identify those
projects that are not high priorities or not likely to be built by the year
2035-time horizon. Council also indicated that the fee for General
Government may not be appropriate at this time.
b) Reduce fees and identify alternative funding sources. Council indicated
that to achieve certain policy objectives (e.g., infill development and
affordable workforce housing), the City may need to consider discounting
or other reductions that would require identification of other funding
sources. There was also discussion of the possibility of grouping together
a range of improvements that could be packaged into an initiative for voter
approval associated with non-fee funding sources.
c) Adjust transportation cost allocations. Council provided direction to
consider a single citywide fee for transportation, which will spread the fee,
resulting in an increase to the fee in the North Area and a decrease in the
fee in the South Area.
d) Adjust how the fee is implemented. Council indicated a willingness to
consider implementation adjustments, such as phasing in fees.
4. Outreach.Council indicated that there needs to be more outreach with developers of
active projects and the general public.
5. Existing vs. New Fees.Council requested to see a clearer presentation of current fees
compared with maximum (and, eventually, recommended) fee levels.
Packet Pg 307
12
6. Additional Council Study Session.Staff and the consultant team were directed to
return to Council in the form of a second study session to describe additional
technical analysis, revised maximum fees, and fee implementation options and
tradeoffs.
DISCUSSION
Capital Facilities Fee Program Update
1. General Government Facilities Impact Fee
This fee is intended to address 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. The fee schedule
presented is based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development provides
adequate funding to expand these facilities to meet its needs. Specifically, the fee reflects the
project costs associated with the conversion of the Little Theater, located adjacent to City
Hall, into additional administrative office and conference space. This fee was not updated,
the fee summary table is provided in Attachment F.
2. Public Safety Fee
This fee is intended to address the need for public safety facilities to accommodate new
development in the City of San Luis Obispo. The fee schedule presented is based on the cost
of these facilities to ensure that new development provides adequate funding to meet its
needs. The fee presented is broken down into the following components:
a. Fire Facilities
b. Police Facilities
The Fire Facilities fee component reflects the project costs associated with a variety of fire
safety related capital improvements that include existing fire station repairs and the
construction of Fire Station 5. This fee component also includes the cost associated with the
replacement or purchase of fire vehicles and apparatus. This fee was updated to reflect
additional input from Fire Chief Olson. An updated fee summary table is provided in
Attachment E.
The Police Facilities fee component reflects the project costs associated with the construction
of a new police headquarters, as well as the cost associated with the purchase and
replacement of police vehicle fleet that are necessary to serve new development. This fee was
not updated, the fee summary table is provided in Attachment D.
3. Parkland Fee
This fee is intended to address the need for parks and recreational facilities to meet the new
Packet Pg 308
12
demands on City parks and facilities arising from new development in the City of San Luis
Obispo. The fee schedule presented is based on the cost of acquiring land for parks and
recreational facilities and/or adding amenities and/or facilities to existing parks to meet the
new park and recreational needs of new residents, employees, and visitors. In response to
Council direction, a list of potential/illustrative park improvement projects was developed to
demonstrate how revenue from this fee could be used. It is incomplete and only represents a
portion of need. Further refinement of this list will occur with the update of the City’s Parks
and Recreation Element and Master Plan Update. This fee was not updated, the fee summary
table is provided in Attachment C.
4. Transportation Fee
This fee is intended to address 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. The
fee schedule presented is based on the cost of these facilities to ensure that new development
provides adequate funding to meet its needs.In response to Council direction the
transportation improvement project list and associated costs were re-evaluated with the
objective of removing those projects that a) are not required for new development to
proceeded, b) are not likely to be built prior to the build out of the General Plan, c) have a
low chance of securing other needed funding, or d) have a high chance of securing other
funding. In the context of this review, a system of prioritization was created. This revised
project list was incorporated into the analysis to develop revised fee level calculations. To the
extent possible, any project that was removed from the list that was presented at the October
17th study session was re-allocated to applicable specific developments, and it was assumed
that the associated project costs would become part of the project-specific costs that were
evaluated in the updated feasibility analysis. Trip rates and/or cost allocations were also
revised as appropriate. A single or “one happy family” Citywide transportation fee was also
developed for comparison with the updated North Area/South Area fee calculations, so that
Council can have a better understanding of the relative tradeoffs associated with the different
approaches. An updated fee summary table is provided in Attachment B.
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program
On October 17, 2017 the Utilities Department and its Capacity and Connection Fee Study
consultant from HDR Engineering, Inc. presented fee options consistent with Council direction
provided at the February 7, 2017 study session. Staff recommended fee options that equitably
distribute infrastructure costs to ensure both new and existing water and wastewater ratepayers
pay their fair share of infrastructure-related investments. Council took no action on the fees at the
meeting, but provided feedback and directed staff to return with its recommended fees with the
City’s AB 1600 fee study so that the feasibility of the City’s fee program could be considered
comprehensively.
At the October 17 meeting, Council supported fee study options that eliminated the wastewater
catchment area fees in favor of a citywide wastewater fee and the tiering of residential fees
where reduced fees were available for smaller residential units. The recommended residential
fees are shown below.
Packet Pg 309
12
Table 1: Recommended Residential Fees
Water Wastewater
Total %
Reduction*
1,200 SF $ 15,780 $ 12,602 $ 28,382 -
801-1,200 SF $ 12,624 $ 10,082 $ 22,706 -20%
451-800 SF $ 11,046 $ 8,821 $ 19,867 -30%
Mobile Homes $ 9,468 $ 7,561 $ 17,029 -40%
450 SF or less $ 4,734 $ 3,781 $ 8,515 -70%
NOTE: The percent reduction shown above is from the fee for one
residential unit greater than 1,200 square feet, which is based on
existing water consumption data for similarly sized residential units.
Council was interested in whether or not the project list used in the Capacity and Connection Fee
Study could be further refined, or “fine-tuned.”Staff reviewed the projects included in the
Capacity and Connection Fee Study to see whether reductions could be made. However, the
recommended fees include a prioritized list of capital projects from water and wastewater master
plans prepared following the update of the General Plan Land Use Element in 2014. The Fee
Study includes only the highest priority water and wastewater projects necessary to provide the
required capacity for the General Plan that could be feasibly delivered over the next ten years.
The projects are also equitably distributed between existing customers through rates (84% of
project costs) and new development through the recommended Capacity and Connection Fees
16% of project costs).
Council was interested in whether or not alternative funding sources could be utilized, such as
assigning a greater portion of the burden to water and wastewater rates. Staff provided two
alternatives including the “status quo” alternative and the Water Option 1/Wastewater Option 3
alternative. These alternatives were not recommended as they both place a greater than “fair
share” portion of capital improvement costs on existing water and wastewater ratepayers.The
rate increases shown below, do not include any escalation due to other cost impacts carried in the
rates, so the actual impact may be greater than presented in Table 2.
Table 2: Estimated Water and Wastewater Customer Rate Impacts
Annual Impact to
Water Rate
Per Customer)
Annual Impact to
Wastewater Rate
Per Customer)
No Action/Status Quo $68 $133
Water Option 1/ Wastewater Option 3 $59 $29
NOTE: Assumes revenue burden would be applied equally to all customers for 25 years.
Realistically, impact will vary by water consumption and customer class (residential, multi-
family residential, non-residential, and irrigation).
Water Option 1 –This option includes only debt-financed water infrastructure. Option 1 does not
include a buy-in component to existing water infrastructure.
Packet Pg 310
12
Wastewater Option 3 –This option includes only debt financed wastewater infrastructure, and
includes the cost of all catchment area improvements, for a single fee for all customers
connecting to the City’s system. This option does not include buy-in to the sewer mainline
portion of the existing wastewater infrastructure.
Impact Fee Program Implementation
The facility and infrastructure impact fees for general government, public safety, parks and
recreation, transportation, and water and wastewater capacity and connection, would typically be
collected at the time of building permit issuance. However, in response to Council direction
recommendations for implementation approaches, such as phasing, and the timing of fee
collection, as well as the tradeoffs associated with a range of options intended to reduce, re-
calibrate, or delay fee changes, are presented below for Council consideration.
A. Reduce Fees by Reducing Infrastructure Investments
These options reduce fee levels without creating off-setting demands on other revenue
sources. These options are primarily focused on reducing required infrastructure
expectations/investments/standards and do not create a need to secure other sources of
funding.
1. For transportation, prioritize and reduce the project list. For example, consider
removal of a set of lower priority projects, projects that are not likely to be built,
projects with a very low chance of securing other funding (e.g., grants, direct
developer contributions, or regional funding), and/or projects with a very high chance
of securing total funding from other sources (e.g., grants for multi-modal
improvements).
2. For transportation, evaluate other ways to finance the improvements so that financing
costs can be removed for those projects for which financing costs are included.
3. For General Government and Parks Fees on Commercial Development, consider
charging less than the maximum fee. Because these fees are based on a service
standard rather than a capital program, while investment in these facilities will be
reduced, there is no need to identify other funding.
4. For Police, consider switching the approach to a service standard approach, rather
than tying the fee to a plan for the headquarters facility. Note that this option
perpetuates the existing space deficiency on a per service population basis.
5. Do not adopt fees for General Government, Police, and/or Fire. While this would
lower the overall fee burden, it would mean deciding not to move forward with
certain General Government, Police, or Fire facilities or identifying other funding.
B. Reduce Fees and Identify Alternative Funding Sources
The following approaches require other funding sources to “back-fill” the reduction in fee
revenues.
1. Consider transportation impact fee discounts for certain land use categories (e.g.,
commercial and industrial development or affordable workforce/missing middle
housing)
Packet Pg 311
12
2.Reconsider the City’s affordable housing fee program.
C. Change Transportation Cost Allocations and Fees
These options will lower the transportation fees for some and increase it for others relative to
the estimated maximum transportation development impact fee schedule. Some of these
options would require additional technical analysis.
1. Consider blending the North Area and South Area into one Citywide fee.
2. Merge the LOVR fee program into the Citywide fee program.
3. Merge some (or all) commercial/non-residential land use categories.
4. For the Transportation fee on retail, consider a pass-through trip adjustment. This will
reduce retail transportation fees but increase other transportation fees.
5. Consider a policy-based trip rate reduction, (e.g., reduce retail trips by 30% because
30% of retail development is “local-serving” and hence is only present due to
residential development).
6. Integrate average Vehicle Miles Travelled (VMT) into transportation fee calculations
such that fees are based on both trip rates and average miles travelled; in other fee
studies, this has resulted in a reduction in transportation fees on retail development.
D. Fee Timing/ Implementation Options
1. Transportation fees could be phased in (e.g., 20% in first year, 40% in second year,
60% in the third year, 80% in the forth year, and 100% in fifth year). This option has
implications for needing to identify other funding sources to back-fill uncollected fee
revenue.
2. Fees can be deferred. Rather than charging fees at the time of building permit
issuance, fees can be charged at the later certificate of occupancy date.
The implementation options mentioned above for reducing fee levels to address remaining
feasibility concerns will increase the likely hood that the Capital Facilities Fee Program will be
underfunded, which will shift the pressure to non-development impact funding sources to bridge
the funding gap for the infrastructure and facilities projects that are identified in the Capital
Facilities Fee Program Update section of this staff report.
Other Funding Considerations
In response to Council direction regarding updated fee level calculations, development
feasibility, and the implementation options, staff and the consultant team will re-evaluate the
availability of alternative funding sources to provide Council with a recommended list. One
strategy that staff would like Council direction on involves “bundling” the community’s
infrastructure and facilities priorities into a parcel tax.
Community Outreach
In response to Council direction, on November 21, 2017 staff brought forth for Council
consideration a Resolution of Intent to apply the pending Capital Facilities Fee Program and
Water and Wastewater Capacity and Connection Fee Program to new development. The
premises behind this effort was that greater certainty up front as to the impact fee amount and
Packet Pg 312
12
any other requirements can be of substantial benefit to a developer in saving time and costs as
opposed to the situation with little clarity and ad hoc negotiations. Since development impact
fees offer a mechanism for paying a development’s fair share of costs it can be of benefit to a
developer compared to a 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. Council adopted Resolution No. 10849 (2017 Series), see Attachment G.
Staff also held another Developer’s Roundtable meeting on December 11, 2017, that was well
attended by a variety of representatives from the development community. Staff provided an
overview of the tasks that were underway to address the Council direction that was received
during the October 17th study session, provided an updated project schedule, and requested
feedback and submittal of approved or in process retail, industrial, office and residential projects
that could be used as case studies for the feasibility analysis. Several developers submitted
projects for consideration, that have been incorporated into the updated prototypes and feasibility
analysis.
Impact Fee Program Feasibility Considerations
In response to Council direction, the feasibility analysis was refined and updated to show current
fee levels as a basis for total fee burden comparison, to the extent possible. There are certain
geographic areas, such as the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), for which there is no existing
residential impact fee established, so staff and the consultant team made assumptions about the
geographic location of each prototype. The revised total fee burden charts have been expanded to
reflect current fees and revised fee levels to illustrate the magnitude of the change, see
Attachment A.
City staff and the consultant team, with the assistance of the development community, created
new prototypes for evaluation that reflect current development projects in the City, including a
small-lot, single-family detached residential unit that is “affordable by design” and an industrial
development. The consultant team conducted market research to estimate appropriate values and
coordinated with relevant developers as needed to obtain project-specific information. Provided
below is a summary of the analysis methodology, the specific case studies that were used, and
the total fee burden factors that were evaluated.
The feasibility analysis charts, provided in Attachment A, illustrate existing fee levels compared
with the revised fee levels for a series of development prototypes against the back-drop of
industry standard infrastructure burden feasibility norms.
Throughout the charts, cross-hatching indicates that the consultant team has made certain
assumptions and used some judgement about which fees to show and/or the best way to illustrate
the cost of a fee that is otherwise not straight-forward to calculate. Notes are included throughout
to explain any assumptions that were used.
In all cases, the water and wastewater fees reflect the recommended connection charges as
provided by the Utilities Department.
In addition, because affordable housing fees, public art-in-lieu fees and school district fees are
Packet Pg 313
12
not part of this update, they are shown in aggregate, though the detail of each fee is shown on the
data table, following each chart.
Consistent with Council direction, case studies that specifically evaluate three different single-
family product types as though they were being developed in the recently approved Avila Ranch
Specific Plan area. Since the Avila Ranch development will introduce residential development to
the Airport Area Specific Plan, where residential uses had not been contemplated before, the
consultant team used the existing Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) base fee and subarea fee and
the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP subarea fee as a proxy for existing transportation fee
levels in the AASP. In addition, to quantify a proxy cost for the parkland fees for single family
development in the Avila Ranch series of prototypes, the consultant team used the Avila Ranch
Development Agreement to quantify it on a per unit basis, and applying that cost as a proxy for
the park fee requirement.
Since the new development typically faces other infrastructure costs outside of a formal fee
program that contributes to a development’s overall infrastructure burden, the consultant team
included a proxy for these costs based on conversations with the Avila Ranch team. These too
are cross-hatched. For the Avila ranch series, the existing “other infrastructure” costs are not
known; however, they are shown (with a “?”) to reflect that this fee update is formalizing certain
other infrastructure” cost and incorporating them into the fee program.
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
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 and the Final Capital
Packet Pg 314
12
Facilities Fee Program Nexus Study on March 6, 2018. 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:
x Existing or new General Fund revenues
x Existing or new general-purpose taxes
x New special purpose taxes (any new special purpose tax would require two-thirds voter
approval)
x Existing or new assessments (any new assessments or property-related charge would
require majority property owner approval)
x 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:
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
Packet Pg 315
12
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 and the Final Capital
Facilities Fee Program Study is on the Council Agenda for March 6, 2018. Implementation of the
new fee programs is planned for March/April 2018.
Attachments:
a - Total Fee Burden Feasibility Analysis Update (December 2017)
b - Updated Transportation Fee Summary Table
c - Parkland Fee Summary Table and Project List
d - Police Fee Summary Table
e - Fire Fee Summary Table
f - General Government Fee Summary Table
g - Resolution of Intent-10849 (2017 Series)
Packet Pg 316
12
Summary Table 1
Maximum Parkland Development Impact Fees, All Areas
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Quimby Act & Mitigation Fee Act -
Land Use Citywide/ North Area/ South Area
Residential
Single Family (per Unit)$6,030.38
Multifamily - Condominiums (per Unit)$4,342.44
Multifamily - Apartments (per Unit)$3,530.35
Non-Residential
Office/Service (per Sq.Ft.)$3.25
Retail (per Sq.Ft.)$1.77
Industrial (per Sq.Ft.)$1.30
Institutional (per Sq.Ft.) $0.00
Hotel (per Room) $976.00
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 345
12
Table 2
Existing Parkland and Recreational Facilities
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
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
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
Buena Vista Park, Buena Vista Ave. 0.5
Sinsheimer Park/ Sports Complex, 900 Southwood 21.7
Mitchell Park, Osos @ Bucheon 3
Anholm Park, Mission St 0.1
Throop Park, Cuesta @ Cerro Romauldo 3
Santa Rosa Park, Santa Rosa @Oak 11
Johnson Park, Augusta 5
Meadow Park, South @ Meadow 16
Ellsford Park, San Luis Drive near California 1
Osos Triangle Park, Osos @ Church 0.2
Las Praderas Park, Las Praderas and Mariposa 0.4
Packet Pg 346
12
Priolo-Martin Park, Vista del Collados & Vista del Arroyo 0.5
Laguna Lake Park, 500 Madonna Rd 40
Jack House Gardens, Marsh @ Beach 0.8
Laguna Lake Golf Course, 11175 LOVR 27
Railroad Bike Path, Orcutt to Jennifer 10
Poinsettia Creek Walk, Poinsettia @ Rosemary 2
Total Existing Parklands 183.2
Existing Recreational Facilities
Rodriguez Adobe, Purple Sage Lane 1.4
Islay Hills Park, Tank Farm @ Orcutt 6
Canet Adobe, 464 Dana St. 0.5
Mission Plaza, Broad @ Monterey 3
Ludwick Center, Santa Rosa @ Mill 1
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
Source: City of San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 347
12
Table 3
Anticipated and Approved New Parkland and Recreational Facilities
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
New Parkland and Recreation Facilities Acreage
Anticipated - New Parkland
Froom Ranch Specific Plan - Neighborhood Park 2.9
Mission Plaza Park, Broad @ Monterey (DTCP/MPCP)0.5
Pocket Park, Toro @ Marsh (DTCP)0.3
Cheng Park Expansion, Santa Rosa @ Marsh (DTCP)0.3
Total Anticipated - New Parkland 4
Approved - New Parkland
Avila Ranch Specific Plan - Neighborhood Park 9.5
Avila Ranch Specific Plan - Pocket Parks 8.5
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan - Neighborhood Park 1.42
San Luis Ranch Specific Plan - Pocket Parks 1.29
Orcutt area Specific Plan - Neighborhood Park 12
Orcutt Area Specific Plan - Pocket Park 0.25
Margarita Area Specific Plan - Neighborhood Park 9.9
Total Approved - New Parkland 42.86
Anticipated - New Recreational Facilities
Rosa Butron Adobe and Grounds 0.5
Monterey Street Pocket Plaza, Between Toro & Johnson
DTCP)0.3
Creek Plaza, Higuera @ Nipomo (DTCP)0.5
Public Restrooms - Emerson Park 0
Packet Pg 348
12
Ludwick Center Expansion (DTCP)0
Murray Adobe Reuse As An Interpretive Center (MPCP)0.1
Mission Plaza Performance Platform (DTCP/MPCP)0
Total Anticipated - New Recreational Facilities 1.4
Approved - New Recreational Facilities
Margarita Area Specific Plan - Sports Fields 16
Total Approved - New Recreational Facilities 16
Total Anticipated and Approved - New Parkland and
Recreational Facilities 64.26
DTCP - Downtown Concept Plan Implementation
MPCP - Mission Plaza Concept Plan Implementation
Source: City of San Luis Obispo
Packet Pg 349
12
Summary Table 1
Maximum Fire Development Impact Fees, All Areas
San Luis Obispo Capital Facilities Fee Nexus Analysis; EPS #161187
Land Use Citywide/ North Area/ South Area
Residential
Single Family (per Unit)$569.33
Multifamily (per Unit)$410.21
Non-Residential
Office/Service (per Sq.Ft.)$0.38
Retail (per Sq.Ft.)$0.20
Industrial (per Sq.Ft.)$0.15
Institutional (per Sq.Ft.) $0.20
Service (per Sq.Ft)$0.20
Hotel (per Room) $113.26
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; and Economic & Planning Systems, Inc.
Packet Pg 351
12
Packet Pg 353
12
Packet Pg 354
12
Packet Pg 355
12
Packet Pg 356
12
Packet Pg 357
12
Page intentionally left
blank.
Packet Pg 358
12
Comparison to 12-22-17 Draft AB 1600 Fee calculations
CityWide These Amounts are from Draft Table that came in on 12-22-17 from EPS
Base Also, has already reduced for 50% Retail and TOT policy
TIF Gets rid of North/South fee areas from prior study
Citywide TIF New Fee Diff Change
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,694$ 9,650.85$ 5,956$ 161%
Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,278$ 7,498.15$ 4,220$ 129%
Retail Square Feet 7.78$ 16.91$ 9.13$ 117%Note: Adjusted for 50% Discount for comparitive purposes
Office Square Feet 7.41$ 10.96$ 3.55$ 48%Dicount: 50%
Service Commercial Square Feet 4.02$ 10.96$ 6.94$ 173%
Business Park Square Feet ADT Trips
Industrial Square Feet 2.14$ 6.73$ 4.59$ 215%
Hospital Square Feet 6.28$
Motel/Hotel Room 1,716$ 4,867.12$ 3,151$ 184%Note: Adjusted for 50% Discount for comparitive purposes
Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.) Pump 8,726$ Dicount: 50%
Other
Average Daily Trip (PM for
LOVR ) or Acreage 344$
LOVR Sub Area
Base Traffic Fee Total Fees
Citywide TIF TIF New Fee Diff Change
Sub Area
Same)
Current
Fees Proposed Diff Change
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,046$ 6,293$ 8,683.00$ 5,637$ 185% 9,339$ 14,976$ 5,637$ 60%
Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 2,703$ 4,134$ 6,746.53$ 4,044$ 150% 6,837$ 10,881$ 4,044$ 59%
Retail Square Feet 6.410$ 15.190$ 15.22$ 8.81$ 137% 21.60$ 30$ 8.81$ 41%
Office Square Feet 6.108$ PM Trips 9.86$ 3.75$ 61%
Service Commercial Square Feet 3.313$ 9.253$ 9.86$ 6.55$ 198% 12.57$ 19$ 6.55$ 52%
Business Park Square Feet ADT Trips 7.974$
Industrial Square Feet 1.764$ 4.569$ 6.06$ 4.30$ 244% 6.33$ 11$ 4.30$ 68%
Hospital Square Feet 5.178$ PM Trips
Motel/Hotel Room 1,414$ 3,430$ 4,379.24$ 2,965$ 210% 4,844$ 7,809$ 2,965$ 61%
Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.) Pump 7,196$ PM Trips
Other
Average Daily Trip (PM for
LOVR ) or Acreage 284$ 6,169$
MASP Sub Area
Base Traffic Fee Total Fees
Citywide TIF TIF New Fee Diff Change Sub Area
Current
Fees Proposed Diff Change
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit 2,722$ 10,206$ 9,650.85$ 6,928$ 254% 12,929$ 9,651$ (3,278)$ -25%
Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 2,414$ 6,297$ 7,498.15$ 5,084$ 211% 8,711$ 7,498$ (1,213)$ -14%
Retail Square Feet 5.72$ 46.01$ 16.91$ 11.19$ 196% 51.73$ 16.91$ (34.82)$ -67%
Office Square Feet 5.46$ 19.31$ 10.96$ 5.50$ 101% 24.77$ 10.96$ (13.81)$ -56%
Service Commercial Square Feet 2.96$ ADT Trips 10.96$ 8.00$ 270%
Business Park Square Feet ADT Trips 19.31$
Industrial Square Feet 1.58$ 19.31$ 6.73$ 5.15$ 327% 20.88$ 6.73$ (14.15)$ -68%
Hospital Square Feet 4.54$ ADT Trips
Motel/Hotel Room 1,263$ ADT Trips 4,867.12$ 3,604$ 285%
Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.) Pump 6,428$ ADT Trips
Other
Average Daily Trip (PM for
LOVR ) or Acreage 255$ 1,713$
AASP Sub Area
Base Traffic Fee Total Fees
Citywide TIF TIF New Fee Diff Change Sub Area
Current
Fees Proposed Diff Change
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,694$ ADT Trips 9,650.85$ 5,956$ 161%
Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,278$ ADT Trips 7,498.15$ 4,220$ 129%
Retail Square Feet 7.78$ ADT Trips 16.91$ 9.13$ 117%
Office Square Feet 7.41$ ADT Trips 10.96$ 3.55$ 48%
Service Commercial Square Feet 4.02$ 3.64$ 10.96$ 6.94$ 173% 7.66$ 10.96$ 3.30$ 43%
Business Park Square Feet ADT Trips 4.83$
Industrial Square Feet 2.14$ 0.73$ 6.73$ 4.59$ 215% 2.87$ 6.73$ 3.86$ 135%
Hospital Square Feet 6.28$ ADT Trips
Motel/Hotel Room 1,716$ ADT Trips 4,867.12$ 3,151$ 184%
Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.) Pump 8,726$ ADT Trips
Other
Average Daily Trip (PM for
LOVR ) or Acreage 344$ 358$
NEW AREA - San Luis Ranch
SLO R
Base Total Fees
Citywide TIF TIF New Fee Diff Change
Current
Fees Proposed Diff Change
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,694$ -$ 7,445.15$ 3,751$ 102% 3,694$ 7,445.15$ 3,751$ 102%
Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,278$ -$ 5,784.44$ 2,506$ 76% 3,278$ 5,784.44$ 2,506$ 76%
Retail Square Feet 7.78$ -$ 13.03$ 5.25$ 67% 7.78$ 13.03$ 5.25$ 67%
Office Square Feet 7.41$ -$ 8.46$ 1.05$ 14% 7.41$ 8.46$ 1.05$ 14%
Service Commercial Square Feet 4.02$ -$ 8.46$ 4.44$ 111% 4.02$ 8.46$ 4.44$ 111%
Business Park Square Feet ADT Trips -$
Industrial Square Feet 2.14$ -$ 5.19$ 3.05$ 143% 2.14$ 5.19$ 3.05$ 143%
Hospital Square Feet 6.28$ -$ -$ -$
Motel/Hotel Room 1,716$ -$ 3,754.50$ 2,039$ 119% 1,716$ 3,754.50$ 2,039$ 119%
Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.) Pump 8,726$ -$ -$ -$
Other
Average Daily Trip (PM for
LOVR ) or Acreage 344$ -$
Orcutt Area - Note: These would only apply if projects participate in the new fee structure
OASP Sub Area
Base Traffic Fee Total Fees
Citywide TIF TIF New Fee Diff Change New Sub Area Diff Change
Current
Fees Proposed Diff Change
Single Family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,694$ 12,394$ 9,650.85$ 5,956$ 161% 9,871.00$ (2,523)$ -20% 16,088$ 19,522$ 3,433$ 21%
Multi-family Residential Dwelling Unit 3,278$ 8,658$ 7,498.15$ 4,220$ 129% 6,896.00$ (1,762)$ -20% 11,936$ 14,394$ 2,458$ 21%
Retail Square Feet 7.78$ -$
Office Square Feet 7.41$ -$
Service Commercial Square Feet 4.02$ -$
Business Park Square Feet ADT Trips -$
Industrial Square Feet 2.14$ -$
Hospital Square Feet 6.28$ -$
Motel/Hotel Room 1,716$ -$
Service Station (includes 1,000 sq. ft.) Pump 8,726$ -$
Other
Average Daily Trip (PM for
LOVR ) or Acreage 344$ 1,364$
LOVR Sub Area
MASP Sub Area
AASP Sub Area
San Luis Ranch
OASP Sub Area
Disbanded
Disbanded
Same